Dust of the Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2:7)
Themes in Biblica Bib licall Narr Narrati ativve Jewish and Christian Traditions Editorial Board
George H. van Kooten Robert A. Kugler Jacques T.A.G.M. T.A.G.M. van van Ruiten Loren T. Stuckenbruck Advisory Board
Reinhard Feldmeier Judith Lieu Florentino Garća Mart Martnez ń ez Hindy Najman Martti Nissinen Ed Noort
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/tbn brill.com/tbn
Dust of the Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2:7) The Problem of a Dualistic Anthropology in Early Judaism and Christianity Edited by by
Jacques T.A.G.M. T.A.G.M. van Ruiten Ruiten George H. van Kooten
|
Cover illustration: The Creation of Adam (Monreale Cathedral, Sicily, Sicily, Byzantine mosaic, 12th century). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Ruiten, J. van ( Jacques), editor. | Kooten, Geurt Hendrik van, 1969- editor edi tor.. Title: Dust of the ground and breath of life (Gen 2:7) : the problem of a dualistic anthropology in early Judaism and Christianity / edited by Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, George H. van Kooten. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2016. | Series: Themes in biblical bi blical narrative: Jewish and Christian traditions, traditions, 1388-3909 ; volume 20 | This volume contains the revised papers of a Themes Th emes in Biblical Narrative colloquium which took place at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the University of Groningen on September 9-10, 2010. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identiers: 2016036264 (print) | 2016036983 (ebook) | 9789004210851 (hardback : alk. paper) paper) | 9789004334762 9789004334762 (e-book) Subjects: : Bible. Genesis , 7–Criticism, interpretation, etc.–Congresses. | Bible. Genesis , 7–Social scientic criticism–Congresses. | Bible and anthropology–Congresses. Classication: BS1235.52 .D87 2016 (print) | BS1235.52 (ebook) | 233.09–dc23 233.09–dc23 record available at at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016036264
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface download: brill.com/brill-typeface.. - ---- (hardback) --- ---- - (e-book) Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill , Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes He s & De Graaf, Brill Nijhof, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, translated, stored stored in a retrieval retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written written permission from from the publisher. publisher. Authorization to to photocopy items for internal internal or personal personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, Danvers, 01923, . . Fees are subject to change. change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.
Contents Abbreviations Contributors Introduction Taken aken from from the the Soil Soil,, Gift Gifted ed wi with th the the Br Brea eath th of Life Life:: The The Anth Anthro ropo polo logy gy of Gen Gen 2:7 2:7 in Cont Contex extt 1
Ed Noort Theolo Theologic gical al Anthro Anthropol pology ogy and the Enochi Enochicc Book Book of Watche atchers rs (1 En. 6–16) 16
Loren T. T. Stuckenbruck Stuckenbruck Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7
36
Michaël N. N. van der Meer Anthropology, Anthropology, Pneumatology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in Early Judaism: The Two Spirits Spirits Treatis Treatisee (1 (1 , 13–, 3–, 26) 26) and and Othe Otherr Texts xts from from the Dead ead Sea Sea Scrolls 58
Mladen Popović Popović From Cosm From Cosmog ogon onyy to Psyc Psycho holo logy gy:: Phil Philo’ o’ss Inte Interp rpre reta tati tion on of Gen Gen 2:7 2:7 in De opic opicio io mundi mundi , Quaest Quaestion iones es et soluti solutione oness in Genesin Genesin and Legum allegoriae 99
Beatrice Wyss estament nt of Job Job On Anth Anthrropol opolog ogyy and and Hono Honorr in the the Testame
117
Robert A. A. Kugler Kugler Chri Christ st As Cr Crea eattor: or: Paul’ aul’ss Esch Eschat atol olog ogic ical al Read Readin ingg of Gen Gen 2:7 2:7 in 1 Cor Cor 15:45 127
Reinhard Reinhard Feldmeier Feldmeier Anthropological Views in Nag Hammadi: The Bipartite and Tripartite Tripartite Conc Concep epti tion onss of Huma Human n Bein Beingg 136
Lautaro Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta
Adam, Dust, and the Breath of Life according to the Targumim of Gen 2:7 154
Robert Haywar Hayward d Inde Indexx of Anci Ancien entt Sour Source cess 173 Inde Indexx of Moder Modern n Auth Author orss 188
Abbreviations Abbreviations Theabbreviationsareaccordingtothe HandbookofStyle with the following additions: BdS BEstB BibTS Bonn Bo nnet et ChrAnt
Arbeiten zur Bibel Bibel und ihrer Geschichte Abhandlungen der GeistesGeistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Aristote: Traductions et études Bibli ibliot othè hèqu quee copt coptee de Nag Ha Hamm mmad adii textes xtes Der Begrif der Seele Biblioteca de estudios bíblicis Biblisch-theologische Studien Bonn Bo nnet et,, M. Acta apostolorum apocrypha . 2 vols. Hildesheim 1959. Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature Christianisme antique Cahiers d’ or orientalisme Christian Origins Library Companion to the Qumran Scrolls Deut euterocan ocanoonic nical and and Co Cogn gnat atee Lit Literat eratur uree Yearb earboook Diels, H., and W. Kranz. Fragmente der Vorsokratiker . 3 vols. 6th ed. Berlin 1951–1952. Dieu vivant Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls . Edited by L.H. Schifman and J.C. VanderKam. VanderKam. 2 vols. vols. Oxford 2000. 2000. Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by L. Jones. 15 vols. 2nd ed. Farmington Hills, Mich., 2005. Gesammelte Aufsätze Muraoka, T. T. A Greek Greek-En -Engli glish sh Lexico Lexiconn of the Septua Septuagin gint:t: (Twelv Twelvee Proph Proph-ets). Leuven 1993. Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiely of the Pentateuch Pentateuch and the Twelve Twelve Prophets Prophets. Leuven 2002. Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint . Leuven 2009. Götti ötting nger er Ha Hand ndkkomme omment ntar ar zum zum Alt Alten Testa estame ment nt Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräischer Grammatik . Edited by E. Kautzsch. Edited by G. Bergsträsser. 28th ed. Hildesheim 1962. Repr. Repr. of Leipzig 1909. Univ Univer ersi sity ty of Ca Cali lifo forn rnia ia Publ Public icat atio ions ns in Grae Graeco co-R -Rom oman an Arch Archae aeol olog ogy y
JAJSup JSJSup
OSAPS OSAPSup up OxfPap Perip QdP PvdE RdM VCSup WorldClass WorldClass Zet
Herders biblische Studien Journal of Ancient Judaism Journal of Ancient Ancient Judaism Supplements Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint . 2nd rev. ed. Stuttgart 2003. Library of New Testament Studies Library of Second Temple Studies Mittteilu Mi eilung ngeen für für Anth Anthrropolo pologi giee und und Relig eligio ions nsggesc eschic hichte hte Münsteraner Judaistische Studien Mede Me dede deel eling ingen en en verh verhan ande deliling ngen en van van het het Voo oora razia ziatis tisch ch-E -Egy gypt ptisc ischh Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” A New New Engl English ish Transl ranslat atio ionn of the the Sept Septua uagi gint nt and and Othe Otherr Gree Greekk Trans ranslalations Traditionally Included under That Title . Edited by A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright. Oxford 2007. Nock, A.D., ed., and A.-J. Festugi tugièère, trans. Corpus Corpus hermet hermeticu icum m , Traités – – . 2nd ed. Collection des universités de France. Paris 1960. 1960. Nock, A.D., ed., and A.-J. Festugière, trans. Corpus hermeticum , Traités –; Asclépius . 2nd ed. Collection des universités de France. Paris 1960. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies Oxford Handb ndbooks in Religion and Theology Oxfor Oxfordd Studie Studiess in Ancien Ancientt Philos Philosoph ophyy Supple Supplement mentary ary Volumes olumes Oxford Paperbacks Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series Peripatoi Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava Publications in Medieval Studies Phoenix Supplementary Volumes Quellen der Philosophie Proeven voor de eredienst Religionen der Menschheit Stud Studie iess in the the Aram Aramai aicc Inter nterpr pret etat atio ionn of Scri Script ptuure Scri Script ptaa antiq antiqui uitat tatis is post poster erio iori riss ad ethi ethica cam m reli religi gion onem emqu quee perti pertinen nen-tia Septuagint and Cognate Studies Texts xts and and Stud Studie iess in Me Medi diev eval al and and Earl Earlyy Mo Mode dern rn Juda Judais ism m Supplements to Vigiliae christianae World’s Classics Zetemata
Contributors Reinhard Feldmeier Feldmeier Professor of New Testament, Faculty of Theology, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Germany Robert Haywar Hayward d Professor Emeritus in the Department of Theology and Religion, Durham Uni versity, versity, United Kingdom Robert A. A. Kugler Kugler Paul S. Wright Professor of Christian Studies, College of Arts and Sciences, Lewis & Clark University, University, United States of America Ed Noort Professor Emeritus of Ancient Hebrew Literature and the History of Religion of Ancient Israel, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands Mladen Popović Popović Professor of Old Testament and Early Judaism, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta Lanzillotta Senior Lecturer in New Testament Testament and Early Christian Studies, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands Loren T. T. Stuckenbruck Stuckenbruck Profess Professor or of New Testamen estament,t, Protes Protestan tantt Theolog Theologica icall Fa Facul culty ty,, Ludwig Ludwig-Ma -Maxim ximili ili-ans-Universität, Munich, Germany Michaël N. N. van der Meer Lecturer in Old Testament, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands George H. van Kooten Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten Ruiten Professor of the Reception History of the Bible: Historical Hermeneutics, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands Beatrice Wyss Resea Research rcher er in the Emmy Emmy Noether Noether-Pr -Projec ojectt “Ratio “Ratio religi religioni onis, s,”” Faculty aculty of Theolo Theology gy,, Georg-August-University Georg-August-University Göttingen, Germany; Visiting Lecturer in Latin Literature, Faculty of Humanities, University of Basel, Switzerland
Introduction The concept of a division between body and soul, as an interpretation of the principles dening the existence of human beings, is strongly associated with Descartes’ rigorous dualism, with the body being understood as a “corporeal substance” (res extensa) and the soul as a non-physical, mental substance ( res Howev ever er,, the theolog theologica ical,l, psycho psycholog logica ical,l, and epist epistemol emologi ogical calasp aspect ectss cogitans). How of this date back to classical antiquity: Issues such as the immortality of the soul, the debate about matter versus life, and whether one was capable of knowing the outside world were all being extensively discussed already. The concept of an immortal soul in a mortal body is one of the oldest elements of this problem, one that occurs in many religions in both East and West. The present volume addresses this issue, and focuses on early Judaism and Christianity, Christianity, where this issue is often related to the initial chapters of o f the book of Genesis. This volume contains the revised papers of a Themes in Biblical Narrative Narrative colloquium which took place at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the University of Groningen on September 9–10, 2010, which was devoted to the interpretation of Gen 2:7 in relation to this broader b roader issue of dualistic dualistic anthropology anthropology within the context context of early Judaism and ChristianChristianity. In the history of the various interpretations, Gen 2:7 is often found to be inte interpr rpret eted ed in a duali dualisti sticc wa wayy, in that that it refe refers rs to tw twoo funda fundamen menta tallllyy dife difere rent nt— — and and in some some wa ways ys con coniict ctin ing— g—pri princ ncip iple less deter determi mini ning ng the the exis existe tenc ncee of huma humann beings. On the one hand, man is totally earthbound, a mortal being, while, on the other, the gift of the breath of life is the God-given additional element that enables man to survive death. In his article “Taken from the Soil, Gifted with the Breath of Life: The Anthropology of Gen 2:7 in Context,” Context,” E E N N states, however, however, that these diferent principles are complementary rather than conicting. He studies Gen 2:7 against the background of the literary tradition of the ancient Near East, with which it has many motifs in common, such as the thought that man is earthbound, formed form ed or modeled mode led from clay, clay, along with the thought that a second step is required to move from the model in clay to the living being. In contrast to Mesopotamia, Genesis 2 does not suggest a kind of mixture of divine and human essentials. There is no dualistic view of creaturely creaturely body from below and an immortal immortal soul from above in the nonpriestly pre-exilic text of Gen 2:7, and neither in the exilic prophetic text of Ezek 37 nor in the wisdom reections of Eccl 3:19–21; 12:7 in Hellenistic times. They all show a dichotomous picture in that they distinguish between the body and the life force that animates the body. It is intangible but can be
discerned in the breath, the spirit, or in the blood. The active agent is God; the context is creation/recreation and death. The breath is a complementary but necessary element. Neither the breath nor the body is the “better” part of a human being; they need each other. For the Hebrew Bible, from Genesis via Ezekiel to Ecclesiastes, the use of o f “dualism” is not suitable. L S, in his article entitled “Theological Anthropology andtheEnochic Book of Watchers (1 En.6–16),”discussesthetheologicalanthropology of the early Enochic traditions preserved in the Book of Watchers. The plac placee of the the huma humann bein beingg wi with thin in the the crea creatted orde orderr is situ situat ated ed in a dial dialog ogue ue wi with th the early chapters of Genesis, even though there is no citation of, or allusion to the divine creation of Adam in Gen 2:7. In Genesis, humanity shares with the animal world the status of being a living creature created from earth. People have have the task to be fruitful and multiply multiply and ll the earth. At the same time, among living creatures, humanity is endowed with a status that sets it apart. It is fashioned in the image of God, and marked out by a divine bestowal of the breath of life. Moreover, humanity functions as a steward of other parts of the created order. In the Book of Watchers, humanity is compared with the gian giants ts.. Altho Althoug ughh the gian giants ts are are rega regard rded ed as mis mists ts wi with thin in the the crea create tedd struc structu ture ress of the cosmos, they and humans have an analogous bipartite existence. They both both cons consis istt of spir spirit it,, and and they they both both inha inhabi bitt bodie bodies. s. Ther Theree are are dife difere renc nces es,, howhowever. In the Codex Panopolitanus, the term ψυχαί (“souls”) is withheld from the giants, and applied exclusively to humanity. Moreover, the physical frame of the giants could be called either “body” or “esh,” whereas the term “body” is neve neverr used used for huma humani nity ty.. The The dist distin incti ction on betw between een huma humans ns and and gian giants ts is furth further er emph emphas asiz ized ed by the the attri attribu buti tion on of “blo “blood” od”to to huma humann bein beings gs.. The The blood bloodle less ss gian giants ts are thus made to shed the blood of innocent victims. The mix of spirit/soul and esh in humanity reects what God gave to humans from the start. The spirits and bodies of the giants, however, originated from a forbidden comingling. Although the fallen angels and giants can be regarded as decipherable metaphors (e.g., Diadochi: wayward priests), who have have taken on objectionable o bjectionable practices mediated by Hellenistic culture, 1 En. 6–16 does not present a social dualism that pits one group of humans versus another; instead, it is the watchers who have breached the boundaries that t hat distinguish the heavenly from the earthly earthly sphere. sphere. The fundamental fundamental distinction distinction between human nature, nature, on the one hand, and the demonic (which by its very nature is a perversion of the created order), on the other, keeps humanity, humanity, in principle and as a whole, within w ithin thepurviewofthedivinepurposeofredemption.Foralltheatrocitiesthatpeople, even in oppressive positions, commit against one another, there is something in human nature that, in principle, can be reclaimed by God, the creator of all.
Although Greek Jewish authors from the Roman period per iod onwards read the Septuaginta of Gen 2:7 through the lens of Platonic dualistic thought, there is no reas reason on to supp suppos osee that that this this wa wass the the purp purpos osee of the the Gree Greekk tran transl slat ator orss roug roughl hly y three centuries earlier. earlier. In his article, “Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen Gen 2:7, 2:7,”” M M ë ë M M shows that the Septuagint Septuagint of Gen Gen 2:7 played no role in the development of a dualistic anthropology. He proposes reading the Greek translation in the light of contemporary documents from the immediate cultural context of the Septuagint. It then becomes clear that the Greek translators wanted to render their source text, to the best of their abilities, in a language that was understandable for their contemporary audience. A study of the contemporary papyri makes clear that there is more of a Greek literary context for the Septuagint than just Greek philosophical writings. By rendering the Hebrew into Greek in the way they did, the translators often adopted words known from their cultural context. The combination of the words (πλάσσω (πλάσσω and χοῦς; πνοή and ζώη), however, however, was unprecedented, and must have sounded strange and fascinating to Greek ears. The Two Spirits Treatise from Qumran is usually interpreted as a unique expression of dualistic anthropology in early Judaism. In his contribution “Anthropology, thropology, Pneumatology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in Early Judaism: The Two Spirits , 13–, 26) and Other Texts Texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Scrolls,” howTreatise (1 , ever ever,, M M P P show showss that that ther theree is infa in fact ct a lack lack of a clea clearr, uneq unequi uivvocal ocal state sta temen mentt of duali dualisti sticc anth anthro ropo polo logy gy in this this wo work. rk. Huma Humank nkin ind’ d’ss fram framew ework ork wa wass not created out of two opposing spiritual elements. Although the Two Spirits be ings, this opposition is Treatise does refer to two opposing groups of human beings, not strictly dualistic, since the Angel of Darkness also exerts inuence over the Sons of Light. The text is thus not concerned with expounding on a strict dualism at the level of diferent groups of human beings. Notions of cosmological and ethical dualism in the Two Spirits Treatise, however, are intricately connected. They also exert their inuence on an anthropological level, expressed in human behavior, but this is not a dualistic anthropology. B W, in her contribution “From Cosmogony to Psychology: Philo’s Interpretation of Gen 2:7 in De opicio mundi , Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesi Genesinn, and Legum allegori allegoriae ae,” approaches Philo’s interpretation of Gen 2:7 in diferent writings. In De opicio mundi , Philo separates the man created in Gen 1:26–27 (the idea or genus of humankind) from the one molded in Gen 2:7 (the physical man), but he also brings both together in that he adopts the Jewish reading that sees the godlikeness of the human mind realized by the divine πνεῦμα “taking place” in the human mind. De opicio mundi is a literal account of the creation, containing many themes from, and allusions to Plato’s philosophy. It can be considered as an explicitly Jewish treatment
of the Timaeus. In the Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin, Philo presents an ontological diference between the man created in Gen 1:26–27 and the physical one molded out of clay by the potter in Gen 2:7. He stresses the composite nature of man as a conglomeration of a perishable body and a non-perishable, immortal soul, which ts well with the Jewish division of the realm of God (incorporeal, invisible and imperishable) from the realm of man (corpor (corporeal eal,, sense-p sense-perc ercepti eptible ble and perisha perishable ble). ). In Legum allegor Philoo read readss allegoriae iae, Phil Gen 2 as a statement about the constitution of the mind, which was a popular topic in his day. day. He states that there are two kinds of “man”: the heavenly one, which is created according to God’s image (Gen 1:26–27) and which does not partake in perishable earthly substance, and the earthly one, which is said to be molded out of disparate matter (Gen 2:7). The earthly man symbolizes the mind at the moment of being incorporated into the body and before being wholly absorbed by it. If the mind were already in the body, contact with the divine would be impossible, since we have to suppose that the divine does not partake in corporeal things. Without divine breath, the mind would fall into ruin, but by means of the divine breath it is no longer merely molded but also becomes a soul. The inspiration by God imparts the principle of life, by which real reallilife fe is dif difer eren enti tiat ated ed from from vege vegeta tati tive ve life. life.God God brea breath thes es into into the the ea earth rthly ly man, man, becauseGodgrantsgoodnesstoeveryone,eventotheimperfect.Moreover,this brea breath th serv serves es as a basi basiss for for just justic ice. e. By inte interp rpre reti ting ng Gen Gen 2:7 2:7 as mind mind befo before re bein beingg incorporated into the body, and therefore dwelling in the intelligible sphere rathe ratherr than than in the real realm m of sens sense-p e-per erce cepti ption on,, Phil Philoo mana manage gess to bypa bypass ss the the Stoi Stoicc connotations of a materialistic πνεῦμα. R K, in his paper entitled “On Anthropology and Honor in the TestamentofJob ,”showsthatthe TestamentofJob hasapositiveviewofdualistic anthropology. He argues that the distinction between acquired and ascribed honor that is made in the Testament of Job depends heavily on a contrast betweenakindofanthropologicalmonismheldbymostcharactersinthestory and Job’s dualistic anthropology. Job’s understanding of the intrinsic duality of the human being is the key to his appreciati appreciation on of the dualistic dualistic cosmology cosmology that everyone else in the narrative accepts but fails to value fully. Those who embrace a dualistic anthropology are rewarded and satised with the honor ascribed to this. When Job’s soul is carried to heaven by the heavenly one, while his body remains behind to be buried, only he and his daughters discern his passage between the two parts of the cosmos, and the honor this ascribes to him for having persevered in loyalty to God. The theme of the testament poin points ts in the the dire direct ctio ionn of the the seco second nd half half of the the rs rstt cent centur uryy , when when Egyp Egypti tian an Judeans were adjusting to the diminished opportunities Roman rule ofered them.
R F, in his contribution on “Christ As Creator: Paul’s Eschatological Reading of Gen 2:7 in 1Cor 15:45,” shows how Paul’s reading of Gen 2:7 is developed in 1Cor 15. Christ is identied with God’s own life-giving spirit. This close association of Christ and God is no exception in Paul’s theology and Christology, Christology, since this already occurred in the pre-Pauline hymn that Paul included in his letter to the Philippians, and in which Christ is given the nameof“Lord.”Christ’sparticipationinGod’spowerasrulerofthewholeworld also also exte extend ndss to his his part partic icip ipat atio ionn in God’ God’s crea creati tion on at the the begin beginni ning ng.. Paul aul dist distin in-guishes two Adams, probably using an exegesis of Alexandrian Judaism, where the two creations of man in Gen 1 and 2 are interpreted as the creation of two diferent men, as we have also seen in Wyss’s contribution. He combines this double creation with the thought t hought that it is the divine breath that gives immortality to human beings. Paul’s Paul’s argumentation, however, however, is not protological but eschatological: The rst Adam was only a living being, doomed to death. He caused his own death, because he did not resist the temptation of the snake to become like God and therefore disobeyed disob eyed God’s command. Christ is the last Adam. As the Kyrios, he is identied with God’s own life-giving spirit, transforming those who are doomed to die so that they attain a celestial existence. ChristdidnotregardhisequalitytoGodassomethingtobeexploited,buthumbled himself, taking the form of a slave, and became obedient to the point of death. death. Paul aul does does not not dist distin ingu guis ishh an anth anthro ropo polo logi gica call dual dualis ism m wi with thin in the the huma humann being, between body and soul. He does distinguish, however, however, a dualism of relationship: He who is living “in Christ” is destined to be transformed by the last Adam so he attains an everlasting existence and will bear the image of the heavenly man, whereas those who do not only bear the image of the earthly man and will therefore die like the rst Adam. Particularly when it comes to ethics, Paul aul uses uses the the anta antago goni nism sm of spiri spiritt and and esh esh,, or, or, more more preci precise sely ly,, the the anta antago goni nism sm between living according to the spirit and living according to the esh. In classical antiquity, antiquity, anthropological schemes correlate with cosmological cos mological ones,becauseoftheviewthatthehumanbeingisamicrocosmos.Plato’sbipartite tite conce concepti ption on of man man (soul (soul and and body) body),, for exam exampl ple, e, stri strictl ctlyy corre correla late tess wi with th his his view of the cosmos (ideas and and matter). The same holds true for Aristotle, since his tripartite conception of man (intellect as opposed to soul and body) correlates with his tripartite vision of the cosmos (the Unmoved Mover, the astral sphere, sphere, and sublunar world). Even Even the Stoic dualistic dualistic conception of the cosmos (the active and passive) is determinant for the Stoic’s view of man (soul and and body body). ). In his his pape paperr “Anthr Anthrop opol olog ogic ical al View Viewss in Nag Nag Ha Hamma mmadi di:: The The Bipa Biparti rtite te and Trip Tripart artit itee Concep Conception tionss of Human Human Bein Being, g,”” L L R R L L shows shows how Gnosti Gnosticc texts texts shape shape their their anthro anthropol pologi ogical cal scheme schemes. s. Texts exts includ including ing a bipartite view of man present a bipartite view of the cosmos. They oppose
divine and earthly regions in the same way that they contrast soul with body. As for texts including a tripartite view of man (contrast of the intellect with the soul-body conglomerate), they present a tripartite world-view (opposition of the transcendent divine region to the realm of movement, including the astral and earthly regions). The anthropological schemes of the Nag Hammadi texts are due neither to the inuence of a more basic Christian opposition of spiritual and material realities nor to the bipartite background of Gen 2:7. They arise from the diferent conceptual milieus, in which the texts rst saw light. While bipartite schemes appear to remain faithful to traditional Platonism, free of Aristotelian inuences, trichotomous anthropologies reect the tripartit tite view view of man man curr curren entt in Mi Midd ddle le Plat Platon onic ic cont contex exts ts unde underr the the in inue uenc ncee of the the Peripatos, Peripatos, which from the second century onwards onwards is more palpable thanks to the edition of the Corpus aristotelicum by Andronicus of Rhodos more than a century earlier. earlier. R H,inhispaper“Adam,Dust,andtheBreathofLifeaccording to the Targumim of Gen 2:7,” studies the Aramaic versions of Gen 2:7. Targum Onqelos On qelos, Targum Targum Neoti Neo ti , and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan insist that God Adam (cf. Gen 1:27). They further insist that God’s breath within him created Adam became a speaking spirit, which seems to be derived from the application of scriptural verses from the Prophets and the Writings to Gen 2:7 in an attempt to dene what diferentiated Adam as a living being from the animals as living beings. It would seem that Ps 139, in particular, played an important part in the thinking of at least some rabbis about the nature of Adam’s formation. Adam was thus composed of both earthly and heavenlymaterial. heavenly material. TargumOnqelos further implies, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan openly declares, that some of the earth used in his creation was holy. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems also to envisage an analogy between God’s mixing the dust and water, which make up Adam’s body, and the mixture of holy substances by the priests in the temple service. Fragment Targum of Vatican 440, which preserves a (literary) translation of only the last four words of the verse, might have been aware of the danger involved in publishing too freely the notion that Adam had had wi with thin in him him a spea speaki king ng spir spirit it of divi divine ne orig origin in.. It migh might, t, ther theref efor ore, e, hav have been been concerned with warning about having a too elevated view of Adam. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Onqelos might have been helpful in combating gnostic, Manichean, or other dualistic-style notions about the low-grade quality of Adam’s formation. In particular, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s expansive interpretation of the verse stands in complete contrast to the picture of the human being presented in the Hodayot from from Qumran, in which the physical characteristics of humanity are intimately associated with negative qualities like shame, iniquity, sin, and pollution.
The contributions in this volume, “And God Breathed into Man the Breath of Life,” suggest that the dualism of this dualistic anthropology was questioned in diferent ways in early Judaism J udaism and in Christianity. To bring to a close this introduction, we wish to express our thanks to the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the University of Groningen for making the colloquium possible, both through its hospitality and through its nancial contribution. We greatly value the ongoing interest of Brill Publishers in this series, and wish to thank, in particular, Loes Schouten and Tessa Schild. Our student-assistant, Albertina Oegema, was of invaluable editorial assistance. Jacques van Ruiten Ruiten & George van Kooten Kooten Groningen, October 2015
Taken from the Soil, Gifted with the Breath of Life: The Anthr nthrop opo ology logy of Gen 2:7 2:7 in Cont Conteext* Ed Noort
1
Introduction
In Western culture, most people are familiar with the words from Christian liturgy spoken at the graveside: “We commit his/her body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.” The quotation from Genesis “until you return to the soil ( ), for out of it you were taken; you are dust ( ), and to dust you shall return” (Gen 3:19), with Gen 2:7 in the background, has always been understood in a dualistic way. The dark words “earth,” “ashes,” and “dust” are surrounded by a statement of eternal life, “in sure and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life,” inspired by the condence that the One who breathed life into man will also renew that t hat life. Jewish liturgy uses the magnicent poem of death at the end of the book of Ecclesiastes in the same way, stating “and the dust ( ) returns to the earth ( ) as it was, and the breath/spirit ( ) returns to God” (Eccl 12:7). In the memorial prayer, prayer, a orilegium of psalm words prepares the stage for the quote from Ecclesiastes. After Ps 49:16 (“Surely God will free me from the grave, he will receive me indeed”), follows Ps 73:26 (“My esh and my heart fail, yet God is my strength forever”). Without doubt the quote in the Siddur in this cont contex ext, t, prec preced eded ed by both both psal psalms ms,, serv serves es a dual dualis isti ticc view view:: the the dust dust to the the ea eart rth, h, man’s self, his spirit, to God. Thus, we may start with the observation that in the history of interpretation, and especially in a confessional context, Gen 2:7 was interpreted in a dualistic way. way. On the one hand, man is totally earthbound, * A German German version version of this this article article was publi published shed in Viele Wege zu dem Einen: Historische Bibelkritik – Die Vitalität der Glaubensüberlieferung Glaubensüberlieferung in der Moderne (eds. S. Beyerle, A. Graupner, ner, U. Rüterswörden; BibTS 121; Neukichen-Vluyn 2012), 1–22. T.W. .W. Mundahl, “From “From Dust to Dust: An An Exploration of Elemental Integrity,” Integrity,” 6 6 (1986): 86– 96,esp.86; Lutheran (Minneapolis is 1978), 1978), 213; Dienst LutheranBook Book of Worship orship (Minneapol Dienstboe boek: k: EenPr Een Proev oevee , Leven, Leven, zegen, gemeenschap (PvdE 5; Zoetermeer 2004), Orde , 915; Orde , 922. Mundahl, Mundahl, “Dust, “Dust,” 86. See P. Birnba Birnbaum, um, ed., ed., (New York 1969), 665, for a memorial service on Yom Kippur and other occasions. For both Psalms, see H. Delkurt, “Der Mensch ist dem Vieh (BibTS 50; gleich, das vertilgt wird”: wird”: Tod Tod und Hofnung gegen den Tod Tod in Ps 49 und bei Kohelet (BibTS Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchen-Vluyn 2005), 14–75.
© , , , , | : ./ ./ _ _
a mortal being, dust to dust. On the other hand, the communities of faith understood understood the gift of the breath of life as the God-given God-given additional additional element that enabled man to survive death. This volume encompasses the theme of a dualistic anthropology and its development. The central question for this paper will be whether Gen 2:7 and other important texts from the Hebrew Bible can be qualied as “dualistic.” Without doubt d oubt later times used them in such a way. way. Often they were read in the light of the Paulini Paulinicc asynthetic asynthetic wordpair σάρξ and πνευμα. πνευμα. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, the question remains: Does the qualication “dualistic” t the texts from the Hebrew Bible in their own setting? It is not necessary to restart the whole discussion of “dualism” and its use in theology and exegesis, for it is a long way from its rst use by Thomas Hyde (1636–1703) (1636–1703) in his characterization of Zoroastrianism to its widespread reception in philosophy and systematic theology. In this paper, it is used to refer to two fundamentally diferent, in some way conicting, principles determining the existence of human beings. That may be true for the later developments, but for the basic principles of Old Testamentanthropology,thequestionof complementary ratherthan conlicting elements comes rst. I start this paper with death, because in the world of the Old Testament estament (and not only there) death denes the condition condition and the borders of life. A dead body is missing something, but what? What is the diference between a corpse and a living being? The answers in the Hebrew Bible vary. vary. In violent situations and in the cultic context of the slaughter of animals, the criterion is without doubt “blood.” In the archetypical murder in Gen 4:10, the voice of the blood of Abel cries out o ut to Yhwh (“fromtheground/earth”),whichisalinktothecreationofman fromthesoil( )inGen2:7.InGen4:10,thepluralof (“blood”)isused. It always means “spilt blood.” blood.” This image appears again with the cry of Job in Job 16:18 (“O, (“O, earth cover not my blood and let my cry nd no resting place”). With this background, the Holiness Code in Lev 17:11 reects the empirical, cultic, and mythological importance of blood with the crucial statement: “The life of the esh is in the blood” ( ). We translated here with “life”, wich is the Leitwort of of Gen 2:7.
T. Hyde Hyde,, Veterum eterum Persar Persarum um et Parthor Parthorum um et Medorum Medorum religioni religioniss historia historia (Oxford 1700 [1st ed.], 1760 [2nd ed.). S. Anthonioz, Anthonioz, “Le sang est est la vie: Réexion Réexion sur la création création humaine humaine (Gn 2,7),” 2,7),” 116 (2009): 5–14. L. Koehler, Koehler, W. W. Baumgartner, Baumgartner, and J.J. J.J. Stamm, “ ,” 1:215b; H. Seebass, Genesis , Urge 1:215b; schichte (1,1–11,26) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996), 155.
,
A second and more general answer, answer, however however,, is “breath.” “Breath” “Breath” marks the diference between the dead body and the living being. Breath is needed for life. While this is a simple remark, it means that in the creation stories an added element plays a fundamental role. It is a complementary but necessary element, not a conicting one. In the healing narrative of Elijah (1Kgs 17), the son of the widow dies (?!) because “his illness grew worse until he had no breath ( ) left in him” (17:17). Elijah stretches his body over the child and prays for the return of the of the boy, boy, which happens (17:22). In the parallel narr narrat ativ ivee in 2 Kgs Kgs 4, Elis Elisha ha does does the the same same,, “put “putti ting ng his his mout mouthh on his his mout mouth, h, his his eyestohiseyesandhishandsonhishands”(2Kgs4:34).Thesestoriesofrevival from death reect popular beliefs honouring the magical powers of a “man of God.” Nevertheless, the anthropological view is clear: without breath there is no life. With “breath” ( ) we have our second keyword in Gen 2:7. In the creation hymn, Ps 104:27, 29–30, the breath of life is exclusively connected with Yhwh: 27 29
30
They all wait upon you That you may give [them] their food in due time … You turn your your face away, away, they sufer, you take take away away their breath ( ), they die and return to their dust ( ) You send your breath ( ), they are created ( ) And you [i.e., [i.e., Yhwh] renew the face of the earth (
)
Rather than we now have , but the function is the same: where the divine breath is lacking, creatures die. Though and have diferent roots, they can be used as synonyms. In a parallelismus parallelismus membrorum Isa 42:5 states: 5
Thus says God, Yhwh, … Who gives breath ( ) to the people upon it [i.e., the earth] And breath/spirit ( ) to those who walk in it …
On the one hand, hand, does not appear here, and on the other hand Dan 10:17 and 1Kgs 10:5 demonstrate that the phrase does not always mean death. In a balanced overview, Thiel (W. Thiel, Könige .1, (1Kön 17,1 – 24) [ 9.2.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000], 70–71) concludes: “geht “geht dem Menschen Menschen der Atem Atem aus … oder kehrt kehrt dieser zurück zu Gott … oder zieht Gott ihn wieder an sich … dann stirbt der Mensch. Daß in 1 Kön 17,17 nichts anderes gemeint ist, bestätigen der Kontext und die spätere Interpretation in Sir 48,5.” The last argument is conclusive.
Job 34:14–15 is even clearer: 14 15
If he [i.e., God] should take back his spirit ( And gather to himself his breath ( ) All esh ( ) would perish together And all man ( ) return to dust ( )
) to himself
In the story of the ood, the reversal of creation, many phrases refer to that crea creati tion on.. In Gen Gen 7:22 7:22 a rema remarka rkabl blee combi combina nati tion on appe appear ars, s, comi coming ng from from a reda redacctional hand. The verse reads “All, in whose nostrils nost rils was the the brea breath th of the the spir spirit it of d ied.”” At the beginning of v. 22, refers to in v. v. 21. The “breath life … died. of life” ( ), however, however, stems from Gen 2:7. It returns here together with the of all the animals entering the ark in Gen 7:15, normally understood as a part of the priestly version of the ood story. The result is the accumulation of three nouns: . The redactional hand that inserted could connect the and the because they were synonyms for him. The appears next to . Both expressions have a history of their own. In exilic and post-exilic literature they can be used as synonyms. Several texts connect them almost exclusively with Elohim or Yhwh. “Breath” is a conditio sine qua non for human beings. With these two nouns we are already in the neighbourhood of the third concept used in Old Testament anthropology: . Despite the long debate on under pressure from the Greek concept of “soul,” the root originally means “throat,” the part of the body related to H.W. H.W. Wolf, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments (München 1973), 96–101. A.R. A.R. Johnso Johnson, n, The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Cardif 1964); B. Janowski, Konliktgespräche mit Gott: Eine Anthropologie der Psalmen (Neukirchen Vluyn 2003), 44, 204–214; B. Janowski, “Anthropologie “Anthropologie des Alten Testaments: Versuch einer Grundlegung,” in Anthropologische Aubrüche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinäre Zu(ed. A. Wagne agner; r; 232; 232; Gött Götting ingen en 2009 2009), ), 13–4 13–411 (lit (lit- gänge zur historischen Anthropologie (ed. erature); D. Michel, “næpæš als als Leichnam?,” 7 (1994): (1994): 81–84; M. Rösel, Rösel, “Die Geburt der 7 SeeleinderÜbersetzung:Vonderhebräischen näfäsch überdie psyche derzurdeutschen Seele,” in Anthropologische Aubrüche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinäre Zugänge zur historischen Anthropologie (ed. A. Wagner; 232; Göttingen 2009), 151–170; O. Sander, “Leib-Seele-Dualismus im Alten Testament?,” 77 (1965): 329–332; H. Seebass, “ næ 5:531–555 (literature); A. Wagner, “Wider die Reduktion des Lebendigen: Über pæš ,”,” ThWAT 5:531–555 dasVerhältnisdersogenanntenanthropologischenGrundbegrifeunddieUnmöglichkeitmit ihnen die alttestamentliche Menschenvorstellung zu fassen,” fassen,” in Anthropologische Anthropologische Aubrüche: Aubrüche: Alttestamentliche Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinäre interdisziplinäre Zugänge zur historischen Anthropologie (ed. A. Wagner; 232; Göttingen 2009), 183–199; Wolf, Anthropologie, 25–48.
,
“breath,” “breath,” and the weakest part. Though there is a wide variety in meaning, the most accurate description d escription is still Johnson’s “vitality, “vitality,” supported by Seebass and Janowski.
2
Genesis 2: 2 :7
Genesis 2:7 is among the most quoted passages from the Hebrew Bible. Travelling through time it has changed function, meanings, and contexts. It had diferent audiences and was part of the belief systems of diferent groups. The starting point, however, is the Hebrew Bible and the Near Eastern context. Within the canonical corpus, I focus on roughly three stages st ages in the history of tradition: the non-priestly pre-exilic text of Gen 2:7; the exilic text of Ezek 37; and the reections of Eccl 3:19–21; 12:7 in Hellenistic times. Both texts, Ezek 37 andEccl3and12,refertoGen2:7.BesidesIrefertotextsfromtheAncientNear East as background for Gen 2:7. The spotlight in Gen 2–3 is on the . Gen 2:7 is the rst main clause of the the so so-c -cal alle ledd seco second nd crea creati tion on stor storyy in Gen Gen 2:5– 2:5–3: 3:24 24.. Ther Theree man man is form formed ed out out of clay in the same way as every animal (Gen 2:19) and becomes a through the (Gen 2:7). Together Together with his partner he is placed in thegardenofEden,whichisfulloftrees that that prov provid idee them them wi with th food food (Gen 2:9), but the rst human beings end up “east of Eden” with the cherubim “guarding the way to the tree of life” (Gen 3:24). The is cursed because of Adam (Gen 3:17), and man will return to the from which he was taken (Gen 3:19 [ ]), and during his life he will till the from which he was taken (Gen 3:23). Genesis 2:7 reads
Seebass, ThWAT 5:544: “Mit Johnson handelt es sich um die Vitalität, die sprudelnde Lebenseneregie, die Leidenschaftlichkeit, die die næpæš auszeichnet”; auszeichnet”; Janowski, Konlikand a “corpse,” see Michel, “Leichnam,” 81– tgespräche , 205. For the problem of the 84. J. Fossu ossum, m, “Gen “Gen 1:26 1:26 and and 2:7 in Juda Judais ism, m, Sama Samari rita tani nism sm,, and and Gnos Gnosti ticis cism, m,”” (1985) 5):: 202– 202– 16 (198 239; L. Nasrallah, “The Earthen Human, the Breathing Statue: The Sculptor God, GrecoRomanStatuary,andClementofAlexandria,”in Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise Paradise (Genesi Genesiss 2–3) 2–3) and Its Recep Receptio tionn Histor Historyy (ed. K. Schmid and C. Riedweg; 2/34; Tübingen 2008), 110–140. On the the interest interesting ing reading readingss of the , see the the article article by Michael N. van der Meer Meer in in this volume, pp. pp. 36–57.
7aa 7ab 7ac 7b
Then Yhwh Yhwh Elohim Elohim formed man [(of [(of ) dust] dust] from from the the soil, soil, He blew blew into into his his nostrils nostrils the breath breath of life life and man became became a living living being being
7aa 7ab 7ac 7b
Contextually, the circumstantial clauses of v. 5–6, with the non-existence of “plants,” “herbs,” “rain,” and “man,” start the biblical narrative in the classical mannerofacreationstoryintheMesopotamiantradition.Itiswellknownthat the same type of opening occurs in Enuma Elish: Enuma Elish Elish 1: 1 2 6 7 8 9
When on high no name was given to heaven, nor earth below was called by name … no cane brake was intertwined nor thicket matted close, when no gods at all had been brought forth, none called by names, none destinies ordained, then the gods were formed within them …
: : ὁ θεὸς in 2:5, 2:5, 7, 9, 19, 19, 21; κύριος ὁ θεὸς θεὸς in 2:8, 15, 15, 16, 18, 22; 22; 3:1, 3:1, 9, 13, 14, 14, 21, 23; 4:6, 15 (bis); 5:29; 6:3. In the olde olderr lite litera ratu ture re,, Enuma Elish is often called “The Epic of Creation.” Hallo suggests correctly that “The Exaltation of Marduk” would be a better name because while the epic starts with creation, its real focus is the kingship of Marduk over the gods after his battle against Tiamat and the celebration of Marduk’s temple Esagila in Babylon (W.W. Hallo, introduction to “Epic of Creation (1.111): ( Enūma Elish),” by B.R. Foster, Foster, in i n The Context of [ed. W.W. Hallo and K. Lawson Script Scriptur uree , Canon Canonica icall Compos Compositi itions ons from from the Biblic Biblical al World orld [ed. Younger Younger,, Jr.; Leiden 1997], 390–391). On the th e other hand, there is proof that Enuma Elish was meant to be recited on the fourth day of the New Year Festival Festival in Babylon. In other words, Enuma Elish was part of the ritual. Dalley (S. Dalley, Dalley, trans., introd., and notes, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and Others [OxfPap; WorldClass; 2nd ed.; Oxford 1991], 232) refers to the propaganda purposes of the ritual: “To the ceremony camego came gover vernor nors, s, plenip plenipote otentia ntiarie ries, s, courti courtiers ers,, top top ocia ocials, ls,and and army army ocer ocerss to renew renew their their oaths of loyalty to the king and royal family, just as the gods swore an oath to Marduk (or ) … When the King’s subjects kiss his feet, they are doing no less than the great gods of heaven and earth did for Marduk. There is no question of rivalry; loyal support is absolute.” Cf. B.R. B.R. Fos Foste terr, “Epi “Epicc of Cre Creat atio ionn (1.11 (1.111) 1):: ( Enūma Elish),” in The Context of Scripture , (ed. W.W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World World (ed. Jr.; Leiden 1997), 391.
,
The negations, both in the Hebrew Bible (no plant, no herb, no one to till) and in the Ancient Near East (no name, no earth, no gods), prepare the stage for the creative act of the deity in the main clause. Before Gen 2:7 does so, there is, however, a remarkable rst act. Between the missing rain of Gen 2:5 and the moulding of man in Gen 2:7, Gen 2:6 confronts us with the , often translated as “mist” or “stream,” rising up from the earth. The poetic word appears elsewhere only in Job 36:27, where it refers to water falling from the clouds, a meaning that does not t the verb (“to rise”) rise”) from the in Gen 2:7. The image probably aims at a spring, as the versiones understand it, fed by the freshwater freshwater ocean apsû and moistening the earth. With a reference to Rashi, Benno Jacob has suggested that the uncommon, poetic noun was chosen for a wordplay with and which seems a real possibility. Whether Jacob’s midrashic statement, “it looks like half a and an incomplete ” is also right, I am not so sure. Rashi and others took up the midrash that says that the water moistened the dust, preparing the clay for the divine potter. potter. Now the moistened m oistened was ready for the next step: the moulding of man. Nevertheless several scholars want to separate Gen 2:5 and Gen 2:7 from Gen 2:6, arguing that Gen 2:6 difers from the “when … not” or “als … noch nicht” construction in Gen 2:5 through a positive act of creation. Westermann Westermann and others understand underst and the watering of the earth as the rst creation act. The better solution, however, is to explain Gen 2:6 as the rst step for Gen 2:7. The potter-artist of Gen 2:7 needs moistened material for the moulding of man. Therefore, Gen 2:6 and Gen 2:7 belong together as Rashi and Jacob proposed. The verb in Gen 2:7 refers, though not exclusively, to the work of the potter. Two-thirds of the references have God as a subject, for example, Isa 64:7 (“Yet, Yhwh, you are our Father, we are the clay [ ] and you are our potter”).Godformspeople,animals,thedryland,andthemountains,butalso the the ligh lightt and and these the seas ason ons. s.Th Thee count counter er-a -arg rgum umen entt that that the the norma normall expr expres essi sion on for clay ( ) is not used in Gen 2:7 is not that important. The moistened as material ts with the image of the potter-artist.
C. Weste esterm rman ann, n, Genesis , Genesis 1–11 ( ( 1.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974), 1974), 273. : πηγὴ πηγὴ;; Vg.: fons. U. Rüte Rüters rsw wörde örden, n, Dominium terrae: Studien zur Genese einer alttestamentlichen Vorstellung (215;Berlin1993),11–13,17–22(IconographyofEnkiandthe apsû),23–26(Transfer of the images on El). B. Jacob Jacob,, trans. trans. and comm., comm., Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (Berlin 1934), 82–83. West esterma ermann nn,, Genesis , Genesis 1–11, 274. Cf. Cf. Isa Isa 29:1 29:16; 6; 45:9 45:9..
There is yet another problem with Gen 2:7a to resolve. The syntactical construction of the verb with its rst object followed by a second object is a strange one. Many scholars refer to §117hh, for the possibility of such a second, material object and, indeed, the possibility exists. In the direct context, however, God makes trees (Gen 2:9), animals (Gen 2:19), and man returns (3:19a) without mention of . The crucial qualication only appears in Gen 3:19b (“Dust are you, and to dust you will return”). It is this essential qualication of human existence that returns in all later stages of the reception recept ion history. history. Man is dust. However, However, if man is “dust,” “dust,” he must have been made out o ut of dust. Therefore a later hand corrected Gen 2:7—that man was made only —adding . After the forming of man, it is said that Yhwh blew into his nostrils the “breath “breath of life” life” ( ). We We have have already seen that and sometimes occur in parallel. In fact, (“breath”) is a narrower and rarer term than (“wi (“wind nd,, spir spirit it”) ”). . In this this case case,, the the brea breath th of life life is the the abil abilit ityy to brea breath the. e. It star starts ts at man man’s crea creati tion on or birt birthh and and ends ends wi with th his his deat death. h. Inde Indeed ed a de deni niti tion on of deat deathh could be non-breathing. Koch has proposed a more specic meaning of . His rst obser vation is that the same expressions are used for the creation of animals and humanbeings.YhwhElohimforms( )theanimals (Gen2:19).Atthe endofGen2:19theyare (livin (livingg creatu creatures res). ). Thus, Thus, the beginn beginning ing—be —being ing moulded out of the soil and the results of becoming a living creature—are the same same for for man man and anima nimal.l. The The seco second nd step step for for man man is the the blo blowi wing ng of the the brea breath th of life into man’s nostrils by Yhwh. However, this particular step seems not to be nece necess ssar aryy for for the the anim animal als. s.Th Thee “bre “breat athh of life life”” for for anim animal alss is miss missin ingg here here,, yet animals also need to breathe. Mitchell demonstrated in 1961 that always has to do with human life and/or with divine actions. It never refers to animals. Therefore Koch concluded that a general meaning such as breath for all creatures cannot be sustained. What do humans have that animals do not? A rst clue could be the verbal use of the stem stem in Isa 42:14 (“Now I will cry like a woman in labor”). Here the verb has to do with speech, and indeed out like
E. Kaut Kautzs zsch ch,, ed., ed., Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräischer Grammatik (ed. (ed. G. Bergsträsser; 28th ed.; Hildesheim 1962 [repr. [repr. of Leipzig 1909]), § 117hh (p. 386). G.J G.J. Wenha enham, m, Genesis 1–15 ( ( 1; Waco, Waco, Tex., 1987), 60. K. Koch,“DerGüte Koch,“DerGüterr Gefäh Gefährl rlich ichst stes es,, dieSprac dieSprache he,, demMensche demMenschenn gege gegebe benn …:Üb …: Über erle legu gung ngen en zu Gen 2,7,” 48 (1988): 50–60; repr. in Spuren des hebräischen Denkens: Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen alttestamentlichen Theologie (K. Koch; ed. B. Janowski and M. Krause; 1; Neukirchen Vluyn 1991), 238–247. 238–247. T.C. Mitchell, Mitchell, “The Old Testament estament Usage Usage of nšama 11 (1961): 177–187. nšama,” 11
,
the Targumim interpret the as the ability to speak. Therefore Koch proposes reading as the gift of speech. Focusing on Gen 2, his proposal would work. Adam understands the words of Yhwh in Gen 2:16, 17. He is in need of speech during the act of giving names to all the animals (Gen 2:19), and he exclaims that his real partner is a (Gen 2:23). In this sense it is an attractive proposal. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, it seems too limited for the later use of . Forinstance,Job32:8reads“Buttrulyitisthespirit( )inamortal,thebreath of the Almighty ( ), that makes for understanding.” understanding.” This “understanding” is much more than mere speech. Moreover, Yhwh Yhwh Elohim blows the into the nostrils of his creature. If “the breath of life” indeed meant the ability ability to speak one would expect that not the nostrils but the mouth would be the object of the divine act. In biblical language the mouth is connected to speech, the nostrils with breath. Clearly, Clearly, there is a diference between the t he animals and human beings in the story of creation. However, the focus is on the question of whether animals could really be the “helper” of Gen 2:18, the solution to the problem “that it is not good that man should be alone.” The same can be asked of the woman created by Yhwh (Gen 2:22). Here the “breath of life” is also absent. The “breath of life” is specically bound to the rst moment of Yhwh’s Yhwh’s moulding of man from f rom the soil. Therefore I understand in the classical way as the intangible life force which w hich animates the body. Nothing more and nothing less.
3
Texts from the Ancient Near East
The narrative of Gen 2 does not have a direct parallel in the Ancient Near East, in cont contra rast st to the the ood ood narr narrat ativ ives es where where ther theree is a dire direct ct rela relati tion onsh ship ip or depen depen-dence. Nevertheless, there is a general pattern of how man came into being, how how he stan stands ds in the the world world and and tow owar ardd his his god(s od(s), ), how how he deal dealss wi with th mort mortal alit ityy, and how the world at the beginning is related to the world experienced by the readerofthetexts.ThestrongestlinksarewithMesopotamia.Sometimesthere are are common common moti motifs fs,, someti sometimes mes the the bibl biblic ical al auth authors ors choos choosee dife difere rent nt path pathss and and diferent answers. Dietrich has revealed some of the most important parallels. From the E-abzu temple of the creator-god Enki in Eridu stems the Sumerian Enki and
M. Dietrich, Dietrich, “Die Menschenschöp Menschenschöpfung fung im Garten Garten Eden: Ein mesopotamisch mesopotamischer er Mythos im Alten Testament,” Testament,” in Mythen der Anderen: Mythopoetik und Interkulturalität (ed. M. DietInterkulturalität (ed. rich; 16; Münster 2004), 21–33.
some me othe otherr myths yths,, man man is crea creatted to relie elievve the the gods ods from from Ninmach Myth. As in so thei theirr hard hard labou labourr. . Asked Asked by his his mother mother Namm Nammu, u, “Enk “Enki,i, the the crea creato torr, who who forms forms all things,” makes the sig-en-sig-šár , a model of man to which he adds arms, forms forms his his brea breast st,, and and intr introdu oduce cess his his wisdom. Ho Howe weve verr, it is the the mothe motherr-go godde ddess ss herself who must give birth to the model, and thus it happens: man is formed by the creator-god Enki but brought to life by the mother-goddess. In the Akkadian Enuma Elish, the gods need humans to enjoy their status as gods, to be relieved from their toil. Thus, Marduk plans to create Lullû-man, the primordial man, “amelu-‘man’ will be his name.” Something of the divine should be in man and therefore the god Kingu, who conspired with Tiamat, is slaughtered. With the help of his blood the god Ea/Enki creates man: “After “After Ea, the wise, had created mankind, he imposed upon it the service of the gods.” Berossos, the Marduk priest in Babylon at the beginning of the third century , , knows the tradition that the blood of the slaughtered god was mixed with clay.Manisnotonlyformedfromdivine(criminal)blood,butalsofromearthly material. The divine blood, however, however, gave man some divine qualities. The Atrahasis Epic starts with a long prehistory. In the very beginning the gods themselves did the heavy work of digging the canals and maintaining irrigation. After an uprising of the Igigu gods a new category of workers was nee eede dedd to tak take ov over er the the toil oil of the the lower gods ods. The wi wise se god Enki nki then then prop propos oses es slaughtering a god and mixing his esh and blood with clay. clay. In this case, it is theGodAwīlu(=(š).)whoisthevictimoftheproposalinthecouncil ofthegods.Heisagodwhohasorganizationalskillswhichhumanswillneed to take over the workload of the gods. After the slaughtering of the god, blood, bloo d, esh, and clay are mixed and the gods spit on the clay. clay. The gender problem is solv so lved ed by the the crea creati tion on of sev seven male maless and and sev seven fema female les. s. This This all all belo belong ngss to the the preparation,therststepsofcreation.Thenextstep,comingtolife,againrelies on the mother-goddess, who gives birth to man. The Epic of Gilgamesh describes the creation of Enkidu, the companion of Gilgamesh. He is created by Aruru: “Aruru washed her hands, pinched of
Enki and Ninmach Myth 1.9–10a: “The senior gods did oversee the work, while the minor gods were bearing the toil. The gods were digging the canals c anals …” M. Dietrich, Dietrich, “Die “Die Tötung einer Gottheit Gottheit in in der der Eridu-Baby Eridu-Babylon-M lon-Mythol ythologie, ogie,” in Ernten, was man sät: sät: Festsch estschri rift ft für Klaus Klaus Koch Koch zu seinem seinem 65. Geburt Geburtsta stagg (ed. D.R. Daniels, U. Glessmer, and M. Rösel; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991), 49–73. Enuma Elish 6.6–7. Enuma Elish 6.35–36. Dietric Dietrich, h, “Tötu “Tötung, ng,” 63; 63; Atrahasis Epic 1.204–212, 223–233. German: Planungsfähigkeit .
,
a piece of clay, cast it out into open country. She created a [primitive man], Enkidu the Warrior.” Enkidu lives with the animals, as one of them. Here sexuality and sexual contact make him wise; making him a “real” man. In the the 4 Myth Myth,, whic whichh surv surviv ives es in both both Sume Sumeri rian an and and Akka Akkadi dian an vers versio ions ns,, two (or more) gods are slaughtered. “Let us slay both Alla gods, with their blood let us create mankind. The service of the gods be their portion for all times.” The motif is the same. Humans are needed to take over the work of the the gods ods and and to serv servee the the gods. ods.Th Thee slau slaugh ghte tere redd gods ods are are craf crafts tsme men. n. In this this case case,, the rst humans have names: Ullegarra and Annegarra. They are probably the rst pair, male and female. Looking back at this short overview it is remarkable that the Genesis tradition has many motifs in common with the literary tradition of the Ancient Near East. There is the common thought that man is earthbound, formed or modelled in clay. clay. There is the common co mmon motif that t hat a second step is required to movefromthemodelinclaytothelivingbeing:birthbythemother-goddessin Mesopotamia, by the breath of life in Gen 2. The motif of the slaughtered god stresses the fact that man has some divine qualities. Sometimes the slaughter is a puni punish shme ment nt for for rev revolt, olt, so some meti time mess the the deit deityy is chos chosen en for for his his capa capaci citi ties es and and characteristics. Genesis 2, however, does not suggest this kind of mixture of divine and human essentials. If we still suppose that the non-priestly version of Gen 2 belongs to the older narrative, the priestly account of the t he creation story of Gen 1 could be a correction of or a supplement to the anthropology of Gen 2. The enigmatic formula of the creation of man in the image of God (1:27), male and female, could be an expansion and/or correction of Gen 2:7. InMesopotamia,maniscreatedtotakeoverthetoilofthegods,amotifthat does not return in Gen 2. Man is taken t aken by Yhwh Elohim “and “and put in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (2:15). This is also work, but not in the sense of the Mesopotamian tradition of taking over the toil of the gods and the t he heavy work of digging and maintaining the canals. The Mesopotamian and the biblical myths ask the same questions about the relationship between man, god(s), and world and they use the same elements in describing the situation occurring in the beginning. Nevertheless, the answers difer because of their narrative context, their social and cultural embeddedness, and the plot of the narratives. There is common ground, there
Epic Epic of Gilg Gilgam ames eshh 1.34– 1.34–41. 41. Epic Epic of Gilg Gilgam ames eshh 1.4.6 1.4.6–34 –34.. See the discussion discussion in Dietrich, Dietrich, “Tötung “Tötung,,” 68n49. 4 Myth Myth 24–2 24–26. 6.
are common motifs, but there is no direct dependence. Here the creation narratives difer from the stories of the ood.
4
Ezekiel 37:1–10
During the long, colourful history of the reception of the dramatic vision in Ezek 37 most attention has been paid to the problem of resurrection. My focus is on the process of revival in Ezek 37:1–10. The exceptional situation is described with a twofold in Ezek 37:2. Theprophetseesaplainfullofscatteredbonesandexclaims:“see,theywere very dry!” This is the most radical image of death. More death is not possible. The The cruc crucia iall ques questi tion on and and answ answer er appe appear ar in Ezek Ezek 37:3 37:3.. He Here re Yhwh Yhwh addr addres esse sess the the prophet prophet as (sic!) and asks: “Son of man, can these bones come to life again?” Here, on the edge of life and death the prophet returns the question to the hands of God: God : “(Only), you, [Lord] Yhwh know!” In his speaking to the bones (Ezek 37:5), the ultimate concern of the prophecy is visible: “See, I will put the spirit ( ) in you, so that you come to life!” The text refers to two t wo stages of revivication: “a rustling of bones bo nes moving together” (Ezek 37:7) and afterwards the appearance of sinews, esh, and skin, but there is still no life, no (Ezek 37:8). No wonder that Ezek 37:9 describes them as (“slain,” “corpses”). The diference is made by Ezek 37:9 and Ezek 37:10. The diferent semantic eldsof allo allow w the the wo word rdpl plaay inEz in Ezek ek 37:9 37:9:: “C “Com omee from from the the four four wi wind ndss ( ), o spirit ( ), and breathe on these slain,” slain,” and thus it happens. Nevertheless, it is not only a wordplay. Here the comes from all directions of the compass. By this mighty spirit even the very dead can be revived. A remarkable step is made in the second seco nd part of the vision. In the explanation of Ezek 37:14, the is explicitly called the “spirit of Yhwh,” Yhwh,” cq. “my spirit” ( ). Here the intertextual link with Ezek 36:26–27 cannot be overlooked: “And I will give you a new heart and I will put a new spirit within you … I will put my spirit ( ) within you.” The revivication of Ezek 37 is the recreation of Ezek 36. In the vision of the priest-prophet Ezekiel, anatomy plays plays a more important role role than than in the the myth myth of Gen Gen 2. Gene Genesi siss wante antedd to stat statee that that man man is ea eart rthb hbou ound nd and nevertheless comes to life. Breath is the diference between life and death. Ezekiel starts with the ugliest and most radical face of death: dry shattered
adds ζωῆς ζωῆς (“b. of life”), life”), without without doubt a reference reference to Gen 2:7.
,
bones. The image is probably that of a battleeld, the result of a violent event. After all, the narrow corridor of Palestine Palestine is the battleground par excell excellence ence for the states in the Near East. The dichotomy that Gen 2:7, Ezek 37, and Ecclesiastes have in common is a dich dichot otomo omous us pictu picture re:: “It “It is not not to be confus confused ed wi with th Idea Idealilism sm’’s duali dualisti sticc concep conceptt of man, insofar as it does not contrast a creaturely body which is from below with an immortal soul which is from above. Rather it distinguishes between the body, which can be seen with the eyes and felt with the hands, and the life force, which animates the body, is intangible but no less efective and can be discerned in the breath,” the spirit or, in another context, in the blood.
5
Ecclesiastes 3:19–21; 12:7
The rst passage related to the anthropology under discussion is Eccl 3:19–21. Verse Verse 19aa reads “For the fate of the humans ( )andthefateofanimals ( ), for them there is one [and the same] fate.” Verse 19ab–ac continues “As one dies, so does the other,” “they all have one breath ( ).” Verse 19ba follows with “and the distinction of over the animal, there is none, for everything is .” Verse 20 conrms the harsh sayings of v. 19 with a reference to Gen 2:7 in its nal version and Gen 3:19 (“All go to one place, all come from the dust [ ] and all return to the dust [ ]”). The message of these verses is clea clearr. Earl Earlie ierr in his his book book Eccl Ecclesi esias aste tess concl conclud uded ed that that ther theree is a commo commonn fate fate for all creatures. He touches upon the question of the wise and the foolish (Eccl 2:14–16) and their common death. In the case of the comparison of humans and and anim animal als, s, Eccl Eccles esia iast stes es emph emphas asiz izes es “tha “thatt the the leve levellllin ingg efec efectt of deat deathh is made made more poignant than before. bef ore. Human beings have one breath, just like animals, and they die just like animals. As the wise die like fools, so people die like animals. animals. As far as mortality is concerned, there is no diference between between the wise and the foolish, or people and animals.” animals.” If this message is so clear, how how should we deal with Eccl 3:21? The , with the vocalization of the full qamets in and the patakh-dagesh in together with the article, must be translated as “Who knows the of the , that goes upward on on high and the of animals that goes down to the earth?” Here it is already clear
W. Zimm Zimmer erlli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel , Chapters 25–48 (trans. J.D. Martin; ed. P.D. Hanson and L.J. Greenspoon; Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1983), 261. For (“fate”), the construct noun (the “fate of ”) should be read. C.L. Seow Seow, trans trans.,., intro introd., d., and comm., comm., Ecclesiastes ( 18; New York, York, .., . ., 1997), 175.
that the breath/spirit of humans goes upward and the breath/spirit of animals goes down. Probably, the best view is that this vocalization is a masoretic, dogmatic correction. In line with the statement of o f Eccl 3:19–20, 21 presents a rhet rhetori orica call ques questi tion on,, oppos opposin ingg the view view that that ther theree is a dif difer eren entt fate fate for for huma humans ns.. The question “who knows that the of man goes upward on high and that the of animals goes down to the earth?,” should be answered “nobody knows!” I argue that there is no contradiction with the saying of the magnicent poem on death and dying in Eccl 12, especially Eccl 12:7, the last words of Ecclesiastes before one or two epilogists take up the dicult task of bringing Ecclesiastes in line with the traditional focus on death and old age. This last part starts with a hymn to the sunlight and youth in Eccl 11:7, while Eccl 12:1 starts with an unexpected formulation: “Remember your in the days of your youth.” youth.” Several solutions have been discussed: (“the well”), (“the pit, pit,”” “the “the gra grave”) ve”),, or, or, para parallllel el to Prov Prov 5:15 5:15–1 –18, 8, “your “your wi wife. fe.” None None of the the alte altern rnat ativ ives es is real really ly convi convinc ncin ing. g. Ther Therefo efore re,, the the best best solut solutio ionn is to stay stay wi with th the the parti partici cipl plee of > and read the singular form as the versiones do: “Remember your Creator.” The text functions as a bridge between the call to rejoice over youth and life of Eccl 11:9 and the awaiting of old age and death of Eccl 12:1b–7. The poem in Eccl 12:1b–7 has several layers of meaning according to Fox. It may describe a funeral in a literal way, but there is an interaction between the literalandsymbolicmeanings.“Thepoem’spurpose…istocreateanattitude toward aging and, more importantly, death.” Whether we read the poem literally, literally, symbolically, symbolically, or partly allegorically allegorically,, two verses (12:5, 7) are important for the theme of this paper. paper. Ecclesiastes 12:5ba reads (“For man goes to his eternal home”). According to Seow and most commentators, (“eternal home”) is the semantic equivalent of the Egyptian house of eternity, meaning the grave, as “grave” “grave” is even conrmed by Deir Alla, by Punic texts, texts from Palmyra, and
A. Lauha, Kohelet (19;Neukirchen-Vluyn1978),77:“DieTextformvonverkehrtaber den ursprünglichen Gedanken in sein Gegenteil”; T. Krüger, Kohelet (Prediger) ( 19 [Sonder [Sonderban band]; d];Neu Neukir kirchen chen--Vluyn Vluyn 2000), 2000),168 168on on 3:21a: 3:21a:“ “ liest liest ausdog aus dogmat matisc ischen hen Gründen Gründen den Artikel: Wer kennt kennt den Lebensgeist des Menschen, der nach oben aufsteigt und den Lebensgeist der Tiere, der hinabsteigt, zur Erde hinunter? Die Aussage des Textes wird damit auf den Kopf gestellt.” Seow (Seow, Ecclesiastes, 168) is more careful but insists on the message, “People and animals have the same fate” (176). M.V. M.V. Fox, Fox, “Aging and Death in Qohelet Qohelet 12,” 12,” 42 42 (1988): 55–77. Krüger, Kohelet (Prediger), 352. Fox, Fox, “Aging Aging and Death, Death,” 71.
,
even by contracts from Murabaʿat. The lamp and the fountain in v. 6 picture the advent of death. Finally, 12:7 describes the death of man with the image of the nal form of Gen 2:7: “And the dust ( ) returns to the earth ( ) as it was, and and the breath/spirit ( ) returns to God who gave it.” In the later reception history of Ecclesiastes, the question arose concerning co ncerning whether Ecclesiastes ofers an escape here: the body goes to the earth, but the spirit goes to God, thus supposing that creatures possess some signicant element that remains after death and returns to God. However, However, with respect to the message of Ecclesiastes this does not make sense. In line with all his other statements about death, the totality, totality, the bitterness of deat death, h,dea death th maki making ng life life a prob proble lem m (9:5 (9:5,, 10), 10),Ec Eccl clesi esias aste tess descr describ ibes es death death here here as the undoing of creation. God formed man from the dust, breathed into him thebreathoflife,athisdeaththe goesbacktotheearthandGodtakes back the breath he gave. There is not the slightest indication in the entire book that Ecclesiastes reected on something other than the undoing of creation.
5
Conclusion
This This paper papersu surv rvey eyed ed three three dif difer eren entt textu textual al unit units, s,aa narr narrat ativ ivee (Gen (Gen 2), 2), a prop prophe hettic vision (Ezek 37) and a wisdom reexion (Eccl 3:19–21; 12:5, 7). They cover a pre-exilic, an exilic and a Hellenistic stage. We may assume that the latter two were familiar with the Genesis text. The three texts mark the diference between life and death. In all three cases “breath” ( , ) is the distinction betweenamouldedform,acorpseandalivinghumanbeing.Theactiveagentis God, God, the the cont contex extt is (re) (re)cr crea eati tion on and and death death.. The The brea breath th is a compl compleme ement ntar aryy, but but necessary element. It is never a conicting one. Neither in Gen 2:7, nor in Ezek 37 and Eccl 12 breath and body are conicting principles. Neither the breath, nor the body are the “better” parts of a human being, they need each other. For For the the He Hebr brew ew Bibl Bible, e, from from Genesi Genesiss via via Ezek Ezekie iell to Eccl Ecclesi esias aste tes, s, the the use use of “dual dualis ism m” is not suitable.
Seow, Ecclesiastes, 364.
Bookk of Theo Theolo logi gica call Anth Anthro ropo polo logy gy and and the the Enoc Enochi hicc Boo Watchers (1 En. 6–16) Loren T. T. Stuckenbruck Stuckenbruck
1
Introduction
Nowhere in 1Enoch is there a discernible citation of or allusion to the divine creation of “Adam” in Gen 2:7. Nevertheless, as the following discussion will argue, argue, a not entirely diferent theological theological anthropology anthropology emerges in the early Enochic traditions preserved in the Book of Watchers. Thus, in turn, the place of the human being within the created order as the Enochic texts preserve can be placed in conversation with the early chapters of Genesis. In particular, the present paper shall take the core units of the Book of Watchers—chs. 6–11 and 12–16—as a point of departure. Before outlining what the early Enochic tradition has to say about human beings, we may appropriately begin with a brief summary of what the opening chapters of Genesis divulge in this regard. In the Priestly Pr iestly and Yahwist Yahwist creation accounts of Gen 1 and 2, respectively, the human being, though having much in common with other beings of the created order, ultimately occupies a distinctive place. On the one hand, humanity shares with the animal world the status of being a “living creature” (Gen 2:7 [ ; ψυχὴ ζῶσα]; cf. 1:20, 24). In addition, along with animals, humans are told to “be fruitful and multiply and ll the earth” (so 1:28 [ ; αὐξάνεσθε καὶ πληθύνεσθε καὶ πληρ πληρώσ ώσατ ατεε τὴν τὴν γῆν] γῆν];; 9:7; 9:7; cf. 1:22 1:22;; 9:1) 9:1).. Furth Further ermor more, e, acco accord rdin ingg to the the Yahwi ahwist, st,no nott
Of course, the place of humanity humanity within creation, creation, in both creatureliness creatureliness and distinctive distinctive features,meritsinvestigationonitsown;see,e.g.,thecontributionbyEdNoortinthisvolume. The outline here is, in part, informed through observations made by the still foundational, though one-sidedly source-critical discussions of H. Gunkel, trans. and comm., Genesis (6th ed.; 1; Göttingen 1964), 1–59, 101–137; O. Procksch, trans. and comm., Die Genesis (2nd and 3rd ed.; 1; Leipzig 1924), 13–63, 436–467; C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Continental Commentary (trans. J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis 1994; 2nd ed. from C. Westermann, Genesis 1– 11 [2nd ed.; EdF 7; Darmstadt 1976]), 74–383. Of particular relevance here are the articles by Tucker (G.M. Tucker, “Rain on a Land Where No One Lives: The Hebrew Bible and the Environment,” 116 [1997]: 3–17 [on Gen 1–3]) and Hendel (R. Hendel, “The Nephilim Were on the Earth: Genesis 6:1–4 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” in The Fall of the Angels [ed. C. Aufarth and L.T. L.T. Stuckenbruck; 6; Leiden 2004], 11–34 [on Gen 6:1–4]).
© , , , , | : ./ ./ _ _
only humans (2:7) but also animals are created “from the ground” (2:19 [ ; ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς]). On the other hand, among living creatures, humanity holds a status that is set apart. In the Priestly account, it is humanity—male and female—thatisfashionedintheimageofGod(1:26–27[ ;κατ᾽εἰκόνα θεοῦ θεοῦ]) ]),, whil whilee acco accord rdin ingg to the the Yahwi ahwist st narr narrat ativ ivee the the huma humann being being is mark marked ed out by a divine bestowal of “the breath of life” (2:7 [ ; πνοὴ ζωῆς]). Moreover, over, the instruction to “be fruitful and multiply, multiply,” given to humans and animals alike, is accompanied in ch. 1 by the further statement that humans can “subdue and have dominion” over the animals (1:28 [i.e., over sh, birds, and land creatures]), while replenishing plants and fruit trees are given as food supply (1:2 (1:29) 9).. This This spec specia iall func functi tion on of huma humans ns as stew stewar ards ds of othe otherr part partss of the the crea create tedd order is echoed in ch. 2 by the Yahwist as Adam is commissioned to work the ground (2:15; cf. 2:5). Although things go wrong in Eden through Adam and Eve’s Eve’s disobedience disobed ience in ch. 3, the elements which distinguished humanity from the other creatures persist. Explicitly, what remains intact is the human ability to engage in agricultural activity (3:23) and, signicantly, the ongoing status of humans to be in the image of God (5:1 [ ; κατ᾽ εἰκόνα θεοῦ]; cf. 9:6). New developments, however, manifest themselves. Now the bearing of children by the woman (3:16) and the tilling of soil for food by the man (3:17–19; 5:29) are accompanied, respectively, by pain ( ; λύπη) and toil ( ; λύπη). And, as the narrative unfolds, readers become aware aware of rising conict (4:1–16 [between Cain Ca inan andd Abel] Abel])) and and the the huma humann origi origina nati tion on of cult cultur uree (esp (esp. 4:20 4:20–2 –222 [dwe [dwellllin ingg in tents, raising cattle, making of musical instruments, and fashioning of bronze and iron]). Although the biblical story does not focus on the emergence of human culture as negative development—in fact, the text ofers no obvious value judgment—it does arise in the aftermath of the foregoing stories of disobedienceandmurder.ThuswhenanaudienceoftheearlychaptersofGenesis encounters events leading up to the narrative of the great ood (5:28–6:22), Noah’s birth is made to coincide with “relief” from the hard labour associated with tilling the ground that God had cursed (5:29). Correspondingly, Correspondingly, conditions leading up to the deluge are fraught with the increase of evil through t hrough violence among humans (6:5–7, 11–13; cf. v. 3 [which introduces “esh” as a problematic feature of the human being]) although, analogous to the notices about the development of culture in 4:20–22, the description of the activities of the “sons
Thou Thoughthe ghthe term erm (“likeness”)replaces (“ima (“image ge”;”; cf.Gen 1:27 1:27), ), it deriv derives es from from Gen Gen 1:26 1:26 ( [“acc [“accor ording ding to our likene likeness” ss”]), ]), where where it sta stands nds in parall parallel el with with (“accord (“according ing to our image”).
of God” as they sired ofspring through “the daughters of humanity” remains remarkably neutral in tone (6:1–2, 4).
2
Book of Watcher atcherss and Genesi Elements Shared by the Book Genesiss
A number of the features just described occur also in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 1–36) in the Ethiopic Ethiopic version, version, supported by the Greek and, occasionally, the fragmentary Aramaic Dead Sea manuscripts. First, the events associated in Genesis with Eden, in the Enochic tradition called “the paradise of righteousness,” are very briey and vaguely recounted (1 En. 32:3–6), including the note that the aged father and aged mother (Adam and Eve) were driven from the garden when they learned wisdom by eating from the t he magnificent tree of wisdom. However, unlike the Genesis account, nothing is stated regarding any consequence (e.g., for child bearing and tilling the ground) of what happened there. Second, as is well known, the deterioration of culture is directly assigned to the seditious “angels, the sons of heaven” (6:2 Eth. and Gk. Codex Panopolitanus [also known as the Gizeh Papyrus; hereafter Cod.Pan.]), Cod.Pan.]), who instruct humans in the t he fashioning of metals for jewellery and weapons, beautication techniques, herbal medications, and the reading and interpretation of prognosticating signs (7:1; 8:1–3). Here, the expressions of culture, as It is di dicu cult lt tokn to know ow which whichtr trad adit itio ions ns behi behind nd Gen6: Gen 6:1–4 1–4ar aree pres presup uppo pose sedd to have have been been know knownn among early hearers and readers of the text; the extent to which the “sons of God” and their progeny are are considered evil in the passage depends in part on the character of the traditions underlying it; cf. Hendel, “The Nephilim,” 23–32 (discussion of the Canaanite, Phoenician, Mesopotamian, and Greek myths). For a recent recent discuss discussion ion on the relati relative ve value valueof of the Ethiopi Ethiopicc recens recension ions, s, see L.T. L.T. Stuck Stuckenb enbruc ruck, k, 1Enoch 91–108 (; Berlin 2007), 19–26. My translations below from the Ethiopic, unless otherwise indicated, adhere wherever possible to the earlier Eth. recension. Citations Citations of the Gk. Codex Panopol Panopolitanu itanuss are based on the edition edition by M. Black, ed., Apoc1970). Text Text cited and translated translated from the Syncellus alypsis Henochi graece ( 3; Leiden 1970). fragments is based on the edition by A.A. Mosshammer, ed., Georgii Syncelli Ecloga chrono graphica (Teubner; Leipzig 1984). See See J.T. .T. Mi Mili lik, k, ed., ed., TheBooksofEnoch:AramaicFragmentsofQumrânCave4 (Oxfor (Oxfordd 1976) 1976) and L.T. Stuckenbruck, “201 2–8: 4QEnoch ar,” ar,” in Qumra Qumrann Cave Cave 4.: Crypt Cryptic ic Texts; exts; Miscel Miscellan lanea ea,, 36; Oxford 2000), 3–7. For the citations below from Part 1 (S.J. Pfann; P. Alexander et al.; the BookofGiants, which which is clos closel elyy rela relate tedd to earl earlyy Enoc Enochi hicc trad tradit itio ions ns,, see see É. Puec Puech, h, “530 “530–5 –533 33,, 203 1: 4QLivre des, Géants– ar,” in Qumrân Grotte 4. : Textes araméens, araméens, première partie, 4529–549 (É. Puech; 31; Oxford 2001), 9–115 and Stuckenbruck, “201 2–8: 4QEnoch ar,” 8–94.
described above, are presented as a categorically bad development, attributed to instructions of rebellious angels. Third, the deterioration of culture and violence against the created order run in parallel. While the fallen angels instruct huma humans ns in how how to enga engage ge in repr repreh ehen ensi sibl blee acti activi viti ties es,, thei theirr ofsp ofspri ring ng,, the the gian giants ts,, whose appetites are insatiable, make impossible demands of human whom they compel to feed them t hem (7:3–5). The giants not only force humans into agricultural slavery and turn to cannibalism and destroy animals—land, sea, and air creatures (7:5)—, they even begin to devour one another’s “esh” and to drink “blood” (7:5; cf. 1 En. 88:2; Jub. 5:9; 7:22), so that the ante-diluvian evils assume dimensions of an environmental catastrophe. In its complex narrative narrative about events leading up to the great ood, the Enochic Enochic tradition of the Book of Watchers, in contrast to the Gen 6, portrays human beings as victims of oppressive forces represented most immediately by the fallen angels’ ofspring and, with less emphasis, emp hasis, as complicit in following the angels’ instruc instruction tionss (7:1; (7:1; 8:1–3) 8:1–3),, instruc instructio tions ns which which the writer writer(s) (s) regar regarded ded as objecti objectiononable.
3
1Enoch 6–16 6–16:: The The Theo Theolo logi gica call Anth Anthro ropo polo logy gy of Gian Giants ts and and Humanity Humanity Compared Compared
The The deta detaililss give givenn about about the the gian giants ts’’ phys physiq ique ue (7:3 (7:3)) and and the the “es “eshh” of one one anoth another er that they devour (7:5) presuppose an awareness of a certain analogy between the nature of the giants and that of humanity. Here, the Enochic tradition, especiallythroughthedivinespeechin 1 En.15and16,reectsanunderstanding
The The text text of 420 42011 , 21 has has ] (Cod.Pan. [ἀήλων τὰς σάρκας]). Exta Extant nt in 420 42022 1 , 25a 25a (sup (supra raliline near ar)) ] (Cod.Pan. [τὸ αἷμα ἔπινον]). The Book of Giants retellsandperhapsexpandsonthistraditiontoincludevegetationsuch as seed yielding plants, grain, and trees (4531 1; 2–3), no doubt an allusion to Gen 1:11–12, 29. The The comb combin inat atio ionn of thre threee dist distin ingu guis isha habl blee stra strand ndss in thepr the pres esen entt form form of chs. chs. 6–11 6–11 has has been been notedbyanumberofscholars.Seeesp.P.Hanson,“RebellioninHeaven,Azazel,andEuhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Ni ckelsburg, “Apocalyptic “Apocalyptic Enoch 6–11,” 96 (1977): 195–233; G.W.E. andMythin 1Enoch 6–11,” (1977):: 383–4 383–405; 05; J.J. J.J. Collin Collins, s, “Metho “Methodol dologi ogical cal Issues Issues in the 96 (1977) Study of 1 1 Enoch Enoch: Reections on the Articles of P. D. Hanson and G. W. Nickelsburg,” Seminar Papers, 1978 (2 vols.; 13; Missoula 1978), 1:315–322; D. Dimant, “ 1Enoch 6–11: A Methodological Perspective,” Perspective,” Semina vols.; 13; Missoula Missoula 1978), 1978), Seminarr Paper Papers, s, 1978 1978 (2 vols.; 1:323–3 1:323–339; 39; C. Newsom Newsom,, “The Develo Developme pment nt of 1Enoch 6–19: Cos Cosmol mology ogy and Judgmen Judgment,t,”” 1Enoch 6–19: 24 (1980): 310–329.
of what a human being is based on the inadmissible nature embodied by the giants. In order to clarify the theological anthropology sustained in the tradition, it is necessary to recount what is said about the giants whose very being stands in deliberate contrast. Within the context context of his visionary encounter in the heavenly heavenly throne room, Enoch is instructed by God what to say in response to the rebellious angels’ pleas for mercy (1 En. 15:1–16:4). According to the speech, attributed to God, the the fall fallen en ange angels ls (cal (calle ledd “w “wat atch chers ers of hea heaven ven” in 15:2 15:2), ), have have viol violat ated ed the the crea create tedd order, which was originally set up in distinct parts with boundaries between them:theheavenlysphereof“spirits”(15:6,10),ontheonehand,andtheearthly (human) sphere of “esh” and “blood” (15:4, 6), on the other. By abandoning their heavenly dwelling and impregnating the women of the earth, they are held responsible for having sired a hybrid race of giants. This gargantuan race, produced through an intermingling of “esh” (from the human, earthly side) and “spirit” (from the angelic, heavenly side), embodies spheres created to be separate. Illegitimate by their very nature, the giants are branded mamzerim (1 En. 10:9 Cod.Pan. [μαζηρέους]). Now, although the giants are regarded as mists within the created structures of the cosmos, they and humans have, on the surface of things, an analogous bipartite existence. With respect to non-physical existence, the giants, by virtue of being sired by the angels, consist of “spirit” (cf. 1 En. 15:8–16:1). A simi simila larr dimen dimensi sion on is attri attribut buted ed to huma humans ns (9:3 (9:3,, 10 [Eth [Eth.. nafesāt ;Gk.Cod.Pan.αἱ ; Gk.Cod.Pan.αἱ
For For more more thoro thorough ugh analysis analysis and and descript description ion of the the giants’ giants’ nature nature in Enochic Enochic traditio tradition, n, see see esp. A.T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1–4 in Early Jewish Literature Literature ( 2/198; Tübingen 2005), esp. 96–177 and, with a focus on its elaboration in the Book of Giants, L.T. Stuckenbruck, “Giant Mythology and Demonology: From the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israeliti israelitisch-j sch-jüdisc üdischen hen und frühchris frühchristlich tlichen en Literatur Literatur im Kontext Kontext ihrer ihrer Umwelt Umwelt / Demons: Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature Literature in Context of Their Environ (ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and K.F. Diethard Römheld; Tübingen 2003), 318– ment (ed. 338; L.T. Stuckenbruck, “The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4 in the Second and Third Centuries ...,” in The Fall of the Angels (ed. C. Aufarth and L.T. Stuckenbruck; 6; Leiden 2004), 87–118, esp. 104– 109. The Gk. transl translite iterat rates es the term term (Heb.) or (Aram.); in several cases among the Heb. Dead Sea documents refers to the “spirits” of the giants which are regarded regarded as demonic demonic beings; beings; cf. 4510 1, 5; 4511 35, 7; 48+ 48 + 49+ 49 + 51, 2–3; 4444 2 , 4. Eth. Eth. uses uses pl. pl. nafest , nāfesāt , and manāfest interchangeably; interchangeably; Gk. Codex Panopolitanus and Syncellus have πνεύματα.
ψυχαί; from Heb./Aram. ). Although the Aramaic vocabulary behind the terms for the t he angels’ and giants’ “spirits” in 1 En. 15–16 cannot be conrmed (e.g., as / ) for lack of preserved text, it is signicant that the Codex Panopolitanus withholds the term ψυχαί (“souls”) from the giants, unless it is further qualied further by “esh” (cf. 16:1 [“spirits which proceed from the soul of their esh”]). When standing alone, ψυχή is applied exclusively to (deceased) humanity, humanity, a distinguishing feature that was lost when the text was translated into Ethiopic. This choice of vocabulary in Codex Panopolitanus, which restricts restr icts the absolute use of “souls” to human beings alone, steers in a diferent direction from the Greek translation tradition for Genesis in which “livingsoul”iscasuallyappliedtotheanimalworldaswell(cf.Gen1:21,24;2:19). With respect to physical existence, both the giants and human beings inhabit bodies. The physical frame of the giants could be called either “body” (15:9 [Cod.Pan. [Cod.Pan. σῶμα; σῶμα; Eth. segā])or“esh”(7:5[ in42011,21;42021,25a; 16:1; in a more qualied sense Cod.Pan. ἡ ψυχὴ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτῶν; Eth. nāfesāta segāhomu ]). Humanity is also endowed with “esh” (15:4 [bis]), while in the Greek textual traditions the term “body” (σῶμα) is never used. As will be noted further below, the term “blood” is also associated with the humans’ physical being. In fact, both times when humans are associated with “esh” in 15:4, the term σάρξ/segā is associated with “blood.” In the rst instance, the life force of the human women with whom the angels mixed is called “blood of esh”
In an expansiona expansionary ry move, move, both both Syncell Syncellus us recensions recensions read τὰ πνεύματα πνεύματα αἱ ψυχαί. ψυχαί. See the somewhat somewhat uncertain, uncertain, yet probably probably reading reading in 4202 1 , 11 to 1 En. 9:3 ( ] ), in which the “cry of the souls” of the giants’ victims rises up in complaint to the gates of heaven heaven.. Unfort Unfortuna unatel telyy, the overl overlapp apping ing fragme fragmenta ntary ry texts texts in 4201 4201 1 , 6–11 6–11 and XQpap XQpapEn En 1, 1–5 do not preserve more of the vocabulary to reinforce reinforce this reading. In addi additio tionn to“s to “sou oul,l,”” the the term term πνεῦ πνεῦμα μα descr describ ibes es the the post post-m -mor orte tem m exis existe tence nceof of huma humans ns,, esp. esp. later in the Book of Watche atchers rs; see 1 En. 22:3 (in combination with “souls”), 5–7 (the spirit of Abel), 9–13 (spirits of of the righteous and sinful dead). Codex Panopol Panopolitanu itanuss continues continues to apply apply ψυχαί to dead humans in 1 En. 22:3 (bis; once in the construction τὰ πνεύματα τῶν ψυχῶν), while (as in ch. c h. 15) designating the fallen angels as πνεύματα only (19:1). Here Syncellus Syncellus,, as in 9:3, 9:3, 10, 10, expands expands the expres expression sion to τὸ σῶμα σῶμα τῆς τῆς σαρκός σαρκός.. Syncellus Syncellus simply equates equates the two terms “from “from their soul, the esh esh”” (ἐκ τῆς ψυχῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῶν τῆς σαρκός), prompting Charles to emend an apparently awkward text to ἐκ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῶν ὡς ἐκ τῆς σαρκός (“from their soul, as from the esh”) in R.H. Charles, The Book of 1Enoch (Oxford 1913), 45. According to a fragmentary text in the Book of Giants Enoch or 1Enoch at 453 45311 19, 19, 3–4, 3–4, wo word rdss that that migh mightt be attr attribu ibute tedd tothe gian giants ts spec specifythatthey ifythatthey do not not rega regard rd thems themsel elve vess as eithe eitherr “bon “bones es”” or “e “esh sh”” in an unqu unqual ali ied ed sens sensee (“]w (“]wee are are n[ot n[ot]] bones[ bones[ ] ] and not esh [ ]”) but have a “form” ( ) from which they will be removed.
(Gk. αἷμα σαρκός; Eth. dama segā), while in the second instance, the human species with whom the angels should not have intermingled is more generally designated “esh and blood” (Gk. σάρξ καὶ αἷμα; Eth. segā wa-dam). The diferences between the giants and human beings within the early Enochic traditions can be elaborated along several further lines. The rst, as provisionally mentioned above and from which the other points follow, the unsanctioned unsanctioned half-breed half-breed existence existence of the giants giants reected reected their questionable questionable origin. The spirits and bodies of the giants originated, o riginated, respectively, respectively, from a forbidden comingling of their rebellious fathers and their ravaged human mothers;therefore,theyare malamixta .Themixofspirit/soulandeshinhumanity is of a dif difer eren entt so sort rt;; it ree eect ctss what what God God gave to huma humanns from from the the star start. t. This his essential diference is underlined by the divine speech of 1 1 En. 15 and 16. Second, the distinction between humans and the giants is underlined by the attribution of “blood” to human beings, whereas never are the giants in their own nature said to have blood, even when the narrative refers to their destruction (cf. 1 En. 10:9–10; 12:6). The absence of any apparent association of “blo “blood od”” wi with th the the “bod “body” y” or “e “esh sh”” of the the gian giants ts may may hav have its its expl explan anat atio ionn in what what the Enochic tradition includes among their heinous crimes: the consumption and shedding of “blood” (7:4; 9:1, 9 [Gk. Syncellus]; cf. Book of Giants at 4531 1, 4; 7, 6 and 4533 4, [2]). In the aftermath of the ood, the text of Gen 9:4–5 prohibitstheconsumptionofeshwhilethebloodisinit,aninjunctionpicked up agai againn in Le Levv 19:1 19:111 and and Deut Deut 12:2 12:23. 3. “B “Blo lood od,,” whic whichh sign signi ie ess a life life forc forcee wi with thin in
For more more exte extens nsiv ivee discu discuss ssio ions ns that that focu focuss on the the hybr hybrid id natu nature re of the the gian giants ts and and its its impli impli-cations for demonology d emonology,, see esp. P. P. Alexander, “The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years , A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P.W. Flint and J.C. VanderKam; Leiden 1999), 331–353, esp. 337–341; E. Eshel, Eshe l, “Demonology in Palestine during the Second Temple Period” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, University, 1999), 10–90 (“The Origin of the Evil Spirits”) (Hebrew); E. Eshel, “Genres of Magical Texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext Kontext ihrer Umwelt Umwelt / Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish Israelite-Jewish and Early Early (ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and Christian Literature Literature in Context of Their Environment (ed. K.F. K.F. Diethar Diethardd Römhel Römheld; d; Tübin Tübingen gen 2003), 2003), 395–41 395–415; 5; Wright Wright,, OriginofEvilSpirits;K.Coblentz Bautch, “Putting Angels in Their Place: Developments in Second Temple Angelology,” in With Wisdom As a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich (ed. K.D. Dobos and M. Köszeghy; Sheeld 2009), 174–188; K. Coblentz Bautch, “Heavenly Beings Brought Low: A Study of Angels and the Netherworld,” in Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings: Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F.V. Reiterer, T. Nicklas, and K. Schöpin; 2007; Berlin 2007), 59–75; and publications by myself given in n. 11 above. See the the important important recent discussion discussion of these these texts texts in relatio relationn to the giants’ giants’ activities activities by by
human beings, is endemic to the created order; the Enochic tradition, for its focus on the ante-diluvian plight of humanity, does not say anything about blood or the shedding of blood in relation to land creatures against which the giants “began to sin” (cf. 7:5). Whereas the biblical texts cited above associate the blood with the with which God endowed both Adam and animals at the beginning, the Enochic tradition implicitly singles out the special place of humanity in the created order by focusing on the association of “blood” with the “esh” which the giants are denied. The “bloodless” giants, whose nature is out of step with the created order, are thus made to shed the blood of innocent victims. Both the t he giants and their angelic progenitors do things to subvert what God has created. This is made clear in a sustained way in 1 En. 7:3–5 (cf. also Book of Giants at 4531 1 and 2–3). Following the Greek and Ethiopic versions while staying attentive to the Aramaic text in 4201 1 , , 17–21, one can can discern and comment briey on the following information about what the giants do: – They consume consume the the “labor of of all humanity” humanity” (4201 (4201 1 , , 18 [ ]; Cod.Pan.[τοὺςκόπουςτῶνἀνθρώπων])who,inturn,areunabletosatisfythem (v. 3). The object of consumption here is the produce resulting from the agricultural work (cf. 1 En. 11:1 for this sense of κόπος) to which, according to Gen 2:5, 15, humans were assigned. – They begin begin to kill humankind humankind and to eat them (v. (v. 4; Gk. Syncellus Syncellus places this note after 8:3 [to eat “esh of humanity” (τὰς σάρκας τῶν ἀνθρώπων)]). Humans become victims of o f the giants’ cannibalistic activity, activity, with the result that their “souls” (9:4, 10) are left. – They begin to to sin against against animals, enumerated as “the birds and beasts and creeping things and the sh” (v. (v. 5; the Aramaic text, as constructed by Milik for 4QEn 1 , 20–21, is longer: “all birds and [beast]s of [the] earth [and creeping things that creep upon the earth and in the waters / and in] the heavens, heavens, and the sh of the sea”). – They eat eat “esh” “esh” (v. (v. 5 [ ]). The Aramaic text breaks of without making clear whose esh was devoured (4201 1 , 21). However, Codex Panopolitanus, followed by the Ethiopic, furnishes the rest of the sentence: they ate “the “the es eshh of ea each ch othe otherr and and they they dran drankk bloo blood. d.” Taken aken as a whol whole, e, the the acti activi vity ty
M. Gof, “Monstrous “Monstrous Appetites: Appetites: Giants, Giants, Cannibalism Cannibalism,, and Insatiable Eating in Enochic Literature,” 1 (2010): 19–42, esp. 29–33. The commandment lay behind language that 1 emphasizes the scandalous character attached to particular deeds; cf., e.g., 1Chr 11:19; Ps 106:38; Isa 63:3, 6; Jer 2:34; Ezek 36:18. Milik, Books of Enoch, 150–151.
represents the endpoint of the escalating violence that had began with the consumption consumption of agricultura agriculturall produce, produce, and when this was not enough, enough, the giants began to be carnivorous. If we take the Aramaic text alone, the writer would have have regarded food consumption before the ood as wholly vegetarian, ian, whil whilee full fuller er and and more more comp comple lette text textss of the the Gree Greekk and and Ethi Ethiop opic ic versi ersion onss state, doubly, that (1) the internecine deeds among the giants display how chaotic things could get (so that even evil is seen to turn against itself) and that (2) the giants were blatantly destroying the life force with which creation, with humanity at its centre, was endowed. Parallel lists of species afected by ante-diluvian upheaval can also be found in Jub. 5:2; 7:24. In Jubilees, however, however, the giants are not specically mentioned in relation to this and there is very little reection regarding their make-up in comp compar aris ison on to that that of huma humani nity ty.. A furth further er descr descrip ipti tion on of the the gian giants’ ts’ destr destruc ucti tive ve deeds is provided in several fragments from the Book of Giants (4531 1 –; 2– 3; 123 9+14+15). According to 4532 1 +2, 9 they (the context suggests the subject to be the nelim [4532 2, 3]) “inicted a great injury on [the] ea[rth]” and according to to 123 9+ 9 + 14+ 14 + 15, 4 they (probably (probably also the giants) giants) “killed many many.” Most Mo st sign signi ica cant nt,, howe howeve verr, is a cata catalo logu guee of parts parts of the the crea create tedd orde orderr detri detrime menntally afected by the ante-diluvian atrocities found in 4531 2. The text, which supplies an even lengthier and more detailed list of victims than the Aramaic text to 1 En. 7:5 (see above), mentions the moon (4531 2, l [ ] ]), great sh (2, 3 [ [ ] ]); all birds of the sky (2, 4 [ ]), everything that bears fruit (2, 4 [ ]), ]), veget egetat atio ionn wi with th seed seedss of the the ea eart rthh (2, (2, 5 [] [ ), all kin kinds of wheat and trees (2, 5 [ ]), sheep and small cattle (2, 6 [ … [ ]), and all sorts of creeping things (2, 7 [ [ ]). Perhaps inspired by the Book of Watchers (at 1 En. 7:3–5), the victims of destruction de struction before the ood include basic categories of the t he natural world (including the moon, if the context of the term is correctly interpreted). interpreted). Together with the Book of Giants, the early Enochic tradition emphasizes not only that the giants themselves are by virtue of their mixed nature mists in the world, but also that, appropriate to their nature, the giants’ activities are completely bent on efecting an “environmental meltdown.” The purpose of humanity, by contrast, works in the opposite direction; in the eschatological scene following the punishment and destruction of evil (1 En. 10:4–16a), the text anticipates a time for the remaining righteous humanity reproductivity, long life, and agricultural replenishment (10:16b–19; cf. Book of Giants at 123 1 + 6+22; 2Ba 2 Bar r . 29:5–7). Third, in an ironic twist, in the narrative, God-given developments among humanity provide the basis for the angels’ wayward response that leads to
cosmic disarray. Taking up a tradition also found in Gen 6:2, 1 En. 6 opens up by setting the scene for the angelic rebellion: “And when the sons of men had become numerous in those days, beautiful and attractive attractive daughters were born to them; and the angels, the sons of o f heaven, saw them and desired them” (vv. 1–2a). Two angels’ wayward response to humanity emerges from two features in the text. The rst has to do with the procreativity of humanity. Humans, not the angels, are commissioned to multiply and become many on the earth (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7), not angelic, spirit-beings ( 1 En. 15:5–7a). By seeking to participate in the reproductivity of humanity the angels bring about events that undermine this mechanism. Second—and here the irony becomes conspicuous—, the beauty of the women which attracted the watchers to begin with is not held to be sucient by the watchers themselves. And so, the instructions given by the watchers to humanity are in 8:1 made to include how to fashion jewellery (bracelets and ornaments) for women out of gold and silver, as well as the use of antimony and beautication of the eyelids and “all manner of precious stones and dyes.” In other words, the beauty with which women were endowed is subverted, replaced by beautication techniques which, according to the Enochic author(s), the world was not created to yield.
4
4.1
The Book Book of Watche atcher r ’s Unders Understan tandin dingg of Humani Humanity: ty: Implic Implicati ations ons for Eschatolo Eschatology gy
The Eschat Eschatolo ologic gical al Outco Outcome: me: A Resto Restore red d Humani Humanity ty
The above review has attempted to show that the earliest Enoch traditions underline the essential integrity of humanity within the created order, doing so by setting up the giant ofspring of the fallen angels as a foil. This discussion now turns to a further consideration of 1 En. 6–16 as a whole, in order to
The transl translation ation is my my own, own, based based on Codex Codex Panopo Panopolitan litanus us and and the Eth. recension. recension. No No text is extant for this text from the Dead Sea materials. This is born out well well in in the trans translatio lationn for this passag passagee by Nickelsbu Nickelsburg rg and and Vander VanderKam; Kam; cf. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.C. VanderKam, 1Enoch: A New Translation: Based on the Hermeneia Commentary Commentary (Minneapolis 2004), 36–37 (with bracketed additions my own): “Therefore I gave them [i.e., men who have esh and blood] women, that they might m ight cast seed into them, and thus beget children by them, that nothing fail them upon the earth. / But you originally originally existed existed as spirits, spirits, living forever [i.e., and therefore therefore did not need to reproduce yourselves], yourselves], and not dying for all the generations of eternity. / Therefore I did not make women among you.”
demonstrate that this integrity of humanity is not taken for granted. In doing so, we may take the text from 1 En. 10:20–22 as a point of departure: 1Enoch 10 20
21
22
But as for you, you, cleanse the earth from all all uncleanness, and from all injustice, and from all sin and godlessness. And eliminate all the unclean things that have have been done on the earth. And all the children of men will become righteous, and all the peoples will serve and bless me, and they will all worship me. And the entire earth will be cleansed from all delement and all uncleanness. And no wrath or torment will I ever ever again send upon them, for all the generations of eternity. eternity. 1 En. 10:20–22
This passage, passage, which follows follows an account describing a series of divine divine punishpunishment mentss and and the the destr destruc ucti tion on of evil evil (10: (10:4– 4–16a 16a), ), comes comes to a rema remarka rkabl blee conc conclu lusi sion on for a Jewish text from the Second Temple Temple period: all humanity humanity will “become righteous” (so Eth.; omitted in Cod.Pan. through homoioteleuton) and will worship God. What grounds could there have been for the text to make such an open claim? Considerable scholarly discussion has been devoted to 1 En. 6–11 and 12–16, including the passage just cited, but surprisingly little has been done to ofer a sustained reading of how the motif of eschatological restoration of humanity relates to its immediate literary setting, for example, within the ow of chs. 6–16. Instead, commentators on this text have mostly treated this vision of the futurebyeithernotinghowitcohereswithbiblicaltraditionsregardingthefate of the nations and their ultimate relation to Israel or by observing its inuence on the later Enochic (and perhaps further) texts. Inuential has been the
The transla translation tion below is my my own, own, based based on on the Eth. recension, recension, with inserti insertions ons of of correcorresponding Greek terms from the Codex Panopolitanus. So correc correctly tly G.W.E. G.W.E. Nickels Nickelsbur burg, g, 1Enoc 1Enoch , Chapters 1Enochh , A Comm Commen enta tary ry on the the Book Book of 1Enoch 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis 2001), 219. See esp. esp. M. Black, Black, comm. comm. and notes, notes, The Book of Enoch or Enoch Enoch: A New English Edition ( ( 7; Leiden 1985), 140; Nickelsburg, Nickelsburg, 1Enoch , A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch 1Enoch ,
comments over a century ago by Charles who, in an overview of apocalyptic ideas that he attributed to the 2nd cent. , commented that, “[a]ccording to Enoch x. 21, all the Gentiles are to become righteous and worship God.” Char Charle les’ s’ inte interp rpre reta tati tion on of the pass passag agee has has been been larg largel elyy reta retain ined ed,, exce except pt that that the the Book of Watchers,inparticularchs.6–11,isnowwithwideagreementdatedback to at least the 3rd cent. . Within the context of attempt to isolate distinguishing features of humanity in 1 En. 6–16 above, we may ask to what extent 10:20–22 is shaped by and how it relates to the foregoing fo regoing fallen angels mythology and to the literary context in chs. 12–16 that immediately follows. The framework for addressing these questions regarding 10:20–22 (within 10:17–11:2) is determined by three factors: (1) its relation to passages in the Hebr He brew ew Bibl Biblee whic whichh refe referr to the the even eventua tuall reco recogn gnit itio ionn of Isra Israel el’’s God amon amongg the the nations (Isa 2:3; 18:7; 19:22; 45:14–15; 60; 66:18–23; Jer 16:19; 16 :19; Zech 8:20–23; 14:16– 21; Ps 22:27–28; 47:8; 63:2–4; 86:9; 102:15; 117:1); (2) its conceptual relation to late Secon Se condd Temple emple trad tradit itio ions ns whic whichh eith either er sign signal al the the reco recogn gnit itio ionn by the the nati nations ons of Israel’s God ( Pss. Sol . 17:29–32, 34; Book of Parables in 1 En. 48:5; 50:2; Dan 7:14) or similarly anticipate among the nations a turning to or worship of o f God (Tob 14:6; Animal Apocalypse at 1 En. 90:37; Apocalypse of Weeks at 1 En. 91:14; Epistle of Enoch at 1 En. 100:6; 105:1; Dan 7:14); and (3) its role and function within the Book of Watchers Watchers, especially the distinguishable literary unit of chs. 6–11. As it falls outside the scope of the present discussion to deal fully with the second dimension, I shall focus more on the rst and third dimensions. The rst thing to note about the claim is what sets it apart from texts concerned with the fate of the nations in the Hebrew Bible. In the Hebrew Bible,
Chapters 1–36; 81–108 , 224, 228; S. Uhlig, “Das Äthiopische Henochbuch,” in Apokalypsen ( ( 5.6; ed. H. Lichtenberger Lichtenberger et al.; Gütersloh 1984), 1984), 531–532; D. Olson, Enoch: A New Tex., 2004), 40. Translation (N. Richland Hills, Tex., R.H. R.H. Char Charle less, Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity: Christianity: A Critical History (introduction by G.W. Buchanan; New York 1963), 246; repr. from the 2nd ed. published in 1913. Charles does not elaborate on this aspect of the text in his commentary (Charles, Book of Enoch, 26), but does refer back to it while commenting on “theconversionofGentiles”inthe AnimalApocalypse at 1 En.90:30(Charles, Book of Enoch, 214–215). See See esp esp. Mi Mili lik, k, Books of Enoch, 24 and Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch , A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch , Chapters Chapters 1–36; 81–108, 169–171. I have have focuse focusedd on the early early recept reception ion of 1 1 En. 10:21 among Enoch traditions in L.T. Stuckenbruck, “The Eschatological Worship by the Nations: An Inquiry into the Early Enoch Tradition,” in With Wisdom As a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich (ed. K.D. Dobos and M. Köszeghy; Sheeld 2009), 191–208, esp. 198–205.
texts texts whic whichh can can simi simila larl rlyy anti antici cipa pate te a time time when when the nati nation onss wi willll reco recogn gniz izee the God God of Isra Israel el and and “w “wal alkk in his his path paths” s” (so (so Isa Isa 2:3; 2:3; Mi Micc 4:2) 4:2),, the the geog geogra raph phic ical al focu focuss of this activity is Jerusalem (cf. also Isa 18:7; 45:14; 60:5, 11; 66:23; Zech 14:16– 19; Ps 22:27; 86:9). Now it is possible that 1 En. 10:21 implies participation in the Jerusalem cult, if we follow the reading of Codex Panopolitanusthat Panopolitanus that “allpeoples “all peoples will serve (God)” (ἔσονται (ἔσονται πάντες λατρεύοντες λατρεύοντες οἱ λαοί λαοί … ἐμοί); moreover, moreover, there is no attempt here to steer away from Jerusalem as the centre of o f worship. Nevertheless, the complete lack of emphasis on Jerusalem, in contrast with biblical traditions and other parts of 1Enoch (chs. 25–27) and Animal Apocalyp Apocalypse se (cf. 1 90:28–3 –36), 6), is consp conspic icuo uous us. . This This may may sugg suggest est that that 1 En. 10:20–2 10:20–222 antici anticipat pates es En. 90:28 ascenarioonascalesograndthattheworshippersofGoddonotsimplyconsist of a small, more narrowly dened Jewish group, such as “the plant of truth and righteousness” (10:16). Put succinctly, the tradition is at this point concerned with humanity as a whole. If this is the case, it remains to be discerned how is it that the text can move from an inner-Jewish group (contemporary to the time of the composition of ch. 10) to a comprehensive framework which, at a fundamental level, includes all human beings. b eings. 4.2
6–11 and and the the Figu Figurre of Noah Noah 1 En Enoch 6–11
Although as a literary unit 1 En. 6–11 is casually referred to as belonging to “Enochic tradition,” it is signicant that, unlike much of the rest of 1Enoch 1Enoch, it leaves no mention or trace of the patriarch Enoch. If any patriarch gure rece receiv ives es atte attent ntio ion, n, inst instea ead, d, it is “the “the sonof son of La Lame mech ch”” (i.e (i.e.,.,No Noah ah)) at the the begin beginni ning ng of ch. 10 (vv. 1–3). For this reason Charles, for example, suggested that the acquired form of chs. 6–11 was Noachic. Whether or not chs. 6–11 belonged to a lost Noachic work, the function of Noah within these chapters should not escape notice.
Later in the Book of Watchers probab ably ly Jeru Jerusa sale lem m that that is rega regard rded ed as “the “the centr centree of the the atchers, it is prob earth” (26:1) in Enoch’s journeys. It is where God rules in the temple, where the righteous will enjoy long life (25:6–7), and where there will be an abundance of fruit and trees (25:4– (25:4–5; 5; 26:1 26:1), ), whil whilee “the “the accu accurs rsed ed vall valley” ey” belo below w and and near nearby by is the plac placee of puni punish shmen mentt for for the wicked (26:4–27:2); cf. Nickelsburg, 1Enoch , A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch , Chapters 1–36; 81–108 , 317–319. The source of this tradition is diferent from that of 1 1 En. 10, where there is no obvious clue that Jerusalem is in view. view. Interesting Interestingly ly,, the Eth. traditions traditions all read here the verb yāmelleku (lit. “to be subject to”), which has no obvious cultic connotation. Forex or exce cept ptio ions ns,, see see the the Noac Noachicfra hicfragme gment ntss in the Book of Parables Parables at 1 En.65:4–12;67:1–68:5. Soesp. Soesp. Char Charle less (Cha (Charl rles es,, Book of Enoch,13–14),whoregardedchs.6–11asa“fragment”from a now lost “Apocalypse” or “Book of Noah.”
That the gure of Noah should be connected with the story about the rebellious angels is not surprising. In the biblical tradition, the mating of “the sons of God” with women on earth serves as a prelude to the great ood narrative and its aftermath in which Noah is the main protagonist (Gen 6:5–9:17), while the few verses mentioning Enoch (Gen 5:21–24) have been left behind. It is known, too, that traditions about Noah circulated as a constituent part of several sources that date back to at least the 2nd cent. . Two of these sources are concerned with Noah’s birth (Genesis Apocryphon at 120 , 1–, 26 and Birth of Noah at 1 En. 106:1–107:3). In addition, the discussion above has already referred to the Book of Giants which, similar to 1 En. 10:1–3, preserves material related to the theme of Noah’s escape from the ood (68 2). Furthermore, within the wider socio-religious, Hellenistic context, one should note note the the appe appear aran ance ce of the the gur guree of Noah Noah in Euhe Euheme meri risti sticc trad tradit itio ion. n. This This ava vaililss in the so-called Pseudo-Eupolemus fragments (preserved in Eusebius, Praep. be tween Noah (and even Abraev. 9.17.1–9; 18.2), which claimed a genetic link between ham) ham) and and the the gian giants ts,, a conn connec ecti tion on that that is vig vigorou orousl slyy deni denied ed in the the Enoc Enochi hicc and and related traditions just mentioned. Now, as far as chs. 6–11 are concerned, the Noahic framework makes sense not only because of the reference to Noah as “the son of Lamech” in 10:1–3 but also because of the motifs and imagery in ch. 10 that derive from the story of the great ood (Gen 5:28–32; 6:5–9:17). In its present shape, the Noachic storyline is introduced as a divine response to the cries of lament raised by the
Fordis or discu cuss ssio ions nsof of the the texts texts,, see see D.M. .M. Pete Peters rs,, Noah Traditions Traditions in the DeadSea Dead Sea Scrolls:ConverScrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antiquity ( 26; Atlanta 2008); L.T. Stuckenbruck, “The Lamech Lamech Narra Narrativ tivee in the Genesis (1QapGen) and Birth (4QEnoch ar): Genesis Apocryph Apocryphon on (1QapGen) Birth of Noah Noah (4QEnoch A Tradition-Historical Study,” Study,” in Aramaica Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on theAr the Aram amaic aicTTexts extsfr from omQum Qumra rann in Aix-en Aix-en-Pr -Prove ovence30 nce30 June–2 June–2Jul Julyy 2008 2008 (ed.K.Berthelotand D. Stökl Ben Ezra; 94; Leiden 2010), 253–276; E. Eshel, “The Genesis Apocryphon and Other Related Texts from Qumran: The Birth B irth of Noah,” in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings ings of the Confer Conferenc encee on the Aram Aramaic aic Texts exts from from Qumra Qumrann in Aix-enAix-en-Pr Prov ovenc encee 30 June–2 June–2 July July 2008 (ed. K. Berthelot and D. Stökl Ben Ezra; 94; Leiden 2010), 277–298; M. Weigold, “Aramaic Wunderkind :TheBirthofNoahintheAramaicTextsfromQumran,”in :TheBirthofNoahintheAramaicTextsfromQumran,”in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en (ed. K. Bert Berthel helot ot and and D. D. Stökl Stökl Ben Ezra; Ezra; 94; Leiden Leiden 2010), 2010), Provence Provence 30 June–2 July 2008 (ed. 299–316. Intere Interestin stingly gly,, althou although gh the Book of Giants refers to Enoch as the authoritative interpreter of the giants’ ominous dreams, it is not written as an Enochic pseudepigraphon, i.e., it is not written in the name of Enoch (as 1 En. 6–11). See See furt further her Stuc Stucke kenb nbru ruck, ck, “Ori “Origi gins ns of Evil Evil,,” 93–1 93–104 04;; Stuc Stuckkenbr enbruc uck, k, 1 Enoc Enochh 91–108, 633–64 633–641,1, 648–655.
souls of the giants’ murdered victims (1 En. 8:4–9:11). In the context of the story about the destruction of the created order through the unsanctioned ofspring of the rebellious angels, the introduction of Noah as “the son of Lamech” is signicant. Noah’s parentage is legitimate, and, as noted above in relation to 10:9, stands in clear contrast to that of the giants. It is, then, in relation to a representative human being, an integral part of the created world, that the catastrophic chaos is addressed. The message, mediated to Noah through the angel Sariel, announces three things: (1) the imminence of a destruction upon “the whole earth” through a deluge (10:2); (2) Noah’s survival of the coming cataclysm (10:1, 3); and (3) the ongoing procreation through Noah of a “plant” (Eth.; Gk. Syncellus; Cod.Pan. [“seed”]) which will “remain forever” (10:3 Eth.; Eth. Cod.Pan.). Those familiar with the Genesis narrative would perhaps anticipate a retellingoftheoodstoryasfoundinGen6:5–8:22.Thewriterofthetext,however, has has more more in sigh sightt than than the ante ante-di -dilu luvi vian an peri period. od. Prol Prolep epti ticc to the the esch eschat atol olog ogic ical al conclusion in 1 En. 10:17–11:2, the narrative begins to work out an analogy discernedbetweentheNoachicperiod,ontheonehand,andthetext’spresentand imminent future, on the other. The extent of this analogy is not immediately clear. While the Noachic storyline does not entirely disappear, the ensuing events in 10:4–13 have to do with punishments meted out against the notorious evildoers already known from chs. 6 and 8: ʿAsaʾel (10:4–6 [he is bound, thrown into darkness, and is to be burnt with re at the t he great judgement]), the giants giants (10:9–10 (10:9–10 [they are condemned to annihila annihilate te one another; another; cf. 7:5]) 7:5]) and “Shemihazah and his companions” (10:11–13 [they are bound for fo r seventy generations and eternally conned in a prison where in the end they will undergo ery torment]). These acts which hold the forces of evil to account are carried carr ied out, out, respect respectiv ively ely,, by the chief chief angeli angelicc emissa emissarie riess Raphae Raphael,l, Gabrie Gabriel,l, and Michae Michael.l. By having the execution of divine punishment carried out by same group of angelic beings (10:1, 4, 9, 11) that conveyed conveyed the human souls’ appeals for justice j ustice to heaven (9:1, 4), the narrative has woven the story of Noah into the rebellious angels myth. Noah’s story is not only linked back to the foregoing ante-diluvian events about angels and giants. The reference to “plant” to come from f rom Noah “for eternity” (10:3) and the anticipation of the nal judgment of the angelic evildoers (cf.10:5–6,12–13)correlateNoah’stimewitheschatologicaltime.Whathappens
This This is a conv conven enien ientt wa wayy of refe referr rrin ingg towhatis towhat is more moreac accu cura rate tely lyde descr scribe ibedd asthe“co as the“compi mpile ler” r” of traditions underlying 1 En. 6–11; cf. the bibliography in n. 10 above. Motifs relating relating to the Genesis Genesis ood story story occur occur again again from from 10:14 10:14 (cf. n. 40 below). below).
in judgment and escape from f rom the ood in Noah’s Noah’s time (Urzeit ) converges with its its count counterp erpar artt inth in thee futu future re when when God’ God’s desig designn forcr for crea eati tion on wi willllbe be full fullyy real realiz ized ed ( Endzeit ).). Within 1 En. 6–11 it is not until ch. 10 that the story about the fallen angels, now anchored in the Noachic period, has an impact on how the writer conceived of the future and, vice versa, how this understanding of the future shapes the present. Signicantly, the scope of this correlation between Urzeit and Endzeit involves involves all humanity, for which Noah stands as a representative. The story begins with the procreativity among the mass of humanity—“the sons of men” and “the daughters of men” (6:1–2)—who are then overwhelmed by the the rebe rebellllio ious us ange angels ls’’ viol violat atio ionn of the the cosmi cosmicc order order when when the the wa watc tche hers rs breed breed with the human women. Through Noah it is this victimized humanity whose survivalisassured,notonlynowbutthroughtoeschatologicaltime.Intheend, at 10:2 10:20– 0–222, it is then then tt ttin ingg that that all all huma humani nity ty (bec (becau ause se all all huma humani nity ty belo belong ngss to the created order) should be expected to worship God. 4.3
From the the Figu Figurre of Noah oah to the the Worsh orship ip of God God by All All Huma Humani nitty
The path from Noah to 10:20–22 is not straightforward. The condemnation of the watchers and slaughter of their ofspring (10:14–15)—inaugurated in the writer’s sacred past with the announcement of the ood and to culminate destructioninthewriter’ssacredfuture—isinforceduringthewriter’spresent, that is, during an interveni intervening ng period when evil, though essentially essentially defeated, persists alongside the emergence of “the plant of truth and righteousness” (10: (10:16) 16).. Thou Though gh this this secon secondd “pla “plant nt”” allu alludes des to the the “pla “plant nt”” asso associ ciat ated ed wi with th Noah Noah’’s ofspring in 10:3, it no longer represents the human species as such. Who or what is this “plant of truth and righteousness” in the text? Here the narrative is concerned with those who are obedient to the covenant, that is, a commu communi nity ty wi with th whom whom the write writer(s r(s)) wo woul uldd have have more more immed immedia iate tely ly iden identi tie ed. d. Signicantly,thiscommunityischaracterisedby“worksofrighteousness”(10:16 Eth.; omitted in Cod.Pan. through homoioteleuton). As such, they are the ones ones who who, pres presum umab ably ly as Noah Noah had had in the the past past duri during ng the the oo ood, d, wi willll “esca escape pe”” in the future when “all iniquity” and “every evil work” is destroyed (10:16; cf. also
However,, the ood does not itself constitute However constitute the punishme punishment nt of either the watche watchers rs or or giants (in contrast to the perishing of the giants in 1 En. 89:1; 4370 , 6; Wis 14:6; 3Bar . 4:10; 3Macc 2:4). Instead, deluge imagery relates to the theme of Noah’s escape (10:3), the dest destru ruct ctio ionn and and elimi elimina nati tion on of iniq iniqui uity ty and and impur impurity ityfr from om the eart earthh (10: (10:16 16,, 20, 20, 22), 22), and and the the escape of the righteous in the eschaton (10:17). See See Nick Nickel elsb sbur urg, g, 1Enoch , A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch 1Enoch , Chapters 1–36; 81–108, 218, who notes in accord with Milik (Milik, Books of Enoch, 189) that the longer reading is supported by the Aramaic text in 4QEn 1 , 1.
Birth of Noah at 1 En. 107:1). Read in relation to the story about the iniquitous “son “sonss of hea heaven, ven,”” thete the text xt dra draws an anal analog ogyy betwe between en the the destru destruct ctio ionn and and eter eterna nall punishment of the angels and giants (cf. 10:9–14) and the nal destruction of iniquitous activities. Given the angelic (i.e., non-human and demonic) source of the ante-diluvian evils, punishment is not anticipated for human beings as muchasthereprehensibledeedsandknowledgewhichtheyhaveacquiredand which the myth myth traces back to to the angels (7:3–5; 8:1–3). The categorical distinction between humans, on the one hand, and the giants giants (and their angelic angelic progenitors) progenitors),, on the other, other, has implications implications for the interpretationoftheactivitiesdescribedasevilin 1 En.7–8.Withsomejustication, Nickelsburg and Suter, for example, have regarded the “fallen angels” and “gian giants” ts” as decip deciphe hera rabl blee metap metapho hors rs,, resp respect ectiv ivel elyy, for for the late late 4th 4th cent cent.. and and ea earl rly y 3rdcent.Diadochi(inthewakeofAlexandertheGreat’sdeath)orwayward prie priest stss who who have have tak taken on objec objecti tion onab able le prac practi tices ces media mediate tedd by He Hellllen enis isti ticc culculture.WhilethenotionofunwantedincursionbybearersofHellenisticculture may provide a plausible socio-political setting for the fallen angels myth, the theological perspective ofered in 1 En. 6–11 operates on a more profound p rofound level: demonic forces are not only at work behind those human beings who have enga engage gedd in and and adop adopte tedd repr repreh ehen ensi sibl blee acti activi vity ty (i.e (i.e.,., the huma humans ns who who have have been been taught by the rebellious angels), they are even at work behind those humans, oppressive as they are, who have introduced them in the rst place. For all its rejection of aberrant culture and of the oppression that comes through it, this story’s essentially mythic character imparts an extraordinary openness that holds the existence of a community of obedient Jews in tension with the existence of a human species which, though perhaps largely aligned with the demonic world, is nevertheless created by God and, in itself has not set the world down the wrong path. The Enochic tradition at this point may be lamentingthetyrannyandcoercivedominationonthepartofgroupsliketheSeleucid overlords and their conduits in the Jewish priesthood. However, the text does not not desc descen endd into into a redu reducti ction onis isti ticc demon demoniz izat atio ionn of thes thesee grou groups: ps: they they we were re and and remain human beings who, though to be held responsible and punished for
Cf. Stuc Stucke kenb nbru ruck ck,, 1 Enoc Enochh 91–108, 682. In this this way way, the tradition tradition’s ’s focus on the culpability culpability of the wat watchers chers and giants giants is nuanced: nuanced: it does not imply that humans who have been taught by them are not held responsible. Nickels Nickelsbur burg, g, “Apocal Apocalypt yptic ic andMyt and Myth, h,”” 383–40 383–405; 5; Nickels Nickelsbur burg, g, 1Enoch,ACommentaryonthe 1Enoch , Chapters 1–36; 81–1081 Enoch 1, 170; D. Suter, “Fallen Angels, Fallen Priests,” Book of 1Enoch 50 (1979): 115–135, who takes 10:9 as his point of departure. Because Because the the text text emphasizes emphasizes the destruction destruction of “works” “works” and deeds (10:16, 20).
their activities, do not provide any warrant for a destruction of humanity as a whole. 1Enoch 6–16 does not, then, present a “social dualism” that pits one groupofhumansagainstanother;instead,itisthewatcherswhohavebreached the boundaries that distinguish the heavenly from the earthly sphere (implied here and explicated in 15:7–10) while, signicantly, signicantly, the non-human giants exist as a malum mixtum (i.e., a hybrid combination of spheres that ought to have remained separate). The fundamental distinction between human nature (a bonum mixtum), on the one hand, and the demonic (which by its very nature is a perversion of the created order), on the t he other, keeps keeps humanity in principle and as a whole within the purview of divine purpose of redemption. For all the atrocities people, even in oppressive positions, commit against one another, there is something in human nature which, in principle, can be reclaimed by God the creator of all. In the Enochic tradition we have looked at, “all” is not really “all” (including the giants) at all, but the cosmos as circumscribed by God. Is there anything, then, that helps us to account for the worship of God by all humanity in 1 En. 10:21? To be sure, a distinction remains in the text of ch. 10 between “the plant of truth and righteousness” (10:16 [i.e., elect Jews]) and “all the children of men” (10:21). The former—that is, “the righteous ones” who will “escape” “escape” the punishment punishment meted out to the watchers—are watchers—are promised a limitl limitless ess period period of reprod reproduct uctiv ivee and agricu agricultu ltura rall activi activity ty (10:17 (10:17–19 –19)) that that reverse reversess the annihilation and oppression sufered in the time before the ood (7:3– 5). The extant Ethiopic and Greek texts do not spell out that this bliss will include all humanity, nor do any of the recensions specify precisely how the speci special al“p “pla lant nt”” is rela relate tedd toth to thee rest rest of huma humani nity ty.. Ho Howe weve verr, the the aren arenaa of what what “the “the righ rightteo eous us”” wi willll enjo enjoyy is “all all the the ea eart rth. h.” Whil Whilee the the idea idea of a new new begi beginn nnin ingg evok evokes es the Noachic covenant following the deluge (Gen 9:1–17; see the allusion to Gen 9:11 in 10:22), the passage draws conceptually on the language of Isa 65:17–25; 66:2 66:22– 2–223. Bo Both th thes thesee Isai Isaian anic ic text textss refe referr to God’ God’ss crea creati tion on of a “new “new hea heaven and and earth ea rth,,” the former former pass passag agee assoc associa iati ting ng it wi with th imag images es of ferti fertilility ty (cf. (cf. 10:1 10:17– 7–19 19;; 11:1) 11:1) and the latter anticipating a world order in which “all esh” ( ; Gk. πάσα σάρξ) will “worship God” (cf. 10:21). We We have already noted above that, unlike Isaiah, the conclusion in 1 En . 10 does not specify Jerusalem as the locus for the eschatological worship of God. There are two further respects that distinguish 1 En. 10 from its antecedents in Isaiah. First, unlike Isaiah, eschatological expectation is articulated within a Noac Noachi hicc fram framew ework ork.. The The new new begi beginn nnin ings gs envi envisi sion oned ed in Isa Isa 65 and and 66 are are reca recast st through a reading of tradition found in Gen 6:1–4, a reading that highlights the “otherworldly” dimension of evil. Second, and following from this, 1 En. 10 projects the activity of divine salvation onto the world stage. Thus, whatever
its precise status, “the plant of truth and righteousness” in 10:16 is of necessity linkedupwiththeentirehumanracewhichhasalsobeensubjectedtodemonic powers. How is it that the worship of God by all humanity will come about? The text in 10:14–11:2 does not draw a direct line of continuity between “the plant of truth and righteousness” and the deliverance of humanity from destruction; dest ruction; “the righteous” do not, for example, testify or bear witness to anything that results in a turning of all people to God. Instead, to the extent that the Isaianic paradigm is operative, eschatological worship by the nations will take place as part of the establishment of a new world order after all “uncleanness” and godlessactivitieshavebeeneradicatedfromtheearth.Forthis“newbeginning” of humanity in the coming era (10:22), the period after the ood (Gen 9:1–17) serves as an archetype.
5
Conclusion
By drawing the theological anthropology of 1 1 En. 6–16 into conversation with Gen Gen 1–6, 1–6, the the pres presen entt disc discus ussi sion on has has att attempt empted ed to put put int into shar sharpp reli relief ef what what the the Enochi Enochicc authors authors thought thought wa wass at sta stake ke in their their unde understa rstandi nding ng of huma humann natu nature. re. Unlike Gen 6:6–7, there is no regret on God’s part in the Book of Watchers for having created created humanity; the Enochic tradition in 1 En. 6–16, perhaps drawing on the the insi insigh ghtt pres preser ervved in the the ea earl rlyy chap chaptters ers of Gene Genesi siss that that huma humans ns occu occupy py a singular position in creation—though specifying that humanity has the divine “breath of life” or bears “the image of God”—assumes that humanity, since their creation, has always been and always will be, come what may, integral to the created order. Although people are held to account for their deeds, human beings are in the world to stay, while there is no ultimate recourse for evil but annihilation. The angelic and gargantuan actors in the storyline should not, therefore, be entirely decoded as if they function as metaphors met aphors for people,whethersocio-politicaloppressorsinthewakeofAlexandertheGreat’s conquests conquests to the East or members of the priesthood who were thought to be complicit with Hellenistic assaults on pious Jewish culture. The underlying cause and human mediation are distinct. As after the disobedience in Eden recounted in Gen 3, the early Enoch tradition discussed here allowed for a continuing creatureliness of humans, including features that distinguish and set them apart from other parts of the world. In 1 En. 6–11 (and, by extension, chs. 12–16), however, the notion of a malevolent angelic world, fuelled by the experience of anarchic, chaotic and overpowering expressions of evil, came into mythic view, enabling its
writer(s) to adopt a worldview which, even more than the traditions preserved in Genesis, drove a principled wedge between such the nature of evil and the nature of humans who nonetheless can fall victim to it.
Anthropology Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7 Michaël N. N. van der Meer
1
Introduction
Within the study of the early reception history of the t he Hebrew Bible, the study of the oldest translations into Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin has gained an important place. As is well known these translations often present the oldest preserved interpretations of the books of the t he Hebrew Bible. The way later generations read the Hebrew Bible is often determined decisively by the way the rst translators of Hebrew Scripture chose to render their Hebrew parent text. This is particularly true for the oldest Greek translation of the Pentateuch, the so-called Septuagint translation, which shaped many ancient Israelite conceptions into Hellenistic vocabulary. vocabulary. Yet, Yet, within the study of the Septuagint there is much discussion concerning the question to what extent the Jewish translators deliberatedly transformed Israelite religion into what was to become Hellenistic and later Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. Testament. One could distinguish between a minimalist and a maximalist approach regarding the amount of acculturation and adaptation present in the Septuagint: whereas somescholarstendtoseetheSeptuagintpredominantlyasa“praeparatioevangelica” (maximalist approach), others tend to stress the Hebraistic character of the Greek translation and the possibility that diferences between the Septuagint tuagint () ( ) and the received received Hebrew text () may or do reect a Hebrew Hebrew . The question this paper addresses Vorlage of the Septuagint diferent from . is, therefore, if and to what extent the Septuagint played a role in the development of dualistic anthropology. In order to address this question properly, properly, it is neces necessa sary ry to have have a clos closer er look look at rece recent nt deve develo lopm pmen ents ts wi with thin in Se Septu ptuag agin intt studstudies as a whole, before we can proceed to formulate an answer to this question. In the wake of Qumran studies, the scholarly interest in the ancient versions, particularly the Old Greek translations of the books of the Hebrew Bible, has risen exponentially. In the last decades no less than ten modern translations have seen the light (e.g., Bible d’Alexandrie, the New English Translation of
M. Har Harll et al. al.,, La Bible d’Alexandrie (Paris 1986–). Thus far, the following volumes have
© , , , , | : ./ ./ _ _
: :
, Septuaginta Deutsch, and the Spanish La Biblia griega). Furthe Septuagint , thermore a number of commentary series (besides the annotated French and German translations, the Commentary Series, and the Brill Septuagint Commentary Series), several lexical tools (the Leuven Greek-English Lexicon , the nal edition of Muraoka’s Lexicon, now accompanied of the Septuagint , by a new Greek-Hebrew index, and a new Historical Historical and Theological Lexicon
appeared: (1) La Genèse (M. Harl et al.; 1986); (2) L’Exod L’ Exodee (A. Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir; 1989), (3) Le Lévitique (P. Harlé and D. Pralon; 1988), (4) Les Nombres (G. Dorival et al.; 1994); (5) Le Deutéro Moatti-Fi -Fine; ne; 1996); 1996); (7) Deutéronome nome (C.DogniezandM.Harl;1992);(6) Jésus Jésus ( Josué) Josué) (J. Moatti Les Juges (P. Harlé and T. Roqueplo; 1999); (8) Ruth (I. Assan-Dhôte and J. Moatti-Fine; 2009); (9.1) Premier (B. Gril Grille lett and and M. Lest Lestie ienn nne; e; 1997 1997); ); (11.2 (11.2)) Deuxièm PremierLivr Livree des Règnes Règnes (B. Deuxièmee livre livre d’Esdras (TimothyJanz,2010);(15.3) TroisièmeLivredesMaccabées (J.MélèzeModrzejewski;2008);(17) Les Proverbes Proverbes (D.-M.d’HamonvilleandÉ.Dumouchet;2000);(18) L’Ecclésiaste (F.Vinel;2002); (23.1) Osée (E. Bons et al.; 2002); (23.4–9) Joël-Abdiou-Jonas-Naoum-Am Joël-Abdiou-Jonas-Naoum-Ambakoum-Sophonie bakoum-Sophonie (M. Harl et al.; 1999); (23.10–11) Aggée-Zacharie (M. Casevitz, C. Dogniez, and M. Harl; 2007); (25.2) Baruch-Lamentations-Lettre de Jérémie (I. Assan-Dhôte and J. Moatti-Fine; 2005). See further: http://www.editionsducerf.fr http://www.editionsducerf.fr.. A. Pietersma Pietersma and B.G. B.G. Wright, Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title (Oxford 2007). See my review: M.N. van der Meer, review of A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation Translation of theSep the Septua tuagin gintt andOth and Other er Greek GreekTTransl ranslati ations ons Tradi Traditio tional nally ly Includ Included ed under under That That Title Title, 41 (2008): 114–121. M. Karrer Karrer and W. W. Kraus, Kraus, Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung (Stuttgart 2009). See my review: M.N. van der Meer, review of M. Karrer and W. W. Kraus, Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung , 111– 119. See further the overview of Septuagint research in Wuppertal and 42 (2009): 111–119. Saarbrücken: http://www.septuagintaforschung.de/ http://www.septuagintaforschung.de/.. N. Fernández Fernández Marcos Marcos and M.V. M.V. Spottorno Spottorno Díaz-Caro Díaz-Caro,, La Biblia griega-Septuaginta , Pentateuco (BEstB 125; Salamanca 2008). See http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/commentary/ http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/commentary/.. Thus Thus far far the the foll follow owin ingg volu volumes mesha have ve appe appear ared: ed: Genesis (S. Brayfor Brayford; d; 2007); Joshua (A. Graeme Graeme Auld; 2005); Tobit (R.J. Littman; 2008); 3Maccabees (N. Clayton Croy; 2006); 4Maccabees (D. DeSilva; 2006); Ezekiel (J.W. (J.W. Olley; 2009). See the criticisms in the review section of the . J. Lust Lust,, E. Eynik Eynikel el,, and and K. Ha Haus uspi pie, e, Greek-EnglishLexiconoftheSeptuagint (Stuttgart1992,1994; 2nd rev. rev. ed., Stuttgart 2003 [= ]). ]). T. Muraok Muraoka, a, A Greek-English (Leuven 2009) (= ). This lexicon Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven replaces the earlier lexica on the Minor Prophets (T. Muraoka, A Greek-Engl Greek-English ish Lexicon Lexicon of the [Leuve venn 1993 1993]] = ) and and the Penta entate teuc uchh (T. (T. Mura Muraok oka, a, A GreekSeptuagint: Twelve Twelve Prophets [Leu Greek English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiely of the Pentateuch Pentateuch and the Twelve Twelve Prophets [Leuven 2002] 2002] = ). ). T. Muraok Muraoka, a, A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two-Way Index to the Septuagint (Leuven (Leuven 2010), which
underway), and a large number of monographs and congress of the Septuagint underway), proceedings have been produced. Although it is now generally accepted that the Greek translations reect a considerable amount of interpretation of the Hebrew text, it is a hotly debated de bated issue in present-day Septuagint scholarship whether the Greek translators interpreted their parent text only on the basis of Hebrew Scripture or deliberately incorporated contemporary politics and philosophy into their translation. There is, for instance, a sharp divide regarding the question whether the Old Greek translation of the Psalter reects theological concepts as eschatology, messianism, and dualistic anthropology. With respect to the Old Greek translation of Isaiah there is also a sometimes vehement discussion regarding the question whether the Old Greek translation deliberately adapted the old prophecies concerning the Assyrians to his own political situation in which the Syrian Seleucids dominated the Hellenistic Near East. As we shall see, something similar can be said about the question whether the Greek Gene-
replaces his earlier Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint: Keyed Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath Concordance (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1998). See the the volume volumess in the Series Series as well as the procee proceedings dings of the the Wupper Wuppertal tal Septuagint Septuagint Conferences: M. Karrer, Karrer, W. Kraus, and M. Meiser Mei ser,, eds., Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten Lebenswelten ( 219; Tübingen 2008); W. Kraus, M. Karrer, and M. Meiser, eds., Die ( 252; Tübingen Tübingen 2010). 2010). Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einlüsse ( J. Schap haper, Eschat ( 2/76; 2/76; Tübin Tübingen gen 1995) 1995) versus versus the critiqu critiquee Eschatolo ology gy in theGr the Greek eekPs Psalt alter er ( by A. Pietersma in his review of this book (A. Pietersma, Pi etersma, review of J. Schaper, Eschatology [1997] 7]:: 185– 185–19 190) 0).. See See also also the the cont contri ribu buti tion onss in E. Zeng Zenger er,, ed., ed., Der in theGr the Greek eek Psalt Psalter er , 54 [199 ( 32; Freiburg im Breisgau Breisgau Septuaginta-Psalter: Septuaginta-Psalter: Sprachliche und theologische Aspekte ( 2001) and H. Gzella, Lebenszeit und Ewigkeit: Studien zur Eschatologie und Anthropologie des Septuaginta-Psalters Septuaginta-Psalters ( 134; Berlin 2002). Thus Thus in in tthe he classi classical cal study study by I.L. I.L. Seel Seeligm igmann ann,, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems ( 9; Leiden 1948); followed by A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments ( 35; Frib Fribou ourg rg and and Gött Göttin inge genn 1981 1981); ); A. van van der der Kooi Kooij,j, The Oracl Oraclee of Tyre Tyre:: The Septua Septuagin gintt of Isaiah Isaiah 23 As Version and Vision (VTSup71;Leiden1998).ThispositionisscrutinizedbyR.L.Troxel, -Isaiah -Isaiah As Translation Translation and Interpretation: Interpretation: The Strategies Strategies of the Translator of the Sep ( JSJSup 124; Leiden Leiden 2008). See further the discussion discussion at 2009, to be tuagint of Isaiah (JSJSup publis published hed in 43 (201 (2010) 0).. See See also also the the cont contri ribu buti tion onss in A. van van der der Kooij ooij and and M.N M.N. van der Meer, eds., The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives ( 55; Leuven 2010) and my own contribution, M.N. van der Meer, “Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis: The Phenomenon of the Vision Vi sion Reports in the Greek Isaiah in the Light of Contemporary Accounts from Hellenistic He llenistic Egypt,” in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. M.N. van der Meer et al.; VTSup 138; Leiden 2010), 283–316.
: :
sis reects Platonic inuence. Since the Greek version of the biblical books does not contain long explanatory additions as we nd in the Targumim, nor contains contains commentaries as in the Qumran Qumran pesharim, pesharim, or free rewritings, rewritings, such elements of interpretation are not always very self evident. Furthermore, the question question of interpretat interpretation ion in the Greek translatio translationn should be studied studied within the cultural and historical context of the Septuagint. Sept uagint. As is well known, the translation translation of the books of the Pentateuch Pentateuch were were made atarelativelyearlyperiodoftheHellenisticera,probablyaround280.The legendary tale described in the Letter ascribed to Aristeas that the translation was made at the request of the Ptolemaic king and executed with the aid of the high priest of Jerusalem by 72 extraordinary wise translators should certa certain inly ly be seen seen in the ligh lightt of He Hellllen enis isti ticc hyperb yperbol olic ic lite litera rary ry conve convent ntio ions ns.. Yet, in the light of what we know about early Hellenistic interests in cultures and customs of oriental civilizations, an increasing number of scholars tend to see the the Se Septu ptuag agin intt as the the produ product ct of sophi sophist stic icat ated ed inte interp rpre reta tati tion on wi with th polit politic ical al and and cultural interests made under the auspices of the Ptolemaic court, rather than a clumsy product of incompetent Jews translating a slightly diferent Hebrew text for the sake of Jewish worshippers unable to read the source text. In the list of unclean animals in Leviticus we therefore therefo re do not nd a literal rendering of the the He Hebr brew ew wo word rd for for “haz “hazee” sinc sincee the the Gree Greekk coun countterpa erpart rt λαγ λαγῶς migh mightt ofe ofend nd the the Ptol Ptolema emaic ic king king whos whosee ance ancest stor or wa wass call called ed La Lago gos. s. In the the same same wa wayy, howe howeve verr, the the Gree Greekk tran transl slat ator orss rende rendere redd the the He Hebr brew ew wo word rd for “Uhu “Uhu”” wi with th “Ibi “Ibis, s,” proba probabl bly y as religious polemic against the Egyptian Ibis-cult. The amount of interpretation involved in these lexical choices made by the translators is relatively small, yet the impact of the Greek translation on later Jewish and Christian concepts and Bible interpretation can hardly be overestimated. The Septuagint was the Bible for Hellenistic Jewish authors such as Artapanus, Demetrius the Chronographer, Chronographer, Eupolemus, Philo of Alexandria as well as the authors of early Christian writings. Concepts such as διαθήκη (“an unilateral testament”) for Hebrew (“a bilateral treaty”), the rather static divine self representation ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν for the more dynamic Hebrew , the generic name “the Lord” (ὁ κυρίος) or “the Deity” (ὁ θέος) for the proper name of Yhwh, the God of Israel, and the transformation of the old mili milita tary ry conn connota otati tion on “Lor “Lordd of Ho Host sts” s” ( ) into into the the univ univer ersa salilist stic ic Παντ Παντοοκράτωρ.
N.L. .L. Co Coll llin inss, The Library in Alexandria (VTSup 82; Leiden 2000). Alexandria and the Bible in Greek (VTSup See the introdu introductio ctions ns to to the the Septu Septuagi agint, nt, e.g., e.g., F. F. Siege Siegert, rt, Zwischen Hebräischer Bibel und Altem Testament: Testament: Eine Einführung in die Septuaginta Septuaginta ( 9; Münster 2002), 191.
The question thus arises what role the Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture, particularly that of Gen 2:7, played in the development of a dualistic anthropology in early Judaism and Christianity. As is well known, a dualistic anth anthro ropo polo logy gy wa wass forei foreign gn to the wo worl rldd of the anci ancien entt Isra Israel elit ites es.. Only Only in Gree Greek k philosophical schools as Orphism, Pythagoreanism, Platonism, and Stoicism, fromthesixthcenturyonwards,dowendtherootsofdualisticanthropologyintheclassicalworld.InJewishwritingsfromthebeginningoftheChristian era, however, a dualistic anthropology can be discerned in Jewish writings by Philo of Alexandria, the Wisdom of Solomon, Paul, and other early Jewish and Christian writings. Since we nd the basic concepts of such a dualistic anthropology, pology, i.e., the terms σάρξ and σῶμα, as opposed to πνεῦμα and ψυχή, attested alread alreadyy in presum presumabl ablyy the very very rst rst Greek Greek transl translati ation on of Hebrew Hebrew Script Scripture ure,, i.e., i.e., the the Se Sept ptua uagi gint nt of Gene Genesi sis, s, the the issu issues es to be addr addres esse sedd in this this cont contri ribu buti tion on to the the rece recepti ption on hist histor oryy of Gen Gen 2:7 2:7 and and the the devel developm opmen entt of dual dualis isti ticc anth anthro ropo polo logy gy,, are are the following: . Does the Old Greek translation of Gen 2:7 mark a turning-point, a transformation in the Israelite and early Jewish anthropology? . If so, was the Old Old Greek translation a deliberate departure from the ancient Israelite concepts, and . Was the Old Greek translator inuenced by Greek philosophical concepts?
2
The Hebrew and Greek Versions of Gen 2:7
The text of Gen 2:7 in Hebrew and Greek reads as follows. For the sake of convenience, I add the New Revised Standard Version and the New English Translation Translation of the Septuagint :
See, e.g., e.g., the classi classical cal treatment treatment of Old Old Testame Testament nt anthrop anthropolog ologyy by H.-W H.-W. Wolf, Wolf, Anthro pologie des Alten Testaments (München 1973; rev. ed. by B. Janoswki, Gütersloh 2010). See further H. Ringgren, Israelitische Religion (2nd ed.; RdM 26; Stuttgart 1982), 108– 136; F. Crüsemann, C. Hardmeier, and R. Kessler, eds., Was ist der Mensch …?: Beiträge zur Anthropologie Anthropologie des Alten Testaments: Testaments: Hans Hans Walter Walter Wolf Wolf zum 80. Geburtstag Geburtstag (München 1992); 1992); U. Mittma Mittmannnn-Ric Richert hert,, F. Avemari vemarie, e, and G.S. G.S. Oegema Oegema,, Der Mensch vor Gott:ForschunGott: Forschun gen zum Menschbild in Bibel, antiken antiken Judentum und Koran: Koran: Festschrift Festschrift für Hermann LichtLichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag (Neukirchen 2003); U. Neumann-Gorsolke, Herrschen in den Grenzen der Schöpfung: Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen alttestamentlichen Anthropologie am Beispiel von Psalm 8, Genesis 1 und verwandten Texten ( 101; Neukirchen 2004); A. Wagner, ed., Anthropologische Anthropologische Aubrüche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinäre interdisziplinäre Zugänge zur his ( 232; Göttingen Göttingen 2009). 2009). torischen Anthropologie (
: :
Then Then the the Lord Lord God forme formedd man fro from m the dust dust of the the groun ground, d, and and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. καὶ ἔπλασ ἔπλασεν εν ὁ θεὸς θεὸς τὸν τὸν ἄνθρωπ ἄνθρωπον ον χοῦν χοῦν ἀπὸ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσ ἐνεφύσησ ησεν εν εἰς εἰς τὸ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν. And God formed man, dust from the earth, and breathed breathed into into his face a breath of life, and the man became a living being. We We do not have variant readings from the Hebrew text from the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Qumran scrolls. There is no reason to assume that the Hebrew Vorlage Vorlage from which the Greek translation was made, difered from the received Masoretic Text (). The Greek translation seems to render the Hebrew in the same literal way as we nd throughout the Greek Pentateuch. It follows the Hebrew word order and ofers a Greek rendering of each Hebrew lexeme. The Greek translator renders the three Hebrew clauses starting with verbal forms in a paratactical way, way, which is usual for Septuagintal wayyiqtol wayyiqtol verbal Gree Greek, k, but but unco uncommo mmonn in genu genuin inee Greek Greek,, wher wheree the the hypotactical constructions prevail. When the Hebrew and Old Greek text are compared, a few minor observations can be made: – The Greek text renders the double reference to God in the Hebrew text text by the simple Greek phrase ὁ θεός. The same phenomenon can be observed throughout the chapter (vv. 5, 7, 9, 19, 21; cf. 3:22), although the double divine name κύριος ὁ θεός is also attested in this chapter (vv. 8, 15, 16, 18, 22). The shorter Greek reference to God corresponds with the simple designation “God” in the previous chapter (Gen 1:1–2:3) both in Greek and Hebrew. – The The Greek Greektr tran ansl slat ator or rend render ered ed theHe the Hebr brew ew phra phrases ses literally, erally, thereby creating a rather awkward Greek construction with a double object: τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, which later Greek copyists modied into the more elegant Greek construction τὸν ἄνθρωπον λαβῶν χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς (“[And God formed] the man taking dust from the earth”). – Whereas the Hebrew text states that God breathed into into the nostrils of man ( ), the Greek translator took this phrase totum pro partibus : εἰς τὸ
Only 4QGen seems to contain contain fragment fragmentss of Gen 2:7, 2:7, but but the the few preserved preserved letters letters could equally contain remnants of v. 14.
πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ (“in his face”). Since, however, already the Hebrew dual of has the same pars pro toto meaning “face,” it need not surprise that the Greek translator did not employ the word ῥίς (“nostril”) here.
3
Interpretations of the Greek Text of Genesis 2
Itwo It woul uldd seem seem that that the the Gree Greekk tran transl slat atio ionn of the the rs rstt chap chapte ters rs of the the book bookof of GenGenesis ofers a very faithful and straightforward rendering of the Hebrew parent text with only a few minor negligeable modications. Yet, as early as the rst century later Jewish translators (Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus) found found it nece necess ssar aryy to corre correct ct this this tran transl slat atio ion, n, whic whichh impl implie iess that that the the tran transl slat atio ionn was found to be open for diferent interpretations already at that early stage. As a matter of fact, we nd already allegorical interpretations in Philo’s De opi and in Wis 2 in the late last last century and early rst century . cio mundi and These These writing writingss reec reectt a strong strongly ly develo developed ped impact impact of Greek Greek philos philosoph ophyy, mainly mainly Middle Platonism. Therefore, the question has been raised whether the Old Greek translation of Genesis reects already a pristine stage of Platonic inuence. Whereas the French commentaries to the Septuagint of Genesis by Harl and others in the Bible d’Alexandrie volume and in even more detail Alexandre in her her stud studyy of the the rs rstt ve ve chap chapte ters rs of Gene Genesi siss mere merely ly desc descri ribe be the the rece recept ptio ionn history of the Greek Genesis, without discussing the purposes and intentions of the Greek translator, Rösel in his dissertation Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung ofers an armative answer to this question. In his view, the choice of Greek equivalents for key-terms key-terms in the Hebrew text betrays bet rays inuence of the works of Plato. Thus, the rendering ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος (: “invisible and unformed”) for Hebrew (: “a formless void”) is best understood, according to Rösel, as an adaptation of the t he Platonic description of the world of ideas, see Plato, Tim. 36e–37a:
See, See, e.g., e.g., D. Wins Winsto ton, n, The Wisdom of Solomon ( ( 43; New York 1979), 1979), 25–59. Harl et al., La Bible d’Alexandrie , La Genèse; M. Alexandre, Le commencement du livre Genèse –: La version grecque de la Septante et sa réception (ChrAnt 3; Paris 1988). M. Rösel, Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta ( ( 223; Berlin 1994). Rösel, Übersetzung, 31–33. Text ext and and tran transl slat atio ionn of of Pla Plato to’’s Timaeus have been taken from Plato, Timaeus, Critias, 234; Cambridge, Mass., 1929). Cleitophon, Menexenus, Epistles (trans. R.G. Bury;
: :
And whereas the body of the Heaven is visible, the Soul is herself invisible (ἀόρατος) but partakes in reasoning and in harmony, having come into existence by the agency of the best of things intelligible and ever-existing as the best of o f things generated. , Tim. 36e–37a
Likewise, the rendering in Gen 1:26 of God creating man “in his image and in his likene likeness” ss” (Hebre (Hebrew: w: ) by κατ᾽ κατ᾽ εἰκό εἰκόνα να ἡμετ ἡμετέρ έραν αν καὶ καὶ καθ᾽ καθ᾽ ὁμ ὁμοί οίωσ ωσιν ιν (: “according to our image and according to likeness”), reects—thus Rösel—Plato’s ideas about the creation of a visible world as resemblance of the invisible world of ideas, thus Plato, Tim. 30c–d: This being established, we must declare d eclare that which comes next in order. In the semblance of which of the living Creatures did the Constructor of thecosmosconstructit?…ButweshallarmthattheCosmos,morethan aught else, resembles most closely that t hat Living Creature of which all other living creatures, severally and generically, are portions. For that Living Creature embraces and contains within itself all the intelligible Living Creatures, just as this Universe contains us and all the other visible living creatures [30d] that have been fashioned. For since God desired to make it resemble most closely that intelligible Creature which is fairest of all and in all ways most perfect, He constructed it as a Living Creature, one and visible, containing within itself all the living creatures which are by nature akin to itself. , Tim. 30c–d
According to Rösel, the Greek translator of Genesis solved the problem of the doublets and discrepancies between Gen 1 and 2, which modern scholars explain in terms of diferent Yahwist and Priestly literary layers, in Platonic terms: Gen 1 would narrate the creation of the immaterial world of ideas, whereas Gen 2 the creation of the material material world. Recen Recentl tlyy Dafn Dafnii has has gone gone even even furth further er than than Rösel Rösel by clai claimi ming ng that that both both Plat Platoo and Euripides in fact knew the Hebrew Scriptures and used the motifs of Gen 1–2 in order to compose their own literary works. Although this thesis has its
Rösel, Übersetzung, 42, 48–49. Rösel, Übersetzung, 72–87. E.G. Dafni, Genesis, Plato, und Euripides: Drei Studien zum Austausch von griechischem und hebräischem Sprach- und Gedankengut in der Klassik und im Hellenismus (BiblischTheologische Studien 108; Neukirchen 2010).
antecedents already in Antiquity—the Jewish Hellenistic second century philosopher Aristobulus made the same claim (frg. 2.5 apud Eusebius, Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.6.65)—it has never gained credence since it does not explain how Greek authors from fth century Athens would have been able to get access to the Hebrew Scriptures in a form comprehensible to them. OtherSeptuagintscholarsarefarmorecautious.ThelateWeversinhis Notes explains ns the devia deviatio tions ns of the Gree Greekk text text from from the Hebre Hebrew w on the the Gree Greekk Gene Genesi siss explai purely in terms of inner-biblical harmonisations and elucidations. Van der Louw also follows a far more prudent methodology. He denes diferent categories of free translations, “transformations” in his own terms. In a long chapteronthetransformationsinGen2,vanderLouwstartswithstressing the the exoti exoticc char charac acte terr of the the tran transl slat atio ion: n: the the lite litera rall rend render erin ingg of the the He Hebr brew ew wi with th its paratactical structure falls outside the categories of literary genres common in Hellenistic literature as dened by Demetrius of Phaleron. Thus, when literalism is the rule for the Greek translator of Genesis (and in van der Louw’s view any ancient Greek translator of Hebrew scriptural book), deviation from this rule must have a special reason. Van der Louw therefore reconstructs the most plausible literal alternative for a Greek translation and tries to discover the rationale for the rejection of this literal rendering and the motives for the Greek translator’s preference for the present translation. Where a Hebrew lexeme and its Greek counterpart share the same basic semantic connotation external inuence on the Greek translation should be dimissed, as is the case in Gen 2:1, where the word κόσμος as rendering for Hebrew should not be seenwithRöselasareferencetoPlato’scosmogonyin Timaeus,butonthebasis of the shared etymological connotation “orderly arrangement.” arrangement.” Van Van der Louw’s Louw ’s cautious approach thus comes close to what w hat I have labeled above a rather minimalistic approach to the Septuagint as interpretation of the Hebrew text. Only where the Greek text clearly departs from the Hebrew, it is justied to speak of deliberate exegesis of the source text. Yet, since the Greek translators of the Pentateuch were the rst to coin xed equivalents for
J.W. .W. Wever evers, s, Notes on the Greek Genesis ( ( 35; Atlanta Atlanta 1993). 1993). T.A.W. .A.W. van van der Louw Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septu2007). agint Studies and Translation Translation Studies ( 47; Leuven 2007). Dem Demetr etrius ius, Eloc. Εἰσὶ δὲ τέτταρες οἱ ἁπλοῖ χαρακτῆρες, ἰσχνός, μεγαλοπρέπης, δείνος (“The simple types of style are four: the ‘plain,’ the ‘elevated,’ ‘the elegant,’ and the ‘forcible’”). See van der Louw, Transformations, 94–95. See also Dionysius Dionysius of Halicarnas Halicarnassus, sus, Comp. (written (written ca. 20–10 ) ) who distinguished distinguished three styles: “austere “austere composition” composition” (σύνθεσις (σύνθεσις αὐστηρά),“elegantcomposition”(σύνθεσιςγλαφυρά),and“well-blendedcomposition”(σύνθεσις εὔκρατος).
: :
Hebrew Hebr ew wo word rdss and and expr expres essi sion ons, s,it it is wo wort rthhwi wile le tostu to study dy not not only only those thosein insta stanc nces es where the Greek translators departed from their custom, but to examine the translational options that have been rejected. I will now study the vocabulary for anthropology in the Septuagint of Gen 2:7inthelightoftheinterpretationsoferedbyRösel,vanderLouw,andothers, but also in the light of the alternatives provided by the later Greek translators (Theodotion, (Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus) Symmachus).. I will examine cognate Greek words from the same semantic domain that have not been adopted by the Greek translator in order to get a sharper view on the motives behind the Greek translation.
4
Anthropology in the Greek Versions of Gen 2:7
The elements in the Septuagint of Gen 2:7 that are relevant for our discussion concerning the development of dualistic anthropological concepts are the following. (a) (a) The The form format atio ionn of man man is expr expres esse sedd in plas plasti ticc term terms: s: The The He Hebr brew ew text text has has the the verb which describes the activities of a potter: . This verb is the older, older, more concrete counterpart of Hebrew . The Greek verb πλάσσω has the same connotations of the moulding activity of a potter. Alexandre points out that later Greek translators of the books of Isaiah, Proverbs, Psalms, and Jeremiah all adopted this lexical choice. The younger Greek revisers of the Septuagint Sept uagint (Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus) also adopted this lexical choice of the Old Greek translation without modication. Rösel attaches great value to this particular choice for πλάσσω, as it is also found prominently in Plato, Tim. 42d–e: When He had fully declared unto them all these ordinances, to the end thatHemightbeblamelessinrespectofthefuturewickednessofanyone ofthem,Heproceededtosowthem,someintheEarth,someintheMoon, others in the rest of the organs of Time. Following upon this sowing, He
L. Koehler Koehler,, W. Baumgartner Baumgartner,, and J.J. J.J. Stamm, “ ,” 2:428b–429a. 2:428b–429a. H.G H.G. Lidd Liddel ell,l, R. Scot Scott, t, and and H.S. H.S. Jone Joness, “πλά “πλάσσσω,” 1412 1412a– a–b; b; J. Lust Lust,, E. Eyni Eynikkel, el, and and K. Ha Haus us-pie, “πλάσσω,” “πλάσσω,” 495a–b; T. Muraoka, “πλάσσω, “πλάσσω,”” 561a. Alex Alexaandr ndre, Commencement ,233–235.SeealsoHarletal., ,233–235.SeealsoHarletal., La Bible d’Alexandr d’ Alexandrie ie , La Genèse, 100.
delivered over to the young gods the task of molding mortal bodies (τὸ δὲ μετὰ τὸν σπόρον τοῖς νέοις παρέδωκεν θεοῖς σώματα πλάττειν θνητά), and of framing and controlling all the rest of the human soul which it was still nece necessa ssary ry to add, add, toge togeth ther er wi with thal alll that that belon belonge gedd ther theret etoo, and and of gove govern rnin ingg this mortal creature in the fairest and best way possible, to the utmost of their power, power, except in so far as it might itself become b ecome the cause of its own evils. , Tim. 42d–e
Since, however, the Greek verb πλάσσω corresponds so neatly to Hebrew , van der Louw nds nds Rösel’s proposal to read the Greek Genesis in the light of Plato’s Timaeus a “daring” assumption, which he dismissed straight at hand. (b) The substance from which man is made is “dust from the earth,” according to the English translations of the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Hebrew word means “ne dry top-soil: dust,” but also “soil”; Greek χοῦς means “layer of tiny particles lying on the ground; soil.” It has often been noted that the Greek Greek tran transl slat ator or emplo employe yedd other other Greek Greek tran transl slat atio ions ns for the the same same He Hebr brew ew wo word rd elsewhere, e.g., in the parallel passage Gen 3:19: (“for you are dust and to dust you shall return”), where the Greek has: ὅτι γῆ εἶ καὶ εἰς γῆν ἀπελεύσῃ. Elsewhere, e.g., in Gen 28:14, Hebrew is rendered by Greek ἄμμος, which is the word for “ne dust.” Although Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus retained the lexical choice χοῦς for in Gen 2:7, they modied the following phrase: Theodotion, Theodotion, Symmachus: Symmachus: καὶ ἔπλασεν ἔπλασεν κς̅ ὁ θς̅ σὺν τὸν Ἀδὰμ χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς αδαμα Aquila: καὶ ἔπλασεν ἔπλασεν κς̅ κς ̅ ὁ θς̅ θς ̅ σὺν τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς χθονός According to Rösel the lexical choice for χοῦς emphasizes the inferior quality of the material from which men is made; this in contrast of course with the soul and spirit which is blown into this valueless body. body.
Van der der Louw Louw,, Transformations, 110–111. L. Koehler Koehler,, W. Baumgartner Baumgartner,, and J.J. J.J. Stamm, “ ,” 2:861b–862b. 2:861b–862b. T. Muraoka Muraoka,, “χοῦς, “χοῦς,”” 735a. 735a. See further further H.G. Liddell, Liddell, R. Scott, Scott, and H.S. Jones Jones,, “χοῦς, “χοῦς,”” 2000b; J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, “χοῦς,” “χοῦς,” 666a. Ale Alexand xandrre, Commencement , 236–237; Rösel, Übersetzung, 61.
: :
(c) This substance is activated, so to speak, by means of divine breath of life (πνοὴ ζωῆς [ ]) breathed (ἐμφυσάω [ ]) in the face of man. The keyterm here is “breath,” which in Hebrew ( ) refers to “movement of air,” or “breath.” The Greek word πνοή likewise refers to the movement of air both from animate and inanimate objects. The later Greek revisers (Theodotion and Aquila) not only “corrected” the translation εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ into εῖς τοὺς τοὺς μυκτῆρ μυκτῆρας ας αὐτοῦ αὐτοῦ (Theodo (Theodotio tion), n), respec respectiv tively ely ἐν μυκτῆρ μυκτῆρσι σινν αὐτοῦ αὐτοῦ (Aquil (Aquila), a), but also altered πνοή into ἀναπνοή. The result of this constellation of dust or soil infused (ἐμφυσάω) with the breathoflifeisthatmanbecomesalivingbeing.TheHebrewwordusedhereis ; the Greek is ψυχή. Both the Hebrew and the Greek noun occur frequently either in Classical Hebrew or Classical and post-Classical Greek. Both nouns have a large range of meanings. Besides the meaning “throat,” “neck,” and “breath “breath,,” the Hebrew Hebrew word word can also also mean mean “livin “livingg being, being,” “person “person,,” “person “personali ality ty,,” “life,” “life,” or “soul.” In Greek, the meaning “soul” seems to prevail. (d) According to Rösel and others this translation opens up associations with Greek philosophical concepts of the immortal immort al soul and dualistic anthropological concepts that are absent from the original Hebrew text: Damit ist m.E. für griechisch gebildete Leser/innen ein Tor zum Verhältnis im Sinne einer Diferenzierung, wenn nicht eines Gegensatzes, zwischen Leib/Körper und Seele/Geist geöfnet: Der beseelende Atem stammt direkt von Gott her, aber das Material, aus dem der Körper geformt wurde, ist nur Staub, eher minderwertig. So kann diese Textstelle, gemeinsam mit der Erwähnung des “Bildes Gottes” in 1,26, den Übersetzer, bzw. die Kreise, aus denen er stammt, dazu veranlaßt haben, eine Interpretation des Textes in Kategorien der Philosophie der Umwelt als der Aussage des Textes angemessen erscheinen zu lassen.
L. Koehler Koehler,, W. Baumgartner Baumgartner,, and J.J. J.J. Stamm, “ ,” 2:730a–b. 2:730a–b. H.G. Liddell, Liddell, R. Scott, Scott, and H.S. H.S. Jones, Jones, “πνοή,” 1425b; J.J. Lust, Lust, E. Eynik Eynikel, el, and and K. Hauspie, Hauspie, “πνοή,” 501a; T. Muraoka, “πνοή,” 568a. L. Koehler Koehler,, W. Baumgartner Baumgartner,, and J.J. J.J. Stamm, “ ,” 2:711b–713b. 2:711b–713b. 2026 2026b–2 b–202 027b 7b;; J. Lust Lust,, E. Eyni Eynike kel,l, and and K. Ha Haus uspi pie, e, “ψυχ “ψυχή, ή,”” 674b 674b;; T. Mura Muraok oka, a, “ψυχή “ψυχή,,” 743a–745a; 43a–745a; T. Muraoka, Muraoka, “Apports “Apports de la dans notre apprehension de l’ hébreu et du grec et de leur vocabulaire,” in L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité (ed. (ed. J. Joosten Joosten and P. P. Le Moigne; Paris Paris 2005), 57–68, 57–68, esp. 60–65. 60–65. Rösel, Übersetzung, 61.
Therelationbetweenthesetwowordshasbeensubjectedtonumerousstudiesoverthelastcentury.WhereasmajorworksonOldTestamenttheologyfrom themiddleofthetwentiethcenturydrewasharpdistinctionbetweenwhatwas perceived as genuine Hebrew synthetical thinking and Greek binary thinking, careful examinations of the semantic range of the Greek word ψυχή in early Greek, i.e., pre-Platonic, in a study by Bratsiotis made clear that such a distinction is inappropriate, since the earlier Greek writings attest to the same rang rangee of phys physic ical al and and biol biolog ogic ical al conn connota otati tion onss of ψυχή ψυχή (“sea (“seatt of emoti emotion ons, s,sen sensa sa-tions, decisions, and religious experiences”) as the cognate Hebrew has. In a comprehensive study of all renderings of Hebrew in the Septuagint, Lys concludes that “the Septuagint never goes in the direction in which ‘soul’ would be understood as opposite opp osite to ‘body’ (as in Platonic dualism),” but in a footn footnot otee immed immedia iate tely ly note notess a poss possib ible le exce except ptio ionn in Job Job 7:15 7:15. . Ly Lys’ s’ compr compreehensiveness is also his weakness, since he does not diferentiate between the diferent Greek translations and, furthermore, only concentrates on the renderi dering ngss of He Hebr brew ew , wi with thou outt taki taking ng into into acco accoun untt the the rela relate tedd wo word rdss from from the the samesemanticdomain.Amodestattempttoremedyforthisonesidednesswas ofered subsequently by Scharbert who studied the translations of the Hebrew words , , and in the diferent books of the Greek Pentateuch. His study does not contribute so much to the semantics of ψυχή as equivalent or extension of Hebrew , but rather to the study of the translation technique of the Pentateuch. In his classical studies on the Greek concepts of the soul and the t he afterlife, Bremmer ofers stimulating ideas about the origin of the Greek ideas about soul soul,, rein reinca carn rnat atio ion, n, afte afterl rlif ife, e, and and para paradi dise se,, but but lea leaves ves the the ques questi tion on of the the inte intenntion of the rst equation between ψυχή and somewhat open: Through the Septuagint, which was gradually composed in Alexandria in the third century , psyche entered into the vocabulary of the Greek
N.P. .P. Bra Bratsio tsioti tiss, “ Nepheš-psychè Beitrag ag zur zur Erfo Erfors rsch chun ungg der der Spra Sprache che und und Theo Theolo logi giee der der Nepheš-psychè, ein Beitr Septuaginta,” Septuaginta,” in Volume du congrès: Genève 1965 (VTSup (VTSup 15; Leiden 1966), 58–89. D. Lys, Lys, “The Israelite Israelite Soul according according to the , ,”” 16 16 (1966): 181–228, here 227. J. Scharbert, Scharbert, “Fleisch, “Fleisch, Geist und Seele in der Pentateu Pentateuch-Septu ch-Septuaginta aginta,,” in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Beiträge zur Septuaginta: Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler (ed. J. Schreiner; 1; Würzburg 1972), 121–143. J.N. .N. Brem Bremme merr, The Earl (Prince ton 1983); J.N. Bremmer, Bremmer, The Earlyy Gree Greekk Conc Concep eptt of the the Soul Soul (Princeton The Rise Rise (London and Fall of the After Afterlif life: e: The 1995 1995 ReadRead-Tu Tuckw ckwell ell Lectur Lectures es at the Univer Univerist istyy of Bristo Bristol l (London 2002 2002); ); J.N. J.N. Bremm Bremmer er,, “The “The Soul Soul in Earl Earlyy and and Clas Classi sica call Greec Greece, e,”” in DerBe Der Begr gri iff der der Seel Seelee in der der (ed. J. Figl and H.-D. Klein; BdS 1; Würzburg 2002), 159–170. Religionswissenschaft Religionswissenschaft (ed.
: :
speaking Jewish community and subsequently that of the early Christians. As the Old Testament does not yet know the opposition of soul and body, body, it would take a while before befo re the early Christians started to use psysu ch a way. way. chê in such As we have seen, Rösel has argued that the Greek translator translator of Genesis deliberatedly imported Platonic concepts into his translation. t ranslation. In a recently published essay on the history of the concept of the soul from Hebrew via Greek ψυχή and Latin anima through German Seele, he pays much attention to the broad scope of meanings of the Greek word in early Greek literature before Plato, much in the same way as Bratsiotis had already done. Nevertheless, he also nds evidence for the Platonic distinction between body and soul in Gen 6:3, where it is said that God will not let his spirit dwell in man forever, because he is esh: (“Then the Lord Lo rd said said,, ‘M ‘Myy spir spirit it shal shalll not not abid abidee in mort mortal alss fore forevver, er, for for they they are are es eshh’ ”); ”); : καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεός οὐ μὴ καταμείνῃ τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας (“and the Lord God said: said: ‘My pneuma pneuma will not remain in these men forever, because they are sarx’”). Yet, the opposition here is not ψυχή-σάρξ, but πνεῦμα-σάρξ. πνεῦμα-σάρξ. In what is undoubtedly the most extensive and detailed study of anthropology in the Septuagint, Gzella accepts the idea that the Greek translators of the Pentateuch and later books, particularly the t he Psalter, Psalter, adopted Greek philosophical sophical concepts concepts in their translation. translation. He combines combines these anthropological anthropological notions with concepts of the afterlife which he detects throughout the Greek Psalter as well as in such key key passages as Isa 26:19; Job 14:14; 19:25–26a and argues that the Greek translator of the Psalms consistently rendered his Hebrew parent text with an eye to the Ewigkeit of of the soul after the Lebenszeit in the present life. Like Schaper before him, Gzella argues on the basis of the cumulative strength of words that would have eschatological or mythological connotations, such as Greek G reek ὅσιος, ῥάβδος, μονοκέρως, διαφθόρα, φοῖνιξ, ἀνάπαυσις, and κλῆρος.
Bremm Bremmer er,, “Sou “Soul,l,”” 161. 161. M. Röse Rösel,l, “Die “Die Gebu Geburt rt der der Seel Seelee in der der Über Überse setz tzun ung: g: Von der der hebr hebräi äisc sche henn näfäsch über über die zur deutschen Sprache,” Sprache,” in Anthropologische Aubrüche: psyche der Aubrüche: Alttestamentliche Alttestamentliche Wagner;; 232; und interdisz interdisziplin iplinäre äre Zugänge Zugänge zur historisc historischen hen Anthrop Anthropologie ologie (ed. A. Wagner Göttingen 2009), 151–170. Rösel Rösel,, “Gebur “Geburtt der Seele, Seele,” 168–16 168–169. 9. Gzella, Lebenszeit und Ewigkeit .
Interestingly, Gzella does not argue solely on the basis of the perceived connotations of Greek words in the Septuagint, which remains a somewhat uncertain enterprise, but nds support in the use of the Greek tempora and the use of the words like and ψυχή in Jewish inscriptions from second century Leontopolis and Jerusalem. Although the use of and ψυχή in these epitaphs is from a somewhat later date, we nd an interesting parallel in an eighth century Aramaic inscription from Zincirli ( ( 214) where we ndthewishthatthesoul( )ofKingPanammuwaofSamʾalmaydrinkwith Hadad: . . . . . One wonders nevertheless to what extent the religion of the ancient Arameans can be used as evidence for determining the meaning and ideology of a Greek translation from a much later and diferent cultural context such as the Septuagint. IwillnotgointoadiscussionoftheconceptoftheafterlifeintheSeptuagint, since van der Kooij has shown that in fact in none of the Greek translations of Hebrew Scripture one can really nd solid proof for such concepts of the afterlife. Just as is the case in Hebrew Scripture, statements about life after death in the Septuagint should be understood in a metaphorical sense usually with political and ideological overtones, thus van der Kooij. Van Van der Louw, who applies his classication system of transformations in the Septuagint to the whole of Gen 2, does not deny the metaphysical notions of the use of ψυχή inGen2:7,butargueswithAejmelaeusthatalreadybeforetheGreektranslation was made Hebrew anthropological thinking had moved in the direction d irection of Greek philosophy. Unfortunately, however, he does not substantiate this claim.
See, See, e.g e.g.,., W. W. H Hor orbu bury ry and and D. D. Noy Noy,, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: With an Index of the Jewish Inscriptions Inscriptions of Egypt and and Cyrenaica (Cambridge 1992), no. 29 (= 70; Leontopolis, dating from the 1st cent. to the 1st cent. ); and no. 39 (= 1530a = 16; Leontopolis, dating from the mid-2nd cent. to the early 2nd cent. ). See also L. Triebel, Jenseitshofnung in Wort und Stein: Nefesch und pyramidales Grabmal als Phänomene antiken jüdischen Bestättungswesens Bestättungswesens im Kontext der Nachbarkulturen Nachbarkulturen ( 56; Leiden 2004). 2004). A. van der Kooij, Kooij, “Ideas “Ideas about about After Afterlife life in the Septuagint, Septuagint,” in Lebendige Hofnung—ewiger Tod?!:Jense od?!: Jenseits itsvors vorstell tellungen ungenim im Hellenismu Hellenismus, s, Judentum Judentumund und Christen Christentum tum (ed.M.Labahnand M. Lang; 24; Leipzig 2007), 87–102. Van der der Louw Louw,, Transformations, 110–112; A. Aejmelaeus, “Von Sprache zur Theologie: Methodologische Überlegungen zur Theologie der Septuaginta,” in The Septuagint and Messianism (ed. M. Knibb; 195; Leuven 2006), 21–48.
: : 5
Methodology
What remains a methodological problem for me is the question of the appropriatecontextfromwhichparallelsaredrawnthatarecreditedwithevidentiary value for determining the meaning of a Greek translation translation as early as the Greek Penta entate teuc uch. h.Wh What at we weha have vese seen en thus thus far far are are basi basica callllyy the the same same bipo bipola larr posit positio ions ns in Se Septu ptuag agin intt rese resear arch ch whic whichh I ment mentio ione nedd at the the begin beginni ning ng of my contri contribu buti tion on:: a maximalist and a minimalist approach. The maximalist approach embues as much as possible Greek words with ideological and theological connotations and borrows such concepts from relatively remote areas as Greek philosophy, philosophy, which was far from popular in early Ptolemaic Egypt, or Jewish philosophical and eschatological speculations from a much later, viz. the Roman period. The minimalist approach sticks closely to the Hebrew source text and has hardly any eye for the historical and cultural context in which the Septuagint came into being. An intermediate approach to the study of the Septuagint is ofered by the vast corpus of Greek documentary papyri from Ptolemaic and early Roman Egypt. There are thousands of Greek documents which stand much closer in time and space to the environment and mental map of the Greek translators than the sources we have discussed so far (Hebrew Scripture and Plato), comprising of sales and contracts, ocial and private correspondence written in Ptolemaic Egypt and preserved until the present day in almost their original shape, which provide a wealth of information about the cultural context of the Septuagint. Septuagint. With the exception of a few scholars, scholars, most Septuagint Septuagint scholars have ignored the relevance of these documents. Thanks to the Internet and new digital tools all published documents d ocuments are now available online and easily
See See now now the papy papyri ri port portal al:: http://www.papyri.info. http://www.papyri.info. Abbreviations of publications in the eld of papyrology follow the system developed by J.D. J.D. Sosin et al., “Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets,” n.p. Online: http:// scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html.. scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html J.A.L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint ( 14; Chico, Calif., 1983). See also my articles: M.N. van der Meer, “Trendy Translations in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Study of the Vocabulary of the Greek Isaiah 3:18–23 in the Light of Contemporary Sources,” in Die Septuaginta—T Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten Lebenswelten (ed. M. Karrer, W. Kraus, and M. Meiser; 219; Tübingen 2008), 581–590; M.N. van der de r Meer, Meer, “The Question of the Literary Dependence of the Greek Isaiah upon the Greek Psalter Revisited,” in Die Septuaginta— Kraus, M. Karrer, and M. Meiser; 252; Tübingen Texte, Theologien, Einlüsse (ed. W. Kraus, 2010), 2010),16 162–2 2–200; 00; M.N. M.N. van van derMeer der Meer,, “Pap “Papyro yrolog logica icall Persp Perspecti ectives veson on theSep the Septua tuagin gintt of Isaiah Isaiah,,” in The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives (ed. A. van der Kooij and M.N. van der Meer; 55; Leuven 2010), 105–133.
searchable. It is not only possible to search all the documentary papyri online with the help of the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri, we also have a wealth of Greek inscriptions available available thanks to the Packard Humanities Epigraphical Search Tool, of course the digital Thesaurus Linguae Graecae with all the literary Greek texts from Homer up until the fall of Constantinople, but also the Perseus Digital Library with dictionary lookup and English to Greek search sea rch tools tools which which allow allowss for searc searches hes for cogna cognate te words words with with the same same or simsimilar denitions as the headword. My own research over the past years has concentrated on precisely this t his relatively unexplored area, particularly, but certainly not excusively with an eye to the Greek translation of Isaiah.
6
A Fresh Semantic Analysis of the Greek Anthropological Terms of Gen 2:7
To my mind, a study of the Greek anthropological notions of Gen 2:7 (ψυχή,πνοή,andχοῦς)inthelightofthesedocumentarypapyriaddsinteresting contextual dimensions to the study of the Septuagint. I want to discuss the meaning meaning of these three terms in the light of the documentary papyri, papyri, within thei theirr imme immedi diat atee lite litera rary ry cont contex extt and and in the the ligh lightt of the the cogn cognat atee term termss that that have have been chosen by the Greek translator. translator. not been 6.1 Χοῦς
Therstofthethreewordswhichshouldbeconsideredhere,viz.thesubstance from which man is made, Greek χοῦς, should be redened in the light of its usag usagee in conte contempo mpora rary ry Gree Greekk docum documen enta tary ry papy papyri ri.. To my mind mind,, the the wo word rd does does not mean “dust” as Muraoka in his Septuagint lexicon, Hiebert in , and Rösel and van der Louw in their commentaries on the Greek Genesis all seem to contend, but rather “dredge,” “sludge,” or any other type of mud thrown articially or by nature on the surface of the earth. In one of our oldest extant papyri, an excerpt of the Alexandrian city laws from the middle of the third century,wendaprovisionforthecasewhenacitizenwantstodigacanal and has to throw the χοῦς either on his own parcel or on that of his neighbour: [Cutti [Cut ting ng and and clea cleani ning ng]] of gra graves. ves. If any anyone one wi wish shes es to cut cut a bew bew gra grave or to dig dig up an old old one one … to the the neigh eighbo bors rs of the the land land and and ea each ch shal shalll con contrib tribut utee
See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu http://www.perseus.tufts.edu,, http://www.tlg.uci.edu/ http://www.tlg.uci.edu/,, and http://epigraphy and http://epigraphy .packhum.org/inscriptions/. .packhum.org/inscriptions/.
: :
a share towards the expense, and he shall cast up half of the excavated earth on each side. If anyone does not wish to contribute, the person cut cutting ting the the gra grave or digg diggin ingg it up shal shalll cast cast up the the dirt dirt for for his his side side ont onto the the land of whichever one is willing (to contribute) (ὃς δ[ὲ] ἂν μὴ βούλητ[α]ι συ[μ]-βα[λέσθαι, τὸν μὲν χοῦν τὸν κατ᾽ αὐ]τὸν ὁ τέμνων ἢ ἀνάγων εἰς τὸ χωρίον ἀναρριπτ[έ]τω εἰς ὁπότερον ἂ[ν] βο[ύληται), and if succesful s uccesful in a suit he shall exact twice [the expense]. P.Hal. 1, ll. 107–111
The The subs substa tanc ncee that that is dug dug from from the Alex Alexan andri drian an soil soil,, situa situate tedd betwe between en the La Lakke of Mareotis and the Mediterrenean Sea, can hardly be qualied as “ne, dry parti particl cles es””, whic whichh is the the common common den denit itio ionn of “dust” dust”.. The The meani meaning ng “mud” “mud” seems seems to be more in place here. Another document from a somewhat later period (114 ) ) found in the ancient city of Tebtunis (P.Tebt. 13) reports the undermining of the dikes, which played a vital role in the elaborate irrigation system system of the Fayum oasis developed under the rst Ptolemees: Menches, the kommogrammateus of Kerkeosoiris in the division of Polemon, to Ptolemaeus, greeting. On the 16th of Epeiph of the third year as I was inspecting, in company with Horus the komarch and Patanis and other elders of the cultivators, the embankment works near the village, when we came along the drain … the banking up of the surrounding dyke of the great god Soknebtunis, the lands near the village being situated between, we found that certain persons in the employ of Philonautes son ofLeon,oneofthecatoeciccavalry-soldiersarBerencisThesmophori,had dug away part of the aforesaid drain, (undermining) the mounds of the surrounding dyke called that of Themistes for the length of eight schoenia, and had heaped the earth from it on o n to the mounds of the holding of the the said said Phil Philon onau aute tess ( (....τ̣ ....τ̣ο̣ου̣ δ̣ε̣ .... μέρο μέροςς τοῦ τοῦ δεδη δεδη(λ (λωμέ ωμένο νου) υ) ἐξαγ ἐξαγωγ ωγοῦ οῦ [[ [[ἐ ̣ ἐ ̣κ̣ τ̣[οῦ [οῦ αὐ]τοῦ χώματος τοῦ δεδη(λωμένου) ἐξαγωγοῦ]] ..[... τ]ῶ ̣ν ̣ ν χω(μάτων) τοῦ [[δεδη(λωμένου)]] λεγο(μένου) Θεμίστου περιχώ(ματος) εἰ[ς] σχοινία ὀκτὼ καὶ τὸν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ χοῦν ἀναβεβληκότας εἰς τὰ τοῦ σημαινο(μένου) Φιλο̣ναύ(του) ναύ(του) κλ̣ κλ ̣̣η(ρου) χώματα). Whereupon we immediately seized one of the above-mentioned persons and sent a message to Polemon who is performing the duties of epistates of the village, asking him to bring the
R.S. R.S. Bagnal Bagnalll and P. Derow Derow,, eds., eds., The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation (Malden, Mass., 2004), 207–208.
ofenders before you … I send this report therefore t herefore in order that you may, may, if you please (give instructions), rst of all that the mounds are made secure … and that Philonautes and his agents … may appear before you and receive the punishment which they deserve for their (ofences). P.Tebt. .Tebt. 13 [letter from Menches Mench es the kommogrammateus to Ptolemaeus, 114 ]
It becomes clear that our word “dust” is an inappropriate rendering for Greek χοῦς, since the latter latter word refers to wet earth thrown up from the ground. Our word “dust” is expressed in Greek by the words ἄμμος (“dust”), κονία (“stucco,” (“stucco,” “plaster”; “dust”), κονάιμα, κονιορτός (“dust”), κόνις (“dust: sprinkled on the head as a sign of mourning”), and σποδός (“ashes,” (“ashes,” “dust”). By contrast, the substance indicated in Greek by χοῦς presupposes a certain amount of moisture. Read within the context of Gen 2:5–6, where irrigation of the earth is the central theme, and 2:10–14, where we learn about the four rivers rivers owing from Eden, the use of χοῦς as the substance from which Yhwh moulds his rst creature is perfectly understandable. understandable. It is also clear now, now, why the Greek translator translator of Genesis used χοῦς as rendering for Hebrew in 2:7, but γῆ for the same Hebrew word in the following chapter. In the light of these observations there is no reason to suspect a negative connotation of the material part of man as foun foundd in Plat Platon onic ic writ writin ings gs and and as pres presup uppo pose sedd by Röse Rösell for for Gree Greekk Gen Gen 2:7. 2:7. Read Read in its own right , the Greek rendering χοῦς makes perfect sense as a contextual adaptation of the Hebrew source text. If the Greek translator of Genesis would have have wanted to evoke the body-soul dichotomy d ichotomy,, he would have used the word σῶμα. A study of the word combination πλάσσω and χοῦς in all Greek writings, documentary or literary, from the earliest stages until the patristic period, makes clear that the Greek translator was the rst to coin this combination, evidently led by his Hebrew source text. 6.2 Πνοή
The Greek word πνοή or its compound cognate ἀναπνοή refers to “breath” and has the same metaphorical connotations as our word “breath,” particularly in the phrase “to his or her last breath.” The expression ἐν ἐσχατῃ πνοῇ (“at his last gasp”) occurs in 2Macc 3:31 and has a striking parallel in a Ptolemaic decree from Ptolemy () Euergetes Euergetes found at Nicosia, Cyprus, Cyprus, dating from 145 145 , which declares amnesty to all soldiers after the tumultous period in which
Text and and transla translation: tion: B.P. B.P. Grenfell Grenfell,, A.S. A.S. Hunt, Hunt, and J.G. J.G. Smyly Smyly,, eds., eds., The Tebtunis Papyri ( 1; London 1902). For a contextual reading of the Menches papyri from Tebtunis, see A.M.F.W. A.M.F.W. Verhoogt, Menches, Komogram Komogrammateu mateuss of Kerk Kerkeos eosiri iris: s: TheDoi The Doings ngs and Deali Dealings ngs of a Village Scribe in the Late Ptolemaic Ptolemaic Period Period (120–110 .. . ..) .) ( 29; Leiden 1998).
: :
both Euergetes and his sister Cleopatra sought to secure dominion over the Ptolemaic Empire: βασιλεὺς Πτ̣[ολεμαῖος [ολεμαῖος ταῖς ἐν] Κ̣ ύπρωι τεταγμέναις πεζ[ικαῖς καὶ ἱππικαῖς] καὶ ναυτικα[ῖς δυνάμεσι χαίρ]ειν· καὶ ὑμᾶς δ’ οἰόμεθα δε[ῖ]ν [εἰδέναι, τήνδε] λα λαβό βόντ ντας ας [ἐπισ [ἐπιστο τολή λήν, ν, ὅτι] ὅτι] ἀρχη ἀρχηγο γοὶὶ γεγό γεγόνα νατε τε τοῦ τοῦ καὶ καὶ ἐν [Κύπ [Κύπρω ρωιι πάντ πάντα] α] ὡς ὡς ἥρμοζε[ν ἡμῖν χωρεῖν], καὶ τῶν κατ’ Αἴγυπτον πραγμά[των ἡμᾶς κυρίους] καταστῆνα̣[ι, διὸ προτι]μηθέντας δ’ ἔσχετε καὶ τοὺς ἐ[κ τῆς νήσου γενομένους] πάντ[α]ς καὶ τοὺς πρ[οσκ]ληθέντας ἔξωθεν ὑφ’ ἡμῶν· μν[ημονεύοντες ̣ δὲ τούτων] καὶ τῆς γεγενημένης ἡμῖν μεθ’ ὑμῶν συναναστροφ ̣ ̣ [ῆς καὶ τῆς εὐνοίας,νῦντεπολὺ]μᾶονἐκκα[υθ]έντεςκαὶμεριμνήσαντεςτὶἀντ̣ [αποδῶ[αποδῶμεν ὑμῖν, ἐπεὶ ὠμόσατε] παρὰ [π]άντα τὸν [βί]ον καὶ μέχρι τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀναπν[οῆς τὰ πράγματα ἡμῖν δια]-σ̣ῷσαι, διὰ βίου τε τὰς σιταρχίας ἅπασιν ἐτάξαμε̣[ν [ν δοῦναι δοῦναι,, ὃ οὐδεὶς οὐδεὶςτῶν τῶνἡμε ἡμετέ] τέ]- -[ρω [ρω]ν ]ν̣̣ προγό προγόνων νωνμνη μνημον μονεύ εύετα εταιι πεπ πεπ̣ οιηκώς, καὶ τ[ὰ ἄα, ὧν ὧ ν μνείαν παραγεγονό]-[τες] παραγεγονό]-[τες] εἰς Πηλουσίων ἐποιήσαμεν, ἐποιήσαμεν, προσθέν[τε]ς ̣ ̣ [– – –] /2 /2 10011 = I.Kition I.Kition 2017 = 37:1372 37:1372 = = C.Ord.Ptol. C.Ord.Ptol. 42
Similar phrases are found in Flavius Josephus, .. 2.144 and Diodore of Sicily, Bibliotheca historica historica 17.33. The combination πνοή (“breeze,” “vapour”) and ζωή (“life”) was another innovation rst coined by the Greek translator of Genesis and applied further only by Jewish Jewish and Greek writings writings dependent dependent upon that usage, starting with Philo, Opif . 134; Leg. 1.31; Plant . 19; Her . 56; Somn. 1.34; Spec. 4.123; 2.59 and with Jos. Jos. Asen Asen. 12:2; 16:4, and continuing with Christian writings: Acts 17:25. The Greek translator did not employ cognate words such as φῦσα (“wind”; with the same negative smelling connotations as our word “wind”), ἄσθμα (only in Wis 11:18), or the etymologically related noun πνεῦμα, which the Greek translators translators reserved for the translation of Hebrew . 6.3 Ψυχή
Although a lot has been said already about the connotations connot ations of ψυχή, I think theepigraphicsourcesmaybeofhelptodeterminemorepreciselythefunction and nuances the word had in the time and place where the Greek translations of Hebrew Scripture were made. In a short letter from Petesuchus to Marres, late second century , again from Tebtunis (P.Tebt. 56) we nd a request for assistance after a ood: Petesuchus son of Marres, cultivator at Kerkesephis, to Marres son of Petosiris … his brother, greeting. You must hear about our plain having been inundated; we have not so much as food for our cattle. Please
therefore in the rst place to give thanks to the gods and secondly seco ndly to save man many life life (κα (καλῶ λῶςς οὖν οὖν πο ποιή ιήσῃ σῃςς εὐχα εὐχαρι ριστ στῆσ ῆσαι αι πρ πρῶτ ῶτον ον μὲν μὲν τοῖς τοῖς θεοῖ θεοῖςς δεύτ δεύτερ ερον ον δὲ σῶσαι ψυχὰς ποὰς) by seeking out in the neighbourhood of your village 5 arourae for our maintainance so that we may thence obtain food. If you do this I shall be eternally obliged to you. Good-bye. P.Tebt. 56
Heretheusecomesclosetothatofthephrase“saveoursouls.”Nometaphysical dimension is implied here. The word ψυχή does not refer to an immortal soul as opposed to the mortal material in which the soul would be encapsulat encapsulated, ed, as in Platonic doctrine. It simply refers to life in general. It is probably for this reason that the Greek translators did not opt for related Greek words such as δαίμ δαίμων ων,, νόος νόος,, or θυμό θυμός, ς, whic whichh refer refer to the the emoti emotion onal al and and inte intellllig igen entt capa capaci citi ties es of a human being. Returning to Gen 2:7 we see that ψυχή functions in the same way. God has given the breath of life to a premodelled heap of clay, washed up by the well that came up from the earth (Gen 2:6). In Gen 2:7 there is no dualism between body and soul. In fact, it is only through the combination of matter (χοῦς) and spirit (πνοή) that a ψυχή comes into being.
7
Conclusions
Although Greek Jewish authors authors from the Roman period onwards onwards read Gen 2:7 2:7 thro throug ughh the the lens lens of Plat Platon onic ic dual dualis isti ticc thou though ght, t, ther theree is no reas reason on to supp suppos osee that this was the purpose of the Greek translators roughly three centuries earlier. In fact, when the Greek translation is read in its own right and in the light of contemporary documents from the immediate cultural context of the Septuagint, it becomes clear that the Greek translators had a diferent agenda. They wanted to render their source text to the best of their abilities in a lang langua uage ge that that wa wass unde unders rsta tand ndab able le for for the the same same peop people le that that wrot wrotee and and read read the the papyri. A study of these papyri makes clear that there is more Greek literary contextfortheSeptuagintthanonlyGreekphilosophicalwritings.Byrendering the the He Hebr brew ew into into Gree Greekk in the the way they they did, did, the the tran transl slat ator orss ofte oftenn adop adopte tedd wo word rdss know knownn from from their their cult cultur ural al cont contex ext.t. The The combi combina nati tion on of the the wo word rdss (πλά (πλάσσ σσω ω and and χοῦς; πνοή and ζώη), however, however, were unprecedented and must have sounded strange and fascinating to Greek hearers. If Greek philosophy did play a role at all in the process of translation of HebrewScripturewouldsuggestitwasratheranegativerole.Therewherethe
: :
Greek translators had a good opportunity to employ emp loy the word ἡδονή as renderingforHebrew ,theyseemtohavetakenpainsto avoid thisLibertinenotion, popul popular ariz ized ed in their their ow ownn days days thro throug ughh the the scho school ol of Epic Epicuru urus. s. The The Gree Greekk tran transslator of Genesis either transliterated the word as Εδεμ or employed the more neut neutra rall term term for luxur luxurio ious usne ness ss (τρυ (τρυφή φή). ). As Sieg Sieger ertt in his his cont contri ribu buti tion on to anthr anthroopology in the Septuagint has demonstrated, the Greek translators displayed a somewhat Calvinistic notion minimizing elements of humor, eroticism, and human human autono autonomy my versus versus divine divine author authority ity,, and streng strengthe thenin ningg the cognit cognitiv ivee elements of human existence. IfonewantstoappreciatetheinterpretativecharacteroftheSeptuagint inits one has has to be prep prepar ared ed to sta standwi nd with thbo both thfe feet etin inth thee χοῦς οῦς of the the dire direct ct ownright , one cult cultur ural al cont contex extt of the the Se Sept ptua uagi gint nt as wi witn tnes essed sed by papy papyri ri and and insc inscri ripti ption onss from from Ptolemaic Egypt and study these sources ἕως τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀναπνοῆς in order to capture the true ψυχή of o f the Septuagint, its translators, and their readership.
F. Siegert, Siegert, “Anthropol Anthropologisch ogisches es aus der Septuaginta, Septuaginta,” in Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschun gen zum Menschbild in Bibel, antiken antiken Judentum und Koran: Koran: Festschrift Festschrift für Hermann LichtLichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. U. Mittmann-Richert, F. Avemarie, and G.S. Oegema; Neukirchen 2003), 65–74. 65–74. After completion completion of this this manuscr manuscript ipt in in 2010 2010 a number of studies studies appeared appeared that need to to be mentioned here. Additional volumes in the La Bible d’Alexandrie series (footnote 1) are: (12) Esther (C. Cavalier; 2012); (23.12) Malachie (L. Vianes, 2011); and A. Le Boulluec, Ph. Ph. Le Mo Moign igne, e, Visio Visionn que que vit Isaï Isaïee (201 (2014) 4).. The The Span Spanis ishh tran transl slat atio ionn of the Sept Septua uagi gint nt (foo (foottnote note 4) is now now comp comple lete te,, see see N. Ferná ernánd ndez ez Ma Marc rcis is and and M.V M.V. Spot Spotto torn rnee Díaz-C Díaz-Car aro, o, La Biblia Biblia griega‑Septuaginta griega‑Septuaginta 2. Libroshistóricos Libros históricos (2011); 3.Librospoétcosysapienciales (2013); 4.Libr 4. Libros os proféticos (2015). Additional volumes in the Brill Septuagint Commentary series (footnote 6) are: Exodus (D.M. Gurtner; 2013); 1Esdras (M.F. Bird; 2012); Hosea (W.E. Glenny, 2013); Amos (W.E. (W.E. Glenny Glenny, 2013); 2013); Micah (W.E. (W.E. Glenny Glenny, 2015); Jeremiah (G. (G. Walser; alser; 2012); 2012); and Baruch and the Epistle of Baruch (S.A. Adams, 2014). Additional volumes in the Wuppertal congress volume series (footnote 10) are: S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, and M. Sigismund, eds., Die Septuaginta Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte ( 286; Tübingen, 2012); W. Kraus, S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, and M. Sigismund, eds., Die Septuaginta Text, Wirkung, Rezeption ( 325; Tübingen 2014), S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, Meiser, M. Sigismund, M. Karrer, Karrer, and W. Kraus, Kraus, ( 361; 361; Tübin Tübingen gen 2016). 2016). Special Specialment mention ion should should Die Septuaginta‑Orte und Intentionen ( also be made of the recently published Septuagint syntax: T. Muraoka, A Syntax of Septu (Leuven 2016). Finally, Finally, mention should be made of R.C. Steiner, Disembodied agint Greek (Leuven Soul Souls. s. The The Neph Nephes eshh in Isr Israel ael and and Kind Kindrred Spir Spirit itss in the the Anci Ancien entt Near Near East East,, with with an Appe Append ndix ix on the Katumuwa Inscription ( 11; Atlanta 2015). Steiner argues convincingly on the basis of Ezek 13:17–21, Old Aramaic inscriptions such as the Panamuwa and Katumuwa inscriptions and related passages that body-soul (in the sense of disembodied disembodie d souls) was already current in the Levant during the t he Iron Age. This important monograph thus challenges the widely accepted thesis of ancient Hebrew monistic body-soul concepts.
Anthropology Anthropology,, Pneumatology Pneumatology,, and Demonology in Spiritss Tre reati atise se Earl Earlyy Juda Judais ism: m: The The Two Spirit (1 , 13–, , 26) and Other Texts from the Dead Sea Sea Scro Scroll llss Mladen Popović Popović
1
Introduction
When it comes to anthropological notions in early Judaism, and especially dualistic anthropological notions, virtually all scholarly discussions devote attention attention to the so-called Two Spirits Treatise from Qumran. The Two Spirits recogni nize zedd as a sepa separa rate te comp composi ositi tion on that that wa wass adopt adopted ed and and adap adapte tedd Treatise is recog into the Rule of the Community (Serekh ha-Yahad ) at a certain stage of its development. It is only completely preserved in the Rule of the Community copy copy from Cave Cave 1 (1 , , 13–, 26), dated dated to 100–75 100–75 . . Known Known since the early days of the Dead Sea discoveries, the Two Spirits Treatise and what it is about, however, still presents somewhat of a conundrum. Levison concludes his his ov over ervi view ew by stat statin ingg that that the the rs rstt ft ftyy yea ears rs of rese resear arch ch hav have yiel yielde dedd a bewi bewilldering lack of consensus concerning the two issues of whether the two spirits repr represe esent nt cosm cosmic ic bein beings gs or huma humann dispo disposi siti tion onss and and their their rela relati tion onsh ship ip to QumQumran thought. The Two Spirits Treatise purports to be: For the maskil , , to instruct and to teach all the sons of light about the nature of all the sons of man, concerning all the types of their spirits with
J.R. Levison, “The Two Spirits in Qumran Theology,” Theology,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran (ed. J.H. J.H. Char Charle lesw swor orth; th; vol. vol. 2 of TheBibleandtheDeadSeaScrolls J.H. Char Charle lessCommunity (ed. T heBibleandtheDeadSeaScrolls; ed. J.H. worth; Waco, Waco, Tex., Tex., 2006), 169–194. For For the the leaders leadership hip gur guree ooff the the maskil in in the so-called so-c alled sectarian texts from Qumran, see, e.g., A. Lange, Weisheit eisheitund undPrä Prädesti destinatio nation: n: Weisheitlic eisheitliche he Urordn Urordnung ungund undPrä Prädesti destinatio nationn in denT den Textext18; Leide Leidenn 1995 1995), ), 144–1 144–148 48;; C. He Hemp mpel el,, “The “The Qumr Qumran an Sapi Sapient entia iall Texts exts funden von Qumran ( 18; and the Rule Books,” in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential (ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger; 159; Leuven 2002), 277–295, Thought (ed. esp. 286–294; C.A. Newsom, TheSel The Selff As Symb Symboli olicc Space Space:: Constr Construct ucting ing Identi Identity ty and Commu Communit nityy at Qumran ( 52; Leiden 2004), 165–174.
© , , , , | : ./ ./ _ _
, , , ,
their signs, concerning their deeds in their generations, and concerning the visitation of their punishments as well as the times of their reward. 1 , 13–15 13–15
Thus, from the outset the Two Spirits Treatise states that it is about the nature of humankind, one element of which is all their kinds of spirits. However, the text’s opening is far from clear as to how human nature must be understood in relation to its spirits, and the exposition that follows on the two spirits complicates matters further, at least for modern readers. A basic question quest ion is how the diferent references to “spirit” ( ) in the Two Spirits Treatise should be understood. Shaked argued in 1972 that the term is similar to the Iranian term mēnōg and “is used in Qumran in at least three senses: (a) it indicates the two spiritual entities which represent the two poles of the ethical dualism, in a ‘cosmic’ manner; (b) it designates the two opposing qualitiesinherentinman,correspondingtothecosmicdualismofa;and(c)itis appliedtothenumerousqualitiesandfacultiesinMan.Thesequalitiesandfaculties are again conceived of as being inherent in man, i.e. ‘psychological,’ ‘psychological,’ and at the same time also existing on an independent level, i.e. as being ‘cosmic.’ ‘cosmic.’ In addition addition,, the term term ruaḥ isalsousedtoindicate‘angel.’”Inotherwords,accordingtoShakedthenotionof is“appliedinatriplemanner,todesignateapsycholog chologica icall facult facultyy, a metaph metaphysi ysical cal entity entity,, and a divine divine being being (ange (angell or demon). demon).” ” Unfortunately, Shaked’s approach to the Two Spirits Treatise seems not to have received received the attention it deserves, although it is an important perspective for understanding early Jewish and Christian pneumatology and demonology such as that found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. While scholars have come to interpret the Two Spirits Treatise as a combination of cosmic and anthropological elements, there is no consensus about which particular references are to human spirits and which are to cosmic spirits. Scholars acknowledge that the Two Spirits Treatise expresses dualistic or oppositional notions on diferent levels—cosmological, ethical, and anthropological— S. Shake Shaked, d, “Qumra “Qumrann and Iran: Iran: Further Further Conside Considera ratio tions, ns,” (1972): 2): 433–4 433–446 46,, esp esp. 436. 436. Cf. Cf. also also 2 (197 Levison, “Two “ Two Spirits,” Spirits,” 191–192. Shaked, “Qumran and Iran,” Iran,” 436. Levison, Levison, “Two “Two Spirits, Spirits,”” 185. See, See, e.g., e.g., J. Frey Frey,, “Dife “Diferen rentt Patt Pattern ernss of Dualis Dualistic tic Though Thoughtt in the Qumran QumranLib Libra rary ry,,” in Legal Texts andLeg and Legal al Issues Issues:: Proce Proceedi edings ngs of the Secon Secondd Meetin Meetingg of the Intern Internati ationa onall Orga Organiz nizati ation on for QumQumran Studies Cambridge 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez, and J. Kampen; 23; Leiden 1997), 275–335, esp. 289–295; E. Puech, “L’Esprit Saint à Qumrân,” 49 (1999): 283–298, esp. 286n10; Levison, “Two Spirits,” Spirits,” 185; 49
but it is less clear how exactly these interrelate with regard to the use of in the text. Shaked’s suggestion that the distinctions between the diferent senses of can be somewhat blurred—i.e., qualities and faculties existing as distinct entities and at the same time being inherent in man—seems in particular to have had little impact. García Martínez, for example, acknowledges the polyvalent sense of in the Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se but is not convinced that the term has a triple meaning as proposed by Shaked. NowthatallofthetextsfromQumranhavebeenpublishedweareinabetter position to assess Shaked’s proposal with regard to the Two Spirits Treatise, and especially since the publication and rst phase of o f study of “magical” texts or texts with “magical” elements. Taking into account other texts from the Qumran corpus, somewhat disregarding sectarian and nonsectarian labels, is not meant to imply a generic connection between the texts, nor to suggest a unied notion of . Rather, this may sharpen our view of the diferent ways in which the relationship between human nature, character traits, the human spirit, spirit, and spirits spirits or demons demons wa wass concep conceptua tualiz lized— ed—ant anthro hropol pologi ogical cally ly,, ethica ethically lly,, and cosmologically—in various early Jewish texts. In this regard, I will argue that the vocabulary and imagery (of the body) bod y) in the various texts suggest, from a systemic point of view, a general framework
M.Popović, Reading the Human Body: Physiognomicsand Physiognomics and Astrologyin Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrollsand Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Period Judaism ( 67; Leiden 2007), 179–184; M. Kister, “On Good and Evil: The Theological Foundation of the Qumran Community,” in The Qumran Scrolls (ed. M. Kister; 2 vols.; Jerusalem 2009), 2:497–528 (Hebrew); L.T. Stuckenand Their World (ed. bruck, “The Interiorization of Dualism within withi n the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism: The Treatise of the Two Spirits (1 : : 13–: 26) in Its Tradition-Historical Tradition-Historical Context,” Context,” in Light againstDarkness:DualisminAncientMediterraneanReligionandtheContemporaryWorld (ed. A. Lange et al.; JAJSup 2; Göttingen Göttingen 2011), 145–168, esp. esp. 162–166. See See Puech Puech,, “L’ “L’ Espr Esprit it Sain Saint, t,”” 286n 286n10 10;; E. Tigc Tigchel helaa aarr, “The “The Evil Evil Incl Inclin inat atio ionn in theDea the Deadd Sea Sea Scro Scrolllls, s, with a Re-Edition Re-Edition of 4468i (4QSectarian Text?),” in Empsycho Empsychoii Logoi—Rel Logoi—Religious igious Innovati Innovations ons in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (ed. A. Houtman, A. de Jong, and M. Misset-van de Weg; Weg; 73; Leiden 2008), 347–357, esp. 352–353; A. de Jong, “Iranian Connections in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T.H. Lim and J.J. J.J. Collins; ; ; Oxford 2010), 479–500, esp. 491, 494. F. García Martínez, “Iranian “Iranian Inuences Inuences in Qumran?,” Qumran?,” in Qumranica Qumranicaminor minoraa : Qumran Qumran Origins Origins Martínez; ed. E.J.C. Tigchelaar; 63; Leiden 2007), 227–241, and Apocalypticism Apocalypticism (F. García Martínez; esp.237.Publishedpreviouslyin ApocalypticandEschatologicalHeritage:TheMiddleEastand Celtic Realms (ed. M. McNamara; Dublin 2003), 37–49. This also means that the material from Qumran can now be meaningfully studied in a wider context. See G. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge 2008).
, , , ,
of thought that is shared by the diferent texts, and also that the Two Spirits Treatise should be understood within this context. The Two Spirits Treatise is not the rst or only text to speak of more than one spirit “within” human beings. Other “sectarian” ( Hodayot , Songs of the Sage) and “nonsectarian” text texts, s, such such as the the He Hebr brew ew Barkhi Aramai aicc Visions Barkhi Nafshi Nafshi and Incantation or the Aram of Amram texts from Cave 4 provide meaningful parallels. The term takes on diferent senses: at times it is understood as a distinct d istinct and external entity that afects the human self and at other times it is less easily distinguished as a character trait expressing the human self. Following Shaked’s Shaked’s suggestion, I will argue that the distinctions are often blurred: spirits exis existt as inde indepe pend nden ent, t, crea create tedd bein beings gs and and at the the same same time time also also rela relate te to huma humann beings. This, however, however, should not lead us to think that distinctions are never to be made. Sometimes human beings and spirits are clearly distinct from each other (see (see below below on 1 , 12). Considering the theme of this volume, the development of a dualistic anthropology in early Judaism and Christianity and their Umwelt , the Two Spirits Treatise is usually interpreted as a unique expression of dualistic anthropology in early Judaism Judaism.. Schola Scholars rs often synthes synthesiz izee 1 , , 18–19 and , , 15–16, 15–16, 23– 25 to argue that there is both good and evil in every human being as God appointed for man two spirits that struggle with each other within human beings. Whether or not one assumes a literary growth in diferent phases of the Two Spirits Treatise, this scholarly synthesis is not without problems. There is no doubt that the two spirits in the Two Spirits Treatise are two opposing spirits, but this, I will argue, does not turn the Two Spirits Treatise
Klein(A. Klein(A. Klein Klein,, “Fro “From m the the ‘Rig ‘Right ht Spir Spirit’to it’to the the ‘Spi ‘Spiri ritt ofTruth ofTruth’:’: Obse Observ rvat atio ions nson onPs Psal alm m 51an 51 andd 1,” in The Dynam Dynamics ics of Langua Language ge and Exeg Exegesi esiss at Qumra Qumrann [ed. D. Dimant and R.G. Kratz; 2/35 2/35;; Tübin übinge genn 2009 2009], ], 171– 171–19 191,1, esp esp. 181) 181) sugg sugges ests ts that that the Two presents ts a Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se presen completely new understanding of the spirit, one of the characteristics being that not one but two spirits struggle within with in man’s heart. In earlie earlierr resear research ch a distinc distinctio tionn was was made made betw between een Geistlehre and Geisterlehre. See Levison, “Two Spirits,” 186. Now that all texts have become available, I do not think this distinction is as helpful in understanding the conceptualization of in all of the texts. At the same time, this is not meant to imply the existence of a uniform notion of in the Dead Sea Scrolls. See See P. von von der der Ost Osten-S en-Sac ackken, en, Gottund Belial: Belial: Traditi Traditionsge onsgeschich schichtlich tlichee Untersuc Untersuchunge hungenn zum (Göttinge ngenn 1969), 1969), 17–27 17–27,, 116–18 116–189; 9; E.J.C. E.J.C. Tigchel Tigchelaar aar,, To Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (Götti Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the FragmenFragmen44; Leide Leidenn 2001 2001), ), 201– 201–20 203. 3. Cf. Cf. Popov opović, ić, taryEar tary Early ly Jewish Jewish Sapientia Sapientiall Text4QIns ext 4QInstruct truction ion ( 44; Reading the the Human Body, 178.
into an early Jewish example of a dualistic anthropology. The one passage that seems most clear on a dualistic anthropology (1 , 23) should not be understood as a reference to two opposing spirits that are inherent to humanity’s essence and these spirits should not be understood as part of humanity’s created nature.
2
The Two Two Spirits Spirits Treatis Treatisee at Qumr Qumran an and and Bey Beyond ond
Scholarly evaluation of the position of the Two Spirits Treatise at Qumran has a certain ambivalence to it. The Two Spirits Treatise is seen both as unique in its particular expression of theological concepts and as central to Qumran theology—a nonsectarian composition in a core sectarian document. This assessmentispartlyduetothechronologyofthemoderndiscoveryoftheDead SeaScrollsandtheorderinwhichthetextsbecameavailableforstudy.The Rule available early on and has determined to an of the Community from Cave 1 was available important degree and for a long time the direction of research. Acknowledging the unique character of the Two some me scho schollTwo Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se, so ars ars recog recogni nize ze it to be a prese presect ctar aria iann compo composi siti tion on ante anteda dati ting ng the the esta establ blis ishm hmen entt of the Qumran community. Opinions are divided on whether there is evidence for Persian inuence on the notion of dualism in the text or whether it should be explained as a development from Jewish traditions with no outside inuence, referring to 1Sam 16:14.
Cf. also also the the argument argument by Ed Noort Noort in this this volume volume that there is no dualistic dualistic anthrop anthropolog ology y in the Hebrew Bible. See, See, e.g., e.g., M.A. M.A. Knibb Knibb,, The Qumran Community (Cambridge 1987), 77, 93. See H. H. Stege Stegeman mann, n, “Zu “Zu Text Textbes bestan tandd und und Grundg Grundgeda edank nken en von von 1 , 13–, 26, 26,”” RevQ 13 (1988): 95–131, esp. 128; Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 127–130; Frey, “Diferent Patterns of Dualistic Thought,” 295–300. See, See, e.g., e.g., K.G. K.G. Kuhn Kuhn,, “Die “Die Sekt Sekten ensc schr hrif iftt und und die iran iranis isch chee Reli Religi gion on,,” 49 (1952) (1952):: 296–316 296–316;; 49 A. Dupont-Sommer, Dupont-Sommer, “L’instruction sur les deux esprits dans le Manuel ‘Manuel de Discipline,’” 142 (1952): 5–35; A. Dupont-Sommer, “Le problème des inuences étrangères sur la secte juive de Qoumrân,” Qoumrân,” Mic haud, “Un mythe zervanite dans un des 35 (1955): 75–94; H. Michaud, manuscrits de Qumrân,” Qumrân,” 5 5 (1955): 137–147; E. Kamlah, Die Form der katal katalogi ogisch schen en Paräarä ( 7; Tübingen 1964), 1964), 49–71, 163–168; Shaked, “Qumran and nese nese im Neuen Neuen Testame estament nt ( Iran”; Knibb, Qumran Community, 95–96; M. Philonenko, “La doctrine qoumrânienne des deux esprits: Ses origines iraniennes et ses prolongements dans le judaïsme essénien et le christianisme christianisme antique, antique,”” in Apocalyp Apocalyptiqu tiquee iranienne iranienneet et dualisme dualismeqoum qoumrân rânien ien (ed.G.Widengren, A. Hultgård, and M. Philonenko; Paris 1995), 163–211; Puech, “L’Esprit Saint,” 286n10; García Martínez, “Iranian Inuences”; Seitz (O.J.F. Seitz, “Two Spirits in Man: An Essay
, , , ,
From the very beginning of Dead Sea Scrolls research the Two Spirits Treatise took central place in reconstructions of Qumran theology, predestination anddualism,andespeciallydualisticanthropology.Forexample,morerecently Newsom analysed the Two Spirits Treatise ’s teaching about human nature to enquireaboutcertainwaysinwhichknowledgeasasymbolicformisrelatedto specic conditions of history within which the sectarian community existed. While Newsom does not argue for the Two Spirits Treatise’s centrality to Qumranthought,herchoiceofthistextsuggestsamorethanephemeralimportance of it for an understanding of the Qumran community. However, However, in light of all the material now available after the full publication oftheDeadSeaScrolls,onewonderswhetherthe Two , Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se in 1 , 13–, 26 was less of a central, core text of the Qumran community and more of a special, quite unique text. The publication of the Cave 4 Rule of the Como f the Two Spirits Treatise munity manuscripts has shed new light on the place of within this composition. Also, the notion of the Qumran community comm unity and its rela relati tion onsh ship ip to the the colle collect ctio ionn of manu manusc scri ripts pts in the cave cavess surr surrou ound ndin ingg Qumr Qumran an is changing. Recent research on the Damascus Document and and the Rule of the Community proposesrelated,butdiferentgroupsbehindthesetexts.Furthermore, more, the publ public icat atio ionn of all all of the the ava vaililab able le Rule Rule of the the Comm Commun unit ityy manuscripts may suggest that multiple multiple Yahad communities communities elsewhere in Judea may also be behind the diferent versions of the Rule of the Community. The relevance of the Qumran texts not only extends to a community at Qumran, but also to broader strands of Jewish society and culture in the Second Temple period in
in Biblical Exegesis,” Exegesis,” 6 [1959]: 82–95) argues for an Old Testament background concerning the notion of two opposing spirits; Wernberg-Møller (P. Wernberg-Møller, “A Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community [1QSerek ,13–,26],” RevQ 3 [1961]: 413–441) understands the Two Spirits Treatise as a purely Jewish document, althou although gh he earlie earlierr admitt admitted ed Persi Persian an inuen inuence, ce, see P. Wernber ernberg-M g-Møll øller er,, trans trans.,., annot., annot., and introd., TheMan Leidenn 1957 1957), ), 70n56 0n56.. The The most most recen recentt discu discuss ssio ions ns The Manual ualof of Discip Disciplin linee ( 1; Leide of this issue are P. Heger, “Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings,” in Dualism in Qumran (ed. G. Xeravits; 76; London 2010), 39–101; de Jong, “Iranian Connections,” 490–495. See also Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination,” Inclination,” 352–353. Newsom, The Self , 77–90. See, See, e.g e.g., C. He Hemp mpel el,, The Damascus Texts (Sheeld 2000), 54–70; J.J. Collins, “Sectarian Commu Co mmuni nitie tiess in the the Dead Dead Sea Sea Scro Scrolllls, s,” in The The Oxfo Oxford rd Hand Handbo book ok of the the Dead Dead Sea Sea Scr Scrolls olls (ed. T.H. Lim and J.J. Collins; ; ; Oxford 2010), 151–172, esp. esp. 152–156. See See A. Scho Scho el eld, d, From Qumran to the Yaḥad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for Community ity Rule Rule ( 77; 77; Leiden Leiden 2008); 2008); A. Schoel Schoeld, d, “Betw “Between een Center Center and Perip Peripher hery: y: the Commun The Yaḥad in in Context,” 16 (2009): 330–350; Collins, “Sectarian Communities,” 159– 160.
Palestine. These insights may contribute to a new perspective on the position of the Two Spirits Treatise at Qumran and beyond. The Rule of the Community manuscripts from Cave 4 demonstrate that the available in diferent textual forms, and that, impor Rule of the Community was available tantly, some Rule of the Community manuscripts circulated without the equivalent alent of 1 , , 13–, 13–, 26. The The Rule of the Community manuscripts thus show that textual developments occurred during the transmission of the Two Spirits Treatise within the Rule of the Community, but they do not provide enough evidence to assess this growth in detail. det ail. Nonetheless, what is clear is that, as Hempelputsit,the TwoSpiritsTreatise’s“particulardualisticframeofreference is con conn ned ed to a limit imited ed port portiion of the the corp corpus us,, and wha what is mor more the the port portio ionn has has propo proporti rtion onal ally ly shru shrunk nk wi with th the the publ public icat atio ionn of the the rema remain inder der of the the Ca Cave ve 4 frag frag-ments.” Ofcourse,scholarshavereferredtoparallelsinothertextsfromtheDeadSea Scrolls, such as 4QBeatitudes (4525 11–12, 1–4) and the Damascus Document ( , 2–13), and argued that the Two Spirits Treatise inuenced other texts, such as the Hodayot (1 (1 ) and Instruction, or, wrongly in my opinion, 4186, a text mistakenly named Horoscope. However, such parallels seem
For For some of the details details concerning concerning the manuscript manuscript evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise , see Popović, Reading the Human Body, 177n14. C. He Hemp mpel el,, “The “The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the Community ,” in Dualism in Qumran (ed. G. Xeravits; 76; London 2010), 102–120, esp. 102–103. See also already Stegemann, “Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken,” Grundgedanken,” 125–130. In addition to distinctive features, Hempel (Hempel, “The Treatise on the Two Spirits ”) has also drawn attention to intriguing elements of continuity between the Two Spirits and othe otherr part partss of the the Serekh ha-Yahad especia ciallllyy 1 –. –. She She sugg sugges ests ts that that this this Treatise and ha-Yahad , espe continuity should be attributed to the redactor or compiler of the Endredaktion, both of the Two presentt form. form. These These elemen elements ts of contin continuit uityy, howeve howeverr, Two Spirits Spirits Treatis Treatisee and 1 in its presen do not encompass notions of dualism. Thus, the comparison made by Hempel sets into even even sharp sharper er reli relief ef the the dist distin incti ctive vene ness ss of the dual dualis ism m of the the Two relation on Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se in relati to the Serekh ha-Yahad texts. ha-Yahad texts. For par parallel llelss to the the TwoSpiritTreatise in4525and,seeÉ.Puech, Qumrângrotte4.: Textes hébreux (4521–4528, 4576–4579) ( 25; Oxford 1998), 141–142; P.S. Alexander andG.Vermes, QumranCave4.: Serekh ha-Yaḥad ha-Yaḥad andTwoRelatedTexts (26;Oxford 1998 1998), ), 3. For the the rela relatio tions nship hip betw betwee eenn the Two text,, and and the the Two Spirits Spirits Treatis Treatisee,the Instruction text Hodayot text1,seeTigchelaar, ToIncreaseLearning,194–207.Cf.alsoPuech,“L’Esprit Saint,” 287–288. Popović, ić, Reading the Human Body; M. Popović, “Light and Darkness in the Treatise on the (1 13– 13– 26) 26) and and in 418 4186, 6,” in Duali Two Two Spirits Spirits (1 Dualism sm in Qumran Qumran (ed.G.Xeravits;76; London 2010), 148–165.
, , , ,
above all to relate to expressions of predestination and dualism in a more general sense. None of these other texts, except perhaps Instruction, evinces the kind of dualistic anthropology of two spirits as the Two Spirits Treatise suppose supposedly dly does. does. This This ass assess essmen mentt calls calls into into questi question on the Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se’s prominence within the collection of Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the thinking of the people behind the collection: it seems increasingly likely that the Two Spirits Treatise Treatise was less central and more a particular text. It can no longer simply be assumed that the Two Spirits Treatise reects the ideology of the Qumran community. However, in terms of the ways in which the notion of was conceptualized in the Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se thetextremainslessisolated.
3
The Two Two Spiri Spirits ts Treat Treatise ise in 1 ,, 13–, , 26
Dualism can be dened as a concept according to which two fundamentally opposed, causal principles underlie the existence of the world and its constitutive elements. Scholars duly observe that this notion can be further rened according to a typology of forms in which dualism is expressed. Thus, as mentioned above, scholars acknowledge that the Two Spirits Treatise seems to express dualistic notions on diferent levels: cosmic, ethical, eschatological, and psychologica psychological.l. It is also evident that dualism dualism as an idea of two opposing
However How ever,, I donot donot thin thinkk tha that Instruction’sdescriptionoftwodiferenttypesofhumanity— the “spiritual people” and those characterized as “eshly spirit”—really helps to shed much light on the Two Spirits Treatise , puzzling as that passage is. Some scholars see similarities between the two texts, but these are too vague or, upon closer scrutiny, do not hold water. On this issue in Instruction, see, e.g., J. Frey, “The Notion of ‘Flesh’ in 4QInstructio 4QInstructionn and the the Backgrou Background nd of Paulin Paulinee Usage, Usage,”” in Sapientia Sapiential,l, Liturgical Liturgicaland and Poetica Poetical l Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for (ed. D.K. Falk, F. García Qumran Qumran Studies, Studies, Oslo 1998: Published Published in Memory Memory of of Maurice Maurice Baillet Baillet (ed. Martínez, and E.M. Schuller; 35; Leiden 2000), 197–226; J. Frey, “Flesh and Spirit in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts,” in The Wisdom (ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange, Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (ed. and H. Lichtenberger; 159; Leuven 2002), 367–404; Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 186–188; C.H.T. C.H .T. Fletcher-Louis, Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls ( 42; Leiden 2002), 113–118; M.J. Gof, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction ( 50; Leiden 2003), 94–99; B.G. Wold, Women, Men and Angels: The Qumran Wisdom Text Musar leMevin and Its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions ( 2/201; Tübingen 2005), 124–149; J.-S. Rey, 4QInstruction: Sagesse et eschatologie ( 81; Leiden 2009), 298–303. See also Stuckenbruc Stuckenbruck, k, “Interior “Interiorizatio izationn of Dualism, Dualism,”” 161.
principles that constitute all existence does not appear in such a radical form in the Two Spirits Treatise. The two spirits and their ways are presented as subordinate to God, who is the one determining everything. Yet, in terms of a dualistic anthropology, anthropology, does the Two Spirits Treatise understand humans to be made up of two opposing principles? In order to answer this question we need to consider the Two Spirits Treatise more closely. The main interest will be in what manner the spirits spirits are presented and how they relate to human beings. 3.1
1 , 13–1 13–15: 5: On Huma Human n Spir Spirit it Only Only? ?
The Two Spirits Treatise can be divided into ve sections, preceded by a heading. Quoted earlier in the introduction above, the heading indicates that the text is about humankind’s nature, concerning people’s types of spirits, their deeds, and their punishments and rewards. The focus of the t he heading is rst of all on the types of spirit. The use of the word (“kind, type”) recalls the language of creation from Gen 1 (1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25), even more so in light of other creational language in the Two Spirits Treatise. Newsom suggests that on the one one hand hand the the Two presup uppo pose sess Gen Gen 1 as alre alread adyy read read,, but but on the the Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se pres other manages to open up a space behind Gen G en 1, to insert itself into that space, and to establish itself as the pre-text for Gen 1. However, the rst occurrence of the word in the Two Spirits Treatise immediately divides scholars as to what is exactly meant here. This division is exemplary for the scholarly interpretations of the Two Spirits Treatise. The question is whether , here in the feminine plural form , refers to the human spirit or to some kind of external spirit. For example, after rst
See J.H. J.H. Charl Charlesw eswort orth, h, “A “A Critica Criticall Compa Comparis rison on of of the Duali Dualism sm in 1 1 , 13–, 26 and the ‘Dualism’ Contained in the Gospel of John,” in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; ; ; New York 1991), 76–106 (originally published in 15[1968–1969]: 389–418); J.J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London 1997), 43–44; Frey, “Diferent Patterns,” Patterns,” 289–295; J. Duhaime, “Dualism,” “Dualism,” 1:215–220, esp. 215–217; García Martínez, “Iranian Inuences,” 44; U. Bianchi and Y. Stoyanov, “Dualism,” 4:2504–2517. 4:2504–2517. I follow follow the struct structura urall divisio divisionn of Lange, Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 141–143. Cf. J. Licht, “An Analysis of the Treatise on the Two Spirits in ,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; ScrHier 4; Jerusalem 1958), 88–100; J. Duhaime, “Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’ Instruction sur les deux esprits esprits (1 13– 26),” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (ed. F. García Martínez; 168; Leuven 2003), 103–131. For For this unders understan tanding ding of , see Popović, Reading the Human Body, 180n29. See New ewssom, The Self , 86–87. See also O. Betz, Ofenbarung und Schriftforschung in der Qumransekte (Tübingen 1960), 145.
, , , ,
arguing for a metaphysical sense of here and of only two kinds of spirits, Wernberg-Møller Wernberg-Møller changed his mind and suggested that the t he human spirit was being referred to and its variety of spiritual states. May, however, favoured a cosm cosmol olog ogic ical al sens sensee and and cont conten ende dedd that that this this stat statem emen entt in 1 , 14 wa wass set set in a context concerned with the two spirits of truth and of deceit and the Prince of LightsandtheAngelofDarkness.Unfortunately,thereisnosimpleindication by means of the gender or number to determine whether the human spirit or an external spirit, such as an angel or demon, is meant in 1 , , 14. Should the use of in 1 , 14 be understood in light of , 18 and , 25 as a reference to the two spirits of light and darkness created by God and set before humankind? Or should its meaning be elucidated within the immediate immediate context of the heading? The sux attached attached to seems best taken as referring back to the sons of man in in 1 , 13. The object of teaching ofthe maskil is is to inst instru ruct ct the the so sons ns of ligh ight abou aboutt the the natu nature re of the the so sons ns of man, man, the content of which is further explicated in 1 , 14–15. The in 1 , 14 then refer to the variety of human spirits. Not just to some of them, but to all of them. Typically, the Two Spirits Treatise here claims to be exhaustive, by the use of ; it claims to be about all the the types of spirits; it is addressed to all the the sons of light and purports to teach about all the the sons of man and all the the types of their spirits. Furthermore, recalling the creational language of Gen 1, the use of in 1 , , 14 sugges suggests ts not only only two types types of spirits but many. many. Indeed, against the background of the creation narrative in
Wernb ernber ergg-Mø Møllller er,, Manual of Discipline, 67n43. Wernberg-Mø ernberg-Møller ller,, “Recon “Reconsidera sideration tion of the Tw Twoo Spirits, Spirits,”” 419–420. 419–420. H.G. May, May, “Cosmolo “Cosmological gical Reference Reference in the Qumran Qumran Doctrine Doctrine of the Two Two Spirits Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery, I magery,”” 82 (1963): 1–14, esp. 2. In his resear research ch into into the meaning meaning of in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Sekki concluded that as human spirit has a consistently feminine gender, gender, whereas as demon or angel has a consistently masculine gender. However, Sekki also lists numerous examples where in the feminine plural form is used to refer to angels and demons. See A.E. Sekki, The Ruaḥ at Qumran ( 110; Atlanta 1989), 99, 145, 145–147, 155–163. See also Meaning of Ruaḥ the Aramaic Aramaic examples examples in 120 , 16–20, 26, 28; 4197 4 , 13; 4560 1 , , 5–6. Cf. Puech, “L’Esprit Saint,” 286n10. The The clos closes estt para parallllel el to in 1 , , 14 is in 1 , 20 where where refers to the order in which the the priests priests enter enter according according to their spirits spirits.. Cf. Sekki, Sekki, Meaning 195. Meaning of Ruaḥ, 195. See See also also Sekk Sekki,i, Meaning of Ruaḥ, Ruaḥ, 194–195. Cf., Cf., e.g. e.g.,, News Newsom om,, The Self , 81. , 15–17 15–17 refers refers to three types of righte righteousne ousness ss in in relatio relationn to to three three traps traps of of Belial, Belial, but the the rest restri ricti ction on is expl explici icitl tlyy sign signal alle ledd by the the use use of the the nume numera ral.l. Other Other inst instan ances ces of used in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls are silent about the exact number of kinds.
Genesisthetotalityofallthetypesofhumanspiritsreferredtointhe TwoSpirits readililyy unde unders rsta tand ndab able le.. Be that that as it may may, at this this poin pointt in the the text text the the Treatise is read variety of human spirits in no way hints at a dualistic anthropology. anthropology. However, if the subject is human spirit, what exactly is it? The Two Spirits ) Treatise does not explain this here; it does not explicate what the signs ( of all the kinds of spirits are, nor whether these signs, whatever they are, also apply to other occurrences of the word in the Two Spirits Treatise. These signs may consist of the diferent forms of human conduct as listed in the virtues and vices discussed in the third section (1 (1 , 2–14). According to the fourth section of the Two Spirits Treatise (1 , 15–23), people people are are judged judged to belong to either the division of the spirit of light or to that of the spirit of darkness, according to the path they walk and the deeds they do. The deeds, however,arealsomentionedintheheading,butasaseparateelementfromthe types of spirits. This may or may not lead us to decide against understanding the signs as referring to deeds and behaviour. behaviour. Did the presumed audience audience of the Two Spirits Treatise understand the human man spir spirit it in ligh lightt of scri script ptur ural al exemp exempla lars rs?? In the the He Hebr brew ew Bibl Biblee can denote, denote, among other things, the inner self of humans, an element of life that is dependent on God and which is in this t his respect synonymous to . Somewhat parallel to the heart ( , ), can also refer to the seat of what we would call psychological activity, activity, and in the construct constr uct chain it can refer to moral m oral dispositions or states of mind, which is interesting in light of the catalogue of virtues and vices vices in in 1 , 2–14. It is clear that by the time of the compositions found in the Qumran manuscri script pts, s, the the meani meaning ng of had underg undergone one semant semantic ic develop developmen mentt and expand expand-ed to include diferent concepts of reference, including spirit, demon, and angel. For example, with regard to the human spirit, Fabry notes that although there is continuity in the Qumran corpus regarding the sense of in relation to earlier traditions in the Hebrew Bible, “die Verwendung von rûaḥ als Bezeichnung für das geistige Personzentrum des Menschen, in dem die ethisch relevanten Entscheidungen getrofen werden, zurück [tritt].” And Sekki argues that the semantic range of the occurrences of as humanity’s spirit seem “to reect biblical categories but with a more negative emphasis and with a tendency to describe man as not only having a spirit but also as being one.” It
See also also the discus discussio sionn in Popo Popović, vić, Reading the Human Body, 189. See, e.g., e.g., S. Tengstr engström, öm, “ rûaḥ,” ThWAT 7:386–418. 7:386–418. H.-J H.-J.. Fabry abry,, “ rûaḥ,” ThWAT 7:419–425, 7:419–425, esp. 419. Sekki, Meaning of Ruaḥ, Ruaḥ, 95.
, , , ,
seems, however, that it is not always possible to make clear and neat distinctions between the diferent connotations of . The rst occurrence of in the Two Spirits Treatise then is a reference to the human spirit, but at the same time it is possibly ambiguous. The human spir spirit it shou should ld not not be unde underst rstood ood as a secl seclud uded ed enti entity ty in itse itself lf—th —thee isol isolat ated ed core core of the human self—but as an element of human nature that is open to and inuenced by other spirits. The boundary between b etween the human spirit and these other spirits, in terms of their ontological status and their efects on human beings, was not xed, but permeable. The distinction between either psychological dispositions of the human spirit or external spirits might not be as clear-cut as we wish it to be. Our framing of external and internal spirits has an articiality to it, perhaps necessary for our own understanding, to be sure, but possibly less apt to understand ancient frames of thought. Even the Hebrew Bible acknowledges the “Einwirkung äußerer Kräfte, sei es von Seiten der göttlichen rûaḥ, sei es von Seiten böser Geister.” In addition, the texts often do not make a clear distinctionbetween“dem,wasmanalsÄußerungdereigenenLebenskraftbetrachtete und was als von außen überkommend gedacht wurde.” Psalm 51 is a fascinating example of this and a text that is immediately relevant for understanding early Jewish texts about the interplay between “external” and “internal” spirits. 3.2
1 , , 15–1 15–18: 8: Huma Humani nitty and and Two Spir Spirit itss
Followingtheheadingthereisanintroductorykeypassageexpressingthetext’s deterministic worldview: From the God of knowledge comes all there is and there shall be. Before they existed he determined all their plans and when they come into existence at their ordained time they will full all their work in accordance with his glorious plan and without alteration. alteration. In his hand are the laws laws of all all thing thingss and and he supp support ortss them them in all all thei theirr afa afair irs. s. He cre creat ated ed man man to rule rule the world and placed before him two spirits to walk by them until the moment of his visitation. 1 , 15–18 15–18
Tengs engstr tröm öm,, ThWAT 7:410–411. 7:410–411. See D. Flusse Flusserr, “Qumrâ “Qumrânn andJew and Jewish ish ‘Apotro Apotropai paic’ c’ Prayer Prayers, s,” 16(1966):194–205;Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination”; Klein, “‘Right Spirit.’”
TheGodofknowledgeispresentedastheontologicalbasisofeverythingand everyone. Everything happens in accordance with God’s plan. Before human beings come into being, their deeds are xed. Similar ideas are expressed in other otherte texts xtsfr from om Qumr Qumran an. . This This pass passag agee demon demonstr strat ates es that that the the form form of duali dualism sm that appears in the Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se is moderate. The two spirits come from Godandarenotonthesameontologicallevel.Accordingtothetheologyofthe Two Spirits Treatise, it is the God of knowledge who constitutes all existence. Regarding humanity and spirits we again nd reminiscences of creation language from Genesis: God created man to rule the world (1 , 17–18). Humanity’s rule appears in a number of other Qumran texts. The use of rather than from Gen 1:26, 28 in the Two Spirits Treatise and these other texts from Qumran is perhaps due to Ps 8:7. 3.2.1 Humanity Collinssuggeststhat hererefersnottohumanity,buttoAdam,theoriginal human being created by God. Wold and Fletcher-Louis, however however,, favour the more more genera generall underst understand anding ing of “human “humanity” ity” for . . Flet Fletch cher er-L -Lou ouis is is righ rightt to say that elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, except perhaps for the contested passage in 4QInstruction (4417 1 , 13–18), when not referring to the son of Seth is intended as a generic reference to humanity. With regard to Collins’s interpretation one might ask why the Two Spirits Treatise did not simplyuseAdam( )ifthatiswhatitmeant;apartfromthedisputedpassage in Instruction there are no other uses of in the manner Collins proposes.
See 1 , 10–11 10–11,, 17–1 17–18; 8; 1 1 , 15–28; 15–28; , 7–9, 7–9, 19–2 19–20; 0; , 2–10; 2–10; 4180 4180 1,1, 2; 2–4 , 10; 10; 4215a 1 , 9; 4402 4, 12–15 + MasShirShabb 1, 1–6. 134 134bi biss 3 , 3; 43 4381 1, 7 (thi (thiss text allu allude dess to both both Gen Gen 1:26 1:26,, 28 and and Gen Gen 2:7) 2:7);; 442 44233 2, 2 (thi (thiss alludes to Gen 1–3); cf. 4504 8 recto . See also Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory, 106. J.J. J.J. Collins Collins,, “In the Likene Likeness ss of of the Holy Ones: The Creation Creation of Humank Humankind ind in a Wisdom Wisdom Text from Qumran,” Qumran,” in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Reformulated Issues (ed. D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich; 30; Leiden 1999), 609–618, esp. 612; J.J. Collins, “The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition Tradition (ed. F. García Martínez; 168; Leuven 2003), 287–305; repr. in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish 100; Leiden Leiden 2005), 2005), 159–180 159–180,, esp. esp. 175–1 175–176 76.. Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (JSJSup 100; See also Gof, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 96; M.J. Gof, G of, “Adam, “Adam, the Angels and Eternal Afterlife: Genesis 1–3 in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction,” in StudiesintheBook 1 –21, esp. 14. of Wisdom (ed. G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér; JSJSup 142; Leiden 2010), 1–21, Flet Fletch cher er-L -Lou ouis is,, All the Glory, 114; Wold, Women, Men and Angels, 139. Cf. also Rey, 4QInstruction, 297.
, , , ,
The Two Spirits Treatise does use Adam in 1 , 23 when referring referring to all the glory of Adam, although one might respond by saying that this part was added later to the Two Spirits Treatise. The Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se also uses other phrases to refer to man or humanity: in 1 , 13; , 15, 26, in 1 , 2, 16, 20, 24, 24, and in 1 , 20, 20, 23. In col. 11 of 1, parallels or (see , 6, 10, 15) in the general sense of man or humanity. humanity. The use of in 1 , , 17 may simply simply be be another another suchreferencetohumanity,ratherthanmorespecicallytotheoriginalhuman being created by God. Thisinterpretationwouldbestrengthenedbytheendofthesentence,which talks about the end of his visitation, something more applicable to humanity in gene genera rall than than to the the origi origina nall huma humann bein being. g. Ho Howe weve verr, it is not not read readililyy appa appare rent nt whether the sux su x attached to has humanity ( from , , 17) or God as its referent. There are not that many occurrences of with a sux in the Qumran corpus. However, in 4286 7 , 4 ( ) and in 4417 1 , 7 ( ) clearly the plural suxes do not have God as the referent, although of course God is the agent of the visitation. These examples are not conclusive, but they may suggest that in 1 , 18, has humanity as its object. Humanity was not just created to rule the world. The Two Spirits Treatise immediately continues by stating that God gave two spirits to man with which to walk. 3.2. 3.2.22 Two Spir Spirit its: s: Exte Extern rnal al or Inte Intern rnal al?? What are the two spirits in 1 1 , 18? Taken Taken with the characterization of the twoo spir tw spirit itss in the the follo followi wing ng line line as the the spir spirit itss of truth truth and and of iniq iniqui uity ty,, Wernber ernberggMøller saw saw in 1 , , 18 an allusion allusion to to Gen 2:7— of , 18 paralleling of Gen 2:7. Thus, God created man with two spirits. Furthermore, WernbergMøller suggested that this distinction between two spirits in man should be understood as two psychological dispositions and, moreover, that the Two Spirits Treatise was the forerunner of the rabbinic distinction between the evil and the good yetser , the diference only being one of terminology. This is not the place to discuss rabbinic references to the yetser . Suce it to say that Rosen-Zvi has considerably nuanced the idea of the rabbinic distinction
Cf., e.g., e.g., Wernber ernberg-M g-Møll øller er,, Manual of Discipline, 70n57; Knibb, Qumran Community, 97. In 441 44177 2 , 8 has a human being as referent (4417 2 , 7: or ) and God as the implied agent. The referent in 4417 1 , 7 is less clear. See also 4416 1, 9. Wernberg-Mø ernberg-Møller ller,, “Recon “Reconsidera sideration tion of the Tw Twoo Spirits, Spirits,”” 422–423. 422–423.
between two yetsers, distinguishing both chronologically between earlier and later developments and geographically between Palestinian and Babylonian sources. This is the second time that the word is used in the Two Spirits Treatise, but, it seems, in rather a diferent way from the rst occurrence. In , 14 it is a matter of all kinds of spirits, whereas in , 18 it is a question of only two spirits. Is the word used in the same sense in these two cases? It does not seem so. It seems unlikely that “all kinds of spirits” can be reduced to only these t hese “two spirits spirits..” Neve Neverthe rtheles less, s, there there may may be ove overla rlap. p. The two spirit spiritss are are given given by God so so that man walks by them ( ), that is, behaves accordingly. accordingly. Even if the signs signs in 1 , , 14 do not refer to deeds deeds and and conduct, conduct, it is clear from 1 , 15– 16 that people are judged to belong to either the division of the spirit of light or that of the spirit of darkness according to the path they walk ( ) and the deeds they do, as mentioned above. According to 1 , 20–21, the righteous people, under the authority of the Prince of Lights, walk in the paths of light ( ), whereas the wicked people, under the authority of theAngelofDarkness,walkinthepathsofdarkness( ). Thus Thus,, to walk by the two spirits, as 1 , 18 puts it, means to behave according to their ways; and the heading in , 13–15 focuses on humanity’s spirits, deeds, and visitation. Are the two spirits in 1 1 , , 18 to be understood as psychological dispositions of the human spirit or as external spirits? One might argue that the Two Spirits Treatise here has in mind spirits external to the human framework. A few lines later, later, in , , 25, the t he text states that God created the spirits of light and darkness. As created beings, they thus represent independent entities, distinct from other created beings such as humankind (1 , 17). The phrase seems to recall Isa 63:11 ( ), except that in Isaiah it is clearly “within him” ( ) and it concerns God’s holy holy spirit spirit. . The constru constructi ction on in 1 1 , , 18 doe does not seem to refer
I. RosenRosen-Zvi, Zvi, “Two “Two Rabbinic Rabbinic Inclina Inclinations? tions?:: Rethink Rethinking ing a Scholarly Scholarly Dogma,” 39 (2008): 39 513–539; I. Rosen-Zvi, Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Yetzer Hara” and Demonic Desir Desires: es: “ Yetzer and the the Prob Proble lem m of Evil vil in Late Late Anti Antiqquity (Philadelphia 2011); Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclination.” Cf. Cf. also also 1 , 24 ( ). Other Other parall parallels els for this, this, outsid outsidee the Two Spirits Treatise , are found, found, e.g., in 1 , 12 and , 20–21, 23 where the maskil must must walk by the regulations set out for him. The , 7) says that the wife must walk by the will of her husband. Instruction text (4416 2 , Regulations and the will of the husband are, of course, external elements. See See also also Ezek Ezek 36:2 36:277 ( ), and cf. Ezek 11:19; 36:26; 37:14. And Job 34:14
, , , ,
soevidentlytotwospirits within man,anditisamatteroftwospiritscreatedby God, not his own holy spirit. Rather, Rather, 1 1 , 18 seems to say that the two spirits were given for humankind humankind to follow them. However, can such signicance be ascr ascrib ibed ed to the the use use of the the cons constr truc ucti tion on (see (see below below)? )? Moreo Moreove verr, the text text does not make it clear whether these are external or internal spirits. 3.2.3 (4434–438) on Spirits, Humans, and the Body Barkhi Nafshi (4434–438) Other texts from Qumran also demonstrate demonst rate this ambivalence. For For example, in addition to Ps 51:12–13, the Barkhi ] Barkhi Nafshi Nafshi text also evokes Isa 63:11: [ (“[and the ho]ly [spirit] you have put in my heart”; 4436 1 , 1 // 4435 2 , 2; see also below on 4444 [ Incantation]). Here, following scriptural exemplars, the text refers to God’s holy spirit. However, a few lines below, the text says (“and you have given me a spirit of patience”; 4435 2 , 4–5 // 4436 1 , 2–3). How should this phrase be understood? The construction referstopatienceasaqualityofcharacter.IntheHebrew Bible it is mostly used for God, but in the Qumran corpus it is used for both God and humans. However, the addition of to is only found in Barkhi Nafshi . Should we think of “patience” as a particular and distinct spirit, just as the holy spirit? Or should we rather take it as a psychological disposition of the human spirit? If the latter, what then is the signicance of before ? Does in 4435 2 , 4–5 // 4436 1 , 2–3 have a diferent sense than in 4436 1 , , 1 // 4435 2 , 2, or is it redundant? redundant? In both cases the subject of the verbs used is the same, namely God: God has put his holy spirit in the poet’s heart; God God has has giv given him him a spir spirit it of pati patien ence ce.. Thus Thus,, in both both case casess the the spir spirit itss so some meho how w come from God. What about the reference reference to (“a spirit of deceit”; 4435 2 , 5) in the same same pass passag age? e? What Whatki kind nd of spir spirit itis isth this is,, and and how how does doesit itre rela late teto toth thee holy holysp spir irit it and the spirit of patience? patience? It is not clear whether this spirit also comes from
where God can take his spirit back ( ). Job 34:14–15 refers to the gift of the divine spirit and alludes to the creation narrative in Gen 2–3. Cf. Charle Charleswor sworth, th, “Critica “Criticall Compari Comparison, son,” 83–84; 83–84; Levison, Levison, “Two “Two Spirits, Spirits,”” 179 179n32. n32. Cf. M. Weinf Weinfeld eld and D. Seely Seely,, “Bark “Barkhi hi Nafs Nafshi, hi,”” in Qumran Cave 4.: Poetical and LiturChazon et al.; 29; Oxford 1999), 303; Tigchelaar Tigchelaar, “Evil Inclina gical Texts, Texts, Part 2 (E. Chazon tion,”351n23. Exod Exod 34:6 34:6;; Num Num 14:1 14:18; 8; Jer Jer 15:1 15:15; 5; Joel Joel 2:13 2:13;; Jona Jonahh 4:2; 4:2; Nah Nah 1:3; 1:3; Ps 86:1 86:15; 5; 103: 103:8; 8; 145: 145:8; 8; Neh Neh 9:17 9:17 For humans, see Prov 14:29; 15:18; 16:32. See , 4; 1 1 , 29; 29; , 34; , 8; 429 42999 9, 5; 430 43000 3a–b 3a–b,, 4; 438 43822 104, 104, 9; 4420 4420 1a 1a –b, 2 // 4421 1a –b, 14; 4461 4, 3; 4471 2, 3; 4511 52+1; 4511 108, 1; 4525 21, 8.
God, but it is said that God destroyed the spirit of deceit and gave the poet a brok broken en hear heartt inst instea ead. d. And And when when,, in 443 44388 4 , 5, God God is said said to hav have remo removved the spirit of destruction ( ) from him, he is said to have have clothed the poetwiththespiritofsalvation( ), impl implyi ying ng that that this this spir spirit it also also comes comes from God. In addition, the poet can also refer to his own spirit as (“my spirit”), describing it as fainting away before him in his distress and referring refer ring to God’s revivication ( ) of it (4437 2 , 8, 13). The Barkhi Nafshi text text uses body imagery ( , , , ) as well as references to the “inside” ( , , ) of the poet to conceptualize the poet’s self. References to diferent qualities of character and diferent spirits are an integral part of his conceptualization of the self. The construction in 4435 2 , 4–5 // 4436 1 , 2–3 is similar to in 1 , , 18. 18. Both Both use use , whereas 4436 1 , 1 // 4435 2 , 2, following Isa 63:11, has . In Barkhi Nafshi this this does not seem to be of any signicance with respect to whether the diferent uses of have to be understood as “within” or “for” man. However, 4436 1 , 1 // 4435 2 , 2 speaks of the holy spirit put into the heart ( ) of the poet. This suggests that God somehow places the spirit within the human self. The Barkhi uses a rang ange of lang langua uagge to refe referr to the the spir spirit it,, not not all of Barkhi Nafshi Nafshi text uses which can easily be explained away away as metaphorical or poetical. Rather, Rather, there is an interplay between diferent kinds of spirits that seem both distinct from and dependent on God and human beings. These spirits are both “external” and “internal” to the human self, which can be referred to by and also by . Moreover, they seem to represent a distinct category from angels. In 4434 1 , God’s angel ( ) encamps around the community with which the poet identies. It is possible that at times a spirit is seen as a distinct and external entity that afects the human self and at other times is less easily distinguish distinguished ed as a character character trait expressing expressing the human self. In other words, the Barkhi Nafshi text text does not clearly distinguish between, on the one hand, spirits as distinct and external entities that afect the human self and, on the other hand, character traits expressing the human self.
4436 4436 1 , 4. For this this reco recons nstr truc uctio tionn and and othe otherr poss possibi ibililitie tiess see see Weinf einfel eldd and and Seel Seelyy, “Bar “Barkh khii Nafshi,” 304. Cf. also also 443 44377 1 , 10–11 10–11 ( [“their spirits”]). Cf. Cf. also also 1 1 , 37. 37. See also E. Eshel and D.C. D.C. Harlo Harlow w, “Demons and Exorcism, Exorcism,”” in The Eerdma Eerdmans ns Dictio Dictionar naryy of EarlyJudaism Early Judaism (ed.J.J.CollinsandD.C.Harlow;GrandRapids,Mich.,2010),531–533,esp.531. The manuscri manuscript pt is too damaged damaged to to determin determinee whether whether a distinctio distinctionn is made between between “a “a man or a spirit” in 4438 4 , 3.
, , , ,
3.2. 3.2.44 Two Spir Spirit its, s, But But Not Not in Huma Humans ns Returning to the Two Spirits Treatise, the two spirits in 1 , 18 should be understood as distinct, created beings that afect the behaviour and character of human beings. They were given to man so that he walks in their paths. The text is not clear about how the human self and these two spirits interact. There isnoreferenceheretothe“inside”asin Barkhi Nafshi (thischangesfrom1 , 20 onwards). Thus, there is no clear basis to talk of a dualistic anthropology here, either in terms of two diferent types of human beings (in the sense of a double creation) or in terms of the internal disposition of man consisting of two opposing elements. 3.3
1 , 18– 18–,, 1: Two Spir Spirit its, s, Two Ange Angeli licc Bein Beings gs,, Host Hostss of Spir Spirit its, s, and and the the Sons Sons of Ligh Light t
In the second section, matters become more complex, and some of this has alreadybeenreferredtointhediscussionabove.Thetextrstidentiesthetwo spirits in ethical terms as the spirits of truth and iniquity, and then connects them them wi with th ligh lightt and and darkn darknes esss in va vari riou ouss wa ways ys,, incl includ udin ingg in cosm cosmol olog ogic ical al terms terms.. In 1 , 25, 25, the the tw twoo spir spirit itss of ligh lightt and and dark darknness ess are are said said to hav have been been crea creatted by God. 3.3. 3.3.11 Spir Spirit itss of Truth ruth and and Iniq Iniqui uity ty from from Ligh Lightt and and Darkn Darknes esss What does the ethical characterization characterization imply for the way in which should be understood here? The sense of here may be assumed to be basically the same as in the case of the two spirits earlier. No other text from Qumran has a similar reference to spirits of truth and iniquity together, although the opposition between truth and iniquity as such is attested else where in the t he Dead Sea Scrolls, but not often. Only in the nal section of the Two Spirits Treatise (, 23) is there a reference to the spirits of truth and iniquity ( ) in the masculine plural form, not in the feminine plural as in , 18 (see below). In any case, it is too crude a methodological assumption that the gender and number of signal its exact sense (see also the note on , , 2 belo below). w). To be sure sure,, ther theree are are indi indivi vidu dual al refe refere renc nces es to a spir spirit it or spir spirit itss of trut truthh and and of iniquity. iniquity. For example, 4177 12–13 , 5 (Catena ) refers to in a context in which Belial gures as an evil adversary and reference is also made to the angelofGod’struth( ).Isthelattertobedistinguishedfromthespirit of truth mentioned a few lines above? Should a distinction be made between angels angels and spirits, spirits, as possibly possibly in Barkhi Nafshi ? The Two Spirits Treatise also refers to the angel of God’s God ’s truth as, along with God, assisting the sons of light (, ( , 24–25). The text is not explicit as to whether this reference is synonymous
with the spirit of truth and to the Prince of Lights. 1 1 , 8 refers to the probable destruction of the spirits of iniquity ( ). These spirits of iniquity parallel the spirits of wickedness ( ) in 1 , 6. In both cases is in the feminine plural form. The reference to spirits of truth ( ) in 1 , , 10 presents a strong strong parallel, parallel, as the text text also mentions mentions the Prince of Light ( )—with “light” in the singular, not in the plural as in in 1 , 20 ( )—under )—under whose authority authority the spirits spirits of truth lie. The Songs (4444)) also also mention mention spirits spirits Songs of the Sabba Sabbath th Sacri Sacric cee and Incantation (4444 of truth and other spirits of knowledge, understanding, and righteousness (see below). Of particular interest are the references in the Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se itself. The catalogue of virtues and vices refers once to a spirit of iniquity (, 9). In the context of the Two Spirits Treatise, the sense of in , 9 is determined by , 25–26 and , 2, which refer to the creation of the spirits of light and darkness and their paths, and also describe their paths in the world, which follow in the catalogue. In , 20–22 reference is made to a spirit of iniquity and a spirit of truth in the context of colourful and dicult d icult language that is far from from ea easy sy to unde unders rsta tand nd.. The The text text seem seemss to beco become me very ery conc concre rete te,, but but it hard hardly ly eluc elucid idat ates es how how the the spir spirit it of iniq iniqui uity ty and and trut truthh rela relate te to the the huma humann self self.. It is said said that God can destroy all spirit of iniquity from the innermost parts of man’s esh. He can sprinkle over man the spirit of truth like water for purication. This action is efective efe ctive against a spirit of impurity. impurity. All this purication pur ication activity involves involves a holy spirit. How exactly these activities must be imagined is dicult to determine. Is the language metaphorical (see further below)? Scholars have poin pointe tedd to va vari riou ouss scri scriptu ptura rall exem exempl plar ars, s,bu butt these these hard hardly ly shed shed ligh lightt on the the exac exactt sense of here. What is clear is that the spirits of truth and iniquity have opposite relationships with the human self. The former puries and is thus good, whereas the latter is to be destroyed d estroyed and is thus bad. Returning to the second section of the Two Spirits Treatise, after identifying the two spirits as the spirits of truth and iniquity the text adds light and darkness terminology that strengthens the dualistic opposition between these two t wo spir spirit its: s: “Fro “From m the the spri spring ng of ligh lightt come comess the the natu nature re of trut truth, h, and and from from the the so sour urce ce of dark darkne ness ss come comess the the natu nature re of iniq iniqui uity” ty” (1 (1 , 19). 19). The The oppo opposi siti tion on betw betwee eenn
See See also also God’ God’ss trut truthh ( ) in , 20. But But see see also also , , 18. 18. 1 , 36 refers refers to to the spirit of knowl knowledge edge and might perhaps perhaps also also refer to the spirit spirit of truth. For For previo previous us discus discussio sions, ns, see Sekki, Sekki, Meaning of Ruaḥ, Ruaḥ, 204–205.
, , , ,
light and darkness seems not to be intended as merely metaphorical. The text makes an ontological statement in that the nature of truth and of iniquity originates from them. Newsom, who suggests that the Two Spirits Treatise understands itself as a pre-text to Gen 1, argues that where formerly the statement in Gen 1:4–5 about God’s division of light from darkness “disclosed only God’sorganizationofthecreatedworld,nowitalludesaswelltoanantecedent spiritual reality that informs the structures of creation.” 3.3.2 3.3.2
Prince Prince of Lights Lights,, Angel Angel of Darkne Darkness, ss, and Hos Hosts ts of Spirits Spirits under under Their Authority The text proceeds to draw a cosmic perspective, reinforcing the dualism of the cate catego gori ries es of truth truth and and iniq iniqui uity ty.. People eople are are divi divided ded into into tw twoo group groups, s, ea each ch fall fallin ingg under the rule of an angelic leader: “And in the hand of the Prince of Lights is domi domini nion onov over er all all the the so sons nsof of just justic icee who who wa walk lkon on path pathss of ligh light. t.An Andd inth in thee hand hand of the the Ange Angell of Dark Darkne ness ss isto is tota tall domi domini nion on ov over erth thee so sons ns of iniq iniqui uity ty who who wa walk lkon on path pathss of dark darkne ness ss”” (1 (1 , 20–2 20–21) 1).. The The refe refere renc ncee to the the Prin Prince ce of Ligh Lights ts and and the the Angel of Darkness signals signals the process of personication of abstract qualities. Knibb suggests that the Prince of Lights was identied with Michael and the Angel of Darkness with Belial. Dimant agrees on the identication with Belial, but suggests that the Prince of Lights was identical with the angel of God’s truth. As already mentioned above, the Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se is not clear about whether the spirit of truth, the Prince of Lights, and the angel of God’s truth are synonymous, not not to mention the spirit of light light (1 (1 , , 25). It is fair to assume thatthespiritsoflightanddarknesscreatedbyGod(,25)aresynonymousto the the tw twoo spir spirit itss giv given to huma humank nkin ind, d, the the spir spirit itss of trut truthh and and iniq iniqui uity ty (, 18–1 18–19) 9).. Thus, the qualications trut truth, h, light, iniquity, iniquity, and darkness are parallel and, we may assume, the spirits qualied in this manner are the same. However, However, that still leaves open the issue of whether the Prince Pr ince of Lights and the the Ang Angel of Dark Darkne ness ss are are also also iden identi tica call wi with th the the tw twoo spir spirit its. s. God God crea create tedd ( ) humankind humankind (1 , , 17) 17) and he create createdd ( ) the spirits of light and darkness
Cf. Knibb ibb, Qumran Community , 97. Newsom, The Self , 86. Cf. D. D. Dimant, Dimant, “Betwee “Betweenn Qumran Qumran Sectarian Sectarian and and Non-Sect Non-Sectarian arian Texts: The Case Case of Belial and Mastema, Mastema,”” in TheDea The Deadd SeaScr Sea Scroll ollss and Contem Contempor porary ary Cultu Culture re:: Proce Proceedi edings ngs of the Inter Inter-national Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008) (ed. A.D. Roitman, L.H. Schifman, and S. Tzoref; 93; Leiden 2010), 235–256, esp. 238–239, 238–239, 245. Knibb, Qumran Community, 40, 97. Cf. Wernberg-Møller, ernberg-Møller, Manual of Discipline, 71n60 for the possible identication of Uriel as the Prince of Lights. Dimant, “Belial “Belial and Mastema, Mastema,”” 241–242, 241–242, 244.
(1 , , 25). The spirits spirits of light and darkness darkness are just as much a part of God’s God’s creation as is humankind. Echoing Isa 45:7, the Works of God text text states “he created darkness and light for himself” (4392 1, 4). Although not explicitly stated in the Two Spirits Treatise, it is reasonable to assume that the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness are also God’s creatures. 1 , 10–11 is more clear on this: “And you have made Belial.” While it is possible that the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness are identical with the two spirits, it seem seemss unne unnece cess ssar aryy to assu assume me that that thes thesee are are all all dif difer eren entt epit epithe hets ts for for just just tw twoo gu gure res. s. Why Why coul couldd ther theree not not be mult multip iple le good good and and evil evil prot protag agon onis ists ts at a cert certai ainn stage in the development of such gures, as reected in diferent texts? The Two Spirits Treatise is not as clear on this as we might wish it to be. Should we distinguish between angels and spirits? Should we assume that the Prince of Lights is set above the spirit of truth/light and that the Angel of Darkness is set abov abovee the the spir spirit it of iniq iniqui uity ty/d /dar arkn knes ess, s, in other other wo word rds, s, that that ther theree is a hier hierar arch chic ical al diference? Perhaps. What is clear is that the Angel of Darkness has a host of spirits under his auth authori ority ty,, and and it seems seemsaa reas reason onab able lein infe fere renc ncee from from this this that that the the Prin Prince ce of Ligh Lights ts also has spirits under his authority. The Two Spirits Treatise explicitly refers to spirits spirits under the authority of the Angel Angel of Darkness (1 , , 24). 24). All the spirits from the lot of the Angel of Darkness cause the sons of light to fall. A passage from the War Scroll resembles resembles the Two Spirits Treatise in various ways (1 , , 10–12). Most importantl importantlyy for our purposes, the spirits spirits of truth are said to be under the authority of the Prince of Light ( ), while for Belial, being associated with darkness, the spirits of his lot behave accordingtotherulesofdarkness( ). The War Scroll and and other texts thus provide additional evidence for the notion that that the the Ang Angelof el of Dark Darkne ness ssan andd the the Prin Prince ce of Ligh Light( t(s) s)ha have veaa host hostof of spir spirit itss unde underr their authority.
Cf. Cf. Knibb, Qumran Community, 97. Cf. Dimant, “Belial “Belial and and Mastema, Mastema,”” on on the the distincti distinction on between between Belial Belial and Mastema. Mastema. See 1113 , 8. 8. Cf. Shaked, Shaked, “Qumran “Qumran and Iran, Iran,”” 437. The The su sux x on refers to in , 21. E.g E.g., the the Prin Prince ce of Ligh Lightt isto ass assist ist the the “us” us” of the the text ( ),whilein1 ,24–25God and the angel of his truth assist ( ) all the sons of light. See also also 1 1 , 2, 4; 4; 417 41777 1–4, 1–4, 10; , 2 // // 427 42711 5 , 18; 18; 111 11133 , 12, 13. Illustrati Illustrating ng nicely nicely how how clear-cut clear-cut category category distinct distinctions ions do do not always always work, work, the text text refers refers to the spirits spirits of Belial’s Belial’s lot as angels angels of destru destructio ction. n. Note also that 1 , , 14 asks asks rhetorically which angel or prince ( ) is like God. The dualism in the Scrolls is not absolute.
, , , ,
3.3. 3.3.33 Huma Humans ns,, Ange Angels ls,, and and Spir Spirit itss What about humans amidst all these spirits and angelic beings? Humankind is not mentioned specically as one entity ( or ), but divided into two distinct groups: it is clear that the “sons of justice” ( ) and the “sons of iniquity” ( ) refer to human beings. These groups of people are under the authority ( ) of the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness respectively. Other texts provide parallels. The Damascus Document refers refers to the spirits of Belial who rule over ( ) a person ( , , 12 // 4271 4271 5 , 18). 18). 1 , 2 refers to all the men of Belial’s lot. 4174 1–2 , 8–9 ( Florilegium) mentions the sons of Belial, who execute his plan to make the sons of light stumble so that they become trapped by Belial due to their guilty error ( ). In 4177 10–11, 4, 7 ( Catena ) it may be the men of Belial who make the sons of light stumble ( ), and 4177 12–13 , 11 mentions “Belial and all the men of his lot.” The Aramaic Visions of Amram, discussed below, also illustrates the notion that humans fall under the authority of either of two angelic beings. At the same time, Visions of Amram demonstrates demonstrates that the personication personication of these ange angelilicc bein beings gs wa wass not not limi limite tedd to tw twoo dist distin inct ct gu gure ress that that we were re iden identi tica call acro across ss the spectrum of early Jewish texts and traditions. The Berakhot text text mentions the punishment of the spirits in the lot of Belial, referring to demonic spirits (4286 7 , 4), and a few lines further (4286 7 , 6) also mentions “all the sons of Belial,” referring to Berakhot (4286 wicked humans. In this text text then we have have another fascinating fascinating example of how how the conceptualization of evil human and demonic adversaries is interlocked. The Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se, the War War Scroll Scroll , Florilegium, Catena , Berakhot , and Visions of Amram thus see the dualistic division between two groups inter-
This This is also also clea clearr from from 1 , 13, 13, 24, 25 ( ); 1 1 , 22 ( ); 1 , 5, 6 ( ). Note , instead of as in other instances. The termino terminolog logica icall corres correspon ponden dence ce with with 1 , 22 22 ( ) as to the efect of Belial’s Belial’s action is also also suggestive suggestive for the identicatio identicationn of the Angel Angel of Darkne Darkness ss with Belial. Belial. The phrase does not occur in the Hebrew Bible and seems therefore not part of the quoted text in line 3. But then again, the beginning of the phrase ( ) also does not occur in the Hebrew Bible. Is a “nonbiblical “nonbiblical”” text quoted in 4177 10–11, 3? Cf. Belial Belial and Mastema. Mastema. Belial and Mastema Mastema share share certain certain charact characteristi eristics, cs, but but also also difer from from each each other other in the the earl earlyy stag stages es of devel develop opme ment nt of the trad traditi ition onss conc concer ernin ningg them. them. See See Dimant, “Belial and Mastema.”
locked at diferent levels—cosmological, anthropological, and ethical. Both huma humans ns and and spir spirit itss are are unde underr the the auth author orit ityy of ange angelilicc bein beings gs such such as the the Prin Prince ce of Ligh Light( t(s) s) and and the the Ange Angell of Darkn Darknes ess/ s/Be Belilial al,, and and thei theirr char charac acte terr and and beha behavi viou ourr are framed in ethical terms. 3.3.4 3.3.4 Sons Sons of Justic Justice, e, Sons Sons of Light, Light, Spirit Spirits, s, Angels Angels,, and God The TwoSpiritsTreatise saysthreethingsabouthowonegroupofpeoplerelates to the angelic beings and spirits. First, according to , 21–23, the sons of justice err because of the Angel of Darkness. Their sins, iniquities, guilt, and rebellious acts fall f all under his authority, which is later further qualied as “under the authority of his enmity.” The Two Spirits Treatise confesses not to know exactly how this works and why the sons of justice err. (Is authority over the two diferent groups of people [, 20–21] not consistently demarcated?) It remains one of the mysteries of God. Second, Second, according according to , , 24, the spirits of the Angel Angel of Darkness Darkness cause the sons of light to stumble ( ). How exactly these spirits cause them to stumble is not clear, but it probably entails something like not properly observing God’s laws. From 1 , 34–36 it seems evident that stumbling over the words of God’s will equals sinning against God. The poet then asks forstrengthagainstcertainspiritstobeabletowalkinallthatGodloves.Inthe lacunaatthebeginningofline36, (“wickedness”)hasbeenreconstructed, so the reading may have been “spirits of wickedness.” wickedness.” Possibly it is these spirits of wickedness who are responsible for making the poet stumble. Third, according to 1 , 24–25, God and the angel of his truth help the sons of light. According to 1 , 15 // 4427 7 , 19–20, those who stum stumbl blee can can be put put on the the righ rightt trac trackk agai again, n, the the atta attain inin ingg of know knowle ledg dgee bein beingg paramount in this. Howshouldweunderstandthespiritsin1 ,24?Arethesespiritsdistinct entities, or are they concrete manifestations of the Angel of Darkness and, by inference, of the Prince of Lights? Do they refer to the diferent spirits that are ment mentio ione nedd in the the Two , , )and Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se (,3,4,10: inothertexts,suchasthe“spiritofdeceit”in Barkhi Barkhi Nafshi Nafshi orthevariousspirits
The The sons sons of ligh lightt equa equall the the sons sons of just justic ice. e. Inte Intere rest stin ingl glyy, in a text text whic whichh scho schola lars rs refe referr to as the hallmark of Qumran dualism the sons of light are referred to twice, while the sons of darkness are not mentioned at all. Note that according according to 4174 4174 1–2 , 8–9 ( Florilegium) it is the sons of Belial who cause the sons of light to stumble ( , ). See also also 1 , , 10; , , 6; 4177 4177 12–13 12–13 , 7. See also also 1 , 37; 37; , , 29 // 4427 4427 7 , 10.
, , , ,
in the Catalogue of Spirits (4230)? (4230)? The are from the lot of the Angel of Darkness. Does this imply separate spirit entities, just as men from the lot of Belial would imply distinct people, or not? The activity of the spirits and of the Angel of Darkness are manifest in the sins, iniquities, guilt, rebellious acts, and stumbling of the sons of justice/light. The Damascus listss a law law ( , 2–3 2–3 // 42 4271 5 , 18–1 18–19) 9),, awkw wkwardl ardly y Damascus Document Document list set in the context of Sabbath laws, according to which someone ruled by the spir spirit itss of Be Belilial al and and who who spea speaks ks apos aposta tasy sy shou should ld be judg judged ed acco accord rdin ingg to the the law law of thos thosee who who commu communi nica cate te wi with th ghost ghostss and and spir spirit its. s. Appa Appare rent ntly ly,, the the wo worki rking ngss of someone ruled by the spirits of Belial were concretely visible in the person’s actions, such as speaking apostasy. Interestingly, such a person is not just ruled by one spirit, but by many. However, the Damascus Document does does not mak make clea clearr what what exac exactl tlyy thes thesee spir spirit itss are are and and how how exac exactl tlyy they they rela relate te to peop people le.. The verb “to rule” ( ) is too vague in this respect. 3.3. 3.3.55 Not Not Just Just Two wo,, But But Ma Manny Spir Spirit itss The The wo word rdin ingg at the the end end of sect sectio ionn tw twoo stre streng ngth then enss the the link link betw betwee eenn the the ethi ethica call and the cosmic level of dualism: Hecreatedthespiritsoflightanddarkness,andestablishedonthemevery deed, [o]n their [path]s every labour. God has loved one of them t hem for all
On 4230, 4230, see E.J.C. E.J.C. Tigchelaar Tigchelaar,, “‘These “‘ These Are the Names Names of the the Spirits Spirits of …’: …’: A Preliminary Preliminary Edition of 4QCatalogue of Spirits (4230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two Two 129a),” RevQ 21 (2004): 529–547; E.J.C. Tigchelaar, “Catalogue Spirits Treatise (4257 and 129a),” of Spirits, Liturgical Manuscript with Angelological Content, Incantation?: Reections on the Character of a Fragment from Qumran (4230 1), with Appendix: Edition of the Fragments of #114,” in A Kind of Magic: Understanding Magic in the New Testament andItsReligiousEnvironment (ed.M.LabahnandB.J.LietaertPeerbolte;306;London 2007), 133–146. , , 3 refers refers to Deut 18:9–14. 18:9–14. Cf. also 1119 , 16–21. 16–21. See Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 83. For For a discussion discussion of demonic demonic possession possession in early early Judaism Judaism and Christia Christianity nity,, see, e.g., E. Sorensen, Posse ( 2/157; Possessi ssion on and Exor Exorcis cism m in the New Testame estament nt and Early Early Christ Christian ianit ityy ( Tübingen 2002); Eshel and Harlow, Harlow, “Demons and Exorcism,” 532–533. Along with W.H. Brownlee, Brownlee, trans. trans. and notes, notes, The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline (BASORSup 10–12; New Haven 1951), 15n41, I assume a dittography here. See Stegemann, “Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken,” 101–103, for another suggestion based on the idea of the theme of divine judgement being central in this text. But in the following sentence the deeds and paths of the two spirits are referred to again, suggesting that no other element gures prominently here.
eternal [a]ges and with all his deeds he is pleased forever; the other he has abhorred very much and all his paths he has hated forever. 1 , 25–, 25–, 1
Again, as in , , 18, it is made clear that both spirits come from God. 1 , , 10, 10, for for exam exampl ple, e, also also mak makes this this poin pointt clea clearr by desc descri ribi bing ng God God as Prin Prince ce of gods, ods, King of the glorious ones, Lord of every spirit, and Ruler of o f every creature. In the second section of the Two Spirits Treatise we have seen two spirits, two angelic beings, and hosts of spirits, all of which are not always clearly to be distinguished from one another. Although one can argue for a relative form of dualism in the text, there is no basis for assuming a dualistic anthropology in this part of the Two Spirits Treatise. It is not a matter of two opposing spirits as fundamentalprincipleswithinthehumanframeworkorwithinthehumanself. Rathe Ratherr, man many spir spirit itss seem seem to be invo involv lved ed,, and and it is di dicu cult lt to determ determin inee exac exactl tly y how how they they wo work rk and and wheth whether er it is inte intern rnal ally ly,, exte extern rnal ally ly,, or both. both. This This persp perspec ecti tive ve is what makes the rst reference in the Two Spirits Treatise to in the text’s heading possibly ambiguous (see above). 3.4
1 , 2–14 2–14:: Spir Spirit its, s, Virtu Virtues es,, and and Vice Vicess
The third section is a list consisting of two parts in which the text enumerates the paths of the two spirits in the world and their characteristics. The localization of their activities in the world perhaps pe rhaps suggests a distinction between the manifestation of these spirits in the heavenly and the earthly realms. Those who follow the rst path will receive everlasting rewards, but those who walk on the other path will know eternal punishments. One might say that the third section of the Two Spirits Treatise translates the heavenly opposition of the second section into an earthly parallel. The dualism between the two spirits has its ethical realization in human conduct. The list of virtues and vices makes clear what the eschatological consequences of such conduct are for humankind.Whilethissectiondoesnotinvokeimageryoflightanddarkness, a dualism between the spirits is expressed in ethical terms. The catalogue of virtues and vices is directly d irectly connected with the two spirits. The spirit of truth is not referred to explicitly, but the reference simply to
Cf. Stegemann, Stegemann, “Zu Textbestand extbestand und Grundgedan Grundgedanken, ken,” 104. Cf. Cf. 1 1 , 36. 36. In light light of this, this, 1 , 29 29 // 4427 7 , 10 might might be be of interest, interest, as it refers refers to those who stumble on earth ( ) in a context that plays with references to earth ( ) and the heavens ( , ). Cf. Cf. Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination, 157–158.
, , , ,
in , 6 should be taken as such. The reference is actually to the counsels (or foundations)ofthespiritforthesonsoftruthintheworld( ). Furthermore, similar to , 18, which states that humankind is to walk by ( ) the two spirits, , 6 addresses all those who walk by the spirit ( ). The referent of is in that same line. This reference in the singularthusdenotesthespiritoftruth/light,andthecounsels(orfoundations) of this spirit may refer to the preceding list of virtues. As to the other spirit, in , 9 the spirit of iniquity ( ) is explicitly mentioned (cf. also , , 20). In addition, the catalogue also refers to distinct spirits three times. This is perhaps not unexpected in light of the previous section, although one might also have have expected expected to read a catalogue of spirits (1 , , 14, 24; cf. 4230 1, 4 [ ]), ]), espe especi cial ally ly if char charac acte terr qual qualit itie iess also also nd nd expr expres essi sion on in term termss of spiritual spiritual entities (see the discussion above concerning concerning Barkhi Nafshi , and also below). 3.4.1 3.4.1 Distin Distinct ct Spirit Spiritss or Manife Manifesta statio tions ns of Human Human Charac Character ter Traits? raits? The catalogue lists two spirits under the path of the spirit of light and one spirit under the path of the spirit of darkness. Similar to the discussion earlier concerning a “spirit of patience” in the Barkhi Nafshi text, text, should we think of the “spirit of humility” ( ) in 1 , 3, the “spirit of knowledge” ( ) in , 4, and the “spirit of fornication” ( ) in , 10 as particular and distinctspirits?Orshouldweratherthinkofthemaspsychologicaldispositions of the human spirit, more like character traits? Or is this antithesis inapt to understand the sense of in relation to the human self? 3.4.2 A Spirit of Humility First, 1 , 3 refers refers to a “spirit of humility” humility” ( ). In the Hebrew Bible the few occurrences of are a reference to humility as a quality of character. character. This is also the case in the t he Qumran corpus. The addition of to is not found in the Hebrew Bible, only in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The construction occurs only in two other compositions: , 18 // 4266 9 , 7 and 1 , 8 // 4255 2, 2. These seem to support an understanding of in 1 ,3asacharactertrait,butitisnotclearthenwhy is used used and and not not just just .
See See also also 1 1 , 14. 14. Inte Intere rest sting ingly ly,, negat negativ ivee qual qualit ities ies also also nd nd expr expres essi sion on in term termss of body body image imagery ry in 1 , 11. 11. Zeph Zeph 2:3; 2:3; Prov Prov 15:33; 15:33; 18:12; 18:12; 22:4. 22:4. See 1 1 , 24; , 3, 25; , 22 // 4285 4285 , , 7; , 1; 1 , 34; 4286 4286 1 , 8; 4298 3–4 , 8; 8; 4436 1 , 2; 4525 2 +3, 6; 10, 4; 14 , 20.
3.4.3 A Spirit of Knowledge Seco Se cond nd,, 1 , 4 refe refers rs to a “spir spirit it of know knowle ledg dgee” ( ).IntheHebrewBible it occurs in Isa 11:2 in a longer list of spirits. Part of this list is picked up, in a slightly modied form, in 1QSb , 25 in a passage that is part of a praising of the Prince ( ) of the congregation. There are some other references to in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrice refers to “spirits of knowledge knowledge and understandin understanding” g” (4405 17, 3) and to “spirits of knowledge, knowledge, truthandrighteousness”(440519,4).Inthecontextofthe SongsoftheSabbath Sacrice it is likely that these spirits should be understood as distinct beings. In 4444 ( Incantation), there is a reference to : it says (“a spirit of knowledge and understanding, truth and righteousness”; 4444 1–4+5, 3). How should we understand this? Is it one spirit with all four qualities? Or should we understand the phrase as “a spirit of knowledge, a spirit of understanding, a spirit of …,” etc., referring to four distinct spirits. Conceptually, Conceptually, it was possible to think that God gave gave more spirits to individual human beings. 1 , 29 speaks of the spirits that God has given the poet. Unliketheexamplesfromthe SongsoftheSabbathSacrice isinthesingular form form in 444 4444. 4. Does Does this this mean mean we hav have to unde unders rsta tand nd it as one one spir spirit it,, simi simila larr to the reference to (“a spirit of impurity”; 4444 1–4+5, 8)? Not necessarily. The “spirit “spirit of knowledge” knowledge” in 1 , 4 should probably probably be understood as a distinct spirit that afects the human character, possibly by residing within a part of the body that is seen as representative of the human self. 3.4.4 Incantation (4444) and the Two Spirits Treatise The Incantation textisimportantforourpurposesinvariousrespects.Firstly, the text gives further insight into the relationship between the human self or framework and spirits. If the reconstruction is accepted, the Incantation text parallels the Barkhi Nafshi text text (4436 1 , 1 // 4435 2 , 2; see the discussion above)whenitsaysin44441–4+5,3that“Godputthespiritofknowledge,etc. within the speaker’s heart” ( ).Thisisprecededinthesamelinebya referenceto (“in (“in the the inne innermo rmost st parts partsof of man man’s esh esh”) ”),, whic whichh pres presen ents ts the possibility of an intriguing localization (blood vessels?)—in addition to that of the heart—of a spirit or spirits in humans. Also, the reference to man’s man’s In othe otherr inst instan ance ces, s, the the Incantation textreferstospiritsinthepluralform: (“spirits ofcontroversy”;44441–4+5,2), (“sp (“spir irit itss of wick wicked edne ness ss”;”; 4444 4444 1–4 1–4 + 5, 4), and and (“spirits of truth”; 4444 6, 4). See also E. Chazon, Chazon, “Prayers “Prayers,,” in in Qumran Cave 4.: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (E. Chazon et al.; 29; Oxford 1999), 367–378.
, , , ,
esh in 4444 4444 1–4+ 1–4 + 5, 3 presents presents a parallel parallel to in 1 , 20–21 (see below). A third localization is provided in 4444 1–4+5, 2: (“structure, framework”). Secondly, in 4444 1–4+5, 2 the text refers to spirits (“they”) who became spirits of controversy within the speaker’s self: (“and they became spirits of controversy in my [bodily] structure”). This presents an intriguing parallel to 1 , 23: (“until now the spirits of truth and iniquity strive in man’s heart”; see below). Thirdly, changing from rst-person to second-person speech, the text exhort hortss that that the the kee eepi ping ng of God’ God’ss laws laws stre streng ngth then enss ones onesel elff in the the gh ghtt agai agains nstt the the spirits spirits of wickedness wickedness (4444 1–4+ 1–4 + 5, 4): . The Two Spirits Treatise does not actually refer to God’s will, his laws, or the Law.. However, Law However, as discussed above, the sons of o f justice/light do err and stumble due to the Angel of Darkness and the spirits of his lot. This results in the sins, iniquities, guilt, and rebellious acts of the sons of justice/light. One might infer from from 1 1 , , 21–24, 21–24, and also from from , , 26–, 1, that erring erring and stumbli stumbling ng is equivalent to not properly observing God’s will or his laws (see also below on , 14–18). Finally, the Incantation text represents important evidence for the process of personication of spirits. In 4444 1–4+5, 8, “bastards” are mentioned in connection with “a spirit of impurity” ( ). It seems that these (“bastards”) are not to be identied in the usual manner, such as when they appear together with the Ammonites and the Moabites. Rather, it seems that refer to a type of spirit, an evil type. For example, in 4510 1, 5 (Songs of the Sage) occur in a list of evil spirits which includes Lilith. Thus, in 4444, (“a spirit of impurity”) may attest to the notion of impurity personied as a spirit. Whether this also holds for all other occurrences of in Incantation is not certain. In the same text, may be used in diferent ways, but it is nonetheless suggestive that the boundaries between personied spirits and human character traits are blurry. blurry.
Cf. 1 , 7, 7, 12; 12; , , 28; 28; 4299 4299 6 ,, 13; 13; 4511 4511 111, 8 (?). (?). 4444 1–4+ 1–4 + 5, 2 possibly possibly has another another reference reference to . Acco Accord rdin ingg to , 2–3, 2–3, Abra Abraha ham m is coun counte tedd as God’ God’ss frien friendd for for obse observ rving ing his comma command nd-ments ( ) and not choosing the will of his own spirit ( ). A few lines earlier, earlier, in , 17, reference is made to those who erred and stumbled (see further below). See also also 1 , , 26; 26; 4511 4511 2 , 3; 4511 4511 35, 35, 7; 4511 4511 48–4 48–499 + 51, 3 (and (and also also “impu “impurit rity” y” [ ]).
3.4. 3.4.55 A Spiri piritt of Forni ornica cati tion on Returning to the Two Spirits Treatise, the third reference in the catalogue of virtues and vices is in 1 1 , , 10 to a “spirit of fornication.” fornication.” A does not occur elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but does. In , 17 it is one of the traps of Belial. In the Hebrew Bible the root refers to various forms of illicit sexual conduct and in a metaphorical sense to the worship of other gods. In the Dead Sea Scrolls the sense of illicit sexual conduct seems to predominate. However, However, in many cases it is not so clear whether it has sexual or idolatrous connotations. It seems that the sense of as the worship of other gods was modied, being directed not so much at other gods as such— early Jewish texts are not preoccupied with this—but at the incorrect way of worshipping God, in the sense of not following his ways. ways. It was not a matter m atter of God or other gods. The Damascus Document illustrates illustrates this nicely, making a contrast between following God’s ways or having plans based on a guilty inclination and adulteress eyes (see below). What light does this shed on the sense of a “spirit of fornication”? 3.4. 3.4.66
Spir Spirit its, s, Char Charac acte terr Trait raits, s, and and the Body Body in Barkhi Nafshi (4434–438), the Damascus Document , Communal Confession (4393), and the Two Spirits Treatise The Barkhi Nafshi textmayagainbeofinterest.Inthepassagediscussedearlier, brief reference was made to the body imagery used by the poet. One of these is (“adulterousness of the eyes”; 4436 1 , 1 // 4435 2 , 2), which is removed by God after putting the holy spirit in the poet’s heart, such that his his hear heartt can can gaze gaze upon upon God’ God’s wa ways ys.. Appa Appare rent ntly ly,, “adul adulte tero rous usne ness ss of the the eyes eyes”” should not be associated with the t he eyes per se, but as a quality of the heart. We have have observed that the t he text does not always always clearly distinguish between spirits as distinct and external entities that afect the t he human self and character traits expressing the human self. How are a “spirit of fornication” fo rnication” and “adulterousness “adulterousness of eyes” related to each other?Should in1 ,10beunderstoodassynonymouswith , or as a disti distinc nctt enti entity ty behin behindd peopl people’ e’s ?Istheremovalof from the heart parallel to the removal of evil spirits, also from the heart or from the innermost innermost parts of man man (cf. 1 , 20–21)?
See S. Erland Erlandsso sson, n, “ zānāh,” ThWAT 2:612–619. 2:612–619. The gurative gurative sense sense is attest attested ed in mainly mainly so-called so-called Rewritt Rewritten en Bible texts: texts: 4368 4368 2, 7–8; 1119 , 13–15; 13–15; and possibly possibly , , 17. Cf., e.g., e.g., 1 , 3, 7; , 3, 3, 5–6, 5–6, 19.
, , , ,
Another reference in the Dead Sea Scrolls to , together with a (“guilty inclination”), inclination”), is found in , 14–17 // 4270 4270 1 , 1 ( ). In this passage the intended audience is told to listen so that their eyes are opened and they see and understand God’s deeds in order to choose what God pleases and walk perfectly on all his paths. It is said that they should not follow plans based on a guilty inclination and adulteress eyes, because many have erred ( ) and brave heroes have stumbled ( ) because of them. The text then starts its historical overview with the Watchers, who were infamous also because of their sexual transgressions, and about whom the Damascus Document saysthattheyfellbecauseofthestubbornnessoftheir hearts ( ). This passage in the Damascus Document illustrates illustrates the shift in the meaning of from worship of other gods to the t he incorrect worship of God and the violation of his rules. Although stubbornness of heart is referred to elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and also in the Rule of the Community, it is only in the Communal Confession text (4393 3, 3, 5) that it is further explicated as stubbornness of a person’s person’s evil heart ( ). Furthermore, using language from Ps 51, the speakers in Communal Confession ask God to create a new spirit ( ) within them and to establish establish within them them ( ) a faithful inclination ( ) (4393 1 , 5–6). The faithful inclination contrasts with the guilty or evil inclination; the text explicitly asks God to hide his face from their sins andwipeouttheiriniquities.However,whatisofinterestforourpurposesisthe crea creati tion onal al lang langua uage ge combi combine nedd wi with th the the loca localiliza zati tion on of a new new spir spirit it wi with thin in man. man. It is not a question of two spirits, or a dualistic anthropology, but clearly the human self can be renewed by God creating a new spirit within man. Whether this this impl implie iess the the remo removvalof al of the the old old spir spirit it(c (cf.f. 1 , 20–2 20–21) 1) orwh or whet ethe herr it isra is rath ther er a matter of renewal of that same spirit is not clear. Thus, the “spirit of fornication” in 1 , 10 may be part of a discourse— toge togeth ther er wi with th “adu “adult lter erou ousn snes esss of the the eyes eyes”” and and other other expr expres essi sion onss of body body imag imag-ery such as “stubbornness “stubbornness of heart” or “stifness of neck” (see, e.g., 1 , 11)— in which the distinction between spirits as distinct entities, human character
See also also 4286 7 , 7–8 7–8 // 4287 6, 7. Cf. 4280 4280 2, 2, 2. 4287 8, 13 is too fragmentar fragmentaryy. Cf. Cf. 1 , , 21 ( ). Cf. Cf. 1 , , 24 ( ). See See D. Falk, alk, “Wor “Works ks of God God and and Co Commu mmuna nall Co Conf nfes essi sion on,,” in Qumra Qumrann Cave Cave 4.: 4.: Poeti Poetical caland and 29; Oxford 1999), 52–53; Klein, “‘Right Spirit,’” Spirit,’ ” Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (E. Chazon et al.; 185, 188. Cf. Cf. 1 , 18, 18, 25. 25.
traits, diferent inclinations, and their relationship to the human self is often not clear-cut but in fact rather blurry. blurry. 3.4. 3.4.77 Ang Angels els of Destr estruc ucti tion on As to the relationship between men and spirits or angels, the catalogue of virtues and vices adds yet another perspective to the two spirits, the Prince of Lights, the Angel of Darkness, and a host of spirits in their lot: “angels of destruction” ( ). It is possible that these are a separate class of spirits in the lot of the the Angel of Darknes Darknesss (1 , , 24). From 4510 1, 5 (Songs of the Sage) it is clear that there were diferent types of evil spirits, including “all the spirits of the angels of destruction” ( ). These were probably all imagined as belonging to the lot of the Angel of Darkness or Belial. We observed above that men also belong to the lots of the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness. It is interesting that those who walk in the path of the spirit of darkness await an abundance of aiction at the hands of the angels of destruction (1 , 12). Rather than a dualistic anthropology, this scenario suggests distinct spirits, external to human beings. 3.5
1 , 15–2 15–233 and and , 23–2 23–26: 6: Dual Dualis isti ticc Anth Anthrropol opolog ogy? y?
Unlike the previous sections of the Two Spirits Treatise, the fourth (1 , 15– 23) and fth (1 , 23–26) sections contain intriguing passages that seem to hint at a dualistic anthropology anthropology,, especially 1 , 23. Scholars have assumed that the Two Spirits Treatise demonstrates a notion according to which the two spirits exist within human beings b eings in diferent proportions. The share of the two spirits in the world, presumably the numerical strength of their divisions, is equal (1 , 16, 25), but each individual individual human being has a greater or smaller share of either one of the two spirits that ght within man’s heart (1 (1 , 16, 23). This would, scholars suggest, add a psy-
Cf. Cf. 1 , 12. 12. But not not only only by them. In In 1 , 12 there there is also also mention mention of the wrath wrath of God’s God’s vengeances vengeances ( ), a phrase that does not appear elsewhere. For other references to angels of destruction, see , 5–7 and perhaps 4473 4473 2, 7. In the nal nal section, section, in 1 1 , 26, there is also one more more reference reference to people’ people’ss own spirit: spirit: .Thisistheonlyclearuseof forthehumanspiritinthe TwoSpiritsTreatise .1 , 14 and , 6 are ambiguous. Dupont-Som Dupont-Sommer mer,, “L’ “L’ instruction instruction sur les les deux esprits, esprits,” 28–29; J.J. Daniélou, Daniélou, “Un source source de la spiritualité chrétienne dans les manuscrits de la mer Morte: La doctrine des deux esprits,” 25 (1953): 127–136, esp. 128; Michaud, “Un mythe zervanite,” 146. For other
, , , ,
chological dimension to the notion of dualism in the Two Spirits Treatise. The result of this conict within people’s hearts is that they either walk in wisdom or in folly. The implication seems to be that both spirits exist within human beings, but that people act according to one or the other, depending on the outcome of the struggle. Before discussing the possibility of a dualistic anthropology in 1 , 23, anoth another er enig enigma mati ticc pass passag agee in the the fourth fourth sect sectio ionn merit meritss some some atte attenti ntion on becau because se of its diferent references to spirits and their relationship to the human self. 3.5. 3.5.11 Spir Spirit itss in Ma Mann’s Inne Innerm rmos ostt Parts arts The passage 1 , 20–23 is not easy to understand. Diferent references to spirits and purication rites are used to describe how God, with his truth, will exact judgement at the appointed time. The conclusion is that all the glory ofAdamshallbelongtothosewhomGodhaschosen.Strikingly,whatislacking is a reference to the spirit of these chosen ones. At the very least, the Two Spirits Treatise Treatise does not put it in such unequivocal terms as the Communal Confession text, in which the “confessors” ask God to create a new spirit within them (4393 1 , , 5–6; see above). 1 ,20–21vividlydescribeshowGodwilldestroyallspiritofiniquityfrom theinnermostpartsofman’sesh( )atthetimeofjudgement.Isthis language metaphorical or does it imply a notion of spirits dwelling internally in human beings? Other Qumran texts also localize the presence or activity of spirits in the innermost parts of man, if that is the correct interpretation of . Thereferencetoman’sesh( )in44441–4+5,3( Incantation)has already been referred to above. Considering other references in 4444 (“heart” [ ] and “structure” [ ]), as well as because of its combination with (“esh”), (“esh”), it seems evident that this refers to a localizati localization on within the human body. Reference has also been made to 1 , 34–36. 1 , 37 speaks about “their authority” in the poet’s innermost parts ( ), the referent of “their” possibly being “spirits of wickedness” from lines 35–36. The use of
explanations, Wernberg-Møller, Manual of Discipline, 84; Licht, “Analysis of the Treatise,” 91n13. See Klein, Klein, “‘Right Spirit, Spirit,’ ” 182 for parallel parallelss with with 1 , , 6–9. 136 136 14, 14, 2 has has ] , but the manuscript is too fragmentary. See Wernberg-Mø ernberg-Møller ller,, Manual of Discipline, 86n71; E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls ( 29; Atlanta 1986), 115. The passage passage is fragmentary fragmentary and therefore dicult to to understand. understand. Following Following the reference reference
the word is intriguing in light of the previous discussion above on the authority of the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness, and also because it is a key issue in the Vision Visionss of Amr Amram text (see below). This passage from the seems to suggest that the rule of these spirits was localized in man’s Hodayot seems innermost parts. From 1 , 30 // 4429 2, 12 it seems that pain and agony in the innermostpartscancauseaman’sspirittostumble( ),andin1,37–38 the poet says that his bread has changed into strife ( ) and his drink into contention ( ). He says that they have entered his bones and caused his spirit to stumble: . Rather than taking this as purely metaphorical language, it may be understood in more “real” terms. In 4444 1–4+ 1–4 + 5, 2 spirits spirits of controversy controversy ( ) within the speaker’s bodily structure ( ) are referred to, possibly paralleling the bones in 1 , 37. Similar to 1 , 20–21, 4511 28–29, 3–4 ( Songs of the Sage) refers to the “iniquity in the innermost parts of my esh” ( ) and also to a foundation foundation of dust ( ), suggesting that indeed should be understood in bodily terms. Iniquity is said to reside there even more. We have have seen earlier earlier (1 , 9) that is one of the two spirits whose paths the catalogue of virtues and vices in the Two Spirit Treatise describes, and that the distinction between separate spirits and human dispositions is often not clea clearl rlyy made made.. That That spir spirit itss were ere thou though ghtt to resi reside de in the the huma humann body body also also seem seemss clearfrom451148–49+51,3,whichisveryfragmentary,butrefersto“bastards” ( ), the verb (“subdue”), and (“impurity”), (“impurity”), followed followed by (“because in the innermost parts of …”). These other passages passages suggest suggest that the statement statement in 1 , 20–21 that God will destroy all spirit of iniquity from the innermost parts of man’s man’s esh is not just gurative but also refers to a reality in which the human self, innate qualities, and the personication of these qualities in terms of distinct spirits are intricately related to each other, being an integral part of the cosmic order. 3.5. 3.5.22 Spir Spiriits in Ma Mann’s He Hear artt The passage in the Two Spirits Treatise that seems to contain the text’s best hint at a dualistic anthropology is 1 , 23: “until now the spirits of truth and to their authority over his innermost parts, the poet gives as a reason that he is a “eshly spirit” ( ). For the term , see 1 , 30; 4416 1, 12; 4417 1 , 17; 4418 81+81a, 2; 4423 8, 1. See also the literature referred to in n. 24 above. Cf. 429 42999 6 , 13 ( ). According to 4511 35, 7, 7, all spirits of the bastards are subdued by God’s God’s strength and fear. fear.
, , , ,
iniquity strive in man’s heart.” The text has made clear earlier that humanity is divided into two groups according to the two spirits, but it did not present the inner person as the battleground of the two spirits. What does this mean? Does it imply a notion of two spirits inhibiting man’s heart, or does it refer to twoo psyc tw psychol holog ogic ical al disp disposi ositi tion ons? s? What What does does it mean mean to say say that that tw twoo spir spirit itss striv strivee within man’s man’s heart? Should the heart be understood somehow as the essence of a human being or rather as the centre of human deeds and the path on which they walk? Is it possible to make a clear distinction d istinction between these two possibilities? There are no other texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls in which the heart is specically described as the location of strife between two (or more) spirits, but there are parallels to diferent locations in the human body b ody,, including the heart, into which spirits are put, or reside, or onto which their activities are registered.4444( Incantation)referstospiritsofcontroversy( )within the speaker’s bodily structure ( ) and 1 ,, 37 locates locates strife strife ( ) and contention ( ) in the poet’s bones ( ). Furthermore, the Incantation textseemstousethe“heart”( , ),the“innermostpartsofman’s esh esh”” ( ), and and “stru “struct ctur ure, e, fram framew ework ork”” ( ) interchangeably—or, interchangeably—or, if there are nuances, these are at least dicult for us to detect: both the heart and the structure can be b e locations of spirits. We have have also discussed 4436 1 , , 1 // 4435 2 , 2, which speaks of the holy spirit rit put put into the heart of the the poe poet. These texts, texts, together together with 1 , 20–21, 23, 23, are clearer on the relationship relationship of spirits to the human body and the human self than 1 , 17–18. Shouldthestatementin1 ,23beunderstoodasastatementofadualistic anthropolog anthropology? y? I am not so sure. While 1 , 23 speaks of two spirits within within the heart of man, as we have seen, other texts also refer to activities of spirits within man’s man’s heart (or use other terms to denote the human self). self ). These texts are not dualistic, especially since sometimes many spirits are referred to. This suggests that these spirits are not part of man’s created framework. The Two Spirits Treatise is not really clear that the two spirits represent two opposing principles that ground reality and constitute human nature. The Two Spirits Treatise is clear that both humankind (1 , 17) and the two spirits spirits of light/truth light/truth and darkness/ini darkness/iniquity quity (1 , , 25) were created created by God. However, what is less clear is that these are the only two spirits, or that all other spirits, such as those mentioned in the catalogue of virtues and vices
The rst two of these also appear appear in the Two Spirits Treatise . Cf. 4538 1–2, 2, 4 for the possibility of an evil spirit in the hearts of Joseph’s Joseph’s brothers. brothers. See, See, e.g., e.g., 1 , 29, 4444 4444 ( Incantation), or the Songs of the Sage discussed earlier. earlier.
(see above), can be reduced to these two. One might say that these other spirits belong to the lot of the two spirits, but this only begs the question: Are these t hese other spirits manifestations of the power of the two spirits, within which they materialize, or should they be seen as distinct entities of their own? The Two Spirits Treatise is not clear on this. It is therefore dicult to argue that according to the Two Spirits Treatise only two spirits, as opposing principles, constitute human nature. This in turn should lead us to be careful and approach the interpretation of the Two Spirits Treatise as an early Jewish statem sta tement ent of a dualis dualistic tic anthro anthropolo pology gy not without without reserv reservati ations ons.. The Two Two Spirits Spirits Treatise cannot be taken as a straightforward statement about human nature consisting of two opposing spirits.
4
Vision onss of Amr Amram, the Two Two Spiri Spirits ts Treat Treatise ise, and The Visi and Iran Irania ian n Noti Notion onss
In the Aramaic Visions of Amram text (4543–549) there is a fascinating scene where Amram has a vision in which two gures are judging ( ) him and having a great dispute ( ) about him, although the text does not explain exactly what the dispute is about. When asked by Amram how they can have authority over him, they both answer that they rule over all of humanity. They then ask Amram to make a choice: “And they said to me, ‘Whichofusdoyouseektoberuledby?’”Thetextthenproceedswithavivid description of both gures. One possibly has the appearance of a serpent, his clothing multicoloured and very dark, whereas the other gure has a pleasant appearance. In another passage, where only one of the gures is speaking to Amram, he explains to him that t hat the other gure is called Melkhi Reshaʾ , that all his deeds are darkness and that he rules over over all darkness. The gure who
For For recent discussi discussions ons of this composit composition, ion, see, e.g., e.g., A.B. Perrin, Perrin, “Anothe “Anotherr Look at DualDualism in 4QVisions of Amram,” Henoch 36 (2014): 107–118; B.A. Jurgens, “Reassessing the Dream-Vision Dream-Vision of Amram Amram (4543–547), (4543–547),”” (2014):: 3–42; 3–42; A.D. A.D. Gross Gross,, “Visions “Visions of Amram, Amram,” in (2014) L.H. Feldman eldman,, J.L. J.L. Kugel Kugel,, Outsid Outsidee the Bible: Bible:Anc Ancien ientt Jewish Jewish Writi Writings ngs Relat Related ed to Script Scriptur uree (ed. L.H. and L.H. Schifman; Lincoln/Philadelphia: University of Nebraska Press/The Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 1507–1510; R.R. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram Peter Lang, 2012); L. Goldman, “Dualism in the Vision (4543–547) (New York: Peter Visionss of Amra Amram m,” RevQ 24 (2010): 421–432. 4544 4544 1, 10–1 10–11.1. 4544 1, 12 12 // // 4543 4543 5–9, 2 // // 4547 4547 1–2, 11–12. 4544 1, 12 // 4543 4543 5–9, 3–4 // 4547 4547 1–2, 12–13. 12–13. 4544 4544 2, 12–1 12–15. 5.
, , , ,
addresses Amram says that he is ruler over all light. One of his three names is probably Melkhi Melkhi Tsedeq. Like the Two Spirits Treatise, the Visions of Amram text presents angelic or demon demonic ic bein beings gs disp disput utin ingg about about huma humann bein beings gs.. Unli Unlike ke the the Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise, se, Visions of Amram presents Amram with a choice between the two angelic gures, between light and darkness, righteousness and wickedness. They parallel the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness from the Two Spirits Treatise , who have divided authority ( ) ov over er tw twoo grou groups ps of peop people le betw betwee eenn them them,, although the Angel of Darkness and the spirits from his lot still exert inuence over ov er the the peop people le unde underr the the auth author orit ityy of the the Prin Prince ce of Ligh Lights ts.. The The Aram Aramai aicc wo word rdss for dispute or strife ( and ) in Vision Visionss of Amram Amram parallel the Hebrew word ( ) from the Two Spirits Treatise (1 , 23). The Visions of Amram text does not not expl explic icit itly ly sta state te what what the the disp disput utee betw between een the the tw twoo ange angels ls is abou about.t. Ho Howe weve verr, from from the the rest est of the the text it seem seemss that that they they are argui rguing ng abou aboutt who who has has auth author oriity over Amram. Should we think of this scene in Visi to 1 , 23? Vision onss of Amr Amram as a parallel to The The stat statem emen entt in 1 , 23 that that tw twoo spir spirit itss stri strivve in man man’s hear heartt may may hav have been been understood understood in terms of a competition between these spirits over who would have authority over a human being. The striking diference is that Amram is able to provide a vivid description of the two angelic beings. He can see them and he can also talk with them, asking questions and hearing their answers. Of cours course, e, all all this this happ happen enss in a visi vision onar aryy drea dream, m, where where huma humann sensor sensoryy perce percepti ption on may be extraordinary. extraordinary. Nonetheless, the contrast with the Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se is evident. The references in the Two Spirits Treatise remain much more vague and abstract. A further striking feature of Visions Visions of Amram is of course that Amram has a choice over which gure to have as his ruler. In the Two Spirits Treatise the situation seems more or less settled by the text’s deterministic perspective: God has predetermined everyone’s path. At the same time, the text refers to this struggle between the two spirits within the heart of man. As de Jong notes “there is a structural dilemma within the 1 instruction on the two spirits, which can most economically be solved by allowing for a combination of two diferent ‘patterns of belief’: the recognition, demanded by biblical tradition, that God is one, and is thus responsible for everything, and the (perhaps intuitive)notionthattheworldiscurrentlygoingthroughastruggledominated by two spiritual beings, representing good and evil.” evil.” 454 45444 2, 12–16 12–16.. 4544 3, 2. See A. Steudel, Steudel, “Melchizedek “Melchizedek,,” 1:535–537, esp. 535. De Jong, “Iranian “Iranian Connections Connections,,” 493.
However, the issue of choice in Visions of Amram is interesting in light of Iranian traditions and with regard to the matter of outside inuences and the transmission of cultural learning to Jewish Palestine. De Jong notes that in Zoroastrianism “it is the choice everyone has made that determines his/her afterlife and eventual fate at the end of time.” There is no sense of predestination in this regard. In this light the pattern presented in Visions of Amram of an ange angelilicc and and a demo demoni nicc gu gure re argu arguin ingg ov over er a huma humann bein beingg and and the the huma humann being having a choice in this shows more of a systemic resemblance to Zoroastrianism than does the Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se. It has been suggested that Aramaic served as a medium for the transmission of learning from the east to Palestine in the west. The pattern of dualistic thought, together with the element of choice in Visions of Amram as well as the text’s Aramaic language may suggest gest that that thes thesee speci specic c elem elemen ents ts orig origin inat ated ed wi withi thinn an Iran Irania iann conte context xt and and we were re subsequently transmitted, via Aramaic channels, westwards to Jewish Palestine. With regard to anthropology, anthropology, pneumatology, pneumatology, and demonology, demonology, what the Visi Visions ons of Amra Amram m text reminds us of is that human beings were not necessarily De Jong, “Iranian “Iranian Connections Connections,,” 493. See, e.g., e.g., R. Leicht, Leicht, Astrologumena Astrologumena judaica: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der astrologisTübingen 2006), 37–38; J. Ben-Dov, Ben-Dov, Head of All Years: chen Literatur der Juden ( 21; Tübingen ( 78; Leiden 2008), Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in Their Ancient Context ( 259–266; J. Ben-Dov, “Scientic Writings in Aramaic and Hebrew at Qumran: Translation and Concealment,” in Aramaica qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence Aix-en-Provence 30 June–2 July, 2008 (ed. K. Berthelot and D. Stökl Ben Ezra; 94; Leiden 2010), 379–399; 379–399; M. Popović, Popović, “The Emergence Emergence of Aramaic and Hebrew Scholarly Texts: Transmission and Translation of Alien Wisdom,” in The Dead Dead Sea Sea Scrolls: Transmission Transmission of Traditions Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. S. Metso, H. Najman, and E. Schuller; 92; Leiden 2010), 81–114, esp. 100–106; 100–106; M. Popović, Popović, “Networks “Networks of Scholars: The Transmission of Astronomical and Astrological Learning between Babylonians, Greeks and Jews,” in Ancient Jewish Sciences and the History of Knowledge in Second Tem(ed. J. BenBen-Do Dovv and and S.L. S.L. Sand Sander ers; s; New New York: ork: New New York ork Univ Univer ersi sity ty Pres Press, s, 2014 2014), ), ple Literature Literature (ed. 151–191. The oldest oldest manusc manuscrip ripts ts of Visions Visions of Amra Amram m date to the second half of the second century , but the composition may date to the third century , according to É. Puech, ( 31; Oxford 2001), 2001), Qumrân grotte 4.: Textes araméens, première partie, 4529–549 ( 285. For considerations about possible periods and contexts of transmission of Iranian ideas and notions, see de Jong, “Iranian Connections,” 485–487, 496. However, these considerations are in need of further research. For late antique contexts and scenarios, see, e.g., S. Secunda, “Talmudic Text and Iranian Context: On the Development of Two Talmudic Narratives,” 33 (2009): 45–69; S. Secunda, “Reading the Bavli in Iran,” 100 (2010): 310–342.
, , , ,
thoughtofashavingbeencreatedwithtwospiritsinhabitingman,suggestinga form of dualis dualistic tic anthro anthropol pology ogy.. VisionsofAmram illu illustr strat ates es the the noti notion on of exte exterrnal spirits that sought to have authority over human beings and to inuence them during their lifetime. We have seen above that the issue of the authority of angels, spirits, and demons over human beings was important in the various texts. As far as we can tell, Visions of Amram does not locate the strife of the angelic beings somehow within the human self. However, However, from 1 1 , , 37 and 4444 1–4+ 1–4 + 5, 2 one may infer that the authority of spirits and their strife could alsobethoughtofasinternalizedwithinthehumanstructure.Thediferenceis thatinthecaseofthe VisionsofAmram theangelsorspiritsdonotbelongtothe creational framework of man, but represent separate, independent creational entities. Although the Two Spirits Treatise is not as concrete in its descriptions as Vision Visionss of Amr Amram, it also has passages that suggest viewing the spirits as distinctfromhumans,whileallhavingbeencreatedbyGod(1 ,17,25;seethe discussion above).
5
Concluding Remarks
The above discussion has demonstrated that early Jewish texts on the relationship between humans and spirits do not attest to one but to various perspectives on the matter. Thus, the Barkhi text suggests a somewhat diferent perspective perspect ive than Barkhi Nafshi Nafshi text Visi Vision onss of Amra Amram m. The end of the rst column and the beginning of the second column of 4436 have been reconstructed as follows by the editors of the text, Weinfeld Weinfeld and Seely: “The evil inclination inclination [you] have driven with rebukes rebukes [from my innermost part] … [and the spirit of ho]liness you have set in my heart.” heart.” As Tigchelaar has recently emphasized, the mention of evil inclination occurs in a context that refers to “the removal of ‘adulterousness of the eyes’, the sending away of ‘the stifness of neck’, the removal of ‘wrathful anger’, and the the carry carryin ingg awa wayy of ‘hau ‘haugh ghti tine ness ss of hear heartt and and arro arroga ganc ncee of eyes eyes’’. The The ‘evi ‘evill incl incliinati nation on’’ may may belo belong ng to the same same cate catego gory ry of the the foll follow owin ingg vice vices, s, espec especia iallllyy sinc sincee the the combi combina nati tion on of ‘thou ‘though ghts ts of a guil guilty ty incl inclin inat atio ionn’ and and ‘adul adulte tero rous us eyes eyes’’ is also also found in in 16.” 16.” He observes observes from a phenomenologi phenomenological cal perspective perspective that that in our texts “there “there is not always a clear distinction between virtues and vices, and spirits as person-
Weinfeld einfeld and and Seely Seely,, “Barkh “Barkhii Nafshi, Nafshi,” 299. 299. Tigchelaar Tigchelaar,, “Evil “Evil Inclination Inclination,,” 351.
ications of those virtues and vices.” This is not only the case in the Barkhi Nafshi text,butalsointheso-called Plea for Deliverance Deliverance fromtheCave11 Psalms (115 ). It is not entirely clear whether we are dealing with external external Scroll (115 or internal forces, but at the same time they seem also to have gained a substance of their own, independent of the human self. A number of magical texts or texts with magical elements have have also been discussed that refer to spirits taking possession of body parts and inuencing human behaviour. Some of these are explicitly addressed to the maskil , such as 4510–511 (Songs of the Sage), as is the Two Spirits Treatise, and they share certa certain in conc concep epts ts and and lang langua uage ge.. In fact, fact,co conc ncom omita itant nt wi with th the the noti notion on of exte extern rnal al spirits spirits possessing possessing human beings comes a worldview worldview in which these external dangers can and must be rebuked. As the t he Two Spirits Treatise is addressed to the sons of light, they may have under underst stood ood its its teac teachi hing ng as expl explai aini ning ng to them them their their posi positi tion on ov over er agai agains nstt those those who were not sons of light and why itit was important to strengthen strengthen themselves against attacks, harassment, and temptation from the dark side. The emphasis on the sons of justice/light in the second section of the text reveals an important element of the knowledge that the Two Spirits Treatise is interested to disseminate.Theconstructionofthisknowledgerevealssomethingofthetext’s worldview and may also, more specically, specically, inform us about one of the manners in which the Two Spirits Treatise was read and understood. The text is apparently not interested in whether the sons of iniquity/darkness might also do goodthingsbecauseofthePrinceofLights.Thisshouldnotsurpriseus.The Two sons of light (1 , , 13) and and therefore therefore addresses addresses Spirits Treatise speaks to the sons that which is of interest to tthem. hem. ThedeterminismthatseemsalmostabsoluteintheTwoSpiritsTreatise isput into into a dif difer eren entt pers perspe pect ctiv ivee in othe otherr texts exts from from Qumr Qumran an.. The The text text in 1 1 , 34– 34– 37 has already been discussed. This passage from the Hodayot asks asks for strength against spirits (of wickedness) to be able to walk in all that God loves. The Incantation textexhortsustokeepGod’slawsandthustostrengthenoneselfin the the gh ghtt agai agains nstt the the spir spirit itss of wi wick cked edne ness ss (44 (4444 44 1–4 1–4 + 5, 4). 4). Texts exts such such as thes thesee suggest that the understanding of 1 , 21–24 may have been that God and the angel of his truth could be sought to strengthen the sons of justice/light so
Tigchelaar Tigchelaar,, “Evil “Evil Inclination Inclination,,” 352. Tigchelaar Tigchelaar,, “Evil “Evil Inclination Inclination,,” 350–351. 350–351. On exorcis exorcism m in the Second Second Temple period, period, see, e.g., Bohak, Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 88–114. Cf. 1 , 9. See also also H. H. Licht Lichtenbe enberg rger er,, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qum ( 15; Göttingen Göttingen 1980), 129. rangemeinde (
, , , ,
as not to be inuenced by the Angel of Darkness and his spirits and to avert their evil inuence. Furthermore, it is clear from a recent re-edition of 4468i by Tigchelaar that this composition is not directed against outsiders who sin but that the speakers themselves are the recalcitrant sinners (line 2: “our neck is hard”; line3:“theevilinclinationofourheart”).Thistext“presentstherstcasewhere the evil inclination of one’s heart is not attributed to sinful others, but is part of a confession of one’s own human nature.” Although there is no basis to regard this composition as sectarian, this self-understood confession of sinful human nature ties in nicely with the knowledge expressed in the Two Spirits Treatise that the sons of light can sin. In the Communal Confession text (4393 1 ) ) the speakers also talk of “our sins” and attribute to themselves “stifness of neck.” neck.” Although the speakers in Communal Confession do not explicitly locate an evil evil incl inclin inat atio ionn wi with thin in them themse selv lves es,, they they do ask ask God God to wi wipe pe out out all all thei theirr sins sins,, to create a new spirit, and to establish a faithful inclination within them (see the discussion above). These texts thus acknowledge the existence of human failings even in the chosen ones and thus demonstrate the preoccupation with understanding the ways of the right and wrong paths as in the catalogue of virtues and vices in the Two Spirits Treatise. Thus, to conclude, in the Two Spirits Treatise the notion of takes on diferent meanings which are sometimes dicult to distinguish. In light of the entire corpus of Qumran texts now being available, the impression is that the diferent levels—anthropological, ethical, and cosmological—can intersect and in such a way that it is not always evident to us (nor perhaps to those who read them at the time) how we should distinguish d istinguish between virtuous and corrupt behaviour and between spirits as personications of those virtues and vices. Spirits were were thought of as distinct beings and at the same time as innate innate character traits of the human self. Sometimes texts distinguish more or less clearly between them, but more often they do not. Moreover,thedualismfoundinmostDeadSeaScrollsisnotanthropological but manifested in opposing spiritual beings. With regard to the Two Spirits Treatise, on the one hand the other texts that have been discussed throw into sharper relief the lack of o f a clear, unequivocal unequivocal statement of dualistic anthropology in the Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se. Humankind’s framework was not created out of two opposing spiritual elements. Although the Two Spirits Treatise does refer to two opposing groups of human beings, this opposition is not strictly dualis-
Tigchelaar Tigchelaar,, “Evil “Evil Inclination Inclination,,” 357. See also also Tigchelaar Tigchelaar,, “Evil “Evil Inclina Inclination, tion,” 353. 353.
tic, as the Angel of Darkness also exerts inuence over the sons of light. The text’s concern is thus not for a strict str ict dualism at the level of diferent groups of huma humann bein beings gs.. On the the othe otherr hand hand,, the the othe otherr Qumr Qumran an text textss supp suppor ortt the the impr impres es-sionthatnotionsofcosmologicalandethicaldualisminthe Two Two Spirits Spirits Treati Treatise se are are intr intric icat atel elyy conne connect cted ed and and that that thes thesee also also exert exert thei theirr in inue uenc ncee at an anth anthroropological level, expressed in human behaviour. However However,, this is not a dualistic anthropology. This aspect aspect seems to to be ignored ignored by de de Jong, “Iran “Iranian ian Connection Connections, s,”” 493, as the realms realms of both spirits are not completely distinct. I am most grateful grateful to Eibert Tigchelaar for his many valuable comments and suggestions. This article appears in a slightly revised form in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy (ed. J. Baden, H. Najman, and E. Tigchelaar; Leiden: Brill, 2016).
From Cosm From Cosmog ogon onyy to Psych sychol olog ogy: y: Phil Philo’ o’ss opic cio io mund mundi i , Int Interpr rpretatio ation n of Gen 2:7 2:7 in De opi Quae Quaest stio ione ness et solu soluti tion ones es in Gene Genesi sin n and Legum allegoriae Beatrice Wyss
1
Introduction
Καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν. And the Lord God made man from the dust of the earth, breathing into him the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Gen 2:7
Philo treats the rst chapters of Genesis on three occasions: once in De opic opicio io mundi , once in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin and once in Legum alle goriae. Gen 2:7 is thus mentioned in one work of each of the three exegetical corpora. In many other treatises, Philo incorporates exegeses of Gen 2:7 into interpr interpreta etation tionss of other other topica topically lly or structu structural rally ly simila similarr biblic biblical al texts texts. . I will will not deal with these here as Tobin has already done a good job in identifying and A. Rahl Rahlfs fs,, ed., ed., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta interpretes (9th ed.; Stuttg Stuttgart art 2006). 2006). The transl translato ators rs of the Septua Septuagin gintt used used the term term ψυχὴ ψυχὴ ζῶσα ζῶσα (for (for nefeshhayyah) to denominate the living being rather than th an the soul, see M. Alexandre, Le commencement commencement du livre Genèse –: La version grecque de la Septante et sa réception (Paris 1988), 147, with many supporting passages. Later readers of the Septuagint such as Philo himself understood ψυχὴ ζῶσα here and elsewhere as a statement about the soul (Alexandre, Commencement , 162).— This paper proted from the discussion at the meeting in Groningen, 9–10 September 2010. I am very grateful to Gabriela Ryser who took great pains to improve improve the English of this thi s paper. Traditionally Traditionally, Philo’s exegetical oeuvre oeuvre is divided into three three main groups, groups, see e.g., S. Sandmel, Sandmel, Philo of Alexandria: Alexandria: An Introduction (Oxford 1979), 29–81. De confusione linguarum; De fuga et inventione; De mutatione nominum; De plantatione; De somniis; Quis rerum divinarum heres sit ; Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat ; De specialibus legibus; De virtutibus virtutibus. On this topic, see T. Tobin, The The Crea Creati tion on of Man: Man: Phil Philoo and and the the Hist Histor oryy of Interpretation Interpretation ( 14; Washington 1983), esp. 23–24, 31.
© , , , , | : ./ ./ _ _
comparing them, noting diferences and similarities and links with trends in Greek philosophy. Nor will I tackle the question of a possible development in the diferent interpretations of Genesis with which Tobin deals, or answer the question of what Philo meant m eant by πνεῦμα. As a philologist I will only approach Philo’s use of the term πνεῦμα in the context of his interpretation of Gen 2:7. This This paper paper wi willll exam examin inee the ques questi tion on of wheth whether er the cont contex extt of ea each ch exeg exeget etic ical al corpusdeterminestheinterpretationofGen2:7,notingsimilaritiesanddissimilar ilarit itie iess and and atte attempt mptin ingg to deter determi mine ne the the reas reason onss forth for thee latt latter er.. In rela relati tion on to the orig origin in of the the simi simila lari riti ties es,, the the answ answer er seems seems simpl simple: e: from from the the Jewi Jewish sh trad tradit itio ionn of exegesis.
2
De opi opic cio io mund mundi i
As the title indicates, in De opicio mundi , Philo provides an interpretation of Gen 1–2, which exhibits patterns of Platonic philosophy and arithmology. In . 129,PhilobeginswiththeaccountofGen2,usingallegorytoelucidatethe Opif .129,PhilobeginswiththeaccountofGen2,usingallegorytoelucidatethe story of the Fall and the expulsion from paradise.
On this this topic, topic, see H. Leisega Leisegang, ng, Die vorchristlichen Anschauungen und Lehren vom υμ und der mystisch-intuitiven mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis (vol. 1.1 of Der Der heilige Geist: Das Wesen und Werden der mystisch-intuitiven mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und Religion der Griechen; ed. H. Leisegang; Leipzig 1919; repr., Darmstadt 1967). Some preconceptions (such as the “brightness” of the Greek against the “darkness” of the Orient) are outdated, but the main part of the book, the interpretation of Philo’s use of πνεῦμα, is still worth reading. See also G.H. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy Philosophy and Early Christianity Christianity ( 232; Tübingen 2008), 62–68, 275– 282. On the exegetical exegetical corpus, the exposition of the law, law, to which which De opicio mundi belongs, belongs, see Sandmel, Introduction, 47–76; P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (Leiden 1997), 46–79; D.T. D.T. Runia, introd., trans. t rans. and comm., Philo of Alexandria: Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos Cosmos accordi according ng to Moses (1;Leiden2001),5–8;Borgen, Exegete,46,callsita“Rewritten Bible.” Concerning De opic proper, see Runia, Creation. On Opif . 134–147, see Runia, opicio io mundi mundi proper, Creation, 321–347. The importance of Plato, especially of the Timaeus, is demonstrated by the same author (D.T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato [Leiden 1986], 334–340).—Philo’s opinion about the temporality or non-temporality of creation varies: in explaining Gen 2:7 he assumes that creation is a temporal event by declaring Adam the rst man,the“progenitorofhumankind”(Opif . 136) 136);; in expl explai aini ning ng Gen Gen 1, he rejec rejects ts thetempor thetemporal alit ity y of creation (Opif . 13, 26). Opif . 47–52 on the tetras; Opif . 62 on the pentas; Opif . 13–14 on the hexas; Opif . 89–127 on the hebdomas.
Let us now turn to Philo’s interpretation of Gen 2:7 (Opif . 134). After quoting Gen 2:7 2:7 (omi (omitt ttin ingg the the last last three three wo word rdss εἰς εἰς ψυχὴ ψυχὴνν ζῶσαν ῶσαν [“be [“beca came me a livi living ng soul” soul”]) ]),, Philo states that there is a vast diference between it and an earlier passage, Gen 1:26–27 (ἐναργέστατα … διαφορὰ παμμεγέθης). This diference serves as a structuring structuring principle principle throughout throughout Opif . 134– 134–13 135, 5, wher wheree Phil Philoo wo work rkss wi with th a seri series es of opposites:
Gen 2:7
Gen 1:26–27
Formed διαπλασθεὶς
Came into existence after the image of God κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα γεγονώς
Object of sense-perception αἰσθητὸς
Object of thought νοητός
Consisting of body and soul ἐκ σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς συνεστώς
Incorporeal ἀσώματος
Partaking already already of such or such quality Idea or type or seal ἤδη μετέχων ποιότητος ἰδέα τις ἢ γένος ἢ σφραγίς Man or woman ἀνὴρ ἢ γυνή
Neither male nor female οὔτ’ ἄρρεν οὔτε θῆλυ
By nature mortal φύσει θνητός
By nature incorruptible ἄφθαρτος φύσει
The man of sense-perception is a composite being (κατασκευὴ σύνθετος), consisting of an earthly body and a soul into which the divine πνεῦμα is breathed (ἐκ (ἐκ γεώδ γεώδου ουςς οὐσί οὐσίας ας καὶ καὶ πνεύ πνεύμα ματο τοςς θείο θείου) υ).. Concer Concerni ning ng the the body body,, Phil Philoo write writess γεγε γεγε-νῆσθ νῆσθαι αι γὰρ γὰρ τὸ μὲν μὲν σῶμα σῶμα χοῦν χοῦν τοῦ τοῦ τεχνί τεχνίτο τουυ λαβό λαβόντ ντος ος καὶ καὶ μο μορφ ρφὴν ὴν ἀνθρ ἀνθρωπ ωπίν ίνην ην ἐξ αὐτο αὐτοῦῦ See See Runi Runia, a, Creation, 321–329; Van Kooten, Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 275–278. This is a mistake, mistake, see Gen 1:27 (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν ἐποίησεν αὐτούς). Philo uses it correctly in Opif . 76: πάνυ δὲ καλῶς τὸ γένος ἄνθρωπον εἰπὼν διέκρινε τὰ εἴδη, φήσας ἄρρεν τε καὶ θῆλυ δεδημιουρ γῆσθαι. And when Moses had called the genus “man,” “man,” quite admirably did he distinguish its it s species, adding that it had been created “male and female.” (I use the translation of Colson and Whitaker.)
διαπ διαπλά λάσα σαντ ντος ος.. Who Who is this this τεχν τεχνίτη ίτηςς (cra (crafts ftsma man) n) and and is he iden identi tica call to God, God, that that is, is, is he a function of God, or does the term designate a being other than God? The notion of a god kneading clay and forming a human gure (well known in Greek mythology, mythology, e.g., Prometheus) seems see ms to be fundamentally opposed to Philo’s concept of God, yet in Opif . 137 Philo makes it clear that it is God who took the clay. Man stands on the border between mortality and immortality (τὸν (τὸν ἄνθρ ἄνθρωπ ωπον ον θνητ θνητῆς ῆς καὶ καὶ ἀθαν ἀθανάτ άτου ου φύσε φύσεως ως εἶνα εἶναιι μεθό μεθόρι ριον ον): ): morta mortall wi with th resp respec ectt to the visible part (θνητόν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ὁρατὴν μερίδα) and immortal with w ith respect to the invisible part (κατὰ τὴν ἀόρατον ἀθανατίζηται). Every composite being inevitably decomposes, making death inherent to the system. This division aims at preserving the immortality, if not of the whole being, then at least of the soul, even though Philo makes makes no mention of a potential potential afterlife afterlife in this regard. He merely states the immortality of the soul, which is intellectually inconsistent with the reality of death. The πνεῦμα appears in this reading as a component of the soul. Concerning the relationship between πνεῦμα and νοῦς or whether there is a relationship between them at all, Philo says nothing. ing. Whereas Whereas Opif . 134 134 know knowss no cong congru ruen ence ce betw betwee eenn Gen Gen 1:26 1:26–2 –277 and and Gen Gen 2:7, 2:7, Opif . 139 interprets man’s mind as an image of God’s λόγος. Philo answers the question of why the Pentateuch tells the story of the creation of man twice by pointing to the diferent state or category of the created “men.” Because Philo is implicitly alluding to his exegesis of Gen 1:26–27, a quick glance at this exegesis seems necessary (Opif . 69–76). Philo cites Gen 1:26 and emphasizes emphasizes that the resemblance resemblance of the created being to God lies in the mind (νοῦς) and not in the body: οὔτε γὰρ ἀνθρωπόμορφος ὁ θεὸς οὔτε θεοειδὲς τὸ ἀνθρώπειον σῶμα (“for neither is God in human form, nor is the human body God-like”; Opif . 69). In the following lines, Philo compares man’s mind to God’s λόγος (69–71). After asking and answering the question of why a plurality of creators was necessary for the creation of such a humble being as man when God was able to create heaven, earth and all kinds of plants and animals without help ( Opif . 72–75), Philo ends the exegesis of this verse with the interpretation of the words ἄρρεν τε καὶ θῆλυ ( Opif . 76). These terms, he
Runia, Creation, 326. This This is the the view view of J. Fossu ossum, m, “Gen Gen 1,26 1,26 and and 2,7 2,7 in Juda Judais ism, m, Sama Samari rita tani nism sm,, and and Gnos Gnosti tici cism sm,,” 16 (1985): 202–239, esp. 207. 16 Δεύτερον Δεύτερον δέ, δέ, οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ τοῦ τυχόντο τυχόντοςς μέρους μέρους τῆς τῆς γῆς ἔοικεν ὁ θεὸς θεὸς χοῦν χοῦν λαβὼν λαβὼν τὸν ἀνθρωποειδ ἀνθρωποειδῆῆ τοῦτον τοῦτονἀνδ ἀνδριά ριάντα ντα πλάττε πλάττειν ιν ἐθελῆσ ἐθελῆσαι αι μετὰ μετὰ τῆς ἀνωτάτ ἀνωτάτω ω σπουδ σπουδῆς ῆς … “Secon “Secondly dly,, God is not likely likely to have taken the clay from any part of the earth that might ofer, or to have chosen as rapidly as possible to mould this gure in the shape of a man …” See See belo below w. Tobin, Creation, 108–134; Runia, Creation, 322.
suggests, make it clear that it was not a single human being that was created, but the genus of mankind (τὸ γένος ἄνθρωπον; Opif . 76). What, then, was created in Gen 1:26–27? The νοῦς of man, a νοῦς without body (Opif . 69) or the genus of mankind (Opif . 76)? Philo’s response remains vague; in fact, he does not ask the question of what was created created with respect to Gen Gen 1:26 1:26.. Ho Howe weve verr, he does does plac placee grea greatt emph emphas asis is on crit critic iciz izin ingg a read readin ingg of this this verse in an anthropomorphic way and makes a rhetorical efort to compare the νοῦς to God’s λόγος (Opif . 69–71), with an allusion to the Phaedrus (the “winged mind” [πτηνὸς ἀρθεὶς]; cf. Plato, Phaedr . 246d–249d) and to the Symposium (ἔρωτι σοφίας; cf. Plato, Symp. 211c). Philo places further emphasis on the mixed nature of man which leads to a disposition for both morally good and bad behaviour, behaviour, and which is determined in the act of the creation of man. The genus of mankind is found to be created by both God and his assistants, and it is argued that because God creates nothing evil, He created the part of the soul which disposes man to morally good behaviour, whereas the assistants createdthatpartthatcausesmorallybadbehaviour(foraGreekmind,pleasure [ἡδονή] and emotions [πάθη], for a Jewish mind, evil inclinations). In the formation of the genus of man the possibility of misbehaviour is anticipated (indeed, even the rst man will do wrong—God knew this in advance). Philo does not mention the “idea of man.” (Was this because he was aware that he would contradict his own statement in Opif . 16 that the ideas were created on day day one?) one?) Inst Instea ead, d, he spea speaks ks of the genu genuss “man “man”” (τὸ (τὸ γένο γένοςς ἄνθρ ἄνθρωπ ωπον ον). ). Obvi Obvious ously ly,, Philo sees the humanity of man realized in the νοῦς, meaning that the genus of mankind is endowed with mind, and by this we can harmonize the statement in Opif . 69 with that in Opif . 76.
Plato Plato speak speakss of the ascen ascensio sionn of the soul. soul. Philo Philo,, who assum assumes es that that the soul soul consis consists ts of mortal and immortal parts, consequently speaks of the ascension of the immortal part (νοῦς). The ascension of the soul or of the mind and the view from above were known since Plato ( Phaedr . 247c). In the rst and second centuries this topos enjoyed great popularity (e.g., Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo mundo 1 391a12; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.138.2–3; Lucian, Icar . 5–6); see also Runia, Creation, 229–230: a passage of Maximus of Tyre ( Dialexeis 11.9–10) shows the greatest resemblance to this passage. The Jewish Jewish backgrou background nd of the plural plural of Gen 1:26 is elucidate elucidatedd by Fossum, Fossum, “Gen 1,26 and and 2,7,” 202–239; on Philo, see esp. 203–208, but see also Runia, Creation, 236–244. Runia argues argues against against the interpre interpretation tation that the idea idea of humankind humankind was was creat created ed in Gen 1:26, while in Gen 2:7 the rst man was created (Runia, Creation, 323), stating that in Gen 1:26 1:26 the“i the “ide deal al huma humann pers person on,,” that that is, is, thein the inte tellllec ectt of man, man, wa wass crea create ted. d. Inde Indeed, ed,Ph Phililoo menmentionstheνοῦςin Opif . 69. 69. Becau Because se Philo Philo also also mentio mentions ns the the “genu genuss of huma humank nkin ind” d” (Opif .76, . 76, 134), I would suggest that Philo points to the diference between the genus “humankind” and the single human being; the distinguishing mark of the genus of humankind is the
Unfortunately, the recourse to the exegesis of Gen 1:26–27 does not yield a better understanding of Philo’s intention. On the contrary, contrary, it shows that Philo, in trea treati ting ng Gen Gen 2:7 (Opif . 134–14 134–145), 5), appar apparentl entlyy forgot forgot certain certain sta statem tement entss he had made earlier (Opif . 69–76) and considered that the being created in Gen 1:26 was “neither male nor female,” female,” whereas earlier he had stressed that God created the genus of humankind as “male and female.” In Gen 2:7 there is no mention of mind (νοῦς), only of νοητός and ἰδέα τις, by which Philo seems to suggest that the being created in Gen 1:26 was the “idea of humankind.” In both instances Philo speaks of the γένος, which seems to be the lowest common denominator of both both.. The The dif difer eren ence ce betw betwee eenn the the bein beingg crea create tedd inGe in Genn 1:26 1:26 and and the the one one made made in Gen 2:7 does not concern their ontological status but the category. category. After these two paragraphs (134–135), Philo interrupts the exegesis of Gen 2 to insert an essay on the excellence of the rst man (136–147). This essay is also structured by opposites, with statements about the excellence of the body and soul of the rst man alternating with statements about the decline of the following generations. The rst man, progenitor of all men, was the human being with the most perfect body (136–138). Philo adds three arguments to eluc elucid idat atee this this poin point: t: the the rs rstt man man real really ly wa wass the the only only trul trulyy “bea “beaut utif iful ul and and good good”” (136), the matter of his body consisted of the best matter of the whole earth (137), (137), and the Creator created him according to the best proportions proportions (138). However, his descendants did not share in his excellence and in time their quality steadily diminished (140–141). Furthermore, the rst man was the only cosmopolitan (142–144). God’s reason (λόγος) acted as a model of the human soul and “man was made a likeness and imitation of the Word when the divine
νοῦς. In both interpretations there is i s a problem, namely how the “noetic man” ( Opif . 134) iscorrelatedtothe“ideaofhumankind”(Runia, Creation,323).Yet,Philosolvestheseproblems in his interpretation of Gen 2:7 in Legum allegoriae, which I will discuss later. The “idea “idea of of humankind humankind”” is not explicit explicitly ly mentione mentionedd by Plato, Plato, but is easily easily deduced from Tim. 39e–40a; the concept was current in Middle Platonism. See Alcinous, Epitome doc 12.1; Arius, Physica frg. 1 (in the edition of H. Diels, D iels, “Arii “Arii trinae platonicae sive Διδασκαλικός Διδασκαλικός 12.1; Didymi Didymi epito epitomes mes fragm fragment entaa physi physica, ca,” in Doxographi [ed. H. Diel Diels; s; Berli Berlinn 187 1879; repr repr.,., Doxographi graeci [ed. Berlin 1965], 447); Numenius (second cent. ) frg. 20 (in the edition by É. des Places, ed. and trans., Numénius: Fragments [Paris 1974]); 1974]); Runia, Timaeus of Plato, 335n5. A parallel in the Corpus hermeticu Di llon, The hermeticum m is mentioned by J. Dillon, The Midd Middle le Plat Platon onis ists ts:: 80 . . to . . e ntire topic, see also Tobin, Creation, 112–125. 220 (London 1977), 176, 390–392. On the entire Cf. the Sib. Or . 3.24–26: here the rst man is said to be moulded out of matter from all four corners of the earth; the same idea is mentioned by the rabbis (Alexandre, Commencement , 237). This This is a stoi stoicc conc concep eptt and and it was popu popula larr in the the rs rstt cent cent.. , see see Runi Runia, a, Crea Creati tion on 339– 339–34 3400 with further references. references.
breathwasbreathedintohisface”(139).Thus,themindofeveryhumanbeing is akin to God’s reason (λόγος), “having come into being as a copy or fragment or ray of that blessed nature” (146). This aspect is new because until now we have been led to think of the two creatures created in Gen 1:26–27 and Gen 2:7 as two diferent beings. This changes as Philo adopts the Jewish reading which sees in the πνεῦμα a specic quality of man (139), whereby w hereby πνεῦμα causes the godlikeness of man. In other words, Gen 1:26–27 and Gen 2:7 are combined: the godlikeness of man, which is abstractly stated in Gen 1:26–27, is seen as realized in the πνεῦμα that man receives in Gen 2:7. Certainly Philo separates the “man” created in Gen 1:26–27 from the one moulded m oulded in Gen 2:7 in his interpretations of Gen Ge n 2:7 proper(Opif .134–135; .134–135; 1.4; Leg.1.31–32),butinthefollowingparagraphs(Opif . 139; Leg. 1.33–42 and implicitly in 1.5) he brings both together. Obviously Philo attaches great importance to the diference between the idea or genus of humankind in Gen 1:26–27 and the real man of Gen 2:7, well appropriated to a Platonic reading of Genesis. However, as soon as he has nished explaining Gen 2:7, he adopts the Jewish reading, which sees the godlikeness of human mind realized by the πνεῦμα, “taking place” in the human mind. One point we should take into account is that in the exegesis of Gen 2:7 in De opicio mundi there there is no question of an allegoresis of soul and mind. Allegoresis of the creation account starts with the account of paradise, the woman and the serpent (beginning with Opif . 153).
This This seem seemss tobe an allu allusi sionto onto the the Mi Midd ddle le Plat Platon onic ic idea ideall (τέλ (τέλος ος)) ofὁμοίω ofὁμοίωσι σιςς θεῷ θεῷ (see (see Runi Runia, a, Creation, 345 and Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, ca. 2 “The ‘Image of God’ and ‘Being made like God’ in Graeco-Roman Paganism” Paganism”, 92–219). Van Kooten ( Paul’s Anthropology, 64–65, 277–282) stresses the semantic proximity of πνεῦμα and νοῦς in Philo’s work: the part of the human soul into which God breathed the divine breath is the νοῦς ( caveat Runia, Runia, Creation, 324). Wis 15:11 15:11 is the the earliest earliest instance instance of a pneumat pneumatolog ological ical reading reading of of Gen 2:7. The exact exact date of composition is unknown, some date it back to the rst cent. , such as H. Poirier, “Pour une histoire de la lecture pneumatologique de Gn 2,7: Quelques jalons jusqu’à Irénée de Lyon,” REAug 40 (1994): 2, others to the rst cent. , as does J. Dochhorn in a paper presented on 26 July 2010 in Reinhausen, Göttingen. Josephus, .. 1.34. Paulus, e.g., 1Cor 15:45–47 (see Poirier, “Histoire,” 5; Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 298–312). 298–312). Pseudo-Phocylides, Sententiae 105–108. All authors see man as composed of πνεῦμα, ψυχή and σῶμα. See further K. Greschat, Apelles und Hermogenes: Zwei Zwei theologische Lehrer des (VCSup 48; Leiden Leiden 2000), 2000), 245–25 245–256, 6, esp. esp. 246n6 246n63. 3. A non-dua non-dualis listic tic view zweiten Jahrhunderts (VCSup is found in 4 Ezra Ezra 2:4. Nevertheless, Philo usually uses the tripartition of man common to Greek Greek philos philosoph ophyy since since Plato: Plato: νοῦς, νοῦς, ψυχή ψυχή and σῶμα σῶμα (Van (Van Koot Kooten, en, Paul’s Paul’s Anthropology,280– 281). Grescha chat, Apelles und Hermogenes, 246.
3
Quaest Quaestion iones es et soluti solutione oness in Genesi Genesin n 1.4–5
The Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin is preserved only as a fragment in Greek; however, there is a complete Armenian translation. As in De opicio Philoo sta state tess an onto ontolo logi gica call dife difere renc ncee betwe between en the mundi and Legum allegoriae allegoriae, Phil “man” created κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα in Gen 1:26–27 and the one moulded out of clay in Gen Gen 2:7. :7. Quaes structured red dichot dichotomou omously sly:: Quaestio tiones nes et soluti solutione oness in Genesi Genesinn 1.4 is structu Moulded man Man made in accordance with (God’s) form Sense ense--per percept ceptiible ble man man Intel ntellligib igible le and and inco incorp rpor orea eall A likeness likeness of the intelligible intelligible type A likeness of the archetype, a copy of the original seal Firs Firstl tlyy, we have have here here a trip tripar arti tite te grad gradat atio ionn of (1) (1) God, God, (2) (2) λόγ λόγος and and (3) (3) the the bein beingg madeinGen1:26–27(as Opif .69,139; . 69,139; Leg.1.37).Thereisquiteabigdiference, both literally and ontologically, ontologically, between the three, and nally, nally, the real existing man. Secondly, there is a reference to the potter (the man who was moulded as if by a potter, as in Opif . 135 and Leg. 1.31). The potter moulded the senseperc percep epti tibl blee part part of real real man man out out of cla clay, as in the the Prom Promet ethe hean an myth yth (Phi (Philo lo does does not tell us whether he is identical to God or to an angel). Incorporated in the exegesisisadescriptionofGod’sλόγος:“the Logos ofGod,therstprinciple,the archetypal idea, the pre-measurer of all things.” As in De opicio mundi , Philo stre stress sses es the the comp compos osit itee natu nature re of man man as a cong conglo lome mera rati tion on of a peri perish shab able le body body and and a nonnon-pe peri rish shab able le,, immo immorta rtall soul soul.. The The cons conseq eque uenc ncee of this, this, the the morta mortalility ty of the body and the immortality of the soul, is not explicitly mentioned. This interpretation of Gen 2:7 ts well with the Jewish division of the realm of God (incorporeal, invisible and imperishable) from the realm of man (corporeal, sense-perceptible and perishable). It is not necessary to impute a Platonic dichotomy of the realm of mind and the ideas and the realm of senseperception and sense-perceptible things. Perhaps due to the brevity of Philo’s explanation here, with no reference to the subjects of Greek G reek moral philosophy (and perhaps also due to the lack of the Greek wording), it seems to me to be the “most Jewish” exegesis exegesis of Gen G en 2:7 in Philo’s oeuvre. After explaining Gen 2:7, 2:7, Philo asks why God breathed into the face of man ( 1.5), as he does in Legum allegoriae allegoriae (1.39–41). He answers the question
On the exege exegetica ticall corpus corpus,, see Sandmel Sandmel,, Introduction, 79–81; and Borgen, Exegete, 80–101, who stresses the importance of the exegetical principle of question and answer for all three exegetical corpora. Cf. Cf. Tobin, in, Creation, 36–55. See See belo below w.
in both works in a similar way: rstly, God breathed into the face because it is a part of the head, which leads the body. Philo illustrates this point using the image of a statue: the body is like a pedestal, while the face, like a bust, is rmly placed above it. Secondly, Secondly, he argues that one feature fe ature of the living being is sense-perception, which is located in the t he eyes, nose, ears and mouth, all part of the face (the sense of touch, i.e., the hands, is missing, but four out of ve sense sensess are are indee indeedd concen concentr trat ated ed in the the face face,, see see also also Opif . 139). 139). Thir Thirdl dlyy, he sta state tess that man is not only given a soul, but a rational one, and reason is located, as some philosophers and physicians say, say, in the head (see e.g., Alcinous, Epitome 23.1). doctrinae platonicae sive Διδασκαλικός Διδασκαλικός 23.1).
4
Legum Legum allegoria allegoriaee
The Legum allegoriae is a work in three volumes which comprises a running commentary on Gen 2–3. The treatment of Gen 1 is either missing from Legum allegoriae oritwasneverwritten.Although3:1–8and3:20–23aremissing,this need not concern us as the commentary on Gen 2:7 is complete. At the outset Philo declares that he will not read Gen 2 as a statement about cosmology but on a symbolic level as a statement about the constitution of the mind (νοῦς), symbolized by heaven, and of sense-perception (αἴσθησις), symbolized by earth. Of course this does not mean the sense-perception and mind of an individual, but of their idea. In other words, the idea of mind and the idea of sense-perception were created and symbolized by heaven and earth respectively ( Leg. 1.1 on Gen 2:1; see also Leg. 1.21 on Gen 2:4–5). From this allegorical allegorical interpretatio interpretation, n, it follows follows that Philo understands understands creation creation as nontemporal, temporal, as not occurring in a temporal temporal frame of reference reference ( Leg. 1.2 on Gen 2:2 [“It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days or in a space of time at all”]). To provide a broader framework let me paraphrase Philo’s exegesis of Gen 2:4–6. Philo proceeds systematically, systematically, beginning with the principal issue, the
On the genus of the allegorical commentary, see Sandmel, Introduction, 76–78; Borgen, Exegete, 102–139. T. Tobin, obin, “The Beginn Beginning ing of Philo’ Philo’ss Legum allegoriae ,” in The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, Volume 12 , 2000 (ed. D.T. Runia and G.E. Sterling; 328; Atlanta 2000), 29–43. Tobin attempts attempts to show that in a lost rst part of Legum Legum allegoriae Philo also interpreted Gen 1:1–31 as an allegoresis of the soul. Gen 2:4: 2:4: “These “These are are the generation generationss of the heav heaven en and and the earth when they were were made.” made.” Gen 2:5: “In the day when the Lord God made earth and heaven there were no plants of
spheres of mind and sense-perception as such (on Gen 2:1). After the idea of mind and the idea of sense-perception, God creates the “intellectuallyperceptible” itself, or the idea of the intelligible, by means of his λόγος ( Leg. 1.22 1.22 [ἰδέ [ἰδέαα ὡς ἂν ἀρχέ ἀρχέτυ τυπο ποςς καὶ καὶ παρά παράδε δειγ ιγμα μα … τὸ γενι γενικὸ κὸνν νοητ νοητόν όν,, symbo symbolilize zedd by the the shrubbery]), out of which the intelligible objects arise through participation (κατὰ μετοχὴν). Then sense-perception as the form or genus (τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο γενικὸν αἰσθητόν, symbolized by the herb) is established, out of which each of the sense-perceptible objects develops (τὰ κατὰ μέρος αἰσθητά). The source welling up from under the earth symbolizes the mind, and “the face of the land” symbolizes sense-perception. Here, it is no longer the idea of mind and the the idea idea of sens sensee-pe perc rcep epti tion on that that are are bein beingg refe referr rred ed to, to, but but rath rather er the the mind mind and and sense-perception that work within each human being, although at this stage thereisnohumanbeinginwhichmindcouldbeseentobeworking.According to Phil Philoo, in Gen 2:6 2:6 the the inte interr rrel elat atio ionn of mind mind and and sens sense-p e-per erce cepti ption on is descr describ ibed ed generally, i. e. the mind is afected by sense-perception and sense-perception is stimulated by the mind. After his comments on Gen 2:7, Philo then treats the diferent virtues. He states that only after the mind and sense-perception virtues are created created and, nally, nally, the emotions (πάθη). (πάθη).
the eld on the earth, and no grass had come up: for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to do work on the land.” Gen 2:6: 2:6: “But “But a mist mist went went up up from from the the earth, earth, wat watering ering all the face face of of the land.” The garden garden in Gen 2:8 symbolizes symbolizes either heavenly heavenly virtue ( Leg. 1.45), God’s wisdom ( Leg. 1.43, 64) or God’s reason ( Leg. 1.65). The trees and the tree of knowledge in Gen 2:9 repres represent ent severa severall particu particular lar virtue virtuess and the corres correspon pondin dingg activiti activities es ( Leg.1.56):thetreeof life symbolizes virtue in general or the goodness from which all other virtues are deduced ( Leg. 1.59), the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the leading part of the soul (ἡγεμονικόν; di viding into four in Gen 2:10–14 represents Leg. 1.61–62). The river rising in paradise and dividing goodness and the four main virtues of prudence, self-mastery, courage and justice ( Leg. 1.63–64). The rst branch, named Pishon, stands for prudence ( Leg. 1.66) and the gold which is found in the land in which it ows symbolizes symbolizes it ( Leg. 1.67). Likewise, ruby refers to the man who is prudent prudent ( Leg. 1.67) and emerald to the man who exercises prudence ( Leg.1.67).Thenameofthesecondriver,Gihon,referstocourage( Leg.1.68)andthename of the third th ird river, river, Tigris, to self-mastery ( Leg. 1.69). Acco Accord rding ing to Phil Philoo ( Leg. 2.5), sense-perception (αἴσθησις) is introduced in Gen 2:18: “And the Lord God said, It is not good for the man to be by himself. I will make one like himself as a help to him.” Dillon ( Middle Platonists, 175) points to an interesting parallel in Callicratidas, who compares λογισμός with the patriarch, ἐπιθυμία with the wife and θυμός with the son (Callicratidas, Περὶ οἴκου εὐδαιμονίας [in the edition by H. Theslef, The (Åbo 1965), 103]). Pythagorean Pythagorean Texts Texts of the Hellenistic Hellenistic Period Period (Åbo The soul’ soul’ss passions passions (ψυχῆς (ψυχῆς πάθη) πάθη) are are indicat indicated ed by the beasts beasts of the the elds elds in Gen 2:19, 2:19, “And “And
Particular attention is paid to pleasure (ἡδονή), which, as an emotion (πάθος), is a function of the soul. As a result, in the exegesis of Gen 2–3, which contains many short essays on morality and philosophy, Philo integrates a syst system emat atic ic accou account nt of the soul soul that that one one almo almost st igno ignore res. s. Ho Howe weve verr, by corr correl elat atin ingg the relevant biblical verses and Philo’s interpretation (as I did), this hidden essay on the soul becomes obvious. Let us consider Philo’s allegory thus far (Gen 2:1–6). From the beginning the account is stripped of all concreteness. Philo raises the account to a nontemporal and abstract sphere, towards the intelligible realm or even higher. In this abstract-intellectual sphere “man” appears. Let us see what Philo does with the very concrete concrete account of creation in Gen 2:7, which which proceeds over the course of eleven paragraphs ( Leg. 1.31–42), starting with the complete quote of Gen 2:7. This is the third time Philo states that there is a diference between “man” in Gen 1:26–27 and “man” in Gen 2:7: Heavenly man οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος
Earthly man γήϊνος ἄνθρωπος
Being made after the image of God κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ γεγονὼς Without part or lot in corruptible and and terr terres estr tria iall subs substa tanc ncee φθαρ φθαρτῆ τῆςς καὶ καὶ συνό συνόλω λωςς γεώδ γεώδου ουςς οὐσίας ἀμέτοχος
Was compacted out of the matter scattered scattered here here and and ther there, e, whic whichh Mo Mose sess call callss “cla clay” ἐκ σπορ σποράδ άδος ος ὕλης ὕλης ἣν χοῦν κέκληκεν, ἐπάγη
Not moulded but stamped stamped with the image of God οὐ πεπλ πεπλάσ άσθα θαι,ι, κατ’ κατ’ εἰκό εἰκόνα να τετυπῶσθαι θεοῦ
Moulded work of the Articer Articer, not his ofspring πλάσ πλάσμα μα,, οὐ γέννη έννημα μα,, τοῦ τεχν τεχνίτ ίτου ου
from the earth the Lord God made every e very beast of the eld and every bird of the air” ( Leg. 2.9). Heaven and eld symbolize the mind (νοῦς; Leg. 2.10), beasts and birds the passions (πάθη; Leg. 2.11 2.11). ). Earl Earlie ierr, on the the 6th 6th day day (Gen (Gen 1:24 1:24), ), God God crea create tedd the the idea ideass and and gene genera ra of the the passions, whereas in Gen 2:19 he creates the single species of emotions ( Leg. 2.12). The snake, snake, mention mentioned ed in Gen 3:1, symbolizes symbolizes pleasure pleasure (ἡδονή), (ἡδονή), which which couples couples mind mind with sense-perception ( Leg. 2.71–72). An excursus on snakes then follows ( Leg. 2.74–108, the end of book 2).
Philo argues that there are two kinds of “man”: a heavenly one (οὐράνιος) and an earthly one (γήϊνος). The heavenly “man” is created according to God’s image (κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ) and does not partake in perishable earthly substance. The earthly “man” is said to be moulded out of scattered matter (ἐκ σποράδος ὕλης). The diference between the two is apparent in a linguistic detail: heavenly “man” is not “moulded” (οὐ πεπλάσθαι) but “stamped” with God’s image (κατ’ εἰκόνα τετυπῶσθαι θεοῦ), while the earthly one is a gure “moulded” by a craftsman (πλάσμα τοῦ τεχνίτου). In comparison with Philo’s exegesis of Gen 2:7 2:7 wi with th whic whichh we are are thus thus far far fami famililiar ar,, it is stri striki king ng that that the the dif difer eren ence ce betw betwee eenn Gen 1:26–27 and Gen 2:7 is now ( Leg. 1.31) between “earthly” “earthly” and “heavenly” “heavenly” and not “sens “sense-pe e-perce rcepti ptible ble”” and “intel “intellig ligibl ible” e” as in De opicio mundi and QuaestionesetsolutionesinGenesin .Thischangeinemphasisisduetoachangeinthe whole focus of the interpretation. interpretation. It is at this stage that Philo, so to speak, spills the t he beans: the earthly “man” symbolizes the mind at the moment of being incorporated into the body and before being wholly absorbed absorb ed by it (ἄνθρωπον δὲ τὸν ἐκ γῆς γ ῆς λογιστέον εἶναι νοῦν εἰσκρινόμενον σώματι, οὔπω δ’ εἰσκεκριμένον). If the mind were already in the body, body, contact with the divine would be impossible, as we have to suppose that the the divi divine ne does does not not parta partake kein incor corpor porea eall thing things. s.Wi With thout outdi divi vine ne brea breath thth thee mind mind would be led to ruin (ὁ δὲ νοῦς οὗτος γεώδης ἐστὶ τῷ ὄντι καὶ φθαρτός, εἰ μὴ ὁ θεὸς ἐμπνεύσειεν αὐτῷ δύναμιν ἀληθινῆς ἀληθινῆς ζωῆς), but by means of the t he divine breath it is no longer merely moulded but becomes a soul (τότε γὰρ γίνεται, οὐκέτι πλάτ πλάττε τετα ται,ι, εἰς εἰς ψυχή ψυχήν) ν).. The The soul, soul, then, then, is no long longer er “laz “lazyy and and impe imperfe rfectl ctlyy forme formed” d” (οὐκ ἀργὸν καὶ ἀδιατύπωτον) but becomes reasonable and actually living (νοερὰ καὶ ζῶσα ὄντως). We We remember that in Opif . 134 Philo omitted the last three words of Gen 2:7 (εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν), whereas in this text Philo species this point, paraphrasing and quoting the whole w hole of Gen 2:7 (εἰς ψυχήν, οὐκ ἀργὸν καὶ ἀδιατύπωτον, ἀ’ εἰς νοερὰν καὶ ζῶσαν ὄντως. “εἰς ψυχὴν” γάρ φησι “ζῶσαν ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος”). Here Philo interprets the inspiration by God as imparting the principle of life. The bipartite nature of man, composed of a mortal body and an immortal soul— which by necessity causes his death, because every composite thing must fall apart—isnotmentionedbyPhilo.Thisiswithgoodreason,foritisnotahuman being that is at stake but the mind. At the same time, the linguistic details reveal that Philo uses the term “life” in a particular sense: ἐμπνεύσειεν ἐμπνεύσειεν αὐτῷ δύναμιν ἀληθινῆς ζωῆς, and εἰς ψυχήν, οὐκ ἀργὸν καὶ ἀδιατύπωτον εἰς νοερὰν καὶ ζῶσαν ὄντως. The manner in which Philo
Tobin, Creation, 135–176. All quotations in this and the next paragraph are from Leg. 1.32.
uses uses the the terms terms “rea “reall life life”” and and “actu actual ally ly aliv alive” e” (cou (could ld one one be aliv alivee but but not not actu actual ally ly alive?) is perplexing. In fact, his explanation is based on an antique doctrine of thesoulwhichstatesthatthesouliscomposedofdiferentparts,thevegetative, the afective, the cognitive and the intellectual. Philo draws a distinction here between the non-reasonable part of the soul and the reasonable part. The human being in Leg. 1.31 is already endowed with the unreasonable part of the soul, that is, he possesses the vital functions and hence is a living being (but one with a “lazy and imperfectly formed soul”), to whom Philo denies “real life.” If we deduce the cause from the efect (εἰς νοερὰν), what is still missing is reason, which God breathes into this being such that it becomes “a soul endowed with mind and actually alive.” Philo uses this distinction between life and actual life as a basis for an anthropology that he unfolds in many pass passag ages es of his his wo work rk.. The The so soul ul is, is, so to spea speak, k, endo endowe wedd wi with th a tw twof ofol oldd prin princi cipl plee of life—one aspect is the basis of the vegetative life and the other the basis of intellectual activity, activity, and hence, as Philo sees it, real life. Death is also twofold, a view which was quite common in Middle Platonic circles (e.g., Plutarch, De 28, 942f 942f–94 –943e) 3e).. One One is the the death death ever everyb ybody ody common commonly ly refer referss facie in orbe lunae 28, to, that is, the separation of body and soul. However, there is also a second or real death, the death of the soul ( 1.16; Leg. 1.105–106). Philo is perhaps induced to take this position, which at rst sight entails a quite complicated distinction and gradation of the principle of life, by the exact wording of the Septuagint(εἰςψυχὴνζῶσαν).Atrstreadingthismustseemtohimapleonasm: the soul is always always living, a non-living soul is an absurdity. absurdity. Therefore, the phrase εἰς ψυχὴν ψυχὴν ζῶ ζῶσα σανν must must have have a deeper deeper sense sense because, because, as a gener general al rule rule of exegesi exegesis, s, Moses“neverputsinasuperuousword”( Fug.54).This,then,isthedistinction between vegetative life and real life. As Philo tells tells us, the four questions that need to be asked when reading this creation account are as follows ( Leg. 1.33): 1. Why did God breathe into the earthly man, that is, into the mind concerned with earthly interests, interests, and not into the heavenly heavenly mind? The answer to this question is given in Leg. 1.34–35: God, who loves to give (φιλόδωρος ὢν ὁ θεὸς), gives to everybody, even to the imperfect. He bestows goodnessoneverysoul,evenifsomearenotcapableofbehavinginagoodway ( Leg. 1.34). Moreover, Moreover, the breath serves as a basis for justice: just ice: nobody can claim “that he is unjustly punished, for that it was through inexperience of good that he failed in respect of it” ( Leg. 1.35).
See See Leis Leiseg egan ang, g, Vorchristliche Anschauungen, 85–90, on what follows.
2. What is the precise meaning of “he breathed into”? As an answer answer ( Leg. 1.36–38), Philo points out that t hat ἐνεφύσησεν (“breathed into”) into”) is synonymous with ἐνέπνευσεν (“inspired”) and ἐψύχωσε (“besouled”). Yet we should not think of God as having a mouth or nostrils. God neither takes the form of man (οὐκ ἀνθρωπόμορφος) nor belongs to any class or kind. Without being breathed into, the soul would be without knowledge of God. Therefore, by means of his power, power, which is symbolized by the breath (πνεῦμα), God draws the soul to his side (1.37). Man’s mind would not dare to rise so high if God had not previously raised the human mind (ἀνέσπασεν (ἀνέσπασεν πρὸς ἑαυτόν) as far as it was possible for it to go, and and if God had not impressed it with the powers that are within the scope of its understanding (ἐτύπωσε κατὰ τὰς ἐφικτὰς νοηθῆναι δυνάμεις; 1.38). 3. Why did God breathe into the face? f ace? Ther Theree are are tw twoo possi possibl blee answ answer erss tothi to thiss quest questio ionn (1.3 (1.39– 9–41 41;; cf. 1.5),oneofwhich is scientically based: sense-perception is located mainly in the face (nose, eyes, ears and mouth) and hence, the face is the place of the soul. so ul. The morally based interpretation is as follows: the mind is the leading part (ἡγεμονικόν) of the soul and the face or head the leading part of the body. God only breathes into parts worthy of him, and the irrational parts of the soul are not worthy. However, how were they inspired? Obviously, the irrational parts of the soul were inspired by the mind, as the mind was inspired by God’s λόγος (1.40). Some of the living beings came into existence through God directly (διὰ θεοῦ), others only indirectly (ὑπὸ θεοῦ): to the former belong the mind and paradise, to the latter, latter, the irrational parts of the soul (1.41). 4.Whyisπνοήandnotπνεῦμαwritten,thelatterbeingknownsinceGen1:2(καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος)? The The answ answer er to this this ques questi tion on (1.4 (1.42) 2) conc concer erni ning ng the dif difer eren ence ce betwe between en πνοή πνοή and and πνεῦμα is that πνοή signies a gentle breeze, whereas πνεῦμα means a strong gust of air. Πνεῦμα was imparted to the mind that was created according to the the imag imagee of God God and and the the idea idea (κατ (κατὰὰ τὴν τὴν εἰκό εἰκόνα να γεγον εγονὼς ὼς καὶ καὶ τὴν τὴν ἰδέα ἰδέαν) ν)—b —bec ecau ause se of this, the intelligible being can bear a stronger intellectual touch—while the earthly mind can bear only the gentle breeze (πνοή). This is the only instance
ἄποι ἄποιος ος 1.36 1.36;; Tobin obin,, Creation, 36–55. Aristobulus had already argued against an anthropomorphic view (second cent. ; 2 and 4 [in the edition by N. Walter, “Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Exegeten: Aristobulos, Demetrios, Aristeas,” Aristeas,” in Unterweisung in 3.2; ed. W.G. W.G. Kümmel et al.; Gütersloh 1980), 257–279]). 257–279]). lehrhafter Form ( See Tobin, Creation, 128–129; Van Kooten, Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 65; Poirier, “Histoire,” 2.
where Philo deals with the exact wording of the Septuagint, reading in Gen 2:7 πνοή and not πνεῦμα, while elsewhere he deals with Gen 2:7 as if it read πνεῦμα. Itisclearthatin Legum Legum allegor allegoriae iae itisnotthecreationoftheworldandman which are discussed, but the presentation of the soul and the intelligible intelligible environment in which it is placed. Using the vividness of the description he found in the Pentateuch, Philo turns his attention inwards, asking how the soul, its functions functions and parts, parts, which are all dicult to describe, describe, could be illustrat illustrated ed and and ll lled ed wi with th life life.. He sees sees his his task task as an exeg exeget etee to inte interp rpre rett this this vivi vividd desc descri ripption correctly, correctly, claiming that it is an account of the inner psychic processes the expe expert rt nd ndss in the the Torah orah,, not not a hist histori orica call or cosm cosmol olog ogic ical al acco accoun unt.t. Thus Thus Legum allegoriae is not to be considered as a graphic account of the creation of man and world, but as a logically logically precise precise description of the abstract realm, of the soul and its functions, especially the interaction of sense-perception, s ense-perception, pleasure (the passion par excellence) and mind. Genesis describes, in Philo’s view, the soul’s struggle between the mind, sense-perception and pleasure, which both disturbs and stimulates the mind. This is Philo’s Leitmotiv, and he will treat it many times throughout his oeuvre. In the rst three chapters of Genesis the constant factors of Philo’s account of the struggle of the soul so ul are known, while later on in the allegorical commentary there are variations on the topic. The allegoresis of the soul may not be Philo’s invention, but because of its wide dissemination in his oeuvre it is without any doubt Philo’s rm conviction that he ascertains the deeper meaning of the Pentateuch. See 1.8 on Gen 2:8: Why does he place the moulded man in paradise, but not the man who was made in his image? Some, believing paradise to be a garden have said thatsincethemouldedmanissense-perceptible,hethereforerightlygoes to a sense-perceptible place … But I would say that paradise should be thought a symbol of wisdom. , 1.8
A good source source for the topic I am alluding alluding to is Aristotle Aristotle’s ’s De anima, a basic, methodically sound work, but not very easy to understand. Accordingly, the commentaries on it were already numerous in Antiquity (Alexander of Aphrodisias, John Philoponus, Simplicius, Sophonius, Themistius). Alcinous provides a Middle Platonic view on the topic ( Epitome ca. 23–24; cf. 17.4 and ca. 32 on the passions). doctrinae platonicae sive Διδασκαλικός ca. See D.M. D.M. Hay Hay, “The Psy Psychol chology ogy of of Faith Faith in Helle Hellenis nistic tic Judai Judaism, sm,” 20.2:881–925, esp. 896–902, section 4, “Man’s Internal War.”
Common features—Common features—Common to all three or to two treatments of Gen 2:7 Gen Gen : :
Opif. Leg. Gen : :–
Moulded (πλάσμα, πεπλάσθαι)
.
Moulded as by a potter/craftsman (τεχνίτης) Formed out of dust and earth, out of the best material of all = the body/the earthly mind God breathed life into his face = the spirit or God breathed a divine breath into it = immortality of the invisible part A mixture of the corruptible and incorruptible / of body and soul
.
.
. .
By nature mortal Sense-perceptible Sense-perception is the principal part of the animal species and sense-perception is in the face
5
, , (.) . , .
Opif. Leg.
Made in accordance with . God’s form (κατ’ εἰκόνα) τετυπῶσθαι, γεγονώς
,
Incorporeal
.
A cop copy of the the orig origin inaal seal (= logos)
.
,
.
By nature incorruptible Intelligible
Face is the principal part of the body
. .
Philo’s Interpretations of Gen 2:7 in Context
Why does Philo change the focus of interpretation of Gen 2:7 from De opi and Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin to Legum allegoriae ? Of cio mundi and course, the three works belong to three diferent exegetical genera. De opi belongs to the exposition of the law, where allegoresis is of minor cio mundi belongs importance. Quaes Quaestio tiones nes et soluti solutione oness in Genesi Genesinn constitutes along with Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum an exegetical genus of its own, structured as a series of questions and answers. The three books of Legum Legum allegoriae allegoriae are the beginning of an extensive allegorical commentary. It seems as if Philo deliberately reworked and changed his own interpretation of Gen 1–3 for Legum and Quaestiones et solutiones allegoriae when compared to De opicio mundi and in Genesin.
We We have seen that De opicio mundi is is a literal account of the creation, containing many hortative topics of moral philosophy and many themes from and allusi allusions ons to Plato Plato’’s philos philosoph ophyy and arithm arithmolo ology gy. . Wherea Whereass Plato Plato’’s Timaeus is considered a retelling of the creation according to his philosophy, philosophy, Gen 1–2 is considered a retelling of the creation according to Moses’ philosophy (Opif . 25 [τὸ δὲ δόγμα τοῦτο Μωυσέως ἐστίν, οὐκ ἐμόν]). Is De opicio mundi planned planned as a “rival product” to the Timaeus? We know that the Timaeus played a leading part part in Mi Midd ddle le Plat Platon onis ism. m. From From Tima Timaeu euss Lo Locru cruss (rst (rst cent cent.. ) to Pluta Plutarc rchh’s De animae procreatione procreatione in Timaeo (rst–second cent. ), from Eudorus (rst cent. ) ) to Calvenus Taurus Taurus (second cent. ), ), many writers are supposed to havewrittenacommentaryonthe Timaeus.Wedonotknowforcertainifthe commentaries deal with the whole work or only with some parts, but it is clear that that this this text text wa wass intens intensely ely discus discussed sed in philos philosoph ophica ically lly orient oriented ed circle circles. s. Philo’ Philo’s is so deeply steeped in Platonic thought that this work also De opicio mundi is belongs to the wider context of treatments of the Timaeus. It is an explicitly Jewish treatment of this text. In Legum allegoriae Philo not only left the controversial eld of cosmology behind, he also opened a new eld for his exegesis of the Pentateuch: he tran transfo sforme rmedd the Penta entate teuc uchh’s narr narrat ativ ivee into into a desc descri ripti ption on of the the soul. soul. This This topi topicc too was very popular during Philo’s lifetime. One should mention the Cebetis tabula (rst cent. ), a representation of the soul’s education as a picture. In addition, Plutarch interprets the sirens in the Odyssey as part of the soul (Quaest. conv. 9; Mor . 706d). This allegoresis was possibly known to Philo ( 3.3). 3.3). Further Furthermor more, e, in De antro 13.109–112 –112), ), Porph Porphyry yry cites cites antro nympha nympharum rum (on Od . 13.109 allegorical interpretations of this passage of the Odyssey by Numenius several times times (frg. (frg. 30–33 30–33). ). In Jewi Jewish sh trad tradit itio ion, n, the the auth author or of the the Letter Letter of Arist Aristeas eas used
Runi Runia, a, Tima Timaeu euss of Plato; Runia, Creation. Runia Runia does does not not go go so far far as as to ass assume ume this this.. On Phil Philo’ o’ss use use of the the Timaeus, see Runia, Timaeus of Plato, 365–552. Runi Runia, a, Tima Timaeu euss of Plato, esp. 485–497. Eudo Eudoru russ coul couldd havecom havecomme ment nted ed onthe Timaeus (Dillon, Middle Platonists,116,207[Runia, Timaeus of Plato, 499n136, n138 is doubtful about this]). On Calvenus Taurus, see John Philoponus, De aeternitate mundi 520.4 520.4 (in the edition by H. Rabe, Johannes Philoponus: De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum [2nd ed.; Hildesheim 1984]) and Dillon, Middle Platonists, 237–240, esp. 240. Runi Runia, a, Tima Timaeu euss of Plato, 497–505. Tobin (Creation, 150–154) 150–154) presumes presumes a Platonic Platonic allegoresis allegoresis of the Odyssey as a model of Philo’s allegoresis allegoresis of the soul. Tobin, Creation, 152. In the edition edition by des Places Places,, Numénius.
the allegory of the soul to interpret some special laws (128–171) and a small glim glimps psee of an alle allego gore resi siss of the the so soul ul in the the broa broade derr cont contex extt of an arit arithm hmol olog ogic ical al account of the hebdomas is given by Aristobulus ( 5.15). In Legum allegoriae Philo, no longer taking creation in general and the creation of man in particular as his starting point but the constitution of the soul, avoids the main exegetical problems posed by the creation account of Gen 2. He manages not only to bypass the Stoic connotations of πνεῦμα, interpreting Gen 2:7 as mind before being incorporated into the body and therefore dwelling in the intelligible sphere, rather than the realm of senseperc percept eptio ion— n—in inthe thein inte tellllig igib ible le spher spheree ther theree is no room room forth for thee Stoi Stoicc concep concepti tion on of a materialistic πνεῦμα. Philo also cleverly sidesteps the exegetical problems associated with the cultivation of paradise, the making of woman from the rib of Adam and the role played by the snake. It is my belief that Philo was not satised with the traditional interpretations of Genesis. Certainly he did not reject them outright, as the similarities of the three interpretations of Gen 2:7 show, show, but he modied the overall pattern of interpretation.
In the edition by Walter alter, “Frag “Fragmente mente jüdisch-helle jüdisch-hellenistisc nistischer her Exegeten. Exegeten.” My view implies implies,, that that Philo Philo wrote wrote Opif . and before Leg. But this is not sure. One could imagi imagine ne that that he bega begann with with psyc psycho holo logy gy in Leg.andcontinuedwithcosmologyin Opif .and . and .However,itseemstomemoreplausible,thatPhilobegantoexplainGenesisinamore lite litera rall mann manner er as in Opif .and . and and advanc advanced ed to a hermene hermeneuti utical cally ly more more elabor elaborat atee sta stage ge in Leg. Tobin (Creation, 143–144) presumes that Philo interpreted Gen 2:1–7 allegorically to correlate the account of the creation of man with that of the Fall, which had already been interpreted allegorically. allegorically. As my table shows, there are some exegetical patterns that are used by Philo in all three treatments of Gen 2:7. P. Steinmetz Steinmetz,, “Die Stoa bis zum zum Beginn Beginn der Kaiser Kaiserzeit zeit im Allgeme Allgemeinen: inen: Zenon von Kition, Kition, Kleanthes von Assos, Chrysipp von Soloi,” Soloi,” in Die hellenistische Philosophie (by M. Erler et al.; ed. H. Flashar; Flashar; vol. 4 of Grundriss Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike; ed. F. Ueberweg; 2 vols.; Basel 1994), 2:495–705. For πνεῦμα as a key term of Stoic phys physics ics,, see pp. pp. 534– 534–54 541,1, 570– 570–57 574, 4, 603– 603–60 608, 8, esp esp. 606– 606–60 608. 8. For πνεῦ πνεῦμα μα as a key key term term in Stoi Stoicc psychology, psychology, see pp. 608, 686–690. Source texts on th thee Stoa are available in A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley, eds., The Hellenistic Philosophers , Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary (Cambridge 1987), 319–323.
estament nt of On Anthropology and Honor in the Testame Job Robert A. Kugler Kugler
1
Introduction
In 2004 2004 Rich Richar ardd Rohr Rohrba baug ughh and and I argu argued ed that that the the prom promin inen ence ce of women omen in the the Testament of Job served the work’s larger purpose of commending to its audience dependence on ascribed honor from God rather than on honor acquired through their own efort. Two women in particular, Sitidos and the maidser vant, epitomized epitomized the futility of relying relying on acquired honor when circumstances did not allow one to accumulate it. And though the work’s date and provenanceremainsomewhatcontested,wesuggestedthecontextthatprovokedthe author’s narrative argument was the transition from Ptolemaic to Roman rule r ule in Egypt: under the Ptolemies Jews had the capacity to acquire considerable honor, but no more under the Romans, and if they were to nd any honoric sustenance for remaining true to their Jewish identity, it would have to be of the ascribed kind, and that from God. R. Kugler Kugler and R. Rohrba Rohrbaugh, ugh, “On Women Women and Honor Honor in the Testament of Job,” 14 (2004): 43–62. For other scholarship of the last half century and more on the Testament of Job, see, among others: J.J. Collins, “Structure and Meaning in the Testament of Job,” Seminar vols.; Cambri Cambridge dge,, Mas Mass., s., 1974), 1974), 1:35–52 1:35–52;; M. Delcor Delcor,, “Le Testament Papers, Papers, 1974 1974 (2 vols.; estamentde de Job,laprière de Nabonide et les traditions targoumiques,” in Bibel und Qumran: Beiträge zu Erforschung (ed. S. Wagner; Berlin 1968), 57–74; 57–74; der Beziehunge Beziehungenn zwischen zwischen BibelBibel- und Qumranwi Qumranwissen ssenschaf schaft t (ed. S. Garr Garret ett, t, “The “The ‘Wea ‘Weakker Sex’ Sex’ in the the Testament (1993):: 55–70 55–70;; P. Gray Gray, “Poin “Points ts and estament of Job,” 112 (1993) Lines: Thematic Parallelism in the Letter of James and the Testament of Job,” 50 (2004): 406–424;W.Gruen,“SeekingaContextforthe TestamentofJob,” 18(2009):163–179;C.Haas, “Job’ “Job’ss Perse Persever veranc ancee in the Testament estamentof of Job,”in Studiesonthe TestamentofJob(ed.M.A.Knibb and P.W. van der Horst; 66; Cambridge 1989), 117–154; P.W. van der Horst, “Images of Women in the Testament of Job,” in Studies on the Testament of Job (ed. M.A. Knibb and P.W. van der Horst; 66; Cambridge 1989), 93–116; I. Jacobs, “Literary Motifs in the Testament of Job,” 21 (1970): 1–10; H.C. Kee, “Satan, Magic and Salvation in the Testament of Job,” Seminar Papers, 1974 (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass., 1974), 1:53–76; B. Kierkegaard, “Satan in the Testament of Job: A Literary Analysis,” in Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation Interpretation and Transmission Transmission of Scripture Scripture (ed. C.A. Evans; 2 vols.; London 2004), 2:4–19; N. Klancher, “The Male Soul in Drag: Women-As-Job in the Testament of Job,” 19 (2010): 225–245; M.C. Legaspi, “Job’s Wives in the Testament of Job : A Note on the Synthesis of Two
© , , , , | : ./ ./ _ _
In this essay I add a signicant dimension to this argument: the testament’s distinction distinction between acquired acquired and ascribed honor also depends heavily on a contrast between a kind of anthropological monism held by most characters in the sto story ry and Job’ Job’s dualis dualistic tic anthro anthropol pology ogy.. Furtherm Furthermore ore,, Job’s Job’s underst understand anding ing of the intrinsic duality of the human being is the key to his concomitant appreciation of the dualistic cosmology that everyone else in the narrative accepts, but fails to fully value. While especially Job’s fellow kings and Sitidos languish in a unitary anthropology that compels them to hang their identity on the accouterments accouterments of honor acquired acquired in the earthly realm, Job grasps the two-part nature of the human being that makes possible ascribed honor’s sustaining power in the here-and-now by trusting in a heavenly heavenly future. We see the narrative’s case for this perspective in a series of passages including T. Job 20:1–3; 26:1–6; 35–38; 46–50.
2
Test Testame ament nt of Job Job 20 20:1 :1–3 –3:: The The Firs Firstt Epis Episod odee
A summary of the testament up to 20:1–3 sets the scene for the rst episode in the work’s elaboration and defense of a dualistic anthropology. anthropology. Job’s deathbed speech to his children born from a second marriage (to Dinah, daughter of Jacob), the testament testament begins with Job explaining that he sufered earlier earlier in life because he destroyed a local temple to save his neighbours from unwittingly worshipping Satan. As a consequence Satan gained charge over over his fate, but an Traditions,” 127(2008):71–79;R.Lesses,“AmuletsandAngels:VisionaryExperiencesinthe Hekhalot ot Liter Literatu ature, re,” in Heavenly Testament estamentof of Job and the Hekhal HeavenlyTTablets: ablets: Interpr Interpretat etation, ion, Identity Identityand and (ed. L.R. L.R. LiDo LiDonn nnici ici and and A. Lieb Lieber er;; JSJS JSJSup up 119; 119; Leide Leidenn 2007 2007), ), 50–7 50–74; 4; TraditioninAncientJudaism (ed. P. Machinist, “Job’s Daughters and Their Inheritance in the Testament of Job and Its Biblical Congeners Congeners,,” in TheEch The Echoes oesof of Many Many Texts: exts:Re Rele lecti ctions ons on Jewish Jewish and Christ Christian ianTr Tradi aditio tions: ns: Essay Essayss in Honor of Lou H. Silberman (ed. W.G. Dever and J.E. Wright; 313; Atlanta 1997), 67–80; M. Philon Philonenk enko, o, “Le TestamentdeJob et les Thérapeute Thérapeutes, s,”” Sem 8 (1958): (1958): 41–53; 41–53; D. Rahnen Rahnenfüh führer rer,, “Das Testament des Hiob und das Neue Testament,” 62 (1971): 68–93; B. Schaller, “Das 62 Testament Hiobs und die Septuaginta-Übersetzung des Buches Hiobs,” Bib 61 (1980): 377– 406; B. Schaller, “Zur Komposition und Konzeption des Testaments Hiobs,” in Studies on the Testament of Job (ed. M.A. Knibb and P.W. van der Horst; 66; Cambridge 1989), 46– 92; R. Spittler, “Testament of Job: A New Translation and Introduction,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Pseudepigrapha , Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York 1983), 829–868; R. Spittler, “The Testament of Job: A History of Research,” in Studies on the Testa estamen mentt of Job Job (ed. (ed. M.A. M.A. Knib Knibbb and and P.W. .W. van van der der Ho Hors rst; t; 66; 66; Camb Cambri ridg dgee 1989 1989), ), 7–32 7–32;; H.M. Wahl, “Elihu, Frevler oder Frommer?: Die Auslegung des Hiobbuches (Hi 32–37) durch ein Pseudepigraphon ( TestHi 41–43),” 41–43),” 25 (1994): 1–17. 25
ange angell from from God God prom promis ised ed Job Job a thro throne nein inhe heaaven, ven,aa name name of reno renown wn,, tw twic icee all all he lost lost back, back,an andd part partic icip ipat atio ionn in the the resu resurr rrect ectio ionn if he obedi obedien entl tlyy endu endure redd Sa Sata tann’s onslaught (chs. 1–5). Before attacking Job, Satan visited his home disguised as a beggar to mockingly take advantage of Job’s generosity. Although Job’s maidservant failed to recognize Satan, Job knew the visitor’s identity even without seeing him and instructed the servant to send Satan awa awayy emptyhanded, a command she disobeyed in order to protect her master’s acquired honor honor (chs (chs.. 6–8). 6–8). Chap Chapte ters rs 9–15 9–15 descr describ ibee Job’ Job’ss enorm enormous ous we weal alth th and and gene genero rosi sity ty as a measure of his acquired honor and concomitant losses to Satan while chs. 16–19 narrate the destruction of his fortune and his children. Throughout his losses Job remains steadfast, not complaining to anyone about his drastically changed circumstances. InviewofJob’spatientsufering,Satanisfrustrated:in20:1–2itissaidthatfor all all of his his efo efort rt he wa wass not not able able to prov provok okee Job’ Job’s cont contem empt pt (pre (presu suma mabl blyy for for God; God; οὐδὲν δύναται με εἰς ὀλιγωρίαν τρέψαι); so he asked God for Job’s body to plague it (ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμά μου παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἵνα ἐπενέγκῃ μοι πληγήν). In response to this Job expresses most clearly his dualistic self-understanding: “And then the Lord gave me into his hands, to use my body as he wished, but he did not give him power over my soul” (20:3 [καὶ τότε παρέδωκέν με ὁ κύριος εἰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ χρήσασθαι τῷ σώματι μου ὡς ἠβούλετο τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς μου οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ἐξουσ ἐξουσία ίαν] ν]). ). Ther Theree is litt little le doubt doubt rega regard rdin ingg Job’ Job’s meani meaning ng in this this.. He under understa stand ndss his being to be divisible into two distinct parts, body (σῶμα) and soul (ψυχή). On his view, they are so separable from one another as to permit the deep aiction of one part to not impact the other part. The assertion of a dualistic anthropology could hardly be clearer.
It is impo import rtan antt tonote tonote that that the the lang langua uage ge used used in the the text text for for the the nonnon-bo bodi dily ly part part of the the huma humann being is not consistent, one of the lexical “inconsistencies” that feeds some of the interest in sorting out sources in the testament (ψυχή: 3:5; 20:3; 26:2; 35:4; 52:2, 5, 10; καρδία: 12:1; 15:9; 17:1; 23:11; 24:6, 8; 25:10; 35:4; 36:2–3, 6; 38:1, 3; 43:11, 15; 47:8; 48:2; 49:1; 50:2); on the idea that more than one author was at work in creating the th e testament, see Schaller, Schaller, “Zur Komposition und Konzeption,” passim; and most recently, Kierkegaard, “Satan in the Testament of Job ,” passim. However, as some note, the changeable terms for that aspect of the human being may simply be another indication that the text is to be assigned to Egypt, where language for the seat of emotion and thought could vary, such as it does in this text (see, e.g., Gruen, “Seeking a Context,” 166). It is also plausible, though, that the writer simply varied uses as a matter of style, a possible explanation for lexical variety in ancient texts we often dismiss too easily.
3
Test Testame ament nt of Job Job 26:1 26:1–6 –6:: The The Seco Second nd Epis Episod odee
Testament of Job 20:4–25:10 tells the story of how Job, his body under Satan’s control, is aicted with plagues and withdraws in patient sufering to a dung heap outside of his city. From there he sees his wife lose all honor and status, being reduced to menial labor to earn barely enough to feed Job and herself. Finally she goes so far as to sell the hair of her head for a few morsels of bread to Satan who is disguised as a breadseller in the city’s marketplace. Having endured this deepest shame, she journeys to Job to report her complete fall from glory and urge him, as her counterpart in the canonical book of Job does, to say something against God and die (25:10; cf. Job 2:9). Job’s response to Sitidos’ appeal in 26:1–6 nuances his dualistic anthropology andputsitintoaction.Emphasizingontheonehandthebodilysuferinghehas endured, he replies to her: “Look! “Loo k! I have seventeen plague-lled years [behind me], submitting to the worms in my body” (26:1 [ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ δέκα ἑπτὰ ἔτη ἔχω ἐν ταῖς πληγαῖς ὑφιστάμενος τοὺς σκώληκας τοὺς ἐν τῷ σώματι μου]). And yet, says Job, “My soul has not been weighed down by my pains” (26:2 [οὐκ ἐβαρύθην τὴν ψυχήν μου διὰ τοὺς πόνους]). The clear separation between his body bod y and his soul that Job announced in 20:1–3 is now made graphically clear: Satan could do whatever he wanted to aict Job’s physical being, but his soul remained untouched. Furthermore, we learn from this passage that there is an intimate connec connection tion between between Job’s Job’stwotwo-par partt self-u self-unde ndersta rstandi nding ng and his special special virtue— virtue— endurance—for we hear Job urge Sitidos in 26:5 to be patient along with him (μακροθυμήσωμεν). It is dicult to say for sure that the text argues that the bipartite self is what makes endurance possible, but that conclusion is hard to avoid from this passage: Job’s argument here implies that the bipartite self is the natural state state of the human being; one only has to become aware of it to enjoy its benets such as he was able to as he endured his bodily sufering without being weighed down in heart or soul. The further consequence for him of his self-awareness was that he could remain secure in his identity as God’s possessionbyrelyingonthehonorascribedtohimbyGodinplaceofthehonor he had acquired through the use of his wealth.
Just as the languag languagee for the part of the the self that is not body body varies varies in the testament, testament, so also also does the language for patience and endurance. See ὑπομνή (1:5), καρτερέω, κασρτερία (4:10; 27:4), and μακροθυμέω, μακροθυμέω, μακροθυμία (11:10; 26:5; 27:7; 28:5; 35:4). This adds some force to the notion that the lexical variability here has more to do with stylistic choices than Egyptian inuence or multiple sources.
4
Test Testame ament nt of Job Job 35–3 35–38: 8: The The Thir Third d Epis Episode ode
Following the second episode just rehearsed, in ch. 27 Job relates his face-toface meeting with Satan and Satan’s Satan’s defeat in the ensuing agonistic encounter. Only then do Job’s fellow kings, Baldad, Eliphaz, Sophar, and Elihu, appear to lament his losses. After a slow, staged approach owing to the stench Job gave of from his years of sitting on the dung heap (chs. 28–31), Elihu makes a lamenting plea to know if the man they confront, though now bereft of all the accouterments of acquired honor, is the Job of great material wealth they once knew (ch. 32). Job replies by saying that he is that person, pe rson, but that they hardly needmournforhimbecausehisenduringkingdomisinheavenandfarexceeds anything earthly, not to mention their own terrestrial realms (ch. 33). Taking Job’s response as an afront, Eliphaz condemns him and makes makes to leave him to his sufering. Baldad’s insistence that they remain a little longer to explore the clarity of Job’s mind then introduces the third t hird episode. The exchange between Job and Baldad that dominates chs. 35–38 explicitly contrasts for the rst time Job’s dualistic anthropology and the unitary anthropologyoftheothercharactersinthenarrative,andithighlightshowtheformer type is superior when it comes to appreciating the corresponding value for the human of the two-part two-part cosmos and to nding in that the honor necessary necessary to sustain one’s identity in this world. In 35:4–5 Baldad starkly reveals his and his fellow kings’ monism. He tells Eliphaz that they ought to be patient with Job (μακροθυμήσωμεν) so they might gure out what his condition is: “Perhaps his heart is in confusion, perhaps he recalls his former wealth/happiness and he is insane relative to his soul?” (μήτι ἄρα ἐξέστη αὐτοῦ ἡ καρδία, μήτι ἄρα μιμνήσκεται αὐτοῦ τῆς εὐδαιμονίας τῆς προτέρας, καὶ ἐμάνη κατὰ ψυχήν). Baldad unequivocally links Job’s stability of heart and the sanity of his soul with his bodily wellbeing, and underlines the unitary tary natu nature re of his his anth anthro ropol polog ogyy by conti continu nuin ing: g: “Who “Who wo woul uldn dn’t’t be very very pani panick cked ed when he encounters bodily aictions?” (τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἂν ἐκπλάγη καὶ πάνυ τυγχάνων νων ἐν πλη πληγαῖς γαῖς). ). Ba Bald ldad ad reas reason onss as one one who who embr embrac aces es a monis monisti ticc anth anthro ropol polog ogy: y: aicted in body, body, one could only be assumed to fall into confusion of heart and soul since they are all of a piece. Another Another indicator indicator of the author’s author’s cleverness cleverness is assigning assigning to Baldad the admonition admonition that he and his colleagues “be patient.” The diference between what he and Job mean by the use of the same term (μακροθυμέω) can hardly be more stark: for the kings it is the ordinary sort entailed in not being angry with another person for arrogant, stupid, or ofensive behav behaviou iour; r; forJob for Job it is the elevate elevatedd sort sort that that invol involves vesendu endurin ringg human human sufer sufering ing withou withoutt comcomplaint.
Next, in chs. 36–38 Job and Baldad engage in a dialogue that nally brings the two anthropologies into direct contrast. First, in 36:2–3 Baldad asks Job if hisheart(καρδία)issoundandJobanswerswiththedualist’sresponse:hisheart is not not invo involv lved ed wi with th ea eart rthl hlyy thin things gs sinc sincee the the ea eart rthh and and thos thosee who who dwel dwelll in it are are unsta unstabl ble, e,bu butt “my “my hear heartt is invo involv lved ed wi with thhe heaavenl venlyy thin things gs forth for ther eree is no uphe upheaava vall in heaven” (ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις συνέστηκεν ἡ καρδία μου διότι οὐκ ὑπάρχει ἐν οὐρα οὐρανῷ νῷ ταρα ταραχή χή). ). Ba Bald ldad ad’’s repl replyy to Job Job adds adds the the last last elem elemen entt to the the port portra rait it of the the common common cosmolo cosmology gy and clashi clashing ng anthro anthropol pologi ogies es shared shared among among the chara characte cters rs that the narrative puts forth in this section: “We know the earth is unstable (ἀκατάστατον) … but as for heaven we hear that it remains stable (εύσταθεῖ)” (36:4–5). Having acknowledged acknowledged the duality of the cosmos, Baldad dismisses it as immaterial to the discussion at hand, by embarking on a line of questioning to determine if Job is in a stable condition, questioning that acknowledges no possibility that Job’s heart or soul might stand apart from the sufering of his body. They, Baldad says, want only to determine if Job is in stable condition (ἀά εἰ ἀληθῶς ἐν τῷ καθεστῶτι τυγχάνεις). And indeed, although the questions focus rst on the “divine logic” of his sufering in the fashion of the dialogues in the canonical book of Job, they quickly shift to the material world, as if to say that if Job can show a clear understanding regarding the physical cosmos, he must share in its stability. But to the challenge that he explain the reason the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and does so time and again, Job responds in exasperation at the dimwittedness of his interlocutor, interlocutor, challenging Baldad to provide an answer to his own question: why do food and water go into the body by the same opening but escape it from two diferent openings (38:3)? Baldad can provide no answer (38:4), and so Job dismisses him with a dualist’s rebuke: “If you do not understand the function of the body, how will you understand the heavenly matters?” (εἰ σὺ τὴν τοῦ σώματος πορείαν οὐ καταλαμβάνεις καταλαμβάνεις πῶς τὰ ἐπουράνια καταλάβῃ). Lastly, Sophar intervenes to unwittingly conrm Job’s judgment. He urges Job to calm down because they are “not investigating investigating the things beyond us, but [only] wish to know if you are in a stable stable condition within yourself” yourself ” (38:6 [οὐχι τὰ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς ἐρευνῶμεν ἀὰ βουλόμεθα γνῶναι ἐὰν ἐν τῷ σαυτοῦ καθεστῶτι ὑπάρ χεις]). To emphasize that they view the human being, and Job in particular, particular, in a moni monisti sticc fash fashio ion, n, he adds adds that that they they even even brou brough ghtt thei theirr king kingdom doms’ s’ phys physic icia ians— ns— who deal with the body—to heal him him (38:7). (38:7). Closing the passage passage and arming
See Gray, Gray, “Points “Points and Lines,” Lines,” 418, who rightly observes observes that, “Baldad “Baldad shows no surprise surprise or incomprehension at all when Job repeats his dualistic convictions about heaven and earth in 36.3.”
once again his own contrasting dualistic anthropology, Job rejects the ofer of medi medica call care care,, sayi saying ng:: “M “Myy heal healin ingg and and my trea treatm tmen entt are are from from the the Lo Lord rd who who crecreatedeventhephysicians”(38:8[ἡἐμὴἴασιςκαὶθεραπείαπαρὰκυρίουἐστίντοῦκαὶ τοὺς ἰατροὺς κτίσαντος]).
5
Test Testame ament nt of Job Job 46–5 46–50: 0: The The Fourt ourth h Epis Episod odee
The narrative between the episode just reviewed and the next one to concern us requires a brief summary. Job’s wife, Sitidos reappears to lament her dead children and her continuing deterioration. She also requests that the kings orde orderr thei theirr so sold ldie iers rs to dig dig out out the the rema remain inss of her her chil childr dren en from from the the buil buildi ding ng that that Satan caused to fall upon them and kill them so she might see to their proper burialandthefruitofherwombmightbehonoredatleastthatmuch(39:1–10). Job intervenes and tells the t he soldiers not to mount a search for the children’s remains and orders that he be raised up to look to the east. There he points out his children crowned with glory in the heavens (39:11–40:3). Seeing this, Sitidos is satised and returns to her resting place among the livestock of the man man who who had had beco become me her her mast master er in her her dest destit itut utee cond condit itio ion. n. Ther Theree she she dies dies and and is mourned by the beasts she dwelt with, as well as by the poor who were fed fromthetablesofherhusbandinhisdaysofearthlyglory(40:4–14).NextElihu speaks against Job and God rewards Job’s patience by restoring to him twofold of all that he lost. God forgives the kings, save save Elihu for their mistaken reading of Job’ Job’s condi conditi tion on,, and and Job Job reco recove vers rs.. Ha Havi ving ng compl complet eted ed his his story story,, Job Job dist distri ribu bute tess all of his material wealth as an inheritance to his sons, but none of it to his daughters (41:1–46:2a). This triggers the exchange that constitutes the fourth episode which illustrates the competing anthropologies in the testament. Chap Chapte ters rs 46–4 46–477 lay lay the the grou ground ndwo work rk for the the episod episode’ e’s main main point point,, that that gras grasppingone’sdualisticnatureanditsadvantagesforappreciatingthedualismofthe cosmos is a gift from God to the people of Israel. It does this in stages, beginning with a scene that proves the daughters to be oblivious to their duality at One might read in Sitidos’ Sitidos’ satised satised response response at seeing her children children in heavenly heavenly glory glory her own enlightenment to the dualistic nature of the human being, but there is no language in the text to indicate that to be true (unlike the situation as it pertains to Job’s daughters by Dinah; see below). be low). Moreover, Moreover, her sighting of her children only requires that she accept a dual dualist istic ic cosm cosmol olog ogyy, which which all all other other chara charact cter erss in the narr narrat ativ ivee do, do, and and in any any case case,, not not being being an Israelite by blood (Dinah’s daughters) or a convert who has proved her loyalty to the God of Israel (Job) the narrative seems to require that she be immune to such self awareness; for further on this, see below, and Kugler and Rohrbaugh, “On Women and Honor,” 61–62.
rst rst and that that permi permits ts Job to explai explainn that that the inheri inheritan tance ce he gives gives them them is is God’ God’ss gift of insight into their own (dual) nature. Job’s daughters, Hemera, Kassia, Amaltheias-keras, object to their father’s father ’s failure to grant them any goods that might sustain their bodies, Job promises them an inheritance better than anythin thingg thei theirr broth brothers ers rece receiv ived ed,, and and at his his comma command nd He Hemer meraa goes goes and and retr retrie ieve vess a box box wi with th cord cordss in it. it. He Heco comm mman ands ds them them to plac placee the the cord cordss arou around nd thei theirr brea breast stss (46:2–8). (46:2–8). Seeing the cords, cords, Kassia Kassia complains again that these ofer no sustenance: she voices the concerns of someone who does d oes not yet grasp the duality of her human nature, someone who like the kings in discussion with Job see human fulllment only in terms of what feeds the body (47:1). Job’s response, though, reveals the unique character of the cords. He explains that they are what God gave gave him when w hen God commanded him to gird up his loins to hear a reply to his indictment of God, and that the cords brought to him complete relief of his bodily ailment, but even more, “release from the sorrows of my heart” (47:2–10 [τῶν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου ὀδυνῶν λήθην]; cf. Job 38:3). He then urges his daughters to bind themselves with the cords quickly so that they are able to see “those who are coming for my departure, so that you may marvel at the creatures of God” (47:11). So not only do the cords grant physical healing—that healing—that isagiven,itseems—theyalsomakethehumanpersonawareofherdualnature and able in turn to see the reality (and signicance) of the dual cosmos. The next step in this episode entails the daughters girding themselves with the cords as commanded by their father and experiencing changed hearts— they become irreconcilably aware of their dual, not monistic, nature. The language describing the change gradually makes the point that the women’s self-understanding is radically altered. Hemera is rst. When she wraps w raps herself in the cord she “received another heart so that she no longer thought about earthly things” (48:2 [ἀνέλαβεν ἄην καρδίαν ὡς μηκέτι φρονεῖν τὰ τῆς γῆς]), and chants verses in the language of the angels, a hymn to God like the ones sung by angels (48:3–4). Kassia’s Kassia’s transformation is more precisely dened: she “had her heart changed so that she was no longer anxious about worldly things” (49:1 [ἔσχεν τὴν καρδίαν ἀοιωθεῖσαν ὡς μηκέτι ἐνθυμηθῆναι τὰ κοσμικά]); and she received the dialect of the “archons,” with the consequence being that if one wants to know the “creation of the heavens” the “Hymns of Kassia” are the place to go. Finally, when Amaltheias-keras takes on her cord the text reports that “her heart also was changed by withdrawing from worldly things” See Lesses, Lesses, “Amulet “Amuletss and Angels, Angels,”” passim, for a thoughtful treatment of the relationship betw betwee eenn the the use use of amul amulets ets in late laterr He Hekh khal alot ot lite litera ratu ture re and and the Gree Greekk magi magica call papy papyri ri and and the the cordsin T.Job 48–50. 48–50. Les Lesses ses argues argues to place place the tes testam tament ent in the stream stream of visiona visionary ry litera literatur turee that goes from 1 Enoch Enoch to the later works of Jewish mysticism.
(50:1 [καὶ αὐτῆς ἡ καρδία ἠοιοῦτο ἀθισταμένη ἀπὸ τῶν κοσμικῶν]), and that she spoke in the dialect of the cherubim, glorifying God, “the master of virtues,” by showing their splendor. Thus the text explains that if one wants to know the poetic rhythm of “the paternal splendor” it is necessary only to look to the “Prayers of Amaltheias-keras” (50:2–3). As we have seen, the progression of reportsofthedaughtersdonningthecordsnarrowsandintensiesthefocuson the the chan change geab abililit ityy of the the daug daught hter ers’ s’ hear hearts ts wi with th the the resu result lt bein beingg thei theirr embra embrace ce of a dual dualis isti ticc anth anthro ropo polo logy gy and and a conc concom omit itan antt close closerr al alia iati tion on wi with th the the hea heavenl venly y realm and its realia: God bestows upon them their fresh self-understanding and with it comes their shared appreciation with their father of the value of a dualistic anthropology, a self-understanding that permits them to trust in the honor ascribed to them by God as sustenance in their Jewish identity.
6
Concluding Remarks
The evidence seems clear: the testament’s distinction between acquired and ascribed honor that Rohrbaugh and I delineated in 2004 depends heavily he avily on a contr contras astt betwe between en a kind kind of anth anthro ropo polo logi gica call moni monism sm held held by most most char charac acte ters rs in the story and Job’s dualistic anthropology. anthropology. Further, Job’s understanding of the intr intrin insi sicc dual dualit ityy of the the huma humann bein beingg is the the key to his his appr apprec ecia iati tion on of the the dual dualis is-ticcosmologythateveryoneelseinthenarrativeaccepts,butfailstovaluefully. Indeed, the concludi concluding ng episode episode in the testamen testamentt puts an an exclama exclamation tion point on its its commi commitme tment nt to a dual dualis isti ticc anth anthro ropo polo logy gy,, and and the the rewa reward rd that that comes comesto totho those se who embrace it and its bearing on satisfaction with ascribed honor. honor. Job’s soul is carriedtoheavenbytheheavenlyonewhilehisbodyremainstobeburied,and only he and his daughters—the only characters in the narrative fully aware aware of their dual nature—discern his passage between the two parts of the cosmos, and the honor it ascribes to him for having persevered in loyalty to God (52:1– 11). Van Van der Horst, “Images “Images of Women,” Women,” 105, says that their changed hearts amount to a transmistransmission of the organ organ from earth to heaven, heaven, but that is to overlook overlook the nuance nuance in the text: the daughters simply now recognize the dualistic anthropology that is natural to them, as does Job, and they are able to live peaceably in the earthly realm in anticipation of the heavenly one; an appreciation of one’s own dualistic anthropology empowers one to appreciate the true value of the commonly acknowledged cosmic dualism. In our article article Rohrbaugh Rohrbaugh and I argue argue that this privilege privilege is given to the daughters daughters precisely precisely because they are descendants of Israel. God ascribes honor to the faithful of Israel; see n. 6 above.
Does this add anything to our general understanding of the testament, especially relative to the contested question of its date and provenance? While it hardly settles the matter regarding the generative context for the work, that we see in this further evidence of its chief concern to to privilege ascribed honor overacquiredhonorandtodosoaroundthemesofsuddenlossofstatus,honor, andprivilegesurelypointsinthedirectionofthesecondhalfoftherstcentury when when Egyp Egypti tian an Jews Jews we were re adju adjust stin ingg to the the dimi dimini nish shed ed oppor opportun tunit itie iess Roma Romann rule ofered them. Few other contexts posited for the Testament of Job t such interests as well as that one.
Least of all just after after the disaster disaster that befell the Jewish Jewish community community in in Egypt Egypt in 115–117 115–117, , as suggested most recently by Gruen, “Seeking a Context,” passim. A narrative argument for perseverance buoyed by reliance on ascribed honor directed to what was by 117 a practically non-existent community that had no status at all seems pointless at best, and cruel at worst.
Chri Christ st As Cr Crea eattor: or: Paul’ aul’ss Esch Eschat atol olog ogic ical al Readi eading ng of Gen 2:7 in 1 Cor 15:45 Reinhard Reinhard Feldmeier Feldmeier
Introduction
As we shall shall see in this contribution, in Paul’s Paul’s reading of Gen 2:7, Christ is identied with God’s own live-giving spirit. First, I will w ill argue that this close association of Christ and God is no exception in Paul’s theology and Christology. In section one, I will show that this already happened in the famous pre-Pauline hymn which Paul included in his letter to the Philippians, and in which Christ is giv given the the name name of “Lor “Lord” d”,, i.e. i.e. he is inv investe estedd wi with th God’ God’ss ow ownn Name Name,, Yhwh Yhwh.. And And in section two, I shall continue by arguing that Christ’s participation in God’s power as ruler of the whole world also extends to his participation in God’s creation at the beginning. Subsequently, Subsequently, in section three, t hree, I will then introduce issues pertaining to 1 Cor 15, in which Paul develops his reading of Gen 2:7. His actual understanding, then, of Gen 2:7 is the topic of section four and ve.
1
The Renaming of the Divine in the New Testament: God As Father, Jesus As Lord
The The famou famouss hymn hymn in Paul’ aul’ss Le Lett tter er to the the Phil Philip ippi pian anss desc descri ribes bes how how Chri Christ st Jesu Jesuss “did not regard his equality to God as something to be exploited” but humbled himself, taking the form of a slave and “became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2:6–8). In turn “God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus everykneeshouldbend,inheavenandonearthandundertheearth,andevery tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:9–11). There is a remarkable renaming of the divine, and this in a hymn, that is considered by most exegetes as a pre-Pauline tradition. In other words, only a
Cf. E. Lohmeyer Lohmeyer,, Kyrios Kyrios Jesus: repr., Darm Jesus: Eine Eine Unters Untersuch uchung ung zu Phil. Phil. 2,5–11 2,5–11 (Heidelberg 1928; repr., stadt 1962), 4–10; most exegetes did follow Lohmeyer cf. U.B. Müller, Der Brief des Paulus an (2ndd ed.; ed.; 11.1; 11.1; Leip Leipzig zig 2002 2002), ), 92–9 92–95; 5; N. Walte alterr, E. Rein Reinmu muth, th, and and P. Lampe Lampe,, die Philippe Philipper r (2n
© , , , , | : ./ ./ _ _
few years after his death on the cross the Galilean craftsman Jesus of Nazareth is not only called Christ, that is, Messiah, but also praised by his believers as Kyrios Kyrios. Kyrios is the common translation in the Septuagint of the proper name of the God of Israel, of the Tetragram Yhwh. When the hymn states that the name Kyrios given to Jesus is “the name that is above every name” it clearly indicates that God gives Jesus nothing less than his own name. Interestingly, that does not diminish God’s glory. glory. On the contrary, contrary, the hymn closes with the phra phrase se that that this this all all happ happen enss “to “to the the glor gloryy of God God the the Fathe atherr.” It also also puts puts forw forwar ardd God’s new name, that is, “Father.” This last phrase may not seem unusual at rst sight since we are used to invoking invoking God as Father, but speaking of God as Father is quite uncommon for f or the Old Testament. The statistics show that God’s proper name Yhwh is used almost 7,000 times and the appellative Elohim about 2,800 times, whereas the metaphor Father is used for God only fteen times. The Old Testament seems deliberately to avoid calling God “Father” in contrast to the surrounding cultures (Mesopotamia as well as Ugarit and Egypt). In the New Testament, however, the human being Jesus of Nazareth is called Kyrios Kyrios, whereas God is called “Father.” This has enormous consequences for the way God is conceived in the New Testament. But let me come back to the topic of the present sections, which is not theology theology in the strict sense but Christology Christology,, or more precisely precisely Christ’s Christ’s having been given “the name that is above every name.”
2
sessio ad dexter dexteram am and Its Conseq Christ’s sessio Consequen uences ces
The statement that Jesus is given “the name above every name” is followed by the conclusion “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in hea heaven ven and and on ea earth rthan andd under under the the ea eart rth. h.”” This This indi indica cate tess that that Chri Christ’ st’s rena renami ming ng with God’s name also implies that he is now participating in God’s power as ruler of the whole world. One might even e ven say Jesus now shares with his Father divine omnipotence. This is the meaning of Christ’s exaltation to the right trans. and comm., Die Briefe an die Philipper, Thessalonicher ( 8.2; GötGötThessalonicher und an Philemon ( tingen 1998), 56–58. Cf. O. Hous Hous,, Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6–11: Untersuchungen zu Gestalt und Aussage eines urchristlichen Psalms ( 17; Tübingen 1976), 41–55. Cf. R. Feldmeier Feldmeier and H. Spieckermann Spieckermann,, Der Gott der Lebendigen: Eine biblische Gotteslehre ( 1; Tübingen 2011); published in English: The God of the Living: A Biblical Theology (translated by Mark E. Biddle; Waco, Waco, : : Baylor University Press, 2011).
hand of God, the so-called sessio ad dexteram, that can be found in many New Testament writings (from the Synoptic Gospels to Revelation). Confessing Christ as Son of God at the right hand of God means that Christ is part of the divine world and that he—as Son—belongs to God the Father. Through this relation he himself can be called “God,” especially in the Gospel of John (John 1:1, 18; 20:28), but also in Hebrews (Heb 1:8). As a result of his exaltation Jesus Christ is acting as God acts in the Old Testament. One example is the Final Judgment. There are still some texts in the the New Testa estame ment nt wher wheree the the day day of doom doom is asso associ ciat ated ed wi with th God, God, but but in man many texts it is Jesus who is the judge (recall the most famous scene in Matt 25:31– 46 where the Son of Man coming in his glory separates the people gathered before him like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats according to their behaviour towards one of the least with whom he identies himself). In the New Testament Testament the judge can palpably be either God or his son, and there does not always seem to be a strict diferentiation between the judgment of the Son and the judgment of the Father, as can be seen in Paul where God (cf. Rom 14:10) or Jesus Christ (2Cor 5:10) can sit on the judgment seat. (In passing,ImightaddthatthistransferoftheFinalJudgmenttoJesusintheNew TestamentisreectedintheCreedwhereitisattributedtoChristandtherefore listed in the second article.) Christ as Kyrios, however, is not only the Omega but also the Alpha of the world, i.e., he is also confessed as one who took part in the act of creation (often in implicit or explicit collaboration with his father—Christ’s so-called ). This can be seen in forms of the Creed where Christ Schöpfungsmittlerschaft ). is confessed as the one through whom everything exists (like God out of whom everything exists; cf. 1Cor 8:6). There are also texts that call Christ explicitly the one through whom all things came into being. In Col 1:15–17, for example, a pupil of Paul writes: HeistheimageoftheinvisibleGod,therstbornofallcreation,for inhim all all thin things gs in hea heaven ven and and on eart earthh wer were crea create ted d , things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. Col 1:15–17
Cf. Mark 12:36 (par. (par. Matt 22:43–44; Luke Luke 20:42–43); Mark 14:62 (par. (par. Matt 26:64; Luke Luke 22:69); Acts 2:33; 5:31; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20–22; Phil 2:9–11; Col 3:1; 1 Pet 3:22; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; Rev 5:6, 13.
Almost the same is said in John’s John’s Prologue about the divine Logos who then “became esh and lived among us” (John 1:14): All things came into being ( John 1:3). In John’s John’s thr through ough him, him, and and with withou outt him him not not one one thin thingg came came into into bein beingg (John PrologueJesusas Logos isidentiedwiththedivinewordofthecreation:“Then God said: ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Gen 1:3), or as Ps 33:9 says: “For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, comm anded, and it stood rm. r m.”” This connection of creation and Christology can already be found in Paul’s letters. For him it becomes a decisive argument when he defends his belief in resurrectio resurrectionn in 1 Cor 15.
3
Firs Firstt Cori Corin nthi thians ans 15: 15: The The Corin orinth thia ian ns’ Deni enial of Resur esurrrecti ection on and and Paul’ aul’ss Resp Respon onse se to It
In 1Cor 15 Paul has to deal with the topic of the resurrection of the dead because this was denied by the Corinthians, as can be seen from his question in 1Cor 15:12: “How can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” It is not absolutely clear what is meant by this phrase. From 1Cor 15:29 (the baptism on behalf of the dead) it seems that the Corinthians did not deny altogether an existence after death. It seems rather unlikely that the whole community of Corinth became Christians thanks to Paul’s Paul’s preaching without believing in something like a world hereafter. hereafter. It looks as if it was the idea of a corporeal resurrection resurrection that did not make sense to the Corinthians and thus was denied. At least, this seems to be the problem behind Paul’s diatribe in 1Cor 15:35: “How are the dead raised? With what body do they come?” The The apost apostle le insi insists sts on the the corp corpor orea eall resu resurr rrec ecti tion on (σῶμ (σῶμαα occur occurss in 1 Co Corr 15:3 15:35– 5– 44 no less than nine times). For him the Christian message deals not only with the the salv salvat atio ionn of so soul ulss (and (and the the rest restof of the the crea creati tion on isno is noth thin ingg but but wa wast ste) e) but but wi with th the liberation of creation. This may be seen in Rom 8:18–22. Only a corporeal resurrection guarantees a real redemption, a renewal of creation as a whole. In 1Cor 15 Paul calls Christ the “last Adam,” thus making it clear that the topic of resurrection is linked with that of creation. Paul’s argumentation in 1Cor 15 consists of two sections. In the rst section he shows that the fact of the resurrection cannot be separated from the Christian kerygma because the denial of resurrection would destroy d estroy Christian belief and hope altogether: “If for this life only we have hoped in Christ we are of all people most to be pitied” (1Cor 15:19). In the second part of his argumentation Paultriestoanswerthequestion“Howarethedeadraised?”whichis—asnoted above— above—pro probab bably ly the decisiv decisivee questi question on for the Corinth Corinthian ians. s. In this this section section Paul Paul
deals with Christ as Creator and it is this section that I largely concentrate on in the following passage. Before I do that, however, I want to draw attention to a verb that is crucial for Paul’s argumentation here, the verb ζῳοποιεῖν.
4
ζῳοποιεῖ ιεῖν As an Expression of God’s d’s Creating and Recreating Activity
The verb ζῳοποιεῖν is creation language. In the creation story it is God’s breath that gives life to the rst human being made out of dust. Therefore in the Old Testament estament God’s God’s activity can be described described as life-giving life-giving.. In the it occurs as translation of the Hiphil or Piel of mostly with God as subject. Only God can “give death or life” (2Kgs [4Kgdms] 5:7). “You have revived me again (ἐζῳοποίησας με) from the depths of the earth,” the man or woman in Ps 71:20 [ [ 70:20] confesses, and and in Neh 9:6 Ezra praises God: You You are the Lord, you alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the sea and all that is in them. To To all of them you give life (σὺ ζῳοποιεῖς τὰ τὰ πάντα; cf. 2Esd 2 Esd 19:6), and the host of o f heaven worships you. Neh 9:6
As creator God G od also becomes the reason for the eschatological hope in early Judaism. As the giver of life to everything, as ζῳοποιῶν τὰ πάντα, God is addressed in Joseph and Aseneth ( Jos. Asen. 8:9; 12:1; 12:1; cf. 2 Esd 19:6), 19:6), and in the same book he is also confessed as ζῳοποιῶν τοὺς νεκρούς ( Jos. Asen. 20:7), as the one who gives life to the dead. This seems to have become a liturgical phrase; it is used in Hebrew four times in the second benediction of the Shemoneh Esre where God is invoked invoked as the mhayye mhayyehh metim metim, as the one “who makest the dead alive.” Paul clearly takes over this Jewish tradition when he says in Rom 4:17 that Abraham believed in the God: “who gives life to the dead (ζῳοποιῶν τοὺς νεκρούς) and calls into existence the things that do not exist.” exist.” Again, the immediate connection of protology and eschatology should be noted, the foundation of the hope of resurrection in the belief in God as creator. We have a striking parallel to that in 2Macc 7, the story of the seven brothers who became martyrs under Antiochus Epiphanes, where the mother comforts and exhorts her last son with the eschatological hope based on the creatio ex nihilo:
Ibegyou,mychild,tolookattheheavenandtheearthandseeeverything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being. Do not fear this butcher b utcher,, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s God ’s mercy I may get you back again along with your brother. 2 Macc 7:28–29 7:28–29
For the mother of the seven brothers, as well as for Paul’s Abraham, that God created this world out of nothing is a reason to believe that he is also able to bring to life again those who were annihilated by death. Therefore, in the end there is the hope that death (which is not part of the creation, as the Wisdom of Solomon explicitly states, but came through the envy of the devil [Wis 2:24] or—a or—ass Paul aul says says—i —iss a resu result lt of the the fall fall of the the rs rstt Adam Adam)— )—is is itse itself lf anni annihi hila latted. ed.
5
The “Last Adam” As the “Life-G e-Giving Spirit”: Christ As Creator
This annihilation of death in an act of reconquest of the fallen creation by Christ is described in 1Cor 15:23–28. In the introductory verses, i.e., 1Cor 15:21– 22, Paul uses for the rst time in this chapter the word ζῳοποιεῖν: “For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being, for as all die in Adam, so all will be made (ζῳοποιηθήσονται) in Christ.” Christ.” Christ is here proled as the counterpart, the alive (ζῳοποιηθήσονται) antithesis, to Adam, the rst human being created by God. Whereas Adam’s fall fall destr destroy oyed ed life life and and brou brough ghtt deat deathh to crea creati tion on Chri Christ st brin brings gs life life by destr destroy oyin ingg death, as the following verses show, where the reconquest of the creation culminates in v. v. 26: “The “ The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” In the second half of this chapter Paul picks up again the verb ζῳοποιεῖν— now explicitly referring to its duality as the language of creation and of new crea creati tion on.. Paul’ aul’s rs rstt answ answer er to the the ques questi tion on of how how the the dead dead are are rais raised ed and and wi with th which body they come refers to the natural natural process of growth: growth: Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what you sow, sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, be , but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some so me other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body bod y. 1 Cor 15:36–38 15:36–38
The way in which Paul refers to the process of growth here—that a bare seed rst dies before the new plant comes out of it—is something that can also be
read read in Plut Plutar arch ch’’s writ writin ings gs ( Ex commentariis .]).Onecould commentariis in Hesiodum 84 [ Mor .]).Onecould say Paul’s argumentation according to the scientic standards of his time is up to date. When, however, he puts this into words, “What you sow does not come to life unless it dies,” he reformulates this (so to speak scientic) insight of his time from the perspective of his theology of the cross. To die is now the necessaryconditionforanewlife,whichisgivenbyGod,asisagainmadeclear from the word ζῳοποιεῖται. The quoted English translation “come to life” is not very clear, clear, because ζῳοποιεῖται ζῳοποιεῖται in the Greek text is a so-called passivum divinum, a passive form referring to God’s Go d’s activity. activity. This is a Jewish way to avoid naming GoddirectlythatoccursquiteoftenintheNewTestament.Inthequotedverse as in the following verses it refers to God’s ongoing creative activity, activity, as can be clearlyseenfromPaul’sexplanationinv.38,whereGodasgiverofthenewbody isexplicitlynamed(“ButGodgivesitabodyashehaschosen,andtoeachkind of seed its own body”). What we would call a natural process is interpreted by Paul as showing that creation presents a God who is constantly transforming dead seed into a new form of life. In passing I note that Paul (like the whole New Testament) Testament) avoids speaking of natu nature re beca becaus usee the the Gree Greekk wo word rd φύσι φύσιςς like like its its La Lati tinn equi equiva vale lent nt natura implies the—more or less self-contained—reproduction of life that is not compatible with the biblical thought of God’s ongoing ongoing creativity. creativity. For Paul, Paul, therefore, what is happening every day in the physical world, the transformation of o f death into life by the life-giving life- giving Creator, Creator, is exactly what he says is going to happen at the resurrection of the dead: Soitiswiththeresurrectionofthedead.Whatissownisperishable,what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. body. 1 Cor 15:42–44 15:42–44
ThishappensthroughChrist,whoasthe“lastAdam”iscontrastedwiththerst Adam: Thus it is written: “The rst man, Adam, became a living being,” the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is rst but the physical, and then the spiritual. The rst man was made from earth, a
Cf. J. Jeremia Jeremias, s, Die Verkündigung Jesu (vol. 1 of Neutestamentliche Neutestamentliche Theologie; ed. J. Jeremias; 2nd ed.; Gütersloh 1973), 20–24.
man of dust: the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven. heaven. 1 Cor 15:45–49 15:45–49
In this reference to the biblical creation story (or better: to both creation stories) Paul is probably using here an exegesis of Alexandrian Judaism where the two creations of man in Gen 1 and 2 are interpreted as the creation of two diferent men. The rst creation is for Philo, in the tradition of Platonic philosophy, the divine idea of Adam ( Opif . 69), whereas the second creation reported in Gen 2:7 “shows very clearly that there is a vast diference between the man thus formed and the man that came into existence earlier after the image of God” (Opif . 134). The “individual man” created in Gen G en 2:7 is a composite made up of earthly substance and divine breath: for it says that the body was made through the Articer taking clay and moulding out of it in a human form, but that the soul was originated from nothing created whatever, whatever, but from the Father and Ruler of all: for fo r that which he breathed in was nothing else than a divine d ivine breath (πνεῦμα θεῖον). Opif . 135
For Philo it is this divine breath or spirit by which the invisible part of human beings takes part in the divine immortality immort ality (ἀθανατίζεται; Opif . 135). PaulcouldhavecomeincontactwiththatexegesisthroughApollos,an“educated Alexandrian Jew, Jew, mighty in the t he scriptures,” scriptures,” as Luke describes him in Acts 18:24, and whom according to Acts 19:1 Paul met in Corinth and mentions several times in this First Letter to the Corinthians. Probably inuenced by that kind of exegesis Paul distinguishes two Adams, and he combines double creation with the thought that it is the divine breath that gives immortality to human beings. Paul’s argumentation, however, is not protological but eschatological: the rst Adam is the one that is doomed to death whereas Christ is the last Adam. Thus he is the antithesis of the rst Adam because the rst one For For a description description of Phil’s interpr interpretatio etationn of Gen 1–2, see the essay of Beatrice Wyss, Wyss, “From “From Cosmogony to Psychology,” in this volume. Especia Especiallyin llyin First First Corint Corinthia hians ns there there are are also also similar similaritie itiess between betweenPhi Philo’ lo’s andPa and Paul’ ul’s anthro anthropol pol-ogy:cf.G.H.vanKooten, Paul’s Anthropologyin Anthropology in Context:The Context: The Imageof Image of God, Assimilationto Assimilation to God, ( 232; 232; and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity Christianity ( Tübingen 2008), 274–275.
was only a living living being whereas Christ is identied with God’s God’s own live-giving spirit, now in an eschatological sense as bringer of an everlasting life beyond death. In 2Cor 5:17 Paul states explicitly that the new existence “in Christ” is “new creation.” This new creation (cf. also Gal 6:14–15) has enormous consequences. In the described act of eschatological transformation through resurrection of the dead all the qualities in religions that characterize characterize the divine sphere sphere in contras trastt to the the huma humann spher sphere—i e—imm mmort ortal alit ityy, glory glory,, and and powe power— r—ar aree here here no long longer er used used for for God God but but for for thos thosee who who were ere tra trans nsfo form rmed ed int into “th “the imag mage of the the man man of hea heaven ven” (v. (v. 49). 49). Ther Therefo efore re,, lik like Chri Christ st,, “the “the man man of hea heaven, ven,” those those who who are are tran transsformed into his image take part in what one might call God’s own essence. Although the rst Adam caused death because he did not resist the temptation tion of the the sn snak akee to beco become me lik like God God and and ther theref efor oree diso disobe beyyed God’ God’ss comm comman and, d, now mankind is redeemed by Christ, who “did not regard his equality to God as something to be exploited” but humbled himself, taking the form fo rm of a slave and “became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2:6– 8).Asthe Kyrios he beca became me God’ God’s live live-gi -givi ving ng spir spirit it,, tran transfo sformi rming ng those those who who are are doomed to die into a new imago imago dei , the celestial existence of those who “bear theimageofthemanofheaven.”ThenalrenewalofcreationbythelastAdam will be exactly that. Paul’ aul’ss duali dualism sm is not not an anth anthro ropo polo logi gica call one one in the the sens sensee that that it exis exists ts wi with thin in the the huma humann bein being, g, betw between een body body and and soul soul or sens sensua ualility ty and and reas reason on or what whatev ever er.. Paul does not distinguish diferent parts within a human being. It is what one could perhaps call a dualism of relationship. Whether one exists “in Christ” or not has enormous consequences for the human being: who is living “in Christ” is destined to be transformed by the last Adam to an everlasting existence and will bear the image of the heavenly man whereas those who do not, only bear the image of the earthly man and will therefore die like the rst Adam. ParticularlywhenitcomestoethicsPaulusestheantagonismofspiritandesh or more precisely the antagonism between living according to the spirit and living according to the esh. In the present present time this is already already true of God’s God’s holiness and and justice. Therefore Therefore one one might consider whether according to Second Corinthians there is a “gradual transformation into God’s image, Christ” starting already now (cf. ( cf. van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology, 305).
Anthropological Anthropological Views in Nag Hammadi: The Bipa Bi part rtit itee and and Tri ripa part rtit itee Conc Concep epti tion onss of Huma Human n Being Lautaro Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta
1
Introduction
Gnostics are often credited by modern scholarship to have held very diverging opinions both on the soul and the soul-body relationship. Expressions such as “bewildering variety” or “great divergence” are frequently used, not always without disdain, to describe the anthropological views we nd in Gnostic texts. Admittedly, Admittedly, behind this modern approach one still hears echoes of the old antiheretical claim that while truth is singular, falsehood has many forms. Based on the Greek Greek dist distin inct ctio ionn betwe between en aletheia and doxa, whic whichh allo allots ts so soun undn dnes esss to unity and disorder to diference, the argument has an obvious rhetorical force. So much so that it was also used by pagans against Christians with a view to ridiculing Christian views on the soul, even though in paganism one nds the same same va vari riet etyy of conc concep epti tion ons. s. As a matt matter er of fact fact,, anci ancien entt view viewss on the the so soul ul we were re so divergent that we possess several doxographical summaries that intended to bring some order to this varied whole: Aristotle, Cicero, Aetius, Tertullian, Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Nemesius all provide overviews of the numerous opinions on the soul held in their time.
See, See, e.g., e.g., A.H.B A.H.B.. Loga Logan, n, Gnosti Gnosticc Truth ruth andChr and Christ istian ian Heres Heresy: y: A Study Study in the Histor Historyy of Gnosti Gnosticis cism m (Edinburgh 1996), 168. Iren Irenae aeus us,, Haer . 1.9–11; 22; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.108.1–2. On the issue in i n the context of anti-heretical literature and more precisely on Irenaeus’ strategies against his adversaries, see K.L. King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge (Cambridge 2003), 20–54. Cels Celsus us (apud Origen, Origen, Cels. 8.49) ridiculed this variety of denominations. As an example of this diversity, see, e.g., the heresiologists’ interpretation of the nature of the Gnostic “divine spark” (ψυχαῖος σπινθήρ; scintilla animae), namely the portion of the intelligible light in man. Whereas in some testimonies it is interpreted as a reference to the soul or to the πνεῦμα (“spirit”; see Irenaeus, Haer . 1.13.3; Satornil apud Epiphanius, Epiphanius, Pan. 37.4.1–3; 37.4.1–3; Clement of Alexandria, Exc. 1.3; 3.1, who identies ide nties it in 53.5 as ἡ λογικὴ οὐράνια ψυχή [“rational soul”]), according to others this spark is clearly identied with the νοῦς (“intellect”; see Hippolytus, Haer . 5.19.13–17; 10.11.7–10, esp. 10.11.10, where the σπινθήρ is explicitly explained with νοῦς). Arist Aristotl otle, e, De an. 406a–411b; Cicero, Tusc. 1.19f.; Aetius, De placitis reliquiae 4.2–3 (in the
© , , , , | : ./ ./ _ _
Indeed, there was diversity of opinion not only concerning the nature of the soul, but also its character or condition and its position within the human being.Astoitsnature,thesoulwaseitherdeemedtobedivineorsimplymortal. As regards its condition, in addition to the view of the soul as incorporeal and not a substance held by Aristotelians, until the rst century a rather materialist view of the soul seems to have reigned, conceiving of it as either as re re,, brea breath th,, in inam amed ed air air, hear heart, t, brai brain, n, or bloo blood. d. From rom the the star startt of the the Co Comm mmon on Era,however,oneseesawideacceptanceofthePlatonicconceptionofthesoul as an immaterial substance. As regards its relationship to the body, positions were as varied as in both previous cases, and as an example of the complexities surrounding the issue, it is sucient to mention the variety of views one nds in Plato. As has been pointed out, the Corpus Corpus platonicum platonicum ofers a wide range of views on the soul-body relationship which are not necessarily from diferent periods of Plat Plato’ o’ss life life. . Dial Dialog ogue uess from from the the so-ca so-calllled ed So Socr crat atic ic peri period od prov provide ide up to three three diferent conceptions. While in Charmides Socrates defends a monistic view of man, according to which soul and body form an indissoluble union as the part and the whole, Alcibiades i presents presents a moderate kind of dualism, since the body is seen as an instrument of the soul. The Gorgias in turn includes the famous dualistic conception of Pythagorean origin according to which the body is the grave of the soul. If we add to these opinions those expressed
editionofH.Diels, Doxographi [Berlin 1879; 1879; repr., repr., Berlin 1965], 1965], 386–389); 386–389); Tertullian, ertullian, Doxographi graeci [Berlin Stobaeus, Ecl . 1.362–367); Nemesius, An. 5; Plotinus, Enn. 4; Iamblichus, De anima (apud Stobaeus, De natura natura hominis 536–537. Cicero, Tusc. 1.17–19. Nemesius ( De natura hominis 536–537) distinguishes three groups: (1) the soul is a body (Stoa); (2) the soul is incorporeal but not a substance (Aristotelians); (3) the soul is an incorporeal substance (Platonism). See E.K.E. Emilsson, “Platonic Soul-Body Dualism in the Early Centuries of the Empire to Plotinus,” Plotinus,” 36.7:5331–5362. 36.7:5331–5362. T.M. Robinson, Robinson, “The Dening Dening Featur Features es of Mind-Body Mind-Body Dualism Dualism in the Writings Writings of Plato, Plato,” in Psyche Psyche and Soma: Physicians and Metaphysicians Metaphysicians on the Mind-Body Problemfrom Problem from Antiquity (ed. J.P. Wright and P. Potter; Oxford 2002), 37–55. For a more detailed to Enlightenment (ed. discussion of the issue in the diferent Platonic dialogues, see T.M. Robinson, Plato’s 8; Toronto 1995). Psychology Psychology (2nd ed.; Plato, Charm. 156d11 156d11 f. Plato, Alc. i 130a1–3. 130a1–3. Plato, Gorg. 493a 493a1– 1–5. 5. On the the ques questio tionn wheth whether er this this view view shou should ld be seen seen as Pytha Pythago gore rean an or Orphic, see J. Mansfeld, “Bad World and Demiurge: A Gnostic Motif from Parmenides and Empedocles to Lucretius and Philo,” in Studies in Later Greek Philosophy and Gnosticism ( J. Mansfeld; London 1989), xiv, 261–314, esp. 291–292.
in later dialogues such as the Phaedo, the Respublica, or the Timaeus, we may easily understand the ambiguous status the soul had in Late Antiquity. Plato’s variety of views not only failed to help later Platonists to resolve their doubts regarding the soul-body relationship, but frequently made this even more complicated, as they seemed to provide scriptural support for many opinions. Consequently, we might safely arm that when Gnostic texts present a diversity of views regarding the soul, the body, and their relationship they are simply reecting the variety of opinions that were held in their respective intell intellectu ectual al milieu milieus. s. This This means means that that their their anthro anthropol pologi ogical cal peculia peculiariti rities es should should be explained against the backdrop of the conceptual developments that were takingplaceatthetime.Iwouldliketoexemplifythisbyanalysingthediferent anthropologicalpatternsthatemergefromareadingofNagHammadiwritings. In opposition to the widespread opinion that the anthropology of this corpus of texts is mostly tripartite, distinguishing three elements in man—namely, intellect, soul, and body, a trichotomy which allegedly is behind the famous tripartite division of humanity into pneumatikoi , psychikoi , and hylikoi —there —there is a group of texts reecting rather a bipartite scheme discriminating between soul and body only. Irrelevant though it may seem, this diference is seminal, since it not only implies a diferent psychology, psychology, or theory of the soul, but also a diferent cosmology, which in its turn t urn also involves a dissimilar soteriology so teriology,, or theory concerning man’s man’s salvation from the constraints of the material world. Do these tripartite and bipartite patterns reect, on the one hand, the inuence of the tripartition widespread in Platonic milieus and, on the other, its adaptation to a more basic Christian bipartite opposition distinguishing spiritual and physical realities? Is perhaps the dichotomy in the latter case inuence encedd by the the bipa bipart rtit itee back backgr grou ound nd to Gen Gen 2:7? 2:7? Must Must we supp suppos osee a genea enealo logi gica call relationship between the tripartite and bipartite anthropological schemes? Or does the divergence simply proceed from the dissimilar milieus in which the texts arose? With a view to providing some answers to all these questions, in the following pages I intend to ofer an overview of both anthropological views and provide provide some some examples examples.. My expositi exposition on follows follows a tripartit tripartitee plan: § 2 surveys surveys the bipartite anthropological scheme, §3 focuses on the more widespread tripartite view of man found in some of the Nag Hammadi texts, and §4 provides some conclusions.
Robinson, Robinson, “Dening “Dening Featur Features, es,”” 45–55.
2
Bip Bi parti artitte Ant Anthrop hropol olog ogic icaal Patt attern erns in Nag Hamm Hammad adii
As already advanced, the bipartite scheme distinguishes two aspects or elements of the human being, namely soul and body. This view has a very long history in Greek thought and appears for the rst time during the transition fromthearchaictotheclassicalperiod.Evenif,accordingtosomescholars,itis the the resu result lt of inte intern rnal al concep conceptu tual al devel develop opmen ments ts in the the Gree Greekk wo worl rld, d, acco accord rdin ingg to others, the idea of a soul separable from the body comes into Greek culture from the East, together with the idea of the transmigration of the soul. What in the beginning was a simple dichotomy gradually evolves towards a hierarchy in which the soul occupies the higher position, but this only occurs after some hesitation. Democritus provides testimony to a view in which the body still seems to hold a higher status than the soul, since the latter is conceived of as responsible for wrong choices and actions that may negatively inuence the body’s health. However, the soul very soon takes the highest rank in the hierarchy, since it is then conceived of as the real self, and the higher seat of intelligence, in contrast to the body which brings the individual closer to lower animals. In the nal stage of this evolution the ψυχή acquires a divine or quas quasi-d i-div ivin inee natu nature re and and is cons conseq eque uent ntly ly seen seen as the pre-e pre-exi xist sten entt and and immo immorta rtall eleme element nt in man, man, only only tempo tempora rari rily ly desce descend ndin ingg to inha inhabi bitt its its dwel dwelliling ng-p -pla lace ce,, the the material and mortal body (Plato). It is this point in the development that interests us, since thanks to the inu inuen ence ce of Plat Platon onis ism m this this conc concep epti tion on gain gained ed wi wide de acce accepta ptanc ncee in the the impe imperi rial al period and became the “natural” view of man, especially in Greek and Roman ethics. As a result, it tended to gain ground even in cultural environments with
L. Roig Roig Lanzillot Lanzillotta, ta, “One “One Human Human Being, Three Early Christian Christian Anthro Anthropolog pologies: ies: An AssessAssessment of Acta Acta Andreae’s Tenor on the Basis of Its Anthropological Views,” 61 (2007): 414–444, esp. 420–424. B. Snell, Die Entdeckung des Geistes: Studien zur Entstehung des europäischen Denkens bei den Griechen (6th ed.; Göttingen 1986), 56–81; see also B. Snell, “Böhme, Seele und Ich bei Homer,” Gn 7 (1931): 78–85, esp. 82. W. Bur Burkert, ert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (trans. E.L. Minar, Minar, Jr.; Cambridge, Mass., 1972), 120–165; W. Burkert, “Towards “Towards Plato and Paul: The ‘Inner’ Human Being,” in Ancient and Modern Perspectives Perspectives on the Bible and Culture: Culture: Essays in Honor of Hans Dieter (ed. A.Y A.Y. Co Collllin ins; s; Atla Atlant ntaa 1998 1998), ), 59–8 59–82. 2. On the the issue issue,, see see J.N. .N. Bremm Bremmer er,, TheEar Betz (ed. The Early ly Greek Greek (Princeton 1983). Concept of the Soul (Princeton As Robins Robinson on (Robins (Robinson, on, “Denin “Deningg Featur Features, es,”” 37) rightly rightly comments comments this this alrea already dy begins begins with the advent of Orphism, but it only reahed wider sections of society through the inuence of Platonism, which incorporated inc orporated Orphic lore. Demo Democr crit itus us 159 159 .
a moni monist stic ic view view of man, man, such such as in Juda Judais ism. m. In poi point of fact fact lat later writ writin ings gs of the the Old Testament, such as Maccabees and Wisdom of Solomon show a bipartite anthropology that distinguishes soul and body. body. In line with Wis 9:15, Philo of Alexandria also presents a clearly negative view of the body, body, since its passions inclines man to sin. He believes that the body is a heavy burden for the soul and widely echoes a bipartite concept of man. The testimony of the New Testament is equivocal: while the Synoptic Gospels seem to remain faithful to Jewish monism, in the t he letters, both Pauline and other, the situation is more complicated. Even if till very recently there the epistleswereplacedintheconceptualworldofJudaismandtheiranthropological views interpreted as strictly monistic, the last years have seen new insights that denitively changed our views on early Christian anthropology. anthropology. As a matter of fact, Paul clearly shows a high degree of spiritualization of the human being, which can be seen in the opposition between an ἔσω ἄνθρωπος and an ἔξω ἄνθρωπος, namely an “Inner Being” as opposed to an external one, but
The bipa bipart rtit itee view view is clea clearr in 2Macc 3:16–17; 7:37; 14:38; 15:30. Wis 8:19–20 establishes a close relationship between purity of the soul and that of the body and, more importantly, seems to echo a belief in the pre-existence of the soul; see J.M. Reese, Hellenistic Inluence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences (AnBib 41; Rome 1970). Wis 2:2– 4 describes the process of the death of both soul and body in diverse ways. According to Wis 9:15 the perishable body clearly burdens the soul in a way comparable to Plato’s Phaedo (81c20). Contra Neher (M. Neher, Wesen und Wirken der Weisheit in der Sapientia salomonis [ 333; Berlin 2004], 131–133), who, following D. Georgi, “Weisheit Salomos,” Salomos,” in Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form ( ( 3.4; ed. W.G. Kümmel Kümmel et al.; GüterGütersloh 1980) and O. Kaiser, Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments , Die poetischen und weisheitlichen Werke (Gütersloh 1994), 118–119, attributes these ideas not to the original text but to a later addition. Philo Philo is not not alwa always ys cons consist isten ent, t, howe howeve verr, and and somet sometime imess reta retain inss the the posi positiv tivee Jewi Jewish sh view view of the body; see E. Schweizer, Schweizer, “Die hellenistische he llenistische Komponente im neutestamentlichen sarxBegrif,” 48 (1957): 237–253, esp. 246–250. 48 Philo, Gig. 31; Leg. 3.152; Det . 16. Philo, Leg. 3.62; Cher . 128; Det . 19; Agr . 46, 152; cf. Abr . 96 etc. In Opif . 135 Philo arms that man is mortal κατὰ τὸ σῶμα but immortal κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν. The bipartition is also clea clearr in his his conc concep epti tion on of the the soul soul lea leaving ving the the body body afte afterr deat deathh ( Plant .147; . 147; Abr .258; . 258; Somn. 1.31). 2 Cor 4:16; 4:16; cf. Rom Rom 7:22. 7:22. T.K. Heckel, Heckel, Der Inner Inneree Mensch Mensch:: Die pauli paulinis nische che Verar erarbei beitun tungg eines eines platonischen Motivs (2/53;Tübingen1993).Ontheissue,seeBurkert,“TowardsPlato and Paul”; T.K. Heckel, “Body and Soul in Saint Paul,” in Psyche and Soma: Physicians and (ed. J.P J.P. Wright Wright Metaphysicians Metaphysicians on the Mind-Body Problem from Antiquity to Enlightenment (ed. and P. Potter; Oxford 2002), 117–131.
authors such as Betz Betz did did their their best to present present him as as a monist. monist. More More recently recently,, however, van Kooten has convincingly shown that Paul’s discourse should be placed in the wider Greco-Roman Greco -Roman context and his anthropology interpreted in line with the widespread trichotomous pattern. In my view Irenaeus’ desperate eforts in his Adversus haereses, to read 1 Thess 5:23 in a monist way, way, seems to provide external support for the view that even in Antiquity Paul was also interpreted in a trichotomous way. Some Nag Hammadi texts include such a bipartite anthropological pattern; they tend to oppose spiritual and physical realities, and contrast the inner and true being with the external and material sensible one. A good example of this bipartite view of man appears in the Sentences of Sextus ( ,1). In discussing who should rightly be called a philosopher, the text states that only he who pays heed to the inner being is really wise: “No man who ⟨looks⟩ down upon the earth and upon tables is wise. (392) The philosopher who is an outer body,heisnottheonetowhomitisttingtopayrespect,but(the)philosopher according to the inner man.” According to the dualistic view of these texts, the physical body is an odious accretion, something alien to man’s real nature. The Let Lette terr of Peter eter to Phil Philip ip ( , 2 2) echoes this widespread motif, since it asserts that due to the imprisonment of the inner man, the Gnostics have to struggle against the “authorities” in order to “strip of … what is corrupted” and become “illumi
See also also H.D H.D.. Betz, Betz, “The Concep Conceptt of the ‘Inn ‘Inner er Human Human Being’ Being’ (ὁ (ὁ ἔσω ἔσω ἄνθρωπ ἄνθρωπος) ος) in the the Anthropology of Paul,” Paul,” 46 (2000): 315–341. G.H. .H. van Koot ooten, en, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity ( 232; Tübingen 2008), 269–312, esp. 298–312. See now F. Bovon, “The Soul’s Come Back: Immortality and Resurrection in Early Christianity,” 103 (2010): 387–406, esp. 400–401 (Paul). Irenaeus, Haer . 5.6.1. Sent.Sext 34.16– 6–20 20.. Tran Transl slat ated ed by F. Wiss Wisse, e, “The “The Sent Senten ences ces of Sextu Sextus, s,” in The Sent. Sextus us ( ,1) 34.1 CopticGnosticLibrary:NagHammadiCodices,, (ed.C.W.Hedrick;28;Leiden 1990), 295–327. The motif motif is freque frequent nt in Nag Hammad Hammadi.i. See Dial. Sav. ( , 5 5 ) 132.11–12; 138.20–139.2; Ap. Jas. ( , 2 2) 14.35–36; 2Apoc. Jas. ( , 4 4) 56.7–14; Gos. Thom. ( , 2 2) 37.4– 6; Gos. Phil . ( , 3 ( ,1) 49.28–32; Acts Thom. 3) 66.16–20; 75.21–25; Trim. Prot . ( 111; Corp. herm. 1.24–26. It also appears in tripartite anthropologcal contexts (see below n.42).AccordingtoDodds(E.R.Dodds,trans.,introd.,andcomm., Proclus:The Proclus: The Elements of Theology [2nded.;Oxford1963],307),theoriginofthismotifmightbeOrphic-Pythagorean and refers to Empedocles ( 31, 126) and to Plato, Gorg. 523cf., where the body is conceived of as a garment (ἀμφίεσμα) that the soul takes of after death.
nators nators in the midst of mortal men.” men.” The bipartite bipartite anthropologica anthropologicall conception behind this motif, however, is clearer in the Interpretation of Knowledge ( ,1), which describes the body bo dy as a “net of esh” for the “man within,” as a temporary residence in which humanity was imprisoned by the rulers and authorities, who, in Pauline fashion, seem to govern over the lower world of matter: … he [i.e., the devil] brought us down, having bound us in nets of esh. Since the body is a temporary dwelling which the rulers and authorities have as an abode, the man within, after being imprisoned in the fabrication, fell into sufering. And having compelled him to serve them, they constrained him to serve the energies. [ ,1] 6.26–37 Interp. Know. [ The same conception can be found in the Hermetic treatise Asclepius, of which the Nag Hammadi codices co dices also include a fragmentary translation. The Asclepius explicitlystatesthatonlymanhasadoublenature,namelyonewhich is simple and divine, which is called essential (οὐσιώδης), and another material one (ὑλικός) which is formed out of the four elements. eleme nts. In spite of the positive view of the latter due to Stoic inuence, the Asclepius nevertheless stresses the the high higher er qual qualit ityy of man man’s “essen essenti tial al”” part part by descr describ ibin ingg it as “divi divine ne,,” “etern eternal al,,” and“substantial”andbyassertingthatitisthroughthispartthatmanascends Ep. Translated by F. Wisse, “The Letter of Peter to Philip,” in Ep. Pet. Phil Phil . ( , 2 2) 137.6–9. Translated (ed. J.H. Sieber; 31; Leiden 1991), The The Copt Coptic ic Gnos Gnosti ticc Libr Librar ary: y: Nag Nag Hamm Hammad adii Code Codexx (ed. 227–251. See M.W. Meyer, The Letter of Peter to Philip: Text, Translation and Commentary ( 53; Chico, Calif., 1981), 135–139 for a commentary of this section. Interp. Know. ( ( ,1) 6.30–35. For a similar but more general opposition, see Gos. Phil . ( , 3 3) 123; 82.30–83.9. English English translat translation ion accordi according ng to J.D. J.D. Turner Turner,, “The Interpr Interpretatio etationn of Knowl Knowledge, edge,” in The CopticGnosticLibrary:NagHammadiCodices,, (ed.C.W.Hedrick;28;Leiden 1990), 21–88. See also U.K. Plisch, ed., trans., and comm., Die Auslegung der Erkenntnis ( 142; Berlin 1996), 1996), 97–99. 97–99. (Nag-Hammadi-Codex (Nag-Hammadi-Codex , ,1) ( See A.D. A.D. Nock Nock,, ed., ed., and and A.-J A.-J.. Fest Festugi ugière ère,, trans trans.,., Corpus hermeticum , Traités –; B udé; Paris 1960), 256–401. Asclépius (2nd ed.; Budé; Ma Mann’s dual dualit ityy in Asclepius 7 (304.2–6 (304.2–6 ); 8 (305.15–306 (305.15–306.2 .2 ); 11 (309.5–6 (309.5–6 ); 22 (324.18 ). S. Gersh, Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism: The Latin Tradition (2 vols.; 23; Notre Notre Dame 1986), 1:379f. “divine ine”: Asclepius 10 (309.3 (309.3 ); 22 (324.18 (324.18 ); 22 (323.25 (323.25 ). “eternal “eternal”:”: Asclepius 8 (306.4 ).
to heaven. With regards to the Coptic version of the Asclepius, even if it has been to a certain extent adapted by the translator, the changes do not afect its basic anthropology and we nd nd the same bipartition of soul and body bo dy.. The Coptic Asclepius also refers to the separation of the soul from the body and the ascension of the former to the region “in the middle of the air between the earth and heaven,” where it is judged by demons. Only after the positive resu result lt wi willll the the demo demonn give give the the so soul ul its its free free-p -pas asss to the the cele celest stia iall regi region on. . We see, see, consequently, consequently, that the bipartite scheme governs not only the anthropology of the text, but also its cosmology and soteriology, since the archons or demons are not placed in any specic region, but on the t he dividing line between heaven and earth. However, However, the most obvious example of a bipartite anthropology in the Nag Hammadi collection I know of is the Exegesis of the Soul ( ( ,6 ). ). Even if originally divine, the soul seems to have lost its nature due to its fall into materiality. The Exegesis of the Soul states states that the soul used to be virginal and andr androg ogyn ynou ous, s, but lost lost both both cond condit itio ions ns as a resu result lt of the the inca incarn rnat atio ionn in a body body.. The soul’s interaction with the sensible world is described in such dark hues that it is equated to prostitution and violation: “… when she [i.e., the soul]
Asclepius 10 (308.23–3 (308.23–309.1 09.1 ). Asclepius ( ,8) 76.22–37. Translated by J. Brashler, P.A. Dirkse, and D.M. Parrott, “Asclepius,” in The Coptic Gnostic Library: Revised Revised Indices for Nag Hammadi Codices ,2–5 and with Papyrus Berolinensis Berolinensis 8502,1 and 4 (ed. D.M. Parrott; 11; Leiden 1977), 395– 451. The Exeg ( ,6 ) wa wass edit edited ed and and tran transl slat ated ed by B. Layt Layton on and and W.C. .C. Robi Robinn Exegesi esiss of theSou the Soul l ( son, “The Expository Treatise on the Soul,” in The Coptic Gnostic Library: Nag Hammadi Codex,2–7 , Together with , , 2*,Brit.Lib.Or.4926(1),and..1,654,655:WithContributions by Many Scholars (ed. B. Layton; 2 vols.; 20–21; Leiden 1989), 2:135–169. See also H. Bethge, “Die Exegese über die Seele … eingeleitet und übersetzt vom Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften,” 101 (1976): 93–104; J.M. Sevrin, L’exégèse de Québecc 1983 1983); ); M. Scope Scopelllloo, intr introd od.,., tran trans. s.,, and and comm. comm.,, L’exégèse l’âme: l’âme: ( ,6) ( 9; Québe ( 25; Leiden Leide n 1985). See now C. Kulawik, Kulawik, Die Erzähde l’âme: l’âme: Nag Nag Hamm Hammad adii Code Codexx , 6 ( Erzäh ( 155; Berlin Berlin 2006). 2006). lung über die Seele: (Nag-Hammadi-Codex , 6) ( A simi simillar con concept ceptio ionn can can be foun foundd in Auth. ( , , 3 25.6–9, 9, which which desc descri ribes bes the the Auth. Teach. ( 3) 25.6– soul’s contact with the world and the subsequent appearance of desires as a “contamination” of man’s virginity: “For if a thought of lust enters into a virgin man, he has already become contaminated.” contaminated.” See L. Roig Lanzillotta Lanzillotta,, “Earthly “Earthly Existe Existence nce as Violence Violence in Two Two Nag Hammadi Hammadi Treatise Treatises: s: Authoritative Teaching ( ( , 3 and Exeg Exeges esis is onthe Soul Soul ( ,6 )”, )”, in Loren Loren Stuck Stuckenen 3) and bruck, Michael Becker, Matthias Hofmann (eds), Religiously Motivated Violence (Leiden: Brill). Forthcoming.
fell fell down down into nto a body body and came came to this this life, ife, then then she she fel fell into nto the the hand handss of man many robbers. And the wanton creatures passed her from one to another … Some made use of her [by force], while others did so by seducing her with a gift.” gift.” Due to the loss of its original androgynous condition and the subsequent lack of a rational faculty (its male part), the soul appears to be trapped in the bondsofnature.Behindthisconceptionweseethebackgroundofthepartition of the soul into rational and irrational halves standard in Middle Platonism (below (below). ). Due to her irrati irrationa onall conditi condition, on, the soul is now contro controlle lledd by both the inuence of sensorial perception and by the passions. There is no trace of a third element in the text’s anthropology. There is no reference to the intellect whatsoever and the only passage that mentions the pneuma does not seem to consider it as a diferentiated part of the soul, but rather as the divine element by means of which God awakens the soul’s dormant rational capacity. capacity. As is also the case in the Asclepius,thedichotomousschemethatgovernsthe text’santhropologycanalsobeseenatthelevelofitscosmology,whichopposes the divine celestial region to the earthly realm. There is no reference to a third inte interm rmedi ediat atee regi region on eith either er.. This This means means,, of cour course, se, that that man man’s salv salvat atio ionn cons consis ists ts in regaining his rational pristine nature; in letting the soul supersede all bodily inuences with a view to regaining her original abode. There are no other obst obstac acle less the the so soul ul has has to deal deal wi with th,, such such as the the pass passwo word rd ow owed ed to the the arch archon onti ticc
( ,6 ) 127,29–31. Some scholars, however, tend to interpret this as a refExeg. Soul ( erence to sexuality as “the soul’s plight.” See, e.g., Scopello, L’exégèse, 58–59; Layton and Robins Robinson, on, “The Exposi Exposito tory ry Treat Treatise, ise,” 137–13 137–138. 8. See, See, howeve howeverr, L. Roig Roig Lanzil Lanzillot lotta, ta, “ ‘Co ‘Come me out of Your our Co Coun untr tryy and and Your our Kins Kinsfo fold ld’:’: Alle Allego gory ry and and Asce Ascent nt of the the Soul Soul in the the Expository Expository TreaTrea Soul ( ,6 ),” ),” in Abraham, tise on the Soul Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian, (ed. M. Good Goodma man, n, G.H. G.H. van van Koot Kooten en,, and and and Islam Islamic ic Persp Perspect ectiv ives es on Kinshi Kinshipp with with Abra Abraham ham (ed. J.T.A.G.M. J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten; Ruiten; 13; Leiden 2010), 401–420, esp. 405–406. The anth anthro ropo polo logy gy of the the Auth. Teach. ( ( , 3 3) is very close to that of the Exegesis of the Soul . In spite of the view that considers it a composite work that includes various theories on the soul, it presents a rather consistent view in its overall bipartite view of man. As in the Exegesis of the Soul , the soul is said to have dwelled in the pleroma (divine regi region on)) and and tohave tohave chang changed ed its its condi conditio tionn due due tothe fall fallin intoa toa body body(2 (23.1 3.12– 2–17 17): ): “…wh “… when enth thee spiritual soul was cast into the body, it became a brother to lust and hatred and envy, and a mate materi rial al soul soul..” Her cont contac actt with with the the body body not not only only means means she she beco becomes mes a mate materi rial al soul soul,, it also produces the oblivion that will keep her attached to the world (24.17–22): “Therefore she she does does not not reme remembe mberr her brot brother herss and and her her fathe fatherr, for for plea pleasu sure re and and sweet sweet pro prot tss deceiv deceivee her. Having left knowledge behind, she fell into bestiality.” Exeg.Soul ( ,6 )133.34–134.2,onwhichRoigLanzillotta,“‘ComeoutofYourCountry,’” )133.34–134.2,onwhichRoigLanzillotta,“‘ComeoutofYourCountry,’” 418–419.
powersoccurringintripartiteworld-views.Salvationisautomaticoncethesoul regains, after repentance and the Father’s grace, its original rational nature. As the text expressively arms: “This is the ransom from captivity. captivity. This is the upward journey to heaven.” Let us now take a look at the tripartite anthropological scheme.
3
Tripartite Views of Man in Nag Hammadi
As already advanced, most of the Nag Hammadi texts texts fall within this category and add a third element, namely the intellect (or spirit, or logos), to soul and body. True, some might object that bipartite anthropological schemes also include frequent references to a third element, be it νοῦς (intellect) or πνε πνεῦμα ῦμα (spi (spiri rit) t).. Ho Howe wevver, er, it is impo import rtan antt to not note that that this this thir thirdd elem elemen entt is neve neverr cons consid ider ered ed a cons consti titu tuti tive vepa part rt of man, man, but but rath rather er a kind kind of deusexmachina deusexmachina that come comess from from wi with thou outt to libe libera rate te the the so soul ul from from the the dram dramaa of her her pres presen entt phys physic ical al condition. In contrast, in trichotomous schemes the intellect is a constituent of the human being in its own right. Trivial though it may seem, the appearance of a third element is therefore of crucial importance and has far-reaching consequences. To begin with it inuences the conception of man to the extent that it replaces the soul, in assuming the highest position in the human hierarchy: not only is the intellect higher than the soul, but it is also man’s only immortal part. Furthermore, the soul is no longer conceived of as divine and everlasting, as in the previous scheme, but clearly as mortal. As far as its internal structure is concerned, the soul is still described as possessing rational and irrational parts, but their function has slightly changed: given the intermediary position it occupies between intellect and body bo dy,, the rational and irrational halves are now related to inte intellllec ectt and and body body respe respect ctiv ivel elyy. As we wi willll imme immedi diat atel elyy see, see, thes thesee alte altera rati tion onss produce important changes at the level of cosmology and soteriology. soteriology. Nag Nag Hammad Hammadii texts texts widely widely attest attest this this anthro anthropol pology ogy. . The tripar tripartit titee scheme scheme is at work in the Treatise on the Resurrection ( ( , 4 4) and is clearly expressed
( ,6 ) 134.13–15. Exeg. Soul ( The motif motif of of the garment garment one one has has to take take of of in order to ascend ascend to divine regions regions appears appears in tripartite contexts as well. According to Clement of Alexandria, Exc. 64, Valentinians a arm rmed ed that that the the spir spiritu itual al eleme element ntss must must leav leavee behin behindd their their soul soulss befo before re they they can can achie achieve ve the vision of God. Souls are further explicitly referred to as ἐνδύματα in 61.8; 63.1. See A.D. Nock, ed., and A.-J. Festugière, trans., Corpus hermeticum , Traités – (2nd (2nd ed.; Budé; Paris 1960), 131n57. According to Dodds, Proclus, 307, behind behi nd the Valentinian inter-
in its conception of the “spiritual resurrection, which swallows up the psychic in the same way as the eshly.” The same view appears in the Teachings of Silvanus ( , 4 4), which presents a triadic conception of man formed of a physical body, a soul, and a “divine mind which has come into being in conformity with the image of God. The divine mind has the substance of God.” God.” According to this text, humans: …havecomeintobeingfromthreeraces:fromtheearth,fromtheformed, and from the created. The body has come into being from the earth with an earthly substance, but the formed, for the sake of the soul, has come into being from the thought of the Divine. The created, however, is the mind, which has come into being in conformity with the image of God. Teach. Silv Sil v. [ , 4 4] 92.15–25
The same anthropological scheme is behind the anthropogonical myth included in the Hypostasis of the Archons ( ( , 4 4), which presents an interesting tripartite reinterpretation of the passage of Gen 2:7 that we are dealing with in this volume:
pretation of the “coat of skin” (χιτὼν δερμάτινος) of Gen 3:21 as a reference to the eshy body (Irenaeus, Haer . 1.5.5) we might have the idea of Orphic-Pythagorean origin (see above n. 26) that saw the body as the garment of the soul. See also Nock and Festugière, Corpus hermeticum , Traités – , 82–83n9. Similarly Irenaeus ( Haer . 1.7.1) had pointed out that according according to Valentin Valentinians ians souls were not admitted admitted in the pleroma. According to the Marcosians of Irenaeus, the spiritual element, after leaving behind the body in the tangible world, abandons its bondage (δεσμός), namely the soul that is given to the Demiurge, before returning to its original abode (Irenaeus, Haer . 1.21.5; with frg. 11 apud Epiphanius, Pan. 36.2–3). See Treat. Res. ( ( , 4 4) 45.39–46.2 and M.L. Peel, “The Treatise on Resurrection,” in The Coptic Gnostic Library: Nag Hammadi Codices (The Jung Codex) , Notes (ed. H.W. Attridge; 23; Leiden 1985), 137–215 ad loc.; and M.L. Peel, introd., trans., anal., and expos., TheEpistletoRheginos:AValentinianLetterontheResurrection (Philadelphia1969), 48f., 48 f., 74 74 f., 112f., 112 f., 148. See also B.R. Layton, Layton, ed., trans., and comm., The Gnostic Treatise on Resurrection from Nag Hammadi ( ( 12; Missoula 1979), 65–66, 71–73, 78, 82–84; Gos. Mary ( 1) 10.14–16. ( , 4 Teach. Silv. ( 4) 92.23–26. See also Teach. Silv. ( , 4 4) 102.34f.: “My son, do not allow your mind to stare downward,| but rather let | it look by means of the light | at thingsabove.|Forthelightwillalwayscomefromabove.|Evenifit[i.e.,themind]isupon the earth, | let it seek to pursue the | things above. Enlighten your | mind with the light of hea heaven ven | so that that you you may may turn turn to the the ligh lightt of hea heaven. ven.” Transl anslat atio ionn by M. Peel eel and and J. Zand Zandee ee,, “The Teachings of Silvanus,” Silvanus,” in The Coptic Gnostic Library: Nag Hammadi (ed. Hammadi Codices (ed. B.A. Pearson; 30; Leiden 1996), 249–369.
The rulers laid plans and said, ‘Come, let us create a man that will be soil from the earth.’ … They had taken some soil from the earth and modelled mo delled their man after their body and after the image of God that had appeared totheminthewaters…Andhebreathedintohisface;andthemancame to hav have a so soul ul(a (and nd rema remain ined ed)) upon upon the the grou ground nd man many days days.. But But they they coul couldd not make him arise because of their powerlessness … Hyp. Arch. [ , 4 4] 87.33–88.8 It is well known known that Gnostics had a very low opinion opinion of the world and of its creator. In their view, Genesis could not narrate the deeds of the true god, but referred to the creative activity of some lower and ignorant creator god(s), whose imperfection was apparent in the results. The Hypostasis of the Archons therefore reinterprets Gen 2:7a such that it accords with this negative view of both creator and creation, attributing the formation of the human soul and body body to the the igno ignora rant nt gods ods that that popu popula late te the the astr astral al sphe sphere re.. The The rulers rst rst shape shape the body from the soil according to the likeness of God reected in the waters; thenthechiefrulerbreathesintohisfaceandthebodybecomessoul-endowed. In spite of their eforts, however, however, their creature remains lifeless on the ground because of their lack of power. It is the intervention from above, from the invisible spirit of the highest God that will provide the spark of life, the t he ψυχαῖος σπιν σπινθή θήρρ acco accord rdin ingg to othe otherr so sour urce ces, s, to anim animat atee the the rs rstt man. man. Only Only then then we nd nd a reference to the “living soul” in Gen 2:7b: Now all these things came to pass by the t he will of the father of the entirety. entirety. Afterwards, the spirit saw the soul-endowed man upon the ground. And the spirit came forth from the Adamantine Land; it descended and came to dwell within him, and that man became a living soul. Hyp. Arch. [ , 4 4] 88.10–15
The Hypostasis of the Archons describes all three anthropological elements referred to above: while the body proceeds from the earth, the soul proceeds from the demiurgical sphere, namely from the rulers who breathe it into man, and the intellect or spirit from the highest godly region. Other Other texts texts,, especia especially lly of Valenti alentinia niann origin, origin, explai explainn man’ man’s three three consti constituti tutive ve elements as a result of a downward movement that determines the intellect’s
Transla Translation tion by B. Layton, Layton, “The Hypostasis Hypostasis of the Archons, Archons,”” in The Coptic Gnostic Library: Nag Hammadi Codex , ,2–7 , Together with , ,2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and .. 1, 654, 655: With Contributions by Many Scholars (ed. B. Layton; 2 vols.; 20–21; Leiden 1989), 1:220–259.
devolution from its divine origin. Even if the cause initiating this process is never completely clear, at the end of the devolutive movement the intellect (or spirit, or logos) has to cope with the accretions of soul and body. At any rate, after the rst step has taken place we see a dispersion of the intellect’s unity, which necessarily results in ignorance. This ignorance is the cause of a seco second nd sta stage ge of degr degrad adat atio ionn becau because se it init initia iate tess a seri series es of afec afecti tion ons: s: rst rst of all, all, insecurity and doubt, then fear and, nally, nally, a desire to know, know, since knowledge can can remo removve all all prev previo ious us afe afect ctio ions ns.. The The thir thirdd and and na nall step step cons consis ists ts in a kind kind of “substantialization” of afections that produces the appearance of matter and the physical body. The TripartiteTractate ( , 5 ) mayhelpustounderstandhowtherstdis 5 )mayhelpustounderstandhowtherstdispersion takes place: the text describes how, how, due to the Logos’ inability to grasp the ungraspable and to bear the intensity of the light, it “doubts” and “looks down to the depth. dep th.” ” As a result, a “division” “division” and a “turning away” take place and these in turn produce the appearance of ignorance and oblivion. The ( , 3 Gospel of Truth ( 3) in turn describes the two subsequent steps, namely the appearance and development of afections that will generate the psychic and hylic levels of reality. Anguish and fear appear as direct consequences of igno ignora ranc nce, e, and and as angu anguis ishh grow growss soli solidd like like a fog, fog, it prov provid ides es the the suit suitab able le cont contex extt for error to appear, which “became powerful” and “worked on its own matter foolishly.” The nal stage of devolution is the alienation of the intellect and the soul in the realm of physis physis. The original ignorance remains unaltered and is perpet perpetua uate tedd by obli oblivi vion on and and by the the dec decie ienc ncyy of the body’ body’ss cogn cognit itiv ivee mean means. s. Sensorial perception is not only unable to help man achieve knowledge, but also prolongs his ignorance since it delivers him to the delusion of externals. Tri. Trac ( , 5 Trac. ( 5 ) 77.18–20. Translation by H.W. Attridge and E.H. Pagels, “The Tripartite Tractate,” in Nag Hammadi Codex (The Jung Codex) , Introductions, Texts, Translations, H.W. Attridge; 22; Leiden 1985), 159–337. Indices (ed. H.W. Tri. ( , 5 76.23– 3–77 77.1.11:1: acco accord rding ing to the text, text, the fall fall of the the logos has been been planne plannedd Tri. Trac Trac. ( 5 ) 76.2 by God. See R. Kasser et al., eds., Tractatus Tripartitus , De supernis (Bern 1973), 340 and L. Painch ainchau audd and and E. Thom Thomas asse sen, n, ed., ed., intro introd., d., comm comm.,., and and tran trans. s.,, Le trait traitéé tripa triparti rtite te ( ,5) ( ( 19; Québec Québec 1989), 1989), 333f. Tri. Trac. ( ( , 5 5 ) 77.21–25. Gos. Truth ( , 3 3) 17.10–17. Translation by H.W. Attridge and G.W. MacRae, .., “The Gospel of Truth,” in Nag Hammadi Codex (The Jung Codex) , Introductions, Texts, TransH.W. Attridge; 22; Leiden 1985), 55–117. lations, Indices (ed. H.W. The same same view can be found found in the Acts of Andrew, see L. Roig Lanzillotta, Acta Andreae Apocrypha: A New Perspective Perspective on the Nature,Intention Nature, Intention and Signicance of the Primitive Primitive Text ( 26; Geneva 2007), 2007), 213–214 (= Bonnet Bonnet .1 44.12–14) with ch. 4, §3.4.2.1. § 3.4.2.1. So,too ,too, Acts .208–209(Bonnet .144.7–8),withRoigLanzillotta, ActaAndreae Acts Andr .208–209(Bonnet Apocrypha, ch. 4, § 3.4 passim.
As was the case in bipartite schemes, we see a strict correlation between the view of man man and that of the universe, consisting of transcendent, celestial, and earthly realms. Anthropology and cosmology are so intrinsically related that each ea ch anth anthro ropol polog ogic ical al elem elemen entt is conce conceiv ived ed of as belo belong ngin ingg to one one cosmo cosmolo logi gica call realm: the intellect is related to the transcendent realm, the soul to the celestial region, region, the body to the earth. As could be expected, expected, soteriology soteriology presents exactly the same trichotomous structure. Given the intellect’s divine nature, its its liber liberat atio ionn cons consis ists ts in decon deconstr struc ucti ting ng the the accr accret etio ions ns gain gained ed duri during ng its its down down- ward movement to physis. The body returns to the elements, the soul is given back to the archons who populate the astral region, and the nous or pneuma speeds to its divine abode. Now, where does this trichotomous scheme come from? It is well known that man’s tripartite conception is explicitly stated for the rst time in Late Antiquity in Plutarch’s Plutarch’s De facie in orbe lunae, where Sulla defends the view that man does not consist of two parts, but rather of three, namely intellect, soul, and body. In doing so, Sulla rejects the view that considers the intellect a part of the soul, but also establishes a clear hierarchy among the parts: νοῦς γὰρ ψυχῆς, ὅσῳ ψυχὴ σώματος, ἄμεινόν ἐστι καὶ θειότερον. If we were to accept Deuse’s hypothesis, this tripartition of man should be traced back to the bipartition of the soul into rational and irrational halves, which on the basis of Plato’s views in the Respublica and the Timaeus, was standard in
Plutarch, ch, Fac.943a:Τὸνἄνθρωπονοἱποοὶσύνθετονμὲνὀρθῶς,ἐκδυοῖνδὲμόνωνσύνθετονοὐκ ὀρθῶς ὀρθῶς ἡγοῦν ἡγοῦνται ται.. μόριον μόριον γὰρ γὰρ εἶναί εἶναί πως ψυχῆς ψυχῆς οἴοντα οἴονταιι τὸν τὸν νοῦν, νοῦν, οὐδὲν οὐδὲν ἧττον ἧττον ἐκείνων ἐκείνων ἁμαρτά ἁμαρτάνον νοντε τες, ς, οἷς ἡ ψυχὴ δοκεῖ μόριον εἶναι τοῦ σώματος. νοῦς γὰρ ψυχῆς, ὅσῳ ψυχὴ σώματος, ἄμεινόν ἐστι καὶ θειότερον. For the Aristotelian background background of this assertion, see A.P. Bos, “The Distinction between ‘Platonic’ and ‘Aristotelian’ Aristotelian’ Dualism Illustrated from Plutarch’s Plutarch’s Myth in De facie in orbe lunae,” in Estudios sobre Plutarco: Misticismo y religiones mistéricas en la obra de (ed. A. Pére Pérezz Jiméne Jiménezz and and F. Casa Casades desús ús;; Ma Madr drid id 2001 2001), ), 57–7 57–70, 0, passim and A.P. A.P. Bos Bos,, Plutarco Plutarco (ed. The Soul and Its Instrumental Body: A Reinterpretation of Aristotle’s Philosophy of Living 2003), 280. Nature ( 112; Leiden 2003), Agai Agains nstt the view view expr expres esse sedd in the Phaedo (783b–c) that the soul is not “composite”— and therefore not liable to destruction—the Respublica arms that the soul has three parts—the spirited, the irrational, and the rational ones. As Dörrie (H. Dörrie, Porphyrios’ Symmikta zetemata”: Ihre Stellung in System und Geschichte des Neuplatonismus nebst “ Symmikta einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten [Zet 20; München 1959], 167–168) has pointed out, however, Middle Platonists reduced the former to a single part in order to bring it into line with the bipartition irrational-rational in the Timaeus. See on the bipartite structure of the soul in Middle Platonism, J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists: 80.. to ..220 (2nd ed.; Ithaka Ithaka,, .., . ., 1996), 1996), 102 (Antio (Antiochu chuss of Ascalo Ascalon), n), 174–1 174–176 76 (Philo (Philo), ), 194 (Pluta (Plutarch rch), ), 256–25 256–2577 (Atticus), 263 (Severus), 290–294 (Alcinous).
Middle Platonism. In Deuse’s view, Timarchus’ myth in the Plutarchean De genio Socratis Socratis allows us to see how Plutarch develops his distinction between intellect and soul from a basic bipartite conception of the soul consisting of a rational and an irrational part. Philo of Alexandria might also seem to provide some precedent for this conception. Even though mostly endorsing the the regu regula larr Plat Platon onic ic bipa biparti rtite te view view of man, man, Phil Philo’ o’ss appl applic icat atio ionn of the bipa biparti rtiti tion on of the soul as sometimes brings him close to a trichotomous view of man. For example,in De migrationeAbraham ,therstchapterspresentacleartripartite migratione Abrahami i ,therstchapterspresentacleartripartite view of man, distinguishing body, body, soul, and logos, the latter being a specic aspect of the rational part of the soul. Not only his allegorical interpretation of God’s command to Abraham in Gen 12:1 (“‘Land’ or ‘country’ is a symbol of the body, ‘kindred’ of sense-perception, ‘father’s house’ of speech [logos]”), but especially his use of the term nous to describe the rational part of the soul, seem seemss to point point in this this dire direct ctio ion. n. Note Note that that Migr . 13 even even asse asserts rts the the separ separab abililit ity y of mind from the soul-body complex: “… when mind (nous) begins to know itself and to hold converse with the things of mind, it will thrust away from it that part of the t he soul which inclines to the province of sense-perception.” sense-perception.” Howe Ho weve verr, ther theree are are sever several al reas reason onss not not to acce accept pt this this inne innerr Plat Platon onic ic origi originn of the trichotomous anthropology. To begin with, there is the fact that trichoto-
Deu Deuse (W. (W. Deuse, Untersuch Untersuchunge ungenn zur mittelpl mittelplaton atonischen ischenund und neuplato neuplatonische nischenn Seelenleh Seelenlehre re [ 3; Mainz and Wiesbaden 1983], 46–47) sees in Timarchus’ myth in Gen. Socr . 591d a rst step towards the theory exposed in De facie in orbe lunae. Other scholars, such as W. W. Hamilton, “The “ The Myth in Plutarch’s De genio (589f–592e), ( 589f–592e),”” 28 (1934): 175–182 and, more recently recently,, Y. Vernière, ernière, Symb (Pariss 1977), 1977), 126, 126, Symbole oless et mythe mythess dans dans la pensée penséede de Pluta Plutarq rque ue (Pari conside considerr that, that, in spite spite of Plutar Plutarch ch’s ’s confus confusion ion at the level level of formul formulati ation on or expres expressio sion, n, the exposition of De De genio genio Socra Socratis tis presents exactly the same trichotomy as that of De De faci faciee in orbelunae.AddW.Deuse,“Plutarch’sEschatologicalMyths,”in Plutarch: Onthe daimonion of Socrates: Human Liberation, Divine Guidance and Philosophy (ed. H.-G. Nesselrath; intro introd., d., text, text, tran trans. s.,, and and inte interp rprr. essa essays ys by D. Russ Russel elll et al.; al.; 16; 16; Tübi Tübing ngen en 2010 2010), ), 169– 169– 197, esp. 182–187. The logos, however, is nevertheless clearly seen as a diferentiated part of the soul— witness his assertion, some lines below, below, that discursivity (dianoia) is the rational part of the soul as opposed to the irrational one that rules over sensation. Philo, Migr . 3.4–5 (αἴσθησις δὲ συενὲς καὶ ἀδελφόν ἐστι διανοίας, ἄλογον λογικῆς, ἐπειδὴ μιᾶς ἄμφω μέρη ψυχῆς ταῦτα …). Philo, Migr . 2.5–7. Philo, Migr . 13.4–5 (ἐπειδὰν γοῦν ὁ νοῦς ἄρξηται γνωρίζειν ἑαυτὸν καὶ τοῖς νοητοῖς ἐνομιλεῖν θεωρήμασιν, ἅπαν τὸ κλινόμενον τῆς ψυχῆς πρὸς τὸ αἰσθητὸν εἶδος ἀπώσεται). See also Philo, 69–74, 4, wher wheree he expo expoun unds ds his his view view of ecsta ecstatic tic expe experi rienc ence, e, conce conceiv ived ed as the the actio actionn by Her . 69–7 means of which the mind quits itself.
mous patterns do not oppose o ppose the intellect to the body bod y, but rather the intellect to the the so soul ul-b -bod odyy comp comple lex. x. In a Plat Platon onic ic cont contex extt this this seem seemss to be too too dras drasti ticc a rerecharacterization of the soul, since it implies changing its status from divine to mortal. Another important argument is that, as we have seen, anthropological schemes in Antiquity normally coincide with cosmological ones. This means that both patterns patterns are expressions expressions of a more fundamental fundamental conception of the reality and that one cannot change without afecting the other. Last but not least, not all Middle Platonists presenting a bipartition of the soul develop it into a trichotomous anthropological scheme, witness Maximus of Tyre. Given that the trichotomous view of man is not exclusive to Philo or Plutarch, but also appears in other Middle Platonists, such as Alcinous, in the Corpus hermeticum, as well as in the Nag Hammadi corpus, one needs to nd a more general explanation for its appearance. As has been pointed out, all trichotomous schemes are mainly concerned with a clear distinction between intellect and the soul-body complex, and this seems to reect a clear Peripateticbackground,sinceitwasAristotlewhoredenedPlato’sconception ofadichotomyinman,opposinghissoultohisbodywhenheopposedtheνοῦς (“intellect”) to the ψυχή (“soul”). Following Aristotle, all the examples dealt
The same hierarch hierarchyy is at work in the tenth Hermetic Hermetic tracta tractate, te, called called The Key (Corp. herm. 10.24 [125.10–16 ]), which not only clearly distinguishes intellect, soul, and body, but also also stre stress sses es the the highe higherr rank rank of the the form former er,, with withou outt which which the soul soul rese resemb mble less an irra irratio tiona nall animal; only the intellect is divine and recovers its true nature after taking of the clothes of the soul that served it as a vehicle ( Corp. herm. 10.16–17 [120.22–121.19 ]). See Bos Bos,, “Distin “Distincti ction, on,” 61f. E. Bar Barbotin, in, La théorie aristotélicienne de l’intellect d’après Théophraste (; Leuven 1954), 220; A.H. Armstrong, “Aristotle in Plotinus: The Continuity and Discontinuity of psyche and nous,” in Arist Aristotl otlee and the Later Later Tradi Traditio tionn (ed. H. Blumenthal and H. Robinson; OSAPSup 1991; Oxford 1991), 117–127, esp. 117–118. This diferentiation is also stressed by Atticus apud Eusebius, Eusebius, Praep. ev . 15.9.14 (frg. 7 in the edition of E. des Places, .., introd., Greek text, trans., and annot., Eusèbe de Césarée: La Préparation évangélique : Livres – [ 338; Paris 1987], 17). See P. Merlan, “Greek Philosophy from Plato to Plotinus,” in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (ed. A.H. Armstrong; Cambridge 1967), 11–132, esp. 73–74 and A.P. Bos “‘Aristotelian’ and ‘Platonic’ Dualism in Hellen Hellenist istic ic and Early Early Christi Christian an Philos Philosoph ophyy and in Gnosti Gnosticism cism,,” 56 (200 (2002) 2):: 273–2 273–291 91,, n. 16 andBos, Soul , 216–22 216–229; 9; G.Lut G. Luttik tikhuiz huizen, en,“Tr “Trace acess of Arist Aristote otelia liann Though Thoughtt in theApo the Apocry crypho phonn ofJohn,”in Forthe For the Children,Perfect Children, PerfectInstruction: Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year (ed. (ed. H.-G. H.-G. Bet Bethg hgee et al.; al.; 54; 54; Leide Leidenn 2002 2002), ), 181–2 181–202 02,, esp esp. 190. 190. On Arist Aristot otel elia iann eleme elements nts in Nag Hammadi, see most recently, G. Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revision of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions ( 58; Leiden 2006), 29–43, esp. 32–42.
with above not only deny immortality to the human human soul, but repeatedly state state that the intellect is man’s most divine and only eternal element.
4
Conclusions
From the preceding it seems obvious that anthropological schemes correlate with cosmological ones. Following the old Democritean view that the human being is a microcosmos, the human tends to be considered in the light of a cosmologicalframework.InPlato,forexample,hisbipartiteconceptionofman consisting of soul and body strictly correlates with his view of the cosmos, which opposed ideas to matter. matter. The same holds true for Aristotle, since a tripartite conception of man that diferentiates nous (“intellect”) from soul and body also correlates with his tripartite vision of the cosmos consisting of the realm of the Unmoved Mover, the astral sphere, and sublunar world. As has been pointed out, even the Stoic dualistic conception of the cosmos, with its two principles, namely the active (τὸ ποιοῦν) and passive (τὸ πάσχων), is determinant for their view of man, which sharply distinguishes soul and body. As we have seen, Nag Hammadi texts are no exception to this rule. Texts including a bipartite view of man coherently present a bipartite view of the cosm cosmos os.. The The full fullne ness ss of the the pleroma (divi (divine ne regi region on)) is contr contras aste tedd to the the barr barren en-nessofthe kenoma (“emptiness”),therealmofcreation:theyopposedivineand earthly regions in the same way as they contrast soul with body bod y. This naturally afected both their view of salvation and of the procedure that must be followed to attain it. As for texts including a tripartite view of man, they present,
Aris Aristtotle, tle, Eth. nic. 1177b26–1178a2: the intellect as the divine element in man by which he achieves complete happiness and partakes in the divine. See his conclusion in Eth. nic. 1178a2–7, that the intellect is man’s true self; Eth. nic. 1179a22–32, the man who lives according according to his intellect, that is, the man who pursues pursues intellectua intellectuall activity activity, cultivates cultivates his intellect and keeps it in the best condition is the most beloved of the Gods; Eth. eud . 1248a24–29, where the intellect is said to be man’s highest element and to be connected with God; De an.430a23–25; Metaph. 1072b2 1072b23–2 3–26; 6; Part.an 656a8,, 10; 686a2 686a27–2 7–28; 8; Gen.an. Part. an. 656a8 736b28; 736b28; 737a8–11; 737a8–11; Protr . frg. frg. 108 108 (in (in the the editio editionn of I. Düri Düring ng,, intro introd., d., text text,, tran trans. s.,, and and comm. comm.,, Protreptikos des Aristoteles [QdP 9; Frankfurt am Main 1969], 86–87). See P. Moraux, Der Protreptikos Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen: Von Andronikos Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias , Die (Perip 5; Berlin 1973), 1973), 230, and additional additional Renaissance des Aristotelismus Aristotelismus im . Jh v. Chr . (Perip bibliography in n. 24. Emilsso Emilsson, n, “Soul“Soul-Bod Bodyy Dualis Dualism, m,”” 5332. 5332.
also coherently, a tripartite world-view, insofar as they oppose the transcendent divine region to the realm of movement, including the astral and earthly regions,inthesamewaythattheycontrasttheintellectwiththesoul-bodyconglomerate. The relatedness of the diferent aspects of the conceptual world behind the texts prevents us from attempting too simplistic an explanation of the anthropological diferences between them. In our view, the diferent anthropological schemes are neither due to the inuence of a more basic Christian opposition of spiritual and material realities nor to the bipartite background of Gen 2:7. Furthermore, the relatedness of the anthropological, cosmological, and soteriological schemes also poses clear diculties to a genealogical or developmental explanation. Given the existence of several strands of Platonism at the time of composition of the Nag Hammadi texts, it seems preferable to explain the diverse anthropological schemes as arising from the diferent conceptual milieus in which the texts rst saw light. While bipartite schemes appear to remain remainfai faithfu thfull to tradit tradition ional alPla Platon tonism ism,, free free of Aristo Aristotel telian ianin inue uence nces—as s—asrep rep-resent resented, ed, for exampl example, e, by Attic Atticus us—, —, trichot trichotomou omouss anthro anthropol pologi ogies es reect reect the tripartite view of man current in Middle Midd le Platonic contexts under the inuence of the Peripatos, which from the second century onwards is more palpable thankstotheeditionofthe Corpusaristotelicum byAndronicusofRhodosmore than a century earlier. We We may then conclude conclude that the diverging opinions referred referred to at the beginning are not due to the incoherence or erratic thought of the Gnostic authors. They might simply proceed from the variety of views they found f ound in their intellectual milieus.
On which, see Merlan, Merlan, “Greek “Greek Philosoph Philosophyy,” 53–83. 53–83.
Adam, Dust, and the Breath of Life according to the Targu argum mim of Gen 2:7 Robert Haywar Hayward d
The Aramaic translators of the books of Moses knew their Hebrew Bible intimately. mately. Whether they were providing Aramaic versions of the Hebrew text for thesynagogueservice,fortheBethha-Midrash,orfortheuseofstudentsinvestigating the Torah Torah in private, they were acutely aware of the potential relationship of each verse of the Bible to its wider context in Scripture and tradition. The The compo composi siti tion on of the the huma humann crea creatur turee is ment mentio ione nedd by seve severa rall bibl biblic ical al vers verses es,, amon amongg them them Gen 2:7, 2:7, which which repr repres esen ents ts a very very parti particu cula larr acco accoun untt of Adam Adam’’s forformati mation on.. FourAr our Aram amai aicc vers versio ions ns of this this vers versee are are exta extant nt,, namel namely y TargumOnqelos, , and TargumPseudo-Jonathan TargumNeoti argum Neoti ,and argum Pseudo-Jonathan,alongwiththe Fragment Fragment Targum of Vatican Vatican 440, which preserves a translation of only the last four words of the the verse verse. . Each Each disp displa lays ys its its ow ownn conc concern erns, s, whic whichh appea appearr to be formu formula late tedd wi with th an eye to biblical information about Adam recorded not only in Genesis, but also in the Prophets and the Writings. The Hebrew of Gen 2:7 is immediately preceded by a note that , a word usually translated as “a mist,” was going up For For the part played played by Targu Targum m in the religious life life of ancient Judaism, Judaism, see A. Shinan, “The Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature,” Literature,” in The Late Roman Period (ed. (ed. S.T. Katz; vol. 4 of The The Cambridge History of Judaism; ed. W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; Cambridge 2006), 678–698; P.S. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of the Bible,” in Miqra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M.J. Mulder; Assen 1988), 217–253; E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the ( 174; Berlin 1988); M. Taradach, Le Midrash: Introduction Bible: Contents and Context ( G eneva 1991), 49–160. For the role of the th e Targum in the à la littérature midrashique (MdB 22; Geneva synagogue service in particular, see L.I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue (New Haven 2000), 140–151, 445–451. For the importance of the Beth ha-Midrash, see the critical discussion in A.D. York, York, “The Targum Targum in the Synagogue Synagogue and and in the School,” 10 (1979): 74–86. 10 For For the text of the Targumim, Targumim, the following following critical critical editions have have been used (translatio (translations ns are mine): Targum Onqelos is quoted from A. Sperber, The Pentateuch Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos (vol. 1 of The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts; ed. A. Sperber; Leiden 1959); Targum Neoti from A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid 1968); Targum Pseudo-Jonathan from E.G. Clarke et al., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch Pentateuch (Hoboken1984); Fragment Fragment Targumaccording argum accordingto to Vatican 440 fromM.L.Klein, The Fragment Targums of thePe the Penta ntateu teuch ch accor accordin dingg to Their Their Extant ExtantSou Sourc rces es (2vols.;Rome1980).Atranslation of the extant text of the Targumim Targumim on Gen 2:7 can be found in the appendix to this article.
© , , , , | : ./ ./ _ _
,, ,,
from the land and was watering all the surface of the ground ( ). Genesis 2:7 itself then declares: . This may be rendered into English as “and the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” being.” Commenting on this verse, Sarna notes that an earlier report of the man’s formation in Gen 1:27 says nothing of the material from which he was made; here here we lear learnn tha that it was dust dust out out of whi which God God fash fashiioned oned him him in the the man manner ner of a pott potter er,, for for such such ison is onee of the the impl implic icat atio ions nsof of the the He Hebr brew ewvverb erb .Mentionof the “mist” and “watering” in Gen 2:6 allow the reader to infer furthermore that God had mixed m ixed dust and water to produce clay, clay, the raw material of the potter’s art. This is an important observation, for Gen 1:27 declares that God created the man ( ) not that he formed or or fashioned him; him; and that he had created the man in his image, and as male and female. In this respect, Gen 1 asserted that human beings, like everything else brought into existence before the rst Sabbath, had been created by by the Almighty. Signicantly, all the Targumim of Gen 2:7 represent the Hebrew Heb rew verb by means of “and he created” ( ). The efect of this translation on Targum is strik Targum Onqelos and Targum Targum Neoti is ing: all reference to the formation or fashioning of Adam disappears from the verse they are expounding. expounding. As we shall see, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan manages to retain a particular aspect of the original Hebrew , but not before he too has insisted that God created Adam. Adam. One reasonable explanation of this state of afairs would be the Targumists’ Targumists’ desire to present Scripture and God’s activitiesasconsistent:sinceGen1tellshowGodcreatedeverything,Gen2:7,withits talkoftheformationorfashioningofAdam,doesnotcontradictGen1,butmust be regarded as another way of speaking about God’s creative power. This was no doubt a powerful factor in the Targumists’ decision to translate as they did;
Cf. A. Berlin and M.Z. M.Z. Brettler Brettler,, eds., eds., The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford 1999), 15, which has: “The Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.” being.” See N. Sarna, Sarna, The Torah (Philadelphia 5749/1989), 5749/1989), 17, where orah Commen Commentar taryy Genesi Genesiss he alludes to similar ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Greek accounts of man’s origins from from the the eart earthh and and his bein beingg moul moulde dedd and and fash fashio ione nedd by the the gods gods.. The The “for “forma mati tion on”” or “mou “mould ld-ing” of the rst human being is not neglected by Jewish tradition: , Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Vulgate versions all interpret Gen 2:7 as meaning that th at God “fashioned” Adam; and human formation from clay clay is explicitly mentioned at Isa 64:7; Job 33:6. Note also also the description of Adam as the “protoplast” “protoplast” at, e.g., Wis 7:1; 10:1; ... 13:8; 26:5; 32:15; 37:3. See the appendix for a translation translation of of the targumim on Gen 2:7.
but TargumOnqelos and TargumNeoti —TargumPseudo-Jonathan remainsfor the moment a special case—may have been addressing additional diculties which could be seen as implicit in the Hebrew wording of Gen 2:7. During the later Second Temple period, some Jews at least had tended to read Gen 2:7 as describing not only humanity’s creaturely status, but also its moral weakness and disposition to depraved behaviour. This tendency is particularly marked, for example, in some of the Qumran Hodayot , where imageryderivedfromGen2:7isusedtoemphasisethepoet’sproclivitytowards sin and weakness. There we encounter the expression (e.g., 1 , 21; , 23–24) or simply (e.g., 1 , 7, with restoration of the second word; 1 1 , 29), “formation, fashioning of clay, clay,” which underscores the poet’s inadequacies and failings. Thus at 1 , 21–23, the writer speaks of himself as a “formation of clay,” who is moulded with water, a foundation of shame, a source of pollution, a crucible of iniquity, an edice of sin, and an erring and perverted spirit without knowledge. 1 , 29–30 declares that the “formation of clay” is in iniquity from the womb, and until old age is in treacherous guilt. Closely related to this phrase, and again clearly recalling Gen 2:7, is the expression “edice of dust” ( ) used in 1 , 21 to describe “one born of woman,” who is “also kneaded with water” ( ; see also 1 , 22 for the description “edice of water” [ ]). This creature is also possessed of a foundation of disgraceful shame, pollution, and a perverted spirit. The overwhelmingly negative character of the “formation of clay” is starkly presented: the precise signicance of particular descriptive details may be matters for debate, but there is no escaping the generally harsh judgment they pass on the composition of the human creature. Small wonder, wonder, Quotat Quotation ionss from from the Hodayot are are taken from F. García Martínez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The t he case Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition Edition , (11–4273) (11–4273) (Leiden 1997). Translations are mine. In the of 1 , , 22, the expressions and , translated above as “foundation of shame shame”” and “sour “source ce of pollut pollution ion”” respect respective ively ly,, have have strong strong connot connotati ations ons of sexual sexualimmo immora rality lity.. For the biblical background to these expressions, see M. Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns ( ( 3; Leiden 1961), 101. The The text text of 1 1 , 21 21 has has two two lacunae which do not seriously obscure the general sense of the lines: see García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition , (11– and , however, are perfectly legible and 4273), 150–151. The words uncontested. For studies in the anthropology anthropology presented presented by the Dead Sea texts, see particularly H. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde ( ( 15; Gütersloh Gütersloh 1980); H. Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran: The Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia 1963), 94–104 94–104;; and the percept perceptive ive observ observati ations ons of C. Newsom Newsom,, The Self Self As Symb Symboli olicc Space: Space:Con Constr struct uct- ( 52; Leiden 2004). ing Identity and Community at Qumran (
,, ,,
then, that documents from Qumran sometimes called sectarian, of which 1 is a representative, identify very specic human sources and efects of impurity which difer quite signicantly from those dened in the earliest rabb rabbin inic ic texts texts.. Ha Harri rring ngto tonn rema remarks rks that that the the write writerr of the the Hodayot “rega “regards rds the human being as inherently impure, always requiring purication by the holy spirit as well as by ritual means.” There were reasons enough, therefore, for the Targumim to take particular care over their rendering of Gen 2:7 which, as we have have seen, provided at least one non-rabbinic Jewish group with the means of constructing a model of humanity quite unlike anything envisaged by the sages. One well known rabbinic interpretation of the opening words of Gen 2:7 is, indeed, provided by Targum Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the verse, which reads: “And the Lord God created Adam with two inclinations ( ).” This gives us a double interpretation of the Hebrew , rst as “create,” and then “with two inclinations.” By this means, is not only “defused” of any awkward connotations it may have suggested, but is also brought safely within the boundaries of rabbinic thought. The Targumist ofers no explanation of the “two “two incl inclin inat atio ions ns”:”: the the hear hearer er or read reader er of the the Targu argum m is assu assume medd to be fami famililiar ar with a well known rabbinic idea which the sages derived from this very verse, the double writing of the letter yod in being taken to indicate the two yetsers, the good and bad inclinations in the human person. They would
What might constitute constitute a “sectaria “sectarian” n” text from the Qumran Qumran corpus corpus of writings writings is the sub ject of continuing debate and disagreement. For a convenient convenient account, see the judicious remarks of C. Hempel, “Kriterien zur Bestimmung ‘essenischer Verfasserschaft’ von Qumrantexten,” in Qumran Kontrovers: Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed. (ed. J. Frey and H. Stegemann; Paderborn 2003), 71–85. See J. Klawans, Impu (Oxfordd 2000), 2000), 67–91 67–91;; H.K. Harrin Harringt gton, on, Impurit rityy and Sinin Sin in Ancien Ancientt Judais Judaism m (Oxfor The Purity Texts ( 5; London 2004). See See Ha Harr rrin inggton, on, Purity Texts, 54–55, where she associates with statements from the passages from the Rule of the Community such as as 1 , , 7–8, 11–19. 11–19. Hodayot passages The The notio notionn of the the two two yetsers is found in classic texts such as m. Ber Ber . 9:5; b. b. Sanh Sanh. 61a; Gen. Rab.14:4;andotherrabbinicsources. TargumPseudo-Jonathan argum Pseudo-Jonathan refersexplicitlytothegood andtheevil yetser at at Deut Deut 30:6 30:6,, and and to the the evil evil yetser atExod32:22;Deut17:3.Notealsothe atExod32:22;Deut17:3.Notealsothe expression“the yetser oftheheart”in Tg.Ps.-J .,Exod14:8;Deut5:29,outofseveralexamples .,Exod14:8;Deut5:29,outofseveralexamples which could be cited. The most informative accounts of the two yetsers remain those of Schechter (S. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology [New York 1961], 242–292) and Urbach (E.E. Urbach, The The Sages: Sages: Their Their Concep Concepts ts and Belief Beliefss [2 vols.; Jerusalem 1979], 1:471– 483). These should now be considered, however, in light of I. Rosen-Zvi, “Two Rabbinic Inclinations?: Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma,” 39 39 (2008): (2008): 513–539. 513–539. Although RosenZvi (pp. 526–531) characterizes the notion of two two inclinations as “marginal” in rabbinic
also presumably be expected to know that the bad inclination or yetser , like every everythi thing ng else else God God had had crea create ted, d, wa wass very very good, good, as is cle clear arly ly sta state tedd in Gen. Gen. Rab Rab. 9:7; Qoh. Rab. 3:11. At the same time as referring implicitly to this duality of good and evil inclinations, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has pointed to the notion of multiplicity in the the comp compos osit itio ionn of Adam Adam,, a conc concer ernn wi with th numb number erss whic whichh wi willll be acce accent ntua uate tedd as the the Targu argum m push pushes es forw forwar ardd wi with th a leng length thyy expa expans nsio ionn of Gen Gen 2:7. The two inclinations, whose meaning Targum Pseudo-Jonathan takes for granted,willservepresentlytointroduceotheraspectsofthecreationofAdam, aspects which humanity does not share with the animals. ThemediumofAdam’screationwas“dustoftheground.”TheHebrewofthis phrase ( ) is somewhat ambiguous: does it mean dust from ground generally, any dust from any place; or does the dened noun refer to particular dust? Targum Neoti seems seems unconcerned about this, and follows the Hebrew very closely by using the Aramaic cognate word to translate late its Hebrew Hebrew count counterpa erpart. rt. Targum Onqelos, howeve howeverr, renders renders “grou “ground” nd” with with (“the land”) and thereby allows the reader to envisage either land in general, or the land, that is, the land of Israel, in particular. Targum Pseudo Jonathan exploits the relative vagueness of the Hebrew by taking up both understandings implicit in Targum Onqelos’s version, and declares: “and he took the dust from the place of the sanctuary and from the four winds of the world.” world.” According to this Targum, therefore, Adam’s Adam’s dust was collected by the CreatorfromtheplaceoftheJerusalemtemple,andfromthenorth,south,east, and west, that is, from ve separate locations. Schmerler’s suggestion, that Tar gum Pseudo-Jonathan Pseudo-Jonathan had arrived at this interpretation by taking the denite
literature generally, generally, he convincingly argues that it is a specically rabbinic idea, and that scholarly attempts to discover its direct antecedents in texts like the Qumran Q umran Rule of the require such considerable qualication as to be Community and the Testament of Asher require unconvincing. It should be noted that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan does not directly allude to other explanations of the two letters yod in in given in Gen. Rab. 14, which include the notion of Adam’s creation with two prosopa; and two formations, one from the th e lower world and one from the upper, upper, or one for this world world and one for the world to to come. Some aspects of these other interpretations may be glimpsed, perhaps, in the overall expansion of Gen 2:7 which Targum Pseudo-Jonathan sets forth. The fact fact tha thatt the the aanim nimal alss do not not pos posse sess ss two two yetsers, and the implications of this, is explicitly discussed at Gen. Rab. 14:4. The view of the evil yetser commonly commonly held by many modern researchers, that it represents a sexual impulse in human beings which is often dicu dicult lt to contro controll is discus discussed sed and cogentl cogentlyy critici criticised sed by I. Rosen Rosen-Z -Zvi, vi, “Sexua “Sexualis lising ing the Evil Evil Inclination: Rabbinic yetzer Scholarship,” ‘yetzer ’ and Modern Scholarship,” 60 (2009): 254–281. The same procedure procedure is follo followed wed by the Syriac Syriac Peshitt Peshittaa at at this this point.
,, ,,
article letter he of the Hebrew as the numeral ve is entirely likely and, as we shall see, has much to commend co mmend it. In other rabbinic texts we nd both these views, but separately recorded in diferent sources. Thus the dust of Adam’s Adam’s creation came from the place of the altar, altar, according to a statement of R. Judah b. Pazzi in y. Naz. 7.2.56b. This sage notes that Adam was created from , the exact material out of which God commands that an altar of earth be made for him (Exod 20:24). Thus Adam was created from stuf of the place where the sins of his descendants would be purged, a point made explicit also by Rabbis Berekiah and Helbo in Gen. Rab. 14:8. It is true that this haggadah from the Jerusalem Talmud undoubtedly bears bears a fami family ly rese resembl mblan ance ce to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’swords;butitdoesnot correspond exactly to the t he Targum’ Targum’ss insistence that Adam’s dust came from the sanctuary. sanctuary. Both the Targum and the Talmud agree on one mightily important issue: at least a part of Adam’s physical composition composition was, by denition, holy. The Targum Targum may imply something more, for if some of Adam’s Adam’s dust was taken from the sanctuary rather than the place of the altar, might it not have been gathered from the holy of holies itself? This particular implication is excluded in the Jerusalem Talmud; but for Targum Pseudo-Jonathan it might assume great weight if this Targum was concerned to combat gnostic or dualistic conceptions of Adam’s physical creation from the earth, a material substance of low quality and quite possibly the dwelling place of evil. Both Targum and Talmud would agree, however, that the Jerusalem temple is a single, unique place: it is the one place where the one God, the God of Israel, promised that he would place his name, which is one. Dust from either altar or from temple, therefore, would imply also a specically Jewish element in Adam’s physical make-up.
Schmerler Schmerler made this suggestion suggestion in B. Schmerler Schmerler,, (Bilgoraj 1932), which was not available to me; I owe the information to A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic ( Hebrew). Targums to the Pentateuch (2 vols.; Jerusalem 1979), 1:137 (Hebrew). Levis Levison on (J.R. (J.R. Levi Leviso son, n, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism [JSPSu [ JSPSupp 1; Sheeld Sheeld 1988], 186) remarks that Apoc. Mos. 40 indicates that the dust utilised for the creation of Adam had come from the place of paradise. If paradise be construed as the garden of Eden, then the Apocalypse of Moses may well suggest that Adam’s dust was taken from the place of the temple, since Eden may be identied as the site of the temple. See Jub. 4:26; 8:19; and similar notions in 1 En. 26:1. For a detailed account of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim sourceswhichindicatethevariousplacesfromwheretheAlmightycollectedAdam’sdust, see V. Aptowitzer, Aptowitzer, “Zur Erklärung einiger merkwürdiger Agadoth über die Schöpfung des Mensches,” Mensches,” in Festkrift i anledning af professor David Simonsens 70-aarige 70-aarige fødslesdag (ed. J. Fischer, Fischer, A. Freimann, Freimann, and J. Guttmann; København København 1923), 112, 121–122.
At the same time, says says Targum Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Creator took dust from the four winds of the world, which, unlike the temple dust, would be unconsecrated. This view is represented in some manner also in other rabbinic texts like b. Sanh. 38a–b; Pirqe R. El . 11; Tanh. 3. It must be carefully noted, however, however, that these sources do d o not ofer an exact copy of what Targum Targum Pseudo Jonathan tells us; we shall say more about this later. The collection of dust from the cardinal points of the compass testies to the universal character of Adam’s Adam’s composition, a matter to which Targum Pseudo-Jonathan will return. Inevitably, Inevitably, some students of Targum Targum Pseudo-Jonathan have discerned here an internal contradiction in the Targum, Targum, which seems to depict Adam now as an Israelite, now as an “everyman,” a prototype of universal humanity, with the Targum placing the emphasis on the t he latter. latter. Shinan, however, however, has argued con vincingly that internal contradiction is not a factor here, since Targum Targum Pseudo Jonathan is adopting a course of action, well represented in other parts of the Targu argum m whic whichh he duly duly note notes, s, to expl exploi oitt to the the full full the the pote potent ntia iall of the the scri script ptur ural al verse being translated. In any event, we have a responsibility to attempt to make sense of the text of Targum Targum Pseudo-Jonathan as it stands in its nal form, whatever putative putative sources may may theoretically lie behind it. In truth, its message is clear, that the physical composition of Adam Rishon was of unconsecrated dust dust mix mixed wi with th holy holy dust dust,, poss possib ibly ly dust dust whos whosee holi holine ness ss was of the the high highes estt pospossible quality. quality. This message parallels neatly the Targum’s Targum’s observation about the two yetsers: Adam’s two inclinations go hand in hand with two kinds of dust,
Maherr (M. Mahe (M. Ma Mahe herr, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis: Translated, with Introduction and Notes [ArBib 1; Edinburgh 1992], 22) notes 2 En. 30:13 and Sib. Or . 3.24–26 as recording God’s creation of Adam out of four letters representing north, south, east, and west. See also R. le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque , Genèse ( ( 245; Paris 1978), 84–85; and below, below, n. 25. See below below.. Throug Throughou hout,t, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems intent on setting forth a distinctive and carefully considered account of Adam’s formation which is consistent in its own terms. Shinan’s insight (see below, n. 19) that the identication of sources for Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s haggadah in this instance yields only limited results for an appreciation of the overall meaning and force of the Targum’s argum’s words seems entirely correct. See particular particularly ly E. Levene, Levene, “Contradi “Contradictor ctoryy Sources Sources in Targum Jonathan ben ʿUzziel ,”,” Sinai 33(1968):36–38(Hebrew).Ginzberg(L.Ginzberg, TheLegendsoftheJews [7vols.;Philadelphia 5727–5728/1967–1968], 5:72–73) ofers a comprehensive survey of traditions about the sources of Adam’s dust, and concludes that the older sources spoke of Adam’s dust as taken from diferent parts of the earth, while later sources locate his dust and formation in Jerusalem. See Shina inan, Aggadah, 1:136–138; A. Shinan, The Embroidered Targum: The Aggadah in Targum Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem 1992), 86–87 (Hebrew).
,, ,,
holy and unconsecrated, to make up this unique creature. While it would be exceeding the evidence to suggest that the Targum’s argum’s words represent polemic agai agains nstt a parti particu cula larr grou groupp of peopl people, e, no-on no-onee who who held held view viewss abou aboutt Adam Adam’’s dust dust of the sort we encountered in the Hodayot , or gnostics who denigrated the human body as hopelessly implicated in evil, or anyone anyone of the Manichaen persuasion, would have found the words of this Targum acceptable. A distinctly positive estimate of Adam’s Adam’s human composition is what Targum Pseudo-Jonathan wishes to convey; and the Targum reinforces this with its next observation, which belongs logically with the mention of the types of dust involved, that Adam was “a mixture ( ) from all the waters of the world.” world.” Once more the universal character of Adam’s Adam’s composition is asserted, although this specic notion is not attested in other rabbinic sources. What is of particular interest, however, however, is the fact that the Aramaic verb signies “to knead, mould,” and is used time and again by Targum Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to describe the kneading or mingling of substances used in the temple service. For example, Exod 29:40 requires the ofering of ne our kneaded k neaded ( ) with beaten oil to accompany the Tamid lamb: lamb: Targum Pseudo-Jonathan took this to mean that the our must be with the oil. Indeed, Targum Pseudoon some 32 occasions, and no fewer than Jonathan uses the verbal stem 27 of these occur in the legislation for the priests. To describe the mixture of Adam’s Adam’s substances he does not use , a commo commonn verb verb whic which, h, intri intrigu guin ingl glyy, the the
While While some statem statement entss in Qumran Qumran texts texts noted noted abov abovee directl directlyy juxtapos juxtaposee the physic physical al composition of the human being, expressed by means of the noun , with human sinfulness and weakness, this is not the case in rabbinic texts. As Rosen-Zvi makes plain (Rosen-Zvi, (Rosen-Zvi, “Two “ Two Rabbinic Inclinations?,” 529), the yetser in in rabbinic thought represents a “reied object”; he does not, however, however, comment on the yetser ’s’s intimate involvement in the Hodayot with with the physical formation formation of humanity, which lies outside his concerns in that essay. For the polemic polemical al charac character ter of Targum Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s interpretation of Gen 2:7 and traditions related to it, see Aptowitzer, Aptowitzer, “Zur Erklärung,” Erklärung,” 113–114. The single single and and the print printed ed edition editionss of Targum , Targum Pseudo-Jonathan read the noun which would require a translation as follows: “And he h e took dust from the place of the sanct sanctua uary ryan andd from fromthefourwind thefourwindss ofth of thee wo worl rld, d, and and (he (he took took)) a mixtu mixturefromall refromall the the wa wate ters rs of the world.” On this point, see Shinan, Embroidered Embroid ered Targum Targum, 86. So Schm Schmer erle lerr, , 23 as noted by Shinan, Aggadah, 1:187. See also M.M. Brayer, Brayer, “The Pentateuchal Targum Attributed to Jonathan ben Uzziel—A Source for Unknown Midrashim, Midrashim,”” in TheAbrahamWeissJubileeVolume (ed.M.S.Feldblum;NewYork1964),201– 231, for the present reference 207 (Hebrew). Shinan (Shinan, Aggadah, 1:136–137) notes a partial parallel to this idea in the Syriac Cave of Treasures. See also Aptowitzer, “Zur Erklärung,” 122.
translators of the Peshitta employed to render the opening of Gen 2:7, 2:7, butratherawordheavilyassociatedwiththepriestlyserviceofthetemple.One poss possib ible le reas reason on for this this choi choice ce of vo voca cabu bula lary ry is not not di dicu cult lt to disc discov over er,, beca becaus usee Targum Pseudo-Jonathan regarded Adam as a priest: the Targum informs us that he had built an altar after he was expelled from Eden, and that Cain and Abel had later sacriced on it. In his physical composition, it would seem, Adam has been kneaded by his Creator in much the same way as the later priests would mix together the holy oferings in the temple service. This somewhatbroadhintofapriestlycharacterforAdamwillbedevelopedfurther in this Targum, as we shall see presently. This is not given to us, however, until Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has made one nal observation about the “dust from the ground” out of which God created Adam: “and he created him as red, black, and white.” white.” Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 11 Eliezer 11 is often cited as a parallel to the Targum’s words at this point; in reality, however, that midrash difers substantially from what we nd in Targum Pseudo Jonathan, in that it lists four distinct colours, not of human beings, but of the diferent kinds of dust from which Adam was himself created. The Targum, by contrast, appears to have in mind the skin colours of the various races of humankind, and to wish to indicate that all these varied groups have a single, common ancestor. ancestor. The original unity of humanity is very much to the fore in this Targum’s Targum’s lengthy description of Adam’s Adam’s physical composition: in this one creature, two yetsers, three colours, four kinds of unconsecrated dust, and one kind of holy dust are all combined. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is now ready to expound the next segment of the Hebrew text about Adam, the note that the Lord God “breathed into his nostrils nost rils the breath of life.” life.” We We must rst glance briey at Targum Onqelos and Targum Neoti , which translate this phrase in a fairly straightforward manner. Targum Onqelos, in
So Tg. Ps.-J .,., Gen 8:22. See also Gen. Rab. 34:9, which species that it was “the great altar which is in Jerusalem.” Jerusalem.” Adam was certainly viewed as priest by the book of Jubilees Jubilees,which records his ofering of incense on the day he left Eden ( Jub. 3:27). See further Levison, Portraits Portraits, 95. See See M. Pérez érez Ferná ernánd ndez ez,, Los Capítulos de Rabbí Eliezer (Valencia (Valencia 1984), 109 for brief discussion. Note particularly his observation on the Greek form of Adam’s name and its interpretation in some texts as an acrostic, yielding the rst letters of the Greek words for east, west, north, and south. Targum Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s haggadah will not t this scheme, nor does it cohere with Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer ’s’s statement that the dust of the rst man was of four colours, red, black, white, and green: the red composing his blood, the black his entrails, the white his sinews, and the t he green his body. On this point, point, see J. Bow Bowke kerr, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge 1969), 117, citing m. Sanh. 4:5.
,, ,,
deed, uses Aramaic words cognate with the original Hebrew ( ) to yield . This Aramaic translation possibly preserves serves an ambiguity of the Hebrew, Hebrew, where may be translated either as “intohisnostrils”or“intohisface.” TargumNeoti and TargumPseudo-Jonatha argum Pseudo-Jonathann eliminate this uncertainty by translating the words as “into his nostrils.” Otherwis erwise, e,al alll the the Targu argumi mim m rema remain infa fair irly lycl close oseto tothe theori origi gina nall He Hebr brew ew at this this poin point.t. The last four words of Gen 2:7 in Hebrew ( ) are usually translated into English as “and the man became a living being.” For the Targumists, this presented an obvious diculty: the Hebrew phrase had alreadybeenusedatGen1:21,24,30withreferencetoanimals.Here,itisdirectly associated with the breath of life which God breathes into Adam. No such brea breath th is reco record rded ed as havi having ng been been gran grantted to the the anim animal als; s; so what what migh mightt be the the diference between the “living being” which Adam becomes with the breath of life,andtheanimalswhichareapparentlygrantednosuchthing?OnlyoneTargum, Fragment Fragment Targumaccording argum accordingto to Vatican,translatedtheHebrewwithout embellishment. All the others in one way or another understood this phrase to refer to Adam’s ability to speak. Closest to the Hebrew is Targum Neoti , which states: “and Adam became a living being, one speaking.” speaking.” Both these Targumim preserve in their Aramaic the noun cognate with the Hebrew , here here tran transl slat ated ed as “bei “being ng,,” but but often often rend render ered ed as “sou “soul.l.”” Targum Onqelos, havin havingg up to this point remained very close to the Hebrew, now ofers what, for this Targum, is quite a sharp divergence from the t he biblical text, informing us “and it [i.e., the breath of life] became in Adam a speaking spirit.” Here, the Targum has altered the structure of the Hebrew sentence to make its point: the breath of life becomes the subject of the sentence, and is said to become within Adam
Simila ilar to Targum Onqelos is a marginal gloss of Targum Targum Neoti , which reads . For Hebr ebrew as meaning “face” on certain occasions, see F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, “ ,” 60, where the expression “bow one’s face to the ground” is noted. The Septuagint translated this segment with the clause “and he breathed into his face the breath of life,” whereas Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion all represent the Creator as breathing into Adam’s nostrils. See J. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis ( 35; Atlanta 1993), 1993), 25; M. Harl, Harl, La Bible d’ Alexandrie Alexandrie , La Genèse (Paris 1994), 101. The Aramaicre maicreaads , whic whichh Klei Kleinn (Kle (Klein in,, The Fragment-Targums ofthe t ranslates as “And “And Adam became a living being.” Pentateuch Pentateuch, 2:90) translates Targum ’sAramaicisverysimilartothatof Fragment TargumNeoti Neoti ’sAramaicisverysimilartothatof Fragment Targumof argum of Vatican 440,with the addition, addition, at the end of the clause, of the participle participle (“speaking”). McNamara (M. McNamara, Targum Neoti , Genesis Translated, with Apparatus and Notes [ArBib 1; Edin Edinbu burg rghh 1992 1992], ], 57) 57) tran transl slat ates es as “and “and Adam Adam beca became me a livi living ng bein beingg endowed endowed with speech speech.”
a speaking spirit. The Hebrew , which we have noted may also be translated as “soul, “soul ,” is taken by Targum Onqelos as meaning “spirit” in this context. No doubt Targum Onqelos had in mind Gen 7:22, which mentions “everything in which was the breath of the spirit of life.” This scriptural clause might go some way towards explaining in general terms the translational tactics of o f Tar Tar gum Onqelos, but it does not deal with the particular matter of the “speaking spirit.” spirit.” Indeed, this may may be one of those many occasions when Targum Targum Onqelos cannot be fully comprehended without reference to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan , which alters the Hebrew in exactly the same way as Targum Onqelos,andofers furtherinformation.Itreads:“andthebreathinthebodyofAdambecamea spea speaki king ng spiri spirit,t, for enli enligh ghte tenm nmen entt of the eyes eyes and and for for maki making ng the ea ears rs atte attent ntiv ivee to hear.” Both Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, therefore, envisage the “bre “breat athh of life life”” as bein beingg “in “in Adam Adam”” and and becom becomin ingg “a spea speaki king ng spir spirit it..” What What migh mightt be the rationale behind this exegesis of the Hebrew? Central to the thinking of the Targunists at this point will have been other passages of Scripture which juxtapose “spirit” along with “breath,” “breath,” “dust,” or “life.” They would have found no diculty in introducing “spirit” into their interpretations of Gen 2:7, since in addition to Gen 7:22 (as already noted) they would have found in Job 27:3 the statement “as long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God in my nostrils,” which is followed by a reference to speech: “my lips shall not speak
Unlike Frag Fragment ment Targum argum of Vatican atican 440 and Targum Targum Neoti , both Targum Targum Onqelos and dispens nsee with with the Aram Aramai aicc cogn cognat atee of this this wo word rd.. We shoul shouldd note note TargumPseudo-Jonathan argum Pseudo-Jonathan dispe that Gen. 14:11 stat states es that that is one one of ve ve expr expres essi sion onss which which refe referr to the same same thin thing, g, Gen. Rab Rab. 14:11 the others being “spirit,” “breath,” “unique one,” and “life.” For all the Targumim, what transforms Adam’s Adam’s dust into something living is the divine breath. TargumOnqelos, TargumPseudo-Jonathan,and TargumNeoti argum Neoti ofthisverseoferveryclose translations of the Hebrew phrase; a marginal gloss of Targum Neoti , however, reads “everything in which was of life, in its nostrils.” For For an infor informat mative ive discu discussi ssion on about about the the comple complexx relati relations onship hip betw between een Targum Onqeespecially in the matter of haggadic haggadic information, information, see los and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, especially G. Vermes, ermes, “Hagg “Haggada adahh in the Onkelos Targum,”in Post-B 1975), Post-Biblic iblical al Jewish Jewish Studies Studies (Leiden 1975), 127–138; G.J. Kuiper, The Pseudo-Jonathan Targum and and Its Relat Relation ionshi shipp to Targum Onkelos (SEAug 9; Rome 1972); R. le Déaut, Introduction à la littérature littérature targumique (Rome 1988), 98–101. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Adam, and says nothing Pseudo-Jo nathan merely refers in passing to the directly about his having been rst fashioned as a golem. This may be implied in what the Targum Targum reports, but it is not essential to the understanding of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s words. For the initial creation of of Adam as golem, see Gen. Rab. 14:10, and sources listed by Aptowitzer, Aptowitzer, “Zur Erklärung, Erklärung,”” 122–123.
,, ,,
injustice” (Job 27:4). From the prophetic writings, they would recall Zech 12:1, which describes the Lord as (“and forming the spirit of Adam in the midst of him”). King David had also stated explicitly that the spirit of the Lord spoke in him, and that God’s word ( ) was upon his tongue. Post-biblical Jewish works also speak of “spirit” as having a central role in Adam’s Adam’s composition: writings like Wis 15:11 and Josephus, .. 1.34 come to mind, but they do not suggest that the spirit had any role in speech. In the case of the t he Wisdom of Solomon Solom on writer, writer, however, however, the spirit of God is prominently associated with divine wisdom, whose role in enlightenment needs no discussion. Perhaps Targum Pseudo-Jonathan felt that mention of a “speaking spirit” would allow the reader to make the implicit connection with wisdom and and its its powe powerr to enli enligh ghte tenn Adam Adam’’s visi vision on and and hear hearin ing. g. The The clas classi sica call midr midras ashi him, m, too, declare that God implanted speech in Adam: according to Gen. Rab. 14:4 this was one of the four attributes which Adam shared with the creatures of the upper world. The The targ targum umic ic refer referen ence cess to the “spe “speak akin ingg spir spirit it”” in Adam Adam,, howe howeve verr, may may ulti ulti-mately be most closely indebted to certain cer tain rabbinic interpretations of Ps 139. It will be recalled that a passage passage from b. b. Sanh Sanh. 38a–b was noted earlier as informingusthatthedustusedinthecompositionofAdamcamefromdiferentparts of the world. To R. Meir, the Talmud ascribes the view that Adam’s dust came from all parts of the earth: two scriptural texts are ofered as proof, the rst of
See See alsoJob alsoJob 33:4 33:4:: “The “The spir spirit it ofGod made made me, me, and and the the brea breath th ofthe Almi Almigh ghty ty giv gives me life life..” TheQumran1,27–28representtheAlmightyasonewhohas“createdaspiritonthe tongue” of human beings, specically (in this instance) to recount God’s praises and just judgments. This text, however however,, does not employ employ the phrase “speaking spirit,” and does not refertothebreathoflifenor,indeed,toanyotherspeciesofbreath.Italsoappearsdirectly to indicate that God has foreknowledge of human speech ( ), a notion not expressed in the Targumim. Mansoor (Mansoor, Thanksgiving Hymns, 102) compares compares a similar similar idea found in 1 En. 84:1, which Nickelsbu Nickelsburg rg (G.W.E. (G.W.E. Nickelsbur Nickelsburg, g, 1Enoch,ACommentaryontheBookof 1Enoch 1Enoch , Chapters “And I spoke with 1–36; 81–108 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis 2001], 345) translates as follows: “And thebreathofmymouthandwithatongueofesh,whichGodhasmadeforthesonsofthe eshofman,thattheymightspeakwithit.(Andhehasgiventhembreathandtongueand mouth that they might speak with it).” Nickelsburg (Nickelsburg, (Nickelsburg, 1Enoch 1Enoch , A Comm Commen enta tary ry 1Enoch , Chapters 1–36; 81–108, 352) also draws attention to 1 En. 14:1–2; 1 Cor ontheBookof 1Enoch 13:1; Sir 51:22, none of which, however, however, uses the language of the Aramaic Targumim. This This text text is cited cited at Gen. Rab. 14:4. 2Sam 23:2 23:2,, whic whichh reads eads . Discus Discussio sionn of these these two text texts, s, and and their poss possibl iblee anit anities ies with with ideas ideas well well known known in contemporary Greek philosophy, philosophy, can be found in Levison, Portraits, 53–54, 102–103.
which is Ps 139:16 (“Your (“Your eyes saw ”) and the second Zech 4:10. R. Oshaiah then declares in Rav’s name that four constituent parts of Adam’s body came from four diferent places. The crucial point for our purposes is that Ps 139 is interpreted here as referring to Adam; and that the verse cited could be construed, and indeed was construed, as though Adam were the speaker . . Sure enough, further on in the sugya, we hear that Rav Judah stated in the name of Rav that Adam Rishon spoke Aramaic, and for proof of that statement he gives Ps 139: 139:17 17,, anoth another er sayi saying ng couc couche hedd in the rst rst perso personn sing singul ular ar whic whichh read readss . The speaker is once again said to be Adam, who is declaring: “how glorious are thy thoughts to me!” Rav’s view is evidently that Adam wanted at least the last two words words of this sentence sentence to be understood as Aramaic rather than Hebrew. Hebrew. For those whose business it was to provide p rovide Aramaic Targum Targum for the Hebrew Bible, this rabbinic opinion, which grants a certain cachet for for the Aramaic language, must have been of some moment. Thus if we examine Ps 139 with this information in mind, we nd that the rst person governing governing voice of the text has indicated right at the start of his poem that the Lord has understood from from afar far of of (Ps (Ps 139: 39:2). 2). Thi This word ord migh mightt loo ookk as if it were ere an Aram Aramaaic form, with the object marker followed by the term which will be used again in v. v. 17, but here with a rst person singular sux, meaning “my thought.” thought.” Two verses later, later, the poet remarks that there is no (“word”) on his tongue that the Lord does do es not know. While is certainly part of Classical Hebrew poetic vocabulary, vocabulary, it is also extremely common in in Aramaic. In addition, the poet is conscious that God has “fashioned” him ( ; Ps139:5),aprocesswhichislater(atv.15)describedinsomewhatobscureterms as involving his being made in secret, this idea being expressed in parallelism with the dening de ning sentence (“I was variegated in the lower parts of the earth”). The rst word here is a Pual form of a verb meaning to variegate, variegate, and could most m ost naturally be understood to mean that the poet was comp compoun ounded ded of va vari riou ouss subs substa tanc nces es and and colou colours rs.. Outsi Outside de Ps 139: 139:15 15,, the the verb verb is found only in the book of Exodus, where it describes the weaving together
Acco ccording ing to b.B.Bat . 14b, 14b, altho althoug ughh David David comp compos osed ed the the Psal Psalms ms as a whol whole, e, this this vers versee wa wass specially composed by Adam. Although several rabbinic texts credit Adam with having uttered this Psalm or verses within it, such a view was by no means universal. Thus the Targum of Psalms is very careful to ascribe the whole composition to David. See D. Stec, argum of Psalms Psalms Transla The Targum Translated, ted,with withaa Critical CriticalIntr Introduct oduction, ion,Appa Apparat ratus, us,and and Notes Notes (ArBib 16; London 2004), 232–234. Rashi was able to comment on this Psalm without a single direct reference to Adam. See M.I. Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms (Leiden 2002), 732–738. For For its use use in Hebrew Hebrew,, see, e.g., e.g., Ps Ps 19:5; 19:5; Job 13:17; 13:17; 21:2; 21:2; 24:25, 24:25, and often often in in this latter latter book. book.
,, ,,
of materials of diferent colours for use in the sanctuary. The “fashioning” the poet mentioned in v. 5 could also easily suggest that he was formed from cardinal points of the compass, for he has been made , words usually rend render ered ed “beh “behin indd and and befor before, e,”” but but whic whichh can can equa equallllyy we wellllmea meann “w “west est and and ea east. st.” More might be said, but it seems clear that much of what Targum Pseudo Jonathan has to tell us in his detailed interpretation of Gen 2:7 might owe a good deal to Ps 139 understood, as some rabbinic authorities understood it, as a psalm about Adam, even to the extent that Adam himself uttered at least somewordsofit,ifnotthewholecomposition.The“speakingspirit”whichGod placed into Adam seems to have been derived by the Targumists, therefore, at least in large part, from their reading of Ps 139. As such, this “speaking spirit” addresses the Almighty and ponders God’s wonders: not least, he is overwhelmingly conscious of God as light (Ps 139:11–12); accordingly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan explains that the speaking spirit in Adam is “for illumination of eyes.” It is also for “attentiveness of ears,” implying that Adam is ready to do God’s bidding. And here, inevitably, the reader encounters an irony; for the “illumination of eyes” and “attentiveness of ears” which Targum Pseudo Jonathan attributes to the speaking spirit breathed by God into Adam’s body turn out to be faculties he does not use to best efect. Endowed with such privileges, he still fails to obey the divine command, comm and, and is sent out from f rom Eden. We We may summarize the exegetical endeavours of the several Targumim as follows. 1. Fra tantalilisi sing ngly ly brie brief,f, but serve servess to remi remind nd Fragme gment nt Targum argumof of Vatica aticann 440 440 is tanta the Meturgeman of the more or less exact wording of the nal Hebrew words of Gen 2:7. Why it should feel called upon to act in this way is not a question we can answer, given Fragment Targum of Vatican 440’s terseness; but this Targum might have been aware of dangers in publishing too freely the notion thatAdamhadwithinhimaspeakingspiritofdivineorigin.Itmight,therefore, have been concerned to warn against too elevated a view of Adam.
Thus it is used with referen reference ce to to the screen at the the door door of the tent tent of of meeting meeting (Exod (Exod 26:36; 36:37); for the screen at the gate of the court (Exod 38:18); the weaving of the various colours in certain of the high priestly vestments (Exod 28:39; 39:29); and in discussion of those craftsmen entrusted with the sacred tasks (Exod 35:35; 38:23). Outside this one occurrence in Ps 139, therefore, the word occurs entirely in settings referring to the sanctuary and its holiness. The cognate noun , however, is used, particularly by Ezekiel, to refer to matters which are anything but sacred. See Ezek 16:10, 13, 18; 27:7, 16, 24.
2. Targum Onqelos, Targum Neoti , and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan insist that God created Adam. Adam. They further insist that God’s breath within him became a speaking spirit. Adam was thus composed of both earthly and heavenly material. TargumOnqelos further implie implies, s, and TargumPseudo-Jonathan argum Onqelos further argum Pseudo-Jonathan openly declares, that some of the t he earth used in his creation was holy. holy. Targum Pseudo Jonathan seemsalsotoenvisageananalogybetweenGod’smixingthedustand water which make up Adam’s Adam’s body and the mixture of holy substances by the priests in the temple service. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan certainly, and Targum Onqelos possibly, might prove helpful in combating gnostic, Manichaen, or other dualistic-style notions about the low-grade quality of Adam’s Adam’s formation. In particular, particular, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s expansive interpretation of the verse stands in complete contrast to the picture of the human being presented in the Hodayot from from Qumran, in which the physical characteristics of humanity are intimately associated with negative qualities like shame, iniquity, iniquity, sin, and pollution. 3. The “speaking spirit” which Targum Onqelos, Targum Neoti , and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Pseudo-Jonathan ascribe to Adam seems to be derived from the application of scri script ptur ural al verse ersess from from the the Prop Prophe hets ts and and the the Writi riting ngss to Gen Gen 2:7 2:7 in an atte attemp mptt to dene what diferentiated Adam as “a living being” from the animals as “living beings.” It would seem that Ps 139 in particular played an important part in the thinking of at least some rabbis about the nature of Adam’s formation; and the interpretation of that Psalm in some talmudic passages noted in this essay serves to emphasise the close anities of the Targumim with other rabbinic texts. 4. Indivi Individua duall consti constituen tuentt elemen elements ts of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan’s interpreta interpretation tion of Gen 2:7 in particular seem remarkably in tune with several other statements in Ps 139, once these are understood as having been uttered by Adam himself. To this extent, the “speaking spirit” makes of Adam an inspired author of (part of) of ) a scriptural scriptural text, text, if we follow the thinking of those rabbis who associated associated this Psalm so closely with the rst human being. The composition of Adam’s phys physic ical al form form as repr represe esent nted ed by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Pseudo-Jonathan,Gen2:7mayinclude not only a careful and sustained exegesis of individual verses from Ps 139 as referringtoAdam’sconstitution,butalsotheuseofpriestlytraditions,towhich this Targum is no stranger.
For a recen recentt exha exhaus ustiv tivee surv survey ey of the the exte extens nsiv ive, e, even even perv pervas asiv ivee pries priestl tlyy cont conten ents ts and and char char-acter acter of much informat information ion provi provided ded by this Targum, argum, see B.P. B.P. Morten Mortensen sen,, ThePr The Pries iestho thood od in
,, ,,
Certainly Targum Targum Onqelos, Targum Targum Neoti , and Targum Targum Pseudo-Jonathan could be taken to imply that the rst Adam was, in the literal sense of the word, “inspired.” Whether the Targumists themselves thought of him as a prophet, however, is by no means clear; and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan especially paves the wa wayy for intimations intimations of Adam’s Adam’s disobedience disobedience in designating designating the speaking speaking spirit as given “for illumination of eyes.” A little later in the Genesis narrative, this Targum Targum will inform us that t hat Eve looked at the tree of life, saw that it was “a cure for the light of the eyes,” and under Sammael’s evil inuence, decided to eat from it. The consequences of her act need no comment. Others, knowing the Targumim, may have concluded that Adam’s “speaking spirit” had indeed made him a prophet, prophet, and that without without the prophetic prophetic spirit spirit human beings beings were inadequate. Such seem to have been the views of the Montanists, who would no doubt have found the targumic versions of Gen 2:7 much to their tastes; but that, as they say, say, is another story. story. Enough has been said here to demonstrate d emonstrate the remarkable exegetical ability of the Targumists, and the rich resources which they provide for the student of Hebrew Scripture.
Targum Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Renewing the Profession (2 vols.; 4; Leiden 2006). For For the possible origin of some of this information in late Second Temple and Tannaitic times, see A. Büchle Büchlerr, DiePr Die Pries iesterund terund derCu der Cultu ltuss im letzte letztenn Jahrz Jahrzehn ehntt desje des jerus rusale alemis mische chenn Tempel empelss (Vienna1895),151–159.AndforthelikelypreservationbythisTargumofhalakahrelatingto priestly matters which dates from before the fall of the temple, see J.M. Baumgarten, “The Laws of ‘orlah ‘orlah and First Fruits in the Light of Jubilees, the Qumran Writings, and Targum Ps.Jonathan Ps.Jonathan,” 38 (1987): 195–202. See Tg. Ps.-J .,., Gen 3:6, which declares: “And the woman saw Sammael, the angel of death; and she was afraid, and she knew that the tree was good to eat, and that it was a healing for the light of the eyes, and that the tree was desirable so that one might become wise by means of it. So she took from its fruit, and ate, and gave it also to her husband with her; and he ate.” For further information on this verse, see Shinan, Aggadah, 2:272–273; 2:272–273; Bowker, Targums, 125–126; le Déaut, Targum du Pentateuque , Genèse , 91. The possibil possibility ity that that Montan Montanism ism in its origins origins was inuenced inuenced by by Judaism Judaism is explore exploredd by J. Massingberd Massingberd Ford, Ford, “Was “Was Montanism a Jewish-Christian Heresy?,” Heresy?,” 17 (1966): 145–158, 17 andis and is discuss discussed ed furtherby furtherby C. Treve Trevett, tt,““Apocal Apocalyps ypse, e, Ignati Ignatius,Monta us,Montanus nus:: Seekingthe Seekingthe Seeds, Seeds,”” 43 (1989): 313–338. Certainly the Montanists were concerned to present Adam as a prop prophe het, t, and and the seco second nd chapt chapter er of Genes Genesis is prov proved ed cruc crucia iall for for their their purp purpos oses es.. Genes Genesis is 2:21 2:21 reports that the Almighty had cast (“stupor”) upon Adam, and the Septuagint had interp interpret reted ed thisto this to signif signifyy “ecsta “ecstasy sy,,” which which the Montan Montanist istss unders understo tood od to refer refer to prophe prophetic tic inspiration. See Tertullian, An. 2.21. For Jewish and early Christian interpretations of this verse, see C.T.R. Hayward, Hayward, Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis : Translated with an Introduction and Commentary Commentary (Oxford 1995), 111–113.
Appendix: The Targumim of Gen 2:7, and selected verses of Ps 139 in Translation
. Targum Onkelos of Gen. 2:7, ed. A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1959). “And the Lord God created Adam Adam (from) dust from the land/earth; and He breathed into his face the breath of life, and it became in Adam a speaking spirit .” . Targum Neoti of Gen. 2:7 , ed. A. Díez Macho, Neophyti 1 Génesis (MadridBarcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientícas, 1968). “And the Lord God created Adam Adam (from) dust from the ground; and He brea breath thed ed into into his his nost nostri rils ls the the brea breath th of life life,, and and Adam Adam beca became me a livi living ng bein being, g, speaking.” . Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 2:7, ed. E.G. Clarke et al., Targum Pseudo Jonathan of the Pentateuch Pentateuch (Hoboken: Ktav, 1984). “And the Lord God created Adam Adam with two inclinations; and He brought dust dust from the place of the Sanctuary and from from the four winds of heaven. And (He made) a moulding from all the waters of the world, and created him as red, blac blackk and and whit whitee; and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And the Adam a speaking spirit for enlightenment of the breath became became in the body of Adam eyes and for attentiveness of the ears.” . Frag Fragme ment nt Targu argum m Vatic atican an Ebr Ebr. 440 440 of Gen. Gen. 2:7 2:7,ed.M.Klein, The Fragme FragmentntTargums of the Pentateuch, vol. 1 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980). “And Adam was a living being.” . of Psalm Psalm 139 139 (selected verses) (1) For the choir-master. Of David, a Song. O Lord, you have searched me and known me. (2) You know my sitting down and my rising up: you have understood from afar of my thought [lerēʿî ]. ]. (4) For there is not a word [millâh ]onmytongue,butthatyou,OLord,knowitentirely.(5)Youformed me [tzartānî ] behind and before, and have have laid the palm of o f your hand upon me.
,, ,,
(15) My bone was not hidden from you when I was made in secrecy: I was “variegated” [ruqqamtî ] in the lowest places of the earth. e arth. (16) Your eyes saw saw my unformed state, and upon your book all of them were written: for days they were formed [ yutzārû] … (17) And for me, how honourable are your thoughts [rēʿeykhā]. O God …
Inde Indexx of Anci Ancien entt Sour Source cess
Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Atrahasis Epic
Epic of Gilgamesh
1.204–212, 223–233 10n31 Enki and Ninmach Myth
1.9–10
10n27
1 1 n3 3 1 1 n3 4
Kar4Myth
24–26 Zinci Zincirl rlii ( 214 214))
Enuma Elish
1 6.6–7 6.35–36
1:34–41 1.4.6–34
1 1 n3 6 50
6 10 10
Old Te Testament
Genesis
1–6 1–3 1–2 1:1–2:3 1:1–31 1:3 1:4–5 1:11–12 1:11 1:12 1:20, 24 1:21 1:22 1:24 1:25 1:26–27 1:26 1:27 1:28 1:29 2–3 2 2:1–7 2:1–6 2:1 2:2 2:4–6
34 1 14 43, 100, 115 41, 77, 155 107n28 130 77 19n9 66 66 16 21, 66 16 21, 66, 109n33 66 17, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 114 43, 70, 103, 104 11, 101n8 16, 17, 25, 70 17, 19n9 73n54, 107, 109 12, 116 116n50 109 44, 107, 108 107 107
2:4–5 2: 4 2:5–3:24 2:5–6 2: 5 2: 6 2:7 2: 8 2: 9 2:10–14 2:14 2:15 2:16–17 2:16 2:18 2:19 2:21 2:22 2:23 3 3:1 3:1–8 3:16 3:17–19 3:17 3:19 3:20–23 3:21 3:22
107 107n29 5 5–6, 54 7, 17, 23, 41, 107n29 7, 56, 108, 155 passim 4 1, 1 1 3 5, 8, 41 54, 108n31 4 1 n1 6 11, 17, 23, 41 9 41 9, 41, 108n31 5, 8, 17, 21, 41, 108n33 41 9, 41 9 17, 34 109n34 107 17 17 5 1, 5, 8, 13, 46 107 14 6 41
.) Genesis (cont .) 3:23 3:24 4:1–16 4:10 4:20–22 5:1 5:21–24 5:28–6:22 5:28–32 5:29 6:1–4 6:1–2, 4 6:2 6:3 6:5–9:17 6:5–8:22 6:5–7, 11–13 6:6–7 7:15 7:21 7:22 9:1–17 9:1 9:4–5 9:7 9:11 12:1 28:14
Deuteronomy
5, 17 5 17 2 17 17 29 17 29 17 18n3, 33 18 25 17, 49 29 30 17 34 4 4 4, 164 33, 34 16, 25 22 16, 25 33 150 46
Exodus
26:36 28:39 29:40 34:6 35:35 36:37 38:18 38:23 39:29
167n42 167n42 161 73n57 167n42 167n42 167n42 167n42 167n42
Leviticus
19:11
12:23 18:9–14
22 81n90
1Samuel
16:14
62
2Samuel
23:2
165n38
1Kings
17 17:17 17:22
3 3 3
2Kings
4:34 5:7
3 131
1Chronicles
11:19
23
Nehemiah
9:6 9:17
131 73n57
Job
2:9 7:15 ( ) 13:17 14:14 16:18 19:25–26 27:3 27:4 32:8 33:4 33:6 34:14–15 34:14 36:27 38:8
120 48 166n41 49 2 49 164 165 9 165 155n4 4, 73 72,n54 7 124
22 Psalms
Numbers
14:18
73n57
8:7 19:5 21:2 22:27–28 22:27
70 166n41 166n41 27 28
24:25 33:9 47:8 49:8 51 63:2–4 71:20 71:20 ( 70:20 70:20)) 73:26 86:9 86:15 102:15 103:8 104:27, 29–30 106:38 117:1 139 139:2 139:5 139:11–12 139:15 139:16 139:17 145:8
166n41 130 27 1 69, 87 27 131 1 27, 28 73n57 27 73n57 3 23 27 165, 166, 167, 168, 170 166 166, 167 167 166 166 166 73n57
21:16 26:19 42:14 45:7 45:9 45:14–15 45:14 60 60:5 60:11 63:3, 6 63:11 64:7 65:17–25 66:18–23 66:22–23 66:23
7 n 21 49 8 78 7 n 21 27 28 27 28 28 23n21 72, 74 7, 155n4 33 27 33 28
Jeremiah
2:34 15:15 16:19
23 73n57 27
Ezekiel Proverbs
5:15–18 14:29 15:18 15:33 16:32 18:12 22:4
14 73n57 73 83n99 73n57 83n99 83n99
Ecclesiastes
2:14–16 3:19–21 3:21 9:5, 10 11:7 12 12:1–7 12:1 12:5 12:7
13 5, 13, 14, 15 13 15 14 14, 15 14 14 14, 15 1, 5, 13, 14, 15
Isaiah
2:3 18:7 19:22
11:19 16:10, 13, 18 27:7, 16, 24 36 36:18 36:26–27 36:26 36:27 37 37:1–10 37:2 37:3 37:5 37:7 37:8 37:9 37:14
72n54 167n42 167n42 12 23n21 12 72n54 72n54 5, 12, 13, 15 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12, 72
Daniel
7:14
27
Hosea
27, 28 27, 28 27
Joel
2:13
73n57
Jonah
Zephaniah
4: 2
73n57
Micah
83n99
Zechariah
4: 2
28
Nahum
1: 3
2:3
73n57
4:10 8:20–23 14:16–21 14:16–19
166 27 27 28
9:10 10 10:1–3 10:1 10:2 10:3 10:4–16 10:4–13 10:4–6 10:4 10:5–6 10:9–14 10:9–10 10:9 10:11–13 10:11 10:12–13 10:14–11:2 10:14–15 10:14 10:16–19 10:16 10:17–11:2 10:17–19 10:17 10:20–22 10:21 10:22 11:1 12–16 12:6 14:1–2 15–16 15:1–16:4 15:8–16:1 15 15:2
21n18, 23 33 28, 29, 30 30 30 30, 31n40 24, 26 30 30 30 30 32 22, 30 20, 30 30 30 30 34 31 30n39 24, 33 28, 31, 33 27, 30 33 31n40 26, 27, 28, 31 27, 28, 33 33, 34 23, 33 16, 26, 27 22 165n36 21 20 20 19, 21n17, 22 20
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
Apocalypse of Moses
40
159n16
Letter of Aristeas
128–171
116
Aristobulus (Eusebius, Praep. Praep. Ev. Ev.)
9.6.65 5.15
44 116
2 Baruch
29:5–7
24
3 Baruch
4:10
31n40
1Enoch
1–36 6–16 6–11 6 6:1–2 6:2 7–8 7:1 7:3–5 7:3 7:4 7:5 8:1–3 8: 3 8:4–9:11 9:1 9:3 9:4 9:8 9:9
18 16, 25–27, 33, 34 16, 26–34 25 25, 31 18 32 18 19, 23, 24, 32, 33 19 22 19, 21, 23, 24 18, 32 23 30 22, 30 20, 21n18 23, 30 20 22
15:4 15:5–7 15:6 15:7–10 15:9 15:10 16 16:1 19:1 22:3 22:5–7 22:9–16 25–27 25:4–5 25:6–7 26:1 26:4–27:2 32:3–6 48:5 50:2 65:4 67:1–68:5 84:1 88:2 89:1 90:28–36 90:30 106:1–107:3 107:1
20, 21 25 20 33 21 20 19, 22 21 21n13 21n16, 17 21n16 21n16 28 28n31 28n31 28n31, 159n16 28n31 18 27 27 28n33 28n33 165n36 19 31n40 28 27n28 29 32
2 Enoch
30:13
160n17 131 105n22 55 55 131
Jubilees
3:27 4:26 5:2 5:9
13:8 26:5 32:15 37:3
155n4 155n4 155n4 155n4
2Maccabees
3:16 3:31 7 7:28–29 7:37 14:38 15:30
14 0 54 131 131–132 14 0 14 0 14 0
3 Maccabees
2: 4
31n40
Psalms of Solomon
17:29–32, 34
27
Praep. Ev. Ev.) Pseudo-Eupolemus (Eusebius, Praep.
9.17.1–9 18.2
29 29
3:24–26
104n18, 160n17
51:22
165n36
Testame estament nt of Job
Joseph and Asenath
12:2 16:4 20 :7
Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (PseudoPhilo)
Sirach Sirach (Ben (Ben Sira) Sira)
4Ezra
2:4
19 24 1 59
Sibylline Sibylline Oracles Oracles
2Esdras
19:6
7:22 7:24 8:19
162n25 159 24 19
1– 5 1: 5 4:10 6–8 9–15 11:10 20:1–3 20:1–2 20:3 20:4–25:10 25:10 26:1–6
1 19 120n3 120n3 1 19 1 19 120n3 118, 120 1 19 1 19 120 120 118, 120
.) Testame estament nt of Job (cont .) 26:1 26:2 26:5 27 27:4 27:7 28–31 28:5 32 33 35–38 35:4–5 35:4 36–38 36:2–3 36:4–5 38:3 38:4 38:6 38:7 38:8 46–50 39:1–10
120 120 120 1 21 120n3 120n3 1 21 120n3 1 21 1 21 118, 121 1 21 120n3 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 123 118, 123 123
39:11–40:3 40:4–14 41–46:2 46–47 46:2–8 47:1 47:2–10 47:11 48:2 48:3–4 50:1 50:2–3 52:1–11
123 123 123 123 124 124 124 124 124 124 1 25 1 25 1 25
Wisdom of Solomon
2:2–4 2:24 7:1 8:19–20 9:15 10:1 11:18 14:6 15:11
140 132 155n4 140 140 155n4 55 31n40 105n22, 165
,23–24 ,29–30 ,29–30 ,29 ,29 ,30 ,30 ,37–38 ,37–38 ,37 ,37 ,7 ,37 ,37 ,28 ,26 ,15 ,29
156 156 156 90 90 90 85n103 80n88 85n103 85n106 80 82n95
Qumran
1
,7 ,17 ,29 ,34–36 ,34 ,37 ,14 ,21 ,30 ,36 ,15–28 ,15–28 ,34 ,34 ,7–9 ,8 ,19–20 ,21–23 ,21 ,22 ,27–28
156 86 73n58, 84, 91n128 80, 89, 96 83n100 89, 95 64 83n97 156 90n123 76n66, 82n94 82n94 70n44 73n58 70n44 73n58 70n44 156 156 156 165n36
1
,2 ,4 ,2, ,2, 4 ,9 ,9 ,10–12 ,10–12 ,10–11 ,10–11 ,10 ,10
79 84 78n78 96n145 78 78 76, 80n87
,12 ,12 ,14 ,14 1
,24 ,3 ,6–9 ,7–8 ,7 ,8 ,11–19 ,13–, ,26 ,13–15 ,13 ,14–15 ,14 ,15–18 ,17–18 ,17 ,18–19 ,18– ,1 ,18 ,19 ,20–21 ,20 ,21–24 ,21–23 ,21 ,20 ,24–25 ,24 ,25–, ,1 ,25–26 ,25 ,2–14 ,2 ,3 ,4 , 5–6 ,6 ,9 ,10 ,11 ,12 ,15–23 ,15–16
88n116 78n79 78n79
,15 ,16 ,20–23 ,20–22 , ,20–21
83n100 86n109 89n120 ,20 157 ,23–26 86n109 ,23–25 83 , ,23 157 58, 63, 65 ,24 58–59, 66, 72 ,25 71, 79n80, 96 ,26 67 ,29 67, 72, 83 ,3 69 ,25 70, 91 ,12 72, 91, 95 ,22 61, 77 ,3, , 3, 5–6,19 75 ,10–11 , 10–11 67, 71, 72, 73, 75, 82, 83, ,17–18 , 17–18 87n115 76 1QSb 72, 77 ,25 76 85, 96 80 ,2–13 78n76, 87n112 ,2–10 79n80 ,2–3 75, 78n77, 80 ,5–7 78, 79n80, 80, 83, 87n113, ,14–18 88 ,14–17 81–82, 85 ,14 76 ,17 67, 72, 75, 77, 78, 79n80, ,15–17 87n115, 91, 95 ,18 68, 82 ,2–3 71, 76 ,2 80, 83 ,12 80, 83, 84 ,20–21,23 79n80 ,18 83 ,17 76, 90 ,6 80, 86, 87 ,8 83n98, 87 61, 87 120 68, 87 ,1–,26 61, 72 ,16–20, ,16–20, 26, 28
71 71, 88 89 76 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91 71, 76n64, 83 88 61 62, 71, 75, 85, 88, 90, 91, 93 71, 72n52 88 71, 88n118 84 83n100 83n100 72n53 83n100 86n109 70n44 70n44 84 64 70n44 85n105 88n117 85 87 73n58 85n105, 95 67n67 76n65 81 78n78 79 72n53 83 86n108 76 76 29 67n33
123 1, 6, 22 9, 14, 15 134bis 3 ,3 136 1 4, 2 4174 1–2 , 8–9 10–11,4, 7 12–13 ,11 4177 1–4 10–11,3 12–13 ,7 12–13 ,15 4180 1,2; 2–4 , ,10 4186 4197 4 ,13 4201 1 , 17–21 1 , 18 1 , 21 1 , 6–11 , 25a , 21 4202 1 , 25a 1 , 11 4215a 1 ,9 4230 1, 4 4255 2,2 4266 9 ,7 4270 1 ,1 4271 5 ,18–19 5 ,18 4280 2,2 4285 ,7 ,7 ,1
24 24 70n45 89n121 79, 80n86 79 79 78n78 79n83 80n87 75 70n44 64 67n33 23 23 21, 23 21 n1 5 19n8 19,n7 21 21 n1 5 70n44 81 83 83 83 87 81 78n78, 79 87n110 83n100 83n100
4286 1 ,8 7 ,4 7 ,6 7 ,7–8 4287 6,7 8,13 4298 3–4 ,8 4299 6 ,13 9,5 4300 3a–b, 4 4368 2, 7–8 4370 1,6 4381 1,7 4382 104,9 4392 1,4 4393 1 1 ,5–6 3,3,5 4402 4,12–15 4405 17,3 19,4 4416 1,9 1,12 ,7 4417 1, ,7 1 ,13–18 2 ,7–8 4418 81+81a,2 4420 1a –b, 2 4421 1a –b, 14
83n100 71, 79 79 87n110 87n110 87n111 83n100 85n103, 90n124 73n58 73n58 86n108 31 70n45 73n58 78 86 97 87, 89 87 70n44 84 84 71n49 90n123 72n53 71, 90n123 70 71n49 90n123 73n58 73n58
4423 2,2 8,1 4427 7 ,19–20 7 ,10 4429 2,12 4434–438 4434 1, 4435 2 ,2 2 ,4–5 4436 1 ,1 1 ,2–3 1 ,2 1 ,4 4437 1 ,10–11 2 ,8, 13 4438 4 ,3 4 ,5 4444 1–4+5,2 1–4+5,3 2 , 4 1–4+5,4 1–4+5,8 4461 4,3 4468i 4471 2,3 4473 2,7 4504 8 recto 4510–511 4510 1, 5 4511 2 ,3 28–29,3–4 35,7
70n45 90n123 80 80n88, 82n95 90 73, 86 74 73, 74, 84, 86, 91 73, 74 95 73, 74, 84, 86, 91 73, 74 83n100 74n59 74n60 74 74n63 74 73, 76, 84, 89, 91 85, 90, 95 84, 85, 89 20 85, 96 85 73n58 97 73n58 88n117 70n45 96 20n12, 88 85n106 90 20n12, 85n106, 90n125
48–51 48–49+51,3 52+1 108,1 ,8 4525 2 +3,6 10,4 11–12, 1–4 14 ,20 21, 8 4531 1, 2–3 1, 4 2 7, 6 19, 3–4 4532 1, 2–3 4533 4 4538 1–2,4 4543–549 4543 5–9,2 5–9,3–4 4544 1,10–11 1,12 2,12–16 3,2 4547 1–2,11–12 4560 1 ,5–6 68 2 115 1113 ,8 , 12, 13 1119 ,13–15 ,16–21
20n12, 85n106 90 73n58 73n58 85n103 83,n100 83n100 64 83n100 73n58 19n9, 23, 24 22 24 22 21 24 22 91n127 92 92n131 92n132 92n130 92n131–132 93n134 93n135 92n131–132 67n33 29 96 78n75 78n78 86n108 81n90
Philo of Alexandria
De Abrahamo
96 258
140 140
De agricultura
46 152
140 140
De cherubim
128
140
Quod Quod deteri deterius us potior potiorii insida insidari ri soleat soleat
16 19
140 140
De Fuga et inventione
54
111
De gigantibus
31
1.59 1.61–62 1.63–64 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.67 1.68 1.69 1.105–106 2.5 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.71–72 2.74–108 3.152 3.62
108n31 108n31 108n31 108n31 108n31 108n31 108n31 108n31 108n31 111 108n32 109n33 109n33 109n33 109n33 109n34 109n34 140 140
140 De Migratione Abrahami
Quis Quis rerum rerum divina divinarum rum heres heres sit
56 69–74
55 150
3.4–5 2.5–7 13 13.4–5
150 150 150 150
Legum allegoriae
1. 1 1. 2 1.21 1.22 1.31–42 1.31–32 1.31 1.32 1.33–42 1.33 1.34–35 1.36–38 1.36 1.37 1.39–41 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.45 1.56
10 7 107 107 108 109 10 5 55, 106, 110, 111, 114 1 14 105 111 111 112 112n37 106 106, 112 1 14 112 112 112 108n31 108n31
De Opicio mundi
13–14 16 47–52 62 69–76 69–71 69 72–75 76 89–127 129 134–135 134 135 136–147 136–138 137 139
100n6 103 100n6 100n6 102, 104 102, 103 103, 106, 134 102 102, 103 100n6 100 101, 104, 105 55, 101, 102, 104n16, 110, 114, 134 106, 114, 134, 140 104 104 102 102, 105, 106, 107, 114
140–141 142–144 146 153
104 104 105, 114 105
1. 5 1. 8 1.16 2.59 3.3
105, 112 113 11 1 55 115
De Plantatione
19 147
55 140
De somniis
1.31 1.34
14 0 55
Quaest Quaestion iones es et soluti solutiones ones in Genesi Genesin n
1.4–5 1.4
106, 114 105, 106
4.123
55
Josephus
Jewish Antiquities
1.34
De specialibus legibus
Jewish War
105n22, 165
2.1444
55
Rabbinic Literature
1. Mishnah Mishnah
Berachot 9:5 Sanhedrin 4:5
157n12 162n27
2. Babylo Babylonia nian n Talmud almud
Sanhedrin 38a–b 61a Baba Batra Batra 14b
160, 165 157 166n40
3. Palestinian Talmud
Naz. 7.2.56b
159
4. Other Texts
Genesis Rabbah 9:7
158
14 158n12 14:4 158n13, 165 14:10 164n35 14:11 164n32 34:9 162n25 Qohelet Rabbah 3:11 158 Midrash Tanhuma 3 1 60 Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer 11 160 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Gen 3:6 169n44 Gen 8:22 162n25 Exod 14:8 157n12 Exod 32:22 157n12 Deut 5:29 157n12 Deut 17:3 157n12
New Testament
Matthew
22:43–44 25:31–46 26:64
129n4 1 29 129n4
Mark
12:36 14:62
129n4 129n4
15:26 15:29 15:35–44 15:35 15:36–38 15:38 15:42–44 15:45–49 15:45–47
132 130 130 130 132 133 133 133–134 105n22
Luke
20:42–43 22:69
129n4 129n4
John
1: 1 1: 3 1:14 1:18 20:28
1 29 130 130 1 29 1 29
2Corinthians
4:16 5:10 5:17
140 1 29 135
Galatians
6:14–15
135
Ephesus
1:20–22
129n4
Acts
2:33 5:31 17:25 18:24 19:1
129n4 129n4 55 134 134 140 130 129n4 1 29
1Corinthians
8: 6 13:1 15 15:12 15:19 15:21–22 15:23–28 15:25
2:6–8 2:9–11
1 29 165n36 127, 130 130 130 132 132 129n4
127, 135 127, 129n4
Colossians
1:15–17 3:1
Romans
7:22 8:18–22 8:34 14:10
Philippians
1 29 129n4
Hebrews
1:3 8:1 10:12 12:2 1:8
129n4 129n4 129n4 129n4 1 29
1Peter
3:22
129n4
Revelation
5:6 5:13
129n4 129n4
Nag Hammadi Codices
Apocryphon of James ( , 2 2)
14.35–36
Dialogue of the Savior ( 5 ) ( , 5
141
132.11–12 138.20–139.2
14 1 14 1
Gospel Gospel of Truth Truth ( , 3 3)
17.10–17
148
2 Apocalypse of James ( , 4 4)
56.7–14
14 1
Treat Treatise ise on the Ressur Ressurect ection ion ( , 4 4)
45.39–46.2
14 6
Authoritative Authoritative Teaching ( , 3 3)
25.6–9
14 3
Tripartite Tractate Tractate ( , 5 5 )
76.23–77.11 77.18–20 77.21–25
148 148 148
Asclepius ( ,8)
76.22–37.
14 3
Teachings eachings of Silvanus Silvanus ( , 4 4)
92.15–25 92.23–26 102.34
Gospel Gospel of Thomas Thomas ( , 2 2)
37.4–6
141
14 6 14 6 14 6
Gospel Gospel of Philip Philip ( , 3 3)
66.16–20 75.21–25 82.30–83.9 123
1 41 1 41 14 2 14 2
Letter of Peter to Philip ( , 2 2)
137.6–9
14 2
Interpretation of Knowledge ( ,1)
6.30–35
14 2
Hypostasis of the Archons ( ,4)
87.33–88.8 88.10–15
14 7 1 47
Senten Sentence cess of Sextus Sextus ( ,1)
34.16–20
( ,6 ) Exegesis of the Soul (
23.12–17 24.17–22 127,29–31 133.34–134.2 134.13–15
14 1
Trimorphic Protennoia ( ,1)
144 144 144 144 14 5
49.28–32
14 1
Gosp Gospel el of Mary Mary (1)
10.14–16
14 6
Later Christian Authors and Writings
Acts of Andrew
208–209
148
Acts of Thomas
111
141
Clement Clement of Alexan Alexandri driaa
Stromata 5.138.2–3 7.108.1–2.
103n14 136
Excerpta Excerpta ex Theodoto 1. 3 3.1 53.5 61. 8 63.1 64
136 136 136 14 5 14 5 14 5
Epiphanius
Panarion Panarion 36.2–3 37.4.1–3
14 6 136
Eusebius
1.7.1 1.9–11 1.13.3 1.21.5 5.6.1 22
Praeparatio Praeparatio evangelica evangelica 15.9.14 151
Origen
Hippolytus
Contra Celsum 8.49)
Refutatio omnium haeresium haeresium 5.19.13–17 136 10.11.7–10 136 10.11.10 136
14 6 136 136 14 6 141 136
136
Tertullian
Adversus Judaeos 2.21 5
169 137
Irenaeus
Adversus Adversus Haereses Haereses 1.5.5
14 5
Greek and Latin Pagan Texts
Aetius
Cicero
De placitis placitis reliquiae reliquiae 4.2–3
Tusculanae Tusculanae disputationes 1.17–19 137 1.19 f. 136
136
Aristotle
De Anima 406a–411b 136 430a23–25 152 Ethica Nicomachia Nicomachia 1177 1177b2 b26– 6–11 11778a2 8a2 152 152 1178a2–7 152 1179a22–32 152 Ethica Eudemia. Eudemia. 1248a24–29 152 De Generatione Generatione Animalium Animalium 736b28 152 737a8–11 1 52 Metaphysica Metaphysica 1072b23–26 1072b23–26 152 De Partibus Partibus Animalium Animalium 656a8, 10 152 686a27–28 152 Protreptikos Protreptikos frg. 108 152
Democritus
159
139
Diodor Diodoree of Sicily Sicily
Bibliotheca historica 17.33 55 Empedocles
31, 126
141
Iamblichus
Stobaeus, Eclogarum) De anima (apud Stobaeus, 1.362–367 137 Lucianus
Icaromenippus Icaromenippus 5–6
103
Nemesius
De natura natura hominis 536–537.
137
Plato
Pseudo-Aristotle
Alcibiades i 130a1–3. Charmides 156d11 f. Gorgias 493a1–5 523c Phaedo 81c20 783b–c Phaedrus 246d–249d 247c Timaeus 30c–d 36e–37a 42d–e
137
De mundo 1 319a12
137
Plutarch
137 141 140 149 103 103n14 43 42–43 45–46
103n14
De facie in orbe luae 28 111 942f–943e 111 943a 14 9 Quaestiones convivales 9 11 5 Moralia 706d 115 Ex commentariis commentariis in Hesiodum [Mor.] [Mor.] 84 133 De Genio Socratis 591d 150 Porphyry
De antro nympharum Frg. 30–33 11 5
Plotinus
Enneadi 4
137
Papyri
Papyri Papyri Halle
.107–111
Papyri Papyri Tebtunis
52–53
.13 .56
53–54 55–56
Inde Indexx of Mode Modern rn Autho uthors rs Aejmelaeus, A. 50 Alexander, Alexander, P. P. 18, 20, 64, 154 Alexandre, M. 42, 45, 46, 99, 104 104 Anthonioz, S. 2 Aptowitzer, Aptowitzer, V. V. 159, 161, 164 Armstrong, A.H. 151 Assan-Dhôte, I. 37 Attridge, H.W. H.W. 146, 148 Aufarth, C. 16, 20 Auld, A.G. A.G. 37 Avemarie, Avemarie, F. 40, 57
Case Casevit vitz, z, M. 37 Charle Charles, s, R.H. 21, 27, 28 Charleswo Charlesworth, rth, J.H. 58, 66, 73, 118 Chazon Chazon,, E. 73, 73, 84, 87 Clark Clarke, e, E.G. E.G. 154 Clayton Clayton Croy Croy, N. 37 Coblen Coblentz tz Bautch Bautch,, K. 22 Collins, Collins, J.J. J.J. 19, 60, 63, 66, 70, 70, 74, 74, 117 Collllin Co ins, s, N.L. N.L. 39 Crüs Crüsema emann nn,, F. 40
Bagn Bagnal all,l, R.S. R.S. 53 Barb Barbot otin in,, E. 151 151 Baumga Baumgart rten, en, J.M. J.M. 169 BenBen-Do Dovv, J. 94 Berl Berlin, in, A. 155 155 Bern Bernst stein ein,, M. 59 Berthe Berthelot lot,, K. 29, 94 Bethge Bet hge,, H.-G. H.-G. 143, 151 Betz Betz,, H.D. H.D. 141 141 Betz Betz,, O. 66 Bian Bianch chi,i, U. 66 Birn Birnba baum um,, P. 1 Blac Black, k, M. 18, 26 Blument Blumenthal hal,, H. 151 Bohak, Bohak, G. 60, 81, 96 Bons Bo ns,, E. 37 Borgen, Borgen, P. 100, 106, 107 Bos,, A.P. Bos A.P. 149, 149, 151 Boullu Boulluec, ec, A., Le 37 Bovo Bovon, n, F. 141 141 Bowker Bowker,, J. 162, 169 Brashl Brashler er,, J. 143 Bratsi Bratsioti otis, s, N.P. N.P. 48 Brayer Brayer,, M.M. M.M. 161 Bra Brayfor yford, d, S. 37 Bremmer Bremmer, J.N. J.N. 48, 49, 139 Brettl Brettler er,, M.Z. M.Z. 155 Brownl Brownlee, ee, W.H. 81 Buchan Buchanan, an, G.W. G.W. 27 Büchl Büchler er,, A. 169 169 Burke Burkert, rt, W. 139, 139, 140 Bury Bury,, R.G. R.G. 42
Dafn Dafni,i, E.G. E.G. 43 Dall Dalley ey,, S. 6 Dani Daniél élou ou,, J. 88 Dani Daniel els, s, D.R. 10 Davies Davies,, W.D. .D. 154 Déaut, Déaut, R. le, 160, 160, 164, 164, 169 Delco Delcorr, M. 117 117 Delk Delkur urt, t, H. 1 Derow Derow,, P. 53 DeSil DeSilva va,, D. 37 Deuse, Deuse, W. 150 150 Dever Dever,, W.G. 118 Diels Diels,, H. 104, 104, 137 137 Diethard Diethard Römheld, Römheld, K.F. K.F. 20, 22 Dietrich Dietrich,, M. 9, 10, 11 Díez Díez Ma Mach cho, o, A. 154 154 Dillon, Dillon, J. 104, 104, 108, 108, 115, 115, 149 Dimant, D. 19, 61, 77, 78, 79 Dirkse, Dirkse, P.A. 143 Dobos, Dobos, K.D. K.D. 22, 27 Dochh Dochhor orn, n, J. 105 105 Dodds, Dodds, E.R. 141, 145 Dörr Dörrie, ie, H. 149 149 Dogn Dognie iez, z, C. 37 Dori Doriva val,l, G. 37 Düri Düring ng,, I. 151 151 Duha Duhaime ime,, J. 66 Duk Duke, R.R. R.R. 92 Dumo Dumouc uchet het,, É. 37 Dupont Dupont-So -Sommer mmer,, A. 61, 88
Casade Cas adesús sús,, F. 149
Emilsso Emilsson, n, E.K.E. E.K.E. 137, 137, 151 Erla Erland ndss sson on,, S. 86 Erle Erlerr, M. 116 116
Eshel, Eshel, E. 22, 29, 74, 81 Evan Evans, s, C.A. C.A. 117 117 Fabry Fabry,, H.-J. H.-J. 68 Falk, Falk, D.K. 65, 87 Feldb Feldblum lum,, M.S. M.S. 161 Feldma eldman, n, L.H. L.H. 92 Feldm Feldmeier eier,, R. 128 Fernández Fernández Marcos, Marcos, N. 37 Festugièr Fes tugière, e, A.-J. A.-J. 142, 145 Figl Figl,, J. 48 Finkels Finkelstei tein, n, L. 154 Fische Fis cherr, J. 159 159 Flas Flasha harr, H. 116 116 Fletcher-L Fletcher-Louis ouis,, C.H.T. C.H.T. 65, 70 Flint, Flint, P.W. .W. 22 Flusse Flusserr, D. 69 Fossu Fossum, m, J. 5, 102, 102, 103 Foste Fosterr, B.R. B.R. 6 Fox, ox, M.V M.V. 14 Frei Freima mann nn,, A. 159 159 Frey, Frey, J. 59, 65, 66, 157 García Martínez, Martínez, F. 59, 60, 65, 66, 70, 70, 156 Garr Garret ett, t, S. 117 117 Georg Georgi,i, D. 140 Gers Gersh, h, S. 142 142 Ginzb Ginzber erg, g, L. 160 160 Glessm Glessmer er,, U. 10 Gof, Gof, M. 23, 65, 70 Gold Goldma man, n, L. 92 Good Goodma man, n, M. 144 144 Gray Gray, P. 117, 122 Greens Greenspoo poon, n, L.J. L.J. 13 Grenfe Grenfell, ll, B.P. B.P. 54 Gres Grescha chat, t, K. 105 105 Gril Grille let, t, B. 37 Gros Gross, s, A.D A.D. 92 Gruber Gruber,, M.I. M.I. 166 Gruen, Gruen, W. 117, 117, 119, 119, 126 Gunk Gunkel el,, H. 16 Gutt Guttma mann nn,, J. 159 159 Gzel Gzella la,, H. 38, 38, 49 Haas,, C. 117 Haas 117 Hallo Hallo,, W.W. .W. 6 Hamilt Hamilton, on, W. 150 Hamon Hamonvil ville, le, D.-M. D.-M. d’ 37
Hanson Hanson,, P.D. .D. 13, 19 Hardmei Hardmeier er,, C. 40 Harl, Harl, M. 36, 37, 42, 45, 163 163 Harl Ha rlé, é, P. 37 Harlow Harlow, D.C. D.C. 74, 81 Harrin Harringt gton, on, H.K. H.K. 157 157 Hayy, D.M. 113 Ha Hayw Ha ywar ard, d, C.T.R. C.T.R. 169 Heckel, Heckel, T.K. 140 Hedrick Hedrick,, C.W. C.W. 141, 141, 142 Heger Heger,, P. 62 Hempel, Hempel, C. 58, 63, 64, 65, 157 Hend He ndel el,, R. 16, 16, 18 Ho Ho us us,, O. 128 128 Horbur Horburyy, W. 50 Horst, Horst, P.W P.W.. van van der 117, 118, 125 Hout Ho utma man, n, A. 60 Hult Hultgå gård rd,, A. 61 Hunt Hunt,, A.S. A.S. 54 Hyde Hyde,, T. 2 Jacob, B. 7 Jacobs, I. 117 Janowski, B. 4, 5, 8, 40 Janz, T. T. 37 Jeremias, J.J. 133 Johnson, A.R. 4 Jong, A. de 60, 62, 63, 63, 93, 94, 98 Joosten, J.J. 47 Jurgens, B.A. 92 Kais Kaiser er,, O. 140 140 Kaml Kamlah ah,, E. 61 Kamp Kampen en,, J. 59 Karrer Karrer,, M. 37, 38, 51 Kass Kasser er,, R. 148 148 Katz Katz,, S.T S.T. 154 154 Kee, ee, H.C. H.C. 117 117 Kess Kessle lerr, R. 40 Kierkegaa Kierkegaard, rd, B. 117, 119 King King,, K.L. K.L. 136 136 Kist Kister er,, M. 60 Klanch Klancher er,, N. 117 Klawa Klawans, ns, J. 157 157 Klein Klein,, A. 61, 61, 89 Klein Klein,, H.-D H.-D. 48 Klein, Klein, M.L. M.L. 154, 154, 163 163 Knibb, Knibb, M.A. 50, 61, 71, 77, 78, 117, 118 Koch, och, K. 8, 10
Kooten, Kooten, G.H. van 100, 101, 105, 112, 134, 135, 141, 144 Köszegh Köszeghyy, M. 22, 27 Kooij Kooij,, A. A. van der 38, 50, 51 Krat Kratz, z, R.G. R.G. 61 Kraus Kraus,, W. 37, 38, 51 Krau Krause se,, M. 8 Krüger Krüger,, T. 14 Kuge Kugel,l, J.L. 92 Kugler Kugler,, R. 117, 123, 125 Kuhn, Kuhn, K.G. K.G. 61 Kuiper Kuiper,, G.J. G.J. 164 Kula Kulawi wik, k, C. 143 143 Laba Labahn, hn, M. 50, 50, 81 Lamp Lampe, e, P. 127 127 Lang Lang,, M. 50 Lange, Lange, A. 20, 22, 58, 60, 65, 82 Lauh Lauha, a, A. 14 Lawson Law son Younger ounger.,., K. 6 Layton, Layton, B.R. 143, 144, 146, 147 Lee, Lee, J.A.L. .A.L. 51 Legasp Legaspi,i, M.C. M.C. 117 Leic Leicht ht,, R. 94 Leiseg Leisegang ang,, H. 100, 100, 111 Lesses Les ses,, R. 118, 124 Lest Lestie ienn nne, e, M. 37 Leve Levene ne,, E. 160 160 Levi Levine ne,, E. 154 154 Levi Levine ne,, L.I. L.I. 154 154 Levison, Levison, J.R. 58, 59, 61, 73, 159, 162, 162, 165 165 Lich Licht, t, J. 66 Lichtenberg Lichtenberger er,, H. H. 20, 22, 27, 58, 65, 96, 156 LiDonn LiDonnici, ici, L.R. L.R. 118 Lieb Lieber er,, A. 118 118 Lietaert Lietaert Peerbolt Peerbolte, e, B.J. 81 Lim, Lim, T.H. .H. 60, 60, 63 Litt Littma man, n, R.J. R.J. 37 Logan, Logan, A.H.B. A.H.B. 136 Lohmey Lohmeyer er,, E. 127 Long Long,, A.A. A.A. 116 116 van der Louw, Louw, T.A.W T.A.W.. 44, 46, 50 Luttikh Luttikhuiz uizen, en, G. 151 Lys, ys, D. 48 Machini Machinist, st, P. 118 MacRae, MacRae, S.J., S.J., G.W. G.W. 148 Mahe Ma herr, M. 160 160 Mans Ma nsfel feld, d, J. 137 137
Mansoo Mansoorr, M. 156, 156, 165 Mart Ma rtin, in, J.D J.D. 13 Massingber Massingberdd Ford, Ford, J. 169 McNama McNamara ra,, M. 163 163 van der Meer, Meer, M.N. 37, 38, 51 Meiser Meiser,, M. 38, 51 Mélèze Mélèze Modrzejewski Modrzejewski,, J. 37 Merl Me rlan an,, P. 151 151 Mets Me tsoo, S. 94 Meyer Meyer,, M.W. M.W. 142 Micha Mi chaud ud,, H. 61, 61, 88 Miche Mi chel,l, D. 4, 5 Milik, Milik, J.T J.T. 18, 23, 27 Misset-v Misset-van an de Weg, M. 60 Mitchel Mitchell,l, T.C. 8 Mittmann-Ric Mittmann-Richert, hert, U. 40, 57 Moatti Moatti-Fi -Fine, ne, J. 37 Moign Mo igne, e, P. Le 47 Moraux Moraux,, P. 151 Morten Mortensen sen,, B.P. B.P. 168 Mossha Mos shammer mmer,, A.A. A.A. 18 Müller Müller,, U.B. 127 Mulder Mulder,, M.J. M.J. 154 Mundah Mundahl,l, T.W. .W. 1 Muraoka, Muraoka, T. 37, 45, 46, 47, 47 Najm Najman an,, H. 94 Nasr Nasral alla lah, h, L. 5 Nehe Neherr, M. 140 140 Nessel Nesselra rath, th, H.-G. H.-G. 150 Neuman Neumann-Go n-Gorso rsolk lke, e, U. 40 Newsom, Newsom, C.A. 19, 58, 63, 66, 67, 77, 156 Nickelsbur Nickelsburg, g, G.W G.W.E. .E. 19, 25, 26, 28, 28, 31, 31, 32, 165 Nickl Nicklas as,, T. 22 Nock, Nock, A.D. A.D. 142, 142, 145 Noy Noy, D. 50 Oegema Oegema,, G.S. G.S. 40, 57 Olley Olley,, J.W J.W. 37 Olso Olson, n, D. 27 Osten-Sack Osten-Sacken, en, P. von der 61 Pagel agels, s, E.H. E.H. 148 Painch ainchau aud, d, L. 148 148 Parr Parrott ott,, D.M. 143 Parry Parry,, D.W. D.W. 70 Pears Pearson, on, B.A. B.A. 146 Peel, eel, M.L. M.L. 146 146 Pérez Pérez Fernánde Fernández, z, M. 162
Pérez Pérez Jiménez Jiménez,, A. 146 Perri errin, n, A.B. A.B. 92 Peter Peters, s, D.M. 29 Pfan Pfann, n, S.J. S.J. 18 Philone Philonenk nko, o, M. 61, 118 Piet Pieter ersma sma,, A. 37 des Places Places,, É. 112, 112, 151 Plis Plisch, ch, U.K. .K. 142 142 Poiri Poirier er,, H. 105, 105, 112 Popović, Popović, M. 60, 61, 64, 66, 68, 94 Potter Potter,, P. 137, 140 Pral Pralon on,, D. 37 Proc Procks ksch, ch, O. 16 Puech, Puech, É. 18, 59, 60, 64, 94
Rabe Rabe,, H. 115 115 Rabi Rabin, n, C. 66 Rahl Rahlfs fs,, A. 99 Rahnen Rahnenfüh führer rer,, D. 118 Rees Reese, e, J.M. J.M. 140 140 Rein Reinmu muth, th, E. 127 127 Reiterer Reiterer,, F.V F.V. 22 Rey Rey, J.-S. J.-S. 65 Ried Riedw weg, eg, C. 5 Ringgre Ringgren, n, H. 40, 156 Robin Robinso son, n, H. 151 151 Robinson, Robinson, T.M. 137, 138 Robinson, Robinson, W.C. 143, 144 Rohrb Rohrbaug augh, h, R. 117, 117, 123, 123, 125 Roig Lanzillot Lanzillotta, ta, L. 139, 144, 148 Roitma Roitman, n, A.D. A.D. 77 Roque Roqueplo plo,, T. 37 Rösel, Rösel, M. 4, 10, 42, 43, 46, 47, 49 Rosen-Z Rosen-Zvi, vi, I. 72, 157, 158, 161 Ruiten, Ruiten, J.T.A.G. J.T.A.G.M. M. van 144 Runia, Runia, D.T D.T.. 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 115 Rüters Rüterswö wörde rden, n, U. 7
Schmerl Schmerler er,, B. 159, 159, 161 Schm Schmid id,, K. 5 Schö Schöp pin in,, K. 22 Scho Scho el eld, d, A. 63 Schrei Schreiner ner,, J. 48 Schull Schuller er,, E.M. E.M. 65, 94 Schwei Schweizer zer,, E. 140 Scopel Scopello lo,, M. 143, 144 Secu Secund nda, a, S. 94 Sedley Sedley,, D.N. D.N. 116 Seeb Seebas ass, s, H. 2, 4, 5 Seelig Seeligman mann, n, I.L. I.L. 38 Seely, Seely, D. 73, 74, 94 Seitz, Seitz, O.J. O.J.FF. 61 Sekki, Sekki, A.E. A.E. 67, 67, 68, 76 Seow Seow, C.L. C.L. 13, 15 Sevr Sevrin in,, J.M. .M. 143 Shake Shaked, d, S. 59, 78 Shinan, Shinan, A. 154, 159, 160, 161, 169 Sieber Sieber,, J.H. J.H. 142 Sieger Siegert,t, F. 39, 57 Smyly Smyly,, J.G. J.G. 54 Snel Snell,l, B. 139 139 Sore Sorens nsen en,, E. 81 Sosi Sosin, n, J.D J.D. 51 Sper Sperbe berr, A. 154 154 Spieck Spieckerm ermann ann,, H. 128 Spittl Spittler er,, R. 118 Spottorn Spottornoo Díaz-Caro Díaz-Caro,, M.V. M.V. 37 Stec Stec,, D. 166 166 Stegemann, Stegemann, H. 61, 64, 81, 82, 157 Steinm Steinmetz, etz, P. 116 Sterl Sterling ing,, G.E. G.E. 107 Steu Steudel del,, A. 93 Stökl Stökl Ben Ezra, Ezra, D. 29, 94 Stoy Stoyano anovv, Y. 66 Sute Suterr, D. 32 Stuckenbruc Stuckenbruck, k, L.T L.T.. 16, 18, 20, 27, 29, 32, 60, 65
Sand Sander er,, O. 4 Sandev Sandevoir oir,, P. 37 Sandmel Sandmel,, S. 99, 100, 100, 106, 106, 107 Sarn Sarna, a, N. 155 155 Schalle Schallerr, B. 118, 119 Scha Schape perr, J. 38 Scha Scharb rber ert, t, J. 48 Schecht Schechter er,, S. 157 157 Schifm Schifman, an, L.H. 77, 92
Taradac aradach, h, M. 154 Tengstr engström, öm, S. 68, 69 Thes Thesle lef f,, H. 108 108 Thie Thiel,l, W. 3 Thom Thomas assen sen,, E. 148 148 Tigchelaar Tigchelaar,, E. 60, 61, 61, 63, 63, 64, 64, 65, 69, 72, 72, 73, 73, 81, 95, 96, 97, 98, 156 Tobin, T. 99, 102, 106, 107, 110, 112, 115 Treve revett tt,, C. 169 169
Qimr Qimron on,, E. 89
Trieb riebel el,, L. 50 Trox Troxel, el, R.L. R.L. 38 Tuck Tucker er,, G.M. G.M. 16 Turne Turnerr, J.D. J.D. 142 Tzore zoref,f, S. 77 Uebe Ueberw rweg eg,, S. 116 116 Uhli Uhlig, g, S. 27 Ulri Ulrich, ch, E. 70 Urba Urbach, ch, E.E. E.E. 157 157 VanderKam, VanderKam, J.C. 22, 25 Verhoogt, Verhoogt, A.M.F.W A.M.F.W.. 54 Vermes, Vermes, G. 64, 164 Vinel, F. F. 37 Wagner Wagner,, A. 4, 40, 49 Wagner Wagner,, S. 117 Wahl, Wahl, H.M. 118 Walter Walter,, N. 112, 116, 127 Weigold, Weigold, M. 29 Weinfeld, Weinfeld, M. 73, 94 Wenham, Wenham, G.J. 8
Wernberg-Møller Wernberg-Møller,, P. P. 62, 67, 71, 77, 89 Westermann, Westermann, C. 7, 16 Wevers, Wevers, J.W J.W.. 44, 163 Widengren, G. 61 Winston, D. D. 42 Wisse, F. 141, 142 Wold, Wold, B.G. 65, 70 70 Wolf, Wolf, H.-W. H.-W. 4, 40 Wright, A.T. A.T. 20, 22 Wright, B.G. 37 Wright, J.E. J.E. 118 Wright, J.P J.P.. 137, 140 Xeravits, Xeravits, G. 62, 64, 70 Yadin, Yadin, Y. Y. 66 Yarbro Yarbro Collins, Collins, A. 139 York, York, A.D. 154 Zenge Zengerr, E. 38 Zimmer Zimmerlili,, W. 13 Zand Zandee, ee, J. 146 146 Zsenge Zse ngellé llérr, J. 70
