110578580 Charlesworth Pseudoepigrapha and Early Bib Inter

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA SUPPLEMENT SERIES

14

Editor James H. Charlesworth Associate Editors Philip R. Davies James R. Mueller James C. VanderKam

STUDIES IN SCRIPTURE IN EARLY JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

Series Editors Craig A. Evans James A. Sanders

JSOT Press Sheffield

The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation

edited by James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 14 Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 2

Copyright © 1993 Sheffield Academic Press Published by JSOT Press JSOT Press is an imprint of Sheffield Academic Press Ltd 343 Fulwood Road Sheffield SIO 3BP England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd Guildford

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Dau Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation.—(JSP Supplement Series, ISSN 0951-8215; No. 14) I. Charlesworth, James H. II. Evans, Craig A. III. Series 220.8

ISBN 1-85075-443-8

CONTENTS

Preface Abbreviations List of Contributors

7 8 11

JAMES A. S A N D E R S

Introduction: Why the Pseudepigrapha?

13

T H E PSEUDEPIGRAPHA A N D JEWISH EXEGESIS JAMES H .

CHARLESWORTH

In the Crucible: The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Interpretation

20

H O W A R D CLARK KEE

Appropriating the History of God's People: A Survey of Interpretations of the History of Israel in the Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha and the New Testament

44

GORDON Z E R B E

'Pacificism' and 'Passive Resistance' in Apocalyptic Writings: A Critical Evaluation JAMES C.

65

VANDERKAM

Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees

96

T H E PSEUDEPIGRAPHA A N D THE N E W TESTAMENT DAVID E. AUNE

Charismatic Exegesis in Early Judaism and Early Christianity

126

B R U C E D . CHILTON

God as 'Father' in the Targumim, in Non-Canonical Literatures of Early Judaism and Primitive Christianity, and in Matthew 151 CRAIG A . E V A N S

Luke and the Rewritten Bible: Aspects of Lukan Hagiography

170

6

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

D A V I D P. M O E S S N E R

Suffering, Intercession and Eschatological Atonement: An Uncommon Common View in the Testament of Moses and in Luke-Acts

202

PETER H . D A V I D S

The Use of the Pseudepigrapha in the Catholic Epistles

228

PEDER BOROEN

Heavenly Ascent in Philo: An Examination of Selected Passages 246 RICHARD J. BAUCKHAM

Resurrection as Giving Back the Dead: A Traditional Image of Resurrection in the Pseudepigrapha and the Apocalypse of John 269 Index of Ancient Writings Index of Modern Authors

292 315

PREFACE

The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation is a collection of essays dedicated to the comparative study of the presence and function of Scripture in the Pseudepigrapha (and other Jewish literature) and the New Testament. One purpose of this collection is to draw the Pseudepigrapha more fully into the discussions of the meaning, function, and place of 'Scripture' in the period from circa the third century BCE to the second century CE. This volume is the second in a series of related studies that are appearing under the sub-title of Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity (SSEJC), edited by C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders. The series is an outgrowth of the work that is being undertaken by members of the Society of Biblical Literature who are working in a program unit of the same name. We extend our appreciations to the contributors to the present volume for their understanding and cooperation. Appreciations are also extended to Scholars Press of Atlanta for permission to publish sections of 'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', which appeared in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, edited by C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring, and to Uitgeversmaatschappij J.H. Kok of Kampen, the Netherlands, for permission to publish portions of 'Biblical Interpretation: The Crucible of the Pseudepigrapha', which appeared in Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honor of A.F.J. Klijn, edited by T. Baarda etal. J.H. Charlesworth Princeton Theological Seminary C.A. Evans Trinity Western University

ABBREVIATIONS

AB AGJU AnBib ANRW APOT BA Bib BNTC BO BWANT BZNW CBQ CBQMS ConBNT CRINT CSCO DBSup EncJud ETR ExpTim FRLANT GCS HAT HDR HSM HTR HTS HVCA ICC IDB JAOS JBL JETS

Anchor Bible Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchrislentums Analectabiblica Aufsrieg und Niedergang der rSnuschen Welt R.H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament Biblical Archaeologist Biblica Black's New Testament Commentaries Bibliotheca orientalis BeitrSge zur Wissenschaft vom Alien und Ncucn Testament BeiheftezurZWW Catholic Bibiical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Coniecianea biblica. New Testament Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971) Etudes theologiques et religieuses Expository Times Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Griechischechristliche Schriftsteller Handbuch zum Allen Testament Harvard Dissertations in Religion Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Harvard Theological Studies Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary G.A. Buttrick (ed.). Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

Abbreviations

Mom

Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review W.G. Kummel et at. (eds.), JUdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-rdmischerZeii (Giiietslcii: Mohn, 1973-) Journalfor the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal cf Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library H. A.W. Meyer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar uber das Neue Testament Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums

MNIC NCB Neot NICNT NIGTC NovTSup NTS OIL OTP PAAJR RB Rel RevQ RHPR RSR SBLASP SBLSCS SBLDS SBT SC SJT SNT SNTSMS SPB ST SVTP

Moffatt NT Commentary New Century Bible Neotestamentica New International Commentary on the New Testament The New Iniemational Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum, Supplements New Testament Studies Old Testament Library J.H. Charlesworth (ed.). The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Revue biblique Religion Revue de Qumran Revue d'historie et de philosophie religieuses Recherches de science religieuse SBL Abstracts and Seminar Papers SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBL Dissertation Series Studies in Biblical Theology Sources chrdtiennes Scottish Journal of Theology Studien zum Neuen Testament Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Scries Studia postbiblica Suidia theologica Studia in Veteris Testament! pseudepigrapha

JJS JNES JQR JSHRZ JSJ JSNT JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup JSS JTS LCL MeyerK

10 TDNT TDOT TNTC TZ VT VTSup WBC ZA W ZNW

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament O.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.). Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamennm Vettts Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift ftir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift ftir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

David E. Aune, Professor New Testament and Christian Origins, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinios, USA Ricard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland, UK Peder Borgen, Research Professor of New Testament, University of Trondheim, Dragvoll, Norway James H. Charlesworth, Georgre L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, USA Bruce Chilton, Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion, Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York, USA Peter H. Davids, Researcher and Theological Teacher, Langley Vineyard Christian Fellowship, Langley, British Columbia, Craig (Sanfikins, Professor of Biblical and Intertestamental Studies, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia, Canada Howard Clark Kee, Aurelio Professor of Biblical Studies, Emeritus, Boston University, Boston, Massachussetts, USA; Senior Research Fellow, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA David P. Moessner, Associate Professor of New Testament, Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur, Georgia, USA James A. Sanders, Professor of Intertestamental and Biblical Studies, School of Theology at Claremont, Claremont, Claifornia, USA James C. VanderKam, Professor of Hebrew Scriptures, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA Gordon M. Zerbe, Assistant Professor of New Testament, Canadian Mennonite Bible College, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

INTRODUCTION: WHY THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA?

James A. Sanders

Like many important terms the word Pseudepigrapha is difficult to define. A pseudepigraphon is a discrete piece of literature attributed by its unknown author, or by subsequent community tradition, to a bygone name well-known and highly respected in that community. In this sense the world's literature is replete with pseudepigrapha; indeed, the Bible itself is largely made up of pseudepigrapha. That is, most of the literature in the Bible is anonymous either in initial composition or at points of community transmission; then, it is often attributed to one or another great, recognizable name in antiquity— such as the whole of the Pentateuch to Moses, the whole of the Psalter to David, or all the 'Pauline' letters to the Apostle Paul. In this manner unidentifiable individuals, even authors of truly great literary compositions, were caught up into community identity at the expense of their own. While this may be baffling to the Western mind which stresses the importance of the individual, especially in terms of genius and concepts of inspiration, it was very common, and even a mark of piety, in the social and cultural milieux from which the Bible and Early Jewish and Christian literature derive. The Bible was formed in cultures of orality, not literacy, and was shaped to be read aloud in community; the focus at all stages was primarily on the community. What is meant by Pseudepigrapha in this volume is more limited in scope and yet more indeterminate. It is an inept term diat has come since the early eighteenth century to mean roughly the following: the Early Jewish literature (largely in the 200 BCE to 200 CE period) that resembles the Apocrypha or deuterocanonical literature but is not included in the Jewish or Western Christian canons, or in rabbinic literature.' But even that is not a definition, since there are Jewish 1. There are a few of the so-called Pseudepigrapha that are in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles and/or the Appendix to the Vulgate—some of the Esdras literature.

14

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

literary works from the period, such as the pes ha rim and other distinctly denominational literature from Qumran, which do not comfortably fit the mix, while there are others from Qumran that do fit. And the question of fit in those instances is not related to anonymity or pseudepigraphy but rather to certain literary characteristics. No one in the field has found another term that has gained acceptance to designate this important body of literature which has in this century alone grown dramatically by discovery and recovery.^ Why are the Pseudepigrapha, in the sense described, important? First and foremost, they provide us with an immeasurable treasure of primary sources, beyond the Apocrypha, for the intellectual and social history of late Early Judaism. They prove that earlier views of there having been an orthodox, pre-rabbinic (early Pharisaic) Judaism, on the one hand, and a heterodox Judaism, on the other (the consensus until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls), were false. While a few scholars still speak and write of 'normative Judaism' in this period, most now do not. The history of Early Judaism is now seen to have been highly diverse from the early post-exilic days until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The older tendency to speak of four or five 'parties' in the Early Jewish period is no longer appropriate; there were many, diverse groups whose several contours are evidenced in the Pseudepigrapha and other Jewish literature of the period. The older tendency to speak or write of Palestinian Judaism over against Hellenistic Judaism is no longer appropriate; the former is now seen as variously hellenized in various parts of Palestine, and the latter is now seen as unlimited by geographic bounds in themselves. It is important now also to allow for there having been so-called orthodox Jewish communities scattered throughout the diaspora in the period in question. And though we do not yet know enough about the diverse denominations and groups to identify any pseudepigraphon

3 and 4 Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh, and Psalm 151 (and Psalms of Solomon in Alexandrinus); the Armenian lacks 4 Maccabbees. It is difficult to speak of a widely accepted canon, in the narrow sense (norma normata) of the Greek Old Testament in antiquity since the contents and orders of books differ after Genesis to 4 Kingdoms in the early, more complete LXX manuscripts. 2. See the comments by James H. Charlesworth in the introduction to The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I, D (= OTP) (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983, 1985), pp. xxiv-xxv, and in A. Caquot (ed.). La Litterature intertestamentaire (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1985), pp. 11-28.


15

with one or another of them, the Pseudepigrapha provide a glimpse into internal divisions and strifes between these differing expressions of the Judaism of the period. One common feature of the pluriformity within Judaism that emerges with clarity is the pervasive and radical influence of Scripture on Judaism. While the third section of the Jewish canon was not closed until well after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the separation of Christianity from its Jewish matrix, the influence of the Torah and Prophets, and some of the early Writings (the third and final section of the Jewish canon), on subsequent Jewish and Christian literature was immense. All of the literature of the period was written Scripturally in one sense or another, and to one degree or another. The depth and extent of Scriptural intertextuality in this literature is perhaps its most marked common feature. Not only is most of it attributed to great names in Scripture, but it was variously composed in the manner of and in the light of various parts of Scripture. That was how important these anonymous writers felt what they had to communicate was; they were fully willing to lose their own individualities and egos in the convictions their writings reveal. But ultimately, the salient observation is not that they attributed their convictions to earlier well-known figures from biblical history; the important observation that emerges from close study of the scriptural intertextuality manifest in all this literature is that they were so convinced of what they felt they had been given to say that they wrote it in scriptural phrases, shapes, tones and cadences. There are clear citations of the Hebrew Bible or Septuagint, uncounted paraphrases and weavings of scriptural phrases into the fabric of the newer compositions, many allusions to passages, figures and episodes, and untold echoes of Scripture passages in various combinations; and through them all there was the desire as well to write scripturally in form and structure. Scripture was slowly coming to various forms of closure, and the sorts of inspiration attributed to past authors of Scripture (itself largely pseudepigraphic in the broader sense) were no longer being claimed; there was a tt'adition being handed down that 'prophecy had ceased' in the time of Ezra. But such a tradition could not alter the conviction of these anonymous authors that they had something important to say to their communities and to their day, indeed that they were inspired and impelled to do so. Undeserved suffering inflicted upon Jews by non-Jewish forces, and by internal

16

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

strife and conflict, needed to be addressed if Judaism was to survive and belief in the biblical God of justice and mercy to endure. Some of it to us sounds fanatic and overdrawn, and we may well breathe sighs of relief that parts of it did not make it into any current canon of Scripture;^ but its importance for understanding Early Judaism and the matrix of Early Christianity would be difficult to overstate. If one wants to get a true perspective on the formation of the New Testament and to understand its arguments and claims, one should start at the beginning of Christian canonical literature, the Torah. The perspective one gains by focusing on the cross-cultural and intertextual dimensions of biblical literature at all its stages of development and formation provides the framework in which to understand the New Testament." Such a focus begins with what my teacher, Samuel Sandmel, called haggadah within Scripture—another way of speaking of its intertextuality; but it also begins with Scripture's pervasive cross-cultural aspects from the Bronze Age, through the Iron Age, the Persian Period, and the Hellenistic-Roman Era. No one period is more important or more problematic than another, and they all together provide a paradigm in sequence for seeing how the traditioning process moves from the earliest to the latest literature in the Bible. Each cultural period deposited its peculiar characteristics in the literature it produced. If one moralizes on first reading any of it, one thereby puts the mores and cultural traps and trappings of each period into a false perspective of prominence. If one instead monotheizes 3. Just as many current communities of faith ignore considerable portions of canonical Scripture. There has always been a tendency to focus on favorite parts of Scripture, adopting a kind of canon within a traditional canon; such foci often provide the bases of the various denominations which otherwise claim their identity in the same canon. 4. The intertextual mode of reading the NT is gaining ground. Two recent, fine examples are Richard B. Hayes' Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) and Gail R. O'Day, 'Jeremiah 9.22-23 and 1 Corinthians 1.26-31: A Study in Intertextuality', JBL 109/2 (1990), pp. 259-67. If such examples are read along with Michael Fishbane's intertextual mode of reading the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature, they become all the more compelling and powerful; see now Fishbane's beautifully wrought The Garments of Torah: Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1989), esp. pp. 33-46 and 121-33. Unfortunately Fishbane himself does not do the reverse; see the writer's forthcoming review in Theology Today.


17

while reading all its parts, along with the developing theocentric and monotheizing hermeneutic thrust of Scripture, one does not stumble over the modes and expressions of polytheism, even tribalism, that pervade the Bible from inception through the NT; they were legion. If one gains that canonical hermeneutic perspective through the Torah and the Prophets and moves with it on through the Writings, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran literature and Philo, the NT takes its rightful place in the Jewish-Christian canonical mix. Each historical period has its own characteristics which frame the texts; but the cultural traps and trappings need not be the focus of reading. One might ask, why include the Pseudepigrapha in such a diachronic reading? Other bodies of Hebraic and Jewish literature (variously influenced by many cultures including the Hellenic and Hellenistic) form parts of current canons of Scripture. So why the Pseudepigrapha? Canon in this functional sense is a paradigm, and not a 'box' with rigid boundaries. Some of the writings that we call Pseudepigrapha actually functioned as canon for some Early Jewish communities, and some are included in current canons; others of them may possibly have done so in antiquity. After all, we inherit no autographs of any of them but only apographs (copies of copies), or ancient translations from the original-language copies, which means that some Early Jewish and then Early Christian communities must have thought highly enough of most of them to share them that widely. To include the Pseudepigrapha in the reading is to witness the process in its fullest extent, and especially in its full Hellenistic-Roman guise.' The canonical process was not a smooth development, far from it. On the contrary, it exhibits the various degrees in which cultural givens shaped the literature. But to monotheize, or perceive the integrity of Reality through these texts, was no easier or less rough in the Iron

5. To imagine that limiting the quantity of literature to a shorter canon, such as the Jewish or Protestant, makes the exercise easier or more manageable (manipulable?) is to attempt to repress and deny the considerable pluralism and dialogue inherently present in those canons. Attempts to harmonize Scripture are basically political efforts to co-opt Scripture (and God) for one point of view (a violation of the Third Commandment) and result in denying the depths of riches any canon contains. To view canon, instead, as basically a hermeneutic paradigm by which to read Scripture and life, and to read subsequent efforts (theologies) to understand Reality, is to affirm its ongoing relevance in ever-changing situations of the human experiment.

18

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Age or Persian period than in Hellenistic and Roman times. The first three commandments of the Decalogue (no polytheism, no idolatry and no co-opting of God's name for one theology, ideology, agenda or point of view) have been humanity's greatest challenge through the ages to the present, whatever the cultural frame. Arguably (and minimally) only the Book of Jude in the NT exhibits direct intertextuality with any of the Pseudepigrapha (7 Enoch). That is not the point. If one studies all of the literature, Hebraic and Jewish, in whatever language available, from its beginnings through the NT, including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, both intertextually and with the theocentric/monotheizing thrust of the whole (if not of each of die parts), one then comes to the NT with no more nor less than the same necessary cross-cultural and intertextual task for understanding and perception. One gains a perspective it is impossible to gain if one attempts to understand the NT only from its own literature alone, or from its synchronic position in the Hellenistic/Roman world of the first century alone, or, indeed, from a current (and denominationally restricted?) canonical context alone.* Study of the NT is commonly done synchronically, focusing on its own and contemporary literature, and often with a moralizing hermeneutic that puts the mores and cultural givens of the first-century Hellenistic world in a privileged position and a distorted perspective. It is another way to decanonize the NT. It takes it out of any canon whatever, ancient or current, all of which begin with Genesis and the late Bronze Age paradigm and process, which initiates the task that continues through the N T and beyond to today. The same cultural traps and trappings evident in the NT would already have been dealt with by the time one reaches the NT, if its problems are tackled in the light of the intertextual canonical process that continues through Early Judaism and into Early Christianity, even in the literature which may have been included in no widely recognized canon of which we are aware.

6. Richard Simon in his Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (Rotterdam: Leers, 1685; Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1971) stressed that it is impossible fully to understand Christianity without knowledge of Judaism and its history. In addressing the issue of the value of consulting Early Jewish literature and understandings of Scripture, Simon boldly stated that the authority God had given the Hebrew Republic through Moses and the judges he appointed had never been withdrawn (see 'La preface de I'auteur' and pp. 6 , 9 et passim).


19

One can then perceive with sharp clarity the truly canonical nature, for the Christian, of the NT. The NT seems quite late in biblical-historical terms, and it is written in a strange, vulgar Greek. But if it is read intertextually, with a monotheizing hermeneutic, the NT finds its true place in the full canonical paradigm by which Christians may know who they really are and what they stand for. They may also learn how they should continue the canonical, traditioning process, theologizing and moralizing (preaching), in their own day and within their own cultural traps and trappings, which is by and large what the authors and communities of the various canons, and of the Pseudepigrapha, did in their day.

IN THE CRUCIBLE: T H E PSEUDEPIGRAPHA AS BiBUCAL INTERPRETATION

James H. Charlesworth

For much of my professional life I thought the clash of cultures (Kulturkampf) adequately explained the origin of the writings contained in the Pseudepigrapha. For example, the origin of the Jewish struggle over the proper calendar, either the lunar or solar calendar, was thought to be caused by the imposition of the Seleucid lunar calendar on the Palestinian Jews. Thus, in part, it prompted the Maccabean revolution. Now I doubt that explanation. The Qumran Aramaic fragments of so-called / Enoch show that chs. 72 to 82 predate the Maccabean rebellion; and they contain a polemic against the lunar calendar (see / En. 75.1-9 and 82.1-20). According to this section the 'sinners' are identified as 'the people that err' in 'the computation of the year...The year is completed in three hundred and sixty-four days' (7 En. 82.5-6). This calendrical struggle must be traced back to at least the third century BCE. Thus something formative in the shaping of the Pseudepigrapha antedates the Maccabean rebellion. Surely biblical exegesis is part of that unknown phenomenon; it certainly helped to shape other Jewish writings, especially those by Philo and Josephus.' I shall attempt in 1. Philo and Josephus, despite some claims to the contrary, are both exegetically influenced by the Old Testament. H.W. Attridge has persuasively argued that Josephus intcrpretatively presents scriptural narratives. His 'theology is very much an apologetic one, which reworks Jewish u-adition in categories derived from and comprehensible to a Greco-Roman public'. See Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR, 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976), p. 17. Likewise, as R.D. Hecht has attempted to show, Philo is 'exclusively engaged in deducing the reasonableness of the Law'. See Hecht, 'The Exegetical Contexts of Philo's Interpretation of Circumcision', in F.E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgertand B.L. Mack (eds.). Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Scholars Press Homage Series;

C H A R L E S W O R T H In the Crucible

21

this essay to demonstrate that the crucible of the Pseudepigrapha was biblical exegesis—perhaps the Kulturkampf, which dates at least from the time of Alexander the Great, was the fire of die crucible. But what is meant by this imagery. 'Crucible' defines a vessel in which a substance takes definite shape due to the melting of selected materials. The term 'crucible' is used metaphorically to denote the shaping of ideas, writings, people, and collectives of wide-ranging meaning. It is an appropriate image, therefore, to focus our thoughts and ask the following: What is the crucible in which the early Jewish Pseudepigrapha were shaped? In revering Torah and struggling to understand its abiding efficacious force, the early Jewish pseudepigrapha were fashioned in Early Judaism. The heat from this struggle melted the deposits of all the contiguous cultures, including especially the Persians, Parthians, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks and Syrians. The crucible of the Pseudepigrapha was Torah interpretation. After considering six misconceptions that have hindered this understanding, five categories and five perspectives will be used to illustrate this point. Six

Misconceptions

Six misconceptions hinder the perception of the Pseudepigrapha as exegetical works. First, biblical exegesis during die period of Early Judaism, or circa 150 BCE to 200 CE, was once Uiought to be primarily reflected in the Targumim and Midrashim;^ but then we learned that each of these is Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), pp. 51-79 (79). 2. Even Emil Schiirer, the erudite late nineteenth-century and early twentiethcentury expert on Early Judaism, succumbed to this tendency. In his justly famous A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ he tended to U-eat early Jewish exegesis in isolation from the study of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha and, for example, contended that the Targumim in their present form were only 'about one hundred years after the time of Christ' (div. I, vol. I, p. 118). Schiirer unduly restricted his ueatment of Jewish exegesis to haggadah and halakhah, which were too narrowly defined (cf. div. 2, vol. I, section 25). It is now slowly becoming clear that to study the pseudepigrapha is to examine Jewish exegetical work on Tanach. Only to a minor extent did Schiirer observe this insight (cf. div. 2, vol. Ill), and he failed to integrate into his study of early Jewish exegesis the Jewish pseudepigrapha he labeled as 'sacred legends' (namely Jubilees and the Martyrdom of Isaiah). These pseudepigrapha are not adequately categorized as 'modes of enriching

22

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

too late to help us understand the Jewish interpretation of die 'Old Testament' prior to die destruction of die Temple in 70. Witfi die discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we turned our attention to an attempt to understand the Pesharim and a re-examination of die possibly early nature of Aramaic translations and interpretations of the Scriptures, thanks to the recovery of Targumim in die Qumran caves. A study of Qumranic biblical text types awakened us to the reality that the adjective 'Septuagintal' must no longer be used only to refer to Greek variants, but may also refer to very early Hebrew traditions that are not reflected in the Biblia Hebraica. We are now in a totally new era in the study of biblical exegesis in Early Judaism. Interpretation begins not widi die writings separate from the Old Testament; it does not even begin with the pointing of a text. It begins with die choosing of consonants in Semitic manuscripts. The subsequent expansions or deletions in the Hebrew text of the Bible itself is unexpected and impressive, and is not limited to the Qumranic fragments of Jeremiah and Samuel.^ It is now widely recognized that the Jewish pseudepigrapha that antedate c. 135 CE represent a chapter in early Jewish biblical exegesis."* The early Jewish writings collected in the Pseudepigrapha are chronologically much closer to die commencement of Jewish exegesis dian post-70 Jewish rabbinic works. As E.P. Sanders recently pointed the sacred story' (div. 2, vol. Ill, p. 134); they are interpretations of Torah by reciting and expanding the stories, and thereby making them more meaningful and paradigmatic for daily life. Some pseudepigrapha probably did rival and replace canonical works in some communities, for example in the groups that produced the Books of Enoch (cf. also I IQTemple and IQpHab); but the pseudepigrapha should not be portrayed as rivals of canon. They are supporters of it. Random comments by Schurer indicate that he may well have agreed with this insight; but he did not adequately integrate his voluminous and (at times) brilliant reflections. Of course, the precursor is seldom the perfector. 3. See the brilliant discussions by P.M. Cross, not only in his classic woric The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961 [rev. edn] and recently reprinted) but also in his articles in Bible Review. In 'New Directions in Dead Sea Scroll Research: Original Biblical Text Reconstnicted from Newly Found Fragments' (Bible Review I [1985], pp. 26-35), Cross demonsu-ates dramatically that '4QSam preserves lost bits of the text of Samuel' (p. 26). 4. See especially the chapters in the present book by J.A. Sanders, H.C. Kee, J.C. VanderKam, C.A. Evans and R.J. Bauckham.


23

out, the study of Scripture was a regular feature of so-called common Judaism: 'Jews were generally well educated in the Bible, and diis is attributable to the practice of attending the synagogue, where the scripture was read and expounded'.' Secondly, the Pseudepigrapha are still claimed by some scholars to be the literary products of groups on the fringes of a 'Normative Judaism'. Usually this understanding is evident as presupposition, never exposed and examined, that miscasts the Pseudepigrapha. It can be seen, for example, in Leonhard Rost's advice to students diat the Pseudepigrapha, unlike the Apocrypha, are 'judisches Schrifttum, das nur innerhalb einzelner Gruppen Geltung gehabt hat, obwohl es beinahe dem gleichen Zeitraum wie die Apokryphen entsprungen ist'.* The Pseudepigrapha were not important only in some groups, but were significant in many groups, and are essential sources for any attempt to portray early Jewish life and dieology. To be dismissed from scholarly works is the use of the terms 'normative' and 'orthodox' in descriptions of p r e - 7 0 Jewish life and thought. It is amazing to read in distinguished journals such ideas as die following one: The present separation of Judaism and Christianity is explicable historically only if one recognizes that there existed a firmly accepted Jewish orthodoxy in the first century and that this was even then a definable belief (actually expressed in part in the s'ma') which was accepted by all who called themselves Israelites.^

The Qumran group, the Samaritans, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and virtually every group in Early Judaism (c. 2 5 0 BCE to 2 0 0 CE) of which we have any knowledge, thought of themselves as 'Israelites*. Each would have described their own peculiar thoughts as the only right belief. They are so diverse that one cannot describe them as 5. E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-63 CF. (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), p. 197. Also see Sanders's Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990). 6. L. Rost, Einleitung in die alttestamentlichen Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen einschliesslich der grossen Qumran-Handschriften (Heidelberg, 1971), p. 22. English translation: Judaism outside the Hebrew Canon (trans. D.E. Green; Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), p. 30. 7. N.J. McEleney, 'Orthodoxy in Judaism of the First Christian Century', JSJ 4 (1973), pp. 19-42 (20).

24

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

representing a common ortiiodoxy.* The interpretation of the Shema was not according to some set pattern, and we must confess real problems in discerning what this common confession meant in Early Judaism. To define this belief has produced so many difficulties that scholars have called for a moratorium on assuming one can talk about an essence to Early Judaism. Long ago W.D. Davies wisely emphasized 'die variety, complexity and transitional character of Jewish religion in die time of Jesus'.' This misunderstanding of Early Judaism results in a failure to grasp the historical, sociological and theological importance of the Pseudepigrapha. If we wish to understand the Pseudepigrapha we must dismiss any residue left by the once dominant contention that they were insignificant products of Jewish groups on the fringes of a Normative Judaism. Thirdly, some well-informed scholars have assumed or argued that die Pseudepigrapha were just like all the other sacred writings in pre70 Judaism. They righUy point to die fact that the canon was not yet closed; but they err in assuming that at that time there was only an amorphous collection of sacred books. Some scholars point to the Hebrew script used at Qumran, and claim that, since the same script was used to copy the Torah books as well as the new Qumranic compositions, there was no perception at Qumran of the contours of die Torah. Again we can cite Rost, who argued that at Qunmui 'there was no sharp distinction between holy scriptures and those reckoned less holy' because, inter alia, 'die same esteemed form of script (was) used to copy Isaiah or Genesis to copy Sirach, Enoch, die Book of Jubilees' and other writings not in the Tanach." 8. As Morton Smith stated long ago, i f there was any such thing, then, as an "orthodox Judaism", it must have been that which is now almost unknown to us, the religion of the average "people of the land". But the different parts of the country were so different, such gulfs of feeling and practice separated Idumea, Judea, Caesarea, and Galilee, that even on this level there was probably no more agreement between them than between any one of them and a similar area in the Diaspora' (M. Smith, 'Palestinian Judaism in the First Century', in M. Davis [ed.], Israel: Its Role in Civilization [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1956J, p. 8 1 . 9. W.D. Davies. 'Contemporary Jewish Religion', in M. Black and H.H. Rowley (eds.), Peake's Commentary on the Bible (London: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1961), pp. 705-11 (705). 10. Rost, Judaism outside the Hebrew Canon, p. 22.


25

More than one Hebrew script was used at Qunnran, and each of these were used because they were perceived to be sacred." The ancient and hallowed language of Israel was Hebrew. The Torah's scripts were the most sacred form of writing. It was only proper, therefore, in light of die powerful influence of the Torah at Qumran to continue the use of this script. The publication of the Leviticus Scroll amply illustrates the presence of paleo-Hebrew at Qumran.'^ The claim that the Holy Spirit continued to be alive in the Qumran community, and that the secrets of a prophet's words were disclosed only to die Moreh Has-sedek (see especially IQpHab 7) illustrates the high regard for the Torah felt at Qumran. According to the Rule of the Community die Torah was to be read throughout the day and night. The so-called 'new' laws and ordinances were considered ancient, and derivative from the quintessential and primary importance of the Torah. The new was an exegesis of die old; the latter elevated die former. I am convinced die same phenomenon characterizes die Pseudepigrapha. Fourthly, from the foregoing general misunderstanding some scholars tend to suggest that the Pseudepigrapha were produced to replace the Tanach. The impression is sometimes given that the socalled extracanonical works were used in some early Jewish groups as anti-canonical works. This confused idea seems to be present in Solomon Zeitlin's contention that a large portion of the Pseudepigrapha, namely the apocalypses, were composed 'in opposition to riormative Judaism. Normative Judaism regarded the Apocalyptists as destructive.'" I shall try to demonstrate that the Pseudepigrapha are not anticanonical works. Many documents in die Tanach represent vast differences in the interpretation of data and traditions. This healthy debate continues among die Pseudepigrapha. There are no neat literary categories, like pre-rabbinics and anti-rabbinics. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, among many other writings, reflect the origins of Rabbinic Judaism, which is die type of Judaism Zeitlin labeled 'normative'. Likewise, the 11. The Greek copies of the Septuagint were most likely brought to Qumran. 12. See D.N. Freedman and K.A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (UQpaleoLev) (with contributions by R.S. Hanson; American Schools of Oriental Research; distributed by Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN, 1985). 13. S. Zeitlin, 'Jewish Apocryphal Literature', Studies in the Early History of Judaism (New York: Ktav, 1974), II, p. 241.

26

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

appearance of apocalyptic elements, ideas, symbols and passages in rabbinic literature indicate the frequently close intertwining of pseudepigraphic and earliest rabbinic diought in pre-70 CE Judaism. Fifthly, some scholars have claimed that the eyes of the audiors of the Pseudepigrapha were not on God's will, nor on sacred and ancient Jewish traditions, nor on Torah scrolls. For such scholars the Pseudepigrapha were contaminated by non-Jewish ideas. Hugo Fuchs, for example, in Judisches Lexikon, described the Pseudepigrapha as follows: 'Da ihr Inhalt aber als halbheidnisch empfunden wurde, verwarf, sie sowohl das offizielle J.-tum wie auch das offizielle Christentum'.''' This interpretation fails both by perpetuating the old myth that there were no foreign influences in so-called official Judaism, and by caricaturing the Pseudepigrapha as unworthy, because they are un-Jewish. Sixdily, a wide tendency of scholars is to emphasize too much the visionary aspect of the Pseudepigrapha. These scholars stress that the pseudepigraphical books are preoccupied with revelatory tilings. The vision of the authors is only of the future age or the heavens above. Yehoshua M. Grintz, for example, in the famous Encyclopaedia Judaica wrote that the Pseudepigrapha are 'visionary books attributed to the ancients, characterized by a stringent asceticism and dealing with the mysteries of creation and working out of good and evil from a gnostic standpoint'." This statement is fraught with so much misinformation as to cause many to wonder how it was ever passed by the editors. Suffice it only to state that the Pseudepigrapha are not to be branded and discarded as visionary works; as we shall see, they are part of the rich exegetical tradition of Early Judaism. Why then have the pseudepigraphical writings been systematically neglected in the study of early Jewish exegesis? One reason may be found in die words of Michael E. Stone: 'None of die apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books written in Hebrew or Aramaic was composed as biblical exegesis citing and expounding verses*.'* This statement is potentially misleading, and was written in the context of contrasting 14. H. Fuchs, 'Pseud(o)epigraphen'. in Judisches Lexikon (Berlin: Judischer Verlag, 1927; repr. 1982), IV/I, col. 1175. 15. Y.M. Grintz in EncJud (1971). III. col. 182. 16. M.E. Stone, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, section two, volume II; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. xxi.


27

the Pseudepigrapha and Rabbinics. Isolated and examined as a description of the relation of the Pseudepigrapha to the Tanach it is misleading. What Stone seems to be trying to clarify is that the Pseudepigrapha have a 'different attitude to scriptural authority' than die rabbinic writings. Yet, it is unfortunate that so many scholars have focused too narrowly on die use of the Tanach in Early Judaism, and have assumed incorrectly that since the Pseudepigrapha have not expounded verses from the Tanach they are not to be seen in terms of primary or secondary exegetical compositions. Moreover, one must not even give the impression that the authors of the Pseudepigrapha never quoted a verse of Scripture. A look at the italics in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha discloses that diese authors did quote from the books collected into the Tanach. There is no question that die author of the Testament of Job had memorized the canonical Job. For example, in ch. 2 4 he quotes verses from Job 2.8b-9d; in ch. 2 8 he cites Job 2 . 1 1 - 1 3 .

D.S. Russell righUy demonstrates die biblical and exegetical nature of the Pseudepigrapha. He offers the opinion that the purpose of his book, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Patriarchs and Prophets in Early Judaism, is to demonstrate from the books generally called 'the pseudepigrapha' the considerable developments that took place in early Judaism relating to the character and function of the patriarchs and prophets in whose names many of them were written.

Russell succeeds in demonstrating the exegetical link between the Tanach and the Pseudepigrapha. The Pseudepigrapha shine light on the centrality of the Tanach in Early Judaism. Many of the writings were written under the name of one of the biblical 'saints' thus emphasizing the paradigmatic importance of the Bible. Criteria How should one begin to comprehend die Pseudepigrapha as a type of early Jewish biblical exegesis? How should die data be organized? George W.E. Nickelsburg in 'The Bible Rewritten and Expanded' opts for the criteria of dividing die documents into those which are

17. D.S. Russell, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Patriarchs and Prophets in Early Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p. xi.

28

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

very loosely connected to the biblical traditions and diose which are 'closely related to the biblical texts'.'* Among the documents only loosely connected to the Bible are the following: Daniel 1-6 The Prayer of Nabonidus Susanna Bel and the Dragon Tobit Judith Martyrdom of Isaiah The Lives of the Prophets The Testament of Abraham Joseph andAseneth Paraleipomena ofJeremiah Epistle ofAristeas and 3 Maccabees.

Among the documents closely linked widi die Bible are diese: / Enoch and the Book of the Giants Jubilees The Genesis Apocryphon The Book of Biblical Antiquities The Apocalypse of Moses The Life of Adam and Eve Philo the Epic Poet Theodotus the Epic Poet Ezekiel the Tragedian The Story of Darius' Bodyguards Additions to the Book of Esther David's Compositions Baruch The Episde of Jeremiah, and The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men.

I agree with Nickelsburg that the 'tendency to follow die ancient texts more closely may be seen as a reflecdon of their developing canonical status' (p. 89). Rather than be seen as writings oblivious or antagonistic to die Tanach, die Pseudepigrapha witness to the centrality of Tanach among early Jews and its movement to a canonical status. The audior of 4 Ezra 18. G.W.E. Nickelsburg in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period; see esp. p. 89.


29

celebrates the 2 4 revelatory books that are published, and the 7 0 additional books that are kept secret. As Rost rightly states, 'there can be no question that he is referring to the twenty-four books of the Tanach, consisting of Torah, Nevi'im, and K e t u v i m ' . " This point is important; and it is equally necessary to emphasize diat according to the author of 4 Ezra the 7 0 are related to and continuous with the 2 4 . The Pseudepigrapha are part of die latitudinous ways Jews interpreted die Bible. The Pseudepigrapha are shaped widiin the crucible of biblical exegesis. The early Jewish Pseudepigrapha, that is those which are Jewish and antedate the codification of the Mishnah in 2 0 0 CE, may be provisionally studied under five categories, which may be briefly listed:^" 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Inspiration. The Old Testament serves primarily to inspire the author, who then evidences considerable imagination, perhaps sometimes under influences from nonbiblical writings (ranging from the Books of Enoch to the Arda Viraf).^^ Framework. The Old Testament provides the framework for the author's own work. The original setting of the Old Testament work is employed for appreciably other purposes. Launching. A passage or story in die Old Testament is used to launch another, considerably different reflection. The original setting is replaced. Inconsequential. The author borrows from the Old Testament only the barest facts, names especially, and composes a new story. Expansions. Most of these documents, in various ways and degrees, start with a passage or story in die Old Testament, and rewrite it, often under the imaginative influence of oral traditions linked somehow to the biblical narrative.

Each of these five categories emerge from and serve to illustrate the exegetical nature of the Pseudepigrapha. 19. Rost, Judaism outside the Hebrew Canon, p. 23. 20. These categories as first proposed by me, which are now expanded, are included in C.A. Evans, Non-Canonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992). p. 46. 21. See J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1976), and M. Haug, 'The Book of Arda Viraf, in C F . Home (ed.). Ancient Persia (Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, 7; New York: Parke, Austin & Lipscomb, 1917), pp. 185-207.

30

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Inspiration Many Pseudepigrapha were written by Jews who were primarily inspired by the Tanach, but were also free to think creatively under die influence, at times, of the insights and advances in the contiguous world cultures. The best example of this exegetical method is found in the category labeled 'Prayers, Psalms and Odes'. The 'More Psalms of David' are structured according to the poetry of the Davidic Psalter, and are frequently indistinguishable from diem. The Psalms are the inspiration for these additions to it. Psalm 151A also evidences the characteristic of the second category; it uses 1 Samuel 16 and 17 as die framework for four verses. Note the following translation of the Hebrew (11 QPs 151): I was the smallest among my brothers, and the youngest among the sons of my father; and he made me shepherd of his flocks, and the ruler over his kids. (151 A. 1) He sent his prophet to anoint me, Samuel to make me great; (151A.5) But he [God] sent and took me from behind the flock, and he anointed me with holy oil, and he made me leader for his people, and ruler over the sons of his covenant. (151 A.7)

These hues are based upon 1 Sam. 16.1-11, 17.14 and 2 Sam. 7.8, and perhaps also on Pss. 78.70-71 and 89.20. It is understandable why die Hebrew of this psalm contains the title 'A Hallelujah of David the Son of Jesse'.^^ The next psalm, 151B (11 QPs 151), is also based on die Davidic Psalter, and on another episode in the life of David, one which is recorded in 1 Sam. 17.8-25. A translation from the Hebrew is as follows: Then I s[a]w a Philistine who was uttering taunts from the ra[nks of the enemy...].

22. The translations are by Charlesworth and are printed in OTP, 11, ad he.


31

The Syriac recension is not so fragmentarily preserved: I went out to attack the Philistine, and he cursed me by his idols. But after 1 unsheathed his sword, I cut off his head; and I removed the shame from the sons of Israel.

Other verses in the additional psalms, or Psalms 151 through 155, are also inspired by the Davidic Psalter and by episodes in the life of David. The Prayer of Manasseh, one of the most beautiful penitential psalms ever written, was composed in the century before the destiiiction of the Temple by a devout Jew who wished to supply the prayer of Manasseh described in 2 Chronicles 33. Note this comparison: 2 Chronicles 33

I

Prayer of Manasseh I provoked

[Manasseh]. . . provoking his (Yahweh's] anger [Mana.sseh]. . . placed . . . the i d o l . . . in the Temple Manasseh with hooks . . . in chains... humbling himself deeply before the God of his ancestors

your fury (or anger) I set up idols I am ensnared I am bent by a multitude of iron chains I am bending the knees of my heart before you God of our fathers.

Here we confront a prayer composed pseudonymously to provide the prayer mentioned in 2 Chron. 33.11-13. The Prayer of Manasseh, dierefore, is an exegesis of an Old Testament passage using the model of bodi inspiration, because it is sOTictured according to die style of die Psalter and otiier Hebraic poems, and framework, because it intends to use the story in 2 Chronicles to compose a new psalm or prayer. Framework Framework is a type of exegesis in which the Tanach provides the setting for a work that has a different purpose. A story in the Tanach provides the basis, or framework, for a considerably different narrative. The best examples of the type of exegesis called 'Framework' are found in the Fourth Book of Ezra, 2 Baruch, and in die Testaments

32

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

collected in die Pseudepigrapha. In each of diese documents an Old Testament passage provides the basis, or framework, for an entirely different story. The apocalypse in 4 Ezra begins as follows: In the thirtieth year after the desuiiction of our city, I, Salathiel, who am also called Ezra, was in Babylon. I was U'oubled as I lay on my bed, and my thoughts welled up in my heart, because I saw the desolation of Zion and the wealth of those who lived in Babylon {4 Ezra 3.1-2).^

The author has used the framework of the story of the destruction of Jerusalem, Zion, by the Babylonians in the sixth century BCE to tell the story of the devastation wrought by the Romans in the first century CE. The audior of this passage knew well die traditions related to and based exegetically in 2 Kings 25, according to which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, attacked and conquered Jerusalem. The same source, combined widi Jeremiah traditions, produced the apocalypse called 2 Baruch. Note in particular ch. 6.1-2. Now it happened on the following day that, behold, an army of the Chaldeans [= Babylonians] surrounded the city. And in the evening I, Baruch [= Jeremiah's scribe], left the people, went outside, and set myself by an oak. And I was grieving over Zion and sighed because of the captivity which had come upon the people.^*

Scholars often explain the use of 'Babylon* for 'Rome' because of the need of die Jews to hide their anti-Roman polemic from them. This attractive suggestion does not exhaust die possibilities or reasons for such pseudepigraphical writing. In my opinion, an equally important one is the powerful paradigmatic force of the biblical text and the ti'aditions related to it. By using an exegesis of 2 Kings and Jeremiah as the framework for articulating the search for meaning in a new day, it _was possible to stress diat as once growdi sprang up from the ruins of 587 so it will be possible—indeed certain in light of the vision revealed to Baruch—for the new to begin again, thanks to the fact that God was indeed in control of the destruction of his Temple and is about to bring in die promised eschaton. The source for the testamentary literature is the account of Jacob's last word, or testament, to his sons; and in particular the record of diat scene described in Genesis 49. 23. Trans, by B.M. Metzger in OTP, I. p. 528. 24. Trans, by A.F.J. Klijn in OTP, I, p. 622.


33

Then Jacob called his sons, and said, 'Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in days to come. Assemble and hear, O sons of Jacob, and hearken to Israel your father' (Gen. 49.1-2, RSV). A Jewish docuitient, probably composed around 100 BCE and redacted by a Christian sometime in the second century CE,^' reflects this memorable story in Genesis 49. A Jew composed testaments for each of the twelve sons of Jacob by using the account of how Jacob called his twelve sons around his death bed and exhorted and blessed them. Genesis 49 was the framework for composing testaments for each of Jacob's twelve sons. What Jacob had done on his death bed for his sons, each of diem did for their sons, but the content shifted markedly in the direction of thought so prevalent in Early Judaism; large 25. There is considerable controversy over the Jewish or Christian origin of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. It is clear that at least two testaments, one attributed to Levi and the other to Naphtali, are Jewish and pre-Christian, since fragments of each were found in medieval manuscripts in the Cairo Geniza and also in Cave IV at Qumran. It is also clear that these testaments are not identical to the Greek testaments in the critical text of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The crucial question is now whether a document of twelve testaments was composed by a Jew or a Christian. Acknowledging that the distinctions between 'Jewish' and 'Christian' are now blurred, and that the Jewish fragments mentioned above are not identical with the critical text of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, M. de Jonge and I have tended to differ on assessing the origin of the document. He continues (since 1953) to favor the possibility that a Christian conceived the idea of twelve testaments in the second century. He is certainly correct to stress that with the Greek document we are faced not with interpolations but with redactions, with extensive deletions as well as additions, of the Jewish sources; I, however, am more convinced that the Jewish strata is far more extensive than he thinks and that it is found behind each of the twelve testaments. My conviction that a Jew composed a document that contained twelve testaments may now be confirmed, in part at least, by the discovery of a Testament of Judah among the fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This discovery was presented to specialists in Cambridge and Uppsala and will be published in the near future. The most recent publications on this debate are the following: M. de Jonge, 'The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs', in H.F.D. Sparks (ed.). The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), pp. 505-12; H.C. Kee, 'Testaments of the Twelve Pauiarchs', in OTP, I, pp. 775-80; J.H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament: Prolegomena for the Study of Christian Origins (SNTS, 54; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); M. de Jonge, Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (NovTSup, 63; Leiden: Brill, 1991).

34

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

apocalyptic sections filled out the brief statement by Jacob 'diat I may tell you what shall befall you in days to come' (Gen. 49.1). Both the old framework and the new content is pellucidly represented in the Testament of Levi; note die following excerpts: A copy of the words of Levi: the things that he decreed to his sons concerning all they were to do, and the things that would happen to them until the day of judgment. He was in good health when he summoned them to him, but it had been revealed to him that he was about to die. When they all were gathered together he said to them: (1.1-2)... 'At this moment the angel opened for me the gates of heaven and I saw the Holy Most High sitting on the throne. And he said to me, "Levi, to you I have given the blessing of the priesthood until I shall come and dwell in the midst of Israel- (5.1-2).^*

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs thus evolves out of the Old Testament narrative, especially Genesis 47 through 50, and in that sense belongs widiin die broad study of exegesis widiin Early Judaism. The Testament of Job, which was written in the century before the destrucdon of Jerusalem, also evolves out of an exegesis of Jacob's testament. As R.P. Spitder perceives, die Old Testament provided for the composition of the Testament of Job the following framework features: the blessing from father to sons (Gen. 47.29-50.14): an ill father (Gen. 48.1), who is near death (Gen. 47.29), and on his death bed (Gen. 47.31). calls his sons (Gen. 49.1), disposes of his possessions (Gen. 48.22), and issues a forecast of future events (Gen. 49.1). The father dies (Gen. 49.33), and a lamentation completes the framework of the .story (Gen. 50.2-14)."

This framework provides the basis for the genre, loosely defined, diat unites the Jewish testaments, namely the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Testament of Job, and to a lesser extent die Testament of Abraham and the Testament of Moses (cf. also I En. 91.1-19, Tob. 14.3-11, Acts 20.17-38, I Tim. 4.1-16 and Jn 17.1-26). Here is die opening to die Testament of Job (which is extant in Greek): 26. Trans. H.C. Kee in OTP, I, pp. 788-89.26. 27. See Spiuler's discussion in OTP. I, pp. 831-32.

C H A R L E S W O R T H in the Crucible

35

Now on the day when, having fallen ill, he [Job] began to settle his affairs, he called his seven sons and his three daughters [cf. Job 1.2]... And when he had called his children he said, 'Gather round, my children. Gather round me so that I may show you the things which the Lord did with me and all the things which have happened to me' (1.2-4).^

As can be surmised from the last clause, 'that I may show you the things which the Lord did with me and all the things which have happened to me', this testament is basically a recital of Job's life. It, therefore, contrasts with the Testament of Levi, and constantly returns, after expansive narratives, to the biblical framework and book of Job. In essence, the Testament of Job is an imaginative exegesis and legendary expansion of the biblical book. For example. Job's wife has a speech of only two lines in the Hebrew text, which is expanded in the Septuagint to a full paragraph; in the Testament of Job she is named—Sitis—and shares a rather lengthy dialogue with Job. As I stated long ago, the Testament of Job is a type of midrash in the form of a testament on the canonical book.^' It is an example of the early phases of what will later be called midrashim. The Testament of Abraham (extant only in Greek) continues in the direction taken by the author of the Testament of Levi and away from that followed by the author of the Testament of Job. It does not expand on the life of Abraham; it describes how Abraham refuses to die. Michael is sent by God to help Abraham prepare for death and to write a testament; eventually Michael is to collect his soul. Abraham, however, refuses to die and forces Michael to take him on a celestial journey (somewhat reminiscent of the journeys of Enoch). In contrast to the Testament of Job, as E.P. Sanders states, virtually nothing from die Old Testament is found in the Testament of Abraham, other than the obvious and relatively insignificant references which can be traced back to Genesis.'" Surprisingly, in light of the vast iconographical and documentary evidence, there is no clear reference to Abraham's attempt to sacrifice Isaac. With the authors of many apocalypses and apocalyptic writings the author of the Testament of Abraham is interested in the cosmic dimensions of Jewish theology.^' 28. Trans. R.P. Spittler in OTP, I, p. 839. 2 9 . Charlesworth, 'Testament of Job', in The Pseudepigrapha and Modem Research with a Supplement (SBLSCS, 7; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), p. 135. 30. Sanders, 'Testament of Abraham', in OTP, I, p. 879. 3 1 . See Charlesworth, 'The Cosmic Theology of Early Judaism', in The OU

36

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

The Testament of Moses (extant in only one Latin palimpsest) received its present form in the first half of the first century CE. It is similar to the Testament of Abraham and the Testament of Levi, in that it does refer to the future acts of God, but it is more similar to die Testament of Job in that it also concentrates not upon die predicuons of the future but on a recitation of the past history of God's people. In a farewell discourse to Joshua, Moses describes the history of Israel and the Jews from the time of the conquest of Palestine dirough the rebuilding of the Temple after the sixth-century exile to die subsequent apostasy (perhaps due to the hellenizing priests or the 'kings' of the late Hasmoneans). The work, as extant in its fragmentary form, continues with an eschatological hymn that celebrates the destiuction of the evil one by Israel's guardian angel, and the final exaltation of Israel. The close relationship between the Testament of Moses and Deuteronomy, especially chs. 31 dirough 34, leads J. Priest to suggest diat it is a vinual rewriting of them. This is true not only with respect to general ouUine but also regarding specific allusions and theological perspective. Deuteronomy 31-34 is clearly the author's model, though he has recast his own work in light of the history of the people from the conquest to his own day and through the prism of his own apocalyptic outlook.'^

^

What Priest calls 'model' I have been referring to as 'framework'; yet die Testament of Moses shares much with the apocalyptic dimensions of the Testament of Levi and another model of exegesis, namely 'Expansions of the "Old Testament" and Legends'. Each of diese are different methods used by the early Jews to comprehend and make contemporary the biblical message. Launching Launching is a type of Jewish exegesis by which a passage or story in die Tanach is used to produce, or launch, another different story. The best examples of using a passage in the Old Testament for launching forth into a new setting are die Books of Enoch. The books gadiered together now into what is called / Enoch and 2 Enoch are based upon two verses in Genesis 5: Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament, pp. 65-67. 32. J. Priest, 'TesUment of Moses', in OTP, I, p. 923.


37

Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him (Gen. 5.2324, RSV. See also Sir. 44.16).

From these brief comments the early Jews developed exegetically the ideas that Enoch must be somehow associated with die solar calendar of 365 days, that he was perfecdy righteous, and that he did not die, but is with G o d . ' ' Since Enoch then tends to transcend time and place—his place is either unknown or hidden (cf. 1 En. 12.1-2)—he is the perfect candidate for ascending through the heavens and viewing the world below, its history, and the future ages. According to I Enoch (extant in its full form only in Ethiopic, although early Aramaic Qumran fragments have been found) he receives from the angels a vision and says, 'I heard from them everything and I understood. I look not for this generation but for the distant one that is coming (1.2)'.''' Enoch falls asleep and has a dream and visions, according to I En. 13.8. According to 2 Enoch (extant only in Slavonic) he is awakened from his sleep and guided by 'two huge men' (2 En. 1.4). Subsequently in both works Enoch journeys dirough the heavens. Another passage in the Old Testament has significandy influenced the diought of the authors of / Enoch and 2 Enoch. It is the story of the fall of the watchers found in Gen. 6.1-4. In 1 Enoch 1-36 this story is considerably reworked and expanded. In 2 Enoch 18 [J] the fallen angels are seen being punished in the fifth heaven and others are in die second heaven, 'imprisoned in great darkness'." Another passage in Genesis—which is exceedingly important for understanding early Jewish exegesis, because of a Qumran scroll, Philo, Josephus, and Hebrews—has considerably shaped die ending of 2 Enoch, which unfortunately was excised by R.H. Charles. 2 Enoch 71-72 describes die miraculous birdi of Melchizedek; these chapters, like 11Q Melchizedek, are similar to the early midrashim and to the 'Expansions of the "Old Testament" and Other Legends'. They are an exegesis with fantastic expansions of Gen. 14.17-24, according to 33. A careful study of the origin of apocalyptic thought and the role of Enoch in its development is J.C. VanderKam's Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS, 16; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984). 34. E. Isaac, '1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse oO Enoch', in OTP, 1, p. 13. 35. See F.I. Andersen, '2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch', in OTP, I, pp. 13032.

38

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

which a mysterious individual, Melchizedek, King of Salem, priest of God Most High, offers bread and wine to Abraham and blesses him. Abraham subsequently gives him a tenth of his spoils from battle. Inconsequential Some pseudepigrapha have only an inconsequential relation to the Old Testament. They have inherited from the Tanach only the personae, or other details, in order to create a new story. The link with the Tanach is clear and seminal; but it is inconsequential in contrast with die other three types of exegesis found in the Pseudepigrapha. The Sibylline Oracles are not essentially shaped or created by biblical exegesis, even diough the third book is influenced by Psalms 2 and 48, Isaiah 11, and the traditions about the pilgrimage of the gentiles to Jerusalem in the eschaton (cf. Isa. 2.1-4; Mic. 4.1-4; 2fech. 14.16-21). Likewise, books four, five and eleven are only marginally influenced by the Old Testament. To understand the Third Sibylline Oracle it is important to understand die exegetical base for some verses, but it is more important to comprehend developments in nonJewish cultures, especially in Greece, Italy and Egypt. Similarly the Treatise of Shem and Hoe Apocalypse of Adam received from the Old Testament little more dian the name pseudepigraphically linked with the document. In fact the astrological interest of the former and the present gnostic nature of the latter expose the vast differences between these two pseudepigrapha and die Old Testament, even if the Old Testament is a library of widely differing documents. Also related to the Tanach in only a relatively inconsequential way are the documents that belong under the category of 'Wisdom and Philosophical Literature'. The Wisdom books in die Tanach are Jewish, but they are profoundly shaped by humanity's common treasury of universal wisdom and morality. Developing later out of diis Wisdom tradition—but certainly not an exegesis of it—are 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Pseudo-Phocylides and Syriac Menander. Expansions The most important category of the Pseudepigrapha for our present purposes is the expansion of the biblical narrative. Here the biblical story has been told and retold until it is discussed and questions arise.


39

What was life like in Paradise before Eve and Adam disobeyed God? What were their reactions to the first experience of death and sickness? What was the name of Jepthah's daughter, and what was her reaction to her father's vow? What was Asenedi, Joseph's wife, like, and how was it possible for him to marry an Egyptian who worshipped idols? Who were Jannes and Jambres, and Eldad and Modad? The answers given to these questions and the lore that developed from retelling the biblical stories produced the expansions of them found in the Life of Adam and Eve, Pseudo-Philo, Joseph and Aseneth, Jannes and Jambres and Eldad and Modad. Exegesis by expansion is stunning evidence that the Pseudepigrapha were often produced within the crucible of biblical interpretation. The biblical stories were memorized; they were taken seriously, as bruta facta, as revealed truths; but to speak to the curiosities and needs of a later time die stories needed to be retold and completed widi details. All die evidence seems to suggest diat what we call additional facts and details were considered by the early Jews who revered these Pseudepigrapha to be part of the true story. Now they were revealed to serve the curiosities and needs of later generations. The following are the Pseudepigrapha that are 'Expansions of die Old Testament' in one column and the portion of the Tanach that is expanded in die second column: Jubilees Martyrdom of Isaiah Joseph and Aseneth Life of Adam and Eve Pseudo-Philo Lives of the Prophets Ladder of Jacob 4 Baruch Jannes and Jambres History of the Rechabites Eldad and Modad

Genesis 1.1-Exodus 12.50 1, 2 Kings Genesis 37-50 Genesis 1 - 6 Genesis to 2 Samuel Kings, Clironicles, Prophets Genesis 28 Jeremiah, 2 Kings 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah Exodus 7-8 Jeremiah 35 Numbers 11.26-29

Like die Dead Sea Scrolls and die documents collected into die New Testament, the Pseudepigrapha tend to treat the Tanach in ways that are shockingly cavalier to modern biblical critics. It seems obvious that die text was considered divine, but the spirit for interpretation allowed the Jewish exegete to alter, ignore, expand, and even rewrite the sacred Scripture. Pneumatic exegesis was a phenomenon which at once

40

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

was shaped by and in turn shaped the received text and accompanying tradition. The study of the use of the Tanach in the Pseudepigrapha accentuates a major insight brilliantly expressed by Edward Schillebeeckx: scholars too often forget that in Early Judaism the Tanach 'was not functioning per se or in isolation but in the context of late Jewish piety as diat had since been developing. One cannot with impunity skip over die time that had elapsed between the great prophets and Jesus.''* Essential

Perspectives

To grasp the ways the Pseudepigrapha were fashioned by biblical interpretation five perspectives are essential. First, we must leave behind the once dominant conceptions of pre-70 Judaism. It was not categorized by a clear separation of Palestinian Judaism from Diasporic Judaism, by a monolidiic closed and 'normative Judaism', by the continuing purity of an indigenous well-defined Judaism, or by some identifiable and wide spread orthodoxy. Once these modern mydis are removed, it is possible to see diat the Pseudepigrapha are the products of many divergent groups within Early Judaism. Some, like I Enoch, Jubilees smA the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, move us close to the various types of Essenes. The Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch show us some movements in die direction of Pharisaism and early rabbinic thought. 4 Baruch and Pseudo-Eupolemus show us affinities with the Samaritans. The Testament of Moses and Psalms of Solomon 17 and 18 reveal what might be polemics against the earliest phases of the Zealots. But most importandy, the Pseudepigrapha warn us not to think about Judaism as divided into four sects. There were more than a dozen groups and many more subgroups. Secondly, the tendency of the audiors of the Pseudepigrapha was not to replace but to heighten Torah. This well known phenomenon, dianks to die recovery of die Temple Scroll, is most clearly evident in Jubilees, sometimes called the 'Littie Genesis'. The audior of 2 Baruch especially elevated the Torah. Recall Klijn's translation of 2 Baruch 77.15-16, which reads as follows:

36. E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (trans. H. Hoskins; New York: Crossroad, 1974), p. 257.

C H A R L E S W O R T H in the Crucible

41

Shepherds and lamps and fountains came from the Law, and when we go away, the Law will abide. If you, therefore, look upon the Law and are intent upon wisdom, then the lamp will not be wanting and the shepherd will not give way and the fountain will not dry up (OTP, 1, p. 647).

Along with the same trend came the elevation of biblical heroes. Some, like Jacob, were accorded angelic and divine status, as Mardn Hengel in Germany,'^ James D.G. Dunn,'* Christopher R o w l a n d " and D.S. Russell*" in England, and G. Nickelsburg,"' odiers, and I myself^ in the USA have attempted to illustrate. The interpretation of die status of the biblical saints, which is exegesis of Scripture, was the crucible in which the Pseudepigrapha were fashioned. These so-called extra-canonical writings shine light on the importance of Tanach, or the canonical Scriptures. Thirdly, early Jewish lore deposited in the Pseudepigrapha reveal how much Palestinian Jews cherished die biblical tales. One diat must have been popular, judging from the Apocalypse of Abraham, was the altercation between Terah, the idol maker, and his son, Abraham, to whom the Jews allocated die belief in one and only one God. Many works in the Pseudepigrapha—especially the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testament of Job, the Lives of the Prophets and Pseudo-Philo— attest to folk tales developing around the Tanach. They show how Torah permeated the far reaching corners of Early Judaism and helped produce die Pseudepigrapha. Fourthly, we have learned to see how sociologically conditioned are the documents in the Pseudepigrapha, reflecting consecutively the crises of the Maccabean era, and the growing stranglehold on Palestine by the Romans, beginning with Pompey's entrance into the Temple in 63 BCE and culminating with the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Now, we need to perceive the exegetical dimensions that have also 37. M. Hengel in The Son of God (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 47-48. 38. J.D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster Pi«ss, 1970), p. 17. 39. C. Rowland, Christian Origins: From Messianic Movement to Christian Religion (London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1985), pp. 17-38. 40. D.S. Rus,sell, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, pp. 1-8. 41. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.J.Collins (eds.). Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism (Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 12; Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 1980). 42. J.H. Charlesworth, 'The Portrayal of the Righteous as an Angel', in Ideal Figures, pp. 135-51.

42

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

produced the Pseudepigrapha. Louis H. Feldman rightly stressed that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Psalms of Solomon and die Prayer of Manasseh, as well as many of the Qumran Scrolls and some of the Apocrypha, 'are generally conscious imitadons of biblical b o o k s . . . " " Imitating is certainly a form of interpreting. In some cases it is clear exegesis. The reviews of history in many of the apocalypses in die Pseudepigrapha are exegetical reflections on die histories in the Tanach. To retell die drama of salvation from protological time to the eschatological age is to interpret the Tanach. This exegetical component of the apocalypses has not been perceived in die examination of the reviews of history. Fifth, the works in the Pseudepigrapha are not fully or adequately represented by the contention diat they are visionary writings. Studies of the ethical sections of 2 Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs reveal the strong paradigmatic links widi God's commandments recorded in the Torah, and the ethical teachings of the great prophets. To study the descriptions of die heavenly tablets. Paradise, the coming of God's messenger or Messiah, and God's holy dwelling in the Temple is to be drawn to the large swirling pool of biblical interpretation that permeated all groups in Early Judaism.

Conclusion A change has occurred in the study of pre-70 Palestinian Judaism. In the last twenty years the Pseudepigrapha have come into their own. Now diese writings are accorded some respect, and it is generally and internationally recognized that the history of pre-70 Judaism must depend upon diem in describing the fluid and vibrant culture known as Early Judaism. If we desire to understand the origins and sociological functions of the Pseudepigrapha, we must now recognize that diey were fashioned in the crucible of biblical interpretation. They point to the importance of Torah in the daily life of the religious Jew, especially in Palestine before the destruction of die nation in 70. As die late Samuel Sandmel stated in a very popular article on die Pseudepigrapha,

43. L.H. Feldman, 'Judaism, History o f , Britannica, Macropaedia (1974), X, p. 314.

in The New

Encyclopaedia


43

Without a Genesis, there could never have been a 'Jubilees'. Indeed, had there not already been a Bible, there could have been no Pseudepigrapha for, in one way or another, these books all derive from the Bible."'*

Biblical exegesis is the crucible of the Pseudepigrapha. In it ancient humanity's wisdom, scientific observations, and speculations were melted down and shaped to reappear as Jewish tradition.

44. S. Sandmel, 'The Books That Were Left Out', Keeping Posted (February, 1973), pp. 19-23 (23).

APPROPRIATING THE HISTORY OF G O D ' S PEOPLE: A SURVEY OF INTERPRETATIONS OF THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL IN THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, APOCRYPHA A N D THE N E W TESTAMENT

Howard Clark Kee

Claims made by post-exilic Jews and by early Christians that they were the true heirs of the covenant promises to Abraham, Moses, David and the prophets required them to develop a framework for interpreting and appropriating that central strand in the biblical tradition. Inevitably, the dominant conceptual framework of the dme and culture of each specific segment of the religious communities had a determinative effect on how this tradition was perceived and appropriated.' Comparative analysis of these interpretative phenomena requires more than merely noting which historical figures or events were highlighted by the different groups in this process of appropriadon of die tradition. By looking at die larger context and the specifics of the world-view of each document under analysis, the interpreter must ask what are die dominant features implicit and explicit widiin die wridng concerning such basic features as the view of reality, the nature of knowledge, the mode of interpretation of Scripture, and the idendty of the social group making the claims to be heirs of this tradition. In abstract terms, the modern interpreter must consider ontological, epistemological, hermeneudcal, cultural and sociological factors in analyzing the relevant texts. That treatment of the early history of die covenant people was an important ingredient in very different documents within the biblical tradition is not surprising, since basic to the claim of participation in die people of God was the affirmation diat God called and guided the 1. The methodological principles on which this essay is based are set out in my book. Knowing the Truth: A Sociological Approach to New Testament Interpretation (Minneapolis: Augsburg-Fortress, 1989).

K E E Appropriating

the History of God's People

45

patriarchs from the period of dieir earlier nomadic existence and their experience of slavery in Egypt undl their settlement in the land of Canaan. It was in that land that the formerly mobile, portable presence of God in die covenant box was given a fixed location, although the tradition is in disagreement as to whedier die holy place should be Bethel, Shechem or Jerusalem. Central in all diese corporate, historical experiences are the leaders called and empowered by God, since through them die purpose of God is disclosed and effected in behalf of God's people. As scholars have long noted, in ancient Israel the equivalent of die creeds is the recital of what God has done to call and constitute his covenant people, as in Deut. 26.1-11. In Deuteronomy, following that confession, is an ostensibly predictive description of die establishment of the central sanctuary at Shechem (Deut. 27) and of the monarchy, its failure and the exile (Deut. 28), followed by the restoration of the people in the land (Deut. 30). Obviously, there is almost universal scholarly agreement that the closing chapters of Deuteronomy were written centuries after Israel had in fact settled in die land. Clearly essential to die maintenance of the covenant relationship and of the special place of the people in the purpose of God is dieir obedience to the commandments (Deut. 30.19-20): I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, loving the LX>RD your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you, and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

That Israel was to identify with its history, with covenant promises and responsibilities, is obvious. The process and the differences in appropriation of diat historical tradition are also obvious when it compares documents produced before, during and shortly after the exile: Deuteronomy, the books of Samuel and Kings; die books of Chronicles. But, given the more radically changed and changing circumstances of the post-exilic period, how was the community to understand and appropriate its history and perceive its future? Far more than a conceptual, theological issue was involved in Deuteronomy: the promises were made to die twelve tribes, but apparendy after the exile Judah alone remained as an identifiable entity. Initially, following the return from the exile, die sanctuary was operated under what seem to have been the generous policies of the Persian government, but by the

46

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Hellenistic era Jews were under enormous pressure culturally and politically to conform to the patterns of Hellenistic life and thought. By the Roman period, the century of autonomy under the Maccabees had passed, with its odd blend of royal and priestly authority characterized by internecine conflict and courting the favor of Rome. By die middle of the first century BCE, both the monarchs and priests who ruled die people of Israel did so only by authorization of the Roman emperor and senate. How, during these times of major political, social and cultural change, was the covenant relationship to be defined? How was it to be tangibly expressed in terms of social structures? What were to be die qualifications for participation in it? From Jewish and early Christian sources, it is evident that during die Hellenistic and Roman periods, a variety of answers to diese questions were being offered, several of them building explicitly on the biblical traditions of die history of the covenant people, and some of them clearly influenced by the concepts and axioms of Hellenistic culture. Accordingly, analysis of representative documents shows how central it is to the present-day interpretation of each that attention be given to the cultural context and worldview represented by die writer and original readers who stand behind these materials. The writings we examine in relation to diese interpretative issues include two from the Jewish wisdom tradition—the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon—one from the apocalyptic tradition of Judaism— / Enoch—and two from the early Christian tradition: Acts and the Letter to die Hebrews.

1. The Wisdom of Sirach The prologue of die Wisdom of Sirach states the dual aim of reading die Scriptures: to gain learning and wisdom, and to live according to the law. The first 15 chapters of die work deal mostly widi generalized wisdom, as in 8.8, where following the advice of die sages and their maxims is encouraged. Yet there are repeated references to the importance of obedience to the law, as die expression of die wisdom of God. This involves both the cultic and the moral features of the law: support and participation in the priesUy process (7.29-31) and obedience to the commandments (11.19). To define the one who is wise, Sirach asserts, 'Whoever holds to the law will obtain wisdom' (14.20-27).

K E E Appropriating


ATI

Beginning in Sirach 16-17, however, another ingredient is present with respect to the law: the wisdom of God is evident in the creation. 17.11-12 reads, 'He bestowed knowledge upon them, and allotted to them the law of life. He established with them an eternal covenant, and revealed to them his decrees'. Initially this sounds like a return of Prov. 8.22-31, where wisdom is pictured as God's companion while the process of creation unfolds. But in what follows one can detect the influence of the Stoic notion of natural law, as active agency in the creation and ordering of the world, and as an essential factor in human beings, guiding them to moral order as they conform their lives to this inherent moral system. This inference is confirmed by the fact that the technical language and basic concepts of Stoicism appear in the Greek text of Sirach. In 18.30, as introduction to a series of injunctions about controlling one's desires and restraining one's appetites, there appears the technical term, egkrateia. In 19.17 there is advice to 'let die law of the Most High take its course' in order to arouse a sense of moral responsibility. Or again, in 21.11, 'Whoever keeps the law controls his dioughts'. The process of disciplined instruction in die Greek tradition is made explicit in 23.7, where paideia appears in die section title according to some of the best manuscripts (B, S, A). All of this attention to die philosophical and paideutic context prepares for the declaration in 24.1-22 diat Wisdom, whose origin is divine and whose role has been the ordering of die universe, is now established in Jerusalem, embodied in 'die covenant of die Most High, die law diat Moses commanded us' (24.23). Resuming die mixture of proverbial wisdom and specifics of the commandments in the law, Sirach observes that 'die one who seeks God will accept his paideia... die one who seeks the law will be filled with it' (32.14-15). Ordinary workers and artisans are precluded by dieir occupations from being wise, aldiough 'diey maintain the fabric of the world' (38.24-34). But it is die scribe who studies the law, who seeks out die wisdom of die ancients, who will be shown by the Lord what wisdom is, and will 'glory in the law of the Lord's covenant' (39.1-11). Wisdom will show diat God is in control of die whole of time, from beginning to end (39.16-21), and works dirough the forces of nature (wind, hail, fire, famine, wild animals) to accomplish his purposes (39.28-31), so that 'everything proves good in its appointed time' (39.34) and all the universe operates in accord with his plan and

48

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

purpose (43.13-16). God bestows this wisdom tois eusebesin (on those who are pious). Sirach, having made the case for the basic congruity of immanent divine order and purpose with the law of the covenant, proceeds to 'sing the praises of famous men* (44.1-50.21), most of them described in Scripture, who were both wise and righteous in their obedience to God*s commandments. 'Everlasting covenants* were made by God with Noah, who is described as dikaios and teleios (44.17-18). Abraham 'kept the law of the Most High, and entered into a covenant with him' (44.20). Likewise, Isaac and Jacob shared in the covenant (44.22). Moses' crucial role was to receive from God 'the commandments, the law of life and knowledge, so that he might teach Jacob the covenant* (44.1-5). Clearly this role of Moses is described with conscious or unconscious references to a correlation between the all-permeating law of nature and the revealed law of the covenant with Israel. The interrelation between law and covenant is evident in the descriptions of the roles of Aaron and Phineas (45.6-22), in diat the establishment of the covenant gave them both priestly and educational duties. Thus Aaron was granted 'authority and statutes and judgments to teach Jacob die testimonies, and to enlighten Israel with [God*s] law* (45.17), while Phinehas, widi whom God established 'a covenant of friendship*, will through his descendants 'have the dignity of the priesthood-forever* (45.23-24). God*s control of the forces of nature is dramatically evident in two incidents in die time of Joshua: the sun standing still, and the hailstones that strike down the enemy of Israel (46.4-5). Yet the role of Joshua and Caleb in fostering obedience and piety is shown whenone reads that they actively 'restrained the people from sin and stilled their wicked grumbling* (46.7). David is instrumental in establishing order in the life of God's people, not only in a military and political sense, by defeating dieir enemies (47.4-7), but by instituting the proper worship of God through singers and their psalms of praise, and in establishing the annual cycle of festivals (47.8-10). God honored David for these modes of ordering the life and worship of Israel, in that he 'gave him a covenant of kingship and a glorious throne in Israel' (47.11). Although Solomon's sexual promiscuity brought subsequent judgment on Israel and the dividing of the kingdom, he did reign 'in an age of peace' and built a house for God, 'a sanctuary to stand forever' (47.13). His wisdom was embodied in the songs, proverbs and parables, which 'astounded the nations' and

K E E Appropriating


49

left an enduring heritage in Israel (47.15-17). Solomon's violations of the law of the covenant, and those of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, brought ruin and exile on the nation, thereby demonstrating how interconnected are conformity to the divine law and maintenance of social order in history (48.23-25). God sent messengers to recall the people to obedience, Elijah and Elisha, but most were disobedient, with the result that diey were 'carried off as plunder from their land and were scattered over all die earth'. Yet God's purpose continues, for there remained 'a ruler from the house of David' (48.15), and die promise of a return of Elijah 'to restore the tribes of Jacob' (48.10; cf Mai. 4.5-6). On die positive side, Hezekiah maintained the integrity of Jerusalem and supplied it with water (48.17), in return for which the Lord destroyed die invading Assyrians: For Hezekiah did what was pleasing to the Lord, and he kept firmly to the ways of his ancestor David, as he was commanded by the prophet Isaiah, who was great and trustworthy in his visions.

Isaiah's prophetic spirit enabled him to see 'what was to occur to the end of time, and the hidden things before they happened' (48.23-25). The prophet is attuned to the divine purpose and power that are invisibly but inexorably at work to fulfil the covenant promises. Similarly, Josiah reformed the people by keeping 'his heart fixed on the Lord', widi the result that 'in lawless times' (en hemerais anomon) he made eusebeia prevail (49.2-3). Conversely, die ruin of Judah and of the sanctuary in Jerusalem were die consequence of die abandonment by the kings of 'the law of the Most High' (49.4-7). Moving beyond the events reported in the scriptural narratives, Sirach offers extended praise of Simon, son of Onias, who as king and priest restored the temple, provided a water supply for die city, and led the priests and die people in dignified, orderly worship of God (50.1-21). Following this review of the history of God's people, Sirach describes what he has done in terms that derive from the traditions of popular Greek philosophy: he has written down instruction, or training (paideia) in understanding (sunesis) and knowledge (episteme). Those who 'lay them to heart will become wise*, and those who 'put them into practice* will be ready for anything that life may bring (50.2729). In the concluding autobiographical poem, Sirach describes how he sought and gained wisdom through much disciplined instruction (pollen paideian). He appeals to those who are untrained (apaideutoi)

50

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

to take up residence in the house of instruction (paideia) (51.20-23). In the closing lines there are yet additional appeals to his readers to receive paideia (51.26-28). One might argue that the Greek text of Sirach is only a translation of the Hebrew original, so that the use of technical terms in Greek is irrelevant to the intention of the original author. But the very fact that the translator of this document was persuaded that this terminology with its philosophical connotations was the appropriate way to convey the meaning of the text to the readers is profoundly significant. This language conveys for him the basic meaning of the text. What Sirach sees as involved in the recollections of the history of God's people is the concrete exemplifying of the purpose of God in creation and history in behalf of his covenant people. The law gives expression to the demands that this overarching purpose places on those who claim to be God's people. The basic understanding of the law is shaped by two factors: (1) the old legal traditions of Israel, and (2) the philosophical concept of natural law as pervading the universe. The vocabulary for describing communication of diese insights and for embodiment of them in the life of God's people also derives specifically from the intellectual traditions of Hellenistic philosophy.

2. The Wisdom of Solomon There are many points of basic similarity between the world-view expressed in Sirach and that set forth in the Wisdom of Solomon, as well as some distinctive features in die latter document. The Spirit of God not only pervades the world (as does the law of nature), but is 'that which holds all things together' (1.7). After denouncing die hedonism and self-serving Hfestyle of the wicked (1.16-2.20), the author notes that they did not know die mysteries of God (mysteria theou) (2.22), and failed to realize that God created human beings 'in the image of his own eternity' (2.23). In die present, as described in Stoic thought, they undergo testing and discipline (3.5), but 'those who trust him will understand truth, and the faithful will abide in his love' (3.9). The highest value is virtue, arete, in recollection of which is immortality, athanasia, the guarantee of dieir future (4.1). Unlike Sirach, but resembling cultural and conceptual developments in the Hellenistic world, the relationship with wisdom is pictured in mystical terms which use sexual imagery to represent the union of the

K E E Appropriating


51

seeker and wisdom. In 6.17-20, the yearning for wisdom is described as the most authentic (alethestate) desire (epithumia) for wisdom. Love of her is devotion to paideia, which manifests itself in 'the keeping of her laws'. That leads to immortality, which 'brings one near to God'. It is 'desire for wisdom' diat leads to a share in the kingdom. What God communicates to those who are devoted to wisdom is unerring knowledge of what is (ton ontdn), to know the suiicture of the world (sustasin kosmou) and the activity of the elements (energeian stoicheidn), the beginning and end and middle of times, the alternations of the solstices and the changes of the seasons, the cycles of the year and the constellations of the stars, the natures of animals, and the tempers of wild animals, the powers of spirits [or winds] and the thoughts of human beings, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots (7.17-22).

In short, the subject matters of Greek ontology, physics, astronomy, zoology, botany, cosmology, and theories about human nature. In a splendid poetic description of wisdom (7.24-8.1), die author pictures her as a transcendant reality, superior to all human or physical limitations, as 'a breath of the power of God'. This depiction of wisdom culminates in a series of abstract or philosophical terms which show the influence of Platonic diought: God as ultimate reality is not visible to human eyes, but wisdom 'is a pure (eilikrines) emanation (aporroia) of the glory of die Almighty (pantokrater)...a rejection (apaugasma) of eternal light, an immaculate (akelidoton) reflection {esoptron) of die divine activity {tes tou theou energeias)'. In 8.2 the dieme of mystical union with wisdom resumes, only this time the sexual imagery is even more explicit: 'I loved her and sought her from my youth; I desired to take her to myself as a bride, and I became enamored of her beauty'. She enjoys symbiosis widi God, and is loved by God (8.3), but she is also a mystical initiate (mustis) into the knowledge (epistemes) of God (8.4). Her labors are virtues (aretai), and she teaches self-control {sophrosune) and prudence (phronesis), justice (dikaiosune) and courage (andreian). Through the training experience which she provides (suggymnasia) one may gain understanding (phronesis). So desirable is wisdom diat die author declares, "I went about seeking how I might take her to m y s e l f (8.18). Speaking as Solomon, in 9.8 the author recalls God's command to build the temple on the holy mountain, 'and an altar in the city of [God's] habitation', which he then describes in unmistakably Platonic terms as 'a copy (mimema) of the holy tent'—the heavenly archetype

52

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

that God had prepared from the beginning. In more abstract terms, the role of wisdom is summarized in 9.9: With you is wisdom, she who knows your works and was present when you made the world; she understands what is pleasing in your sight and what is right (euthes) according to your commands.

This role of wisdom corresponds closely to that of logos in the Republic of Plato, establishing the perfect universal commonwealth, achieving ultimate justice through universal law, and thereby disciplining human passions. It is wisdom in these capacities who is pictured at work in human history, through whom 'the paths of those on earth were set right, and people were taught what pleases you, and were saved by wisdom' (9.18). The author proceeds to specify how wisdom was operative in the historical experiences of Israel, delivering die righteous and punishing die wicked. It is significant that personal names are not used in these summaries of the biblical narratives, since what is essential for the writer is the operation of the wisdom principle rather than the specifics of historical individuals or experiences. Wisdom cared for 'die first-formed father of the world (kosmos) and gave him strength to rule all things' (10.1-2), but she also effected punishment on the 'unrighteous man' who killed his brother (10.3). She provided for the survival of 'die righteous man by a paltry piece of wood' (10.4), and was the motivating force as well as the source of insight for the patriarchs who are here anonymous (10.5-14). She effected deliverance for 'a holy people and blameless race' (10.15), disciplining them and instructing them until they came to recognize their leader and their experiences as the working of God in their behalf (11.1-14). At the same time, wisdom brought fierce punishment on the foolish, who worshipped 'irrational serpents and worthless animals' (11.15), in diat diey failed to realize that God's hand which 'created the world out of formless matter' was in control of it and of the destiny of human beings (11.16-20). The mathematical dimensions of the world are manifestations of God's purpose, since he has 'arranged all things by measure, number and weight'. Clearly, the physical details of the creation are of prime importance to the author of this work: God's 'immortal spirit is in all tilings' (11.26). After detailing the divine judgments that fell on the unnamed Canaanites (12.3-11) and reaffirming die sovereignty of God (12.12-

K E E Appropriating


53

18), the author asserts that these experiences toolc place as disciplinary learning for Israel (12.19-23). The error of the neighboring nations which refused to recognize the God of Israel was that in their idolatry they worshipped the created things rather than the Creator (12.27; 13.1-3). What they failed to recognize is the cosmological argument for the existence of God: 'From the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding (analogos) perception of their Creator (genesiourgosY (13.5). The folly of idolatry is spelled out in 1 3 . 1 15.17. Examples of the consequences of idolatry are recalled—without specifying the culprits—in relation to Israel's worshipping the brass serpent in the wilderness (15.18-16.14) and the Egyptians' punishment in the form of the plagues (16.15-19). Conversely, God supplied his people with bread from heaven. For creation, serving you who made it, exerts itself to punish the unrighteous, and is kind through good actions on behalf of those who Uiist in you.

The plague of darkness (on the Egyptians presumably; 17.1-21) is contrasted with the light that floods God's people (18.1-4), 'through whom the imperishable light of the law was to be given to the world {aiony. When the death of the first-born fell on Egypt, Israel was delivered because they 'agreed with one accord to the divine law' (18.9). It was God's all-powerful word (pantodunamos logos) that leapt from heaven and accomplished the divine purpose. As the instrument of God, Moses (also unnamed) wore (1) a robe on which was depicted the whole kosmos, (2) four rows of stones symbolizing die 'glories of die ancestors', and (3) a diadem which represented the majesty (jnegalosune) of God (18.24). Aldiough most historical details are lacking, 19.1-21 describes the acUon of God at the Red Sea as cosmic in its import: 'For the whole creation in its nature was fashioned anew, complying with your commands'. The result of die plagues and the deliverance of Israel at the sea was that 'the elements (stoicheia) changed places widi one anodier': For land animals were tfansformcd into water creatures, and creatures that swim moved over to land. Fire even in water retained its normal power, and water forgot its fire-quenching nature.

54

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Flames, on the contrary, failed to consume the flesh of perishable creatures that walked among them, nor did they melt the crystalline, quick-melting kind of heavenly food.

God's ordering of die creation in accord widi his will is an ongoing process, according to this author, not an accomplished action in the past. These divine activities are not arbitrary or frivolous, however: For in everything, O Lord, you have exalted and glorified your people, and you have not neglected to help them at all times and in all places.

For the author of die Wisdom of Solomon, the point in retelling these stories of die history of Israel is not a romantic recalling of the past nor is it historic legitimation for the legal and cultic institutions of Israel. Instead, these depersonalized accounts serve as concrete illustrations of the Creator's ordering of die universe for the welfare of diose who conform to die divinely established cosmic laws and for die punishment of those who do not. 3. The Book of Enoch 1 Enoch 1-36 has the features of a typical apocalyptic document: written by a worthy and faithful member of God's people in the past, who foresees the day of tribulation that is to come in the future when God will destroy the wicked and purge the earth, and then renew it and all of creation for the benefit of the elect. In that time of fulfilment, the righteous will have the light of the knowledge of God, will receive wisdom, and will be enabled to live out dieir lives in peace and happiness (5.8-10). The wicked angels face disaster, however (6.1-9.11), and Enoch's intercession with God in their behalf is in vain (12.1-13.10). God has given him his insights into the future (14.1-7), and has taken Enoch up into his presence. From there he can see how the universe operates, widi the winds turning die heavens and moving the stars (17.1-19.3), as well as the future destiny of the fallen stars (21.1-22.14), and the blessed, peaceful, eternal abode of die righteous (24.1-36.4). There they can 'see die effect of his power, and praise him in respect to the great work of his hands'. There is a picture of divine order here in 1 Enoch, but it is not the manifestation of a structured cosmos operating in accord with an

K E E Appropriating


55

immanent law. Rather, the direct exercise of God's sovereign will is in control of all that occurs. The major focus is on the future, when God settles accounts with his creatures. Similarly, in the Similitudes of Enoch (chs. 37-71) there are pictures of the coming judgment of the wicked (38) and of the resting place of the blessed with the Lord of Spirits (39). Wisdom can find no place to dwell among humans, although her opposite number. Iniquity, does (42). The agent through whom God defeats the powers of evil and vindicates the faithful is 'one like a human being' = Son of Man, also referred to as the Messiah (46-50). This apocalypse purports to be speaking from the distant past, but there is mention that the land of God's people will be invaded by the Parthians and the Medes (56.5-8), which clearly reflects the post-exilic period, or may even point to the recurrent fear in the Roman period that these people would invade the eastern provinces of the empire. What is significant is that the literary stance in the past is of no material importance except that it provides the platform for the description of the future. In 7 En. 6 5 - 6 9 that future is depicted through the medium of information which Enoch provides to Noah concerning the doom of the wicked described in Genesis 6, where the 'sons of God' (understood to be fallen angels) took human wives, thereby violating the divinely intended orders of existence. The result as Enoch describes it (65.6-10) was that this wicked disclosure of angelic secrets led to the oppressive deeds of Satan, the exercise of occult powers and the practice of idolatry, and the exposure to humans of divine knowledge. Noah detests these secret things (65.11), but what he receives concerns the future; he is promised that from his descendants will come the kingship of God's people, and 'a fountain of the righteous and holy ones without number forever'. The flood will destroy not only wicked humanity but also the fallen angels as well (67-69). Thus what is presented as a prediction from Enoch's standpoint is in this document a prophecy of the destruction of the wicked in the end time and the vindication of the faithful remnant. Similarly, the poetic elaboration of the creation story in 69.16-25 is an oracle of the fulfilment of God's purpose in the end of the age. The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries (7 En. 72-82) is chiefly concerned with the divine order as evident in the created world, with its four directions, seven mountains and seven rivers (77-79), the pattern of the seasons (80), and the disclosure of the divine order in relation

56

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

to astronomy and the calendar. Unlike the concept of natural law, these evidences of divine order are described in order to give the reader assurance that God is so completely in control of the universe that he will bring to fulfilment his promise of punishment for the wicked and peace for the righteous. In die Dream Visions (I En. 83-90) there is a series of veiled references to the stages in the history of Israel. Through four heavenly beings, Enoch is enabled to see the punishment of die fallen stars and die ultimate destiny of God's people (87-88). The historical process diat will lead to this outcome is then sketched in veiled symbolic and metaphorical language, beginning with die flood and moving to the exodus (89.1-27), proceeding from the exodus to die entrance into the land of Canaan (89.28-40); from the period of the judges to the building of the temple (89.41-50); the period of the two kingdoms and the destruction of Jerusalem (89.51-67); from the exile to the return and die rebuilding of die temple (89.68-72). Israel is referred to under the metaphor of die 'sheep', and the temple is a 'lofty building' or simply a 'house'. Beginning with the return from the exile, however, the descriptions become more detailed. The dispersion of the sheep among the wild beasts and their harrassment by vultures and wild birds (89.73-77) obviously depict the dispersion of Jews in hellenistic times and die difficulties suffered by diem diroughout the hellenistic world. The final segment (90.6-42) describes in symbolic language the period from the time of die Maccabees to the taking over of the land by the Romans and then moves quickly to a portrayal of the ultimate defeat of the hostile powers and the building of die new temple, with God's people led by die Messiah, who is pictured as a snow-white bull widi huge homs and who presides over die herd. The concluding section of 1 Enoch (91-108) begins widi a typical apocalyptic description of the growing wickedness of the world which will lead up to a final judgment and the vindication of the righteous. Included in this section are fragments of apocalypses that depict the history of the world as a succession of 'weeks', or ordered epochs. A brief but complete Apocalypse of Weeks (93) devotes about one verse to each week, with the result diat none of die historical events depicted in die epochs can be identified widi certainty. Probably Week 5, which speaks of 'the completion of glory, a house and a kingdom shall be built', refers to the Maccabean period. The sixth week in which the 'house of the kingdom is burnt' may come from the post-70 C E

K E E Appropriating


57

destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. The rest of this section of 7 Enoch is taken up with exhortations to the elect to remain faithful and warnings of the doom of the wicked. Highlighted is the role of Noah (106-107), whose insight and foresight led him to prepare the ark for the deliverance of the faithful from judgment. Noah serves as prototype and symbol of die final salvation of die elect from die endtime judgment diat is soon to fall on die world. The final chapter, 108, which identifies itself as 'anodier Book of Enoch' simply repeats the message of encouragement to the faithful to endure to the end of the age. In spite of the different times and different audiors from which the collection we know as the 7 Enoch emerged, its attitude toward die history of Israel is uniform. The discerning elect, illumined by the apocalyptic visions that God has granted to chosen instruments, are able to see the pattern of God's purpose for his people and for the creation. Special revelation to die elect enables them to understand what God is doing, to withstand the pressures to disobey God out of a false sense of gaining advantages by illicit means, and to remain faidiful until the time of God's deliverance of his own. The historical events are in themselves of no special importance. What is crucial is the divinely-granted insight into the will and purpose of God.

4. The Acts of the Apostles Three of the speeches in Acts deal directly with the question how those who regard Jesus as the Christ are to understand the history of God's people Israel. The claim of fulfilment of Scripture is present from the opening chapter, with reference to the outpouring of the Spirit (announced in 1.4, 8 and fulfilment claimed in 2.17-20, where Joel 2.28-32 is quoted) and to the defection of Judas from the twelve (1.15-20; with a paired quotation from Pss. 69.25 and 109.8). Peter's Pentecost sermon quotes scriptures that he declares to have been fulfilled by the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus (2.22-34; cf. Pss. 16.8-11; 110.1). It is in Peter's address in the portico of Solomon, however, that the significance of Jesus is placed within the framework of the history of Israel, understood from an eschatological perspective (3.12-26). The God who is at work dirough Jesus is initially identified as 'the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fadiers'

58

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

(3.13). It is he who has raised up from the dead the one whose sufferings 'God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets' (3.18). Repentance on the part of those who rejected him is essential in order that God can inaugurate the new epoch that is in store for his people: 'So that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord' (3.19). Meanwhile, 'heaven must receive' Jesus 'until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of all his holy prophets from old' (3.21). Both the coming of diis ultimate prophet and the dire consequences of failure to heed him and his message were foretold in die Scriptures (Deut. 18.15-16, 19; Lev. 23.29). Response to him is the ultimate criterion for identity of God's people. Peter tells his hearers diat they stand in the tradition of die prophets and especially of God's covenant with Abraham ('You are the sons of the prophets and of die covenant which God gave to your fadiers'), but die potential participants in the benefits of diis covenant are the entire human race, since God said 'to Abraham, "In your posterity shall all die families of die earth be blessed'" (3.25; Gen. 22.18). The genetic descendants of Abraham are diose to whom God has sent his messenger 'first' (3.26). In short, Jesus is die criterion by which participation in the eschatological purpose of God is decided. The community of faith consists of all diose—Jews or Gentiles—who see in die crucified and risen Jesus the agent of God for renewal of his people and of the creation. What impact does this conviction have on the interpretation of die history of Israel? The first and most detailed address on this theme is the speech of Stephen (Acts 7.1-51). Abraham was shown die land of promise by God, but was never able to possess 'even a foot's length' of it (7.5). His offspring through Isaac, Jacob and the twelve patriarchs were illtreated by die Egyptians for 400 years (Gen. 15.13-14; Exod. 12.40). Yet die fulfilment of die covenantal promise to Abraham was affirmed in spite of the seeming delays, and Abraham's response to the covenant was given concrete expression in the distinctive sign, circumcision (Acts 7.8). The future orientation of the covenant is expressed in 7.17, where Stephen remarks that 'as die time of promise drew near, which God had granted to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied' until the Egyptians began the oppression of the Israelites that led to their deliverance by God in die events of the exodus. Even as these divine actions were being readied, die covenant people 'did not understand... that God was giving them deliverance by his hand' (7.25). The

K E E Appropriating


59

promise of deliverance was made explicit to Moses (7.32-34): 'I have come down to deliver them', but Moses' leadership under God as both 'ruler and deliverer' was refused by the people (7.35). Stephen recalls that Moses had promised that God would raise up for them a prophet as he had raised up Moses (7.38; Deut. 18.15). When the 'living oracles' of the law were delivered to Moses by God on Mt Sinai, the people 'refused to obey him', asking instead that Aaron provide them with gods (7.39). God allowed them to 'worship die host of heaven' (7.42), as Amos had subsequently noted (Amos 5.25-27). Although the people had the visible sign of God's presence with them in the tent which Moses was instructed to make, which Joshua took into the land of promise, which David proposed to replace with a permanent house of God and which Solomon actually erected, Stephen notes that 'the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands', and quotes Scripture (Isa. 66.1-2) to support his point. In short, die history of Israel is one of persistent misunderstanding and refusal to wait until God's time for the fulfilment of the covenant promises. Even the people's continuation of the practice of circumcision is a matter of self-deceit on their part, since they are 'uncircumcized in heart and ears' (7.51; Exod. 33.3, 5; Jer. 9.26). That is, dieir wills are predisposed against the purposes of God and they are unable to hear and heed his message to them. Their history is one of rejection of God's message and the murder of God's agents and messengers—a hostile stance diat has reached its climax in their rejection of Jesus (7.52-53). It is wholly appropriate diat Stephen declares the ultimate confirmation of diis critical assessment of die history of Israel by his vision of Christ exalted as Son of Man at die right hand of God, in fulfilment of Psalms 8 and 10. A much gentler version of this thesis of Stephen about Israel's history is offered by Paul in his sermon at the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia in Acts 13. God is seen as having chosen the covenant people and made diem great during their stay in Egypt (13.17), and as having bom with them and cared for them during the forty years in die wilderness (13.18). He provided diem widi the land, and with judges and finally a king to rule over diem there (13.19-20). It is an heir of David whom God has now sent to them as a savior, yet the people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets concerning him which they had heard read weekly. In condemning him, they fulfilled the

60

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Scriptures and brought about what God had promised to the fathers (13.23-32). The message that Paul brings to them he identifies as 'what God promised to the fathers', and then proceeds to declare it to have been fulfilled by the resurrection of Jesus (Ps. 2.7; Isa. 55.3; Ps. 16.10). These promises were not fulfilled by David, who died and whose body decayed. Rather, forgiveness of sins is available for all who trust in Jesus, as is freedom, which the law of Moses cannot provide (7.3639). Even the hostile response of some of his hearers is in fulfilment of Scripture, Paul declares, quoting Hab. 1.5 and then Isa. 49.6 to justify the extension of the invitation to Gentiles to share in the light of the knowledge of God's purpose through Jesus (7.47). In the purpose of God, Jews were to be the first to hear this message, but now they reject it and judge themselves 'unworthy of eternal life'. It is those who 'were ordained to eternal life' who believe the message (7.48), just as it is the Lord's command that Paul and his associates now 'turn to die Gentiles'. What Acts reports Paul as saying here is not a rejection of the Scriptures or of the covenantal tradition that is embodied in it, but stands rather in the later prophetic tradition of Israel, with its emphasis on eschatological expectation of fulfilment of the divine promises to Israel. Paul here declares diat diose who claim to be the people of God have failed to comprehend the full range of what God promised to their ancestors and what he has now done through Jesus in fulfilment of diose promises. The extension to die Gentiles of the invitation to share in God's people is not a radical innovation but is instead the culmination of what God announced beforehand through die prophets. The problem is with the failure of diose who see themselves as heirs of the covenant to heed and accept what God has told them. Paul's message assumes the unity and continuity of God's purpose as disclosed through the Scriptures throughout die history of Israel. 5. The Letter to the Hebrews In the opening lines of die Letter to die Hebrews, the author discloses two factors of primary importance for the subject of our research: (1) he asserts the basic continuity between the self-disclosure of God to his people in the ancient times ('of old') and the revelation in his 'Son* (1.1-2). (2) He uses technical terms from Greek philosophy in his description of die relationship of Jesus to God, thereby disclosing

K E E Appropriating


61

to the reader his ontological and epistemological assumptions. The Son is the effulgence (apaugasma) of the divine glory and the distinguishing visible evidence (character) of the divine essence. This philosophical understanding of reality is further specified in 8.1-5, where the role of the earthly priest is contrasted with that of Jesus as the archetypal high priest, in that the former deals with earthly, physical, temporally limited copies of the eternal, primary model of the sanctuary in heaven. The distinction tiie author is making in the Platonic tradition between eternal archetypes and ephemeral copies could scarcely be more explicit. The same distinction is made widi regard to Jesus' offering of himself in the heavenly sanctuary, in contrast to the repeated sacrifices made by die priests in die earthly shrine (9.23-24). Similarly, the law—important as it is—is only the 'shadow of the good things to come' (lO.I). What die author has done is to combine Platonic ontology, which distinguishes between timeless archetypes and timebound copies, with an eschatological view that contrasts historical past and present with future fulfilment of the divine purpose. Hence it is not the repeated offerings of the temple cultus but the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ which brings perfection to his people (10.11-14). Faidi dierefore is the ability to perceive the ultimate, timeless realities which God has disclosed through Jesus. They must be sharply differentiated from the imperfect, ephemeral copies which the historic sacrificial system of Israel embodied. In 11.1-2 die author defines faith as the self-existent, basic substance of what is hoped for, and the demonstration or proof of things which are not seen—either not yet, or archetypal and hence invisible to mortal eyes. That point is confirmed when he writes that in creation the word of God effected the change from the eternal archetypes to the temporal copies of earthly phenomena, 'so diat what is seen [by human eye] was made out of things which are not visible [i.e., the eternal form]'. It is against this ontological and epistemological set of assumptions that die author goes on to describe the faidi of worthies from Israel's past. God's acceptance of Abel's sacrifice is not only a fact of die past but is a continuing witness, so that 'through his faidi [Abel] is still speaking*, diereby attesting to the eternal reality of true sacrifice (11.4). Enoch's having been taken up to God without die experience of deadi shows how essential faith is, since one must 'believe that he exists' in spite of the lack of any tangible, physical evidence, and that 'he

62

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

rewards diose who seek him' across die boundaries that separate the transitory world from die realm of eternity (11.5-6). Similarly, Noah trusted what God told him about the future, even though diere there was no human basis for such an expectation. His action in building the ark was a negative judgment on this ephemeral, material world and an act of faith through which he participated in the transcendent reality (11.7). Abraham left his native land and went to live a humanly uncertain but divinely assured way of life in 'the land of promise', where his descendants, Isaac and Jacob, also resided. Their confidence was not in what they possessed, but in what God had said. Abraham did not seek to establish a human society or governmental system, but looked to God to built his polls (11.8-10). Similarly, Sarah had no human basis for expecting offspring, but by trust in the divine promise there came from her one whose progeny are innumerable (11.12). Moses refused to accept the humanly-proffered position of power as Pharaoh's son, preferring 'to share ill-treatment with the people of God' and to embark on die journey of faidi. He was enabled to do so because he 'endured as seeing him who is invisible' (11.23-27). It was this sort of faidi diat enabled the Israelites to cross die Red Sea, to capture the walled city of Jericho and to accomplish all the other marvels that are summarized in 11.32-38. In each case they were able to see beyond die immediate situation and die merely human resources. The author summarizes, 'These, though well attested by dieir faidi, did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen something better for us' (11.39). That 'something' was Jesus, who is described as the prototype or primary model (archegos) and the one who completes and accomplishes God's purpose, the (teleidtes) 'of our faith'. He persevered through suffering and death, and has already attained the place of highest honor 'at the right hand of the throne of God' (12.1-2). By faith, God's new people need no longer merely look forward in hope to the fulfilment of God's purpose. They have already 'come to Mount Zion and to the city of die living God, the heavenly (epoMran/os) Jerusalem...to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, to the spirits of the righteous who are now made complete (teleios), and to Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant...' (12.22-24). Proleptically, die new community of faith has access to and in the present age is already living widiin the context of eternal reality. The experiences of men and women of faith in the days of ancient Israel anticipated diat

K E E Appropriating


63

ideal context and reladonship, and the stories of them are to be understood accordingly. What characterizes all these figures from the ancient history of Israel is that they 'all died in faith, not having received the things that were promised, but having seen and greeted diem from afar, they acknowledged their existence as aliens and exiles in the earth' ( 1 1 . 1 3 ) . They sought a homeland (patris), and desire one diat is better than the geographic, terrestrial space where they resided: namely a celesdal realm, a polls prepared for diem by God. The dimensions of this faithful hope are a blend of die ontological and die eschatological, of ultimate reality and divinely fulfilled promises which together are seen as constituting a new order for God's people. 6. Conclusion Although the five writers reviewed in this essay drew upon the same basic biblical material—die stories of die patriarchs and die exodus, of die conquest of Canaan and the establishment of die monarchy—diey each interpret the stories in ways they serve their own distinctive ends in their own specific time and cultural circumstances. In each case there are overarching assumptions about God and the creation, about human knowledge, about divine purpose for the creation, and for God's people. In each case cultural and social conditions of the writer's time influence directly and pervasively the ways in which the biblical material is understood and its meaning inferred. At the height of the epoch when Hellenistic culture was having maximum and widespread influence on Jewish thinking, the assumptions of Sirach about reality and the work of God in die world were powerfully shaped by the dominant philosophy of that time: Stoicism. Immanent law is seen as the divine force at work within the created order, and its oral dimensions are evident in die Mosaic law, to which God's people are called to obedience. When the system of Platonic ontology becomes a significant cultural force in the Roman period, the nature of creation and die sense of the divine movement within history as exemplified by the history of Israel are perceived as temporal manifestations in human experience of ultimate reality which remains hidden from ordinary view in the eternal sphere. This way of diinking is apparent in the interpretation of Israel's history in the Jewish Wisdom of Solomon and die Christian Letter to the Hebrews. The theme of eschatological fulfilment of the prophetic promises of

64

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

God shapes the thought of the sermons in Acts. The future of God's people has been foreseen by the prophets, and God is asserted to be at work through Jesus effecting the fulfilment of that plan for the renewal and vindication of his people. What God has purposed was announced through the prophets, but its implications involve alt human beings who see in Jesus the agent of God to bring that purpose to fhiition. Stephen emphasizes the judgmental aspects of this point of view, on condemning the insensitivity and unbelief of historic Israel, while Paul underscores the inclusive potential of the message about what God has begun to do through Jesus. Reaction to aggressive pagan culture and to the determined efforts of Hellenistic rulers to conform Jewish life and diought to die GrecoRoman patterns is the potent force that contributed to the rise of apocalyptic, as is evident in such writings as Daniel and I Enoch. God's will for and through his people can triumph only beyond cataclysmic judgment which will bring to an end the present dominant socio-cultural order. With the end of that structure and the political power that seeks to impose it on God's people, the faithful elect community will be vindicated. To them alone has God granted insights into his past and present activity in behalf of his own people. Thus it is not the choice of biblical material for interpretation and application that is determinative, but the life-world of assumptions and values which are operative in the minds of interpreters and their intended readers.

'PACIFISM' A N D 'PASSIVE RESISTANCE' IN APOCALYPTIC WRITINGS: A CRITICAL EVALUATION

Gordon

Zerbe

Numerous early Jewish and New Testament writings emerged in response to the specific crises of violent persecution at the hands of oppressive foreign and/or imperial rule. In recent scholarship four apocalyptic writings in particular, namely Daniel, the Testament of Moses, Revelation and 2 Baruch, have been identified as promoting the stance of 'passive resistance' or 'pacificism' in response to this situation.' These writings express a fervent hope for the final defeat and punishment of these oppressors and lack any explicit rejection of military resistance. Nevertheless, it is argued that they recommend deferring diis vengeance to God and God's special agents, oppose the opdon of armed resistance, and favor the stance of endurance, suffering and martyrdom. The purpose of diis essay is to review the evidence in favor of diis interpretation, given the presence of ambiguous evidence and alternative explanations. This essay, therefore, will contribute to the question of whether or not there is continuity in the political perspective between certain apocalyptic writings of Early Judaism, including the Pseudepigrapha, and those of the New Testament. Before we examine the evidence of these particular documents, however, some questions must be raised regarding the meaning and descriptive adequacy of terms such as 'pacifism' and 'passive resistance' to characterize the political perspective of groups or the writings in question. In the literature on the writings under investigation, 'pacifism' and 'passive or nonviolent resistance' are generally 1. See esp. J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM, 16; Missoula. MT: Scholars Press, 1977), pp. 191-222; A. Yarbro Collins, 'The Political Perspective of the Revelation to John', JBL 96 (1977), pp. 241-56; F.J. Murphy, '2 Baruch and the Romans', JBL 104 (1985), pp. 663-69.

66

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

used interchangeably. This leads to some unclarity. In common usage, 'pacifism' entails the principled rejection of violent or armed resistance,^ To describe a perspective as 'advocating passive resistance', however, is less precise and somewhat misleading. First, the action of people whose stance is so described may not be strictly passive, possibly entailing ideological resistance through pedagogy (the maskilim of Daniel), non-cooperation, or non-violent protest.' Thus the language of 'non-violent resistance' is perhaps more apt. Secondly, this perspective may entail the preference for or use of non-violent forms of resistance, not necessarily the categorical rejection of armed resistance. Thus in the discussion to follow, it will be necessary to ask not merely if a given document advocates 'passive or nonviolent resistance', but also if it goes so far as to advocate 'pacifism'. In this connection, the language of 'quietism' and 'non-resistance' must also be evaluated, since these terms are also used to describe the perspective of some of the writings under investigation. These terms focus on the response of withdrawal and passivity, and do not necessarily describe a form of resistance. While such stances might be motivated by a 'pacifistic' ideology, this is not necessarily so. Sometimes such a perspective is motivated on pragmatic grounds, for instance, by the interest of 'taming' unconquerable and ruthless power instead of provoking certain destruction." We turn, then, to consider the four writings identified. The Book of Daniel The book of Daniel was most likely produced in the circles of certain maskilim, 'wise teachers', who were leading the faithful in resisting the Hellenizing reforms instituted under Antiochus IV Epiphanes.' 2. In this discussion, we are limiting ourselves to a discussion of options from the perspective of responding to oppressive powers, and are not referring to the possible use or rejection of arms for purposes other than resistance to such powers. 3. For examples of non-violent protest by individuals or groups in first-century Palestine, see esp. R.A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco; Harper & Row, 1987), pp. 61-120. 4. This is Philo's perspective, as evident esp. in Somn. 2.78-92. See further G. Zerbe, Non-Retaliation in Early Jewish and New Testament Texts: Ethical Themes in Social Contexts (JSPSup, 13; Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), ch. 2. 5. Collins. Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 207-14; idem, Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 36-38.

Z E R B E 'Pacificism'and'Passive

Resistance'

67

Among the faithful who stand firm and take action' (11.34), these maskilim are described as 'giving understanding to many' (11.33), 'leading many to righteousness' (12.3), and 'falling by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder' (11.33).* Through the publication of the book of Daniel, the maskilim exhort their fellow Jews to remain steadfast to the covenant in the face of persecution, especially by helping them understand their situation in broad apocalyptic perspective. The readers are assured of the imminent and final victory of God and his heavenly army over the forces of evil. The interpretation that Daniel also promotes the stance of passive resistance in direct opposition to the armed resistance of the Maccabees is based variously on the following lines of evidence. First, some who take this view argue that the reference to 'little help' that the persecuted faithful receive in 11.34 represents an ironic and disparaging comment regarding the Maccabees.'' Secondly, the supposed derivation of Daniel from the circles of the Hasidim, interpreted as a peace-minded group during the Hellenistic crisis, is used to support die pacifisdc interpretadon.* Thirdly, 11.14 is seen as a disparagement of violent mediods: 'sons of violence {b'ne parisim) among your own people shall rise u p to establish a vision {I'ha '"mid hazon); but they 6. There is some ambiguity in 11.32-35 and 12.3, 10 as to the precise description of the maskilim in relation to the rabbim, 'the many*, whom they teach. Dan. 11.33-35 and 12.3 seem to describe the maskilim as a specific group, while 12.10 seems to identify the maskilim with the 'many' who understand. Moreover, there is ambiguity in the third person pronouns in 11.33-34. It is uncertain whether those who fall are limited to the maskilim or inclusive of 'the many'; and it is unclear whether those who die are to be identified as the masklim and/or as the faithful 'many' (cf. 12.10). 7. E.g. J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1927), p. 458; A. Bentzen. Daniel (HAT, 19; Tubingen: Mohr. 2nd edn, 1952), p. 87; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 11 (trans. D. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row. 1965), p. 315; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 90, 94; D.S. Russell. Daniel (Philadelphia: Westminster Pi«ss, 1981), pp. 208-209; A. Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (tfans. D. Pellauer; Atlanto: John Knox, 1979),p. 230 n.50;K. Koch. DoiS«c/i Don/W(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1980), p. 165. 8. E.g. O. Ploger. Theocracy and Eschatology (tfans. S. Rudman; Richmond, VA: John Knox. 1968). pp. 14-17; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, I (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), pp. 176-78; Lacocque. Daniel, pp. 7-8, 230.

68

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

shall fall'.' Fourthly, and foremost in recent treatments, it is argued that the description of the final drama shows that the book 'opts for a purely passive role vis-a-vis the oppressive power'.'" (a) The depiction of the final apocalyptic drama represents a distinctive appropriation of the holy war tradition. The author does not bring to mind the historic battles of Joshua and David, but uses the ancient combat myth to interpret the current situation and to point to its imminent resolution, (b) The emphasis is on the direction acdon and intervendon by God (7.10-11, 26; 8.25; 9.27) and die heavenly annies (11.45-12.1). The reference to God's deliverance 'by no human hand' (8.25; cf. 2.34, 45) in particular is seen as having 'a polemical ring to it, given die historical context'." (c) The elect do not play an active role in die final batde. Since the activity of Judas Maccabeus was contemporaneous with the writing of Daniel, such an omission is seen as 'an expression of opposition to die Maccabean revolt'.'^ The proper role of the elect includes 'standing firm' (which means keeping the covenant, 11.32), 'making many wise' (11.33), suffering (11.35) and 'waiting' (12.12). The stance recommended to the elect, then, is that of endurance and waiting (12.12); diere is no call to armed resistance. In response to the first argument, it must be observed that Dan. 11.34 is actually rather o b s c u r e . " J.J. Collins argues, against the majority of interpreters, that the 'little help' refers not to the Maccabees, but to those few among the 'many' who respond to instiiiction and join the efforts of die maskilim (11.33a, 34b)."' While the 'little help' probably refers to the Maccabees, as the majority of interpreters hold, there is no reason to suppose diat diis reference reflects a disparagement because of their violent methods. H.H. Rowley considers the reference an indication diat the author actually supports the Maccabean 9. My translation. For tiiis interpretation, see e.g. J.A. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees (AB, 41; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 43-44. 10. Yarbro Collins. 'Political Perspective', p. 243; similarly Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 191-222; Lacocque, Daniel, p. 230 n. 50. 11. Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 244. 12. Yarbro Collins. 'Political Perspective', p. 244. 13. Yarbro Collins ('Political Perspective', p. 244) concedes this. For a review of proposals regarding the meanings of various parts of this verse, see V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (trans. S. Applebaum; New York: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1959; repr. New York: Atheneum, 1982). p. 477; Lacocque, Daniel, p. 230. 14. Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, p. 207.

ZERBE 'Pacificism'and'PassiveResistance'

69

uprising while not building his hopes on i t . " Arguing similarly, V. Tcherikover claims diat 11.34 reflects the fact that the Hasidim, whom he sees as a scribal group and the circle from which the book of Daniel emerged, were the main leaders in the resistance to Andochus and diat die Maccabees provided diem with some support.'* Dan. 11.34 remains somewhat obscure and hence cannot be used as clear evidence that the book of Daniel promotes a pacifisdc stance in opposition to the resistance of the Maccabees. The supposed derivation of Daniel from the circles of the Hasidim also cannot be used to support a pacifistic reading of Daniel. First, recent research has shown tiiat the scanty information on the Hasidim makes it nearly impossible to reconstruct a useful profile of this group, if indeed it can be considered a well-defined g r o u p . " Secondly, the available texts cannot sustain the traditional reconstruction that the Hasidim were a peace-minded group who joined with the Maccabees reluctantly and withdrew from the alliance as soon as religious freedoms were established.'* 2 Mace. 14.6 refers to the Hasidim as rebellious Jews in general, whose leader was Judas Maccabeus. 1 Maccabees distinguishes the Hasidim from the Maccabees, apparendy to glorify the role of the Maccabees in the resistance, but still sees them as 'mighty warriors (ischuroi dunamei) of Israel' who fought alongside die Maccabees (2.42). The account of die Hasidim's peace mission in I Mace. 7.8-17, which must also be read in terms of its likely Hasmonean bias," explains die pursuit of peace as emerging from the Hasidim's acceptance of die priestly credentials of Alcimus, not from any rejection of fighting. Thirdly, the identification of the 15. H.H. Rowley. The Relevance of Apocalyptic (tiew York: Association Press, 3rd edn, 1963), pp. 21, 108; see also Russell, Daniel, p. 209. 16. Tciierikover, Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 198, 477 n. 37. H. Sahlin ('Antiochus IV Epiphanes und Judas MakkabSus*, 5T23 [1969], pp. 41-68) makes Daniel a supporter of the Maccabean resistance by going too far in identifying Judas the 'son of man*. 17. See esp. P. Davies, 'Hasidim in the Maccabean Period', JJS 28 (1977). pp. 127-40; similarly Horsley, Spiral of Violence, pp. 66-68. 18. See e.g. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 196-98; W.R. Farmer, 'Hasideans', IDB, II, p. 528; Horsley, Spiral of Violence . pp. 66-67. 19. In the parallel account in 2 Mace. 14. Judas participates in the negotiations, something which I Maccabees may have wanted to suppress; see e.g. Davies, 'Hasidim', pp. 137-38; Horsley, Spiral of Violence, pp. 66-67; cf. Goldstein, 7 Maccabees, pp. 88, 330-36.

70

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Hasidim with the refugees in the caves who were slaughtered on the Sabbath because of their refusal to fight (1 Mace. 2.29-41) cannot contribute to a pacifistic profile of the Hasidim. This identification has no textual basis;^" and the refusal of the refugees to fight was based on their Sabbath convictions, a feature of their zeal for the Law.^' As Tcherikover puts it, 'The very fact that the soldiers saw fit to attack them on the seventh proves convincingly that on any other day they could have expected stiu-dy resistance'." The reference in 11.14 to 'sons of violence' who rise up alludes to aid that certain Jews gave Antiochus during the uprisings against the Egyptians during the reign of Ptolemy V, which culminated in the defeat of the Egyptians by the Seleucids at Paneas around 200 BCE (11.15-16).^' Little is known of this Jewish uprising. It was probably led by a pro-Seleucid and Hellenizing faction which had hopes of completely throwing off the foreign yoke and thus of fulfilling the prophetic predictions ('to estabHsh a vision', 11.14).^" The author identifies this group as 'son of violence', either as a disparagement of the character of this group as opportunists and Hellenizers or because of their violent rebellious activity. While this text may reflect an opposition to armed resistance as a matter of principle and faith, it remains somewhat obscure. The primary evidence for the pacifistic interpretation, as hi. Collins and A. Yarbro Collins concede,^' rests in the depiction of the final drama and the role of the elect in it. On the positive side, the presentation of Daniel is indeed striking when it is contrasted with the military, synergistic ideology of other groups and writings, particularly those that are apocalyptic in character. Accounts or depictions of the Hellenistic crisis that exhibit a synergistic ideology, in which human military action works in concert with the divine and heavenly action.

20. See esp. Davies, 'Hasidim', pp. 133-34. 21. On the restriction against making war on tlie Sabbath, cf. Jub. 50.12; 2 Mace. 6.11. For the refusal of some militants to fight on the Sabbath, see Josephus, War 2.16.4 §392; Ant 14.4.2 §63; R. North, 'The Maccabean Sabbatical Years', Bib 34 (1953). pp. 501-15. 22. Tcherikover. Hellenistic Civilization, p. 198. 23. See Josephus, Ant. 12.3.3 §129-44; Ucocque, Daniel, p. 224. 24. See e.g. Lacocque, Daniel, p. 224. He points to Ezek. 13.6-7, which speaks about the 'vision of falsehood' (mah'zeh-saw'') perpeuated in the name of God. 25. See above, n. 10.


Resistance'

71

are evident in 1 Maccabees,^* 2 Maccabees," Judith,^* Jubilees 2 3 , ^ ' the Animal Apocalypse

(1 En. 8 5 - 9 0 ) , ' " and the Apocalypse

of Weeks

(1 En. 9 3 . 1 - 1 0 ; 9 1 . 1 1 - 1 7 ) . "

26. Divine vengeance is enacted by human agents (1 Mace. 2.40,50,66-68; 3.38,43-44), even though the victories are possible only through God's help (3.18-22; 4.8-11). i t is not on the size of the army that victory in battle depends, but strength comes from Heaven... [Heaven] will crush them before us' (3.19,22, RSV). For the specific ways in which the exploits of Judas are based on Old Testament paradigms of holy war, see Yarbro Collins, "Political Perspective', pp. 242-43; Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 195-97. On the motif of decisive help from God/Heaven, cf. IQM 11.1-6, 17; 12.4-10; 13.14-16; 18.13-19.2. A long-standing view at Qumran is that the elect must take the stance of passivity, subservience and nonretaliation in relation to oppressors in the present order of time, but will take an active role in the battle against the enemies of God once the final day of vengeance arrives (1QS9.12-23, 25; 10.17-21; II.1-2; IQM). For a discussion of this perspective, see Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, ch. 3. 27. The Maccabean victory comes through the manly fighting of Judas and his warriors (2 Mace. 2.19-22; cowards desert, 8.13), but only because aid came from God (2.21; 5.1-4; 8.16-20, 23-24. 34; 9.4, 8; 10.29-31; 15.21-23) who was moved from anger to mercy (2.22; 5.20; 7.33, 38; 8.5, 29). Although the calamity came because of Israel's sins (6.12-17; 7.18, 32), God was moved because of the blood of the martyrs and their appeal for vengeance, because of the Temple, and because of the deeds of blasphemy (7.17, 19, 29, 31, 35-37; 8.2-4). 28. Judith stresses that military victory depends on help from God, not military might. Its central assertion is apparent in Judith's prayer: 'For your power depends not upon numbers, nor your might upon men of strength. For you are God of the lowly, helper of the oppressed, upholder of the weak, protector of the forlorn, savior of those without help" (9.11, RSV). 29. Jub. 23 supports the use of the sword against apostates (23.20; cf. 1 Mace. 2.44; 3 Mace. 7.10-15; / En. 91.11-12) and claims that time of peace will arrive when the people 'will drive out their enemies' with God's help (23.30-31). On internal grounds, Jub. 23 dates to around 168 BCE; and the entire book probably dates between 161 and 140; see O.S. Wintermute, OTP, II, p. 44. 30. Judas is celebrated as a mighty warrior (90.9, 10, 13) who is helped by Michael (90.14, 17) and by the Lord himself who comes in wrath against Israel's enemies (90.15, 18). The final victory comes when the people are given 'a great sword' in order to destroy all their enemies (90.19, 34). On internal grounds the Animal Apocalypse can be dated between 164 and 160 (Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 93) or before the recapture of Jerusalem and the rededication of the Temple (M. Black, 77ie Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP, 7; Uiden: Brill. 1985), p. 2 0 ) . 31. The faithful during the Antiochian crisis will destroy sinners and cut off the roots of oppression (91.11a). 1 £n. 91.1 lb, where it is said that the elect destroy

72

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

On the other hand, there are serious Hmitations to this evidence. First, the argument is mainly one from silence, insofar as it is the lack of synergistic militant ideology, particularly the lack of any role for the elect in final battle, that is noted. It is argued that the historical context, namely the contemporaneous activity of Judas Maccabeus, makes this omission significant. In response, however, one can argue that the author may in fact see a certain limited value in armed resistance (11.34). Moreover, one can argue that if indeed the author is attempting to demarcate alternative methods of resistance and to reject armed mediods in particular, one would expect a more explicit rejection of violent resistance (cf. Mt. 26.51-53; Jn 18.36). That is, die omission of any rejection of armed resistance is probably more significant than the omission of any active role for the elect in die final apocalyptic drama. The alternative, of course, is that the author simply favors 'passive resistance' and does not reject armed resistance. Secondly, the emphasis on the transcendent power of God who accomplishes his purpose 'by no human hand' need not represent a polemic against the Maccabees. The author may not be condemning armed resistance as such, but may be claiming that real help is with God, and for this reason also calls the action of the Maccabees 'little help' (11.34). Similarly, the focus on Michael as the supreme deliverer (12.1) may not be intended to rule out human participation in the conflict. Indeed, the two-storey conception which affirms that the decisive batdes are waged in die heavenly arena is also characteristic of writings that display a synergistic, military ideology'^ and so does not specifically indicate a pacifistic perspective. Thirdly, the emphasis of the posture of the elect as remaining faidiful to the covenant and being willing to die on its behalf expresses a theme that was also fundamental to the Maccabean movement.'' The sinners and oppression with the sword, is lacking in 4QEn^ and may be a later expansion; see Black, / Enoch, p. 292. The final victory comes when the faithful are given a sword for the destruction of sinners and oppressors (91.12). Black (/ Enoch, pp. 20, 293) supposes that the Apocalypse of Weeks should be dated to before the rededication of the Temple; J.J. Collins {Apocalyptic Imagination [New York: Crossroad, 1984], p. 49) dates it before 160. Cf. also / En. 95.3; 96.1; 98.12 for synergistic holy war motifs. Collins (Apocalyptic, pp. 55-56) notes that the Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks affirm a 'militant role for the righteous*. 32. On the two-storey conception of military conflict, see e.g. Isa. 24.21-23; 1 Mace. 7.41-42; 2 Mace. 2.21; 5.1-4; 10.29-31; 15.8-16. See further nn. 26-28. 33. See esp. I Mace. 1.62-63; 2.19-68, esp. 2.50.


Resistance'

73

belief that martyrdom on behalf of the covenant would have an atoning effect for the community and the individual (11.35; 12.10) was also held by those who favored military resistance.'* Fourthly, it is not entirely accurate to say that the role of elect in die final conflict is purely passive. Instead, die faithful 'stand firm and take action' (11.32). This reference is also rather ambiguous. While die language of 'standing firm' seems to refer especially to remaining faithful to die covenant (cf. 11.30-32a)," 'taking action* is inappropriately limited to the task of instruction.'* 'Taking action' refers to the response of all the faithful, while instruction is the special vocation of die maskilim (11.33; 12.3). Indeed, since die language of 'taking action' i'sh) throughout the visions refers especially to military action,'^ it seems unwarranted to rule out the possibility that 'taking action' might include military resistance. Fidelity to die covenant and armed resistance are closely related in contemporaneous texts.'* The preceding rejoinders point to the ambiguous nature of the evidence. T w o final features of the text, however, must also be assessed: a possible allusion in 12.12 to die Isaianic tradition of taking the stance of trust and waiting in view of God's exclusive prerogative for security and defense; and the modelling of the action and fate of the maskilim on diat of the suffering servant of Isaiah. A makarism placed nearly at the end of die book affirms: 'Blessed i'asre) is the one who waits (hamhakeh) and comes to the thousand diree-hundred and thirty-five days' (12.12, RSV). This blessing seems to recall die language of Isa. 30.18: 'Blessed i'asre) are all diose who wait {kol hoke) for [ Y a h w e h ] ' . " In Isaiah, diis blessing functions to 34. See e.g. 2 Mace. 6-8. In 1 Maccabees what stays God's wrath (e.g. 1.64) are Mattathias's 'zeal for the Law' (2.23-26; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, pp. 114-15) and the military action of Judas (3.3-8). For martyrdom among the 'Zealots', see M. Hengel, Die Zeloten (AGJU, 1; Uiden: Brill. 1961), pp. 261-76 ('Die Bereitschaft zum Martyrium'). 35. Thus Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 244. 36. Contra Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 208, 213. 37. See esp. 8.4, 12, 24; 11.3. 7, 16. 24, 39. The combination of 'standing firm' (hzjq) and 'taking action' to refer to military activity is apparent in 11.5, 6, 7; with different terms for 'standing', cf. 8.4. 12; 11.16. God's deliverance is denoted with the verb 'to take action' in 9.4,19. 38. See esp. I Mace. 2.19-68. 39. The parallels in Pss. 34.8; 84.12; Jer. 17.7-8 are not quite as close to Dan. 12.12 as that of Isa. 30.18.

74

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

close a passage which claims that the strength of the elect is their repentance, quietness and trust, not their military might (30.15-18). It is tempting, therefore, to see here a reference to an old Israelite tradition that favors the passive stance of mist and opposes the reliance on military might on the basis of Yahweh's elusive prerogative for defense and security.*" Attributing such a meaning to Dan. 12.12, however, probably reads too much into the text. The verse was probably added immediately prior to the publication of the book after calculations for the time of the end were adjusted and is primarily an encouragement for the faithful to accept some delay in the arrival of the end.*' A feature that might provide a more significant indication of a pacifistic tradition is the use of the image of the suffering servant from Isaiah 52-53 to express the action and fate of the maskilim.*^ The action of the maskilim in relation to 'the many' parallels that of the servant in relation to 'the many' (Isa. 53.11, 12). In particular, the references to the maskilim 'making many understand' (yabtnH larabbim, 11.33) and 'making many righteous' {masdtqe harabbim, 12.3) allude direcdy to Isa. 53.11: 'by his knowledge my righteous servant will make many righteous' (b'da'td yasdlq sadiq 'abdi larabbim). The atoning character of the deadis (Dan. 11.34; 12.10), then, appears to be based on the model of the suffering servant. Similarly, the exaltation of the servant (Isa. 52.13; 53.10-12) is a model for the maskilim and martyrs (12.2-3).*' Finally, the usage of the term maskilim is probably adapted from the first line of the poem: 'See, my servant will act wisely (yasktl 'abdi, Isa. 52.13). It would seem very likely, dien, that die servant's pattern of non-retaliation and passive acceptance of suffering (53.7; cf. 50.4-11) also provided the maskilim a model for proper action. 40. On this tradition, whicli appears in certain Psalms (20; 30; 44; 118), Hosea and Isaiah, and which contrasts with the royal ideology, see B.C. OUenburger. Zon, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cub (JSOTSup, 41; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1987), pp. 81 -144. 41. E.g. Lacocque. Dani'e/, p. 250. 42. On Daniel's use of suffering servant text, see esp. H.L. Ginsberg, 'The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant', VT3 (1953). pp. 400-404. 43. For another use of this tradition of suffering and exaltation, see Wis. 2.1220; 3; 4.20-5.14 (compare esp. Dan. 11.32, 35; 12.3 and Wis. 2.13; 3.6-7) and 1 En. 62-63. See Lacocque. Daniel, p. 230; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, pp. 89, 178-79, 219-20.

Z E R B E 'Pacificism'and'PassiveResistance'

75

What can be concluded, then, in regard to the perspective of Daniel on the proper response of the elect to persecution at the hands of illegitimate foreign rule? It is clear that Daniel should be identified as a piece of resistance literature."'' But while it is probable that Daniel promotes passive resistance, it is merely possible that Daniel additionally rejects military action categorically and thus represents a pacifistic perspective. The maskilim who produced Daniel certainly envisioned a salvation much more grand and cosmic than that offered by tiie Maccabean freedom-fighters. The focus is on the cataclysmic intervention of God into history, the time of the 'end' which the elect must await ( 1 1 . 3 5 ; 1 2 . 6 , 1 3 ) . While the maskilim, dierefore, probably did not put their hopes in the Maccabean movement, it is not certain that diey rejected the limited value of military action against the powers of evil. The focus on God's action and the lack of a role for the elect in the depiction of the final drama do not specifically indicate a pacifistic posture. Moreover, it is not clear that the action of the faithful in 'taking action' ( 1 1 . 3 2 ) excludes military action; and it is probable that 1 1 . 3 4 acknowledges die limited value of armed resistance. The maskilim, however, seem to favor the stance of passive resistance. Their action focuses on teaching, 'helping many understand' ( 1 1 . 3 3 ) . Even this detail is somewhat inconclusive. It is not clear whedier this action derives from a commitment to passive resistance as a matter of principle, or whether it reflects the typical activity of the intellectual leaders of a people.*' The most significant evidence which indicates that passive resistance is the favored stance of the maskilim is die use of the model of die suffering servant to describe their action and fate. The Testament of Moses The present form of the Testament of Moses (T. Mos.) was probably produced in Palestine"* between 4 BCE and 3 0 CE, although it may 44. Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, pp. 191-93. 45. Horsley, Spiral of Violence, p. 66. 46. T. Mos. is extant in only one incomplete and corrupt MS of a Latin translation of a Greek version, which in turn was probably based on a Hebrew or Aramaic original. See R.H. Charles, The Assumption of Moses (London: Black, 1897), pp. xxvi-xlv; D.H. Wallace, 'The Semitic Origin of the Assumption of Moses', TZ 11 (1955), pp. 321-28.

76

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

represent an earlier edition composed during the Maccabean revolt and interpolated or re-edited in the early first century."^ The T. Mos. is set as a farewell exhortation and prediction by Moses to Joshua and has been apdy described as 'a rewriting of Deut. 31-34'.'** Its primary message is to exhort readers to follow the commandments (9.4, 6; 12.10) and to assure them diat God will speedily answer the cry of die righteous and deliver the elect (12.12). The question now is whether the T. Mos. additionally 'advocates a policy of nonviolence',"*' displays a 'pacifistic ideology','" or 'implies a program of non-resistance' or 'passive resistance'." The major portion of the document consists of a predictive delineation of the history of Israel from die entry into Canaan until die end of days (2.1-10.10). The final eschatological drama begins with the rule of destructive and godless men who claim to be righteous (7.110) and continues with the worst punishment and wradi (persecution) that Israel has experienced since creation, at the hands of a 'king of

47. Arguing tiiat the entire document emerged in the first century are Charles. Assumption of Moses, pp. Iv-lvii; Rowley, Relevance, p. 108; E.-M. Laperrousaz, Le Testament de Mo'ise (Paris: Librarie d'Amerique et d'Orient, 1970), J.J. Collins, "The Date and Provenance of the Testament of Moses', in G.W.E. Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses (SCS, 4; Cambridge, MA: Scholars Press, 1973); E. Brandenburger, 'Himmelfahrt Moses', JSHRZ,\I2, pp. 59-60; J. Priest, 'The Testament of Moses', OTP, I, pp. 920-21. Preferring a second-century date, but with differing views as to the extent of the redaction, are J. Licht. 'Taxo, or the Apocalyptic Doctrine of Vengeance', JJS 12 (1961), pp. 95-103; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 80; J. Goldstein, 'The Testament of Moses: Its Content, its Origin, and its Attestation in Josephus', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 44-47; Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, p. 199; A. Yarbro Collins, "The Composition and Redaction of the Testament of Moses 10', HTR 69 (1976), pp. 179-86. 48. D.J. Harrington, 'Interpreting Israel's History: The Testament of Moses as a Rewriting of Deut. 31-34', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 59-70; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, pp. 80-82. 49. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 103; cf. idem, 'Date and Provenance', pp. 23, 26, 30; 'it set the model of pacifistic piety'. 50. Nickelsburg. Jewish Literature, p. 213. 51. D.M. Rhoads, 'The Assumption of Moses and Jewish History: 4 BC-AD 48', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, p. 56. Also taking this general position are Charles, Assumption, pp. li-lii (it represents 'Pharisaic Quietism'); S. Zeitlin, 'The Assumption of Moses and the Bar Kockba Revolt', JQR 38 (1947-48), pp. 1-45; Yarbro Collins, 'Political PerspecUve', pp. 244-45.


77

kings of the earth' who has supreme authority (8.1-5).'^ In the midst of this p e r s e c u t i o n / ' a Levite named T a x o ' " will come. He speaks to his sons, nodng first die severity of die persecution and its apparent injustice (9.2-3). He continues: (4) Now, therefore, sons, heed me. If you investigate, you will surely know that never did (our) fathers nor their ancestors tempt God by transgressing his commandments. (5) Yea, you will surely know that this is our stfength. Here is what we shall do. (6) We shall fast for a three-day period and on the fourth day we shall go into a cave, which is in the open country. There let us die rather than transgress the commandments of the Lord of Lords, the God of our fathers. (7) For if we do this, and do die, our blood will be avenged before the Lord (9.4-7)." Immediately following this exhortation is a hymn describing the coming salvation (10.1-10). After an introductory statement (lO.I), die arrival of die kingdom is described in three stages or pictures. ( I ) The angel {nuntius),

identical or analogous to M i c h a e l , " 'will

52. Although in an eariier edition ch. 8 may have referred specifically to the Antiochian persecution, in its present form it takes the form of a generalized 'eschatological tableau'; so Collins, 'Date and Provenance', pp. 18-22; Laperrousaz, Testament, pp. 122-24; Brandenburger, 'Himmelfahrt Moses' p. 60. The displacement theories whereby both chs. 8 and 9 (Charles) or ch. 8 alone (Rowley, Relevance, p. 107) are (re)placed before ch. 6 break the obvious flow of the eschatological drama. 53. The text has illo dicenle ('while he was speaking'. Priest, OTP), which would constitute a major aporia between chs. 8 and 9. Brandenburger ('Himmelfahrt Moses', p. 75) favors the emendation illo ducente ('while he (the king] was ruling') instead of the emendations illo edicente ('he (the Lord] was decreeing/ordaining') and illo die erit ('in that day', Charles). 54. Interpretations of the meaning of the name Taxo and of his historical or eschatological identity are legion and the reference remains obscure. See Charles, Assumption, pp. 35-36; Rowley, Relevance, pp. 149-56. 55. Citations from Priest in OTP. Similar martyr and cave stories occur in the Maccabean literature and may provide the basis for the present story: I Mace. 1.53; 2.29-38; 2 Mace. 6.11-7.40; 10.6; Josephus. Ant. 12.6.2 §§268-78; 14.15.5 §§420-30. See Charles, Assumption, pp. 33-34. On T. Mos. 9.6-7 cf. esp. I Mace. 2.37; 2 Mace. 7.2, 6, 14, 17, 19, 34-37. 56. T.W. Manson ('Miscellanea Apocalyptica', JTS 46 (1945], p. 43) argues that since an angelic messenger is usually U^slilerated from angelos as angelus, here nuntius designates a human messenger (Elijah). At most, this argument can show that the Latin tfanslator had a human messenger in mind. Most interpreters

78

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

avenge them of their enemies* (10.2). (2) God himself will go forth from his dirone with wrath on behalf of this people (10.3), effecting cosmic upheavals (10.4-6), and 'alone*" will work 'vengeance on the nations* (10.7). (3) Israel will be raised to the heights of heaven and will enjoy bliss (10.8-10). The pacifistic interpretation of the T. Mos. is based primarily on the following three factors: (1) the character of the action by the hero Taxo (ch. 9); (2) the manner in which the final victory emerges (ch. 10); and (3) the implied connection between these two.'* It is difficult to deny the paraenetic intention of the model and exhortation of the end-time hero Taxo for the readers, particularly in view of the testamentary form of the exhortation." The exhortation (9.4-7) implies a passive stance in relation to persecutors. Taxo emphasizes that their strength {vires, power, might) is to keep the conunandments, implicitly not to display military prowess (9.4). Accordingly, Taxo prepares himself and his sons for possible martyrdom, committing his cause to God. The interpretation diat the course of martyrdom was deliberately sought,*" however, goes beyond the textual evidence.

understand nuntius as the archangel Michael. So Charles, Assumption, pp. 39-41; Priest, OTP, I, p. 932. 57. Taking solus adverbially (= Hcb. Pbaddo) as modifying the verb 'will surge forth' (with Charles, Assumption, p. 41; Priest, OTP, I. p. 932) instead of adjectivally as modifying 'eternal one' (Brandenburger, 'Himmelfahrt Moses'). 58. Charles {Assumption, pp. li-lii) also suggests that the author's silence on the Maccabean uprising in the face of his obvious knowledge of the movement is 'impressive' and 'an emphatic censure of their appeal to arms'. While opposition to the Hasmoneans is also evident (6.1), neither of these factors specifically indicates that die T. Mos. rejects armed resistance. 59. See e.g. Charles, Assumption, p. 34; Rhoads, 'Assumption', p. 56; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 82. 60. E.g. Collins ('Some Remaining Traditio-Historical Problems in the Testament of Moses', in Nickelsburg [ed.]. Studies on the Testament of Moses, p. 42) argues that this is evident from the fact that the resolve to die is made at a point when Taxo and his sons are not yet prisoners, in contrast to the case of the martyrs in 2 Mace. 7. It should be noted, however, that what is expressed here is the readiness to die, not the resolve to die. The text is not clear as to the purpose of the move to the cave. The motivation is probably the same as described in I Mace, and 2 Mace, where the movement to caves is motivated in order to escape persecution and in order to keep the commandments, especially the Sabbath, secretly (I Mace. 1.53; 2.29-30; 2 Mace. 6.11).


Resistance'

79

While Taxo does not expliciUy reject armed resistance as a matter of principle, his acdon shows a preference for a non-violent response. Also supporting a pacifistic interpretation of the T. Mos. is the character of die final drama in ch. 10. There is no Messianic warfare, nor any military activity on die part of God's people.*' This omission does not specifically indicate a pacifistic perspective. More decisive is the fact that the kingdom is ushered in and vengeance is wrought by the direct intervention of the angel and God. It is stressed that vengeance is die work of God 'alone' ( 1 0 . 7 ) . Given the dependence of

chs. 9 and 1 0 on Deuteronomy 32,*^ it is probable that this notion derives from Deut. 32.35, 'Vengeance is mine, and recompense'.*' If this is so, the T. Mos. interprets Deut. 32.35 to mean not only that God will indeed bring vengeance, but also that vengeance is God's exclusive prerogative and should be deferred to him. Another argument used to support the pacifistic perspective of the T. Mos. is the implied connection between ch. 9 (purification and martyrdom) and ch. 1 0 (salvation and vengeance), particularly die notion that martyrdom is deliberately sought as the means to hasten God's vengeance against the persecutors. The flow of die drama does suggest diat Taxo's action indeed precipitates the divine vengeance that inaugurates the end-time,*" so that the two chapters are not merely unrelated stages in the final drama.*' Chapter 9 concludes with Taxo's resolution to be ready to die rather than transgress the Law ( 9 . 6 ) and

61. Emphasized by Charhs, Assumption, p. Hi; Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 82. Charles (APOT, II. p. 412) explains the lack of a Messiah figure as due to the increasingly military conception of the Messiah; while this interpretation is enticing, there are no proofs for it. 62. T. Mos. 9.7 echoes Deut. 32.43; 10.8 Cbome aloft on an eagle') uses the imagery of Deut. 32.11-13; the pervasive language of 'vengeance' in DeuL 32.35-43 may have influenced 10.2, 7; the destruction of idols in 10.7 may be from Deut. 32.37-39. The fact that the entire testament is a rewriting of Deut. 31-34 also supports the use of Deut. 32 here. 63. Cf. the emphatic emoi and ego in the textual addition of Deut. 32.35 cited by Paul in Rom. 12.19. Collins (Apocalyptic Vision, p. 200) observes that Deut. 32.32-43 supplied the paradigm for the author's perspective. 64. See esp. Licht, 'Taxo', pp. 95-103; followed by Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 82; Collins, 'Traditio-Historical Problems', p. 42; Rhoads, 'Assumption', pp. 56-57; Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 245. 65. Contra J. Priest, 'Some Reflections on the Assumption of Moses", Perspectives in Religious Studies 4 (1977), pp. 92-111; idem, OTP, I, p. 923.

80

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

with his expectation that such innocent death will arouse G o d ' s vengeance (9.7). This expectation is based directly on Deut. 32.43: 'for he avenges the blood of his servants, and takes vengeance on his adversaries'.** The coming of the kingdom is described immediately following this resolve and expectation, and the reader is apparently to infer tfiat Taxo and his sons act in accordance with Taxo's exhortation, and that it is specifically these innocent deaths that trigger the wrath of God and precipitate the onset of the eschatological age.*' The repetition of the theme of vengeance in 10.2 and 10.7 indicates that die expectation of Taxo will be fulfilled specifically.** In die perspective of the T. Mos., then, it is especially martyrdom that provokes divine wrath. To suggest, however, that Taxo deliberately seeks martyrdom and that the T. Mos. promotes martyrdom as the proper human contribution in the holy war against the enemies of God*' seems to go beyond die evidence. In summary, it must be admitted diat there is no outright rejection of the sword or armed resistance and that accordingly it is impossible to say that the T. Mos. rejects armed resistance as a matter of principle. Neverdieless, die ideal of passive resistance is evident in die resolve of the end-time hero Taxo, who instructs his sons (and the readers) diat purification, strict observance of the Law and readiness to die on behalf of the Law are the 'strength' of the righteous. While the author seems to indicate that it is innocent deadi in particular diat triggers the eschaton, it is not clear that the author promotes martyrdom as the primary contribution diat the elect make in die final battle. The T. Mos. does present the notion, however, based on an exegesis on Deut. 32.35, that vengeance is God's prerogative and should be deferred to him.

66. Similarly. 2 Mace. 7.6 cites Deut. 32.36 and shares the expectation of divine vengeance for martyrdom. Cf. also 1 Mace. 2.37; and the allusion to Deut. 32.43 in Rev. 19.2. 67. Licht. 'Taxo'. p. 98. 68. So also Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 82. 69. See e.g. Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, p. 200; idem, 'Traditio-Historical Problems', p. 42. Rhoads ('Assumption', p. 57) observes that the author exhorts 'obedient death as the way to guarantee vengeance against the enemy'.

ZERBE 'Pacificism'and'Passive

Resistance'

81

Second Baruch The present Syriac version of 2 Baruch probably derives, through a Greek translation, from a Semitic original written in Palestine at the end of the first century C E or in the first two decades of the second century CE.™ F. Murphy, in his recent dissertation,'' argues that in general... the intention of the author is to draw the attention of the people away from the loss of Zion and away from a preoccupation with the punishment of the desU-oyers of Jerusalem. Through references to the Mosaic covenant, and by paralleling Baruch with Moses, the author seeks to recall the people to covenantal obedience. In his use of die two-world scheme, he manages to relaiivizc the importance of the Temple and land in Judaism and to reorient the People away from a this-worldly attitude to an other-worldly one.

Murphy also suggests that the author may have wished to discourage a growing resistance movement against Rome, so that he represented a 'quietistic' group in opposition to a 'militant* group within the nascent rabbinic movement.'^ Murphy develops this notion further in an article'' in which he contends that the author of 2 Baruch deliberately urged pacifism on his contemporaries. In so doing, he was careful to assure his readers that those who had desU-oyed the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in 70 CE would be punished, but at the same time he conveyed the idea that punishment was entirely die business of God. It should play no role in the thought or action of Israel itself. Instead of concerning itself with revenge or with the judgment of the destroyers of Zion, the people should turn their attention to the other world and concern themselves with the salvation of their souls.

The notion that the righteous should be preoccupied with the rewards and punishments of the age to come and that punishment is God's business appears explicidy in three passages. The first is in Section II (chs. 10-20).''' Toward the end of die opening lament over die loss of Zion (10.6-12.5), Baruch asks, 'who will judge over diese 70. For diis general scholarly consensus, see A.F.J. Klijn. '2 Baruch', in OTP, I. pp. 616-17. 71. F.J. Murphy. 77i<> Structure and Meaning of Second Baruch (SBLDS, 78; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985). p. 28. 72. Murphy, Second Baruch, pp. 136-42. 73. Murphy, '2 Baruch and the Romans*, p. 663. 74. For the outline followed here, see Murphy, Second Baruch, pp. 11-13.

82

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

things' (11.3), complains about the injustice (11.4-7), and expresses his hope for the punishment of the Romans: 'surely wrath will arise against you in its own time' (12.4).'' God answers by acknowledging that the enemies of Israel will be punished, though this retribution is widened to be against 'the nations' for their general wickedness, not for the specific act of destroying Jerusalem (ch. 13).'* Baruch and God continue to engage in dialogue on the subject of retribution (14.2) and of the plight of the wicked in relation to the righteous in the future world. God corrects Baruch's reasoning about the judgment awaiting sinners (15.1). This culminates in a passage that answers Baruch's question, 'who will j u d g e ? ' " and establishes die fact diat die judgment of enemies is God's business: And I judge everything that exists. You, however, should not diink about this in your heart and you should not be afflicted because of the things which have been (l9.3b-4).

Immediately following this statement, God goes on to say that the end of all things is near when God will judge sinners and reward the righteous, and diat the sorrow and evils of the present life, including die destruction of Zion, are irrelevant in comparison to true happiness in die new aeon (19.5-20.6). A second critical passage occurs in Section V (chs. 48-52). Here a dialogue between God and Baruch focuses on the ultimate fate of the righteous and the wicked in die coming aeon. The decisive factor, as throughout 2 Baruch, is the way in which one obeys die Law.'* Indeed, it is the Law diat will 'repay' die wicked on the day of judgment (48.47). At die end of the dialogue, there is a transition to the second

75. Citations are from Klijn in OTP. Murphy ('2 Baruch', p. 664) argues that die introductory 'but I shall say as I think' (12.1) indicates that the author intends the proclamation of vengeance as Baruch's early and unenlightened attitude. 76. Cf. chs. 82-83. 2 Bar. nowhere states that the enemies will be punished specifically for the desuiiction of Jerusalem. Indeed 2 Bar. seems to take away the desuiiction of Jerusalem as a pretext for seeking vengeance against the Romans by arguing that the destruction was God's own work on account of the sins of Israel. See Murphy, Second Baruch, p. 137; idem, '2 Baruch', pp. 665-66. It should be noted, however, that oUier documents that hope explicidy for vengeance against the oppressors also explain die suffering as being on account of Israel's sins; e.g. 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Testament of Moses. 77. For the notion diat 19.3 answers 11.3, see Murphy, Second Baruch, p. 15. 78. For references, see Klijn, OTP, I, p. 619.


Resistance'

83

person, as Baruch addresses his listeners with a summary of what he has just learned: Enjoy yourselves in the suffering which you suffer now. For why do you look for die decline of your enemies? Prepare your souls for diat which is kept for you, and make ready your souls for the reward which is preserved for you (52.6-7)."

A third passage reflecting 2 Baruch's perspective on the enemies of Israel can be found in Section VII ( 7 7 . 1 8 - 8 7 . 1 ) , the letter of Baruch

to the dispersed tribes. This passage is a summary of some of the more important themes of the entire document. First, Baruch indirectly reminds his readers that the present distress was caused by their own sins and that reflection on the situation should aid their preparation for the final judgment (ch. 7 8 ; cf. 7 7 . 1 - 1 7 ) .

Baruch

moves to a word of consolation and asserts that vengeance will indeed come against their enemies (ch. 8 2 ) . But this poem of judgment against the enemies turns into a consideration of the hidden sins of all individuals ( 8 3 . 1 - 3 ) and culminates in a command to look away from

the present distress and desire for vengeance: Therefore, noUiing of the present things should come into your heart but they should, on the conuary, be expected, since that which was promised will come. And we should not look upon the delights of the present nations, but let us think about that which has been promised to us regarding the end... The end of the world will then show the great power of our Ruler since everything will come to judgment. You should, therefore, prepare your hearts for dial which you have believed before, lest you should be excluded from both worlds (83.4-8).

As is the case throughout 2 Baruch, the focus of judgment is on the individual, not the national enemies of Israel.*** The perspective of these three passages with their focus on the new aeon, however, stands in some tension with the Messianic passages which present the hopes of a nationaHstic eschatology ( 2 9 . 2 - 3 0 . 1 ; 3 9 . 7 - 4 0 . 2 ; 7 0 . 9 ; 7 2 . 2 - 6 ) . These latter texts seem to maintain a hope 79. For the motif of preparation, see also 32.1-7; 44.2-8; 46.5-6; 83.7; 85.11. 80. Some interpreters argue diat in the judgment die distinction between Israel and die Gentiles is somewhat blurred because it involves a separation between the righteous and the wicked within Israel (chs. 41-42; 51; 54.22); so e.g. Murphy, Second Baruch, p. 137; idem, '2 Baruch', pp. 666-67 n. II. But in response, it should be observed that a purification of Israel does not mean a blurring of the distinctions between true Israel and the Gentiles.

84

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

for a national restoration in Palestine through the Messiah's military victory over the Romans.*' Many recent interpreters downplay the significance of the nationalistic messianic eschatology for the author's perspective.*^ But counterbalancing arguments can be adduced.*' The Messianic passages play an important role in the entire document. They function to enlighten the people regarding the 'course of times' so that they will know how to act in the final days (e.g. 28.1; 46.5-6) and to assure them that vengeance will come to their enemies and that times of bliss will arrive (e.g. 24.4). While the predominant focus of 2 Baruch is on the rewards and punishments of the new aeon itself, so that the Messianic era is not emphasized and Messianic speculation is

81. Although the Messiah appears to play a passive role in 29.2-30.1, he appears expliciUy as warrior and judge in die 3 9 . 7 ^ . 2 and 70.9; 72.2-6. The advent of the Messiah's dominion will mean the demise of Rome (die fourth world dominion); the Messiah will destroy the last rulers' entire host and will bring him bound to Zion for judgment and execution (39.7-40.2). All three passages affirm that at the height of die Uibulation die inhabitants of die holy land will be protected by the Messiah (29.2; 40.2; 71.1), and that die rule of the Messiah will have a limited duration as the penultimate stage before the establishment of die new aeon at die end (30.1-5; 40.3; 73.1-74.4). 82. See e.g. P. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch: Introduction, traduction du Syriaque et commentaire (SC. 144. 145; Paris: Cerf, 1969), I, pp. 413-19; A.F.J. Klijn, 'The Sources and the Redaction of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch', JSJ 1 (1970), pp. 74-76; Murphy, Second Baruch, pp. 31-116, esp. pp. 66-67. The following arguments are adduced. (I) The diree passages are inconsistent wiUi each odier and simply appropriate traditional materials. (2) The duration of the Messianic era is limited as the penultimate stage before the final consummation and belongs to the present world of corruption. (3) The passages do not play an important role in the presentation of 2 Baruch as a whole and do not always constitute the focus of die larger passages in which diey appear. 83. (I) The diree messianic passages, while presenting somewhat different pictures, are not actually 'contradictory'; see Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 172. The traditional character of the material does not diminish its importance for die author. The fact that this material was used, even if modified, means diat it was accepted by the author. (2) Even if the Messianic era is limited in duration (but cf. 40.3, it lasts 'forever'), it is still an essential part of die eschatological scenario as an intermediate hope for a national victory in Palestine. While there may be a relative subordination of the Messianic era, there is no absolute 'rejecUon' or 'correction' of diis hope. (3) The thrust of the larger passages is indeed on die faithfulness to the law as die means to membership in die future world (31-32; 41-44; 77.1-17). But diis is complementary to die eschatological presentation, not in opposition to it.

ZERBE 'Pacificism' and 'Passive Resistance'

85

absent or even discouraged.*'* it is clear that die author still hopes for a Messianic interregnum. Murphy proposes that the Messianic passages present no difficulty for the pacifistic interpretation since the Messiah is the sole agent of judgment and punishment—tiie people or army of the Messiah play no role in the battle.*' But tiiis argument from silence is ratiier inconclusive.'* If the author was actually opposing tiie rising resistance movement one would expect a much stronger statement against military activity or ideology. In conclusion, then, the primary interest of the autiior of 2 Baruch is the arrival of the new aeon and its implications. In the light of its coming, the primary concern of tiie people should be the preparation of tiieir souls dirough obedience to the Law. Focusing on tiie rewards and punishments of die age to come, the people should desist from preoccupation widi die punishment of the enemies of Israel, especially Rome ( 1 9 . 3 - 4 ; 5 2 . 6 - 7 ; 8 3 . 4 - 8 ) . Vengeance and judgment are the

business of God and the Messiah in die appropriate future time. On the odier hand, however, there are no explicit commands against armed resistance, and the author does express hope for a national restoration in Palestine and die punishment of the oppressors dirough the leadership of the Messiah. The author remains silent on whether or not he expects the people to join in battle with die Messiah against dieir enemies. While the author may well represent a 'quietistic' posture, to say that he 'deliberately urged pacifism' seems to go beyond die evidence. The Revelation to John The Revelation to John was probably written toward die end of die reign of Domitian (c. 9 0 - 9 6 C E ) to fellow Christians engaged in a

84. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, p. 178. 85. Murphy. '2 Baruch', p. 667. 86. One might compare this presentation of the Messiah with Pss. Sol. 17, where the Messiah destroys the Gentiles militarily (vv. 22-24) but also, somewhat conu-adictingly, without weapons of war (vv. 33-35); and widi 4 Ezra 13, where die Messiah will desffoy the enemies without 'weapons of war' (vv. 9-10, 28), 'widiout effort by the law' (v. 38). These two passages also lack any reference to participation by the people or an army, aldiough die picture o(Pss. Sol. 17, in which die Messiah rules 'with a rod of iron', implies the presence of an army.

86

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

religio-political conflict with the Roman principate and its administrat i o n . " Employing the genre, themes, and possibly sources of Jewish apocalyptic literature,'* the author sought to console his readers and to encourage them to remain faithful by assuring them that the outcome of the conflict was certain, namely that the Lamb will conquer the kings of the earth and avenge the injustice of persecution. A. Yarbro Collins has made the case that the political perspective of Revelation stands in continuity with the Jewish tradition of passive resistance of the synergistic type (as represented by the Testament of Moses) in which the elect contribute to the final victory, not by their military resistance, but by their faithfulness and martyrdom. Martyrdom hastens the end by provoking God's vengeance. Two main lines of evidence are used to support this interpretation: the depiction of die final batde and victory, in which the Messiah and his heavenly army conquer the kings of die earth without the assistance of human agents, and the action of the elect diat is described or exhorted, which focuses on faidifiilness, endurance and martyrdom." Yarbro Collins argues that Revelation's use of the holy war tradition, particularly diat of cosmic dualistic conflict, reinforces a certain pattern of resistance. 'The holy was imagery is used in such a way as to encourage a passive acceptance of suffering in the eschatological conflict'.'" In 19.11-26 the heavenly Messiah comes as a military victor: he appears on a white horse with a sword in his moudi and a 'rod of i r o n ' " in his hand and is joined by 'the armies of heaven* (19.14).'^ In 20.1-3 an angel seizes the Dragon and binds him for one 87. For this scholarly consensus, see e.g. A. Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Wesuninster Press, 1984), pp. 25-83; E. Schiissler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 181-203. 88. For a review of proposals regarding die sources and redaction of Revelation, see e.g. Schiissler Fiorenza, Revelation, pp. 159-80. 89. W. Klassen ('Vengeance in the Apocalypse of John', CBQ 27 [1966], pp. 300-11) also highlighu these two features, although he excessively softens the notion of vengeance, claiming diat the author wrote to bring all to repentance by warning them of the consequences of dieir actions (p. 304). 90. Yarbro Collins, 'Polidcal Perspective', p. 247. 91. Cf. 2.16; 12.5; Pss. Sol. 17.23-24. This motif is based on Ps. 2.9. 92. This text refers to die angelic armies. In 15.6 angels have a similar attire; and parallels wiUi oUier apocalyptic texts also suggests this (Zech. 14.15; Mk 8.38; 13.27; 1 Thess. 3.13; Mt. 26.53). R. Mounce (The Book of Revelation [Grand

ZERBE 'Pacificism' and 'Passive Resistance'

87

thousand years in the bottomless pit. In 20.7-10 the final onslaught of chaos against 'the camp of the saints and the beloved city', orchestrated by the released Dragon, is crushed by fire from heaven. In the cycles of visions leading up to the final battle, it is angels who herald and pour out wrath on the evil earth rulers and dwellers." In ch. 12, which is paradigmatic for the elect's situation and fate, an initial defeat of the Dragon is accomplished by Michael and his angels on behalf of the elect, after which the Dragon is thrown down from heaven. Yarbro Collins finds it decisive that in these scenes there is no role for the elect, no attempt to promote 'a program of active resistance or even self-defense'.'" Rather, the author in these scenes seeks to awaken trust in the power of heaven to avenge and to effect final victory. Yarbro Collins admits, however, that the author provides glimpses of the idea diat the elect would fight in the last baUle (14.4; 17.14), aldiough diese 'are not at all emphasized'." In 17.14, which seems to compress 19.11-21 and which refers to the Lamb's victory in the batde widi the beast, we read that 'and diose with him [the Lamb] are called and chosen and faithful' {kai hoi met' autou kletoi kai eklektoi kai pistol). This triad apparently refers to human followers of die Lamb, not to angels.'* Neverdieless, the author has left it ambiguous as to whether diey play an acdve military role in die batde or share in the victory, benefiting from die Messiah's warfare and protection." This group with the Lamb brings to mind also the 144,000 who stand with the Lamb on Zion (14.1) and 'follow the Lamb wherever he goes' (14.4). These 144,000, who sing a song of victory (14.2-3; cf. 15.2-4), are pictured as morally upright soldiers who have maintained their chastity in accord with the purity regulations for holy w a r . " Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977]. p. 346) suggests that the reference in 17.14 (see below, n. 96) suggests that the martyrs who now stand in God's presence (cf. 7.9-17) should be included in die group. 93. See 8.3-5; 8.6-9.21; 14.14-20; 16.1-21. 94. Yarbro Collins. 'Political Perspective', p. 247. 95. Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 248. 96. Kletos and eklektos occur only here in Revelation, but clearly indicate the elect of humanity; pistos occurs elsewhere of Christ (1.5; 3.14; 19.11), of the words of John's revelation (21.5; 22.6). and of Christians in the context of dying for die faidi (2.10, 13). 97. See Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 248 n. 37. 98. Seeing a military reference in 14.4a are e.g. E. Lohmeyer. Die Offenbarung

88

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

The author does not make it clear, however, whether he supposes that the elect will actually participate in the final battle or uses this imagery primarily as a symbol of the abstention from adultery with Babylon (cf. 14.8). While the author leaves it somewhat ambiguous whether the elect will participate militarily in the final battle, he is quite clear that the elect will participate in the final judgment and rule over their persecutors. This is indicated by the references to their participadon in die Messianic rule and judgment'' and the probability that in 20.4 it is the resurrected martyrs who are given thrones for judgment.'"" With Yarbro Collins, dien, one can agree diat die dominant emphasis is on the direct agency of the Messiah and the heavenly armies to effect eschatological victory. Nevertheless, one must admit that there is some ambiguity as to whether or not the elect play any role in the final battle and that the elect will participate at least in the judgment of the world. The use of the holy war tradition by itself, then, does not seem to categorically exclude the possibility of armed participation with God on the final day. What does Revelation specifically counsel, however, as to the proper conduct and stance of believers in persecution? To ascertain this, we begin by observing tiie language of 'conquering' (nikan) as applied to die elect. In die messages to die seven churches (2.7, 11, 17, 2 6 - 2 8 ; 3.5, 12, 21) and in the conclusion (21.7) various promises are held out for 'those who conquer'. In some passages the 'conquerors' are identified especially as diose who remain faithful.'"' But more significandy. des Johannes (HNT, 16; Tubingen: Mohr, 1926), p. 120; G.B. Caird, The Revelation of St John the Divine (London: Harper & Bros.. 1966); G.R. BeasleyMurray, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 223; Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 248. For OT references to purity regulation for war, cf. Deut. 23.9-10; 1 Sam. 21.5; 2 Sam. 11.11. For such regulations at Qumran, see F. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (Garden City: Doubleday, rev. edn, 1961), pp. 98-99. 99. See esp. 2.26-27 in relation to 19.15. Cf. die future tense ofbasileud for the elect: 5.10; 22.5. 100. BasedonDan.7.9-10, 22.See e.g.Beasley-Murray,/?eve/arion, pp. 292-93. 101. E.g. die promises for rewards to die 'conquerors' in die messages follow immediately upon call to obedience and/or repentance; in 21.7 the rewards for 'conquerors' are contrasted with those for the 'cowardly, faithless' (deilois, apistois), implying that the 'conquerors' are specifically die faidiful; and in 2.26 the 'conqueror' is identified as the one 'who keeps my word until die end' (2.26).


Resistance'

89

the 'conquerors' are seen specifically as those who remain faithful unto death.'"^ Rev. 1 2 . 1 1 clarifies die basis for the victory by the elect: And diey [our brediren] have conquered him [die accuser] by die blood of the Lamb and by die word of dieir testimony (marmria), for diey loved not their lives even unto deadi (RSV).

The Lamb's martyrdom and vindication by resurrection to God's tiwone is the basis for the elect's victory (cf. 1.6; 5 . 5 - 1 0 ) . Likewise, tiie saints conquer by tiieir 'faitiiful witness' unto deafli'*" just as Jesus, the pre-eminent 'faithful witness' unto death, conquered.'*" Those who remain faithful unto deadi come out victorious and ultimately share in die U m b Messiah's rule ( 1 . 6 ; 2 . 2 6 - 2 8 ; 3 . 2 1 ; 5 . 9 - 1 0 ; 2 0 . 4 - 6 ) .

The 'conquering' of the elect, dierefore, is described in noticeably non-violent ways. 'To conquer' is to remain faithful unto death, diereby sharing in die ultimate victory of die Lamb. Related to the theme of faidifulness unto the end is that of 'endurance'. The seven messages contain a repeated emphasis on the virtue of hupomone

( 2 . 2 , 3 , 1 9 ; 3 . 1 0 ; cf. 2 . 1 0 , 1 3 , 1 9 , 2 5 ; 3 . 8 . 1 0 - 1 1 ) ,

and at the outset in 1.9 this dieme is linked specifically with suffering. In Revelation, hupomonS is not just a general characteristic of faith, but a particular stance in persecution that implies both passively accepting suffering and remaining steadfast.'*" In the middle of ch. 13, which describes the beast and its oppression of die saints ( 1 3 . 7 , 1 5 ; cf. 1 2 . 1 7 ) , the author emphasizes die necessity of endurance: ei lis echei ous akousatd. ei tis eis aichmaldsian, eis aichmaldsian hupagei. ei tis en machaire apoktanthenai, auton en machaire apoktanthinai. hode estin he hupomone kai he pistis ton hagidn.

102. In 2.10 'conquering' is equated widi being 'faidiful unto death'; in 15.2-4 'those who had conquered die beast and its image' are apparendy martyrs (13.7, IS) who now stand in God's presence (cf. 7.9-17); and those who have remained faidiful unto death in 12.11 are said to have 'conquered' Satan. 103. For martyr and martyria as applied to die elect, see 2.13; 6.9; 11.3, 7, 12; 12.11; 17.6; 20.4; cf. 1.2,9; 12.17; 19.10. 104. See 1.5; 3.14; cf. 19.11. 105. See Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 249; F. Hauck, 'hupomend', TDNT, IV, p. 688.

90

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

If any one has an ear, let him hear: If any one is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if any one is to be slain with the sword, widi die sword is he to be slain. Here is die endurance and faidi(-fulness) of die saints (13.9-10. my trans.).

While an alternative reading of this text might be interpreted as an explicit promotion of a pacifistic stance, the most likely reading highlights the inevitability of captivity or martyrdom for some as the occasion for maintaining endurance."'* Martyrdom, however, is not just inevitable. It also plays a central function in the book as a whole, particularly as that which will arouse die vengeance of God. The question, however, is whether Revelation promotes, as Yarbro Collins argues, a kind of synergism in which martyrdom in particular is the contribution that the elect make in the final conflict to hasten die final day,"" or whedier it intends to console its readers by its association of martyrdom and God's vengeance, not to encourage martyrdom as such. Five passages must be considered. 1. In die vision of the souls under the altar who cry for vengeance (6.9-11), the fact that the souls are associated with the altar seems to imply that die deaths are conceived as sacrifices. Two important ideas are implied here: that God will avenge innocent blood, and diat there

106. For the case in favor of this textual reading (Alexandrinus) of the couplets on captivity and the sword, based on Jer. 15.2 and 43.17, see R.H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John (ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1920), I. pp. 355-57; B.M. Metzger. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 749-50. On this reading, bodi couplets refer to the plight of the persecuted and dius suit die context of persecution and endurance. On the various readings with apokte(i)nei...dei in the second couplet ('if any one slays with the sword, with the sword must he be slain', R S V ) the text could refer either to the persecutors, expressing die inevitable reuibution coming to them, or to die persecuted, proscribing die use of arms (in continuity with the adaptation of Jer. 15.2 in Mt. 26.52). While this last interpretation is attractive in diat it would entail 'an explicit rejection of die militant option' (Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 247), on external and contextual grounds it is not Uie best reading. Also secondary are die readings that have apagei in the first half of the first couplet ('if any one leads into captivity, to captivity he goes'), in which case both couplets would refer to the final lot of the persecutors. 107. Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', pp. 249-52, 256.


Resistance'

91

is a fixed number of souls that must be killed before the end should come.'"* Yarbro Collins concludes that in Revelation the role of the elect is not purely passive; rather there is the possibility of a kind of synergism. Each martyr's deadi brings the eschaton closer.'*"

While it is true that each death brings the eschaton closer, it seems unwarranted to conclude that Revelation promotes martyrdom as such as that which they can synergistically contribute to the final outconne. The notion of the fixed number of martyrs ( 6 . 1 1 ) explains why the end has not yet arrived; it does not encourage martyrdom per se. The author does affirm that the cry of the martyrs is heard; immediately following is a proleptic description of the final battle against the kings of the earth ( 6 . 1 2 - 1 7 ) .

2 . T h e prelude to the seven trumpets ( 8 . 3 - 5 ) also indicates that vengeance upon the earth is the response to the prayers of the martyrs. An angel comes to a golden altar before the throne and mingles incense with the prayers of the saints to God. The prayers of the saints and the altar here recall the vision of the fifth seal. After offering the prayers to God, the angel takes fire from the altar and throws it on the earth, which represents the answer to the prayers of the (martyred) saints for vengeance. 3 . When the third bowl of wrath is poured upon the earth, the rivers and fountains of water become as blood ( 1 6 . 4 ) . The commentary that follows explains the significance of this scene: And I heard die angel of die waters say, 'You are just, O Holy One, who are and were, for you have judged {ekrinas) diese diings; because they shed die blood of die saints and prophets, you gave them blood to drink. It is what diey deserve (axioi eisin)'. And I heard die altar respond, 'Yes, O Lord God, die Almighty, your judgments are true and just' (16.5-7, NRSV).

This one aspect of cosmic destruction is interpreted specifically as vengeance for the blood of the martyrs. The reference to the altar recalls the vision of the souls under the altar ( 6 . 9 - 1 1 ; cf. 8 . 3 - 5 ) and expresses their satisfaction for this act of vengeance. 4 . In the Babylon interlude ( 1 7 . 1 - 1 9 . 5 ) , among Babylon's most heinous sins is the execution of the saints ( 1 7 . 6 ; 1 8 . 2 4 ) . In the judgment 108. For references to diese modfs in other apocalyptic writings, see Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 249. 109. Yarbro Collins, 'Political Perspective', p. 249.

92

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

doxology that begins the final heavenly liturgy celebrating the fall of Babylon (19.1-8), Babylon's destruction is interpreted as judgment for her 'fornication' and as vengeance for the execution of the martyrs: he has judged (ekrinen) die great harlot who corrupted die earth with her fornication, and he has avenged (exedikesen) on her the blood of his servants (19.2, RSV).

Here we have the final answer to the martyr's cry in 6.10: Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge (krineis) and avenge (ekdikeis) our blood on the inhabitants of die earth (NRSV).""

5. Finally, the description of the millennium (20.4-6) illustrates the special role for the martyrs in Revelation. Even if participation in the millennium is not limited to the martyrs,"' it is clear that they are singled out for special emphasis. Martyrdom, then, is specially tied to God's vengeance in Revelation. It arouses God's wrath and will ultimately be requited. This theme, however, seems to function primarily to console the elect in their struggle; there is no clear evidence that the author encourages martyrdom as such as the synergistic contribution which the elect make in the final drama {contra Yarbro Collins). In conclusion, in Revelation the primary action recommended of the elect is that of faithfulness, endurance (which implies passively accepting suffering) and testimony, for which many will suffer death. The elect 'conquer' by maintaining faitiiful witness unto death; tiiere is no encouragement to take up arms against the oppressors. Martyrdom is seen as arousing God's vengeance; but tiiere is no encouragement of martyrdom as such as as the synergistic contribution that the elect make in the final conflict. While diere are some glimpses of the notion that the elect will play a military role in the final battle,"^ the

110. Bodi 6.10 and 19.2 allude to Deut. 32.43 (cf. 2 Kgs 9.8; Ps. 79.10) just as die Testament of Moses docs when it anticipates vengeance on account of the martyrs (see above, n. 62). 111. The hoitines in 20.4 might be taken eidier as an ordinary relative, dius qualifying 'die souls of diose who had been beheaded', or in its classical usage, thus signifying a wider group dian die 'beheaded'. 112. If so, we see here a perspective much like diat of Qumran (see above, n. 26). While vengeance is proscribed for the present, penultimate hour and deferred to God, the elect can anticipate their own participadon in die conquest and judgment


93

emphasis is on God, his Messiah, and die heavenly armies as the primary agents of vengeance and vindication. Revelation, then, seems to represent the perspective of 'passive resistance', aldiough diere is insufficient evidence to claim that it is 'pacifistic'."' Conclusion This essay has sought to determine if four apocalyptic writings, namely Daniel, the Testament of Moses, 2 Baruch and Revelation, promote the stance of 'passive, non-violent resistance' and/or 'pacificism* in relation to illegitimate and oppressive rule. All four writings seem to encourage the response of 'passive resistance*. None contains a call to military resistance; all emphasize that victory and vengeance will come through the direct action of God and his special agents; none indicates that the elect will participate in the final battle against the enemies. The action that is characteristic or recommended of the elect represents non-military forms of resistance, primarily faithfulness and endurance. Do these writings, however, also display a 'pacifistic* perspective? The evidence remains somewhat ambiguous. The primary evidence for die perspectives of both 'passive resistance' and 'pacificism' consists of the emphasis on the direct action of God and his special agents in the final victory, on the one hand, and the lack of any explicit participation by the elect in the final batUe, on the other. This sort of depiction does indeed contrast sharply from those writings, apocalyptic and non-apocalyptic, which express an overtly synergistic, military ideology ( 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Jubilees 23, Animal Apocalypse

[1 En. 8 5 - 9 0 ] , Apocalypse

of Weeks [1 En.

93.1-10;

9 1 . 1 1 - 1 7 ] ) . But there are also other apocalyptic writings diat focus on the direct intervention of God and lack any reference to the synergistic participation of the elect in die final battle, some of which even contain rhetoric against the weapons of war. One can note here the Wisdom of Solomon,"" the Psalms of Solomon,^ 4 Ezra"* and the

of persecutors in the final hour. If this is the author's view, it is very muted. 113. On 13.10, die one text which might indicate an explicit rejection of armed resistance, see above, n. 106. 114. The Wisdom of Solomon promotes the stance of forbearance (epieikeia, 2.19), endurance of evil (anexikakia, 2.19), non-retaliation (18.1-2), and prayer versus force of arms (18.22) in response to abuse from foreign oppressors. The

94

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Sibylline Oracles 3 - 5 . " ' While some of these seem to reflect the persp)ective of passive resistance (Wisdom of Solomon) or quietism (Psalms of Solomon, but not pacifistic), others cannot be so clearly identified. It is mediodologically somewhat dubious, dien, to suppose agents of deliverance and vengeance are 'wisdom', God's hand, word and warfare, and die forces of creation. Instances of armed warfare in Israel's history appear to be downplayed. See, further, Zerbe, Non-Retaliation, ch. 2. 115. In Pss. Sol. 17 the Davidic 'Lord Messiah will destroy the Gentile oppressors 'with an iron rod' and 'widi die word of his moudi' (vv. 24, 35, 36; cf. Ps. 2.9; Isa. 11.2-4). There is a polemic against relying on die weapons of war or numbers in battle (17.33-34a) and die su^ngdi of the Messiah is seen especially in his word and character. There is no reference to any role on the part of die devout in die desuiicdon of the oppressors, although die expectation is diat die devout will be the beneficiaries of the Messiah's victory. R.B. Wright ('Psalms of Solomon', OTP, II, p. 643) asserts diat members of the group diat produced die psalms 'were not political pacifists, and appear as quietists only because they have no opportunity to be activists'. 116. 4 Ezra is concerned with the future release of Israel from the tyranny of Rome. The Davidic Messiah will conquer, judge and destroy the Romans (11.3612.3; 12.31-33) and establish the kingdom in security (12.34). In 4 Ezra 13 the Messiah will destroy die nations assembled to conquer Israel, but widiout 'a spear or any weapons of war' (13.9, 28). RaUier, he will conquer by a stream of fire, a flaming breath, and a storm of sparks issuing from his moudi, which will bum up the multitude (13.10-22,27). The three discharges symbolize die Messiah's reproof of the nations for their ungodliness, his reproach of them, and his destruction of them 'without effort by the law' (13.38). There is no reference to any synergistic participation by the elect; the Messiah will defeat the oppressors of Israel miraculously widiout reliance on military might 117. According to Sib. Or. 3, God uses human agents, even foreign kings, to achieve his purposes in history (352. 356, 366). But in the final conflict, God will direcUy intervene to judge die nations gathered against Israel (669-701) and will usher in an age of peace. Cosmic catastrophes, including fire and fiery swords from heaven (672-73, 689-91, 798) will destroy the enemies of Israel. Then Israel will live in peace, free from war, 'for [the Lord] alone will shield diem... The Immortal himself and die hand of the Holy One will be fighting for them' (702-13; Collins in OTP). Weapons of war will be gathered and used to fuel fires (727-31) and 'prophets of the great God will take away die sword' (781). In Sib. Or. 4, God will also intervene to judge die Romans (135-36) and die whole earth (159-61) widi a great conflagration, especially dirough fire from heaven (171-78). In Sib. Or. 5, a savior figure with a scepter will come from heaven to destroy die enemies of Israel and to restore Jerusalem (414-25). The destruction will occur especially by fire from heaven (274, 299, 325, 375-80). None of die Oracles refer to any synergistic participation by the elect in die present or future conflicts.

ZERBE 'Pacificism'and'PassiveResistance'

95

that the presence of an eschatological drama that focuses on God's direct action and lacks a reference to participation by the elect in the final battle specifically indicates the perspective of 'passive resistance', let alone that of 'pacificism*. For this reason, and because there is no explicit rejection of armed resistance in these writings, it is perhaps best not to term die perspective of any of these documents as 'pacifistic*.

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN 1 ENOCH AND JUBILEES

James C. VanderKam

I.

Introduction

The subject of this essay is the large topic of biblical interpretation in 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees. These two extended works are among the very earliest of the Jewish pseudepigraphs from the Second Temple period, and their andquity raises at least two problems in connection widi their relation to die Hebrew Bible. The book of / Enoch, as commentators have long noted, consists of five major parts, each of which appears to have been written at a different time. The oldest section—the Astronomical Book (chs. 72-82)—dates from no later than the third century BCE, while the Book of Watchers (chs. 1-36) may come from approximately the same time' and the Epistle of Enoch (chs. 91-107) from perhaps 170 BCE.^ If these dates are correct, then all three compositions predate the second half of Daniel (chs. 7-12) which is commonly assigned to ca. 165 BCE. It has also been argued that Jubilees, too, is earlier than the last six chapters of

1. The dates for the Astronomical Book and Book of Watchers are based primarily on paleographical considerations. J.T. Milik (The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 [Oxford: Clarendon, 1976], p. 7) dates die oldest cave 4 MS of die Astronomical Book to die late diird or early second century BCE, while die oldest copy of die Book of Watchers ' . . . is connected widi die semicursive scripts ('semi-formal') of the diird and second centuries BC. Our manuscript probably datesf from die first half of die second century' (p. 140). 2. It has been customary to date the Epistle to die end of the second century, but for the earlier date see now G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 149-50; and J.C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS, 16; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984), pp. 142-49.

VANDERKAM Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees

97

Daniel,' but the case has not been made in a convincing way." The result is, nevertheless, that a substantial part of the Enochic corpus is more ancient than one section of what became Scripture; these booklets belong to what might be called the biblical period. They, along with books such as 1-2 Chronicles, provide other witnesses to the fact that older biblical books were being interpreted already in the age that produced the Hebrew Bible. A second problem is that at the early times in which the various parts of 1 Enoch and the unified Book of Jubilees were written, the term 'biblical' would not have had the precision that was later given to it. Contrary to the view of R. Beckwith, it seems highly unlikely that the Hebrew canon had been closed in the time of Judas Maccabeus;' 1 Enoch and Jubilees diemselves and the popularity of bodi at Qumran are eloquent testimony to the fact that other works billed themselves as revelations and tiiat their claims were accepted by at least some ancient Jews. Which works the authors of diese books may have considered authoritative is not entirely clear, although it is obvious tiiat Genesis had a special appeal for them and diat they valued many others. Thus the Enochic pamphlets and the Book of Jubilees provide windows into die processes of interpreting older authoritative compositions at a time when the bounds of the Hebrew Scriptures were not set and when other writers were making revelatory claims for their literary efforts. Though they are very different kinds of books, 1 Enoch and Jubilees are righUy treated together in a study of this kind. The parts of / Enoch focus on the eschatological judgment that will separate and reward the righteous and the evil and formulate admonitions on the basis of it, while Jubilees, as it retells the biblical account from creation to Sinai, is a prime example of the so-called 'Re-written 3. So Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, pp. 77-79; J. Goldstein, "The Date of die Book of Jubilees'. PAAJR 50 (1983), pp. 63-86. 4. See J.C. VanderKam, 'Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and Other SecondCentury Sources', SBLASP (1978), I, pp. 229-51; diere it is argued diat die audior of Jubilees knew die Enochic Book of Dreams which was not written before 164 BCE.

5. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985). For a more plausible view about an open 'canon' in this period, see J. Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 1-95.

98

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Bible'.* But behind the obvious differences between the two in form and content, there lie some shared beliefs and practices. Among the common views of the writers are the importance of the story about heavenly angels who descended and married women, the revealed character of the 364-day solar calendar, and the firm conviction that there would be a time of ultimate reckoning. The authors articulated these shared beliefs through interpretation of and reflecdon on earlier authoritadve religious texts, many of which are now found in the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The plan of die paper is first to study die uses of earlier Scriptures in the five secdons of / Enoch (arranged chronologically) and second to do the same for Jubilees. The size of the two books makes an exhaustive study impossible within the confines of a single essay; consequendy, a selection has been made of what were judged to be especially instructive cases. Obviously, other examples than those found below could have been selected, but die ones chosen are important instances of biblical uses and should give the reader a good impression of how the various authors operated. Before turning to the texts, one important observation should be made: the different Enochic authors (and die writer of Jubilees to a certain extent), even in diose places in which they are not quoting or reworking a specific passage, resort to what might be called a biblically saturated language. The rhetoric of the writers was manifestly conditioned by die ancient texts of their nation and faidi, and they expressed this indebtedness repeatedly both in die pericopes that will be studied here and in other sections of their works.

II. Biblical Interpretation

in 1 Enoch

Scholars now divide the book into five sections. In chronological order they are: the Astronomical Book (chs. 72-82); the Book of the 6. The phrase comes from G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (SPB, 4; Leiden: Brill, 2nd rev. edn, 1983), pp. 67-126. There is some dispute about precisely which books to include in the category, but some scholars place / Enoch 6-11 in it. Cf., for example, G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 'The Bible Rewritten and Expanded', in Jewish Writings of the Second-Temple Period (CRINT, 2.2; Assen. The Nedierlands: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: ForU«ss Press, 1984), pp. 89-156; D. Dimant, 'Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra (CRINT, 2.1; Assen, The Nedierlands: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 379-419.

V A N D E R K A M Biblical Interpretation

in 1 Enoch and Jubilees

99

Watchers ( 1 - 3 6 ) ; the Epistle of Enoch ( 9 1 - 1 0 7 ) ; the Book of Dreams ( 8 3 - 9 0 ) ; and the Book of Parables ( 3 7 - 7 1 ) . J.T. Milik has shown that the Book of Parables did not form an original part of the Enochic coUecdon of texts; radier, the Book of the Giants occupied its place.' For the piuposes of this essay, however, the five components of die present book of 1 Enoch will be studied. It should be added that each of the five secdons of I Enoch may be further subdivided into originally discrete units, but it would add litde to die present discussion to analyze each of these in isolation. A. The Astronomical

Book (= AB, chs. 7 2 - 8 2 )

The first verse offers a sketch of some of the book's contents. The Book of the Itinerary of the Luminaries of Heaven: the position of each and every one, in respect to dieir ranks, in respect to dieir auUiorities, and in respect to dieir seasons; each one according to their names and dieir places of origin and according to dieir mouths, which Uriel, the holy angel who was with me, and who (also) is their guide, showed me—just as he showed me all dieir treatises and die nature of the years of die world unto eternity, till die new creaUon which abides forever is created (72.1; cf. 80.1).

In diis sense, the book is presented as a revealed scientific treatise, and it provides the expected technical material from ch. 7 2 through ch. 7 9 . Then, in 8 0 . 2 - 8 and 8 1 other concerns predominate, while in 8 2 the more scientific interests resurface. The text was originally written in Aramaic but later translated into Greek and from Greek into Ethiopic—the only version preserved in full form at present. However, a comparison of the Qumran Aramaic fragments of the book with die Ethiopic text shows that in the comparable sections the original was much longer than the current Ethiopic text.* Consequently, inferences drawn from the Ethiopic text may not be valid for the now lost original version. There is nothing comparable to the AB in die Hebrew Bible; in fact, die book shows almost no evidence of any but the most general influence from or interaction widi the biblical text. To tiiis statement diere are only a few exceptions. Enoch himself, is, of course, a biblical character, and his role in the book shows that die autiior accepted a 7. Milik, Books of Enoch, pp. 89-98. His conclusions about the date of die Book of Parables are quite unlikely to be correct 8. Milik, Books of Enoch, pp. 7-8.

100

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

particular interpretation of Gen. 5.22: 'Enoch walked with God (D-n'jKn n « -[m -pnm) after the birth of Methuselah three hundred years'. He understood the phrase 'Enoch walked with God' to mean that he spent time with the angels. That is, in 5.22 (and 24) the definite noun D-n'jKn meant for him 'the angels', whereas the anarthrous form u-T\^*. at the end of 5.24 he read as 'God'. As a consequence, it was believed diat Genesis credited Enoch with a 300-year stay in the company of angels before God eventually took him for his eternal sojourn with him and his heavenly rednue. While Enoch was with these celestial beings he learned die secrets contained in die AB. The AB also presupposes die biblical information diat Enoch was die father of Mediuselah (76.14; cf. 81.5-6; 82.1). To him Enoch transmitted die revealed data that he alone had received, and Methuselah in turn passed tiiem to future generations (81.5-6; 82.1). / En. 81.6 suggests, moreover, tiiat the biblical chronology underlies it: Genesis gives Enoch's age as 65 when Methuselah was born; the next 300 years Enoch is with the angels; and after diis period he has one year widi his son before God removed him. Beyond these biographical details die AB has at best a tenuous relaition with scriptural works. Even Uriel, the angel who discloses the astronomical information to Enoch, is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The name is a scriptural one, but it is never given to an angel (1 Chron. 6.9 [Eng. 6.24]; 15.5, 11; 2 Chron. 13.2). The name was chosen for Enoch's angelic guide because its meaning was appropriate to his role in die book: God is my light (see also 74.2; 75.3, 4; 78.10; 79.6; 80.1; 82.7). R.H. Charles claimed a stronger connection witii scriptural givens for the AB: 'In this treatise the writer attempts to bring the many utterances in the OT regarding physical phenomena into one system, and puts this forward as the genuine and biblical one as opposed to all other systems'.' It is, however, difficult to see how this statement could be true. To be sure, tiiere are echoes of scriptural notions. For example, die audior speaks of a new creation (72.1)—an idea that is expressed in Isa. 65.17; 66.22. In the AB the new or second creation serves as a terminus to mark the end of die period during which die book's astronomical laws are valid. Beyond diis correspondence, there appears to be a near quotation or at least an allusion to Isa. 30.26 in 72.37. In the 9. R.H. Charles, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1912; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1973), p. 147.

V A N D E R K A M Biblical Interpretation in I Enoch andJubilees

101

Enochic passage the writer says of the sun: 'As for the intensity of its light, it is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; nevertheless (the sun and the moon) are equal in regard to their (respective) sizes'. Isa. 3 0 . 2 6 predicts (referring to a time of divine grace on God's people, cf. V. 2 3 ) : Moreover ihe light of the moon will be as the light of the sim, and die light of the sun will be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in die day when the Lord binds up die hurt of his people, and heals die wounds inflicted by his blow.

Where the biblical passage has an eschatological frame of reference, the AB uses the ratio of 7:1 as describing the comparative brightness of the two luminaries in die time between the first and second creations. Apart from this passage, the astt'onomy and geography of die book do not appear to be based on scriptural texts. In addition, no exegetical basis is given for any of the calendrical calculations. It seems accurate to say diat the audior derives his views, not so much from biblical texts, as from lore that can be found in different sorts of Mesopotamian documents that depict rather primitive levels of scientific development.'" B. The Book of Watchers (= BW, chs. 1 - 3 6 ) Although there is some reason for believing that the AB is composite ( 8 0 . 2 - 8 1 . 1 0 may be an addition), a stronger case can be made that the BW has been constructed from disparate units. Chapters 1 - 5 serve as an introduction to the treatise, 6 - 1 1 present the story of the angels who descended to earth and die aftermath of dieir sin, 1 2 - 1 6 connect Enoch with the story about die angels, and 1 7 - 3 6 describe two journeys ( 1 7 - 1 9 and 2 0 - 3 6 ) on which angels conducted Enoch through the created o r d e r . " These 3 6 chapters in varying degrees are the first Enochic writings that exhibit a close relation with parts of the Hebrew Bible. In general it may be said that in the different units a wide variety of earlier texts are laid under contribution; that is, die writer or writers employ a vocabulary diat is thoroughly indebted to biblical language. There is no point in documenting all of these cases. Rather, in the sections diat follow, attention will be focused on a few cases in

10. See VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic pp. 89-104. 11. As an example, see Charles, The Book of Enoch, pp. 1-2.

Tradition,

102

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

which specific biblical passages are borrowed and exploited at greater length. I. / Enoch 1-5. These chapters begin by introducing Enoch with words that are reminiscent of Deut. 33.1 (Moses' blessing of the tribes) and Numbers 2 2 - 2 4 (the Balaam chapters) and by establishing the eschatological content of his message. Thus, his words are characterized as a blessing for 'the elect and the righteous who would be present on the day of tribulation at (the time of) the removal of all the ungodly' ( I . I ) . Consequently the words of Enoch are predictive in harmony with the biblical passages on which they drew. Even Balaam, after all, had prefaced a message to Balak widi the words, 'And now, behold, I am going to my people; come, I will let you know what this people will do to your people in the latter days' (Num. 24.14; cf. V. 17). The phrase 'the latter days* no doubt proved attractive to the author of the BW for whom it had eschatological meaning. Here, then, one meets a case in which a biblical text, whose future referent was perhaps more modest in extent,'^ has been transformed to fit the eschatological setting of a different composition. 7 Enoch 1.3b-9 presents a theophany which is expressed in thoroughly Q-aditional, biblical language; this is followed by words of judgment for sinners and blessing for the righteous (chs. 2-5). These secti(j)ns have received much scholarly attention and have been shown to be a pastiche of biblical phrases and images—all now set within an eschatological context. Especially noteworthy is the work of L. Hartman, who, in his exhaustive search for more and less certain scriptural sources, has offered valuable insights into the uses of biblical texts and motifs in these chapters. He and odiers have shown that the theophany in l.3b-9 borrows principally from Mic. 1.3-4 (and to a lesser extent from Hab. 3) and that the writer has woven into the Micah passage a variety of words, phrases and images that come from other biblical accounts of dieophanies The words of blessing in 1.8 are related to Num. 6.24-26, while 1.9, widi its description of die Lord*s arrival for judgment, draws upon Deut. 33.2. By employing a rich mixture of biblical language and images, the author has succeeded

12. M. Noih. Numbers (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 192. He suggests that the phrase D O T H'TTTHD means 'in time to come' or 'at a later dme'.

V A N D E R K A M Biblical Interpretation in l Enoch and Jubilees

103

in fashioning an impressive picture of the awesome appearance of the eschatological Judge." Hartman has also shown diat die repeated references in chs. 2 - 5 to how nature obeys the laws set by its maker and how human beings habitually violate divine law are a development of the covenantal dieme of calling on heaven and earth as witnesses against Israel widi regard to its pact widi God (see Deut. 3 0 . 1 9 ; 3 2 . 1 ) . About I Enoch 25 he observes: Beyond any doubt the text as a whole—except for the details of 2.1-5.3 (on the order of nature)—grows out of a soil consisting of an interpreted OT. The texts which have especially inspired our author are the PriesUy Blessing of Nu 6 and the Farewell Speech of Moses in Dt 28ff. Several times diere has been every reason to assume that these biblical connections are guided by a wider frame of reference, which has to do with the concepts of blessing, malediction and covenant"

In fact, Hartman sees bodi die theophany passage and die rib or dispute chapters ( 2 - 5 ) as belonging 'in a field of covenant associations, visible also in the ways in which different Jewish texts deal with motifs contained in our 1 En passage'." 2. 1 Enoch 6-II. When one moves from die introductory chapters, which set fundamental diemes for die remainder of the book, one immediately encounters a more detailed and sustained use of an antecedent text. I Enoch 6 - 1 1 relates the core myth of the Enochic books: die story of the heavenly angels who descended to earth, married whichever women they chose, and fatJiered from them evil offspring. In tiiis case one biblical pericope provides die primary inspiration or at least the framework for the story—Gen. 6.1-4—although it is evident that the author has greatly expanded the base text.'* It has 13. L. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 par. (ConBNT. I; Uppsala: Gleerup. 1966); idem. Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1-5 (ConBNT, 12; Lund: Gleerup, 1979). Cf. also J.C. VanderKam. 'The Theophany of Enoch i. 3b-7, 9', VT23 (1973). pp. 129-50. 14. Haitman, Asking for a Meaning, pp. 37-38. 15. Harmian, Asking for a Meaning, p. 97. In his book he has accumulated a wealdi of comparative material about diis matter. 16. There have been many studies of diese chapters in recent times, but for analyses which deal more specifically with their relation to the biblical text see Nickelsburg, 'The Bible Rewritten and Expanded', pp. 90-92; and Dimant 'Use

104

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

been argued that in fact Genesis embodies a compressed form of the more ancient, fuller account in 1 Enoch, but that thesis, which would reverse the direction of influence, has hardly been p r o v e d . " According to the angel story, the sin of the watchers and their children led to judgment for all who were guilty.'* The flood, which was one of the punishments meted out to the malefactors, then functions as a hortatory example which is repeatedly adduced throughout / Enoch. The close relation of and differences between the biblical and Enochic versions can be seen by setting them in parallel c o l u m n s . "

and Interpretation of Mikra', pp. 402-406. The most diorough study of 1 Enoch 6 11 remains Dimant's unpublished dissertation, "The Fallen Angels" in die Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Books Related to Them' (Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1974 [Hebrew]), pp. 23-72. 17. So Milik, The Books of Enoch, pp. 30-32; P.R. Davies, 'Sons of Cain' in J.D. Martin and P.R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (JSOTSup, 42; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), pp. 46-50. 18. It is generally agreed diat diere are two versions of die angel story in chs. 6 II: one that centers about Shemihazah and one that focuses on Asael. On this distincdon. see die familiar essays of G.W.E. Nickelsburg ('Apocalyptic and Mydi in 1 Enoch 6-1 r , JBL 96 [1977], pp. 383-405) and P.Hanson ('Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel and Euhemeristic Heroes in I Enoch 6-11', JBL 96 [1977], pp. 197-233). Dimant ('"The Fallen Angels'", pp. 23-72) finds evidence of a diird version and distinguishes the three as follows (see the summary on pp. 64-65): I. die Shemihazah version involves the story of the angels who defiled diemselves widi women, fathered giants and thus sinned; diis is an interpretation of Gen. 6.1-4 but without any connection widi die flood. 2. a story about angels who taught divinadon and other secrets to mankind, thus leading them astray. They, too, had children. This is an interpretadon of Gen .6.1-4 diat is connected with die flood as a punishment on sinful mankind. 3. the story of Asael who taught various arts to mankind and in this way led diem into sin. The account is an interpretation of Gen. 6.11-12 and explains the destrucdon that transpired before die flood and also die reason for die punishment of the flood. The additional question whedier Lev. 16 with its goat for Azazel has influenced the text (Hanson ['Rebellion in Heaven', pp. 220-25] makes much of diis) is complicated by die fact that die name is spelled Asael in die Aramaic fragments, noi Azazel as it is in Lev. 16. But Lev. 16 may have played some role in the formation of die BW; see the comment of D.J. Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel's Vision (Texte und Studien zum Andken Judentum, 16; Tubingen: Mohr, 1988), p. 82 (regarding / Enoch 14). 19. The very literal translations of the Genesis and 7 Enoch passages are mine; diey have been worded to accent die points of agreement and similarity between the two texts.

VANDERKAM Biblical Interpretation Genesis 6.1-4 And it was when mankind began to multiply on the face of the ground daughters were bom to diem, and the sons of the elohim saw the daughters of mankind that they were good, and they took for themselves women from all whom diey chose.

in 1 Enoch andJubilees

105

7 Enoch 6.1-2: 7.1-2 And it was when the sons of mankind multiplied, in those days diere were born to them beautiful and lovely daughters, and the angels, the sons of heaven, saw them and desired them, and they said among themselves, 'Come on, let's choose for ourselves women from die children of mankind, and let's bear sons for ourselves.

At this juncture each text has material that is not reflected directly in the other. Gen. 6.3 speaks of the divine decision to limit life to 120 years, while 1 En. 6.3-8 tells about Shemihazah, the leading angel, and his companions who swore to carry out the resolve they had just made. The text also lists the names of die 20 chief angels. Once die additional lines are given in the two works, they resume paralleling one another. The nephitim were in the eardi in diose days, and also afterwards when (?) die sons of the elohim came into die daughters of mankind, and they bore for diem. They are the gibborim who were from eternity, the men of the name.

And all the others with them. And diey took for themselves women, and each one chose one for himself. And they began to come into them, and they were promiscuous with them. And they taught them...And they became pregnant and gave birth to great giants, and the height of each one was 3000 cubits.

A comparison of the two shows that the author of 1 En. 6-11 has nuanced die biblical text in many minor ways (e.g. moving 'in diose days' to the beginning of the story, whereas Genesis has it in v. 4 in connection with the nephilim). One noteworthy change, apart from labeling the 'sons of the elohim' as 'angels', is that the wording in Enoch highlights the physical, lustful side of the angels' action by using two adjectives to describe the women (beautiful and lovely), only one of which comes from Genesis; and by using two verbs (saw and desired), where Genesis has one (saw).^" Also, the author wished to stress that the angels' decision was not based upon a momentary passion but was deliberate and its implications clearly understood. 20. Dimant, 'Use and Interpretation of Mikra', pp.404-405; '"The Fallen Angels'", pp. 33-34.

106

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

This appears to be the purpose of the additional section regarding the etymological oath on Mt Hermon: And Semyaz, being their leader, said unto them: 'I fear that perhaps you will not consent that this deed should be done, and I alone will become (responsible) for dtis great sin'. But they all responded to him, 'Let us all swear an oath and bind everyone among us by a curse not to abandon this suggestion, but to do the deed'. Then they all swore together and bound one anodier by (die curse) (6.3-4).

Only after inserting this and other material does the writer return to his terse base in Genesis 6. It should also be noticed that I Enoch specifies the purpose of the angels' cohabiting with women. Gen. 6.2 relates only that 'they took for themselves women from all whom they chose'. I En. 6.2 has the angels say to one another: 'Come on, let us choose wives for ourselves from among the daughters of man and beget us children'. This addition is of considerable interest because it seems related to the omitted words of Gen. 6.3 {Jub. 5.7-8 associates them explicitly): 'Then the Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years'". The issue of length of life for the offspring of the angels recurs in several passages in 1 Enoch. It appears diat the watchers wished long life on the earth for their children. Gabriel is commanded: Proceed against die bastards and die reprobates and against the sons of die fornicators, and destroy the sons of the fornicators and the sons of the Watchers from amongst men. And send diem out, and send diem against one another, and let them destroy themselves in battie, for they will not have lengdi of days. And they will all petition you, but Uieir fathers will gain nothing in respect of them, for they hope for eternal life, and dial each of diem will live life for five hundred years (10.9-10).^'

Rather than enjoying extended life, the children of the angels will kill one another in the presence of their fathers. Then the fathers diemselves will be bound for 70 generations until tiie final judgment, when their sentence will last forever (a word from Gen. 6.3; see 1 En. 10.11-14). It seems that the author has interpreted the word 'flesh' in Gen. 6.3 to refer to the gigantic children of the angels and has dius

21. Translation of M. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978).

V A N D E R K A M Biblical Interpretation in I Enoch andJubilees

107

incorporated thoughts from this verse into his more complicated account. The union of the sons of God widi the daughters of men receives no moral evaluation in Genesis; it is simply recounted. / Enoch, however, makes a specific judgment on the matter: 'And they began [for the verb, cf. Gen. 6 . 1 ] to go in to them and were promiscuous with tiiem. And they taught d i e m . . . ' ( 7 . 1 [Knibb]). The later account also supplies more detail about the children bom to heavenly fathers and earthly mothers. Gen. 6 . 4 mentions the presence of the nephilim, but after the sexual union of angels and women it names tiie children 'die gibborim who were from eternity, die men of the name'. In 7 En. 7 . 2 the women gave birth to great giants, each standing some 30(X) cubits. One does not meet here the later identification of three generations of offspring (though Syncellus offers it at this point): large giants, nephilim, and elioud (see 7 En. 8 6 . 4 ; 8 8 . 2 ; Jub. 7 . 2 2 ) , but die names and descriptions in Gen. 6 . 4 seem to be behind them. 3 . 7 Enoch 12-16. In this section which first introduces Enoch, the seventh antediluvian father, into the angel story, the writer begins by working again with die information in Gen. 5 . 2 2 , 2 4 . And before eveiydiing Enoch had been hidden, and none of die sons of men knew where he was hidden, or where he was, or what had happened. And all his doings (were) widi die Holy Ones and with the Watchers in his days (12.1-2 [Knibb]).

Here, as in die AB (see above), one meets die notion diat Enoch spent time with die angels. Where the Ethiopic text twice uses the verb 'to be hidden' (takabta, a form found in some MSS of Ethiopic Gen. 5 . 2 4 ) , the Greek translation contains 'to be taken' (eXfintpOii) which reflects the reading of die MT npb in Gen. 5 . 2 4 . Furthermore, die fact diat no one knew the whereabouts of Enoch seems to be a clarification of Genesis' cryptic 'and he was not*. The language, then, is closely tied to Gen. 5 . 2 4 , but it is not impossible (widiin die chronology of Genesis) that die first of Enoch*s two removals to angelic company is here under consideration.^^ According to 7 En. 1 2 . 1 , his removal occurred before the events which had just been narrated. The only other passage in tiiese five chapters with especially close 22. See the discussion in VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, pp. 130-31.

108

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

scriptural ties is 14.8-25, the story of Enoch's vision of and ascent to the divine throneroom. It has often been observed diat diese verses are heavily dependent upon the various scriptural throne visions; examples are Isaiah 6; 1 Kgs 22.19-23 (widi die parallel in 2 Chron. 18.18-22); Ezekiel 1, 10; and Dan. 7.9-14. Mention of Daniel 7 raises a special problem because, though there are marked similarities between it and some of the wording of Enoch's description, Daniel 7 is supposed to be later tiian die BIV, in which case die borrowing (if diere was any) would have been from / Enoch 14 to Daniel 7 and not from Daniel 7 to / Enoch 14. Somediing of die nature and extent of the writer's borrowing from biblical models may be gleaned from the following list (the parallels are not exact in every case, and the Daniel references are given widiout claiming diat diey were the source of Enoch's imagery):" 14.8 (cf. 14.14): vision (Ezek 1.1; Dan. 7.1, 2) clouds (Ezek. 1.4, 28; 10.3-4; Dan. 7.13) ligliming (Ezek. 1.13-14) winds (Ezek. 1.4; Dan. 7.2) lifted me up (Ezek. 8.3; 11.1 [but not, as widi Enoch, into heaven])

Enoch then proceeds to describe his vision of heaven in more detail and with less familiar features (wall of hailstones surrounded by a tongue of fire, a large house built of hailstones with a snow floor), though some expected items do occur (e.g. fire [Ezek. 1.4, 13, 27; 10.2, 6-7; Dan. 7.9-10; cf. Isa. 6.4, 6] and cherubim [Ezek. 9.3; 10.122]). Enoch's fear, trembling and prosU-ation (14.13-14) remind one of the seer's reaction in other accounts of this kind (Isa. 6.5; Ezek. 1.28; Dan. 7.15, 28). When one reaches the point at which he describes G o d ' s heavenly throne, the writer's language becomes heavily traditional: 14.18 high Uirone (1 Kgs 22.19; Isa. 6.1; Ezek. 1.26; 10.1; Dan. 7.9 cherubim (Ezekiel 10 [cf. 9.3]) wheel (Ezek. 1.15-16,19, 20, 21; 10.2; Dan. 7.9) 14.19 rivers of burning fire (Ezek 1.4 [cf. v. 29]; Dan. 7.10)

23. For bibliography on the passage, cf. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, p. 134 n. 85. To diat list should be added M. Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch: A New English Edition (SVTP, 7; Uiden: Brill, 1985), pp. 146-52; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 'Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee', JBL 100 (1981), pp. 576-87.

VANDERKAM Biblical Interpretation

in I Enoch andJubilees

109

14.20 Great Glory sat on the throne (Ezek. 1.28 [see 3.23; 9.3]; 10.4 [cf. 43.4; 44.4]) bright raiment (cf. Ezek. 1.27-28; Dan. 7.9) 14.21 could not look at his face (Isa. 6.2; cf. Targ. Ezek. 1.27) 14.22 10,000 times 10,000 were before him (Dan. 7.10; odier texts mendon die heavenly rednue but not the number [1 Kgs 22.19; Isa. 6.2]) 14.23 holy ones near him did not leave by night or day (cf. Ezek. 1.1921; 10.16-17; Rev. 4.8) 14.24-25 die deity calls widi his moudi (Isa. 6.6-13; 1 Kgs 22.21-22; Ezek. 1.28; 2.2).

Since the antecedent biblical throne visions (and not Daniel 7) function as the settings in which prophets receive their commissions, it is not surprising that the same happens on this occasion for Enoch. The end puipose of Enoch's ascent is to be commissioned by God to play die role of prophet His approach to God's dirone room is prelude to this commission, and, conversely, the message he is commissioned to deliver is the climax of the vision.^"

Yet, despite the author's heavy reliance upon traditional language and models, he departs from them in important respects: Enoch is summoned to speak words of judgment to the angelic watchers, and he not only sees the heavenly throne room in his vision but he actually ascends to that forbidden place, into the celestial temple.^^ Thus, in this case, various biblical models are exploited to produce a new text which is closely tied to larger themes in the books of Enoch: a righteous man condemns the primordial sinners and speaks from the ultimate position of authority. C. The Epistle of Enoch (= EE, chs. 91-107) The rhetoric of / Enoch 91-107 is replete with scriptural language as the writer contrasts the sinners/rich/mighty with the righteous/poor/ weak. Yet, he seldom treats a particular passage more fully than simply by repeating a word or two (98.15-16 and Jer. 23.32 are an example),^* although the material in ch. 104 and Dan. 12.1-3 show

24. Nickelsburg, 'Enoch, Levi, and Peter', pp. 576-77. 25. Nickelsburg, 'Enoch, Levi, and Peter', p. 578; Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, pp. 81-82. 26. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 'The Episde of Enoch and die Qumran Literature', JJS 33 (1982), pp. 336-38.

110

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

strong resemblances.^' The two major exceptions to the rule figure near the beginning and at the end of the epistle: the Apocalypse of V/eeks (93.3-10; 91.11-17) and the story of the Birth of Noah ( 1 0 6 107). It may be the case that these two sections are independent compositions that were incorporated into the Epistle, but, whatever their origin, diey were present in the work at an early d m e and are now integral parts of it. These two radier different texts should now be examined. 1. The Apocalypse of Weeks (= AW). The A W may be die oldest Jewish apocalypse diat includes a historical survey.^* The writer, in his cryptic account, introduces Enoch in language drawn (as in ch. 1) from the Balaam stories and then divides biblical history into units of unequal length that he terms weeks. For each of the first six, he alludes to at least one event diat allows one to locate the point in the biblical storyline diat he has reached. The first six weeks and perhaps part of the seventh reproduce the biblical period, while the last three depict different stages of die final judgment. Weekl: Week 2: Week 3: Week 4: Week 5: Week 6:

Enoch's birth Evil causes the flood after which wickedness increases again The election of Abraham Revelation of die law The eternal dynasty and kingdom of David are established Evil abounds, Elijah ascends, the Judean kingdom ends, and die dispersion begins Week 7: An apostate generation arises, and die elect receive instruction Week 8: Judgment of die wicked by die righteous and a house built for the great King Week 9: Judgment of the world and die godless Week 10: Judgment on die angels and die new heaven appears.

27. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS, 26; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), p. 122. 28. The date of die AW is debated, but die range of suggestions is very narrow; The one selected depends upon die place where one finds the time of the audior in die scheme of 10 weeks. For a recent defense of an early Maccabean dating, see F. Dexinger. Henochs Zehnwochenapokalypse und offene Probleme der Apokalyptikforschung (SPB, 29; Leiden: Brill, 1977), pp. 137-40. For a date of ca. 170, see J.C. VanderKam, 'Studies in die Apocalypse of Weeks (I Enoch 93.1-10; 91.11-17)'. CBQ 46 (1984), pp. 521-23.


in I Enoch and Jubilees 1 1 1

After these ten will follow innumerable weeks. This little apocalyptic text shows that the author knew the biblical storyline that is familiar from the narrative books of the Hebrew Bible, but it also shows, as one would expect in an Enochic work, a familiarity with the story of the angels who sinned and who will be judged (in the tenth week). All of diiis material is incorporated into a single scheme without differentiation in levels of authority. The writer seems to have selected a minimal number of key events in the biblical drama around which to center his structure (he does not, however, mention so prominent an event as the Exodus). Moreover, he clearly sees a pattern to sacred history—a history that, in its seventh week, extends beyond the scriptural time limit. While his 'weeks' may be of varying length,^' they fit within a balanced pattern in which the righteous eventually prevail and the three kinds of evildoers are obliterated. In diis text it is possible to see that die author regards his own 'week'—the seventh or sabbatical week—as the one tiiat precedes die beginning of die diree-part judgment. By placing the entire survey in the mouth of Enoch (the seventh patriarch) who lived in the first week, he furnishes a classic example of vaticinia ex eventu. The choice of the distinctively biblical term 'weeks' and the predominance of the number seven in the AW point one toward another way in which die scriptural text has influenced the writer of the EE. It may be that he divided die period from die beginning of history to the end of the judgment into ten units of seven in imitation of Jeremiah's prophecy tiiat the exile would last 7 0 years (Jer. 2 5 . 1 1 - 1 2 ; 2 9 . 1 0 ) . Daniel 9 , of course, reinterprets Jeremiah's number to mean 7 0 times seven or 4 9 0 years (vv. 2 5 - 2 7 ) . In the AW, however, tiie 7 0 units are made to cover all of history and of the judgment. It is also likely diat the writer, who lived toward the end of what he considered the seventh week, had in mind the biblical theme of die jubilee—the year diat followed the sevendi sabbatical year, the year of redemption and release (see Lev. 2 5 . 1 8 - 5 5 ; Isa. 1 6 . 1 - 2 ) . He himself, dius, would be

characterizing his time as the one which lay just before tiie great year of the Lord's favor for his people, the year of freedom.'" 29. K. Koch ('Die mysteridsen Zahlen der judaischen Konige und die apokalyptischen Jahrwochen", VT 28 [1978], pp. 439-40) maintains diat each one of weeks 4-7 covers 490 years. 30. On these points, see VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic

112

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

2. The Birth of Noah. The story of Noah's miraculous birth is related in 1 Enoch 106-107 and in the Genesis Apocryphon 2. It is a tale tfiat shares some traits with accounts of other heroes' births," but it is also a unique composition. In 7 Enoch 106-107 it is told from the perspective of Enoch himself. There appears to be no way that the writer of this remarkable story could have drawn most of the details about the circumstances of the birth and the extraordinary appearance and ability of Noah from the sparse biblical givens about him. Yet, diough diere is great disparity with the scriptural givens about his birth (Gen. 5.28-29), the connection between the two may not be so loose as it first appears. It is obvious from the Enochic version of the story that the writer is using Genesis' genealogy of the prediluvian patriarchs. He mentions Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah—patriarchs six through ten in the list of Genesis 5. In tiiis respect he is simply following scriptural givens about how diese five were related to one another. He also shows, by placing Enoch far away from human habitation and widi die angels, diat he works with the interpretation of Gen. 5.21-24 that is found throughout the Enochic corpus: he spent time witii the angels. In diis case, chronology demands diat Enoch be placed in the last phase of his career; he is now communing widi the angels for the second time, after completion of his 365 years. That is, he is in tiie stage depicted in Gen. 5.24, not diat of 5.22. The text of 7 Enoch 106-107, especially as it has been clarified by die Aramaic fragments and the parallel in the Genesis Apocryphon, indicates that a series of puns on the names of the principal characters—apart from Enoch—underlies the story. Jared: descent (if) of die angels (106.13; cf. 6.6) Enoch: Mediuselah: he is sent (n":© from die second part of his name) to and from Enoch; in GA 2.23 he traverses the land (no) of Parvaim. dius giving an etymology for die first part of die name

Tradition, pp. 156-57; 'Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks', pp. 520-21; and P. Grelot, 'Soixante-dix semaines d ' a n n ^ ' . Bib 50 (1969). pp. 169-86. 31. A. Hultgird, for example, has shown that die story has significant parallels widi the account of Zaradiustra's birth ('Das Judentum in der hellenistisch-romischen Zeit und die iranische Religion—ein religionsgeschichUiches Problem', ANRW, 11.19.551).


in 1 Enoch and Jubilees

113

Lamech: low indeed (Greek and Aramaic of 106.1), a reference to conditions at his time'^ Noah: left (on the eardi; 106.16, 18); holy (106.18. from n'3?); saved (106.16. from era in its Eastern Aramaic sense?).''

Working with these playful etymologies and building upon the lore about Enoch's residing far away with the angels, the author fashions a picture of Noah and the circumstances of his birth that is related to biblical data but only in a loose sense. He has packed extra-biblical traditions about Enoch and about the appearances of heroes at birth into the sparse frame provided by his biblical source. D. The Book of Dreams (chs. 83-90) Within this section the author has placed two apocalypses. The shorter one (93.3-11) predicts cataclysmic destruction of the earth; it envisages the coming flood, though true to the biblical chronology, it is to come only after Enoch's 365 years. The second and much longer apocalypse—the Animal Apocalypse—is found in chs. 85-90. As its name suggests, it uses the imagery of various kinds of animals (and of human beings) to depict the events of the biblical storyline and of the immediate postbiblical period until die time of tiie autiior. It is likely that tiie writer carries his account into tiie early Maccabean period;''' thus he, too, like the author of the A W, does not distinguish in his survey between biblical and postbiblical events. Since he normally follows the scriptural text so carefully, the presence of extrabiblical material (e.g. the angel story in 86-88) in the apocalyptic survey raises acutely the question of what constituted die corpus of audioritative literature or tradition for this scholar. Enoch himself, from his vantage-point before tiie flood, sees the symbolic unfolding of the entire drama in a dream (85.1-2; 90.40-42). 32. The longer Greek text at diis point is supported by die fragmentary remains of 4QEn<= (Milik. The Books of Enoch, pp. 207-208), and it is the text dial puns on Lamech's name. Milik {ibid.) suggests that the paronomasia involved the words no, but Black {The Book of Enoch, p. 320) prefers -\a th. For diis etymology of Lamech's name in odier texts, see Milik, ibid., p. 215; L. Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Nantes in Philo (BJS, 115; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), pp. 177-78. 33. For Uiese suggestions, see Milik, The Books of Enoch, pp. 213, 209, 214; cf. Grabbe, Etymology, pp. 192-93. Gen. 5.29 also offers a play on his name. 34. For the date, see Milik, TTie Books of Enoch, pp. 42-44. He argues that the BatUe of BeUi-Zur, which occunwl in 164, is reflected in 90.13-15.

114

The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical

Interpretation

If one is familiar with the biblical storyline, there is no difficulty in deciphering what the author expresses dirough his imagery. He begins with Adam, Eve and their children, and uses the symbol of bulls for the males in the padiarchal period. Moral evaluation is provided by the color given to diem (Adam, Seth, and his line through Isaac are white bulls; Cain, his line, and Ham are black; intermediate characters—Abel and Japheth—are red). In the case of Noah, however, his special status is highlighted by the fact that he was bom a bull but became a man (89.1)—a term elsewhere reserved for angels. In the survey of the early biblical period, one meets again the story of the angelic descent, described in unique fashion: stars descend from heaven and become bulls who pasture with cows and fadier elephants, camels and asses (86.1-88.3). The era introduced by Jacob calls for a new set of symbols: Jacob is a white sheep (89.12) who begets twelve sheep. The enemies of Israel are represented as the natural foes of sheep: the Egyptians are wolves, for example. Moses is a sheep or ram who also becomes a man (89.36). The biblical history continues into the period of the judges and the monarchy with Israel always being represented as a flock of sheep and its apostasy as blindness and straying. At 89.59, with the introduction of the image of the 70 shepherds who supervise the destruction of the flock, one encounters another biblical figure but also departure from the familiar form of die biblical storyline. The period during which the 70 shepherds lead die flock is divided into 70 sections (89.72; 90.1; 90.5; 90.17) and seems to cover the immediate pre-exilic, exilic, and post-exilic periods of Israel's history, all of which stand under a cloud of divine anger and punishment of his people. The only recognizable biblical events mentioned during tiiis era are tiie return from exile and rebuilding of die temple, but the cult of the second temple, too, is condemned (89.72-73). This age ends only witii the final judgment (90.17-24), when the shepherds are punished for their excesses.'^ It has been shown that the pastoral imagery and the 70 units are derived from Jeremiah 25: die period of die 70 shepherds (humans are angels in this vision) symbolizes the divine judgment of delivering Israel to the 35. For the symbolism, see Dimant, 'History according to the Animal Vision (Ediiopic Enoch 85-90)', in Jerusalem Studies in the Thought of Israel 2 (1982), pp. 18-37 (Hebrew); and 'Jerusalem and die Temple in the Animal Vision (Ethiopic Enoch 85-90) in Light of die Views of die Dead Sea Sect', Shnaton 5-6 (1981-82). pp. 177-93 (Hebrew).


in I Enoch and Jubilees 1 1 5

hands of the nations; the condemnation of the shepherds has also been pre-ordained.'* Of interest in this apocalypse is also the detailed picture of the end in which one finds not only the expected punishment of die wicked and reward of die righteous, but also a new Jerusalem ( 9 0 . 2 8 - 3 3 ) and a figure—a white bull—who recalls die imagery of the patriarchal period and may be a messiah, though he is not called one ( 9 0 . 3 7 - 3 8 ) . In fact, all are transformed into white bulls in imitation of die primordial age ( 9 0 . 3 8 ) . E. The Book of Parables (chs. 3 7 - 7 1 )

As in all the other sections of the book, the author of the Parables, which derives its name from the fact diat most of tiiis section is presented as three parables ( 3 8 - 4 4 , 4 5 - 5 7 , 5 8 - 6 9 ) , writes in a biblical

language. But he, too, at times shows a greater interest in a particular biblical figure or passage and develops such material to produce a compelling case of his own. For example, God is often called 'die Lord of the Spirits' which is his version of the biblical 'Lord of Hosts' as I En. 3 9 . 2 compared widi Isa. 6 . 3 shows." The scene in chs. 6 2 - 6 3 appears to use the exaltation imagery of Isaiah 5 2 - 5 3 , ' * while the material in 5 4 . 1 - 5 6 . 4 ; 6 4 . 1 - 6 8 . 1 has been called a midrash on Isa.

2 4 . 1 7 - 2 3 . " The biographical situations of Enoch in diis section run from beginning to climax of his career (see 3 7 . 1 ; 3 9 . 2 - 3 ; chs. 7 0 - 7 1 speak of his final removal), but the type of biblical interpretation that will be die focus of diis section is tiie composite picture that die audior paints of die leader at the end of time. He is given four epithets in die Parables: the righteous one, the chosen one, the anointed one (messiah), and die son of man. All of these descriptions have biblical bases and all have been combined into one eschatological leader who is identified witii Enoch himself in 71.14.""' 36. Cf. the summary and bibliography in VanderKam. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, pp. 164-67. 37. As noted, for example, by Nickelsburg, Resurrection, p. 215;cf.p.227 n. 13. 38. Nickelsburg, Resurrection, pp. 70-74. 39. D.W. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch (SBLDS, 47; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 1-2. 39-72, 107-23. 40. In the following paragraphs I draw heavily on my study 'Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in I Enoch 37-71', in J.H. Charleswordi (ed.). The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Chrisdan Origins; The AB Reference Library; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 169-91.

116

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

An eschatological leader is called 'the righteous one* once (53.6), and in this passage he is also termed 'the chosen one*. On two other occasions an individual is designated 'the anointed one* (48.10; 52.4). But the most frequent epitheu for a leader of the end time are 'chosen one* (15 or 16 times, with occurrences in all three parables, but not after 62.1) and 'son of man' (using three different Ethiopic phrases; the three figure a total of 16 times, beginning in the second parable— 46.2—and continuing to 71.14). The writer is careful to provide enough information in the text to demonstrate that he is referring through these designations to only one, not four individuals. In 53.6 the righteous one and the chosen one are identified; 52.4, 6 indicate diat die anointed and chosen are die same individual; and 48.6; 62.1, 5, 7 prove that the son of man and chosen are also identified with one another. Moreover, 1 En. 62.5, 7 show the different ways of expressing 'son of man' refer to the same character (cf. also 48.2). The writer has assembled diis collection of epithets for the eschatological leader from a variety of biblical sources and may also have been influenced by the picture of Enoch in 1 Enoch 14 for this remarkable portrait of him. His two major biblical sources were Second Isaiah and Daniel 7, although the title 'anointed one' derives more directly from Ps. 2.2, as the wording of 7 En. 48.10 shows. From Second Isaiah die writer has taken the epithet 'chosen one' (Isa. 41.8. 9; 42.1; 43.10, 20; 44.1, 2; 45.41; 49.7) which is a designation for the servant of the Lord. From the same section of Scripture he has taken the familiar characterization of the servant as a 'light to the nations' (Isa. 42.6; 49.6), aldiough he has, curiously enough, applied it to the son of man in 48.4. He may also have derived die dieme of die concealment of die son of man from a passage such as Isa. 49.1, and 'the righteous one' may come from Isa. 53.11. From Daniel 7 the author has taken die phrase 'the son of man' and other imagery of that chapter such as 'the head of days' and the judgment scene (e.g. in 55.1-4). However, while the biblical sources for these and other aspects of the eschatological hero and scene can be identified, it is evident diat the writer has transformed his biblical sources. He has interpreted both die servant (die chosen one) of Second Isaiah and the son of man of Daniel 7—bodi of which are symbols for God's people in dieir biblical settings—as an individual. Moreover, he has made of diis individual an eschatological judge, whereas neither the servant nor the son of man has that function in Scripture. Moreover, he has

V A N D E R K A M Biblical interpretation

in I Enoch andJubilees

117

chosen not to attach the theme of suffering, so prominent in the servant passages of Second Isaiah, to his chosen one/son of man. In summary, the highly composite book of / Enoch exhibits a variety of ways in which its writers used earlier Scriptures—which do not always appear to be identical with the ones that were later to be categorized as canonical—and applied them to new situations. It seems fair to say that the ancient texts are never explored as an interesting exercise in and of itself; rather, the concern is with what they have to say to the writer's day—whether by showing the course of history and its impending end (the apocalypses and the Parables) or by serving as moral examples of die need to live righteously now in order to avoid die kind of divine judgment that had come widi die flood. The writers could make their points by concentrating on a single passage (as in chs. 6 - 7 ) or, more often, by creating a full, rich text from a variety of biblical and extra-biblical models. The Book of Jubilees illustrates radier different ways of using and interacting with the biblical text, but it, too, is constantly alert to tiie message of die ancient texts for die present time of the writer.

III. Biblical Interpretation

in the Book of Jubilees

As noted at tiie beginning of the paper, Jubilees belongs in that category of literature which is often called the Rewritten Bible. Works of tills kind are very closely related to the biblical text which they represent, but they do not explain it (at least not in most cases) in commentary fashion—diat is, by clearly separating the biblical text from its exposition. Jubilees makes the same claim to revelatory status that the Mosaic material of the pentateuch does; in fact, it advertises itself as God-sent revelation to Moses on Mt Sinai. Thus, Genesis and Exodus do not outrank tiiis work. The author does, however, distinguish his composition from the narratives of Genesis and Exodus by referring to them as 'die first law' ( 2 . 2 4 ; 6 . 2 2 ) or 'die law' ( 3 0 . 1 2 ) ; presumably, dien, Jubilees is die second law. It uses die storyline of GenesisExodus as die foundation of its narrative, but it brings die message of that sacred history home to the needs of its readers dirough various kinds of interaction widi tiie text. In die following paragraphs, several of these types are named and explained.

118

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

A. Quotation Jubilees is such a close retelling of the biblical stories that in many places it simply quotes from a Hebrew Bible. The first chapter is an exception. It sets the stage for the action and draws upon a wide variety of scriptural passages as it places Moses on Mt Sinai and has the deity predict to him Israel's apostasy, repentance, and the renewed divine favor that would eventuate in a second creation. An angel of the presence is then commanded to reveal to Moses the remaining material of the book. Chapters 2 - 5 0 retell the biblical stories from Genesis 1-Exodus 20. The version in which the stories are presented is so frequently a quotation or near-quotation of the text that Jubilees is an extremely valuable witness to a form of the Hebrew Bible in the second century BCE. The writer does not, of course, merely cite; he makes innumerable changes in die text. But enough precise evidence remains to demonstrate that die biblical text diat lay before die writer was not identical with the Masoretic Text which later became the normative Hebrew version."' B. Creative Rendering When the text deviates firom the Bible's version, it does so in a variety of ways. They may be distinguished as in the list below, though some of the categories overlap. 1. Problem-Solving. The biblical narratives have always posed some difficulties for tiie careful reader, and die author of Jubilees was no exception. His composition includes several examples of how he resolved them. a.

Creation of die angels: Genesis does not mention the creation of angels but they are on die scene at very early stages in the story (e.g. Gen. 1.26; 3.22-24). Jubilees locates their creation on the first day and seems to base its inference on Gen. 1.1-3. These verses name heaven and earth and report that 'the Spirit (nn) of God was moving over the face of the waters'. Jub. 2.2 reproduces these elements but indicates that the author has understood the word nn in die sense of a spirit or angel:

41. For studies of this issue, see J.C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM, 14; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), pp. 103-205; and "Jubilees and die Hebrew Texts of Genesis-Exodus*. Textus 14 (1988), pp. 71-85.

VANDERKAM Biblical Interpretation

b.

c.

in I Enoch and Jubilees

119

'For on the first day he created the heavens, which are above, and the earth, and the waters and all of the spirits which minister before h i m . . . ' The text then proceeds to enumerate the sundry types of angels or spirits. Thus, angels were among the seven classes of works that God created on the first day."^ The deaths of Adam and Eve: According to Gen. 2.16-17, 'And the Lord God conunanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die"'.The first pair do, of course, eat the fruit but diey do not die on that very day. Rather, they continue to Uve for a long time afterward, apparendy for centuries. Genesis never deals with this conflict, but Jubilees does. When it relates the death of Adam after a life of 930 years, it says: 'And he lacked seventy years from one diousand years, for a thousand years are like one day in the testimony of heaven and therefore it was written concerning the tree of knowledge, "In the day you eat from it you will die". Therefore he did not complete the years of this day because he died in it' (4.30). The writer's approach is obvious: he has applied the teaching of Ps. 90.4 ('For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past'; cf. 2 Pet. 3.8) to the problem. The psalmist impUed that with the Lord KXK) years and one day were die same. Hence, he concluded tiiat the word 'day' in Gen. 2.17 meant 1000 years. As Adam died before ICXX) years had passed, die divine warning held true."" Gen. 2.2 suggests diat God worked on the first sabbath: 'And on die sevendi day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the sevendi day from all his work which he had done'. Jubilees rephrases the text (with other ancient witnesses) in order to preclude this inference: 'And he completed all of his work on the sixth day, everything which is in the heavens and die eardi and the seas and the depdis and in die light and in the darkness and in every place' (2.16; cf. 2.25).'*"

42. See Charles. The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1902; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1972), pp. 11-12; O.H. Steck.'Die Aufnahme von Genesis 1 in Jubilaen 2 und 4. Esra 6', JSJ 8 (1977). pp. 157, 163-64. 43. See Charles, The Book of Jubilees, p. 41, for parallels. 44. In reading 'sixdi' instead of 'seventh' Jubilees agrees widi the Samaritan

120

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

2. Expansions. At a number of points Jubilees enlarges the biblical text considerably by inserting haggadic and other sorts of elements, drawn from extrabiblical sources (usually unknown today), into the scriptural framework. It is significant that the book presents these expansions as parts of the same divine revelation that included the 'biblical' sections of the narratives. The author made no distincdon in authority between the two kinds of material. Some of the more prominent expansions are: (a) the section about the angels who mated with women and produced gigantic offspring (S.I-2, 6 - 1 1 ; 10.1-14); here heavy influence from I Enoch is evident, aldiough Jubilees has some elements that are not from this source (e.g. that God had sent the angels [5.6]);"' (b) the account about the division of the earth among die descendants of Noah (8.8-9.15; 10.27-35); it parallels in general die presentation in the Genesis Apocryphon (at least columns 16-17);'** (c) stories regarding Abram's youth (11.14-12.21); (d) testaments (e.g. 2 0 - 2 2 ; 31.4-29; 36.1-17); (e) Rebecca and her relations widi her beloved son Jacob (e.g. 25.1-23);"' ( 0 die wars of Jacob's sons (34.19; 37-38); some material similar to the first also appears in the Testament of Judah 3-7 and parallels to the second are found in Testament of Judah 9."* Little more can be said about the sources of diese expansions, other than that they were in part triggered by biblical texts (e.g. Jub. 34.1-9 perhaps by Gen. 48.22). Where die audior found the specific details is unknown.

Pentateuch, the LXX, the Peshitta. the Old Latin, and Josephus. Epiphanius's citation of Jub. 2.16 confirms die reading of die Ethiopic text. For die texts, see VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2 vols.; CSCO, 510-11, Scriptores AeUiiopici, 87-88; Louven: Peeters, 1989). 45. See Dimant, "The Fallen Angels"', pp. 92-103 for an analysis of these sections. 46. On this material, see P.S. Alexander, 'Notes on the "Imago Mundi" of the Book of Jubilees', JJS 33 (1982), pp. 197-213; 'Retelling die Old Testament', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.). It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988). pp. 102-103. 47. J. Endres {Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees [CBQMS, 18; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1987], pp. 51-84) has studied this and related sections in detail. 48. For parallels and analysis, see Charles, The Book of Jubilees, pp. 200-204. 214-22.



121

3. At other places the Tendenz of the writer comes to expression in other sorts of expansive interpretations and sermonic elaborations. a. Expansive Interpretations: 1. Gen. 2.1-3 does mention that God rested on the seventh day, but one must wait until the revelation on Sinai for the first biblical elaboration of laws for hallowing the Sabbath. Jubilees, however, takes the occasion of the initial Sabbath to attach a section that highlights the importance of the day and details legislation for keeping it (2.17-33). Not only die first chapter of die biblical retelling teaches the significance of die Sabbath; the last chapter, too, focuses on the seventh day, dius creating an inclusio of sorts around the biblical paraphrase. Much of the Sabbath legislation derives from other biblical passages, but much also goes beyond scriptural givens. It would be difficult for a reader to avoid die testimony of this writer to the absolute centrality of Sabbatii-keeping to tiie proper service of God. 2. Several festivals which are first named in Mosaic legislation in the Bible are traced to the time of the patriarchs or to an earlier age still. Like the Sabbath sections, these paragraphs were meant to sd'ess die importance of the holidays and to show diat they had been part of revealed religion from earliest times. It is important to acknowledge that the author was not completely arbitrary in his attempts to find a patriarchal origin for the festivals; in each case one can pinpoint a scriptural peg for the material that he hangs there. One example is the festival of weeks. The Bible first mentions it in Exodus (23.16; 34.22), but Jubilees finds it already in the time of Noah and claims that its celebration went back to creation. One element in the text of the flood story diat permitted the writer to introduce the festival was die fact diat Noah and God made a covenant just after die flood ended. Noah left the ark no earlier than the twenty-seventh day of the second month according to Gen. 8.14 and the covenant followed soon thereafter. Jubilees says diat die animals left die ark on 2/27 (5.32) but diat Noah himself did not exit die boat until 3/1 (6.1). The latter date allowed the author to associate the Noachic agreement with Exod. 19.1 ('On the third new moon after die people of Israel had gone forth out of the land of Egypt, on diat day they came into the wilderness of Sinai*) which dates die sinaitic covenant to the tiiird montii (see Jub. 6.10-11, 15-19), die very time when die festival of weeks is to be celebrated ( U v . 23.15-16).

122

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

More specific support for patriarchal observance of the holiday was spotted in the stories about Isaac's birth. Jubilees dates the festival to 3/15 (e.g. 15.1) and makes this Isaac's birthday (16.13). Evidence for this spring holiday was found in Gen. 17.21; 18.14; 21.2 which state that Isaac's birth would occur at the nvio. The biblical writer seems to have meant by this word something like 'specific time', but Jubilees seizes on the fact that it is the word for a festival (including weeks, as Lev. 23.2, 37 show). The festival had to take place in the spring because Isaac's birth was to be rm n»D (Gen. 18.10, 14), that is, at the time of new life or in the spring. Thus, weeks was naturally the festival on which Isaac would be bom. Something similar seems to have happened with the festival of tabernacles. The writer, it appears, uses the theme of joy to relate the happiness of Abraham and Sarah that they would have a son with the festival of the seventh month which is likewise associated with joy ( U v . 23.40; Deut. 16.14-15; Neh. 8.17; Jub. 16.19. 20, 25, 27, 29; cf. 17.17). The connection of the birth announcement with the autumn holiday followed from chronological considerations: if Isaac was bom on 3/15, then his mother became pregnant in the sixth month of the preceding year (16.12)—a fact which would have been known by the seventh month (see 16.16). The festival, then, began on this auspiciously happy occasion. Finally, the day of atonement, too, is given a patriarchal origin. The Bible mentions it in the Mosaic legislation (Lev. 16 and 23.26-32), while Jubilees attaches it to the time when Jacob learned of the 'death' of Joseph (34.12-19). The biblical impetus for the author's conclusion was twofold: in Gen. 37.31-35 the sins of Jacob's children and the slaughter of a goat (whose blood plays an important part) led the writer to associate this event with the description of the day of atonement in Leviticus 16.'" 3. Another sort of expansion in which the priestly writer betrays his chief interests is that set of passages in which he highlights the priesthood already in patriarchal times. Levi's reputation in particular receives a tremendous boost in Jubilees vis-^-vis Genesis. In Genesis his only role is in the massacre at Shechem—an effort for which his 49. The material about these holidays is examined in J.C. VanderKam. 'The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees', in G.J. Brooke (ed.). Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester. December 1987 (JSPSup, 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1989), pp. 219-21.

V A N D E R K A M Biblical interpretation


123

father curses him (Gen. 34; 49.5-7). However, Jubilees, which knows of him as the ancestor of all priests, applauds his role at Shechem and has him officiate as priest already during the time of his father. Jub. 28.14 highlights his importance by putting his birth on 1/1. His role at Shechem is interpreted favorably as implementing the law against mixed marriages in Deut. 7.2-4. Not only was he, therefore, applauded for his efforts, but his zeal became a cause for his elevadon to the priesthood (30.5, 17, 18-20). In order to draw this conclusion the writer used passages such as Exod. 32.25-29 (the levites are ordained to the Lord's service for their zeal in killing those guilty of the sin of die golden calf), Num. 25.1-13 (the eternal covenant of the priesthood with Phinehas for his zeal in slaying the couple who engaged in an illicit union) and Mai. 2.7 (which speaks, like Num. 25.12, of a covenant of peace, but in this case with Levi). Also, he found significance in the fact diat Levi was die third of 12 sons. In Jub. 32.19 he relates a dream diat Levi had about his being priest and informs the reader that Jacob then counted his sons in reverse order so that Levi turned out to be the tenth (Benjamin had just been conceived). Thus, Levi, who was himself a kind of ddie, was die one worthy to receive his father's ddies. Again there is a scriptural base: In Genesis 35 the scene takes place at Bethel—a city where, when he came to it for the first dme, Jacob had vowed to give a tenth to the Lord (Gen. 28.22; Jub. 27.27). Genesis fails to mention whether he implemented his vow, but Jubilees exploits die dieme and relates it to another tidiing passage—Gen. 14.18-20—by referring to Levi as priest of God most high (32.2). The special blessing diat Isaac gives to Levi in 31.12-17 has some parallels widi die blessing of Levi in Deut. 33.9-11.'° b. The writer of Jubilees has also written some sermonic elaborations of his biblical base, at times to stress certain points of religion and at others to solve problems diat the text presents. 1. In die first category one could mention die eschatological expansion which is tied to the indication of Abraham's age at his death. Though he was a man of such astonishing qualities, he lived a mere 175 years (Gen. 25.7), far fewer tiian patriarchs of tfie more remote past. This fact led the writer to elaborate a picture of die increasing wickedness of humanity which was reflected, from die flood on, in a 50. Cf. Endres, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 120-54, 158-68; J.C. VanderKam, 'Jubilees and the PriesUy Messiah of Qumran', RevQ 13 (1988), pp. 359-65.

124

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

diminution of their ages. From Moses' time and beyond, all will age more quickly (he draws upon Ps. 90.10 here) and times will be terrible until the great punishment comes. Only when the children begin to study the law will the process be reversed, and once more ages will increase until they approach 1000 years again (23.8-31). A similar phenomenon figures in ch. 6 where the writer has concentrated his teachings about the revealed calendar of 364 days. He has exploited the fact that the biblical text supplies a relative abundance of dates in its account of the flood. Using these, the author of Jubilees elaborates the calendar and the festival of weeks which, as seen above, he also tied to the flood dates (6.15-38). The same happens with the Sabbath in ch. 2 and with die mention of tidies in ch. 32 (see above). 2. Sermonic elaborations that have the purpose of solving difficulties may be illustrated by two cases. The first has to do with Reuben and Bilhah, Jacob's concubine. Genesis mentions Reuben's lying with Bilhah, reporting only the fact and that Jacob learned of it (Gen. 35.22); in 49.4 Jacob curses his son for it. Jubilees devotes much more space to the incident (33.2-20), most of which is a condemnation of various kinds of forbidden marriages. However, the problem that requires resolution is that Reuben and Bilhah should have died for the offense according to Lev. 20.11 ('The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of diem shall be put to deadi, their blood is upon them'). Knowing this law (see Jub. 33.10), die audior explains to anyone who objects tiiat Reuben and Bilhah were allowed to live because the law of Lev. 20.11 had not yet been revealed in their time (15-16). Now that it has been revealed, it is eternally valid; Reuben and Bilhah should not, then, serve as a convenient example for others to imitate." Anodier such sermonic passage occasioned by a problem in die text concerns Judah and Tamar (Jub. 41.8-28; Gen. 38.12-26). Judah is one of the heroes in Jubilees, and in the Bible he is, of course, the ancestor of the dominant tribe and of David and the other kings. He unwittingly used his daughter-in-law Tamar as a prostitute and according to Lev. 20.12 both should have been executed. Here die explanation for their survival is different, however, than in the case of Reuben and Bilhah: Judah was forgiven because he acknowledged his 51. See the discussion in Charies. The Book of Jubilees, pp. 197-99; Alexander. 'Retelling the Old Testament*, pp. 103-104. The term 'sermonic' for passages of this kind is Alexander's.



125

sin (which he had committed in ignorance), and had wished to carry out the law against prostitutes when he heard that Tamar had become a harlot. The author also notes that the marriages of his two sons to Tamar had not been consununated. The obvious message is, however, that this sort of thing is not to be done again ( 4 1 . 2 3 - 2 8 ) . " A full study of Jubilees' many forms of interaction with the biblical text would have to consider numerous other passages and some other types of interpretation. These should suffice, however, to show that tiie writer, who normally reproduced his biblical model, was a careful reader of that text and ti'ied to solve problems in it and to defend its characters. Aldiough he indulged his biases by reading his own views into the text, yet when he did so there was always some trigger there that allowed him to expound what he felt his contemporaries should hear."

52. Cf. Charles. The Book of Jubilees, pp. 228-31. 53. Endres {Biblical Interpretation, pp. 196-225) has written a helpful summary o( Jubilees' exegeUcal procedures.

CHARISMATIC EXEGESIS IN E A R L Y JUDAISM A N D EARLY CHRISTL\NITY

David E. Aune

I.

Introduction

'Charismatic exegesis' is one of several terms that have been used in recent years to describe various types of Biblical interpretation practiced in early Judaism and in early Christianity,' whose distinctive feature is the implicit or explicit claim diat die interpretation itself has been divinely revealed. The phrase 'charismatic exegesis' itself was coined by H.L. Ginsberg, in conversation with William Brownlee, to describe the type of biblical interpretation practiced in the Qumran Community by the author of the Habbakkuk commentary (IQpHab).^ Despite the fact diat 'charismatic exegesis', or one of its aliases, is frequendy referred to in scholarly discussion, there are many misconceptions about it diat require clarification.' One of the results of diis discussion will be to suggest diat 'charismatic exegesis' is an infelicitous umbrella term used to designate a wide variety of claims that share the common conviction that the interpretation of sacred or revealed texts carries divine authority. The main problem with the term

1. Other essentially synonymous terms include 'inspired eschatological exposidon' (E.E. Ellis, '"Spiritual" Gifts in the Pauline Community', Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity [Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 26), and 'spiritual exegesis', i.e., 'ex^gfese spirituelle'(L. Cerfaux, 'L'ex^gfese de I'Ancien Testament par le Nouveau Testament', in P. Auvray (ed.), L'Ancien Testament et les Chretiens [Paris: Editions du Cerf. 1951]. p. 138). 2. W.H. Brownlee, 'Biblical Interpretation among die Sectaries of die Dead Sea Scrolls', BA 14 (1951). p. 61 n. 4. 3 . For an earlier attempt to grapple with this issue, see D.E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), pp. 339-46: 'Appendix: Christian Prophecy and Charismatic Exegesis'.

A U N E Charismatic

Exegesis

127

'charismatic exegesis' is its individualistic, psychological focus which limits its application to the phenomenon of an inspired interpreter through whom God reveals the true meaning of die sacred text. Most scholars would agree that charismadc exegesis exhibits several characteristics: (1) it is commentary, (2) it is inspired, (3) it has an eschatological orientation, and (4) it was a prevalent type of prophecy during the Second Temple period. At diis point I wish to unpack each of these points briefly and to point out some of the main problematic issues that must be examined in more detail in the rest of this paper. 1. As commentary on Scripture, die practice of charismatic exegesis implies the primary religious autiiority of the biblical books.* Yet diis commentary is not characterized by the consistent application of particular methods or procedures of biblical interpretation (such as the seven rules of Hillel, the diirteen rules of R. Ishmael, or the thirtytwo rules of R. Eliezer ben Jose Ha-Gelili).' Nor is such commentary restricted to particular literary genres, diough the biblical texts interpreted are usually considered neither halakah nor haggadah but eschatological prophecy. Further, as commentary, the interpreter's understanding of the text is not confused widi die text itself (though the text can be altered to reflect the particular interpretation tiiat is being imposed on it), but is separated from the text. Further, the interpretation of the text, despite its revealed character, is not regarded as equal in authority to die text being interpreted. 2. Certainly the sine qua non of charismatic exegesis is the belief or claim that the interpretation is ultimately based on divine inspiration. Yet here we enter into a problematic area, for while early Judaism presupposed the divine authority of die Torah and the Prophets (even diough the latter was not strictly defined until the first or second century CE), there was no widely shared theory or explanation of how 4. H.M. Oriinsky has emphasized die fact diat books of die Hebrew Bible were canonized, not texts ("The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text*. The Cambridge History of Judaism [4 vols.; Cambridge: The University Press. 1984-]. II, pp. 557-62). Therefore the phenomenon of the alteration of the sacred text, or the conscious selection of particular variant readings to bring the text more into line with the interpreter's understanding of the text, occurs both in eariy Judaism and early Christianity and does not conu^dict the sacred status of such biblical books. 5. Many of these exegetical procedures, which are often associated with midrash. were practiced during die late second temple period even diough diey did not have fonnal labels; diis is convincingly demonstrated for die Qumran literature by Brooke. Exegesis at Qumran, pp. 166-67, 279-323.

128

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

divine inspiration actually worked.* Though there is ample evidence that the Qumran Conununity believed that God revealed the truth to diem, there is precious little evidence to suggest how they diought that die Spirit revealed truth.' There is dierefore die danger that phrases like 'divine inspiration' and 'Holy Spirit',' which can mean and have meant many different things, will be defined in a syndietically uniform or even anachronistic manner, perhaps even in ways ultimately derived from, or at least influenced by. Christian dogmatics. If some kind of claim for die divine autiiority of an interpretation is not implicitly or explicidy present in the text, there is no way to be sure that we are dwelling with charismatic exegesis. The claim for inspired interpretation, in turn, often implies a particular hermeneutical approach to the text in which its true meaning is not evident, but requires a certain perspective or insight not shared by all who revere the same sacred text. There is, however, a generic sense in which Judaism regarded the interpretation of Scripture to be revelatory.' 3. Finally, charismatic exegesis may be eschatological, a characteristic exhibited in both the midrash pesher commentaries from Qunu-an, and in certain phases of early Christianity. What this means in practice is that the interpreter is convinced that he is living in the last days and that die particular scenario of events in die immediate past, present and future, were predicted by the biblical writers. 4. In light of the Jewish view that prophecy ceased in Israel with the activity of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi {b. Sot. 48b), some scholars have argued that charismatic exegesis was a form of prophecy widely found in Judaism during the Second Temple period,'" or more cautiously expressed that one strand of prophecy in early Judaism followed an interpretive-exegetical t r a d i t i o n . " It is possible to 6. J. Barton, The Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (New Yoik and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 116-28. 7. O. Betz. Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (Tiibingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]. 1960), pp. 137-38. 8. See A.E. Sekki. ne Meaning of RUAH at Qumran (SBLDS, 110; Adanta: Scholars Press, 1989). 9. Daniel Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine (SBLDS. 22; Missoula. MT: Scholars Press. 1975), p. 7. 10. Hengel, Zealots, pp. 234-35. 11. G. Dautzenberg. Urchristliche Prophetie: Ihre Erforschung, ihre Voraussetzungen im Judentum und ihre Structur im ersten Korintherbrief (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975), pp. 43-121.

A U N E Charismatic

Exegesis

129

understand prophecy in early Judaism in at least two ways: (1) the direct inspiration of the prophet, or (2) the indirect inspiration of the prophet, that is, inspiration as mediated through the sacred text. n. Biblical Interpretation

in Early

Judaism

The sanctity of the Torah and the Prophets was a central and unifying feature of early Judaism. Yet the Bible, like all sacred foundational texts (whether oral or written), was subject to manipulation through interpretation. Different understandings of the same sacred texts served to legitimate die often conflicting views held by diverse groups. While there were many formal and informal principles and procedures used to interpret Scripture in early Judaism, the written product of these mediods was expressed in a variety of literary f o r m s . S o m e , though not all, of these were adopted by early Christians, who tended to see Scripture either in terms of eschatological prophecy or in terms of typological anticipations of the Christian dispensation. These forms include:" 1. Paraphrastic translation, in which particular understandings of tiie text are folded into a translation (Aramaic Targumim, the earliest examples of which are 4QtgLev, 4QtgJob and l l Q t g J o b , ' * and the Septuagint).'* 2. Rewritten Scripture, whereby portions of the Hebrew Bible were understood in new or different ways through additions, deletions and modiflcations (intracanonical example: 1-2 Chronicles; extracanonical examples: Jubilees, Ps.-Philo, Liber Antiquitatem Biblicarum, tiie Genesis Apocryphon or IQapGen; tiie Temple Scroll or 1 IQTemple; Philo, De vita Mosis; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities). 3. Anthological style, in which the biblical text is 12. Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic. 13. All of the following literary forms are subsumed under die broad definition of midrash advocated by R. Bloch, 'Midrash', DBSup, V, cols. 1263-81, who regards it as an approach to Scripture radier dian as a literary fonm. 14. E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC—AD 135) (3 vols.; rev. G. Vermes and F. Millar; Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1973-87), pp. 99-114; R. Le Dût, Introduction i la litterature targumique (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966); idem, "The Targumim'. in W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.). The Cambridge History of Judaism (4 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1984-). H. pp. 563-90. 15. R. Bloch ('Midrash', DBSup, V, col. 1278) argues that die Septuagint and other early versions should be analyzed not only from the standpoint of textual criticism but also from die perspective of die history of exegesis.

130

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

not explicitly cited and commented upon but is woven into the style of the composition (IQH, apocalypses).'* 4. Commentaries, in which the biblical text is quoted and interpreted (pesharim, midrashim; many of Philo's works including Legum allegoriae, De cherubim, e t c . ) , " which can again be subdivided into verse-by-verse commentary or thematic commentary. There are examples of all four of these genres which are attributed to divine revelation. One way of viewing these various Hterary forms of biblical interpretation is in terms of their degree of proximity or distance from the biblical text: paraphrastic translations present themselves as the sacred text, rewritten Scripture is at once more distant from the biblical text, yet may be intended to replace that text, the anthological style links a new composition in often very subtle ways to biblical texts, while commentaries carefully distinguish the text fi-om the interpretation. By the second temple period, the Jewish concern with the study of the Torah was increasingly expressed in terms of the necessity for receiving divine enlightenment to understand it. This theme is reiterated in Ps. 119 (vv. 12, 18-19, 27, 33-35, 73); v. 18 is typical: 'Open my eyes, tiiat I may behold wondrous things out of diy law'. This motif is also evident in die famous description of vocation of die sage in Sir. 39.1-11, esp. 39.6-7 (NRSV): If the great Lord is willing, he will be filled widi the spirit of understanding (Ttvevnaxi ODveoeo)? enjtXtioGrioeToi); he will pour forth words of wisdom and give dianks to die Lord in prayer. He will direct his counsel and knowledge aright, and meditate on his secrets (ev xoii; d)tOKpw
In part tiiis may be based on the association and even identity of Torah and Wisdom. Sir. 24.1-33, entitled Aivicic, Zotpiaq, 'Praise of Wisdom' in the three great Greek uncial manuscripts, identifies Wisdom widi Torah in v. 23: 'All this is die book of die covenant of the Most High God, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for die congregations of Jacob' (see also Wis. 6.18; Bar. 3.2916. A. Robert, 'Les attaches litt^raires bibliques de Prov I-IX', RB 43 (1934). pp. 42-68, 172-204, 374-84; 44 (1935), pp. 344-65, 502-25; cf. idem, 'Litt^raires (Genres)', DBSup, V, col. 411: the anUiological procedure is 'remployer, littêment ou 6juivalemment, les mots ou foimules des Ecritures ant^rieures'. 17. P. Borgen. 'Philo of Alexandria', Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT. 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). pp. 233-41.

AUNE Charismatic

Exegesis

131

4.4).'* A similar view is frequently expressed by the author of the Hodayot: '[How] shall I look, unless Thou open my eyes? Or hear, [unless Thou unstop my ears]?* (IQH 18.19; trans. Vermes); 'These things have I known because of your understanding; for you have uncovered my ear to marvelous mysteries' (1.21); 'the man by whose mouth you have established the teaching and within whose heart you have set understanding' (2.17-18)." The result of this early Jewish convicdon that God himself must reveal the true significance of his Torah is perhaps the implicit supposition behind the Jewish belief that Torah is not limited to die Pentateuch, nor even to die entire Hebrew Bible, but presupposes die unity and audienticity of die oral as well as the written Torah and therefore includes the interpretation of the sages right up to the present day.^° There is therefore some truth to the notion that in early Judaism, all biblical interpretation involves 'charismatic exegesis' in its broadest sense, that is, divinely gifted insight into the meaning of Torah. Just as the gift of divine wisdom is necessary to understand and obey Torah, so the insight of the sage, also a gift from God, is necessary to interpret dreams and visions (e.g. Joseph in Gen. 4 0 - 4 1 , and Daniel in Dan. 2, 4 - 5 ) . This 'mantic wisdom' (as distinct from 'proverbial wisdom', with which it is closely related),^' Links the techniques and terminology of dream interpretation (a major form of divination), the pesher interpretation of the Qumram Hoyayot, and the explanations of the meanings of visions by the angelus interpres in

18. The identification of Wisdom and Torah is made elsewhere in Sirach, though less forcefully (1.11-30; 6.32-37; 15.1; 19.20; 21.6; 23.27); see G.T. Sheppard, 'Wisdom and Torah: The Interpretation of Deuteronomy Underlying Sirach 24.23', in G.A. Tuttle (ed.). Biblical and Near Eastern Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 166-76. 19. For further references, see 10.5-7; 11.4-5, 9-10, 16-17; 12.11-14, 32-34; 13.18-19; 18.10-11, 19-21. Knowledge, often equated with enlightenment is extremely important in the (Jumran literature; see H. Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963). pp. 114-20. 20. E.E. Urbach, TTie SajM (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 286-314; J. Neusner, The Way of Torah (Belmont: Wadswordi Publishing, 4di edn, 1988). pp. 81-85. 21. H.-P. Miiller, 'Mantische Weisheit und Apokalypdk', in J.A. Emerton et al. (eds.). Congress Volume, Uppsala 1971 (VTSup, 22; Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 283-85.

132


Interpretation

Jewish apocalyptic literature." Three important terms, n ('mystery'). Thy ('disclose', 'reveal') and l o s ('interpretation') occur together in Dan. 2.30, where Daniel, after telling the king that the future has been revealed to him in a dream by 'the revealer of mysteries [MT: w n vbr, LXX: 6 dvaKaXwjcTmv (ivotfjpia]', that is, God, explains (NRSV): But as for me, this mystery [MT: » n ; LXX; x6 jiwoTtfipiov] has not been revealed [MT: '*?:; LXX: eê
In the Aramaic part of Daniel, n ('mystery') is regularly the object of n'75 (2.19, 28-30, 47), with a single exception (2.22); the means whereby God reveals mysteries is through night visions (2.19). The terms n ('mystery') and neis ('interpretation') are used in similar ways in both Daniel and the Qumran pesharim,^' and it appears diat there is more similarity between the methods of exegesis in Daniel and the pesharim than between the pesharim and later rabbinical midrashim.^'' It is likely that the final redaction of Daniel during the mid-second century BCE was contemporaneous with the earlier literary activity of the Qumran community. While the Genesis narrator presents various people who relate their dreams to Joseph (Gen. 40-41), Daniel must know both die dream and its interpretation (Dan. 2.17-45), a feature that suggests the close connection between charismatic exegesis and prophecy.^'

22. A. Finkel. 'The Pesher of Dreams and Scripture", RevQ 4 (1960). pp. 35770; L.H. Silberman, 'Unriddling die Riddle: A Study in the Stfucture and Language of die Habakkuk Pesher', RevQ 5 (1961), pp. 323-64; K. Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1953). pp. 154-57. 23. F.F. Bruce, Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans, 1959), pp. 7-17; Silberman, 'Unriddling die Riddle', pp. 323-64. 24. Elliger. Studien zum Habakkuk-Kommentar, p. 164; cf. A. Szordnyi, 'Das Buch Daniel, ein kanonisierter Pescher?'. in J.A. Emerton et al. (eds.). Congress Volume. Geneva 1965 (VTSup, 15; Leiden: Brill, 1966), pp. 278-94. 25. J.L. Kugel and R.A. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Wesuninster Press, 1986), pp. 58-59.

A U N E Charismatic

ni. The Qumran

Exegesis

133

Pesharim

Several types of biblical interpretation are evident in the surviving literature from Qunnran.^* One of the more significant types of interpretadon is represented by the biblical commentaries or pesharim. Following Carmignac and Dimant, we distinguish three types of pesharim: {I) 'Continuous pesharim' (i.e. verse-by-verse commentaries on entire books, e.g., IQpHab), (2) "Thematic pesharim* (i.e. quotations from various biblical books grouped around a tiieme, e.g., 4QpIsa«; 4 Q F l o r 1-2 i 14; l l Q M e l c h 12, 17), and (3) Isolated pesharim, tiie use of one or two verses from the Hebrew Bible interpreted using the pesher method and terminology, but within the framework of a larger composition (e.g. CD 19.5-13 on Zech. 13.7; IQS 8.13-15 on Isa. 40.3).^' Fragments of at least eighteen commentaries on portions of the Hebrew Bible have been found at Qumran,^* including fourteen on die prophets,^' and tfiree on the Psalms,'" and one which is unidentified." In two passages in IQpHab, the author articulates the basic presuppositions which informed his understanding

26. G. Vermes ('Biblical Proof-Texts in Qumran Literature*. JSS 34 (1989]. pp. 493-508) enumerates four categories of proof-texts: (1) eschatological actualization. (2) direct proof (widiout explanation). (3) reinforced proof (widi explanation), and (4) proof of historical fulfilment. 27. J. Carmignac, 'Le document de Qumran sur Melkis^deq', RevQ 1 (196970). pp. 360-61; D. Dimant. 'Qumran Sectarian Literature', in M.E. Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Foru-ess Press, 1984), pp. 504-505. 28. A careful critical examination of each of these texts is available in M.P. Horgan. Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS. 8; Washington, DC: Cadiolic Biblical Association of America, 1979); cf. idem, 'The Bible Explained (Prophecies)', in R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.). Early Judaism and its Modem Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Adanta: Scholars Press, 1986), pp. 247-53. 29. IQpHab, IQpMic (1QI4), IQpZeph (1Q15), 3QpIsa (3Q4). 4QpIsa« (4Q161), 4QpIsa'' (4Q162), 4QpIsa'= (4Q163). 4QpIsa<' (4Q164). 4(3plsa« (4QI54). 4QpHos'' (4Q166). 4QpHos'> (4QI67). 4QpMic (4QI68), 4QpNah (4Q169), 4(5pZeph (4QI70). 30. IQpPs (1QI6). 4(3pPs* (4Q171). 4QpPs'' (4Q173). 31. 4(3pUnid (4Q172).

134

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

of the bibhcal text. The first statement is found in IQpHab 2.7-10 (trans. Vermes):'^ They, the men of violence and the breakers of the Covenant, will not believe when diey hear all diat [is to happen to] die final generation from the Priest [in whose heart] God set [understanding] that he might interpret (niOB*?) all the words of His servants die prophets, through whom he foretold all diat would happen to His people and [His land]. The second passage is found in IQpHab 7.1-5 (trans. Vermes): And God told Habakkuk to write down diat which would happen to the final generation, but He did not make known to him when the time would come to an end. And as for dial which He said. Thai he who reads may read it speedily: interpreted (nos) Uiis concerns die Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known (wiin) all the mysteries Cn) of His servants the Prophets. There are several presuppositions expressed in these t e x t s : ' ' 1. The events of the final generation have been predicted beforehand by God through the biblical prophets. 2. The true meaning of the Biblical text relates primarily to that period in which the text is being interpreted, that is, it refers to historical events that have occurred or will occur in the 'final generation','* which center not on world or national history, but on the opposition experienced by the community." 3. The words of the prophets are mysteries ( c n ) , the meaning of which God has revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness (probably identical with the Priest,'* cf. 4QpPs* 3.15). Though several scholars subsume the 32. G. Vermes. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books, 3rd edn, 1987). 33. Horgan, Pesharim, p. 229. 34. The relationship between die pesharim and die historical tiaditions they may contain remains a problematic issue which has yet to be adequately investigated; see P.R. Davies, 'Eschatology at Qumran", JBL 104 (1985), p. 48. Outside die pesharim, there is no uace of a confrontation between the Teacher of Righteousness and the Man of the Lie. The probability is dial diere was no single Wicked Priest or Man of Lies but rather a series of such figures; cf. A.S. van der Woude. 'Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflections on die Identification of die Wicked Priest in die Habakkuk Commentary", JJS 33 (1982). pp. 349-59; W.H. Brownlee, 'The Wicked Priest, the Man of Lies, and the Righteous Teacher—The Problem of Identity", JQR 73 (1982). pp. 1-37. 35. E. Jucci, 'Interpretations e storia nei pesharim qumranici', BO 29 (1987), pp. 163-70. 36. B.E. Thiering. 'Once More the Wicked Priest". JBL 97 (1978), pp. 191-

A U N E Charismatic

Exegesis

135

Qumran commentaries under the rubric of ' m i d r a s h ' , ' ' and Vermes has even categorized them as t a r g u m i c , " there is a prevailing tendency to regard the pesharim as constituting a distinct literary g e n r e . " The structure of the pesharim is consistent and exhibits the following pattern: 1. a series of brief secdons (varying from a phrase to live verses), that is, lemmata, are quoted from a particular biblical book in order, followed by 2. the interpretation of the biblical passage introduced by tiie term nDB.*" In virtually every instance of the use of the term n o s in the literature from Qumran, the term is used as a stereotyped formula to introduce the interpretation of a biblical text. Analyses of the lemmata of the pesharim suggests that the authors have altered the biblical text to bring it more into line with their understanding of the true meaning of the text."*' 205; W.H. Brownlee. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (Missoula. MT: Scholars Press. 1979), p. 57. 37. Bloch. 'Midrash'. cols. 1276-78; Bloch, who provides a broad definition of midrash, finds a close relationship between midrash and apocalyptic (the latter is a type of the former), and dierefore between midrash and IQpHab (col. 1277): 'Le Commentaire d'Habacuc, qui est une paraphrase actualisante des deux premiers chapitres d'Habacuc, met en oeuvre tous les proc^d6s midrashiques connus'. A.G. Wright considers IQpHab to be haggadic midrash ('The Literary Genre Midrash", CBQ 28 [1966]. pp. 418-22). G. Brooke argues diat die pesharim constitute a type of midrash. but that to regard them as an independent genre unnecessarily multiplies generic categories ('Qumran Pesher: Towards die Redefinition of a Genre", RevQ 10 [1981], pp. 483-503). 38. G. Vermes, 'A propos des commentaires bibliques dôuverts k QumrSn". RHPR 35 (1955), pp. 96-102. 39. Horgan, Pesharim, pp. 229-59; I. FrOhlich, 'Le genre litt^raire des pesharim de QumrSn", RevQ 12 (1986), pp. 383-98.1. Rabinowitz argues diat the pesharim are not midrashim. but have a closer affinity with apocalyptic CPesher/Pittaron. Its Biblical Meaning and its Significance in die Qumran Literature', RevQ 8 (1973), pp. 219-32. See also K.G. Friebel, 'Biblical Interpretation in the Pesharim of die Qumran Community', Hebrew Studies 22 (1981) pp. 13-24. 40. The term nos occurs within several stereotyped phrases: '7V lain itis ('die interpretation of passage concerns'). nioQ ('its interpretation concerns'), ned* ITDB ('its interpretation is diat'). widi variations (Brownlee, Midrash Pesher, p. 23; Horgan. Pesharim, pp. 239-44). 41. T.H. Kim, 'Eschatological Orientation and die Alteration of Scripture in die Habakkuk Pesher'. JNES 49 (1990). pp. 185-94. The audior cites IQpHab 12.1-10 and 5.8-12 as specific examples. See also the alterations of Isa. 6.9-13 in IQIsa* 6.2-10 discussed by C.A. Evans, 'I Q Isaiah" and die Absence of Prophetic Critique at Qumran', RevQ 11 (1984), pp. 537-42.

136

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

For the purpose of this essay, of course, the crucial issue is the claim that the pesharim preserved revealed interpretations of Scripture. Here it must be observed that the author of IQpHab does not claim divine insight into the meaning of Scripture for himself, but rather attributes such insight to the founder or leader of the Community."^ Further since the claim that the true meaning of the mysteries of Scripture have been revealed to the Teacher of Righteousness occurs just twice in the pesharim, such a claim cannot be considered a generic feature of diese commentaries.*' The revealed character of this interpretation is evident in IQpHab 2.8, where the Teacher of Righteousness is described as:

The priest into whose heart God placed understanding to interpret all the words of his servants die prophets.

The idiom ]n3, 'to put into the heart', occurs in Neh. 2.12 and 7.5 where it refers to die divine guidance of Nehemiah's plans for Jerusalem (the same idiom occurs in Greek in Rev. 17.17).'*'' A similar gift of divine understanding is claimed for the Teacher of Righteousness in 4QpPs* 4.27, and recurs several times in the Hodayot, of which he may have been tiie autiior (IQH 2.13; 4.27-29; 7.27; 14.8).*' A special revelation of the meaning of the Torah that 42. This implies diat die interpretations in the pesharim had dieir origin in some form of communal study of the Scriptures at which die Teacher of Righteousness presided. Some suggestions regarding the Sitz im Leben of the pesharim have been made by J.T. Milik. 'Fragments d'un midrash de Michfe dans les manuscrits de Qumrin'. RB 59 (1952). p. 418: during die daily watch when a group probably read and interpreted a biblical book verse by verse (cf. IQS 6.6-8). Elsewhere Milik suggested that die commentaries might be linked to interpretations of Scripture presented during community meetings for worship {Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea [uans. J. Sttugnell; London: SCM Press, 1959], p. 41). 43. Thus die claim by F. Garcia Martfnez ('El pesher: Interpretaci6n prof^tica de la Escritura'. Salmanticensis 26 [1979]. pp. 125-39). that the chief distinction between pesharim and midrashim is diat the former claims to be divinely revealed, must be tieated with caution. Similarly, M. Horgan has called them 'revealed interpretations of revealed mysteries concerning history' ('The Bible Explained [Prophecies]', p. 251). 44. For parallels to diis idiom, see G. von Rad, 'Die Nehemia-Denkschrift'. Z4W 76(1964). pp. 176-87. 45. The identification of the Teacher of Righteousness as die author of the

AUNE Charismatic

Exegesis

137

has been granted to the community is mentioned in IQS S.8-10 (trans. Knibb):"* He [initianis] shall undertake by a binding oadi to return to the law of Moses with all his heart and soul, following all that he has commanded, and in accordance widt all diat has been revealed from it (njDO n^>an Vo'j) to Ihe sons of Zadok, die priests who keep the covenant and seek his will, and to the multitude of the men of dieir covenant who togedier willingly offer themselves for his truth and to walk according to his will.

This is one of several statements in I Q S reflecting the belief that the community's interpretation of Scripture was given by revelation (IQS 1.9; 8.15; 9.13).'" While is true that the verb n*?: in the Dead Sea Scrolls is used only of the community's understanding of the Hebrew Bible, not of the Bible itself, the former was certainly presupposed.** The revelation granted to the community is the focus of I Q S 8.15 (trans. Knibb): This (way) is the study of die law [which] he commanded dirough Moses, diat diey should act in accordance widi all diat has been revealed from dme to time (nra n» HÔT VOZ) and in accordance widi what the prophets revealed by his holy spirit (unnp nra crran t>i).

The phrase n»3 ru? nân biso, 'according to all that has been revealed from time to time', which occurs again in IQS 9.13, suggests that the insight into the true meaning of Scripture was not based on a single revelation, but rather on a continuing series of revelatory insights. Further, while the Holy Spirit is never mentioned in connection with the charismatic interpretation of Scripture, it is mentioned here as the instrument of prophetic revelation. There is no indication, however, that the revealed interpretation of Scripture, whether disclosed to the Teacher of Righteousness or to the 'sons of Zadok' or perhaps other members of the community, is linked to particular exegetical techniques.'" Hodayot is disputed by D. Dombkowski Hopkins, 'The Qumran Community and I Q Hodayot: A Reassessment', RevQ 10 (1981), pp. 323-64. 46. M.A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). 47. Josephus claims diat some Essenes profess to predict the future, an ability apparendy based on their study of die Hebrew Bible, but he does not claim that their predictions are inspired (War 2.8.12 §159). 48. Contra H.-J. Zobel, TDOT, II, p. 487. 49. This is the view of G.J. Brooke, but it is based only on inference:

138

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

rv. Josephus and Charismatic

Interpretation

Exegesis

Josephus preserves important information about prophecy in Judaism during the Hellenistic and Roman p e r i o d s . ' " He may have been particularly interested in the subject because he considered himself as a prophet, though perhaps not equal in status or authority with the biblical p r o p h e t s . " Understandably sensitive about his surrender to the Romans, he presents a brief apology for his actions in War 3.8.3 §§351-54 (trans. Thackeray in LCL): He [Josephus] was an interpreter of dreams (jtepi Kpioeii; oveiptov) and skilled in divining die meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity [ta aH
A U N E Charismatic

Exegesis

139

in the ancient world), 2 . revelation can be ambiguous, 3 . the possible link between priesthood and prophecy, 4 . the importance of a knowledge of biblical prophecy, 5 . inspiration enables an interpreter to understand dreams and prophecies correctly. The passage is particularly important because of the parallel between the interpretation of dreams and the interpretation of Scripture, a parallel which a number of scholars have recognized between the O T tradition of dream interpretadon and the terminology of the Qumran pesharim (see below). Though die language of inspiration is Hellenistic (e.g. the term evOeoq), it is quite clear that Josephus claims, perhaps because of his priesdy descent, that his understanding of the true meaning of both dreams and Scriptures was based on divine insight,'' like that of Joseph or Daniel of old. Martin Hengel, who holds that the charismatic interpretation of Scripture was characteristic of prophecy in the Judaism of die Hellenistic and Roman periods, has argued diat Zealot prophecy during die first century CE (like prophecy in early Judaism generally) had diree characteristics: 1. the charismatic interpretation of Scripture, 2 . the eschatological possession of the Spirit, and 3 . a historical and political orientation.'* Hengel refers to Josephus War 6 . 5 . 4 § § 3 1 2 - 1 3 (trans. L C L ) : " But what more than all else incited diem to war was an ambiguous oracle (Xpnoitoi; djKpipoXoi;), likewise found in their sacred scriptures (ev toi<; iepoi? ewptiHevoi; Yponnooiv), to the effect that at that lime one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of dieir own race, and many of dieir wise men (noXXoi x&v ooqxDv) went astray in dieir interpretation of it

While this enigmatic passage suggests that, in Josephus's view, scholars called ootpoi, 'sages', occupied diemselves widi die interpretation of diis oracle. Despite die educated guesses of Hengel and odiers,'* very

53. When he speaks of die inspiration of die biblical prophets, he uses die phrase Ti ejtijtvoiav fi otJto tow 6eow (Apion 1.7 §37), but he does use die term evGeo? of Saul when he prophesies (Ant. 6.4.2 §56), and of Elijah (Ant. 8.13.6 §346); cf. Feldman, 'Prophets and Prophecy', p. 436. 54. M. Hengel, The Zealots (U-ans. D. Smidi; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989), pp. 233-45. 55. Hengel, Zealots, p. 237. The same ambiguous prophecy is referred to in Tacitus Hist. 5.13 and Suetonius Ves. 4.5. 56. This passage is discussed in some detail by Hengel, Zealots, pp. 236-40.

140

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

little more can be said with any certainty about this passage, which is probably not less ambiguous than the oracle to which it refers. There is no clear indication that this oracle was circulated in Zealot circles. There is no clear indication that the 'ambiguous oracle' referred to Num. 24.17 (or even Dan. 7.13-14). Nor is there any evidence that a 'prophetic charism* was involved in the interpretation of diis oracle. While littie can be said about charismatic exegesis in Zealot circles, it appears clear that Josephus himself was a charismatic exegete in the sense that he regarded his ability to understand and interpret bodi revelatory dreams and Scripture as die product of divine enlightenment. V. 'Charismatic Exegesis' in Other Phases of Early Judaism Recent scholarship has made it increasingly clear that a long process of explanation and adaptation is already reflected in the Hebrew Bible in the form of intracanonical interpretations that have become part of die biblical text itself.'' One of the central convictions that permeated early Judaism was that the sacred texts of the past have a direct bearing on the present." This conviction is reflected in the various literary genres in which various types of biblical interpretation find expression. In many respects the Septuagint, die Old Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible (with additions from various sources), is also a subtie interpretative rendition of die Hebrew text." Sometimes die additions to the Hebrew text are hot so subtle, as in the extensive additions to Esther and Daniel found only in Old Greek translations.*" Since this interpretative translation as coextensive with die biblical text itself, the 'claim' for die divine inspiration and autiiority of this complex collection exegetical subtieties is implied rather dian expressed. One result 57. Bloch. 'Midrash', col. 1270; Michael Fishbane. 'Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis', JBL 99 (1980), pp. 343-61. idem. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1985). 58. Kugel and Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation, p. 38. 59. E. Tov. 'Die griechischen Bibel iibersetzungen'. in Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini (eds.), ANRW 2.II.20.1 (Beriin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987), pp. 143-45, 147-51; S. Jellicoe. The Septuagint in Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 318-24. 60. Septuagint manuscripts often differ among diemselves; die version of Tobit found in codex Sinaiticus (»). for example, is more paraphrastic dian the versions of Tobit in die codices Alexandrinus (A) and Vaticanus (B).

A U N E Charismatic

Exegesis

141

of this implicit claim is the canonical status of the Septuagint in Eastern Orthodoxy. By the late second century BCE, the Septuagint was provided widi a legend supporting its divine origin in the letter of Aristeas.*' Similarly, die Targums are presented as the biblical text, yet since they have a paraphrastic character resulting from the amplification of the Hebrew text, frequendy including traditions witii a popular character." The Targums vary in die degree to which they amplify the underlying text; even the Targum Onqelos, which sticks closer to the Hebrew text than the various fragmentary Palestinian Targums, includes material not found in the underlying text.*' Targums, then, must also be categorized as interpretations that present diemselves as having an implicidy inspired character. One of the techniques of apocalyptic writing often involved the attiibution of predictions about tiie recent past, as well as the present and future, to ancient Israelite sages or angelic revealers. That is, bodi die visions and interpretations provided by supernatural revealers are part of a complementary revelatory process. Apocalypses use biblical texts in a complex variety of ways. In die partial texts of some apocalypses, prophetic books of the Jewish Scriptures are used as structural models, thereby legitimating new elements by dressing them in familiar garments.** Apocalypses also make frequent use of the 'anthological style' in which Scripture is echoed in allusions placed within an interpretative framework, not formally quoted and matched with a separate commentary.*' Apocalypses virtually never present formal

61. The author of the Epistle of Aristeas clearly regarded the Septuagint translators as inspired; see the recent arguments of Oriinsky. 'The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text'. II. pp. 542-48; see also D. Georgi. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1986), pp. 110-11. The inspiration of die Septuagint translators is emphasized in Philo {Vit. Mos. 2.37.40; he is familiar with Epistle of Aristeas), who claims diat the tfanslators of the Septuagint wrote 'as though divinely inspired' (icaSajtep evGowoiwvte^). and were not simply translators but hierophants and prophets (ovx ep(iTivEa<; eKeivov<; aXX' iepo
142

The Pseudepigrapha

arui Early Biblical

Interpretation

interpretations of biblical texts separated from the text itself. The book of Jubilees, written during the second century CE, is essentially a revised version of Genesis 1-Exodus 14, including many additions and deletions, all presented as a revelation transmitted to Moses by an angel on Mount Sinai (Jub. 1.1-6, 26-29). This retelling includes many features that are not found in the Pentateuch itself, but which are free compositions by the author.*' Two examples are the elaborate explanation of why God had called Abraham (Jub. 11.1412.21), and the explanation of why God decided to test Abraham by ordering him to sacrifice his son Isaac (Jub. 17.15-18). The fact that the author altered the text in so many ways makes it obvious that his conception of 'sacred text' was not identical with the modern conception of a 'fixed text'. It is clear diat die author is consciously presented his work as an inspired interpretation of much of the narrative portion of the Pentateuch." The Temple Scroll (1 IQTemple), dating to die second century BCE, presents itself as a book of authoritative religious law which, like the five books of the Pentateuch, was regarded as having been given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.** One of die more striking features of I IQTemple is the frequent introduction of first-person speeches attributed to God, thereby making the entire composition the revealed word of God.*' The creation of the Temple Scroll is virtually identical to diat postulated for the creation of the Torah itself.™ This brief consideration of the Septuagint, the Targumim and

Isa. 24.17-23 in / En. 54.1-56.4 and 64.1-68.1. Suter uses die term midrash incorrectiy, however, for no distinction is made in / En. 37-71 between text and interpretation, and such a distinction is a sine qua non of midrash. 66. J.C. Endres has identified 25 pericopes freely composed by the author in Jub. 19-45 (Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees [CBQMS, 18; Washington, DC: Cadiolic Biblical Association of America. 1987], pp. 197-98). 67. Kugel and Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation, pp. 60-61. 68. Y. Yadin, 'Is the Temple Scroll a Sectarian Document?*, in G.M. Tucker and D.A. Knight (eds.). Humanizing America's Iconic Book: SBL Centennial Addresses 1980 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 153-69. 69. H.-A. Mink has characterized the Temple Scroll as 'pseudepigraphic halakah' in 'The Use of Scripture in die Temple Scroll and die Status of die Scroll as U w ' , SJOT 1 (1987), pp. 20-50. 70. A.M. Wilson and L. Wills, 'Literary Sources of die Temple Scroll', HTR 75 (1982). pp. 275-88; G. Brin, 'Concerning Some of die Uses of die Bible in die Temple Scroll'. RevQ 12 (1987). pp. 519-28.

AUNE Charismatic

Exegesis

143

several pseudepigraphic compositions emanating from early Judaism (apocalypses, Jubilees, die Temple Scroll) has complicated the conventional conceptions of 'charismatic exegesis'. All of these compositions are vehicles for presenting various forms of biblical interpretation. The Septuagint and tiie Targumim blend exegetical traditions witii the biblical text in such a way that the new amalgam implicitiy presents itself as Scripture. Jubilees and 1 IQTemple are two of many examples of 'Rewritten Scripture' in early Judaism, yet differ from the Septuagint and tiie Targumim only in the more extensive degree to which nonbiblical traditions are assimilated to a new presentation of tiie biblical text. It is not possible to determine whedier these representations of biblical texts were intended by dieir unknown authors to supplement or to replace their canonical counterparts. Of the genres discussed in this section, certainly the apocalypses present interpretative traditions that make no pretense of being identified with portions of tiie biblical canon. Here die technique is quite different. Exegetical traditions (along with a pastiche of various types of cosmological and eschatological lore) are presented as divine revelation communicated to a seer by a supernatural revealer. All of these forms of biblical interpretation legitimate biblical interpretation eitiier by linking it to texts already recognized as sacred, or by claiming fresh revelations.

VI. Charismatic Exegesis in Eariy

Christianity

The interpretation of die Jewish Scriptures was one of the central preoccupations of early Christianity. The focus of tiiis interpretative activity was largely christological, that is, it centered on die interpretation of eschatological prophecies diat demonstrated diat Jesus was die Messiah and that his life, deadi and return were all anticipated in Scripture." This focus on the eschatological significance of the Old Testament has close similarities with the concerns of early Judaism,

71. Some of the more important treatments of this subject include C H . Dodd. According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: James Nisbet. 1952); K. Stendahl, The School of St Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968 [1954]); B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic: The Doctrinal Significance of Old Testament Quotations (London: SCM Press, 1961); D. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).

144

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

particularly the Qumran Community. Yet there is no real parallel in early Christianity to the verse-by-verse commentary found in the Qumran pesharim.'^ Indeed, until at least the ntiid-second century AD, there is no evidence to suggest that early Christians adopted the genre of the verse-by-verse commentary on sacred b o o k s . ' ' At most, one finds examples of what was designated above as 'isolated pesharim' in both narrative and expository discourse in the New Testament, in which an Old Testament passage and its interpretadon are juxtaposed but not blended. An example from nartadve discourse is the series of Old Testament quotations widi die distinctive ivaJonox; nXripa^ or nXtipcbOii formulas found at the conclusion of narrative episodes in Mattiiew (1.22; 2.15, 17, 23; 4.14; 8.17; 12.17; 13.35; 21.4; 27.9).'" Examples of the use of Old Testament quotations in expository discourse are found throughout the genuine Pauline letters, though only in die so-called Hauptbriefe, widi the greatest concentration in R o m a n s . " Christians believed, as did die Judaism from which they emerged, that because they were the people of God they had received special wisdom and insight from God (1 Cor. 1.18-31; Eph. 1.9; Barn. 5.3; Ignatius Eph. 14.1; Polycarp Phil. 12.1). This special insight was often attributed to the revelatory influence Spirit of God, believed to be present as the eschatological gift of God in tiie midst of the

72. J.J. Collins, 'Prophecy and Fulfillment in the Qumran Scrolls*. JETS 30 (1987), pp. 267-78. 73. The first Christian known to comment on an enUre biblical book was Heracleon, a Valentinian Gnostic whose activity was centered at Rome, ca. 170 CE. Fifty-one fragments of his comments on the gospels are preserved, largely in Clement of Alexandria. Eel. 25.1 and Strom. 4.71-72, and Origen, Comm. in Joh. 13 (trans, in Werner Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts [Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1972], I, pp. 162-83). Earlier (ca. 160 BC). the Valentinian Ptolemaeus had commented on the prologue to the Gospel of John (fragments in Irenaeus. i4Jv. haer. 1.8.5). 74. K. Stendahl. The School of St Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, new edn. 1968). pp. 194-202 (where die similarities between (^mran pesher methods and Matdiaean formula quotations are emphasized). Nowhere does Stendahl find it useful to apply terms like 'charismadc exegesis' to early Chrisdan biblical interpretation. 75. E.E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the OU Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957). On pp. 139-47, Ellis argues for die similarity between 'midrash pesher' (an interpretative reshaping of the text from an apocalyptic perspective) and Paul's exegedcal technique.

A U N E Charismatic

Exegesis

145

believing community (1 Cor. 2.6-16; 1 Jn 2.20, 27).'* Various phases of early Christianity understood this gift of divine insight in very particular ways. The Johannine community, for example, was convinced the Spirit enabled them to understand the true meaning of the words of Jesus (Jn 14.26; 16.12-15; cf. 2.22; 12.16)." Here 'charismatic exegesis' focuses on the oral transmission of Jesus traditions, presumably to legitimate the particular understanding of that tradition cherished by the Johannine church. For Paul and the author of Luke-Acts, this supernatural insight could be applied to the Old Testament (2 Cor. 3.14-18; Lk. 24.45)." In 1 Cor. 2.6-16,'» Paul claimed that the Spirit of God enabled Christians to understand the secret and hidden wisdom of God (i.e., the gospel of Jesus Christ) which had been concealed for ages but was now revealed to diose who had received the Spirit. The notion of a 'mystery of God hidden for ages but now revealed' has been designated the 'revelation schema*,*" and occurs widi some frequency in Pauline and Deutero-Pauline literature (Col. 1.26-27; Eph. 3.5, 9-10; Rom. 16.25-26; cf. 2 Tim. 1.9-10; Tit. 1.2-3; 1 Pet. 1.20). This 'revelation schema' is specifically linked to die Christian understanding of die OT in Rom. 16.25 (NRSV): Now to God who is able to suengdien you according to my gospel and die proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery (dnoKdXuyiv ^voxiipiou) diat was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed (
Here the Greek term translated 'disclosed' is in die passive voice, which functions here as a passivum divinum, tiiat is, as a circumlocution used 76. See D.E. Aune, The Presence of God in the Community: The Eucharist in its Early Christian Cultic Context'. 5 / 7 2 9 (1976), pp. 451-59. 77. M.E. Boring, 'The Influence of Christian Prophecy on the Johannine Portrayal of die Paraclete and Jesus', NTS 25 (1978), pp. 113-23. 78. Cerfaux. ' L ' e x ^ g ^ de I'Ancien Testament', p. 138. 79. P. Stuhlmacher. 'The Hermeneutical Significance of 1 Cor. 2.6-16', in G.F. Hawthorne (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987). pp. 328-47; see also K.O. Sandnes. '"Paul—One of the Prophets"?A Contribution to the Apostle's Self-Understanding' (Stavanger: Sandnes, 1987). pp. 79-119 (now published in Tubingen by J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]. 1990). 80. D. Luhrmann, Die Offenbarungsverstdndnis des Paulus und in paulinischen Gemeinden (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Veriag, 1965). pp. 113-17.

146

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

to avoid mentioning God as subject of a finite v e r b , " and can therefore be translated 'God has disclosed*. The widespread use of the 'revelation schema*, with its hidden-revealed dialectic, suggests that early Christians perceived that their understanding of the christological significance of the Old Testament was radically different from Judaism. It is further likely, diough scarcely demonstrable, diat early Chrisdan biblical interpreters shared the view that their understanding of the Old Testament was, in a general sense, the product of divine enlightenment. To go beyond this and to claim that early Chrisdan interpreters considered diemselves divinely inspired is to exceed the evidence. The term 'Christian prophet*, however, is ambiguous, for it can refer to a role played by particular individuals, perhaps even an office (Acts 13.1-3; 1 Cor. 12.10), but can also refer to those who prophesy, whedier just once, a few times, or regularly (1 Cor. 14.1). Gerhard Dautzenberg has demonstrated the extent to which prophecy in early Judaism and early Christianity was, at least in part, an interpretative phenomenon.*^ Glossolalia, clearly a type of prophetic activity, was (at least occasionally) subject to another type of prophetic gift, the epiiEveia Y X X O O O C O V , 'interpretation of tongues' (1 Cor. 12.10; 14.2728). Similarly, prophetic speech was also subject to interpretation (1 Cor. 14.29; perhaps to be identified with the gift of 5iaKpioei<; jivevudToiv, mentioned in 1 Cor. 12.10)." One important issue to consider is whether or not Christian prophets were charismatic interpreters of Scripture.'* The connection 81. J. Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie. I. Die Verkiindigung Jesu (Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971). pp. 20-24. In die Targumim the passive voice is frequendy used to replace the acdve voice when God is die subject of verbs in die Hebrew text (cf. Targ. Jer. 3.8; 8.4; 11.20; 16.17). 82. Dautzenberg, Urchristliche Prophetie, pp. 43-121.122-48. 83. Dautzenberg, Urchristliche Prophetie, pp. 122-48; W.A. Grudem. The Gift of Prophecy in I Corinthians (Washington. DC: University Press of America, 1982). pp. 263-88 (an attempt to refute Dantzenberg's view that SiaKptoei; )tve\)^dT(ov in 1 Cor. 12.10 is another way of describing die 5iaicpiv£iv of prophetic speech in ICor. 14.29); Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, pp. 217-29 (in which Dautzenberg's views are qualified). 84. Scholars who have emphasized the role of Christian prophets as interpreters of Scripture include E.G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St Peter (London: Macmillan, 1946), p. 134; L. Gaston. No Stone on Another (NovTSup. 23; Leiden: E.J. Brill. 1970). pp. 50-51; E. Cothenet. 'Les prophStes Chretiens comme ex^gStes

AUNE Charismatic

Exegesis

147

between prophets and Old Testament interpretadon is often argued in the following way. 1. Prophecy played an important role in paraenesis, that is, moral exhortation, in early Christianity (Acts 4.36; 9.27; 13.15; 15.32; 1 Cor. 12.7; 14.3)." 2. Furdier, exhortation is clearly associated widi die exegesis of Scripture in Rom. 15.4: 'For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement (napaKX-fjoeox;) of the Scriptures we might have hope'. 3. One could therefore conclude with E. Earle Ellis that 'The interpretation of Scripture was indeed regarded, under certain conditions, as prophetic activity'.** Yet the evidence he adduces is inadequate to establish his diesis. The flaws in this line of reasoning are that paraenesis was never the exclusive province of either prophecy or biblical interpretation in the early church, and that prophets are never explicidy linked to the task of biblical interpretation. There is little evidence to substantiate die view that one of the major preoccupations of Christian prophets was the inspired exegesis of the Old Testament. Since Paul probably regarded himself as a Christian prophet," and frequently interprets the Old Testament in his main letters, it is appropriate to ask whether or not it is appropriate to regard him as a charismatic exegete. Winfield Hall has focused on diis problem. While many scholars have used the term 'charismatic exegesis' in vague ways, Winfield Hall has proposed diat it has diree characteristics tiiat reflect the form, content and function of this inspired exegetical activity:** 1. die use of formulas such as 'die Lord says* or 'that it might be fulfilled*, which suggest that the interpreter is emphasizing the inspiration of die oracle quoted (form), 2. the tendentious alteration charismatiques de rEcriture*. in J. Panagopoulos (ed.). Prophetic Vocation in the New Testament and Today (NovTSup, 45; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977). pp. 77-107; reprinted with some changes in E. Codienet. Exegese et Liturgie (Lectio Divina, 133; Paris: Les Editions du Cerf. 1988). pp. 63-96; E.E. Ellis. 'The Role of die Christian Prophet in Acts', Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). pp. 137-38; W.S. Hall. Paul as a Christian Prophet in his Interpretation of the Old Testament in Romans 9-11 (ThD dissertation. Ludieran School of Theology at Chicago; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. 1982). 85. Ellis. Prophecy and Hermeneutic, pp. 130-38. 86. EWis, Prophecy and Hermeneutic, p. 138. 87. Aune. Prophecy in Early Christianity, pp. 28-62. Most recenUy. see Sandnes, Paul. 88. Hall. Paul as a Christian Prophet, pp. 133-48.

148

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

of the text of Scripture to fit the situation of the interpreter (content), and 3. the O T prophecy is regarded by the interpreter as directly applicable to his or her own situation (function). Since Hall does not mention the sine qua non of charismatic exegesis, that is, the explicit or implicit claim that the interpreter or the interpretation has been divinely revealed, his diree criteria are inadequate. Hall attempted to demonstrate that Paul was a charismatic exegete tiirough a careful analysis of the way in which he interprets the Old Testament in Romans 9 - 1 1 . In many ways, Romans 9-11 is ideally suited for such a task: 1. It is die single passage in die Pauline letters widi the highest concentration of OT quotations and allusions. 2. It is a unit of text that concludes in Rom. 11.33-36 with a literary form consisting of a prayer of praise and dianksgiving following a divine revelation.*' 3. It occurs within a composition diat concludes with a 'revelation schema' in Rom. 16.25 (quoted above), which links the hidden-revealed dialectic with the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. Unfortunately, however, since the author's three characteristics of apply to much of early Jewish and early Christian biblical interpretation and are incapable of distinguishing 'charismatic exegesis' from any other form of interpretative activity, his informative discussion of Romans 9-11 falls short of demonstrating that Paul regarded himself as a charismatic exegete. Yet, in light of Paul's overall hermeneutic perspective (1 Cor. 2.6-16), and with specific reference to his articulation of the 'revelation schema' in Rom. 16.25, and the role of Rom. 11.33-36 as a prayer of tiianksgiving following a divine revelation, it is appropriate to use die term 'charismatic exegesis' of Paul's interpretation of die Old Testament. However, 'charismatic exegesis' here is not used in the sense of die immediate inspiration of die interpreter, but rather with the more general meaning that the Christian community's insights into the christological significance of the Old Testament is the product of divine enlightenment. VII. Conclusion The foregoing discussion suggests that 'charismatic exegesis' is an extremely complex phenomenon which (at least for early Judaism and

89. Examples of this literary form: 2 Chron. 20.18-19; Dan. 2.20-23; / En. 90.40; 4 Ezra 13.57-58; 2 Bar. 75.1-8; Josephus, War 3.8.3 §354; Corpus Hermeticum 1.31-32; Mt. 11.25-27 (and par. Lk. 10.21-22); Hermas, Vis. 2.1.1-2.

AUNE

Charismatic

Exegesis

149

early Christianity) appears to be rooted in the belief that the Torah can only be properly understood if God himself grants divine insight to his people. Charismadc exegesis does not consist of a particular type of interpretation identifiable on the basis of its distinctive form, content or function. Rather, charismsatic exegesis is essentially a hermeneutical ideology that provides divine legitimation for a particular understanding of a sacred text which is shared with others who understand tiie text differently. Yet charismatic exegesis must be understood in an even broader and more comprehensive way, since the phenomenon of 'prophecy by interpretation' is not found only in early Judaism and early Christianity but is more widespread and can apparently occur under certain conditions in other religions and cultures.'" In conclusion let me suggest that 'charismatic exegesis', or 'revealed interpretation', exhibits the following morphological features: 1. it is a procedure applied to dreams, visions, oral communications or relatively stable and authoritative written texts that are regarded as having a divine origin. 2. These dreams, messages or texts are regarded as puzzling or enigmatic, as indeed revelatory communications are 90. The interpretative procedures of die Qumran pesharim (discussed in more detail below), for example, are closely paralleled in the late third-century BCE Egyptian Demotic Chronicle, or the 'Patriotic Oracles with Interpretation' (J. Bergman, 'Introductory Remarks on Apocalypticism in Egypt*, in D. Hellholm [ed.], Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East [Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck. 1983]. pp. 54-55); cf. F. Daumas, 'Litterature proph6tique et ex^g^tique 6gyptienne et commentaries essSniens', in M. Jourjon et al. (eds.), A la recontre de Dieu: Memorial A. Gelin (Le Puy: Editions Xavier Mappus, 1961). pp. 203-211; J.J. Collins. 'Jewish Apocalyptic against its Hellenistic Near Eastern Environment', BASOR 220 (1975). pp. 27-36. An example of die use of lemmata followed by an explanation of the text may be taken from die Demotic Chronicle, col. 3, II. 1-2 (based on W. Spiegelberg. Die sogennante Demotische Chronik [Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. 1914]. p. 16): 'Rejoice. Uien, Prophet of Harsaphes!" This means: The Prophet of Harsaphes rejoices concerning Ihe Greeks, for they became rulers in Hngs. 'May tie open the furnaces! I have given him the catde'— This means: The ruler, who will come, opens [the doors) of Ihe temple and allows sacrifices to again be brought lo the gods.

For an examination of the parallels between the Qumran pesharim and the Gnostic Pistis Sophia, see J. Carmignac, 'Le genre litt^raire du "pesher" dans la PistisSophia', RevQ 4 (1963-64), pp. 497-522.

150

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

frequendy held to b e , " and dierefore diey stand in need of interpretadon, clarificadon, updating and actualization.'^ 3. This interpretation can be presented orally, or fused with the text through revision (i.e. the incorporation of interpolations into the text during the process of recopying), or can be kept separated from the text itself. 4. This explication often exhibits a marked sectarian orientation, and the thrust of the interpolated or interpreted text serves to reinforce or legitimate the group's particular view of the present or program for the future.'^ 5. The interpretation is regarded as having a divine origin, eidier dirough the immediate inspiration of the interpreter, tiie consciousness of die interpreter that he or she participates in a tradition of revealed interpretation, or through the attribution of the interpretation ultimately to supernatural beings or God himself. 6. Since the interpretation has a divine origin, it has the potential of rivalling the original message of text in autiiority, though it usually continues to be regarded as qualitatively subordinate to the original revelatory communication.

91. G. van der Leeuw. Religion in Essence and Manifestation (2 vols.; trans. J.E. Turner; New York: Harper & Row. 1963), II. pp. 564-65. 92. J.Z. Smith. 'Wisdom and Apocalyptic'. Map is not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (SJLA. 23; Uiden: E.J. Brill, 1978). pp. 74-85. An example is found in Dan. 9.2,24-26, in which Jeremiah's prophecy that the exile would last seventy years (Jer. 25.11-12; 29.10) is expanded to mean 70 weeks of years, i.e., 490 years, since the author lived in die second, rather dian the sixdi, century BCE; see P. Grelot, 'Soixante-dix semaines d'anuses'. Bib 50 (1969), pp. 169-86. 93. Kugel and Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, pp. 37-39.

GOD AS 'FATHER' IN THE TARGUMIM, IN NON-CANONICAL LITERATURES OF EARLY JUDAISM AND FRIMMVE CHRISTIANITY, AND IN MATTHEW

Bruce Chilton

Interest in what has come to be called 'midrash' in contemporary scholarship has corresponded and contributed to a program to locate Christianity within early Judaism. That program is not simply a matter of treating Judaism as a 'background', as if it were a static frame witiiin which the dynamics of Christian faith emerged. Radjer, our period has seen the possibility emerge of treating Christianity and Judaism together, both sympathetically and critically, as mutually explicating, if definitively distinctive, variants of biblical religion. Indeed, some of us would insist diat their relationship is so close as to require that both be understood if either is to be comprehended. Because Scripture is a vital force within both religious perspectives, and because the contents of what they call tiie book or 'Bible' are largely shared, a natural point of departure is the simple question 'how is die Bible read widiin each of die systems of belief?' Aldiough that question is simple, to answer it is not, and there is the further complication that modern scholars have chosen to refer to the issue under the ancient category, 'midrash'. The common approach is to point out that die noun D i n o refers to anydiing tiiat one 'searches out', and dierefore to what one might call the inquisitive use of Scripture. That definition is a hybrid of ancient etymology and modern hermeneutics, but it has nonetheless won a place for itself in current parlance. Within early Judaism, 'midrash' refers to the deliberate exposition of Scripture. If such exegesis is not at issue, the term in its ancient sense cannot appropriately be applied. But some of my contemporaries also use the noun to refer to tiie process of thought that stands behind midrash (which I should call interpretation), and to the

152

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

subsequent use made of what an exposition states (which I should call a history of thought). The desire to characterize the use and influence of Scripture in broad terms is understandable, because the fact is that Scripture is deeply implicated in die visions of God diat Judaism and Christianity convey. But it is as well to be clear diat, when a statement is made about God by means of a biblical text, what is said may reflect the speaker's theological conviction more than his or her comprehension of the text or adherence to exegetical norms. For diat reason, a comparison of religious systems must not be limited to an evaluation of dieir 'midrash*, because the danger emerges diat we will mistake properly dieological differences for happenstances of exegetical policy.' Reference to God as 'fatiier' in primitive Christianity and early Judaism is a likely point of comparison, and one which will shortly take us to die heart of a properly comparative study of distinct religious systems. But before the material can do that for us, we need to clear away some undergrowtii tiiat has been left us by recent discussion. Joachim Jeremias is still widely cited, in die literature and in classrooms, for his analysis of die place of God*s fadierhood in Jesus* teaching. Jeremias held that, among die rabbis, 'Johanan b. Zakkai, a contemporary of die apostles, who taught c. AD 50-80, seems to be die first to use the designation "heavenly Father*' ("our heavenly Fatiier**, or "IsraePs heavenly Fatiier**) for God*,^ and diat Jesus* direct address of God as 'Abba* was unique.' He pointed out that, within rabbinic literature, the reference could not be found in a 1. Cf. B. Chilton. 'Commenting on the Old Testament (widi Particidar Reference to the Pesharim, Philo, and the Mekilta', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.). It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 122-40; 'Variedes and Tendencies of Midrash: Rabbinic Interpretations of Isaiah 24.23', in R.T. France and D. Wenham (eds.). Gospel Perspectives, III (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), pp. 9-32. 2. Trans. J. Bowden and C. Burchard, The Prayers of Jesus (SBT, 6; London: SCM Press. 1967), p. 16. Jeremias immediately explains, however, that he has in mind only that Yohanan popularized the usage. After all. the conception itself is rooted in the Hebrew Bible, cf. Jeremias. Prayers of Jesus, pp. 12-15, and Deut. 32.6; 2 Sam. 7.14; Pss. 68.5; 89.26; Isa. 63.16; 64.18; Jer. 3.4, 19; 31.9; Mai. 1.6; 2.10. 3. Jeremias. Prayers of Jesus, pp. 53-65, and above all, p. 57, for its famous reference to 'ipsissima vox Jesu'.

CHILTON God as 'Father'

153

passage datable prior to Yohanan.* The obvious problem in Jeremias's analysis is that passages in rabbinica are generally difficult to date prior to Jesus, owing to the chronology of the documents themselves. When one considers the number of references to God's fatherhood in rabbinica, and takes into account die improbability that Jesus' usage somehow stands behind them, it is far more likely, as Gottlob Schrenk concluded, that the reference was conventional within the first century. Schrenk's analysis is supported by his citation of passages in Jubilees, the Sibylline Oracles, 3 Maccabees, Tobit, tiie Apocalypse of Moses, and the Testament of Judah; his point is that rabbinica and the Pseudepigrapha together (along with Philo) attest a usage tiiat was widespread within early Judaism.' Schrenk is concerned also to forestall any attempt to suggest that Jesus was unique in imputing a particular sense or emphasis to tiie locution.* The first volume of the Wdrterbuch, in an article on aPPa, takes a similar line, and it is telling that neither editor, Kittel or Friedrich, invited Jeremias to contribute an article relevant to 'Abba', a topic upon which his reputation in Anglo-Saxon circles is largely built, although Jeremias did, of course, make other contributions to the Wdrterbuch. The published findings of the Wdrterbuch make it unmistakably clear that Jeremias's perspective was not shared by the editors, who in fact saw to it it diat it was refuted. That point is worth recognizing, because in his work on die subject 'Abba', Geza Vermes has claimed that Jeremias's position has been dominant in die study of the New T e s t a m e n t , ' and that the Wdrterbuch is to be associated with the 4. Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, pp. 16, 17. 5. G. Schrenk, 'Der Vaterbegriff im Spatjudentum', TWNT, V, pp. 974-81. The English version appears as 'The Fadier Concept in Later Judaism', TDNT, V. pp. 974-82. 6. Schrenk concludes ('Der Vaterbegriff, p. 980): 'Die individuelle Fassung der Beziehung zum himmlischen Vater uiu also keineswegs erst bei Jesus auf...'. The English rendering of the statement appears more reserved by comparison, 'Certainly die individual version of relationship to die heavenly Father does not appear for die first time in Jesus...' 7. G. Vermes. Jesus and the World of Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), pp.41, 42. It should be observed that, at one, crucial point. Vermes misrepresents Jeremias's position. He claims diat Jeremias regarded otPPa as 'the "chatter of a small child'" (p. 42), and then adduces examples where the term is used among adults. But what Jeremias wrote (p. 62, and cf. p. 16 n. 9) was: 'One often reads (and I myself believed it at one time) that when Jesus spoke to his

154

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

ideology of the Third Reich.' The first contention has already been shown to be false. The second is more difficult to refute, because it relies on the old technique of imputing guilt by association: because Kittel was sympathetic with National Socialism, anti-Semitism is attributed to contributors to the Wdrterbuch. Vermes is interested in claiming that his own perspective is original, according to which 'Abba' was particularly used as an address to God among people he calls charismatic Hasids.' Two specific figures are in Vermes's mind, Honi, known as die circle drawer, and Hanina ben Dosa. A story is told according to which a grandson of Honi, named Abba Hilkiah, was approached by children during a drought, saying 'Abba, Abba, give us rain!' He then prayed to the 'Lord of the universe', to help those who did not know the difference between the Abba who gives rain and the Abba who does not.'" Vermes's solution is troubled by many of the same problems that afflict Jeremias's. The focus, first of all, is too narrowly resbicted to rabbinica, and even dien, die instances widiin rabbinica are misconstrued. The examples of Honi and Hanina do not, as Vermes maintains, establish a type of charismatic Hasid. The fact is that both of them are referred to within rabbinica as among rabbis, and, as George Foot Moore pointed out, Aqiba also (and effectively) prayed for rain, so that tiie ability is scarcely a unique charism." That Aqiba heavenly Father he took up the chatter of a small child. To assume diis would be a piece of inadmissible naivety'. Jeremias elsewhere (cf. pp. 58-62) gives a much fuller linguistic discussion of the usage among adults than Vermes does, and to see some of the same evidence marshaled against Jeremias by Vermes is what might be called an exercise in creative midrash. 8. Vermes, Jesus and World of Judaism, pp. 64-66. On p. 65, Vermes remarks that scholars of die New Testament treat the Wdrterbuch 'as a gospel Uiith above all criticism'. 9. Cf. G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels (London: Collins, 1973). pp. 69-82. 10. Vermes. Jesus the Jew, p. 211; Jesus and the World, p. 42. on both occasions citing b. Ta'an. 23b. In neither book does Vermes mention diat Jeremias cites the passage in full and discusses it (pp. 61. 62), and also gives credit for the reference to J. Leipoldt in Jesu Verhaltnis zu Juden und Griechen (Leipzig: G.Wigand, 1941). pp. 136-37. 11. G.F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), p. 235. Moore's presentation of stories about Honi and Hanina (pp. 222.235-36)—which Vermes does not cite— makes it plain that efficacious prayer did not constitute die line of demarcation of a


155

was associated with powers to pray for divine aid in the course of nature did not in any way reduce his status as a teacher, or demand anodier category for him. Even if die existence of such a category be granted, for the sake of argument, Hilkiah's paternity would by no means demonstrate he belongs within it. Further, as we will shortly see, God could be appealed to as 'father', by those outside the circle of rabbinic teachers. In any case, Jeremias observed that Abba Hilkiah does not address God as 'Fadier', even diough he knows he is as a fadier. He calls him 'Lord','^ a change from 'Father' which is also made in Targum Jeremiah.'' Although Vermes's purpose is comprehensively to refiite Jeremias' posidon, he in fact only aggravates die mediodological weaknesses of the latter's approach, by limiting his survey of the evidence of Judaism to late, rabbinic sources, and by attempting to justify a christological reading of Jesus. Vermes' charismatic Hasid is certainly less orthodox than Jerenuas' unique Jesus, peculiarly conscious of a filial relationship with God, but both represent tiie sort of effort at Christology which is appropriate only after evidence has been adduced, not at the foundational stage of inquiry. The Pentateuchal Targumim called Neofiti, the Fragmentary Targum, and Pseudo-Jonathan, widi their expansive, often innovative readings, provide clear evidence of an understanding of God as father widiin Judaism. For die present purpose, only Pentateuchal Targums may be considered,''' and Onqelos, the most literal of die Targumim, is excluded from consideration here precisely because, as the most accurate translation of the Hebrew text, it is the least obviously special group among or apart from the rabbis, although it did mark out certain teachers as especially favored. 12. Jeremias. Prayers of Jesus, pp. 61. 62. 13. Cf. 3.4,19, cf. 31.9 (widi die MasoreUc Text, in each case), and R. Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah (Aramaic Bible, 12; Wilmington: Glazier, 1987). 14. The development of a more circumspect approach to God's fadierhood is evident in the Targumim to Isaiah (63.16; 64.8), Jeremiah (3.4. 19; 31.9), and Malachi (1.6; 2.10). Cf. B.D.Chilton, 77ie Isaiah Targum (Aramaic Bible, 11; Wilmington: Glazier. 1987); Hayward, Jeremiah; K.J. Cadicart and R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (Aramaic Bible. 14; Wilmington: Glazier, 1989). In aggregate, what the readings demonstrate is that a more reverential approach to God was probably current, at least linguistically, among the rabbis as compared to some circles of Judaism during the first century. Bodi Jeremias and Vermes attempt to employ a nuance of usage in order to posit a categorical distinction of Jesus, when a model involving gradations of usage would be more productive.

156

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

reflective of the rabbinic ethos. Commonly, and even in recent critical introductions, the expansive Targumim to the Pentateuch are held to reflect a definite 'Palestinian Targum', datable within die first century." The fact of die matter is that the freer, more paraphrastic Targumim are called 'Palestinian' because tiiey are more expansive tiian and exegetically distinct from Onqelos, which was accepted in Babylon, and their dialect of Aramaic is different. We may not conclude that diey all derive from a common written source, nor that such a source is to be located in Palestine, much less in die first century. As the texts stand, they reflect the perspectives of later periods: Neofiti derives from the third century, Pseudo-Jonathan from the seventh, and the Fragments Targum from no earlier dian die Middle Ages. We will consider die question of tiieir relevance for tiie study of die New Testament after their vision of the divine fatherhood has been considered. Neofiti constitutes the most convenient point of departure, because its references (inclusive of die margins) are die most typical. Each reference provides a distinctive point of view. At the close of Genesis 2 1 , it is said in the margin of Neofiti that Abraham, having given hospitality to strangers, and being offered something in return, insisted: Pray before your father in heaven, from whose hands you have eaten and from whose hands you have drunk.'*

Abraham proceeds in the passage to proselytize the grateful foreigners, teaching them to worship. The recognition of God as father, in the sense of die one who provides sustenance, is dierefore taken to be the incipient point of correct faith, and potentially the beginning of a fruitfiil, prayerful relationship with God. Quite a different situation is presumed in Exod. 1.19. There, the Egyptian midwives describe to Pharaoh why they fail to kill the male children of Israel at birth. As in the Masoretic Text, the problem is tiiat they actually bring forth before tiie midwives arrive, but tiie reason for their vitality is given: 15. Cf. R. Le Ddaut. "The Targumim', The Cambridge History of Judaism. II. The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 563-90, cf. p. 578 and p. 581 in particular. Unfortunately, die article as a whole simply fails to take account of recent research, and criticism of the stance Le Ddaut has championed for some diirty years. 16. Cf. A. Dfez Macho, Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense Ms de Ui Biblioteca Vaticana, I (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigadones Cientfficas, 1968).


157

They pray before their father in heaven, and he answers them and they deliver."

In the present case, the conception of fatherhood is narrower dian in Gen. 2 1 . 3 3 of Neofiti, in that the pregnant Israelites pray to their father, and he responds to their particular need by giving them the force to bring forth. The particularity with which divine fadierhood might be depicted is especially plain in Neofiti at Num. 2 0 . 2 1 . Edom refuses Israel die freedom to pass dirough its territory, but Israel does not attack: diey were ordered by dieir father in heaven not to form up against them in the formations of war."

The underlying notion at this point is that some definite revelation attends Israel's relationship to God as father. The particularity of diat relationship is emphasized in a clever rendering at Deut. 3 2 . 6 : Is he not your father, who acquired you and who created you and perfected you?

It will readily be seen that the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy already has God as the father who 'created you, made you, and established you'. The first verb, translated 'created', is nap, and wp is what appears in Neofiti. But in Aramaic, die term means 'acquire' more than ' a e a t e ' , so that the redundancy of expression in the Masoretic Text is avoided, and a much more directiy particularistic impression is conveyed." At Deut. 3 3 . 2 4 Neofiti would appear to offer a conception of that link that is foundational for Israel's existence, and which requires Asher's intercession, when it falls into disrepair: Blessed above sons. In the tribes, he shall interpose his pasture (n'ono) between his brothers and dieir father who is in heaven, and his land shall be washed by die waters, and he shall badie his feet in oil.

The manuscript of Fragments Targum in the Vatican has Asher providing pasture to his brothers during sabbatical years. That is probably the sense here, as well,^** although it is notable that in Midrash 17. Dfez Macho, Neophti I, U (1970). 18. Cf. Dfez Macho. Neophti 1, IV (1974). 19. Cf. the fine note in B. Grossfeld. The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy (Aramaic Bible. 12; Wilmington: Glazier, 1988). p. 91. 20. Dfez Macho, Neophyti 1, V (1978). however, renders the passage differenUy. For die edition of die Fragments Targum, see n. 23.

158

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Kabbah, Asher is credited with an ancillary role in the Temple (or in the camp in the wilderness): he provides light from the oil of his land {Num. R. 2.10 [on Num. 2.3]), or oil of anointing {Gen. R. 97 [on Gen. 48.1]), or daughters for anointed priests (Gen. R. 71.10 [on Gen. 31.13], cf. 98.16 [on Gen. 49.20]).2' Neofiti offers, then, a coherent conception of God's fatherhood: it is mediated to die Gentiles, as a fact of creation, by Abraham, but is die central feature of Israel's particular appeal to God, to God's answer to Israel, and in fact to the essential link between Israel and its God. But before we proceed further, it is crucial to recognize, and to appreciate, that the coherence of the Targumim in the matter of God's fatherhood is deceptive. Witiiin Neofiti itself, we have already observed diat die reading at Gen. 21.33 appears in a marginal gloss, not widiin the main text of the MS, and such glosses appear to have been quite consciously added, as alternatives, perhaps when the document was copied during die sixteendi century." Moreover, at Exod. 1.19, 'die L O R D ' replaces 'their father' in an interlinear gloss within the MS itself, a location that may suggest greater antiquity as a reading of Neofiti than a marginal gloss. Although it seems best, on die whole, to accept the reading of 'father' at Exod. 1.19, and to reject it at Gen. 21.33 (diat is, as the text of Neofiti), the crucial point (from the present perspective) remains that tiiere is textual instability in the attestation, and that 'father' was a designation subject to correction during the course of the transmission of Neofiti. The likely source of Neofiti's reading at Gen. 21.33 is the Fragments Targum, a collection of variants to Targumic readings that was compiled during die elevendi to the diirteenth centuries.^' Taking the 21. Cf. J.J. Slotki, Numbers: Midrash Kabbah (London: Soncino, 1983); H. Freedman. Genesis: Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino, 1983). A comparison might be made widi die teaching ascribed to Yohanan ben Zakkai, that die stones of die altar, upon which no iron tool was to be lifted, establish peace between Israel and 'their fadier in heaven'. By using die argument kai vahomer, he reasons diat a person who establishes peace is to be protected. Cf. Mek. on Exod. 20.21-23 (Bahodesh §11) in J.Z. Lauterbach. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1933), n, p. 290. 22. Cf. S. Lund and J. Foster, Variant Versions of Targumic Traditions within Codex Neofiti I (SBL Aramaic Studies, 2; Missoula, MA: Scholars Press. 1977). Lund and Foster argue for the affinity between the Fragments Targum and at least one of die versions reflected in the marginalia. 23. Cf. M.L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to their


159

MS of the Bibliothûe Nationale of Paris (a document of die fifteendi century) as our basis, we find an interpretadon cognate with that of the margin of Neofiti, also at Gen. 2 1 . 3 3 . The case is similar at Exod. 1.19; Num. 2 0 . 2 1 ; Deut. 3 2 . 6 . In addition, tiie Fragments Targum includes additional references to God as 'father', which fill out the usage we have already typified on the basis of Neofiti, witiiout altering its essentials. At Exod. 1 7 . 1 1 , it is said diat Israel was victorious in batde when Moses prayed witii arms outstretched to his father in heaven; presumably, such a positive understanding of God's military support is the background of the usage in Num. 2 0 . 2 1 , where it is assumed that God can also give an order not to attack. When, in the Fragments Targum, turning towards the bronze serpent is coordinated with Israel's prayer for healing to God as 'father' (Num. 2 1 . 9 ) , that fills out the sort of usage one can see at Exod. 1.19, both in Neofiti and die Fragments Targum, and die promise of 'good reward' (no •»») to the righteous at Num. 2 3 . 2 3 may also be held to be consistent with die usage. But a highly imaginative rendering at Exod. 1 5 . 1 2 pictures the very earth as afraid to receive the Egyptian dead of the Exodus, for fear the acceptance of them would tell against it in the world to come at die judgment by its fadier in heaven." The last usage is a vivid reminder that die Fragments Targum may on occasion provide, not just die background of a usage in Neofiti (as, perhaps, at Exod. 1 7 . 1 1 ) , or further examples of tiie same usage (as at Num. 2 1 . 9 ; 2 3 . 2 3 ) , but conceptions of a different order altogether, which probably reflect its later date. After all, die Fragments Targum was consciously composed as a collection of variants, by rabbis whose primary language (and whose community's primary language) had ceased—essentially since the Arabic conquests—to be Aramaic. It would be odd not to find later (sometimes esoteric) conceptions developed within it. On the other hand, we also may not assume tiiat the Fragments Targum simply inflates prior developments such as are reflected in Neofiti, since the reference of Deut. 3 3 . 2 4 does not appear

Extant Sources (AnBib, 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), p. 25; Moses Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum (Berlin: Calvary, 1899). 24. Cf. also the MSS from the Cairo Geniza presented in M.L. Klein. Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, I (Cincinatd: Hebrew Union College Press. 1986). pp.240, 241, 244, 245. Although the substance of die haggadah is given in boUi fragments, so diat its existence c. AD 1000 is established, neither refers to God as 'fadier'.

160

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

there, although the haggadah does (in the Vatican MS). In the same connection, it should be pointed out that the Targum called PseudoJonathan, from the seventh century, does not preserve most of the references cited above, although it does present analogous renderings at Exod. 1.19; Deut. 32.6, and an innovative usage at Deut. 28.32, 33, where it is a question of praying to God with good works (ffao vros) in one's hands for release in judgment.^' Clearly, as we come to later sources, there is a tendency both to embellish and to qualify the notion of God as 'father'. Given that the Targumim reflect a rich conceptual development of God as 'father', and do so in a way that ntakes it impossible immediately to characterize what the usage of the first century might have been, the ' P s e u d e p i g r a p h a ' — n o n - c a n o n i c a l literatures of Judaism and Christianity—are potentially of great usefulness. Although their chronology as a collection is no more unequivocally pre-Christian than that of the Targumim, they do hold out the prospect of enabling us to determine elements of conunonality with the Targumim that may be held to evidence a datable consensus concerning God's fadierhood within Judaism and Chrisdanity. Any analysis is, however, complicated further by the fact that geographically and theologically the provenience of die 'Pseudepigrapha' is almost always quite other than that of rabbinic literature. For that reason, even documents of approximately die same period may reflect quite a different concept of die divine fadierhood. Indeed, it must be stated at die outset diat the 'Pseudepigrapha' generally—especially die non-canonical documents of Judaism—are far more parsimonious in their usage of the theologoumenon than either the New Testament or the Targumim. T h e Testament of Job nonetheless stands out as an instance of a document of early Judaism in which the designation of God as 'father' 25. The analogy to the reading at Exod. 15.12 in the Fragments Targum is evident, and further suggests that die forensic reference to God as 'father' is relatively late within the Targumim. For editions of Pseudo-Jonathan, cf. B. Walton, Triplex Targum: Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, IV (London: Roycroft, 1657); M. Ginsburger. Pseudo-Jonathan (Olms: Hildesheim, 1971); D. Rieder, PseudoJonathan (Jerusalem: Salmon, 1974); E.G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1984). Until die Targum is published in 'The Aramaic Bible', we have recourse for a translation only to J.W. Edieridge, The Targums ofOnkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch (New York: Ktav, 1968), reprinted from the last century.


161

occupies an important place. In his fine introduction to the translation of the document, R.P. Spittler places the Testament within the first century BC or A D , and ascribes it to the Therapeutae, the Egyptian wing of the Essenes.^* But the evocative date of the Testament is only part of its appeal from the present point of view: it also presents an unusually high number of references to God as 'father' among the non-canonical documents of Judaism. The references in question, however, are quite different, at first acquaintance, from what die Pentateuchal Targumim have accustomed us to. At 33.3, Job says in response to the lament of Eliphas: My throne is in the upper world (vitepKooûo), and its glory and dignity come from die right hand of die fadier.^'

'Fadier' is die reading only in die MS of die Bibliodifeque Nationale,^* which suggests diat a similar tentativeness accompanied the designation among the scribes of Hellenistic Judaism as is evidenced among die meturgemanin and scribes of the Targumim. But the most stiiking feature of the reference is its originality, as compared to die usage of die Targumim. In die Testament, the initial usage describes the provenience o f die glory and dignity which attend Job's heavenly throne. Similarly, Job claims in 33.9 diat his kingdom is possessed o f a glory and dignity installed in 'the chariots of die father' (ev xolq apîaoiv zov J t a t p l o q ) , a phrase obviously inspired from Ezekiel 1, and an early example of speculation concerning the divine chariot as the cosmological locus o f God. In 40.2, the usage and its cosmological, or visionary, meaning achieves a climax, when Job replies to his wife's disconsolation for her dead children by acknowledging God as 'father' ( K t t l TOTE otaOeic; tfyi)\ioXoyr\aa\iT[v Kpb<; tov T t a t e p a ) , and then conveying a vision of his children crowned with divine splendor (40.3). Just here, however, when d i e usage might seem to be quite distant from that of the Targumim, it becomes unmistakably plain that the cosmological and visionary reference of the divine fadierhood is rooted in the understanding that God as 'father' is first and foremost die object of prayer. Job first acknowledges God as 'father', and then 26. Cf. R.P. Spittler, Testament of Job', OTP, I, pp. 829-38. 27. Cf. S.P. Brock, Testamentum lobi (Pseudepigrapha Verteris Testamenti Graece; Uiden: Brill, 1967). 28. Cf. Spitder. 'Job', p. 855 n. 'g'.

162

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

conveys his vision; moreover, he is said to speak of his vision (40.3) after he has acknowledged God as 'father* (40.2), and his acknowledgment is called a prayer (KOI iitm zr[v ewxnv, 40.3). Quite evidently, although the Testament of Job does not directly refer to God's fatherhood as a locution of prayer, as in the Targumim, it does presuppose that such a reference is conventional. The particular references of the Targumim that refer to God as 'father' in the context of prayer are, of course, not shown to be pre-Christian for that reason, but the usage in itself is presupposed by the reading of the Testament of Job. The two further instances in the Testament of Job represent further developments, quite unlike what we read in the Targumim, of the association of divine fatherhood and efficacious prayer. In 47.11, Job provides his daughters widi what he calls a 'phylactery of the father' ((pvXaK-tfipiov eoxiv xox> naxpoc;), in order that they might see the heavenly beings who come to take Job's soul.^' The association of phylacteries with prayer is normative within the period, and the usage of 'father' is entirely natural within the context of the Testament. Nonetheless, die magical effect imputed to the phylactery (which is actually rendered 'amulet' by Spittler), is a reminder that prayer is understood within a particular context in the Testament. The resulting vision of one of the daughters is referred to as of 'the paternal glory' (xf\q jiaxpiiai<; 56îi(;) in 50.3; clearly, there is a coherent conception with the Testament of Job, according to which prayer to God as 'fatiier'—sometimes assisted with mediatory objects—^leads to a vision of his throne and what is associated witii it. A later, one might say vulgarized, development of that conception is represented by The Prayer of Jacob, from Egypt in the fourth century, in which God is actually invoked as the cosmological father, with the aim that the petitioner might become angelic in his wisdom (18, 19).'" 29. My interpretation liere differs from SpitUer's, who takes die 'fadier' to be Job himself (aldiough he capitalizes the iniUal letter in his translation). As he himself observes, however ('Job', p. 865 n. 'j'). the MS at Messina and Rome read 'die Lord', much as diey do at 40.2. so diat his exegesis would appear unnatural. 30. Cf. K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, II (Sammlung WissenschafdicheCommentare; Stuttgart:Teubner. 1974), pp. 148,149; J.H. Charleswordi, 'Prayer of Jacob*, OTP, II. pp. 715-23. Charleswordi's contention that die prayer is neidier 'peculiarly gnostic' nor 'a charm' (p. 718) is well taken; on the odier hand, his attempt to back die dating up to as eariy as die first century is tendentious. It is partially based on an alleged similarity to die 'Prayer of Joseph', which must be eariier dian die third century, when it was quoted by Origen. but die range of parallels


163

T h e Testament of Abraham presents but pale reflections of an understanding of God as 'father'. Abraham tells Sarah she is blessed by God, even the father, for her recognition of an angelic visitor (6.6), and the angels are described in 20.12 as bringing Abraham to heaven, for the worship of God, the father (ei? rcpooKwrioiv t o u 0eow Kttl rcatpo?)." In bodi cases, die divine fadierhood appears to be linked to God's cosmological grandeur. Sanders's opdon, which places the Testament of Abraham in Egypt around 100 CE, would appear to be confirmed by die usage in respect of God as 'father': it simply picks up, without developing, the thronal imagery of the Testament of Job. Indeed, die reladonship between die two documents might be taken to support the contention of Matthias Delcor, that the Testament of Abraham intentionally tt'ansfers to its hero the virtues depicted in the Testament of Job, and diat dierefore a date widiin die second century is preferable.'^ The picture that has so far emerged is one in which the Targumim, from a period later than the New Testament, present a coherent usage of the divine fadierhood, one which is partially confirmed as a Judaic usage of the first century by non-canonical Jewish documents. On die other hand, those documents, while earlier in aggregate, are also to some extent representative of a visionary, sometimes magical, version of Judaism, which is unlike the ethos of the Targumim (and, perhaps, of the New Testament). The question remains whether it is possible to discern a type of usage that may reasonably be held to have been a part of the milieu in which the Gospels emerged.

to the angelology of its few lines certainly do not support Smith's confident ascription of it to die first century (cf. J.Z. Smith, 'Prayer of Joseph', APOT, II, pp. 699-714). Charlesworth himself acknowledges 'parallels' widi documents of the second century, and he nowhere addresses the central point of Preisendanz's chronology; in form and function, die 'Prayer of Jacob' comports well widi odier incantations of the fourdi century, which also were designed to summon deities. 31. Cf. M. Rhodes James, The Testament of Abraham (Texts and Studies, 11.2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892); E.P. Sanders. 'Testament of Abraham'. APOT, I, pp. 871-902. 32. Cf. M. Delcor, Le Testament d'Abraham (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha; Leiden: Brill, 1973), p. 49; B. Chilton, '"Amen": An Approach dirough Syriac Gospels', ZNW 69 (1978), pp. 203-11. and Targumic Approaches to the Gospels (Lanham. MD: University Press of America, 1986), pp. 15-23.

164

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Around 100 CE,'' or somewhat later during the second century,'* the Odes of Solomon were composed in Edessa" (or perhaps Antioch'*); they utilize the address of God as 'father' more frequently, and with far greater density, than any of the documents adduced above. That feature of the usage of the Odes is easily explained on the basis of their Christian provenience, and some of the usages in fact join the evidence which indicates that is their provenience. After the unambiguously Christian statement, 'you are saved in him who was saved' (8.21c), the Odes go on to speak of being found incorrupt 'on account of the name of your father' (]-oi3»i noob, 8.22)." The Christian idiom, 'God the father', on the way towards becoming trinitarian, is also evidenced (cf. 9.5; 14.1, cf. v. 8), as when Christ calls God 'my fadier' (cf. 10.4). But that doctrinal development becomes most explicit at 19.1, 2: A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord's kindness. The Son is die cup. die Fadier is he who was milked; and die Holy Spirit is she who milked him."

The incipient trinitarianism as well as the vivid imagery of the passage, which goes on to speak of die virginal conception of Jesus (vv. 67), marks it out as characteristic of die devotional purpose of die Odes. From die point of view of die sources discussed earlier, the Odes are distinct in provenience, geographically, to some extent chronologically, and above all theologically. Their correspondence with types of usage current within early Judaism is therefore all the more striking. In 7.11, God is described as 'die perfection of the worids (mbsri wo"?!©) and tiieir fadier', because he provides for die benefits of

33. So J.H. Charleswordi, 'The Odes of Solomon', APOT, II, pp. 725-71, 727. 34. Cf. R. Harris and A. Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon (2 vols.; Manchester University Press, 1916. 1920). II, p. 64. 35. Cf. Harris and Mingana, Odes, pp. 36-40, 42-47, 64, 68, 69. 36. So Charleswordi, 'Odes', p. 727, aldiough Ignatius' knowledge of the Odes can scarcely be used as evidence of their origin; it only shows they were widely disseminated. Given the u-aditions of wisdom at Edessa (evidenced in the Thomaean corpus), and the tradition of hymnody there, above all in the case of Bardaisan. an Edessene origin is more probable. 37. Cf. die Syriac text in Harris and Mingana, Odes, I. 38. Thetianslationand die capitalizations are Charlesworth's.


165

sacrifice (cf. 7.10). The link by means of the term 'father' between the notions of God's cosmological power and of the acceptable worship of God is reminiscent of the Testament of Job. Of course, the reminiscence we can observe is a matter of a pattern of usage, not dependence (literary or otherwise), but it does tend to confirm that God's fatherhood was connected with his cosmological grandeur and his availability through worship within the first century. The same chapter of the Odes also presents an innovative usage, in comparison to what we have seen so far, in which God's fatherhood is related specifically to his wisdom (7.7): The father of knowledge is die word of knowledge.

By itself, that aphorism need not refer to God. In isolation, it could mean, 'The principle of knowledge is the expression of knowledge'. But in fact, the passage goes on to speak of the creation of the speaker by God (7.9), so diat the reference to the divine fadierhood in context is unmistakable. It would appear diat, just as in Egypt die cosmological usage was developed in the idiom of vision, above all in the Testament of Abraham, in Syria the key was that of wisdom. The last usages in the Odes refer to the father's vindication of C h r i s t . " Christ is in view (cf. v. 1) when it is said that his face was justified by the father (31.5); that justification corresponds to power over darkness and error (vv. 1, 2), as well as to graceful speech (v. 3) and the offering back to God of 'those who had become sons through him' (v. 4). The identity of the speaker as Christ is even more obvious at 41.9, where he says: The father of truth remembered me. he who acquired me from the beginning.

Given die Christian stance of the Odes, that statement is not surprising in die mouth of one who says diat God begat him widi his riches and his thought (v. 10). But it is startling that Christ says that God 'acquired me from the beginning' (n'ona p '33pi in), when diat is what Neofiti says emphatically of Israel in its clever rendering of Deut. 32.6. It is apparent that the tradition that, when they are in distress, the 'father' would answer the prayers of the people he acquired has been applied particularly to Christ in the Odes in respect of his cosmic 39. The idendty of the speaker with Christ in each of the examples to be cited is also asserted by Charlesworth.

166

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

triumph, a triumph whose cosmic aspect also corresponded to another association in the designation of God as 'father* within the first century. The usages of the Pseudepigrapha and the Targumim in aggregate suggest that, within early Judaism, God was known as 'father* particularly 1. for the purposes of prayer, especially prayer in straits, 2. in reference to the vision or revelation that such a prayer might involve, 3. because he responds to prayer, 4. in view of his power over the entire creation, and 5. in respect of the peculiar relationship between God and his people. For the most part, it will readily be seen that the usage of Jesus, as atdibuted to him in the Synopdc Gospels,*" is quite conventional. Matthew is the best text to illustrate the usage, since Matthew attributes it more to Jesus tiian any otiier Synoptic Gospel, and die most crucial usages in Matdiew are paralleled in otiier Gospels. The prayer attributed to him addresses God in the usual way, although the direct connection with the kingdom is innovative (Mt. 6.9, lO),*' and the many Matthaean passages tiiat refer to God as 'father* in the context of prayer belong to the first category. Several of them refer explicidy to the manner in which prayer as instructed by Jesus should be offered (6.6,*^ 8), but diere is also an insistence upon the place of forgiving others within prayer (6.14, 15; 18.35). The latter aspect is without question unusual, but die point at issue is by no means the address of God as 'father*, but the nature of prayer as taught by Jesus. Towards die close of die Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as addressing God fervendy and intimately in his time of greatest need (26.39,42,53), as we should expect on die basis of early Judaic usage. Similarly, Jesus* statements of die fadier*s revelation in Mattiiew are consistent with the second category of usages we have considered, and it is notable that in 11.25-27, a pivotal passage widiin the development of Christology, Jesus 'acknowledges* (eônoX-ovnai) the father*s

40. Considerations of space preclude a consideration of John here. 41. The qualiiication must be registered, however, that the address of God as 'our fadier. our king' became conventional in rabbinic prayer (cf. Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, pp. 24-26). Moreover, in Tob. 13.1, praise is directed to God and his kingdom, and he is called 'fadier' in v. 4. 42. The present usage also refers to die reward of prayer, and might dierefore be included in the third category. For die purpose of the present invesUgaUon, only die most obvious category for each usage will be observed, in order to avoid inflating die apparent number of instances.


167

grandeur, just the verb used in the Testament of Job 40.2 (see also Tob. 13.3). Peter is also said to benefit from God's revelation (16.17) and 'little ones' are said to have 'angels' that see the 'father' (18.10), in a manner also somewhat reminiscent of the angelology of the Testament. The 'father' is held to retain certain specific knowledge (20.23; 24.36), but the surprise is more the nature of the knowledge than the designation 'father', much as is the case {mutatis mutandis) within the first category. The idea of God's response to prayer (category 3) is consistent with die focus upon reward in Matthew (6.1, 4, 18), but diere is also a more direct appeal to the imagery of fadierhood in order to express God's merciful response in prayer (7.11). Much more startlingly, Matthew's Jesus claims diat God will respond, as 'fadier', whenever two petitioners agree (18.19), and that promise is made in the context of one of the imperatives for forgiveness (18.18). It seems clear that a distinctive view of prayer is being promulgated by Matthew's Jesus, but it remains most unclear diat any unusual idiom of God as 'fadier' is die precedent. The appeal to die cosmological fadier is, on die odier hand, quite as direct as we find in the Pseudepigrapha (in category 4). The images are sometimes striking (6.26; 10.29), but one of the usages under the fourth category can only be described as banal (18.14). The idea of election, as compared to the gentiles (6.32), is also unexceptional, but the distinction from those who call people 'father' is unusual (23.9). There, too, however, as in the cases of forgiveness in prayer and the father's apocalyptic knowledge, category 5 is not notable for tiie usage of 'fatiier' in respect of God, but for what is said by means of tiiat Judaic idiom. Many usages widiin Matthew do not fall into the categories developed above. In the case of the final instance in the Gospel, where the risen Jesus calls for die disciples to baptize all nations in the name of die fadier, die son, and the holy spirit (28.19), die Christian provenience of tiie usage is obvious, and comports well with the Odes of Solomon. The odd reference to 'die kingdom of my fatiier' in 26.29 is another such instance,"" and the confidence that the father will provide the disciples with the holy spirit when they are under duress (Mt. 10.20) might come direcdy from the Odes. The passages are a reminder that die whole of Matthew represents signal developments of Jesus' message, 43. The parallel in Mk 14.25, and the more distant echo in Lk. 22.18, confirm the suspicion.

168

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

although the present investigation is not in the least concerned to disentangle Jesus from Matdiew. The issue is solely Matthew's Jesus, and how his reference to God as father might be illuminated in the light of the Targumim and the Pseudepigrapha. Two sorts of usage widiin Matdiew remain to be discussed, however. In die first, the 'fadier' features particularly in die context of the final judgment, a characteristically Matthaean concern. The scene might be the angelic assize (10.32, 33), the brilliance of vindication (13.43), the destruction of what is not God's (15.13), or die coming of die son of man (16.27). In all such cases, however, it is clear diat the issue is more than God's response, vindication or cosmological power: diere is a specifically apocalyptic tiirust to his fatiierhood. It might be remembered, in this connection, that the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, for all that the document itself is late, does present the 'father* under the particular aspect of judgment (Deut. 28.32, 33, cf. also Num. 23.23 in the Fragments Targum). Similarly, altiiough die idea of doing good works so diat God might be glorified by odiers (Mt. 5.16) is not a category of usage established above as current within the first century, it is precisely what Abraham did at Beersheba, and Neofiti at Gen. 21.33 associates his proselytism with God's fatherhood. Tobit's prayer at Tob. 13.4, moreover, directs diat God, as 'father', should be exalted among the gentiles. But Mt. 5.16 is only one of some half dozen usages in Matthew in which die divine fatherhood is held immediately to make ediical demands of disciples, to become duly his sons (5.45, 48), by doing his will (7.21; 12.50; 21.31; 25.34, 41). Aldiough there is no question of a category of such usage having been established within die first centiiry, die fact is diat Pseudo-Jonathan at Lev. 22.28 presents die innovative command: My people, children of Israel, since our fadier is merciful in heaven, so should you be merciful upon earth.**

Given that the bulk of die usages of Mattiiew's Jesus fall within tiie norms of early Judaism, in the light of the readings of PseudoJonathan and Neofiti, late though they undoubtedly are, it is historically dubious to use the distinctiveness of the Matdiean usage to argue diat Jesus was 'unique', 'radical', or diat he in some way 'transcended' 44. Jeremias. Prayers of Jesus, p. 19, also discusses die teaching ascribed to Judah in b. Qid. 36a, diat 'If you behave like children, you are called children; if you do not behave like children, you are not called children'.


169

Judaism. To argue that his talk of God as 'father' somehow put him in a special category of Judaism is simply specious. The present essay, it must be stressed, is by no means a full account of references to God as 'father' in the relevant literatures. There are sporadic references in the Apocrypha, elsewhere in the Pseudepigrapha, and in a score of rabbinic documents (particularly within prayers and parables). Documents have been considered here that present clear profiles of usage, for the sake of comparison. That comparison leads to a simple finding: Matthew's Jesus does not say anything radically new about God in calling him 'father'. He simply prays, enjoys or speaks of the visions and revelations of prayer, anticipates G o d ' s response, praises him as tiie fatiier of all and of his follows particularly. That he also stresses the judgment of the 'father' and his demand for ethical conduct is unusual, but hardly unprecedented. The persistence and character of the usage in Mattiiew is distinctive, but no mystery; and tiie usage of Matthew is a suitable starting point for proceeding to discover tiie usage of Jesus, which may well emerge as distinctive, but hardly unique or esoteric.

LUKE AND THE REWRITTEN BIBLE: ASPECTS OF LUKAN HAGIOGRAPHY*

Craig A. Evans

In a sense, exegesis precedes Scripture, for the latter is largely the product of the former. It is true that great events and great people of history spawned die songs, prayers, laws, parables and stories that lie at the heart of much of Scripture, but it has been die interpretadon of countless generations of the people of faith that has given Scriptiu-e its shape and focus. Long before a 'canon' of Scripture emerged, exegesis had taken place. The interpretative task had been carried on by prophets and the wise, by persons of bold faith and quiet hope. The evidence of this interpretative process within the canon is seen everywhere. Some of the stories of the patriarchs are pondered and presented in more than one form (die so-called 'doublets').' The prophets appeal to sacred tradition, interpreting it in new and unexpected ways (see Isa. 28.21).^ Deuteronomy reinterprets Torah, and die Chronicler reinterprets the Deuteronomistic history. A given tradition, such as the Davidic covenant, may be interpreted in more than one way (compare 2 Sam. 7.5-16 with Pss. 89 and 132.11-12).' * Portions of this chapter have been read at various regional and national meetings of die Society of Biblical Literature. 1. See S.Sandmel. 'The Haggada widiin Scripture', JBL 80 (1961). pp. 105-22. 2. See J.A. Sanders. 'Hermeneutics in Trueand False Prophecy', in G.W.Coats and B.O. Long (eds.). Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1977). pp. 21-41; repr. as 'Canonical Hermeneutics: True and False Prophecy', in J.A. Sanders. From Sacred Story to Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1987), pp. 87-105. 3. For further discussion see J.A. Sanders. Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972); idem, 'Adaptable for Life: The Nature and Function of Canon', in F.M. Cross et aL (eds.). Magnolia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God (G.E. Wright Festschrift; Garden City. NY: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 531-60; repr. in Sanders. Fwm Sacred Story to Sacred Text, pp. 9-39; M. Fishbane,'Revelation and

EVANS Luke and the Rewritten Bible

171

As the canon became increasingly stabilized, and as there arose the sense that the spirit of prophecy had ceased in Israel (see 1 Mace. 4.46; 9.27), exegesis as something other dian sacred tradidon began to emerge. Prophets were no longer speaking in their own names. Theologians, preachers and apocalypdcists of the intertestamental period spoke in the names of die wordiies of the past. There were several who spoke in die name of die mysterious Enoch. Others spoke in die names of the twelve patriarchs, or in die name of Moses or Elijah.* In some cases, biblical history was simply retold. This is seen in Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon and Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. In these writings biblical exegesis is primarily implicit. That is, the text is not cited and then interpreted in a conscious manner (though sometimes that happens). The text is rewritten. In fact, the text as text is not primarily in view. It is the story that is in view, and it is retold. Concern with die wording of the text comes later. As die text itself came increasingly to be viewed as canonical, implicit interpretation appeared in the form of translation and paraphrase. Indeed, in most of this, it is likely that the translators did not even view themselves as interpreters. They probably saw diemselves as doing nodiing more dian preserving die 'correct' sense of die text. When we moderns diink of biblical interpretation, we usually diink of text and exegesis. This is explicit interpretation. Explicit interpretation is characterized by the author's conscious distinction between the text and its interpretation. The integrity of the text is respected. The text cannot be altered, the story cannot be rewritten. (If it is altered or rewritten, it is done so out of a conviction that the original reading is thereby restored.) The text is to be interpreted, whether we are talking about midrash, pesher, typology or allegory. But not all interpretation is explicit. Some interpretation is implicit. When interpretation is implicit, the author's interpretation is interwoven with the text. Interpretation and story are merged. Implicit biblical interpretation manifests itself in tiiree basic ways. Tradidon: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis'. JBL 99 (1980), pp. 343-61. 4. The pseudepigraphers were, in a sense, attempting to tap into the audiority of those persons celebrated in the canon who had gotten die closest glimpses of heaven (such as Enoch. Moses and Elijah). Since diese writings did not possess inherent authority, most did not find dieir way into the canon. For what diey had borrowed was not sufficient to overcome dieir deficiencies.

172 1.

2.

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Translation. When the Hebrew text is translated, it is interpreted. This interpretation ranges from negligible to extensive. The earliest example is the Greek translation, the LXX (200 BCE to 50 C E ) . ' here are also the recensions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, variously viewed as improvements or corrections.* Another important translation is the Aramaic tradition, the Targums.' Targums range from the first century to the Middle Ages. Among these, Onqelos tends to be quite literal, while Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofiti, the Fragmentary Targum, and the various targums of the prophets and Hagiographa are often quite paraphrastic. In all of these translations the biblical text has been interpreted. Obscure or obsolete terms are either replaced or explained. Statements that do not fit prevailing beliefs or practices are often modified, while passages that touch on popular doctrines are often embellished or made more explicit (see Targ. Isa. 53). But these modifications are customarily rooted in the text itself; they are not arbitrary.* Revocalization. Revocalization involves pronouncing the consonants of the Hebrew text in new ways. Often this is what probably underlies translations in the LXX or the targum when they do not agree with the Masoretic Text. There are, of course, many instances of revocalization found in the Masorot. Sometimes the competing vocalizations represent scribal confusion; sometimes they represent interpretative interests.'

5. See E. Tov, 'The Septuagint', in M.J. Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism cmd Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1988), pp. 161-88, esp. 169-74; and S.P. Brock, 'Translating die Old Testament', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.). It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (B. Lindars Festschrift; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988), pp. 87-98. 6. See Tov, 'The Septuagint', pp. 181-87. 7. See P.S. Alexander. 'Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 217-54. esp. 225-41. 8. For a competent example of die work diat needs to be done in order to begin die exegesis of a targum. see B.D. Chilton. The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup. 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1982). 9. See M.J. Mulder, 'The Transmission of die Biblical Text', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 87-135, esp. 104-13.

EVANS Luke and the Rewritten

Bible

173

There are some interesting examples in Qumran.'" In the Great Isaiah Scroll Isa. 6.9-10 becomes, through revocalization, an injunction to the pious to avoid s i n , " while in another text, Isa. 52.7, not only promises 'peace' (shalom) to the righteous, but 'retribudon' (shillum)upon the wicked.'^ There are many examples of this in the commentaries of Qumran." 3.

Radical Paraphrase. 'Radical paraphrase' is not translation (though translation is often involved). Radical paraphrase involves the retelling of die biblical story. I do not, however, have in mind those apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings that take off on a biblical event or character (such as 7 Enoch).^* I am thinking of those writings tiiat rewrite the

10. See W.H. Brownlee. The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 155-246; M. Fishbane. 'Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at (^mran', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 33977. esp. 366-75; D. Dimant, 'Qumran Sectarian Literature', in M.E. Stone (ed.). Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Assen. The Nedierlands: Van Gorcum, 1984), pp. 483-550, esp. 503-22; and T.H. Kim, 'Eschatological Orientadon and the Alteration of Scripture in the Habakkuk Pesher', JNES 49 (1990). pp. 185-94. 11. See C.A.Evans, 'IQIsaiah'and the Absence of Prophetic Critique at CJumran'. RevQ 11 (1984). pp. 537-42. 12. See llQMelch9-16. 13. See G.J. Brooke, 'The Biblical Texts in die Qumran Commenuries: Scribal Errors or Exegetical Variants?' in C.A. Evans and W.F. Stinespring (eds.). Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis (FS W.H. Brownlee; Homage, 10; Adanta: Scholars Press, 1987). pp. 85-100; M.P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books (CBQMS, 8; Washington. DC: Cadiolic Biblical Association, 1979). 14. In a recent study J.H. Charlesworth ('The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', in Evans [ed.]. Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis, pp. 139-52) has suggested that the pseudepigraphal writings that bear only a general relationship to die Old Testament fall into four categories: (I) Inspiration, whereby the OT inspires the writer to develop a story or dieme (such as the various Prayers, Psalms and Odes); (2) Framework, whereby the OT provides the setting for die pseudepigraphal story (4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, most of the Testaments); (3) Launching, whereby the OT launches a new story that departs from die original OT setting (Books of Enoch); and (4) Inconsequential, in which die pseudepigraphal writings borrows only the barest facts, usually names, from the OT (Sibylline Oracles, Treatise of Shem and the Apocalypse of Adam). See now his updated and expanded version of this paper, and see also J.C. VanderKam. 'Biblical Interpreution in I Enoch and Jubilees', in this volume.

174


Interpretation

biblical narrative either through expansion or abridgement. Among these J.H. Charlesworth cites Jubilees (Gen. 1.1-Exod. 12.50), Martyrdom of Isaiah (1, 2 Kings, esp. 2 Kgs 21.16), Joseph and Asenath (Gen. 37-50), Life of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1-6), Pseudo-Philo's Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Genesis-2 Samuel), Jannes and Jambres (Exod. 7 - 8 ) , and o t h e r s . " Because these are efforts to retell the biblical story, or at least to extend it, they are part of what may be called the hagiographa. That is, these writings are not commentaries, not anthologies, nor actual histories. They are literary contributions to the sacred story. They might be regarded, as some of their authors no doubt intended, as semi-Scripture. Some of them made it into the canon (such as the pseudepigraphal writings among the deutero-canonical books), others almost did so (such as 1 Enoch)}^ PostNew Testament writings such as the apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles and apocalypses are Christian examples of this genre. Among the pseudepigraphal writings cited above. Jubilees and Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum follow the biblical story the closest. For reasons that will become clear later, these writings will serve as the basis of comparison. It might also be pointed out that aldiough diey are examples of implicit biblical interpretation, they contain, as do many of the other pseudepigraphal writings, examples of explicit interpretation."

15. Charlesworth, 'Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', pp. 150-51. For similar classifications, see G.W.E. Nickelsburg. 'The Bible Rewritten and Expanded', in Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings, pp. 89-156; and P.S. Alexander. 'Retelling the Old Testament", in Carson and Williamson (eds.). It is Written, pp. 99-121. 16. In some cases, pieces of a tradidon appear at every level in relation to the canon. For example, Hebrew-Aramaic Daniel made it into the Jewish (and Christian) Bible, but the Greek additions only made it into the deutero-canon of die Cadiolic and Eastern Churches. Fragments of unknown Danielle U-adition found at Qumran. however, demonstrate that not all of this tradition made it into one canon or another. 17. For an essay diat compares explicit and implicit biblical interpretation in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, see D. Dimant, 'Use and Interpretation of Mikra in die Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 379-419.


Legitimacy of Viewing Luke as Part of 'Historical

175

Hagiographa'

Luke's work is an example of the 'historical hagiographa' (i.e. sacred history or historical Scripture),'* a genre that is part of die Jewish rewritten Bible. Methodologically his predecessor is Jubilees. His contemporaries are Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, and of course the Gospel of Matthew. But should Luke be compared to the Jewish 'rewritten Bible'? I believe that it is appropriate to do so for three reasons: 1. the evangelist has a noticeable interest in and familiarity with Judaism; 2 . die motivation and techniques in biblical rewriting not only parallel the techniques observed in the aforementioned examples of the rewritten Bible, but are remarkably similar to what redaction criticism has taught us with regard to the evangelists' use of their traditions; and 3 . as was true of the Jewish rewriters of biblical narrative, the evangelist Luke in all likelihood viewed die gospel story as sacred tradition, if not in some sense as Scripture itself. Let us examine each of these reasons. Ijtke's Interest in and Familiarity with Judaism Luke's interest in and orientation toward Judaism are seen in a variety of ways. Three of the most obvious shall be mentioned briefly. 1. Luke seems particularly interested in the synagogue (Lk. 4 . 1 4 - 1 5 , 1 6 - 3 0 ; 7 . 5 ; 1 3 . 1 0 ; Acts 9 . 2 0 ; 1 3 . 5 , 1 4 ; 1 4 . 1 ; 1 5 . 2 1 ; 1 7 . 1 , 1 0 ; 1 8 . 4 , 1 9 ;

1 9 . 8 ) ; " 2 . he is also interested in die fulfilment of the Jewish Scriptures, particularly with respect to the promises to Abraham and tiie patriarchs (Lk. 1 . 1 6 - 1 7 , 3 2 - 3 3 , 5 4 - 5 5 , 6 8 - 7 9 . 2 . 2 9 - 3 2 ) ; ^ " and 3 .

he demonstrates a favorable attitude toward tiie Law (Lk. 2 . 2 2 - 2 4 , 2 7 , 39;

1 6 . 1 7 ) ; 2 4 . 2 7 , 4 4 ; Acts 2 1 . 2 0 ; 2 4 . 1 4 ; 2 5 . 8 ; 2 8 . 2 3 ) . ^ ' For tiiese

18. See H.W. Auridge. 'Historiography', in Stone (ed.). Jewish Writings, pp. 157-84. esp. die discussion on 1 Esdras on pp. 157-60. 19. It is interesting to note that Lk. 4.16-30 is 'the oldest known account of a synagogue service'; I.H. Marshall, Commentary on Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans, 1978). p. 181. 20. N.A. Dahl. 'The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts', in L.E. Keck and J.L. Martyn (eds.). Studies in Luke-Acts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), pp. 13958; Marshall. Luke, p. 85; J.A. Fitzmyer. Luke I-IX (AB, 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981). pp. 188-92. 369. 21. The fact that the Law cannot be easily set aside is seen in Acts 15. See

176

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

reasons and for others some scholars have concluded that in all probability the evangelist had been a member of the synagogue, either as a proselyte or, as is more likely, as a 'God-fearer'.^^ If this conclusion is correct, it is reasonable to assume that the evangelist Luke had been exposed to the rewritten Bible within this context. Regardless of what exposure he may have had to Hellenistic literature, his exposure to the s y n a g o g u e ^ ' and to the Greek Bible of the Diaspora must not be underrated. When the evangelist's exposure to Judaism is appreciated, one has all the more reason to expect his writing to reflect the literature of the Judaism of his day. Coherence with Redaction-Critical Observations Another reason that supports my suggestion that Luke ought to be viewed as an instance of rewritten Bible is that the purposes of Jewish biblical rewriting are remarkably in line with assumptions usually held in redaction criticism. Many of the statements used to describe the motivation and purpose of the rewritten Bible apply equally well to what redaction critics usually say about the evangelist. Consider, for example, the following statements made by J.L. Kugel with regard to biblical rewriting seen in haggadic midrash: ...it was precisely the intermittent obsession with past events and the necessity of having them bear on the present that gave interpretation of all kinds its urgency...Yei one aspect of biblical exegesis did remain constant... It is precisely the belief that sacred texts have a bearing on the present.^*

J. Jervell, 'The Law in Luke-Acts', in idem, Luke arui the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972), pp. 133-51. According to S.G. Wilson (Luke and the Law [SNTSMS. 50; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983]). Luke's view toward the law is inconsistent. He thinks diat only in reference to Paul is the evangelist concerned to show dial die law is respected. 22. See Fitzmyer. Luke I-IX, pp. 35-47. Although the evangelist sharply polemicizes against Jewish rejection of Christianity, I diink diat accusing him of antiSemitism, as does J.T. Sanders (The Jews in Luke-Acts [Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1987]), is a gross misreading. A better assessment is offered by R.L. Brawley. Luke-Acts and the Jews: Conflict, Apology, and Conciliation (SBLMS, 33; Adanta: Scholars Press. 1987). 23. M. Smidi ('A Comparison of Early Christian and Eariy Rabbinic Tradition', JBL 82 [1963], pp. 169-76) has remarked: 'Their [the gospels'] Sitz im Uben seems to have been the synagogue...' (p. 173). 24. J.L. Kugel, Early Biblical Interpretation (widi R.A. Greer; Library of Early


177

The basic assumption of redaction criticism is that the evangelists viewed the Jesus tradition as sacred and as relevant for their situation, a view not unlike the Jewish view of the Old Testament. The very Sitz im Leben of the evangelist and his community is deduced, at least tentatively, from the evangelist's editorial activity. Indeed, Kugel goes on to say. In such diverse woiks as the Book of Daniel and the Book of Jubilees... we encounter die clear feeling for time being dealt out like a hand of cards, and an interest in arranging dme into sub-groups and corresponding units, for such arranging of dme not only made recent history more manageable . . . but made it partake of (indeed, be continuous with) that comforting world of biblical history in which events made sense.^

Is this not what Luke has done in his own distinctive chronological presentation in which we have the period of Israel, the period of Jesus, and the period of the Church?^* Redaction criticism, moreover, assumes the existence and utilization of various written and oral sources. This is also the case in the examples of biblical rewriting that will be surveyed below. But do the evangelists view their sources the same way that the Jewish rewriters and retellers of biblical narrative view theirs? To this question we now turn. Utilization of Sacred Tradition The rewritten Bible, of course, is based upon sacred tradition. Therefore, if we are to talk about Luke as a rewriting or telling of the Jesus story, in a way that is truly analogous to the Jewish rewriting of biblical narrative, we must first conclude that the Lukan evangelist viewed the Jesus story as sacred d-adidon. That he did so seems quite likely for three reasons. First, within the Lukan corpus itself we find frequent reference to Jesus' teaching as 'the Word of God" or simply 'the Word' (cf. Lk. 4.32; 5.1; 8.11-21; 10.39; 11.28; 21.33; 24.19; Acts 18.11; 20.32). This Lukan usage is reminiscent of the similar OT expression dabar Yahweh. At dmes in Luke-Acts these expressions seem to refer to 'die word of God' in a sense virtually equivalent to 'Scripture', while at other dmes the reference is to the Christian kerygma (Acts 4.4, 29, 3 1 ; 6.4, 7). Perhaps one of the most Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), p. 38 (his emphasis). 25. Kugel, Early Biblical Interpretation, p. 46. 26. See Fitzmyer, Luke-IX, pp. 179-92, esp. 185. See Lk. 16.16.

178

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

instructive examples is the parallel in Lk. 24.19 and Acts 7.22. In the former passage Jesus is described as 'a prophet mighty in deed and word' (jtpo(pr|xii(; Suvatot; ev epYtp K A I Xôytp), while in the latter Moses is described as 'mighty in his words and deeds' ( S w a x o q ev "KoTioxc, KTTL E P Y O K ; avxow). Because Jesus' word is likened to that of Moses, the most significant contributor to Scripture, it seems quite likely that the evangelist Luke would have viewed the words of die mighty prophet Jesus as at least equal in authority to those of the lawgiver himself. Secondly, within a generation of Luke's writings there are strong indications diat Christians viewed some of the New Testament writings as Scripture. In 1 Tim. 5.18 a verse firom the Old Testament (Deut. 25.4) and a saying fi-om Q (Lk. 10.7; cf. Mt. 10.10) are introduced as 'the Scripture' (fj YPa

179

his gospel 'came through a revelation of Jesus Christ').^^ It is concluded then that there is sufficient evidence that Luke probably regarded the Jesus tradition as sacred tradition^* and that his redaction of diis tradidon would in all probability reflect some of die principles of scriptural rewriting widi which, again in all probability, the evangelist would have been familiar. We turn now to the phenomena of biblical rewriting of the first century. Rewriting the Bible in the Historical

Hagiographa

We turn now to a brief survey of the phenomena of rewriting and retelling the biblical narrative. Chronicles, 1 Esdras, Jubilees, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, and Josephus's Jewish Antiquities will be examined. In my judgment diese writings exemplify what I have called 'radical paraphrase' (as opposed to midrash or to the translations of the LXX and targum).^' I believe tiiat their methods of editing, abridging and augmenting the biblical story approximate the editorial activity of the evangelists, especially Luke. Chronicles The Chronicler rewrites the Deuteronomistic history (mosdy SamuelKings), recasting this history in a manner that will advance post-exilic reform and renewal. His work has been described as 'targum',"*

27. I concur with the judgment of E.E. Ellis (Paul's Use of the Old Testament [Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957], p. 36). who says the 'sayings of Christ were regarded as the Word of God by Paul'. 28. So R. Le D6aut, 'Apropos d'une definition du Midrash'. Bib 50 (1969), pp. 395-413, esp. 408 n. 3. According to L.C. Crockeu ("The Old Testament in Luke with Emphasis on die Interpretadon of Isaiah 61.1-2' (PhD dissertation. Brown University, 1966], p. 334). 'Luke read[s] Mark in a way that is analogous to die way he reads the Old Testament'. I am not sure, however, if Luke actually viewed Mark as sacred text, as he undoubtedly viewed die dominical tradidon in particular and the Jesus story in general. 29. The 'radicalness' of the paraphrase of each writing varies, of course. 1 Esdras and Josephus are quite conservative; Chronicles less so. with Jubilees and Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum taking the greatest liberties. For further discussion, see C.A. Evans, 'The Genesis Apocryphon and the Rewritten Bible', in F. Garcfa Martfnez and E. Puech (eds.). Memorial Jean Carmignac: Etudes Qumrdniermes (RevQ 13 [1988]). pp. 153-65. 30. W.E. Barnes. 'Chronicles a Targum', ExpTim 8 (1897), pp. 316-19.

180

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

'midrash'," and recently 'exegesis'.'^ Although the exegetical dimension is an important one, H.G.M. Williamson's description of the Chronicler's work as 'retelling' is probably closer to the mark.'' His editorial work falls into seven basic categories. 1. Genealogies. The first nine chapters consist of genealogies. The piupose of the genealogies is to re-establish the twelve tribes and to emphasize the original geographical boundaries of these tribes. The Chronicler has presented an idealistic picture of a restored nation, one which if united and loyal to God and to the house of David will prosper and enjoy the blessings that result from obedience to the covenant.'* 2. Qualification. Frequently the Chronicler qualifies his tradition. It is here that his editing skills are put to their greatest test. He does this by rephrasing the tradition through substitution, omission or addition of words or phrases. (Major additions and omissions are treated as individual categories.) According to 1 Sam. 31.6, 'Saul died, and his three sons, and his armor bearer, and all his men'. But according to 1 Chron. 10.6, 'Saul died, and his three sons; and all his house died together'. The more inclusive 'all his house died together' is meant to underscore die posidon that there can be no successor to S a u l . " According to 2 Sam. 5.3, 'they anointed David king over Israel'. In 1 Chron. 11.3 David's coronation is carefully qualified, 'tiiey anointed

31. R. Bloch, 'Midrash', DBSup, V. cols. 1263-81; I. Benzinger, Die BUcher der Chronik (Kiirzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, 20; Tiibingen: Mohr, 1901), p. x: 'Der Chr(oniker]...ist nicht Historiker, sondem Midraschist'. 32. T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Oberlieferung Israels (FRLANT, 106: Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972). pp. 48-189; see also P. Ackroyd, 'The Chronicler as Exegete'. JSOT 2 (1972). pp. 2-32. 33. H.G.M. Williamson. I and 2 Chronicles (NCB; London: Marshall. Morgan & Scott, 1982), pp. 21-23. Williamson's point is diat die Chronicler is no slave of his sources, as is a mere exegete. but the master of his story. He dierefore views the Chronicler's work as 'retelling [Israel's] sacred history' (p. 23). 34. Williamson. / and 2 Chronicles, pp. 38-40. 35. This suspicion is confirmed when it is noted that the Chronicler later omits the account of the coronation of Saul's son Ish-bosheth (2 Sam. 2.8-11). the ensuing civil war (2 Sam. 2.12-3.39). die assassination of Ish-boshedi (2 Sam. 4.1-12), and die murder of Saul's grandsons (2 Sam. 21.8-9). Also omitted is the account of David's kindness to Mephiboshedi (2 Sam. 9.1-13; 21.7).


181

David king over Israel, according to die word of the Lord by the hand of Samuel'. The Chronicler's addition is inspired by 1 Sam. 16.1, 3, 12, 13 and is intended to show that David's coronation was in keeping witii prophetic utterance. According to 2 Sam. 5.6, 'the king and his men went to Jerusalem'. But in 1 Chron. 11.4 ' David and all Israel went to Jerusalem'. The Chronicler replaces 'his men' with 'all Israel' in order to emphasize the unity of the nation behind David. According to 2 Sam. 5.21, '[The Philistines] left their images diere, and David and his men took diem away'. 1 Chron. 14.10-12 reads: 'They left their gods there; and David gave commandment, and they were burned with fire'. The Chronicler wishes to remove any doubt about what David did with the 'gods' that he had captured. According to 2 Sam. 24.1, 'The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, "Go, number Israel and Judah"'. But 1 Chron. 21.1 reads: 'And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel'. The Chronicler is reluctant to have Yahweh incite David to sin, so he mentions Satan instead. The substitution is likely to have been inspired by, and probably was understood as justified by, the parallel in Job 2.3 where Satan 'moved' God against Job.'* 3. Additions. The Chronicler sometimes adds new stories or details that go beyond the mere qualification of the tradition. But even in these cases, the Chronicler builds upon the story contained in his sources. The Chronicler makes an important addition to the account of the first attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6.1-11 // 1 Chron. 13.1-14): 'Let us bring the ark of God...for we sought it not in the days of Saul'. Moreover, die Chronicler notes that David's wish seemed 'right in the eyes of all the people'. This addition mitigates the failure of David's first attempt. Levites are added to the description of the second attempt (1 Chron. 15.1-15; compare 2 Sam. 6.12-19). Anodier such example is seen in 1 Chron. 21.26b-30, an addition to 2 Sam. 24.18-25. The fire that rained down from heaven offers dramatic evidence that David has been reconciled with God and that the altar and its new location are now confirmed as the 'focus of the nation's worship'.'^

36. Williamson. / and 2 Chronicles, p. 143. 37. Williamson. 1 and 2 Chronicles, p. 151.

182

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

4. Omissions. The Chronicler omits 2 Sam. 6.20-23, leaving the impression that Michal, daughter of Saul and wife of David, had despised David for caring for the ark (compare 2 Sam. 6.16 // 1 Chron. 15.29).'* 1 Chron. 18.2 omits reference to David's execution of two thirds of the Moabites (cf. 2 Sam. 8.2). The omission may have been prompted by a reluctance to portray David as unnecessarily ruthless. The Chronicler omits numerous episodes of moral failure and tragedy in David's family. These would include David's adultery widi Badisheba (2 Sam. 11-12), die rape of Tamar and murder of Anunon (2 Samuel 13), Absalom's rebellion (2 Sam. 14-15), David's flight from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 16), civil war and Absalom's death (2 Sam. 17-18), David's restoration (2 Sam. 19-20), and die murder of Saul's grandsons (2 Sam. 21). 5. Summaries. Summary statements are added, either to make up for material diat has been omitted, or to make more obvious the writer's editorial tendency. Widi a summary statement die Chronicler explains why Saul died: So Saul died for his unfaidifulness; he was unfaidiful to the Lord iti that he did not keep the command of die Lord, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance, and did not seek guidance from die Lord. Therefore, the Lord slew him. and turned the kingdom over to David die son of Jesse (1 Chron. 10.13-14)."

This addition explains why Saul died and justifies tfie ti-ansference of the throne to the family of Jesse. For it was Yahweh who 'turned over' the kingdom."*" 6. Biblical Enrichment. Biblical traditions are sometimes called upon to enrich die edited narrative. For example, the description of David's mighty men in 1 Chronicles 12 has been enriched by earlier traditions (compare esp. v. 2 with Judg. 3.15; 20.15-16; vv. 8-15 witii Deut. 33.20-21; v. 14 with Deut. 32.30; v. 18 with Judg. 3.10; 6.34). David's song celebrating the arrival of the Ark (1 Chron. 16.8-36), itself a major addition, is appropriately drawn from the Psalter (compare vv. 8-22 widi Ps. 105.1-15; vv. 23-33 witii Ps. 96.1-13; 38. Williamson. I and 2 Chronicles, p. 127. 39. Williamson (/ and 2 Chronicles, p. 94) says that diis summary stotement is 'undoubtedly the Chronicler's own composition'. 40. Ackroyd. 'The Chronicler as Exegete'. pp. 7-9.


183

vv. 34-36 with Ps. 106.1. 47-48). The fire that rained down from heaven (1 Chron. 21.26b-30) probably reflects the similar accounts in Lev. 9.24 and 1 Kgs 18.38. David's giving of instructions regarding the temple (1 Chron. 28.2-10) alludes to Scripture at many points (compare v. 2 with Ps. 132.1-8; vv. 6-8 with Deut. 4.5; vv. 9-10 with Deut. 4.25-31). 7. Modernization. The obscure 'Metheg-ammah' in 2 Sam. 8.1 is altered in 1 Chron. 18.1 to 'Gath and her towns'. In 1 Chron. 21.15 ' O m a n ' replaces 'Araunah' of 2 Sam. 24.18. The modest price for Oman's threshing floor increases from fifty shekels of silver (2 Sam. 24.24) to six hundred shekels of gold (1 Chron. 21.25). This exaggeration, of course, is not simply a modernization; it is a theological statement intended to underscore David's sense of tiie great value of the site where the Ark would rest. 1 Esdras Following its sources much more closely, 1 Esdras is a retelling of biblica] history from Josiah (2 Chron. 35.1-27) to Ezra's public reading of the Law (Neh. 7.73-8.12). The writing emphasizes the roles of Josiah, Zerubbabel and Ezra in the reform of Israelite worship."*' This emphasis becomes apparent when 1 Esdras is compared to its biblical parallels. Josiah. Whereas according to 2 Chron. 35.1, 'Josiah kept a passover to the Lord in Jerusalem; and they killed tiie passover lamb', 1 Esd. 1.1 says, 'Josiah kept the passover to his Lord in Jerusalem; he killed the passover l a m b . . . ' 1 Esdras says that it was Josiah himself who observed die feast (rather than 'diey'). According to 1 Esd. 1.3 Josiah enjoined the Levites to sanctify themselves (compare 2 Chron. 35.3). Zerubbabel. The only major addition in 1 Esdras is the story of the three young men in die court of Darius (1 Esd. 3.1-5.6), a story tiiat is widiout parallel in the Old Testament. One of die young men is identified as Zerabbabel (4.13). Because of his wise answer (4.14-41), Darius grants Zerubbabel his wish to have Jemsalem and the temple rebuilt (4.42-63). This story enhances Zembbabel's reputation. In keeping with his prominence, Zerubbabel's name is added to Sissinnes' letter (compare I Esd. 6.18 with Ezra 5.14) and to Darius's reply (compare I Esd. 6.27 widi Ezra 6.7). 41. See J.M. Myers. I &H Esdras (AB, 42; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), pp. 1-6. 16-19.

184

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Ezra. According to Ezra 7.10, 'Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel'. The parallel in 1 Esd. 8.7 emphasizes Ezra's knowledge and teaching: 'Ezra possessed great knowledge, so that he omitted nothing from die law of die Lord or the commandments, but taught all Israel all die ordinances and judgments'. In order not to lose sight of Ezra, 1 Esdras omits Neh. 1.1-7.72, where the narrative continues with the story of Ezra reading die law (Neh. 7.73-8.12). In 1 Esd. 9.39 Ezra is called 'chief priest', whereas in Neh. 8.1 he is Ezra the 'scribe' (and 'priest' in 8.2). Although 1 Esdras follows the Hebrew text closely, it is still an example of 'radical paraphrase'. For it has selected only portions of the biblical story, adding one apocryphal story, and omitting a large section of Nehemiah. Jubilees In his summary of the relationship of Jubilees to die biblical narrative, O.S. Wintermute has noted diat in retelling the biblical narratives, the author has freely condensed (e.g. the story of plagues on Pharaoh, Exod. 7-10 = Jub. 48.4-11), omitted (e.g. tiie blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, Gen. 48.1-20), expurgated (e.g. the notice of Abraham's presenting his wife to foreign rulers as his sister. Gen. 12.10-20; 20.2-7), explained (e.g. Reuben's apparent incest. Gen. 35.22 = Jub. 33.2-20), supplemented (e.g. tales of Abraham's youtii, Jub. 12.1-9, 12-13, 16-21, 25-27), and sometimes radically reshaped tiie biblical episodes (e.g. Isaac's covenant widi Abimelech, Gen. 26.31-33 = Jub. 24.21-33).*^ Wintermute believes tiiat tiie activity of tiie author may be described as 'midrash'.*' J.H. Charlesworth agrees, stating that Jubilees 'is a type of midrash on Gen. 1.1 tiirough Exod. 12.50. It rewrites tiiese portions of tiie Tanach from a different perspective.'** Years ago, R.H. Charles called Jubilees an 'enlarged targum on Genesis and Exodus'.*' In a recent study J.C. Endres, however, has described the activity of the author of Jubilees as 'retelling' and his

42. O.S. Wintermute, 'Jubilees', in OTP. n, p. 35. 43. Wintermute, 'Jubilees', pp. 39-41. 44. Charlesworth. 'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', p. 141. Charlesworth further avers that 'most of the Jewish pseudepigrapha... are related because d»ey are exegedcally rooted in die Old Testament' (p. 141). 45. APOT, II. p. 1.


185

writing as an instance of 'Rewritten Bible', not midrash or targum.** I believe that Endres* descripdon is more accurate. Jubilees does not attempt to paraphrase die text (as does a targum), not does it comment on the text (as does midrash). It simply retells die story and is an instance of what I would call radical paraphrase. Let us consider a few more examples fi-om the life of Abraham. The author of Jubilees attempts often to solve what he perceives to be problems. In Jub. 19.15 we are told diat it was Abraham, instead of Rebecca, who loved Jacob (Gen. 25.28). This substitution is part of a major haggadic rewriting of Gen. 25.19-26 that more fully explains why Jacob was to supersede his older brother. Elsewhere the writer explains that God tested Abraham is commanding him to sacrifice Isaac because of the prompting of Mastema, die Prince of evil (17.1518; 18.9, 12; cf. Gen. 22.1), an explanation tiiat likely reflects die Job tradition (cf. Job 1.6-12). Like the Chronicler before him (in reference to David's census), the author of Jubilees is reluctant to cast God in the role of tempter. Many halakic concerns are in evidence in Jubilees. There is concern widi die calendar. There is concern to show diat die patriarchs properly observed Torah and that the halakic traditions of the author derive from the patriarchs themselves. G.W.E. Nickelsburg has drawn our attention to several examples: nakedness is prohibited (3.31); feasts are to be observed according to the solar calendar (6.17-22); blood must not be consumed (7.28-33); circumcision must be performed, and only on the eighth day (15.25-34); one must not marry a foreign spouse (30.7-23); incest is forbidden (33.10-20; 41.23-27).*'

The author of Jubilees often inserts conversation or longer speeches. While Gen. 13.4 only states that 'Abram called on the name of the Lord', Jub. 13.16b provides what the patriarch might have said. Jub. 20.6-10 provides us with Abraham's farewell speech to his family (cf. Gen. 25.5-6 where diere is no utterance mentioned), a speech diat draws upon elements from various biblical texts (Gen. 12.2; Exod. 20.5; Deut. 7.13; 27.15; 28.8; Isa. 65.15; Jer. 29.18). Jub. 21.1-26 provides us with yet another farewell speech, this one to Isaac, again 46. J.C. Endres. Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS, 18; Washington, DC: Cadiolic Biblical Association, 1987), pp. 196-225. see esp. 196. 47. Nickelsburg. T h e Bible Rewritten*, in Stone (ed.). Jewish Writings, pp. 97-104 (98).

186

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

drawing upon virtually the same biblical texts (Gen. 12.2; 38.24; Exod. 20.5; Lev. 20.10; 21.9; Deut. 7.13; 22.23; 27.15; 28.8; Isa. 1.9; 65.15; Jer. 29.18; Ezek. 16.40). Jub. 22.10-24 provides yet a third farewell speech, this one a blessing to grandson Jacob. As in the case of the others, this one too draws upon various, but different, biblical passages (Gen. 14.19; 27.29; 28.1; Num. 24.17; Deut. 26.14; Isa. 52.11; Ps. 106.28). Finally, Jub. 22.25-30 is an account of a second blessing pronounced upon Jacob, a blessing that echoes diverse biblical texts (Gen. 15.7; 1 Kgs 8.29, 52; Neh. 1.6; 9.6-7; Dan. 9.18). From these examples, it is quite evident that the author of Jubilees enriches his material by freely drawing upon Scripture. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum D.J. Harrington dates this work to the early part of the first century CE.** Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum is not text and conmientary, but another instance of the rewritten Bible. Harrington comments: Pseudo-Philo does not treat Scripture in the same way as the compilers of the later Jewish Midrashim do. Rather than making a clear distinction between the biblical text and its interpretation, Pseudo-Philo interweaves the two.*'

In fact, Harrington suggests that the author of Pseudo-Philo may have taken Chronicles as his model. He concludes that this writing is 'an example of an imaginative retelling of the biblical story that joins the Old Testament text and legendary material' and that it may be likened 'to Jubilees, the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon, and Josephus' Antiquities' Charlesworth describes this book as 'something like a haggadic midrash on Genesis through 2 S a m u e l ' . " (But again, as in the case of Jubilees above, 'retelling' is probably more accurate than 48. D.J. Harrington, 'Pseudo-Philo'. OTP, II. p. 299. 49. Harrington. 'Pseudo-Philo'. p. 301. 50. Harrington, 'Pseudo-Philo'. p. 302. R. Bauckham ('The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels as "Midrash"'. in R.T. France and D. Wenham [eds.]. Studies in Midrash and Historiography [Gospel Perspectives. 3; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983], pp. 33-76) comments: '[Pseudo-Philo] is an example of the genre of "midrashic" writings which is sometimes called "dte rewritten Bible", a genre which also includes Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon. and Josephus' Jewish Antiquities' (p. 33). 51. Charlesworth. 'The Pseudepigrapha as Biblical Exegesis', p. 141.


187

'midrash'). God, the Law, angels, and future judgment are major themes in Pseudo-Philo, and the biblical narratives are retold with these concerns in mind. Nickelsburg, moreover, has observed that Pseudo-Philo views sacred history in terms of the cycle of sin, punishment and deliverance, the cycle that is so well known in Judges.'^ In a recent study R. Bauckham assesses the manner in which Pseudo-Philo retells biblical narrative.'' I shall draw upon a few of his examples. 1.

2.

3.

4.

Pseudo-Philo adds names and genealogical details. Cain's wife's name is Themech (LAB 2.1-2), Jephdiah's daughter is Seila (40.1), Samson's mother is Eluma, daughter of Remac (42.1), and so forth. Full genealogies are provided for Caleb, Joshua and Manoah (LAB 15.3; 52.1). Problems are explained. LAB 16.4 explains why the sons of Korah did not die, while God's speech in 36.4 explains why Gideon was not punished for his idolady. LAB 64.1 explains why Saul, who otherwise showed litde regard for G o d ' s commands, opposed witchcraft. Pseudo-Philo often creates new connections and transitions. He seems to assume that tiie sequence of the biblical narrative implies a cause and effect relationship (an assumption that frequendy lies behind rabbinic exegesis). Therefore, when the biblical narrative, in his view, seems to lack transition, Pseudo-Philo will supply tiie missing link. For example, since the law of tassels in Num. 15.37-41 immediately precedes die story of Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16, LAB 16.1 explains that the rebellion was occasioned by die law of the tassels. The stories of the building of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11) and God's call of Abram (Gen. 12) are linked in LAB 6 - 7 . Pseudo-Philo often rewrites speeches and conversations. Sometimes it is a brief summary (LAB 3.4; 22.3-4), sometimes it is an expansion (LAB 3.9; 7.2), often it is a free rewriting (LAB 10.2; 15.5-7; 31.1). He often adds speeches

52. Nickelsburg. The Bible Rewriuen'. in Stone (ed.). Jewish pp. 107-10. 53. Bauckham. "The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo'.

Writings,

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

that emphasize certain teachings. Often these speeches are farewell exhortations placed on the lips of Israel's leaders {LAB 28.1-2; 29.4; 33.1-5). Pseudo-Philo often adds psalms and lamentations {LAB 24.6, a lament for Joshua; 33.6, a lament for Deborah; 40.4-7, a lamentation for Jephthah's daughter; 59.4 and 60.2-3, two new psalms of David) and apocalyptic revelations {LAB 23.6-7; compare Gen. 15.13-21). Pseudo-Philo sometimes modernizes the biblical narrative. Micah's money in Judg. 17.2 is made into an appropriate sum for Pseudo-Philo's time (LAB 44.2). The 'golden nymphs of the Amorites' probably reflect the type of idolatry with which Pseudo-Philo was familiar (Judg. 17.5; LAB 25.10; 44.5). Pseudo-Philo often draws upon parallel accounts in order to enrich the retelling of the biblical narrative. When the daughter of Jephthah faces death because of her father's vow, she alludes to Isaac's willingness to be sacrificed {LAB 40.2). Similarly, Samuel's avowal of innocence alludes to Moses' response to the accusations of Korah {LAB 57.2; 1 Sam. 12.3; Num. 16.5). Pseudo-Philo's story of Abram's experience in die fiery furnace is in part inspired by the experience of the three friends in Daniel 3. Pseudo-Philo's retelling of the crossing of the Red Sea is enriched with allusions to Pss. 18.15 and 106.9, while his descripdon of dissension and division among the tribes {LAB 10.3) has been influenced in part by Judg. 5.15-16. The descripdon of the events at Sinai is also influenced by allusions to other parts of Scripture. The account of die life of Kenaz in LAB 25-28, Pseudo-Philo's lengthiest departure from the biblical narrative, is heavily influenced by Scripture. Bauckham cites some two dozen biblical passages diat are instrumental in shaping die story.'* Pseudo-Philo also seems to have a tendency to embellish birth narratives, and this embellishment invariably reflects a variety of biblical passages and themes. We see this in the birth narratives of Noah, Serug (the great-great-grandfather of Abraham), Isaac, Moses, Samson and Samuel. Bauckham. "The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo', pp. 40-

EVANS Luke and the Rewritten Bible 8.

189

Pseudo-Philo views early biblical material as prophetic in nature and often shows how this material was fulfilled in the later biblical narrative. For example, setting the human lifespan at 120 years (Gen. 6.3) is fulfilled in the length of Moses' life (LAB 9.8; Deut. 34.7), while making the golden calf (Exod. 32) fulfills God's predictions in Gen. 11.6 that humans will go from bad to worse (LAB 12.3). Bauckham believes that at many points Pseudo-Philo's retelling of biblical history parallels the manner in which the Matthean and Lukan evangelists retell the Jesus story as they find it in the Gospel of Mark and in other traditions.*'

Josephus In his story of Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, H.W. Attridge has concluded that Josephus redefined Jewish history and tradition so that they would become 'relevant, comprehensible and attractive in a new environment'.'* Josephus, writing in the aftermath of Jerusalem's destruction and the disappointment of Jewish expectations, believed that God's covenant with the Jewish race was still valid and that Jewish history yielded enduring value and meaning. This conviction, tempered by his personal experience during the Jewish war with Rome, appears to be a major, if not controlling, factor in his retelling of biblical history. F.G. Downing has compared Josephus's rewriting of the JoshuaJudges narratives in Jewish Antiquities to L u k e . " He observes five basic ways in which Josephus rewrites the biblical narrative. 1. Josephus omits material to avoid discrepancies in multiple accounts, to avoid repetition, to avoid interruptions in the flow of the story, to avoid miraculous and magical details, to excise inappropriate theology, and to excise apologetically awkward material. 2. Josephus adds material to promote harmony and continuity in the narrative, to

53. Bauckham, 'TheLiber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo'.pp. 62-68. 56. H.W. Atu-idge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR. 7; Missoula. MT: Scholars Press. 1976), pp. 181-84 (181). Also see idem, 'Josephus and his Works', in Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings, pp. 185-232; and L.H. Feldman, 'Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Josephus', in Mulder (ed.), Mikra, pp. 455-518. 57. F.G. Downing, 'Redaction Criticism: Josephus' Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels'. JSNT 8 (1980). pp. 46-65; 9 (1980). pp. 29-48.

190

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

advance his view of divine providence and prophetic fulfilment, to emphasize tiie piety of major biblical characters, to promote Jewish apologetic, and to clarify and stimulate interest in the biblical story. 3. Josephus rearranges materials to promote harmony and continuity in tiie biblical narrative. 4. Josephus assembles and compiles his materials so as to unify tiie narrative around specific themes and verbal similarities. 5. Finally, Josephus conflates parallel accounts to promote harmony and continuity. When parallel accounts differ greatiy, however, he often abandons conflation and opts, instead, to write a fresh account. Downing concludes that Luke's rewriting of Mark corresponds almost exactiy to Josephus' rewriting. Luke's Rewriting of the Jesus

Tradition

I shall now attempt to show how Luke's retelling of Mark'* in many ways appears to be modeled after the retelling techniques or categories of some of the biblical and pseudepigraphal books and is apparendy motivated by some of die very concerns diat motivate much of die retelling in these writings. Because of the problematic nature of Q, only Mark, a source which is extant apart from the Lukan and Matthaean Gospels, will be considered. Genealogies Luke supplements his Markan source witii a genealogy of Jesus (3.2338). It is likely that Luke traces Jesus' genealogy back to Adam in order to underscore Jesus' relevance for the entire human race, not simply for Israel (as the Matthaean genealogy possibly implies). Moreover, by tracing die genealogy in descending order, Luke is able to conclude with Adam, 'the son of God' (3.38), whom the evangelist probably wishes to contrast witii Jesus, tiie second 'son of God' who successfully widistands tiie Devil's temptations (4.1-13). Genealogical details are provided elsewhere (1.5, 27; 2.36). Qualifications The Lukan evangelist typically qualifies his Markan source where Jesus seems to be tt-eated witii disrespect or where die disciples suffer 58. I am. of course, assuming Marcan priority. Should Matthew (or Luke) be judged to be prior, the retelling categories would sdll be present, diough obviously die synopdc parallels would have to be explained quite differendy.


191

miserable failure. According to Mk 1.45 the healed leper disobeys Jesus' injunction to silence. But in Lk. 5.15 the miracle is noised abroad without the leper's help. Luke's modification was likely to have been prompted by a sense of the inappropriateness of having someone, especially one just healed, flagrantly disobey Jesus. According to Mk 4.38 the fearful disciples ask Jesus, 'Teacher, do you not care if we perish?' Lk. 8.24 paraphrases, 'Master, we are perishing!' In this example, the question of the disciples was probably viewed as eidier disrespectful or as implying that die disciples viewed Jesus as insensitive. In any case, Luke found die question in need of qualification. In die same pericope Jesus rebukes the disciples, 'Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?' (Mk 4.40). Again Luke is uncomfortable with M a r k ' s wording. His paraphrase of Jesus' rebuke mitigates the disciples' failure: 'Where is your faith?' (8.25). The implication is tiiat the disciples have suffered only a momentary lapse. In his account of the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage the Markan disciples exclaim: 'You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, "Who touched m e ? ' " (5.31). Again Luke wishes to avoid the appearance that the disciples have shown less respect for Jesus than they should have. The Lukan Peter, speaking for the disciples, says, 'Master, the multitudes surround you and press around you!' (Lk. 8.45). According to Mark die disciples were afraid when Jesus was transfigured (Mk 9.6). Luke, however, only says that the disciples 'were heavy with sleep' (Lk. 9.32). Luke tells us that one of those crucified with Jesus expressed faith in him (Lk. 23.39-43), whereas according to Mark they reviled Jesus (Mk 15.32). These kinds of qualifications are typical in the examples of rewritten Bible. Summaries The Lukan evangelist is fond of sunmiaries. Often a summary signals a transition from, to, or between sources. Lk. 4.13 summarizes the temptation narrative (4.1-12), a narrative based on Mk 1.12-13 and Q (compare Mt. 4.3-10), while the summary in 4.14-15 (an adaptation of Mk 1.14) anticipates the Nazareth sermon in vv. 16-30. Lk. 12.1 is a Lukan summary that introduces the sayings that follow. Lk. 15.1-2 (possibly derived from Mk 2.15-17) summarizes the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus' conduct in anticipation of tiie tiiree parables that follow. Luke's notices of Jesus' 'going' to Jerusalem function as summaries (9.51, 57; 10.1, 38; 11.53; 13.22, 33; 17.11; 18.31, 35; 19.1).

192

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Sometimes the summaries are no more than abbreviations. Lk. 9.7-9 summarizes M a r k ' s longer account of what befell the baptist (Mk 6.14-29). Lk. 9.10-11 summarizes Mk 6.30-34. Additions and Expansions The most obvious additions to his Markan source would be Q and the putative L source, upon which the evangelist has drawn for his infancy narratives, various sayings, and other miscellaneous materials. To cite a few examples: Luke adds 3.10-14 where the Baptist explains what is expected of people who would repent and prepare themselves for the Kingdom of God. The emphasis falls on economic honesty and contentment, a dieme that is related to Luke's general concern with one's disposition toward wealth. Luke also elaborates on Mark so as to emphasize Jesus' habit of prayer, especially at times of major importance. This is seen at his baptism (3.21; cf. Mk 1.9-10), before the choosing of tiie Twelve (Lk. 6.12; cf. Mk 3.13), before Peter's confession (Lk. 9.18; cf. Mk 8.27), before die Transfiguration (Lk. 9.28, 29; cf. Mk 9.2), and, assuming uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus represents the original reading, just before dying (Lk. 23.34). Luke (5.111) expands Mark's (1.16-20) call of die first disciples. By expanding it and by relocating it, he explains why Peter, James and John would follow Jesus' summons. Toward the end of his gospel narrative Luke adds tiiat Jesus touched and healed die injured ear (Lk. 22.31; cf. Mk 14.47), probably to underscore Jesus' attitude of compassion and forgiveness toward his enemies. Omissions and Abbreviations Luke omits a large section of Mark, a section tiiat includes die second feeding miracle (Luke's so-called 'Big Omission', Mk 6.45-8.26). Luke omits Mark's potentially inaccurate, and at best confusing, reference 'when Abiathar was High Priest' (Mk 2.26; cf. Lk. 6.4). In retelling Mark's account in which Mary and her sons wish to speak to Jesus (Mk 3.31-35), Luke omits Jesus' rhetorical question, 'Who are my mother and brothers?' (8.19-21), a question that Luke probably regarded as disrespectful toward Mary, sometiiing quite inappropriate for one who had already figured so positively in his account. Luke omits Jesus' rebuke of Peter after the latter's confession (9.22; cf. Mk 8.31-33), an omission likely to have been motivated to avoid portraying Peter in such a negative light. Luke omits M k 10.35-41 where James


193

and John request to sit next to Jesus, the request and reaction to which Luke probably regarded as less than becoming to the disciples. Luke omits Mk 11.12-14, 20-21 where Jesus curses the fruitless fig tree, an action which the evangelist is likely to have thought unbecoming to Jesus. In his retelling of the garden prayer Luke abbreviates Mark's three-fold reference to the disciples' sleep and omits altogether Jesus' rebuke of the disciples (Lk. 22.40-46; cf. Mk 14.32-42). Again, it would appear that Luke wishes to spare the characters of the disciples. Finally, in his account of Peter's denials Luke omits reference to Peter's cursing (Lk. 22.60; cf. Mk 14.71). Cultural Adaptation As a general rule, Luke avoids Mark's Semitisms, replacing them widi Greek or Latin equivalents ('Boanerges' in Mk 3.17, cf. Lk. 6.14; 'Talidia, cum* in Mk 5.41, cf. Lk. 8.54; 'Abba' in Mk 14.36, cf. Lk. 22.42). In 5.19 Luke says that the friends of the paralyzed man removed the tiles of the roof, instead of digging through the roof (cf. Mk 2.4), a revision likely to have been motivated to make the scene more intelligible to his readers. Luke uses the more correct 'Lake Gennesaret', instead of 'Sea of Galilee (5.1; cf. Mk 1.16). Transformations Luke completely transforms Mark's version of the Nazareth sermon (4.16-30; cf. Mk 6.1-6a). Luke wishes to show that Jesus' ministry provoked opposition because of his willingness to extend messianic blessings to Israel's traditional enemies and not simply because his people did not believe in him. Often Luke not only transforms a pericope but also gives it a new location in die narrative. Luke inserts his expanded version of Jesus' sermon in the Nazareth synagogue (4.1630) between Mk 1.15 and 1.21. Luke widiholds Mark's account of die calling of the disciples (Mk 1.16-20) until 5.1-11, probably so as to explain why the disciples would drop everything and follow Jesus. Moreover, Luke expands diis pericope probably in order to explain why the disciples would follow Jesus, for the calling as presented in Mark is quite abrupt. Luke's account of Mary and her sons requesting to see Jesus (8.19-21; cf. Mk 3.31-35) is made to follow die Parable of die Sower and related sayings (Lk. 8.1-18; cf. Mk 4.1-25). Luke has relocated this unit probably because he wishes it to serve as part of his theme on hearing and obeying the Word of God. Luke sometimes

194

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

inteqirets material so as to portray Gentiles and Jewish outcasts as recipients of divine forgiveness. We see this in the Great Banquet Parable (14.15-24//Mt. 22.1-14). Whereas the original form of the parable probably had only two types of people in view (obedient Jews and disobedient Jews), Luke adds a diird type (diose who live beyond die highways) to represent die invitadon being extended to Gendles. The Markan cry of abandonment (Mk 15.34b-36) is replaced by Jesus' pious prayer, 'Fadier, into diy hands I commit my spirit' (23.46b). Luke and Cognate Jewish

Literatures

Whereas most will agree that the New Testament Gospels share significant affinides with the Jewish phenomenon Rewritten Bible, diere is some debate as to which specific genre widiin diis phenomenon with which they should be identified. Are the Gospels instances of Christian targums, lectionaries, midrashim or radical paraphrase? Targumsl One might, I suppose, argue that Matthew and Luke bear a targumic relationship to Mark, just as one scholar suggested similarly with regard to Chronicles' relationship to Samuel/Kings, or Jubilees' relationship to Genesis and Exodus. However, the objections that have been raised against this interpretation of Chronicles probably apply equally to such an interpretation of Matdiew and Luke (or of John as a targum of one or more of the synoptics). Bruce Chilton's conclusion diat tiie Gospels are 'cognate', radier dian identical, to the targums is appropriate." Lectionariesl Are die Gospels instances of early Christian lectionaries? M.D. Goulder has produced two major studies in which he argues that the synoptic

59. B.D. Chilton (Targumic Transmission and Dominical Tradition', in R.T. France and D. Wenham [eds.]. Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels [Gospel Perspecdves. I; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1980], p. 36; repr. in Chilton, Targumic Approaches to the Gospels [Studies in Judaism; Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986], p. 125) righdy cautions against calling die gospels 'targums'. He suggests that die retelling activity of the evangelists (and U-adents before them) be considered 'cognate' (radier dian 'identical') to the retelling process of the Targums.

EVANS Luke and the Rewritten

Bible

195

Gospels are early Christian lectionary books based upon Jewish lectionaries.*" A. Guilding has tried to show the same witfi respect to the Fourth Gospel.*' These probably represent the better known works.*^ None of these studies, however, has escaped serious criticism, even those of Goulder, which are judged by some to be the most competent.*' The basic problem with this approach is that we simply do not know what lectionary cycles were in use in the first-century synagogue;** nor do we know for certain if the first-century church adopted any of its own. I believe, however, that there is a more fundamental problem with this approach. It would seem that the Gospels, as many of the books of Tanach, were written to be read through, firom beginning to end, as narrative, not as lection. In Mark, for example, does not the centurion's confession that Jesus is the 'Son of God' (15.39) constitute the dramatic conclusion to the question of Jesus' identity, a question hinted at in the first verse, and raised from time to time throughout his story? If Mark has written a lectionary, does he expect his readers and auditors to remember this theme over die course of a year or more? I am sure diat die same objection could 60. M.D. Goulder. Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974); idem. The Evangelists' Calendar: A Lectionary Explanation of the Development of Scripture (London: SPCK. 1978). It should be noted, however, diat Goulder (Midrash and Lection, p. 172) diinks diat a 'Gospel is not a literary genre at all' but a 'liturgical genre'. Goulder diinks that Matthew's five major discourses correspond to major Jewish feasts and holidays: (1) the Sermon on the Mount (chs. 5-7)— Pentecost; (2) the Sending of the Twelve (ch. 10)—Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur; (3) die Parables of die Kingdom (ch. 13)—Sukkah; (4) Rules for Church Order (ch. 18)—Hanukkah; and (5) die Eschatalogical Discourse (chs. 24-25)— Pesahim. 61. A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford: Oxford University. I960). 62. Works that have won less scholarly attention would include those of R.G. Finch. The Synagogue Lectionary and the New Testament (London: SPCK. 1939). and P. Carrington. The Primitive Christian Calendar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1952). 63. L. Morris. 'The Gospels and die Jewish Lecdonaries'. in Studies in Midrash and Historiography, pp. 129-56. 64. C. Perrot, La lecture de la Bible dans la Synagogue (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1973). p. 287. The evidence of b. Meg. 31b, possibly reflecUng second-century tradidon. suggests that diere was no uniform Jewish lecdonary. For a criticism of Goulder's interpretation of diis passage, see Morris, 'The Gospels and the Jewish Lectionaries'. p. 136.

196

The Pseudepigrapha

arui Early Biblical

Interpretation

be raised widi respect to the other Gospels. In the final analysis, the lectionary hypotiiesis rests upon litde more than imagination and sheer speculation. Midrashim Are the Gospels instances of Christian midrash? Goulder has argued tiiat Matthew is a midrash on Mark and that the materials scholars usually identify as ' Q ' are really no more than midrashic expansions of Markan materials and themes.*' J. Drury extends this approach further by suggesting diat not only is Matdiew a midrash on Mark, but diat Luke is a midrash on bodi Matdiew and Mark (and John is a 'free midrash' on die synoptic tradition).** It as sometimes been argued that the Gospels are midrashim on various parts of Tanach. Recently R.H. Gundry has argued that various pericopae in Matthew represent Matthaean midrashim on various Old Testament passages, especially with reference to the birth narrative.*' On a grander scale J.D.M. Derrett has argued diat Mark is a 'gigantic midrash' on the Hexateuch and Lamentations.** This is a thesis diat I find highly implausible. There simply are not enough explicit citations or clear allusions to the Hexateuch throughout Mark to make a convincing case for such a putative midrash. Would any reader of antiquity have observed that Mark was such a midrash? The pesharim at (jumran proceed verse by verse. The later rabbinic midrashim proceed similarly. But Mark has

65. Goulder. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. 66. J. Drury, 'Midrash and Gospel". Theology V (1974). pp. 291-96; idem. Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel (London: Darton. Longman & Todd. 1976), pp. 44-45. According to Drury. 'midrash [is] the method by which, in historical fact rather dian scholarly conjecture. Jews of various colours from die most chauvinistic Pharisee to die most liberal Hellenist did their history writing' ('Midrash", p. 294). As examples of what he regards as 'midrash", he cites Josephus. Philo. Jubilees, and the Genesis Apocryphon. Clearly Drury"s understanding of midrash is far too broad and inclusive. 67. R.H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1982), Gundry regards Matthew's gospel as a 'midrashic', but I do not diink that he regards die entire writing as a 'midrash' in the sense that Goulder. Drury and Derrett have suggested. 68. J.D.M. Derrett. The Making of Mark: The Scriptural Bases of the Earliest Gospel (2 vols.; Shipston-on-Stour: Drinkwater. 1985), I, p. 38; see also D. Miller, The Gospel of Mark as Midrash on Earlier Jewish and New Testament Literature (Lewiston and (Jueenston: Mellen. 1990).


197

not. If Mark was intended to be a midrash on parts of Genesis through Joshua, then this wridng is not only literarily and methodologically unique, but probably was not recognized by anyone for what it was supposed to be. Gundry's case, however, is more plausible, since the Old Testament passages upon which the midrash (or 'midrashic embellishment') is supposed to be based are actually cited. But has Matthew created stories to fit Scripture, or has he searched for Scripture to fit the stories?*' I believe diat claims tiiat die Gospels are midrashim on various Old Testament books or passages overlook the obvious. The Gospels, whedier midrash or not, tell the story of Jesus. They do not tell die story of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David or Elijah. They may tell the story of Jesus in ways that are clearly colored by the traditions of diese ancient worthies, but their point is to tell the story of Jesus. Let us consider two examples from Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, where the story that he narrates clearly has been influenced by other Scriptures. In retelling the story of die building of die tower of Babel (Gen. 11.2-4), Pseudo-Philo draws upon Daniel 3. The features of interest are as follows: Abraham and eleven others refuse to assist in building the tower (LAB 6.3), an enterprise, according to related tradition, that involved idolatry (Targ. Neof., Ps.-J. Gen. 11.4; Gen. R. 38.8 [on 11.3]), just as die diree friends in Daniel refuse to worship the newly erected golden image (Dan. 3.812). Abraham and his companions are then brought to Joktan, who gives them seven days to reconsider (6.4-6), just as the three friends are brought to Nebuchadnezzar, who gives them a chance to reconsider (Dan. 3.13-15). Refusing a chance to escape, Abraham declares his trust in God: 'If... I should be burned up, let the will of God be done' (6.11). Similarly, die three friends answer Nebuchadnezzar that they believe God can deliver diem from the furnace, but if not, the king is to know that they will not worship the golden image (Dan. 3.16-18). When Abraham is cast into die furnace (6.16), there is an earthquake that causes fire to flash forth and kill diose who were standing by (6.17a). Similarly, the flames and heat of the furnace kill the guards who threw the three friends into the fire (Dan. 3.22-23). 69. Of the various Gospels-as-midrash theories Gundry's has die most to commend it. But even his presentation is not without serious difficulties: see P.B. Payne. 'Midrash and History in the Gospels with Special Reference to R.H. Gundry's Afatthew', in Studies in Midrash and Historiography, pp. 177-215.

198

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Unharmed (6.17b), Abraham 'came up out of the furnace' (6.18), just as the three friends, also unscathed (Dan. 3.25, 27), 'came out of the fire' (3.26). These parallels, along with the fact that Daniel 3 is explicitly cited in other rabbinic commentary on this Abrahamic tradition {Gen. R. 44.13 [on 15.6]; b. Pes. 118a), confirm that Daniel 3 has made a significant contribution to Pseudo-Philo's retelling of Genesis 11. But would it be correct to say that Pseudo-Philo has produced a midrash on Daniel 31 The point of departure is the story in Genesis, specifically, the meaning of the word 'Ur' ('fire') and the assumption that tiie story of tiie tower of Babel in ch. 11 precedes the call of Abraham in ch. 12 for a reason. Pseudo-Philo's imaginative retelling is an attempt to explain these factors. Daniel 3 assists him in tiiis attempt, but is not itself tiie object of his interpretative retelling. Let us look briefly at another example. In his retelling of the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod. 14; LAB 10), Pseudo-Philo again draws upon traditions found elsewhere in Tanach. The story of die people's grumbling (Exod. 14.10-12) is enriched with allusions to die division among the people in Judg. 5.15b, 16b (LAB 10.3), while die description of the parting of the sea in Exod. 14.21 is enriched with allusions to die Psalter (106.9a; 18.15 = 2 Sam. 22.16) and to the Song of Moses in Exodus 15 (v. 8) (LAB 10.5). (After diese embellishments, Pseudo-Philo returns to Exod. 14.22 and cites it almost verbatim.) Again, it is apparent diat Pseudo-Philo has not produced a midrash on material from die Psalter, but has retold the story of Exodus 14. It seems to me that even if the broadest legitimate definition of the word midrash be accepted, it is inaccurate to define the Gospels as midrashim, either on one another or on Tanach. One could argue that midrashic elements, even isolated midrashim on given texts, are present in die Gospels. But to regard a Gospel as a whole as a midrash is problematic for one basic reason: No Gospel as a whole is an exposition, in any case, of its major literary sources. Matthew has not commented upon Mark, nor has Luke. Matthew has used Mark as one of his sources. Never does midrash work diis way. Midrash is always a clarification of a text, whether this clarification be explicit, formal and obvious, or allusive, subtle and hidden. Matthew and Luke do not represent attempts to clarify and update Mark. They represent attempts to clarify and update the Jesus story, and to do tiiis tiiey needed Mark and odier materials. Matthew and Luke are independent


199

literary/exegetical attempts to retell Christian biblical history. I have called this retelling 'radical paraphrase'. Radical Paraphrase? Is the Gospel of Luke an example of radical paraphrase of the Jesus tradition? I think that it is, and I think that this is the best way to understand the evangelist's literary-exegetical activity. He has retold the Jesus story, not in a targumic manner, closely following Mark's text, nor in a midrashic manner, interpreting portions of Mark's text. He has instead freely adapted his various sources—Mark, Q, whatever, according to his own purposes. His technique closely resembles that of the Chronicler who made use of various Old Testament books, freely selecting and omitting material, freely rewriting it according to his theological perspective. Luke's technique also resembles many aspects of the radical paraphrases of biblical history seen in 1 Esdras, Jubilees, Jewish Antiquities and Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Just as it is appropriate to classify these wridngs as radical paraphrase, a part of the phenomenon of the 'rewritten Bible', so I think diat it is appropriate to classify Luke (and Matdiew) similarly. Luke's affinides to the 'Jewish approach' to sacred story must be taken into account, if diis Gospel is to be adequately understood. What about Luke's reladonship to die Old Testament? Can diat be called midrash? The funcdon of the Old Testament in Luke, as well as in the odier wridngs of the New Testament, at times may properly be regarded as midrash.™ How much of it should be so regarded depends on the definition given to midrash. I think that while the view that only rabbinic exegesis should be called midrash is too narrow, the view that virtually all early Jewish and Christian literature should be called midrash is too broad. To what extent the function of Scripture in Luke (and the New Testament) is truly midrash or midrashic must await a resolution of tiie debate over tiie definition of midrash, particularly in tiie context of the first century." But I repeat, the question

70. J. Neusner (What is Midrash? [Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia: Foruess Press, 1987], pp. 37-40) cites Matthew's use of Scripture in the infancy narrative as an example of midrash as prophecy. 71. For a recent introductory discussion diat views the literary and exegetical dimensions of midrash. see Neusner. What is Midrashl. B.D. Chilton ('Varieties and Tendencies of Midrash: Rabbinic Interpretations of Isaiah 24.23', in Studies in Midrash and Historiography, pp. 25-28) has suggested applying 'midrash' to that

200

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

of Luke's relationship to Jewish literary genres is not dependent on the midrash debate. Luke's writing technique corresponds so closely to the techniques observed at work in the wridngs surveyed above, I diink future discussion of the gospel genre should begin here. Conclusion: Luke as Hagiography There is another dimension to radical paraphrase. Since the story that is retold is sacred story (whether the Old Testament story or die Jesus story), I believe that it is appropriate to view these wridngs as hagiographa (with the possible exception of Josephus). The hagiographer not only makes use of sacred traditions, but he (1) writes in conscious imitation of biblical style, (2) believes tiiat die contents of his writing is in some sense 'inspired', and (3) intends his writing to be read alongside of the biblical story; indeed, he believes that it has become part of the story. (I believe that these dimensions, especially the second and third, are not present in Josephus.) This Luke has done. In incorporating his Jesus traditions he has deliberately imitated die style of Scripture, which for him is the LXX.'^ He is also conscious of die place that his narrative has among other attempts to tell the story of Jesus (Lk. 1.1-4). It is likely that Luke viewed his writing as part of Christianity's sacred story. Indeed, if Luke regarded Mark as sacred story, and I think that he did, dien it is inconceivable diat he viewed his own work as anydiing less. He probably viewed his work, or at the very least its dominical contents, as belonging to the still amorphous portion of Scripture known as the 'sacred writings', or hagiographa. This could explain why Luke does not habitually cite Scripture as 'fulfilled', as do Matthew and John. Luke does not understand his Gospel and Acts as conmientaries on Scripture, or even as containing commentaries on Scripture, as I suspect Matdiew and John understand their respective writings. Luke sees his writings as a continuation of which is distinctively rabbinic, and 'midrashic' to exegetical approaches not limited to die rabbis. 72. See H.F.D. Sparks. 'The Semidsms of St Luke's Gospel'. JTS 44 (1943). pp. 129-38; D.L. Tiede. Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Forwess Press. 1980). pp. 47-48. 58-61. 70-77, 82-84, 90-95; Fitzmyer. Luke IIX, pp. 114-16; T.L. Brodie, 'Greco-Roman Imitation of Texts as a Partial Guide to Luke's Use of Sources', in CH. Talbert (ed.). Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar (New York: Crossroad, 1984), pp. 17-46.


201

the scriptural s t o r y . ' ' Luke does not see himself primarily as a biographer, nor even a historian. The Lukan evangelist is a writer of Scripture, a hagiographer who is proclaiming what God has 'accomplished among us*.

73. If 1 am correct in this assessment, we could have some interesting implications for die question of the New Testament as canon. Simply put. Luke may have thought that Luke-Acts belongs in the Old Testament, not some sort of New Testament

SUFFERING, INTERCESSION AND ESCHATOLOGICAL ATONEMENT: AN UNCOMMON COMMON VIEW IN THE TESTAMENT OF MOSES AND IN LUKE-ACTS David P. Moessner

It is hard to overstate the importance of Moses in Jewish literature between die Bible and die Mishnah. Whedier he be colored die originator of culture, military genius, sage, wonder worker, apocalyptic seer, or supreme legislator and mediator of the law, no other figure has captured the imagination and admiration of die multi-hued communities of Judaism to the same extent as Moses.' One aspect of his career which had been emphasized in the earlier biblical account of Deuteronomy, viz. Moses' intercessory suffering and death,^ is given short shrift in the later 'intertestamental' period, although Josephus at points in his Antiquities

underlines Moses* rejection by his own

1. Special thanks to my colleague, Walter Brueggemann, for discussing this manuscript with me. For surveys on Moses, see, e.g., W.A. Meeks, The ProphetKing: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup, 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967), pp. l(X)-75; D.S. Russell, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 95-107; G. Vermes, 'Die Gestalt des Moses an der Wende der beiden Testaments', in Moses: In Schrift und Oberlieferung (DUsseldorf: Paunos, 1963), pp. 61-93; D.L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (SBLDS. 1: Missoula. MT: Scholars Pi«ss. 1972), pp. 101-240; idem, 'The Figure of Moses in die Testament of Moses', in G.W.E. Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses (SCS, 4; Cambridge, MA: Society of Biblical Literature. 1973), pp. 86-92; J. Jeremias. 'Moyses', TDNT, IV, pp. 848-73. On the Moses pseudepigrapha. see J.H. Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modem Research (SBLSCS. 7; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. 1976), pp. 159-66. 2. See esp. G. von Rad. Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; New York: Harper & Row. 1962), I. pp. 289-96; D.P. Moessner. 'Luke 9.1-50: Luke's Preview of die Journey of die Prophet Like Moses of Deuteronomy', JBL 102 (1983). pp. 582-87; and P.D. Miller. '"Moses My Servant". The Deuteronomic Portrait of Moses'. Int 41 (1987), pp. 245-55.

MOESSNER Suffering,

Intercession,

Atonement

203

people.' A notable exception, however, is the first century CE writing known as the Testament of Moses (T Mos.),* in which this suffering 3. See inter alia Ant. 2.15.4-5 §§327-29. 2.15.4 §334; 3.1.3 §§11-12, 3.13 §§295-99; 4.2.3 §22. 4.3.2 §§40-50.4.8.2 §§177-79. It is inteiesting that Josephus mentions four different occasions in which the people try or desire to stone Moses (Ant. 2.15.4 §327; 3.1.3-4 §§12-22, 3.14.3 §307; 4.2.3 §22). wheieas diis detail is mentioned only once (Exod. 17.4) in die Hebrew Bible; on the relation of these extrabiblical traditions to Deuteronomistic traditions, see, e.g., O.H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (WMANT, 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1967). pp. 81-86; D.P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis: Foruess Press, 1989). pp. 85-87. The fragmentary nature of many of the sources of this period does not allow die conclusion diat Moses' suffering and death was of no interest or even of considerable importance. The (^mran community, for instance, nuiy have placed great stock in Moses' suffering mediatorial role, especially in light of dieir own Teacher's fate (see, e.g., 4QDib Ham; cf. 4QpHos 2.3b-6; KJpHab 2.6-10, 11.4-8; 4QpPs 37.14-15; IQH 2.9-19, 32-37; 4.8-10; 5.5-19; 9.1-36). On Qumran, see furdier Meeks. Prophet-King, pp. 173-75; Moessner. Lord of the Banquet, pp. 87-90. Typical, however, of longer U-eatments of Moses is the juxtaposing of several roles and experiences, including his rejection or suffering, and the subsuming of the latter to more overarching portrayals of die ideal legislator, sage and ruler, as in Philo and Josephus. For Philo. see. e.g., Vit. Mos. 2.163-73, where Moses, in inner turmoil over die golden calf, takes 'die part of mediator and reconciler... begging that their sins might be forgiven... and softened die wrath of die Ruler' (LCL edn). But this role is only one aspect of die much wider function of priest, die cenu-al feature of which is 'piety' (Vit. Mos. 2.66). In Pseudo-Philo. widiin die context of foretelling secrets of die future, Moses is presented as intercessor (LAB 19.3). For Josephus, see n. 3 above, and see further. Tiede (Charismatic Figure, pp. 101-37.207-40). Interest in Moses' suffering role and deadi figures more prominendy in die later rabbinic literature; see. e.g., L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, I-VII (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. 1910-38]). Itt, pp. 439-81; VI, pp. 151-68; Meeks, Prophet-King, pp. 176-215, esp. 198-204. 4. Most scholars hold to a first-century CE date for the final form, given the radier vivid descriptions of die Herodian period and die campaign of Varus in ch. 6. There is no indication of die destruction of die Temple in 70 CE. G.W.E. Nickelsburg has built a convincing case for a basic text of T. Mos. from die period of Antiochus's persecution with a later redaction in Herodian times; see, e.g.. his 'Antiochan Date for the Testament of Moses', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 33-37; idem. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS, 26; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp. 43-45; idem, Jewish Uteramre between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 80-83, 212-14; cf. A. Yarbro Collins, 'Composition and

204

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

and death forms the focal point of the unknown writer's (writers') entire portrait of Moses. The thesis of this study is that within this uncommon profile of Moses in the Testament of Moses, insufficient attention has been paid to Moses' death as an interpretative key to the significance of the suffering and deadi of the enigmatic Taxo (and sons) in T. Mos. 9. Moses' impending death is not only die setdng for a testament widi apocalyptic elements—as most acknowledge'—but his death also seals God's preordained plan to effect a final or eschatological atonement for Israel through Taxo's faithful suffering and death. Taxo dius fills up die full measure of propitiatory suffering prophesied and decisively put into effect for Israel long before by Moses himself. Moreover, in Part II, I shall expand the thesis by arguing that in a similar way, the apostles/witnesses of Acts are filling up a full measure of faithful suffering and even death which has been eschatologically sealed by die deadi of Jesus Messiah, die prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy.

I A look at the role of Moses' deadi in the Testament of Moses vis-^-vis the final establishment of God's kingdom (regnum illius) in 10.1-10 reveals that it is precisely Moses' absence, that is, his death, which looms as both the tragic barrier and yet, at the same time, as the gracious access to Israel's entering the land of their forebears (1.8; 11.1 lb) and receiving tiie final blessings of die covenant (1.9; 11.17b).

Redaction of die Testament of Moses 10'. HTR 69 (1976). pp. 179-86. For die period 4 BCE-48 CE. see D.M. Rhoads. T h e Assumption of Moses and Jewish History: 4 BC-AD 48'. in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 53-58. For a summary of positions, see J.J. Collins, Testaments', in M.E. Stone (ed.). Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT. 2.2; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). pp. 347-48; and idem. T h e Testamentary Literature in Recent Scholarship', in R.A. Kraft and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.),£flr/y Judaism and its Modem Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Adanta: Scholars Press. 1986). p. 277. 5. See, e.g.. A.B. Kolenkow. 'The Assumption of Moses as a Testament', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 71-77; and idem, 'I. The Literary Genre 'Testament'", in Kraft and Nickelsburg (eds.). Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, pp. 259-67.

MOESSNER Suffering, Intercession, la. The Opening Frame (Chapter

Atonement

205

If

The narrative framing of Moses* prophecy (profetiae, 1.5) of Israel's future (2.1-10.10) spoken to Joshua in the tent of testimony (1.7) obviously recalls Moses' and Joshua's final gathering in the tent of meeting of Deut. 31.14-23. There, however, it is only Yahweh who speaks, first to Moses (Deut. 31.16-21) and then to Joshua (Deut. 3 1 . 2 3 ) . ' The opening frame (ch. 1) of the Testament of Moses by contrast stresses the significance of Moses' words to Joshua in the tent (1.10-18 [1.1-9 = narrator]) which, now called a 'wridng* (scriptum, 1.16), will be crucial to Joshua*s ability to preserve the books diat Moses is about to entrust to him (1.16-17). These 'books* are undoubtedly a reference to die Law or 'everydiing which has been commanded' through Moses (T. Mos. l.IO). Moses* first words, in fact, admonish Joshua to blameless obedience to diese commandments (1.10), before Moses describes himself as one 'devised* by God or 'prepared from the beginning of die world, to be the mediator of his covenant' (ab initio orbis terrarum praeparatus sum ut sim arbiter testamenti illius, 1.14). That Joshua's capacity to preserve the books by the use of Moses* words/wridng is of utmost importance, is made clear immediately by die way Moses links Joshua*s task to two cridcal 6. The contours of the final form of the text are themselves disturbed by Joshua's questions at die beginning of ch. 11; it is as diough he has heard very litde if anydiing at all of Moses' prophecy of die future, especially of Israel's final exaltation to 'the heaven of the stars' in 10.9. The prophetic prospect (chs. 2-10) appears to be a distinct if not separate literary unit at some point combined with the narrative framing. G. Reese (Die Geschichte Israels in der Auffassung des friihen Judentums [Diss., University of Heidelberg. 1967]. pp. 90-93) reckons 1.6-15. 2.1-2, 10.1415 and 11, lb-12.13 to be an older narrative which the later author of T. Mos. used for his historical presentation. This 'Moses-Joshua story' may well stem from die same literary-dieological circle that produced Pseudo-Philo with its emphasis on die role of die people within God's covenant faidifulness. See below, n. 11. 7. For T. Mos. as an expansion and/or rewriting of Deut. 31-34. see, e.g.. D.J. Harrington. 'Interpreting Israel's History: The Testament of Moses as a Rewriting of Deut. 31-34', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 59-68; Nickelsburg. Resurrection, pp. 29, 44; idem. Between the Bible and the Mishnah, pp. 80-82; J. Priest. 'Testament of Moses. A New Translation and Inu-oduction'. in OTP, I, pp. 923-24. Though the last chapters of Deuteronomy are clearly the setting for T. Mos., especially with Moses' prophetic prospect in his 'song' in ch. 32. T. Mos. draws on die conceptions of God's covenant relationship constitutive to and distincdy accented in the whole of Deuteronomy and in the later Deuteronomistic history; see below, n. 11.

206

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

boundaries in Israel's future: Moses' imminent death (1.15) and God's final 'visitation' of them at the end of history (1.18). In other words, Moses' 'words'/'writing' to Joshua are in some fashion the key to the understanding and obedience to the Law that will lead eventually, at the end of time, to God's final visitation or appearance of God's kingdom for Israel. Moses has already provided a clue why this is so. This one who has been designed by God before the world ever existed to be God's channel for the Law is now about to die, to exist no longer. What will happen dien to Israel? How can Israel possibly exist without this life-giving mediation, especially since God has hidden his purpose for Israel from tiie Gentiles—namely, that G o d ' s whole purpose in creating the world was on behalf of 'his people' (1.12)? Will the way out of this dilemma then be simply faidiful obedience to a law diat is already codified and will even be accompanied by a companion 'commentary' written by the soon to be deceased mediator himself? Or to restate the issue at the end of die opening frame (ch. 1), Does Moses' death bear any greater significance than the formal occasion upon which die eschatological horizon of Israel's final covenant blessings are envisaged and through Moses' words in some way ensured?' lb. The Closing Frame (lO.II-I2.I3). Before looking at Moses' foreglimpse of Israel's history (2.1-10.10), it will be illuminating to see just how Joshua understands and responds to Moses' opening instiuction and deadi announcement in their dialogue which is not resumed until the closing frame, 10.11-12.13. Moses first repeats his injunctions to Joshua: 1. Joshua is to hearken to Moses' words, his 'book'/'writing' (10.11, librum; 1.16; cf. 11.14); 2. Moreover, God's final visitation of 1.18, now termed a 'coming'/ 'advent' is dated from the time of Moses' deadi (250 'times', 10.1213). All tiiat will happen in tiie meantime is measured and dius tied to

8. Kolenkow's point ('Assumption') that T. Mos. enlarges one of the 'commonplaces' of the testamentary genre—through its disclosure of reveladon completely hidden from the Gendle nadons since they could not have received a testament given only to Moses' successor, Joshua—is certainly valid and particularly illuminadng given the role of the Gendles in chs. 1 and 11-12 (pp. 72-73). In addition, we are inquiring about the material role that Moses' deadi itself plays in die plot of the secret story of Israel's future—a story of God's pre-ordained will reserved for die end of dme.

MOESSNER Suffering, Intercession,

Atonement

207

Moses' death. For now, Joshua is to be 'minister' (successor)^ of the same covenant (10.15; cf. 1.7). With Israel's entire history spread out before him and coming to consummadon in Israel's victory and exaltadon to heaven in ch. 10, might one not expect diat Joshua now in ch. 11 would be relieved and thank Moses for his testament of assurance? But Joshua's response is in fact die very opposite, rending his clodies and prostrating himself in tears. Israel's continued existence is still die great crisis and Moses' death, in particular, forms the vortex of 'bitter words' (11.4) that appear a whirlwind of gloom and destruction. Who can possibly lead Israel into the land with enough compassion or enough wisdom to judge and rule their life or with the ability to sustain/feed them and guard tiiem tiirough all tiieir adversities (11.9-10, 12-13)? But far more significandy, who will be qualified to pray for them, 'not omitting a single day, in order that I [Joshua] may lead them {ut inducam illus) into die land of dieir forebears' (11.11)? That it is Moses' intercessory prayers which, to this point, have been foremost in mediating Israel's life and in enabling them to enter die land, becomes clear from Joshua's concluding laments (11.12-19): I. Moses' prayers, according to Joshua, have actually been the means by which {in tuis orationibus) Israel's numbers have grown (to 100,000 [600,000])'" (11.14); 2. And looking ahead to die time when Moses has departed, Joshua puts into the moutiis of the kings of die Amorites this amazing admission: Let us go up against them... Uiey have no advocate/protector (defensor) to offer prayers on their behalf (pro eis) to die Lord, like Moses die great messenger, who every hour day and night had his knees fixed to die earth (habebat genua sua infixa in terra), praying and looking for help to the One who rules all the world with compassion and righteousness, reminding the Lord of the covenant of die forebears and propitiating the Lord with the oath (et jurejurando placando Dominum)...\eX us go dierefore and destroy diem (11.17-18).

The function of the nations in God's plan of creation, sounded at the beginning, returns again here but now with the disclosure that it is Moses' pleading on Israel's behalf that has placated God's anger 9. Probably msrt (e.g. Josh. 1.1) is indicated here (so R.H. Charles. APOT, II. pp. 414 n. 7; 423 n. 15). 10. Cf. Exod. 12.37 and R.H.Charles, The Assumption of Moses (London: A. & C. Black, 1897), p. 94 n. 14. for die suggested insertion.

208

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

against Israel. Moses' prayers have thus protected Israel, not from the unenlightened, guilty nations (1.12-13) but from themselves vis-a-vis the anger of God. But the role of Moses' prayers and consequently Joshua's distress become fully comprehensible only in Moses' rejoinder (12.1-13). Moses confirms the nations' assertion about his prayers and Israel's plight, while denying their conclusion. God has, he says, 'established or appointed me on dieir [Israel's] behalf and for dieir sins' (me constituit pro eis et pro peccatis eorum, 12.6). Moreover, it is not because he himself is worthy or capable of meedng this task; rather, it is solely God's compassion and long-suffering that are the basis of his calling and diat have accrued to him (contegerunt mihi). The context now becomes transparent. Moses' calling or task includes not only his prayers of intercession, which up to this point have been effective, but it also includes his deadi, that is, the denial of entry into the land of the forebears and his imminent departure, which is causing such consternation and crisis for Joshua and for Israel. For as Moses continues, it is certain that Israel under Joshua's leadership will not enter the land because of their godliness (pietas). Those who do and fulfil the commandments of God shall increase and be prospered, but those who sin and set at naught the commandments shall deprive diemselves of die good diings mentioned before, and diey shall be punished widi many torments by die nations (12.11).

Moreover, the prospects do not appear optimistic. The nation as a whole, it seems, will continue to sin such that the Gentiles could easily (i.e. justifiably) destroy Israel entirely. But God will not allow diat to happen (non potest, 12.12b). Rather, God himself will go/come forth (12.13). In light of diis end coming of God (cf. 10.3, 7!), die warning to Joshua is now given its eschatological import. God's compassion and long-suffering poured upon Israel through Moses is giving them die land, in spite of dieir sin; but God's favor resting upon Moses will no longer assure them of future deliverance—except tiiat, at tiie very end, at least a part of Israel will be saved. Consequently the real crisis for Israel is not Moses' death but rather Israel's sin." And now it is finally clear why Joshua is so distressed

I I . I am arguing diat die posture of the whole book is deuteronomistic. That is. the audior bases his hope in the final salvation on God's faidifulness to God's oath sworn to Israel's ancestors and mediated through the Horeb covenant (see esp.

MOESSNER Suffering,

intercession,

Atonement

209

even after Moses* sweeping vision of Israel's heavenly exaltation. How can Israel possibly survive, 'seeing* that they will continue such disobedience after Moses* death? Joshua, however, has failed to understand that in God*s eternal decree for the nations and for Israel, God has also foreseen that it is Moses* life and death, absence

his prayers and

from the blessings of the land, through which Moses' eter-

nally designed mediation for a sinful Israel should take place. In other words, through Moses' life and death Israel's future life is assured. His death is not simply the occasion upon which new revelation is mediated, but is ironically, as Joshua has failed to perceive, the answer

T. Mos. 1.9; 3.9; 11.17; 12.13). This covenant includes the blessings but also the curses—punishment diat follows continued disobedience of the people as a whole. Corporate repentance/confession of sin is a sine qua non for blessing/restoration and becomes constitutive of die hope in God's faidifulness and ultimate blessing. Thus a pattern emerges—sin, punishment/judgment, repentance/intercession, salvation/ vindication—in which the punishment of 587 BCE becomes proto-lypical of die final judgment of a disobedient Israel (e.g. T. Mos. 8.1; 9.1). For diis 'Doppelschema' pattern and variations, see. e.g.. Steck. Israel, pp. 60-264; Nickelsburg. Beftveen the Bible and the Mishnah, pp. 9-18; E. SjOberg. Gott und die Siinder im paldstinischen Judentum (BWANT. 79; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938), pp. 201-202; J.J. Collins. 'Some Remaining Traditio-Historical Problems in the Testament of Moses', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 40-42; D.P. Moessner. '"The Christ Must Suffer": New Light on die Jesus-Peter. Stephen. Paul Parallels in Luke-Acts'. NovT 28 (1986). pp. 225-30. For application of some aspect of deuteronomic/istic historical categories to T. Mos., see. e.g., Steck. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick, pp. 172-73; Nickelsburg. Bible and the Mishnah, pp. 80-82; Sjoberg, Gott und die Sunder, pp. 232. 235. 238-39, 250. 257, e.g. 235: 'Ass. Mos... ist durch und durch von der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbetrachtung geprSgt'; Collins. 'Traditio-Historical Problems'; idem, 'Testaments', in Stone (ed.), Jewish Writings, pp. 346-47; Kolenkow, 'Assumption', pp. 73-74; Reese. Geschichte Israels, pp. 117-24. e.g. 123: 'Die grosse Bedeutung. die das Deuteronomium in der AssMos gewinnt, ISsst sich doch nur begriefen. ..dass die Vf. der AssMos in seinem theologischen Denken im Bereich einer dt-dtr bestimmien Theologie verwurzelt ist'; J. Priest. 'Some Reflections on the Assumption of Moses', Perspectives on Religious Studies 4 (1977). p. 94; E. Brandenburger, 'Einleitung: Himmelfahrt Moses', in JSHRZ, 5/2. Apokalypsen (1976). pp. 63-64; Harrington. 'Rewriting of Deut. 31-34'. pp. 60-61, 63-66; primarily non-deuteronomic/istic: e.g. E. Janssen, Das Gottesvolk und seine Geschichte (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Veriag. 1971), pp. 107-8; cf. Charles, APOT, 11, p. 424 n. 8: 'The nation is so evil and needs such frequent chastisement, that its selection by God must be due not to merit but to die Divine purpose'; Samaritan: K. Haacker, 'Assumptio Mosis—Eine samaritanische Schrift?', TZ 25 (1969). pp. 385-405.

210

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

to the perceived 'problem' of his absence. Moses' death does not now cut off the mediation of the covenant to Israel. Rather in his death Moses' intercession for Israel is sealed and made effective for the end. Israel will not be totally cut off (in totum exterminet...non potest, 12.12), a part or remnant will be saved. 'Accordingly [as Moses first introduces himself] die Lord designed me and prepared me before the foundation of die world diat I should be the mediator of his covenant' (1.14). And now in his death Moses declares 'that the time of die years of my Ufe are consummated' (consummatum est, 1.15). In life and death Moses is die eternal mediator of the covenant. Prophetic Prospect (2.1-10.10) Does Moses' prophetic prospect, which forms tiie heart of tiiis writing ( 2 . 1 - 1 0 . 1 0 ) , ' ^ square at all with its frame of Moses as eternal mediator? Moses views the history of Israel in two great epochs (chs. 2 - 4 ; 5-9) before G o d ' s kingdom 'appears throughout all creation' (10.1-10). When it is asked what is characteristic of each period or upon what basis this particular division is made, it becomes clear that it is Israel's corporate sin, repentance and restoration/atonement that constitutes Moses' vision of the future. In ch. 2, the narrator's opening summary of Joshua's career in 1.6-9 and Moses' injunction to Joshua in 1.17-18 are fulfilled as the 12 tribes establish a central place of worship and sacrifice, even if the 10 tribes break off and follow their own ordinances. Nevertheless, because of all manner of idolatry perpetrated at tiie Temple the two tribes are taken into captivity where they join together widi die ten tribes in lamenting their mass apostasy (3.4-7) and in crying to the God of the covenant for mercy (3.8-9). What is more, this mass sin is tied explicidy to the fulfilment of Moses' prophecy and to his death. Is not this that which Moses did declare unto us in prophecies, who suffered many things in Egypt and in die Red Sea and in the wilderness forty years, and called heaven and earth to wiuiess against us, that we should not uansgress God's commandments of which he had become the mediator for us? These things have come upon us after his death"

12. See above, n. 6; cf. Kolenkow. 'Assumption', pp. 73-74. 76; Nickelsburg, 'AnUochan Date', pp. 33-37. 13. See, e.g.,Char]es,AssumptionofMoses,p.67 n. \3:de isto ('i.\'i) = 'hryw = 'after him', i.e. 'after his deadi'. He points also to 2 Bar. 84.4 and Job 21.21.


Atonement

211

according to his declaration (testatus), as he declared to us at diat time, and these (things) have taken place even to our being led as captives into die land of die east (3.11-13).'"

Now interestingly the author (in the convention of apocalyptic) has Moses in this preview reveal the people's point of view not only in their present corporate sin in exile and its fulfilment of Moses' former prophecy; but Moses also has the people in exile disclose retrojectively Israel's condition throughout the entire Exodus preceding Moses' prophecy in the Testament of Moses at the border of the promised land: Moses was a suffering mediator, 'who suffered many things {qui multa passus est) in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years' (3.11). That his suffering was integral to his role as mediator and that this mediation was necessary on account of Israel's sin is certain as the people's lament continues on {et), 'and he assuredly called heaven and earth as witnesses against us that we should not transgress God's commandments of which he had become the mediator for us?' (3.12)." In other words, as in the frame of the Testament of Moses (cf. esp. his propitiatory prayers, 11.17), so in the historical preview itself Moses' mediation is owing to Israel's unrelenting sin. Moses' suffering is thus on their behalf At the end of the period of captivity, someone 'enters' into Israel's predicament who resembles Moses. Not only is he 'over them' ( 4 . 1 — supra eos; cf. 11.1; 12.1—ad pedes Mouse), but he 'kneels upon his knees' {et ponet genua sua, 4.1) and prays on Israel's behalf, reminding God of the covenant (4.1-4; cf. 11.17b), as he pleads for God's compassion in delivering them from die Gentiles (cf. 11.17; 12.8). And as witii Moses' prayers, so now again God allows die people to go (back) into the land. But the restoration is only partial; only two tribes return and they begin to lament that they are not able again to offer sacrifices to the Lord (4.6-9).'* In fact, no sooner is this return described than the 'times of punishment and vengeance are already drawing nigh' (5.1). Chapters 14. Emphasis mine. 15. Emphasis mine. 16. The lament over sacrifices is not clear; probably 'die lesser glory* (Hag. 2.3) of die second Temple plays some role but probably also some critique of die priest's performance (e.g. Mai. 1.7). Charles {Assumption of Moses, p. 15 n. 8) points to 1 En. 89.73 and 2 Bar. 68.5. 6; cf. Collins. 'Traditio-Historical Problems', p. 43; Reese. Geschichte Israels, pp. 1(X)-101.

212

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

5-7, no matter how many stages of transmission and/or interpolations may be represented," present an era in which evil abounds among Israel's ' k i n g s ' , priests and judges such that the Temple and its sacrifices are polluted beyond all comparison. Only by reinvoking the slavery of Egypt can the horrors of Israel's apostasy be suitably imaged (6.1-7). Accordingly Israel's punishment will be gready intensified (chs. 8-9). Now a 'king of the kings of the earth' instead of 'die east', 3 . 1 , comes to execute unprecedented persecution and torture, forcing Israel to blaspheme die L a w . " But once again someone enters the scene, who even more than die figure of ch. 4 resembles Moses: 1. Like die Moses of die frame, Taxo, in 'first person' narradon, presumes to know God's purpose and limitadon in the Gendles'/ nadons' punishment of Israel. Now instead of Moses direcdy teaching Joshua God's intendon, Taxo (through Moses the narrator) is teaching his sons. The measure of punishment inflicted by the nadons, who diemselves are impious and commit abominations against God, is just about full ( 9 . 2 - 4 ) ; " 2. Taxo invokes a long line of 'parents* and dieir

17. The final form of T. Mos. requires a reading of chs. 7-10 in dieir present sequence in order to make logical sense of Taxo's role in die final events of ch. 10. Taxo himself (9.2-3) refers to an unprecedented persecution diat has already befallen die people, a 'second punishment... surpassing die former one'; diough the text of 8.1a is corrupt, it intfoduces precisely just diat. a 'vengeance and wradi such as has never happened to diem from die beginning up to diat time in which...' (ultio et ira quae talis non fuit in illis a saeculo usque ad ilium tempus in quo). Moses is thus linking Taxo's significance direcdy to diis final persecution (and hence to Moses' own suffering!); note also die four 'horae' that come when 'the times will be ended' (7.1). See further. J. Licht. 'Taxo, or the Apocalyptic Docuine of Vengeance'. JJS 12 (1961). pp. 101-103; Reese. Geschichte Israels, pp. 102-16; J.J. Collins. 'The Date and Provenance of die Testament of Moses', in Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 17-22). 18. blasfemare verbum... haec leges (8.5); in 11.16 Moses is 'lord of the word' (dominum verbi). In 1.9, 16 Moses' prophetic word to Joshua on Israel's law is represented as die 'book'. T. Mos. 19. The analogy of even greater suffering and punishment for Israel vis-J-vis that of the nations holds only if Taxo is comparing Israel's sin over against die nations' 'impiety' and 'abominations' against the Lord. As in the message of Deutero-Isaiah (40.2). die emphasis in T. Mos. is that widi Taxo's (and sons') persecution and deadi Israel will have 'paid' die full measure for their sin. Yet it must also be seen that die basis of Taxo's declaration is a clear admission of Israel's guilt and God's righteous punishment, i.e.. an orientation of repentance (see also 1.18; 3.4-7; 4,1-4; 11.17; 12.6) See also Charles, Assumption of Moses, p. 15 n. 8; Steck,Israel, pp. 172-73;


Atonement

213

forebears who did not transgress the commands of the Lord. Neither does Taxo intend to do so. Like die line of the faithful, Taxo and his sons will not tempt God so as to (ut) make themselves vulnerable to breaking die commands. Radier, diey will go into a cave and die, if need be/preferably (potius, 9.6), before transgressing 'die commands of die God of our forebears'. In odier words, Taxo knows that his 'strength' lies in acdng in solidarity with a long lineage of a faithful remnant who refused to violate the Law (9.5). In 11.16 (frame) it is Moses, 'worthy of die Lord, lord of die word, who was faidiful in all diings'. 3. Like Moses, Taxo knows diat God will use his own faidifulness and his death to bring deliverance for Israel. Ironically, as Moses' death must occur before Israel can enter into the land of the covenant, so Taxo's death must occur as the final act of faithful suffering before Israel enters its exalted place in the final purpose of die covenant (10.8-10, 15).^° For as Moses continues to narrate in his prophecy of die future (lO.l-lO),^' Taxo's (and sons') deadi/'blood' will indeed be 'avenged' by die Most High, Eternal God, who himself will come to avenge Israel of their enemies (9.7, sanguis noster vindicabitur coram Domino; 10.7, Deus aeternus solus...veniet ut vindicet gentes; cf. 10.2: die chief angel vindicabit illos ab inimicis eorum). In fact, Moses' death (as we have seen) marks the beginning of the '250 times' that must run their course until Taxo's (and sons') deadi ushers in die final 'Kingdom' of God. What Moses' deadi in his suffering mediation makes effective and seals for the end, Taxo's (and sons') death completes and unlocks in his suffering mediation at the end. Like Moses, Taxo describes God's 'visitation' upon a guilty nation (9.2-3; cf. 1.18; 8.1).^^ But now unlike Moses, Taxo declares that God's punishment upon Israel through the Gentiles is now dirough his own faithful suffering becoming completely full. Consequendy, Reese, Geschichte Israels, pp. 95-99; SjSberg. Gott und die Siinder, p. 250 n. 4. 20. Notice how Israel's 'kingdom' (regnum) of 2.2-9 is consummated in the 'kingdom' (regnum) of God in 10.1-10. 21. It is not certain in 10.1-10 whedier Taxo continues to speak in Moses'narration or if Moses utters the eschatological 'hymn' directly, as I am assuming. If die former, dien my third point stands out all die more. 22. For the relation of Taxo's fasting to ritual repentance, see. e.g.. Reese. Geschichte Israels, pp. 110-11. who mentions 1 Sam. 7.6; Joel 1.14; 2.1214; Neh. 9.1-38; Jon. 3.7-8. Dan. 9.3. 4-19 should also be mentioned. Cf., e.g.. G.W.E. Nickelsburg. 'Introduction', in idem (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 8-9; Collins, 'Traditio-Historical Problems', pp. 41-42.

214

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

the faithfulness, which in the frame Moses represents and charges to Joshua in 1.10, 16; 10.11, 15 and then predicts will exist in part at the close of the 250 dmes (10.11; 12.10-13), is consummated through Taxo (and sons).^' By incorporating the historical preview with the frame of the Testament of Moses we can now fill out and sunmiarize die role of Moses' death in die Testament of Moses. 1.

2.

3.

Moses' death makes effective for the remainder of Israel's history the compassion and long-suffering of God for a sinful nation as had been mediated already through die propitiatory prayers of intercession and the faithful suffering of Moses. Rather than a crisis for Israel, Moses' death is an assurance of his role as the eternal mediator of die covenant and tiius a seal of Israel's final deliverance and blessing. In and of itself, Moses' death is not given atoning significance. But taken together with his appointment as suffering intercessor 'on tiieir behalf and 'for their sins', his death is critical to an atoning of God's anger and punishment for Israel's sin. Moses' intercession, as sealed through his death, continues tiirough a line of faidiful obedience to the commands of the covenant. Taxo's faithfulness to the Law in the midst of suffering (persecution) and impending death completes Moses' mediation for a sinful Israel and initiates God's vengeance upon the Gentile punishers of Israel through the advent of God and God's final kingdom. Moses' words or writing, in other words the Testament of Moses, is not simply a special apocalypse/revelation of the true interpretation of the commandments given through Moses; it is rather, more importantiy, a key to understanding the persecution and faidiful suffering of Israel at die time the Testament of Moses was composed (and revised). In order to

23. For discussions of Taxo's role and identity, see. e.g.. H.H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic (New Yoik: Association Press. 1964), pp. 149-56; Collins, 'Date and Provenance', pp. 22-30; Rhoads, 'Assumption', pp. 55-58; Priest. 'Reflecdons'.pp. 97-104; C. Lattey. 'The Messianic Expectation in "The Assumption of Moses'", CBQ 4 (1942). pp. 9-21; Reese. Geschichte Israels, pp. 103-10; S.K. Williams. Jesus' Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept (HDR, 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 69-70; S. ZeiUin, "The Assumption of Moses and die Revolt of Bar Kokba', JQR 38 (1947-48). pp. 27-45.

MOESSNER Suffering,

intercession.

Atonement

215

understand the Endzeit or eschatological import of Taxo's suffering and death one must look to die decisive beginning or Urzeit of Israel's deliverance dirough the suffering mediadon and deadi of Moses. Moses' death, therefore, is not only formally important as a determinadve setdng for a 'testament' and/or 'apocalypse'; more significandy it is also materially constitutive of a proper or perhaps even authoritative interpretation of Israel's predicament under persecution. II A number of trajectories through Luke-Acts, though indicating fundamental differences with the Testament of Moses, point nevertiieless to a closely parallel view of Israel's past and tiie need for a decisive eschatological act of God to deliver Israel first and foremost from its own sin, as well as from the destruction of the Gentiles. In bodi the Testament of Moses and Luke-Acts, God acts decisively for Israel in the life and death of Moses/Jesus to effect eschatological salvation. 1. Luke-Acts presents Israel as a whole, including its leaders, as rejecting its suffering, interceding deliverer and his messengers. This rejection by the 'evil generation' (Lk. 11.29) of Jesus' day epitomizes an Israel that, from its very inception, has been disobedient and whose unbroken rejection of the commands of God throughout its history has been most poignantly displayed at its central place in Jerusalem. a. Jesus' Pronouncements of Judgments. Luke has Jesus utter warnings, laments and oracles of judgment against die dirongs of Israel and their leaders who have come out to hear him. Whedier in Galilee, along the great journey or in Jerusalem, the nation as a whole has refused to repent at the preaching of Jesus whose words are wiser than Solomon's and brook a judgment far greater dian Jonah's (11.29-32): Galilee (9.41; 10.13-16); Journey (11.42-48, 49-51, 52; 12.54-13.9, 22-30; 13.31-35; cf. 19.27); Jerusalem (19.41-44; 20.9-18, 45-47; 21.5-6). In fact, upon the generation of Jesus' day will fall the 'bloodguilt' of all of Israel's generations whose stream of blood begins witii Abel in Genesis and flows dirough dieir history up to Zechariah

216

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

ben Jehoida whose 'murder' at the Temple is recorded in the last book of the Writings. Because Jesus himself now receives the prophet's reward at Jerusalem—'You stoner and killer of those sent' by God— Israel's 'house' there 'will be abandoned' (11.47-53; 13.33-35a). b. Calls to Repentance in the Speeches in Acts. At several points in addresses by the apostles and witnesses in Acts, particularly in the earlier speeches in the Temple precincts, the people as a whole and their leaders are accused of killing their own anointed one, Jesus, who had been sent to diem (Acts 2.36b; 3.13-15; sending, 3.26; cf. 3.202 1 ; 4.10-11; cf. 4.27; 5.30; 7.51-53). The only proper response is to repent, especially since this one whom they killed came as the prophet like Moses to consummate a long line of persecuted and murdered prophets and messengers (2.38; 3.18-19a, 22-26; 7.35-53; 13.40-41; 26.20-23). This accusation reaches its first climax at the Temple, the central place of Israel's worship, in Stephen's retrospect of Israel's past when he, similar to Moses' prospect in the Testament of Moses, characterizes tiieir entire history as an idolatrous disobedience of die Law (7.53; cf. esp. Neh. 9.26, 30). c. Jesus, Peter and the Apostles, Stephen, and Paul as Suffering Intercessors. Like Moses together widi the intercessors of chs. 4 and 9 in T. Mos., so in Luke-Acts Jesus is portrayed as a suffering intercessor on behalf of Israel's sin whose mediation continues after his death through the apostles/witnesses of Acts. Jesus. Not only is Jesus often at prayer (more than the other Synoptics), his praying also occurs at pivotal points in his gathering a laos and in their growing rejection of his sending to bring Israel eschatological release (aphesis) from dieir own sin. From his baptism with 'all the laos' who have heeded John's call to repentance (Lk. 3.21-22, 7-14) to his selection of 'twelve' 'aposdes' from tiie large gathering of disciples of the laos from Judaea and Jerusalem and the districts of Tyre and Sidon (6.12-13, 17), to die feeding of the burgeoning laos in the wilderness near Bethsaida (9.13-17), to the disciples journeying with him to Jerusalem (11.1-4; cf. 10.38), to the twelve gathered at die Passover table in Jerusalem (22.14-20), Jesus is in soUdarity with Israel at prayer as he proclaims the final reign of God and exhorts a change of posture vis-^-vis God's powerful presence


Atonement

217

(e.g. 6.18-49; 9.10-11; 11.5-36; 22.28-38). In keeping with this picture—and even more striking—îs Jesus at prayer at those moments when resistance begins to set in and when it becomes increasingly clear that the posture of this same laos and disciples will lead inevitably to his death. For example: 1. Lk. 5.16 with 5.17-6.11: Pharisees and the scribes attempt to take the 'Son of Humankind to legal proceedings' (cf. esp. 5.24; 6.5, 7 ) ; " 2. Lk. 9.18 widi 9.19-27: the Son of Humankind will suffer many things from the leaders in Jerusalem and the crowds at large (cf. esp. 9.26); 3. Lk. 9.28-29 with 9.30-45: 'the Son of Humankind will be delivered over into the "hands of humans" of a "faidiless and crooked generation'" (cf. esp. 9.41, 44); 4. Lk. 22.31-32 witii 22.33-38: Peter and die eleven at table in Jerusalem will have their 'faidi' fail when die Son of Humankind is delivered over by one of diose at diat very table! (cf. esp. 22.21-27). The narrator brings all of this prayer for the disciples and for Israel to a climax on die Mount of Olives when Jesus, warning his disciples to pray lest diey 'enter into' the coming temptation, 'sets his knees upon tiie earth' and pleads for a reprieve from the 'cup of wratii'^' against Israel which he is to 'drink' through his deatii (22.41-42, 3946). Nevertheless, the will of the 'Father' for a generation that 'sleeps', 'comes out with swords and clubs', and 'delivers over the Son of Humankind with a kiss' must be done. Consequendy it is not merely artistic detail when Jesus' last words on the cross are prayer for Israel as he surrenders his life to God's will on dieir behalf (23.46; 23.34, 43). In life and death Jesus is die great intercessor for Israel. In Acts as well as in Luke the persecutions and rejections of the apostles and messengers sent to Israel come at critical junctures and are portrayed as suffering and intercession for Israel: Peter and the Apostles. Peter and the apostles' preaching of repentance and offer of eschatological life to Israel which is centered at Israel's place of worship is sharply opposed by the guardians of diat cult. The abuse, beatings and imprisonment of Acts 4 - 5 are summarized in 5.41 as suffering or being 'shamefully treated on behalf of the name' of Jesus Messiah. This suffering dius becomes a means or medium through 24. On the role of the Pharisees and their scribes in the death of Jesus in Luke, see D.P. Moessner. 'The "Leaven of die Pharisees" and "This Generation": Israel's Rejection of Jesus according to Luke', JSNT 34 (1988). pp. 21-46. 25. Seeesp. Isa. 51.17-23.

218

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

which the eschatological life of 'this name* is extended to Israel. This 'name', as especially in E)euteronomy-2 Kings,^* represents the Lord's presence for the release of sin through repentance (and baptism— 2.21, 38; 4.12—en ho) and, in addition, embodies an authoritative presence 'by means of which' healing is effected (3.6—en to; 4.7—en; 4.10—en to; cf. 3.16; 4.7, 17, 18; 5.28, 40). In ch. 4 a 'speech' provides the early community's interpretadon of diis persecution by dieir appropriation of Ps. 2.1-2 in a prayer on behalf of tiie whole people of Israel. Spoken by David, die Lord's 'servant', Ps. 2.1-2 not only prophesies die violent treatment in Jerusalem of Jesus, the Lord's 'servant', but also continues to depict the ill-treatment of the apostles and early community of messianists, the Lord's 'servants' (Acts 4.25, 27 and 30, 29). But now instead of summoning Psalm 2 to vindicate their own reactions through a ' w e - t h e y ' posture and praying for punishment of the Temple guardians and/or escape from persecution, the early community intercedes for their peers, the people of Israel. May die Lord use 'their threats' to continue the powerful signs and wonders in tiie midst of bold preaching 'through/by means of (dia) the name of your holy servant Jesus' (4.29-30). Their prayer thus is for die continuing mediation of eschatological life through 'the name' in tiie midst of suffering on behalf of the whole laos of Israel. This notion of suffering mediation for Israel is accented all tfie more by die narrator's eagerness to point out the favor and esteem in which the community was held by the laos (2.47; 4.21; 5.13). Whereas die blanket charge of stoning the prophets and messengers sent to Israel typically indicts the whole nation's disobedience (Lk. 11.47-51; 13.34 [cf. 4.16-30!]; Acts 7.51-52, 59), here die Temple authorities diemselves might fall victim to stoning by die laos of Israel (5.26)! Stephen. Stephen's speech (Acts 7.1-53) functions as a commentary on Israel's reception of its messianic salvation after the fateful twist of events in 6.8-15 in which the laos for die first time are 'stirred u p ' against the messianic community (6.12, 9-11). As the closing accusations of the speech make amply clear, diis resistance to Stephen on die part of some of the people continues the long history of stubborn rejection of all the prophets and messengers on the part of the whole 26. For the classic and sUU determinadve study, see G. von Rad, 'Deuteronomy's "Name" Theology and the Priesdy Document's "Kabod" Theology', in Studies in Deuteronomy [SBT, 9; London: SCM Pi«ss. 1953). pp. 37-44.

MOESSNER Suffering, intercession,

Atonement

219

nation, which has come to a climax in their killing of Jesus the Just One, the prophet like Moses (7.37-41, 51-53). Moreover, the narrator has taken pains to dovetail the charges against Stephen with those against Jesus: He [Stephen] speaks blasphemous words against Moses and God [cf. Lk. 22.71; 23.5, 1 4 ] . . . never ceasing to speak words against diis holy place and die Law. for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazaredi will destroy this place and will change the customs Moses delivered to us (Acts 6.11b. 13b-14).

Yet Stephen's counter-accusation (Scheltwort) that Israel's worship at the promised central place is utterly idolatrous, continuous with the worship of the calf in the wilderness (7.51, 37-40, 52-53), does not flow over into pronouncement of judgment (Wehe- or Drohwort; contrast Jesus in Lk. 11.42-52; 13.35a; 19.43-44; 21.6). Rather Stephen sees the 'glory of God' (cf Acts 7.2) and Jesus, die Son of Humankind, standing at the right of this glory (see Lk. 22.49!). And as he dies outside die city, like Jesus—but now praying to Jesus—Stephen offers over his spirit, and Jailing on his knees cries out, "Lord, do not hold diis sin against diem'" (7.59-60; Lk. 23.46, 34). Like the early community in Acts 4, suffering at the hands of Israel is met with prayer on behalf of Israel. In life and death Stephen is united widi the great intercessor for Israel. Paul. The narrator first introduces Paul precisely when Stephen is interceding for Israel. Later the narrator will present a summary of Paul's enure calling to Israel when Paul himself is nearly killed by die people in Jerusalem and invokes die 'blood of Stephen your [Jesus'] witness', whose murder Paul had been 'actively approving' (7.58; 8.13; 22.1-16, 17-22). This link is hardly fortuitous. Indeed, Israel's hardness and growing opposition to the apostles/witnesses of eschatological salvation is tiie thread that weaves the entire tapestry of Acts togetiier. Each of tiie three descriptions of Paul's calling to Israel and the nations stresses the central role of suffering (9.16; 22.15, 18, 2 1 ; 26.16-17), not merely as a consequence but as a necessary means or agency through which 'forgiveness of sins' is enacted:

220 1.

2.

3.

4.

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

It is a 'divine necessity' {dei) that Paul 'bear the name of the Lord Jesus' 'before the nations and their kings as well as before the children of Israel' (9.15), and by bearing this name 'suffer for the sake of my name' (9.16); This necessary suffering is linked to die threefold insistence that Paul's own persecution of tfiose who call upon die name of Messiah Jesus (9.21-22) was actually a persecution of Jesus himself (9.4-5; 22.7-8; 26.14-15). Thus somehow Jesus is not only present in the 'name' but is so as one in solidarity with die suffering of the community (cf. 4.23-31; 5.41-42); Consequendy Paul is first introduced as the representative par excellence of tiie 'stiff-necked' generation of Stephen's audience, in fact, as the great inflamer of the first major persecution of the Jerusalem messianist conununity (7.51-53, 58; 8.1-3; 9.1-2, 13-14; 22.4-5, 19-20; 26.9-11). Ironically, tiien, Stephen, aflame with the glory^' of Jesus, the Son of Humankind, becomes the great intercessor for Paul and the whole people of Israel (9.1-2, 14, 2 1 ; 22.5; 26.10, 12). Stephen's intercessory role is highlighted further by the sudden turn of affairs in Paul's own fate: first in Damascus by fellow Jews (9.23-25) and then back in Jerusalem by nonmessianist Hellenists (9.29-30) Paul becomes die victim of his own ravages;^' But tiirough the suffering of Stephen and the Jerusalem community and then Paul, the 'name of Jesus' is taken to Samaria (ch. 8), Phoenicia, Cyprus, and eventually to Syria (11.19), where first Jews and then Gentiles receive 'the release of sin' ('name': 8.12, 16; 9.27, 28; 10.43, 48; 15.14, 17, 26; 16.18; 19.5, 17; 21.13; cf. 22.16; 26.9; 'release'/ 'forgiveness of sins': 10.43; 13.38; 26.18; cf. 22.16!).

In two speeches toward the end of Paul's mission the narrator summarizes Paul's entire sending to Israel as wholesale rejection and suffering at dieir hands: 27. For the connection of glory with Jesus. Peter and the aposdes. Stephen, and Paul, see Moessner. 'The Christ Must Suffer', pp. 227-56. 28. Notice the ironic use of 'to bind' {ded): Paul who is zealous to bind all diose who call on the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 9.2. 14. 21; 22.5) becomes preeminendy die one bound by his fellow Jews (24.27; cf. 28.20). even as he is bound 'in die Spirit' (20.22) to be bound in Jerusalem! (21.11,13. 33; 22.29).


Atonement

221

Acts 20.18-35, 36-38. Paul's whole time in Asia is characterized by him as a 'service of humiliation and tears and trials which befell me'—not by the pagan silversmidi guild and die riodng chauvinists of Ephesus and her patroness Artemis (19.23-41)—^but 'by die plots of die Jews' (20.18b-19). Not only diis, Paul declares diat 'in every city' of his mission (kata polin) 'the Holy Spirit keeps bearing witness to me that chains and afflicdons await m e ' as he is 'bound to go to Jerusalem' (20.23; cf., e.g., 20.3). But, Paul insists, 'he is innocent of die blood guilt of all' die Jews (20.26). What is at stake is not diat his own life be preserved, but rather that the mission he 'received from die Lord Jesus' be 'fulfilled' (20.24).^ As Paul departs 'he falls down on his knees with them all in prayer', while the 'elders weep, sorrowing...because diey would not again see his face' (20.36-38). Acts 22.1-21. The narrator provides a further glimpse into Paul's own appraisal of his mission to Israel as well as illuminadon of the Ephesian departure speech and prayer when Paul makes his defense before die lynching mob just outside die gates of die Temple. 'I am a Jew', he declares, just 'as zealous for God as are all of you' (22.3). As a prime persecutor of die Way, he had to learn that he was actually persecuting 'Jesus of Nazareth', 'the Just One', who was alive and whom he 'had been appointed...to see and to hear* (22.7-8, 14). In fact, by 'calling upon his name* and 'being baptized*, his grave 'sins* would be 'washed away* before becoming a 'witness (martus) to all peoples* of the persecuted Just One he had just 'seen and heard* (22.14-16). Paul moves quickly to another vision of the 'Just One' (cf. 26.16b!), a flashback to his first experience in Jerusalem after Damascus, a 'first-person* recounting of 9.26-30. 'In the Temple while at prayer* Paul 'sees him saying, "Hurry and leave quickly from Jerusalem since the residents of Jerusalem will not receive your witness (marturia) concerning me*'*. But Paul retorts that tiieir behavior is understandable. After all he himself was a ringleader of the persecution and 'when the blood of Stephen your wimess (martus) was being shed, I myself was standing alongside actively approving, even as I guarded the mantles of those who were killing 29. Notice how Jesus in Lk. 19.41-44 and Paul in Acts 20.19. 31 weep for/over Israel in die midst of opposition from Israel to their mission to Israel. In T. Mos. 11.1-4. in a similar context in which Israel has been depicted as increasing in disobedience until the end of history, Moses and Joshua weepl

222

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

him* (22.17-20). If not a defense of his fellow Israelites, clearly at least Paul's distress at diat dme in die Temple, as in Miletus in 20.24 (22-27), is not so much for his own life as it is for the life of Israel (cf. also 26.6-8, 19-23, 28-29!). When he is told dien diat he will be 'sent to die nadons' {eis ethne, 22.21), diis cannot mean diat he will no longer nor even primarily go to Jews, but diat he is being sent outside Judaea (Palestine) into die nations, as Acts 13-19 make amply clear (see esp. 13.26 in Antioch of Pisidia: 'sons and daughters of the family of Abraham...to us has been sent (exapestale) die message of diis salvation'; cf. also Lk. 24.47—eis panta ta ethne arxamenoi apo lerousaleml).^" 'It is*, as he says in Rome, 'because of tiie hope of Israel tiiat I am bearing tiiis chain' (28.20). Paul is sketched, rather, like Stephen and Jesus, 'on his knees* for die sake of Israel. To sum up, like die Testament of Moses, Luke-Acts presents a line of suffering intercessors on behalf of IsraePs sin that harks back to a decisive, seminal mediation, now in Jesus tiie Just One who is the prophet like Moses. Unlike the Testament of Moses, in which the Israel of Taxo*s day has suffered God*s punishment for their sin nearly to completion, thus making the function of repentance only secondary, in Luke-Acts the call to repentance is central and invokes the judgment tiiat awaits a disobedient people. This difference also explains why IsraeFs rejection of its own mediators or 'witnesses* is in tiie forefront in Luke-Acts, whereas in die Testament of Moses tiiis aspect recedes as a fact of dieir past. 2. As a corollary to L, Jesus' mediation of the covenant to Israel through his suffering and death is. like Moses' in the Testament of Moses, an eschatological event in the preordained plan of God for the whole world. As in the Testament of Moses, eschatological release from Israel *s own sin and God*s punishment through the Gentiles must (dei) occur through a line of suffering and intercession by a faithful remnant before God's final judgment takes place.

30. For discussions of die pattern of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah for Paul's mission in Acts, see D.P. Moessner. 'The Ironic Fulfillment of Israel's Glory', in J.B. Tyson (ed.). Luke-Acts and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House. 1988). pp. 35-50. and die articles by D.L. Tiede (pp. 35-50) and R.C. Tannehill (pp. 83-101) in die same volume.


Atonement

223

a. The Divine Necessity in the Plan and Foreknowledge of God. Luke. In fulfilment of Simeon's oracle that the 'saving act of God' is to take place through the preordained or 'pre-set' (keitai) sign that will be opposed in Jesus (Lk. 2.34-35), Jesus' endre public activity is controlled by the divine necessity (dei) of his suffering rejection and death at the hands of his own people in Jerusalem. The predictions of Jesus* passion placed in the mouth of Jesus himself by the narrator provide programmatic organization of the plot, especially from the end of the Galilaean phase throughout the long journey to its climax at 'tiie skull* ( 9 . 2 2 ^ 1 3 . 3 3 - ^ 1 7 . 2 5 ^ 2 2 . 3 7 ^ 2 4 . 7 ^ 2 4 . 2 6 ^ 2 4 . 4 4 - 4 6 ) . In die penultimate finale of the Lukan passion meal, and unlike the Testament of Moses, Jesus explicitly signifies his death/shedding of blood as an atoning death 'on your behalf (22.19-20), diat is, for the 'twelve* and dius for all Israel (cf. 22.28-30). But like die Testament of Moses, Jesus' death 'completes' or 'fulfils' die divine necessity of his whole calling to rejection and suffering intercession for Israel as die mediator of the 'new* covenant (22.20^22.22-^22.37). In the denouement (ch. 24) the divine necessity is clarified first by two 'heavenly*/'flashing' 'messengers* (cf. 24.4; 24.23) and dien by die risen Jesus himself who 'opens up* the whole of Israel's Scriptures: Moses and die prophets point forward to the preordained necessity of Messiah's suffering death and exaltation in securing eschatological release for a faidiless Israel (24.25-27 [del], 30-32, 44-46 [dei]). Instead of diis revelation constituting a new 'book'/'writing' preserved to unlock the meaning for Israel's future, as in the Testament of Moses, Jesus* parting words to his successor(s) constitute a charge and function as the plot motivator as well as the clarifier of the movements of these 'witnesses* in the 'end days* for Israel (24.46-49 [manures]; cf. Acts 1.8 [manures]; 2.17a). Acts. In tiie sequel, the divine foreordination continues to elucidate die overriding movement of die actions and journeys of the apostles and witnesses, while linking up with the necessity of the suffering of the Christ as the center of fulfilment of the prophets and all of Israel's Scriptures (Acts 1.16, 2 1 - 2 2 ^ 2 . 2 2 - 2 3 - 4 3 . 1 8 , 2 1 - 2 5 ^ 8 . 2 6 , 3235-49.4-5, 16-4l3.27-30^14.22-»17.3 [11, 17; 18.5, 19, 28; 19.89 ] - 4 l 9 . 2 1 ^ 2 2 . 7 - 1 0 , 14-15->23.11^26.14-16, 2 2 - 2 3 ^ 2 7 . 2 4 ) . What this divine necessity has accomplished and continues to effect is the eschatological removal of sin and disobedience for Israel, and now.

224

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

unlike the Testament of Moses, for the nations as well (2.38; 3.26; 5.31; 10.43; 13.38; 26.18). b. The Times of the Gentiles as the Time of Witness. Luke-Acts. As Moses' parting words to his successor, Joshua (7". Mos. 12.1-13), clarify the relationship with Moses' own role and the function of future intercessors in Israel's history through the time of the end (T. Mos. 3.1-10.5), so also Jesus' parting words to his successorsapostles-witnesses (Lk. 24.44-49; Acts 1.4b-8) clarify the relationship between Jesus' own role and tiie function of diese witnesses widiin the apocalyptic forecast of Israel's history and time of tiie end (Lk. 21.536). As in die Testament of Moses, the mediation of the covenant continues but now in a mediated presence of Jesus himself, the prophet like Moses who has been raised up from the dead. The mediation dirough Jesus' witnesses is depicted in a variety of ways and by various terms. But one central conception of this mediation, as we have seen, is die presence of die name in die 'testimony' or 'witness' of the church (martus: Lk. 24.48; Acts 1.8, 22, 2.32; 3.15; 5.32; 10.39. 4 1 ; 13.31;22.15,20; 26.16; negative or opposing marrwre^: 6.13; 7.58; cf. 22.5; see also 'actively approve/consent' [syneudokeo]: Lk. 11.48; Acts 8.1; 22.20; marturion/marturia: Lk. 21.13; Acts 4.33; 22.18; cf. 7.44; dia-martur-omai/ed: 2.40; 10.42, 43; 14.3; 15.8; 18.5; 20.21, 23, 24. 26; 23.11; 26.22; 28.23; cf. 22.5; 26.5). Luke 21.5-36. According to Jesus' prediction in Luke the razing of die Temple forms die first climax of a period of 'testimony'/'witness' (marturion) in which die disciples are 'persecuted', 'delivered over' to die synagogues and prisons, 'brought before kings and governors' all 'on account of/'for the sake of die name' of Jesus (21.12-13). They do not need to rehearse ahead of time how they are 'to give a defense' (apologethenai) during this period of testimony, since Jesus himself (ego) will still be present with them to give it to them (21.14-15). Some of tiie disciples will be killed, all will be hated 'because of the name' of Jesus which in one way or anodier is associated with diem or is in tiieir midst (21.16-17). Unlike Mark and Matdiew. Luke follows diis period of persecution of Jesus' disciples by fellow Jews not by an intensified 'abomination of desolation' (bdelugma tes eremoseos) (Mk 13.14; Mt. 24.15) performed by Gentiles in die Temple, but by an eremdsis of destruction upon Jerusalem and the Temple as punishment


Atonement

225

solely upon 'this people' Israel (21.20-23b). Moreover, this judgment corresponds to 'the days of retribution/vengeance' 'that fulfil/ complete all that has been written' (21.22). But following the exile of the people and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Gentiles this period or 'dmes of die Gendles/nations' continues on until tiie times come to completion or are 'filled up' (21.24) with die onset of a final judgment upon the whole world (21.25-28)." Clearly die time of suffering 'testimony' continues on until the final judgment as well, as only those disciples who remain faithful, who 'stay awake/alert', will be able to escape not only the judgment upon Israel (21.19) but also the universal assize before die Son of Humankind (21.25-36). 'When diese diings begin to happen, snap to attention and lift up your heads because your liberation/atonement (apolutrosis) is drawing near' (21.28). This sequence of judgment first upon Israel and dien upon the Gentile punishers of Israel, in which a faithful remnant is saved, is sdikingly close to the Testament of Moses. In both, only when the full number of 'times' of mediation of the covenant through suffering are completed does the judgment upon Israel leading to the judgment upon die nations take place. And bodi the Testament of Moses and Luke-Acts are remarkably close to the apocalyptic prospect of the Song of Moses, Eteut. 32.1-43, in which a final judgment upon Israel, because of their unrelenting sin after they have settied the land, precedes the final judgment upon the Gentile punishers of Israel. Now Yahweh in this final 'day of recompense' (hemera ekdikesesos, Deut. 32.35; cf. Lk. 21.22!) 'avenges die blood of his servants... and makes atonement for die land, for his people' (Deut. 32.43 [see 2 Mace. 7.6])—T. Mos. 9.7: 'sanguis noster vindicabitur coram Domino'—Acts 5.30-32a: 'The God of our forebears raised Jesus whom you violently killed by hanging upon a tree. This one God has exalted to his right hand as leader of life and savior in order to give repentance to Israel and removal of sin'. We can draw together several implications from tiie results of our study:

31. In the Synoptic imagery of Jesus' prediction of the 'final catastfophe' of die universe, only Luke (21.25-28) has die sequence sun, moon, stars and sea, similar to T. Mos. 10.5-6 (cf. M t 24.29-31; Mk 13.24-27). For Lk. 21 and Deut. 32, see further D.P. Moessner, 'Paul in Acts: Preacher of Eschatological Repentance to Israel", NTS 34 (1988), pp. 98-101.

226 1.

2.

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Outside of the New Testament, the Testament of Moses presents the closest parallel to the eschatological framework of Luke-Acts. In both, the seminal life and death of a covenant mediator alters and determines the course of the rest of Israel's and the nations' history to its consummation. In other words, in both writings a distinct 'already—not yet' tension is decisive in the conception of history and of God's saving process. Even more than the Qumran community, which in its latter stages was apparently still awaiting tiie anointed figures of the last days—even if the prophets were already being fulfilled—die Testament of Moses places God's decisive actions for the final blessings of the covenant akeady in the life and deadi of Moses. There are critical differences within tills framework. Whereas for the Testament of Moses Moses' life and deatii are determinants for faitiiful Israel's final exaltation to 'heaven', in Luke-Acts Jesus* life and deatii and exaltation are decisive for IsraePs and the nation's final salvation even as these events fulfil 'Moses and all the prophets'. In bodi writings, however, the essential eschatological framework is devised 'in the appointed plan and prescience of God' (Acts 2.23; cf. T. Mos. 12.4). In light of the emphasis in both the Testament of Moses and Luke-Acts upon intercessory suffering and the death of Moses/Jesus arising out of that context, the roles of Moses'/ Jesus' death within die overall atoning/saving actions of God must be revised. With respect to Luke-Acts, die notices of Jesus' 'suffering many tilings' (polla patheinf^ in the passion predictions of Lk. 9.22 and 17.25 simply cannot be reduced to the crucifixion alone, as in certain recent interpretations. Nor, more importandy, can Jesus' death be reduced to a foil —ignorance/a terrible mistake of the Jews; the will of God, etc.—against which the real saving events of resurrectionexaltation or perhaps 'incarnation' in the plan of God take place. Rather, apart even from the longer reading of Lk. 22.19b-20, Jesus' death must be read within die larger development of rejection and release of sin which spans the entire plot of Luke (and Acts) and is summarized in Lk. 24.26-27, 46-47 as 'die Messiah had to suffer*. Atomistic

32. Cf. this stock phrase in T. Mos. 3.11: 'mulia passus est'.

MOESSNER Suffering, intercession,

3.

Atonement

227

comparisons of Luke with cross-sections of Mark and Matthew simply will not do. This broader approach also means that appeals to a 'martyr theology' of a 2 or 4 Maccabees or to Greco-Roman counterparts for the deaths of Moses and Taxo or Jesus and die witnesses in Luke-Acts are also amiss, since the suffering and deaths in the latter wridngs are given eschatological significance within a cosmic plan for the whole of human history.'' The role of Torah faithfulness in Luke-Acts, though the focus of some debate, needs to be re-evaluated especially in light of a text such as the Testament of Moses which betrays a Deuteronomisdc view of Israel's continual disobedience of Torah and of die role and significance of die Temple and its destruction in 587 BCE for the future eschatological salvation of Israel. In bodi the Testament of Moses and Luke-Acts the 'stiff-necked past' of Israel's disobedience comes to a decisive end in the sufferings and deaths of diose who are Torah faidiful. It is precisely in the light of diis Deuteronomistic perspective on Israel's history that the significance of suffering and atoning death (see point 2) must be re-illuminated as well.

33. See the discussions in Nickelsburg. 'Antiochan Date', pp. 35-37; Collins, 'Date and Provenance', pp. 22-30; and Williams, Jesus' Death, pp. 59-90, 137202.

THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA IN THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES

Peter H. Davids

The Use of the Pseudepigrapha

in the Catholic

Epistles

It is well known that Jude and 2 Peter make reference to the pseudepigrapha, especially / Enoch, but it is the purpose of this article to examine the use made of the pseudepigrapha by all of the nonJohannine Catholic Epistles, especially James and 1 Peter. The results from the examination of these longer works will in turn be compared with that of Jude-2 Peter. In this process we will discover something of how these works make use of their sources, whether pseudepigrapha or Jesus-tradition. 1. James It is clear that James never cites any of the pseudepigrapha directly. However, it is just as certain that he knew of the traditions contained in them, for whenever he cites OT characters he reveals a knowledge of traditions that were pseudepigraphal. In fact, he may be far more influenced by these traditions than other writers who make a more direct use of such material. A series of examples will illustrate. James cites four OT characters, Abraham, Rahab, Job and Elijah.' The citation of Abraham in 2.18-24 includes a direct reference to Gen. 15.6, as well as one to the binding of Isaac narrative in Gen. 22.1-19. But it is also obvious that James knows a somewhat different version of the Abraham narrative from that in Genesis.^ It is true that 1. An earlier version of this material appeared as Tradition and Citation in die Episde of James', in W.W. Gasque and W.S. LaSor (eds.). Scripture, Tradition and Interpretation (E.F. Harrison Festschrift; Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans. 1978). pp. 113-26. 2. R.B. Ward. '"Works of Abraham": James 2.14-26'. HTR 61 (198). pp.28390. an excerpt from his 1966 ThD dissertation at Harvard, was die first to point out

DAVIDS The Pseudepigrapha

in the Catholic Epistles

229

he selects the climactic event in Abraham's life in the binding of Isaac, but he is not thinking of it in isolation, for he refers to Abraham's works (epywv in 2 . 2 1 or epyoK; in 2 . 2 2 ) . Furthermore, in Jas 1 . 1 3 we discover the strange phrase,reeipdCevSe ahxhc, [0e6(;] o v 5 e v a ([God] tests no one). What is strange about diis is diat die LXX of Gen. 2 2 . 1 contains the phrase, 6 0e6<; eiteipaêv tov A p p a a ^ (God tested Abraham). While it is possible that James does not know the LXX,' diis particular verse is a good translation of die Hebrew D'nbRm Dma«-n» noj, following die usual LXX practice of translating no: (to test) by Tteipdô), and tiius tiiere is no reason to believe tiiat James would have translated tiie verse otherwise even if he were referring direcdy to the Hebrew text. At the same time, James cites the OT repeatedly and appears to value its authority highly, so it is difficult to imagine that he would easily set a well-known text aside. The solution to this problem appears immediately if one examines the account of Abraham in Jubilees. First, in Jub. 1 7 . 1 5 - 1 8 , it is not God who initiates the test of Abraham, but 'Prince Mastema' who challenges God. Thus, while Jubilees does not explain why God went along widi the test, the whole testing situation is recast in a form similar to that of Job. Secondly, Abraham is presented as a person who has been faidiful through a series of tests. The Lord was aware that Abraham was faithful in all of his afflictions because he tested him with his land and with famine. And he tested him widt the wealdi of kings. And he tested him again widi his wife, when she was taken (from him), and widi circumcision... In everydiing in which he tested him. he was found faidiful (Jub. 17.17-18).

In none of these 'tests' is it said in eidier Genesis or Jubilees that God tested Abraham, but in all of diem Abraham remains faithful to God. This is significant because 1 . testing is a major theme of James and so the Abraham example is hardly accidental, and 2 . these multiple tests this interpretation of the Abraham narrative. He includes a lot of rabbinic material, which for the purposes of this discussion is irrelevant. I instead choose to foctis on die pseudepigraphical traditions. 3. S.S. Laws ('Does Scripture Speak in Vain?'. NTS 20 [1974]. pp. 210-15) has argued that James knows the LXX and cites it exacUy, but more careful study shows diat in each of die passages which James cites die LXX does not diverge from die MT. Therefore die similarity to die UCX only shows diat James may have used die LXX, not diat he necessarily did so. See further P.H. Davids. The Epistle of James (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1982). p. 10.

230


Interpretation

supply the plural works of Abraham. It is likely, then, that there is a reference to these plural deeds in Jubilees when the Lord orders the sacrifice to be halted widi the words, 'Do not let him do anything to him because I know that he is one who fears the LORD' (Jub. 18.9). Third, Jubilees 12 records two narratives in which Abraham first attempts to convince Terah to 'worship the God of heaven' rather than idols and dien (having earlier burned die house of idols, which triggers the leaving of Ur) prays to 'my God, the Most High God, you alone are God to m e ' . This fits widi James's statement of the basic creed as 'God is one' (el? eoxiv 6 9e6(;, Jas 2.19), a creed to which Abraham subscribed. It is obvious that this data is not enough to prove that James knew Jubilees in its final written form. First, we have only firagments of Jubilees in Hebrew from Qumran. Likewise, we have only fragments in Greek." Therefore it is difficult to know the exact form in which James could have known the work. Secondly, while we have content similarity, we do not have verbal parallels. This fact, of course, is somewhat mitigated by the fact that verbal parallels with a fragmentary form of Jubilees are hardly possible. Third, die traditions in Jubilees are also common in rabbinic literature.' Since that literature is later than Jubilees, it is possibly dependent upon it. But it could also indicate that there were independent traditions about Abraham and tiiat Jubilees has recorded only one form of diem. What diis evidence does prove is diat James knows a form of die Abraham narratives tiiat Jubilees also knows (possibly because he knows Jubilees itselO and diat he assumes this so completely diat he apparendy does not imagine diat his readers might not know this tradition. It has become for him an overlay grid through which die OT Scripture is to be understood. So much is this the case that when James writes, J t e i p d ^ e i 5e avxoq [Oeoq] o v S e v a ('God tests no one'), he apparendy feels no tension between diis and Gen. 22.1. A different situation confronts us in Rahab. On the surface there are no facts demanding explanation through extrabiblical traditions. But this does not mean diat James knows of none concerning Rahab. The fact diat he selects Rahab is in itself interesting, since she would become the archetypal proselyte in later rabbinic literature. Furthermore, in I Clement 10-12 she is joined widi Abraham using language 4. 5.

Cf. O.S. Wintermute, 'Jubilees', in OTP, II, pp. 41-43. See Davids. 'Tradition and Citadon'. pp. 114-15.



231

similar to that in James. While it is possible that Clement is dependent upon James, it is also possible that both are depenent upon Jewish ethical traditions connecting the two.* There is no proof of pseudepigraphical traditions here, but there is evidence of Jewish traditions being the reason for die selection of this example. The third OT example used in James is that of Job. Cited along with the example of the prophets (but separate from them, perhaps revealing a knowledge that Job is in the writings rather than the prophets), it is tiie vjiojiovfi (patient endurance) of Job which is the reason for mentioning him (Jas 5 . 1 ) . But while die prose portions of Job do show a type of patient endurance,' die poeic sections reveal a person protesting loudly against God's injustice to him. In what way have these readers 'heard of the patient endurance of Job'? A brief examination of the Testament of Job answers the question. This whole book revolves around the term vreonovfi (patient endurance or patience), presenting Job's suffering as a contest witii Satan* tiiat lasts 1 7 years and ends leaving Satan in tears. In tiie conclusion of die book Job comments, 'Now my children you also must be patient in everything that happens to you. For patience is better than anything' (T. Job 27.6-7).

There is also other contact between James and die Testament of Job. In Jas 5 . 7 - 2 0 James is summarizing the diemes of the book, one of which is endurance and one of which is generosity. It may be no accident that the Testament of Job contains both those diemes. While eiidurance is the major one, widiin the Testament Job boasts of his great generosity (chs. 9 - 1 2 ) . ' One does not wish to make too much of diis phenomenon, but it is suggestive of a second reason why Job fit James' conclusion so well. The Testament of Job itself is normally dated from die first century 6. See H. Chadwick. 'Juslificadon by Faidi and Hospitality'. Studia Patristica 4, pt. 2, in r f / 7 9 (1961). p. 281. 7. In the LXX the root naKpo9v)nea) appears only in Job 7.16; uitonovTj appears only in Job 14.19. uitonevew appears 14 times, mosdy within the poetic chs. 3-33, although it also occurs in 4.12. In none of these contexts is Job talking about his own padent endurance. 8. God warns Job about what is about to happen and dien stands back while Satan and his champion Job fight it out. This removes God from responsibility for die events, at least in die mind of die author. 9. This dieme also occurs in canonical Job 29.12-17; 31.16-23 in defense of Job's righteousness and thus against God's unrighteousness.

232

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

BCE to the first CE. R.P. Spittler suggests that it was first produced in Greek among the Therapeuts in Egypt and later used by the Montanists in Asia Minor."* This means that it is possible that James actually knew the work. However, the data at hand are not extensive enough (mainly the use of the term vnojiovfi, 'patient endurance') to prove such a claim. The most we can argue is that James shows contact with the traditions incorporated in the Testament. But as in the case of Abraham this tradidon colors his perception of the canonical text. Without die pseudepigraphical tradition we would not be able to explain James' use of Job as an example. Finally we come to Elijah, whom James connects to prayer (Jas 5.17-18). While a reasonable assumption on James' part, diis is somediing of a strange reference in that to begin the drought die canonical Elijah simply appears and makes an announcement that only by his word will rain come (1 Kgs 17.1). At die end of the drought there is prayer for fire from heavem (I Kgs 18.36-37) and a posture that might imply prayer for rain (I Kgs 18.42), but no explicit connection of prayer and rain. Jewish tradition, however, did connect Elijah and die Carmel narrative to prayer (m. Ta'an. 2.4)." More importandy, however, 4 Ezra 7.39 (109) states in a context of intercessory prayer that 'Elijah [prayed] for those who received the rain, and for one who was dead, that he might live'. Again we cannot claim that James actually knew and used 4 Ezra, for in all probability it was completed after James was already published,'^ but 4 Ezra witnesses to a Jewish evaluation of Elijah that was current in James' world and colored

10. R.P. Spittler. Testament of Job', in OTP, I. pp. 833-34. Cf. R.A. Kraft. Testament of Job (Missoula. MT; Scholars Press, 1974), pp. 17-20. 11. In this passage it is staled that on days of fasUng in the temple the Eighteen BenedicUons were recited along widi die six Remembrance and Shofar verses. After the fifth of diese verses the person praying is supposed to say. 'May he diat answered Elijah in Carmel answer you and hearken to die voice of your crying this day! Blessed art diou. O Lord, that hearest prayer!' The date of this passage is uncertain. Judah ha-Nasi is die first rabbi to comment upon it. It may or may not go back to the second temple period. But it does show a u-adidonal connection of Elijah to prayer which likely does go back diat far. 12. B.M. Metzger ('The Fourdi Book of Ezra', in OTP, I. p. 520) argues diat die Hebrew original was completed between 100 CE and 'not much after' 120, for the Greek version had to be circulating in Christian circles before the Bar-Kokhba revolt. No modem scholar dates James later than 96 CE, which means that James clearly cannot have used 4 Ezra.



233

how James interpreted the canonical account. We must not leave the Jacobean material without noting the role of the devil. Jas 4.7 is the one place in which he is actually mentioned, but we recognize that he plays a significant role in both Job (canonical or Testament of Job) and the reinterpretation of the Abraham narrative. That means that while James focuses in 1.12-15 on personal responsibility for sin, the evil n s ' (evil yeser or evil impulse), the tempter within, he at the same time does not rule out the external agent, the devil, for this evil agent is necessary for him to make the statement in 1.13. As in the Testament of Job, however, virtue may be practiced whatever the devil does. This virtue will defeat the devil, and, defeated, he will flee from such a person. In other words, despite his scant references to the devil, James moves in the same thoughtworld in which Testament of Job and Jubilees are at home. In summary, dien, we do not know for sure that James actually used any of the pseudepigraphical books, but we do know that in every case in which he cites OT narratives this literature witnesses to Jewish traditions which have certainly (or in the case of Rahab, probably) shaped the way James read the OT. The function of these traditions, dien, is to provide a contemporary grid through which James reads his canonical traditions. This grid or paradigm allows him to see in the text things which in some cases could be reasonable assumtions (e.g. Elijah's prayer life) and in otiier cases appear to contradict a more naive reading of the text (e.g. Job's patience). Furthermore, in the case of Abraham it allows him so to reinterpret tiie text (Gen. 22.1) tiiat he can contradict its obvious meaning (Jas 1.13). This does not appear to be a conscious activity on James's part, but a set of cultural assumptions that he quite unconsciosly believes he shares with his readers ('you have heard a b o u t . . . ' ) . Therefore we can speak of the pseudepigraphical narratives as witnesses to a popular level of biblical storytelling that reinterpreted and perhaps even superceded the canonical text for at least the common people in the type of JewishChristian (and earlier Jewish) community to which James belonged.

2 . 1 Peter When we turn to 1 Peter we discover a somewhat different use of the pseudepigraphical traditions. First, there are only two references to OT characters in an epistle just slighdy longer than James; i.e. to

234

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Sarah and Noah. Second, references to the Jesus traditions are far more explicit than in James as Jesus becomes an example of suffering for the community." Yet we will observe a number of similarities in the general milieu of the two epistles. Both 1 Peter and James are addressed to Diaspora communities, although James is presented as more of a literary letter and 1 Peter as a circular letter. Both are written to communities under pressure, although James appears more interested in low-grade economic pressure and 1 Peter with social osd-acism and perhaps physical assault.'" Yet the greatest similarity is in their use of pseudepigraphal material, where diis can be tested. Of the two O T characters named in 1 Peter, Sarah is die least problematic. The reference is to Gen. 18.12 in which in die LXX Sarah refers to Abraham as 6 icupv6(; nov (my lord), which is itself a good translation of the H e b r e w . " In other words, while the selection of Sarah, one of tiie four motiiers of Israel, is significant, tiie usage is not determined by any pseudepigraphal material. The situation with Noah is quite anodier matter. While this is not the place to get into a full discussion of I P e t 3.18-22, some aspects of tills passage do need to be examined. Certain spirits (jtvevnaoiv) were disobedient (otTceidfioaoiv) while God was patient during the time that Noah was building the ark. The issue, of course, is what these spirits were? The two most significant positions are I. the spirits are tiie souls of tiiose who died in die flood,'* and 2. die spirits are die 'sons

13. James alludes almost exclusively to the ediical teaching of Jesus, especially die 'Q' O-adiUon. See further P.H. Davids. 'James and Jesus', in D. Wenham (ed.). The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels (Gospel Perspectives. 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1985). pp. 63-84. 14. While some see official persecution in I Peter, I have found those arguments unconvincing. But even in situations in which the government is not officially involved, physical injury and death are possible. See further, P.H. Davids. / Peter (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1990). p. 170; Cf. L. Goppelt. Der erste Petrusbrief {MeyerK; G6ningen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1978). pp. 60-64; J. Knox. 'Pliny and I Peter: A Note on I Pet. 4, 14-16 and 3. 15'. JBL 72 (1953), pp. 187-89. 15. Cf. N. Brox. 'Sara zum Beispiel". in P. Muller (ed.). In Kontinuitdt und Einheit: Festschrift fur F. Mussner (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet. 1981). pp. 48493. 16. C.E.B. Cranfield ('The Interpreution of I Peter iii.l9 and iv.6', ExpT 69 [1957-58], pp. 369-72) represents diis view among British scholars, F.W. Beare



235

of G o d ' of Gen. 6 . 1 - 4 , who are to be interpreted as the Watchers of

1 Enoch, that is, as fallen angels." If the first option is taken, then this passage is irrelevant for our study, for 1 Peter is simply citing O T data (perhaps along widi Jewish tradidon as to what happened to the wicked dead, especially die generation of die flood). If die second option is taken, then this passage is very relevant to our present discussion. The decision between these two positions rests on the interpretation of two words, rtvevjia (spirit) and icnpwoaa) (preach). The data are that n v e v ^ t a is never used in the N T for a human spirit unless qualified.'* T h e normal use of the term is for non-human spiritual beings, e.g. Mt. 1 2 . 4 5 ; Mk 1 . 2 3 . 2 6 ; 3 . 3 0 ; Lk. 1 0 . 2 0 ; Acts 1 9 . 1 5 - 1 6 ; 2 3 . 8 - 9 ; Eph. 2 . 2 ; Heb. 1 . 1 4 ; 1 2 . 9 ; Rev. 1 6 . 1 3 - 1 4 . In otiier words, die

normal way to refer to a deceased human being was as a soul (VWXT|). not as a s p i r i t . " This information would certainly prejudice us towards the second interpretation. It is hard to see how a first-century reader, especially one as steeped in O T ti-adition as 1 Peter assumes his readers are, could understand anything otherwise. But this still leaves the difficult KTipvooo). It is clear that the normal use of this verb in the N T is for the proclamation of the gospel. It is also clear tiiat in die N T diis word retains its secular {The First Epistle of Peter [Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 1970]. pp. 171-73) among Canadians and H.-J. Vogels {Christi Absteig ins Totenreich und das Latenmgsgericht an den Toten [Freiburg, 1976]) as well as Goppelt and Windisch in their commentaries, among die Germans; W. Grudem (/ Peter [TNTC; Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans. 1988]. pp. 157-61 and 203-39) is the most recent American proponent 17. While first proposed by F. Spitta {Christi Predigtan die Geister [Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1890]). it is best known from the work of J. Dalton. Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1965). B. Reicke and J. Jeremias as well as Selwyn are notable example of scholars who have followed diis posidon. A recent twist is diat of J.R. Michaels (7 Peter [WBC. 49; Waco, TX: Word. 1988], pp. 205-11), who argues diat die spirits are demons, die offspring of the fallen angels of Gen. 6.1-4. But this connection of demons to Gen. 6 is itself dependent upon 7 Enoch and similar pseudepigrapha, so for our purposes it is not a significant departure from die position of die others. 18. As. for example, in Heb. 12.23. Ttvevnaoi 5iKai(ov ('spirits of righteous people'). 19. E.g. Rev. 6.9. Two of the examples often listed as showing that 'spirit' can mean 'deceased human spirit', i.e. Dan. 3.86 (LXX) and 7 En. 22.3-13. use 'soul' as a clarifying term, showing diat die authors did not consider 'spirit' alone a sufficienUy clear designation.

236

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

meaning of 'proclaim' or 'announce' (e.g. Lk. 12.3; Rom. 2.21; Rev. 5.2). These data prejudice us towards viewing the term as indicating a proclamation of the gospel until we realize that 1 Peter refers to such a proclamation four times in other places and never uses this verb.^** What is more, the NT never speaks of evangelizing spirits, although it does speak of Christ's victory over spirits (e.g. 2 Cor. 2.14; Col. 2.15; Rev. 12.7). As a result, we may conclude that the use of this term does not favor die first interpretadon, but radier its secular meaning allows the second interpretadon of diis event.^' The reference in this passage, then, is to the Genesis 6 story as understood in such literature as I Enoch 1 0 - 1 6 . " Christ in his resurrected mode (i.e. 'in the Spirit') has gone to the disobedient spirits of the d m e of Noah, presently imprisoned, and has proclaimed to them his victory and, most likely, their condemnation.^' What is most interesting to me, however, is that the author refers to this elaboration of the biblical story almost unreflectively. It is for him simply an illustration. Christ triumphed by going through death. Noah was saved by going dirough water. So they will be delivered by going through persecution. Since it is simply an illustration, the author must assume that his readers would be aware of it. In other words, he believes that the concepts found in I Enoch would be familiar to Christians. This belief is even more interesting in that the author of 1 Peter does not appear to know his addressees personally and normally sticks to basic Christian teaching with which he expects all Christians to be familiar.^'' 20. In 1.12. 25; 4.6 he uses tio-yyeXitôi) and in 4.17 ebayyiXiov. Both are more common terms for referring to die proclamation of die gospel. 21. For further discussion see R.T. France. 'Exegesis in Practice', in I.H. Marshall (ed.). New Testament Interpretation (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans. 1977), p. 271. See also Davids. / Peter, pp. 138-41. 22. 2 Bar. 56.12-16; T. Job 5.6; 6QD 2.18-21; IQapGen 2.1. 16; T. Naph. 3.5; 2 En. 7.1-3 also refer to diis same tradition, so we cannot be sure diat I Peter knows die exact form found in / Enoch. 23. It is difficult to know where I Peter locates this event. 2 Enoch places the prison in die second heaven, so J.N.D. Kelly {The Epistles of Peter and Jude [London: A. & C. Black. 1969], pp. 155-56) argues diat it took place as part of die ascent of Christ. But since odier of die literature cited places die prison on the earth, in the West, or under the eardi. diis is far from a certain scenario. 24. This feature, of course, explains the catechetical and baptismal homily theories of the formation of I Peter. While none of these have proved convincing, diey do point to the basic nature of die teaching in die episde.



237

Moving beyond the two uses of narradve we have examined, we must ask die question as to whedier tiiere is any other contact witii tiie pseudepigrapha in 1 Peter? This question leads to die list of possibilities below, in which die references in die pseudepigrapha without an answering reference in 1 Peter are all to the 3.18-22 passage. Pseudepigrapha 2 Apoc. Baruch 11.1 13.1-12 13.9-10 67.7 78-87

Nature of Similarity

1 Peter

parallel parallel parallel parallel parallel structure in letter

5.13 4.17 4.17 5.13

Mart Isaiah 1.3

parallel

3.22

/ Enoch 1.1-2 6 9.1 10-16 16.3 21 21.10 21.6 22.3-13 48.6 61.10 62.7

only idea of searching Scripture parallel

I.II

parallel (or Chrisdan interpoladon) parallel parallel (or Chrisdan interpoladon)

1.20 3.22 1.20

2 Enoch 7.1-3 20.1 50.4

parallel parallel

3.22 3.9

3 Maccabees 3.8 5.25 6.28 7.22 9.23 9.24

use of same verb 'Creator* subsdtudonary atonement persecution uadition 'brodierhood' substitutionary atonement

5.10 4.19 3.18 1.6 2.17 3.18

238

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

9.29 10.3 10.15 11.5 11.12 12.17-18 17.22

persecution tradition 'brodierhood' 'brodierhood' 'Creator' persecution tradition substitutionary atonement substitutionary atonement

1.6 2.17 2.17 4.19 1.6 3.18 3.18

Odes Solomon 19.1

parallel

2.3

Pss. Solomon 17.45 22.7

God as shepherd use of 'keystone'

5.2 2.6-8

Sib. Oracles 5.143 5.159

parallel Babylon = Rome parallel Babylon = Rome

5.13 5.13

parallel 'crown of glory' parallel response to suffering parallel (judgment begins with God's people)

5.4 2.23

T. Judah 8.1

use of 'chief shepherd*

5.4

T. Uvi 3.8 10.5

parallel 'it stands in Scripture'

3.22 2.6

T. Reuben 5.5

parallel idea

3.3

T. Moses 7.3-10

parallel vice list

4.3

T. Benjamin 4.1 5.4 10.8-9

4.17

T. Naphtali 3.5

Examining this list we note: 1. places in which unusual words or expressions appear in both 1 Peter and die pseudepigrapha (although often in very different contexts), 2. places in which the same general idea appears in 1 Peter and die pseudepigrapha (although often expressed quite differendy), and 3. some parallels in which diere is bodi closeness of concept and some overlap of vocabulary. However,



239

none of these parallels are so close as to demand that the author of 1 Peter knew and used the pseudepigrapha in question. Even the cumulative effect is simply to convince us that 1 Peter and the pseudepigrapha move in the same thought-world. To claim more than this would be to stretch the evidence beyond reason.^ We may conclude, then, that 1 Peter lives in the same thoughtworld as that of the writers of at least some of the pseudepigrapha. That is, I Peter is at home in the world of the apocalyptic streams of first century Judaism.^* Furthermore, while one of his allusions to OT narrative is inconclusive, there is one reference to O T narrative, namely that to Genesis 6, which we discovered knows the types of traditions preserved in 1 Enoch (which is itself part of die apocalyptic milieu in which I Peter was comfortable). His allusion to that tradition (and his relating Jesus to it) reveals that the author not only knows it himself, but expects believers whom he does not know personally to also be familiar witii i t . " This would suggest that the pseudepigrapha or at least the narrative traditions tiiat they preserve formed part of the oral or written teaching tradition of the Christian communities widi which he was familiar.

3. 2 Peter-Jude It is clear diat 2 Peter and Jude are well aware of the pseudepigrapha. For this reason they are discussed last and more briefly than the other two works in this study. One needs only to look at Jude 14-15 and its quotation of 7 En. 1.9, condensed out of the break between 2 Pet. 2.17 and 2.18,^* or Jude 9 and its probable reference to a lost ending of the 25. Indeed, there is far more reason to believe and evidence for die acquaintance of 1 Peter with die Jesus-tradition, but dial reladonship is hoUy debated. If that is the case with die level of evidence which can be generated, dien how much more should it be the case in relation to die pseudepigrapha. See further Davids. 7 Peter, pp. 2627. 26. For a full discussion of this idea see R.L. Webb. T h e Apocalyptic Perspective of First Peter' (ThM diesis. Regent College. Vancouver. BC. 1986). a work that deserves to be in print, given its thorough grasp of the nature of apocalypdc and careful application of it to I Peter. 27. This is even more interesting when we realize diat die Christians addressed in I Peter are gentile believers, not Jewish Christians. Cf. Davids. / Peter, pp. 8-9. 28. For the purposes of this discussion I assume diat 2 Peter is dependent upon Jude. The fact diat topics are taken up in die same order and that diere is considerable

240

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Testament of Moses}"^ reflected in 2 Pet. 2 . 1 1 , to realize that these works also knew the pseudepigrapha." But how indeed are the pseudepigrapha used in these works? Lx)oking at Jude, we note flrst that the author appears to expect that his readers will recognize the stories to which he refers. His references are clear in that he identifies the protagonists, but they are cryptic in that he does not cite the work in which they are found. This must mean that either the stories or the works in which they are found (or both) were circulating in his community (and, he assumes, the conununities of his readers). Secondly, two of the stories serve as illustrations to drive home the points the author is making. His opponents 'revile the glorious ones' (Jude 8), but that is not what Michael did in a situation that was surely far more serious than any they were in. It may also be that Michael is seen as being of a higher rank dian they, mere human beings. These same opponents will not escape judgment, for God did not spare the angels diat fell (Jude 6). In bodi of these cases we get somediing of an a fortiori argument, in that if this was the behaviour and judgment of the great angels, how much more will it apply to human beings. This is, of course, the same way that Jude cites O T stories except diat in those stories it is not as clear that the persons involved are greater than die opponents he is cursing." At the same dme, the judgment of overlap in vocabulary argues for dependence. The direction of dependence is justified on die basis diat while one could conceive of 2 Peter condensing some of die detail out of Jude in order to add his new material, one cannot conceive of Jude's reflecting only one of the three chapters in 2 Peter, totally ignoring the other two. 29. See the excursus. 'The Background and Source of Jude 9' in R.J. Bauckham. Jude, 2 Peter (WBC. 50; Waco, TX: Word, 1983). pp. 65-76. which argues for die existence of diis lost ending and its content from its parallels to and citations in odier works. Cf. D. Flusser, 'Palaea Historica—An Unknown Source of Biblical Legends', in Scripta Hierosolymitana. XXII. Studies in Aggadah and Folk-Literature (Jenisalem: Hebrew University. 1971). p. 74; K. Haaker and P. Schafer, 'Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod des Mose'. in O. Beu. et aL (eds.). Josephus-Studien (Gettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), pp. 147-74; S.E. Loewenstamm, 'The Death of Moses', in G.W.E. Nickelsburg (ed.). Studies on the Testament of Abraham (SBLSCS. 6; Missoula. MT: Scholars Press. 1976), pp. 184-203. 30. There is also a probable reflection of / fin. 21 in Jude 4 and a tradition similar to Jub. 7.20-25 in Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2.4-5. 31. The stories cited are those of die Exodus (Jude 5). which is immediately followed by that of the fallen angels, Sodom (Jude 7), Cain. Balaam and Korah (all in Jude 11 and associated widi Michael's dispute widi Satan).



241

the OT characters does serve as a precedent according to which judgment must be coming to these NT teachers. There is no distinction made between stories from the OT and stories from the Pseudepigrapha.'^ Thirdly, die final citation, tiiat of 7 En. 1.9, is cited as a prophecy. What is more, it occurs in parallel to a reference to 'predictions of tiie apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ' (Jude 1 7 , RSV)." These predictions do not refer to a known Scripture, but they obviously refer to sayings of die apostles known to Jude (and probably his readers), whedier in the form of oral tradition or some lost document. In odier words, we get first a prophet and then the apostles addressing the situation, which means that Jude is ranking Enoch among the OT prophets. It is difficult to see any way in which he is diinking of Enoch differendy than Scripture.'* When we turn to 2 Peter we get a somewhat different picture. To the reference to the fallen angels fi-om Jude 6 he adds the reference to Noah ( 2 Pet. 2 . 5 ) , which makes it clear diat he reads Jude as referring to die story in 7 Enoch (which alone has the data about die imprisonment and torment of the fallen angels), but could perhaps make his readers think that he is deriving the story from the OT. His reason, however, like that for his adding the story of Lot to the Sodom incident, is to suggest to his readers a pattern of salvation for die righteous out of tiie midst of the judgment of the wicked. When 2 Peter gets to 2 . 1 1 , he excises the direct references to

32. I am assuming that Jude is interested in die stories in their OT form. Given die data observed above about James, we cannot be sure diat Cain's way. Balaam's error or Korah's rebellion are die same as die criticisms made of those individuals in the canonical writings, but unlike James also, we have no data in Jude that would make us believe diat he was cidng a pseudepigraphal u-adition about diose characters instead. Thus we are safest in taking the conservative assumption that he is indeed cidng die OT stories. 33. Furthermore, like OTprophedc references, it has been made Christological. by shifting the meaning of 'die Lord'. See C D . Osbum. 'The Christological Use of 1 Enoch 1.9 in Jude 14.15', NTS 23 (1976-1977), pp. 334-41. 34. R. Beckwith (The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1985]. pp. 403-405) argues that Jude understands the Testament of Moses story (and likely also 7 Enoch) as narradve haggadah similar to Deut. R. 11.10. and that both Jews and Jude viewed such haggadah as 'edifying but not necessarily historical'. This may be the case, but die fact remains that there is no disdncdon in die way Jude cites pseudepigrapha from the way he cites OT text. If such a distinction is in his mind, he is not concerned to let his readers know about i t

242

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Michael the archangel from Jude 9, but makes the same point by referring to angels in general. After clearly identifying the error of Balaam with elements of the biblical narrative (2.15), he completely drops the prophecy of Enoch from Jude 14-15 (2.17). He also drops the references to Cain and Korah. These observations could be read in three ways. First, 2 Peter clearly shows a tendency to simplify by using fewer stories, canonical or pseudepigraphal, and to use these stories more thoroughly. Exodus, Michael, Cain and Korah are dropped. Sodom is expanded to make a clear parallel widi Noah, who is added to the fallen angels reference. But the Noah theme is picked up again in 3.6, which shows diat it was more than a casual parallel to 2 Peter. Likewise the 'error' of Balaam is clarified. This tendency to use fewer stories more thoroughly perhaps explains the dropping of the reference to Michael. Secondly, 2 Peter is likely to be revealing that his community (or his readers, to die extent that he has a definite group in view) is not as familiar with the pseudepigrapha as that of Jude. If they knew the general traditions of die fallen angels but not I Enoch or the Testament of Moses, it would explain why 2 Peter might excise the prophecy of Enoch and die story of Michael, which would have appeared obscure to his readers. Thirdly, 2 Peter may be showing an adversion to the use of the pseudepigrapha. He is surely aware of the sources of his references, but the casual reader would not be aware that he was doing anything other than interpreting die biblical narrative in 2.4 and giving a general teaching about angels in 2.11, an unawareness diat 2 Peter does not want to illumine. While it cannot be proved (i.e. alternative explanations are available, as noted above), I still suspect that the reason tiiat his community does not know the pseudepigrapha well is that it did not fully approve of the use of those works. This disapproval was not so strong diat 2 Peter would reject die use of Jude (perhaps because he accepted the traditional authorship), but it appears tiiat it was real enough to cause him to excise all clear references to pseudepigraphical stories." What does this data tell us then? In at least some parts of die church there was a use of the pseudepigrapha in a manner indistinguishable from the use of OT literature. Stories could be used interchangeably. 35. So also D.J. Rowston, "The Most Neglected Book in the New Testament'. NTS 21 (1974-75). p. 557.



243

7 Enoch (or at least the part cited) was considered on a par with OT prophets. Later the same or another part of the church appears to use the pseudepigrapha less, possibly because it was beginning to be rejected as fit for use in Christian services. 4.

Summary

Our study of the use of the pseudepigrapha in the Catholic Epistles (excluding the Johannine epistles) is complete. It has been complicated by the fact that there was no 'canon' of pseudepigrapha in that period, no Charles or Charlesworth, so to speak. Nor are we sure of the form in which each of the books existed. This makes detecting use difficult. But at the same time some conclusions have emerged. At least some parts of the church, namely the community represented by Jude, appear to have known and used the pseudepigraphal books in a manner indistinguishable firom their use of the OT. This is true both of the use of pseudepigraphical narrative and of prophecy. While it would be premature and anachronistic to speak of their including at least 7 Enoch in their 'canon', it would not be incorrect to state that the parts of this work that they knew at least stood alongside the traditional Jewish 'canon' as a supplement and interpretation of it, much as the Jesus-tradition must have fiinctioned. Other parts of the church, that is, the conununities represented by James and 1 Peter, move in an apocalyptic world in which the ideas recorded in the pseudepigrapha were known and appreciated. Furthermore, when they cite OT narratives tiiey show tiiat tiiey understood them dirough a grid that supplemented and interpreted them as the pseudepigrapha do. Unfortunately, diere is not enough verbal similarity to claim that these authors knew any specific pseudepigraphal book, even if James is very close to the Testament of Job and 1 Peter to 7 Enoch. But it is clear that diey knew at least an early form of the material included in these books, that they expected this knowledge to be shared by their readers, and tiiat they had integrated these perspectives into their theology (especially in the case of 1 Peter, which integrates Jesus' resurrection-ascension with material included in the 7 Enoch narrative). Thus, while not direcdy quoted, we have reason to believe that pseudepigraphical traditions formed part of the teaching of their communities. They are comfortable with them. Thirdly, a final part of die church, namely tiiat represented by

244

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

2 Peter, appears to be showing increasing discomfort with the pseudepigrapha. The author clearly knows of the traditions and where they came from. He does not disagree with at least the pseudepigraphical interpretation of the OT narratives of which he reveals some knowledge. But he excises the one direct reference to a pseudepigraphical quotation as prophecy and may mask others. It is likely, then, that either the author himself wants to place the pseudepigrapha on a clearly sub-scripture level or else he writes for a section of the church which would not be comfortable with such references. Fourdily, none of these works except Jude cite the pseudepigrapha. Nor do they cite OT narrative. In fact, only 1 Peter is given at all to citing Scripture (although 2 Peter shows diat he knows some works of Paul which he is putting on a par witfi the Scripture).'* Their method is to simply refer to narratives or quote phrases, expecting die readers to be familiar with the material. This phenomenon is both frusti-ating, in tiiat it makes it far more difficult to discover when diey are citing die pseudepigrapha and how much of it tiiey know, and illuminating, in that it is likely that they would similarly not directiy cite the Jesustradition or any otiier tradition important to t h e m . " This means that the observations made here have implications for other fields of study as well. We see, then, Christianity as a movement birthed in apocalyptic Judaism and thus familiar with the concepts and traditions of that perspective. As it moves towards separation from Judaism'* and as it must deal with what it considers spurious forms of Christianity, it also separates from the pseudepigrapha, from the milieu in which it was born. Whether diis was die cutting of the umbilical cord or the jumping of a fish out of the sea will depend upon one's evaluation of 36. Thai is. James can quote the decalogue, but he never feels die need to mention dial his reference is to 'Moses' or 'The Law'. Likewise diese writers never note in which book die narrative references are lo be found. 37. See further, for example. Davids. 'James and Jesus', pp. 63-84, or D.B. Deppe, The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James (Chelsea, MI: Bookcrafters, 1989). 38. This is not to imply dial one can therefore argue dial James and 1 Peter form an earlier suge than 2 Peter or a later stage dian Jude because of their attitude to the pseudepigrapha. All of diese attitudes probably existed simultaneously in die church, bul 2 Peter clearly shows the direction in which die church would move as it did in fact separate from Judaism, a process dial look time and did not move at equal speed in all sections of the church.



245

the development of the succeeding centuries. Certainly the substitution of Greek philosophical categories as the matrix for interpretation (as was done, for example, in Alexandria) can hardly be viewed as a step forward in understanding. At the least this study has shown that in order to interpret these works one must step back into their milieu, i.e. die same milieu diat gave birth to (and read) the pseudepigrapha.

HEAVENLY ASCENT IN PHILO: AN EXAMINATION OF SELECTED PASSAGES

Peder Borgen

The Research

Situation

In antiquity the motif of persons' heavenly journey was widespread.' Against this background the question arises whether Philo's ascension texts are to be characterized as Jewish or non-Jewish. If they can be placed witiiin a Jewish context, where do tiiey fit into the understanding of heavenly journeys in apocalyptic, rabbinic and hekhalot texts? At certain points the line will be drawn to tiie Revelation of John. The abundant material on this theme in Philo of Alexandria is seldom drawn into the discussion. Thus, in the classic work of W. Bousset, 'Die Himmelreise der Seele', Philo is only mentioned in passing, and Bousset places Philo totally on the non-Jewish, Greek side. 'Ich stelle dabei den Alexandriner Philo ganz auf die hellenische Seite'.^ Similarly, in M. Dean-Otting's book, Heavenly Journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature, the large body of Hellenistic Jewish literature in Philo's writings is not included, except in passing.' Dean-Otting attempts to justify tiiis exclusion of Philo by emphasizing the observation that Philo 'stops short of any descriptions of the heavens or of Deity, which can be compared to that of the pseudepigraphical texts.'* This lack of usage of the material in Philo's writings is also evident in T.D. Tabor's book. Things Unutterable: Paul's Ascent to Paradise 1. W. Boussel, 'Die Himmelreise der Seele', Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, IV (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1901), pp. 136-69 and 229-73. 2. Bousset, 'Himmelreise', p. 137 n. 1. 3. M. Dean-Ouing, Heavenly Journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic Jewish Literature (Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang. 1984). 4. Dean-Otting. Heavenly Journeys, p. 31.

BORGEN Heavenly Ascent in Philo

247

in its Greco-Roman, Judaic, and Early Christian Contexts.^ When he states that it is the apostle Paul who provides us with a rare autobiographical account of such ecstadc experience of a heavenly journey,* he overlooks die fact that Philo gives an autobiographical account of his own spiritual heavenly journey in Spec. Leg. 3.1-2. It is true diat die dieme of ascent was central in E.R. Goodenough's interpretation of Philo, but he understood Philo in a one-sided way to be a representative of a Jewish form of mystery religion. The transformation of tiie biblical story was done through the technique of Greek mystic philosophers. Philo interpreted the patriarchs as the royal priesdiood who had the priesdy power to bring others up into dieir own experience. Thus Goodenough systematized Philo's thoughts too much into a two-stage mystery, the 'Lesser Mystery' and the 'Great Mystery', and he failed to see the variety in the Philonic texts and the complexity of their Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds.' Some ascent texts from Philo have been used by scholars in various contexts,* but there is need for much further work to be done on diis material, especially by relating it to odier Jewish as well as non-Jewish sources. Such a study can also illuminate points in the New Testament. Since Philo's material on die subject is so extensive, the investigation must be limited to selected passages and aspects within diis article. Before entering into an examination of some of the texts, the general understanding of Philo's works should be indicated, and also the question of method. What is die proper approach to an analysis of the dieme of ascent in Philo's writings? In order to avoid making Philo into a systematic philosopher of religion, specific passages will be discussed, in terms of their basis in die Old Testament, of the features that indicate traditions, and of ideas which are drawn from mixed background. 5. J.D. Tabor. Things Unutterable: Paul's Ascent to Paradise in its GrecoRoman, Judaic, and Early Christian Context (Lanham. MD: University Press of America. 1986). 6. Tabor. Things Unutterable, p. ix. 7. E.R. Goodenough. By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (London: Oxford University Press; New Haven: Yale University Press. 1935). See the critical comments by P. Borgen. 'Philo of Alexandria. A Critical and syndietical survey of research since World War IF, ANRW, 0.21.1 (1984), p. 140. 8. See among others A.F. Segal. 'Heavenly Ascent in Hellenistic Judaism. Early Christianity and their Environment', ANRW, II.23.2 (1980). pp. 1354-59; W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King (Leiden: Brill, 1967), pp. 107-11.

248

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

A hermeneutical key to Philo's exegesis can be seen in his interpretation of the translation of the Laws of Moses from Hebrew into Greek. Philo says that when King Ptolemy Philadelphus ordered the translation to be done in Alexandria by Jewish scholars, it was an event of 'revelatory history'.' Prior to this event God's cosmic laws had only been made known to the 'barbarian' half of the world when they were revealed to the Israelites on Mt Sinai. When they were translated into Greek in Alexandria, they were also revealed to the 'Greek' half of the world. On die island of Pharos in Alexandria, die translators, taking the sacred books, stretched them out towards heaven widi the hands diat held diem, asking of God that they might not fail in their purpose. And He assented to their prayers, to die end diat die greater part, or even die whole, of die human race might be profited and led to a better life by continuing to observe such wise and mily admirable ordinances (Vit. Mos. 2.36).

According to Philo, both the action taken by King Ptolemy Philadelphus and many other observable facts demonstrated the growing impact of the Laws of Moses and the Jewish nadon upon other peoples; The Laws of Moses attract and win die attention of all, of barbarians, of Greeks of dwellers on the mainland and islands, of the nations of the east and die west, of Europe and Asia, of the whole inhabited worid from end to end (Vit Mos. 2.20).

The present study is based upon the assumption that Philo's interpretation continues this presentation of the Laws of Moses to the Greek half of tiie world. Moreover, it assumes that when Philo in Vit. Mos. 1.4 says that he always weaves together the Laws as read and the traditions told him by the elders of the nation, he gives a clue to the method used not only in his treatise On the Life of Moses, but also in his other writings."* Within a Jewish

Context

The first question to be addressed is diat of Jewish and/or non-Jewish background. It is my thesis that Jewish and non-Jewish elements are woven together in Philo's texts, but in varying degrees. 9. See P. Borgen. Thilo of Alexandria', in M.E. Stone, (ed.). Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT. II.2; Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1984). pp. 234-35 (widi some misprints in the references to passages in Philo). 10. See Borgen. 'Philo of Alexandria', p. 124.


249

Philo's place within the context of Jewish traditions is quite evident in Quaest. in Gen. 1.86. Here the quaestio is raised on Gen. 5 . 2 4 : 'And he was not found, for God had translated him'. In his solutio Philo elaborates upon the idea indicated in the Septuagint that Enoch was transported (iiexaxiOTinv) to the heavenly region. A similar interpretation of Gen. 5 . 2 4 is found in Mut. Norn. 3 8 , that Enoch 'changed his abode and journeyed as an emigrant from the mortal life to the immortal'. Although Philo might have derived this interpretation directly from Gen. 5 . 2 4 , as rendered in the Septuagint, it seems quite certain that he relies upon traditional embellishments on the biblical text: 1.

2.

3.

He specifies that the translation meant a change of place, a point also made by Josephus in Ant. 1.85, when he says that Enoch withdrew/returned to God. The clearest proof for Philo's dependence on tradition, however, is the circumstance that he not only comments upon Gen. 5 . 2 4 , about Enoch, but adds references to Moses and Elijah: all three ended their earthly lives in an unusual and marvellous way by entering the heavenly form of existence directly by assumption. These three are among the most outstanding figures in Jewish ascent traditions. Moreover, here in Quaest. in Gen. 1 . 8 6 Philo expresses the view that Moses was taken up to God by means of assumption widiout death and burial, in conflict widi Deut. 3 4 . 5 and the interpretation given by him in Vit. Mos. 2 . 2 9 1 where he states explicidy tiiat Moses died and was buried. Thus Philo gives an early evidence for die two traditions that are found in other Jewish writings." In addition to listing Enoch, Moses and Elijah together, Philo states in Quaest. in Gen. 1 . 8 6 that Gen. 5 . 2 4 shows that the end of worthy and holy men is not death but translation and approaching anodier place."

11. Josephus. Ant. 4.326; Sifre Deut. §357, on Deut. 34.5; b. Sot. 13b. See L. Ginzberg. 77ie Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: JPS. 12di repr.. 1968), II. p. 161 n. 951; H.A. Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1948), I. pp. 402-403; K. Haacker and P. Schafer. 'Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod des Moses', in O. Betz, et aL (eds.). Josephus-Studien: Festschrift O. Michel (GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), p. 171 and nn. 34 and 35. 12. There is a sulking parallel to Quaest. in Gen. 1.86 in Midrash Hag-Gadol 1:

250

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

The traditions about the assumptions of Enoch, Moses and EHjah are brought together in various ways in Jewish traditions. Enoch and Elijah are seen together in Josephus, Ant. 9.28: 'However, concerning Elijah and Enoch, who lived before the Flood, it is written in the sacred books that they became invisible, and no one knows of their death'. The combination of Moses and Elijah occurs several places, such as in b. Suk. 5a, Deut. R. 3.17, Mk 9.2-8 par, etc. In some texts, such as in Sifre Deut. 357 on Deut. 34.5 and b. Sot. 13b it is probable that traditions about Enoch have influenced traditions about Moses. In Rev. 11.3-6 John draws on traditions about Moses and Elijah, and possibly also traditions about E n o c h . " Correspondingly, Josephus reports on the view tiiat Moses had gone back to the Deity, just as did Enoch (Ant. 1.85). Philo does not in Quaest. in Gen. 1.86 describe Enoch's translation as an ascent of die soul separated from die body. Using platonizing thoughts, Philo sees Enoch as a person moving 'from a sensible and visible place to an incorporeal and intelligible form'. It is of interest to notice that in 2 Enoch diis translation is also pictured as a change from earthly into divine existence, but here in die form of undressing and dressing: 'And the Lord said to Michael, "Go, and extract Enoch from (his) earthly clothing. And anoint him with my delightful oil, and put him into die clodies of my glory'" (22.81).'* Philo's scriptural basis for die view diat Moses did not die but went to die heavenly realm is LXX Deut. 34.6: that 'no one knew his burial place'. This phrase is used in Quaest. in Gen. 1.86. As mentioned above, Philo in V//. Mos. 2.291 renders another tradition, that Moses was buried, with none present, not by mortal hands, but by immortal Genesis (ed. S. Schechter; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1902) (p. 123). In both places Gen. 5.24 is interpreted, and in the exposition there are listed three men who ascended to heaven: Enoch. Moses and Elijah. Bodi texts refer to Gen. 5.24. Deut. 34.6 and 2 Kgs 2.11. In both texts there is an attached statement about the similar fate of the holy and righteous ones, that they also ascend on high/are tfanslated. In spite of the late date for Midrash Hag-Gadol as a written collection, die agreements make it probable that Philo gives an early evidence for die same uadition found in Midrash Hag-Gadol. L. Ginsberg. Legends, V. p. 157. Ginzberg writes that the remark in Midrash Hag-Gadol 1.123 diat the righteous ascend 'is certainly a later tfadition'. The agreement widi Philo. Quaest. in Gen. 1.86. at diis point radier suggests diat old tradition is rendered. 13. See Haacker and Schafer, 'Nachbiblische Traditionen', pp. 170-74. 14. Translation of 2 Enoch, widi foomotes, by F.L Andersen in OTP, I. p. 138.


251

powers. Since Philo sometimes describes angels as powers (Migr. Abr. 115 and 142-43; Plant. 14; Somn. 1.240) or as servitors of God's powers (Spec. Leg. 1.66), a parallel is found in Targ. Ps.-J. Deut. 34.6, where it is said that angels assisted God at the burial of Moses. According to m. Sot. 1.9, t. Sot. 4.8, b. Sanh. 39a and Ps.-Philo, LAB 19.16, on the other hand, Moses was buried by God himself." In addition to Quaest. in Gen. 1.86 Philo also mentions the assumption of Moses to God in Sacr. 8-10, referring to Deut. 34.5-6: God 'drawing the perfect one from things earthly to Himself. In Quaest. in Gen. 1.86, then, Moses' assumption is paralleled to that of Enoch, who in Platonic terms moved 'from a sensible and visible place to an incorporeal and intelligible form'. The third person mentioned by Philo in Quaest. in Gen. 1.86 is Elijah. The view that he ascended to heaven is based on 2 Kgs 2.1-12. The ascent of Elijah is mentioned in 1 Mace. 2.58; 1 En. 89.52; 93.8; Sir. 48.9; b. Suk. 5a; Pes. R. 5b; Pes. R. 5 (15a); Num. R. 12 (166d); Midr. Prov. 30.4 (53a), and is presupposed in odier texts such as Mk 9.2-8 par and Rev. 11.3-6. There is no other reference to the heavenly ascent of Elijah elsewhere in the extant works of Philo.'* Proclamatio Graeca In order to illustrate how Jewish and non-Jewish elements are woven together in a passage on heavenly journey in Philo, On the Creation (Op. Mund.) 69-71 may serve as an example. The passage is an exegetical interpretation of the concepts of 'man', 'the image of God' and 'His likeness' in the quotation from Gen. 1.26. These words are paraphrased in die opening exegesis in Op. Mund. 69ab. Then a more independent elaboration about the eardily and heavenly journey by the mind follows in 69c-71b. The structure of the exposition is as f o l l o w s : " 1. scriptural quotation (Gen. 1.26); 2. an affirmative paraphrasing interpretation; 3. rejection of a possible misunderstanding, in casu, an anthropomorphic understanding; 4. an acceptable,

15. L. Ginsberg. Legends, VI. p. 162; Haacker and Schafer. 'Nachbiblische Traditionen'. pp. 154 and 165. 16. 1 Kgs 17 about Elijah and die widow is mentioned in Deus Imm. 136 and 138. 17. Cf. Th.H. Tobin. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (CBQMS. 14; Washington. DC: Catholic Biblical Association. 1983), p. 37.

252

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

non-anthropomorphic interpretation, with elaboration about the ascent of the mind. Th.H. Tobin states that the conceptions of this non-anthropomorphic interpretation are drawn from the philosophical viewpoints of the period, mainly from P l a t o . " Similarly, in the French translation of Op. Mund. 69-71 there are only references to Platonic and Stoic parallels." More thorough investigations show that there are several points that have parallels both in Jewish and non-Jewish sources. When humankind's likeness with God is seen as the corresponding role of the soul/the mind and God (Op. Mund. 69), a widespread tradidon is udlized. This tradidon is found in rabbinic writings, such as Lev. R. 4.8 (on Lev. 4.2). Midr Ps. 103.4-5 (on Ps. 103.1) and b. Ber. 10a, and in Seneca Ep. 65.24 and Philodemus, De Pietate 15.1421 (cf. Josephus, War 7.8.7 §§346-47).^" The agreements are seen in die following quotations: It (the mind, the ruler of die soul) is in a fashion a god of him who carries and enshrines it. For the Great Ruler is related to die whole cosmos as also the human mind is to man. For it is invisible while itself seeing all diings. and it has an invisible substance, while it is comprehending die substance of others (Philo, Op. Mund. 69). Just as the Holy One. blessed be He. fills die whole world, so die soul fills die body. Just as the Holy One. blessed be He. sees, but is not seen, so the soul sees but is not itself seen (b. Ber. 10a). God's place in the world corresponds to the soul's relation to man (Seneca. Ep. 65.24).

Thus, this word about the correspondence between soul-body and God-world was a commonplace in the ancient world. Philo is closer to the rabbinic version, however, since he does not share the Stoic pantheistic understanding of God, and he moreover makes die same point as that found in b. Ber. 10a, that God/die mind sees widiout being seen. A more general agreement exists when Philo presupposes a 18. TH. Tobin. The Creation of Man, pp. 37. 44-47. 19. R. Amaldez et al. (ed. and trans.). Des oeuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie. I. De Opificio Mundi (Paris. 1961). pp. 186-87: Plato. Laws XIL 963a; Theaetetus I73e; Phaedrus 249c. 20. See J. Cohn (u-ans.), 'Ober die WeltschSpfung', in L. Cohn. et al. (eds.), Philo von Alexandria: Die Werke in deutscher Obersetzung, I (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2nd edn, 1962). p. 51; L. Ginzberg. The Legends, I, p. 60 and V, pp. 80-81.


253

dichotomic anthropology, where the soul is connected with heaven and die body with earth. This andiropology is found in rabbinic and in apocalypdc sources as well as in Greek Platonic/Stoic tradidon).^' In Sifre Deut., Haazinu, 306.28 this view is stated in an explicit way: die human body is earthly but the soul is heavenly. Even die Platonic idea of die pre-existence of the soul before it enters the body (cf. Phaedrus 248c; Phaidon 80B) had penetrated into Jewish anthropology, as can be seen from 3 En. 43.4; b. Yeb. 62a; 63b; b. 'Abod. Zar. 5a; b. Nid. 13b; Gen. R. 24.4; Uv. R. 15.1; Philo, Gig. 12-15; Somn. 1.138-39; Josephus, War 7.342-48. On die basis of such andiropology, the idea of die heavenly ascent of the soul is a natural development. Philo draws in Op. Mund. 70, as elsewhere, on the common picture of die soul as a winged bird—see Plato, Phaidon 109E; Phaedrus 249C; Theat. 173E; Gen. R. 93.8; 100.7; Lev. R. 4.5; Eccl. R. 12.4; b. Sanh. 92ab; y. M. Qat. 3.82b; y. Yeb. 15.15c; Midr. Ps. 11.6-7; 3 Baruch (Greek) 1 0 . " As for die ascent itself, Philo in Op. Mund. 69-1 \ pictures it in five stages: 1. land and sea, 2. air, 3. ether and the stars, 4. the noedc world and 5. die Great King Himself. Philo here combines two kinds of ttavel, the search of the soul up to the spheres of air, stars and beyond, and the ecstadc longing, like those filled with Corybandc frenzy, to see God. Man's journey together widi the stars and odier heavenly bodies occurs several places in Philo's wridngs, widi close agreements of terminology. For example, the term
21. See R. Meyer. Hellenistisches in der rabbinischen Anthropologic (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1937). 22. See L. Ginsberg. The Legends, V, p. 81; H. Maker, 'Personification of Soul and Body', JQR NS 2 (1911-12). p. 476; V. Aptowitzer, 'Die Seele als Vogel', MGWJ 69 (1925). pp. 150-69. Concerning 3 Baruch (Gt«ek) 10. see H.E. Gaylord (trans.). '3 (Greek Apocalypse oO Baruch', in OTP, 1. p. 673. 23. See also Philo's use of neTempoitoXeo). Leg. All. 3.71. 84; Det. Pot. Ins. 27; Plant. 145; Rev. Div. Her. 128. 230. 237. 239; Somn. 1.139; Vit. Mos. 1.190; Spec. Leg. 1.207.

254


Interpretation

'tread the ether*. This latter verb also occurs in Spec. Leg. 1.207 and Migr. Abr. 184, cf.. Her. 238 (birds). References to astrological sources are Anthologia Palatina, Planudea 4.328; Pseudo-Lucian Philopatris 25. The astrological background is also evident by the similar term ovpavoPateo), 'tread the heaven', which is used by the astrologer Vettius Valens, VI, Introduction." Cf. also Quaest. in Gen. 3.3. The idea of the dancing and singing of the stars occur also in apocalyptic and rabbinic writings.^ Philo marks the distinction between the travel up to the etherial region and the next stage of the ascent by employing the Platonic category of the world of the senses and the noedc world, Op. Mund. 7 0 - 7 1 . The final stage, however, draws on Cybele-tradidon ('filled with Corybandc frenzy') and on Jewish tradidon (God seen as 'the Great King*). Philo here sees the vision of God, die Great King, as the final aim of the ascent. God is called the Great King in several apocalypdc and odier Jewish sources, such as I En. 84.2, 5; 91.13; Sib. Or. 3.499, 560; Pss. SoL 2.32. In Spec. Leg. 3.1-2 Philo tells about his own inspired ascent in a way similar to the descripdon of die ascent found in Op. Mund. 70 In Op. Mund. 70 it is said that the mind 'was borne even higher to the ether and the circuit of heaven, and is whirled around with (ovunEpiitoXeo)) the dances of die planets and the fixed stars... *, and in Spec. Leg. 3.1 Philo tells that he seemed 'to be borne aloft into die heights widi a soul possessed by some God-sent inspiradon, whirling around with (avnrtepiJcoA,e(o) the sun and the moon and the whole heaven and cosmos...*. In Op. Mund. 70-71 the mind goes still 24. See W. Gundel and H.G. Gundel, Astrologumena: Die astrologische Uteratur in derAntike und ihre Geschichte (Wiesbaden: Sleiner. 1966). pp. 29-30; 180-81; cf. L. Hartman, Kolosserbrevet (Uppsala: EFS, 1985), p. 125; W. VSlker, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien (Leipzig: J.C. Hinricli, 1938). pp. 181-82; F. Cumont. Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans (New York: Dover, 1960. repr. of the English U-ansladon of 1912). p. 81. about die asu-onomer Ptolemy: 'Mortal as I am. 1 know that I am bom for a day. but when I follow the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch die earth; I ascend to Zeus himself to feast me on ambrosia, die food of the gods'. 25. 3 Enoch 46; S.A. Wertheimer (ed.), Batei Midrashot (Jerusalem: Ketav vaSefer, enlarged edn. 1967-68), II. p, 426. See K.E. GrSzinger. Musik und Gesang in der Theologie der friihen jiidischen Uteratur: Talmud Midrash Mystik (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck]. 1982), pp. 265. 271-72, etc.

BORGEN

Heavenly Ascent in Philo

255

further to the intelligible world and the God himself, while Philo has the region of moon and sun as a lookout-place for viewing the earthly things. Both in apocalyptic and in Hellenistic sources there are examples given about ascents to the heavenly region from which the person gets a view of the earthly matters.^* It is worth noticing that the ascent makes it possible for Philo not only to read the Laws of Moses, but to peer into them and reveal what is not known to the multitude. Spec. Leg. 3.6. Thus, Philo utilizes in his autobiographical report traditions that he at other places draws on in his exposition of the ascent in Op. Mund. 69-71 and in other passages in the Laws of Moses. Moreover, he does not hesitate in adding his own inspiration and ascent to the heavenly region to the ascents of the biblical persons, such as Enoch, Moses and Elijah. This observation should be considered when discussing die fact that the author of the Book of Reveladon, John, tells about his own ascent." Moreover, in different ways bodi Philo and John look upon earthly events seen from the heavenly region and they interpret Scripture as seen from die heavenly lookout-place to which they have entered by means of ascents, which they have experienced through God-sent inspiradon. It should also be added that the passage about Philo's ascent is written into the collection of treatises diat we call the 'Exposition of die Laws of Moses'. This 'Exposition' concludes witii die treatise On Rewards and Punishments which has an eschatological outlook, even including the theme of reversal, which is a central feature in several apocalyptic writings.^' Thus Philo is an inspired and

26. See Dean-OlUng. Heavenly Journeys, pp. 18-20. 143, 196-97. 27. Scholars have been puzzled by the fact that John has written his book in his own name and not under a pseudonym. See D.S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: SCM Press, 1964). pp. 127-39; G.R. BeasleyMurray. Revelation (London: Eerdmans. repr. 1983 of rev. edn. 1978). pp. 14-15. and odier commentaries on The Revelation of John. 28. E.P. Sanders, T h e Genre of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypses', in D. Hellhom (ed.). Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck]. 2nd edn. 1989). pp. 456-58. states diat what is peculiar to the works which have tfaditionally been considered Palestinian Jewish apocalypses is the combination of revelation with the promise of restoration and reversal. Sanders notes that Philo in Praem. Poem. 94-97. 162-72 expresses die hope of restoration and reversal. According to Sanders Philo lacks the notion of inspired revelation. Sanders' understanding of Philo at this point needs to be modified. S. Sandmel, 'Apocalypse and Philo'. in A.I. Kalsh and L. Nemoy (eds.). Essays

256

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

prophetic exegete, and his writings have some features in common with apocalyptic writings.^' The Role of Angels In the article 'Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and the Hekhalot Literature', M. Himmelfarb draws the following conclusions: The instructions for ascent through the gates guarded by hostile angels or other dangers in Hekhalot Rabbati, Hekhalot ZuU-ati, and the Ozhayah fragment from the Geniza have more in common with certain gnostic works and the magical papyri than widi the apocalypses'." Like die prophets, the heroes of die apocalypses are taken to heaven at God's command. They do nothing to set in motion die process of ascent. Their response to die heavenly realm is awe and perhaps even fear, but diey are no in danger. The hekhalot literature, on die odier hand, provides insttiictions for human beings who choose to embark on the journey to the divine chariot. For them die way is full of dangers."

There are only traces of the motif of angelic opposition and rivalry between human beings and angels in Philo. In a very moderate form this idea is present in Philo's report on the Song of Moses in Virt. 1175. As an illustration of the virtue philanthropy Philo presents the life of Moses in Virt. 51-79. When Moses knew that his end was near, he in the proper way arranged for Joshua to be his successor (53-71) and then broke into the Great Song (72-75) followed by the Blessing of the tribes (76-79). With this concentration on Moses as an ideal ruler, Philo in his report on Moses' song focuses the attention more on him dian on die various ideas found in Deuteronomy 32. Thus Virt. 72-75 is largely an elaboration of the terms 'hymn', 'earth' and 'heaven' and die reference to an assembly in tiie opening verse, Deut. 32.1, and the words about 'angels' and 'heavens' in LXX Deut. 32.43. Moses sang his song before his death, before 'the body was stripped on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University (19091979) (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 1979). pp. 383-87, draws too sharp a distinction between Philo and apocalyptic literature. 29. See D. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans. 1983). pp. 147-52. 30. M. Himmelfarb. 'Heavenly Ascent and the Relationship of the Apocalypses and die Hekhalot Literature'. HUCA 59 (1988). p. 73. 31. Himmelfarb. 'Heavenly Ascent', pp. 84-85.


257

away' (Virt. 76), and there is in Virt. 7 2 - 7 5 no explicit statement about his journey up to heaven. The idea is rather that he gathered together cosmos, human beings and angels. Nevertheless, he sang his solo placed among the angelic and ethereal choristers. According to Virt. 74 the angels, being skilled in music, inspect Moses when he sings because they are doubtful that anyone bound to a corruptible body could, like the sun and the moon and the most sacred choir of the otiier stars, sing in cosmic harmony. This doubt corresponds to the question which at places in rabbinic and apocalyptic texts is raised by angels when they express protest against the ascension of Moses or otiier human beings to tiie heavenly region, at times also protesting against human beings joining the angelic choir: 'What does he who was born of woman here?'.'^ The praise of God by human beings and heaven and earth and angels has biblical basis as well as points of similarity widi Platonic tradition." The celestial songs by angels appear prominendy in the apocalypses and other Jewish writings, often as songs in the heavenly t e m p l e . ' * In Quaest. in Gen. 4.130 Philo, with reference to Gen. 24.52-53, tells how the virtuous man makes dianksgiving and honour to God by prostrating himself. But prostration is nothing else than a sign of genuine admiration and Uiie love, which diese men know who sip from diat source which cannot be approached or touched but is incorporeal. Being given wings and out of heavenly desire being borne aloft, diey move in flight about die Father and Creator of all things, and Him. who truly with His being fills all things with his powers for the salvadon of all, they call 'holy, blessed Creator, almighty. God of truth.

With regard to the terminology of 'holy', 'creator' and 'almighty' in the heavenly hymn, one may compare Rev. 4.8 and 11. Thus, although Philo in Virt. 72-74 as also elsewhere draws on ideas from Platonic

32. See especially J.P. Schultz, 'Angelic Opposition to the Ascension of Moses and die Revelation of the Law'. JQR 61 (1970-71), pp. 287-89 widi reference to L. Ginzberg. Legends, VI. p. 57. etc. P. Alexander, '3 (Hebrew Apocalypse oO Enoch', in OTP, I. p. 241 n. 58. K.E. GrSzinger. Musik und Gesang, pp. 310-11. 33. In addition to Deut. 32. see Ps. 148.1-6; Isa. 43.7 and 20-21, etc. Concerning Platonic traditions, see D. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato (Leiden: Brill, 1986), pp. 115-18. 34. Himmelfarb. 'Heavenly Ascent', pp. 91-96. Grdzinger. Musik und Gesang, pp. 76-99.

258

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

and Hellenisdc astrological traditions, the themes of thanksgiving and of angelic choir betray a more specific strain of biblical and Jewish/ Christian features." Although Philo reflects a common motif when he in Virt. 74 states that the angels were critical towards tiie song of Moses, there is a distinctive aspect in Philo's use of the motif: instead of the angels protesting against the admission of the human person into the angelic choir, in Virt. 74 they are critically watching Moses' performance after he has received a place in die ediereal choir. The role of angels in connection witii ascent is often tiiat of serving as guides. This motif is also present in Philo's works. The need for guidance and escort on the journey are seen in Migr. Abr. 168-175 where ascents of Abraham and Moses are mixed togetiier. In Migr. Abr. 173-175 Philo elaborates on Abraham's ascent, as the continuation of Moses' ascent: 'Now he that follows God has of necessity as his fellow-travellers the logoi which accompany Him, angels as they are often called'. Then two Scripture quotations are combined, the one about Abraham accompanying die three 'men' on their way after diey had visited him and Sarah at Manue, Gen. 18.16. On this basis Philo states that Abraham was put on the same level as tiiey (God and the angels), and tiius tiie escort was escorted. Then Philo applies Exod. 23.20-21 to Abraham's ascent: For as long as he falls short of perfection, he has the Divine Logos as his leader of die way: since diere is an oracle which says, 'Lo. I send My angel before your face, to guard you in the way. diat he may bring you to die land which I have prepared for you: give heed to him and hearken to him, disobey him not; for he will by no means withdraw from you; for My name is on him' (Exod. 23.20-21).

Thus die Logos/Angel is die personification of God's name, YHWH, and he is in §174 the 'Leader' ( ^ e n m v ) just as God according to §171 is 'Leader'. Elsewhere Philo calls this Logos/Angel die Son of God and he has a position like some viceroy of a great king, Agr. 51-52, widi citation of Exod. 23.20. Here Philo draws on angelology that also is found in apocalypses and in Merkabah texts. As widi Philo's Logos/Angel, so also Metatron and die angel Yahoel are angelic personifications of tiie name of God. 35. For the Platonic background for the connection made in Virt. 73-75 between angels and the fifdi element, ether, see Wolfson, Philo, I, pp. 369-70. For the idea of die choral dancers in the ediereal sphere, see Op. Mund. 70. discussed above.


259

In 3 En. 12.5 and b. Sanh. 38b the angel of Exod. 23.20 is identified as Metatron. And the archangel Yahoel (Apoc. Abr. 10, etc.) probably originated in speculation about the angel in whom God's name resides, according to Exod. 2 3 . 2 0 - 2 1 . " In Migr. Abr. 174-75 the Logos/Angel and Abraham are seen as runners, with the Logos/Angel running ahead. But when he [Abraham] has arrived at full knowledge, he will run widi more vigorous effort, and his pace will be as great as diat of him who before led die way; for so they will bodi become attendants of the Allleading God (§175).

Philo dien mentions diose who cause dangers and obstacles on die journey: 'and no holder of heterodox doctrines will dog their steps any more'. According to Spec. Leg. 2.193 and Sobr. 68 those who hold heterodox views are die ones who prefer bodily and external things, such as lavish banquets and the like. Thus the obstacles for Abraham were the same as for Moses (Migr. Abr. 172): wealdi, fame, and so on." Thus several of Philo's texts fit togedier with Himmelfarb's characterization of tiie apocalypses in her article 'Heavenly Ascent...', cited above: the heroes are taken to heaven at God's command. Thus they ascend widiout meeting hostile forces. Invasion and Ascent D.J. Halperin points to another dualistic perspective, as indicated by the title of his article 'Ascension or Invasion: Implications of the Heavenly Journey in Ancient Judaism'.'* Halperin writes. The belief in ascension exists in two main variants. In one, die ascending figure is a hero, die narrator of the story sympathizes widi diis quest, and the audience is expected to rejoice at his uiumph. In die odier. die ascending figure is sinister and demonic, die narrator regards his quest as a direat to die divine order, and die audience is expected to rejoice at his fall." 36. See Alexander, '3 Enoch'. I. pp. 243-44; A. Segal, 'Heavenly Ascent', p. 1362. 37. Cf. Apoc. Abr. 13-14. where die fallen angel Azazel is trying to stop Abraham. The angel Yahoel then says: 'Shame on you. Azazel! For Abraham's portion is heaven, and yours is on earth'. Translation by R. Rubinkiewicz. 'Apocalypse of Abraham', in OTP, I, p. 695. 38. In Rel. 18 (1988). pp. 47-67. 39. Halperin. 'Ascension or Invasion', p. 47.

260

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

Halperin has seen that the positive form of ascent often is pictured against the background of a confrast. At several places this is the case in Philo's writings. It has to be added, however, that the contrast between ascension and invasion is one among several contrasts used by Philo. In a rudimentary way the idea of 'invasion' is formulated in Philo's exposition of Num. 15.30 in Virt. 171-72: 'Whosoever sets his hand to do anything with presumptuousness provokes God'...the arrogant man is always filled with the spirit of unreason, holding himself, as Pindar says, to be neither man nor demigod, but wholly divine, and claiming to overstep the limits of human nature.

Gains invades the divine realm in this way: 'he no longer considered it worthy of him to abide within the bounds of human nature but overstepped them in his eagerness to be thought a god' (Leg. Gai. 75). Gains was a counterfeit of Israel and Moses, and features associated with Moses as king are attributed to Gains by Philo in the form of a parody,*" The idea of invasion into the heavenly realm is also present elsewhere in Philo's writings, for example in the areas of doctrines and of wealth. The story about the tower of Babel is interpreted by Philo as an invasion of heaven by means of false doctrines (Somn. 2.283-99). In Somn. 2.274-99 Philo lists three kinds of wrong speaking: 1. the speaking of the pleasure lovers, represented by Pharaoh (276-79), 2. the sophists, represented by the people of Egypt (279-82), and 3. diose who deny die existence of God and providence, such as diose who built the tower of Babel (Gen. 11): diose who extended their activities of their word-cleverness to heaven itself... They declared that nodiing exists beyond diis world of our sight and senses, that it is neither was created nor will perish, but is uncreated, imperishable, without guardian, helmsman or protector. Then piling enterprises one upon anodier they raised on high like a tower dieir edifice of unedifying doctrines... And therefore when they hoped to soar to 40. See W.A. Meeks. 'The Divine Agent and his Counterfeit in Philo and the Fourth Gospel', in E. SchUssler Fiorenza (ed.). Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity (NoU-e Dame. IN: NoUie Dame University Press. 1976). pp. 50-51. Concerning Gaius's claim to divinity, see E.M. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (Leiden: Brill. 2nd edn. 1970), pp. 191-92 and 209-11.


261

heaven in mind and diought. to desuoy die eternal kingship, die mighty undestroyable hand cast them down and overturned their edifice and dieir doctrine. And die place is called 'confusion'... (Somn. 2.283-86)."' When attacking the theocratic view that God is the king, these imposters argue for die absolute sovereignty of human rulers (Somn. 2.290-91). In diis interpretation of die tower of Babel, Philo has primarily in mind non-Jewish philosophies and governments. Also in Conf. Ling. 111-14 die invasion into heaven by die building of die tower of Babel is understood in terms of (non-Jewish) philosophical ideas and human-centered government and human vices: 'Let us build ourselves a city' [Gen. 11.4], which is like... Let us enact laws which shall eject from our community the justice whose product is poverty and disrepute—laws which shall assure the emoluments of the stronger to the succession of those whose powers of acquisition are greater than odiers. And let a 'tower' (Gen. 11.4] be built as an acropolis, as a royal and impregnable castle for die tyrannic evil, whose feet shall walk upon the earth, and whose head reach to 'heaven' [Gen. 11.4], carried by our vaulting ambition to diat vast height. For in fact that tower not only has human misdeeds for its base, but it seeks to rise to the region of celestial ('Olympic') diings, widi die argument of impiety and godlessness in its van. Such are its pronouncements, eidier that the Deity does not exist, or diat it exists but does not exert providence, or that the world has no beginning in which it was created, or that though created its course is under the sway of varying and random causation. The contrast between invasion and ascent is central in Migr. Abr. 168-75. In §168 Exod. 24.1 is quoted: 'Come up to your Lord, you and Aaron and Nadab and Abihu and seventy of die gerusia of Israel'. To be certain of making the right kind of ascent, Moses prays tiiat he may have God Himself as leader on die way that leads to Him; for he says: 'If You Yourself do not go widi me on my journey, lead me not up from here' (Exod. 33.15 cited in Migr. Abr. 171). Widiout God's direction the ascent turns out to be invasion and imposture. The result is destruction. Philo points to two forms of invasion and destruction, 41. Widi regard to the (non-Jewish) philosophical background for die ideas criticized by Philo. see Wolfson, Philo, I. pp. 164-67. 299; 11. p. 382; Philo. V (LCL edn, uans. F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker). p. 610. 42. Concerning tyrannic rule. etc. see E.R. Goodenough. The Politics of Philo Judaeus (Hildesheim: Olms. 1967). 86. 93. etc. Concerning Philo's rejection of views found in Greek philosophical tfaditions, see Wolfson, Philo. I. pp. 108-15, 165-99,295-300. and Philo (LCL edn). Ill, p. 508 n. on §199.

262


Interpretation

that of many sophists, and the fate of those who reach high up in wealth and power. Thus Philo here as in Conf. Ling. 110-15 and Somn. 2.283-92 combines theoretical reasoning and moral evil and not only spiritualizes the ascent, but he also materializes it. As for die invasion by the sophists, the English translation of Migr. Abr. 171 in LCL runs: ...rather thati to lift ourselves heavenward and incur shipwreck as imposters. This has been the fate of multitudes of sophists, dirough dieir imagining that wisdom consists in finding specious arguments, and not in appealing to die solid evidence of facts.

In this translation the verb dvaTpejto), overturn, has been rendered as 'incur shipwreck'. The term can carry this meaning, but it is more probable diat Philo alludes to the story about die building of the tower of Babel, Genesis 11, since tiiere are important agreements between Philo's vocabulary here and his vocabulary in the interpretation of Genesis 11 in Somn. 2.284-90; Migr. Abr. 171, Ttpo? xov owpavov e^dpavTa<;; 172, dv© netetopov e^dpTj(;; and Somn. 2.284, e i ? v\|/o<;...e^fipav; cf. §285, ei? o \ ) p a v 6 v . . . d v a 5 p a n e t o 0 a i ; A/igr. Abr. 171, dvatpajtiivai, and Somn. 2.285, ovvavatpevaoa; Migr. Abr. 171,1)716 dXaôveia?, and 5omn. 2.292 KaxaX,aCoveuodnevoi. Taking into consideration diis allusion to the tower of Babel, a more precise translation of Migr. Abr. 171 would dien read: 'having raised ourselves to heaven to be overturned by imposture'. Such imposters were the sophists, according to Migr. Abr. 171. Philo only indicates in what way they invade heaven. They do it by relying on words rather than on reality itself. At many places in his writings Philo joins the many philosophers who offer sharp criticism of the sophists."" Anotiier reference to tiie sophists also found in De Migratione Abrahami can throw light upon the criticism: 'Others again have shewn great ability in expounding themes, and yet been most evil thinkers, such as the so-called sophists' (Migr. Abr. 72). The positive contrast is the ascent of Moses at Sinai, lead by God, having as bodyguard prophetic speech (Aaron), voluntary honouring of God (Nadab) and the care of God as Fadier (Abihu) (Migr. Abr. 168-71). As for ascent or invasion widi regard to wealth. Philo paraphrases the words of Moses' prayer in Exod. 33.15. The quotation is given in 43. See P. Borgen. Bread from Heaven (NovTSup. 10; Leiden: Brill, repr. 1981). pp. 123-24.


263

Migr. Abr. 171: 'If You Yourself do not go with me on my journey, lead me not up from here'. Then Philo gives the paraphrase in §172: But perhaps the meaning is something like this: 'Raise me not up on high, endowing me widi wealdi or fame or honours or offices, or aught else diat is called good fortune, unless You Yourself are about to come widi me'. For these things often bring upon those who have them very great losses as well as very great advantages, advantages, when the judgement is under God's guidance; hurts, when this is not so: for to thousands die things I have named, not being really good diings. have became die cause of incurable evils.

In this way Philo pictures the proper ascent to God by those who are guided by God and the Logos/angel (Migr. Abr. 170-75) against the contrasting background of the imposters who attempt to invade heaven (cf. the tower of Babel) and are overturned. The invasion and the ascent are applied to the two areas of 1. intellectual argumentation and 2. moral lifestyle in connection witii wealtii, holding of office, and fame. In Migr. Abr. 171-72 Philo understands ascent to mean tiie right way of life of persons who possess wealth and hold offices.** At times he is more radical and states that those who ascend to heaven seek to stay away from such 'worldly* activities and prefer solitude: Spec. Leg. 2.44-45; 3.1-6 and tiie treatise On the Contemplative Life. Since the idea of invasion into heaven can be applied to kings and kingship, it is quite natural that corrupt kingship can be used as conti-ast to proper ascent, also without picturing the contrast as an invasion into heaven. This is the case in Vit. Mos. 1.148-62. In Vit. Mos. 1.148-62 the basic dualism is die difference between Israel and the other nations in general and Egypt in particular: Moses was not like those who gain positions of power by military means; he gave up the lordship of Egypt because of the iniquities committed in die land; he did not exalt his own house and promote his sons; he did not treasure up gold and silver, did not levy tribute and abjured die accumulation of lucre and wealdi. Thus, instead of being the heir of die throne of tiie Pharaoh of die Egyptian people, God thought good to requite him with die kingship of a nadon more populous and mightier, a nadon destined to be consecrated above all odiers to offer prayers for ever on behalf of the human race diat it may be delivered from evil and participate in what is good (Vit. Mos. 1.149).

44. Cf. P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven, pp. 123-24.

264

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

As a reward God gave Moses the whole cosmos, land and cosmic elements as his portion, and as the representative good man and world citizen he was given partnership with God. Again, was not the joy of his partnership with the Father and Maker of all magnified also by the honour of being deemed worthy to bear the same dtle? For he was named god and king of die whole nadon. and entered, we are told, 'into die darkness where God was', diat is into die formless, invisible, incorporeal and archetypal essence of existing thing, seeing what is hidden for mortal nature (Vit. Mos. 1.158).

Here Exod. 20.21, 'Moses went into die darkness where God was', is paraphrased togedier with the word 'god' which is applied to Moses in Exod. 7.1: 'See, I make you as God to Pharaoh' (cf. 4.16: 'as God to him [Aaron]')."' Moses' ascent is then the divine confirmadon of his appointment as king {Vit. Mos. 1.163). Philo does not describe any heavenly scene with God's throne and Moses' installadon, however. Instead he elaborates on the word 'darkness' in Exod. 20.21, and states that Moses entered into the realm that is hidden for mortals. In Quaest. in Exod. 2.28 Philo reveals that Moses, the prophetic mind, entered 'the darkness' (Exod. 20.21) and dwelt in the forecourt of die palace of the Father. Thus by die realm hidden for mortals in Vit. Mos. 1.158 Philo meant God's royal premises. It should also be mentioned that in The Mishnah of Rabbi Eliezer (ed. H.G. Enelow [New York: Bloch, 1933], p. 150), Moses grasped the throne when he entered the darkness where God was (Exod. 20.21). Biblical Persons, Humanity,

Israel

Above, passages about the ascents of the biblical persons Enoch, Abraham, Moses and Elijah have been analysed. Philo has at times referred to them as persons without making a distinction between soul and body and without allegorizing them in an explicit and extensive way: Quaest. in Exod. 1.86; Virt. 7 2 - 7 5 ; Vit. Mos. 1.158; Leg. Gai. 75. At odier places the stories are spiritualized and materialized. Thus Moses is in Migr. Abr. 169-71 understood to be 'the soul' (V^XTI). 45. See Meeks. The Prophet-King, pp. 110-11 and 192-95. widi references to die use of main elements of the same tradidon about Moses being 'God' and his ascent in ran/i., ed. Buber, 4.51ff., Num. R. 15.13, cf. Pes. R. Piska 32. 198b. etc.; P. Borgen. 'Philo of Alexandria', pp. 267-68.


265

and the ascent is related to the area of wealth, holding office, and the like, as well as to the arguments of the sophists. Also in Poster. C. 1 4 15 Moses is understood to be 'the soul' (viixn)- In Op. Mund. 69-71 Philo interprets Gen. 1.26, 'the image of God', as the human 'mind' and 'soul'. The material in Philo is thus varied. At times he spiritualizes the ascent, as stated by Halperin. At other times he materializes the ascent, however, and at times he just deals with the biblical persons as persons.** In various ways the ascents of biblical persons serve as paradigm for others or reveals teachings to others: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

As for Gen. 5.24 about Enoch, in Quaest. in Gen. 1.86 the term 'translation' is not only applied to Enoch's ascent, but it means also that ' . . . t h e end of worthy and holy men is not death, but translation and approaching another place'. Thus, Enoch's (Moses', and Elijah's) translation without death serves as model for the translation of holy individuals after death. In the Song of Moses, Virt. 73-75, Moses sang his canticles with every kind of harmony and symphony in order that humans and ministering angels should listen. From this human beings, as disciples, should learn from him the lesson of the same kind of dianksgiving. According to Migr. Abr. 168-75 die ascents of Abraham and Moses show diat the one who 'has been exalted to such highsoaring height will no longer suffer any parts of his soul to have their converse down below among things mortal, but will draw them all up with him as if hanging on a rope'. Having perceived the 'invisible and incorporeal archetypal essence of existing things', Moses, being god and king, so models his life after it that he becomes a paradigm for those who are willing to copy it, Vit. Mos. 1.158. As king destined also to be legislator, he was a living and articulate law, Vit. Mos. 1.162. In several places Philo tells about ascent without connecting it with any particular persons. Thus, in Op. Mund. 69-71 it is tiie soul, as the image of God, that ascends. In Spec. Leg. 1.36-38 for 'those who have not taken a mere sip of philosophy' tiie reason is lifted up. According to Spec. Leg. 2.44-45

46. Halperin. 'Ascension or Invasion', pp. 51-52.

266

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

'all who practise wisdom', 'while tiieir bodies are firmly planted on the land, they provide their souls with wings so tiiat tiiey may traverse tiie etiier...' In Spec. Leg. 2.229-30 Philo writes that parents in the up-bringing of their children cultivate their souls by encyclical education and philosophy which lift the mind and escort it to heaven, creating a longing for the ever-harmonious order. Philo even interprets the sacrificial acts as symbol of ascent: when offering die whole burnt-offering, the washing of die 'feet' (Lev. 1.9) means that one's steps should no longer be on earth but should travel togedier with die edier. For the soul of die lover of God leaps from earth to heaven {Spec. Leg. 1.207; Cf. Spec. Leg. 2.45 and Congr. 103-105). Although this survey of relevant material in Philo's writings is not complete, tiie passages examined make evident that the motif of ascent is understood in a variety of ways. Particular biblical persons have experienced ascents by being brought up to the divine sphere by God, and they form patterns and teach human beings in general; men and women (Sarah, Ebr. 60-62) search upwards in education, and in ecstatic inspiration long for seeing God. Persons are seen as ascending by soul and mind, as well as die ascent by vision. Ascent is presented as biblical exegesis, as autobiographical report, and as a description of the monastic group of the Therapeutae. Thus the motif of ascent is present as experience, as hermeneutical key and paradigm. Against this background it is not surprising that Philo understands the people of Israel to be the nation that ascends to God, since Philo regards the Israelites as the true human beings.'" Although die ascent as such is not elaborated upon in Spec. Leg. 2.166, the motif is present. In Spec. Leg. 2.164 Philo offers criticism of polytheism, and in §165 he says that both Greeks and barbarians recognize God, the creator, but combined with polytheism. Then he writes: When they went wrong in what was the most vital matter of all. it is the literal mith that the error which the rest committed was corrected by die nation of die Jews, which soared above all created objects... and chose the service only of die Uncreated and Eternal...

In Deus Imm. 145-51 the ascent of die Jewish nation is specified as a journey in Philo's interpretation of Num. 20.17: 'We will pass by 47. Cf. Borgen, 'Philo of Alexandria', pp. 266-67.


267

through your land/earth'. This is understood to mean passing by the things of earth: wealth, glory, and the rest. 'These are the great ventures of an Olympic and heavenly soul, which has left the earthly region, has been drawn upwards, and dwells with divine natures' ( § 1 5 1 ) . 'Divine natures' are in Migr. Abr. 1 1 5 understood to be the angels. The soul is not understood in an individualistic way in Deus Imm. 1 5 1 , however, but it refers to the Jewish nation: 'in the school of Moses it is not one man only [Socrates, § 1 4 6 - 4 7 ] who may boast that he has learnt the first element of wisdom, but a whole nation, a most populous people' ( § 1 4 8 ) . In contrast to the invasion into divinity by the emperor Gains when he claimed to be god {Leg. Gai. 7 5 ) , the true ascent of the Jewish nation is presented in Leg. Gai. 4 - 5 : Now this race is called in die Hebrew tongue Israel, but expressed in our tongue, die word is 'he diat sees God'... souls whose vision has soared above all created diings...

Sumrtiary In Quaest. in Gen. 1.86, Mut. Nom. 3 8 and Sacr. 8 - 1 0 Philo gives an early documentation of traditions about the assumptions of Enoch, Moses and Elijah, meaning that they entered the heavenly realm widiout experiencing death. These traditions were widespread within Judaism, as evidenced by passages in Josephus's writings, apocalyptic writings, the New Testament and rabbinic writings. Although Philo has his place within this Jewish setting, he also reflects Platonic influence in his formulations. Op. Mund. 6 9 - 7 1 has many points of parallels and agreements witii rabbinic and apocalyptic writings on the one hand as well as on the other hand Platonic, Stoic and Hellenistic astrological sources. The penetration of Greek ideas is found in rabbinic and apocalyptic writings and even more extensively in Philo's text. In Spec. Leg. 3.Iff. Philo tells about his own inspired ascent in a way similar to the description of the ascent in Op. Mund. 7 0 . Philo does not hesitate adding his own inspiration and ascent to the ascents of the biblical persons, such as Enoch, Moses and Elijah. His inspired and prophetic exegesis of the Laws of Moses shows affinity with the revelatory use of Scripture in apocalyptic writings. Several of Philo's texts fit togetiier with Himmelfarb's characterization of the apocalypses in her article 'Heavenly A s c e n t . . . ' , cited

268

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

above: the heroes are taken to heaven at God's command. Thus they ascend without meeting evil forces. At several places Philo pictures the ascent against the opposing idea of invasion of heaven, or in a more general way against the opposing idea of corrupt behaviour against God's Laws. The material on ascent in Philo is extensive and varied. Often the biblical persons serve as paradigm for others or reveal teachings to others. Since ascent in this way is not only the experience of heavenly journeys by biblical and other persons, but also serves as a paradigm, it is not surprising that Philo understands the people of Israel to be the nation that ascends to God. The true ascent of the Jewish nadon has as contrast die invasion into divinity by die emperor Gains. Philo's ascent texts have closer affinides to the ascent stories in some rabbinic texts and in apocalypdc writings than to the ascents as pictured in the hekhalot literature and in gnostic writings. Philo provides interesting background perspectives for the New Testament, especially for die Revelation of John.

RESURRECTION AS GIVING BACK THE DEAD: A TRADITIONAL IMAGE OF RESURRECTION IN THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA AND THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN Richard

Bauckham

I The relationship between the Apocalypse of John and the extracanonical Jewish apocalypses has been variously understood. At one extreme are those who see Reveladon as a typical Jewish apocalypse, whose admittedly Chrisdan authorship makes little significant difference,' while at the other extreme are those who distinguish sharply between prophecy and apocalyptic and minimize Revelation's resemblances to die Jewish apocalypses in order to classify it as a Christian prophecy in continuity with Old Testament prophecy.^ This discussion has often not sufficiently recognized the diversity of the Jewish apocalypses, both in themes and in literary forms. Nor has it sufficiendy distinguished the various dimensions of Revelation's possible relationship to 1. J. Massyngberde Ford {Revelation [AB, 38; New York: Doubleday. 1975]) offers one version of the view, which was more popular in a past era of source criticism, diat Revelation in fact originated as a Jewish apocalypse (among the followers of John die Baptist, according to Ford), to which some Christian additions have been made. The rather common view diat Revelation is 'more Jewish than Christian' (cf. R. Bultmann's famous statement: 'The Chri.stianity of Revelation has to be termed a weakly christianized Judaism* [Theology of the New Testament, U (London: SCM Press, 1955), p. 175]) rests on the untenable presupposition that early Christianity was somediing different from Judaism, whereas in fact first-century Christianity was a distinctive form of Judaism. 2. Most recendy. F.D. Mazzaferri. The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective (BZNW. 54; Berlin: de Gruyter. 1989). His case for Revelation's continuity with OT prophecy is excellent, but unfortunately his account of Jewish apocalyptic is a caricature. E. SchUssler Fiorenza {The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], ch. 5) righdy refuses the alternative of prophecy or apocalyptic.

270

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

them. Thus one could ask whether John is indebted to Jewish apocalyptic for the literary forms he uses, for theological ideas, for symbolic images, for the ways in which he interprets Old Testament Scriptures. In each of these aspects he may be more or less distinctive while also being indebted to apocalyptic tradition. His distinctiveness may be comparable to that of one Jewish apocalypse in relation to others' or it m.ay come out of his deliberately Christian prophetic consciousness and message. We should probably reckon with both types of distinctiveness. One aspect of Revelation's relationship to the Jewish apocalypses that has been little enough explored is Revelation's use of specific items of apocalyptic tradition that also appear in Jewish apocalypses and sometimes also in later Christian apocalypses. Where these have been noticed they have often been taken to show that John was actually borrowing from a particular Jewish apocalyptic work, such as / Enoch.* Although it is a priori quite likely that John had read some of the Jewish apocalypses diat we know, it seems to me impossible to prove his specific literary dependence on any such work. The U-aditions in question usually turn out to be attested in a variety of works, Jewish and Christian, in such a way tiiat a chain of literary dependence is very difficult to reconsUnct, and it seems more plausible to think of u-aditions that were known, independendy of their use in particular apocalypses, in circles, Jewish and Christian, diat studied and produced apocalyptic literatiire. One such u-adition, which occurs in Revelation, will be studied in this chapter.' It is a way of describing the general resurrection, which in Rev. 20.13a takes tfiis form: 'And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them'. The study of the U-adition to which Rev. 20.13a belongs will not only illuminate this verse's relationship to that tradition and illusttate

3. 1 point out some rarely noted differences between Reveladon and die major Jewish apocalypses in R.J. Bauckhem, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Boole of Revelation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 1993), pp. 174-77. 4. E.g. R.H. Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St John (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 1920). I. pp. Ixv. Ixxxii-lxxxiii; and for discussion, cf. Mazzaferri, Genre, pp. 48-49. 5. I deal with other examples in The Climax of Prophecy, ch. 2.1 show Revelation'sextensive allusions to traditions about the messianic war in The Climax of Prophecy, ch. 8.

BAUCKHAM Resurrection as Giving Back the Dead

271

Revelation's use of apocalyptic traditions. It will also be a contribution to the study of ideas of resurrection in early Judaism and early Christianity. For most Jews and Christians, including most of those who wrote the extant literature, such ideas were embodied in conventional ways of speaking about resurrection: words, phrases, images, and scriptural allusions. Some of these, such as the image of resurrection as a waking from sleep, are well-known. But study of the full range of conventional ways of speaking of resurrection in the literature of this period has only begun.* It is important that it be pursued if we are to advance our understanding of the context in which the New Testament writers spoke of resurrection. In this chapter, we shall explore one traditional image of resurrection: that of the place of the dead giving back the dead. II In diis section I present the collection of texts tiiat will be discussed in die rest of die chapter: A. 7 Enoch

5\.\:

And in those days the earth will return diat which has been entrusted to it. and Sheol will return that which has been entrusted to it, that which it has received, and desuiicdon [Abaddon] will return what it owes.'

6. Significant studies of the language of resurrection include M.E. Dahl, The Resurrection of the Body (SBT 36; London: SCM Press, 1962), pp. 98-100, 12125; C F . Evans. Resurrection and the New Testament (SBT. 2/12; London: SCM Press. 1970), pp. 20-27; J.F.A. Sawyer, 'Hebrew Words for the Resurrection of die Dead', VT 23 (1973), pp. 218-34; J. Chmiel. 'Semantics of die Resurrection', in E.A. Livingstone (ed.). Studia Biblica 1978.1. Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes (JSOTSup, II; Sheffield: JSOT Press. 1979). pp. 59-64. 7. Trans. M.A. Knibb. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). p. 135. E. Isaac (in OTP, I, p. 36) prefers a form of die Ediiopic text widi only two main clauses: In dwse days. Sheol will return all die deposits which she had received and hell [Abaddon] will give back all which it owes. Isaac discusses the textual variants in this verse in 'New Light upon the Book of Enoch from Newly-Found Ethiopic MSS', JAOS 103 (1983). p. 408. where he

272


Interpretation

B. 4 Ezra 7.32: Et tena reddet qui in earn dormiunt et pulvis qui in eo silendo habitant et promptuaria reddent quae eis commendatae sunt animae. And die earth shall give back diose who sleep in it, and die dust those who dwell silendy in it, and die chambers shall give back die souls which have been committed to diem

C. Revelation

20.13:

KOI e8(0Kev f) GdXaooa xow; veKpowi; xo\><; ev ouTfj, Koi 6 GovoTO? Koi 6 "AiSii; eStoKtv tov? veKpovi; TOU? ev awtoi?... And die sea gave up the dead which were in it. And Deadi and Hades gave up die dead which were in them...

D. Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 3.10: . . . Et vivificabo mortuos, et erigam dormientes de terra. Et reddet infemus debitum suum et perditio restituet paratecen suam... . . . And I will give life to the dead, and raise from die earth diose who sleep, and Sheol will give back what it owes, and Abaddon will restore what has been enuiisted to it... E.2BarMc/i21.23: Therefore, reprove the angel of deadi. and let your glory appear, and let the greamess of your beauty be known, and let die realm of deadi [Sheol] be sealed so diat it may not receive die dead from diis dme, and let the treasuries of die souls restore diose who are enclosed in them.*

argues diat die diree-clause form of die text is a secondary scribal harmonization widi 4 Ezra 7.32 (our text B). However, die diree-clause form of die text of / £«. 51.1 is closer to LAB 3.10 (our text D). widi which it shares the same diree terms for die place of the dead (die earth, Sheol, Abaddon). Since LAB is not extant in Ediiopic. this correspondence cannot have originated within the Ethiopic textual tradition. Therefore most probably die diree-clause form of die text of / £>i. 51.1 is original. 8. Trans. A.F.J. Klijn, in OTP, I, p. 628.

BAUCKHAM Resurrection as Giving Back the Dead F. Apocalypse

273

of Peter 4 . 3 - 4 :

He will command Gehenna to open its gates of steel and to give back all who are in it. "He will command die beasts and die birds to give back all the flesh diat diey have eaten, because he wills diat (all) humankind appear...' G . Apocalypse

of Peter 4 . 1 0 - 1 2 :

'"See and understand die seeds that are sown, dry and lifeless, upon die ground, and come to life and bear fruit' 'The eardi gives back as it were the deposit widi which it has been enuvsted. That which dies is the seed that is sown upon the ground, and comes to life, and is given for Ihe life of humankind. '^How much more, on the day of judgment will God raise up diose who believe in him, and his elect for whose sake he made (die world).'"

H. Apocryphal quotation in Tertullian, De Resurrectione

32.1:

Et mandabo piscibus maris et eructuabunt ossa quae sunt comesta. et faciam compaginem ad compaginam et os ad os. And I will command die fish of die sea. and they shall vomit up die bones that were consumed. and I will bring joint to joint and bone to bone.

I. 2 Baruch 4 2 . 8 : And dust will be called, and told, 'Give back dial which does not belong to you and raise up all that you have kept undl its own time'."

9. Trans. J. Hills. This ttanslation of the Ediiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter, which I use by permission of the U-anslator, will be published in A. Yarbro Collins and M. Himmelfarb (eds.). New Testament Apocrypha, II (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press), forthcoming. 10. Trans. J. Hills. The idea of die earth giving back the dead also occurs in the Ethiopic version of 4.13 ('On die day of judgment die earth will give back all diings...'), but has probably been intfoduced here by die Ethiopic translator. It does not occur in the original Greek of this verse which has survived in a quotation in Macarius Magnes, Apocritica 4.6.16 (T) -fy icapaotriaei xavta? 6e^ ev tmepot Xpicew?...). 11. Trans. A.F.J. Klijn, in OTP, I. p. 634.

274

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

J. 2 Baruch 50.2: For Ihe earth will surely give back the dead at that Ume; it receives diem now in order to keep diem, not changing anydiing in their form. But as it has received them so it will give them back And as I have delivered diem to it so it will raise diem.'^

K. 4 Ezra 4.41b-43a: In inferno prompUiaria animarum matrici adsimilala sunt. *^Quemadmodum enim fesdnavit quae parii effugere necessitatem partus, sic et haec fesdnat reddere ea quae commendata sunt "'ab inido. The chambers of die souls in Sheol are like die womb. "•^For just as a woman in travail hastens to escape die pains of childbirth, so also do diese places hasten to give back what has been entrusted to them ^'from the beginning.

L. Pseudo-Philo, Uber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum 33.3:

. . . infemus accipiens sibi dcposila non resUtuet nisi reposcetur ab eo qui deposuit e i . . . Sheol which has received what has been enuiisted to it will not restore it unless it is reclaimed by him who entrusted it to it...

M. Midrash on Psalms 1.20 (on Ps. 1.4): R. Berechiah taught: It was the wilderness which said, / am the rose of Sharon [Song 2.1]: 'I am the one beloved by die Holy One, blessed be He, for all the good things of the world are hidden widiin me, and God has bestowed his blessing upon me, for He said, / will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the Shitlah tree, and the myrtle, and the oil-tree; I will set in the desert the fir-tree, and the pine, and the box-tree together [Isa. 41.10]. And when die Holy One, blessed be He, requires it of me, I shall return to God what He laid away widi me, and I shall again blossom as the rose, and shall sing a song to Him, for it is said. The wilderness and the parched land shall be glad: and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose' [Isa. 35.1]. The Rabbis taught that it was die earth which said / am the rose of Sharon: 'I am the beloved one in whose shadows all the dead of Ihe world are hidden. But when the Holy One, blessed be He, requires it of

12. Trans. A.F.J. Klijn, in OTP, I, p. 638.


275

me, I shall return to Him what He laid away with me, as it is said Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise—Awake and sing ye that dwell in the dust [Isa. 26.19], and I will blossom as dte rose, and sing a song to God, as it is said From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs: "Glory to the Righteous" [Isa. 24.16]."

N. Midrash Rabbah on the Song of Songs 2.1 §2: R. Berekiah said: This verse [Song 2.1] is spoken by die wilderness. Said the wilderness: 'I am the wilderness, and beloved am I, for all the good things of the world are hidden in me, as it says, / will plant in the wilderness the cedar, die acacia tree [Isa. 41.19]; God has placed diem in me for safe keeping, and when God requires diem from me, I shall return to Him His deposit unimpaired. I also shall blossom with good deeds, and chant a song before Him, as it says. The wilderness and the parched land shall be glad [Isa. 35.1 ]'. In the name of the Rabbis it was said: This verse is said by die land [of Israel]. It says: *I am it, and I am beloved, since all die dead are hidden in me. as it says. 77iy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise [Isa. 26.19]. When God shall require diem from me I shall return them to Him. and I shall blossom fordi with good deeds like a rose, and chant a new song before Him. as it says. From the uttermost parts of the earth have we heard songs' [Isa. 24.16].'*

O. Pirqe de R. Eliezer §34: Rabbi Ishmael said: All die bodies crumble into the dust of die earth, undl nothing remains of the body except a spoonful of earthy matter. In the future life, when die Holy One. blessed be He, calls to the earth to return all the bodies deposited with it, that which has become mixed with the dust of the earth, like the yeast which is mixed widi die dough, improves and increases, and it raises up all die body. When die Holy One, blessed be He. calls to the earth to return all die bodies deposited widi it. diat which has become mixed with the dust of the earth, improves and increases and raises up all die body widiout water."

13. Trans. W.G. Braude. The Midrash on Psalms, I (New Haven: Yale University Press. 1959), pp. 28-29. Braude's note explains the first paragraph as referring to the generation that died in the wilderness wanderings and were buried in the desert, but another possibility is suggested by I En. 61.5. quoted and discussed in section IV below. 14. Trans. M. Simon in H. Freedman and M. Simon (eds.), Midrash Rabbah, IX (London: Soncino Press. 1939), p. 92. 15. Trans. G. Friedlander, Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (New York: Sepher-Hermon, 2nd edn, 1965), p. 258.

276

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

P. Pesiqta Rabbati 21.4: Another comment [on Ps. 76.9]: R. Phinehas taught in the name of R. Johanan: If the earth is said to have feared, why stilH And if still, why feared! The explanation of the earth's fear is in what the earth said: 'It may be diat the dme of the resurrection of die dead has come and die Holy One, blessed be He, requires of me what He has deposited widi me, as it is written. The earth also shall disclose her blood and shall no more cover her slain' [Isa. 26.21]. But then when she heard God say /, she grew still.'*

Q. b. Sanh. 92a: R. Tabi said in R. Josia's name: What is meant by. The grave; and the barren womb; and the earth that is not filled by water [Prov. 30.16]: now, what connection has die grave widi die womb? But it is to teach thee: just as the womb receives and brings forth, so does die grave too receive and bring forth. Now, does not this furnish us with an a fortiori argument? If die womb, which receives in silence, yet brings forth amid great cries [of jubiliation]; then die grave, which receives the dead amid cries [of grief], will much more so bring them forth amid great cries [of joy]!"

Ill It will be useful to preface our consideration of the texts given in section 11 with a brief distinction between two basic ideas of resurrection in Jewish tradition, which we may call unitary and dualistic. The simplest and doubtless the earliest Jewish notion of resurrection was that the dead would return from the place of the dead to life on earth. This presupposed the existence of the dead as shades in Sheol and imagined these shades returning from Sheol to real life. Because ancient Israelite thought made no sharp distinctions between Sheol and the grave or between the dead person in Sheol and the body in the grave, such distinctions did not belong to the original notion of resurrection. The dead person was conceived as returning from Sheol and of course resuming a fully corporeal existence, but this did not necessarily mean that the shade from Sheol was reunited with his or her corpse, resuscitated from the grave. Since death was not conceived as

16. Trans. W.G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati, I (Yale Judaica Series. 18; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), p. 419. 17. Trans. H. Freedman in I. Epstein (ed.). The Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin (London: Soncino Press. 1935), p. 618.


111

the separation of the person from his or her body, but as the death of the bodily person, so resurrection was not the reunion of person and body, but the resurrection of the bodily person. The notion is not the resurrection of the body so much as the bodily resurrection of the dead. Reflection on and apologetic defence of this idea could easily produce a more dichotomous anthropology in which death is seen as the separation of the shade diat descends to Sheol from the body diat is laid in the grave, and resurrection is therefore understood as the reunion of the two. Such a development is quite comprehensible even witiiout Hellenistic influence, though Hellenistic influence may have had some part to play in it. In any case, the dualism implied in this is not a truly Greek dualism, but preserves in its own way tiie Jewish conviction that human life is essentially corporeal. If the shade and its body are sharply distinguished in death, then precisely because the body is integral and essential to die person's life, a return to life must mean the return of the body to life just as much as the return of the shade to life. It must mean the reunion of shade and body in restored bodily life. When the words soul or spirit are used in this conception to refer to the shade in Sheol," they should not be taken in the fully Platonic sense of the real person who never dies but escapes from the body into eternal life. Bodi die soul in Sheol and the body in the grave are dead—both come back to life in the resurrection when they are reunited. The more soul and body were distinguished in death, die more it was necessary to preserve the Jewish unitary view of human life by insisting that this earthly body is raised to eternal life." While the older view was content to think of the dead returning (of course, to bodily life), many Jews and Christians of the first and second centuries CE increasingly insisted on the resurrection (as well as, of course, transformation) of this body which has been buried in the grave. They did not all do so, but often it was precisely those who were most aware of Hellenistic antiiropological dualism who guarded against it by stressing the resurrection of this body, and who entered on a rather detailed apologetic for this somewhat difficult notion. However, what we need especially to recognize in the present 18. For the usage of these terms, see D.S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: SCM Press. 1964), pp. 357-60. 19. Of course, there were also forms of Jewish expectation that did not expect bodily resurrection: e.g. Jubilees, Wisdom.

278

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

context is that older ways of thinking and speaking of resurrection, simply as the return of the dead from Sheol, persisted alongside newer, more dualistic ideas of a reunion of soul and body. The former were enshrined in various traditional ways of speaking about resurrection, of which the tradition we shall study was one. It is probably correct to suppose that many writers had not so much a concept of resurrection, but rather a number of conventional ways of speaking of resurrection. Older and newer ways of speaking of resurrection were not necessarily perceived as contradictory and both could be used by the same writer. Armed with these preliminary observations we may be better able to appreciate the tradition embodied in the series of texts collected in section II, whose basic image of resurrection is that the place of the dead will give back the dead. With the exception of the rabbinic texts (M-Q), in which the tradition survives at later dates, all of the texts given (A-L) probably date from the period c. 50-150 CE. However, we should remember that this is a period from which a great deal of Jewish and Chrisdan apocalypdc literature survives. It may be an accident of the survival of sources that the tradidon is not attested earlier.^" In any case, it seems clear that the recurrence of this tradidon in a variety of Jewish and Chrisdan works cannot be explained purely by literary relationships among these works.^' We must be dealing widi a rather widespread traditional formula. Since a great deal of Jewish thinking about resurrection seems to have derived from reflection on Old Testament texts that could be interpreted as referring to resurrection, it is possible that our tradition originated as a paraphrase of tiie end of Isa. 26.19 ('tiie earth will cast forth the shades', or 'tiie earth will give birtii to tiie shades'). Apart from Isa. 26.21, if this is interpreted of resurrection, Isa. 26.19 is the only Old Testament text that makes the place of the dead (here

20. Therefore it is rather doubtful whedier die correspondence between / En. 51.1 and examples of our uadition in 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra and LAB can itself be taken as an indication of a latefirst-centuryCE date for die Parables of Enoch, as G. Stemberger (Der Leib der Auferstehung: Studien zur Anthropologic und Eschatologie des paldstinischen Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter [ca. 170 v. Chr—100 n. Chr.l [AnBib, 56; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972], p. 29) proposes. 21. M. Black (77ie Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition [SVTP. 7; Leiden: Brill. 1985]. p. 214) regards LAB 3.10 as 'a clear allusion' to / En. 51.1, but die full range of parallels makes common tradition at least as likely.


279

the earth) the subject of the act of resurrection, just as our tradition does. Modem scholarship usually takes "j'sn to mean 'will give birth to' (lit. let [the young] drop). The earth gives birth to the dead who are at present in her womb. This image of resurrection as birth is rare in later Jewish literature, but texts K (4 Ezra 4.41-42) and text Q {b. Sanh. 92a) both compare the place of the dead with the womb and the act of resurrection with childbirth. Isa. 26.19 may lie behind these passages. It is worth nodng that text Q (included at the end of our collection of texts because it uses the idea, though not the actual language of giving back the dead) understands childbirth as a matter of giving back what has been received. Just as the womb receives and brings forth, so the grave receives die dead and brings them fordi. However, if our tradition originated from interpretation of Isa. 26.19, the Jewish reader of Isa. 26.19 who originated it missed or did not appreciate the image of childbirth. Instead, he paraphrased the last three words of the verse in terms of a legal metaphor: 'the earth will retum that which has been entrusted to i t ' . " This statement occurs in tills form in text A (/ £n. 51.1), which may well preserve die most original form of our tradition, and the same idea recurs in many of our texts (see texts B , D, G, I, K, L, M, O, P). The full legal terminology is clearest in text L (LAB 33.3). The idea is that God has entrusted tiie dead to the place of the dead for safekeeping. The place of the dead does not therefore own them, but owes them to God and must return them when he reclaims them at the time of the resurrection. The point of the metaphor is diat Sheol has no absolute right to the dead, as though it could retain diem for ever. It has only a temporary right, a kind of custodianship of die dead, granted it by God. The deadactiially belong to God; he entrusts tiiem to Sheol for safekeeping, but retains the right to reclaim diem. The idea dierefore represents a powerful step beyond the old idea that in death a person falls out of the sphere of God's sovereignty into the power of Sheol. The metaphor of G o d ' s entmsting the dead to Sheol for safekeeping is an assertion of God's sovereignty over die realm of the dead, and therefore of his power to demand that Sheol surrender the dead back to life. The three lines of text A (7 £n. 51.1) repeat the same thought in synonymous parallelism. The three terms ' e a r t h ' , ' S h e o l ' and 22. The same legal metaphor is used differendy in the idea that a person's soul is entrusted to him or her by God and must be returned at deadi: C t Apoc. Ezra 6.3, 17. 2\;Apoc. Sedr. 9.2; Hermas. Mand. 3.2.

280

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

'Abaddon' are used synonymously for the place of the dead. The thought of the whole verse is simply that the place of the dead will give back the dead who have been entrusted to it. Some have interpreted this text (as well as other texts in our collection) according to the dualistic understanding of resurrection, according to which the body must be recovered from one place, the soul from another, in order to be reunited. The earth restores the body, Sheol and Abaddon die soul. But in that case one would have expected two lines radier than diree. R.H. Charles diought diat Sheol and Abaddon represent two different places from which the righteous and die wicked souls respectively come;^' but diere is no evidence of such a distinction between the terms Sheol and Abaddon in Jewish literature.^* In Old Testament texts they occur in synonymous parallelism as alternative terms for tiie place of die dead (Job 26.6; cf. Prov. 15.11; 27.20; IQH 3.19). It is best to interpret die whole verse in continuity with Old Testament thought, according to which the dead person is in the earth or Sheol or Abaddon.^' The personification of die place of die dead is also rooted in Old Testament usage (e.g. Job 24.19; 28.22; Isa. 5.14). Comparison of text A (7 £n. 51.1) with the following texts (B-E) shows that there was a traditional formulation, whose basic structure is three lines of synonymous parallelism expressing the thought that the place of the dead will give back the dead. The persistence of the direefold form indicates that in none of these cases are we likely to be justified in distinguishing a place of the body and a place of the soul: the idea expressed in diis form remains die simple one of the return of the dead. The various terms for the place of the dead that are used in these texts can be understood, largely from an Old Testament background, as synonyms for Sheol. As well as the diree terms for die place of the dead in text A (7 En. 51.1)—die earth, Sheol, Abaddon—which recur exactiy in text D and two of which recur individually in some other texts (earth: texts B, D, G, M, N, O, P; Sheol/Hades: texts: C, E, L), tiie following terms are also u.sed in these texts to describe the place or the power that gives 23. R.H. Charles. The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2nd edn. 1912). p. 99. 24. Stemberger. Leib der Auferstehung, p. 46. In Asc. Isa. 10.8. Abaddon is die lowest part of die underworld, below Sheol. but there is no indicadon that it contains a disdnct class of die dead. 25. For the earth as synonymous with Sheol, see 1 Sam. 28.13.


281

back the dead: die dust (texts B, I), die chambers or treasuries of die souls (texts B, E, K), die sea (text C), Deadi (text C), die angel of deadi (text E), and Gehenna (text F). The last is surprising, especially since the text refers to die iron gates which are elsewhere those of Sheol/Hades,^* and must be understood as die Ethiopic translation's rendering of Hades in the original Greek of the Apocalypse of Peter}'' This is confirmed by Sib. Or. 2.228-29 (quoted in section IV below), which is dependent on this verse of the Apocalypse of Peter and refers to 'die gates of Hades'. The references in texts F and H to animals that are commanded to give back die dead will be left aside now for discussion in section IV. Of the remaining terms, 'die dust* is used as in Isa. 26.19 and Dan. 12.2, two key passages for the Jewish concept of resurrection, as well as in otiier Old Testament passages (e.g. Job 17.16; 20.11; Pss. 22.29; 30.10), for die place of die dead. 'The angel of deadi' in text E (2 Bar. 21.23) may be Abaddon, who is 'die angel of die abyss' in Rev. 9.11. The personification of Abaddon in Job 28.22 could have led to die idea that he is the angel in charge of the underworld and therefore the angelic power to whom God entrusts the dead. In Rev. 20.13 the diree places of die dead are the sea, Death and Hades. The personified Death may be this author's substitute for Abaddon, since he has used the latter name for the king of the demons (rather dian die ruler of die dead) in 9.11 (cf. also 4QBer» 2.7). Deadi and Hades are a standard pair in Revelation (1.18; 6.8; 20.13-14; cf. also LAB 3.10b) and may represent tiie Old Testament pair Sheol and Abaddon, diough tiiere is also Old Testament precedent for the pair Death and Sheol (Hos. 13.14). More problematic is die sea. It is not plausible to introduce a distinction between body and soul into this verse, so diat sea is die place from which die bodies of diose who have died at sea are recovered, while Death and Hades surrender tiieir souls.^* In diis case, the earth as the place where the bodies of other

26. Isa. 38.10; Wis. 16.13; 3 Mace. 5.51; Pss. Sol. 16.2; Mt. 16.18; cf. Ps. 107.16; OdM 17.10. 27. Cf. D.D. Buchholz. Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Creek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter (SBLDS. 97; AUanta: Scholars Press, 1988). p. 293. 28. J. Dani61ou (The Theology of Jewish Christianity (u-ans. J. A.Baker; London: Danon. Longman & Todd; Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1964]. pp. 24-25) suggests that according to die original text of 4 (5) Ezra 2.31 God will bring the dead from die 'depdis of the earth' and 'the depdis of die sea'; but diis reconstruction of

282


Interpretation

people are to be found would surely have to be mentioned too. But in any case, the object of both clauses is 'the dead' (xov? vcKpow?). The language is clearly not intended to disdnguish soul and body, but simply to speak of the retum of die dead. There seem then to be two possible explanations for die reference to the sea. It may be die place for a special category of the dead: those who have died at sea.^' Whereas those who are buried in the eardi are thought of as being in Sheol/Hades, diose who die at sea are diought of as being in die subterranean ocean. But diere seems to be no other evidence for this distinction." So more probably, and in die light of several Old Testament passages which closely associate the subterranean ocean with Sheol (e.g. 2 Sam. 22.5-6; Job 26.5; Ps. 69.15; Jon. 2), die sea is here simply another synonym for Sheol. Thus Rev. 20.13 preserves the synonymous parallelism exhibited by the tradition as found elsewhere. There remains the term 'the chambers of die souls'. This term occurs frequendy in 4 Ezra, twice in 2 Baruch (21.23; 30.2), once in Pseudo-Philo {LAB 32.13; cf. 21.9), and occasionally in die Rabbis, to designate the place where the righteous dead await die resurrection {LAB 15.5 also speaks of the 'chambers of darkness' where the wicked are kept). It may have originated as an interpretation of Isa. 2 6 . 2 0 . " Whether or not the original text of 4 Ezra 4.41 (text K) the original text is highly conjectural. Cf. also Sib. Or. 2.233 (quoted in section IV below): but here those who die at sea are only one category of several whose bodies are destroyed widiout burial. 29. Charles {Revelation, II, pp. 195-96) diinks diis is die meaning of die present text, though he considers die original text to have read tot tajieio rather than f) BdXaooa. 30. Cf. H.B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St John (London: Macmillan, 2nd edn, 1907). p. 273; M. Kiddle, The Revelation of St John (MNTC; London: Hodder & Stoughton. 1940), p. 406; G.B. Caird. The Revelation of St John the Divine (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1966), p. 260. These writers depend on a passage in Achilles Tatius (fifdi century CE). cited by Wettstein. to the effect diat those who die at sea have no access to Hades. I do not know die basis for the claim by Ford {Revelation, p. 359). diat *diere was a U-adition diat only diose who died on dry land would rise from die dead'. 31. This is how the chambers (xaneia) of Isa. 26.19 are understood in / Clem. 50.4.whichgivesacompositequotationof Isa. 26.19 and Ezek. 37.12.(Ondiis quotation, see Dani^lou. Theology of Jewish Christianity, p. 95; and idem, 'La vision des ossements dess&hds (Ezech. 37.1-14) dans les testimonia'. RSR 53 [ 1965].pp. 221. 225). That the chambers of Isa. 26.19 are in Sheol could have been concluded by comparison with Prov. 7.27, according to the midrashic technique of g'zlrd sawd.


283

explicitly located the chambers of the souls in Sheol, there can be little doubt that both 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra imply that the chambers are in Sheol. So the phrase 'the chambers of the souls' is another equivalent to Sheol, the place of the dead, at least with reference to the righteous dead. In this context 'souls' need mean no more than the dead in Sheol, the shades. It need not imply the distinction of body and soul in death and resurrection as the reunion of the two. Certainly, this dichotomous view of death and resurrection seems not to be found in 2 Baruch, which can describe the resurrection either as the coming forth of the souls from the chambers (ch. 3 0 ) or as the restoration of the dead by the earth in the same bodily form in which they died (ch. 5 0 ) . These are surely not two distinct aspects of resurrection, but alternative ways of describing the same event: the return of the dead to bodily life. 2 Baruch never speaks of death as the separation of soul and body or of resurrection as the reunion of the two. 4 Ezra, however, does explicitiy speak of death as die separation of soul and body ( 7 . 7 8 , 8 8 - 8 9 , 1 0 0 ) . " Presumably, dierefore, for diis

author resurrection must be the reunion of body and soul, and Stemberger argues that he actually describes it in those terms in 7 . 3 2 (our text B ) , though his use of the traditional formulation hampers him in doing so. According to Stemberger, the first two lines of this text are intended to describe the retum of die body from the earth, the third line the return of die soul from the chambers." He argues that the third line is set apart from the first two by the change from die simple pronoun (qui) to 'the souls which' (animae quae)}* However, it remains more plausible to interpret all three lines as synonymous parallelism, as elsewhere in diis tradition. In each line the author uses a traditional description of the dead which is appropriate to the place of the dead as specified in that line. Thus in the first line, the earth gives back those who sleep in it, because 'those who sleep in the earth' is a traditional description of the dead (Dan. 1 2 . 2 ; 2 Bar. 1 1 . 4 ; 2 1 . 2 4 ) , while in the second line the dust gives back those who dwell silendy in it, because 'those who dwell in the dust' is another ti-aditional description of tiie dead (Isa. 2 6 . 1 9 ; cf. Job 7 . 2 1 ; Dan. 1 2 . 2 ; 32. On 4 Ezra's anthropology, see Stemberger. Leib der Auferstehung, pp. 7981. 33. Stemberger. Leib der Auferstehung, pp. 75, 82. 34. Stemberger. Leib der Auferstehung, p. 74.

284

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

IQH 6.34)." When in the third line the author uses 'souls' to describe the dead, this is not meant to distinguish this line from the first two, but simply to correspond to the conventional phrase 'the chambers of the souls'. When 'the chambers' is used for the place of the dead, the appropriate term for the dead is 'souls', just as when 'the earth' is used for the place of the dead, the appropriate term for the dead is 'those who sleep in it'. Thus 4 Ezra has not broken the rule that the three lines of the traditional form are synonymous, and although the author himself probably understood resurrection as the reunion of soul and body, the language of the traditional form he uses in itself expresses no more than the simple idea of the retum of the dead from die place of the dead. In 4 Ezra 7.32 we see the persistence of the traditional form in a context where it is no longer stricdy appropriate. If diis form is to be interpreted consistendy with a dichotomous view of death and resurrection, it becomes necessary to regard the dead whom Sheol restores as either souls who retum from tiie place of souls or bodies that are brought up from tfieir graves. If tiie audior of 4 Ezra himself interpreted 7.32 in line with his own dichotomous view, he must have taken it to refer to the return of souls rather than bodies. In other writers, however, the language of bringing back the dead was adapted to die dichotomous view in the alternative manner, diat is, it is used of die retum of bodies from dieir graves. This is the case in text Q, a late rabbinic passage, which is clearly concerned with the physical continuity of the old body and the resurrection body, and interprets the traditional language to mean diat the earth receives and restores the corpse. It dierefore exhibits an apologetic concern witii the problem of the decay of the corpse, which is foreign to the older way of speaking represented by die majority of our texts. It is worth noticing that although the rabbis in general held a dichotomous view of death and resurrection, the other rabbinic texts in our collection (N, P, Q) still speak of the earth receiving and restoring the dead, not their bodies. This is a striking example of tiie persistence of conventional language about resurrection. A particularly interesting use of our tradition occurs in 2 Bar. 50.2 (text J). Like Paul in 1 Cor. 15.35, the audior is here concerned to answer die question, 'In what form will tiie dead rise?' (cf. 49.2-3). The answer is a kind of two-stage resurrection: the dead are first 35. For Sheol as a place of silence, cf. Pss. 94.17; 115.17.


285

raised in exactly the form in which they died (50.2) and then transformed into glory. The first stage is necessary so that the dead can be recognized. This seems to be in answer to an apologedc problem that is explicidy raised in rabbinic literature (e.g. Gen. R. 95.1 (on Gen. 46.28); Eccl. R. 1.4 §2): how will it be possible to know diat it is really the dead who are raised? The answer is that they will inidally be recognizable as the same people who died.'* But in order to maintain that the dead will inidally be raised in exactly the form in which they died, 2 Baruch does not, as has often been said," appeal to the nodon of resurrecdon as resuscitation of the corpse. At any rate, die passage need not be read as concerned with the material identity of the body. Essentially what it does is to press the implications of the notion that the place of the dead will restore the dead who were committed to it. In strict law, this legal notion requires that Sheol restore exactly what was entrusted to it. Therefore tiie dead will retum fi-om Sheol exactly as they went to it. Finally in this section, some further observations on the form die tradition takes in our various texts will be appropriate. The tradition appears in its pure form only in texts A and B: three lines, each of which states that the place of the dead will give back the dead who were entmsted to it. Text C (Rev. 20.13) has abbreviated the form: it has three terms for die place of the dead, but couples the last two in one line. It has also dropped the legal metaphor, and with this omission the idea of giving back the dead has receded from prominence. Text D retains the legal metaphor and die same three terms for die place of the dead as are found in text A. However, the first line no longer speaks of the earth returning the dead but of God raising them. This change has probably been made in order to adapt the form to its context here in a divine speech and to emphasize the divine initiative in the act of resurrection. A similar motivation may account for the more drastic modification in text E, which is in the context of a prayer to God. Here the idea of the place of the dead restoring the dead is found only in the last clause, but the three terms (angel of death, Sheol, treasuries of the souls) may indicate that the direefold formula still lies behind diis text. Another group of texts (I-O) do not preserve the threefold formula, but use only one term for the place of the dead. However, 36. For recognition in the resurrection, cf. also LAB 62.9. 37. E.g. Evans. Resurrection and the New Testament, p. 16.

286

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

they employ the same image of resurrection: the place of the dead restores the dead who have been conmiitted to it. It should be noted diat most of the texts in diis group make explicit what die standard formula (found in the threefold form in texts A - E ) does not: that Sheol restores the dead when and because God requires it to do so (texts I, L-P). These texts are evidendy concerned to sttess diat resurrection is God's act. The same concern is found in texts F and H, which also, in referring to animals that have eaten the dead, constitute a special variation of die whole tradition, which raises problems to be considered separately in tiie next section. Text G (Apoc. Pet. 4.10-12) is anomalous in diat the deposit with which the earth is entrusted and returns is here die seeds tiiat are sown in it and grow out of it as plants. The Apocalypse of Peter is using the rather widespread analogy of the sown and sprouting seed for the process of death and resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. 15.36-38; Jn 12.24; 1 Clem. 24.4-5; Justin, 1 Apol. 19.4; 3 Cor. 3.26-27; Theophilus, Ad Autol. 1.13; b. Ket. 11 lb; b. Sanh. 90b; Eccl. R. 5.10 §1; PRE §33)." The two traditions about resurrection are combined in such a way that our tradition retains its original reference—to the earth giving back the dead—only indirecdy, as it were, by way of the seed which is an image for the dead.

IV The two texts F and H in our collection of texts in section II are distinguished from the others by their common use of the idea that God will command animals that have eaten the dead to give back die dead. There are two other texts (7 En. 61.6; Sib. Or. 2.121-Yl) tiiat were not included in die collection in section n because diey do not belong to the tradition represented by that collection, but which do share with texts F and H an interest in die resurrection of the dead diat have been consumed by animals. Since diese will be relevant to our discussion of texts F and H, it will be useful to give them here, along with texts F (extended) and H:

38. The whole of ch. 4 of the Apocalypse of Peter is a collection of tfaditions about resurrection. Although the work itself is Jewish Christian, this collection is of purely Jewish traditions.


287

/ Enoch 61.6: And diese measurements will reveal all the secrets of the depths of die earth, and diose who were destroyed by die desert, and diose who were destroyed by die fish of die sea and by the animals, that they may retum and rely on the day of die Chosen One; for no one will be destroyed before the Lord of Spirits, and no one can be destroyed." Sibylline Oracles 2 . 2 2 7 - 3 7 : Kttl xox' aneiXiKtoio Kai opprjKtow dSonovtoi; KXeiGpa iteXtopa nvX&v xe axaX.Kevxov 'AiSao pTi^djievo? OupifiX, peyai; ayyeXo? evGw paXeixai, KOI ndoo? (lopipdi; itoXwitevGeo? eii; xpioiv oêi eiSwXmv xa jidXioxo jtaXoiYeveoiv Tvxf|v
of Peter 4 . 3 - 5 , 7-8:

He will command Gehenna to open its gates of steel and to give back all who are in it. "He will command the beasts and the birds to give back all the flesh diat they have eaten, because he wills diat (all) humankind appear. 39. 40. 1902). 41.

Trans. Knibb. Enoch, pp. 148-49. Text from J. Geffcken, Die Oracula Sibyllina (GCS, 8: Leipzig: Hinrichs. pp. 38-39. Trans. J.J. Collins in OTP, I. pp. 350-51.

288

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

'For to God nodiing is lost, and nodiing is impossible for him... ' . . . as it says in die scripture: 'Son of man, prophesy over the bones, *and say to each bone, "(Let) bone (be) with bones at dieir joints, and tendons and muscles, flesh and skin, and hair upon it. and soul and spirit"'.''^

Apocryphal quotation in Tertullian, De Resurrectione 32.1: Et mandabo piscibus maris et eructuabunt ossa quae sunt comesta, et faciam compaginem ad compaginam et os ad os. And I will command die fish of die sea, and diey shall vomit up die bones that were consumed, and I will bring joint to joint and bone to bone.

The second of these texts occurs within a passage {Sib. Or. 2.196338) that is largely a poetic paraphrase of the Apocalypse of Peter.*^ The passage quoted is dependent on Apoc. Pet. 4.3-4, 9; 6.7. It is possible that lines 233-37, with tfieir references not only to tfiose eaten by animals, but also to those destroyed by sea and fire, reflect a longer text of Apoc. Pet. 4.4 than is preserved in the Ethiopic version. But Sibylline Oracles 2 frequently expands on its soiffce in tfie Apocalypse of Peter. The relationship of tiie other texts is more problematic. The Apocalypse of Peter has in common with I En. 61.1 not only the reference to animals who have devoured tiie dead (animals and birds in one case, fish and animals in the other), but also an explanatory statement to the effect that God allows none to be permanentiy destroyed: 'For to God nodiing is lost' {Apoc. Pel. 4.5) 'For no one will be destfoyed before die Lord of Spirits' (/ En. 61.1).

The apocryphal quotation tfiat Tertullian cites as Scripture agrees witfi / Enoch against the Apocalypse of Peter in referring to 'the fish of the sea'.*'* But both the Apocalypse of Peter and Tertullian's 42. Trans. J. Hills (see n. 9 above). 43. This was conclusively shown by M.R. James, 'A New Text of the Apocalypse of Peter', JTS 12 (1911), pp. 39-44, 51-52, but is not recognized by Dani^lou, ('La vision des ossements dess&h^s', pp. 224-25) whose study entirely neglects the Apocalypse of Peier, or by Collins in his discussion of sources and redaction in Sib. Or. 2 in OTP, I, pp. 330-33. 44. In the comment which follows the quotation (32.2), Tertullian refers also to 'the odier animals and carnivorous birds'.


289

quotation, unlilce 1 Enoch, state tliat God will command the animals in question to restore what they have eaten, which is in one case said to be flesh and in the other bones (whereas in 1 Enoch the reference is to persons destroyed). This makes it less likely than has usually been thought*' that Tertullian himself or his quotation is directly dependent on 7 £n. 61.1. It is possible that the Apocalypse of Peter is dependent on / En. 61.1 (which would make it the earliest evidence of the existence of the Parables of Enoch), but it remains most likely that all three texts are dependent on a common tradition. In the Apocalypse of Peter this tradition in 4.4 occurs in a form exactly parallel to 4.3 and so becomes a variant of the tradition that die place of die dead will give back the dead. This is also, diough less clearly, the case in Tertullian's quotation (where the more graphic 'vomit up' takes the place of 'give back'). The idea of God commanding the place of the dead to give back the dead is found elsewhere in die texts we have collected in section II (see texts E, I, M, N, O, P). In Tertulhan's quotation the specification that it is 'bones* that are eaten and restored by the fish is appropriate to the last line of the quotation, which alludes to Ezek. 37.7, but in a particular form that is also found in Justin (/ Apol. 52.5: 'Joint shall be joined to joint, and bone to bone, and flesh shall grow again...*).** Botii Tertullian*s quotation and Justin*s (which is attributed to Ezekiel but continues with words from Isa. 45.24) are tiie kind of composite and adapted quotations typical of die early Christian testimonia.*^ At first sight it looks as though Tertullian*s quotation may be dependent on the Apocalypse of Peter, since the latter has not only a parallel to the first two lines of tiie former in 4.4 but also a quotation from Scripture in 4.7-8 that includes words similar to tiie last line of Tertullian's quotation. But diis line is in fact closer to Justin's quotation than it is to Apoc. Pet. 4.7-8,** whereas die latter can now be seen to be, not a 45. E.g. E. Evans, Tertullian's Treatise on the Resurrection (London: SPCK. 1960), p. 266; J. Dani^lou. The Origins of Latin Christianity (trans. J.A. Baker; London: Darton. Longman & Todd; Philadelphia: Wesuninster Press, 1977), pp. 166-67. 46. For later pauistic citations of the text in this form, see Dani^lou. 'La vision des ossements dessdch^s', p. 222. 47. Cf. Dani^lou. 'La vision des ossements dess^chds*. pp. 222-24. 48. O. Skarsaune (The Proof from Prophecy [NovTSup. 56; Leiden: Brill. 1987]. p. 436) suggests diat Justin's lost tteatise De Resurrectione was die source of Tertullian's quotation.

290

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Interpretation

free quotation from canonical Ezekiel, but a more exact quotation from the recently published apocryphal Ezekiel text from Qumran (4Q385 Second Ezekiel" 2.5-7)."' More important than the precise literary relationships are the views of resurrection expressed in these texts. 1 En. 61.5 deals with a problem in the old concept of resurrection as the retum of the dead from Sheol. Since Old Testament thought did not distinguish sharply between the grave and the underworld, those who are in Sheol are those who have been buried. But die question may dien arise: what of diose who are not buried? I En. 61.5 mentions three examples: those who die in the desert where tfiere is none to bury diem, diose who die at sea and are eaten by fish, those who are eaten by wild animals. (Sib. Or. I.l'i6-'yi, perhaps with Christian martyrdoms by burning in mind, adds another such category: those consumed by fire.) Can these people too 'return' and 'rely on the day of the Chosen O n e ' (the day of resurrection)? The author states tiiat they too are in Sheol ('die depths of the earth'). They appear to be desti-oyed, but in God's sight ('before the Lord of Spirits') none can be destroyed. It is noteworthy that although the problem behind diis passage is die desbiiction of the corpse, it deals not with bodies but widi dead people. The people, not just their bodies, were destroyed and are in Sheol, waiting to retum. There is no trace of the concern, to be found in later patristic writers,"* to explain how tiie matter tiiat has been consumed by tfie animals can be recovered and reconstituted as the resurrection body. Both the Apocalypse of Peter and Tertullian's quotation seem concemed (with their references, respectively, to 'flesh' and 'bones') rather with the resurrection of the body as such, whereas the passage in the Sibylline Oracles, despite its dependence on the Apocalypse of Peter, speaks, like I En. 61.5, simply of the dead. Of course, the notion that the animals will retum the flesh or the bones tiiey had devoured could hardly have been intended literally. Tertullian himself, though very much a literalist in his views of resurrection, anticipates die objection that if his quotation be taken literally the animals 49. J. Suugnell and D. Dimant. '4Q Second Ezekiel'. RevQ 13 (1988), pp. 4558. In R. Bauckham, 'A Quotation from 4Q Second Ezekiel in die Apocalypse of Peter', RevQ 15 (1992). pp. 437-45.1 demonsttate in detail diat Ap. Pet. 4.7-8 is a quotation from this work. It may well be die Apocryphon of Ezekiel known to several of the Church Fadiers. 50. E.g. Adienagoras, De Res. 3-7; Augustine, De Civ. Dei 22.12,20.


291

themselves would have to be resurrected first in order to spew up their human victims (De Res. 32.2). Clearly die images in Apoc. Pet. 4.4 and Tertullian's quotation are not meant to explain how the corpses of tiiose consumed by animals could be restored in resurrection; they are simply a vivid means of asserting tiiat tiiey will be.

In conclusion we retum to John's use of the tradition in Rev. 20.13. In the context of an account of the last judgment (20.12-13), the tradition functions to evoke the resurrection of the dead for judgment. Since tiiere is no interest here in the form of resurrection, tiie tradition, which asserted simply that the dead will return from death, served John's purpose well. The tradition's tiiree lines of synonymous parallelism he has reduced to two, making 'Death and Hades' die joint subject of the second verb, but the remaining repetition serves to emphasize tiie universality of resurrection so that all may be judged. It was perhaps because John always refers to 'Death and Hades' together (1.18; 6.8; 20.14) tiiat he wished to keep tiiem together in 20.13, in parallel with 'the sea', but it may also be tiiat he wanted to state tfie resurrection in two clauses in order to make tiie climactic third clause of the sentence tiie statement about tiie judgment. The use of the term 'die sea' for the place of die dead (or probably better understood, in parallel with 'Death and Hades', as the power that holds the dead in death) was probably not in the tradition as John knew it. It reflects his image of the sea as the primeval chaos from which opposition to God derives (13.1). By referring to it in 20.13 he prepares tiie way for the reference to it in 21.1. As Deatii and Hades are destroyed (20.14), so in the new creation there will be no more sea. Thus by varying the tradition's terms for the place of or power over the dead, John has integrated die tradition into his own work.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1-6 1 1.1-3 1.1 1.26 2.1-3 2.2 2.16-17 2.17 3.22-24 5 5.21-24 5.22 5.23-24 5.24

5.28-29 5.29 6 6.1-4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.11-12 8.14

11 39, 174 11.2-4 118, 119, 142 11.4 118 11.6 39, 174, 184 12 12.2 118, 251, 12.10-20 265 121 13.4 14.17-24 119 119 14.18-20 119 14.19 15.6 118 112 15.7 112 15.13-21 15.13-14 100, 107, 112 17.21 37 18.10 100, 107. 18.12 18.14 112.249, 250. 265 18.16 112 20.2-7 21.2 113 22.1-19 55. 106, 235. 238 22.1 37. 103105. 235 22.18 107 24.52-53 106 25.5-6 105. 106. 25.7 189 25.28 105. 107 25.19-26 104 26.31-33 121 27.29

187. 198. 260. 262 197 261 189 187. 198 185. 186 184 185 37 123 186 228 186 188 58 122 122 234 122 258 184 122 228 185. 229, 230, 233 58 257 185 123 185 185 184 186

28 28.1 28.22 34 35 35.22 37-50 37.31-35 38.12-26 38.24 40-41 47-50 47.29-50.13 47.29 47.31 48.1-20 48.1 48.22 49 49.1-2 49.1 49.4 49.5-7 49.33 50.2-14

39 186 123 123 123 124, 184 39, 174 122 124 186 131, 132 34 34 34 34 184 34 34, 120 32, 33 33 34 124 123 34 34

Exodus 4.16 7-10 7-8 7.1 12.37 12.40 12.50

264 184 39. 174 264 207 58 39. 174. 184

Index of References 14 14.10-12 14.21 14.22 15 15.8 17.4 19.1 20 20.5 20.21 23.16 23.20-21 23.20 24.1 32 32.25-29 33.3 33.15 34.22

142. 198 198 198 198 198 198 203 121 118 185. 186 264 121 258. 259 258. 259 261 189 123 59 261, 262 121

Leviticus

1.9 9.24 16 20.10 20.11 20.12 21.9 23.2 23.15-16 23.26-32 23.29 23.37 23.40 25.18-55

266 183 104. 122 186 124 124 186 122 121 122 58 122 122 111

Numbers

6.24-26 11.26-29 15.30 15.37-41 16 16.5 20.17 22-24 24.14

102 39 260 187 187 188 266 102 102

24.17 25.1-13 25.12

102. 140. 186 123 123

Deuteronomy

4.5 4.25-31 7.2-4 7.13 16.14-15 18.15-16 18.15 18.90 22.23 23.9-10 25.4 26.1-11 26.14 27 27.15 28-34 28 28.8 30 30.19-20 30.19 31-34 31.14-23 31.16-21 31.23 32 32.1-43 32.1 32.6 32.11-13 32.30 32.32-43 32.35-43 32.35 32.36 32.37-39 32.43 33.1 33.2

183 183 123 186 122 58 59 58 186 88 178 45 186 45 185, 186 103 45 185, 186 45 45 103 36, 76, 79, 205 205 205 205 79. 225. 256. 257 225 103. 256 152 79 182 79 79 79, 80, 225 80 79 79, 80.92, 225, 256 102 102

293 33.9-11 33.20-21 34.5-6 34.5 34.6 34.7

123 182 251 249 250 189

Joshua

1.1

207

Judges

3.10 3.15 5.15-16 6.34 17.2 17.5 20.15-16

182 182 188, 182 188 188 182

] Samuel

7.6 12.3 16 16.1-11 16.1 16.3 16.12 16.13 17 17.8-25 17.14 21.5 28.13 31.6

213 188 30 30 181 181 181 181 30 30 30 88 280 180

2 Samuel

2.8-11 2.12-3.39 4.1-12 5.3 5.6 5.21 6.1-11 6.12-19 6.16 6.20-23 7.5-16 7.8

180 180 180 180 181 181 181 181 182 182 170 30

294

The Pseudepigrapha

7.14 8.1 8.2 9.1-13 11-12 11.11 13 14-15 16 17-18 19-20 21 21.7 21.8-9 22.5-6 22.16 24.1 24.18-25 24.18 24.24

152 183 182 180 182 88 182 182 182 182 182 182 180 180 282 198 181 181 183 183

1 Kings 8.29 8.52 17 17.1 18.36-37 18.38 18.42 22.19-23 22.19 22.21-22

186 186 251 232 232 183 232 108 108, 109 109

2 Kings 2.1-12 2.11 9.8 21.16 25

251 250 92 174 32

I Chronicles 6.9 (Eng. 6.24) 10.6 10.13-14 11.3 11.4 12

100 180 182 180 181 182

and Early Biblical

12.2 12.8-15 12.14 12.18 13.1-14 14.10-12 15.1-15 15.5 15.11 15.29 16.8-36 16.8-22 16.23-33 16.34-36 18.1 18.2 21.1 21.15 21.25 21.26-30 28.2-10 28.2 28.6-8 28.9-10

182 182 182 182 181 181 181 100 100 182 182 182 182 183 183 182 181 183 183 181. 183 183 183 183 183

2 Chronicles 13.2 100 18.18-22 108 20.18-19 148 33 31 33.11-13 31 35.1-27 183 35.1 183 35.3 183 Ezra 5.14 6 6.7 7.10

183 119 183 184

Nehemiah 1.1-7.72 1.6 2.12 7.5 7.73-8.12 8.1

184 186 136 136 183. 184 184

Interpretation 8.2 8.17 9.1-38 9.6-7 9.26 9.30

184 122 213 186 216 216

Job 1.6-12 2.3 2.8-9 2.11-13 3-33 4.12 7.16 7.21 14.19 17.16 20.11 21.21 24.19 26.5 26.6 28.22 29.12-17 31.16-23

185 181 27 27 231 231 231 283 231 281 281 210 280 282 280 280, 28] 231 231

Psalms 2 2.1-2 2.2 2.7 2.9 8 10 16.8-11 16.10 5 18.15 20 22.29 30 30.10 34.8 44 48 68.5 69.15

38. 218 218 116 60 86.94 59 59 57 60 188 198 74 281 74 281 73 74 38 152 282

Index of References 69.25 76.9 78.70-71 79.10 84.12 89 89.20 89.26 90.4 90.10 94.17 96.1-13 105.1-15 106.1 106.9 106.28 106.47-48 107.16 109.8 110.1 115.17 118 119.12 119.18-19 119.18 119.27 119.33-35 119.73 132.1-8 132.11-12 148.1-6

57 276 30 92 73 170 30 152 119 124 284 182 182 183 188. 198 186 183 281 57 57 284 74 130 130 130 130 130 130 183 170 257

Proverbs 7.27 8.22-31 15.11 27.20 30.16

282 47 280 280 276

Song of Songs 274. 275 2.1 Isaiah 1.9 2.1-4 5.14 6 6.1

186 38 280 108 108

6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6-13 6.6 6.9-13 6.9-10 11 11.2-4 16.1-2 24.16 24.17-23 24.21-23 24.23 26.19 26.20 26.21 28.21 30.15-18 30.18 30.23 30.26 35.1 38.10 40.2 40.3 41.8 41.9 41.10 41.19 42.1 42.6 43.7 43.10 43.20-21 43.20 44.1 44.2 45.24 45.41 48.4 49.1 49.6 49.7 50.4-11 51.17-23

109 115 108 108 108 108 135 173 38 94 111 275 115. 142 72 152, 199 275, 278, 279. 281-83 282 276, 278 170 74 73 101 100, 101 274, 275 281 212 133 116 116 274 275 116 116 257 116 257 116 116 116 289 116 116 116 60, 116 116 74 217

295 52-53 52.7 52.11 52.13 53.7 53.10-12 53.11 53.12 55.1-4 55.3 55.10-11 61.1-2 63.16 64.18 65.15 65.17 66.1-2 66.22

74, 115 173 186 74 74 74 74. 116 74 116 60 178 179 152 152 185. 186 100 59 100

Jeremiah 3.4 3.19 9.22-23 9.26 15.2 17.7-8 23.32 25.11-12 25 29.10 29.18 31.9 35 43.17

152 152 16 59 90 73 109 111. 150 114 11. 150 185. 186 152 39 90

Ezekiel 1 1-14 1.1 1.4 1.13-14 1.13 1.15-16 1.19-21 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.26

108. 161 282 108 108 108 108 108 108. 109 108 108 108 108

2%

The Pseudepigrapha

1.27-28 1.27 1.28 1.29 2.2 3.23 8.3 9.3 10 10.1-22 10.1 10.2 10.3-4 10.4 10.6-7 10.16-17 11.1 16.40 37 37.7 37.12 43.4 44.4 Daniel 1-6 2 2.17-45 2.19 2.20-23 2.22 2.28-30 2.30 2.34 2.45 2.47 3 3.8-12 3.13-15 3.16-18 3.22-23 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.86 (LXX) 4-5 7-12

109 108 108, 109 108 109 109 108 108, 109 108 108 108 108 108 109 108 109 108 186 282 289 282 109 109

28 131 132 132 148 132 132 132 68 68 132 188, 197. 198 197 197 197 197 198 198 198 235 131 96

and Early Biblical

7 7.1 7.2 7.9-14 7.9-10 7.9 7.10-11 7.10 7.13-14 7.13 7.15 7.26 7.28 8.4 8.12 8.24 8.25 9 9.2 9.3 9.4-19 9.4 9.18 9.19 9.24-26 9.25-27 9.27 11.3 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.14 11.15-16 11.16 11.24 11.30-32 11.32-35 11.32 11.33-35 11.33-34 11.33 11.34 11.35 11.39 11.45-12.1

108. 109. 116 108 108 108 88, 108 108. 109 68 108. 109 140 108 108 68 108 73 73 73 68 111 150 213 213 73 186 73 150 111 68 73 73 73 73 67, 70 70 73 73 73 67 98, 7375 67 67 67, 68. 7375 67-69, 72. 74, 75 68, 73-75 73 68

Interpretation

12.3 12.6 12.10 12.12 12.13

109 72 74 68.73.281, 283 67, 73. 74 75 67. 73. 74 73.74 75

Hosea 13.14

281

Joel 1.14 2.12-14 2.28-32

213 213 57

Amos 5.25-27

59

Jonah 2 3.7-8

282 213

Micah 1.3-4 4.1-4

102 38

Habakkuk 1.5 3

60 102

Haggai 2.3

211

Zechariah 13.7 14.15 14.16-21

133 86 38

Malachi 1.6 1.7 2.10 2.7 4.5-6

152 211 152 123 49

12.1-3 12.1 12.2-3 12.2

Index of

References

297

APOCRYPHA

/ Esdras 1.1 1.3 3.1-5.6 4.13 4.14-41 4.42-63 6.18 6.27 8.7 9.39

183 183 183 183 183 183 183 183 184 184

/ Maccabees 1.53 1.62-63 1.64 2.19-68 2.23-26 2.29-41 2.29-38 2.29-30 2.37 2.40 2.42 2.44 2.50 2.58 2.66-68 3.3-8 3.18-22 3.19 3.22 3.43-44 4.8-11 4.46 7.8-17 7.41-42 9.27

77, 78 72 73 72.73 73 70 77 78 77, 80 71 69 71 71,72 251 71 71,73 71 71 71 71 71 171 69 72 171

2 Maccabees 2.19-22 2.21 2.22 5.1-4 5.20

71 71, 72 71 71, 72 71

6-8 6.11-7.40 6.11 6.12-17 7 7.2 7.6 7.14 7.17 7.18 7.19 7.29 7.31 7.32 7.33 7.34-37 7.35-37 7.38 8.2-4 8.5 8.13 8.16-20 8.23-24 8.29 8.34 9.4 9.8 10.6 10.29-31 14 14.6 15.8-16 15.21-23

73 77 70,78 71 78 77 77. 80. 225 77 71.77 71 71,77 71 71 71 71 77 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 77 71. 72 69 69 72 71

3 Maccabees 3.8 5.25 5.51 6.28 7.10-15 7.22 9.23 9.24 9.29 10.3

237 237 281 237 71 237 237 237 238 238

10.15 11.5 11.12 12.17-18 17.22

238 238 238 238 238

Baruch 3.29-4.4

130

Judith 9.11

71

Sirach 1-15 1.11-30 6.32-37 7.29-31 8.8 11.19 14.20-27 15.1 16-17 17.11-12 18.30 19.17 19.20 21.6 21.11 23.7 23.27 24.1-33 24.1-22 24.23 32.14-15 38.24-34 39.1-11 39.6-7 39.16-21 39.28-31 39.34 43.13-16 44.1-50.21 44.1-5 44.17-18 44.20

46 131 131 46 46 46 46 131 47 47 47 47 131 131 47 47 131 130 47 47, 130, 131 47 47 47, 130 130 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48

298 44.22 45.6-22 45.17 45.23-24 46.4-5 46.7 47.4-7 47.8-10 47.11 47.13 47.15-17 48.9 48.10 48.15 48.17 48.23-25 49.2-3 49.4-7 50.1-21 50.27-29 51.20-23 51.26-28

The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 49 251 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 50 50

Tobit

13.1 13.3

166 167

13.4 14.3-11

166. 168 34

Wisdom of Solomon

1.7 1.16-2.20 2.12-20 2.13 2.22 2.23 3 3.5 3.6-7 3.9 4.1 4.20-5.14 6.17-20 6.18 7.17-22 7.24-8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.18 9.8 9.9

50 50 74 74 50 50 74 50 74 50 50 74 51 130 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 52

Interpretation 9.18 10.1-2 10.3 10.4 10.5-14 10.15 11.1-14 11.15 11.16-20 11.26 12.3-11 12,12-18 12.19-23 12.27 13.1-15.17 13.1-3 13.5 15.18-16.14 16.13 16.15-19 17,1-21 18.1-4 18,9 18.24 19,1-21

52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 53 53 53 53 53 53 281 53 53 53 53 53 53

13.43 15.13 16,17 16,18 16,27 18 18,10 18,14 18.18 18.19 18.35 20.23 21.4 21.31 22.1-14 23.9 24-25 24.15 24.29-31

168 168 167 167, 281 168 195 167 167 167 167 166 167 144 168 194 167 195 224 225

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew

1.22 2.15 2.17 2.23 4.3-10 4.14 5-7 5.16 5.18 5.45 5.48 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.14

144 144 144 144 191 144 195 168 178 168 168 167 167 166 166 166 166 166

6.15 6.18 6.26 6.32 7.11 7.21 8.17 10 10.10 10.20 10.29 10.32 10.33 11.25-27 12.17 12.45 12.50 13 13.35

166 167 167 167 167 168 144 195 178 167 167 168 168 148. 166 144 235 168 195 144

Index of 24.35 24.36 25.34 25.41 26.29 26.39 26.42 26.51-53 26.52 26.53 27.9 28.19

178 167 168 168 167 166 166 72 90 86, 166 144 167

Mark 1.9-10 1.12-13 1.14 1.15 1.16-20 1.16 1.21 1.23 1.26 1.45 2.4 2.15-17 2.26 3.13 3.17 3.30 3.31-35 4.1-25 4.38 4.40 5.31 5.41 6.1-6 6.14-29 6.30-34 6.45-8.26 8.27 8.31-33 8.38 9.2-8 9.2 9.6 10.35-41 11.12-14

192 191 191 193 192, 193 193 193 235 235 191 193 191 192 192 193 235 192, 193 193 191 191 191 193 193 192 192 192 192 192 86 250, 251 192 191 192 193

11.20-21 13.14 13.24-27 13.27 14.25 14.32-42 14.36 14.47 14.71 15.32 15.34-36 15.39 Luke 1.1-4 1.5 1.16-17 1.27 1.32-33 1.54-55 1.68-79 2.22-24 2.27 2.29-32 2.34-35 2.36 2.39 3.7-14 3.10-14 3.21-22 3.21 3.23-38 3.38 4.1-13 4.1-12 4.13 4.14-15 4.16-30 4.32 5.1-11 5.1 5.15 5.16 5.17-6.11 5.19 5.24 6.4

References 193 224 225 86 167 193 193 192 193 191 194 195

200 190 175 190 175 175 175 175 175 175 223 190 175 216 192 216 192 190 190 190 191 191 175. 175, 193, 177 192, 177. 191 217 217 193 217 192

299 6.5 6.7 6.12-13 6.12 6.14 6.17 6.18-49 7.5 8.1-18 8.11-21 8.19-21 8.24 8.25 8.45 8.54 9.1-50 9.7-9 9.10-11 9.13-17 9.18 9.19-27 9.22

191 191. 218 193 193

9.26 9.28-29 9.28 9.29 9.30-45 9.32 9.41 9.44 9.51 9.57 10.1 10.7 10,13-16 10.20 10.21-22 10.38 10.39 n.1-4 11.5-36 11.28 11.29-32 11.29 11.32 11.42-52 11.42-48

217 217 216 192 193 216 217 175 193 177 192. 193 191 191 191 193 202 192 192. 217 216 192. 217 217 192, 223. 226 178. 217 217 192 192 217 191 215, 217 217 191 191 191 178 215 235 148 191. 216 177 216 217 177 215 215 178 219 215

300


11.47-53 11.47-51 11.4S 11.49-51 11.52 11.53 12.1 12.3 12.54-13.9 13.10 13.22-30 13.22 13.31-35 13.33-35 13.33 13.34 13.35 14.15-24 15.1-2 16.16 16.17 17.11 17.25 18.31 18.35 19.1 19.27 19.41-44 19.43-44 20.9-18 20.45-47 21 21.5-36 21.5-6 21.6 21.12-13 21.13 21.14-15 21.16-17 21.19 21.20-23 21.22 21.24 21.25-36 21.25-28 21.28 21.33 22.14-20

216 218 224 215 215 191 191 236 215 175 215 191 215 216 223 218 219 194 191 177 175 191 223, 226 191 191 191 215 215, 221 219 215 215 225 224 215 219 224 224 224 224 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 177 216

24 24.4 24.7 24.19 24.23 24.25-27 24.26-27 24.26 24.27 24.30-32 24.44-49 24.44-46 24.44 24.45 24.46-49 24.46-47 24.47 24.48

167 223. 226 223 217 222. 223 217 222 192. 217 217 223 217 193 217 193 219 193 219 219 219 192, 217, 219 191 217 194, 217. 219 223 223 223 177, 178 223 223 226 223 175 223 224 223 175 145 223 226 222 224

John 2.22 12.16 12.24

145 145 286

22.18 22.19-20 22.20 22.21-27 22.22 22.28-38 22.28-30 22.31 22.33-38 22.37 22.39-46 22.40-46 22.41-42 22.42 22.49 22.60 22.71 23.5 23.14 23.34 23.39-43 23.43 23.46

Interpretation 14.26 16.12-15 17.1-26 18.36 Acts 1.4-8 1.4 1.8 1.15-20 1.16 1.21-22 1.22 2.17-20 2.17 2.21 2.22-34 2.22-23 2.23 2.32 2.36 2.38 2.40 2.47 3.6 3.12-26 3.13-15 3.13 3.15 3.16 3.18-19 3.18 3.19 3.20-21 3.21-25 3.21 3.22-26 3.25 3.26 4-5 4 4.4 4.7 4.10-11 4.10 4.12 4.17

145 145 34 72

229 57 57. 223, 224 57 223 223 224 57 223 218 57 223 226 224 216 216, 218. 224 224 218 218 57 216 58 224 218 216 58. 223 58 216 223 58 216 58 58, 216. 224 217 219 177 218 216 218 218 218

Index of 4.18 4.21 4.23-31 4.25 4.27 4.29-30 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.33 4.36 5.13 5.26 5.28 5.30-32 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.40 5.41-42 5.41 6.4 6.7 6.8-15 6.9-11 6.11 6.12 6.13-14 6.13 7.1-53 7.1-51 7.2 7.5 7.8 7.17 7.22 7.25 7.32-34 7.35-53 7.35 7.36-39 7.37-41 7.37-40 7.38 7.39 7.42 7.44 7.47

218 218 220 218 216, 218 218 177, 218 218 177 224 147 218 218 218 225 216 224 224 218 220 217 177 177 218 218 219 218 219 224 218 58 219 58 58 58 178 58 59 216 59 60 219 219 59 59 59 224 60

7.48 7.51-53 7.51-52 7.51 7.52-53 7.53 7.58 7.59-60 7.59 8 8.1 8.1-3 8.12 8.16 8.26 8.32-35 9.1-2 9.2 9.4-5 9.13-14 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.20 9.21-22 9.21 9.23-25 9.26-30 -9:27 9.28 9.29-30 10.39 10.41 10.42 10.43 10.48 11.19 13-19 13 13.1-3 13.5 13.14 13.15 13.17 13.18

References 60 216, 219. 220 218 59. 219 59. 219 216 219. 220, 224 219 218 220 224 219, 220 220 220 223 223 220 220 220, 223 220 220 220 219. 220. 223 175 220 220 220 221 147. 220 220 220 224 224 224 220. 224 220 220 222 59 146 175 175 147 59 59

301 13.19-20 13.23-32 13.26 13.27-30 13.31 13.38 13.40-41 14.1 14.3 14.22 15 15.8 15.14 15.17 15.21 15.26 15.32 16.18 17.1 17.3 17.10 17.11 17.17 18.4 18.5 18.11 18.19 18.28 19.5 19.8-9 19.8 19.15-16 19.17 19.21 19.23-41 20.3 20.17-38 20.18-35 20.18-19 20.19 20.21 20.22-27 20.22 20.23 20.24 20.26 20.31

59 60 222 223 224 220, 224 216 175 224 223 175 224 220 220 175 220 147 220 175 223 175 223 223 175 223. 224 177 175, 223 223 220 223 175 235 220 223 220 221 34 221 221 221 224 222 220 221, 224 221. 222, 224 221, 224 221

302 20.32 20.36-38 21.11 21.13 21.20 21.33 22.1-21 22.1-16 22.3 22.4-5 22.5 22.7-10 22.7-8 22.14-16 22.14-15 22.14 22.15 22.16 22.17-22 22.17-20 22.18 22.19-20 22.20 22.21 22.29 23.8-9 23.11 24.14 24.27 25.8 26.5 26.6-8 26.9-11 26.9 26.10 26.12 26.14-16 26.14-15 26.16-17 26.16 26.18 26.19-23 26.20-23 26.22-23 26.22 26.28-29 27.24 28.20

The Pseudepigrapha 177 221 220 220 175 220 221 219 221 220 220, 223 220, 221 223 221 219, 220 219 221 219, 220 224 219, 220 235 223, 175 220 175 224 221 220 220 220 220 226 220 219 221, 220. 222 216 223 224 222 223 220.

and Early Biblical

28.23

175. 224

Romans 2.21 9-11 11.33-36 12.19 15.4 16.25-26 16.25

236 147. 148 148 79 147 145 145, 148

224 221

224

224

222

224

224 224

I Corinthians 1.18-31 1.26-31 2.6-16 12.7 12.10 14.1 14.3 14.27-28 14.29 14.37 15.35 15.36-38

144 16 145, 148 147 146 146 147 146 146 178 284 286

2 Corinthians 2.14 236 3.14-18 145 Galalians 1.11-12

178

Ephesians 1.9 2.2 3.5 3.9-10

144 235 145 145

Colossians 1.26-27 2.15

145 236

I Thessalonians 178 2.13 3.13 86

222

/ Timothy 4.1-16

34

Interpretation 5.18

178

2 Timothy 1.9-10 3.15 3.16

145 178 178

Titus 1.2-3

145

Hebrews 1.1-2 1.14 8.1-5 9.23-24 10.1 10.11-14 11.1-2 11.4 11.5-6 11.7 11.8-10 11.12 11.13 11.23-27 11.32-38 11.39 12.1-2 12.9 12.22-24 12.23

60 235 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 62 62 62 63 62 62 62 62 235 62 235

James 1.12-15 1.13 2.14-26 2.18-24 2.19 2.21 2.22 4.7 5.1 5.7-20 5.17-18

233 229, 233 228 228 230 229 229 233 231 231 232

1 Peter 1.6 1.11

237. 238 237

Index of References 1.12 1.20 1.25 2.3 2.6-8 2.6 2.17 2.23 3.3 3.9 3.18-22 3.18 3.22 4.3 4.6 4.14-16 4.15 4.17 4.19 5.2 5.4 5.10 5.13

236 145, 237 236 238 238 238 237, 238 238 238 237 234, 237 237. 238 237. 238 234, 238 236 234 234 236-38 237, 238 238 238 237 237, 238

2 Peter 1.16-21 2.4-5 2.4 2.5 2.11 2.15 2.17 2.18 3.6 3.8 3.15-16

178 240 242 241 240-42 242 239. 242 239 242 119 178

1 John 2.20 2.21

145 145

Jude 4 5 6 7 8

240 240 240, 241 240 240

9

17

239, 240, 242 240 239, 241. 242 241

Revelation 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.18 2.2 2.3 2.7 2.10 2.11 2.13 2.16 2.17 2.19 2.25 2.26-28 2.26-27 2.26 3.5 3.8 3.10-11 3.10 3.12 3.14 3.21 4.8 4.11 5.2 5.5-10 5.9-10 5.10 6.8 6.9-11 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12-17 7.9-17 8.3-5 8.6-9.21

89 87, 89 89 89 281, 291 89 89 88 87. 89 88 87, 89 86 88 93 89 88.89 88 88 88 89 89 89 88 87.89 88. 89 109, 257 257 236 89 89 88 281. 291 90,91 89. 235 92 91 91 87.89 87. 91 87

11 14-15

303 9.11 11.3-6 11.3 11.7 11.12 12 12.5 12.7 12.11 12.17 13 13.1 13.7 13.9-10 13.10 13.15 14.1 14.2-3 14.4 14.8 14.14-20 15.2-4 15.6 16.1-21 16.4 16.5-7 16.13-14 17.1-19.5 17.6 17.14 17.17 18.1-2 18.22 18.24 19.1-8 19.2 19.10 19.11-26 19.11-21 19.11 19.14 19.15 20.1-3 20.4-6 20.4 20.7-10 20.12-13 20.13-14

281 250. 251 89 89 89 87 86 236 89 89 89 291 89 90 93 89 87 87 87 88 87 87. 89 86 87 91 91 235 91 89. 91 87 136 92 92 91 92 80,92 89 86. 87 87 89 86 88 86 89.92 88. 89.92 87 291 281

304


20.13

270. 272. 281, 282. 285, 291

20.14 21.1 21.5

291 291 87

Interpretation 21.7 22.5 22.6

88 88 87

61.6 61.10 62-63 62.1 62.5 62.7 64.1-68.1 65-69 65.6-10 65.11 67-69 69.16-25 70-71 71.14 72-82

286-88 237 74, 115 116 116 116, 237 115, 142 55 55 55 55 55 115 115. 116 20. 55.96, 98.99 99 99 99. 100 100 100 20 100 100 100 55 100 100 55 99, 100 101 99 99 100 100 99 20 100 20 100 56, 99, 113 254

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 1 Enoch

1-36 1-5 1.1-2 1.1 1.2 1.3-9 1.8 1.9 2-5 2.1-5.3 5.8-10 6.1-9.11 6-11 6-7 6 6.1-2 6.2 6.3-8 6.3-4 6.6 7.1-2 7.1 7.2 9.1 10-16 10.9-10 10.11-14 12-16 12.1-13.10 12.1-2 12.1 13.8 14 14.1-7 14.8-25 14.8 14.13-14 14.14

37, 54,96. 99. 101 101-103 237 102 37 102 102 102. 241 102, 103 103 54 54 98. 101. 103-105 117 237 105 106 105 106 112 105 107 107 237 236. 237 106 106 101, 107 54 37, 107 107 37 104, 108, 116 54 108 108 108 108

14.18 14.20 14.21 14.22 14.23 14.24-25 16.3 17-36 17.1-22.14 17-19 20-36 21.1-22.14 21 21.6 21.10 22.3-13 24.1-36.4 37-71 37.1 38-44 38 39 39.2-3 39.2 42 45-57 46-50 46.2 48.2 48.6 48.10 51.1 52.4 52.6 53.6 54.1-56.4 56.5-8 58-69 61.1 61.5

108 109 109 109 109 109 237 101 54 101 101 54 237, 240 237 237 235, 237 54 55,99, 115, 142 115 115 55 55 115 115 55 115 55 115 116 U6, 237 116 271. 272, 278-80 116 116 116 115, 142 55 115 289 275. 290

72-79 72 72.1 72.37 74.2 75.1-9 75.3 75.4 76.14 77-79 78.10 79.6 80 80.1 80.2-81.10 80.2-8 81 81.5-6 81.6 82 82.1-20 82.1 82.5-6 82.7 83-90 84.2

Index of References 84.5 85-90 85.1-2 86-88 86.1-88.3 86.4 87-88 88.2 89.1-27 89.1 89.12 89.28-40 89.36 89.41-50 89.51-67 89.52 89.59 89.68-72 89.72-73 89.72 89.73-77 89.73 90.1 90.5 90.6-42 90.9 90.10 90.13 90.14 90.15 90.17-24 90.17 90.18 90.19 90.28-33 90.34 90.37-38 90.38 90.40-42 90.40 91-108 91-107 91.1-19 91.11-17 91.11-12 91.11 91.12

254 71,93, 113. 114 113 113 114 107 56 107 56 114 114 56 114 56 56 251 114 56 114 114 56 211 114 114 56 71 71 71 71 71 114 71, 114 71 71 115 71 115 115 113 148 56 96, 99, 109 34 71,93, 110 71 71 72

91.13 93 93.1-10 93.3-11 93.3-10 93.8 95.3 96.1 98.12 98.15-16 104 106-107 106.1 106.16 106.18 108

254 56 71.93, 110 113 110 251 72 72 72 109 109 57, 110, 112 113 112, 113 113 57

2 Enoch 1.4 7.1-3 18 20.1 22.8 50.4 71-72

37 236, 237 37 237 250 237 37

3 Enoch 12.5 43.4 46

259 253 254

2 Baruch 6.1-2 10-20 10.6-12.5 11.1 11.3 11.4-7 11.4 12,1 12.4 13 13.1-12 13.9-10 14.2 15.1 19.3-4 19.3

32 81 81 237 82 82 283 82 82 82 237 237 82 82 82, 85 82

305 19.5-20.6 21.23 21.24 24.4 28.1 29.2-30.1 29.2 30 30.1-5 30.2 31-32 32.1-7 39.7-40.2 40.2 40.3 41-44 41-42 42.8 44.2-8 46.5-6 48-52 48.47 49.2-3 50 50.2 51 52.6-7 54.22 56.12-16 67.7 68.5 68.6 70.9 71.1 72.2-6 73.1-74.4 75.1-8 77.1-17 77.15-16 77.18-87.1 78-87 78 82-83 82 83.1-3 83.4-8

82 272, 281. 282 283 84 84 83. 84 84 283 84 282 84 83 83. 84 84 84 84 83 273 83 83, 84 82 82 284 283 274, 284. 285 83 83. 85 83 236 237 211 211 83. 84 84 83, 84 84 148 83. 84 40 83 237 83 82 83 83 83. 85

306

The Pseudepigrapha

83.7 84.4 85.11

83 210 83

3 Baruch 10

253

4 Ezra 2.31 3.1-2 4.41-43 4.41-42 4.41 7.32 7.39 (109) 7.78 7.88-89 7.100 11.36-12.3 12.31-33 12.34 13 13.9-10 13.9 13.10-22 13.27 13.28 13.38 13.57-58

281 32 274 279 282 272, 283, 284 232 283 283 283 94 94 94 94 85 94 94 94 85,94 85,94 148

Apocalypse of Abraham 10 259 13-14 259 Apocalypse of Ezra 6.3 279 6.17 279 6.21 279 Apocalypse of Sedrach 9.2 279 Jubilees 1.1-6 1.26-29 2-50 2

142 142 118 119. 124

and Early Biblical

2.2 2.16 2.17-33 2.24 2.25 3.31 4 4.30 5.1-2 5.6-11 5.6 5.7-8 5.32 6 6.1 6.10-11 6.15-38 6.15-19 6.17-22 6.22 7.20-25 7.22 7.28-33 8.8-9.15 10.1-14 10.27-35 11.14-12.21 12 12.1-9 12.12-13 12.16-21 12.25-27 13.16 15-16 15.1 15.25-34 16.12 16.13 16.16 16.19 16.20 16.25 16.27 16.29 17.15-18 17.17-18 17.17

118 119, 120 121 117 119 185 119 119 120 120 120 106 121 124 121 121 124 121 185 117 240 107 185 120 120 120 120, 142 230 184 184 184 184 185 124 122 185 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 142, 185, 229 229 122

Interpretation 18.9 18.12 19^5 19.15 20-22 20.6-10 21.1-26 22.10-24 22.25-30 23 23.8-31 23.20 23.30-31 24.21-33 25.1-23 27.27 28.14 30.5 30.7-23 30.12 30.17 30.18-20 31.4-29 31.12-17 32 32.1-9 32.2 33.2-20 33.10-20 33.10 34.1-9 34.12-19 36.1-17 37-38 41.8-28 41.23-28 41.23-27 48.4-11 50.12

185, 230 185 142 185 120 185 185 186 186 71 124 71 71 184 120 123 123 123 185 117 123 123 120 123 124 123 123 124. 184 185 124 120 122 120 120 124 124 185 184 70

lAB (The Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo) 2.1-2 187 3.4 187 187 3.9 3.10 272, 278. 281

Index of References 6-7 6.3 6.4-6 6.11 6.16 6.17 6.18 7.2 9.8 10 10.2 10.3 10.5 12.3 15.3 15.5-7 15.5 16.1 16.4 19.3 19.16 21.9 22.3-4 23.6-7 24.6 25-28 25.10 28.1-2 29.4 31.1 32.13 33.1-5 33.3 33.6 36.4 40.1 40.2 40.4-7 42.1 44.2 44.5 52.1 57.2 59.4 60.2-3 62.9 64.1

187 197 197 197 197 197. 198 198 187 189 198 187 188, 198 198 189 187 187 282 187 187 203 251 282 187 188 188 188 188 188 188 187 282 188 274, 279 188 187 187 188 188 187 188 188 187 188 188 188 285 187

Martyrdom of Isaiah 1.3 237 Odes of Solomon 7.1 165 7.7 165 7.9 165 7.10 165 7.11 164 8.21 164 164 8.22 164 9.5 10.4 164 14.1 164 14.8 164 17.10 281 19.1 164. 238 19.2 164 19.6-7 164 31.1 165 31.2 165 31.3 165 31.4 165 31.5 165 41.9 165 41.10 165 Prayer of Jacob 162 18 162 19 Psalms of Solomon 254 2.32 16.2 281 17 40. 85. 94 17.22-24 85 17.23-24 86 17.24 94 17.33-35 85 17.33-34 94 17.35 94 17.36 94 17.45 238 18 40 22.7 238 Sibylline Oracles 2 288

307 2.196-338 2.227-37 2.228-29 2.233-37 2.233 2.236-37 3-5 3 3.499 3.352 3.356 3.560 3.366 3.669-701 3.672-73 3.689-91 3.798 3.702-13 3.727-31 3.781 4 4.135-36 4.159-61 4.171-78 5 5.143 5.159 5.274 5.299 5.325 5.375-80 5.414-25

288 286, 287 281 288 282 290 94 94 254 94 94 254 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 238 238 94 94 94 94 94

Testament of Abraham 6.6 163 20.12 163 Testament of Benjamin 4.1 238 5.4 238 10.8-9 238 Testament of 1.2-4 5.6 9-12 27.6-7 33.3

Job 35 236 231 231 161

308 33.9 40.2 40.3 47.11 50.3

The Pseudepigrapha 161 161. 162. 167 161, 162 162 162

Testament of Judah 3-7 120 8.1 238 9 120 Testament of Levi 3.8 238 34 5.1-2 238 10.5 Testament of Moses 1 205. 206 1.1-9 205 1.5 205 1.6-15 205 1.6-9 210 1.7 205, 207 204 1.8 1.9 204, 209, 212 1.10-18 205 1.10 205, 214 1.12-13 208 1.12 206 1.14 205. 210 1.15 206. 210 1.16-17 205 1.16 205. 206. 212. 214 1.17-18 210 1.18 206, 212, 213 2-10 205 2.1-10.10 76, 205, 206, 210 2-4 210 2 210 2.1-2 205 2.2-9 213

and Early Biblical

3.1-10.5 3.1 3.4-7 3.8-9 3.9 3.11-13 3.11 3.12 3.13 4 4.1-4 4.1 4.6-9 5-9 5-7 5.1 6 6.1-7 6.1 7-10 7.1-10 7.1 7.3-10 8-9 8 8.1 8.1-5 8.5 9 9.1 9.2-4 9.2-3 9.4-7 9.4 9.5 9.6-7 9.6 9.7 10 10.1-10 10.1

224 212 210, 212 210 209 211 211, 226 211 210 212. 216 211, 212 211 211 210 212 211 76, 77 212 78 212 76 212 238 77, 212 77 209, 212, 213 77 212 78.79. 204, 216 209 212 77, 212, 213 77, 78 76,78 213 77 79. 213 79.80.213, 225 78, 79, 204, 207, 212 77, 204. 210. 213 77

Interpretation 78-80. 213 78. 208 78 225 78-80. 208. 213 10.8-10 78. 213 10.8 79 10.9 205 10.11-12.13 206 10.11 206. 214 10.12-13 206 10.14-15 205 10.15 207. 213. 214 11-12 206 11.1-12.13 205 11 205. 207 11.1-4 221 211 11.1 11.4 207 11.9-10 207 11.11 204. 207 11.12-19 207 11.12-13 207 11.14 206. 207 11.16 212. 213 11.17-18 207 11.17 204. 209. 211, 212 12.1-13 208. 224 12.1 211 12.4 226 12.6 208. 212 211 12.8 12.10-13 214 12.10 76 12.11 208 12.12 76. 208, 210 12.13 208. 209 10.2 10.3 10.4-6 10.5-6 10.7

Testament of Naphtali 3.5 236. 238 Testament of Reuben 238 5.5

Index of

References

309

QUMRAN CD

19.5-13

IQM

133

IQapGen

2.1 2.16 16-17

236 236

4QFlor

11.1-6 11.17 12.4-10 13.14-16 18.13-19.2

71 71 71 71 71

133

4QpHos

2.3-6

203

4QpPs

37.14-15

IQpHab IQH

1.21 2.9-19 2.13 2.32-37 2.17-18 3.19 4.8-10 4.27-29 5.5-19 6.34 7.27 9.1-36 10.5-7 11.4-5 11.9-10 10.16-17 12.11-14 12.32-34 13.18-19 14.8 18.10-11 18.19-21 18.19

1-2 i 14

131 203 136 203 131 280 203 136 203 284 136 203 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 136 131 131 131

2.6-10 2.7-10 2.8 5.8-12 7 7.1-5 11.4-8 12.1-10

203 134 136 135 25 134 203 135

203

4QpPs''

3.15 4.27

134 136

4Q385

2.5-7

290

6QD

2.18-21

IQS

1.9 5.8-10 6.6-8 8.13-15 8.15 9.12-23 9.13 9.25 10.17-21 11.1-2

137 137 136 133 137 71 137 71 71 71

4QBer^ 1.1

281

236

llQMelch

9-16 12 17

173 133 133

II QPs

151-55 151 151A. 1 151A. 5 151A. 7

31 14, 30 30 30 30

11.20 16.17 31.9

146 146 155

4QDib Ham

203

IQIsaf

6.2-10

135 TARGUMS Jeremiah

Isaiah

53 63.16 64.8

172 155 155

3.4 3.8 3.19 8.4

155 146 155 146

Ezekiel

1.27

109

310

The Pseudepigrapha

Malachi 1.6 2.10

155 155

and Early Biblical 159 159

21.9 23.23

Deuteronomy Targum NeofiU

32.6

157, 159. 165 157

Genesis 21 21.33

156 157-59. 168

33.24

1.19 15.12 17.11

Genesis 156. 158. 159 159 159

28.32 28.33 32.6 34.6

160. 168 160, 168 160 251

Fragments Targum

11.4

1.19 15.12

159 159. 160

197

Numbers Exodus 1.19

160

21.9 23.23

159 159. 168

m. Sot. 1.9

251

Leviticus

Numbers 20.21

Deuteronomy

Exodus Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

Exodus

Interpretation

157. 159

22.28

168

MISHNAH AND TALMUDS

b. -Abod. Zar.

b. Sanh.

5a

38b 39a 90 92a-b 92a

253

b. Ber 10a

252

259 251 286 253 276. 279

b. Ket. Illb

2.4

232

/. Sot. 286

b Sot.

4.8

13b 48b

b. Meg. 31b

m. Ta'an.

249. 250 128

195

251

y M. Qat. 3.82b

253

b Suk. b. Nid 13b

5a

250. 251

253

y Yeb 15.15c

253

b. Ta'an. b Pes.

23b

154

118a

b Yeb b Qid. 36a

168

62a 63b

253 253

MIDRASHIM

Gen. R. 24.4 (on Gen. 5.1) 38.8 (on Gen. n.3)

253 197

44.13 Gen. 71.10 Gen.

(on 15.6) 198 (on 31.13) 158

93.8 (on Gen. 44.29) 2 5 3 95.1 (on Gen. 46.28) 2 8 5

311

Index of References 97 (on Gen. 48.1) 158 100.7 (on Gen. 50.10) 2 5 3 98.16 (on Gen. 49.20) 158 Lev.R. 4.5 (on U v . 4.2) 4.8 (on U v . 4.2) 15.1 (on U v . 13.2) Num. R. 2.10 (on Num. 2.3) 12 12.11 (on Num. 7.1) 15.13

253 252 253

158 251

264

Deul. R. 3.17 (on Deut. 10.1) 2 5 0 11.10 (on Deut. 31.14) 241 Eccl. R. 1.4 §2 5.10 §1 12.4 §1

285 286 253

Mek. on Exod. 20.21-13 (Bahodesh 258 §11) Midr. Ps. 1.20 (on Ps. 1.4) 11.6-7 (on Ps. 11.7) 103.4-5 (on Ps. 103.1)

274 253

Midr. Prov. 30.4 (53a) Pes. R. 4.2 5 5b 5.3 21.4 Piska 32 198b PRE §33 §34

251

251 251

264

286 275

Sifre Deul. §306 (on Deul. 32.2) 2 5 3 §357 (on Deut. 34.5) 249, 250

252

PlIILO Agr. 51-52 Conf Ung. 110-15 111-14 Congr. 103-105

258

262 261

146-47 148 151

168-75 266

Gig. 12-15

253

Her. 238

254

Ug. All. 3.71 3.84

253 253

266

Det. Pot. Ins. 253 27 Deus Imm. 136 138 145-54 145-51

Ebr. 60-62

251 251

Leg. Gai. 4-5 75

267 260, 264, 267

168-71 168 169-71 170-75 171-72 171 172 173-75 174-75 174 184 Mut. Nom. 38

258, 261. 265 262 261 264 263 263 258, 261-63 259. 262, 263 258 259 258 254

249. 267

266 267 267 267

Migr. Abr. 72 115 142-43

262 251, 267 251

Op. Mund. 69-71

251-53, 255, 265. 267

312

The Pseudepigrapha

69 70-71 70

251. 252 254 253. 254, 258. 267

Plant. 14 145

251 253

Poster. C. 14-15

265

Praem. Poen. 94-97 121 162-72

255 253 255

Quaest. in Gen. 1.86 3.3 4.130

249-51, 265, 267 254 257

Quaest. in Exod. 1.86 2.28

264 264

Rev. Div. Her 128 230 237 239

253 253 253 253

Sacr. 8-10

251. 267

and Early Biblical

Sobr.

Interpretation 3.1

68

259 3.6

253, 254, 267 255

Somn. 1.138-39 1.139 1.240 2.78-92 2.274-99 2.276-79 2.279-82 2.283-99 2.283-92 2.283-86 2.284-90 2.284 2.285 2.290-91 2.292

Virt.

253 253 251 66 260 260 260 260 262 261 262 262 262 261 262

51-79 53-71 72-75 72-74 73-75 74 76-79 76 171-72

Vit. Mos.

Spec. Ug. 1.36-38 1.37 1.66 1.207 2.44-45 2.45 2.164 2.165 2.166 2.193 2.229-30 3.1-6 3.1-2

265 253 251 253, 266 263, 253, 266 266 266 259 266 263 247,

256 256 256, 257, 264 257 258. 265 257. 258 256 257 260

254, 265 266

1.4 1.148-62 1.149 1.158 1.162 1.163 1.190 2.20 2.36 2.37 2.40 2.66 2.163-73 2.291

238 263 263 264. 265 265 264 253 248 248 141 141 203 203 249. 250

8.13.6 §346 9.2.2 §28 12.3.3 §§129-44 12.6.2 §§268-78 14.4.2 §63 14.15.5 §§420-30

139 250

254

JOSEPHUS

Ant 1.3.4 §85 249, 250 2.15.4-5 §§327-29 203 2.15.4 §327 2 0 3 2.16.1 §334 2 0 3 3.1.3 §§11-12 2 0 3 3.1.3-4 §12-22 203

3.13 §§295-99 3.14.3 §307 4.2.3 §22 4.3.2 §§40-50 4.8.2 §§177-79 4.8.48 §326 6.4.2 §56

203 203 203 203 203 249 139

70 77 70 77

Index of Apion 1.7 §37

139

War 2.8.12 §159 2.16.4 §392

137 70

3.8.3 §351-54 3.8.3 §354 6.5.4 §312-13

References

138 148

313 7.8.7 1342-48 7.8.7 §346-47

253 252

139

CHRISTIAN AUTHORS Apoc. Pet. 4 4.3-5 4.3-4 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.7-8 4.9 4.10-12 4.13 6.7 9.6-7 Asc. Isa. 10.8 Athenagoras De Res. 3-7 Augustine De Civ. Dei 22.12 22.20

286 287 273, 289 288, 291 288 287. 290 288 273. 273 288 288

Bam. 5.3 288 2889,

144

Clement of Alexandria 1 Clement 10-12 230 24.4-5 286 50.4 282

289. Eel. 25.1

144

JusUn / Apol. 19.4 52.5

286 289

3 Cor 3.26-27

286

Macarius Magnes Apocritica 4.6.16 273

286

280

Strom. 4.71-n

144

Origen Comm. in Joh. 144 13

Hermas Mand. 3.2

279

Polycarp Phil. 12.1

144

Tertullian DeRes. 32.1 32.2

273, 288 288, 291

Theophilus Ad Autol. 1.13

286

Vis. 2.1.1-2

148

290 Ignatius Eph. 14.1 290 290

Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 1.8.5

144

144

OTIIER ANCIENT AUTHORS AND WRITINGS Andiologia Palastina Planudea 4.328 254 Corpus HermeUcum 1.31-32 148

Demotic Chronicle 3.1-2

De Pietate 15.14-21

Philodemus Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum 1.136 253

Gadarensis D. 3.9 253

252

314

The Pseudepigrapha

and Early Biblical

Plato

Threat.

Phaidon

173E

SOB 109E

253 253

Seneca 252, 253

65.24

25

248C 249C

252. 253

Ep. 252

Ps.-Lucian

Philopaalris Phaedrus

Interpretation

VetUus Valens VI 254

Introduction 2 5 4

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Ackroyd, P.R. 180, 182 Alexander, P.S. 120. 124, 172, 174, 257, 258 Andersen, F.I. 37, 250 Aptowitzer, V. 253 Arnaldez, R. 252 Attridge, H.W. 20, 175, 189 Aune. D.E. 126, 138. 145, 146, 256 Auvray, P. 126 Barnes. W.E. 179 Barton, J. 97, 128 Bauckham, R. 22, 186-89, 240, 270, 290 Beare. F.W. 234 Beasley-Murray G.R. 88, 255 Beckwidi, R. 97,241 Bentzen, A. 67 Bergman, J. 149 B e u , 0 . 128,240,249 Black, M. 24, 71, 72. 108. 113, 278 Blenkinsopp, J.L. 138 Bloch. R. 129, 135, 140. 180 Bogaert. P. 84 Borgen, P. 130. 247, 248, 262-65 Boring, M.E. 145 Bousset, W. 246 Bowden, J. 152 Bowker. J.W. 141 Brandenburger, E. 76. 77. 209 Braude. W.G. 275. 276 Brawley. R.L. 176 Brin, G. 142 Brock. S.P. 161. 172 Brodie, T.L 200 Brooke, G.J. 122, 127. 135, 137. 173 Brownlee. W.H. 126. 134, 135, 173

Brox, N. 234 Bruce, F.F. 132 Brueggemann. W. 202 Buchholz, D.D. 281 Bultmann. R. 269 Burchard. C. 152 Caird, G.B. 88. 282 Caquot, A. 14 Carmignac. J. 133. 149 Carrington, P. 195 Carson. D.A. 120, 152, 172 Cerfaux, L. 126. 145 Chadwick, H. 231 Charles, R.H. 37. 75-79, 90. 100, 101, 119, 120, 124, 125,207,209-12, 270. 280, 282 Charleswordi, J.H. 14. 30. 33, 35,41, 115, 162-65. 173, 174. 184. 186, 202 Chilton, B. 152. 155. 163, 172, 194. 199 Chmiel, J. 271 Clarke. E.G. 160 Coats. G.W. 170 Cohn. J. 252 Collins. A.Y. 65.68.70. 71.73.76,79, 86-92, 203 Collins, J.J. 41, 65.66,68, 70,72.73. 75-77. 79, 80, 84, 85, 144, 149. 204.209.211-14.227. 287 Codienet, E. 146. 147 Cranfield. C.E.B. 234 Crockett. L.C. 179 Cross. F.M. 22, 88, 170 Cumont. F. 254

316


Dahl, M.E. 175,271 Dalton, J. 235 Daniaou. J. 281, 282, 289 Dauman, F. 149 Dautzenberg, G. 128. 146 Davids, P.H. 229, 230, 234, 236, 239. 244 Davies,?. 6 9 , 7 0 , 104, 134 Davies, W.D. 2 4 . 1 2 9 Davis. M. 24 Dean-OtUng. M. 246, 255 Delcor, M. 163 Deppe, D.B. 244 Derrett, J.D.M. 196 Dexinger, F. 110 Dfez Macho. A. 156, 157 Dimant, D. 98. 103-105, 114, 120. 133. 173. 174, 290 Dodd, C H . 143 Dombkowski Hopkins. D. 137 Downing. F.G. 189. 190 Dniry, J. 196 Dunn, J.D.G. 41 Elliger, K. 132 Ellis. E.E. 126, 144. 147. 179 Emerton. J.A. 131. 132 Endres. J.C. 120, 123. 125. 142, 185 EUieridge. J.W. 160 Evans, C.A. 22. 29. 135. 173. 179, 271, 285, 289 Farmer, W.R. 69 Feldman. L.H. 42, 138, 139, 189 Finch, R.G. 195 Finkel, A. 132 Finkelstein. L. 129 Fiorenza, E.S. 86, 269 Fishbane. M. 16, 140, 170, 173 Fitzmyer, J.A. 176, 177, 200 Russer, D. 240 Ford. J.M. 269 Foster, J. 158 France. R.T. 152, 186, 194. 236 Freedman, D.N. 25, 158 Freedman, H. 276 Friebel, K.G. 135 Friedlander, G. 275

Interpretation

Fuchs, H. 26 Garcia MaitTnez, F. 136, 179 Gasque, W.W. 228 Gaston, L. 146 Gaylord, H.E. 253 Geffcken, J. 287 Georgi, D. 141 Ginsberg, H.L. 74, 126 Ginsburger. M. 159, 160 Ginzberg, L. 203, 249-53, 257 Goldstein, J.A. 68, 69, 76 Goodenough, E.R. 247. 260 Goppelt. L. 234, 235 Goulder. M.D. 195, 196 Grabbe, L. 113 Greenspahn, F.E. 20 Greer, R.A. 132, 140, 142, 150 Grelot, P. 112, 150 Grintz, Y.M. 26 GrOzinger, K.E. 254, 257 Grossfeld, G. 157 Grudem. W.A. 235 Guilding, A. 195 Gundel, H.G. 254 Gundel, W. 254 Gundry, R.H. 196. 197 Haacker. K. 209. 240, 249-51 Haase. W. 140 Hall, W.S. 147. 148 Halperin. D.J. 104, 109. 258. 264 Hanson. P. 104 Hanson. R.S. 25 Harrington. D.J. 76. 186. 205, 209 Harris. R. 164 Hartman, L. 102. 103, 254 Hauck, F. 89 Haug, M. 29 HawUiorne. G.F. 145 Hayes. R.B. 16 Hayward, R. 155 Hecht, R.D. 20 Hellholm. D. 149 Hengel, M. 4 1 , 6 7 , 73. 128. 139 Hilgert. E. 20 Hills, J. 273, 288 Himmelfarb, M. 256

Index of Authors Morgan. M.P. 133-36. 173 Home. CF. 29 Horsley. R.A. 66. 69. 75. 138 Hullgard, A. 112 Ingelaere. J.-C. 138 Isaac. E. 37,271 James. M.R. 163.288 Janssen, E. 209 Jellicoe. S. 140 Jeremias. J. 146. 152-55. 166, 168. 202. 235 Jervell, J. 176 Jonge. M. de 33 Jourjon, M. 149 Jucci. E. 134 Juel. D. 143 Keck. L.E. 175 Kee. H.C. 22, 34,44 Kelly, J.N.D. 236 Kiddle, M. 282 Kim. T.H. 135, 173 Kittel, 0. 154 Klassen, W. 86 Klein, M.L. 158, 159 Klijn, A.F.J. 32, 40, 81, 82, 84, 272-74 Knibb, M.A. 106, 107, 137. 271, 287 Knight, D.A. 142 Knox, J. 234 Koch, K. 67. 111 Kolenkow. A.B. 204, 206, 209, 210 Kraft, R.A. 133.204 Kugel. J.L. 132, 140. 142. 150, 176, 177 LaSor, W.S. 228 Lacocque, A. 67. 68, 70. 74 Laperrousaz. E.-M. 76. 77 Lattey, C. 214 Lauterbach. J.Z. 158 Laws, S.S. 229 U Deaut, R. 129, 141, 156, 179 Leeuw, G. van der ISO Uipoldt. J. 154 Ucht. J. 76. 79. 80. 212 Lindars. B. 143

317

Loewenstamm. S.E. 240 Lohmeyer, E. 87 Long. B.O. 170 Liihrmann, D. 145 Lull. D.J. 138 Lund. S. 158 McEleney, N.J. 23 Mack. B.L. 20 Malter, H. 253 Manson. T.W. 77 Marshall, LH. 175,236 Mardn, J.D. 104 Martyn, J.L. 175 Madiews. K.A. 25 Mazzaferri, F.D. 269, 270 Meeks, W.A. 202, 203, 247, 259, 264 Metzger, B.M. 32, 90. 232 Meyer, R. 253 Michaels, J.R. 235 Milik, J.T. 29, 96, 99, 104, 113. 136 Millar, E 129 Miller, P.D. 196.202 Mingana, A. 164 Mink. H.-A. 142 Moessner, D.P. 202. 203. 209, 217. 220. 222. 225 Montgomery, J.A. 67 Moore. G.F. 154 Morris. L. 195 Mounce. R. 86 MUller, H.-P. 131.234 Mulder. M.J. 98. 172-74, 189 Murphy, F.J. 65, 81-83, 85 Myers. J.M. 183 Neusner, J. 131, 199 Nickelsburg. G.W.E. 27, 28.41. 67, 71, 73, 76, 78-80, 96-98. 103, 104, 108-10. 115, 133, 174, 185, 187, 202-205, 209. 210. 212, 213, 227, 240 Noth, M. 102 O'Day, G.R. 16 OUenburger, B.C. 74 Oriinsky, H.M. 127, 141 Osbum. CD. 241

318


Panagopoulos, J. 147 Pane. D. 128, 129 Payne, P.B. 197 PeiTot, C. 195 PlOger, O. 67 Preisendanz, K. 162, 163 Priest, J. 36, 76, 79, 205, 209, 214 Puech, E. 179 Rabinowiu, 1. 135 Rad, G. von 67, 136,202,218 Reese, G. 205,209,211-14 Reicke, B. 235 Rhoads, D.M. 76, 78-80, 204, 214 Rieder, D. 160 Ringgren, H. 131 Robert, A. 130 Rost, L. 23, 24,29 Rowland, C. 41 Rowley, H.H. 24, 68, 69, 77, 214 Rowston, D.J. 242 Rubinkiewicz, R. 258 Ruiz, J.-P. 141 Runia. D. 257 Russell, D.S. 27. 41, 67, 202, 255, 277 Sahlin, H. 69 Sanders, E.P. 23, 35, 163, 255 Sanders. J.A. 22, 170 Sanders. J.T. 176 Sandniel, S. 43, 170, 255 Sandnes, K.O. 145 Sawyer, J.F.A. 271 SchSfer, P. 240. 249-51 Schillebeeckx. E. 40 Schrenk. G. 153 SchOrer, E. 21, 22, 129 Schulu, J.P. 257 Segal. A.F. 247. 258 Sekki. A.E. 128 Selwyn. E.G. 146.235 Sheppard. G.T. 131 Silberman. L.H. 132 Simon. M. 275 Simon. R. 18 Sj6berg. E. 209, 213 Skarsaune. O. 289 Slamovic, E. 138

Interpretation

Slotki. J.J. 158 Smallwood, E.M. 259 Smith. J.Z. 150, 163 Smith, M. 24, 176 Sparks, H.F.D. 33, 200 Spiegelberg, W. 149 Spitta, F. 235 Spittler, R.P. 34. 35. 161. 162. 232 Steck. O.H. 119,203,209,212 Stembcrger, G. 278, 280, 283 Slendahl, K. 143, 144 SUnespring, W.F. 173 Stone, M.E. 26, 27. 133. 173. 185. 189. 209, 248 Strugnell. J. 290 Stuhlmacher. P. 145 Suter. D.W. 115. 141 Swete, H.B. 282 Szor6nyi, A. 132 Tabor, T.D. 246. 247 Talbcrt. C.H. 200 Tannehill. R.C. 222 Tcherikover, V. 68-70 Temporini. H. 140 Thiering, B.E. 134 Ticde, D.L. 200. 202. 203. 222 Tobin. T.H. 252 Tov. E. 140. 172 Tucker, G.M. 142 Tuttle. G.A. 131 Tyson, J.B. 222 Urbach. E.E. 131 VanderKam, J.C. 22. 37. 96. 97. 101. 103. 107, 108, 110, 111, 115, 118. 120. 122. 123. 125. 173 Vermes, G. 98, 129, 133-135. 153155, 202 Vogels. H.-J. 235 Wallace, D.H. 75 Walton. B. 160 Ward. R.B. 228 Webb, R.L. 239 Wenham, D. 152, 186, 194, 234 Wertheimer, S.A. 254

Index of Wenslein. J.J. 282 Willi. T. 180 Williams. S.K. 214.227 Williamson. H.G.M. 120. 152. 172. 180-82 Wills. L. 142 Wilson, A.M. 142 Wilson. S.G. 176 Windisch, H. 235 Wintermute, O.S. 184,230

Authors Wolfson, H.A. 249, 258, 260 Woude, A.S. van der 134 Wright, A.G. 135 Wright, R.B. 94 Yadin, Y. 142 Zeitlin, S. 25. 76. 214 Zerbe. G. 66, 71, 94 Zobel, H.-J. 137

319

110578580 Charlesworth Pseudoepigrapha and Early Bib Inter

Recommend Documents