Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology)

C O N T R I B U T I O N S TO B I B L I C A L EXEGESIS A N D T H E O L O G Y 5 Edited by T j . Baarda (Amsterdam), A . van der Kooij (Leiden), and A.S. van der Woude (Groningen) Advisory Board: C. Breytenbach (Berlin), R. Collins (Louvain), M . A . Knibb (London), P. van Boxel (Utrecht) 1. J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities. Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, early Jewish and early Christian Traditions, Kampen, 1990. 2. P.W, van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. An introductory survey of a millennium of Jewish funerary epigraphy (300 BCE - 700 CE), Kampen, 1991. 3. E, Talstra, Solomon's Prayer Synchrony and Diachrony in the Compo­ sition of I Kings 8, 14 - 61 (in preparation). 4. R. Stahl, Von Weltengagement zu Wettüberwindung. Theotogische Po­ sitionen im Danielbuch (in preparation). 5. J.N. Bremmer, F. Garcia Martinez (eds.), Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism. A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude, Kampen, 1992.

J.N. Bremmer F. Garcia Martinez (editors)

Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism A Symposium in Honour o f A.S. van der Woude

Kok Pharos Publishing House - Kampen - The Netherlands

CIP-GEGEVENS K O N I N K L I J K E BIBLIOTHEEK, D E N H A A G © 1992, K o k Pharos Publishing House, P.O. Box 130; 8260 A C K a m p e n , The Netherlands Cover by Karel van Laan I S B N 90 390 0015 8 N U G I 632 W ‫ ־‬b o e k A l l rights reserved. N o part o f this p u b l i c a t i o n may be reproduced, stored in a re­ trieval system, or transmitted in any f o r m or by any means, electronic, photocopy­ ing, recording, or otherwise, w i t h o u t the p r i o r w r i t t e n permission from the pub­ lisher.

CONTENTS

Preface

7

Notes on contributors

9

1. T. Baarda, The Shechem Episode in the Testament of Levi: A Comparison with Other Traditions

11

2. J. N . Bremmer, The Atonement in the Interaction of Jews, Greeks, and Chiislians

75

3. P. W. van der Horst, "Laws that were not Good": Ezekiel 20:25 in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity

94

4. M . A. Wes, Mourning becomes Jeiusalem. Josephus, Jesus the Son of Ananias, and the Book of Baruch (I Bamch)

119

5. A. S. van der Woude, Pturiformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament

151

Indices

171

Preface

A l t e r a l o n g and distinguished career Adam S. van der Woude will retire on Reformation Day (October 31) from the Chair o f O l d Testament Studies and Intertestamental Literature of the Faculty o f Theology o f the Rijksuniversiteit G r o n i n g e n . I n order not to let this occasion go u n n o t i c e d , the Center o f Religious Studies decided to organise a symposium in h o n o u r o f one o f its best known members on the very day that he himself gave his vale­ dictory lecture. In view o f Adam's academic interests, it seemed therefore an obvious choice to focus the lectures on Jewish and Christian traditions in the Intertestamental period. I n addition to devoting so m u c h o f his own time and energy to this subject, he has also p r o m o t e d the interest o f the scholarly w o r l d i n this central p e r i o d in the history o f Judaism and Christianity by the foundation and editing o f the Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period. 1

At the symposium, four friends and colleagues from Amster­ dam, G r o n i n g e n and Utrecht discussed various features o f the history and literature o f the Second T e m p l e p e r i o d . T. Baarda compares several t r a d i t i o n s o f the Shechcm episode i n the Testament oj UwL J.N. Bremmer enters into a recent debate on the origin o f the Christian idea o f the atonement. P.W. van der Horst analyses the reception o f L/.ckicl's words 'Laws that were n o t g o o d i n early Judaism and Christianity, and M.A. VVes studies a fascinating episode from Flavius Josephus i n the light o f the Book of Bamch. 1

1

;

For a b i o g r a p h i c a l sketch o i Van der W o u d e see A.K.J. K l i j n , in 1 . Garcia M a r l i n e / . , (.1.11.J. de Gens, A.F J . K l i j n (eds.), Pro/elm en profetische geschriften, Karri pen and N i j k e r k ] 9 8 5 , 9-13; for the b i b l i o g r a p h y see, F. Garcia Martinez , in I‫ \׳‬Gare fa Mar Line/., A. I I i 1 horst, C. Labuschagnc (eds.), The Scriptures and the Scrolls. Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of I lis 6.5th Birthday, Leiden 1992, 228-268.

8

PREFACE

W h e n we decided to p u b l i s h the lectures, it seemed o n l y natural to add to these c o n t r i b u t i o n s the valedictory lecture o f Adam van der Woude himself. So we are very pleased that after some initial hesitation on his part we were able to overcome his objections to our idea. We w o u l d like to thank the contributors to the symposium for their enthusiasm to participate i n this homage, the Faculty o f Theology for its support, and last but not least the publishing house Kok Pharos—and i n particular Kristin de T r o y e r — f o r its ready response to o u r i n i t i a t i v e and the speed w i t h w h i c h i t has produced this volume. G r o n i n g c n , Center for Religious Studies Jan B r e m m c r Florcntino Garcia Martinez

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

TjiTZE B A A R D A , b. 1932, is Professor o f New Testament Studies at the Vrije Univcrsiteit, Amsterdam. His books and many articles i n c l u d e The Gospel Quotations of Aphrahaf the Persian Sage, 2 vis (1975) and Early Transmission of Words of Jesus: Thomas, Tatian and the Text of the Nezu Testament (1983), He is the co-editor of, most recently, God met ons: over de aard van het Schriftgezag (1986); Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World (1988) and Jodendom en vroeg Christendom: continuïteit en discontinuüeit (1991 ). J A N N . B R E M M E R , b. 1944, is Professor o f History o f Religion at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. He is the author o f The Early Greek Concept of the Soul (1983); co-author o f Roman Myth and Mythography (1987) and Marlelaren van deoudekei'k (1988); editor o f Interpretations oj Greek Mythology (1987) and Erom Sappho to De Sade (1989) and coeditor o f A Cultural Histoiy of Gesture ( 1991 ). b. 1946, is Professor o f New Testament Studies a n d o f the Jewish and H e l l e n i s t i c M i l i e u o f Early Christianity at the Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, His books and many articles i n c l u d e Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher ( 1 9 8 7 ) ; De onhekende God: essays over de Joodse en Hellenistische achtergond van het vroege Christendom (1988); Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity (1990); Ancient Jetoish Epitaphs (1991); Studies over het Jodendom in de oudheid (1992). He is the co-author o f Studies on the Hellenistic Background oj the Neiv Testament (1990). P I E T E R W . VAN D E R H O R S T ,

2

A. W E S , b. 1939, is Professor o f Ancient History at the Rijksuniversiteit G r o n i n g e n . His most recent books i n c l u d e Michael Rosiovtzejf Historian in Exile: Russian Roots in an American Context (1990); Classics in Russia 1 700- 1855 (1992). He is also the coMARINUS

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

author o f a Dutch translation o f Flavius Joscphus' ](?wish War a n d Vila (1992). S. V A N D E R W O U D E , b. 1 9 2 7 , was Professor o f O l d T e s t a m e n t Studies a n d I n t e r t e s t a m e n t a l L i t e r a t u r e at the R i j k s u n i v e r s i t c i t G r o n i n g e n f r o m 1 9 6 0 to 1 9 9 2 , For his bibliography sec the Preface, note 1, ADAM

The Shechem Episode in the Testament of Levi A comparison with other traditions T J I T Z E BAARDA

The Background of this contribution T h e i n t r i g u i n g phrase o f Paul, 'but the wrath has come u p o n them finally' (1 Thess.2:16c) tempted me to examine the episode o f the Shechem slaughter as i t is f o u n d i n the Testament o f Levi. A n d , indeed, I could not resist this enticement. The reason is obvious: this d o c u m e n t presents us w i t h a similar phrase as is f o u n d i n Paul ( T L 6:11). The resemblance is so striking that i t is easily understood why most scholars are convinced that 'there must be a l i t e r a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p between these verses' . W h e t h e r Paul b o r r o w e d these words from the Testament o f Levi or whether a Christian editor, c.q. interpolator, has i n t r o d u c e d the phrase o f Paul i n t o the Testament, is still a matter o f debate, to which I can h a r d l y c o n t r i b u t e a n y t h i n g new. However, i n s t u d y i n g this p r o b l e m I became increasingly interested i n t o the context o f the p e r t i n e n t phrase i n the description o f Levi's revenge on the Shechcmites for their crime against D i n a h . What mainly struck me was the change o f perspective i n this r e t e l l i n g o f the O l d Testament story, by w h i c h the a u t h o r apparently wished to exonerate his hero from every blame. Since I am an amateur in 1

2

1

Cf. my conLribuLion 'Maar de t o o r n is over hen gekomen,.,' to the v o l u m e Paulus en de andere Joden, cd. T, Baarda, I I . Jansen, S. J. N o o r d a , J. S. Vos, Delft 1984, 15-74, esp. 72, n.276. Cf. M . de Jonge (ed.), Studies in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, L e i d e n 1975, 247-260, 260, cf. n . l l ; I . Broer, "Antisemitismus" u n d J u d e n ­ p o l e m i k i m N e u e n Testament, Ein Beitrag zum besseren V e r s t ä n d n i s v o n 1 Thess. 2,14-16, B.N. 20 (1983), 59-91, 68 ('praktisch w ö r t l i c h identischer Formulierung'). 2

12

T . Ii A ARD A

this area o f research, I hope that my friend and colleague Adam van der W o u d e w i l l n o t blame me for this rather extensive c o n t r i b u t i o n to a volume that is dedicated to h i m i n h o n o u r o f his professional scholarship demonstrated i n his l o n g career study o f the O l d Testament and o f the Qumranic texts, b o t h o f which play a role i n this contribution. I 1. The aiiival at Shechem T, Levi, was conceived at Haran, and was b o r n there, and after that I came with my father in Shechem' (2:1 is the first biographical notice i n this document. The first part reminds o f Gen. 29:34a, the pregnancy o f Leah (avve\i]
5

3

M . de Jonge et al. (eds.), The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Leiden 1978, 24:8f. [ h e n c e f o r t h q u o t e d as J.24:8f. etc.J; R. H . Charles, The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, O x f o r d 1908 [ r c p r . Darmstadt *19681, 2S:3f. [ h e n c e f o r t h : Ch.28:3f. etc.]; idem, T h e Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, i n : idem, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testamenl I I , O x f o r d 1913, 282-367, 304; F. Schnapp, Die Testamente der 12 Patriarchen, i n K. Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten 'Vestamenls I I , T ü b i n g e n (1900) *1921, 458-506, 465; P . R i c s s l e r , Testamente der zwölf P a t r i a r c h e n , i n : idem, Altjüdische Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel, H e i d e l b e r g 1928, 1 149-1250, 1160; I L C. Kee, Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, i n j . I L Charlesworth ( L d . ) , The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I , Garden City N.Y., 1983, 775-828, 788; J. Becker, Die Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen, JSHRZ U L I , G ü t e r s l o h 1947, 47; N‫׳‬L de Jonge, The Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, in I L F. D. Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Testament O x f o r d 1984, repr. 1987, 505-600, 526; I I . W. H o l l a n d e r Se M . de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, A Commentary, L e i d e n 1985,132. Cf. also D. H a u p t , Das Testament des Levi, IJ 71 teisu ch u ngen zu seiner En tsteh u ng u nd Uberl ieferu ngsgesch i chte, 11 al I e-Saa 1 e 1969, I , 7ff. Grabe's edition is found in Patrotogia Graeca I I , Paris 1857, 1037-1150, 4

J

'

1

The Hebrew read ,‫שלם‬safc(ly) but the same reading—actually a d o u b l e translation—is f o u n d in Jul).30:1, 'he went up to Salem, to the east o f Shechem (cf.Gen.33:18b), in peace , cf. K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen, G ü t e r s l o h 1981, 469f. I.e. the city o f Shechem, S L K ^ O I U being the gen.epcxeg. o f (Ta) Z(1a|j.a, not o f (the) Sichern!tes*. 4

13

I I IK S H K C H K M K P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I 6

7

was i n the l a n d o f Canaan, which D e m e t r i u s , Josephus and Pseudo-Philo repeat i n their descriptions o f the travels o f Jacob. T h e identification o f Shechem as a Canaanite city is, however, present i n a second biographical sketch, T L 12:5, where Levi says: f|\0ov eiç yfjv Xavaâv. Moreover, he identifies the inhabitants as Canaanitcs, i n T L 7:1, when he explains to his father that his attack o n Shechem was part o f God's design to destroy the Canaanites . 8

9

2.

The age of Levi al the day of his revenge

T was still a young m a n , about twenty years o l d , when I performed—with Simeon—vengeance on H e m o r ' (2:2). Levi claims to have been still a minor (vewTepoc), which may have an apologetic tone. The approximate date (0)061 eToïi/ eLVocnf) has been stated more precisely as eighteen years i n his second b i b l i o g r a p h i cal description (12:5): T was eight years old, when I came into the land o f Canaan , and eighteen years (ÔKTaJKatSeKa èrtiv), when I k i l l e d Shechem. It seems quite certain that the Aramaic fragment (‫ )ובר שנין תמנה עשרה‬may have given the same age . This dating 10

11

6

Demetrius, On Jacob, in Kusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX,21:1-19 (ed. K. Mras, Eusebius Werke V I I L l (GCS 43:1), B e r l i n 1953, 508-512, 509:14f.); N . Walter, Demetrius, in Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischerExegeten (JSIIRZ H I : 2 ) , G ü t e r s l o h 1975, 280-293, 286 n.8a, r i g h t l y understands S ( K | 1 C J I ‫ ׳‬as a place name, but wrongly attributes it to a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Demetrius on the part o f A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor. See for Demetrius a.o.: P. W. van der Horst, T h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Bible by the M i n o r Hellenistic Jewish authors, in M . J . M u l d e r ( E d . ) , Mikra (CRINT I I / l ) , Assen/Maastncht-Philadelphia 1988, 519-540, esp. 52811 Josephus, Antiquitates I , 337 ( x x i : l ) , ed. I L St. J. Thackeray, Josephus I V , Cambridge M A -London 1 6 0 : 2 5,1967‫י‬ ‫י‬ f ‫״‬ eLç SCKLJJLOV TTaprj èorlv1$\‫ ז דךר‬6 \ Pseudo-Philo, Lib. Ant. Eibl., 8:7, ed. G. Kisch, Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicaruvi, N o i r e Dame 1949, 134:4: et habitavit Jacob in terra Ghana an, o m i t t i n g the name o f the place. J.32:61. è^ovSevéaei KupL0ç TOUS* Xavavalovç. Cf. T L 2:1 A r m . yet owP amac\ after eight years' instead o f [içrà ravja, an a n t i c i p a t i o n o f 12:5; M . Stone, The Testament of Levi, Jerusalem 1969, 54, 2nd app. Ch.254 ( B o d l e i a n Fragrn. c o l . d : 1 6 ) ; cf. the Syriac fragment, ibid.: the Aramaic text is not quite clear here, since some scholars guess ‫ ח ט ע ה‬instead o f ‫המנה‬. /

8

9

1 0

1 1

4

14

T. I3AARDA

differs from that o f Demetrius: when Levi entered Canaan he was ten years and six months (er&v T ‫ן‬1‫שעף‬1> ££), Jacob has lived for ten years near Shechem (lit. uapa 'E^JLuip), which means that Levi was twenty years and six months {€T&v aicoai |JT|1<w when he massacred S h e c h e m . A t first sight there is a difference between these observations and the remark i n Midrash Rabbah o n Gen. 34:25, where the expression 'each man his sword' ( ‫ )איש ח ר ם‬led R. Simeon b. Eleazar to the conclusion that they—that is Simeon and Levi—were thirteen years o l d ( ‫ שלש עשרה שנה היו‬p ) . Was there a tradition to that effect? ' I n my view, its meaning may have been n o t h i n g else than they were no longer ‫קטנים‬, but ‫( אנשים‬deduced from ‫)איש חרבו‬, that is they had both passed the age o f a ‫בר מצרה‬, and consequently were accountable for their deeds. T h e Rabbi must have known that Simeon and Levi, being c h i l d r e n o f the same woman and not twins, must have been o f a different age . 12

1

1 a

1 1

15

3. The Rape of Dinah T h e rape, Gen.34:1-2, is only alluded to, be i t i n several passages o f our Testament. The clearest reference is f o u n d i n 7:3, '...for they have really c o m m i t t e d a folly i n Israel by defiling onr sister . T h e crime is i m p u t e d to allSichcmites, as is the case in the biblical text (34:27) and in several other retellings o f the story. ' A n d then they carried off Dinah..., ..,they h a d defiled D i n a h ' , the a u t h o r o f Jubilees (30:21*.) writes, i n spite o f the fact that it is clear that only Shechem the Son o f H a m o r actually defiled her ( 3 0 : 2 ) . But the author wished to explain, why the slaughter happened to all men o f the city. T h e r e is a collective g u i l t , 'because they h a d dis1 6

17

1 2

Demetrius, i n Eusebius, Praep.livang. IX,21.9, c d . Mras, 509:19-21, 510:1-3. Was there a c o m m o n t r a d i t i o n lying b e h i n d Demetrius a n d T L 2 : 1 , w h e n both speak o i about twenty years? Midrash Rabbah I (ed. W i l n a ) , Jerusalem 1975, 304b. I I . Freedman, Midrash Kabbah, Genesis, I I , L o n d o n ^1961, 743 n.3. liven Demetrius, who assumed a difference o f only *ten m o n t h s ' (= nine m o n t h s ) between the two brothers, counted 21 years for Simeon, twenty for Levi. Charles adds ACfcnv with Mss. dmeß cf. below, §§ 12, 24 and 36. R. I L Charles, The Book of Jubilees, L o n d o n 1902, 179; T h e B o o k o f Jubilees, APOTU, O x f o r d 1913, 1-82, 58; K. Berger, o.e., 470. 1 3

1 1

] : )

1 0

1 7

15

T H E S i l E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I 18

h o n o u r e d . . . D i n a h ' . The same generalization is made i n J u d i t h 9:2, where the Sichemites are designated as 'the strangers who loosened the girdle o f a virgin to defile h e r ' . T h e collectivity o f the crime is again emphasized i n Joseph and Aseneth (23:13), where m e n t i o n is made o f 'the outrage ,..which the Sichemites p e r f o r m e d with respect to our sister Dinah*, although the author adds, ' w h o m Shechem the Son o f H e m o r had d e f i l e d ' . T h e crime o f one man is significant for the attitude o f all Sichemites, as has been stated i n the Aramaic fragment o f T L , T k i l l e d Shechem, and finished o f f the workers of violence {^om ( ‫ ע ב ד י‬. The verb used i n T L 7:3 to describe the fool act o f Shechem is [liavai (v.L: \11avavres) which reflects the biblical text, *and Jacob heard that the son o f H e m o r had defiled D i n a h \ Gen.34:5. T h e verb ‫ ט מ א‬is rendered with i\1iavev i n the L X X (cf. i[1Lavav i n 34:13.27). The same term is used i n Joseph and Aseneth, r\v €[1lave Zuxefi 6 ui69 E^0)p (23:13) ^and i n Philo's reference, [11aive1v...Kai 4>0etpett/ 6TTexe(^aa1>, De Mig7\Ab7\224 . A m o n g the other allusions ^the strongest is undoubtedly the word pSeXiry^ia (cf. § 24), an abhorrent act. 19

20

21

22

‫י‬

r

2

iM

2

1 8

Charles, Jubilees, 179 (1913, 58); Berger, o.e., 470. R. I l a n h a r t , Judith (Septuaginta V I I I : 4 ) G ö t t i n g e n 1979, 104. T h e t e r m ußpiS" for the rape is f o u n d in T h e o d o t u s , On Jacob (?), i n Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica I X . 2 2 , 1-11, ed. K. Mras, o.e., 512-516, 515:8, TT\V üßpLu‫ ׳‬Tfj9 dSeXcjifjs* ( i n the paraphrase o f Alexander Polyhistor); cf. for Theodotus, R. J. Bull, A Note on Theodotus' Description o f Shechem, IIThR 00 (1967), 221-227; J. J. Collins, T h e Epic o f Theodotus and the Hellenism o f the TIasmonaeans, IIThR 73 (1982) 9 M 0 4 ; R. Pummcr, Genesis 34 i n Jewish W r i t i n g s o f the H e l l e n i s t i c and Roman Periods, IIThR 75 (1982) 177-188; P. W. van der Horst, Joods-ïHellenistische Poëzie, K a m p e n 1987, 58-67; i d e m , I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Bible, 526; G. W. K. Niekelsburg, T h e Bible Rewritten a n d E x p a n d e d , i n M . E. Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period ( C R I N T I I / 2 ) , Assen-Philadelphia 1984, 89-156,' 121ff. M . P h i l o n e n k o , Joseph et Aseneth, Leiden 1968, 204:6-8 (23:13). Ch.254 ( B o d l T r a g m . c o l . d : l 7 L ) , cf. 245 ( C a m b r . E r a g m . , col.b: 19); the Syriac reads 'all doers o f evil', cf. the d a e ß e i s ‫ ־‬o f Theodotus (Mras, o.e., 515:15). *' P h i l o n e n k o , o.e., 204:7f. P h i l o , De Migratione Abrahami, 224, E. TL Colson-G. H . Whitaker, Philo IV, L o n d o n - C a m b r i d g e M A 1932, 121-267, 264:8T, cf. 265 n . T h e gist o f 'they t r i e d ' is that they d i d not succeed. T L 2:2 and 5:3 m e n t i o n only ihe name o f the g i r l to refer to the crime done to her. 1 9

t

2 0

2 1

2 2

2

2 1

2 : )

16

Τ. B A A R D A

A n o t h e r allusion to the rape is found i n T L 6:8, where Levi tells his c h i l d r e n that he knew that G o d was ill-favoured towards Shcchcm, since they wanted to do to Sarah, what they actually d i d to Dinah ( δν τ ρ ό π ο ν ε π ο ί η σ α ν Δ ί ν α ν τ η ν άδελφήν η μ ώ ν ) . From the comparison with Sarah i t is clear that they stole the wives o f strangers, έν δ υ ν α σ τ ε ί α α ρ π ά ζ ο ν τ ε ς τάς γυναίκας* α υ τ ώ ν (6:10). T h e idea o f ravishing occurs i n several texts. Joscphus writes that Shechem ravished her and i n j u r e d her, φ θ ε ί ρ ε ι 8 1 ' α ρ π α γ ή ς - . Theodotus tells us that he ravished her and took her home and injured her, καΙ ά ρ π ά σ α ν τ α ώς‫ ־‬εαυτόν δίακομίσαί καΐ φθειραι α υ τ ή ν . We may c o m p a r e here Philo's allegorical paraphrase, ούτοι (plur.!) τ η ν παρθένον ψυχήν έξαρπάσαντες* λαθειν ή λ τ η σ α ν . The background o f this terminology is Gen.34:2, ‫ויקח‬, ‫ א ת ה‬a n d he took her', w h i c h i n T a r g u m PsJonathan is paraphrased as ‫ ו ד ב ר יתה באונםא‬, 'and he took her by force (or\..by robbery') . Pseudo-Phi lo, 'et Dinam iiliam eius rapnit Sychcm...et humiliavit ‫־‬° expresses the idea of robbery, but also o f h u m i l i a t i o n which has been suggested by the L X X reading, και έ τ α π ε ί ν ω σ ε ν α υ τ ή ν (= ‫)ויענה‬, Gen.34:2, which is also reflected i n Philo's text, ταπεινώσας αύτήν^ , 26

2 7

2 8

1

29

‫י‬:

‫י‬

1

4. The age of Dinah a I I he time of the Rape Can something be said concerning the age o f D i n a h d u r i n g the rape on the basis o f the data in Testament o f Levi? We know that according to Jub. 30:2 she was supposed to be a little girl, 'a c h i l d of twelve years *' . Demetrius, however, assumes that she was a good sixteen years o l d , ε τ ώ ν ουσαν δεκαέξ μηνών τ ε σ σ ά ρ ω ν ^ . I n his view, Dinah and Levi differed i n age exactly four years and two 1

l b

2

Joscphus, Antiquitates I , 337 ( x x i . l ) , ed. Thackeray, o.c, 162:3f. Theodotus, ed. Mras, o.c, 5 14:1 3f.; the verb φ θ ε ί ρ ε ι is f o u n d in Dometrius ( φ θ α ρ ή ι / a L , Mras, o.c, 509:20; φ θ ο ρ ά ς , 510:3), P h i l o , Migr.Abr., 225 ( έ φ θ ε ΐ ρ ε τ ο , CoLson-Whitaker, o.c, I V . 266:6), I)e Mutatione Nominum 195 ( δ ι α φ θ ε ί ρ ε ι , Colson-Whiiaker, o.c, V.242:9). Philo, Migr.Abr., 224, ed. Colson-Whitaker, o.c, I V . 264:15Γ. M . Gmsbur^er, Pseudo-Jonathan, Berlin 1903, 63. Ps.-Philo, Antiquitates 8:7, ed. Kisch, o.c, 134:4f. Philo, Mut.Som., ed. Colson-Whitaker, o.c., V.242:2f. Charles, Jubilees. 179. ‫ י־י־‬Demetrius, ed. Mras, o.c, 509:21, 510:1. 2 /

2 8

2 9

3 0

S l

v z

T H E S I I E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

17

months, w h i c h is less than in the Book o f Jubilees, where Levi was born ' i n the new m o o n o f the first m o n t h , i n the sixth year o f this (=third) week', A n n o IVlundi 2127, and Dinah, *in the seventh o f the seventh m o n t h , i n the sixth year o f the fourth week', A. M . 2134. This implies that there is a difference o f seven years and six m o n t h s . A difference o f eight years has been assumed in a list preserved by Syncellus . Remarkably enough, T L 12:5 has been adduced as p r o o f for a similar chronology as f o u n d i n Jubilees. I n his first translation ( 1 9 0 2 ) , Charles comments on the twelve years of Jub.30:2 i n the following way: This agrees with the r e c k o n i n g i n Test. Levi 12. There Levi, who was six years older than D i n a h , slew Shechem at the age of eighteen', but in 1913, he corrects himself when deal­ i n g with the same passage: Cf. Test.Levi xii.5 and Jub.xxviii. 14.23, which together make her eleven' . Borger annotates his render­ ing, 'ein K i n d von zwölf Jahren', with the following remark: ' V g l . Test X I I . Levi 12,5' . 3 4

35

36

4

4

37

38

Does the Testament o f Levi contribute to fixing a date for the rape? It is obvious that the author o f Jubilees makes Levi ( b o r n a.M.2127) and Dinah (born a.M.2134) arrive at Shechem in 2143, Levi being 16 years o l d , Dinah 9 years o f age. The fact that she was raped i n her twelfth year (a.M.2146) implies that they had only lived there for three years before the i n c i d e n t h a p p e n e d . These numbers differ both from T L 12:5 and from Demetrius: Levi comes to Shechem, when he was 8 years o l d (Demetrius: 10), and lived there for 10 years before the rape o f Dinah. So one may assume that according to this t r a d i t i o n D i n a h was eleven (TL) or thirteen (Demetrius).

M

Charles, Jubilees, I72f. Cf. Charles, Jubilees, 170 nota ad 28:11-24: Lxvi is h o r n in the 82th year o f Jacob, D i n a h in his 90th. The list agrees w i t h Jub.28:23, i n m a k i n g Z e b u l o n and D i n a h twins. Charles offers also a list o f dates collected by D o d w e l l (p. 172, = 17(), n.) w h i c h was presumably based on the Testaments (?): Levi was b o r n in the 81th vear o f Jacob and seven years older than D i n a h , b o r n in the 88th year. Charles, Jubilees, l 7 9 n . ' Charles, Jubilees, f)8. Berger, Jubiläen, 470. 3 5

3 6

D

3 8

18

T. BAARDA

II 5. The inilialive of Levi 1. Levi is credited with having taken the inititativc i n avenging the rape o f his sister, although he was the younger o f the two sons that made the assault at Shcchem. T h e biblical text, Gen.34:5, tells us that Jacob was at home and his sons in the field with the flocks, when the report o f the rape came to Jacob, His sons heard it only afterwards. They were wrathful and furious, when they h e a r d about it, 34:7 (cf. Jub. 30:3). This might suggest that Jacob and all his sons were involved i n m a k i n g a deceitful plan ( ( ‫ב מ ר מ ה‬ against the Sichemites, although the sequel o f the narrative does not imply that Jacob was aware o f the ruse o f the circumcision as a means to destroy the Sichemites. As a matter o f fact, Jacob was shocked by the action o f his sons: they were guilty, and especially Simeon and Levi. This is, at least, the thrust o f Gen. 49:6. Jacob d i d not wish to have anything to do w i t h their plans and their assembly. T h e Targums, therefore, make i t clear that Jacob was not even present i n their secret council, changing ‫בסדם אל חבא‬ ‫ נפשי‬into ‫ ׳ברזהון לא הות נפשי‬. A similar idea has been developed i n the epic poem o f Theodotus: here i t is Jacob who wanted to settle the p r o b l e m in a civil way. The Sichemites should become Jews t h r o u g h c i r c u m c i s i o n , before Shcchem c o u l d m a r r y D i n a h ' . The initiative for the raid d i d not come from Jacob. 2. Theodotus, however, d i d not entrust Levi with the initiative, but Simeon. O n e o f the sons of Jacob, whose name was Simeon, decides to kill H e m o r and Shechem, since he refused to accept the raj:>e o f his sister by a civil arrangement (or: i n a courteous 3 9

10

11

1

^ T h e ethical p r o b l e m was felt by many early commentators, cf. e.g. Midrash Rahbah 80:8 on Gen.34:i4, ' w i t h g u i l e ' : R. Samuel b. N a c h m a n denies that this was a cause o f deceit, for the H o l y Spirit declares 'because he had defiled D i n a h their sister', Freed man, o.c, 740 f. ' A . Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, I , Leiden 1 9 9 2 , 85; M . A b e r b a c h - B . Grossfeld, Targum Qjikelos to Genesis, New York 1982, 283; cf. M . Ginsburger, P s eu do-Jonathan, 92: T h e fragment T a r g u m even says that he was n o t pleased w i t h their plans, B D J n\snrVK » 7 j i n r u m , M . A. Klein, The Fragment-Tar gum s of the Pentateuch I , Rome 1980, 157. Theodotus, in Kusebius, o.c, IX.22:5-7, ed. Mras, o.c, 514:14-21, 515:1-5. I 0

2

,

1 1

1

19

T H E S H K C I I E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I 12

w a y ) " . Once he had made his decision, he consulted his brother Levi about it and got h i m involved; so i t was he who incited Levi to proceed i n t o a c t i o n . The prayer of J u d i t h , i n J u d i t h 9, although i t mentions the fact that all brothers ( your dear c h i l d r e n ) were involved i n the action, expressly m e n t i o n s J u d i t h ' s ancestor, Simeon, as the principal person i n the attack: *O L o r d , God o f my father Simeon, i n whose hand You gave a sword to take ven­ geance o f the strangers' . 3. I t is a remarkable t h i n g that Jubilees, i n spite o f its h i g h esteem for Levi, makes both men, Simeon and Levi ( i n this o r d e r ) , responsible for the action. ' A n d Simeon and Levi mocked at them ( c f . T L 7:2) in guile, and Simeon and Levi were d e t e r m i n e d i n their heart to destroy t h e m ' , Jub.30:4 L a t . A c o m m o n decision has also been emphasized by Philo's exegesis, De Mut.Nom. 200, i n which he relates that those who were prepared to repel the profane and i m p u r e ways were two i n number, Simeon and Levi, but one in will (yvb)[Lr\ 8e e l ^ ) . Philo argues this on the basis o f Gen. 49:6f., where Jacob i n his blessings counted them as one: they were one i n harmony o f m i n d i n their impetus for one and the same purpose. Moses went even so far—Dt.33:8—that he men­ t i o n e d only Levi i n his blessings, i n c l u d i n g Simeon under the name o f Levi, b l e n d i n g the two natures by m a k i n g them one, after having united hearing (that is, Simeon ) and doing ( L e v i ) , 43

1

1

44

45

4 6

47

v2

48

' • Thcodotus, ibid. IX.22:8, cd. Mras, o.c, 515:7-9, esp. μ ή βουλήθ6Ρ‫׳‬τα π ο λ ι τ ι ‫־‬ κώς eveyKeiv. ' T h c o d o t u s , ibid., ed. Mras, o.c, 515:9-11. J u d i t h 9:2, ed. Hanhart, o.c, 104:71'.; cf. 105:6. Charles, jubilees, 179, n.3: et posuerunt in corde suo Symeon el Levi exierminare eos, Philo, De Mutalione Nominum, 200, ed. Colson-Whitaker, Philo V, 244:3037; 246:1 i‫־‬. Cf. De Ebnelaie 94, Golson-Whitaker, Philo I I I , 366:18, Σ υ μ ε ώ ν , ακοή γ α ρ ούτος- ε ρ μ η ν ε ύ ε τ α ι . T h e ordinal*)' etymology is αυτός* μοι = ‫ ה ל ו י > הו לי‬, cf. De Plantatione, 64, ed. Colson-Whitaker, Philo I I I , 224:25,28. Does Philo present us here w i t h a n o t h e r etymology? Cf. ‫ ל א ה‬or ‫ ל א י‬, Ί ο be weary', hy having done too m u c h . A n o t h e r etymology is f o u n d in Migr. Abr. 224, ed. Colson-Whitaker, o.c, 264, where Simeon and Levi are called 01 φροι/ήσεως* ά κ ο υ σ τ α ί και γνώρι.‫־‬ μ 0 ί , α κ ο υ σ τ ή ς - being a play on ‫שמעון‬, γ ν ώ ρ ι μ ο ς * , a fellow, someone familiar, being a p u n on ‫לוי‬, (> ‫לוא‬, Ί ο accompany, to be f a m i l i a r ' ) . ‫נ‬

4 4

4 ϋ

4 0

4 7

4 8

20

T . BAARDA

6. The Vision of Levi 1. Wc spoke o f Levi's initiative as a particular element i n the retelling o f the Shechem episode i n the Testament o f Levi. How­ ever, we have to qualify this, since his initiative was motivated by a divine decision. As a matter o f fact, he received a visionary revelation that not only deals with his investiture as a priest , but also with a divine c o m m a n d to avenge D i n a h (5:3). T h e vision as a whole is embedded in the story o f the raid on the Sichemitcs, since T L 2:If. is continued i n 6:If. The revelation occurred to Levi, when he and his brothers were t e n d i n g the flocks i n Abel-Maul ( T L 2:3a). Jacob was then not with them (cf. 6:1). A spirit o f under­ standing came over h i m , so that he c o u l d clearly perceive the sinful state o f m a n k i n d ( 2 : 3 b ) . When i n distress he prayed for salvation, he was caught by a sleep, τ ό τ ε έ π έ π ε σ ε ν έττ' έ μ έ ϋπνος... (2:4f.). T h i s was the b e g i n n i n g o f l o n g visonary state , from which he awakened three chapters later, καΐ μ ε τ ά τ α ύ τ α ώ σ π ε ρ έ ξ υ π ν ο ς γενόμενος*...(5:7). His earlier distress gave way to full praise o f the Highest and o f the guardian angel, 'who stands at the side oflsrael and o f all righteous people'(5:6) . 49

50

51

52

53

7. The mountain of the Vision T h e vision begins with the disclosure o f a h i g h m o u n t a i n , και έ θ ε α σ ά μ η ν όρος* ύψηλόν(2:5). Levi immediately interrupts his de­ scription o f the vision to tell his c h i l d r e n , which m o u n t a i n i t was. In d o i n g so he anticipates an observation that was to be told later

4 9

Cf. T L 2-5, cf. esp. 2:10, 4:2, 5:2 (12:5); for an analysis o f these chapters, cf. M . de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Assen 1953, 46-51, Studies, 2 4 7-2C> 0 ; ] . Becker, Un t e rsu chu nge n zur En t s te h u ngsges chichte der Tes tame n te der zwölf Patriarchen, 257-269. J.24:9; é TTOiu.ai uou.ei>, the p l u r a l is r e n d e r e d by S c h n a p p , Ricssler; Ch.28:7, éTTotjiaLPW, the singular is rendered by Kee, Becker, a.o; see for the textual p r o b l e m , I-I. J. de Jonge, Die T e x t ü b e r l i e f e r u n g der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen, in M . de Jonge (ed.), Studies, 45-62, 59. Cf. M . de Jonge, Testaments (1953), 50; idem, Notes on Testament o f Levi I I V I I , in Travels in the World of the Old Testament, Festschrift M . A . Beek, Assen 1974, 132-145, 139 (= idem, Studies, 247-260, 254). M . de j o n g e , Testaments (1953), 4ßff., Notes, 141, 144f. (= Studies, 256, 2591*.); llcckcr, Unte?suchu?igen, 257-270. For the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the angel, cf. Charles, Testaments, 308; M . de Jonge, Testaments (1953), 93; Haupt, Testament, 19f. : A )

:>]

5 2

: ) 6

21

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

on i n his report, namely an incident that happened after the reve­ l a t i o n , when he was o n his way home. This observation, w h i c h has been o m i t t e d i n a g r o u p o f manuscripts, c-h-i-j , has i n this very context the air o f a gloss . Nevertheless it may have been part o f the Greek text o f the author, who wanted to convey to his readers that Levi saw a real m o u n t a i n , although he saw i t i n a visionary dream. The words i n question are: τούτο όρος*' Αστύδος* εν ' Αβελμαούλ, this was the m o u n t a i n Aspis (or: o f the Aspis) i n A b e l - M a u l ' . I t is the same m o u n t a i n where he afterwards f o u n d a shield (άσττί.ς‫)־‬, so it was from this shield that the m o u n t a i n got its name. For we read i n 6:1b: διό και τό όνομα του όρους· Ασπις\ δ εστίν εγγύς* Γεβάλ έκ δ ε ^ ώ ν Αβιλά, These two verses 2:5 and 6:1b form an inclusio for the visionary experience o f L e v i . This m o u n t a i n is the place where Levi enters the heavens (2:6f.). The Greek text would be clearer, i f we were allowed to read as part o f the original text και ήμην έν αύτω, a reading preserved only i n the so-called α - r e c e n s i o n instead o f the identification o f 5 4

55

1

56

1

1

1

1

57

5 8

j

l

Cf. Ch.29:3 and app.; i t has n o t been r e n d e r e d by Charles, Becker and Kee. J. T. M i l i k , Le Testament de Levi en A r a m c e n , RR 62 (1955) 398-406, 404, speaks o f a 'glose p r o p r e à l ' a r c h é t y p e de ce g r o u p e de mss.\ So Becker, Untersuchungen, 259, n,2 ( ' s e k u n d ä r e s I n t e r p r e t a m e n t * ) . M . de Jonge, Testa­ ments, 50 ascribed the 'gloss' to the cornpilator (i.e. the Christian a u t h o r ) . H e acknowledges that Lhis a n t i c i p a t i o n is 'obviously a w k w a r d ' (Notes, 250), but this is exactly Lhe reason why i t has been o m i t t e d i n the oLher family o f texts. I n my view, De j o n g e is correct here in suggesting Lhat it was part o f the o r i g i n a l Greek text; i t may have been also p a r t o f a t r a d i t i o n that was used by the Greek author, for i t turns o u t that also the Aramaic text has a geographical notice at this p o i n t De J o n g e , Testaments ( c d . Sparks), 526 renders 'the m o u n t Aspis i n A b e l - M e h o l a h ' ; H o l l a n d c r - D e Jonge, Testaments, 132 'the m o u n t a i n o f the Shield i n A b e i - M a u l ' , cf. §§ ‫׳‬8-9 M . de J o n g e , Testaments (1953), 50; for the view that this vision is an i n t e r p o l a t i o n , cf. J. T h o m a s , A k t u e l l e s i m Zeugnis der zwölf V ä t e r , in C. B u r c h a r d , J. Jcrvcll, J. Thomas, Studien zu den Testamenten der zwölf Patriarchen, Berlin 1969, 62-150, 78; Becker, Untersuchungen, 257ff. Ch.29:3f., on the basis o f c-h-i-j. T h e A r m e n i a n is d i v i d e d : the a - t e x t reads: ev es kayi i wer ay lerinn, 'and I was standing on the m o u n t a i n ' . De Jonge, Notes, 2 5 1 , follows the ß - r e c e n s i o n , because it is the lectio durior, 5 5

3 0

5 7

5 8

99

Τ. B A A R D A

the m o u n t a i n . These words c o u l d easily have been o m i t t e d by parablepsis . Levi experienced that he was placed upon the top o f the m o u n t a i n , where earth and heaven meet each other, so that when the heavens were o p e n e d he could enter them (,..etaeXGe. Kal etafjX9oi>.,.2:6f.). Later on, within the narrative o f the vision, he is brought back to earth, TOTE 6 ayyeXos• f\yaye \ie enl TT\V yfjv, 5:3. T h e m o u n t a i n o f the vision is the same m o u n t a i n as the one from which he went back to his father (6:1), so that vision and reality seem to have been m i n g l e d i n Levi's r e p o r t . 59

60

61

8. The hcalion oj the mount Aspis. 1. T h e location o f the m o u n t a i n Aspis is still an unsettled p r o b l e m , i n spite o f the fact that the text is rather precise i n its geographical description. It is a high m o u n t a i n located i n AbelMaul (2:5), near Gebal on the r i g h t s i d e o f Abila (6:1b). T h e author o f the tradition u n d e r l y i n g our d o c u m e n t must have had in m i n d a specific location which is no longer clear to us: D c r Berg ist geographisch nicht b e s t i m m b a r . Is i t possible that the Greek author merely took over names that he had no n o t i o n of? A n d is it possible that the latter was not very lucky i n his choice o f Greek equivalents? 62

,

163

64

2. T h e first problem is that the author locates the m o u n t a i n i n the region o f Ahel-Alaitl, which suggests the Hebrew name AbelMeholah, ten miles south of* Beth Sean, about twenty miles n o r t h ­ east o f Shechem . This could be a place which is apt for tending 65

whereas the a ‫ ־‬r e c c n s i o n w o u l d have been an attempt to avoid a difficulty o f the text. Since one m i g h t have in the Q u m r a n fragment, col.ii:14, a possible equivalent ( < ,‫״‬.‫ ו י ת ב ה אנהע<ל‬a n d I sat o ( n the m o u n t a i n ' ) , — c o n t r a Testament, 400, 404, w h o surprisingly finds the words 'et j ' y d e m e u r a i ' i n (he lacuna after line 17—one might consider the possibility that the a u t h o r o f the Greek text wrote b o t h the identification o f the m o u n t a i n en parenthese and the notice on Levi's being on the m o u n t a i n as the entrance to heaven. 1

:>tJ

6 0

6 1

‫״‬

6

και ή μ η ι \ . . κ α ί

ιδού...

See for this motive, Becker, Testamente, 47 n.Oa. Cf. also l l a u p t , Testament, 17 (esp.n.7). Dc Jonge (1984) renders with in the south o f , b u t this i m p l i e s that we know the perspective from which the a u t h o r gives this d i r e c t i o n . ^ Becker, Testamente, 5 1 , n . l a , cf. 47, n.3a. So e.g. I Iollander-De Jonge, Testaments, 133. Cf. Judg. 7:22; 1 Kgdms. 4:11, 19:16; l l a u p t , Testament, 11 assumes that the 6 1

6 5

M

23

T H E S I 1 E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

flocks, cf. 2:3, and being not too far from Shechem. However, the Aramaic fragments contain the name ‫אבל םין‬, cf. AfteX^aLv for ‫ א ב ל‬, 2 ‫מים‬ Chr. 16:4, w h i c h seems to be another name for Abel Bet Maacha, a location south east o f the H e r m o n in the n o r t h o f the country . 3. T h e second p r o b l e m is that the a u t h o r says that the m o u n t a i n was near Gebal This usually denotes the city o f Byblos (cf, Ezek.27:9), w h i c h i n Josh. 13:5 is f o u n d c o m b i n e d w i t h the L i b a n o n and H e r m o n . This is, however, too far o f f from AbelM a u l ' to be said eyybs Ye$a\. So one can understand that scho‫־‬ lars have declined such an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Scholars who seek the m o u n t a i n Aspis in the Shechem district suggest that one should read here TepdX = rat(3dX as the mountain E b a l . 4. T h e t h i r d p r o b l e m is Ahila. It reminds us o f the capital o f Abilene o n the north-east slope o f the H e r m o n . But this identification has met with more than hesitation . A n o t h e r proposal is that it could have been Abel, as distinguished from Beth Maacha in some texts . The problem, however, is the different spellings o f the name i n the manuscripts. 'A(31Xd is found i n the crown witness for the family I text, Ms. T h e variations w i t h i n family I I present us with the spellings ApLjJtd [ge a f) or 'A|at(3d {Id m ) , whereas the words ' o n the r i g h t side o f Abila' are o m i t t e d in c-h-i-j One m i g h t ask, whether the name was a m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n for AbelM a u l , e.g. because this name was written as an abbreviation, 1

66

1

6 7

68

69

70

71

,

72

7 3

7 4

a u d i or til o u g h t o f the vicinity o f Sichern. Cf. 2 Kgdms. 15:20; 2 Sam.20:15. ‫ י‬T h i s is even valid, i f one w o u l d prefer the r e a d i n g o f the Aramaic text Abel-mayyin . B e c k e r , Testamente, 5 1 , n . l c , 'diese I d e n t i f i z i e r u n g muss geographisch ausschieden'; M i l i k , Testament, 403, n.6, assumes that TeßäX CK Se^La51^ was a misrepresentation o f ‫ א ב ל מין‬, w h i c h he read as ‫ נ ב ל ימין‬, b u t M i l i k does n o t ex ‫ )ן‬lain how AßiAä is to be understood in that case. 6 0

6

4

‫י‬

6 8

1

6 9

Cf. De Junge, Testaments (1953), 143, n.68. Becker, Testamente, 5 1 , n . l d , 'geographisch abwegig'. Cf. A b e l Beth Maacha, 2 Sam.20:15, Abel and Beth Maacha, 20:14, A b e l , 20:18. See for the differences in spelling IT. J. de Jonge, The earliest traceable stage o f the Textual Tradition o f the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, i n M . De Jonge ( L d . ) , Studies, 63-86, 7 l f . H a u p t , Testament, 13, rejects it as a gloss. M . de Jonge, Testaments {1953), 143, n.68. 7 0

7 1

7 2

7 4

24

T . BAARDA

namely '‫אבי ם‬, rendered as 'AfitpxL A further p r o b l e m is that we do not know from w h i c h perspective 'to the r i g h t side o f A . ' is thought of, so the reader is left with mere guesses . 75

9. Once again A spis 1. T h e m o u n t a i n Aspis cannot be traced o n o u r maps, as we have seen i n the preceding observations. T h e author himself says that the m o u n t a i n Aspis got its name from damCs, because a shield (dantcr) was found there (6:1), This is the more remarkable, since in the vision Levi has been presented w i t h *shield and sword' (5:3). T h e Greek w o r d for shield is here O T T X O V , which can mean weapon i n general, but i n this combination must be shield. Why does the a u t h o r use here the w o r d d a i u ? ? O n e can understand that some scholars have sought for an explanation i n the H e b r e w or Aramaic Levi t r a d i t i o n . Sayce i d e n t i f i e d the m o u n t a i n as H c r m o n , since ‫ הרמון‬could be named ‫( שריון‬Dcut.3:9). The latter w o r d m i g h t be i n t e r p r e t e d as armour* or cuirass*, w h i c h the translator w r o n g l y u n d e r s t o o d as do‫־־‬n‫־‬£s. A similar identification ( H e r m o n ) was b r o u g h t forward by Pedes , w h o posited that d a m ? was originally meant to denote a serpent, which in the original t r a d i t i o n was written as ‫חורמן‬. These i n g e n u o u s solutions d i d n o t convince everyone. B o t h explanations arc u n c o n v i n c i n g ' is the general j u d g m e n t . T h e finding o f a possible o r i g i n a l Aramaic ‫ א ב ל מין‬as the name o f the location which has been rendered as Abel-Maul i n Greek, has revived the interest i n the solution o f Sayce . 2. A l t h o u g h I do not want to revive the solution o f Perles, I t h i n k that it w o u l d be worthwhile to consider the possibility that doni$ was i n t e r p r e t e d as shield by the author o f the Greek text, 76

1

4

1

1

77

4

7 8

79

/ D

4

Becker, Testamente, 5 1 , n . l d , eine I d e n t i f i z i e r u n g n i c h t m ö g l i c h ' . Cf. Charles, Testaments, 308; M . de Jonge, Testaments (1953), 143, n.68; Haupt, Testament, 1 1 f. Cf. M . de Jonge, Testaments (1953), 143, n.68; Haupt, Testament, 12. Cf. e.g. M . de Jonge, i.e., w h o adds, ' M o r e o v e r the H e r m o n is too far f r o m Shcchern'. T h e latter argument, however, is n o t c o n v i n c i n g for those who follow the Aramaic m e n t i o n i n g o f Abel-Mayyin here a n d f i n d i n the H e r m o n a place where revelations are not u n c o m m o n , cf. H e n o c h 13:9f., M i l i k , Testament, 404. M i l i k , Testament, 404f. 7 6

7 7

7 8

7 9

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

25

whereas i n his source it meant serpent. The 6po? 'AcmlSos i n 2:5 is the ' m o u n t Aspis', or the *mount o f the Aspis', the ' m o u n t a i n o f the Shield*. But was it originally meant to denote 'the m o u n t a i n o f the Serpent'? I n Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezerlhe text o f Amos 5:19, or went i n t o the house and leaned his h a n d on the wall, and the serpent (‫ )נחש‬bit h i m ' is explained as a reference to the Shechem episode. W h e n Jacob went i n t o his house, i n the l a n d o f Canaan, the serpent b i t h i m . A n d who was the Serpent? This was Shechem, the son o f H c m o r . This explanation is based on the fact that H e m o r is called the Hevite—‫—החוי‬which allows the p u n with the serpent: the w o r d ‫ נחש‬has been r e n d e r e d i n Aramaic Targums with ‫חויא‬. One may also compare bShabb. 85a: 'And Hevite ( ‫— ) ח ו י‬ Said R. Papa: (It teaches) that they tasted the earth like a serpent ( ( ‫ ח ו י א‬. Such t r a d i t i o n s connecting the Shechem episode w i t h the serpent could have led to a p u n on the name o f Shechem, the Son o f H e m o r , the Hevite, i n Aramaic or Hebrew t r a d i t i o n , and consequently have given rise to the name Aspis. I f there is a connection o f this k i n d it m i g h t suggest a connection not with the H e r m o n , but with the locality o f Shechem. T h e idea that there may have been a paronomasia i n a Semitic document or t r a d i t i o n cannot totally been ruled o u t . It is, however, clear that the Greek author wished to refer to a shield. 4

8 0

81

82

83

10. The divine command of vengeance upon Shechem 1. The heavenly vision i n c l u d e d besides the investiture as a priest (2-5) a divine c o m m a n d to Levi to avenge D i n a h ( 5 : 3 ) . This reminds us o f Jub. 30:18, where the execution o f vengeance u p o n Israel's enemies is likewise connected with the priesthood o f Levi and his descendants . I n T L the appointment as a priest is 84

85

8 0

G. F r i e d l ä n d e r , Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, L o n d o n 1916, 287. I I . Freedman, Shabbat (The Babylonian T a l m u d , Seder M o e d I ) , L o n d o n 1938,404. ^ Bereshit Rabba Ixxxix:6 also introduces Amos 5:19 i n the context o f Jacob's dealing w i t h H c m o r , the father o f Shechem, however connected w i t h o t h e r persons. Cf. Haupt, Testament, 23, esp. n.47. Cf. Haupt, Testament, 28L, 3 1 . Charles, Jubilees, 182f.; Jubilees, 59; Becker, Jubiläen, 473n.; M . H e n g e l , Die Zeloten, L e i d e n - K o l n 1961, 164, η.4; 182f. 8 1

8 3

8 4

8 5

26

Τ. ΙΪΛΛΚΠΛ

given i n heaven (2:10, 4:2 and 5:2), then the angel leads Levi back to e a r t h — w h i c h still happens w i t h i n the vision—and presents h i m with shield and sword, and charges h i m w i t h the task o f avenging the offence to Dinah. Apparently, the author wished to distinguish between the heavenly investiture as a priest and the earthly order o f vengeance: although connected, they are distin­ guished i n character. T h e words w i t h w h i c h the c o m m a n d is given are: ποίησοι; ε κ δ ί κ η σ η έ ν Σ υ χ έ μ υπέρ Δίνας, 'Execute ven­ geance on Shechem for the sake o f D i n a h ' . Shechcm is here n o t the city—that w o u l d require έ ν Σικίμοις—but the son o f H e m o r ( Σ υ χ έ μ ) who had seduced Dinah. This is exactly what Levi does i n T L . For, contrary to the biblical narrative, Levi kills here only Shechem, not the other men o f the city . 86

2. However, Levi docs not stand alone. T h e angel n o t only charges h i m with the task, but also promises his assistance (5:3c): κάγώ εσομοα μ ε τ ά σου, δτί κύριος• άττέσταλκέ μ ε , *And I shall be w i t h y o u , for the L o r d has sent me'. T h e angel, who reveals himself as the guardian angel o f Israel and o f all righteous m e n ( 5 : 6 f ) , will be o f assistance in the day o f trial (θλίψίςτ): Levi needed to know his name to be able to call upon him (ίνα έττικαλεσωμαί σε) in the battle, just as—in J u d i t h 9:4—the sons o f Jacob called upon God (έπεκαλέσαν σε εις* βοηθοί) for heavenly assistance . 87

3. This enhances the idea that God d i d not only order the raid on the Sichemites, but is also involved i n the war. T h e view that G o d himself was the ultimate avenger o f the rape o f D i n a h is expressed in several other texts. I n Jub.30:5 we read, J u d g m e n t is o r d a i n e d i n heaven against them, that they should destroy w i t h the sword all the men o f the Shechcmites (cf. 30:23) . Again, i n J u d i t h 9:2-4, it is God who gave the sword o f vengeance to Simeon and delivered the Sichemites into the hands o f the sons of Jacob . When Levi and Simeon show their swords to the son o f Pharao— Joseph and Aseneth 23:13—they say about these weapons that God has avenged with them the outrage o f the Sichemites (έν αύταΐς έξεδίκησε κύριος· 6 θεός τ η ν ϋβριν κ τ λ . ) . Most explicit i n this 1

88

89

1

8 0 8 7 8 8

8 9 9 0

9 0

Sec below 28f. I l a n h a r t , Judith, 104. Charles, Jubilees, 180; Jubilees, 58; cf. also 30:6.9.17. H a n h a r l , Judith, 103Γ. P h i l o n e n k o , Joseph and Aseneth, 204:6.

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

27

regard is Theodotus, when he relates how Simeon persuaded Levi to share his action against Shechem by r e f e r r i n g to a divine oracle : εϊι γαρ εγώ μΰθον <γε> πεπυσμένος- είμι θεοΐο* δώσει ν γαρ π ο τ ' εφησε δεκ' £θνεα παισιν Αβραάμ. T o r I have heard a word o f God -namely, that once (He said) H e w o u l d give ten nations to Abraham's c h i l d r e n ' . 91

,

11. The divine reasons for the vengeance I n his defense, afterwards, against his angry father Levi d i d not m e n t i o n the fact that he was commissioned by God i n a heavenly vision, but he does refer to it i n his words to his children (6:8): άλλ' ε γ ώ εΐδον δτι άπόφασις• θεου ήν εις· κ α κ ά ε π ί Σίκιμα. T h e hea­ venly vision had made h i m understand that God's sentence was for evil u p o n the Sichemites. I n speaking o f the vision he had only m e n t i o n e d the fact that he had received the order to execute vengeance (5:3), but i n this c o n n e c t i o n he also mentions the considerations that led to this divine order, 92

12. The typical misconduct towards Dinah, The

firstconsideration is mentioned i n T L 6:8b: διότι ήθελον καΐ τ ή ν Σάρραν ποιήσαι ον τρόπον ε π ο ί η σ α ν Δίναν τ ή ν άδελφήν ημών. T h e text apparently hints at the incident o f Gem20:3f., which took place at Gerar in the land o f the Philistines. T L 6:9b relates that the L o r d had prevented them (και κύριος* έκώλυσεν αυτούς•), which is an echo o f Gen 20:6, and it was I who p r e v e n t e d them from sinning'. This story was clearly i n the m i n d o f the 'author' o f the so-called α - r e c e n s i o n , for he combines i t with the parallel story o f a similar i n c i d e n t at Gerar (Gen.26:1-11), by a d d i n g και τ ή ν Ρ έ β ε κ κ α ν ! O n e m i g h t adduce as an argument against such a c o n n e c t i o n that the Sichemites themselves were n o t involved i n 4

,

9 1

93

9

T h e o d o t u s , in Eusebius, o.e., I X . 22,8f; Μ ras, o.e., 515:6^10 a n d 13-14; cf. Che paraphrasc ibid., Μ ras, o.e., 515:10-12. For CL9 κακά, cf. 18:9; T B 4:3 (ΤΛ 1:9, 2:4) = , ‫ ל ר ע ד‬, cf. 2 C h r o n . 18:7; J c r . 2 1 : I 0 ; 39:16. L X X και έ φ ε ί σ α μ η ^ for ‫ו־אחסך‬. So Ch.40:8-10 (=c-h-i-j). 9 2

9 3

9 4

28

T . BAARDA 95

either i n c i d e n t , but for the author o f the Testaments the inhabitants o f Shechem were representatives o f the Canaanites, to which the Philistines b e l o n g e d . 96

13. The persecution of Abraham T h e second consideration is formulated i n T L 6:9a: και ούτως* έδιωξαν Αβραάμ τ δ ν πατέρα ημών ξένον όντα,... Abraham was a ‫גר‬, cf. Gen.23:4 a.o., a stranger—not a n o m a d , so Kee—in the sense o f a guest i n a foreign country. O n e s h o u l d render the phrase with 'although he was a stranger' , since from the perspective o f the author the gist o f the phrase is, that they d i d not treat A b r a h a m according to the rules o f hospitality, cf, e.g. Exod.22:21, Deut.l0:18f, The story o f a persecution o f Abraham is n o t f o u n d i n Genesis. A b r a h a m is m e n t i o n e d a m o n g the persecuted in Lev.Rabba X X V I I : 5 (‫)אברהם נרדף מפני נמרוד‬, but this refers to a period before his entrance i n Canaan . 97

98

14. The attacks on the flocks of Abraham T h e third consideration (6:9b) is f o r m u l a t e d i n a way that may puzzle the reader. T h e text is different i n the manuscripts a n d editions: Dejonge Charles καΐ καταπάτησαν τ ά ποίμνια καΐ κατεπόνησαν τ ά ποίμνια ογκούμενα δντα έ π ' αυτόν... ογκούμενα δ ν τ α ‫ ״‬. . T h e decision between these two readings is a difficult one, the m o r e so because the w o r d i n g offers difficulties i n b o t h textual forms. a) The first problem is that we do not know to which incident the 99

100

9 : >

C f . ß e c k e r , Testamente, 51 n.8a; Charles, Testaments, 308n. Cf. Sirach 50:26f. (below § 3 6 ) . T h e Sichemilcs are m e n t i o n e d here a l o n g w i t h Philistines and Edomites ( L X X : Samaritans). O t h e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f the p a r t i c i p l e clause: w h e n ' (Charles), ' w h i l e ' ( I I o l l a n d e r - D e J o n g e ) , 'because' ( ' w e i l ' , Ricsslcr, B e c k e r ) , ' w h o ' ( ' d e r ' , Schnapp), as' ( D e j o n g e ) . Cf. Pscudo-Philo, Lib.Ant. Bibl., 6:4-18 (ed. Kisch o.e., 127-130). So J. 32: If. (=b + I), dm e a f read eu* avrôv with b, but KctTeTT6 vr\(iau w i t h c-h-i-j. D e j o n g e , Testaments (1978), 183, does n o t want to make a choice as to the verb. So Ch. 40:12f. (= chij)

9 6

9 7

4

,

9 8

t

9 9

1 0 0

29

T U E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T OF L E V I

author refers, since it is *also n o t i n Genesis' (Charles). H e must have h a d i n m i n d a t r a d i t i o n o f struggles about the flocks o f A b r a h a m , i n which the animals were trampled down ( I ) or maltreated ( I I ) by the inhabitants o f Shechem or the Canaanites in general. b) A second question is the m e a n i n g o f ο γ κ ο ύ μ ε ν α . Charles apparently understood the verb (όγκόομαι, pass, to be swollen) i n the sense o f pregnancy: when they were p r e g n a n t ' . T h e verb may have this meaning, cf. γαστρός* δ γ κ ο ^ (Euripides, Ion, 15). O n e m i g h t also think o f όγκόω i n the sense o f endow with b u l k ' , so as to mean that the flocks had become large. I n b o t h meanings the words t o h i m ' seem to be redundant. Schnapp rendered the w o r d with ' d i e ‫ ״‬. s c h r i e n \ apparently taking it as a form o f όγκάο‫־‬ μαι, to bray'(used o f an ass ), cf. the reading όγκώμενα i n a d e . In adopting this interpretation he could make sense o f the words έ π ' α υ τ ό ν , 'being crying to him (Schnapp: 'zu i h m ' ) , that is, t o / f o r Abraham. Since the words έ π ' α υ τ ό ν seem redundant, i f taken with the interpretation 'being pregnant', they are suppressed i n the translations o f those scholars who adopted them i n their text, such as H o l l a n d e r - D e Jonge and De Jonge. T h e textual situation is so c o m p l i c a t e d here that one has to consider the possibility o f a very early error i n the text that has been solved i n different ways in the tradition. 1 0 1

1 0 2

1 0 3

4

104

1

4

1

105

1 0 6

1 0 7

c) T h e t h i r d p r o b l e m is that there is no i n c i d e n t o f this k i n d i n the history o f A b r a h a m . So one m i g h t be tempted whether the

1 0 1

So explicitly in d m, ja Tro(.u.wia avrov. H o l l a n d e r - D e Jonge: ' t r a m p l e d ' , De Jonge: *trampled o n ' ; cf. Schnapp: zertraten \ Charles: V e x e d ' ; Kee: *harassed*; Riessler: *plagten'; Becker: f ü g t e n ... Schaden z u \ °'* So De Jonge, Ree; Charles, 'when they were b i g w i t h y o u n g ' [ w h i c h seems to have been misunderstood by Riessler, 'die A l t e n samt den J u n g e n ' sie], cf. I Iollander-De Jonge; Becker: 'als sie schwanger g i n g e n ' . T h e w o r d 6yKUT]06s is used o f the braying o f an ass a n d o f the l o w i n g o f an ox. Charles (40 app.) registratcs the r e a d i n g öyKÖfiefci for b f g, but there is no m e n t i o n o f i t in J.32 app. T h e w o r d s are f o u n d b o t h i n fam.I (b) and I I (d m e a j) a n d were apparently i n their ancestor. T h e difficulty o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n may have caused t h e i r suppression in the so-called a ‫ ־‬r e c e n s i o n . 1 0 2

1

1 0 3

1

U ) : )

1 0 6

1 0 7

,

30

T.

BAARDA

author m u d d l e d things here and had i n m i n d another story i n Genesis dealing with Jacob. Strife between herdsmen could easily arise (cf. G e n . l 3 : 7 f . ) , especially i n the case o f jealousy (cf. Gen. 26:12ff.). There is m e n t i o n o f such a strife i n Jub.34:l-9, where the kings o f the A m o r i t e s p l u n d e r e d the herds o f Jacob and his s o n s , with as the ultimate result that Jacob slew them with the edge o f the sword. T h e a u t h o r o f the Testaments knew this tradition, cf. TJ 3-7. Now the origin o f a confusion may lie i n Gen. 48:22, Moreover, I have given to you (i.e. Joseph) rather than to your brothers one m o u n t a i n slope (‫)שכם‬, which I took from the hands o f the A m o r i t e s w i t h my sword and my b o w \ i n w h i c h ‫ שכם‬was understood as the city o f Shechem, cf. Midrash Rabba o n Genesis, X C V I I : 6 and earlier L X X X : 1 0 : ' A n d where do we find that our father Jacob took up his sword and bow?—In S h e c h e m ' . 108

4

109

15.

The strange name Jeblae'

Even more complicated is the fourth consideration for the vcngeancc o f the L o r d . I t tells us that someone who was b o r n i n the house o f Abraham had been severely maltreated (6:9c): και Ίεβλαε τον οίκογενη αύτοΰ σφόδρα αικίσαντο In Gen. 15:2 the Damascene Έ λ ι έ ζ ε ρ is called the son o f Μασεκ, the houseborn (της* οίκογενους· μου) female slave o f Abraham, which implies that Eliezer himself was a houseborn slave (cf. 15:3, ό δέ οίκογενής μου κληρονομήσει μ ε ) . The fact that there seems no connection between the name Eliezcr and Jcblae seems to exclude the possibility o f an identification; but even i f they were one and the same person, we do not know to what incident, i n which Eliezer was involved, the author referred. Now we have to consider that the name Jcblae is n o t certain. It is the name in Ms.6, w h i c h was the basis for the most recent e d i t i o n . G h a r l e s , on the other hand, had adopted the name Έβλαην which is found in Ms.c. 4

110

1 0 8

111

Charles, Jubilees, 64n. Freedman, Genesis I I , 742f., 944. I t was also adopted by Schnapp ( Jebiae ); it is f o u n d i n the translations of De Jonge, I Iollander-De Jonge. Ch.40:13; it is f o u n d i n the translations o f Charles, Riesslcr a n d Kce; Becker reads ' K b l a e m ' w h i c h is n o t f o u n d i n any m a n u s c r i p t , b u t cf. Armenian T.mblaem' (Arrn-ß). 1 0 9

1 1 0

1 1 1

1

1

T H E S H K C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T OF L E V I

31

2. T h e variety i n spelling is quite enormous i n the manuscripts o f fam.II. I f we use the stcmma o f H . J . de J o n g c the situation may be visualized as follows: 112

3. T h e r e are a few elements that I—II have i n agreement, namely -B-, which is found i n nine manuscripts, and -A‫־‬, which is present i n ten manuscripts. I n I I the final -N is found in eight texts, but one has to consider the possibility that i t was added to create an accusative e n d i n g , so that the real endings were - A E , - A H , - A I , which may be variations of-AI=‫־‬E. The -M- i n the subgroup h-i-j may have been part o f the name i n fam.II, since the A r m e n i a n has preserved this letter i n b o t h recensions. I f we w o u l d assume that M, B, A, E were found i n the original Greek text as elements o f the name, one m i g h t consider the f o l l o w i n g solution: the Greek author found i n some Hebrew or Aramaic source which he had at his disposal the following abbreviation *‫אל* ב' ם‬, that is either ‫ אליעזר בר משק‬orpm ‫אליעזר בן‬, 'Eliezer, son of Mascq'. This means that the original Greek text was n o t h i n g else than a back-

2

H . J . dc Jongc, T h e earliest traceable stage, 64.

32

Τ. BAARDA

ward transliteration ΜΒΛΕ. One may compare the retrograd writing o f ‫ יהרה‬as πιπί Now this form o f the name, MBAE, was difficult to understand, and therefore asked for new spellings o f the name, by adding vowels. I take for a starting-point that the name was spelled either by the author or by an early copyist as ME Β ΑΛΕ. 4. I n the course o f t r a d i t i o n the f o l l o w i n g miss-spellings occurred: a) -ΑΛ- (so still i n g-h-j) became -ΛΑ- , which is found i n a b c d e f i and m. b) The Μ was read as Η, so that ME- became HE (e g h-i-j), which i n its turn became lE-(b fa) or ΓΕ‫( ־‬d > ΓΑ, m) or even E‫( ־‬c). c) The final ‫־‬N i n d m ef c-h-i-j is an addition to create an accusative form o f the name. d) The original ending -E was written as-AI (ag),‫־‬Al was changed in -AH (e cj) or written as -H (d e h-z-j). c) Somewhere i n the tradition ‫־‬K- crept into the texts (-KAI, g; -KHN, h-if). T h e p r o b l e m , however, remains that the biblical narrative does not m e n t i o n any attack on Eliezer, I n bSanh 108b the question is posed, When the kings o f the east and the west attacked (lit.: came u p o n ) you, what d i d you d o ? . Docs this mean that Eliezer was h e l d to be a victim o f this raid? I n the M i d r a s h he is once identified with L o t , once with a person who helped A b r a h a m i n his attack o n the i n t r u d e r s m e n t i o n e d i n G e n . 1 4 . A n y h o w , there may have been a tradition o f an attack on Eliezer to w h i c h the author o f T L alluded. 4

M l 4

115

1 1 3

M r s . A l i c e bij de Vaate ( l c U c r 22-06-92) gave me some examples o f m i r r o r w i s e w r i t t e n names i n inscriptions, e.g. Dl^tO w r i t t e n as tD^IQ, MAPI AM a s M A I P A M , possibly w i t h apotropaic purposes. See also F. Dornseiff, Das Alphabet im Mystik und Magie, B e r l i n 1925, 56, 63, 176. Cf. I I . Freedman, Sanhednn VU-Xl, i n : I . Epstein, The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin I I I , L o n d o n (repr.1978), 747 (the reference is to G e n . 14); again, a c c o r d i n g to bSanh 109b, Eliezer was attacked, apparently by Sodomites, ibid. 751. H . F r c c d m a n , Midrash Rabbah Genesis I , 366f. T h e first i d e n t i f i c a t i o n based on a specific i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Ben Mesheq, the second o n the n u m e r i ­ cal value o f the name, w h i c h is alike the n u m b e r o f t r a i n e d m e n that helped Abraham. 2

1 1 4

1 l r >

33

T H E S H E C I I E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

16. The misbehaviour of the Sichemiles in general T h e p r e c e d i n g description o f their misbehaviour towards Abra­ h a m a n d his family is significant for their general a t t i t u d e towards foreigners, καίγε ούτως έποίουν π ά ν τ α ς τ ο υ ς ξένους 'and this, i n d e e d , was the way they usually treated all foreigners* (6:10a). T h e laws o f hospitality were usually violated by t h e m . This m o r e general statement has been illustrated by two parti­ cipial clauses. 1 1 6

(1) έ ν δ υ ν α σ τ ε ί α α ρ π ά ζ ο ν τ ε ς τ ά ς γ υ ν α ί κ α ς α υ τ ώ ν , 'by force r o b b i n g their wives'(6:10b), o f w h i c h the case o f D i n a h was a clear i l l u s t r a t i o n . T h e recent text is based u p o n Mss. b and d, whereas Charles followed c-h-i-j a f ...τάς ξ έ ν α ς , *die fremden Frauen' . (2) καΐ ξ ε ν η λ α τ ο υ ν τ ε ς α υ τ ο ύ ς , ' a n d banishing them' (6:10c). This clause—omitted i n Ms.d—awkwardly follows the preceding one, since α υ τ ο ύ ς implies again male strangers (cf. vs.6a). This may have been the reason for the reading α ύ τ ά ς i n c-h-i-j and /, w h i c h Charles followed. However, this is apparently w r o n g , since one does n o t b a n i s h women that one first carries o f f . I w o u l d suggest that one should consider the possibility that the original reading is found \n a e J g m, where the object has been o m i t t e d ( ξ ε ν η λ α τ έ ω i n itself meaning t o banish foreigners ). This gave rise to the complements αυτούς and α ύ τ ά ς in other manuscripts . 117

1 1 8

1 1 9

1

1

120

1 1

" M . dc Jonge, Notes, 260, finds here a reference to future atrocities; w h e t h e r the difference between (9) και όντως and (10) καίγε οΰτως* is a sufficient argument (ibid.nAS), I am not sure of. J.32:3f, w h i c h r e a d i n g is followed by Charles in his t r a n s l a t i o n , also by Schnapp a n d Kcc; Riessler renders w i t h 'die Weiber' (αύτώι> o m i t t e d i n g I e); contra C h . 4 1 : l f , whose reading is followed by Becker (51) w h o finds in the β-tcxt a clarification o f the α - t c x t . Most translations are a m b i v a l e n t here. ^ I do not understand Kee's r e n d e r i n g 'and m u r d e r e d t h e m ' , that is, the wives. Charles is aware o f the difficulty: he suggests that there is h e r e a m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f ΓΠ], p m \ w h i c h is ambivalent: 'they banished t h e m ' or they seduced t h e m ' , that is, to idololatry. M . de Jonge (letter 19-05-92) objected to this solution o n the basts o f the stemma, suggesting that the omission was due to an a t t e m p t to solve the awkwardness o f the text in fam.II ( α ύ τ ά ς ) . I d o n o t t h i n k t h a i the stemma really denies my s o l u t i o n . 1 1 7

1 1

1 1 9

1

1 2 0

34

Τ. ΒΛ ARD Λ

III 17. The finding of the shield After the visionary experience Levi went home: καΐ ώς ή ρ χ ό μ η ν π ρ ό ς τον π α τ έ ρ α μου, evpou α σ π ί δ α χαλκηΐΛ.., and while I was going to my father, I found a brass shield'(6:1 a ) . T h e finding o f the shield is, i n fact, a c o n f i r m a t i o n o f what happened i n the vision. There he was b r o u g h t from the m o u n t a i n back to earth and was presented w i t h a r m o u r and s w o r d \ before he got the c o m m a n d to avenge D i n a h (5:3)—that is, still w i t h i n the vision, which ends i n 5:7. The w o r d i n g is the following: και £δωκέ μοί οπλοι/ καΐ ρ ο μ φ α ί α ς litt. and he gave me armour ?aid sword'. T h e general w o r d δ π λ ο ν usually denotes the p r o t e c t i n g a r m o u r , or cuirass. However, the expression δπλον καΐ ρομφαίαν is found i n Ps.75(76):3 L X X for Hebrew ,‫ ת ןוחרב‬s h i e l d and sword'. 'Όττλοι/ is a not unusual r e n d e r i n g o f ‫מגן‬, cf. 3 Kgdms 10:17, 14:26f. a.o., and even i n the expression οπλα καΐ α σ π ί δ α ς , |er.26(46) :3 (‫)מגן וצנה‬, δ π λ α renders exactly this w o r d . Since the author apparently wished to distinguish between δπλοι/ and α σ π ί ς , but at the same time wanted to make a connection between the finding o f the α σ π ί ς and the ο π λ ο ν o f the vision, one m i g h t d i f f e r e n t i a t e between shield' and * b u c k l e r ' , rather than with ' a r m o u r ' and ' s h i e l d ' . T h e author used the finding o f the shield as a confirmation and reminder o f the reality o f the task with which Levi was charged i n the vision. It was a clear sign that God had chosen h i m for this task and that God, through his guardian angel, w o u l d protect h i m . God gave h i m a shield, just as i n the story o f J u d i t h 1 2 1

1 2 2

1

1

1

1 2 3

1

124

1 2 5

1 2 1

1

N o t i c h . . . k a m ' , so Schnapp, Becker, cf. Kee; the idea is that he was still on his way (imperfect tense!), possibly i n the m o u n t a i n area, not after having come to his father. For a brass shield' cf. 1 Kgdms, 10:27; 2 C h r o n . l 2 : 1 0 . This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the w o r d as *shield' (so Charles, S c h n a p p , Riessler, Kee, H o l l a n d e r - D e J o n g c ) is already f o u n d i n the A r m e n i a n ( M . Stone, Testament, 70:9, 138:5i.). M . De Jonge a n d I Iollander-De Jongc: twice s h i e l d . Cf. R ü s t u n g u n d Schwert', J. T h o m a s , A k t u e l l e s , 80; M . de J o n g e , Testaments (1953) 5 1 , renders V:3 'an a r m o u r and a sword' (cf. Notes,259), and d i d so with purpose, cf. 143 n.68, 'Note that in V;3 Levi docs n o t receive a shield'. 1 2 2

,,

1 2 3

1 2 4

1 2 : J

4

1

1

T H E S H E C H EM E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

we are told that God gave a sword i n Simeon's hand (9:2, Συμεών, £δωκας ev χείρΐ ρομφαίαν εις εκδίκηση άλλογει/ών) .

35 ώ

126

18. Keeping the words in his heart T h a t Levi saw i n the the finding a confirmation and r e m i n d e r o f the heavenly charge is i m p l i e d i n the f o l l o w i n g words: κ α ι σ υ ν τ η ρ ο ύ ν τ ο υ ς λόγους τούτους ev τ η καρδία μου ( T L 6:2). This belongs to biblical language, as can be seen from Sirach 13:2, Dan 4:28 L X X , 7:28 Θ, cf. L k 2:19, where similar phrases are f o u n d . What is the function o f the phrase i n this connection? One m i g h t compare T L 8:19, after the second vision, where Levi says, *And I h i d this also i n my heart, and t o l d i t not to any m a n u p o n the e a r t h ' . T h e phrase has obviously the following functions. First i t underlines the fact that the f i n d i n g o f the buckler made h i m aware o f the importance o f the visionary experience i n which he received the task o f avenging the crime against D i n a h . Secondly, it makes clear that he c o u l d n o t speak publicly about such a personal experience. This i n its t u r n has the function to explain, why Levi i n his defense against Jacob's r e p r o a c h after the massacre d i d n o t appeal to the divine c o m m a n d , w h i c h was given i n the vision, to justify the military a c t i o n . M e a n w h i l e , this vision remains the m a i n factor that led h i m to his military campaign ™. 1 2 7

128

129

1

1 2 6

Hanhart, 104:7f. Cf. W. C. van U n n i k , Die rechte B e d e u t u n g der W o r t e n treffen, Lukas 11:19, i n Sparsa Collecta I , Leiden 1973, 72-91. J 35:2f.; cf. B o d l . F r a g m . col.a:12f., Ch.246:12f., w i t h the same text, except for the last three words. 1 do n o t see why Becker, Untersuchungen, 257f., 261 ('Dass Levi,..auch n o c h den A u f t r a g e r h ä l t , D i n a zu r ä c h e n (5,3b-4) ist u n p r o g r a m m a t i s c h u n d passt n i c h t auf zu 6,3ff.') emphasizes a c o n t r a d i c t i o n here. Van U n n i k , rechte Bedeutung, 88f., correctly interprets the phrase n o t o n l y i n the sense o f 'bewahren , 'sondern auch "darauf acht geben u n d es d a n n a u s f ü h r e n " ' , b u t this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n neglects the a u t h o r ' s use o f the expression to explain Levi's silence about the vision in his defense against Jacob's complaints. 1 2 7

1 2 8

1 2 9

1 3 0

1

36

Τ. BAARDA

19. Levi's advice in the family's council After c o m i n g home, Levi spoke with Jacob and Ruben ( T L 6:3a): εγώ συμβούλευσα τω πατρί μου καΐ 'Ρουβήμ τ ω άδελφω μου.., Τ gave advice to my father a n d to Ruben, my b r o t h e r . . . ' , suggests a family c o u n c i l w i t h Jacob as the c h i e f o f the family and Ruben as the eldest b r o t h e r . Levi ( ε γ ώ ) takes the initiative by giving a d v i c e . There is, however, a p r o b l e m as to what his suggestion i n c l u d e d . T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f his proposal is that he should tell the sons o f H e m o r (ίνα εΐττη TOL? υΐοϊς Έμμώρ)...\ followed by the contents o f the advice. I t seems likely, that the author wanted to say that Jacob should tell them. I n the text o f Gen.34:13fL, however, it is the sons o f Jacob that negotiate w i t h Shechem and H e m o r , at least i n the Massoretic text; the Septuaginta follow the M . T . i n vs. 13, but i n 14 Simeon and Levi are intro­ duced as the persons that deal w i t h the Sichemites. I f o u r inter­ pretation o f ε ϊ π η is correct, T L agrees w i t h Theodotus who also makes Jacob the negotiator. Remarkably e n o u g h , Kee renders t h a t they should tell*, w h i c h agrees w i t h Ms.a, ϊνα ε ΐ π ω σ ι , a reading apparently caused by the fact that Levi gave his counsel to both Jacob and Ruben. Charles (*to bid ) avoided the difficulty that one m i g h t feel here by using an infinitive, 131

132

133

4

T

20. Two readings—a lexlcriticaI problem I f we ask, what Jacob told to the sons o f H e m o r , we are left with a difficult choice between two completely different texts, which i n their turn offer two different interpretations. 1. T h e first i n t e r p r e t a t i o n starts from the text i n 6:3b: τ ο υ π ε ρ ί τ μ η θ η ν α ι α υ τ ο ύ ς , 'that they must be circumcised . This is the text o f all manuscripts (except for c), adopted by Schnapp and Becker ('sie sollten sich beschneiden lassen'), De J o n g e a n d 7

1 3 1

J.31:3; the t r a n s i t i o n w i t h o u t και is somewhat harsh, w h i c h may have caused the r e a d i n g καΐ μ ε τ ά τ ο ύ τ ο instead o f έ γ ώ i n c-h-i-j, f o l l o w e d by Ch.39:6f. Cf. an analogous text in TJ 13:4; in o u r text Ch.39:7 adds τ ω ante, omits τ ω ά δ ε λ φ ω μ ο υ post ' Ρ ο υ β ή μ , followed by Kee, n o t by Charles, S c h n a p p , Riessler, Becker, De Jonge a.o. Rather than I c h beriet m i t ' (Schnapp, Riessler) or ' i c h h i e l t Rat m i t ' (Becker). 1 3 2

1 3 3

1

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

37

Hollander-De Jonge. I t closely follows the biblical narrative (Gen. 34:13-17), where the sons o f Jacob planned their stratagem w i t h the ultimate purpose to destroy the Sichemites, as appears from vs.25f. A l l m e n o f the city should have to receive circumcision. As *reason' was m e n t i o n e d to H e m o r the fact that i t was n o t allowed to give their sister into marriage with someone w h o was n o t circumcised (vs. 15). F r o m the context we may deduce that Jacob agreed about the idea o f circumcision, but d i d not share the design o f his sons (vs.30). This biblical story is followed by the Targums, a l t h o u g h they replace ruse (‫ )מרמה‬by wisdom (O 8c J: &‫ )חוכמ‬or even much wisdom ( N : (‫ ח ו כ ם ת ד ו ו ןםגי‬. T h e necessity o f circumcision is also expressed by Theodotus, when he relates that Jacob—not his sons—said that he could not give his daughter i n marriage w i t h Shechem before all the inhabitants o f the city had become Jews by circumcision (πριν αν ή πάντας τους οίκουντας τ ά Σίκιμα περίτεμνομένους Ί ο υ δ α ί σ α ι ) . The idea is here also that Jacob really wanted to negotiate, but that the sons abused the situation. 2. The second interpretation is based upon the reading o f Ms.c, w h i c h is accepted by Charles, namely τ ο υ μ ή π ε ρ ί τ μ η θ ή ν α ι α υ τ ο ύ ς , 'that they should not be c i r c u m c i s e d ' . The idea is here that Levi, as a consequence o f the heavenly vision, had planned to attack the Sichemites. H e knew that G o d was o n his side and w o u l d give victory. So he wished not to become involved i n the stratagem o f his brothers o f w h o m Ruben was the representative, n o r d i d he j o i n the plans o f Jacob to Judaize the people o f Shechem, w h i c h w o u l d exclude the possibility o f war against them. So he gave his advice to b o t h Ruben and Jacob that they should not be circumcized for two different reasons. Afterwards it turns o u t that the fact that the k i l l i n g t o o k place after the 134

135

136

1 3 4

Cf. Sperber, Pentateuch, 56; G i n s b u r g e r , Pseudo-Jonathan, 63; A . Diez M a c h o , Neophyti Î, Targum Palestiniense I , Genesis, M a d r i d - B a r c e l o n a 1968, 227; for the use o f this other w o r d one m i g h t t h i n k o f the natural hesitation w i t h respect to g u i l e , cf. § 5 above. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the reference to S i m e o n i n J u d i t h 9:1-4 may have been the l é g i t i m a t i o n for the ruse o f J u d i t h , cf. Pummer, Genesis 34, 181. Theodotus, i n : Eusebius, o.e., IX.22,5, ed. Mras, o.e., 514:15f.. Ch. 39:7f.; so in the translations o f Charles (308 app.), Riessler (1162) and Kee (790 app.). 1 3 3

1 3 6

38

T.

BAARDA

Sichcmitcs having received circumcision aroused Jacob's anger ( T L 6:6). But this—the author says—had n o t been p l a n n e d by Levi, to the contrary. 21.

The negative judgment about the ruse

Before we will choose between the two alternatives, we have to show that the requirement o f circumcision as a ‫ מרמה‬was a problem for hellenistic Jewish authors. Even the author o f Jubilees, who does not make a secret o f the ruse ( and they spoke to them w i t h evil i n t e n t and dealt deceitfully with them and b e g u i l e d t h e m ' ) , suppresses every m e n t i o n o f the actual circumcision. One cannot conclude m u c h from the descriptions o f Demetrius and Pseudo-Philo because o f their abbreviating way o f story telling, b u t one has to register that they d i d n o t relate the c i r c u m cision story at a l l . However, Josephus, who amply describes the n e g o t i a t i o n between Jacob and H e m o r , does n o t m e n t i o n any c o n d i t i o n and evidently suppressed any reference to c i r c u m cision. When he tells us about the attack, he does not say that the Sichemites were defenceless due to the p a i n c o n t r a c t e d by circumcision, but he reports that the r a i d took place while the Sichemites made a feast . A similar idea is found i n the descript i o n o f Philo, when he writes that Simeon and Levi overthrew them when still occupied i n the pleasure-loving, passion-loving t o i l o f the u n c i r c u m c i s e d ' . O f course, one cannot deduce i t merely from the words d‫־‬n‫^־‬ptT[1f|Tt1) TT6V0) which he uses here, for the Targums denote the Sichemites as ‫ ע ר ל א י ן‬, i n spite o f their c i r c u m c i s i o n ) . T h e fact , however, that Philo never mentions circumcision may suggest that he had hesitations to m e n t i o n it. 4

1 3 7

1 3 8

139

4

140

1 4 1

1 3 7

Jub 30:3, Charles, Jubilees, 179. C o n t r a Pummer, Genesis 34, 179; Demetrius (Eusebius, o.c. IX,21.9, ed. Mras, o.c. 509:19-21, 510:1-3); Pseudo-Philo, Antiquity 8:7 (ed. Kisch, o.c. 134:4-8). Collins, T h e Epic o f T h e o d o t u s , 95f., wrongly assumes that even T h c o d o t u s implies diat circumcision d i d n o t Lake place, cf. Pummer, o.c, 182, n.15, contra C o l l i n s ) . Josephus, Antiquitates I , 338-340, ed. Thackeray, o.c., I , 162. Philo, Migr. Abr., 224; ed. Colson-Whitaker, Philo I V , 264:12f. Cf. Ginsburgcr, Pseudo-Jonathan, 64; Die/. Macho, Neojiii I , 2 3 1 . 1 3 8

t

f

1 3 9

1 4 0

1 4 1

‫״‬

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

39

22. The text of TL 6:3b again It is obvious that the author o f T L d i d n o t suppress the circum­ cision fraud. I t was exactly the reason for Jacob's anger afterwards. T h e question is whether the Sichemitcs were circumcised due to Levi's advice. T h e strong support i n favour o f the first reading, all existing manuscripts except one and its occurrence i n fam.I and I I , plead for the omission o f μ ή . Still I have the feeling that one cannot discard the other reading—Ms. c—without considering what pleads for it. I f we suppose that the second reading, του μή ττερίτμηθηι^αί α υ τ ο ύ ς , m i g h t have been the original reading, one m i g h t suggest that the following thoughts were i n the author's mind: a) There was a plan to require circumcision, as the biblical narra­ tive related. This was made either for enabling a lawful marriage (Jacob) or for preparing the best conditions for a raid on the city o f Shechem (Ruben). b) Levi came home after the vision, heard about the plans. H e rejected t h e m , since he hated what was done to his sister. H e c o u l d n o t give approval to a lawful marriage, since he knew t h r o u g h the vision that he had to kill the Sichemites. N o r could he agree with the deceitful plans o f his brothers, i.e. Ruben, for he knew t h r o u g h the angelic message that God w o u l d assist h i m i n the battle, so that there was no need for a ruse, c) W h e n Levi p e r f o r m e d the task o r d e r e d by God himself, he k i l l e d the people that were—against his will—circumcised. This was n o t his fault. His fault was that he had done the k i l l i n g contrary to Jacob's will. These considerations may have been i n the author's m i n d , i f the second reading is correct. Personally, I am i n c l i n e d to follow here the one manuscript against the majority. The suppression o f the negation i n most manuscripts can easily be explained as a correction by one or more copyists based u p o n their knowledge o f the biblical narrative that the inhabitants o f the city were circum­ cised. Moreover, the consideration that the text o f the Testament itself presupposed that circumcision had taken place may have been influential i n the course o f textual t r a d i t i o n . I f I suggest 142

Gf.

also J. Becker,

Untersuchungen,

269, ' m i t d e m

Vorschlag, die

40

T . BAARDA

here that the Testament o f Levi as we have i t now i n the Greek form presented this peculiar reading, I have to add that this was true for the Greek redaction o f this document, not for the sources used by the author which may have contained a different story related to the biblical account . 143

2 3. The zea I of Levi L Levi gives a reason for his advice that the Sichemites should n o t be circumcised. He wished to revenge the h u m i l i a t i o n o f Dinah (6:3c): δτί έ£ήλωσα δίά τ ο βδέλυγμα ο εποίησαν ev Ισραήλ, 'for I was zealous because o f the a b o m i n a t i o n w h i c h they h a d performed in Israel (or: done to Israel)'. This is the only place i n which the author o f the Testaments uses the verb i n its positive sense (cf. also 'the zeal o f G o d ' i n T A 4:5) . I t places Levi a m o n g those who have distinguished themselves by zeal for God, such as Pinchas, Elijah and M a t t a t h i a s , who had taken a stand for the purity o f Israel ,

1 4 4

145

2. T h e author had, o f course, i n m i n d the crime o f the rape o f Dinah, but this docs not mean that one should follow Charles text δ εποίησαν έττΐ τ η αδελφή μου, with support o f c-h-irj. T h e author used a biblical expression here (§ 24). 3. T h e zeal o f Levi is emphasized here, as has been done by other authors. I n Jub.30:18, we read ',.,that Levi and his sons may be blessed for ever, for he was zealous to execute righteousness, j u d g m e n t a n d vengeance o n all those w h o arouse against I s r a e l ' . I n the treatise attributed to Philo, De Sampsone, this zeal is attributed to both Simeon and Levi, who received the spirit o f zeal 146

Beschncidung... nicht zuzulassen', contra Becker, Testamente, 5 1 . -^ Cf. the A r a m a i c fragment o f C a m b r i d g e , col.a:18ff., w h i c h seems to i m p l y that Levi was involved in the ruse o f c i r c u m c i s i o n , Ch.245; cf. J. C. Greenfield - M . E. Stone, Remarks on the Aramaic Testament o f Levi f r o m the Geniza, RB 86 (1979) 214-230, esp.2l7f. Elsewhere it has a negative meaning, T R 6:5, TS 2:6, T G 7:4, T B 4:4, cf. CfjXoç in TR 3:5, 6:4, TS 2:7, 4:5.9, TJ 13:3 etc. Cf. I I o l l a n d c r - D e Jonge, Testaments, 147 ad V I : 3 ; P u m m e r , G c n . 3 4 , 180T.; Haupt, Testament, 24f. Charles, Jubilees, 183. 14

1 4 4

1 4 : )

1 4 6

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

41

147

and proved that i n the killing o f the Sichemites , and the same is true for the Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, which memorate that Simeon and Levi were moved by a great zeal, that they were exceedingly zealous . J u d i t h 9:4 attributes this zeal to all the sons o f Jacob, the beloved c h i l d r e n o f God, who were zealous with the zeal o f God, έζΥ\\ωσαν τ ό ν £ήλόι> σου, and by their action made clear how abominable the defilement had been, καΐ έ β δ ε λ ύ ξ α ν τ ο μ ί α σ μ α αίματος* α ύ τ ώ ^ . 148

149

24. The abomination Levi spoke o f his zeal on account o f the abomination that was performed i n Israel, or against Israel. Β δ έ λ υ γ μ α has been used to denote sexual offences in the cases o f Ruben and Bilha (TR 3:12), Juda and Thamar (TJ 12:8), on the prostitution of Jews with pagan women ( T D 5:5) , and with respect to idololatry (TZ 9:5). Sexual sins and idololatry are denoted that way i n Lev. 18 and 20. T h e w o r d docs not, however, occur i n the biblical narrative o f Gen.34, but it is found i n the NeoFiti Targum o f Gen.34:7, where the Tolly' ( ‫ — ) נ ב ל ה‬b e c a u s e they had w r o u g h t folly i n Israel—has been rendered w i t h ‫ ם ר ח ק א‬, *abomination*, where o t h e r Targums have r e n d e r e d ‫ נבלה‬with ‫קלנא‬, 'disgraceful act' ( T g O , T g J ) , cf. L X X : ά σ χ η μ ο ι ; . The idea o f foolishness present i n the Hebrew w o r d is rendered by the key w o r d o f Philo's exegesis αφροσύνη, cf. § 36. 1 5 0

151

I f Gen.34:7 was, indeed, the source for T L 6:3c, i t is advisable to read with the majority o f manuscripts i n Israel', and not, with c-hi-j/towards my sister' o f Charles's e d i t i o n . Charles defends his text exactly with the same reference to Gen.34:7, assuming that the reading *in Israel' is a secondary variation due to this O T text. 4

152

1 4

' Pseudo-Philo, De Sampsone, 25, cd. F. Siegcrt, Drei hellenistisch-jüdische Predigten, T ü b i n g e n 1980, 67. G. F r i e d l ä n d e r , Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 287, 369. H a n h a r t , Judith, 105;6f. Cf. J u b . 3 0 : l 1-16, where p r o m i s c u i t y o f jews and pagans is described as a b o m i n a b l e to God and Israel, Charles, Jubilees, 181 f. Diez Macho, Neofiti I , 225; Aberbach-Grossfcld, o.e., 201; Ginsburger, o.e., 63. Ch.39:9 (app.: the other r e a d i n g 'may be due to G e n . x x x i v . 7 ) , cf. the translations o f Charles (308), Kee (790), Becker ( 5 1 , cf. n. 3b: c o n c e r n i n g the o t h e r readingr'Einfluss aus Gen.34,7'). 1 4 8

1 4 9

1 o ü

1 5 1

l a 2

42

Τ. BAARDA

O n e cannot see, how this could happen, since the L X X (άσχημοι/) differs from T L ( β δ έ λ υ γ μ α ) . T h e author rather used the biblical phrase 'an abomination i n Israel', whereas a copyist (or the author o f a recension) objected to the idea that the incident happened in Israel (έν taken i n its local sense ), and therefore corrected the passage into a text which explicitly told what had happened: it was done to Levi's sister. 153

IV 25. The Revenge 154

T h e divine order to execute vengeance was meant for Shechem, w h o had p e r f o r m e d the scandalous act. Shechem, however, dragged others down i n his fall. First o f all his father H e m o r , the chief o f the city (Gen.33:19, 34:2), as can be seen already i n T L 2:2: ...ότε έττοίησα μετά Σιμεών την έκδίκησιν‫״‬.άττό του Έμμώρ..., a phrase which underlines the initiative o f Levi. He takes Simeon along with h i m to act i n his revenge. Afterwards, i t turns out that it is actually Simeon w h o slew H e m o r (cf.§ 28) N o t o n l y Shechem a n d H e m o r became victims o f the r a i d , b u t all the inhabitants o f the city became involved in the p u n i s h m e n t ( c f § 29). T h i s is already i m p l i e d i n a phrase that occurs i n the narrative o f the heavenly vision, 5:4, w h i c h asks for closer examination. 26. A parenthesis? 1. Unexpectedly, just after the c o m m a n d to punish Shechem, the text reads (5:4a): καΐ συνετέλεσα τ ω καιρώ έκεινω τους νιους Έμμώρ, a phrase that reminds us o f an addition to 12:5 i n the Aramaic text, 'when I k i l l e d Shechem and finished off the workers of violence . 155

1 5 3

T h e a u t h o r may have taken i t in the sense 'die sic an Israel v e r ü b t e n * (Schnapp). T h e t e r m £KS(KTfcrL9 is the key w o r d here, 2:2, 3:2f., 5:3; cf. J u d i t h 9:2, Joseph a n d Aseneth 23:14, and Jub.30:18. Ch.254, B o d l . F r a g m . c o l . c : l 7 f . 1 5 4

1 5 5

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

43

T h e words o f this a d d i t i o n , *<‫וגמרת לעבדי חם‬0, differ from the Greek text i n the object (= ‫)לבני חמור‬, but agree i n the verb, ‫ = גםרח‬uvuereXeua. Only, i n the context o f chapter 12, the past tense is understandable, whereas i n 5:4 the aorist can only surprise us, 2. O n e may question, whether the speaker is Levi. T h e phrase i m m e d i a t e l y follows the angel's p r o n o u n c e m e n t that he w i l l assist Levi, since God has sent h i m . T h e logical inference w o u l d be that the angel is the subject o f the phrase. But then the question is: w h e n d i d the angel k i l l the Sichemites? D i d the revenge which Levi had to execute already take place as a foreshadowing in the celestial spheres. But what does 'at that time* mean i n that case? O r should one read Kal uvvreXeuoj with Ms./, cf. also Arm-a: 'and I will cut (them) d o w n ' . T h e n it is obvious that the angel w o u l d act at the same time that Levi w o u l d carry out the order. However, the future tense is most probably a later correction o f the difficult aorist. 1 5 6

157

158

3. T h e usual interpretation, that i t is Levi who speaks h e r e , seems to be preferable. Then the aorist implies that what Levi says here is to be taken as a parenthesis . Levi interrupts his account of the vision to make clear to his c h i l d r e n that he—as already indicated i n 2:2—had carried out his task. A t that time' refers i n that case to the day o f revenge. T h i s seems m o r e likely than considering the possibility that the author wanted to say that Levi, in the spirit, had already principally finished o f f the adversaries at the m o m e n t o f the angelic command, 4. T h e 'sons o f H e m o r ' is a biblical phrase. I n Gen,33:19, Jacob having arrived at the city of Shechem bought a piece o f land from the sons o f H e m o r , the father o f Shechem, cf. also Josh.24:32. I t may denote H e m o r ' s subjects, the citizens o f Shechem, cf. ‫אנשי‬ ‫ חמור‬i n Judg. 9:28, 'the men o f H e m o r , the father o f Shechem'. 159

4

1

Stone, Testament, 139 tr.; 138: ew es kotorec'ic\ Arm-{3 is dubious, cf. Stone, 7 1 , n. ad V:4. O n e m i g h t consider the possibility that the a u t h o r drew on a Hebrew source w i t h a p e r f e c t u m consecutivum, w h i c h he r e n d e r e d w i t h an aorist instead o f a future tense. Cf. e.g., De Jonge, Notes, in Studies, 260; H o l l a n d e r ‫ ־‬D e Jonge, Testa­ ments, 143f. Ms. k omits the sentence. As far as I see, nobody has suggested that Lhis was an early gloss. o.c,

1 : j 8

l y 9

44

T . BAARDA

T h e S e p i u a g i n t r e a d i n g o f the passage i n Josh.24 has τ ω ν Άμορραίων τ ω ν κατοικούντων ev Σικίμοις. This is a confusion o f ‫ בני חמור‬and the Amorites (‫)אמרי‬, which c o u l d have been suggested by Gen. 48:22, where Joseph is presented w i t h a ' p o r t i o n ' (‫)שכם‬ 'which—Jacob says—I took out o f the h a n d o f the Amonte with my sword and my bow'. I n one o f the midrashic e x p o s i t i o n s the p o r t i o n ' is identified as the city o f Shechcm, the A m o r i t e being H e m o r the father o f Shechcm, because the Hevites were to be reckoned among the A m o r i t e s . 160

4

161

27. The heavenly tablets T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 5:4a is h a v i n g some i m p a c t o n the understanding o f 5:4b, καθώς* γέγραττται kv τοχς πλαξί των ουρανών, as i t is w r i t t e n i n the tablets o f heaven'. What d i d the author understand by these tables? 1. The more obvious interpretation is that Levi refers to heavenly records, i n which God's decrees with respect to past and future o f his creation arc inscribed and fixed . 'Heavenly tablets' are also m e n t i o n e d i n the retelling o f the Shechem episode of Jub.30. O n these tables the good deeds o f men such as Levi (30:19f.) and the other sons of Jacob (30:23) are recorded, but also the evil deeds which effected the destruction o f the evil-doers (30:22). This is true for the Sichemites i n particular, 'for j u d g m e n t is o r d a i n e d i n heaven against them'(30:5) . So it is possible that Levi, o f w h o m the author o f Joseph and Ascneth says that as a wise man a n d p r o p h e t saw the writings i n h e a v e n ' , referred here to these heavenly records, cf, T A 7:5. I n this interpretation the reference means that the act o f Levi was decreed by the foreordaining will of God. 2. T h e p r o b l e m is, however, that Levi i n this parenthetical 4

162

1 6 3

4

164

1 6 0

F r c c d m a n , Midrash Kabbah Genesis I I , 943f. The A r m e n i a n version o f T L 2:2, V I : 4 — n o t V:4—has also A m o r i t e s , cf. Stone, Testament, 56, 74, 132, 140. Cf. Kee (790n.) w h o adopts this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a l t h o u g h he adopts a different text. Cf. Charles, jubilees, 1 8 3 1 1 8 0 ,.‫־‬. Joseph and Ascneth 22:13, tr. B u r c h a r d (Joseph und Aseneth, 703, n . l 3 b ) . 1 6 1

1 6 2

1 6 3

1 6 4

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

45

sentence refers to the past ( a o n ) . He does n o t say that he w o u l d destroy the people o n the basis o f the heavenly records, but he seems to refer to documents o f which his c h i l d r e n could know: I have finished them off, as you may know from the records. Just as the heavenly tables i n T A 2:10 seem to refer to the command­ ments o f the Mosaic l a w , they may here refer to the history as d o c u m e n t e d i n the story o f Genesis. T h i s may have been the o p i n i o n o f the author o f the so-called α-recension, represented i n ch-i-j, and followed by Charles i n his text: καθώ? γέγραττται έν TOLLS* ττλαξί τ ω ν π ά τ ε ρ ω ν . T h e tablets o f the F a t h e r s ' are clearly a secondary interpretation o f the heavenly tablets. Even i n the Book of Jubilees the heavenly tablets sometimes seem to refer to the heavenly will o f G o d as expressed i n the written law, for example against promiscuity of Jews and pagans (30:9, l l f . ) , 165

1 6 6

167

3. There is an ambiguity i n the expression. One cannot deny the possibility that the law and history o f the Mosaic books are referred to. T h e mere fact that these Scriptures were n o t yet written i n the time o f Levi and his children cannot be a conclu­ sive a r g u m e n t against this idea. T h e a u t h o r may have h a d a different understanding o f the growth o f tradition that lies b e h i n d the written records o f Moses. I n Jub.30:21, the author says that God has written down everything for Moses to say it to the people o f Israel, and to this belongs the history o f the Sichemites (30:12) which G o d wrote for h i m i n the words o f the Law', so that Moses c o u l d testify about i t to Israel. This Law is different f r o m the heavenly tablets (30:19, 2 2 f . ) i n which sins and good deeds are recorded. O n e may assume the possibility that the author o f the Testaments had the view that the records o f the people were already w r i t t e n before Moses wrote them down. T h e r e was, at least, already a tradition that had been written down, cf. T Z 9:5 . 1

1 6 8

169

Cf. Exod.24:12, 32:15f. Deut.9:9.11.15; c-h-i-j have kv raïs TrXa^l T C J U evrohZv here. Ch.38:2-4, followed by Kee ( a l t h o u g h he i n t e r p r e t s i t differently) and Becker; Charles renders here s u r p r i s i n g l y w i t h 'heavenly tablets', b u t cf. his n o t e . Cf. T Z 9:5. Charles, Jubilees, 180f.,182. Cf. Mollander-De Jonge, Testaments, 39f. 1 6 5

;

1 6 6

1 6 7

1 6 8

1 6 9

46

Τ. B A A R D A

2 8. The A Hack of Levi a ?id Simeon

1. T h e first military operations were p e r f o r m e d by Levi and Simeon. T h e heavenly order was to deal w i t h Shechem, and so he d i d (12:5): ...δτε ά π έ κ τ ε ι ν α τ ό ν Σ υ χ έ μ , cf. the Aramaic text: [ ,‫ כ ד י קתליח אנהלט]כם‬w h e n I killed S h e c h e m ' , This had been said i n 6:4, where Levi tells his c h i l d r e n : κάγώ άνειλον τ ό ν Συχέμ εν πρώτοις» και Συμεών τόν Έμμώρ. Lew takes the initiative and Simeon follows h i m . This is different from the biblical account, 'and o n the t h i r d day, when they were sore, two o f Jacob's sons, Simeon and Levi, ...took their swords and came u p o n the city unawares, and k i l l e d all the males. They slew also Hemor and Shechem.. .with the edge o f the sword' (Gen,34:25f). The author of T L concluded from the order o f the names that Simeon k i l l e d H e m o r , Levi Shechem; the fact that Levi killed Schechem first is due to the role which the author gave Levi in this Testament. 4

170

1 7 1

2. This order differs from other retellings. Demetrius writes, έζαλλομένους- 86 τους Ι σ ρ α ή λ υ10ύς\ Συμεώνα μεν..., ΛευΙν δ έ . ‫ ״‬, άποκτεϊναι τόν τ ε Έμμώρ καΐ Σ υ χ έ μ τόν υίόν αύτοΰ και πάντας τους* άρσενας*... , a text w h i c h closely follows the b i b l i c a l w o r d i n g here. Thcodolus relates—according to the quotation from Alexander Polyhistor in Eusebius—the attack in this way: τ ό ν οϊιν Λευίν teal τ ό ν Συμεώνα είς‫ ־‬τ η ν TTOXLV καθωπλίσμένους* έλθεΐν καΐ πρώτα μεν τους έντυγχάνοντας* άναιρεΐν, έ π ε ι τ α δε καΐ τόν Έμμώρ καΐ τ ό ν Συχέμ φ ο ν ε υ σ α ι . A t first sight, this seems to suggest that Levi took the initiative, being the first one m e n t i o n e d here, whereas the parallelism seems to imply that Levi k i l l e d H e m o r and Simeon Sichem. However, the following quotation from the poem o f Theodotus itself makes it clear, that Simeon started the battle— Ως τότε δή Συμεών μεν Έμώρ ώρουσεν έ π ' αυτόν πλήξε τέ οί κεφαλήν...— whereas Levi is m e n t i o n e d as second attacker— τόφρα δέ καΐ ΛευΙν μένος- ά σ χ ε τ ο ς — , who dealt with Shechem— . . . Σ υ χ έ μ ά σ π ε τ α μαργήναντα. ήλασε δε κληΐδα μέσην, δυ δέ ξίφος οξύ σπλάγχνα κ τ λ . 1 7 2

175

1 Ή

'° 7 1

'

2

/ 3

7 4

Cf. J.39:5f.; Ch. 52:5f.; and Ch. 254, Bodl. Fragm. c o l . d : l 7 . L X X : dcrfjX6oy e‫׳‬L9 rr\v TT6XLL>, cf. Ms.d, Kai elacXGwv eyco... Demetrius, in Eusebius, Praep.Evang IX,21.9, ed. Mras, o.e., 510:1-3. Theodotus, in Eusebius, Praep.Evang. IX,22.10, cd. Mras, o.e., 515:23. Ibid., I X , 2 2 . 1 1 , ed. Mras, o.e., 516:1-7; cf. P. W. van der Horst, Joods-

T H E SI-IECHEM E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

47

3. T h e Testament o f Levi and Theodotus relate that Levi a n d Simeon restricted themselves i n the k i l l i n g o f H e m o r and Shechem, contrary to the biblical narrative. This latter text is followed by Demetrius, w h o says that they also k i l l e d all the m e n o f the city, as does, for example, the text i n Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer, *and each man—that is Simeon and Levi—took his sword and slew all the m e n o f S h e c h e m ' . 175

29. The other sons of Jacob 1. T L 6:5 relates how the other sons o f Jacob were involved i n the attack against the Sichemites. They came after the k i l l i n g o f the chief and his son: καΐ μ ε τ ά τ α ΰ τ α έλΒόντες ol αδελφοί έ π ά τ α ξ α ν τήι> πάλιν kv στόματί ρομφαίας This is different from the biblical account, i n which the brothers came u p o n the slain and p l u n d e r e d the city (Gen.34:27-29). T L combines the fact that the brothers entered ( L X X : ot δέ υιοί Ι α κ ώ β ε ί σ η λ θ ο ν ) and ransacked the city ( L X X : rf\v πάλιν) with a textual e l e m e n t b o r r o w e d from the episode i n w h i c h only Levi and Simeon figured (34:26), w i t h the edge o f the sword ( L X X : kv στόματί μαχαίρας·) . 4

1

176

2. As far as I can sec T L is unique in presenting this state o f affairs. T h e H e b r e w text is followed by the Targums, and by Jubilees, cf. Jub.30:4, Simeon and Levi...slew all the m e n w h o m they f o u n d i n i t and left n o t a single r e m a i n i n g i n i t ' . Deme­ trius ascribes to Simeon and Levi also the k i l l i n g o f the males inhabitants (πάντας τους άρσενας*) . Alexander Polyhistor tells us that Simeon and Levi k i l l e d those w h o m they met o n their way (τους- βντυγχάνοντες), and after that H e m o r and Shechem. I n a quotation from the original poem o f Theodotus i t is said that Simeon k i l l e d H e m o r , and after that still others (lit. έ π ε ί πόνος 1

1 7 7

178

hellenistische Poezie, 66f. F r i e d l ä n d e r , Pirqe, 288 (ch.38), cf. ibid., 369. Gen.34:26 is the first verse in which the expression ‫ לפי חרב‬occurs. T h e L X X w o r d i n g w i t h p.axa(pa is found in all Mss. o f T L except for Ms. b I 771. Sec for the sword Jub.30:5f., J u d i t h 9:2, Joseph and Aseneth 23:13. Charles, Jubilees, 180; cf. Jub.30:5, 17, 18. Demetrius, i n Eusebius, Praep. Evang. IX,21.9, ed. Mras, o.e., 510:2f. 1 7 5

1 7 6

1 7 7

1 7 8

48

T . BAARDA

dXXos* 6pu>pet). I n the paraphrase o f Alexander Polyhistor, again, we are told that afterwards the other brothers came and assisted Simeon and Levi i n their action, but then i t is clear that they m a i n l y destroyed (eKTTopSTfcrcu) the city and took the b o o t y . Josephus reports that the two sons came and first (TrpoixoL^) k i l l e d the guards i n their sleep, then all other men (i\du appev), includ­ i n g the k i n g and his s o n . I n Pseudo-Philo a similar account is found, c t ingressi sunt filii Iacob, Simeon et Levi, et interfecerunt civitatcm e o r u m i n ore g l a d i i * . A n d i n a treatise De Sampsone, ascribed to Philo, the k i l l i n g o f the Sichcmitcs is also attributed to Simeon and L e v i , It seems to be also the assumption o f the author o f Joseph and Asencth that Levi and Simeon d i d all the killing. 1 7 9

180

l

181

1 8 2

3. T L docs n o t give the n u m b e r o f those who were slain. I n Joseph and Ascneth 23:2, the son o f Pharao acknowledges the strength o f Simeon and Levi, who had destroyed the city o f the S i c h c m i t c s a n d slew w i t h t h e i r two swords t h i r t y t h o u s a n d soldiers . One might be tempted to find a clue i n the Testaments, when one hears, i n TJ 4:1, Judah say, ' I n the south there came u p o n us a greater war than that in Shechem\ Docs this refer to the episode reported i n TL? I n that case the n u m b e r w o u l d be m u c h smaller than that given i n Joseph and Asencth, for i n i n that greater war Judah and the others pursued a thousand m e n and k i l l e d two h u n d r e d o f them, and destroyed four k i n g s ' . How­ ever, it is more plausible that TJ 4:1a deals with a battle that has been reported i n TJ 3:1-10, where the war is said to have been waged against the kings o f the Canaanitcs, a war that has been connected with Shcchem elsewhere (Gen.48:22, cf. §§ 26.30). 183

18

1 / 9

1

T h e o d o t u s , in Euscbius, Praep. Evang. I X , 22.10, ed. Mras, o.c, 515:22; IX,22.11 (516:3) and ibid. (516:8f.). Josephus, Antiquiiales, I , 340 ( x x i : l ) , cd. Thackeray, o.c, 162:18-23. Pseudo-Philo, Lib.AnUlibL 8:7, ed. Risch, o.c, 134:6-8. [Pseudo-j Philo, De Sampsone 25, ed, E, Siegert, o.c, 67. B u r c h a r d , Joseph and Aseneih, 704. J.55:3-5. 1 8 0

1 8 1

1 8 2

1 8 3

1 8 4

49

T H E S U E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

V 30, The reaction of Jacob 1. The reaction o f Jacob has been recorded i n T L 6:6: καΐ ήκουσεν ό πατήρ and father heard < o f i t > καΐ ώργίσθη καΐ έλυττη&η... and became angry and grieved.,. This is an echo o f Gen.34:7, where i t is said that the sons o f Jacob came back from the field; when they heard o f i t (‫)כשמעם‬, the m e n were grieved (‫ )ויתעצבו‬and they became very angry (‫)ויחר ל ד ם מאד‬. However, this grief and anger were caused by the defilement o f Dinah, but here, in the case of Jacob, it is anger and grief about the fact that they had taken revenge for that i n c i d e n t . I n the biblical text Jacob's reaction (Gen.34:30f.) betrays i n d i g n a t i o n caused by fear, but his words are merely i n t r o d u c e d by, 'and he said'. T h e r e t e l l i n g i n Jubilees (30:25) explicitly says that 'he reproached t h e m ' . Josephus also speaks o f Jacob's emotions, Ί α κ ώ β ω δέ έκπλαγ6ι>τι.‫״‬καΙ χαλεπαίνοντί πρ69 τ ο ύ ^ υΐού^, Jacob being aghast ... and i n d i g n a n t at his s o n s ' . The c o m b i n a t i o n o f anger and grief which we find i n T L is not unusual i n Greek t e x t s . 185

1 8 6

187

188

2. Jacob's curse o f the anger o f Simeon and Levi (Gen.49:7) is m e n t i o n e d i n Midrash Rabbah on this verse, b u t i n its comments o n Gen.48:22, i.e. the words o f Jacob, *moreover I have given to thee one Shcchem which I took out o f the h a n d o f the Amorites with my sword and my bow\ the exegesis o f R. Nechemya is presented: he applies this verse to the Shechem episode. O u r father Jacob had not desired his sons to perpetrate that deed
189

1 8 5

Charles, 370 note ad 3a, observes 'Yet Levi says "we s i n n e d " i n vi.7' this is a w r o n g contrast. Charles, Jubilees, 184. Josephus, Antiquitates, I , 341 (xxi:2), ed. Thackeray, o.c, 162:26f. Cf, J. Smit Sibinga, T o o r n en droeftieid i n Marcus 3:5, i n De Geest in het geding, Festschrift J. A. Oosterbaan, A l p h e n aan de Rijn 1978, 255-267, w h o collected about forty instances o f this k i n d , i n c l u d i n g T L V I : 6 . T r . Frecdman, Genesis Rabbah Genesis I I , 943f. 1 8 6

1 8 7

1 8 8

1 8 9

50

T. BAARDA

3 1 . The reason for Jacob's reaction 1. The reason for Jacob's anger and sadness has been described i n the following way (6:6b): 0Tt κατεδέξαντο τήν περίτομήν, καΐ μετά τούτο άττέθανον, because they had received circumcision, and after that they h a d been s l a i n ' . T h e i n d i g n a t i o n is understandable: the c i r c u m cision made them proselytes (cf. Exod.l3:43ff.), so they were k i n d o f Israelites now, and could not have been punished any more i n this way. T h i s is different from the biblical narrative, i n w h i c h Jacob is annoyed by the fact that his sons Simeon and Levi had b r o u g h t trouble on h i m by m a k i n g h i m odious to the inhabitants o f the country; he now fears a dangerous reaction o f these peoples: they m i g h t destroy his small family (Gen.34:30, cf. Jub.30:25L; cf. Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 38). Even Josephus, who actually d i d n o t make m e n t i o n o f the c i r c u m c i s i o n , tells us that Jacob was shocked 'at the enormity o f what had happened' (προς* τ ό μ έ γ ε θ ο ς τ ω ν γ ε γ ο ν ό τ ω ν ) , and implicitly tells us about the fear o f Jacob, w h e n he continues saying that G o d stood beside Jacob and e x h o r t e d h i m to take courage (ο θεός τταραστάς έκέλευσε θαρρεΐν) . 1

1 9 0

4

191

2. The moral side o f Jacob's anger is also found i n the curse o f Gen.49:6f., 'cursed be their anger, for it is fierce, their wrath, for it is extreme'. The Targums Jerusalem and Neofiti I repeat this, but they add to it an interesting feature: Jacob blames them o f n o t having taken i n t o consideration his h o n o u r ( ( ‫א י ק ר י‬ this a view similar to the one that we found i n TL? 1

9

2

32. The consequence of Jacob's anger and gtief 1. Jacob's anger and grief result i n t o a punishment o f the two sons (6:6c): καΐ έν ταις ε υ λ ο γ ί α ς άλλως έποίησεν, 1

1 J 0

1

Kcc's r e n d e r i n g and d i e ' ( H o l l a n d e r - D c Jongc: *had d i e d ' ) is too weak. Cf. *had been p u t to death (so Charles, De J o n g e ) , w h i c h renders CLTTo6uf|aiCQ} adequately, cf. LS, s.v. I I . Josephus, Antiquitalesl, 341 (xxi:2), ed. Thackeray, o.e., 162:26ff. Cins burger, Pseudo-Jonathan, 92; Diez Mac ho, Neofiti I, 329. 1

1 9 1

1 9 2

‫על‬

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

51

193

' a n d i n his blessings he made a c h a n g e ' , l i t . he made i t differently, apparently otherwise than he had p l a n n e d from the outset "Αλλω9 ποιεϊν is clear i n its meaning, but difficult to render: ' d i d inequitably' (Charles), "machte er es anders' (Schnapp), d i d otherwise' (Hollander-De Jonge), or paraphrasing, *he made an exception o f us among our brothers' (De Jonge). T h e blessings refer to the Gen.49, 1-28 (cf. TS 5:6). This passage ends with the remark that Jacob ευλόγησε!/ αυτούς, £καστον κ α τ ά τ ή ν εύλογίαν αυτού ευλογήσει/ α υ τ ο ύ ς ( L X X , vs,28)., neglecting the fact that there is m e n t i o n o f a curse i n the case o f Simeon and Levi: 'cursed (‫ארור‬, έπικατάρατο^) be their anger' ( v s , 7 ) l 2. I n the lext o f Charles we find the following reading: π α ρ ε ΐ δ ε ν ή μ ι ν , 'looked amiss upon us' (Charles), ü b e r s a h er uns' (Riessler, Becker), 'he passed us by' (Kee), in agreement with Mss. c-h-i-j. This phrase is apparently an explanatory variant o f the m o r e difficult text o f the other manuscripts . 1

19

4

195

33.

The sin of Levi and Simeon

As a matter o f fact, Leva acknowledges that something was w r o n g i n their action (6:7a): ήμάρτομεν γαρ, ÖTL παρά γνώμην αύτου τούτο ττεποιήκαμεν, 'For we sinned i n that we had done this against his w i l l ' . T h e narrator makes Levi emphasize the fact that Jacob had been honest i n the w h o l e affair. He d i d n o t p l a n the c i r c u m c i s i o n as a stratagem to destroy the Sichcmites. The raid at Shechem after the circumcision was something that w o u l d never have met with his approval. T h e reader knows also that Levi is also excused, since he not only had p e r f o r m e d a divine order, b u t — i f my view is correct (§§ 20.2, 2 2 ) — had also advised his father and brother that they should not require circumcision. God's vengeance was carried out 1 9 6

1 9 3

J.31:9, supported by the A r m e n i a n , cf. Stone, Testament, 141. T h e T a r g u m s TJ and T N e o f . change the text, so that the Shechem is cursed. Cf. Schnapp's c o m m e n t on his r e n d e r i n g 'machte es anders': 'Der Sinn ist: Er b e r ü c k s i c h t i g t e uns n i c h t bei seinem Segen...was auch eine H d s c h r ... liest . Ch.40:6f.: A L O T L ή μ ά ρ τ ο μ ε ν , ε π ε ι δ ή κ τ λ . with c-h-i-j. Ms,/ has only Ö T L ή μ ά ρ τ ο μ ε ν παρά γ ν ώ μ η ς αυτοΰ. 1 9 / 1

] 9 d

1

1 9 6

52

Τ. HAARDA

by them, b u t their father, who represents h u m a n morals here, condemned the attack. Therefore, the change i n the blessing was u n d e r s t a n d a b l e . T h e same idea is f o r m u l a t e d by Josephus, ττράξαντες δε ταύτα δίχα Ί Τ £ του πατρός* γ κ ο μ η ^ 1 9 7

34. The illness 1. A t this point there is a puzzling observation (6;7b): καίγε έμαλακίσθη εν τη ήμέρςι εκείνη. T h e first question is, what day Levi refers to. I f we take i t as referring to the day o f the assault, one m i g h t interpret the phrase i n the following ways: a) 'and he was sick on that d a y ' . I f this is the meaning, then we have here an excuse for Levi and Simeon. It is true that the raid was undertaken contrary to their father's i n t e n t i o n . B u t they d i d not have the o p p o r t u n i t y to consult h i m before they began with it, because he was i n bad health that specific d a y . One m i g h t read it then as a parenthesis. 198

199

200

b) 'and he became sick on that d a y ' . This would mean that Jacob became sick, when he heard about the atrocities against the circumcised people o f Shechem and the massacre, sick because he resented this very m u c h . I f we connect 'that very day' with the day that Jacob gave his blessings, Gen.49:1-28, then it may be interpreted as a parenthesis —and he had become sick on that day—', referring to Gen.48:21, 'and Israel said to Joseph: Look, I am going to die', and 49:1, *and Jacob called his sons...'. T h e illness explains why he gave his blessings to his sons at that time, or—as an excuse m e n t i o n e d by L e v i — being i l l while giving his blessings may have been one o f the causes that he changed the blessings o f Simeon and Levi, which was partly due to his bad state . 4

201

1 9 7

Josephus, Antiquitates, I , 3 4 1 ( x x i : l ) , cd. Thackeray, o.e., 162:24f. So e.g. Charles (308), Hollander-De Jonge (146), De Jonge (529). De Jonge, Notes, in Studies, 260, n.47, gives a variation o f this u n d e r (a) 'the last sentence in vs.7 explains why Jacob d i d n o t interfere w h e n his sons attacked Shechem', cf, H o l l a n d c r - D e Jonge, Testaments, 148. So e.g. Kee (790). Becker, Testaments, 5 1 : T a l i s cb u r s p r ü n g l i c h sind, m ü s s t e 6,7b Glosse sein oder A b b r e v i a t u r für e i n e n l ä n g e r e n T e x t z u s a m m e n h a n g , der n i c h t 1 9 8

1 9 9

2 0 0

2 0 1

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

53

2. However, there is another reading i n manuscripts {I dm e af καίγε έμαλακίσθην έν τ η ήμερα εκείνη, a n d I became sick o n that very d a y \ Levi was aware o f a c o n n e c t i o n between his sin and some illness that betook h i m o n the day o f the raid (cf. TR 1:8, έπραξα τό ΤΓονηρόν.‫״‬καΙ έμαλακίσθην 'έως θανάτου). O r i f the day o f the blessings is meant, the illness o f Levi was caused by the change o f the blessing o f Simeon and himself, since he felt responsible or because he felt this to be unjustified. I t is obvious that one cannot decide w i t h certainty w h i c h text is o r i g i n a l or what the m e a n i n g o f either variant reading is. My preference is the reading o f b and c , w h i c h often disagree, but confirm each other h e r e . 1

203

VI 35. Levi's reaction 1. Levi defends himself before his c h i l d r e n by referring to the fact that he had seen, i n the vision, that his action was i n conformity with the will o f God, 6:8-10, and that i n what he d i d God's anger had fallen u p o n the Sichemites, 5:11. W h a t may surprise us is the fact that he apparcndy d i d n o t speak to his father a b o u t the heavenly vision, w h e n he d e f e n d e d himself. H i s defence begins i n the following way, 7:1: καΐ είπε ν τω πατρΊ' μή όργί£ου, κύριε..., a n d I said to <my> father: "Be not angry, <my> L o r d " . . . ' . This i n t r o d u c t i o n reacts to what was said earlier, namely that Jacob had become angry (6:6, ώ ρ γ ί σ θ η ) , b u t there seems to be i n i t also a h i n t on what has been said about the οργή θεοΰ (6:11). This seems to me to be an argument in favour o f the text i n c l u d i n g μή όργίζου (contra Charles, cf. §§ 58.41). 1

204

m e h r b e k a n n t i s t \ My suggestions as to the m e a n i n g o f the text may demonstrate that this view is unnecessary. C o n t r a b and c, cf. έ μ α λ α κ ι σ θ ' o f g. T h i s is the r e a d i n g r e n d e r e d by Schnapp, Ricssler, Becker. Cf. M.dc Jonge (Ed.), Testaments, 183 w i t h preference for type I . Charles omits the words 'be n o t angry, L o r d ' w i t h c~h-i-j\ the o t h e r Mss. have it, partly w i t h μ ο υ a m, partly w i t h *Ιακώβ g α β e adds b o t h words here; Ch.41:5-7 is followed by Charles and Kee. 2 0 2

2 0 3

2 0 4

54

Τ.

BAAROA

2. T h e n Levi continues by giving the reason for this reaction. Jacob should understand that the Shechem massacre formed part of God's history o f salvation o f Israel: ότι ev σοΙ έξουδενώσει κύριος* τους• Χαναναίους-, *for t h r o u g h y o u the L o r d will annihilate the Canaanites'. T h e verb έξουδενόω = έξουθενόω 16:2; ΤΑ 7:2, T B 9:3, usually means 'to contempt, despise, treat with contempt' (so Schnapp, Becker); cf. Jub.30:4 (Lat.) . This verb is i n the L X X an equivalent o f Hebrew ‫ברז‬, ‫בזה‬, 'despise', οκη, *reject, despise', but also o f ‫ברם‬, 'tread, trample d o w n ' . T h e r e is, however, another i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , *bring to n o t h i n g ' (Kee), *set at naught' ( H o l l a n d e r - D e j o n g e ) , 'destroy' (De Jonge, Charles), *annihilate', which seems to me preferable to the r e n d e r i n g 'despoil' (Charles, R i c s s l c r ) . The a n n i h i l a t i o n o f the Canaanites enables the fulfilling o f the promises o f God: 2 0 5

2 0 6

207

καΐ δώσει τψ γψ αυτών σοι και τω σπέρματ'ι σου μ ε τ ά σου *and He will give their land to you and to your seed after y o u ' . T h i s f o r m u l a r e m i n d s us o f the promises given to A b r a h a m (Gen.12:17; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7), Isaac (26:3f.) and Jacob (28:4; 35:12). T h e promises to the Patriarchs can only be realized, i f the Canaanites, i n c l u d i n g the Hevites, are thrown out o f the country (Exod.33:lf.;Deut.4:37if.). 3. T h e reference to God's promises i n order to justify the massacre r e m i n d s us o f the heavenly oracle w h i c h — i n the description o f Theodotus —Simeon brought forward to persuade Levi. The line i n the poem, β λ ά π τ ε θεός- Σικίμων οίκήτορας\ is introduced as a divine word: Ευ γ α ρ ε γ ώ μυθόν <γε> π ε π υ σ μ έ ν ο ^ ειμί θεοιο* I δώσειν γ ά ρ π ο τ ' εφησε δεκ' έθνεα π α ι σ ί ν Α β ρ α ά μ , *1 have clearly heard a w o r d o f God: He said that once He w o u l d give ten peoples to the c h i l d r e n o f A b r a h a m ' , w h i c h i n the 208

2 0 9

Ricssler (1163), ' d u r c h rnich' {sic). Cf. Becker, Testament?, 5 1 , n.4b. Charles, Testaments, 308 introduces this m e a n i n g , but in his e d i t i o n (41app.) he defends the m e a n i n g 'destroy'; he assumes that the o r i g i n a l text read ‫ יבוס‬or ‫יבוז‬. check 208 T h e o d o l u s , in Euscbius, Praep.Evang. IX,22.9, ed. Mras, ox., 515, rcsp. 17 and 13f. Collins, T h e Epic, 95 lakes t_he verb as an imperative, an appeal to C o d to destry the Sichcmites, but this is impossible i f it is to be taken as a divine oracle; it is an epic imperfect, cf. Pummer, Genesis 34, 183» n.17. 2 0 6

2 0 9

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

55

paraphrase o f Alexander Polyhistor is seen as an oracle (λόγιοι/) that said that God had decided to give these peoples to the descen­ d a n t o f the patriarch, which Simeon could p r o d u c e . 210

36. Shechem, the city of fools 1. Levi continues by saying that t h e i r action has shown the foolishness o f the city (7:2a): εσται γαρ από σήμερον Σικίμα λεγομένη πόλις- ασύνετων, Tor from this day forward Shechem shall be called City o f Imbeciles'. I n fact, they were already fools, so that the action i n itself was a reaction to their foolishness (2b): δτι ώσεί ης χλευάσαι μωρόΐΛ Tor just as someone mocks at a fool, ούτως* έχλευάσαμεν αυτούς... so d i d we mock at them . , . ' T h e r e are many textual variations i n this verse . Ms. b may have preserved the original reading w i t h the optative m o o d , χ λ ε υ ά σ α ι . T h e marginal reading o f h/ίσωςδ τ ι ώ^ έχλεύασαν ή μ ά ς \ οΰτως* έ χ λ ε υ ά σ α μ ε ι / αυτούς*, is an interesting conjecture, which sees i n the crime against D i n a h a mockery against Jacob's family, but i t fails the interesting comparison that has been made in the text o f b. The successful action o f Levi and Simeon makes i t once and for all clear that the Sichemites were fools. This foolishness was clear already i n the seduction o f Dinah (3): OTL καίγε άφροούι/ην έπραξαν έν Ισραήλ, μιάναι τ ή ν άδελφήν ημών, 'since, indeed, they c o m m i t t e d a folly i n Israel, by defiling our sister' . This is a reminiscence o f Gen.34:7, 'for he accomplished 211

212

213

2 1 0

Eusebius, o.e., IX,22,8, cd.Mras, o.e., 515:10F.; άναίρεω means 'to o r d a i n , p r o c l a i m an oracle' and has λ ό γ ι ο ι as object; Riessler (1265) renders i t as 'to k i l l ' : ' i n d e m er einen Spruch vorbrachte, w o n a c h Gott den N a c h k o m m e n A b r a h a m s zehn I I c i d c n v ö l k c r zur V e r n i c h t u n g ü b e r g ä b e ' . Cf.Jub.30:4 (see § 5). J.32:9; Gh. 40:8f. (χλευάσει w i t h cafgtei); the word μωρό ν is wrongly w r i t t e n as -μερον after the verbal e n d i n g -σαι or -creL: σ ή μ ε ρ ο ν /, σείμερον h-j (<τει μερον i). ^ J.32:10f.; Ch.42:lf., w h o reads μιάναντες o f c-h-i-j g I d m e a f w h i c h may have preserved here the o r i g i n a l text. See for the difficulty to establish the r e a d i n g , De Jongc, Testaments (1978), 183; H o l l a n d c r - D e Jongc, Testaments, 147, prefer the reading μιάναι (μιάναντες gives a smoother t e x t ' ) . 2 1 1

2 1 2

2 1

1

56

T . BAARDA

folly (‫ )נבלה‬by laying with Jacob's daughter', and i n its translation with αφροσύνη independent from the L X X (άσχημον έ π ο ί η σ ε ν ) . The idea o f folly is also expressed in Philo's c o m m e n t , w h i c h says that Shechcm had practised folly ( ά φ ρ ο σ ύ ν η ν ) , when he tried to c o r r u p t and defile the j u d g m e n t faculties o f understanding, that is: D i n a h . 2. There is an interesting parallel i n Sirach 50:25f. : (a) εν δυσίν εθνεσιν προσώχθισεν ή φνχτ\ μου, (b) καΐ τ δ τρίτον ουκ εστίν £θνο?‫׳‬ (c) οί κα&ήμενοι εν δρει Σαμάρειας καΐ Φυλιστιίμ, (d) καΐ δ λαος δ μωρός- δ κάτοικων έν Σικίμοις\ The text o f the Scptuagint may surprise us i n that i t refers b o t h to Samaria and Shechcm, as i f it deals with two nations. Apparently, the disgust o f the translator against the Samaritans was so vehem e n t that he changed Hebrew ‫ שעיר‬i n t o S a m a r i a . O r i g i n a l l y , the Edomitcs were meant. We have here an echo o f Deut.32:21. W h e n Sirach speaks o f Shechem as a non-nation (cf. Hebrew: ‫איננו‬ ‫ ) עם‬and o f a foolish people (‫)נוי נבל‬, he uses the designations with w h i c h God once had confronted Israel: the stubborn people o f Israel w o u l d become jealous t h r o u g h a n o n - n a t i o n (‫ ל א עם‬, ο υ κ εθνει) and an imbecile people (‫גוי נבל‬, εθνει ά σ υ ν έ τ ω ) . A l t h o u g h in D e u t e r o n o m i u m the Babylonians are meant, one cannot deny the possibility that Sirach has alluded to its w o r d i n g and applied i t to the people o f the Samaritan S h e c h e m . Is i t possible that the author o f the Testament o f Levi alludes here to the Sirach t e x t ? 214

215

216

2 1 7

218

219

2

M

P h i l o , Migr.Abr. 224, c d . Colson-Whitaker, Philo I V , 264:5-9; cf. Mut. Nom. 197, V, 242:25. J. Zicglcr, Sapientia Jesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta X I I : 2 ) , G o t t i n g e n 1965, 361; cf. P. C. Becntjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach, Nieuwegein 1981, 169-171, for its setting. Cf. also J. D, Purvis, Ben Sira and the foolish People o f Shechem, JNES 24 (1965) 88-94, for an attempt to f i n d a historical setting o f the two verses. Cf. also Haupt, Testament, 26. For Seir, cf. I I . L . Strack, Die Sprüche Jesu', des Soh?1es Siraclis, Leipzig 1903, 54, cf. the reading o f the text o f Symmachus: èv 5^tp, and L a t i n : in monte Seir. ‫ י‬àuvvzTOÇ and ^itopoç arc synonyms a n d r e n d e r ‫ נ ב ל‬here, ‫ ש כ ל‬or ‫ס כ ל‬ elsewhere. Becntjes, Jesus Sirach, 171, denies any r e l a t i o n s h i p due to the different contexts, hut i n t e r l c x t u a l i t y does not require similar contexts, M . de Jonge, Notes, in: Studies, 260, V1i.2a alludes to Sir.1.26'. 2 1 D

2 1 6

2 1

2 1 8

2 1 9

T H E S H E C II EM E P I S O D E I N T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

57

O r was i t an existing typology o f the Samaritans among the Jews, based o n Deut.32:21, that has been used both i n Sirach and TL? 3. T h e r e may have been also a p u n o n the name H e m o r i n these texts, since Έ μ μ ώ ρ lends itself to an identification with μωρό$\ ‫ חמור‬to an identification with ‫חמור‬, 'ass*. O n e may compare here the exegesis o f Philo: Shechem, being the son o f H e m o r , was practising folly, for H e m o r means ass (καλείται γ α ρ Έμώρ δι/ο?). Shechem is contrasted, therefore, with Simeon and Levi who are the representatives o f φρόι^ησι^. H e is a son o f άνοια, since his father's name is translated with *ass' . Those who tried to seduce Dinah are ά φ ρ ο ν ε ς . 220

221

3Ί. The result of the action—Dinah home again 1. T h e r e t u r n i n g o f Dinah from Shechem has been o m i t t e d i n many manuscripts o f T L . That is the reason why Charles read as text merely the words (7:4): αμάραντες δέ ήλθομει> εις Β6θήλ, 'and we departed and came to B e t h e l ' . This departure to Bethel is r e f e r r i n g to the biblical narrative, Gen.35:6, c f Jub.31:2. O n e should expect, however, that m e n t i o n was made o f the rescue o f Dinah. As a matter o f fact, i n the recent edition such a reference is found i n the t e x t : (a) καΐ λαβό1/τε? έκαθ6ν τ ή ν αδελφή!/ ημών (b) άπάραντβς ήλθομεν εις Βεθήλ. *We took o u r sister from there, departed and came to Bethel'. This must have been the original wording, whereas the text o f Charles was caused by parablepsis (ημών [3b in /m^]...ημών [4a in fine]). O n e cannot miss any m e n t i o n i n g of the return o f Dinah for w h o m the battle was fought. What may surprise us is that the whole family is involved i n b r i n g i n g D i n a h back home, for one s h o u l d have 222

223

2 2 0

Philo, Migr.Abr. 224, 223, c d . Colson-Whitaker, Philo I V , 264:4-7; ‫־‬264:1 264:9 ;4ff. Philo, MuLNomA^, ed. Colson-Whitaker, Philo V, 2 4 0 : l 6 f , 20, cf. ibid., 195, Philo V, 242:9f. Ch.42:2f.(cf. ch-j I d m a/). H e is followed i n the translations o f Charles (308), Riessler (1163), Kee (790), Becker ( 5 2 ) . J . 3 2 : 1 1 f. ( = b); so S c h n a p p . T h e l o n g e r text is also f o u n d i n Lhe manuscripts e (+ Livav, v.L ^TTdpairres*) cn g (- tKeZOev; airdpavres)

2 2 1

2 2 2

2

2

3

58

Τ. BAARDA

expected that Levi w o u l d have done this i n view o f the way he figures i n T L . Now, the author partly followed the w o r d i n g o f the biblical narrative, Gen.34:26; 35:5f., but deviates from i t i n certain respects. 2. The w o r d i n g o f T L 7:4 reminds us o f the L X X : (34:26) και £λα3ον τ ή ν Δίναν εκ του οίκου του Συχέμ καΐ εξηλθον (35:5) καΐ έ&ηρεν Ισραήλ έκ Σικιμών (6) ήλθε ν δε Ιακώβ εις Λούζα.,.ή έστιν Βαιθήλ, I n spite o f this agreement, there is a difference i n order. I n Genesis, Simeon and Levi b r i n g Dinah back home, before the other brothers came and despoiled the city. I n T L the r e t u r n o f D i n a h is postponed u n t i l a later stage o f the story. O n e m i g h t receive the same impression from the narrative i n Jubilees: 30:4, the extirpation o f the city is told long before the r e t u r n o f D i n a h (30:24a); however, even here the talc o f Dinah's home-coming is f o u n d before the raid o f the other brothers (24b), i n agreement with the biblical text. The texts o f Josephus ( έ π α ν ά γ ο υ σ ι τ ή ν ά δ ε λ φ ή ν ) and P s e u d o ‫ ־‬P h i l o (et Dinam sororem suam acceperunt et exiem?it inde) do not give us a decisive clue, since they do n o t report the robbery by the other brothers, but i t is probable that they followed the biblical order o f the story . ,

,

224

3. There is one author who sides with T L 7:4, Theodotus: he amply describes the way i n w h i c h S i m e o n a n d Levi k i l l e d H e m o r and S h e c h e m , then he relates—according to the para­ phrase o f Alexander Polyhistor—that, *when the other brothers h e a r d about their action, they came to t h e i r assistance, a n d pillaged the city, rescued their sister—και τ ή ν άδελφήν άναρρυ‫־‬ σ α μ έ ν ο υ ^ — a n d brought her back together with the captives to her fadieTs f a r m ' 225

2 2 6

2 2 4

Josephus, Anliquitates, 1,340 ( x x i : l ) , cd. Thackeray, o.e., 162:15; PscudoPhilo, Lib.Ant.ßibt.S:7 cd. Kisch, o.e., 134:7f. Josephus attributes the k i l l i n g o f all m e n to Levi a n d S i m e o n , expressly stating that they spared the w o m e n ; the biblical account relates that the w o m e n were taken captive by the other brothers. T h e o d o t u s , in Eusebius, Praep.Evang. IX,22.10f., ed. Mras, o.e., 515:21fr, 516:1-7. Theodotus, i n Eusebius, o.e. I X . 2 2 . I 2 , ed. Mras, o.e., 516:9f. t

2 2 d

2 2 6

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T OF L E V I

59

VII 38.

The Wrath of the Lord has come upon them...

1. T h e similarity between 1 Thess. 2:16c and T L 6:11 was the occasion for my comments u p o n the whole Shechem episode i n the Testament o f Levi. So we cannot finish our study before having given attention to the problems which have been caused by the obvious relation between these two verses. However, before we can discuss the relationship, we have to examine first the form of the text i n the Testament. This is necessary, because there are i n the two editions that we have taken notice o f i n this study remarkable differences: De J o n g c

Charles

έφθασε δε

1 έφθασε δε 2 αυτούς ή οργή του θεοΰ ή οργή κυρίου 3 4 έττ' αυτούς ε ι ς τέλος ε ι ς τέλος 5 Charles's text is followed by Kee ( b u t the wrath o f God ultimately came upon them') and Becker (Jedoch der Z o r n Gottes kam ganz u n d gar ü b e r sie'). Charles himself, however, renders, b u t the w r a t h o f the L o r d came u p o n them to the u t t e r m o s t ' . His uncertainty about his own text was already clear from his i n t r o ­ duction to the text, since he assumed that 6TT' was probably o m i t t e d in the a-recension t h r o u g h a simple scribal error. The text o f the so-called ß - r c c e n s i o n was followed by Sinker, Schnapp, Riesslcr . 2. The constant elements i n all manuscripts are lines 1 (except for d 8td TOÜTO C(f>öaoe) and 5. As to order and form there are the following discrepancies i n lines 2-4: 4

4

227

228

y

2 2 7

Charles, Testaments, 308; cf. Ch.xliv, where he follows the other text, but maintains ' o f G o d ' . R. Sinker, T h e Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs, in A. C. Coxe (ed.), Ante-Nicene Library V I I I (repr. Grand Rapids 1975), 14; Schnapp, Testamente, 467; Riesslcr, Schrifttum, 1163. 2 2 8

60

Τ. BAARDA

ή όργή κυρίου έττ' αυτούς bI έττ' αυτούς- ή όργή κυρίου dgm αυτούς· ή όργή κυρίου af e α υ τ ο ύ ς ή όργή του θεου c There is a difficulty with h-i-j, which usually share the reading o f c, and form a separate recension with it. F r o m the apparatus o f Charles one m i g h t conclude that h-i agree with c, except for the omission o f α υ τ ο ύ ς . De Jonge's apparatus seems to suggest that h-ij differ from c i n reading ή όργή του θεοΰ έττ' αυτούς- . 3. I t is most likely that the original text contained the words the wrath of the Lord \ attested in both families: the alternatives are not W a n d c> but W a n d d g m (af e) . The p u n i n 7:1, μή όργί£ου, κύριε, although absent from c-h-i-J may be an argument i n favour o f the reading i n b I d gm a f e. There is reason to assume that the reading with the preposition ε π ί , present i n both families (b I d g m) and i n the A r m e n i a n (y veray), was original. M o r e difficult is the decision, where actually the words έττ' αυτούς- were f o u n d . The reading w i t h o u t the preposition, whether the result o f careless scribes or not, suggest that one understood φθάνω (c. acc.) to mean a n t i c i p a t e . However, the preceding verdicts o n the Sichemites tell us that the divine wrath was the result o f their own practices, so that the r e a d i n g *came upon them is to be prefered to a translation like 'the w r a t h o f the Lord..has forestalled t h e m c o m p l e t e l y ' , i n which the verb becomes almost a synonym o f h i n d e r ' (cf. έκώλυσεν i n T L 6:8c). The wrath o f the L o r d came 229

230

1

2M

2 3 2

4

1233

T

2 3 4

1

2 2 9

2 3 5

Ch.32 app,: α (save that h omits α υ τ ο ύ ς ) , cf. Ch.296 A p p . V I ; i f this is correct, its text w o u l d read ' b u t the wrath o f God reached the e n d ' . J.32 app.—the apparatus is not clear here, for one m i g h t conclude from i t that h-i-j do n o t present the inversion w h i c h c and other Mss. have, since they are m e n t i o n e d separately w i t h o u t the inversion sign, whereas Charles attests that these Mss. have the order o f the α - r e c e n s i o n and its omission o f έπί, and even the omission o f αυτούς* in h. Cf. M . d e j o n g e , Testaments (1978), 183 (181, x x x v ) ; cf. H . J . de Jonge, Earliest stage, 64; for die agreements between b a n d /, c f H . J. de Jonge, T c x t u b e r l i e f c r u n g , 58f. Cf. M . d e j o n g e , Testaments (1978), 183. Cf. G. Fitter, φθάι^ω κ τ λ , TWNT IX, Stuttgart 1973, 90-94, for our passage, 92. J. E. Frame, Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalomans, E d i n b u r g h (1912) I 9 6 0 , 115. These words arc absent from the A r m e n i a n β - r e c e n s i o n , Stone, Testa­ ment, 76:7f, Stone observes that the A r m e n i a n text does n o t make sense as i t 2 3 0

2 3 1

2 3 2

2 3 3

2 3 4

3

2 3 5

61

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I 2 3 6

upon t h e m t h r o u g h the action o f Simeon and Levi, which was the answer to their wickedness. 4. T h e words elg τέλος are difficult to render, since i t may mean *to the uttermost' (Sinker, Charles), ganz u n d gar' (Becker), 'at last' ( D e j o n g e ) , ultimately (Kee), 'definitely' (Hollander-De Jonge), 'zur V e r n i c h t u n g ' (Schnapp, Riessler). One has to choose between the m o d a l aspect or the temporal aspect . One has to consider a Semitic background for the expression such as ‫ לנצח‬or ‫ ל כ ל ה‬. Anyhow, i t seems to express at least a radical and definitive answer o f God i n reaction to the impiety o f the Sichemites, but i t does not exclude the idea o f time. One m i g h t suggest a rendering like 'finally', 4

1

1

237

39. 1 Thess.2:16c and TL 6:11-A first inquiry 1. The resemblance between the two texts is striking, especially i f one compares the 'western text' ( D Ε F G 876 i t V u l g Ambst) o f Paul's pronouncement: έ φ θ α σ α δέ έ π ' αυτούς ή όργη του θεού 6ίς τέλος. This form o f the saying agrees with Mss. g d m o f T L 6:11 i n readi n g o n t h e m ' before the wrath', with c{-h-i-j) i n the addition o f *of G o d ' after "the wrath'. O n the other hand, i f one follows the readi n g o f Β 1739 and O r i g e n , there is an agreement with b I i n the inversion o f ' o n them' and 'the w r a t h ' , w i t h o u t any addition. The perfect έφθακεν ( c f Β Ψ D*) is not found i n any manuscript o f T L . 2. I n spite o f some differences, the agreement is impressive. V o r s t m a n c o n c l u d e d already that this c o u l d n o t be a coincid e n c e . I n his view, there were the following possible explanations: 1

4

1

2 3 8

stands; Ms. B adds noyn 'idem', to fill up the lacuna; J. Issarverdens, The Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament, Venice 1 9 3 4 , 286, fills the lacuna w i t h 'the w r a t h o f the L o r d \ So H o l l a n d c r - D e Jonge, Testaments, 146, rather than 'overtook t h e m ' (De Jonge) w h i c h m i g h t suggest a text w i t h o u t the preposition. Cf. T . Baarda, Maar de t o o r n is over hen gekomen, 55f. (VI:5, ...tot het e i n d c ' ) , esp. notes 279-292. ^ J. M . V o r s t m a n , Disquisitio de Tes lament oram XII Patriarchaum origine et pretio (...), Diss. L e i d e n 23d o f J u n e 1857, R o t t e r d a m 1857, 22-26, 22f.: O c c u r r i t sciliccL i n fine capitis V I Testamenti Levi sententia, quae t o t i d e m fere verbis apud Paulum etiam l e g i t u r ' , 2 3 , ‫' ״‬tanta autem haec videtur, ut fortuita dici n e q u c a t \ t

2

2 3 6

2 3 7

2

1

8

1

62

T. B A A R D A

1. Paul borowed his phrase from T L . 2. The author o f T L borrowed the sentence from Paul. However, one should consider other possibilities i n this case: 3. T h e phrase i n Paul was a secondary a d d i t i o n by an interpolator, 4. The text i n T L was added by an interpolator who borrowed it from Paul. Moreover, one should not exclude a fifth possibility: 5. Paul and the author o f T L were independently depending on a c o m m o n source, 40, Is the pronouncement of Paul an interpolation? T h e conjecture that the sentence i n 1 Thcss. 2:16c was an i n t e r p o l a t i o n has already been made by A. Ritschl i n a review o f F. C. Baur's boek on Paul, i n 1847. This guess has been welcomed by several later scholars such as J. Moffatt (1901), R. K n o p f (1905), F. S. Marsh (1918), J. A. Parkes (1934) and J. W. Bailey (1955)239. One cannot discard this guess as easy as Vorstman does ('quo j u r e hoc fieri possit, n o n v i d e o ' ) , but he is correct that the w o r d i n g o f the phrase is not foreign to Paul and that i t fits well i n t o the c o n t e x t . I have shown elsewhere that i t is not justified to accept the conjecture o f Ritschl. The fact that later on other theories were developed to argue that 2:15-16, 2:14-16 or even 2:13-16 were interpolated in Paul's text, partly on the g r o u n d that one could not detach 2:16c from its context, may tell us that 16c c o u l d n o t be isolated so easily from the pcricope o f which i t forms the con­ clusion. Since I share the view that the whole pcricope to which 16c belongs is genuinely Pauline, I cannot accept that i t was interpolated by a later author, and that it was borrowed from the Testament o f Levi at a later stage . 210

241

2 3 9

c

Cf. Baarda, Maar dc t o o r n is over hen g e k o m c n 1 1 1 : 2§)23 n.47; idem, 1 Thcss.2:14-16, Rodrigues i n 'Nestle-Aland', NThT^J (1985) 186193, esp.l86f,, 192; for M a r s h , cf. 'Thessalonians (Epistles to t h e ) ' , i n : Hastings, Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, I I , E d i n b u r g h 1918, 569-574, 573a ('a reminiscence o f l e s t . L e v i , v i . 1 T ) . Moffat m e n t i o n s as adherents o f this conjecture also 1 . Spitta, O. Pfleiderer and J. D r u m m o n d . Vorstman, Disquisitw, resp. 23 and 24f. See for my arguments the discussion in M a a r dc t o o r n is over hen g e k o m e n . . / , 28-30 (111:6), and for the respective theories o f i n t e r p o l a t i o n , ibid., 23-28 (111:32-5). ;

2 4 0

2 4 1

,

\.‫)״‬,

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

63

1

41. Is the pronouncement in TL an interpolation ? L M u c h more difficult is the question, whether T L 6:11 is one o f the (Christian) interpolations i n the Testament o f Levi. T h e question o f interpolations is beset with many difficulties and com­ plications which I cannot deal with here. Let me put fonvard my w o r k i n g hypothesis. I follow the view o f those scholars who find in the present Greek text o f the Testaments an early Christian d o c u m e n t . Further, I take it that its a u t h o r was a hellenistic Jewish-Christian a u t h o r . My assumption is that this a u t h o r knew Aramaic, c.q. Hebrew, and that he had access to Semitic sources that dealt with Levi. O n e cannot, as a matter o f fact, absolutely deny the possibility that the text in the course o f its t r a d i t i o n suffered interpolations, but since my thesis is that the author was a Jew converted to Christianity there is no reason to suppose that all 'Christian' elements arc suspect. T h e author as a redactor o f this Greek text could have remodeled earlier Semitic or Greek Levi traditions i n such a way that he departed from his sources where he thought this necessary. However, be this as i t may, the saying i n question is not a specific Christian pronounce­ ment, except for the fact that we have a similar utterance i n Paul's text. But even there i t has a distinct Jewish character . 2 4 2

213

2. From this p o i n t o f view one m i g h t consider the possibility that 6:1 1 was part o f the design o f the very author o f T L . Chapter 6 presents us with the following line o f thought: Levi has told his children that the angelic c o m m a n d to take revenge is c o n f i r m e d t h r o u g h the finding of a shield. He and Simeon killed Shechem and H e m or, afterwards the brothers slew the citizens. I n spite o f the fact that his father d i d resent the k i l l i n g o f the circumcizcd, i t all had happened according to the order i n the vision. For, although Levi took the initiative, it was not just his choice, for i t was God himself who had ordained that this should happen. Levi had seen i n the vision that God's sentence tuas unto evil upon Shechem

2 1 2

Cf. T. Baarda, De namen van de k i n d e r e n van Levi, De d u i d i n g van de namen Gersjon, Qehath, M e r a r i en Jochebed in het Testament van Levi 11, A msterda mse Cah iers voor Exegese en Theologie 8 (1987) 87-107; i d e m , Q c h a t h -What's i n a Name? C o n c e r n i n g the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the N a m e "Qehath" in the Testament o f Levi 1 1:4-6, /s/ 19 (1987) 215-229. ‫׳‬213 Q Maar de l o o m is over hen gekornen,..', 47-56. 4

64

T . HAARDA

and iLs inhabitants. They had shown the usual Canaanite mis­ behaviour towards foreigners that Levi's family had suffered since the days o f Abraham, but the wrath of the Lord has (now) come upon them. So i t is not Levi's fault that the city had been attacked, b u t i t is part o f the salvation history for Israel. This is the expla­ nation given in the next chapter (7:1 f ) : 'Be not angry, my hrd, for it is t h r o u g h you that the L o r d will annihilate the Canaanitcs'. This reaction o f Levi is playing with the w o r d i n g o f 6:11. T h e L o r d is angry (ή οργή του κυρίου) with the Sichemites for g o o d reasons, therefore Jacob (κύριε) should not be angry (μή όργί£ου) w i t h Levi, who as a m e d i u m o f God's anger is merely executing God's sentence. I f 7:1 is, i n this form, part o f the text o f the Greek author, then i t is most likely that his text contained 6:11 as well. This implies that this verse is not an interpolation. 244

3. One o f the scholars that considered the possibility o f an i n t e r p o l a t i o n was B. Rigaux ( i l peut s ' ê t r e glisse des interpola­ tions'). He finds i n the A r m e n i a n r e n d e r i n g o f the a-rccension, which omits vs. 11, 'le plus fort argument contre la p r i o r i t é de L e v i ' . This implies that i n his view the A r m e n i a n d e m o n ­ strates, i n spite o f the testimony o f all Greek manuscripts, that the text d i d not figure i n the original Greek text, but has crept into it at a later stage as an interpolation. However, apart from the fact that the A r m e n i a n β - r e c e n s i o n , which has the phrase i n a somewhat m u t i l a t e d f o r m ( a n d <\i/idem> w i l l come u p o n them to the e n d ' ) , is now be held to be the oldest and usually better repre­ sentative o f the A r m e n i a n t e x t , there is the fact that the arecension does not only o m i t vs.11, but also some words o f vs.10. Since these latter words i n 6:10 begin with και ( A r m . ew) a n d 7:1 also begin with και (resp. ew), one m i g h t assume a parablcpsis 4

2 4 5

1

2 4 6

2 4 7

2 4 4

Cf. F. G. B u r k i t t , Dr. Charles's Edition o f the "Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs", JTS 10 (1909) 135-141, 138, ' W h y s h o u l d we n o t regard this clause also as a C h r i s t i a n a d d i t i o n , or at any rate as having been m o d i f i e d in language by the translator, or by an e d i t o r w h o was f a m i l i a r w i t h 1 Thess.ii ‫׳‬16. B. Rigaux, Saint Paul, I^s épîtres aux Thessaloniciens, Paris-Gembloux 1956, 112f.;455f. Stone, Testament, 76 (cf. nota); noyn added in B*; for the a-text ibid., 140. Stone, Testament, 27f,; M . de Jonge, T h e Greek Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs and the A r m e n i a n version, i n : Studies, 120-139. 2 4 5

2 4 6

2 4 7

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

65

fault i n A r m e n i a n tradition or perhaps, but less likely an error by the translator responsible for this recension. T h e A r m e n i a n text is, therefore, not at all a strong argument i n settling the question. 42.

The author of TL dependent on Paul

1. The theory that T L drew this verse from Paul is put forward by several scholars since the last century. I n 1857 V o r s t m a n defended this view with due modesty ( ' I n re tarn incerta me n o n audacius l o q u i nemo sane i m p r o b a b l e ) . He postulates the thesis that the author o f the Testaments may have read Paul ('legisse v i d c t u r ' ) . T h e n he observes that this is the only text i n which the author borrowed a text from the apostle ' , and since the Epistle to the Thessalonians is the oldest letter that we have o f Paul, one m i g h t conclude that the author o f the Testaments wrote i n a p e r i o d i n w h i c h the Pauline letters had n o t yet been spread a r o u n d i n the churches. This means that this author may have composed his work i n the late first century or slightly later. It has been suggested by Bammel that H . Ewald was the first scholar to defend this thesis. This is n o t correct. B a m m e l f o u n d a hand­ written notice i n this author's own copy o f his commentary o n the Thessalonian Epistles (which is i n the possession o f the University l i b r a r y at G o t t i n g e n ) . Now this c o m m e n t a r y was published i n the same year as the dissertation o f Vorstman, so the hand-written notice may date from a later date than 1857; one m i g h t consider the possibility that Ewald had read the thesis o f Vorstman and made his notice on the basis o f Vorstman's propo­ sition. Anyhow, the thesis that T L 6 'ends with a quotation from 1 Thcss.II:16' has been defended by later authors such as S i n k e r , M . de J o n g e a n d B. R i g a u x , The u n d e r l y i n g idea o f this 2 18

2 4 9

250

2 5 1

2 4 8

252

Charles, Testaments, 292, who had a different p o s i t i o n w i t h respect to the d e p e n d e n c e q u e s t i o n , observes that 'the Pauline b o r r o w i n g s are too n u m e r o u s to be dealt w i t h here' and m e n t i o n s besides o u r text Rom.1:32; 12:21; 1 Cor. 4:4, 7:5 and 2 Cor.7:10 as examples. E. B a m m e l , J u d c n v e r f o l g u n g u n d N a h e r w a r t u n g , ZThK 56 (1959) 294315, 309, n . l , Sinker, Testaments, 14, n.8. ' M . de Jonge, Testaments (1953), 5 1 f ; see also his f o r t h c o m i n g article T i g h t o n Paul from the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs?' (§ 3.b) B. Rigaux,, 455f. 2 4 9

2 : j 0

2

j ]

2 5 2

66

Τ.

BAARDA

approach is that the Testaments were o f a later date than the letters o f Paul. Rigaux has presented his readers w i t h several o t h e r arguments that we w i l l discuss later o n . T h e p r o b l e m o f this hypothesis is that one cannot easily explain the reason why the author chose exactly this phrase from the letters o f Paul , 2 5 3

43. Paul dependent on TL As early as 1689, the p r o n o u n c e m e n t o f Paul became an argument for the early existence o f the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs. Since Paul alluded to—or q u o t e d f r o m — T L 6:11, a terminus ante quern was provided for these documents, about 50 or 51 C.E. This was the o p i n i o n o f G r a b e , whose view was shared by several other scholars, such as C h a r l e s , C o n y b e a r e , Friedl a n d e r , and more recently A r g y l e . T h e u n d e r l y i n g idea is here that Paul is later than the original Greek text o f the Testa­ ments. T h e differences between T L 6:11 and 1 Thess. 2:16c are to be explained by either assuming that Paul quoted i n a loose way or was b o r r o w i n g his quotation from a Greek text that differed from the present text i n the various manuscripts o f T L . Charles seems to suggest that Paul quoted the so-called α-text on the basis o f 1 Thess.2:16c i n the western text form w i t h the a d d i t i o n o f τ ο υ 9eoö, but Conybeare thinks this improbable, and opts for the ß-text 254

255

2 5 7

256

258

2 5 3

I t is not clear to me why Haupt, Testament, 25, n.68 adduces the following r e a s o n i n g against this hypothesis: A b e r ein C h r i s t d ü r f t e k a u m d e n " a n t i j ü d i s c h e n " A b s c h n i t t 1 Thess.2,13-16 z u m V o r b i l d e i n e r so scharfen, gegen Sichern g e r i c h t e t e n Polemik g e n o m m e n h a b e n ' . J. E. Grabe, Spiälegium sanctorum patrum (...), I , O x f o r d (1689) 1 7 0 0 , 138; see esp. I I . J. de Jonge, Die Patriarchentestamente v o n Roger Bacon bis Richard S i m o n , i n M . de Jonge, Studies, 3-42, 34. C h . x l i v ; C h . 4 I app.; i d e m , Testaments, 291 f., 3 0 8 n . ; Charles, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, L o n d o n 1908, 42 and I n t r . l x x x v sq. ( F r o m the evidence presently to be a d d u c e d , i t w i l l be clear that St. Paul was t h o r o u g h l y familiar w i t h the Greek translation o f the Testaments', sc. i n the α - r e c e n s i o n ) . ° F. C. Conybeare (review o f b o t h Charles's text and translation), IlevThPh 4 (1908) 373-382,377. ^ G. F r i e d l ä n d e r , The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount, L o n d o n 1911. ° A . W. Argyle, T h e Influence o f the Testaments o f the Twelve Patriarchs u p o n the New Testament, ET 63 (1951/52) 256^258, 257: I n d e e d he definitely quotes from t h c m \ 4

2 5 4

2

2 5 5

1

2

6

2

7

2

8

4

T H E S H E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

67

259

as Paul's s o u r c e . T h i s hypothesis was m a i n l y based o n the formal parallel between the words i n T L and those i n Paul and o n the conviction that Paul wrote his letter i n a time that the Testa­ ments were already current i n their Greek form, but its defenders d i d n o t make clear why Paul w o u l d have chosen this phrase for his letter to the Thessalonians. 44, Some other arguments of Rigaux As we have m e n t i o n e d already there were other considerations i n the argumentation o f Rigaux that led h i m to the conviction that the text o f Paul was inserted i n the passage o f T L . 1. His main p o i n t is that the text i n Paul's letter is an insoluble part o f the passage i n question, since i t cannot be detached from 2:16b i n view o f the parallelism. O n the other hand, the text o f T L is most probably an i n t e r p o l a t i o n , which is not only absent from the A r m e n i a n , b u t has also a very inconsistent textual t r a d i t i o n . We have seen that the reference to the A r m e n i a n a-rccension is not convincing, and that the text o f T L 6:11 is an integral part o f the section 6:7-11 and that its location is well established by the w o r d i n g o f 7:1. A l t h o u g h I do agree with the view o f Rigaux that 1 Thess.2:16c is part o f the Pauline text, it seems necessary to add that the phrase i n Paul's letter presents us with some difficulties that have led some scholars to guess that i t was a glossema. O n e should notice the fact that the adversative Se suits the context o f T L better than that i n Paul's t e x t , i n spite o f the parallelism. 260

2. Rigaux observes that the variety o f readings i n T L 6:11 is impressive, whereas Paul's text is well attested. O n e s h o u l d n o t overlook the variant readings o f 1 Thess. 2:16c. I n the approach o f Rigaux, 'les variantes du texte de Paul se sont r e p o r t é e s sur le texte de Lévi, tandis que le texte de Paul ne porte pas trace d ' u n e influence venant de celui de L e v i ' . This statement is difficult to understand. First o f all, one has to admit the possibility that the 261

2 5 9

R. H . Charles, M r . Conybeare a n d "Testaments o f the Twelve Patri­ archs", RevThPh 4 (1908) 536-540, docs n o t react u p o n the observation o f Cony­ beare w i t h respect to 1 Thcss,2:16. Cf. the r e n d e r i n g enim i n some L a t i n texts, cf. denn i n L u t h e r ' s trans­ lation. Rigaux, Thessaloniciens, 455. 2 6 0

2 6 1

68

Τ. BAARDA

textual tradition could have been developed according to different patterns i n both texts. One has to notice that £φθασεν i n Paul's text has been transformed into £φθακεν i n Β D * Ψ p c , a reading that is not attested i n the texts o f T L here. T h e reading α υ τ ο ύ ς instead o f έττ' α υ τ ο ύ ς is found only i n a Catena text o n Paul, whereas i t is f o u n d i n T L i n e af a Both times this reading can be explained by the fact that φθάμω c. acc, with a comparative aspect is usual i n Greek, whereas the construction w i t h έ π ί i n the meaning 'arrive at', come over', a l t h o u g h n o t impossible i n Greek, is m o r e frequently attested i n biblical Greek and i n Jewish hellenistic writings. T h e reading α υ τ ο ύ ς , therefore, can have crept i n t o the texts o f the Pauline Catena and the Mss. o f TL, independently as a c o r r e c t i o n ' . T h e inversion o f ε π ' αυτούς- and ή οργή is m o r e difficult to explain. I n my view, one has to consider the possibility that the text o f d gm m i g h t have preserved the original order here: ^φθάσει; δέ έττ' αυτούς* ή οργή. The direct connection o f the verb w i t h the preposition is usual i n biblical texts ( L X X , cf. also M t 12:28par.); i f we are correct i n our j u d g m e n t that the omission o f the preposition is a later correction, all other Mss., except for b I , are indirect witnesses to the place o f *on t h e m ' before 'the wrath'. T h e r e a d i n g o f b I may have been also a later c o r r e c t i o n to connect verb and subject more closely, a correction that may have taken place i n Β 1739 and O r i g e n independently. T h e r e is no need to assume that there was any i n t e r a c t i o n between the readings i n T l and i n Paul's letter. 4

1

3. A n o t h e r argument o f Rigaux is that the absolute use o f ή ό ρ γ ή is a characteristic feature o f Paul (*terme t e c h n i q u e ' ) , whereas the usage o f the author o f the Testaments is to qualify i t as wrath o f God (του θεου). However, i n order to sustain that he refers to T R 4:4 and T L 6:11 only. As to the first passage the following has to be observed: η c-h-i-j omit the passage , g adds τ ο υ θ ε ο υ before, r a f t e r ή ό ρ γ ή , b I dm f may have preserved the original text here: ή όργή κυρίου. T h e second passage cannot be adduced to settle the question, since it is exactly the text for which he wanted to show that i t followed the usage o f the author. But here again the o r i g i n a l r e a d i n g may be ή ό ρ γ ή τ ο υ κυρίου attested i n all Mss. except c-h-i-j. The change from κυρίου to θεου (KT > θ ϊ ) is not u n c o m m o n i n biblical Greek and is, i n our case,

T H E S H E C I I E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

69

not necessarily p r o m p t e d by the western text o f 1 Thess.2:16c. N o r is i t necessary that this western text was influenced by the alter­ native reading i n T L . Just as i n the O T and i n its Greek pendant the L X X , Paul can use the term *wrath' or anger' i n absolute form (Rm. 5:9; 12:19; 13:5; 1 Thess.LTO) as meaning the wrath o f God', an expression which he uses elsewhere (Rm. 1:18; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6). T h e western reading i n 1 Thess.2:16c arose n o t from the ch-i‫׳‬j text o f T L , but from Paul's use o f the term elsewhere. 4

4

45. A common source 1. A last possibility is that the relation between Paul and the author o f T L is that both writers arc dependent on a c o m m o n tra­ d i t i o n . Vorstman, although p r e f e r r i n g another solution, already j u d g e d that this is a realistic alternative: 'sed rogari potest, an de c o m m u n ! fonte h î c cogitandum n o n s i t ' . He was p u t o n this trace by C. L Nitzsch who had proposed this solution: Concedend u m e n i m Nitzschio ( p a g . 2 3 ) est, universam i l l a m , tritam et divertissimis causis convenientcm, sententiam u t r i q u e s c r i p t o r i succurrere p o t u i s s e ' . Even Rigaux admitted that this c o u l d be u n e autre s o l u t i o n ' : Paul a p u de l u i - m ê m e r e p r e n d r e u n d i c t i o n j u i f a p p l i q u é originairement aux p é c h e u r s ou aux enne­ mis d ' I s r a ë l ' . This very view has been expressed by o t h e r scholars, such as D i b e l i u s , F r i e d r i c h and M i c h e l . 2 6 2

4

263

264

4

2 6 5

4

2 6 6

267

268

2 6 9

2. T h e p r o b l e m o f the common source is that it is a conjecture, for w h i c h one c a n n o t adduce testimonies that are really

2 6 2

V o r s t m a n , Disquisilio, 23, C. L Nitzschi us, Commentatio critica de Testamentis Duodecim Patriarcharum libro V. T. Pseudepigrapho, W i t t e n b e r g 1810, 23. V o r s t m a n , Disquisitio, 26, n,3. Rigaux, Thessaloniciens, 113, n . l . Rigaux, o.e., 456, w h o also writes, ' I l n'y aurait r i e n d ' é t o n n a n t que la parole a p p a r t i n t au language du j u d a ï s m e p o s t é r i e u r ' . M . D i b e l i u s , An die Thessalonicher, T u b i n g e n 1 9 2 7 , i.L ' V i e l l e i c h t w i r d h i e r wie d o r t eine j ü d i s c h e W e n d u n g wiedergegeben'. G, F r i e d r i c h , Der erste Brief an die Tkessalonicher, in J. Becker, Der Brief an die Galater (etc.), G ö t t i n g c n 1981, 227: ' i m J u d e n t u m anscheinend g e l ä u f i g ' , O. M i c h e l , Fragen zu 1 Thessalonichcr 2,14-16, i n W. Eckert, Anlijudaismus im Neuen Testament? M ü n c h e n 1967, 50-59, 58: 'Beide Zeugnisse sind w o h l aus ä l t e r e n vorgegebenen M a t e r i a l abzuleiten'. 2 6 3

2 6 4

2 6 0

2 6 6

2 6 7

2 6 8

2 6 9

2

70

T.

B A A R D A

convincing. Vorstmann already noticed that one cannot deny the possibility o f a fons communis (*Quod ego negare n o n possum'), but that one does not know that source ('quamvis fontem n o n possim i n d i c a r e ' ) . Several scholars have suggested that i t must have been an apocalyptic text, as Marshall writes: ' m o r e likely that a form o f w o r d used i n apocalyptic writings has been used by b o t h authors', Fitzcr vaguely speaks o f ' g e l ä u f i g e s Gut eschatologischer Vorstellungen', or, even vaguer, assumes that for b o t h authors the phrase was *ein i m G e d ä c h t n i s bewahrter Satz'. W h e n W. Lock speaks o f a 'half stereotyped rabbinical f o r m u l a ' , he does n o t give any parallel. W h e n Bammcl assumes a T ü l l e der P a r a l l e l e n ' , he does not explicitly mention a truly parallel text I t is true that b o t h i n the O l d T e s t a m e n t and in Qumranic writings m e n t i o n o f the divine wrath is often made with respect to the ennemies o f Israel and n o t seldom also w i t h r e g a r d to I s r a e l . The characteristic formula o f Paul i n 1 Thess.2:16c and o f the author o f the Testaments i n T L 6:11 is not found. 2 7 0

271

272

273

3. A n interesting suggestion to explain the f o r m u l a has been made on the basis of Jub. 30:26, where Gen.35:5, *And the dread o f the L o r d was u p o n all the cities (etc.)' is followed, but with the addition 'for terror had fallen upon t h e m ' . This suggests that the text o f the Hebrew verse (...‫ )ויהי חתת אלהים על‬was varied w i t h ‫ויגע‬ ‫חתת עליהם‬. I f there was i n the course o f the tradition a misreading o f ‫ החת‬as ‫חמת‬, the reading o f T L 6:11 and 1 Thess.2:16c c o u l d be explained: φθάνω being a possible rendering o f ‫ ( נגע‬c f φθάνει έ π ' αυτούς- ή κακία, Jdg 20:34). A l t h o u g h there is no trace o f such a misreading i n the T a r g u m i c and r a b b i n i c t r a d i t i o n , one may consider this a possibility to explain the o r i g i n o f the p e r t i n e n t 2 7 4

2 7 0

W. Lock, Thcssalonians (First Epistle o f ) , in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible IV, E d i n b u r g h I 9 0 6 , 7 4 5 f B a m m c l , J u d e n v e r f o l g u n g , 309, n . l . O n e may compare N u m b . l 2 : 9 ; 16:22; 1 Chron.27:24; 2 Chron.19:2.10; 25:15; 32:25; Ps. 78 (77): 21.31. Cf. Baarda, *Maar de t o o r n is over hen g c k o m e n . . . ' , 56-58 (cf. notes 294fT). This solution is m e n t i o n e d by Ch.41 app. w i t h a reference to I I . R ö n s c h , Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis, Leipzig 1874, 3 9 0 f (cf. ZwTh 1875, 278f). 5

2 7 1

2 7 2

2

/

3

2 7 4

71

T H E SM E C H E M E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I 275

phrase i n the Levi t r a d i t i o n . I n that case one m i g h t have here an i n d i c a t i o n for a c o m m o n source, i f we w o u l d know that the phrase already existed i n Greek i n the days o f Paul and o f the author of T L . 46. A personal preference 1. O n e cannot say that 80 years after Frame's conclusion that the p r o b l e m is still unsettled' things have become m u c h diffe­ rent. Whatever solution will be chosen, one has to consider that the relation between 1 Thcss. 2:16 and T L 6:11 must be found i n a Greek text: Paul quoted a Greek text o f T L , or the author o f T L has quoted Paul's Greek letter, or both depend on a Greek source they had i n c o m m o n . Otherwise the collocation o f the words έφθασε!/ δ ε , είς τέλος, έττ' α υ τ ο ύ ς and ή οργή cannot be explained. I f our suggestions with respect to text and setting o f the phrase i n T L 6 were correct, i t is an integral part o f the text on the Shechem episode. This makes it less likely that the author o f T L borrowed i t from Paul's Epistle. 4

2. Let us assume for the moment that Paul quoted from a text as we have it now in the Greek T L , can we explain why he d i d so? Is it possible to explain why T L 6:11 and its setting led h i m to his reference o f that verse. The context o f the phrase i n T L gives as a reason that the Canaanites, c.q. the Sichemites, had persecuted Abraham (6:9), who for Paul is the father o f all true believers. I n 1 Thcss.2:1 3-16 Paul deals w i t h the Jewish believers i n Christ who suffer persecution from the side o f the other Jews i n Judea. T h e Sichemites or Canaanites are an example o f a people who are opposed in several ways to other men and women (6:9f.), j u s t as the Other Jews' who persecute Paul's Jewish brothers turn out to be against all men, and so displease God (1 Thess.2:15L), It is obvious that in the case o f the Sichemites or Canaanites the wrath o f God

r

27D !‫׳‬his is apparently the gist o f the observation o f M . de Jonge, Notes, 145 (Studies, 2 6 0 ) , n.49, w h o writes: T . L . V I , 1 1 may go back to a phrase i n Or.Lcvi—sec J u b . X X X , 5 and X X X , 2 6 ( c o m p . G c n . X X X V . 5 ) — a n d may there­ fore be earlier than the present Testaments'. T h i s w o u l d i m p l y that Paul m i g h t have q u o t e d this phrase from T L , but cautiously De Jonge adds, b u t d i d this phrase exist i n Greek so as to be quoted by a Christian i n the first century?'. ,

72

T . BAARDA

had fallen u p o n them (6:11), i n the same way Paul expresses as his conviction that the wrath is at work against the persecutors o f the Messiah believers (1 Thess. 2 : 1 6 c ) . What Paul may have done here is to read the history o f his own p e r i o d back i n t o the narrative o f the Shechem episode, by w h i c h he identifies the 'other Jews' with the Canaanites or Sichemites and the family o f A b r a h a m w i t h the Jewish Messiah believers. T h i s m i g h t l o o k strange, but i t is n o t m u c h more unusual than the hermeneutical m e t h o d applied to the Hagar-Sarah episode in Gal.4, where the persecution o f Isaak by Esau is applied to respectively the Messiah believers and those Jews who do n o t follow Jesus, but persecute his followers. 276

3. I f this suggestion is n o t too wide o f f the mark, we m i g h t assume that Paul had i n m i n d a Greek version o f the Shechem episode i n which m e n t i o n was made o f the final wrath to w h i c h he refers i n 1 Thess.2:16c, Does this mean that he had read the Greek text o f the Testament o f Levi, w h i c h was as we have assumed a Jewish-Christian work? I n that case we have to assume that the Greek text o f the Testament o f Levi was prc-Pauline. I f he d i d n o t quote from this work itself, then he must have had an almost similar Greek text at his disposal which com bined the idea o f the final divine wrath with the idea o f persecution o f the pious people, which then in its turn was used by the author o f the Greek Testament o f Levi also. This is, o f course, a mere guess and i t has the weakness o f all conjectures that i t cannot be proven. This is, however, true for all the solutions that has been offered to the problematic relation between T L 6:11 and 1 Thess. 2:16c, Epilogue T h e text o f 1 Thess.2:16c occasioned me to read T L 6:11 i n its context. This resulted i n a commentary on the Shechem episode i n the Testament o f Levi and a comparison with some other retell­ ings o f the narrative o f Gen.34 i n hellenistic Jewish literature and in midrashic texts. I t became clear that, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g several c o m m o n elements with other retellings, there are also interesting

2 7 6

For the p r o b l e m o f the difficult aorist tense cf. Baarda, 'Maar de t o o r n is over hen gekomen...', 50-54, csp. notes 245ff., 264ff.

T H E S H E C H EM E P I S O D E IN T H E T E S T A M E N T O F L E V I

73

differences i n the Levi passages d e a l i n g w i t h the Shechem episode. I have n o t entered i n t o the question o f whether these passages have an anti-Samaritan thrust, w h i c h scholars have assumed for some other Jewish authors dealing with the passage on the Shechem attack. T h e j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f the investiture as a priest and the vengeance o f the rape o f D i n a h at the cost o f the foolish Sichemites do not p o i n t to a specific p e r i o d o f the JewishSamaritan struggles i n the Greek text that we have now before us. W h e t h e r this was the case i n the Hebrew or Aramaic sources used by the author o f T L we do not know. T h e Jewish-Christian a u t h o r o f the Greek T L may have shared the usual a t t i t u d e towards Samaritans, b u t this was not what the Greek a u t h o r wanted to delineate i n his r e t e l l i n g . His m a i n purpose was to exonerate Levi from every blame i n the Shechem episode.

The Atonement in the Interaction of Greeks, Jews, and Christians JAN N. BREMMER

W h e n the orthodox-Calvinist readers o f the Protestant Dutch daily Trouw opened their issue o f A p r i l 4, 1992, they were i n for an unpleasant surprise. Only two weeks before Easter, EES. Versnel, Leiden professor o f A n c i e n t History, stated i n a two-page article that i t was pagan ideas which had given b i r t h to the Christian n o t i o n o f the atonement. According to h i m , the Jewish tradition does n o t furnish any real passages o f an 'effective (vicarious) death*. Relevant parallels occur only i n the contemporary, pagan mentality ( b u t sec below p. 86) o f the first two centuries A D , d u r i n g which p e r i o d we find the widespread conviction that the sacrifice o f one's own life can have in general (Versnel's italics) a salvific, m e a n i n g f u l f u n c t i o n . I n the following days and weeks the paper published a n u m b e r o f reactions from theologians and laymen—not always satisfactory ones, one regrets to have to say. T h e most detailed response was not published i n Trouw itself but in the Christian weekly Hervoimd Nederland by H J . de Jonge, the Leiden professor o f New Testament Studies, who, o n the basis o f the Prayer o f A/zariah i n Daniel 3, chapters 6 and 7 o f I I Macca­ bees, and a passage i n the Testament o f Moses, argued that a Jew1

1

V c r s n t T s o r i g i n a l article (7-14), Lhc reactions (15-47) a n d his reply (4856) have been collectively published in L . H o o g c r w c r f (ed.), Het hek is van de dam, A m s t e r d a m 1992. Versnel ( - Versnel 1992a) based his a r t i c l e m a i n l y on two o f his earlier p u b l i c a t i o n s : Q u i d A t h e n i s et Hierosolymis? Bemer­ k u n g e n ü b e r die H e r k u n f t von Aspekten des "effective death", i n B . A . G . M . D e h a n d s c h u t t e r a n d J.W. Van K e n t e n (eds.), Die Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie, L e i d e n 1989, 162-96 (= Versnel 1989a), a n d Jezus Sotcr - Neos Alkestis? Over de niet-joodse a c h t e r g r o n d van ecn c h r i s t e l i j k e d o c t r i n e , Lampas22 (1989) 219-42 "(= Versnel 1989b).

76

J . N. I1REMMER

ish b a c k g r o u n d adequately explains the o r i g i n o f the Christian idea o f the atonement. This debate circles a r o u n d texts from the p e r i o d w h i c h has l o n g interested Adam van der W o u d e and a discussion o f some o f the points at issue may therefore be o f inte­ rest to h i m . As my expertise is p r i m a r i l y i n Greek and Roman religion, I shall concentrate on the pagan background o f the early Christian notions o f atonement. This c o n t r i b u t i o n makes some i n t r o d u c t o r y observations on the New Testament before examin­ i n g first the earlier Jewish evidence for a vicarious death, second the role played by contemporary society, and t h i r d I V Maccabees; there follows a brief epilogue, by way o f conclusion. Let us then start w i t h the f o u n d e r o f C h r i s t i a n i t y himself. Versnel (1992a, 8 0 has rightly stressed that Jesus himself d i d not speak about the vicarious f u n c t i o n o f his death. T h e words ascribed to h i m by Mark (10:45) that he came 'to give his life a ransom for many' are most likely not an authentic Jesus l o g i o n , although not all New Testament scholars w o u l d subscribe to this v i e w . I n any case, i t was especially Paul who p r o m o t e d the idea o f the atonement to the centre o f Christian theology. I f we take a closer look at the literature o f the first Christians, though, we soon realise that they d i d n o t i n t e r p r e t the execution o f Jesus i n a u n i f o r m way. I n the New Testament we can discern at least two approaches, w h i c h draw o n d i f f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n s w i t h r a t h e r different theological aims. 2

3

1

T h e t e r m i n o l o g y relating to Jesus death sometimes employs the root *hilask, the L X X translation o f the Hebrew kipper, as i n Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:7 and above all 1 J o h n 2:2. This usage is related to the cult o f the Temple, i n particular to the sacrifice o f the H i g h Priest on the Day o f A t o n e m e n t . O n the other hand, i n Pauline sotcriology we find the formula 'Christ (he) d i e d for us' or h e d i e d for our sins'. I t is probable that the r e c e p t i o n o f this 4

,

5

2

For Dc Jonge's article (1992a), Versnel's reaction (= Versnel 1992b) a n d De Jonge's rejoinder (1992b) sec Hervormd Nederland 48 (1992) no. 16, 18 and 19, respectively. N o n - a u t h e n t i c : C. Brey ten bach, Versöhnung. Eine Studie zur paulinischen Soteriologie, N e u k i r c h e n - V l u y n 1989, 208; I I . Koestcr, Ancient Christian Gospels. Their History and Development, L o n d o n 1990, 292. Contra: P. S t u h l m a c h e r , Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit, G ö t t i n g e n 1981, 27-42. M . H c n g c l , The Atonement, L o n d o n 1981, 50f. T h e f o r m u l a is f o u n d , i m p l i c i t or explicit, in R o m 5:6,8; 14:9,15; 1 Cor. 3

4

0

THE

ATONEMENT

77

expression by Paul cannot be separated from the suffering o f the righteous man i n order to bear the iniquities o f many as i n Isaiah 53, a chapter that almost certainly lies i n the b a c k g r o u n d o f at least 1 Cor. 15:3b. Echoes from Isaiah 53 can also be f o u n d i n Paul's views o n o u r reconciliation w i t h G o d t h r o u g h Jesus i n 2 Cor. 5:18-20 and Rom. 5:1.1 Of. But even i f Paul was i n s p i r e d by Isaiah 53, i t is generally agreed that he d i d n o t derive the 'dyingf o r - u s / m a n y ' f o r m u l a f r o m this e n i g m a t i c chapter. Recent studies also agree that Paul d i d n o t invent the formula: he f o u n d i t among, or heard i t from, other Christians. This must mean that this particular interpretation dates to the years shordy after Jesus' death, perhaps already to the thirties A D , as Dc Jonge (1992a) suggests. Where or how d i d the early Christians encounter the formula? I t does not occur i n the O l d Testament, b u t one cannot exclude a priori the possibility that they found this f o r m u l a i n their own religious t r a d i t i o n , as De Jonge (1992a) has rightly argued. Yet is this likely? Let us take a closer look at the three testimonies, which de Jonge has put forward i n order to support his case. 6

1. The Jewish evidence T h e historically latest piece o f evidence adduced by De Jonge is the Testament o f Moses, which he dates to the first half o f the first century A D . Its chapter 9 relates the story o f Taxo and his seven sons, who will withdraw into a grotto and, presumably, find there a violent death. T h e n G o d will come to work vengeance on the nations' (10:7) and he will fix you (Israel) firmly i n the heaven of the stars, i n the place o f their habitations' (10:8-10). The text is not very elaborate, and it is hard not to concur with Priest when he concludes that the author 'perhaps, has h i n t e d at the idea o f 1

4

1:13; 8:11; 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:14,15,21; Gal, 3:15; 1 Thcss. 5:10. Cf. Brcytcnbach, Versöhnung, p. 209-11; somewhat differently, M . de Jonge, Jesus' death for others and the death o f the Maccabean martyrs, i n T , Baarda et at. (cds,), Text and Testimony. Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A.F.J. Klijn, K a m p e n 1988, 142-51. B r e y t e n b a c h ' s extensive b i b l i o g r a p h y has o v e r l o o k e d S.K. Williams, Jesus' Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept, Missoula 1975, 5-56, 203-29; note now also D . Seelcy, The Nobh Death. Graeco-Roman Martyrology and PauTs Concept of Salvation, Sheffield 1990 (to be read w i t h the review b y J . W . van H e n t e n , / Stud. Jud. 23, 1992, 134-7). 6

78

J . N. B R E M M E R 7

vicarious p r o p i t i a t i o n , although this is not clear'. Moreover, there are hardly any signs that Paul or other New Testament authors knew or drew u p o n this story. Finally, one cannot treat the prob­ lem o f the dating as lightly as De Jonge has done. Various recent discussions o f this t h o r n y question have presented weighty argu­ ments i n favour o f the thesis that at least part o f the Testament goes back to the Maccabean p e r i o d . Indeed, Taxo's story looks very m u c h like having o r i g i n a t e d i n or shortly after the times o f persecution. The second passage adduced by De Jonge is I I Maccabees 6 and 7. There can be little doubt that the idea o f a vicarious, a t o n i n g death is at least in nuce present i n the accounts o f the deaths o f Eleazar and o f a mother with her seven sons. Particularly suggestive i n this respect are the words o f the youngest son: ' I , following my brother's example, give up my body and soul for the sake o f the laws o f our forefathers, praying to God that he speedily have mercy u p o n o u r n a t i o n . May you t h r o u g h being afflicted and scourged come to acknowledge that H e alone is G o d . W i t h me and my brothers may the A l m i g h t y put an end to the r i g h t f u l anger inflicted u p o n our entire people* (7:37f). The author o f I I Maccabees, i t is clear, deliberately i n t e n d e d to stress the i m p o r ­ tance o f this prayer, since the next chapter describes the Wende i n the Maccabean revolt and the successes of Judas and his followers. After the victory against Nicanor the 'entire c o m m u n i t y t u r n e d in supplication to the merciful L O R D , praying that H e w o u l d be completely reconciled (katallagenai) with His slaves' (8:29, tr. J.A. Goldstein). 8

Unfortunately, there is no way that we can be certain about the exact time o f o r i g i n o f this story. I n the present f o r m o f I I Maccabees chapters 6 and 7 arc well i n t e g r a t e d , b u t several scholars have suspected that originally these chapters d i d n o t belong to the source, the unabridged work by Jason o f Cyrene, I n

7

J . Priest, T e s t a m e n t o f Moses, i n J . I i . C h a r l e s w o r t h ( e d . ) , The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I , L o n d o n 1983, 919-34, esp. p. 923. Cf. Priest, Testament o f Moses, 920f.; E. S c h ü r c r , The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135) I I I . 1, E d i n b u r g h ‫־‬1986, 278 88 (G. Vermes); J.W. van H e n t e n , De joodse marielaren ah grondleggers van een nieuwe orde, Diss. Leiden 1986, 157. 8

79

THE ATONEMENT

any case, a connection with the time o f the revolt or not long after seems not improbable. T h e final witness is the Prayer o f Azariah i n Daniel (3:38-40 L X X , tr. M . H e n g e l ) , where i n the fiery furnace Azariah prays to God: 9

. ‫ ״‬like holocausts o f rams and bulls like ten thousand o f fat sheep, so may our sacrifice be before you today, to b r i n g about a t o n e m e n t w i t h y o u .

I n this prayer, w h i c h probably dates to the times o f the revolt against A n t i o c h u s I V , the i n s p i r a t i o n clearly derives from the cultic sacrifices i n the Temple o f Jerusalem. It should be noted, t h o u g h , that this particular case was b r o u g h t about by an emer­ gency situation. T h e three youths offered themselves, since the Temple was no longer available for the performance o f proper acts o f atonement, on account o f its desecration by the Seleucid k i n g . What may we conclude from these texts? De Jonge is surely r i g h t i n saying that the idea o f a vicarious, atoning death was not w h o l l y u n k n o w n i n Jewish t r a d i t i o n . I t seems to have arisen d u r i n g or i n the aftermath o f the Maccabcan revolt: a perfectly understandable t i m e o f o r i g i n . O n the o t h e r h a n d , Versnel (1992b) is equally right i n stressing that the idea o f a vicarious sacrifice is more h i n t e d at than fully elaborated i n these passages. Moreover, the Maccabcan martyrs also die for their own sins (7:18, 32), which hardly fits a proper ' S u h n o p f c r t h e o l o g i c V Even t h o u g h De Jonge (1992b) has proved his p o i n t to a certain extent, he nevertheless runs subsequently i n t o great t r o u b l e . As he honestly admits, the Christian interpretation d i d not draw direct­ ly on any o f these three texts. T o escape from this cul-de-sac, he suggests that the adduced passages were only the t i p o f an invisible iceberg w i t h i n the Jewish t r a d i t i o n . We may safely assume, according to De Jonge, a widespread discussion o f the 10

1

9

For a discussion o f the d a t i n g p r o b l e m s see Van H e n t e n , De joodse marleiaren, 170. Cf. K‫ ״‬K o c h , Deuterokanonische Zusäise zum Danielbuch I I , N e u k i r c h e n Vluyn 1987, 59; note also his discussion o f the c o n n e c t i o n between the Prayer and the idea o f vicarious sacrifice (‫־‬824), As is observed by H . J . KJauck, 4 Makkabäerbuch - Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zett I I I . 6 , G ü t e r s l o h 1989, 670. 1 0

1 1

80

J . N. B R E M M E R 12

subject o f the atoning death o f a few for m a n y . Needless to say, there is simply not a thread o f evidence for this suggestion. We can perhaps go f u r t h e r and suggest that i t is even i m p r o b a b l e that the early Christians w o u l d have drawn o n this particular tradition. The passage i n Daniel seems too m u c h deter­ m i n e d by the particular circumstances o f its time o f origin to be a likely source o f inspiration for later periods. Regarding I I Macca­ bees, we may wonder whether the early followers o f Jesus w o u l d have been interested i n the Maccabees, since there is astonishing little i n f o r m a t i o n found about them i n early rabbinic w r i t i n g s . Moreover, Elea/ar is prepared to die Tor the revered and holy laws' (6:28); the youths stress that they are prepared to die for the 'laws o f our forefathers' (7:37) and Judas encourages his soldiers to be ready to die 'for their laws and their country (8:21). Similarly, in the Testament o f Moses, which seems to have been the work o f a schismatical Levitical g r o u p , Taxo prefers to die rather than to 'transgress the commandments o f the L o r d o f Lords, the God o f our fathers' (9:6). These martyrs were clearly highly motivated by their adherence to the ancestral institutions o f the Jews. A n d t h o u g h we have perhaps become less certain i n o u r p r o n u n c e ments regarding Jesus' attitude towards the Halakah and T o r a h , 13

1

14

15

1 6

1 l ?

D c J o n g e (1992b): T)c d r i c plaaLscn zijn slcchts de m i n o f m e c r toevallig bewaarde u k l o p c r s op schrift van ecn daarachter schuilgaand, n i e t meer w a a r n c c m b a a r , maar v e i l i g te v e r o n d c r s t e l l e n , v e e l v u l d i g s p r e k c n over verzoenend sterven van e n k e l i n g e n voor v e i e n \ Cf. G. Stembergcr, T h e Maccabees in Rabbinic T r a d i t i o n , i n F. Garcia M a r t i n e z , A. I i i i h o r s t , C. Labuschagne (cds.), The Scriptures and the Scrolls. Studies in Honour of A.S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, Leiden 1992, 193-203. Cf. j . T r o m p , Taxo, the Messenger o f the L o r d , / Stud. Jud. 21 (1990) 200-09. Cf. I I . G . K i p p e n b e r g , Die j ü d i s c h e n U b e r l i e f e r u n g e n als patriot nomoi, i n R, Faber a n d R. Sehlesier (cds.), Die Restauration der Götter, W ü r z b u r g 1986, 45-60; K i p p e n berg, Die vorderasiatischen Erlösungsreligionen in ihrem ?Zusammenhang mit der antiken Stadtherrschaft, Frankfurt 1991, 179-217. ^ See most recently J.D.G. D u n n , Jesus, Paul and the Law, L o n d o n 1990; P. Richardson and S. W e s t e r h o l m (cds.), Law in Religious Communities in the Roman Period. Tlie Debate over Torah and Nomos in Post-Biblical Judaism and Early Christianity, Waterloo, O n t a r i o 1991; I . Boer (ed.), Jesus und das jüdische Gesetz, Stuttgart 1992. 1 3

1 / 1

1 d

1

81

THE ATONEMENT

it remains highly improbable that the first Christians w o u l d have felt particularly attracted to this specific tradition. T h e r e remains one final p r o b l e m . De Jonge c o n t i n u o u s l y speaks o f one t r a d i t i o n , but the three youths and the Maccabean martyrs can hardly be reduced to one c o m m o n stream. T h e Daniel passage drew its inspiration from the Temple cult, but this is clearly n o t the case w i t h I I Maccabees. Can we make any progress regarding the latter case? The problem has recently been studied i n depth by Van H c n t e n , who has looked for examples o f vicarious death i n b o t h the Greek and Jewish traditions. H e ad­ mits that an influence from the tragedies o f Euripides is possible, b u t also thinks o f Jewish examples o f a non-cultic reconciliation with God, such as the offer o f Moses to re-ascend M t Sinai i n order to reconcile the people with God after their worship o f a golden calf (Ex. 32:30-4), and also the m u r d e r by Phinehas o f an Israelite and his M i d i a n i t i s h woman after Israel began to c o m m i t whore­ d o m with the daughters o f Moab' ( N u m . 25), These cases, though, do not speak o f a vicarious death and that is why a Greek inspira­ tion deserves a closer attention. 4

We know that Greek tragedy was very popular i n third-century Egypt. Ptolemy I I Philadelphus (285-47) organized a circle o f seven tragic poets, the *Pleiad', o f w h o m at least some were con­ nected to the M u s e u m : A l e x a n d e r Aitolos was i n charge o f collecting the texts o f the tragedians, L y c o p h r o n those o f the comedians. Ptolemy IV Philopator (222-04) even wrote a tragedy himself: Adonis. The numerous surviving names o f authors and lists o f titles indicate an interest i n tragedy which lasted well i n t o the Roman p e r i o d . A m o n g the tragedians, Euripides remained very popular, as the steady flow o f papyri w i t h fragments and hypotheses o f his tragedies show. This can clearly be seen i n the Exagogc o f the Jewish tragedian Ezekicl, whose play is, ' b o t h i n small points o f phraseology and style and i n the larger realm o f dramatic technique and structure, m u c h i n f l u e n c e d by E u r i p i ­ d e s / O u r evidence is scanty, but Ezekiel shows that some Jews i n 17

1 8

1 7

Cf. M . Parca, Ptocheia, or Odysseus in disguise at Troy, A t l a n t a 1991, 96-112 ( w i t h extensive b i b l i o g r a p h i e s ) . Euripides: I I . K u c h , Z u m Euripides-Rezeption i m H e l l e n i s m u s , Klio 60 (1978) 191-202; W. L u p p e , Literarische Texte: Drama, Arch. f. Papyrus/. 37 1 8

82

J . N. B R E M M E R

the time o f the Maccabees d i d n o t consider Greek tragedy unacceptable. Fergus M i l l a r has argued that a l t h o u g h p e r i o d i c festival games are not explicitly attested i n pre-Roman times, *it is...to be assumed that they took place, bearing i n m i n d the general character o f the age'. As Palestine was r u l e d for m o r e than a century by the Ptolemies, Jerusalem had a gymnasium and an ephebeion ( I I Maccabees 4:12), and since the theatre was very popular i n the Greek world, i t is hard to believe that Palestine never saw the performance o f a tragedy i n the t i m e o f the Maccabees; after all, a theatre even existed i n the Greek city o f A i K h a n o u m i n A f g h a n i s t a n , Van Henten himself has p o i n t e d to the resemblance between the suicides o f Razis ( I I Mace. 14) and Mcnoeceus i n Euripides' tragedy Phoenissae, b o t h o f w h o m first w o u n d themselves before throwing themselves down the walls o f their cities. As Euripides is the one author i n whose tragedies dying for the good o f the people plays an i m p o r t a n t role and the dramatist whose w o r k was widely p e r f o r m e d and read d u r i n g that period, an inspiration from his tragedies is more than likely, even though the Phoenissae itself gained its greatest popularity i n Late A n t i q u i t y . As the scarcity o f papyri shows, the Greek funeral orations, w h i c h are also c o m p a r e d by Van H e n t e n , enjoyed far less p o p u l a r i t y . 19

20

2 1

22

(1991) 77-91, csp. 78-86. E/.ekicI: I I . Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, Cambridge 1983, 23. F. M i l l a r , in Schurer, History of the Jewish People I I , E d i n b u r g h 1979, 44. For the nature and the degree o f Jewish acculturation in the time o f the Maccabees see also the i n t e r e s t i n g reflections o f E. W i l l a n d C. O r r i e u x , loudaïsmos-Hellcnismos. Essai SUT le judaïsme judéen à 1* époque hellénistique, Nancy 1986, 120-36. Euripides: Van H e n t e n , De joodse martelare?i, 141. His c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the Roman devotio ( i b i d e m , 141-4) is m u c h less persuasive. T h e contacts between the Jews and the Romans were not so extensive in the p e r i o d o f the second century, cf. M . IIadas-Lebel, Jérusalem contre Rome, Paris 1990, 19-31. Phoeiiissae: J . M . Bremer, T h e p o p u l a r i t y o f E u r i p i d e s ' Phoenissae i n Late A n t i q u i t y , in Actes du Vile congres de ta EJ.E.C. 1, Budapest 1983, 281-8. 1 9

2 0

2 1

1 1

Euripides a n d O Con nor- Visser, A m s t e r d a m 1987; 1991, 73f. Funeral t

the theme o f 'effective death': Aspects of Human Sacrifice in the D . D . Hughes, Human Sacrifice orations: Van l i e n ten, De joodse

see most recently E.A.M.E Tragedies of Euripides, Diss, in Ancient Greece, L o n d o n martelaren, 164-6.

T H E ATONEMENT

83

2. Vicarious sacrifice in contemporary society As we have seen, Versnel (1992a) does n o t l o o k for Paul's i n s p i r a t i o n i n the Jewish t r a d i t i o n b u t i n the mentality o f the pagan society o f the first two centuries A D . H e recognises o f course the p r o m i n e n c e o f the theme o f vicarious death i n Euripides, but argues that after so many centuries an influence from drama is unlikely (1989a, 189f; 1989b, 232; 1992a, 1 0 f ) . His discussion o f the early Christian views o f Jesus' death is the latest o f a series o f learned articles i n w h i c h he has collected and analysed the theme o f vicarious death i n Greek, Roman and Hellenistic c u l t u r e . Yet there arc various reasons why I hesitate to follow h i m i n this particular case. We shall therefore take a closer look at the chronology, geography and content o f the evidence adduced by Versnel in support o f his case. 23

Versncl's p o i n t o f departure is the devotio pro principe, the p h e n o m e n o n that soldiers or private persons were w i l l i n g to sacrifice t h e i r life for the health o f the Roman emperor. This p h e n o m e n o n started w i t h Caesar a n d g a i n e d w e i g h t w i t h Augustus a n d his successors. T h e Senate, the army and the Roman people now publicly declared that the salvation o f the state a n d its people depended on the well-being o f the emperor. This development may be clearly discerned i n the adulatory gestures o f some Romans who, as Suetonius tells us i n his biography o f Caligula, 'even vowed to fight as gladiators, and others posted placards offering their lives, i f the ailing prince were spared* (c. 14, tr. J.C. Rolfe). There can be no doubt, then, that the pheno­ m e n o n o f vicarious sacrifice existed i n the first century A D . Yet n o n e o f the examples adduced by Versnel takes place outside the immediate Roman world and none takes place d u r i n g the r u l e o f Augustus a n d T i b e r i u s . His only c o n t e m p o r a r y 24

2 3

H.S. Versnel, D e s t r u c t i o n , devotio and despair i n a situation o f anomy: the m o u r n i n g for Germanicus in t r i p l e perspective, i n Perennitas. Studi in onore di Angelo Brelich, Rome 1980, 541-618; i d e m , Self-sacrifice, compensation a n d the a n o n y m o u s gods, Entretiens llardt X X V I I , Geneva 1981, 135-85; Versnel 1989a,b. ^ T h e exception is the vow o f a t r i b u n u s plebis, w h o 'devoted' h i m s e l f ' i n the I b e r i a n m a n n e r ' to Augustus i n 27 BC (Cassius D i o 53.20). I n this case the devotio derives e x p l i c i t l y f r o m the custom o f I b e r i a n w a r r i o r s o f sacri­ ficing their life for Lheir general and cannot be adduced as an example o f a 2

84

J. N, B R E M M E R

example outside Rome concerns Antony, Cleopatra and a group o f friends, who called themselves Synapolhanoum.enoi, a title derived f r o m a Greek comedy about two lovers who, presumably, were going to die together but were saved i n the nick o f time. I t seems to me highly i m p o r t a n t to note that Antony and Cleopatra evident­ ly derived their inspiration from Greek drama, i n view o f the fact that V c r s n e l considers this u n l i k e l y i n the case o f the early Christians. I n any case, this one example q u o t e d by h i m is n o t indicative o f a general tendency o f this p e r i o d ' . Whereas the rise to power o f the Roman emperor clearly lies at the background o f the devotio pro principe, this can hardly be the case for another group o f examples cited by Versnel. A poem i n the Greek A n t h o l o g y (7.691) celebrates a woman who has given her life for her husband as the new Alcestis'. U n f o r t u n a t e l y neither author nor date o f this poem are k n o w n to us, but the theme recurs i n other epitaphs o f the first a n d / o r second century A D . An epigram o f Odcssos praises a woman with the words: ' B u t now instead o f me she is dead and has fame and praise, like Alcestis', and a series o f sixteen epigrams i n a grotto i n Sardinia i m m o r t a l i z e a w o m a n , who had d i e d for her i l l husband, as greater than Alcestis' ( C I L X 7577). Moreover, the popularity o f the theme o f Alcestis i n this p e r i o d is shown by the frequent occurrence o f the Alcestis story on sarcophagi and the fact that the second-century Aelian (Variae Historiae 14.45) calls Alcestis one o f the three Greek women deserving unqualified praise. Once again, the popularity is hardly to be explained w i t h o u t the direct o r i n d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e o f Euripides* tragedy Alcestis. I n fact, Juvenal (6.6520 mentions that women watched performances o f the Alcestis story, and Lucian (de Salt, 52) reports that the story 1

25

1

1

26

R o m a n mentality. Versnel, D e s t r u c t i o n , 571 cites the case o f the Romans w h o vowed to fight as gladiators i n aid o f Caligula as a p a r a l l e l , b u t that event took place half a century laLer. A n t o n y : Plut, Ant. 71, contra V c r s n e l , D e s t r u c t i o n , 572. Greek d r a m a : plays w i t h this title are attested for A l e x i s (fr. 213-5 Kassel-Austin) a n d D i p h i l u s (Test. 12 Kassel-Austin); they were used by Plautus in his Commemorientes, cf. Terence Ad. 6 ( p r o l . ) . Alcestis: W . M . Calder I I I , T h e Alkestis i n s c r i p t i o n from Odcssos: IGBR I 222, Am. J. Arch. 79 (1975) 80-3; Versnel, Self-sacrifice, 165. Sarcophagi; M . Schmidt, Alkestis, in lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae 1.1, Basel 1981, 533-44. 2 : J

2 6

2

85

T H E ATONEMENT

was a subject for pantomime. The stage, however, was n o t opera­ t i n g i n a social vacuum. From the first century BC onwards, the Roman and, i n its wake, the Hellenistic upper-class experienced a g r a d u a l d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m a conjugal r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h o u t emotional bonds to a k i n d o f affectionate f a m i l y . I t is t h r o u g h this d e v e l o p m e n t that the Alcestis story must have struck a powerful c h o r d among the women of the elite. This closer relationship between husband and wife can also be f o u n d i n the Greek novel. I n the second-century romance by Achilles Tatius, the heroine Leukippc writes to her beloved Clitop h o n : Tor you I left my mother and took up the life o f a wanderer; for you I suffered shipwreck and fell i n t o the hands o f pirates; for you I became a victim for sacrifice and an expiatory sacrifice (kathannos) and twice entered the valley o f the shadow o f death' (5.18, tr. S. Gasclce). Versnel (1989b, 2360 rightly draws attention to this passage, but here too Greek drama may lie i n the back­ g r o u n d . The Greek novelists regularly refer to their narratives, to the plots, actions, and characters which comprise them, i n terms o f the drama. The metaphorical application o f terms drawn from the stage is also apparent i n those rare instances i n w h i c h a narrator refers to his narrative as a whole: for example, Achilles Tatius refers to his romance as toil pantos drdmatos (8.15). Finally, the Byzantine critics frequently employed the term drama to refer to the n o v e l . So once again we are led to think o f Greek drama as an important source o f inspiration. 27

28

A t h i r d g r o u p a m o n g the examples offered by Versnel is constituted by persons who die for those b o r n under the same stars, having the same name, or being next o f k i n . A l l these examples date from the second or t h i r d century A D . This g r o u p deserves further investigation but seems not immediately relevant to our argument. 2 /

For this development see P. Veyne ( é d . ) , Histoire de la vie privée I , Paris 1985, 45-59; idem, La société romaine, Paris 1991, 88-130 ( - Annales ESC 33, 1978, 35-63; A. Rousselle, Gestes et signes de la famille dans l ' E m p i r e r o m a i n , i n A. B u r g u i è r c et ai (eds.), Histoire de ta famille I , Paris 1986, 231-69. I owe this p o i n t to D i r k O b b i n k , w h o k i n d l y showed me his f o r t h ­ c o m i n g article *The drama i n the n o v e l ; see now also N . M a r i n i , Drama: possibile d e n o m i n a z i o n e per i l roman/.o greco d'amore, St. It. Fit. Class. 84 (1991) 232-43. 2 8

1

86

J . N. B R E M M E R

We may even wonder whether we can speak o f a ' m e n t a l i t y ' (Versnel 1989b, 234; 1992a, 14) r e g a r d i n g these self-sacrifices. They all occur i n rather different groups i n society, and for rather different motives. Moreover, i f such a general m e n t a l i t y really existed, we w o u l d not have had epigrams praising w o m e n for dying for their husbands. Such deaths, then, w o u l d have been perfectly n o r m a l and hardly have deserved any m e n t i o n . T h e existence o f comments o n this p h e n o m e n o n , on the other h a n d , suggests that society at large considered these examples as s o m e t h i n g special, as s o m e t h i n g f a l l i n g outside the n o r m a l mentality. 29

It is time to conclude this paragraph. We have seen that among the examples adduced by Versnel no example o f an 'effective death' o f an individual for the whole o f the c o m m u n i t y can be found. Moreover, his examples from the first century all concern the Roman emperor and his Roman subjects. N o evidence has as yet been b r o u g h t forward that this Roman i d e o l o g y also i n ­ fluenced those in the subjected areas. Since the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Jesus' execution as a vicarious death is already to be f o u n d i n the thirties or, at the latest, i n the forties o f the first century, an influence o f the self-sacrificial mentality as argued by Versnel seems to be improbable. 3. IV Maccabees Since IV Maccabees plays an i m p o r t a n t role i n recent discussions o f the o r i g i n o f the idea o f the atonement, we now t u r n to this work, with its literary form that o f a diatribe and its many motifs derived from the Greek epilaphios logos *° T a k i n g its inspiration from I I Maccabees, it relates the martyrdom o f the aged Eleazar and the seven sons with their mother. But unlike its m o d e l , we

2 9

For this p o i n t I am i n d e b t e d to the insightful discussion o f G. Te Henbach, ' M e n t a l i t ä t ' , i n E. I l a s t u j e r el ai (eds), Geschieh te Wirtschaft, Gesell­ schaft. Festschrift für Clemens Bauer zum 75. Geburtstag (Berlin, 1974) 3 1-30. This article has to be added to the extensive b i b l i o g r a p h y o f the ' h i s t o i r e des m e n t a l i t é s ' by W. Frijhoff, i n Ge$chiedenis psychologie, mentaliteit, A m s t e r d a m 1982,201-7. Sec the discussions by V a n H e n ten, De joodse martelaren, !78-85 a n d Klauck, 4 Makkabäerbuch, 659-62. y

t

3 0

THE

87

ATONEMENT

now find a clear theology o f an 'effective death', Eleazar is repre­ sented as a priest from the house o f A r o n and he prays *Be merciful to your people and let our punishment be a satisfaction on their behalf. Make my blood their purificatory sacrifice (kathdrsion) and take my life as a ransom {antzpsychon) for theirs* (6:28f.), These verses cannot be separated from those i n the epilogue, where the author concludes: 'These then, having consecrated themselves for the sake o f God, are now honoured... (and) through them..,our land (was) purified, since they became, as i t were, a ransom (antzpsychon) for the sin o f our nation. T h r o u g h the b l o o d o f these righteous ones and through their propitiating (hilasteriou) death the divine providence rescued Israel, w h i c h had been shamefully treated' (17:20-22, tr. H . Anderson, slighdy adapted). O n c e again we can distinguish a Jewish a n d Greek back­ g r o u n d i n these words and ideas. The p u r i f i c a t i o n w i t h b l o o d refers to the O l d Testament expiatory sacrifice where b l o o d had to be put on the altar (Lev. 4), and the hilasteriou o f 17:22 suggests the mercy seat o f the ark, which the H i g h Priest had to sprinkle with b l o o d on the Day o f Atonement (Lev. 16:14f.)‫ ־‬Yet the r e m i n i ­ scences o f the O l d Testament do n o t explain completely the t h e m e o f vicarious death and i t will now hardly come as a surprise that, once again, the most recent commentator u p o n I V Maccabees sees here the influence o f Euripides. It is tempting to agree with h i m , although another solution seems more exciting. But before we discuss this problem, we will first take a look at the date o f IV Maccabees. 31

32

We have at least three different possibilities i n d a t i n g the treatise. First, we can look at the realia in the text, such as datable persons or institutions. This approach was taken by the late Russian-Jewish historian Elias Bickerman i n 1939, who o n the basis o f the names o f Roman provinces concluded to a date some­ where between 18 and 54 A D ; his arguments, however, leave m u c h to be desired. As Van H e n ten has shown, we can only say on the basis o f an ' i n s t i t u t i o n a l ' approach that the work was w r i t t e n after 72 A D , when Cicilia campestris was re-united w i t h

3 1

$

2

Klauck, 4 Makkabaerbuch, Klauck, i b i d e m , 6 7 1 .

ad loc.

88

J .

N .

B R E M M E R

33

Cilicia aspera. The philosophical ideas o f the author are a second possibility. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , his m i x t u r e o f Peripatetic, Stoic, Cynic and Pythagorean Gedankengut does n o t p e r m i t a certain dating. A c c o r d i n g to Jaap Mansfeld, b o t h the first a n d second century A D r e m a i n possible. Finally, we can attempt a dating o n the basis o f the vocabulary. This approach was taken by Breitenstein, in a careful investigation, i n which he has demon­ strated that the vocabulary o f IV Maccabees is related to that o f early Christian l i t e r a t u r e rather than that o f the Septuaginta. Moreover, quite a few words are only attested i n authors o f the second or even t h i r d centuries. Breitenstein has also shown that the author distances himself from the T e m p l e and its cult; i t is therefore reasonable to conclude, as do most recent studies, that the treatise has to be dated around 100 A D , i f not even somewhat later. 34

35

36

Since the idea o f a vicarious death occurs b o t h i n Paul and I V Maccabees, two possibilities m i g h t seem to present themselves: the similarity is either a case o f analogy' or o f 'genealogy'. The m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m e n c o u n t e r e d here has recently been discussed at l e n g t h by Jonathan Smith, with his usual e r u d i t i o n and brilliance. He arrives at the conclusion that the Zeitgeist can 1

3 3

F‫ ״‬Bicker m a n . Studies in Jewish and Christian History I , Leiden 1976, 275-81 ( 1 9 3 9 ^ ) . Contra: J.W. Van H e n t e n , D a t i e r u n g u n d H e r k u n f t des v i e r t e n M a k k a b ä e r b u c h e s , i n J.W. van H e n ten et al (eds.), Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, L e i d e n 1986, 136-49. Van H e n ten is largely followed by Klauck, 4 Makkabäerbuch, 668f. These have been investigated by U . Breitenstein, Beobachtungen zu Sprache, Stil und Gedankengut des Vierten Makkabäerbuch, Diss, Basel 1976, 131-75; sec now also R. Weber, Elise be ia u n d Logismos. Z u m p h i l o s o p h i s c h e n H i n t e r ­ g r u n d von I V . M a k k a b ä e r , / Stud. Jud. 22 (1991) 212-34. Mansfeld (personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) also p o i n t s o u t that the a u t h o r ' s p h r a s i n g o f his p h i l o s o p h i c a l ideas is h i g h l y r h e t o r i c a l . A close p a r a l l e l can be f o u n d in the Middlc-Platonist or Stoic AIcinous, w h o is also dated to the first o r second c e n t u r y A D , cf. J. W h i t t a k c r , T h e V a l u e o f I n d i r e c t T r a d i t i o n i n the Establishment o f Greek Philosophical Texts or the A r t o f M i s q u o t a t i o n , i n J . N . G r a n t ( e d . ) , Editing Greek and Latin Texts, New York 1989,63-95. Vocabulary: Breitenstein, Beobachtungen, 13-29, 171-4 ( T e m p l e ) . Recent studies: Van H c n t e n and Klauck ( n . 28), The exception is M . G o o d m a n , who w i t h o u t any a r g u m e n t rejects B r e i t c n s t e h r s results: S c h ü r e r , History of the Jewish People I I I . 1. 5 9 1 . 3 / 1

s : >

3 6

89

T H E ATONEMENT

often have a similar impact on different religions. However, when he considers the rise o f an increased focus o n the 'dying and rising' o f the central cult figure both i n Christianity and the Late A n t i q u e cults o f Attis and A d o n i s as a case o f 'analogy (possibly even o f shared causality', he has evidently overlooked the fact that there was lively interchange between pagans and Christians i n Late Antiquity. I n an detailed study o f the Christian discours hagiogj-aphique, Marc van Uytfanghe has demonstrated that Late A n t i q u i t y knew o f parallel developments among Chris­ tians and pagans, but also that some pagans developed their ideas i n response to and i n c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h the C h r i s t i a n s . T h e religious situation i n Late Antiquity was too complicated to have its relationships reduced (as Smith does) to either 'analogy' or 'genealogy': b o t h categories have to be taken i n t o account i n order to understand properly the religious developments i n Late A n t i ­ quity. Moreover, we have to be sensitive to the problem o f compe­ t i t i o n between religions, since religions do n o t exist i n isolation from one another but are able to reorganise themselves i n the face o f a strong challenge by a competitor on the market o f symbolic goods. The Counter-Reformation is a good example o f a pheno­ m e n o n which deserves more attention than it has so far received from general historians o f religion. 37

38

Versnel (1989a, 192; 1989b, 238; 1992a, 11) argues that both Paul and the author o f IV Maccabees have arrived independently at the idea o f a vicarious death, influenced as they were by the men­ tality o f their contemporaneous society: this w o u l d thus be a case o f 'analogy'. O n the other hand, on the basis o f similarities both i n vocabulary and expression, S.K. Williams has recently suggested that the Jewish treatise was an i m p o r t a n t source o f inspiration for the Martyrium Polycarpi, the letters o f Ignatius, the epistle to the Hebrews, and perhaps even some authentic letters o f Paul: this w o u l d be a case o f 'genealogy'. Unfortunately, Williams has n o t sufficiently d i s t i n g u i s h e d between parallel passages d e r i v i n g

3 7

J.Z. S m i t h , Drudgery Divine. On the Companson of Early Chnstianilies and the Religions of Late Antiquity, Chicago and L o n d o n 1990, csp. 113f. M . J . M . van Uytfanghe, H e t 'genre' hagiografie: Christelijke specificiteit versus laat-antieke context, i n A. H i l h o r s t ( c d . ) , De heiligenverering in de eerste eeuwen van het Christendom, Nijmegen 1988, 63-98. 3 8

90

J . N. B R E M M E R 39

from parallel situations, and real parallels. When we find the theme o f 'endurance' (hypomone) both i n I V Maccabees (16:19) and the letters o f Ignatius (Pol. 3:1; Smyr. 9:2), the parallel is generated by die situation o f m a r t y r d o m , i n w h i c h steadfastness is h i g h l y desired: hardly surprisingly, the quality is frequently m e n t i o n e d in the acts o f the Christian m a r t y r s . Similarly, the designation o f the faithful one as an athlete i n IV Maccabees (17:16) and Ignatius (Pol. 2:3) derives from a general mentality w h i c h is already f o u n d i n Philo and w h i c h was clearly ' p r o ­ duced' by the great love o f athletics in the Hellenistic w o r l d . T h e only really interesting parallel is the w o r d antipsychon, which docs not occur i n the Septuaginta, New Testament or any other o f the Apostolic Fathers but occurs twice i n IV Maccabees and four times i n Ignatius. The word acquires its full theological weight only in IV Maccabees and this makes it difficult to decide whether we here have a case o f derivation or a p r o d u c t o f an analogous situation. Similar objections can be b r o u g h t to bear against W i l l i a m s ' c o m p a r i s o n between I V Maccabees a n d Hebrews despite the fact that there is one parallel which is rather striking. I n both writings the martyr slain (Eleazar, Jesus) is b o t h priest and offering. Since no other Jewish or Christian author before Hebrews makes a similar claim, the parallel, as Williams persuasively argues, can hardly be discounted. A l t h o u g h an influence from Hebrews, now dated to just before 100 A D , can­ not be summarily dismissed, the case does not look sufficiently strong to allow any definitive conclusions to be drawn from i t . Since we have already questioned the existence o f a self-sacrificial 40

41

4 2

3 9

1

Conlra Williams, Jesus Death as saving Event, 233-53. Cf. Van Uytfanghe, I let genre' hagiographie, 77 on analogous responses to analogous situations. Cf, j . den Boefl and J. Breminer, N o t i u n c u l a e martyrologicae I V , Vigiliae Chrislianae 45 (1991) 105-22, esp. 118. This has been overlooked by B. Dehandschutter, M a r t y r i u m u n d A g o n . U b e r die W u r z e l n der V o r s t e l l u n g vom Agon i m vierten M a k k a b ä c r b u c h , i n Van H e n t e n , Entstehung der jüdischen Martyrologie, 215-9. Better: Van H e n t e n , De joodse martelaren, 192 f. For Jews and sport see I I.A. Harris, Greek Athletics and the Jews, C a r d i f f 1976; M . Poliakoff, Jacob, J o b and o l h c r wrestlers: r e c e p t i o n o f C r e e k athletics by Jews and Christians in a n t i q u i t y , /. Sport History 1 1 (1984) 48^85. ^ A l l recent commentaries date Hebrews before 100 A D , cf. R. M c L . Wilson (1987); I I . W . A t t r i d g e (1987); E. Crasser (1990); II.-F. Weiss (1991). 1

4 0

4 1

4

91

T H E ATONEMENT

m e n t a l i t y , as p r o p o s e d by Versnel, a n d since W i l l i a m s still departs from the dating proposed by B i c k e r m a n , we shall now t u r n to the approach which takes i n t o account the possibility o f a c o m p e t i t i o n between religions. Recent studies agree that IV Maccabees was n o t w r i t t e n i n a situation o f persecution. Consequently, the question must be asked as to why a Jewish a u t h o r o f a r o u n d 100 A D w o u l d be so interested i n the themes o f martyrdom, eusebeia, adherence to the national tradition and vicarious death. Klauck has stressed that the m a i n theme is a response to the threat o f assimilation i n the D i a s p o r a . This threat must have been evident, since Jews were well integrated i n many Hellenistic cities and c o u l d reach the highest positions available i n the government. ' The paradigm o f m a r t y r d o m enabled the author to dramatise his message and make it attractive to the taste o f his time, but why d i d he also develop the theme o f vicarious death, which he f o u n d only i n embryonic form i n his main source, I I Maccabees? D i d he per­ haps aim n o t only at assimilated Jews b u t also at those sympa­ thising with the Christians? C h r o n o l o g i c a l l y , the latter possibility can no l o n g e r be ex­ cluded. We are still insufficiently i n f o r m e d about the p e r i o d i n w h i c h Jews and Christians gradually parted on t h e i r several ways, but Luke's Acts and the letters o f Ignatius (Phld. 6; Mag. 9 0 show us that i n various cities i n Asia M i n o r the contacts between Jews and Christians were still close a r o u n d 100 A D . Rather strikingly, later midrashic texts on the A k c d a h or *binding* o f Isaac preclude the possibility o f a vicarious, atoning interpretation i n o r d e r n o t to show up Judaism as a r e l i g i o n defective i n 43

4

1

4 5

4 3

Klauck, 4 Makkabäerbuch, 664f. Cf. Den Boeft and B r c i n m c r , N o t i u n c u l a e , 117; add to their b i b l i o g r a p h y J . I L M . Strubbe, J o d c n en G r i e k c n : o n v e r z o e n l i j k c vijanden?, Lampas 22 (1989) 188-204; P. T r e b i l c o , Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991. O n the early C h r i s t i a n i s i n g j e w s a n d J u d a i z i n g Christians see most recenLly C P . L u t l i k h u i z e n , Vrocg-christelijk J o d c n d o m , i n T. Baarda et ai (cds), fodendom en vroeg chnstendom: continuïleit en discontinu teil, Kampen 1991, 163-89; G. K r e t s c h m a r , Die K i r c h e aus J u d e n u n d H e i d e n , i n J. van Amersfoort and j . van O o r t (eds.), Juden und Christen in der Antike, K a m p e n 1991, 9-43; S.C. M i m o u n i , Pour une d e f i n i t i o n nouvelle d u j u d é o - c h r i s t i a ­ nisme ancien, N. Test. Stud. 38 (1992) 161-86. 4 4

4 : >

92

J . N. B R E M M E R 46

c o m p a r i s o n w i t h C h r i s t i a n i t y . Yet is i t really impossible to imagine that i n the transitional p e r i o d a r o u n d 100 A D a Jew tried to convince his fellow Jews, who felt attracted to Christ, o f the existence o f a comparable figure i n their own tradition? Once again, we cannot exclude the influence o f Greek d r a m a (see above), b u t i t seems to me that the date o f I V Maccabees and its aim leave the possibility o f additional Christian influence o p e n . 47

4.

Conclusion

W h e n we now r e t u r n to the debate between De Jonge a n d Versnel, i t will be clear that i t is difficult to take sides with either scholar: De Jonge has not demonstrated that the early Christians were influenced by Jewish traditions and Versnel has n o t proved the existence o f a self-sacrifical m e n t a l i t y i n the earlier first century. Yet some 'pagan' influence can hardly be denied. W h e n we take i n t o account (1) that Greek was widely spoken i n Palestine i n Jesus* time, also probably by Jesus h i m s e l f , (2) that theatres were present i n the area, even i n J e r u s a l e m , (3) that Euripides* tragedies had already i n f l u e n c e d Ezekiel a n d the author o f I I Maccabees, (4) that Jews such as Philo (Omnis probus 141) attended Euripides' tragedies, which were widely read and performed i n Jesus* time, (5) that Euripides Bacchae was used by Luke i n his Acts and, significantly, later provided the material for 48

49

1

4 6

See Lhc subtle analysis o f C.T.R. Hayward, T h e Sacrifice o f Isaac a n d Jewish Polemic against Christianity, Cath. Bibi Quart. 52 (1990) 292-306. For the later influence o f Maccabees I V on earlier C h r i s t i a n i t y sec most recently G. N a u r o y , Les f r è r e s Maccabees dans Y e x é g è s e d ' A m b r o i s e de M i l a n ou la conversion de la sagesse j u d é o - h e l l é n i q u e aux valeurs d u mar­ tyre c h r é t i e n , Cahiers de Biblia Patristica (Strasburg) 2 (1989) 215-45; i d e m , D u combat de la p i é t é à la confession d u sang. Une i n t e r p r é t a t i o n c h r é t i e n n e du martyre des M a c c a b é e s chez A m b r o i s e de M i l a n , Ilev. dTîist. Philos. Rel 70 (1990) 49-68. Palestine: see most recently M . H e n g c l , The Tlellenization* of Judaea in the First Century after Christ, L o n d o n 1989, 7-18; G.R. Horsley, New Documnets Illustrating Early Christianity, N o r t h Ryde 1989, 5-40, esp. 19-22. Jesus: H . D . Bctz, Wellhausen's D i c t u m Jesus was n o t a Christian, but a Jew' in L i g h t o f Present Scholarship, Stud. Theol. 45 (1991) 83-110 (with further b i b l i o g r a p h y ) . Cf. Jos. BJ 1.21.8 (Caesarea), 11 (Ptolemais, Damascus), A n t . 15.8.1 (Jerusalem), 17.6.3 (Jericho) 4 7

4 8

4 9

93

T H E ATONEMENT

50

a Byzantine poem o n Christ's suffering, the Christus p a t i e n s , and (6) that dying for the good o f the people is an i m p o r t a n t topic i n Euripides' tragedies (above), then an influence, directly or i n d i r e c t l y , f r o m Euripides is also more than likely u p o n the Jew(s) who first interpreted Jesus' execution as a vicarious death. Unfortunately, our knowledge o f the p e r i o d between Jesus a n d Paul is extremely l i m i t e d and most Jewish literature o f the p e r i o d has perished. Surprises, therefore, are n o t to be excluded. I n fact, a f o r t h c o m i n g Q u m r a n text o f the second century BC evokes an eschatological figure, probably the H i g h Priest o f the Messianic era, w h o *will p e r f o r m an expiation (ykpr) for all the sons o f his generation'; the text even seems to refer to Isaiah 53. Unfortunate­ ly, the Aramaic fragment contains too many lacunae to allow us to see whether the H i g h Priest sacrificed his own life or atoned i n the T e m p l e . These circumstances must make the historian tread very carefully on his path. A l l we can say is that the tragedies o f Euripides are very likely to have contributed to the interpretation o f Jesus' death. The available evidence does not allow us to go any further. 51

52

5 0

Bacchae: J, Roux, Euripide. Les Bacchantes I , Paris 1970, 72-7. L u k e : O. W e i n r e i c h , Religionsgeschichtliche Studien, Darmstadt 1968, 170-9 ( 1 9 2 8 ) ; add J. Hackett, Echoes o f the Bacchae o f Euripides i n the Acts o f the Apostles?, Irish Theol Quart. 23 (1956) 218-27. Cf. E. Puech, Fragments d ' u n apocryphe de Levi et le personnage e s c h a t o l o g i q u e . 4 Q T e s t L é v i ‫ ) ? ( * ־‬et 4QAJa, i n J. T r e b o l l e Barrera and L . Vegas M o n t a n e r (eds.), The Madrid Qumram Congress. Proc. Int. Congr. on the Dead Sea Scroll Madrid 18-21 March 1991 I I , Leiden 1992. I am grateful to my friends a n d colleagues Jan den Boeft, F l o r e n t i n o Garcia M a r t i n e z a n d Jaap Mansfeld for advice, and to Alasdair M a c D o n a l d for the c o r r e c t i o n o f my English. 1

5 1

c

5 2

c

I gave them laws that were not good Ezekiel 20:25 in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity P l E T E R W l L L E M VAN D E R H O R S T

One o f Lhe many enigmas that the text o f the prophet Ezekiel poses is the meaning o f Ezek. 20:25, where God says to die p r o p h e t that he gave to the people o f Israel "laws that were n o t good and rules by which they could n o t live". M T reads: w gam ani natatti lahem huqqim W tovim u-mispatim W yihyu bahem. T h e L X X does not deviate here from the Hebrew: teal eyo) e8u>Ka aurdts T T p o o r d y i i a T a ov KaXa Kal SLKatcofiaTa kv &s 6

y

G0UTai

ov CA

v

€

OLUTOTS*•

T h e Vulgate, too, has a similar literal rendering: ergo el ego dedi eis praecepta non bona el indicia in quibus non vivenL There are no textcritical or grammatical problems here. T h e only p r o b l e m is the cxegctical-theological question: does the p r o p h e t really make G o d say that he gave his people laws that were n o t good, whereas some verses earlier he had G o d make a contrary statement, namely that he had led his people out o f Egypt and b r o u g h t them i n t o the wilderness where " I gave them my laws a n d showed t h e m my rules, by whose observance m a n shall live" (20:11)? Let us read what lies between these verses. G o d continues after v. 11 by saying that i n spite o f all these blessings Israel rebelled against h i m and d i d n o t walk i n his statutes a n d rejected his rules by w h i c h they c o u l d have lived. T h e n G o d planned to make an end o f them i n the wilderness, for their heart went after t h e i r idols; he swore n o t to b r i n g t h e m i n t o the promised land; but nonetheless he spared them again. T h e n G o d said to them that they should stop defiling themselves with their idols and transgressing his commandments, but they c o n t i n u e d

95

LAWS T H A T W E R E NOT GOOD

t h e i r non-observance o f the rules by whose observance m a n w o u l d have life. Still God w i t h h e l d his hand and prevented h i m ­ self from venting his anger against his people i n the wilderness. But finally, when they persisted i n their disobedience, he swore that he would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the countries, because they had rejected all his laws and transgressed all his ordinances. A n d therefore he gave t h e m "laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live", and the text goes on: "and I defiled them t h r o u g h their very gifts i n m a k i n g t h em offer by lire all their first-born, that I m i g h t destroy them" (26). Three times ( w . 11, 13, 21) God says that his good laws and statutes were meant to be a way to life, but because Israel had from the beginning consistently refused to live accord­ ing to them, G o d had already decided i n the wilderness p e r i o d to exile his people from the promised land and to give them *notg o o d ' laws that would lead to death instead o f life, specifically by having them sacrifice their first-born c h i l d r e n by b u r n i n g t h e m alive. A l t h o u g h i n this c o n t r i b u t i o n we will n o t focus on the mean­ ing o f this passage i n itself but rather on its 'Wirkungsgeschichte\ some b r i e f comments, based upon the research o f others , are i n order. This extraordinary statement is n o t as unique as i t m i g h t seem to be at first sight. "The shocking idea that God misleads those who anger h i m i n t o sin, for which he then destroys t h e m , already appears i n 14:9 [ A n d i f the prophet be deceived and speak a word, I , the L o r d , have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against h i m and will destroy h i m from the midst o f my people Israel']. It is essentially the same as God's h a r d e n i n g of Pharao's heart so that his r u i n m i g h t be a lasting object lesson 1

2

1

1

Sec, inter multos alios, VV. Z i m m e r l i , Ezechiel ( B K A T X I I I 1), N e u k i r c h e n 1969, 449-450; idem, Grundriß der alttestamentlichen Theologie, Stuttgart 1975 (2. A u f l . ) , 103, 186-187; M . Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 ( A n c h o r Bible 2 2 ) , G a r d e n City 1983, 368-369; M . Fish bane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, O x f o r d 1985, 181-187; G, C. Meider, The Cult of Motek. A Reassessment, Sheffield 1985, 369-375; i d e m , A F u r t h e r Turn on FzckicTs Baroque Twist in Ezek. 20:25-26, JBL 107 (1988), 721-724. Z i m m c r l i , Grundriß ( n . 1) 186: "eine für das A T ganz u n e r h ö r t e u n d ein­ m a l i g e Aussage". 2

96

P. W. VAN D E R H O R S T

(Ex. 9:16; 10:2) T h e second remark concerns the first-born. T h e law i n Ex. 22:28-29 runs as follows: "You shall give me your first­ b o r n son; you shall do likewise for your ox and your sheep; seven days he will stay w i t h his mother, (but) o n the e i g h t h day you shall give h i m to m c ' . This f o r m u l a t i o n suggests, as Fishbane remarks, that "there is no prima-facie reason n o t to i n t e r p r e t it as i n d i c a t i n g that b o t h first-born h u m a n males and t h e i r a n i m a l counterparts were to be donated to the L o r d . (...) Accordingly, there is no textual reason for assimilating the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Exod, 22:28-9 to those articulations o f the law where r e d e m p t i o n by compensation is envisaged and specified" . One m i g h t compare the formulation i n Ex. 13:1-2, "where all firstlings are required to be donated to Y H W H , with no qualification or mitigating circum­ stance specified" . Now i t is clear from several passages i n the Pentateuch that, although Ex. 22:28-29 can be read as preserving a law that prescribes the sacrifice o f first-born human males to God, this custom d i d not go uncriticized and unqualified because o f its being linked with the cult o f Molek (see e.g. Gen. 22, Ex. 13:12-13, 34:19-20, N u m . 18:15-18) . [ I ] t would appear that successive legal strata have been preserved: an ancient, categorical rule w h i c h states that all first-born—humans and animals alike—belong to Y H W H ; and subsequent qualifications a n d justifications w h i c h p e r m i t modes o f r e d e m p t i o n (...). From this perspective, the unique formulation found i n Exod. 22:28-9, which subsumes per­ sons and animals i n t o one undifferentiated cultic-legal category, reflects the older o f the two strata just delineated. (...) O n e may imagine that many Israelites preserved the o l d custom as an expression o f excessive piety fo?ig after the permission to redeem h u m a n first-born had substituted new, divinely sanctioned, pro­ cedures" . M

5

6

7

u

8

Passages like Ezek. 16:21 and 23:39 make clear that h u m a n first­ b o r n were actually sacrificed. T h e second passage says: "When 3

Green berg ( n . 1) 369. For this translation and criticism o f o t h e r c u r r e n t translations see Fishbane ( n . 1) 181. Ibid. 181. Ibid. 182. O n these and other passages H c i d c r , Cult of Molek (n. 1) 232-301. Fishbane, ibid. 183-184.

4

5

6

7

8

97

LAWS T H A T W E R E N O T G O O D

they had slaughtered their c h i l d r e n i n sacrifice to their idols, o n the same day they came i n t o my sanctuary to profane i t " . T h e fact o f their visiting Y H W H ' s temple after the sacrifice o f c h i l d r e n strongly suggests that they regarded this custom as a law o f the G o d o f Israel. I t is w o r t h q u o t i n g Fishbane here again: "Under divine inspiration, Ezekiel himself seems to offer an explanation for what he too undoubtedly perceived as a most puzzling matter. His explanation, i n fact, does n o t stop short o f implicating the G o d o f Israel. I n Ezek. 20, after a r e p o r t e d divine rebuke o f Israel's historical past, when they rebelled against Y H W H i n the wilder­ ness, Y H W H states, t h r o u g h the prophet, that instead o f destroy­ i n g the people there and then he swore to exile them i n the future, and, so as to ensure this event, *1 gave them laws which were n o t good and ordinances by which they could n o t live; and I p o l l u t e d t h e m t h r o u g h their [sacral] donations, when they transmitted/ devoted every first-born, i n order to destroy t h e m ' ( w . 25-6) " . A n d he adds that the law o f the h u m a n first-born was 'bad' because i t was abused or m i s i n t e r p r e t e d — t o the people's d o o m and the fulfilment o f the divine oath, and that this misinterpretation was perhaps simply the result o f excessive piety ( i n w h i c h influence from Canaanite practices certainly played a part). 9

H e i d e r sees i n v. 26 "Ezekicl's c o u n t e r p a r t to Jeremiah's insistence that c h i l d sacrifice was s o m e t h i n g ' w h i c h I d i d n o t command, n o r d i d it enter into my m i n d ' (Jer, 7:31; 19:5; 32:35)". He suggests that b o t h prophets' remarks "are i n response to the people's claim that Yahweh had, indeed, legislated c h i l d sacri­ fice, w h i c h they were offering h i m i n the cult o f M o l e k . (...) T h e n , i n a baroque twist worthy o f the prophet, Ezekiel turns the theological tables o n the practitioners: very well, Yahweh d i d give the law they were cidng, but i t was given so that obedience w o u l d not b r i n g life, but would 'devastate' them. I f Israel w o u l d n o t obey God's good laws for life, they w o u l d obey his bad laws for deadi, but they would obey" . 10

9

Ibid. 185. H e i d e r , Cult of Molek ( n , 1) 370, here refers to the n o t i o n o f a ' d e m o n i c ' side to Y H W H , o n w h i c h sec the o l d e r b u t still valuable study by P. Volz, Das Dämonische in fahwe, T ü b i n g e n 1924. H e i d e r , Cult ( n . 1) 372. O n the l i n k o f Ez. 20:25-26 with the h a r d e n i n g o f Pharao's heart a n d the death o f the E g y p t i a n first-born see H e i d e r , A 1 0

98

P. W. VAN D E R MORST

So m u c h for m o d e r n research o n this remarkable passage i n Ezekiel. T h e decisive difference, as we will see, between m o d e r n a n d ancient exegesis is that the m o d e r n biblical scholar tries to place the passage concerned into its historical and literary context and to explain i t from that setting, whereas b o t h ancient Jewish and early Christian exegesis are most often characterized by a decontextualizing (and atomizing) approach i n which the histori­ cal setting plays n o role, b u t w h i c h enables the exegete' to actualize the text. T h e awareness of the practice o f Israelite c h i l d sacrifice as part o f the background o f our passage will n o t be f o u n d in any o f the writings that deal with it. To be sure, i t is a l o n g way before we find the first reference to Ezek. 20:25 i n post-biblical Jewish sources. One looks i n vain for i t i n all o f the Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudcpigrapha, nor does one find any reference or allusion to, let alone quotation of, our text i n P h i l o or Josephus or any o f the other Jewish-Greek authors . I n the Q u m r a n scrolls our text is never quoted or even alluded t o . I n Tannaitic literature no trace o f our text is to be found. I t is only i n the 3rd t h r o u g h 6th centuries that we find rabbis discussing the m e a n i n g o f this passage. What c o u l d be the b a c k g r o u n d o f this l o n g silence? I t c o u l d be sheer coincidence, but there are several factors that prevent us from resorting to this easy solution. 4

11

12

13

It is not only the fact that our text, especially when looked at i n isolation from its historical background, was really embarrassing for the Jewish religious c o m m u n i t y that played a role here. There was also a more general reason that makes up for the relatively scarce use o f Ezekiel i n ancient Jewish writings. O f course, we do find many references to Ezek. 1 and 10 in the apocalyptic and eso­ teric w r i t i n g s ; and we also find some other traces o f Ezekielian 14

Further Twist ... ( n . 1). Remarkably e n o u g h , Philo's only q u o t a t i o n s f r o m Ezekiel all are f r o m ch. 44! Sec Biblia Patristica, Supplement, Paris 1982, 89. T h e r e are also no quotations or allusions in pagan authors, as can now conveniently be checked i n the comprehensive survey by G. R i n a l d i , Biblia gentium, Rome 1989. I am i n d e b t e d to Dr. F. Garcia M a r t i n e z for help i n finding this out. See Chr. Rowland, The Influence of the First Chapter of Ezekiel on Judaism and Christianity, u n p u b l . diss. Cambridge 1975; i d e m , The Open Heaven. A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity, L o n d o n 1982. 1 1

1 2

1 5

1 4

99

LAWS T H A T W E R E N O T GOOD

language a n d imagery i n early Jewish writings, but o n the whole the harvest is very meager . The m a i n reason for this reserved attitude most probably was that the book o f Ezekiel as a whole was i n some sense regarded as dangerous and hence l o o k e d u p o n with a certain distrust. It is not difficult to see the motives for this suspicion. First and foremost, there were the negative criticisms and often very vehement denunciations o f the people o f Israel i n the prophet's book. Chapter 20 is only one example o f the incisive a n d m o r d a n t way o f vilifying the way o f life o f the people. Second, there was the very serious p r o b l e m o f the divergences between the T o r a h o f Moses and some statements i n Ezekiel. The best k n o w n instance is o f course the contradiction i n the idea o f personal responsibility between Ex. 20:5 and 34:7 on the one hand and Ezek. 18:3-4 o n the other. But this was not the only one. I n the B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d , Menahot 45a, we find a whole series o f halakhot from b o t h the T o r a h and Ezekiel w h i c h contradict one another; i n some cases the rabbis succeeded i n solving the contra­ dictions, i n others they said, ' T h i s passage will be interpreted by Elijah i n the future", w h i c h means that they were unable to reconcile the verse with the rule o f the T o r a h and that i t w o u l d have to be explained by the herald o f the messianic era. I t was the first century scholar Hananiah ben Hezekiah who d i d his utmost to reconcile Ezekiel w i t h Moses so as to prevent Ezekiel from b e i n g excluded from the canon, s o m e t h i n g i n w h i c h he suc­ ceeded only w i t h great difficulty (see Bavli Shabbath 13b a n d Chagigah 13a) . T h i r d , and related to this, was the p r o b l e m that Ezekiel's description o f the future temple d i d not agree with the rules laid down by God for the b u i l d i n g o f his sanctuary i n the T o r a h . Fourth, there was the fact that speculation about the divine c h a r i o t (merkavah) i n the vision o f Ezekiel ch. 1 had l e d to dangerous heresies i n some esoteric circles, the most serious o f w h i c h was the d o c t r i n e o f *two powers i n heaven (ste resuyot 15

16

1

l o

O n this see especially E. Dassmann, Hcsekiel, Reallexihon fur Anlike und Christentum\4 (1988) 1133-1149 (1132-1191). See Dassmann, Hesekicl 1133-44; also M . Greenberg and M . A b e r b a c h in Encyclopaedia Judaica 6 (1972) 1094-96. I n Shabbath 13b Rav J u d a h says: " I n t r u t h that m a n , H a n a n i a h son o f Hezekiah by name, is to be r e m e m b e r e d for blessing; but for h i m , the Book o f Ezekiel w o u l d have been h i d d e n [i.e., excluded from the C a n o n ] , for its words contradict the T o r a h " . 1 6

100

P. W\ VAN D E R H O R S T 11

basamayim) ', which threatened the heart o f the Jewish faith, sc. m o n o t h e i s m . A n d finally—but this is somewhat speculative—the embarrassing text under discussion, which attributes to G o d the giving o f evil laws to his own people, may have been a reason to avoid m e n t i o n i n g the book, the more so since this passage was e x p l o i t e d by the C h u r c h Fathers i n an anti-Jewish sense, as we shall presently see . T a k i n g all this i n t o account, i t is n o wonder that i n rabbinic literature one can find several critical or conde­ scending remarks about o u r p r o p h e t . A n d i n view o f the very modest Ezekiel-reception i n non-rabbinic l i t e r a t u r e , one may assume that this reserved attitude was not l i m i t e d to r a b b i n i c circles. O n the whole there must have been i n ancient Judaism at least m i x e d feelings about this prophet. 18

19

Be that as it may, when we find a discussion o f Ezek. 20:25 i n rabbinic literature, we see that the most disturbing aspect o f this verse was played down. But let us first have a look at the targum to Ezekiel, not because it is the earliest text, since i t is h a r d to date , b u t since, b e i n g a ' t r a n s l a t i o n ' , i t falls somewhat outside the framework o f the regular rabbinic literature, and also since i t illustrates so nicely the problems our biblical verse created to the ancient Jews. I quote the targum to 20:25 i n Levey's t r a n s l a t i o n : "So, too, since they had rebelled against my M e m r a and d i d n o t wish to listen to my prophets, I removed them and delivered them i n t o the hand o f their enemies; they followed their stupid inclina­ tion and they obeyed religious decrees which were n o t p r o p e r a n d laws by which they c o u l d not survive". Levey translates the text as f o u n d i n the Rabbinic Bibles, but the edition by A. Sperber 20

21

1

' Sec A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven. Early Rabbinic Reports about Christia­ nity and Gnosticism, Leiden 1977. A comparable case is the embarrassing episode o f the g o l d e n calf, w h i c h is deliberately o m i t t e d by Josephus, w h i c h caused the rabbis many p r o b l e m s a n d was exploited by the C h u r c h Fathers; sec L, Smolar & M . Aberbach, T h e G o l d e n Calf Episode i n Postbibiical Literature, Hebrew Union College Annual 39 (1968) 91-116. Examples are quoted by Aberbach i n Enc. Jud. 6, 1095. S. I I . Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel ( T h e A r a m a i c Bible 13), E d i n b u r g h 1987, 2, dates its final redaction to the tenth century but assumes m u c h older stra ta. Ibid. 63. 1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

LAWS T H A T W E R E N O T GOOD

101

22

r e a d s : " I delivered them into the power [hands] o f their stupid inclinations, they went and made [rather than 'obeyed', *avadu] decrees etc. Whatever reading one follows, i t is clear that i n b o t h cases G o d is discharged from responsibility for having given n o t - g o o d laws' to the people. I n a note Levey remarks: "Tg.'s r e n d e r i n g o f this verse makes God responsible for r e t a l i a t i n g against them by d e l i v e r i n g them to their enemies, whose u n ­ worthy laws they were compelled to obey, all because they w o u l d n o t obey God's laws. M T is theologically unacceptable to T g . " This is correct, b u t the element o f u n b u r d e n i n g G o d s h o u l d receive extra emphasis here. W h e n we now t u r n to rabbinic literature i n the proper sense, we f i n d very different solutions to the p r o b l e m . O u r earliest evidence is a passage i n T a l m u d Yerushalmi, Eruvin I I I 9, 21c‫־‬22a. It is a difficult passage , which takes its point o f departure i n Song o f Songs 1:6: " M y mother's sons were angry with me, they made me keeper o f the vineyards, but my own vineyard I have n o t k e p t ' . R. Ba and R. Hiyya i n the name o f R. Yohanan: W h a t made me guard the vineyards? It is because o f n o t keeping my own vineyard. W h a t made me keep two festival days i n Syria? I t is because I d i d not keep one proper festival in the Holy L a n d . I i m a g i n e d that I w o u l d receive a reward for the two days, but I received a reward only for one o f them. What made it necessary that I should have to separate two pieces o f dough-offering from grain g r o w n i n Syria? I t is because I d i d n o t separate a single piece o f dough-offering i n the L a n d o f Israel. I t h o u g h t that I m i g h t receive a reward for two, but I received a reward only for one. R. Yohanan cited the f o l l o w i n g verse i n t h e i r regard: 'Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances 1

2 3

24

1

2 2

A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, III: The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan, Leiden 1992 (= 1962), 307. Levey 63 n.10. I t s h o u l d be added that T a r g u m J o n a t h a n renders the terms huqqim and mispatim, when they refer to laws and ordinances o f G o d , by q yamaya and dinin, but w h e n they refer to pagan rules and statutes, by g ziran and nimusin, w h i c h is the case here; see L . Smolar & M . A b e r b a c h , Studies in Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, New York and B a l t i m o r e 1983, 40 w i t h n . 232. '* I owe thanks to Dr. Joanna W e i n b e r g ( L e o Baeck College, L o n d o n ) for help w i t h die i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f this difficult text. 2 3

e

e

2

1

102

P. W. VAN D E R H O R S T 1

25

by which they could not have life (Ez, 20:25)" . T h e occurrence o f the p l u r a l 'vineyards' i n t h e y made me keeper o f the vine­ yards" alongside the singular i n " I have n o t kept my own vine­ yard" (Song o f Songs 1:6) is the occasion for a question concern­ i n g the keeping o f two festival days and the separating o f two pieces o f hallah i n Syria over against one day and one hallah i n Israel. I n the diaspora an extra day is added to each o f the biblical festival days (except for Yom K i p p u r ) because o f the uncertainty i n the diaspora about the day o n w h i c h the New M o o n was announced. Also, two pieces of hallah had to be separated i n Syria (here for: the diaspora) , one for the priest (biblical) and one to be b u r n t because Syria is to be regarded as unclean (non-biblical, see Mishna, Hallah IV 8). These are post-biblical, rabbinic rules, based u p o n a certain conception o f the difference between living i n the Land o f Israel and living outside it. Now our Yerushalmi text says that keeping the extra festival day and separating the extra doughoffering does not yield an extra reward; so these rabbinic rulings are not very rewarding. I t is as i f "my mother's sons were angry with me", i.e. our rabbis seem to punish us for n o t living i n Israel (for *not keeping my own vineyard'). These rules are therefore to be regarded as Ezekiel's Taws that are not g o o d ' , i n the sense o f Taws that are not rewarding'. What we see here is that the alarming text o f Ezekicl is tamed by making it refer to rabbinic rules that are not really rewarding for the people that keep them i n the diaspora. ‫״‬

2 6

27

We find almost the same passage (again i n the name o f R. Johanan) i n Pesiqta de Rav Kahana X I V 4 (ed. B. M a n d e l b a u m , p. 244), also from about the 5th c e n t . , where the most recent translators freely but aptly render the biblical verse by 'Therefore I gave them also statutes that were n o t rewarding^. A n d i n the 28

2

° TransL by J. Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel, vol. 12: Erubin, C h i c a g o - L o n d o n 1991, 122. T h i s extra day is called yom tov sheni shel galuyyot; see the E d i t o r i n Enc. Jud. 6 (1972) 1244. O n the uncertainly o f the status o f Syria—does it or does iL n o t belong to the L a n d o f Israel?—see K. A l b r c c h t , Chatla (Die Mischna I 9 ) , G i e ß e n 1913, 34-36. Cf. m . Aia'as. V 5. See H . L . S t r a c k - G . Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, M ü n c h e n 1982, 273. W. G. Braude & I . J . Kapstetn, Pesikta de-Rab Kahana, L o n d o n 1975, 270: 2 6

2 7

2 8

2 9

LAWS T H A T W E R E N O T GOOD

103

perhaps slightly later midrash Shir ha-Shirim Rabba I 6,5 we read: R. Ba said i n the name o f R. Johanan: The c o m m u n i t y o f Israel said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Because I d i d not keep one day o f the festivals properly i n the L a n d o f Israel, b e h o l d , I keep two days i n the diaspora. I thought I should receive reward for two, b u t I only receive reward for one. R. Johanan applied to ihem the verse, Therefore I gave them also statutes that were n o t good'". We can observe here that R. Yohanan's explanation o f Ez. 20:25 i n terms o f non-rewarding rabbinic halakhah had gained support. N o d o u b t it was a r e l i e f to be able to e x p l o i t such an u n b u r d e n i n g exegesis i n the face o f the anti-Jewish Christian exegesis o f the same text. W h e n we now direct our attention to the Babylonian T a l m u d , we see a different picture. That is to say, the u n d e r l y i n g motive remains the same, namely avoiding the i m p l i c a t i o n that G o d gave Israel laws that were n o t g o o d , but the reasoning is m o r e sophisticated. I n Berakhot 24b we read a l o n g discussion about reciting Tejillah (i.e. the Shemone Esreh prayer), i n which inter alia the question is raised under which circumstances a person should not recite the Tejillah at the prescribed time: when are the limits o f respect being broken? For instance, what should a man do when he is lying i n his bed together with his wife at the m o m e n t it is time to recite theTefillah? Is it allowed to recite the Tejillah w h e n one feels the need for b e l c h i n g or yawning or spitting? Can a person go o n reciting the Tejillah when he has to break wind? One scholar says: W h e n a man is standing saying the Tejillah and he breaks w i n d , he has to wait till the smell has passed off and then he begins to pray again. Others say: I f he stands saying the Tefillah and he wants to break wind, he steps back four cubits and breaks w i n d , waits till the w i n d has gone, a n d resumes his prayer, saying: "Sovereign o f the Universe, T h o u hast f o r m e d us with various hollows and various vents. Well dost T h o u know our ‫״‬

4

"What forced me i n Syria Lo observe two days o f the festivals? T h e fact that in Israel I had not observed the festival for the one day i t was o r d a i n e d to be observed o n . W h e n 1 was made to observe the two, I supposed that I w o u l d receive reward for b o t h , b u t it was only for one that I received reward. [ O f such enforced observances outside the LandJ R. J o h a n a n cited the verse, 'Therefore I gave t h e m also statutes that were not rewarding'" (italics m i n e ) .

I \ W . V A N DER HORST

104

shame and confusion and that our latter end is worms and con­ fusions"; and he begins again from the place where he stopped. Also the question is raised whether a man who is walking i n a dirty alley or is at a rubbish d u m p can go on reciting the Tefillah. Some say that he may do so only i f he puts his h a n d over his m o u t h ; others say that one has to stop altogether i n such a situation: "Suppose he docs n o t stop, what happens? R. Meyasha the grandson o f R. Joshua ben Levi said: O f h i m Scripture says, ' T h e r e f o r e I gave them also statutes that were n o t g o o d and ordinances whereby they could n o t live*". Here again we see that the text o f Ezekiel is applied to a situation i n which the responsi­ bility for the Taws that were not g o o d ' is removed from G o d and transferred to some o f the rabbis. I t is again a rather i n n o c e n t accusation that they get to hear: they have decreed that one should not recite the most important prayer when being i n a place w i t h a bad smell, but this is a situation that can hardly be avoided, so it is wellnigh impossible to live by such a rule: i n that sense i t is 'not good ! T h e second passage i n the Bavli, Megillah 32a, deals w i t h the ways i n which Scripture should be read and Mishna s h o u l d be recited i n synagogue services: R. Shefatiah said i n the name o f R. Johanan: I f one reads the Scripture without a melody or repeats the Mishnah without a tune, o f h i m the Scripture says: 'Moreover I gave t h e m statutes that were n o t good, e t c . ' . Abaye strongly d e m u r r e d at this, saying: Because he cannot sing agreeably, are you to apply to h i m the verse, 'ordinances by which they cannot live ? No, this verse is to be applied as by R. Mesharshia, who said: I f two scholars live i n the same town and do n o t treat one an­ other's halachic pronouncements respectfully, o f them the verse says, T gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they cannot live ". Here we see again a different applica­ tion o f o u r biblical text: Shefatiah says that Scripture should be read i n a cantillating way, probably because an accompanying melody enlivens one's studies and endears the laws w h i c h one 1

U

i0

1

1

3 0

I I . I.,. Strack-P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch I V 1, M ü n c h e n 1928, 161, translate the biblical quotation as follows: "Habe auch ich i h n e n SaUungen gegeben, die n i c h t s c h ö n ( k l i n g e n ) ? " and they r e m a r k : "Der Vers scheint als Fragesaty. gefasst zu sein".

105

LAWS T H A T WERK NOT G O O D 1

learns. I f such are described as 'not good , it is because the melody is lacking. Here we sec again a typical form o f decontextualizing exegesis: the historical and literary setting is again completely ignored, which enables the cxposer to apply the verse to statutes which i n themselves are good but which are made i n t o not-good laws' by r e c i t i n g them w i t h o u t an accompanying melody. I n a later extra-talmudic treatise, Massekhel Sopherim I I I 10, we find exactly the same explanation, but this time w i t h o u t the second half with Abaye's protest. For the Bavli text goes on by saying that Abaye objected that it is untenable to apply to a man who cannot sing well when reading Scripture the verse about the ordinances by which one cannot live. He rejects this interpretation in favour o f another one, by Mesharshia, who said that i f two scholars treat one a n o t h e r ' s h a l a k h i c decisions disrespectfully, that verse applies to them. That is to say, i t is these scholars themselves who make their own halakhot i n t o 'laws that are not good* by treating those o f another sage without respect. 4

We move i n t o the early M i d d l e Ages when we Finally take a glance at Shemoth Rabbah? . The whole o f ch. 30 is a l o n g midrash on Ex. 21:1, * Now these are the ordinances that you shall set before them". I n this discussion it is remarked that the heathen also have their judges but that these neither study the T o r a h n o r fulfil it, as i t says, 'Therefore I gave them also statutes that were n o t g o o d and ordinances whereby they s h o u l d n o t live' (Ez. 20:25), b u t w i t h regard to the commandments i t says, By d o i n g them a man shall live' (Lev. 18:5), Here we see a definitive separa­ tion o f the laws that are not good from those o f the people o f Israel: it is the ordinances o f the gentiles that are not g o o d and they are what the p r o p h e t spoke about. The p r o o f is a verse i n Lev. 18 i n which i t is said concerning God's commandments that by d o i n g them a m a n shall live, and this can never refer to the same commandments as those meant by the prophet: those were pagan statutes! 1

1

4

It is fascinating to see how i n a continuous process o f rcinterp r c t a t i o n the rabbis have t r i e d to make sense o f an a l a r m i n g biblical text they could no longer understand because they d i d not

For its date see Strack-SLemberger, Einleitung

285.

106

P. W. VAN O E R H O R S T

have the means to establish its original meaning. A l t h o u g h the differences i n relation to the Christian interpretation o f the same text are vast, we will now see that it was exactly the same lack o f historical consciousness that made the C h u r c h Fathers e x p l a i n the text i n the way they d i d . 3 2

T o begin with, i t should be noted that our text does not play any role i n the New Testament . This is remarkable, for one m i g h t have expected that at least writers like Paul or J o h n w o u l d have loved i t to adduce this text as a heavy weapon to be directed against their opponents i n their polemics c o n c e r n i n g the law. I n the exegetical climate o f the day it would have made sense to make use o f this text i n an a n t i n o m i a n way. But they d i d n o t do that, and we can only guess at the reasons for that. Perhaps, b e i n g Jews, they were h i n d e r e d i n d o i n g so by the same anti-Ezekiel atmosphere that was fostered i n some Jewish circles i n the early post-biblical period, as we have seen above. 33

Be that as i t may, the first striking element i n the comparison o f the Jewish and the Christian Wirkungsgeschichle o f Ezek. 20:25 is that i n spite o f the silence i n the N T we do n o t need to wait very l o n g for the first references to our text i n Christian writings. For already i n the early second half o f the 2 n d century we find the text used by Justin Martyr i n his Dialogus cum Tiyphone Judaeo 21:4. I n ch. 18 Justin t o l d his Jewish conversation partner that Chris­ tians w o u l d have been willing to keep the O T commandments i f they w o u l d not have known why these have been imposed u p o n Israel. But, Justin says (ch. 19-20), Christians do have the insight that God gave many commandments to Israel solely because of their iniquities. G o d gave them his laws n o t because Israel is God's chosen people b u t because this people a b a n d o n e d G o d con­ tinuously. Therefore, the laws are meant as a punishment. I n ch. 21:4 Justin then extensively quotes the whole o f Ezek. 20:19-26. I n ch. 22 Justin repeats that i t is because o f their sins that Israel

3 2

For a g e n e r a l survey o f the r e c e p t i o n - h i s t o r y o f Ezekiel i n early C h r i s t i a n i t y see Dassmann i n RAC 14, 1151-1183. I n the present study I confine myself to the most i n t e r e s t i n g passages f r o m ecclesiastical w r i t e r s between the m i d d l e o f the second and the m i d d l e o f the fifth century CF. See the index o f 'loci citati vel allegata in N e s t l e - A l a n d , 764. 3 3

26

107

LAWS T H A T W E R E N O T GOOD

received the laws, which is followed by a very l o n g q u o t a t i o n from Amos 5:18-6:7, a passage that is supposed to prove that point. It is clear that Ezek. 20:25 functions here i n a context i n which i t is proved from the O T that God punishes his people with command­ ments. 'Laws that are not g o o d ' obviously fit very well i n such a context. This paradigmatic statement reminds us o f the fact that "the c o n f l i c t between the early C h u r c h a n d the Synagogue centered p r i m a r i l y o n the validity o f the covenant between G o d and the ancient Israelites. T h e C h u r c h claimed (...) that the covenant had been abrogated at the very m o m e n t o f its i n c e p t i o n by the treacherous act o f the Israelites who had rejected the proffered b o n d o f God by their making and adoring the golden c a l F \ The golden calf episode is not explicitly m e n t i o n e d here but i t is i n the background, as is apparent from Justin's quotation o f Exod. 32:6 i n Dial. 20:1. The golden calf episode will be explicidy referred to very soon. As a matter o f fact, already i n the early decades o f the 2nd century the author o f the Epistle of Barnabas states that God's covenant with Israel was broken at the time o f the Worship o f the golden calf (4:8) and that the L o r d gave to the C h u r c h the covenant which Israel had proved not to be worthy to receive, on account o f their sin with the golden calf ( 1 4 : l - 4 ) . A connection with Ez. 20:25 is not yet found here. 34

35

It is f o u n d some decades later i n Irenaeus. I n his Adversus Haereses IV 15,1 he says that at first God deemed it sufficient to warn m a n k i n d by naturalia praecepta, which he i m p l a n t e d i n the hearts o f men and which are written i n the Decalogue. I t was only after the heinous sin w i t h the g o l d e n calf, w h i c h was a spiritual r e t u r n i n t o Egypt [Acts 7:39], that Israel received all the

M

Smolar 8c Aberbach, The Golden Calf Episode ( n . 18) 9 1 . However seriously the rabbis took Israel's sin in E x o d . 32, they never interpreted the golden calf episode to mean that the covenant was b r o k e n for g o o d ; see also I . J. M a n d e l b a u m , T a n n a i t i c Exegesis o f the G o l d e n C a l f Episode, i n P. R. Davies and R. T . W h i t e (eds,), A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and Elislory, Sheffield 1990, 207-223 (see e.g. ibid. 211-213: they do portray the sin o f the calf as the most significant transgression o f Israel that costs t h e m certain gifts o f G o d , for instance i m m o r t a l i t y , b u t there is forgiveness; Mekhilta Bahodesh 2 and 9, et al.). Cf. also P. C. B o r i , The Golden Calf and the Origins of the Anti-Jewish Controversy, A t l a n t a 1990.

108

P. W. VAN D E R H O R S T

o t h e r c o m m a n d m e n t s , w h i c h were meant to reduce t h e m to slavery. God's commandments are an i n t e n t i o n a l p u n i s h m e n t for the sins o f his people, as is proved by the quotation o f Ezek. 20:25 and a very l o n g quote from Acts 7:38-43 (Stephen's speech). We may notice here that part o f the passage from Amos 5 quoted by Justin was already cited i n Acts 7 (Amos 5:25-6 i n Acts 7:42-3), a n d that the speech o f Stephen again plays a r o l e i n the interpretation o f Ez. 20:25 i n J o h n Chrysostom, as we shall soon see. We move i n t o the early t h i r d century with the next testimony, i.e. the Didascalia apostolorum. There we have a more sophisticated argument, which is based upon the anonymous author's theory o f the so-called Second Legislation. I n ch. 26 we r e a d : "The L o r d gave b o t h the Law and the Second Legislation. The Law has to be kept by all people, as i t is said by G o d himself: *his d e l i g h t is i n the Law o f the L o r d and on his Law he meditates day and n i g h t ' [Ps. 1:2]. But the Second Legislation was a b o n d and a blindness. (...) I n the Gospel He affirms the Law, and calls and brings us out from the (bonds o f the) Second Legislation. T h a t the Law is other than the Second Legislation, i n David H e likewise shows by a distinction, speaking thus: 'Let us sever their cords and loose their yoke from us' [Ps. 2:3]. T h e Holy Spirit (...) says that the Law is a yoke', b u t the Second Legislation 'cords'. (...) W h e n the people served idols, there was added to them the weight o f the Second Legislation. (...) But the Church has not been bound. For to Ezekiel He explains and makes known that the Law o f life is one, but the Second Law, o f death, is another; He spoke thus: *But I acted for the sake o f my name, that i t should not be profaned i n the sight o f the nations a m o n g w h o m they dwelt, i n whose sight I made myself known to them i n b r i n g i n g out o f the land o f Egypt, So I led them out o f the land o f Egypt and b r o u g h t them i n t o the wilderness. I gave t h e m my statutes and showed t h e m my ordinances, by whose observance man shall live* [Ez. 20:9-11]. B u t afterwards, 36

1

3 6

R. H . C o n n o l l y , Didascalia apostolorum. The Syriac Version ... translated, O x f o r d 1929, 228-230. Sec also Lhe translation i n H . Achelis & J. F l e m m i n g , Die syrische Didaskalia übersetzt und erklärt, L e i p z i g 1904. T h e o r i g i n a l Greek text has been lost b u t a heavily edited version o f i t appears i n the first six books o f the Constitutiones Apostolicae ( m i d d l e o f the 5 t h c e n t u r y ) .

109

LAWS T H A T W E R E N O T G O O D

u p b r a i d i n g them because they had sinned and had not kept the Law o f life, H e repeats to t h e m and says thus: T gave t h e m j u d g e m e n t s that are n o t good and ordinances by w h i c h they c o u l d not live* [Ez. 20:25] (...) I t is the Second Legislation that H e called judgements that are not g o o d \ (...) The Second Legislation was imposed for n o t h i n g else but for idolatry." Some comments are i n order h e r e . Right at the outset o f his treatise the author o f the Didascalia states as his central message that "our Saviour came for no other cause but to fulfil the Law and to set us loose from the bonds o f the Second Legislation" ( I 7, p. 14 C o n n o l l y ) . So the abolition o f the Second Legislation was one o f the m a i n purposes o f Christ's c o m i n g . But what exactly is this Second Legislation? God gave his people a good law. That is first o f all the T e n Commandments, and thereby he made k n o w n the name of Jesus, for t e n ' = yod' and the yod is the first letter o f the name o f Jesus. The good law consists further o f the ordinances' (see Ex. 21:1). Obedience to this law is stressed n o t only i n the Psalms and the Prophets b u t also by Jesus himself. This law, which is no burden, was given by God before the people fell i n t o idolatry by w o r s h i p p i n g the golden calf ( E x o d . 32). T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n i t about distinction o f different kinds o f meat, about sacrifices or other offerings, for God has no need o f sacrifices. T h e n "the account o f Exodus 32 is exploited to the full in support o f his a r g u m e n t that G o d i n his wrath, yet also as a sign o f his loving-kindness a n d mercy, b o u n d t h e m w i t h the Second Legislation consisting o f heavy burdens and direct c o m m a n d ­ ments too n u m e r o u s to m e n t i o n " . Because the Jews failed to keep these commandments, they were struck w i t h an ever grow­ i n g blindness. (The author purposely overlooks the fact that the biblical story i n Ex. 32-34 also relates a dramatic rehabilitation o f the people by G o d , who forgives them their sin w i t h the calf, w h i c h sheds a completely different l i g h t on the second set o f 4

37

1

1

4

38

3 7

For this p a r a g r a p h I rely u p o n W. C. van U n n i k , T h e Significance o f Moses' Law for the C h u r c h o f Christ A c c o r d i n g to the Syriac Didascalia, i n his Sparsa Collecta I I I , L e i d e n 1983, 7-39 (translated from the D u t c h o r i g i n a l i n Nederlands Archie/ voor Kerkgeschiedenis 31 [1940] 65-100); see also M . S i m o n , Verus Israel. A study of the relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (AD 135-425), O x f o r d 1986, 87-90. V a n U n n i k , Significance 13. 3 8

110

P. W, VAN D E R H O R S T 39

t a b l e t s ! ) . For Christians this Second Legislation, w h i c h was a punishment for idolatry, is no longer valid because they were set free f r o m i d o l a t r y by baptism. T h e c o m i n g o f C h r i s t totally destroyed the Second Legislation. Whoever follows the Second Legislation unites himself w i t h the idolaters and thereby makes himself an enemy o f God. I n the l o n g chapter 26 the author tries to demonstrate that also for a variety o f practical and ethical reasons i t would be foolish to observe the commandments o f the Second Legislation; their inferiority is all too obvious, he claims, a n d they are now replaced by prayers and thanksgivings. By stressing the inferior and temporary nature o f the Second Legis­ lation the author tries to take the w i n d o u t o f the sails o f those Jewish Christians w h o m a i n t a i n e d that observance o f all O l d Testament c o m m a n d m e n t s was according to God's w i l l . So we see here a similar reasoning as i n Justin and Irenaeus to the effect that i t is Israel's sins that brought u p o n them as a punishment the 'laws that are not g o o d ' , the sins now being specified by Irenaeus and the Didascalia as the golden calf episode, w h i c h lent itself very well to this purpose because the biblical text itself mentions the giving o f a second set o f tables (Exod. 3 4 : I f f . ) . 40

O r i g e n is our next witness. I n a passage i n Contra Celsum V I I 18 he has a l o n g quotation from the Alethes Logos, which shows how Celsus plays off Moses and Jesus against each other: ' T h e man o f Nazareth gives contradictory laws [namely i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n to those o f Moses], (...) Who is wrong, Moses or Jesus? O r when the Father sent Jesus, had he forgotten what commands he gave to Moses? O r d i d he c o n d e m n his own laws and change his m i n d , and send his messenger for quite the opposite purpose?" I n response O r i g e n says that Celsus "has fallen i n t o a very vulgar error concerning the meaning o f the Bible: He thinks that i n the Law and the Prophets there is no deeper doctrine beyond that o f the literal m e a n i n g o f the words". I n §§ 18-19 O r i g e n tries to demonstrate that such an o p i n i o n can only lead to absurdities. I n

3

i

T h i s p o i n t is well made by Simon, Veras Israel 88. ^° T h e same a r g u m e n t is also f o u n d i n A p h r a h a t , Demonstratio 15:7. N o t e that already Stephen i n Acts 7 singles o u t the g o l d e n calf episode as "the f o u n t a i n h e a d o f the crimes c o m m i t t e d by the Jews t h r o u g h o u t t h e i r history", thus Smolar & Auerbach, The Golden Calf Episode ( n . 18) 98.

111

LAWS T H A T W E R E N O T GOOD ‫״‬

§20 he says: W e m a i n t a i n that the Law has a twofold interpre­ tation, one literal and the other spiritual, as was also taught by some o f o u r predecessors. A n d it is n o t so m u c h we as G o d , speaking i n one o f the prophets, who described the law literally understood as *judgements that are n o t g o o d " and "statutes that are n o t g o o d " [Ez. 20:25]; and i n the same p r o p h e t G o d is represented as saying that the Law spiritually u n d e r s t o o d is "judgements that are g o o d " and "statutes that are g o o d " [cf. Ez. 20:11.13.21]. T h e prophet is obviously not m a k i n g contradictory statements i n the same passage. I t is consistent w i t h this when Paul also says that "the letter kills", w h i c h is equivalent to the literal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , whereas "the spirit gives life" [2 Cor. 3:6], which means the same as the spiritual interpretation. I n fact one can find i n Paul something analogous to the statements i n the prophet which Celsus would suppose to be contradictions. I n one sentence Ezekiel says, " I gave them j u d g e m e n t s that were n o t good and statutes that were not good, by which they will n o t live" [20:25]; but i n another, " I gave them judgements that were g o o d and statutes that were good, by which they will live" [cf. 20:11], or at least words to the same effect as these. So also Paul, i n one place where he wants to attack the literal interpretation o f the Law, says, " I f the m i n i s t r a t i o n o f death written and engraved u p o n stones came w i t h glory, so that the c h i l d r e n o f Israel c o u l d n o t l o o k steadfastly on the face o f Moses because o f the glory o f his face, w h i c h glory was to pass away, how shall not the ministration o f the Spirit be even more glorious?" [2 Cor. 3:7-8] But i n another place he admires and approves o f the Law and calls i t spiritual, saying, " A n d we know that the law is spiritual" [Rom. 7:14], and he speaks o f i t i n terms o f approval i n the words, "So the Law is holy, and the c o m m a n d m e n t holy and righteous and g o o d " [Rom. 7:12] " . Here we see for the first time the element that i t is the k i n d o f interpretation that makes a law or rule ' g o o d ' or notgood': a literal interpretation makes a law into a letter that kills', a spiritual one into a *commandment that is holy and righteous and good'. 41

4

1

O r i g e n quotes our text again i n Selecta in Leviticum, 4 1

when

T r a n s l a t i o n by I I . Chadwick, Origen, Contra Cehum, Cambridge 1965, 409411 (slightly m o d i f i e d ) .

112

P. W, VAN D E R H O R S T 42

dealing w i t h Lev. 4:27 : "From the same ( w r i t i n g ) : T f a soul sins unwittingly by neglecting some o f all the commandments o f the L o r d ' [a free r e n d e r i n g o f Lev. 4:27]: this is natural, for possibly there are some statutes o f the L o r d which one should n o t observe, i n accordance with (the verse) T gave them statutes which are not g o o d ' . Now a soul sins unwittingly when with the motive o f piety it observes what i t should not, and then i t needs a sacrifice for forgiveness; whereas one who does so on purpose does not need a sacrifice, for example, the one who became a Jew i n order to w i n Jews, and who circumcised T i m o t h y [1 Cor. 9:20 and Acts 16:3]". Note that O r i g e n here exploits the fact that the text o f Lev. 4:27 speaks o f u n w i t t i n g l y neglecting some o f all (TTaaeSv) the com­ mandments: there may be some (rivd) that are n o t good. T h e sheer fact that the Law does not at all prescribe a severe punish­ m e n t for not d o i n g all the commandments is a clear i n d i c a t i o n , says O r i g e n , that at least some o f them belong to the category o f Taws that are not good . 1

4 3

In his Homiliae in ExodumVll 2 O r i g e n exposes Ex. 15:25-26 ( T h e r e the L o r d made for them a statute and an ordinance a n d there he proved them, saying: I f you will diligently hearken to the voice o f the L o r d your God, and do that which is r i g h t i n his eyes, a n d give heed to his c o m m a n d m e n t s , and keep all his statutes, I will put none o f the diseases u p o n you which I put u p o n the Egyptians') : "God gave Israel laws which were to lead them to life i f they w o u l d obey them, but to destruction i f they w o u l d not. For that reason God put them to the test. Hence he said: T gave them statutes which are not good'. Because Israel d i d not keep to the commandments, "the very c o m m a n d m e n t w h i c h p r o m i s e d life proved to be death" (Rom. 7:10). So one and the same com­ m a n d m e n t leads to life when kept and to destruction i f n o t k e p t Because i t leads to destruction for those w h o do n o t keep i t , Scripture speaks about commandments which are not g o o d and by w h i c h they cannot live'". O r i g e n here displays again a new interpretation: A g o o d law may t u r n into a not-good law by being disobeyed, because i n that case it leads to death instead o f life. 1

4 2

PG 12. 400. T h e same text also in Fragmenta e catenis in Lev., PG 17, 17, also ad 4:27. Edited by M . Borret in Sources Chrétiennes 3 2 1 , Paris 1985, 210.

4 3

LAWS T H A T W E R E N O T G O O D

113

I n the Selecta in Ezechielem O r i g e n comments u p o n Ez. 20:25 as f o l l o w s : " ' A n d I gave them statutes which are n o t g o o d ' : What were those statutes other than the letter o f the Law that kills [2 Cor. 3:6] and the covenant o f death that has been engraved with letters o f stone [2 Cor. 3:7] and the dispensation o f condemnation [2 Cor. 3:9]? For b o t h are ordained by one and the same voice: the letter and the Spirit. But the statutes according to the letter one should not keep; those according to the Spirit, however, one should keep. For such a t h i n g is irreproachable [blameless?], since some o f the statutes defile a person, as we learn not only from the Apostle o f the New Testament but i t is also clear from those who lived before the c o m i n g o f the Saviour. Take for example the fact that the priests who desecrate the sabbath (by their work) i n the temple are innocent, or that one may be circumcised on the sabbath: one law is kept while the other is being b r o k e n . A n d take the fact that D a v i d a n d his c o m p a n i o n s ate f r o m the shewbreads, w h i c h neither he n o r his companions were allowed to eat, b u t only the priests [1 Sam. 21:1-6 and M L 12:4 p a r r . ] , and that images o f the c h e r u b i m were p u t i n the tent o f the testimony as well as i n the temple [Ex. 25:18 and 1 Kings 6:23-28], and that Moses made an image o f the bronze serpent [ N u m . 21:8-9]‫״‬. Here O r i g e n returns to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n we already met i n Contra Celsum V I I 18ff., namely that whether or not a law is good depends upon the way i t is interpreted, spiritually or literally. 44

Probably also deriving from O r i g e n is a passage i n Eusebius' Gommentarii in Psalmos {ad Ps. 2 : 3 ) : "'Let us burst their bonds asunder and cast their yoke from us' [Ps. 2:3]. T h e people, who are literally under the yoke o f the law, which he teaches them to despise as i t contains judgements which are not good and statutes w h i c h are n o t g o o d ' , are led by Christ to the spiritual law which does have good judgements and good statutes, and so they p u t off the heavy yoke o f the letter that kills". I t is striking and again typical o f a decontextualized exegesis that words that i n the psalm are spoken by the kings w h o arc God's enemies are h e r e i n t e r p r e t e d as words o f Christ! This is reminiscent o f the use o f this same verse by the author o f the Didascalia, who said that these 45

4 4

4 5

PG 13, 820. PG 23, 84; sec J, B, Pitra, Anahcla

Sacra I I I , Venice 1883, ad he

114

P. W. VAN D E R H O R S T

words were uttered by the Holy Spirit, but the difference is that the Didascalia has the psalm-verse make a d i s t i n c t i o n between the yoke w h i c h is the Law, which is still valid, and the bonds w h i c h are the Second Legislation, that is the 'not-good laws' that have now been abolished, whereas Eusebius/Origen makes the whole verse refer to the laws that are not good. O u r final witness from the 4 t h century is J o h n Chrysostom , I n his Expositio in Ps. 43 Ezek. 20:25 is cited as a c u l m i n a t i o n at the end o f a long series o f O T quotations which should prove that G o d never meant his laws to be taken literally, but gave them only to meet the astheneia o f his people. He compares this to the condescensio (vvyKaTdfiauis) o f Christ w h o sometimes healed people by t o u c h i n g them whereas actually a single w o r d w o u l d have sufficed. The series o f texts he quotes is as follows: Is. 1:12; Jer. 11:15; Amos 5:25; Jer. 6:20; Ps. 39:7; 1 Sam. 15:22 (first half); Ps. 50:18; 1 Sam. 15:22 (second half); Amos 5:21 and 23; Is. 1:13-14; Is. 58:5; Ezek. 20:25. I n his Homiliae in Epislulam I ad Cor,, J o h n Chrysostom says the f o l l o w i n g : ( I n g o o d times the Israelites always slid back to godlessness [drjefJaa]) "What d i d God do thereafter? He imposed a m u l t i t u d e o f laws u p o n them, thereby h i n d e r i n g t h e i r license. Now you should know that these laws do not c o n t r i b u t e i n any way to a virtuous life, but they were given them as a k i n d o f r e i n , p r o v i d i n g them with a sort o f business. Now listen to what the p r o p h e t says about them: T gave them laws that are not g o o d ' . W h a t does that mean: n o t good'? It means all that does n o t c o n t r i b u t e to virtue. For that reason he adds: J u d g e m e n t s by which they cannot live'. The 'unspiritual [i|;uxtK6s‫ ]׳‬man does not receive the gifts o f the Spirit o f God' [1 Cor, 2:14]". This is the o l d theory about the *not-good laws' being given as a punishment for idolatry. 46

4 7

4 8

4

49

In his Horn, in Acta AposL X V I I (ad 7:35, i n Stephen's s p e e c h ) Chrysostom speaks about Israel's resistance against Moses as i f

4 6

T h e 4 t h cent. L a t i n C h u r c h Fathers seem to be rather silent a b o u t Ez, 20:25. PG 55, 174. PC 6 1 , 6 1 . PG 60, 136. 4 7

4 8

4 9

LAWS T H A T W E R E N O T G O O D

115

against Christ (Acts 7:35-36), Moses said that the L o r d would raise a prophet like h i m ( D e u t 18:15), and that is what Christ referred to when he said that salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22), thereby m e a n i n g himself. Moses received *living oracles' i n order to give them to us (Acts 7:38). "What are *living oracles* [λόγια ζώι>τα]? E i t h e r those whose o u t c o m e is i n d i c a t e d by words, o r he [Stephen] means prophecies. T h e n comes the accusation against the forefathers that, after the signs and miracles and after they had received *living oracles', they d i d n o t want to obey, he says. Righdy he calls them *living oracles' for that indicates that there are also *non-living' ones. T h e r e o f Ezekiel speaks, for example w h e n he says, *1 gave t h e m commandments that are n o t g o o d ' . W i t h such c o m m a n d m e n t s i n m i n d he [Stephen] says ' l i v i n g ' , 'but they rejected them and r e t u r n e d i n their hearts to Egypt' (Acts 7:30)". Here we see again that the speech by Stephen with its Torah-critical tendency is taken into service for the explanation o f Ez. 20:25, as i n Irenaeus, even though the text o f Acts 7 itself does not even h i n t at our passage (although it does at Amos 5). Finally, from the second and t h i r d decades o f the 5th century we have two commentaries on Ezekiel that do n o t follow the tradi­ tional paths o f Christian exegesis that we have seen so far, those by Jerome and by T h e o d o r e t o f Cyrrhus. These are the first fullscale commentaries on the p r o p h e t that have been preserved i n their entirety (those by Origen and Victorinus o f Pettau are lost). I n his Commentani in HiezechielemVl (ad 20:25) Jerome writes (after having q u o t e d Ez. 20:21-26) : " I n various periods they [sc. the people o f Israel] were handed over to nations and kings because o f their many sins, and i t is i n such circumstances that the precepts of the L o r d , w h i c h by their very nature are g o o d , and also the j u d g e m e n t s by w h i c h they c o u l d live when they w o u l d believe i n t h e m , were made i n t o ones that were n o t g o o d for t h e m , because in their situation o f exile (or: captivity) they could i n no way keep the precepts o f the law n o r do what God's w o r d had c o m m a n d e d them to do. The text does not say: G o d gave t h e m *bad' precepts, but: *not good'; it does not immediately follow that 50

5 0

Ed. by F. Gloric in C C L 75, T u r n h o u t 1964, 265.

116

P. W. VAN D E R H O R S T

what is not good, is bad, as also the aposde teaches us [ i n 1 Cor. 7:12 combined with 1 Thess. 4:4]: T t is good for a man not to touch his wife or a w o m a n but because o f the t e m p t a t i o n each one should possess his vessel i n sanctity and chastity . But i f he does so [sc. touch his wife or a w o m a n ] , i t is neither good nor bad. So when they were dispersed among the nations, G o d gave t h e m precepts that were not good, which is to say: he delivered them to t h e i r own thoughts a n d desires, so that they d i d what is n o t befitting". I t is interesting to observe that we have here the only vague reminiscence o f the rabbinic discussion o f our text: i t refers to the situation o f the Jews i n the diaspora, so 'not-good' does n o t mean 'bad' or 'evil', but far from being ideal'. The difference, however, is that whereas the rabbis explained the laws that are n o t good' as rabbinic rules that are not rewarding, Jerome regards them as the thoughts and desires o f the people, to w h i c h G o d delivered them. 51

1

1

4

The last Christian interpreter we will deal with is T h e o d o r e t o f C y r r h u s i n Syria, one o f the finest representatives o f the A n t i o c h e n e school. I n his Expositio in Ezechielem, ad 20:25, he r e m a r k s : "There are some interpreters who have taken these words to refer to idolatry, because they thought that T gave' stands for T conceded' [ a w e x t £ p r | a a ] . But they are absolutely unclear i n their interpretation o f the text, for no r i g h t - m i n d e d person w o u l d call the godless idolatry n o t g o o d ' , he would call it *utterly bad'. So i t is u n t h i n k a b l e that the source o f wisdom, the lawgiver o f piety, the accuser o f godlessness, w o u l d have called this utter godlessness just *not good'! For he calls it the l i m i t o f evil. But it is exactly that which makes i t such a puzzling remark, for when he says, *1 gave them rules by w h i c h a man, i f he keeps them, will live' [Ez. 20:11], he means the Decalogue. But they transgressed i t , and when they continued t r a m p l i n g upon i t , he b o u n d them, yes, nailed them down w i t h other laws, which c o u l d n o t at all give t h e m life, but by keeping those and being busy with them they stopped transgressing the laws that were really necessary. (.‫ )״‬For because they were pressed to be busy keeping those laws, they 52

1

5 1

N o t e Lhc d o u b l e translation o f the ambiguous γυναικός* μή ά π τ ε σ θ α ι . PG 81,996. 5 2

Greek: κ α λ ό ν dt>6po5πω

LAWS T H A T W E R E NOT GOOD

117

were no longer i n a position to have contempt for those equally necessary and useful laws. I t is for that reason that he d i d n o t say that he gave them bad' laws, but *not good* laws. For he d i d n o t teach them badness', and also i t was n o t something that i n itself p r o d u c e d virtue, but it compelled them to frequent God's temple and to serve God. For the one who believed himself to be i m p u r e ran to his purification-rite, but when he arrived there, he remem­ bered God. A n d this very memory expelled his impious t h o u g h t and b r o u g h t h i m back to observance o f God's laws. Truly, these rules i n themselves are ' n o t g o o d ' , for they do n o t agree w i t h God's purpose, but they are a k i n d o f adaptation to the weakness o f the people who arc the subjects o f God's legislation. Truly, they arc n o t g o o d ' , they are not necessary, but they led people to the g o o d and the necessary". This is an i m p o r t a n t passage, i f only because i t gives us i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g other (anonymous) interpreters, whose work is now lost, and who seem to have explained Ez. 20:25 i n the sense o f God's conceding (auyxtopetv) idolatry to the people. Theodoret emphatically rejects this inter­ pretation and states as his own that the 'laws that are n o t g o o d ' were necessary in order to make the people keep the *good laws', i.e., they functioned as a sort o f *fence around the T o r a h ' , albeit i n a very different sense from the rabbinic use o f this expression. 1

1

4

W h e n we survey this wide range o f interpretations, at least one t h i n g is i m m e d i a t e l y clear: for the Christians Ez. 20:25 always referred to die commandments o f the T o r a h itself or their inter­ pretation—the i m p l i c a t i o n being that they had been superseded by God's w i l l — , whereas for the Jews they never referred to the T o r a h but only to rabbinic rules or to pagan laws. There can be little doubt that the necessity o f reinterpreting our passage became for the Jewish c o m m u n i t y a matter o f urgency because o f the way Christian exegetes deployed i t i n an a n t i n o m i a n and antiJewish sense. The surmise that the Jewish way o f h a n d l i n g our text was a reaction to the way it was i n t e r p r e t e d by Christian exegetes cannot be substantiated, but the fact that we see the Jewish discussion o f the passage arising only i n the first half o f the t h i r d century—notice the p r o m i n e n c e o f R. Johanan i n the rabbinic

118

P. W. VAN D E R H O R S T 53

passages! —makes i t a rather plausible guess, since we have seen that the anti-Jewish use o f the text by Christians started shortly before, namely i n the final decades o f the second century. W h a t was at stake i n those early centuries after the schism was n o t h i n g less than "the position o f the Jews as the covenanted people o f God". 54

5 s

J o h a n a n is J o h a n a n bar Nappaha, an Palestinian A m o r a o f the second g e n e r a t i o n ; see [ H . L . Strack ‫ ]־‬G. Stcmberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, M ü n c h e n 1982, 9 1 . Smolar Sc A b c r b a c h , T h - Golden Calf Episode 93. I a m i n d e b t e d to D r . James N . Pankhurst for revising my English. 5 4

Mourning becomes Jerusalem Josephus, Jesus the Son of Ananias, and the Book of Baruch (I Baruch) MARINUS

A, W E S

Jerusalem, the year o f our L o r d 62, the Feast o f Tabernacles. A feast o f j o y and gladness. The heat and dryness o f the summer are over, the harvest has been gathered i n . Pilgrims flock to the city, singing songs as they travel. Sixteen o f the one h u n d r e d and fifty songs i n the book o f Psalms are explicitly called p i l g r i m ' s songs. Psalm 122, for instance: I rejoiced when they said to me, ' L e t us go the house o f die L o r d . ' N o w we arc s t a n d i n g w i t h i n y o u r gates, J e r u s a l e m . 1

Often the j o y o f these songs is the j o y o f people who are moving from a place o f oppression to a place where they hope to find refuge and safety. The De Profundis is also a pilgrim's song, Psalm 130, T h e person who is oppressed and enslaved i n his village, or, as Psalm 123 puts i t , *more than filled with scorning, more than filled with the insults o f the arrogant and with the contempt o f the p r o u d ' , and who is travelling to Jerusalem, hopes for p r o t e c t i o n , redress, help, *help in the name o f the L o r d , maker o f heaven and earth' (Psalm 124). He is far from sure that this h e l p w i l l actually come, and sometimes this overshadows the p i l g r i m ' s feelings o f joy. A few lines from Psalm 42:

1

P r e l i m i n a r y note: Q u o t a t i o n s f r o m the Bible are a c c o r d i n g to English Bible, O x f o r d - C a m b r i d g e 1989; quotations from Josephus i n g to the translation o f Josephus works i n the Loeb Classical Jewish War, abbreviated JW, and the Jewish Antiquities, abbreviated 1

The Revised are accord­ Library: The JA.

120

M. A. W E S

As a h i n d longs for the r u n n i n g streams, so I l o n g for you, my G o d . I thirst for G o d , the living God; when shall I come to appear i n his presence? Tears arc my food day and night.

N o tears i n Jerusalem. But when the p i l g r i m returns to his village, n o t h i n g has changed there. Besides hope, however, he preserves the memory o f his entrance i n t o the city, and i n bad times this keeps h i m going: As I p o u r out my soul i n distress, I call to m i n d how I marched in the ranks o f the great to God's house, a m o n g exultant shouts o f praise, the clamour o f the pilgrims.

A few lines from Psalm 43: U p h o l d my cause, God, and give j u d g e m e n t for me; rescue me f r o m liars a n d evil m e n . For you arc my G o d , my refuge; why have you rejected me? Why must I go like a m o u r n e r , oppressed by my foes? Send out your light and your t r u t h to be my guide; let t h e m lead me to your holy h i l l , to your dwelling-place. T h e n I shall come to the altar o f God, the God o f my j o y and delight, and praise you with the lyre, God my God.

Immediately doubts follow: Why are you cast d o w n , o my soul? and why are you so disquieted w i t h i n me?

Because o f the knowledge that soon *our feet shall stand w i t h i n the gates o f Jerusalem', the voice o f d o u b t is d r o w n e d i n the jubilations o f the celebrating crowd: Why arc you cast d o w n , o my soul? and why arc you so disquieted w i t h i n me? I l o p e in G o d , for I shall yet praise h i m , my deliverer, my G o d .

T h e arrival i n Jerusalem, 'by far the most splendid city i n the East' according to a Roman contemporary who cannot be accused o f chauvinism, the Elder Pliny, The whole city is i n festive attire, a city of—at a low estimate—20,000 inhabitants, f l o o d e d by a 2

Pliny the Elder, Hisioria

Naluralis,

v 70.

121

MOURNING BECOMES JERUSALEM 3

celebrating crowd o f 180,000 p i l g r i m s . I f we take a higher and, i n my view, more realistic estimate, we have to say: a city o f 30,000, or 55,000, or 80,000, or perhaps even 120,000 inhabitants, flooded by a celebrating crowd o f perhaps 300,000 to 500,000 pilgrims. I n 62, after a construction p e r i o d o f more than eighty years, w i t h i n t e r r u p t i o n s and intervening devastations, Herod's temple complex was almost completed. The eventual c o m p l e t i o n a year later gave rise to a p r o b l e m : 18,000 workers—the n u m b e r comes from Josephus—stood to lose their jobs. O t h e r work was rapidly sought and f o u n d : they c o u l d pave the streets o f Jerusalem *with white stone'. Financing this new project was no p r o b l e m : there was e n o u g h money, and the Jews preferred to spend it i n the f o r m o f a disguised welfare benefit—everybody got their wages for the entire day after working just one hour—rather than keep i t i n the temple coffers. Preferably diey wanted to have n o money i n the temple coffers at all, *owing to dieir fear o f the Romans', as Josephus writes. This fear was not unfounded. I n 66, on the eve o f the u p r i s i n g , the then p r o c u r a t o r Gessius Florus i n fact took seventeen talents out o f the temple treasury. Protests o n l y p r o v o k e d h i m to appropriate more money, and the riots w h i c h followed l e d to heavy-handed m i l i t a r y i n t e r v e n t i o n , i n w h i c h according to Josephus countless peaceful citizens, i n c l u d i n g Jews who h e l d Roman citizxnship and were even members o f the ordo equester, were arrested, sentenced, flogged, and finally crucified in summary proceedings. Josephus puts the total n u m b e r o f victims at 3,600. 4

5

6

7

s

J . H . C h a r l c s w o r t h , Jesus within Judaism, L o n d o n 1990, 116, f o l l o w i n g J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, Philadelphia 1969, 84. K.P. Sanders, Judaism. Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE, L o n d o n 1992, 125128; G e r h a r d K r o l l , Auf den Spuren Jesu, Leipzig 1988, 122, 312, 444 n . 239; M . Avi-Yonah, H i s t o r i c a l Geography o f Palestine, i n S. Safrai 8c M . Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century, v o l . I , Assen 1974, 108-110; S. Safrai, T h e T e m p l e , ibidem, v o l . I I , Assen 1976, 902; M . Menge!, Die Zeloten, Leiden 1 9 7 6 , 361 n . 1; J. W i l k i n s o n , Jerusalem as Jesus knew it, L o n d o n 1978, 23 a n d 66, 4

2

5

JA xv 380; j W i 4 0 1 ; JA xx 219-223; E . M , Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, L e i d e n 1976, 282-283 n . 89 (her assertion that 'substantial damage was caused by the earthquake at the Lime o f the C r u c i f i x i o n ' is rather naive). M . H e n g e l , Crucifixion, L o n d o n 1977, 39-45; A . I L M . Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law, O x f o r d 1968, 51-65, esp. 56-57. / W i i 293-308. 6

7

122

M . A. W E S

T h e great p i l g r i m feasts were o p p o r t u n i t i e s when the Jewish leaders had particular reason to be afraid o f the Romans. I n the past these feasts had repeatedly led to rioting. They knew f r o m experience that only a tiny i n c i d e n t was needed to spark o f f major disturbances. We can assume that Josephus' reports are n o t exhaustive. H e m e n t i o n s only the most serious cases o f p u b l i c t u m u l t , the n a d i r b e i n g at the Passover o f 49, w h e n many thousands o f fatalities occurred. D u r i n g the Feast o f Tabernacles i n 62 another small i n c i d e n t took place. Again Josephus is our only source. A t first the signi­ ficance o f the event had escaped h i m . I t was only later i n Rome, after the destruction o f the Temple, when he was writing his book about the Jewish revolt, that he saw in the event a portent o f the drama o f 70, a portent which many o f those involved had failed to recognize. T h e incident i n Josephus' account: 8

9

Four years before the war ... there came to the feast at w h i c h i t is the custom o f all Jews to erect tabernacles for G o d , one Jesus, son o f Ananias, a rude peasant, who, standing in the temple, suddenly began to cry out, A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds; a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bride­ g r o o m and the bride, a voice against all the people.' ,

A solo protest demonstration by an obscure peasant. Evidently his performance i n the temple had n o t been noticed by the security guards. This is not so surprising when one considers that d u r i n g the Feast o f Tabernacles the faithful probably assembled i n the temple complex all at the same time and that the total n u m b e r o f spectators which the complex could h o l d is estimated at 400,000. Similarly, thirty years earlier, when Jesus o f Nazareth went i n t o the city with his companions to celebrate the Passover i n his own way, among a crowd o f other pilgrims, he was not at first noticed by the attendants and the authorities, and they d i d not manage to 10

8

Passover 49 CE: JW ii 224-227 puts the n u m b e r o f dead at 30,000, JA xx 105112 at 20,000. O t h e r cases: the Feast o f Tabernacles d u r i n g the r e i g n o f A l e x a n d e r Jannaeus (103-76 B C E ) , 6,000 dead a c c o r d i n g to JA x i i i 372-373; Feast o f Weeks 4 BCE, n u m b e r o f dead n o t m e n t i o n e d , b u t 2,000 Jews c r u c i f i e d afterwards: J A xvii 254-268 and 295, JW i i 42-54 a n d 75; Passover 4 CE, 3,000 dead: JW ii 10-13 and JA xvii 213-218. y w vi soo-301. Sanders, Judaism, 127. 9

1 0

MOURNING BECOMES

123

JERUSALEM

arrest h i m immediately after he had carried out his act o f protest, w h i c h i n the gospels is known as the cleansing o f the t e m p l e . He could simply leave the city and spend the n i g h t i n the open field a m o n g the many other visitors from elsewhere, Jesus the son o f Ananias stayed i n the city. Day and n i g h t he went about all the streets with this cry on his lips', Josephus writes. A n d he goes o n : 11

12

4

1 3

Some o f the l e a d i n g citizens, incensed at these i l l - o m e n e d w o r d s , arrested the fellow a n d severely chastised h i m . B u t he, w i t h o u t a w o r d on his own b e h a l f or for the private car o f those w h o smote h i m , only c o n t i n u e d his cries as before.

I t becomes a matter for the city government, w h i c h finds the affair i m p o r t a n t enough to have the man arrested and h a n d e d over to the Roman governor at the time, Lucceius A l b i n u s : 14

T h e r e , a l t h o u g h flayed to the bone w i t h scourges, he n e i t h e r sued for mercy n o r shed a tear, but, merely i n t r o d u c i n g the most m o u r n f u l o f variations i n t o his ejaculation, responded to each stroke w i t h ' W o e to Jerusalem!' W h e n A l b i n u s , the g o v e r n o r , asked h i m w h o a n d w h e n c e he was and why he u t t e r e d these cries, he answered h i m never a w o r d , but unceasingly r e i t e r a t e d his d i r g e over the city, u n t i l A l b i n u s p r o ­ n o u n c e d h i m a maniac and let h i m go.

The i n c i d e n t raises a few questions. What were the motives o f Jesus the son o f Ananias? Was he i n fact a maniac? O r is there m o r e to it? A n d why d i d the city councillors h a n d h i m over to Albinus? I t can only mean that they would have liked to see h i m executed. Only the Roman governor had the r i g h t to sentence someone to death, and for the execution o f such a death sentence he had his own p e o p l e . But Albinus simply let h i m go. Interestingly, Jesus the son o f Ananias seems to have come to Jerusalem on his own. A n d he d i d not r e t u r n to his village, b u t stayed i n Jerusalem. What happened to h i m there? Josephus again: 15

16

1 1

M a r k 11:15-19 and parallels. Sanders, Judaism, 127. JWv\ 302. y W v i 304-305. Sanders, Judaism, 540 n . 40; A . N . S h c r w i n W h i t e , Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, O x f o r d 1963, 36: t h e capital power was the most jealously guarded o f all the attributes o f g o v e r n m e n t ' . y W v i 306-309. 1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

,

1 6

124

M. A. WES

D u r i n g the w h o l e p e r i o d u p to the o u t b r e a k o f the war he n e i t h e r approached n o r was seen talking to any o f the citizens, b u t daily, l i k e a prayer that he had conned, repeated his lament, Woe to Jerusalem!' H e n e i t h e r cursed any o f those w h o beat h i m f r o m day to day, n o r blessed those w h o offered h i m food: to all m e n that melancholy presage was his one reply. His cries were loudest at the festivals. So for seven years a n d five m o n t h s he c o n t i n u e d his w a i l , his voice never f l a g g i n g n o r his strength exhausted, u n t i l i n siege, having seen his presage v e r i f i e d , he f o u n d his rest. For, w h i l e g o i n g his r o u n d a n d s h o u t i n g i n p i e r c i n g tones f r o m the wall, 'Woe once more to the city and to the people a n d to the t e m p l e ' , as he added a last w o r d , 'and woe to me also', a stone h u r l e d from the ballista struck and killed h i m o n the spot. 4

Usually—and certainly for the Feast o f Tabernacles—pilgrims went to Jerusalem en famille. This, too, we know thanks to Josephus: 'all the people streamed from their villages to the city and celebrated the festival i n a state o f purity w i t h their wives and c h i l d r e n , according to the laws o f their f a t h e r s / I t was thus at Passover, it was also thus at the Feast o f Tabernacles. W h e n Gaius Cestius Gallus, legatus pro praetore o f the province o f Syria, ad­ vanced on rebellious Jerusalem i n 66 and stopped along the way at Lydda ( L o d ) , a district capital i n western Judea, he f o u n d the city empty, because, as Josephus writes, the whole p o p u l a t i o n had gone u p to Jerusalem for the Feast o f Tabernacles. Fifty persons who showed themselves he put to the sword, and after b u r n i n g down the town he resumed his m a r c h / It is out o f the question that Jesus the son o f Ananias never had any family. H e had at least had two parents, and i t is quite con­ ceivable that he lost his home and wife and children and went u p to Jerusalem out o f sheer misery, frightened out o f his wits, as a victim o f the terror spread by the w a r r i n g m i l i t a n t groups. For Josephus also tells us that i n the early sixties Judea was plagued by the terrorist actions o f the sicaril One after the other, entire villages were p l u n d e r e d and b u r n e d . This had already started i n the fifties, when A n t o n i u s Felix was procurator: n o t a day passed', writes Josephus, *but that Felix captured and put to death many o f these impostors and brigands (read: messianistic prophets a n d t e r r o r i s t s ) / U n d e r Felix's successors Porcius Festus (60-62) and 17

1

1 8

4

19

1 7

1 8

1 9

JA x i 109. JW i i 515-516. JA xx 160,

125

MOURNING BECOMES JERUSALEM

Lucceius A l b i n u s (62-64) matters had only become worse: ' f r o m this date were sown i n the city the seeds o f its i m p e n d i n g fall', according to Josephus. One m i g h t also suggest that Jesus the son o f Ananias h a d voluntarily made himself a m a n sans famille to suit his role as a receiver and conveyor o f prophecies. This w o u l d be i n l i n e w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l Jewish views o n the c o n d i t i o n s to which the prophetic gift is subject. But the text o f Josephus offers no support for this k i n d o f conjecture. T h e lines which Josephus has devoted to poor Jesus the son o f Ananias sound authentic and sober. They are free o f r h e t o r i c a l pathos. Josephus was i n Jerusalem himself, i n 62 and i n 65-66, a n d i t does n o t seem too b o l d to assume that he h i m s e l f h a d encountered this Jesus. I n various other descriptions o f prophets or those who tried to pass as prophets Josephus always accuses such figures o f being false prophets and frauds and m a d m e n . He c o u l d hardly say this about Jesus the son o f Ananias, at least i n retrospect, since the events o f 70 had dramatically c o n f i r m e d his words. Yet Josephus never calls h i m a p r o p h e t . I t is only w i t h hindsight that he realizes that the cries o f this man had been a sign from God. He then compares them with the sound o f myste­ rious, unattached voices which had called out to some priests who had entered the innermost part o f the temple for the n o c t u r n a l liturgy d u r i n g the harvest festival: *We are departing h e n c e . 20

21

22

2 3

1

24

Jesus the son o f Ananias could n o t be a prophet according to the views o f the Jewish elite on prophets and prophecy i n the first century CE, and so a c c o r d i n g to Josephus* own views. A n d , unlike Josephus himself, he met none o f the conditions o b t a i n i n g to those who claimed any k i n d o f prophetic gift. I t is therefore virtually certain that, during the utterings o f Jesus the son o f Ananias, Josephus d i d not take the man seriously, regarded h i m , too, as a false prophet, and was possibly just as m u c h annoyed by 2 0

JW\\ 276; see also JA xx 185, 187, 206, 210, 214, 215. G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew. A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, L o n d o n 1977, 99-102. T h e a t t e m p t to establish a close l i n k between JW v\ 300-309 as a story a n d Ezekiel 3:24-27 has failed: see M . Greenberg, O n Ezekiel's Dumbness, Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (1958) 101-105. y W i i 258, 259, 261, 264, 265; vi 285-288; JA xx 97-98, 160, 167-169, 188. /Wvi299. 2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

126

M, A. W E S

h i m as the 'leading citizens' and other u n i d e n t i f i e d persons w h o beat h i m up daily. Jesus the son o f Ananias was a false prophet, these e m i n e n t citi­ zens must have thought. I n their eyes he was therefore a trouble­ maker. This m i g h t explain why the city councillors h a n d e d h i m over to Albinus. False prophets were dangerous, they believed. H a d there been no procurator, as earlier i n the same year 62 (Porcius Festus had d i e d and his successor Albinus had n o t yet arrived at his new post), the Jewish leaders probably w o u l d not have let Jesus the son o f Ananias go free. This assumption can be based o n the unlawful execution, at the instigation o f the h i g h priest Ananus, o f the 'brother o f the L o r d ' James and a few other undesirable elements, probably disciples o f James. This execu­ t i o n had only been possible owing to the absence o f a Roman governor. 25

26

There is no reason to assume that Jesus the son o f Ananias was also a disciple o f James. A c c o r d i n g to Josephus, James and his followers h a d been accused o f breaking the Jewish law. H e does n o t write that James and his g r o u p h a d set themselves up as prophets or pseudo-prophets. Yet there is a suggestion to this effect, i n Eusebius' extensive account of James. I n this account we read, among other things, that James bore the epithet 'the Just'. Eusebius bases himself here on Hegesippus, w h o m he quotes at l e n g t h . This q u o t a t i o n shows—and it is not surprising—that James most certainly had set himself up as a p r o p h e t by p r o c l a i m i n g i n the Temple, i n terms derived from Daniel 7:13, the i m m i n e n t second c o m i n g , w i t h the clouds o f heaven', o f the Son o f M a n . T h e n , says Hegesippus, the scribes and the Pharisees attacked James and killed h i m . One o f the priests tried to stop them ( Stop! What are you doing? T h e Just is praying for y o u ' ) , but they were u n c o n ­ t r o l l a b l e and James was clubbed d o w n . Eusebius i m m e d i a t e l y goes on to write: 27

1

1

T h u s i t seems that James was i n d e e d a r e m a r k a b l e m a n a n d

2 5

famous

J. B l e n k i n s o p p , Prophecy and Priesthood i n Josephus, J. of Jew. Stud. 25 (1974) 239-262, esp. 246 n . 27 and 252; Vermes, Jesus, 86-99. JA xx 199-203. Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, transl. K i r s o p p Lake, L o n d o n ( L o e b ) 1975, i i 23.

2 6

2 7

M O U R N I N G

B E C O M E S

127

J E R U S A L E M

a m o n g all for his righteousness, so t h a t the wise even o f the Jews t h o u g h t that this (i.e. James' m a r t y r d o m ) was the cause o f the siege o f Jerusalem i m m e d i a t e l y after his m a r t y r d o m , a n d that i t h a p p e n e d for n o o t h e r reason than the c r i m e w h i c h they had c o m m i t t e d against h i m .

To support this conclusion Eusebius refers to Josephus, w h o m he quotes as follows: A n d all these things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, w h o was the b r o t h e r o f Jesus the so-called Christ, for the Jews k i l l e d h i m in spile of his great righteousness.

This final quotation cannot be found i n Josephus' work. So i t can be rejected i n its entirety. But, by analogy with the now generally accepted o p i n i o n about the Testimonium Flavianum o n Jesus o f Nazareth, one could also argue that i t does contain an element o f Josephus. This can only be i n the final part o f the quotation. That Josephus causally l i n k e d James' m a r t y r d o m and the destruction o f Jerusalem is pure nonsense. But Josephus m i g h t have written that the Jews k i l l e d James because he was a righteous man. James, t h e n , was called the Just owing to his p r o p h e t i c capacity. T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f prophet and just man reminds one o f Q u m r a n . I t also brings to m i n d a place i n the gospel according to Matthew, i n w h i c h the terms p r o p h e t and j u s t m a n are clearly used as synonyms. I n Matth. 23:29 Jesus says: You (i.e. the scribes and Pharisees) b u i l d up the tombs (taphous) prophets and embellish the monuments (mnemeia) o f the j u s t .

o f the

2 8

I t seems safe to assume that James, too, like Jesus the son o f Ananias a few m o n t h s later, was attacked by certain Jewish leaders because they regarded h i m as a dangerous false prophet. I t h i n k it quite likely that James i n 62 also proclaimed the destruc­ tion o f Jerusalem and the Temple, since such a proclamadon is completely i n line with what his b r o t h e r Jesus o f Nazareth d i d thirty years earlier, the so-called cleansing o f the Temple. I n my

2 8

A c c o r d i n g to B l e n k i n s o p p , 258 n . 89, the p a r a l l e l i s m is w o r t h y o f further investigation; cf, JA x i i 43, 157-158; xiv 22-24; G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, H a r m o n d s w o r t h ( P e n g u i n ) ^1977, 50; i d . , Scripture and Tradition, Leiden 1961, 66; A.S. van der Woude, Die messianischen Vorstellungen der Gemeinde von Quamrän, Assen 1957, was, as far as I know, the first to suggest that the Prophet o f the Q u m r a n C o m m u n i t y is to be identified w i t h the Teacher o f Righteousness.

128

M, A. W E S

o p i n i o n , E.P. Sanders has convincingly shown that this act was i n the nature o f a symbolic demonstration against, or, more precise­ ly, a symbolic destruction o f the T e m p l e . I n his analysis o f the relevant texts Sanders reaches the conclusion *that Jesus publicly predicted or threatened the destruction, that the statement was shaped by his expectation o f the arrival o f the eschaton, that he probably also expected a new temple to be given by G o d from heaven, and that he made a demonstration w h i c h prophetically symbolized the c o m i n g e v e n t / To proclaim the destruction o f the Temple is n o t necessarily to t u r n one's back on the Temple as i t (still) existed at the time. T h e followers of Jesus o f Nazareth kept up their daily attendance at the temple' after Jesus' d e a t h . They also continue to p r o c l a i m there, to the constant annoyance o f the Temple's supervisor and priests. T h e highpriests Annas and Caiaphas call Peter a n d J o h n to account, r e p r i m a n d them threateningly, and then let them g o . T h e r e p r i m a n d has no effect, the apostles are rearrested, and now Annas and the others want them put to death. This is prevented by a noble Pharisee, Gamaliel, who plays the same k i n d o f role here as Albinus i n the case against Jesus the son o f Ananias i n 62: Peter and his associates are beaten, but then released. 29

1

30

31

32

I n 62 there is no Roman procurator or Jewish Pharisee to curb the h i g h p r i e s t Ananus, a son o f Annas a n d brother-in-law o f Caiaphas. James is put to death. It seems to me there can be n o doubt that, like Jesus o f Nazareth thirty years earlier and Jesus the son o f Ananias a few months later, James proclaimed the destruc­ tion o f the Temple. As I said before, Josephus was i n Jerusalem i n 62 and 65-66, I can hardly imagine that he knew no more about the proceedings against James than the little he wrote about i t I n any case it seems clear that, from his p o i n t o f view at that time, James was a false prophet. But i n his account o f the execution o f James i n the Antiquities, written certainly twenty and possibly even thirty years later, Jose­ phus' sympathy is clearly, i f indirectly, with James, n o t Ananus.

2 9

3 0

3 1

3 2

E.P Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, Acts 2:46. Acts 4:5-21, Acts 5:34-40.

L o n d o n 1985, 69-75.

MOURNING BECOMES

129

JERUSALEM

Ananus is c o n d e m n e d i n no u n c e r t a i n terms: ' T h e younger Ananus was rash i n his temper and unusually d a r i n g . H e fol­ lowed the school o f the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless than any o f the other Jews when they sit i n j u d g e m e n t / By con­ trast, Josephus describes i n positive terms how a number o f people who were among the most honourable citizens o f the city and who obeyed the law w i t h utmost rigour—presumably Pharisees, like G a m a l i e l — t o o k the matter very seriously and l o d g e d pro­ tests w i t h K i n g A g r i p p a I I and even with the Roman authorities. T h e protests were effective: Ananus was dismissed as h i g h p r i e s t . Josephus' negative o p i n i o n o f Ananus i n the Antiquities contrasts sharply w i t h his extremely positive o p i n i o n o f Ananus i n The Jewish War, written i n the seventies. There, for Josephus, Ananus is 'a man o f p r o f o u n d sanity and the ideal leader, and when this noble hero is m u r d e r e d by the Idumeans, Josephus praises h i m to the skies: 33

34

1

35

36

A m a n o n every g r o u n d revered and o f the highest integrity, Ananus, w i t h all the d i s t i n c t i o n o f his b i r t h , his rank and die h o n o u r s to w h i c h he h a d attained, yet d e l i g h t e d to treat the very h u m b l e s t as his equals. U n i q u e i n his love o f liberty and an enthusiast for democracy, he o n all occasions p u t the public welfare above his private interests. T o m a i n t a i n peace was his supreme object.

I cannot dwell here on the shifting relationship between Josephus and Ananus and o n the considerations w h i c h may have l e d Josephus to revise so drastically his o p i n i o n o f Ananus, who i n 66 had appointed h i m commander o f the Jewish rebels i n Galilee. But I suggest that Pharisean circles i n Rome c o n t r i b u t e d substan­ tially to this revision o f Josephus' position. Arguments supporting this have been p u t forward by Shaye Cohen and Seth Schwartz. T h e p o i n t here is that the shift from positive to negative i n Josephus' o p i n i o n o f Ananus logically justifies the claim that there was a reverse shift, from negative to positive, i n Josephus' o p i n i o n o f Jesus the son o f Ananias and o f James. But the latter 37

3 3

Sanders, Judaism, 419-420 and 469. JA x x 199-203. JWiv 151, 160, 162-192. j W i v 319-321. S J . D . C o h e n , Josephus in Galilee and Rome, L e i d e n 1979, 237-238; S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, Leiden 1990, 172-200. 3 4

3 5

3 6

3 7

130

M, A. WES

shift was n o t so extensive that Josephus was retrospectively pre­ pared to give these messengers o f d o o m for the Temple the title o f prophets. Given the ' o r t h o d o x ' J e w i s h view, also h e l d by Josephus, that the era o f the prophets had come to an end, i t is perhaps better to say that Josephus was mentally incapable o f giving Jesus the son o f Ananias and James the tide o f prophets. We can add something here. Jesus o f Nazareth had already indicated that the Temple would soon be no more. His p r e d i c t i o n , too, had come true. This prediction, i f he knew about it, must have made a great impression o n Josephus after 70, but again he c o u l d n o t conclude from i t that Jesus was therefore a prophet. W h a t he d i d hear about, probably via the Pharisees or possibly even the Christians i n Rome, was that Jesus o f Nazareth was called messias. Even i f one thinks that the entire Testimonium Flavianum o n Jesus is a later i n t e r p o l a t i o n , the fact remains that, i n his account o f the death o f James, Josephus introduces James as the brother o f Jesus who was called the Christ', and he also mentions that there is still a g r o u p o f people i n his, Josephus', t i m e w h o call themselves followers o f the Christ, or Christians. 4

38

I f i t is true that Josephus changed his o p i n i o n o f James i n a positive sense, this also explains why Josephus may have expressed a favourable o p i n i o n o f his brother Jesus. For the rest I have n o t h i n g to add to the article in which Paul W i n t e r i n 1968 argued the partial authenticity o f the Testimonium Flavianum. The publication by Shlomo Pines in 1971 o f an Arabic version o f the Testimonium i n the w o r l d history o f Agapius o f H i e r a p o l i s effectively c o n f i r m e d and added more details to W i n t e r s recon­ struction. 39

3 8

JA xvii 63-64. P. W i n t e r , Josephus on Jesus and James, i n : E m i l Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, a new English version revised 8c e d i t e d by Gcza Vermes and Fergus M i l l a r , v o l . I , E d i n b u r g h 1973, 428-441 ( o r i g i n a l l y published in 1968); S. Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications, Jerusalem 1971, m e n t i o n e d a n d c o m m e n t e d u p o n by G. C o r n f i e l d et ai (eds.), Josephus. The Jewish War. Newly Translated with Extensive Commentary and Archaeological Background Illustrations, Grand Rapids, M i c h i g a n , 1982, 510; Charlcsworth, Jesus, 95-98. 3 9

MOURNING BECOMES

JERUSALEM

131

II Back to the Feast o f Tabernacles o f 62 and the proclamation o f Jesus the son o f Ananias. Joscphus carefully quotes the words spoken by the 'rude peasant' the first time i n the Temple: A voice f r o m the east, a voice from the west, a voice f r o m the f o u r winds; a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the b r i d e ­ g r o o m and the bride, a voice against all the people.

T h e message sounds b i b l i c a l , a n d so i t is. T h e image o f the b r i d e g r o o m and the bride against w h o m a voice is raised comes from the book of Jeremiah, It occurs there i n four places: 7:34, 16:9, 25:10, 33:11. The first text, i n c l u d i n g part o f the context, reads as follows: 40

Jerusalem, c u t o f f y o u r hair a n d t h r o w i t away; raise a l a m e n t on the bare heights. For the L o r d has spurned and forsaken the generation that roused his w r a t h . T h e people o f J u d a h have done what is w r o n g in my eyes, says the L o r d . T h e corpses o f this people w i l l become food for the birds o f the air and the w i l d beasts, w i t h n o n e to scare t h e m away. F r o m the towns o f J u d a h a n d the streets o f J e r u s a l e m I shall banish a l l sounds o f j o y a n d gladness, the voices o f b r i d e g r o o m and b r i d e ; for the w h o l e l a n d w i l l become desert. A l l the survivors o f this wicked race, wherever I have banished w o u l d rather die than live. This is the w o r d o f the L o r d o f Hosts.

them,

T r u l y food for thought for Josephus and all those who had come to Rome f r o m Jerusalem. Besides J e r e m i a h , there are j u s t two writings which also evoke the image o f the disrupted wedding, clearly a symbol o f the approach o f the divine j u d g e m e n t : Reve­ lation (18:23) and the apocryphal I Baruch (2:23). But more about these later. W i t h regard to the interpretation of Josephus account, the first question is whether the words which Josephus attributes to Jesus the son o f Ananias can be regarded as his ipsissima verba, or whether we are wiser to see them as words o f Josephus which he later put i n t o Jesus' m o u t h i n the light o f the drama o f 70. Every­ body who has done some Leben Jesu Forschung knows the p r o b l e m . Nobody denies that a certain Jesus the son o f Ananias, o f w h o m 1

4 0

J e r e m i a h 7:29-30, 33-34; 8:3.

132

M. A. W E S

we know n o t h i n g more, presented himself i n Jerusalem and i n the T e m p l e i n 62 w i t h some or other prophecy o f d o o m . B u t this says n o t h i n g about the question: what exactly d i d this Jesus proclaim? C o u l d an ordinary Jewish peasant be capable o f r e m e m b e r i n g Jeremiah's image o f banished wedding festivities? I sec no reason why not. Every Jew, from c h i l d h o o d o n , was familiarized w i t h the Scriptures by regular readings i n the synagogue. The pseudo-prophets among the rebels, so despised b y j o s e p h u s , also knew their classics. 'Despite the brevity o f his allusions, Josephus betrays the biblical basis o f the claims made by these p e o p l e ' , B l e n k i n s o p p casually r e m a r k s . Take for instance the p a i n f u l example o f the six thousand unfortunate people, i n c l u d i n g many women and c h i l d r e n , who had assembled i n the forecourt d u r i n g the final phase o f the Roman conquest o f the Temple and had all d i e d there i n the flames. T h e Romans watched powerlessly, Josephus suggests: T h e y (i.e. those six thousand) owed t h e i r destruction to a false prophet, who had on that day proclaimed to the people i n the city that God commanded them to go up to the temple court, to receive there the tokens o f their d e l i v e r a n c e / This anonymous false p r o p h e t evidently appealed to the people with reference to the book of Joel, chapters 1 and 2: 41

42

1

43

1:6: ... A h o r d e , vast a n d past c o u n t i n g , has invaded my l a n d ; they have teeth like a l i o n ' s teeth; they have the fangs o f a lioness. ... 1:8: W a i l like a v i r g i n in sackcloth, w a i l i n g over the b e t r o t h e d o f her y o u t h ... 2:15-16: Blow the t r u m p e t i n Z i o n , ... gather the p e o p l e together, ... gather the c h i l d r e n , even babes at the breast; b i d the b r i d e g r o o m leave his wedding-chamber and the b r i d e h e r bower ...

A n d then Joel describes the day o f the L o r d , 2:28-32: A f t e r this I shall p o u r o u t my s p i r i t o n all m a n k i n d ; y o u r sons a n d daughters w i l l prophesy, y o u r o l d m e n w i l l d r e a m dreams a n d y o u r y o u n g men see visions; I shall p o u r o u t my spirit i n those days even o n slaves a n d slave-girls. I shall set portents i n the sky a n d on earth, b l o o d a n d fire and c o l u m n s o f smoke. T h e sun w i l l be t u r n e d to darkness a n d

Sanders, Judaism, 17-19; S. Safrai, T h e Synagogue, i n Safrai 8c Stern, Jewish People, v o l . I I , 927-933. B l e n k i n s o p p , 260 n . 98; cf. P.W. Barnett, T h e Jewish Sign Prophets A . D . 40-70. T h e i r I n t e n t i o n s and O r i g i n , New Testament Studies 27 (1981) 679-697. JWvi 283-285. 4 2

4 3

M O U R N I N G

B E C O M E S

J E R U S A L E M

133

the m o o n to b l o o d before the c o m i n g o f the great and terrible day o f the L o r d . T h e n everyone w h o invokes the L o r d ' s name w i l l be saved: o n M o u n t Z i o n i n Jerusalem there w i l l be a r e m n a n t as the L o r d has p r o m i s e d , survivors w h o m the L o r d calls.

T h e r e were n o survivors o n M o u n t Z i o n , the six thousand all perished. Therefore the anonymous figure who had sent the six thousand to the forecourt o f the T e m p l e was, i n the eyes o f Josephus, a false prophet and dangerous fanatic. But this fanatic d i d know his Bible. We know n o t h i n g further about this false prophet o f the summer o f 70. So there is no reason to assume that he was a 'rude peasant' like Jesus the son o f Ananias. H e may have fled head over heels from the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y i n the summer o f 68, when a Roman military u n i t o f Vespasian smashed and b u r n e d the place. H e may have set out for Jerusalem, following the example o f Joel and other prophets. Garcia Martinez has p o i n t e d out the prominence i n the Q u m r a n C o m m u n i t y o f the view that *the true significance o f the prophetic w r i t i n g s is connected, n o t w i t h the h i s t o r i c a l reality o f the prophets nor with the time i n which their writings originated, but w i t h "the last times", i.e. with the historical present o f the Com­ m u n i t y , the last p e r i o d o f history, w h i c h immediately precedes the divine j u d g e m e n t / I t is tempting to believe that Jesus the son o f Ananias was also someone who p u t this f o r m o f 'eschatolog i z a t i o n ' i n t o practice, b u t this is i n conflict w i t h Josephus' summary description: a rude peasant'. Seth Schwartz concludes that 'the resemblance to Jeremiah will be due not to Josephus, but to the peasant or to some popular preacher whose words evoked the peasant's c r i e s / Since Jeremiah is m e n t i o n e d i n the Damascus Rule (viii 19-21), such a hypothetical *popular preacher' could well be placed i n the context o f the Q u m r a n Community, 4 4

1

4 5

Besides the 'peasant's cries', there are still the matters o f his silence and the daily beatings he receives. H e is also silent when people give h i m alms. There is a striking parallel here w i t h the behaviour o f the p r o p h e t Ezekiel, as Moshe Greenberg already 4 4

F. Garcia Martinez, Profect and profetie in de geschriften van Q u m r a n , i n : F. Garcia M a r t i n e z et ai (eds,), Profeten en profetische geschriften, K a m p e n N i j k e r k 1986, 119-132, esp. p. 120. Barnett i n his c o m m e n t on *the Egyptian' correctly refers to 4QTest (walls o f Jerusalem instead o f J e r i c h o ) . Schwartz, 34-35.

4 5

134

M. A. W E S

demonstrated i n 1958, but unlike Greenberg I am inclined to see a parallel here between Jesus the son o f Ananias and Ezekiel rather than between Josephus and Ezekiel. W i t h regard to the beatings and the completely passive m a n n e r i n w h i c h Jesus the son o f Ananias undergoes t h e m , there is moreover a degree o f simila­ rity with two passages from Lamentations, namely 3:4—'He has wasted away my flesh and my skin and b r o k e n my bones' and, especially, 3:26-32: 46

It is good to wait in patience for deliverance by the L o r d . It is g o o d for a man to bear the yoke from y o u t h . Let h i m sit alone in silence i f i t is heavy o n h i m ; let h i m lie face downwards on the g r o u n d , and there may yet be hope; let h i m offer his cheek to the smiter and endure full measure o f abuse. For rejection by the L o r d does not last forever, l i e may p u n i s h , yet he will have compassion in the fullness o f his u n f a i l i n g love.

The first passage could, as i t were, be placed i n the m a r g i n o f Josephus' text at the words 'flayed to the bone with scourges'; the second passage is parallel to the repeated emphasis o n the man's passivity i n Josephus, who is apparently rather surprised about this attitude: he never stood up for himself, never said anything, n o t even when asked, never flinched when beaten, never t h a n k e d anyone for food, and only f o u n d rest when the siege had started and he saw that his prediction had come true. In the first century CE the book o f Lamentations was still wide­ ly attributed to Jeremiah, as Josephus also does. There are m o r e places i n The Jewish War where passages from Lamentations can be added i n the m a r g i n . Two g o o d examples are 2:20—*Must w o m e n eat the fruit o f their wombs, the c h i l d r e n they have h e l d in their arms?' and 4:10—'With their own hands tender-hearted women boiled their own c h i l d r e n ; their c h i l d r e n became their food o n the day o f my people's w o u n d i n g . Both texts perfectly fit the gruesome story o f Maria the daughter o f Eleazar, who eats her own child in The Jewish VMzrvi 201-213. Modern scholars are apt to p o i n t out that we are dealing here with a topos or typology, and I w i l l not deny that they are often useful i n m a k i n g texts m o r e 1

4 6

See above, n . 22.

135

MOURNING BECOMES JERUSALEM 1

*transparent and therefore more understandable i n this way. But it is taking things too far, i n my view, when the description by a classical historian-cum-eyewitness o f a siege, say Joseph us' de­ s c r i p t i o n o f the siege o f Jotapata, is completely reduced to a standard description according to the rules o f the chapter How to Describe a Siege i n some or other rhetorical manual. N o r do I find i t very enlightening, though no doubt i t is witty, when the relation­ ship between Henry Kissinger and Richard N i x o n is presented as a k i n d o f 're-enactment' o f the relationship between Joseph and the King o f Egypt i n the O l d Testament. Radier I would endorse Zvi Yavetz's criticism o f the exaggerated search for topoi taken from Graeco-Roman literature i n Josephus' historical w r i t i n g : T t w o u l d be m u c h sounder to assume that similar circumstances i n different places and i n different periods engender similar pheno­ mena.' I cannot offer f i r m p r o o f here, but for reasons o f historical credibility, c o m m o n sense, and i n t u i t i o n I prefer not to regard the elements from Jeremiah i n Josephus' account o f Jesus the son o f Ananias as the result o f Josephus' technique o f literary compo­ sition, but to attribute them to Jesus the son o f Ananias himself. 47

48

Perhaps we should leave i t at this and be satisfied w i t h the conclusion that Jesus the son o f Ananias picked up his Jeremiah reminiscences somewhere i n a synagogue or from a p o p u l a r preacher'. But this is not a very substantial conclusion. Therefore I have tried, with all the uncertainty involved i n such an attempt, to go a little further. I have investigated the reception o f the book o f J e r e m i a h i n the p e r i o d f r o m a r o u n d 100 BCE to 100 CE. Fortunately somebody else has already investigated the same subject. Christian W o l f f published a well-documented study o n this material in 1976. His conclusion is that, for the most part i n the above p e r i o d , Jeremiah was by no means as popular as one m i g h t have thought. 1

49

4 7

D . Daube, 1 ypology in Josephus, Journ ai of Jewish Studies 31 (1980) 18-36. Z. Yavctz, Reflections on Titus and Josephus, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 16 (1975) 419-420. C h . Wolff, Jeremia im Fruhjudentum und Urchristentum, Berlin 1976; see also J. C a r m i g n a c , Les citations de T A n c i c n t T e s t a m e n t , et s p é c i a l e m e n t des P o è m e s d u Serviteur, dans les Hymnes de Q u m r â n , Revue de Qumrân 7 (1960) 357-394; C h . Rabin, The Zadokite Documents, O x f o r d 1954, 78-79. 4 8

4 9

136

M. A. W E S

From the p e r i o d before the destruction o f Jerusalem there is only one collection o f texts w h i c h show an o r i e n t a t i o n to Jere­ m i a h i n a few places. These are the Hymns o f Q u m r a n . T h e material is scanty, according to Wolff, w h o i n general takes a r a t h e r m i n i m a l i s t a t t i t u d e . H e accepts only three places as absolutely certain. T h r e e others are somewhat questionable o n account o f the deficient tradition o f the text, b u t they deserve the benefit o f the doubt. A n d there are eight texts which may go back to Jeremiah, b u t for which other authors are, so to speak, also i n the market. Elsewhere i n the Q u m r a n documents W o l f f d i d n o t f i n d any traces o f J e r e m i a h , O f course, fragments o f m a n u ­ scripts o f the b o o k o f Jeremiah have been recovered, o f three manuscripts to be precise, o f which the latest is dated to around the time o f Jesus o f Nazareth's b i r t h , b u t a commentary o n Jeremiah is lacking so far. For a l l his c a u t i o n W o l f f does v e n t u r e the conclusion, on the basis o f what he believes to be a marginal gloss i n the text o f the Damascus Rule, that Jeremiah, t h o u g h occupying a less p r o m i n e n t position than Isaiah, Ezekiel, a n d Zechariah, was i m p o r t a n t for the people o f Q u m r a n as a p e n i t e n t i a l preacher/ 50

51

1

52

A scholarly theory n o t c o n f i r m e d by the texts o f Q u m r a n is that already before 70 CE many Jews believed that J e r e m i a h w o u l d soon r e t u r n o n earth. This is inferred from the version i n the gospel o f Matthew o f the pericope on the so-called testimony o f Peter, Matthew 16:13-14: W h e n he came to the t e r r i t o r y o f Cacsarea P h i l i p p i , Jesus asked his disciples, W h o do people say that the Son o f M a n is?' They answered, 'Some say J o h n the Baptist, others Elijah, others J e r e m i a h , or one o f the prophets.' 1

T h e name Jeremiah is lacking i n the parallel texts i n Mark (8:28) a n d L u k e (9:19). Why does Matthew m e n t i o n J e r e m i a h here? W o l f f raises this question, b u t merely notes that Matthew took 'a certain interest' i n this p r o p h e t (the name o f Jeremiah i n fact occurs i n two other places i n the gospel o f Matthew, a n d is n o t

5 0

Wolff, 124-130. A.S. van d e r W o u d e , F ü n f z e h n Jahre Q u m r a n f o r s c h u n g (1974-1978), Theologische Rundschau 55 (1990) 294-295. Wolff, 126 n . 1, referring to D R viii 19-21.

3 1

5 2

MOURNING BECOMES

137

JERUSALEM

otherwise m e n t i o n e d i n the New Testament) a n d that the book o f Jeremiah was apparently well-known i n Matthew's congregation. H e follows G r u n d m a n n i n s u r m i s i n g that 'Jeremiah as the p r o p h e t o f Jerusalem's destruction h a d a special significance for Matthew's congregation' a n d suggests that M a t t h e w was familiar w i t h an early Jewish tradition (earlier than 70 CE) about an expected return of Jeremiah. A n article o n this subject was p u b l i s h e d i n 1972 by Jean C a r m i g n a c . W i t h the persuasiveness o f a scholar-and-believer, he argues that the ominous future full o f *wailing and g r i n d i n g o f teeth' w h i c h Jesus p i c t u r e d to his listeners and f o l l o w e r s may easily have suggested to them that Jesus was a Jeremiah redivivus. I f Carmignac is r i g h t , this makes for an i n t e r e s t i n g p a r a l l e l between Jesus o f Nazareth a n d Jesus the son o f Ananias, except that the latter was m u c h more prone to be silent. But for all his silence he d i d quote Jeremiah and perhaps regarded himself as a Jeremiah redivivus. 5 3

54

55

Ill Jesus the son o f Ananias was k i l l e d by a stray missile d u r i n g the siege o f Jerusalem. H e d i d n o t live to experience the Jeremiah b o o m after 70. O f course, the fact that Jeremiah left so many more traces i n post-70 CE texts is n o t so surprising, given the obvious parallel between the destruction o f the first Temple by Nebuchad­ nezzar and that o f the second Temple by Titus. Indeed, both events supposedly took place o n the same day: the N i n t h o f Av. This synchrony was already k n o w n to Josephus. For an o r t h o d o x Jewish i n t e l l e c t u a l l i k e Josephus, w h o fairly soon after the 56

5 5

Wolff, 27-29; W. G r u n d m a n n , Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, B e r l i n 1968, 386. J. Carmignac, P o u r q u o i J é r é m i e est-il m e n t i o n n é en M a t h i e u 16, 14?, i n G . J e r e m i a s , H.-W. K u h n & H . Stegemann (eds.), Tradition und Glaube. Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag, G o t t i n g e n 1971, 283-298; cf. also H . F . D . Sparks, St. Matthew's References to Jeremiah, Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 1 (1950) 155-156. M a t t h . 8:11-12; 10:14-15; 11:21-24; 12:24-35; 39-42; 45; 13:13-15; 19-22; 24-30; 36-42; 47-50, etc. JWvi 250; Jer. 52:12; cf. Wolff, p. 34. 5 4

5 5

5 6

138

M. A. WES

destruction, i n his new role as a historian, had to decide o n a frame o f reference for his account o f the events and o f his own role, the only real possibility was to endorse the deuteronomistic historical view o f crime and punishment and die tradition o f the early prophets, i n p a r t i c u l a r J e r e m i a h , w h o had w a r n e d his people so emphatically o f the power awarded by G o d to Babylon a n d Nebuchadnezzar. In comparison, Thucydides and Polybius and Sallust offered no real alternative; at most—especially for the copy-editors o f Josephus i n R o m e — t h e y m i g h t occasionally furnish an arresting phrase or some platitudes about Tyche, the goddess o f Fortune. The Hellenistic component i n the intellectual make-up o f Josephus, by no means a great admirer o f the Greeks, was never more than a veneer. 57

58

The interesting and to some extent also i r o n i c t h i n g about Josephus ' t u n i n g i n ' to Jeremiah is that it puts h i m on the same wavelength and frequency as the authors o f I Baruch, I I Baruch, IV Ezra, the Paraleipomena Jeremiae, and the Revelation o f J o h n . Yet they do not all offer the same picture o f Jeremiah. The authors who hark back to Jeremiah can be divided i n t o tvvo groups. I n one g r o u p we have the Jeremiah who knows how the cards lie at the bridge table o f the powers that be, who knows who shuffles and deals, who at the same time is concerned about his people i n exile, and is convinced that one day the exile will come to an end. The other group, resorting to Jeremiah the prophet o f doom, anticipates eschaiological restoration and heavenly salvation. 1

59

The first group includes, besides Josephus o f course, the author (or final redactor) o f I Baruch and the author o f the Paraleipo­ mena J e r e m i a e , the second group the authors of I I Baruch, I V Ezra, and the Revelation of John. These two groups o f texts reflect fairly accurately the two movements i n Judaism i n the p e r i o d between the destruction o f the Temple by Titus and the capture o f 60

D /

Cf. Josephus, contra Apionem i 50; Schwartz, 36-37. For a different view, see SJ.D Cohen, Josephus, J e r e m i a h , and Polybius, History and Theory 21 (1982) 366-381. Cf. G.W.E. N i c k c l s b u r g , in M . E . Stone (ed.), Jewish Writing of the Second Temple Period, Assen-Philadclphia 1984, 146. Schurer, History of the Jewish People, v o l . I l l , revised a n d e d i t e d by G. Vermes, F. M i l l a r and M . G o o d m a n , E d i n b u r g h 1986, 292-293; N i c k c l s b u r g , in Stone (ed.), Jewish Writing, 72-75. d 8

d 9

6 0

MOURNING BECOMES

139

JERUSALEM

Jerusalem and the expulsion o f the Jews from their city after the revolt o f Bar Kokhba i n the time o f H a d r i a n . These two move­ ments—I apologize for the terrible simplification—are, first, the eschatological dreamers, from the false prophets i n Josephus to Bar Kokhba, and, second, the movement o f Jochanan ben Zakkai and his circle, the rabbinical Realpolitiker who preached patience a n d perseverance. A t the same time there is n o w a t e r t i g h t division between the two groups. Thus there are clear parallels between I I Baruch and the Paraleipomcna Jercmiae. I n view o f these parallels, I wonder whether there is also a c o n n e c t i o n between the fact that the beginning o f the revolt o f Bar Kokhba comes precisely 66 years after the beginning o f the first revolt, and the slight c o r r e c t i o n w h i c h the author o f the Paraleipomcna Jercmiae has made i n Jeremiah's statement (Jer. 25:11-12 a n d 29:10) that the exile will last seventy years: i n the Paralcipomena (5:1 and 30) this has been changed to 66 years. Instead o f pursuing this, I w i l l confine myself to the two w r i t i n g s i n w h i c h the author, like Jesus the son o f Ananias, evokes the image f r o m Jeremiah o f the banishing o f wedding festivities: *a voice against the b r i d e g r o o m and the bride, a voice against all the people'. These two writings arc I Baruch and the Revelation of John. 61

Christian W o l f f has p o i n t e d out that there is no book i n which so many passages from the Hebrew Bible have been incorporated as Revelation. But the references are never direct. Words, phrases, and ideas derived from the Hebrew Bible are assimilated by the a u t h o r i n t o his own l a n g u a g e . Thus there m i g h t also be c o n t i n u i t y in the way that Revelation incorporates material from the book of Jeremiah i n die description o f the i m m i n e n t eschaton, and the systematic 'cschatologization' o f the early prophets i n Q u m r a n . Wolff has found material deriving from Jeremiah i n 21 places i n R e v e l a t i o n . He concludes that the author apparently had access to an anthology o f texts drawn from the early prophets, i n w h i c h threats were u t t e r e d against foreign oppressors, i n particular Tyrus and Babylon. These threats had already been *updated' by the compiler o f the anthology and applied to Rome. 62

63

6 1

6 2

6 3

Wolff, 45-49; Nickelsburg, in Stone ( c d . ) , Jewish Writing, 75. Wolff, 166. Ibidem, 166-174.

140

M. A. W E S

At least two thirds o f the parallels listed by W o l f f are passages from j u s t two chapters o f the book of Jeremiah (50 and 51) w h i c h have f o u n d their way i n t o just two chapters o f Revelation (17 and 18). B o t h cases involve the description o f the divine j u d g e m e n t against B a b y l o n a n d Rome respectively. T h e r e is o n l y one Jeremiah text i n Revelation which does not derive from Jeremiah 50-51 a n d w h i c h is d i r e c t e d n o t against Babylon b u t against Jerusalem, This is Jeremiah 25:10, the text o f Jesus the son o f Ananias; i n Revelation 18:23 this text has been fused together w i t h Isaiah 47: n o m o r e shall the l i g h t o f the lamp appear in you, no m o r e the voices o f the b r i d e g r o o m and b r i d e be heard i n y o u ! Your traders were once the m e r c h a n t princes o f the w o r l d , a n d w i t h y o u r sorcery y o u deceived all the nations.

IV T h e n there is I Baruch. For Emil Schurer it was pellucid that this book as a whole had been written after 70 CE. Whitehouse (1913) had no p r o b l e m w i t h this date, which had already been proposed by J J . Kneucker i n 1879. I t seemed an open-and-shut case: *as terminus a quo we naturally have the tragedy o f A . D . 70, whose events were still vivid i n the memory o f the writer. . ‫ ״‬Perhaps A.D. 78 m i g h t not be an improbable date/ The most likely place, according to Whitehouse and others, was the circle o f Jochanan ben Zakkai i n J a b n e h . The argumentation o f the dating is based on various parallels w i t h Josephus' Jewish War, i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h the identification o f Nebuchadnezzar and—according to the text, b u t not historically correct—*his son' Belshazzar w i t h Vespa­ sian and his son Titus. I Baruch 1:11-12: 64

Pray for the life o f Nebuchadnezzar k i n g o f B a b y l o n a n d o f his son Belshazzar, that their days may e n d u r e as the days o f heaven above the earth. A n d pray that the L o r d w i l l give us strength a n d w i l l l i g h t e n o u r eyes, that we shall live u n d e r the p r o t e c t i o n o f Nebuchadnezzar k i n g o f

6 4

O.C. Whitehouse i n R , H . Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, v o l . I , O x f o r d 1913 (repr. 1983), 574-576; cf. E. S c h ü r e r , Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, v o l . I I I , 4 t h ed., G o t t i n g e n ‫־‬1909, 462 463; J J . Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch. Geschichte und Kritik, Übersetzung und Erklärung, 1879.

M O U R N I N G

B E C O M E S

J E R U S A L E M

141

Babylon and o f his son Belshazzar, and that we shall serve them many days, a n d that we f i n d favor i n t h e i r s i g h t . 65

Here the author o f I Baruch comes very close indeed to Josephus, n o t o n l y as regards the date but also as regards his p o l i t i c a l oudook. T h e voice against the b r i d e g r o o m and bridge is heard i n the second chapter, i n the context o f a confession o f guilt, I Baruch 2:20-24: You sent y o u r w r a t h and anger u p o n us, as you spoke t h r o u g h y o u r servants the prophets, saying: ' T h u s says the L o r d : Bow y o u r shoulders and serve the k i n g o f Babylon and you w i l l dwell i n the l a n d w h i c h I gave to y o u r forefathers. B u t i f you will n o t obey the L o r d by refusing to serve the k i n g o f Babylon, I w i l l banish f r o m the cities o f J u d a h and from the streets o f Jerusalem the sounds o f j o y and gladness, the voice o f b r i d e g r o o m a n d b r i d e , and the w h o l e l a n d shall be desolate w i t h o u t inhabitants'. But we d i d n o t obey your c o m m a n d to serve the k i n g o f Babylon and t h e r e f o r e y o u c a r r i e d o u t the threat w h i c h y o u spoke t h r o u g h y o u r servants the prophets.

T h e r e is no need to discuss here the e n t i r e history o f the scholarly debate over I Baruch. Evidence o f cutting and pasting i n the text was found, new and more subtle distinctions were made, pros and cons were carefully weighed, and this h a d conse­ quences for the dating. H . Schmid summarized the results i n his article *Baruch' (1974), written for the Reallexicon fur An tike und Chrislentnm, i n w h i c h he called I Baruch a patchwork i n w h i c h five components can be distinguished, o f w h i c h he dated four between 150 and 50 BCE. O n l y one c o m p o n e n t (1:3-14) m i g h t possibly date back to 66 CE, but he preferred a date i n the time o f Pompey, or even better, Julius Caesar. 66

S h o r t l y afterwards E m a n u e l T o v took the discussion an i m p o r t a n t step further with his doctoral thesis o f 1973 (Hebrew University, Jerusalem), published i n an extended f o r m i n 19751 9 7 6 . Tov r e t u r n e d to an argument that Thackeray and Nestle 67

6 5

T r a n s l a t i o n : 7^he Book of Baruch also called I Baruch (Greek and Hebrew), e d i t e d , reconstructed a n d translated by E m a n u e l Tov, Missoula, M o n t a n a , 1975, 14; s u p p l e m e n t e d by me w i t h a few words ( i n italics) d e r i v i n g from Whitehouse's translation, 584, Published i n Jahrbuch für Antike und Chnstentum 17 (1974) ‫י‬177185. See note 65; Ε. Τ ο ν , The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch. A

6 6

6 7

142

Μ. Λ. W E S

had already b r o u g h t forward against the date o f S c h ü r e r , Whitehouse and others. This was the argument o f the close linguistic relationship between the Greek text o f I Baruch 1:1-3:8 and the Greek text o f the book o f Jeremiah i n the Septuagint T h e simila­ rity was so striking that b o t h texts seemed to be the work o f the same t r a n s l a t o r . I n his thesis Tov demonstrated convincingly that the similarides were so precise and so regular that the trans­ lator had to be the same, and at the same time he offered a reconstruction o f this part o f I Baruch. Since it had l o n g been known that the Greek text o f Jeremiah already existed i n 116 B C E , I Baruch 1:1-3:8 also had to be dated to earlier than 116 BCE. T h e identification o f Nebuchadnezzar and 'his son' (who historically was not his son) with Vespasian and his son Titus was therefore untenable. I n 1984 Nickelsburg used Tov's conclusion as a basis for the hypothesis that Nebuchad­ nezzar and Belshazzar are pseudonyms for the Seleucid kings Antiochus I V Epiphancs (175-164 BCE) and his son A ntiochus V Eupator (164-162 BCE). Moreover, N i c k e l s b u r g believes that I Baruch as a composition should be ascribed in its entirety to the author o f the passage 1:1-3:8. 68

69

70

T h e editors o f volume I I I o f the revised English edition o f E m i l S c h ü r e r ' s Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes do not wholly agree w i t h the latter hypothesis. They p o i n t o u t that the second h a l f o f I Baruch, i n particular the passage 4:10-16, may well have been written against the background o f the events i n 70 CE and they suggest that the compilation o f this part and what precedes i t i n t o the present whole only took place after that date. ' I n that case, the c o m p i l e r will have been led to put the two halves o f the book together by the striking relevance o f the already extant first sec­ tion to conditions after A.D. 70. ... The unhistorical juxtaposition o f Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar will have seemed reminiscent o f Discussion of an Early Version of the LXX of Jeremiah 29-52 and Baruch 1:1-3:8, Missoula, Montana, 1976 csp. ch.6, 111-133. I I.St J . Thackeray, T h e Greek Translators o f J e r e m i a h , Journal of Theo­ logical Studies 4 (1902-1903), 245-266; E. Nestle, Septuaginta Studien 4, Stuttgart 1903, 15-16. Tov, Septuagint Translation, 165 and 176 notes 48-51. Nickelsburg, in Stone (ed.), Jewish Writing, 145; cf. Goldstein, m e n t i o n e d in SchOrer, v o l . I l l (English e d i t i o n ) , 737 n . 359. t

6 8

6 9

7 0

143

MOURNING BECOMES JERUSALEM

the relation between Vespasian and T i t u s / B u t they a d m i t that there are no compelling arguments for such a late date. But even i f i t were unequivocally established {quod non) that I Baruch goes back to the second century BCE, as N i c k e l s b u r g believes, there is still enough reason to discuss the book here i n the context o f Jerusalem and the Jews after 70 CE. This reason is the topicality o f I Baruch i n c o n n e c t i o n with the presumable annual c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f the dramatic destruction o f the city and the Temple. In the Jewish tradition i t was and is customary to put i m p o r t a n t historical events on the calendar o f commemorable days. Once i n c o r p o r a t e d , they keep their place, sometimes even to this very day. A g o o d example is the Chanukah feast. I n 164 BCE Judas Maccabeus captured Jerusalem, which the Jews had had to relin­ quish three years earlier to the troops o f Antiochus IV Epiphanes. H e immediately had the T e m p l e cleansed o f pagan c o r r u p t i o n and reopened. This was celebrated with a great feast that lasted eight days. A t the same time Judas Maccabeus decreed that this feast was to be observed every year on 25 Kislev. O u r i n f o r m a t i o n on this festival, Chanukah, is fairly solid. Josephus also has a note about i t i n which he says that the feast was celebrated from the m o m e n t it was instituted into his own t i m e . 71

72

T h e destruction o f the second Temple must have been com­ memorated as a day o f national m o u r n i n g from the outset as welk There was also such a commemoration after the destruction o f the first T e m p l e by Nebuchadnezzar. The appropriate Jewish way o f c o m m e m o r a t i n g a disaster is to a p p o i n t one or more days o f fasting i n the calendar. Zechariah 8:19 mentions annual fasting i n the fourth, fifth, and seventh and tenth m o n t h . According to a reliable Jewish t r a d i t i o n , all four fasts c o m m e m o r a t e d decisive moments d u r i n g the siege o f Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the nadir being the destruction o f the Temple o n the N i n t h o f Av i n 7 1

Ibidem, 733-743, csp. 737. Cf. I Mace. 4:36-39; I I Mace. 1:8 and 10:1-8; JA x i i 324-325; J o h n 10:22; several places i n the r a b b i n i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , cf. H . L . Strack 8c P. B i l l c r b e c k , Das Evangelium nach Markus, Lukas und Johannes und die Apostelgeschichte erldutert am Talmud und Midrasch, M u n i c h 1924, 539-541; Schurer, v o l . I ( E n g l i s h e d i t i o n ) , 163; W.R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus. An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period, New York 1956, 132-145. 7 2

144

M. A, W E S

the year 586 BCE. Zechariah 7:3-5 implies that this destruction was i n fact c o m m e m o r a t e d for seventy years w i t h official a n n u a l fasting. Somebody asks the p r o p h e t there ( i n the f o u r t h year o f K i n g Darius): A m I to l a m e n t a n d fast i n the fifth m o n t h as I have d o n e these many years?

The L o r d , speaking t h r o u g h Zechariah, answers: Say to all the people o f the land and to the priests: W h e n you fasted a n d l a m e n t e d i n the fifth a n d seventh m o n t h s these past seventy years, was i t i n d e e d w i t h me i n m i n d that you fasted? A n d w h e n y o u ate a n d d r a n k , was i t n o t to please yourselves?

T h e c o n t i n u a t i o n shows that it is more i m p o r t a n t for the p r o p h e t that people treat each other decently (8:16-19): T h i s is what you must do: speak the t r u t h to each other, administer true a n d sound j u s t i c e i n your courts. D o n o t p l o t evil against one a n o t h e r , a n d do n o t love perjury, for all these things I hate. T h i s is the w o r d o f the L o r d . T h e w o r d o f the L o r d o f Hosts came to me: These are the words o f the L o r d o f Hosts: T h e fasts o f the f o u r t h m o n t h , and o f the fifth, seventh and t e n t h months, are to become festivals o f j o y and gladness for the house o f Judah. So love t r u t h and peace.

Evidently the Jews t h o u g h t there was no longer any reason for annually c o m m e m o r a t i n g the destruction o f 586. They consulted Zechariah, who first scolds them and then tells them o n behalf o f the L o r d that the days o f m o u r n i n g will henceforth be days o f j o y a n d gladness. One o f the objects o f fasting is to invoke God's mercy t h r o u g h penance: Tasting is basically an act o f penance, a ritual expression o f remorse, submission, and s u p p l i c a t i o n / Fasting goes together w i t h the confession o f guilt, the utterance o f prayers, a n d the reading o f an appropriate text. T h e book o f I Baruch is eminently suitable as a text to be read and thought about on such an occasion, and indeed i t is quite conceivable that the book—either i n the time o f the Maccabees, t h o u g h o f course only before their resistance m e t w i t h success, or i n or directly after 70 CE—was c o m p i l e d 73

7 3

Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. Fasting and Fast days, v o l . 6, Jerusalem 1971, 1189-1196, esp. 1190; ibidem, s.v. Av, the N i n t h of, v o l . 3, 936-940.

MOURNING BECOMES

JERUSALEM

145

precisely w i t h a view to the i n s t i t u t i o n o f a day o f n a t i o n a l mourning. I t is hardly imaginable that the book was c o m p i l e d for purely academic reasons or for amusement. The discussion about the various positions on the date o f I Baruch can be taken a step further by asking m o r e specifically what the aim o f the c o m p i l e r o r author was and what function his work had. Here we need to bear i n m i n d that i n the Jewish society o f a n t i q u i t y a text that was p r i m a r i l y w r i t t e n for a religious purpose inevitably had a social a n d p o l i t i c o - i d e o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n as well. Religion and politics were closely i n t e r r e l a t e d , as we know well enough. These con­ siderations lead to the following reconstruction. I B a r u c h was w r i t t e n i n an i n i t i a l version i n the t i m e o f A n t i o c h u s I V Epiphanes, immediately after the desecration o f the T e m p l e i n 167 BCE, the event described i n the book o f Daniel as the abominable t h i n g that causes desolation' (Dan. 11:31 and 12:11). T h e aim o f the author and o f those who commissioned the work was that the text would be read on a day o f national m o u r n ­ i n g instituted after the desecration. This probably happened once or twice, i n 166 and 165. But when the Temple was restored to all its splendour and reopened i n 164, and the Chanukah feast was instituted to commemorate this joyful event, the day o f national m o u r n i n g had become superfluous, just as i t had become super­ fluous i n the time o f the prophet Zechariah. As a result, I Baruch, i n the f o r m i n w h i c h the work then existed, h a d also become redundant and could be put aside. 4

One may note that the close parallels between the prayer i n I Baruch 1:15-2:19 and the prayer i n Daniel 9:4-19 observed by many scholars are easier to explain in the reconstruction w h i c h I am proposing. I n the past these parallels have often been used to date I Baruch: i t was said that Daniel 9 had to be terminus post quern w i t h regard to I Baruch, and since the book o f Daniel was written between 167 and 165 at the latest, i n view o f the fact that the author talks about the Temple's state o f desecration, I Baruch had to be dated to after 165 BCE. I n my o p i n i o n , the first version o f I Baruch and the Hebrew chapters o f Daniel (8-12) were w r i t t e n almost simultaneously. One cannot help t h i n k i n g that they may have been w r i t t e n by the same author. I do n o t have the necessary

146

M. A. W E S

linguistic and philological competence to offer further arguments to support or refute this conjecture. N o r can I calculate the con­ sequences this m i g h t have for the r e l a t i o n between the L X X Jeremiah and the L X X Daniel. We are explicitly told by the author that the first version o f I Baruch was i n fact meant to be read a l o u d d u r i n g a p u b l i c gathering: Read this book which we are sending you and make confession i n the house o f the L o r d on the day of the feast and during the days of the solemn assembly (1:14, i n Emanuel Tov's translation). The words in italics i n this passage are a translation o f en hemerai heortes kai en hemerais kairoiL It is no p r o b l e m that the a u t h o r prescribes that the reading should take place i n the T e m p l e , a l t h o u g h the T e m p l e had j u s t been desecrated i n 167, i.e. had become a place o f worship o f a Greek god (the O l y m p i a n Zeus according to I I Maccabees). T h e author of I Baruch is keeping up the fiction that he is Baruch the secretary o f Jeremiah, and that he wrote his book i n Babylon and then sent i t to Jerusalem, where i t was to be read by the Jews i n the house o f the L o r d ' . This is no p r o b l e m , for Jerusalem had i n fact been destroyed by Nebuchad­ nezzar, as the text also observes, and so the T e m p l e was probably i n a bad way, but the Temple had not become a pagan place o f worship. 4

4

It is not clear to me why Emanuel Tov has translated the last three words o f 1:14 (en hemerais kairou) ' d u r i n g the days o f the s o l e m n assembly'. T h e Revised E n g l i s h B i b l e translates: t h r o u g h o u t the festal season'. Tov's translation agrees with that o f Whitehousc. Literally the text says: ' d u r i n g the days o f kairos . As is well-known, kairos, 'the r i g h t t i m e \ often has a special conno­ tation i n Jewish (and Christian) texts: 'the decisive m o m e n t ' , sometimes i n an eschatological sense. T h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f the T e m p l e by T i t u s was a 'decisive m o m e n t . I f ever there was a kairos, i t was i n 70 CE. T h e shock had to be absorbed somehow, a day o f national m o u r n i n g was needed, and this r e q u i r e d the i n s t i t u t i o n o f a m o u r n i n g rite. S o m e b o d y — p e r h a p s J o c h a n a n ben Zakkai o r one o f his sympathizers—conceived the idea o f r e w o r k i n g the early first version o f I Baruch from 166/165 BCE. H e supplemented this version w i t h a second half, and possibly revised i t i n the l i g h t o f 1

1

MOURNING BECOMES

147

JERUSALEM 4

the recent events. For instance, the passage 2:2-3 ( I t has never h a p p e n e d under heaven as i t happened i n Jerusalem, i n con­ formity w i t h what is written i n the Law o f Moses, that we should eat the flesh o f our sons and daughters') may well refer to the gruesome incident, told i n more detail by Josephus i n The Jewish War vi 201-213, o f Maria the daughter o f Eleazar, who, driven mad by hunger, ate her own child. This second version was then used as a text to be read at the annual commemoration o f the destruc­ t i o n o f the T e m p l e o n the N i n t h o f Av. T h e synchrony w i t h the destruction o f 586 BCE is also easily explained i n connecdon with the i n s t i t u t i o n o f this new day o f national m o u r n i n g . This reconstruction is further supported by the report i n the Apostolic Constitutions (v 20, 3) that Jews assembled annually on the day o f the destruction o f Jerusalem and read the Lamentations o f Jeremiah and the book o f B a r u c h . This report only goes back to the end o f the fourth century, so it does not answer the question o f w h e n the Jews started this custom. A passage i n the Syriac translation o f the Didascalia Apostolorum, recognized by Schurer as a source o f the Apostolic Constitutions, also mentions the custom, and that brings us to the t h i r d century. A c o m p l i c a t i o n arising here is that the Didascalia mentions only Lamentations and n o t the book o f Baruch. 74

75

This complication is less serious than i t w o u l d seem. There are various ways o f solving it. First, Baruch does get m e n t i o n e d i n a passage i n a probably sixth-century text which is (wrongly) attri­ buted to Ephraem Syrus, i n which I Baruch 4:9 is c i t e d . I n other words: the ritual on the day o f national m o u r n i n g need not have been the same i n all Jewish communities t h r o u g h o u t the w o r l d . I n later periods o f history, too, the N i n t h o f Av was n o t comme­ morated by all Jews i n the same way and w i t h the same texts: the Sephardic rite was different from that o f the Ashkenazim, and the Italian and Yemenite rites were different yet again. 76

Second, we know that various manuscripts o f the Greek text o f

7 1

S c h ü r e r , v o l I I I (English e d i t i o n ) , 739; cf. also Schmid, Baruch, 179-184. Die syrische Didaskalia, ü b e r s e t z t u n d e r k l ä r t von Achelis u n d F l e m m i n g , 1904 113, or R . I I . Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum, 1929, ]91-192. S c h ü r e r , v o l . I I I (English e d i t i o n ) , 739-740 and the l i t e r a t u r e m e n t i o n e d there; cf. S c h m i d , Baruch, for another testimony.

7 5

t

7 6

148

Μ. Α. W E S

the Hebrew Bible place the book o f Baruch between Jeremiah and Lamentations, and that various Church Fathers ascribe the book o f Baruch to Jeremiah, just as Lamentations was a t t r i b u t e d to Jere­ m i a h . This suggests that they regarded Jeremiah, Baruch, a n d Lamentations as a single whole, j u s t as Josephus, for that matter, regarded Jeremiah and Lamentations—perhaps even i n c l u d i n g what is now called I Baruch—as a single w h o l e . N i c k e l s b u r g has r i g h t l y r e m a r k e d that I Baruch 1:1-3:8 must, at least once, have been i n c l u d e d i n one scroll together w i t h Jeremiah. Once, but when? There are only two possible moments: either shortly after 167 BCE i n connection with the institution and organization o f the annual day o f national m o u r n i n g to c o m m e m o r a t e the desecration o f the Temple by Antiochus IV, or shortly after 70 CE i n connection with the c o m m e m o r a t i o n o f the destruction o f the T e m p l e by Titus. There is a t h i r d p o i n t which should lessen our concern about the fact that the Syriac Didascalia, unlike the Apostolic Constitutions, mentions only Lamentations. How should we concretely visualize the proceedings o f the m e m o r i a l ceremony o n this day o f natio­ nal m o u r n i n g ? Certainly it will have been very different from a West E u r o p e a n Remembrance Day i n the year 1992. We are, after all, i n the M i d d l e East! I imagine that, after a reading o f I Baruch by one or two readers and after a j o i n t prayer, the mass o f people would sing songs o f lamentation for hours on end, or that the readings were regularly i n t e r r u p t e d by song. I n any case i t is natural to assume that singing was more i m p o r t a n t than the ser­ m o n . This m i g h t explain why only Lamentations is m e n t i o n e d i n the Syriac Didascalia. The rabbinical literature offers extensive information on the m o u r n i n g rites to be observed on the N i n t h o f Av. They lasted fully twenty-four hours, from sunset to sunset. The rabbinical literature also shows quite plainly that later i n Jewish history the reading of the book o f Baruch was replaced by the reading o f various other texts, instructively specified i n the 7 7

78

7 7

Τ ο ν , Septuagint Translation, 169; Nickelsburg, in Stone (ed.), Jewish Wnting, 146; Josephus, Contra Apionem i 38-40 w i t h Thackeray's note i n the L o e b e d i t i o n ad locum. For a summary and for f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n , see Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 3, Jerusalem 1971, s.v. Av, the N i n t h of, 936-940. 7 8

MOURNING BECOMES JERUSALEM

149

Midrash Echa Rabbati But Lamentations has remained a standard element to this very day. That the book o f Baruch had to yield its place is only natural i f one looks at the political message which i t contains. This message is clearly aligned to the political creed o f the Realpolitiker (among w h o m Josephus): i t is quite something to ask a people i n m o u r n i n g to pray for the well-being o f its per­ secutors, o f *Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar\ After 70 these could only be identified with Vespasian and Titus (who still knew who A n t i o c h u s I V Epiphanes a n d A n t i o c h u s V Eupator were?), j u s t as the w o r d Babylon was i m m e d i a t e l y associated w i t h Rome. *Pray that we shall find favor i n their sight!' (1:12). Josephus c o u l d pray this, and indeed his prayer was answered, and so, too, J o c h a n a n ben Zakkai, w h o m , i f pressed for a name, I w o u l d m e n t i o n as the most likely d i r e c t o r o f the m o u r n i n g ceremony i n t r o d u c e d after 70 CE. But i t is hard to imagine that the average Jewish peasant was prepared to act so submissively and to t u r n his left cheek to a Roman Ortskommandant after receiving a blow from a rifle-butt on his right cheek. M o r e probably, like every n o r m a l h u m a n b e i n g u n d e r such circumstances, the Jewish peasant w o u l d have quickly backed off and kept his head down, n u r s i n g his hatred b e h i n d a mask o f apparent impassiveness. For h i m the feelings o f pain and g r i e f at the annually r e c u r r i n g N i n t h o f Av were more i m p o r t a n t than praying for the Ortskommandant or his supreme leader. The political creed o f I Baruch was too m u c h the creed o f figures like Josephus, a traitor and a collaborator i n the eyes o f the o r d i n a r y Jewish peasant and the o r d i n a r y Jewish rabbi. 1

1

T h e r e is some risk i n r e g a r d i n g texts f r o m the r a b b i n i c a l literature as altogether historically reliable, but I venture to claim that the outlook o f the Jews at die end o f the first and the start o f the second century CE was m o r e like the attitude w h i c h emerges f r o m a story o f rabbi Simeon ben Jochai passed down i n the Midrash Rabbah: 79

I n the days o f Trajan—may his bones be crushed!—his wife gave b i r t h o n the n i g h t o f the n i n t h o f A b . when all Israel were m o u r n i n g . T h e c h i l d d i e d o n C h a n u k a h . Said the Jews to themselves: 'Shall we l i g h t the Midrash

Rabbah, Esther, translated by Maurice S i m o n , L o n d o n 1951, 3.

150

M. A. W E S

C h a n u k a h lights o r not?' I n the end they said: ' L e t us l i g h t t h e m , come what may,' So they l i t up. People t h e r e u p o n went and m a l i g n e d t h e m to Trajan's wife saying: 'These Jews, when y o u gave b i r t h , were i n m o u r n ­ i n g , a n d now, w h e n the c h i l d dies, they k i n d l e lights.' She sent a letter to her husband saying: W h i l e y o u are s u b d u i n g the Barbarians, go a n d subdue these Jews w h o have rebelled against you.

Trajan—'may his bones be crushed!'—set off. H e f o u n d the Jews, *then surrounded them with his legions and slew t h e m / V H e a r i n g I Baruch 2:23 on the N i n t h o f Av, perhaps Flavius Josephus cast his m i n d back m o m e n t a r i l y to Jesus the son o f Ananias, Joshua ben Chanania. A n d as for Jeremiah: i n the Aniiquities Josephus came to the conclusion that Jeremiah h a d already p r e d i c t e d that Jerusalem w o u l d be destroyed i n 70 CE: *He left b e h i n d writings concerning the recent capture o f o u r city.* Like himself, Flavius Josephus, alias Joseph ben Matthias. A n d , l i k e J e r e m i a h , Joseph ben Matthias was deeply convinced that one day 'a voice against the b r i d e g r o o m and bride, a voice against all the people' would be heard in Rome. That has n o t happened so far. T h e procurator Lucceius Albinus let Jesus the son o f Ananias go. T w o years later he was transferred to Mauretania Caesariensis, Morocco. I n the Year o f the Four Emperors he sided with one o f the losers, the ephemeron O t h o . H e was subdued by the legate Cluvius Rufus, w h o h a d backed another loser, the e p h e m e r o n Vitellius. Fleeing from Gibraltar to Tangier, Albinus and his wife were stabbed to death o n the beach o f Morocco. T h e procurator Pontius Pilate d i d n o t let Jesus the son o f Joseph go. Christians, n o t Flavius Josephus, have washed o f f the b l o o d sticking to his hands. Indeed, there were Christians w h o cano­ nized h i m , together with his wife. God help them. 80

81

8 0

8 1

JA x 79. Tacitus, Histories i i 58-59.

Pluriformity and Uniformity Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament 1

A D A M S. V A N D E R W O U D E

O u r m o d e r n translations o f the O l d Testament are based on the text o f a manuscript o f the Hebrew Bible that is preserved i n the Public Library o f St Petersburg i n Russia. It is known as the Codex Leningradensis and dates from the year 1008 A D . A l t h o u g h we have a n u m b e r o f other medieval Bible codices which are about a century older, these offer only part o f the text o f the O l d Testam e n t . Obviously this also applies to the fragments o f Hebrew Bible books w h i c h were f o u n d i n the l u m b e r r o o m o f the Ezra Synagogue o f O l d Cairo at the end o f the last century. They derive from 600-900 A D . These codices and fragments belong to what is usually called the Masoretic textual tradition o f the Hebrew Bible. T h e Maso re tes faithfully passed down the consonantal text o f the Hebrew Bible i n the Middle Ages, but also punctuated or vocalized i t and added accents and comments. T h e relatively recent date o f the above manuscripts meant that 2

3

4

1

E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n o f the farewell lecture h e l d by the a u t h o r i n the a u d i t o r i u m o f the A c a d e m i e g c b o u w o f the University o f G r o n i n g c n o n 3 November 1992. For a b r i e f description o f the manuscripts, see E. W u r t h w c i n , Der Text des Allen Testaments, Stuttgart 1973 , 38 ff. For the discoveries in the Cairo geniza, see P. Kahlc, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 1 9 5 9 , a n d for a survey o f the b i b l i c a l fragments preserved i n C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , see M . C . Davis, Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in the Cambridge Geniza Collections, V o l . 1: Taylor-Schechter O l d Series and o t h e r G e n i z a h C o l l e c t i o n s i n C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y , C a m b r i d g e 1976; V o l . 2: Taylor-Schechter New Scries a n d Westminster College C a m b r i d g e C o l l e c t i o n , Cambridge 1980. Cf. E. W u r t h w c i n , o. c, 12 f f 2

4

3

2

4

152

Λ. S. VAN D E R W O U D E

up t i l l less than half a century ago we knew almost n o t h i n g about the history o f the text o f the Hebrew Bible books from the time o f their o r i g i n . T r u e enough, one could try to discover at least part o f the history o f this t r a d i t i o n via early translations o f the O l d Testament. I n particular there was the Septuagint, the early Greek translation o f the Hebrew Bible w h i c h was p r o d u c e d i n stages largely i n the last centuries before the b e g i n n i n g o f the Christian era. I n some places the text o f the Septuagint differs considerably from tllat o f the Hebrew Bible, for instance i n the books o f Samuel, Jeremiah, and Job, But there was controversy about the character and consequently the text-historical and text-critical value o f this Greek translation, which is n o t homogeneous, not by one hand, and n o t from the same time. The assessment o f the variants i n the Septuagint compared with the Masoretic text swung to and fro: sometimes the differences between the textual witnesses were a t t r i b u t e d to the license o f the translators, o t h e r times i t was ascribed to the Hebrew Vorlagen which f o r m e d the basis o f the t r a n s l a t i o n . Likewise the Hebrew-Samaritan P e n t a t e u c h , the H o l y Book o f the Samaritans which contains only the books o f Genesis to Deuteronomy, could be merely o f l i m i t e d help i n the i n q u i r y i n t o the vicissitudes o f the O l d Testament text. T h e manuscripts o f this tradition n o t only contain j u s t a part o f the Bible, they also derive from the late M i d d l e Ages. 5

6

Thus before 1947, the year i n which the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, we c o u l d console ourselves with the t h o u g h t that the original text o f the O l d Testament had come down virtually u n -

5

T h e r e are a n u m b e r o f excellent i n t r o d u c t i o n s to the Septuagint, i n c l u d ­ i n g the f o l l o w i n g recent works: N . Fernandez. Marcos, Introduction a las verstones griegas de la Biblia, M a d r i d 1979; M . Harl-G. Dorivai-O. M u n n i c h , La bible grecque des Septante. Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien, Paris 1988 (with extensive b i b l i o g r a p h i e s ) . A satisfactory critical e d i t i o n o f the text o f the Samaritan Pentateuch is still lacking, but see A . von Gall, Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, Glessen 1914-1918, r e p r i n t e d Berlin 1966; A. and R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch, Jerusalem 1965; L.F. G i r o n Blanc, Pentateuco hebreo-samaritano, Genesis, M a d r i d 1976. For the n a t u r e o f the Samaritan Pentateuch, see E. W ü r t h w e i n , ο. c, 47-49 and Ε. Τ ο ν , T h e T e x t o f the O l d Testament, i n : A . S. van der Woude (ed.), The World of the Bible ( B i b l e H a n d ­ b o o k I ) , G r a n d Rapids, M i c h . 1986, 168-172 and the l i t e r a t u r e m e n t i o n e d there. 6

153

P L U RI FORM I T Y AND U N I F O R M I T Y

changed t h r o u g h die centuries. We could dismiss the Septuagint as a free translation o f the Hebrew Bible and the Samaritan Penta­ teuch as a sectarian r e n d i t i o n o f the so-called five books o f Moses. T h e Hebrew Bible, i t was recognized, is not w i t h o u t errors (trans­ cribers will make mistakes), and the Septuagint and the Samari­ tan Pentateuch may sometimes have preserved textual variants which were evidently to be preferred, b u t these versions d i d n o t pose an essential problem to those who believed that the conso­ nantal text o f the Hebrew Bible had been passed down through the centuries with exemplary faithfulness. T h e Dead Sea scrolls discovered near Q u m r a n f r o m 1947 onwards have thrown an entirely new light on the textual history o f the Hebrew Bible, b u t have also raised many questions w h i c h are difficult to answer. T h e some 800 scrolls found there, usually preserved i n a fragmentary to very fragmentary state, i n c l u d e about 200 manuscripts o f O l d Testament books. They lead us back to the text o f the O l d Testament as it circulated i n Palestine before the b e g i n n i n g o f the Christian era and half a century afterwards, in a few cases even g o i n g back as far as the t h i r d century BC. This means that we have reached a stage o f textual transmission 7

8

9

' Thus as late as 1952 an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the O l d Testament c o u l d be written in w h i c h the textual history o f the Hebrew Bible was completely i g n o r e d ; cf. G.Ch. Aalders, Oud-testamentisrJie Kanoniek, Kampen 1952. So far the best i n t r o d u c t i o n to the discoveries is M . Delcor-F. Garcia M a r t i n e / , Introducaon a la literatura esenia de Qumran, M a d r i d 1982, but a more accessible w o r k is G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Qumran in Perspective, L o n d o n 1 9 8 2 , For a b r i e f o r i e n t a t i o n on the discovered writings, see D . D i m a n t , Q u m r a n Sectarian L i t e r a t u r e , i n : M . Stone (ed.), Jewish Wntings of the Second Temple Period ( C o m p e n d i a Re r u m I u d a i c a r u m ad N o v u m Tes tarn ent u m I I / l ) , Assen-Philadelphia 1984, 483-550. For a list o f the manuscripts published, cf. J.Α. Fitzmycr, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Major Publications and Tooh for Study (SBLResources for Biblical Study 20), A t l a n t a GA 1990 , 11-93, a n d for a complete list o f the manuscripts found, see F. Garcia Martinez, 'Lista dc mss procedentes dc Q u m r a n ' , Henoch 11 (1989), 149-232. A list o f u n p u b l i s h e d writings from caves 4 and 11 is given by F. Τ ο ν , T h e U n p u b l i s h e d Q u m r a n Texts from Caves 4 and 11, Journal of Jewish Studies 43 (1992), 101-136. 8

2

3

9

For a survey o f the biblical scrolls discovered near Q u m r a n , cf. F. Garcia M a r t i n e z , 'Estudios qumranicos 1975-1985. Panorama critico ( V I ) ' , Estudios Ih'blicos 47 (1989), 225-267 and A.S. van der Woude, F ü n f z e h n Jahre Q u m ranforschung (1974-1988) Theologische Rundschau 55 (1990), 274-307; sec also F. U l r i c h , T h e Biblical Scrolls from Q u m r a n Cave 4: A Progress R e p o r t of their Publication, Revue de Qumrän 14/54 (1989), 207-228. ,

154

Λ. S. VAN D E R W O U D E

which is about 1000 years earlier than that o f the medieval manu­ scripts m e n t i o n e d earlier. I f one takes the b o o k o f the twelve M i n o r Prophets as a whole, all the w r i t i n g s i n c l u d e d i n the Hebrew Bible, w i t h the exception o f N e h c m i a h and Esther, are represented among the Dead Sea scrolls. The absence o f the book o f Nehemiah must be a c o i n c i d e n c e . Esther, however, d i d n o t belong to the holy writings o f the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y , i n con­ trast to other writings f o u n d there, such as Ecclesiasticus, T o b i t , and the Epistle o f Jeremiah, which we call apocrypha, and the writings I Enoch, Book o f Jubilees, and the Testament o f Levi, w h i c h we call pseudcpigrapha. T h e members o f the Q u m r a n community had no n o t i o n o f a canon o f the O l d Testament i n the sense o f a well-defined n u m b e r o f holy w r i t i n g s as Rabbinic Judaism later recognized it and as we know i t . 10

11

1 2

M o r e surprising than this, however, is that we find a diversity o f textual traditions o f the Hebrew Bible i n Q u m r a n . A l t h o u g h the

1 0

Because an Ezra fragment was discovered in cave 4 o f Q u m r a n and Ezra manuscripts will also have contained the text o f N e h c m i a h , it seems natural to assume that the absence o f a N e h e m i a h fragment is accidental. I n d e e d , we can be sure that the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y regarded N e h e m i a h as one o f its holy books i n view o f the fact that i t was familiar w i t h the w o o d offering in the T e m p l e (cf. T e m p l e Scroll X X I I I - X X V ) , w h i c h in the O l d Testament is m e n t i o n e d only in N e h e m i a h (10:34; cf. 13:31). T h e view o f Ε. Τ ο ν , H e b r e w B i b l i c a l M a n u s c r i p t s f r o m the J u d a e a n Desert. T h e i r C o n t r i b u t i o n to T e x t u a l Criticism, Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988), 5-37, csp. 17, that the absence o f an Esther fragment is a coincidence is disproved by the fact that the P u r i m Eeast prescribed i n Esther is m e n ­ t i o n e d nowhere in the k n o w n writings o f the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y . T h e history o f the canonization o f the O l d Testament w i l l n o t be dis­ cussed here because it docs not necessarily coincide with the standardization o f the biblical text. T h e literature on the subject is endless, I m e n t i o n only A.C. Sund berg, The Old Testament of the Early Church, Cambridge, Mass. 1964; J.A. Sanders, Torah and Canon, Philadelphia 1972; S.Z. L e i m a n , The Canoniza­ tion of the Hebrew Scripture. The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, H a m d e n Ct. 1976; J.A. Sanders, T e x t and Canon. Concepts and M e t h o d , Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1979), 5-29; idem, Canon and Community, A Guide to Canonical Cnticism, Philadelphia 1984; J.D. Kaestli-O. W c r m e l i n g e r (eds.), I^e canon de l'Ancien Testament. Sa formation et son histoire, Geneva 1984; L . Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism, L o n d o n 1985; F. C r ü s e r n a n n , Das "portative Vaterland". S t r u k t u r u n d Genese des alttestarnentlichcn Kanons, i n : A l e i d a u n d Jan Assmann (cds.), Kanon und Zensur, M u n i c h 1987, 63-79. 1 1

1 2

155

P L U R I F O R M I T Y AND U N I F O R M I T Y

b i b l i c a l w r i t i n g s f o u n d there m a i n l y consist o f manuscripts w h i c h virtually contain the consonantal text o f the medieval codices, there are also remnants o f scrolls w h i c h are very similar to the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Indeed, these three traditional categories do not seem to do justice to the totality o f b i b l i c a l writings f o u n d i n Q u m r a n , w h i c h i n c l u d e manuscripts that cannot be properly classified under these three headings. I m e n t i o n a few examples. Besides fragments w i t h the textual tradition of Jeremiah as we know it from the medieval manuscripts, the Dead Sea scrolls have also yielded a piece o f the same book that contains the Hebrew Vorlage o f the Septuagint version o f Jeremiah, which is about a seventh shorter. So i n the case o f J e r e m i a h this early Greek translation is n o t a free r e n d i t i o n but a faithful translation o f a Hebrew text. Curiously enough, these two divergent versions o f Jeremiah could exist side by side w i t h i n the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y . T h e discovery o f an 1 3

14

15

1 3

A p p r o x i m a t e l y 60 % according to the calculation o f Ε. Τ ο ν . T h i s fact has led Ε. Τ ο ν to a b a n d o n the t r a d i t i o n a l classification o f the biblical manuscripts i n t o textual types, textual recensions, etc., and to speak simply o f texts; cf. A M o d e r n O u t l o o k Based on the Q u m r a n Scrolls, Hebrew Union College Annual 53 (1982), 11-27; Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts f r o m the J u d a e a n Desert. T h e i r C o n t r i b u t i o n to T e x t u a l C r i t i c i s m , Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988), 5-37. For a criticism o f this view, cf. Β. Chiesa, T e x t u a l History and T e x t u a l Criticism o f the Hebrew O l d Testament, to be published in the Proceedings o f the Q u m r a n Congress o f M a d r i d (El Escorial) 1991 i n the series Studies on the Texts o f the Desert o f Judah, B r i l l , L e i d e n . T h i s m a n u s c r i p t is referred to as 4 Q J e r . For the text, cf. J.G. Janzen, Studies i?i the Text of Jeremiah, C a m b r i d g e , Mass. 1973, 181-189 and now i n particular Ε. Τ ο ν , T h e J e r e m i a h Scrolls from Cave 4, Revue de Qumran 1 4 / 5 4 (1989), 189-206, w h o believes that 4 Q J e r comprises the remnants o f three d i f f e r e n t scrolls, 4 Q J c r does n o t contain a recension o f the proto-Masorctic text but an earlier version o f the Book o f J e r e m i a h w h i c h was supplemented and updated i n the Masorctic f o r m ; cf. P.M. Bogaert, De Baruch à J é r é m i e . Les deux r é d a c t i o n s c o n s e r v é e s du livre de J é r é m i e , i n : idem ( é d . ) , Le livre de Jérémie. Le prophète et son milieu. Les oracles et leur transmission (Bibliotheca E p h e m e r i d u m T h e o l o g i c a r u m Lovanicnsum 5 4 ) , L o u v a i n 1981, 168-173; E. Τ ο ν , Some Aspects o f the T e x t u a l and Literary History o f the Book o f Jere­ m i a h , ibid., 145-167. For a criticism o f the position o f these authors, see S. S o d e r l u n d , The Greek Text of Jeremiah. A Revised Hypothesis (JSOT Suppl. Series 47), Sheffield 1985. N o other text f o u n d near Q u m r a n is so similar i n content to the Septuagint text as 4QJer . 1 4

1 3

b

b

b

b

156

A. S. VAN D E R W O U D E 1 6

Exodus manuscript from cave 4 o f Q u m r a n has shown that the text u n d e r l y i n g the Samaritan Pentateuch is n o t sectarian b u t basically a h a r m o n i z a t i o n o f the Masoretic t r a d i t i o n . A s t r i k i n g example o f biblical manuscripts which are i n d e p e n d e n t i n rela­ tively many places is a Leviticus scroll from cave 11, w h i c h like the Exodus manuscript is w r i t t e n i n Paleo-Hebrew characters. T h e textual variants i n these manuscripts are n o t such that they affect the message o f the biblical writings concerned, but they do show very clearly that the transmission o f the O l d Testament i n the last centuries before the beginning o f the Christian era, at any rate i n some circles o f Palestinian Judaism, was a fluctuating one. One m i g h t object that the diversity o f the textual witnesses i n Q u m r a n says n o t h i n g about the textual tradition o f the O l d Testa­ m e n t outside the confines o f the c o m m u n i t y established there. There is i n fact some t r u t h i n this (as I shall hope to show). But we must consider that quite a few scrolls among the Dead Sea manu­ scripts were b r o u g h t to Q u m r a n from outside; indeed, some go back to the time when the c o m m u n i t y d i d n o t yet exist. These biblical manuscripts evidently reflect a diversity o f textual tradi­ tions which i n the centuries before the beginning o f the Christian era prevailed outside Q u m r a n too. Conversely, one c o u l d say that the diversity o f the biblical manuscripts f o u n d i n the library o f Q u m r a n says n o t h i n g about the text which was normative for the 17

1 6

m

Cf. J.E, Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran. 4QpaleoExod and the Samaritan Tradition ( H a r v a r d Semitic Studies 30), Atlanta GA 1986; idem T h e C o n t r i b u t i o n o f 4 Q p a l e o E x o d to T e x t u a l Criticism, i n : F. Garcia M a r t i n e z a n d E. Puech (eds.), Mémorial Jean Carmignac, Paris 1988, 547-560 (= Revue de Qumrân 1349-52). Cf. D . N . Freedman-K.A. Mathews w i t h c o n t r i b u t i o n s by R.S. H a n s o n , The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (1 IQpaleoLev), W i n o n a Lake, I n d . 1985; K . A . Mathews, T h e B a c k g r o u n d o f the Paleo-Hebrew Texts and Q u m r a n , i n : C.L, Mcyers-M. O ' C o n n o r (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth [Festschrift D . N , F r e e d m a n ] , Philadelphia 1983, 549-568. T h i s text led E. T o v to abandon the t r a d i t i o n a l classification i n t o textual types (proto-Masoretic, early Greek translation, proto-Samaritan) and to reject F . M . Cross's thesis o f Lokaltexte (the proto-Masoretic text derives from Babylonia, the Septuagint f r o m Egypt, a n d the proto-Samaritan f r o m Palestine, cf. F . M . Cross, T h e History o f the B i b l i c a l text i n the L i g h t o f Discoveries i n the J u d a e a n Desert, Harvard Theological Review 57 (1964), 281-299; idem, T h e Evolution o f a T h e o r y o f Local Texts, i n : F . M . Cross-S. T a l m o n , Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, Cambridge, Mass.-London 1975, 306-320), cf. note 14. t

m

1 7

P L U R I F O R M I T Y AND U N I F O R M I T Y

157

members o f the c o m m u n i t y established there. W r i t i n g s w h i c h one keeps i n one's library need not be representative o f one's own views. However, on the basis o f criteria such as spelling, the use o f paragraph signs, the writing o f the divine names i n Paleo-Hebrew characters, and other details, Emanuel Tov has separated the bibli­ cal scrolls which were copied i n Q u m r a n from those w h i c h were b r o u g h t there from elsewhere and has shown that Bible books copied i n Q u m r a n also represent more than one textual t r a d i t i o n . F r o m Q u m r a n I take you to Masada and the wadi Murabba'at. D u r i n g the first Jewish u p r i s i n g against the Romans, w h i c h started i n 66 A D and led to the fall o f Jerusalem and the destruc­ t i o n o f the T e m p l e four years later, the last Jewish resistance against the occupier was offered up till 73 A D at Masada, the imposing and almost impregnable m o u n t a i n fortress i n the desert o f J u d a h . Excavations there led by Yigael Yadin yielded (besides sections o f other writings, i n c l u d i n g Ecclesiasticus) fragments o f Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and the Psalms w h i c h all basically contain the consonantal text familiar to us from the Masoretic t r a d i t i o n . A t the end o f the second Jewish u p r i s i n g against the Romans, w h i c h lasted from 132-135 and was led by Simon bar Kochba, Jewish fighters resisted the hated enemy to the very last i n virtually inaccessible parts o f the desert o f Judah, T h e biblical manuscripts which they left us i n caves i n the wadi Murabba'at also have, apart from a few almost negligible details, the consonantal text which we know from the medieval manu­ scripts. 18

1 9

20

We find therefore that neither Masada n o r the caves o f the wadi Murabba'at give evidence o f a p l u r i f o r m textual tradition o f the O l d Testament as we see it i n Q u m r a n . T h i s is remarkable and obviously raises the question: how and why was the u n i f o r m

1 8

Ε. T o v , H e b r e w B i b l i c a l Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert. T h e i r C o n t r i b u t i o n to T e x t u a l Criticism, Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988), 5-37. Cf. Y. Yadin, T h e Excavation o f Masada - 1963/1964. P r e l i m i n a r y Report, Israel Exploration Journal 15 (1965), 1-120, esp. 81-82, 103-104; idem, Masada. Herod's Fortress and the Zealots' Last Stand, L o n d o n - N e w York 1966, 179, 187189. Cf. P. Benoit, J.T. M i l i k , and R. de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabba'at (Dis­ coveries i n the Judaean Desert I I ) , O x f o r d 1961, 75 ff., 181 ff. T h e divergent readings are largely o r t h o g r a p h i c a l i n k i n d . 1 9

2 0

158

A. S. VAN D E R W O U D E

textual t r a d i t i o n reached w h i c h underlies the medieval m a n u ­ scripts o n which our Bible translations are based, in view o f the p l u r i f o r m i t y o f the textual t r a d i t i o n o f the O l d Testament i n Qumran? This p r o b l e m has been answered i n various ways. I t is usually assumed that the standardization o f the text took place d u r i n g the second h a l f o f the first century A D i n the school o f Javne. The Pharisees, who were the only religious party to survive the first uprising against the Romans, supposedly succeeded w i t h the Scribes after the fall o f Jerusalem i n 70 A D i n preserving and strengthening the national unity o f the Jews by establishing the canon o f Holy Scripture for once and for all and achieving a consolidation o f the biblical text. But this theory is not supported by the Rabbinic t r a d i t i o n and is also h a r d to reconcile with the discoveries at Masada. Moshe Greenberg therefore expressed the view that the standardization o f the text took place i n a m u c h earlier p e r i o d and should be attributed to the initiative o f Scribes w i t h i n reach o f the T e m p l e i n Jerusalem, who made a critical selection among manuscripts and textual variants and i n d o i n g so excluded the proto-Samaritan Pentateuch and the Hebrew Vorlagen o f the Septuagint, Greenberg dates this text-critical work from the m i d d l e o f the second century BC, after the rcdedication o f the T e m p l e i n 164 and the re-establishment o f the temple library by Judas Maccabeus ( m e n t i o n e d in I I Maccabees). He draws paral­ lels here w i t h the work o f the A l e x a n d r i a n grammarians, w h o earlier carried out a recension o f the writings o f H o m e r and other Greek a u t h o r s . Not u n t i l Rabbinic Judaism, which consolidated itself at the end o f the first and the beginning o f the second cen­ tury, c o u l d the established standard text be given a p e r m a n e n t m o n o p o l y by taking divergent biblical scrolls out o f c i r c u l a t i o n . Albrektson opposed this theory by claiming that the textual tradi­ tion current among the Pharisees gained dominance and gradu­ ally supplanted other textual witnesses i n Rabbinic J u d a i s m . Just 21

22

25

l

^ M . G r e e n b e r g , T h e S t a b i l i z a t i o n o f the T e x t o f the H e b r e w B i b l e Reviewed i n the L i g h t o f the Biblical Materials f r o m the Judaean Desert, Journal of the American Oriental Society 76 (1956), 157-167. Cf. L . D . Reynolds and N . G . Wilson, Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, O x f o r d 1 9 9 1 , 5 ff. B. A l b r e k t s o n , Reflections on the Emergence o f a Standard T e x t o f the H e b r e w Bible, Congress Volume Gbttingen 1977 (Supplements to Vetus Testa2 2

3

2 3

P L U R I F O R M I T Y AND U N I F O R M I T Y

159

as the religious diversity o f Judaism made way for unity after 70, so the p l u r i f o r m textual t r a d i t i o n o f the O l d Testament was gradually replaced by uniformity. I n his view, the standard text was not achieved by deliberate text-critical w o r k . 24

m c n t u m 29), Leiden 1978, 49-65. I n the a r t i c l e m e n t i o n e d i n the previous note, A l b r e k t s o n strongly opposed the view that the transition from a diversity o f textual traditions to a standardized text should be a t t r i b u t e d to the Scribes. I n his o p i n i o n , the frequently drawn parallel w i t h the w o r k o f the A l e x a n d r i a n g r a m m a r i a n s c a n n o t be demonstrated. He points o u t that Rabbinic literature contains no proposals for textual corrections or disputes about certain readings i n the Hebrew Bible. N o r i n his view can the text-critical work supposedly carried out by the Scribes be proved. It needs to be observed here that once the text had been standardized, the rabbis regarded it as literally i n s p i r e d by G o d , a n d so w o u l d n o t want to question i t . But this does n o t prove that the standardization was achieved w i t h o u t text-critical labour. A c c o r d i n g to many critics, a standardized text is presupposed by the fact t h a t Rabbi A q i b a argues w i t h m i n u t e g r a m m a t i c a l a n d o r t h o g r a p h i c a l details in his exegesis o f the Scriptures a r o u n d the b e g i n n i n g o f the second century A D . But A l b r e k t s o n believes that Aqiba's exegetical m e t h o d does n o t necessarily mean that every rabbi used the same text: what he needed in his m e t h o d was a text to w h i c h he c o u l d apply i t . Moreover, says A l b r e k t s o n , certain Rabbinic arguments show that they based themselves on a text w h i c h was somewhat d i f f e r e n t from the medieval texts. This c o n t e n t i o n is also d o u b t f u l . M i n o r differences existed i n t o the M i d d l e Ages w i t h i n the p r o t o Masoretic t r a d i t i o n f r o m after 70 A D . But this does n o t mean that the standard text as such was n o t generally accepted. I f there were no such text, Rabbi Aqiba could hardly have hoped that his exegetical m e t h o d w o u l d gain c u r r e n c y elsewhere. A n u m b e r o f passages in Rabbinic literature m e n t i o n three scrolls w h i c h were kept i n the t e m p l e c o u r t i n Jerusalem. A c c o r d i n g to the t r a d i t i o n ( w h i c h is n o t always i d e n t i c a l ) , they differed from each o t h e r on certain points. T h e Scribes arc said to have adopted the c o r r e s p o n d i n g r e a d i n g o f two manuscripts instead o f the variant r e a d i n g o f the t h i r d . I n the view o f many scholars, this, too, shows that the Scribes engaged in text-critical w o r k before 70 A D . A l b r e k t s o n observes that the t r a d i t i o n o f the three scrolls is not i d e n t i c a l in the four versions we have o f it (cf. S. T a l r n o n , T h e T h r e e Scrolls o f the Law that were Found in the T e m p l e Court, Texius 2 (1962), 1427). Following the suggestion o f others, he assumes that the statements about the careful c o m p a r i s o n o f manuscripts and variant readings arc a Rabbinic e m b e l l i s h m e n t . He also notes that it is d o u b l e d w h e t h e r the scrolls were b i b l i c a l manuscripts. A l b r e k t s o n ' s considerations here are n o t c o n v i n c i n g e i t h e r . The terms a p p l i e d to the three scrolls almost c e r t a i n l y i n d i c a t e biblical manuscripts. I t is unlikely that the statement about the comparison o f manuscripts and their variants is solely to be a t t r i b u t e d to later rabbis. I f there were no early t r a d i t i o n about the textual c o m p a r i s o n , the rabbis, in 2 4

160

A. S. VAN D E R W O U D E

I n view o f the manuscripts f o u n d i n Masada and the wadi Murabba'at , one can conclude that one particular textual witness, namely the tradition elaborated by the Masoretes i n the M i d d l e Ages, became normative i n all o f Judaism after 70 A D . There are n o i n d i c a t i o n s o f a p l u r i f o r m textual t r a d i t i o n i n the early Rabbinic p e r i o d , only o f m i n i m a l differences, e x t e n d i n g i n t o the M i d d l e Ages, w i t h i n the one proto-Masoretic t r a d i t i o n . Albrektson is r i g h t i n assuming that the textual tradition o f the Hebrew Bible which won the day was used by the Pharisees. But this still leaves at least one question unanswered. If, as he supposes, the textual tradition supported by the Pharisees prevailed after 70 A D , 25

view o f t h e i r standard text w h i c h they held to be divinely i n s p i r e d , w o u l d have n o reason to start a t r a d i t i o n which ascribed the standardization to a critical process o f selection. So the t r a d i t i o n about the scrolls in the temple c o u r t rather supports the theory that die consonantal text o f the Hebrew Bible as we have it today d i d not come about w i t h o u t critical work o n the text. A c c o r d i n g to A l b r c k t s o n , the text-critical work supposedly carried o u t by the Scribes cannot explain why the deficiencies o f the Hebrew text o f the O l d T e s t a m e n t were n o t e x p u r g a t e d . T h e text o f the b o o k o f Samuel i n its Masoretic f o r m c a n n o t be plausibly represented as the result o f a careful c o m p a r i s o n o f the manuscripts and variants, since it is full o f errors a n d lacunae. A n d why d i d the Scribes o p t for the Masoretic text o f J e r e m i a h instead o f the e a r l i e r t r a d i t i o n o f the b o o k as we k n o w i t f r o m the Septuagint a n d the second m a n u s c r i p t o f J e r e m i a h f r o m cave 4? These questions are i n d e e d justified on the basis o f our views o n textual criticism. But the p r o b l e m is that we do not know the criteria for the selection made by the Scribes, quite apart from the question whether they possessed o t h e r manuscripts o f Samuel and J e r e m i a h than those w h i c h were in the p r o t o M a s o r e t i c t r a d i t i o n i n the last c e n t u r i e s before the b e g i n n i n g o f the C h r i s t i a n era. Finally, A l b r c k t s o n doubts w h e t h e r absolute u n i f o r m i t y o f the t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n was the ideal o f the early rabbis. l i e believes that the t e x t u a l variants w h i c h bother us may have been regarded by t h e m as an advantage rather than a disadvantage: in the view o f the rabbis, S c r i p t u r e c o n t a i n e d many levels a n d many meanings, and one d i d n o t exclude the other. B u t a careful distinction needs to be made here. T h e rabbis and the Scribes w h i c h preceded t h e m most certainly attached i m p o r t a n c e to a u n i f o r m t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n ; p l u r i f o r m i t y w o u l d have been at odds w i t h the divine a u t h o r i t y o f Scripture as they saw i t . But they d i d n o t necessarily f i n d one m e a n i n g i n the i n d i v i d u a l details o f the one Scripture. Cf. M . Gosh en-Go ttstein, H e b r e w Biblical M a n u s c r i p t s : T h e i r H i s t o r y a n d Place in the H U B P E d i t i o n , Biblica 48 (1967), 243-290 (= F . M . Cross-S. T a l m o n (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, C a m b r i d g e , Mass.L o n d o n 1975, 42-89). 2 5

161

P L U RI FORM I T Y AND U N I F O R M I T Y

it must have existed before t h a t But i n view o f the p l u r i f o r m i t y o f the textual traditions o f the O l d Testament which can still be observed i n Q u m r a n , we still have to explain how and why the Pharisees had an essentially u n i f o r m textual tradition before the catastrophe o f 70 A D . We can infer that the standardization o f the proto-Masoretic text o f the Hebrew Bible had basically already taken place i n certain Jewish circles before 70 A D n o t only from the discoveries o f biblical writings at Masada, but also from the fact that normative' Judaism had rejected the textual tradition o f the Septuagint at an early stage. A Greek manuscript o f the M i n o r Prophets found i n the desert o f Judah and deriving from the latter half o f the first century BC has a text which is a revision o f the Septuagint tradi­ tion on the basis o f a Hebrew text which shows marked simila­ rities with the proto-Masoretic t r a d i t i o n which became generally current after 70 A D . There are indications that the process o f adapting the early Greek t r a d i t i o n to the proto-Masoretic text already started i n the second century B C . The later attempts o f Aquila, T h e o d o t i o n , and Symmachus to offer the Jewish diaspora a Greek translation o f the O l d Testament which corresponded with the standardized Hebrew text follow on from this pre-Chris­ tian revision o f the Septuagint and so should not be explained as b e i n g a i m e d against the Christians, w h o had accepted the Septuagint as their B i b l e . Rather one sees here the need to provide a Greek translation o f the Hebrew Bible w h i c h corre­ sponded i n content with the supported Hebrew textual t r a d i t i o n . These attempts to harmonize the Greek text o f the Septuagint with that o f the proto-Masoretic tradition not only presuppose a g u i d i n g 1

2 6

27

28

2 6

Cf. D. B a r t h é l é m y , Les devanciers d'Aquila. Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophêton (Supplements to V ê t u s T e s t a m e n t u m 10), L e i d e n 1963 a n d now in p a r t i c u l a r E. Tov w i t h the c o l l a b o r a t i o n o f R.A. Kraft and a c o n t r i b u t i o n by PJ. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal !Lever (SffevXIIgr) (Discoveries in the Judacan Desert 8 ) , O x f o r d 1990. Cf. S.P. Brock, T h e P h e n o m e n o n o f the Septuagint, Oudtestamentische Studien 17 (1972), 11-36; A . Pictersma, Kyrios or T c t r a g r a m : A Renewed Quest for the O r i g i n a l L X X , i n : A. Pictersma-C. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta. Studies in honour of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday, Mississauga, O n t . 1984, 85-101. ^ O n e still finds this view frequently expressed, cf. e.g. G. F o h r c r , Ein­ leitung in das Alte Testament, H e i d e l b e r g 1 9 7 9 , 547. 2 7

8

12

162

A. S. VAN D E R W O U D E

Hebrew prototype but also great uniformity of the proto-Masoretic t r a d i t i o n . Moreover, the endeavour to create new Greek trans­ lations w h i c h agreed w i t h the standard Hebrew text most cer­ tainly does evidence text-critical work. One dierefore has reason to assume that the realization o f the standardized proto-Masoretic textual tradition d i d not take place without critical interventions i n the text. This is also suggested by the Rabbinic tradition about the three scrolls kept i n the temple court i n Jerusalem: we are told that in the case o f textual variants between these three the reading which two o f the three had i n c o m m o n was chosen. The tiqqune sopherim, the 'corrections o f the Scribes', which seem to go back to the pre-Christian era, also p o i n t i n the d i r e c t i o n o f textual criti­ cism, though o f a particular k i n d . A t the same time the standar­ dization o f the proto-Masoretic tradition should be thought o f as a process, i n which readings regarded as erroneous were gradually expurgated, sporadic changes were made i n the text for theologi­ cal reasons, and manuscripts which d i d not meet the requirement o f the standardized text were removed i n the course o f time. We know little about the details o f this process, but one does not get the impression that this text-critical work drastically encroached u p o n the proto-Masoretic tradition. Conversely, it is h a r d to understand how Josephus, at the end o f the first century A D , c o u l d state that the traditional writings were passed down by the forefathers with scrupulous p r e c i s i o n and that nobody dared to add, o m i t , or change a n y t h i n g i n t h e m . The events o f 70 A D at most pre­ cipitated the final phase i n the proto-Masoretic textual tradition, but d i d not b r i n g about the process o f standardization as such. 29

3 0

31

3 2

I have previously asked the question with which I started the preparation o f this farewell lecture: why is i t that the p l u r i f o r m i t y o f the textual tradition of the O l d Testament which we still find i n Q u m r a n made way for uniformity? I have increasingly come to doubt whether this is the right way o f f o r m u l a t i n g the p r o b l e m . I t y

" Cf. S. Tal m o n , T h e T h r e e Scrolls o f the Law that were F o u n d in the T e m p l e Court, Textus 2 (1962), 14-27. C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament ( O r b i s B i b l i c u s et O r i e n t a l i s 3 6 ) , F r e i b u r g / S w i U e r t a n d - G ö t t i n g e n 1981. Josephus, Contra Apionem I , 29. Josephus, Contra Apionem I , 42. 3 0

3 1

3 2

P L U RI FORM I T Y AND U N I F O R M I T Y

163

tacitly suggests that the uniformity o f the textual t r a d i t i o n o f the Hebrew Bible was a result o f p l u r i f o r m i t y , either t h r o u g h de­ liberate text-critical interventions i n the proto-Masoretic t r a d i t i o n in which the Vorlagen o f the Septuagint and the proto-Samaritan Pentateuch were eliminated (Greenberg), or t h r o u g h an acciden­ tal historical development i n which the textual t r a d i t i o n used by the Pharisees gradually won the day ( A l b r c k t s o n ) . Instead o f supposing a development from p l u r i f o r m i t y to uniformity i n the textual tradition o f the O l d Testament, we should also theoretically consider the possibility that there was always a relative u n i f o r m i ­ ty o f textual tradition in the religious circles around the Temple o f Jerusalem. T h i s means that there was a basically u n i f o r m tradition besides a p l u r i f o r m tradition i n Palestine Judaism i n the last centuries BC, i n the sense that only the proto-Masoretic textual t r a d i t i o n was passed on i n Jerusalem, whereas elsewhere also biblical manuscripts circulated which bore close resemblance to the text o f the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch or differed in other respects from the proto-Masoretic tradition. But, o f course, a theoretical possibility is not yet a historical fact! It is far from simple to prove the co-existence o f a basically u n i f o r m and a p l u r i f o r m textual tradition because we have no direct i n f o r m a t i o n about the textual tradition of the O l d Testament i n Temple circles in the centuries before the beginning o f the Christian era. Never­ theless, there seem to me to be a number o f indirect indications w h i c h strongly suggest that no other textual t r a d i t i o n than the proto-Masoretic was ever supported i n the T e m p l e o f Jerusalem and among the Scribes, even i f this tradition still fluctuated inter­ nally. 3 3

The scarce Rabbinic i n f o r m a t i o n about text-critical work testi­ fies to a process within the framework o f the same tradition with­ out influence from other textual witnesses, An interesting report 31

3 3

E. T o v comes close to this position when he states: ' A l t h o u g h ... textual p l u r a l i t y was characteristic for all o f Palestine, it appears that i n t e m p l e circles there existed a preference for one textual t r a d i t i o n , i.e., the texts o f the Maso re tic family' (E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, M i n n c a polis-Assen/Maastricht 1992, 191). Cf. the scrolls m e n t i o n e d in notes 24 and 29 and the Rabbinic infor­ m a t i o n about correctors (maggihim) o f biblical manuscripts i n the T e m p l e o f Jerusalem (see the texts m e n t i o n e d by J. Levy, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim 3 1

164

A. S. VAN D E R W O U D E

i n this connection is found i n the Letter o f Aristeas, a work that was probably p r o d u c e d towards the end o f the second century B C . I t relates that the Egyptian k i n g Ptolemy I I Philadelphus, who r u l e d from 285-247 BC, commissioned a Greek transladon o f the books Genesis-Deuteronomy at the instigation o f his librarian Demetrius o f Phalerum. According to Demetrius, die manuscripts o f the Hebrew Bible i n Egypt were, i n the o p i n i o n o f experts, inaccurate transmissions and contained many mistakes, and so at the request o f his librarian the king called i n the assistance o f the Jewish highpriest Eleazar. H e a p p o i n t e d 72 elders, six representatives from each o f the twelve tribes o f Israel, as translators and gave them a T o r a h scroll from Jerusalem on t h e i r j o u r n e y to A l e x a n d r i a , the royal residence. T h e result o f the translation w o r k carried o u t there was the Septuagint, w h i c h d i d n o t yet designate the Greek translation o f the entire O l d Testament i n c l u d i n g the apocrypha, but only the translation o f the so-called live books o f Moses. There can be no doubt that the story i n the Letter o f Aristeas about the origin o f the Septuagint contains many legendary features. One can also disagree about the i m m e d i a t e cause and the goal o f the translation, but i n all reason it cannot be doubted that i t was produced i n the course o f the t h i r d century 3 5

36

und Midraschim I I I , Berlin and Vienna 1924, 334). For the Greek text o f the L e t t e r o f Aristeas, sec A . Pelletier, Lettre dAristée à Phïlocrate (Sources C h r é t i e n n e s 89), Paris 1962 (with i n t r o d u c t i o n , French translation, a n d notes). A c c o r d i n g to N . Meisner, Aristeasbrief ( J ü d i s c h e Schriften aus h c l l e n i s t i s c h c r - r ö m i s c h e r Zeit I I , 1), G ü t e r s l o h 1973, 35-87, the work was a propa­ ganda p a m p h l e t w r i t t e n for the Greeks to demonstrate the excellence o f the Jewish r e l i g i o n a n d the Jewish Law. B u t most scholars believe t h a t the letter was w r i t t e n for Jews and aims at defending the literary p r o d u c t i o n s o f A l e x a n d r i a n Judaism from attacks by Palestine Judaism. O f these scholars G. H o w a r d ( T h e L e t t e r o f Aristeas: a Re-Evaluation, Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971), 337-348) believes that the letter's purpose is to affirm the value o f the Septuagint, S.P, Brock ( T h e P h e n o m e n o n o f the Septuagint, Oudtestamentische Studien 17 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1 1-36) holds that the w o r k is a i m e d against the attempts o f Palestine Jews to revise the Septuagint, a n d A.F.J. Klijn ( T h e Letter o f Aristeas and the Greek Translation o f the Pentateuch i n Egypt, New Testament Studies 11 (1964-1965), 154-158; see also idem, A Library o f Scriptures i n Jerusalem?, Studia Codicotogica (Texte u n d U n t e r s u c h u n g e n 124), Berlin 1977, 265-272, csp. 265-267) thinks that the book was meant to defend the Septuagint against the Jewish priests o f L c o n t o p o l i s . 3 3

3 6

165

P L U R I F O R M I T Y AND U N I F O R M I T Y

in Egypt. More i m p o r t a n t , however, is the letter's defence o f the Septuagint translation. Apparently Jewish i m m i g r a n t s , who had sought refuge i n Egypt o n account o f the troubles i n Judah i n the years before and after the Maccabean revolt i n 167 BC, h a d claimed that the translation o f the Septuagint was inadequate. The a u t h o r defends his view that i t does n o t r e q u i r e r e v i s i o n by p o i n t i n g out that the translation had the approval o f the highpriest and was carried out by Palestinian Jews, that it was executed w i t h great care, and that i t was based o n a text from Jerusalem. I t is h a r d to verify the historical reliability o f this i n f o r m a t i o n . But i n any case i t presupposes a discrepancy between the Septuagint translation current i n Egypt and the textual tradition i n Jerusalem. T h e latter is almost certainly the proto-Masoretic t r a d i t i o n and therefore must already have been relatively u n i f o r m . A n o t h e r i n d i r e c t way o f finding o u t w h i c h textual t r a d i t i o n was c u r r e n t i n religious circles a r o u n d the T e m p l e i n the cen­ turies before the beginning o f the Christian era is to study the text o f Chronicles. I n the fourth century BC the author o f this book quotes extensively f r o m Samuel a n d Kings, often l i t e r a l l y , a l t h o u g h he also gives summaries o f his sources w h i c h are 37

38

3 7

Cf. S.P. Brock, o. c. (note 35). I refrain from considering here the question o f the nature o f the Hebrew text w h i c h underlies the Septuagint translation o f the Pentateuch. R. H a n hart, Z u m g e g e n w ä r t i g e n Stand der Scptuagintforschung, i n : A. PietersmaC. Cox, De Septuaginta. Studies in honour of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday, Mississauga, O n t . 1984, 3-18, urges a proto-Masoretic Vorlage, where­ as F . M . Cross, T h e E v o l u t i o n o f a T h e o r y o f Local texts, i n : F . M . Cross-S, T a l m o n , Qumran and the History of the Biblical text, C a m b r i d g e , Mass.-London 1975, 306-320, opts for an Egyptian local text o f the Palestinian textual type, w h i c h was related to the proto-Samaritan Pentateuch. Cross's view has been opposed by E. T o v (cf. his The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3 ) , Jerusalem 1981, 254-260). A l t h o u g h serious objections can be made to the theory o f the Lokaltexte argued by Cross, it is not easy to solve the p r o b l e m o f why the Septuagint had to be defended against Jews in the Letter o f Aristeas a century after i t was w r i t t e n if in fact it goes back to the proto-Masoretic tradition. I n this way the similarities between the Septuagint a n d the Samaritan Pentateuch also r e m a i n largely unex­ p l a i n e d . O n the other hand, the oldest Septuagint fragment o f D e u t e r o n o m y is m o r e s i m i l a r to the Masoretic text t h a n first was t h o u g h t , cf. J.VV. Wevers, T h e A t t i t u d e o f the Creek Translator o f D e u t e r o n o m y towards his Parent T e x t , i n : I I . D o n n e r et ai (eds.), Beiträge zur Alttestamentlicfien Theologie [Festschrift W. Z i m m e r l i ] , G ö t t i n g e n 1977, 498-505. 3 8

166

Λ. S. VAN D E R W O U D E

coloured by his own views and for theological reasons often omits certain passages from his Vorlagen.^ One need not doubt that the author o f Chronicles, with his interest i n the Levites and the cult, was closely connected with the T e m p l e i n Jerusalem. T h e ques­ tion o f what his Vorlage o f the book o f Samuel looked like cannot at present be answered w i t h o u t taking i n t o account the Samuel scrolls from cave 4 o f Q u m r a n , i n particular the m a n u s c r i p t 4 Q S a m , which deviates considerably from the Samuel text fami­ liar to us. I n their studies on the remnants o f the Samuel manu­ script C r o s s and U l r i c h have tried to show that the Vorlage drawn on by the author o f Chronicles was more closely related to 4QSam a n d the m a r k e d l y similar text o f the early Greek translation than to the familiar Masoretic text o f Samuel. I f this conclusion is right, i t w o u l d seriously u n d e r m i n e my theory that the Jews i n Jerusalem used only the proto-Masoretic t r a d i t i o n , at any rate i f 4QSam is to be regarded as a distinct textual tradition. A final judgement o n the text-historical place o f 4 Q S a m is h a r d to give as l o n g as the remaining text o f this manuscript has not been fully published. But renewed study o f the material p r o v i d e d by U l r i c h has not been able to convince me o f the correctness o f his theory that the textual tradition o f 4QSam derives from a p e r i o d prior to the composition of the book o f Chronicles. It is also possible and indeed likely that the text o f Chronicles influenced that o f 4QSam . But i n that case the author o f Chronicles, for all the 9

a

40

4 1

a

a

a

a

a

4 2

For the h e r m e n e u t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h g u i d e d the a u t h o r o f C h r o n i ­ cles, see T h . W i l l i , Die Chronik als Auslegung (Forschungen zur R e l i g i o n u n d Literatur des Alten u n d Neuen Testaments 106), G ü t t i n g e n 1972, esp. 66 ff. F . M . Cross, Λ New Q u m r a n Biblical Fragment Related to the O r i g i n a l l i e brew U n d e r l y i n g the Septuagint, Bulletin of the American SchooL for Onental Research 132 (1953), 15-26; idem, The History o f the Biblical T e x t i n the L i g h t o f the Discoveries in t h e j u d a e a n Desert, Harvard Theological Rjeview 57 (1964), 281-294; idem, The Evolution o f a Theory o f Local Texts, 1972 Proceedings: IOSCS and Pseudepigrapha, Missoula 1972, 108-126. F.C. U l r i c h , The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus ( H a r v a r d Semitic M o n o g r a p h 19), Missoula 1978, CL also F. Τον, T h e T e x t o f the O l d Testament, i n : Λ. S. van der W o u d e (ed.), Tfie World of the Old Testament (Bible H a n d b o o k I ) , G r a n d Rapids, M i c h . 1986, 171: T h e Samuel scrolls f r o m cave 4 o f Q u m r a n c o n t a i n many read­ ings w h i c h derived f r o m the parallel texts in C h r o n . See also A . van der K o o i j , De tekst van Samuel en het t e k s t k r i t i s c h o n d c r z o c k , Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschnft 36 (1982), 177-204, esp. 202, note 113.

4 0

4 1

4 2

4

P L U R I F O R M r r Y AND

167

UNIFORMITY

rectifications and alterations o f his Vorlage, apparently based h i m ­ self on the proto-Masoretic text o f the books o f Samuel and Kings, I n my view, these considerations suggest that a conservative textual tradition o f the available books o f the O l d Testament pre­ vailed i n Jerusalem d u r i n g the last centuries before the b e g i n n i n g of the Christian era. Texts related to the Scptuagint tradition, such as 4QJer and 4 Q S a m , and the proto-Samaritan Pentateuch evi­ dently failed to establish themselves i n priestly and scribal circles in Jerusalem because they were regarded there as unacceptable deviations f r o m the t r a d i t i o n . I n other words, there is every appearance that since a l o n g time one textual tradition h e l d sway in the Temple o f Jerusalem, a tradition which was later revised on a l i m i t e d scale by priests and Scribes and which formed the basis o f the text as we have it today. I am not saying that the textual tradition o f Jerusalem was completely identical at that time to the consonantal text which was passed on to us by the Masoretes, but I do think we should consider the theory that the standardization o f the text o f the Hebrew Bible was a process within the framework o f that one textual tradition and was not based on a selection from a p l u r i f o r m tradition as we know it from Q u m r a n , Pluriformity o f scriptural tradition is a n o r m a l p h e n o m e n o n , uniformity is an exception. It has rightly been pointed out that as l o n g as no clear distinction was made between Scripture and com­ mentary on Scripture, both edifying and scholarly commentary was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the text o f S c r i p t u r e . Sometimes passages f r o m the O l d Testament t r a d i t i o n were changed because they were offensive to piety, oriented as it was to the T o r a h , or objec­ tionable for other reasons. The extent to which this happened, besides other factors such as clerical errors, divergent spelling, h a r m o n i z a t i o n s and simplification o f o u t d a t e d style, l e d to a palette o f traditions o f the O l d Testament text which differed on points from one another, particularly outside Jerusalem. But a p l u r i f o r m textual tradition is not a problem for the believer as long b

a

43

44

4 3

K. U l r i c h , H o r i z o n s o f O l d Testament. T e x t u a l Research at the T h i r t i e t h Anniversary o f Q u m r a n Cave 4, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46 (1984), 613-636, csp. 617. Cf. A . Rofé, T h e N o m i s t i c C o r r e c t i o n in Biblical M a n u s c r i p t s and its Occurrence in 4QSam , Reime de Qumrân 14/54 (1989), 247-254. 4 4

a

168

A. S. VAN D E R W O U D E

as there is an authoritative body within his circle which, besides Scripture, decides on doctrine and life and which, appealing to inspiration by the Holy Ghost, feels justified in adapting the tradition to the current situation. I n that case the n o r m is n o t only p r o v i d e d by the p r o p h e t i c inspiration i n die past o f which Scripture is the result, but also and not i n the last place by the claim o f those who feel guided i n the present by the Spirit o f God. T h a t Q u m r a n does n o t give us any indications o f an attempt to replace the p l u r i f o r m i t y o f the O l d Testament textual t r a d i t i o n by u n i f o r m i t y is, i n my view, due to the fact that there was a priestly doctrinal authority over and above Scripture which elsewhere i n early Judaism had lost a great deal o f its influence t h r o u g h (he rise o f the Pharisees and Scribes. I n Q u m r a n it is the priests who offer guidance on the basis o f the T o r a h (Temple Scroll 56:2-11) and there it is the sons o f A a r o n who *rule i n matters o f justice and property'. There, as a k i n d o f second T o r a h , the T e m p l e Scroll o f cave 11 c o u l d be w r i t t e n . There it was above all the priest, referred to i n the Dead Sea scrolls as the Teacher o f Righteousness, who subordinated the doctrine a n d life o f his c o m m u n i t y to his a u t h o r i t y i n s p i r e d by God's Spirit. 4 5

46

However, a u n i f o r m textual tradition becomes necessary when there is no longer an appeal to present-day divine inspiration and people wish to preserve earlier prophetic inspiration in Scripture, i n other words, when the authority outside Scripture is shifted to Scripture itself The priests from Jerusalem and the Scribes before the beginning o f the Christian era and after these the early rabbis believed that the H o l y Ghost had w i t h d r a w n since the days o f H a g g a i , Z c c h a r i a h , and M a l a c h i , W h a t they were left w i t h were books, holy writings, which i n p r i n c i p l e d i d n o t a d m i t o f edifying or m o d e r n i z i n g changes. T h i s gradually led to the canonization o f Holy Scripture as God's literally inspired word. I n 4 7

4 5

Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll, V o l u m e s I - I I I w i t h S u p p l e m e n t , Jerusalem 1983. Cf. P. Schulz, Der Autoritätsanspruch des I,ehrers der Gerechtigkeit in Qumran, M e i s e n h e i m am Glan 1974. Cf. I Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; 14:41; Daniel 3:38 (Creek text) and Josephus, Contra Apionem I , 40-41. See also P. Schäfer, Die Vorstellung vom heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (Studien z u m A l t e n u n d N e u e n T e s t a m e n t 2 8 ) , M u n i c h 1972.

4 6

4 7

P L U R I F O R M I T Y AND U N I F O R M I T Y

169

an interesting essay entitled 'Die Schrift dcr rabbinischen Schriftausleger the Jewish scholar A r n o l d Goldberg has pointed out that the rabbis see Scripture as an exactly d e t e r m i n e d n u m b e r o f graphic signs, which as an eternally valid revelation o f G o d is contemporaneous with the reader and can therefore be explained a h i s t o r i c a l l y . Here one finds the final phase o f a process that started with a Scripture that referred to the divine revelation i n history a n d ended with a Scripture which is itself literal revela­ tion. By definition this development had to promote the establish­ m e n t o f a standardized text. It is quite possible, moreover, that i n priestly and scribal circles i n Jerusalem there existed a m o r e conscious, I should almost say more scientific, attitude than else­ where, quite apart from the question whether the ideas about textcritical w o r k i n s p i r e d by the A l e x a n d r i a n grammarians com­ pletely passed Jerusalem by. 1

48

What I have tried to show is that we should not be tempted to assume w i t h o u t further p r o o f that the p l u r i f o r m i t y o f the textual tradition o f the O l d Testament as found i n Q u m r a n also existed i n priestly circles i n Jerusalem and among the Scribes, the Phari­ sees, and the Sadducees i n the centuries before the b e g i n n i n g o f the Christian era. I n my view, the text o f the O l d Testament passed down to us is not the product o f a drastic recension or o f a historical accident. It is a basically faithful representation o f the t r a d i t i o n by the s p i r i t u a l leaders o f early Judaism w h i c h is g r o u n d e d on theological considerations and possibly also stimu­ lated by the influence o f the Alexandrian grammarians. This is n o t to say that I r e c o m m e n d a b l i n d faith i n the letter o f the Masoretic textual t r a d i t i o n , let alone a defence o f the literal inspiration o f Scripture, but I do suggest that we should have great respect for this tradition, with all the consequences this has for our text-critical work on the Hebrew B i b l e . i9

8

9

Fra nkfu rter Juda is tische Beiträge 15 (1987), 1-15. I am greatly indebted to AnLhony Runia for translating this lecture.

Index of modem Authors

Aaldcrs, G.Ch. 153 Abcrbacht, M . 18; 41; 99-101; 110; 118 Achelis, H . 108; 147 A l b r c c h t , K. 102 A l b r e k t s o n , B. 158-160 A m c r s f o o r t , J. van, 91 A n d e r s o n , I L 87 A t t r i d g e , H . W . 90 A r g y l c , A . W . 66 A s s m a n n , A. 154 Assmann, J. 154 Baarda, T. 7; 9; 11; 61-63; 70; 72; 91 Bacon, R. 66 Bailey, J.W. 63 B a m m e l , E. 65; 70 Barnctt, P.W. 132; 133 B a r t h é l é m y , D . 161 Baur, F.C. 63 Becker, J. 12; 19-25; 28-30; 33-36; 39-41; 45; 51-54; 57; 59; 69 Beckwith, L . 154 Beck, M . A . 20 Beentjes, P.C. 56 Benoit, P. 157 Berger, K. 12; 14; 15; 17 Belz, H . D . 92 B i c k c r m a n , F. 87; 88; 91 Billerbeck, P. 104; 143 Blenkinsopp, J. 126; 127; 132 Boeft, J. den, 90; 9 1 ; 93 Boer, I . 80 Bogaert, P.-M. 155 Bore, I . 11 B o r i , P.C. 107 Borret, M . 112 Braude, W . G . 102 B r c i t e n s t e i n , U . 88

Bremer, J . M . 82 Bremmer, J . N . 7-9; 90; 91 Brcyicnbach, C 76; 77 Brock, S.P. 161; 164; 165 B u l l , R J . 15 Burchard, C. 21; 44; 48 Burguiere, A, 85 B u r k i t t , F.C. 64 Caldcr I I I , W . M . 84 Carmignac, J. 135; 137 Chadwick, I L 111 Charles, R . H . 12-17; 19-21; 24-30; 33; 35-38; 40-42; 44-47; 49-55; 57; 59-61; 64; 66; 67; 70; 140 Charlesworth. J.I L 12; 77; 121; 130 Chiesa, B. 155 Cohen, SJ.D. 129; 137 Collins, J J . 15; 38; 54 Colson, F.LI. 15; 16; 19; 38; 56; 57 Connolly, R . H . 108; 147 C o r n f i e l d , G. 130 Cony bear e, F.C. 66; 67 Cox, C. 161; 165 Göxe, A . C . 59 Cross, K.M. 156; 160; 165; 166 C r ü s c m a n n , F. 154 Dassmann, E. 99; 106 Daube, D. 135 Davics, P.R. 107 Davis, M . C . 151 Dehandschutter, B. 75; 90 D e k o r , M . 153 Dibelius, M . 69 Diez Macho, A. 37; 38; 4 1 ; 50 D i m a n t , 1). 153 D o d w e l l 17 D o n n e r , I I . 165

172

INDICES

Dorival, G. 152 Dornsciff, F. 32 D r u m m o n d , J. 62 D u n n , J.D.G. 80 Eckert, W. 69 Epstein, I . 32 Ewald, H . 65 Faber, R. 80 Farmer, W.R. 143 Fernandez Marcos, N , 152 Fishbane, M . 95; 96 Fitzmyer, J.A. 153 F l e m m i n g , J. 108; 147 F r i j h o f f , W. 86 Fohrer, G. 161 Frame, J.E. 60; 71 F r e c d m a n , D . N , 156 Frccdman, H . 14; 18; 25; 30; 32; 44; 49 Friedlander, G. 25; 4 1 ; 47; 66 F r i e d r i c h , G. 69 Fitter, G. 60; 70 Gall, A. von, 152 Garcia Martinez, F. 7; 8; 80; 93; 98; 133; 153; 156; Gasclce, S. 85 Geus, C.H.J, de, 7 Ginsburger, M . 16; 18; 37; 38; 4 1 ; 50 G i r o n Blanc, L.F. 152 G o l d b e r g , A. 169 Goldstein, J.A. 78; 142 G o o d m a n , M . 88; 138 Goshcn-Gottstein, M . 160 Grabc, J.E. 12; 66 Grant, J . N . 88 Crasser, E. 90 Grcenberg, M . 95; 99; 125; 133; 134; 158 G r e e n f i e l d , J.C, 40 Grossfcld, B. 18; 41 G r u n d m a n n , W. 137 H a c k c t t . J . 93 HadasrLcbcl, M . 82

Hanhart, R. 15; 19; 26; 34; 4 1 ; 165 I l a n s o n , R.S. 156 M a r l , M . 152 H a r r i s , H . A . 90 Hastujer, E. 86 Haupt, D. 12; 20; 22; 23; 24; 25; 40; 56; 66 Hayward, C T . 92 Heider, G.C. 95, 96, 97 Hengel, M . 25; 76; 79; 92; 121 H e n t e n , J.W. van, 75; 77-79; 82; 8&‫־‬ 90 ;88 H i l h o r s t , A. 7; 80; 89 H o l l ä n d e r , H . W . 12; 22; 28-30; 34; 37; 40; 43; 45; 50-52; 54; 55; 6 1 ; Hoogenverf, L 75 Horsley, G.R. 92 Horst, P. van der, 7; 9; 13; 15; 46 H o w a r d , G. 164 Hughes, D . D . 82 Issarverdens, J. 61 Jacobson, I L 82 Jansen, H . 11 J a n z c n , J . G . 155 Jeremias, G. 137 Jeremias, J. 121 Jervell, J. 21 Jones, A . H . M , 21 Jonge, H J . 20; 23; 3 1 ; 60; 66; 75-80; 92 Jonge, M . de, 11; 12; 19-24; 28-30; 33-37; 40; 43; 45; 48; 50-57; 59-61; 64; 65; 71; 77 Kaestli, J.D. 154 Kahle, P. 151 Kapstein, I J . 102 Kautzsch. E. 12 Kee, H . C . 12; 20; 21; 28-30; 33; 34; 36; 37; 4 1 ; 44; 45; 50-54; 57; 59; 61 K i p p e n b e r g , I I . 80 Kisch, G. 13; 16; 28; 39; 48; 58 Kissinger, H . 135 Klauck, H.-J. 79; 86-88; 91 K l e i o n , M . A . 18 K l i j n , A.F.J. 7; 164

INDICES K n c u c k c r , J J . 140 Knopf, R. 63 K o c h , K. 79 Kocstcr, I I . 76 K o o i j , A. van der, 166 Kraft, R.A. 161 Kretschmar, G. 91 K r o l l , G. 121 K u c h , H . 81 K u h n , I I.W. 137 Labuschagne, C J . 7; 80 L c i m a n , S.Z. 154 Levey, S.U. 100; 101 Levy, J. 163 L o c k , W. 70 L u p p e , W. 81 L u t h e r , M . 67 L u t t i k h u i z e n , G.P. 91 MacDonals, A. 93 M a n d e l b a u m , B. 102 M a n d c l b a u m , I J . 107 Mansfcld, J. 88, 93 M a r i n i , N . 85 Marsh, F.S. 62; 70 Mathews, K.A. 156 M c C a r t h y , C. 162 Meisner, N . 164 Meyers, C.L. 156 M i c h e l , O . 69 M i l i k , J.T. 21-24; 157 M i l l a r , F. 82; 130; 138 M i m o u n i , S.C. 91 Moffat, J. 62 Mras, K. 13-16; 18; 19; 26; 27; 37; 38; 46-48; 54; 55; 58; M u l d e r , J. 13 M u n n i c h , O. 152 Nauroy, G. 92 Nestle, E. 141; 142 Ncusncr, J. 102 N i c k e l s n u r g , G.W.E. 15; 138; 142; 143; 158 Nity.ch, C.L 69 N i x o n , R. 135 N o o r d a , SJ. 11

173

O b b i n k , D, 85 O ' C o n n o r , M . 156 O'Connor-Visscr, E. 82 O o r l , J. van, 91 O r r i e u x , C. 82 Oosterbaan, J.A. 49 Pankhurst, J . N . 118 Parca, M . 81 Parkes, J.A. 63 Parsons, PJ. 161 Pclletier, A . 164 Perles 24 Pflciderer, O. 62 P h i l o n c n k o , M . 15; 26 Pietersrnan, A . 161; 165 Pines, S. 130 Pitra, J.B. 1 13 Poliakoff, M . 90 Priest, J. 78 Puech, E. 93; 156 Pummer, R. 15; 37; 38; 40; 54 Purvis, J.D. 56 Rabin, C h . 135 Reynolds, L . O . 157 Richardson, P. 80 Riesslcr, P. 12; 20; 28-30; 33; 34; 36; 37; 5 1 ; 53^55; 57; 59; 61 Rigaux, B. 64; 65; 67; 68; 69 R i n a l d i , G. 98 Ritschl, A. 63 Rofe, A. 167 Rodrigues 62 Rolfe, J.C. 83 Ronsch, I L 70 Rousselle, A. 85 R o u x J . 93 Rowland, C. 98 Runia A.P. 169 Sadaqa, A. 152 Sadaqa, R. 152 Safrai, S. 121; 132 Sanders, E.P. 121-123; 128; 132 Sanders, J.A. 154 Sanderson, J.E. 156 Sayce 24

174

INDICES

S c h ä f e r , P. 168 Schlesien R. 80 Schmie!, I I . 140; 147 Schmidt, Μ. 84 Schnapp, F. 12; 20; 28-30; 33; 34; 36; 42; 5 1 ; 53; 54; 57; 59; 61 Schulz, P. 168 S c h ü r e r , F. 78; 82; 88; 130; 140; 142; 143; 147 Schwartz, S. 129; 133 Secley, 1). 77 Segal, Λ.F. 100 Sherwin W h i t e , Λ . Ν . 123 Siegert, F. 45; 48 S i m o n , Marcel 109, 110 S i m o n , M a u r i c e 149 S i m o n , R. 66 Sinker, R. 59; 6 1 ; 65 Srnallwood, K . M . 121 Smith, J.Z. 88; 89 S m i t h Sibinga, J. 49 Smolar, L . 100; 101; 110; 1 18 S o n d e r l u n d , S. 155 Sparks, I I . F . D . 12; 137 Sperber, Λ. 18; 37; 100; 101 Spitta, F. 62 Stege m a n n , H . 137 Stemberger, G. 80; 102; 105; 118 Stern, M . 132

U l r i c h , F. 153; 166; 167 U n n i k , W.C. van, 35; 109 Uytfanghe, M . van, 89; 90 Vaate, A. bij de, 32 Vaux, R. dc* 157 Vegas M o n t a n e r , L . 93 Vermes, G. 78; 125-127; 130; 138; 153 Versnel, U.S. 75; 76; 82-86; 89; 9 1 ; 92 Veyne, P. 85 Vol/., P. 97 Vorstman, J.M. 6 1 ; 62; 65; 69; 70 Vos, J.S. M

Walter, X . 13 Weber, R. 88 W e i n b e r g , J. 101 W e i n r e i c h , O. 93 Weiss, I I . - F . 90 W e r m e l i n g c r , O. 154 Wes, M . A . 7; 9 W e s t e r h o l m , S. 80 Wevers, J.W. 165 Whitaker, G.LL 15; 16; 19; 38; 56; 57 W h i t e , R.T. 107 Whitchouse, O.C. 140-142; 146 Stone, Μ. 13; 15; 34; 40; 43; 44; 5 1 ; W h i t t a k e r , J. 88 60; 64; 138; 139; 148; 153 W i l k i n s o n , J. 121 Strack, I L L . 56; 102; 104; 105; 118; W i l l , K. ‫׳‬82 143 W i l l i , T h . 166 Stxubbe, J . I L M . 91 W i l l i a m s , S.K. 77; 89-91 Stuhlmacher, P. 76 W i l s o n , N . G . 157 Sunderberg, A . C . 153 Wilson, R. M c L . 90 W i n t e r , P. 130 T a l m o n , S. 156; 159; 160; 162; 165 Wolff, C. 135-137; 139; 140 T e i l e n bach, G. 86 Woude, A.S. van der, 7; 8; 10; 12; Thackeray, I L S t J . 13; 16; 38; 48; 76; 127; 136; 153 49; 50; 52; 58; 142; 148 W u r t h w e i n , F. 151; 152 Thomas, J. 2 1 ; 34 Yadin, Y. 157; 168 Τον, F 1 5 2 - 1 5 7;148;146 ;142 ; Yavetz, Z.;141 135 ‫״‬ 166;165;163;161 T r e b i l c o , P. 91 Ziegler, J. 56 T r e b o l l e Barrera, J. 93 Z i m m e r h , W. 95; 165 T r o r n p , J. 80

Index of Biblical References

7.

12:17 54 13:7f 30 13:15 54 14 32 15:2 30 15:3 30 15:18 54 17:8 54 20:3f 27 20:6 27 23:24 28 24:7 54 26:1-11 27 26:3f 54 26:12fT 30 28:4 54 29:34a 12 33:18 12 33:18b 12 33:19 42; 43 34 41 34:1-2 14 34:2 16; 42 34:5 15; 18 34:7 18; 4 1 ; 49; 55 34:13(136 34:13 15; 36 34:13-17 36 34:14 18; 35 34:15 36 34:25 14; 46 34:26 47; 58 34:27 14; 15 34:27-29 47 34:30 36; 49; 50 35:5 70 35:5f 58 35:6 57; 58

35:12 54 48:21 52 48:22 30; 44; 48 49:1 51 49:1-28 5 1 ; 52 49:6 18; 19 49:6f 50 49:7 51 49:28 51 Exod. 9:16 96 10:2 96 13:lf 96 13:12f 96 13:43(1' 50 15:25f 1 12 20:25 97-100 22:21 28 22:28f96 24:12 45 25:18 113 32 109 32:6 107 32:15( 45 32:30-34 81 33:1 f 54 34:7 99 34:19f 96

4:27 112 16:14( 87 18 41 18:5 105 20 41 Nu m. 12:9 70

176

INDICES

16:22 70 18:15-18 96 21:8r 113

19:5 97 21:10 27 25:10 131:140 25:11(‫ ־‬139 26:3 34 29:10 139 32:35 97 33:11 131 39:16 27 50f 140

Deut. 4:37ff 54 9:9.11.15

45

10:18f 28 32:21 56; 57 33:8 19 fosh. 13:5 23 23 44 Judg. 7:22 22 9:28 43 20:34 70 1

Sam. 15:22 114 21:1-6 113

2 Sam. 20:14 23 20:15 23 20:18 23 1 Kgs. 6:23-28 113 Isa. 1:12 114 I:13f 114 47 140 53 77:93 58:5 114

6:20 114 7:291 131 7:31 97 7:33f 131 7:34 131 8:3 131 11:15 114 16:9 131

Ezek. 3:24-27 125 14:9 95 16:21 96 18:31‫ ־‬99 20:9-10 108 20:11 94:95; 111; 116 20:13 95; 111 20:19-26 106; 115 20:21 95; 111 20:25 94; 97; 102; 105-110; 113115; 118 20:26 95; 97 23:39 96 27:9 23 Joel If 132 2:28-32 132 Amos 5:18-6:7 107 5:19 25 5:21 114 5:23 114 5:25f 108:114 Zech. 7:3-5 144 8:16-19 144 8:19 143 Pss. 1:2 108 2:3 108 39:7 114 75:3 34 79:21.31 70

INDICES Cant. 1:6 101; 102 Lamen. 2:20 134 3:4 134 3:26-32 134 4:10 134 Dan. 3:38 168 3:38-40 79 4:28 35 7:13 126 7:28 35 8-12 145 11:31 145 Neh. 10:34 154 13:31 154 1 Chr. 27:24 70 2 Chr. 12:10 34 16:4 23 18:17 27 19:2.10 70 25:15 70 35:25 70 1 Kgdms. 4:11 22 10:27 34 2 Kgdms. 15:20 23 3 Kgdms. 10:17 34 14:26f 34 Judith 9 19 9:2 15; 19; 42 9:2-4 26 9:4 26; 41

Par. Jermiae 5:1.30 139 1 Mace. 4:3f>39 143 4:46 168 9:27 168 14:41 168 2 Mac. 1:8 143 4:12 82 6:28 80 7:37178 ‫ ; ־‬SO 8:21 80 8:29 78 10:1-8 143 4 Mace. 6:28f 87 16:19 90 17:16 90 17:20-22 87 Sirach 1:26 56 13:2 35 50:25f 56 50:26f 28 Matt. 8:1 IT 137 10:I4f 137 11:21-4 12:4 113 12.24-35 137 12:28 68 12.3945 137 12.45 137 13.13-5 137 13.19-22 137 13.24-30 137 13.36V42 137 13.47-50 137 16:13F 136 23:29 127

177

178 Mark 3:5 49 8:28 136 10:45 76 Lk.

INDICES 5:18-20 77 7:1 116 7:5 65 8:11 77 9:20 112 15:3 77

2:19 35 John 4:22 115 10:22 143 Acts 2:46 128 4:5-21 128 5.3440 128 7:30 115 7:35f 115 7:38 115 7:3843 108 7:39 107 7:42f 108 16:3 112 Rom. 5:1 76 5:6 76 5:8 76 5:9 69 5:1 Of 76 7:10 112 7:12 111 7:14 111 12:19 69 13:5 69 14:9 76 14:15 76 1 Cor. 1:13 77 2:14 114 4:4 65

2 Cor. 3:6 111 ; 113 3:7f 111 ; 113 3:9 113 5:14 77 5:15 77 5:18 77 5:21 77 7:10 65 Gal. 3:13 77 1 Thess. 1:10 69 2:11-16 11 2:13-16 62; 66 2:14-16 62; 69 2:15-16 62; 71 2:16 67; 71 2:16b 67 2: Ifx: 11; 6 1 ; 62; 66; 67; 70; 72 4:4 116 5:10 77

Ileb. 2:27 76 1 John 2:2 76 Revelation 18:23 131 ;140 171‫ ־‬140

Index of Ancient Writings

Dead Sea Scrolls CD VII,19-21 133 4 Q p a l e o E x o d 156 4 Q S a m 166; 167 4QJer 155; 167 4QEzra 154 4QTestLcv ii 14 22 ii 17 22 H Q p a l e o L c v 156 1 I Q T c m p l c Scroll 23-25 154 56:2-11 168 m

a

b

Pseu dep i gra p h a I Baruch 1:1-3:8 142;148 1:14 146 1:15-2:19 145 l : l l f 140 1:3-14 141 2:2f 147 2:23 150 2:20-4 141 2:23 131 1 Enoch 154 I3:9f 24 Joseph and Aseneth 22:13 44 23:13 15; 26; 47 23:14 42 Jubilees 154 28:11-24 17 28:14 17 2S:23 17

30:1 12 30:2 16; 17 30:2f 14 30:3 18; 38 30:4 19; 47; 54; 55; 58 30:5 26; 44; 47; 71 30:5f 47 30:6.9.17 26 30:9.1 I f 45 30:11-16 41 30:12 45 30; 17 47 30:18 25; 40; 42; 47 30:19 44; 45 30:21 45 30:22 44; 45 30:23 44 30:24a 58 30:24b 58 30:25 49; 50 30:26 26; 71 31:2 57 34:1-9 30 Letter o f Arisleas 164; 165 Liber A n t i q u i t a t u m B i b l i c a r u m 6:4-18 28 8:7 13; 16; 38; 48; 58 23:2 48 Testaments o f the X I I Patriarchs Test. Reuben 1:8 53 3:5 40 3:12 41 4:4 68 6:5 40

180 Test. Simeon 2:6 40 2:7 40 5:6 51 Test. Levi (Greek) 2-5 20; 25 2:1 11; 13; 14 2 : l f 20 2:2 13; 15; 42; 43 2:3 23 2:3a 20 2:3b 20 2:4f 20 2:5 20; 2 1 ; 22; 25 2:6 21 2:6f 22 2:10 20; 26 3:2f 42 4:2 20; 26 5:2 20; 26 5:3 15; 20; 24; 25; 27; 34; 42 5:3b35 ‫־‬4 5:3c 26 5:4 42; 43 5:4a 42; 44 5:4b 44 5:6 20 5:6f 26 5:7 20; 34 5:11 53 6:1 20; 22; 24 6:1a 34 6:1b 2 1 ; 22 6:2 35 6:3fT 35 6:3a 36 6:3b 36; 39 6:3c 40; 41 6:5 47 6:6 37; 49; 6:6b 50 6:6c 50 6:6-8 53 6:7a 51 6:7b 52 6:8 16; 27 6:8b 27

INDICES 6:8c 60 6:9 71 6:9a 28 6:9b 27; 28 6:9c 30 6:10 16; 64 6:10a 33 6:10b 33 6:10c 33 6:11 11; 53; 59; 6 1 ; 63; 64; 66-68; 70-72 7:1 13; 53; 60; 64; 67 7 : I f 64 7:2 19 7:2a 55 7:2b 55 7:3 14; 15; 55 7:3b 57 7:4 57; 58 7:4a 57 11:4-6 63 12 17; 43 12:5 13; 17; 20; 46 18:9 27 Test. Levi (Aramaic) Bodleian a:12f 35 c : l 7 f 42 d;16 13 d : l 7 46 d : l 7 : f 15 Cambridge a:18fT 40 b:19 15 Test. Levi ( A r m e n i a n ) 2:1 13 2:2 44 2:6 21 5:4 43 6:4 44 6:10 64 6:11 60; 64 7:1 64 12:5 13

INDICES Test. Levi (Syriac) 7:3 15 12:5 13

26 108:110 I 7 109 V 2 0 147

Test. Judah 3-7 30 3:1-10 48 4:1 48 4:1a 48 12:8 41 13:3 40 13:4 36

Epistle of Barnabas 4:8 107 14:1-4 107

Test. Zebulon 9:5 41; 45 Test. Dan 5:5 41 Test. Gad 7:4 40 Test. Ashcr 1:9 27 2:4 27 2:10 45 4:5 40 7:2 54 7:5 44 Test. 4:3 4:4 9:4

Benjamin 27 40 54

Testament of Moses 9:6 80 10:7 77 10:8-10 77 Ancient

Writers

Aphrahat Demonstratio 15:7 110 Demetrius 13; 16; 38; 46; 47; 58 Didascalia apotolorum

Euripides Ion 15 29 Eusebius Com. in Psal. PG 23,84 113 Hist. Eccl. 11.23 126 Praep. Ev. IX.21.1-19 13 IX.21.9 14; 38; 46; 47 IX.22.1-11 15 IX.22.5 37 IX.22.5-7 18 IX.22.8 19; 55 IX.22.8f 27 IX.22.9 54 IX.22.10 46; 48; 58 IX.22.11 46; 48 IX.22.12 58 Ignatius Phld. 6 91 Mag. 9f 91 Pol. 2:3 90 3:1 90 Smyr. 9:2 90 Ircnaeus Adv. Haer. IV 15,1 107 Jerome Com. in Hezcchiclem VI C C L 75, 265 115 John Chrysostom Expositio in Ps. 43 P G 5 5 , 174 114

182 I l o m i l i a c i n Acta Apost. X V I I PG60, 136 114 I l o m i l i a c in Epistulam I ad Cor. P G 6 1 . 6 1 114 Joscphus Ant, 1.21.1 13; 38; 48; 52; 58 1.21.2 49; 50 11.109 124 12.43 127 12.157f 127 12.324f 143 13.372f 122 14.22-24 127 15.8 92 15.380 121 17.6 92 I7.63f 130 17.213-18 122 17.254-68 122 17,295 122 20.97f 125 20.105-12 122 20,160 124; 125 20.167-69 125 20.185 125 20.187 125 20.188 125 20,199-203 126; 129 20.206 125 20,210 125 20.214 125 20.215 122 20.219-23 121 BJ 1,21.8 92 1.21.11 92 1,401 121 2.10-13 122 2.42-54 122 2.75 122 2,276 125 2.224-27 122 2.258 125 2.259 125 2.264 125 2.265 125

I N D I C E S

2.293^308 121 2.515F 124 4:151 129 4.160 129 4.162-192 129 4.319-21 129 6.201-13 134;147 6.250 137 6.28S-85 132 6.285-88 125 6,300-09 125 6.300f 122 6,302 122 6.304f 122 6,306-9 122 Contr. A p 1.29 162 1,3840 148 1.40-41 168 1.42 162 1.50 138 Justin M a r t y r Dial. Try p h . 20:1 107 21:4 106 O rigcn C o n t r a Celsum V I I 18 110 Frag, c eaten is in Lev. PC 17,17 112 Sclccta in K/.ech. PC 13, 820 113 Selecta in Lev. PC 12, 400 112 Philo Dc Ebriet. 94 19 Dc M i g r . A b r . 223 57 224 15; 16; 19; 38; 56; 57 225 16 Dc M u t . Norn. 193 57 195 16 197 56

183

INDICES 200 19 Dc

PlanLat.

64 19 De Sampsonc 24 41 25 48 Plinius Maior Hist. Nat. V 70 120 T h c o d o r c t o f Cyrrhus Exp. in Ezechielern PG 8 1 , 996 1 16 Theodotus 15; 18; 19; 27; 36; 37; 38; 46; 48; 54 Rabbinical

Literature

T a r g u m Onqelos Gen 34:7 41 Gen 34:13-17 37 Gen 49:6 18 Targum Neofui Gen 34:7 41 Gen 34:13-17 37 Gen 49:6 50 Gen 49:7 51 T a r g u m Pscudo Jonathan Gen 34:2 16

Gcn Gcn Gcn Gen

34:7 41 34:13-17 37 49:6 50 49:7 51

Erag. T a r g u m Gen 49:6 18 m. H a l l a l i IV:8 102 b. Berakhot 24b 103 b. Chagigah 13a 99 b. M e g i l l a h 32a 104 b. M c n a h o t 45a 99 b. S a n h é d r i n 108b 32 b. S a n h é d r i n 109b 32 b. ShabbaUi 13b 99 b. Shabbath 85a 25 y. Eruvin 111:9, 21c-22a 101 Massekhet S o p h e r i m 11:10 105 Bereshit Rabba 14 80:10 30 89:6 25 97:6 30 S h c m o i h Rabbah 30 105 Wayyiqra Rabba 27:5 28 Shir ha-Shirirn Rabbah I 6,5 103 Ksther Rabba 149 Pesiqta de Rav Kahana X I V : 4 102 Pirqe de Rabbi Eliczer 25; 4 1 ; 47; 50

/