Mapping the New Testament

Mapping the New Testament

Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series Editorial Board

Marcel Poorthuis, Joshua Schwartz, David Golinkin, Freek van der Steen Advisory Board

Yehoyada Amir, David Berger, Shaye Cohen, Judith Frishman, Martin Goodman, Clemens Leonhard, Tobias Nicklas, Eyal Regev, Gerard Rouwhorst, Seth Schwartz, Yossi Turner

VOLUME 13

Mapping the New Testament Early Christian Writings as a Witness for Jewish Biblical Exegesis

by

Serge Ruzer

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007

Bar-Ilan University, Israel University of Tilburg: Faculty of Catholic Theology Utrecht, The Netherlands Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, Israel Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Israel Published with the assistance of The Aryeh (Leo) Lubin Foundation in memory of his parents Lilian and Moshe Lubin. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

ISSN 1388-2074 ISBN 978 90 04 15892 4 © Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV 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

In loving memory of Alya (Alexandra) Ruzer and Alexander Men

CONTENTS Acknowledgements ..................................................................... List of Previously Published Articles .......................................... Editorial Statement .....................................................................

ix xi xiii

Introduction: The New Testament as Witness for Early Jewish Exegesis .......................................................................................

1

1. Antitheses in Matthew 5: Midrashic Aspects of Exegetical Techniques ..............................................................................

11

2. From “Love Your Neighbor” to “Love Your Enemy” ..........

35

3. The Double Love Precept: Between Pharisees, Jesus and Qumran Covenanters .............................................................

71

4. Who Was Unhappy with the Davidic Messiah? ...................

101

5. Negotiating the Proper Attitude to Marriage and Divorce ....

131

6. The Seat of Sin and the Limbs of Torah ............................

149

7. Crucixion: The Search for a Meaning vis-à-vis Biblical Prophecy. From Luke to Acts .................................................

179

8. The New Covenant, the Reinterpretation of Scripture and Collective Messiahship ...........................................................

215

Conclusion and Perspectives ......................................................

239

Index of Ancient Sources ...........................................................

243

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is dedicated to the memory of Alya, who was my wife, and Alexander, a close friend, whose tragic early deaths are still mourned. With all differences of biography and temperament, they both lived their lives with an utmost intensity; it is also with the intensity of thought and feeling that they related to the Jewish-Christian conundrum. Each of them in his/her own manner cherished and aspired to clarity. Presenting the volume as a homage to them, I hope that attempts at clarication undertaken here may be rated—with a measure of good will—as clarity’s promising, even if problematic, siblings. It is a great pleasure for me to acknowledge the help of my friends and colleagues. Special thanks are due to my former Ph.D. supervisor Guy G. Stroumsa for his continuing friendship, encouragement and advice, which have been abundantly available for this present study too. The Department of Comparative Religion of the Hebrew University has been my second home for almost fteen years now, and I am grateful to my colleagues, especially Brouria Biton-Ashkelony and David Satran, for their warm collegiality. I wish also to thank Aryeh Kofsky and Amitai Spitzer for their wise assistance and the pleasure of studying together. Basic insights of this investigation have been presented at a number of conferences, which engendered fruitful discussions. Moreover, earlier versions of some chapters were at different times read by colleagues, whose comments and criticism were important for further work on the book. I should particularly like to thank Hans Jürgen Becker, HansDieter Betz, Hermann Lichtenberger, Lorenzo Perrone, Berndt Schaller, Daniel Schwartz, and Justin Taylor. It goes without saying that I alone am responsible for whatever deciencies remaining in the book. I wish also to recall the memory of two remarkable men and scholars, Shlomo Pines and David Flusser. In 1987, the former took me—then a newcomer and a stranger in Jerusalem—under his guidance. He became my rst Ph.D. supervisor, and his trust and friendship, admittedly much less than deserved, were among the main forces that prompted me to go forward with my research. The latter exerted a considerable inuence further on—as he did for everyone in Jerusalem approaching the study of Early Christianity.

x

acknowledgements

I am glad to publish the book in the Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series; and I take this opportunity to acknowledge the extremely important contribution of the series coeditors, Marcel Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz, who closely read the manuscript and made many insightful suggestions. I am indebted to the staff at Brill Publishers, particularly series editor Freek van der Steen, for their professionalism and patient cooperation. I am grateful for the nancial support provided by the Aryeh (Leo) Lubin Foundation. I would also like to thank Ms. Evelyn Katrak for her sensitive and diligent English editing. I always feel gratitude to my parents, Anna and Lev, sister Genia and her family, and my daughter, Asya, for their caring support and generous interest in my work. Finally, I dearly thank my spouse, Ilana, who for all the years of this project and well beyond has graciously been both the mainstay and the excitement of my life.

LIST OF PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED ARTICLES Chapter 1 is a revised version of an article previously published in: H. J. Becker and S. Ruzer, The Sermon on the Mount and Its Jewish Setting, Paris 2005. Chapter 2 is based on two separate studies published in: Revue Biblique 109 (2002) and 111 (2004). Chapter 3 is a thoroughly revised version of an article rst published in Hebrew in: Tarbiz 71 (2002); and later in an English translation in: S. Notley et al. (eds.), Jesus’ Last Week, Leiden 2006. Chapter 4 is a revised version of an article rst published in: Cristianesimo nella storia 24 (2003). Chapter 6 is a thoroughly revised version of an article previously published in: J. Assman and G. G. Stroumsa (eds.), Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, Leiden 1999.

EDITORIAL STATEMENT Judaism and Christianity share much of a heritage. There has been a good deal of interest of late in this phenomenon, examining both this common heritage, as well as the elements unique to each religion. There has, however, been no systematic attempt to present ndings relative to both Jewish and Christian tradition to a broad audience of scholars. It is the purpose of the proposed series to do just that. Jewish and Christian Perspectives will publish studies that are relevant to both Christianity and Judaism. The series will include monographs and congress volumes relating to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, the Second Temple period, the Judaeo-Christian polemic (from Ancient until Modern Times), rabbinic literature relevant to Christianity, as well as Patristics, Medieval Studies and the Modern Period. Special interest will be paid to the interaction between the religions throughout the ages. Historical, exegetical, philosophical, and theological studies are welcomed as well as studies focusing on sociological and anthropological issues common to both religions, including archaeology. Detailed information can be obtained at: www.biu.ac.il/js/rennert/jcp

INTRODUCTION

THE NEW TESTAMENT AS WITNESS FOR EARLY JEWISH EXEGESIS When it comes to the dilemmas of self-denition in the Judaeo-Christian realm of late antiquity, biblical exegesis is justiably seen as one of the main avenues for expressing and/or constructing an identity. A complicated dynamic of adoption, appropriation and rejection of the rival group’s stance is the process usually followed. Moreover, exegesis, at certain stages, may be perceived as completely subjugated to the task of achieving a separation, which means, according to a more general model suggested by Daniel Boyarin, being “engaged in splitting off a part” of one’s own self, so to speak, and “projecting it outward” as representing the rival party—Judaism in the case of Christianity and vice versa.1 Describing the process of what he sees as construction of the orthodoxy, which according to him started in earnest somewhere around the mid-second century, Boyarin uses the images of “sealed borders” and “customs ofcers”, the latter’s main objective being to prevent inltration of the hybrid species, the “dangerous in between”. This strategy in no way achieves factual separation: The parallel courses of development up to the fourth century bear witness to the lingering polemical closeness of Judaism and Christianity or, more exactly, the constant tacit use of the other party’s views as a point of reference in establishing each group’s “orthodoxy”. I nd Boyarin’s model extremely useful exactly because it turns out to be so inadequate when we consider earlier manifestations of what would become Christian exegetical traditions—manifestations that may be portrayed as belonging to the inner-Jewish phase of the process. It goes without saying that even at this early stage, exegetic statements can be viewed as “acts of power” aimed at polemically avored self-denition; yet, as it seems, the genuine inherent concerns of ongoing religious discourse, as well as the objective of “winning out” in the immediate

1 See Boyarin, Border Lines; The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Philadelphia 2004, 146; see also ibid., 1–33.

2

introduction

Jewish milieu, loom over the scene, dictating the hermeneutic agenda and laying the foundation for all subsequent attempts at boundary marking. These early traditions, unlike the later ones, do not seem to be much worried about—to borrow Boyarin’s terminology—preventing religious “contraband from crossing the borders (from the side representing the rival group—S.R.)”.2 Instead, they put great effort into presenting their exegetic merchandise as a “legitimate export”. It is in view of the unmistakably dialogical nature of the polemic conducted by these early traditions that I have taken a particular interest in their possible value as a reection of wider Jewish exegetical tendencies. There is a scholarly consensus regarding the extreme importance ascribed by the early Jesus movement to the link between its faith in the messianic call of Jesus and the prophetic promises of Jewish Scripture; the New Testament texts themselves clearly testify to that. One of the core objectives of the initial Christian discourse seems to have been to provide an exegetical justication for the Messiah’s death—vis-à-vis the “regular” messianic exegesis of “stock” biblical proof texts.3 Preoccupation with this task—with the underlying claim of faithfulness to the true tenets of biblical Judaism—characterized already the creators and transmitters of the nascent oral tradition and the compilers of the written Gospel accounts. Yet, in addition to this crucial crucixion- and resurrection-centered hermeneutics, the biblical orientation of Jesus’ disciples—and, seemingly, of Jesus himself—engendered multiple exegetic traditions, attested in various strata of the New Testament, that addressed a wide range of issues of religious practice and belief not intrinsically connected to the messianic kerygma. Naturally, this latter mode of exegesis features more prominently in those layers of the earliest Christian tradition (e.g., the Synoptic Gospels) that took an interest in Jesus’ biography and teaching, not focusing exclusively on the soteriological function of his death. As for this infatuation with Scripture, the Jesus movement shared it with/inherited it from its late Second Temple milieu, where various sects had developed a whole range of exegetical patterns pertaining either to Torah’s practical ordinances or to the realm of religious ideas and beliefs, or to both, as the means and expression of their religious outlooks and—the two cannot realistically be separated—of their

2 3

Boyarin, Border Lines, 2. See Luke 24:19 –27, 44 – 46.

the nt as witness for early jewish exegesis

3

competing claims to be the true representatives of the Jewish religion.4 Such Qumranic passages as the opening programmatic paragraph of the Community Rule, Damascus Document 6, or the closing paragraph of the Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) provide ne examples of the tendency to collate idiosyncratic, identity-marking sectarian interpretation and an appeal to shared exegetical patterns. Thus “sharing the infatuation with Scripture” did not have to be limited to the Scripture-centered mode of thinking as such but pertained to reliance on a common exegetical legacy as well.5 In other words, these Second Temple Jewish groups, and supposedly the nascent Christians among them, saw Scripture “through the lens of earlier interpretation”. Offering their interpretation of the Book, the creators of the foundational Christian tradition had thus—as far as their hermeneutical agenda and ways of reasoning were concerned—to “go by the book”. If the Second Temple Jewish genesis of nascent Christianity—meaning also its polemical stance vis-à-vis other Jewish groups—is taken seriously, it should be expected that its preoccupation with exegesis would reect, either approvingly or polemically, both exegetical traditions current in rival circles and those of broader circulation. The New Testament “conversation with Scripture” may thus be seen as bearing

4 See the discussion in A. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation, Leiden 1997, 114–136, esp. 133. Or, if one wishes to attempt to separate Christianity out of its initial Jewish context, one may rephrase it in the words of M. Simonetti (Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, Edinburgh 1994, 1) as “Christianity, like Judaism, is a religion of the Book. In it, Holy Scripture, regarded as the fruit of divine revelation . . . occupies an absolutely fundamental place: every action in the life of the community, collective or individual, from doctrine to discipline and worship, should be shaped by it”. It is worth noting that for the earliest phase of Christianity’s history the Simonetti’s “Holy Scripture” stands for some variation of Jewish Scripture, whereas “shaped by it”, as is clear from the context, means “via exegesis”. 5 Of course, attempts to outline New Testament modes of exegesis vis-à-vis Scripture alone—without addressing the existing exegetical legacy—may still be instructive. And they are by no means out of fashion; see, for example, three central studies in: C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, Shefeld 1997, 44–96: C. D. Stanley, ‘The Rhetoric of Quotations: An Essay on Method’; W. Roth, ‘To Invert or Not to Invert: The Pharisaic Canon in the Gospels’; and S. E. Porter, ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology’. Even when contemporaneous Jewish exegesis is referred to—as in the study by D. Krause in the same volume (‘The One Who Comes Unbinding the Blessings of Judah: Mark 11.1–10 as a Midrash on Genesis 49.11, Zechariah 9.9, and Psalm 118.25–26’, ibid., 141–153)—the issue is touched on only in passing and remains marginal to the discussion. To a certain extent, the same approach characterizes Chapter 7 of this book.

4

introduction

witness, at least in some instances, to those broader tendencies. It is at this particular point that the issue of the proper contextualizalion of initial patterns of Christian biblical interpretation gives way to a related and complementing one: How should this interpretation, routinely branded as “Christian”, be used—together with other available sources—to reconstruct a fuller picture of early Jewish exegesis. I am thus speaking about the transition from a model that juxtaposes the New Testament to the text of the Jewish Scripture (independent exegetical elaboration on the Holy Writ) to one that emphasizes the conversation with contemporaneous exegetic traditions. This tendency can be discerned even in so Scripture-centered a eld of research as the study of the text form of the New Testament biblical quotations. Earlier investigations laid much emphasis on the professed aim of establishing which version of the Jewish Scripture the compilers of, for example, the Gospels had before them—with an understandable inclination to identify that version as the septuagintal one. From the early fties on—and here the importance of Krister Stendahl’s seminal work is evident6—more scholars have been ready to discern patterns of midrashic exegetic nature in the New Testament treatment of biblical material. Accordingly, a suggestion has been put forward that the biblical authority for the nascent Jesus movement was grounded not exclusively—or maybe not so much—in a written sacred text as such but in a text engulfed, as it were, by already existing and ever evolving interpretations.7 Moreover, Jesus’ followers—and this too they seem to have shared with other Jewish groups—did not always distinguish between the biblical text itself and its “midrashic envelope”.8 The present volume thus focuses on links between the exegetical trends current in various Second Temple Jewish circles—as attested in Qumran, Pseudepigrapha, Jewish Hellenistic and proto-rabbinic traditions—and patterns of New Testament conversation with Jewish

6 K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, Uppsala 1954/Philadelphia 1968. See also R. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, Leiden 1967, etc. 7 The expression “the School of Matthew”, coined by Stendahl, was tailored to designate, inter alia, the systematic application and adaptation of existing exegetic techniques. 8 For a recent discussion of the issue, see J. L. Kugel, ‘Stephen’s Speech in Its Exegetical Context’, in: C. A. Evans (ed.), From Prophecy to Testament, Peabody, Mass. 2004, 206–218.

the nt as witness for early jewish exegesis

5

Scripture. In a sense it builds upon the insights reached through the study of New Testament biblical quotations, related to above; more specically, it was the failure to explain these quotations as derived from a single authoritative version of the Scripture that prompted the researchers to appeal to a “targumizing procedure” embedded in a contemporaneous exegetic culture. However, the focus of this volume is no longer on isolated biblical quotations but rather on the complex exegetical moves employed in the New Testament. My investigation represents an attempt to outline the exact relation between the inherited and the innovative features in the work of the earliest Christian exegetes. Appraisals of that relation have been varied, with far greater emphasis at times on the different and peculiar. When the objective is a relief map of nascent Christianity against the backdrop of Judaism, no wonder it is the Jesus movement’s “unique contribution to rst-century Jewish exposition” that is highlighted—a contribution, resulting in a “thoroughgoing reinterpretation of the biblical writings [in relation] to the person, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah”, a reinterpretation that is perceived in terms of a “break with Judaism”.9 The emphasis on the charismatic nature of the early Christian exposition of Scripture, on the tension between “revelatory exegesis” and “mundane hermeneutics”, also pertains here.10 It has been suggested that already with Paul and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ has become the true hermeneutical key—hence the claim that even in the earliest strata of Christian tradition, Jewish sacred literary heritage, though appealed to for conrmation of the kerygma, is essentially relativized.11 Given such an approach there is an understandable tendency to portray even observed instances of overlapping in “mundane” (i.e., non-messianic) biblical expositions as a paradox of sorts: While adopting certain exegetical methods and techniques current in Judaism, New Testament exegetes, most prominently Jesus himself,

9 E. E. Ellis, ‘Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church’, in: M. J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Assen 1988, 691; emphasis in original. 10 See E. E. Ellis, Prophesy and Hermeneutics in Early Christianity, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1978. 11 F. M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, Cambridge 1997, 16. Young sees in the documented 2nd-century use by Christians of a codex format (as opposed to scrolls) for Jewish scriptures a sign of such relativization (ibid., 14–15).

6

introduction

arrive at peculiarly bold and far-reaching conclusions unintelligible to (hidden from) their Jewish milieu.12 This approach, highlighting the novel perspective of Christian exegesis—a perspective quite naturally seen as different from that of “most Jews”13—is to a considerable extent informed by later developments (from the 2nd century on), which may appropriately be called the “formation of Christian culture”. It aims at discovering, as it were, the implicit potential of the very earliest Christian exegesis for a thorough reinterpretation and relativization of the Jewish Scripture; New Testament biblical expositions are perceived here as the beginning of the trajectory leading to the Church Fathers. The focus of the present volume however, as well as the trajectory dening its perspective, is different. I will deal mostly with the other side of the exegetical entanglement, paying special attention to the instances of exegetic similarity and their interpretation: Do they point to a closeness of the early Jesus movement to a particular Jewish group, or do they bear witness to a wide contemporaneous circulation of certain exegetical patterns? Alternatively, what is the relation between the variety of exegetic approaches attested in the New Testament and the variety characteristic of the wider Jewish milieu? To put it differently: How can the New Testament be used to create a fuller picture of Second Temple Jewish exegesis? And here comes a complementary focus of the discussion, the alternative trajectory it probes: the “mapping” of New Testament evidence as the early, and maybe only, surviving witness to more general exegetic trends that did have their origins in the Second Temple period but are attested in their fully developed form only later, in rabbinic literature. New Testament material can thus be studied as containing possible “missing links” in the long trajectory of biblical exposition. The discussion throughout this volume thus emphasizes the importance of the patterns of the Jesus movement’s “conversation with Scripture” for a better understanding of developments in early Jewish exegesis. It should be stressed that what is meant here is not so much the evidence derived from the polemic against other Jewish groups but primarily the evidence embedded in what is put forward as representing the New Testament’s own position.

12 13

See Ellis, ‘Biblical Interpretation’, 721. See Young, Biblical Exegesis, 285.

the nt as witness for early jewish exegesis

7

An emphasis on instances of closeness and similarity on the one hand and on innovative elements on the other is intrinsically linked to an investigation of the modes of exegetical polemic employed by various segments of the Jesus movement. I suggest distinguishing two substantially differing modes discerned in the earliest Christian sources. One of them in fact comprises two stages: rst, a claim to a shared exegetical inheritance with the authoritative group (e.g., the Pharisees) is put forward; second, a polemical differentiation is derived (built upon) this basic claim of belonging. This seems to reect the Sitz im Leben of close social links with the authoritative group in question, with the boundaries sufciently blurred. In other words, we are dealing with a situation where the impetus of polemic and disagreement did not really lead the community to reach a point of decisive boundary marking against those whose stance was different. This closeness, however, does not necessarily point to a lesser polemical tension; sometimes the opposite is true.14 The other mode does not seem to require the legitimacy of shared levels of exegetic heritage, its point of departure being the presupposition of an essential gap in the patterns of biblical interpretation between the followers of Jesus and those outside the movement. This may point to a more advanced stage in the process of (certain segments of ) the Jesus movement’s self-denition vis-à-vis its original Jewish milieu, and a drifting away from it. It goes without saying that this latter mode becomes predominant in later times, when the two distinct entities, Jews and Christians, become a fact of both life and thought, and much of the latter’s exegetical efforts are spent on trying to justify a separate Christian existence and its supersessionist claim to the Jewish scriptures.15 However, in light of sectarian Qumranic exegesis, it can also reect an earlier tendency coexisting with the more conservative one described above. 14 See J. D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son; The Transformation of Child Sacrice in Judaism and Christianity, New Haven 1993, 232, where the author, describing Judaism and Christianity as two parallel “midrashic systems whose scriptural basis is the Hebrew Bible”, sees in this situation the root of their mutually exclusive identities. See also A. J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community, Chicago-London 1994, 2, 25, 120–121, 192–193; J. M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World, Oxford 2004, 36 n. 33. 15 For a discussion of the importance of biblical exegesis for boundary making or, rather, boundary maintaining, see W. Horbury, ‘Jews and Christians on the Bible: Demarcation and Convergence [325–451]’, in: J. van Oort and U. Wickert (eds.), Christliche Exegese zwischen Nicea und Chalcedon, Kampen 1992.

8

introduction

Sometimes the demarcation line between the two is also the line between subtle moves presented as if continuing ordinary exegetical discourse and exegesis claiming a quantum leap of revelatory prophetic authority. Naturally, it is in the former category that one expects to nd richer data for “mapping” the early Christian tradition as witness for wider developments in Jewish exegesis. But again, since the earliest Jesus followers were denitely not the rst Jewish splinter group to take pains to present its peculiar outlook as grounded in (true) biblical interpretation,16 one should not exclude the possibility that even those New Testament exegetical moves that consciously aimed at boundary drawing might bear witness to existing patterns and hence be relevant to the task of mapping. A similar claim may be made with regard to another distinction that I nd useful: that between exegetical traditions—either ascribed by the Gospels to Jesus or found elsewhere in the New Testament—that do not relate to the messianic claim and focus instead on general questions of religious behavior and belief, and those that are explicitly tailored to deal with Jesus’ messiahship. Clearly, in cases of the former type, “mapping” New Testament evidence as witness to broader contemporaneous Jewish trends holds greater promise; and the investigation conducted in Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 6, and parts of Chapter 5, goes in this direction. However, as Chapters 4, 5 and 7 demonstrate, even the New Testament’s explicitly messianic exegesis may be illuminating—both with regard to its peculiar input and as a witness to more general Jewish trajectories.17 The tentative but fascinating issue of later rabbinic tradition polemically reacting to the Christian appropriation of Jewish exegetical patterns is also addressed here and there; its thorough study, however, remains beyond the scope of this book. Without attempting to exhaust the issue, the discussion relates to a representative variety of samples from different layers of the New Testament tradition: Gospels, Epistles and Acts. Chapter 1 discusses the exegetical techniques applied in a number of antithetical sayings from the Sermon on the Mount and in a passage from Matthew 19. The focus on structural features allows the singling out of elements belong-

16

See the discussion in Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects (note 4 above). For a discussion of one such core messianic issue, see Levenson, Death and Resurrection, part 3 (‘The Beloved Son between Zion and Golgotha’), 173–232. 17

the nt as witness for early jewish exegesis

9

ing to the basic hermeneutical syntax of the wider contemporaneous discourse. Chapter 2 addresses the famous idiosyncratic interpretation of the love-your-neighbor precept (as love-your-enemy), and attempts to outline its links to developments attested in relevant Jewish sources and leading in a similar direction. Chapter 3 analyzes the basic characteristics of the Synoptic section dealing with the great(est) commandment in the Torah, where Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 are coupled. I offer several suggestions with regard to the hermeneutical nature of the section and its relation to other (e.g., Qumranic) sources where such coupling occurs. In Chapter 4 the Book of Acts becomes the main New Testament focus of the investigation; this chapter tackles the explicitly messianic modes of exegesis and their setting. Focusing on divorce and related issues, Chapter 5 discusses the possible contribution of the Pauline epistles both in elucidating the existing variety of Jewish exegetical trends of late Second Temple Judaism and in clarifying the nature of the Damascus Document’s interpretation of marital halakhah. Chapter 6, where both Gospel evidence and Paul’s writings are considered, returns to the issue of the overall hermeneutical assessment of the Torah; unlike Chapter 3, however, where general principles underlying the corpus were the issue, the discussion here focuses on the history of an alternative tendency—one emphasizing the all-encompassing system of particular commandments. Chapter 7 focuses on the core problem of nascent Christian exegesis—namely, the search for exegetical justication of the Messiah’s death and its constraints—as it is reected in Luke/Acts. Finally, Chapter 8 examines the links of the nascent Christian notion of the new covenant to certain Second Temple exegetical tendencies. I see the volume as aiming mainly at two groups of readers: students of Early Christianity who wish to consider patterns of biblical exegesis embedded in the New Testament tradition in their appropriate Jewish framework, and students of late Second Temple and/or rabbinic exegetical traditions who wish to widen their outlook through consideration of relevant New Testament evidence.

CHAPTER ONE

ANTITHESES IN MATTHEW 5: MIDRASHIC ASPECTS OF EXEGETICAL TECHNIQUES This opening chapter addresses the exegetical techniques applied in a number of antithetic sayings from the Sermon on the Mount as well as in a passage from Matthew 19. The discussion relates mainly to the structure of the text as it stands now, its redactional history being beyond the scope of this investigation. A number of parallels in Jewish sources are reviewed, and the question is raised of their relevance to the study of the Sermon. It is suggested that even when the conclusions drawn and the regulations derived from Torah exegesis in different traditions vary radically, the exegetical techniques applied seem to constitute a shared element of religious discourse, its basic syntax inherited from earlier generations. Finally, a typology of the antitheses’ polemical stance is suggested. Antitheses in Matthew 5 While instances of Jesus’ separate treatment of some of the issues involved in Matthew 5 are attested elsewhere in the Gospels,1 their thematic combination within a unifying exegetical framework stands out as the trademark of the compiler (editor) of the Sermon on the Mount. The thematic combination includes a discussion of three prohibitions from the Decalogue (Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5) and their parallels, the “eye for an eye” issue (from Exodus 21) and the “love your neighbor” precept from the Holiness Code (Leviticus 19). This strategy of grouping Torah precepts resurfaces—with reference to Jeremiah—in the tannaitic Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, which provides an example of a different thematic combination with all components belonging to the Decalogue:

1 See, for example, Matt 19:3–9 (cf. Mark 10:2–12) for the divorce issue or Matt 22:34–40 (cf. Mark 12:28–34; Luke 10:25–37) for the discussion on the love-yourneighbor precept. See also discussion in Chapters 2, 3 and 5.

12

chapter one  ,          

    ,                    (9  ) [On the one tablet] was written: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” And opposite it [on the other tablet] was written: “You shall not steal”. This tells that he who steals will in the end also swear falsely. For it is said: “Will you steal, murder and commit adultery and swear falsely?” ( Jer 7:9).2

In Matthew 5, the discussion is presented as an uninterrupted sermon initiated by Jesus himself, as opposed to instances where a discussion of various religious topics is reported in the same Gospel and Jesus is portrayed as responding to a question addressed to him as a rabbi (i.e., Matt 22:16–22 and par., Matt 22:23–33 and par., Matt 22:34–40 and par.).3 Whereas this latter mode of discourse in that period seems mainly to have characterized actual oral interaction between the general populace and those considered the embodiment of the (legal) tradition—Jewish sages or, in the wider context, Roman jurists—the thematic arrangement of material in Matthew 5 may reect the later editorial process.4 Matthew 5:21–26 The rst antithesis is introduced in Matthew 5:21 with the formula: “You have heard that it was said to the men of old (  )”. Whereas the rst part of the saying that follows (“You shall not kill”) is obviously taken from Exodus 20:13 (= Deut 5:17), the rest cannot be found in any Old Testament text.5 M. McNamara was the rst to point to the targumic paraphrase of Genesis 9:6 as a clear parallel to

2 Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael Ithro 8, H. S. Horovitz (ed.), Jerusalem 1970, 233–234. English translation of the Mekhilta is according to J. Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Philadelphia 1961. 3 Cf. Matt 22:41–46 and par., where Jesus poses a question to other teachers, who fail to give a satisfying response. 4 See C. Hezser, ‘The Codication of Legal Knowledge in Late Antiquity: The Talmud Yerushalmi and Roman Law Codes’, in: P. Schäfer (ed.), The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, Tübingen 1998, 583–584, 619–624. Hezser deals mainly with a later period, but some of her suggestions may turn out to be at least partly relevant for the rst century ce. 5 Cf. R. J. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition, Cambridge 1975, 186; J. P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, Rome 1976, 131–132.

midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques

13

the Matthew 5:21 ending.6 Tg. Onqelos interprets the biblical “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed . . .” as relating to a juridical procedure in which “by man” means “following the testimony of witnesses according to the decision (sentence) of judges”:          ( + . .) 

  

    .7 The targumic paraphrase of the Torah seems to have been one of the pillars of public teaching in the synagogue already in the late Second Temple period. Biblical passages, therefore, could often be remembered in their Aramaic form, and it is highly probable that the popular exegetical tradition concerning Genesis 9:6 (attested in Tg. Onqelos and also in Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan—see below) was in great part responsible (together with Exod 20:13) for the quotation form in Matthew 5:21.8 It is worth noting that Genesis 9:6 was perceived already by Philo as posing an exegetical problem: in Questiones et Solutiones in Genesim II.61, Philo explains that the murderer will be punished by the “dissolution of his soul” (i.e. he himself will be “shed”)—and this is in agreement with the LXX version of Genesis 9:6 which reads: “          ” (Whoever sheds the blood of man, will be [ himself ] shed like [or instead of, against] his blood). As for rabbinic tradition, there is evidence that already in its early stages discussing Genesis 9:6 vis-à-vis Exodus 20:13 constituted an accepted exegetical procedure. More than that, Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, mentioned in this connection by McNamara, perceives these verses to be essentially two parts of the same commandment:

 ,    (6   )    ,     (Horovitz, 232)     ,    “You shall not murder”. Why is this said? Because it says [before]: “Whoever sheds man’s blood”, etc. [Gen 9:6]. We have thus [i.e. in Gen 9:6] heard the penalty for it but we have not heard the warning against it. Therefore it says here: “You shall not murder”.

6 M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, Rome 1966, 127–129. 7 See A. Sperber (ed.), The Bible in Aramaic, vol. 1: The Pentateuch, Leiden 1959, 13. The Old Syriac Gospel of Matthew, which has   in Matt 5:21, seems to understand the received tradition in exactly this way. Tg. Neoti here closely follows the Hebrew. 8 See S. Ruzer, ‘The Technique of Composite Citation in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:21–22, 33–37)’, Revue Biblique 103 (1996), 67 and n. 5 there.

14

chapter one

The same technique is applied there to the seventh, eighth and ninth commandments of the Decalogue. However, in the Mekhilta de Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, it is Numbers 35:16 and not Genesis 9:6 that is juxtaposed to Exodus 20:13:  (16  )               .          .          .          “You shall not murder”. From the established rule “the murderer shall be put to death” [ Num 35:16] we have learned about the penalty, but where [can we learn about] the warning? Therefore it says here: “You shall not murder”. And what if someone said: I am going to commit a murder and after that let me be executed? [One may think that] then it is permitted—therefore it says here: “You shall not murder”. And what if someone is [anyway] being taken to be executed and thinks that then he is allowed [to commit a murder]. Therefore it says here: “You shall not murder”.9

It is clear from the combined Mekhilta evidence that the existence of seemingly parallel or close Torah ordinances concerning murder was seen as a problem by rabbinic exegetes. One of the solutions, offered for Genesis 9:6 vs. Exodus 20:13, was to declare these two verses components of the same commandment. According to this approach the Decalogue prohibition does not widen the scope of the denition of murder established by the traditional understanding of Genesis 9:6. However, other conclusions also seem to have been drawn from the juxtaposition of Genesis 9:6 and Exodus 20:13. Thus, for instance, Pesiqta Hadta, a midrashic composition of uncertain provenance, contains a midrash which suggests—relating to the four letters composing the word  [ ] (= [you shall not] murder)—that Exodus 20:13, in fact (unlike Gen 9:6?), speaks of murder as something committed not only “by hand and by foot” but also by word of mouth and lack of psychological involvement in the fate of the other.10 Indeed, the midrash sees these moral deciencies as actually leading to the death of the “other”, and they may therefore be considered murder in the legal sense. And of course there is that famous talmudic saying (b. B.Mez.

9 Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimeon ben Yohai, J. N. Epstein and E. Z. Melamed (eds.), Jerusalem 1955, 152. 10 See Pesiqta Hadta, Shevuot, Beth ha-Midrash, vol. 6, A. Jellinek (ed.), Jerusalem 1938, 45.

midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques

15

58b): “If one offends his fellow man in public, it is as if he sheds a man’s blood (   )”. The choice of words (“sheds a man’s blood”) is rather telling: it attempts to deal with the “moral offense” usually discussed—e.g., in Pesiqta Hadta—in connection with Exodus 20:13 as belonging to the legal realm of Genesis 9:6. It is worth noting that Philo was already of the opinion that—or was familiar with a tradition according to which—the prohibition in the Decalogue “forbids murder, and under it come the laws, all of them indispensable and of great public utility, about violence, insult, outrage . . .”.11 However, unlike Matthew and the rabbinic sources quoted above, Philo does not establish here any exegetical connection to Genesis 9:6, though the idea of man being in God’s image, underlying the regulation in Genesis 9:6, does feature prominently elsewhere in Philo’s thinking: But man, the best of living creatures, through that higher part of his being, namely, the soul, is most nearly akin to heaven also to the Father of the world, possessing in his mind a closer likeness and copy than anything else on earth of the eternal and blessed Archetype.12

Returning to Matthew 5:21, what we encounter in this verse is seemingly a juxtaposition of Exodus 20:13 and Genesis 9:6—the latter being represented by its more or less standard interpretation, attested, inter alia, in the Targum. Thus the polemic here should be seen as directed against the exegetical tendency that perceived Exodus 20:13 and Genesis 9:6 as having the same scope of application, a tendency similar to the one attested in the Mekhilta. Denying the validity of this tendency, Matthew’s Jesus suggests, instead, widening the scope of the Exodus 20:13 application (vis-à-vis that of Gen 9:6) to “murder committed also by word of mouth”. He does so while adopting an approach similar to the one attested in the passages from the Babylonian Talmud and Pesiqta Hadta discussed above. Another characteristic structural feature of Matthew 5:21–22 is the gradual transition from the jurisdiction of an ordinary court to the Sanhedrin to the Court on High, where Gehenna is the punishment.

11 Philo, De Decalogo 170. Philo calls the Exodus 20 prohibition of murder “the second head”—he seems to have had the -- ! (adultery-murder-stealing) order in his Greek Pentateuch text. 12 Philo, De Decalogo 132.

16

chapter one

This transition corresponds to the changes in the nature of the transgressions mentioned: from hard-core crimes, tried in a court of law with the testimony of witnesses, to offenses against fellow men that may not be witnessed by a third party. It is worth noting that a similar transition occurs in the Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan interpretation of Genesis 9:6:

       

    

           Whoever sheds the blood of man with witnesses, the judges will nd him guilty of murder. And he who sheds blood without witnesses, the Lord of Eternity will call him to account on the day of Great Judgment.

It is instructive that whereas in the Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael it is claimed that those who observe the Sabbath will be saved from “the birth pangs of the Messiah, the day of Gog and Magog, and the Day of Great Judgment” (Horovitz, 169), according to b. Shab. 118a they will be saved from “the birth pangs of the Messiah, the judgment of Gehenna (= the punishment in Gehenna), and the war of Gog and Magog”. Thus the tradition from the Babylonian Talmud equating public offense with murder, on the one hand, and the fact that “Gehenna” seems to have been quite interchangeable in this context with the “Day of Great Judgment”, on the other, allow us to posit that a similar basic logic governs the transition from earthly to heavenly jurisdiction both in Matthew 5:21–21 and in the Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan interpretation of Genesis 9:6. Having discerned these structural parallels, let us now inquire about their meaning. All rabbinic parallels discussed above are found in compositions belonging to a later period than the Gospel account. In some cases we may reasonably assume that they represent an earlier tradition—for example, when, as highlighted above, a similar motif is attested in Philo’s writings. Yet if we attempt to prove a specic literary link between those rabbinic parallels and the Gospel pericope, we will nd ourselves on shaky ground. This is denitely less so if we focus neither on the form of a particular saying nor on a specic literary link, but on issues of religious discourse and on the exegetical techniques applied. It is unlikely that Jesus—or the compiler of Matthew for that matter—was the rst to recognize the problem of parallel Torah precepts or the problem of jurisdiction in cases of “transgressions of the heart” that could not be tried in a court of law. It is also unlikely that the author of the Gospel text invented the method of playing a Decalogue precept against its extra-Decalogue parallel in order to widen the scope of the commandment, while later proponents of the same

midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques

17

technique followed his lead or invented the method independently. The opposite seems much more probable (inter alia, again in view of the evidence from Philo’s writings): Matthew 5:21–22 presents its argument in accordance with an existing exegetical format; it ghts a current exegetical tendency—the one perceiving Genesis 9:6 and Exodus 20:13 as the same prohibition—and follows an alternative one that tries to widen the scope of Exodus 20:13. Thus Matthew 5:21–22 may or even should be seen as an early witness to the exegetical techniques in question, attested in later rabbinic sources.13 The meaning of    (to/by the men of old) from Matthew 5:21 may thus be assessed as relating to an existing exegetical opinion—in our case, the claim that Genesis 9:6 and Exodus 20:13 constitute one prohibition with the same subject matter—established by previous generations of exegetes and seen by our preacher as either mistaken or inadequate/insufcient. And indeed that has been the opinion of a number of scholars.14 As David Flusser pointed out, in some rabbinical sources the polemical juxtaposition of    (to full the Torah) and    (to abolish the Torah) stands for opposition between the true and the mistaken interpretation of the Scripture; this, then, may be the meaning of Matthew 5:17 (“Think not that I have come to abolish the law/Torah . . . I have come not to abolish . . . but to full”).15 Flusser quotes also in this connection the Sifra for Leviticus 15:33, where the opposition seems to be between different stages of gradual revealing of the Torah’s true meaning within the same school of interpretation rather than between true and false exegesis:

13

See Ruzer, ‘Technique of Composite Citation’, 71 and n. 20 there. Cf. P. Sigal (The Halakah of Jesus of Nazareth, Lanham 1986, 21), who agrees with the notion that this antithesis (as well as others in Matt 5) is to be understood as a juxtaposition of different interpretations of the Torah and not an attack on the Torah itself. At the same time he perceives in the Sermon a radical departure from the body of existing oral tradition as a whole. It remains unclear whether Sigal considers innovative only the results of the halakhic procedure applied in Matt 5:21–22 or also the method itself. 14 See, for instance, J. P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, Rome 1976, 132 and n. 2 there. 15 See D. Flusser, ‘Torah in the Sermon on the Mount’, in: idem, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, Tel Aviv 1979, 230 and n. 11 there (in Hebrew); ‘ “Den Alten ist gesagt” Interpretation der sogenannten Antithesen der Bergpredigt’, Judaica 47 (1985), 35–39; ‘Es wurde zu den Alten gesagt’, in: idem, Entdeckungen Im Neuen Testament, vol. 2, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1992, 83–88.

18

chapter one  "   . . . .     The elders of old used to say: during her monthly period a woman should not make her eyes . . .until she immerses herself into the water. [That was the rule] until R. Aqiva had come and taught …16

Another instance of the distinction between an opinion of the “rst generation(s) of a school of exegetes” and the “ultimate exegesis” is found, this time with clear messianic overtones, in a famous passage from the Community Rule: “. . . shall be ruled by the rst directives which the men of the Community began to be taught (              ) until the prophet comes, and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” (1QS 9:10–11).17 Here, as in the Sifra passage, the “rst directives” (   ) seem to denote not the “Sinai generation” but rather the interpretations propagated by earlier exegetes belonging to the community (school of interpretation)—this time of Qumran. All this variegated evidence further strengthens the suggestion that the polemic in Matthew 5 is directed against existing exegetical trends propagated by some exegetes of established reputation—in the Gospel the nature of this basic authoritative community may be indicated by “scribes and Pharisees” of Matthew 5:20, the saying distinguished by the same dialectic of recognizing the authority versus supersessionism observed in the Community Rule and Sifra. And, nally, the New Testament itself provides additional instructive evidence of a subtle tension between recognition of the contribution of “the men of old” and the need for its polemical reworking. This evidence, in light of which the interpretation of    suggested above becomes even more probable, is found in Luke 1:2, where the expression " ’ # clearly designates the author’s predecessors within the Jesus movement who had tried—from Luke’s viewpoint with only limited success—to compose accounts of Jesus’ life.

16 Sifra Metsora 5, 12, J. H. Weiss (ed.), Vienna 1862, 79c. In contradistinction to this case the Sifra for Lev 15:29 ordains that those are not the “innovators”, but   (the rst ones) one is supposed to follow:  :            . 17 English translation of the Qumran material here and throughout the book is indebted, unless otherwise stated, to W. G. E. Watson in: F. García Martínez (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: Electronic Version, Leiden 1994.

midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques

19

Matthew 5:33–37 It turns out that the particular midrashic technique outlined above—a juxtaposition of two Torah precepts, tailored to clarify the scope of their application—is not restricted to the rst antithesis but repeatedly employed in Matthew 5. One such instance is Matthew 5:33–37 (the fourth antithesis), where the issue of swearing is addressed. To properly appreciate the exegetic strategy of the Gospel passage, the patterns of early Jewish biblical interpretation dealing with the issue should be taken into account; and these patterns, as will be seen, are characterized by the juxtaposition of Exodus 20:7 (“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord in vain”) and Leviticus 19:12 (“You shall not swear falsely by my name”). Here is the targumic evidence: You shall not swear by the name of the Lord your God in vain ( ) for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall swear by his name falsely (  ). (Tg. Onq. Exod 20:7) My people, House of Israel, no one of you shall swear by the name of the Memra of the Lord your God in vain ( ) for the Lord . . . will not hold guiltless at the Day of Great Judgment any one who swears by his name in vain ( ). (Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan Exod 20:7)

We may observe (a) that in the Targum, Exodus 20:7 was routinely interpreted as relating to “swearing”; and (b) that the parallel between Exodus 20:7 (   = in vain) and Leviticus 19:12 (  = falsely) was recognized. Tg. Onqelos indicates that these two prohibitions should be seen as synonymous—although a certain ambivalence may be discerned here: the Targum speaks of punishment only in connection with false (and not “vain”) swearing.18 There were also attempts, however, to use the obvious differences between the Exodus 20:7 and Leviticus 19:12 wording to widen the scope of the Decalogue precept. Thus, among other sources, Pesiqta Rabbati, a Palestinian midrash of the sixth century, stresses that in contrast to “falsely” of Leviticus, “in vain” of the Decalogue covers also certain cases where no lie is involved but nevertheless the swearing is considered a transgression: “Hizkiyah said: even if someone states with 18 Cf. Peshitta, which, not unlike Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan, uses the slightly ambiguous   in both cases.

20

chapter one

oath concerning an olive tree that it is an olive tree . . . it constitutes a ‘vain swearing’ [prohibited in the Decalogue]”.19 This general tendency obviously predates Pesiqta Rabbati as cases of sinful “empty” or “obvious” swearing are related to, inter alia, in the Jerusalem Talmud: (. . . in the name of R. Yohanan): anything which is known to the two of them constitutes “vain swearing” . . . Hizkiya used to say: if somebody swears that “two is two”, he is guilty against this [Decalogue] commandment. ( y. Sheb. 3, 8 [34d])

The Talmud not only widens the scope of the Decalogue commandment but also, unlike the Targum, leaves no doubt about the punishment that is due for “empty” swearing: In the name of R. Shmuel b. Nahman: twenty-four cities (city councils) existed in the South and all of them were destroyed because of vain swearing that was true to the facts. (ibid.)

The demand, reported in Sifra (91a), for “ ‘no’ which is truly so and ‘yes’ which is truly so” may be seen as a logical step in this direction. This Sifra saying constitutes a clear tannaitic parallel to the “yes, yes; no, no” of Matthew 5:37 which seems to represent an early tradition and not the nal redaction of the text.20 While Josephus’ remark in the Jewish War (II 8.6) on the Essenes avoiding swearing could possibly be seen as indicating a marginal group fancy, Philo’s writings testify that the above demand reects a long-standing religious concern of wide currency: There are some who without even any gain in prospect have an evil habit of swearing incessantly and thoughtlessly about ordinary matters where there is nothing at all in dispute, forgetting that it were better to submit to have their words cut short. (De Decalogo, on Exod 20:7)21

But the difference between “in vain” and “falsely” is not the only difference between Exodus 20:7 and Leviticus 19:12 discussed in rabbinic sources. While “the name of the Lord your God” from the Decalogue is understood as a reference to the Tetragrammaton proper (see Tg.

19

Pesiqta Rabbati, M. Friedman (ed.), Tel Aviv 1963, 113a. See M.-É. Boismard, ‘Une tradition para-synoptique attestée par les pères anciens’, in: J.-M. Sevrin (ed.), The New Testament in Early Christianity, Leuven 1989, 191–194. Cf. Jas 5:12 and 2 Cor 1:17. It is the former para-synoptic variant that is being supported by patristic writings. 21 Cf. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus II.2 and the discussion that follows. 20

midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques

21

Pseudo-Jonathan, quoted above), “my name” from Leviticus 19:12 covers—according to Sifra, where the two ordinances are explicitly juxtaposed—swearing by “every name which belongs to God and not only the Holy Name”; and this is in addition to what is already covered by the prohibition in Exodus 20:7!

    "  (12  )                    ' 

    ' ' "       “And you shall not swear by my name falsely” [Lev 19:12]. What is the point of Scripture? Since it is said: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” [Exod 20:7], I might have supposed that one incurs liability only if he takes in vain the ineffable name of God. How do I know that all of the euphemisms for God’s name also are involved in a false oath? Scripture says: “[And you shall not swear] by my name [falsely]”.22

In contradistinction to the exegesis attested in Philo, Sifra presents its argument as based on the midrashic juxtaposition of what are perceived as parallel Torah ordinances; in this case, however, the extra-Decalogue verse is being used to widen the scope of a Decalogue precept and not vice versa. We may thus observe two basic directions in which rabbinical exegesis tries to widen the understanding of Exodus 20:7: from “false” to “empty” swearing and from swearing by the Holy Name itself to swearing by any name that “belongs to God”.23 With regard to the exegetical position represented in Matthew 5:33–37, then, we may conjecture that here, as in the rst antithesis, not the biblical prohibition as such but one of its current interpretations is being addressed—namely, the “minimalistic” interpretation, which does not distinguish between   of the Decalogue and   of Leviticus 19:12. In fact, the interpretation in question seems to represent an even more “restrictive” position, as it brings into the picture a third parallel from Deuteronomy 23:22 (“If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not postpone fullling it”). The problem of “using the Lord’s name” then becomes restricted to the realm of vows. Against this interpretation, Matthew’s Jesus suggests widening the scope of the prohibition by moving in two directions: 22 Sifra, Qedoshim 2. English translation is according to J. Neusner, Sifra: An Analytical Translation, vol. 3, Atlanta 1988, 103–104. 23 On the transition “from old to new halakha” on swearing, see Y. N. Epstein, Introduction to Tannaitic Literature, Tel Aviv 1957, 377–378 (in Hebrew).

22

chapter one

1. In Matthew 5:33 and 5:37 he moves from “false” through “empty” swearing to the ultimate conclusion that any swearing is suspected of “emptiness”. 2. In Matthew 5:34–35 he states that not only swearing by the Holy Name itself but also swearing by God’s Temple, etc.—wherever it may be said that    (my name is called upon it)—is covered by the prohibition (with a peculiar development in Matt 5:36, where an additional motif is introduced). The Gospel does not refer explicitly to Leviticus 19:12 (as noted, it refers instead to Deut 23:22), but Leviticus 19:12 is clearly present in Matthew 5:33 and 5:37 thinking. The interpretation of the Decalogue commandment here has the same agenda and is construed along the very lines of thinking that characterize rabbinic exegesis, which is forever trying to determine what kind of swearing (swearing about what and by what “name”) is prohibited in Exodus 20:7. Here again I tend to believe that while it would be preposterous to try to prove any specic link between the pericope in question and exegetical traditions attested in later rabbinic sources, Matthew 5:33–37—despite the undeniable originality of the discourse—presents its argument in accordance with an existing exegetical format. It is thus with regard to the basic characteristics of this format, attested also later in rabbinic sources, that Matthew 5:33–37 may be seen as an early witness. And vice versa: the logic and the structure of Jesus’ reasoning in Matthew 5:33–37 as well as in Matthew 5:21–22 may be better understood if the tendencies of rabbinic thinking discussed above are given proper consideration. It should be stressed that here also, as in the case of the rst antithesis, Philo may denitely be seen as an early witness to the general trend of widening the scope of the commandment—not, however, for the specic exegetic technique of “composite citation”. Matthew 5:27–32 Let us turn now to Matthew 5:27–32—a passage that contains the second and third antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount. In Chapter 6, the traditions presenting idolatry and lust as two basic expressions of the evil impulse will be reviewed.24 Moreover, since in a number of 24

See also S. Ruzer, ‘The Seat of Sin in Early Jewish and Christian Sources’, in:

midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques

23

sources from the late Second Temple period and later, idolatry was presented as having become obsolete, lust came to be portrayed in these sources as the main outlet of the evil impulse—or at least as the rst of the capital sins. The Damascus Document (CD-A) 4:15–18 and Luke 16:14–18 provide good examples of such a tendency; it deserves notice that in both these texts lust is coupled with greed as a major temptation ensnaring man. The prohibition “You shall not commit adultery” might in certain contexts—in Qumran, for example—have come to represent the Torah prohibitions in general;25 hence the centrality of the adultery issue, discussed also in other parts of the New Testament (i.e., Matt 19; Rom 7; 1 Cor 6; 1 Thess 4). In Matthew 5:27–30 one comes across the same basic exegetic technique already discerned in the passages relating to murder and “vain swearing”: to prove his point Matthew’s Jesus juxtaposes various Torah ordinances perceived as related to the same issue. In addition to obvious references to Exodus 20:14/Deuteronomy 5:18 (Matt 5:27) and to Deuteronomy 24:1 (Matt 5:31), there is Matthew 5:28 $ % &  ' ' #  ( (every one who looks at a woman lustfully), which points to Exodus 20:17/Deuteronomy 5:21    =   ( &   )   (you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife). In the tannaitic sources, which discuss the commandments from the second part of the Decalogue (e.g., Mekhilta), we nd the argument served by the same basic technique of juxtaposing parallel Torah ordinances. More exactly, the Mek. R. Ishmael connects “You shall not covet” from Exodus 20:17 (as a rst step toward “hard-core” adultery) with “You shall not commit adultery” from Exodus 20:14. Further on the Mekhilta connects “You shall not commit adultery” to Leviticus 20:10, which stipulates that in a case of adultery with a married woman both the adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death. The Mekhilta quotes the opinion that Exodus 20:14 speaks about the same issue: “We have heard about the punishment but did not hear the warning— therefore it says here: ‘You shall not commit adultery’ [and now we hear it] (        , )”.26 This last opinion is also cited in

J. Assman and G. G. Stroumsa (eds.), Transforming the Inner Self in Ancient Religions, Leiden 1999, 367–391. 25 See CD-A 7:6–9, 16:10–12. 26 Mek. R. Ishmael (Horovitz), 232.

24

chapter one

the Mek. R. Shimon b. Yohai (Ithro 20): Exodus 20:14 and Leviticus 20:10 have the same subject matter, but one is an absolute imperative while the other describes the punishment. According to this interpretation the true importance of Exodus 20:14 is that with it adultery becomes absolutely forbidden—even if one is ready to accept the punishment and be executed for the transgression. Philo testies to a different trend, but he also seems to have been of the opinion that Exodus 20:14 and its parallels outside the Decalogue have the same subject matter: he interprets the Decalogue prohibition in light of the list of illicit types of intercourse found in Leviticus 18:10–16. Characteristically, in his deliberations here Philo relates to a variety of adulterous acts but not to adulterous thoughts/intentions.27 However, an alternative interpretation is also reported in the same passage from Mek. R. Shimon b. Yohai: the prohibition in the Decalogue is addressed to someone who eats/drinks from his own plate/glass (a standard metaphor for sexual intercourse) but imagines that he eats/ drinks from the plate/cup of another:                                      And if someone eats from his own plate but images himself eating from his friend’s plate, drinks from his own cup but imagines himself drinking from his friend’s cup, is that permitted? [To prohibit that the Scripture] says: “You shall not commit adultery”.28

Thus the tannaitic sources take the discussion, presented as the exegesis of Exodus 20:14, in two different directions. First, adultery equals adultery proper—illicit intercourse with another man’s wife—and the transgressors should be punished by death. The ordinances of Leviticus 20:10 and Exodus 20:14 have, according to this line of thinking, the same substance—except that the one relates to the penalty whereas the other provides the warning. Second, compared to Leviticus 20:10 there is more to the Exodus 20:14 ordinance, and this additional substance can be seen as connecting the adultery issue with the mental/sensual sphere of coveting/lust related to in Exodus 20:17. The absence of the latter trend in Philo’s deliberations on Exodus 20:14 has already been

27 28

See Philo, De Decalogo, 168–169; cf. De Specialibus Legibus, III.37–42. Mek. R. Shimon b. Yohai (Epstein and Melamed), 152–153.

midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques

25

observed. This trend, however, resurfaces in a later talmudic source (b. Ber. 61a): Adultery means to look on a woman. Every one who walks behind a woman [to look at her] loses his share in the world-to-come . . . One, who gives her money from hand to hand while counting the coins in order to (have an opportunity) to look at her, even if he has done good deeds and studied Torah like Moses our Teacher—he will not escape the judgment of Gehenna.29

As in the two cases discussed earlier, the Mekhilta evidence here makes possible a better appreciation of the exegetical structure of Matthew 5:27–30. Some early Jewish exegetes seem to have claimed (as later documented in Mekhilta) that the substance of the precept is “adultery proper”—meaning illegal intercourse with a married woman—a transgression for which the death penalty would be the punishment ordained by the Torah, as specied in Leviticus 20:10. Jesus is portrayed in Matthew 5:27–30 as one who is not satised with this solution—which is presented as something other teachers have been saying—but chooses instead the alternative suggestion, also attested in the Mekhilta, that the subject matter of Exodus 20:14 should be widened to accord with the prohibition in Exodus 20:17. The resulting switch from “hard-core adultery” to “coveting” produces similar results both in the Sermon and in a number of rabbinic sources, such as the talmudic passage just quoted: as in the case of anger versus real murder addressed above, here also transgressions of the heart, which cannot be proved in court, bring to the fore—both in early rabbinic tradition and in the Sermon—the question of the judgment of Gehenna (instead of regular juridical procedure). The emphasis on the role of the hand and the eye as agents of lust (Matt 5:28–30) may be also reasonably seen as reecting an existing trend; another expression of this general tendency is attested in m. Nid. 2:1 and b. Nid. 13b: “It was taught in the School of R. Ishmael, ‘You shall not commit adultery’ means that there should be in you no adultery, neither with the hand, nor with the foot” (I deal with this issue in Chapter 6). Further on, however, the Sermon returns to the connection, rejected earlier, between Exodus 20:14 and Leviticus 20:10, bringing up the issue of a married woman who commits a “real” adultery. It may be

29 English translation of passages from the Babylonian Talmud are according to the Soncino edition.

26

chapter one

suggested that with the practice of putting to death both lovers losing its grip, other measures came to the fore—in particular, divorce. Hence the reference to Deuteronomy 24:1 in Matthew 5:31–32—whether originally part of the pericope or not—justly belongs to the discussion, bearing witness to the compiler’s versatility in the current Exodus 20:14 exegesis.30 Matthew 5:27–32 and the discussion in the Mekhilta differ not only in certain important details31 but in general tone: polemics in the Sermon, as opposed to reporting different opinions without attempting to establish which interpretation is the correct one in the Mekhilta. The latter attitude, sometimes dened as “classicist”, characterizes legal discourse in both rabbinical and Roman law compendia of late antiquity,32 and it is clearly at variance with the attitude attested in the Gospel tradition, which seems to represent an earlier period. All these differences notwithstanding, the Sermon and the tannaitic sources have been shown to share both agenda and basic exegetical technique. It may be suggested that here too they all bear witness to the same traditional exegetical structure that was routinely used as early as the rst century c e. On divorce: Matthew 5:31–32 It has been observed in the research that Jesus in Matthew 5:31–32 adopts the interpretation of   (something indecent[?]) from Deuteronomy 24:1 as well as the position with regard to divorce ascribed by m. Gittin 9:10 to the school of Shammai, as against the interpretation ascribed by the same mishnah to the school of Hillel:33                   .     ( )   ,  .     ( )   ,   

   ( )   ,        .  

30 See J. A. Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel, 2nd ed., Cambridge 1998, 83, where he comes to the conclusion that “Matthew . . . . has modied it [the discussion—S.R.] to make it better suit his Jewish-Christian concerns, casting it in terms of [the] HillelShammai dispute”. 31 Cf. Sigal, Halakah of Jesus, 92. 32 See Hezser, ‘Codication’, 612, 628–629, 633–636. 33 See, for example, W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 3 vols., Edinburgh 1988–1997, I: 522–32, esp. 530; Sigal, Halakah of Jesus, 21.

midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques

27

The school of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Deut 24:1). And the school of Hillel say: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (ibid.). R. Aqiva says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, And it shall be if she nd no favor in his eyes (ibid.).34

Thus according to the school of Shammai, only adultery constitutes a sufcient reason for divorcing a wife, whereas Hillel is presented in the Mishnah as initiating a chain of authorities (including R. Aqiva) who believed that almost any reason would sufce—a position presented in Matthew 19:3 as that of the Pharisees: “And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ ”. It stands to reason that from the outset this position, far from being characteristic only of Hillel, was widely held; it is only later, and in view of the importance ascribed to Hillel in the rabbinic perception of the history of halakhic controversies, that it became strongly connected with this particular sage.35 While not denying the early circulation of this halakhic trend, Vered Noam has argued that in fact it was a more stringent marital halakhah, the one that would be ascribed to the school of Shammai, that had a domineering position in the days of Jesus.36 If so, on this issue Matthean Jesus may have in fact followed a majority opinion! It is also worth noting that Philo does not discuss at all the reasons for the divorce but, not unlike the passage from Deuteronomy 24 itself, concentrates instead on what happens after divorce (“. . . for any cause whatever, after parting from her husband and marrying another . . .”).37 Mishnah Gittin reports a number of additional instances of polemics between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel relating to the marriage-divorce issue:

34 English translation of mishnaic material is according to H. Danby, The Mishnah, Oxford 1974. 35 See A. Goshen-Gottstein, ‘Hillel and Jesus: Are Comparisons Possible’, in: J. H. Charlesworth and L. L. Johns (eds.), Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders, Minneapolis 1997, 31–55, esp. 39, 41–47. For a discussion of Hillel’s hermeneutical stance, see D. R. Schwartz, ‘Hillel and Scripture: From Authority to Exegesis’, in: Hillel and Jesus, 335–362. 36 V. Noam, ‘Divorce in Qumran in Light of Early Halakhah’, Journal of Jewish Studies 56 (2005), 206–223, esp. 219. 37 Philo, De Specialibus Legibus III.30.

28

chapter one

1. m. Git. 4:5—The world was not created except for the sake of procreation (so Shammai, referring to Genesis 1), so one is supposed to allow half-slave half-bondman to marry (and procreate). 2. m. Git. 8:4–5—A difference of opinion is attested with regard to which kind of divorce is legally sound and which is not. The “wrong” divorce creates a situation where a divorced woman who remarries may be considered an adulteress and her children—bastards (cf. Matt 5:31). 3. m. Git. 8:8—A husband gives his wife a divorce and then changes his mind. Unlike the Mishnah, the earlier Gospel tradition does not mention by name the two sages, who might have been older contemporaries of Jesus or belonged to the previous generation;38 but it does seem to relate to a yet unsolved exegetical controversy, siding with one of the existing opinions. In contradistinction to the pericopes discussed above, in Matthew 5:31–32 it is the existence of conicting interpretations of a difcult biblical expression ( ) that constitutes the exegetical crux of the polemic; neither juxtaposing different Torah ordinances nor widening the scope of the precept is employed here. This demonstrates the variegated nature of both the polemical patterns and the exegetical methods used in the Gospel. To better appreciate this variety, let us consider a pericope from outside the Sermon that addresses the same adultery-divorce issue. On divorce: Matthew 19:3–9 (cf. Mark 10:2–12) We have observed that in Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees ask Jesus’ opinion on the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 ( ), which m. Gittin 9:9 ascribes to the school of Hillel. But as opposed to the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:18: “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass

38 In these instances also, the attribution to the schools of Shammai and Hillel may indicate an attempt to overcome the anonymity of the longstanding tradition; see note 35 above and the discussion there. Cf. Hezser (‘Codication’, 610–611, 628), who discusses the return to anonymity in later stages of construction of the meta-discourse in the Jerusalem Talmud.

midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques

29

from the Torah (law) until all is accomplished”.), Deuteronomy 24:1 is presented in Matthew 19:7–8 as an ad hoc regulation with only a limited period of application. The notion of ad hoc Torah regulation ( ) is attested in later rabbinical sources, and even Philo created a tripartite division of the Torah material: God’s words, Moses’ own deliberation and a mix of the two.39 It is seemingly vis-à-vis these tendencies that one should examine the “liberal” position with regard to the Holy Writ attested in the Matthean pericope under discussion.40 It is also telling that the Gospel, which elsewhere is more than ready to report on Jesus’ controversies with the Pharisees, does not here give the slightest indication that Jesus’ statement provoked a resentment or any other negative reaction. Could it be that in this instance also the reasoning of Matthew’s Jesus reected an inherited exegetic pattern?41 This is a question that cannot be addressed here; it necessitates further investigation.42 Beyond that “liberal” quality of the statement in Matthew 19:7–8, verses 4–6 establish that for the true eternal principles of marital union one has to look to the story of the creation. This is one of the characteristic midrashic features to be discerned in traditions ascribed to the school of Shammai in m. Gittin referred to above. The saying from Genesis 1:27 is used in m. Gittin 4:5 to create a halakhic midrash: man nds his fulllment in procreating, hence one should adopt a lenient

39

See Philo, De Vita Mosis II, 188–91. Cf., Davies-Allison, Matthew, 1:527; 3:11–12, where a reference to Mal 2:16 is discerned here. 41 B. Repschinski (‘Taking On the Elite: The Matthean Controversy Stories’, in: Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, Atlanta 1999, 1–23, esp. 14, suggests that the prominence given to the Pharisees in the “controversy stories” by the compiler of Matthew reects the closeness of the former to the Matthean community and hence the acuteness of the polemics. Repschinski seems to overamplify the controversy aspect in some of the pericopes he discusses (incl. Matt 19:3–9); but in general his suggestion is convincing. Moreover, this polemical closeness may denitely account for the reliance on shared exegetical patterns. 42 In Chapter 5, a hermeneutical move in the opposite direction and found in CD-A 5:1–8 is discussed. Instead of Moses’ initiative to add to the “initial Torah”, the passage from the Damascus Document speaks of concealment of the “existing Torah” (with the similar purpose of “adjusting God’s demands” to Israel’s real abilities). This latter perception seems to reect the Damascus Document programmatic notion of the written Torah forever retaining its status, while in actuality being reinterpreted according to the revelation of the new covenant. See P. R. Davies, ‘The Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document’, in: J. M. Baumgarten, E. G. Chazon and A. Pinnick (eds.), The Damascus Document; A Centennial of Discovery, Leiden 2000, 33–34. 40

30

chapter one

attitude toward an additional marriage union. Although the specic halakhic decision at which the Mishnah arrives here may characterize only Shammai (or certain followers of his), using the creation story to dene basic principles of Jewish marriage seems to represent a wider midrashic trend. Let us have a closer look at Matthew 19:4–6. The argument here is presented as a midrashic combination of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24: He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one esh’? So they are no longer two but one esh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder”.

A number of rabbinic sources put Genesis 2:24 to halakhic use with regard to problems pertaining to marriage; for example, the following is an interpretation in b. Sanh 58a attributed to R. Elazar (an early tannaitic authority from the second half of the rst century?): “He should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two should become one esh”. “His father”—i.e. the one who belongs to his father, his father’s sister (R. Aqiva: his father’s wife); “his mother”—his mother’s sister (or his mother herself ); “and cling” not to male but to female; “to his wife”—and not to his fellow’s wife; “one esh”—not to a beast or an animal, they never become “one esh”.

Genesis 1:27, however, is referred to mostly in connection with the androgyne-centered notion of the rst man’s nature.43 Yet there is a marriage-centered midrash on Genesis 1:27 in b. Yeb. 63a where the same R. Elazar refers to Genesis 5:2 (= Gen 1:27): “One who does not have a wife is not a man (Adam) because it is said, ‘Male and female He created them’ ”. It is worth noting that the talmudic discussion here centers on encouragement to marry—seemingly detached from the call to procreate—not on the prevention of divorce and/or second marriage. Hence the importance of the evidence from the Damascus Document, where Genesis 1:27 is used, as in Matthew 19, to establish the marital halakhah (CD-A 4:15–18):44

43

See, for example, Gen. R. 8.1, Lev. R. 14.1. See also discussion in Chapter 5. M. Kister (‘Some Observations on Vocabulary and Style in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in: T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde [eds.], Diggers at the Well, Leiden 2000, 157–158) 44

midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques

31

                     They . . . are caught twice in fornication: by taking two wives in their lives, even though the principle of creation is (Gen 1:27) “male and female he created them”.

The exact meaning of the above admonition—does it refer to remarriage or bigamy (polygamy)?—has been much discussed, and I shall return to the issue in Chapter 5. Sufce it to say here that whatever the true intention of the Damascus Document admonition, it can be stated that while halakhic and non-halakhic decisions derived from discussions of the marriage-divorce issue might have differed from tradition to tradition, the appeal to Genesis 1 and 2 and, even more specically, to Genesis 1:27 is attested in at least some of those discussions, including the Qumranic, New Testament and later tannaitic evidence.45 So it may be suggested—with even greater probability than with regard to the pericopes discussed earlier—that in this case also the exegetical move in Matthew 19:4–6 represents an inherited midrashic feature. Conclusion Five pericopes from the Gospel of Matthew were examined in this chapter, four of them from the Sermon on the Mount and one from Matthew 19. In every one of them the argument is presented in the form of an interpretation of the Torah, suggesting a Jewish-Christian milieu sensitive to the characteristic late Second Temple features of the art of exegesis. The investigation centered less on the text form and more on the general agenda and structural features of New Testament

even suggests that the corresponding descriptions of the initial ideal state of affairs in Matt 19 (* #) and CD-A 4 (  ) might have been derived from the same formula. 45 W. D. Davies (The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, London 1964, 252) views certain isolated sayings of the Sermon as expressions of polemics with the Essenes, whereas J. Kampen (‘A Reexamination of the Relationship between Matthew 5:21–48 and the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in: D. J. Lull [ed.], Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Chico, Ca. 1990, 34–59, esp. 58) reaches the conclusion that “there are larger bodies of material in the Gospel of Matthew which reect some debate with a viewpoint we nd represented in the preserved writings of Qumran”. Both Davies and Kampen, however, analyze primarily the ideas expressed and positions taken (hence “debate”), while the present study emphasizes the issue of shared exegetical structures and presuppositions underlying the debate.

32

chapter one

exegetical passages, as well as on the techniques applied. Juxtaposing two or more parallel Torah precepts as a means of widening the scope of the commandment was shown to be one of the most important exegetical tools used in Matthew 5. Other hermeneutical devices, including moving from a juridical procedure dealing with hard-core transgressions to judgment in Gehenna as punishment for transgressions that cannot be tried in the court of justice, choosing one of two possible interpretations of a difcult biblical expression (Deut 24:1:  ), or appealing to the story of the creation—always used for backing the tougher religious standards—were also outlined. A number of relevant Jewish exegetical traditions from outside the New Testament were also reviewed. These traditions might differ from the Gospel sayings in tone (non-polemical in Mekhilta but polemical in CD) and in the details of their halakhic and other conclusions; but it turned out that they deal with the same exegetical problems and follow the same basic structure of argument. In the case of appealing to Genesis 1 and 2 for the sake of establishing the marriage law (Matthew 19) it appears that the same exegetical technique was applied in the rabbinic sources and in Qumran, which enables us more or less safely to dene the strategy employed in Matthew 19:4–6 as an inherited one. In the other cases, mostly rabbinic parallels, attested in tannaitic and amoraic (i.e., later) sources, were available. Philo supplied only half-parallels: similar ideas but not necessarily the same exegetic techniques. Nevertheless, it would be preposterous to see the shared technical features of the exegetical discourse as rst invented either by Jesus or by the transmitters of the Gospel tradition and later reinvented or picked up by certain tannaitic authorities. It is much more plausible that both New Testament and rabbinic sources bear witness to an existing midrashic pattern that should be described as Palestinian rather than Hellenistic. Thus one may apply Fitzmyer’s suggestion—that Matthew has modied the discussion of the divorce issue to make it better suit his Jewish-Christian concerns, casting it in terms of a known exegetical polemic—also to the rst, second and fourth antitheses. It should be emphasized again that what is observed here is not necessarily an inherited opinion on the issues under discussion (the period was one of a great uidity and variety of opinions!) but inherited technical or structural characteristics of exegetic discourse. The Sermon material may, therefore, be seen as early witness to—or as witness to an early stage in the development of—certain exegetical patterns otherwise attested only in later rabbinic sources, thus providing us with an impor-

midrashic aspects of exegetical techniques

33

tant link in the history of Jewish exegesis that was hitherto missing. The midrashic device of composite citation observed in the Sermon on the Mount—namely, the polemically avored juxtaposing of parallel Torah precepts—is one of these patterns. The importance of the First Gospel evidence is here further enhanced, given the absence of this exegetical technique in Luke’s version of the Sermon as well as in Philo’s exegesis—in spite of the latter’s obvious inclination to see the Decalogue in light of the extra-Decalogue “special laws”, and vice versa. The foregoing analysis lends support to the opinion that the intention of the compiler of Matthew 5 was to present the polemics as directed not against the Torah but against certain contemporaneous exegetical tendencies. Such tendencies include opinions that do not recognize in the Decalogue commandments additional meanings vis-à-vis the parallels outside the Decalogue, or refer to hard-core transgressions only or, just the opposite, ascribe too broad a meaning to the difcult “ ” from Deuteronomy 24:1. My analysis therefore supports an interpretation of “  ” (to/by the men of old) (Matt 5:21, 33) as relating to a long chain of exegetical tradition, and of “    ' ,—)-  ' ,” (to abolish the law—to full the law) (Matt 5:17) as relating to a lacking or incomplete—not necessarily wrong—interpretation of the Torah as against the true (profound, exhaustive) one. In their classic commentary on Matthew, W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison mention this interpretation of the Sermon’s intention as only the sixth among nine possibilities and then dismiss it altogether in a footnote, claiming: “However, in the following paragraphs Jesus’ words are much more than exegesis”.46 I certainly believe that this appraisal deserves to be revised. Berndt Schaller has suggested a different explanation for the opening formula, one based on his reading of “./  0 )    . . . &1 23 & 4” (You have heard that it was said to the men of old . . . But I say to you) as analogous to the rabbinic expression “  . . .   ” (I have heard and understood . . . but the teaching/text instructs otherwise).47 If accepted, this suggestion would modify our appraisal of the antitheses’ polemical aspect. However,

46

Davies-Allison, Matthew, 480. See B. Schaller, ‘The Function and Character of the Antitheses in Matt 5:21–48 in the Light of Rabbinical Exegetic Dispute’, in: H.-J. Becker and S. Ruzer (eds.), The Sermon on the Mount and Its Jewish Setting, Paris 2005, 70–88. 47

34

chapter one

in this case also, the conclusions regarding basic exegetical patterns employed in Matthew 5:21–37 ( juxtaposition of parallel Torah precepts, using differences in wording to widen the scope of the precept) would remain valid. The passage from Matthew 19 differs in this respect from the rst four Matthew 5 antitheses. This passage was chosen for discussion (a) because its subject matter (the divorce issue) and its immediate context ( Jesus’ conversation with a young man in Matt 19:16–20) point to a link with the Sermon on the Mount tradition; and (b) because of its antithetical structure. However—unlike Matthew 5:31–32—the polemically avored argument is presented here not as disclosing the true meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1 but as dismissing Deuteronomy 24:1 as an ad hoc palliative of Moses’ invention for the sake of a more profound and truly godly ordinance from elsewhere in the Torah. The question as to the extent to which this position might have had a standing in a broader Jewish milieu in the rst century c e needs further deliberation. In any case, the variegated nature of the antithetical constructions attested in Matthew warrants emphasis. It is, of course, instructive that the “liberal” attitude toward certain “secondary” parts of the Torah is documented only in Matthew 19—that is, it is relegated to a position far outside the Sermon on the Mount with its programmatic/apologetic statement: “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Torah until all is accomplished”.

CHAPTER TWO

FROM “LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR” TO “LOVE YOUR ENEMY” Let us turn now to what is arguably the most famous antithesis of the Sermon on the Mount—namely, the love-your-enemy precept, appearing both in the Matthean version of the Sermon (Matt 5:44) and in its Lukan parallel (Sermon on the Plain—Luke 6:35). There have been attempts to present the saying in Luke as primarily belonging to the category of moral teaching.1 Regarding Matthew 5:44, however, there is general agreement that the precept is being put forward in the context of a midrashic elaboration of Leviticus 19:18, a biblical verse that speaks of love toward one’s neighbor. In both versions of the Sermon, enmity or hatred is dened as the opposite of love, while the enemies there are not simply insufciently pious or even shamefully sinful persons whom one may resent, but real “hard-core” enemies, those who hurt one physically or rob one of his possessions.2 The originality of the maxim in Matthew 5:44/Luke 6:35 has been duly emphasized in research; most scholars, moreover, seem to agree that the origin of this particular exegetical elaboration of Leviticus 19:18 should be attributed to Jesus himself.3 On the other hand, the question of close tendencies in Jewish thought before Jesus, in his time and afterward has been also raised. Regarding the nature of precedents and parallels or, better, developments leading in this direction, as attested in relevant Jewish sources, a number of evaluations have been put forward. For the sake of reassessment of the issue, a variety of Jewish exegetical trends from the Second Temple period, which concern themselves with Leviticus 19:18, should rst be reviewed. Some of the material previously discussed in the research will be re-evaluated here, and instances

1 See, for example, O. Seitz, ‘Love Your Enemies’, New Testament Studies 16 (1969/ 1970), 39–54, esp. 52. For a discussion of this issue, see H. D. Betz, The Sermon on the Mount; A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain, Minneapolis 1995, 294–328. 2 See R. H. Gundry, Matthew; A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids 1994, 96. 3 See, for example, Betz, Commentary, 309, 311.

36

chapter two

of additional, previously overlooked, evidence will be addressed. Special attention will be paid to exegetical attempts to dene the scope of applicability of the love-your-neighbor precept, in particular attempts to widen the scope of Leviticus 19:18 to cover enemies also; characteristic features of the exegetical trends of this last kind will be outlined. Further on, in the second part of the chapter, the results of the analysis will provide a basis for the discussion of the love-your-enemy precept in the Sermon on the Mount, while the following chapter, Chapter 3, will focus on a related though different exegetical pattern attested in the Gospels—namely, a collation of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 into a “double love command”. Tensions in the biblical text We should relate rst to the biblical ordinance “love your neighbor as yourself ” (Lev 19:18) presented in Matthew—and, as will be seen, possibly also in Luke—as the basis for the love-your-enemy exegesis. The verse is part of the so-called Holiness Code, which opens with God’s call to the children of Israel to “Be holy as I, your Lord, am holy” (Lev 19:2). Among other things, the Holiness Code (H) ventures to dene the proper attitude toward one’s fellow men, and there are three key instances where the scope of the applicability of that attitude is addressed: Leviticus 19:3, 17–18 and 34. The sequence of these verses seems to indicate a step-by-step widening of that scope: from awe of and respect for one’s parents (Lev 19:3), to love of one’s “neighbor” (Lev 19:18), to love toward a stranger who “sojourns with you” (Lev 19:34).4 Consequently one may claim that the scope of applicability question is already crucial for the Holiness Code itself or, in the words of Jack Milgrom, that the “dynamic catalyst that turns H’s view of the Lord’s covenant from a static picture into one of ux is its concept of holiness. For H the ideal of holiness is not only embodied in a limited group (priests), animals (sacrices), and space (sanctuary) but affects all who live on God’s land: persons and animals, Israel and the ger (sojourner)”. Milgrom thus discerns in Leviticus 19 signs of “mobility” and “moving boundaries”, and sees the view of holiness presented

4 See B. A. Levine, Leviticus; The Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary, Philadelphia 1989, 129–131. Cf. Jub 7:20–21.

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

37

there as “a dynamic concept” that “breaks apart” the static picture of holiness propagated by the priestly source (P).5 The tension persists, however, even within a smaller unit of the text that includes Leviticus 19:18 and two preceding verses. Here a variety of both desirable and undesirable attitudes (love, revenge, hatred, justice, violence, reproof ) is attested, as well as a variety of designations of the “other”:  ,  ,  ,  , , ,  (neighbor, brother, next of kin, citizen, one belonging to your people, stranger; LXX:   ,  , ,  , ,   , —the LXX translates both  and  as ).6 It seems that this multiplicity of descriptions of the “other” bears witness to a specic problem existing already on the level of the biblical passage itself—namely, a question that is fundamental to this unit or, as suggested above, even to the Holiness Code as a whole: What are the limits of applying the admonition of Leviticus 19:17–18?7 The beginning of Leviticus 19:18 (“ -   -   - ”, “you shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against your own people”) establishes an intrinsic connection between the call to love one’s neighbor and the issue of vengeance. It may also point to a different standard in regard to other nations. Moreover, the choice of verbs here is identical with the one in Nahum 1:2, where the enemies of the Lord seem to be equated with the (political) enemies of Israel: “'       ” (“the Lord wreaks vengeance on his adversaries and harbors wrath/bears a grudge toward his enemies”). All this seems to bring the “enemies” into the picture, again already on the level of the

5 J. Milgrom, ‘The Changing Concept of Holiness in the Pentateuchal Codes with Emphasis on Leviticus 19’, in: J. F. A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus; A Conversation with Mary Douglas, Shefeld 1996, 70–72. Cf. the opposing views expressed in the same volume in the course of discussion (ibid., 80–83). See also J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, Anchor Bible, New York 1991–2001, 1596–1602. 6 On this tension between different designations of the “other”, see also G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus: The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids 1979, 269 (it seems to have been reected later in Hillel’s paraphrase of the commandment in b. Shab. 31a). In some exegetical elaborations of the love-versushatred issue, the hatred toward one’s brother was presented as a particularly heinous disposition. Thus, unlike the Peshitta version of the story of Cain and Abel, which speaks, following the Hebrew, of Cain’s anger and his being displeased, A Syriac Life of Abel places emphasis on Cain’s hatred toward his brother. See S. Brock, ‘A Syriac Life of Abel’, Le Muséon 87 (1974), 472. And, of course, the brothers’ hatred for Joseph greatly troubled early Jewish exegetes; see J. L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible; A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era, Cambridge, Mass. 1998, 438. 7 See also Betz, Commentary, 302; Wenham, Leviticus, 269.

38

chapter two

biblical text itself. There has even been an attempt to argue that the commandment to love one’s neighbor was given in Leviticus 19:18 in terms of a specic interpretation—namely, one that expressly excludes enemies.8 Further on, the discussion will address a range of exegetical expositions on Leviticus 19:18 that try to restrict the application of the precept to one’s own community or, alternatively, widen it to include total outsiders and even enemies. New historical circumstances or a “new sensitivity” may condition those expositions—but, as tensions discerned in the biblical text in question suggest, not exclusively. Leviticus 19:17–18 seems to be one of those instances where exegetical traditions develop around the verse not only as a reection of new circumstances and ideas (“historicist” model) but, inter alia, as a result of a reading of the Bible (“formalist” model).9 It is this exegetical side, the early history of Leviticus 19:18 exegesis that this investigation focuses upon; it is in this context that the “enemy issue” will be addressed. Between “your enemy” and “one who hates you” Although, as was remarked in the previous paragraph, the question of “enemies” seems somehow to be present already in the Holiness Code itself, the words “enemy” and “enmity” do not appear there. In the beginning of Leviticus 19:17, however, there is a prohibition of hatred toward those of your own tribe: “You shall not hate your brother . . .” (    - ,     ). What, then, is the relation between hatred and enmity? The word “enemy/enemies” (, LXX:  ) as well as such expressions as “treat with enmity” (, LXX: ) in most cases appear in the Bible in a context presupposing a war and an external (political) enemy of Israel and, by transference, of God himself, as, for example, in Exodus 15:6,9; Leviticus 26:25; Numbers 24:18; Deuteronomy 20:14; 1 Samuel 24:5; 1 Kings 8:44; Ezra 39:27; Psalms 56:10. This context often presupposes revenge, victory and salvation. There are

8

See U. Luz, Matthew 1–7, trans. W. C. Linss, Minneapolis 1989, 338–346. Consequently, Luz sees Matt 5:43–44 as a clear expression of the author’s anti-Jewish (sic!) sentiment. 9 Terminology suggested in D. Boyarin, ‘ “Language Inscribed by History on the Bodies of Living Beings”: Midrash and Martyrdom’, Representations 25 (1989), 139, 151.

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

39

also quite a few instances where God himself is presented as a party to the war waged, as an agent of the enmity. Here are three of them: (1) Exod 23:22: -    (  ! ! ) (“I will be an enemy to your enemies”) (2) 2 Chr 20:29:    ' 

; (“The Lord has fought against the enemies of Israel”) (3) Lam 2:5 (!!!)       ("  ) (“The Lord has become like an enemy, he has destroyed Israel”) In the rst two cases the Lord ghts the battle of Israel; in the third the Lord is against Israel, it is as if he becomes an enemy. This last example will later be dealt with separately. In contradistinction to the “enemy”, “one who hates you” in most cases in the biblical texts is not identied as belonging to a different tribal, ethnic or political entity. He is not an outsider but a sinful insider, one who hates righteousness and hence hates the Lord and the righteous ones (or the other way around). Thus we read—to quote only few examples—“Evil shall slay the wicked; and those who hate (LXX:  ) the righteous will be condemned”. (Ps 34:22[21]); “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate (#$) the Lord?” (2 Chr 19:2); “You who hate (,  ) the good and love (, % ) the evil” (Mic 3:2). In some cases, however, these are righteous ones who hate evil: “men who are trustworthy and who hate a bribe ([] ,  )” (Exod 18:21). At least in some instances, it seems clear that hatred signies an inner disposition rather than an action proper.10 In spite of the difference of meaning between “enemy” and “hater” suggested by the sources reviewed, this distinction is not unequivocal. Some cases bear witness to an overlap of meaning between the two notions. For example: (1) Ps 129:5: “May all who hate Zion (LXX:  ) be put to shame . . .” Here those who hate Zion are clearly enemies from outside. The same is true with regard to Ps 89:20–23 (21–24), where foes = enemies = those who hate (==) ( -  ).

10

See, for example, Deut 4:42; 19:4,6.

40

chapter two

(2) Exod 23:4–5: “If you meet your enemy’s () (LXX:  ) ox or his ass going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you see the ass of one who hates you () (LXX:  ) lying under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it, you shall help him to lift it up”. Enemy here is “one who hates”. This enemy does not seem to belong to another ethnic or political entity, he is not one against whom war is waged. As the last example clearly demonstrates, the difference between the two notions becomes even more blurred in the LXX, where  occasionally stands for both “hateful” and “enemy”. An instructive later tannaitic evidence of a similar blurring of the distinction is found in m. Sanh. 3:5: “. . . an enemy is he who has not spoken to his neighbor (sic!) for three days”. Early witnesses for the exegesis of Leviticus 19:18 Ben Sira In a passage from Ben Sira (about 185 b c e) we read: Wrath and anger are loathsome things, which the sinful person has for its own (i.e., these are qualities of the sinners). The vengeful will suffer the Lord’s vengeance, for he remembers their sins . . . Should a person nourish anger against another, and expect healing from the Lord? Should a person refuse mercy to a man like himself . . . If one who is but esh cherishes wrath, who will forgive his sins? Remember your last day, set enmity () aside . . . Think of the commandments, hate not your neighbor. (Ben Sira 27:33–28:9)11

The expressions set in bold type indicate, to my mind, that the fragment is an (early) exegetical exposition of Leviticus 19:17–18. One is forbidden to harbor wrath and anger or to seek vengeance (with reference to the beginning of Lev 19:18:  -   - ) or to hate (Lev 19:17:  - )—with an exegetic collation between “your brother” from the beginning of Leviticus 19:17 and “your neighbor” from the second part of Leviticus 19:18. The emphasis here is on the interpretation of kamokha (“as yourself ”) as “one who is but esh” exactly like you. Justice demands that one treat his fellow men with tolerance, as their 11

RSV.

The English translation is from The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha,

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

41

shortcomings are of the same kind as his. God is presented here as the guarantor of justice (Lev 19:18: “. . . I am the Lord!”): if one does not comply, God will deal with him on the Day of Judgment—coinciding in Ben Sira 27–28 with the person’s departure from this world—with the same intolerance he now treats his neighbor. This exegetical tendency characterizes some additional traditions dating from the Second Temple period too (i.e., 2 En 61:2: “As a person makes a request from the Lord for his own soul, in the same manner let him behave toward every living soul”). It is also attested in later rabbinic sources; according to the saying ascribed by Abot De-Rabbi Nathan (B, 53) to the mid-rst century c e R. Hanina: “If you hate your neighbor whose deeds are wicked like your own, I, the Lord, will punish you as your judge; and if you love your neighbor whose deeds are good as your own, I, the Lord, will . . . . have mercy on you”. (cf. Matt 6:14–15; Luke 6:37–38). This feeling of basic human solidarity ( your neighbor is in fact like you, and his weaknesses are the same as yours, so you have no reason at all to hate him or to despise him) and the exegetical trend connected with it have been thoroughly studied.12 Their role in widening the scope of application of Leviticus 19:18 has also been duly emphasized. It is worth noting, however, that in Ben Sira the neighbor in question seems to be one of our own kind—sinner, yes, but not a “hard-core” enemy, not one who persecutes you and, of course, not an enemy from outside.13 Another exegetical tendency is attested in the Targums: “Love (be kind) to your fellow man: what you dislike, do it not unto him” (Tg Yer. I on Lev 19:18). The Targum interprets kamokha (as yourself ) from Leviticus 19:34 as in the same way. This particular exegesis, which establishes a connection between the Torah precept and the Golden Rule, deals with the substance of the demand to love your neighbor as you love yourself without addressing the question of the scope of its application.14 The same stance is ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels. Admittedly, unlike in the Targum, Jesus’ saying “whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them” is quoted in Matthew 7:12 12 See D. Flusser, ‘A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message’, in: idem, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, Jerusalem 1988, 477. 13 It may be argued that the Lev 19:18 “neighbor” (  ) originally referred to the person living “next door”, and the whole issue here was that of “good/bad neighbor” in the social sense. Therefore, LXX  already “universalizes” and “spiritualizes” the neighbor. See Betz, Commentary, 304–305. 14 See also Tob 4:14–15. For further examples, see Kugel, Traditions, 756.

42

chapter two

as if detached from its exegetical context—“love your fellow man” is omitted. However, this context is clearly indicated by the statement that immediately follows: “For this is [the meaning of ] the Torah and the Prophets”. In Luke 6:31 the exegetical context of the maxim is restored (see discussion below). The problem of dating targumic traditions is a complicated one, and we cannot go into that problem here. There are, however, sufcient reasons to believe that the tradition, which found its way into a Palestinian Targum, is an early one—the above New Testament evidence clearly indicates that. Moreover, a similar kind of exegesis is attested already in the book of Jubilees, where the wording seems to indicate that the problem of the scope of application of Leviticus 19:18 is taken into consideration: And among yourselves, my sons, be loving of your brothers as a man loves himself, with each man seeking for his brother what is good for him, and acting together on the earth, and loving each other as themselves. ( Jub 36:4)

Pseudepigrapha A number of passages from Pseudepigrapha bear witness to one more pattern of thought presented in an exegetical connection with Leviticus 19:18. According to the Testament of Benjamin, through undivided love toward the righteous and toward the sinner, the pious man overcomes the evil in the sinner: . . . he is merciful to all, even though they may be sinners. And even if persons plot against him for evil ends, by doing good this man conquers evil, being watched over by God. (. . .) And if your mind is set towards good, even evil men will be at peace with you and . . . will respect you and will turn back to the good. (T. Benj. 4:2f; 5:1)15

Another passage from the Testament of Benjamin has a distinctly polemic avor as regards the interpretation of Leviticus 19:18: The good set of mind does not talk from both sides of its mouth . . .; but it has one disposition . . . toward all men . . .; whatever it does, or speaks . . .,

15 The English quotations from Pseudepigrapha are from: J. H. Charlseworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, New York 1983. See H. W. Hollander and M. De Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; A Commentary, Leiden 1985, 424. For further examples and for the role of reproach in preventing not only the sin of the sinner but also the hatred toward the sinner, see Kugel, Traditions, 752–756.

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

43

it knows that the Lord is watching over its life . . . the works of Beliar are twofold, and have in them no integrity. (T. Benj. 6:5f )

How far-reaching is this polemical attitude? Is it dictated also by the hope to reform/convert sinners? Does it, in contradistinction to passages from the Targum and Ben Sira quoted above, include not only sinners but also “hard-core” enemies? We may not be able to reach a denitive answer to these questions.16 Let us notice, however, that had, say, persecutors, those “haters from outside”, been included, the position taken by the Testament would have meant readiness for martyrdom.17 A number of pseudepigraphic compositions from the Second Temple period bear witness to another exegetic tendency—namely, a tendency to collate two “love commandments”, those of Deuteronomy 6:5 (“you shall love the Lord your God”) and of Leviticus 19:18 (“you shall love your neighbor”) in a kind of summary of one’s religious obligations.18 This tendency, attested also in the New Testament, is briey addressed in the second part of this chapter but, as noted, is dealt with more extensively in Chapter 3. Qumran An important piece of Leviticus 19:18 exegesis is found in the Damascus Document: And concerning the saying, You shall not take vengeance on the children of your people, nor bear any rancor against them (Lev 19:18), if any other member of the Covenant accuses his companion (, neighbor) without rst rebuking him before witnesses; if he denounces him in the heat of his anger or reports him to his elders to make him look contemptible, he is one that takes vengeance and bears rancor, although it is expressly written, He (God) takes vengeance upon his adversaries and bears rancor against his enemies (Nah 1:2). If he holds his peace towards him from one day to another, and thereafter speaks of him in the heat of his anger, he testies against himself concerning a capital matter because he has not fullled the commandment of God which tells him: You shall rebuke your companion (neighbor) and not be burdened with sin because of him (Lev 19:17). (CD 9: 2–8; 4Q270 Frag. 6, 3:16–21)

16

The issue was addressed in Betz, Commentary, 310–311 and note 876, there. See Flusser, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 489. 18 See, for example, Jub 36; T. Dan 5:3; T. Iss. 5:2, 7:6; T. Zeb. 5:1. For a discussion of the issue, see Flusser, Jesus, Jerusalem 2001, 88–90; Kugel, Traditions, 682–683. 17

44

chapter two

Here Leviticus 19:17–18, considered as a unit, is being applied to the neighbor, who is one “of your people and a member of the Covenant”— namely, the elect, the members of the sect as opposed to the enemies, i.e., the outsiders. As far as the outsiders are concerned, the members of the community are called to follow the example of God, who does bear rancor against his enemies. They are commanded, however, not to try to actually take vengeance on the enemies but to leave it to God. The reference to Nahum 1:2 supports our suggestion that “enemies” were felt to be “present” in Leviticus 19:18 inter alia because of the verbs   , (take vengeance, bear a grudge), identical with those used in Nahum 1:2 in relation to enemies of God (= of Israel).19 Here, as elsewhere in the Scrolls,20 the biblical command of mutual love is restricted to the sons of light and is paralleled by the sectarian command of animosity toward the sons of darkness. It seems that, unlike Ben Sira, the exegesis in Qumran tended to interpret kamokha (as yourself ) in a restricting sense—namely, “one who belongs to your group of chosen ones (belonging to the same New Covenant)”. This community of the New Covenant now represents “Israel”, and the level of animosity toward the outsiders/persecutors is on a par with the animosity toward the enemies of biblical Israel. Still, a kind of dissent, a reservation of sorts, is also voiced in the Scrolls. There is that rather skeptical appraisal of the unredeemed human nature/esh: it turns out that even the elect can be saved only by the undeserved grace of God.21 Another departure from that clearcut dichotomy between love for your own (those who are like yourself ), on the one hand, and animosity toward outsiders, branded as enemies, on the other, may be discerned in the famous Qumranic concept of delayed vengeance. So in the Community Rule we read: I will pay to no man the reward of evil; I will pursue him with goodness. For judgment of all the living is with God and it is he who will render to man his reward . . . I will not grapple with the men of perdition until the Day of Revenge, but my wrath shall not turn from the men of falsehood and I will not rejoice until judgment is made. (IQS 10:17–20)22

19 See the discussion of the tensions in the biblical text of the Holiness Code at the beginning of this chapter. 20 See 1QS 1:6, 9–11; I deal with this passage at length in Chapter 3. 21 See, e.g., 1QH 5:8; 1QS 9. 22 Cf. IQS 9:21ff; Rom 12:19–21.

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

45

It may be clearly seen that although vengeance is suspended, there is still a strong desire for it to be wrought in the future.23 I would like, however, to emphasize another characteristic aspect of this suspendedretaliation attitude attested in the Scrolls: God himself is presented as one who tolerates (maybe even lends support to) the evil world order for the present. God is, seemingly, behind those who hurt and persecute his chosen ones. This religious outlook, found, as highlighted above, also elsewhere in earlier Jewish sources (Lam 2:5), is articulated with particular force in the Scrolls and will be particularly important for our further discussion. Philo A reference to Leviticus 19:17–18 may be discerned in Hypothetica 7.8: “. . . no unjust scales, no false measurements, no fraudulent coinage (a reference to Lev 19:35) . . . the secrets of a friend must not be divulged in enmity (& '   ( —i.e., after a quarrel, when friends become enemies)”.24 With Philo, however, the admonition seems to represent neither an issue of central importance nor an especially strongly held belief. Elsewhere Philo claims quite convincingly that “those whom we call our kinsfolk or within the circle of kinsmen our friends are turned into aliens by their misconduct when they go astray. For agreement to practice justice and every virtue makes a closer kinship than that of blood, and he who abandons this enters in the list not only of strangers and foreigners but of mortal enemies” (Spec. Leg. III, 155).25 It should be emphasized that the “enemies” in both cases are not external ones, but “friends turned enemies”. Admittedly, topoi of the Hellenistic ethics of friendship and brotherly love may be discerned in Philo’s thought;26 but at the same time the fact that he presents the discussion of these issues as an elaboration on Leviticus 19:17–18 seems to bear witness to certain internal developments in Jewish biblical exegesis.

23 For a discussion of the variety of attitudes in the Essene movement and on its fringes, see Flusser, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 469–489. 24 The English quotations from Philo throughout this book are according to the Loeb Classical Library edition. Lev 19:16 is addressed in Spec. Leg. IV (LCL, vol. 8), 183, n. 188. Cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2:207. See also Kugel, Traditions, 767. 25 Trans. F. H. Colson, LCL. 26 See H. D. Betz, ‘On Brotherly Love ((  )’, in: idem (ed.), Plutarch’s Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature, Leiden 1978, 231–263.

46

chapter two

Early rabbinic Midrash Some traditions ascribed to sages from the second century b c e to the rst century c e, are relevant to our discussion. Thus the Talmud attributes to Hillel the following saying: “Whatever is hateful to you, do it not unto your fellow man. This is the essence of the Torah . . .” (b. Shab 31a). We have seen that this exegesis was part of the targumic tradition, already found in Jubilees, and that in the Gospels (Matt 7:12; Luke 6:31) Jesus also adopts this Golden Rule interpretation of Leviticus 19:18 (in its positive form, not unlike Jub 36:4)—one more indication of its early provenance. Later R. Aqiva would be counted among the most distinguished proponents of this high evaluation of Lev 19:18.27 In the Mishna tractate The Sayings of the Fathers a number of different tendencies may be discerned. One is a continuation of the trend found already in Ben Sira—namely, that if one does not wish to be judged severely by God, one had better not treat his fellow man as a sinner because, in this respect, as well as in others, his fellow man is exactly like himself. That attitude is suggested by Hillel’s maxim in m. Abot 2:3: “Judge not your neighbor lest you nd yourself in his place”.28 The same sentiment is expressed in Matthew 7:1–3: “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged”, etc. The latter exegetical emphasis may be seen as a distinctive mark of the emerging new religious sensitivity of the Second Commonwealth.29 Being good, righteous, virtuous or just—these are attributes that belong only to God, while one shares with his fellow humans imperfection and an inclination to sin. God is just and benevolent, he causes the sun to rise and sends blessed rain to the just and unjust alike. This last sub-motif, attested in the New Testament (Matt 5:44–47), resurfaces later in b. Taan. 7a, where for this reason the day of rainfall is said to better express God’s benevolence than does the day of resurrection (when only the just will return to life). I would argue that although in this rabbinic context, as well as in fragments from Ben Sira and 2 Enoch discussed above, the scope of the application of Leviticus 19:18 is widened to include a fellow man who is a sinner, (external) enemies are not referred to. 27

See Sifra, Qedosh., Par. 2, ch. IV. This is the reading suggested, inter alia, in Flusser, Jesus, 85. The alternative one is: “. . . until you nd yourself in his place”. 29 See Flusser, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 469–489. 28

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

47

There is, however, a distinctive development in early rabbinic tradition, one that does address the issue of mortal enemies—those who cause death and destruction. This time—a development characteristic of the Second Temple period—it is an internal destruction, the loss of the soul, of the world to come. In this context instead of an enemy proper we are dealing with one who incites to sin. Moreover, according to m. Abot a man may lose his soul in hell (after death) because of those fellow human beings, who are closest to him—e.g., his wife (1:5) and maybe even his neighbor (1:7), a sentiment also attested in the Gospels, e.g., Matthew 10:34–37. Both emphases—that on the soul/sin/hell and that on bringing the agent of destruction inside the intimate circle of a person’s existence—may be seen as expressions of the process of internalization.30 One may see Matthew 10 as an expression of the same development. Here Jesus rst speaks about future persecutions, with kings, governors and Gentiles in general as natural enemies (with a telling addition of the synagogue authorities in verse 23!); but then he says (10:28): “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell”. Further on, however, he switches to a man’s immediate family (10:36): “And a man’s foes will be those of his own household/)( (  *  +))(  .” Another witness to this process of internalization and its polemical character may be found in the Passover Haggadah, an early version of which is believed to have been composed either right after the destruction of the Temple or close to the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt.31 Laban, Jacob’s father-in-law, is presented here as the ultimate enemy, worse even than Pharaoh. For all its importance, however, this development cannot account for a call to love one’s enemies; and it is not presented in the midrashic sources as an exegesis of Leviticus 19:18.

30 A later stage of this process was discussed in G. Stroumsa, ‘Internalization and Intolerance in Early Christianity’, in: idem, Barbarian Philosophy; The Religious Revolution of Early Christianity, Tübingen 1999, 86–99. 31 See a discussion in S. Pines, ‘On the Metamorphoses of the Notion of Freedom (herut)’, Iyyun 33 (1984), 247–265 (in Hebrew).

48

chapter two The exegesis of Leviticus 19:18 in the Epistle of Aristeas and its later modications

Let us consider now a peculiar trajectory in the exegesis of Leviticus 19:18, the earliest example of which is provided by The Epistle of Aristeas, its most probable dating being 2nd century b c e (suggestions range from the 2nd century b c e to the 1st century c e).32 According to David Flusser, key instances of the Jewish delegates’ speeches in the composition bear witness to a Palestinian tradition adapted to the situation and integrated into the general Hellenistic framework of the Ep. Arist.33 It is my opinion that there are quite a few passages of this kind in the Ep. Arist. that may be plausibly explained as exegetical expositions of Leviticus 19:18. Moreover, as will be seen immediately, here, unlike in most of the sources discussed above, not simply fellow men (neighbors) or even sinners, but real hard-core enemies are the issue. Two kinds of enemies are mentioned in the Ep. Arist. First, there are external enemies, those with whom the state is at war; in this case a truce is recommended, because a truce granted by God—unlike deploying great forces and going into battle—does bring conicts to a lasting conclusion (193–194). Second, there are internal enemies—namely, individuals guilty of serious crimes or those whose acts may put the state in jeopardy from within. In this case, too, the Jewish sages implore the king to adopt a lenient and humane attitude, basing their advice on an existing interpretation of kamokha (as yourself = as you yourself would like to be treated): Insofar as you do not wish evils to come upon you, but to partake of every blessing, [it would be wisdom] if you put this into practice with your subjects, including the wrongdoers, and if you admonished the good and upright also mercifully (207).

According to Flusser, the Jewish sages’ advice concerning the treatment of “enemies of the state” bears witness to an early stage in the development of what may be called religiously motivated Jewish humanism.

32 For the Greek text, see H. St. J. Thackeray, ‘The Letter of Aristeas’, in: H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914, 531–606. The translation used below is that by R. J. H. Shutt, from Charlesworth, OT Pseudepigrapha. 33 D. Flusser, ‘Love the Human Beings! A Note on the History of Jewish Humanism’, in: idem, Judaism of the Second Temple Period; Sages and Literature, Jerusalem 2002, 146–150 (in Hebrew). The study rst appeared in Russian translation in Vestnik: International Journal of Jewish Studies in Russian 1 (1999), 194–201.

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

49

Now, the topos of leniency was standard in the ethos recommended to Hellenistic rulers, an important topic in Greek and Roman political ethics.34 But again, what is of greater interest to us here is not the source of the idea but the fact and the ways of its inner-Jewish adaptation to exegesis of Leviticus 19:18.35 The sages’ advice is backed by the claim that God himself is merciful; moreover, the hope is expressed that by acting mercifully the king will be able to reform the wrongdoers—again, as noted above, a motif attested elsewhere in early Jewish exegesis of Leviticus 19:18:36 King : How can one keep his kingdom without offence to the end? Answer: You would administer it best by imitating the eternal goodness of God. By using long-suffering and treatment of those who merit [punishment] more leniently than they deserve, you will convert them from evil and bring them to repentance (187–188) . . . so that it is your duty neither to inict punishments easily nor to submit men to torments, knowing that the life of mankind is constituted in pain and punishment . . . you will be inclined to mercy, even as God is merciful (207).

In yet another passage, ending with a reference to the Greek ideal of , the question of the scope of applicability of the loveyour-neighbor precept and of the true meaning of kamokha (as yourself ) is explicitly addressed—italicized remarks in parentheses indicate what I see as instances of exegetical reference to Leviticus 19: King : To whom must a man be generous? Answer : It is a man’s duty [to be generous] toward those who are amicably disposed to us (Lev 19:18: kamokha = as he treats you). This is the general opinion. My belief is that we must [also] show liberal charity to our opponents so that in this manner we may convert them to what is proper and tting to them. You must pray God that these things be brought to pass, for he rules the minds of all (Lev 19:18: “I am the Lord ” ). King: To whom must one show favor? Answer : To his parents, always, for God’s very great commandment (Lev 19:3 and, of course, Ex 20:12,) concerns the honor due to parents. Next [and closely connected] he [God] reckons the honor due to friends, calling the friend an equal of one’s own self ( ,-./ 01 2341 0./ 567./; kamokha = one who is like you) You do well to bring all men into friendship with yourself (227–228).

34 I am thankful to Hans Dieter Betz for drawing my attention to this fact. See also the discussion of Philo’s exegesis above. 35 Cf. the discussion above of the Targum exegesis of Lev 19:18 and of Hillel’s saying reported in the Talmud. 36 See the discussion above of T. Benj. 4:2f; 5:1.

50

chapter two

In addition to trends attested elsewhere in Ep. Arist. and discussed above (such as the hope to overcome evil with good, bring the evildoers to repentance), this passage bears witness to a number of important exegetical features: (1) It sees Leviticus 19:18 as a step in the process of widening the circle of persons towards whom we are implored to “show liberal charity”—with the initial position being put forward in Leviticus 19:3 and the direction being set by Leviticus 19:34. (2) It points out the gap between the attitude of (interpretation suggested by) the masses— = as he treats you—and the “enlightened” understanding of Leviticus 19:18:  = who is one like you (with an additional reference to Deut 13:7:    = your friend who is like your own self ).37 Ordinary people just cannot grasp it. (3) The mention of the necessity of appealing to God in order to change either the hearts of the opponents or your own disposition (the text is ambiguous) may indicate a midrashic elaboration on the Leviticus 19:18 ending: “I am the Lord!”38 The emphasis on the gap between the “unaware” masses and the wise king, as well as the call to follow the example of God Almighty who is benevolent, highlight the particular feature of the exegetical trend rst attested in the Ep. Arist.: Leviticus 19:18 is presented here as “designed” for the ruling authority. It is the ruling authority that has to deal with both the external enemies and the “enemies of the state”, and it is this ruling authority that is requested to renounce revenge and act leniently. The motif of the renunciation of revenge by the powerful should seemingly be considered as a type of its own, distinguished—in the history of the love-your-enemy precept—from the motif of the nonviolence of the powerless.39 We have seen that in its attempt to give credence to the non-obvious wisdom of humanism the Ep. Arist. employs a variety of different and seemingly independent arguments: God’s benevolence, practical considerations, hope to reform the evildoers and an elevated standard of demands addressed to the elite. 37

Cf. Exod 23:9. Cf. Sir 17:14; 18:13: “The compassion [or ‘love’ ] of man is for his neighbor, but the compassion [or ‘love’ ] of the Lord is for all living beings”. 39 See L. Schottroff, ‘Non-Violence and the Love of One’s Enemies’, in: L. Schottrof, R. G. Fuller, C. Burchard and M. J. Suggs, Essays on the Love Commandment, Philadelphia 1978, 9–39, esp. 18–22. Schottroff, however, saw the trend attested in Ep. Arist. as belonging exclusively to Hellenistic Judaism. 38

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

51

Let us note one more distinctive feature of the recommended leniency toward criminals: the ruling authority is implored “neither to inict punishments easily nor to submit men to torments” (Ep. Arist. 207, see above). It turns out that this was not an isolated case of exegetical fancy dictated by particular circumstances. The trend reappears later, mutatis mutandis, in the context of halakhic discussions on proper forms of execution. There is little doubt that those hard-core criminals who were sentenced to death were seen by many as enemies of humanity. Thus, for instance, Philo rationalizes, commenting on Deuteronomy 21:23: “And as it was necessary that the enemies of every part of the world after receiving their punishment would be hanged up and so displayed before the sun, the heavens, the air, the water and the earth” (Spec. Leg. III.152). However, according to Moshe Halbertal, certain halakhic developments during the tannaitic period seem to express the sentiment of a “liberal charity” of sorts toward those archenemies.40 For our present discussion it will sufce to mention that in some rabbinic sources this new halakhic tendency is presented as an exegetical elaboration of Leviticus 19:18: “Lo, it is said, “love your neighbor as yourself ”—hence you should choose for him a light death (form of execution)” (b. Sanh. 45a).41 In the tannaitic layer of the tradition, God himself is presented as one who feels sorry for executed criminals: “R. Meir said: at a time when a (hanged) man suffers, what is said about the Shekhina? So to say: I feel pain in my head, I feel pain in my arm” (m. Sanh. 6:5).42 Consequently, when the judges are called upon to show consideration and mercy, they are in fact called upon to follow God’s example. Both in Ep. Arist. and in the rabbinic sources in question the enemies toward whom the ruling authority is being especially exhorted to show mercy are “internal” ones, neighbors turned enemies. To sum up the discussion up to now, it has been suggested that the scope of applying Leviticus 19:17–18 constituted a problem already in the biblical text itself. The problem there was triggered/expressed, inter alia, by the multiplicity of terms for “another” employed in the passage (brother, next of kin, neighbor, etc.) and a transition from parents to

40 M. Halbertal, Interpretative Revolutions in the Making, Jerusalem 1997, 145–167 (in Hebrew). 41 See also b. Sanh. 52a. 42 See also Mek. de-R. Ishmael on Exod 15:2.

52

chapter two

neighbor to stranger in the wider context of the Holiness Code. The question of the proper attitude toward one’s enemies was recognized in some quarters of early Jewish exegesis as an intrinsic part of that problem—e.g., Philo, Qumran. A number of different exegetical developments have been reviewed. In some of them an attempt was made to restrict the scope of the application of Leviticus 19:18 to those of one’s own kind (kamokha = one who belongs to your group—e.g., the Qumranic Community Rule); in others the application was conditioned by the behavior of the “neighbor” (Philo, Spec. Leg.). In certain cases the anticipation of future punishment of the “outsiders” was an integral part of the exegesis (Qumran). Another tendency, attested in a number of Second Temple period and early rabbinic sources, emphasized the demand of an unconditioned liberal charity toward fellow men, based either on expectation of their change of heart or on the feeling of human solidarity, which was supposed to include even the sinners. This tendency was backed by a particular interpretation of kamokha: “another” is, in fact, “like you” (kamokha), both are sinners, and if one wants to be forgiven by God and enjoy his mercy and love, one should act in this fashion toward that other sinner. This is the tendency that has usually been presented as the Jewish background to the love-your-enemy command in the Gospels. I have suggested, however, that within this tendency—all possible gray areas notwithstanding (it may be claimed that in some instances there was even a readiness to forgive those who hurt you personally)—the problematic “neighbor” is mostly a sinner and not a hard-core enemy. A distinctive exegetical development has been discerned where real enemies, both external and internal (criminals), are the issue. It has been traced from the Epistle of Aristeas to tannaitic halakhic traditions, and we have seen that when trying to dene the proper attitude toward those hard-core enemies our sources appeal to Leviticus 19:18. The particular perception of what love toward the other means here (less severe torture or an easier death for the convict) may sound peculiar; but in any case enemies are clearly included here in the category of “neighbors”. It should be emphasized, however, that the Leviticus 19:18 exegesis of both the Epistle of Aristeas and the halakhic discussions is designed for the ruling authority and not for hurt or persecuted individuals or minorities. Here, as well as in the exegeses mentioned above, God is presented as kind and benevolent, and the ruler or the judges are called to follow his example. Hence the importance of the “I am the Lord” ending of Leviticus 19:18 for that kind of exegesis.

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

53

It has been observed that in the Epistle of Aristeas the call to widen the scope of application of Leviticus 19:18 to include hard-core enemies is presented as a difcult one, one that is not obvious at all. Hence the emphasis on the gap in understanding between the wise king and the “commoners”. Moreover, in its attempt to give credence to the “strange wisdom” of unconditional love the composition employs—a feature observed also elsewhere in Leviticus 19:18 exegesis—a variety of different and not necessarily harmonized arguments. This multiplicity of arguments will serve as an important precedent when we turn to the exegetical elaboration of Leviticus 19:18 found in the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain. And, nally, two more characteristic patterns of the Second Temple period religious thinking have been addressed in the foregoing part of our investigation: (1) There is an exegetical trend to collate two “love commandments” (Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18), thus creating an “ultimate summary” of one’s religious obligations—to be treated separately in Chapter 3. (2) According to some sources (e.g., Qumran, cf. Lam 2:5) God is presented as being behind the present acts of animosity against a chosen community, as backing the enemies or even becoming “like an enemy” himself. “Love Your Enemy” Precept in the Sermon on the Mount The investigation in the rst part of this chapter focused on a variety of exegetical trends from the Second Temple period, which concerned themselves with Leviticus 19:18.43 Special attention was paid to exegetical attempts to dene the scope of applicability of the love-yourneighbor precept, in particular attempts to widen the scope of Leviticus 19:18 to cover enemies also; characteristic features of the exegetical trends of this last kind were outlined. With this preparatory work done, we may now approach the discussion of the love-your-enemy precept in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:44) and in its parallel in the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:35).

43 See also S. Ruzer, ‘From “Love Your Neighbor” to “Love Your Enemy”: Trajectories in Early Jewish Exegesis’, Revue Biblique 109 (2002), 371–389.

54

chapter two

As noted, while other opinions also have been expressed concerning the genre of the saying in Luke, there is general agreement regarding the precept in Matthew 5:44 as representing a midrashic interpretation of Leviticus 19:18. On the one hand, in both versions of the Sermon enmity or hatred is dened as the opposite of love. On the other, the enemies here are not simply sinful persons whom one may resent but real “hard-core” enemies, those who hurt one physically or rob one of his possessions (Matt 5:38–42). Many scholars believe that the origin of this particular exegetical elaboration on Leviticus 19:18 should be attributed to Jesus himself.44 Moreover, the maxim in Matthew 5:44/ Luke 6:35 has been traditionally perceived as belonging to the innovative core of Jesus’ teaching. The emphasis on the innovative character of the maxim notwithstanding, a number of evaluations have been raised regarding if not parallels then at least tendencies leading in this direction, as attested in early Jewish traditions—before and after Jesus.45 On the basis of the earlier discussion in this chapter, those evaluations will now be reconsidered.46 It will be shown that the exegetical strategy in the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain, aiming at widening the scope of Leviticus 19:18 to cover enemies also, is characterized, like other attempts of that kind in early Jewish exegesis, by a variety of suggested and not necessarily harmonized reasons. An additional, previously overlooked, exegetical trajectory that might have led to the love-your-enemy exegesis both in the New Testament and in later rabbinic sources will also be outlined. A number of exegetical expositions on Leviticus 19:18 appear in the New Testament. In some of them attempts are made to dene the proper attitude toward one’s neighbor, or even the scope of the application of the precept, without addressing the issue of enemies/ persecutors at all.47 There are also, however, at least three instances

44

See note 3 above. For a bibliography, see Betz, Commentary, 294–296. Flusser, in the new English version of his book on Jesus, dedicates a whole chapter to the issue. See Flusser, Jesus, 81–92. 46 See also S. Ruzer, ‘ “Love Your Enemy” Precept in the Sermon on the Mount in the Context of Early Jewish Exegesis: A New Perspective’, Revue Biblique 111 (2004), 193–208. 47 See, for example, Matt 22:34–40, Mk 12:28–34, Luke 10:25–38. 45

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

55

in the New Testament where an exegesis of Leviticus 19:(17–)18 is employed for the sake of dening the proper attitude toward one’s enemies—inter alia, deciding whether this attitude includes vengeance. One of these instances is found in Romans 12:9–20, where Paul seems to have adopted the exegetical line that characterized, as outlined in the rst part of this chapter, the Dead Sea Scrolls (see also discussion in Chapter 3). “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” (Lev 19:17) and “you shall not take vengeance . . . against the sons of your own people” (Lev 19:18) are interpreted by the apostle as a call to show kindness and affection toward those of one’s own, the members of the chosen group, “the brothers” (Rom 12:10,16). The “outsiders”, the enemies, the persecutors, are a different story: the admonition not to avenge yourself is accompanied by intense hope for the wreaking of vengeance by God himself in the future (Rom 12:19). It is worth noting that Paul refers here to Deuteronomy 32:35, which is part of a long passage giving a rather graphic description of God’s vengeful visitation on his (and Israel’s) enemies. One may wonder whether the ending of Leviticus 19:18 (“I am the Lord”) does not serve as an additional trigger to that kind of exegesis.48 Moreover, one’s patient suffering, devoid of elements of resistance or vengeance, is supposed to increase the enemies’ impending punishment (Rom 12:20).49 It is possible that in addition to this exegetical option Paul also employs here an alternative but no less traditional one—namely, that the evil ones will eventually be reformed by one’s good attitude (Rom 12:21).50 The question, however, remains unresolved, as the verse allows of another interpretation as well. The other two instances are found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:43–48) and in its parallel in the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:31–38)—it is these passages that henceforth will be of exclusive concern to us:

48 Biblical verses where “turning the other cheek” is recommended also point in this direction (anticipation of revenge): Lam 3:27,30; Prov 20:22; 24:29. 49 Cf. 2 Mac 7:13–18. 50 See the discussion of T. Benj. and Ep. Arist in the rst part of this chapter.

56

chapter two

Matt 5:43–48 43 “You have heard that it was said, —You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy”. 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Luke 6:31–38 31 And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them. 32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selsh. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. 37 “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38 give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back”.

I am of the opinion that the reasoning propagated here in the Gospels differs considerably from that of Paul as expressed in Romans 12, although there have been attempts to harmonize the two positions.51 In any case, it is worth noting that the apostle does not claim that the attitude in question forms part of the kerygma.52 Whether or not we are dealing with a specically Qumranic inuence, Paul seems to use here what he himself considers a traditional motif, not unlike that attested in the Book of Proverbs: Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, . . . lest the Lord see it, and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him. (24:17–18). . . . If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for you will heap coals of re on his head, and the Lord will reward you. (25:21–22)

51 See, for example, J. Rausch, ‘The Principal of Nonresistance and Love of Enemy in Matt 5, 38–48’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966), 31–41. 52 In contradistinction to the call for brotherly love among the members of the chosen group that is backed by a Christ-centered ecclesiology (Rom 12:5).

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

57

It should be emphasized that in Matthew 5:43–48 (and Luke 6:31–38) the love-your-enemy issue is also addressed as completely divorced from the messianic theme; the absence of the latter is commonly considered to be an outstanding feature of the Sermon. One may venture to suggest, therefore, that the diversity of solutions for the problem attested in the New Testament bears witness not only to the complex history of the early Christian tradition but also, maybe mostly, to the acuteness of the “enemy issue” in the wider milieu of Second Temple Judaism. Neither the complex history of the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (SM/ SP) tradition53 nor the question whether the love-your-enemy precept may with sufcient certainty be traced back to Jesus himself can be the subject of discussion here.54 Matthew 5:43–48 and Luke 6:31–38 will be treated as two similar, but still different, expressions of the same exegetical trend, striving to widen the scope of applicability of Leviticus 19:18 beyond the commonplace “brother” and “good neighbor”. In both instances the love precept is discussed in its antagonistic connection with vengeance, which is the issue at the beginning of Leviticus 19:18. In the SM the context of Matthew 5:43–48 is clearly exegetical, as it is for the whole sequence of antitheses in Matthew 5; as argued in Chapter 1, every antithesis in the sequence is presented by the gospel writer as an elaboration on a biblical verse or group of verses. In Luke the exegetical structure of the Sermon as a whole is not that obvious, which caused some scholars to believe that in the case of the SP the love-your-enemy precept appears in the context of general moral teaching detached from biblical exegesis. However, in spite of the exclusion of some exegetical elements from the SP version of the Sermon, important remnants of exegetical structure may still be discerned. It can be suggested that such a remnant is found in Luke 6:31: “And as

53 See Betz, Commentary, 1–50. A number of scholars have argued that the command to love one’s enemies (as well as the Golden Rule) points to the Q-source. See, for example, G. Strecker, ‘Compliance—Love of One’s Enemy—The Golden Rule’, Australian Biblical Review 29 (1981), 38–46, esp. 39; D. Flusser, ‘The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels’, in: S. Notley, M. Turnage and B. Becker (eds.), Jesus’ Last Week, Leiden 2006, 17–40. 54 See W. Klassen, ‘The Authenticity of the Command: “Love Your Enemies” ’, in: B. D. Chilton and C. A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Words of Jesus, Leiden 1999, 385–407.

58

chapter two

you want that others would treat you, so you should treat them”. This seems to be an interpretation of kamokha (as yourself ) from Leviticus 19:18, belonging to a trend attested elsewhere in early Jewish sources, discussed above. Telling uctuations between positive and negative formulations of this precept may be discerned in different traditions. However, since the focus of this study is on the exegetical attempts to widen the scope of Leviticus 19:18 to include enemies and not on the exact nature of the kind attitude one is supposed to show to one’s enemies, these uctuations, which constitute a separate and much debated issue will not be discussed here. As observed, the same precept, known as the Golden Rule, appears also further on in the SM (Matt 7:12), where, unlike the elaboration in Matthew 5:43–48, it is detached from the exegesis of Leviticus 19:18. In Luke 6:31, conversely, the precept seems to provide the much-needed exegetical link between the biblical text and the love-your-enemy command: Love your enemy not (only) because he is like you in the eyes of benevolent God, but (also) because that is the attitude you would like to get from him (instead of his habitual enmity). It is possible that this reects, inter alia, a difference in the concrete situation to which the redactors of SM and SP respectively react.55 What interests us, however, is that the SP bears witness to a different (unlike SM) exegetical procedure: extending the scope of the Leviticus 19:18 application by evoking a Hillel-type interpretation of kamokha (as yourself ). On the other hand, the SM version as it now stands does not relate to kamokha at all.56 In Matthew 5:46–47, as everywhere in the SM, the recommended exegetic option is presented as a polemic against conventional assumptions. The same line of reasoning may be discerned in Luke 6:32–34. A number of suggestions have been made as to who Jesus’ exegetical opponents here could be, and Qumran exegetes are among the candidates discussed in this context (more on this in Chapter 3).57 Whatever the case, this polemical aspect clearly represents a continuation of the tendency observed earlier in The Epistle of Aristeas. There is also, however, an important difference, which is obviously due to the difference

55

See Betz, Commentary, 312. The possibility of the priority of Luke in this particular instance is a complex issue and is beyond the scope of this investigation. 57 For a review of Qumranic parallels for the use of  in Matt 5:43–44 see G. Molin, “Matthäus 5,43 und das Schrifttum von Qumran”, in Bibel und Qumran, Berlin 1968, 150–152. See also Flusser, Jesus, 93–103. 56

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

59

of situation: in place of the emphasis of the Ep. Arist. on the gap in understanding/perception between the common folk and the wise king, we nd in the Gospels indignation at the “way of sinners, Gentiles and tax collectors” (Matt 5:46–47; Luke 6:33). Another common traditional feature of the SM and SP versions is to present God’s benevolence toward the whole of mankind as an argument for the love-your-enemies precept: the listeners/readers are implored to follow God’s example (Matt 5:48; Luke 6:35–36).58 One wonders if this argument was perhaps perceived in the original context of the Sermon as a midrashic elaboration on the Leviticus 19:18 ending (“I am the Lord”)—in a similar manner to Ep. Arist. 227–228 discussed above. In contradistinction to the Epistle Aristeas, however, the important parallel between God and benevolent ruler is absent in the Gospels. The context of the saying in both SM and SP clearly indicates that we are not dealing here with advice to a ruler/ruling authority: “But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also . . . But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:39, 44; cf. Luke 6:35). God is perceived here as benevolent to the evil ones who persecute a minority—not to the people who disobey the rules established by those in power. It turns out that in the SM/SP tradition a variety of different reasons for renunciation of revenge and/or love for enemies is being put forward: in addition to the call to follow the example of God’s benevolence (an exegetical move that may refer to the ending of Leviticus 19:18, “I am the Lord”), there are also other arguments used in the Sermon. According to one line of thinking, one should treat his enemy, as he would like that enemy to treat him (Luke 6:31). Still one more avenue, observed already in Ben Sira and, later, in Hillel’s teaching, is indicated in Luke 6:37: Do not judge others lest you be judged sternly (by God) (cf. Matt 6:12, 14–15; Luke 11:4). These two arguments seem to presuppose both basic human solidarity and hope for reforming the opponent. As we have seen, this kind of variety of arguments, having

58

For a discussion of possible avenues of exegetical developments leading from the Holiness Code command “You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:2) to the SM/SP command “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48) or “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36); see L. Sabourin, ‘Why God Is Called “Perfect” in Matt 5:48’, Biblische Zeitschrift 24 (1938/1939), 266–268.

60

chapter two

accumulative effect, also characterizes some other texts (e.g., Ep. Arist., T. Benj.) discussed in the rst part of this chapter. One may say that both tendencies—to emphasize basic human solidarity in weakness on the one hand and to speak of God’s benevolence toward humanity on the other—feature prominently in early Jewish exegetical thinking with regard to Leviticus 19:18. The relevance of these tendencies for understanding the New Testament love-your-enemy command has been once again highlighted by David Flusser. According to Flusser, the emphasis should be on Matthew 5:45, with its picture of a blessed rain sent benevolently by God to all the inhabitants of the earth.59 However, the plurality of arguments put forward in the Gospels may indicate insufciency—from the point of view of Jesus? the compiler? the redactor?—of any one of the arguments taken alone. The argument from God’s example would seemingly work better on a powerful ruler (as in Ep. Arist.) than on a persecuted minority.60 On the other hand, the arguments of basic human solidarity or hope for the opponents’ repentance cannot be readily applied when the opponents in question are not simply “sinners” but persecutors, “hard-core” enemies. Thus the arguments of God’s benevolent example and of human solidarity, even combined, cannot fully account for the dramatic exegetical development attested in the SM/SP tradition. It will be suggested that as far as the multifaceted background of the New Testament love-your-enemy command is concerned there is in fact at least one more exegetical factor to be considered, a factor that up to now has not received sufcient attention in the research. Let us go back to an already mentioned feature of the exegetical elaboration on Leviticus 19:18 found in the Sermon—namely, the sharp distinction made between the morals of “sinners, tax-collectors and Gentiles” (Matt 5:46–47; Luke 6:33) and the religious imperative addressed to the true followers of Jesus. Both similarity to and difference from an attitude attested in the Ep. Arist. were duly emphasized above. Further comparison between the SM and SP versions shows that in contradistinction to the Ep. Arist., where the gap in wisdom between the king and the simple folk was the issue, what distinguishes

59

Flusser, Jesus, 81–92. For an updated discussion of the SM/SP Sitz im Leben see Klassen, ‘Authenticity of the Command’, 385–407. 60

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

61

the two categories of persons in the New Testament is, inter alia, their understanding of just reward. In fact, “reward” (8  ) is the key term here: “For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors (further: the Gentiles) do the same?” (Matt 5:46). Those belonging to the negative category are alternatively branded as “Gentiles” (Matt 5:47: , B, D and Z) or “sinners” (Luke 6:32–34).61 It seems that the line of reasoning attested in Matthew 5:46 stands for an independent argument, one that is not connected to the argument of God’s benevolence. Let us notice that this demand to forsake the considerations of immediate reward strongly resembles that of an early 2nd century b c e sage Antigonos of Sokho. A saying, attributed to him in the Mishnah, runs as following: “Be not like servants who serve the master on condition of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve the master not on condition of receiving a reward. And let the awe of God be upon you” (m. Abot 1:3). One is not supposed to be like those (in the Gospels, sinners, Gentiles, tax collectors; in the Mishnah, “unworthy servants”) whose attitude and behavior are conditioned by expectations of immediate (earthly?) reward. In the case of m. Abot, however, the attitude toward God was the issue; in the SM/SP it is the attitude toward other men. It is worth noting that at least according to the Pharisaic understanding of Antigonos’ maxim, a better reward awaits later those who are ready to serve God unconditionally on this earth.62 In like fashion those who are ready to forget considerations of reward/reciprocity in their dealings with their fellow men are encouraged by the SM/SP that a better reward (  ) is in store for them (Matt 5:12, 46–47; Luke 6:32–35, esp. 6:35).63 The appearance of parallel demands to forsake considerations of reward—on the one hand from God, on the other from fellow men— might have been nourished, inter alia, by the tradition that had brought together two love commandments: Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. It has been suggested that the double love command pattern was

61 For a discussion of the SM/SP particular choice of negative examples here, see, e.g., Betz, Commentary, 319. 62 See, e.g., Abot R. Nat. 5, 1. The same idea, without reference to the saying of Antigonos, seems to be present in Abot R. Nat. 10, 1–2. 63 For a discussion on the “better reward” and, especially, on substituting 9 (Luke 6:33–34) for  (Matt 5:46) see E. M. Sidebottom, ‘ “Reward” in Matthew 5, v. 46, etc.’, Expository Times 67 (1955–1956), 219–220.

62

chapter two

a characteristic of the new religious sensitivity that took hold of certain trends in Judaism in the last centuries of the Second Temple period, as indicated by the Jewish composition “The Two Ways” incorporated into the Didache, as well as T. Dan. 5:3, T. Iss. 5:2, 7:6; cf. T. Zeb. 5:1 and Jub. 36:7f.64 In the following chapter, I srengthen this appraisal, showing that this pattern of thought also found its way into the Qumran community. Of course, the Synoptic gospels are among the important witnesses to that tendency (Matt 22:34–40; Mark 12:28–34; Luke 10:25–38).65 Whereas in its early phase, reected in the mishnaic saying attributed to Antigonos and in Jub. 36:7, no such distinction had been attested, from now on a differentiation was made between serving God out of awe (fear of just punishment) and serving God out of love for love’s own sake, irrespective of any considerations of reward-punishment. In the talmudic evidence, it is Abraham who characteristically features as a true Pharisee of love ( y. Ber 9,5 [14b]).66 However, man is an image of God, so within that new approach, collated with the double love command notion, man’s attitude toward fellow human beings is supposed to reect/mirror/bear witness to his attitude toward God. All this strengthens the suggestion that this kind of double love command pattern of thought, recorded elsewhere in the Gospels and seemingly part of the teaching of the historical Jesus, might have been also somehow present in the SM/SP tradition under discussion. If the suggestion is basically correct, an additional motif may be at work in the Sermon. As one is to be ready to relate to God without any expectations of reward or good treatment by God, this attitude is supposed to be mirrored in one’s relations with other men; one is thus admonished to love them irrespective of their attitude.67 Let me emphasize that “irrespective of their attitude” is an understatement here. Combined with the denial of vengeance (“an eye for an eye”) and the call to turn the other cheek, the solution in the

64

See Flusser, Jesus, 89–90. For a discussion on the authenticity of the commandment see, e.g., R. H. Fuller, ‘The Double Commandment of Love: A Test Case for the Criteria of Authenticity’, in: Essays on the Love Commandment, 41–56. 66 See Flusser, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 474. 67 Or, maybe, pray for those who hurt you, personally; see t. B. Qam. 9, 29–30; y. B. Qam. 9,4 [6d]. It is worth noting that biblical examples usually cited as precedents speak either of enemies who have repented (Gen 20:17), or of friends who have hurt you only by a lack of real empathy ( Job 42:10). 65

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

63

Sermon may mean readiness for martyrdom.68 If God is presented as benevolent also to the evil ones—which in our context means to persecutors/enemies—he might be perceived as backing, at least to some extent (for the time being?), the deeds of those enemies. We have seen that this motif, expressed forcefully in Qumran, is attested also elsewhere, including the Bible itself, where on certain occasions God is said to have “become like an enemy” (Lam 2:5). Thus the existence of the double love command pattern of thought gives new life to the old—and persistent—biblical tendency to see enemies as agents of God, those who in fact carry out punishment ordained by the Lord.69 In the context of the SM/SP, however, it is not so much professing one’s sins and readiness for the teshuvah that is required, but rather loving acceptance of the predicament, which seems here to be (positively) transferred from God to his human agents.70 The idea of the death of martyrs as a means of either their own self-purication or atonement for sins of the people/members of the chosen community is found already in Pseudepigrapha, 2 Maccabees and Qumran.71 Here, however, we are dealing with a development in a different direction: the perception of God as one who brings suffering, and eventually even death, on someone not as a punishment but as a test of the person’s ability to go on loving his Creator even at those awful moments. It is well attested in early rabbinic literature, so m. Ber. 9:5 (paralleled in Sifre Deut. 32) reads: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might . . . With all your soul—even if he should take your soul (life)”. A further, more developed, evidence referring to the Song of Songs is found in Mekhilta R. Ishmael on Exod 15 (the Song on the Sea): “This is my God and I will beautify him” (Exod 15:2). Rabbi Aqiva says: Before all the nations of the world I shall hold forth on the beauties and splendor of him who spoke and the world came to be. For, lo, the

Cf. Matt 5:11–12/Luke 6:22–23 ( :' ;  !  ! ). See Betz, Commentary, 323–325 and note 17 above. 69 The example of 2 Maccabees 7 may also be added. See discussion in Chapter 7. 70 The situation inevitably raises the problem of theodicy; and the Lord’s Prayer— Matt 6:13 (= Luke 11:4): “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”—seems to address this very issue. 71 See D. Flusser, ‘Sanctifying God’s Name in Second Temple Judaism and in Earliest Christianity’, in: Holy War and Martyrology in the History of Israel and the Nations of the World, Jerusalem 1968, 61–71 (in Hebrew). This idea is discussed at length in Chapter 7. 68

64

chapter two nations of the world keep asking Israel, “What is thy beloved more than another beloved, O most beautiful of women?” (Cant 5:9), that for his sake you die, for his sake you are slain, as it is said, We have loved you unto death (ad mwt), “for thus do the maidens (almwt) love Thee” (Cant 1:3)—and it is said, “for Your sake we have been killed all the day” (Ps 44:23). You are beautiful, you are heroes, come merge with us! But Israel reply to the nations of the world: Do you know him? Let us tell you a little of his glory . . . And when the nations of the world hear all his praise, they say to Israel, Let us go along with you, as it is said . . . (Cant 6:1). But Israel reply . . . :You have no part of him . . . “My beloved is mine, and I am his . . . He feedeth among the lilies (Cant 2:16; 6:3)”.72

A passage from the Palestinian Talmud dealing explicitly with Deuteronomy 6:5 should also be adduced: R. Aqiva was judged before the wicked Tunius Rufus (Tunus Trufus). The time for the reading of “hear O Israel” arrived. Aqiva began to recite and smile . . . “But all my life I have read the verse, ‘And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all your might.’ I have loved him with all my heart, and I have loved him with all my property (sic!), but until now, I did not know how to love him with all my soul. But now that the opportunity of [loving Him] with all my soul has come to me, and it is the time of the recital of ‘Hear O Israel’, and I was not deterred from it; therefore I recite, and therefore I smile.” ( y. Ber. 9,5 [14b]).

In the Babylonian parallel (b. Ber. 61b, Oxford Opp. Add. Folio 23) the motif of the true knowledge of God is lacking, and Daniel Boyarin suggested that this may reect a later stage of the tradition.73 Boyarin also argued that at some point in the history of this tradition an important development may be discerned: death is now conceived of as an ultimate religious fulllment and not just as a matter of preference in circumstances that leave no other acceptable choice, as, for example, in 2 Maccabees 7. In contradistinction to the former saints/martyrs, R. Aqiva and others executed by Tunius Rufus are said to “have loved God more” with reference to Songs of Songs 3:3 that speaks of “love of the soul”.74 72

Be-shalah, P. 3, p. 127 in Horovitz’s edition. Cf. Zech 8:20–23. D. Boyarin, Dying for God; Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism, Stanford 1999, 105–109. 74 See E. E. Urbach, ‘The Homiletical Interpretation of Canticles’, Scripta hierosolymitana 22 (1971), 251. Another midrashic development may be discerned in the rabbinic sources quoted above: from the enemies/Gentiles who kill to enemies/Gentiles who ask questions and want to join Israel. Or the other way around? Do we have here two competing reections? It deserves notice that whereas In Zech 8:20–23 the plea of Gentiles is accepted, in the Mekhilta it is rejected. 73

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

65

The transition here is from death that is inevitable to death that is the highest and the truest of spiritual experiences. According to Boyarin, this transformation in the attitude toward violent death at God’s hands was accompanied by introducing into martyrology narratives metaphors with intensive erotic avor;75 hence, it is only natural that references to the Song of Songs feature so prominently in the relevant rabbinic texts. When this transformation rst occurred remains a debated issue: while Boyarin sees it in the context of the competition with emerging Christianity, Flusser is of the opinion that the readiness to joyfully accept violent death became an important idea already among the covenanters of Qumran.76 With regard to the said rabbinic sources and Boyarin’s conclusions, I would like to add two remarks that bear on our discussion. First, R. Aqiva’s most memorable dictum on the issue is presented not only in m. Ber. 9:5, quoted above, but also in Sifre Deut. 32 as an exegesis on the love commandment from Deuteronomy 6:5, not on the Song of Songs: “And thou shalt love the Lord with all thy soul: [ This means] even when He takes your soul (life), and so it says, ‘For your sake we have been killed all the day’ (Ps 44:23)”.77 In other words, go on loving God even (especially?) when he takes your life, i.e., acts as an enemy! Second, although in all relevant cases the death and the suffering are presented as inicted by God, there is always a human agent—be it the “nations of the world” generally speaking, the “wicked kingdom” or the wicked Tunius Rufus—an enemy who provides for the violent character of the death. It is, however, clear for both the victim and the persecutors that the death is, in a deeper sense, by the hand of God and for God’s sake; it is God who leads us unto death.78 Thus in the passage from Mek. R. Ishmael on Exod 15 referred to above, Israel is said to have proclaimed “For your sake we have been killed all the day” with reference to Psalms 44:23, while the nations of the world repeat basically the same statement (again, with regard to the fate of Israel) but this time with the reference to the Song of Songs 1:3.

75

Boyarin, Dying for God, 109–110. Flusser, ‘Sanctifying God’s Name’ (note 71 above). 77 See also Sifre Zuta ad locum (M. I. Kahana, Sifre Zuta on Deuteronomy; Citations from a New Tannaitic Midrash, Jerusalem 2002, 147–148. 78 For a discussion of the transformation of almwt (maidens that “love you”, Cant 1:3) into al mwt (“unto death”, Ps 48:15), see Boyarin, Dying for God, 109–111. As he remarks there, “The transformation is itself a representation of the question directed at God in other texts as well: If you love us so much, why do you kill us?” 76

66

chapter two

The presence of two parallel “channels of enmity” directed at the sufferer later nds forceful expression in the Song of Songs Rabbah. The context there is clearly that of persecution: God who torments and the enemies (the nations of the world) who torment stand side by side, but it seems that the love of the sufferer is due only to God (Song Rab. on Cant 2:5): “For I am sick with love (holat ahava)” (Cant 2:5). Said the Congregation of Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the world, all of the sorrows (holaim) which you bring upon me are so to make me love you more (leahaveni lakh).79 Another interpretation of the phrase, “for I am sick with love” (ibid.) would be: said the Congregation of Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He: Lord of the world, all of the sorrows that the nations of the world bring upon me are so to make me love you more (or: because I love you).

The dating of either this particular passage or the Song Rab. as a whole is not an easy task.80 To be on the safe side, we may see it as a later development of a theme attested already in the early tannaitic period. The attitude expected from the martyr toward God is one of love. Moreover, the suffering is supposed not to kill the love but to increase it, bring it to its true fulllment. Of course, one should not suppose that this was a routine or obvious reaction to torments. A common     understanding of the nature of Job’s wife’s advice in Job 2:9 (  ) that has found its way into the Revised Standard Version gives an indication to the contrary: “Curse God, and die” (cf. LXX: +  <= + [A:  ] )  )(  ). We have seen above that in the tannaitic tradition recorded in Mek. R. Ishmael on the Song on the Sea it was the outsiders, the “nations of the world” that had difculty in apprehending Israel’s capability to love his God—instead of hating him?—in time of suffering and martyrdom. I nd it intriguing that in the same Song Rab., in the vicinity of the midrash just quoted, it is narrated that there are some people—this time, however, they are not Gentiles, but unenlightened insiders—who turn love into enmity:

79 J. Neusner (Song of Songs Rabbah: An Analytical Translation, Atlanta 1989, 163) chooses another translation, “to make me more beloved to you”. However, the understanding suggested above is more plausible vis-à-vis the immediate context. 80 It seems to be a more or less established consensus that the Song of Songs Rabbah existed already in the sixth century. See M. D. Herr, ‘Midrash’, Encyclopaedia Judaica, 11:1511. See also Neusner, Song Rabbah, x. The particular tradition discussed here does not appear in the Song of Songs Zuta.

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

67

Said R. Aha, “An ignorant person (am ha-arez) substitutes enmity for love, saying, for instance: You shall be at enmity ( ) [with the Lord your God] instead of: You shall love ( ) [the Lord your God]”.81

The argument of the midrash may be summarized as follows. The enemies, the nations—and maybe, in a sense, God himself—bring upon man persecutions and death. Yet one should love the Lord his God and not be like those common folk (a homage to Ep. Arist.) who say, “. . . ” (wa-ayavta) instead of “. . . ” (wa-ahavta)—those who under duress feel enmity toward God instead of love. Conclusion It has been observed that the plurality of Leviticus 19:18 exegeses found in early Jewish tradition characterizes also the New Testament. Only some of the exegetical expositions of Leviticus 19:18 there are of the love-your-enemy type. As the reections on the love command in the New Testament are usually connected neither with Jesus’ death and resurrection nor with the messianic theme in general, this diversity of exegetical suggestions seems to bear witness not so much to the complex history of the early Christian tradition as to the plurality of more general exegetical developments in Second Temple Judaism. The discussion in this chapter focused mainly on the tradition of the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain, more specically, on the exegetical attempts to widen the scope of Leviticus 19:18 to include also enemies. Some other important exegetical characteristics, as, for example, preference for a positive formulation of the “love commandment” (as opposed to a negative formulation attested in a number of early Jewish sources) remained beyond the scope of this investigation. The two versions, that of the Sermon on the Mount and that of the Sermon on the Plain, were compared; it was shown that the version of Luke contains some important exegetical elements missing in Matthew. It was noted that several different, not necessarily harmonized, reasons—backed by different exegetical moves—are explored in the Sermon for the love-your-enemy command. So the diversity of exegetical

81

This juxtaposition, seemingly suggested by the similarity in Hebrew of the two verbs, might already have been intended somewhere in the Bible, e.g., Judg 5:31; 1 Sam 18:1–5 and 29; Lam 1:2. See Betz, Commentary, 305, n. 829.

68

chapter two

solutions mentioned above characterizes not only the New Testament in general but even the particular tradition attested in the Sermon. It was observed that the Sermon shares this plurality of argument with other texts, such as Ep. Arist., that try to promulgate the “unnatural” widening of the scope of Leviticus 19:18 to include enemies. I have tried to show that in addition to the motifs highlighted by previous research (e.g., God’s benevolence and human solidarity in weakness and sin), a further exegetical undercurrent may be discerned here, an undercurrent hinted at by the key term 8  and the reward motif this term designates. This undercurrent seems to be intrinsically connected, on the one hand, with the imperative to love God unconditionally and, on the other, with the double love command pattern of thought. Just as one is supposed not to expect earthly reward from God but to love him unconditionally, yet in awareness of the promise of a greater reward, so one is supposed to behave accordingly in one’s relations with other people. According to some early rabbinic sources the love for God may be called true love only if it survives torments and death at the hands of God. Descriptions of violent death at the hands of God in those sources always include a human agent—an enemy, a persecutor. This human agent features prominently in the SM/SP tradition, which also shares, both with the rabbinic sources and with the Ep. Arist., the feeling that this elevated kind of love differs greatly from “common sensical” understanding. It is worth noting that in the context of the SM/SP, persecution seems to be conned to insults, loss of property and physical harm, but stops short of violent death. This fact may strengthen the opinion that the enemies of the Sermon belong to a narrower milieu, one that does not necessarily include Gentile persecutors. This ts the general trend in the Leviticus 19:18 exegesis: as we have seen, in most Second Temple period traditions centered on human solidarity in weakness, on the one hand, and God’s benevolence, on the other, the counterpart of human interaction, the neighbor—even the sinner toward whom we are admonished to show charity—is not an outsider, not a member of different ethnic entity. The only clear exception here is the Epistle of Aristeas, but it is really a special case: Leviticus 19:18 is addressed here to a foreigner and a king who by the nature of his ofce has to deal with external political foes.82

82

For a discussion of the social setting of the love-your-enemy precept, see

from “love your neighbor” to “love your enemy”

69

However, as Jesus’ tragic end was very much on the mind of the authors/editors of the Gospel, Gentile persecutors might have been also somehow present in the picture. But even if the Gentiles are “in the picture” here, they are not introduced in opposition to the “reactionary Jewish particularism”:83 the universalism-versus-particularism problem, addressed in the exegesis of Leviticus 19:18 elsewhere in the Gospels (see, for example Luke 10:25–38) does not seem to be an issue here.84 On the other hand, the Synoptics express unequivocally the belief that the death of Jesus is willed by God (see esp. Matt 26:36–39; Mk 14:32–36; Luke 22:39–42; cf. Rom 8:3, 32, etc.). It may be suggested, therefore, that the exegetical elaboration of Leviticus 19:18 in the SM/ SP bears witness to a peculiar early development within a tendency, a different offshoot of which is later attested in rabbinic martyrdom texts: in the Sermon the demand to show unconditional love toward God is transferred—in accordance with the double love command pattern of thought and the imperative to forsake considerations of reward—from God to the human agent of enmity. If one’s attitude toward a fellow man is supposed to bear witness to/mirror his attitude toward God, then one should love his persecutor and pray for him. The love-your-enemy command in the SM/SP might have denitely reected Jesus’ outstanding personality, and it was undoubtedly crucial for the formation of Christian religious outlook. Later developments resulted in a fully articulated Christian exegesis of Leviticus 19:18 in light of Matthew 5:43–48/Luke 6:27–36, with its newly developing and different perceptions of whom one sees as his/her enemies. The investigation in this chapter, however, centered on the command as a part of and a witness to internal developments in early Jewish exegesis, not on its role as a starting point for a new way of thinking informed by the belief in Jesus the Messiah. This approach seems justied,

A. Milavec, ‘The Social Setting of “Turning the Other Cheek” and “Loving One’s Enemies” in Light of the Didache’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 25 (1995), 131–143. 83 As suggested e.g., by Luz (Matthew 1–7, 344). See also B. Bowman Thurston, ‘Expository Articles: Matthew 5:43–48’, Interpretation 41 (1987), 170–173. 84 For a different opinion, see Davies-Allison, Matthew, I, 550. Du Plessis (‘Love and Perfection in Matt. 5:43–48’, in: The Sermon on the Mount: Essays on Matthew 5–7, Neotestamentica 1 [1967], 28–34) leaves all options open: “Jesus refers not only to enemies of the people but also to adverse national relations and in conclusion, and perhaps more, to personal enemies”.

70

chapter two

inter alia, in light of the observation already made that the instances of exegesis of Leviticus 19:18 in the SM/SP, as elsewhere in the New Testament, are never presented as conditioned by or connected with the messianic kerygma.

CHAPTER THREE

THE DOUBLE LOVE PRECEPT: BETWEEN PHARISEES, JESUS AND QUMRAN COVENANTERS Introduction Alongside sayings that determine the importance of the ever-expanding system of commandments as a whole,1 tannaitic sources also document traditions exemplifying an opposite or complementary trend. This converse trend can be discerned in attempts at formulating a concise set of principles that represent the whole Torah. Thus in Sifra Qedoshim (2.4, cf. Gen. R. 24), Rabbi Aqiva is the one who determines that Leviticus 19:18 is    (“the core/great[est] precept in the Torah”). In the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sabb. 31a), it is Hillel who claims that

,                    (“the following is the summary of the whole Torah: what is

hateful to you do not do to your neighbor/friend. The rest is nothing but commentary, go and study it”).2 Assigning the tradition to Hillel—that is, already within the Second Temple period—is supported by early textual witnesses, e.g., ones from Pseudepigrapha and Didache (discussed below). As the rest of the passage in Sifra Qedoshim attests, Ben Azai contests the words of Rabbi Aqiva, which suggests that Leviticus 19:18 was not the only candidate for the role of the central precept in the Torah. Moreover, the tradition was not necessarily referring to only one core precept.3 It is not inconceivable that this tendency, of which statements dening the second half of Leviticus 19:8, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself ”, as the core precept in the Torah are excellent examples, was a result of the inuence of certain philosophical trends in the Roman-Hellenistic world at that time.4 Even so, it would seem that this trend had already taken root and been internalized in Jewish religious 1

See m. Abot 2:1; m. Mak. 3:15. Cf. Abot R. Nat. version B, 27 (Schechter ed., 53), where the same sentence is put in the mouth of Rabbi Aqiva. 3 A later echo of arguments on the subject can be heard in b. Mak. 23b–24a. 4 On such patterns of thought in the Hellenistic-philosophic culture including those internalized by Philo, see M. E. Boring, K. Berger and C. Colpe (eds.), Hellenistic Commentary on the New Testament, Nashville 1995, 128–129. 2

72

chapter three

discourse by late Second Temple times, which is evident in the fact that the discussion of principles of behavior and faith is formulated there as exegesis of Israel’s canonical texts. The debate on the question “What is the core commandment in the Torah?” related with certain variations in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 22:34–40, Mark 12:28–34, Luke 10:25–28),5 has been examined in research in this context. This debate, already touched on in Chapter 2, will now become the focus of our investigation. Here are the three Gospel versions in English translation (Revised Standard Version); discussion of the relevant textual variants in the Greek text follows immediately: Matt 22:34–40 34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law (Torah)?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all you mind. 38 This is the great and rst commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law (Torah) and the prophets”.

Mark 12:28–34 28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the rst of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The rst is,— Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this,—You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these”. 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he; 33 and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrices”. 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God”.

Luke 10:25–28 25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself ”. 28 And he said to him, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live”.

5 For discussion of the relationship between the three synoptic versions, and of the process of their crystallization, see V. P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testa-

the double love precept

73

The Gospels give a double answer to the question “What is the greatest commandment in the Torah?”:6 the love of God with all one’s heart and with all one’s soul and with all one’s mind (and/or strength) (Deut 6:5), and the love of one’s neighbor (Lev 19:18), are the two precepts upon which the whole system of religious conduct should be based. This coupling of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 is the identifying feature of the tradition related here in the Gospels. Also signicant are the textual variants in the Gospel manuscripts that characterize the rst half of the answer referring to Deuteronomy 6:5. These variants oscillate between a three-part formulation found in most manuscripts of Matthew and in several manuscripts of Mark (                /   = with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind/strength), which corresponds to the biblical version of Deuteronomy 6:5 as well as its targumic paraphrases and a four-part formulation (   []             !        = with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind), which occurs in several manuscripts of Matthew, in most manuscripts of Mark, and in all the manuscripts of Luke.7 Textual variation also exists in the denition of the third component of the Deuteronomy 6:5 commandment (" = mind or ! = strength) as well as the order of the components. Yet the rst—Deuteronomy 6:5-centered—part of the answer to the question “What is the great(est) commandment in the Torah?” (“What is the core precept/principle in the Torah?”)8 remains limited to the programmatic declaration, without any further elaboration. In no variant, then, does the four-part formulation have any function in the narrative of the Gospel.9

ment, Nashville 1972, 30 n. 18, 34–45, 59–60 and 70 –90; A. J. Hultgren, ‘The Double Commandment of Love in Mt 22:34 – 40: Its Sources and Composition’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974), 373–378; F. Meirynck, ‘Luke 10:25–28: A Foreign Body in Luke?’ in: S. E. Porter, P. Joyce and D. E. Orton (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries; Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of M. D. Goulder, Leiden 1994, 149–165; J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible; The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, Leuven 2004, 215–218. One of the instructive distinctions Hultgren makes is between the “conict story” of Matthew and the “didactic dialogue” story of Mark. 6 Both the RSV and NRSV consistently use law for  (Torah). 7 K. Aland, Synopsis, 248–249. 8 For reading  in Matt 22:36 as “core precept/principle” ( ) instead of “commandment” () see note 45 below and the discussion there. 9 Contrary to a number of other citations, also notably diverging from the biblical original, that clearly come from the Gospel compiler, this one is put in the mouth of

74

chapter three

As noted in the Introduction, the basic presupposition of this book is that—at least in some cases—the compilers of the Gospel and other New Testament traditions used the biblical text in accordance with the characteristic hermeneutical style of late Second Temple literature. In other words, they referred not only to the biblical text itself but also (rather?) to the midrashic interpretation that enveloped the text, at times even without making any clear distinction between the two.10 The expression “the school of Matthew” that Krister Stendahl coined many years ago concerning the First Gospel’s treatment of the biblical text seeks to dene, among other things, the phenomena of applying hermeneutical techniques and the dependence on existing interpretations.11 In light of this understanding, which has inltrated scholarship in the last decades, a readiness has emerged to examine citations of the Scripture in the Gospels at their points of diversion from the Bible, not only against the Hebrew and Septuagint versions but also against the exegetical traditions connected to the cited verses. Such traditions are attested, inter alia, in the Aramaic Targums of the Bible, and the targumic traditions have been systematically examined both by Stendahl and by those who follow his lead.12 It is in accordance with this approach that the basic characteristics of the three Synoptic versions of the section dealing with the great(est) commandment in the Torah will be discussed below, and several suggestions with regard to their hermeneutical nature will be made. Among other topics, the Jewish hermeneutical context in which the coupling of the verses Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 could occur will be outlined.13

Jesus himself. This may be one of the reasons this saying is so authoritative that even the Old Syriac Gospels, excelling in their sensitivity to what seemed to be divergent in the Old Testament quotations in their Greek source from the biblical (Peshitta) form, and in most cases attempting to correct the text to t the Peshitta, in this instance remained faithful to the Greek Gospel. See S. Ruzer, ‘Biblical Quotations in the Old Syriac Gospels: Peshitta Inuence and Hermeneutical Constraints,’ Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1996, 68–74 (in Hebrew). 10 See also J. W. Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, Assen 1954; and, especially, A. T. Hanson, The Living Utterances of God; The New Testament Interpretation of Scripture, London 1980, 3–4. 11 See Introduction, note 6. 12 Ibid. See also the discussion in Chapter 1. 13 See also S. Ruzer, ‘The Double Love Precept in the New Testament and the Community Rule’, Tarbiz 71 (2002), 353–370 (in Hebrew) [an English version appeared in Jesus’ Last Week, 81–106].

the double love precept

75

This endeavor of trying to outline the Jewish hermeneutical context is justied, given the existence of a general exegetic tendency in Second Temple Judaism that emphasized the “. . . ” (“And you shall love . . .”) commandments (hereafter: love commands),14 and because there are at least two internal indications in the Gospels themselves that the answer to the inquiry on the great(est) Torah precept constitutes a point of agreement, or overlap, between Jesus and his Jewish environment: 1. While, according to Matthew, the question is put to Jesus, who then delivers the answer, in Luke it is Jesus who asks the question, while the reply, consisting of the four-part expansion of Deuteronomy 6:5, is given by a sage/expert in the Law ( ). In contradistinction to this, Mark’s rendition may be seen as a mixed one. The question is asked of Jesus, who answers it using the four-part expansion of Deuteronomy 6:5. Then the scribe (# $%!) who was talking to him repeats the answer in agreement, only omitting the fourth component containing " (knowledge, recognition). The use of the term “law” (Torah) in this context (law and the prophets in Matthew) conveys the Gospel-writers purport of imbuing the conversation with the sense of a discussion between the sages (Torah experts) and emphasizing Jesus’ expertise in the Torah-centered discourse.15 2. In Matthew and Mark, the passage is inserted in the Gospel narrative immediately following the disputation between Jesus and the Sadducees on the resurrection of the dead. There Jesus argues a position presented as identical to that of the Pharisees, which he backs by means of an obviously exegetical reference, all of which is portrayed as being well accepted by the Pharisees.

14

See Flusser, Jesus, 81–92; idem, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 469–489. See also the discussion in Chapter 2 and below. 15 See O. S. Brooks, ‘The Function of the Double Command in Matthew 22:34–40’, AUSS 36 (1998), 7–22, esp. 8, 15–17; cf. J. B. Stern, ‘Jesus’ Citation of Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 in the Light of Jewish Tradition’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966), 312–316. Jesus’ faithfulness to the Torah and his expertise in rabbinic debate will be greatly emphasized further on, in a different socio-cultural context in Judeo-Christian circles. See S. Pines, ‘The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source’, in: The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines, 4 vols., Jerusalem 1996, 4: 211–284.

76

chapter three

The search for the Jewish hermeneutical setting will focus, inter alia, on the opening paragraphs of the Community Rule from Qumran, which, as far as I am aware, have not yet been dealt with in this context. While some recent studies have discussed the possible connection between the Rule and the various socio-cultural patterns of the Hellenistic world,16 it is permissible to say that the relationship between the Hellenistic world and the traditions attested in the Gospels, including the traditions examined in this chapter, has received the most attention in scholarship.17 This direction of research is undoubtedly important; however, it does not pertain to our current interest, which is rather the internal exegetical aspect—namely, biblical interpretations used in support of religious positions, within the Community Rule on the one hand, and in the Gospels on the other. This discussion will thus center on the common exegetical features of both traditions, which, of course, may reect the process of internalization of the general cultural standards by Jewish sects who perceived those standards as derived from the “Torah and the prophets”. The forms of the Deuteronomy 6:5 precept in the New Testament within early Jewish exegesis The following two characteristic features of the Synoptic citations of Deuteronomy 6:5 have been noted above: 1) the appearance of " as the third component of the Deuteronomy 6:5 love command, and 2) the appearance of a four-part formulation instead of the three-part version attested in the Bible. We have seen that these peculiarities are partially documented in manuscripts of all three Synoptic Gospels. The use of " here seemingly constitutes a noticeable departure from both the Masoretic text (     '  

16 As, for instance, utopian thought: D. Mendels, ‘Hellenistic Utopia and the Essenes’, Shenaton; An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 4 (1980), 226–238 (in Hebrew); voluntary religious associations: M. Klinghart, ‘The Manual of Discipline in the Light of Statutes of Hellenistic Associations’, in: M. O. Wise et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York 1994, 251–267; social ‘networks’ of friendships: W. O. McCreary, ‘Friendship and Second Temple Jewish Sectarianism’, in: G. Wilson and M. Desarding (eds.), Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity; Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson, Waterloo 2000, 402–421. See also J. Taylor, Pythagoreans and Essenes; Structural Parallels, Leiden 2004. 17 Concerning the pericope under discussion see for example, Davies-Allison, Matthew, 3:241.

the double love precept

77

      ) and the Septuagint that translates  here

!, namely, strength or might. Several solutions have been suggested in research. Davies and Allison attempted to explain the occurrence of the three-part formulation in Matthew— (heart),  (soul ), " (mind )—as a reference to the three internal components of a human personality, a kind of anthropological tripartite division.18 The drawback of this explanation is that it makes no reference whatsoever to the (exegetical) link to Deuteronomy 6:5. The Gospel saying is presented in this reading as an expression of general religious wisdom that is not obliged, even supercially, to be backed by biblical exegesis. Another explanation is based on the Septuagintal version of Deuteronomy 6:5: while  (“very”?) is rendered there ! (B: !) and not ", " (as thought) does appear as a translation for the rst component of the Deuteronomy 6:5 love precept,   , with the biblical meaning of thoughts of the heart.19 Thus, according to this explanation, the passage is formulated after a septuagintal biblical version to which the compiler of the Gospel tradition had access. It is also possible to claim that the appearance of " at the end of the three-part formulation in Matthew is actually a repetition of  ()—that is, the reference here is not necessarily to Deuteronomy 6:5 but rather to such verses as Deuteronomy 10:12, 30:10, where the love command consists of only two constituents ('          ). Yet even if dependence on the Septuagint could explain the appearance of ", it fails to explain the four-part structure—,  , !, "—attested in Mark and Luke.20 It is difcult to be satised with the at ruling of Joseph Fitzmyer, who states without any further discussion, that this four-part text form is derived from Deuteronomy 6:5, saying that the commandment “insisted on the absolute love of the Lord in a total personal response; the three (or four) [sic!] faculties (heart, soul, might [and mind]) were meant to sum up the totality of undivided dedication to him”.21

18

Ibid. This, apparently, is Stendahl’s opinion. See Stendahl, The School of Matthew, 76. 20 Cf. Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 217. 21 J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Garden City 1985, 878. Cf. R. J. Karris, ‘The Gospel According to Luke’, in: R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Herndon, Va. 1997, 702. 19

78

chapter three

In my opinion, these explanations do not deal adequately with the passage, as they do not explore the possibility that what in fact underlies the four-part structure of the quotation in the Gospels is an existing midrashic elaboration of Deuteronomy 6:5. An attempt, then, should be made to describe this elaboration’s nature. This direction of investigation conforms to the assumption that the Gospel writers’ treatment of biblical materials was in fact conditioned by existing hermeneutical strategies. An interpretation of  in Deuteronomy 6:5 as “your wealth” or “possessions”, seems to have been already extant in the Second Temple period—it is this interpretation that is attested in targumic traditions, including Targum Neoti and the Peshitta. This interpretation of  likewise appears in tannaitic sources, such as Sifre Deut. 3222 and m. Ber. 9.5; in both instances it is collated with an alternative exegetical option, which is made explicit in the mishnaic passage: .            '   .             .           .                     .  And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. With all your heart—with both of your inclinations, with the good inclination and with the evil inclination. With all your soul—even if he should take your soul (life). With all your might—with all your wealth. Another reading, with all your might—with every measure that he has measured for you, be exceedingly grateful to him.

Possibly such an interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:5 underlies the description of the communal practices in the Jerusalem congregation of Jesus’ followers (Acts 4:32): “Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common”.23

22 See also Sifre Zuta, M. I. Kahana, Sifre Zuta on Deuteronomy; Citations from a New Tannaitic Midrash, Jerusalem 2002, 148. 23 For a discussion of this verse, see B. Gerhardsson, ‘Einige Bemerkungen zu Apg 4:32’, in: idem, The Shema in the New Testament, Lund 1996, 239–246.

the double love precept

79

Birger Gerhardsson tried to show that this type of exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:5 was embedded in several key passages in Matthew—for instance, in the descriptions of Jesus’ temptations by Satan.24 Gerhardsson also argued that this interpretation of the third component of the Deuteronomy 6:5 love command, as a request to appropriately manage one’s personal wealth (to demonstrate a readiness to share with others?), explains the carrying-over—in the Gospel discussion of the Torah’s greatest commandment—into the second love command from Leviticus 19:18, (“You shall love your neighbor as yourself ”);25 this issue will be addressed again later in the chapter. Gerhardsson’s thesis about the structure of the temptation narratives is surely worthy of attention; however, as regards the Synoptic pericope we are concerned with, his argumentation for tying " to  (goods, possessions) is not very convincing26—in contradistinction to Acts 4:32, the Gospels do not seem to employ an interpretation of  in Deuteronomy 6:5 as . So, similarly to the interpretation of Leviticus 19:18, which I have dealt with in Chapter 2, the New Testament’s treatment of Deuteronomy 6:5, is also characterized by its multiple usages and by the application of different interpretations. Gerhardsson, who, as noted, has detected signs of an interpretation of  in Deuteronomy 6:5 as  in key passages in Matthew, sees this as proof of the proximity of the Gospel to the world of the sages. What relation, if any, does this Matthean tendency have to the Qumranic exegesis? According to Gerhardsson, the material at our disposal is insufcient to determine with certainty how the members of the sect understood the biblical verse.27 Yet the communistic quality of the Jerusalem congregation in Acts 4, which seemingly, at least in part, depended upon an exegetical reading of   '             denitely recalls sociological-exegetical comparisons with the Community Rule where the procedure of entering the sect is described—including sharing of wealth. Can any exegetical references to the same Torah verse be discerned in the Rule?

24

Matt 4:1–10. See Gerhardsson, ‘The Temptation Narrative (M) and Deut 6:5’, in: The Shema, 16, n. 15. 25 See the discussion in Gerhardsson, ‘The Hermeneutic Program in Matthew 22:37–40’, in: The Shema, 202–223. 26 See also Davies-Allison, Matthew, 3:241. 27 Gerhardsson, ‘The Temptation Narrative’, 16, n. 15.

80

chapter three

Gerhardsson himself has noted one passage in the Rule (1QS 9:8–11, 22–25) as possibly containing echoes of an exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:5: 8 And the goods () of the men of holiness who walk in perfection. Their goods must not be mixed with the goods of the men of deceit who 9 have not cleansed their path to separate from injustice and walk in a perfect behaviour. They should not depart from any counsel of the law in order to walk 10 in complete ( ) stubbornness of their heart, but instead shall be ruled by the rst directives which the men of the Community began to be taught 11 until the prophet comes, and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. (. . .) 22 for the men of the pit in clandestine spirit. To them he should leave goods and hand-made items like a servant to his master and like one oppressed before 23 someone domineering him. He should be a man enthusiastic for the decree and for its time, for the day of revenge. He should perform (God’s) will in all ( ) that his hand should tackle 24 and in all (  ) that he controls, as he commanded. And all that happens to him he should welcome freely and be gratied by nothing except God’s will. 25 He should relish all the words of his mouth, wish for nothing that he has not commanded [and] be ever alert to the precept of God.

Gerhardsson gives here only a general referral, without any further elaboration. Yet, it is possible to speculate concerning his reasoning: the use of the phrase “the stubbornness of their heart” along with the repeated use of   (“in all that his hand”, “in all that he controls”, “all that happens to him”) suggests the possibility that embedded in 1QS 9 lies an interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:5. If we accept this suggestion, then line 8 (and, seemingly, also line 22) identies the subject of the wealth/goods among the subjects of the command, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”. However, what according to Gerhardsson constitutes here a common denominator with a Pharisaic hermeneutical pattern only highlights the difference between the hermeneutic of the sages and that of the Qumran community. In the Rule the emphasis is shifted from a willingness to share one’s personal possessions with others, to a refusal to accept either the “sons of darkness” or their possessions into the community of the redeemed.28 The situation may be characterized as 28 Another distinguishing mark of Qumranic interpretation may be pointed out here: it allows for the understanding that when the time comes—in the days of the Messiahs and the eschatological prophet—a different interpretation of the love precept will be possible (1QS 9:11).

the double love precept

81

follows: While the halakhic interpretation in 1QS differs from that of the sages (and, according to Gerhardsson, also of Matthew), it is still based on the same underlying exegetic position that understands  as . One can also observe that the passage from 1QS 9 provides no substantiation for Gerhardsson’s opinion that " in Matt 22:37 (cf. Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27) refers to a person’s internal stance that enables him to act justly with his personal possessions, being ready to give them up for the benet of another. Gerhardsson further noted two consecutive passages from the Thanksgiving Hymns where echoes of the interpretation of the Deuteronomy 6:5 can be discerned: (1): [] [ ]         

  [. . .] [. . .]            ] []       25 and you hate injustice, for ever [sic]. And myself, your servant, you have favoured me with the spirit of knowledge [to love tr]uth 26 [and justice,] and to loathe all the paths of injustice. I love you liberally, and with (my) whole heart [. . .] you 27 [. . .] your wisdom, because these things happen at your hand and without your ap[proval] nothing [exists]. (1QH 6:25–27)

(2):

         . . .      [    [  . . .       [   ] . . .   . 12 those who [ lo]ve you for all days and . . . 13 I love you lavishly, with (my) whole heart and with all (my) soul I have puried . . . 14 [ I have] imp[osed on myself not] to turn aside from all that you have commanded. . . . so as not] 15 to desert all your precepts. (1QH 7:12–15)

These passages exemplify an exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:5, where reference is made to only the rst two components of the command. It may be alternatively suggested that the exegesis refers to the two-component variant of the same biblical tradition recorded in Deuteronomy 10:12; 30:10. In any case, there is no trace of an identication of  as  ()—a fact that denitely sits well with the thematic nature of the Thanksgiving Hymns. It will be suggested below that apart from the texts noted by Gerhardsson, there are also clear allusions to Deuteronomy 6:5 in the opening paragraphs of 1QS that hence deserve special attention in relation to the discussion of the Gospel text-form of the Deuteronomy 6:5 citation.

82

chapter three The love commands in 1QS 1

The Community Rule was intended for the   (enlightened one)—that is, for the leaders of the community or, possibly, for all its members29— and outlined the rules of conduct for the community as well as the procedures for entering the covenant30 and/or for its yearly renewal.31 Hence the importance of the opening paragraphs of the scroll, which obviously have the programmatic character of a declaration of intentions:32 1 For [the Instructor ( )] [ book of the Rul]e of the Community (  ): in order to 2 seek God [with all (one’s) heart and with all (one’s) soul (      ); in order] to do what is good and just in his presence, as 3 commanded by means of the hand of Moses and his servants the Prophets (               ); in order to love everything 4 which he selects and to hate everything that he rejects (           ); in order to keep oneself at a distance from all evil, 5 and to become attached to all good works; to bring about truth, justice and uprightness (              ) 6 on earth and not to walk in the stubbornness of a guilty heart and of lecherous eyes 7 performing every evil; in order to welcome into the covenant of kindness (  ) all those who freely volunteer to carry out God’s decrees, 8 so as to be united in the counsel of God and walk in perfection in his sight, complying with all 9 revealed things concerning the regulated times

29 The vagueness of the meaning of the term   was pointed out in S. Metso, ‘In Search of the Sitz im Leben of the Community Rule’, in: D. W. Parry and E. Ulrich (eds.), The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Leiden 1999, 312 and n. 15 there. 30 See, for example, J. J. Collins, ‘Construction of Israel in the Sectarian Rule Books’, in: A. J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner and B. D. Chilton (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity vol. 1, Leiden 2001, 31. 31 See B. Nitzan, ‘The Benedictions from Qumran for the Annual Covenantal Ceremony’, in: L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery: 1947–1997, Jerusalem 2000, 263–264; M. Kister, ‘5Q13 and the Avodah: A Historical Survey and Its Signicance’, Dead Sea Discoveries 8,2 (2001), 136–148. On a possible connection to Hellenistic socio-cultural norms see above, n. 15, and the discussion there. 32 The issue of the different stages in the compilation of the scroll that supposedly reect different concepts and positions is not our objective here. For a review of the status quaestionis see, for instance, M. Blockmuehl, ‘Redaction and Ideology in the “Rule of the Community” ’, Revue de Qumran 18 (1998), 541–560; E. Puech, ‘On S. Metso, “The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule” ’, Revue de Qumran 18 (1998), 448–453.

the double love precept

83

of their stipulations; in order to love all the sons of light, each one 10 according to his lot in God’s plan, and to detest all the sons of darkness, each one in accordance with his blame (                  ) 11 in God’s vindication. All those who submit freely to his truth will convey all their knowledge, their energies, 12 and their riches to the Community of God (               ) in order to rene their knowledge in the truth of God’s decrees and marshal their energies 13 in accordance with his perfect paths and all their riches in accordance with his just counsel . . . 16 And all those who enter in the Rule of the Community shall establish a covenant before God in order to carry out 17 all that he commands and in order not to stray from following him (

                   ).

Already in the second line the combination       (“with all [one’s] heart and with all [one’s] soul”) appears, which seems to allude to the group of sayings in the Pentateuch containing this word combination (Deut 6:5, 10:12 and 30:10)—with the additional    (“with all your might”) in Deuteronomy 6:5. Moreover, the opening lines of 1QS seem to interpret the essence of what God “commanded through Moses and through all his servants the prophets” (1QS 1:3:             ) as clinging to God “with all one’s heart and with all one’s soul”. Further on is an indication that the commandment as it is worded here constitutes, in the mindset of the scroll’s compiler, the foundation of the covenant:             

        (1QS 1:16–17, cf., 1QS 1:7–8). The Qumran author also claried his interpretation of loving God: “to love everything which he selects and to hate everything that he rejects; in order to keep oneself at a distance from all evil” (1QS 1.3–5:

                          ). The denition of love

here necessarily includes the element of hate (to hate everything that the loved one hates)—seemingly, an extreme sectarian reworking of a more general tendency attested later in y. Ber. 4, 1 [7d]:             (“keep us away from what is hateful to you and bring us closer to all you love”). In column 1, lines 9–10, a shift occurs: now it is not God but a fellow human being who becomes the object of love (or, respectively, hate). These lines will be addressed further on, but at present the focus is the lines 11–12 that follow:

84

chapter three           [  ]                       And all those who submit freely to his truth will convey all their knowledge, their energies [strength], and their riches to the Community of God in order to rene their knowledge in the truth of God’s decrees and marshal their energies [literally: strength] in accordance with his perfect paths and all their riches in accordance with his just counsel.33

The appearance of the words   (“all their riches”) indicates that the text goes on here with exegesis begun in 1:2, an interpretation that may now be more narrowly dened as exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:5. The Qumran exegete seemingly adopted the understanding of  in Deuteronomy 6:5 as referring to one’s possessions. If this is indeed the case and to “love God with all your might” is interpreted here as readiness to put all one’s possessions at the disposal of the “community of God”, what is the explanation of    (“their knowledge and their strength”)? Since the Septuagint already attests to “strength” (!) as an accepted interpretation of , one may assume that  (“knowledge”), in this context, is merely one more exegetical suggestion for understanding the third component of the love command. If this is correct, then 1QS 1:11–12 recorded a number of different interpretations of the word  from Deuteronomy 6:5 in a side-by-side manner similar to that which is found in m. Ber. 9:5. Thus, 1QS 1:11–12 seems to attest to the appearance of the parallels " () and ! ( ), with both interpreting the problematic   of Deuteronomy 6:5. The same pattern resurfaces further on in the scroll, where the prohibition of social contacts with outsiders is the issue (1QS 3:2):          (“his knowledge, his energy and his wealth shall not enter the council of the Community”).34 In my estimation, the appearance of this interpretative tradition in the Rule could provide a background and/or explanation for the appearance of the combination of " and ! in Luke 10:27 and the Synoptic parallels. If this is indeed the

33

Cf. CD-A 14:11–17. Shaul Shaked suggested that the hermeneutical parallel between possession  and knowledge  (as two interpretations of the same word ) could have originated from the connection between  and the Aramaic-Syriac /  (~内) meaning “proper procedure/understanding” (personal communication). This very interesting suggestion requires a separate discussion. 34

the double love precept

85

case, the absence of reference to  in this Synoptic tradition may be deliberate—the rules for handling common property are not of major importance to the Sitz im Leben of the members of Jesus’ entourage, whose experience is reected in the Gospel narratives. In contrast, however, the interpretation of  as  is the only understanding referred to in Acts 4:32. In the latter instance, the organizational structure of a close-knit community based on sharing possessions is described in a similar manner to what one nds in Qumran and especially in the Community Rule. Apparently such a sociological situation made this exegetical option particularly attractive and relevant. In principle, the demand “to convey all their knowledge () to the community of God” could also refer to the rst component of the Deuteronomy 6:5 love commandment, “with all your heart” (  ), especially in light of the further elaboration provided in 1QS 1:12 (“rene their knowledge in the truth of God’s decrees”)—as well as the interpretation preserved in the Septuagint (see above). If this was the intended interpretation of the Qumran author, then the phrase “with all their strength” (  ) would refer to “with all your soul” (   ) in Deuteronomy 6:5; and “their goods” (  ) would then be the only interpretation suggested in 1QS for “with all your strength” (  ). Even allowing for this reading of 1QS 1:11–12,35 the Qumran passage still provides an explanation for the appearance of  (") and  (!) side by side in the citation of Deuteronomy 6:5 preserved in the Gospel record, although the explanation of the four-part text-form in the Gospels would in this case, of course, be different. This possibility, however, seems less probable because the combination “knowledge-strength-possessions” appears throughout the Community Rule as dening what the covenanters were to bring with them—and what the “sons of darkness” were not allowed to bring—into the sectarian assembly (1QS 3:2, cf. 6:9–10; and 8:23). Apparently, the Qumran community interpreted “possessions” to include even one’s intellectual faculty; moreover, knowledge played the decisive role in the forming of the community consciousness of the sect, as reected, inter alia, in the special position of the maskil (enlightened one).36 35 A saying in 1QS 2:3 could be understood in this vein, “May he illuminate your heart with the discernment of life and grace you with eternal knowledge”. 36 See C. A. Newsom, ‘Knowing as Doing: the Social Symbolics of Knowledge of Qumran’, Semeia 59 (1992), 139–153.

86

chapter three

Moshe Weinfeld, who deals with the bulk of the Rule as separated from the opening paragraphs, raises an alternate possibility that both  and  referred to , while  was an interpretation of  from Deuteronomy 6:5.37 He also mentions the Gospels in this context, but he perceives the " appearing there within the framework of a reference to Deuteronomy 6:5, not as a parallel of  but rather as a parallel of the rabbinic notion of evil inclination ( ), which holds that a person should love his Creator with both of his inclinations, the good together with the evil, as exemplied in m. Berakhot, Sifre Devarim and Sifre Zuta (see above). This suggestion likewise seems problematic, since in this case the exegetical passage from 1QS 1 skips—without any visible reason—the intermediate component of the Deuteronomy 6:5 love command,     (“with all your soul”). Weinfeld excuses the absence of reference to “your soul” by means of another supposition—namely, that the sect members were exemplary on this point, being ready for martyrdom along the line of the widespread exegetical understanding documented later in the Mishnah,           (“with all your soul—even if he should take your soul”), and apparently for this reason no special reference was necessary. The argumentation, however, does not seem sufciently convincing. The double love command within early Jewish exegesis The identifying feature of the answer given in the Gospels to the question “What is the greatest commandment in the Torah?” is the integration of the two love commands, Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Researchers have already noted a number of traditions presumably within Jewish literature of the Second Temple period or slightly later that indicate a similar combination of biblical texts as attested in the Gospels. What follows is a list of the major witnesses with reference to their problematic aspects.

37 M. Weinfeld, ‘ “And let all those who freely volunteer to be in his truth bring all their knowledge, strength, and goods into the community of God”. (The Rule of the Community, p. 1, line 12)’, in: B. Oppenheimer (ed.), Studies in the Bible; In Memory of Joshua Meir Grinch, Tel Aviv 1982, 37–41 (in Hebrew).

the double love precept

87

1) Book of Jubilees: And he commanded them that they should guard the way of the Lord so that they might do righteousness and each one might love his neighbor. ( Jub. 20:2) I exhort you, my sons, love the God of heaven, and be joined to all of his commands. ( Jub. 20:7) And among yourselves, my sons, be loving of your brothers as a man loves himself, with each man seeking for his brother what is good for him, and acting together on the earth, and loving each other as themselves. And regarding the matter of idols, . . . and hate them and not to love them . . . Remember, my sons, the LORD, the God of Abraham, your father, and (that) I subsequently worshipped and served him . . . And now I will make you swear by the great oath . . . And (that) each will love his brother with compassion. ( Jub. 36:4–8).38

The book of Jubilees may be dated with certainty to the pre-Christian era. The fact that its fragments were found at Qumran suggests a broad distribution at about the time of the outset of Christianity.39 Yet although the ideas that appear in these passages are similar to those expressed in the Gospels, the conspicuous exegetical coupling of the two love commands is not documented in Jubilees. Likewise, there is no reference here to the various components of the commandment to love God (heart-soul-strength); in other words, no explicit exegetical reference is made to Deuteronomy 6:5.40 2) Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Love the Lord and your neighbor; be compassionate toward poverty and sickness. (T. Iss. 5.2. cf. T. Iss. 7.6, “The Lord I loved with all my strength; likewise, I loved every human being as I love my children”.). Throughout all your life love the Lord, and one another with a true heart. (T. Dan 5.3).41

38 Trans. O. S. Wintermute in: J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, New York 1983. 39 See D. Flusser, ‘The Ten Commandments and the “New Covenant” ’, in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period; Sages, 169. 40 Apart from Deut 10:12; 30:10 mentioned above, the requirement to love God appears in additional passages in the Bible, independently of the three-part formulation “with all your heart, with all your soul, with all you strength”. See, for example, Deut 11:13, 22; Josh 21:5; 23:1; Isa 56:6; Ps 31:24. 41 Trans. H. C. Kee in: J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, New York 1983.

88

chapter three

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs were transmitted by Christian scribes. Doubts have been raised as to the pre-Christian, Jewish origin of these compositions.42 It is worth noting that while some fragments related to certain of the Testaments were discovered among the Qumran library, others—among them the Testament of Issachar and the Testament of Dan—have no attestation in a Semitic source from the Second Temple period.43 3) Philo: And there are, as we may say, two most especially important heads (%&" ) of all the innumerable particular lessons and doctrines; the regulating of one’s conduct towards God by the rules of piety and holiness, and of one’s conduct towards men by the rules of humanity and justice; each of which is subdivided into a great number of subordinate ideas, all praiseworthy. (Philo, Spec. Leg. II.63).44

It is noteworthy that the two great(est) rules are not dened by Philo with reference to love commands from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, but rather to the two parts of the Decalogue presented as “heads” or “principles/precepts” for the rest of the commandments in the Torah. Philo uses here the word %&" , which according to Flusser is the most suitable Greek translation of  (“precept/principle”). Flusser also thinks that Philo based himself here on the words of a sermon he had heard, whereas the translator of the Matthean tradition into Greek, who reads  in Matthew 22:36, did not nd, unlike Philo, the appropriate Greek word, because of his simplistic literary style.45

42

Contrary to the traditional view, which sees the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as a Jewish composition—a view expressed in, among other works, the pseudepigraphic collection from the beginning of the 20th century by E. Kautzsch and R. H. Charles; M. de Jonge and those who followed his conclusions argued for the Christian nature of the texts. See H. W. Hollandes and M. de Jonge, The Testamnets of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, Leiden 1985, 82–85. The suggestion of an Essene source of the Testaments was raised in J. J. Collins, ‘Testaments’, in: M. E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, CRINT 2,2, Assen 1984, 342–344. 43 See Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, 879. 44 Trans. C. D. Yonge, The Works of Philo Judaeus, the Contemporary of Josephus, London 1854–55. 45 See Flusser, ‘The Ten Commandments’, 180; see also n. 8 above and discussion there.

the double love precept

89

4) Sibylline Oracles: And, above all, love your neighbor as yourself, and love God from the soul and serve him. (Sib. Or. 8, 480–482).46

Opinions vary concerning the dating and source(s) of the different sections of the Sibylline Oracles. One theory about the eighth book suggests it is actually derived from a Jewish tradition, but it is estimated that the tradition belongs to the period after the destruction of the Temple (from the end of the 2nd century c e).47 5) Didache: The Way of Life is this: First, thou shalt love the God who made thee, secondly, thy neighbour as thyself: and whatsoever thou wouldst not have done to thyself, do not thou to another. (Did. 1.2).48

This saying comes from the “ Two Ways” section in Didache, which is believed to reect a Jewish tradition from the Second Temple period that has been integrated into a Christian composition.49 Each of the above witnesses contains certain problematic aspects; therefore, scholars’ opinions concerning a pre-Christian precedent for the combination of the two love precepts range from unequivocal to somewhat reserved. Flusser maintains that the extant material at our disposal almost certainly attests to the pre-existence of a Jewish tradition where the two love commands were joined prior to their appearance in the Gospels. This supposed tradition characterized not only Essene and quasi Essene circles (from whence came such texts as the book of Jubilees, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and The Two Ways) but also Pharisaic circles, where great emphasis was placed on the love of God as a virtue that outweighs the fear of God. According to Flusser, it is merely a

46

Trans. J. J. Collins, in: Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1 (note 41 above). J. J. Collins, ‘The Sibylline Oracles’, in: Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, 357–358. 48 Trans. K. Lake, in: The Apostolic Fathers, London 1965. 49 For a survey of the scholars’ suggestions, and renewed debate on the topic, see W. Rordorf, ‘An Aspect of Judeo-Christian Ethic: The Two Ways’, in: J. A. Draper (ed.), The Didache in Modern Research, Leiden 1996, 148–164. See also M. Del Verme, Didache and Judaism; Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work, New York and London 2004. 47

90

chapter three

matter of coincidence, or misfortune, that the double love command is not documented in the surviving early rabbinic traditions.50 Gerhardsson, on the other hand, attributes greater weight to the problematic aspects of the above-mentioned textual witnesses and prefers to leave the question open. He emphasizes, however, the traditional exegetical format in which the double love command is presented in the Gospels: Whether one can establish the pre-existence of the double command in prior Jewish tradition or not, it stands here so formulated, and what is signicant is that it is presented as “reading” [i.e. interpretation—S. R.] of the “Law”.51

It should be noted that all the textual witnesses surveyed above lack an exegetical reference to the three-part structure of Deuteronomy 6:5. Only in the Testament Issachar (7.6) does an exegetical reference to the phrase    surface (with    explained as with all your strength); however, it is devoid of any reference to the other components of the biblical command. The absence of explicit exegetical reference to Deuteronomy 6:5 is especially evident in Didache, which does elaborate exegetically on Leviticus 19:18 (  ), explaining it as, not doing to others what you would not want done to you. Furthermore, in the texts surveyed above there is no mention of the Torah, whose summary, or basic principles, the two commandments are meant to represent, according to the Gospels.52 Love and vengeance at Qumran Let us now return to column 1 of the Community Rule. Above we have examined the exegetical references to Deuteronomy 6:5 found in 1QS 1:1–8 and 11–13. It was suggested that the phrase “as he commanded through Moses and through his servants the prophets” (1:2–3) assigns to Deuteronomy 6:5 in its Qumranic interpretation the status of a

50 Flusser, Jesus, 89–90. It does, however, surface in such later, yet clearly not inuenced by the New Testament, midrashic compositions as Midrash Pitron Tora (ed. Urbach) and Shne Luhot ha-Berith. I thank Marcel Poorthuis, who drew my attention to these texts. 51 Gerhardsson, ‘The Hermeneutic Program’, 202–223. 52 One may wonder if this fact is somehow connected to the pseudepigraphic character of Jubilees and the Testaments.

the double love precept

91

summary of the covenant stipulations. Also, to clarify the meaning of loving God, the author of 1QS employed love’s antithesis, hate: “to love everything which he selects and to hate everything that he rejects” (1:3–4). The exegetical elaboration of the command to love God is interrupted in the middle, however, by a reference to loving one’s fellow man, employing the same contrast between love and hate:                   

. . . to love all the sons of light, each one according to his lot in God’s plan, and to detest all the sons of darkness, each one in accordance with his guilt in God’s vindication. (1:9–11)

The command to discriminate between the sons of light and the sons of darkness is reiterated later in the scroll (for example, 1QS 9:21; cf. CD-A 9:1–5). Its appearance in the opening lines of the Community Rule strengthens the view that it was one of the central tenets of the sect. As Aharon Shemesh stated, “separateness is the principle written on the face of the sect’s business card. This manifesto is represented in almost every column in Qumranic writings and is expressed in a variety of ways”.53 He also noted that the command to love all the sons of light and to hate all the sons of darkness is not put forward here as an independent general principle, but rather serves as an interpretation of the second love precept from Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself ”.54 The core separatist tendency of the sect, then, is intrinsically connected with the community’s peculiar interpretation of Leviticus 19:18—an interpretation which stands in contrast to alternate exegeses that existed at the end of the Second Temple period in other Jewish circles.55 It should be noted that Shemesh in his study focused on the Community Rule’s interpretation of Leviticus 19:18, overlooking the hermeneutics connected to Deuteronomy 6:5.

53 A. Shemesh, ‘The Distinguisher between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, between Israel and the Nations’, in: D. Boyarin et al. (eds.), Crown of Life; Studies in the Talmudic and Rabbinic Interpretation in Honor of Haim Zelman Dimitrovsky, Jerusalem 2000, 209 (in Hebrew). See also Collins, ‘Construction of Israel’, 42; D. Flusser, ‘The Essene Sect and Its Views’, in: idem, Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran and Apocalypticism, Jerusalem 2002, 19–23 (in Hebrew). 54 Shemesh, ‘The Distinguisher’, 210. Shemesh also pointed out the correlation of Qumranic interpretation with that of rabbinic circles on this point. 55 See Nitzan, ‘The Benedictions from Qumran’, 271; cf. S. D. Fraade (‘Interpretative Authority in the Studying Community at Qumran’, Journal of Jewish Studies 144

92

chapter three

I have discussed the development of various interpretive approaches to Leviticus 19:18 in Chapter 2; here it will sufce to reiterate two comments: (1) In the biblical text itself, a tension exists between the impetus to form the sacred congregation of the sons of Israel, i.e., establish their separation and peculiarity (Lev 19:2 “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy”), and the gradual expansion of the sacred circle which has at its center the laws that delineate holiness: from family members (v. 3), to friends and acquaintances (v. 18) to sojourning foreigners (strangers) (v. 34). It would appear that a certain instability of the borders of the circle of holiness is also expressed in the multiplicity of terms dening the other in the biblical passage:   (“your companion”),   /  (“your countryman”),  (“your friend/neighbor”),   (“your brother”). Although enemies are not explicitly mentioned in Leviticus 19, the reference to revenge in Leviticus 19:18 suggests that the associative connection to the topic of one’s attitude toward enemies is present somewhere in the backdrop. (2) When the conditions are set for an all inclusive look at the different components of the biblical canon, the contrast between one’s relation to friends (brothers, fellow Israelites) and one’s relation to enemies could be supported by a comparison of Leviticus 19:18 with Nahum 1:2, where the same set of verbs appear,  and :        '  (“The LORD takes vengeance on his adversaries and rages against his enemies”.) This comparison is evidenced in Qumran:                                                               . . .                      And what he said: Lev 19:18 “Do not avenge yourself or bear resentment against the sons of your people”: everyone of those brought to the covenant who brings an accusation against his fellow, unless it is with reproach before witnesses, or brings it when he is angry, or tells it to his elders so that they might despise him, he is “the one who avenges

[1993], 51): “The community’s own self-understanding as an elite remnant . . . is deeply tied to its collective activity of . . . interpretation”.

the double love precept

93

himself and bears resentment”. Is it not perhaps written that only Nah 1:2 “he (God) avenges himself on his foes and bears resentment against his enemies?” . . . for he did not fulll the commandment of God who said to him: Lev 19:17 “You shall reproach your fellow so as not to incur sin because of him”. (CD 9:2–8)

According to the exegesis propagated here, the command to love one’s neighbor () given under the great oath, “I am the LORD”, is valid only toward those “brought to the covenant”—namely, the members of the sect. On the other hand, the sons of darkness deserve the punishment spelled out in Nahum 1:2, “The Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and rages against his enemies”.56 In my opinion, the saying in column 1 lines 9–11 of the Community Rule should be viewed in light of the tradition preserved in the Damascus Document—that is, as a hermeneutical interpretation of Leviticus 19:18, aided by Nahum 1:2, with the expression “God’s vindication/ vengeance” (“to detest all the sons of darkness, each one in accordance with his guilt in God’s vindication”, 1QS 1:10–11) being the meeting point between the two traditions.57 Because the expectation for revenge in Qumran was closely linked with the sect’s understanding that the day of vengeance had not yet come (but would come in the future!), hate toward the sons of darkness became the obligatory solution—in fact, a religious duty—for the intervening period; as long as vengeance is not possible, hate takes its place.58 In studies whose prime objective is a systematic survey of the biblical material embedded in the Qumranic scrolls, no mention is usually made of the opening paragraphs of the Community Rule, which, seemingly, do not t the criteria of explicit quotations. Even Geza Vermes, whose survey includes not only straightforward quotations but also complex midrashic constructions, does not remark on them. Vermes is willing to consider sayings preceded by such introductory formulae as   . . .   (as in 1QM 9:11) and others, but he apparently considers the introductory formula from 1QS 1:3       

56

See Shemesh, ‘The Distinguisher’, 210–211. Cf. 1QS 9:21, 23: “And these are the regulations for the Inspector in these times, concerning his love and his hatred. . . . He should be a man enthusiastic for the decree and for its time, for the day of revenge”. 58 See D. Flusser, ‘The Sect of the Judean Desert and Its Views’, in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran, 9; idem, ‘A New Sensitivity’, 483. 57

94

chapter three

      (“he commanded by the hand of Moses and by the hand of all his servants the prophets”) too vague.59 Conversely, I have endeavored to show that the opening lines of 1QS rely upon an exegesis of each of the two love precepts, including reference to the various components of Deuteronomy 6:5. The question of reward Earlier the programmatic nature of both the opening paragraphs of Qumran’s Community Rule and the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ conversation with the “sage” or “scribe” regarding the greatest precept in the Torah was indicated—one more similarity between the two traditions. Both instances present a claim of supreme loyalty to (a particular interpretation of) the Torah of Moses over against competing notions concerning the requirements of the Law. It has been claimed, moreover, that the whole purpose of the annual covenant renewal described in 1QS columns 1 and 2 was none other than “to strengthen the members of the Community in keeping the Law of Moses in its Zadokite-priestly interpretation”.60 The Qumran and Gospel traditions both relate to a goal that adherence to the double love command would make possible to attain. In Matthew and Mark, the conversation occurs immediately after Jesus’ polemic with the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection (Matt 22:23–33, Mark 12:18–27). Jesus here not only states his belief in the resurrection of the dead but also takes pains to provide exegetical backing for his belief from the Torah. This is an exegetic procedure apparently intended to further liken him to the Pharisees—granted that the latter’s position is adequately represented in m. Sanh. 10:1–2: 

 :"      . . .          

   (“All Israelites have a share in the world to come . . . And these are they that have no share in the world to come: he

59 See G. Vermes, ‘Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature’, Journal of Semitic Studies 34 (1989), 493–508. See also P. Wernberg-Moller, ‘Some Reections on the Biblical Material in the Manual of Discipline’, Studia Theologica 9 (1956), 40–66; J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament’, New Testament Studies 7 (1961), 297–333; S. Metso, ‘The Use of Old Testament Quotations in the Community Rule’, in: R. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments, Shefeld 1998, 217–231. 60 Nitzan, ‘The Benedictions’, 264.

the double love precept

95

that says that there is no resurrection of the dead [prescribed] in the Torah”). The fact that Jesus, in the Gospels, bases his argumentation specically on Exodus 3:6 (“I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”) deserves noting. It possibly indicates a lack of exact differentiation between eternal life, or “the world to come”, as a continuation of existence after death (i.e., Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as being now in the bosom of God), and eternal life as resurrection from the dead at the end of days—a lack of differentiation that also characterizes certain rabbinic traditions. I return to this issue in Chapter 7. Whatever the exact meaning, the immediate proximity of the two passages may indicate that the question “What is the greatest precept in the Torah?” in Matthew and Mark is connected with the attaining of a goal, a certain dimension of which is discussed in Jesus’ previous conversation with the Sadducees. The end of the passage in Mark reafrms this supposition, where Jesus states that the scribe (# $%!) with whom he was conversing is “not far from the kingdom of God”. Of course, the expression “kingdom of God” in the Gospels does not necessarily mean eternal life or resurrection of the dead; yet again the proximity of the passages does suggest that from the standpoint of the compilers of the Gospel tradition, both presuppose a shared ultimate goal, which could of course be interpreted in several ways. As distinct from Matthew and Mark, Luke inserts the episode involving the great(est) commandment well away from the argument with the Sadducees (10:25–37), so that there is obviously no connection between the two.61 However, the ultimate objective is explicitly referred to in both the sage’s question, ( '  ()* +   ); “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”), and in Jesus’ concluding remark (, '%  (  , “do this, and you will live”). The sage wants to know which commandments he would need to fulll in order to merit eternal life (()* + =  

)—whichever meaning we may ascribe to the expression. As Craig Evans has demonstrated, the hermeneutic coupling of fullling the requirements of the Torah with receiving eternal life is also typical of the targumic outlook. He conjectures that the position recorded here in Luke, as well as that of the Targum, stem from a common Second Temple tradition.62 One

61 62

The argument with the Sadducees is reported in Luke 20:27–39. C. A. Evans, ‘Do This and You Will Live: Targumic Coherence in Luke 10:25–28’,

96

chapter three

might add that there is actually agreement between the three Synoptic versions in terms of a general denition of the goal to which the double love command, as a summary of the Torah, is meant to lead—the difference is that while in Luke the matter is determined within the framework of the conversation itself, in Matthew and Mark it is established by the broader context. Returning to the Community Rule, it too denes the goal or reward for those who walk in the way indicated by its programmatic interpretation of the double love command. Except that there, in keeping with the characteristic Qumranic style mentioned earlier, the denition of the goal for the sons of light entering into the covenant is accompanied by spelling out the punishment for the sons of darkness: 1 And the priests will bless all 2 the men of God’s lot who walk unblemished in all his paths and they shall say: “May he bless you with everything 3 good, and may he protect you from everything bad. May he illuminate your heart with the discernment of life (

  ) and grace you with eternal knowledge (  ) 4 May he lift upon you the countenance of his favour for eternal peace (   )” And the Levites shall curse all the men of 5 the lot of Belial. They shall begin to speak and shall say: “Accursed are you for all your wicked, blameworthy deeds. May God hand you over 6 to terror by the hand of all those carrying out acts of vengeance. May he bring upon you destruction by the hand of all those who accomplish 7 retributions. Accursed are you, without mercy, according to the darkness of your deeds, and sentenced 8 to the gloom of everlasting re (  ). (1QS 2:1–8)

Thus it becomes clear that while the specic viewpoints of the Community Rule and the Gospel traditions may differ with regard to the exact nature of the anticipated goal or reward—   and    as opposed to  

 (()* +, “eternal life”)—and while the Qumranic tradition is distinct from the Gospels in its emphasis on the sharp differentiation between the lot of the sons of light versus the lot of the sons of darkness, there is a common interpretive structure in both traditions that posits adherence to the two love commands as leading to the goal or prize, characterized by the nomen rectum   (“eternity”). It

in: B. D. Chilton and C. A. Evans (eds.), Jesus in Context, Leiden 1997, 377–393. A methodological issue crucial for the discussion in Chapter 1 receives renewed attention in Craig Evans’s article—namely, the relevance of traditions, i.e., targumic ones, attested in later rabbinic strata of Jewish sources for New Testament research.

the double love precept

97

is noteworthy that also in the Community Rule the word 

 (life) (      . . . 

) is mentioned in this context; it appears, however, in a different conguration from that of the Gospels.63 Conclusion The interpretation given to the two love commands in the Community Rule differs in signicant details from that advocated by the Gospels. An obvious difference in the Gospels is the lack of reference to possessions,  as an interpretation of —a difference in exegesis plausibly connected to differences in social circumstances. There is another equally important difference related to the prescribed attitude to the “other”. It seems that, like philosophical schools in the broader Hellenistic world, various sects of the Second Temple period were here characterized by a wide spectrum of attitudes; in the Jewish milieu, this variety of approaches plausibly found expression also in the interpretation of Leviticus 19:18.64 On the basis of the content of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:43–48; cf. Luke 6:27–36), and the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37) presented in the Gospel as a clarication on the question of the greatest Torah commandment, one can conclude that hatred toward enemies does not characterize the exegesis of Leviticus 19:18 attributed to Jesus. The two traditions are further at variance concerning the anticipated goal/ reward of the right religious stance: contrary to the Gospels, which advocate the Pharisaic emphasis on  

 (“eternal life”—however understood), the Community Rule separates 

 (“life”) from   (“eternity”), blessing all those who walk blamelessly in the way of the double love command with    (“eternal peace”) and    (“eternal wisdom”).

63 See Nitzan, ‘The Benedictions’, 265. For an illuminating discussion on the complex relationship between another pericope from the New Testament and the Qumran texts, including a passage from the Community Rule, see T. A. Carmody, ‘Matt 18:15–17 in Relation to Three Texts from Qumran Literature (CD 9:2–8, 16–22; 1QS 5:25–6:11)’, in: M. P. Horgan and P. J. Kobelsky (eds.), To Touch the Text; Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, New York 1989, 141–158. 64 See D. Flusser, ‘Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes in Pesher Nahum’, in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran, 201; idem, ‘The Pharisees and Stoics According to Josephus’, in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Sages, 210–221, esp. 216.

98

chapter three

However, despite all the differences in exegesis and ruling, it seems that the two traditions rely on a common basic exegetical structure that they develop in different directions. Hermeneutical reliance on the pair of love precepts from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, is evidenced both in 1QS and in the Gospels. In both traditions, the double love command is presented as a summation of the Law of Moses (“Law [ Torah] and the Prophets” in Matthew and in 1QS), with an eternal goal as a reward for its fulllment. The opening paragraphs of the Community Rule should be added, then, to the list of early sources where the paired love commands appear. The importance of this witness is its undisputed pre-Christian date of composition, as opposed to such texts as the Testament of Issachar and the Testament of Dan, providing a clear proof for the existence of this type of exegetic pattern prior to Jesus. Owing to the differing interpretations attested in the Community Rule and the Gospels, there is no particular basis for speaking about a direct inuence.65 It is more likely that the two traditions employed the same basic hermeneutical pattern, which comprised the pairing of the two love commands as a sum of the covenant stipulations. This basic pattern seems to signify a point of overlap between the approaches of different groups: the texts discussed above present Jesus, the early sages and the members of the Qumran community as sharing it. Granted that prerabbinic circles of the sages and Jesus, on the one hand, and Qumran covenanters, on the other, belonged to different strata of rst-century Jewry, the fact that both the Community Rule and the Gospels adopt this shared hermeneutic pattern testies to its wide acceptance at the end of the Second Temple period. It is the analysis of the New Testament evidence—together with its Qumranic counterpart—that makes such a conclusion possible. The substantial dissimilarities in outlook among these groups nd their expression in the different directions in which each of them develops their exegesis of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. In this chapter I have dealt with the conspicuous Qumranic traits in the exegesis attested in the opening paragraphs of the Community Rule (i.e., the sharing of possessions and the love-hate dichotomy). It is of interest that alongside the substantial divergences in exegesis, there is also an

65 I thank Daniel Schwartz for his important comments, which helped to clarify this point.

the double love precept

99

overlap in certain details. As we have seen, the Gospel interpretation of the third component of the love command from Deuteronomy 6:5 ( as ") is better understood in light of the exegesis found in Qumran.

CHAPTER FOUR

WHO WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE DAVIDIC MESSIAH? Whereas the preceding discussion concerned the patterns of New Testament interpretation of Scripture not connected intrinsically to the Jesus-centered kerygma, this chapter deals with traditions centered on messianic exegesis. More than twenty years ago, David Flusser outlined the variety of messianic concepts current in different Jewish milieus of the late Second Temple period.1 Two important conclusions relevant to the present discussion can be drawn from that study: (a) that anticipation of the Davidic Messiah was only one of a number of existing patterns of messianic expectations, an anticipation that was sometimes competing and sometimes in harmony with traditions emphasizing other charismatic gures—either human or angelic in nature—of the era of salvation; and (b) that nascent Christianity inherited a variety of Jewish messianic beliefs, so that their different patterns may be discerned in different strata of the early Christian sources. Regarding the range of beliefs relating to the Davidic Messiah, it has been noted that in a number of important texts from Qumran, such as 1QSa (1Q28) 2:11–22 (cf. 1QS 9:10 –11), the kingly Messiah is consciously subjugated to the priestly one,2 whereas in some other Qumranic passages the emphasis is neither on kingly nor on priestly messiahship but on the anointment of the spirit as the crux of the eschaton. This anointment is granted either to a charismatic gure—the Teacher of Righteousness, the future prophet-priest of the last days (e.g., 1QpHab 2; 7)—or even to each and every member of the “messianic community”, as in 4Q270 9; CD-A 5:20 – 6:1. In contradistinction to

1 D. Flusser, ‘Reection of Jewish Messianic Beliefs in Earliest Christianity’, in: Z. Baras (ed.), Messianism and Eschatology, Jerusalem 1983, 103–134 (in Hebrew) [= idem, Judaism in the Second Temple Period: Sages, 246–277]. 2 See L. Schiffman, ‘Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls’, in: J. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah; Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, Minneapolis 1992, 116–129; J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star; The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, New York 1995, 75–77; P. Schäfer, ‘Diversity and Interactions: Messiahs in Early Judaism’, in: P. Schäfer and M. Cohen (eds.), Toward the Millennium, Leiden 1998, 15–35.

102

chapter four

Qumran, in the eschatological thinking reected in rabbinic sources the Davidic Messiah does acquire the status of the leading, and often the only, messianic gure.3 Jesus of Nazareth, too, was seen by many of his early followers as the Messiah of Davidic descent—the opening statements of the Gospel of Matthew and of the Epistle to the Romans, inter alia, bear witness to the centrality of that belief in the nascent Jesus movement. However, other early Christian traditions emphasized instead the prophetic aspect of Jesus’ mission—an aspect that was later suppressed for the sake of the kingly one but still features prominently in Luke and Acts.4 But this is not all: members of the nascent post-resurrection Jesus movement seem to have been recruited from various Jewish groups, and it stands to reason that some of them may have been mainly interested in the priestly aspect of the eschaton; it is to such an audience that the Epistle to the Hebrews was possibly addressed.5 For this audience the supposedly Davidic descent of Jesus could have been a liability rather than an asset (see Heb 7:14). Such a non-harmonized variety of attitudes toward Davidic messiahship points to polemics, to a process in which certain tendencies receded while others gained ground. Although the polemical antiDavidic nature of some concepts (e.g., those attested in Qumran) has been duly emphasized in the research, the exegetical aspect of this ongoing polemic deserves more attention. Since the emphasis on the exclusive (eternal) mission of the House of David characterizes only a limited number of biblical traditions—e.g., those attested in 2 Samuel 7:10 –16; Isaiah 11:1; Zechariah 12 and certain passages from the Book of Psalms6—one may expect to nd an exegetic re-evaluation of such texts in those Jewish groups that regarded them as belonging to the core of the Holy Writ: only texts having a sacred status are worthy of

3 See E. E. Urbach, The Sages; Their Concepts and Beliefs, Jerusalem 1979/1987, 649–690. 4 See R. L. Brawley, ‘The Identity of Jesus in Luke 4:16–30 and the Program of Acts’, in: idem, Luke-Acts and the Jews; Conict, Apology and Conciliation, Atlanta 1987, 28–50. See also Matt 16:13–14 and parallels; Matt 17:1–3 and parallels. 5 For discussion of this issue and further bibliographical references see M. M. Bourke, ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews’, in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 921. 6 See, for example, J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Son of David Tradition and Mt 22:41–46 and Parallels’, in: idem, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, Missoula 1974, 115–121; S. Talmon, ‘The Concept of MÊšiah and Messianism in Early Judaism’, in: The Messiah, 79–115.

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

103

being interpreted, and vice versa.7 Thus Philo, for whom corpus of Scripture deserving interpretation is limited to the Pentateuch, may have clung to his perception of Moses as an ideal prophet, king, priest and lawgiver for all time without being obliged to address the issue of the House of David, attested elsewhere, outside the Pentateuch (see De Vita Mosis II 2–3, 292). And there is no need to suppose that Philo is expressing here a peculiarly “Alexandrian” outlook completely foreign to Palestinian Jewry—there may well have been common ground between Philo and his contemporaries in the Land of Israel.8 Contrary to Philo, members of the Qumran community as well as early followers of Jesus—another eschatologically inclined group from the period preceding the destruction of the Temple that evinced great interest in prophetic literature—might have felt pressed to cope with the Davidic Messiah-centered traditions. In this chapter a number of Qumran and New Testament passages are discussed in which, as will be suggested, a polemical re-evaluation of the Davidic Messiah’s role and status is achieved by means of biblical exegesis. First, two exegetical fragments from Qumran will be addressed; further along the Qumranic evidence will inform the evaluation of the exegetical situation with regard to the Davidic Messiah in the New Testament Book of Acts. The Book of Acts describes the early history of the Jesus movement following Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is generally agreed that one of the main objectives of the compiler was to provide an explanation for the unexpected shift in the eschatological scenario—namely, that instead of the “salvation of Israel” (administered via a kingly Messiah of Davidic lineage) the center of the salvation event has been transferred from Jerusalem to the Diaspora and from the Commonwealth of Israel to Gentile God-fearers. Acts, therefore, seemed to me a natural choice to begin the investigation of the New Testament Davidic Messiah-centered exegesis. It should be emphasized again that there are also other messianic notions—e.g., that of Melchizedek, Son of Man, Son of God—that

7 See, for example, M. Halbertal, People of the Book; Canon, Meaning, and Authority, Cambridge, MA 1997, 19–26. 8 See D. Flusser, ‘Who Is Afraid of Philo of Alexandria’, in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period; Sages, 205–209. It is worth noting that Philo’s emphasis on Moses does not in principle preclude him from expressing hope for the restoration of the Jewish kingdom in the Land of Israel, a restoration led by a kingly gure. See H. A. Wolfson, Philo; Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, vol. 2, Cambridge, MA 1947, 95, 405–418.

104

chapter four

are crucial for the overall picture of the Qumran community and/or the Jesus movement messianic beliefs. Here, however, the focus will be exclusively on the Davidic aspect of the problem. Qumranic evidence: Pesher Isaiah The rst text to be considered is a part of 4Q161 or 4QIsaiah Pesher (4QpIsa), composed in the rst century b c e.9 Of the biblical prophets Isaiah seems to have been by far the most popular at Qumran.10 The passage in question relates to Isaiah 11:1–5, one of the biblical passages laying claim to a salvic role for the House of David:11 11:1 There shall come forth a shoot () from the stump of Jesse, and a branch () shall grow out of his roots. 2 And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him (      ), the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. 3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; 4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness ( justice) shall be the girdle (belt) of his waist (loins), and faithfulness the girdle of his loins (hips).

The interpretation, 4QpIsa suggests, is an eschatological one: 11 [Isa 11:1–5 A shoot will issue from the stu]mp of Jesse and [a bud] will sprout from [its] ro[ots.] Upon him [will be placed ] the spi[rit of ] 12 [YHWH; the spirit] of discretion and wisdom, the spirit of ad[vice and

9 See J. Strugnell, ‘Notes en marge du volume V des “Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan” ’ , Revue de Qumran 7 (1969–71): 183–186. More exact dating to the rst half of the rst century B C E has been posited in, for example, G. J. Brooke, ‘Isaiah in the Pesharim and Other Qumran Texts’, in: C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah, Leiden 1997, 632. The editio princeps is J. M. Allegro, DJD V, Oxford 1968,11–15, pls. IV–V. For a discussion of pesher and other types of biblical interpretation attested in Qumran, see C. A. Evans, ‘Biblical Interpretation at Qumran’, in: A. J. Avery-Peck, J. Neusner and B. D. Chilton (eds.), Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part Five: The Judaism of Qumran; A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 2, Leiden 2001, 105–24. 10 See Brooke, ‘Isaiah in the Pesharim’, 609–632, esp. 631. 11 For an evaluation of the pesharim as witnesses for text variants of Isaiah in Qumran see G. J. Brooke, ‘The Qumran Pesharim and the Text of Isaiah in the Cave 4 Manuscripts’, in: A. Rapoport-Albert and G. Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts; Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman, London 2001, 304–320.

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

105

courage,] the spirit of knowl[edge] 13 [and of respect for YHWH, and his delight will be in respecting] YHWH . . . 16 . . . Justice will be the belt of ] his [ l ]oins and lo[yalty the belt of his hips.] . . . 18 [ The interpretation of the word ( pesher) concerns the shoot] of David ( ) which will sprout in the [nal days] 22 . . . (      ) . . . And as for what he says: “He will not 23 [ judge by appearances] or give verdicts on hearsay”, its interpretation ( pesher): which 24 [. . .] and according to what they teach him, he will judge, and upon their authority 25 [. . .] with him will go out one of the priests of renown (   )… (4QpIsa/a Frags. 8–10, 11–18)12

According to this Qumranic interpretation, dened in lines 18 (restoration) and 23 as pesher, Isaiah 11:1 hints at the “shoot of David” (zemah David ), kingly Messiah.13 Similar understanding of this verse is attested both in the Gospel of Matthew (2:23) and in the Aramaic Targum  

      

  , “There shall come forth the king from among of the sons of Jesse, and the Messiah shall grow from among his sons’ sons”. It thus seems clear that what we have in 4QpIsa is not a peculiar Qumranic exegesis but rather a widely circulated tradition. The argument may also be put the other way around: the fact that such an interpretation is attested in Qumran (and in the New Testament) indicates the early provenance of the corresponding tradition from the Targum. This is not, however, the only similarity between the Qumranic pesher and the Targum. The Targum understands Isaiah 11:5 (       = “justice shall be the belt of his loins”) as speaking of the Messiah’s entourage: “And he will be surrounded by the just (ones)” (      

). Like the Targum, our pesher also prefers not to allow the Davidic Messiah to become an absolute ruler.14 In 4QpIsa,

12

For a discussion of the relation between the six 4QpIsa manuscripts see Brooke, ‘Isaiah in the Pesharim’, 618–619. 13 Cf. 4Q285 Frag. 5 1–4; see discussion in Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 57–58, 76–77. The expression zemah David has biblical roots: see Jer 23:5, 33:15; Zech 6:12. 14 Again an argument for an early date of the exegesis attested in the Targum. M. Kister (‘ “Let us make man”: entangling unity with plurality’, in: Sugiyot be-mehqar ha-talmud; Proceedings of the 1997 colloquium commemorating E. E. Urbach, Jerusalem 2001, 28–64, esp. 29–37 [in Hebrew]) discussed a parallel polemical tendency discerned in rabbinic sources, where unlike earlier descriptions of theophany, God was depicted as surrounded by a heavenly entourage. R. P. Gordon discussed the possibility of a connection between the 4Q161 exegesis and two other Targumic traditions (to Isa 2:13 and Zech 11:1); see G. Vermes, T. H. Lim and R. P. Gordon, ‘The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research: Seminar on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285)’, Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992), 92–94.

106

chapter four

however, the motif of kingly entourage takes on distinctively Qumranic polemical overtones: according to lines 22–25, the Davidic Messiah will carry out judgment in compliance with what he will be told to do not simply by “the just ones” but by (one of ) “the priests of renown”. Also at variance with the Targum, the pesher from Qumran presents the idea as exegetically derived from Isaiah 11:3 and not (only?) from Isaiah 11:5.15 One may, therefore, posit the existence—at the time of the compilation of our pesher —of an exegesis of Isaiah 11 that applied the prophecy to the Messiah from the House of David and mentioned some kind of kingly entourage. The need of the Qumranic exegete to relate to this tradition may be explained by its being a well-known interpretation of the biblical passage in question. It also served well the overall aim of 4QpIsa to express eschatological hope vis-à-vis traumatic events the community had been through.16 The author of the pesher, therefore, adopted the basic structure of the inherited exegesis but reworked it in such a fashion that Isaiah 11 became a proof text for the idea of the superiority of the priestly authority over the kingly one. Qumranic evidence: 4QFlorilegium Let us turn now to the Midrash on the Last Days, known also as 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) and believed to have been composed in the rst century b c e.17 Only fragment 1 of the scroll is adequately preserved and it has been analyzed in numerous studies, the most exhaustive being that of George Brooke, according to whom two initially independent

15

See Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 76. 4Q285 Frag. 5 1–4, mentioned in note 13 above, may be of relevance here, but its fragmentary character precludes a proper comparison. Its restoration suggested by Vermes (previous note, 84–90) does not indicate here, unlike 4Q161, any reservations with regard to the domineering position of the Davidic Messiah. 16 See Brooke, ‘Isaiah in the Pesharim’, 621, 623. 17 The editio princeps is J. M. Allegro, DJD V, 53–57, pls. XIX–XX. For the end of the rst century B C E dating of the scroll see, for example, G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 4th ed., Shefeld 1995, 353. A. Steudel, on the other hand, (‘4QMidrEschat: “A Midrash on Eschatology” [4Q174 + 4Q177]’, in: J. T. Barrera and L. V. Montaner [eds.], The Madrid Qumran Congress, vol. 2, Leiden 1992, 538–541), suggested that 4Q174 was composed during the rst half of that century. Cf. J. H. Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translation, vol. 6B, Tübingen 2002, 248.

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

107

exegetic traditions may be discerned in the text, but there are good reasons to believe that they were purposely combined in this fragment in order to serve a unied exegetic program.18 Relevant lines from the rst portion of the text to be discussed read as follows: 1…2 Sam 7:10 [nor will] a son of iniquity [afict] him [aga]in as in the past. From the day on which 2 [ I appointed judges] over my people, Israel”. This (refers to) the house which [he will establish] for [ him] in the last days, as is written in the book of 3 [ Moses: Exod 15:17–18 “The temple of ] YHWH your hands will establish. YHWH shall reign for ever and ever”. . . . 5 . . . He will appear over it for ever; foreigners shall not again lay it waste as they laid waste, in the past, 6 the tem[ple of I ]srael on account of their sins. And he commanded to build for himself a temple of man, to offer him in it, 7 before him, the works of thanksgiving. And as for what he said to David: 2 Sam 7:11 “I [shall obtain] for you [rest] from all your enemies”: (it refers to this), that he will obtain for them rest from a[ ll] 8 the sons of Belial, those who make…the s[ons of ] 9 light fall, . . . Blank 10 [And] YHWH [de]clares to you that 2 Sam 7:12–14 “he will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you and establish the throne of his kingdom 11 [for ev]er. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me”. This (refers to the) “branch of David”, (

) who will arise with the Interpreter of the Torah (    ) who 12 [will rise up] in Zi[on in] the [ l ]ast days (    ), as it is written: Amos 9:11 “I will raise up the hut of David which has fallen”. This (refers to) “the hut of 13 David which has fall[en”, w]hich he will raise up to save Israel. (4Q174 1:1–13)

4QFlorilegium focuses here on certain topics of an eschatological character and treats them by means of addressing different biblical texts (e.g., 2 Sam 7, Exod 15:17–18, Amos 9:11), which indicates that the passage may be classied as a thematic midrash that nevertheless retains so basic a feature of continuous pesharim as to rely on whole biblical units (in this case on 2 Sam 7).19 The question of the Davidic Messiah is clearly at the heart of the exegesis attested in this part of the scroll: the destined role of the House of David is the common theme of most of the biblical passages addressed here: 2 Samuel 7:10 (lines 1–2), 2 Samuel 7:11 (line 7), 2 Samuel 7:12–14 (line 10), Amos 9:11 (line 12). It has been observed that some of the interpretations suggested in 4QFlorilegium

18 See G. J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran; 4QFlorilegium in Jewish Context, Shefeld 1985, 129–158. 19 See Steudel, ‘4QMidrEschat’, 537–538; Evans, ‘Biblical Interpretations’, 109– 120.

108

chapter four

are not marked as pesher, which may indicate that the basic structure of the exegesis attested here, including the biblical passages chosen for interpretation, was not an invention of the Qumranic author and was not ascribed to the Teacher of Righteousness but was widely known also outside Qumran.20 However, some elements of the 4QFlorilegium exegesis obviously reect the Qumranic outlook. So “Israel”, either mentioned (4QFlor 1:2) or hinted at (4QFlor 1:7) in the biblical passages under discussion, undergoes further on an exegetical transformation into “sons of light” (4QFlor 1:8–9). A number of suggestions have been put forward concerning the nature of the “temple of man” (   , miqdash adam) from 4QFlor 1:6. Most scholars subscribe to various modications of two explanations: an eschatological temple to be built in the future instead of the currently functioning corrupted one,21 or the existing Qumranic “community of the faithful”, which as such should be considered the true last days substitute for the sanctuary in Jerusalem.22 It seems, however, that even if miqdash adam stands here for the “community of the faithful” already existing in Qumran, it does not annul the anticipation of the appearance—in the eschaton—of a new ideal temple, with the Davidic Messiah presented as the one charged with the building of that temple.23 4QFlorilegium engages the famous House of David passage from 2 Samuel 7 as its primary biblical source of reference, while projecting the biblical promises into the eschaton (line 2). It has been observed that gezera shawa, a midrashic technique well attested in tannaitic sources,

20 See Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran, 140–141, 164; see also discussion of 4QpIsa above. 21 See J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in the New Testament’, New Testament Studies 7 (1960), 314; Brooke, Exegesis, 136; D. Flusser, ‘Two Notes on 2 Sam VII, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity’, in: Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 91; idem, ‘The Temple of the End of Days’, in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran, 179–183; M. O. Wise, ‘4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam’, Revue de Qumran 15 (1991), 102–132. 22 D. Dimant, ‘4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple’, in: A. Caquot et al. (eds.), Hellenica et Judaica, Leuven 1986, 165–189; A. S. Kaufman, ‘The Cubit and the Human Temple at Qumran’, Niv Hamidrashia 24–25 (1993), 51–56. Cf. Collins (The Scepter and the Star, 107), according to whom the “sanctuary of man”, whether understood as a real temple or the Qumran community, does not belong to the end of days but represents an interim arrangement. 23 See Brooke, Exegesis, 179; Dimant, ‘4QFlorilegium’, 174–189.

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

109

is being applied here.24 Within the framework of that technique the Qumranic author makes use of the fact that in 2 Samuel 7 the word   (house) and its derivatives have three different meanings corresponding to three different aspirations: (1) the king’s palace, symbol of his greatness and power (2 Sam 7:1–2); (2) the sanctuary to be erected in the future, the place where God is due to dwell (2 Sam 7:5–7, 13); and, (3) the House of David, either the king’s progeny in general or a specic offspring (2 Sam 7:16), i.e., synonymous with the word   (your offspring) appearing in 2 Samuel 7:12. It may be surmised that 4QFlorilegium aims at dening a proper hierarchy between these different aspirations. The objective is achieved through bringing into consideration two additional biblical passages: Exodus 15:17–18 (line 3) and Amos 9:11 (line 12). The reference to the verse from Exodus that is obviously devoid of any immediate link to the Davidic motif and contains, right before the words quoted in the scroll, the expression    (ordained place of Your, O Lord, dwelling), seems to be tailored to enhance the polemical motif already present in 2 Samuel 7: not the “king’s house” but the “Lord’s house” constitutes the core of the promise. We see, however, that further on the author of our pesher does adopt the “standard” messianic interpretation of 2 Samuel 7:12:   = kingly Messiah, descendant of David (line 11), an interpretation that serves his objective of rmly establishing the place of the Qumran community as the subject of the salvation of Israel— most probably in light of its conicts with other Jewish groups.25 But characteristically he does not stop at that: the reference to Amos 9:11 (“In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen”) allows him to introduce an additional eschatological character, the Interpreter of the Torah. It is difcult to decide whether in 4QFlorilegium this Interpreter of the Torah is equated with the “booth of David” (  ) or is charged with the task of erecting it (lines 12–13)—he and not the Davidic Messiah! The latter interpretation is especially plausible in light of a passage from the Damascus Document,26 where the same verse from Amos is discussed and it is stated unequivocally that the books of the Torah, interpreted by the Interpreter of the Torah,

24

See, for example, Brooke, Exegesis, 129–130, 134–135. For a discussion of the historical background of the 4Q174, see Steudel, ‘4QmidrEschat’, 538–541. 26 CD-A 7:14–19 [4Q266 3 iii ]. 25

110

chapter four

the true star and the leader of Israel, are that very “booth of the king” the prophet speaks about: As he said: Am 5:26–27 “I will deport the Sikkut of your King 15 and the Kiyyum of your images away from my tent to Damascus”. The books of the law are the Sukkat 16 of the King, as he said Am 9:11 “I will lift up the fallen Sukkat of David”. The King 17 is the assembly; and the plinths of the images ‘and the Kiyyum of the images’ are the books of the prophets, 18 whose words Israel despised. Blank And the star is the Interpreter of the law (   ), 19 who will come to Damascus, as is written: Num 24:13 “A star moves out of Jacob, and a sceptre arises 20 out of Israel”. The sceptre is the prince of the whole congregation and when he rises he will destroy 21 all the sons of Seth. Blank These escaped at the time of the rst one’s visitation.

Acts 15:14–21 provides important complementing evidence from the late Second Temple period; here also Amos 9:11 is understood as connected with preaching/interpreting Torah. Moreover, this interpretation seems to be presented by the author of Acts as reecting a traditional Jewish exegesis (see below).27 In any case, the Interpreter of the Torah is presented in 4QFlorilegium as the ultimate agent of salvation, a gure of even higher status than the “branch of David” ( —lines 11–13). If the identication of the Interpreter of the Torah here as the Priest of the last days, as suggested by some scholars, is accepted,28 the polemical shift performed in 4QFlorilegium turns out to be similar to the one discerned in the Qumran interpretation of Isaiah: some kind of mighty patron (Interpreter of the Torah? Aharonic Messiah?) is to be attached to the Davidic Messiah in the last days; it is according to that patron’s will (according to his interpretation of the Holy Writ!) that the kingly Messiah will have to act. It is worth noting that our pesher does not show any interest in the continuation of the Amos prophecy (9:11–12), where the place and function of Gentiles in the days of salvation are addressed:29

27 In light of the evidence in both the Damascus Document and the Book of Acts it is difcult to accept the identication of the “booth of David” with the “offspring of David” suggested in Brooke, Exegesis, 139. 28 See, for instance, Flusser, ‘The Temple’, 104–109; Dimant, ‘4QFlorilegium’, 183 and note 47 there; Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 114–115, 122–123. 4QFlor 2:7 may also point to such identication. 29 According to Steudel (‘4QmidrEschat’, 540), lack of interest in the Gentiles, even as enemies of the Jews, may point to a relatively early date of composition.

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

111

9:11 “In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; 12 that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name”, says the LORD who does this.

Lines 3–4, however, indicate that the basic stance of 4QFlorilegium is far from being universalistic: Exod 15:17–18 “The temple of ] YHWH your hands will establish. YHWH shall reign for ever and ever”. This (refers to) the house into which shall not enter 4 [. . . for] neither an Ammonite, or a Moabite, or a bastard, or a foreigner, or a proselyte, never, because his holy ones are there.

The notion of two Messiahs, the priestly Messiah of Aaronic descent and the Messiah of Israel subjugated to the former, is attested in a number of Dead Sea scrolls and constitutes the well-known and muchdebated feature of Qumranic belief that was addressed at the beginning of this chapter. This notion seems itself to be rooted in certain biblical traditions.30 What is special about the 4QFlorilegium treatment of the issue, as well as that of 4QpIsa discussed earlier, is that these compositions promote the notion while trying to cope exegetically with “uncomfortable” biblical proof-texts that proclaim the Davidic family domination over Israel. Although an attempt to re-evaluate the 2 Samuel 7 appraisal of the role of the Davidic offspring may have been made already in 1 Chronicles, the Midrash on the Last Days from Qumran denitely provided—by introducing a competing charismatic gure—greater impetus and highly discernible polemical overtones to this move.31 Unlike allusions to xed biblical exegeses that may be discerned in pesharim,32 in cases that are the subject of this study the authors from Qumran spell out an existing interpretation and do so in order to re-evaluate it polemically. The second fragment of 4QFlorilegium is build around the references to Psalms 1 and 2 that commence the collection of hymns traditionally ascribed to King David. The one and only appearance of the genre

30

See W. M. Schniedewind, ‘King and Priest in the Book of Chronicles and the Duality of Qumran Messianism’, Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994), 71–78. 31 See Schniedewind, ‘King and Priest’, 72–73. 32 The issue is discussed in M. Kister, ‘Biblical Phrases and Hidden Biblical Interpretations and Pesharim’, in: D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, Leiden 1992, 27–39.

112

chapter four

marker pesher, which denes the interpretation of both Psalms 1:1 and 2:1–2, may indicate that at the time of composition of 4QFlorilegium these two texts were perceived as a single hymn.33 Judging by talmudic evidence, even much later the two texts were still considered by some rabbis to form one pereq (division or chapter). Thus it is claimed in b. Ber. 10a that “Every chapter ( pereq) that was particularly dear to David he commenced with ‘Happy’ and terminated with ‘Happy’. He began with ‘Happy’ as it is written, ‘Happy is the man’ (Ps 1:1), and he terminated with ‘Happy’ as it is written, ‘happy are all they that take refuge in Him’ (Ps 2:12)”.34 It stands to reason that the ancient Psalm 2, where the king is presented as God’s chosen one, God’s anointed protégé whom God calls “son”, was perceived as relating to the House of David.35 It seems, therefore, that this part of the Midrash on the Last Days from Qumran also deals with biblical texts understood by many at that time as establishing the messianic status of David’s elect offspring.36 Seen vis-à-vis such a background, the exegesis our midrash presents is of a clearly polemical nature: the author of 4QFlorilegium suggests that Psalms 1:1 and 2:1–2 relate not to an elect individual (David? his messianic offspring?) but to each and every member of the Qumran community: (14 ) Midrash of Ps 1:1 “Blessed [the] man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked”. The interpretation ( pesher) of this wor[d: they are] those who turn aside from the path of [the wicked,]. . . (18) Ps 2:1 [“Why ar]e the nations [in turmoil] and hatch the peoples [idle plots? The kings of earth t]ake up [their posts and the ru]lers conspire together against YHWH and against (19) [his anointed one (  )”. Inter]pretation of the saying: [the kings of the na]tions [are in turmoil] and ha[tch idle plots against] the elect ones of Israel in the last days (       ). (4Q174 (Flor) 1:14, 18–19)

33

See Brooke, Exegesis, 147 and note 162 there. It is worth noting that the example in the Babylonian Talmud related to here is in fact the one and only “chapter” of this kind that may possibly be discerned in Psalms. See note ad loc. in the Soncino edition of the Talmud. 35 For a discussion of the dating and original context of Ps 2 see M. Dahood, The Anchor Bible: Psalms I 1–50, Garden City 1979, 8. 36 Steudel (“4QmidrEschat”, 534), who conducted a comparative study of 4Q174 and 4Q177, even came to the conclusion that “this psalm-citing part of the composition—probably about 15 columns—obviously represented the main part of the scroll”, while the midrash on the Nathan prophecy from 2 Sam 7:10–14 constituted an “introductory” part. 34

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

113

This polemical exegetic move is accomplished, as in the previous part of the pesher, via the introduction of additional biblical references, at least three of which—Ezekiel 44:10 (4QFlor 1:16), Daniel 12:10 and 11:32 (4QFlor 2:3)—provide exegetical backing for a transition from the singular forms, used here in the biblical text of Psalms, to the plural of the community. The same polemical agenda is served by 4QFlor 1:18–19, where   (his anointed?) from Psalms 2:2 is interpreted—in typically Qumranic fashion—as plural of         (  =) (the elect [anointed] ones of Israel in the last days); other Qumran texts would call them     (the anointed of spirit).37 So the “plotting” against the king-Messiah is explained as persecution of the elect community of the sons of Zadok and those who joined them in the time of trial preceding the eschaton proper. I have briey reviewed evidence from 4QIsaiah Pesher and 4QFlorilegium. The ideas these texts propagate—the superiority of the priestly Messiah over the kingly one and the idea of a “collective anointment/messiahship of spirit”—are not at all peculiar; they are attested also elsewhere in Qumran. What is special about the passages under discussion is that they bear witness to the situation the Qumran exegetes found themselves in: those exegetes seem to have shared with wider Jewish circles a reverential attitude to certain biblical traditions and hence had to cope with the existing Davidic Messiah-centered interpretation connected with those traditions. This interpretation, however, only partly tted the religious outlook of the community, and the Qumran pesher tried to alleviate the problem by suggesting a number of polemically avored amendments to the inherited exegesis.38 Jesus as the Davidic Messiah Discussion of the Qumran evidence prompts us to inquire about the exegetical situation with regard to the Davidic Messiah in nascent Christianity, another eschatologically inclined group from the period preceding the destruction of the Temple. As already noted above, the

37 See, for example, 4Q270 frag. 2, 14; 1QS 2:25–3:12; 1QH 4:17–27; 8:1–21; 12:29–34; cf. 4Q521 frag. 8, 9. 38 Another telling example of “anti-Davidic” polemics in Qumran (4Q448), although of a slightly different type, was discussed in M. Kister, ‘Notes on Some Texts from Qumran’, Journal of Jewish Studies 44 (1993), 289–290.

114

chapter four

tradition of Jesus’ Davidic descent, even if a trustworthy one,39 might have caused uneasiness to those of Jesus’ followers with alternative messianic agendas. Moreover, even those whose eschatological aspirations did center on the Davidic Messiah might have had good reason to be uneasy: there were clearly some salvic functions pertaining to the kingly Messiah that could not possibly be ascribed to Jesus.40 The beginning of the Book of Acts bears witness to the reection on the issue by the compiler, looking back to the earliest stages in the history of the Jesus movement: 6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has xed by his own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth”. (Acts 1:6–7)

The expected national salvation of Israel has not arrived, and the emphasis here, as well as in a programmatic statement by Paul in Romans 1:1–5, is being consciously shifted from the kingly aspect of Jesus’ messianic mission to the prophetic one: Jesus is the one who has already received the anointment of prophecy/spirit, and he is the one who is going to share this anointment—which has nothing specically Davidic about it—with his followers. Resurrection is, of course, another not specically Davidic gift that Jesus’ followers are eventually to receive (See Rom 1:5; 1 Thes 3:13–18). The emphasis on the prophetic/Holy Spirit aspect (as distinguished from the kingly one) of Jesus’ mission and of the eschaton in general is admittedly characteristic of the compiler of Luke-Acts.41 However, Paul’s epistles also are characterized by an almost complete lack of interest in Jesus’ Davidic line of descent. Only once—in the opening lines of the Epistle to the Romans—does Paul nd it necessary to relate to the issue (Rom 1:1–4):

39 According to Shmuel Safrai, claims of this kind by certain families were not that exceptional in those days and did not necessarily mean a claim for messiahship (personal communication). 40 See Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 13, 204–208. 41 See Brawley, “The Identity of Jesus” (note 4 above). See also G. Alley, ‘Good News to the Poor: Luke’s Exegesis on Isaiah 61:1–2 within the Synoptic Gospels’ Tripartite Redemptive Framework’, M.A. thesis, the Rothberg School for Overseas Students, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem 2001.

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

115

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the esh 4 and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead . . .

Worthy of note is the claim that the prophets had spoken about Jesus (verse 2)—blocks of Jesus-centered exegesis of the prophetic texts must already have been in circulation in Paul’s time. We can only guess to what biblical texts this exegesis related; some of them might have been connected with the House of David-centered biblical passages. Whatever the case, Paul accepts the tradition but does so with a reservation: he nds it necessary to emphasize that Jesus is a son of David   (“according to the esh”, verse 3)—an expression that in Paul’s usage, at least in some contexts, expresses misgivings.42 A polemical tone may be discerned in this passage: Paul does not (cannot?) ignore the tradition of Jesus’ Davidic descent, which has seemingly gained ground; but he turns the kingly motif into a secondary one, emphasizing instead Jesus’ prophetic gift and resurrection. It is those heavenly gifts, not connected intrinsically with Jesus’ line of descent, that make Jesus the elect son of God. Moreover, according to Paul, all of Jesus’ followers will eventually share the gifts of Holy Spirit and resurrection—this is undoubtedly one of the central motifs of Paul’s preaching (see, for example, 1 Thess 3:13–18). It should be noted that David is mentioned only two additional times in Romans (4:6 and 11:9) and nowhere else in the whole Pauline corpus! In both cases, the verses Paul quotes from Psalms provide a proof-text for the apostle’s insights on the “human condition”—the author of the Psalms represents here the predicament of the religious individual. Neither the quotations themselves nor Paul’s interpretation of them have anything to do with the Davidic dynasty. The reservations expressed in the programmatic openings of both Acts and Romans, that “nal account” of Paul’s thinking,43 indicate that the belief in Jesus as rst and foremost the Davidic Messiah also had a problematic aspect. The discussion below will be restricted to evidence

42 See Gal 4:22–31. See also J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Letter to the Romans’, in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 833. 43 Description suggested by K. Stendahl in idem, Final Account; Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Minneapolis 1995.

116

chapter four

found in the Book of Acts, where, characteristically, this problematic aspect is addressed by means of biblical exegesis—of prophetic oracles with Psalms clearly perceived as such—in a series of programmatic speeches.44 Although the speeches are by different protagonists and located in different parts of the narrative, they are generally believed to be literary creations of the compiler;45 one is therefore justied in trying to discern some common features or shared agenda in those scattered instances of biblical interpretation. This of course does not exclude the possibility of relying on an inherited tradition; actually, in some cases new research prompts us to look for a more complicated model—namely, one that establishes a balance between the outlook of the compiler of Acts and the apostles’ authentic theology.46 As far as the scriptural references employed in the speeches are concerned, the following assessment by Jacques Dupont seems fairly convincing: while the speeches in Acts are the compiler’s compositions, the scriptural quotations in them seem to point to the underlying traditions.47 Acts 2:22–35 The passage begins with Peter’s portraying Jesus as “a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs. . . . [whom] God raised. . . . up, having loosed the pangs of death” (22, 24) and ends, correspondingly, with Jesus being proclaimed “lord and Messiah/Christ” (      , 36). In between, this kerygma is backed by bibli-

44 The theology of the compiler of Acts was ttingly described as “based on the proof from prophets”. See P. Schubert, ‘The Final Cycle of Speeches in the Book of Acts’, Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968), 1–16. 45 See, for example, H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, Philadelphia 1987, xliii–xlv. For a discussion of the “report to the community of believers on recent portent events” pattern employed in Acts (and Luke) and its literary sources, see L. M. Maloney, “All that God Had Done with Them”: The Narration of the Works of God in the Early Christian Community as Described in the Acts of the Apostles, New York 1991, 187–194. The study by E. J. Woods (The “Finger of God” and Pneumatology in Luke-Acts, Shefeld 2001, 246–248) points to an essential link in Luke-Acts between “spirit-inspired speeches” and miracles. 46 See, for example, D. R. Schwartz, ‘On Some New and Old Wine in Peter’s Pentecost Speech (Acts 2)’, in: D. T. Runia (ed.), The Studia Philonica Annual; Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, vol. 3, Atlanta 1991, 256–257. 47 J. Dupont, ‘Ascension du Christ et don de l’Esprit d’après Actes 2:33’, in: B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (eds.), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, Cambridge 1973, 228.

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

117

cal exegesis characterized, as noted already by Jan Doeve, by certain midrashic features.48 The proof-texts invoked here are taken from Psalms, and the authorship of David is strongly emphasized (“For David says concerning him”, 25; “but he [ David] himself says”, 34). All this clearly indicates that as far as the compiler of Acts is concerned, the messiahship of Jesus is a Davidic one.49 However, the compiler of Acts, writing several decades after the events, should have been well aware that the salvation of Israel, a seemingly indispensable feature of the Davidic Messiah’s mission, had not yet occurred; this is even more so if a later, post-destruction of the Temple, dating of the tradition, is accepted (cf. my suggestion in Chapter 7, “Conclusion”).50 As pointed out above, the compiler clearly showed that awareness at the beginning of his composition. His choice of proof-texts as well as his exegetic emphases may thus be plausibly seen as tailored to alleviate the tension between the basic allegiance (his own and that of his milieu) to the notion of Jesus’ Davidic messiahship and alternative, non-kingly aspects, which form the core of Jesus’ “good tidings”. First, in Acts 2:25–28 a passage from Psalms 16:8–11 is related to. David, explicitly named as the author of the saying, is called   and  (“ancestor/forefather” and “prophet”, 29, 30)—and not “king”. Such an emphasis on the prophetic (and not regal) character of David’s calling seems to be in agreement with an existing Jewish tradition: it is not only attested in later Jewish sources but may also be corroborated by the rst-century ce evidence from Qumran (i.e., 11QPs).51 The exegesis is presented in Acts 2 by the speaker (Peter) as a hidden interpretation (hidden even from David himself ?), one that

48

See Doeve, Jewish Hermeneutics, 168–176. This emphasis on the Davidic covenant—at the expense of the Mosaic Sinai covenant—is discussed in R. F. O’Toole, ‘Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant of Pentecost’, Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983), 245–258. 50 See, for example, Conzelman, Acts, xxviii; J. Taylor, ‘The Making of Acts: A New Account’, Revue Biblique 97 (1990), 504–524. 51 See J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘David “Being Therefore a Prophet . . .” (Acts 2:33)’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972), 332–339. Fitzmyer focuses on Acts 2 as witness to an early stage in the development of the David-as-prophet tradition; he does not discuss the Acts 2 exegetical agenda that prompted the author to adopt the said tradition. See also L. V. Le Roux, ‘Style and Text of Acts 4:25(a)’, Neotestamentica 25 (1991), 29–32; U. C. Wahlde, ‘The Problems of Acts 4:25a: A New Proposal’, Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 86 (1995), 265–267. 49

118

chapter four

is revealed only now, in the last days. According to Peter’s pesher, the psalm hints at the resurrection of Jesus: 29 Brethren, I may say to you condently of the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his esh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. (Acts 2:29–32)

We may see that although the Davidic motif is indisputably present here, it undergoes a drastic modication: it is no longer kingship over Israel, victory over nations or even building the ideal sanctuary, as in Qumran, that are signs of Davidic messiahship but the resurrection of David’s offspring prophesied by the king (“God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah/Christ . . . .”, 30 –31). Further on, in Acts 2:34–35, the opening verse from Psalm 110 (“The LORD says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool’ ”) is interpreted. Exegetical references and allusions to Psalms 110:1 are also widely attested elsewhere in the New Testament—both in the Synoptic tradition (Matt 22:41–45 and parallels; cf. Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62; 16:19; Luke 22:69) and in the Epistles (Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12). This seems to indicate that the verse was already at an early stage adopted in the Jesus movement as a “stock-quotation”. In the Synoptic tradition, Psalms 110:1 is presented as an important and at the same time problematic proof-text of the Jewish messianic exegesis. Discussion of its meaning follows immediately after the discussions, of a distinctively exegetic character, on resurrection (Matt 22:23–33 and parallels) and on “the greatest commandment/central principle” in the Torah” (Matt 22:34–40; Mark 12:28–34; reported in Luke 10:25–28)—two issues that seem to have been “inherited” by Jesus from the religious agenda of his Jewish milieu. According to the gospel tradition, on both of these issues Jesus and the Pharisees were of a similar, or at least close, opinion (see discussion in Chapter 3). It is with the same Pharisaic counterparts that Jesus is further on portrayed as being engaged in disputing the meaning of Psalms 110:1: 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, “What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

119

he?” They said to him, “The son of David”. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, 44 The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet?’ 45 If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?” 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions. (Matt 22:41– 46, cf. Mark 12:35–37; Luke 20:41–44)

It would not be too far-fetched to suggest that this last issue might also have been an integral part of the exegetical deliberations of Jesus’ time and as such was “inherited” and re-evaluated by the Jesus movement.52 Pharisees are presented in the Synoptic pericope as those whose messianic beliefs focus on a Davidic Messiah—in other words, as true predecessors of the rabbinic tradition53—and their stance is clearly in agreement with Matthew’s own position, forcefully stated in the opening passages of his Gospel.54 Jesus, however, rejects such a notion or at least expresses his reservations about it. Many scholars, among them authors of inuential commentaries, subscribe to the opinion that Jesus could not possibly have promoted here an outright anti-Davidic stance. Fitzmyer, for example, rejects the claim made by some others that Jesus here called into question the Davidic descent of the Messiah; he argues instead that Jesus could not possibly have denied the Davidic Messiah-centered belief, and that the difference between Jesus and his opponents here was in fact one of emphasis—namely, Jesus saw the Davidic Messiah as less involved politically.55 However, in light of what has been said above on the problematic aspect of Davidic messiahship as felt in some Jewish circles of the late Second Temple period, including certain groups within Jesus’ movement itself, the possibility that Jesus in fact preferred an alternative messianic outlook cannot be excluded outright. Even if what is expressed here in the Gospels is not a rejection but only a reservation, the question lingers: What is behind this reservation: emphasis on the prophetic anointment of the Messiah or on a priestly

52 A distant echo of those disputations may still be discerned in talmudic literature—e.g., b. Ned. 32b and later midrashic compositions: see Midrash Tehilim, ad loc. 53 See Urbach, The Sages, 649–690. 54 See B. T. Viviano, ‘The Gospel According to Matthew’, in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 666. 55 Fitzmyer, ‘The Son of David Tradition’, 122–125; cf. Davies-Allison, Matthew, 3:254–255.

120

chapter four

Messiah? It is worth noting in this connection that in Psalms 110:4 the king elect is called “a priest forever”—a polemical move against the established (Aharonic?) priesthood? Or, maybe, the emphasis is on a Messiah of a “heavenly/angelic order”? The question at this stage cannot have a denite answer, but there can be scarcely any doubt regarding the polemical character of the exegesis presented in the Synoptic pericope, which clearly aims at establishing the superiority of the future Messiah over David (and his progeny).56 It may be observed that instances of polemic centered on the interpretation of difcult biblical passages are widely attested in rabbinic literature; some of them, moreover, follow the “how it can be that…” format found here in the Synoptic tradition; b. Ber. 10a, where the “provocative” questions are conveniently attributed to a   (min, heretic), provides here an instructive example. Whether speaking of the Messiah Jesus here necessarily meant himself is an open question; arguments of the scholars who subscribe to such an assessment57 remain inconclusive. The question however seems to be irrelevant for present discussion. Coming back to Acts 2:24–35, we may note that the author suggests here an interpretation that presents Jesus as David’s offspring, the true Messiah and the true pesher of Psalms 110:1. The pesher pattern of the biblical quotations in Acts 2 has been appropriately described as an interpretation “which is eschatologically applied to the present”.58 In contrast to the Synoptic pericope discussed above, the author of the Acts shows no interest in establishing the Messiah’s superiority over David. His agenda is different: the biblical text, which originally described the achieved triumph of the victorious king (David himself ?), portrayed as sitting at God’s right hand,59 and which might have been interpreted as relating to the messianic triumph, is transformed here into a prophetic proof-text for the delay of the victory: “sitting at God’s right hand” seems to be invoked, inter alia, to explain Jesus’ absence after resurrection. If this reading is correct, the exegesis here should be viewed as an attempt at “damage control”—in contradiction to interpreters who do not recognize Jesus’ absence after the resurrection

56

See Davies-Allison, Matthew, 250, 255; Viviano, ‘Matthew’, 666. See, for example, Flusser, Jesus, 32. 58 E. E. Ellis, ‘Midrashic Features in the Speeches of Acts’, in: idem, Prophecy and Hermeneutics in Early Christianity, (see Introduction, note 10), 202–203. 59 See M. Dahood, The Anchor Bible: Psalms III 101–150, Garden City 1970, 112–114. 57

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

121

as a problem of the compiler of Acts, arguing that he did not “draw a rigid distinction between the resurrection and exaltation (I return to this the issue in Chapter 7). Some scholars who share this latter perception even think that Davidic-centered biblical passages readily suggested themselves “as the ideal opportunity to express conviction in Jesus’ triumph” in resurrection.60 The interpretation suggested here, then, differs substantially. Unlike the Qumranic pesher, in both exegetical references to Psalms in Acts 2 David’s role, paradigmatic for his messianic offspring, is one not of a king but of a prophet. Moreover, Jesus’ messiahship as presented in Luke-Acts as a whole has been portrayed as one of unequivocally pneumatic type, with receiving the Spirit and giving it to the community as its core characteristics.61 In other words, the shift of emphasis proclaimed in Acts 1:6–8 is completed/backed in Acts 2 by means of exegesis. Exegetic emphasis on resurrection as the key feature of Jesus’ Davidic messiahship is also promoted further on in Acts. This time it is Paul who follows Peter’s precedent in a programmatic sermon, which the author of Acts has him deliver in the synagogue of Antioch on the Sabbath (Acts 13:14–34). A reference is made here to the same verse from Psalms 15:10 as in Acts 2:27; moreover, it has been suggested that 2 Samuel 7:6–16—the passage which 4QFlorilegium relates to—is also alluded to in Paul’s speech.62 The Davidic descent of Jesus is properly highlighted; but characteristically in Acts 13:30–34 a claim is made that it is the resurrection—and not the messianic kingdom—that constitutes “the sure mercies of David” (with reference to Isa 55:3) promised by God: 30 But God raised him from the dead; 31 and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now

60 O’Toole, ‘Acts 2:30 and the Davidic Covenant’, 250–251. See also J. J. Kilgallen, ‘A Rhetorical and Source-traditions Study of Acts 2,33’, Biblica 77 (1996), 180. Cf. Dupont (‘Ascension du Christ’, 222, 225), who observes that the Ps 110:1 idea of the king’s exaltation by/at God’s right hand corresponds only vaguely to the idea of the ascension to heaven. 61 See O. Mainville, ‘Le messianisme de Jésus: le rapport / annonce / accomplissement entre Lc 1,35 et Ac 2,33’, in: J. Verheyden (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts, Leuven 1999, 313–327. Dupont (‘Ascension du Christ’, 226–240) sees in Acts 2:24–35 a midrashic pesher, which alludes also to Ps 68:19, thus emphasizing a parallel with Moses’ ascension to Mount Sinai and bringing down the Torah. See also M. Gourgues,’ ” Exalté à la droite du Père” (Actes 2.33)’, Science et esprit 27 (1975), 327. 62 See Ellis, ‘Midrashic Features’, 198–208.

122

chapter four his witnesses to the people. 32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fullled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”. 34 And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, “I will give you the holy and sure mercies/blessings of David (       )”.

Acts 4:25–28 In Acts 4:25–26 a passage from Psalms 2:1–2—the same passage referred to in 4QFlorilegium—is quoted: “Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and his anointed”.63 I have suggested that a messianic interpretation centered on a Davidic Messiah might have existed in relation to this passage in the late Second Temple period. The author from Qumran had to cope with that interpretation, and he did it by claiming that the text speaks of the suffering of his unjustly persecuted messianic community and not of the supposedly triumphal kingly Messiah. It comes as no surprise, however, that the author of Acts does interpret Psalms 2:1–2 as relating to Jesus’ (= the Davidic Messiah’s) own suffering: 24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place”.64

63 For a discussion on the structure of the passage from Acts 4 and its “prayerful” character see U. C. von Wahlde, ‘The Theological Assessment of the First Christian Persecution: The Apostles’ Prayer and Its Consequences in Acts 4, 24–31’, Biblica 76 (1995), 523–531. T. Bowman (Spiritual Life in the Early Church, Minneapolis 1993, 58–60) points to a number of specically Jewish elements that may be discerned in the description of the apostles’ prayer. As A. Triter (‘The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts’, in: C. H. Talbert [ed.], Perspectives on Luke-Acts, Danville 1978, 168–186) demonstrated, prayer was of particular theological concern to the author of Acts. 64 As far as I can see, no variants relevant to the present discussion distinguish the Western recension of Acts here. See J. Rius-Camps, ‘Las variants de la Recensi no

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

123

However, the context in which the quotation from Psalms 2:1–2 and its exegesis appear in Acts (4:1–21) is, as in 4QFlor 1:18–19, the persecution of the whole community. In fact, the Davidic Messiah-centered interpretation of Psalms 2:1–2 is tailored to strengthen the spirit of Jesus’ followers, to enable them to stand rm in the days of persecution and speak fearlessly about the Messiah’s resurrection (Acts 4:29–33). It may be that according to the exegetical tradition—seemingly of Palestinian provenance—the compiler of Acts used here, both Pilate and Herod might have stood for Gentiles of Psalms 2:1–2 who together with “the peoples of Israel” conspired against God’s anointed one.65 The transition to the persecution of the disciples is a natural one—it should be remembered that for the author of Luke-Acts, Jesus clearly sets an example and a precedent for his early followers: in the rst chapters of Acts the community of Jesus’ followers is depicted as engaged in the same activities as Jesus was during his lifetime.66 Marcel Poorthuis has noted that none of the surviving interpretations of Psalm 2 in rabbinic literature locates it in the present but rather in the eschatological future.67 The situation in Acts 4 is clearly different; the question of how it should inuence our assessment of the 4QFlorilegium stance—between realized and future eschatology—warrants further investigation. As Poorthuis also noted, nearly all surviving early rabbinic interpretations, especially the amoraic, identify the anointed with the people of Israel, not with an individual Messiah. Yet some of them do bear witness to an exegetical tradition that also reads Psalms 2:1–2 as speaking of rebellion against the Messiah as an individual. I quote one of the talmudic sources: Why is the chapter ( pereq) of Absalom (Ps 3) juxtaposed to the chapter ( pereq) of Gog and Magog (Ps 2)? So that if one should say to you, is it possible that a slave should rebel against his master [i.d. nations against God and/or his anointed one], you can reply to him: Is it possible that a son should rebel against his father? Yet this happened; and so this too [will happen]. (b. Ber 10a; cf. b. Sukk. 52 b) Occidental de los Hechos de los Apostoles (Hch 4,23–31)’, Filologia Neotestamentaria 10.19–20 (1997), 99–104. 65 See C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, Edinburgh 1994, 246–248. Cf. Ellis, ‘Midrashic Features’ (note 58 above); R. J. Dillon, ‘Acts of the Apostles’, in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 737–738. See S. F. Plymale, The Prayer Texts of Luke-Acts, New York 1991, 78–88; Von Wahlde, ‘Theological Assessment’, 530–531. For connection to Luke 2:31, see G. Kilpatrick, ‘LAOI at Luke II.31 and Acts IV.25, 27’, Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965), 127. 66 See Bowman, Spiritual Life, 55–56. 67 Personal communication.

124

chapter four

The evil forces leading the rebellion are called here “Gog and Magog”, hence it is clear that the Messiah meant by this tradition is none other than the kingly (Davidic) Messiah of the last days.68 The tradition seems to be aware of the problematic aspect of this exegesis: the “so if one should say to you” passage both bears witness to that awareness and strives to offer a solution. It is admittedly difcult to establish with certainty when the tradition attested in the Babylonian Talmud and attributed there to a tannaitic teacher, R. Johanan, started.69 Moreover, even in the sources subscribing to that notion, the Messiah’s suffering never ends up with his death but signals a preliminary stage of salvation leading eventually to his kingly triumph.70 But if we are faced with the two options—that the compiler of Acts invented the Davidic Messiah-centered exegesis of Psalms 2:1–2, which was later reinvented by the rabbis, or that the compiler of Acts was building on an existing exegesis attested later in the Talmud—the second of the two seems more probable. We may, therefore, posit the existence of a basic exegetic notion, which both 4QFlorilegium and Acts 4 related to and further developed. The Acts 4 exegesis may then be characterized as a midway position: it shares with the Qumran pesher the emphasis on a “messianic community” persecuted by fellow Israelites, while claiming—in opposition to the Qumran exegesis, which eliminates such a possibility—that distress and persecution pertain also to the Davidic Messiah himself. Unlike his Qumran predecessor, the compiler of Acts does adopt the existing Davidic Messiah-centered exegesis of Psalms 2:1–2, reworking it so that the rebellion against the Lord’s anointed becomes the archetype for the persecution of his followers—be it the whole Jesus movement in Jerusalem or only the small group of apostles engaged in active preaching of the gospel over whom the danger looms.71 Also, unlike 4QFlorilegium, the

68

See Barrett, Acts, 245. On the one hand, the exegetical tradition speaking about the Davidic Messiah’s suffering—although in connection with Isa 53 and not Ps 2—is attested in rabbinic (including tannaitic) sources: see A. Neubauer, The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to Jewish Interpreters, New York 1969, 7–11. On the other hand, the Targum Jonathan on Isa 53 seems to present a polemical rejection of that notion; see A. Sperber, Bible in Aramaic 3:107–109. 70 See discussion in Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 123–126. 71 For the latter opinion see J. Dupont, ‘Notes sur les Actes des apôtres: I. La prière des apôtres persecutes (Actes, IV, 23–31)’, Revue biblique 62 (1955), 45–47. 69

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

125

author of Acts does not restrict his exegesis to the notion of “internal strife” but adds the seemingly inherited—and later attested in rabbinic sources—element of “external persecution”, represented here by the gure of Pontius Pilate (and, maybe, also Herod). Acts 15:13–21 After Paul’s arguments for bringing the gospel to the Gentiles without demanding that they embrace the ritual obligations of the Torah, as well as Peter’s reaction have been presented to the reader in Acts 15:1–12, it is James’ turn to formulate his position. The discussion of the exact relationship between Peter’s stance and that of James, as well as between this passage and the tradition attested in Acts 21:18–25, is beyond the scope of this study. Sufce it to say that historically the position formulated here by James seems to have been a compromise destined to solve the issue of common meals that arose at Antioch, while presenting it as a resolution of the Jerusalem council is a wellcalculated move on the part of the author of Acts, tailored to back his linear presentation of the initial stages of the Church’s history.72 As noted earlier, the author of Acts is generally believed to have been responsible for composing the speeches, so we have reason to consider the interpretation of Amos 9, attested here (Acts 15:15–21)73 as part of the book’s overall exegetic strategy. This, of course, does not exclude the possibility that the author relied here on a tradition that might have gone back to the days of the Jerusalem Church.74 Although the particularities of the exegetic move performed here may remain obscure, its main point is clear: possible reservations notwithstanding, James gives Paul’s “universalistic” move his consent, quoting as a biblical proof-text the same passage from Amos 9—possibly an editorial note composed after the fall of the Davidic kingdom in the sixth century b c e75—of which 4QFlorilegium also made use. As empha72 For a discussion of these issues see, for example, Dillon, ‘Acts’, 751–752; Fitzmyer, Acts, 551–553. 73 With a possible addition from Isa 45:21 at the end of the quotation. See Dillon, Acts, 752. 74 See discussion in R. Bauckham, ‘James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13–21)’, in: B. Witherington (ed.), History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, Cambridge 1996, 154–184. 75 See F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Amos, The Anchor Bible, New York 1989, 889–890; M. Barré, ‘Amos’, in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 216.

126

chapter four

sized above, the Qumran exegete was not at all interested in bringing Gentiles into the “fold of the last days’ salvation” even as submissive subjects of the Davidic Messiah: he ignores the continuation of the Amos passage, which speaks about the fate of the Gentiles, concentrating instead on the “internal relationship” between the Davidic Messiah and his “booth”, the Interpreter of the Torah. As suggested above, the connection between Acts 15:16 and 21 seems to indicate that the compiler of James’ speech76 not only related to the same passage from Amos but was also aware of the exegetical link established—e.g., in Qumran—between the “booth of David” and preaching/interpreting the Torah: 16 “After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling (booth) of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, 17 that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name”, 18 says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old. 19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues. (Acts 15:16–21)

Yet his emphasis differs greatly from that of 4QFlorilegium. Although the quotation in Acts 15 seems to be a conated one, on the core point it is close to the Septuagint understanding of Amos 9:11–12: the booth of David is going to be restored so that “all men shall seek the Lord”:    - 

  . . .  -         '-       - (A) . . .            ! "#    $", ’ %  &  '( ( ’ ) , &*+

   , "+ ,  ! -.

The interpretation in the Septuagint is based on reading in the Hebrew  (shall seek) instead of 

(shall possess) and   (men/mankind) instead of   (Edom).77 This understanding contradicts the Masoretic text, according to which the result of the restoration will be

76 The question of the relationship between the inherited tradition and the author of Acts’ contribution is addressed in Barrett, Acts, 728. 77 See Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 885–91. For a discussion of the quotation’s conated character see Bauckhman, ‘James and the Gentiles’, 157.

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

127

Israel’s rule over “all the sons of Edom”.78 This is also how the passage is understood in the Aramaic Targum, where     (kingdom of the Davidic dynasty) is substituted for   (booth of David); thus the motif of Israel’s rule over Gentiles becomes even further highlighted. Some targumic versions insert    (house of Israel) in the second part of Amos 9:12:  ( 

:..)  



               (so that the people of Israel to whom my name is attached shall possess what is left of Edom and of all the rest of the nations). The Targum, therefore, states unequivocally that it is Israel that God’s name is “attached to” and eliminates the very possibility that God’s name is (or was) “attached to” at least some other nations—a possibility that at least suggests itself in the Hebrew text and is adopted in the RSV English translation of Amos 9:11–12 (“that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name”).79 It is admittedly difcult to establish what exactly the Septuagint version reects here: Hebrew text variant or peculiar exegesis. Whatever the case, the “universalistic” potential of this version—Gentile God-fearers have access to the Jewish proclamation of (the Torah of ) Moses by the Jews in the synagogues of Diaspora—is of an undeniably polemical character and could certainly serve apologetic needs vis-à-vis a broader audience of the Greek-speaking world. It is this “universalistic” feature that seems to have prompted the author of Acts to use the Septuagint-like reading. And as the context in Acts 15 suggests, the interpretation in question is an existing one and not an ad hoc innovation by James.80 To sum up, the interpretation of Amos 9:11–12 suggested in Acts 15:13–21 may be characterized as a polemical combination/reworking of exegetic traditions connected to a stock proof-text of messianic exegesis. A Davidic Messiah-centered interpretation is adopted here;81

78

See Fitzmyer, Acts, 555. See Sperber, Bible in Aramaic, vol. 3, 432. The Peshitta seems to retain at least some measure of ambiguity. See The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshitta Version, part III, fasc. 4, Leiden 1980, 36. 80 See Barrett, Acts, 727–728. 81 Some scholars, pointing to the highly peculiar appearance of the name Simeon in James’ speech (Peter is always called Peter elsewhere in Luke-Acts), have raised an intriguing suggestion that it is actually not Peter but Simeon from Luke 2:25–32 who might originally have been meant here. See R. Riesner, ‘James’ Speech (Acts 15:13–21), Simeon’s Hymn (Luke 2:29–32), and Luke’s Sources’, in: J. B. Green and M. Turner (eds.), Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ; Essays on the historical Jesus and New 79

128

chapter four

but not unlike the Qumran pesher, the compiler of Acts ignores, or at the least subdues, the kingly aspect of his Davidic Messiah, thus rejecting interpretation of the kind attested in the Targum. As in 4QFlorilegium, the emphasis is shifted from the kingly Messiah himself to the “booth of David”,82 although the objective here is different: not to introduce, as in Qumran, the competing messianic gure of a (priestly?) Interpreter of the Torah, but to substitute the Gentiles’ “search for God” for the rule of a Davidic Messiah over the nations. The link between the “booth of David” and the (interpretation of the) Torah, a link that is attested in Qumran, also undergoes a polemical re-evaluation in James’ speech: it is not exclusively via accepting the Torah, which is preached in all the synagogues of the Diaspora, but rather via the Gentiles’ “turning to the God of Israel” that the “booth of David” is restored. These conclusions on the relation between the exegetical stances of Acts and 4QFlorilegium somewhat correspond with the suggestion made by Richard Bauckhman that the “booth of David” is interpreted in Acts 15—not unlike miqdash adam in 4QFlorilegium—as the eschatological Temple, which is “the eschatological people of God, compounded of both Jews and Gentiles”. He also believes that this interpretation of Amos 9:12 may go back to the days of the Jerusalem Church.83 Conclusion The anticipation of a Davidic Messiah belongs to the spectrum of Second Temple Judaism distinguished patterns of messianic belief—thanks both to notions of the distant past that found expression in a number of biblical texts and to certain exegetical traditions connected with those texts. In eschatologically oriented groups like Qumran or nascent Christianity this seems to have resulted in a problematic situation: on the one hand, in these groups the biblical books containing the proof texts of the Davidic messiahship enjoyed the sacred status of Holy

Testament Christology, Grand Rapids 1994, 263–278. If this possibility is considered, the connection with Simeon’s messianic prophecy reaching its climax in proclaiming the “enlightenment of the Gentiles and the glory of Israel” (Luke 2:32) further enhances the messianic avor of James’ speech. 82 See Barren, Acts, 726. For a discussion of the possible relation—association with and/or deliberate dissociation from—of James’ speech in Acts 15 to Qumranic ideas, see Riesner, ‘James’ Speech’, 271–272 and 276–277. 83 See Bauckhman. ‘James and the Gentiles’, 164–166.

who was unhappy with the davidic messiah?

129

Writ, while the corresponding exegetical traditions were widely known and could not simply be ignored. On the other hand, the emphasis on Davidic messiahship did not exactly t either “group interests” (as in Qumran) or a type of experienced eschatological reality (as in nascent Christianity). Each of these communities, therefore, developed its own modied, polemically avored brand of exegesis, which was supposed to alleviate the problem. The comparative study of New Testament and Qumranic evidence, then, helps clarify this characteristic Second Temple tension between inherited (and seemingly widespread) patterns of messianic exegesis and their “sectarian offshoots”. Who then was not unhappy with the Davidic Messiah? If rabbinic sources are really continuing here a Pharisaic tendency, the Pharisees might have been those who unabashedly emphasized the Davidic messiahship; Matthew 22:41–46—and to somewhat lesser degree Synoptic parallels—should then be seen as an early witness to that tendency. It may be, therefore, that one of the reasons nascent Christianity—all problems notwithstanding—clung to the notion of kingly messiahship’s centrality in the eschaton, and insisted on presenting Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, was that such were the preferences of an inuential group of Jesus’ followers recruited from the Pharisaic milieu. Unlike the rst Christians, Qumran exegetes, bound by different loyalties, did not hesitate, at least at some points, to turn the Davidic Messiah into a secondary gure.

CHAPTER FIVE

NEGOTIATING THE PROPER ATTITUDE TO MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE In Chapters 3 and 4 two telling instances of parallel patterns of biblical exegesis in the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls were discussed: the double love command in Matthew 22:34–40 (cf. Mark 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–28)/1QS 1:1–12 and the exegesis of Amos 9:11–12 in Acts 15:13–21/4QFlorilegium 1:10 –13. In both cases, it was argued that the two disparate sets of writings used common underlying exegetical patterns, even though the particular religious ideas to which the biblical interpretation is tailored in each case differ and sometimes even stand in sharp opposition. In view of this it was further suggested that, rather than indicating direct inuence, the appearance of these basic patterns both in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament indicates their broad circulation in the rst century c e. This chapter continues the previously tested line of investigation and approaches from a different angle an issue already touched upon in Chapter 1. It will focus on an additional set of common exegetical patterns discerned in several places in the New Testament, as well as in CD-A 4:15–5:2—patterns employed for negotiating the proper attitude to marriage and divorce in the context of the eschatological outlooks reected in these texts. Here too an attempt will be made to distinguish between the characteristic features of either Qumran or nascent Christian exegesis and the exegetical patterns common to a variety of Second Temple Jewish groups. To that end, relevant instances of early rabbinic exegesis will be taken into consideration. Focusing on the meaning and implications of existing parallels, I shall tentatively probe a not too obvious, but central to this book, avenue of New Testament relevance for a better understanding of Qumranic and wider Jewish exegetical tendencies. Matthew 19/Mark 10 and the Damascus Document Lust, adultery and divorce are bound together in the discourse on “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:13) in the Sermon on the Mount

132

chapter five

(Matt 5:27–32). In Matthew 19:3–9 the issue of adultery—in connection with divorce—is addressed again but from a different exegetic angle. The tradition attested in Mark 10:2–12 is usually seen as the source of the Matthean version, thus it may be surmised that the Matthean redactor, mindful of the precedent in the Sermon on the Mount, inserted the ruling from Matthew 5:32 into the later episode (Matt 19:9):1 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said,—For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one esh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one esh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”. 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certicate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery”. (Matt 19:3–9)

The next chapter deals with the traditions presenting idolatry and lust as two basic expressions of the evil impulse; it also relates to the fact that in a number of sources dating from the late Second Temple period and further on, idolatry was presented as having become obsolete.2 Lust therefore came to be portrayed as the main outlet of the evil impulse—or rather as one of the limited number of “cardinal sins” constituting a major danger to the covenant. Such is the assessment propagated in a number of later rabbinic sources; and this seems also to be the stance attested in both the Damascus Document and Luke. We read in the text from Qumran (CD-A 4:14–21, cf. 6Q15 1):                . . .

           

        

         . . . .       

           14 . . . Its explanation: 15 They are Belial’s three nets about which Levi, son of Jacob spoke, 16 in which he catches Israel and makes them appear before them like three types of 17 justice. The rst is fornication; the second, wealth; the third, delement of the temple. 18 He who eludes

1 2

See Davies-Allison, Matthew, 3:8–18. See also S. Ruzer, ‘The Seat of Sin’, 367–391.

the proper attitude to marriage and divorce

133

one is caught in another and he who is freed from that, is caught 19 in another. Blank The builders of the wall . . . 20 are caught twice in fornication: by taking 21 two wives in their lives, even though the principle of creation is Gen 1:27 “male and female he created them”.

The perception attested further on in the Damascus Document (CD-A 7:6–9; 16:10–12), according to which the prohibition of adultery— understood in CD-A 4 in a rather peculiar sense—and other immoral behavior represents Torah prohibitions in general, may indicate the centrality of the issue in a broader social context. And this in turn may inform our appraisal of the fact that it is repeatedly addressed not only in the Gospel passages mentioned above but also elsewhere in the New Testament.3 Thus in Luke 16:12–18 the issue seems to be chosen to represent the “dots” of God’s law that will never become void: The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him. But he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void. Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery”.

It should also be noted that the coupling of lust/fornication with greed as another of Satan’s snares found in CD-A 4:15–19 invective, likewise characterizes the quoted passage from Luke and the Gospel section to be the focus of discussion in this chapter (Mark 10:17–31, Matt 19:16–30)—as well as additional New Testament passages and some later rabbinic elaborations on the theme.4 The appearance of this combination in Qumran and in the New Testament indicates its broad circulation already in the Second Temple period, whereas the specics of the application may be attributed to the differences in social context. The exact halakhic intentions of both CD-A 4 and Matthew 19 (Mark 10) have been thoroughly discussed in research.5 Hence the

3

See Rom 7, 1 Cor 6, 1 Thess 4. See discussion in Chapter 6. See also S. Ruzer, ‘The Death Motif in Late Antique Jewish Teshuva Narrative Patterns and in Paul’s Thought’, in Transforming the Inner Self, 151–165. 5 See, for example, A. Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic on Marital Law: CD 4:20–5:11 and Its Social Background’, in: The Damascus Document: A Centennial (see Chapter 1, 4

134

chapter five

focus further on will be rather on general observations on the nature of exegetic patterns employed there, which has not previously received much attention; possible implications for solving the halakhic conundrum, however, will also be outlined. Marriage and eschatology First, it should be noted that the discussion in Matthew 19 (and Mark 10) is linked to the key theme of the Gospel—namely, the kingdom of heaven/of God. Flusser suggested that Jesus’ kingdom of heaven held the intermediary position in the overall redemption scenario between the “covenantal past” and the eschaton of the last judgment;6 and the passage from Matthew 19 may provide a useful test case for Flusser’s thesis. To this end, the following episode with the little children brought to Jesus should be considered: Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven”. And he laid his hands on them and went away. (Matt 19:13–15)

My interpretation is that the function of this episode is tailored to ameliorating the preceding sayings on eunuchs: although those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 19:12) are to be duly appreciated, this does not mean the rejection of marriage and childbearing. Moreover, according to what may be gleaned from Matthew 18:3 (“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”) and similar sayings, in Matthew 19:13–15 children are accepted into the kingdom on account of some precious qualities supposedly pertaining to childhood and not because the apocalyptic end of time is due to arrive within their lifetime. Flusser’s suggestion, then, sits well with the Gospel section under discussion.

note 42), 147–160; Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel, 83. See also M. Kister, ‘Divorce, Reproof and Other Sayings in the Synoptic Gospels: Jesus Traditions in the Context of Qumranic and Other Texts’ (fortcoming). 6 See D. Flusser, ‘The Stages of Redemption History According to John the Baptist and Jesus’, in: Jesus, 258–275.

the proper attitude to marriage and divorce

135

A comparison with 1 Corinthians 7 is instructive here. Paul’s advice against remarriage is put forward there as being based on two different reasons. The advice does relate to the needs of the “intermediate phase”, needs that in fact pertain to every time and every period (1 Cor 7:32–35): I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benet, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

However, it also stems, and not to a lesser degree, from acute expectation of the imminent end (1 Cor 7:26, 29): I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is . . . I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none.

The New Testament treatment of the issue of marriage is thus characterized by a variety of both attitudes and arguments employed for their backing. Moreover, one may discern here a certain development of the motif from its initially non-eschatological provenance to its eschatological re-interpretation. Was the said development inherited or introduced by Paul? Paul himself nds it necessary to stress that the interpretation is the fruit of his own contemplation.7 Whatever the case, the core motif of Paul’s elaboration is explicitly stated at its very beginning: “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Cor 7:1). It is instructive that Jesus’ appraisal of marriage, as represented in less eschatologically charged Matthew 19:1–15, is denitely more positive. The Dead Sea Scrolls in general and the Damascus Document in particular are believed to represent a variety of eschatologically avored religious outlooks.8 Some of them are centered exclusively on

7

1 Cor 7:25, 40. For an illuminating suggestion concerning the relationship between the CD community and that of Qumran, see S. Ivri, ‘The Exegetical Method of Damascus Document’, in: M. O. Wise et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site, New York 1994, 329–338. 8

136

chapter five

the upcoming end of days, while others mainly focus on the interim period characterized by the more or less prolonged existence of the sect governed by its rule and surrounded by the sons of darkness. The link between the acuteness of eschatological expectation and the stance on marriage and divorce, observed in the New Testament evidence, should prompt us to ask, what measure of eschatological tension, if any, should be ascribed to the CD-A 4:21 ruling on marital halakha? Or, taking the same question from an opposite point: How should this ruling inform our appraisal of the Damascus Document’s overall eschatological stance? In this context, it should be noted that the discussion of marital halakha in the Damascus Document is prexed to the section dealing with the new eschatological interpretation of the Torah pertaining to the (intermediary) “age of wickedness”, where unclean wealth and delement of the Temple, the other two “Satan’s snares”, are related to again (CD-A 6:11–16):9 But all those who have been brought into the covenant 12 shall not enter the temple to kindle his altar in vain. They will be the ones who close 13 the door, as God said: Mal 1:10 “Whoever amongst you will close its door so that you do not kindle my altar 14 in vain!”. Unless they are careful to act in accordance with the exact interpretation of the Torah for the age of wickedness: to separate themselves 15 from the sons of the pit; to abstain from wicked wealth which deles, either by promise or by vow, 16 and from the wealth of the temple and from stealing from the poor of the people, from making their widows their spoils.

Patterns of midrashic discourse Some observations made in Chapter 1 are relevant to the present discussion and deserve to be reiterated in this paragraph. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:31–32), it is not the validity of the Torah ordinance but conicting interpretations of a difcult expression (  ) found in Deuteronomy 24:1 that constitutes the exegetical crux of the polemic; it has even been suggested that Matthew’s Jesus may in fact have represented here a domineering halakhic position of his time.10

9 Cf. 4Q266 3 ii; 4Q267 2; 4Q269 4 ii; 6Q15 3,4. For 4Q266 see J. M. Baumgarten, The Damascus Document (DJD 18),Oxford 1996, 29–93; for 4Q267 see DJD 18, 95–113; for 4Q269 see DJD 18, 123–136; for 6Q15 see DJD 3, 128–131. 10 See Noam, ‘Divorce in Qumran’, 218–219. See also Chapter 1, note 33 and discussion there.

the proper attitude to marriage and divorce

137

The unequivocal allegiance of the Sermon to the Torah is stated in Matthew 5:18: “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the Torah (law) until all is accomplished”.11 In contradistinction to this, the same biblical verse is presented in Matthew 19:7–8 as an ad hoc regulation with a limited term of application: They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certicate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so”.

An analogous exegetical move tailored to serve the purpose of “adjusting God’s pronounced demands” to Israel’s de facto performance is attested in CD-A 5:1–5: . . . And about the prince it is written: 2 Deut 17:17 ‘He should not multiply wives to himself ’. However, David had not read the sealed book of the law which 3 was in the ark, for it had not been open in Israel since the day of the death of Eleazar 4 and of Jehoshua, and Joshua and the elders who worshipped Ashtaroth. One had hidden 5 the public (copy) until Zadok’s entry into ofce . . .

The urge to tackle this discrepancy seems to have been connected to the notion of the ideal state of affairs ascribed to the days of creation. It should be emphasized, however, that the Damascus Document solution differs substantially from presenting Moses as adding regulations to the “initial Torah” on his own initiative; instead, it ascribes Torah’s concealment to problematic periods of history such as that of David. This reects the Damascus Document programmatic stance, according to which the written Torah—the one the members of the group share with the rest of Israel—forever retains its status, while in actuality it is re-interpreted according to the revelation of the new covenant.12 Yet, as noted in Chapter 1, Philo already speaks of a tripartite division of the Torah material: God’s words, Moses’ own deliberation, and a mix of the two; and the notion of ad hoc Torah regulation is also attested in later rabbinical sources.13 In addition to it, there seem to have been

11 For a recent reassessment of the issue, see also Schaller, ‘The Character and Function of the Antitheses in Matthew 5’, 21–48. 12 See Davies, ‘The Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document’, 33–34. 13 See Philo, De Vita Mosis II, 188–191; y. Hor. 1,8 [46b]; b. Sanh. 75b, 80b; b. Av. Z. 24b; b. Hor. 6a; b. Zev. 119b; cf. m. Par. 7:6,7; t. Nid. 1:9.

138

chapter five

prophetic precedents of questioning the value of Deuteronomy 24:1. One of those was discussed by Michael Fishbane, who shows that the oracle from Jeremiah 3:1 is engaged in a polemical reassessment of the tradition attested in Deuteronomy 21:4, equating    (“something indecent”) with adultery, albeit on an aggadic rather than a halakhic level. As a result, the tradition “is transformed in relation to the addressee (the audience) and the goal or intent of the address itself ”.14 It is vis-à-vis these tendencies, rather than Qumran, that one must examine the attitude to the Pentateuch attested in our Gospel pericope. It should be noted, however, that the Gospel pericope in question gives no indication whatsoever that Jesus’ ruling here is nourished by a prophetic-like inspiration—instead it is portrayed as a piece of regular exegesis. In any case, it stands to reason that in this instance also the reasoning of Matthew’s Jesus reected an inherited exegetic pattern: no uproar or opposition is reported by Matthew, who is generally only too eager to highlight Jesus’ clashes with the Pharisees.15 As a complementing exegetical feature to that “liberal” attitude to Holy Writ, Matthew 19:4–6 establishes that the foundational principles of marital union should be sought in the story of the creation. In the Mishnah, this is one of the midrashic features characteristic of traditions ascribed to the school of Shammai—the school that Matthean Jesus agrees with on the issue of divorce in Matthew 19:9 (and, before that, in Matt 5:32).16 Although the specic halakhic decision at which the Mishnah arrives here may characterize only Shammai (or some of his followers), the technique of using the creation story to dene basic principles of marriage seems to represent a wider midrashic trend. In Matthew 19:4–6 we read: 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one esh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one esh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”.

14 See M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985, 308–312; idem, ‘Torah and Tradition’, in: D. A. Knight (ed.), Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament, Philadelphia 1977, 285. 15 See the discussion in Repschinski, ‘Taking on the Elite’, 1–23. See also DaviesAllison, Matthew, 3:19. 16 See m. Git. 4:5. The saying from Gen 1:28 is used here for creating a halakhic midrash: man nds his fulllment in procreating; hence one should adopt a lenient attitude to allow for an additional marriage union.

the proper attitude to marriage and divorce

139

The argument here is presented as a midrashic combination of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. As observed in Chapter 1, a number of rabbinic sources do use Genesis 2:24 for clarifying halakhic questions (i.e., m. Git. 4:5), whereas Genesis 1:27 is mostly referred to in connection with the androgyne-centered notion of the rst man’s nature.17 Hence the importance of the early evidence from CD-A 4:20 –21, where Genesis 1:27 is referred to, as in Matthew 19, in connection to the marital halakha:                

They . . . are caught twice in fornication: by taking two wives in their lives, even though the principle of creation is Gen 1:27 “male and female he created them”.

As noted, the question of the exact meaning of this admonition remains unresolved. The text may be understood as permitting second marriage after the death of the rst wife—if read, as suggested by Joseph Fitzmyer, in light of 11QTemple 57:15–19:18       Blank       

  

              

                  

    He shall not take a wife from among all 16 the daughters of the nations, but instead take for himself a wife from his father’s house 17 from his father’s family. He shall take no other wife apart from her 18 because only she will be with him all the days of her life. If she dies, he shall take 19 for himself another from his father’s house, from his family. He shall not pervert justice,

If so, the same position may in principle be ascribed to Matthew 19:9 (unlike the Markan parallel, which sounds like a total rejection of divorce 17 See, for example, Gen. R. 8.1, Lev. R. 14.1. See also Chapter 1, note 43, and the discussion there. Elsewhere I have discussed the possibility that the compilers of the Old Syriac Gospels recognized the androgyne-motif overtones in the Greek version of Matthew 19 (Mark 10) and tried to subdue them in Syriac. See S. Ruzer, ‘The Reections on Genesis 1–2 in the Old Syriac Gospels’, in: J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation; A Collection of Essays, Louvain 1997, 91–102. 18 Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel, 83. For the Temple Scroll, see Y. Yadin, Megillat ham-miqdash—The Temple Scroll, 3 vols. + Suppl., Jerusalem 1977 (revised English edition 1983).

140

chapter five

and remarriage). Some scholars, however, put forward strong arguments for the anti-bigamy (anti-polygamy?) leaning of the CD passage.19 This basic problem is addressed again below, but it should be stressed already now that while halakhic and non-halakhic decisions derived from the discussions of the marriage-divorce issue might differ from tradition to tradition, the appeal to Genesis 1–2 and, even more specically, to Genesis 1:27 is common to the New Testament and Qumran and thus seems to represent—in both traditions—an inherited, and hence early, midrashic feature.20 Pro- and anti-marriage stance There is, however, a meaningful difference between the Gospel and the Damascus Document passages in their choice of the additional biblical proof-text. The tradition ascribed to Jesus in Matthew 19:3–6 midrashically combines Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, presenting marriage as the restoration of the ideal bond described in Genesis 1:27; as noted, this move clearly indicates a high appraisal of marriage, including the aspect of physical intimacy (    = are one esh) with emphatic reiteration: “so they are no longer two but one esh”. The Damascus Document instead picks up Genesis 7:9 (CD-A 5:1:  

    , “two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah”), where the distinction between the sexes is kept intact with no “union in esh” in sight. This motif of Noah’s and his sons refraining from sexual intercourse while on board the ark would feature prominently in the Midrash and in early Syriac Christian exegesis.21 In light of the CD general outlook—sexual intercourse as intrinsically unclean, connected with “lust” ( ) and permitted only for procreation, with the possible implication that some group members, or even the majority do not marry at all22—ignoring Genesis 2:24 may be more than mere coincidence here. It is noteworthy that this frowning upon the “esh” constitutes a highly visible feature not

19 See, for example, Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic’, 147–160; Noam, ‘Divorce in Qumran’, 206–223. 20 See Chapter 1, note 45. 21 See N. Koltun-Fromm, “Aphrahat and the Rabbis on Noah’s Righteousness in Light of the Jewish-Christian Polemic”, in: The Book of Genesis (note 17 above), 57–72. 22 See Davies, ‘Judaism(s) of the Damascus Document’, 34.

the proper attitude to marriage and divorce

141

only of the Damascus Document but also of a number of core Qumran texts propagating the “esh-spirit” dualism.23 Although there is a text from Qumran (4QInstruction) that does refer to the “oneness in esh” approvingly, even there it is far from being presented as    (“the principle of creation”).24 In this instance Paul’s stance is instructive (1 Cor 6:15–20): 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one esh”. 17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun immorality (  ). Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? . . . So glorify God in your body.

Hard to believe, but in his passionate admonition against lust and immoral behavior Paul applies Genesis 2:24 to the contemptible intercourse with a prostitute! In rabbinic sources there is a tendency to glean from the creation account rules pertaining to the marital laws of the Gentiles—the ruling from m. Gitt. 4:5 mentioned in Chapter 1 that deals with “half-slave half-bondman” may also reect that tendency. It turns out that there is a tradition, attested in a later rabbinic source, that both applies Genesis 2:24 to the Gentiles and interprets the ending of the verse (“and cleaves to his wife, and they become one esh”) as describing sexual relations with a prostitute:    .            :  

   

         

         “AND SHALL CLEAVE UNTO HIS WIFE,” . . . If a harlot was standing in the street and two men had intercourse with her, the rst is not culpable while the second is, on account of the verse, Behold, you will die . . . for she has been possessed by a man (Gen 20:3). But did the rst

23 See, for example, D. Flusser, ‘The “Flesh-Spirit” Dualism in the Judean Desert Scrolls and the New Testament’, in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Qumran, 244–251; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pre-Pauline Christianity”, in: Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 23–74, esp. 60–74. See also S. Metso, ‘The Relationship between the Damascus Document and the Community Rule’ and C. Hempel, ‘The Laws of the Damascus Document and 4QMMT’, in: The Damascus Document: Centennial (note 5 above), 69–93. 24 See the discussion in Kister, ‘Divorce, Reproof ’ (note 5 above).

142

chapter five intend to acquire (marry) her through cohabitation? Hence this proves that cohabitation in the case of the Noachides acquires, though that is not in accordance with [ Jewish] law.25

One may speculate as to the extent to which Paul’s reasoning in 1 Corinthians 6 is inuenced by the fact that the Epistle addresses a Gentile audience and/or is linked to an existing midrashic tradition. Whatever the case, Paul, unlike Jesus in Matthew 19, understands Genesis 2:24 as an etiological saying describing a pitiful state of affairs and not as God’s commandment—an illuminating indication of how far reservations concerning the “esh” could go. One may wonder what be Paul’s interpretation would of the beginning of the verse: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother”. Judging by the opposition between     (“joins himself to a prostitute,” verse 16) and     (“is united to the Lord,” verse 17), Paul might have in mind that the “father” is God himself.26 It should be emphasized that while Paul in his complex argumentation uses an explicitly Christological motif of members of the community as “members of Christ” (1 Cor 6:15), the rest of his reasoning is not intrinsically connected to the messianic kerygma. It seems reasonable that before being incorporated into Paul’s Christology this “non-kerygmatic” section could have had an existence of its own. We can then combine the evidence from the Gospels, Qumran and Pauline writings to reconstruct the eschatologically avored segment of the variety of attitudes toward marriage and esh; in this perspective the attitude attested in Matthew 19 should be seen as belonging to the moderate side, with Paul and Qumran far to the other end of the spectrum. The New Testament and the marital halakhah of the Damascus Document Suggestions concerning the exact meaning of the CD problematic admonition—that is, whether it is directed against polygamy, divorce, remarriage or some combination of these—have been based either on the philological analysis of the passage (e.g., attempts to solve the

25

Gen. R. 18, 24 (Theodor-Albeck, p. 167). A similar interpretation of Gen 2:24, with the Holy Spirit representing “mother”, was developed—either relying on 1 Corinthians 6 or independently—in the rst half of the 4th century by Aphrahat. See Aphrahat, Demonstrations 18.10 (D. I. Parisot, Patrologia Syriaca 1, Paris 1894, 840). 26

the proper attitude to marriage and divorce

143

problem of the masculine plural sufx of  in CD-A 4:21) or on reading it in the context of the Qumran and even more general Jewish, halakhic tendencies.27 As for New Testament evidence, it has only rarely been recruited to elucidate the meaning of CD-A 4:21, and then rather hesitantly. Tom Holmén, however, did refer to 1 Corinthians 7 as indicating that a particular interpretation of , and correspondingly of the Damascus Document admonition as a whole, is possible—namely, that although remarriage is not rejected in principle, it is acceptable only after the ex-wife/husband has died. As he put it, although this kind of approach “may seem bafing to us, it cannot be regarded as impossible for the Qumranites. At least Paul seems to have cherished the same kind of opinions”.28 I suppose that the cautious wording reects doubts as to how one should evaluate Paul’s reasoning here. What does it mostly represent: the apostle’s peculiar kerygmatic stance, his agenda vis-à-vis the Gentile audience or inherited patterns of Jewish religious thought? As already suggested, the bulk of Paul’s reasoning on the issue probably bears witness to existing patterns of belief; hence, the evidence from 1 Corinthians may be used with more condence in the discussion of the CD stance. I would like also to introduce additional Pauline evidence that, as far as I am aware, has not yet been considered in this context: 1 Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the law (Torah)—that the law is binding on a person only during his life? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. 4 Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Rom 7:1–4)

There have been attempts, though they are not very convincing, to interpret Romans 7 as a whole as addressed exclusively to a Gentile

27 In addition to studies referred to above, see also T. Holmén, ‘Divorce in CD 4:20 –5:2 and in 11QT 57:17–18: Some Remarks on the Pertinence of the Question’, Revue de Qumran 18.3 (1998), 397–408; J. Kampen, ‘A Fresh Look at the Masculine Plural Sufx in CD IV, 21’, Revue de Qumran 16.1 (1993), 91–98. 28 Holmén, ‘Divorce in CD’, 401.

144

chapter five

audience and thus pointedly to only Gentile concerns.29 Whatever the case, however, the opening (“Do not you know, brethren, for I speak to them that know the law/Torah”.) presents the argument that follows as embedded in traditional Torah-centered teaching. There is no special reason in this case to dismiss the apostle’s words as sheer rhetoric—as a rule, Paul’s discourse is distinguished by a sharp differentiation between various types of truth: revealed, transmitted by a tradition or attained in the process of the apostle’s own contemplation (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 7, Galatians 1). The line of Paul’s argument here may indicate a similar differentiation: while vv. 2–3 represent the inherited thema, v. 4 promotes the new Christological rhema. What parameters of the inherited tradition underlying Romans 7:2–3 may be gleaned from the text? It discusses the possibility of severing the marital bonds and presents it as unlawful except after the death of the spouse. It deserves notice that the spouse’s death and the remarriage that follows are presented in Paul’s peculiar context as a desired development!30 The wording here is characterized by repeated use of the expression “in his (i.e., the man’s/ husband’s) life” (  ,  ! "), a close parallel to the enigmatic  from CD-A 4:21.31 How can the observed characteristics of the passage from Romans 7 inform our interpretation of CD-A 4, and vice versa? Paul’s switch from “a person” (# ) in v. 1 to “a married woman” ($  %&) in v. 2 may indicate that the inherited argument employed here could in principle be applied in both directions; so we can hardly derive from the passage a sure indication regarding the gender behind  of CD-A 4:21. It is clear, however, that the meaning of “in his life” in Paul’s epistle cannot be reduced to “all the time while they live together (are married)”—an interpretation of the CD ruling suggested by Louis Ginzberg.32 Hence the evidence from Romans 7 does not work in favor of the interpretation of the Damascus Document prohibition as concerned exclusively with polygamy. The option not only of polygamy but also of divorce could not be seen as underlying Paul’s reasoning here—neither of them would t the

29

Most recently, see J. Gager, Reinventing Paul, Oxford 2000, 126–128. Cf. the discussion in 1 Corinthians 7. 31 Cf. 1 Cor 7:39. 32 L. Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect, New York 1976, 20 (originally published in German in 1922). 30

the proper attitude to marriage and divorce

145

message the apostle is propagating. Of course, it does not necessarily prove that the same is true for CD; although each of the two traditions build on the same basic pattern, it does not immediately follow that their contents are identical. Yet to my mind, all limitations notwithstanding, Romans 7:1–3 should be taken seriously in any discussion of the Damascus Document position on the issue. At this initial stage of the inquiry, it may be suggested that since the perception of death as the natural limit for application of Torah’s halakhah underlies both sources (though not present in Matt 19:3–9!), it seems to reect a more general trend. Paul’s rhetorical claim in Romans 7:1 for presenting a traditional argument emerges as fairly adequate after all. Further inquiry It seems tting to conclude this chapter with suggestions for further inquiry. First, the introduction of Romans 7:1–4 into our discussion raises the question of genre. It is clear that Paul does not have any halakhic interest here—the marital law centered thema is used only as a pretext for promoting one of Paul’s core religious ideas: salvation through Jesus’ death and not through following the Torah (ritual) stipulations. Matthew 19:3–9 is likewise characterized by a mixture, albeit of a different kind: after the ideal based on Genesis 1, 2 is presented, the practical halakhah is suggested, halakhah that turns out to be based on Jesus’ (= Shammai’s) interpretation of the same verse from Deuteronomy 24, which has just been branded a compromise initiated by Moses: He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives (in Deut 24:1), but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity (   from Deut 24:1 interpreted as  ), and marries another, commits adultery”. (Matt 19:8–9)

It was suggested by Holmén that what CD-A 4:21—5:1 propagates is “the ideal of matrimony” and not a call to actually prohibit the current practice.33 To what extent should the New Testament evidence strengthen that assessment and make us reconsider the perception of the passage of the Damascus Document as a piece of marital halakhah?

33

Holmén, ‘Divorce in CD’, 407.

146

chapter five

Second, the fact that neither Matthew 9:3–9 nor Romans 7:1–6—nor 1 Corinthians 6, 7 for that matter—relate to polygamy should be taken seriously into consideration. As noted, the polygamy-oriented interpretation of CD-A 4:21 may be sustained even vis-à-vis the opposing New Testament evidence. But if it is sustained, this should inform our understanding of the social background of the CD polemic34 and, more specically, of the group that is represented by the “builders of the fence” (  ). While many scholars, starting with Solomon Schechter, have identied the “builders of the fence” with the Pharisees,35 others have seen the admonition as directed by the compiler against contemporary Jewish society in general.36 It is instructive that in the New Testament not only Matthew, distinguished by his preference for Jesus vs. the Pharisees “controversy stories pattern”,37 but also his Markan source present lenience in matters of divorce as the characteristic feature of the Pharisaic stance (Matt 19:3; cf. Mark 10:2). But, as noted, in all Jesus’ controversies with the Pharisees—be it in the form of discussion or invective—polygamy never features. There is no particular reason to doubt this kind of presentation, which, on the one hand, does not seem to be inuenced by any immediate messianic (kerygmatic) concern and, on the other hand, is substantiated by tannaitic evidence that attributes such a divorce oriented approach specically to Hillelites. Thus if we adopt the restricting polygamy-centered interpretation of the CD-A 4 invective, the least we should say is that Jesus’ Pharisees and the “builders of the fence” do not represent the same distinctive outlook. Whether the difference should be explained as pointing to a diachronic development within the same group or to different groups is a question that warrants further deliberation. Conclusion It is clear that if the Qumran community and the nascent Jesus movement are perceived as merely two among a number of the Second Tem34

See Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic’ (note 5 above). S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries; Fragments of a Zadokite Work, Cambridge 1910, 36 n. 22. 36 See J. G. Campbell, The Use of Scripture in the Damascus Document, New York and Berlin 1995, 121–122. 37 See Repschinski, ‘Taking on the Elite’ (note 15 above). See also idem, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism, Göttingen 2000. 35

the proper attitude to marriage and divorce

147

ple Jewish groups, a comparative study of the respective corpora—if not necessarily pointing to a direct development of New Testament traditions from earlier Qumran ones—may contribute to better understanding of the Jewish setting of the former. Our discussion of exegetical parallels corroborates this basic position. I suggested a complementing direction, which can also be fruitful: we should more intensely introduce evidence from the New Testament into the discussion of texts from Qumran. Thus investigation of Paul’s epistles may prove useful for elucidating the meaning of the Damascus Document marital halakhah, while the combined evidence of the epistles and the Gospels may be helpful in clarifying the nature of the CD eschatological stance and/or the identity of the opponent, with whom the CD exegesis polemicizes. And, of course, the two sets of writings should be studied comparatively (together with other relevant Jewish writings)38 to outline both the common basic patterns and the variety of exegetical trends of late Second Temple Judaism. Exactly because there are signicant differences in exegetical approach and religious ideas, clearly indicating that we are dealing with separate communities, the existence of common patterns testies to their broad circulation. All this is especially valid when the New Testament traditions in question are not intrinsically connected with the messianic kerygma. The comparative study may, inter alia, provide an additional criterion for distinguishing peculiar Qumran ideas in the Scrolls from those representing wider Jewish circles. Thus in light of New Testament parallels such CD patterns as relying on Genesis 1:27 for establishing marital halakha, portraying lust as the main outlet of the evil impulse or combining it with greed as cardinal “Satan’s snares”, should be seen as representing common Second Temple tendencies rather than particular sectarian exegetical patterns. On the other hand, observed differences in attitude toward “esh” allow us to appreciate better the nuanced variety of existing approaches. Admittedly, the case of adultery-divorce at this stage provides mostly questions for further inquiry rather than denite solutions, but it aptly illustrates both the potential and the limitations of the approach suggested.

38 See, for example, M. Kister, ‘Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition, and Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha, and Other Jewish Writings’, in: J. C. Reeves (ed.), Tracing the Threads; Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, Atlanta 1994, 1–34.

CHAPTER SIX

THE SEAT OF SIN AND THE LIMBS OF TORAH In the previous chapter, it was suggested that Paul’s writings might contribute to a better understanding of the Second Temple and later Jewish exegetical tendencies, and Romans 7:1–4 was among the evidence reviewed there. Continuing that line of investigation, another passage from Romans 7 will now be discussed, where the apostle speaks of “two Torahs”—the true spiritual one and another, represented by the sinful limbs of the human body. Paul, however, is in no way the only New Testament author interested in identifying the locus of sin, hence, as in the preceding discussion, complementing evidence (e.g., from the Gospels) will also be taken into consideration. Since emphasis on the intention of the heart—and not only on deeds—as transmitted by the Synoptic Gospels is considered to be an outstanding feature of Jesus’ preaching, it comes as no surprise that the heart is sometimes presented in the Synoptics (e.g., Matt 15:17–19) as the true source of transgressions. In the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, the attention paid to what goes on in man’s inner self (Matt 5:22: “whosoever is angry with his brother . . .”)1 and the emphasis on love as the central imperative of God’s Torah point in the same direction. Yet side by side with this we also nd in the Sermon on the Mount a statement of quite a different kind: 29 If your right eye causes you to sin (ƴƬƣƮƦƣƭɛƨƧƫ), pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell (ƥɗƧƮƮƣƮ). 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin (ƴƬƣƮƦƣƭɛƨƧƫ), cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell (ƥɗƧƮƮƣƮ). (Matt 5:29–30)2

1 See the discussion in Chapter 1; see also Ruzer, ‘The Technique of Composite Quotations’, 65–75. 2 Cf. Matt 18:8; Mark 9:43, 45; Luke 17:1. For possible relationships among the Synoptics here, see W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, Anchor Bible, New York 1971, 217.

150

chapter six

The opposition between these two existential impetuses, the heart and the limbs, as the seat of sin remains unresolved in the Gospel text, causing discomfort for exegetes. Modern commentaries aptly demonstrate the exegetical tension there between locating sin in the heart or in the limbs. While the Anchor Bible Commentary allows for the sinful potential of limbs as agents of “known occasions of sin”, such as lustful sights or physical contacts,3 the International Critical Commentary (ICC) dismisses the cutting off of sinful limbs as an allegory, stating with unreserved condence that: Jesus and the NT writers knew well enough that amputation would scarcely curb the passions since the problem is not with the body itself but, as Paul put it, with “sin that dwells in me” (Rom 7:17, 20) . . . The lustful eye is not to be mutilated but brought into custody.4

In contradistinction, John McKenzie in The Jerome Biblical Commentary claims no less forcefully: The restatement of the Law [here] is directed at the roots of the impulse . . . The fact that the saying is couched in a rather intense hyperbole does not entitle interpreters to reduce it to a vague form of spiritual detachment.5

In the new edition of the same commentary a different appraisal of Matthew 5:29–30 is expressed. Benedict Viviano writes: These verses parallel Mark 9:43–47 but are omitted by Luke, probably because of the Oriental hyperbolic mode in which they are expressed. The point is that Jesus calls for a radical ordering of priorities. The logic of one’s decisions and moral choices is important. It is better to sacrice a part of one’s moral freedom than to lose the whole.6

This very opposition between presenting the heart as the source of sin and blaming bodily members, discerned both in the Gospel account and in attempts at its interpretation, triggered the present examination of the seat of sin in early Jewish sources, which aims at clarifying the

3

See Albright-Mann, Matthew, 63. Davies-Allison, Matthew, 1:524. On this occasion, Origen is quoted by the ICC compilers as one who wrote—commenting on Matt 15:4—that the Christian “amputates the passions of the soul without touching the body” (ektemnoi to tes psyches pathetikon, me haptomenos Iou somatos). See Origen, Opera omnia, Berolini 1834, 3:334. 5 The last statement refers to a parallel saying in Matt 18:9. See J. L. McKenzie, ‘The Gospel According to Matthew’, in: J. A. Fitzmyer and R. E. Murphy (eds.), The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 2 vols., London 1968, 2:72, 94. 6 Viviano, ‘Matthew’, in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 642. 4

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

151

extent to which this opposition, seemingly characteristic of the New Testament evidence, is an inherited one. In other words, is it intrinsic to Jewish exegetic traditions from the Second Temple period dealing with the question of the seat of sin? What opinions are attested in those traditions concerning the source of sin? Do sins begin in the heart (often synonymous in this context with a person’s soul)7 or in some particularly treacherous bodily limbs, or is the source of transgression external to both soul and body? A distinction must be made between two different, though interconnected, motifs—namely, bodily limbs as an impetus in man’s sinful inclination and the post factum punishment of guilty limbs—the punishment that may befall the limbs either in this world or in Gehenna.8 It is clear that the tradition from the Sermon on the Mount quoted above addresses the preventive “cutting off ” of the limbs—to curb the evil inclination—rather than the punishment of guilty limbs; the present discussion will also focus on the motif of bodily limbs as existential impetuses—with a special emphasis on an exegetical pattern connecting certain guilty members or, alternatively, them in toto to the complete set of Torah prohibitions. It should be emphasized that the issue here is the evaluation of a human predicament vis-à-vis sin, a predicament enacted in the life of everyone, and not the primordial origin of evil, the nature of the fall in the Garden of Eden (human? angelic?), etc.9 Let us start with a brief review of the main trends regarding the seat of sin attested in Jewish sources from the Second Temple period and their development in later rabbinic literature. As in previous chapters, the focus will be on the “internalized phase” of the trajectory, with the inuence of wider Hellenistic tendencies on Jewish ideas in question remaining beyond the scope of the discussion. Among other trends, a gradual suppression of the bodily limbs’ responsibility for transgression in rabbinic sources will be discussed. Further on, I shall return to the New Testament and demonstrate that both the Synoptic and the Pauline treatment of the seat of sin bear testimony to an early stage of those rabbinic tendencies. And nally, some further developments in Christian thought after Paul will be briey touched upon. 7

It seems to have been thus understood in the Bible; see S. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, New York 1961, 260. 8 For a thorough examination of the latter scenario, see S. Lieberman, ‘On Sins and Their Punishment’, in: idem, Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature, Jerusalem 1991, 70–89 (in Hebrew). 9 For a discussion of this question and bibliography, see R. Davies, ‘The Origin of Evil in Ancient Judaism,’ Australian Biblical Review 50 (2002), 43–54.

152

chapter six

The latter avenue of investigation will be limited to a few initial observations. To offer a clearer picture of post-Pauline trends concerning the seat of sin one would have to examine Christian sources from the second to fourth centuries. An attempt should be made to nd out to what extent the solutions offered for the problem in Early Christianity—in its attempts at boundary marking vis-à-vis Judaism—were inuenced by the particular belief in the Messiah’s expiating death and resurrection. Another possibility should also be checked—namely, that some older or more general lines of reasoning were adapted to that end. The question of possible mutual inuences between Jewish and Christian authors during not only the early formative but also the later periods needs to be addressed, a question that does not necessarily have a denitive answer.10 All this is well beyond what this chapter aspires to accomplish. The sin of the heart The rst approach to be discussed is the one ascribing to the human heart/human soul responsibility for sinful inclinations. This heartcentered approach is thought by some scholars to be the dominant one in the Jewish thought of late antiquity: it is described by Solomon Schechter as the true representative of rabbinic theology.11 As noted, such an impetus to sin is attested already in the Bible, often being combined with the notion of “change of the heart” or turning away from sin. Ezekiel 18:31; 36:26–27 and Psalms 51:12 provide characteristic examples, where the “change of heart” is coupled with receiving the new spirit.12 In rabbinic literature this heart-centered outlook nds its classical, if relatively late, expression in Pesiqta de Rab Kahana: 10 For an evaluation of the possibility of this kind of inuence see G. Stemberger, ‘Exegetical Contacts between Christians and Jews’, in: M. Saebo (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. I, Göttingen 1996, 571–586. From his early publications, J. Neusner has been advocating the most pessimistic view regarding the possibility of such contacts. See, for instance, J. Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism; The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran, Leiden 1971, 187. The possible inuence of the shared general (Greco-Roman) milieu, rather than reciprocal contacts between Judaism and Christianity, needs also to be taken into consideration. See, for example, B. L. Visotzky, Fathers of the World, Tübingen 1995, 9. 11 Schechter, Aspects, 243, 255. See also F. C. Porter, ‘The Yecer Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin’, in: Biblical and Semitic Studies, New York 1901, 110, 116 and 132–133. 12 See Le Dictionnaire de spiritualité, Paris 1953, 2:1046.

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

153

The heart sees, the heart hears, the heart speaks, the heart walks, the heart falls, . . . the heart is tried, the heart rebels, . . . the heart whispers, . . . the heart desires, the heart commits adultery, . . . the heart is stolen, . . . the heart goes astray, . . . the heart hates, the heart is jealous, . . . the heart covets, . . . the heart is deceitful, the heart schemes, . . . the heart is arrogant.13

As will be shown, seeing, hearing, speaking and walking feature prominently in early descriptions of the physical actions of the serpent and Eve that led to the Fall. With those descriptions in mind, one may discern in this section from Pesiq. R. Kah. a polemical note arguing the heart to be the only true reason for a person’s sins. This heart intuition is often formulated in rabbinic literature in terms of the yetzer ha-ra, evil inclination; thus in b. Ned. 32b bodily limbs are presented as succumbing to the siege laid (on the heart) by the yetzer ha-ra. The evil inclination is usually combined with an additional notion of the good inclination, also dwelling in the heart. This construction is found already in the early strata of rabbinic literature, which suggests that the double notion of the good/evil inclination was known already in the tannaitic period: “And thou shalt love Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might. With all thy heart—with both thine impulses, thy good impulse and thine evil impulse” (   '  

              ) (m. Ber. 9:5).14 A parallel (and later) notion of two hearts is also attested, where each heart is a seat of one inclination. Unlike humans, angels have only one heart, and in messianic times the Israelites will attain this.15 A complementing list of positive attributes is also ascribed to the heart in the fragment from Pesiq. R. Kah., quoted above: “. . . the heart thinks, . . . the heart is humbled, . . . the heart is awake, the heart loves, the heart accepts words of comfort, . . . the heart receives commandments, etc.” As Schechter noted, however, the term “evil inclination” ( yetzer [ ha]ra) suggested by Genesis 6:5 and 8:21 seems to have been coined at an earlier stage, while the “good inclination” ( yetzer [ ha-]tov) notion developed later, forming, together with yetzer ha-ra, the dialectical heart notion. One of the indications is the use, already in the Scripture

13 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 124a and b (ed. Buber). See Schechter, Aspects, 255–256 and n. 2 there. See also y. Ber. 4.1 [7d]; Cant. R. 1.2; b. Sukk. 52a. See the discussion in Urbach, The Sages, 471–477. 14 See also b. Ber. 61b; cf. Sifre Deut. 35; Abot R. Nat. 47a. 15 See Gen. R. 48.11 (Vilna); b. Meg. 14a.

154

chapter six

(Deut 31:11), of the noun yetzer alone, without the predicate form of “evil”, as representing the unreliability of man, the factor responsible for Israel’s apostasy. Another indication is provided by the Aramaic targumic tradition, which routinely adds, when translating the word yetzer, the predicate form of “evil” lacking in the Hebrew original (Tg. Ps.-J., Deut 31:21; cf. Targum for Ps 103:14).16 It seems highly possible then that the term yetzer ha-ra predates the New Testament; it has even been suggested that it was used in its rabbinic sense as early as in Ben Sira.17 Geert Cohen Stuart, without necessarily denying early appearances of the term itself, argued alternatively that it is only in the second century c e that the characteristically rabbinic concept of evil inclination was formed.18 Within this general tendency to see the heart as the true seat of the evil inclination, a number of questions are raised in rabbinic sources. One avenue of discussion explores when the yetzer ha-ra rst affects a person’s heart. Arguments for the embryonic state are offered, but the domineering notion is that the evil inclination begins to dwell in the heart only from the moment of birth.19 The death of small children then is understood as atonement not only for the sins of their parents20 but possibly also for their own transgressions, since even a small child’s intentions are basically evil.21 We are not forced to relegate such ideas to later developments during the time of the Talmud, because Philo was already not only familiar with them but viewed them as expressed in the Bible and worthy of allegorization. Thus commenting on Genesis 8:21 (“And the Lord God said: Never again will I curse the earth because of the deeds of men, for the thought of man is resolutely turned toward evil[s] from his youth”), Philo suggests that “youth” here stands for the

16

See Schechter, Aspects, 243. It is not impossible that this historical development inuenced often-repeated statements that the evil inclination of any specic person is older (by at least 13 years) than his good inclination. See, for example, Abot R. Nat. 32d. 17 See Porter, ‘The Yecer’, 145, who refers to Sir 15:14; 21:11. 18 G. H. Cohen Stuart, The Struggle in Man between Good and Evil; An Inquiry into the Origin of the Rabbinic Concept of Ye‘er Hara’, Kampen 1984. 19 With Gen 4:7 (“. . . guilt lies at the door/entrance”) serving as the proof text. See b. Sanh. 91b; Cf. Gen. R. 34, 10; y. Ber. 3,5 [6d]. An isolated opinion is attested, according to which yetzer ha-ra begins to grow only from the age of ten; see Tanch. Beresh. 7. See Urbach, The Sages, 220 and n. 14 there. 20 See b. Sabb. 119b. 21 See y. Ber. 3.1 [6b]. Intentions only, since the child is still unable to perform sinful deeds. On this point Augustine would gladly have agreed with the Talmud.

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

155

“swaddling bands” of the tiny child, while the resulting pitiful state characterizes the whole life span of an individual.22 A second issue discussed in rabbinic sources is the (supporting) role of certain bodily parts in causing one to sin. This follows a tendency attested already in the Bible: while in Job 31:1 the eye seems to be responsible for a specic transgression (“I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I look upon a virgin?”),23 in Numbers 15:39 it represents generally—like the heart—sinful intent or desire: That when they shall see them, they may remember all the commandments of the Lord, and not follow their own heart (thoughts) and eyes going astray after diverse things. They must not let their heart (thoughts) and eyes wander free, into all manner of unfaithfulness.

Similarly, in rabbinic sources usually the eyes (or eye) are named together with the heart as co-agents of sin.24 However, side by side with traditions that presuppose a parallel responsibility between heart and eye as agents of sin, we nd a related statement ascribed to a tannaitic teacher that may indicate the rst sinful impulse coming from the heart, the eyes only following the lead (Sifre Numbers, 115):25 “. . . not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes [which you are inclined to go after wantonly] (Num 15:39)”: Does this indicate that the eyes follow the heart or the heart the eyes (         )? Argue in this way: do you not have the case of a blind man who may perform every despicable deed that the world contains? So what does Scripture mean when it says, “. . . not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes which you are inclined to go after wantonly”? It teaches that the eyes follow the heart.26

The possibility of overcoming the evil inclination dwelling in the heart is also discussed. Prognoses vary from altogether pessimistic to mildly optimistic. According to a typically optimistic opinion going back it seems to tannaitic times, when the words of the Torah manage to nd a

22

Philo, Ques. in. Gen. II.54. Elaborated upon in Abot R. Nathan B 2 (Schechter, 8–9). 24 See, for instance, m. Abot 2:9, 11; cf. ibid., 5:19. See also y. Ber. 4.2 [7d]; cf. b. Sanh.48a; b. Ber. 20a; b. Zebah. 118b; Num. R. 16. Cf. Matt 20:15. The eye sometimes also represents greed or envy, which is seen as one of the basic characteristics of the evil inclination; see m. Abot 2:11. 25 See also Ber. 1.4 [3c]. 26 English translation according to J. Neusner, Sifré to Numbers: An American Translation and Explanation, Atlanta 1986. 23

156

chapter six

dwelling place in the chambers of the heart and enter and dwell there, the evil inclination loses its dominion over the person. In principle, then, yetzer ha-ra, which has possessed the heart since the moment of birth, can be expelled from the heart and exchanged for quite a different tenant, the Torah.27 This replacement of the evil inclination with the Torah, achieved through diligent study and incessant efforts at keeping the commandments, should not to be confused with the prophetic hope that God will change man’s heart related to above. Flesh and bodily limbs To review other opinions regarding the location of sinful inclination, let us turn rst to Philo. It goes without saying that Philo’s anthropology reects opinions widely held in Hellenistic philosophic circles. What gives this anthropology its specic Jewish coloring is an attempt to establish a link between a philosophic notion and the Scripture. There is the whole portion of Philo’s thought where he was concerned with the divine harmony between the revealed Law and the law installed by God in the cosmos as well as in humanity; such harmony diffuses the inner conict of the soul that may often lead to sin.28 It is not this pattern, however, that is particularly relevant to the present discussion but rather those lines of reasoning attested in Philo’s treatises where he addressed the inherent human tendency to rebel against God’s commandment and tried to pinpoint the source of this rebellion. Writing on the body, senses and mind (head)—the latter being the seat of heavenly thoughts and self-control—Philo returns to the biblical account of the double creation of Adam, from dust of the earth and from God’s spirit, and Eve, followed by the story of their seduction by the serpent. According to Philo, the serpent allegorically represents the love of pleasure that rst encounters and has a discourse with the senses (represented by Eve). Through the senses the serpent cheats the

27 As, for example, in Ab. R. Nat. 15b. The issue is treated in Cohen Stuart, The Struggle in Man, 60–66. The pessimistic appraisal is discussed in S. Ruzer, ‘The Death Motif in Late Antique Jewish Teshuva Narrative Patterns and in Paul’s Thought’, in: Transforming the Inner Self (see Chapter 1, note 24), 151–165. 28 E.g.: De Opicio Mundi 1–3, 17–20, 143–147. See Wolfson, Philo, 192–194. I am grateful to Francesca Calabi of the University of Milan, who drew my attention to a number of important statements by Philo in this vein.

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

157

mind, the ruling part of the soul, itself.29 Philo believed the mind to have been seduced prior to the sinful act; at least in some instances, however, the initial source of this love of pleasure seemed to be located outside the soul, in the human body as a whole. So Philo, commenting on Genesis 7:21 (“All esh that moved died [in the ood]”): Excellently and naturally has [Scripture] spoken of the destruction of moving esh, for esh moves the sensual pleasures and is moved by sensual pleasures. But such movements are causes of the destruction of souls, just as the rules of self-control and patience are the causes of salvation. (Ques. in Gen. II.22)30

It must be noted, however, that an alternative tendency also is attested in Philo’s writing, according to which at least the sensations and passions—if not the physical body itself—are necessary to men, i.e. to the proper functioning of the mind. The mistake or sin is seen then as derived not from the body/the sensations but from their wrong treatment by the mind (e.g., Leg. All. II.38). Yet the negative evaluation of the esh in general, which seems to remain dominant in Philo, may be likewise found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Thus, in T. Zeb. 9 the negative evaluation of the esh is combined—without any attempt at harmonization—with the notion of the exclusive responsibility of the head: “Do not be divided into two heads, because everything the Lord has made has a single head. He provides two shoulders, two hands, two feet, but all members obey(!) one head . . . Since they are esh . . . the spirits of deceit had led them astray”. It may be added, following Ephraim Urbach, that an extreme dualistic anthropology similar to Philo’s was adopted not only by Josephus (e.g., War III.8, 5; VII.8, 7) but also by at least some of the Tannaim, who, according to a later witness, applied, to man the saying, “Shake off the salt and throw the meat to the dog” claiming that the salt stands here for the soul, God’s share, the meat for the body—the parents’ share (b. Nid. 31a).31 Existence of a schism between the components of humanity (be it a di-partite or a tri-partite division, similar to what is found in Philo—Plato) has long been recognized by students of rabbinical literature.32 However, this idea of an anthropological schism,

29 30 31 32

See Ques. in Gen. II.54; De Opicio Mundi 165. Cf. Spec. Leg. IV.187–188. Cf. b. Nid. 16b. See Urbach, The Sages, 218, 331. See Urbach, The Sages, 220. Sometimes the division, in the Talmud and in the

158

chapter six

which blamed man’s body for the sins he committed, was seen by some teachers as problematic. A rst-century Tanna is claimed to have spoken of the whole person (body and soul) as standing before the heavenly Judge (m. Abot 3:1), and a polemical statement attributed to Hillel in b. Ab. Zar. 27b reads that it is exactly man’s body that constitutes the image of God.33 Attempts at harmonization of the anthropological schism were not lacking, and a solution of shared responsibility was suggested in the following dialogue found in the Talmud: The body and soul can free themselves from judgment. How? The body can say: It is the soul that sinned, for since the day that it left me, I lie still as a stone in the grave. And the soul can say: The body has sinned, for since the day I left it, I y in the air like a bird, lame and blind. . . . Even so the Holy One, blessed be He, takes the soul and casts it into the body and judges them as one. (b. Sanh. 9Ia–b)34

The above harmonization is similar to that proposed by Philo, who not only sees the soul as approached by sin through the body but states that the soul and even its upper part, the mind itself, are united with the sinful esh and, therefore, tainted by sin. Consequently, “the Law prescribes purication for both the body and the soul”.35 Alongside the attitude that views humanity’s being esh as the rst cause of its sinfulness, the body as a whole as the abode of sin, Philo sometimes also located sinful desire specically in certain parts of the body. Philo’s argument was presented as an interpretation of the biblical account in Genesis 3:14–15, where the issue is the peculiar bodily structure of the serpent. Philo claimed that the belly, the only remaining external organ of the serpent, represented the seat of the inclination to seek pleasure, the source of sin: The serpent spoken of is a t symbol of pleasure because in the rst place he is an animal without feet sunk prone upon his belly. . . . The lover of pleasure . . . is so weighted and dragged downwards that it is with difculty that he lifts up his head, thrown down and tripped up by intemperance . . . causing the cravings of the belly to burst out and fanning

Midrash, is not of body vs. soul but that of bodily functions vs. heavenly attributes: man is said to be like the beasts with regard to eating, drinking, propagating, relieving himself, and dying. See Gen. R. 14.3; b. Hag. 16a; cf. Gen. R. 8.11. 33 See Urbach, The Sages, 226–227. 34 See Urbach, The Sages, 223. 35 Spec. Leg. I.259; II.251. See also Spec. Leg. I.314, III.86, 89.

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

159

them into ame, make the man a glutton, while they also stimulate and stir up the stings of his sexual lusts. (De Opicio Mundi 157–163)36

It may be surmised that Philo was familiar with the story of the serpent being deprived of other bodily limbs after his transgression. Cutting off the serpent’s legs, suggested by the biblical account itself in Genesis 3:14, was elsewhere interpreted by Philo as “dissolution and paralysis” of the whole body as the result of the belly’s dominion over it. The belly is presented here as the worst enemy of the rest of the bodily parts, causing their paralysis/amputation: And it is the custom of adversaries that through that which they bestow as gifts they cause great harm, such as defectiveness of vision to the eyes, and difculty of hearing to the ears, and insensibility to the other (sense organs); and they bring upon the whole body dissolution and paralysis taking away all its health. (Ques. in Gen. I.48)

The amputation motif receives a different twist in the Apocalypsis Mosis, where not the belly the serpent is left with but the limbs that were dismembered as punishment are said to be the means of the serpent’s ensnaring: Accursed art you beyond all wild beasts. You shall be deprived of your hands as well as your feet. There shall be left for you neither ear nor wing nor one limb of all that with which you enticed them in your depravity and caused them to be cast out of Paradise. (Ap. Mos. 26)

The origin and sources of the Apocalypsis Mosis is admittedly a disputed issue. Most scholars, admitting Christian editing, speak of traditional Jewish material used widely by the author(s). The fragment in question has no distinct Christian elements, so there is reason to believe that we have here an example of (per)using an older midrash.37 It has been alternatively argued—most forcefully by Michael Stone—that the absence of Christian elements in a text does not necessarily classify it as Jewish.38 The question remains open; but whatever the particular milieu in which the Apoc. Mos. in its present form initially circulated, what is important for the present discussion is that the text bears witness to a certain development in the tendency—found already in Philo—to

36

Cf. Ques. in Gen. I.31; Ebr. 22; Spec. Leg. I.150; Leg. All. I.70; III.114. See Johnson, ‘Life of Adam and Eve: An Introduction’, in: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:249. 38 M. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and Eve, Atlanta 1992, 42–70. 37

160

chapter six

see a connection between the serpent’s sinful nature, his punishment (curse) by God in Genesis 3 and the resulting form of his body. It will be seen right away that advanced stages of this development—whoever incorporated it into the Apoc. Mos.—may be discerned in later rabbinic midrash. The basic structure of the story contains two main elements: the act of cutting off the limbs and the explanation for the deed. There can be little doubt that the amputation motif itself clearly belongs to the category of traditional midrashic material; as noted, it is suggested by the biblical account itself, is hinted at by Philo and resurfaces in different strata of the midrash dealing with Genesis 3:14–15, e.g., Genesis Rabbah 20.5.39 On the other hand, the justication for the amputation proposed by the Apoc. Mos. differs both from that of Philo and that of the Genesis Rabbah. I would venture to suggest that in the Apoc. Mos. the justication motif is one superimposed on the story—as the text stands, it is not at all clear why the serpent’s wings and not his tongue are among the punished limbs. However, as will be seen, the motif of legs, hands etc., being inciters of sin does reappear, mutatis mutandis, in a later midrash. First, however, let us take a closer look at the story told in the Apoc. Mos.: 16 And the devil spoke to the serpent, saying, “Rise and come to me, and I will tell you something to your advantage”. Then the serpent came to him, and the devil said to him, “I hear you are wiser than all the beasts; so I came to observe you. I found you greater than all the beasts, and they associate with you . . . Why [then] do you eat of the weeds of Adam and not of the fruit of Paradise? Rise and come and let us make him to be cast out of Paradise through his wife . . .”. The serpent said to him, “I fear lest the Lord be wrathful to me”. The devil said to him, “Do not fear; only become my vessel, and I will speak a word through your mouth by which you will be able to deceive him”. 18 Then the serpent said to me, “May God live! For I am grieved over you, that you are like animals. For I do not want you to be ignorant; but rise, come and eat, and observe the glory of the tree”. And I said to him, “I fear lest God be angry with me, just as he told us”. He said to me, “Fear not; for at the very time you eat, your eyes will be opened and you

39 Cf. Pirke R. El. 14 (Friedlander, 99). Note the later tradition clearly discriminating between the punishment of the serpent and that of the devil in Pirke R. El. 12. Gen. R. seems to preserve an earlier version of the midrashic elaboration: there are as yet no attempts to justify the particular form of punishment. Justication attempts usually characterize more developed forms of a tradition.

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

161

will be like gods, knowing good and evil . . .”. And I said to him, “It [the tree] is pleasing to consider with the eyes”; yet I was afraid to take the fruit. And he said to me, “Come, I will give it to you. Follow me”. 19 And I opened (the gate) for him, and he entered into Paradise, passing through in front of me. After he had walked for a while, he turned and said to me . . . wishing in the end to entice and ruin me. . . . For covetousness is the origin of every sin. And I bent the branch towards the earth, took of the fruit, and ate . . . 21 And I cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Adam, Adam, where are you? Rise, come to me and I will show you a great mystery”. And when your father came . . . I opened my mouth and the devil was speaking, and I began to admonish him, saying, “Come, my lord Adam, listen to me, and eat of the fruit of the tree of which God told us not to eat from it, and you shall be as God”. Your father answered and said, “I fear lest God be angry with me”. And I said to him, “Do not fear . . .”. Then I quickly persuaded him. He ate and his eyes were opened, and he also realized his nakedness. And he said to me, “O evil woman! Why have you wrought destruction among us? You have estranged me from the glory of God”. 32 Then Eve rose and went out and fell on the ground and said, “I have sinned, O God . . . I have sinned much . . . and all sin in creation has come through me”.

The structure of the narrative has two outstanding features: the introduction (in addition to the serpent) of the gure of the devil40 and the striking symmetry between the behavior of the serpent and that of Eve. The devil addresses the serpent, who is fearful at rst (16), and in a like manner the serpent addresses Eve, who also expresses her fear (18). The devil appeals to the serpent’s supposed inferior status and calls upon him to “rise over himself ” (16); in a similar fashion the serpent manipulates Eve (18)—it is worth noting that in both manipulations the issue seems to be the quality of the food supply! The serpent “speaks words of the devil” (18) and Eve does the same (21). The serpent walks in the garden—his legs are among the auxiliaries of his snare—and draws Eve after him (19); in like fashion Eve draws Adam after herself (21), etc. The story, then, strongly suggests that Eve’s guilt parallels the serpent’s; Eve declares that “all sin in creation has come about through me” (32). Moreover, in the text as it stands now, some elements of the serpent’s punishment—e.g., cutting off of the hands (26)—may be properly understood only if we see them as a punishment betting

40 And elsewhere also angels; see Apoc. Mos. 13; cf. Gen. R. 20.5 and Pirqe R. El. 13 (Friedlander, 91–96).

162

chapter six

Eve—it is Eve who confesses that she “bent the branch toward the earth, took the fruit, and ate” (19). Eve escapes amputation in the Apocalypsis Mosis, but the amputation does take place—and this time not as a punishment but as a preventive measure—in the famous midrashic description of Eve’s creation: I will not create her from [Adam’s] head, lest she be swelled-headed; nor from the ear, lest she be an eavesdropper; nor from the mouth, lest she be a gossip; nor from the heart, lest she be prone to jealousy; nor from the hand, lest she be light-ngered; nor from the foot, lest she be a gadabout; but from the modest part of man, for even when he stands naked, that part is covered. (Gen. R. 18, 2)

It is clear that Adam’s limbs and, by extension, Eve’s are the real source of sin here; each of those limbs is the abode of a particular evil inclination, and they must therefore not be employed at all in further creation and not merely punished afterward.41 We see that the underpinnings of the amputation motif may be discerned already in the Apoc. Mos., and the motif is re-used (adapted) later in rabbinic Midrash. One may view this later appropriation as an additional corroboration of this motif ’s Jewish origin; but even if the process of transition included some Christian stages—or Jewish-Christian or whatever gray areas, defying denition, might have existed—we may speak of a meaningful hermeneutical tradition concerning Genesis 2–3 that for a long period of time had a particular function—i.e., was called up to meet certain religious needs and had an impact on the development of rabbinic thought.42 In sum: In a number of texts reviewed in this section the source of temptation is located neither in the soul/heart nor in the esh in general but in specic bodily parts. Sometimes it is one particularly sinful member: the belly’s role has been highlighted, but of course other limbs also are portrayed as the main culprits—one such natural candidate is the sexual organ (as, for example, in b. Sukk. 52b.). In still other cases different limbs are presented as responsible for different temptations. The latter motif is especially relevant for the discussion that follows. One more remark: It should not be overlooked that in the rabbinic literature, altogether different developments are also attested. This 41 Although in the end, according to the continuation of the same midrash, all preemptive measures prove insufcient! 42 Cf. remark in J. A. Sanders, ‘From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4’, in: J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, Leiden 1975, 75.

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

163

multifaceted literature offers many examples of a positive evaluation of bodily limbs in general and specic limbs in particular. In b. Šabb. 151a–b, for example, even the sexual organ gets a positive evaluation, whereas castration—and baldness—is viewed negatively.43 Limbs and their temptations Let us now concentrate on a particular sub-development of the tradition that sees different limbs as responsible for different temptations. This sub-development found expression in the composing of lists of guilty bodily parts. A later and modied expression of this trend is attested in the tractate Makkot of the Babylonian Talmud by the name of R. Simlai (3rd century): The sum total of 613 Torah commandments is subdivided into 248 positive precepts, which correspond to the 248 parts of the human body, and 365 negative precepts, paralleling the number of days in the solar year.44 The meaning of the number 365 is explained by the suggestion that Satan every day tries to entrap man and cause him to transgress a commandment. It might be argued that the limbs in this talmudic passage, being connected with positive commandments only, do not belong to the realm of Satan, the realm of temptations and transgressions. At rst glance it may seem to be a completely different tendency from that discerned above in the Apoc. Mos. and the tradition on the creation of Eve from the Genesis Rabbah. However, on closer inspection the connection suggested here with the positive precepts presents itself as secondary. Thus the fact that the same total number of limbs, 248, is mentioned in the Mishnah45 without any connection to the Torah commandments led Urbach to conclude that the connection of the body parts with the positive precepts attested in the Talmud is the result of a later development. He further suggested that it was the earlier knowledge—from existing medical treatises—of the number of the bodily limbs and the idea that every limb, as well as every day of the year, needs a precept “that led to the xing of the exact number six hundred and thirteen”.46

43

See also b. Bek. 44a–45b. See b. Mak. 23b. It is the earliest extant Jewish source that speaks of the sum total of 613 commandments. 45 See m. Ohol. 1:8. 46 Urbach, The Sages, 342–343. 44

164

chapter six

Following Urbach, one may note that in the Talmud itself, side by side with this later development, a residual tradition is attested where the limbs are still associated with transgressions. For example, in b. Ned. 32b, Satan, the numerical value of whose Hebrew name, we are informed, is 364, is connected with the days of the year and with the negative commandments—exactly as in the section from b. Makkot discussed above. It is Abraham, the numerical value of whose name is 248, who represents in this passage the positive precepts; however, it is explained that at rst his name was Abram (numerical value 243) and only later was he given the additional letter he (numerical value 5). With the he Abraham gained mastery over the ve additional limbs: two eyes, two ears and the membrum (   ,   ,  ), “which entice one to immorality”. It is clear, then, that what Abraham was granted here was the power to resist the temptations having their abode in those ve limbs, temptations that had led and would lead men to transgress the Torah’s negative precepts. Would it be too far-fetched to suppose that what Abraham had at his disposal before attaining his new level of self-control was the ability to suppress sinful desires of the rest of the members of his body? Such a hypothesis—that this Talmudic section bears witness to an older layer of tradition where limbs were viewed as seats of temptations—is corroborated by Abot R. Nat. 32a, where it is stated unequivocally that all 248 organs are ruled by the evil inclination! It is telling that even Schechter, notwithstanding his eagerness to demonstrate that according to the rabbis the real drama goes on within man’s heart, had to agree that according to the passage from Abot R. Nat., the heart in itself seems no more corrupt than the rest of the 248 bodily organs.47 Combining this with the evidence supplied by additional talmudic sources where there is a clear parallel between the actions of the evil inclination and that of the limbs (both yetzer ha-ra and the limbs are said to seduce a man in this world and testify against him in the world to come),48 we may conclude that the development of the motif of counting the limbs bears witness to the survival of the ambivalent evaluation of the limbs’ character and function in the Jewish tradition of late antiquity. The suggestion may be raised that the later modication of this motif—in which the limbs became connected exclusively with the

47 48

Schechter, Aspects, 257. E.g., b. Taoan. 11a; b. Suk. 52b.

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

165

positive commandments—was a reaction of sorts to the opposite trend to see in the bodily members the source of every possible transgression of the Torah’s negative precepts. This reaction seems to go hand in hand with putting ever greater stress on the heart or mind or soul as responsible for sinful inclinations, as the seat of the evil inclination. The same gradual suppression of the bodily responsibility for transgressions may be discerned in the halakhic developments of the early tannaitic period as expressed in the rulings on some technical aspects of the execution of hard criminals. As shown by Moshe Halbertal, these halakhic developments were characterized by a transition from prescribing an execution that punishes the body to prescribing an execution that punishes the soul but leaves the body intact. According to Halbertal, during that period in certain circles the human body was strongly associated with the concept of the image of God, so any considerable harm to it as a result of a proper halakhic procedure became unthinkable.49 Exterior sources of sin This review of the trends concerning the seat of sin would be decient without mention of one additional idea attested in Jewish sources of the Second Temple period and continuing on to late antiquity—namely, the notion of the exterior source of sin. Genesis 3 and, even more emphatically, the apocryphal story of Adam and Eve contained this exterior element: the transference of the guilt from Adam to Eve to the serpent (and further to the devil), characteristic, as duly noted above, of that group of traditions. This transference, featuring prominently in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,50 is also indicated in the rabbinic sources. Thus in Sifre Deut. 323 we read: R. Nehemiah applied it (“For their vine is the vine of Sodom; their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter”, Deut 32:32) to the nations

49

See Chapter 2, note 40 and discussion there. Possible links of Halbertal’s conclusions with the schemes developed in the present chapter warrant further investigation. 50 The question of a distinct Jewish stage in the history of the T. 12 Patr. remains open. However, almost unanimous agreement suggests that the material included in the book “was partly taken directly from the OT and partly derived from Jewish sources and Haggadic (sic!) traditions”. (H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary, Leiden 1985, 84). See note 38 above and the discussion there.

166

chapter six of the world: you are certainly of the vine of Sodom and of planting of Gomorrah. You are the disciples of the primeval serpent that caused Adam and Eve to go astray (             ). Their clusters are bitter—the gall of the great ones among them is spread out in them like a serpent.51

The following talmudic tradition elaborates further on the same motif, explaining the nature of the difference between the nations and Israel and the persistence of the serpent’s snare even in the latter (b. Šabb. 146a): The serpent came upon Eve he injected a lust into her (   ): [as for] the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness departed; the idolaters, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their lustfulness did not depart. R. Aha son of Raba asked R. Ashi. What about proselytes (  )? Though they were not present, their guiding stars ( ) were present, as it is written, [ Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath], but with him that stands here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day. Now he differs from R. Abba b. Kahana, for R. Abba b. Kahana said: Until three generations the lustful [strain] did not disappear from our Patriarchs (      ): Abraham begat Ishmael, Isaac begat Esau, [but] Jacob begat the twelve tribes in whom there was no taint whatsoever.

Concerning the human predicament, the perception attested here is one of, in the words of Schechter, “a certain quasi-external agency . . . responsible for sin”, whilst man’s own “spontaneous nature” seems to be tailored to live in accordance with God’s will.52 Yet attempts at annulling the tension between the external and internal factors are also not lacking, as the following statement equating the evil inclination with Satan amply demonstrates. It is found in b. Baba Bath. 16a side by side with descriptions of Satan as belonging to a different, non-human, sphere:             :" . (“Resh Lakish said: Satan, the evil prompter, and the Angel of Death are all one”.). When, however, the notion of an external source of temptation is unequivocally expressed, it may be another human being—with a woman as the usual culprit—or evil spirits (spirits of Beliar), both highly developed motifs in T. 12 Patr.53 The situation is similar in the Dead

51 52 53

Cf. b. Ber. 61a; b. Erub. 18a. Schechter, Aspects, 263. For the former see especially, T. Jud. 13; T. Reub. 5; for a recent reassessment of

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

167

Sea Scrolls. Paul Garnet summarized the two central features of the Qumranic idea regarding the source of sin as follows: “[1 ] In Qumranic texts a parallel is established between sin and illness; sin is contagious and contact with sinners is to be avoided (sinners make others to sin); [2] Another cause of sinful behavior is the activity of evil spirits. It is not clear whether the ultimate destiny of the wicked is annihilation or eternal punishment, but the eternal punishment of evil spirits is more certain”.54 According to the Testaments, the inuence of the evil spirits is to be fought either through the self-training of the person’s mind (as in T. Benj. 3) or with the help of the angel of peace, who intervenes in order to guide the person’s soul (T. Benj. 6). In the Testament of Simeon (3.1) we are presented with a nuanced picture. Spirits of deceit and envy rule over the entire mind of man, while the rst three on the list of the evil spirits are described as having their seat in the body: impurity is seated in the nature and senses, insatiable desire in the belly, belligerence in the liver and the gall.55 At least in some Qumranic texts the issue of the internal struggle against the sinful inuence from outside seems to be overshadowed by a keen interest in redening the exact nature of sin, conditioned by a newly revealed, true interpretation of Torah precepts (vis-à-vis previous stages of relative ignorance).56 Preliminary results A number of different trends regarding the seat of sin in Jewish religious thought of the Second Temple period up to late antiquity have thus far been reviewed. We have seen that in addition to the idea of external

the issue see I. Rosen-Zvi, ‘Bilhah the Temptress: The Testament of Reuben and “The Birth of Sexuality” ’, The Jewish Quarterly Review 96 (2006), 65–94. For the latter see T. Benj. 3, 6; T. Issa. 3; T. Reub. 2. Cf. 1 Enoch 6; 10:7: “And the whole earth has been deled through the teaching of the works of Azazel; to him ascribe all sin”. 54 P. Garnet, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls, Tubingen 1977, 114. 55 See Hollander and de Jonge, The Testaments, 94. As noted, the same obvious connection with the belly is also found in Philo (Ques. in Gen. I.48). 56 See G. A. Anderson, ‘Intentional and Unintentional Sin in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in: D. P. Wright (ed.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells; Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, Winona Lake 1995, 49–64. Cf. Tertullian’s (On Repentance 3) readiness to allow that there are sins that “are imputed to chance, or to necessity, or to ignorance”, combined with his insistence on the central role of the will in all other cases of either ghting the sin or submitting to its demands. See A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids 1978, 3:659.

168

chapter six

factors causing man to sin, a variety of ideas concerning the inner location of the yetzer ha-ra exists. In some texts—such as T. Zeb. 9 quoted above—different and conicting ideas are presented side by side, while in others attempts at harmonization may be discerned. For the sake of clarity three basic—different, but not necessarily disconnected—theses may be formulated: a) The heart (mind, soul) is the seat of temptation. Transgression is committed by the heart. The organs depend on the heart’s decisions. The ght is fought in the heart. In rabbinic terminology: one is exhorted to substitute Torah for the evil inclination as the “tenant” of the heart. According to the T. 12 Patr., the angel of peace will guard one’s soul. b) Humanity’s esh is the rst cause of sinfulness. One’s body ignites the process of temptation, and only at some later stage does the heart/soul/mind succumb to temptation. It is with the heart’s consent that the sinful inclination is realized in an appropriate action. c) Different sinful inclinations have their abode in different limbs of the body. The sum total of the limbs (with the addition of the days of the solar year) corresponds to the sum total of the Torah’s positive and negative precepts. The limbs not only perform sinful deeds but are the true inciters of sin; therefore, not the punishment of the limbs in the Gehenna but rather their preventive amputation or non-creation is called for. It has been suggested that in some cases the notion connecting sins with limbs belongs to an early layer of tradition, overshadowed further on by heart/soul-centered concepts. But in contrast to the corresponding halakhic developments, these heart-centered tendencies do not fully suppress the limb-centered ones, which are still found not only in Pseudepigrapha but also in later layers of rabbinic literature. There are indications that both traditions, of limbs and of heart responsibility, existed side by side in the early tannaitic and even in the pre-Christian period, although their fully developed forms are usually attested only in later midrashic tradition. In some cases, earlier stages of those developments may be reconstructed, even when the extant textual evidence for such reconstruction is lacking.

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

169

New Testament evidence Let us now return to the New Testament, rst to the Synoptics. It has already been noted that one of the conicting notions discussed above—namely, that the heart is responsible for sin—is reected in the Sermon on the Mount. It is further forcefully expressed in Matthew 15:17–19, where the heart is claimed to be the sole source of a person’s evil thoughts and of evil deeds resulting from evil thoughts: 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and so passes on? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this deles a man. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.

The important link between sin and delement that is clearly present here is beyond the scope of this investigation. Sufce it to say that Jesus’ stance on the deling power of sin as different but no less real than ritual impurities has been discussed in the research vis-à-vis other roughly contemporaneous perceptions attested, e.g., in Philo, Qumran and early tannaitic traditions.57 Bart Koet analyzed the attitude toward the existing system of Jewish purity in Luke-Acts and suggested a nuanced appraisal of Jesus’ stance in the double treatise: Jesus is represented—in accordance with Luke’s general tendency to afrm delity to the Torah—as cautious to avoid impurity. Yet the transgressions of impurity are seen as less ominous than sins of some other kinds, and considerations of purity may be sacriced for the sake of performing what are perceived as more important religious obligations.58 As for the heart being the true culprit, we also nd the Synoptics stating alternatively that the body as a whole, the esh, is the seat of sin,59 as well as specifying which particular limbs are perceived as the source of temptation. At the beginning of the chapter a reference was made to Matthew 5:29–30, where the eye or the hand was blamed as the inciter of sin. A discussion of the meaning of the choosing of this

57 See J. Klawans, ‘The Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism’, Journal of Jewish Studies 48 (1997), 14–16. See also T. Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah; Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? Stockholm 2002. 58 B. J. Koet, ‘Purity and Impurity of the Body in Luke-Acts’, in: M. J. H. M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (eds.), Purity and Holiness, Leiden 2000, 93–106. 59 Matt 26:41: “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the esh is weak”. Cf. Mark 14:38; Luke 22:46.

170

chapter six

or that particular member as the source of lustful inclinations cannot be entered into here—one may consult the Davies-Allison commentary for a review of possible interpretations.60 Instructive later evidence is found in Mekhilta R. Simeon: “Why is (lo) tinoaf ( , [do not] commit adultery) a four-letter word? Because it is possible to commit adultery by foot, by hand, by eye and by heart”.61 What is important for the present discussion is the obvious presence of the amputation motif in Matthew 5:29–30: the limb is to be cut off as a preventive measure in order to escape Gehenna. It likewise deserves notice that the use of the word vɗƭưƳ (limb) in the Gospels is restricted to this Matthean passage. It may also be of some interest that in the course of the further discussion in the above Mekhilta passage, the eye and the heart function as synonyms (of intent), thus reducing the number of components in the list to three: hand, foot and eye/heart. This is evidently also the case with Matthew 18:8, which supplies an additional example of the amputation motif with a fuller list of limbs: If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble (ƴƬƣƮƦƣƭɛƨƧƫ),62 cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame then to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal re. And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell (ƥɗƧƮƮƣƮ) of re.63

Although the discourse in Matthew 18 includes, at least in some manuscripts, a reference to the Son of Man (Matt 18:11),64 and the role of Jesus himself is greatly emphasized there (Matt 18:20), the saying in Matthew 18:8 itself is devoid of any messianic connotations. Moreover, it has a clear parallel in the Sermon on the Mount, in a passage that is generally believed to belong to the earliest stratum of the Gospel tradition and may possibly go back to the early days of Jesus’ mission.65 My

60

Davies-Allison, Matthew, 1:524–527. Mek. R. Sim. on Exodus, Ithro 20 (Hoffman’s edition, 111). See also Pesiq. Rab. 24. 62 The Hebrew equivalent is most probably  (mezannah). See, for instance, Num. Rab. (Vilna) 17. 5 (    . . .  , “the heart and the eyes . . . cause the body to stumble”). Cf. b. Ber. 20a; Tanh. (Warsaw) Shelah 15. 63 It is not impossible that the idea of two eyes here is a parallel to that of two hearts mentioned earlier. 64 On the variety of possible meanings of this title in the Gospels, see Flusser, Jesus, 124–133. 65 See, for instance, Viviano, ‘Matthew,’ 639. 61

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

171

suggestion, therefore, is that the appearance of the amputation advice and the tension between blaming the heart and seeing bodily limbs as the seat of sin, attested side by side in the Synoptics, reect the Second Temple period plurality of existing Jewish approaches reviewed earlier. The testimony of the Synoptics with its rst-century dating corroborates the descriptions found in Philo and the pseudepigrapha. The Synoptic material, then, provides here an important missing link in the history of the development of both the heart- and limb-centered traditions, lling the void between their earlier forms and the more developed modications attested in rabbinic literature. Alongside those two tendencies, which were held in tension, the Synoptics also bear testimony to alternative evaluations of the source of sin—such as blaming an external agent. Thus in the discourse in Matthew 18:6–7 as well as in its Synoptic parallels,66 another person acts as the blamed external agent. A believer is compared here to a small child, and for him, it seems, the danger comes from outside: But, whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to that man by whom the temptation comes!

Alternative Synoptic evidence suggests that, at least in some cases—as, for example, in Matthew 12:43–45 (= Luke 11:24–26)—the external agents of sin are evil spirits that cause man to stumble. Although the Qumran literature may offer a number of illuminating parallels, it is still not clear to what extent the Gospel traditions establish a connection between sin, evil spirits and sickness. The issue is a complicated one and demands further study. At least sometimes—e.g., Matthew 8:2–15 (cf. Targum on Isa 53:4)—the above connection is ignored. Without attempting a denitive answer to this question, one may note that when the Synoptics adopt the motif of evil spirits, they seemingly make use of traditional material. Even when the spirits’ task is to make Christological statements (as, for example, in Luke 4:40–41; cf. Mark 1:32–34), the Synoptic parallels make it possible to reconstruct the earlier layer of the tradition, where the demon theme was still divorced from the messianic one (see Matt 8:16–17).

66

See Mark 9:42; Luke 17:1–2.

172

chapter six The seat of sin in Pauline epistles

Let us now address Paul’s stance on the question of the seat of sin. It turns out that also Paul’s thinking on the subject is characterized by an unresolved variety of approaches: sometimes, e.g., in Romans 2:5, it is the heart that is pinpointed as the only real culprit; in other cases, e.g., Romans 7:14, it is the esh that is to blame. The apostle’s appraisal of the role of the bodily limbs deserves special attention. It is instructive that in certain contexts Paul assigns the limbs a positive role; the very diversity of bodily members, including the weak and unimportant ones, then symbolizes the desired diversity of the members of the Church, who collectively represent the body of Christ.67 In other, more ambivalent, references the limbs are presented with two options: either to succumb to sin or to become “vessels of righteousness”.68 I will focus on a series of sayings in Romans 7–8 where the limbs are depicted as the seat of unlawful passions: 7:1 Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the Torah/law—that the law (ȭ ƮɝvưƳ) is binding on a person only during his life? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law (ǰƱɜ Ƶư˃ Ʈɝvưƶ) . . . . 4 Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 While we were living in the esh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members (ȀƮ ƵưʴƳ vɗƭƧƴƫƮ ȍvːƮ) to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit . . . 14 We know that the law is spiritual (ƱƮƧƶvƣƵƫƬɝƳ); but I am carnal (ƴɕƲƬƫƮɝƳ), sold under sin. 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my esh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want

67 See 1 Cor 12:12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25–27; Rom 12:4–5. Cf. 1 Cor 6:15: “Do you know that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid”. 68 See, for example, Rom 6:13, 19.

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

173

is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I nd it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members (ȀƮ ƵưʴƳ vɗƭƧƴƫƮ vưƶ) another law ( ȅƵƧƲưƮ ƮɝvưƮ) at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin (ȀƮ Ƶˑ Ʈɝvˎ ƵʦƳ DZvƣƲƵɛƣƳ) which dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God [– it is done] through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my esh I serve the law of sin (Ʈɝvˎ DZvƣƲƵɛƣƳ) . . . 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies . . . 13 for if you live according to the esh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.

What follows is an attempt to reassess the structure of Paul’s reasoning vis-à-vis more general tendencies in Jewish thought, discussed above. When the apostle speaks of salvation (as in Rom 7:25) or, further, of the Spirit of God coming to dwell in man’s heart/mind as the result of Jesus’ resurrection (8:11, 13), his reasoning is explicitly informed by his very particular belief in Jesus’ salvic resurrection.69 Alternatively, when he describes the general (inter alia, his own?) human condition, including the lack of adequate inner resources for overcoming sin and thus the need for intervention from outside, there is a much stronger probability that he is making use of traditional material. For example, this is how Joseph Fitzmyer perceives Paul’s reasoning here: Paul describes the moral experience of the Ego faced with the law, depicting it as a battle between the Ego of esh dominated by sin and the spiritual law of God [toward which the mind/heart—nous/cardia is naturally inclined—S.R.] . . . The Ego nds itself on both sides and is torn by the division.70

If so, we may observe that what Paul describes in Romans 7–8 is, in a sense, a variation of the rabbinic double-inclination notion. The important difference, however, is that in the epistle the evil inclination is said not to belong initially to the very same heart/mind but to be imposed on the mind from the outside (7:17, 20). Moreover, the opposition in verses 8:11 and 8:13 seems to indicate that the self-imposing evil impulse is understood as a spirit, the spirit (the Ego according to 69

See Cohen Stuart, The Struggle in Man, 135. J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible, New York 1971, 473. 70

174

chapter six

Fitzmyer) of the esh living according to its nature. One of the illuminating parallels from the Dead Sea Scrolls that may be pointed out is from the Community Rule:71 15 From the God of knowledge stems all there is and all there shall be. Before they existed he made all their plans 16 and when they came into being they will execute all their works in compliance with his instructions, according to his glorious design without altering anything. In his hand are 17 the laws of all things and he supports them in all their needs. He created man to rule 18 the world and placed within him two spirits so that he would walk with them until the moment of his visitation: they are the spirits of truth and of deceit. 20 In the hand of the Prince of Lights is dominion over all the sons of justice; they walk on paths of light. And in the hand of the Angel 21 of Darkness is total dominion over the sons of deceit; they walk on paths of darkness. Due to the Angel of Darkness 22 all the sons of justice stray, and all their sins, their iniquities, their failings and their mutinous deeds are under his dominion 23 in compliance with the mysteries of God, until his moment; and all their punishments and their periods of grief are caused by the dominion of his enmity; 24 and all the spirits of their lot cause the sons of light to fall. However, the God of Israel and the angel of his truth assist all 25 the sons of light. He created the spirits of light and of darkness and on them established all his deeds 26 [on their p]aths all his labours ‘and on their paths [all] his [ labours.]’. God loved one of them for all. (1QS 3:15–26)

We have seen that the external agent idea is found not only in Qumran but also in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; as noted, in Romans 7–8 it receives an interesting twist: the spirit of sin, which takes hold of the Ego, does emerge from outside the nous/cardia but not from outside the body.72 As noted in Chapter 5, efforts have been made to show that Paul in Romans 7 meant law as natural law or the law of the pagans, but these arguments have proved unconvincing. Fitzmyer represents many scholars today in arguing that the law Paul was referring to in this part of Romans is the Torah—“the law given to Moses for the Jewish people”.73 This is unequivocally indicated by, among other verses, Romans 7:1–3. I would like to suggest further that in the context of

71

See also IQS 4:1–20. For further references, see Fitzmyer, Romans, 465–466. Cf. T. Sim. 3.1. 73 Fitzmyer, Romans, 463–464, 468ff. Stanley Stowers (A Rereading of Romans, New Haven & London 1994, 137–139, 117) has argued that the same is true even for Romans 1–2. For a different appraisal, see Gager, Reinventing Paul (see above Chapter 5, note 29 and discussion there). 72

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

175

Paul’s discussion of the law in Romans a distinction should be made between the apostle’s treatment of the esh in general and the members of the body in particular. The word ƴːvƣ is used throughout Romans to designate the body that is dominated by sin,74 whereas vɗƭƩ (limbs) appears only in Romans 7 when the apostle claims that this domination by sin makes for a law of sorts, another law (ȅƵƧƲưƳ ƮɝvưƳ).75 The antithetical parallelism between the Mosaic law accepted by the human mind and the sinful law represented by the bodily limbs reminds us of the ambivalent status of the limbs in the rabbinic tradition, where one may discern a development that turns every limb from the seat of a particular transgression into a tool for performing a particular Torah commandment. It is not impossible then that Romans 7 bears testimony to an early stage of this development, when the dominant trend was still to connect the limbs with (transgression of ) negative commandments. The limbs already represent here—antithetically—the Torah, although no numerical computations are yet mentioned. If my suggestion is accepted, the evidence of this rst-century epistle may be of critical importance for our efforts to reconstruct the trajectory along which the Torah-limbs exegetical connection was developed. Conclusion In Jewish sources of the Second Temple period and continuing on to the period of late antiquity, a multiplicity of concepts/notions regarding the seat of sin were attested.76 Although attempts at a harmonization of heart/limbs as agents of sin were not lacking, the tension or even opposition between viewing the heart/soul/mind or the body as the rst source of evil inclination should not be overlooked. Within the primary general framework, where bodily limbs were seen as the source of temptation, a tendency to compile lists of different limbs responsible for different transgressions as well as some of its important developments

74

See Rom 1:24; 4:19; 6:6, 12; 7:14. See Rom 7:22–23. It seems that to do negative things can constitute a ritual in its own right. 76 Concerning the variegated multiplicity of experiences of evil, see F. Stolz, ‘Dimensions and Transformations of Purication Ideas’, in: Transformation of the Inner Self, 211–229. 75

176

chapter six

were observed: The demonic character of the limbs is in some instances downplayed; telling remnants of the ambivalent appraisal of the limbs’ role notwithstanding, a tendency prevailed to stress the responsibility of the soul and to present the bodily members as destined to perform God’s will. At some point a connection between the limbs of the body and the positive commandments of the Torah was established, and it suppressed the earlier connection between the limbs and the negative Torah precepts. According to some rabbinical sources it is Torah’s dwelling in the heart (from where it uproots the previous tenant, the evil inclination) that is to provide for this transformation. The Synoptic pericopes dealing with the question of the seat of sin clearly belong to the earliest layer of the Gospel tradition and are not intrinsically connected with the specic messianic beliefs of the nascent Jesus movement; they may therefore be seen as bearing testimony to wider contemporaneous Jewish trends—namely, to a relatively early stage of the transition from utterly negative appraisal of the bodily limbs’ role to connecting them with the positive commandments of the Torah. A characteristic plurality of conceptions is discerned in the Synoptics: heart, limbs and external factors, including evil spirits, are alternatively presented as the source of sin. As midrashic sources where the amputation motif is attested are of later date, the presence of this motif in the Synoptics is of particular interest. The Synoptics represent a stage when the amputation motif was not yet sufciently suppressed and the limbs were not yet turned into “the instruments of righteousness unto God”. In Romans, the characteristic plurality of locations of sin may likewise be discerned. A distinction between Paul’s references to the human esh in general and to bodily limbs in particular was noted. It was suggested that in this epistle we have a testimony to an early stage of a more general Jewish exegetic development, when the limbs were still associated with ȅƵƧƲưƳ ƮɝvưƳ, transgressions of the Torah’s negative precepts, whereas later (from the 3rd century on?) they became connected with the Torah’s positive commandments.77 It is worth noting that while in the rabbinic milieu the way to overcome sin in most cases led via Torah (which was to take hold of and dwell either in the heart/mind or in the limbs, depending on where the

77

See note 44 above and discussion there.

the seat of sin and the limbs of torah

177

seat of sin was believed to be), Paul employed God’s spirit, which was to enable the believer (who is “in Jesus Christ”) to yield his members as performers of God’s will.78 While the link to Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection clearly represents Paul’s contribution to the development of the theme, the deep-seated intuition that the cleansing from sin will be achieved by means of an intervention from outside, by acquiring a “new tenant” for one’s human abode, is shared by Paul and later rabbis. More than thirty years ago Ellis Rivkin argued that this feeling of powerlessness may in fact have been a characteristic feature of the Pharisaic outlook, and his insightful remarks still exercise their suggestive strength.79 As Romans 8:11 clearly indicates, according to Paul the resurrection of Jesus gives hope also to esh and bodily limbs, which are not doomed to remain forever the seat of sin. This intuition retained its centrality in Christian thought after Paul. It played an especially signicant role in cases, as with Tertullian, where there was a need to ght Gnostic tendencies. Tertullian takes care to stress that apart from incidents of ignorance, there is no sin except in the will, and even bodily mortication has nothing to do with punishing the limbs, which are eventually to enjoy resurrection.80 This post-Pauline rehabilitation of the members of the body invites a comparison with the eventual turning of the bodily limbs into “the instruments of righteousness unto God” in rabbinic tradition. Whether post-Pauline and rabbinic rehabilitation of the limbs were two completely independent or, alternatively, interconnected processes, is indeed an intriguing question.

78 See Rom 6:9–13; 8:1–2. The biblical reference seems to be Ez 36:25–27, where the spirit’s function is not unlike that of the angel of peace of the T. 12 Patr.; see discussion above. 79 See E. Rivkin, ‘The Pharisaic Revolution’ and ‘Heirs of the Pharisees’, in: idem, The Shaping of Jewish History, New York 1971, 42–105. See also Ruzer, ‘The Death Motif ’, 151–165. But see Cohen Stuart, The Struggle in Man, 135. 80 See, for example, Tertullian, On Repentance 3.11 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3:658–659, 665); On the Resurrection of the Flesh 11, 14, 15 and 17 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3:552–557). In Chapter 46 of the latter composition (ibid., 578–579) Tertullian takes great pains to try to convince his readers that, “It is [only] the works of the esh, not the substance of the esh, which St. Paul . . . condemns”.

CHAPTER SEVEN

CRUCIFIXION: THE SEARCH FOR A MEANING VIS-À-VIS BIBLICAL PROPHECY FROM LUKE TO ACTS

Introduction As New Testament traditions themselves amply testify, Jesus’ crucixion constituted a core problem for the nascent Jesus movement. That a messiah, instead of bringing salvation to the people of Israel, had been put to death could have been and seemingly was perceived as scandalous and nonsensical. Awareness of the problem can undoubtedly be discerned in the words of Paul: “But we preach Christ crucied, a stumbling block to Jews and a folly to Gentiles” (1 Cor 1:23:   

    ,   ,    ). Paul claimed that the solution had been provided not by human reasoning but by the Holy Spirit.1 As for the author of Luke, he clearly indicates his perception of the basic difculty faced by the community of Jesus’ followers immediately after the death of their teacher:2 While the disciples could encompass a prophet who had been persecuted and executed, the crucixion stood at rst glance in stark contradiction to the expectation that Jesus would bring messianic salvation (Luke 24:17–21): 1

See 1 Cor 2:6–13. The question of the historical accuracy of Luke-Acts in its reconstruction of the beliefs and expectations within the nascent Christian community cannot be elaborated here. The merits of its author as a historian constitute a long-debated issue. See, for example, H. J. Cadbury et al., ‘The Greek and Jewish Traditions of Writing History’, in: F. J. F. Jackson and K. Lake (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, vol. 2, London 1922, 16–29; C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Tübingen 1989, esp. 63–100, 415–427; S. Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, Peabody 1992; G. E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Denition; Josephos, LukeActs and Apologetic Historiography, Leiden 1992, 184–229 (ch. ‘Josephus and Luke-Acts’); L. Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel; Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1, Cambridge 1993; idem, ‘Fact, Fiction, and the Genre of Acts’, New Testament Studies 44 (1998), 380–399; D. W. Palmer, ‘Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph’, in: B. W. Winter and A. D. Clarke (eds.), The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, Grand Rapids 1993; M. L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts; Their Content, Context and Concerns, Louisville 1994; D. Marguerat, La première histoire du christianisme: les Actes des apôtres, Paris 1999, 11–63. 2

180

chapter seven 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucied him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened.

Of course, other Gospels also betray signs of despair, but Luke greatly enhances the effect, elaborating on the theme for a whole chapter with recurring episodes of the disciples’ disbelief and bewilderment. This critical issue is addressed again in the opening chapter of Acts, where the author has the disciples once again expressing their uneasiness about the obvious lack of fulllment of the messianic scenario, whereas Jesus proclaims that the hoped-for restoration of Israel needs to be preceded by a preparatory mission (Acts 1:6–8): 6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has xed by his own authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.

This passage, as well as the one that immediately follows, clearly indicates that the author does not wish to abrogate the hope for Israel’s redemption, which seems to be presented as having also political overtones. Daniel Schwartz argued convincingly that the tradition reected here relates to the mission within the limits of the Land of Israel—according to him, that would be the meaning of (   ! ") #" in Acts 1:8, which in principle, like its Hebrew equivalent (), can denote both the world and the particular territory populated by the people of Israel.3 If his analysis is accepted, we have one more indication that the mission inspired by the Holy Spirit aimed at preparing the ground for Israel’s salvation. The redemption is thus postponed, but not without good reason, and in due time Jesus will return to restore the kingdom to Israel as expected (Acts 1:9–11):

3 D. R. Schwartz, ‘The End of the Ge (Acts 1:8): Beginning or End of the Christian Vision?’ Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986), 669–676.

crucifixion

181

9 And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven”.

The same crucial section, which provides a transition from the Gospel of Luke to Acts, indicates that the problem was seen by the author as an exegetical one (Luke 24:25–27, 44–46): 25 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself . . . 44 Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Torah of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fullled”. 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead”.

In the Gospel narrative, this novel exegesis is ascribed to the resurrected Jesus himself, whereas in Acts 2:1–36 it is presented as communicated by the Holy Spirit. What we have here then is, seemingly, an indication that providing an exegetical justication for the scandal of the Messiah’s death—a novelty vis-à-vis the current messianic exegesis of biblical “stock” proof texts—was one of the most urgent tasks of the creators and transmitters of the nascent Christian tradition. I am far from suggesting that the trauma of the disciples following Jesus’ crucixion and their way of coping with and overcoming it were primarily of an exegetical nature, but the exegetical aspect does feature prominently in the culture-conditioned literary evidence that has reached us. I will relate to some of the exegetic options that seem to have been available to the creators of the early Christian narrative, using the “persecuted prophet” biblical motif as the point of departure. It will be suggested below that this motif was consciously subdued in important parts of the New Testament tradition; possible reasons for that will also be outlined. As for the historical Jesus, there are numerous indications that he did see himself as a prophet. Jesus’ self-perception, however, is beyond the scope of the discussion that follows.4 4

Cf. J. W. van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom and Jesus’ Death’ (forthcoming), who

182

chapter seven

The focus will be on Luke and Acts seen as the creation of a single author,5 with other traditions used mostly as a backdrop. This choice may be found useful for a number of reasons. First, this New Testament author is often more explicit than others in spelling out both his agenda and his notion of the problems faced by the Jesus movement. Second, the single author hypothesis makes it possible to relate his treatment/editing of the common Gospel tradition (in Luke) to his more independent approach in Acts; a comparison of his suggestions regarding the meaning of the crucixion in these two literary settings promises to be instructive. Third, if composed by the same author, Luke/Acts as a sequel is also the only New Testament narrative dealing explicitly with the transition from the initial eschatological hope, through its debacle in Jesus’ death, to a modied post-Easter eschatology. The narrative of Luke/Acts can thus be expected to account not only for the postponement of salvation but also for the changes that the meaning of Jesus’ death underwent in light of that postponement.6 The persecution of God’s prophets in the Hebrew Bible and in Luke The closing section of Luke assumes that Jesus’ execution could in no way negate his prophetic status—it is only his messiahship that seems to be compromised (Luke 24:19–21). Indeed, the motif that most readily suggests itself as a biblical pattern, not only for Jesus’ rejection by his fellow Israelites but also for his suffering and even being put to death, is the “persecuted prophet” motif emphatically celebrated,

discusses the possibility that Jesus—in his premonition of a tragic end—viewed his future death as that of a martyr. See also J. C. O’Neill, ‘Did Jesus Teach That His Death Would Be Vicarious as Well as Typical?’ in: W. Horbury and B. McNeil (eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament, Cambridge 1981, 9–27; he comes to the conclusion that Jesus not only saw himself as one destined to die as a sacrice for people’s sins but also expected his close circle of disciples to be ready to follow the same path. 5 In this chapter I subscribe to the perception of Luke and Acts as composed by the same author; see discussion in H. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles; A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Philadelphia 1987, xxxi–xlii; cf. idem, The Theology of St. Luke, Philadelphia 1982, 9. However, my analysis does not necessarily point to the “double treatise” (Luke-Acts) model; rather it strengthens the possibility of two separate compositions (Luke and Acts—see below)—by the same hand but under different literary circumstances. For discussion of the latter model, see M. C. Parsons and R. I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts, Minneapolis 1993. 6 See Conzelmann, Theology of St. Luke, 123.

crucifixion

183

for example, at the end of 2 Chronicles.7 This motif continued to be invoked—e.g., after the Maccabean revolt—in Second Temple Judaism. Two passages are particularly relevant in this context: Jubilees 1:12 and 1 Enoch 89:51–53. In his discussion of Second Temple evidence, David Flusser also mentions in this context the Ascension of Moses and the Ascension of Isaiah—he sees the latter as a book that was composed at the end of the Second Temple period in circles close to those of the Dead Sea Scrolls.8 In 2 Chronicles, as elsewhere in the Scripture, the rejection of God’s messengers is perceived as a (temporary) disruption of God’s plan—in other words, as “God’s suffering [a setback]”. Moreover, Terence Fretheim discerns a potential link between the suffering of elect individuals, such as prophets—those who are bearers of God’s spirit/ word—and God’s own suffering; he distinguishes this sub-pattern of God’s sympathy for an individual (“individualization of the sympathy”) from a more general pattern of God’s suffering caused by his sympathy for the suffering people of Israel.9 Indication of the setback, however, is followed by the promise of salvation, which will ensue after the period of tribulation; the collation of these motifs becomes the distinguishing feature of the closing verses of 2 Chronicles, which also became the closing verses of the Hebrew Bible. The presence of the punishment sub-motif—avenging the innocent blood of the prophets as a necessary step toward eventual redemption—deserves special notice. At the end of 2 Chronicles, this sub-motif—present also elsewhere in the Bible, e.g., in Nehemiah 9:26–37 and 2 Chronicles 24:20–22—refers explicitly to the destruction of the Temple:10 15 The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his 7

Another often quoted example is Neh 9:26–37. D. Flusser, ‘Sanctifying the Name in the Second Temple Period and the Beginnings of Christianity’, in: Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Sages, 239, 242–244 (in Hebrew). The Jewish origin of the tradition that Israel murdered its prophets constitutes one of the central foci of investigation in D. M. Scholer, Israel Murdered Its Prophets; The Origin and Development of the Tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1980. 9 T. E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective, Philadelphia 1984, 107–135, 144–148, 154–166. For a discussion of the enhancement of the mythic potential of biblical metaphors of divine weakness and suffering—either with the people of Israel or with an individual—undertaken in rabbinic sources, see M. Fishbane, Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, Oxford 2003. 10 As observed already in S. H. Blank, ‘The Death of Zechariah in Rabbinic Literature’, HUCA 12–13 (1937–1938), 327–46, esp. 336–337. 8

184

chapter seven dwelling place; 16 but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scofng at his prophets, till the wrath of the LORD rose against his people, till there was no remedy. 17 Therefore he brought up against them the king of the Chaldeans, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion on young man or virgin, old man or aged; he gave them all into his hand . . . 19 And they burned the house of God, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem, and burned all its palaces with re, and destroyed all its precious vessels . . . 22 Now in the rst year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing: 23 “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him. Let him go up.’ ” (2 Chr 36:15–23)

In Jubilees 1, reference to the destruction of the Temple as punishment is absent, while in 1 Enoch 89:51–57 it appears in the guise of a mysterious dream sequence: 51 And again I saw those sheep that they again erred and went many ways, and forsook their house, and the Lord of the sheep called some from amongst the sheep and sent them to the sheep, 52 but the sheep began to slay them . . . 53 And many other sheep He sent to those sheep to testify unto them and lament over them. 54 And after that I saw that when they forsook the house of the Lord and His tower they fell away entirely, and their eyes were blinded; and I saw the Lord of the sheep how He wrought much slaughter amongst them in their herds until 55 those sheep invited that slaughter and betrayed His place. And He gave them over into the hands of the lions and tigers, and wolves and hyenas, and into the hand of the foxes, and to all the wild 56 beasts, and those wild beasts began to tear in pieces those sheep. And I saw that He forsook their house and their tower and gave them all into the hand of the lions, to tear and devour them, 57 into the hand of all the wild beasts. And I began to cry aloud with all my power, and to appeal to the Lord of the sheep, and to represent to Him in regard to the sheep that they were devoured.11

It is in exactly this form—destruction of the Temple as the necessary prelude to redemption—that the motif of punishment was picked up

11 English translation follows R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, London 1913.

crucifixion

185

in later rabbinic traditions.12 Especially instructive is the passage in Sifre Deut. 43.16, where a rm belief is ascribed to R. Aqiva—who quotes Isaiah 8:2, Jeremiah 26:18 and Zechariah 8:4 as proof texts—that until the full destruction of the (Second) Temple takes place and the murder of the ancient prophets is thus avenged, there may be no redemption for Israel.13 As is suggested below, it is with this biblical-turned-rabbinic pattern in mind that Luke’s approach may be better appreciated. The identication of Jesus as a prophet or a man of great standing “before God and all the people” is not lacking in passages reecting Luke’s own contribution to the Gospel narrative, such as Luke 4:14–29; 13:33; 24:19; Acts 2:22, 36; 7:37; this clearly reects the author’s particular interest in portraying Jesus as a prophet.14 The focus further on, however, will be on Luke’s reworking of the inherited Gospel tradition with an emphasis on two such instances. The rst is Luke’s treatment of Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem, attested also in Matthew:15 Luke 13:33–35 Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’

12

Matt 23:33, 36–39 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? . . . Truly, I say to you, all this will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’

See the discussion in Flusser, ‘Sanctifying the Name’, 238–245. Cf. y. Taoan. 4.9 [69a–b], b. Git. 57b, b. Sanh. 96b. See also the comment in Scholer, Israel Murdered Its Prophets, 182–183. 14 See, for example, B. E. Beck, ‘ “Imitatio Christi” and the Lucan Passion Narrative’, in: W. Horbury and B. McNeil (eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament, Cambridge 1981, 29; Brawley, ‘The Identity of Jesus’, 6–27. 15 See K. Aland (ed.), Synopsis of the Four Gospels, 7th ed., Stuttgart 1984, Nn. 212–213/285. This pericope is widely held to have been derived from a Q-tradition; see J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV ), The Anchor Bible, Garden City 1985, 1034; J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann and J. S. Kloppenborg (eds.), The Critical Edition of Q , Minneapolis 2000, 420–423 (Q 13:34–35). 13

186

chapter seven

In Matthew this lament concludes a whole chapter of polemic by Jesus against the Pharisees, with Jerusalem as the setting. In Luke, the Pharisees are portrayed as friendly to Jesus, and the scene is located away from Jerusalem. What pertains to our discussion, however, is that before the utterance that is shared in common with Matthew, Luke’s Jesus declares (23:33): “Nevertheless I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem”. This addition unequivocally establishes (a) that Jesus is a prophet and (b) that what follows is nothing less than a prophetic speech representing God’s own lament. The second example, in a similar vein, also represents a tradition shared by Matthew and Luke,16 but with Luke attributing the saying to God’s wisdom, thus again emphasizing Jesus’ (prophetic) role as one who transmits God’s oracles:17 Luke 11:49–51 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute’, that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation’.

Matt 23:33–35 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.

16 Again Q; see Synopsis (previous note), N. 284; Critical Q (previous note), 284–289 (Q 11:49–51). 17 But see Flusser, ‘Sanctifying the Name’, 243, where he suggests that “Wisdom” is to be understood as a reference to a Wisdom literature text. On the basis of the attribution of the saying in question to the Wisdom of God, it was held by a number of scholars that this saying is of Jewish provenance; see discussion in Scholer, Israel Murdered Its Prophets, 170 and n. 1 there. Moreover, a reconstruction of the “pre-Q , pre-Christian” version of the saying has been suggested; see M. J. Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, Cambridge 1970, 15.

crucifixion

187

These examples clearly demonstrate Luke’s tendency to highlight the portrayal of Jesus as a rejected and suffering prophet,18 with the adjunct idea of God’s anger resulting in punishment of Israel—in the rst example the destruction of the Temple is explicitly mentioned. As noted, the motif of persecuted prophets seems to have been a widespread one in Second Temple Judaism; thus both Luke and his sources within the Gospel tradition were trying to adapt an existing exegetical tradition to Jesus’ situation. Later rabbinic narratives appropriated the motif while reacting to the actual destruction of the Temple with much more elaborately related and gory details.19 It can be suggested, then, that the Gospels here basically bear witness to an early—pre-70 c e—stage in the development of the pattern.20 This pattern should rather be seen as proto-rabbinic, since it is not attested in sectarian writings from Qumran, where the themes of the persecution of the “anointed with Spirit”—be it the Teacher of Righteousness or the community at large—and the anticipated destruction of the deled Temple remain dissociated, the latter not being explained as the punishment for the former.21 Jesus’ suffering and the Book of Acts Unlike his reworking of the inherited tradition in the Gospel, where he enhances the theme of God’s persecuted messenger with its inevitable repercussions, in Acts the author drops completely the motif of “God’s setback”.22 This tendency, introduced already in the programmatic independent addition to the post-resurrection narrative in Luke

18 As an example of Luke’s employing the identication of Jesus as a prophet— without the accompanying motif of rejection and punishment—where the Synoptic parallels entirely lack this identication see Luke 7:36–50, esp. v. 39 (cf. Matt 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9). 19 See, for example, y. Taoan. 4.9 [69a–b], b. Sanh. 96b, b. Git. 57b. 20 With several exceptions, e.g., Matt 22:7; 23:32–36, where a post-70 editing of an earlier tradition is suspected. See D. Flusser, ‘Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew’ and ‘Matthew’s “Verus Israel” ’, in: Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 552–574; idem, ‘Hatred of Israel in Matthew’s Gospel’, in Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Sages, 345–347. 21 See Damascus Document 4–6, 4QFlorilegium 1:1–19, 1QpHab 2,7, 1QHodayot(a) 12; cf. 4QMessianic Apocalypse, Frag. 8, where the list of the prophetically anointed is not built around biblical gures perceived as having been persecuted. 22 Cf. Romans 11.

188

chapter seven

24, has multiple attestations in Acts. We have seen that already in the opening section of Acts (1:6–11) the author denies that what seems like a postponement of Israel’s salvation is in any sense a failure, claiming instead that this postponement is in fact a necessary prerequisite for the prophetic “winning out” of Israel in anticipation of their redemption. Acts 2:22–24 seems in this respect to express the author’s basic stance throughout the book: 22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the denite plan and foreknowledge of God ($ % & '$ ( )#*  + +), you crucied and killed by the hands of lawless men ( , ! -.). 24 But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

Far from being a setback, Jesus’ death is depicted as an inherent part of God’s salvation design, an essential prerequisite for entering the era of resurrection. The meaning of the Messiah’s crucixion here seems to be that resurrection cannot be achieved without the death that precedes it. This in fact is a continuation of the line employed already at the end of the Gospel. The recurring argument is clear: What looks like a setback in the salvation plan is actually the fulllment of the main element of its agenda, established not post factum as a reaction to tragic developments but from the very beginning in God’s mind and in his—previously not comprehended—revelation to Israel. It should be noted that in contrast to Jesus’ prophetic laments addressed in the previous paragraph, at the end of the Gospel of Luke and at the beginning of Acts, it turns out that Jesus’ rejection and death, lamented by the unaware disciples, should not be lamented at all! Already in Luke 24:26, crucixion is portrayed as nothing but a needed transitory stage on the way to glorication: “Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” Again, continuing the line adopted in the Gospel, the author of Acts emphasizes the immediate nature of the transition from what might have been perceived as the tragedy of death to the glory of ascension. In fact, the narrative does not dwell on Jesus’ death; there is no substantial gap in time between the tragedy and salvation, a gap that would be necessary to enhance the motif of God’s suffering (a setback). The suffering of God’s chosen one here is nothing but a prelude to his

crucifixion

189

immediate entering “into his glory”—namely, his resurrection and the victorious preaching of messianic salvation “to all nations”.23 The key-motif of the preordained, uninterrupted salvation scenario, discerned in Peter’s kerygmatic speech in Acts 2:22–24, discussed above, dominates also the joint proclamation by Peter and John in Acts 4.24 The latter passage is also characterized by an emphasis on immediately granted salvation—this time, however, it is not Jesus’ resurrection but the disciples’ redemption from the fear of persecution (Acts 4:24–31): And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place ()"  /   !  (  '0 [ ] )*  # ). 29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, 30 while thou stretch out thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus”. 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all lled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness.

Throughout Acts, the author insists on dening various communities of the nascent Jesus movement as sharing the gift of the Holy Spirit—in other words, as a prophetic movement.25 And he acknowledges the obstacles and persecutions God’s new latter-day prophets have to overcome in Jerusalem.26 Yet, in a balancing act, he avoids presenting those

23 This was often observed; see, for example, Beck, ‘Imitatio Christi’, 34; cf. ibid., 47. For a different appraisal see E. Schefer, Suffering in Luke’s Gospel, Zürich 1993. According to Schefer, suffering constitutes a core theme of the Gospel, where he discerns a comprehensive view of various forms of human afiction for which Jesus’ suffering provides a redemptive alleviation. In his study Schefer does not discuss Acts, but he singles out the motif of suffering in that book as one that should be studied in the future (ibid., 165). I am not aware whether this line of investigation has actually been probed. 24 See Beck, ‘Imitatio Christi’, 39. 25 See, for example, Acts 2:14–21, 7:51–56, 8:14–17, 10:44–48, 15:7–9. 26 See Acts 4:1–31. See discussion in Chapter 4.

190

chapter seven

obstacles as a asco, insisting instead on portraying the mission—again, rst in Jerusalem and Judea and then in the Diaspora—as extremely successful. Moreover, it is worth noting our author’s claims—as in Acts 2:41–47, 6:1–7—for success within the variegated strata of Jewish society. Whether or not the author is really Luke the physician, the companion of Paul, he is generally believed to have been familiar with details of the apostle’s mission.27 It comes as no surprise then that he recounts Paul’s problems vis-à-vis both the Jerusalem apostles and the general Jewish populace. However, here too our author performs a balancing act, integrating Paul’s personal troubles and setbacks into a broader, and brighter, picture. To that end the author employs a number of tactics. First, he consistently plays down the tension and the (sometimes bitter) polemic between Paul and the “Jerusalem group”—most prominently in Acts 15 and 21. This tendency of Acts is well known and has received much attention in research;28 it is even more conspicuous in light of Paul’s attitude reected in Galatians 1–2 and his famous diatribe in Galatians 4:24–26: “Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother”. Second, he has Paul return again and again to preach in synagogues or to Jews generally—notwithstanding his recurrent declarations that now, having been rejected, he is turning to the Gentiles. This again in clear contradistinction from, e.g., Galatians 1:13–16, where Paul explicitly presents himself as the apostle to the Gentiles and thus distances himself from Peter, who is to proclaim the good news to the Jews. The Book of Acts accordingly avoids ascribing to Jesus, or God, a preference for the Gentiles—at the expense of the Jews—even at this troubled intermediary stage. Here it is Romans 11, where Paul gives vent to the feeling of failure and despair concerning the present state of the mission to the Jews that may provide an illuminating point of comparison. The author of Acts must have been fully aware of the developments that had led to the Jesus movement turning into a mostly Diaspora phenomenon. Moreover, the main objective of Acts is to explain and justify the “reaching out” of Paul’s mission. It is thus signicant that

27 28

See Conzelmann, Acts, xxxiii. See, for example, ibid., xlvi, 115–117.

crucifixion

191

the opening sections of the narrative give no hint that God might have abandoned Jerusalem because of Jesus’ crucixion there. On the contrary, the resurrected Jesus commands his disciples to stay in the city, which is to be the locus of the outpouring of spirit. The author also repeatedly reminds us—even at later stages of Paul’s ministry—“how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the Torah” (Acts 21:20).29 And, nally, he is ready to ascribe Paul’s failure to convince the Jews to that apostle’s problematic past (Acts 22:17–21)! All this amounts to a refusal to see the current stage as one of rejection on the part of Israel and, hence, a refusal to transfer the election to the Gentiles.30 As noted, the motif of punishment was at the core of biblical and later elaborations on the theme of prophets’ suffering, as well as of the Gospel portrayal of Jesus’ rejection. Thus the modication of this motif, or rather its practical elimination in the narrative of Acts, is instructive. True, the lines of Joel (2:30–32) that the author has Peter quote in Acts 2:19–21 include a reference to the Day of Judgment (“The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes”), but this theme does not receive emphasis in the continuation of the narrative. Moreover, further along in the description of the same Pentecost event it is stressed that the reaction to Peter’s speech, even by those who had had Jesus “crucied and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23; cf. 2:36), was immediately to repent and join the group, thus making irrelevant the avenue of punishment:31 “Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucied”. 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him”. 40

29

See also Acts 9:15. Cf. an unexpectedly optimistic ending to the description of Paul’s initial troubles in Acts 9:23–31. 30 See also Brawley, ‘The Identity of Jesus’ (note 14 above). 31 Cf. a different interpretation in G. W. H. Lampe, ‘Martyrdom and Inspiration’, in: W. Horbury and B. McNeil (eds.), Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament; Studies Presented to G. M. Styler by Cambridge New Testament Seminar, New York 1981, 131.

192

chapter seven And he testied with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation”. 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:36–41)

Moreover, the author clearly wants to create the impression that even those who had not joined the ranks of the prophesying community held it in great esteem (Acts 2:46–47): And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

This last passage faithfully represents another important feature of Acts: no destruction of the Temple is foreseen as a punishment for the rejection of Jesus and/or his disciples. This is the more striking in view of the tendencies present in the common Gospel tradition and enhanced in Luke that have been discussed above. Notwithstanding that Jesus had been crucied following his clash with the Temple authorities after prophesying the destruction of the Jerusalem sanctuary, in Acts the disciples cling resolutely to the Temple precincts as to the center of sanctity, the true omphalos of the world, to which the Messiah should return and where he should be awaited. Moreover, in Acts 21 the author insists on the Temple’s unchallenged sanctity for Paul even at a later stage of his mission to the Gentiles.32 It may be added that a differentiation between the sanctuary proper and the holy city of Jerusalem is nowhere highlighted in the composition.33

32 See Conzelmann, Acts, 180, where he attributes the picture to the express design of the author of Acts—not to the real facts. Cf. F. F. Bruce (‘Stephen’s Apologia’, in: B. P. Thompson [ed.], Scripture, Meaning and Method, Hull 1987], 37–38), who sees the author of Acts as differing on this point from both the apostles and the Hellenists. D. L. Wiens (Stephen’s Sermon and the Structure of Luke-Acts, Richland Hills, Tex. 1995, 188) discerns in the report of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21–23) an indication of the annulment of the authority of “those who continue to claim to be the temple’s guardians” on behalf of the group that “represents a gentile people-in-the-making who claim to dwell in the rebuilt tent of David”—an interpretation without substantiation in the text of Acts, to my mind. 33 See J. J. Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature of the Second Temple Period, International Rennert Guest Lecture Series 1, Bar-Ilan University 1998. Cf. Conzelmann, The Theology, 133. As pointed out by Justin Taylor (personal communication), Acts 1:11 may possibly indicate a return to the Mount of Olives (cf. Zech 14:4).

crucifixion

193

But this generally positive attitude to the Temple throughout the book does have its moments of crisis. The author enables us to realize that in the nascent Jesus movement a variety of attitudes toward the Temple existed. Thus in Acts 7, Stephen, a member of the Hellenistic Jewish branch of the movement, speaks boldly against the Temple and pays dearly for that.34 There seem, however, to be certain proto-Christian Jewish sentiments underlying his speech, which are not necessarily perceived as exclusively Hellenistic. Thus Marcel Simon emphasizes what he sees as the difference between Stephen’s position and the relativization of the Temple’s standing characteristic of Hellenistic Jewry (e.g., Philo), coming to the conclusion that “the most authentic lineage” of Stephen’s speech is to be found not in the Hellenistic Jewish-Christian outlook but in certain Palestinian (e.g., Essene) trends characterized by hostility to the Temple.35 It seems that one does not need to draw too sharp a dividing line here between “Hellenistic” and “Palestinian”. In any case, the author of Acts gives no indication whatsoever that Stephen’s stance was looked upon favorably by the non-Hellenistic part of the Jesus movement—those who are emphatically presented in his narrative as coming daily to the sanctuary. It may be surmised that the speech in Acts 7 represents the stance of neither the non-Hellenistic part of the Jerusalem community nor of Luke himself. Moreover, Stephen’s attitude has been described as an aberration in the early Church, being distinct not only from that of the majority of the Jerusalem community but also from that of Paul and even the Epistle to the Hebrews: Stephen seems to have seen in the Temple from the very beginning a “falling away from the authentic” God-inspired tradition of Israel.36 Paula Fredriksen

34 It has been suggested that the author draws here upon a different source; see, for example, Bruce, ‘Stephen’s Apologia’, 37. For a discussion of the historical circumstances reected in the narrative, see N. H. Taylor, ‘Stephen, the Temple, and Early Christian Eschatology’, Revue biblique 110 (2003), 62–85. 35 M. Simon, ‘Saint Stephen and the Jerusalem Temple’, in: idem, Le Christianisme antique et son contexte religieuse: Scripta Varia, vol. 1, Tübingen 1981, 160–167 (relying on H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentum, Tübingen 1949). Cf. Bruce, ‘Stephen’s Apologia’, 37–38. A Samaritan inuence as the background of Stephen’s speech has also been suggested; see A. Spiro, ‘Stephen’s Samaritan Background’, in: J. Munck, The Acts of the Apostles, The Anchor Bible, Garden City 1967, 285–300. This suggestion is rejected by many scholars, among them B. T. Donaldson (‘Moses Typology and Sectarian Nature of Early Christian Anti-Judaism: A Study in Acts 7’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 12 [1981], 27–52), who attempts to contextualize Acts 7 within the Second Temple Jewish world, classifying it as a sectarian polemic. 36 See Simon, ‘Saint Stephen’, 153–154. But see Taylor (‘Stephen, the Temple’,

194

chapter seven

has recently suggested a new assessment of Paul’s attitude toward the Temple, noting, e.g., a lack of emphasis on even the Temple’s current inadequacy—and anticipation of the impending destruction—which puts in even greater relief the difference from Acts 7.37 In fact, even Stephen does not anticipate destruction of the Temple as punishment for Jesus’ rejection; rather, he claims that from the very beginning there was no need at all to build a temple—obviously a motif completely different from that of punishment meted out for persecution of the prophets.38 Moreover, in the preamble to Stephen’s speech the author takes care—another balancing act—to provisionally mitigate Stephen’s position, presenting as a false one the accusation that Stephen had talked about the destruction of the Temple as God’s vengeance (Acts 6:12–14):39 And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes, and they came upon him and seized him and brought him before the council, 13 and set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us.

This attempted elimination in Acts of the destruction theme—the theme that, as we have seen, featured prominently in the biblical promise of punishment for rejection of God’s messengers—was prepared already in

63–64, 73–77, 80–81), who believes that the extreme criticism of the Temple in Acts 7 faithfully represents the attitude of the early Christian movement as a whole and presupposes here continuity with Jesus’ prophecy of destruction. Accordingly, Taylor does not think that Stephen’s speech goes against Luke’s theology. Cf. Bruce, ‘Stephen’s Apologia’, 37–38, where he sees Luke’s own stance as differing both from the apostles and from the Hellenists. 37 P. Fredriksen, ‘Paul, Purity, and the EkklÏsia of the Gentiles’, in: M. Mor and J. Pastor (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity, Jerusalem 2005, 205–218. 38 See Simon, ‘Saint Stephen’, 153–154. Cf. Bruce (‘Stephen’s Apologia’, 39), who, harmonizing, as it seems, Stephen’s speech with Hebrews, reads into Acts 7 a claim that “All that the temple order stood for had become rendered for ever obsolete by the work of Christ”. Cf. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, Oxford 1982, 286. 39 Notwithstanding the protestation to the contrary, the speech itself seems strangely enough to conrm the accusation; see Conzelmann, Acts, 48. H. A. Brehm (‘Vindicating the Rejected One: Stephen’s Speech as a Critique of Jewish Leaders’, in: C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders [eds.], Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, Shefeld 1997, 266–299) attempts to alleviate the problem by presenting the crux of Stephen’s polemics as directed against “Jewish leaders” rather than against the Temple itself.

crucifixion

195

the passion section of the Gospel. Here is Luke reworking the common tradition of Jesus being interrogated by the High Priest: Matt 26:59–66 59 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward 61 and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.’ ” 62 And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” 63 But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God”. 64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven”. 65 Then the high priest tore his robes, and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. 66 What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death”.

Mark 14:55–64 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. 56 For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree. 57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ” 59 Yet not even so did their testimony agree. 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” 61 But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven”. 63 And the high priest tore his garments, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.

Luke 22:66–71 66 When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away to their council, and they said, 67 “If you are the Christ, tell us”. But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and if I ask you, you will not answer. 69 But from now on the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God”. 70 And they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am”. 71 And they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips”.

196

chapter seven

In passages discussed earlier, we saw that elsewhere in the Gospel Luke emphasizes—while applying it to Jesus—the biblical motif of the rejection of prophets, including eventual punishment and the destruction of the Temple, the motif present in the shared Gospel tradition. Luke also retains Jesus’ apocalyptic speech, with its reference to the destruction of the Temple in an undisclosed future (Luke 20:5–36, esp. 20:5–8). With Luke, this catastrophe is, again following the biblical pattern, a necessary step on the way to salvation; wishing to explicitly encourage his readers, he has Jesus say: “Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near” (21:28, unparalleled in the other Gospels).40 However, here, in the section immediately connected to the crucixion, Luke goes in the opposite direction, avoiding any mention of the touchy issue of Jesus’ prophecy regarding the destruction of the Temple—the issue that in the Matthew and Mark parallels is clearly at the heart of the accusation.41 The same holds true for Luke’s depiction of crucied Jesus mocked by the bystanders—unlike in the other Synoptics, there is no mention here of the destruction of the Temple or even of the “chief priests”, who are supplanted by the “rulers”:42 Matt 27:38–43 38 Then two robbers were crucied with him, one on the right and one on the left. 39 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, “You who would destroy the temple

Mark 15:27–32a 27 And with him they crucied two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. [28] 29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple

Luke 23:35–38 35 And the people stood by, watching; but the rulers (1 3!) scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” 36 The soldiers also mocked

40 See a discussion in S. Notley, ‘Learn the Lesson of the Fig Tree’, in: Jesus’ Last Week (see Chapter 2, note 53), 107–120, esp. 116. 41 It has been repeatedly observed that Luke’s attitude toward the Temple is much more positive than that of Mark (and Matthew). See, for example, Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 1461; J. B. Green, ‘The Death of Jesus and the Rending of the Temple Veil (Luke 23:44–49): A Window into Luke’s Understanding of Jesus and the Temple’, in: E. H. Lovering (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, Atlanta 1991, 543–546 and n. 9 there. In a recent study, Eyal Regev attempted to demonstrate that this tendency in Luke (and according to him in the other Synoptics as well) should be seen as a conscious attempt to play down the uncomfortably anti-Temple attitude that characterized the historical Jesus; see E. Regev, ‘Temple or Messiah: On the Trial of Jesus, the Temple, and Roman Policy’, Cathedra 119 (2006), 13–36 (in Hebrew). 42 In accordance with the exegesis of Ps 2:1 presented in Acts 4:25–27.

crucifixion

197

table (cont.) Matt 27:38–43 and build it in three days, save yourself ! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross”. 41 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, 42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God’ ”.

Mark 15:27–32a and build it in three days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe”.

Luke 23:35–38 him, coming up and offering him vinegar, 37 and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself !” 38 There was also an inscription over him, “This is the King of the Jews”.

Two additional peculiarly Lukan traits are noteworthy in this context. One is the recurrent emphasis, unparalleled in the other Gospels, on Jesus’ adherence to the Temple even after the cleansing episode in Luke 19:47; 21:37–38 and 22:53: “And he was teaching daily in the temple . . . And every day he was teaching in the temple, but at night he went out and lodged on the mount called Olivet. And early in the morning all the people came to him in the temple to hear him . . . I was with you day after day in the temple”. This clearly is to set a precedent for the disciples’ faithfulness to the Jerusalem sanctuary as suggested in Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46–47; 21:20–26 et al. (see above).43 Another is Luke’s version of the cleansing of the Temple—the most peaceful and least violent version when compared with those of the other Gospels (see Luke 19:45–46; cf. Matt 21:12–13, Mark 11:15–17, John 2:13–17).44

43 For a discussion of Luke’s and other New Testament authors’ attitude toward the Temple, see E. Regev, ‘Kingdom of Priests or Holy Nation? Attitude to the Temple in Nascent Christianity’, Cathedra 113 (2004), 5–34 (in Hebrew). 44 According to Flusser’s interpretation (D. Flusser, ‘Literary Relationship between the Three Synoptic Gospels’, in: idem, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, Tel Aviv 1979, 28–49 [in Hebrew]), this peculiarity of Luke’s points to the third Gospel’s priority here as regards closeness to the initial tradition. For an illuminating shift in appraisal of the meaning of the episode with regard to the historical Jesus, see three consecutive studies

198

chapter seven

As noted, in Acts’ treatment of the crucixion and its repercussions this tendency, felt already in Luke’s Gospel, develops into subduing or even eliminating the punishment/destruction motif. This feature of Luke/Acts stands in even greater relief when compared with 1 Thessalonians, the earliest Pauline epistle and thus the earliest extant Christian document, where we read (1 Thess 2:14–16): 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved—so as always to ll up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at last!

This passage bears witness to the notion of Jesus’ crucixion as a continuation of the line of the rejection and killing of Israel’s prophets, with the complementing traditional motif of punishment—albeit without reference to the Temple—to be meted out to Jesus’ (and consequently Paul’s) Jewish opponents.45 However, further along Paul’s position46 seems to have undergone a substantial transformation: Although the expression “wrath of God” (4#5 +), central to the passage just quoted, also features prominently in Romans,47 the later epistle is distinguished—especially in Romans 9–11—by a much more serene

by C. A. Evans: ‘Jesus’s Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989), 237–270; ‘From “House of Prayer” to “Cave of Robbers”: Jesus’ Prophetic Criticism of the Temple Establishment’, in: C. A. Evans and S. Talmon (eds.), The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, Leiden 1997, 417–442; and ‘Diarchic Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Messianism of Jesus of Nazareth’, in: L. W. Schiffman, E. Tov and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after Their Discovery, Jerusalem 2000, 558–567. 45 A suggestion has been even raised, though it is not completely convincing, that not only the obvious “Jews” but also “your own countrymen” from verse 14 denote here Jewish opponents—in the latter case, those acting in the Diaspora; see K. P. Donfried, ‘Paul and Judaism: I Thessalonians 2:13–16 as a Test Case’, Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 38 (1984), 242–253. 46 Doubts have been expressed with regard to the authenticity of the passage from 1 Thess 2; I however tend to agree with those who see it as coming back to Paul himself. For a discussion on the variety of positions on the issue and the arguments propagated, see Donfried, ‘Paul and Judaism’ (previous note). See also G. O. Okeke, ‘I Thess. II 13–16: The Fate of the Unbelieving Jews’, New Testament Studies 27 (1980), 127–136. 47 See Rom 1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; 12:19; 13:4,5. I believe that Donfried (note 45 above) is right in stressing the eschatological dimension of Paul’s usage of 4#5 +.

crucifixion

199

attitude toward “unbelieving Jews”. The motif of Jesus as a persecuted prophet to be avenged seems also to have eventually been dropped in Paul’s writing. The stance of Acts may, then, reect something more than a personal fancy of the author, known for his penchant for harmonization and fondness of “Jewish heritage”, though these personal inclinations of the author may well have contributed to his sensitivity to the problem.48 It could be argued that it is the clash of the “rejected prophet” pattern—entailing punishment and destruction—with the programmatic insistence on the realization, albeit partial, of messianic salvation in Jesus’ resurrection that made this pattern not only unsatisfactory49 but also inadequate. I thus suggest seeing in Luke/Acts a prime example of nascent Christian tradition’s reaction to this inadequacy. Another obvious source of inadequacy of the biblical persecuted prophet pattern is that it lacks the motif of resurrection, which is denitely central to Acts: This composition—as well as the Gospel of Luke—does not develop the view of Christ’s death as atoning, focusing instead entirely on the resurrection as the salvation event.50 The pattern of martyrdom or beneciary death Alternative foundational patterns could have been probed by the author of Luke/Acts for understanding Jesus’ crucixion in view of the inadequacy of the rejected prophet motif. In this regard the pattern of martyrdom/ beneciary death—entailing forgiveness of people’s sins and redemption of Israel, attested in a number of compositions but most notably in 2 Maccabees 7 (cf. 4 Macc 6:29; 17:21 and Daniel 3, 6)—has recently been addressed by Jan van Henten, who distinguishes between the phenomena of martyrdom and benecial death, discerning the latter in 2 Maccabees.51 Flusser discerns the martyrdom pattern

48 See, for example, Luke 1:5–10; 2:21–24, 39, 41–49; 23:56. See also the discussion in Conzelmann, Acts, xliii–xlvi. 49 Once the messianic claim concerning Jesus became the core point of the kerygma, the prophetic title could clearly no longer sufce. 50 See Conzelmann, Acts, xlvi. 51 See discussion in van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom’. See also J. W. van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People; A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees, Leiden 1997. The distinction between the Jewish martyrological concept of the suffering/persecution that the righteous suffer (mainly from outside enemies) and the suffering/persecution

200

chapter seven

also in Qumran, e.g., in the Community Rule (4:7–8), the Thanksgiving Scroll (17:10, 24–26) and the War Scroll (16:13, 17:1–3).52 It should be noted, however, that in none of these Qumranic instances do we nd the motif of the death of a martyr as bringing forgiveness to the sinful others. It should also be emphasized that unlike Flusser, who views the prophets’ rejection and persecution as belonging to the category of the death for the “sanctication of the Name”, I suggest distinguishing between the two. In light of the above evidence, it may be argued that while it is plausible that early Christian tradition applied existing Jewish martyrdom traditions to the interpretation of Jesus’ death, it reworked them considerably. It was observed, for example, that unlike 2 Maccabees, where the martyrs’ resurrection is presented as their individual vindication, Jesus’ resurrection—and not only his atoning death—is perceived in some New Testament texts as having benecial signicance for others.53 As noted, the almost exclusive emphasis on Jesus’ beneciary resurrection—at the expense of his suffering and death—is characteristic of the author of Luke/Acts. Another reason the 2 Maccabees martyrdom pattern might have been of little help to him—and elsewhere in the New Testament—in interpreting Jesus’ crucixion was that 2 Maccabees 7 contains neither a reference to the eschaton nor a clear notion of a collective eschatological resurrection.54 Still, there are three important elements in the 2 Maccabees martyrdom narrative, absent in the prophets’ persecution pattern, with regard to which it may be plausibly argued that they found their way into the interpretation of the crucixion in Luke and Acts: (a) a speedy deliverance, (b) the centrality of the resurrection/ascension motif and (c) the presence of a foreign authority.

of God’s messengers at the hands of their own people has been noted, e.g., in D. R. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew, Cambridge, Mass. 1967, 176; Scholer, Israel Murdered Its Prophets, 11–12. 52 Flusser, ‘Sanctifying the Name’, 238–247. 53 Emphasized by H. J. de Jonge, J. Holleman and D. G. Powers; see discussion in van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom’. 54 See van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom’. In his study, van Henten summed up the relevant vocabulary of martyrs’ beneciary death as attested in 2 Macc 7, underlining the differences with the vocabulary employed in the New Testament. My focus is on the (dis)similarity not necessarily in the formula but rather in the pattern of thought.

crucifixion

201

a) A speedy deliverance This element features prominently in 2 Maccabees 7–8, both on a personal and on a national level. Starting with the latter, the section as a whole highlights the redemptive change in Israel’s fortunes as the immediate outcome of the seven brothers’ benecial deaths (2 Macc 7:32–33; 8:2–5): 7:32 For we are suffering because of our own sins. 33 And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own servants… 8:2 They besought the Lord to look upon the people who were oppressed by all, and to have pity on the temple which had been profaned by ungodly men, 3 and to have mercy on the city which was being destroyed and about to be leveled to the ground, and to hearken to the blood that cried out to him, 4 and to remember also the lawless destruction of the innocent babies and the blasphemies committed against his name, and to show his hatred of evil. 5 As soon as Maccabeus got his army organized, the Gentiles could not withstand him, for the wrath of the Lord had turned to mercy.

As for individual deliverance of the martyrs, its speedy character is emphatically stated—in collation with national salvation!—in 2 Maccabees 7:36–37 (italics added): 36 For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of everowing life under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance. 37 I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our fathers, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation.

As noted earlier, both in the Gospel (Luke 24:26, 46–47) and in Acts (2:24), the immediate nature of Jesus’ entering “into his glory” is highlighted—with the tragedy of the crucixion being presented as no more than a necessary preliminary phase for the victory of resurrection. Hermann Lichtenberger singled out two more instances peculiar to Luke’s passion narrative as indicating proximity to the speedy deliverance pattern found in 2 Maccabees 7–8.55 One is the assurance the good thief received from Jesus in the course of the crucixion agony (Luke 23:43):  6) 78, 90  #, 0 ’ +  &  8

55 H. Lichtenberger, ‘Martyrdom in the New Testament’, in: Z Nového Zákona/From the New Testament, Prague 2001, 96–105, esp. 99.

202

chapter seven

) : (And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise”). Another may be discerned in Luke’s version of Jesus’ last cry on the cross (Luke 23:46): ; <0  <$ #& = 

+ 6), >, ? !  )  )+ . +  ?)@ A)  (Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” [Ps 31:6] And having said this he breathed his last). The Lukan version of the cry on the cross was interpreted—in light of the Synoptic parallels (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me [Ps 22:2]”)—as an indication that Luke intended to make his crucixion narrative “almost tranquil”.56 In other words, to reject the claim—possible in view of the events—that God had forsaken his just ones. This is again a motif featuring prominently in 2 Maccabees 7, where care is taken to stress that whatever impression one may get vis-à-vis the persecution, “The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us” (2 Macc 7:6). It may be added that in his time it was Hermann Samuel Reimarus who seems to have interpreted Jesus’ words at the Last Supper: “For I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:18, cf. Matt 26:29, Mark 14:25), as expressing Jesus’ belief in a speedy deliverance of Israel—namely, within a year, before the next Passover.57

b) The centrality of the resurrection/ascension motif The issue of post mortem existence features prominently in 2 Maccabees’ description of martyrdom; it is explicitly stated that the brothers’ unwavering faithfulness to their religion is founded on the hope of a future life, which is perceived as the core tenet of the covenant:58 10 After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands, 11 and said nobly, “I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again” . . . 13 When he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way. 14 And when he was near death, he said, “One can-

56 See O. C. Edwards, Luke’s Story of Jesus, Philadelphia 1981, 93. Cf. Schefer, Suffering in Luke’s Gospel, 103. 57 See A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus; A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, Baltimore 1998, 13–21, esp. 18. See also the discussion below. 58 Cf. the Wisdom of Solomon 3–5; see note 65 below.

crucifixion

203

not but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!” . . . 23 “Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws” . . . 29 “Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your brothers” . . . 36 “For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of everowing life under God’s covenant (1  #, +  -<( '!B C)#  ). - D" C) 0  + ))*  ); but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance.”

The centrality of the afterlife motif in the Gospel narrative cannot be overestimated. Luke’s previously noted exclusive emphasis on the speedy deliverance of resurrection also bears witness to that. The text of 2 Maccabees 7 just quoted, however, points to a specic feature of the afterlife tradition that may inform our reading of Luke and Acts: a certain blurring of the distinction between resurrection (7:10, 13, 23 and 29) and the post mortem existence of the soul (7:36). A similar lack of distinction or, rather, a lack of harmonization among the various traditional notions, may be observed in rabbinic sources, which in addition to numerous references to     (general resurrection of the dead in the future)59 also attest to variegated notions of the continuation of a “spiritualized” existence—one may say ascension— of an individual, following his death.60 Luke is the only Gospel writer who shows awareness of the conundrum and invests considerable effort in trying to clarify the issue. His addition (in bold below) to the Synoptic version of Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees is one such instance (Luke 20:27–40; cf. Matt 22:23–33, Mark 12:18–27): 27 There came to him some Sadducees, those who say that there is no resurrection, 28 and they asked him a question, saying, . . . 34 And Jesus

59 See discussion in E. E. Urbach, The Sages—Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols, Jerusalem 1987, 1:649–660, where the connection between the resurrection of the dead and the redemption of Israel is outlined. 60 For examples and discussion see Ruzer, ‘The Death Motif ’, 151–165.

204

chapter seven said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; 35 but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36 for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. 37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him (  7    E -, D*, ) #, 78 DE )”. 39 And some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well”. 40 For they no longer dared to ask him any question.

I would suggest that the addition was meant if not to solve then at least to alleviate the difculty present in the common Gospel tradition: While the question of the Sadducees, as well as Jesus’ answer, speak of future resurrection, the Torah proof text seemingly relates to the patriarchs’ current “dwelling with God”—a notion that better suits the belief in a post mortem existence. My interpretation seems more than probable in light of the description in Luke 16:22 of a poor man called Lazarus, who “died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom”. The whole passage in Luke 16:19–31 leaves no doubt that it is not the resurrection but rather an afterlife in a heavenly abode (ascension) that is meant here. Again, Luke is the only Gospel writer to narrate the story and invoke the tradition speaking of the righteous being in the “bosom of Abraham”, which resurfaces in later rabbinic sources.61 Luke is also the only gospel writer who, in describing Jesus’ postEaster appearances, nds it necessary to emphasize the distinction between resurrection and a post mortem spiritualized existence (Luke 24:36–43):62 36 As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them. 37 But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. 38 And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not esh and bones as you see that I have”. 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41

61 See b. Qid. 72b, Pesiqta Rabbati 43. Cf. John 1:18, where Jesus is said to be “in the bosom of the Father”. The context seems to indicate that Jesus is presented here as a new Torah. For Torah being kept in the “bosom of God”, see Avot de R. Nathan A, 31. 62 Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 80, who vehemently opposes the “so-called Christians” who deny resurrection of the dead, believing instead in the post mortem heavenly existence (ascension) of their souls.

crucifixion

205

And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled sh, 43 and he took it and ate before them.

On top of all that, unlike this last passage from Luke 24, the exegetical strategy employed in Acts 2, while explicitly focusing on resurrection is in fact tailored to tackle also the complementing motif of Jesus’ ascension (Acts 2:32–36): 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens; but he himself says, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, 35 till I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet.’ ( Ps 110:1) 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucied”.

c) The presence of a foreign authority One of the clear markers of the 2 Maccabees martyrdom pattern—as distinct from that of the persecuted prophets, who suffer at the hands of their own people—is the dominant role of an outside enemy who is, sometimes in collaboration with certain circles within the Jewish society, the immediate agent of suffering.63 Clearly, the political reality of the late Second Temple period as well as that following the destruction of the Temple could have contributed to the importance of this element of the developing tradition. This is aptly demonstrated by the tendency of the rabbinic midrash to introduce the character of a foreign occupier into the deliberations on the murder of a prophet by his own kinsmen and its repercussions.64 This motif of an “outside enemy”—or rather collaboration between the cruel foreign authority and hostile elements from within—nds its expression in introducing Herod Antipas, rst, into the passion

63 See discussion in van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom.’ D. R. Schwartz (‘The Other in 1 and 2 Maccabees’, in: G. N. Stanton and G. G. Stroumsa [eds.], Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, Cambridge 1998, 30–37) discusses a tendency of 2 Maccabees to distinguish between righteous and wicked, both within the Jewry and within its Gentile environment—in contradistinction to the 1 Maccabees stance, with its clear overlap between wickedness and “gentileness”. 64 See, for example, y. Ta{an 4.5 [69a–b].

206

chapter seven

narrative (Luke 23:6–12) and then into the exegetical appraisal of Jesus’ crucixion in Acts 4:24–28: 23 When they were released they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit, Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place.

The same motif features prominently in the programmatic statement of Acts 2:22–23, where the crucixion is presented as the outcome of Jesus’ Jewish enemies’ collaboration with the lawless Romans: Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the denite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucied and killed by the hands of lawless men.

To concluding the discussion in this section, I would argue that while these three important elements of the Second Temple Jewish martyrdom tradition, reected in 2 Maccabees, seem to have informed the understanding of Jesus’ crucixion in Luke and Acts,65 they could not adequately support the exegetical program advanced in Luke 24. As noted, the professed objective of that program was to look for the meaning of the crucixion in Scripture, to present Jesus’ death as grounded in biblical prophecy—hence the problematic status of more recent compositions of a clearly non-scriptural standing such as 2 Maccabees, which could have been alluded to but not used as a proof text.66

65 Cf. Beck (‘Imitatio Christi’ 30–47), who discerns a common background of ideas for the Lukan passion narrative and the Wisdom of Solomon. 66 Even an allusion to a particular 2 Maccabees 7 passage would be difcult to locate with any certainty. However, Acts 5:39 is believed by some to be alluding to 2 Macc 7:19; see Nestle-Aland, Greek-English New Testament, 8th rev. ed., Stuttgart 1998, 801. While I have focused on general patterns of belief that might have been shared by the Maccabees martyrdom tradition and Luke-Acts, an illuminating comparative analysis of the sub-motifs and terminology employed in these two traditions is conducted in

crucifixion

207

Isaiah 53: A prophet whose suffering has a vicarious redemptive meaning The references to what is usually called the Servant Song are absent from the earliest strata of the New Testament. It can thus be argued that the initial notion of Jesus’ beneciary death—to the extent that it was linked to Jesus’ own views—seems not to have derived from Isaiah 53.67 For this investigation, which focuses not on the “earliest strata” but rather on the attitude characteristic of Luke/Acts, it is important that there are only scanty references to Isaiah 53 elsewhere in the Gospels—and not necessarily with an eye to the vicarious aspect of suffering! A brief review of relevant passages in the Gospels outside Luke will help to achieve a better appreciation of the latter’s contribution. First, a passage from Matthew 8:17 represents an instructive case of restricting the exegetical potential of the Servant Song to providing a justication for Jesus’ healing activities—in contradiction or at best only in anticipation of its function as a biblical proof text for the salvic meaning of the cross: 16 That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. 17 This was to fulll what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah [53:4], “He took our inrmities and bore our diseases”.68

Second, the passion narratives employ a number of references to motifs present in Isaiah 53, notable among them being: (a) the suffering servant’s silence before his accusers, as attested in Isaiah 53:7 (Matt 27:12; Mark 14:49; John 1:29); (b) suffering as atonement for the sins of many (Isa 53:4–6, 8, 10, 12—Matt 20:28, 27:38; Mark 10:45, 15:27).69

Van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom.’ Van Henten’s conclusion that the presentation of Jesus’ suffering is closer “to the tradition of the suffering righteous, which means that we should not ignore the passion narratives’ allusions to Hebrew Bible passages stemming from that tradition” seems to correspond with my suggestion of the 2 Maccabees “inadequacy” as a proof text. 67 See, for example, M. de Jonge, God’s Final Envoy; Early Christology and Jesus’ Own View of His Mission, Grand Rapids 1998, 30–33. For discussion of a range of opinions on the issue, including by those scholars who were persuaded that the notion of the Suffering Servant did play a major role in Jesus’ own understanding of his mission, see D. J. Moo, The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives, Shefeld 1983, 164–175. 68 Cf. Mark 1:32–34; Luke 4:40–41. See also 1 Peter 2:21–25; 1 Cor 15:3. 69 Cf. 1 Peter 2:24 (“bore our sins”); 1 Cor 15:3 (“died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures”); Heb 9:28 (“bore the sins of many”). The atonement sayings in Matt 20:28 and Mark 10:45 are regarded by many as inauthentic; see, for example, O’Neill, ‘Did Jesus Teach?,’ 24.

208

chapter seven

However, these possible allusions are few and vague—a far cry from what might be considered an explicit reference.70 Luke thus seems to be the only one among the Gospel writers who takes pains to make the connection to Isaiah 53 explicit.71 He presents the persecution of Jesus—and the latter’s need to defend himself with a sword—as the fulllment of the oracle in Isaiah 53:9, 12: 36 He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fullled in me,—‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fullment”. 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords”. And he said to them, “It is enough”. (Luke 22:36–38)72

In continuation of this tendency, Isaiah 53 is explicitly presented in Acts 8:26–35 as the biblical key to understanding Jesus’ death on the cross.73 It is noteworthy, however, that even Luke does not use Isaiah 53 as a proof text for either expiatory death or resurrection—the biblical passage is referred to exclusively in connection with the circumstances of Jesus’ passion and his bearing under suffering.74 This restricted line of exegesis stands out in even greater relief if compared to such Second Temple Jewish appraisals of Isaiah 53 as the tradition from 4Q 491c frag. 1 (4QSelf-Glorication Hymn), where as argued by Israel Knohl, a collation of Isaiah 53 with ascension motifs is accomplished.75 How should we interpret the somewhat hesitant introduction of Isaiah 53 into the crucixion discourse in our New Testament source? In principle, it may be suggested that since the wider Scriptural text from which the quoted passages are taken contains passages with

70 Moo (Old Testament in Passion Narratives, 224) seems to believe it is exactly the lack of explicit references that indicates this exegetical pattern was widely recognized. I do not nd it convincing. 71 Cf. Moo, ibid., 172. Moo also discusses an analogous exegetical option probed in the passion narrative—namely, Zechariah 9–14—but comes to the conclusion that, unlike the other Synoptics, Luke “betrays no interest” in it (ibid., 223). 72 Cf. the episode of Jesus being crucied together with two robbers, which remains unexploited in the Gospels as far as the potential link to Isaiah 53 is concerned: Matt 27:38; Mark 15:27; cf. Luke 23:32. 73 As Acts 8:34 seems to indicate, the author was aware of an interpretation, according to which Isaiah 53 was speaking about the prophet himself and not about a future progeny of David. 74 As noted in Beck, ‘Imitatio Christi’, 43. 75 I. Knohl, ‘The Suffering Servant: From Isaiah to The Dead Sea Scrolls’ (forthcoming).

crucifixion

209

some resurrection/ascension-centered exegetical potential, the author of Luke/Acts, as well as his audience, was well aware of that but did not nd it necessary to highlight this potential in his narrative.76 Alternatively, Luke’s “conservative” approach could simply bear witness to a relatively early stage in the Christian exegetical quest, when the appropriation of Isaiah 53 had just begun. The New Testament exegete may then be perceived as yet unaware of the existence of a Jewish interpretation perfectly tailored to serve his needs. The former explanation looks to me less probable—especially in view of the systematic efforts to provide biblical backing for Jesus’ salvic resurrection that characterize the author of Luke and Acts. Also the allusion to resurrection/ascension to be possibly discerned in Isaiah 53:10–11 is at best vague: 10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand; 11 he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satised; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.

It is noteworthy that in classical rabbinic midrashim, as well as in old liturgical poetry ( piyut), Isaiah 53 does feature prominently as the key proof text for the Messiah’s suffering, but not for his resurrection or ascension.77 Whatever the case, the reluctance to appeal to Isaiah 53 may reect, inter alia, a problematic standing of the Deutero-Isaiah passage vis-à-vis the hermeneutical program formulated in Luke 24: With the professed objective of providing biblical backing for the kingly Messiah’s death and resurrection/ascension, and the emphasis on the Messiah’s immediate “coming into his glory”, the author of Luke/Acts ends up showing a preference for the gure of David in Psalms. Of course, the traditional messianic expectations, centered on “restoring the kingdom of Israel”, did not t the type of eschatological reality experienced by the early Jesus movement. As argued in Chapter 4, it is exactly this problem that the author attempts to solve in Acts 1–2 by redening David the king as the prophet of resurrection and ascension, thus building upon a 76 As noted, Moo (note 70 above) applied this reasoning to the other Gospel writers also. 77 See the discussion in M. Fishbane, The Exegetical Imagination; On Jewish Thought and Theology, Cambridge, Mass. 1998, 75, 82–85.

210

chapter seven

tradition belonging to the pool of ideas inherited by the Jesus movement from pre-Christian Judaism.78 It is arguably this agenda that causes the author to omit in the Gospel any references that might put too strong an emphasis on the suffering and despair of Christ on the cross.79 Conclusion Beginning with the internal New Testament evidence that Jesus’ death was a challenge for early Christian exegesis, this chapter has dealt with the hermeneutical strategies employed in Luke and Acts vis-à-vis the “scandal of the crucixion”. The discussion focused mainly on the biblical pattern of persecuted prophet(s). This pattern, with its submotif of God’s vengeance through the destruction of the Temple, was picked up and developed in Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism; the Gospels may be seen as bearing witness to its relatively early (pre-70 c e) form. The punishment-destruction motif featured also as a self-evident argument in Christian anti-Jewish polemics as early as mid-second century.80 We have seen, however, that in the general outline of the double treatise this motif is rst subdued in the Gospel of Luke and then completely abandoned in Acts. The author of Acts shows no inclination to invoke either the general motif of punishment or that of the destruction of the Temple; this seems to be one of the reasons for dropping the murdered prophet theme.81

78 This David-centered tendency features even more prominently in the Codex Bezae of Luke, where quotations from David’s psalms mark not only the end of Jesus’ life on the cross but also the beginning of his mission in the scene of the baptism; see S. Ruzer, ‘Son of God as Son of David: Luke’s Attempt to Biblicize a Problematic Notion’, in: L. Kogan, S. Lyosov and S. Tiscenko (eds.), Babel und Bibel 3, Winona Lake, In. 2007 (forthcoming). That the perception of David as a prophet, far from being a Christian innovation, was in fact a part of the “Jewish heritage” has been recently demonstrated on the basis of biblical, Second Temple (11QPs[a], 4 Macc), and rabbinic evidence in M. Daly-Denton, ‘David the Psalmist, Inspired Prophet: Jewish Antecedents of a New Testament Datum’, Australian Biblical Review 52 (2004), 32–47. See also M. De Jonge, ‘The Earliest Use of Christos. Some Suggestions’, New Testament Studies 32 (1986), 334–335; idem, ‘Jezus als profetische Zoon van David’, in: F. García Martinez, C. H. J. de Geus and A. F. J. Klijn (eds.), Profeten en Profetische Geschriften, Festschrift A. S. van der Woude, Kampen-Nijkerk 1987, 161–164. 79 Cf. Moo, Old Testament in Passion Narratives, 287. For an exhaustive discussion of the use of various lament Psalms in the descriptions of Jesus’ passion, see ibid., 225–300. 80 See, for example, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 16. 81 It is noteworthy that even The Letter of Barnabas, with its vehemently polemical

crucifixion

211

One further observation in the same vein seems appropriate here. It has been suggested by Daniel Boyarin that at some rather early point in the process of the “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity, martyrdom came to be viewed by both sides as an ultimate religious fulllment and proof of the true faith.82 Moreover, the suffering of the Messiah is greatly enhanced in a number of rabbinic elaborations, amounting to what Michael Fishbane calls “midrashic theologies of messianic suffering”.83 The tendency of the author of Luke/Acts to play down this motif and emphasize instead the speedy transition to redemption goes in the opposite direction. While the main objective of the chapter was to highlight the focal junctures of the double treatise exegetical agenda, these features can also constitute an argument for an early date of Acts’ composition. We have seen that there are common traits in the approach to the problem of Jesus’ crucixion in Luke and Acts. Yet there is also a notable difference: in the Gospel, the author’s position nds its expression in a subtle “editing” of the received tradition, whereas in Acts the treatment of the crucixion is of a much more independent kind. The observed difference may provide an argument for the position that Acts should be regarded as the sequel to the Gospel (i.e. a distinct book) rather than as Part II of a work conceived and executed as a single composition—hence the use of “Luke and Acts” or “Luke/Acts” and not “Luke-Acts” throughout this chapter. Luke/Acts has proved to be an instructive test case for an early Christian author’s probing of a number of exegetical schemes, no one of which is without its shortcomings. It was observed in the research that the passion narratives, far from being the elaboration of a single literary genre, derive rather from a mixture of various—Jewish and Graeco-Roman—literary forms.84 I have stressed a different kind of

stance, interprets the destruction of the Temple as a punishment for Israel’s general disobedience toward God, spelled out in biblical prophecy—without establishing a link to Jesus’ death; see Ch. 16. 82 D. Boyarin, Dying for God; Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism, Stanford 1999, esp. 105–110. 83 See discussion in Fishbane, Exegetical Imagination, 73–85. 84 U. Kellermann, Auferstanden in den Himmel; 2 Makkabäer 7 und die Auferstehung der Märtyrer, Stuttgart 1979, 46–53. Cf. A. Yarbro Collins, ‘The Genre of the Passion Narrative’, Studia Theologica 47 (1993), 20, where she argues that the literary form of the earliest version of Mark’s passion narrative is closest to Graeco-Roman accounts about the death of famous persons. See also van Henten, ‘Jewish Martyrdom’.

212

chapter seven

variety—that of exegetical strategies, and hence of biblical proof texts referred to. It was suggested—by Adela Yarbro Collins among others—that the passion narratives were from the beginning designed as the fulllment of a cluster of biblical passages;85 I have argued that Luke/Acts provides a rare opportunity to investigate the process of consequent probing of variegated exegetical options, each one of which, as noted, turns out to be problematic. The process started with the persecuted prophet pattern, entailing punishment; the motifs linked to the benecent death of a martyr—somehow lacking biblical authority—were then introduced; and at a certain stage Isaiah 53 started coming into the picture. Finally, the emphasis moved to David and Psalms—in one more attempt to provide an adequate solution to the hermeneutical objective stated in Luke 24. Exegesis dealing with the meaning of crucixion clearly reects the particular situation and agenda of the Jesus movement. It comes as no surprise that, unlike some other modes of New Testament biblical interpretations, this one is presented in Luke/Acts not as “growing out” of existing patterns but rather as a revelatory one. Yet the hermeneutical process under discussion does relate to, and thus bears witness to, existing Jewish exegetical traditions. I have suggested that the inadequacy of the persecuted prophet pattern stemmed not only from its biblical link to God’s vengeance but also from the author of Luke/Acts’ frowning upon its later function—widely attested in rabbinic sources—with the enhanced centrality of the Temple-destruction-as-punishment sub-motif. In view of the absence of this sub-motif from such core Second Temple texts as Jubilees, the New Testament where it is reected may be seen (together with 1 Enoch) as an important corroborating witness for the variety characterizing this particular trajectory of Jewish exegesis. Also, as shown already in Chapter 4, the reinterpretation of Davidic messiahship attempted in Acts—with all its undeniable originality—throws additional light on the circumstances that engendered parallel attempts at the messianic reinterpretation attested in Qumran. It has been noted, however, that nothing in somewhat cautious exegetical moves that the author of Luke/Acts performs vis-à-vis Isaiah 53 betrays his awareness

85 See, for example, A. Yarbro Collins, ‘From Noble Death to Crucied Messiah’, New Testament Studies 40 (1994), 481–503.

crucifixion

213

of the peculiar Qumran interpretation of the Servant Song propagated in 4QSelf-Glorication Hymn—a fact that should inform our attempts at nascent Christianity’s positioning among different groups within late Second Temple Judaism.

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE NEW COVENANT, THE REINTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE AND COLLECTIVE MESSIAHSHIP The notion of new covenant surfaces only once in the whole vast corpus of the biblical literature—in Jeremiah 31:31–34 (cf. 32:39–40). Scholars generally agree that the passage faithfully expresses Jeremiah’s views if not necessarily the prophet’s ipsissima verba.1 There also seems to be almost a full consensus that this oracle does not refer to a new revelatory meaning of the Torah; rather, that the Torah’s internalization is the issue.2 As observed more than half-century ago by W. D. Davies, the tension between external and internal covenants did not have to mean that Jeremiah disrespected the former, that of Sinai.3 In fact, internalization (realization?), sometimes equated with the universal knowledge of God, has been seen by most scholars as representing the true novelty of the covenant in this passage, as compared to the situation reected in such sayings as Deuteronomy 6:6–7, 10:12, and 30:6 and Psalms 37:31 and 40:8. In other words, but for internalization/realization, Jeremiah’s covenant was the same covenant, albeit renewed, as the preceding ones: same nation, same kernel of both new and old—the

1 See, for example, J. Bright, Jeremiah, The Anchor Bible, Garden City 1965, 287; cf. J. Coppens, ‘La nouvelle alliance en Jér 31, 31–34’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963), 20, who inclines to ascribing the passage to a disciple of Jeremiah. For attempts at historical contextualization, see J. Mejía, ‘La problématique de l’Ancienne et de la Nouvelle Alliance dans Jérémie xxxi 31–34 et quelques autres texts’, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume —Vienna 1980, Leiden 1981, 266–267; W. L. Holladay, ‘The Structure and Possible Setting of the New Covenant Passage, Jer 31, 31–34’, in: V. Collado Bartolomeu (ed.), Palabra, prodigio, poesia, Rome 2003, 188–189, where the year 587 bce, close to the destruction of the Temple, is suggested as the time of the passage’s composition. M. Weinfeld (‘Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel’, Zeitschrift für die Altestestamentliche Wissenschaft 80 [1976], 17–56) perceives the passage as belonging to a series of antithetical oracles, typical of Jeremiah, juxtaposing the old situation with the expected spiritual metamorphosis of Israel. According to Weinfeld (ibid., 43) the sources of the tradition may be discerned already in Hosea. 2 See Bright, Jeremiah, 283; Mejía, ‘La problématique’, 267, 272; G. P. Couturier, ‘Jeremiah,’ in: The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 290. See also C. K. Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant, Rome 1989, 104–105. 3 W. D. Davies, Torah in the Messianic Age and/or Age to Come, Philadelphia 1952, 21. See also Coppens, ‘La nouvelle alliance’, 16–17.

216

chapter eight

Lord’s Torah.4 Admittedly, there have been some voices of dissent, claiming that Jeremiah’s oracle, if contextualized in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple, may express the prophet’s perception of Moses’ covenant as “now a dead letter”,5 but the former appraisal remains the dominant one. It will be shown below that in 2 Corinthians 3 Paul adopts the internalization-centered understanding of Jeremiah 31:31–34. It will be claimed, however, that at the core of Paul’s reasoning there also lies the notion of the new covenant as designating an ultimate messianic reinterpretation of Scripture—an idea that seems to have reected not only the apostle’s thinking but also that of his milieu within the Jesus movement. It is this peculiar exegetical development and its genesis that this concluding chapter is going to deal with. The possible repercussions of this emphasis on new eschatological exegesis for the role ascribed to the messianic leader(s) vis-à-vis the community of the electi will also be addressed. As noted in Chapter 4, research of the last decades has highlighted the varied nature of Second Temple Jewish messianic notions; the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was especially instrumental in clarifying that anticipation of the Davidic Messiah was only one of a number of existing patterns of messianic belief, competing with traditions focusing on other charismatic initiators of the era of salvation, such as the priestly Aaronic Messiah, a prophetically inspired leader or even an angelic gure.6 This variety may be seen as building, inter alia, upon alternative notions of sacral

4

See W. C. Kaiser, ‘The Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31–34’, in: V. L. Tollers and J. P. Maier (eds.), The Bible in Its Literary Milieu, Grand Rapids 1979, 112–114; W. E. Lemke, ‘Exposition Articles: Jeremiah 31:31–34’, Interpretation 37 (1983), 183–187, where an instructive comparison with Jer 24:7, 32:39–40; Ez 11:19, 36:26 is conducted. 5 See Holladay, ‘The Structure and Possible Setting’, 188. Cf. Weinfeld (‘Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis,’ 32), who allows that the prophet might have perceived the new covenant as associated not with formal statutes but exclusively with the “circumcision of the heart”. J. Swetnam (‘Why Was Jeremiah’s New Covenant New’, in: G. W. Anderson [ed.], Studies on Prophecy: A Collection of Twelve Papers, Leiden 1974, 111–115) suggested a completely different solution. According to him, the passage from Jeremiah reecting the criticism against the priestly circles that had formerly been in control of the Scripture at the same time bears witness to a new development—namely, the beginning of Torah study in the synagogues, polemically presented as standing for non-mediated access to the knowledge of God. 6 See Schiffman, ‘Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls’, 116–129; Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 75–77; Schäfer, ‘Diversity and Interactions’, 15–35.

the new covenant

217

anointment attested in biblical tradition—such as kingly, priestly and prophetic7—with the oil of anointment being replaced in the latter with the spirit of prophecy (the Holy Spirit), to be “poured out” on the initiate. It should be noted that different anointments might have been perceived as pertaining to the same person. One example could be the traditions of biblical and Second Temple period provenance presenting King David as a prophet.8 Nascent Christianity, far from being homogeneous, inherited a variety of Jewish messianic ideas, so that various, even conicting, notions may be discerned in the different strata of early Christian sources.9 This chapter will deal with a peculiar pattern of belief that has not received due research attention—namely, that of a “collective messiahship” seemingly devoid of the need for a personal messiah. This issue has already been touched on in Chapter 4, and the discussion will now be taken further, focusing on the exegetical aspects. After reviewing Qumranic evidence on the idea of “collective anointment” and its possible biblical roots, I will discuss the notion of the new covenant as a radical reinterpretation of the Torah and then return, nally, to the collective messiahship, tying the two themes together. Collective messiahship in Qumran and the New Testament The notion of collective messiahship is attested in Qumran, where it is clearly linked to the prophetic type of anointment—that is, anointment with the Spirit. Thus, for example, in fragments of the Damascus Document found at Qumran such as 4Q266 ii 2:12 (= CD-A 6) and 4Q 270 ii 2:12, 2:14, “the anointed/messiahs by his/the Holy Spirit” or “the messiahs of (his) Holy Spirit” (   /   ) serve as the community’s collective self-denition. In other passages (e.g., 4Q266 iii 2:9; 4Q267 2, 6; 4Q269 iv 1:2), a shorter title, “the anointed of the holiness” (  ), denotes the whole community of the covenanters—as distinguished from the Qumranic priestly elite, those belonging to the “Aaronic anointment”. Given that the forms “his messiah” and “his messiahs” are not always distinguishable in the 7 For the biblical “pre-history” of the messianic idea see, for example, Talmon, ‘The Concept of MÊšîah’, 79–115. 8 For recent discussion see Daly-Denton, ‘David the Psalmist’, 32–47. 9 See Flusser, ‘Reection of Jewish Messianic Beliefs’, (see Chapter 4, note 1). The issue was addressed in Chapter 4.

218

chapter eight

Dead Sea scrolls, there may in fact be additional instances of this collective usage. One such instance according to my reading, admittedly a minority opinion, may be the so-called Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521 2 ii 1:         ).10 Such “democratic widening” of the scope of anointment seems to have been rooted in biblical precedents reecting both the prophetic polemic with the institutionalized patterns of anointment, especially the priestly one (e.g., Isa 66:1–2; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:25–27), and the prophetic hope for end-of-days redemption. An instructive example may be found in Joel 3:1–2, where God promises: And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all esh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even upon the menservants and maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit.

The reworking of the oracle’s opening line in Acts 2:7 (“And in the last days/ȀƮ ƵƣʴƳ ȀƴƸɕƵƣƫƳ ȍvɗƲƣƫƳ it shall be, God declares”) bears witness that the passage from Joel was susceptible to eschatological interpretation. It is instructive that this passage was employed in Acts 2 as a proof text for the prophetic outpouring of the Spirit within the Jesus movement.11 The author of Acts seems to have perceived the phenomenon as foundational, one that both marked the borders of the “community of the saved” and backed the claim that the era of end-of-days messianic salvation had truly begun. Paul’s epistles also bear witness to this outlook, which in all probability was not introduced by the apostle but inherited by him from the preceding phase in the development of the Jesus movement, which in its turn might have been inuenced

10 For a different understanding, see E. Puech, ‘Messianism, Resurrection, and Eschatology’, in: E. Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam (eds.), The Community of the Renewed Covenant; The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Notre Dame 1994, 235–256; idem, ‘Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism’, in: J. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger and G. S. Oegema (eds.), Qumran-Messianism, Tübingen 1998, 543–565. See also discussion in G. Alley, ‘Good News to the Poor: Luke’s Exegesis on Isaiah 61:1–2 within the Synoptic Gospels’ Tripartite Redemptive Framework’, M.A. thesis, Rothberg School for Overseas Students, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2001. 11 Acts 2:1–4, 14–24, 35–36; 8:14–17; 10:44–48; 15:8. The emphasis on Jesus’ prophetic calling/messiahship also features prominently in the Third Gospel thus being characteristic of both parts of the Luke/Acts sequence. See discussion in Chapter 7 and bibliographical references there. 12 See D. Flusser, ‘The Dead Sea Sect and Pre-Pauline Christianity’, in: Judaism and the Sources of Christianity, 23–74, esp. 30–50, 71–74.

the new covenant

219

by Qumran-like ideas.12 One of the indications of this pattern of belief being shared by wider circles rather than representing the apostle’s peculiar inclinations is that in some instances Paul evinces a palpable discomfort with the notion of the collective prophetic anointment, trying to propagate alternative end-of-days emphases instead. Most notable among the latter are (as in 1 Corinthians 2, 13) the expiating death and resurrection of the one and only Davidic Messiah and/or the expectation of his second coming. Notwithstanding the much-felt presence of the collective anointment idea, there is only one New Testament example, 1 John 2:20, of using the plural language of anointment in an explicitly eschatological context (see discussion below). It will be suggested below that Jeremiah 31:31–34—as noted the only biblical passage introducing the notion of an eschatological new covenant/testament (presented in Jeremiah 32:40 as the everlasting one)13—could serve as another scriptural point of reference for this idea of collective messiahship: 31 Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant (  ) with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my Torah within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, “Know the LORD”, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.14

Both Qumran and early Christian authors made use of the notion of a new covenant (testament), which allowed them to redene the 13 See B. Renaud, ‘L’alliance éternelle d’Ez 16, 59–63 et l’alliance nouvelle de Jér 31, 31–34’, in: J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book; Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, Leuven 1986, 337–339, who discussed the problematic of “new-eternal” in the context of the dialectic tension between rupture and continuity, comparing Jeremiah 31 with Ezekiel 16. See also Mejía, ‘La problématique’, 273–274, who compares the new covenant idea found in Jer 31:31–34 (a) with the notion of the renewal of the covenant attested, e.g., in Deuteronomy; and (b) with a series of biblical traditions that report establishing seemingly “new” covenantal relationships between God and either Israel or selected individuals, but do not use the phrase “new covenant” itself (ibid., 268–271). He seems eventually to come to the conclusion that the new covenant notion reects, in a sense, the core condition of any covenantal outlook. 14 “Law” of the RSV has been replaced throughout this chapter with “Torah”.

220

chapter eight

community of the electi as different in scope from the historical Israel. The similarity in tactics between the two movements at this point, as well as the possible inuence of Qumranic thought on early Christianity, have been thoroughly studied.15 It is noteworthy that the emphasis on exclusivity seems to have been intrinsically connected, both in Qumran and in nascent Christianity, with the idea of the remission of sins of those belonging to the new covenant—4Q266 frag. 3 1:4, Luke 22:20 (cf. Matt 26:27–29; Mark 14:23–25; 1 Cor 11:25–26) and Romans 11:26 are ne examples of such an outlook. This is, of course, an idea that features prominently in Jeremiah 31:34. The new covenant and the reinterpretation of Scripture The prominence of the notion of new covenant in both communities, however, seems to have stemmed not only from the collation of their eschatological and “sectarian” interests but also from the fact that each of them consciously propagated a dramatically innovative (re)interpretation of the Scripture. Thus in the passage from the Damascus Document related to above, the new covenant (   ) is conditioned upon the “unearthing” of the previously hidden meanings of the Torah—rst and foremost that in these days of preparation for the eschaton the covenanters are required, in a radical departure from the priestly ordinances of the Pentateuch, to cut their ties with the Jerusalem sacricial cult and the rest of Israel (“sons of the pit/perdition”): 11 But all those who have been brought into the covenant 12 shall not enter the temple to kindle his altar in vain. They will be the ones who close 13 the door . . . 14 . . . Unless they are careful to act in accordance with the exact interpretation of the Torah for the age of wickedness (     ): to separate themselves 15 from the sons of the pit (    ); to abstain from wicked wealth which deles, either by promise or by vow, 16 and from the wealth of the temple . . . 19 . . . according to what they had discovered, those who entered the new covenant (   ) in the land of Damascus. (CD-A 6:11–19; 4Q266 iii 2:17–25)16

As in Jeremiah 31, the idiom of the “new covenant” is juxtaposed in the Damascus Document to the covenant of the old, termed “covenant of the very rst”:

15 16

See, for example, Flusser, ‘Dead Sea Sect’ (note 12 above). Cf. CD-A 1:45; 3:14–17.

the new covenant

221

However, when he remembered the covenant of the very rst, he saved a remnant] for Israel and did not deliver them up to destruction. (4Q266 2 ii 1:9–10) . . . deceit] [in order to div]ert Israel from following [God. But God remembered the covenant of the very rst ( ), and from] [Aaron] raised men of knowledge /and from Israel wi[se men], and forced them to lis[ten.] (4Q266 iii 2:9–11)

Moreover, predecessors—whether the “very rst” of Sinai or those of the earlier periods of the community’s history17—are explicitly identied through their interpretation of the Torah, once valid but now obsolete: “To act according to the interpretation of the Torah (

 ), which were taught the rst ones (   ) until the arrival of the completion of the end (    )”. (4Q266 3 iii 1:3) The new covenant is likewise intrinsically linked to a new, previously unknown, interpretation—this time of a biblical composition from the Prophets section of the Scripture—in the Qumranic Pesher Habakkuk, where the content of this dramatically new exegesis is presented as one hidden even from Habakkuk himself but revealed in the “pre-eschatological” period to the Teacher of Righteousness, who thus seems to enjoy an even more privileged status than the biblical prophet:18 1 Hab 1:5 you reported it. Blank [ The interpretation of the word concerns] the traitors with the Man of 2 Lies, since they do not [believe in the words of the] Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of 3 God; (and it concerns) the traito[rs of the] new [covenant] (   ) since they did not 4 believe in the covenant of God [and dishonoured] his holy name. 5 Likewise: Blank The interpretation of the word [concerns the trai]tors in the 6 last days. They shall be violators of [the coven]ant who will not believe 7 when they hear all that is going [to happen to] the nal generation, from the mouth of the 8 Priest whom God has placed wi[thin the Community,] to foretell the fullment of all 9 the words of his

See discussion of the  from 1QS 9 in Chapter 1. The issue is addressed in S.-K. Wan, ‘Charismatic Exegesis: Philo and Paul Compared’, in: D. T. Runia (ed.), The Studia Philonica Annual; Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, vol. 4, Atlanta 1994, 54; J. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel; The Letter/ Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians Tübingen 1995, 67–68. Cf. D. Dimant (‘Qumran Sectarian Literature’, in: Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period [see Chapter 3, note 42], 527f ), who perceives the author of another Qumran composition, the Temple Scroll, as one who “was undoubtedly convinced that he was writing the truly divine Torah as revealed to him through tradition and divine inspiration”. 17

18

222

chapter eight servants, the prophets (     ), [by] means of whom God has declared 10 all that is going to happen to his people [Israel]. (1QpHab 2:1–9) 1 And God told Habakkuk to write what was going to happen 2 to the last generation, but he did not let him know the end of the age (      ). 3 Blank And as for what he says: Hab 2:2 ] “So that the one who reads it/may run/”. 4 Its interpretation concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God has disclosed 5 all the mysteries of the words of his servants, the prophets. Hab 2:3 For the vision has an appointed time, it will have an end and not fail. Blank7 Its interpretation: the nal age will be extended and go beyond (      ) all that 8 the prophets say, because the mysteries of God are wonderful. (1QpHab 7:1–8)

Despite the important similarities between the Damascus Document and Pesher Habakkuk, two differences relevant to our discussion should be highlighted: (a) in the pesher, the previously unheard-of revelatory exegetic content pertains not to halakhic ordinances but rather to the salvation scenario itself—more specically, to its unexpectedly long duration; and (b) the portrayal of the covenanters as the “anointed of the Spirit” is lacking in the pesher, the emphasis there being on the prophetic-like anointment of the Teacher of Righteousness. The new covenant in Paul While the notion of the new covenant features prominently in the post-Pauline Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 8:6–9:20; 10:16–29; 12:24; 13:20), only two explicit references to the new covenant occur in the authentic Pauline letters: 1 Corinthians 11:25 and 2 Corinthians 3:6.19 The former merely reiterates Jesus’ words over the cup during the Last Supper; the new covenant in this context seems to indicate rst and foremost a covenant of sacricial atonement/remission of sins—with an implicit reference to the promise in Jeremiah 31:34: “. . . for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more”. The latter, however—not unlike the above Qumranic admonition—elaborates on the meaning of the new covenant in connection with the interpretation

19 Unlike its integrity, the authenticity of 2 Corinthians has never been seriously questioned; see, for example, J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life, Oxford-New York 1996, 252–256.

the new covenant

223

of Scripture and is thus of primary importance for our investigation.20 The opening passage of 2 Corinthians 3 reads as follows: 1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; 3 and you show that you are a letter from Messiah delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such is the condence that we have through Messiah toward God. 5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, 6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant (ƬƣƫƮʦƳ ƦƫƣƪəƬƩƳ), not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor 3:1–6)21

Even more than the Damascus Document and Pesher Habakkuk, where the reference was implicit,22 the wording here leaves no doubt that the author is referring to Jeremiah 31:31–34: not only the appearance of the term “new covenant” itself but also the key themes of internalization (“written on your hearts”)23 and, hence, the lack of a need for outside instruction testify to that.24 A complementing motif of Spirit, derived inter alia from Ezekiel 36 is clearly present here too—see below. Further on, Paul species the kind of insightful knowledge that underlies the new covenant: according to the apostle it is the true, previously

20 Cf. Couturier, ‘Jeremiah’, 289, where he reads 1 Cor 11:25 and 2 Cor 3:6 harmonistically. 21 To clarify the argument, “Christ” of the RSV English translation is replaced throughout this chapter with “Messiah”. 22 Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that in Qumran the new covenant notion is derived from Jeremiah 31. See Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 150 and n. 181 there. See, however, Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 44, where he seems to suggest that Qumranites while using the new covenant notion did not necessarily refer to Jeremiah but might have had an “independent source of inspiration”. 23 See Mejía, ‘La problématique’, 267; Furnish, II Corinthians, 194–196. 24 According to Jer 31:31–34 there is no need for further instruction seemingly even by God himself—the motif is unparalleled in the Hebrew Scripture! See Coppens, ‘La nouvelle alliance’, 17–18. 2 Cor 3:3 may refer to Ez 11:19; 36:26 (“heart of stone” ); see Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 46–48. W. Baird (‘Letters of Recommendation: A Study of II Cor 3:1–3’, Journal of Biblical Literature 80 [1961], 166–172) suggests accepting a minority reading (ȍvːƮ, “in our heart”, instead of ȹvːƮ, “in your heart” ); he thus believes that the real issue here is Paul’s credentials as “apostle of the new covenant” rather then the “(un)ripeness” of his audience. See also C. J. A. Hickling, ‘The Sequence of Thought in II Corinthians Chapter Three’, New Testament Studies 81 (1974/75), 380–395; E. Richard, ‘Polemics, Old Testament, and Theology: A Study of II Cor., iii, 1–iv, 6’, Revue biblique 88 (1981), 363.

224

chapter eight

hidden—and hidden even now from the non-committed, deceived by “the god of this world” (ȭ ƪƧɜƳ Ƶư˃ ƣȜːƮưƳ, 2 Cor 4:4)25—meaning of the old covenant, the Torah of Moses (2 Cor 3:12–18): 12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end (ƵɗƭưƳ) of the fading splendor. 14 But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant (ƵʦƳ ƱƣƭƣƫʗƳ ƦƫƣƪəƬƩƳ), that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Messiah is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read26 a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Thus, far from dismissing the old Scripture, Paul, like the Damascus Document and Pesher Habakkuk, presents the new covenant as conditioned on a thorough reinterpretation of the customarily read sacred texts as speaking of Jesus the Messiah (see 2 Cor 3:12–18)—in deviation from contemporaneous exegetic patterns, those that “the rst ones were taught”. One may wonder what picture of Torah’s reading the apostle have in mind: private or taking place at a Sabbath synagogue meeting as meant in Acts 15:21? It is not possible to address here the notoriously complex issue of Paul’s attitude towards the ritual obligations of Mosaic Law. Sufce it to note that a number of scholars have argued convincingly that both Paul’s general tendency and his stance in the passage under discussion are a far cry from the straightforward supersessionist negation of the Torah.27 The newness of the new covenant with Paul, then, would

25 For a recent discussion on 2 Cor 4:1–6 see G. Dantzenberg, ‘Überlegungen zur Exegese und Theologie von 2 Kor 4,1–6’, Biblica 82 (2001), 325–344. 26 For a similar usage ( “Moses” = “the Torah/Book of Moses” ) see Acts 15:21. Cf. “David” instead of “Psalms/Book of David” in 4QMMT d, Frags. 14–21, 10. 27 For our passage see Hafemann (Paul, Moses, 439–444), who sees the fall-judgmentrestoration sequence in the history of Israel as the true “plot” of Paul’s reasoning here and, hence, the Spirit of the new covenant as the same Spirit as in previous salvic revelations, meant to bring about obedience to the Torah. For a “new appraisal” of Paul’s general stance vis-à-vis the “law”, see K. Stendahl, Final Account; Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Minneapolis 1995; J. Gager, Reinventing Paul, Oxford 2000; P. Fredriksen, ‘Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2’, Journal of Theological Studies 42, 532–564; eadem, ‘Paul, Purity’, 205–218.

the new covenant

225

be—in accordance with Jeremiah 31—the “ripeness” of the time and people’s hearts as a result of the gift of the Spirit.28 The present analysis, however, pertains only to a particular dimension of that problem—namely to the relation between Paul’s stance and that of the Scrolls. A number of scholars have underlined the gap between the two, discerning here a clear-cut dichotomy, the tendency that found its typical, and maybe strongest, expression in the following statement: At this point Paul’s idea of the ‘new covenant’ is fundamentally different from the conception of it which is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Qumran sectarians regarded themselves as constituting a “household of the Spirit” devoted entirely to obeying the law; they seem to have had no sense whatever of any incompatibility between ‘life in Spirit’ and ‘life under law.’ For Paul, on the other hand, these stand over against one another as two radically different and mutually exclusive modes of existence.29

In contradistinction to such dichotomy, which, in my opinion, is somewhat overdone,30 I would like to emphasize that all possible differences notwithstanding, the comparison of the two traditions highlights their shared claim to the unearthing/revelation of the eschatological meaning of the old Torah, which presupposes also a claim as to the latter’s unquestioned validity. Possibly the ƵɗƭưƳ of 2 Corinthians 3:13 should then be understood, in light of the Qumranic idiom    from 1QpHab 7:2, as denoting the ultimate meaning of the Holy Writ pertaining to the end of time. Yet it deserves notice that unlike Habakkuk

28 See Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 440–445, 450. For a revived argument for the traditional view of the contrast between “old” and “new” as that between Torah and Gospel see S. Grindheim, ‘The Law Kills but the Gospel Gives Life: The Letter-Spirit Dualism in 2 Corinthians 3:5–18’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84 (2001), 97–115. 29 V. P. Furnish, II Corinthians, The Anchor Bible, Garden City 1984, 199. See also W. D. Davies, ‘Paul and the Dead Seas Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit’, in: K. Stendahl (ed.), The Scrolls and the New Testament, New York 1957, 180–181; H. Braun, Qumran und das Neue Testament, 2 vols., Tübingen 1966, 1:198. Further on in his commentary Furnish (ibid., 200) somehow ameliorates the power of his above wording, stating that “Paul does not reject the law as such”. Cf. Couturier (‘Jeremiah’, 289), who argues that in the eschatological context of Qumran the new covenant “designates nothing more than the Mosaic covenant with strong legalistic tendencies”. 30 See studies by Stendahl, Gager and Fredricksen, mentioned in note 27 above. See also Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 153–154, where he outlines the striking parallels between Paul and the Qumranic authors, nding the only essential difference in the person and work of Christ! See also D. Flusser, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls’, 48–50. The tension observed—e.g., in Galatians 5:18–23—clearly testies against such dichotomy.

226

chapter eight

in the pesher, Moses is not presented by Paul as someone to whom God did not disclose that ultimate meaning. Judging, however, by the recurrent use of the substitution and/or supersession language in scholarly analysis of 2 Corinthians 3:12–18,31 the undeniably polemical tone of the passage has been effective in obscuring the fact that in Paul’s reasoning here the new covenant is counterposed not to the Torah but to its “insufciently messianic” interpretation (in a Damascus Document terminology it would be branded as unbetting to the “age of wickedness”)—whether it is the blindness of Paul’s contemporaries or the hesitance of Moses himself that are to blame. The rhetoric of the epistle seems to suggest a comparison between Paul and Moses; and the subtle interplay between the identication with Moses (Paul being misunderstood as was Moses in his time) and a desire to supersede him has been identied in the research.32 However, my reading suggests that the comparison Paul makes here is not with Moses the giver of (the text of ) the Torah but rather with Moses the interpreter, the one who conveys the meaning(s) of the revealed Holy Writ. To what extent this aspect is underrated in research may be exemplied by Stockhausen’s conclusions with regard to the elements of the pre-Pauline Jewish “pool of concepts” underlying the apostle’s notion of the new covenant: (1) It is new; (2) it is written on hearts, which are not stone but esh; (3) it imparts individual knowledge of God; (4) it involves forgiveness of sins and is a divine mercy; (5) it reconstitutes the people of God; (6) it imparts the spirit and is itself a spiritual reality.33 It is telling that even in this most thorough investigation of 2 Corinthians 3:1–4:6 the centrality of biblical interpretation is somehow overlooked. Although there were sporadic attempts to see Paul as promoting in 2 Corinthians 3 an interpretation of the Torah—e.g., along the patterns of ( Jewish) Hellenistic allegorization34—they do not seem to gain a

31 A telling example is provided by Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 71–72, 77–79, 85, 125–132, 155. 32 See Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 41–42, 105; see also previous note. 33 Stockhausen, Moses’ Veil, 63; cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 453: “ƵɗƭưƳ [2 Cor 3:13] does not mean the real or Spirit-inspired meaning [of the Scripture] but the consequences of encountering the glory of God”. 34 See R. M. Grant, The Letter and the Spirit, New York 1957, 50–51; see also B. Cohen, ‘Note on Letter and Spirit in the New Testament’, Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954), 191–203.

the new covenant

227

hold in further research.35 Even when 2 Corinthians 3 is seen as an exercise in exegesis, this is usually understood as pertaining exclusively to Paul’s polemical interpretation of Moses’ veil experience in Exodus 34. The exegetical crux of the passage is perceived then as dealing mainly with Paul’s (believers’?) mystically avored stance, as compared with that of “ordinary Jews” and maybe of Moses also, rather than with the contents of the messianic reinterpretation of the Torah.36 To the best of my knowledge, there has been no attempt to establish an essential connection between Paul’s notion of the new covenant here and his appeal to hermeneutics.37 As opposed to that, the reading based on a comparison with the Scrolls and propagated here38 brings

35 As reected, inter alia, in standard commentaries; see, for example, Furnish, II Corinthians, 199–200, who reviews such attempts and rejects them as totally off the mark. Cf. J. D. G. Dunn (‘2 Corinthians 3:17—“The Lord Is the Spirit” ’, in: idem, The Christ and the Spirit; Collected Essays, vol. 1: Christology, Grand Rapids 1998, who argued uncompromisingly that 2 Cor 3:13–14 (the “veil verses”) “does not mean that they [the Jews] fail to understand the true meaning of the law…. It is not the difference within the old dispensation that Paul is describing, but a difference between dispensations”. 36 Thus Richard (‘Polemics’, 341, 362, 367) upholds the exegetic emphasis but restricts it to Paul’s treatment—seemingly combining midrashic and ( Jewish) Hellenistic methods—of the episode with Moses’ veil in Exodus 34. Cf. A. T. Hanson, ‘The Midrash in 2 Corinthians 3: A Reconsideration’, in: S. E. Porter (ed.), The Pauline Writings, Shefeld 1995, 98–123, who understands Paul’s treatment of Exodus 34 as a midrash speaking of Moses’ vision on Mount Sinai—namely, the vision of the preexisting cosmic Christ, the image of God, as reected in the tabernacle. To that end Hanson has to read 2 Corinthians 3 harmonistically together with the prologue of the Fourth Gospel. In his important contribution, Wan (‘Charismatic Exegesis’, 54–82) does see 2 Corinthians 3 as an exegetical debate but again—since Wan’s focus is on the charismatic foundation of true exegesis—as related exclusively to Exodus 34: in other words, Torah as mainly a proof text for Paul’s mystical experience (“removing the veil”) rather than for Jesus’ messiahship. At the end of his study (ibid., 78), Wan does observe, however, that with Paul, the believer equipped with a new, direct encounter with the Lord/eschatological Spirit (“removing the veil”), is in a better position to understand the profound meaning of the Torah. But see Hafemann (Paul, Moses, 456–458), who sees Paul’s interpretation of, again, Exodus 34 in 2 Corinthians 3–4 as completely non esoteric—and thus distinguished from the Qumran revelations of the Teacher of Righteousness. See also W. C. van Unnik, ‘ “With Unveiled Face”: An Exegesis of 2 Corinthians iii. 12–18’, in: idem, Sparsa Collecta: Part One: Evangelia, Paulina, Acta, Leiden 1973, 194–210; L. L. Belleville, ‘Tradition or Creation? Paul’s Use of the Exodus 34 Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3.7–18’, in: C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, Shefeld 1993, 165–186. 37 Even Wan (‘Charismatic Exegesis’ 54–82), who put so much emphasis on (charismatic) exegesis in Paul and the Scrolls, does not link this phenomenon to the notion of a new covenant—nor to Jeremiah 31—crucial for both the early Jesus movement and the Qumran covenanters but, admittedly, not for Philo, who is, for Wan, the main point of reference. 38 See also J. A. Fitzmyer (‘Glory Reected in the Face of Christ [2 Cor 3:7–4:6]’,

228

chapter eight

me to the following twofold suggestion. First, that it is the notion of a thorough reinterpretation of the Scripture as speaking of the Messiah—according to a hermeneutic program reected also elsewhere in the New Testament, most prominently in Luke 2439—that is at the core of Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians 3. Second, that this hermeneutical notion is nothing less than a foundational element of Paul’s perception and/or presentation of the new covenant concept. An additional reason for this exegetical aspect being ignored may be connected to the understandable tendency of the research to concentrate on biblical passages as the possible background for Paul’s reasoning here,40 whereas this intrinsic link between the new covenant and the revelation of a dramatically new meaning of the known covenantal Scripture features explicitly neither in Jeremiah 31 nor in the other possible proof texts. This link, then, should rather be seen as representing an exegetical development from the Second Temple period. Of course, the suggestion that Paul’s readers would have been able to appreciate the subtlety of the apostle’s midrashic exercise makes one wonder with regard to the social texture of his Corinthian audience. Thus, Joseph Fitzmyer, who perceives Paul’s thinking here as guided by a free associative process (by means of gezerah shawa and pesher), speaks of a “mixed community”.41 One may see such a development leading to a

in: idem, According to Paul; Studies in the Theology of the Apostle, Mahwah, New Jersey 1993, 77), who states that we nd in the CD and 1QpHab “a renewed understanding of the Mosaic Covenant of old . . . to which the Pauline passage is not unrelated”. Fitzmyer, however, does not relate to the exegetical aspect of the new covenant, focusing instead on the notion of mystical “illumination”, for which he suggests instructive Qumranian parallels, such as 1QH 12:5–6, 27–29; 1QSb 4:24–28 (ibid., 75–79). 39 See discussion in Chapter 7. For a completely different appraisal see Lemke (‘Expository Articles’, 187), who harmonistically interprets Paul’s presentation of the new covenant in 2 Corinthians 3 in light of the apostle’s mission—namely, as relating to inclusion of the Gentiles. 40 Thus Stockhausen (Moses’ Veil, 58–71) arrives at the conclusion that, for example, 2 Corinthians 3:1–6 actually refers to a number of biblical passages (in addition to those from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Exodus 34:1–4 and Exodus 36:21 are mentioned) that form “a cohesive group in themselves on the basis of hook-word linkage” of ƦƫƣƪəƬƩ-ƬƣƲƦɛƣ-ƭɛƪưƳ-ƥƲɕƷƺ. He also suggests (ibid., 55ff.) that for the sake of creating his composite exegetic structure Paul consciously used the existing technique of interpretation—namely, gezera shava (as well as, elsewhere, pesher). It is at this stage of the analysis that Paul is presented as working vis-à-vis not only the biblical text but also existing patterns of interpretation. 41 Fitzmyer, ‘Glory Reected’, 64–65, 67–73. Cf. C. K. Stockhausen (‘2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis’, in: Paul and the Scriptures of Israel, 143–164), who presents Paul the exegete as “a man with method” but seems to perceive the common ground between Paul and his Jewish contemporaries as limited to a general Jewish “infatuation with Scripture”.

the new covenant

229

perception of the new covenant as a new understanding of Scripture, as reecting a well-known emphasis of the Second Temple period on interpretation as a means of reassessing the Holy Writ (see Introduction). I would also tentatively suggest that as far as Paul and the Qumran authors are concerned, it might have found exegetical justication in Jeremiah 31:34 (“for they shall all know me”)—with “knowledge of God” equated with a true, previously hidden, understanding of God’s will as expressed in the Torah.42 Although the content of the exegesis suggested by Paul differs substantially from that in the Damascus Document, as well as from that in Pesher Habakkuk, all three traditions make use of and relate to the basic hermeneutical pattern of revealed reinterpretation of the Torah outlined above. In Chapter 3, I discussed the case of the double love command, where, too, an overlap of the basic exegetical structure between the New Testament and Qumranic evidence, along with differences of interpretation, was discerned. There it was possible—in light of additional indications—to suggest with a measure of certainty that the existence of such an exegetical structure shared by Qumran and early Christian sources pointed to its wide circulation in Second Temple Judaism. In the present case, however, such additional indications (i.e., evidence that a similar pattern was employed in proto-rabbinic circles) are lacking. Yet we may still observe that the idiosyncratic rethinking of the new covenant idea in terms of Torah’s dramatically new meaning, attested in 2 Corinthians 3, is shared by the authors of the Damascus Document (with regard to the Torah) and of Pesher Habakkuk (with regard to the Book of Habbakuk) and, seemingly, their community(ies). This basic pattern thus at least signies a point of overlap between the approaches of various eschatologically minded groups, while again the substantial dissimilarities in outlook among those groups nd expression in their differing notions of the new covenant’s content.

42 For the centrality of the “knowledge of God”/internalization for Jeremiah’s new covenant see studies referred to in notes 2 and 3 above. See also Renaud (‘L’alliance éternelle’, 336–337), who singles out the association of the covenant with the knowledge of God (and remission of sins)—granted by God’s grace and not as the result of people’s merits!—as the core similarity between Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 16. Cf. the mostly theological discussion in G. Couturier, ‘Alliance nouvelle et home nouveau en Jérémie 31, 31–34’, in: O. Mainville (ed.), Loi et autonomie dans la Bible et la tradition chrétienne, Montreal 1994, 79–116.

230

chapter eight The new covenant and the Spirit

As noted, the oracle in Jeremiah 31 lacks any explicit reference to a new content of the covenant. The prophet emphasizes instead what was termed internalization of the covenant now written “upon their hearts”—as opposed to the previous stage, when the covenant was of an external nature and hence prone to failure. This ultimate “change of heart” is reintroduced, also in the context of Israel’ redemption, in Ezekiel 36:24–29:43 24 For I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you (   ), and a new spirit I will put within you (   ); and I will take out of your esh the heart of stone and give you a heart of esh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (         ). 28 You shall dwell in the land, which I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. 29 And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses; and I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you.

It is noteworthy that the “change of heart” is described in terms of receiving the Spirit, the sub-motif absent in Jeremiah 31. At the beginning of this chapter, the centrality of the notion of “anointment by the Spirit” for the Qumranites’ new-covenantal self-denition was stressed. As has been observed, this motif also features prominently in 2 Corinthians 3 (3:3, 6, 17–18).44 So the basic exegetical pattern shared by the two traditions seems to have included—in addition to the reinterpretation of Jeremiah 31 as speaking of a new revelatory meaning of the old Scripture—an exegetical collation of Jeremiah 31 with Ezekiel 36. In rabbinic sources, interpretation of the religious lore is also sometimes ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Thus Pesiqta Rabbati (28, 30, 34–37) is distinguished by its recurrent formula “X said by the Holy Spirit”. Although the dating of the traditions documented in these sources

43

Cf. Jer 24:7. See discussion in Coppens, ‘La nouvelle alliance’, 19–20. I tend to agree with Dunn’s analysis (‘2 Corinthians 17’, 115–116, 123–125), according to which the “Lord” of 2 Cor 3:17 (“The Lord is the Spirit”) refers to God and not to Jesus. 44

the new covenant

231

remains a notoriously tricky issue,45 there is evidence that the notion of an inspired exegesis belonged from a relatively early stage (i.e., the end of the Second Temple period) to a wider Jewish tradition. Thus Sze-kar Wan has shown that the inclination for prophetic-like exegesis characterized not only Zealots, whom Josephus criticizes for that, but also Philo and Josephus himself—at certain point the latter even compared himself with Jeremiah. The tendency, then, should not necessarily be seen as limited to eschatologically minded groups.46 However, what distinguishes the particular eschatological brand of the pattern attested in 2 Corinthians 3 and in the Damascus Document (and to a lesser extent in Pesher Habakkuk) is the explicit awareness of the dramatic departure from the “mundane” ways of interpretation—hence, the need for a “new covenant”-centered argumentation. From the point of view of the discussion in this volume, this marks a decisive change in approach already touched on in the previous chapter: It is here that the interest in the shared patterns of biblical interpretation as the means of choice for “winning over” the members of the immediate milieu gives way to the emphasis on a revolutionary new content of revelation. Back to collective anointment In both Jeremiah and Ezekiel the metamorphosis is unmediated—that is, it is performed vis-à-vis people’s hearts by God himself. Jeremiah expresses the idea in the most unambiguous manner: Having outlined in utopian terms the uniqueness of the new arrangement (“I will put

45 But see M. Friedman (Pesikta Rabbati; Midrasch für den Fest-Cyclus und die ausgezeichneten Sabbathe, Vienna 1880/Tel Aviv 1963, 24), according to whom the so-called Homilies of the Holy Spirit represent the oldest part of the Pesiqta, for which a dating as early as the 3rd century has been suggested. See also A. Goldberg, Erlösung durch Leiden; Drei rabbinische Homilien über die Trauernden Zions und den leidenden Messias Efraim (PesR 34.36.37), Frankfurt 1978, 142. For discussion of rabbinic usages of the gift of the Holy Spirit, see M. Haran, The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Period Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages, Jerusalem 1966, 340–358 (in Hebrew). Haran suggests that in early rabbinic traditions the gift of the Spirit signies an event of revelatory exegesis localized in time, which is thus intentionally distinguished from the (biblical) prophecy standing for a life-long vocation. Cf. 1 Cor 7:25, 40. 46 Wan, ‘Charismatic Exegesis’, 54–55. For Wan ( ibid., 79) Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:1–4:4 clearly belongs to the same tendency, as “in both Philo and Paul there is a formal adherence to the canonical authority of scripture, but it is constantly threatened to be undermined by their personal [mystical] experience”. Cf. Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity, 152ff. But see Hafemann (note 36 above).

232

chapter eight

my Torah within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people”), the prophet stresses that the true covenanters—those who will undergo that “existential transformation”—will have no need of charismatic leaders to teach them and interpret for them the terms of the covenant. One wonders how in such eschatologically oriented groups as Qumran and the Jesus movement that kind of utopian internalization of both knowledge and piety interacted with notions of a personal messiah perceived as an end-of-days teacher and interpreter of the Torah. Let us return now to the passage from the Damascus Document, which it seems useful to quote here at length (CD-A 5:21—6:21): 5:21 And the land became desolate, for they spoke of rebellion against God’s precepts through the hand of Moses and also 6:1 of the holy anointed ones (  ). They prophesied deceit in order to divert Israel from following 2 God. But God remembered the covenant of the very rst, and from Aaron raised men of knowledge and from Israel 3 wise men, and forced them to listen. And they dug the well: Num 21:18 “A well which the princes dug, which 4 the nobles of the people delved with the staff ”. The well is the Torah. And those who dug it are 5 the repenting ones of Israel, who left the land of Judah and lived in the land of Damascus, 6 all of whom God called princes, for they sought him, and their renown has not been repudiated 7 in anyone’s mouth. Blank And the staff is the interpreter of the Torah (  ), of whom 8 Isaiah said: Isa 54:16 “He produces a tool for his labor”. Blank And the nobles of the people are 9 those who have arrived to dig the well with the staves that the scepter decreed, 10 to walk in them throughout the whole age of wickedness, and without which they will not obtain it, until there arises 11 he who teaches justice (    ) at the end of days. Blank But all those who have been brought into the covenant 12 shall not enter the temple to kindle his altar in vain. They will be the ones who close 13 the door, as God said: Mal 1:10 “Whoever amongst you will close its door so that you do not kindle my altar 14 in vain!”. Unless they are careful to act in accordance with the exact interpretation of the Torah for the age of wickedness: to separate themselves 15 from the sons of the pit; to abstain from wicked wealth which deles, either by promise or by vow, 16 and from the wealth of the temple. . . . 17. . . . to separate unclean from clean and differentiate between 18 the holy and the common; to keep the sabbath day according to the exact interpretation, and the festivals 19 and the day of fasting, according to what they had discovered, those who entered the new covenant (   ) in the land of Damascus; 20 to set apart holy portions according to their exact interpretation; for each to love his brother 21 like himself; to strengthen the hand of the poor, the needy and the foreigner; Blank for each to seek the peace.

the new covenant

233

Unlike the situation in Pesher Habakkuk, where the Teacher of Righteousness is clearly the chosen mediator of the new exegetic revelation, those who “entered the new covenant” (6:19:   ), the members of the community as a whole, are described here as the anointed (the messiahs) of God’s Holy Spirit (6:1:   ). Elsewhere in the Scrolls, as for example in 1QS 11, the spirit is presented as transforming the “inner man” of the covenanters and thus allowing them to escape the bondage of sin. Accordingly, in the Damascus Document the unearthing of the last-days meaning of the Torah, which was to govern the life of the covenanters, is ascribed to the collective of the “nobles of the people” (6:8). However, in the same passage two charismatic gures—who may in fact be one—are also mentioned: the interpreter of the Torah (6:7:  ) and “he who teaches justice at the end of days” (6:11:     ); the former (and hence maybe also the latter) is usually identied in research with the priestly Messiah of the eschaton.47 We thus nd here both patterns of messianic belief—the personal and the collective—side by side, with the tension between them seemingly unresolved. However, as other Qumranic texts indicate,48 the new covenant period might have been perceived as representing an intermediary stage preceding the appearance of the Aaronic Messiah. Thus the collective anointment of the Spirit did not necessarily overlap or collide with the authority derived from personal messiahship. As noted above, the motif of the superuity of any outside human instruction features prominently in 2 Corinthians 3, constituting there one of the basic exegetical links to Jeremiah 31. However, there is more to it: While Jesus the Messiah is obviously the core message/content of the new covenant understanding of the Torah, Paul, unlike the Gospel writers, does not claim here that it was Jesus himself who taught his followers this kind of biblical interpretation.49 Actually, apart from a very few instances—most notably, when quoting the blessing formulas pronounced over bread and wine (1 Cor 11:23–26) and arguing in favor of his controversial mission to the Gentiles (Gal 1:15–16)—the apostle

47 Suggested in, inter alia, Dimant, ‘4QFlorilegium’, 165–189; Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 114–115, 122–123. 4QFlor 2:7 may also point to such identication. 48 For instance, 1QpHab 2, 4QFlorilegium 1. 49 All four Gospels ascribe to Jesus a Messiah-centered biblical exegesis; but see especially the programmatic passages in Luke 24:25–27, 32, 44–46.

234

chapter eight

does not use Jesus traditions as foundational.50 As the catchphrase goes: with Paul the teaching of Jesus was replaced by the teaching about Jesus—and the latter is presented in the passage from 2 Corinthians 3 as communicated in an immediate revelatory act of Spirit. Thus, for example, in 2 Corinthians 3:3 one reads: “And you show that you are a letter from Messiah delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God”. Moreover—similarly to Qumran—with Paul, e.g., in Galatians 5:17–26, the gift of Spirit engenders the inner transformation, insuring the fulllment of the covenant obligations.51 Of course, in practice this programmatic stance could not always be sustained, and it then became a source of tension: Facing problems in various communities, Paul had to revert to the tactics of external instruction and reprimand. Moreover, as already noted, sometimes, particularly in his correspondence with the Corinthians, Paul nds it necessary to downplay this aspect of the spirit-engendered ecstatic illumination.52 The dialectics of the foundational belief in a personal Messiah versus the collective messiahship idea may be observed also in other New Testament texts. Sufce it to quote here one passage, where again an allusion to Jeremiah 31:34—with its idea of superuity of an outside human instruction—is easily discerned (in bold below). Moreover, the passage seems to bear witness to competing claims for collective eschatological anointment by various groups within the Jesus movement: 18 Children, it is the last hour (ȀƴƸɕƵƩ ɉƲƣ); and as you have heard that antichrist (ǰƮƵɛƸƲƫƴƵưƳ) is coming, so now many antichrists (ǰƮƵɛƸƲƫƴƵưƫ) have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed (ƸƲʴƴvƣ ȄƸƧƵƧ) by the Holy One, and you all know . . . 22 Who is the liar but he who denies

50

See J. M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World, Oxford 2004, 89. Stockhausen (Moses’ Veil, 175) notes that in the communication of the contents of the new covenant as presented in 2 Corinthians 3:1–4:6, the role of Jesus is “minimal”, but neither he nor Lieu point here to a possible link to the notion of “collective messiahship”. Cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 67. 51 See J. Lambrecht, ‘Transformation in 2 Corinthians 3, 18’, in: R. Bieringer and J. Lambrecht, Studies on 2 Corinthians, Leuven 1994, 295–307, where he argues that according to Paul here all believers are transformed like Moses was transformed. Cf. Hafemann, Paul, Moses, 439–444. 52 Possibly in reaction to ecstatically or Gnostic-minded groups within the movement. See 1 Corinthians 12–14.

the new covenant

235

that Jesus is the Messiah . . . 25 And this is what he has promised us, eternal life. 26 I write this to you about those who would deceive you; 27 but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything. . . . (1 John 2:20–27)

Conclusion The main argument put forward in this chapter was that in 2 Corinthians 3 a peculiar understanding of Jeremiah 31 may be discerned—namely, that the biblical oracle on the new covenant should be understood as relating to a dramatic revelatory reinterpretation of the Holy Writ. The analysis presented here shows that far from being Paul’s ad hoc invention, this idiosyncratic approach reected an existing pattern attested also in Qumran. While the Pauline and Qumranic traditions differed substantially in their perception of the content of that new interpretation, foundational for the covenant, they shared the basic hermeneutic structure underlying their respective exegeses. Whether the phenomenon is to be explained as the result of a direct inuence of Qumranic ideas on Paul and/or the Jesus movement before the apostle joined it, or as dependence of both sources on a common tradition was not the issue here, since in either case the New Testament material may be seen as bearing witness to a current Jewish exegetic trend that, even if it did not have a wide circulation, was at least characteristic of eschatologically minded Second Temple Jewish groups. I am far from suggesting that the issue of Torah exegesis necessarily retains in Paul the centrality it had in Qumran. True, as highlighted in the introduction to this volume, the reinterpretation of the core biblical texts as pointing to Jesus as the Messiah was one of the main avenues for expressing and/or constructing the early Christian identity. Moreover, Chapter 7 outlined in detail a preoccupation with the foundational hermeneutic that characterized the author of Luke and Acts. However, all this does not necessarily oblige Paul to focus rst and foremost on exegesis. The apostle’s agenda might have brought other notions to the fore—and the case of the scholars who have emphasized, inter alia, “Spirit”, “turning to God and/or Christ” and “illumination/transformation” is denitely well argued. Yet even if the “glory of exegesis” was really to a certain extent “fading away” in the context of Paul’s thinking and mission, even then, or maybe especially then, it is illuminating that, when appealing to the notion of new

236

chapter eight

covenant, the apostle seems to invoke the foundational link to the basic reinterpretation of the Holy Writ. This link may be seen as a lingering residue from an inherited—and reworked—tradition, for which, then, 2 Corinthians 3 becomes a crucial witness. The importance of the context of Paul’s writings—namely, that he mainly addressed (e.g., in the epistle under discussion) a Gentile Diaspora audience—has been duly stressed in recent research.53 Since in Paul’s view Gentiles were not supposed to become subjugated to the “mundane”, emphatically halakhic understanding of the Torah, this may well have enhanced the apostle’s readiness to speak in terms of the Torah’s dramatic reinterpretation. As argued, however, basically such readiness both reects and bears witness to an inner-Jewish development attested in the Land of Israel. Jesus was undoubtedly at the very heart of Paul’s thinking—denitely not less so than the Teacher of Righteousness for such Qumran authors as that of the Pesher Habbakuk. It is thus most instructive to discover in Paul, in contradistinction to, for instance, Luke, a total lack of emphasis on Jesus’ role as the eschatological interpreter of the Torah. Instead, the apostle speaks of the unmediated revelation by the Holy Spirit addressed to the community as a whole. This also, far from being Paul’s ad hoc innovation, seems to have reected an existing pattern of belief conditioned, inter alia, by Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36. Given the centrality of the Holy Spirit motif, it was suggested that Pauline writings and the Scrolls, investigated comparatively, testify here to the late Second Temple currency of the exegetical collation of the two biblical oracles. The peculiar notion of a collective anointment by the Spirit belongs to the multifaceted range of late Second Temple messianic beliefs. This notion, like those relating to various kinds of a personal messiah, should be seen as rooted in earlier Jewish redemption-centered tradition, such as the tradition that nds expression in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36. Special emphasis has been placed in this chapter on Jeremiah 31:31–34 and its concept of the new covenant’s extremely egalitarian and “democratic” nature. Both in the Qumran scrolls and in early Christian writings, characterized by an essential link to Jeremiah 31, a relation—or rather a dynamic tension—may be observed between

53 See Stendahl, Final Account; Gager, Reinventing Paul; Fredriksen, ‘Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope’ (note 27 above).

the new covenant

237

the collective and personal messiahship patterns. It stands to reason that this tension was rooted in both the groups of texts representing communities that on the one hand propagated the belief in a personal messiah (or messiahs) and on the other adopted the emphatically collective new covenant outlook of Jeremiah 31.

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES Two core strategies of the New Testament conversation with the Jewish Scripture have been discussed in this book. The rst, which has received most of the attention, strives to establish itself as sharing with the relevant Jewish milieu not only a veneration of Scripture but also current patterns of exegesis. It is this “hermeneutical belonging” that is time and again presented as the leading argument for the truth of either Jesus’ or the Jesus movement’s preaching. It is upon these shared hermeneutical grounds that the innovations of, inter alia, messianic exegesis of the kerygma build. The period was one of intensive exegetical activity, and from the surviving traditions it may be surmised that this exegesis—even within the Land of Israel—was of an extremely variegated nature, with particular end-results of the hermeneutical process reecting the tendencies and approach of certain teachers or groups. Thus it is mostly not these particularities of interpretation but rather the appeal to basic patterns of hermeneutical procedure, shared by the creators of the New Testament tradition with broader Jewish tradition, that was supposed to give them polemical credibility vis-à-vis their Jewish reference groups. It is to these general hermeneutical patterns that they seem to have felt obliged. The described strategy, then, differed substantially from that of a later stage, the one aiming at “waterproof partition”, at establishing a clear-cut demarcation line, with the “custom control” of emerging orthodoxy armed with a self-imposed mandate to prevent inltration of those “dangerous in between”. It is this observed strategy that constitutes the raison d’être of this volume’s primary focus on mapping the instances in the New Testament conversation with Scripture that possibly mirror/bear witness to patterns of contemporaneous Jewish exegesis. An attempt was also made to nd out what exactly such New Testament traditions—sometimes the only early witnesses to exegetical tendencies otherwise attested only in later rabbinic sources—possibly reect: current trends of wide circulation or those characteristic of only certain Jewish groups. This in turn may allow us to dene more precisely the nature of nascent Christianity’s Jewish milieu(s). New Testament traditions are thus presented as witnesses for “broader Judaism”, not so

240

conclusion and perspectives

much in the polemical invectives they contain against contemporaneous Jewish groups and practices but also, and even predominantly, in what seems to be a positive internalization and appropriation of patterns current in the relevant Jewish milieus. The second core strategy discussed in the book, most prominently in its concluding chapter, emphasizes instead the basic novelty of the propagated, previously unheard of, (messianic) exegesis, conditioning its availability on prophetic-like inspiration of the Spirit. It is emphatically this inspiration and not being rooted in accepted hermeneutical patterns that is presented by Paul in 2 Corinthians—to a Gentile audience but implicitly also to his Jewish opponents (within the Jesus movement?)—as the true source of authority. This latter strategy, proudly advertising the novelty of its insights, is admittedly very different from the former one. Yet it turns out that its conscious emphasis on the previously hidden dramatic reinterpretation of the Scripture, revealed exclusively to the adepts of the Jesus movement, combined with presenting this reinterpretation as the foundational element of the new covenant, follows a hermeneutical pattern already established in Qumran. Thus in this case also, a New Testament tradition provides a key corroborative witness for the existence and currency of such a pattern in the rst century c e, while again the differences of outlook nd expression in the differing content of the dramatic reinterpretation. It is clear that the success of the endeavor of mapping the New Testament as a witness for wider Jewish hermeneutical trends depends to a great extent on one’s ability to distinguish the rhema of a peculiar “Christian input” from the thema of the shared exegetical background reected in the New Testament tradition in question. An attempt has been made in the book to solve the conundrum with regard to the variety of instances found in different layers of the New Testament corpus: Synoptics, Acts, Pauline epistles. A number of reasonable procedures that make it possible to perform the division have been suggested, with intuition—hopefully, of an informed kind—retaining its centrality. It goes without saying that this book has only made initial inroads into the task of mapping; Paul’s writings especially, but not exclusively, are in need of further exploration. And, of course, the same reasoning that made it possible to approach the New Testament as an important source of information on wider late Second Temple patterns of Jewish exegesis may be applied, with some modications, to notions, practices and beliefs reected in the earliest Christian writings outside strictly exegetical modes of discourse. Scholars of Qumran have developed

conclusion and perspectives

241

important methods and insights that make it possible to learn from the Scrolls not only about the particular group that supposedly produced many of them but also about rival groups and also “wider Judaism”. It may be hoped that similar systematic efforts will be invested in a critical rethinking of the “witness value” of the earliest Christian writings.

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES* Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 1:27 1:28 2 2:24 3 3:14 3:14–15 4:7 5:2 6:5 7:9 7:21 8:21 9:6 9:6 (LXX) 9:6 (Targum) 20:17 49:11

28, 32, 145 29, 30, 31, 139, 140, 147 138n16 32, 145 30, 139, 140, 141, 142 165 159 158, 160 154n19 30 153 140 157 153, 154 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 13 13, 13n7, 16 62n67 3n5

Exodus 3:6 15:6,9 15:17–18 18:21 20 20:7 20:7 (Targum) 20:7 (Peshitta) 20:13 20:14 20:17 21 23:4–5 23:4–5 (LXX) 23:9 23:22 34 34:1–4 36:21

95 38 107, 109, 111 39 11 19, 20, 21, 22 19 19n18 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 131 23, 24, 25, 26 23, 24, 25 11 40 40 50n37 39 227 228n40 228n40

* Prepared by Sergey Minov

Leviticus 18:10–16 19 19:2 19:3 19:12 19:16 19:17 19:17 (LXX) 19:17–18

19:18 (LXX) 19:18 (Targum) 19:34 19:35 20:10 26:25

24 11 36, 59n58 36, 50 19, 20, 21, 22 45n24 38, 40 49 36, 37, 38, 40, 44, 45, 51, 55 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 79, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 98 37, 41n19 41 36, 41, 50 45 23, 24, 25 38

Numbers 15:39 24:18 35:16

155 38 14

19:18

Deuteronomy 4:42 5 5:17 5:18 5:21 6:5

6:5 (LXX) 6:5 (Peshitta)

39n10 11 12 23 23 9, 36, 43, 53, 61, 64, 65, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 94, 98, 99 77, 84 78

244 6:6–7 10:12

index of ancient sources 53:7 53:9,12 53:10–11 55:3 56:6 66:1–2

30:6 30:10 31:11 31:21 (Targum) 32:35

215 77, 81, 83, 87n40, 215 87n40 50 39n10 38 138 51 21, 22 23, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 136, 138 215 77, 81, 83, 87n40 154 154 55

32:39–40 33:15

12 105n13 216n4, 230n43 230, 233, 235, 236, 237 234 219n13, 223n24, 236 216n4 105n13

Joshua 21:5 23:1

87n40 87n40

Judges 5:31

67n81

1 Samuel 18:1–5 18:29 24:5

67n81 67n81 38

Ezekiel 11:19 16 18:31 36 36:24–29 36:25–27 36:26 36:26–27 44:10

216n4, 223n24 219n13, 229n42 152 236 230 177n78 216n4, 223n24 152 113

2 Samuel 7 7:1–16 7:6–16 7:10–14 7:10–16

108, 111 109 121 107, 112n36 102

Hosea 6:6

218

Joel 2:30–32 3:1–2

191 218

1 Kings 8:44

38

Isaiah 2:13 2:13 (Targum) 8:2 11:1 11:1 (Targum) 11:1–5 11:3 11:5 11:5 (Targum) 45:21 53 53 (Targum) 53:4 (Targum) 53:4–12

105n14 105n4 185 102, 105 105 104 106 105, 106 105 125n73 124n59, 212 124n69 171 207

Amos 5:25–27 9:11 9:11–12 9:11–12 (LXX) 9:11–12 (Peshitta) 9:12 9:12 (Targum)

218 107, 108, 109, 110 110, 126, 127, 131 126, 127 127n79 128 127

Nahum 1:2

37, 44, 92, 93

Zechariah 6:12 8:4 8:20–23 9–14 9:9

105n13 185 64n72,74 208n71 3n5

11:13 13:7 19:4,6 20:14 21:4 21:23 23:22 24:1

Jeremiah 7:9 23:5 24:7 31 31:4 31:31–34

207 208 209 121 87n40 218

245

index of ancient sources 11:1 11:1 (Targum) 12 14:4

105n14 105n4 102 192n33

Job 2:9 2:9 (LXX) 31:1 42:10

66 66 155 62n67

Malachi 2:16

29n40

Proverbs 20:22 24:17–18 24:29 25:21–22

55n48 56 55n48 56

Song of Songs 1:3 3:3

65 64

Lamentations 1:2 2:5 3:27,30

67n81 39, 45, 53, 63 55n48

Daniel 3:6 11:32 12:10

199 113 113

Ezra 39:27

38

Nehemiah 9:26–37

183

2 Chronicles 24:15–33 24:20–22

183–184 183

Psalms 1:1 2 2:1 2:1–2 2:2 2:12 15:10 16:8–11 22:2 31:6 31:24 34:22[21] (LXX) 37:31 40:8 44:23 48:15 51:12 56:10 68:19 89:20–23 89:20–23 (LXX) 103:14 (Targum) 110:1 110:4 129:5 129:5 (LXX)

112 124n69 196n42 112, 122, 123, 124 113 112 121 117 202 202 87n40 39 215 215 65 65n78 152 38 121n61 39 39 154 118, 120, 121n60 120 39 39

Qumran 1QS 11 1QpHab 2 2:1–9 7 7:1–8 7:2

233 101, 187n21, 233n48 221–2 101, 187n21 222 225

1QS (Community Rule) 1:1–12 131 1:1–17 82–3 1:1–8, 11–13 90 1:3 93–4 1:3–4 91

1:6, 9–11 1:9–11 1:10–11 1:11–12 2:1–8 2:3 2:25–3:12 3:2 3:15–26 4:1–20 4:7–8 5:25–6:11 6:9–10 8:23 9 9:8–11, 22–25

44n20 91 93 84, 85 96 85n35 113n37 84, 85 174 174n71 200 97n63 85 85 44n21, 81, 221n17 80

246

index of ancient sources

9:10–11 9:21 9:21ff 12:5–6, 27–29

18, 101 91 44n22, 93n57 228n38

1QS a (1Q28a) 2:11–22 1QS b (1Q28b) 4:24–28

101 228n38

1QM (War Scroll) 9:11 16:13 17:1–3

93 200 200

1QH (Hodayot) 4:17–27 5:8 6:25–27 7:12–15 8:1–21 12 12:29–34 17:10, 24–26

113n37 44n21 81 81 113n37 187n21 113n37 200

4Q161 (4QpIsa) a frags. 8–10, 11–18 4Q174 (4QFlorilegium) 1 1:1–13 1:1–19 1:2 1:3 1:3–4 1:6 1:7 1:8–9 1:10–13 1:11–13 1:12–13 1:14, 18–19 1:16 1:18–19 2:3 2:7

105n14, 106n15, 108n20 104–5 233n48 107 187n21 108 109 111 108 108 108 131 110 109 112 113 113, 123 113 110n28, 233n47

CD-A CD-A CD-A CD-A CD-A CD-A CD-A

3:14–17 4:14–21 4:15–18 4:15–19 4:15–5:2 4:20–21 4:21

CD-A 4–6 CD-A 5:1 CD-A 5:1–5 CD-A 5:1–8 CD-A 5:20–6:1 CD-A 5:21–6:21 CD-A 6 CD-A 6:11–16 CD-A 6:11–19 (1) CD-A 7:6–9 CD-A 7:14–19 CD-A 9:1–5 CD-A 9:2–8 CD-A 14:11–17 CD-A 16:10–12 4Q266 2 ii 1:9–10 4Q266 3 ii 4Q266 3 iii 4Q266 3 iii 1:3 4Q266 ii 2:12 4Q266 iii 1:4 4Q266 iii 2:9 4Q266 iii 2:9–11 4Q266 iii 2:17–25 4Q267 2 4Q267 2, 6 4Q269 4 ii 4Q269 iv 1:2 4Q270 frag. 2, 14 4Q270 frag. 6, 3:16–21 4Q270 9 6Q15 1 6Q15 3,4

220n16 132 23, 30–1 133 131, 145 139 136, 143, 144, 146 187n21 140 137 29n42 101 232 3, 217 136 220 23n25, 133 109n26 91 43, 92–3 84n33 23n25, 133 220–1 136n9 109n26 221 217 220 217 221 220 136n9 217 136n9 217 113n37, 217 43 101 132 136n9

4Q285 frag. 5 1–4

105n13, 106n15

4Q397 (4QMMT) d, frags. 14–21, 10

3 224n26

4Q448

113n38 208

4Q177

112n36

4Q491c frag. 1

Damascus Document CD-A 1:45

220n16

4Q521 (4QMessianic Apocalypse) frag. 8, 9 113n37

247

index of ancient sources frag. 8 frag. 2 ii 1

187n21 218

11QPs 11QTemple 57:15–19

117, 210n78 139

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Moses 13 161n40 16–32 160–1 Ben Sira 15:14 17:14 18:13 21:11 27:33–28:9

154n17 50n38 50n38 154n17 40, 41

1 Enoch 6 10:7 89:51–53 89:51–57

167n53 167n53 183 184

2 Enoch 61:2

41

Jubilees 1:12 7:2–21 20:2 20:7 36 36:4 36:4–8 36:7

183 36n4 87 87 43n18 42, 46 87 62

2 Maccabees 7 7:6 7:13–18 7:10–36 7:19 7:32–33

63n69, 64, 199, 200, 202, 206n66 202 55n49 202–3 206n66 201

7:36–37 8:2–5

201 201

4 Maccabees 6:29 17:21

199 199

Testament of Benjamin 3.6 4.2f 5.1 6 6.5f

167n53 42, 49n36 42, 49n36 167 42–43

Testament of Dan 5.3

43n18, 62, 87

Testament of Issachar 3 5.2 7.6

167n53 43n18, 62, 87 43n18, 62, 87

Testament of Judah 13

166n53

Testament of Reuben 2 5

167n53 166n53

Testament of Simeon 3.1

167, 174n72

Testament of Zebulun 5.1 9

43n18, 62 157, 168

Tobit 4:14–15

41n14

Hellenistic Jewish Authors Letter of Aristeas 193–194 48 207 48, 49, 51 227–228 49, 59 Philo Spec. Leg. I.150

159n36

I.259 II.2 II.63 II.251 II.314 III.30 III.37–42 III.86,89

158n35 20n21 88 158n35 158n35 27n37 24n27 158n35

248

index of ancient sources

III.152 III.155 IV.183 IV.187–188

51 45 45n24 157n30

Decal. 132 168–9 170 on Exod 20:7

15 24n27 15 20

Mos. II.2–3, 292 II.188–191

103 29n39, 137n13

Opif. 1–3, 17–20, 143–147 156n28 157–163 158–9 165 157n29 Leg. All. I.70 II.38

III.114

159n36

Quaest. in Gen. I.31 I.48 II.22 II.54 II.61

159n36 159, 167n55 157 155n22, 157n29 13

Ebr. 22

159n36

Hypothetica 7.8

45

Josephus J.W. II.8.6 III.8.5 VII.8.7

20 157 157

Ag. Ap. 2:207

45n24

159n36 157 New Testament

Matthew 2:23 4:1–10 5 5:11–12 5:12 5:17 5:18 5:20 5:21 5:21–22 5:21–26 5:21–37 5:22 5:27 5:27–32 5:27–30 5:28 5:28–30 5:29–30 5:31 5:31–32 5:32 5:33 5:33–37

105 79n24 11, 12, 17n13, 18, 19, 32, 33, 34, 57 63n68 61 17, 33 28–29, 137 18 13, 15, 17, 33 15, 16, 17, 22 12 34 149 23 22, 26, 132 23, 25 23 25 149, 150, 169, 170 23, 28 26, 28, 34, 136 132, 138 33 19, 21, 22

5:36 5:37 5:39 5:43–44 5:43–48 5:44 5:44–47 5:45 5:46 5:46–47 5:47 5:48 6:12 6:13 6:14–15 7:1–3 7:12 8:2–15 8:16–17 8:17 10:34–37 12:43–45 15:4 15:17–19 16:13–14 17:1–3 18:3 18:8

22 20 59 38n8, 58n57 55, 56, 57, 58, 69, 97 35, 53, 54, 59 46 60 61 58, 59, 60, 61 61 59 59 63n70 41, 59 46 41, 46, 58 171 171 207 47 171 150n4 149, 169 102n4 102n4 134 149n2, 170

index of ancient sources 18:6–7 18:9 18:11 18:20 19

22:36 22:37 22:41–45 22:41–46 23:32–36 23:33 23:33–35 23:36–39 26:6–13 26:27–29 26:29 26:36–39 26:41 26:59–66 26:64 27:12 27:38 27:38–43 27:46

171 150n5 170 170 8, 11, 23, 30, 31, 32, 34, 131, 133, 134, 139, 142 135 27, 28, 146 140 11n1, 28, 29n41, 132, 145, 146 30, 31, 32, 138 29, 137 145 138, 139 134 134 34 133 155n24 207 197 187n20 12 12, 94, 118, 203 11n1, 12, 54n47, 62, 72, 118, 131 88, 73n8 81 118 12n3, 119, 129 187n20 185 186 185 187n18 220 202 69 118 195 169n59 207 207, 208n72 196–7 202

Mark 1:32–34 9:42 9:43 9:43–47 10 10:2 10:2–12

171, 207n68 171n66 149n2 150 133, 134, 139n17 146 11n1, 28, 132

19:1–15 19:3 19:3–6 19:3–9 19:4–6 19:7–8 19:8–9 19:9 19:12 19:13–15 19:16–20 19:16–30 20:15 20:28 21:12–13 22:7 22:16–22 22:23–33 22:34–40

10:17–31 10:45 11:1–10 11:15–17 12:18–27 12:28–31 12:28–34 12:30 12:35–37 14:3–9 14:23–25 14:25 14:32–36 14:38 14:49 14:55–64 14:62 15:27 15:27–32 15:34 16:19

133 207 3n5 197 94, 203 72, 131 11n1, 54n47, 62, 118 81 119 187n18 220 202 69 169n59 207 195 118 207, 208n72 196–7 202 118

Luke 1:2 1:5–10 2:21–24 2:25–32 2:31 2:32 2:39 2:41–49 4:14–29 4:40–41 6:22–23 6:27–36 6:31 6:31–38 6:32–34 6:32–35 6:33 6:33–34 6:35 6:35–36 6:36 6:37 6:37–38 7:36–50 10:25–28 10:25–37 10:25–38 10:27 10:29–37 11:4 11:24–26 11:49–51

18 199n48 199n48 127n81 123n65 128n81 199n48 199n48 185 171, 207n68 63n68 69, 97 42, 46, 57, 58, 59 55, 56, 58 58, 61 61 59, 60 61n63 35, 53, 54, 59, 61 59 59n58 59 41 187n18 72, 118, 131 11n1, 95 54n47, 62, 69 81, 84 97 59, 63n70 171 186

249

250

index of ancient sources

13:33 13:33–35 16:12–18 16:14–18 16:19–31 16:22 17:1 17:1–2 19:45–46 19:47 20:5–36 20:27–39 20:27–40 20:41–44 21:28 21:37–38 22:18 22:20 22:36–38 22:39–42 22:46 22:53 22:66–71 22:69 23:6–12 23:32 23:33 23:35–38 23:43 23:46 23:56 24 24:17–21 24:19 24:19–21 24:19–27 24:25–27 24:26 24:32 24:36–43 24:44–46 24:46–47 24:53

185 185 133 23 204 204 149n2 171n66 197 197 196 95n61 203 119 196 197 202 220 208 69 169n59 197 195 118 206 208n72 186 196–7 201 202 199n48 206, 209, 212, 228 179 185 182 2n3 181, 233n49 188, 201 233n49 204 2n3, 181, 233n49 201 197

John 1:18 1:29 2:13–17

204n61 207 197

Acts 1–2 1:6–7 1:6–8 1:6–11 1:9–11

209 114 121, 180 188 180

1:11 2 2:1–4 2:1–36 2:7 2:14–21 2:14–24 2:19–21 2:22 2:22–23 2:22–24 2:22–35 2:23 2:24 2:24–35 2:25–28 2:27 2:29–32 2:32–36 2:34–35 2:35–36 2:36 2:36–41 2:41–47 2:46–47 4 4:1–21 4:1–31 4:24–28 4:24–31 4:25–26 4:25–27 4:25–28 4:29–33 4:32 5:39 6:1–7 6:12–14 7 7:37 7:51–56 8:14–17 8:26–35 8:34 9:15 9:23–31 10:44–48 13:14–34 13:30–34 15 15:1–12 15:7–9 15:8 15:13–21 15:14–21

192n33 117, 120, 121 218n11 181 218 189n25 218n11 191 185 206 188, 189 116 191 201 120, 121n61 117 121 118 205 118 218n11 185, 191 192 190 192, 197 79, 123, 124 123 189n26 206 189 122 196n42 122 123 78, 79, 85 206n66 190 194 193, 194 185 189n25 189n25, 218n11 208 208n73 191n29 191n29 189n25, 218n11 121 121 128, 190 125 189n25 218n11 125, 127, 131 110

251

index of ancient sources 15:15–21 15:16–21 15:21 21 21:18–25 21:20 21:20–26 22:17–21 Romans 1–2 1:1–5 1:18 1:24 2:5 2:8 3:5 4:6 4:15 4:19 5:9 6:6 6:9–13 6:12 6:13 6:19 7 7–8 7:1 7:1–3 7:1–4 7:1–6 7:2–3 7:14 7:17 7:20 7:22–23 7:25 8:1–2 8:3 8:11 8:32 8:34 9–11 9:22 11 11:9 11:26 12 12:4–5 12:5 12:9–20 12:10 12:16

125 126 224 190, 192 125 191 197 191 174n73 114 198n47 175n74 172, 198n47 198n47 198n47 115 198n47 175n74 198n47 175n74 177n78 175n74 172n68 172n68 23, 133n3, 143, 149, 175 172–3, 174 145 145, 174 143, 145, 149 146 144 172, 175n74 150 150 175n75 173 177n78 69 177 69 118 198 198n47 187n22, 190 115 220 56 172n67 56n52 55 55 55

12:19 12:19–21 12:20 12:21 13:4–5

55, 198n47 44n22 55 55 198n47

1 Corinthians 1:23 2 2:6–13 6 6:15 6:15–20 7 7:1 7:25 7:26 7:29 7:32–35 7:39 7:40 11:23–26 11:25 11:25–26 12–14 12:12–27 13 15:3 15:25

179 119 179n1 23, 133n3, 146 142, 172n67 141 143, 144, 146 135 135n7, 231n45 135 135 135 144n31 135n7, 231n45 233 222, 223n20 220 234n52 172n67 119 207n68–69 118

2 Corinthians 1:17 3 3–4 3:1–6 3:1–4:4 3:1–4:6 3:3 3:6 3:12–18 3:13 3:13–14 3:17 3:17–18 4:1–4 4:4

20n20 216, 227, 228, 229, 231, 233, 235, 236 227n36 223, 228n40 231n46 226, 234n50 223n24, 230, 234 222, 223n20, 230 224, 226 225, 226n33 227n35 230n44 230 224n25 224

Galatians 1 1–2 1:13–16 1:15–16 4:22–31 4:24–26

144 190 190 233 115n42 190

252

index of ancient sources

5:18–23 5:17–26

225n30 234

Ephesians 1:20

118

Colossians 3:1

118

1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 3:13–18 4

198 115 23, 133n3

Hebrews 1:3 1:13 7:14

118 118 102

8:1 8:6–9:20 9:28 10:12 10:16–29 12:24 13:20

118 222 207n69 118 222 222 222

James 5:12

20n20

1 Peter 2:21–25 2:24

207n68 207n69

1 John 2:20 2:20–27

219 234–5

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah m. Avot 1:3 1:5 1:7 2:1 2:3 2:9 2:11 3:1 5:19 m. Ber. 9:5 m. Git. 4:5 8:4–5 8:8 9:9 9:10 m. Mak. 3:15 m. Nid. 2:1 m. Ohol. 1:8 m. Par. 7:6,7 m. Sanh. 3:5 6:5 10:1–2 Tosefta t. B. Qam. 9:29–30 t. Nid. 1:9

61 47 47 71n1 46 155n24 155n24 158 155n24 63, 65, 78, 84, 153 28, 29, 138n16, 139, 141 28 28 28 26 71n1 25 163n45 137n13 40 51 94 62n67 137n13

Talmud Yerushalmi y. B. Qam. 9.4 [6d ] 62n67 y. Ber. 1.4 [3c] 155n25 3.5 [6d] 154n19 4.1 [7d] 83, 153n13 4.2 [7d] 155n24 3.1 [6b] 154n21 9.5 [14b] 62, 64 y. Hor. 1.8 [46b] 137n13 y. Sheb. 3.8 [34d ] 20 y. Ta{an. 4.9 [69a–b] 185n13, 187n19, 205n64 Talmud Bavli b. Ab. Zar. 24b 27b b. Ber. 10a 20a 44a–45b 61a 61b b. B. Mez. 58b b. B. Bath. 16a b. Erub. 18a b. Git. 57b b. Hag. 16a b. Hor. 6a b. Mak. 23b

137n13 158 112, 120, 123 155n24, 170n62 163n43 25, 166n51 64, 153n14 14–15 166 166n51 185n13, 187n19 158n32 137n13 163n44

253

index of ancient sources 23b–24a b. Meg. 14a b. Ned. 32b b. Nid. 13b 16b 31a b. Qid. 72b b. Sanh. 45a 48a 52a 58a 75b 80b 91a–b 96b b. Shab. 31a 118a 119b 146a 151a–b b. Sukk. 52a 52b b. Ta{an. 7a 11a b. Yeb. 63a b. Zev. 118b 119b

71n3 153n15 119n52, 153, 164 25 157n31 157 204n61 51 155n24 51n41 30 137n13 137n13 158, 154n19 185n13, 187n19 37n6, 46, 71 16 154n20 166 163 153n13 123, 162, 164n48 46 164n48 30 155n24 137n13

Tannaitic Midrashim Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael Ithro 8 11–12 on Exod 15 63 on Exod 15:2 51n42 (Horovitz), 232 13, 23 Mekhilta de-R. Shimon b. Yohai Ithro 20 24, 170 (Epstein and Melamed), 152 14 (Epstein and Melamed), 152–153 24 Sifra 91a Qedoshim 2 Qedoshim 2.4 Metsora 5, 12 on Lev 15:29

20 21n22 46n27, 71 18 18n16

Sifre Numbers 115

155

Sifre Deuteronomy 32 63, 65, 78 35 153n14 43.16 185 323 165–6 Sifre Zuta

65n77, 78n22

Amoraic and Later Midrashim Avot de-Rabbi Nathan A 31 204n61 B2 155n23 B 27 71n2 B 53 41 5.1 61n62 10.1–2 61n62 15b 156n27 32a 164 32d 154n16 47a 153n14 Canticles Rabbah 1.2 153n13 on Cant 2:5 66 Genesis Rabbah 8.1 30n43, 139n17 8.11 158n32 14.3 158n32 18.2 162 18.24 142n25 20.5 160, 161n40 24 71 34.10 154n19 48.11 153n15 Leviticus Rabbah 14.1 30n43, 139n17 Numbers Rabbah 16 155n24 Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana 124a–b 153n13 Pesiqta Rabbati 24 28,30,34–37 43

19, 20 170n61 230 204n61

Pesiqta Hadta

14, 15

254 Pirke 12 13 14

index of ancient sources de-Rabbi Eliezer 160n39 161n40 160n39

Tanhuma, Beresh. 7 Tanhuma (Warsaw), Shelah 15

154n19 170n62

Early Christian Literature Letter of Barnabas 16 210–211n81 Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 80 204n62 16 210n80

Tertullian On Repentance 3 3.11

167n56 177n80

On the Resurrection of the Flesh 11,14,15,17 177n80 Aphrahat Demonstrations 18.10 142n26

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES Judaism and Christianity share a common heritage. Recently, there has been a great deal of interest in this fact: there have been investigations into the shared aspects of this heritage as well as the elements unique to each religion. However, there has not yet been a systematic attempt to present findings relative to both the Jewish and the Christian tradition to a broad audience of scholars. The purpose of this series, Jewish and Christian Perspectives (JCP), is to fill that void and bring to light studies that are relevant to Christianity and Judaism. To this end, the series includes works pertaining to the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, the Second Temple period, the Judaeo-Christian polemic (from ancient until modern times), Rabbinical literature relevant to Christianity, Patristics, Medieval Studies and the modern period. Special interest is paid to the interaction between the two religions throughout the ages and, therefore, related historical, exegetical, philosophcial and theological studies fall within the scope of this series. Moreover, scholarly studies focussing on sociological and anthropological issues – this includes archaeological studies – in the form of monographs and congress volumes, appear in the JCP book series.

1. Houtman, A., M.J.H.M. Poorthuis and J. Schwartz (eds.). Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity. 1998. ISBN 90 04 11233 2 2. Poorthuis, M.J.H.M. and J. Schwartz (eds.). Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus. 1999. ISBN 90 04 11418 1 3. Kofsky, A. Eusebius of Caesarea against Paganism. 2000. ISBN 90 04 11642 7 4. Teugels, L.M. Aggadat Bereshit. Translated from the Hebrew with an Introduction and Notes. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12173 0 5. Rokéah, D. Justin Martyr and the Jews. 2001. ISBN 90 04 12310 5 6. den Hollander, A., U. Schmid and W. Smelik (eds.). Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions. The Textual Markers of Contextualization. 2003. ISBN 90 04 12882 4 7. Poorthuis, M.J.H.M. and J. Schwartz (eds.). Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity. 2004. ISBN 90 04 12614 7 8. Frishman, J., W. Otten and G. Rouwhorst (eds.). Religious Identity and the Problem of Historical Foundation. The Foundational Character of Authoritative Sources in the History of Christianity and Judaism. 2004. ISBN 90 04 13021 7 9. Notley, R.S. and Z. Safrai. Eusebius, Onomasticon. A Triglott Edition with Notes and Commentary. 2005. ISBN 0 391 04217 3 10.Reuling H. After Eden. Church Fathers and Rabbis on Genesis 3:16-21. 2005. ISBN 90 04 14638 5

11.Notley, R.S., M. Turnage and B. Becker (eds.). Jesus’ Last Week. Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels — Volume One. 2006. ISBN 90 04 14790 X 12.Poorthuis, M.J.H.M. and J. Schwartz (eds.). A Holy People. Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity. 2006. ISBN 90 04 15052 8 13.Ruzer, S. Mapping the New Testament. Early Christian Writings as a Witness for Jewish Biblical Exegesis. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 15892 4 14.Van Asselt, W., P. van Geest, D. Müller and Th. Salemink (eds.). Iconoclasm and Iconoclash. Struggle for Religious Identity. 2007. ISBN 978 90 04 16195 5

ISSN 1388-2074