Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple ‎Period

Changes in Scripture

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Herausgegeben von John Barton · Reinhard G. Kratz Choon-Leong Seow · Markus Witte

Band 419

De Gruyter

Changes in Scripture Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period

Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-024048-1 e-ISBN 978-3-11-024049-8 ISSN 0934-2575 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ” 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................................................

1

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila: Introducing Changes in Scripture .................................................

3

2. Methodological Issues ....................................................................

21

John J. Collins: Changing Scripture.................................................

23

Eugene Ulrich: The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books ...................................................................

47

Hans Debel: Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition ..............................................

65

Molly M. Zahn: Talking About Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology ...........................................................

93

3. Changed Texts ................................................................................ 121 Sidnie White Crawford: The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch...................... 123 Anneli Aejmelaeus: David’s Three Choices: Textual and Literary Development in 2 Samuel 24 ........................................... 137 Kristin De Troyer: The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper: A Case Study on Changes in the Masoretic Text and in the Old Greek Translation of the Book of Leviticus ........................... 153 Robert Kugler: Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean Interpretation of the Greek Torah: Ptolemaic Law Interpreted by its Own Rhetoric ........................................................................ 165

vi

Contents

Reinhard Müller: Doubled Prophecy: The Pilgrimage of the Nations in Mic 4:1–5 and Isa 2:1–5................................................. 177 Juha Pakkala: The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah .......................................... 193 Hanna Vanonen: The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel .......................................................................... 223 Hanne von Weissenberg: Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc ............................................................... 247 4. Deuteronomism in Later Literature............................................... 273 Pancratius C. Beentjes: The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage: A Critical Approach .......................... 275 Francis Borchardt: The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees...... 297 Marko Marttila: The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch................................................ 321 Mika S. Pajunen: The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms........................ 347 Anssi Voitila: Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage ..................... 369 Stuart Weeks: A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit? ........................ 389 5. Indices ............................................................................................. 405 Index of Modern Authors .............................................................. 407 Index of Passages ............................................................................ 413

1. Introduction

Introducing Changes in Scripture Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila* The study of the Hebrew Scriptures and the literature of the Second Temple period is currently in a state of transformation. The discovery and full publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been instrumental in this process and it is only now that their full impact is starting to be felt in the field of Biblical Studies. Some may characterize the current state of research as a “post-Qumran” period of transformation. The Qumran material is fundamentally modifying our understanding of many central questions, such as the textual development of the Hebrew Scriptures, the formation of the canon, and biblical interpretation in the Second Temple period. The texts from Qumran also provide valuable information about scribal techniques in this period. With the Qumran evidence, it has now become clear that the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures continued to be edited and changed until much later than what has traditionally been assumed. Moreover, the evidence seems to suggest that the editing processes were more radical than assumed. Changes to the older texts were not restricted to expansions. Rewriting and rearranging were not uncommon. In addition to the impact of the Qumran texts, the integration of Septuagint scholarship and its contributions into the center of Biblical Studies has been a welcome development. Although the importance of the Greek versions has been known since the early days of Septuagint scholarship, one may observe a growing awareness of the possibility that the Greek witnesses may preserve an older stage of the textual development than the Masoretic text even in wider biblical scholarship. This volume represents an attempt to build upon this relationship by enhancing the correspondences between the field of Septuagint studies and other fields of biblical research. It is notable that approaches from different perspectives and different fields of Biblical Studies, including Qumran and Septuagint studies, are now coming to similar conclusions regarding the pluriformity of the texts and changes still being made to

*

For technical finishing of this volume we are especially grateful to Katri Saarelainen.

4

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila

them at the turn of the eras (cf. Aejmelaeus, Collins, and Ulrich in this volume). Attention is also drawn to the existence of parallel texts in the Hebrew Bible and the developments between texts that are literarily dependent on one another. Although parallel texts and the use of older texts to shape new texts have been the focus of attention in some segments of Biblical Studies, their full implications for the field and for the methodology of studying the Hebrew Bible have remained limited. In other words, this volume seeks to draw attention to the “empirical” evidence1 not only from Qumran and the Septuagint, but also from passages in the Hebrew Scriptures and other literature that have been shaped by the use of other texts, and thus show how a source text was changed in its new context. The latter category consists of parallel passages where the older text was used as explicit quotations (for example the quotations of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah) or as a source text on a more general level (for example, Mic 4:1–5 and Isa 2:1–5, or Dan 11–12 and 1QM). The later Second Temple literature, for example the so-called deuterocanonical literature (or the called Old Testament Apocrypha), also contains many examples of how older texts were used as sources for the new composition. Especially the use of the Deuteronomistic literature in younger texts is a well-known but still not fully explored phenomenon. Because the Deuteronomistic literature contains very characteristic phraseology and theological themes, it is well suited for the study of its later use. Moreover, it is probable that at least Deuteronomy but perhaps also other parts of the Deuteronomistic literature were considered normative in the late Second Temple period. Our understanding of changes and editorial processes of the Hebrew Scriptures have been limited by our implicit conceptions as well as the inherited terminology that continues to be used to describe the phenomena detectable in the late Second Temple compositions and manuscripts. Although most scholars currently see the formation of the biblical canon as a long and complicated process rather than a series of clearly definable or distinguishable steps, much of the scholarly discussion has been and continues to be colored by the existence of the Jewish and Christian canons of the Hebrew Bible. Despite the fact that these sacred collections were formed at a much later date, their canonical form and shape have made it difficult to look beyond their borders.

1

The idea that two or more parallel passages available for comparison may be called empirical derives from Jeffrey Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985).

Introducing Changes in Scripture

5

It is now evident that a clearer use of terms and concepts is essential. Terms such as “biblical,” “sacred,” “authoritative,” “canon,” and “scriptural” carry different connotations for different people and the divergence of opinion on these terms has affected the discussion. The scholarly debate is, in part, hindered by the lack of commonly agreed vocabulary to describe the complex processes of textual transmission and interpretation. Attempting to avoid anachronistic labels, scholars are redefining the terminology they use. Although it seems preferable to avoid the use of the terms “canonical” or “biblical” when discussing the textual evidence of the pre-canonical, late Second Temple era, terms such as “scriptural” or “authoritative,” now used by many, may create new difficulties (see Zahn’s article in this volume). Many of the contributions in this volume imply that the use of the term “authoritative,” when dealing with changes in the texts of the Second Temple period, should be reappraised and re-evaluated. Although a number of texts from the Second Temple period claim to be authoritative, our knowledge is limited as to how the authoritativeness of texts was defined, understood, perceived, gained and possibly lost in the Second Temple period. For example, many legal and prophetic texts claim or imply that they originate from a divine revelation. Regardless of these claims, in the end their status was dependent on a community accepting the claim for authority.2 More attention should perhaps be given to the communities and contexts that regarded certain texts to be authoritative. This being said, it is likely that not all texts were necessarily viewed as equally authoritative or sacred in the late Second Temple period. On the contrary, there are indicators suggesting that certain compositions held a higher status than others. For example, it is probable that the Torah had received a general and widely accepted status as an authoritative text in the late Second Temple Jewish contexts, whereas the same may not be the case with all the other text of Hebrew Scriptures. On the other hand, the Temple Scroll, which may be an attempt to present an improved version of Yahweh’s revelation, complicates the discussion on how authoritativeness was perceived. The Reworked Pentateuch texts from Qumran also challenge our preconceived ideas, but in a different way, for the authors of these texts seem to have taken the freedom to rearrange and alter the pentateuchal text in a relatively late setting when the Pentateuch already was per-

2

James C. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period,” in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1–30 (2–3).

6

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila

ceived as authoritative. Traditionally it has been assumed that the pentateuchal text had become relatively stable much earlier.3 It is now evident that not all texts that became part of the canonical collection were regarded authoritative when first composed, and not all segments of a tradition that were compiled in the composition of a larger literary work began their existence as a sacred text with an elevated status. Some texts may have been regarded as authoritative rather early in their development, whereas others may have undergone a long process in this respect. Moreover, the self-proclaimed or implied authority, such as those texts in the Pentateuch that are presented as divine speech, may have enhanced the development towards accepted authoritativeness. On the other hand, there may have been different kinds of perceived authoritativeness. For example, some texts may have been regarded as possessing sacred or divine authority, while other may have had merely general authority to guide the actions of a community without any divine aspect. 1–2 Kings and 1–2 Chronicles may have been authoritative accounts of Israel’s history, but it is not certain that these texts were regarded to possess authority as revelation until relatively late. The existence of just a few fragments of these books among the Dead Sea Scrolls may imply that they were not regarded to be authoritative Scriptures on the same level with the Torah. What is important for the present volume is the often-assumed link between authoritative status and textual immutability. It has become increasingly clear that maintaining the exact wording of a composition was not regarded as essential.4 The aforementioned Reworked Pentateuch-texts are a case in point. The evidence we have challenges the ideal of the immutability of sacred and authoritative texts and reveals a reality of texts being changed, revised, and corrected in the course of their compilation and transmission. In some cases the development towards being an authoritative text seems to go hand in hand with the changes. In other words, a text may remain authoritative primarily because of the changes because then it keeps up with the developments

3

4

For example, according to Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran,” in The Pentateuch as Torah (ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 77–103 (93), the editorial processes of the Torah were completed by the end of the fourth century BCE. See, for example, Michael Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretations at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28 (16). “The active intervention of scribes in these texts [= the Bible] was accepted in this period [= late Second Temple period] and was not viewed as an affront to the sanctity of the text. The text was of secondary importance to the composition itself, and thus scribes allowed themselves the freedom to ‘improve’ these works.”

Introducing Changes in Scripture

7

taking place in the society and thereby remains relevant for the community.5 These are only some thoughts about the authoritativeness of texts raised by the contribution of this volume, and another volume may be required to discuss the details of how the concept was understood in the Second Temple period and how it is or should be used in modern scholarly discussion. Growth of a text is evidently the result of scribal activity, but our perception of the role of the scribes in the formation of authoritative and sacred texts has been refined. The scribes should not be seen as merely mechanical copyists or redactors who updated the older text to accommodate it to the changes that had taken place in the society, but rather as independent and theologically creative authors. Even more so, each scribe may have had his own approach and principles concerning the older text, and each one of them was not only a copyist, but also a potential editor, redactor, interpreter and author. One should take into consideration that each scribe was an individual who had his own perception of and position towards the older text. This applies to questions such as authoritativeness of the older text and the possibility of changing it in the new edition, version, copy or composition he was creating. A text may have been regarded as unchangeable in the social and historical context of the scribe, but the individual scribe may have had a different view. For example, the Pentateuch was probably regarded as having considerable authority during most of the Second Temple period. This did not, however, hinder the author of the Temple Scroll from creating an alternative edition of God’s revelation. This also means that the Second Temple period probably contained many different perceptions and traditions towards the texts. Some of the traditions may represent the mainline tradition, some of them may have been individual or sectarian ones, some possibly loose ends without continuity, and some may have been harmonized towards a more authoritative tradition (cf. recensions of the Septuagint towards the Masoretic text). Moreover, a single stream of tradition may have undergone different kinds of phases, and different scribal approaches towards the transmitted text. Some scholars assume that there were different scribal schools with different techniques in transmitting the older text.6 5 6

As pointed out by James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (2nd edition; Eugene: Cascade Books, 2005), xxiii: “What ended up in a canon was indeed ‘adaptable for life.’” Eugene Ulrich defines the work of these two scribal schools and their attitude towards the text as either “exact” or that of “creative reshaping.” Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (SDSRL; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 11, 23–27. Sidnie White Crawford calls the two “the conservative and the revisionist scribal tradition,” and points out that texts from both “the conservative scribal tradition” and from the “re-

8

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila

Rewriting, implicit exegesis and the more explicit interpretation should be seen on a continuum: similar processes in the growth and transmission of texts and traditions can be detected both in the texts that ended up in the Jewish and Christian canons and in texts that were excluded from it. What is called “inner-biblical” exegesis by some scholars is the activity of learned scribes dealing with their authoritative traditions and texts, and it is equally attested in texts that never became part of the Jewish and Christian canons. For example, the Community Rule was regarded as an authoritative text by the Qumran movement and revised as such in this tradition.7 Reworking of traditions took place from the very early times in the formation of the books until the last decades of the Second Temple period and possibly beyond in the case of some books. Earlier scribes created literary traditions that were again reworked by later scribes: texts gained authority through the interplay between textual authority and exegetical creativity. As already noted, subjecting the text to exegetical creativity may in fact have increased its authoritativeness. George Brooke has suggested that “some, if not all, texts moved from authority to canon … not least because such texts attracted and provoked the very reworkings [parabiblical and rewritten forms] with which we have been concerned.8 Or, as Hans Debel has formulated it in his contribution to this volume, the adaptability of the text granted its overall stability. The exegetical activity of the scribes was formative for the developing collection of authoritative literature while the decisions of delimitation and exclusion happened independently of this exegetical activity. The interpretation and rewriting of texts and their gradual changes in authoritativeness are two different, albeit related processes. We still have only limited information about the attitude of the scribes toward the older text. As each scribe may have related different-

7

8

visionist scribal tradition” are now parts of the collection we call the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible; White Crawford, “Understanding the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible: A New Proposal,” in The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. A. Lange, K. De Troyer and S. Tzoref; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming). Charlotte Hempel, “Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradition,” in Authoritative Scripture in Ancient Judaism (ed. M. Popovi°; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 193–208. George J. Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002 (ed. E. G. Chazon, D. Dimant and R. A. Clements; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 85–104.

Introducing Changes in Scripture

9

ly to his source text, only a slow and painstaking investigation of the different texts may provide a more profound understanding of the scribal practices and editorial processes. Although we will probably never know the exact development of all texts, a better understanding of the practices and processes will increase our possibility of using the Hebrew Scripture for historical purposes. In this enterprise the “empirical” evidence and the arduous comparison of different witnesses – from Qumran, Septuagint and parallel texts and passages – is imperative.

The Contributions to This Volume The contributions of this volume are divided into three main sections: The first section (chapter 2) deals with general and methodological questions as well as with basic concepts and terminology. The second section (chapter 3) consists of concrete examples from the Hebrew Bible, Qumran and Septuagint on how the texts were changed, corrected, edited and interpreted. The contributions of the third section (chapter 4) will investigate the general influence and impact of Deuteronomistic ideology and phraseology on later texts. Here the first main question will be, is the influence general or more direct. Are there quotations or allusions? In his paper “Changing Scripture,” John Collins draws attention to central questions concerning changes made to Scripture by scribes. He notes that there is considerable scribal variation until the turn of the era and even beyond, but concludes that scribal variation may not have been problematic because until quite late “authority resided in a book rather than in a particular textual form of that book.” 4QReworked Pentateuch (4Q158, 4Q364–7) as well as the differences between First Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah and the three variant editions of Esther would seem to validate this assumption. In some cases the changes were so extensive that a new composition that attempted to transform the older tradition was created. Collins draws particular attention to Deuteronomy, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll as well as the rewritten texts. The question of whether the new composition attempted to replace or supplement is central in this discussion. Collins refers to the recent debate between Bernard Levinson and Hindy Najman about the relationship between Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code. Here it is necessary to ask: Can we determine whether the new composition tried to replace the older one or supplement it? Did the author of the new

10

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila

composition regard the older composition as authoritative? If an older text was extensively used, the older text had at least some authority for the author of the new text (cf. also Vanonen in this volume on 1QM and Daniel). Collins further discusses Jubilees and the Temple Scroll. Although Jubilees may not have intended to replace Genesis and Exodus, Collins assumes that it still supersedes them in some respects. He notes: “Where it differs from or adds to the traditional Torah, there is no doubt in Jubilees as to which formulation has the higher authority.” Jubilees is an authoritative text in the making that could have easily ended up in the Hebrew Canon. According to Collins, the Temple Scroll is different from Jubilees in the sense that it clearly claims to be authoritative by presenting itself as Yahweh’s revelation. In his paper “The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books,” Eugene Ulrich presents the development of the Hebrew Scriptures as evolutionary. The texts would have been constantly adapted to their environment by integrating agencies. The rapidly changing social, political and religious contexts of the Second Temple period meant a constant growth of the texts. Acknowledging that the stages may overlap, Ulrich also distinguishes four stages in this growth: composition, redaction, transmission and reception. Ulrich’s perspective emphasizes the complex nature of the editing, as there may have been various different processes that influenced the growth of the texts. Ulrich additionally provides several background assumptions that are crucial for the study of these editorial processes. For example, he emphasizes that the pluriformity of the texts in the Second Temple period should now be acknowledged (cf. Collins and Aejmelaeus). While the Qumranic text should not be regarded as sectarian, the Masoretic text should not be the starting point of textual research. As some of the contributions in this volume show, in many cases the Masoretic text does not preserve the oldest reading. All witnesses should be evaluated on their textual merits on an egalitarian basis. Any talk of the Urtext or “original text” may cause more confusion than clarity. Ulrich’s paper is a very welcome contribution to the discussion about the general principles of investigating the editorial processes of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Dead Sea Scrolls have changed the scholarly understanding of the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. The evidence of the Scrolls has made it clear how the late Second Temple period was a time of scribal creativity, a period during which the scriptural text was still developing and pluriform. In his article “Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition,” Hans Debel wants to raise

Introducing Changes in Scripture

11

two implications that arise from the new evidence: Firstly, he calls into question the possibility of reconstructing an “original” text. Debel sees the dissolving of the “Urtext” into different compositional stages as one of the most important conceptual changes in recent scholarship, although he suggests that scholars have difficulties embracing the full implications of this change. Based on his critical attitude towards our ability to reach the “original text,” Debel offers constructive remarks on the editorial principles of the Oxford Hebrew Bible project. Secondly, he discusses the relationship of alternative editions of scriptural books to the rewritten compositions. Debel demonstrates how both result from the same dynamic process of writing and rewriting tradition. While he builds upon the work of Eugene Ulrich and his theory of variant literary editions, Debel moves forward to suggest the removal of the distinction between “variant literary editions” and “rewritten Scripture.” He points out that before the stabilization of the text form and the authorization of an “unchangeable,” immutable text, the authority was situated rather in the tradition than in the specific wording of a composition. “Variant literary editions” and “rewritten Scripture” are two forms of rewriting the tradition, and should be seen on a “sliding scale” or a “spectrum,” rather than two distinct phenomena. The so-called “rewritten Bible texts” found at Qumran were discussed in the early years of the Dead Sea Scrolls discoveries in a way that tended to reflect pre-Qumran assumptions about the shape of the Hebrew Bible. Molly Zahn’s article “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology” tackles the important question regarding appropriate terminology in the ongoing attempt to arrange and evaluate the new data presented by the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the post-Qumran research, both the wealth of new material and the varying uses of terminology have resulted in a great deal of confusion. Zahn seeks to refine the terminology, with a particular focus on the terms “Bible“ and “Scripture” and make us aware of the implications arising from the use of these terms. Importantly, she reminds us that, both in our investigation of the new materials and in the terminology, the question of authority should be distinguished from literary issues. Her contribution is a welcome improvement, as more often than not the labels used in the scholarly debate create more ambiguity than clarity as they – often unintentionally – associate the literary relationships between compositions with the status or authority of a given work. In her contribution “The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” Sidnie White Crawford focuses on the “pre-Samaritan” family or group of manuscripts, which was pro-

12

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila

duced by scribes applying certain exegetical principles. White Crawford proposes a new label for these texts: “harmonistic/expansionistic.” Whereas the harmonization and content editing are the main exegetical techniques found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, both the Pentateuchal manuscripts from Qumran and the Reworked Pentateuch texts move beyond what is attested by the Samaritan Pentateuch. Importantly, the Reworked Pentateuch contains evidence of editing of the older text, not only in narrative sections but also in the legal material, as well as the addition of new material. This scribal approach continued in the production of new compositions such as the Book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll. Other texts from Qumran (i.e., phylacteries, mezuzot, 4QTestimonia) show that this text type was used at Qumran. White Crawford puts forward a theory according to which the existence of the harmonistic/expansionistic texts is not accidental but a product of a scribal group or school, at home both in the priestly circles of Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim. White Crawford proposes that this text type was preserved in the Jerusalem temple alongside the protoMasoretic text. Apart from the specifically Samaritan editing of certain passages, the development of the text ceased in the North after the destruction of the sanctuary of Mount Gerizim, and the separation of the “northern Yahwists” later known as the Samaritans, from the southern form of Judaism. At Qumran, however, the growth of the texts continued, resulting, for instance, in the writing of the texts currently known as the Reworked Pentateuch-manuscripts. Anneli Aejmelaeus’ paper, “David’s Three Choices: Textual and Literary Development in 2 Samuel 24,” deals with the Prophet Gad’s message to David after he had a census taken of the population. Through a comparison of the witnesses, she shows that the Masoretic text was edited “at such a late stage … that traces of the older form can be seen in the Septuagint.” Although many Greek witnesses were later harmonized towards the Masoretic text, a careful evaluation of the different readings, including the Chronicles, may reveal the original Septuagint reading. In addition to demonstrating the importance of the Greek witnesses – still often forgotten and neglected in the study of the Hebrew Bible – Aejmelaeus shows that a comparison of the Greek and Hebrew texts provides significant information about editorial processes and scribal changes of the late Second Temple period. Notably, we are not only dealing with grammatical and stylistic changes, for Aejmelaeus points out that behind most of the changes are theological and ideological motives. Moreover, she sees that these changes took place as late as the 1st century BCE or even at the turn of the Common Era. Although this may challenge many conventional conceptions, it is well

Introducing Changes in Scripture

13

in accordance with the increasing evidence from Qumran that many texts of the Hebrew Scriptures continued to be edited much later than what has been commonly assumed (cf. also Collins and Ulrich in this volume). She concludes that the Books of Samuel needed to be theologically polished in order to be included in the collection of the Prophets. In other words, editorial changes were a prerequisite for these books to become part of the authoritative collection of texts. Without ignoring the other witnesses, Kristin De Troyer’s contribution, “The Legs and Wings of the Grasshopper: A Case Study on Changes in the Masoretic Text and in the Old Greek Translation of the Book of Leviticus,“ also deals with the differences between the Hebrew and Greek versions. Although only a short text that, at first glance, only seems to contain a small difference, Lev 11:21 illustrates what kind of developments took place in the Hebrew Scriptures. The oldest text was not very clear as to how the grasshoppers moved forward, which was an important factor in the evaluation of whether the Israelites were allowed to consume them or not. The ambiguity caused the Old Greek, preserved in the Schøyen Greek papyrus, to make a change emphasizing that the grasshopper had legs and thereby was not a creeping animal. Later the Old Greek was changed into a more easy reading, now witnessed in A, B* and some minuscules. The Temple Scroll, on the other hand, added that the grasshopper also had wings, which would undoubtedly distinguish it from the creeping animals. Ironically, the Masoretic text already begins the verse by noting that the grasshopper is one of the flying animals. Perhaps the youngest attempt to provide clarity is the Masoretic insertion of the Qere #+ in the margin. De Troyer’s example is illustrative because it shows, on a micro-level, how ambiguities in the text were potentially a major cause of editorial changes and interpretative exegetical activity. Whereas it has been long recognized that the Greek Pentateuch depended on the Koine Greek of the Egyptian documentary and legal papyri for its terminology, Robert Kugler, in his article “Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean Interpretation of the Greek Torah: Ptolemaic Law Interpreted by its Own Rhetoric,” demonstrates how the Greek Pentateuch was used to adjust the Ptolemaic law. Through a case study of a legal dispute Kugler shows how Judeans in Hellenistic Egypt were able to employ the language of the Greek Torah to reinterpret and adapt the Ptolemaic legal rhetoric. In his paper “The Pilgrimage of the Nations in Mic 4:1–5 and Isa 2:1–5,” Reinhard Müller discusses the vision about the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion, which is found in two parallel passages, Mic 4:1–5 and Isa 2:1–5. A comparison of these passages casts light on the editori-

14

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila

al processes of these books. The example is significant because it provides “empirical” evidence for various editorial techniques by successive editors. Arguing that the vision was originally composed in the book of Micah, Müller shows how Mic 4:1–3 was copied and inserted in a changed form into a new context in Isa 2:2–4. Later Mic 4:5 was added on the basis of Isa 2:5, which was not part of the vision but originally had a different context. Finally a later editor added Mic 4:4, missing in Isa 2:1–5. The example illustrates how individual passages may have been copied from other books and changed in the process in order to fit better in their new context. Moreover, the original text may have later been influenced by the context of the copy, Isa 2:5 in this case. Parallel texts may have been later harmonized in a way that disregards the original order of influence. The example also shows that one parallel passage may continue developing later regardless of the other passage. The copied text may, in some cases, preserve the more original reading while the original text was later expanded (Mic 4:4). Müller’s examples emphasize the complexity of the editorial processes. In his contribution “The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah,” Juha Pakkala investigates the quotations and other related uses of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah. Notably, in no single case does the quotation or purported quotation correspond exactly to a known pentateuchal text. There are two possible explanations for this. Either the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah were convinced that quoting a text in an altered form would not compromise the authority and message of the pentateuchal text, or they used a different version of the Pentateuch from the ones currently known. Although not an explicit quotation, Neh 8:13–18 in particular suggests that the latter was the case. It would seem that the editorial processes of the Pentateuch were much more radical and substantial than what is traditionally assumed. This would also mean that the Pentateuch was still far from being a stable and fixed text in the fifth to third centuries BCE and that there were several fundamentally different versions during these centuries. One would have to assume that the scribes of these centuries, whether those behind the Pentateuch or those in Ezra-Nehemiah quoting the Pentateuch, were not very concerned about the exact wording of the pentateuchal texts, or at least they did not transmit them very faithfully (cf. Collins in this volume). Substantial changes, relocation of material, rewriting (such as paraphrasing), omissions and additions seem to have taken place in the transmission of texts that were regarded to be authoritative. In her paper “The Textual Connections between 1QM and the Book of Daniel,” Hanna Vanonen discusses the use of the Book of Daniel in

Introducing Changes in Scripture

15

1QM. Particular focus is on the connections between Dan 11–12 and the first column of 1QM. Although 1QM contains many Biblical references, Vanonen argues that the main referent was the Book of Daniel or a closely related tradition. She describes the textual connection between 1QM 1 and Daniel as allusive. Although there do not seem to be any intended quotations, Dan 11:40–12:3 and 1QM 1:1–9a share vocabulary, structure and themes. Explaining some of the incongruence between Daniel and 1QM, she notes that 1QM may have been later edited, possibly expanded. Vanonen’s contribution is significant because it draws attention to the processes taking place when a new composition was created using an older and highly esteemed tradition (cf. also Jubilees). Although the older tradition was used rather freely and there do not seem to be any intended quotations, the author of 1QM apparently wanted the readers to notice the connection between the new composition and the older tradition (cf. the scholarly discussion concerning the relationship between 1–2 Kings and Chronicles or the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy and Collins on Jubilees in this volume). A further question to be explored would be the authoritativeness of Daniel for the author of 1QM. With the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars are for the first time able to investigate the scribal practices that were in use in the writing of the authoritative texts of the late Second Temple period. In her article “Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc,” Hanne von Weissenberg focuses on examining the scribal practices and in particular the supralinear scribal corrections of manuscript 4QXIIc. Intriguingly, while the manuscript displays several characteristics of the Qumran Scribal Practice and attests to several scribal interventions, the general tendency of this scribe appears to have been an attempt to correct his linear text in faithfulness to his Vorlage. In light of her analysis of the scribal corrections, von Weissenberg suggests that the scribe might have been required to “proofread” his copy and make corrections according to his Vorlage. This suggests that a large number of scribal corrections in a manuscript does not necessarily indicate scribal creativity. The contributions of the volume’s third section (chapter 4) focus mainly on the deuterocanonical books. The main issue is to analyze what kind of traces the Deuteronomistic heritage has left in a selection of deuterocanonical books. In other words, Deuteronomistic literature will be used as a case study to investigate how this vast corpus of literature was used in later, and especially in late Second Temple period, literature. In this section the general influence and impact of Deuteronom-

16

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila

ism on later texts will be examined, as will the phenomenon of how the Deuteronomistic texts were quoted and alluded to. It will be asked if later authors could change the quoted texts in the new context and if so, how were they changed. If applicable, what is behind such changes and how does it relate to the question of the authority of the Deuteronomistic texts? To what extent can we talk about a movement and ideology in late Second Temple literature? Attention is also given to the question of whether the later uses of Deuteronomistic phraseology are only of a literary nature. There has been controversy among scholars on how to evaluate the Deuteronomistic influence in the Book of Ben Sira. Some scholars argue for Ben Sira’s strong adherence to the Deuteronomistic ideas, whereas others deny ties between Ben Sira and the Deuteronomistic legacy. In his contribution “The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage: A Critical Approach,” Pancratius C. Beentjes has undertaken a twofold approach to this topic. First, he examines whether there are recognizable collocations, allusions or quotations that link Ben Sira to the Deuteronomistic corpus of literature. Beentjes points out that, in addition to lexical similarities, the contexts where similar expressions are used should also be akin. The second step is to analyze Ben Sira’s possible adoption of major Deuteronomistic themes. As a result of his detailed analysis Beentjes recommends that scholars be cautious because Ben Sira’s dependence on Deuteronomistic literature and ideology seems to be relatively modest. Ben Sira was a very creative author who combined useful material from different sources and modified it according to his own principles. The Deuteronomistic heritage was only one stream for the sage who was active at the beginning of the second century BCE Beentjes suggests that the Deuteronomistic phraseology was probably a kind of common religious language in Ben Sira’s time. Therefore, Ben Sira’s text transmits Deuteronomistic tone, although deeper connections can only rarely be detected. Perhaps the Deuteronomistic heritage is most evidently present in Ben Sira’s teaching of the Law. The First Book of Maccabees is an important source that describes the events from the beginning of the Jews’ rebellion against Seleucid rule until the Judean autonomy. The book itself was composed during the Hasmonean period. As is the case with almost all deuterocanonical works, the author of 1 Maccabees was also well aware of traditions that preceded him. Therefore, it is relevant to examine the relationship between 1 Maccabees and Deuteronomism. In his paper “The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees,” Francis Borchardt first approaches his theme by analyzing quotations of Deuteronomy in 1 Maccabees. Ac-

Introducing Changes in Scripture

17

cording to him, there are three explicit legal references in 1 Maccabees that stem from Deuteronomy. In two cases out of three the issue is cultic, and one text deals with the rules of war. In the second and third sections of his article, Borchardt examines both the nature of Deuteronomistic phraseology and the Deuteronomistic themes used in 1 Maccabees. As a result of this analysis it seems that the most prominent Deuteronomistic ideas in 1 Maccabees are the struggle against idolatry, observance of the Law and loyalty to the covenant. Many other characteristically Deuteronomistic features also occur in 1 Maccabees. Borchardt finds an explanation for the strong Deuteronomistic legacy in the circumstances in which 1 Maccabees originated. Law, the cult and the land were three main issues for Maccabees and Hasmoneans. If the author of 1 Maccabees attempted to highlight the accomplishments of the Maccabees, it was only natural that he turned to the sources in which similar emphases were found. In this case, it was the Deuteronomistic literature. The Book of Baruch is branded by its deep adherence to earlier traditions. Although perhaps slightly provocatively, it can be said that no sentence is original in this book but can be derived from the sources that the author or rather a group of authors had available. In his article “The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch,” Marko Marttila sheds light on the reception of the Deuteronomistic phraseology and ideology in Baruch. The strongest concentration of Deuteronomistic expressions can be found in Baruch’s prayer of penitence (Bar 1:15–3:8). Marttila points out that not only does the vocabulary unite Baruch with his Deuteronomistic predecessors, but Baruch also shares certain theological convictions that were fundamental for the editors of the Deuteronomistic History. In the Deuteronomistic spirit, Baruch repeatedly emphasizes that the people of Israel have been disobedient to their God even though Yahweh has shown his great mercy and brought the people out of Egypt. However, after the long confession of sin, the Book of Baruch looks confidently to the future – if the people remain loyal to the Law. Other characteristically Deuteronomistic themes in Baruch are, above all, the struggle against idolatry, the centralization of cult, the inheritance of the land, divine retribution, and the fulfillment of prophecy. One topic that is missing is the reference to the Davidic dynasty. Marttila argues that this omission may be due to the fact that for the author(s) of Baruch, who lived in the second century BCE, it was the Torah that had become the quintessence of the religion. Therefore, there was no need to expect a new Davidic king. In his contribution “The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms,” Mika Pajunen focuses on the

18

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila

Deuteronomistic heritage in apocryphal psalms. As such, the concept of ‘apocryphal psalms’ is quite extensive because some early editions of the Bible include more psalms than the Hebrew Bible. For closer inspection, Pajunen has chosen three apocryphal psalms discovered at Qumran. The oldest text is represented by 4Q380, which, according to Pajunen, served as a source for the compiler of Ps 106. On the basis of this argument, 4Q380 is older than the traditional deuterocanonical books. 4Q380 adheres to Deuteronomistic legacy when referring to the election of Zion, retribution for wrong deeds and the importance of observing the commandments. Some changes, however, have also occurred, as the author of 4Q380 shifted the viewpoint from the collective to the individual. Pajunen points out that the author of 4Q381 chose a different way. This author attempts to actualize a passage from Deuteronomy 28 for his own audience. A familiar text from the tradition was thus tied together with actual concern about foreign practices. The author of 11QapocrPs goes a step further by transferring the familiar phraseology into a new setting that has also required certain redefinitions. This author was particularly concerned with the power of God over the evil spirits. It was not a problem for him to place Deuteronomistic idioms into a new context. Pajunen’s contribution indicates that the freedom to modify Deuteronomistic texts and phraseology may even increase in later texts. Deuteronomistic heritage can be observed in a twofold way in the Book of Judith. In his paper “Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage,” Anssi Voitila points out that the figure of Judith resembles a number of heroes who are mentioned in the Deuteronomistic History, such as Deborah, Jael, David and Miriam. More important than these affinities on a narrative level, however, are the speeches and prayers in Judith because they reveal the author’s intentions and convictions. According to Voitila’s analysis, the confession of sin is one theme that closely links Judith to the Deuteronomistic pattern of retribution. The Book of Judith stresses this through personal prayer where one is to submit himself to God’s mercy. Concepts of “Law” and “covenant” are mentioned in Judith, but they do not play any greater role. Instead, the author of Judith seems to favor exclusive monolatry – a feature that combines him with the nomistic editors of the Deuteronomistic History. Even though the Book of Judith originated in the Hellenistic period when monotheism began to be an established doctrine in Judaism, the author of Judith does not explicitly deny the existence of other gods. It is sufficient for him to stress that Yahweh is the only God for Israel. Consequently, there is no need to promote Yahweh worship for foreigners.

Introducing Changes in Scripture

19

The Book of Tobit shows an acquaintance with several earlier traditions. Especially familiar for the author(s) were the patriarchal narratives from Genesis and the story of Job. It would thus not be surprising if the Book of Tobit revealed affinities with Deuteronomistic ideas as well. However, in his article “A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?” Stuart D. Weeks warns against over-simplifications by reminding us that not all biblical ideas of retribution and mercy are Deuteronomistic. The same is valid for topics such as the promised land or the Jerusalem Temple. As Weeks’s analysis indicates, there are only seldom similarities between Tobit and Deuteronomistic literature. Even when they touch upon apparently similar concepts, such as Israel’s past and future, the tone is different in these works. Tobit portrays a deity whose power is not limited to the land of Israel, even though God’s special relationship with Israel is presupposed, of course. That God is surrounded by angels is one aspect in Tobit’s theology, but this feature clearly distinguishes Tobit from Deuteronomistic literature. Weeks argues that Tobit has subsumed many traditions, both biblical and nonbiblical, to create a story that exhorts its readers to piety. Certain echoes from Deuteronomism can also be found in this outcome, but they are not the most central elements in the story of Tobit. Instead, Tobit’s emphasis on piety seems to be independent of the systematic presentation of any specific religious ideology.

Bibliography Brooke, George J. “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process.” Pages 85–104 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature and the Hebrew University Institute for Advanced Studies Research Group on Qumran, 15–17 January, 2002. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant and Ruth A. Clements. STDJ 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Crawford, Sidnie White. “Understanding the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible: A New Proposal.” In The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Armin Lange, Kristin De Troyer and Shani Tzoref. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming. Hempel, Charlotte. “Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradition.” Pages 193–208 in Authoritative Scripture in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popovi°. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Kratz, Reinhard G. “The Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran.” Pages 77–103 in The Pentateuch as Torah. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

20

Hanne von Weissenberg & Juha Pakkala & Marko Marttila

Sanders, James A. Torah and Canon. 2nd edition. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2005. Segal, Michael “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” Pages 10–28 in Biblical Interpretations at Qumran. Edited by M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Tigay, Jeffrey. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. SDSRL. Leiden: Brill, 1999. VanderKam, James C. “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 1–30 in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

2. Methodological Issues

Changing Scripture John J. Collins “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us,’ when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie” (Jer 8:8)

We do not know precisely what Jeremiah had in mind in his scathing denunciation of scribal activity on the Torah. Many scholars think that the prophet was opposed to any written Torah.1 He was certainly concerned that the authority of the prophet to speak for God was being usurped by the scribes, as indeed it was. But it is also established beyond doubt that scribes frequently changed the supposedly revealed texts that they transmitted. Ironically, the book of Jeremiah is itself a prime example of scribal composition, where the original oracles of the prophet are now overshadowed by the accretions, often ideological, of scribal transmission.2 Of course, Jeremiah’s judgment on such accretions reflects a particular perspective, which is not inevitable. Religious traditions sometimes value the contributions of the editors, who gave the material its canonical shape, more than those of the prophets. It is often assumed that these editors were attempting to preserve and explicate the true meaning of their sources, and undoubtedly this was often so. But Jeremiah’s outburst should warn us that a “hermeneutic of suspicion” towards the ideological underpinnings of scribal activity is not entirely anachronistic. Claims to speak with divine authority were especially fraught with implications for power in ancient society, and were inevitably, and properly, contested.

1

2

For a summary of the discussion see William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 281. It has been suggested that the verse summarizes Jeremiah’s view of Josiah’s reform, but most scholars reject that view as exaggerated. See e.g. Christl Maier, Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora: Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002); Carolyn Sharp, Prophecy and ideology in Jeremiah: struggles for authority in DeuteroJeremianic prose (London: T & T Clark, 2003).

24

John J. Collins

The Case of Deuteronomy The role of scribes not only in the transmission of the biblical tradition but also in its development has received renewed attention in recent years.3 Michael Fishbane’s classic study of inner biblical exegesis was a pioneering work in this regard.4 Fishbane’s student, Bernard Levinson, built on this foundation in his influential study of the hermeneutics of legal innovation in Deuteronomy. But, wrote Levinson, “in the end, however, inner biblical exegesis does not provide a satisfactory model to describe the achievements of the authors of Deuteronomy. The concern of the authors of Deuteronomy was not to explicate older texts but to transform them. Neither ‘interpretation’ nor ‘exegesis’ adequately suggests the extent to which Deuteronomy radically transforms literary and legal history in order to forge a new vision of religion and the state.”5 Rather than the continuity of tradition, Levinson sought to emphasize “the extent to which exegesis may make itself independent of the source text, challenging and even attempting to reverse or abrogate its substantive content, all the while under the hermeneutical mantle of consistency with or dependency upon its source.”6 So, he concludes, “Deuteronomy’s use of precedent subverts it. The old saw of Deuteronomy as a pious fraud may thus be profitably inverted. Is there not something of an impious fraud – of pecca fortiter! – in the literary accomplishment of the text’s authors?”7 Levinson’s view of the matter has not gone unchallenged. Hindy Najman accuses him of assuming “a contemporary conception of fraudulence, and a contemporary conception of piety towards tradition."8 Ideas of authorship in antiquity were very different from their modern counterparts.9 Anonymity was often the norm, but the attribution of 3

4 5

6 7 8 9

William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart (New York: Oxford, 2005); Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007). Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). Bernard Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford, 1997), 15. Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2007) takes a similar view. Levinson, Deuteronomy, 15. Levinson, Deuteronomy, 150. Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai. The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 5. Karel van der Toorn, see chapter “Authorship in Antiquity,” in Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University

Changing Scripture

25

texts to specific figures was also a significant practice, not least as a way of claiming authority for a text.10 Karel van der Toorn distinguishes between “honorary authorship,” whereby a work was attributed to a patron, often in the interests of political propaganda (e.g. the Laws of Hammurabbi) and pseudepigraphy, whereby authors attribute their work to a (fictive) author from remote times in order to present their work as a legacy from the venerable past.11 Pseudepigraphy was very widespread in the ancient world, and was motivated in various ways.12 To regard it simply as fraud or deception in all cases would obviously be simplistic. Even when works were denounced as forgeries in antiquity, the issue was not necessarily authorship in the modern sense. Tertullian famously denounced The Acts of Paul and Thecla, because it served “as a licence for women’s teaching and baptizing.”13 But the same Tertullian wrote that Luke’s gospel ought to be ascribed to Paul and Mark’s to Peter, because “that which disciples publish should be regarded as their master’s work.”14 Najman suggests that works like Deuteronomy, that reformulate the revelation given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, should be compared to modern discourses that are inextricably linked to their founders, such Marxism or Freudianism. “When someone proclaims ‘Back to Marx!’ or ‘Back to Freud!’ she claims to represent the authentic doctrine of Marx or Freud, although she may express it in different words . . . In some ancient cultures, the way to continue or return to the founder’s dis-

10

11 12

13 14

Press, 2007), 27–49; Leo G. Perdue, “Pseudonymity and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric,” in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen (ed. J. Frey et al.; WUNT 246; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2009), 27–59 (28–39), (“Authorship in Antiquity”), Jed Wyrick, The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004). Perdue, “Pseudonymity,” 29: “while in the ANE authorship may at times have been viewed as collective, i.e. texts were produced by the scribal communities, attribution to individuals was a significant practice especially among the composers of the wisdom corpora.” Philip R. Davies, “Spurious Attribution in the Hebrew Bible,” in The Invention of Sacred Tradition (ed. J. R. Lewis and O. Hammer ; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 258–75 (259), says that scribal communities in the Ancient Near East considered authorship to be unimportant, but does not reconcile this with the phenomenon of pseudonymous attribution, which he also notes. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture, 34. The literature is vast. See Wolfgang Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im Altertum (Munich: Beck, 1971); Bruce M. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” JBL 91 (1972): 3–24; and the essays in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion (ed. Frey et al.). Tertullian, De Baptismo, 17. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 6.5.

26

John J. Collins

course was precisely to ascribe what one said or wrote, not to oneself, but rather to the founder.”15 There is some precedent for this in antiquity, in the Greek philosophical schools. The Neo-Pythagoreans thought it most honorable and praiseworthy to publish one’s philosophical treatises in the name of Pythagoras himself.16 Najman does not suggest that there was a “Mosaic school,” but suggests an analogy nonetheless. So, to rework an earlier formulation of the law of Moses is not to claim that the rewritten text represents the words of the historical Moses but “to update, interpret and develop the content of that text in a way that one claims to be an authentic expression of the law already accepted as authoritatively Mosaic.”17 Levinson’s argument that Deuteronomy is a deliberate subversion of the older Covenant Code is based in large part on its reworking of key terms from the older text. So, for example, the Deuteronomic writers rework the key terms in the altar law of Exodus “ in such a way as finally to make it prohibit what it originally sanctioned (multiple altar sites as legitimate) and command the two innovations it could never have contemplated: cultic centralization and local, secular slaughter… The antithetical reworking of the original text suggests an extraordinary ambivalence on the part of the authors of Deuteronomy, who retain the old altar law only to transform it and who thereby subvert the very textual authority that they invoke.”18 Najman counters: “If one intends to replace an earlier code, why should one exert so much effort to incorporate and preserve its wording? Why should one constantly remind the reader of the earlier text, already accepted as authoritative, which one wishes to supplant?”19 In her view, the ambivalence that Levinson perceives arises from his assumption that Deuteronomy was intended to replace an older authoritative law. Najman argues that there is no reason to think that the Deuteronomic writers wanted to suppress the older law: “Instead, there is good reason to think that they intended the Covenant Code to be preserved alongside the Deuteronomic Code, with the latter serving as the authentic exposition of certain laws in the former.”20 Approximately two thirds of the laws in the Covenant Code are not repeated in Deuteronomy, and are presumably not annulled. Moreover, both the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy

15 16 17 18 19 20

Najman, Seconding Sinai, 12. Iamblichus, De Vita Pythagorica, 198. Najman, Seconding Sinai, 13. Levinson, Deuteronomy, 46. Najman, Seconding Sinai, 22–23. Najman, Seconding Sinai, 24.

Changing Scripture

27

were eventually acknowledged as Holy Scripture. The acceptance of Deuteronomy did not require the suppression of the laws in Exodus. Levinson’s analysis assumes that the Book of the Covenant was an authoritative text when Deuteronomy was written: “The authors of Deuteronomy sought to locate their innovative vision in prior textual authority by tendentiously appropriating texts like the Covenant Code…”21 This is a reasonable assumption. The Covenant Code would hardly have survived as authoritative scripture if it had not already enjoyed that status, at least in some circles, before the Deuteronomic revision. But in fact we have no explicit evidence as to what status the Book of the Covenant enjoyed in the seventh century BCE. Neither do we have any explicit evidence as to whether the authors of Deuteronomy intended that the older writing be preserved. Pace Najman, it does not seem to me that the reuse of language from an older text argues against replacement: revisions and new editions normally reuse the language of the original, but seek to supersede it nonetheless.22 The Covenant Code echoes the Laws of Hammurabi at many points,23 but surely did not regard the Mesopotamian code as authoritative. The fact that Deuteronomy does not repeat or revise all the laws of the Exodus code is a stronger argument that the older text was expected to be still available. But in fact, framing the question in terms of whether or not one code was meant to replace the other may reflect an anachronistic understanding of the function of law codes in ancient Judah. Many scholars have argued that early law codes were descriptive rather than prescriptive.24 They recorded representative rulings, and had some value as precedents, but ultimately law depended on the decision of the king or the judge. Some scholars argue that this situation changed with Deuteronomy, with its emphasis on the book of the Law.25 Others place the

21 22

23 24 25

Levinson, Deuteronomy, 16. The new edition of Emil Schürer’s History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, (ed. G. Vermes et al.; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973–1987) was intended not only to update the classic original but also to subvert its view of Judaism in some respects. Yet large portions of the original were repeated verbatim. The revision attested to the authoritative status of the original, but it unambiguously sought to replace it. David Wright, Inventing God’s Law. How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 9. Michael LeFebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah. The Re-characterization of Israel’s Written Law (London: T & T Clark, 2006), 1–30. Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law (London: SCM, 1986), 189–204; Raymond Westbrook, “Cuneiform Law Codes and the Origins of Legislation,” ZA 79 (1989): 201–22.

28

John J. Collins

transition later, in the Persian era.26 Michael LeFebvre argues that the Torah did not become a legislative text before the Hellenistic era.27 In any case, it is unlikely that the Book of the Covenant was used as prescriptive law before Josiah’s reform.28 Neither, of course, was it part of a “canon,” in the sense of an exclusive collection of authoritative texts. The authors of Deuteronomy surely intended to supersede the older code on the topics that they addressed. But ultimately, law was decided by the king, or by the competent authorities in the community after the demise of the kingship. It was not necessary to suppress the Covenant Code, which contained much material with which the Deuteronomic authors had no quarrel. The important thing was that the rulers should know which formulation offered the better guidance. In fact, even when law is understood prescriptively, its exercise always requires a competent authority to interpret it. Two other aspects of Deuteronomy should be noted. First, the book is not presented as a transcription of the revelation at Mount Sinai/Horeb. It is a secondary account of the revelation, a recapitulation by Moses on the plains of Moab – hence the name, Deuteronomy, the second law. Najman’s designation of it as “Mosaic discourse” is fully justified. It contains a prohibition (probably vain)29 against adding or subtracting anything from its formulation (Deut 13:1), but it does not preclude the existence of other accounts. But, second, it does not acknowledge the existence of any prior “book of the covenant,” despite its well documented dependence on the laws of Exodus. The source of its authority is not its relationship to an earlier book but its claim to give the substance of the revelation at Sinai, and the credibility of Moses as narrator. Echoes of other formulations that might be known to those who read or heard these laws may have added to their credibility, by evoking associations, but it is not from the earlier formulations that Deuteronomy derives its authority.

26 27 28

29

Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to Law (JSOTSup 287; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). LeFebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah, 258. Wright, Inventing God’s Law, 4, suggests that the Covenant Code is to be viewed as “an academic abstraction rather than a digest of laws practiced by Israelites and Judeans over the course of centuries.” We do not know at what point this prohibition was inserted.

Changing Scripture

29

The Second Century BCE It is generally agreed that the authority of the Torah had been clarified and solidified considerably by the second century BCE. “Considerably,” however, is not “absolutely.” One of the revelations of the Dead Sea Scrolls has concerned the extent of textual variation in the Hebrew scriptures, down to the turn of the era. It is now clear that textual traditions known to us from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint were current in Hebrew in the land of Israel, as well as the precursors of the Masoretic text, and there were other variations besides.30 Variant editions of several biblical books were in circulation (Exodus, Jeremiah, Psalms).31 This in itself presents an interesting problem, as it shows that authority resided in a book rather than in a particular textual form of that book. Scribal variation was not necessarily perceived as problematic. The variants include scribal errors, but also intentional changes. Some of these consist of additions, rearrangements and paraphrases, sometimes intended to clarify the text, and sometimes tendentious.32 There is a movement towards standardization of the text in the first century CE, as can be seen from the revisions of the Greek translation of the Minor Prophets and from the prevalence of proto-Masoretic texts at Masada, but there is still considerable evidence of textual variation in the New Testament and in Josephus. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was easy enough to distinguish between a biblical text that was at variance with the MT (e.g. the Samaritan Pentateuch) and a book like Jubilees, that retold the story of Genesis and part of Exodus but was clearly an independent composition. The distinction is blurred, however, in the text (or texts) known as 4QReworked Pentateuch (4Q158, 4Q364–7). This title refers to a group of five fragmentary manuscripts, which were originally thought 30

31 32

For a concise summary see Armin Lange, “’Nobody dared to add to them, to take from them, or to Make Changes.’ Josephus, Ag.Ap.1.42. The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A. Hilhorst, É. Puech and E. Tigchelaar; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 105–26, (107– 10); Armin Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Bd. 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2009). Eugene C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origin of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 17–50, 99–120. Michael Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28 (12). See the discussion of the Samaritan Pentateuch by Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 279–312.

30

John J. Collins

to make up a single, independent composition.33 Since there are no significant overlaps, however, they are now increasingly viewed as distinct but related compositions.34 All five manuscripts reflect Pentateuchal texts, with variations, including rearrangements and additions (notably the “Song of Miriam”). In the words of Sidnie White Crawford, “these texts are the product of scribal interpretation, still marked mainly by harmonistic editing, but with one important addition: the insertion of outside material into the text, material not found in other parts of what we now recognize as the Pentateuch.”35 But many fragments correspond to the traditional text with minimal variation. The extant fragments do not suggest any changes of speaker or setting over against other forms of these texts. Consequently, they are increasingly viewed not as distinct compositions but as expansionistic variants of the text known from our Bible.36 If this is so, it suggests that there was still great freedom in copying the scriptural texts as late as the first century BCE. 37 How far these texts were accepted as authentic scriptures, we do not know. They survive in single, fragmentary copies. It has been suggested that Jubilees relied on 4Q364, frg. 3 (Isaac/Rebekah) and that the Temple Scroll relied on 4Q365, frg. 23 (the New Oil/Wood festival), but the evidence is not conclusive.38 White Crawford believes that “we can say with almost complete certainty that 4Q364 and 4Q365 were meant by the scribes who prepared them to be read as regular pentateuchal texts.”39 Given the tolerance of textual variation that we 33 34

35 36

37 38 39

Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuch,” in Qumran Cave 4, VIII (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 187–351. Michael Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery (ed. L. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 391–99; George Brooke, “4Q158: Reworked Pentateucha or Reworked Pentateuch A?,” DSD 8 (2001): 219–41. So now also Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 39. White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 39–40. For a list of scholars who hold this view, including now Emanuel Tov, see White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 56. See the discussion by Molly M. Zahn, “The Problem of Characterizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts: Bible, Rewritten Bible, or None of the Above?,” DSD 15 (2008): 315–39; Molly M. Zahn, “Rewritten Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 323–36; and her forthcoming dissertation, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95. Leiden: Brill). The manuscripts date from the late Hasmonean period. White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 40. White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 59. White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 56.

Changing Scripture

31

find at Qumran, this does not mean that these scribes would have made any attempt to suppress other forms of these texts. Most of their variations can be viewed as exegetical, and taken as attempts to clarify the received text and bring out its fuller significance.

Rewritten Scriptures There are other texts, however, that are closely based on the traditional text of the Torah, but are generally recognized as distinct compositions in their own right. These texts are often categorized as “Rewritten Bible,” a label introduced by Geza Vermes, to describe such works as Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo and the Antiquities of Josephus.40 The designation is problematic, since that which is rewritten was not yet “Bible,” and so scholars increasingly refer to them as “rewritten scriptures.”41 The rewriting has much in common with what we find in expansionistic texts like 4QReworked Pentateuch. It involves harmonizing, rearranging and expansion. Some scholars see a spectrum, which ranges from minor editorial changes in the received text, to changes so extensive that they are deemed to constitute independent works.42 But, as Michael Segal has pointed out, the difference between “Bible” and “Rewritten Bible” is not simply quantitative.43 If it were, the variant editions of Jeremiah that underlie the MT and LXX would be considered different compositions. More important are differences in the literary frame, the authorial voice, and the scope of the composition. There has been extensive debate about the extent and definition of this category of writing.44 It is not strictly a literary genre.45 Individual 40 41

42 43 44

Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2nd ed.; Studia Post-Biblica 4; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 67–126. See e.g. Anders Klostergaard Petersen, “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon – Genre, Textual Strategy or Canonical Anachronism?” in Flores Florentino (ed. A. Hilhorst, É. Puech and E. Tigchelaar), 284–306. Jonathan G. Campbell, “’Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Ideological critique,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003 (ed. J. G. Campbell et al.; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 43– 68, also objects to “rewritten scriptures.” He suggests terminology along the lines of “scripture” and “parascripture.” So White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 14. Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” 16. See also Zahn, “Rewritten Scriptures.” In addition to works already cited see Moshe Bernstein, “’Rewritten Bible:’ A Generic Category which has Outlived Its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96; George J.

32

John J. Collins

compositions tend to follow the genre of the prototype.46 A great amount of Jewish literature from the late Second Temple period is based on older scriptures in one way or another. For example, the fragments of Hellenistic Jewish literature preserve re-tellings of stories about the patriarchs and the exodus not only in narrative form, but also in epic poetry and even in the form of a tragedy.47 There is no question in these writings of replacing the original scriptures: they simply present (and often embellish) these stories in ways that render them more interesting for a Hellenized audience, and use them to reshape Jewish identity in a Diaspora setting. They treat the scriptures as sources for their literary imagination. This is also true of Josephus’ great re-telling of biblical history in his Antiquities, which was one of the works originally categorized as “Rewritten Bible” by Vermes. These works may have an exegetical dimension, insofar as they sometimes try to resolve problems in the scriptures, but they are not primarily works of exegesis. They are new compositions that draw their source material from the traditional scriptures. The same is arguably true of the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon and Aramaic Levi Document. The fact that so much of Jewish literature in this period draws its source material from the Pentateuch is powerful testimony to the authoritative status of the narrative parts of the Torah. Authority in these cases means primarily literary authority. Genesis and Exodus are classic texts that are infinite-

45

46 47

Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 777–81; George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 31–40; Antti Laato and Jacques van Ruiten, ed., Rewritten Bible Reconsidered (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), Daniel A. Machiela, “Once More, with Feeling: Rewritten Scripture in Ancient Judaism – A Review of Recent Developments,” JJS 61(2010): 308–20. Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 99–121, argues that the texts so classified by Vermes, Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon, the Antiquities of Josephus and the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo, do constitute a literary genre. These are all narrative texts, and do not include such compositions as the Temple Scroll. Compare Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” 780: “Rewritten Bible texts come in almost as many genres as can be found in the biblical books themselves.” See further John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 29–63; Martin Goodman, “Jewish Literature Composed in Greek,” in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ III.1 (ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: Clark, 1986), 509–66.

Changing Scripture

33

ly adaptable to new circumstances, just as the epics of Homer were classic texts for the Greeks. In the case of legal texts, however, the issues were somewhat different. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that halakhic disputation was common in the first century BCE, and contributed to the division between sects, probably as early as the reign of John Hyrcanus. 4QMMT provides a classic example of the halakhic mentality, which unambiguously reads the laws of scripture as prescriptive. Halakhic disputation did not immediately lead to textual standardization, as we might expect from a modern perspective, but it meant that variation in legal texts became fraught with significance. If we seek an analogy to the revision of the Covenant Code in Deuteronomy, our concern is primarily with texts that rewrite the laws of the Torah, or rewrite the narratives with a halakhic focus. Two such texts have attracted great attention in recent years. The Book of Jubilees was one of the prototypical texts adduced by Vermes. It retells the narrative of Genesis and part of Exodus, but it supplies a new literary frame: the narrative is dictated to Moses by an angel on Mt. Sinai. In this case, the re-writing is far more tendentious than anything we find in the fragments of 4QReworked Pentateuch. Much of it is concerned with a strict interpretation of halakhic issues, including a 364-day calendar, which is injected into the retold narrative. The Temple Scroll is also presented as a revelation on Mt. Sinai, but in this case God speaks directly to Moses. In contrast to Jubilees, it is entirely concerned with the legal texts of the Pentateuch. In that sense, the two books complement each other, although Ben Zion Wacholder’s suggestion that the two were parts of a single composition is universally rejected.48 Both Jubilees and the Temple Scroll are likely to date from the second century BCE.49 Neither text engages in the kind of pesher-style exegesis, which carefully distinguishes the scriptural lemma from its interpretation, that we find in the sectarian texts from Qumran, which probably date to the first half of the first century BCE.

48

49

Ben Zion Wacholder, “The Relationship Between 11Q Torah (the Temple Scroll) and the Book of Jubilees, One Single or Two Independent Compositions,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (ed. K. H. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 205–16. On the date of Jubilees, James VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 17–21; for the Temple Scroll, see Sidnie White Crawford, The Temple Scroll and Related Texts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 24–26. VanderKam and White Crawford both favor dates before the middle of the second century BCE for their respective works.

34

John J. Collins

As with Deuteronomy, there has been debate as to whether these books are intended to replace or supplement the traditional Torah. Najman has argued vigorously that they “seek to provide the interpretive context within which scriptural traditions already acknowledged as authoritative can be properly understood. This is neither a fraudulent attempt at replacement, nor an act of impiety. It is rather, we may charitably assume, a pious effort to convey what is taken to be the essence of earlier traditions, an essence that the rewriters think is in danger of being missed.”50 Moreover, she claims, “they claimed for their interpretations of authoritative texts, the already established authority of the texts themselves.”51 Their goal is to solve interpretive problems in the older texts, and to appropriate the authority of the Torah for their interpretations. So, argues Najman, while they do not replace the existing Torah, they do claim the status of Torah for themselves. Najman is aware that there are significant differences between the two compositions.52 I would suggest that these differences are important for the kind of authority claimed in each text, and for the way in which their relationship to the older scriptures is conceived.

Jubilees In the case of Jubilees, we are fortunate that the beginning of the work has been preserved. Both the short prologue and the opening chapter are attested in the fragments of 4Q216 and preserved in full in Ethiopic. From allusions to Exod 24:12–18, it appears that the setting is Moses’ first forty-day sojourn on Mt. Sinai.53 Moses is told to write down “everything I tell you on this mountain, the first things and the last things that shall come to pass in all the divisions of the days, in the law and in the testimony, and in the weeks of the Jubilees till eternity, till I descend and dwell with them through all eternity” (Jub 1:26). The actual dictation is performed not by the Deity but by the angel of the presence, who in turn derives the information from the heavenly tablets.54

50 51 52 53

54

Najman, Seconding Sinai, 46. Najman, Seconding Sinai, 45. Najman, Seconding Sinai, 59. See James C. VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. S. Metso, H. Najman and E. Schuller; STDJ 92; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 25–44 (25–26). Hindy Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and its Authority Conferring Strategies,” in Past Renewals. Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation

Changing Scripture

35

Jubilees evidently presupposes that the story of the revelation on Sinai is familiar to readers, and so it can dispense with the narrative of the arrival at Sinai. It also clearly presupposes the existence, and authority, of “the first law.” The most explicit reference is in Jub 6:20–22, with reference to the laws of Shavuoth: “for I have written in the book of the first law, which I have written for you, that you should celebrate it at its proper time . . .” Again in Jub 30:12, à propos of Dinah and the Shechemites: “I have written for you in the words of the law all the details of what the Shechemites did to Dinah . . .” But in addition to the Torah, there was also the “testimony” !#3=, which, as VanderKam argues persuasively, should be identified with the contents of the book of Jubilees itself, although they may not exhaust the testimony contained in the heavenly tablets.55 Insofar as Jubilees claims to transmit revelation given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, it may reasonably be described as Mosaic discourse, but only in a qualified sense. Moses is not the speaker in Jubilees. His authority here is not that of a founder (although he was commonly so perceived in the Hellenistic world), but only that of a mediator. More properly, Jubilees is angelic discourse, or even mediated divine discourse. The authority claimed for it is not ultimately that of Moses, as in Deuteronomy or the Testament of Moses, but that of divine revelation. Moses is important as guarantor of its transmission, but he is not its source. Again, the discourse may reasonably be said to be “seconding Sinai,” since it supplements and provides an interpretive context for “the first Torah.” VanderKam points out that Jubilees claims to be the only revelation that survives from Moses’ first sojourn on the mountain, since the tablets with “the first law” were smashed and had to be replaced. He therefore says that “he was not seconding Sinai; he was initiating Sinai.”56 The point about precedence may be a quibble, however. Presumably the tablets that were destroyed were accurately replaced. The fact that the traditional Torah is called “the first law” would seem to grant it priority, in a sense. But the “testimony” is also revealed on Mt. Sinai, so for all practical purposes Jubilees and the “first law” are coeval and complementary.57

55

56 57

and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (JSJSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 39–71. This article was originally published in JSJ 30 (1999): 379–410. VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses,” 42. Cana Werman, “’The !:#= and the !#3= Engraved on the Tablets,” DSD 9 (2002): 75–103 thinks that the “testimony” is “the preordained march of history.” VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses,” 31. Compare Werman, “’The !:#= and the !#3= 95: “Moses came down from Mount Sinai carrying two Torahs.” Similarly Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests. An-

36

John J. Collins

The body of Jubilees is made up of a rewritten narrative of Genesis and Exodus. Much of the re-writing can be explained as an exegetical attempt to resolve problems in the traditional text of the Torah, although some other traditions are also introduced, notably the Enochic story of the fallen angels.58 But Jubilees is not presented as an exegetical text, and there is no acknowledgement that its authority derives in any way from other scriptures.59 Its authority does depend on the setting at Sinai, and the reader’s acceptance that a foundational revelatory event occurred there. Verbal echoes of the older scriptures would probably have facilitated acceptance of Jubilees as a credible account of Sinaitic revelation. But this is not quite the same thing as appropriating the authority of the existing scriptures. Jubilees is presented as a distinct revelation. It is not intended to replace “the first law,” but it does supersede it in some respects. Where it differs from or adds to the traditional Torah, there is no doubt in Jubilees as to which formulation has the higher authority.60

58

59

60

cestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2006), 54–55: “Jubilees does not attempt to nudge the Torah out of its niche and replace it, but rather embraces the authority of the Torah even as it seeks to place itself alongside it.” See also Martha Himmelfarb, “Torah, Testimony, and Heavenly Tablets: The Claim to Authority in the Book of Jubilees,” in A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (ed. B. G. Wright; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 22–28. Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees. Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 103–43. Gabriele Boccaccini, “From a Movement of Dissent to a Distinct Form of Judaism: The Heavenly Tablets in Jubilees as the Foundation of a Competing Halakah,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah. The Evidence of Jubilees (ed. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 193–210, construes the use of Enochic tradition in Jubilees as an attempt to merge two forms of Judaism. This construal entails assumptions about the social history of Second Temple Judaism that are not widely shared. See also John S. Bergsma, “The Relationship between Jubilees and the Early Enochic Books,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah. The Evidence of Jubilees (ed. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 36–51, who notes that the influence of the early Enoch material in Jubilees is limited to the period from Enoch to Noah, and does not come close to rivaling the importance of Moses. Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 40, says that “Jubilees claims that its teachings are the true interpretation of the Torah” and “derive their authority from that of the Torah.” But while the teachings of Jubilees are largely interpretations of the Torah, that is not how Jubilees presents itself. Ben Zion Wacholder, “Jubilees as the Super Canon,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues (ed. M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez and J. Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 195–211, is correct that Jubilees trumps the traditional Torah in many places, even if it does not deny the Torah’s authority.

Changing Scripture

37

In view of the divine and angelic authority claimed for Jubilees, the appeal to the heavenly tablets may seem superfluous. For VanderKam, they simply add another layer of assurance of the reliability of the revelation: “these tablets are a written unchangeable, permanent depository of information under God’s control.”61 James Kugel, in contrast, argues that the passages that refer to the heavenly tablets are interpolations, which stand in tension with the rest of the text in various ways.62 The argument rests on perceived contradictions between these passages and the rest of the text, and some are more persuasive than others.63 If Kugel is correct, however, this would explain why the interpolator has to trump even the angel of the presence by appealing to a still higher authority. In any case, the heavenly tablets appear as a source of truth to which both the Torah and the Testimony are subordinate. Moreover, Enoch also “wrote his testimony and left it as a testimony on the earth for all the sons of men for every generation” (Jub 4:19), and Noah is also cited as an author.64 The testimony of Enoch and Noah is not explicitly associated with the heavenly tablets, but they are further evidence that revelation is not confined to the traditional Torah. As Martha Himmelfarb has observed: “This approach not only exalts Jubilees but also, less obviously, demotes the Torah, which must share its authoritative status with another text even as both are subordinated to the heavenly tablets.”65 VanderKam and Kugel agree, however, that the author of Jubilees could not just insert his new ideas into the received text of the Torah. For Kugel, this is why the interpolator made his insertions into Jubilees rather than into the Torah itself: “By the mid-second century BCE, any major, sectarian tampering with the Pentateuch would surely have been a controversial undertaking; its text was simply too widely known, and its study too well entrenched, across the spectrum of Jew-

61 62 63 64 65

VanderKam, “Moses Trumping Moses,” 32. Similarly Najman, “Interpretation as Primordial Writing,” 50–62. James Kugel, “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees,” RevQ 24 (2009): 215–72. Kugel is building on the work of Segal, The Book of Jubilees. A persuasive example is the contrasting roles of Mastema in Jubilees, 48–49. Jub 8:11; 10:13; 21:10. Himmelfarb, “Torah, Testimony, and the Heavenly Tablets,” 27. Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests, 55; cf. Himmelfarb, “Torah, Testimony, and the Heavenly Tablets,” 27–28. Note also Najman, Past Renewals, 71: “Jubilees’ insistence on the pre-Sinaitic origin of its heavenly tradition could be seen to undermine the special authority that had been accorded to the Mosaic Torah,” and Boccaccini, “From a Movement of Dissent,” 193–96.

38

John J. Collins

ish groups.”66 Whether this was already the case by the mid-second century BCE may be open to question, but at least the author of Jubilees chose not to change the text. He did not, however, subordinate his rewriting to the existing text by presenting it in the form of a commentary. Rather, he seems to have claimed for his “testimony” a status equal, at least, to that of the first Torah.

The Temple Scroll In the case of the Temple Scroll, we do not have the opening column, and so there is some uncertainty as to how its revelation is presented. There is a passing reference to “Aaron your brother” in TS 44:5, and another to “those things which I tell you on this mountain” in TS 51:6. From these references, many infer that the discourse is addressed to Moses on Mt. Sinai,67 but these are the only nods to Moses in a lengthy text, and he is never mentioned by name. Najman argues that “by means of the second person singular pronoun, the reader is placed in the position of Moses, as the addressee of divine revelation on Mount Sinai.”68 But she also recognizes that the Temple Scroll is not about Moses: Moses is nothing but the implicit, initial addressee and the implicit teacher of a Torah whose authority rests primarily on its direct revelation from God.”69 Schiffman entertains the possibility that the allusions to Moses are mere lapses, where the author had not fully revised his sources, and that he did not intend to acknowledge the role of Moses at all.70 Without the opening column of the Scroll, it is impossible to know for sure whether Moses had more than the incidental role he appears to have in the extant fragments. There is no doubt, however, that the speaking voice in the Temple Scroll is that of God. Consequently, Schiffman is correct that this is a “divine” rather than a “Mosaic” pseudepigraphon. It is only “Mosaic 66 67 68 69 70

Kugel, “On the Interpolations,” 271. So White Crawford, Rewriting, 86; The Temple Scroll and Related Texts, 18. Najman, Seconding Sinai, 68. Najman, Seconding Sinai, 68. Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha of the Second Temple Period,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. Chazon and M. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 121–31. See also Baruch A. Levine, “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of its historical Provenance and Literary Character,” BASOR 232 (1978): 17–21, who argued that the Temple Scroll follows the Priestly understanding of revelation, according to which all commandments are attributed directly to God.

Changing Scripture

39

discourse” insofar as its content resembles the discourse of Moses in Deuteronomy. It is actually presented as “divine discourse.” As such, its claim to authority would seem to be unambiguous. It would be anachronistic to say that the Temple Scroll is “canonical,” but it claims to be a direct revelation of divine law. It is true that large portions of the Temple Scroll follow the same kinds of procedures that we find in expansionistic “biblical” texts – rearranging passages and harmonizing them, to smooth out the tensions between them. But unlike Jubilees, the Temple Scroll does not acknowledge any “first law.” If the revelation is indeed set on Mount Sinai, then it would seem to be prior at least to Deuteronomy, perhaps even prior to the laws of Leviticus which were allegedly given to Moses at the Tent of Meeting. Also unlike Jubilees, there is no appeal to the Angel of the Presence or to the heavenly tablets. No further authority is needed than the voice of God. The claim to authority of the Temple Scroll is as strong as any we find in the Torah and stronger than many. There can be no doubt that it claims the status of Torah: several passages demand that the Israelites observe “the regulation of this law” (!$! &6
Najman, Seconding Sinai, 52. White Crawford, Rewriting, 87.

40

John J. Collins

there can be little doubt that the authors of the Temple Scroll intended that this law would be decisive on the matters it addressed. The author of Jubilees may not have felt free to change the traditional text of scripture. The author of the Temple Scroll appears to have had no such inhibition. Jubilees may be a work based closely on traditional scripture; the Temple Scroll is more properly scripture rewritten. The date of its composition is controversial. Some scholars have dated it as early as the Persian period, others as late as the early first century BCE.73 One fragmentary manuscript (4QRouleau du Temple, or 4QRT), which parallels the Temple Scroll cols. 35 and 50–66, is dated by its editor to approximately 150–125 BCE.74 If 4QRT is an actual manuscript of the Temple Scroll, rather than a source, this would require a date of composition in the mid-second century BCE, and there is nothing that requires an earlier date than this. In this case, it was roughly contemporary with Jubilees. If the author of Jubilees, then, felt he had to acknowledge the “first law” as authoritative, this attitude was not universal. In the midsecond century BCE it was still possible to rewrite the Torah radically, and present it as the Torah revealed by God on Mount Sinai. This is not to say that such a rewritten Torah would necessarily be accepted. If the authors aimed to produce a normative text, there is little evidence that they succeeded. Unlike Jubilees, the Temple Scroll does not seem to have been translated into any other language. It survives in only a few copies – two that can be identified with certainty, a possible third and a manuscript that seems to contain a different, older form of the text (4QRT).75 The fact that it was copied at all, at no small expense, suggests that some people accepted its claim to be divine revelation, but it is never clearly cited as an authority. To say that the authors did not succeed in having their work accepted, except by few, is not to say that this was not their intention.

The Question of Fraud The people who copied and preserved the Temple Scroll presumably accepted it as an authentic formulation of the revelation at Sinai, which was an event, prior to any written record of it. We may also, with Najman, charitably assume that the authors of the Scroll wrote in good 73 74 75

White Crawford, The Temple Scroll, 24–26. Émile Puech, “4QRouleau du Temple,” in Qumrân Grotte 4, XVIII: Textes hébreux (4Q521–528, 4Q576–579) (ed. É. Puech; DJD 25; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 87. White Crawford, Rewriting, 85.

Changing Scripture

41

faith, although we can only guess at what they thought they were doing. To charge these authors with fraud, however, is not entirely anachronistic. Whether or not any person or group would have regard the Temple Scroll as a fraud would depend on whether they accepted its interpretation of the divine law, and many Jews of the time did not. The author of some of the Hodayot, often thought to be the Teacher of Righteousness, complains bitterly about the “men of deception” who “said of the vision of knowledge, it is not certain, and of the path of your heart, ‘it is not that’” (1QH 12:18). The Damascus Document complains about the “man of the lie” (CD 20:15) who “spread over Israel the waters of lies” (1:15). There are also charges of false teaching and deception in the Pesharim.76 There is no reason to think that these “deceivers” promulgated rewritten texts of scripture; most probably they interpreted the traditional scriptures in ways that the members of the “new covenant” considered false. But feelings between members of different sects were probably mutual. It is not unlikely that Pharisees or Sadducees would have considered Jubilees and the Temple Scroll fraudulent. Of course, their reasons for doing so would have been quite different from those of modern skeptics. They would have been based on the content of the alleged revelations rather than on the scribal activity by which they were produced. But Jews of other sectarian persuasion would not have been immediately seduced by “Mosaic discourse” or by the evocation of Sinai. Revelation was a contentious matter, even in antiquity. Indeed, if it had not been there would have been little incentive to rewrite scripture to begin with.

Bibliography Alexander, Philip S. “Retelling the Old Testament.” Pages 99–121 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Bergsma, John S. “The Relationship between Jubilees and the Early Enochic Books.” Pages 36–51 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah. The Evidence of Jubilees Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Bernstein, Moshe. “’Rewritten Bible:’ A Generic Category which has Outlived Its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96.

76

Lloyd K. Pietersen, “’False Teaching, Lying Tongues and Deceitful Lips’ (4Q169 FRGS 3–4 2.8: The Pesharim and the Sociology of Deviance,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003 (ed. J. G. Campbell et al.; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 166–81.

42

John J. Collins

Boccaccini, Gabriele. “From a Movement of Dissent to a Distinct Form of Judaism: The Heavenly Tablets in Jubilees as the Foundation of a Competing Halakah.” Pages 193–210 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah. The Evidence of Jubilees Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Brooke, George J. “Rewritten Bible.” Pages 777–81 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ȱ. “4Q158: Reworked Pentateucha or Reworked Pentateuch A?” DSD 8 (2001): 219–41. Ȱ. “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible.” Pages 31–40 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by E. D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: British Library, 2002. Campbell, Jonathan G. “’Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Ideological critique.” Pages 43–68 in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell et al. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart. New York: Oxford, 2005. Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Crawford, Sidnie White. The Temple Scroll and Related Texts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Ȱ. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Davies, Philip R. “Spurious Attribution in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 258–75 in The Invention of Sacred Tradition. Edited by James R. Lewis and Olav Hammer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Anne. The Transformation of Torah from Scribal Advice to Law. JSOTSup 287. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Frey, Jörg et al., ed. in frühchristlichen Briefen. WUNT 246. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2009. Goodman, Martin. “Jewish Literature Composed in Greek.” Pages 509–66 in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. III.1 Edted by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman. Edinburgh: Clark, 1986. Himmelfarb, Martha. “Torah, Testimony, and Heavenly Tablets: The Claim to Authority in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 22–28 in A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft. Edited by Benjamin G. Wright. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Ȱ. A Kingdom of Priests. Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2006. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Kartveit, Magnar. The Origin of the Samaritans. VTSup 128. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Changing Scripture

43

Kugel, James. “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees.” RevQ 24 (2009): 215–72. Laato, Antti and Jacques van Ruiten, ed. Rewritten Bible Reconsidered. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Lange, Armin. “’Nobody dared to add to them, to take from them, or to Make Changes’ Josephus, AG.AP.1.42. The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 105–26 in Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech and Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Ȱ. Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Bd. 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2009. LeFebvre, Michael. Collections, Codes, and Torah. The Re-characterization of Israel’s Written Law. London: T & T Clark, 2006. Levine, Baruch A. “The Temple Scroll: Aspects of its historical Provenance and Literary Character,” BASOR 232 (1978): 17–21. Levinson, Bernard. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford, 1997. Machiela, Daniel A. “Once More, with Feeling: Rewritten Scripture in Ancient Judaism – A Review of Recent Developments.” JJS 61(2010): 308–20. Maier, Christl. Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora: Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Metzger, Bruce M. “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha.” JBL 91 (1972): 3–24. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai. The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. JSJSup 77. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Ȱ. “Interpretation as Primordial Writing: Jubilees and its Authority Conferring Strategies.” Pages 39–71 in Past Renewals. Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity. JSJSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Repr. JSJ 30 (1999): 379–410. Ȱ. Past Renewals. Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity. JSJSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Patrick, Dale. Old Testament Law. London: SCM, 1986. Perdue, Leo G. “Pseudonymity and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric.” Pages 27–59 in Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion in frühchristlichen Briefen. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jens Herzer, Martina Janssen and Clare K. Rothschild. WUNT 246. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2009. Petersen, Anders Klostergaard. “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon – Genre, Textual Strategy or Canonical Anachronism?” Pages 284–306 in Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech and Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Pietersen, Lloyd K. “’False Teaching, Lying Tongues and Deceitful Lips’ (4Q169 FRGS 3–4 2.8: The Pesharim and the Sociology of Deviance.” Pages 166–81

44

John J. Collins

in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell et al. London: T & T Clark, 2005 Puech, Émile. “4QRouleau du Temple.” Pages 85–114 in Qumrân Grotte 4, XVIII: Textes hébreux (4Q521–528, 4Q576–579). Edited by Émile Puech. DJD 25. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Temple Scroll and the Halakhic Pseudepigrapha of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 121–31 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by E. Chazon and M. Stone. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Schürer, Emil. History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Edited by Geza Vermes et al. 3 vols. Edinburgh: Clark, 1973–1987. Segal, Michael. “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” Pages 391–99 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery. Edited by L. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Ȱ. “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” Pages 10–28 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Ȱ. The Book of Jubilees. Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. JSJSup 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Sharp, Carolyn. Prophecy and ideology in Jeremiah: struggles for authority in Deutero-Jeremianic prose. London: T & T Clark, 2003. Speyer, Wolfgang. Die literarische Fälschung im Altertum. Munich: Beck, 1971. Stackert, Jeffrey. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. FAT 52. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2007. Tov, Emanuel and Sidnie White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuch.” Pages 187– 351 in Qumran Cave 4, VIII. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Ulrich, Eugene C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origin of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Ȱ. “Moses Trumping Moses.” Pages 25–44 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Tradition and Transmission of Authoritative Literature. Edited by Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman, and Eileen Schuller. STDJ 92. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2nd ed. Studia Post-Biblica 4. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “The Relationship Between 11Q Torah (the Temple Scroll) and the Book of Jubilees, One Single or Two Independent Compositions.” Pages 205–16 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers. Edited by K. H. Richards. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.

Changing Scripture

45

Ȱ. “Jubilees as the Super Canon.” Pages 195–211 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Edited by M. Bernstein, F. García Martínez and J. Kampen. STDJ 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Werman, Cana. “’The !:#= and the !#3= Engraved on the Tablets.” DSD 9 (2002): 75–103. Westbrook, Raymond. “Cuneiform Law Codes and the Origins of Legislation.” ZA 79 (1989): 201–22. Wright, David. Inventing God’s Law. How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Wyrick, Jed. The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004. Zahn, Molly M. “The Problem of Characterizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts: Bible, Rewritten Bible, or None of the Above?” DSD 15 (2008): 315–39. Ȱ. “Rewritten Scripture.” Pages 323–36 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Ȱ. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. STDJ 95. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming.

The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books* Eugene Ulrich When we pick up a Bible, it presents itself in a simple, single, and clear form. But that clear simplicity is the result of myriad decisions by editorial and ecclesiastical leaders regarding numerous principles, puzzles, and issues about the end product of a lengthy, complex history of production. In order to understand and use the Bible intelligently and responsibly, it is helpful to consider its entire history — how it came to be, from its earliest origins and through all the various processes that influenced its development and brought it to its final shape. Since certain other ancient Jewish compositions that were not eventually accepted as scriptural — the so-called nonbiblical, para-biblical, and postbiblical texts — were produced, transmitted, and received in a manner analogous to that of books which eventually became “Scripture,” hopefully the light shed by the scriptural texts may add illumination also for some of the processes of production for those compositions. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls provided evidence for the organic development of the scriptural texts, the prevailing view was that the composition of many biblical books was complete in the earlier or middle part of the Second Temple period, that those completed forms constituted “the original text,” and that the purpose of textual criticism was to unravel the errors and accretions that had subsequently crept into the finished text. The line between composition and textual transmission, however, has slowly been erased as scholars gradually realized the significance of the process of developmental composition. The books grew through a series of successive “new and expanded” literary editions. For some time, the older and the newer editions circulated simultaneously, each separately gathering unintentional and intentional changes and *

This article, slightly adapted, is reprinted with permission of Brill publishers from “The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. S. Metso, H. Najman and E. Schuller; STDJ 92; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 209–25.

48

Eugene Ulrich

growth. Thus, over and over, the literary period, the period of composition, was simultaneous with the transmission period, the period of copying and textual variants. This paper will examine issues, and illustrate them with examples, of the overlap between composition, redaction, textual transmission, and reception. I shall attempt an evolutionary overview of the history of the production of the biblical texts mainly chronologically, but also with an eye toward the types of growth and the motivations of the “scribes” or “handlers” of the text who produced the growth.1 My attempt to view the whole process, from origins and production to reception of the books as established canon, will necessarily require lack of focus on many details. Moreover, many of the individual points will be already known; but I hope that putting the comprehensive picture together in one short essay is new and valuable. In short, I will use a number of familiar building blocks to illustrate the processes of composition, redaction, transmission, and reception. We must begin by articulating a few background assumptions, most based on evidence presented in previous publications: 2 First, a paradigm shift is needed in the textual criticism and editing of the Hebrew Bible. The Masoretic text is, of course, supremely important as a religious text and academically essential as the sole preserved collection in Hebrew of the full Hebrew Bible corpus. But textually, it is simply one among many witnesses to the biblical text, and each witness must be examined on its textual merits word-by-word on an egalitarian basis. Second, since the contents of the Scriptures were not defined in the Second Temple period, the terms “Bible” and “biblical” are anachronistic for that period and thus tend to distort our understanding.3 Similar1

2

3

For an insightful analysis of aspects of biblical editorial roles, see John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006). Many of these assumptions have been explained in Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999); Eugene Ulrich, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus,” in Congress [IOSOT] Volume Basel 2001 (ed. A. Lemaire; VTSup 92; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 85–108; and Eugene Ulrich, “The Qumran Biblical Scrolls — The Scriptures of Late Second Temple Judaism,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (ed. T. H. Lim, with L. W. Hurtado, A. G. Auld, and A. Jack; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 67–87. See James C. VanderKam, “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 91–109 (109): “In view of the evidence from Qumran, we should avoid using the words Bible and biblical for this period.… we should follow the an-

The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books

49

ly, since the status of certain books was unclear, we must attenuate the lines, later drawn sharply, between Scripture and non-scriptural (or “biblical,” “rewritten Bible,” “parabiblical,” etc.).4 Because, however, the territory often referred to as “rewritten Bible” is still in the notfully-explored stages of pioneering and mapping, this essay will treat only compositions that appear to have been more widely recognized as Scripture in the late Second Temple period, and must leave intriguing works such as the Temple Scroll, Jubilees, and 1 Enoch, for a future study. Third, the scriptural scrolls from Qumran are not “sectarian” but present the Scriptures of general Judaism. They are the oldest, most valuable, and most authentic evidence for the shape of the Scriptures as they circulated in Palestine at the time of the origins of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. Fourth, up until “the great divide” (sometime between the two Jewish Revolts) the text was pluriform, with the books circulating in variant literary editions simultaneously, each of which apparently enjoyed equal status. Fifth, “evolutionary” is, I believe, an appropriate description of the production of the biblical books. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines evolution as “any process of formation or growth; development.… Biol. the continuous genetic adaptation of organisms or species to the environment by the integrating agencies of selection, hybridization, inbreeding, and mutation.”5 This is a good description of how many of the books of the Bible were composed. Sixth, the terms “Urtext” and “original text” are more likely to produce confusion than clarity in discussions of the biblical text, in light of the evolutionary nature of the text. “Urtext” was a conceptual construct based on limited knowledge of textual history and, to some extent, on the imagined dictating by God of a finished book to a single author. The main stages in the chronological growth of the biblical books are composition, redaction, transmission, and reception. But these are not able to be neatly distinguished, and so we will examine these stages from several perspectives.

4

5

cient practice of using more general, less suggestive terms such as scriptures and rewritten scriptures, instead of Bible and rewritten Bible.” VanderKam (“Questions of Canon," 95) correctly suggests that “what are identified as ‘biblical’ manuscripts are often treated separately by scrolls scholars.… It seems to me that this segregation of texts is not a valid procedure in that it does not reflect what comes to expression in the ancient works found at Qumran.” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (New York: Gramercy Books, 1994), 495.

50

Eugene Ulrich

Composition Oral composition. Many of the stories that combine to form the longer narratives began in short, oral form and were handed down in oral form. For example, many of the stories in Genesis 12–22 probably circulated among the Canaanite or Aramean ancestors of Israel as isolated stories. Gen 12:10–19, for example, may well have been an old hero tale about a Canaanite chieftain taking his wife down to Egypt, risking the loss of her, and the resulting complications. Genesis 14 may have been an isolated old war tale, which included the blessing of a chieftain by the Canaanite god, El Elyon. Genesis 15 appears to be a Mesopotamian or Canaanite story of an inheritance-adoption problem, while Genesis 16 was a conflict story about the favorite but barren wife vs. the fertile concubine.6 Finally, I would agree with those who see Genesis 22 as a narrative helping to motivate child sacrifice when it was deemed necessary. We shall return to these oral stories. This last episode in Genesis 22 illustrates the complexity of the evolutionary process. Under the assumption that it originally promoted child sacrifice (cf. Exod 22:28; 2 Kgs 3:27), it was later transformed into a polemic against child sacrifice and then augmented to serve as an etiology supporting the cultic sacrifice of an animal in place of the firstborn (cf. Exod 34:20). Eventually it was incorporated into the national epic as a story showing the fidelity of the patriarch before he dies and passes the promise on to his son. There were adaptations to the text at each of these developing stages. Religious reflection and the production of texts. Regarding the production of texts that became Scripture, there is no evidence, and so we must rely upon trying to understand the salient points of a text and imagining what the author was thinking in order to produce such a text. It seems to me that a likely scenario would be someone taking some aspect of the phenomena of life experience or of the culture and reflecting on it. Such phenomena might be nature, events, social interaction, war, suffering, and so forth. Thoughtful people would reflect, asking, “how does this relate to the world of the divine, or how does it fit in a God-centered vision of reality”? Possible results of such reflection may include:

6

See the Mesopotamian (Nuzi) legal documents illustrating the underlying social and legal situations of Genesis 15–16 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 219–20.

The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books

•

51

Nature: “When God began to create the heavens and the earth… God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good” (Gen 1:1, 31) “The heavens are telling the glory of God” (Ps 19:2) “I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its produce” (Lev 26:4)

•

Social interaction: “The LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre… He looked up and saw three men,” (Gen 18:1–2, introducing the hospitality story)

•

War: “I will sing to the LORD for he has triumphed gloriously: horse and rider…” (Exod 15:1) “I have handed over to you King Sihon the Amorite of Heshbon and his land”

•

Suffering: “Does disaster befall a city, unless the LORD has done it?” (Amos 3:6) “[They] comforted [Job] for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him” (Job 42:11)

Such examples appear to be instances of people contemplating their lived experience and articulating it in terms of God’s direct causality. This God-centered interpretation was not all that different from that of surrounding cultures. The creation stories, for example, already came to Israel from their foreign neighbors with a divine protagonist, and it is entirely predictable that the Israelites would adapt them to a Yahwistic context. Foreign sources. This brings us to another factor in the production of the Scriptures: foreign sources. Just as Israel drew its monarchic form of government from its neighboring cultures, so too did it borrow for its own purposes certain stories, songs, and traditions from the cultures with which it came in contact. The creation and flood stories are obvious examples. But other probable examples are Genesis 22 (just described), Psalm 29 (probably originally celebrating Baal), Psalm 104 (with motifs from the Egyptian Hymn to the Sun God), the Book of Job, Daniel 4 (probably influenced by a tradition like that seen in 4QPrayer of Nabonidus = 4Q242), and Song of Songs (similar to the Egyptian wasfs). These would each have been adapted for acceptability within the Yahwistic community. Small collections. As time passed, individual stories, laws, or songs with a similar theme or of a similar genre were grouped into small col-

52

Eugene Ulrich

lections. For example, disciples gathered the “words of Amos” or the sayings of other prophets into small collections; individual psalms, folk proverbs, and love poems were also grouped into collections. Adaptations from their “original” form may well have been made to fit those sources into their new framework. Historiographers. On a larger scale historiographers constructed major histories.7 They were built by collecting already existing traditions, placing them into a chronological and conceptual framework, and enhancing main episodes usually with a well-developed theological perspective. An individual or a group created a national epic, whether in oral form, as envisioned in Martin Noth’s Grundlage,8 or in written form, as usually associated with the Yahwist and Elohist. Resuming the discussion of Genesis 12–22 above, the historiographer assembled those individual, isolated oral stories and strung them together in a creative connecting narrative which produced a whole new pattern of what can be termed Salvation History, that is, that God had a master plan and a purpose behind all those seemingly random events. God chose and blessed Abraham and, despite the near loss of his wife, childlessness, and command to kill his eventually born, only son, the promise of progeny was fulfilled. Those individual old tales were the beads which, strung together, produced the epic sweep of Israel’s religious origins. Similarly the Deuteronomistic Historian assembled a vast number of sources, some already compilations of earlier sources, into a heavily theological interpretation of history from Moses and the gaining of the land, through the establishment of the monarchy and the secession and defeat of the North, down to the time of Josiah.9 It is clear that his hand has heavily redacted the main episodes and speeches. The Chronicler’s History has in turn used and redacted large parts of the Deuteronomistic History.

7 8 9

For these historiographers as true authors see Van Seters, The Edited Bible. Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (tr. Bernhard W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972). There are differences of opinion concerning the precise construction, time of authorship, and redactional history of the Deuteronomistic History, but our purpose here is not to debate these; all different versions would illustrate the historiographic point being made.

The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books

53

Redaction and Types of Textual Development It will have become clear that in speaking of composition and production one quickly notices that redaction, though theoretically distinct, is also closely related to the process of composition: it is one of the modes, one of the many stages of composition. Redaction and new editions. One of the principal methods by which the biblical books developed from their origins as individual stories, laws, or sayings into small collections and eventually into the larger books we know today was the production of “new and expanded” literary editions. This is a general term that covers many types of new editions or formulations of an earlier text. Literary-critical study of the text of the Scriptures over the centuries since the Enlightenment demonstrates that the books are the result of a long literary development, whereby traditional material was faithfully retold and handed on from generation to generation, but also creatively expanded and reshaped to fit the new circumstances and new needs — whether historical, social, political, religious, or liturgical — that the successive communities experienced through the vicissitudes of history. We may term those major creative expansions of older traditions “new literary editions.” A creative priest or scribe or thinker took a preexisting book or set of traditions and produced a major new form of it. Those literary-critical analyses of earlier centuries just described, however, were hypothetical demonstrations: based not on material evidence but on the detection of literary and historical clues embedded within the final forms of the texts. Nonetheless, the analysis of passages such as the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, and the clashing details of the two flood stories conflated into Genesis 6–9 was so convincing that the hypothetical aspect faded, and the literary stages of compilation was simply accepted as fact. Confirmation, however, of the legitimacy of those demonstrations was strongly provided by the scriptural scrolls from Qumran: the scrolls, together with evidence from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint in light of the scrolls, displayed repeated new literary editions for at least half the books of the Hebrew Bible. I would like to use the Book of Exodus as an example of multiple new editions, from its very origins to its final frozen form. Although I have used this example previously, the earlier discussion was limited to the growth from the third century BCE. onwards, the period for which we had textual evidence. Insofar as we are discussing textual production, and in the hope that a larger perspective may elicit parallels for nonscriptural texts, let me attempt a broader chronological

54

Eugene Ulrich

view. I wish to concentrate on the main points and thus will use traditional understandings of the growth of the scriptural text, such as the Documentary Hypothesis, Noth’s tradition-history of Pentateuchal traditions, and Norman Gottwald’s socio-literary approach to the origins of Israel.10 I wish to focus on the main trajectories, not wishing to debate possible alternatives, but proposing that something analogous to this must have happened to produce the texts that we eventually inherit. Some group fostered the remembrance of an escape from servitude in Egypt, and the articulation of that memory may have ranged from “Weren’t we lucky!” by some to “God saved us!” by others, just as may happen today.11 It is not difficult to see which articulation gained most currency and embedded itself in Israel’s traditional memory. The retelling of that story was gradually augmented both with stories about the birth of Moses and with plague narratives leading to the deliverance, and it would eventually get linked to wilderness stories and Sinai traditions. Somewhere along this trajectory, the oral literary growth was sufficiently established that we can recognize the kernel of the narrative part of the Book of Exodus, the foundational origins story of a group we could term the “Egyptian ancestors” of eventual Israel. This could be considered the first edition of what will become the Book of Exodus. When this literary tradition was sandwiched between the patriarchal traditions of Israel’s “Canaanite ancestors” celebrating the promise of land and the gaining of the land, we can see the main components of Noth’s Grundlage, Israel’s premonarchic oral national epic. Certain adaptations would have been necessary for fitting the Exodus tradition into the larger pan-Israel epic, yielding a second edition of Exodus. In the monarchic era the Yahwist and the Elohist provided two differing versions or (third and fourth) editions of the Exodus narrative, and the redactor who joined J and E produced yet another, fifth edition of Exodus. When the Priestly narrative expansions were added to the Pentateuchal narrative, this produced yet another, sixth edition. The insertion of the large blocks of Priestly legal material, in this case the instructions for and execution of the construction of the tabernacle, yielding yet another edition, brought into view the basic text of Exodus 10 11

Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible — A Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985). For a discussion of the process from event to written text see Eugene Ulrich and William Thompson, “The Tradition as a Resource in Theological Reflection — Scripture and the Minister,” in J. D. Whitehead and E. E. Whitehead, Method in Ministry: Theological Reflection and Christian Ministry (rev. ed.; Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995), 23–42 (25–29).

The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books

55

that we encounter in our manuscript tradition. Thus, it had already undergone seven or more successive editions prior to our earliest MS evidence. Yet more editions are visible within our preserved MSS. The Old Greek of chapters 35–40, concluding the common text of Exodus 1–34 presents the earliest edition (the eighth) attested in the MS tradition. The MT version rearranged chapters 35–40, to have the execution of the tabernacle match the instructions in 25–31 more closely, producing a ninth edition.12 A tenth Jewish edition is attested in 4QpaleoExodm (4Q22) with its Samaritan-like harmonizations and repetitions.13 The Samaritans produced yet an eleventh edition with their small but significant variants promoting Mount Gerizim. Finally, 4QPentateuch (olim “4QReworkedPentateuch”) indicates a probably more expanded edition, with its hymn of praise after the Exodus preceding Exod 15:22.14 Thus, twelve literary editions marked the composition, production, redaction, and transmission of the Exodus traditions into the Book of Exodus before the development ceased due to the Roman destruction and the new approach to the scriptural text adopted by rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. So the process of the composition of the Scriptures was organic, developmental, with successive layers of tradition, revised to meet the needs of the historically and religiously changing community. In addition to the new and usually expanded editions that formed the major ways that the scriptural texts were produced, there are three smaller types of variation that operate separately, usually at the level, not of text production, but of copying and transmission. Orthography. First, one minor, and usually not too significant, form of textual development is orthographic expansion. As the Second Temple period progressed, the ambiguity caused by the consonantal manner of Hebrew spelling was alleviated, increasingly and apparently widely, by a growing practice of inserting matres lectionis to aid in the

12

13

14

See Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Septuagintal Translation Techniques — A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account,” On the Trail of Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (rev. ed.; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 116–30; in contrast to David W. Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle: Translation and Textual Problems of the Greek Exodus (Texts and Studies 6; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959). For the text of 4QpaleoExodm see Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD 9; Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 53–130. For analysis see Judith E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). 4QRPc (4Q365) frgs. 6a col. 2 and 6c.

56

Eugene Ulrich

reading and interpretation of texts.15 Thus, some scribes copied new MSS deliberately or inadvertently with a fuller spelling practice than their source text had used. Sometimes this was quite necessary. For example, less common words, such as =#!, could be mistaken for routine forms (“fathers”), and so scribes would insert a mater lectionis to assure correct reading and interpretation: =##! (“spirits of the dead,” 1QIsaa 19:3); the Masoretes later attained the same goal by adding vowel points (=#œ! MT). Individual textual variants. All are familiar with another level of variation: individual textual variants. These inadvertent errors or intentional additions or clarifications used to be the primary focus of textual criticism prior to our realization of the developmental composition of the scriptural books. In general the collection of individual textual variants, though very large quantitatively, forms a relatively minor category, viewed from the perspective of textual production. Isolated interpretive insertions. The Qumran scrolls have highlighted examples of yet another category, isolated interpretive insertions, which forms a relatively major factor in the growth of the scriptural texts, even though it is comparatively much smaller than that of new literary editions. Learned scribes occasionally inserted into the text they were copying additional material that they considered valuable. Comparisons between the scrolls, the MT, the SP, and the LXX highlight insertions of up to eight verses16 that some witnesses have but that others lack. We could envision these insertions as marginal readings, footnotes, helpful or pious thoughts, chronological updates, etc., now entered into the text. Some of these insertions provide additional information, instruction, nomistic solutions, prophetic apparitions, apocalyptic ideas, or simply related material. This type of activity was apparently a widespread factor in the development all texts; indeed the indications are that it penetrated a large number of the biblical books.

15

16

Edward Y. Kutscher, The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) (STDJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 3; Eleazar L. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University (ed. N. Avigad and Y. Yadin; Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Magnes Press, 1955), 31. See especially the large insertion in Jer 7:30–8:3 visible in 4QJera. For the text see Emanuel Tov, “70. 4QJera,” in Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 15; Oxford; Clarendon, 1997), 145–70 (155 and Plate 24); for two analyses see Tov, ibid., and Eugene Ulrich, “Qumran Witness to the Developmental Growth of the Prophetic Books,” in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich (ed. K. D. Dobos and M. Kószeghy; Hebrew Bible Monographs 21; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 263–74.

The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books

57

Motives for Development in the Text The types of creative development are legion, and thus the motives or rationales of the contributors are legion. But we can deduce many of the main ones by watching the effects in the examples, book by book. Genesis. In the formative stages of the Book of Genesis, a desire to preserve and transmit both of the differing forms and theologies of important stories seems unmistakable. The two creation stories, especially the two flood stories with their clashing and irreconcilable details, and the two accounts of the covenant with Abraham, etc., almost demand such a rationale. Developments visible in the preserved manuscript tradition would include the Masoretic, Samaritan, and Septuagintal variant numbering systems of the ages of the ante-diluvian and post-diluvian heroes: scribes noticed, and felt they had to correct, such problems as Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech still living when the flood begins (SP Gen 5:3–32), and Methuselah still living fourteen years beyond the start of the flood (LXX 5:26–30; 7:6), whereas Gen 7:23–24 reports that no humans remained except Noah and those with him in the ark.17 In addition, a “supplementer” anticipated Jacob’s dream in Gen 31:10–13 by adding after Gen 30:36 a report (in 4QRPb and SP, not in the MT or LXX) of what the messenger of God said to Jacob in that dream.18 Note that this example is similar to other accounts (in the MT and LXX as well as the SP) of dreams and the repetition of the details of those dreams at Gen 31:24 vis-à-vis 31:29, and 41:1–7 vis-à-vis 41:17–24. Exodus. Examples are well known from 4QpaleoExodm and the SP both of harmonization from Deuteronomy and of repetition of the Lord’s commands to Moses and Aaron by word-for-word accounts of the execution of those commands. An additional minor example occurs in the execution of the command to make the priestly ephod. The commands are given to make the ephod (Exod 28:6), to make the breastpiece (15), to put the Urim and Thummim in the breastpiece (30), and then to make the robe, etc. (31). The execution of those commands is given in the MT as ephod (Exod 39:2), breastpiece (8), and robe, etc. (22), but nothing is reported about the Urim and Thummim. Frank Cross noticed that 4QExod-Levf and the SP do report “the Urim and

17

18

See Ralph W. Klein, “Archaic Chronologies and the Textual History of the Old Testament,” HTR 67 (1974): 255–63; Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 61. 4QRPb (4Q364) frg. 4b–e col. 2 lines 21–26.

58

Eugene Ulrich

Thummim” in its proper place (39:21).19 This addition is a minor example of the 4QpaleoExodm–SP pattern of having the execution match the command. Yet one more expansion that is not in any of our other witnesses appears in 4QPentateuch: a hymn of praise for God’s saving Israel from the Egyptians is inserted just before Exod 15:22.20 Numbers. Both 4QNumb and 4QPentc (“4QRPc” = 4Q365) in different ways link text of Numbers 27 with text of Numbers 36 in the interests of related subject matter. In Numbers 27 the daughters of Zelophehad request and are granted legal inheritance of their father’s due possession after he died in the wilderness with no sons to inherit it. Later, after Moses had given the directions for apportioning the tribes’ inheritance in the land, in Numbers 36 the heads of the clans of Gilead request that the daughters’ inheritance must stay within their tribe, and so the daughters must marry within the tribe to ensure this. 4QRPc has a fragment with the text of Num 27:11 followed immediately without an interval by 36:1, showing that the two passages had been joined.21 In 4QNumb there are sixteen lines of text required between the fragments at the bottom of column 31, which concludes with Num 36:2, and the fragments of column 32, which contain Num 36:5. It is quite likely — whereas there are no other plausible alternatives — that Num 27:1–11 was interpolated within chapter 36, in the missing lines between the text of 36:2 and 36:5, to link the two related passages together.22 Although the two examples of this linkage were not formed identically, scribes clearly considered it useful to link these two passages about the daughters of Zelophehad contextually. Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy, of course, is “rewritten Bible” par excellence. The Deuteronomistic Historian used an older set of preached legal material as the core of a new work which was a fresh retelling of the Mosaic narrative. The resulting book then served as Israel’s “constitution” regulating life in the promised land, the constitution by which the nation and its leaders would be judged throughout its history.

19 20 21 22

Frank Moore Cross, “17. 4QExod-Levf ,” in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 133–44 (139). 4QRPc (4Q365) frgs. 6a col. 2 and 6c. Emanuel Tov and Sidnie A. White, “4QRPc (4Q365)” in Qumran Cave 4.VIII. Parabiblical Texts (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 255–318, frg. 36. Nathan Jastram, “27. 4QNumb,” in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 262–64.

The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books

59

Joshua. 4QJosha reveals a significant instance of motivation in textual development: religious rivalry.23 It is important to note, however, that the “sectarian variant” is not in the scroll but in the MT or the SP– [OG?]–OL. The scroll appears to preserve the earliest form of the narrative, placing the first altar built in the newly entered land at Gilgal, in accordance with the implication of Moses’s unspecified command: “On the day that you cross over the Jordan into the land…, you shall set up large stones and cover them with plaster.…And you shall build an altar there…” (Deut 27:2, 5). It is possible that the place name, whether “Mount Gerizim” or “Mount Ebal,” was not yet in the repetitious text of Deuteronomy 27,24 since the placement at Gilgal in our earliest witness, 4QJosha, is supported both by Josephus (Ant. 5:20) and by PseudoPhilo (L.A.B. 21:7).25 Subsequently in some texts, “on Mount Gerizim” was inserted into Deut 27:4, possibly due to northern concerns to promote Mount Gerizim.26 Although this insertion is usually assumed to have arisen with the SP specifically, it may well have been in a general Jewish text which the SP used as its basis, just as most of its other pluses were due simply to the faithful copying of Jewish expanded texts such as 4QpaleoExodm and 4QNumb. That the reading was earlier and more widespread than the specific SP is strongly suggested by the OL reading “Garzin,” which virtually demands as its source that an ancient Greek MS also exhibited that reading. Then only at a third level did the replacement of “Mount Gerizim” with the odd and problematic “Mount Ebal” occur; it can be explained only as a hasty and ill-thought-out polemical reaction against “Mount Gerizim.”27 23

24

25 26

27

For text and discussion see Eugene Ulrich, “47. 4QJosha,” in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 143–52; and Ulrich, Scrolls and Origins, 104–5. Note that the MT secondarily inserts also at Josh 6:26 a place name, “Jericho,” that is lacking in the LXX, the Testimonia (4Q175), and the Apocryphon of Joshua (4Q379 22, 2:8). Josephus and Pseudo-Philo know also the altar at Shechem, but both place it later in their narrative. A fragment of Deut 27:4–6, reputedly from Qumran, recently surfaced, and a photograph and good edition of it was presented by James Charlesworth on his website: http://www.ijco.org/?categoryId=46960 (Cited version updated on March 2010). It reads -'$::! clearly, as does the SP. I thank Professor Charlesworth for sharing this with me. A contrasting view, seeing 4QJosha as a late sectarian revision placing the altar near Qumran, is presented by Kristin De Troyer in “Building the Altar and Reading the Law: The Journeys of Joshua 8:30–35,” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library:

60

Eugene Ulrich

Judges. The best explanation for the small fragment of 4QJudga (with Judg 6:6 followed immediately by 6:11) seems to be that someone who influenced the eventual MT text wished to enhance the prophetic nature of the book by inserting the appearance of a prophet (Judg 6:7– 10) when the Israelites cried out against the Midianite oppression.28 Samuel. Though there are hundreds or thousands of textual variants in our witnesses to Samuel and a small number of isolated insertions in both the MT and the scrolls, these do not seem sufficiently unified to constitute variant editions of the entire book.29 In the David-Goliath story, however, in 1 Samuel 17–18 there are two different editions: a short, single story in the LXX and a much longer, double story in the MT.30 Kings. Similarly, the Book of Kings exhibits expanded editions as well. Especially in 1 Kings Julio Trebolle has shown that the Hebrew and Greek texts show different redactional editions characterized by variant ordering as well as major expansions (e.g., LXX 1 Kgs 12:24a– z).31

28

29

30

31

The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (ed. K. De Troyer and A. Lange; SBLSymS 30; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 141– 62. I do not find this view convincing, however; among other things, the admittedly “problematic” (p. 158) reading “Mount Ebal” is not explained. For the text and analysis, see Julio Trebolle Barrera, “49. 4QJudga,” in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 161–64; and “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges,” in RevQ 14/2 (1989), 229–45. Frank Moore Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1–2 Samuel (DJD 17; Oxford: Clarendon, 2005); Frank Moore Cross and Richard J. Saley, “A Statistical Analysis of the Textual Character of 4QSamuela (4Q51)” DSD 13/1 (2006): 46–54; and Eugene Ulrich, “A Qualitative Assessment of the Textual Profile of 4QSama,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A. Hilhorst, É. Puech and E. Tigchelaar; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 147–61. Emanuel Tov, “The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in Light of the Septuagint,” The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 333–62. Stanley D. Walters (“Hannah and Anna: The Greek and Hebrew Texts of 1 Samuel 1,” JBL 107 [1988]: 385–412) also argues for an intentionally variant edition of 1 Samuel 1 in the LXX, denigrating Hannah. I agree that there are a large number of variants, but I do not see an intentionally unified variant edition: Walters seems to presume that virtually all the MT readings are “original,” repeatedly stretches the interpretation of the variants, and sees all the Greek variants (which can be variously explained) as intentionally aimed in a single direction. Julio Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán: Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Rey. 2–12; 14 (Bibliotheca Salmanticensis, Dissertationes 3; Salamanca/Jerusalén: Universidad Pontificia/Instituto Español Bíblico y Arqueológico, 1980); Julio Trebolle Barrera, “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings,” BIOSCS 15 (1982): 12–35. See also Steven L. McKenzie, “Kings, First and Second Books of,” The New In-

The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books

61

Reception Whereas reception is usually thought of as a post-biblical phenomenon, it is important at almost every stage of the transmission of the scriptural books from their very origins. It is because certain groups treasured the various traditions they received and considered them important that the oral and written traditions were transmitted from the very beginnings down through the generations. For example, it is because the people in general considered the national epic foundational for their national identity and viewed its transmission as of major importance that it was handed down generation to generation for millennia. Some would also have found the historical materials important and interesting. The majority of the population presumably considered the legal materials essential for good public order. The priesthood surely considered the liturgical and sacrificial directives and the forms of prayer and hymnody important, not to mention the preservation and copying of texts in general. The monarchy and military remembered, recorded, and preserved historical and military lore. The disciples of the prophets remembered and recorded their masters’ sayings and experiences. The teachers — family, elders, and educators — kept in memory and passed on the received wisdom traditions. As the traditions kept being handed down, as religious reflection deepened, and as the divine element was increasingly emphasized in the redactional layers of new editions,32 the texts were increasingly seen as “God’s Word”: • creation and primeval stories were seen as “God’s revelation to Moses”33 •

covenantal formulae were “God’s promises”

•

legal texts were “God’s commandments”

•

moral and wisdom traditions were “God’s will”

•

hymns and prayers composed by humans became “God’s word”34

32

33

terpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–2009), 3.523–32 (527). For example, the addition of Proverbs 1–9 as a theological introduction to the folk wisdom of 10–31, the establishment of Purim in Esther 9:18–32, and the much more religious Additions in the Greek texts of Esther. “The angel of the presence spoke to Moses according to the word of the LORD, saying: ‘Write the complete history of the creation…’ ” (Jub 2:1).

62 •

Eugene Ulrich

prophetic pronouncements were “God’s warnings or blessings” and eventually “God’s predictions”

As the many forms of the people’s religious literature continued to be transmitted and used in liturgical and educational settings, which presented and ingrained in the people God’s word and God’s will, the collection as a whole was increasingly received and viewed as God’s word to Israel. Eventually the religious leaders, backed by the community, endorsed a canon of what they considered “Sacred Scripture.” After serious discussions and deliberation they made the reflective judgment that these books, in exclusive contrast to others, contained divine revelation and were divinely inspired, and that they were the God-given norm for their collective life. Canon is the ultimate act of reception.

Bibliography Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Septuagintal Translation Techniques — A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account.” Pages 116–30 in On the Trail of Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Rev. ed. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Charlesworth, James, Cited version updated on March 2010. Online: http:// www.ijco.org/?categoryId=46960. Cross, Frank Moore. “17. 4QExod-Levf.” Pages 133–44 in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 12. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Ȱ and Richard J. Saley, “A Statistical Analysis of the Textual Character of 4QSamuela (4Q51).” DSD 13/1 (2006): 46–54. Ȱ et al. Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1–2 Samuel. DJD 17. Oxford: Clarendon, 2005. De Troyer, Kristin. “Building the Altar and Reading the Law: The Journeys of Joshua 8:30–35.” Pages 141–62 in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations. Edited by K. De Troyer and A. Lange. SBLSymS 30. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Gooding, David W. The Account of the Tabernacle: Translation and Textual Problems of the Greek Exodus. Texts and Studies 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Gottwald, Norman K. The Hebrew Bible — A Socio-Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. Hendel, Ronald S. The Text of Genesis 1–11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

34

The inspirational source of the Psalms is transferred to God in 11QPsa 27:11: “All these [David] spoke through prophecy given to him from the Most High.”

The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books

63

Jastram, Nathan. “27. 4QNumb.” Pages 205–67 in Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 12. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Klein, Ralph W. “Archaic Chronologies and the Textual History of the Old Testament,” HTR 67 (1974): 255–63. Kutscher, Edward Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). STDJ 6. Leiden: Brill, 1974. McKenzie, Steven L. “Kings, First and Second Books of.” Pages 523–32 in vol. 3 of The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols. Edited Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–2009. Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by Bernhard W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Sanderson, Judith E. An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition. HSS 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Skehan, Patrick W., Eugene Ulrich, and Judith E. Sanderson. Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts. DJD 9. Oxford: Clarendon, 1992. Sukenik, Eleazar L. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Edited by N. Avigad and Y. Yadin. Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Magnes Press, 1955. Tov, Emanuel. “70. 4QJera.” Pages 145–70 in Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Ȱ. “The Composition of 1 Samuel 16–18 in Light of the Septuagint.” Pages 333– 62 in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Ȱ and Sidnie A. White. “4QRPc (4Q365).” Pages 255–318 in Qumran Cave 4.VIII. Parabiblical Texts. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. Salomón y Jeroboán: Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Rey. 2–12; 14. Bibliotheca Salmanticensis, Dissertationes 3. Salamanca/Jerusalén: Universidad Pontificia/Instituto Español Bíblico y Arqueológico, 1980. Ȱ. “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings.” BIOSCS 15 (1982): 12–35. Ȱ. “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges.” RevQ 14/2 (1989): 229–45. Ȱ. “49. 4QJudga.” Pages 161–64 in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Ulrich, Eugene. “47. 4QJosha.” Pages 143–52 in Qumran Cave 4.IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Ȱ. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1999. Ȱ. “The Qumran Biblical Scrolls — The Scriptures of Late Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 67–87 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context.

64

Eugene Ulrich

Edited by T. H. Lim, with L. W. Hurtado, A. G. Auld, and A. Jack. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. Ȱ. “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus.” Pages 85–108 in Congress [IOSOT] Volume Basel 2001. Edited by André Lemaire. VTSup 92. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Ȱ. “A Qualitative Assessment of the Textual Profile of 4QSama.” Pages 147–61 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Ȱ. “Qumran Witness to the Developmental Growth of the Prophetic Books.” Pages 263–74 in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich. Edited by Károly D. Dobos and Miklós Kószeghy. Hebrew Bible Monographs 21. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008. Ȱ. “The Evolutionary Production and Transmission of the Scriptural Books.” Pages 209–25 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts. Edited by Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman and Eileen Schuller. STDJ 92. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Ȱ and William Thompson. “The Tradition as a Resource in Theological Reflection — Scripture and the Minister,” Pages 23–42 in Method in Ministry: Theological Reflection and Christian Ministry. Edited by J. D. Whitehead and E. E. Whitehead. Rev. ed. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995. Van Seters, John. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. VanderKam, James C. “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 91–109 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. Walters, Stanley D. “Hannah and Anna: The Greek and Hebrew Texts of 1 Samuel 1.” JBL 107 (1988): 385–412. Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Gramercy Books, 1994.

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s): Exploring the Implications of a Pluriform Outlook on the Scriptural Tradition Hans Debel* As biblical scholars, we live in fascinating times “after Qumran,”1 and it goes without saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls have revolutionised our understanding of the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible.2 In fact, the outburst flood of Glacial Lake Missoula, which appeared across eastern Washington at the end of the last ice age, provides a suitable image for the impact of the findings in the Judean Desert on biblical studies. Similar to the pressure behind the ice dam, scholars were aware, for almost forty years, of the enormous amount of information that could be gained from the Judean Desert findings, but only a few preliminary

*

1

2

The author is a Research Fellow of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWOVlaanderen), currently preparing a doctoral dissertation on the hermeneutical framework of textual criticism after the discoveries in the Judean Desert. He is working at the Centre for Septuagint Studies and Textual Criticism (CCSTC), Faculty of Theology, K.U.Leuven (http://www.theo.kuleuven.be/lxxtc/en/), directed by prof. dr. Bénédicte Lemmelijn, who also supervises this dissertation which is part of a larger research project on textual criticism and LXX translation technique in the book of Qohelet. I want to express my sincere thanks for her continuous engaging support, for the many valuable suggestions on the preliminary drafts of this paper, and for her own reflections on the topic – some of which can be found in her as yet unpublished papers which she graciously shared with me – as they have greatly stimulated my own thinking. A shorter form of the present study was presented as a short paper during the IOSOT-conference in Helsinki (1–6 August 2010). I am very grateful to the editors of the present volume for their kind invitation to include this paper. Comp. the title of a specialist symposium held in Alcalá from 31 May – 2 June 2010, the proceedings of which will be published as H. Ausloos, B. Lemmelijn and J. Trebolle Barrera, ed., After Qumran: Old and New Editions of Biblical Texts. The Historical Books (BETL ***; Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming in 2011). It was a great honour for me to be allowed to attend this symposium, and I particularly wish to express my thanks to profs. Adrian Schenker, Emanuel Tov, and Eugene Ulrich for their reactions on my earlier paper referred to in n. 2. See the works cited in Hans Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?,” JSJ 41 (2010): 161–90 (162, n. 1).

66

Hans Debel

publications were produced at the time. Especially from the middle of the seventies onwards, i.e., after Józef T. Milik had published his Books of Enoch,3 Qumran studies seemingly entered into a “state of hibernation,” which led to a large amount of scholarly discontent, usually summarised in Geza Vermes’ oft-repeated dictum that the publication of the Qumran manuscripts was fast becoming “the academic scandal par excellence of the twentieth century.”4 Although such blunt terms are not entirely justified as they oversimplify reality,5 in hindsight, the quick succession of events during the autumn of 1991 – the appearance of the first volume of Ben Zion Wacholder and Martin Abegg’s computerised reconstruction of the unpublished scrolls, William Moffett’s decision to give open access to the Huntington Library’s Scrolls photographs, and the sustained campaign of the Biblical Archaeology Review reaching its apex6 – appears as a watershed in the collapse of the, by then already weakened, dam. In the ensuing years, a veritable flood of editions and publications on the Scrolls were unleashed in biblical

3 4

5

6

Józef T. Milik and Matthew Black, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976). Vermes originally uttered his statement in a lecture delivered at the University of Dundee in 1977, but has since commented on it many times; see, e.g., his The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Revised Edition (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 7, from which the expression “state of hibernation” has been borrowed. However, two exceptions to this “state of hibernation” are to be noted, viz. the critical editions by Yigael Yadin, Megillat ham-miqdash. The Temple Scroll (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society – Institute of Archaelogy of the Hebrew University – Shrine of the Book, Hebrew 1977, revised English edition 1983), and by David Noel Freedman, K. A. Mathews and Richard S. Hanson, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) (Winona Lake: ASOR, 1985), but both were prepared by scholars from outside the Cave 4 editorial team targeted by Vermes. In this regard, it should not go unnoticed that already during the eighties, a number of younger scholars (among whom Judith Sanderson, Julie Duncan, Sidnie White Crawford, Carol Newsom, Eileen Schuller, Elisha Qimron, and James VanderKam) became involved in the publication of important Qumran texts in various kinds of partnerships with some of the team members. As such, the first efforts towards the reorganisation of the editorial team predate Emanuel Tov’s tenure as editor-in-chief (although he of course played a leading role in speeding up the publication process), and its reorganisation cannot be said to have come as a reaction to the controversies of the early nineties. At stake in these controversies was not so much the full publication of the Scrolls, but rather the demand that all scholars were given open access to the Scrolls; cf. Weston W. Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Short History (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 72: “it was the idea of openness that was important.” For an overview, see, e.g., the chapter on “Scroll Wars” by James C. VanderKam and Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2002), 381– 403.

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

67

studies, and this incredible outburst of scholarly activity has changed the face of the discipline much in the same way as the forces of the ancient glacial flood reshaped the entire inundated area. At present, many scholars are involved in the exploration of the postdiluvian landscape, of which the contours are slowly but steadily becoming clear. In a nutshell, the Second Temple period now appears as a time of unprecedented scribal creativity and socio-religious dynamics,7 during which the scriptural text was still organically developing and in a pluriform state.8 We find ourselves faced with the challenge to rethink the categories of our predecessors, but likewise, to not fall into the temptation to throw the baby out with the bathwater by totally dismissing their valuable work. Against this backdrop, the present essay intends to briefly explore two implications of a pluriform outlook on the development of the scriptural tradition: the first implication concerns the possibility of reconstructing an “original” text behind the alternative editions, and the second pertains to the relationship of the latter to other, so-called “rewritten” compositions. Although, at first glance, these two topics might seem unrelated, it will soon become evident that upon closer consideration, they cannot be treated separately, because they ultimately belong to the same dynamic process of retelling, writing, and rewriting tradition during Second Temple times.

1. “Variant Literary Editions” and “Original Texts” 1.1. The Dissolving of an “Urtext” into Various Compositional Stages When compared to the prevalent opinion roughly a century ago, the textual material found in the Judean Desert has dramatically altered the hermeneutical framework for the text-critical analysis of the Hebrew Bible. The theory of a single “archetype” developing into different “recensions,” usually associated with the name of Paul de Lagarde, has become untenable, and important reflections towards a new framework have been put forward by Frank Moore Cross, Shemaryahu Talmon,

7

8

Cf. Philip S. Alexander, “Judaism and Christianity: Reflections on the Parting of the Ways and the Parameters for Future Dialogue,” PIBA 31 (2009): 32–53 (33), who describes the late Second Temple period as an “axial age” that burst with intellectual and religious vitality, “one of the most creative in the history of humankind.” See particularly the seminal essays by Eugene Ulrich, many of which have been collected in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).

68

Hans Debel

Emanuel Tov and Eugene Ulrich.9 At present, many scholars have underscored the usefulness of Ulrich’s model of textual plurality, in which “variant literary editions” of certain textual units are considered the tangible witnesses of the developmental state of the scriptural texts during the Second Temple period, with creative scribes intentionally rewriting the inherited text in light of their present situation.10 However, despite this emphasis on the dynamic growth of the scriptural texts, the theory of a single Urtext still looms in the background, casting its long shadow on text-critical scholarship. For example, in the revised edition of his renowned monograph on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Tov still preferred to assume a single, authoritative “original text” behind the textual multiplicity, which he defined as the finished literary product standing at the beginning of the process of textual transmission, although he immediately added that the available evidence only allows for a partial reconstruction of such a text.11 Despite the numerous important caveats that he notes in his elaborate and well-balanced discussion on the subject, one may wonder whether such a neat distinction between the composition and the transmission of the scriptural texts is not unwarranted and even contradicted by the evidence at hand.12 For this reason, Tov has expressed

9

10

11

12

For extensive bibliographical notes and a more elaborate presentation of the major developments in the transformation of the hermeneutical framework for the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, see Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?,” 163–73. See also the definition given in his forthcoming contribution to the New Cambridge History of the Bible, entitled The Old Testament Text and Its Transmission: “A variant edition is a new reproduction of a book or passage which faithfully attempts to transmit the text being copied but at the same time revises it substantially according to a discernible set of principles.” I thank prof. Ulrich for having shared this as yet unpublished paper with me. See the discussion in Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Second Revised Edition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 164–80, which further develops the insights unfolded in his earlier paper “The Original Shape of the Biblical Text,” in Congress Volume Leuven 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; SVT 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 345–59. For a detailed critique of his position, see John Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 314–27. As a case in point for the necessity to combine the methods of traditional textual and literary criticism, it may suffice to mention the observations made by Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “Influence of a So-Called P-Redaction in the ‘Major Expansions’ of Exod 7–11? Finding Oneself at the Crossroads of Textual and Literary Criticism,” in Florilegium Complutense. Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scroll Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera (ed. A. Piquer Otero and P. Torijano Morales; JSJSup ***; Leiden: Brill, in press), viz. that some of the particularities of the “major expansions” in the textual witnesses to the “Plagues Narrative” (SamP, 4QpaleoExodm , and 4QExodj ), espe-

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

69

second thoughts on the issue in his more recent publications, now asserting that all literary stages are equally “original” and that none of them should be singled out as the original text.13 In a similar vein, Ulrich has pointed out that the notion of an “original text” can bear no less than eight different meanings, ranging from the alleged sources incorporated by the early authors to the traditional text fully attested in the manuscript witnesses.14 Nevertheless, he still holds a moderate form of the Urtext theory,15 as he believes that the text of each scriptural book developed through a linear succession of revised editions.16 As

13

14

15

16

cially with respect to the role of Aaron, remarkably coincide with certain characteristics traditionally assigned to the “priestly layer” of the Pentateuch. See Emanuel Tov, “The Status of the Masoretic Text in Modern Text Editions of the Hebrew Bible: Relevance of Canon,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 234–51 (248), as well as his “Hebrew Scripture Editions: Philosophy and Praxis,” in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Emile Puech (ed. F. García Martínez et al.; STDJ 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 281–312 (304–5), in which he maintains that “now more than ever it seems to me that there never was an ‘archeytpe’ or ‘original text’ of most Scripture books,” and that “there never was a single text which may be considered the original text; rather, we have to assume compositional stages, each of which was meant to be authoritative when completed.” In addition, an important modification is to be noted in Tov’s thinking on one of the remarks added to his definition, viz. that usage of the term “edition” should not be limited to texts reflecting a literary stage anterior to that reflected in MT. See, e.g., Emanuel Tov, “Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther and Daniel Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and Elsewhere,” in Die Septuaginta - Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.– 23. Juli 2006 (ed. M. Karrer et al.; WUNT 219; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008), 369–93, as well as the other works referred to in Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?,” 173–74, n. 44, where I suggested that even this wider use of the term may not go far enough. See Eugene Ulrich, “The Community of Israel and the Composition of the Scriptures,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon; Biblical Interpretation Series 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 327–42 (337–38); comp. the five different meanings he listed in “Jewish, Christian, and Empirical Perspectives on the Text of Our Scriptures,” in Hebrew Bible or Old Testament (ed. R. Brooks and J. J. Collins; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 5; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), 69–85 (71). As he explicitly states in Eugene Ulrich, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus,” in Congress Volume Basel 2001 (ed. A. Lemaire; SVT 92; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 85–108 (94). See particularly Eugene Ulrich, “A Qualitative Assessment of the Textual Profile of 4QSama,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A. Hilhorst et al.; JSJS 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 147– 61 (150–51). Cf. his “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Judaism,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. M. L. Grossman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010),

70

Hans Debel

such, he de facto pronounces the first attested edition as the Urtext of the others, and on a more general level posits some kind of a single text at the beginning of each line of development. Evidently, he considers this text to be unattainable for modern scholars and by no means to be equated with a “final form” of the composition, because the organic development of the texts continued throughout the entire Second Temple period until it was abruptly frozen due to external circumstances in the wake of the Temple’s destruction.17 These remarks notwithstanding, even Ulrich’s very cautious approach to the problem seems to contain a number of speculative elements that go beyond what the evidence allows one to conclude.18 Although for each scriptural book the attested editions are undeniably genealogically related to one another, their relationship may take a more complex form than the linear succession postulated by Ulrich, and in many cases, we undoubtedly lack sufficient evidence to reconstruct the chain in detail. For example, Peter W. Flint has demonstrated for the Psalter that the editions in MT and in 11QPsa both elaborate on an earlier but unattested edition,19 and a similar explanation may also apply to the development of the two editions of the Zerubbabbel and Ezra traditions extant in LXX 1 Esdras and MT Ezra-Nehemiah.20

17 18 19

20

145–81 (158–59): “it seems increasingly clear that the text of each book developed through successive revised literary editions, whereby an earlier form of the book was intentionally revised to produce a newer revised edition.” Comp. the relevant sections of his forthcoming paper The Old Testament Text and Its Transmission. See, more extensively, my critique of Ulrich’s model in Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?,” 172–73. As one of the first scrolls from the Judean Desert to be published, 11QPsa has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention; see the works referred to in my “‘The Lord Looks at the Heart’ (1 Sam 16,7): 11QPsa 151A–B as a ‘Variant Literary Edition’ of Ps 151 LXX,” RevQ 23/92 (2008): 459–73 (460–64). For a more extensive overview and analysis of the debate on the status of the scroll, see Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 204–17, who argued at length that 11QPsa should be considered a “variant literary edition” of the Psalter on a par with its Masoretic text-form. In this regard, it should be noted that Ulrich endorsed Flint’s arguments, but at the same time proposed to label the MTedition of the Psalter ”n + 1,” and the 11QPsa-edition “n + 2,” thus creating the impression that the latter is dependent upon the former, especially as he parallels them to the successive editions of Jeremiah and other books; see Ulrich, “Methodological Reflections.” Comp. Adrian Schenker, “La relation d’Esdras A’ au texte massorétique d’EsdrasNéhémie,” in Tradition of the Text (ed. G. J. Norton and S. Pisano; OBO 109: Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1991), 218–48 (235–36), arguing that 1 Esdras preserves an earlier textual form of the restoration of the city and the temple, in which the “Story of the Three Youths” has been added at a later stage, and which has been revised in

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

71

Moreover, it cannot be excluded, and may even seem very likely, given the oral culture of the Ancient Near East at the time,21 that the interaction between oral performances and written texts played a much larger role in the process of composition and transmission than has traditionally been allowed for.22

1.2. Critical Reflections on the Principle of Originality in the Oxford Hebrew Bible Nevertheless, the concept of an “original text” still takes pride of place in the theoretical foundations of the Oxford Hebrew Bible (OHB). Drawing an analogy to the critical editions of classical texts and of the New Testament,23 this project aims to produce an eclectic edition of the He-

21

22

23

Ezra-Nehemiah before that insertion, possibly at the same time when the “Nehemiah memoir” was incorporated into the text; thus also Dieter Böhler, “On the Relationship between Textual and Literary Criticism: The Two Recensions of the Book of Ezra. Ezra-Neh (MT) and 1 Esdras (LXX),” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. A. Schenker; SBL SCS 52; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 35–50. Note, however, the recent studies by Kristin De Troyer, “Zerubbabel and Ezra: A Revived and Revised Solomon and Josiah? A Survey of Current 1 Esdras Research,” CBR 1 (2002): 30–60; “A Lost Hebrew Vorlage? A Closer Look at the Temple Builder in 1 Esdras,” in Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Tells Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible (SBL Text-Critical Studies 4; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 91–126, suggesting that 1 Esdras presents a rewriting of Ezra-Nehemiah which aimed at highlighting the role of Zerubbabel as a new and better Solomon. Comp. Zipora Talshir, 1 Esdras: From Origin to Translation (SBL SCS 47; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), pointing to the interpolation of the “Story of the Three Youths” as the main purpose – “the raison d’être” – of the rewriting reflected in 1 Esdras. According to Catherine Heszer, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 81; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001), 496, during the last century of the Second Temple period, the literacy rate in Palestine was probably lower than the average rate of 10–15 percent for Roman society in imperial times. See particularly Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), as well as, e.g., Shemaryahu Talmon, “Oral Tradition and Written Transmission, or the Heard and the Seen Word in Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (ed. H. Wansbrough; JSNT SS 64; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 144–84; Richard A. Horsley, Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 89–108; and Karel Van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 9–16. See, e.g., Ronald Hendel, “Qumran and a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Hebrew Bible and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls 1; Richland Hills: Bibal, 2000), 197–217 (214–15); and “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” VT 58 (2008): 324–51 (325–26). Comp. the state-

72

Hans Debel

brew Bible that approximates, as close as humanly possible, the archetype of the text, defined by Ronald Hendel – its editor-in-chief – as “the earliest inferable textual state” in practical terms.24 According to Michael V. Fox, editor of Proverbs, “this ideally approaches the Urtext, the text-form subsequent to its composition but prior to its corruption,” but he hastens to add that for a “snowballing text” like Proverbs, “the Ursnowball is not only beyond recovery, it is beyond conceptualization.”25 In the light of the different compositional stages to which the concept of an “original text” may refer, as outlined by Tov and Ulrich, one wonders whether this snowball picture may likewise apply to the majority of the scriptural texts and not be limited to the “special conundrums” of Proverbs.26 In any case, the decision of the OHB to present multiple editions in parallel columns if they seemingly descend from each other, and to reconstruct a common ancestor if they go back to a shared archetype,27 clearly reveals the practical difficulties in applying the principle of “the earliest inferable textual state.”28

24 25 26 27 28

ment by Bertil Albrektson, “Translation and Emendation,” in Language, Theology, and The Bible (ed. S. E. Balentine and J. Barton; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 27–39 (32): “The textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible should not be regarded as a game of its own with special rules;” as well as the more scathing remarks by Frank Moore Cross, “Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Critical Study of Sacred Texts (ed. W. Doniger O’Flaherty; Berkeley Religious Studies Series 2; Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1979), 31–54 (51): “Once the textual critic has established the existence of variant textual families, and of genuine variant readings, it would seem natural for him to get on with the task of investigating the variant readings and establishing the superior readings. Not at all. One should never underestimate the resources of the textual critic in finding ways to avoid work.” However, see also the judicious reflections on the topic by Natalio Fernández Marcos, “The Genuine Text of Judges,” in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. Y. A. P. Goldman et al.; SVT 110; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 33–45 (41–44). See Hendel, “Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” 329. Michael V. Fox, “Editing Proverbs: The Challenge of the Oxford Hebrew Bible,” JNSL 32 (2006): 1–22 (5). Quoted from Fox, “Editing Proverbs,” 1. See Hendel, “Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” 326–27. See the conclusions of section 2.1 in Eibert Tigchelaar, “Editing the Hebrew Bible: An Overview of Some Problems,” to be published under the editorship of John Kloppenborg and Judith H. Newman in the proceedings of the 2007 Toronto conference on editorial problems. I wholeheartedly thank prof. Tigchelaar for providing me with a copy of this paper. Furthermore, see also the critical remarks by George J. Brooke, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and Lower Criticism,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies: Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003 (ed. J. G. Campbell et al.; LSTS 52; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 26–42 (38–40).

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

73

As the decision on the relationship between the editions heavily depends on the individual editor’s point of view, this ambiguous presentation of editions unmistakably introduces into the OHB an additional element of subjectivity, which is from the outset one of the main perils of preparing any critical edition, as has been emphasised by Tov and Lemmelijn.29 Other such elements include the choice to present alternative readings from the Septuagint in the form of (unvocalised) retroversions, and the decision to permit conjectures in cases where the extant texts are “clearly corrupt” and an “educated guess” on the uncorrupted form can be made.30 Moreover, a particularly moot point in the editorial policy of the OHB pertains to its treatment of so-called “synonymous readings,” variants that can make an equal claim to originality.31 Whereas Moshe Goshen-Gottstein argued long ago that, unless and until the evidence forces us to regard one reading as derived from another, we have to look upon them as alternative readings,32 the editorial guidelines for the OHB explicitly state that, all other things 29

30 31

32

Cf. Emanuel Tov, “The Textual Basis of Modern Translations of the Hebrew Bible: The Argument against Eclecticism,” Textus 20 (2000): 193–211 (202): “The main problem is the eclecticism itself, which some people regard as arrogance and which involves the subjective selection of readings found in the ancient translations and the Qumran manuscripts. [...] This subjectivity is so pervasive that well-based solutions seem to be impossible.” See also his “The Status of the Masoretic Text,” 246–50; and “Hebrew Scripture Editions,” 303–7. As for Lemmelijn’s reflections on the topic, see, e.g., the relevant portions of “Influence of a So-Called P-Redaction,” as well as her “As Many Texts as Plagues: A Preliminary Report of the Main Results of the TextCritical Evaluation of Exod 7:14–11:10,” JNSL 24/2 (1998): 111–25 (121); and A Plague of Texts: A Text-Critical Study of the So-Called ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10 (OTS 56; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 215. On the latter point, see Hendel, “Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” 330–31. See, e.g., the definition of the term in Lemmelijn, A Plague of Texts, 21, which elaborates on Judith Sanderson’s understanding of the term as “variants for which no preferable reading can be determined even with probability,” and are “different legitimate ways of expressing the same idea;” thus, e.g., Judith E. Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition (HSS 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 41. Moreover, it should be noted that the term was also used by Talmon, who nevertheless defined it in a much narrower sense as interchangeable readings which do not affect the subject matter of the text nor disturb the rhythm of the verse, cannot be explained as scribal errors, display no clear ideological purpose, and may thus go back to an early stage in the history of the text when no single uniform and authoritative version had as yet crystallised; see, e.g., his “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text,” Textus 1 (1960): 144–84 (145–46); as well as “Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament,” in Studies in the Bible (ed. C. Rabin; Scripta Hierosolymitana 8; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961), 335–83 (335–36). See Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The History of the Bible Text and Comparative Semitics,” VT 7 (1957): 195–201 (198).

74

Hans Debel

being equal, the variant contained in the Codex Leningradensis/Petropolitanus B19A should be included in the main text, and its alternative relegated to the apparatus where the notation “equal” will indicate that it represents an equally plausible reading.33 As such, MT as contained in one particular manuscript (which is, in itself, not of undisputed value34) functions as the copy-text for the critical edition.35 Tov has rightly remarked that this policy creates a conceptual problem, in that it will “perpetuate the perception that MT is the Bible.”36 As he noted elsewhere, in certain cases scholars may simply lack sufficient evidence to decide between readings, which does not imply that, historically speaking, none of them is “original”37 – or, in Lemmelijn’s more adequate terms, “more original” than the other.38 For this reason, a truly responsible critical edition should not hesitate to leave certain cases undecided and to develop a system that allows an editor to express various degrees of (un)certainty, instead of a straightforward presentation of a single reconstructed text in which the last word is given to an external condition. The accompanying text-critical commentary envisaged by the OHB has an important role to play in this regard39, but as remarked by Hugh Williamson,40 at times it seems desir-

33 34

35

36 37 38

39

See section E.4 of the “Guide for Editors (Revised 2010),” available at http://ohb. berkeley.edu. See the numerous publications in which the editors of the Hebrew University Bible justify their decision to take Codex Aleppensis as the base text for their critical edition, as opposed for BHS/BHQ’s choice for B19 A; e.g., Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text,” in Biblical and Other Studies (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 79–122; Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Editions of the Hebrew Bible: Past and Future,” in Sha'arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 221–42. On this concept of a “copy-text,” see Hendel, “Prologue to a New Critical Edition,” 343–46. A critical assessment of OHB’s particular usage of the term and its implications for the intended edition is provided in section 2.2 of Tigchelaar, “Editing the Hebrew Bible.” Thus Tov, “Hebrew Scripture Editions,” 308. See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 174. See her working model presented, e.g., in Lemmelijn, A Plague of Texts, 22–27. Although she admits that this solution is less than ideal, it at least avoids the impression that by establishing “more original” readings one is able to partly reconstruct an Urtext, as it merely judges the evidence within the relative framework of extant texts. Section D of the “Guide for Editors” specifies that this commentary intends “to justify decisions made in the critical text,” and “to address interesting or complicated instances and issues.” For examples, see the sample editions published in Fox, “Editing Proverbs,” 14–20, and in Sidnie White Crawford, Jan Joosten and Eugene Ulrich, “Sample Editions of the Oxford Hebrew Bible: Deuteronomy 32:1–9, 1 Kings 11:1–8,

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

75

able that the edition itself would take the form of a commentary rather than of a “Bible” in the sense of a running text. Nevertheless, one needs not be as critical for the entire project as Williamson is, because an eclectic edition will undoubtedly provide a practical tool for producing critically responsible contemporary Bible translations for the general public.41

1.3. The Need for a Revised Mentality In the end, it occurs to me that present-day text-critical scholarship should move away from being exclusively directed towards originality – or to put it in the words of Albert Baumgarten in his critique of the Groningen Hypothesis: from worshipping “the idol of origins.”42 In a similar vein, Bénédicte Lemmelijn has argued that any speculations concerning an “original text” that go unsupported by material evidence, should be relegated to a “prehistory” of the text about which nothing can be deduced with confidence.43 Following the famous seventh proposition of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, one may conclude, in this regard, that it is best to pass in silence over that of which one cannot reasonably speak. To be sure, textual criticism should still set as one of its principal aims the ferreting out of the textual witnesses, thus establishing – as Lemmelijn suggests – a number of “more original” variants within the relative framework of the extant manuscripts, in the sense of readings that come chronologically prior to others in the development of the text.44 However, instead of discarding the “less original” readings as “secondary” insertions of negligent scribes, all variants should be meticulously sifted in order to distinguish unintentional scribal lapses from intentional changes, and an attempt should be made to situate the

40 41

42

43 44

and Jeremiah 27:1–10 (34 G),” VT 58 (2008): 352–66, as well as the additional samples of Genesis and 2 Kings available on the website of the project. See Hugh G. M. Williamson, “Do We Need a New Bible? Reflections on the Proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible,” Bib 90 (2009): 153–75. As has also been emphasised by Corrado Martone during the IOQS-conference in Helsinki (2–4 August 2010) in his paper “All the Bibles We Need: The Impact of the Qumran Evidence on Biblical Lower Criticism.” See Albert I. Baumgarten, “Reflections on the Groningen Hypothesis,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection (ed. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 256–62. Thus, e.g., Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “What Are We Looking For in Doing Text-Critical Research?,” JNSL 23/2 (1997): 69–80 (75–77), and Lemmelijn, A Plague of Texts, 25–27. Comp. Lemmelijn’s working model referred to in note 38.

76

Hans Debel

latter in their historical context. As noted by Tov, all ancient readings may contain valuable information on the concerns of the scribes transmitting the text they had inherited,45 who at times resignified the text in accord to their personal interests and/or the needs and sensibilities of their communities.46 Who are we to treat the products of their creative efforts as virtually worthless later developments? After all, many “secondary” readings were “preferable” in the minds of some people at a certain moment in time.47 In terms of religious imagination, these “secondary” readings may even appear as “more original” than their chronologically and logically “more original” counterparts,48 for which it cannot be excluded, moreover, that they originally took root, in turn, as the “secondary” alterations of a now lost “even more original” reading. As the so-called “secondary” variants continued the compositional process that had characterised the development of the scriptural texts from its very beginnings, there is no reason why they should be considered qualitatively inferior, particularly in light of the fact that only some scraps of the entire process have been accidentally preserved for us.

2. “Variant Literary Editions” and “Rewritten Bible/Scripture” 2.1. A Brief Assessment of Recent Research on “Rewritten Bible/Scripture” Notwithstanding the paucity of evidence on the initial phases of this compositional process that eventually led to a single, “unchangeable” text for each of the books belonging to a fixed canon of the Hebrew

45

46

47 48

See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 295, as well as Alexander Rofé, “The Historical Significance of Secondary Readings,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon; Biblical Interpretation Series 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 393–402. As for the term resignification, reference should be made to the seminal work by James A. Sanders; see, e.g., Canon and Community: a Guide to Canonical Criticism (Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Old Testament Series; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 22. As observed by Sanderson, An Exodus Scroll, 48. Comp. the concluding reflections by Lemmelijn, “Influence of a So-Called PRedaction,” observing that a “more developed” textual form may be considered “preferable” from a literary and theological point of view.

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

77

Bible,49 our knowledge on its latter stages has been greatly enriched through the wealth of evidence that has surfaced in the Judean Desert. In addition to the texts ranged under Ulrich’s concept of “variant literary editions,” a number of other texts are often brought together as examples of “rewritten Bible.” It is well known that Geza Vermes coined this term in order to describe a limited set of compositions which he believed represented the earliest phases of scriptural interpretation, during which “haggadic developments” anticipating certain exegetical problems were still freely inserted into the biblical narrative.50 More recent research on the topic can be summarised as coping with the two principal problems connected to the term, viz. “rewritten,” and “Bible.” Various scholars have proposed to replace “rewritten Bible” by “rewritten Scripture” in an attempt to avoid the anachronistic implication that a fixed collection of “scriptural” texts was already in existence during the Second Temple period.51 However, even that term turns out to be ambiguous and thus unsatisfactory, as it still seems to presuppose the existence of a distinct genre.52 For this reason, scholars increasingly tend to speak about an interpretational activity of “rewriting Scripture” rather than of a formal genre.53 Nevertheless, Moshe 49

50 51

52

53

The term “unchangeable” has been borrowed from Ulrich’s presentation during the same IOSOT short paper session in which the present paper was scheduled, entitled “The Overlap of Composition, Redaction, Transmission, and Reception of the Scriptural Texts.” See Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (Studia PostBiblica 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 95. See, e.g., George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; The Bible as Book 4; London: British Library, 2002), 31–40 (31–32); James C. VanderKam, “The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; The Bible as Book 4; London: British Library, 2002), 41–56 (43); and Anders Klostergaard Petersen, “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon - Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism?,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A. Hilhorst et al.; JSJS 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 285–306 (285–89); as well as the introductory discussion by Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 1–13. See particularly Jonathan G. Campbell, “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Ideological Critique,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies. Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003 (ed. J. G. Campbell, W. J. Lyons and L. K. Pietersen; LSTS 52; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 43– 68 (49–50). As has been pointed out almost simultaneously by Daniel K. Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (LSTS 63; CQS, 8;

78

Hans Debel

Bernstein objected that such a broad definition virtually nullifies the value of Vermes’ original proposal,54 and therefore urges scholars to stick to “a narrowly defined genre” instead of transforming it into an “excessively vague all-encompassing term.”55 In like manner, a few years ago, Michael Segal attempted to identify a number of criteria that enable scholars to make a distinction between multiple editions of scriptural texts and their rewritings.56 In his opinion, rewritten compositions set themselves apart from variant editions because they tend to change the general scope of the work, to add a new narrative frame, to change the voice of the narrator, to freely add and omit large chunks of material, to impose a tendentious editorial layer on the traditional text, and to explicitly refer to their source text in order to make a clear distinction. However, the petitio principii in his argument should not go unnoticed: he investigates the shared characteristics of a number of texts that may be considered prototypical for the distinct literary genre of “rewritten Bible” texts, thus assuming from the outset the existence of such a genre, and infers from them a set of criteria that confirm their attribution to a distinct genre, even though this premise already underlies his selection of texts. In addition to this methodological problem, it should be noted that Segal’s contention that “rewritten” compositions are marked by the addition of an editorial layer, stands in tension with Ulrich’s definition of “variant literary editions,” of which the hallmark is precisely such an additional layer.57 In

54

55 56 57

London: T & T Clark, 2007), 4–14; and Klostergaard Petersen, “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon,” 292–97. However, a similar proposal can already be found in Daniel J. Harrington, “Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and Prophecies,” in Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg; The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 2: Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 239–58 (243): “it seems better to view rewriting the Bible as a kind of activity or process than to see it as a distinctive literary genre of Palestinian Judaism.” Cf. also the recent essay by Erkki Koskenniemi and Pekka Lindqvist, “Rewritten Bible, Rewritten Stories: Methodological Aspects,” in Rewritten Bible Reconsidered: Proceedings of the Conference in Karkku, Finland. August 24–26 2006 (ed. A. Laato and J. Van Ruiten; Studies in Rewritten Bible 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 11–39 (15). See, e.g., Moshe J. Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?,” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96 (178); and Moshe J. Bernstein, “The Genre(s) of the Genesis Apocryphon,” in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran at Aix en Provence 30 Juni–2 July 2008 (ed. K. Berthelot and D. Stökl ben Ezra; STDJ 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 317–43 (330). Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’,” 187. See Michael Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28. See, for example, n. 10 above, as well as his classic descriptions in Eugene C. Ulrich, “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon,” in The Ma-

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

79

this respect, Johan Lust’s work on MT Ezekiel,58 as well as recent research on MT Samuel-Kings by Adrian Schenker and Philippe Hugo, may be referred to as examples of how scribes could subtly add a “tendentious editorial layer” in order to create a different “edition.”59

58

59

drid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18–21 March 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 23–41 (32); and in “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible,” in Sha'arei Talmon. Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 267–91 (278). According to Johan Lust, k967 offers compelling evidence for the existence of a shorter text vis-à-vis the longer version found in MT, which reflects a revision of the former that is characterised by a more pronounced interest in eschatology; see especially his synthetic papers “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. A. Schenker; SBL SCS 52; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 83–92; and “The Ezekiel Text,” in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. Y. A. P. Goldman, A. Van der Kooij and R. D. Weis; SVT 110; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 153–67. On the two editions of the book of Ezekiel, see also Emanuel Tov, “Recensional Differences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel,” ETL 62 (1986): 89–101. However, Lust’s conclusions have recently been challenged by John Flanagan, “Papyrus 967 and the Text of Ezekiel: Parablesis or an Original Text?,” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon (ed. C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias; LSTS 70; London: T & T Clark, 2009), 105–16. Although Ulrich repeatedly emphasised that, for the books of Samuel, only the two versions of the David-Goliath pericope (1 Sam 17–18) in MT and LXX can be labelled a “variant literary edition” with confidence – see, e.g., the concise statement in Eugene Ulrich, “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. Ulrich and J. C. VanderKam; Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 77–93 (88–89), as well as the conclusion of Ulrich, “A Qualitative Assessment,” 159–61 – Philippe Hugo maintained in his most recent synthetic paper “Text History of the Books of Samuel: An Assessment of the Recent Research,” in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel. The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History (ed. P. Hugo and A. Schenker; SVT 132; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 1–19 (11), that “recent studies have succeeded, in my opinion, in identifying distinct literary or editorial layers of the books of Samuel in some groups or network of related variants.” In this regard, he refers to the more positive presentation of David in the MT version as compared to the earlier version attested to in the Old Greek, and to the former’s greater emphasis on the Temple that was to be built by Solomon; see the many studies by himself, Adrian Schenker and Jürg Hutzli referred to in his bibliographical notes. In a similar vein, Schenker considers the Old Greek of 1–2 Kings an older textual form which has been theologically revised in MT, in order, among other things, to portray Solomon more favourably and to enhance the contrast between the Northern and the Southern Kingdom; see, in addition to numerous casestudies, particularly his monograph Adrian Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte der

80

Hans Debel

2.2. Some Reflections Upon Rewritings and Authoritativeness Moreover, Segal’s allegation that the modal Second Temple Jew could easily distinguish between variant editions and new compositions is built on shifting sands. True enough, the fact that Chronicles and 1 Esdras were included in at least one canon of Scriptures in later times indicates that both texts were not perceived as representing the same composition as, respectively, Samuel-Kings and Ezra-Nehemiah.60 However, one should bear in mind two important observations. First, this reasoning presumes the existence of a single, authoritative text for Samuel-Kings and Ezra-Nehemiah to which the “rewritings” could be compared, but such a text only emerged in a later period. Second, the later decision to recognise both books as “biblical” indicates that one cannot simply distinguish “between Bible and rewritten Bible,” as Segal does, because they ultimately became just as “biblical” as their alleged source texts, without even the slightest hint at an inferior status.61 In fact, the reception history of a text belongs to an entirely different realm and cannot be taken as a means to distinguish between books and their rewritings. Quite to the contrary, both the different version of Jeremiah which was eventually included in MT,62 and MT’s conflated version of the David-Goliath episode in 1 Sam 17–18,63 well illustrate

60 61

62

63

Königsbücher. Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (OBO 199; Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 2004). Thus Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” 16–17. It is tempting to refer to the Greek title ȸɸ¼ÀÈÇÄšÅÑÅ in this regard, but even this designation signals that the Chronicles should be read alongside their parallel stories and thus puts them on a par with their alleged source texts; comp., e.g., John Barton, “Canons of the Old Testament,” in Text in Context. Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (ed. A. D. H. Mayes; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 200–22 (220). On which see, e.g., the classical essay by Emanuel Tov, “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed. J. H. Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 211– 37, revised edition in Emanuel Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (SVT 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 363–84; as well as, e.g., Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: les deux rédactions antiques selon les travaux en cours,” RB 101 (1994): 363–406; and Richard D. Weis, “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah,” in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (ed. Y. A. P. Goldman et al.; SVT 110; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 269–93. It is well known that LXX offers a “heroic tale” of the battle, while MT has this account conflated with a “romantic tale.” The two options concerning the relative order of the two editions of 1 Sam 17–18 have been explored in depth during the joint

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

81

that “rewritings” and “authoritative texts” are not mutually exclusive categories. In light of these examples, one may even wonder, along the lines set out by James VanderKam,64 on which inner-textual grounds a “reworked” text like Jubilees, which also seems to have functioned as an authoritative text for some Second Temple Jews,65 or even the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon,66 should be put in a different bag than the one that holds MT Jeremiah and MT 1 Sam 17–18. Or is it simply the fact that the latter became part of the Masoretic collection of texts that all too often prevents scholars from drawing obvious conclusions?

2.3. A Continuum Instead of a Dichotomy For these reasons, it seems an oversimplification of an extremely complex matter to think in terms of a binary opposition between “scriptural editions” and “rewritten Scripture.” A similar observation can be made at the other end of the spectrum of Ulrich’s “variant literary editions,” where a number of texts exhibit significant differences, but of such a limited extent that the question should be raised whether “edition” is not too elevated a term to refer to them. Such is the case, for example, with 4QJosha. Even if one agrees with Ulrich that this manuscript has preserved a more original sequence of events with the entire passage of the building of the altar (MT Josh 8:30–35) appearing immediately after the crossing of the Jordan, at the end of MT’s chapter 4, then we still have only a single floating textual unit.67 A similar argument can be produced with respect to 4QJudga, in which the “deuteronomistic” verses 6:7–10 are lacking: although the absence of these verses is almost

64

65

66

67

research venture published as Dominique Barthélemy et al., The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Research Venture (OBO 73; Friburg: Editions Universitaires, 1986). See James C. VanderKam, “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 91–109 (108). On which see particularly James C. VanderKam, “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period,” in From Revelation to Canon. Studies in the Hebrew Bible & Second Temple Literature; JSJSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1–30. See Hans Debel, “The Genesis Apocryphon as a Non-Hebrew ‘Variant Literary Edition’ to the Patriarchal Accounts? Some Inner-Textual Considerations,” in The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions. Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in Helsinki, 2–4 August 2010 (ed. G. J. Brooke et al.; STDJ ***; Leiden: Brill, 2011), forthcoming. For a more elaborate discussion with bibliography, see Hans Debel, “A Quest for Appropriate Terminology: The Joshua Texts as a Case in Point,” in The Book of Joshua and the Land of Israel (ed. E. Noort; BETL ***; Leuven: Peeters, 2012), forthcoming.

82

Hans Debel

too remarkable to be attributed to a mere coincidence, the evidence is simply insufficient to support the extrapolation that the manuscript represents a shorter edition of the entire book, and thus, we are left with the observation that it contains a single minus vis-à-vis MT Judges.68 In sum, a careful examination of the variety of texts from the Second Temple period at our disposal quickly reveals that the factual diversity ranges from small changes to a single unit, down to rewritings of entire books, and that the common understanding of the term “edition” only covers a part of this spectrum.69 Therefore, I am inclined to side with George Brooke, who observes that there is no neat separation between “scriptural texts” and “rewritten works,” and prefers to speak of a “sliding scale,”70 while Sidnie White Crawford has refined the category of “rewritten Scripture” to a “spectrum” of texts.71 These rather similar approaches are certainly more viable than the binary opposition maintained by Segal, because they better conceptualise the fluidity of the scriptural tradition in the Second Temple period and emphasise that, prior to the emergence of an “unchangeable” text, authority seems to have been situated in the tradition rather than in a specific textual form that re-presented this tradition. The narratives about Israel’s glorious past, which were of central importance (albeit in various ways) for the Jewish identity of all the branches of Second 68

69 70 71

Divergent opinions on the passage have been expressed by Julio Trebolle Barrera, “Light from 4QJudga and 4QKgs on the Text of Judges and Kings,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10: Leiden: Brill, 1992), 315–24; Richard S. Hess, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Higher Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: the Case of 4QJudga,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures. Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans; JSPSS 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 122–28; Natalio Fernández Marcos, “The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Judges,” in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. A. Schenker; SBL SCS 52; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 1–16; and Eugene Ulrich, “Deuteronomistically Inspired Scribal Insertions into the Developing Biblical Texts: 4QJudg a and 4QJera,” in Houses Full of All Good Things. Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (ed. J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen; Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 489–506. Note that the case of 4QJudga has been explicitly compared to that of 4QJosha by Julio Trebolle Barrera, “The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin and Antiochean Greek Texts in the Books of Judges and Joshua,” in Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (ed. F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne; BETL 192; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 401–13 (410–11). See also Tov, “Hebrew Scripture Editions,” 305. See Brooke, “The Rewritten Law,” 36. See White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, 13.

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

83

Temple Judaism,72 were carefully transmitted but at the same creatively reshaped – or one could say “imitated”73 – by the scribes.74 Almost paradoxically, the adaptability of the tradition granted its overall stability,75 as the dynamics of resignifying the old and oft-repeated stories maintained interest in the tradition and thus cleared the way for one textual form to take the upper hand in the end.76 However, as noted by Brooke, the ultimate consequence of this approach to the changing scriptural tradition is that textual critics are bereft of all hope to be able to reconstruct an “original text,”77 as any such text merely represents one particular point in a continuum that goes back to the very beginnings of the scriptural tradition.78 Instead, 72

73

74

75

76

77 78

Although it has become a commonplace in the study of Second Temple Judaism to denote these branches as “Judaisms” – see, e.g., the works referred to in Debel, “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?,” 180, n. 68 – I remain of the opinion that this nomenclature creates more problems than it solves and it is thus disadvantageous for describing socio-religious diversity in the Second Temple period; cf. also Martin Goodman, “Religious Variety and the Temple in the Late Second Temple Period and Its Aftermath,” JJS 60 (2009): 202–13 (203): “To talk about ‘Judaisms’ in the plural has no ancient warrant, and outsiders at least seem to have thought that the different types of Jewish piety overlapped sufficiently for it to be possible to refer to ‘Judaism’ in the singular.” Comp. John Van Seters, “Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible,” Studies in Religion 29 (2000): 395–409 (397). On the relevance of the classical practice of “imitation” for understanding the “rewriting” of scriptural texts, see also Natalio Fernández Marcos, “Rewritten Bible or Imitatio? The Vestments of the High-Priest,” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (ed. P. W. Flint et al.; SVT 101; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 321–36 (321–23). Comp. the important reflections on tradition by Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: the Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 44–47. See, in addition to the work referred to in note 46, the seminal essays by James A. Sanders, “Stability and Fluidity in Text and Canon,” in Tradition of the Text (ed. G. J. Norton and S. Pisano; OBO 109; Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1991), 203–17; James A. Sanders, “The Stabilization of the Tanak,” in A History of Biblical Interpretation. Volume I: The Ancient Period (ed. A. J. Hauser and D. F. Watson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 225–52, as well as Ulrich, “The Canonical Process,” 288–89. Cf. George J. Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 85–104 (94): “the reworked scriptural compositions can be understood as the principal vehicle through which interest was maintained in the texts which later became canonical.” As he emphasised particularly in Brooke, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise,” 33– 35. See esp. Ulrich, “The Community of Israel and the Composition of the Scriptures,” 327–37.

84

Hans Debel

we are now faced with the enormous task of describing the dynamic transmission of this scriptural tradition, which has crystallised in a variety of textual witnesses of which only a segment has been preserved, partially by accident. While some of these appear as virtually identical to the later canonical text(s), others take a more remote position, but that does not automatically render them less relevant for our attempts to understand the dynamic scriptural tradition of Second Temple Judaism.

3. Conclusions Beginning with Emanuel Tov’s observations that many texts from Qumran blatantly contradict the three-pronged division that textual critics had inherited from their pre-Qumranic predecessors, the textual study of the Hebrew Bible has witnessed a veritable transformation in the past decades. As Tov’s emphasis on these “independent” texts effectively dislodged the old framework, his work has been described as the “first, pedagogical step” towards the establishment of a new hermeneutical framework.79 The author of that statement, Tov’s co-editor Eugene Ulrich, may be credited for a second leap forward, as his concept of “variant literary editions” provided a way to conceptualise the developmental state of the scriptural texts in Second Temple times. However, “scriptural editions” are all too often easily juxtaposed to a set of “rewritten texts” which are relegated to an inferior status, while, in reality, the latter simply continued the former’s dynamic approach to the authoritative tradition. Therefore, the time has come to take the next step by allowing the distinction between “variant literary editions” and “rewritten Scripture” to dissolve into a “sliding scale” or a “spectrum,” as has been proposed by, respectively, George Brooke and Sidnie White Crawford. Although it would evidently go too far to simply lump all texts together without making any distinction at all, it needs to be recognised that they belong to a continuum of retelling and rewriting tradition. From out of this continuum, there have arisen a variety of texts, none of which had as yet gained total ascendancy over the others, even if some of them undoubtedly were of special significance for at least some branches of Second Temple Judaism. As a consequence, the traditional conception of textual criticism as reconstructing the “original text” of the Hebrew Bible appears as an ill-fated

79

Ulrich, “A Qualitative Assessment,” 150.

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

85

undertaking – a vain quest for a holy grail which one can never hope to find.

Bibliography Albrektson, Bertil. “Translation and Emendation.” Pages 27–39 in Language, Theology, and The Bible. Edited by Samuel Eugene Balentine and John Barton. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Alexander, Philip S. “Judaism and Christianity: Reflections on the Parting of the Ways and the Parameters for Future Dialogue.” PIBA 31 (2009): 32–53. Ausloos, H., Bénédicte Lemmelijn, and Julio Trebolle Barrera, ed. After Qumran: Old and New Editions of Biblical Texts. The Historical Books. BETL ***. Leuven: Peeters, 2011, forthcoming. Barthélemy, Dominique, David W. Gooding, Johan Lust and Emanuel Tov, The Story of David and Goliath: Textual and Literary Criticism. Papers of a Joint Research Venture. OBO 73. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1986. Barton, John. “Canons of the Old Testament.” Pages 200–22 in Text in Context. Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by Andrew D.H. Mayes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Baumgarten, Albert I. “Reflections on the Groningen Hypothesis.” Pages 256– 62 in Enoch and Qumran Origins. New Light on a Forgotten Connection. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Bernstein, Moshe J. “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96. Ȱ. “The Genre(s) of the Genesis Apocryphon.” Pages 317–43 in Aramaica Qumranica. Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran at Aix en Provence 30 Juni–2 July 2008. Edited by Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stökl ben Ezra. STDJ 94. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. “Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: les deux rédactions antiques selon les travaux en cours.” RB 101 (1994): 363–406. Böhler, Dieter. “On the Relationship between Textual and Literary Criticism. The Two Recensions of the Book of Ezra: Ezra-Neh (MT) and 1 Esdras (LXX).” Pages 35–50 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Edited by Adrian Schenker. SBL SCS 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Brooke, George J. “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible.” Pages 31–40 in The Bible as Book. The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. The Bible as Book 4. London: British Library, 2002. Ȱ. “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process.” Pages 85–104 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth Clements. STDJ 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

86

Hans Debel

Ȱ. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Demise of the Distinction between Higher and Lower Criticism.” Pages 26–42 in New Directions in Qumran Studies. Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell, William J. Lyons, and Lloyd K. Pietersen. LSTS 52. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Campbell, Jonathan G. “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Ideological Critique.” Pages 43–68 in New Directions in Qumran Studies. Proceedings of the Bristol Colloquium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, 8–10 September 2003. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell, William J. Lyons, and Lloyd K. Pietersen. LSTS 52. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Crawford, Sidnie White. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Ȱ Jan Joosten, and Eugene Ulrich. “Sample Editions of the Oxford Hebrew Bible: Deuteronomy 32:1–9, 1 Kings 11:1–8, and Jeremiah 27:1–10 (34 G).” VT 58 (2008): 352–66. Cross, Frank Moore. “Problems of Method in the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 31–54 in The Critical Study of Sacred Texts. Edited by Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty. Berkeley Religious Studies Series 2. Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1979. De Troyer, Kristin. “Zerubbabel and Ezra: A Revived and Revised Solomon and Josiah? A Survey of Current 1 Esdras Research.” CBR 1 (2002): 30–60. Ȱ. “A Lost Hebrew Vorlage? A Closer Look at the Temple Builder in 1 Esdras.” Pages 91–126 in Rewriting the Sacred Text. What the Old Greek Tells Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible. SBL Text-Critical Studies 4. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Debel, Hans. “‘The Lord Looks at the Heart’ (1 Sam 16,7). 11QPsa 151A–B as a ‘Variant Literary Edition’ of Ps 151 LXX.” RevQ 23/92 (2008): 459–73. Ȱ. “Greek ‘Variant Literary Editions’ to the Hebrew Bible?” JSJ 41 (2010): 161– 90. Ȱ. “The Genesis Apocryphon as a Non-Hebrew ‘Variant Literary Edition’ to the Patriarchal Accounts? Some Inner-Textual Considerations.” in The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions. Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in Helsinki, 2–4 August 2010. Edited by George J. Brooke, Daniel K. Falk, Eibert Tigchelaar, and Molly M. Zahn. STDJ ***. Leiden: Brill, 2011, forthcoming. Ȱ. “A Quest for Appropriate Terminology: The Joshua Texts as a Case in Point.” in The Book of Joshua and the Land of Israel. Edited by Ed Noort. BETL ***. Leuven: Peeters, 2012, forthcoming. Falk, Daniel K., The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls. LSTS 63; CQS, 8. London: T & T Clark, 2007. Fernández Marcos, Natalio. “The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Judges.” Pages 1– 16 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Edited by Adrian Schenker. SBL SCS 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Ȱ. “The Genuine Text of Judges.” Pages 33–45 in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Yo-

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

87

hanan A. P. Goldman, Arie Van der Kooij, and Richard D. Weis. SVT 110. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Ȱ. “Rewritten Bible or Imitatio? The Vestments of the High-Priest.” Pages 321– 36 in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam. SVT 101. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Fields, Weston W., The Dead Sea Scrolls. A Short History. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Flanagan, John. “Papyrus 967 and the Text of Ezekiel: Parablesis or an Original Text?” Pages 105–16 in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LSTS 70. London: T & T Clark, 2009. Flint, Peter W. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Fox, Michael V. “Editing Proverbs: The Challenge of the Oxford Hebrew Bible.” JNSL 32 (2006): 1–22. Freedman, David Noel, K. A. Mathews and Richard S. Hanson, The PaleoHebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev). Winona Lake: ASOR, 1985. Goodman, Martin. “Religious Variety and the Temple in the Late Second Temple Period and Its Aftermath.” JJS 60 (2009): 202–13. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “The History of the Bible Text and Comparative Semitics.” VT 7 (1957): 195–201. Ȱ. “The Rise of the Tiberian Bible Text.” Pages 79–122 in Biblical and Other Studies. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963. Ȱ. “Editions of the Hebrew Bible: Past and Future.” Pages 221–42 in Sha'arei Talmon. Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Harrington, Daniel J. “Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and Prophecies.” Pages 239–58 in Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Robert A. Kraft and George W. E. Nickelsburg. The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Hendel, Ronald. “Qumran and a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 197– 217 in The Hebrew Bible and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls 1. Richland Hills: Bibal, 2000. Ȱ. “The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition.” VT 58 (2008): 324–51. Hess, Richard S. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Higher Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: the Case of 4QJudga.” Pages 122–28 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures. Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Craig A. Evans. JSPSS 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Heszer, Catherine, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. TSAJ 81. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2001. Horsley, Richard A., Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Hugo, Philippe. “Text History of the Books of Samuel: An Assessment of the Recent Research.” Pages 1–19 in Archaeology of the Books of Samuel. The En-

88

Hans Debel

tangling of the Textual and Literary History. Edited by Philippe Hugo and Adrian Schenker. SVT 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Koskenniemi, Erkki and Pekka Lindqvist. “Rewritten Bible, Rewritten Stories: Methodological Aspects.” Pages 11–39 in Rewritten Bible Reconsidered. Proceedings of the Conference in Karkku, Finland. August 24–26 2006. Edited by Antti Laato and Jacques Van Ruiten. Studies in Rewritten Bible 1. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Lemmelijn, Bénédicte. “What Are We Looking For in Doing Text-Critical Research?” JNSL 23/2 (1997): 69–80. Ȱ. “As Many Texts as Plagues. A Preliminary Report of the Main Results of the Text-Critical Evaluation of Exod 7:14–11:10.” JNSL 24/2 (1998): 111–25. Ȱ. A Plague of Texts: A Text-Critical Study of the So-Called ‘Plagues Narrative’ in Exod. 7:14–11:10. OTS 56. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Ȱ. “Influence of a So-Called P-Redaction in the ‘Major Expansions’ of Exod 7– 11? Finding Oneself at the Crossroads of Textual and Literary Criticism.” In Florilegium Complutense. Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scroll Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera. Edited by Andres Piquer Otero and Pablo Torijano Morales. JSJSup ***. Leiden: Brill, in press. Lust, Johan. “Major Divergences between LXX and MT in Ezekiel.” Pages 83–92 in The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible. The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered. Edited by Adrian Schenker. SBL SCS 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Ȱ. “The Ezekiel Text.” Pages 153–67 in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Yohanan A. P. Goldman, Arie Van der Kooij, and Richard D. Weis. SVT 110. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Milik, Józef T. and Matthew Black. The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments from Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Najman, Hindy, Seconding Sinai: the Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. JSJSup 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Niditch, Susan, Oral World and Written Word. Ancient Israelite Literature. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Petersen Klostergaard, Anders. “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon – Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism?” Pages 285–306 in Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Emile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJS 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Rofé, Alexander. “The Historical Significance of Secondary Readings.” Pages 393–402 in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon. Biblical Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Sanders, James A., Canon and Community: a Guide to Canonical Criticism. Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Old Testament Series. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1984.

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

89

Ȱ. “Stability and Fluidity in Text and Canon.” Pages 203–17 in Tradition of the Text. Edited by Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano. OBO 109. Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1991. Ȱ. “The Stabilization of the Tanak.” Pages 225–52 in A History of Biblical Interpretation. Volume I: The Ancient Period. Edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane Frederick Watson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Sanderson, Judith E., An Exodus Scroll from Qumran. 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition. HSS 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Schenker, Adrian. “La relation d’Esdras A’ au texte massorétique d’EsdrasNéhémie.” Pages 218–48 in Tradition of the Text. Edited by Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano. OBO 109. Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1991. Ȱ. Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher. Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher. OBO 199. Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 2004. Segal, Michael. “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” Pages 10–28 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Double Readings in the Massoretic Text.” Textus 1 (1960): 144–84. Ȱ. “Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament.” Pages 335–83 in Studies in the Bible. Edited by Chaim Rabin. Scripta Hierosolymitana 8. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961. Ȱ. “Oral Tradition and Written Transmission, or the Heard and the Seen Word in Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 121–58 in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. Edited by Henry Wansbrough. JSNT SS 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Talshir, Zipora, 1 Esdras. From Origin to Translation. SBL SCS 47. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Tov, Emanuel. “The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History.” Pages 211–37 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Ȱ. “Recensional Differences between the MT and LXX of Ezekiel.” ETL 62 (1986): 89–101. Ȱ. “The Original Shape of the Biblical Text.” Pages 345–59 in Congress Volume. Leuven 1989. Edited by John A. Emerton. SVT 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Ȱ. The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint. SVT 72. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Ȱ. “The Textual Basis of Modern Translations of the Hebrew Bible: The Argument against Eclecticism.” Textus 20 (2000): 193–211. Ȱ. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Second Revised Edition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Ȱ. “The Status of the Masoretic Text in Modern Text Editions of the Hebrew Bible: Relevance of Canon.” Pages 234–51 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002.

90

Hans Debel

Ȱ. “Hebrew Scripture Editions: Philosophy and Praxis.” Pages 281–312 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection. Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Emile Puech. Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel, and Eibert Tigchelaar. STDJ 61. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Ȱ. “Three Strange Books of the LXX: 1 Kings, Esther and Daniel Compared with Similar Rewritten Compositions from Qumran and Elsewhere.” Pages 369–93 in Die Septuaginta - Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Martin Meiser. WUNT 219. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “Light from 4QJudga and 4QKgs on the Text of Judges and Kings.” Pages 315–24 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. STDJ 10: Leiden: Brill, 1992. Ȱ. “The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin and Antiochean Greek Texts in the Books of Judges and Joshua.” Pages 401–13 in Interpreting Translation. Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne. BETL 192. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Ulrich, Eugene. “Jewish, Christian, and Empirical Perspectives on the Text of Our Scriptures.” Pages 69–85 in Hebrew Bible or Old Testament. Edited by Roger Brooks and John J. Collins. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 5. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990. Ȱ. “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon.” Pages 23–41 in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid 18–21 March 1991. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11: Leiden: Brill, 1992. Ȱ. “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible.” Pages 267–91 in Sha’arei Talmon. Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Ȱ. “The Bible in the Making: The Scriptures at Qumran.” Pages 77–93 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James C. VanderKam. Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 10. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Ȱ. “The Community of Israel and the Composition of the Scriptures.” Pages 327–42 in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon. Biblical Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Ȱ. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Ȱ. “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus.” Pages 85–108 in Congress Volume. Basel 2001. Edited by André Lemaire. SVT 92. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Ȱ. “A Qualitative Assessment of the Textual Profile of 4QSama.” Pages 147–61 in Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of

Rewritten Bible, Variant Literary Editions and Original Text(s)

91

Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Emile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJS 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Ȱ. “Deuteronomistically Inspired Scribal Insertions into the Developing Biblical Texts: 4QJudga and 4QJera.” Pages 489–506 in Houses Full of All Good Things. Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited by Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Ȱ. “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Judaism.” Pages 145–81 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by Maxine L. Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Van der Toorn, Karel. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. Van Seters, John. “Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible.” Studies in Religion 29 (2000): 395–409. Ȱ. The Edited Bible. The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. VanderKam, James C. “Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 1–30 in From Revelation to Canon. Studies in the Hebrew Bible & Second Temple Literature. JSJSup 62. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Ȱ. “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 91–109 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. Ȱ. “The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works.” Pages 41–56 in The Bible as Book. The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. The Bible as Book 4. London: British Library, 2002. Ȱ and Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2002. Vermes, Geza, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Haggadic Studies. Studia PostBiblica 4. Leiden: Brill, 1961. Ȱ. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Revised Edition. London: Penguin Books, 2004. Weis, Richard D. “The Textual Situation in the Book of Jeremiah.” Pages 269–93 in Sôfer Mahîr. Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by Yohanan A. P. Goldman, Arie Van der Kooij, and Richard D. Weis. SVT 110. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Williamson, Hugh G.M. “Do We Need a New Bible? Reflections on the Proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible.” Bib 90 (2009): 153–75. Yadin, Yigael, Megillat ham-miqdash. The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society – Institute of Archaelogy of the Hebrew University – Shrine of the Book, Hebrew 1977, revised English edition 1983.

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology* Molly M. Zahn Names are not just names; they are not simply convenient labels that we stick on the front of semantic shoeboxes to indicate the contents inside. On the one hand, names and categories are manifestations of our worldviews, reflecting conscious and subconscious aspects of language, culture, and circumstance. On the other hand, and perhaps less obviously, names and categories affect how we think; they actually influence the ways in which we understand the things denoted by those labels. Once an object or phenomenon is given a particular name or placed in a particular category, we approach that object or phenomenon with specific expectations in mind regarding what sort of thing it is.1 The intense debates in recent years regarding the proper terminology for various types of Second Temple Jewish texts highlight this connection between the names we give things and the ways we think about those things. The manuscripts discovered at Qumran include a wide variety of previously unknown texts with some sort of link to the collection that we now know as the Hebrew Bible. As a result of the publication and study of these texts, a new model for understanding *

1

I would like to thank the editors for their invitation to contribute to this volume. I am also especially grateful to Hanne von Weissenberg for her astute comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Hence, for example, the feminist critique of the use of exclusively male language to talk about God: despite insistence in the theological tradition that God transcends human understanding and human categories, constant and exclusive reference to God as male limits the imagination and reinforces the idea that God really is, in some way, male. See the seminal work of Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk (Boston: Beacon, 1983), 47–71. By happy coincidence, as I was revising this essay an article appeared in the New York Times Magazine on the influence of language upon the way we experience the world: Guy Deutscher, “Does Your Language Shape How You Think?,” New York Times Magazine, 29 August 2010. Cited 27 August 2010. Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29languaget.html?src=me&ref=homepage.

94

Molly M. Zahn

the production, transmission, and interpretation of authoritative literature in Second Temple Judaism is slowly emerging. Although the particulars of these processes are still debated, at the heart of this new model stand observations about the pluriformity of scriptural texts, the active role of successive scribes in shaping the texts they copied, and the lack of a fixed canon of scripture.2 While our views about the nature of “scripture” in the Second Temple period have changed, however, the labels we use to describe the textual phenomena of this period have been slow to catch up. Terms like “parabiblical,” “apocryphal,” “pseudo-X,” and even “Bible” and “biblical” imply an older model in which it was generally assumed that most of the canon of Hebrew Scripture, especially the Torah, was fixed prior to the late Second Temple period, and that the Masoretic Text (MT) for the most part constituted the earliest and most authoritative witness to this canon.3 As a new approach rooted in textual pluriformity and the lack of a fixed canon has developed, the inadequacy of these labels has been noted with increasing frequency. By the same token, the argument has begun to be made that use of these terms has in fact hindered full appreciation of what the Qumran materials are telling us. Just as a lifetime imagining God as male can make it difficult even for those who might wish to to use feminine imagery for God, the very use of outdated terms in the study of Second Temple Judaism works to perpetuate the assumption of the centrality of the MT and the hegemony of an MT-like canon, even as scholars attempt to articulate the fact that the reality appears to have been quite the opposite.4

2 3

4

For a good recent overview of these issues, see Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 1–15. On this older model and its breakdown, see especially Eugene C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Eugene Ulrich, “The Notion and Definition of Canon,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 21–35. John Barton’s somewhat older discussion of the evidence (or lack thereof) for the fixing of various parts of the Hebrew canon remains very useful; see John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). See Eugene Ulrich, “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Judaism,” in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (ed. M. L. Grossman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 145–61. (I am grateful to Prof. Ulrich for sharing a copy of his article with me prior to publication.) Robert Kraft makes a similar point by referring to the “tyranny of canonical assumptions,” which he defines as “the temptation to impose on those ancients whom we study our modern ideas about what constituted ‘scripture’ and how it was viewed.” See Robert A. Kraft, “Para-mania: Beside, Before and Beyond Bible Studies,” JBL 126 (2007): 5–27 (17).

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

95

Thus, the search for appropriate terminology to describe the textual phenomena of Second Temple Judaism plays a key role in the ongoing attempt to better understand this material. Yet little consensus has been reached regarding new labels and categories, and often critiques of older terms obscure or confuse important issues at the same time as they valuably clarify others. In particular, it seems that confusion often arises regarding the interaction between literary issues—that is, how a given text relates to an earlier text in compositional terms—and issues of authority—that is, what kind of authoritative status is claimed by or attributed to a given text. This essay will engage the continuing debates over terminology with special attention to this distinction between literary issues and questions of authority. The result, I hope, will be an additional step towards a way of talking about scripture and interpretation in the Second Temple period—and thus of thinking about these issues—that better reflects the data.

1. “Bible” vs. “Scripture” and the Issue of Authoritative Status In current debates about terminology and labels, one point on which there has been wide agreement is the unsuitability of the terms “Bible” or “biblical” with regard to any aspect of Second Temple Jewish literature.5 The words “Bible” and “biblical” imply the existence of some5

See especially James C. VanderKam, “The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 41–56 (52); also e.g. Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls, 19; Sidnie White Crawford, “The ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts,” ErIsr 26 (1999): 1–8 [Eng.] (1); Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 6; George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 31–40 (31); Bruno Chiesa, “Biblical and Parabiblical Texts from Qumran,” Henoch 20 (1998): 131–51 (132–33); Jonathan G. Campbell, “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Methodological Critique,” in New Directions in Qumran Studies (ed. J. G. Campbell, W. J. Lyons and L. K. Pietersen; LSTS 52; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 43–68 (49); Anders Klostergaard Petersen, “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon—Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A. Hilhorst, É. Puech and E. Tigchelaar; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 285–306 (286–87); Kraft, “Para-mania,” 10–18. Objection to this trend is voiced by Moshe J. Bernstein, “What Has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal Material in 4QReworked Pentateuch,” DSD 15 (2008): 24–49 (26). Bernstein acknowledges that the “spectrum of ‘biblical texts’” may have been

96

Molly M. Zahn

thing that could reasonably be called a Bible—a fixed collection including specific forms of certain texts regarded as sacred and authoritative—and there is simply no evidence that such a thing existed in the Second Temple period.6 Not only did the books that later ended up in the Hebrew Bible circulate in a variety of apparently equally authoritative forms, but numerous texts that did not ultimately make it into the Hebrew Bible seem to have claimed, and/or to have been regarded as possessing, at least the same level of authority and sanctity as those that did.7 Speaking of “Bible” or “biblical” for the Second Temple period gives the false impression that only the books of the Bible, and only the familiar (= MT) form of those books, were regarded as sacred.8 Numerous scholars, therefore, have proposed to replace “Bible” and “biblical” with the terms “scripture” and “scriptural.”9 This designation has the advantage of mirroring more closely the use in Second Temple texts of variations of the Hebrew root =).10 It also replaces a term that has a concrete, specific referent (“The Bible” = a specific col-

6

7

8 9 10

broader for some in the Second Temple period than for others, but argues that there must have been a point, even if different for different individuals, “beyond which texts were not acknowledged or claimed to be ‘biblical.’” I agree with Bernstein in principle that various individuals or groups must have recognized certain texts as sacred and authoritative and denied that status to other texts. I would argue, however, that, insofar as the texts considered sacred may not have corresponded to those texts that ended up in the Hebrew Bible, it would be clearer to talk about the same phenomenon in terms of scriptural vs. nonscriptural texts. (On this distinction, see further below.) Kraft makes the point that it is really not until the development of “mega-codices” in the fourth century CE that “the Bible” in our modern sense of the term—a collection of sacred texts contained between two covers—came into existence (“Para-mania,” 10). Although of course it is possible to conceive of a “canon” in the form of a fixed list of sacred books (or a fixed number of cubbyholes containing a fixed collection of scrolls), Kraft notes that “even if one has some sort of list, there is lots of room for loose edges,” and the texts of the period tend to mention categories like “law” and “prophets,” without delineating the precise contents of these categories (“Paramania,” 16). On textual pluriformity, see Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls, 17–33, 79–120, and most recently “Methodological Reflections,” 152. On the scriptural status of books other than those of the Hebrew Bible, see James C. VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 5 (1998): 382–402; Armin Lange, “The Status of the Biblical Texts in the Qumran Corpus and the Canonical Process,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 21–30 (23–24). See Ulrich, “Methodological Reflections,” 152. This suggestion is nearly universal among the scholars cited in n. 6 above. James C. VanderKam and Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 156.

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

97

lection of books)11 with one that is more open-ended. To be sure, in everyday usage “Scripture” or “the Scriptures” is generally used as a synonym for the Bible in the sense of a fixed collection.12 In the context of the academic study of religions, however, “scripture” or “scriptures” (and here the lower-case is probably important) can also refer more generally to any text or group of texts considered sacred and authoritative by a particular religious tradition.13 Thus, the “scripture” of any given subset of Second Temple Judaism properly includes all the texts considered sacred by that group, whether or not they later came to be part of “the Bible.”14 I fully support the use of “scripture/scriptural” instead of “Bible/biblical” in discussions of the sacred literature of the Second Temple period. We must, however, be completely cognizant of the considerable ramifications of this switch, especially when it comes to talking about the many texts from this period that relate in some way to what we know as biblical books. There are two major issues, one of which has to do with the difficulty of determining what was “scriptural” in the Second Temple period, and the other of which pertains to the interplay between literary issues and issues of authority that I mentioned above. The first issue, the difficulty of determining what was considered scriptural in Second Temple Judaism, is complicated by the religious and political diversity of the period and the paucity of our information about how texts were regarded by a given group. Most frequently, questions about what constituted scripture in this period or within the 11 12 13

14

This despite disagreements between various Christian denominations regarding which books in fact belong in “The Bible.” See e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary / s.v. “scripture”/ where the first five definitions given equate it with the Bible in one way or another. For consideration of scripture in a context broader than Judaism and Christianity, see William A. Graham, “Scripture,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. M. Eliade et al.; 16 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1987), 13:133–45; Wilfred Cantwell Smith, What is Scripture? A Comparative Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). For a similar definition, see also Petersen, “Rewritten Bible,” 287. Formulating the matter in this way raises the question of how precisely we determine whether a given book was regarded as “sacred” (and by whom), as well as the related question of whether some books, even perhaps books that later ended up in the Hebrew Bible, were perhaps regarded as authoritative or important but were not viewed as sacred. As indicated below, more reflection is needed on our ability to distinguish between various levels of authority or sacredness attributed to texts in the late Second Temple period. This is a problem that affects not just the study of early Judaism but the study of the role of scripture in the world’s religions more broadly; see William A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 4–5.

98

Molly M. Zahn

Qumran community have been answered by noting the number of copies of a particular book preserved at Qumran and the number of times that work is formally cited, alluded to, or otherwise reused.15 This gives us a basic idea of what the Qumranites considered particularly important, but leaves numerous questions unanswered. For instance, would the Qumranites have actually denied authoritative or scriptural status to texts that were not frequently quoted or not preserved in great numbers, or did they simply, like so many other Jews and Christians throughout history, have a “canon within a canon,” as Trebolle Barrera puts it; a subset of scriptural writings that they considered particularly significant?16 Should a distinction be made between “scriptural” and “authoritative” texts and, if so, how should this distinction be articulated?17 Does quotation of, allusion to, or rewriting of a particular text 15

16

17

See especially VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature,” and Lange, “Status of the Biblical Texts”; also Timothy H. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 303–22 (307–18). (I am grateful to Prof. Lim for sharing a copy of his article with me prior to publication.) Trebolle Barrera argues that, at Qumran, among the earliest Christians, and elsewhere in Second Temple Judaism, the Torah, Isaiah, the Twelve, and Psalms “enjoyed a special authority” and were transmitted, commented upon, and used in a different manner from the historical books, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. While he implies that this second group was somehow less authoritative than the first, Trebolle-Barrera seems to agree that the second group was also seen as scriptural; that is, as his title indicates, we are dealing with a “canon within a canon.” See Julio Trebolle Barrera, “A ‘Canon within a Canon’: Two Series of Old Testament Books Differently Transmitted, Interpreted and Authorized,” RevQ 19 (2000): 383–99. It is of course unclear whether “canon,” with its implications of fixed boundaries, is an appropriate term for what appears to have been an open or fluid collection of scriptural works in the Second Temple period; Eugene Ulrich has argued forcefully that “talk of an open canon is confusing and counterproductive” (“Notion and Definition of Canon,” 34). For a different view, see Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures,” 303–5. Most obviously, “scriptural” texts could be defined as those considered sacred, while “authoritative” texts would be of normative importance within a given community, yet not considered sacred. Even so defined, however, the two categories are difficult to separate. One option would be to argue that, to be regarded as scripture in the Second Temple period, a text must have been viewed as originating in Israel’s ancient past; see Barton, Oracles of God, 59–62. This approach is followed by Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 66. Yet the neatness of this division is complicated by the possibility that some purportedly “ancient” works (like Qoheleth or Ruth) were not accepted as scriptural by all Jewish groups (see e.g. the argument of Lange, “Status of the Biblical Texts,” 24, that those two works were among those not considered authoritative by the Qumranites). Furthermore, how should works such as the pesharim be viewed, which as the products of divinely-inspired exegesis may have had a similar claim to authority as scriptural works in a community which viewed revelation as ongoing? See Lim, “Authoritative Literature,” 306.

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

99

automatically mark that text as scriptural, or could other texts, viewed as important or authoritative but perhaps not as scripture, be subject to the same procedures?18 Finally, we must always remember to ask “authoritative/scriptural” for whom?19 Although certain texts or traditions may have been of secondary importance for the Qumran community, they may have been more significant for other Second Temple groups.20 Insofar as the Qumran caves preserve compositions that appear to have been brought to Qumran from elsewhere, we may find in them traces of different views regarding which texts were especially sacred/authoritative.21 All of these questions deserve much more attention than I can give them here. My purpose in raising them is primarily to stress the difficulty in determining just what was considered authoritative for a given Second Temple group, and in delineating possible distinctions between “scriptural” and merely “authoritative” texts. The difficulty of deciding what exactly was “scripture” should warn us of possible danger when we seek to replace “Bible/biblical” with “scripture/scriptural,” and even more so with regard to possible replacements for derivative terms like “Rewritten Bible” and “parabiblical.” The danger lies in the fact that, while scholars have often simply substituted “scriptural” for “biblical” and continued to go on talking about the 24 books that in fact ended up in the Hebrew Bible (plus a very few others), “Bible” and “scripture” do not actually refer to the same thing. What is more, they do not even refer to the same type of thing. This is the second issue mentioned above, the one pertaining to the distinction between literary issues and issues of authority. The Bi18

19 20

21

As Brooke notes, the fact that a text was revised, expanded, supplemented, or otherwise rewritten is a testimony to the importance of that text for the rewriter: if a text was not important, why bother to interpret, rewrite, or elaborate upon it? See George Brooke, “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (ed. E. Chazon et al.; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 85–104 (98). Yet the exact nature of this importance is unclear. Do we know, for instance, that the authors of Chronicles viewed their source text, the Deuteronomistic History, as scriptural, as opposed to merely authoritative or even simply a significant source for the history they wished to rewrite? (I thank Hanne von Weissenberg for this point.) As Lim reminds us; “Authoritative Literature,” 307. Note for example Brooke’s observation that the apparent lack of interest in the books of Chronicles at Qumran points to a deliberate choice on the part of the community, in response to the promotion of Chronicles by the Hasmoneans: George J. Brooke, “The Books of Chronicles and the Scrolls from Qumran,” in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (ed. R. Rezetko, T. H. Lim, and W. B. Aucker; VTSup 113; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 35–48. As Lim, quoting van der Woude, notes, texts in one’s library do not necessarily reflect the owner’s own beliefs; “Authoritative Scripture,” 306.

100

Molly M. Zahn

ble, despite some persistent fuzziness around the edges is first and foremost a collection of specific literary works: Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, etc. Thus, when we speak of biblical texts at Qumran, the generally accepted meaning is manuscript copies of books that now appear in the Hebrew Bible.22 On the other hand, calling a text “scripture” (as long as “scripture” is not being used as a synonym for the Bible but in the broader sense outlined above) says nothing about that text’s literary identity or membership in any specific corpus. The books of the Bible are scripture, but so are the Qur’an and the Lotus Sutra. What calling something scripture does say is that that text is or was (as best we can determine) regarded as sacred by some group of people at some point in time. In other words, referring to something as biblical implies a literary correspondence to some text included in the Bible, while referring to something as scriptural implies that it is or was once seen as sacred and authoritative, but says nothing about its literary character or contents.23 Full appreciation of this distinction is critical to a proper understanding of the numerous texts from Qumran that show some connection to the texts of the Hebrew Bible. It seems clear that all of those texts, whether they are labeled “Rewritten Bible/Scripture,” a “parabiblical” text, an “apocryphon,” a “pseudo-X” text, or even a copy of a given biblical book, are classified in this way because of literary judgments made by early editors or subsequent scholars. Various textual features, such as the appearance of certain characters that also appear in a biblical book, the inclusion of certain content that parallels a biblical book, or similarity to the style and vocabulary of a certain biblical book, led (naturally enough) to the hypothesis of some sort of relationship between a given biblical book and the previously unknown work in question. The nature of that relationship, of course, can be variously construed: does the Qumran text represent a reworking of the biblical book, constitute a source for the biblical book, or simply play off a character or episode in a biblical book but go in a different direction? But all of these questions involve investigation of the literary relationship 22

23

This usage has certainly been influenced heavily by the editorial principles of the DJD series, in which only compositions included in the Hebrew Bible are classified as “biblical.” This means that even books that do appear in some Bibles, such as Tobit and Ben Sira, are classified as “extrabiblical.” See further Ulrich, “Methodological Reflections,” 154. Of course, calling something biblical also tends to imply the scriptural status of that text, insofar as the texts in the Bible ultimately ended up there because the communities of Jews and Christians who established the biblical canons decided they belonged on finite lists of those communities’ sacred texts.

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

101

between two texts. In other words, the reason we are spending so much time talking about “parabiblical texts,” “Rewritten Bible,” and the like is that a great number of texts from Qumran appear to have some sort of literary relationship to one or more of the books that ended up in the Hebrew Bible. Because the classification and description of these texts is rooted in literary analysis, issues of sanctity and authority that inhere in the label “scripture” are not, in the first instance, even relevant. Although the fact that a work was rewritten, expanded, or elaborated upon probably indicates that the author and/or the author’s community believed that work to possess some sort of particular importance,24 these various processes of textual extension say nothing about the status of the new text thereby produced. It has often been assumed—sometimes explicitly and more often, I think, tacitly—that rewritten or parabiblical texts did not have the status of scripture, as if the very fact of being derived from a biblical book precluded a work from being seen as sacred or authoritative.25 Yet there is a great deal of evidence that works belonging to these categories not only claimed but were in fact granted scriptural status. Two works that many would classify as “Rewritten Scripture,” Deuteronomy and Chronicles, themselves became part of the traditional Hebrew canon.26 Jubilees and 1 Enoch seem to have been regarded as scriptural at Qumran, and both were included in the Ethiopic canon.27 The Temple Scroll’s self-presentation as direct divine revelation to Moses on Sinai certainly constitutes a bid for scriptural sta-

24 25

26

27

See above, n. 19. For explicit recognition of the assumption involved, see the following statement by Emanuel Tov regarding reworked compositions, including 4QReworked Pentateuch, the Temple Scroll, and 4Q252: “These documents were not considered to reflect an authoritative text, although this assumption cannot really be proven. The rewritten biblical texts should be regarded, in a way, as literary exercises”; Tov, “Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special Attention to 4QRP and 4QParaGen-Exod,” in The Community of the Renewed Covenant (ed. E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 111–34 (114). Of course this does not mean that Deuteronomy and Chronicles would have been regarded in the same way by any given group in the Second Temple period. At Qumran, for instance, Deuteronomy seems to have been extremely popular, while Chronicles appears to have been avoided (see n. 21 above). For Deuteronomy and Chronicles as Rewritten Scripture, see e.g. C. T. R. Hayward, “Rewritten Bible,” in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden; London: SCM, 1990), 595–98, (596); George J. Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 777–81 (778). VanderKam, “Authoritative Literature,” 396–400.

102

Molly M. Zahn

tus, though it is difficult to know how widely its claim was accepted.28 On the other hand, we have no evidence for the authoritative or scriptural status of rewritten texts like the Genesis Apocryphon. It follows that the question of a given work’s literary connection with a book of the Bible must be asked, and answered, independently of questions about that work’s authoritative status or lack thereof.29 Texts with connections to biblical books may or may not have themselves been regarded as scriptural.30 This I hope clarifies why I am concerned that the full implications of a switch from “Bible/biblical” to “scripture/scriptural” be recognized. Asking whether a text is “biblical” (or asking about a text’s relationship to a book of the Bible) is a very different question from asking whether a text is “scriptural”: the former addresses a fundamentally literary issue; the latter an issue of status, either intended or received. As a result, when it comes to talking about works related to biblical texts, we cannot simply substitute “scriptural” for “biblical” without further reflection on the changes in meaning that might result. We furthermore cannot assume that, just because a work is deemed “nonbiblical,” it is also “nonscriptural” in the sense that it was not regarded as sacred and authoritative. This conclusion bears on recent discussions of the relative merits of several other terms, to which I now turn. 28

29

30

On this issue, with literature, see my essay “New Voices, Ancient Words: The Temple Scroll’s Reuse of the Bible,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. J. Day; LHB/OTS 422; London: T & T Clark, 2005), 435–58 (436–41). It is my sense that this issue has not been given sufficient attention, though the point has been made by both Bernstein (“Whether the later work might also have some significant (‘biblical,’ ‘canonical’) status does not at all affect its classification as ‘rewritten Bible’”) and Brooke (“But it is also important to remember that to identify a text as modeled on another has little to do with a clear assertion of whether or not it was deemed to be authoritative…”); see Moshe J. Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?,” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96 (172 n. 3); George J. Brooke, “From Bible to Midrash: Approaches to Biblical Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls by Modern Interpreters,” in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006 (ed. A. Klostergaard Petersen et al.; STDJ 80; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 1–19 (6). It remains to be determined whether and to what extent interaction with earlier scriptural texts actually functioned to authorize these compositions, as has been suggested in different ways by Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 14–17; Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 16, 46; and Bernard M. Levinson and Molly M. Zahn, “Revelation Regained: The Hermeneutics of ') and - in the Temple Scroll,” DSD 9 (2002): 295–346 (308). In any case, it seems clear that the literary fact of having been derived from or based on an earlier authoritative text did not disqualify a text from itself being seen as authoritative: if anything, the opposite was the case!

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

103

2. Parabiblical/Parascriptural The term “parabiblical” has become especially prominent in discussions of Second Temple literature, likely because of its use as one of several broad categories used to classify Qumran manuscripts in the DJD series. As Tov remarks in the Foreword to DJD 13, “[t]he volumes of the parabiblical texts contain various compositions which have in common that they are closely related to texts or themes of the Hebrew Bible.”31 Tov further notes that the texts designated “parabiblical” vary in their degree of closeness to the biblical text. Indeed, “parabiblical” has tended to serve as a sort of catch-all term for texts related more or less loosely to one or more books that now are part of the Hebrew Bible—texts that may then have been more narrowly designated as “Rewritten Bible,” “apocryphon of” or “pseudo”-X, etc. Of course the difficulty with the term “parabiblical” is the same as that facing the terms “Bible” and “biblical”: if there was no Bible, no fixed canon, in the Second Temple period, how can we then label something “parabiblical”?32 The term implies that texts to which it is applied existed “beside” or “beyond” biblical literature, but (so the argument goes) there was no such thing as biblical literature at the time these texts were produced.33 Jonathan Campbell and Robert Kraft have both, therefore, suggested the term “parascriptural” in place of “parabiblical.”34 While Kraft seems to suggest that “parascriptural” functions basically as a synonym of “parabiblical” while avoiding the problem of anachronism, Campbell makes the point that “parascriptural” is not an appropriate designation for every text currently classified as “parabiblical.” The issue is that, in order to classify something as “para-” X, we must decide that the thing in question is not itself X.35 That is, if “para31 32

33 34

35

Emanuel Tov, Introduction to Qumran Cave 4.VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), ix. This objection to “parabiblical” is voiced most strongly by Chiesa, “Biblical and Parabiblical Texts,” 132–33; Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 51; Kraft, “Para-mania,” 10–18. For a playful but substantive discussion of the various meanings implied by the prefix para-, see Kraft, “Para-mania,” 8–9. Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 51, 66; Kraft, “Para-Mania,” 9, 27. “Parascriptural” is also employed by Daniel K. Falk; for his rationale, see Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 17. Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 51: “[the term] ‘Parascriptural Texts’ withholds scriptural status from the compositions concerned as much as ‘Parabiblical Texts’ withholds canonical status.”

104

Molly M. Zahn

biblical” compositions are given that label because they are not themselves biblical but are judged to have some connection to a biblical book, then “parascriptural” texts would be those that have something to do with scripture or a given scriptural text, but are not themselves scriptural. Since a certain level of authority is inherent in the term “scripture,” the shift from “parabiblical” to “parascriptural” introduces the issue of status into what had previously been essentially a literary judgment. As I argued above, it seems clear that the primary factors that lead to categorization of a text as “parabiblical” are literary factors; a text is called “parabiblical” because it is seen as relating in some way to the content, themes, or characters of a given biblical book. In an older model in which it was assumed that the canon was essentially fixed in the Second Temple period, it would have been assumed that no nonbiblical text would have been viewed as scripture. Thus, the literary judgment would almost automatically have involved a judgment about status as well. In the current situation, though, in which the scriptural status of at least some nonbiblical books is widely acknowledged, calling something (e.g. Jubilees) “parabiblical” does not automatically preclude the recognition that that work might have been considered scriptural in the Second Temple period (as was likely the case for Jubilees). On the other hand, if we label a work “parascriptural,” we are making an a priori judgment that that work was not considered scriptural. Yet, as Campbell notes, numerous “parabiblical” texts (such as Jubilees) were clearly considered scriptural in the Second Temple period.36 In the end, we cannot simply replace “parabiblical” with “parascriptural” without substantially redefining the contents of the category. Though “parabiblical” has been used to describe texts with some (literary) relation to one or more texts that ended up in the Hebrew Bible, “parascriptural” most properly designate works having something to do with sacred and authoritative texts, but which were not themselves regarded as sacred.37 Furthermore, the term would not necessarily imply anything about a text’s literary relationship to “scriptural” texts, but only that this particular composition did not have that scriptural status.38 Thus, if we are looking for terms to describe texts 36 37

38

“Rewritten Bible,” 52–53. Campbell in fact suggests the term “parascriptural” for a group of Second Temple works that he judges likely to have been authoritative but not scriptural, including Ben Sira, 1–4 Maccabees, and Qumran sectarian literature (“Rewritten Bible,” 66). I suppose it might be possible to use “parascriptural” to designate works that have a literary relationship to some scriptural book but were not themselves considered scriptural—but to me this seems only to confuse the issue further by requiring

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

105

that rework, revise, or re-edit earlier scriptural texts, “parascriptural” does not seem suitable. On the other hand, “parabiblical,” though it does involve an anachronism and should be avoided for that reason, in fact makes some sense as a descriptor of a literary relationship between two texts—one that has come to be in our Bibles and one that has not. In the conclusion, I will build on this literary aspect to suggest a possible productive use, not of “parabiblical” itself, but of the “para-” prefix more generally.

3. Apocryphon While “the Apocrypha” (plural) refers to a specific list of books considered part of the canon by some Christian churches but not included in the Tanakh and Protestant Old Testaments, the label “apocryphon of X” has frequently been employed to designate various previously unknown compositions found at Qumran that exhibit some kind of relationship to a text or character known to us from the Hebrew Bible.39 We thus have compositions known as the Genesis Apocryphon, Apocryphon of Moses, Apocryphon of Joshua, Apocryphon of Jeremiah, Pentateuch Apocryphon, Apocryphon of Samuel–Kings, Apocryphon of Lamentations, and so on. Nothing more seems to be meant by the term “apocryphon” than a designation of the non-biblical character of the work and some sort of relationship to a biblical text.40 But as Bernstein and Campbell have pointed out, the very term “apocryphon of” requires a fixed canon; as Bernstein puts it, “[t]he term ‘apocryphal’ should, prima facie, denote a relationship to a body of material which is canonical or non-apocryphal from the standpoint of the author or audience, but this is not always the case.”41 If there was no such fixed

39

40

41

judgment both about the literary nature of a text and about its scriptural status or lack thereof. For discussion of the terminological issues here, see Moshe J. Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. E. G. Chazon and M. E. Stone; STDJ 31; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1–26 (1–3); Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 53–55. Sometimes these labels, especially those given to texts published early on, seem to defy logic. For example, 1Q25 and 2Q23 are called “1QApocryphal Prophecy” and “2QApocryphal Prophecy,” respectively. One wonders why they were not simply called “1Q/2QProphecy,” for if these texts matched any prophecies found in biblical books, they surely would have been categorized as biblical texts. Even more curiously, 4Q488, which contains just one legible word, is labeled 4Qpap Apocryphon ar. Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy,” 3.

106

Molly M. Zahn

canon, no “non-apocryphal” material, in the late Second Temple period—and it is precisely this idea of a fixed canon that we are working so hard to avoid—then it makes no sense to speak of texts from this period as apocryphal. At the very least, the historically pejorative usage of the terms Apocrypha and apocryphal strongly implies that, if X represents a recognized scriptural work, an “Apocryphon of X” lacks this scriptural status.42 Again a label that seems primarily intended to capture a literary or conceptual relationship carries along with it inappropriate baggage pertaining to questions of authority and status, implying not only that “Apocryphon of X” is related to scriptural text X in some way, but also that it could not have had X’s scriptural status.43 As Bernstein and Campbell note, this term is best not applied to Second Temple compositions.

4. Pseudepigrapha, Pseudepigraphy, Pseudo-X “Pseudepigraphy,” on the face of it, has a straightforward definition: it is the practice of composing a text and then attributing that text to someone else; in the Second Temple context this was usually a heroic figure of the ancient past.44 The Pseudepigrapha, on the other hand, is the label given to an amorphous body of (actually or purportedly) Jewish texts, (mostly) dating from the Second Temple period, preserved in Greek or translations from the Greek, and not included in the main Jewish or Christian canons of Scripture.45 Although the term pseudepigrapha most naturally designates works attributed to people other than their real author—that is, actual pseudepigraphs—it is often used in a looser sense, and numerous compositions that are not actually pseudepigraphic in the technical sense of the term are often included among “The Pseudepigrapha.”46 VanderKam and Flint have attempted

42

43 44 45

46

As Campbell notes (“Rewritten Bible,” 53–54), the Church Father Jerome deliberately used the label “Apocrypha” for the specific group of works absent from the Hebrew Bible but part of the Christian Old Testament, in the hopes that they would be declared non-canonical as a result. See Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 55. See Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy,” 1. For an attempt at a clear definition of the term and the corpus designated by it, see Michael E. Stone, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha,” DSD 3 (1996): 270–95 (270–71). See Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy,” 2; Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 55–56. Stone notes that, in contrast to the Apocrypha, there is no fixed list of texts belonging to the

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

107

to redeploy the term Pseudepigrapha to apply to works that are properly pseudepigraphs in the sense of being falsely attributed, and they include many previously unknown pseudepigraphic Qumran texts under the label “New Pseudepigrapha.”47 If this redeployment could be so complete that the traditional meaning was totally obscured, “pseudepigrapha” would be a helpful classificatory term. In common usage, however, works are classified as part of the “Pseudepigrapha,” just as was the case with the “Apocrypha,” because they did not end up in later scriptural canons; that is, their non-biblical nature, not their literary nature as pseudepigraphs, is what makes them part of the Pseudepigrapha.48 We are back to our familiar problem: many works that are pseudepigraphic in form, such as Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Daniel, and Deuteronomy, were clearly regarded as scriptural in the late Second Temple period (and did enter later Jewish and/or Christian canons). As long as “Pseudepigrapha” continues to be used to refer to a loose collection of noncanonical literature, it seems counterproductive to try to redefine it as referring strictly to true pseudepigraphs. On the other hand, perhaps removing the initial capital letter and anglicizing the plural form is all that is necessary to recover this term: pseudepigraphs are works attributed to someone other than their actual author, and are not necessarily to be connected with the collection known as The Pseudepigrapha. The term “pseudepigraphy” itself is somewhat less problematic as long as it is regarded strictly as a compositional technique that manifests itself in the content, style, and literary voice of a work.49 Although pseudepigraphic attribution is generally regarded as a claim to authority, once again it is best to keep issues of status separate from literary issues. A text can be a pseudepigraph whether it was claiming authority or not and whether that claim was accepted or not.50

47 48 49 50

Pseudepigrapha, such that the various modern collections of the Pseudepigrapha vary somewhat in their content (“Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha,” 271). VanderKam and Flint, Meaning of the DSS, 203. Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy,” 1–3. For the various types of pseudepigraphy attested at Qumran, see Bernstein, “Pseudepigraphy,” 25–26. Bernstein distinguishes “convenient” pseudepigraphy, which involves placing new material into the mouth of a specific character in an otherwise anonymous work and is not primarily intended as an authorizing device, from “strong” or “authoritative” pseudepigraphy, in which an entire work is cast as the speech of an ancient figure in an attempt to provide authority for the work in question (“Pseudepigraphy,” 6, 25). Furthermore, Hindy Najman has demonstrated that, while authorization may be one important function of pseudepigraphy, it is not the only one. In a recent essay, Najman shows how the pseudonymous attribution of 4 Ezra functions more as a “spiritual discipline” than an authorization strategy, a means by which the “real” author

108

Molly M. Zahn

If a clear and functional usage for “pseudepigraphy”/“pseudepigraphic” can easily be imagined, the same cannot be said for the common practice of naming Qumran texts “Pseudo-X” (e.g. PseudoJubilees, Pseudo-Ezekiel, Pseudo-Daniel). Once again, the reason for such labels seems to be a desire to indicate that the Qumran text is related in theme, content, or style to the book for which it is named, but does not seem to represent a copy or edition of that book.51 As Campbell points out, however, this label, like “Apocryphon of X,” tends to imply that the base text is somehow “true” and authoritative, and that the Qumran text related to it is somehow “false,” secondary, and lacking in authority—again denying the possibility that any text labeled “Pseudo-X” might itself have had scriptural status.52 On the other hand, even if we were to take the “Pseudo-” prefix simply to refer to a text that employs pseudepigraphy (as opposed to designating a relationship with an earlier text), we overlook the fact that, from a modern scholarly perspective, most of the biblical books of, e.g., Jeremiah and Ezekiel should also be considered “Pseudo-Jeremiah” and “Pseudo-Ezekiel.” Insofar as they did not derive from the person to whom they are attributed, they are every bit as pseudepigraphic as the newly-discovered Qumran texts.53 While we might use the term “pseudepigraphs” as a general descriptor of all of these texts (“biblical” books and Qumran materials alike), the many difficulties surrounding the prefix “pseudoX” make it unhelpful as a labeling mechanism for Second Temple texts.

51

52 53

of 4 Ezra overcomes the distance between past and present by emulating (that is, metaphorically merging his identity with) an exemplary figure of the past. See Hindy Najman, “How Should We Contextualize Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emulation in 4 Ezra,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. A. Hilhorst, É. Puech, and E. Tigchelaar; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 529–36. Bernstein notes that terms related to “apocryphon” and those using some form of “pseudo-”/“pseudepigraphic” have generally functioned equivalently in the labeling of Qumran texts (“Pseudepigraphy,” 2; see also Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 58), though he also mentions a qualitative distinction in the application of the two terms by Mark Smith in “4Q384, 4QpapApocryphon of Jeremiah B?” in Qumran Cave 4.XIV, Parabiblical Texts, Part 2 (ed. M. Broshi et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam; DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 137–52. (“Pseudepigraphy,” 23). Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 58. I believe this is what Campbell is getting at when he says: “Used so widely, the prefix [pseudo-] would lose its significance, for we would find ourselves speaking inter alia of Pseudo-Baruch, Pseudo-Isaiah, and Pseudo-1 Esdras, not to mention Pseudo-Pseudo-Jubilees” (“Rewritten Bible,” 58). Technically according to this model Jubilees should be called “Pseudo-Moses” or, better, “Pseudo-Angel of the Presence,” and the attempt to “pseudo” that “pseudo-text” simply highlights the unhelpfulness of this term.

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

109

5. Rewritten Bible/Rewritten Scripture The term “Rewritten Bible” is usually traced back to Geza Vermes in his 1961 work Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, where he uses it to describe the insertion of “haggadic development into the biblical narrative.”54 Since then, it has come to denote either works like Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and Josephus’s Antiquities, which follow the biblical text closely at some points but alter it through expansions, omissions, rearrangements, and other types of changes; or the editorial procedure by which such works were produced. Especially in the past decade, scholars have debated the proper application of the term and, indeed, whether it should be used at all to describe Second Temple Jewish texts.55 This debate is ongoing, and here I will have to restrict myself to questions pertaining strictly to the term per se, both component parts of which (“Rewritten” and “Bible”) have been subject to criticism. The most widely voiced terminological objection is to the “Bible” part of “Rewritten Bible,” mirroring the dissatisfaction with the term “Bible” in any context involving Second Temple texts. Since there was no “Bible” to be rewritten, the argument goes, it makes no sense to describe something as “Rewritten Bible.”56 Thus, most recent scholarship on the subject speaks of “Rewritten Scripture” instead. This substitution is helpful as long as a few caveats are kept in mind. First, in the customary understanding of “Rewritten Scripture,” “Scripture” (as well as “Bible” in the earlier formulation) refers to the thing that is being rewritten—the base text or Vorlage for the rewriting. Compositions labeled “Rewritten Bible” must be reworkings of a text that later came to be part of the Hebrew Bible. If “scripture” is defined as I suggested above—as any work considered sacred and authoritative to a particular group—then “Rewritten Scripture” would designate compositions that rewrite any text considered “scripture”—not just those texts that later made their way into the Bible. In the context of study of Second Temple Judaism, a reworked version of Genesis or Exodus could be labeled “Rewritten Scripture,” but so too could a reworked version of 1 Enoch or Jubilees, works that were equally consi-

54 55

56

Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (2nd ed.; StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 95. For a new overview, see my article “Rewritten Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 323–36. This view is expressed in many of the works cited in n. 6 above; see especially Petersen, “Rewritten Bible,” 286–88.

110

Molly M. Zahn

dered “scriptural” at the time.57 Thus, “Rewritten Scripture” is not synonymous with “Rewritten Bible,” but (at least potentially) could describe a wider range of texts. Here I should also reiterate a point made earlier, that the classification of a text as “Rewritten Scripture” is a literary judgment based on observation of parallels in content between two texts, and neither requires nor prevents the conclusion that the new text that results from the rewriting was itself considered “scripture” in the Second Temple period.58 While numerous scholars agree that “Rewritten Scripture” is a more accurate term than “Rewritten Bible,” others have argued that the “Rewritten” part of “Rewritten Bible/Scripture” is also problematic. The objections raised by these scholars point to serious methodological questions: what does it mean when we label something “Rewritten,” and whose perspective is embodied in that term? The challenge lies in the argument that “Rewritten” was not a category that would have made sense to the ancient audiences of texts to which we give this label. That is, as Jonathan Campbell argues, ancient audiences would not have perceived e.g. Jubilees as “rewritten” at all; they would have seen it as parallel to but independent from Genesis.59 As a result, he argues, the term “Rewritten Scripture” should be abandoned. Anders Klostergaard Petersen disagrees with the move to scuttle “Rewritten Scripture” altogether, but in a manner similar to Campbell he proposes that the intertextual relationships that lead modern scholars to classify a work as “Rewritten Scripture” would not have been the concern of the 57

58

59

We should not let the fact confuse us that works that constitute “Rewritten Scripture” could themselves (insofar as they came to be viewed as scriptural) be subject to rewriting from which new works of “Rewritten Scripture” were produced. For example, many would regard the book of Deuteronomy as “Rewritten Scripture,” since its legal code at many points constitutes a rewriting of the Covenant Code of Exodus 21–23. Yet Deuteronomy itself (obviously having attained scriptural status) was subject to rewriting by the author of the Temple Scroll, who created a new “Rewritten Scripture” composition through his reworking of Deuteronomy and other books of the Torah. On Deuteronomy’s reworking of the Covenant Code, see especially Levinson, Deuteronomy. The problems with distinguishing “scripture” from other texts that might have been viewed as authoritative but not sacred (see above, pp. 5–6) raise another issue that requires attention. The rewriting of a work implies that that work was in some way significant within the rewriters’ community (see n. 19 above), but does not prove that that work was actually considered scripture. If in the future we develop a clear way of distinguishing between scriptural and authoritative-but-not-scriptural works, and we have evidence that texts in the latter group were rewritten with the same methods and purposes as scriptural texts, then the suitability of the term “Rewritten Scripture” may have to be revisited. “Rewritten Bible,” 49.

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

111

ancient consumers or producers of these texts.60 Using terminology drawn from anthropology, Petersen suggests that “Rewritten Scripture” is a category that can function on an etic level but not an emic one—that is, one that is applied to a given culture by outside observers, but does not derive from the culture itself.61 Petersen and Campbell properly challenge us to articulate more clearly the level at which our terminology has explanatory power—do we expect that the categories we use would have been meaningful in the Second Temple period, and how is their usefulness altered if we do not? I am not convinced, however, that they are right to so readily deny that intertextual connections could have been meaningful to Second Temple authors and/or audiences. Campbell suggests that a pseudepigraphic work like Jubilees constituted “a ‘rewritten’ entity only for the anonymous elite that produced it.”62 True enough, but if the reworking of Genesis and Exodus was undertaken deliberately by the author(s) of Jubilees—that is, if the author(s) purposefully chose to create a text purportedly revealed to Moses on Sinai by reworking an existing text as opposed to simply composing a new revelation freely—then “rewriting” seems to have been a meaningful textual strategy. The resulting “rewritten” text may equally have constituted a meaningful textual category.63 Who precisely would have been sensitive to the “rewritten” nature of a text—that is, whether anyone besides a text’s authors would have noticed its relationship to known scriptural texts—is a different matter.64 A more serious challenge to viewing “rewritten” texts as a distinct textual category is implicit in the work of David Carr. Carr demonstrates the extent to which rewriting—revision and reconfiguration of earlier texts—was simply a normal mode of literary production in the 60

61 62 63

64

“The ancient author(s) or editor(s) did not conceive of their works in terms of our particular analytical focus on how their textual creations intertextually relate to scriptural writings proper” (Petersen, “Rewritten Bible,” 303). Petersen, “Rewritten Bible,” 305. “Rewritten Bible,” 49. Similarly, Brooke’s argument that a definition of the category “rewritten Bible” must take into account the ways in which rewritten texts “seem to both confer and receive authority” from the texts they rewrite presumes that the connection between the new and old texts would have been meaningful in the Second Temple period, and not just to modern scholars; see George J. Brooke, “Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible and Pesher,” DSD 17 (2010): 361–86 (372). Petersen correctly notes this issue, even as he seems to go even farther than Campbell in asserting that intertextual relations to scriptural texts were not important for the audiences or for the authors of what we would call “rewritten” texts (“Rewritten Bible,” 289, 303).

112

Molly M. Zahn

ancient Mediterranean world.65 If this is so, and most Second Temple Jewish texts were to a greater or lesser extent “rewritten,” it may not make sense to isolate a particular subset of these texts and give them the label “Rewritten Scripture.” While Carr makes a valuable point in highlighting the pervasiveness in the ancient world of literary reuse of earlier materials, it seems to me that real differences exist in the extent, nature, and purpose of literary reuse in various Second Temple compositions, and that it is necessary to take these differences seriously. The sustained rewriting found in Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, and Josephus’s Antiquities seems to function differently than the more limited reuse of scriptural themes and storylines in works like 1 Enoch and Ben Sira.66 Much more work is necessary to chart with more precision the various forms of literary reuse found in Second Temple Jewish texts, and it must be recognized that the modes of reuse evidenced in any one text type will resemble to varying degrees the modes of reuse in other related yet distinct text types. As long as these caveats are kept in mind, however, I believe that “Rewritten Scripture” can reasonably be used as a label for works or sections of works that show sustained close engagement with an earlier scriptural text.67

6. Concluding Reflections The preceding remarks on “Rewritten Scripture” indicate that, to a certain extent, we are caught between a rock and a hard place: to understand the literature and culture of Second Temple Judaism as fully

65 66

67

David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), especially p. 34–46, 228–38 The function and purpose of rewriting and of rewritten works is key to deciding if and how “Rewritten Scripture” should be considered a genre. In a forthcoming article I argue that at least some of the works frequently given the label “Rewritten Scripture” share enough strategies and goals that they may constitute a genre, so long as genre is understood, as in contemporary genre theory, as a flexible and dynamic system of classification. See, preliminarily, Molly M. Zahn, “The Question of Genre in Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment” (paper presented at the 7th meeting of the IOQS, Helsinki 2010). Note that this delineation of Rewritten Scripture agrees in large measure with Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible,” 195. I would perhaps differ from Bernstein in allowing for blurrier edges of the genre; for example, I would be more inclined than Bernstein to regard works such as the Targumim as Rewritten Scripture in some sense. As my forthcoming article (see previous note) will demonstrate, a more flexible notion of genre may help us to describe more precisely how “borderline” phenomena like paraphrastic translations relate to core representatives of the genre.

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

113

as possible, we must try to avoid projecting our own conceptions and categories onto the data, but we do not know—and can only reconstruct through analysis of this incomplete data—which conceptions and categories were operative at the time this literature was produced. That is, we need to develop categories and labels that reflect our best understanding of the data (since that is all we can do), while at the same time leaving our terminology open to correction from improving understanding of the data itself.68 This dialectical process can be seen already in the move towards the term “scripture” in place of “Bible.” The current dissatisfaction with much of the terminology used to speak about Second Temple texts constitutes another step in the process, reflecting the fact that our understanding of the data has improved to the point where terminology that has become traditional is no longer regarded as sufficient. I would like to close, now that I have highlighted some of the difficulties with many of these traditional terms, by offering some suggestions of my own as to how to proceed. These suggestions are rooted in my sense, outlined above, that the key thing that scholars have been trying to highlight with terms like “Rewritten Scripture,” “Apocryphon of X,” “Pseudo-X,” and so on is a literary relationship—one of content, theme, or style—between a newly-discovered work and a known work (usually one known from the Hebrew Bible). First, although problems emerge regarding the general terms “parabiblical” and “parascriptural,” it seems it would still be useful to build on the idea of “para-” texts by grouping lesser-known or fragmentary texts with better-known texts to which they show a clear relationship. Thus we could use labels like “para-Deuteronomy” or “para-Daniel” for texts showing specific connections to those books. As Kraft points out, the “para-” prefix can admit a variety of different textual relationships: it could be used to denote a source or earlier form of a work, a further development of that work, or a parallel development of shared themes or content.69 Using a term like “para-Deuteronomy” would do no more than indicate that a given text, about which we may or may not be able to say much else, has something to do with what we know as the book of Deuteronomy. This is not a matter of giving a higher status to the book of Deuteronomy (much less any specific form thereof!); it is simply a way of classifying what is unfamiliar or fragmenta-

68 69

Similarly, see Ulrich, “Methodological Reflections,” 161. See Kraft’s summary definition of “para-” as “analogous or parallel to, but separate from or going beyond, what is denoted by the root word” (“Para-Mania,” 8), and his discussion of “Paratextual Worlds” on pp. 18–22.

114

Molly M. Zahn

ry in light of what is more fully known. “Para-X” (e.g. “paraDeuteronomy”) could be used either as a name for a specific composition that is too fragmentary to be given any other name, or it could be used in the phrase “para-X literature” (e.g. “para-Deuteronomy literature”) to refer to a larger category of compositions with links to the book in question.70 Thus for example the Prayer of Nabonidus (4Q242) as well as other texts such as those currently labeled 4QapocrDan ar (4Q246) and Pseudo-Daniel (4QpsDana–c = 4Q243–245) could all be grouped together as “para-Daniel literature.” Given the problems with both “parabiblical” and “parascriptural” discussed above, it is probably best to avoid any broader label that would apply to all the texts labeled “para-” something, unless we use a very vague term like “para-” literature or “para-”texts.71 It could be objected that this use of “para” still privileges works that ultimately end up in the Hebrew Bible, since in most cases the X in the formula “para-X” will be a biblical text (though not in all cases: for example, the texts currently labeled “Pseudo-Jubilees” [4Q225–227] might more neutrally be referred to as “para-Jubilees”). In a way this objection is valid, but it seems to me that the problem is largely unavoidable given the current state of our knowledge. Precisely because of their later canonical status, it is the books that ended up the Hebrew Bible that are the best-known and best-understood by modern scholars and thus inevitably serve as points of comparison for lesser-known works. On the other hand, the primacy of these works is not entirely anachronistic: the evidence indicates that many of the works that were later included in the Hebrew Bible were in fact already regarded as sacred and authoritative in the Second Temple period.72 The important thing is that we not artificially limit the group of texts with which we might associate other “para-”texts to those that later ended up in the Hebrew Bible, or indeed even to those that we believe were considered scriptural in the Second Temple period.73 As our knowledge and understanding of this period deepens, it is possible, even likely, that our 70

71

72 73

Note that there is still a basic literary distinction being made here between manuscript copies of the work in question (including revised copies or “new literary editions”) and new, independent compositions. The placement of the quotation marks is important: we would not want to call these texts “para-literature” (which might imply that they are associated with literature but are not themselves literature!). See the works of VanderKam and Lange cited in n. 8 above. One might ask, for instance, if it might be fair to refer to the various rule texts from Qumran as “para-1QS” texts (if we presume that 1QS was regarded by the Qumranites as authoritative but not scriptural; see Campbell, “Rewritten Bible,” 66).

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

115

ideas about which texts should be described as “para-”texts of other texts will change. My second suggestion picks up where the usefulness of the “para-” terminology begins to diminish. Grouping texts with clusters of “para-” texts is only one, very general means of classification, indicating as it does only some sort of literary relationship between two texts, without offering any further information about the nature of this relationship or the nature of the works in question.74 In order to develop adequate terminology for talking about Second Temple literature that relates in some way to scripture, we need to explore many other ways of categorizing and grouping texts. This is not a matter of finding the single best classificatory label for a given work. Recent thought on the issue of genre has emphasized that all texts can be classified in multiple ways, depending upon who is doing the classifying and the criteria used, and that texts can participate in multiple genres or categories simultaneously. 75 Instead of finding the appropriate pigeonhole for each work, we should perhaps be creating something more like a Venn diagram, in which the work can be located at the intersection of all the different categories in which it participates. These categories would include aspects of literary form, style, and content (poetry, prose; law, narrative; pseudepigraphy, anonymity, named authorship; etc.) as well as descriptions of how a given work rewrites or reuses an earlier work, insofar as this can be determined. Thus for example, if we were to decide that the book of Jubilees can fairly be placed in a category called Rewritten Scripture, it would still be necessary to further characterize Jubilees with a variety of other descriptive and generic labels: as a narrative text, as a “para-Genesis” text, as possibly belonging to the genre Apocalypse, as a pseudepigraph, and (in view of its probable authoritative status) as scripture. Each of these descriptors binds Jubilees to a different subset of Second Temple literature and allows us to see points of contact that a single generic label (“Apocalypse,” “Rewritten Scripture”) might tend to obscure. Systematic mapping of texts’ participation in categories of various types should give us a much better sense of the similarities and differences between different types of texts and

74

75

See Brooke’s observation that the term “parabiblical” most properly operates as an “umbrella term” and should not be construed as a “narrowly defined genre”; Brooke, “Genre Theory,” 369. For helpful overviews of recent developments in the study of genre, see Amy J. Devitt, Writing Genres (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004); Carol A. Newsom, “Pairing Research Questions and Theories of Genre: A Case Study of the Hodayot,” DSD 17 (2010): 270–88.

116

Molly M. Zahn

facilitate the development of appropriate terminology to describe these interrelationships. Third, I would suggest that special care be taken to keep questions of authority and authoritative status separate from questions pertaining to literary form and mode of production. I have indicated above how conflation of these two issues has frequently led to confusion in the discussion of Second Temple texts that constitute or are related to scripture. It is perfectly legitimate and necessary, of course, to try to determine which works were viewed as possessing scriptural authority in this period (and by whom) and which works were more likely viewed as authoritative but not scriptural or not authoritative at all. But such determinations, especially given the paucity of information regarding the reception of many of these texts, should not constitute the primary basis for textual classification, as the distinction biblical/nonbiblical did for so long. While that primary division made good sense in the early days of Scrolls research, when the vast diversity of the material had not yet become apparent, from our perspective more than sixty years later it has proved inadequate.76 As a result, judgments about the authoritative status of late Second Temple texts, though they constitute an important aspect of the analysis of these texts, should be kept separate from—and must not be given priority over—analysis of each text’s content, form, and relationship to other known texts. The above reflections and tentative suggestions are meant to help advance the process of developing a suitable terminology for talking about Second Temple Jewish texts related to what we now know as the Hebrew Bible. Far from constituting some sort of final word on the issue, it is my hope that they will spur further discussion, debate, and clarification. Only through such dialogue can we hope to develop ways of talking about these texts that reflect the current state of our understanding—and only through the development of new ways of talking will we gradually develop new ways of thinking as well.

Bibliography Barton, John. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Pseudepigraphy in the Qumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions.” Pages 1–26 in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and

76

See the comments of Ulrich, “Methodological Reflections,” 154.

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

117

Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Esther G. Chazon and Michael E. Stone. STDJ 31. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Ȱ. “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–96. Ȱ. “What Has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal Material in 4QReworked Pentateuch.” DSD 15 (2008): 24–49. Brooke, George J. “Rewritten Bible.” Pages 777–81 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ȱ. “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible.” Pages 31–40 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: British Library, 2002. Ȱ. “Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process.” Pages 85–104 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Edited by Esther Chazon et al. STDJ 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Ȱ. “The Books of Chronicles and the Scrolls from Qumran.” Pages 35–48 in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld. Edited by Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and W. Brian Aucker. VTSup 113. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Ȱ. “From Bible to Midrash: Approaches to Biblical Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls by Modern Interpreters.” Pages 1–19 in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006. Edited by Anders Klostergaard Petersen et al. STDJ 80. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Ȱ. “Genre Theory, Rewritten Bible and Pesher.” DSD 17 (2010): 361–86. Campbell, Jonathan G. “‘Rewritten Bible’ and ‘Parabiblical Texts’: A Terminological and Methodological Critique.” Pages 43–68 in New Directions in Qumran Studies. Edited by Jonathan G. Campbell, William John Lyons, and Lloyd K. Pietersen. LSTS 52. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Carr, David M. Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Chiesa, Bruno. “Biblical and Parabiblical Texts from Qumran.” Henoch 20 (1998): 131–51. Crawford, Sidnie White. “The ‘Rewritten’ Bible at Qumran: A Look at Three Texts.” ErIsr 26 (1999): 1–8 [Eng.]. Ȱ. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Deutscher, Guy. “Does Your Language Shape How You Think?.” New York Times Magazine, 29 August 2010. Cited 27 August 2010. Online: http: //www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?src=me&ref =homepage. Devitt, Amy J. Writing Genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004. Falk, Daniel K. The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: T & T Clark, 2007.

118

Molly M. Zahn

Graham, William A. Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Ȱ. “Scripture.” Pages 133–45 in vol. 13 of The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Mircea Eliade et al. 16 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1987. Hayward, C. T. R. “Rewritten Bible.” Pages 595–98 in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden. London: SCM, 1990. Kraft, Robert A. “Para-mania: Beside, Before and Beyond Bible Studies.” JBL 126 (2007): 5–27. Lange, Armin. “The Status of the Biblical Texts in the Qumran Corpus and the Canonical Process.” Pages 21–30 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: British Library, 2002. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Ȱ and Molly M. Zahn. “Revelation Regained: The Hermeneutics of ') and - in the Temple Scroll.” DSD 9 (2002): 295–346. Lim, Timothy H. “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 303–22 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. JSJSup 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Ȱ. “How Should We Contextualize Pseudepigrapha? Imitation and Emulation in 4 Ezra.” Pages 529–36 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Newsom, Carol A. “Pairing Research Questions and Theories of Genre: A Case Study of the Hodayot.” DSD 17 (2010): 270–88. Petersen, Anders Klostergaard. “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon—Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism.” Pages 285–306 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Sexism and God-Talk. Boston: Beacon, 1983. Smith, Mark. “4Q384, 4QpapApocryphon of Jeremiah B?” Pages 137–52 in Qum-ran Cave 4.XIV, Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by M. Broshi et al., in consultation with J. VanderKam. DJD 19. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. What is Scripture? A Comparative Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Stone, Michael E. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha.” DSD 3 (1996): 270–95. Tov, Emanuel. “Biblical Texts as Reworked in Some Qumran Manuscripts with Special Attention to 4QRP and 4QParaGen-Exod.” Pages 111–34 in The Community of the Renewed Covenant. Edited by Eugene Ulrich and James VanderKam. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.

Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology

119

Ȱ. Introduction to Qumran Cave 4.VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Trebolle Barrera, Julio. “A ‘Canon within a Canon’: Two Series of Old Testament Books Differently Transmitted, Interpreted and Authorized.” RevQ 19 (2000): 383–99. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmands, 1999. Ȱ. “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” Pages 21–35 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. Ȱ. “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Judaism.” Pages 145–61 in Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods. Edited by Maxine L. Grossman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Zahn, Molly M. “New Voices, Ancient Words: The Temple Scroll’s Reuse of the Bible.” Pages 435–58 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. LHB/OTS 422. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Ȱ. “Rewritten Scripture.” Pages 323–36 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Ȱ. “The Question of Genre in Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment.” Paper presented at the 7th meeting of the IOQS. Helsinki, 2010. VanderKam, James C. “Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 5 (1998): 382–402. Ȱ. “The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works.” Pages 41–56 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: British Library, 2002. Ȱ and Peter W. Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2nd ed. StPB 4. Leiden: Brill, 1973.

3. Changed Texts

The Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch Sidnie White Crawford The Samaritan Pentateuch has been well known since the seventeenth century as a separate edition or version of the Pentateuch, alongside the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Preserved by the Samaritans as their canonical text of the Torah, it is written in a paleo-Hebrew script dating to the time of the Hasmoneans (late second-early first century BCE), contains an expanded or harmonized text in all five books of the Pentateuch, and has a layer of Samaritan sectarian editing, the purpose of which is to establish Mount Gerizim as the site chosen by God as the central place of worship. Until the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, the earliest manuscript of this text-type dated to the ninth century CE.1 Among the Qumran scrolls, as was recognized quite early, there were discovered manuscripts of the books of the Pentateuch that conformed to the text-type found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, with the specifically Samaritan editing removed. These manuscripts, which came to be labeled “pre-Samaritan,”2 are characterized by harmonization and content editing, meant to bring two parallel texts into accord with one another.3 These manuscripts resemble the Samaritan Penta1

2 3

For recent overviews of the Samaritan Pentateuch, see Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), and Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis (Copenhagen International Seminar 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000). Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 81. For an early discussion of harmonization which takes account of the Qumran evidence, see Emanuel Tov, “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts,” JSOT 31 (1983): 3–29. See also Jeffrey H. Tigay, “Conflation as a Redactional Technique,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985), 53–89. Eshel and Eshel give a good description of the various categories of harmonizations: “1. Changing the text in order to avoid any differences among parallel biblical texts (for example, the Decalogue). 2. The addition of a source to a biblical passage. For example, elements from Deuteronomy were sometimes added to Exodus or Num-

124

Sidnie White Crawford

teuch in that the techniques of harmonization and content editing are the same, often the same passages are harmonized, and the harmonizations presume the shape of the Pentateuch as a whole. That is, harmonizations can occur not only within the same book, but also from book to book, the most common direction being from Deuteronomy back into Exodus and Numbers. However, these so-called pre-Samaritan manuscripts also exhibit features not found in the Samaritan Pentateuch. They can be written in either paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic square script; 4QpaleoExodm is written in paleo-Hebrew characters, while 4QNum b used the Aramaic square script. Their orthography and morphology differ from manuscript to manuscript, with some being written with a more defective orthography, others with a fuller orthography.4 Most importantly, although the passages chosen for harmonization can be the same, and similar techniques used, the results can differ from manuscript to manuscript. An example of this comes from the passages concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, Num 27:1–11 and 36:1–12. In 4QNumb, these passages are harmonized by interweaving the two passages: 36:1–2, 27:2–11; 36:3–4; 36:1–2 (repeated); 36:5–12.5 4Q365, or 4QReworked Pentateuchc, harmonizes the two passages with a simple juxtaposition: 27:1–11; 36:1–2[3–12].6 Thus, two scribes approached the same passages with the intent of harmonizing them, but their results were different.

4 5 6

bers since Deuteronomy repeats descriptions from previous books of the Pentateuch. Such a phenomenon can be termed the completion of details in a ‘poor’ text based upon a ‘rich’ description. 3. A further addition is a depiction of the implementation of a certain commandment in order to emphasize its performance.” Esther and Hanan Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” in Emanuel. Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman and W. W. Fields; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 215–40 (218). Tov makes a distinction between large blocks of harmonization, which he describes as content editing, and small textual harmonizations, which are mainly additions of words (“Textual Harmonizations in the Ancient Texts of Deuteronomy,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008), 271–82 (273). I would emphasize that these alterations are secondary; that is, they presume the existence of a base text which is being changed according to specific scribal techniques. Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54: Leiden: Brill, 2004), 279–80. Nathan Jastram, “4QNumb,” in Qumran Cave 4, VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. E. Ulrich, F. Moore Cross et al.; DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 205–67 (262–64). Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White, “365. 4QReworked Pentateuchc,” in Qumran Cave 4, VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 255–318 (310–11).

Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch

125

Further, it is evident that some of these manuscripts went beyond the Samaritan Pentateuch in their content editing. 4QNumb, for example, contains more harmonizations than the Samaritan Pentateuch.7 Other manuscripts were discovered that contained harmonizations not found in the Samaritan Pentateuch. For example, 4QDeutn harmonizes the fourth commandment in the Decalogue with content from the Exodus version of the commandment. Deut 5:12–15 Observe the Sabbath day to sanctify it, according as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but on the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do in it any work, you, your son, your daughter, your male servant or your female servant, your ox or your ass or your beast, your sojourner who is in your gates; in order that your male servant and your female servant might rest like you. And remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you forth from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day to sanctify it. Exod 20:11 For six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all which is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day to sanctify it.8

Thus, it slowly became clear that we were not dealing with a simple stemma of manuscripts, with a later manuscript being a copy of an earlier manuscript, albeit with variants, but with a family or group, in which scribes approached their task of handing on the books of the Pentateuch with certain exegetical principles, the chief of which was harmonization. The accepted label for this family or group, preSamaritan, is therefore misleading because it implies that the Samaritan Pentateuch is the model or chief exemplar of this group, when in reality it is simply one exemplar among many. For this reason Eshel prefers the label “harmonistic,”9 while I would choose the label “harmonistic/expansive.” My reason for adding the term “expansive” to the label has to do with the Qumran scrolls that fall next along the spectrum of Pentateuch

7

8 9

Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 99. Nathan Jastram, “A Comparison of Two ‘Proto-Samaritan’ Texts From Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and 4QNumb,” DSD 5 (1998): 264–89. Sidnie White Crawford, “4QDeutn,” in Qumran Cave 4, IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 117–28 (124–26). Esther Eshel, “4QDeutn– A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing,” HUCA 62 (1991): 117–54 (121).

126

Sidnie White Crawford

texts, the Reworked Pentateuch group. One notable characteristic of the Samaritan Pentateuch and the manuscripts that resemble it is that harmonizations do not occur in legal passages, but only in narrative sections.10 This is the case even though laws in Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy can blatantly contradict each other. This seeming taboo is broken in the Reworked Pentateuch group, which edits content within legal passages as well as narrative ones. An example is found in 4Q366, 4QReworked Pentateuchd, frg. 4, col. 1, where two passages concerning Sukkot, Num 29:32–30:1 and Deut 16:13–14, are juxtaposed.11 The Reworked Pentateuch group also takes a step beyond harmonization and content editing within the books of the Pentateuch to add new material into the received text, using the same editorial principles, in both narrative and legal sections. 4Q364, 4QReworked Pentateuchb, frg. 3, col. 2, adds material into the narrative of Genesis 28, Jacob’s departure from Canaan: 1. him you shall see [ 2. you shall see in good health [ 3. your death, and unto your eyes [lest I be deprived of even] 4. the two of you. And [Isaac] called [to Rebekah his wife and he told] 5. her all [these] th[ings 6. after Jacob her son[ and she wept 7. Gen 28:6 Now Esau saw that [Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away] 8. To Pa[dan] Aram to find for himself from[ there a wife12

Here we find Isaac evidently comforting Rebekah, who is weeping over Jacob’s departure. This material is paralleled in Jubilees 27:14, 17, and a strikingly similar scene occurs in Tobit, in which Tobit attempts to comfort Anna at the departure of Tobias (5:21). A common exegetical tradition appears to be at work, although it is unclear which text is prior to the others.13

10 11

12

13

Moshe Bernstein, “What has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal Material in 4QReworked Pentateuch,” DSD 15 (2008): 24–49. Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White, “366. 4QReworked Pentateuchd,” in Qumran Cave 4, VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 335–43 (341–42). Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White, “364. 4QReworked Pentateuchb,” in Qumran Cave 4, VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 197–254 (206–7). Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 47–48.

Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch

127

4Q365, frg. 6, col. 2, expands the Song of Miriam in Exodus 15: Then [Miriam the prophet, sister of Aaron,] took [the timbrel in her hand and al]l the women went out after her with [timbrels and dancing. And Miriam sang to them...]

Exod 15:21

1. you despised (?) [ 2. for the majesty of [ 3. You are great, a deliverer (?) [ 4. the hope of the enemy has perished, and he is for[gotten] (or: has cea[sed]) [ 5. they perished in the mighty waters, the enemy (or ‘enemies’) [ 6. Extol the one who raises up, [a r]ansom . . . you gave(?) [ 7. [the one who do]es gloriously [ And Moses traveled with Israel from the Sea and they walked in the desert of Sh[ur three days, but they did not find water…14 15:22

The scribe has drawn on phrases from the Song of the Sea, earlier in Exodus 15, to create this new song in Miriam’s mouth. The song fills in a gap in the text, but is not picked up by later Jewish tradition.15 4Q365, frg. 23, expands the legal section in Leviticus 23 by inserting legislation for the festivals of Fresh Oil and Wood. And the Lord spoke to Moses saying, “Command the children of Israel, saying, Addition begins ‘when you come to the land which I am giving to you for an inheritance, and you dwell upon it securely, you will bring wood for a burnt offering and for all the wo[r]k of [the H]ouse which you will build for me in the land, to arrange it upon the altar of burnt-offering, and the calv[es ] for Passover sacrifices and for whole burnt-offerings and for thank offerings and for free-will offerings and for burnt-offerings, daily […] and for the doors and for all the work of the House the[y] will br[ing…] the festival of fresh oil. They will bring wood two […] the ones who bring on the fir[st] day, Levi […Reu]ben and Simeon [and on t]he fou[rth] day…16 Lev 23:1

14 15

16

Tov and White, “365. 4QReworked Pentateuchc,” 269–72. Tal Ilan has noted that this is one of the few examples of a woman’s voice in any manuscript of what became the Hebrew Bible (“Women in Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls [ed. J. J. Collins and T. H. Lim; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010], 124–47 (127). Tov and White, “365. 4QReworked Pentateuchc,” 290–96.

128

Sidnie White Crawford

This addition goes beyond harmonization by actually adding legislation into the text of Leviticus, presumably to give the festivals of Fresh Oil and Wood, celebrated by at least some Jews in the late Second Temple period, the Mosaic imprimatur. These examples demonstrate that this family or group of manuscripts is not only harmonistic but also expansive. Finally, this scribal approach continues in texts that no longer present themselves as copies of the Pentateuch, but as new compositions. The parade examples here are Jubilees and the Temple Scroll, rewriting sections of Genesis-Exodus and Deuteronomy respectively, but other, smaller manuscripts probably fall into this category as well.17 What is striking about this textual tradition is that, although according to Tov only 5–6% of the “biblical” manuscripts at Qumran were harmonistic/expansive,18 that text-type appeared in other types of manuscripts that utilized the books of the Pentateuch in some way. There are phylacteries and mezuzot whose texts are harmonistic/expansive.19 4QTestimonia, a one page exegetical document, quotes from the book of Exodus according to the harmonistic/expansive version, at the same time that it uses the proto-Masoretic text for other quotations.20 Thus, I would argue that the harmonistic/expansive texttype is not an accident in the Qumran collection, but part of the Qumran community’s repertoire of Pentateuch texts, used for scripture study (e.g. 4QDeutn), prayer (e.g. the phylacteries), and exegesis (e.g. 4QTestimonia). It seems probable that the approach to the handing down of the text of the Pentateuch found in these manuscripts, characterized by harmonization and content editing, was not random or accidental, but was the product of a scribal group or school active in the Second Temple period.21 If this is the case, can this group or school be given a physical and/or social location? Frank Moore Cross had already argued decades

17 18

19 20 21

Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 60–104. Emanuel Tov, “The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert– An Overview and Analysis,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008), 128–54 (145). But see also Chelica Hiltunen, “An Examination of the Supposed Pre-Samaritan Scrolls from Qumran,” (M.A. Thesis: Trinity Western University, 2009), 122, who argues that as many as 32 percent of the Pentateuch manuscripts may be classified as pre-Samaritan. Eshel, “4QDeutn,” 122–23. See Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 35–36. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 146–49, where I argue that this scribal group was part of a priestly/Levitical exegetical tradition.

Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch

129

ago that this text-type was Palestinian.22 Is it possible to be more specific than that? First of all, the discovery of manuscripts from this text group in the Qumran caves locates this text group firmly in Judean Palestine. Further, the manuscripts of this family found at Qumran date paleographically to the first century BCE. The oldest, 4QpaleoExodm, dates to 100–25 BCE, 23 old enough to argue that it may not have been copied at Qumran, but was brought to the settlement from elsewhere.24 As noted before, these manuscripts are copied in different scripts and with different orthographic practices, making it unlikely that they were all copied in the same place. 4QpaleoExodm, and possibly 4QNumb, are categorized by Tov as “de luxe manuscripts,”25 indicating the high esteem in which they were held, both by the scribe who copied them and the community that preserved them. If, as is the general consensus today, many if not most of the Qumran manuscripts were not copied at Qumran but were imported from elsewhere, where in second/first century BCE Judean Palestine might these harmonistic/expansive Pentateuch manuscripts have originated? The most likely candidate is Jerusalem, among the priestly caste whose job it was to hand down the written tradition entrusted to them, i.e., the Zadokite priests associated with the Temple.26 It might be objected that it is unlikely that two obviously different text-types would be preserved in the Temple library.27 However, this objection may stem more from the contemporary idea of the necessity for a fixed text of Scripture than it does from actual historical reality in the first century BCE. For example, Solomon Zeitlin, reacting against the

22 23

24

25 26

27

Frank Moore Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (3rd ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 142. For the paleographical dates of all these manuscripts, see Brian Webster, “Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert,” in The Texts from the Judaean Desert. Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series (ed. E. Tov; DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), 351–446. This is based on Magness’s revised dating of the beginning of the Qumran settlement to 100 BCE or later. Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 68. Tov, Scribal Approaches, 126, 129. This is the same group that scholars such as Schiffman, on different grounds, argue make up the core or the leadership of the group that coalesced at Qumran. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 31–32. Tov, for example, argues that only the proto-Masoretic textual group was preserved in the Temple. “The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible used in the Ancient Synagogues,” Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran (TSAJ 121; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008), 171–88 (177).

130

Sidnie White Crawford

rabbinic tradition that three Torah scrolls were kept in the Temple court, states: It is unthinkable that there were three Torahs in the Temple which differed in their readings. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest read portions from the Torah which had been handed to him by his subordinates. It is unbelievable that there were three Torahs with different readings. If there had been three Torahs, how could the overseer have known which was the Torah with the correct text to be handed to the high priest? And, if it was known that a Torah had a defective text, the question confronting us is: How could a Torah with a defective text have been kept in the Temple? (emphasis mine)28

This statement seems more a product of Zeitlin’s own bias in favor of a fixed text than a realistic assessment of the textual situation in Palestine in the late Second Temple period. Rather, if we take the Qumran collection as a snapshot of the prevailing textual situation in first century BCE through first century CE Palestine, it is clear that different text-types were preserved, used, and accepted. There is no reason to suppose this was not the case in the Temple archives as well.29 Therefore, a strong case can be made for locating this text-type among the scribes in the Jerusalem temple, alongside the proto-Masoretic text that eventually became dominant in Judaism. The second location that may be proposed for this scribal tradition is among the priests and scribes of the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim, in Judea’s neighboring province, Samaria. This proposal is based on the fact that the Samaritans eventually chose an exemplar of the harmonistic/expansive text-type as their canonical text. The archaeological record indicates the presence of a sanctuary or temenos on the mountain as early as the middle of the fifth century BCE. 30 This sanctuary was Yah-

28 29

30

Solomon Zeitlin, “Were There Three Torah-Scrolls in the Azarah?” JQR 56 (1966): 269–72 (270). As Lange has demonstrated, by the first century CE the proto-Masoretic text was in the ascendancy in the Qumran collection (Armin Lange, “They Confirmed the Reading” (y. Tan’an. 4.68a): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period,” in From Qumran to Aleppo (ed. A. Lange, M. Weigold and J. Zsengellér; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 29–80 (53). However, the period I am discussing is the first century BCE, before this proto-Masoretic ascendancy began. Yitzhak Magen, “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers and R. Albertz; Winona Lake:

Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch

131

wistic, that is, dedicated to the same god as the Jerusalem temple, and with, presumably, many rituals in common.31 The inscriptional evidence suggests that the Samarians, the residents of the province of Samaria, wrote and spoke the same language as the Judeans, with a similar system of scripts and a similar onomastica.32 Gary Knoppers has argued, “contacts between these two neighboring areas during the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods were…substantial and persistent.”33 If he is correct, then the two communities were not estranged and continually at odds with one another, as the biased accounts in Ezra and Nehemiah suggest,34 but rather enjoyed close cultural and religious ties. Real estrangement did not begin until the rise of the Hasmoneans, probably culminating in the destruction of the temple on Gerizim by John Hyrcanus in 111/110 BCE. After that the two communities went their separate ways. These northern Yahwists, who later became known as the Samaritans, accepted as Scripture the first five books of the Pentateuch, and the version of those books that they eventually canonized was a member of the harmonistic/expansive group. It seems to me entirely plausible to argue that the northerners did not simply accept a version of the Pentateuch from the southerners,35 but used a text-type with which they were familiar, and may have had some role in developing.36 The

31

32

33 34 35

36

Eisenbrauns, 2007), 157–212 (158). I would like to thank Andrea Berlin and Jodi Magness for clarifying the archaeological evidence for me. Bob Becking, “Do the Earliest Samaritan Inscriptions Already Indicate a Parting of the Ways?,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007): “The written evidence excavated on Mount Gerizim does not allow the conclusion that, from its very beginning, the religion of the Samari(t)ans differed from the religion of the Yehudites” (p. 220). See also now Gary N. Knoppers, “Parallel Torahs and InnerScriptural Interpretation: The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs in Historical Perspective,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz; forthcoming), 21. I would like to thank Professor Knoppers for sharing this article with me prior to publication. Gary N. Knoppers, “Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 265–90 (274–75). Knoppers, “Revisiting the Samarian Question,” 278. E.g. Ezra 4:1–6:15, Neh 4:1–23 [Eng.]. Contra Esther and Hanan Eshel, “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls,” 215–40 (238–39), who assume that the Samaritans had no role in the development of the Pentateuch, or any part in the scribal group that handed on the harmonistic/expansive tradition. Reinhard Pummer, “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance (ed. G. N. Knop-

132

Sidnie White Crawford

most likely place for this development is among the priestly scribes in the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim, who were charged with preserving the traditions of the north, just as the priestly scribes in the Jerusalem temple were charged with preserving Judean tradition. Internal evidence from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the harmonistic/expansive manuscripts found at Qumran support this argument. The Samaritan Pentateuch, as mentioned above, is written in a paleo-Hebrew script dating to the time of the Hasmoneans, indicating that this particular exemplar of the harmonistic/expansive text-type was chosen right at the time when the estrangement between the two communities was growing, with the probable loss of communication among the scribal classes.37 At the point at which this exemplar was chosen, it was frozen; that is, the text no longer expanded in the ways I have described above. The exception to this is the layer of specifically Samaritan editing that is added to the harmonistic/expansive text. This Samaritan editing includes the addition of a commandment to the Decalogue in both Exodus and Deuteronomy, mandating the construction of a sanctuary on Mount Gerizim.38 Exod 20:17+ Deut 11:29 When the Lord your God has brought you into the land of the Canaanites that you are entering to possess, Deut 27:2b–7 set up some large stones for yourself and cover them with plaster. Write on the stones all the words of this law. And when you have crossed the Jordan, set up these stones on Mount Gerizim (MT: Ebal), as I command you today. Build there an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones. Do not use any iron tool upon them. Build the altar of the Lord your God with unhewn stones and offer burnt offerings on it to the Lord your God. Sacrifice whole offerings and eat them there and rejoice in the presence of the Lord your God. Deut 11:30 This mountain is across the Jordan, westwards towards the setting sun, in the territory of the Ca-

37 38

pers and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 237–72 (264); see also Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 81, and Knoppers, “Parallel Torah,” 20–22. Eshel and Eshel also argue for this date, but with different assumptions. “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation,” 239. The other sectarian changes include changing the Deuteronomy formula, “the place which the LORD will choose (:%')” to “the place which the LORD has chosen (:%),” an oblique reference to Mt. Gerizim, and insertions of reference to Mt. Gerizim (-'$'::!; written as one word). Knoppers, quoting Schenker, puts forward the argument that :% is the orginal reading, and :%' is a tendentious Judean change. However, both the majority of witnesses to the LXX and the pre-Samaritan manuscripts (where extant) support MT, making it unlikely that :% is the original reading. Knoppers, “Parallel Torahs,” 9.

Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch

133

naanites who dwell in the Arabah facing Gilgal, near the large tree of Moreh, facing Shechem.39

This tenth or eleventh commandment, depending on how they are counted, is a pastiche of passages drawn from Deuteronomy, and is constructed using the very same scribal techniques that the other expansions in this textual family used.40 The techniques used in this passage suggest that the scribes inserting the specifically Samaritan editorial layer came from the same scribal group or school that created the earlier harmonizations found in this textual family. Logically, then, this scribal group or school must have been at home in Samaritan priestly circles. Why, with the exception of the Gerizim commandment and related editorial changes, the Samaritans froze their version of the Pentateuch at that point in time is unknown. Perhaps the impetus for this type of content editing came from Judea, or perhaps with the loss of their Judean colleagues this scribal technique was gradually lost. In any case, the Samaritan Pentateuch would now have a separate textual history. At the same time that the Samaritan Pentateuch was breaking off from the main stem of the harmonistic/expansive group, that group was continuing to develop, as indicated by the manuscripts from Qumran. The Qumran manuscripts that have been labeled Pentateuchal and exhibit this scribal approach all date to the first century BCE, after the Judean/Samaritan rupture. Some of these manuscripts, such as 4QNumb and the Reworked Pentateuch group, exhibit more extensive content editing than is found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, including editing in legal passages, and the addition of new material. The obvious conclusion is that this scribal group or school continued to be active in Judea after the break with the Samaritans, at least through the first century BCE. However, by the end of the first century BCE the proto-Masoretic version of the Pentateuch, according to the paleographical dates of the manuscripts, was gaining ascendancy at Qumran, and, judging from the evidence of the other Judean Desert find sites, by the early second century CE its dominance was complete.41 Was the impetus for the selection of the proto-Masoretic version of the Pentateuch, a short, unex39

40 41

Underlined words indicate variants from the Masoretic Text. Whether Gerizim or Ebal is the original reading in Deuteronomy is uncertain; Kartveit, The Origins of the Samaritans, 292, suggests that Gerizim is original, and Ebal is a Judean change. I would like to thank Anneli Aejmelaeus for bringing this to my attention. Kartveit, The Origins of the Samaritans, 293. Lange, “They Confirmed the Reading,” 52.

134

Sidnie White Crawford

panded version, by the Judeans the fact that the Samaritans had already selected a harmonistic/expansive version?42 It is impossible to tell, but what is certain is that by the first century CE their respective choices had been made and there was an almost total estrangement between the two communities. I have attempted to demonstrate briefly that in the harmonistic/expansive manuscripts of the Pentateuch from Qumran and the Samaritan Pentateuch, we find a distinct textual group characterized by a particular scribal approach. Further, I have argued that practitioners of this scribal approach may be located at both sanctuaries in Achaemenid/Hellenistic Palestine, Mount Gerizim and Jerusalem. If I am correct, we have another piece of evidence to argue for stronger ties between the northern and southern Yahwists during the early and middle Second Temple period than was previously supposed, and another piece of the puzzle of Pentateuchal traditions in this same period.

Bibliography Becking, Bob. “Do the Earliest Samaritan Inscriptions Already Indicate a Parting of the Ways?” Pages 213–22 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Bernstein, Moshe. “What has Happened to the Laws? The Treatment of Legal Material in 4QReworked Pentateuch.” DSD 15 (2008): 24–49. Crawford, Sidnie White. “4QDeutn.” Pages 117–28 in Qumran Cave 4, IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings. Edited by Eugene Ulrich et al. DJD 14. Oxford: Clarendon, 1995. Ȱ. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. SDSSRL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Cross, Frank Moore. The Ancient Library of Qumran. 3rd edition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

42

The following statement found in b. Sanh. 21b is applicable: “…they [=the Sages] selected for Israel the Assyrian [=square] script and the Holy language [=Hebrew], leaving the [Paleo-]Hebrew characters and the Aramaic language to the =#&#'!. Who are the =#&#'!? Rab Hisda answers: The Cutheans [=Samaritans]” (as quoted in Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law Found in the Temple Court,” in Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010], 329–46 (344). Here the rabbis are assuming that their choice of text was made first. However, that is not certain, and I am suggesting here that the Samaritan choice may have been made first, or at least simultaneously with the Jewish choice.

Pentateuch as Found in the Pre-Samaritan Texts and 4QReworked Pentateuch

135

Eshel, Esther. “4QDeutn– A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing.” HUCA 62 (1991): 117–54. Ȱ and Hanan. “Dating the Samaritan Pentateuch’s Compilation in Light of the Qumran Biblical Scrolls.” Pages 215–40 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Weston W. Fields. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Ilan, Tal. “Women in Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 124–47 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Timothy H. Lim. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Hiltunen, Chelica. “An Examination of the Supposed Pre-Samaritan Scrolls from Qumran.” M.A. Thesis: Trinity Western University, 2009. Hjelm, Ingrid. The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis. Copenhagen International Seminar 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Jastram, Nathan. “4QNumb.” Pages 205–67 in Qumran Cave 4, VII: Genesis to Numbers. Edited by Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross et al. DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Ȱ. “A Comparison of Two ‘Proto-Samaritan’ Texts From Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and 4QNumb.” DSD 5 (1998): 264–89. Kartveit, Magnar. The Origin of the Samaritans. VTSup 128. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Knoppers, Gary N. “Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period.” Pages 265–90 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Ȱ. “Parallel Torahs and Inner-Scriptural Interpretation: The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs in Historical Perspective.” In The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by T. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz. Forthcoming. Lange, Armin. “They Confirmed the Reading” (y. Tan’an. 4.68a): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 29–80 in From Qumran to Aleppo. Edited by Armin Lange, Matthias Weigold and József Zsengellér. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Magen, Yitzhak. “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence.” Pages 157–212 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz. Winona Lake,: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Pummer, Reinhard. “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch.” Pages 237–72 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007 Schiffman, Lawrence H. Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Three Scrolls of the Law Found in the Temple Court.” Pages 329–46 in Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010.

136

Sidnie White Crawford

Tigay, Jeffrey H. “Conflation as a Redactional Technique.” Pages 53–89 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985. Tov, Emanuel. “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts.” JSOT 31 (1983): 3–29. Ȱ. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd revised edition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Ȱ. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Ȱ. “Textual Harmonizations in the Ancient Texts of Deuteronomy.” Pages 271– 82 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008. Ȱ. “The Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert- An Overview and Analysis.” Pages 128–54 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008. Ȱ. “The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible used in the Ancient Synagogues.” Pages 171–88 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008. Ȱ and Sidnie White, “364. 4QReworked Pentateuchb.” Pages 197–254 in Qumran Cave 4, VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Ȱ and Sidnie White. “365. 4QReworked Pentateuchc.” Pages 255–318 in Qumran Cave 4, VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Ȱ and Sidnie White. “366. 4QReworked Pentateuchd.” Pages 335–43 in Qumran Cave 4, VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Webster, Brian. “Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert.” Pages 351–446 in The Texts from the Judaean Desert. Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. Edited by Emanuel Tov. DJD 39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Zeitlin, Solomon. “Were There Three Torah-Scrolls in the Azarah?” JQR 56 (1966): 269–72.

David’s Three Choices: Textual and Literary Development in 2 Samuel 24 Anneli Aejmelaeus The final chapter of 2 Samuel contains an intricate story that combines motives of different age and origin, beginning with a census and resulting in the building of an altar at Orna’s threshing floor. At two points, decisive action is carried through by David’s Seer Gad.1 This paper focuses mainly on David’s first encounter with Gad in 2 Sam 24 and, more precisely, on textual issues concerning the message conveyed by Gad in vv. 11–13 as well as David’s reaction in vv. 14–15. It is a short passage, but nevertheless exemplifies important points of the textual history of the Books of Samuel. It is my aim to show how the text has been edited at different stages during its history, not just in the hands of the editors responsible for the Deuteronomistic History but also later.

1. Context: The Census There is no need for me to retell the well-known story of David’s census of Judah and Israel that forms the background to the encounter between David and his Seer Gad in 2 Sam 24. At the beginning of the story, Yahweh’s anger is said to have kindled against Israel, with the consequence of Yahweh inciting David against the people, namely, to count Judah and Israel. What the cause of Yahweh’s anger was is not revealed, and it is also puzzling in what way the census would be an act against the people. No commentary has been able to offer a satisfactory explanation as to why a census should necessarily have bad con-

1

The Prophet Gad first appears in 1 Sam 22:5 as David’s advisor during his flight from Saul. At 2 Sam 24:11 he appears on the stage for the second time as David’s Seer, and is seen once more in v. 18. In later tradition, as witnessed by 1 Chr 29:29, Gad – along with Samuel and Nathan – was regarded as one of the writers of David’s history. 2 Chr 29:25 mentions him as one of the organizers of the cult.

138

Anneli Aejmelaeus

sequences.2 Most interpreters regard it as an old religious belief, but there seems to be no further evidence for this.3 Was a census perhaps in early Israel considered to be an act of hubris? Determining one’s military power could lead to self-confidence about defeating one’s enemy, whereas the correct attitude would be to rely on Yahweh, according to the principle: “nothing can hinder the Lord from saving/giving victory by many or by few,” as Jonathan puts it in 1 Sam 14:6, or in the words of the young David in 1 Sam 17:47, “The Lord saves/gives victory not with sword and spear.” A true Israelite will wait for Yahweh to deliver the enemy into his hand and not speculate on manpower. No matter how numerous a nation, human power is always vulnerable – to famine, to the sword, or to pestilence. Was it perhaps a kind of superstition that taking a census would automatically invite the destructive forces to diminish the number of people? Or perhaps this is just what happened: a plague happened to occur after a census and was interpreted later as having been caused by it. I have no definite answers to these questions concerning the general understanding of the story. However, it does affect the interpretation of the details of the text whether one recognizes the problems or takes the text at face value.

2. The Role of David’s Seer As for the role of Gad, let us begin with a minor problem, the prophetic titles. The deuteronomistic editors seem to have applied the title '1 without differentiation to all those who acted as mediators of divine oracles or answers to human enquiries, as can be gathered from. 1 Sam 9:9 “today's ‘prophet’ was formerly called a seer.”

2 3

!:! -'16+ :9' -#'! '1+

Exod 30:12 is most probably dependent on our story. J. A. Sanders, “Census,” IDB 1: 547, refers to “an ancient taboo of counting heads.” E. A. Speiser, “Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel,” BASOR 149 (1958): 17– 25, tries to establish, on the basis of Mari parallels, a cultic connection for the practice of taking a census, without however answering the ultimate question. See also Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments I (6th ed.; München: Kaiser, 1969), 330– 31, who interprets the census in 2 Sam 24 to indicate transition from the “holy war” to a more organized use of military power (cf. n. 18 with a reference to Livius, I, 44, where purifying sacrifices are mentioned in connection with a census).

139

David’s Three Choices

The up-to-date term that is used to explain the old-fashioned word is '1. This deuteronomistic leveling makes it more difficult for us to find out what the exact meaning of the different titles !:, !$%, and '1 was.4 Of the two titles attached to Gad in 2 Sam 24:11, however, the title # !$% more probably represents the older stratum of the text, followed by 1 Chr 21:9 and the Septuagint, as preserved in the Lucianic tradition, whereas the MT has added '1!, which is reflected in the main line of Greek textual transmission.5 2 Sam 24 MT 11

!'! !#!'¡:# ¡+ '1! # !$% :/+

LXX Á¸Ė ģýĸ ÁÍÉţÇÍ ëºšÅ¼ÌÇ ÈÉġË Û» [ÌġÅ ÈÉÇÎŢ̾Šom L] ÌġÅ ĝÉľÅ̸ ¸ÍĖ» šºÑÅ

1 Chr 21 MT 9

!#!' :'# ¡+ '# !$% :/+

LXX Á¸Ė 늾ʼŠÁŧÉÀÇË ÈÉġË Û» ĝÉľÅ̸ ¸ÍĖ» šºÑÅ

Gad is presented as a religious professional who mediates divine messages and as a person who has a confidential relationship to David, apparently belonging to his innermost circle. Nevertheless, Gad is not depicted as being asked by David for mediation of divine oracles. His appearance to David in the morning perhaps means that he received the divine message during the night in a dream, and this was what prompted him to go to David. It is, however, interesting to note that in 2 Sam 24 both appearances of Gad bringing a divine message to David are preceded by a penitential prayer by David in vv. 10 and 17. David speaks to Yahweh directly in his prayer, but receives an answer through Gad. This seems like a combination of two different procedures, prayer and divination. Of these two, divination, receiving divine oracles through a seer, represents what was a normal procedure throughout millennia in the Ancient Near East, whereas penitential prayer, even if not unknown in other cultures, has a significant place in deuteronomistic theology,6 being recognizable by its vocabulary, and is most probably the latecomer in this context. Many commentators have in fact regarded both prayers in vv. 10 and 17 as later insertions, and indeed, the story runs

4 5 6

See Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville: John Knox, 1995), 119, 124–25. 1 Chr 29:29 and 2 Chr 29:25 mention Gad again with the title !$%. Timo Veijola, Moses Erben: Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum (BWANT 149; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 190 (esp. n. 87).

140

Anneli Aejmelaeus

more smoothly without them.7 Timo Veijola attributed the prayers, along with the first appearance of Gad altogether, to DtrP (vv. 3–4a, 10– 14, 15a¹, 17, 21b¹, 25b¹), a solution that I find difficult to follow.8 Veijola also attributed the opening of the chapter and a few later remarks to DtrG (vv. 1, 19b, 23b, 25b¸), the historian who must have combined some old sources into his story. I do agree with Veijola that a deuteronomistic editor – or successive editors – must have been at work in 2 Sam 24, but I do not think Gad’s first appearance (vv. 11 – 13) came about by the same hand as the preceding prayer. Through the addition of the penitential prayer in v. 10, as well as in v. 17, Gad’s message was made to appear as a response to David’s confession, but it does not in fact give an answer to it. Nor does Gad’s message presuppose David’s guilt, but it is well in line with the initial reference to Yahweh’s inexplicable anger. Moreover, it implies a different way of communicating with Yahweh, not directly but through a messenger.9 I wish to refrain from a comprehensive analysis of the very puzzling chapter, but my impression is that the pieces with Gad are the glue that keeps the different elements of the composition together and give them their first theological touch.10 One solution could be to attribute the introduction of Gad to the story and David’s prayers

7

8

9 10

Henry Preserved Smith, The Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992 [1904]), 390–91, already remarked that v. 10 is “probably an insertion” and v. 17 “an interpolation or displaced.” See also K. Rupprecht, Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Gründung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe? (BZAW 144; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977), 5–9; according to Rupprecht vv. 1, 3, 4a, 10 and 17 are on one level. According to P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 9; New York: Doubleday, 1984), 516, vv. 10–14, 16a and 17–19 represent the additions of a prophetic writer. Timo Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF B 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975), 108–17. See also Walter Dietrich, David, Saul und die Propheten: Das Verhältnis von Religion und Politik nach den prophetischen Überlieferungen vom frühesten Königtum in Israel (BWANT 122; 2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 31–37. Gad’s introduction in v. 11 is also needed before his later appearance in the story without any title in v. 18. For a summary of the various scholarly opinions, see, for instance, P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel, 514–18. Veijola finds editorial additions by DtrG (the historian) in vv. 1, 19b, 23b, 25b¸ and presupposes that the different parts of the narrative had been combined before DtrG (Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie, 115–16). According to McCarter, the original story is to be found in vv. 1–9, 15, 16b, 20–25, but already this kernel is composed of heterogeneous elements, which is revealed by the use of either the personal name (vv. 10–14, 15LXX, 17–19) or “the king” (vv. 2 – 9) or both (vv. 20–25) in reference to David and by the variation between : ˜ G˜ in vv. 13 and 15 and !6/; in vv. 15LXX, 21, and 25.

David’s Three Choices

141

to different editors that were more or less deeply rooted in deuteronomistic theology.11 Through the addition of the penitential prayer, the deuteronomistic editor not only breaks the flow of the story but also confuses its basic idea. By making David regret having taken the census and ask Yahweh for forgiveness (v. 10), he makes us believe that it is a question of David’s sinful action, and of a punishment that he should rightfully receive, and not of something else. Despite his confession of sin, David cannot avoid the consequences of the census. The addition of the prayer gives a most dubious picture of Yahweh, who first of all incites David to a foolish act and then does not heed a humble prayer for forgiveness by his servant. What was meant to be an improvement of the story and its theological profile ended up causing confusion.

3. The Three Choices When Gad comes to David in the morning, it is his task to announce the consequences of the census, but he does it in an exceptional way. David is to be given three choices, which sounds like a folktale motive. The three choices represent the triad “hunger, sword, and pestilence” (:˜ G˜ :˜ %˜ 4š :š ).12 There is no reproach, no mention of punishment. The three are more like blows of fate or natural forces that Yahweh can let loose or keep checked. All three are connected with a time-span including the number three, involving an interesting pattern of shortening the time unit and increasing the severity of the disaster: three years13 of famine, three months being pursued by the enemy, or three days of pestilence. David is given three choices, but does he choose? The impression created by the MT is that he actually does not choose but wishes to

11

12

13

Timo Veijola, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF B 198; Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1977), 87, attributes the penitential prayers in Jdg 10:10 and 1 Sam 12:10 to DtrN. It would seem consistent with this decision to regard David’s penitential prayers as belonging to the same strand. Cf., e.g., Lev 26:25–26; Jer 21:7; 24:10; 29:17MT; 34:17; Ezek 5:12; 6:12. According to Veijola (Die ewige Dynastie, 112, esp. n. 36) the triad presupposes knowledge of the exilic prophecy. It does belong to the deuteronomistic formulaic language in Jer, but our case is clearly not dependent on that language – perhaps the other way around. Most commentators agree on “seven years” in the MT being secondary. “Three years” is witnessed by the Septuagint in 2 Sam 24:13 as well as both the MT and the Septuagint in 1 Chr 21:12.

142

Anneli Aejmelaeus

leave himself in the hand of the Lord and rely on his mercy. But comparison with the Septuagint as well as the Chronicles version of the story gives a different picture: 2 Sam 24 MT 12 13 15

(+¡:% -----

LXX ìÁ¼ƸÀ ʼ¸ÍÌŊ ìÁ¼ƸÀ ʼ¸ÍÌŊ Á¸Ė ëƼšƸÌÇ î¸ÍÌŊ ¸ÍĖ» ÌġÅ ¿ŠÅ¸ÌÇÅ

1 Chr 21 MT 10 11

(+¡:% (+¡+9

LXX ìÁ¼ƸÀ ʼ¸ÍÌŊ ìÁ¼ƸÀ ʼ¸ÍÌŊ

In 2 Sam 24 the Septuagint repeats the verb “to choose” three times (twice in the imperative, once in the aorist), whereas the MT only gives it once (in the imperative), when Yahweh gives his command to Gad in v.12: “Go and say to David, ‘Thus says the Lord, Three things I offer you. Choose one of them, that I may do it to you.’”

In two of these three cases the reading of the Septuagint is supported by Chronicles, although the Hebrew verb is in the second case changed to +9 which was a more popular verb in later times. The lack of the third instance may be due to normal shortening of the text by the Chronicler.14 Thus, the Septuagint, partially supported by Chronicles, represents a Samuel text that allows David explicitly to choose among the three alternatives. One cannot help asking: What is the problem? If Yahweh commands Gad to lay three choices before David and to tell him to choose, why should he not choose? Was it perhaps considered to be presumptuous? Many commentators take the MT as self-evident, considering the Septuagint to be secondary,15 and are totally content with the explanation that David wishes to leave the final choice to Yahweh when he says: “Let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but let me not fall into the hand of man.” (v. 14)

14 15

In other details Chronicles witnesses to the longer version with the LXX. H. W. Hertzberg, Die Samuelbücher (ATD 10; 6th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 340–41, regards the MT as ”sachgemässer”; Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie, 110 n. 27, calls the Septuagint readings as “Texterleichterung.”

David’s Three Choices

143

David’s words are often taken to mean that, of the three alternatives, persecution by the enemy corresponds to “falling into the hand of man,” whereas famine or pestilence would mean “falling into the hand of the Lord.” This would mean that David does not pick one of the three, but excludes one alternative.16 Adrian Schenker also differentiates between punishments that concern the people – famine and pestilence – and one that concerns David alone – being pursued by his enemy – and regards it as a sign of selfishness that David excludes the alternative that would hurt him alone.17 I do not think that any such differentiation was originally intended. The king alone would hardly be pursued by the enemy; what is meant is war, and it concerns the people at least as much as the king. The MT does in fact use the singular in “let me not fall into the hand of man” and the plural in “let us fall into the hand of the Lord,” but this difference does not seem to be original.18 The Septuagint and Chronicles, both in Hebrew and in Greek, use the singular in both cases: it is David who chooses, even if it affects the people, because he is the king and the king is one with his people. As an aftermath of the census, any one of the triad, “hunger, sword, and pestilence,” could be seen as having a detrimental effect on the population. This would mean fulfillment of Yahweh’s anger, mentioned at the beginning of the story. The king could try to speculate which one of the three would diminish the numbers of the people the least. If he trusted his military power, he would choose the enemy. But this is exactly the temptation he should try to avoid. Putting his faith in military power, in the number of his troops, and not in the Lord, is precisely how the census leads the king astray, and this is why David needs to be put to the test with the three choices. Choosing the enemy would not mean being unselfish and self-sacrificing. It would mean hubris. Choosing the mercy of Yahweh can be interpreted as the hardest of the choices, most probably the pestilence. That is, David makes a choice anyway.

16 17

18

Hertzberg, Die Samuelbücher, 340. Adrian Schenker, Der Mächtige im Schmelzofen des Mitleids (OBO 42; Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1982), 1–2. For the history of interpretation of the passage at hand, see esp. Schenker’s notes 2–10 (pp. 59–61) and 26 (pp. 64–67). This detail seems to be decisive for Schenker, Der Mächtige im Schmelzofen des Mitleids, 1–2.

144

Anneli Aejmelaeus

4. Textual Development Let us now look more closely at some details of the text. A few of the differences between the Hebrew and the Greek textual traditions were already mentioned, partly with the various Greek textual lines divided, partly in unison. As is well known, the textual history of the Septuagint text is divided in the second half of 2 Samuel, so that Vaticanus (= B), mostly accompanied by the majority of manuscripts, represents a revised text, the so-called Á¸ţº¼-recension,19 an early Jewish revision that has been approximated to the MT, whereas the Lucianic group (L = 19-82-93-108127), partly joined by several other manuscripts, often preserves the original Septuagint reading.20 There is, of course, a further complication in the fact that the Lucianic text also contains recensional features. For the reconstruction of the original Septuagint, it is however fortunate that the principles of the two recensions are different and often recognizable (at least to the experienced eye). But we must also realize that the original reading has been at times lost and can only be reconstructed. That the Hebrew text originally translated was not the same as the text to which the Greek text was approximated does not make our job easy, but it certainly makes it intriguing. The problems that I would like to discuss in greater detail concern the words of Gad to David. The divine message is not repeated in full, but is divided between Yahweh’s command in v. 12 and the words spoken to David in v. 13. “Three things I offer you. Choose one of them, that I may do it to you,” is the first part in the words of Yahweh, and the three choices follow in Gad’s words (v. 13). Let us look at v. 13 more closely.

19

20

For the name of the recension and the analysis of the evidence, see Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963). Henry St. John Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: The Schweich Lectures 1920 (2nd ed. London: Milford 1923), already saw that the two sections 2 Sam 11:2 – 1 Kings 2:11 and 1 Kings 22 – 2 Kings 25 differ from the rest of Samuel–Kings, but regarded them as the work of a different, more literal translator. See Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Lost in Reconstruction,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40 (2007): 89–106.

145

David’s Three Choices

2 Sam 24:13 MT ¡ š  šQ ™#13  –#G¡+ › ˜ # +¡E™Q˜ ™# L+ :/ ˜ œ Q ™#

1 Chr 21 T+¡+ š C˜ 9™ 11

U ’+ #=š !”

¡-– 12

4š :š -' –1fš 3™ f˜ U8˜ :’ ™ C’ !fš +f¡’ – -'f– š %• U2’ ž1 ¡' —16’ +–

4š :š -'1–® fš f #+fš

U':˜ 8š K! ’# U6˜ œ’ :

U':˜ 8š U˜ ’'# :˜ %˜ ’# = ˜j˜ /™ +’

=#'!¡“ – ’# -'/– š' =f+ ˜ f’ :˜ G˜ U8˜ :’ ™ C’

¡-– ’# -'/– š' =f˜ +f’ :˜ ˜ ’# ! š#! ’' :˜ %˜ … 7:˜ š Cš

!fš +f¡’ – ’# -'f– š %• (!) !a˜ 2’ –1 ¡'1— a’ /–

LXX Rahlfs

LXX Lucianic Text

13Á¸Ė ¼ĊÊý¿¼Å Û» ÈÉġġË ¸ÍĖ» Á¸Ė ÒÅŢºº¼À¼Š(A B etc) ¸ĤÌŊ Á¸Ė ¼čȼŠ¸ĤÌŊ =Á¼ƸÀ ʼ¸ÍÌŊ Ŋ (> A 247 509) º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À (> A 247) ¼Ċ (¾ mlt MSS) ì¿þ ÊÇÀ ÌÉţ¸ ì̾ ÂÀÄġË ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ ÊÇÍ õ ÌɼėË ÄýŸË

13

μŧº¼ÀŠʼ ìÄÈÉÇÊ¿¼Å

id. (= ChrLXX) ëÁ ÈÉÇÊŪÈÇÍ (L= ChrLXX) id. (ChrLXX > ÌľÅ) Á¸Ė ¸ĤÌÇİË (L) Á¸Ì¸»ÀŪÁ¼ÀÅ (mlt MSS) ʼ id. id. id. ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ (L)

ÌľÅ ëÏ¿ÉľÅ ÊÇÍ Á¸Ė ìÊÇÅ̸À »ÀŪÁÇÅÌšË (B 509; Á¸Ì¸- V) ʼ õ º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À ÌɼėË ÷ÄšÉ¸Ë ¿ŠÅ¸ÌÇÅ ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ ÊÇÍ

Á¸ĖĖ ö¿¼ Û» id.

¸ĖĖ ÒÈŢºº¼À¼Š¸ĤÌŊ šºÑÅ (L) id. (= ChrLXX) id. õ (L 158)

ÌÉţ¸ ì̾ ÂÀÄġÅ (L 158) ëÈĖ ÌüÅ ºýÅ (L) id.

1. Some of the differences between the two Greek texts stem from translation-technical or stylistic preferences of one or the other. The formulation that most probably represents the Old Greek (in bold face) is not always self-evident and needs to be backed up by arguments from the translation technique of the original translator, for instance: a) ¼ĊÊý¿¼Å/ö¿¼ – both verbs are common equivalents for # in the Septuagint; the form without the prefix is common in the Books of Samuel in cases where the emphasis is not “going in”; the addition of the prefix may depend on a tendency to consistent translating with one equivalent in Á¸ţº¼ (L without further MSS, ChrLXX); b) ÒÅŢºº¼À¼Å/ÒÈŢºº¼À¼Š– both verbs, with hardly any difference in the meaning, have been used in the Septuagint, but the

146

Anneli Aejmelaeus

former seems to become more frequent in the Á¸ţº¼ sections; the L group, in this case accompanied by numerous other witnesses (against A B 247 CII 509 92-130-314-488-489-762 245 460 707), has preserved the original reading; c) ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ ÊÇÍ – the preposition ëÅ is generally used when the reference is to a “land,” whereas ëÈţ, (+gen./acc.) is very frequent with reference to the “earth”; the repetition of the phrase later in the verse secures the decision.21 2. The first minor detail of the Hebrew text to be mentioned is the repetition of #+ (“told him, and said to him”), which is reflected in the main line of Greek textual transmission Á¸Ė ¼čȼŠ¸ĤÌŊ, whereas the Lucianic text has šºÑÅ (L 44; > ¸ĤÌŊ 245 707). In Hebrew #+¡'# can be continued by either :/'# or :/+ but normally without repetition of the preposition; thus, the pronoun ¸ĤÌŊ was probably added in Á¸ţº¼ according to the MT. It is however difficult to decide whether the original Greek reading should be considered to have been Á¸Ė ¼čȼŠor šºÑÅ; if the latter, the Hebrew Vorlage could have been either :/'# or :/+, but definitely without repetition of #+. 3. The imperative “choose” has already been mentioned. The Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint probably had (+¡:% as in v. 12. The Septuagint translator in Chronicles obviously used the translation of Samuel and Kings as his starting point, which makes the ChrLXX partly a witness of the SamLXX.22 In this case, the Chronicler chose to change the verb, but the Septuagint sticks to the Greek equivalent of the older :%. 4. Whether or not David is told to choose is not only a theological matter, but also affects the structure of the sentence, more precisely, the grammatical formulation of the three choices. In the Septuagint as well as in Chronicles, the three alternatives are grammatically dependent on the imperative. In the MT, however, the message begins – rather bluntly – as a question (“Shall three years of famine come to you in your land… ?”). That the arrangement of the MT is secondary becomes obvious when one goes through its details, which reveal a great deal of inconsistency.

21

22

As for the variation ìÄÈÉÇÊ¿¼Å/ëÁ ÈÉÇÊŪÈÇÍ, there seems to be a slight preference for ìÄÈÉÇÊ¿¼Å in the Á¸ţº¼ sections; see Raija Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF Diss 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1979), 274. James Donald Shenkel, “Comparative Study of the Synoptic Parallels in 1 Paraleipomena,” HTR 62 (1969): 63–85.

David’s Three Choices

147

The MT formulation begins as a question: the question particle with a finite form, qal impf. 3rd person fem. sg. #=!. – Why 3rd person fem.? The only feminine noun here is !1< but it is in the plural and, in the few cases where -'1< appears with a numeral as the subject of a clause (e.g., Gen 41:29, 54), it normally takes the plural. On the other hand, 3: could also be the subject, but it is masculine. The question is continued in the MT with - and -# (as normal for alternative questions), but the construction is not symmetric. It is different each time, and this cannot be normal. The third alternative comes closest to the first one in expression – “shall there be three days of pestilence?” – but it is constructed with the infinitive =#'!, although a direct question would presuppose a finite verb (furthermore, I have not found another case of - + the inf. cstr. in biblical Hebrew). The second question also contains an infinitive, but this time with the suffix of the 2nd person masc. “you fleeing,” followed by a second clause with a participle: “(your enemy) pursuing you,” which is a circumstantial clause (attached to the second alternative). 5. Turning now to the Greek witnesses, we can observe that the Lucianic text shows a consistent structure with infinitives throughout. It could, of course, be the result of stylistic smoothing (which could hold true in the case of Á¸Ì¸»ÀŪÁ¼ÀŠʼ), but there are infinitives in the Á¸ţº¼ text, too. Approaching the three alternatives from the end gives the impression that the construction with the infinitives was the original (3. º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À, 2. μŧº¼ÀŠʼ) and only the beginning has been changed, first in the MT and then in the Á¸ţº¼ recension to adjust the Greek text to the MT. The difficult question is how to reconstruct the Vorlage of the Septuagint in the beginning. There is the infinitive º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À, present in all MSS, and ¼Ċ í¿þ ÊÇÀ, which derives from the MT, in all MSS but L 158. What is needed is a credible back-translation of the Greek that represents good Hebrew. Lack of parallels makes the job really difficult. 6. I shall go through my reconstruction piece by piece. First, the disjunctive particles are parallel in Chronicles -# …-# …-, and I gather this was how the three alternatives were originally introduced.23 The Chronicler obviously had some difficulty with the 23

Parallels to a list of alternatives, introduced by -# …- meaning “either… or,” are extremely rare; I have found one in Josh 24:15. More common are cases with - …!; e.g., Num 13:18–20. The latter can introduce clauses with finite verbs, either as indi-

148

Anneli Aejmelaeus

construction; he left out the first verb altogether and muddled up the middle part. Second, since the construction is dependent on the imperative “choose for yourself” and since the second and third alternatives are formulated with an infinitive, I gather that the first verb was an infinitive also. The Greek º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À would speak for the verb !'!, which is commonly used of famine (Gen 41:54; 42:5), although # also seems to be possible in Hebrew (Gen 41:50 #=), but was hardly ever translated by ºţÅÇĸÀ (JudgA 17:8). A reconstruction along these lines would look like this: (21 -'<% !<+<¡-# (8: 3: -'1< <#+< =#'!¡- (+¡:% (8: : -'/' =<+< =#'!¡-# (6: #!# (':8¡'16/

The second alternative includes an additional circumstantial clause (6: #!# that contains a participle. The singular “your enemy” is what is presupposed, but (':8 never seems to occur in the singular, obviously standing for both singular and plural. 7. The Septuagint translator would have translated =#'! both times by º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À and the disjunctive particles by ô, which can be repeated any number of times in the meaning “either… or… or…”24 =Á¼ƸÀ ʼ¸ÍÌŊ º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À õ ÌÉţ¸ ì̾ ÂÀÄġÅ ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ ÊÇÍ õ ÌɼėË ÄýÅ¸Ë Î¼ŧº¼ÀŠʼ ëÁ ÈÉÇÊŪÈÇÍ ÌľÅ ëÏ¿ÉľÅ ÊÇÍ, Á¸Ė ìÊÇÅ̸À Á¸Ì¸»ÀŪÁÇÅÌšË Ê¼, õ º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À ÌɼėË ÷ÄšÉ¸Ë ¿ŠÅ¸ÌÇÅ ëÅ Ìĉ ºĉ ÊÇÍ

I find it somewhat problematic to presuppose that the translator would have reversed the order of the verb and the particle º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À õ, but on the other hand, this word order seems to have been the basis for the Á¸ţº¼ recension: º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À would not have been left in its place unless it was in front of õ. The scribe who added the Á¸ţº¼ reading ¼Ċ ì¿þ ÊÇÀ did not realize that º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À was an alternative reading.

24

rect or direct questions, whereas the former seems to require a construction with nominal expressions and to imply a necessity to choose one of the alternatives. Cf. Num 13:19(18)–21(20) where J. W. Wevers in his edition of the Greek Numbers consistently chooses the reading ¼Ċ… õ…, although õ… õ… is strongly supported in the MSS in part of the cases.

David’s Three Choices

149

What can be observed here is a phenomenon that we encounter at least sporadically all over the Books of Samuel: The Septuagint was translated from a Hebrew text different from the MT, frequently with a parallel in Chronicles. At times the wording of the MT was changed, and this change is reflected in the Greek recensional texts, in the Hexaplaric recension and in the earlier Jewish Á¸ţº¼ recension. The latter has left its traces in Vaticanus and a number of MSS accompanying it: the majority of MSS in the Á¸ţº¼ sections and a smaller group of MSS in other sections.

5. Conclusions Although certain parts of the reconstructions, both Hebrew and Greek, remain hypothetical, it has become clear that the MT was edited at certain points of the text in great detail at such a late stage of the textual history that traces of the older form can be seen in the Septuagint. Using a translation for textual criticism of the source text is of course always a risky business, but on the whole, the development of the Hebrew text and the reflection of this development in the different Greek textual traditions seem to me to be evident beyond doubt in 2 Sam 24 and in the Books of Samuel in general. The examples that I have given reveal just a small sample of this late editorial layer. Most of the changes made in the MT seem to have a theological or ideological motivation, but the individual changes are often so tiny that the nature of this activity only becomes clear through the accumulation of a number of changes with a similar aim or changes showing a connection to one another. It is impossible to date this editorial activity, but it must be a question of the time around the turn of the era, perhaps the 1st century BCE. This means that the Books of Samuel – or probably the Deuteronomistic History in general – was not yet considered to be “canonical” in the sense of being sacred Scripture and being authoritative and unchangeable in its wording. My suggestion is that the editorial polishing of these books was felt to be necessary precisely for their preparation for inclusion in the collection of the Prophets and thus in the “canon” of sacred Scripture. This may sound radical. It is clear that the Deuteronomistic History belongs to the oldest pieces of literature within the Hebrew Bible. In Ben Sira we have a witness for its appreciation and study in the learned circles around 200 BCE, but this does not mean that it would have been considered to be sacred Scripture. It was of course invaluable for those

150

Anneli Aejmelaeus

who had an interest in the history of the nation but in no way indispensable for the Jewish way of life as the Torah was. In Ben Sira’s age, it was definitely the Torah alone that was regarded as Scripture and recited in the synagogue. Compared with this late editorial activity, the work of the deuteronomistic editors had, of course, a much deeper impact on the composition of the historical books. The story of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17– 18) is the only passage where the story experienced a major expansion at this late stage. In 2 Sam 24 one could say that the late changes, although theologically motivated, take place on the level of expression, on the surface of the text, whereas the changes made by the various deuteronomistic editors touch a deeper level of the story, its theology and composition. Behind these two editorial stages there was at least one earlier editor or redactor who put the pieces of the narrative together into a story with a complicated plot and included it in the Deuteronomistic History.

Bibliography Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Lost in Reconstruction.” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 40 (2007): 89–106. Barthélemy, Dominique. Les devanciers d’Aquila. VTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: John Knox, 1995. Dietrich, Walter. David, Saul und die Propheten: Das Verhältnis von Religion und Politik nach den prophetischen Überlieferungen vom frühesten Königtum in Israel. BWANT 122. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992. Hertzberg, H. W. Die Samuelbücher. ATD 10. 6th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. McCarter, P. Kyle. II Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 9. New York: Doubleday, 1984. Rad, Gerhard von. Theologie des Alten Testaments I. 6th ed. München: Kaiser, 1969. Rupprecht, K. Der Tempel von Jerusalem: Gründung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe? BZAW 144. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. Sanders, J. A. “Census.” Page 547 in vol. 1 of The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Schenker, Adrian. Der Mächtige im Schmelzofen des Mitleids. OBO 42. Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1982. Shenkel, James D. “Comparative Study of the Synoptic Parallels in 1 Paraleipomena.” HTR 62 (1969): 63–85. Smith, Henry Preserved. The Books of Samuel. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992 [1904].

David’s Three Choices

151

Sollamo, Raija. Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint. AASF Diss 19. Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1979. Speiser, E. A. “Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel.” BASOR 149 (1958): 17–25. Thackeray, Henry St. John. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: The Schweich Lectures 1920. 2nd ed. London: Milford 1923. Veijola, Timo. Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung. AASF B 193. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975. Ȱ. Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. AASF B 198. Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1977. Ȱ. Moses Erben: Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum. BWANT 149. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000. Wevers, John William, Numeri. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae scientiarum Gottingensis editum, adiuvante U. Quast. 3, 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.

The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper: A Case Study on Changes in the Masoretic Text and in the Old Greek Translation of the Book of Leviticus Kristin De Troyer 1. A Three-fold Problem in the Hebrew Text Leviticus 11 deals with the clean and unclean foods: verses 2b–8 discusses the land animals, verses 9–12 the animals that live in the waters and verses 13–19 the detestable birds. Lev 11:20 starts the section that deals with winged swarming animals. According to 11:20 all winged insects that walk on all four are detestable. Then in 11:21 four exceptions are given: the locust, the bald locust, the cricket and the grasshopper: these animals can be eaten. N. Kiuchi states the problem as follows: “On principle, the four legged flying insects are unclean (v. 20), whereas those with additional lower legs to hop with, such as the locust, the bald locust, the cricket and the grasshopper, are clean and edible (vv. 21–22).”1 In this contribution we will focus on verse 21 in which the exceptions are mentioned. The Hebrew text of Leviticus 11:21 reads as follows: 5#3! 7:< +)/ #+)= !$¡ = ( 3:¡+3 (+!! #'+:+ +3// -'3:) +¡:< 7:!¡+3 0! :=1+

“But among the winged swarming animals that walk on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the ground.”2 The animal described in 11:21 is one that that swarms

1 2

Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, Leviticus (Apollos Old Testament Commentary 3; Downers Grove: IVP, 2007), 197. Translation according to the Qere.

154

Kristin De Troyer

and flies. Kleinig says it precisely: a “swarmer of the flying kind.”3 The animal is further described as walking on all fours and having -'3:) above its feet with which to hop on the earth. The Samaritan Pentateuch also has the reading as printed above.4 Among the Leviticus texts found among the scrolls from the Judean Desert, only Mas Levb contains some words from 11:21, but unfortunately it does not have the phrase under investigation.5 The NRSV, and many other translations, however translates: “But among the winged insects that walk on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the ground.” The JPS reads: “But these you may eat among all the winged swarming things that walk on all fours: all that have, above their feet, jointed legs to leap with on the ground.”6 These translations follow the suggestion of the Masoretes to read the text as #+ instead of +. Levine calls this a “case of homophone(s).”7 The note in the margin of the BHS has the Qere “to him/it”: 5#3! 7:< +)/ #+)= !$¡ = ( 3:¡+3 (+!! #'+:+ +3// -'3:) +¡:< 7:!¡+3 0! :=1+

#+ 9

The problem of the Hebrew text is thus whether or not the animal has or has not -'3:) above its feet. Whereas the Hebrew text and the Samaritan Pentateuch both read “not,” most versions read “to him.”

3

4 5

6 7

John W. Kleinig, Leviticus (Concordia Commentary; Saint Louis: Concordia, 2003), 245. M. Noth writes: “geflügelten Kleingetier,” see Martin Noth, Leviticus, 74. Similarly, Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966), 141. See also: Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Das 3. Buch Mose. Leviticus (ATD 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 119. August F. von Gall, Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Vol. 3: Levitikus, (Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1914–1918). For more details, see Kristin De Troyer, “When did the Pentateuch come into Existence? An Uncomfortable Perspective,” in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (ed. W. Kraus and M. Karrer; WUNT 219; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008), 269–86. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 230. Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 5749/1989), 68.

The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper

155

In the Temple Scroll (11Q19 = 11QTa ) 48:5 the text clearly reads #+.8 The Syriac text reads: to him.9 The Targum Neofiti 1 has: all that have leaping legs…10 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan continues this reading: all that have…11 Onqelos reads: (the type) that has joints above its legs.12 The Vulgate reads: sed habet longiora retro crura per quae salit super terram.13 The issue, however, is not only whether the animal has or has not -'3:), the issue is also what precisely -'3:) are. The dualis -'3:) appears in Exod 12:9; 29:17; Lev 1:9 ,13; 4:11; 8:21; 9:14; 11:21; and Amos 3:12. In all these instances, it simply stands for “legs,” legs from a bull, a ram, a calf or a lamb. Brown-Driver-Briggs renders Lev 11:21 with “bending legs,” thus connecting the noun 3:) with the verb 3:) to bend one’s knee, to bow down. Koehler-Baumgartner renders the Hebrew noun with lower leg, fibula. Koehler-Baumgartner specifies that Leviticus 11:21 refers to the saltatorial legs of the locust.14 In the NRSV, Lev 11:21 is rendered with “jointed legs.” Levine indicates that -'3:) is a “term for the hind legs, or hocks, of animals.”15 Noth renders the word with “Schenkel” and in his comments he uses the term “Springbeine.”16 Wenham reads “jumping legs.”17 Harrison translates it with “jointed 8

9 10

11

12 13 14 15 16

17

Yadin, Yigael. ed., The Temple Scroll. Vol. 2: Text and Commentary (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society – The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University – The Shrine of the Book, 1983), 207. Note that the scribe changed the expression +3// #'+:+ into #'+:+ +3/; see also Yigael Yadin ed., The Temple Scroll. Vol. 3: Plates and Text (Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society – The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University – The Shrine of the Book, 1977), plate 63. As marked in the apparatus of BHS. Martin McNamara and Richard Hayward, “Targum Neofiti: Leviticus” in Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus (ed. M. McNamara; The Aramaic Bible 3; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 45. Michael Maher, “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus” in Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus (ed. M. McNamara; The Aramaic Bible 3: Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 150. Bernard Grossfeld, Targum Onqelos to Leviticus (The Aramaic Bible 8; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 21. Levine, Leviticus, 68. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, HALOT 2:500. The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. NRSV (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). Noth, Leviticus, respectively on p. 74 and p. 78. See also Elliger, Leviticus, 141 and 151 (albeit that Elliger correctly points to the fact that the most important characteristic of this animal is that it goes forward like animals on land; cf. infra). Also Gerstenberger, Das 3.Buch Mose. Leviticus, 119 and 127. Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NIC; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1979), 163.

156

Kristin De Troyer

hind legs, which are longer than the others and enable the insect to leap about.”18 Elliger, however, adds an important point to the discussion about the legs. He calls the discussion about the “Springbeine” a “Scheinrechtfertigung”19—we will return to this remark. In their Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, García Martínez and Tigchelaar translate the passage from the Temple Scroll as follows: “These you can eat from among winged insects: those which crawl on four paws, which have the hind legs wider than the forelegs in order to jump from the ground with them and to fly with their wings.”20 The question thus arises: which sort of legs is meant? Saltatorial, hind or lower legs? Finally, there is yet one more problem in the Hebrew text of Leviticus 11:21. Yadin in his comments and translation of the Temple Scroll 48:5 translates “these among the winged insects you may eat: those that go on all fours which have legs above their feet, with which to leap from the earth and fly with their wings.”21 According to Yadin, the Temple Scroll has elaborated on its description of the insect in order to define more precisely that the animal under consideration was 5#3! 7:
18

19 20 21 22

Roland K. Harrison, Leviticus. An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 3; Leicester: IVP, 1980), 129. J. Milgrom also ponders about precisely what sort of legs are meant. He writes: “Members of the locust-grasshopper family actually have a third pair of long, jointed legs that are attached close to the neck, appear to be above the other legs, and are bent when the animal is in a squat position.” He continues: “Kera’ayim means “Shins” in connection with a quadruped, that is, the lower part of the leg, below the knee, and by extension, refers here to the saltatory legs of this creature,” see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 664. Elliger, Leviticus, 151. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar ed., 4Q274–11Q31 (vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition; Leiden: Brill 2000), 1266–67. Yadin, The Temple Scroll. Vol. 2, 207. Note that the scribe changed the expression +3// #'+:+ into #'+:+ +3/; see also Yadin, The Temple Scroll. Vol. 3, plate 63. Yadin, The Temple Scroll. Vol. 2, 207.

The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper

157

2. A Closer Look at the Old Greek text of Leviticus The LXX text has the following text:23 ’ÂÂÛ Ì¸ı̸ Ίº¼Ê¿¼ ÒÈġ ÌľÅ îÉÈ¼ÌľÅ ÌľÅ È¼Ì¼ÀÅľÅ Ø ÈÇɼŧ¼Ì¸À ëÈĖ ̼ÊÊŠÉÑÅ Ø íϼÀ ÊÁšÂ¾ ÒÅŪ̼ÉÇÅ ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ľÅ ¸ĤÌÇÍ È¾»ÜÅ ëÅ ¸ĤÌÇėË ëÈĖ ÌýË ºýË

“But you can eat these from the reptiles that creep, that walk upon four, that have jointed legs above their feet with which to hop on the earth.” Harlé and Pralon more precisely describe the animals: “parmi les bestioles ailées.”24 We need to address the three issues. First, it seems clear that the animal has (some sort of) legs above its feet. In the Greek there is not a negation. The Old Greek seems to follow the suggested reading of the Qere. Second, with regard to the sort of legs. In the cases where the Hebrew has -'3:), that is Exod 12:9; 29:17; Lev 1:9, 13; 4:11; 8:21; 9:14; 11:21; and Amos 3:12, the word is translated with “feet“ (Exod 12:9; 29:17; Lev 1:9; Lev 1:13; Lev 8:21; Lev 9:14)—which in itself is worth another article. In Lev 4:11, the Hebrew is translated with ÒÁÉÑÌŢÉÀÇÅ, referring to feet and hands, toes and fingers. In Amos 3:12, the Hebrew dualis is translated with the word ÊÁšÂ¾ (sg. ÊÁšÂÇË). In his lexicon,25 Muraoka translates ÊÁšÂÇË with jointed legs. Wevers, in his Notes,26 states: “’legs above the feet’ must refer to the legs above the knee joints joined to the feet. What is presumably meant is legs in two parts, so probably ÊÁšÂ¾ might be translated jointed legs. …” Then Wevers continues and adds that these jointed legs are meant “with which to hop on the earth.” From the first remark, however, it is clear that Wevers thinks that these legs are above the knee joints.27 Muraoka does not make this distinction. The problem becomes thus even more complex: the issue is no longer which sort of legs are meant – ordinary legs, hind

23

24 25 26 27

John William Wevers, Leviticus (Septuaginta. Id est vetus testamentum graecum auctoritate academiae scientiarum gottingensis editum, II,2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 128–29. Paul Harlé and Didier Pralon, Le Levitique (La Bible d’Alexandrie 3; Paris: du Cerf, 1988), 130. Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009). John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (SCS 44; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 150. Harlé and Pralon seem to be influenced by the discussion about what sort of legs are meant and render: “ceux qui ont les pattes de derrière plus hautes que leurs pattes de devant…,” see Harlé and Pralon, Le Levitique, 130.

158

Kristin De Troyer

legs, saltatorial legs – but the specification of the legs, namely: the upper part of the legs or the lower part of the legs? Finally, in the Old Greek text the winged insect has become a reptile. The Old Greek combines two interesting concepts: the animal is ÌľÅ îÉÈ¼ÌľÅ ÌľÅ È¼Ì¼ÀÅľÅ. The îÉȼÌŦÅ is a creeping animal, a reptile. The verb ïÉÈÑ means to move slowly. In Lev 11:41, 42, 43 and 46, the animals that are moving slowly are actually moving on the earth. The verb is used for translating 7:<. In six cases, the verb is used to render
28 29

Henry G. Liddell, Robert Scott and Henry S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 621–23. Wevers, “Leviticus,” 128–29.

The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper

159

3. The Contribution of the Schøyen Greek Leviticus Manuscript As if this problem is not yet difficult enough, the Schøyen Greek Leviticus manuscript 2649 adds yet another reading and another difficulty30—and I have to admit that I am still not entirely sure how to interpret and evaluate the reading. The top of page ƹ reads:31

5 շÍ

Ίº¼Ê¿¼ ÒÈġ] ÒÈġ ÌľÅ îÉȼÌÑÅ ÌľÅ [ȼ̼À]ÅЪľÅ Ø ÈÇɼŧ¼ — ̸ÀЪ [ëÈĖ] ̼ÊÊŠÉÑÅж ÔÏÉÀÊÁš — ¾ [ÒÅŪ̼ÉÑ]Å ÌľÅ ÈÇ»ÑÅ ¸ĤÌЪ[Çı È]¾»ÜÅ ëÅ ¸ĤÌÇėË ÒÈ[ġ Ìý]Ë.

“But you can eat these from the reptiles that creep, that walk upon fours, ÔÏÉÀÊÁšÂ¾ above their feet with which to hop on the earth.” In the papyrus, like in A, B* and minuskels 121 and 55* there is no second alpha relativum. Moreover, there is no verb in the phrase. Next, the papyrus also has a correction in this line, but it is unclear how the correction fits with the text, let alone how the correction should be read. The meaning of ¸ÏÉÀÊÁ¼Â¾ is a further problem. The question here is: is this a new word or are we not reading this text correctly? Already Wevers noted that the translator of Leviticus created many a new word.32 By explaining ¸ÏÉÀÊÁ¼Â¾ as a new word invented by the translator, one has the advantage of not having to bother with the alpharelativum that is missing in many important manuscripts, such as A B* 527 121*.33 On the other hand, then the sentence would lack a verb, and accordingly many of the Greek (and other) witnesses have added a verb, like “to have,” in the sentence. The more difficult reading is certainly the text with the unknown word. The scribe of the papyrus kept a word in his/her text that is found nowhere else and has left no traces in the history of the text. Having a verb in the sentence – ¸ÏÉÀ changed into ¼Ï¼À – would be the 30

31 32 33

Kristin De Troyer, “Leviticus“ in Papyri Graecae Schøyen, PSchøyen II (ed. D. Minutoli and R. Pintaudi; Papyrologica Florentina XL/Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Greek Papyri V/II; Firenze: Gonnelli, 2010), 1–68, Plates I–XVI. De Troyer, “Leviticus.“ Wevers, Notes, X–XI. Wevers explains this omission as an error (a homoioteleuton after the reading ̼Êʸɸ), cf. supra.

160

Kristin De Troyer

more easy reading. If we accept this change, we also have to accept that the change to the more easy text must have happened very early onwards and was widely accepted, as it is visible in most Greek witnesses. In this case, the Schøyen manuscript would be the only Greek witness that has safeguarded the more difficult reading. Finally, is the old Greek reading as preserved in the Schøyen papyrus one word, ¸ÏÉÀÊÁ¼Â¾, or is it the conjunction ¸ÏÉÀ followed by the noun ÊÁšÂ¾? In both the Old Greek text as reconstructed by Wevers and in the papyrus of Schøyen, the suggestion is made that there are upper legs on top of the feet. The part of the legs that is under consideration is on top of the knees. The reading of MS 2649 could thus be translated as follows: “But, the following you can eat from all the flying reptiles, those that go on four (...), as long as (conjunctive) the legs (are) on top of their feet with which to hop on the earth.” This means that the upper legs are positioned on top of the feet, the knees being bended. A simple view at a grasshopper might actually throw light on the issue. The Old Greek text, as preserved in the papyrus, thus deals with upper legs that are positioned on top of the feet. In other words, whereas the Hebrew text read that there were no lower legs on top of the feet, the Old Greek read that there were (upper legs) on top of the feet. The Old Greek text rendered in a positive way what the Hebrew said in a negative way. Not just the negation was changed into a positive statement, but also the sort of legs of the winged insect/reptile was changed from lower to upper part. The change in the Greek tradition from negative reading to positive reading, however, is also visible in the non-Greek witnesses, such as the Temple Scroll. Indeed, the Temple Scroll demonstrates that the reading “to it” was already established instead of the reading “not.” Thus, the correction did not happen solely on the Greek level. The question now before us is: did the change from negative statement to positive statement as observed in the Old Greek text influence the Masoretes—and thus did they subsequently create the Ketiv/Qere reading—or can we read the majority of the Greek witnesses, including A, B* and minuskels 121 and 55*, as witnessing to an early (prehexaplaric) correction towards the Masoretic text, strictu senso? Or both? As the Schøyen Greek papyrus has preserved the more difficult reading, I tend to reconstruct the history of the text as follows: First there was the Hebrew text with negative statement regarding bending legs; then came the Old Greek text as preserved in the Schøyen Greek papyrus, with no verb (conform the Hebrew text), but with a positive statement about the upper part of the legs; then, the difficult reading was corrected into a more easy reading in A, B* and minuskels 121 and

The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper

161

55*, turning ¸ÏÉÀÊÁ¼Â¾ into ¼Ï¼À ÊÁ¼Â¾ and at the same time bringing the Old Greek text closer in conformity with the intended Hebrew text, as visible in the Temple Scroll. Finally, the Masoretes created clarity by inserting a Qere in the margin.

4. A Solution to the Three-fold Problem? The problem of the Ketiv/Qere in the Hebrew text of Leviticus 11:21 is more than a case of a homophonic change. The reading of the Hebrew text, more precisely the “not” (having) “lower legs” above the feet was rendered in a positive way in the Old Greek text: “to the animal were” “upper legs” above the feet. This interpretative change should indicate beyond doubt that the animal was not creeping on the ground with all fours, but “walking.” In other words, the main problem of both the Hebrew and the Greek text was not what sort of legs there were above the feet, but how these legs defined the way in which the animal made progress: a swarming creeping animal or something beyond that? As Elliger pointed out correctly: “Wenn es als ’auf vier gehend’ beschrieben wird, so ist die Zahl nicht wörtlich zu nehmen. Daß die Insekten sechs Beine haben, wußten auch die Alten.”34 What both the Hebrew text and the Old Greek tried to emphasize was that the animal needed to have the capacity to move forward like land animals. The discussion about precisely what sort of legs the animal has, is thus, indeed a “Scheinrechtfertigung.”35 The reading of the Temple Scroll confirms my view that it is not just about the sort of legs, but about how the animal moves forward. “These you can eat from among winged insects: those which crawl on four paws, which have the hind legs wider than the forelegs in order to jump from the ground with them and to fly with their wings”:36 What better way to prove that the animal is more than a creeping swarming animal than to say that the animal could also fly with its wings. Whereas the Old Greek text tried to solve the problem with a positive statement about the legs, the Temple scroll adapted the text by adding stress to the fact that the animals had wings. In both cases, the animal under investigation was not just an animal that crept on the ground and thus was detestable, but one that could hop or fly, and thus could be added to the menu. The irony of this case is that precisely in the 34 35 36

Elliger, Leviticus, 151. Elliger, Leviticus, 151. García Martínez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 1266–67.

162

Kristin De Troyer

Hebrew text, it is already stated that the animal was a 5#3! 7:<, a swarmer of the flying kind—but the latter needed more elaboration. The Old Greek text, the Masoretic note, and many of the textual witnesses following suite, as well as the reading of the Temple Scroll can all be seen as making explicit what was said in the Hebrew text: it is not just about having legs, it is also about having wings!

Bibliography Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler. The Jewish Study Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. De Troyer, Kristin. “When did the Pentateuch come into Existence? An Uncomfortable Perspective.” Pages 269–86 in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Edited by W. Kraus and M. Karrer. WUNT 219. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008. Ȱ. “Leviticus.” Pages 1–68 and Plates I–XVI in Papyri Graecae Schøyen, PSchøyen II. Edited by Diletta Minutoli and Rosario Pintaudi. Papyrologica Florentina XL/Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Greek Papyri V/II. Firenze: Gonnelli, 2010. Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. HAT 4. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966. Gall, August F. von. Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Vol. 3: Levitikus. Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1914–1918. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, ed. 4Q274–11Q31. Vol 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill 2000. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Das 3. Buch Mose. Leviticus. ATD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Grossfeld, Bernard ed. Targum Onqelos to Leviticus. The Aramaic Bible 8. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988. Harlé, Paul and Didier Pralon. Le Levitique. La Bible d’Alexandrie 3. Paris: du Cerf, 1988. Harrison, Roland K. Leviticus. An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC 3. Leicester: IVP, 1980. Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. Leviticus. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 3. Downers Grove: IVP, 2007. Kleinig, John W. Leviticus. Concordia Commentary. Saint Louis: Concordia, 2003. Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. The New Koehler-Baumgartner in English. Volume 2. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 5749/1989. Liddell, Henry G., Robert Scott and Henry S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.

The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper

163

Maher, Michael. “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus.” in Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus. Edited by Martin McNamara. The Aramaic Bible 3. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994. McNamara, Martin and Richard Hayward. “Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus.” in Targum Neofiti 1: Leviticus – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus. Edited by Martin McNamara. The Aramaic Bible 3. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Noth, Martin. Leviticus. ATD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. NIC. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1979. Wevers, John William. Leviticus. Septuaginta. Id est vetus testamentum graecum auctoritate academiae scientiarum gottingensis editum II,2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Ȱ. Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus. SCS 44. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Yadin, Yigael. ed. The Temple Scroll. Vol. 3: Plates and Text. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society – The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University – The Shrine of the Book, 1977. Ȱ. The Temple Scroll. Vol. 2: Text and Commentary. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society – The Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University – The Shrine of the Book, 1983.

Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean Interpretation of the Greek Torah: Ptolemaic Law Interpreted by its Own Rhetoric* Robert Kugler That the Greek of the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch depended heavily on the koine Greek of the Egyptian documentary papyri of the third century BCE particularly for its legal and administrative terminology has long been recognized. Adolf Deissmann first made the case in the early twentieth century, and John A. L. Lee shored up Deissmann’s hypothesis with his 1970 dissertation, published in 1983.1 Thus when language shared by the LXX and Ptolemaic administrative rhetoric appears in documentary legal texts from Hellenistic Egypt involving Judeans, it is generally assumed to be due to the petitioner’s reliance on the latter, not the former; the litigant is judged to be arguing from “common law,” not the specific Judean norms contained in the Torah. This paper suggests that in making that assumption we may be over*

1

Throughout this essay it will be my practice to refer to Peton and other Judeans not as “Jews” or as “practitioners of Judaims qua religion,” but rather as Judeans, members of an ì¿ÅÇË that hails from Judea and that derives its customs, laws, and God from the practices of that place. For a strong defense of this resistance to the language of “religion” in describing Judeans in the Hellenistic era, see Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512. Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies. Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity, (trans. A. Grieve; 2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903), 61–170; John A. L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SCS 14; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983). Certainly, further work has been done on the topic since Lee’s last contribution, but not as much as one might have hoped, particularly given the advances in electronic access and search capacity vis-à-vis the documentary papyri. See especially the Papyrological Navigator at http://www.papyri.info. On the work done since Lee’s dissertation see especially John A. L. Lee, “A Lexical Study thirty years on, with observations on ‘order’ words in the LXX Pentateuch,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, (ed. S. M. Paul, R. A. Kraft, L. H. Schiffman and W. Fields; SVT 94; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 513–24.

166

Robert Kugler

looking an important category of early Judean interpretation of the Greek Pentateuch: the use of its legal norms, shaped first by Ptolemaic legal rhetoric, to interpret that same Ptolemaic legal rhetoric anew. It is not surprising that this aspect of Judean interpretation of the Torah has been overlooked. Without firm evidence that they were permitted the right to form and belong to politeumata there was little reason to believe that Judeans in Hellenistic Egypt had reason or occasion to cite the Greek Pentateuch in making their legal arguments: without a jury of their ethnic peers to judge their disputes what point could there be to citing the Torah in support of their legal arguments?2 But with the publication of the Judean politeuma papyri from Herakleopolis in 2001 the existence of such a body came to light: of the twenty papyri in the archive, sixteen are petitions from individuals to the archons of a Judean politeuma in Herakleopolis.3 Indeed, study of the politeuma papyri has already demonstrated that Judeans did, in fact, call upon the norms of the Pentateuch in significant ways in their legal disputes with one another.4 In the following I offer an example of what can plausibly be

2

3

4

For the pre-2001 debate as to whether Judeans were permitted to form politeumata in Hellenistic Egypt, see, among others, Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985), passim; E. M. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 225–26; C. Zuckerman, “Hellenistic politeumata and the Jews: A Reconsideration,” Scripta Classica Israelica 8–9 (1985–1988): 171–85; and G. Lüdertz, “What is the Politeuma?” in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (ed. J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 204–8. James M. S. Cowey and Klaus Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr) (P. Polit. Jud.) (Abhandlungen der NordheinWestfällischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Papyrologia Coloniensia, vol. 29; Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001). Preliminary assessments are available in James M. S. Cowey, “Das ägyptische Judentum in hellenistischer Zeit—Neue Erkentnisse aus jüngst veröfftentlichten Papyri,” in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Enstehung und Bedeutung der griechischen Bible (ed. S. Kreuzer and J. P. Lesch; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), 2.24–43; Sylvie Honigman, “The Jewish Politeuma at Heracloepolis (Review of Cowey and Maresch, Urkunden),” SCI 21 (2002): 251–66 (see also Klaus Maresch and James M. S. Cowey, “‘A Recurrent Inclination to Isolate the Case of the Jews from their Ptolemiac Environment’? Eine Antwort auf Sylvie Honigman,” SCI 22 [2003]: 307–10); Sylvie Honigman, “Politeumata and Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt,” Ancient Society 33 (2003): 61–102; Thomas Kruse, “Das politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis in Ägypten,” in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006 (ed. M. Karrer and W. Kraus; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008), 166–75. For specific treatments of individual petitions, see Robert Kugler, “Dorotheos Petitions for the Return of Philippa (P.Polit.Iud. 7): A Case Study in the Judeans and their Law in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology: American Studies in Papyrology (ed. T. Gagos et al.; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,

Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean Interpretation of the Greek Torah

167

read as a Herakleopolite Judean’s invocation of language from the Torah that was drawn from Ptolemaic administrative law, a strategy the petitioner used to reinterpret the Hellenistic rulers’ law in his own favor.

Peton Contests Paying Double Rent on Farmland (P.Heid.Inv. G 5100): Text and Translation (2nd hand) HЪÎЪ¸Ъ ÊÌĕÑÅÀ. ÈЪ ÉЪ[ÇÊ]ÁЪ ¸Âñʸʿ¸À ÌġЪÅ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ ÅЪ Ъ ÷ļÌñɸÀ ºÅÑÄþ ¼ЪÈЪ ¼ Ъ ЪÅÀ Ъ Ъ¾ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ Ъ ÅЪ ЪЪЪ (1st hand) Ъ Ì¾Ъ Ъ Êĕ¸À ÒÉÏÀÎ͸ÁĕÌ¾Ъ À Ъ 5

ȸÉÛ ñÌÑÅÇЪ Ë ÌÇı ÀÂÇÆñÅÇÍ `ÇÍ»¸Ъ ĕЪÇЪÍЪ ÌľÅ ëÁ ż¹Ъ ÀñЪ ÀÑË. Ìщ[Ç]ıЪ ÈÉÇÑÅÇĸÊЪ ÄЪñÅЪ ЪÇÍ ÄÇÍ È¸ÌЪÉЪġË [À]ÂЪ ÇÆЪ ñÅÇÍ ÄЪ ÀÊЪ ¿ÑʸÄñ[Å]ÇЪÍЪ »Ъ À Ъ HɸÁÂЪ ¼ĕÇÍË Á¸Ė ¾Ä¾ÌÉĕÇЪÍЪ

10

ÒÈġ ÌýË ÈÉÇЪÊĠЪ»ÇЪÍ ºýË ÒÉÇįÉ¸Ë » ëÁ ÌÇı ¸įÉÇÍ ÁÂЪûÉЪ ÇÍ È¼ÉĖ ż¹ÀñÀ¸ Á¸Ė ëÅ ÌľÀ ¸ıЪÅÀЪ ÌÇı » (ìÌÇÍË) ļÌɾÊÚÅÌÑщ[Å] ÷ÄÑÅ ÌÛ ëÁÎĠÉÀ¸ ÌÇėË »Ъ¾-

15

ÂÇÍÄñÅÇÀË HɸÁ¼ĕÑÀ Á¸Ė ¾Ä¾ÌÉĕÑÀ, ìÌÀ »ò Á¸Ė ëÅ ÌľÀ <ȼĖÎ ÌÇı ¸ĤЪÌЪÇıЪ ìÌÇÍË Ä¼ÌÛ ÌüÅ [Ä]ñÌЪÉ¾Ъ Ê[À]Å ЪÈЪÇŬÑÅĕÇÍ ÌÇı ÈÉÇÊÌЪÚÅЪ ÌÇË ÌýË ÈÉÇÊЪ Ġ»ÇÍ ëżÏÍÉÚ-

20

ʸÅÌÇËЪ ÷ÄÜË ÄñÏЪ ÉÀЪ ÌÇı ëÁ [[Ì]]»¼Í[ÌñÉ¸Ë ÌÛ ëÁÎĠÉÀ¸ ] ÄЪ ¼ЪÌЪÉЪý[Ъ Ê]¸Ъ À Ъ ÌÇı

(2nd hand)

To Hephaistion: summon the … in our opinion …

(1st hand) To the Chief of Police, Ktesias, from Peton, son of Philoxenes, a Judean of those from Phnebeius. My father, whom I just men2010), 389–97 (available online at at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/i/icp); Robert Kugler, “Dispelling an Illusion of Otherness? A First Look at Juridical Practice in the Heracleopolis Papyri,” in Festschrift for John J. Collins, forthcoming, 2011; Robert Kugler, “Peton Contests Paying Double Rent on Farmland (P.Heid.Inv. G 5100): A Slice of Judean Experience in the Second Century BCE Herakleopolite Nome,” in Festschrift for NN, forthcoming, 2011.

168

Robert Kugler

tioned, rented four arouras through Herakles and Demetrios from the Prosodos-Land from the cleruchy of Chauros in the region of Phnebeius. In Pauni of the 34th year we paid to the previously named Herakles and Demetrios rent, yet also in Epeiph of the same year, after the payment, Apollonios, the overseer of the Prosodos, distrained us until we paid the rent a second time …

Peton Contests Paying Double Rent on Farmland (P.Heid.Inv. G 5100): Peton’s Juridical Reasoning and the Greek Torah5 In P.Heid. Inv. G 5100, Peton, son of Philoxenes, a Judean among those in Phnebieus of the Heraklepolite nome, appeals to Ktesias, Chief of Police for help in obtaining justice in a case of extortion by a Ptolemaic official.6 Peton’s father, Philoxenes, had rented four arouras of ÌýË ÈÉÇÊĠ»ÇÍ ºýË, “Prosodos-Land” (= Crown land) near Phnebieus; he did so through Herakles and Demetrios, joint holders of Crown land (¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑɺÇĕ) (lines 4–12a).7 In Pauni of the 34th year, the normal time for collecting rents on grain-planted land, he and his father paid rent to Herakles and Demetrios (lines 12b–16a). However, in the following month of Epeiph, Apollonios, a Ptolemaic official, the overseer of the “Prosodos-Land,” distrained them (ëżÏÍÉÚʸÅÌÇË)—that is, seized something of their property—until they paid the rent a second time. The petition breaks off before revealing explicitly what Peton wanted Ktesias to do for him. That being said, Peton’s complaint can be surmised from an understanding of the legal options open to him and from the remains of the rescript, the official reply to his petition preserved in lines 1–2. First the 5

6 7

For the edition of the text upon which the following transcription relies, see C. Armoni, “Drei ptolemäische Papyri der Heidelberger Sammlung,” ZPE 132 (2000): 225– 39 (233–39). For my fuller treatment of this petition, see Kugler, “Peton Contests Paying Double Rent,” forthcoming. Because it is the earliest known instance of the mysterious land term ÈÉÇÊĠ»ÇÍ ºû, “Prosodos-Land,” Peton’s description of the land he and his father rented as ÌýË ÈÉÇÊĠ»ÇÍ ºýË occupies pride of place in Armoni’s discussion of the petition; she argues strongly that all signs point to the term referring to a sort of ¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁû ºý, Crown land for rent that came into royal possession through confiscation by the treasury, often from cleruchies that were neglected in some way. As a consequence it appears that Peton and his father were sublessees of Crown land leased first by Herakles and Demetrios, who were thereby the ¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑɺÇĕ (Armoni, “Drei ptolemäische Papyri,” 234–36).

Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean Interpretation of the Greek Torah

169

rescript. The use of the first-person plural by the author(s) of the rescript could indicate that a group of officials issued it, not an individual, suggesting that it had been referred by Ktesias to a body of officials, an administrative act typical for police officials in the papyri.8 In a case involving a Judean of the Hereakleopolite nome like Peton, such a group of individuals might well have been the archons of the politeuma, and at least where rescripts from the archons are preserved in the politeuma papyri, like this one they are written in the first person plural.9 Moreover, the rescript commands Hephaistion, one of Ktesias’ underlings, to transfer (ÈЪÉщ[ÇÊ]ÁЪ ¸Âñʸʿ¸À) for examination and judgment a single male who can only be Apollonios, given the characters named in the petition. This too is paralleled in the politeuma papyri: the archons are asked to do precisely what this rescript prescribes, to transfer people from place to place for questioning, judgment and the like.10 We also know from two of the politeuma texts that the archons’ requests for the transfer of persons were answered affirmatively: officials at Penei and Tebetnoi answer positively the summonses of individuals from their communities made by the archons in Herakleopolis.11 In short, the rescript at least hints that Peton may have sought and achieved a hearing regarding his troubles with Apollonios before the archons of the Judean politeuma in Herakleopolis. What might Peton have wanted the archons of the politeuma to do for him that other legal entities could not accomplish? A look at his legal options and the language he uses to describe his situation provides a possible answer to this question. As for Peton’s legal options, it seems certain that Apollonios was the target of his complaint. Since Herakles and Demetrios were 8

9

10

11

Chiefs of police and other officials were routinely asked by petitioners to refer cases to relevant officials: see, for example, P.Tebt. 3.796 (185 BCE, Tebtunis); BGU 8.1822 (60–55 BCE, Herakleopolites); P.Ryl. 4.578 (=C.Pap.Jud. 1.43) (159/158 BCE, Arsinoites); P.Polit.Iud. 4 (134 BCE, Herakleopolites); P.Polit.Iud. 8 (133 BCE, Herakleopolites); P.Polit.Iud. 9.34–35 (June 20, 132 BCE, Herakleopolis). See further, John Bauschatz, “Archiphylakitai in Ptolemaic Egypt: A Hierarchy of Equals?” SyllClass 18 (2007): 181– 211 (183–86) on petitions to chiefs of police. P.Polit.Iud. 6 (134 BCE, Herakelopolis), 7 (134 BCE, Herakleopolis), 8 (133 BCE, Herakleopolis), 16 (143–132 BCE, Herakleopolites [?]). It is to be admitted, though, that it is also not unheard of for individual officials to use the first-person plural in replying to petitions from subordinates; see, for example, BGU 6.1244 41 (225 BCE, Herakleopolites). P.Polit.Iud. 1.19–20 (135 BCE, Herakleopolites); 11.10 (133–132 BCE, Herakleopolites); 12.24–25 (135 BCE, Herakleopolites). In all these cases the same verb used in this petition, ÈÉÇÊÁ¸ÂñÇĸÀ, appears also. P.Polit.Iud. 19 (141–131 BCE, Penei) and 20 (143–132 BCE, Tebetnoi).

170

Robert Kugler

¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑɺÇĕ, Peton had little or no remedy from them: as their sublessees, Peton and his father owed them the rental payment without question, the two ¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑɺÇĕ had collected it at the expected time of the year, and in any case ¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑɺÇĕ enjoyed legal protections that made it difficult to bring them before any tribunal, let alone win a judgment against them.12 By contrast, Apollonios behaved outside the norms for someone in his position at least in one respect: he collected the rent for grain-planted lands a month late, in Epeiph; and in any case, the rent due to the ¹¸ÊÀÂÀÁÇĖ º¼ÑɺÇĕ, paid directly to them or through the government’s agent (Apollonios in this case), had already been paid. Peton’s general complaint, then, was almost certainly that Apollonios had acted corruptly in forcing a second rental payment from father and son.13 But on what grounds could Peton appeal for a remedy, particularly before the politeuma? The truth of the matter is that most of the episode Peton describes is more or less typical practice according to Ptolemaic administrative law relating to the collection of debts, enforcement of work agreements, and the gathering of rental income. Indeed, what Peton faced is not without precedent in the papyri. In the single documentary text most similar to ours, P.Erasm. 1.1 24–26 (148–147 BCE, Oxyrhyncha [Arsinoites]), a certain Harendotes complains against his landlord, Herakleides, and a Chief of Police, Horion, for trying to obtain payment of a second, illegitimate ëÁÎĠÉÀ¸ through ëżÏÍɸÊţ¸Ë, “property seizures.” The relief Harendotes seeks is essentially a restraining order against Herakleides and Horion that they Äü ȼÉÀÊÈÜŠļ ëÈĖ Ìġ Äü ÁÂÇÈľÅ ÓÉϼÀŠľ»’ ¼ĊʹÀŠ½¼Ê¿¸À ¼ĊË ÌüÅ ÇĊÁţ¸Å ÄÇÍ Á¸Ė Ìġ ëżÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ ÌЪÉŦÈЪÑЪÀЪ ÄЪ ¾Ъ»¼ÅЪĖ, “not vex me, not govern by thefts, nor forcefully enter my home, and not in any way distrain [me?]” (lines 35–37) Notably, his argument is not that the act of distraint (ëżÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ) is in itself illegal; 12

13

See the discussion and references to documentary evidence in Jane Rowlandson, “Freedom and Subordination in Ancient Agriculture: The Case of the Basilikoi Georgoi in Ptolemaic Egypt,” History of Political Thought 6 (1985): 327–47 (331–32). Peton would hardly have been the first resident of Ptolemaic Egypt to complain of a corrupt official. See Dorothy Crawford, “The Good Official in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Das ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 27.–29. September 1976 in Berlin (ed. H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka; Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1978), 195–202; W. Peremans, “Die Amtsmissbräuche im ptolemäischen Ägypten,” in Korruption im Altertum: Konstanzer Symposion, Oktober 1979 (ed. W. Schuller; München: R. Oldenbourg, 1982), 103–33; see also the comments regarding abuse of the poor by officials in Eccl 5:7, a passage many think was written during the days of Ptolemaic rule over Judea: <¸Å ÊÍÁÇθÅÌĕ¸Å ÈñžÌÇË Á¸Ė ÖÉȸºüÅ ÁÉĕĸÌÇË Á¸Ė »ÀÁ¸ÀÇÊįÅ¾Ë ċ»þË ëÅ ÏļÉß, Äü ¿¸ÍÄÚÊ¾Ë ëÈĖ ÌŊ ÈÉںĸÌÀж ĞÌÀ ĨоÂġË ëÈÚÅÑ ĨоÂÇı ÎÍÂÚƸÀ Á¸Ė ĨоÂÇĖ ëÈӭ ¸ĤÌÇįË.

Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean Interpretation of the Greek Torah

171

rather, it is that its practice in this case, when he has already paid his rent, is tantamount to unjust harassment. It is this term, ëżÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ, the practice of distraint, that deserves closer examination in Peton’s case as a potential specific basis for his complaint and for its appearance before the Judean politeuma’s archons. As Harendotes’ complaint makes clear, ëżÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ was normal in the second century BCE as a means of compelling delinquent debtors to pay what they owed. And although translators usually render the verb as “to take in pledge,” and its related substantives as some version of “pledge(s),” it seems clear from the uses of the verb that it really denotes legalized forceful taking, distraint, and the substantives derived from it refer to the fruit of such action. Chief among documents issued by officials using the term is P.Tebt. 1.5 (148–147 BCE, Oxyrhyncha). This is the famous royal decree of amnesty issued by Ptolemy VIII Euergetes and his Queens Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III to restore peace between the royal house and the workers of the kingdom after the long period of dynastic warfare in the second century BCE. There the term is used to denote property legally seized (óżÏÍɸÊÄšÅÑÅ) from rebels (striking workers) so as to compel their compliance with imperial needs. The decree mandates that such property be returned: restore peace for the sake of prosperity at any cost.14 In P.Tebt. 1.57 (157 BCE, Tebtunis) an official requires that property taken by distraint (óżÏÍɸÊÄšÅÇÍË) from keepers of the sacred crocodiles for payment on two artabas of wheat be returned so that the sacerdotal functionaries can tend to their duties: satisfy the gods for the sake of order at any cost.15 The verb and its congeners also appear in petitions by individuals and ones issued by lower-level officials. P.Tebt. 3.1.764 (185 or 161 BCE, Tebtunis) requires the return of an animal seized in pledge ([Á¸]ÌЪ¾ЪżÏÍɸÊ[Äš]ÅЪ¸щ) for a deposit of seed because the overseer wants the cultivator, Horos, to return to productivity.16 SB 24.16296 (182 or 158 BCE, uncertain provenance) records loan agreements in which the debtor agrees that he can be seized by the creditor in the event of non-payment. In P.Tebt. 3.1.817 (=CPJ 1.23) (182 BCE, Krokodilopolis), a Judean named Sostratos secures a loan of two talents and 3000 drachmas with his home which must therefore be ÒżżÏŧɸÊÌÇÅ, “unpledged,” or better “un-seized” for secu14 15

16

See similar uses of ëżÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ and related terms in SB 8.9899 (100 BCE., Kerkeosiris); P.Tebt. 1.61b 274, 377 (117 BCE, Kerkeosiris); 1.72 (113 BCE, Kerkeosiris). C.Ord.Ptol. 43 (=P.Tebt. 3.1.699) (135–134 BCE, Tebtunis), another post-disturbance decree of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, formalizes this principle by prohibiting altogether the seizure of things from priests and temples. See also P.Tebt. 3.1.768 (15 BCE, Tebtunis), which refers to seizing farm animals to coerce payment of taxes.

172

Robert Kugler

rity on another debt.17 Underscoring the use of the verb to denote forceful taking is its appearance in SB 24.16295 (199 BCE, Oxyrhyncha), where a woman asks that a man who owes her money be compelled to pay her, and that relevant officials seize (ëżÏÍɊʸÅ̸) the debtor and bring him forward.18 From this survey it is, indeed, clear that ëżÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ was an accepted, legal practice among officials aimed at coercing delinquent debtors to fulfill their obligations, and that it was also occasionally employed illegally by officials willing to abuse the power of their office to extort payments not truly due. So in that sense it seems possible that Peton is merely arguing as Harendotes did in P.Erasm. 1.1, seeking an injunction against Apollonios, the corrupt official. On this reading there is no indication that Peton did anything other than what scholarship has generally surmised about Judeans using the language of Ptolemaic administrative law in their juridical reasoning: he was relying on the koine law of the land. Yet to return to the evidence of the rescript and follow its hint that Peton’s case made its way before the archons of the Judean politeuma in Herakleopolis, there is an alternative way to read what Peton argues in featuring ëżÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ in his complaint against Apollonios: it may be that on the basis of the Torah, the law the Ptolemaic government permitted Judeans to use through the courts of their politeumata, he regarded the practice of ëżÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ as illegal in itself, and was urging the adjudicators of his case to do the same, thereby nullifying at its root Apollonios’s basis for obtaining a second rental payment. The Greek Torah translated +%, “to seize X in pledge [as collateral],” with ëżÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ, probably on the basis of the Ptolemaic administrative language, as argued in general by Deissmann and Lee.19 As a consequence, though, the Torah declares that certain kinds of ëżÏÍÉŠ½¼ÀÅ against a debt are limited and even prohibited acts, effectively interpreting the Ptolemaic administrative law restrictively. Exodus 22:25–26 (Eng. 22:26–27) decrees that if you ëżÏįɸÊĸ ëżÏÍÉÚÊþË, “take as collateral (for a debt owed)” your neighbors garment, you have to restore it before sundown so that she is protected from the night air (see the similar sentiments and use of the verb and related substantives in Deut 24:12–13, 17). Deuteronomy 24:6 declares that ÇĤÁ ëżÏÍÉÚʼÀË ÄįÂÇÅ ÇĤ»¼ 17

18 19

See also P.Tebt. 3.2.970 (=P.Ptol.Sklav. 1.26) (early II BCE, Krokodilopolis) for the same phrase, ÒŚȸÎÇÅ Á¸Ė Òżż]ÏŧɸÊÌ[Ç]Å [Á¸Ė ÒżÈÀ»ŠÅ¼ÀÊÌÇÅ ÓÂÂÇÍ] »¸Å¼ţÇÍ, used with regard to slaves used to secure a loan. See also, perhaps, P.Tebt. 3.1.790 (127–124 BCE, Oxyrhyncha), a petition to the acting strategos regarding the forceful incursion of taxpayers into the temple. See above, n. 1.

Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean Interpretation of the Greek Torah

173

ëÈÀÄįÂÇÅ, ĞÌÀ ÐÍÏüÅ ÇĩÌÇË ëżÏÍÉÚ½¼À, “You shall not seize a mill or an upper millstone, for that would take a life”: seizure of property which undercuts a person’s ability to prepare bread to sustain himself deprives him of life itself and is prohibited. Deuteronomy 24:10–11 says that when you make your neighbor a loan, ÇĤÁ ¼Ċʼ¼įÊþ ¼ĊË ÌüÅ ÇĊÁĕ¸Å ¸ĤÌÇı ëżÏÍÉÚʸÀ Ìġ ëÅñÏÍÉÇÅ, “You shall not go into the house to seize the collateral” (i.e., remove it forcibly). In this light Peton’s legal reasoning in specific could well have been this: whatever Ptolemaic administrative law says about the behavior of Apollonios in demanding a second rental payment, his means of obtaining it was illegal under Judean law. In this way both the second rental payment and the seizure of property to obtain it are nullified.

Concluding Comments In closing I must be the first to admit that without that part of the petition that perhaps made clear Peton’s legal reasoning—text that might confirm or disconfirm the reading I offer here—this entire proposal remains hopelessly speculative. But I hope readers agree that its speculative or certain character is not what is most significant in this essay. Instead, the value of this exercise is to raise the possibility—indeed, the probability—that Judeans in Hellenistic Egypt, permitted to adjudicate disputes among themselves and between them and their non-Judean neighbors by Ptolemaic koine law and Judean law, engaged along the way in uses of the Greek Torah that effectively reinterpreted and adjusted the Ptolemaic koine law from which the Greek Torah drew its rhetoric in the first place. There is much more to learn in this regard from the examination of other juridical papyri involving Judeans of Hellenistic Egypt. There is, as it were, a new dimension of early Judean interpretation of the Torah to uncover and detail.

Bibliography Armoni, C. “Drei ptolemäische Papyri der Heidelberger Sammlung.” ZPE 132 (2000): 225–39. Bauschatz, John. “Archiphylakitai in Ptolemaic Egypt: A Hierarchy of Equals?” SyllClass 18 (2007): 181–211. Cowey, James M. S. “Das ägyptische Judentum in hellenistischer Zeit—Neue Erkentnisse aus jüngst veröfftentlichten Papyri.” Pages 2.24–43 in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta. Studien zur Enstehung und Bedeutung der griechi-

174

Robert Kugler

schen Bible. Edited by S. Kreuzer and J. P. Lesch. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004. Ȱ and Klaus Maresch. Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3– 133/2 v. Chr) (P. Polit. Jud.). Abhandlungen der Nordhein-Westfällischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Papyrologia Coloniensia. Vol. 29. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001. Crawford, Dorothy. “The Good Official in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Pages 195–202 in Das ptolemäische Ägypten. Akten des internationalen Symposions 27.–29. September 1976 in Berlin. Edited by H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1978. Deissmann, Adolf. Bible Studies. Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity. Translated by A. Grieve. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903. Honigman, Sylvie. “The Jewish Politeuma at Heracloepolis” (review of Cowey and Maresch, Urkunden). SCI 21 (2002): 251–66. Ȱ. “Politeumata and Ethnicity in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Ancient Society 33 (2003): 61–102. Kasher, Aryeh. The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985. Kruse, Thomas. “Das politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis in Ägypten.” Pages 166–75 in Die Septuaginta—Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 20.–23. Juli 2006. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2008. Kugler, Robert. “Dorotheos Petitions for the Return of Philippa (P.Polit.Iud. 7): A Case Study in the Judeans and their Law in Ptolemaic Egypt.” Pages 389–97 in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology: American Studies in Papyrology. Edited by Traianos Gagos et al. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010 (available online at http://quod. lib.umich.edu/i/icp). Ȱ. “Dispelling an Illusion of Otherness? A First Look at Juridical Practice in the Heracleopolis Papyri.” In Festschrift for John J. Collins, forthcoming, 2011. Ȱ. “Peton Contests Paying Double Rent on Farmland (P.Heid.Inv. G 5100): A Slice of Judean Experience in the Second Century BCE Herakleopolite Nome.” In Festschrift for NN, forthcoming, 2011. Lee, John A. L. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. SCS 14. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. Ȱ. “A Lexical Study thirty years on, with observations on ‘order’ words in the LXX Pentateuch.” Pages 513–24 in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Weston Fields. SVT 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Lüdertz, G. “What is the Politeuma?” Pages 204–8 in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy. Edited by J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Uncovering a New Dimension of Early Judean Interpretation of the Greek Torah

175

Maresch, Klaus and James M. S. Cowey. “‘A Recurrent Inclination to Isolate the Case of the Jews from their Ptolemaic Environment’? Eine Antwort auf Sylvie Honigman.” SCI 22 (2003): 307–10. Mason, Steve. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.” JSJ 38 (2007): 457–512. Peremans, W. “Die Amtsmissbräuche im ptolemäischen Ägypten.” Pages 103– 33 in Korruption im Altertum: Konstanzer Symposion, Oktober 1979. Edited by W. Schuller. München: R. Oldenbourg, 1982. Rowlandson, Jane. “Freedom and Subordination in Ancient Agriculture: The Case of the Basilikoi Georgoi in Ptolemaic Egypt.” History of Political Thought 6 (1985): 327–47. Smallwood, E. M. The Jews Under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Zuckerman, C. “Hellenistic politeumata and the Jews: A Reconsideration.” Scripta Classica Israelica 8–9 (1985–1988): 171–85.

Doubled Prophecy: The Pilgrimage of the Nations in Mic 4:1–5 and Isa 2:1–5* Reinhard Müller It is indisputable that the prophetic literature of the Old Testament was written over a period of several centuries. The prophetic books are not the work of single authors identical with the ancient prophets, but of many anonymous writers, who continually commented, changed, and expanded the older texts. These editors obviously shared the authority of the prophets by writing in their names; it seems that they were even able to create new oracles, for which they borrowed the prophetic authority. However, the editorial processes are difficult to reconstruct. Thus it remains controversial, to which extent the older texts were affected by the editing. The famous vision of the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion casts some light on these processes. It is written in two prophetic books, thus having a double authority: The readers of the corpus propheticum are supposed to conceive that either Isaiah and Micah had the same vision, or, because Micah seems to have been a younger contemporary of Isaiah (cf. Mic 1:1 with Isa 1:1), perhaps even one of Isaiah’s pupils (cf. Isa 8:16), Micah simply quoted Isaiah’s vision in his book, adding some comments of his own (Mic 4:4–5). From a historical perspective, the doubled text has to be regarded as evidence of literary growth. However, it is difficult to explain this phenomenon. Apart from assumptions that the vision goes back either to Isaiah1 or Micah,2 three options seem possible: 1) The vision was * 1

Paper given at the conference “Changes in Scripture” in Bergvik, Finland, April 23– 25, 2010. Thus e.g. Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament III,1 (2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902), 14–15; Gerhard von Rad, “Die Stadt auf dem Berge,” in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (4th ed.; Theologische Bücherei 8; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1971), 215–16; repr. from Evangelische Theologie 8 (1948–49): 439–47; Hans Wildberger, Jesaja: Jesaja 1–12 (BKAT 10,1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 78–80; Henri Cazelles, “Qui aurait visé, à l‘origine, Isaië II 2–5?” VT 30 (1980): 409–20 (who assumes that the passage was reworked by Deutero-Isaiah); Baruch J. Schwartz, “Torah from Zion: Isaiah‘s Temple

178

Reinhard Müller

written as an independent text and only later inserted into both prophetic books.3 2) The text was composed in the context of the book of Isaiah, and secondarily inserted into Micah.4 3) The text was composed in the context of Micah, and copied into Isaiah.5 This paper tries to show that the textual evidence strongly supports the third option.

1. The Contexts The most important arguments indicating the priority of the Micah-text are based on the context of each version; it has often been observed that the vision is rather closely related to the surrounding texts in Micah, but only loosely related to the context in Isaiah.6 Because the peaceful vision of Mic 4:1–3 stands in marked contrast to the preceding oracle of Zion’s doom (3:12), it cannot have been the

2 3

4

5

6

Vision (Isaiah 2:1–4),” in Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity (ed. A. Houtman et al.; Jewish and Christian perspectives series 1; Leiden: Brill 1998), 11–26. Adam S. van der Woude, “Micah IV 1–5: An Instance of the Pseudo-Prophets Quoting Isaiah,” in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl Dedicatae (ed. M. A. Beck; Leiden: Brill, 1973), 396–402, proposes that the vision goes back to Isaiah and was quoted by the opponents of Micah who wanted to prove that Micah‘s judgment on Jerusalem was wrong; thus also J. G. Strydom, “Micah 4:1– 5 and Isaiah 2:2–5: Who said it first? A critical discussion of A. S. van der Woude‘s view,” Old Testament Essays 2,2 (1989): 15–28. Cf. e.g. Victor Ryssel, Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches Micha: Ein kritischer Commentar zu Micha (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1887), 218–24. Cf. e.g. E. Cannawurf, “The Authenticity of Micah IV 1–4,” VT 13 (1963): 26–33 (31– 33); Jacques Vermeylen, Du prophète Isaïe à l‘apocalyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d‘un démimillénaire d‘expérience religieuse en Israël. Études bibliques (vol. 1; Paris: Gabalda, 1977–78), 132–33; Hans Walter Wolff, Dodekapropheton 4: Micha (BKAT 14,4; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 88–89. Cf. e.g. Erich Bosshard-Nepustil, Rezeptionen von Jesaja 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit (OBO 154; Freibourg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1997), 415–20; Burkhard M. Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton (BZAW 256; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997), 64–77. Cf. e.g. Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Zion – Ort der Tora: Überlegungen zu Mi 4,1–3” in Zion – Ort der Begegnung (ed. F. Hahn et al.; BBB 90; Bodenheim: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 1993), 107–25 (110–13); Rainer Kessler, Micha (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1999), 179–80. Thus already Julius Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und erklärt (3rd ed.; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1898), 142–43; Karl Budde, “Verfasser und Stelle von Mi. 4,1–4 (Jes. 2,2–4),” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 81 (1927): 152–58 (153).

Doubled Prophecy

179

original continuation of this oracle.7 Nevertheless, several terms and motifs of the vision have parallels in the pre-text:8 1) The singular phrase !#!' =' :! “mountain of the house of Yahweh”9 is a variant of ='! :! “mountain of the house” in the oracle of 3:12. 2) The motif of Zion as the highest of the mountains is a positive counterpart to the “wooded heights” (:3' =#/) in the same oracle. 3) The word <: in -':!! <: “as head of the mountains” in 4:1 is used before in the phrase 93' =' '<: “heads of the house of Jacob” (3:9; cf. 3:1). 4) The parallelism of 0#'8 and -+<#:' in 4:2 also occurs in 3:10, 12. 5) The name of Jacob is mentioned not only in 4:2 but also in 3:1, 8–9 (cf. 1:5; 2:7, 12). 6) The motif of teaching (!:' hiph.) in 4:2 has a parallel in 3:11 where the text talks about corrupt priests (#:#' :'%/ !'1!)# “and the priests thereof teach for hire”). 7) Yahweh’s judging between the nations (Mic 4:3) contrasts with the motif of the false judgment of the Judean leaders in the same passage (#&6<' %< !'<: “The heads thereof judge for reward,” cf. &6
7 8

9

This is proven by the quotation of Mic 3:12 in Jer 26:18: It excludes that Mic 4:1–3 was already known when Jer 26 was written, cf. e.g. Kessler, Micha, 179. Cf. Bernard Gosse, “Michée 4,1–5, Isaïe 2,1–5 et les rédacteurs finaux du livre d’Isaïe,” ZAW 105 (1993): 98–102 (99); Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Zion – Ort der Tora,” 110–12; Kessler, Micha, 179–80. Elsewhere only in 2 Chr 33:15. Mic 4:1LXX has Ìġ ěÉÇË ÌÇı ÍÉţÇÍ, Isa 2:2LXX Ìġ ěÉÇË ÌÇı

ÍÉţÇÍ Á¸Ė ĝ ÇčÁÇË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı. MT is sometimes regarded as the result of a conflation, cf. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, 15; George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX vol. I: Introduction, and Commentary on I–XXVII (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912, repr. 1962), 47; Hugh G. M. Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5. Vol. 1 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27 (ICC; London: T & T Clark, 2006), 168.

180

Reinhard Müller

11) The term !/%+/ “war” also occurs in 2:8 and 3:5. Although Mic 4:1–3 cannot completely be deduced from its pre-text,10 the listed parallels can only be due to the fact that the composition of the passage was influenced by the older pre-text. Thus the vision must have originated in the book of Micah. Otherwise the parallels would be pure coincidences.11 Terminological and thematical parallels can also be found in the following text.12 Several passages of chapters 4–5 seem to be influenced by the vision:13 1) In 4:7a, the motif of the “mighty peoples” (-'/83 -'#) of 4:3 is supplemented by the promise that Yahweh will make Israel’s remnant a “mighty people” (-#83 '#).14 The opening formula of this promise (4:6: !#!' -1 #!! -#') indicates that it was secondarily added. 2) Mic 4:11–13 describes the present situation of the daughter Zion, who is besieged by “many nations” (-': -'#) but called by Yahweh to “beat them in pieces”; this was obviously added as a contrasting parallel to the peaceful vision (cf. the “speaking” of the nations in 4:11, the motif that the nations do not understand Yahweh‘s plans in 4:12, and the agricultural imagery in 4:13).15 3) The promises regarding the “remnant of Jacob” in 5:6–7, which lives “in the middle of many peoples,” resume the term -': -'/3 from 4:3. In the context of Isa 2:2–4, only a few parallels can be observed:

10

11 12 13

14 15

On the one hand, the vision is deeply rooted in the complex of the ancient Zion tradition, see esp. Ps 46; 48 (cf. John T. Willis, “Isaiah 2:2–5 and the Psalms of Zion” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition [ed. C. C. Broyles and C. A. Evans; VTSup 70,1; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 295–316; Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, esp. 175–76). On the other hand, its universal perspective, based on a consequent monotheism, has parallels only in texts from the Persian period, see esp. Isa 60; Hag 2:7–9; Zech 8:22 (cf. Kessler, Micha, 182–83; Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 175–77). Cf. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Zion – Ort der Tora,” 113; Kessler, Micha, 180. Cf. Kessler, Micha, 180; Marvin A. Sweeney, “Micah‘s Debate with Isaiah,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 93 (2001): 111–24 (119–20). The core of these chapters can probably be found in 4:9–10, 14 and 5:1–4*, cf. Jörg Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha (ATD 24,3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 177–87. Here no parallels to 4:1–3 appear. Thus the vision could have been inserted between 3:12 and 4:9. Cf. Kessler, Micha, 180. Cf. Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 181–83.

Doubled Prophecy

181

1) The terms !:#= “instruction” and !#!' : “the word of Yahweh” (2:3) also occur in reverse order in 1:10. 2) The “sword” (2:4) is also to be found in 1:20. 3) The name “Zion” (2:3) is also used in 1:8, 27, whereas 1:1 and 2:1 speak about “Jerusalem” (and Judah); however, no parallelism of “Zion” and “Jerusalem” can be found. 4) The participle <1 “elevated” (2:2) is also used in 2:12–14. 5) A slight thematic parallel to the vision can be found in the promise of Zion’s restitution as “the city of justice” in Isa 1:26; however, apart from the verb &6<, which is also used in 1:23 and 26 (cf. also 1:17), identical terms and motifs do not appear. The nations cannot be found in the immediate context.16 The promise of Zion’s salvation, which follows in Isa 4:2–6, does not speak about them at all. Moreover, throughout Isa 1–12, probably only one reference to the pilgrimage of the nations occurs: The late promise of 11:10 (#<:' -'# #'+ “the nations shall inquire of him”) seems to allude to the words spoken by the nations in 2:3 (#'):/ #1:'# “he will teach us his ways”). This scarcity of parallels indicates that the vision was inserted into Isa 1–12 at a relatively late stage.17 Additionally, a general argument has to be taken into consideration: It is more probable that the vision was secondarily inserted into a prophetic book which was, compared to Micah, more prominent; the contrary seems less probable.18

2. Minor Variants in the First Three Verses The first three verses of both texts are almost identical. They obviously aim at presenting exactly the same prophecy, not two similar but still different oracles like Obad and Jer 49 or Isa 15–16 and Jer 48. Only slight variants can be observed in Isa 2:2–4 and Mic 4:1–3: 16 17

18

The next instance is Isa 3:13. Other clear references in the book can be found in the “Deutero-Isaianic” passages 51:4–5 and 56:6–7 as well as in 25:6–8 (in the late “Isaiah-apocalypse”). If the core texts of both “Deutero-” and “Trito-Isaiah” contain quotations of the vision, remains debatable. Cf. Otto Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja: Kapitel 1–12 (5th ed.; ATD 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 63; Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Zion – Ort der Tora,” 113; Uwe Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT 178; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 196.

182

Reinhard Müller

1) 0#)1 has a different position in the first sentence (Isa 2:2a: :! !'!' 0#)1 !#!' =' /Mic 4:1a: 0#)1 !#!' =' :! !'!').19 2) The pronoun #! in Mic 4:1 is lacking in Isa 2:2.20 3) That the nations “are streaming”21 towards Zion, is introduced with a different preposition: #'+ in Isa 2:2b, #'+3 in Mic 4:1b.22 4) In Mic 4:1b the peoples are called -'/3, in Isa 2:2b -'#! +) “all the nations.” 5) Correspondingly, the following colon exchanges -'# (Mic 4:2) and -'/3 (Isa 2:3). 6) The copula of 93' '!+ =' +# in Mic 4:2 is missing in Isa 2:3.23

19

20 21

22

Isa 2:2LXX renders !'!' 0#)1 by ëÄθÅòË, Mic 4:1LXX 0#)1 … !'!' by ëÄθÅòË . . . ðÌÇÀÄÇÅ. ëÄθÅòË as translation of 0#)1 is striking because participles of 0#) niph. are nowhere else translated this way; instead forms of ðÌÇÀÄÇË are often used (cf. e.g. Exod 19:11; Josh 8:4; 1 Kgs 2:45; Hos 6:3); ëÄθÅŢË, -šË is used for 3' niph. (Exod 2:14) or f: niph. (Isa 65:1). Thus Isa 2:2LXX and Mic 4:1LXX cannot be independent from each other, but it is difficult to decide, which side has the priority. A possible explanation is that ëÄθÅòË was first used in Isa 2:2LXX for 0#)1 (cf. William McKane, The Book of Micah: Introduction and Commentary [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998], 122; Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 167, notes that this is supported by the fact that !'!' is lacking in 4QIsae [4Q59]); in this case the translator of Micah first followed Isa 2:2LXX, then additionally translated 0#)1 with the usual ðÌÇÀÄÇÅ. “Whatever the explanation, there is no case for emending the Hebrew text on the basis of the Greek at this point.” (Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 167.) 4QIsae (4Q59) goes with the Micah-text by inserting #!. Usually taken as :!1 I qal, denominative from :!š š1 (DCH 5: 632) with equivalents in Arabic, Ethiopic and Jewish-Aramaic (Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament [18th ed.; ed. H. Donner; Berlin: Springer, 1987–], 789; this root can also be assumed in Jer 51:44. Some exegetes deduce #:!1 in Isa 2:2/Mic 4:1 from :!1 II “beam, be radiant, fig. of joy” (BDB; also attested in Isa 60:5; Ps 34:6; in Jer 31:12 both roots seem possible) and deny the existence of :!1 I, cf. e.g. Cazelles, “Qui aurait visé?,”418; L. Snijders, “:!š š1,” ThWAT 5: 282; Willem A. M. Beuken, Jesaja 1–12 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 2003), 88. Schwartz, “Torah from Zion,” 14–15, who refers to two medieval exegetes, proposes even that :!1 II here means “the nations will see the lofty mountain from afar”; similarly already Budde, “Verfasser und Stelle von Mi. 4,1–4 (Jes. 2,2–4),” 152. However, regarding the background of the motif of the nations moving towards Zion, it is quite sure that #:!1 has to be deduced from a root :!1 I (cf. Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 169); the same holds true for the parallel Jer 51:44, perhaps also for Jer 31:12. 1QIsaa uses '!#+3 which could be influenced by the use of +3 in Aramaic (cf. Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 169).

Doubled Prophecy

183

7) In Isa 2:4a and Mic 4:3a, the parallel terms for the nations are exchanged again: -': -'/3/-'#! (Isa 2:4) instead of -'/83 -'#/-': -'/3 (Mic 4:3). 8) The phrase 9#%: 3 occurs only in Mic 4:3. 9) Isa 2:4 has the singular <' instead of the plural #<' in Mic 4:3.24 Compared with the identity of most words, these minor differences are difficult to explain.25 As they do not affect the sense of the text deeply,26 it is possible that they are due to oral transmission.27 The editor, who inserted the vision into the book of Isaiah, could have known it by heart, perhaps from a liturgy; by writing it down, he changed the original text slightly, because he was not focused on producing an identical copy. However, it is also possible that some of the changes were made deliberately: 1) By putting the word 0#)1 “established” at the head of the sentence, Isa 2:2 gives special emphasis to it. This transposition causes a change in the length of the first four cola: Their equal length in the Micah-text is destroyed.28 The omission of #! in the fourth colon can be regarded as a necessary consequence, because, resulting from the transposition, the third colon in Isa 2:2 consists of only two words; thus the opening tetracolon has to end with two short cola (=#3/ <1#/-':!! <:). The emphasis on 0#)1 in Isa 2:2 could be due to the following prediction of the day of Yahweh (2:6–21) which announces that everything high and elevated (v. 12: <1 +), cf. =#<1! =#3! “the exalted hills” in v. 14) will be flattened; the image of mount Zion “exalted above the hills” (=#3/ <1) contrasts sharply with that announcement. Therefore, it could have been regarded as necessary to stress the promise that, de-

23

24

25 26 27 28

4QIsae (4Q59) again goes with the Micah-text; in 1QIsaa !#!' :! + is lacking, “a simple enough case of scribal parablepsis” (Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 170). Additionally some spelling differences can be noted: #1:#' (Mic 4:2), #1:' (Isa 2:3), -=#:% (Isa 2:4), -!' =:% (Mic 4:3), #/+' (Isa 2:4), 0#/+' (Mic 4:3) and two defective readings in Mic 4:3b, plene in Isa 2:4b. Cf. the extensive discussion by McKane, Micah, 121–26. Cf. Kessler, Micha, 178; Sweeney, “Micah‘s Debate with Isaiah,” 114. Cf. e.g. Wolff, Micha, 85; Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, 63; Sweeney, “Micah‘s Debate with Isaiah,” 114. Cf. on the metrical evenness of the Micah-text e.g. John Merlin Powis Smith, William Hayes Ward and Julius A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1911, repr. 1948), 85; Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, 61.

184

Reinhard Müller

spite Yahweh‘s cosmic judgment on everything high, mount Zion will be “established ... as the highest of the mountains” ( !#!' =' :! !'!' 0#)1 -':!! <:). 2) Compared with #'+3 in Mic 4:1b, #'+ in Isa 2:2b could be read as lectio facilior: #'+3 is ambiguous and can mean either “against” or “up to”; this ambiguity is related to the background in tradition history:29 That the nations “are streaming”30 towards Zion, alludes to the divine battle against the chaotic waters, a motif deeply rooted in Zion theology (e.g. Ps 46:3–4). Therefore, the reader of Mic 4:1b expects that the “streaming” is an aggressive act “against” Zion (see Ps 46:7; 48:6–8); surprisingly this movement turns out to be peaceful. In Isa 2:2b the ambiguity is missing since #'+ simply means “towards” Zion. 3) In Isa 2:2b, 3, the totality of the nations is additionally emphasized (-'#! +)). Moreover, compared with Mic 4:1b, 2, in the Isaiah-text the parallel terms -': -'/3/-'#! +) are the lectio longior. 4) In Isa 2:4a/Mic 4:3a the Micah-text is the lectio longior. However, 9#%: 3 in Mic 4:3 is probably an isolated gloss.31 The exchange of -'/3 and -'# simply corresponds to the first instance where both terms are parallel (-'#! corresponding to -'#! +) in Isa 2:2b). More difficult to explain is the omission of -'/83 (Mic 4:3a). It is perhaps due to the fact that in the book of Isaiah, Yahweh’s promise to Abraham, that he will become a -#83 '# (Gen 18:1832), is resumed (Isa 60:22). In the context of Isaiah, the “mighty nations” of Mic 4:3 could have been regarded as a rival of the eschatological Israel.33 Thus again the Isaiah-text could be explained as the lectio facilior.

3. The Additional Verses (Mic 4:4–5 and Isa 2:5) Both texts end differently. Mic 4:4 continues by depicting how the nations will live in peace: !#!' '6 ')/':%/ 0'# #=1= =%=# #16 =%= <' #<'# : =#8 “They will sit, each under his vine and under his fig tree, and no one will make them afraid,/for the mouth of Yahweh of hosts has spoken.” The pax Salomonica (1 Kgs 5:5) with the promise of its res29 30 31

32 33

Cf. Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 172–73; Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 175–76. See n. 22. Cf. e.g. Smith, Ward and Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel, 87; Wolff, Micha, 84; Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 169. Cf. Exod 1:9; Num 14:12; 22:6; Deut 9:14; 26:5. Cf. the addition of Mic 4:6–7 which deals with exactly the same problem.

185

Doubled Prophecy

titution after exile (Zech 3:10) is expanded into a promise of universal peace. Perhaps at the same time the pax Assyriaca, which could only be enjoyed by submitting to the Assyrian rule (2 Kgs 18:31/Isa 36:16), is revoked. It is a striking phenomenon that this important motif cannot be found in Isa 2. The most reasonable explanation is that the verse was still missing when the vision was copied into the book of Isaiah; Mic 4:4 must have been added later.34 This is corroborated by a poetological argument. The verse leaves the poetical form of the first three verses which consists throughout of synonymous parallelisms (except the first two cola). If Mic 4:4 was added after the vision was already copied into Isa 2, it could have been regarded as necessary to stress that this expansion of the vision was in fact “spoken” by “the mouth of Yahweh of hosts” (: =#8 !#!' '6 ')).35 More difficult to explain is the final verse of each text (Isa 2:5/Mic 4:5). Both verses can be understood as answers of the community; they are similar but far from identical: Isa 2:5 93' =' !#!' :# !)+1# #)+

Mic 4:5 #'!+ -< <' #)+' -'/3! +) ') 3# -+#3+ #1'!+ !#!' -< (+1 #1%1#

It has to be noted that the wording of Mic 4:5a seems influenced by the preceding verse. The phrase #'!+ -< <' #)+' “they walk, each in the name of its god”36 resembles the sentence #16 =%= <' #<' “they sit, each under his vine ....” Thus it is probable that Mic 4:5 presupposes the promise in v. 4. The answer of the community in v. 5 could have been added even later,37 as the repetition of ') at the beginning indicates. Moreover, the text of Isa 2:5 is not necessarily influenced by Mic 4:5.38 All phrases and motifs can be explained otherwise: 93' ='

34 35 36 37

38

Cf. e.g. Wolff, Micha, 85; Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 170–71. Note that the formula has parallels only in the book of Isaiah: : !#!' '6 ') in 1:20; 40:5; 58:14. A similar phrase and motif can be found in Jonah 1:5: #'!+ + <' #93$'# “and they cried, every man to his god.” Cf. Wolff, Micha, 85, 89; Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton, 73; Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 170– 71, 174–75. Differently e.g. Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, 196.

186

Reinhard Müller

“house of Jacob” must have been copied from Isa 2:6:39 “For you have abandoned your people, the house of Jacob ...”40 The phrase !)+1# #)+ “come, let us walk” modifies Isa 2:3/Mic 4:2, !+31# #)+ “come, let us go up.”41 The motif of “the light of Yahweh” has its source in the imagery of the psalms (see esp. Ps 36:10; 43:3); there even the motif of Yahweh‘s people walking in his light can be found (Ps 89:16). In the context of Isaiah, 2:5 could already refer to Isa 60 (vv. 1, 3, 19–20) where Yahweh is depicted as a light greater than the sun.42 In sum, it is more probable that Isa 2:5 influenced Mic 4:5 than vice versa. The singular expression of Mic 4:5b “to walk in the name of Yahweh” can be explained as a modification of the phrase “to walk in the light of Yahweh”: It combines the motif of “walking” with the “name of Yahweh” which is mentioned in the context (Mic 5:3).43

4. The Heading of Isa 2:1 In Isa 2, the vision is preceded by a heading (v. 1): #!'3<' !$% :< :! -+<#:'# !#!' +3 7#/ 0 “The word that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.” This repeats the first half of the title of the book (1:1a) almost verbatim ( !#!' +3 !$% :< 7#/ 0 #!'3<' 0#$% -+<#:'# “The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz that he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem”). Because such a doubled title is a singular phenomenon in the prophetic literature, it must have a special reason. As Ackroyd pointed out,44 Isa 2:1 has to be explained as a doublet of the

39 40 41 42 43

44

Cf. e.g. Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, 196; Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 186–87. Originally continued by v. 9. Isa 2:6 probably refers to the crucial passage 8:17. Cf. Sweeney, “Micah‘s Debate with Isaiah,” 115. Compare also Isa 9:1; 10:17. Cf. Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton, 73–74. An additional argument is given by Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, 48: “The closer approximation of the !)+1# #)+ of Is. as compared with the (+1 #1%1# of Mic. to the phraseology of the poem (!+31# #)+ and  !)+1#) might seem to favour the priority of Is.” Peter R. Ackroyd, “A Note on Isaiah 2,1,” ZAW 75 (1963): 320–21; Peter R. Ackroyd, “Isaiah I–XII: Presentation of a Prophet,” in Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1987), 79–104 (92–94); repr. from Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (VTSup 29, Leiden: Brill, 1978), 16–48. Cf. Robert B. Y. Scott, “The Literary Structure of Isaiah‘s Oracles,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. H. H. Rowley; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950; repr. 1957), 175–86 (177); Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, 195; Ulrich Berges, Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt

Doubled Prophecy

187

title of the book in 1:1 that is related to the insertion of the Micah-vision into the book of Isaiah. In fact, Isa 2:1 can be interpreted as a modification of 1:1a that aims at ascribing the vision, known from the book of Micah, to the prophet Isaiah. This is the obvious reason why the opening of 1:1 (!$% :< 7#/ 0 #!'3<' 0#$% “The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz that he saw ...”) is changed into 7#/ 0 #!'3<' !$% :< :! “The word that Isaiah son of Amoz saw ...” It had to be emphasized that the following “word” was “seen” by Isaiah. However, this does not imply that :! is exclusively referring to the vision.45 This is indicated by the final words of 2:1 (-+<#:'# !#!' +3 “concerning Judah and Jerusalem”) which are repeated verbatim from 1:1a. They refer not only to the vision itself, because it talks only about Jerusalem, not about Judah as well.46 Thus :! must have a double meaning. The heading of 2:1 connects the vision with the following texts which speak about Yahweh judging his people in Jerusalem and Judah (esp. ch. 3, see 3:1). This judgment was obviously regarded as the necessary cleansing of Zion so that in future it will be able to fulfill its role as the center of a peaceful world.47

5. Why Was the Vision Doubled and Inserted into Isa 2? Two puzzling questions remain: Why was the vision copied and inserted into the book of Isaiah? And why was it inserted here, that is, in a part of the book which (as shown above [1.]) has no close parallels with terms and motifs of the vision itself? Regarding the first question, two aspects can be denoted: 1) It seems that the vision was considered too important to keep it only in the book of Micah, somewhere in the middle of the book of the Twelve. By inserting this prophecy into the opening part of Isaiah, an editor emphatically ascribed it to the greatest of all prophets and gave it a much more prominent place in the corpus propheticum.

45 46

47

(Herders Biblische Studien 16; Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1998), 55–56; Kessler, Micha, 181; Beuken, Jesaja 1–12, 89; differently Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 163–65. 2:1 does not imply that 2:2–4 was regarded as a conclusion of ch. 1 (against Ackroyd and others), cf. Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 164–65. Cf. Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 165, who proposes that 2:1 was inserted “to introduce the expanded and full text of 2–12.” This does not exclude the possibility that the insertion of 2:1 was initiated by the fact that 2:2–4 was copied from Micah into the book of Isaiah. Cf. Sweeney, “Micah‘s Debate with Isaiah,” 117–18.

188

Reinhard Müller

2) The vision of a peaceful world order, established by “the god of Jacob,” and centered at Zion, is a universalistic and monotheistic consequence of the ancient Zion tradition.48 Therefore it could have been regarded as necessary to ascribe the vision to the prophet to whom it seemed to belong, that is to Isaiah who, like no other prophet, was focused on the complex of the Zion tradition. The question of the place of the vision in the book of Isaiah could be answered from two perspectives: 1) It cannot be coincidence that the vision precedes the poem about Yahweh‘s judgment “upon all that is high and lifted up” (2:12; cf. v. 14: “upon all high mountains and upon all exalted hills”) which contradicts the image of mount Zion elevated as the top of all mountains (see above 2.). By inserting the vision before that poem, the editor supplemented the imagery by implying that Zion‘s future elevation will be caused by Yahweh himself who “alone will be exalted in that day” (2:11, 17).49 2) Becker observed that the sequence of Isa 1:21–26 and 2:2–5 resembles the sequence of Mic 3:9–12 and 4:1–3.50 Because Isa 1:27–31 consists of several late additions, an older pre-text of the vision in Isaiah must have been the passage that announces Yahweh‘s cleansing judgment of Zion from its corrupt leaders (1:21–26). Exactly the same sequence of themes can be found in Micah. Here the vision is preceded by the announcement of Yahweh‘s judgment of Zion which is also caused by the corruption of its leaders (3:9–12). Becker proposes that the editor not only inserted the vision of Isa 2:2–5 but also composed the announcement of 1:21–26 in order to prepare the vision and to link the judgment, which is announced in Isa 1:2–20, with the outlook for Zion‘s salvation. This, however, is not the only possibility. It is even more probable that the core of 1:21–26 is older than Isa 2:2–5.51 Yahweh‘s cleansing of Zion from its corrupt leaders could have reminded an editor that in the book of Micah a similar announcement of Zion‘s judgment is immediately followed by the impressive prediction of Zion‘s future glory; by copying Mic 4:1–3 and inserting it into Isa 2, the editor created a sequence similar to Mic 3–4 in the book of Isaiah.

48 49 50 51

See n. 11. Cf. Williamson, Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, 182. Becker, Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, 195–96. Becker stresses that 1:26 even seems to prepare the vision (Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch, 196); this is possible, but the verse could be already an addition to 1:21–25, cf. Kaiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja, 54.

Doubled Prophecy

189

6. Summary of the Literary Development Contextual arguments prove that the vision of mount Zion, being the center of a peaceful world, was composed in the context of the book of Micah. It originally consisted only of Mic 4:1–3; this text was copied and inserted into Isa 2:2–4 with slight changes. In Isa 2, it was embedded into the context by the parenetic sentence of 2:5 and by the heading of 2:1. In Mic 4, the vision was, after the doubling of the text, first expanded by v. 4, later by v. 5; probably the latter was already inspired by Isa 2:5.

Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter R. “A Note on Isaiah 2,1.” ZAW 75 (1963): 320–21. Ȱ.“Isaiah I–XII: Presentation of a Prophet.” Pages 79–104 in Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament. London: SCM, 1987. Repr. from Congress Volume Göttingen 1977 (VTSup 29, Leiden: Brill, 1978), 16–48. Becker, Uwe. Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch. FRLANT 178. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Berges, Ulrich. Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. Herders Biblische Studien 16. Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1998. Beuken, Willem A. M. Jesaja 1–12. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 2003. Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich. Rezeptionen von Jesaja 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit. OBO 154. Freiburg, CH.: Universitätsverlag, 1997. Botterweck, Johannes G. and Helmer Ringgren, ed. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970–. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907. Budde, Karl. “Verfasser und Stelle von Mi. 4,1–4 (Jes. 2,2–4).” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 81 (1927): 152–58. Cannawurf, E. “The Authenticity of Micah IV 1–4.” VT 13 (1963): 26–33. Cazelles, Henri. “Qui aurait visé, à l‘origine, Isaië II 2–5?” VT 30 (1980): 409–20. Clines, David J. A. ed. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 6 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2007. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Jesaja. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament III,1. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. Edited by Herbert Donner. 18th ed. Berlin: Springer, 1987–. Gosse, Bernard. “Michée 4,1–5, Isaïe 2,1–5 et les rédacteurs finaux du livre d’Isaïe.” ZAW 105 (1993): 98–102.

190

Reinhard Müller

Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX vol. I: Introduction, and Commentary on I–XXVII. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912, repr. 1962. Jeremias, Jörg. Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha. ATD 24,3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Kaiser, Otto. Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja: Kapitel 1–12. ATD 17. 5th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Kessler, Rainer. Micha. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg i. B.: Herder, 1999. McKane, William. The Book of Micah: Introduction and Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998. Rad, Gerhard von. “Die Stadt auf dem Berge.” Pages 214–24 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Theologische Bücherei 8. 4th ed. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1971. Repr. from Evangelische Theologie 8 (1948–49): 439–47. Ryssel, Victor. Untersuchungen über die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches Micha: Ein kritischer Commentar zu Micha. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1887. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Torah from Zion: Isaiah‘s Temple Vision (Isaiah 2:1–4).” Pages 11–26 in Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity. Edited by A. Houtman et al. Jewish and Christian perspectives series 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger. “Zion – Ort der Tora: Überlegungen zu Mi 4,1–3.” Pages 107–25 in Zion – Ort der Begegnung. Edited by F. Hahn et al. BBB 90. Bodenheim: Athenäum Hain Hanstein, 1993. Scott, Robert B. Y. “The Literary Structure of Isaiah‘s Oracles.” Pages 175–86 in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Edited by Harold Henry Rowley. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950. Repr. 1957. Smith, John Merlin Powis, Ward, William Hayes, and Bewer, Julius A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1911. Repr. 1948. Strydom, J. G. “Micah 4:1–5 and Isaiah 2:2–5: Who said it first? A critical discussion of A. S. van der Woude‘s view.” Old Testament Essays 2,2 (1989): 15–28. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Micah‘s Debate with Isaiah.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 93 (2001): 111–24. Vermeylen, Jacques. Du Prophète Isaïe à l‘Apocalyptique: Isaïe, I–XXXV, miroir d‘un démimillénaire d‘expérience religieuse en Israël. Études bibliques. Vol. 1. Paris: Gabalda, 1977–78. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und erklärt. 3rd ed. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1898. Wildberger, Hans. Jesaja: Jesaja 1–12. BKAT 10,1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972. Williamson, Hugh G. M. Commentary on Isaiah 1–5. Vol. 1 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27. ICC. London: T & T Clark, 2006. Willis, John T. “Isaiah 2:2–5 and the Psalms of Zion.” Pages 295–316 in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition. Edited by Craig C. Broyles and Craig A. Evans. VTSup 70,1. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Doubled Prophecy

191

Wolff, Hans Walter. Dodekapropheton 4: Micha. BKAT 14,4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. Woude, Adam S. van der. “Micah IV 1–5: An Instance of the Pseudo-Prophets Quoting Isaiah.” Pages 396–402 in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl Dedicatae. Edited by M. A. Beck. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Zapff, Burkhard M. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton. BZAW 256. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997.

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah Juha Pakkala 1. Introduction The Torah plays a larger role in Ezra-Nehemiah than perhaps in any other book of the Hebrew Bible outside the Pentateuch itself. Many authors of the compo sition refer to it as the basis and guiding principle of the community’s life. Relative to the size of the composition there are many quotations, allusions and other references to the Torah or to the Book of Law, which makes the composition a fruitful source for investigating the Lawbooks or Pentateuchs the authors may have used. Particularly important is the source value of Ezra-Nehemiah for the use and form of the Pentateuch during the time that Ezra-Nehemiah was written and edited in the fifth to third centuries BCE. There are not many possibilities for obtaining information about the Pentateuch of these centuries, and Ezra-Nehemiah may be one of the most fruitful exceptions.1 Most other books of the Hebrew Bible provide only scat1

The next substantial evidence for the pentateuchal texts is the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain texts that quote the Pentateuch (for example, the Community Rule, see Sarianna Metso, “Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule,” in The Bible as Book. The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: British Library, 2002), 81–92 and variant editions of the Pentateuch (the so called Reworked Pentateuch texts, see Sidnie White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuch,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 775–77. The quotations, allusions and other references to the Torah in the Chronicles may be another important exception. This material has to be left for a further study. However, Judson R. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's history work: an inquiry into the Chronicler's references to laws, festivals, and cultic institutions in relationship to Pentateuchal legislation (Brown Judaic Studies 196; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), has concluded that the Chronicler’s Torah was more extensive than the presently known Pentateuch. This would be in line with the observations made here. It has to be noted, however, that Shaver assumes the Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah to have formed a single work. For other problems and criticism of Shaver’s work, see Ehud Ben-Zvi, review of Judson R. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's history work: an inquiry into the Chronicler's

194

Juha Pakkala

tered quotations, whereas Ezra-Nehemiah contains several passages that claim to quote the Torah or are otherwise related. Clearly, we only have glimpses of the Pentateuch’s early development in EzraNehemiah, but some of them may be very illuminating and are in any case significant because the Pentateuch of these centuries is otherwise very poorly known. In this study I will discuss the quotations and other renderings of the pentateuchal laws in Ezra-Nehemiah. I will only deal with the laws, whereas the references, allusions and other uses of the narrative sections of the Pentateuch will have to be left out. For example, the use of the pentateuchal narratives in Neh 9 would necessitate a separate study, and cannot be discussed here.2 I will include passages that seem to quote or otherwise render a part of a law of the Pentateuch, whereas general allusions or other dependence, with some exceptions, will not be discussed. Cases where the author explicitly refers to what is written in the Torah (#=))) will be considered even if there does not seem to be a direct quotation. Many of such cases were written with a particular law in mind and may therefore provide significant information about the authors’ Lawbooks and how they related to them. For example, even if the law in question is not presented as a quotation, its phraseology may be integrated into the passage in Ezra-Nehemiah. The main intent of this work is to discuss how the quoted or otherwise rendered laws differ from their pentateuchal version preserved in the Masoretic text and other known witnesses, and to discuss what the reasons for the possible differences are. Were the pentateuchal laws changed in the quotations and other renderings in Ezra-Nehemiah or did the laws the authors referred to differ from the pentateuchal texts known to us?3 The analysis may thus provide information about the text of the Pentateuch used by the authors4 of Ezra-Nehemiah.5

2

3 4

references to laws, festivals, and cultic institutions in relationship to Pentateuchal legislation, JBL 110/4 (1991): 718–20. The confession of Neh 9 has been extensively discussed by, for example, Hans-Peter Mathys, Dichter und Beter. Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit (OBO 132; Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1999), 4–21 and Mark J. Boda, Praying the Tradition (BZAW 277; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999). For the purposes of this paper, the differences between the known witnesses are minor and have limited influence on the main conclusions. In this work I will mainly refer to the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah without distinguishing between the different editors. The editorial development of the composition is very complicated and will not be discussed here in any detail. For a theory on the editorial development, see Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe. The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 225–77. For the exegesis and related literature on passages discussed here, see the related chapter in that volume.

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

195

2. Quotations of the Pentateuch in Ezra-Nehemiah 2.1. Ezra 9:11–12 and Deuteronomy Ezra 9:11–12 is given as a quotation (:/+ … ='#8 :<) and it is also formally presented to be one (Yahweh is speaking to the Israelites in the second person as in most laws of the Pentateuch). That we are dealing with a quotation is corroborated by the comparison between these verses and Deuteronomy. Ezra 9:11–12 and several parts of Deuteronomy witness to many parallel sentences. I have discussed the relationship of this passage and Deuteronomy in a previous publication, and the arguments for their close relationships need not be repeated here.6 The main results and their implications for understanding the use of the pentateuchal text will only be summarized. An alternative explanation for the differences is also offered. When we compare the Masoretic text7 of Deuteronomy with Ezra 9:11–12, it would appear that the author of Ezra 9:11–12 used at least Deut 7:3; 11:8–10 and 23:7 and possibly also 18:9–14. Although Ezra 9:11–12 is given as a single quotation, the author seems to have freely combined words and sentences from different parts of Deuteronomy into one quotation. This was done in a very skillful way because without the source text it would be difficult to recognize that these verses are a patchwork of different passages. Ezra 9:11–12 forms a logical and consistent unit8 and the reader also receives the impression that it is one passage from the Torah. The text of Deuteronomy, at least when compared with the known witnesses, was also changed, although most of the changes are minor. Moreover, the author of Ezra 9:11–12 has added new material which does not find any counterpart in the Pentateuch or elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Some of the new material has a thematic background in Deuteronomy, although there is no direct

5

6 7

8

Note that this paper will not discuss the hotly debated issue of which books of the Pentateuch Ezra or the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah used. For a discussion, see Ulrich Kellermann, “Erwägungen zum Esragesetz,” ZAW 80 (1968): 373–85 or Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 284–90. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 110–22. The other main witnesses have also been taken into consideration in this investigation, but the differences between them and the Masoretic text are minor in comparison with their differences with the quotations in Ezra-Nehemiah. The land was impure. The impurity was caused by the people who live there. The Israelites should not intermarry with the impure people of the land. This will ensure that the Israelites stay strong, enjoy the produce of the good land and inherit it forever.

196

Juha Pakkala

phraseological link with any specific passage therein.9 The methods of the author in forming the quotation are illustrated in the following chart:10 Ezra 9:11–12 :/+ -''1! ('3 ' ='#8 :< 11 !=<:+ -' -= :< 7:! =#8:! '/3 =1 '! !1 7: !6¡+ !6/ !#+/ :f -!'=3#= #1==¡+ -)'=#1 !=3# 12 -=/& -)'1+ #<=¡+ -!'=1# -!'1+ -+#3¡3 -=#&# -/+< #<:=¡+# 7:! #&¡= -=+)# #9$%= 03/+ -+#3¡3 -)'1+ -=<:#!#

Deut ('!+ !#!' ('' ') 7.1 !=<:+ !/<¡ !=¡:< 7:!¡+ - 0=%== +# 7.3 (1+ %9=¡+ #=# #1+ 0==¡+ (= ')1 :< !#8/!¡+)¡= -=:/<# 11.8 #9$%= 03/+ -#'! (#8/ ('!+ !#!'¡:< 7:!¡+  != ') 18.9 -!! -'#! =3#=) =#<3+ /+=¡+ (+ 0=1 -+#3+ ('/'¡+) -=&# -/+< <:=¡+ 23.7

The assumption that Ezra 9:11–12 is a rendering of phrases and ideas from different parts of Deuteronomy is not the only possibility to explain the differences. Houtman has argued that the Pentateuch of the author was an entirely different edition of the book.11 This would imply that when Ezra 9:11–12 was written, the pentateuchal text was much more fluid than what is commonly accepted in modern research. One would have to assume that later editors may have rewritten, relocated and combined texts they were editing. Although most scholars have rejected such views in the past, in view of the Temple Scroll, 4QReworked Pentateuch12 and other rewritten texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls this possibility should not be excluded, especially since very little is known about the Pentateuch of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE when Ezra 9:11–12 was probably written. Nevertheless, one passage is not enough to shake a consensus and therefore a position on this

9

10 11

12

For example the idea that the Israelites may eat the good of the land is met in Deut 6:11 and 11:14–15. The reference to the prophets through which Yahweh gave his commandments may have its background in Deut 18:15. Underlined sections are close parallels, although in most cases these sections also contain differences in grammatical forms and word order. Cornelis Houtman, “Ezra and the Law. Observations on the Supposed Relation between Ezra and the Pentateuch,” OTS 21 (1981): 91–115. Most scholars have been skeptical about Houtman’s theory, e.g., Hugh G. M. Williamson, “History,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; FS B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 25–38 (26). Especially 4QReworked Pentateuch is significant in this respect. See the contribution of Sidnie White Crawford in this volume.

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

197

question may only be taken after evaluating the whole evidence in Ezra-Nehemiah.

2.2. Neh 1:8–9 – “If You Are Unfaithful, I will Disperse You” Neh 1:8–9 is presented as a quotation of Yahweh’s commandment to Moses (:/+ (3 !
-'/3 -)= 7'6 '1 -'/3 -)= !#!' 7'6!# 7:! !89/ -'/3!¡+) !#!' (8'6!# !/< ('!+ !#!' (8'6! :< -'/3!¡+)/ (89#

#+3/= -=

Unlike in Neh 1:8, however, in Deut 4:27 the scattering of the Israelites is not presented as a conditional, but as a fact that will happen because they have (or will have) worshipped other gods. The verb +3/ is also not used in this connection.14 Deut 28:64 is part of a larger conditional passage that lists the consequences if the Israelites do not follow the commandments of the Torah (v. 58: =$! !:#=! ':¡+)¡= =#<3+ :/<= +¡-). Although +3/ could be seen as a general equivalent to disobeying the commandments, it is evident that Neh 1:8 would not be a faithful rendering of this passage either. Of the three passages in Deuteronomy, Deut 30:3 seems to contain the most distant phraseological connection with Neh 1:8, but the probable connection between Neh 1:9 and Deut 30:1–4 suggests that Neh 1:8 may have been written in view of Deut 30:3.

13

14

Outside the Pentateuch the idea is met in other texts as well, especially in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (e.g., Jer 9:15 and Ezek 11:16; 12:15; 20:23; 22:15), but they are probably influenced by Deuteronomy and the phraseological link with Neh 1:9 is even weaker than with the passages in Deuteronomy. The verb is used only once in Deuteronomy (in 32:51). It is a relatively rare word in the Pentateuch, appearing seven times, six of which are in the priestly texts of Leviticus and Numbers. It is most often met in Chronicles.

198

Juha Pakkala

Neh 1:9

-='<3# '=#8/ -=:/<# '+ -=<# -=

-
Deut 30:1–4 !):! !+! -':!¡+) ('+3 #'¡') !'!# 1 -'#!¡+) (+¡+ =
Deut 30:1–4 and Neh 1:9 share the same idea that Yahweh will eventually gather the Israelites back to their own land, but the only clear phraseological link is between Neh 1:9 and Deut 30:4. Otherwise the author of Neh 1:9 renders the possible source text very freely. The idea of a place wherein Yahweh has set his name to live is not met in Deut 30 and may have been taken from elsewhere in Deuteronomy, the closest parallels being in Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11 and 26:2. The author of Neh 1:8–9 may have had Deut 30:5 in mind but replaced the land with a phrase common in many parts of Deuteronomy (7:!¡+ > -#9/!¡+). This would mean that parts of the quoted text could be replaced by what the author of the quotation regarded as being equivalent. If the author of Neh 1:8–9 used a version of Deuteronomy similar to the Masoretic text, his attitude towards the source text has to be characterized as very free. Nonetheless, the purported quotation would be a reasonably faithful rendering of the ideas of Deuteronomy, which repeatedly, especially in Deut 4–11 and 28–30, warns the Israelites that if they are unfaithful by disobeying Yahweh or breaking the commandments, they will be punished. There are also references to the coming restoration, but they are less common (Deut 4:25–31; 30:1–10). Unless we assume that the author of Neh 1:8–9 used an entirely different version of Deuteronomy, one has to conclude that he believed that even a general rendering of the ideas could be presented as a quotation. Since the author did not deviate from the message of Deuteronomy, there is no reason to assume that he intentionally wanted to change its text. It would be more probable that he did not regard the exact wording to be so important. More important was the general message of the Lawbook. It should further be noted that to give a text as a quotation would have given credibility and authority to the message he was conveying to the read-

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

199

ers. This could be a reason why the author, despite manifest differences, wanted to present his message as a quotation, as if Yahweh was speaking now again to the Israelites. On the other hand, one has to keep open the possibility that the author of Neh 1:8–9 used a completely different version of Deuteronomy. This passage could certainly be used to argue that the pentateuchal text was much more fluid and unstable than what is commonly assumed in biblical scholarship. One would have to assume substantial rewriting and changes to have taken place before the pentateuchal text came to be fixed and unchangeable. Neh 1:8–9 could also be used to suggest that the author used a law that was later lost.

2.3. Neh 13:1–2 and Deut 23:4–6 Neh 13:1–2 claims to provide a text that the Israelites read in the Book of Moses (:62 !
Deut 23:4–6

-3! '1$ !
The quotation in Neh 13:1–2 is generally shorter than Deut 23:4–6. Neh 13:1 is missing the sentence !#!' +!9 -!+ '¡+ ':'<3 :# - of Deut 23:4, but this is very probably a late addition in Deuteronomy. It specifies the law further by excluding even the tenth generation descendants from entering the community of the Israelites. Moreover, the sentence begins with -, which is often used to begin an expansion. One can also find !#!' +!9 at the end of the sentence, which repeats the words where the expansion began. It is a typical editorial technique to return

200

Juha Pakkala

to the older text by repeating part of the final words where the expansion began in order to lead the reader back to the old text. It seems possible or even probable that Neh 13:1 preserves an earlier form of Deut 23:4.15 The next content-related difference is the lack of reference to the journey from Egypt. This is clearly not necessary for understanding the law, and because the reader is bound to connect the Balaam episode with the journey from Egypt anyway, it could be an intentional omission. On the other hand, one cannot rule out the possibility that the sentence is a later clarifying addition to Deut 23:5 and that Neh 13:2 may preserve the older form. Often the same clarifying additions are similar to elements that could also be removed if one needed to shorten a passage. Balaam’s father Beor and his hometown Pethor are not mentioned in Neh 13:2. Again, this could be an intentional omission and shortening in Neh 13, but the possibility that it is an addition in Deut 23:5 and that Neh 13 preserves the older text cannot be excluded. The addition of family origins is very typical in many texts of the Hebrew Bible.16 In most cases, however, it is difficult to determine whether such details were added later to the source text or omitted as unnecessary by the author who quoted them. The idea that Yahweh did not want to listen to Balaam in Deut 23:6 is also lacking in Neh 13. It is not imperative for understanding the passage and only presages the idea that Yahweh changed the planned curse into a blessing. Like the previous two differences, this can be an omission and shortening in Neh 13 or a later addition in Deut 23. In any case the idea that Yahweh did not want to listen to Balaam is misleading. In Num 22–23 Balaam in fact follows Yahweh’s orders and does not curse Israel. However, the first author of Deut 23 could already be behind the misunderstanding and therefore it is a weak argument to assume an addition. There are also some minor differences between the passages such as rendering of :< :¡+3 with the shorter but equivalent ') and the change of number from second person speech to the third person (for 15

16

An intentional shortening should not be completely excluded, but then one would have to assume that the same sentence that was probably added to Deut 23:4 was later removed. This is possible but less likely than to assume that Neh 13:1–2 preserves an earlier form of the law. For example, Ezra’s genealogy in Ezra 7:1–5 was very probably added later. For arguments, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 23–26. Titles, names of fathers, places of origin and other similar details seem to have been common additions in the Hebrew Bible.

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

201

example -)= is changed to +:<' ' 1¡=). Moreover, God is referred to as -'!+! in Neh 13 whereas Deut 23 refers to him as !#!'. The change of !#!' to -'!+ may have been an intentional change to avoid mentioning Yahweh’s name. These changes show that the author of Neh 13:1–2 could at least make small changes to the quoted text and still refer to it as what was found written in the Law of Moses. There is not enough material to make far-reaching conclusions about the differences between Neh 13:1–2 and Deut 23:4–6, but some observations can be made. The available evidence allows only some possibilities. Neh 13:1–2 may preserve an older stage of the law than the known versions of Deut 23:4–6. This is suggested especially by the probability that !#!' +!9 -!+ '¡+ ':'<3 :# - is a later addition to Deut 23:4, while Neh 13 omits it. The other plusses in Deut 23 may also be later additions, but there is not much room for conclusive argumentation. They could be additions in Deut 23 but also shortenings in Neh 13.17 That the author of Neh 13:1–2 probably used an early form of Deut 23:4 slightly increases the probability that the same may be the case in other verses as well. On the other hand, it is possible that the author of Neh 13:1–2 had a free and flexible attitude towards the pentateuchal text and therefore could render it in a shortened form that only contained the essential parts. The minor changes could support this interpretation, because they show that the author of Neh 13:1–2 did not relate to the pentateuchal text with strict adherence to each word. The minor changes, especially the change of the second person to the third person, were probably made by the author of Neh 13:1–2 because the second person direct speech very much depends on the broader context of the Pentateuch where the laws are presented as Yahweh’s speech to Moses. However, some of the other quotations of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah have preserved the second person (Ezra 9:11–12 and Neh 1:8–9), as we have noted. Because Neh 13:1–2 is presented as a quotation, this conclusion would suggest that the author did not have a rigorous attitude to preserve each word of the quoted text. The main message of the text would have been more central. In any case, Neh 13:1–2 is much more faithful to the pentateuchal text than any other passages in Ezra-Nehemiah that quote the Pentateuch.

17

In some cases it is possible to assume that the same sentence that was added to Deut 23 was later omitted in Neh 13:1–2, but it would be quite rare that it would not leave traces because it would mean that exactly the same words that were added in Deut 23 were omitted in Neh 13.

202

Juha Pakkala

Consequently, the comparison between Neh 13:1–2 and Deut 23:4–6 suggest that the author of Neh 13:1–2 may have used an earlier form of Deut 23:4–6 than the Masoretic and other main versions, which probably contain at least one further addition, but possibly more. On the other hand, the author of Neh 13:1–2 was not bound by the exact wording of the pentateuchal text but could not only make at least minor changes but possibly also shorten the text that he gave as a quotation. In other words, Deut 23:4–6 was edited after the author of Neh 13:1–2 used it in his quotation, but also the quotation is not a fully faithful rendering of the exact wording of the quoted law.

3. “As It Was Written” – Pentateuchal Laws as the Legal Basis of Conduct 3.1. The Sukkoth in Neh 8:13–18 and Lev 23:33–43 Neh 8:13–18 describes how the Israelites, after having investigated the reintroduced Law in more detail, noticed that it commanded (#=))) them to dwell in booths (=#)2) in the seventh month.18 Most scholars acknowledge that Neh 8:13–18 is dependent on Lev 23:33–43, although the exact relationship is debated. The issue is complicated by the existence of two Sukkoth laws in Lev 23, one in vv. 33–36 and another in 39–43. The contradictions and independence of these laws suggests that they were written by different authors, 39–43 being a later addition.19 Nevertheless, vv. 39–43 may preserve traces of an older stage of the Sukkoth law than the one in vv. 33–36. The idea that the time of the feast was dependent on the harvest is still present in v. 39–43, although a later editor has secondarily tried to fix the feast to a specific date in this law as well. Verses 33–36 (especially v. 34), however, fix the exact date without any reference to the harvest.20 Heavy editing in vv. 39–43 18 19

20

Although the :< of v. 14 could be interpreted as introducing a quotation, the ensuing text is not formulated as such. Thus for example, Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966), 305 and Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Das 3. Buch Mose. Leviticus (ATD 6; Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht 1993), 318. Some scholars assume that the laws derive from the same author, e.g., August Dillmann, Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1880), 576. For further discussion on Lev 23:33–43, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 158–64. There is an evident contradiction between 7:! =#=¡= -)62 and -#' :<3 !
The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

203

is suggested, among other considerations, by the disturbing repetition of how long the feast should last (it is mentioned four times: vv. 39, 40, 41 and 42). Despite many attempts, it has proven difficult to reconstruct the oldest text of Lev 23:39–43, and it seems probable that only vestiges of the oldest core of the law are preserved. Later editors may have rewritten parts of the older text to the extent that it is no longer possible to reconstruct it. This is also implied by the many loose ends in the law. For example, the Israelites are ordered to collect fruits and branches for the feast, but no reason is given for why this is done nor is any explanation of what they should do with them provided. Suggestions by some scholars that they may have been for processions, booths or decoration are possibilities,21 which only show that something must be missing in the presently available versions of the law. Rewriting or omission is also implied by v. 41, where the object marker #= in v. 41a and the reference to seven days hang in the air. Lev 23:39–43 is important for the present analysis because Neh 8:13–18 contains more connections with Lev 23:39–43 than with any other Sukkoth law in the Pentateuch. Lev 23:39–43 is the only law according to which the Israelites should live in booths (Lev 23:42 and Neh 8:14). Only in Lev 23:40 and Neh 8:15 are the Israelites ordered to collect foliage for the feast. Furthermore, only Lev 23:39–43 and Neh 8:13– 18 imply that there was a middle stage in the development of the law according to which the feast should be celebrated in the seventh month without the exact day being fixed.22 The exact dates are younger (in Lev 23:33–36; Num 29:12) and the purely agricultural connection based on the harvest is older (in Deut 16:13–16).23 The close connection between Neh 8:13–18 and Lev 23:39–43 is corroborated by the extensively shared vocabulary:

21

22 23

later editor added a fixed date (the 15th of the seventh month). Verse 41 also implies that the date was not originally fixed, only the month. For example, Elliger, Leviticus, 322; Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler’s History Work, 97, and Andreas Ruwe, “Heiligkeitsgesetz“ und “Priesterschrift“. Literaturgeschichtliche und rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Leviticus 17,1–26,2 (FAT 26; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1999), 318. According to Dillmann, Exodus und Leviticus, 594, the branches were used to make the booths, whereas the fruits would have been used as decoration. Lev 23:39–43 contains traces of the earlier stage where not even the month was fixed and from a later stage where the exact day was also fixed (v. 39). Deut 16:13–16 is still unaware of the idea that the feast should be celebrated in the seventh month.

204

Juha Pakkala

Lev 23:39–43

Neh 8:13–18 v. 14 v. 17 vv. 14, 17 v. 14 v. 15 v. 15 v. 18

=#)2 #<' =#)2 #<'# +:<'¡'1 '3'
#<= =)2 =)2 #<' +:<'¡'1 '3'
v. 42 v. 43 v. 41 v. 40 v. 40 vv. 39–42

The combination of thematic and phraseological similarities suggests that Neh 8:13–18 is closely related to Lev 23:39–43. If Neh 8 was written in view of any Sukkoth law that is preserved in the present version of the Pentateuch, it has to be Lev 23:39–43. The similarities with other laws are much more distant. However, it seems improbable that Neh 8:13–18 could be dependent on or influenced by the present Masoretic or other known version of Lev 23:39–43. The differences are too extensive – for example: The names of the feast differ (!#!' % vs. %! or '3'
The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

205

most important feasts. Furthermore, Neh 8:13–18 seems to be unaware of the Feast of blowing of Trumpets, which, according to Lev 23:23–25, should also be kept during the first day of the seventh month. In view of the differences between Neh 8:13–18 and Lev 23:39–43 and the apparent lack of reference to Lev 23:33–38 as well, it is more probable that the author of Neh 8:13–18 used an entirely different version of Lev 23 that did not contain the law regulating the Day of the Atonement or the Feast of blowing of Trumpets. Consequently, it seems probable that the version of Lev 23:39–43 the author of Neh 8:13– 18 used may not have been located with the laws in Lev 23:23–36 at all. This would then imply that he used an entirely different version of the whole book or another Lawbook because Lev 23:39–43 is probably a late addition to its present context. It should further be noted that the Feasts in Lev 23:23–32 are missing from the older law collections of the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy. They are usually assumed to be additions of the Holiness Code.24 The following chart illustrates the development that now seems most probable: an early version of Lev 23:39–43 Lev 23:23–25 Lev 23:26–32 Lev 23:33–36 a late version of Lev 23:39–43

quoted

Neh 8:13–18

relocated and partly rewritten

It is improbable that the differences between Lev 23:39–43 and Neh 8:13–18 could be the result of legal exegesis25 or of a free and flexible attitude towards the source text.26 These may be possibilities in some of the other passages investigated here, but the above-presented differ-

24

25 26

See Christoph Nihan, “The Holiness Code between D and P. Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (ed. E. Otto and R. Achenbach; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2004), 81–122 (88–89). See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 109–12. Many scholars assume that the differences may be explained as a result of exegetical techniques common in the Second Temple period and that there would not be any contradiction. Thus for example, Williamson, “History,” 29–31. This is a possibility in some of the quotations in Ezra-Nehemiah, but in Neh 8:13–18 this would be improbable because it does not take into consideration the high probability that Lev 23:39–43 was heavily edited, partly inconsistent and that parts of the original law may be missing.

206

Juha Pakkala

ences exclude this possibility in Neh 8:13–18. For example, the idea that the people should collect foliage in order to live in the booths is explicitly said to have been written in the Law. Combined with the fact that the current version of Lev 23:39–43 orders the foliage to be collected but gives no reason why this is done, the most probable explanation would be to assume that an older version of Lev 23:39–43 used by the author of Neh 8:13–18 referred to the purpose of the foliage, but a later editor rewrote or corrupted the text so that the purpose is no longer explained. Consequently, Neh 8:13–18 gives evidence of an earlier form of Leviticus that was later edited to the extent that parts of it were relocated, rewritten and omitted. Since concrete evidence for the earlier, developing forms of the Pentateuch is very rare, this conclusion should be significant for understanding the extent of the editorial processes taking place in the Pentateuch. Traditionally it is assumed that the later editors did not omit, relocate and rewrite older material, especially in the Pentateuch, but this does not seem to be the case in Lev 23. Moreover, this conclusion implies that the Lawbooks of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, when Neh 8:13–18 was written, may have been very different from the one that is known to us as the Pentateuch. For example, the author of Neh 8:13–18 seems to be unaware of the Holiness Code, at least when it comes to Lev 23.27

3.2. Ezra 9:1–2 Ezra 9 is generally dependent on the pentateuchal prohibition of intermarrying with the people of the land. Deut 7:3 is the only law in the Pentateuch that explicitly prohibits mixed marriages, although some other passages in the Pentateuch also imply that that it was prohibited (especially Exod 34:1628). It is probable that the authors of Ezra 9 were referring to Deut 7 but were strongly influenced by other parts of Deuteronomy as well. Verses 11–12 are, as we have seen, probably quoting Deut 7, while Ezra 9:1–2, which does not contain a direct quotation, is otherwise directly dependent on Deuteronomy.

27

28

This conclusion would seem to corroborate the increasingly probable assumption that the Holiness Code is the youngest of the four main law collections of the Pentateuch. Exod 34:16 subordinates a reference to mixed marriages to the prohibition of making a covenant with the people of the land, which would lead to the worship of other gods. The leading idea of Exod 34:11–17 is the worship of other gods.

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

Ezra 9:1–2 -'#+!# -'1!)!# +:<' -3! #+1¡+ … 1 -!'=3#=) =#8:! '/3/ ':8/! '/! '1/3! '2#'! '$:6! '=%! '131)+ 29 '/!# 3:$ #:3=!# -!'1+# -!+ -!'=1/ #<1¡') 2 … =#8:! '/3 <9!

207

Deut 7:1–3 !=¡:< 7:!¡+ ('!+ !#!' ('' ') 1 ('16/ -':¡-'# +<1# !=<:+ !/<¡ '#%!# '$:6!# '131)!# ':/!# '<:!# '=%! … (// -'/#83# -': -'# !3< '2#'!# #=# #1+ 0==¡+ (= - 0=%== +# 3 (1+ %9=¡+

The list of nations in Ezra 9:1 contains eight nations, whereas Deut 7:1 contains seven and Exod 34:11 only six. Only four of the nations are shared with the pentateuchal lists, but the use of the word !3#= and the changes in relation to the source text (see below) imply that the author of the list30 had Deuteronomy rather than Exodus in mind. In addition to the four nations taken from Deut 7:1, Ezra 9:1 adds the Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Edomites (emended from Amorites). Here the author was probably influenced by Deut 23:4–9 where these four additional nations are mentioned in the same passage. According to this passage, the Ammonites and Moabites may never enter into the congregation of the Jews, whereas the third generation Egyptians and Edomites may. There is an evident shift in attitude from Deut 23 to Ezra 9:1 towards the Egyptians and Edomites, because in Ezra 9:1 these nations are put on the same level with the Ammonites and Moabites. After Ezra 9:1 a situation where a third generation could be accepted cannot take place because Deut 23:4–9 can only refer to the descendants of mixed marriages. That the law deals with mixed marriages is implied by the preceding law in Deut 23:3, which prohibits descendants from illicit marriages from being accepted into the congregation of the Jews. Verses 4–9 should be read in view of v. 3. The author of the list of nations in Ezra 9:1 was apparently free to change some of the nations in accordance with his own conceptions about who should be accepted into the community of the Jews and who posed the most serious threat to Israel’s integrity and purity. Although the author may even have had Deuteronomy in front of him, he was not bound by it and could contradict it if it was against his own conceptions. In other words, the author is dependent on Deuteronomy and 29

30

The MT has ':/!#, but most scholars, e.g., Alfred Bertholet, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum AT (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1902), 39 and Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: a Commentary (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1989), 174, emend the Amorites to Edomites with First Esdras. Note that the list of nations in Ezra 9:1 is probably a later addition written by a different author than the author of the quotation in vv. 11–12 or the rest of vv. 1–2.

208

Juha Pakkala

implies that the Israelites must abide by its rules, but simultaneously he himself takes the freedom to change its meaning or contradict it. Although the law is not explicitly quoted in Ezra 9:1–2, the idea that intermarriage would lead to the contamination of the holy seed (<9! 3:$) is probably influenced by Deut 7:6, according to which Israel is a holy nation (<#9 -3) and may therefore not mix with other nations. Both expressions are rare in the Hebrew Bible, which, in view of the general connection with Deut 7, corroborates that the author of Ezra 9:1–2 had Deut 7 in mind. The change of -3 to 3:$ may indicate a development of the pentateuchal law so that the physical aspect of the purity receives a more prominent position.

3.3. Ezra 3:2 According to Ezra 3:2, the returning exiles built the altar in order to offer sacrifices on it, as it was written in the Law of Moses ( =:#= #=)) !
!
Deut 27:5–6

-' 1 %$/ ('!+ !#!'+ %$/ -< ='1 # 5 +$: -!'+3 5'1=¡+ ('!+ !#!' %$/¡= !1= =#/+< -'1 6 ('!+ !#!'+ =+#3 #'+3 ='+3!#

Although Deut 27:5–6 refers to the building of the altar on Mt. Ebal and not Jerusalem as in Ezra 3:2, the setting is similar. In both cases, it is the first altar that the Israelites built after they had entered the land.31 It is evident that Ezra 3:2 does not provide an exact quotation of Deut 27:5–7, and, despite the reference to what was written, this was most probably not even intended by the author. The second person speech of Deut 27:5–6 is changed to the third person. Nevertheless, the parallels are so close that the author of Ezra 3:2 probably had this law in mind or in front of him. In comparison, other laws that order the 31

Following Deut 27:5–6, Joshua later builds the altar on Mt. Ebal (Josh 8:30–31).

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

209

Israelites to build an altar and sacrifice on it use different vocabulary, for example, Exod 20:24.32 Instead of !1 and !+3, the author of Exod 20:24 used the verbs !<3 and %$. Deut 27:5–6 is used rather faithfully, even if the passage is not quoted word for word, and there is no reason to assume that the author used a different version of the Pentateuch than the known versions.

3.4. Ezra 3:4 – The Daily Sacrifices and the Sukkoth According to Ezra 3:4, the Israelites made daily sacrifices and held the feast of the Sukkoth, as it was written (#=))) and according to the law (&6
(+ !<3= =)2! %

Ezra 3:4

#=)) =#)2! %¡= #<3'#

However, Ezra 3:4 assumes that daily sacrifices took place during the week that the Sukkoth was celebrated, whereas Deut 16:13–16 is not familiar with any sacrifices during the feast.33 In comparison, Lev 23:33–36 and Num 29:12–38, like Ezra 3:4, order daily sacrifices to be offered. Ezra 3:4 further refers to several sacrifices every day of the feast (#/#' -#'¡: &6
('/+<¡=# ('=+3¡= #'+3 =%$# '+¡!<3= !/ %$/. Similarly, Lev 29:39–43 is not familiar with sacrifices during the feast. For further discussion on Lev 29, see the analysis of Neh 8:13–18 above. It should be noted that Lev 23:39–43, despite preserving traces of the oldest stage, was later edited.

210

Juha Pakkala

Verses 4–5 provide a list of the main occasions when one should sacrifice.35

3.5. Ezra 6:18 Ezra 6:18 contains a very general reference to the setting up of the divisions and classes of the priests and Levites regulated in the Book of Moses. Although Ezra 6:18 refers to what is written in the Law of Moses (or “according to the writing of the book of Moses” – !
3.6. Ezra 10 Ezra 10 is generally dependent on the prohibition against intermarrying with the people of the land, but no passage is quoted or explicitly referred to. Nevertheless, it is probable that the author of the basic text of this chapter was familiar with Deut 7:1–6, which is the only law that specifically prohibits mixed marriages, and Ezra 10:3 and 10:11 are comprehensible only if there was a law in the background that prohibits such marriages. According to the author of these verses, it was

35 36 37

On Ezra 3:4–5, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 140–44. Houtman, “Ezra and the Law,” 104. Ulrich Kellermann, “Anmerkungen zum Verständnis der Tora in den chronistischen Schriften,“ Biblische Notizen 42 (1988): 49–92 (91), has suggested that Ezra 6:18 witnesses to the “Mosaisierung” of ancient Israelite regulations.

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

211

Yahweh’s will and commandment that the Israelites separate themselves from the foreign wives.38 Especially verse 3, according to which the foreign wives and their children should be dismissed according to the Law (!g˜ 4š —' !:#=)), does not find an instruction in the Pentateuch.39 The Pentateuch does not provide any clear solution to mixed marriages that have already taken place, although the author of Ezra 10:3 implies that it does. There is no law that regulates the cancellation of mixed marriages. On the other hand, it is probable that the author was referring to the general prohibition to marry and that he assumed it to necessitate the cancellation of such marriages if they had already taken place. Their cancellation is a logical consequence from the prohibition, although not the only solution. Especially the question what to do with the children of these marriages would not be immediately clear for a modern reader, but the author assumes that they should be expelled from the community as well. In other words, the author of Ezra 10:3 has certain conceptions of what one should do with the mixed marriages that have already taken place and he justifies them by appealing to the Torah, although in fact the Torah (or at least the Pentateuch of the main witnesses) does not provide any unambiguous solution or instruction.40

3.7. Neh 5:1–13 Although Neh 5:1–13 does not contain a quotation or even a reference to a pentateuchal law, the connection of this passage with the Pentateuch has received scholarly attention,41 and will therefore be discussed

38 39

40

41

Ezra 10:3: !<3' !:#=)# #1'!+ =#8/ Ezra 10:11: =#':)1! -'<1!¡0/# 7:! '/3/ #+!# #1#8: #<3#. Observed by many scholars, for example, Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Was the Pentateuch the Civic and Religious Constitution of the Jewish Ethnos in the Persian Period?,” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (ed. J. W. Watts; SBL SymS 17; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 41–62, (58). It should be added that !:#=) !<3' is probably an isolated later addition. Some scholars, Thomas Willi, Juda – Jehud – Israel. Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995), 86–87, and following him Sebastian Grätz, “The Second Temple and the Legal Status of the Torah,” in The Pentateuch as Torah (ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 273–87 (274), assume that the reference of !:#=) is not to any particular verse or passage, but to the whole Scripture. This may be true in this case but does not remove the problem that the present version of the Pentateuch does not provide any clear instruction on how to cancel the mixed marriages. For example, Loring W. Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (repr. 1961; ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913), 240–44.

212

Juha Pakkala

here briefly. The passage deals with the forgiveness of loans and interest. The people complained that they were unable to pay their debts, taxes and buy food, and therefore had to sell their property (vv. 1–5). Nehemiah became angry and accused the leaders of the community of demanding interest on the loans they had given to the people and sold those people who could not pay as slaves to other nations (vv. 6–8). Consequently, Nehemiah demands that the debt be forgiven, the property that was lent not be demanded back and the interest not be extracted from the people. The prohibition against extracting interest on debt is met in some laws of the Pentateuch (Exod 22:24; Lev 25:36 and Deut 23:20), but there is no evidence for assuming that Neh 5 was influenced by any one of them. There is no phraseological connection, and even the word used for the interest is different ((f˜ 1˜ in the Pentateuch, iš /™ in Neh 5:7).42 This is peculiar because the accusation Nehemiah makes in Neh 5:7 could have been justified by appealing to one of these laws. On the other hand, the ensuing handling of the debt does not correspond to any pentateuchal law. A law requiring a general remission of debt is found in Lev 25:8–17 (Year of the Jubilee) and Deut 15:1–11 (!&/<), but there is no evidence that the author(s) of Neh 5:1–13 wanted to regulate the remission of debt according to these laws. The remission seems to be a spontaneous event caused by the complaints of the people. It should further be noted that the people did not complain about the interest, but about the expenses (such as taxes and food), which caused them to mortgage their property for loans. Although an appeal to the pentateuchal laws could have given a partial justification for Nehemiah’s measures, the author did not seem to be aware of such laws or may not have wanted to make the connection, because a spontaneous and unregulated remission of debt, as implied by Neh 5:1–11, would not have been found in the Pentateuch.

42

Deut 15:2 uses the word !i— /, ™ related to iš /™ of Neh 5:7, but the meaning is different. Whereas !i— /™ refers to debt itself, iš /™ can refer to both interest and debt. In Neh 5:7 it unequivocally refers to interest.

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

213

4. The Creation of New Stipulations 4.1 Neh 10:30–40 Neh 10:31–40 contains a list of stipulations that the Israelites swore to keep in addition to the Torah of God (-'!+! =:#=).43 Although some parts of the Pentateuch (for example Num 18 in vv. 36–39) were evidently used as the basis of Neh 10:31–40,44 the stipulations intentionally go beyond the laws of the Pentateuch.45 In the background may be a situation where the Pentateuch had already become so established that one could not make large new additions. When new laws or stipulations were needed, they were inserted into new contexts, Neh 10 being one of the best examples in the Hebrew Bible. Neh 10 will not be discussed here in detail,46 because the intentional and conscious expansion of the laws or the conscious invention of new stipulations makes comparison difficult for the purposes of the current study. It was not the primary intention of the authors of Neh 10 to render the pentateuchal laws as quotations but to provide a list of new stipulations that was lacking or not clearly presented in the Pentateuch. The stipulations were created by using pentateuchal laws but most of them have an added aspect or try to clarify the existing laws.47 Despite the fact that the pentateuchal laws were developed further, the author is still far from the Midrashic Halakha because the exact reading of the laws or their faithful rendering does not seem to have been central.

43

44 45

46

47

It is noteworthy that the author seems to place the new laws in vv. 31–40 on the same level with the Torah. The Israelites take an oath to follow the Law and the stipulations in vv. 31–40. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 214–16. Houtman, “Ezra and the Law,” 105, has drawn attention to differences between the pentateuchal laws and Neh 10, but he fails to notice that Neh 10 intentionally changes and adds to the pentateuchal regulations. The chapter was not meant to be a quotation of any passage in the Pentateuch, which Houtman seems to imply. For example, he points out that the wording of Neh 10:31 differs from Exod 34:16 and Deut 7:3, and uses this as an argument for assuming a variant edition of the Pentateuch. For a detailed discussion of Neh 10:30–40, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 185–211. See also David Clines, “Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis,” JSOT 21 (1981): 111–17. In some cases, it is difficult to determine which law was used as the basis for the stipulation, which could give some leeway to assume a variant version of the Pentateuch. However, since the stipulations were not intended as quotations or reproductions of already existing laws, any comparison would remain speculative as to whether the author used an unknown law or created the stipulation for his own context.”

214

Juha Pakkala

5. Conclusions The quotations of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah have proven to be very fruitful for the investigation of the Pentateuch of the fifth to third centuries BCE when Ezra-Nehemiah was written, but the other uses of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah have also provided significant information. Because Ezra-Nehemiah is the product of a long development and many authors, it does not contain one consistent view on how the text of the Pentateuch was used and what kind of Pentateuch it was (if their Lawbook can even be called Pentateuch already). It should be noted, however, that in no single case does the quotation or purported quotation correspond exactly to a known pentateuchal text. Only in one case is it unequivocally clear which passage of the Pentateuch was used: Neh 13:1–2 is quoting Deut 23:4–6. Even in this case, the text in Neh 13:1–2 differs from the known versions of Deut 23:4–6. In other cases, uncertainties about the source text are considerable, although it is possible to find pentateuchal texts that may have been used or that seem to be closely related to the quotations in Ezra-Nehemiah. The uncertainties are due to the considerable differences between the quotations and the texts we find in the Pentateuch. If we assume that behind each quotation is a text close or similar to the text in the known versions of the Pentateuch, it is necessary to conclude that the authors in Ezra-Nehemiah had an exceptionally free and flexible attitude in quoting the pentateuchal text. Although they considered the source text to be authoritative, as suggested by the fact that they are quoting it, it does not seem to have been problematical to make even radical changes to it in the quotation. The comparison has shown that parts of the source text could be omitted, rewritten and rearranged. New sentences without any basis in any known law could also be added to the purported quotation. It is noteworthy that the authors of EzraNehemiah were able to make such substantial changes to texts that they assumed to possess the highest authority to regulate the life of the Jewish community.48 They were apparently convinced that changes would

48

Many late Second Temple Jewish texts, such as the Temple Scroll and Jubilees, similarly regarded as authoritative the texts they used as sources but could make substantial changes to them when they were adopted into the new composition. Furthermore, the authors of these new compositions often regarded their own texts to be authoritative as well. Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 102, 146. As she notes on the Temple Scroll: “it extensively reworks that base text through various exegetical techniques, including conflation, harmonization … omits blocks … adds new blocks ...”

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

215

not compromise the authority and message of the pentateuchal text.49 Michael Fishbane has shown how biblical authors may be bound by the authoritative laws or traditions and appeal to them but can at the same time be very innovative in shaping their interpretation after their own conceptions.50 In Ezra-Nehemiah the authors of the quotations do not distinguish between the original quotation and their own interpretation, but seem to be free to include their own view as part of the quotation. The nearest “empirical” evidence for quotations comes from Qumran, but the evidence is not conclusive. Many Qumranic texts follow the quoted text more closely than Ezra-Nehemiah and the quotation is often clearly marked.51 For example, in the Pesharim the quoted text is distinguished from the interpretation.52 Perhaps more analogous to Ezra-Nehemiah is the comparison with the Community Rule, which quotes the Pentateuch. As noted by Sarianna Metso, “The biblical quotations included in 1QS seem to follow fairly closely the forms of the biblical text that we now know through the Masoretic text and the Septuagint.”53 There seems to be a difference between Ezra-Nehemiah, composed in the fifth to third centuries BCE, and the Community Rule, written in the second or late second century BCE. 54 This would suggest that a change in attitude towards pentateuchal text in quotations took place in these centuries. On the other hand, Hanne von Weissenberg has pointed out that 4QMMT, which is also clearly later than Ezra-

49

50 51

52

53 54

Grätz, “Second Temple,” 276, assumes that at least in Ezra 9–10 the authors may not have intended to quote or interpret the law “in a literal sense but in a theological way.” This may apply to some of the passages in question, but when part of the law is rendered as an explicit quotation, for example in Ezra 9:11–12; Neh 1:8–9; Neh 13:1–2, it is difficult not to push the evidence further and note the evident use of certain passages and note the differences between the quotation and the source text. For an extensive discussion on inner-biblical legal exegesis, see Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 91–277. As noted by Hanne von Weissenberg, 4QMMT: Reevaluating the Text, the Function, and the Meaning of the Epilogue (STDJ 82; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 170: ”In many of the texts found at Qumran, specific formulae are used to set apart explicit scriptural citations …,” but she also adds that “in other cases, scriptural citations are introduced without a quotation formula.” As noted by many scholars, the Pesher literature is a separate genre, which uses certain techniques and usually also employs the word :<6. See Shani L. Berrin, “Pesharim” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 644–47. See also Timothy Lim, Pesharim (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 44–63. Metso, “Biblical Quotations,” 90. For the dating of the Community Rule, see Michael A. Knibb, “Rule of the Community,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 793–97 (796).

216

Juha Pakkala

Nehemiah,55 has a rather flexible attitude towards scriptural quotations. They have been modified and intertwined with the interpretation.56 Other texts, such as 4Q252, may provide an even more mixed picture. The older text may be marked clearly, but it may also be changed and mixed with the interpretation.57 It is evident that further research is needed to explore the differences and similarities between the quotations in Ezra-Nehemiah and various Qumranic texts. Some of the other uses of the Pentateuch have also been significant for the present investigation. In addition to Neh 8:13–18, which suggests that the author used an early form of Lev 23:39–43, the list of nations in Ezra 9:1–2 contradicts Deut 23:4–9, although the author evidently regarded Deuteronomy to be an authoritative text. The contradiction is probably an intentional attempt to change what had become a too tolerant attitude towards the Edomites and Egyptians, although one should not completely rule out the possibility that the change had already taken place in the version of Deut 23:4–9, used by the author of Ezra 9:1–2. The other references to the Torah (in Ezra 3:2, 4; 6:18; 10:3, 11) may be too vague to provide any detailed information about the forms of the authors’ Pentateuchs or their attitude towards the text itself. The author of Ezra 10:3 instructs that the mixed marriages be cancelled according to the Torah, although the Torah does not provide any unequivocal instructions on their cancellation. The author probably implies that the law that prohibits the marriages can be applied to the cancellation of the marriages as well. Here as elsewhere, the authors of EzraNehemiah often went beyond the laws that they appealed to as the basis for the community’s life. In other words, the Torah was used as the legal basis, but this did not hinder the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah from being very innovative in interpreting it. Neh 10:30–40 is an example of a passage where the author openly went beyond the Torah. The

55

56

57

According to Lawrence H. Schiffmann, “Miqtsat Ma‘asei Ha-Torah,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 558–60, it derives from the “earliest days of the Qumran group” (p. 558). Hanne von Weissenberg, 4QMMT, 169–225. She notes (p. 218): “In the epilogue of 4QMMT, Scripture is used in a variety of ways. The text contains both allusions and intentionally modified, explicit quotations, in which the citation of the scriptural source text and its interpretation are intertwined.” For example, 4Q252 seems to contain a very interesting mixture of different attitudes towards the scriptural text that was used. For details see, Juhana Saukkonen, The Story Behind the Text: Scriptural Interpretation in 4Q252 (Ph.D. diss., The University of Helsinki, 2005).

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

217

Israelites are said to have taken an oath to keep the Torah and the stipulations in v. 31–40, which are most probably creations of the author. We have seen that the discrepancy between the pentateuchal texts and their rendering in Ezra-Nehemiah may have reasons other than the creative mind of the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah. It is possible that at least some of them used an entirely different version of the Pentateuch. Although not a direct quotation, Neh 8:13–18 in particular strongly suggests that this was the case. It would be difficult to provide any other explanation for the differences between Neh 8:13–18 and Lev 23:39–43 than to assume that the author of Neh 8:13–18 used a version of Lev 23 very different from the one in the known witnesses. The lack of reference to laws in Lev 23:23–25 and 25–32, usually attributed to the Holiness Code, suggests that the author of Neh 8:13–18 may have used a version of the Torah that did not include these laws. The conclusion that some authors of Ezra-Nehemiah may have used a different version of the Pentateuch puts some of the other quotations and uses of the Torah into a new light. At least Ezra 9:11–12; Neh 1:8–9 and Neh 13:1–2 are potential candidates that may preserve a quotation from an unknown (Ezra 9:11–12 and Neh 1:8–9) or early version (Neh 13:1–2) of a pentateuchal law. Ezra 6:18 could also be seen as referring to an unknown version of the Pentateuch. In this case, one would have to assume that the editorial processes of the Pentateuch were much more radical and substantial than what is traditionally assumed.58 Moreover, it would mean that the Pentateuch was still far from being a stable and fixed text in the fifth to third centuries BCE,59 and that there were several fundamentally different versions during these centuries.60 In comparison with the Pentateuchal quotations in Ezra-Nehemiah, the MT, LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch and most other

58

59

60

The rewritten texts from Qumran and elsewhere (for example, 4QReworked Pentateuch, Genesis Apocryphon, Jubilees, First Esdras, the A-text of Esther) may be more representative of the earlier editorial processes of the Pentateuch and other books of the Hebrew Bible than traditionally assumed. They have been regarded as (an) exceptional genre(s), but this may be changing. One has to take into consideration that some texts of the Hebrew Scripture, even the Pentateuch, may have been substantially changed or rewritten at some point in their transmission. Cf. Reinhard G. Kratz, “The Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran,” in The Pentateuch as Torah (ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 77–103 (93), who assumes that the editorial processes of the Torah must have been finished by the end of the fourth century BCE. As suggested by Houtman, “Ezra and the Law,” 91–115.

218

Juha Pakkala

known versions would then be a relatively harmonious group of witnesses that only represent a later stage and/or one line of tradition.61 In either case, one would have to assume that the scribes of the fifth to third centuries BCE, whether those behind the Pentateuch or those in Ezra-Nehemiah quoting the Pentateuch, were not very concerned about the exact wording of the pentateuchal texts, or at least they did not transmit them very faithfully. In both cases one would have to assume that substantial changes, relocation of material, rewriting, omissions and additions took place in the transmission of the texts that were regarded to be authoritative. As noted by Michael Segal, “the genre of Rewritten Bible … can be identified in earlier stages of biblical literature.”62 Behind the known texts of the Hebrew Bible may be editorial stages where they were rewritten or otherwise substantially modified in a very late stage when the texts were already assumed to be authoritative.63 That a text was regarded as authoritative, even Yahweh’s word, apparently did not mean that an editor could not change it, at least not in the quotation, but probably not even in the actual transmission of the text. The attitude towards the preservation of the exact text may have become more conservative only from the second century BCE onwards, although texts such as 4QReworked Pentateuch imply that editions of the Pentateuch that contained considerable variants were still in circulation in the second century BCE. 64 The changes probably took place in the quotations in EzraNehemiah and in the later transmission of the Pentateuch. At least some of the authors had a different Pentateuch from what are presently 61

62 63

64

Recent discussion in Qumran scholarship seems to develop into this direction as well. See the contributions of Eugene Ulrich, George Brooke and Sidnie White Crawford in this volume. Michael Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28 (11). Most scholars assume that the Rewritten Bible texts form a separate genre that should be distinguished from the “real” authoritative texts. For the definition of such a genre and discussion, see Philip S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; FS B. Lindars; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 99–121. However, it is difficult to see how in the entire transmission of biblical texts, such as the Pentateuch, all the editors over centuries regarded their text to belong to a certain genre and did not apply rewriting, a technique prevalent in the Second Temple period, and other substantial changes to their text. The possibility seems to be high that at least some of the editors of the Pentateuch did rewrite parts of the older text, and the comparison between the quotations in Ezra-Nehemiah and the Pentateuch has increased this probability. See the contribution by Crawford in this volume or Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, 39–59.

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

219

known (Neh 8:13–18 and Neh 13:1–2), while others may have had a text similar to the known version and the differences were made in the quotation. Possibly some authors in Ezra-Nehemiah even had a different version of the Pentateuch than the late versions and made changes when quoting. This makes the comparison difficult, but in any case it has become very difficult to maintain that the Pentateuchs of all authors of Ezra-Nehemiah were similar to the ones we possess, and it is also improbable that the pentateuchal texts were quoted word for word. The different uses of the Torah in Ezra-Nehemiah indicate that the scribes dealing with pentateuchal texts in the fifth to third centuries BCE were much less concerned about the exact or actual text of the Pentateuch than what has been traditionally assumed in scholarship. Able to change words, sentences and ideas of the authoritative texts, their own theological conceptions had a greater impact on the textual transmission than those working after the second century BCE when the texts became increasingly unchangeable.

Bibliography Alexander, Philip S. “Retelling the Old Testament,” Pages 99–121 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Edited by D. A. Carson and Hugh G. M. Williamson. FS B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Batten, Loring W. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Reprinted 1961. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913. Ben-Zvi, Ehud. Review of Judson R. Shaver, Torah and the Chronicler's history work: an inquiry into the Chronicler's references to laws, festivals, and cultic institutions in relationship to Pentateuchal legislation. JBL 110/4 (1991): 718–20. Berrin, Shani L. Pesharim. Pages 644–47 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Bertholet, Alfred. Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum AT. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1902. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra-Nehemiah: a Commentary. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1989. Ȱ. “Was the Pentateuch the Civic and Religious Constitution of the Jewish Ethnos in the Persian Period?” Pages 41–62 in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. Edited by James W. Watts. SBL SymS 17. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Boda, Mark J. Praying the Tradition. BZAW 277. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Clines, David. “Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis.” JSOT 21 (1981): 111–17.

220

Juha Pakkala

Crawford, Sidnie White. “Reworked Pentateuch.” Pages 775–77 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ȱ. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Dillmann, August. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1880. Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. HAT 4. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1966. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Das 3. Buch Mose. Leviticus. ATD 6. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Grätz, Sebastian. “The Second Temple and the Legal Status of the Torah.” Pages 273–87 in The Pentateuch as Torah. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Houtman, Cornelis. “Ezra and the Law. Observations on the Supposed Relation between Ezra and the Pentateuch.” OTS 21 (1981): 91–115. Kellermann, Ulrich. “Erwägungen zum Esragesetz.” ZAW 80 (1968): 373–85. Ȱ. “Anmerkungen zum Verständnis der Tora in den chronistischen Schriften.“ Biblische Notizen 42 (1988): 49–92. Knibb, Michael A. “Rule of the Community.” Pages 793–97 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Kratz, Reinhard G. “The Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran.” Pages 77–103 in The Pentateuch as Torah. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Lim, Timothy. Pesharim. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 3; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Mathys, Hans-Peter. Dichter und Beter. Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit. OBO 132. Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1999. Metso, Sarianna. “Biblical Quotations in the Community Rule.” Pages 81–92 in The Bible as Book. The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emmanuel Tov. London: British Library, 2002. Nihan, Christoph. “The Holiness Code between D and P. Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah.” Pages 81–122 in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Edited by Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Pakkala, Juha. Ezra the Scribe. The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8. BZAW 347. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Ruwe, Andreas. “Heiligkeitsgesetz“ und “Priesterschrift.” Literaturgeschichtliche und rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Leviticus 17,1–26,2. FAT 26. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1999. Saukkonen, Juhana. The Story Behind the Text: Scriptural Interpretation in 4Q252. Ph.D. diss., The University of Helsinki, 2005.

The Quotations and References of the Pentateuchal Laws in Ezra-Nehemiah

221

Schiffmann, Lawrence H. “Miqtsat Ma‘asei Ha-Torah.” Pages 558–60 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Segal, Michael. “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” Pages 10–28 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Shaver, Judson R. Torah and the Chronicler's history work: an inquiry into the Chronicler's references to laws, festivals, and cultic institutions in relationship to Pentateuchal legislation. Brown Judaic Studies 196. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Weissenberg, Hanne von. 4QMMT: Reevaluating the Text, the Function, and the Meaning of the Epilogue. STDJ 82. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Willi, Thomas. Juda – Jehud – Israel. Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit. FAT 12. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995. Williamson, Hugh G. M. “History.” Pages 25–38 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Edited by D. A. Carson and Hugh G. M. Williamson. FS B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel Hanna Vanonen 1. Introduction The War Scroll (1QM) was found among the first Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) in Qumran Cave 1 in 1947. Seven years later, it was published for the first time by Professor E. L. Sukenik. This nearly three-meter-long leather scroll deals with the final eschatological war and its strategy: it includes descriptions of the war and its sequence, tactical and organizational instructions, and hymns dealing with the war and God’s deeds in history.1 The scroll includes 19 quite well preserved columns, copied in the Herodian script.2 1QM has been studied since the 1950’s but recently, it has again come up as a source of scholarly interest. For example, Brian Schultz has highlighted 1QM anew: with his book Conquering the World, Schultz has made the discussion of this text very topical again.3 One typical feature of 1QM is that it seems to be full of links to the texts known to us from the Hebrew Bible (HB).4 Schultz and many other scholars have noted that one of the essential texts that are referred to

1

2

3

4

The overall genre of 1QM is not clear. Scholars have characterized 1QM as halakhic, apocalyptic, liturgical and ritualistic. It has also been considered a military strategy. See Søren Holst, Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 25; Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2008), 18–24, and Jean Duhaime, The War Texts: 1QM and related fragments (CQS; London: T & T Clark, 2004), 53–60. 1QM seems to include text passages that represent different genres. Philip R. Davies, “War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 965–68 (967). See Brian Schultz, Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ 76; Leiden: Brill, 2009). Other scholars who have recently been interested in 1QM are, e.g., Søren Holst and Rony Yshai. See Holst, Verbs and War Scroll. On Yshai’s studies concerning the Cave 4 war text material, see Schultz, Conquering the World, 34–36. See, e.g., column 2 and Gen 10 and 24, column 5 and Exod 28, column 7 and Deut 23.

224

Hanna Vanonen

in 1QM is the Book of Daniel.5 Daniel and its composition have been the subject of vivid discussion. A common opinion is that the stories in chapters 1–6 are early and legendary material, whereas the visions in chapters 7–12 originate from the Maccabean era, constructed by unknown authors. The book as a whole was probably pieced together shortly after the Maccabean revolt. Thus, Daniel must be read primarily as expressing the religiosity of the time around the 160’s BCE.6 The Book of Daniel is well represented among the DSS. Eight Dead Sea manuscripts are identified as representatives of the text of Daniel:7 x 4Q114 (Dan 10:5–9, 11–16, 21; 11:1–2, 13–17, 25–29) and 4Q116 (Dan 9:12–17), dated to the late second or the early first century BCE; x

1Q72 (Dan 3:22–30) and 4Q112 (Dan 1:16–20; 2:9–11, 19–49; 3:1–2; 4:29–30; 5:5–7, 12–14, 16–19; 7:5–7, 25–28; 8:1–5; 10:16–20; 11:13–16), dated to the early or the mid first century BCE;

x

4Q115 (Dan 3:8–10(?), 23–25; 4:5–9, 12–16; 7:15–23), dated to the mid or late first century BCE;

x

1Q71 (Dan 1:10–17; 2:2–6), 4Q113 (Dan 5:10–12, 14–16, 19–22; 6:8–22, 27–29; 7:1–6, 11(?), 26–28; 8:1–8, 13–16) and 6Q7 (Dan 8:16–17(?), 20– 21(?), 10:8–16; 11:33–36, 38), dated to the first half of the first century CE. Eugene Ulrich notes that in the case of Daniel, the “the quantity of representation is impressive” – only the amounts of the manuscripts of the Torah, Psalms, Isaiah, 1 Enoch and the Book of Jubilees are greater than that of Daniel.8 The Daniel manuscripts from Qumran overlap all the chapters of the Masoretic text of Daniel except the last one – instead, the 12th chapter is represented in Florilegium (4Q174).9 Moreover, in addition to the actual Daniel manuscripts, the DSS also include other “Danielic” texts. Some of them have been considered as possible

5 6

7

8

9

See Schultz, Conquering the world, 91, who also enumerates many other scholars who have made this observation (n. 10). John J. Collins, “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception (ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; VTSup 83,1; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1–15 (2). See Eugene Ulrich, “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; VTSup 83,2; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 573–85 (574). Ulrich, “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls,” 573. See also Peter W. Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. C. A. Evans; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 41–60 (41). Ulrich, “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls,” 575.

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel

225

sources of Daniel or the mediators of the Danielic traditions. Texts of this kind are 4Q248 (4QHistorical Text A) relating to Dan 11:7, 4Q530 (4QEnGiantsb ar) relating to Dan 7, and 4Q424 (4QPrayer of Nabonidus) relating to Dan 4.10 The Aramaic manuscripts 4Q243, 4Q244 and 4Q245, for their part, belong to the group of the Pseudo-Danielic fragments.11 In addition, the manuscript 4Q246 (4QapocrDan ar) shares phrases with the “biblical”12 book of Daniel and is often listed among the Pseudo-Danielic documents.13 On the basis of all this material it can be concluded that the Daniel traditions were popular at Qumran. On the other hand, it seems that after the Maccabean revolt there still was a textual development of Daniel traditions in progress. Since that time, 1QM was also developing towards its present form.14 Thus, the textual connections between 1QM and Daniel or some texts mediating the Danielic tradition are an intriguing issue. These connections are especially clear in the first column of 1QM.15 In this study, I will analyze the first column of 1QM and textual connections

10

11 12 13

14 15

See Esther Eshel, “The Possible Sources of the Book Daniel,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (ed. J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint; VTSup 83,2; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 387–94 (393), and Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 18, who think that there were some possible sources of Daniel among the Qumran texts. However, Flint (“The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” 55–59, especially 58) states that 4Q424 “occupies an intermediate place in the tradition between the Babylonian accounts of an historical incident and the formation of the book of Daniel.” John J. Collins also argues that “it is not necessary to suppose that Dan 4 depended directly on the Prayer of Nabonidus, but the two texts draw on a common tradition.” See Collins, “Daniel, Book of: Pseudo Daniel,” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 176–78. See Flint, “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran,” 46, 51. By terming a text or a word “biblical,” I mean that it is included in the Hebrew Bible known to us. See John J. Collins “Pseudepigraphy and Group Formation in Second Temple Judaism,” n. p. [cited 12 May 2010]. Online: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums /2nd/papers/Collins97.html. About the date of 1QM, see Duhaime, The War Texts, 64–101. In addition to column 1, we have another passage in 1QM that is doubtlessly influenced by Daniel: 17:4–8b. In this passage, the angel Michael’s role and tasks are similar to those described in Dan 12:1–3. See Gregory K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984), 29. The themes of the deliverance of the chosen ones and shining (although it is expressed by different verbs) are thematic links between 1QM 17:4–8b and Dan 12:1–3.

226

Hanna Vanonen

between it and the Book of Daniel.16 It could be considered slightly artificial to separate out one of the 19 columns of 1QM as the subject of this study. In the final analysis, the relation with the “biblical” texts should be evaluated by looking at the whole text of 1QM, but concentrating on column 1 gives us an opportunity to study this relatively short text passage in a more detailed way and to highlight the relevance of Daniel in different sections of column 1. The study of column 1 also illustrates how our judgments concerning intertextuality influence our understanding of the text. Moreover, giving special attention to the first column also gains justification from some earlier research where column 1 has been considered a separate unit.17

2. The Exegetical Activity in Ancient Texts The methodological question essential to our purposes is how to describe the exegetical activity in a DSS text. Dean O. Wenthe states that the author of 1QM has not necessarily used the texts behind his work by following any logical system,18 and thus, an attempt to define exactly how different texts or traditions are used by the author of 1QM is always somewhat artificial.19 Also, in his more general article on quotations and use of “biblical” texts in DSS, Moshe Bernstein notes that “since the authors of the Qumran scrolls were so manifestly fluent in the Hebrew scriptures, it is at times unclear whether biblical language found in Qumran compositions, when not accompanied by a ‘citation 16 17

18 19

Brian Schultz has also emphasized the significance of Daniel for the birth of 1QM 1. See e.g., Schultz, Conquering the World, 169. While I consider Schultz’s book mentioned above as a welcome contribution to the discussion about 1QM, I am not completely convinced about his theory of the composition of 1QM (i.e., to put it briefly, columns 1–9 as a primitive form of the text and columns 10–19 as a later part added after the middle of the first century BCE). Schultz studies 1QM in its final form whereas I am interested in the textual development of 1QM at a more detailed level. Thus, I sympathize more with the older views presented by Philip R. Davies and Jean Duhaime. According to Davies, 1QM is a product of a multi-phased redactional process and column 1 is probably the latest part of it. See Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History (BibOr 32; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977), 113, 123. Duhaime finds column 1 to be one of the main parts of 1QM and suggests that these main parts “could have developed separately before being put together.” See Duhaime, The War Texts, 60. Dean O. Wenthe, “The Use of the Hebrew Scriptures in 1QM,” DSD 5 (1998): 290– 315 (314–15). While being conscious of the possibility that there may be many authors and/or redactors/reworkers behind the text of 1QM, in order to facilitate the reading I use the singular term “author” when referring the person or persons behind the text.

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel

227

formula,’ is a conscious or unconscious employment of the biblical text.”20 Although these difficulties are widely recognized, the questions concerning the exegetical activity and the modes of intertextuality have not been counted as impossible to discuss and there are numerous scholars who have been interested in them.21 Just to name one example, Julie A. Hughes, in her study of the exegetical activity in the Hodayot, considers it likely that “most references recognized by readers as an allusion would have been intended by the author.”22 Paying attention to Hughes is reasonable because she also gives useful definitions for different modes of intertextuality. She describes quotation as “a phrase which is marked, explicitly or implicitly, as referring to the words of a speaker who is not the implied speaker of the composition.”23 Bernstein argues rightly that “in the War Scroll, most of the work is free of scriptural citations, and the citation formulas that we find are concentrated in columns 10–11, the exhortation and prayer of the chief priest.”24 However, although the citation formulas and the explicit quotations are found only in columns 10–11, the other columns of 1QM are not entirely “free” of “biblical” references but in fact, they are still full of “biblical” flavour. Many of the references fit Hughes’s description of allusion. As regards an allusion, she has adopted the idea of a double referent. That is, the phrase that can be defined as an allusion has a non-allusive meaning in its present context but at the same time is re-

20

21

22

23 24

Moshe J. Bernstein “Scriptures: Quotation and Use” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 839–42 (839). Moshe J. Bernstein gives a general summary about these question in his articles “Interpretation of Scriptures” in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 376–83, and “Scriptures: Quotation and Use,” 839–42. Julie A. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot (STDJ 59; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 49. When studying Scriptural interpretation in 4Q252, Juhana Saukkonen also endorses the idea that “the ancient authors were generally aware of whether they were quoting another text or alluding to it.” See Saukkonen, The Story Behind the Text: Scriptural Interpretation in 4Q252 (Ph. D. diss., University of Helsinki, 2005), 61. (In his book, Saukkonen analyzes the literary genres and the exegetical methods used in 4Q252 and also the composition and content of this manuscript.) Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 44. Bernstein, “Scriptures: Quotation and Use,” 841. These citations are also considered by, e.g., George Brooke and C. D. Elledge. See Brooke Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (JSOTS 29; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 292–95; Elledge, “Exegetical Styles at Qumran: A Cumulative Index and Commentary,” RevQ 21/82 (2003): 165–208 (171).

228

Hanna Vanonen

ferring to one or more other texts.25 Thus, the text with allusions can also be understandable to its reader without recognizing the references. It is also noteworthy that, according to Hughes, it is theoretically possible that an allusive text does not share the vocabulary with an alluded text but instead, the structures of the texts are similar or they share a similar combination of ideas.26 We will come back to this idea later in this study. Furthermore, Hughes adds one more viewpoint, namely, that an allusion always has to do with its reader: the reader is the one who recognizes it as a reference to a textual source.27 It should of course be taken into account that Hughes is discussing a text different from that of our interest: Hodayot represents poetry whereas 1QM 1 seems to be better classified into prose. However, Hughes’s ideas are an example of discussion about intertextuality in the context of the DSS, and as such, they are relevant for our study. Although it is important to keep in mind the possible limitations on defining ancient exegetical activity, we can benefit from the observations and definitions of the previous scholars and discuss the links between 1QM 1 and “biblical” texts. However, studying the use of Daniel in 1QM 1 also leads us to the interesting questions concerning the attitudes towards the “biblical” traditions. Thus, in this study, the aim is not only to define the techniques of exegetical activity but also, if anything, to ponder the functions of intertextuality – and especially, the functions of the use of Daniel in 1QM 1. Is Daniel tradition one source of inspiration among others or does it have a special importance in the discussion of 1QM 1? To what extent does the use of Daniel explain different viewpoints of the text of 1QM 1? In our analysis, it will be shown that a large part of the text of 1QM 1 is rooted in Daniel tradition but at the end of the column the author seems to break away from the background of Daniel. Consequently, at the end of the article, we assess what explains the evident discrepancies at the end of 1QM 1.

25 26 27

Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 44. When discussing allusions, Hughes relies on Carmela Perri (see Hughes Scriptural Allusions, 44 n. 37 and 45 n. 39). Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 46. Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 52. In addition to “quotation” and “allusion,” Hughes uses the concept of “idiom.” See Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 46–47.

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel

229

3. Analysis of 1QM 1 and Its Links to the Book of Daniel We now turn from the principles to the actual analysis of the text. Because 1QM 1 is a partly fragmentary text, we also have to heed certain questions concerning reconstructions. However, as will be seen below, defining the links to “biblical” texts influence what reconstruction should be preferred. Column 1 includes two clear text division markers (vacat) on the basis of which the text can be divided into three sections: 1–7, 8–16, 16–E.28 Let us proceed following the order of the text and first reviewing the enemies described at the beginning of the first section.

3.1. Enemies In the first two lines of the 1QM 1, it is described that the sons of light (who, in tribal terms, are the families of Levi, Judah and Benjamin)29 will begin to fight against their enemies, the sons of darkness. The list of enemies after this hypernym seems to be a collection of famous “biblical” rivals: 0#/3 '1# #/# -# #, =<+6 and :#< ''=) '#.30 It has been suggested that the list is especially influenced by Ps 83:7–9;31 1 Chr 18:11;32 Isa 11:1433 or Dan 11.34 However, none of these passages completely shares the language of the list:35 Ps 83:7–9 has five items in 28 29

30

31

32

33 34 35

E here means the end of the text, which in this case is corrupted. There have been discussions of whether these three tribes should be understood as the sons of light or the sons of darkness (see Schultz, Conquering the World, 103). Schultz thinks that the first-mentioned alternative is the more plausible. See Schultz’s definition of the sons of Levi, Judah and Benjamin: Conquering the World, 123–24. +3'+ +'%, which occurs at the beginning of the list, should probably be interpreted as another hypernym rather than an individual rival. It is interpreted in this way by Michael Wise et al. in their translation of 1QM. See Wise et al., “1Q33 (1QM[ilhamah] = 1QWar Scroll [Rule]),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library (ed. E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2006). Schultz (Conquering the World, 125) also understands it in the same way. Jean Carmignac defines lines 1QM 1:1–2 as an implicit citation (“citation implicite”) of Ps 83:7–9. See Carmignac, “Les citations de l’Ancien Testament dans la ‘Guerre des fils de lumière contre des fils de ténèbres’,” in RB 63 (1956): 234–60, 375–90 (387). Marvin A. Sweeney, “Davidic Typology in the Forty Year War Between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness,” in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature (FAT 45; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2005), 262–68 (266–67). Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 45; Schultz, Conquering the World, 125. Schultz, Conquering the World, 93, 125–26. Cf. the rules of Jeffrey M. Leonard. According to his principles of evaluation of the evidence for textual links, “shared language is the most important factor in establish-

230

Hanna Vanonen

common with it (-#, #/, 0#/3, =<+6, :#<) and the names of the nations are in the same order as in 1QM 1. However, the wording of the expressions is not always completely the same (e.g., 0#/3 in Ps 83 and 0#/3 '1 in 1QM 1, :#< in Ps 83 and :#< ''=) in 1QM 1) In addition, there are other nations mentioned in this same list (e.g., + and 9+/3) and nothing explains why the author would have omitted these if he used Ps 83 as a single source text. Isa 11:14 and 1 Chr 18:11 each display four items similar to 1QM 1 (-#, #/, 0#/3, =<+6) but there are differences in the order and the wording of the terms (e.g., -'=<+6 in Isa 11 and in 1 Chr 18 and =<+6 in 1QM 1). In Dan 11, there is not such a clear enemy list but four of the listed items appear in verses 30–41 (-#, #/ and 0#/3 in 11:41 and -'=) in 11:30, although not'# :#< ''=) ) and =': '3'<:/ who, according to 1QM 1:2, are supporting the enemies of the list, are also mentioned in Dan 11:32.36 It should be remarked that, for example, the combination Edom, Moab and Ammon is well-known in the HB in general (see 1 Sam 14:47, where the Philistines are also mentioned, and 1 Kgs 11:1; Jer 9:26, 25:21, 27:3, 40:41), and the combination Moab, Ammon and Philistia also occurs a couple of times (see Judg 10:6, 2 Sam 8:12). As individual terms (or a pair of terms) Edom, Moab, Ammon, Philistia and Assyria are very common in the HB text. All of them occur over 100 times, Philistia even over 250 times.37 Thus, plausibly, the author of the list of 1QM 1 has not enumerated the enemies following a special source text, such as Ps 83:7–9, 1 Chr 18:11 or Isa 11:14. Rather, the author has cast his mind back to traditional “biblical” enemies. However, Dan 11 probably played a special role in the choice of the enemies because some clear lexical links with Dan 11 can also be shown elsewhere in 1QM 1, as well as similarities in the contents of these texts.38 Thus, the terms used in

36 37 38

ing a textual connection.” Leonard also states that “shared language is more important than non-shared language” and according to this principle, there could be a textual connection between the texts that does not share all the same terms. However, “shared phrases suggest a stronger connection than do individual shared terms.” See Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” in JBL 127 no 2 (2008): 241–65 (246). See also Schultz, Conquering the World, 125. The terms for nationality (Edomites, Moabites, etc.) are included in these figures. See, e.g., David Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll,” in Qumran and Apocalyptism (vol. 1 of Judaism of the Second Temple Period; trans. Azzan Yadin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 140–58, and Schultz, Conquering the World, 91–98. These links and similarities will be discussed later in this study.

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel

231

Dan 11 might have made the author of 1QM think of these traditional “biblical” enemies known from many contexts.39

3.2. Who Will Destroy the Horn of Whom? After having listed the belligerents, the author turns to describing how the dominion of the Kittim will cease. Contrary to the preceding lines, the verbal forms are in line 4 in the singular. The description of the first battle seems to be over, and now, a new character is introduced. In lines 4b–5a, a phrase concerning this new character is suggestive of Dan 11:44: 1QM 1:4b–5a:40 [

]î 0:9 = =':)!+# '/
And in his time, he will go out in great wrath to fight against the kings of the North, and his anger will exterminate and destroy the horn of… […] Dan 11:44: =#3/<# %:$// #!+!' 0#68/# 8'# /% !+  '/
The author proceeds by describing the day of salvation of God’s people, which will be the destruction of the enemies. Also here we find a phrase suggestive of Dan 11: 1QM 1:6a¹: And Asshur will fall and there will be no help for it/him.

39

40

#+ :$#3 0'# :#< +61#

In Schultz’s opinion, the enemy list in column 2 completes the list of belligerents in column 1. See Schultz, Conquering the World, 183–84. Enemies mentioned in the first column are Israel’s neighbors whereas in the second column, the war proceeds against the nations of distant lands. However, I do not find this a sufficient explanation for the terminological discrepancies between 1QM 1 and 2. 1QM texts are cited according to Jean Duhaime’s edition of 1QM. See Duhaime, “War Scroll,” in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents (vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations; ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995), 80–203.

232

Hanna Vanonen

Dan 11:45: And he will come to his end, and there will be no help for him.

#+ :$#3 0'# #89¡3 #

Schultz states that these phrases rely on Daniel and that they play an important role when trying to understand the meaning of the first column.41 Thus, it is necessary to take a look at the context of Dan 11:44– 45: Verses 11:44–45 are part of Daniel’s description of the kings of North and South (Dan 11:2–12:4) – the one that John J. Collins refers to as “the angelic discourse.”42 As the final book, this passage is usually dated to the Maccabean period, perhaps a few years after the desecration of the Temple. The content of the text gives support for this dating. First, there is an ex eventu prophecy of Hellenistic history down to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (11:2b–40/45). Collins considers it “a remarkably accurate portrayal,”43 and Alexander A. Di Lella also sees the historical events behind verses 11:2–45: Verse 2 is about the Persian age, and in verses 3–4, Alexander the Great burst onto the scene. In verses 5–20, the vicissitudes of the earlier Seleucids and Ptolemies are described, and finally, in verses 21–40/45, the reign of Antiochus IV is discussed.44 Di Lella remarks that this ex eventu prophecy becomes more and more specific as it comes closer to the time of Antiochus.45 This reflects the time when the prophecy was composed. Another fact that is important as regards the dating of Daniel is that the death of Antiochus IV (164 BCE) is the last historical event described in the text (Dan 11:45).46 However, the events linked to the death of Antiochus do not fit together with those known from other sources.47 The circumstances of his death were not completely known to the author(s) of Dan 11.48 Thus, contrary to the previous verses of chapter 11, verses 40–45 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48

Schultz, Conquering the World, 93–96. John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 377. Verse 1 has usually been connected to the end of the previous chapter. Di Lella also considers verses 11:2–12:4 a unity. He states that verses 11:1 and 12:5–10 were added by the author of chapter 9. See Alexander A. Di Lella and Louis F. Hartman, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City: Doubleday, 1978), 14. Collins, Daniel, 388. See the more specific explanation in Di Lella and Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 286– 87. Di Lella and Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 286. Collins, Daniel, 389–90; Di Lella and Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 303. Di Lella and Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 303. Collins, Daniel, 390.

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel

233

have been considered a prediction intended to be a genuine one.49 After that, in the first verses of chapter 12, there is a prediction in which the end-time dimension is emphasized and the heavenly intervention is highlighted (12:1–3), and finally, verse 12:4 serves as a concluding address.50 As regards the verses essential to our discussion, it is clear that the one who will destroy (Dan 11:44) and the one who will fall without any help (Dan 11:45) is the same person in Daniel – the king of the North (Dan 11:40). By this pseudonym, the author of Dan 11:40–45 means Antiochus IV but he does not know his final fate in detail. To return to the text of 1QM 1, also there, somebody will, in his time, go out with great wrath and destroy (the horn of someone). Because of the long rift in the right edge of the column, it is difficult to define who or what is to be destroyed and by whom. The problematic passage is in lines 3b–5a: -%+!+ !+# !/% 8' #89# -':8/ -''=)![ ]îî 4 -
On the right edge of the column, there are weak ink traces visible. Accordingly, we are able to tell where lines 4 and 5 started. However, no letters from the beginning of these lines can be defined. In line 4, -''=)! is the first word clearly legible, and the lacuna before it is about 2.3 cm wide. In line 5, the first readable word after the rift is =3, and before that, the end of the preceding word can be distinguished (!). The lacuna at the beginning of the line is about 1.8 cm wide. How should these lacunae be reconstructed? Various alternatives have been presented. For example, Davies has suggested that the one who will exterminate the horn is God.51 He completes the text in the following way: 49

50 51

Collins, Daniel, 388; Di Lella and Hartman, The Book of Daniel, 303. Di Lella also briefly presents some alternative theories of the interpretation of the verses in question. Collins, Daniel, 390, 399. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran, 116.

234

Hanna Vanonen

!+# !/% 8' #89# -':8/ -''=)![ -3 0#68! ')+/] 4 -
With regard to the number of letters, the first reconstruction is plausible: the expression ')+/ 0#68! later in line 4 occupies 1.5 cm and the word -3 in line 5 fits into 0.4 cm. The second reconstruction suggested by Davies is too short for the lacuna, and thus, it cannot be considered as the final word on the issue.53 In any case, on the basis of this reconstruction, it cannot be unquestionably concluded that the one who will destroy would specifically be God. In addition, later in the text, we are told that Asshur will fall and there will be no help for it. Thus, from Davies’ point of view, the one who will destroy and the one who will have no help seem to be two separate persons, contrary to Daniel. However, if we suggest (as Davies seems to do too)54 that the author was inspired by the delimited passage from Daniel (11:40–45) it would be more logical that the subject of these two phrases would be the same also in column 1 – that is to say, the one who will exterminate would be the king of Asshur. It will become clear that this alternative is the more plausible one.55 Another alternative is proposed by David Flusser who has reconstructed the beginning of line 4 in a way that fits together with the idea of Asshur as a destroyer:56 !+# !/% 8' #89# -':8/ -''=)! [(+/ #'#] 4 -
52

53 54 55

56

Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran, 118. Brackets mine. Instead of the first two letters in line 4 (Davies’ / and +), Duhaime (“War Scroll”) uses here two mid-line circlets (= remnant of an undetermined letter) and marks the first bracket just after them. Davies seems not to reconstruct the beginning of the word that ends with !. Davies, 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran, 116. Yigael Yadin also states that those who will be destroyed are the enemies but he reconstructs the beginning of line 5: + -3+ !3#<' =3 ! [+3'+ '!#] 0:9. See Yadin, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (trans. B. and. C. Rabin; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 259. Furthermore, Yadin reads line 4a -':8/ -''=)! ['# +#) +]3 . Letters for the construct form '# in line 3 occupy 0.8 cm and the word +#) 0.6 cm. The letter 3 is no longer visible in the manuscript. Yadin categorizes it as a “partly visible letter, no restoration possible” (see Yadin’s conventions: The Scroll of the War, 255). However, the combination of letters ʲ and + needs a space of about 0.4 cm. These words with the space between words would fit well in the lacuna of 2.3 cm. However, the problems are same as those related to Davies’ theory. Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements,” 155.

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel

235

With regard to the first lacuna, there are no other singular forms of the word (+/ nor any other verbal forms similar to #'# in column 1. However, on the basis of the size of the letters in the first column, it can be estimated that the word (+/ occupies about 0.4 cm and #'# about 0.7 cm. Thus, together (including the spaces between the words) they do not occupy more than about 1.3 cm.58 Although there remain questions about the blank space in line 4, Flusser’s reconstruction can still be supported on the basis of three other reasons: First, in line 4, the suffixes and verbs in the masculine singular show that the attacker in question is an individual.59 As far as the preposition  before the word -':8/ is concerned, besides “in” it can also mean “into” or “against.”60 The reconstructed verb # does make sense because it is commonly linked with the subject (+/ and preposition  expressing “into”/”against” in Daniel.61 Thus, with regard to grammar and vocabulary, there is no problem with this reconstruction. Second, the king of the Kittim is not a far–fetched idea when looking at 1QM as a whole: it occurs also in 1QM 15, line 2. And finally, third, this reconstruction makes clear the idea of the author who has been influenced by Dan 11: the one who will destroy and the one who will fall are the same, (the king of the Kittim of) Asshur.62 The reconstruction in line 5 clarifies this from before: into this lacuna, Flusser reconstructs the word Israel.63 According to this completion, it does not seem plausible that the destroyer would be 57

58 59 60

61 62

63

Flusser does not present his Hebrew transcription in his article “Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll” but Schultz takes it from Flusser’s Hebrew article from 1980 (Conquering the World, 90). For example in line 5, the spaces between the words are usually about 0.1 cm wide. André Dupont-Sommer observed this already in the 1950’s. See Schultz, Conquering the World, 89. When the preposition follows verbs of motion (e.g. #) its meaning can be “into,” and with # it can also mean “against.” See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, HALOT 1:104. See, e.g., Dan 11:9, 29, 40, 41. Schultz states that although the author of 1QM 1 has used Daniel, this does not mean that for example the Kittim must denote the same in both texts: According to him, “there is little doubt that the Kittim are Romans” (Schultz, Conquering the World, 148). In 1QM 1 the king of Kittim refers to the Seleukid monarch (Conquering the World, 169) – like the attacker (the king of North) in Dan 11. See also H. Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 163–79. Note that Flusser does not use the brackets around the word Israel although at least part of it must be reconstructed. In the study edition of the DSS, nothing is reconstructed in the lacuna in line 4 but in this second lacuna there are the same words completed as Flusser has in his proposition (and ' at the beginning of the word +:<' is marked as a certain letter). See Florentino García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar, ed., 1Q1–4Q273 (vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 112.

236

Hanna Vanonen

God. Instead, the idea that the king of the Kittim of Asshur will destroy Israel is understandable. Some further support for this reconstruction can perhaps be found from fragment 3 of 4Q496 which possibly is a parallel to 1QM 1.64 Maurice Baillet reconstructs line 4 of fragment 3:65 !3#<' ]=3 ! ‘'!‘ ‘# +:[<' 0:9 =':)!+#

However, fragment 3 is very small and corrupted and the decisive word Israel is very weakly visible. On the other hand, the only way to reconstruct fragment 3 is probably to do it on the basis of 1QM – and this fact limits the possibilities of using the reconstruction to prove what we are supposed to read in the lacunae of 1QM. Thus, I would conclude that Flusser’s reconstructions are more likely than Davies’ but not because of 4Q496. Instead, they make sense in light of the whole section.

3.3. Structural Similarities in Daniel 11:40–12:3 and 1QM 1:1–9a So far we have noted that assuming a textual connection between Dan 11:40–45 and 1QM 1:1–7 helps us understand the content of the latter. However, the affinities with Daniel are not limited only to the first seven lines of column 1. As we noted above, Hughes considers it theoretically possible that instead of vocabulary, an allusive text can share the structure or a combination of ideas with an alluded text.66 The similarities between the structure and the combination of ideas in 1QM 1 and Daniel are the most convincing indication of the textual connection of these texts. After the vacat, there do not appear any clear lexical links to Daniel, but lines 8–9a share similar ideas with Dan 12:1–3. Actually, the ideas and the story line of the narrative in 1QM lines 1–9a are similar to Dan 11:44–12:3:

64

65

66

See Schultz, Conquering the World, 90–91. Besides 4Q496, there is only one manuscript in Cave 4 War Text material that has been identified as a parallel to 1QM 1: cf. 4Q494 and 1QM 1:E–2, 3. Unfortunately, it does not shed any light on the question under discussion. Maurice Baillet, Qumrân Grotte 4.III. (4Q482–4Q520) (DJD 7; Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 58. Baillet’s own translation into French: […et pour abattre la corne d’Is]raël. Mais ce (sera) le moment [du salut…] Hughes, Scriptural Allusions, 46.

237

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel

The description of the destroyer and his acts The end of the destroyer The lack of help for the destroyer The salvation of the people of God The shining of the righteous

Daniel

1QM

11:44 11:45 11:45 12:1 12:3

1:4 1:6 1:6 1:5 1:8

Even the vacat in 1QM 1 is in the same place as the boundary between chapters and different genres (prose and poetry) in Daniel. There is only one small deviation in the sequence of events: in 1QM 1, the salvation of the people of God is revealed before the end of the destroyer and the lack of help. This alteration probably indicates that the author of 1QM has modified the Daniel tradition. The idea of this kind of reworking fits together with the way that the author probably used Daniel with the enemy list.67 In addition to structural similarities, Schultz has endorsed the idea that the proposed use of Daniel also makes sense from another point of view. As we noted above, it has been suggested that in verse 11:40 the author of Daniel moves on from ex eventu prophecy to a proper prediction. According to Flusser and Schultz, the author of 1QM 1 realized that there was an unfulfilled prophecy in Daniel 11:40–45. Because he thought highly of Daniel, it was clear to him that the predicted clash between the king of the North and the king of the South must take place before the final war. Thus, the author of 1QM 1 describes first how this will happen (1QM 1:1–9a) and then moves on to the other (perhaps his own) ideas of the final eschatological events.68 This theory is plausible. However, in view of the rich variety of Danielic material at Qumran, we cannot be completely sure whether the author of 1QM has used the specific text of the “biblical” Book of Daniel.

3.4. The Multiplication of the Fall of the Kittim Line 9 is peculiar: The first part of the line seems to conclude the war description with a happy ending: “peace and blessing, glory and joy and length of days for all the sons of light.” In line 9b, however, the 67

68

It might also be possible that this difference originates from a special Daniel tradition known by the author. Unfortunately, although manuscripts from Qumran overlap something from all the chapters of the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel, the end of chapter 11 has not been preserved among them. Flusser, “Apocalyptic Elements,” 144–45; Schultz, Conquering the World, 93–96.

238

Hanna Vanonen

author unexpectedly returns to the day on which the Kittim fall and he seems to break away from the background of Daniel. In line 10, this theme is elaborated and the author declares that the day of the destruction has been appointed (3') at the beginning of time by God. This still brings Dan 11 to mind because there “the appointed time” (3#/) is an important expression (Dan 11:27, 29, 35). However, here, the author of 1QM 1 also makes it clear that the belligerents will be both human and supernatural forces: they will consist of the assembly of gods and the community of men (line 10). This idea is unknown to Daniel although the angelic intervention in favor of the people plays an important role in Dan 12. After this description of the battle of partly supernatural armies (lines 10–11), the author – again – comes to the conclusion that the distress will end with eternal redemption and God will be the one who finally redeems his people (line 12a). From line 12b onward, the actual war against the Kittim is once more repeated (lines 12b–E). Because of the fragmentary nature of the end of the column, it is difficult to get a coherent view of the battle. However, it can be read that the war will be seven-pronged: the sons of light will be stronger in three phases and the sons of darkness, for their part, in another three phases. In the seventh phase, God will intervene in the battle and the sons of darkness will encounter their destruction. The divine intervention brings Dan 12 to mind but there the one who intervenes is not God himself but the angel Michael.69 After the vacat in line 15, the conclusion seems again to be something concerning the shining of the holy ones and the annihilation of the sons of darkness (see line 16). It is noteworthy that the day of the fall of the Kittim is described three times in this text: first, in lines 1–9a, then, in lines 9b–12a, and finally, in lines 12b–E. The first has a clear textual connection with Dan 11–12 (as noted above) but the other two seem to be removed from Daniel. The multiplicity of descriptions can be explained in at least three ways: 1) The author tells about the fall of the Kittim many times, always specifying and adding information from different viewpoints and at the same time moving beyond the text of Daniel. 2) The author likes to combine different traditions of an eschatological turn and the end product seems to be incoherent. 3) Column 1 is internally incoherent and the result of a reworking process. We will now turn to discuss what kind of support we can find for each of these explanations.70 69 70

Cf. 1QM 17:6 where the idea of intervention is closer to that in Dan 12. Of course, from the point of view of an ancient reader, the third explanation does not exclude the first two. In spite of the possibility of redactional activity, an ancient

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel

239

3.4.1. The Theory of Specifying The first explanation for the apparent incoherence of 1QM 1 could be that while the text of Daniel is the basis for the author of the column, he also wants to go deeper than Daniel into the final eschatological times. At the end of the column he brings out the idea of the supernatural enemies and different phases of the war. However, this does not explain why the author wants to repeat the fall of the Kittim two more times. Why does he not phrase his ideas within one description? Nor is it clear why these different viewpoints are important to the author if they are not based on any known text material. Thus, while the theory of specifying is not a completely impossible way to explain the incoherence, it is not the best one. 3.4.2. The Theory of Different Traditions The apparent incoherence of column 1 can also be explained by suggesting that the author of 1QM likes to combine different traditions of an eschatological turn and the end product seems to be incoherent. For example, Davies suggests that the first column of 1QM was created as an introduction to the following material and thus, its author tries to combine different ideas from the composition of 1QM. Davies argues for this by noting that from line 11 onwards the text of column 1 offers a summary of columns 15–19.71 However, when reading the final columns of the scroll, it is perhaps possible to sketch an outline of the three-pronged war (16:3–9; 16:11–17:15; 17:16–18:6a) but the sevenpronged war seems to be an independent idea. If the concept of the seven-pronged war is related to the rest of the 1QM material, it probably has more to do with columns 5–8 (where the number seven seems to be in focus) than with the end of the scroll. Another possibility to approach the question of incoherence from this point of view is to try to find the background of the different ideas from the “biblical” texts or from some other text material. For example, the seven-pronged war is an idea that probably existed before the composition of 1QM. Apart from column 1, the seven-pronged war does not evidently come up anywhere else in 1QM. Seven is certainly an important number in various columns of the text: this number occurs 19 times in the scroll, in nine different columns but especially often in

71

reader probably tried to understand the text as it was. These three explanations have more to do with our questions, i.e., how we try to explain the development of the text. Davies, 1QM, The War Scroll from Qumran, 113.

240

Hanna Vanonen

columns 5–8 where the equipment, the tasks and the tactics of the war are described. Seven is also an important number in the HB.72 For example, in the story of the conquest of Jericho (Joshua 6) the men of war are told to go round the city for seven days, one time for six days and seven times on the seventh day. In addition, seven priests are to carry seven trumpets and they will blow these trumpets when the attack to the Jericho begins. This passage has several links to the ideas in 1QM in general: priests, trumpets, war cry, men of war.73 It should also be taken into consideration that the number seven also seems to be important in Daniel’s chapters 4 and 9 (see, e.g., 4:23–25; 9:24–25). Outside the texts of the HB, the number seven has a special weight in many apocalyptic texts, for example in Enochic literature and in the Book of Revelation (see, for example, 1 En 20; Rev 1:4; 4:5). Thus, it is possible that the description of the seven-pronged war was developed on the basis of some known tradition where the number seven was important. However, it is difficult to define this tradition or text material exactly. To sum up, the theory of different traditions may offer an explanation for the three different descriptions of the fall of the Kittim, but it is not clear whether the author received the idea of the seven-pronged war from one specific text or tradition and why he wanted to incorporate it into the end of column 1. However, column 1 cannot be plausibly interpreted as a summary of the final columns of 1QM, but rather the possible traditions originated outside the scroll. 3.4.3. The Theory of Reworking In his article “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” Jean Duhaime has presented three principles of redactional reworking which are of help when studying the possibility of reworking in 1QM 1: 1) The textual indications (e.g., different versions of the same text) have to be considered. 2) The duplication of the (part of the) sentence can be a mark of an addition. 3) One should be able to explain why the addition is located where it is.74 In 1QM 1, the fact that the fall of the Kittim is repeatedly described could well be a mark of incoherence of the text. In addition, there are some expressions that could be seen as duplications (which Duhaime 72

73 74

According to Eckart Otto, 3< “transcends the merely concrete notion of counting to include elements of completeness, energy and fullness.” See Otto, “3<,” TDOT 14: 351. See, e.g., 3, 8, 9. Duhaime, “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran,” in CBQ 49 (1987): 32– 56 (32–33).

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel

241

discusses in his second principle) and thus as ways to connect the different parts of the text. Both the second and the third description of the fall of the Kittim begin with a sentence of a similar kind, containing the words -#', -''=) and :'<%1:75 Lines 9b–10: +:<' + '16+ 9$% :'<%1# :9 -''=) # +#61 -#'# And on the day on which the Kittim fall, (there will be) a battle and a hard carnage before the God of Israel. Lines 12b–13: !/%+/ :'<%‘ ‘1[ ]î[ #]8' -''=)  -=/%+/ -#'# And on the day of their war against the Kittim [they] will g[o…] … carnage in the war

One possibility is that in this case, with the help of these sentences, an author might have joined different traditions of the final eschatological war together. The word “Kittim” in these sentences refers to the beginning of column 1: In that passage (lines 1–9a), the Kittim (or Kittim of Asshur) were mentioned three times while in the later two passages Kittim occurs only once in each, viz. in the opening sentences. Thus, it is not impossible to interpret the Kittim as a way to link the last parts of the text with the preceding first passage. Another interesting observation is that in lines 9b–12a where the fall of the Kittim is described for the second time, the word -#' occurs four times while in the first and the third descriptions there is only one mention of -#' in each.76 These occurrences are in lines 9 and 12, i.e., in the joins of the first and the second description and the second and the third description. Hence, it is also not impossible to interpret that with the word -#', the separate passages have been combined. In addition to the repetitions, there is another issue that can be interpreted as a mark of incoherence in the narrative. In the first description of the fall of the Kittim (in lines 1–9a), we have no definite reason to interpret the sons of light and the sons of darkness (or Kittim or Beli-

75 76

Besides these two mentions, :'<%1 occurs only once in 1QM (1:10). This word is rare. On its Persian origins, see J. P. de Menasce, “Iranien nax²Îr,” in VT 6 (1956): 213–14. Schultz also notes the emphasis on the term ”day” (Schultz, Conquering the World, 97–98), but he does not consider the fact that it occurs mainly in the middle of the text.

242

Hanna Vanonen

al) as supernatural terms. In contrast, the participation of the supernatural forces in the war is clear in the second description (in lines 9b– 12a). In the following third section of the text, it is again not necessary to consider the belligerents to be supernatural forces although God will intervene in the situation. Thus, the different descriptions include different ideas of the enemies and the character of the war. To conclude, there is a possibility of textual reworking in 1QM 1. It is not impossible to see lines 9b–12a as a result of it. The text of column 1 would make sense without these lines: In lines 1–9a, the fall of the Kittim is described from the background of Daniel 11–12, and in lines 12b–E this description is elaborated and the idea of the seven-pronged war is introduced. At some level, this idea could still be inspired by Daniel because, after all, the number seven plays an important role in Dan 4 and 9. Instead, the text in lines 9b–12a introduces a new idea of the supernatural participants in the war. The duplications in the text give support to the idea of reworking. Of course, many questions still remain: Who wanted to edit the text and why? How does this theory fit together with the remaining material of 1QM? Answering these questions would need a more thorough study of the entire 1QM text. However, we can note that the possibility of reworking as an explanation for the apparent incoherence of 1QM 1 may not have been adequately discussed.

4. Conclusions The opening column of 1QM contains many “biblical” references. The main referent is the Book of Daniel or some Danielic tradition close to it. Daniel’s chapter 11 and the beginning of chapter 12 form a background to 1QM 1 lines 1–9a. Dan 11:40–12:3 and 1QM 1:1–9a share some vocabulary, the structure of the texts is similar, and the ideas presented in these texts resemble each other. The textual connection between 1QM 1 and Daniel can be described as allusive. The author was inspired by the Danielic tradition and he probably intended his readers to notice it. However, the author does not use any quotation formulas or any other markers of direct quotation. Instead, the idea of double referent introduced by Julie A. Hughes fits with 1QM 1 lines 4b–5a and 6a¹: phrases in these lines have a non-allusive meaning in their present context, but at the same time, they are referring to the text of Daniel. In addition to Dan 11–12, other referents can be found at the beginning and at the end of the column 1. The enemy list in lines 1–2 proba-

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel

243

bly does not follow any single source text but rather is a collection of traditional “biblical” belligerents. Dan 11 shares some vocabulary with 1QM 1 lines 1–2, and it is possible that it played a special role in choosing the enemies. At the end of the column, the description of the sevenpronged war shares the importance of the number seven with many “biblical” texts, for instance, Dan 4 and 9. After line 9a, the author of column 1 seems to break away from the background of Dan 11–12 and start over his narrative of the day when the Kittim falls. In column 1, this event is described three times in all (in 1–9a which has a clear textual connection with Dan 11–12, and in 9b– 12a and 12b–E which seem to be removed from Daniel). When trying to explain this incoherence, the possibility of redactional activity should be taken into account. Narrating the same event many times, duplications, and discrepancies hint that some reworking has been done. However, this conclusion has to be evaluated in the light of all the 1QM material.

Bibliography Baillet, Maurice. Qumrân Grotte 4.III. (4Q482–4Q520). DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. Beale, Gregory K. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of John. Lanham: University Press of America, 1984. Bernstein, Moshe. “Interpretation of Scriptures.” Pages 376–83 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Ȱ. “Scriptures: Quotation and Use.” Pages 839–42 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Botterweck, Johannes G., Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, ed. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, David E. Green, Douglas W. Stott, and John T. Willis. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Brooke, George. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. JSOTS 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Carmignac, Jean. “Les citations de l’Ancien Testament dans la ‘Guerre des fils de lumière contre des fils de ténèbres’.” RB 63 (1956): 234–60, 375–90. Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Ȱ. “Daniel, Book of: Pseudo Daniel.” Pages 176–78 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

244

Hanna Vanonen

Ȱ. “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel.” Pages 1–15 in The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83,1. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Ȱ. “Pseudepigraphy and Group Formation in Second Temple Judaism.” No pages. Cited 12 May 2010. Online: http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/symposiums/ 2nd/papers/Collins97.html. Davies, Philip R. 1QM, the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Structure and History. BibOr 32. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977. Ȱ. “War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.” Pages 965–68 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Di Lella, Alexander A., and Louis F. Hartman. The Book of Daniel. AB 23. Garden City: Doubleday, 1978. Duhaime, Jean. “Dualistic Reworking in the Scrolls from Qumran.” CBQ 49 (1987): 32–56. Ȱ. “War Scroll.” Pages 80–203 in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995. Ȱ. The War Texts: 1QM and related fragments. CQS. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Elledge, C. D. “Exegetical Styles at Qumran: A Cumulative Index and Commentary.” RevQ 21/82 (2003): 165–208. Eshel, Esther. “The Possible Sources of the Book Daniel.” Pages 387–94 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83,2. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Eshel, Hanan. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Flint, Peter W. “The Daniel Tradition at Qumran.” Pages 41–60 in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Craig A. Evans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Flusser, David. “Apocalyptic Elements in the War Scroll.” Pages 140–58 in Qumran and Apocalyptism. Vol 1 of Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Translated by Azzan Yadin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert Tigchelaar, ed. 1Q1–4Q27. Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Holst, Søren. Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 25. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 2008. Hughes, Julie A. Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot. STDJ 59. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 5 vols. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Leonard, Jeffrey M. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case.” JBL 127 no 2 (2008): 241–65. Menasce, J. P. de. “Iranien nax²Îr.” VT 6 (1956): 213–14.

The Textual Connections between 1QM 1 and the Book of Daniel

245

Saukkonen, Juhana. The Story Behind the Text: Scriptural Interpretation in 4Q252. Ph.D. diss., University of Helsinki, 2005. Schultz, Brian. Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered. STDJ 76. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Davidic Typology in the Forty Year War Between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness.” Pages 262–68 in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. FAT 45. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2005. Ulrich, Eugene. “The Text of Daniel in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 573–85 in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Edited by John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint. VTSup 83,2. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Wenthe, Dean O. “The Use of the Hebrew Scriptures in 1QM.” DSD 5 (1998): 290–315. Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg and Edward M. Cook, with M. Gordon. “1Q33 (1QM[ilhamah] = 1QWar Scroll [Rule])” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library. Edited by Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Yadin, Yigael. The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Translated by Batya and Chaim Rabin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc* Hanne von Weissenberg It is an often repeated phrase that the Qumran “biblical”1 scrolls have revolutionized our understanding of the Hebrew Bible in the Second Temple period. For the first time, scholars are able to investigate and analyse “biblical” manuscripts from a period prior to the stabilization of the text form of the individual books of the Hebrew Bible and the closure of the canon. Moreover, these manuscripts attest to the practical, material and technical aspects of scroll production in the late Second Temple period, and to the scribal practices that were in use in the writing of the authoritative texts of this period.2 With this material we now *

1

2

I would like to thank Ian Werrett, Eibert Tigchelaar, Mika S. Pajunen, Marketta Liljeström and my colleagues in the Academy of Finland funded research projects Textual Criticism of the Septuagint and Conflicting Identities: Social and Religious Identities in Light of the Qumran Material from the Judaean Desert at the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Helsinki, for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this article. While acknowledging the problematic usage of the term “biblical” in a late Second Temple context, I am using it in this article simply as a reference to copies of those compositions which in a much later period became a part of the canonical Hebrew Bible. When the Qumran material is discussed, the need for appropriate terminology needs to be acknowledged. During the late Second Temple period, no closed, canonized Bible yet existed; instead, compositions were still in the process of moving from “authoritative” to “biblical” or “canonical.” The quest for terminological clarity has been addressed by several scholars, most notably Eugene Ulrich. See his article “The Notion and Definition of Canon,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. Donald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), 21–35. See also Molly Zahn’s article (“Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology”) in the present volume. In the past decade or so, scholars have begun to use the term “authoritative” and “scriptural” instead of “biblical” or “canonical” for texts gaining special, elevated or sacred status in the pre-canonical era. Although the usage of these terms is a welcome attempt to acknowledge the lack of a fixed canon in this period and to avoid some of the anachronisms of earlier research, it is not always clear in what sense the term “authoritative” is used or understood – either by the modern scholar using it or by the ancients responsible for the production and transmission of the texts under

248

Hanne von Weissenberg

have concrete evidence from the formative period of the Hebrew Bible of how the scribes actually worked in the transmission and production of both “biblical” and “non-biblical” manuscripts. The manuscripts from Qumran and other sites of the Judean Desert have enabled us to see how texts were copied and transmitted and what kind of practices were possible. They inform us on how changes, corrections and additions could be incorporated into and, in some cases, transmitted in later copies of authoritative and possibly sacred texts. A more comprehensive analysis of these practices will help us to apprehend the scribes’ interventions in a text they had received – and how the scribes conceived the texts they were working with. In Emanuel Tov’s words: “Attention to the intricacies of the scribal correction process known from the Qumran scrolls helps us in better understanding scribal transmission as well as the rewriting of ancient literature.”3 This, in turn, will help us to make qualitative distinctions between copies. Being able to determine the quality of a manuscript gives indicators to evaluate the significance of the variant readings attested by different manuscripts. It is the general consensus of the scholarly community that the books of the Minor Prophets, and possibly the Twelve as a collection, had gained an elevated status as authoritative literature in the Second Temple period.4 Apparently, however, this had only limited impact in

3

4

investigation. The problem is rarely addressed explicitly. For further reflection see the introduction and the articles in Mladen Popovi° (ed.), Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), especially Eibert Tigchelaar, “Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scriptures: Preliminary observations,” 155–71 (160–62). See also Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts” in the present volume, and Timothy H. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 303–22. Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practises and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 222. See also Michael Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretations at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28 (12). Segal points out the importance of variant readings in biblical manuscript for a better understanding of the scribal input in the development of the texts, in particular the intentional changes, “sometimes for aesthetic reasons, at other times for exegetical purposes, and in some cases tendentious readings. These “intentional” variants are the most important for a comparison with “rewritten” biblical texts, because they exemplify the intervention of scribes in the text of the Bible, even only on a small scale.” The Minor Prophets are preserved at Qumran in 12 manuscripts; the exact number depends on how the fragments are classified and identified. See Hanne von Weissenberg, “The Twelve Minor Prophets at Qumran and the Canonical Process: Amos as a ‘Case Study’,” The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. A Lange, K. De Troyer and S. Tzoref; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), forthcoming. This figure can be compared to number (8–9 manuscripts) given in the manuscript list in the in-

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

249

how carefully the manuscripts of the Twelve were produced. It is evident, as Tov has argued, “that the majority of the biblical scrolls were not singled out for special care in copying.”5 In this article, special attention is paid to the scribal practices of one “biblical” manuscript, namely 4QXIIc. The purpose of this contribution is to examine the scribal practices of this manuscript and to illuminate through a case study of this manuscript and its supralinear scribal corrections possible ways in which (minor) variant readings could come into existence. In what follows, I will examine all the supralinear corrections in an attempt to profile the scribe of 4QXIIc in order to see whether the scribal interventions are a result of the scribe’s laxity or his intentional creativity.

5

dex volume of the DJD series (Emanuel Tov et al. ed.; The Texts from the Judaean desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series; DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon, 2002). The Cave 4 manuscripts of the Minor Prophets are published by Russel Fuller, “The Twelve: 76. 4QXIIa, 77. 4QXIIb, 78. 4QXIIc, 79. 4QXIId, 80. 4QXIIe, 81. 4QXIIf, 82. 4QXIIg,” in Qumran Cave 4, X: The Prophets (ed. E. Ulrich et al.; DJD 15; Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 221–318. A copy of Amos was discovered from Cave 5; Józef Milik, “4. Amos,” in Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumran: Exploration de la falaise, Les groĴes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q, Le rouleau de cuivre (ed. M. Baillet, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux; DJD 3; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 173–74. In addition to the Qumran scrolls of the Minor Prophets, there are two other important witnesses from the Dead Sea Region: the Murabba‘at manuscript of the Minor Prophets (MurXII), and the Greek scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr); Emanuel Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXII gr) (The Seiyal collection 1; DJD 8; Oxford: Clarendon, 1990); Józef Milik, “88. Rouleau des Douze Prophètes,” in Les grottes de Murabba‘at (ed. P. Benoit, J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux; DJD 2.1; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 181–205. Beyond the evidence provided by the “biblical” manuscripts, the status of the Minor Prophets at Qumran and in late Second Temple Judaism is reflected, for instance, by the use of these books in the “non-biblical” compositions found in the Qumran collection. The best know exegetical use of Minor Prophets at Qumran is attested by the pesharim. In addition to the pesharim, there are several references to Minor Prophets in other compositions. For example, in the Damascus Document A, the Minor Prophets is cited seven times: Column 1 contains a reference to Hos 4:16; column 4 to Mic 2:6; column 6 to Mal 1:10; column 7 to Amos 5:26–27 and Amos 9:11 (as a part of the Amos-Numbers midrash); column 16 to Mic 7:2; and column 20 to Nah 1:2. Importantly, the Minor Prophets are referred and alluded to in later books of the Hebrew Bible, and there is a well known reference to the “bones of the Twelve Prophets” in the book of Ben Sira 49:10. Tov, Scribal Practices, 253.

250

Hanne von Weissenberg

1. A Description of Manuscript 4QXIIc Manuscript 4QXIIc is preserved in 50 fragments, some remaining unidentified.6 None of them preserve text from more than one column. The manuscript contains fragmentary evidence from the books of from Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Zephaniah (Hos 2:13–15; 3:2–4; 4:1–5:1; 13:3–10; 13:15–14:6; Joel 1:10–2:1; 2:8–23; 4:6–21; Amos 2:11–4:2; 6:13–7:16; Zeph 2:15–3:2).7 Manuscript 4QXIIc has been textually classified using Emanuel Tov’s categories.8 Various scholars have proposed slightly differing classifications. In DJD 15, Fuller gives no textual classification for this manuscript.9 Elsewhere, he states that “[i]t stands relatively close to the textual tradition represented by the Septuagint.”10 In contrast to Fuller, both Tov and Florentino García Martínez classify this manuscript as “non-aligned.”11 George Brooke refrains from putting 4QXIIc into any of Tov’s categories, although he points to a “striking agreement” with the Septua-

6

7 8

9 10

11

Fragments 36–37, 39–43, 45–47 and 50–51 are classified as unidentified in the DJD edition. Although materially identified as a part of this manuscript, there is too little writing left to ascertain the content of these fragments. Fuller, “The Twelve,” 249–50 Fuller, “The Twelve,” 237–51. Fragment 35 (Mal 3:6–7) belongs to a separate manuscript; fragment 38 contains text from Ps 38 and belongs to manuscript 4QP sa (4Q83). For these categories and their definition see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd revised edition; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 114–17; idem, “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert – An Overview and Analysis of he Published Texts,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: The British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 152–57. Since then, Tov has nuanced his textual categories and presented his new understanding in a revised version of an earlier article, “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert” published in its revised form in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays (J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]: Tübingen, 2008), 128–54. Fuller, “The Twelve,” 237–51; See also Florentino García Martínez, “The Text of the XII Prophets,” OTE 17/1 (2004): 103–19 (108, n. 27). Fuller, “Minor Prophets,” in Dead Sea Scrolls Encyclopedia, in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. L. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 554–57 (555). However, in another article Fuller (“Textual Traditions in the Book of Hosea,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991. I–II (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 247–56 (249, 252) states the following: “I have characterized the text of 4QXIIc elsewhere as an independent witness which stands close to the LXX.” Tov, “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert,” 156; García Martínez, “The Text of the XII Prophets,” 108.

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

251

gint in Hos 13:4 in fragment 8.12 Instead, he uses the manuscript as an example of the difficulties in textual classification; in Brooke’s words, “[t]his fragment, therefore, raises the important point about how criteria for aligning fragmentary manuscripts are compiled; beyond the way in which the importance can be given to shared distinctive errors, there is still considerable lack of clarity about this.”13 Although potentially significant, the question of how textual alignment, scribal practices and the authoritativeness of the text are related is a complicated one, and requires the analysis of more than one manuscript.14 What is important for the purposes of this investigation is the fact that manuscript 4QXIIc does contain quite a number of variant readings of different degrees of significance.15 In this article, I will only deal with those involving supralinear corrections, unless a more extensive treatment of a variant reading is required to understand the supralinear correction.

2. The Scribal Practices Reflected by Manuscript 4QXIIc The scribe of 4QXIIc had a hand that shows many affinities with 4QDeutc and 4QSama, and it is close to the semiformal.16 This is significant in that “[p]recision in copying is“ according to Tov, “usually accompanied by elegant external features in the handwriting and the scroll.”17 The script is dated to approximately 75 BCE.18 The scribe of 4QXIIc prefers plene orthography and the long 19morphological forms known either as the “Qumran Hebrew” (QH) or Tov’s “Qumran 12

13 14 15

16 17 18 19

Fuller, “The Twelve,” 241. The fragmentary reading of 4QXIIc, frg. 8 seems to require a longer reconstruction following the textual tradition of LXX rather than the shorter version attested by MT. George Brooke, “The Twelve Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Congress Volume, Leiden 2004 (ed. A. Lemaire; VTSup 109; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 19–43 (23). For a summary of these features and their correlation, see Appendix 8, ”Scribal Features of Biblical Manuscripts” in Tov, Scribal Practices, 331–35. Most of these are conveniently listed both in the DJD edition, as well as Eugene Ulrich’s volume The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (VTSup 134; Leiden: Brill, 2010). See also Beate Ego et al. (ed.), Biblia Qumranica 3B: Minor Prophets (Leiden: Brill, 2005). Fuller, “The Twelve,” 238. Tov, Scribal Practices, 25. Fuller, “The Twelve,” 238. With Qumran Hebrew (QH) I am referring to those linguistic features common in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls and deviant from the typical traits of Biblical Hebrew (BH). One should, of course, avoid too broad generalizations with regard to the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls, since the documents are dated between approximate-

252

Hanne von Weissenberg

scribal practice” (QSP).20 The words +#) and #+ are always written plene. However, the scribe uses ') instead of ') (except in Amos 7:2 the longer form is attested). According to Eibert Tigchelaar, in manuscripts that only have the plene form of #+, the spellings ')/') vary from manuscript to manuscript, but the short form ') is, in fact, more common, thus keeping manuscript 4QXIIc inside the parameters of the QSP.21 Furthermore, the tetragrammaton is written in the square script, although in most manuscripts reflecting the Qumran scribal practice palaeo-Hebrew characters are used for the tetragrammaton. Tigchelaar points out that while the palaeo-Hebrew tetragrammaton is not used outside manuscripts displaying the characteristics of the QSP, it is possible that manuscripts reflecting other characteristics of the QSP could also use the square script for the tetragrammaton.22 Guide dots (points jalon) to facilitate the drawing of the lines are visible on the same fragment on the left hand side of the sheet on fragment 18. Although according to Tov these were probably inserted by the persons who manufactured the scrolls, not the scribes themselves, the guide dots are more often used in the manuscripts reflecting the QSP.

20

21

22

ly 200 BCE and 70 CE and are not necessarily homogenous from a linguistic standpoint. The language apparently also shows traces of development when the earlier and the later documents are compared. It seems to be generally accepted, however, that the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls represents a later stage of development of the Hebrew language in comparison to BH. See, for instance, Angel Sáenz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 130–46 (133). A complete list of the plene orthographic forms can be found in the DJD edition, Table 2, pages 238–39. As the words +#) and #+ are always written plene with a waw, they are not included in the table. According to Tov (Scribal Practices, 269) the usage of ') should be seen as an exception detected in only a few manuscripts otherwise displaying the Qumran scribal practice, and a result of “varying personal preferences.” See, however, Eibert Tigchelaar’s re-evaluation of some of Tov’s criteria, “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice’” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. S. Metso, H. Najman and E. Schuller; STDJ 92; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 173–207 (192, 207). According to Tov, there is a correspondence between the Qumran scribal practice and the use of palaeo-Hebrew characters for the tetragrammaton. This manuscript is one of the exceptions in this regard. See Tov, Scribal Practices, 240–44. According to Tov, “[i]t is unclear why certain scribes used paleo-Hebrew characters for the Tetragrammaton, while others wrote the Tetragrammaton in square characters. See also Tigchelaar (“Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice’,” 200) who points out that while the palaeo-Hebrew tetragrammaton is not used outside manuscripts displaying the characteristics of the Qumran scribal practise, it is possible that manuscripts reflecting other characteristics of the QSP could also use the square script for the tetragrammaton.

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

253

The connection is clear for the “non-biblical” scrolls, but inconclusive for the “biblical” scrolls.23 In sum, manuscript 4QXIIc reflects several characteristics of the QSP, although the majority of the “biblical” scrolls do not display these practices.24 The manuscript also attests to several scribal corrections and interventions, such as cancellation dots, used by the scribes to indicate a reading (either a word or a letter) that should be corrected.25 According to Tov, the cancellation dots are a further characteristic feature of the QSP.26 An example of this practice is found on fragment 34, line 3 (Zeph 2:15/LXX Zeph 3:1): #]' = 3'1'.27 Both letters are partially erased, and either the same scribe or a later user added dots both above and below the word to signify that the word should be deleted. Both the MT and MurXII read: #' 3'1'. Elsewhere in the manuscript (fragments 18–20, line 4), one entire line has been erased. According to Fuller, there is enough space here for Joel 4:11, but the traces still visible do not fit. It is unclear what the scribe originally wrote on this line, and why he did not rewrite the line after erasing it.28 Also the preceding lines of this column have text critical problems.29 According to Tov, the scribe of manuscript 4QXIIc did not exercise sufficient care in his work; for Tov, the amount of scribal interventions is a criterion for evaluating the quality of the scribe’s work and habits.30 And indeed, if manuscript 4QXIIc is compared with the de luxe-editions found at Qumran, there is a clear difference in the quality of the manuscripts (N.B. no de luxe-scrolls of the

23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30

Tov, Scribal Practices, 63, 266. Tigchelaar, “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice’,” 203. Tov, Scribal Practices, 191, 197; Fuller,” The Twelve,” 249. For the significance of the cancellation dots see also Tigchelaar, “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice’,” 196–99. Tov, Scribal Practices, 264. For the significance of the cancellation dots see also Tigchelaar, “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice’,” 196–99. The scribe of the manuscript uses cancellation dots, but due to technical reasons, the word is presented with a strikethrough here. Fuller, “The Twelve,” 245–46. See below the discussion on the supralinear reading : =#[. Tov, Scribal Practices, 252–53. Nevertheless, Tov emphasizes that “[s]ince the scribal approach to the Torah was not different from the approach to the other books of Hebrew Scripture, it should not be expected that scribes copying any book of Scripture had a different approach to these books than the nonbiblical literary compositions.” Tov questions the general assumption of the careful copying of authoritative scripture, and further reminds us that the specific care demanded in the copying of sacred texts was instituted by rabbinic literature, in a much later period and in “specific circles only.”

254

Hanne von Weissenberg

Minor Prophets were found at Qumran, but the MurXII scroll is classified as a de luxe-edition).31 One particularly interesting feature of this manuscript is the large number of supralinear corrections. According to Fuller, there are (at least) twelve supralinear insertions, which are all made by the original scribe.32 Although the supralinear words and letters provide little writing for comparison with the linear hand, Fuller’s suggestion seems probable.33

3. The Supralinear Corrections in Manuscript 4QXIIc Tov gives three possible reasons for the (supralinear or other) corrections: first, the corrected reading was already in the Vorlage the scribe was using, but he miswrote it the first time; second the scribe consulted some other external, written sources, such as other manuscripts than the Vorlage; third, the corrections were a product of the internal logic of the first scribe, or a later scribe or a user, without any reference to a written source. Such corrections could reflect the insights or afterthoughts of scribes in matters of content, language, or orthography.34 The third category of scribal corrections moves the significance of the scribal interventions for our understanding of the transmission of the texts and the role of the scribes to a different level. It would not necessarily indicate a “careless” attitude of a less skilled scribe towards the copying and producing of a text, it would rather signify the freedom of the scribe. Furthermore, it means that not all scribal corrections are a belated attempt to be as faithful as possible to the Vorlage, but they can also indicate the scribe’s own creative input into the transmission of the texts. It is often difficult to make a distinction between these possible explanations, and in order to do so, all supralinear corrections together 31

32 33

34

The de luxe-manuscripts have a specific format, and display a smaller number of scribal interventions and corrections, suggesting that more care was required in the production of these scrolls. However, although statistically the format of de luxeeditions is more often attested in “biblical” texts, it is not exclusively used for them. According to Tov’s calculations, 22 of the 30 de luxe-manuscripts are classified as “biblical” texts. According to Tov, the de luxe-editions also more often (but not without important exceptions!) can be textually classified as “proto-masoretic”; Tov, Scribal Practices, 126–29. See also Table 27, pages 126–27. Fuller, “The Twelve,” 239. According to Tov, it is often impossible to determine whether the original scribe or a later hand, either a later scribe or user of the scroll, made the corrections in the manuscripts. Tov, Scribal Practises, 222–23. Tov, Scribal Practises, 224.

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

255

with other scribal habits a manuscript displays need to be investigated in order to understand how the scribe of this particular manuscript operated.35 Supralinear readings indicate corrections to the linear text, being either substitutions of the linear reading(s), or additions to the text. According to Tov, more often “the added elements were meant to correct the linear text by including the addition in the text itself.”36 In manuscript 4QXIIc, some of the supralinear corrections create variant readings when compared to other textual witnesses; however, these are usually only minor variants of one to two words. In general, the corrections vary from one letter to the addition of one to two words. In what follows, I have classified the supralinear corrections into three categories. Firstly, and for the sake of completeness, I will briefly survey those cases where it is virtually impossible to know the significance or rationale behind the supralinear correction, due to the fragmentariness of the manuscript. Secondly, I will introduce those corrections, which, according to my analysis of the scribe’s habits, most likely are a result of the scribe making unintentional mistakes when first producing the copy and later returning to correct them. These vary from one letter to the correction of a single word. In these cases, although it is impossible to exclude the possibility that he consulted another copy of the Minor Prophets for his corrections, the most likely explanation for the supralinear corrections lie in the Vorlage the scribe was using. In light of my investigation, this appears to be main reason for the supralinear corrections in manuscript 4QXIIc. Although the scribe produced mistakes while first copying the manuscript, he later attempted to correct his errors. Some of these corrections, although minor in character, may still contain important variant readings. The third category consists of cases, where the supralinear correction of at least one word creates a variant reading not attested in other main witnesses. Finally, I will discuss one particularly interesting case of supralinear correction, Joel 2:19. My aim is to determine the rationale behind the corrections of the third category in order to establish whether or not these independent variant readings are the result of scribal creativity or if they were already present in the Vorlage.

35 36

Also, if the scribe was responsible for the copying of more than one manuscript, an investigation of those texts will increase the information of this scribe’s habits. Tov, Scribal Practises, 226–28. For the supralinear corrections, different techniques were used. According to Tov, “… a complete word which was to be added between words a and b, was written exactly above the space preceding b.” A word that was meant to replace a linear word was written exactly above that word.

256

Hanne von Weissenberg

3.1. Ambiguous Cases The first category consists of supralinear cases in fragmentary passages where not enough text is extant to properly analyse the scribal corrections: ) 1) Frg 8, 7 (Hos 13:10) one supralinear kaf: :<[ The supralinear trace Fuller reads as a kaf is in fact merely a dot that is virtually illegible. If read as a kaf, and if the supralinear letter is an addition to the relative pronoun, it creates a reading in variance with the MT :<. However, the kaf could also have belonged to the word that preceded :<, which is the only preserved word on this line,37 and even the letters :< are uncertain. ) 2) Frg. 9, 4 (Hos 14:3) one supralinear kaf: ! /)/3 Also in this case, the trace Fuller reads as a supralinear kaf is virtually illegible.38 If read as a kaf, the supralinear addition creates a strange variant not attested in any other known textual witnesses. Without the supralinear kaf, the linear form of the word would be the equivalent of the one found in MT -)/3, although in the longer morphological form of QH. One possibility is to read this as two separate words: !) /)/3 but apart from creating a syntactically awkward reading, both of these words are in other occurrences written according to QH (for !#)see Amos 7:4), making this reading an unlikely interpretation. :/+ :/[+ 3) Frgs. 18–20, 14 (Joel 4:19) one supralinear word: ] The supralinear addition repeats the linear reading, and creates an independent variant not attested in any other witnesses.39 Of the supralinear :/+ bet and dalet are uncertain. Furthermore, the fragment breaks off immediately after the supralinear word, and therefore, the supralinear reading might have been longer than just one word (see PAM 41.790). In sum, little can be said about this supralinear reading. 4) Frgs. 30–33, 7 (Amos 3:1) a supralinear correction: ]<ż[ Since the passage is so fragmentary it is difficult to say what kind of reading manuscript 4QXIIc contains, but the traces indicate a reading different than the one known from the MT.

37 38

39

See also Fuller, “The Twelve,” 241. Fuller, “The Twelve,” 242. Fuller reports that fragment 9 was first published by M. Testuz (“Deux fragments inédits des manuscrits de la Mer Morte.” Semitica 5 (1955): 37–38), but is now either lost or in private hands. Testuz does not read the supralinear letter. See Fuller, “The Twelve,” 246.

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

257

3.2. Supralinear Corrections According to the Vorlage '

1) Frg. 7, 13 (Hos 4:18) one supralinear yod: ! 1[/ ' The scribe has added one supralinear letter yod ! 1[/ The corrected reading is identical with the MT: !'1/ (pl. with a suffix). Hos 4:18b in MT reads: !'1/ 0#+9 #! #! “They love lewdness more than their glory.” (NRSV).40 The word !'1/ is a rare expression and has been interpreted in different ways. According to Holladay !'1/ in Hos 4:18 is a hapax legomenon, and apparently a combination of an otherwise unattested noun 0/* “gift” and a suffix;41 this understanding is reflected in the JPS translation of Hos 4:18: “They ‘love’ beyond measure – Disgrace is the ‘gift’.” If read 0/, the word !'1/ in Hos 4:18 could be understood as “shield”; this interpretation is difficult in the context, although, admittedly, the verse is not easy to interpret. An almost identical and equally rare word is attested in Lam 3:65 (+¡ =1/ “anguish/sorrow/hardness of heart”).42 LXX reads in Hos 4:18: óºÚȾʸŠÒÌÀÄĕ¸Å ëÁ ÎÉÍںĸÌÇË ¸ĤÌľÅ . The Greek ëÁ ÎÉÍںĸÌÇË could be translated back into Hebrew as 0# + 0/. This is either what the Greek translator had in his Vorlage, or how he interpreted the Hebrew word he did not understand. The Greek expression ÎÉÍںĸ (as the Greek rendering of 0#) is also used in Zech 11:3; Jer 12:5; Ezek 7:24; 24:21. In the MT of these verses the Hebrew word 0# refers to “exaltation,” or “glory”; also the Greek word ÎÉÍںĸ can be translated as “that which one takes pride in” in Zech 11:3; Jer 12:5; Ezek 7:24; 24:21.43

40 41 42

43

NRSV translates the expression !'1/ in Hos 4:18 with “glory.” The footnote of NRSV refers to the Greek, as the Hebrew is “uncertain.” William L. Holladay (ed.), A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 182. The expression in Lam 3:65 is also classified as a hapax legomenon in the HALOT and translated as “insolence” (Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 182). The NRSV translates Lam 3:65: “Give them anguish of heart, your curse be on them.” The Greek translator of Lam 3:65 understands the phrase rather literally, as a reference to a shield, Hebrew 0/ (of the heart): ÒÈÇ»ļʼÀË ¸ĤÌÇėË ĨȼɸÊÈÀÊÄġÅ Á¸É»ĕ¸Ë ÄĠÏ¿ÇÅ ÊÇÍ ¸ĤÌÇėË “You shall repay them a shielding of heart, your hardship for them.” (NETS; see also 2 Sam 22:36 and Ps 17:36/MT 18:36). Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 721. However, the translation of Hos 4:18 in the NETS is different, and gives an opposite meaning to the word ÎÉÍںĸ: “They loved dishonour because of its insolence.” According to Muraoka, the Greek expression ÎÉÍںĸ should be understood as “insolence” in this verse, although all other attestations (as listed above) have the opposite meaning. Thus, the meaning of ÎÉÍںĸ as “insolence” in Hos 4:18 would be a unique case.

258

Hanne von Weissenberg

In sum, the expression !'1/ in Hos 4:18 is a rare and difficult one. Therefore, it is possible that the supralinear correction in this case is a result of our scribe’s unfamiliarity with the word. Since the word was not common vocabulary, also its spelling was not immediately clear. In this case, the scribe might then have corrected the linear reading with a supralinear yod according to an existing Vorlage. Another possibility is that the scribe, for some reason, automatically used a defective spelling for this word; however, the scribe of this manuscript is virtually consistent in his usage of plene orthography. The simplest explanation, however, for the variants might just be a morphological difference between plural and singular forms.44 In this case it needs to be asked why the scribe would have corrected the singular form into plural, if both forms are equally understandable, or equally difficult to understand. Even this suggests that the scribe was comparing his copy to a Vorlage with the plural form, and therefore added the supralinear yod. < 2) Frgs. 10–12, 7 (Joel 1:17) one supralinear sin in the word: # 63 This word is part of an independent variant reading in manuscript < 4QXIIc: =#:#6 # 63. The MT reads =#:6 #<3 “The seed shrivels…” (NRSV) and LXX ëÊÁĕÉ̾ʸŠ»¸ÄÚ¼ÀË “Heifers have jumped...” (NETS). In order to understand this case of supralinear correction in 4QXIIc, a longer treatment of the variant readings is necessary. The entire verse reads as follows in the three witnesses: In ms 4QXIIc only the first words of Joel 1:17 are preserved: “The wine presses are moulding/decaying(?)”

]/‘ =%= =#:#6 #<63

Joel 1:17 in MT: NRSV: “The seeds shrivel under the clots, the storehouses are desolate: the granaries are ruined because the grain has failed.”

-!'=6:/ =%= =#:6 #<3 ') =#:// #2:!1 =#:8 #/<1 0 <'!

Joel 1:17 in LXX: ëÊÁĕÉ̾ʸŠ»¸ÄÚ¼ÀË ëÈĖ ̸ėË ÎÚÌŸÀË ¸ĤÌľÅ óθÅĕÊ¿¾Ê¸Å ¿¾Ê¸ÍÉÇĕ Á¸Ì¼ÊÁÚξʸŠ¾ÅÇĕ ĞÌÀ ëƾÉÚÅ¿¾ ÊėÌÇË

44

I am indebted to Eibert Tigchelaar for reminding me of this possibility.

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

259

NETS: “Heifers have jumped up at their mangers; storehouses have been annihilated: wine presses have been razed to the ground, because the grain has dried up.”

The entire verse Joel 1:17 is enigmatic and difficult to understand due to several hapax legomena. First of all, the root <3 (“to dry up, shrivel up”) used in MT is a hapax legomenon. A word similar to <3 is attested in Mishnaic Hebrew: <63. Jastrow gives <63 the meaning “to grow mouldy, decay,” and the verb is, for instance, used of bread.45 The interchange of bet and pe is possible, and the <63 would also suit the context. The reading in 4QXIIc, after the supralinear scribal correction, is a qal plural form from the root <63. For the LXX verb ëÊÁĕÉ̾ʸÅ, the Hebrew Vorlage probably had the verb <#6 “to spring about,”46 or this is how the LXX translator understood the Hebrew. This verb is used in MT Jer. 50:11 (LXX Jer 27:11) and MT Mal 3:20 (LXX Mal 4:2) and it is in both cases rendered with the Greek ÊÁÀÉÌ¸Ñ (Jer 27:11 ëÊÁÀÉÌÜ̼, Mal 4:2 ÊÁÀÉÌûʼ̼). This could mean that the Vorlage of LXX had something similar to 4QXIIc, since orthographically the word <63 is close to the probable Vorlage of LXX (><#6). According to Anneli Aejmelaeus, an ayin can sometimes be dropped, creating a variant reading.47 A root similar to <3, but a more common one, namely <' in hiphil is used later in Joel 1:17: 0 <'! ') “because the grain has failed.” The same root <' is in the meaning “to dry up,” is used in Joel 1:12, and it is rendered in LXX with the Greek verb ƾɸÀÅÑ. Since the LXX of Joel 1:17 begins with ëÊÁĕÉ̾ʸŠ»¸ÄÚ¼ÀË (suggesting the verb <#6 in the Vorlage) it seems that the LXX translator of Joel 1:17 did not replace (intentionally or inadvertently) the rare word <3 with a more common but a similar one (<' by dropping the ayin). This strengthens the conclusion that the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX had the root <#6. Since the root <3 used in MT is a hapax legomenon and can be explained as a result of the interchange of pe and bet, it is more likely that the Qumran manuscript, after the supralinear correction, preserves the original reading, and the interchange from pe to bet created the form that is in the MT which is otherwise unattested. The linear reading of 45 46 47

Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1950), 1100. Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 598. This was pointed out by Anneli Aejmelaeus when a draft of this article was presented at a research seminar of the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Helsinki.

260

Hanne von Weissenberg

4QXIIc, #63 “they flew/were flying” does not make sense in the context, and it must have resulted from the unintentional mistake by the scribe as he skipped one letter. The scribe added it later, probably according to his Vorlage. In order to understand the changes in the verbs also the variant readings in the subject of this clause need to be discussed. 4QXIIc has =#:#6 and MT =#:6. Both words are rare and difficult: the MT =#:6, usually translated as “grain” or “seed” is another hapax legomenon.48 In Mishnaic Hebrew :6 can mean either “mule” or have a collective meaning “split and dried pomegranates.”49 The word in 4QXIIc, =#:#6 could be a plural form of !:#6 “winepress” (only the sg. is attested in Is < 63:3; Hag 2:16), thus the phrase =#:#6 # 63 could be translated “The wine presses are moulding/decaying(?).” If we assume, that the Vorlage of the Greek also had both the verb and the subject attested by 4QXIIc, the Greek can be explained as the translators attempt to deal with difficult Hebrew. The Greek »ÚĸÂÀË (pl. »¸ÄÚ¼ÀË) is often used to render the Hebrew word :9 (i.e. in Numbers) or +3 (i.e. 1 Kgs 12:28; 2 Kgs 10:29; 17:16). For =#:6 (sg. !:6) usually ¹ÇıË is used (i.e. Gen 32:16; 41:2, 3, 18, 19; 1 Sam 6:7, 10). However, in another book of the Minor Prophets, namely in Amos 4:1, the MT =#:6 is translated with »¸ÄÚ¼ÀË (see also Num 19:2, 6, 9 for the sg.). This is suggesting that the LXX translator of Joel 1:17 could have had the form =#:#6 attested by 4QXIIc in his Vorlage, but interpreted as a reference to “heifer” after interpreting the verb <63 as <#6. On the other hand, it is possible that the Vorlage of LXX had the original reading: =#:6 #<#6# (?) that has since been corrupted, and created two difficult variant readings with rare words. 3) Frgs. 10–12, 8 (Joel 1:18) one supralinear word: !/! The supralinear addition !/! is a word attested both by the MT and the LXX. In this case it is most likely that the word !/! was also in the Vorlage the scribe of 4QXIIc was using, although he skipped it the first time and thus had to make a supralinear correction.50 + 4) Frgs. 14–17, 2 (Joel 2:11) one supralinear lamed: #1+) )' The linear reading would not make sense in this case, so clearly the scribe needed to correct it. The MT uses the same root, although in hi48 49 50

HALOT gives the word the English equivalent “dried figs” (Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 297). Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature, 1215. According to Fuller, the insertion was made by the original scribe. He also points out that fragment 10 seems to have broken along the right marginal ruling; Fuller, “The Twelve,” 243.

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

261

phil. The pilpel can have the exactly same meaning as the hiphil, and both forms are relatively common. Possibly the hiphil and the pilpel could be used interchangeably.51 Apparently, the scribe skipped one letter the first time around, and corrected the linear word that was not understandable, possibly with the help of his Vorlage.  5) Frgs. 14–17, 3 (Joel 2:13) one supralinear bet: !/) + With the supralinear addition of the letter bet, the form in 4QXIIc is corrected to the equivalent of the one found in MT (-)+), although in the longer morphological form of QH. In this case, the scribe apparently corrected the original reading – where one of the two bets in the word + had accidentally been omitted – with a supralinear addition of the missing bet. Both readings are possible, although the form + is more common than +. In this case, the correction might be either an attempt to adjust the linear reading to a more common form, or, more likely, since both forms are equally understandable, the scribe corrected the reading according to his Vorlage. As the scribe apparently was keen on correcting some of the mistakes he made in the copying process, it is intriguing that on the same line there is another (linear) variant reading: MS 4QXIIc reads !/])' “your kid”(?) against the -)' of MT, LXX and Targumim. The reading of 4QXIIc does not suit the context at all (MT reads as follows: #3:9# -)' +# -)+ “rend your hearts and not your clothing”) and most likely it is an unintentional scribal mistake of dropping the bet accidentally. In this case, however, the scribe never corrected his linear reading, perhaps never noticing it, although in this case the variant creates more problems than in the case of + versus -+ on the very same line. As a summary of these cases it is possible to conclude that with manuscript 4QXIIc we have a scribe who repeatedly omitted letters and words and thus created readings that did not always make much sense. Later, however, he returned to his manuscript copy, and in light of the examples discussed above, it appears that he corrected his mistakes with his Vorlage. Even this time, however, he missed at least one of his earlier mistakes, suggesting that he was either not particularly experienced or careful.

51

Fuller,”The Twelve,” 244. The targum reads !'=#:#2+ +#)'.

262

Hanne von Weissenberg

3.3. Supralinear Corrections Creating Independent Variant Readings 1) Frgs. 18–20, 2 (Joel 4:8) a supralinear addition of (at least) two words. In the DJD edition the first lines of the fragments read: '1 + !/=:)/ -'+<#:['

]1

: =#[

!/%+/ #<9 -''#[ =#$ #:9

]2

Fuller makes a suggestion to reconstruct the supralinear reading according to the end of verse 4:8 in his comments: : =#[8 !#!' '). Since line 1 preserves the end of verse 4:6a, and line 2 words from 4:9, it appears that verses 4:6b–8 are missing. Fuller proposes that these verses were accidentally deleted “due to homoitoteleuton from '1+ of 4:6 to '1 of 4:8,” suggesting that this is another case of the scribe of 4QXIIc skipping the text of his Vorlage. The scribe apparently tried to add some of the missing material between lines 1–2; however, there is not enough space, to add all that is lacking, if the scribe of 4QXIIc was copying from a Vorlage similar to the MT. It is possible, however, that the scribe used also the right margin to include some of the missing material. Importantly, although Joel 4:7 is only fragmentarily preserved in 4QXIIg and Joel 4:6–9 in MurXII, it seems clear that we have no other ancient witnesses where the material between Joel 4:6a and 4:9 would be lacking. If the supralinear reading of 4QXIIc is reflecting Joel 4:8, and if we accept Fuller’s reconstruction,52 we have an independent variant, not attested in other textual witnesses: MT and MurXII both read : !#!'; LXX reads ÁįÉÀÇË. In sum, this is a case of the scribe first accidentally skipping several words, and later, making his correction, potentially introducing a variant reading into the text. Since the evidence is so fragmentary, however, we cannot determine the content of the variant with certainty. 2) Frgs. 18–20, 13 (Joel 4:18) one supralinear word: +#) The word +#), apparently added by the original scribe, lacks from MT, LXX and all other main witnesses, and creates another independent variant reading in ms 4QXIIc.53 In general, it seems that the word +#) could easily have been added or deleted by the copying scribes; however, since in this case the addition is supralinear, it indicates intentionality. A possible reason is that it resulted from the Vorlage of 4QXIIc, which contained a reading that is in variance from the other 52 53

N.B. =#8 is not used elsewhere in Joel. See Fuller, “The Twelve,” 246.

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

263

textual witnesses, although it is impossible to exclude the existence of another manuscript of Joel (or the Minor Prophets) as a source for this correction.54 Thus, we would have another case of the scribe skipping a letter or a word, and then adding it later after consulting his Vorlage. On the other hand, it is also possible, that this word is a “product of the internal logic of the first scribe” (c.f. Tov’s third category) without any reference to a written source. Adding the word +#) could be the scribe’s intentional way of creating additional emphasis to the phrase: “…and water the [4QXIIc: entire] Wadi Shittim.”55 In short, these two supralinear corrections of manuscript 4QXIIc create independent variant readings not attested in other textual witnesses. In the first case, the evidence is too fragmentary to determine with certainty even the exact content of the supralinear correction. The scribe had accidentally omitted a considerable amount of text from his Vorlage, and apparently tried to add some of the material, possibly including an independent variant reading, between the lines. Since he was allowed only limited space for his correction, it is possible that he was forced to create a new, paraphrastic reading, but we cannot know this with certainty. The second case, the supralinear word +#), is probably an intentional addition by the scribe, but since this particular word can both be added and deleted by the scribes relatively easily, it is difficult to tell whether our scribe had it in his Vorlage, or whether he came up with his creative addition only as he was making the other supralinear corrections to the manuscript. However, considering that most cases of the supralinear corrections analysed so far are more reliably explained as corrections according to the Vorlage, it is more likely that this is also the case with the word +#) in Joel 4:18. In what follows, I will investigate a supralinear correction which creates the most interesting variant reading in manuscript 4QXIIc. In this case, the variant reading is attested by the Syropalestinian manuscript Syp ¸, but none of the main textual witnesses. What makes this variant special is the echo of Deuteronomic phraseology it conveys.

54 55

I am indebted to Eibert Tigchelaar for pointing this out. The traces of the supralinear word are somewhat unclear, and it is possible that the word could be read !). The translation is NRSV modified.

264

Hanne von Weissenberg

4. A Deuteronomically Inspired Supralinear Correction in Joel 2:19? The most intriguing supralinear correction in manuscript 4QXIIc is an addition of one word: !/=+)# in Joel 2:19. The line (frgs.14–17, 10) as reconstructed by Fuller in DJD 15 reads: ]!/=+)#[

#3]!/)[= 0=] #+[# #=# !]/=3<#[ 10

The supralinear word !/=+)# cannot be meant to replace the linear reading, as it is written just before the word !]/=3<#[. This is the first extant word on the line; however, the right margin is not preserved.56 The right edge of the fragment 14 is broken so evenly that it is likely it broke along the ruling that was drawn to indicate the right margin.57 It is evident that the scribe wanted to correct the reading !/=3<# into a two word phrase: !]/=3<# !/=+)# “and you will eat and be satisfied…” The same phrase is attested only by the Syropalestinian version (Syp ¸, Joel 2:19): 0#3#2=# 0#+#)=#. At the same time, the word !/=+)# is lacking from all other textual witnesses (MT, LXX, peshitta, Vulgata).58 The supralinear scribal correction creates the two word phrase “and you will eat and be satisfied…” which suits remarkably well in the context: NRSV: “In response to his people the Lord said: I am sending you grain, wine, and oil, and you will [4QXIIc, Syp ¸: eat and] be satisfied; and I will no more make you a mockery among the nations.”

56

57 58

The column of ms 4QXIIc under investigation is reconstructed of four separate fragments (frgs. 14–17) and preserves the fragmentary remains of Joel 2:10–23. Only the top margin is preserved on fragment 14, but there are no other margins left, and therefore the dimensions of this column cannot be determined with certainty. This column of manuscript 4QXIIc alone contains three supralinear corrections by the original scribe. Two of them are merely additions of one letter: Joel 2:11and Joel 2:13. These readings were discussed above. See also Fuller, “The Twelve,” 244, The book of Joel is fragmentarily preserved in two of the Qumran manuscripts from Cave 4, namely manuscripts 4QXIIc and 4QXIIg; and furthermore in the Hebrew scroll of the Minor Prophets from Wadi Mura‘abbat (MurXII). Unfortunately Joel 2:19 is not preserved in the other ancient manuscripts.

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

265

The phrase “eat and be satisfied” is a common expression in Deuteronomy (Deut 6:11; 8:10, 12; 11:15; 14:29; 26:12; 31:20), and, as Timo Veijola puts it: “Es handelt sich um ein feststehendes Paar.”59 Outside the book of Deuteronomy the word pair is attested in Ruth 2:14; Neh 9:25; 2 Chr 31:10; Ps 22:27; 78:29; Prov 13:25; Qoh 5:11, and, importantly in Joel 2:26, although in a slightly modified form:60 NRSV: “You shall eat plenty and be satisfied, (3#<# +#) -=+)#) and praise the name of the Lord your God, who has dealt wondrously with you. And my people shall never again be put to shame.”

Although attested outside Deuteronomy, it is not used as frequently elsewhere. In Deuteronomy, and in most other occurrences, the phrase carries a specific theological connotation, and can be used both in the positive and in the negative sense. The positive usage of the phrase has a connotation of a promise and in this way it is used in Deut 8:10; 14:29; 26:12. The opposite meaning refers to the eating and being satisfied as the cause and origins of people’s arrogance after they have received all the good things promised by YHWH. The good life makes people neglect their loyalty towards God, which results to a failure to attend properly to their religious duties (Deut 8:12; 11:15; 31:20). The passages in Deut 6:11 and Deut 11:15 warn of wealth that leads to disobedience and “rebellious behaviour”; verse Deut 8:12 of pride that leads to ignorance of the divine will (see also Hos 8:14).61 The word pair is used in the negative sense, “eat and not be satisfied” in Lev 26:26; Hos 4:10; Mic 6:14 and Hag 1:6 (see also Ps 59:16). In these instances the phrase recalls the covenantal curses: the sins of the people and disobedience towards covenantal obligations leads to a situation where nothing will give the people proper satisfaction. As a punishment for the people’s negligence, the land has lost its capacity to feed and satisfy the needs of the people, both on the concrete and symbolic levels. Joel 2:26 is unfortunately not attested in manuscript 4QXIIc nor in other ancient manuscripts. The LXX is probably rendering the Hebrew

59 60 61

Timo Veijola, Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1–16,17 (ATD 8,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 186, n. 392. Some of these are possibly deuteronomi(sti)cally influenced. See also Lev 25:19; 26:5; Isa 23:18 where (!)3< is used as a noun together with the verb +). Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991).

266

Hanne von Weissenberg

identical with MT: Á¸Ė ÎÚº¼Ê¿¼ ëÊ¿ĕÇÅÌ¼Ë Á¸Ė ëÄȾʿûʼʿ¼. The usage in Joel 2:26 plays with the positive connotations of the phrase. It refers to all the new wealth YHWH promises to give to his people once they repent and return to him (Joel 2:12–14) after the destruction described in Joel 1–2.62 There are two ways to explain how the longer reading in Joel 2:19 in manuscript 4QXIIc was created. One possibility is that the scribe had the longer reading !/=3<# !/=+)# in his Vorlage, but he skipped the first word (“to eat”) when he was copying the manuscript.63 Either by mistake or because of being familiar also with the shorter reading, currently attested by the MT, LXX and other witnesses, the scribe of 4QXIIc, while copying the manuscript, left out the word !/=+)#. Later, when he was making the other (supralinear) corrections, he added the missing word and corrected the manuscript to match with the reading in the Vorlage. Alternatively, the supralinear correction is the scribe’s intentional and creative addition, and the longer reading never existed in his Vorlage. In this case the scribe would have purposefully changed the shorter and more original linear reading. He was possibly influenced by Joel 2:26, or by the general Deuteronomic flare of the phrase. The book of Deuteronomy had gained central importance in late Second Temple Judaism.64 Because of its importance, this popular and authoritative text influenced the scribes working in this period in many subtle and profound ways.65 The popularity and applicability of Deuteronomic 62 63

64

65

Note the Deuteronomic language also in, for example, Joel 2:12: “return to me with all your heart.” In this case, the scribe might have compared his copy either with the original Vorlage he had used, or another manuscript. According to Tov (Scribal Practices, 11), “literary texts were copied from written Vorlagen.” It has been sometimes suggested that scribes did not copy from other texts, but the text was read aloud by another person, and copied simultaneously from dictation. If this was the case, the scribe would have the possibility of comparing his copy to another manuscript only afterwards, however, Tov points out that there is no evidence for such practice. The importance of the book Deuteronomy is indicated, for example, by the number of copies found in the Qumran library; see DJD 39. See also Timothy Lim, “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” in Deuteronomy in the New Testament (ed. S. Moyise and M. Menken; London: T & T Clark, 2007), 6–26. The significance of Deuteronomy as an independent composition and as part of a larger and later Deuteronomistic History (DH) in the late Second Temple period has been pointed out by several scholars. Martin Hengel has referred to Deuteronomi(sti)c theology as the “underlying theology” (“Basistheologie”) of the Second Temple period; see Hengel, “‘Schriftauslegung’ und ‘Schriftwerdung’ in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels,” in Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II (WUNT 109; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1999), 46. See also Eugene Ulrich, “Deutero-

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

267

phraseology alone would suffice to explain why the scribe of 4QXIIc added the supralinear word !/=+)#. It is possible that the supralinear reading merely a witness of the all-encompassing significance of Deuteronomic language, so commonly used that even the scribe of 4QXIIc was inadvertently influenced by it and added the supralinear word without much afterthought, because is simply “sounded right.” To reach a conclusion, it is necessary to summarize what have we learned about the scribe of 4QXIIc so far. In light of my investigation, most of the supralinear corrections in manuscript 4QXIIc appear to be a result of the scribe trying to correct his unintentional mistakes in the linear text and with the help of his Vorlage. Most often, as the scribe corrected the linear reading he made it understandable, when the linear text would have created a corrupted reading. However, he also missed at least one apparent mistake while correcting others. Sometimes it looks like the supralinear additions create corruptions and variant readings that cannot be explained (i.e. Joel 4:19, frgs. 18–20, 14), but these cases are too fragmentary to draw definite conclusions. Therefore, it seems that most often the supralinear corrections made by the scribe of manuscript 4QXIIc are his attempts to correct the mistakes in the linear readings according to his Vorlage. Therefore, the explanation that would conform to the rest of the evidence collected thus far suggests that it was not the creativity of the scribe of 4QXIIc that produced the longer reading in Joel 2:19, but originated from the Vorlage he was using.66 Is it possible to determine which reading in Joel 2:19 is the more original one? According to one of the basic rules of textual criticism, the shorter readings are usually the more original one (lectio brevior), since texts tend rather to grow than to be shortened.67 The earliest known

66

67

nomistically Inspired Scribal Insertions into the Developing Biblical Texts: 4QJudga and 4QJera” and Hanne von Weissenberg, “Deuteronomy at Qumran and in MMT,” both in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (ed. J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 489–506 and 520–37. See also the articles in the third section of this present volume. The verb 3< does appear by itself as well, and the exact same form as in Joel 2:19 (without the verb +)) is used in Isa 66:11 and Ezek 39:20. From what can be seen of how the verb 3< is used in the Hebrew Bible, one can deduce that both the shorter and the longer reading in Joel 2:19 are understandable and equally idiomatic Hebrew. However, the longer reading has a theological content that is lacking from the shorter reading. Therefore, by using the longer reading the scribe is making a theological contribution to the text, although in comparison to longer expositions and exegetical expansions it is a minor one. Anneli Aejmelaeus, “Licence to Kill? Deut 13:10 and the Prerequisites of Textual Criticism,” in Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of Professor

268

Hanne von Weissenberg

manuscript, 4QXIIc has the longer reading, but all other major witnesses attest to the shorter one, and the weight of the evidence points to the shorter reading being the more original one. The variant reading attested by 4QXIIc apparently continued to be copied by some scribes, since it is attested in Syp ¸, but not by most.

5. Conclusions In sum, with manuscript 4QXIIc, we are quite clearly dealing with not the most skilful and diligent scribe, although he probably had good intentions, as far as that can be determined. The manuscript displays several indications of less than superior quality, such as the use of semiformal hand, and several scribal corrections and interventions. It is clear that in the late Second Temple period, even in the copying of authoritative and sacred texts, in some cases or for some scribes, intentional scribal interventions of varying degree were permitted.68 Presumably these interventions were allowed to “improve” the text, but in some cases the interventions attest to varying skills and experience of the scribes. Even when copies of texts that had already gained elevated status (as it was in the case of the Minor Prophets) were produced, the scribal practices were not necessarily any different when compared to the production of non-authoritative literary works.69 It is rather an exception that scribes were required to achieve the high standards attested by the de luxe-copies. Manuscript 4QXIIc is written in the QSP and has several supralinear corrections; according to Tov these two features correlate.70 This might be connected to the fact that the Qumran movement could have variant literary editions of authoritative texts in their possession, with no apparent need to choose between the two. It was the book that was authoritative, not the exact form of the

68

69 70

Harviainen (ed. H. Juusola, J. Laulainen and H. Palva; Studia Orientalia 99; Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004), 1–22 (3–5). As pointed out by Segal (”Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” 16): “The active intervention of scribes in these texts [=the Bible] was accepted in this period [=late Second Temple period] and was not viewed as an affront to the sanctity of the text. The text was of secondary importance to the composition itself, and thus scribes allowed themselves the freedom to “improve” these works.” Tov, Scribal Practices, 252–53. According to Tov (Scribal Practices, 253) this holds true especially for the non-biblical texts.

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

269

text.71 On the other hand, the apparent wish to remain faithful to the exact wording of the Vorlage contradicts the general scholarly assumption, according to which the scribes at Qumran were virtually nonchalant to the inconsistencies of their authoritative texts.72 In light of manuscript 4QXIIc it is evident that simple carelessness or lack of precision did exist, but, importantly, it seems as if the scribe was required to “proofread” his copy, and make corrections according to his Vorlage. Whether he used other textual sources for his corrections cannot be determined nor excluded with certainty. Also, it is equally difficult to establish beyond doubt, whether the scribe of 4QXIIc in some cases exercised his own creativity, although in light of most supralinear corrections it seems that his supralinear interventions are rather a result of a comparison of the linear text with the Vorlage and then improving the linear readings in accordance with the Vorlage. Apparently frequent scribal interventions did not automatically result in scribal creativity. In either case, the material evidence of scribal practices, corrections and interventions from the formative period of the authoritative Jewish literature has significance on our understanding on how variant readings could be created– whatever the underlying scribal attitude or practical reasons resulting in varying standards in the copied texts. Even the smaller, individual scribal additions and corrections in manuscripts illustrate the minor forms of growth in the texts. They attest to the scribal contribution to the development of the texts that became the Hebrew Bible.

Bibliography Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “Licence to Kill? Deut 13:10 and the Prerequisites of Textual Criticism.” Pages 1–22 in Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of Professor Harviainen. Edited by Hannu Juusola, Juha Laulainen and Heikki Palva. Studia Orientalia 99. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 2004.

71 72

See, for example Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (SDSRL; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 32. See, for instance Charlotte Hempel, “Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradition,” in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (ed. M. Popovi°; JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 193-208 (204–8). Hempel talks about the “relaxed” or “laid back” attitude towards the plurality of textual traditions.

270

Hanne von Weissenberg

Brooke, George J. “The Twelve Minor Prophets and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 19–43 in Congress Volume, Leiden 2004. Edited by André Lemaire; VTSup 109; Leiden: Brill, 2006. Ego, Beate, et al. ed. Biblia Qumranica 3B: Minor Prophets. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Fuller, Russell. “Textual Traditions in the Book of Hosea.” 247–56 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991. I–II. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Ȱ. “The Twelve: 76. 4QXIIa, 77. 4QXIIb, 78. 4QXIIc, 79. 4QXIId, 80. 4QXIIe, 81. 4QXIIf, 82. 4QXIIg.” Pages 221–318 in Qumran Cave 4, X: The Prophets. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD 15. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Ȱ. “Minor Prophets.” Pages 554–57 in The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. García Martínez, Florentino. “The Text of the XII Prophets.” OTE 17/1 (2004): 103–19. Hempel, Charlotte. ”Pluralism and Authoritativeness: The Case of the S Tradition.” Pages 193–208 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popovi°. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Hengel, Martin. Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II. WUNT 109. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1999. Holladay, William L. ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1950. Lim, Timothy H. “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 303–22 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Ȱ. “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 6–26 in Deuteronomy in the New Testament. Edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken. London: T & T Clark, 2007. Milik, Józef. “88. Rouleau des Douze Prophètes.” Pages 181–205 in Les grottes de Murabba‘at. Edited by Pierre Benoit, Józef T. Milik and Roland de Vaux. DJD 2.1. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Popovi°, Mladen ed. Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Sáenz-Badillos, Angel. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by J. Elwolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Segal, Michael. ”Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” Pages 10–28 in Biblical Interpretations at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Testuz, Michel. “Deux fragments inédits des manuscrits de la Mer Morte.” Semitica 5 (1955): 37–38.

Changing Scripture? Scribal Corrections in MS 4QXIIc

271

Tigchelaar, Eibert. “Assessing Emanuel Tov’s ‘Qumran Scribal Practice’.” Pages 173–207 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts. Edited by Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman and Eileen Schuller. STDJ 92. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Ȱ. “Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scriptures: Preliminary observations.” Pages 155–71 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popovi°. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Tov, Emanuel. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXII gr). The Seiyal collection 1. DJD 8. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Ȱ. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd revised edition. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Ȱ. “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert – An Overview and Analysis of he Published Texts.” Pages 152–57 in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries. Edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov. London: The British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2002. Revised edition published as “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert.” Pages 128–54 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays. J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]: Tübingen, 2008. Ȱ. Scribal Practises and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004. Ȱ et al. ed. The Texts from the Judaean desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. DJD 39. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. SDSRL; Leiden: Brill, 1999– Ȱ. “The Notion and Definition of Canon.” Pages 21–35 in The Canon Debate. Edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A Sanders. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. Ȱ. “Deuteronomistically Inspired Scribal Insertions into the Developing Biblical Texts: 4QJudga and 4QJera.” Pages 489–506 in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edites by Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Ȱ. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants. VTSup 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Veijola, Timo. Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1–16,17. ATD 8,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Weissenberg, Hanne von. “Deuteronomy at Qumran and in MMT.” Pages 520– 37 in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited by Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Ȱ. “The Twelve Minor Prophets at Qumran and the Canonical Process: Amos as a ‘Case Study’.” In The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Armin Lange, Kristin De Troyer and Shani Tzoref; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming.

4. Deuteronomism in Later Literature

The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage: A Critical Approach Pancratius C. Beentjes Introduction Among scholars there is an ongoing and vivid debate of what precisely should be a definition or characterization of Deuteronomistic activity in later biblical books and to what extent Deuteronomistic influence can unambiguously be established.1 As far as the Book of Ben Sira is concerned, on the one hand we come across scholars who without any hesitation assume that the Jerusalem sage has directly been influenced by the Deuteronomistic corpus.2 On the other hand, however, we meet scholars like James Crenshaw who are rather reticent about such influence.3

1

2

3

A publication worth reading is Those Elusive Deuteronomists. The Phenomenon of PanDeuteronomism (ed. L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTS 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). “Sirach reads the Torah through the lens of Deuteronomy”; John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 225. “His [viz. Ben Sira’s] pervading theological outlook is Deuteronomic”; Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), 75. “… in the Second Temple Period Deuteronomism represented something like a basic theology of the age and, therefore, was everywhere available”; Timo Veijola, “Law and Wisdom: The Deuteronomistic Heritage in Ben Sira’s Teaching of the Law,” in Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective – Essays in Memory of Karl-Johan Illman (ed. J. Neusner et al.; Lanham: University Press of America, 2006), 429–48 (quotation 448). In fact, Veijola’s article is almost exclusively on Ben Sira’s use of Deuteronomy, not so much on Deuteronomistic heritage. A corrected version of this article was published under the same title in: Timo Veijola, Leben nach der Weisung: Exegetisch-historische Studien zum Alten Testament (FRLANT 224; ed. W. Dietrich and M. Marttila; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 144–64. Therefore, references will be given to the latter publication. The quotation above is from Veijola, Leben nach der Weisung, 163. James L. Crenshaw, “The Deuteronomists and the Writings,” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 145–58; James L. Crenshaw, “The Primacy of Listening in Ben Sira’s Pedagogy,” in Wisdom, You are my Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy (ed. M. L.

276

Pancratius C. Beentjes

An investigation into the question to what extent Ben Sira in his book of wisdom has been affected by Deuteronomistic heritage, in my view has to be carried out in a twofold way. The first approach would be devoting oneself to the question whether in the Book of Ben Sira there are to be found collocations, obvious allusions, or even explicit references and quotations similar to that of the Deuteronomistic corpus of literature.4 This phase of research – which mainly will relate to the lexical level – has recently been conducted with respect of two important literary documents that are part of the so-called Deuteronomistic History, viz. Deuteronomy and the Book of Kings.5 Therefore, to get an impression of how Ben Sira did directly quote or use literal parallels from the Deuteronomistic History, I think for the moment this kind of approach has sufficiently been covered, since it relates to two foundational documents of the Deuteronomistic heritage. The second approach to study Deuteronomistic heritage in the Book of Ben Sira is to make an inventory of major Deuteronomistic themes and to investigate in what way and to what extent they show up in Ben Sira’s work which originates from the second century BCE. This kind of analysis is much less unambiguous.6 As a line of action, with all due reserve we adopted some categories as compiled by Moshe Weinfeld in his well known monograph.7 In order not to complicate matters,

4

5

6

7

Barré; CBQMS 29; Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997), 172–87. “… the most persuasive case for Deuteronomistic influence can be made on linguistic grounds”; Robert R. Wilson, “Who was the Deuteronomist? (Who was not the Deuteronomist?): Reflections on Pan-Deuteronomism,” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists, 67–82 (78). Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Ben Sira and the Book of Deuteronomy,” in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (ed. J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen; Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 413–33; Pancratius C. Beentjes, “In Search of Parallels: Ben Sira and the Book of Kings,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella o.f.m. (ed. J. Corley, J. E. Jensen and V. Skemp; CBQMS 38; Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005), 118–31. Veijola, “Law and Wisdom,” in Leben nach der Weisung, 144–64. “Less reliable than linguistic criteria, although more often employed in scholarly analysis, is the identification of Deuteronomistic influence through the use of characteristic ideas, concepts or themes”; Wilson, “Who was the Deuteronomist?,” 79. See also the skepticism in this realm by Crenshaw, “The Deuteronomists and the Writings,” 146–48. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 320–65. Of course, we will leave aside those categories of his extensive catalogue that are not applicable to the Book of Ben Sira, such as e.g.: “Clichés characteristic of the

The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage

277

only the Hebrew text of the Book of Ben Sira will be the object of following survey.8

Fear of the Lord – Keeping the Commandment(s) The most conspicuous Deuteronomistic stream of which Ben Sira can be considered a direct heir is undisputedly found in those passages of his book that have to do with “observance of the Law and loyalty to the covenant.”9 Timo Veijola has published a proper and detailed overview of this specific theological aspect in the Book of Ben Sira, which relieves me from the task to repeat it here.10 One of Ben Sira’s most specific expressions relating to the observance of the Law and loyalty to the covenant is his concept of “Fear of YHWH,” which undoubtedly is one of the major trajectories within his work.11 Recently, Greg Schmidt Goering has fine-tuned the concept of “fear of YHWH” in the Book of Ben Sira. He brings to the fore that Ben Sira most often associates fear of the Lord with special wisdom to which Israel alone is privy. According to him, Ben Sira distinguishes between human beings on the basis of two unequal apportionments of divine wisdom. The first one involves a general outpouring of wisdom upon all creation, including all humanity (Sir 1:9b–10a). The second consists in a special distribution of an extra measure of wisdom to a select group of humanity (Sir 1:10b).12 The outpouring of wisdom upon all creation constitutes a “general wisdom” that is available to all humanity through the natural world. Analogously, the lavish distribution of wisdom upon the elect constitutes a “special wisdom” for Israel alone. Therefore, fear of YHWH refers to “Jewish” piety that is incum-

8

9 10 11

12

Jeremian Sermons” (VIIIB), “The influence of Deuteronomy upon genuine Jeremiah” (XI), “Prototypes in Hosea, Deut. 32, and Psalm 78” (XIII). Pancratius C. Beentjes, A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (VTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1997 / Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). This is the title of the fifth – and most extensive – category as listed by Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 332–41. Veijola, Leben nach der Weisung, 144–64. A seminal monograph still is the one by Josef Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30; Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967). Greg Schmidt Goering, Wisdom’s Root Revealed. Ben Sira and the Election of Israel (JSJSup 139; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 21–24.

278

Pancratius C. Beentjes

bent upon Israel alone and is most of the time used by Ben Sira in the sense of serving YHWH. To my view, in about the same sphere the collocation !#8/ :/< (“to keep the commandment”) is used by the Jerusalem sage. Each occurrence of it, however, has been given a special touch, which goes beyond just copying Deuteronomistic phraseology. In Sir 15:15, for instance, keeping God’s commandment is presented as a matter of free choice: “If you choose, you can keep the commandment, and it is insight to do His will.”

This is quite a different line of approach compared to phrases like, e.g., “to observe the commandment … that Moses commanded you” (Josh 22:5), or “keep my commandments … in accordance with all the law that I commanded your ancestors …” (1 Kgs 17:13), passages in which the verb ʤʥʶ (“to order,” “to command”) has been used. Although there are serious text critical questions relating to Sir 32:23–33:2, the passage nevertheless has a beautiful mixture of Deuteronomistic ((<61 :/#<, !#8/ :/#<, ''' %&#) and non-deuteronomistic wordings (!:#= :8#1)13, which are interspersed with Ben Sira’s own vocabulary: 3: 36' +, (“no evil will meet”), !:#= 1#< (“to hate the Law”).14 The parallel use of these collocations within four lines offers a fine theological summary of how Ben Sira in a creative way integrated important streams of Israel’s tradition with his own creativity. Sir 37:12–15 functions as the climax of a circumstantial pericope (Sir 36:23–37:15) dealing with “different types of persons one may choose to associate with.”15 Here too, we find the Deuteronomistic collocation !#8/ :/#< (37:12b [MSS B and D]).16 In the preceding colon (37:12a), the rare collocation '/= %6/ shows up, most probably being adopted from Prov 28:14: “Happy the one who continually fears (the Lord).” So doing, Ben Sira again has combined typical Deuteronomistic vocabulary with a collocation rooted in wisdom literature.

13 14

15 16

Ps 105:45; 119:34; Prov 28:7. For an evaluation of this passage in three different MSS (B., E., F.), see Pancratius C. Beentjes, “The Hebrew Texts of Ben Sira 32[35].16–33[36].2,” in Sirach, Scrolls & Sages (ed. T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 53–67. Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 430. The marginal reading of MS B, however, has #'=#8/, which does not affect the meaning of the phrase. For extensive text critical remarks relating to Sir 37:12, see Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 429–30.

The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage

279

In Sir 44:20a we come upon the collocation 0#'+3 =#8/ :/<: “It was he who kept the commandment[s] of the Most High.”17 Relating to Abraham, Ben Sira seems to emphasize that keeping the commandment[s] should be considered a condition to enter the covenant. In this context, the reader should come to a decision how to vocalize =#8/. (a) If =#8/ is interpreted as a plural (mitswçt), it must refer to the Mosaic Law, as is suggested by the Greek (ÅĠÄÇË) and Latin (lex) of Sir 44:20a.18 In that case, Ben Sira would in fact present an anachronistic concept in which Abraham is portrayed as the perfect, Torah-devoted Jew, an image that to a high degree has affected Jewish thought in later time. At first it has been propagated by Jewish authors like Philo and Josephus; later on it achieved great popularity in Rabbinic literature.19 (b) If the noun =#8/, however, should be considered a singular (mitswat), then it has a direct bearing on God’s explicit demand at Abraham’s address to carry on the circumcision (Gen 17:9–14). And since Ben Sira will explicitly mention this in the next verse line – “In his flesh he cut for Him an ordinance” (44:20c) – this latter option is to be preferred here.20 Therefore, the content of Sir 44:20 has to be linked to the Priestly layer of Genesis 17 which, by the way, is quite dominant in the Abraham passage of Ben Sira.21 The collocations (+ +) (“with all your heart”) and (#/ +) (“with all your strength”) in Sir 7:29–31 at a first glance seem to be a

17

18

19

20

21

The collocation 0#'+3 =#8/ is a hapax legomenon. Most probably, the Hebrew text of Sir 24:23, which has not be found till now, would have read otherwise; see Moses Zevi Segal, Sefer Ben Sira haššal¾m (Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation, 1958), 146. As to Ben Sira’s concept of the Law and the Commandments, see Eckard J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics (WUNT 2. Reihe 16; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985), 29–42. See, e.g. Midrash Rabbah Genesis I, 42–44 (ed. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon; London: Soncino Press, 1961); B. T. Baba Mezi’a 87a (ed. Isidore Epstein, London: Soncino Press, 1961); Tannaitische Midrashim Sifre Numeri II and XII (ed. Karl Georg Kuhn; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1959). Several scholars have rendered =#8/ as a singular. The translation “das Gebot” is found in: Norbert Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25; Münster: Aschendorf, 1913), 380; Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Hebräisch und Deutsch (Berlin: Reimer, 1906), 79; A. Eberharter, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (HSAT VI/5, Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1925), 145. A. E. Cowley and A. Neubauer, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (XXXiX.15 to XLIX.11) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897), 23 has “the commandment”; Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 503 has “the … command.” This will be confirmed later on in this article relating to “covenant” in Sir 44:19–23.

280

Pancratius C. Beentjes

direct adoption from or reproduction of Deut 6:5.22 At a closer look, however, the passage in Sir 7:29–31 should be characterized as typical to Ben Sira’s theology. In addition to “fear God” (7:29a) and “love your Maker” (7:30a), Ben Sira in a marked way appeals to his audience “to revere His priests” (7:29b), “not to neglect His ministers” (7:30b), “to respect the priest” (7:31a), and “to give their portion as you have been commanded” (7:31b).23

Disloyalty to YHWH A phrase that without a shadow of doubt can be coined as Deuteronomistic vocabulary is +:<' = '&%! :<# &% :< -3:', to be found almost twenty times in the Book of Kings. In the Book of Ben Sira this phrase is found in the passage dealing with King Jeroboam.24 The Hebrew text of Sir 47:23f (MS B) reads &1 0 -3:' :)$ #+ '!' + -9 :< 3 [+:<' =][ '&%!# &]% :<: “Till there appeared – let him not be remembered – Jeroboam son of Nebat who sinned and led Israel into sin.” However, in the decade(s) following the discovery of the Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts it was disputed from which biblical passage Sir 47:23f originated. This discussion is a good example of how subjectively scholars estimate the evidence.25 The most appropriate parallel to Sir 47:23f undoubtedly is 1 Kgs 14:16 (“the sins of Jeroboam, who sinned and who led Israel to sin”), not only because it is the first time that the phrase under discussion is found in the Hebrew Bible, but also since this instance provides the 22

23

24

25

Since Sir 7:27–28 are missing in Hebrew (Ms A), many scholars have retranslated these verses from the Greek and the Syriac into Hebrew. As a consequence, however, the opening words of 7:29 ((+ +)) are often changed into (<61 +), since (+ +) is needed as the opening of 7:27 in order to comply with the tripartite collocation of Deut 6:5. The most detailed analysis of Sir 7:29–31 up to now still is the one by Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 295–312. Curiously, Goering, nowhere in his analysis of Sir 7:27–31 has a reference to this analysis by Haspecker; see Goering, Wisdom’s Root Revealed, 149– 52; 167–70. I differ from A. A. Di Lella, who contends that the name of Rehoboam (-3%:) in the Hebrew of Sir 47:23d disturbs the pun of this bicolon, which opens with %: (47:23c) and concludes with -3 (47:23d); see Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 530. In my view, we absolutely need this name here, as has been shown by Tadeusz Penar, Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira (BibOr 28; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975), 82. For details, see Beentjes, “In Search of Parallels,” 125.

The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage

281

most direct and natural context to which all subsequent biblical passages hark back, and since the phrase has exactly the same wording as in the (partly reconstructed) Ben Sira text. Of course, one may wonder whether the phrase meanwhile had not become so common that for the author and/or his audience it had no Deuteronomistic connotations any longer. An interesting case is found in Sir 3:16b according to Hebrew Ms A, the text of which runs as #/ ++9/ #:# 2'3)/# (“and as one who vexes his Creator is he that curses his mother”). No doubt, ''' = 2'3)!/23) (“to vex YHWH”) is a Deuteronomistic collocation that is found quite often.26 Therefore, one could immediately be inclined to assume that Ben Sira deliberately used this Deuteronomistic collocation. However, another manuscript of the Book of Ben Sira (Ms C) has handed down a Hebrew text that is quite different: #/ #%2' + -3#$# (“cursed by God is he that pulls away his mother”).27 According to Hans-Peter Rüger, this reading should be considered the older one, mainly because it is supported by the Greek (and Latin) translations.28 As an additional argument one could adduce that in the Hebrew Bible the participle :# is relatively rare, since nearly always participles of :8', !<3, and +36 are used.29 Therefore we can not exclude the possibility that it was a copyist who has introduced the Deuteronomistic formula into the text of Sir 3:16 (Ms A).

Foreign Gods – Idolatry It is quite astonishing that the very first category mentioned by Weinfeld in Appendix A – “The struggle against idolatry”30 – a category which is a matter of major importance for Deuteronomistic theology, immediately gives rise to some skepticism about some other Deuteronomistic influences in the Book of Ben Sira. The collocation -':% -'!+ (“foreign gods”) does not occur in the Book of Ben Sira at all; neither

26 27 28 29

30

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 340, nr. 6. -3#$# should be read as -#3$#. Cf. Prov 22:14. Hans-Peter Rüger, Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach (BZAW 112; Berlin: de Gruyter 1970), 29. In the Book of Ben Sira, the participle ‘çs¾h is found nine times (Sir 7:30; 10:12; 35(32):13; 36(33):13; 38:15; 43:5, 11; 46:13; 47:8), the participle yçts¾r once (Sir 51:12 [4]). Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 320–23 (with no less than 18 different collocations).

282

Pancratius C. Beentjes

does the noun +3 show up as designation of the deity Baal.31 And, moreover, the characteristic Deuteronomistic verb =%< (“to worship”) is found nowhere in the Book of Ben Sira too. Relating to “idols” and “idolatry,” at first thought one would expect the Book of Ben Sira to have a number of serious references to Deuteronomistic passages. It therefore is quite surprising that it has only one reference, viz. in Sir 30:19ab, the Hebrew text of which runs as: 0#%':' +# 0#+)' + :< -'#! '++ (“the idols of the nations that can neither eat nor smell”). The relative clause of it is almost completely identical to Deut 4:28b – 0%':' +# 0#+)' + ... :< 0# 73... -'!+ – “gods .. of wood and stone … that can neither eat nor smell.”32 The function of Sir 30:19ab within the context, however, is rather obscure. These two cola introduce a theme (“idols”) that is completely different from the rest of the passage which is devoted to the blessings of good health (Sir 30:14–20). Without any difficulty one can skip v. 19ab and move on from v. 18 to v. 19c–d, which in view of the pericope’s theme would be the most obvious sequence indeed. The statement about the idols of the nations that can neither eat nor smell should be considered an associative gloss which is caused by v. 18: “Delicacies set before a closed mouth/are like food offerings placed before an idol.”33 It was this combination of “idol” and “food” which brought the association with Deut 4:28 to a copyist’s mind.34

The Central Place of Worship A rather intriguing methodological question is met with, when we take a closer look at Weinfeld’s second category: “Centralization of worship – The chosen place and the Name theology.”35 There are three Hebrew passages in the Book of Ben Sira that deserve particular notice and will therefore be discussed now.

31

32 33 34

35

On the other hand, the noun +3 meaning “husband” or “man,” is found no less than 18 times in the Book of Ben Sira. See Dominique Barthélemy and Otto Rickenbacher, Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirach (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 59– 60. Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 382 (Index of Subjects, s.v. “idols”). V. 14 suggests that the inability to eat is caused by illness. This associative gloss must have been added to the Hebrew text at a relatively early moment of its textual transmission, since the gloss is found both in the Greek, the Syriac, and the Old Latin translations. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 324–26.

The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage

283

(a) Sir 36:13–14 ('=< 0#)/ -+<#:' / (<9 =':9 +3 -%: +)'! = (#)/# / (#! = 0#'8 +/ “Have mercy upon your holy city/ Jerusalem, the place of your dwelling. Fill Zion with your majesty/ and your temple with your glory.”

Specifically the collocation (=< 0#)/ appears to be Deuteronomistic heritage, since the same collocation is found in Solomon’s prayer (1 Kgs 8:39, 43, 49; 2 Chr 6:30, 33, 39) which is considered to be a classic example of the Deuteronomistic School.36 In the Ben Sira passage, this collocation has a bearing on Jerusalem as the place of Gods dwelling, which in the next line is specified as the temple. In the Deuteronomistic context, however, the collocation (=< 0#)/ is consistently followed by the apposition -'/< (“in heaven”)37, so that it substantially differs from the meaning in the Ben Sira text. Ben Sira’s usage of the collocation 0#)/ ('=< has more likeness to the collocation (=<+ 0#)/ as it occurs in Exod 15:17; 1 Kgs 8:13; 2 Chr 6:2, passages that explicitly refer to the Jerusalem temple. (b) Sir 47:13cd In Ben Sira’s portrayal of King Solomon (Sir 47:12–22), one should pay attention to the fact that the author hardly mentions King Solomon’s merits relating to cult and worship. This is quite different from I Kings and II Chronicles in which many chapters have been devoted to the building, the fitting up and the consecration of the Temple (1 Kgs 5:15–8:66; 2 Chr 1:18–7:10). Ben Sira, however, restricts himself to the rather superficial information: <9/ 3+ 8'# #/<+ =' 0')! :< “He [viz. Solomon] prepared a house for His name and established a sanctuary for ever” (Sir 47:13cd).

At first glance, the phrase #/<+ =' 0')! :< in Sir 47:13cd suggests that Ben Sira has just adopted Deuteronomistic phraseology. However, the

36

37

“Daß der Hauptteil dieses Kapitel (von 14 an) deuteronomistisch ist, wird im Hinblick auf Sprache un Inhalt allgemein angenommen ...”; Martin Noth, Könige 1 (BK IX/1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 173; see also Eep Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8,14–61 (CBET 3; Kampen: Kok, 1993). In Ps 33:14 too.

284

Pancratius C. Beentjes

standard formula used by Deuteronomistic authors always has the verb !1: !#!' -<+ =' !1 (2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 3:2; 5:17, 18, 19; 8:17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 48).38 Nowhere in Deuteronomistic literature, however, the collocation 0#) hiph + -< is found as is the case in Sir 47:13c. That Ben Sira deliberately belittles King Solomon’s contribution to the Jerusalem cult and worship – and therefore very consciously deviates from traditional and familiar image – to the best of my belief is closely connected with his theological view on Israel’s history, as set forth in the Praise of the Famous (Sir 44–50). Ben Sira convincingly and repeatedly brings to the fore that not the kings are the factor guaranteeing the continuity in Israel’s history, but the High Priest Aaron and his seed with the cult entrusted to them.39 It looks very likely that Ben Sira did play down the Deuteronomistic theme of the “Name theology,” which is so strongly linked with David and Solomon, by altering the usual verb. (c) Sir 51:12m “Give thanks to Him who has chosen Zion, for His mercy endures for ever.”

#2% -+#3+ ')/0#'8 :%#+ ##!

Although the authenticity of Sir 51:12a-o is disputed, it is also impossible to adduce solid evidence that this psalm-like text is to be considered a later addition to the Book of Ben Sira.40 At first sight, the collocation 0#'8 :%# in Sir 51:12m looks Deuteronomistic. For in the Book of Deuteronomy, there are quite a few instances referring to “the site that YHWH will choose” (Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24, 25; 15:20 etc.). And in Deuteronomistic literature, many times we come across the phrase “the city /Jerusalem that I /You have chosen” (1 Kgs 8:16, 44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36 etc.).41 At a closer look, however, this point of view has to be abandoned, since in “the Dtr History, the name 0#'8 is avoided, and is used only in nontheological contexts in 2 S. 5:7 and 1 K. 8:1 and only in citations in 2

38 39 40

41

See also 1 Chr 22:7, 8, 10, 19; 28:3; 2 Chr 1:18; 2:3; 6:7, 8, 9, 10, 34, 38. Cf. 2 Chr 20:8. See Beentjes, “The Countries Marvelled at You,” 135–44. An overview of this problem is offered by Alexander Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach. A Text-critical and Historical Study (Studies in Classical Literature 1; The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1966), 101–5 For a complete overview, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 324–25.

The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage

285

K. 19:21, 31.”42 This result can be adduced as further circumstantial evidence strengthening the case of Sir 36:13–14 discussed above.

Exodus, Covenant, and Election In Weinfeld’s Appendix, an extensive list of Deuteronomic phraseology has been included relating to ‘Exodus, Covenant, and Election’.43 As far as the topic of “covenant” is concerned, it is beyond any doubt that Ben Sira has adopted the conception of P. This has convincingly been demonstrated by Johannes Marböck who having commented upon seven (!) covenant passages in the Praise of the Famous (Sir 44–50) reaches at the conclusion that Ben Sira has consistently followed the priestly layer of the Pentateuch.44 Earlier in this contribution, the collocation 0#'+3 =#8/ :/< in Sir 44:20 was discussed. In the pericope devoted to the Patriarchs (Sir 44:19–23) there are found a number of biblical references that without a shadow of doubt have been adopted from Genesis 17, but have undergone a creative reworking by Ben Sira. It is quite remarkable, for instance, that it is Abraham who “entered into covenant with Him” (44:20b), whereas in Gen 17:1 it is “God Almighty” ('< +) who makes the covenant. This is the more striking, since in Sir 44:22c – where the notion =': (‘covenant‘) is used again – it is God who gives a covenant to Isaac.45 The plausibility that it is Abraham indeed who entered into covenant with God (44:20b) is to a high degree confirmed by the use of the collocation =': # elsewhere. Both in the Hebrew Bible (Jer 34:10; 2

42 43 44

45

Eckart Otto, 0#'8 / sщiyyçn, TDOT 12: 357. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 326–30. “Sirach legt fast durchwegs … das Modell des Verheißungsbundes … nach der Priesterschrift zugrunde.” … “Es fehlt jedenfalls in H der ausdrückliche (deuteronomistische) Zusammenhang von Tora und berît.” Johannes Marböck, “Die ‘Geschichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch,” in Der neue Bund im Alten. Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente (ed. E. Zenger; QD 146; Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 177–97; repr. in Gottes Weisheit unter uns. Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach (ed. I. Fischer; HBS 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 177–97. Quotation on 193. The noun =': (“covenant”) is found seven times in the first section of the Laus Patrum. The contention “berit occurs 11 times in chapters 44–49” by Roderick A. F. MacKenzie, “Ben Sira as Historian,” in Trinification of the World (ed. T. A. Dunne and J. M. Laporte; Toronto: Regis College Press, 1978), 312–27 (317) is incorrect. In the Greek translation of Sir 44–49, the noun »À¸¿ûÁ¾ is found there twelve times (44:11, 18, 20, 20, 22; 45:5, 7, 15, 17, 24, 25; 47:11), but does repeatedly not render =': (44:18, 20b; 45:5, 7, 17; 47:11).

286

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Chr 15:14)46 and in the Qumran documents (CD 15:5; 1QS 2:12, 26; 5:8, 20; 10:10)47 it is almost exclusively used for human beings.48 In fact, the history of Israel as presented in the first part of the Laus Patrum (Sir 44:1–45:25d) is described as a continuous chain of covenants, which will culminate in the High Priestly covenant with Aaron (45:15) and Phinehas (45:24), and is repeated at the end of the panegyric on the High Priest Simeon (Sir 50:24). God’s covenant with David is transferred to the High Priestly dynasty.49 As a matter of fact, just one item relating to Weinfeld’s list should be specifically discussed now with respect of the Book of Ben Sira. It relates to the expression +3 -< :9 (“to call his name upon”), which is found in Deut 28:10. Although the same phrase is met in Sir 47:18b relating to King Solomon (+:<' +3 :91!) and, moreover, is preceded by the rare expression )! -
46 47 48

49

50

51

52

Only in Ezek 16:8 the collocation has a bearing on God. The reference to 1QS 10:4 as found in The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew II, 266 should be corrected into: 1QS 10:10. For a more detailed analysis, see Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Ben Sira 44:19–23 – The Patriarchs: Text, Tradition, Theology,” in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira (ed. G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengeller; JSJSup 127; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 209–28. This view has been expounded in: Pancratius C. Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach (Nieuwegein: Selbstverlag 1981), 188–92; see also Beentjes, “The Countries Marvelled at You” in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (CBET 43; Leuven: Peeters 2006), 135–44. See also Marböck, “Die Geschichte Israels,” 177–97. Since the collocation )! -
The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage

287

meates the entire Book of Ben Sira. Since his approach creates a new paradigm relating to quite a number of theologically important pericopes, there is no room here even to present the main results of it.

The Monotheistic Creed Sir 36:5 may serve as an interesting case. The Hebrew text of it runs (=+#$ -'!+ 0' ') (“for there is none other God but you”). If this colon would be studied in splendid isolation, one might think it has directly been adopted from Deuteronomistic texts like 2 Sam 7:22; 1 Kgs 8:22. However, the composition of the prayer in Sir 36:1–22 adduces evidence for quite another possibility too. For the phrase (=+#$ -'!+ 0' ') (36:5) which reflects Israel’s monotheistic creed gets a special echo in 36:10, when the words '=+#$ 0' are put on the lips of Moab’s leaders. This collocation immediately recalls Isa 45:21 which is the only text within the entire Old Testament where it is found.53 One should notice the creative way in which Ben Sira has given a very special function to these words within the structure and theology of chapter 36.54 In Isa 45:21 the words '=+#$ 0' are an utterance of YHWH, who wants to be recognised as the unique Saviour. In Sir 36:10, however, these words are attributed to Moab’s leaders. Consequently, exactly the same expression is given a totally opposite meaning, to relate a blasphemous atmosphere. By doing so, Ben Sira has created a strong opposition between the allegation of Moab’s leaders (36:10) and Israel’s confession (36:5; cf. 36:17), which hopefully frames God’s intervention against the nations.55

53 54

55

See also Isa 45:5. Weinfeld “wonders if some of the central religious ideas of Second Isaiah … may not have their roots in deuteronomic theology”; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 42 n. 2. As Sir 36:5 and 36:17d are related to each other as confession and expectation, it is essential to retain the reading wyd‘w (Sir 36:17c), and not to follow the marginal variant wyr’w. In this way the opposition between yd‘ and ’mr (“to think,” cf. THAT, I: 213) is as sharp as possible.

288

Pancratius C. Beentjes

The Davidic Dynasty – What Heritage? In the Hebrew text of Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers (Sir 44–50), David is mentioned nine times56, of which his portrayal in 47:1–11 has to be studied in the first place.57 On the face of it, it looks as if the opening line with its reference to Nathan serves as the start to an historical overview of David’s life: “After him [Samuel] came Nathan to stand before David” (47:1). This general communication, however, remains the only reference to Nathan’s activities. No word, for instance, about his prophetic role to announce God’s promise with respect of the Davidic dynasty, as handed down in 2 Samuel 7 or 1 Chronicles 17.58 As far as other references to biblical narratives about David are concerned, a kind of a pattern can be observed. At first glance, the reader gets the impression Ben Sira is just referring to traditional biblical stories, such as the episode in which David reports to Saul how he as a shepherd rescued the lamb from a lion’s or a bear’s mouth (1 Sam 17:34–36/Sir 47:3), his fight against Goliath and the Philistines (1 Sam 17:45–50/Sir 47:4–5, 7), as well as the reference to the women’s song as David was coming home (1 Sam 18:6–7/Sir 47:6ab). Ben Sira has used all this material, however, to create a particular view of David. The real intention of Ben Sira’s portrayal of David is already revealed in the second line, where David’s election is worded in cultic terminology: “As fat is lifted up from the holy offering, so was David from Israel” (47:2). Furthermore it appears that all David’s heroic deeds are interpreted by Ben Sira as God’s reaction to David’s religious attitude: “He called upon God Most High” (Sir 47:5a), so that it in fact are God’s actions: “God Most High, who gave strength to his right arm” (Sir 47:5b). At this point in the portrayal of David, Ben Sira has used the collocation “to call upon God Most High,” which appears to be a thematic thread throughout the Laus Patrum, since it shows up at specific points: Sir 46:5a (Joshua), Sir 46:16a (Samuel), Sir 48:20a (Hezekiah and the people of Judah). When David in Ben Sira’s presentation has actually come into power, the King is extensively – and exclusively – portrayed as the organiser of the Jerusalem cult. No less than ten successive cola (47:8–10) have been devoted to depict David as someone who is constantly giving

56 57

58

Sir 45:25; 47:1, 2, 8, 22; 48:15, 22; 49:4; 51:12h. See Johannes Marböck, “Davids Erbe in gewandelter Zeit (Sir 47,1–11),” TPQ 130 (1982), 43–49; Geza Xeravits, “The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira,” Hen 23 (2001): 27–38. This point will later be discussed in full.

The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage

289

thanks to God, arranging musical instruments, composing songs, ordering feasts, and so on. In his enthusiasm, Ben Sira even imported an anachronistic element. The wording “before the altar” (47:9a) makes it as if in David’s days the Temple already existed! In a remarkably general way, the text in 47:11a (#3<6 :'3! ''' [-#]) mentions David’s sin, which undoubtedly refers to his affair with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11–12). The phrasing of this colon has a direct bearing on 2 Sam 12:13, which in the biblical context has explicitly been put in the mouth of Nathan. In the Ben Sira text, however, there is no role for Nathan as a mediator. The same phrase is now directly from the author to his readers: “JHWH even forgave him his sin,” just as the remainder of this verse: “and He raised his horn forever; He gave him the right of kingship and established his throne over Jerusalem.”59 I am convinced that these concluding cola are an important key to Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers. First, we have to ascertain that, in spite of 47:11a which undoubtedly quotes Nathan’s words, again the prophet plays no role at all. Second, it is a matter of highest concern that nowhere in 47:11b–d Ben Sira is referring to an everlasting Davidic dynasty. Several scholars have correctly laid emphasis on the fact that 0:9 (“horn”) in 47:11b has to be linked with the same noun in 47:5b (“to restore the horn of his people”), in 47:7c (“and broke their horn till this day”), and 49:5 (“He [God] gave their horn to others”).60 Since 0:9 (“horn”) refers to three different groups or persons, it is impossible that in Sir 47:11b it should exclusively relate to the Davidic dynasty. The words of this colon have only a bearing on David himself. Third, the fact that Sir 47:11c has the noun 9%, and not the noun =': (“covenant”) – which in the Hymn to the Fathers, however, is used several times61 – is a clear indication that Ben Sira is deliberately putting his thoughts into words here. What is this all about? It is my firm conviction that in his portrayal of David, Ben Sira with all means tries to be consistent with a point of view he advanced earlier on in his work. It is time to take a close look at Sir 45:25. 59

60

61

“La prophétie de Nathan, fondement scripturaire du messianisme royal, ne fait l’object d’aucune allusion dans quelques versets consacrés à David par l’Eloge des Pères des chapitres 44–49.” André Caquot, “Ben Sira et le Messianisme,” Sem 16 (1966) 43–68 (54). See e.g. Caquot, “Ben Sira et le Messianisme,” 55; Kenneth E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism. Its History and Significance for Messianism (SBLEJL 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 145; Xeravits, “The Figure of David,” 32–34. Sir 44:12, 17, 20, 22; 45:15, 24, 25; 50:24. Later on we will argue that the last two occurrences appear to be essential.

290

Pancratius C. Beentjes

David Versus Aaron: A Famous Crux Interpretum What strikes one most here, in the first place, is that Ben Sira for the first time abandons the strictly chronological order which is so characteristic of his Hymn to the Fathers. Subsequent to the passage on Phinehas (45:23–24), which has been composed with the help of a conscious selection of cola from Num 25:11–13, in 45:25 suddenly the theme of God’s covenant with David is introduced.62 This untimely mention of David – to whom in 47:1–11 a lengthy passage will be devoted – must therefore play a special role within the context of the Phinehas pericope. Investigating the function of Sir 45:25, specifically the third colon (##) '16+ < =+%1), substantial text critical problems are met. Earlier, I advanced the view that the Hebrew text of 45:25c should be taken more seriously than had been done before.63 Up to 1981, no single scholar or commentator had ever seen an opportunity to present a useful interpretation of this colon. Therefore, all kinds of textual emendations had been suggested in order to get out of this problem.64 Since 45:25d has been devoted to Aaron, and the opening cola of 45:25ab have a bearing on David, and moreover, as 45:25c and 25d present a parallel structure, for all commentators it is definite that 45:25c can only relate to David. There must be, it is reputed, a comparison between the succession in the lineage of David (45:25c) and the one in the lineage of Aaron (45:25d). According to this argumentation, both the Greek and the Syriac translation confirm the aspect of comparison. On the basis of these two versions, several proposals have been submitted to reconstruct the “original” Hebrew text of 45:25c. Since both the Greek and the Syriac have the notion “alone,” it has often been suggested to alter ##) (“his glory”) into #+ (“alone”), and to substitute #1+ (“his son”) for #16+ (“in his presence”).65 It is quite remarkable,

62

63 64 65

For the composition of Sir 45:23–24 see Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach/Ecclesiasticus),” in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History of its Interpretation, I. From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Part 2. The Middle Ages (ed. M. Saebø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000), 591–605 (601–2). Beentjes, Jesus Sirach en Tenach, 175–200. An overview is offered by Caquot, “Ben Sira et le Messianisme,” 59–64; John Priest, “Ben Sira 45:25 in the Light of the Qumran Literature,” RevQ 5 (1964): 111–18. See e.g. Pomykala, “The Davidic Dynasty,” 132–44; Michael Pietsch, »Dieser ist der Sproß Davids ...«. Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Nathanverheißung im alttestamentlichen, zwischentestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schrifttum (WMANT 100; Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003), 164–75.

The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage

291

however, that a fundamental question has consistently been left unanswered, viz. in what way that “original” Hebrew text of 45:25c could have corrupted into the extant text of Ms. B. I therefore recommended an investigation into the question whether the factual discovered Hebrew text could have a meaningful sense within the Phinehas passage, since it was my firm conviction it has indeed. To that end, one should get rid of the idea that 45:25a is the start of a new sentence. In stead of it, it deserves serious consideration to look upon 45:25a as the immediate continuation of 45:24cd. So doing, the translation of 45:24c–25b runs as: “So that he [Phinehas] and his descendants should possess the high priesthood forever, but even His covenant with David, the son of Jesse of the tribe of Judah.”

This translation, which had not even been considered in scholarly discussion, in any case can explain why the Hebrew of 45:25ab has no verb; these cola must be seen as a subordinate clause to 45:24c. The Greek text, too, appears to contain a similar lead. Nearly all Greek manuscripts render an accusative (»À¸¿ûÁ¾Å), which by all commentators is immediately amended into a nominative.66 The mere fact, however, that the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts in Sir 45:25a render an accusative is significant and should be given due protection. It could be an indication that Ben Sira’s grandson, as the translator of the Greek text, indeed made »À¸¿ûÁ¾Å depend on a preceding verb, or that he thought this was the case, even though the Greek syntax of 45:24 does not suit for that kind of dependence. Associating God’s covenant with David (45:25a), however, with the institution of High Priesthood – viz. by the way of Phinehas –, at the same time the purport of 45:25c would be perfectly clear, to the effect that in the Hebrew text no emendations whatsoever are needed. There is no need any more to emend < (“fire”) into <' (“man”)67, because the former notion no longer has a bearing on David, but on Phinehas and his descendants, and can therefore be interpreted within the area of the high priestly institution, viz. the cult:

66

67

See Joseph Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum 12, 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 340. Nowhere in the Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira < is found being a defective reading for <'.

292

Pancratius C. Beentjes

“the inheritance of fire before his glory, the inheritance of Aaron for all his descendants.”

So doing, the mention of Aaron in the passage on Phinehas does not only refer to the preceding lengthy pericope on Aaron (45:6–22), but also ties in with the notion of “inheritance” that in 45:22 constitutes the culmination of the passage on Aaron. With respect of the notion “fire” one should keep in mind that this notion plays an important role in Num 17:1–15. Since in Sir 45:6–22, however, there is no reference at all to this biblical passage, maybe Ben Sira in his portrayal of Aaron has deliberately omitted an allusion to that text, as he wanted to link the notion of “fire” with the special theme he created for 45:25. It appears that Ben Sira in 45:25 relates God’s covenant with David to the High Priesthood of Aaron, Phinehas and his descendants: “that what was once promised to the Davidic dynasty has now been “inherited” by the Aaronite high–priesthood.”68 Against this background, it becomes evident why Ben Sira in 45:12 has portrayed Aaron, the High Priest, with ‘a diadem of precious gold’ ($6 =:&3), a collocation that is unique and is only found in Ps 21:4, where it has a bearing on a king! The same is true for Sir 45:15, where the collocation “as permanent as the heavens” (-'/< '/') is said of Aaron and his descendants. This, too, is a unique biblical wording, which is found in Ps 89:30 in respect of King David. Now we do understand why Ben Sira in his portrayal of David does not refer to Nathan neither to God’s promise about the Davidic dynasty. In Ben Sira’s view, God’s covenant with David has been transferred to the Aaronite dynasty. James Martin, who was the first scholar to agree with my interpretation of Sir 45:25, has an interesting remark: “… corresponding to what we might call the “Davidising” of the Aaronite (high)priesthood, there is in the David pericope what we might call the “Aaronising” of David, with … an emphasis being laid on his role in the establishing of the cult …”69 Finally, Sir 50:24 should be adduced as solid evidence that “the office of king, secured by the Davidic covenant, is for Ben Sira now located in the office of high priest.”70 It is not by chance, of course, that in

68 69 70

James D. Martin, “Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers. A Messianic Perspective” in Crises and Perspectives (ed. A. S. van der Woude; OTS 24; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 107–23 (115). Martin, “Ben Sira’s Hymn,” 115. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty, 143.

The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage

293

50:24d the collocation “as permanent as the heavens”)71 is used in respect of Phinehas, as in 45:15 it was with regard to Aaron.72 Again, we find a clue that this collocation, which originally referred to the Davidic dynasty (Ps 89:30), has been transferred to the High priestly dynasty. In Sir 50:24b we come across the collocation 2%1'6 =': (“the covenant with Phinehas”), a word combination that is unknown to the Hebrew Bible and is therefore to be considered a creation by Ben Sira himself. By means of this unique collocation, the author in a twofold way directly points back to 45:24. First, the mention of the name of Phinehas in 50:24 immediately refers to the crucial passage on this High Priest in Chapter 45. Second, it is quite remarkable that precisely in Sir 50:24 we find the one and only reference to the notion =': (“covenant”) after its remarkable occurrence in Sir 45:24–25.

Conclusion The following conclusions may be made: Firstly, Ben Sira’s dependence on Deuteronomistic literature and theology should not be overstated. Secondly, even on the lexical level, similarities between the Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic phraseology should be studied with caution, since as a wisdom teacher Ben Sira most of the time exerted all his creativity to compose new theological avenues on the basis of existing traditions. Thirdly, in Second Temple Judaism, Deuteronomistic literature represented something like a basic theology (Veijola). Therefore, one can not exclude the possibility that Deuteronomistic phraseology in the Book of Ben Sira is to be considered rather a kind of common religious language of that age than a deliberate adoption and/or reworking of (parts of) Deuteronomistic heritage. Fourthly, in Ben Sira’s teaching of the Torah the influence of Deuteronomistic heritage seems to be most closely related.

71 72

In their analysis of Sir 45:15, a lot of commentators do not even mention that the collocation -'/< '/') is found in Sir 50:24. It is not impossible that the phrasing #3:$+# #+ =:)' + :< (Sir 50:24c) has been inspired by 1 Kgs 9:5b (+:<' 2) +3/ <' (+ =:)' +). If so, again a “royal text” has been transformed into a “high priestly” one!

294

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Bibliography Barthélemy, Dominique and Otto Rickenbacher. Konkordanz zum hebräischen Sirach. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Beentjes, Pancratius C. Jesus Sirach en Tenach. Nieuwegein: Selbstverlag 1981. Ȱ. “The Hebrew Texts of Ben Sira 32[35].16–33[36].2.” Pages 53–67 in Sirach, Scrolls & Sages. Edited by T. Muraoka and J. F. Elwolde. STDJ 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Ȱ. “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach / Ecclesiasticus.” Pages 591–605 in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History of its Interpretation, I. From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Part 2. The Middle Ages. Edited by M. Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2000. Ȱ. “In Search of Parallels: Ben Sira and the Book of Kings.” Pages 118–31 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella o.f.m. Edited by J. Corley, J. E. Jensen and V. Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Ȱ. A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts & A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997 / Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Ȱ. “Relations between Ben Sira and the Book of Isaiah. Some Methodological Observations.” Pages 201–6 in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters 2006. Ȱ. “The Countries Marvelled at You.” Pages 135–44 in “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters 2006. Ȱ. “Ben Sira 44:19–23 – The Patriarchs: Text, Tradition, Theology.” Pages 209– 28 in Studies in the Book of Ben Sira. Edited by G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengeller. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Ȱ. “Ben Sira and the Book of Deuteronomy.” Pages 413–33 in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited by J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Botterweck, Johannes G., Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, ed. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, David E. Green, Douglas W. Stott, and John T. Willis. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Caquot, André. “Ben Sira et le Messianisme.” Sem 16 (1966): 43–68. Clines, David J. A. ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1993–. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. The Old Testament Library; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Cowley, A. E. and A. Neubauer. The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (XXXIX.15 to XLIX.11). Oxford: Clarendon, 1897. Crenshaw, James L. “The Primacy of Listening in ben Sira’s Pedagogy.” Pages 172–87 in Wisdom, You are my Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E. Murphy

The Book of Ben Sira and Deuteronomistic Heritage

295

Edited by M. L. Barré. CBQMS 29. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1997. Ȱ. “The Deuteronomists and the Writings.” Pages 145–58 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists. The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism Edited by L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie. JSOTS 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Di Lella, Alexander. The Hebrew Text of Sirach. A Text-critical and Historical Study. Studies in Classical Literature 1. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1966. Eberharter, A. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. HSAT VI/5. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1925. Epstein, Isidore, ed. The Babylonian Talmud. 18 vols. London: Soncino Press, 1961. Freedman, H. and Maurice Simon, ed. Midrash Rabbah. 10 vols. London: Soncino Press, 1961. Goering, Greg Schmidt. Wisdom’s Root Revealed. Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. JSJSup 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Rome: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967. Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann, ed. Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. München: Kaiser, 1971–1976. Kuhn, Karl Georg, ed. Der tannaitische Midrasch: Sifre zu Numeri. Rabbinische Texte 2. Reihe: Tannaitische Midraschim 3. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1959. MacKenzie, Roderick A. F. “Ben Sira as Historian.” Pages 312–27 in Trinification of the World. Edited by T. A. Dunne and J. M. Laporte. Toronto: Regis College Press, 1978. Marböck, Johannes. “Davids Erbe in gewandelter Zeit (Sir 47,1–11).” TPQ 130 (1982): 43–49. Ȱ. “Die ‘Geschichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch.” Pages 177–97 in Der neue Bund im Alten. Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente. Edited by E. Zenger. QD 146. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Repr. pages 177–97 in Gottes Weisheit unter uns. Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach Edited by I. Fischer. HBS 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. Martin, James D. “Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers. A Messianic Perspective.” Pages 107–23 in Crises and Perspectives. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. OTS 24. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Noth, Martin. Könige 1. BK IX/1. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968. Penar, Tadeusz. Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben Sira. BibOr 28. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorf, 1913. Pietsch, Michael. »Dieser ist der Sproß Davids ...«. Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Nathanverheißung im alttestamentlichen, zwischentestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schrifttum. WMANT 100. Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003.

296

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Pomykala, Kenneth E. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism. Its History and Significance for Messianism. SBLEJL 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Priest, John. “Ben Sira 45:25 in the Light of the Qumran Literature.” RevQ 5 (1964): 111–18. Rüger, Hans-Peter. Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach. BZAW 112. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. Schearing L. S. and S. L. McKenzie, ed. Those Elusive Deuteronomists. The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. JSOTS 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Schnabel, Eckard J. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics. WUNT, 2. Reihe 16. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985. Segal, Moses Zevi. Sefer Ben Sira haššal¾m. Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation, 1958. Skehan, Patrick W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Hebräisch und Deutsch. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Talstra, Eep. Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8,14–61. CBET 3. Kampen: Kok, 1993. Veijola, Timo. “Law and Wisdom: The Deuteronomistic Heritage in Ben Sira’s Teaching of the Law.” Pages 429–48 in Ancient Israel, Judaism, and Christianity in Contemporary Perspective – Essays in Memory of Karl-Johan Illman. Edited by J. Neusner et al. Lanham: University Press of America, 2006. Ȱ. Leben nach der Weisung: Exegetisch-historische Studien zum Alten Testament. FRLANT 224. Edited by W. Dietrich and M. Marttila. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Wilson, Robert R. “Who was the Deuteronomist? (Who was not the Deuteronomist?): Reflections on Pan-Deuteronomism.” Pages 67–82 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists. The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie. JSOTS 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Xeravits, Géza. “The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira.” Hen 23 (2001): 27–38. Ziegler, Joseph. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum 12, 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965.

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees Francis Borchardt The book of Deuteronomy has, for a rather long time been, seen as the fulcrum upon which our understanding of the collection of works that would become scripture rests.1 Deuteronomy’s laws, teachings, and style have far-reaching effects on issues as diverse as the understanding of biblical law, the formation of the Pentateuch, the editing process of historical and prophetic books, and the history of Israel. It is no surprise then that one might look for the influence such a work had on books not commonly considered to be deuteronomic.2 There is no question that the tradition of the deuteronomists lives on in many ways, even into the Christian testament.3 The ability to trace that tradition in the diverse ways in which it manifests itself is valuable not only for the observation of the intransigence of such a worldview, but also its adaptability. Further, the frequent employment, or alternatively, complete lack of use of deuteronomic teachings or style might say something about the social setting out of which a particular text or its authors arise.4 It is our aim to follow the vestiges of this tradition in 1 Maccabees.

1 2

3

4

J. Gordon McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy (JSOTS 33; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 1. We here follow the conventions of Raymond F. Person, Jr., The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 7, in dropping the distinction between deuteronomic and deuteronomistic, in favor of one term denoting both the original Deuteronomy and later accretions which might still be called representative of the school. Timothy H. Lim, “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period,” in Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken LNTS 358; London: T & T Clark, 2007), 6–26 (6), mentions that the book of Deuteronomy, along with Isaiah and the Psalms, ranks as the most quoted book in the New Testament. George J. Brooke, “The Formation and Renewal of Scriptural Tradition,” in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb (ed. J. Lieu and C. Hempel; JSJSup 111; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 39–59 (49).

298

Francis Borchardt

The Background of 1 Maccabees The first book of Maccabees is best known as one of the only available primary sources treating the Judean rebellion from the Seleucid empire beginning in 168 BCE, and culminating in Judean autonomy in 142 BCE. It describes the rebellion in largely sober, grounded terms, with little reference to direct divine intervention or belief in an afterlife.5 The book is characterized by its unquestioned support of the Hasmonean role in liberating the Judean temple, laws, and nation from the grasp of the Seleucids and their supporters.6 Because of its support for the Hasmonean priesthood and leadership of the community, the book likely stems from the Judean court,7 and has been posited to be written in Hebrew8 anywhere from the 130s BCE9 to the 100s or 90s BCE, 10 based on various clues in the text, though now the oldest manuscripts only appear in Greek translation. It is almost universally agreed upon that the book is in some way styled after the books that would become the Hebrew Scriptures,11 however there is no agreement as to which books 1 Maccabees owes its style. The suggestions range from the books of Joshua and Judges, to Samuel, to Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. Regardless of the actual inspiration for 1 Maccabees’ style, if there can even be only one, the book is aware of and allusive to the traditions that we can still find in the works included in our present-day bibles. All of this background makes 1 Maccabees a prime candidate for investigation of deuteronomic heritage.

5 6 7 8 9 10

11

William Oscar Emil Oesterley, “The First Book of Maccabees,” in APOT 1 (ed. R. H. Charles; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 59–124 (61). David S. Williams, The Structure of 1Maccabees (CBQMS; Washinton: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1999), 136. Joseph Sievers, The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters: From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 2–3. Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees (AB 41; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 14. Seth Schwartz, “Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the Hasmonean Expansion,” JJS 42 (1991): 16–38 (33). Felix-Marie Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées (Paris: Gabalda, 1949), XXIX. Some authors, such as Solomon Zeitlin, The First Book of Maccabees (New York: Harper and Son, 1950), 32, have suggested a completion of the final form in the first century CE. Oesterley, “First Book,” 60; Zeitlin, First Book, 34; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 31; John R. Bartlett, 1Maccabees (Sheffiled: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 18; and Uriel Rappaport, “The First Book of Maccabees,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. J. Barton and J. Muddiman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 711–33 (712).

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees

299

Method and Procedure There appear to be three informative and sure ways to trace the influence of one text or corpus upon another text. First, one can trace all the quotations of the prior text in the subsequent text. While the results of such an investigation can be illuminating, they are only of limited use when the quotations are sparse.12 A second step one can take, is to trace the use of the phraseology and style of the first text in the second. This is of particular interest in Deuteronomy because there are such a wealth of phrases that are considered to be deuteronomic.13 A third course of action one can take is to look for shared themes between the two texts and establish the strength and delivery of these themes in each text. The combination of all three of these methods should produce results that account for almost every possible connection between one established tradition and a later text. In the case of deuteronomic influence on 1 Maccabees we will follow this procedure of noting and discussing the quotations, followed by the instances of deuteronomic phraseology, and then finally the deuteronomic themes in 1 Maccabees. Before we do this, however, we must define what we are specifying as deuteronomic. We hold as deuteronomic, not only Deuteronomy, but those texts belonging to the socalled Deuteronomic history (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) and Jeremianic poetry, especially where these texts agree in worldview and theology with Deuteronomy. Because these latter texts are not necessarily deuteronomic in all places, but have likely undergone separate deuteronomic redactions,14 we can hardly aver that these texts all agree in every aspect of theological, political, and moral thought. However, on a number of subjects there is a general agreement that more than likely stems from their redaction under the auspices of a particular deuteronomic school that valued and disseminated these texts. The themes and style that span this broad body of literature, or that have a strong grounding in Deuteronomy itself will be held to be deuteronomic. Deuteronomic quotations will only be applied from Deuteronomy itself. Once we have established the connection between the various quotations, phraseology and style, and themes in 1 Maccabees and the deuteronomic school we will look at the overall effect these aspects of deu-

12 13 14

Lim, “Deuteronomy in Judaism,” 6. Here Lim speaks about the problem in relation to the influence of Deuteronomy in the New Testament. See the exhaustive work of Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (2nd edition; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 320–59. Person, Deuteronomic School, 8.

300

Francis Borchardt

teronomism had on the text. We will test in what ways and under what conditions the deuteronomic influence is most strongly felt, and also discuss what pieces of the deuteronomic worldview are entirely passed over.

Deuteronomic Quotations in 1 Maccabees There are three (possibly four) occasions in 1 Maccabees wherein it appears that Deuteronomy is being cited directly as a source of law or instruction. These instances do not necessarily qualify as quotations, but do seem to refer to specific laws, and in many cases use the same vocabulary as that of their source text. Notably, all of these instances are marked off by a phrase that underlines the authority of the action involved. One such instance of explicit deuteronomic legal application in 1 Maccabees comes at 1 Macc 3:56. Here Judas Maccabeus prepares his followers for the upcoming battle with the Seleucid officers under Antiochus IV Epiphanes by readying his army and sending home those who are unfit for battle. The dependence on Deut 20:5–8 is clear:

¸Ė ¼čȼŠÌÇėË ÇĊÁÇ»ÇÄÇıÊÀÅ ÇĊÁĕ¸Ë Á¸Ė ÄžÊ̼ÍÇÄñÅÇÀË ºÍŸėÁ¸Ë Á¸Ė ÎÍ̼įÇÍÊÀÅ ÒÄÈ¼ÂľÅ¸Ë Á¸Ė »¼ÀÂÇėË ÒÈÇÊÌÉñμÀÅ ïÁ¸ÊÌÇÅ ¼ĊË ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ ¸ĤÌÇı Á¸ÌÛ ÌġÅ ÅĠÄÇÅ. And he told those building houses and those betrothed to women and those planting vineyards and those afraid to turn back each to his own house, according to the law. (1 Macc 3:56)

Judas follows each step of the instructions to the officials before battle at Deut 20:5–8. He tells those who are building houses, and those betrothed, and those growing vineyards, and those who are cowardly all to return home. The only difference between Judas’ instructions to his troops in 1 Macc 3:56 and the law in Deuteronomy is that the order is slightly changed by putting those who are engaged to women before those who are growing vineyards. Otherwise the letter of the law is exact. As there is no other possible law to which this instruction could be referring, we have the first clear tie to Deuteronomy in 1 Maccabees. This has explicitly to do with the rules of war, and the proper conduct of troops. The regulation is not being adapted or subverted in any way by 1 Maccabees, but is simply repeated as a prerequisite for battle according the law. After Judas implements the instructions, he and his

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees

301

troops prepare for battle with the Seleucids, and ultimately are successful. A second verse which may refer directly to one of the regulations of Deuteronomy is 1 Macc 4:47. In this case, during the cleansing and refurbishment of the temple, Judas and the blameless priests who assist him take “whole stones according to the law and build a new altar according to the first” (츹ÇÅ Âĕ¿ÇÍË ĝÂÇÁÂûÉÇÍË Á¸ÌÛ ÌġÅ ÅĠÄÇÅ Á¸Ė ŀÁÇ»ĠľʸŠ¿ÍÊÀ¸ÊÌûÉÀÇÅ Á¸ÀÅġÅ Á¸ÌÛ Ìġ ÈÉĠ̼ÉÇÅ). Unlike the first legal reference, there are two possibilities to which this directive can refer, and only one of those is from Deuteronomy. The possible nondeuteronomic source is from Exod 20:25, part of the text traditionally known as the Covenant Code. This law instructs its adherents that if they build an altar of stone, they should not build it of cut stones, because to put the chisel upon the stone profanes it. The intended sense is clearly that one should build the altar of whole stones, just as 1 Macc 4:47 suggests. The other possible source of this reference in 1 Maccabees is Deut 27:5–6. This text commands the audience to build an altar to the Lord god made out of stones on which an iron tool has not been used. It then emphasizes once more that the altar must be built of whole stones (Âĕ¿ÇÍË ĝÂÇÁÂûÉÇÍË/=#/+< -'1). This added emphasis also makes explicit the implications of the previous part of the command. This is a notable difference from the rule in Exod 20:25 which never explicitly calls for whole stones to be used. Because 1 Macc 4:47 specifically states that the priests took whole stones, and mentions nothing about cutting or a chisel or sword, it is more than likely Deut 27:5–6 that the author has in mind. If we are correct in averring that this law stems from Deuteronomy, then there is a second link between 1 Maccabees and Deuteronomy. Unlike the first instance, it is a cultic law that is central for this reference. It seems to be followed precisely, and is meant to ensure the sanctity of the renewed sanctuary. The reference fits well in its context, since many of the actions in this section seem to underline purity (4:42, 43, 44, 45) and appeal to authority (4:46) in all matters of the temple restoration. This trend continues in the next possibly deuteronomic legal reference, at 1 Macc 4:53. This text is part of the same passage as the last, detailing the events surrounding the rededication of the temple.15 Here

15

Nils Martola, Capture and Liberation: A Study in the Composition of the First Book of Maccabees (Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. A: Humaniora 63, 1; Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1984), 116–17. Martola gives several very good reasons for seeing these passages as a single unit.

302

Francis Borchardt

the reference is also to a cultic law, but has even more specifically to do with sacrifice than the last. The narrator states that the priests “rose and sacrificed according to the law upon the new altar of whole burnt offering which they made” (Á¸Ė ÒÅûżºÁ¸Å ¿ÍÊĕ¸Å Á¸ÌÛ ÌġÅ ÅĠÄÇÅ ëÈĖ Ìġ ¿ÍÊÀ¸ÊÌûÉÀÇÅ ÌľÅ ĝÂÇÁ¸ÍÌÑÄÚÌÑÅ Ìġ Á¸ÀÅĠÅ ğ ëÈÇĕ¾Ê¸Å). The rule being referenced clearly must dictate sacrifice in some way. Either it governs sacrifice in general, or it prescribes the way in which sacrifice should be performed on a new altar. In either case there is a possible source text, if the rule being referenced even comes from one of the texts we recognize at all. If the statute referred to by 1 Macc 4:53 refers to sacrifices in general, then Exod 29:38–42 is the likely source. Here, the rules for daily sacrifice are laid out. Two lambs are to be offered per day, one in the morning one in the evening. With the first lamb a measure of flour and a quarter hin of oil and wine each shall be offered. The rules are technical and mention the exact substances and measures to be sacrificed, and the time of day at which they are to be offered. There is some connection to the context of 1 Macc 4:53 here through the temporal aspect of the rule. At 1 Macc 4:52 it is mentioned specifically that the sacrifice occurs early in the morning on the 25th day of the ninth month of the 148th year. This reference to the morning may tie the legal statement in 4:53 to Exod 29:38. However, little evidence supports this. None of the details are mentioned, and no other hints link the texts together. On the other hand, if the law governs sacrifice on a newly-built altar, then Deut 27:6–7 might be the basis of the decree. These lines follow the instructions concerning the construction of the altar that are the likely source of the quotation at 1 Macc 4:47. They prescribe the whole offering and the peace offering, and instruct Israel to consume the offerings there. The fact that in both contexts a new altar is being spoken of already hints at the likelihood that 1 Macc 4:53 is referring to Deut 27:6–7. When this is combined with the fact that the preceding verse is quoted by 1 Maccabees just a few lines earlier, it is difficult to imagine the author had any other law in mind. Additional support for Deuteronomy being the basis for this instruction comes with the mention of the peace offering (¿ÍÊĕ¸Å ÊÑ̾ÉĕÇÍ) in both contexts (1 Macc 4:56/Deut 27:7). A challenge to this connection might arise in the fact that the deuteronomic instruction is meant to govern a specific occasion at a specific location, that being the day on which the Israelites cross the Jordan into the promised land on Mount Ebal. Neither of these conditions is met by 1 Maccabees. However, it is not at all hard to imagine that these instructions in Deuteronomy were taken by 1 Maccabees to govern the construction and dedication of all altars, especially given the many

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees

303

links between the two texts and the lack of strong connection to the regulations of Exodus. Setting aside the problems with location, 1 Maccabees follows the instructions of Deuteronomy accordingly, and has rededicated the cult according to its rules. From these two instances one might be able to begin to form a hypothesis that one part of the deuteronomic heritage important to 1 Maccabees was the cultic instruction, particularly relating to the establishment/reestablishment of a new altar. One final legal reference in 1 Maccabees comes at 2:24, where Mattathias, the father of the rebellion, kills a Judean and a royal officer before tearing down the illicit altar on which they were offering sacrifice. Mattathias’ action, particularly his rising anger is described as “according to the judgment” (Á¸ÌÛ Ìġ ÁÉĕĸ). Though the formula here is different from the one used in the other three legal passages, it carries no less weight. The word ÁÉĕĸ is used repeatedly in the LXX as a synonym for laws or statutes. This phrase suggests that there is a source behind Mattathias’ action. There are four possibilities in the Pentateuch, each of which could serve as the basis for his behavior. Two possibilities stem from Deuteronomy, a third comes from Exodus, and a fourth from Numbers. Deuteronomy 13:7–12 describes the course of action that must be taken by an Israelite if they are secretly enticed to worship foreign gods by a member of the community. One is forbidden from following such advice or listening any longer to such a person, but instead must kill the seducer, casting the first stone on his own followed by the rest of the people. Mattahias seems to attack first at 1 Macc 2:24, but he neither kills by stoning, nor is he aided by the rest of the people around him. Further, the Judean man who goes up to worship on the illicit altar in Modein neither entices another Judean to offer sacrifice, nor does he do any of this in secret. The Judean goes up “before the eyes of all” (ëÅ Ěο¸ÂÄÇėË ÈÚÅÌÑÅ), and is simply following the king’s decree (Á¸ÌÛ Ìġ ÈÉĠÊ̸ºÄ¸ ÌÇı ¹¸ÊÀÂñÑË). The fact that none of these details fit either the crime or the sentence carried out by Mattahtias puts this in doubt as the source text for his actions. The next possibility for the law behind Mattathias’ slaughter of the Judean and the gentile officer is Deut 17:2–7. This statute dictates that if any member of the community does evil in the sight of the LORD and transgresses the covenant by serving other gods and worshipping them, and it becomes known to a member of the community, then a trial should be made of the man. If the man is found guilty then he shall be taken to the gates and stoned to death on the testimony of more than one witness, who shall also be the first to execute the sentence. Again

304

Francis Borchardt

there are some good connections with the event reported in 1 Macc 2:23–26, but also some discrepancies. First, as we pointed out above, Mattathias surely strikes first in the execution of the transgressor. There are also clearly a number of witnesses to the crime, so that the Judean man’s guilt is assured. It is also quite possible that the scene takes place at the city gates of Modein anyway, securing the proper location for the sentence. However, once again the prescribed punishment of stoning is not carried out, nor is Mattathias joined by other members of Israel. Moreover, the fact that Mattathias also kills the royal officer is not governed by this rule, as it only governs a member of the community. Finally, it is not entirely clear that the crime in 1 Maccabees is idolatry. While the altar is certainly illicit, it is never made clear that anyone other than Yahweh is being worshipped. This is the main thrust of Deut 17:2–7, and not centrality of the cult. Despite this fact, it is possible that at such a late date as the composition of this passage the law could be reinterpreted to cover worship on illicit altars, even if they were not explicitly idolatrous. If this is case the statute remains a possibility for being the basis of Mattathias’ act. A third option is Exod 22:19. This brief apodictic command from the book of the covenant states that whoever sacrifices to any god other than Yahweh alone shall be destroyed (-:% hophal). The brevity of this injunction leaves a great amount of room for interpretation and less opportunity for disagreements. When this is posited as the background for 1 Macc 2:24, the punishment of stoning no longer stands in the way, nor do any other details. The only foreseeable problem is the one that affects Deut 17:2–7 as well: the crime in 1 Maccabees may not be idolatry, but sacrifice on an illicit altar. However, the same qualities that make this passage in Exodus applicable to 1 Maccabees also leave it short of being really evocative. It is difficult to draw any concrete connections between these two texts. Nevertheless, it remains a possibility. The final text that might be referenced as a statute by 1 Macc 2:24 is Numbers 25:6–15. Though this passage falls outside the explicitly legal corpora of the Pentateuch, this does not mean that the text was not considered to be law. Because the text is likely part of what 1 Maccabees terms “the book of the law” (¹À¹ÂĕÇÅ ÌġÅ ÅĠÄÇÅ), it is also possible that all the contents are considered to be legal. The story told in Num 25:6–15 (particularly 6–9) deals with the issue of Israelite marriage to foreign women, which in turn led to idolatry (25:1–3). At 25:5 Moses instructs the judges of Israel to kill all the members of the community who have yoked themselves to Baal Peor. The following lines narrate how just as this sentence was being proclaimed, an Israelite man took a Midianite woman into his family before the whole community. Phine-

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees

305

has, Moses’ grand-nephew then gets up and takes a spear and follows after the man and the woman and pierces them through the belly. Because of this act Phinehas is given a covenant of perpetual priesthood (25:13). On the surface this does not have much to do with the situation in 1 Macc 2:23–26. However, Mattathias’ act is explicitly compared to that of Phinehas in 1 Macc 2:26. Once this association is made in the text, more similarities can be seen. Both the Israelite man and the Judean man defy the rules just as they are being set forth by a community leader (Moses/Mattathias). Further, the Israelite is killed at the same time as his foreign accomplice (Num 25:8), just as the Judean man is killed at the same time as the royal officer (1 Macc 2:24–25). Finally, if the worship on the illicit altar is being interpreted as idolatry, then both texts deal with the prevention of the worship of idols. Given the fact that the passage from Numbers is specifically cited in this story, it is more than likely that Moses’ injunction at 25:5 to kill all those who have yoked themselves to Baal Peor is being interpreted as the law upon which Mattathias acts. Thus this reference to the law is unlikely to be deuteronomic. Out of the four explicit legal references in 1 Maccabees, we have seen that three of the four more than likely stem from Deuteronomy. Of those three two have to do with the proper construction and dedication of a new altar of sacrifice, and thus are primarily cultic in nature, and one deals with the rules of war. Thus, through these legal quotations, which probably testify to some of the more important issues to the author of 1 Maccabees, Deuteronomy holds a high degree of influence. It is only on one occasion that a non-deuteronomic text is used as legal basis for an action. It is interesting that this too deals with the cult, specifically its centrality. While the supporting text may not be deuteronomic, the issue at hand is.16

Deuteronomic Phraseology in 1 Maccabees The most important work for recognizing and pointing out deuteronomic phraseology is undoubtedly Moshe Weinfeld’s Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, where the author not only underlines what phrases are most often used in Deuteronomic literature, but differentiates between phrases that are of deuteronomic origin and those which

16

Peter T. Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 1.

306

Francis Borchardt

likely existed prior to the composition of Deuteronomy.17 Also of importance to the value of his work is his view that “[w]hat makes a phrase deuteronomic is not its mere occurrence in Deuteronomy, but its meaning within the framework of deuteronomic theology.”18 These two additional qualifications help Weinfeld define the phrases that are actually deuteronomic and place them in a context where they can be understood as such. He recognizes that it would be too simple to posit any common phrase belonging to the deuteronomic vocabulary as important to the deuteronomic school, and this makes his work of extreme importance.19 Despite the limitations he puts on the labeling of words and phrases, Weinfeld still ends up with nearly forty pages of material simply listing the various examples of deuteronomic language. According to Weinfeld there are basically ten categories of Deuteronomic phraseology, most of which mirror theological positions held by Deuteronomy. These are: 1) the struggle against idolatry20, 2) the centralization of the cult21, 3) exodus, covenant, and election22, 4) the monotheistic creed23, 5) observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant24, 6) inheritance of the land25, 7) retribution and material motivation26, 8) fulfillment of prophecy27, 9) the election of the Davidic dynasty28, and 10) rhetoric and paranetic phraseology.29 Into each of these categories Weinfeld places specific phrases, that when used in relation to those themes, represent deuteronomisms. We will here apply the phrases and words Weinfeld sees as deuteronomic to 1 Maccabees, being mindful of the fact that those phrases must be used in a specific setting in order to be considered deuteronomic. We must also keep in mind that simply because a phrase is repeated in 1 Maccabees, does not mean that 1 Maccabees has received it straight from deuteronomic literature; it may be that the phrase is filtered through later books, such as 1 and 2 Chronicles. An additional 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320–59. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 1–2. Person, Deuteronomic School, 19. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 324. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 326. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 331. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 332. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 341. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 345. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 350. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 354. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 355.

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees

307

challenge exists when we recall that though 1 Maccabees was composed in Hebrew, it exists only in Greek translation now, whereas the examples Weinfeld has used for his phraseology are only in Hebrew. In order to compare we will look at the way these terms are translated in the LXX versions of deuteronomic literature. This process can be difficult and imprecise, especially since it appears that the translation of 1 Maccabees was made independently, without knowledge of any Greek versions of the literature that would become scripture. In most cases it is our best judgment, which must be used. We will be cautious to keep in mind all these issues when investigating the occurrences of deuteronomic language in 1 Maccabees. The first instance of deuteronomic language in 1 Maccabees comes with the association of idolatry with abomination (!3#=/¹»ñÂͺĸ).30 Weinfeld notes that the association between these two terms is common in Ezekiel and Isaiah, but originates in Deuteronomy. He cites numerous examples where it appears in both Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic literature. In the vast majority of these cases the term !3#= is translated as ¹»ñÂͺĸ. This term is used specifically relating to idolatry on two occasions in 1 Maccabees (1:54; 6:7). In both of these cases the term refers to the structure the Seleucids built on top of the altar of burnt offering. This structure may have been an altar (1 Macc 1:59), or something else entirely, but there is no doubt that it was considered idolatrous (1 Macc 1:43, 47). A number of commentators tie the term to Daniel (9:27; 11:31; 12:11) where the same term is used for the same structure,31 and this may be so, or considering the proximity in time of when these passages were written, it may have been common parlance for the Seleucid idol. Regardless, this aspect of deuteronmism seems to live on in 1 Maccabees. A second phrase common to deuteronomic literature, particularly Jeremiah (7:31; 19:5; 32:35), is “to build high places to Baal/Tophet” (+3/=6#= =#/ !1).32 Though the terms Tophet and Baal are of course entirely absent from such a late work as 1 Maccabees, a slight adaptation of this phrase can be seen at 1 Macc 1:47, and possibly 1:54. At 1 Macc 1:47 the king writes that those in Judea are required “to build altars, sacred precincts, and shrines for idols” (ÇĊÁÇ»ÇÄýʸÀ ¹ÑÄÇİË Á¸Ė ̼Äñž Á¸Ė ¼Ċ»ļÂÀ¸). The first two words of this phrase are repetitions of the LXX version of the passages at Jer 7:31 and 32:35 (39:35 LXX). The addition of the sacred precincts may simply expand the phrase, and 30 31 32

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 323. Deut 7:25–26; 13:15; 17:4; 18:9; 20:18, inter alia. See e.g. Zeitlin, First Book, 77 and Abel, Les Livres, 25. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 323.

308

Francis Borchardt

¼Ċ»ļÂÀ¸ might stand in place of the proper names of the false gods Baal and Tophet. At 1:54, the narrator simply reports that the Seleucid officers and those aiding them built illicit altars in the surrounding towns, without adding the proper names. It is notable that in the LXX the phrase ÇĊÁÇ»ÇÄñÑ (ĝ) ¹ÑÄĠË is only used at these two occasions in Jeremiah and one time in Joshua (21:26) besides the two times in 1 Maccabees (1:47, 54). The term may be used generically here, but it is possible that the turn of phrase is being borrowed from the deuteronomic literature. Another term related to idolatry in the deuteronomic context is fetishes (-'+#+).33 This term seems to be used both of idols and of practices, but on the majority of the occasions in the LXX (Deut 29:16; 2 Kgs 17:12; 21:11, 21; 23:24) is translated as ¼ċ»Ñ¸. This term, obviously refers to idolatry de facto, and is used on three occasions in 1 Macc 1:43; 3:48; 13:47. At each point the term refers to an object used by the gentiles for the purpose of worship or divination. Though the ubiquity of the term’s use in the LXX (90 times) testifies against a willing knowledge of this heritage of Deuteronomy, its existence and use underlines the widespread influence Deuteronomy had. An important distinction can also be drawn between the term as used to translate -'+#+ (14 times) and to translate other terms, such as foreign gods. On no occasion does 1 Maccabees use ¼ċ»Ñ¸ in any other sense than physical objects, just as it is used in Deuteronomy. Moving away from the phraseology relating to idolatry, language associated with the centralization of worship, and name theology34 comes into focus. Though at first it might seem strange that centralization of worship and name theology are combined under one heading, one simply must look at the phrases indicative of the name theology, all of which have to do with the future site of the cult.35 One such deuteronomic phrase appears in 1 Maccabees, though in a slightly modified form: “the house which my name is called upon” ( '/< :91 :< ='! #'+3).36 At 1 Macc 7:37, a group of priests, in the midst of a prayer ad-

33 34

35 36

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 323. Deut 29:15; 1 Kgs 15:12; 21:26; 2 Kgs 17:12; 21:11, 21; 23:24. This is of course the tendency in Deuteronomy to make the deity more abstract by divorcing any notions of habitation of temples or cities from God. Instead it is his name which dwells in a place, and not the deity itself. See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 193. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 325. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 325. 1 Kgs 8:43; Jer 7:10, 11, 14, 30; 25:29; 32:34; 34:15. Weinfeld notes that to call one’s name upon something is an ancient expression that can-

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees

309

dress the deity saying: “You chose this house to have your name called upon it” (İ ëƼÂñÆÑ ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ ÌÇıÌÇÅ ëÈÀÁ¾¿ýŸÀ Ìġ ěÅÇÄÚ ÊÇÍ ëÈЏ ¸ĤÌÇı). Despite the switch to the second person resulting from the change in the speaker of the phrase, the expression is nearly exact. The only difference comes from the addition of the demonstrative pronoun in the Greek translation of 1 Maccabees. This may reflect a Hebrew Vorlage that added the pronoun, or could be the work of the translator. Whatever the case, there can be no doubt that this aspect of deuteronomic theology is carried over into 1 Maccabees. Commentators too have noticed the connection to the deuteronomic usage, even if they have not drawn the broader conclusions.37 Whether there is any significance to the fact that the phrase is put into the mouths of temple priests is difficult to ascertain. What is certain is that the name theology associated with the temple stuck with the author of 1 Maccabees. Several terms associated with the exodus, covenant and election of Israel in Deuteronomy are also used in 1 Maccabees. One of these is “your people Israel” (+:<' (/3).38 This phrase appears once in 1 Maccabees, in a prayer made by Judas requesting aid from Heaven against the Seleucid army (1 Macc 4:31). Judas asks the deity to “hem in this army by the hand of your people Israel” (ÊįºÁ¼ÀÊÇÅ ÌüŠȸɼĹÇÂüŠ̸į̾ŠëŠϼÀÉĖ ¸Çı ÊÇÍ Êɸ¾Â). Like the deuteronomic examples, the context is liturgical. Judas further recalls episodes reported in deuteronomic literature in the same prayer (1 Sam 14:17). It seems clear that Israel’s election before the divine lives on in the prayer of Judas. Whether the phrase is directly pulled from deuteronomic literature, or mirrors the frequent (10 times) use in the books of Chronicles is unclear; either way this aspect of election, which stems from Deuteronomy lives on in 1 Maccabees. A second set of terms related to the covenant and election of Israel, particularly pertaining to liturgical matters are the synonyms “prayer” and “supplication” (!1%=/!+6=).39 It is the use of these terms in tandem, usually as parallels, but at times as a combination of complimentary nouns and verbs, that particularly marks them as deuteronomic. Otherwise the ubiquity of such words could hardly be narrowed down to the particular theology of one school. At 1 Macc 7:37, a verse we have

37 38

39

not be considered deuteronomic; it is only when applied to the temple or the city that it becomes deuteronomic. Oesterley, “First Book,” 92; Goldstein, I Maccabees, 340. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 328. Deut 21:8; 26:15; 2 Sam 7:23–24; 1 Kgs 8:33–34, 38, 43, 52; Jer 32:21. He notes further that all the deuteronomic occurrences appear in a liturgical context. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 330. 1 Kgs 8:28, 30, 38, 45, 49, 52, 54; 9:3.

310

Francis Borchardt

already seen contains one deuteronomism, we encounter this pair in translation. After the priests have addressed the deity by reminding him that his name is called upon the temple, they continue that it is “to be a house of prayer and supplication for your people” (¼čŸÀ ÇčÁÇÅ ÈÉÇʼÍÏýË Á¸Ė »¼ûʼÑË ÌŊ ¸Ŋ ÊÇÍ). The terms ÈÉÇʼÍÏýË and »¼ûʼÑË are fairly consistently used to translate the Hebrew pair of !+6= and !1%= respectively, especially at 1 Kgs 8:28, 30, 38, 45, 54. When this fact is combined with the obvious liturgical setting (at the temple) and the close tie with the theology of election (ÌŊ ¸Ŋ ÊÇÍ) in the immediate context, it is evident that the usage in 1 Maccabees mirrors that of the deuteronomic literature.40 Under the general heading of observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant there are a wide variety of deuteronomic terms that make an appearance in 1 Maccabees. Weinfeld mentions that “to keep the commandment(s)/statutes/testimonies/judgments” ( /=#8//!#8/ :/< -'&6
40 41

42

Goldstein, I Maccabees, 340, even goes so far as to posit these lines in 1 Kings as a source for the priestly prayer. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 336. Deut: 23 times; Josh 22:5; 1 Kgs 2:3; 3:14; 9:4, 6; 8:58, 61; 11:11, 34, 38; 14:8; 2 Kgs 17:13, 19; 18:6; 23:3. He also notes that observance of a commandment occurs in a neutral (non-covenantal) sense in the Wisdom tradition. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 326–27. A number of the phrases Deuteronomy uses for justification have to do with Yahweh’s release of the people from Egypt.

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees

311

vives in this way, through becoming part of the common parlance of late Second Temple Judea. Another expression related to the same theme is “to turn right or left” (+/<# 0'/' ...:#2).43 This phrase is used particularly in cases of disloyalty to the law with the sense that one who turns to the right or left departs from the correct path. At 1 Macc 2:22, Mattathias announces to the Seleucid officers and the crowd gathered round them that he and his sons “will not heed the commands of the king, departing our religion to the right or the left” (ÌľÅ ÂĠºÑÅ ÌÇı ¹¸ÊÀÂñÑË ÇĤÁ ÒÁÇÍÊĠļ¿¸ ȸɼ¿¼ėÅ ÌüŠ¸Ìɼĕ¸Å ÷ÄľÅ »¼ÆÀÛÅ õ ÒÉÀÊ̼ÉÚÅ). That the covenant and law are the components of what Mattathias terms religion, is ensured by 2:20–21 where Mattathias announces that he and his sons will live by the covenant of the ancestors and not desert the law and the ordinances. This phrase appears to be used in the same context as the deuteronomic expression, particularly at Deut 17:20 and 2 Kgs 22:2, by proclaiming orthodoxy and fidelity to the covenant and law in the context of familial and ancestral relations. It may in fact be that 1 Maccabees is using this language to evoke the particularly dynastic context each of these passages provide. That is, Mattathias and his family are perhaps being presented as a new royal line, who is faithful to the covenant in the same way as the ideal king of Deuteronomy 17 and Josiah in 2 Kings 22. Regardless of the intention, the phrase is obviously influenced by Deuteronomy. Yet a third example of deuteronomic language specifically related to obedience to the law is “the book of the law” (!:#=! :62).44 Outside of deuteronomic literature the term is rather rare, especially when it does not have a modifier such as Moses or Yahweh. In Deuteronomy any reference to the book of the law appears to refer to part or all of Deuteronomy itself. In the related literature this is also supposed to be the case. The term is used twice in 1 Maccabees (¹À¹ÂĕÇÅ/¹À¹Âĕ¸ ÌġÅ ÅĠÄÇÅ /ÌÇı ÅÇÄÇı), at 1:56 and 3:48, both times referring to a physical scroll. In the first case, there are multiple such scrolls, which when found are destroyed by burning in fire. In the second case one scroll is unrolled in order to be consulted. It is hard to imagine that the phrase in either instance could refer to Deuteronomy alone, though it is not impossible. It is more likely, given the references to law discussed above that a larger corpus is referred to by this title. Despite this fact, the rarity of

43 44

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 339. Deut 5:29; 17:11, 20; 28:14; Josh 1:7; 23:6; 2 Kgs 22:2. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 339. Weinfeld combines this term with “this law” and “this book of the law” and cites the phrases nineteen times in Deuteronomy, at Josh 1:8, and at 2 Kgs 22:8, 11.

312

Francis Borchardt

the term outside of deuteronomic circles points to influence from Deuteronomy. A further connection comes from the general use in the area of observance of the law and covenant. At 1:56 the book is mentioned among those things that were attacked under Antiochus IV’s new policy. At 3:48 the use of the book of the law is contrasted with the gentiles’ use of their idols. Each of these instances testifies to the importance of the book as a tool or symbol of orthodox observance, just as it is used in Deuteronomy and especially 2 Kings. It is possible that the term became generally used in common parlance or literature outside of that which is available to us today, in which case the influence of Deuteronomy would be indirect, but given the clues it is more likely that 1 Maccabees borrows the term from the deuteronomic corpus. Another phrase, appearing very early on in 1 Maccabees also has dueteronomic origins. The theme in which this term carries weight as being deuteronomic is once again observance of the law. The expression is “sell oneself to do evil” (3:! =#<3+ :)/=!).45 The term is used of those people who, though members of Israel, depart from the covenant or the law, usually by following strange and foreign customs. It is used of Ahab twice and Israel and Judah once in the books of Kings. At 1 Macc 1:15 it refers to the outlaws of Israel who make a covenant with the Seleucid king to follow foreign laws and customs, and even go so far as to perform the painful operation of epispasm, the reversal of circumcision. The narrator comments “and they abandoned the holy covenant, were joined to the nations, and they were sold to do evil” (Á¸Ė ÒÈñÊ̾ʸŠÒÈġ »À¸¿ûÁ¾Ë Öºĕ¸Ë Á¸Ė 뽼ͺĕÊ¿¾Ê¸Å ÌÇėË ì¿Å¼ÊÀÅ Á¸Ė ëÈÉÚ¿¾Ê¸Å ÌÇı ÈÇÀýʸÀ Ìġ ÈÇžÉĠÅ). There can be no question, that the expression used here mimics the Hebrew phrase, as the same wording is used to translate 2 Kgs 17:17 and 1 Kgs 21:25 in the LXX.46 The context too is nearly identical. Members of Israel in each case are being chastised for breaking the laws and transgressing the covenant. The deuteronomic heritage is here seen quite clearly. Also part of this same passage is the final deuteronomic expression tied to the observance of law and covenant. The phrase is “cling to the nations” (-''# 9).47 This is generally used in the deuteronomic literature to refer to marriage or sexual intercourse, which at one time or another became taboo for the members of Israel due to the tendency of

45 46

47

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 341. 1 Kgs 21:20, 25; 2 Kgs 17:17. Oesterley, “First Book,” 68, makes the connection to 1 Kgs 21:20, as does Abel, Les Livres, 8. This is likely due to the reference in both passages not to rulers but to members of the community at large, as well as the report of the litany of misdeeds. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 341. Josh 23:12; 1 Kgs 11:2.

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees

313

these marriages to lead to idolatry. In 1 Maccabees the meaning is not exactly clear. As we can see from 1 Macc 1:15, quoted above 뽼ͺĕÊ¿¾Ê¸Å ÌÇėË ì¿Å¼ÊÀÅ is clearly in a context where the law is being forsaken, but it is unclear whether the verb ½¼Íºĕ½Ñ carries the sense of sexual relations. The term is used only here in the LXX, never in the Christian testament. It is related to the word for yoke ½¼ıºÇË and generally has the sense of being yoked in pairs. The part relating to harnessing beasts of burden does not seem to fit the sense used in deuteronomic literature, but the specific meaning of pairing may also carry the sense of sexual relations.48 If sexual relations are intended by this verb then it is not difficult to see from the other deuteronomic terms in the context that this term too would testify to deuteronomic influence. It should be pointed out that nowhere specifically are marriage or sexual relations with foreign women explicitly discouraged in 1 Maccabees. This may be a case where the familiar phraseology is being used, but in a new sense. The word “possession” (!<:') when applied to the land as an inheritance is also particularly deuteronomic.49 The concept of the possession is always related to the portions of land reserved for either all of Israel, or some tribe within it. The term used for the land as an inheritance in 1 Maccabees is “inheritance” (Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸), which mirrors the word used in the LXX to translate Deut 2:12; 3:20 and Josh 12:6 (LXX 11:6). 1 Maccabees uses the expression on four occasions to refer to the land (2:56; 6:24; 15:33, 34). At 6:24, the seizure of the inheritances of the opponents of the Hasmoneans is reported to the king in an attempt to thwart Hasmonean progress. These opponents are Judeans who consider themselves members of Israel (ÇĎ ÍĎÇĖ ÌÇı ¸Çı refers to the Hasmonean party), and have a stake in the land. At 1 Macc 2:56, Caleb’s reward for his testimony, a place in the land, is referred to as an inheritance. Though this refers to a story passed down to us in Num 14:4, 38, the term inheritance is nowhere used there. Caleb’s land is referred to as an inheritance, however, in Sirach 46:7 in the praise of the ancestors.50 This may mean that the expression is borrowed from Sirach’s usage, or more likely that the deuteronomic phrasing had become common in the 2nd century BCE. The twin use of the term “inheritance” for the land at 15:33 and 15:34 is put in the mouth of the high priest Simon, who informs the royal officer sent to ask him for tribute

48 49 50

Goldstein, I Maccabees, 201. Goldstein, however ties the term to Num 25:3 because of the root of “yoke.” Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 342. Deut 2:5, 9, 12, 19; 3:20; Josh 1:15; 12:6–7. Abel, Les Livres, 48.

314

Francis Borchardt

that the Judeans have neither taken foreign land or seized foreign property, but only reacquired the inheritance of their ancestors (Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸Ë ÌľÅ È¸ÌñÉÑÅ). Simon then affirms this by stating that the Judeans will hold fast to the inheritance of the ancestors in the following verse. In all these cases the use of the term clearly mimics the deuteronomic understanding of the land as a possession of all or part of Israel, even if in the case of Caleb, the deuteronomic phraseology might be mediated by another source. Also related to the broader context of the land as an inheritance in Deuteronomic literature is the phrase “these/those nations” (!+! -''#! /-!! -''#!).51 Though the nations are generally attached to the land in some way, they are also mentioned in a martial or cultic context in the deuteronomic sources. That is, they are either being spoken of as opponents in war (Deut 7:17, 22; 11:23 inter alia), or bad examples of cultic praxis (Deut 9:5; 12:30; 18:9 inter alia). There is one instance of this term in 1 Maccabees, which appears to fit both these requirements. At 1 Macc 3:58, Judas tells his forces assembled before battle that they should be ready early in the morning to fight with “these nations” (ÌÇėË ì¿Å¼ÊÀÅ ÌÇįÌÇÀË) who have assembled against us to destroy us and our sanctuary. The context is clearly martial, and the assembled nations include Syrians and Philistines (3:41), each of whom constitute deuteronomic people’s of the land. As the aim of this force is to dispossess and destroy Israel, it seems obvious that in this reference too, deuteronomic phraseology is being recalled. The main difference is that it is the Judeans who are on the defensive, and the nations who are attacking. This modification though is likely due to the contours of history and has little to do with the phrase “these nations” anyway. The command to “be strong and resolute” (7/# 9$%) is used in deuteronomic literature under the umbrella of military conquest of the land, but it is also later extended to observance of the law.52 1 Maccabees picks up on the use of the term from Joshua 1:7, in a legal context. At 2:64 Mattathias commands his children to “be courageous and grow strong in the law” (ÒÅ»Éĕ½¼Ê¿¼ Á¸Ė ĊÊÏįʸ̼ ëÅ ÌŊ ÅĠÄŊ) in the midst of his commission to them to continue his work after his death. This not only mimics the language of Josh 1:7, but also the setting of a commission. The terms ÒÅ»Éĕ½Ñ and ĊÊÏįÑ are frequently used in the LXX to translate this particular phrase (Deut 31:6–7, 23; Josh 1:7 inter alia). This leaves little doubt as to the deuteronomic heritage of this term as employed by 51 52

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 343. Deut 7:17, 22; 9:4–5; 11:23; 12:30; 18:9, 14; 20:15–16; 31:3; Josh 23:3–4, 12, 13; Judg 2:23; 3:1. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 5, 343. Deut 3:31; 6:7, 23; Josh 1:6, (7), 9, 18; 10:25.

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees

315

1 Maccabees. It appears that the author of 1 Maccabees knew the usage in Josh 1:7 and repeated in his own work to make a comparison between Joshua on the one hand and Judas and Simon on the other.53 The seemingly basic phrase “have no dread” (#8:3= +/7:3= +) is also particularly deuteronomic when used in the context of military conquests of the land.54 Though the phrase is constantly translated differently in the LXX, making it hard to pick out in Greek, and separate from the more ubiquitous “have no fear” (:'= +), there appear to be two instances where 1 Maccabees picks up the deuteronomic phraseology. First, at 1 Macc 3:22, Judas answers the fear of his troops before the multitude of their enemies by giving them a speech about salvation by divine aid, which closes with the instruction “do not be afraid of them” (Äü Îǹ¼ėÊ¿¼ ÒÈЏ ¸ĤÌľÅ). Though this does not resemble any of the LXX renderings of the deuteronomic phrase (Äü ÈÌûƾ̼/ÌÉÑ¿ûÊþ/ ëÁÁÂĕž̼/»¼ÀÂĕ¸/ÈÌǾ¿ĉË/»¼ÀÂÀÚÊþË) it is not inconceivable as a synonym. In fact, in many of the deuteronomic passages, it appears to be used in synonymous parallelism with the term translating 7:3= (Josh 1:9; Deut 1:29; 20:3; 31:6). When this evidence is added to the similarities between 1 Macc 3:22 and Deut 20:3, one must consider the possible connection. The passage in Deuteronomy instructs Israel that when they go to war and see an army larger than their own, a priest should come before them and speak to the troops telling them not to be afraid of their enemies because Yahweh goes with them to fight for them and give them victory. 1 Maccabees has Judas (a priest, 2:1–4, 54) go out before battle with a strong and well-equipped army (3:17) of Seleucids and Samaritans and tell the army that it makes no difference what size the armies are, but that Heaven fights alongside them and will crush their enemies, so they should not be afraid. It appears as if Judas is fulfilling the commands of Deut 20:3 in his instruction. This suggests that the term translated as Äü Îǹ¼ėÊ¿¼ may have originated as #8:3= +. The context fits well with the nations roundabout meeting Judas and his band of followers in battle in order to retake the land. The second instance of this term comes at 1 Macc 4:8, which again has Judas speaking to his army before a battle with an opposing force made up of Syrians, Philistines (in an archaism repeated frequently in 1 Maccabees), and Seleucid soldiers. In this situation he commands his soldiers, “do not fear their numbers or be afraid of their charge” (Äü

53

54

Contra Goldstein, I Maccabees, 242, who sees this verse as a reference to Deut 4:6. Not only is there much less verbal similarity, but the setting is not matched with the same strength as that of Joshua 1:7. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 344. Deut 1:29; 7:21; 20:3; 31:6; Josh 1:9.

316

Francis Borchardt

Îǹ¼ėÊ¿¼ Ìġ ÈÂý¿ÇË ¸ĤÌľÅ Á¸Ė Ìġ ĞÉľĸ ¸ĤÌľÅ Äü »¼ÀÂÑ¿ý̼). Here again, we run into trouble with the Greek terms, but also have a connection to Deut 1:29 and 20:3. The speech by the priest Judas before his troops incites courage in them by reminding them of divine aid and recalls Deut 20:3. The recollection of divine aid of the ancestors while commanding Israel not to be afraid has some similarities with Yahweh’s instructions to Israel at Deut 1:29. In each case the context of war with the inhabitants of the land is in place. This suggests that the use of the term in 1 Maccabees is inspired by the deuteronomic corpus. In the broad area of deuteronomic rhetoric and paranetic phraseology there are two more phrases that make an appearance in 1 Maccabees. The first of these is “shed innocent blood” ('91 - (6<).55 This phrase is used in a variety of contexts, either as a description of an evil act, a crime that deserves punishment, or a report of the acts of a king, among others. In 1 Maccabees the term is used once, in a lament following the sack of Jerusalem by the Seleucids (1:37). The lament recounts the many evils that befell Jerusalem, among them it is reported that the Seleucids “shed innocent blood” (ëÆñϼ¸Å ¸đĸ Ò¿ŊÇÅ) on every side of the sanctuary. The Greek term is identical to that used by the translator of 2 Kgs 21:16 and 24:4, which describe the events of the reigns of Manasseh and Jehoiakim respectively, though both concern the reign of Manasseh. The second phrase used in 1 Maccabees that belongs to broadly defined deuteronomic expressions is “so that all the peoples of the earth will know” (7:! '/3 +) =3/0#3' 03/+).56 This phrase is generally used in a context related to a special act or event that will bring the recognition of the one god of Israel to the nations. It can also be tied to a request, as at 1 Kgs 8:43, where Solomon asks Yahweh to hear the prayers of foreigners at the Jerusalem temple. In 1 Maccabees, a very similar phrase is used at 4:11. Judas first speaks to his troops and encourages them before battle by reminding them of divine favor (4:8–9). He then exhorts his followers to cry to Heaven to ask whether the divine will destroy the approaching army with the result that “all the nations will know that there is one who redeems and saves Israel” (Á¸Ė ºÅļÊÇÅ̸À ÈÚÅ̸ ÌÛ ì¿Å¾ ĞÌÀ ìÊÌÀÅ ĝ ÂÍÌÉÇįļÅÇË Á¸Ė Êň½ÑÅ ÌġÅ Êɸ¾Â). The pertinent part of the phrase is translated nearly identically to the LXX translations of Josh 4:24 and 1 Kgs 8:43. The only difference is that these contain the conjunction ĞÈÑË and follow with the verb in the subjunctive mood. Like the other instances of the phrase, this has the intention of 55 56

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 356. Deut 19:10; 21:8; 2 Kgs 21:16; 24:4; Jer 7:6; 19:4; 22:3. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 358. Deut 28:10; Josh 4:24; 1 Kgs 8:43, 60.

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees

317

revealing something about the nature of the divine to the nations while simultaneously requesting something on Israel’s behalf. These last two instances of deuteronomic phraseology in 1 Maccabees close out this section. We have seen that there are a significant amount of deuteronomic phrases found in 1 Maccabees which are tied to specific themes which are of special importance to the book of Deuteronomy and deuteronomic literature. Through this analysis of deuteronomic phrases it appears that the most important parts of the deuteronomic heritage to 1 Maccabees are the struggle against idolatry, the observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant, exodus, covenant, election, and inheritance of the land. Of far less interest to 1 Maccabees are the centralization of the cult, the monotheistic creed, retribution and material motivation, fulfillment of prophecy, and the election of the Davidic dynasty. It is interesting to note that a considerable majority of these instances of deuteronomisms are put into the mouths of some of the main characters of 1 Maccabees. The conclusions one can draw from this are diverse. It is possible that deuteronomic phrases seeped into official speech of the Hasmoneans in actuality, or that they were intended to show the piety and ancestral heritage of the characters, or that these were simply the most logical or stylistically appropriate places to add the references to deuteronomic literature. Whatever the case, deuteronomic phraseology abounds in 1 Maccabees.

Deuteronomic Themes in 1 Maccabees Though the direct legal references and repetition of phraseology are more reliable indicators of deuteronomic influence on a text, one can also trace what might be considered deuteronomic themes throughout 1 Maccabees. One sees the struggle against idolatry highlighted in the attacks on the sacred precincts of other peoples living on the borders of Judea (5:43–44, 68; 10:84; 11:4). It is also possible to see a strong tendency toward cult centralization in numerous actions throughout the book (1:54–55; 2:7, 12, 25, 45; 3:43, 50–51, 58–59; 4:33, 37–38, 41, 43–61; 7:42; 10:43; 13:3, 6; 14:29). The exodus, covenant, and election can also be seen in parts of the speeches of Judas that do not contain deuteronomic phraseology, but do share the ideals (3:18–20; 4:9–10). Observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant are also highly visible in various passages throughout 1 Maccabees, whether by condemning those who forsake the laws or break the covenant, or celebrating the act of protecting the covenant and laws (1:13, 44–46, 48–50, 52, 57, 63; 2:20–21, 27, 42, 50, 58, 67; 3:21; 4:42; 6:59; 10:14; 13:3, 48, 50; 14:29). Through the pres-

318

Francis Borchardt

ence of these thematic ties we can see the full effect Deuteronomy has on 1 Maccabees, even when it is neither quoted nor referenced.

Conclusions We have seen in the legal references to 1 Maccabees, the laws of Deuteronomy dominate. Out of the four instances where laws are directly referred to, it appears that three of those have a source in Deuteronomy. We have further noticed that these particularly have to do with cultic matters related to the construction and dedication of the altar of sacrifice and with rules of war. We have separately observed that among the most prominent themes presented by the use of deuteronomic phraseology in 1 Maccabees are the struggle against idolatry, inheritance of the land, observance of the law and covenant, and the triad of exodus, covenant, and election. Thematically, the deuteronmic heritage is most strongly felt in the struggle against idolatry, centralization of the cult, and observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant. We have seen, then, that there is a wide array of deuteronomic influence displayed by 1 Maccabees, but this is particularly noticeable in matters pertaining to law, the cult, and the land. There should be no surprise at this, as these are the three institutions that were under attack in the Hasmonean era, and the three areas in defense of which the Maccabees had the most success. They reestablished the law (6:59), renewed and protected the cult (4:53), and gained independence and defined borders for the land of Judea (13:41–42; 15:33–34). It only makes sense that an author trying to underline their accomplishments would turn to the sources that best supported his effort. In this case it was Deuteronomy and other deuteronomic literature.

Bibliography Abel, Felix-Marie. Les Livres des Maccabées. Paris: Gabalda, 1949. Bartlett, John R. 1Maccabees. Sheffiled: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Brooke, George J. “The Formation and Renewal of Scriptural Tradition.” Pages 39–59 in Biblical Traditions in Transmission: Essays in Honour of Michael A. Knibb. Edited by Judith Lieu and Charlotte Hempel. JSJSup 111. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees. AB 41. Garden City: Doubleday, 1976. Lim, Timothy H. “Deuteronomy in the Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 6–26 in Deuteronomy in the New Testament: The New Testament and the

The Deuteronomic Legacy of 1 Maccabees

319

Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Steven Moyise and Maarten J.J. Menken. LNTS 358. London: T & T Clark, 2007. Martola, Nils. Capture and Liberation: A Study in the Composition of the First Book of Maccabees. Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. A: Humaniora 63, 1. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1984. McConville, J. Gordon. Law and Theology in Deuteronomy. JSOTS 33. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Oesterley, William Oscar Emil. “The First Book of Maccabees.” Pages 59–124 in APOT 1. Edited by R. H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. Person, Raymond F. Jr. The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Rappaport, Uriel. “The First Book of Maccabees.” Pages 711–33 in The Oxford Bible Commentary. Edited by John Barton and John Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Schwartz, Seth. “Israel and the Nations Roundabout: 1 Maccabees and the Hasmonean Expansion” JJS 42/1 (1991): 16–38. Sievers, Joseph. The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters: From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Vogt, Peter T. Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. 2nd ed. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Williams, David S. The Structure of 1Maccabees. CBQMS. Washinton: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1999. Zeitlin, Solomon. The First Book of Maccabees. New York: Harper and Son, 1950.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch Marko Marttila

1. Introduction The deuterocanonical book of Baruch is branded by its extensive adherence to earlier biblical books. Quotations from and allusions to the scriptures are plentiful, and this has been the reason for some harsh but justified statements: no sentence in this book is original, not even its goal.1 Because of its nature, however, the Book of Baruch is a valuable text when we turn to look at how it reflects Deuteronomistic phraseology and theology. The Book of Baruch was very likely written in Hebrew,2 but the Hebrew text has since then disappeared. Therefore our analysis below must be based on the Greek translation.3 There are different scholarly opinions concerning the composition of the book. Some argue that the book consists of different independent parts that were later put together by an editor.4 I am, however, inclined to prefer Odil Hannes Steck’s 1

2

3

4

Ivo Meyer, “Das Buch Baruch und der Brief des Jeremia,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. E. Zenger; Studienbücher Theologie 1,1; 5th edition; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), 484–88 (487–88). Odil Hannes Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration »kanonischer«Überlieferung (FRLANT 160; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 249–53; Alison Salvesen, “Baruch,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary (ed. J. Barton and J. Muddiman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 699–703 (699); Meyer, “Baruch,” 484. The consulted critical text edition is Joseph Ziegler, Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, vol. XV; 2nd edition; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976). Recently, this view has been favoured by Shannon Burkes, “Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch,” JSJ 30 (1999): 253–76 (269), and by Salvesen, “Baruch,” 699–700, who speaks of a compilation of three quite different compositions, referring thus to a prose part (Bar 1:1–3:8) and two poetic parts (Bar 3:9–4:4

322

Marko Marttila

very detailed study where he convincingly demonstrates that the four parts of the book (Einleitung 1:1–15a¸; Bußgebet 1:15a¹–3:8; Mahnrede 3:9–4:4 and Verheißungsrede 4:5–5:9) form an intentional unity.5 This does not necessarily mean that it was an individual who wrote the Book of Baruch. Rather, we should assume that there was a group of scribes behind the name “Baruch.”6 As regards the date of the book, there are some firm facts that give us a broad frame. Baruch was clearly aware of Dan 9, which functions as a model for his penitential prayer in Bar 1:15a¹–3:8. Furthermore, Baruch seems to presuppose the existence of Sir 1:1–10 and Sir 24 (cf. Bar 3:9–4:4).7 These connections hint at an origin after 165 BCE. Even though the Book of Baruch is not attested with certainty until the time of the Church Fathers, the similarities between Baruch and the Psalms of Solomon are so striking that a literary dependence ought to be assumed. But which composition is the later one? This is a problematic question, and it probably remains impossible to decide indisputably, but there are certain features implying that the author of the Psalms of Solomon would have known the basic form of Bar 4–5.8 Because Pss. Sol. 11 presupposes Pompey’s entry into the temple of Jerusalem, we gain a terminus ad quem for the Book of Baruch. There are still many possibilities as to where to locate Baruch between 165 and 63 BCE. If we

5

6 7

8

and Bar 4:5–5:9). A more refined literary- and redaction-critical model was suggested in the 1970s by Antonius Gunneweg, who argued that each unit had its own origin: The penitential prayer (Bar 1:15–2:35) and the wisdom part (Bar 3:9–4:4) were secondarily put together by composing and inserting Bar 3:1–8 between these sequences. Gunneweg considers it likely that the redactor who created 3:1–8 also joined the originally independent words of consolation (4:5–5:9) into the growing composition. Finally, the introduction (1:1–14) was added to the beginning of the book. For further details, see Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Das Buch Baruch (JSHRZ, Band III; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975), 167–70. That the Book of Baruch consists of three sections and of a secondary introduction (1:1–14) is also suggested by David G. Burke, The Poetry of Baruch. A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9 (SBLSCS 10; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), 4–6, 18. Steck, Baruchbuch, 265, summarizes after a meticulous exegesis: “Sowohl auf der Textoberfläche als auch erst recht in dem Hintergrund der Textgenese spricht alles dafür, daß Bar in seinen vier Teilen von vornherein als ein Ganzes konzipiert ist und von Anfang an eine literarische Einheit darstellt.” An even more precise definition is suggested by Steck, Baruchbuch, 306–7, who derives the authors from the circle of the Hasideans. Johannes Marböck, Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira (BZAW 272; 2nd edition; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 57. See also Steck, Baruchbuch, 135 n. 77. Concerning the date of Baruch, Burke, Poetry, 26–28, has composed an illuminating list of previous scholarly opinions. See the discussion in Steck, Baruchbuch, 240–42.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

323

endeavour to reach a more precise date, the number of uncertainties simultaneously increases. The most detailed research in this field was done by Steck, who attempted to demonstrate that the Book of Baruch was written in 163–162 BCE. 9 Steck’s arguments are based on the plausible starting point that the Book of Baruch originated after the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem. Then Steck goes on to argue that the political stability reflected by Baruch does not coincide with the sudden assassination of Antiochus V that took place in autumn 162 BCE, and neither does Baruch hint at the inner-Jewish military achievements in the subsequent years. Moreover, the transition of the High Priest’s title to Jonathan in 152 BCE seems to be unknown to Baruch. On the basis of these observations, Steck concludes that the Book of Baruch must have been written during the reign of Antiochus V. Undoubtedly, Steck has done competent work, but I am not yet fully convinced whether we can define the origin of the Book of Baruch so accurately. The Book of Baruch contains only few such sentences that could reliably be connected with actual historical events of the author’s own day. Perhaps it is better to broaden the temporal framework from Steck’s hypothesis and suggest the second century BCE as the most likely date for Baruch. Concerning the place of origin, scholars are quite unanimous: the Book of Baruch was written in Palestine, presumably in Jerusalem.10 After these introductory remarks it is time to turn to the contents of Baruch’s work and focus on the way in which he benefits from Deuteronomistic language and theology. In addition to Dtr phraseology, Baruch to a great extent makes use of the following biblical books: Isaiah (esp. chapters 40–66), Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Psalms, Job (esp. chapter 28), Lamentations, Daniel (esp. chapter 9) and Ezra-Nehemiah.11

2. Deuteronomistic Expressions in the Book of Baruch The Deuteronomistic influence can be detected in two ways: either as direct quotations or as allusions. Recognition of direct quotations from Deuteronomy, for instance, is impeded because we do not have access to the Hebrew text of Baruch. Fortunately, the quotations are often so 9 10 11

Steck, Baruchbuch, 294–303. Steck, Baruchbuch, 306; Ernst Haag, Das hellenistische Zeitalter. Israel und die Bibel im 4. bis 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr (BiblE 9; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003), 189. For a quick survey, see the useful table in Steck, Baruchbuch, 278.

324

Marko Marttila

obvious that they can be discerned even through the Greek translation. The strongest concentration of Dtr terminology can be found in Baruch’s penitential prayer (Bar 1:15a¹–3:8). This prayer most firmly adheres to the vocabulary and structure of Daniel’s confession of sin in Dan 9:4–19. Even the order of the corresponding sentences is virtually identical.12 Hence, there can be no doubt that the author of Baruch knew Daniel’s prayer. Daniel 9:4–19 clearly differs from the other material in the Book of Daniel, and it has been suggested with good reason that this prayer had an independent existence before it was attached to the Book of Daniel.13 Whether Baruch had known this prayer as a part of the Book of Daniel or as a separate text is difficult to decide, but I am inclined to propose that Baruch was aware of the Book of Daniel in its full length. This would explain why both of these works err in regarding Belshazzar (¸ÂÌ¸Ê¸É in Greek) as the son of King Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 5:2, 11, 18; Bar 1:11–12).14 Though Daniel’s prayer was a Vorlage for Baruch, the penitential prayer in Bar 1:15a¹–3:8 is a pastiche that exploits Deuteronomistic and Jeremianic passages to a considerable extent. In an appendix to this article I will give a full list of the parallels between Baruch’s penitential prayer and other biblical books, but below I will exclusively focus on the similarities between Baruch and Dtr literature. Deuteronomistic literature is represented by the books from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. The first connection between Baruch’s prayer and Deuteronomy can be found in Bar 1:19. Here Baruch even deviates from his “main source,” the prayer of Daniel, which does not mention Israel’s exodus from Egypt until in 9:15. Instead, Bar 1:19 leans on Deut 9:7b, as the following comparison illustrates.

12 13

14

Steck, Baruchbuch, 80, 89. John J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 346, after having given a survey of different solutions as suggested by earlier scholars, comes to the conclusion that the prayer in Dan 9 was not composed by the author of Dan 9 but was purposefully included by him in the present context, and consequently this prayer cannot be considered “secondary” in the strict sense of the word. See also Jürgen van Oorschot, “Nachkultische Psalmen und spätbiblische Rollendichtung,” ZAW 106 (1994): 69–86 (80–81); Hans-Christoph Schmitt, Arbeitsbuch zum Alten Testament. Grundzüge der Geschichte Israels und der alttestamentlichen Schriften (UTB 2146; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 460. Burke, Poetry, 20.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

325

Bar 1:19 ÒÈġ ÌýË ÷ĚɸË, úË ëÆûº¸º¼Å ÁįÉÀÇË ÌÇİË È¸ÌšÉ¸Ë ÷ÄľÅ ëÁ ºýË ĊºįÈÌÇÍ, Á¸Ė ïÑË ÌýË ÷ÄšÉ¸Ë Ì¸įÌ¾Ë ôļ¿¸ ÒȼÀ¿ÇıÅÌ¼Ë ÈÉġË ÁįÉÀÇÅ ¿¼ġÅ ÷ÄľÅ Á¸Ė ëÊϼ»ÀÚ½ÇļŠÈÉġË Ìġ Äü ÒÁÇį¼ÀÅ ÌýË ÎÑÅýË ¸ĤÌÇı. From the day when the Lord brought our ancestors out of the land of Egypt until this day, we have been disobedient to the Lord our God, and we have acted carelessly, in not heeding his voice. Deut 9:7b !#!'¡-3 -=''! -':// !$! -#9/!¡3 -)¡3 -':8/ 7:/ =8'¡:< -#'!¡0/+ ÒÎЏ úË ÷ÄšÉ¸Ë ëÆû¿¼Ì¼ ëÆ ĊºįÈÌÇÍ ïÑË ô¿¼Ì¼ ¼ĊË ÌġÅ ÌĠÈÇÅ ÌÇıÌÇÅ, ÒȼÀ¿ÇıÅÌ¼Ë »À¼Ì¼Â¼ė̼ ÌÛ ÈÉġË ÁįÉÀÇÅ. From the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this place, you have been disobedient towards the Lord.

The remembrance of how God delivered his people from the slavery of Egypt and how the people had continuously been disobedient to God are some of the basic ideas of the Dtr editors. The most significant difference between Bar 1:19 and Deut 9:7b is the change of subject. Pure Dtr parenesis is addressed in the second person (either singular or plural), but it is a characteristic feature of the later confessions and prayers that they favour the first person plural,15 as is the case with Baruch’s penitential prayer. In Bar 1:20, a reference is made to the calamities and the curse that the Lord declared through his servant Moses. This clearly alludes to Deut 28:15–68 where a long list of various curses is decreed upon a defiant people. Deuteronomistic is further the title “servant” used with Moses (cf. Deut 34:5; Josh 1:1–15). In addition to these features, Bar 1:20 repeats the reference to the exodus event and says that the Lord gave a land flowing with milk and honey. Inheritance of the land and its pos-

15

Timo Veijola, “Das Klagegebet in Literatur und Leben der Exilsgeneration am Beispiel einiger Prosatexte,” in Moses Erben. Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum (BWANT 149; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 176–91 (190), has paid attention to the shift in how the earlier complaints are put aside and replaced by confessions of sin: “Das Sündenbekenntnis ist ein Phänomen, das die jungen Gebete charakterisiert. Im nachexilischen Zeitalter kommt die Anklage Gottes fast ganz zum Schweigen, und an ihre stelle tritt das Bußgebet (vgl. Ps 106; Esr 9:6–15; Neh 1:5–11; 9:5–37; Dan 9:4–19). Ein wesentliches Merkmal der nachexilischen Bußgebete ist, daß sie die Gerechtigkeit Jahwes als Kehrseite der menschlichen Schuld stark betonen.”

326

Marko Marttila

session are central Dtr emphases that can be detected time and again in Dtr compositions.16 Baruch 1:21 is a reminder that the people did not listen to the voice of Yahweh as revealed by the prophets. That Yahweh sends prophets to his people has parallels in Dtr literature (e.g. Deut 18:15–22). Baruch 1:22 is full of Dtr phraseology and deserves a more detailed analysis. Bar 1:22 Á¸Ė ĴÏĠļ¿¸ ïÁ¸ÊÌÇË ëÅ »À¸ÅÇĕß Á¸É»ĕ¸Ë ¸ĤÌÇı ÌýË ÈÇžÉÜË ëɺڽ¼Ê¿¸À ¿¼ÇėË îÌñÉÇÀË ÈÇÀýʸÀ ÌÛ Á¸ÁÛ Á¸ÌЏ Ěο¸ÂÄÇİË ÁÍÉĕÇÍ ¿¼Çı ÷ÄľÅ. But all of us went in the intent of our own wicked hearts by serving other gods and doing what is evil in the sight of the Lord our God.

This verse picks up one of the most crucial Dtr topics: the abomination caused by idolatry. The worship of foreign gods is repeatedly prohibited in the Dtr texts,17 but still the people are easily tempted to commit this sin. Even the concluding phrase in Bar 1:22 – “to do what is evil in the sight of Yahweh” – is widely used, as is its positive counterpart in Dtr literature: Deut 4:25; 9:18; 17:2; 31:29; Judg 2:11; 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1; 1 Sam 15:19; 2 Sam 12:9; more than 40 times in 1–2 Kings; Ps 51:6. It is noteworthy that in the LXX of Deuteronomy the Hebrew expression !#!' '1'3 3:! !<3is every time translated with the structure ÈÇÀ¼ėÅ Ìġ ÈÇžÉġÅ ëŸÅÌĕÇÅ ÁÍÉĕÇÍ, taking thus the Hebrew '1'3 as a semipreposition.18 Also, in other occurrences mentioned above '1'3is rendered either with ëŸÅÌĕÇÅ or ëÅļÈÀÇÅ, except in 2 Sam 12:9 (ëÅ Ěο¸ÂÄÇėË), which aims to be a more slavish rendering like Bar 1:22. It has been argued that the preference of using semiprepositions instead of the literal rendering ëÅ Ěο¸ÂÄÇėË reveals the Greek translators’ attempt avoid giving too anthropomorphic a picture of God,19 but this theory does not pass the test because the LXX of 2 Kgs renders !#!' '1'3 with ëÅ Ěο¸ÂÄÇėË a numerous 23 times. Even though we do not have access to the Hebrew

16 17 18

19

Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 341–43. See the several references in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320–24. See the more extensive discussion in Raija Sollamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (AASF.DHL 19; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979), 123–46. James D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (HSM 1; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 13–17.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

327

parental text of Baruch, this small detail indicates that the Greek translation is at least here rather literal. Baruch 2:2 utilizes the wording of Deut 4:32b, even though the context is different. Deuteronomy 4:32b focuses on Israel’s special status among the nations because only Israel heard God speaking out of a fire. This is a positive statement about Israel, while Bar 2:2 uses the same imagery in a negative sense: the destruction of Jerusalem was incomparable with anything else that had ever happened under the whole of heaven. Baruch’s reference to cannibalism in 2:3 has its background in Deut 28:53 (par. Lev 26:29). Although Baruch’s dependence on Deut 28:53 is evident here, this affinity cannot be considered a sign of Deuteronomistic heritage in Baruch because references to cannibalism are not typical of Dtr phraseology.20 Deuteronomistic editors often refer to the perception that God’s own people will be/have been scattered among the nations (-'' 7'6!; see e.g. Deut 4:27; 28:64; 30:3).21 Baruch seizes on this theme in Bar 2:4, 29 and 3:8; the same verb »À¸ÊȼĕÉÑ is used in all of them. It was the people’s disloyalty that caused their dispersion. Baruch 2:11 returns to the topic of exodus. This verse includes so much Dtr colour that it needs a closer look. Bar 2:11 Á¸Ė ÅıÅ, ÁįÉÀ¼ ĝ ¿¼ġË Êɸ¾Â, ğË ëÆûº¸º¼Ë ÌġŠ¸ĠÅ ÊÇÍ ëÁ ºýË ĊºįÈÌÇÍ ëŠϼÀÉĖ Áɸ̸Àê Á¸Ė ëŠʾļĕÇÀË Á¸Ė ëÅ ÌñɸÊÀÅ Á¸Ė ëÅ »ÍÅÚļÀ ļºÚÂþ Á¸Ė ëÅ ¹É¸ÏĕÇÅÀ ĨоÂŊ Á¸Ė ëÈÇĕ¾Ê¸Ë ʼ¸ÍÌŊ ěÅÇĸ ĸË ÷ ÷Äñɸ ¸ĩ̾. And now, O Lord God of Israel, who brought your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and with signs and wonders and with great power and with outstretched arm, and made yourself a name like it is today.

Baruch’s passage presupposes some characteristic Dtr sayings. Principally, I am against retroversions because they are usually too subjective and methodologically questionable,22 but to make the comparison easi20 21 22

Cannibalistic acts also occur in 2 Kgs 6:24–31; Jer 19:9; Lam 2:20; 4:10. More occurrences in Steck, Baruchbuch, 103 n. 122. Scholars have often employed retroversions in those parts in the Wisdom of Ben Sira where the Hebrew text is not preserved, but Benjamin G. Wright, No Small Difference. Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text (SBLSCS 26; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 233–50, reminds us of the dangers of such a procedure. The same is valid for the investigation of Baruch. Emanuel Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch. A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–

328

Marko Marttila

er I dare this time to propose a Hebrew retroversion for Bar 2:11 because the Greek text is so transparent: =8#! :< +:<' '!+ !#!' !=3# (+ ='<3# !'#&1 3#:$# +# %)# -'=6#/# =#=# !9$% ' -':8/ 7:/ (/3¡= !$! -#') -<.23 This is a combination of several Dtr elements that are put together by Baruch. That God brought his people out of Egypt is a recurrent theme in Dtr texts (e.g. Deut 5:6; 8:14; 9:12; 13:11; 15:15). This statement is followed by a long list of attributes that underline God’s power. The most typical word pair is “strong hand and outstretched arm” ( !'#&1 3#:$# !9$% '/ëŠϼÀÉĖ Áɸ̸Àê Á¸Ė ëÅ ¹É¸ÏĕÇÅÀ ĨоÂŊ), which occurs in Deut 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kgs 8:42. All these passages of Deuteronomy refer to the exodus, but 1 Kgs 8:42 is a part of Solomon’s prayer in the temple in which he mentions the foreigners who might have heard of Yahweh’s great name, his mighty hand and outstretched arm, which naturally can also allude to the exodus. “Signs and wonders” (-'=6#/# =#=/ëŠʾļĕÇÀË Á¸Ė ëÅ ÌñɸÊÀÅ) is a word pair that is frequently attested in Dtr literature, e.g. Deut 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 26:8; 29:2; 34:11. All these occurrences hint at the plagues that God sent upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians (cf. Exod 7:3). In a couple of places the Dtr literature uses the phrase “with great might and outstretched arm”(!'#&1 3#:$# +# %)/ëÅ »ÍÅÚļÀ ļºÚÂþ Á¸Ė ëÅ ¹É¸ÏĕÇÅÀ ĨоÂŊ), namely in Deut 9:29 and 2 Kgs 17:36. Once again a reference is made to God’s powerful act of bringing his people out of Egypt. A later text, Neh 1:10, retains the same wording. Nowhere else, however, are so many exodus-orientated attributes linked together as in Bar 2:11. This particular example well illustrates why Baruch’s work can justifiably be called a pastiche. He has been throughout familiar with the Dtr terminology, and in connection with the exodus event he has had the

23

3:8 (HSM 8; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 111, stresses that the reconstruction of the lost Hebrew Vorlage can only be a tentative attempt, but there are two factors that facilitate this task: first, Baruch was translated with literal accuracy by a relatively consistent translator, and secondly, the reconstruction can be supported by many biblical parallels which the author of the Hebrew Baruch most likely had in mind. David G. Burke composed a full-scale monograph in the 1980s in which he endeavoured to reconstruct the lost Hebrew text of Bar 3:9–5:9. Burke admits the difficulties that are involved in such an enterprise, but he defends himself by insisting that the case with Baruch differs from many other books because of the derivative nature of Baruch. According to Burke, Poetry, 38, the reconstruction is also facilitated by the existence of numerous well-established and highly predictable lexical equivalencies between the LXX and the Masoretic text, by the availability of a wealth of parallels in various canonical and noncanonical works (including the Qumran), by the significant accumulation of data regarding Hebrew grammar, syntax and parallelism, and by the ever-increasing body of information about contemporary Alexandrian Greek. This retroversion essentially accords with Tov’s reconstruction of the Hebrew text of Bar 2:11; see Tov, Translation, 128.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

329

opportunity to cite as many relevant words as possible. Furthermore, at the end of v. 11 Baruch makes use of some other Dtr elements. He mentions that God made himself a name. This is an explicit reference to the Deuteronomistic theology of “name” (-<). It is several times declared that Yahweh will choose a site at which his name will dwell (Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2), that he will put his name there (Deut 12:5, 21; 14:24) or that his name will be there (1 Kgs 8:16, 29; 2 Kgs 23:27). Even the other peoples of the earth shall see that Israel is called by the name of Yahweh (Deut 28:10), a sentence that comes close to Bar 2:11. Even the last temporal note “as today” in Bar 2:11 (!$! -#')/ĸË ÷ ÷Äñɸ ¸ĩ̾) contains Deuteronomistic repercussions because !$! -#')is repeatedly attested in the realm of Dtr literature: Deut 2:30; 4:20, 38; 6:24; 8:18; 10:15; 29:27; 1 Kgs 3:6; 8:24, 61.24 The confession of sin in Bar 2:12 has striking similarities with 1 Kgs 8:47b¹, as the comparison below indicates. It is very likely that Baruch has borrowed this threefold confession from the prayer of Solomon. Bar 2:12 ÷ÄÚÉÌÇļŠóʼ¹ûʸļŠó»ÀÁûʸļÅ, ÁįÉÀ¼ ĝ ¿¼ġË ÷ÄľÅ, ëÈĖ ÈÜÊÀÅ ÌÇėË »ÀÁ¸ÀļĸÊÀÅ ÊÇÍ. We have sinned, we have been ungodly, we have done wrong, O Lord our God, against all your ordinances. 1 Kgs 8:47b¹ ÷ÄÚÉÌÇļŠóÅÇÄûʸļŠó»ÀÁûʸļÅ

#13<: #1'#3!# #1&%

We have sinned, and we have done wrong, we have acted wickedly.

Baruch 2:13 continues the theme of the dispersion of Israel (cf. Bar 2:4 above). The closest parallel to Bar 2:13 is undoubtedly Deut 4:27. Bar 2:15 includes a plea that all the earth may come to know that Yahweh is the God of Israel, and in its wording Bar 2:15 adheres even more firmly to Deut 28:10 than Bar 2:11. The admonition to God in Bar 2:16 (“O Lord, look down from your holy dwelling”) is an almost verbatim quotation from Deut 26:15 (“Look down from your holy habitation”). Even Dan 9:18 contains a request that God would incline his ear and hear the cry of his people, but God’s holy dwelling on high is not stressed there. 24

As Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 350, rightly remarks, the occurrences of !$! -#') in Dan 9:7, 15; Ezra 9:7, 15; Neh 9:10 and 1 Chr 28:7 are influenced by the Deuteronomic usage. To this list Bar 2:11 can legitimately be added.

330

Marko Marttila

The petition of Bar 2:16 is repeated in Bar 2:17 in other words: this time it is asked that God open his eyes and see the miserable fate of his people. It is much more usual in the biblical texts that God is asked to incline his ear and hear, but that God should open his eyes is a request made more rarely. Once again, the parallel and background for Baruch’s choice of words can be found in the Deuteronomistic literature. In 2 Kgs 19:16, King Hezekiah prays to the Lord and asks for divine intervention beginning with the plea: “Incline your ear, O Lord, and hear; open your eyes, O Lord, and see!” It is even noteworthy that Hezekiah’s prayer is concluded by the wish that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that Yahweh is the only God (2 Kgs 19:19). These parallels indicate how much Baruch has absorbed the Dtr ideology. Baruch 2:17 also shows Baruch’s acquaintance with the Psalms when he says that the dead do not praise Yahweh (cf. Ps 30:10; 88:10–12; 115:17; also Isa 38:18). The next passage in Baruch that reflects Dtr terminology to a great extent is Bar 2:29–35.25 This quotation, which Baruch attributes to Moses (v. 28), is not, however, attested in the Pentateuch, but it is a collection of phrases from the Book of Jeremiah. Nonetheless, Baruch’s words contain some distinguishable echoes from Deuteronomy and other Dtr sources. In v. 29, it is warned that disobedience to God will lead to the decrease of the people and to their dispersion. This kind of proclamation has its precedents in Deut 28:15, 62 (concerning the dispersion, a relevant passage is also Deut 4:27). The people of Israel are described as a stiff-necked people (Bar 2:30a). This non-flattering attribute is also used in Deut 9:6, 13; 31:27 (and in Exod 32:9; 33:3; 34:9). The people have sinned, they have been ungodly, and they have turned away from God’s ordinances. Baruch has underlined this state of affairs in a Deuteronomistic spirit. But that is not the end. One of the key points in Dtr parenesis is the possibility to turn away from wrong ways. From Bar 2:30b onward, there is more and more hope included in the prayer. Baruch repeats the thoughts that are earlier expressed in Deut 4:29–31; 30:1–10 (and the similarities to Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kgs 8:46–53 are also noteworthy). All the same elements are present: the Israelites have to live scattered among foreign nations, and there they will seek Yahweh; they will find him, for God will not forget the oath that he has sworn to their ancestors. Baruch mentions that God will endow his people with a hearing (obeying) heart (parallelled only in 1 Kgs 3:9) and hearing ears (Deut 29:3; Jer 24:7; 32:39). Deuteronomy 4:31 refers to the covenant (=':) that God 25

Steck, Baruchbuch, 109–10.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

331

had made with the patriarchs. Baruch 2:35 speaks of an eternal covenant and orientates it to the future, containing thus repercussions from Jeremiah’s promise of a new covenant (Jer 31:33). As a culmination, Baruch expresses the Bundesformel in 2:35 “I will be their God, and they will be my people.” This covenantal pattern constitutes one of the fundaments of the Old Testament proclamation, as can be seen in its several occurrences (e.g. Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Deut 26:17–18; 29:12; Jer 24:7; 30:22; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27).26 Baruch 3:1–8 is a prayer where the people confess that they have committed sins as their forefathers have done. But the people in distress turn to Yahweh and ask that he would show his mercy. The people are ready to call upon Yahweh’s name and praise him (Bar 3:7). This particular sentence seems to allude to Ps 50:15: “Call on me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.”27 Moreover, Bar 3:1–8 is again full of Dtr phrases. The whole prayer represents Deut 4:29–31 and Deut 30:1–10 in a rewritten form, but the main content remains the same: the people have continuously transgressed God’s ordinances, they have been scattered among the nations, but now they feel remorse, turn back to Yahweh and ask for deliverance. Bar 3:6 contains a monotheistic creed: “For you are the Lord our God,” which partly imitates the main commandment (Deut 6:4). Baruch 3:9 begins a new unit that extends to 4:4. This is no longer a prayer of penitence, but rather a speech of exhortation (Mahnrede). Here Baruch leans heavily on biblical wisdom literature. The connections between this sequence and Job 28 in particular are noteworthy.28 Baruch emphasizes that the source of wisdom is not easily accessible (3:9– 23), but Israel solely has received wisdom as a divine gift (3:24–4:4). Even this unit, which could be entitled “Praise of Wisdom,” is not devoid of Deuteronomistic features. Alison Salvesen argues that Baruch’s Praise of Wisdom commences with no obvious connection to the preceding section.29 This is not quite true because Bar 3:1–8 is strongly influenced by chapters Deut 4 and 30, 26

27 28 29

The tradition history of the Bundesformel has been profoundly analysed by Rudolf Smend, “Die Bundesformel,” in Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Exegetische Aufsätze (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2002), 1–29. Karina M. Hogan, Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra. Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution (JSJSup 130; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 71–93, defines both Ben Sira and Baruch (3:9–4:4) as representatives of “covenantal wisdom.” Hogan argues that Ben Sira’s primary frame of reference is creation theology, whereas covenant theology is the predominant feature in Baruch’s wisdom poem. Translation according to NRSV. See Steck, Baruchbuch, 128; Salvesen, “Baruch,” 702. Salvesen, “Baruch,” 702.

332

Marko Marttila

and some of the same texts play an important role in the background of Bar 3:9–14. First of all, Bar 3:9 admonishes the people to hear the commandments of life. This is a direct link to Deut 4:1 and Deut 30:16, which mention the life-giving law. That Baruch combines law and wisdom in Bar 3:9 is a phenomenon that has its precedent in the later Deuteronomistic layers and particularly in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.30 Several times Baruch implies Israel’s experiences in exile: Israel is in the land of her enemies (Bar 3:10) because she has not walked in the way of God (Bar 3:13), which would have granted an everlasting peace (v. 13). Israel has had the freedom to choose either life or death, prosperity or adversity, as is made clear in Deut 30:15. After having faced destruction, Baruch urges the people to choose life by seeking the wisdom that is revealed in the book of the commandments of God (Bar 4:1). Here Baruch evidently depends on Sir 24:23, but the Deuteronomistic echoes are also notable. Baruch’s adherence to Deuteronomy 30 will again become apparent when we have a closer look at Bar 3:29–30. These lines are a reminder of how arduous it is for men to achieve wisdom by their own means. Baruch poses questions: “(29) Who has gone up into heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? (30) Who has gone over the sea, and found her, and will buy her for pure gold?” Obviously, these questions presuppose negative replies: no one can thus gain wisdom. But there is an alternative way in that true wisdom can be found in Israel’s Torah. This is the fact that Baruch wants to stress, but it is not his own idea since he has borrowed it from Deut 30:11–14, even repeating the same metaphorical language: “(11) Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. (12) It is not in heaven, that you should say: ‘Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ (13) Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say: ‘Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ (14) No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.”31

30

31

Timo Veijola, “Law and Wisdom. The Deuteronomistic Heritage in Ben Sira’s Teaching of the Law,” in Leben nach der Weisung. Exegetisch-historische Studien zum Alten Testament (ed. W. Dietrich and M. Marttila; FRLANT 224; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 144–64; Burkes, “Choosing Life,” 271–75. Translation according to NRSV.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

333

Baruch 3:36 contains the respectful statement that only Israel’s God can accomplish all such things that are depicted in the preceding verses: he has prepared the earth and filled it with creatures; he can give orders to lightning and it obeys. No other can be compared to the God of Israel. Baruch’s statement “This is our God” (ÇīÌÇË ĝ ¿¼ġË ÷ÄľÅ) has its background, above all, in Deut 4:35 and 39, and both of these verses underline that there is no other besides him. Possibly even the main commandment (Deut 6:4) is implied by the wording of Bar 3:36. Many scholars regard Bar 3:38 as a later Christian interpolation32 since its statements about the personified wisdom that appeared on earth and lived with humankind resemble so apparently the way in which the prologue in the Gospel of John speaks of the incarnation of Christ. Of course, it can be argued that Bar 3:38 does not refer to the incarnation of Christ,33 but reiterates the longer poem on Lady Wisdom that is told in Sir 24:1–22. This theme became popular in the late Second Temple Jewish literature. The most peculiar adaptation is represented by 1 Enoch 42 where it is told that Wisdom did not find a dwelling among men and therefore she decided to return to her heavenly abode.34 Even if Bar 3:38 is not necessarily a later Christian interpolation, its authenticity in this context is dubious because the content of this verse contradicts Baruch’s conviction that the “way of knowledge” was given only to Israel.35 Without v. 38 the poem would proceed rather smoothly from 3:37 to 4:1. Baruch 4:1 is not only based on Sir 24:23 but also on Deut 4:5–8, which has played a significant role in the background of Sir 24.36 True wisdom is identifiable with the Torah of Israel. Baruch’s speech of exhortation is concluded by an Israel-orientated macarism (Bar 4:4), which emphasizes the same thing as the whole preceding speech: the 32 33

34

35

36

Thus, for instance, Odil Hannes Steck, Das Buch Baruch (ATDA 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 18, 53–54. Gunneweg, Baruch, 177; Salvesen, “Baruch,” 702, puts this astutely: “Bar 3:8–4:4 is not the most obvious place to insert a Christological text, and it is much easier to understand the verse as original to its setting, describing how the inaccessible divine Wisdom was given as Torah to Israel and came to dwell on earth.” See the latest discussion of this passage in Martin Leuenberger, “Die personifizierte Weisheit vorweltlichen Ursprungs von Hi 28 bis Joh 1. Ein traditionsgeschichtlicher Strang zwischen den Testamenten,” ZAW 120 (2008): 366–86 (380–82). Karina M. Hogan, Theologies in Conflict, 83–84, concludes that Baruch’s main point in the poem (Bar 3:9–4:4) is to emphasize that other nations do not possess wisdom because this divine gift was entrusted to Israel alone in the form of the Torah. See also Karina M. Hogan, “Elusive Wisdom and the Other Nations in Baruch,” in The Other in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M. Goff et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming). Veijola, “Law and Wisdom,” 147–49.

334

Marko Marttila

uniqueness of Israel.37 Only the people of Israel were elected by God, only this people received the divine law that incorporated true wisdom. Baruch’s macarism very likely stems from Deut 33:29 where Moses, at the end of his long speech of blessing, praises that Israel is happy. It is certainly intentional that Baruch wanted to conclude his exhortative speech by alluding to the last words of Moses, the transmitter of the divine law. The speech of exhortation is followed by a speech of promise (Verheißungsrede) that covers the last part of the Book of Baruch (4:5–5:9). This sequence mainly utilizes comforting promises that derive from Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah.38 On the other hand, some characteristic Dtr features can also be detected. Baruch 4:7–8 contains striking similarities to Deut 32:16–18.39 Bar 4:7–8 ȸÉÑÆįŸ̼ ºÛÉ ÌġÅ ÈÇÀûʸÅ̸ ĨÄÜË ¿įʸÅÌ¼Ë »¸ÀÄÇÅĕÇÀË Á¸Ė ÇĤ ¿¼Ŋ. ëȼÂÚ¿¼Ê¿¼ »ò ÌġÅ ÌÉÇμįʸÅ̸ ĨÄÜË ¿¼ġÅ ¸ĊļÅÀÇÅ, ëÂÍÈûʸ̼ »ò Á¸Ė ÌüÅ ëÁ¿ÉñиʸŠĨÄÜË ¼ÉÇÍʸ¾Ä. For you provoked the one who made you by sacrificing to demons and not to God. You forgot the everlasting God, who nursed you, and you grieved Jerusalem, who nourished you. Deut 32:16–18 -#3' + -'!+ !+ + -'<+ #%$' #!2'3)' =3#= -':$ #!19' (++%/ + %)<=# '<= (+' :#8 -)'= -#:3< + # :9/ -'<% ȸÉļÆÍÅÚŠļ ëÈЏ ÒÂÂÇÌÉĕÇÀË, ëÅ ¹»¼ÂįºÄ¸ÊÀÅ ¸ĤÌľÅ ëƼÈĕÁɸŸŠļ. ì¿ÍʸŠ»¸ÀÄÇÅĕÇÀË Á¸Ė ÇĤ ¿¼Ŋ, ¿¼ÇėË, ÇđË ÇĤÁ Ā»¼ÀʸŠÁ¸ÀÅÇĖ ÈÉĠÊθÌÇÀ øÁ¸ÊÀÅ, ÇĪË ÇĤÁ Ā»¼ÀʸŠÇĎ È¸ÌñÉ¼Ë ¸ĤÌľÅ. ¿¼ġÅ ÌġÅ º¼ÅÅûʸÅÌÚ Ê¼ ëºÁ¸ÌñÂÀÈ¼Ë Á¸Ė ëȼÂÚ¿ÇÍ ¿¼Çı ÌÇı ÌÉñÎÇÅÌĠË Ê¼.

37

38 39

Steck, Baruchbuch, 158. Hogan, “Elusive Wisdom,” distinguishes between the way in which Ben Sira and Baruch identify wisdom with the Torah. She points out that Ben Sira describes the Torah in very universal terms in Sir 24:25–27, whereas Baruch is more particularistic and concludes the exhortative speech by asserting Israel’s exclusive claim to wisdom. In her monograph, Hogan says that Ben Sira’s poetic text is ambiguous and the recognition of the Torah by the foreign nations remains somewhat vague, but the idea of universal recognition of the Torah is present – at least – in embryonic form; see Karina M. Hogan, Theologies in Conflict, 136–37. Salvesen, “Baruch,” 702–3. It has been a matter of dispute in the scholarly discussion to what extent the Song of Moses (Deut 32) can be regarded as a Deuteronomistic product, but at least some sentences in it suggest an unambiguous Dtr colour.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

335

They made him40 jealous with strange gods, with abominable things they provoked him. They sacrificed to demons, not God, to deities they had never known, to new ones recently arrived, whom your ancestors had not known. You were unmindful of the rock41 that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.

These texts have in common that they both accuse the Israelites of provoking (ȸÉÇÆįÅÑ) God. This provocation takes its form in idolatry when sacrifices are addressed to demons instead of God. Such acts evidence that the people have forgotten their only true God. Baruch depicts God with a maternal image as the one who nurses her child, and Jerusalem is the feminine subject who raises it from childhood, while Deut 32:18 only says that it was God who gave birth, thus incorporating the maternal image. Baruch 4:15 is closely related to Deut 28:49–50. The similarities are so obvious that only a literary dependence can be supposed. Together with the several previous examples discussed so far, it seems that Deuteronomy 28 was one of the most influential chapters for the authors of Baruch.42 Bar 4:15 ëÈûº¸º¼Å ºÛÉ ëÈЏ ¸ĤÌÇİË ì¿ÅÇË Ä¸ÁÉĠ¿¼Å, ì¿ÅÇË ÒŸÀ»òË Á¸Ė ÒÂÂĠºÂÑÊÊÇÅ, ÇĐ ÇĤÁ óÊÏįÅ¿¾Ê¸Å Èɼʹį̾ŠÇĤ»¼ ȸÀ»ĕÇÅ óÂñ¾Ê¸Å. For he brought a distant nation against them, a nation ruthless and of a strange language, which had no respect for the aged and no pity on a child. Deut 28:49–50 #1<+ 3/<=¡+ :< '# :<1! !' :<) 7:! !89/ 9#%:/ '# ('+3 !#!' <' 0%' + :31# 09$+ -'16 <'¡+ :< -'16 $3 '#

40

41 42

The object suffixes in Hebrew refer to the third person masculine in the singular, whereas the Septuagint has translated them in the first person singular, as if the text in question is God’s direct speech. For the sake of clarity, the Greek translator has replaced the divine epithet “rock” with “God.” Baruch frequently borrows ideas from Deuteronomy, and especially three chapters seem to have been of major importance to him: Deut 4, 28 and 30. These chapters put a distinctive emphasis on opposites such as doom or salvation, blessing or curse. The Israelites are advised to choose the life that is to be found in God’s ordinances. See Steck, Baruch, 19.

336

Marko Marttila

ëÈÚƼÀ ÁįÉÀÇË ëÈĖ Êò ì¿ÅÇË Ä¸ÁÉĠ¿¼Å ÒÈЏ ëÊÏÚÌÇÍ ÌýË ºýË ĸʼĖ ĞÉľĸ Ò¼ÌÇı, ì¿ÅÇË, ğ ÇĤÁ ÒÁÇįÊþ ÌýË ÎÑÅýË ¸ĤÌÇı, ì¿ÅÇË ÒŸÀ»òË ÈÉÇÊļÈÑ, ĞÊÌÀË ÇĤ ¿¸ÍÄÚʼÀ ÈÉĠÊÑÈÇÅ ÈɼʹįÌÇÍ Á¸Ė ÅñÇÅ ÇĤÁ ë¼ûʼÀ. Yahweh will bring a nation from far away, from the end of the earth, like a swoop of an eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand, a grim-faced nation showing no respect to the old or pity for the young.

These two passages have the following affinities: a distant nation will carry out Yahweh’s punishment on Israel (which has been disobedient). This foreign nation speaks an incomprehensible language, and it does not show any mercy toward the aged or children, a sure sign of the cruelty of this distant nation. Baruch 4:25 still contains one rather obvious quotation from Deuteronomy. A time reference is made to Deut 33:29, whose opening line with the macarism was cited earlier by Bar 4:4. When Baruch writes: “Your enemy has overtaken you, but you will soon see their destruction and will tread upon their necks (ëÈĖ ÌɸÏûÂÇÍË ¸ĤÌľÅ ëÈÀ¹ûÊþ),” he has certainly in mind Deut 33:29b¹: “Your enemies shall come fawning to you, and you shall tread on their neck (ëÈĖ ÌġÅ ÌÉÚϾÂÇÅ ¸ĤÌľÅ ëÈÀ¹ûÊþ).”

3. Basic Deuteronomistic Concepts in the Book of Baruch The survey above has shown that Baruch makes abundant use of material from Deuteronomy and from other Deuteronomistic works. His book is a pastiche in which many other biblical books as well have served as sources (especially Daniel, Jeremiah, Job and Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah). Now it is time to draw an overall picture about which aspects in the Deuteronomistic proclamation were the most significant for Baruch and which ones he hardly touched upon at all. Moshe Weinfeld distinguishes no less than nine characteristically Deuteronomistic motives that are foundational for the Deuteronomistic History as a whole. These central subjects are 1) the struggle against idolatry; 2) centralization of worship (the chosen place and the “name” theology); 3) exodus, covenant and election; 4) the monotheistic creed; 5) observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant; 6) inheritance of the land; 7) retribution and material motivation; 8) the fulfilment of prophecy; and 9) the Davidic dynasty.43 In addition to these main themes, some uniform rhetoric and parenetic phraseology can be dis43

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320–65.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

337

cerned throughout the Deuteronomistic History. Though Weinfeld’s study dates back to the 1970s and is certainly obsolete in many senses, these basic categories that he suggested for Dtr parenesis can still be maintained. Baruch seizes upon many of these topics, as we have already seen. Israel’s idolatrous behaviour is explicitly mentioned in Bar 1:22 and 4:7. Idolatry is definitely implied in those numerous penitential confessions where people admit that they have committed sin.44 This was the main crime that caused the divine punishment of exile. The Main Commandment in Shema Jisrael says it clearly that Yahweh was the only God for Israel (Deut 6:4). The same thing is stressed by the first commandment of the Decalogue, which indisputably has its origin in the Deuteronomistic circles. It is astonishing that the expression “foreign gods” (-':% -'!+) occurs in the Dtr literature – outside the Decalogue – 53 times and is only once attested elsewhere (Hos 3:1).45 There can be thus no doubt from which source Baruch has borrowed this expression. Centralization of worship is the leading theme in Deut 12, but it is referred to time and again in other Dtr works, too. The commandment to centralize the cult is a composite in which traces of different Dtr editors can be seen. If we follow Timo Veijola’s detailed analysis of Deut 12, the oldest core is visible in vv. 13–14; 17–18; 21a¸b. This Grundgebot is historically interpreted in vv. 8–12, stemming thus from DtrH, but his text was subsequently expanded by the covenantal editor (DtrB).46 The basic formulation in Hebrew is !#!' :%' :< -#9/! (“the site that the Lord will choose”), but closely related is also the phrase #'+3 '/< :91 :< ='! (“the house which my name is called upon”), which is encountered in the prayer of Solomon (1 Kgs 8:43). Similarities between 1 Kgs 8:43 and Bar 2:26 become obvious when we look at them in their Greek forms: ĞÌÀ Ìġ ěÅÇÄÚ ÊÇÍ ëÈÀÁñÁ¾̸À ëÈĖ ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ ÌÇıÌÇÅ, ğÅ ŀÁÇ»Ġľʸ (1 Kgs 8:43); Á¸Ė 쿾Á¸Ë ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ, Çī ëȼÁÂû¿¾ Ìġ ěÅÇÄÚ ÊÇÍ ëÈЏ ¸ĤÌŊ (Bar 2:26). Even the introductory part of Baruch (Bar 1:1–15a¸) implies that Jerusalem – even though in ruins – is still the only legitimate place for sacrifices to be carried out. 44

45 46

As a parallel to Baruch, a reference can be made to Ben Sira. For Ben Sira, the worst crime he seems to be aware of is idolatry. See Teresa R. Brown, “God and Men in Israel’s History: God and Idol Worship in Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44–50),” in Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001 (ed. R. Egger-Wenzel; BZAW 321; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 214–20. Lothar Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969), 84. Timo Veijola, Das Fünfte Buch Mose / Deuteronomium (ATD 8,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 265–79.

338

Marko Marttila

Baruch 2:11 leans in its wording on Deuteronomistic expressions when it speaks of “a strong hand and outstretched arm,” of “great might” and of “signs and wonders.” This is terminology that the Deuteronomistic editors always connect with the exodus. Continuous references back to this distant historical event should engender hope among the people: there have been previous times of distress, but Yahweh guided his people, and eventually the difficulties were overcome. Roughly four centuries after the Babylonian exile Baruch reminds his audience that Yahweh has delivered his people. Yahweh has committed the fundamental act of salvation. The Chosen People have been disloyal, but that does not diminish Yahweh’s great mercy. The dispersed people will return to the land of their fathers because Yahweh has promised that they will do so. He has elected Israel to be his own people, and this should become known before all the earth (Bar 2:15). This thought is closely related to the monotheistic creed which underlines the special relationship between Yahweh and Israel. In the realm of Dtr literature it may still be better to speak of “monolatry” instead of “monotheism,”47 but in the late Hellenistic period when the Book of Baruch most likely was composed, monotheism had become an established doctrine. In addition to Bar 2:15, monotheistic hints can be attested in Bar 3:6 and 3:36. Observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant are topics that repeatedly occur in the texts of Baruch. People have not walked in the commands of the Lord (ÈÇɼį¼Ê¿¸À ÌÇėË ÈÉÇÊÌںĸÊÀÅ ÁÍÉĕÇÍ; Bar 1:18; 2:10; and with a slightly different wording in Bar 3:13; 4:13). The parallels in the Dtr literature speak of “going after Yahweh,” “walking in the way(s) of Yahweh” or “walking in the law of Yahweh.”48 Baruch adheres to an extremely stereotypical Dtr formula when he says in 1:22 that Israel has done that which is evil in the eyes of Yahweh. This is certainly one of the most famous Dtr sayings in the whole Hebrew Bible.

47

48

Juha Pakkala, “Die Entwicklung der Gotteskonzeptionen in den deuteronomistischen Redaktionen von polytheistischen zu monotheistischen Vorstellungen,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur „Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (ed. M. Witte et al.; BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 239–48, outlines the development from the preexilic polytheistic religion through the monolatry of the late monarchical period and the intolerant monolatry of the sixth and fifth centuries BCE until the monotheistic concept of God was reached in the late nomistic texts in the fifth century. For the original Hebrew expressions and their occurrences, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 332–34.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

339

Under the heading “observance of the law” Weinfeld lists an important Deuteronomistic aspect that cannot, however, be found in the Book of Baruch. This concept is love towards Yahweh (e.g. Deut 6:5; 10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:4; 19:9; 30:6, 16, 20). The lack of such a central idea in Baruch is surprising. Nowhere in the long confessions of sins does Baruch explicitly urge the love of God. It can be, however, argued that keeping God’s commandments means love towards him. Love is a twoway phenomenon in Deuteronomy: not only is Israel urged to love Yahweh, but also Yahweh expresses his love towards Israel.49 The reason why Baruch omitted these aspects from his work can only be guessed. Of course, God’s love is implied on several occasions when Baruch says that God will deliver his people from the hands of their enemies (Bar 4:18, 21) and that he will bring an everlasting joy and salvation together with comfort (4:29–30). God’s care despite the people’s disloyalty is certainly a sign of his endless love and mercy, but the key word !/Òº¸ÈÚÑ does not occur in Baruch. Another important facet that Weinfeld mentions under the title “observance of the law” is the fear of Yahweh in the sense of serving him (Deut 4:10; 5:26; 6:2, 13, 24; 8:6; 10:12, 20; 13:5; 14:23; 17:19; 28:58; 31:12–13). Baruch’s close temporal predecessor Ben Sira, for instance, reiterates the significance of the fear of Yahweh, and it can with good reason be regarded as one of the most central themes in the Wisdom of Ben Sira.50 In the Book of Baruch, however, the fear of Yahweh does not play any dominant role. In fact, the fear of Yahweh occurs only once in Baruch (3:7) where it is said that Yahweh has put the fear of him in the hearts of the Israelites. This should lead to the response from the people of calling upon Yahweh’s name and praising him while in exile. Inheritance of the land is portrayed by Baruch in a twofold manner. On one hand, he refers to the exodus when God brought the ancestors out of Egypt to give them a land flowing with milk and honey (Bar 1:20), and on the other hand, Baruch reminds the reader that after the exile and the dispersion of the people, God will bring them back to the 49

50

In fact, Deuteronomy is the only book in the Pentateuch that speaks of God’s love towards Israel, and this is most eminent in Deut 4; see Veijola, Deuteronomium, 117– 18. A detailed monograph has been dedicated to this essential theme of Ben Sira; see Josef Haspecker, Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung (AnBib 30; Roma: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967). See also Renate Egger-Wenzel, “‘Faith in God’ Rather Than ‘Fear of God’ in Ben Sira and Job: A Necessary Adjustment in Terminology and Understanding,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley and V. Skemp; CBQ.MS 38; Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005), 211–26.

340

Marko Marttila

land he has sworn to the patriarchs, and the returners will rule over it (Bar 2:34). That Yahweh has scattered the Israelites among the foreign nations is a topic that Weinfeld discusses under the subtitle “Retribution.”51 This is a well-attested theme in Deuteronomy itself (Deut 4:27; 28:64; 30:3), and Baruch, too, mentions it three times in his prayer of penitence (Bar 2:4, 29; 3:8). Baruch is also aware of the Dtr thought about God’s anger with wrath that is to be poured out (Bar 2:20; 4:25). God’s wrath was a Dtr concept that aimed at interpreting earlier traditions in the face of inescapable historical realities. Despite God’s good promises to their ancestors, the people had encountered destruction; this was only explicable by assuming that the people’s transgressions had provoked God’s anger. Fulfilment of prophecy is a theme that Baruch often touches upon. According to the Dtr pattern, Baruch employs the attribute “servants” in connection with the prophets (Bar 2:20, 24; cf. 2 Kgs 9:7; 17:13, 23; 21:10; 24:2). Bar 2:1 contains an indication that the word of Yahweh is reliable: as he had spoken, so it came to happen. This is a reminiscent of the Dtr statement that the word of Yahweh is to be validated ( !#!' : 0/1; 1 Kgs 8:26; a close parallel to Bar 2:1 is also Deut 9:5, which uses the wording :!¡= -'9!). Deuteronomistic parenesis admonishes people to turn from the evil way (e.g. 1 Kgs 13:33; 2 Kgs 17:13), whereas Baruch has to state that the people have not turned away from the wickedness of their heart (Bar 2:8). As the ninth central Dtr topic Weinfeld picks up the Davidic dynasty.52 Of course, this idea is not represented by Deuteronomy, but the election of David and the covenantal promise to him and his dynasty constitute an important sequence in the Books of Samuel and Kings. It truly strikes the reader that Baruch is completely silent on the figure of David; neither is his dynasty mentioned. The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are referred to in Bar 2:34, Moses is mentioned in Bar 1:20; 2:2, 28, but David does not receive any attention. Although Baruch writes in a period when there had not been Davidic monarchs for a long time, he nonetheless locates his book in the exilic setting when the question of the continuity of the Davidic dynasty must have been a fervent one. But for Baruch that was no longer a matter of interest. Once again we can compare Baruch with his close contemporary Ben Sira, who puts a remarkable stress on God’s promise to David and his dynasty (Sir 45:25; 47:11, 22; 48:15). Baruch only in passing mentions a few Davidic heirs, namely King Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim (Bar 1:3, 9), 51 52

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 345–49. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 354–55.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

341

who, as it is told, lived together with the other exiles in Babylon. They wept, fasted, prayed to the Lord and collected money for Jerusalem in order to promote the worship there. A few verses later, Baruch refers to the silver vessels that the Judean King Zedekiah, son of Josiah, had ordered to have made (Bar 1:8). But references to the Davidic dynasty are absent. It is truly astonishing that Baruch speaks more about the gentile Babylonian kings (Bar 1:9, 11–12; 2:21–24) than about his own monarchs. The explanation for Baruch’s “non-mention” of David may be based on two things. Firstly, the kings of Judah were great sinners (Bar 1:16; 2:1), and they had been leading figures in the people’s disloyalty. Here Baruch adheres to the evaluation of the Deuteronomistic editors, which is usually crushing for the Judean kings: most of them lived in apostasy and did wrong.53 On the other hand, it must be emphasized that Baruch’s view of the Judean kings was not only negative, since he mentions in 2:19 that the penitent people did not rely on the righteous deeds of their fathers and kings, i.e. every man is responsible only for his own deeds. With this sentence Baruch presupposes that there had been some good kings, but he does not go into detail. The second, and more obvious, reason as to why Baruch left the Davidic dynasty aside is connected with his deep dependence on the Dtr theology, particularly in its late nomistic form. In the nomistic circles, the significance of the figure of David diminishes simultaneously when the observance of the Torah gains more and more attention. One obvious proof of this is the sharp criticism against the monarchy that was first maintained by DtrN and then by his successors.54 The basic conviction of the nomistic editors was that both future and life were to be found exclusively in the Torah and its precise observance (cf. Deut 30:15–20). According to this kind of pattern, it was rather insignificant who actually the earthly ruler was.

53

54

In this respect, Ben Sira is even more remorseless than his Dtr predecessors, because in Ben Sira’s opinion all the other kings except David, Hezekiah and Josiah committed sin (Sir 49:4). This tightens the Dtr evaluation notably, because according to the Dtr editors, there were more obedient kings than just these three. Timo Veijola, “Die Deuteronomisten als Vorgänger der Schriftgelehrten. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des Judentums,” in Moses Erben. Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum (BWANT 149; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 192–240 (201–6).

342

Marko Marttila

4. Conclusions The Book of Baruch is an interesting collection of various biblical themes. Even though it contains texts of different styles and genres, the book probably emerged among one circle of authors in the second century BCE. That the vocabulary and style vary in different parts of the book is not necessarily proof of editorial activity, but rather a consistent feature because so many biblical books with divergent genres have been quoted. Four parts can be distinguished in the Book of Baruch. All of these units lean remarkably on earlier biblical models. The prose introduction (Bar 1:1–15a¸) attempts to imitate Jer 29. The long prayer of penitence (Bar 1:15a¹–3:8) has been composed with an eye on Dan 9:4–19. The exhortative part (Bar 3:9–4:4) is based upon wisdom literature, of which the most important source has undoubtedly been Job 28. Finally, the book is concluded with words of comfort and hope (Bar 4:5–5:9) which make use of earlier prophecies uttered in the collections of Deuteroand Trito-Isaiah. In addition to all these parallels, one crucial aspect must be mentioned and that is Baruch’s evident inclination towards Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic phraseology/theology. This is certainly most obvious in the prayer of penitence, but some characteristically Dtr thoughts and expressions can also be detected in the exhortative speech and in the concluding consolation. Precisely according to the Dtr pattern, Baruch repeatedly emphasizes that the people have committed sin against Yahweh by being disobedient, even though Yahweh has shown great mercy in bringing his people out of Egypt to their own land. Yahweh has been righteous, and his punishment has been justified. The people cry for help among the foreign nations where they have been scattered. Despite their failures the people still rely on God’s earlier promises to the Patriarchs. As a culmination Baruch mentions the everlasting covenant (Bar 2:35) that Yahweh will remain the God of Israel and, correspondingly, that Israel will remain his people. Baruch’s book is branded by its long and profound confession of sin, but it is also a book that confidently looks at the future. Israel will have a bright future if it turns from its wicked ways and keeps the law. Among the central Dtr subjects Baruch pays attention to are the struggle against idolatry, the centralization of worship, the themes of exodus, covenant and election, the monotheistic creed, the observance of the law, the inheritance of the land, divine retribution, and the fulfilment of prophecy. The only noteworthy Dtr view that is missing in his book is the reference to the Davidic dynasty, which has its origin in

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

343

2 Sam 7. This absence may be due to several reasons. For one, Baruch was not interested in promoting the Davidic monarchs because most of them had been disloyal to Yahweh, trespassed his ordinances and so had caused divine punishment. Another reason must be sought from the period when the author(s) of Baruch lived. The book was written at least four hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and thus after the end of the Davidic monarchy. The Book of Baruch is completely devoid of any Messianic expectations connected to the House of David. Baruch was not waiting for a new Davidic king, but for him and for many of his fellow countrymen it was the Torah – a gift from God – that had become the quintessence of the Jewish religion. In this respect, Baruch walked the path that was trodden prior to him by the nomistic editors of the Deuteronomistic History and their successors.

APPENDIX: Parallels between Baruch’s prayer of penitence (Bar 1:15– 3:8) and the books of the Old Testament Baruch

Deut/Dtr

Jeremiah

Bar 1:15

Daniel

Others

Dan 9:7

Bar 1:16–17

Jer 32:32

Dan 9:8

Neh 9:32–34

Dan 9:9–10

Neh 9:26

Bar 1:18

Deut 11:32

Bar 1:19

Deut 9:7

Jer 7:25–26

Bar 1:20

Deut 28:15–68; 29:20

Jer 11:4–5

Dan 9:11, 13 Lev 26:14–39

Bar 1:21

Deut 9:23; 28:15

Jer 26:5

Dan 9:10

Bar 1:22

Deut 6:13–15; 30:18

Jer 7:24

Bar 2:1–2

Deut 4:32

Bar 2:3

Deut 28:53

Dan 9:12–13 Jer 19:9

Lev 26:29

2 Kgs 6:24–31

Lam 2:20; 4:10

Bar 2:4

Deut 4:27; 28:64; 30:3 Jer 24:8–9; 29:18

Bar 2:5

Deut 28:13

Dan 9:8, 11

Bar 2:6

Dan 9:7

Bar 2:7

Dan 9:12

Bar 2:8

Jer 7:24

Bar 2:9 Bar 2:10

Dan 9:13 Dan 9:14

Deut 8:6; 19:9; 26:17

Dan 9:10

Judg 2:22; 2 Kgs 10:31 Bar 2:11

Deut 4:34; 6:22; 7:19

Jer 32:20–21

Dan 9:15

Deut 26:8; 29:2; 34:11 Bar 2:12

1 Kgs 8:47

Bar 2:13

Deut 4:27; 28:62

Dan 9:15 Jer 42:2

Dan 9:16

344

Marko Marttila

Bar 2:14–15 2 Kgs 19:19

Dan 9:16–17 Gen 39:21

Bar 2:16

Deut 26:15

Dan 9:18

Bar 2:17–18 2 Kgs 19:16

Dan 9:18

Ps 30:9; 88:10–12 Ps 115:17; Isa 38:18

Bar 2:19–20

Dan 9:6, 18

Bar 2:21–23

Jer 7:34; 27:9, 12 Jer 48:9

Bar 2:24–26

Jer 8:1; 11:17; 16:4; 32:36; 36:30; 44:6

Bar 2:27–35 Deut 28:62; 30:1–5

Jer 24:7, 9; 25:5; 29:6;

Lev 26:42–45

30:3; 31:33; 32:40 Bar 3:1–8

Deut 4:29–31

Jer 29:12–14

Dan 9:19

Lev 26:40–45

Deut 30:1–10 Bar 3:7

Jer 32:40

Bar 3:8

Exod 3:7; Lam 5:7

Bibliography Brown, Teresa R. “God and Men in Israel’s History: God and Idol Worship in Praise of the Fathers (Sir 44–50).” Pages 214–20 in Ben Sira’s God. Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference Durham-Ushaw College 2001. Edited by R. Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002. Burke, David G. The Poetry of Baruch. A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9. SBLSCS 10. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. Burkes, Shannon. “Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch.” JSJ 30 (1999): 253–76. Collins, John J. Daniel. Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “‘Faith in God’ Rather Than ‘Fear of God’ in Ben Sira and Job: A Necessary Adjustment in Terminology and Understanding.” Pages 211–26 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Edited by J. Corley and V. Skemp. CBQ.MS 38. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. “Das Buch Baruch.“ Pages 165–82 in Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit: Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form. Band III/2 of JSHRZ. Edited by W. G. Kümmel and H. Lichtenberger. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975. Haag, Ernst. Das hellenistische Zeitalter. Israel und die Bibel im 4. bis 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr. BiblE 9. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003. Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach. Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Roma: Päpstliches Bibelinstitut, 1967.

The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch

345

Hogan, Karina M. Theologies in Conflict in 4 Ezra. Wisdom Debate and Apocalyptic Solution. JSJSup 130. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Ȱ. “Elusive Wisdom and the Other Nations in Baruch,” in The Other in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by M. Goff et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming. Leuenberger, Martin. “Die personifizierte Weisheit vorweltlichen Ursprungs von Hi 28 bis Joh 1. Ein traditionsgeschichtlicher Strang zwischen den Testamenten.” ZAW 120 (2008): 366–86. Marböck, Johannes. Weisheit im Wandel. Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira. BZAW 272. 2nd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Meyer, Ivo. “Das Buch Baruch und der Brief des Jeremia.” Pages 484–88 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by E. Zenger. Studienbücher Theologie 1,1. 5th edition. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004. Oorschot, Jürgen van. “Nachkultische Psalmen und spätbiblische Rollendichtung.” ZAW 106 (1994): 69–86. Pakkala, Juha. “Die Entwicklung der Gotteskonzeptionen in den deuteronomistischen Redaktionen von polytheistischen zu monotheistischen Vorstellungen.” Pages 239–48 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktionsund religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur „Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Edited by M. Witte et al. BZAW 365. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT 36. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1969. Salvesen, Alison. “Baruch,” Pages 699–703 in The Oxford Bible Commentary. Edited by J. Barton and J. Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. Arbeitsbuch zum Alten Testament. Grundzüge der Geschichte Israels und der alttestamentlichen Schriften. UTB 2146. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Shenkel, James D. Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings. HSM 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Smend, Rudolf. “Die Bundesformel.” Pages 1–29 in Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Exegetische Aufsätze. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2002. Sollamo, Raija. Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint. AASF.DHL 19. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979. Steck, Odil Hannes. Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration »kanonischer«Überlieferung. FRLANT 160. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Ȱ. Das Buch Baruch. ATDA 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch. A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. HSM 8. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Veijola, Timo. Das Fünfte Buch Mose / Deuteronomium. ATD 8,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Ȱ. “Das Klagegebet in Literatur und Leben der Exilsgeneration am Beispiel einiger Prosatexte.” Pages 176–91 in Moses Erben. Studien zum Dekalog, zum

346

Marko Marttila

Deuteronomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum. BWANT 149; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000. Ȱ. “Die Deuteronomisten als Vorgänger der Schriftgelehrten. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des Judentums.” Pages 192–240 in Moses Erben. Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum. BWANT 149. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000. Ȱ. “Law and Wisdom. The Deuteronomistic Heritage in Ben Sira’s Teaching of the Law.” Pages 144–64 in Leben nach der Weisung. Exegetisch-historische Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by W. Dietrich and M. Marttila. FRLANT 224. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Wright, Benjamin G. No Small Difference. Sirach’s Relationship to Its Hebrew Parent Text. SBLSCS 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Ziegler, Joseph. ed. Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. Volume XV of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum. 2nd edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.

The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms Mika S. Pajunen A number of studies have dealt with the links between the Psalms of the Masoretic Psalter and the Deuteronomistic ideology. 1 These have shown that there are phraseological links between many Psalms and Deuteronomistic passages of other parts of the Hebrew Bible. However, many psalms that may have been on the fringes of the eventual canonical book of Psalms are left out of these studies at least partly because of this later boundary marking. Such a division is not self-evident in the centuries before the Common Era nor is it in accordance with the available sources. Already the Septugint and Syriac manuscripts have provided several additional psalms in comparison to the MT, viz., Psalms 151–155, but the Qumran finds make the issue more poignant. In addition to Hebrew versions for many of these already known apocryphal psalms, a number of new psalms, put in the same collections with now canonical psalms were found, cf. 4QPsf, 11QPsa+b and 11QapocrPs. The manuscripts from Qumran also provided a number of psalm collections that yielded (in their extant parts) only previously unknown psalm compositions, e.g., 4QNon-Canonical Psalms A+B (4Q380–381) and 4QBarkhi Nafshia-e (4Q434–438). Thus, in order to gain a more comprehensive picture of how broadly spread the Deuteronomistic influence is in psalm compositions a survey of the psalms now designated as ‘apocryphal’ will be done. This analysis will hopefully be able to offer further useful insights into this phenomenon. The purpose of this article is to map out the extent to which the so-called Deuteronomistic ideology has influenced these psalms. The first issue to be dealt with is the question of definitions, namely, what exactly is, in this article, included under the designation “apocryphal psalms” and what is sought when looking for traces of “Deute1

See, e.g., Timo Veijola, Verheissung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms, (AASF B 220; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982); Harry P. Nasuti, Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph (SBLDS 88; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).

348

Mika S. Pajunen

ronomistic ideology.” Neither of these questions has an easy answer as each task is quite challenging and, especially in the case of the psalms, in a way artificial. When looking at the wealth of poetic material found at Qumran and the collections they are put in, it has come quite obvious that making a boundary between Psalms and apocryphal compositions is arbitrary.2 Nevertheless for the purposes of this article some criteria are necessary for narrowing down the material, and therefore apocryphal psalms are here seen as poetic compositions that resemble the Psalms now in the MT Psalter and as such may have been on the fringes of the eventual canon. This means that the Psalms of the MT Psalter are not part of this survey and the songs most likely deriving from the Qumran movement are also excluded. The latter are left out because there is no indication that they would have had a status among a wider audience and furthermore they always seem to be placed in their own collections (see, e.g., the Hodayot,3 the Songs of the Sage [4Q510–511], etc.), which seems to reflect a conscious decision not to mix them with the earlier Psalms.4 Included in this study are the apocryphal compositions within psalm collections that also feature Psalms that are now in the MT Psalter. This means that the altogether nine apocryphal psalms found in the Psalms manuscripts 4QPsf and 11QPsa+b,5 as well as the psalms found as parts of a ritual of exorcism (11QapocrPs) that ends with MT Psalm 91,6 2

3

4 5

6

To be sure, many of the apocryphal compositions are later than most of the Psalms, but that is not always the case and some late Psalms like 105 and 106 were most likely composed later than some of the apocryphal pieces. Therefore, while the distinction is sometimes necessary for limiting the material, it unfortunately serves many times as a needless barrier. Deuteronomistic influence in the Hodayot has been dealt with in several studies; see, e.g., Sarah Tanzer, The Sages at Qumran: Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Ph.D. diss., University of Harvard, 1987), 144–45, 151–54. Attention can also be drawn to the fact that even though 1QS and 1QM incorporate songs among the prose text, no Psalms are included. These also include Psalms 151 and 154–155 (= Syriac Psalms II and III) that were previously only known from translations. For the editio princeps, see James A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4; Oxford: Clarendon, 1965); Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude, “11QPsb,” in Qumran Cave 11, II. 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (ed. F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude; DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 37–47; Eugene Ulrich, Patrick Skehan and Peter Flint, ”4QPsf,” in Qumran Cave 4, XI. Psalms to Chronicles (ed. E. Ulrich, P. Skehan and P. Flint; DJD 16; Oxford: Clarendon, 2000), 85–106. For the official DJD edition, see Florentino García Martínez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude, “11QapocrPsalms,” in Qumran Cave 11, II. 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (ed. F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S. van der Woude; DJD

The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms

349

are all included, as are the apocryphal psalms still only available in Syriac (Psalms 152–153 = Syriac Psalms IV–V).7 In addition, the psalms in the collections labeled as 4QNon-Canonical Psalms A+B (4Q380– 4Q381) are included because they have pseudepigraphic attributions to different biblical figures such as, e.g., Obadiah (4Q380 frg. 1, 2:8) and Manasseh (4Q381 frg. 33a, 8).8 According to their editor, Eileen Schuller, these psalms should be dated roughly to the Persian or Early Hellenistic period,9 which supports the idea that at least some of these psalms might have been on the fringes of the eventual canon.10 Another collection that has been included is the Barkhi Nafshi hymns (4Q434– 438) as they are similar in structure to Psalms 103 and 104.11 It is unclear whether these hymns derive from the Qumran movement or not,12 but as the issue is far from certain the hymns are treated here. Overall, much of the material examined in this article is quite fragmentary which makes it impossible to give an exact number of psalms, but a rough estimate is that there are approximately thirty psalms included in this study.

7 8

9 10 11

12

23; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 181–205. After this, modifications to the edition have been suggested by Émile Puech, “Les Psaumes davidiques du rituel d’exorcisme (11Q11),” in Sapiental, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998. Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet (ed. D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez and E. M. Schuller; STDJ 35; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 160–81; Mika S. Pajunen, “11QPsApª, A Communal Ritual Of Exorcism” (paper presented at the fifth annual meeting of the OTSEM network, Lund, Sweden, 22 April 2008). For a study on the Syriac Psalms, see Harry F. van Rooy, Studies on the Syriac Apocryphal Psalms (JSSSup 7; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). For the editio princeps in the DJD series, see Eileen M. Schuller, “4QNon-Canonical Psalms A+B,” in Qumran Cave 4, VI. Poetical and Liturgical Texts, part 1 (ed. C. Newsom and E. Schuller; DJD 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 75–173. For a fuller discussion on many of the themes, see Eileen M. Schuller, Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection (HSS 28; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Schuller, ”4QNon-Canonical,” 78. For some of these psalms, the strong Davidic character of the Psalter might have been the eventual reason for their exclusion. For the editio princeps, see Moshe Weinfeld and David Seely, “Barkhi Nafshi,” in Qumran Cave 4, XX. Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (ed. E. Chazon et al.; DJD 29; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 255–334. For arguments on behalf of seeing the text as deriving from the Qumran movement, see, e.g., Weinfeld and Seely, “Barkhi,” 258–59. However, the links between Barkhi Nafshi and the texts associated with the movement are not specific enough and more study on these hymns is needed to decide this question.

350

Mika S. Pajunen

The problem of defining “Deuteronomistic” is also a notoriously difficult task that seems to be getting more and more challenging.13 There is no large-scale agreement over this, but as, e.g., Moshe Weinfeld has shown, specific Deuteronomistic phraseology is an important criterion in establishing a firmer link with the ideology. 14 Many of the ideas enforced by the Deuteronomists, such as retribution according to deeds, are common motifs in other texts of the Hebrew Bible as well as the Ancient Near East as a whole and without the specific language the exact source these ideas derive from in a specific text cannot be shown with certainty. Nevertheless, it can certainly be noted that several apocryphal psalms implicitly use motifs common to the Deuteronomistic ideology without taking up the particular language (at least on a larger scale). The idea of God testing individuals (0%), which implies judgment in accordance with deeds, is present, e.g., in the Apostrophe to Zion (4QPsf 8:2–5 = 11QPsa 22:12), the Eschatological Hymn (4QPsf 9:5– 7), Barkhi Nafshia (4Q434 frg. 1, 1:7) and Non-Canonical Psalms B (4Q381 frgs. 24a, 6; 46a+b, 5–6; 48, 4). God choosing Zion is found, e.g., in the Apostrophe to Zion (4QPsf 7:14–8:16 = 11QPsa 22:1–12) and Barkhi Nafshia (4Q434 frg. 2, 6–7). The election of David is present in Psalm 151 (11QPsa 28:8–11), 152:4, 153:2 and the choice of Israel from among the nations in 155:21. Some of these ideas most likely derive primarily from Deuteronomistic texts, but the ideas are already at the time of the writing of most of the surveyed compositions so thoroughly embedded in the theological framework of the authors that there is no apparent need to borrow the exact language.15 Thus, the possible Deuteronomistic influence in the above psalms is more implicit and subtle than in texts also using the actual Deuteronomistic phraseology. On the other hand, language alone is not enough if the text does not have other links

13

14 15

The meaning of the term “Deuteronomistic” is discussed, e.g., in Richard J. Coggins, “What Does ‘Deuteronomistic’ Mean?” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists. The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (ed. L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 22–35. For Deuteronomistic history and a survey of its past research, see, e.g., Steven L. McKenzie, “Deuteronomistic History,” ABD 2:160–68; Thomas C. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History. A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 13–43. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 1–3. Note the theory about Deuteronomistic ideology as a kind of basic theology of the Second Temple period; see, e.g., Timo Veijola, "The Deuteronomistic Roots of Judaism," in Sefer Moshe. The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism (ed. C. Cohen et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 459–78.

The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms

351

with the ideology – isolated words in a context otherwise unrelated to the Deuteronomistic ideology are not sufficient.16 Therefore, the task at hand is to search for psalms that exhibit particular Deuteronomistic influence by their use of both Deuteronomistic motifs and phraseology. When the above-listed compositions are studied from this perspective it is found that, except for the noted instances implying the ideology without the vocabulary and the isolated words without a larger framework, there are three psalms in this corpus that use Deuteronomistic idioms in a more profound way when they deal with the themes of justice, the choice of Zion and the choice of Israel.

A Solomonic Psalm with a Celestial Trial (11QapocrPs 2:1– 3:13)17 Column 2 01 1 ]/< ‘ °[ [ ] ‘:9'# !/#+< [ 2 [ ] -'
1 2 3 4 5

The list of Deuteronomistic phraseology collected by Weinfeld, Deuteronomy, 320–65, rightly focuses almost entirely on idioms and phrases, not individual words. The Hebrew text and the translation are taken from Pajunen, ”Communal,” 8–10.

352

Mika S. Pajunen

+3[ #]<‘ 3'¯ :<‘ [ -! ]7:! ‘ [+#) =]# -'/¯ [
Translation: Column 2 01 --- 1 […] … […] 2 […] Solomon and he will cry for h[elp …] 3 [… spi]rits and demons […] 4 […] These are [the de]mons … […] … 5 […] … […] … […] … […] … 6 […] … […] … […] my [Go]d 7 […]with me. … a cure 8 […] relying [upon] your name and the assem[bly 9 [… Is]rael. Strengthen 10 […] the heavens 11 […] … separated[…] 12 […] … until[…] 13Column 3 01 ---- 1 […] … […] … […] 2 to the earth and …[…]earth. Who m[ade these miracles] 3 and wond[ers on the] earth? He, YHWH [is the one who] 4 made t[hese through] his [streng]th, who compels the b[astards] 5 [and] all the see[d of evil ]that have been set before [him], to take an oath. [And he calls ] 6 [all the hea]vens and[ all] the earth [as witnesses against them ]who committ[ed ]upon 7 [all me]n sin and against all pe[ople …] … they know 8 […] … which they do not […] … if not 9 […]from before YHWH … […]killing the soul 10 […]Yahweh. And [they] will fear tha[t] great [blow.] 11 [And o]ne of you [will put to flight] a tho[usand …]of the servants of YHW[H] 12 [… g]reat and[…] … […] 13 ---

The first of the psalms is preserved in 11QapocrPs (11Q11), a ritual of exorcism consisting of apocryphal psalms and ending in Psalm 91.18 18

Most scholars agree that the manuscript consists of a ritual of exorcism, see, e.g., Émile Puech, “11QPsApª: Un rituel d’exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction,” RevQ 14 (1990): 403; Philip S. Alexander, “’Wrestling against Wickedness in High Places’: Magic in the Worldview of the Qumran Community,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures. Qumran Fifty Years After (ed. S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans. JSPSup 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 318–37 (326–27); Russell C. D. Arnold, The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community (STDJ 60; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 167; Mika S. Pajunen, “The Function of 11QPsApª as a Ritual,” in Text and Ritual. Papers presented at the symposium Text and Ritual (ed. A. K. Gudme; Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 2009), 50–60. The version of Psalm 91 preserved in

The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms

353

This is the second of the at least five preserved psalms in the scroll and the mention of Solomon’s name (col. 2:2) means that this psalm is probably ascribed to him.19 The psalm is directed against many categories of evil spirits either to banish them from a person or to provide protection from their attacks. The first extant parts of the psalm are a list of demons (2:4–5) followed by a plea to God for a cure and support (2:5–9). The next lines (2:10–3:2) might have something to do with God and the creation but the isolated words are not enough to be sure. The bestpreserved section of the psalm centers on a celestial trial against the evil spirits (3:2–10) and it is here that the Deuteronomistic influence is found. First, the sovereignty of God as the judge is established by recounting his former deeds. Unlike the Hebrew Bible where the Deuteronomistic word pair -'=6#/# =#= is used to refer to the deeds of God in Egypt (e.g., Deut 4:34; 6:22), it is most likely referring here to the works of creation. Creation is used to show why God is infinitely more powerful than any of the spirits he rules over. This picture of God the Creator and almighty heavenly judge contains the notion of him as the only real God, which is a basic Deuteronomistic tenet. After this section the accused spirits are set before God to be tried (3:4–5).20 Then heaven and earth are called as witnesses against them (3:5–6). This notion of heaven and earth as witnesses derives from Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 30:19, 31:28) and there are two ways of understanding its use in this psalm: either it tells something about the relationship between God and the spirits, i.e., it is meant to encourage a comparison with Israel’s covenantal relationship with God in Deuteronomy, or it is taken up just because of the cosmic dimension of the trial. No firm answer can be given but it is an intriguing possibility that a kind of vassal relationship might have been seen to exist between God and the spirits and this was breached by the actions of some of the spirits (cf. the Book of Watchers). The charges leveled against the evil spirits (3:6–8) concern their actions against humankind. It is worth noting that the sinful deeds of the spirits are the reason for the trial, namely, they have transgressed a boundary set for them. As is well known, retribution according to deeds is part of the Deuteronomistic ideology. Next the verdict for the sins of

19 20

11QapocrPs has a number of differences in comparison to the MT Ps 91. The reason behind these variant readings has been analyzed in Mika S. Pajunen, “Qumranic Psalm 91: A Structural Analysis,” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (ed. A. Voitila and J. Jokiranta; JSJSup 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 591–605. For Solomon as a composer of exorcisms see, e.g., Josephus, Ant. 8.45–49. Cf. 1 Kgs 21:9–10.

354

Mika S. Pajunen

the spirits is given (3:9–10), but unfortunately only the last sentence of this verdict is even relatively well preserved on the manuscript. The word pair !+# !)/ is most often used in connection with military victory (cf. Josh 10:10, 20; Judg 11:33; 15:8) but one must also bear in mind the prominent use of the noun !)/ in the covenant curses of Deut 28:59–61. The last line that can be interpreted with any amount of certainty (3:11) switches the address to the audience that is present at the recitation and declares their power as the servants of God over the evil spirits. The first of the most likely two parallel colons in line 11 reinforces the notion that the composer of the psalm was thinking about military traditions also in line 10 as the colon seems to be referring to Josh 23:10. Even though the address changes, when the background traditions are properly understood then this and the preceding colon make up a continuum. The first colon establishes that God will wage war against the spirits because of their evil deeds and the second that the audience has the power to chase away a thousand demons. This is exactly the notion given in Josh 23:10 which is part of a Deuteronomistic military oration: that when God wages war on behalf of his chosen ones then they are able to chase away a thousand enemies. This promise of God only applies to those who act in accordance with his will and it derives from the covenant blessings in Deut 28:7 (cf. Lev 26:6–8). It is likely that the psalm ends soon after this because the sentence on the evil spirits has been passed and the power of the audience and the speaker over the demons has been established. Thus, various strands of Deuteronomistic ideology were employed by the author of the psalm, some implicitly and others with Deuteronomistic idioms. However, it is clear that the way the author uses the phraseology and concepts is in some of the instances quite different from the usage of the same phrases and concepts in the Hebrew Bible. He uses the traditional formulations and draws upon the ideological notions but transfers them to a new context. He refers to the signs and wonders God has done in the past as a sign of his power just as the Deuteronomists did, but where they used it in connection with the deliverance of Israel from Egypt the author of this psalm applies it to the creation. The wonders in Egypt were meaningful for Israel as a national entity, but in this psalm the author appears to be concerned with the power of God over the evil spirits, and the signs in Egypt are not as relevant in that respect as the acts of creation. Similarly the concept of a trial where God judges according to deeds and calls heaven and earth as witnesses is taken from the model established in Deuteronomy, but in this psalm the trial is applied to the evil spirits instead

The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms

355

of Israel. Contrary to these instances, when the psalmist talks about the verdict of the evil spirits and the power given to the audience, again by using Deuteronomistic sources, he does not need to change the basic meaning of the traditions because they fit the situation without a need for modification. In the psalmist’s interpretation his sources say that, as followers of the commandments of God, the blessings of Deuteronomy are applicable to the audience and therefore God will fight for them and they are able to chase away a thousand demons as promised. While the psalm is difficult to date, the way the sources are used and the prominent role the spirits have in the composition (especially the specialized list in 2:3–4) suggest that it should be dated at the earliest to the second century BCE and probably to the latter half of it.

Zion the City Chosen by YHWH (4Q380 frg. 1, 1:1–2:6)21 Column 1 ‘#[ ]+‘ 3‘ [ ]1 '! -+<[#:' ]2 3# -'+#3/ ! ¯#[!' :% :'3!] 3 -'<9[ ]4 !'+3 :9 ¯1 !#!' -‘ [< ')] 5 -+<#:' +3 !:1 [#)#] 6 -< =¯ ++/' '/ 0#'8 vacat 7 [#]=+!= ¯ +) #3/<'# !#! ¯' 8 #!96'# #18: !#!' #:¯ [)$] 9 #& ‘ =#:!+¯ 10 [!%/< %/]<+ ‘ ‘# ‘':¯ ‘'[%] 11 [ #=+%1 -3 12] Column 2 [-'!#]ሶ+ -¯ -)+ !<3['] 1 [#':]/ ‘ #:/< !$ #! ') 2 [+ va]cat +:<' '[1] +#)+ :< 3 [:< #] ‘'+‘ ‘ %) ¯ ') (' ¯ (3<#= 4 ['=/ ]3 ‘ -'3: '1<# [!]#& !<#3 5 [0]ሶ ¯#3 ( ¯ :¯ ¯' 06¯ !3: =¯ [#]<3+ ¯ #86%= 6 vacat 7

21

The Hebrew text and the translation follow Mika S. Pajunen, “The Textual Connection between 4Q380 Fragment 1 and Psalm 106,” in The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. A. Lange, K. De Troyer and S. Tzoref; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming.

356

Mika S. Pajunen

Translation: Column 1 1 [...]...[...]... 2 [... Jeru]salem, that is 3 [the city YH]WH [chose] forever and ever 4 […] holy ones 5 [for the na]me of YHWH is invoked upon it 6 [and his glory] is seen upon Jerusalem. 7 vacat O Zion! Who can utter the name of 8 YHWH and who are the ones to declare all [his] praise? 9 YHWH [remem]bered him in his favor. And visited him 10 to let him experience the prosperity of 11 his [chos]en ones, to make him [rejoice in the gladness (12) of the people of his inheritance] Column 2 1 ȹ(what) [can] he/it do for you (pl.)? Their fortune is God 2 for he is the one [whose] wo[rds] they kept 3 which are for all the ch[ild]ren of Israel. vacat 4 Your (sg.) hand will [not] save you (sg.) for strength is for the [one who] 5 does goo[d] and the ones who hate the wicked. How[ long] 6 will you (pl.) delight to do evil lest puni[shment] is multiplied for you (sg.)? 7 vacat (end of psalm)

The second psalm belongs to the collection 4QNon-Canonical Psalms A (4Q380) and is the only one of the psalms in 4Q380 to be even moderately well preserved. It is probably the oldest of the three psalms under investigation as it has already been used as a source by the compiler of MT Psalm 106.22 It is part of a psalm collection that was possibly made up of psalms ascribed to different prophets.23 The first extant part of the psalm deals with the Deuteronomistic theme of God choosing Jerusalem as the dwelling place for his name (1:2–6). Lines 4 and 5 are especially noteworthy for on these parallel colons both the name (-<) and the glory ()) of God are used in connection with Jerusalem. The

22

23

There is a textual connection between 4Q380 frg. 1, 1:7–11 and MT Psalm 106:2–5. Schuller, Non-Canonical, 32–34, 257, claims that the 4Q380 psalm is using Psalm 106, but George Brooke, “Psalms 105 and 106 at Qumran,” RevQ 54 (1989): 267–92, suggests that the influence goes the other way and a thorough treatment of the question in Pajunen, “Textual,” reinforces Brooke’s view. Cf. Eileen M. Schuller, “Qumran Pseudepigraphic Psalms (4Q380 and 4Q381),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1997), 1–2; Pajunen, “Textual.”

The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms

357

first phrase is a common Deuteronomistic idiom (cf. 1 Kgs 8:43) and the second seems dependant on Isaiah 60:2. The next stanza (the break indicated by a vacat) is the one with a connection to Psalm 106:2–5 and it deals with the joy of the ones who are able to take part in the Jerusalem cult. It starts with a question (1:7– 8) that is answered in the next colons (1:9–12).24 Here the most intriguing question for this investigation is about who are referred to as the chosen ones. The expressions “his chosen ones” and “the people of his inheritance” are parallel and therefore refer to the same group. !=+%1 -3 is a Deuteronomistic idiom used of the nation of Israel (cf. Deut 4:20; 9:26, 29) and :% is also frequently used of Israel (cf. Deut 4:37; 10:15; 14:2). However, especially in light of the second column it seems that not all who belong to the people of Israel are automatically included in this elect group. The second column compares the actions of two groups belonging to the people of Israel. The ones who act in accordance with the words of God are surely included under the group terms applied here, but the ones who do not comply most likely are not. But as the aim of the psalmist seems to be to change the behavior of these people, it follows that by complying they will be able to enter among the chosen ones who make up the people of God’s inheritance. After this the text breaks off until the beginning of the second column. In the second column, where the ending of the psalm is preserved, more words and motifs common to the Deuteronomistic ideology are found. The actions of the pious are described as observance of God’s words (2:2) and doing good (2:5). These are the same verbs (:/< and !<3) used frequently, e.g., in the Deuteronomy (cf. 26:16; 28:1, 15) of the obligation to follow the laws. From the polemics used it is easy to deduce that some of the people are not following these commandments that are meant for all Israelites (2:3–4) but are taking the law into their own hands. The continuing of these actions will evoke punishment from God (2:6). Particularly interesting is that the psalmist basically lays out the choice of Deuteronomy 28 for the disobedient people, i.e., observe the commandments and prosper among the chosen people or continue to do evil and be punished. The rewards of the proper choice are well described in the first column (1:9–12) and it might well be that the possible punishment was envisioned in the lost parts of the psalm. It is clearly the expectation of the psalmist that the disobedient people 24

The question is similar to the one used in Psalm 15:1, i.e., both answer the question by giving qualifications of the person (cf. Ps 106:3) who will be able to answer the question positively (although most of the actual qualifications, e.g., observance of the law, are only implicitly preserved in the extant text of the 4Q380 psalm) and both deal with the cult. For the act of declaring the name and praises cf. Ps 102:22.

358

Mika S. Pajunen

will be punished for their deeds but the judgment is restricted to them, in other words, their actions will not draw a calamity upon the whole nation, only themselves. The chosen ones will instead enjoy the rewards of their actions while observing the punishment of the wicked. As has been discovered, this psalm uses many different Deuteronomistic motifs and also some of the specific phraseology. Of the three psalms discussed in this article this one is closest to the time when the Deuteronomistic ideology was formulated and henceforth incorporated into literature. This can be seen by observing the use of the motifs. They are still being applied in much the same sense as in the texts of the Hebrew Bible and in a similar situation: the author is concerned about the observance of the commandments among the people of Israel. He uses the basic words and idioms of the Deuteronomistic ideology and applies them to the specific situation without major reinterpretation, i.e., he actualizes some of the aims of the original ideology in his own setting by glorifying Zion, exulting in the prosperity of those who observe the law and admonishing the disobedient ones about the consequences of their choices.

Israel the Chosen Nation (4Q381 frgs. 77 and 69)25 Fragment 77 ]° -')+/ (+/ +:# -'<#9 <#9 =[3 2 3 #] ‘1 ‘'=# 8= '6/ !/)%+ #+')<=# ': °°[ ]° #1'
25

1 2

The Hebrew text and the translation are taken from Schuller, “4QNon-Canonical,” 149–50, 155–57.

The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms

-3 !'+3 =#<3+# !'+3/ -'/
359

3 4 5A 5 6 7 8 9 10

Translation: Frg. 77 2 congrega]tion of the Holy of Holy Ones, company of the King of Kings ...[ ] 3 [ ]... my words, and you will pay attention to the wisdom (that) goes forth from my mouth, and you will understand[ ] 4 [ ] and a true judge and a faithful witness. Do you have strength to answer him ...[ ] 5 [ ]... to proclaim. Who among you will reply, and stand in dispute wi[th him ] 6 [ ] for many are those who judge you, and there is no number to those who witness against you. But[ ] 7 [ ]... YHWH sits in judgment with you to judge truly, and there is no injustice[ ] 8 [ ]his spirits, rendering you true judgments. Is there understanding (which) you may learn [ ] 9 [ ]Lord of Lords, mighty and marvelous, and there is no one like him. He chose y[ou 10 from ma]ny [peoples] and from great nations to be his people, to rule all[ ] 11 [ hea]ven and earth, and as most high over every nation of the earth, and ...[ ] Frg. 69 1 [ ]... because ...[ ]... When he saw that the peoples of [the la]nd acted abominably 2 [ ]all the land [became] total unclean defilement.

26

27

The last letter of the penultimate word was first written by the scribe as a clear  but he later added another stroke to apparently change the letter into an . The stroke is deliberate and not an accidental drop of ink so  should be read. The reason for the later corrected mistake might be related to the meaning of the word. If one reads the word as coming from the root +6, as Schuller, Non-Canonical, 204–05, does, then it is very hard to make sense of the passage and there is no apparent reason for the scribe’s mistake. However, if one takes into account that ! is replaced by  eight times in this manuscript, (for a list see Schuller, Non-Canonical, 64) it is possible that the root meant by the scribe was actually !+6 ”to separate.” The meaning of the root is close to +6 ”to divide” so the mistake of the scribe could relate to mixing up the two roots. As noted by Schuller, Non-Canonical, 205, the unusual form is probably a consequence of metathesis ( -=1'# for -1='#).

360

Mika S. Pajunen

And he set apart from the former28 3 [ he to]ok counsel with himself to destroy them from upon it, and to make upon it a people 4 [ ]... and to give them to you by his spirit, prophets to instruct and to teach you 5a [ ]... from heaven he (God) came down, and he spoke with you to instruct you, and to turn (you) away from the deeds of the inhabitants of 5 [ He gave la]ws, instructions and commandments by the covenant he established through[ Moses ]... 6 [ ]take possession, dwell upon the land; then it will be purified, and ...[ ] 7 [ ] to consider among yourselves, if you will be his, or if [ ] 8 [ ]and to break the covenant he cut with you, and to act as strangers, and not [ ] 9 [ ] against wickedness, and to change the words of his mouth ...[ ] 10 [ ]...[ ]...[ ]

The third psalm is preserved in 4QNon-Canonical Psalms B (4Q381). The manuscript consists of 109 fragments that preserve text from at least eight separate psalms. Many of these seem to be individual praises and penitential prayers ascribed to different kings, e.g., Manasseh (frg. 33, 8), but other themes such as the creation (frgs. 1, 14) are also present. Many of these psalms exhibit the influence of Deuteronomistic ideology, e.g., in the assessment of the kings and expecting direct divine retribution for sins, but these references are only implicit. However, contrary to the other psalms in this manuscript, this particular psalm shows marked and quite explicit Deuteronomistic influence. The psalm deals with the history of Israel as the chosen nation and text from the psalm is preserved on two of the larger fragments (frgs. 69 and 77). The fragments make up a continuous sequence with fragment 77 having text from the last eleven lines of a column (the psalm starts on line 2) and fragment 69 from the first ten lines of the next column.29 28

29

Schuller, “4QNon-Canonical,” 150, translates the last part of the line: “And marvelously from the first.” For the reason behind the different translation, see the footnote for line 2 of the Hebrew text. Bilhah Nitzan, “Post-Biblical Rib Pattern Admonitions in 4Q302/303a and 4Q381 69, 76–77,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use & Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996 (ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon; STDJ 28; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 171, treats the fragments as parts of separate psalms. However, Schuller, Non-Canonical, 225–26, suggests that the fragments are from the same psalm and gives stylistic, linguistic and form-critical arguments that make the connection between the fragments more than plausible. Furthermore, the preliminary material reconstruction of the manuscript by Hartmut Stegemann (published in Schuller, Non-Canonical, 267–83) supports this sequence and observation of the original manuscript shows that the appearance of the fragments is very similar and there is no material reason that would speak against the sequence.

The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms

361

Eileen Schuller has already observed that the psalm employs “vocabulary and stylistic devices typical of the Deuteronomistic school,”30 and the psalm does indeed provide an interesting example of the use of Deuteronomistic language and ideas. The psalm starts with a wisdom section (frg. 77, 2–8) that gives the interpretive frame for the following parts of the psalm that deal with the history of Israel. The author’s overall aim appears to be to show that God has acted correctly when he has judged Israel.31 With the aid of questions and other wisdom forms, he first discusses God as judge and witness in comparison to humans. He begins by addressing the audience and then admonishing them to take heed of his words (lines 2–3). Then the psalmist relates what the audience should understand by listening to his words (first part of line 4), namely, that God’s justice is reliable and just. This is the central interpretive frame given here for the entire psalm but it is also the subject of the whole introductory part.32 The second part of line 4 opens a list of rhetorical questions that also continues on the next line. All the verbs used in these questions also have judicial connotations and the questions focus on justice, specifically, on whether human beings are able to stand up to God (cf. 4Q185 frg. 1, 1), challenge the truth of his verdicts, etc. The evidently negative answer to these questions is given in line 6, which apparently speaks about there being multiple people ready to judge and give testimony concerning the audience, that is to say, there are numerous would-be judges and (most likely controversial) witnesses. The continuation starting with - ') probably explains the problem inherent in this notion of justice within human hands and thus lays out the groundwork for the contrast between human and divine justice. In contrast to humans, YHWH as the sole judge is reliable and just (line 7). It has to be noted that this is the only surviving use of the tetragrammaton in this psalm and it serves to give special emphasis to this statement, i.e., it is none other than YHWH who will judge his people (cf. Deut 32). The wisdom section draws to a close by including God’s spirits as mediators of divine justice (for a similar notion see, e.g., 4Q185 frg. 1, 1:8–9) and assuring the audience that there surely are insights for them to learn from this. The phraseology in this section is not specifically Deuteronomistic, but it is nevertheless worth noting that the

30 31 32

Schuller, Non-Canonical, 225. The viewpoint of the author seems to be similar to that expressed in Neh 9:33. As Schuller, Non-Canonical, 221, points out, the wording recalls especially Jer 42:5. Note also Psalm 89:38 where Timo Veijola, “The Witness in the Clouds: Ps 89:38," JBL 107 (1988): 413–17, has conclusively shown the faithful witness to be God.

362

Mika S. Pajunen

theme of God judging Israel is probably based on Deuteronomy as the thematic links with, e.g., Deut 32 show. As a transitional device between the wisdom section and the next part that deals with Israel as the chosen nation the psalmist has used an exclamation of God’s magnificence with a partly Deuteronomistic wording. For the first part of the exclamation the psalmist may have been thinking specifically of Deut 10:17 as both -'1! '1 and : occur there and that verse also speaks about God being an unbiased and incorruptible judge. The exclamation ends with the basic Deuteronomistic creed that there is no other God like YHWH. After establishing God as the only true and faithful judge the text moves to the choosing of Israel and the blessings inherent in the choosing (frgs. 77, 9–11; 69, 1–3). Israel is God’s chosen people and hence it is the highest among nations and it is accorded the mandate to rule (frg. 77, 9–11). Almost all of these phrases are standard Deuteronomistic idioms; for :% (of Israel) cf. Deut 4:37; 7:6, 10 et al., for -'+# -''# cf. Deut 4:38; 9:1; 11:23 et al., and for -3+ #+ =#'!+ cf. Deut 4:20; 7:6; 14:2 et al. The phrase +) +3 0#'+3+# 7:! '# seems to be a direct quotation from Deut 28:1 (or less directly of 26:19). Another blessing related to this choice is the giving of the land to Israel and this is what the beginning of fragment 69 (lines 1–3) deals with. First the psalmist gives a reason for the removal of the former inhabitants from the land. Their main faults are abominable deeds that cause impurity to the land. Because of these deeds God plans to exterminate them and bring his chosen nation there instead. In the first lines the author uses Ezra 9:11 as noted already by Eileen Schuller.33 The wording quite clearly comes from that passage as the ideas in Ezra 9:11 are quite distinctive in the Hebrew Bible, as pointed out by Juha Pakkala.34 There are no explicit Deuteronomistic idioms in this passage, but reconstructing the Deuteronomistic expression [<9] 4 -3 “holy people” (cf. Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21, 26, etc.) is quite plausible as it would lay out a sharp contrast with the abominable deeds of the former inhabitants just mentioned. The next major part of the psalm deals with what God expects from his chosen people in return (frg. 69, 4–6). It details the obligations of the Israelites given by God through various mediators. The prophets are mentioned first as given to Israel to instruct and teach, i.e., to tell how

33 34

Schuller, Non-Canonical, 204. Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe. The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemia 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 115.

The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms

363

to live in accordance with the will of God.35 Alex Jassen has shown by analysis of the biblical basis of this phrase that the prophets are not seen as transmitting the actual Torah but as instructors who make the law intelligible and applicable in different settings.36 After the giving of the prophets, the Sinai events and the making of the covenant are presented (lines 5A–5). It is important to note that the text gives as the central reason (or one of them) behind the Sinai theophany that God wanted to turn Israel away from the works of the inhabitants of the land. This is hardly chronological but does reveal something about the concerns of the author of the psalm.37 After the Sinai events, direct commands are given to take possession of the land and dwell in it. This will then purify the land (presumably on the condition that the instructions given by God through Moses and the prophets are kept) from the uncleanness caused by the previous inhabitants. The psalmist has used Neh 9 as a source when writing the text in lines 4–5.38 The covenant, instructions and commandments, etc., are of course also common themes in Deuteronomistic literature as is taking possession of the land (line 6). The final extant part of the psalm presents a covenantal choice to remain the privileged people and act according to the preceding commands or to act as foreigners and break the covenant (frg. 69, 7–9). The choice is basically the same as in Deut 28: those who follow the law will 35

36 37

38

Schuller, Non-Canonical, 206, finds it slightly problematic that the prophets are mentioned before the Sinai events, but it need not be seen so. First of all, the divine plan to give the land to Israel was already discussed so the structure is not motivated by strict chronology as is also seen in line 5A. Second, as Schuller herself mentions, prophets in general are in some texts of the Hebrew Bible already assigned to the wilderness period (e.g., Jer 7:25; Amos 2:11). Third, in this particular case the sequence might come from the author still having in mind the already mentioned Ezra 9:11 where the words about the coming conquest of the land are put into the mouths of prophets, i.e., to the period of wandering in the desert. Cf. Alex P. Jassen, P. Mediating the Divine. Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism (STDJ 68; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 54. Jassen, Mediating, 55–57. The need to act differently from other nations and their practices is emphasized by the author and most likely reflects the situation of his day and is part of the message he wants to impart to his intended audience. Nitzan, “Post-Biblical,” 173–74, has noted the same tendency, but goes perhaps a bit far in claiming that we could pinpoint the situation that this refers to, specifically, to relationships between the Jews and Samaritans. It is better to view it as a general commandment to stay away from foreigners, their practices and influence be they the Samaritan people, Hellenistic thought, etc. For a comprehensive list of parallel language and imagery with Neh 9 (especially vv. 13–14, 20), see Schuller, Non-Canonical, 209–10.

364

Mika S. Pajunen

be blessed but those who do not will face the curses. From the negative tone of the last lines it can be guessed that the punishments and their subsequent execution might have been described in the following sections. The basic pattern of the psalm has elements common with the covenant lawsuit pattern (':).39 Bilhah Nitzan has, e.g., drawn attention to the justification of God as judge often preceding an account of Israel’s history in texts of the Hebrew Bible (cf. Deut 32:4).40 It is important to note that the author is familiar even with many quite late texts and is able to use them in concert to drive his point home. For the choosing of Israel, the terms used for the nation, etc. he uses Deuteronomistic phraseology and ideas, but for his more specific concerns he uses later sources that exhibit similar notions (Ezra 9:11; Neh 9, etc.). The psalmist uses the Deuteronomistic idioms in the traditional way they are used in the Hebrew Bible. The theme he is writing on has influenced the choice of language and it is illuminating to see how he is able to employ the Deuteronomistic phraseology as a stylistic device. The use of late sources like Neh 941 and some of the vocabulary indicate that the psalm is quite late.42 Most likely it was written around the middle of the 2nd century BCE.

Conclusions In the analysis of these psalms, three distinct ways of applying Deuteronomistic ideology and phrases were discovered. The oldest of these, exhibited by the 4Q380 psalm, seems to be the use of the Deuteronomistic concepts as parts of a polemic. Unlike the other two texts, which apparently come from settings where the basic tenets have already been approved, this text is still arguing the points and one gets the sense that here we are dealing with an ideology that is still striving for hegemony by arguing against people not yet committed to its tenets. In a short space the author describes surprisingly many different facets of 39 40 41

42

Schuller, Non-Canonical, 225–26. She also rightly points out the differences between the psalm and the pattern and that many parts belonging to it are missing in 4Q381. Nitzan, “Post-Biblical,” 163–64. Pakkala, Ezra, 180–84, 210, among others has convincingly argued that Neh 9 is one of the latest parts of that book if not the whole Hebrew Bible (with some exceptions like Daniel). E.g., Schuller, Non-Canonical, 221, has observed that the expression -')+/ (+/ (frg. 77, 2) is not used of God in the Hebrew Bible, but becomes frequent from the second century BCE onwards.

The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms

365

the Deuteronomistic ideology, e.g., the choice of Zion (1:2–6), the chosen people and their prosperity (1:9–11; 2:1), retribution for sinful deeds (2:6) and the importance of observing the commandments (2:2–5). But even though the gap in time between the author of this text and the Deuteronomists is much smaller than with the other two psalms investigated here, some modifications have already occurred like the change of viewpoint from a nationwide perspective to the elect/righteous within the nation. The other psalms are probably chronologically quite close to each other and give two different ways in which the much earlier Deuteronomistic tradition was used at this point in time. The author of the 4Q381 psalm uses the ideology and vocabulary most of all as a stylistic device when discussing Israel’s past. The phraseology aids in creating the setting of the psalm and is an easy way to evoke links to the previous writings in the minds of the audience. The author uses the past as a means to an end, i.e., the audience is meant to identify themselves as heirs to the blessings and curses of the covenant (Deut 28) and to make the correct choices in the future by learning from the mistakes of their forefathers. Thus, the author actualizes the covenantal choice by employing the familiar language and the same basic choice between blessings and curses, but tying it strongly together with his/his group’s special concern about foreign practices. The author of the psalm in 11QapocrPs uses a different strategy when employing parts of the Deuteronomistic ideology. He transfers the familiar terminology (e.g., -'=6#/# =#=) and ideas into a new setting by partly redefining them. Their use is still similar enough to how they were typically used in the past so as not to directly contradict the previous function, but still distinctly different from it. It is a reapplication/reinterpretation of the concepts in a setting where the traditional formulations would not work per se. Thus, all three authors are capable of discerning and using different parts of the Deuteronomistic traditions as sources for their compositions. Combining their explicit use of the motifs with the possible implicit influence found in many other apocryphal psalms gives some idea of how deeply embedded the Deuteronomistic ideology was in the circles responsible for these compositions.

Bibliography Alexander, Philip S. “‘Wrestling against Wickedness in High Places’: Magic in the Worldview of the Qumran Community.” Pages 318–37 in The Scrolls

366

Mika S. Pajunen

and the Scriptures. Qumran Fifty Years After. Edited by S. E. Porter and C. A. Evans. JSPSup 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Arnold, Russell C. D. The Social Role of Liturgy in the Religion of the Qumran Community. STDJ 60. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Brooke, George J. “Psalms 105 and 106 at Qumran.” RevQ 54 (1989): 267–92. Coggins, Richard J. “What Does ‘Deuteronomistic’ Mean?” Pages 22–35 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists. The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Adam S. van der Woude. “11QPsb.” Pages 37–47 in Qumran Cave 11, II. 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Ȱ. “11Qapocryphal Psalms.” Pages 181–205 in Qumran Cave 11, II. 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31. DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Jassen, Alex P. Mediating the Divine. Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism. STDJ 68. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. McKenzie, Steven L. “Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 160–68 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Nasuti, Harry P. Tradition History and the Psalms of Asaph. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 88. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Nitzan, Bilhah. “Post-Biblical Rib Pattern Admonitions in 4Q302/303a and 4Q381 69, 76–77.” Pages 159–74 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use & Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12–14 May 1996. Edited by M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Pajunen, Mika S. “Qumranic Psalm 91: A Structural Analysis.” Pages 591–605 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Edited by A. Voitila and J. Jokiranta. JSJSup 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Ȱ. “11QPsApª, A Communal Ritual Of Exorcism.” Paper presented at the fifth annual meeting of the OTSEM network. Lund, Sweden, 22 April 2008. Ȱ. “The Function of 11QPsApa as a Ritual.” Pages 50–60 in Text and Ritual. Papers presented at the symposium Text and Ritual. Edited by A. K. Gudme. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, 2009. Ȱ. “The Textual Connection between 4Q380 Fragment 1 and Psalm 106.” In The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by A. Lange, K. De Troyer and S. Tzoref. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming. Pakkala, Juha. Ezra the Scribe. The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemia 8. BZAW 347. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Puech, Émile. “11QPsApª: Un rituel d’exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction.” RevQ 14 (1990): 377–408.

The Use of Different Aspects of the Deuteronomistic Ideology in Apocryphal Psalms

367

Ȱ. “Les Psaumes davidiques du rituel d’exorcisme (11Q11).” Pages 160–81 in Sapiental, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998. Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet. Edited by D. K. Falk, F. García Martínez and E. M. Schuller. STDJ 35. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Römer, Thomas C. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History. A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Rooy, Harry F. van. Studies on the Syriac Apocryphal Psalms. JSSSup 7. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Sanders, James A. The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPsª). DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. Schuller, Eileen M. Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran. A Pseudepigraphic Collection. HSS 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Ȱ. “Qumran Pseudepigraphic Psalms (4Q380 and 4Q381),” Pages 1–39 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 4A, Pseudepigraphic and Non-Masoretic Psalms and Prayers. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and H. W. L. Rietz. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1997. Ȱ. “4QNon-Canonical Psalms A+B” Pages 75–173 in Qumran Cave 4. VI Poetical and Liturgical Texts, part 1. Edited by C. Newsom and E. Schuller. DJD 11. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Tanzer, Sarah. The Sages at Qumran: Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ph.D. diss., University of Harvard, 1987. Ulrich, Eugene, Patrick Skehan and Peter Flint. ”4QPsf.” Pages 85–106 in Qumran Cave 4, XI. Psalms to Chronicles. DJD 16. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Veijola, Timo. Verheissung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms. AASF B 220. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982. Ȱ. “The Witness in the Clouds: Ps 89:38." JBL 107 (1988): 413–17. Ȱ. "The Deuteronomistic Roots of Judaism." Pages 459–78 in Sefer Moshe. The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism. Edited by C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz and S. M. Paul. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Ȱ and D. Seely. “Barkhi Nafshi.” Pages 255–334 in Qumran Cave 4, XX. Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999.

Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage Anssi Voitila Introduction Storyline Judith is the heroine of a story that tells about the courage of a rich and beautiful widow who saves her people from a great enemy threatening to conquer and destroy the land with a clever plot. The great army of the Assyrian king Nebuchadnezzar, led by his general Holofernes, has conquered Syria and the Phoenician coast and is threatening Bethulia, Judith’s hometown in the mountainous frontier that leads to Israel and Jerusalem. Holofernes is astonished that Israelites do not surrender like every other nation so far. The Ammonite chief Achior gives a speech dealing with the history of Israel trying to explain that the Israelites cannot be beaten if they have not sinned against their God. Being angered at the suggestion that they cannot defeat the Israelites, Holofernes and other chiefs protest and Holofernes has Achior seized and sent away to the Israelites. Holofernes’s army besieged Bethulia for 34 days after which the people of the town were weak from thirst and were losing their courage and ready to surrender; they made their leaders promise to surrender provided that God had not come to their rescue within five days. Now Judith enters the scene. She makes a powerful speech to the leaders of Bethulia in which she claims to have a plan to save her people. This plan consists of going out to meet Holofernes in the Assyrian camp. The leaders give permission for her mission. Judith goes to prepare herself and says a long prayer. Embellished and dressed in her best garments, Judith goes to the Assyrian camp. She charms Holofernes and everybody else by her beauty and seemingly wise speech. Holofernes gives a banquet for his servants in his tent and invites Judith too. He gets himself drunk and falls asleep. All the servants depart, Judith ȭ still in his tent ȭ comes near his bed and kills Holofernes by cutting his head with his sword. Judith returns to Bethulia with the

370

Anssi Voitila

head of Holofernes and some booty from his tent and tells what has happened. Discovering that Holofernes is dead, the Assyrians panic and run in every direction. The Israelites from all over the country pursue and destroy them. A triumph is celebrated and Judith, with other women, sings a victory song. The story ends with an epilogue of the rest of Judith’s life.

Method and Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to explore the so-called Deuteronomic (= Dtn)/Deuteronomistic (= Dtr) influence and phraseology in the book of Judith (= Jdt). Moshe Weinfeld in his Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic School and Martin Noth in his The Deuteronomistic History collected the phraseology of the Dtn/Dtr authors. After their important works, new articles and monographs were also published on the theology and phraseology observed in this study. Moshe Weinfeld argued that not every phrase that occurs in Deuteronomy makes it Deuteronomic but it is “its meaning within the framework of Deuteronomic theology.”1 Behind this statement is the idea that in Deuteronomy and in the Deuteronomistic books there is earlier material that is not Dtn/Dtr but chosen to be included in these books by the Dtn/Dtr redactors on one hand and later material incorporated to the Dtn/Dtr edition of the books after the Dtn/Dtr redactor on the other.2 This statement is problematic in several respects for the present study. From the standpoint of the author of the book of Judith (= AJu), there were never Dtn/Dtr redactors; there were only books, in the form they had reached at the time of the author, that are today called Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic history. Second, our author knew other biblical traditions and used their phraseology as well. Particularly the language of the Psalms and Isaiah is represented in the book; the Exodus tradition and its language may also be detected in Jdt.

1 2

Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 1–2. Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981), 84, gives the impression that the earlier material was given from above, that it was an already existing entity, a fact that the Dtr could not or would not change (“Like an honest broker he began by taking, in principle, a favourable view of the material in the traditions”). But certainly we must think that Dtr choose this material. He accepted it in a way to base his new History of Israel on; otherwise he would have worked differently and chosen other material.

Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage

371

There is another complication concerning the difference of languages: Jdt survives to us only in Greek—if it ever existed in Hebrew it is not preserved—while the Dtn/Dtr books are in Hebrew. Therefore, it is difficult to know exactly what the corresponding phrases or expressions in Hebrew would have been. We may not always expect that the LXX form of a Dtn/Dtr expression or phrase is the one the author/translator would have used. He may not have always preferred those he found in the LXX, but created his own. Thus in this study, the expression counted as corresponding with the Dtn/Dtr Hebrew one is not always word-for-word equivalent to the LXX reading. The similarity with the meaning and content of the phrase or word used by AJu to those of the Dtn/Dtr reflects ideological dependence as well, although the exact words do not correspond the words we encounter in the relevant passages in the LXX. In this way, the Dtn/Dtr influence in Jdt may be evaluated more deeply and reliably, and all the evidence considered. In the following, the discussion follows a thematic order, organized according to the main characteristics of the Dtn/Dtr theology.

Narrative Content AJu follows in the footsteps of the Deuteronomists to the extent that he3 uses narrative to convey his message. Judith resembles the heroes of the books from Joshua to 2 Kings: she recalls Deborah; Jael who kills Sisera; David who kills the Giant Goliath, his nation’s enemy; and Miriam who sings for Yahweh’s victory. However, Judith’s story differs from the Dtr ones in its fictional and ahistorical character, most likely never intended to be taken as describing true historical events. The Book of Judith is not a systematic presentation of its author’s theology but a story that intended to sway its audience, to persuade them to change their ideas or confirm their already existing beliefs. This means that sometimes a scholar must confess that a certain idea that seems to be stated in the text does not necessarily represent the author’s thinking but reflects the situation in the text. This is especially the case with speeches. It is very important to take into consideration who is speaking, when and to whom. Like his Dtn/Dtr predecessors, AJu uses speeches at turning points of the narration to present important principles and theological ideas, 3

I use the masculine pronoun “he” or “his” referring to AJu as a measure of economy and to make my text easier to follow; the use of this convention is not intended to exclude the possibility that the author was a woman.

372

Anssi Voitila

i.e. what is the meaning of the events and actions in the text, what is their purpose, what should the audience learn from them. The prayers, the use of which expanded in Jewish prose during the Hellenistic period,4 also have the same function.

Exclusiveness of the Worship of Yahweh Yahweh and the Other Gods: The Exclusive Monolatry in Judith In the Dtn/Dtr theology, the central idea was that Israelites should worship only Yahweh, albeit other gods may exist. Thus the question why the exile, the destruction of the nation, of its holy city and temple ever happened5 had a very simple answer: the people have sinned. The sin was idolatry—God punishes Israel for it had worshipped the other gods than Yahweh. AJu fully agrees with this judgement. In Judith, the Assyrians tightened the siege of Bethulia and the town’s courage was drying up (7:23–25). The inhabitants and their leaders reflect upon the possible reasons for the threatening situation. The answer is the same that is found in the Dtn/Dtr theology which is part of the religious tradition of AJu too: they must have sinned. The theme is already raised earlier in the text. When the Assyrian general Holofernes is astonished at the refusal of the Israelites to surrender, one Achior, an Ammonite chief in his army, informs the general about Israelites (Jdt 5:5–21) and the impossibility of beating them unless they have sinned against their God: when the Israelites sin their God punishes them by letting an

4 5

Tessa Rajak, Translation & Survival: the Greek Bible and the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 235–36. Martin Rose, “Idéologie deutéronomiste et Théologie de l'Ancient Testament,” in Israël construit son histoire. L'historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (ed. A. du Pury et al.; Le Monde de la Bible 34; Genève: Labor et Fides, 1996), 445–76 (449–51), following Martin Noth (The Deuteronomistic History, 97–99), puts much effort into showing that the DH did not have any positive perspective of the future. It is not strange (see, Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 98) that the authors of Deuteronomy and DH are focussing their attention on their present situation and not on the future. It is rather difficult for me to see how the authors could have been satisfied with only explaining what has happened and not aspiring to achieve something in their audience. The speeches by Moses (Deut 4:25–31), by Joshua (Josh 23:15–6), by Samuel (1 Sam 12:20–5) or Salomon’s prayer (1 Kgs 8:44–53) must be considered in this light. The way the Dtn/Dtr present their history is most effective with an open future, handing the responsibility for reaching the right conclusions over to the audience. In the book of Judith we meet one reaction to the challenge posed by the Dtn/Dtr authors.

Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage

373

enemy conquer and destroy them in Jdt 5:17–18, 20. In Jdt 11:10–11, 15, the punishment is described with Dtn/Dtr language6 »Ç¿ûÊÇÅ̸ţ ÊÇÀ ¼ĊË ě¼¿ÉÇÅ ëÅ Ìĉ ÷ÄšÉß ëÁ¼ţÅþ. In this speech of Achior and later when Judith confirms the claim presented in his words to Holofernes, the cause and effect, sin and punishment, seem to function as an automaton.7 Mostly the exact nature of the sin Israel has committed is not given in Jdt; it is only characterized in rather general terms as “sin” ÒºÅĠ¾Ä¸, ÒÅÇÄţ¸, ÖĸÉÌţ¸, ÖÄÚÉ̾ĸ, ÖĸÉÌÚżÀÅ (Jdt 5:20–21; 7:28). But when the nature of the sin is explicitly stated by Judith herself in the speech to the town leaders, it is idolatry (Jdt 8:18) and, in her speech to Holofernes, the transgression of dietary laws (Jdt 11:15). But what becomes obvious in the book is that neither Judith, nor the people, nor the leaders of the city are able to find any sin that they have committed and for which they should repent. The language Judith employs is a combination of Dtn/Dtr and prophetic rhetoric against idolatry: these gods are not true ones but made by humans, Jdt 8:18: ÇĐ ÈÉÇÊÁÍÅÇıÊÀÅ ¿¼ÇėË Ï¼ÀÉÇÈÇÀûÌÇÀË; cf. Deut 30:17: Á¸Ė ȸž¿¼ĖË ÈÉÇÊÁÍÅûÊþË ¿¼ÇėË îÌšÉÇÀË.8 The term ϼÀÉÇÈÇţ¾ÌÇË occurs in Lev 26:1, 30; Deut 4:28; 27:15;9 Wis 14:8; Isa 2:18; 10:11; 16:12; 19:1; 21:9; 31:7; 46:6; Dan 5:4, 23; 6:28; see also Isa 44:9–17; Jer 10:3–4; Ps 115:4–7. Instead of clear monotheistic expressions, the author of Judith uses ambiguous language when referring to other gods and Yahweh. In Jdt 8:20, Judith states that Israelites do not know any other god but the 6

7

8 9

For the phraseology, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 346, 348; for /< and related words in Dtn/Dtr literature as punishment of transgressing God’s law, see Norbert Lohfink, “/<,” TDOT 15:177–98 (188–91). ¼ĊË ě¼¿ÉÇÅ in Jdt 11:15 may be considered as more free rendering/reminiscence of the Hebrew expression ( 3# (/
374

Anssi Voitila

Lord, ÷ļėË »ò ï̼ÉÇÅ ¿¼ġÅ ÇĤÁ ìºÅÑļŠÈÂüÅ ¸ĤÌÇı. This phrase has similarities with Dtn/Dtr phraseology: -':% -'!+ “other/foreign gods”10 and #+/ #3 0'# -'!+! #! !#!' ') =3'# “you shall know that Yahweh alone is God and there is no other besides him (e.g. Deut 4:35, 39;11 7:9; 1 Kgs 8:60; 2 Kgs 19:19).”12 In Judith the expression “other god” is also complemented with the expression ÁįÉÀÇË ĝ ¿¼ġË ÷ÄľÅ which is literally the case in Deuteronomy too and clearly connected with the menace of punishment, although the sin that might have caused it escapes the Israelites.13 Judith’s statement, however, does not contain any counterpart to the phrase #3 0'# “and there is no other” which renders these phrases in Deuteronomy monotheistic. The formulation in Jdt 8:20 also resembles the first commandment in Exod 20:3, ÇĤÁ ìÊÇÅ̸ţ ÊÇÀ ¿¼ÇĖ ï̼ÉÇÀ ÈÂüÅ ëÄÇı (cf. ÈÉġ ÈÉÇÊļÈÇÍ ÄÇÍ/'16¡+3; Deut 5:7) which is generally interpreted as monolatrous; there are other gods but for Israel there is only one.14 In Jdt 9:14, Judith’s words remind one even more of the Dtn monotheistic phraseology (#3 0' -'!+! #! !#!' “Yahweh alone is God there is no other” Deut 4:35, 39; 1 Kgs 8:6015): Á¸Ė ÈÇţ¾ÊÇÅ ëÈĖ ÈÜÅ Ìġ ì¿ÅÇË ÊÇÍ ... ëÈţºÅÑÊÀÅ ÌÇı ¼Ċ»ýʸÀ ĞÌÀ Êİ ¼č ĝ ¿¼ġË ... Á¸Ė ÇĤÁ ìÊÌÀÅ ÓÂÂÇË ĨȼɸÊÈţ½ÑÅ ÌÇı ºñÅÇÍË Êɸ¾Â ¼Ċ Äü Êį. As a predicate noun with the definite article, ĝ ¿¼ĠË in the sentence ĞÌÀ Êİ ¼č ĝ ¿¼ĠË (-'!+! !=) definitely signifies “the God (the true one)” and later Á¸Ė ÇĤÁ ìÊÌÀÅ ÓÂÂÇË (#3 0') would confirm this, “there is none other”— unless the verse continued with a restric10

11 12 13 14

15

This expression is not Deuteronomic, although it appears rather frequently in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic history; it is “part and parcel of the common Hebrew vocabulary,” but it becomes Deuteronomic when attached to the verbs (+! and 3, Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 83–84, 320; Félix García López, “Analyse littéraire de Deutéronome, V–XI,” RB 85 (1978): 5–49 (42–44); Norbert Lohfink, “Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?” in Jeremia und die “deueronomistische Bewegung” (ed. W. Gross; BBB 98; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 313–82 (331); Norbert Lohfink, “2 Kön 23,3 und Dtn 6,17,” Biblica 71 (1990): 34–42 (36); Timo Veijola, Das 5. Buch Mose / Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1ȭ16,17 (ATD 8,1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 154 n. 187. Deut 4:35: ĞÌÀ ÁįÉÀÇË ĝ ¿¼ĠË ÊÇÍ ÇīÌÇË ¿¼ĠË ìÊÌÀÅ Á¸Ė ÇĤÁ ìÊÌÀÅ ìÌÀ ÈÂüÅ ¸ĤÌÇı; Deut 4:39: Á¸Ė ºÅļÊþ ... ĞÌÀ ÁįÉÀÇË ĝ ¿¼ĠË ÊÇÍ ÇīÌÇË ¿¼ġË ... Á¸Ė ÇĤÁ ìÊÌÀÅ ìÌÀ ÈÂüÅ ¸ĤÌÇı. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 331. In Deuteronomy “Yahweh your God,” see García López, “Analyse littéraire de Deutéronome, V–XI,” 43. Juha Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry in Deuteronomistic History (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 76; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 65; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 154–55. The monotheistic creed in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 331. The expressions in Deut 4:35, 39 and 1 Kgs 8:60 are all late (post-Dtr) and dependant on Deuterojesaja; Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry, 153, 162 (see further literature there); Veijola, Deuteronomium, 117.

Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage

375

tive clause ĨȼɸÊÈţ½ÑÅ, ÁÌÂ. “(there is none other) who protects the people of Israel but you.” Consequently it seems that AJu did not feel obligated to stress the exclusiveness of the God of the Israelites and to show that Yahweh is the God of the whole world.16 It is very interesting that the author of the book of Judith follows the Dtr monolatrous expressions here and not the deuteroisaianic ones, assuming that the phrases in Deut 4:35, 39; 7:9; 1 Kgs 8:60 and 2 Kgs 19:19 are all post Dtr and dependant on Deutero-Isaiah.

Nebuchadnezzar as the Only God In fact, the only god who has any claims for exclusivity in Jdt is Nebuchadnezzar. First, Nebuchadnezzar ordered Holofernes not to spare, not to pity (ÇĤ μţʼ̸À ĝ Ěο¸ÂÄĠË ÊÇÍ;17 cf. Deut 7:16; 13:9; 19:13, 21; 25:1218) any one who does not surrender to him and transgresses the commandments of his lord (Á¸Ė Êİ »ò ÇĤ ȸɸ¹ûÊþ ïÅ ÌÀ ÌľÅ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ ÌÇı ÁÍÉţÇÍ ÊÇÍ; cf. Deut 1:43; 9:12, 16; 17:20; 28:1419). Further, the promulgation of the ruler cult of Nebuchadnezzar is creatively depicted by the author with Dtn/Dtr phraseology against idolatry, in Jdt 3:8: “Holofernes demolished (Á¸ÌñÊÁ¸Ð¼Å) all their sanctuaries (ĞÉÀ¸) and cut down (ëÆñÁÇмÅ, later also ëÆǼ¿É¼ıʸÀ) all their sacred poles/groves (ÓÂʾ) so that all the nations should worship Nebuchadnezzar alone (ĞÈÑË ¸ĤÌŊ ÄĠÅĿ ÌŊ ¸¹ÇÍÏÇ»ÇÅÇÊÇÉ Â¸ÌɼįÊÑÊÀÅ ÈÚÅ̸ ÌÛ ì¿Å¾).” With similar language the audience is urged to “battle the foreign cult apparatus” in Deut 7:5; 12:3; 2 Kgs 18:4 (cf. Judg 6:28).20 Later in Jdt 6:2 Holofernes poses a rhetorical question ÌţË ĝ ¿¼ġË ¼Ċ Äü ¸¹ÇÍÏÇ»ÇÅÇÊÇÉ “Who is God except Nebuchadnezzar?” Next, the god Nebuchadnezzar urges all the inhabitants of the earth to fear him and when they do not (Jdt 1:11 ĞÌÀ ÇĤÁ ëÎǹû¿¾Ê¸Å ¸ĤÌĠÅ), he becomes angry (v. 12 Á¸ĕ ë¿ÍÄļ¿¾ ¸¹ÇÍÏÇ»ÇÅÇÊÇÉ ëÈĖ ÈÜʸŠÌüÅ ºýŠ̸į̾ŠÊÎĠ»É¸) and wants to kill them

16

17 18 19 20

According to Noth (The Deuteronomistic History, 91) “Dtr. has little chance to mention that God’s actions were intended to have an effect on the whole world.” There are such cases as 1 Kgs 8:41–43 where it is stated that, in the future, all the nations will learn to know and fear this God. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 2. For the expression, see Veijola, Deuteronomium, 204. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 339–40. Pakkala, Intolerant Monolatry, 97–8.; Norbert Lohfink, “Opferzentralisation, Säkularisierungsthese und mimetische Theorie,” in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur III (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände: Altes Testament 20. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), 219–60 (247); Veijola, Deuteronomium, 202–3.

376

Anssi Voitila

all.21 Finally, the words of Nebuchadnezzar and his “prophet” Holofernes are characterized as trustworthy, Jdt 6:4: Âñº¼À ĝ ¹¸ÊÀ¼İË ¸¹ÇÍÏÇ»ÇÅÇÊÇÉ ... ÇĤ ĸ̸ÀÑ¿ûʼ̸À ÌÛ ģûĸ̸ ÌľÅ ÂĠºÑÅ ¸ĤÌÇı. And later it is stated that none of Holofernes’ words shall be in vain, Jdt 6:9: ëÂÚ¾ʸ Á¸Ė ÇĤ»òÅ »À¸È¼Ê¼ė̸À ÌľÅ ģ¾ÄÚÌÑÅ ÄÇÍ. They sound just as God’s words through a Dtn/Dtr prophet.22 Nonetheless, the author must have intended and any reader will read the claims for exclusivity of Nebuchadnezzar ironically: Nebuchadnezzar arrogates to himself something that may belong only to the God Yahweh and consequently, without explicitly stating the fact, the author proclaims Yahweh as the only true God.

Nationalistic Tendencies The intolerant monolatrous language AJu uses may be explained as a part of nationalistic tendencies in the book. The author wants to portray the Israelites alone with the Lord their God against all the other nations—all that is most unalienable in their religion and ethnic identity threatened by this foreign ruler. The only true member of the community is the one who puts his/her trust only in this God, Yahweh, even if originally a foreigner, as was Achior, the Ammonite (Jdt 14:10). Therefore there is no universalism, no need to promote Yahweh worship for the whole world.

21

22

Deut 1:37; 4:21; 6:15; 9:8, 20; 11:17. For God’s anger in the Deuteronomistic history, see Denis J. McCarthy, “The Wrath of Yahweh and the Structural Unity of the Deuteronomistic History,” in Essays in Old Testament Ethics: J. Philip Hyatt in Memoriam (ed. J. L. Crenshaw and J. T. Willis; New York: Ktav, 1974), 97–110 and Norbert Lohfink, “Zorn Gottes und Exil,” in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt (ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann; FRLANT 190; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 137–55 (139–41). In the anger theology of DtrN, the anger of Yahweh is provoked by not obeying his will, particularly by turning to the other gods, see Kari Latvus, God, Anger and Ideology (JSOTSup 279; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 40–1. When Achior has finished his speech about the Israelites Holofernes becomes angry. Navarro Puerto (“Reinterpreting the Past,” 121) claims: “This is not the response that we expect from somebody who… is sure of himself, who is strong… Achior’s speech has touched the weak point in the general…” But then God becomes angry all the time in the so-called Deuteronomic History, especially when his people do not obey him and show fear of him. The point is that for the author Holofernes and his lord Nebuchadnezzar behave like God and his prophet. See, for example Josh 21:45; 23:14 and Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 350.

Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage

377

The Centralization of the Cult Another central idea in the book of Deuteronomy is the so-called centralization of the cult, i.e., Yahweh should be worshipped only in one place, which he has chosen for himself.23 The worship in cult places other than Jerusalem is no longer an issue in Jdt. Local sanctuaries are not even brought up when Achior tells about the sins of Israelite ancestors and Judith assures the town leaders that Israelites have not done anything that would have caused God to abandon them. It seems to be self-evident that there is only one temple in Jerusalem. All the sacrifices are made in that temple (Jdt 4:14; 9:1; 16:18–20), but the author does not show any other interest in the cult. In Judith’s prayer in ch. 9, the phrase Ìġ ÊÁûÅÑĸ ÌýË Á¸Ì¸È¸įʼÑË ÌÇı ĚÅĠĸÌÇË ÌýË »ĠÆ¾Ë ÊÇÍ (v. 8) referring to the temple is suggestive of the Dtn language reflecting the idea that not God himself but his name dwells in the temple and the city.24 In fact, the wording in Jdt corresponds more literally to the Hebrew text -< 0)< (or -#<) than does the LXX25 ĝ ÌĠÈÇË ğÅ ÔÅ ëÁÂñƾ̸À ÁįÉÀÇË ĝ ¿¼ĠË ÊÇÍ ëÈÀÁ¾¿ýŸÀ Ìġ ěÅÇĸ ¸ĤÌÇı ëÁ¼ė (Deut 12:11, 21; 14:23, 24; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; 1 Kgs 8:16, 43; 9:3; 11:36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:4, 7). Although the divine manifestation as »ĠƸ is contained in the priestly theology it certainly also belongs to the idea of divine presence in the Jerusalem temple in 1 Kgs 8:11.26 Other cult places in Israel are non-existent in the book. There is no mention even of prayer houses or synagogues. For prayer there seems to be no need for a special place, albeit public prayers are presented. The people fell down and worshipped God, and cried out to him (6:18, 19; 10:8; 13:17). This language shows reminiscences of Dtn liturgical terms.27 In Jdt 9:1, Judith’s private prayer is depicted: Judith throws herself down and prays before God like Moses in Deut 9:18 and 25. It is interesting that although the evening sacrifice made in Jerusalem is

23 24 25

26 27

Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 93; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 1, 324–26 etc. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 325; Eyal Regev, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness,” VT 51 (2001): 243–61 (251). Note that an unknown hexaplaric reading has it as ¼ĊË Á¸Ì¸ÊÁûÅÑÊÀÅ ¸ĤÌÇı. LXX calls it a place where the name of the Lord is called. This may be because the translator did not consider it possible that God would live in the temple in any form; see Norbert Lohfink, ”Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel,” Biblica 65 (1984): 297–329 (309–10); for another solution, see Cécile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl, Le Deutéronome (La Bible d’Alexandrie 5; Paris: Cerf, 1992), 194. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 191–209. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 330.

378

Anssi Voitila

pointed out, the direction in which Judith prays is not explicitly named as that of the temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:35, 44, 48; Dan 6:11; 1 Esdras 4:58; Tob 3:11).

Yahweh and His People: Law and Covenant Yahweh and His People The people of Israel are most often called simply ĝ ¸ĠË “the people” or ÇĎ ÍĎÇĖ (ĝ ÇčÁÇË) Êɸ¾Â “the sons (or house) of Israel” (or ÈÜË ÒÅüÉ [ºÍÅü] Êɸ¾Â “every man [woman] of Israel”). There is no mention of a special election of the Israelites.28 Only once, in a prayer, does the people of Bethulia call itself sanctified/holy in Jdt 6:19: Á¸Ė ëÈĕ¹Â¼ÐÇÅ ëÈĖ Ìġ ÈÉĠÊÑÈÇÅ ÌľÅ ÷ºÀ¸ÊÄñÅÑÅ ÊÇÀ ëÅ Ìĉ ÷ÄñÉß Ì¸įÌþ. Deuteronomy, on the contrary, regards all the people of Israel as holy by virtue of their election by God (cf. Deut 33:3: Á¸Ė ëμĕʸÌÇ ÌÇı ¸Çı ¸ĤÌÇı Á¸Ė ÈÚÅÌ¼Ë ÇĎ ÷ºÀ¸ÊÄñÅÇÀ ĨÈġ ÌÛË Ï¼ėÉ¸Ë ÊÇÍ; ĞÌÀ ¸ġË ×ºÀÇË ¼č ÁÍÉĕĿ ÌŊ ¿¼Ŋ ÊÇÍ; Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9).29 The word ÷ºÀ¸ÊÄñÅÇË “sanctified” is also used of the temple, of its altar and equipment (Jdt 4:3; 9:13).30 Twice the people are referred to as the inheritance of God in Judith’s prayers (Jdt 9:12 and 13:5). These instances will be treated in the next section. Here, suffice it to say that this sort of characterization indicates Israel’s being God’s possession; with this emotional language Judith persuades God to save his people. God is most often characterized as their God (7:28 “our God, the Lord of our fathers”), also “of the inheritance of Israel” (Jdt 9:12). Once the Israelites are characterized as belonging to God—in Judith’s prayer to God, in Jdt 9:13: ÍĎÇĕ ÊÇÍ, “your sons”; a little earlier in the same prayer (v. 4), Judith refers to her ancestors as ÍĎÇĖ óº¸È¾ÄñÅÇÀ ĨÈġ ÊÇÍ, “sons beloved by you (i.e., God).”

28 29

30

The concept of “chosen people” is present in Deuteronomy, but Dtr authors speak of “God’s/My People,” Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 89–90. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 227; Norbert Lohfink, “Dt 26, 17 – 19 und die ‘Bundesformel’,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 91 (1969): 517–53 (543–45); Veijola, Deuteronomium, 199; Regev, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness,” 252–53; see also, Thomas Römer, “The Book of Deuteronomy,” in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth (ed. S. McKenzie and M. P. Graham; JSOTSup 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 178–212 (201–2). In 1 Kgs 9:3, God says he has sanctified the temple: ȼÈÇĕ¾Á¸ ÊÇÀ Á¸ÌÛ ÈÜʸŠÌüÅ ÈÉÇʼÍÏûÅ ÊÇÍ, ÷ºÀ¸Á¸ ÌġÅ ÇčÁÇÅ ÌÇıÌÇÅ.

Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage

379

In Achior’s account of the history of Israel, although God leads the Israelites away from Egypt (Jdt 5:14), Achior never mentions the revelation in Sinai. In fact, the only revelation he ever mentions is the one made by God to Abraham in Harran, Jdt 5:9. Before that, the people had already learned to know (¿¼ġË ğÅ ëÈñºÅÑʸÅ) God in Chaldea (5:8). This is even more interesting because Moses does not occur at all in the whole book. But then the revelation in Sinai is implicitly suggested to the reader by such phrases that allude to the law and the covenant.

Covenant In the Dtn/Dtr theology, the special relationship between God and Israel finds expression in the covenant. The Septuagint Greek word for covenant, »À¸¿ûÁ¾, is mentioned only once in Judith’s prayer: the Assyrians are referred to, among other things, as “those acting against your covenant” ÇĐ Á¸ÌÛ ÌýË »À¸¿ûÁ¾Ë ÊÇÍ (Jdt 9:13). Here Judith invokes God’s obligations in the covenant. She has previously argued in front of the leaders of Bethulia that although the Israelites have not violated the stipulations of the covenant, they have no right to demand anything from God but to put their trust in his rightfulness. Neither the Davidic dynasty nor any of the Kings of Israel or Judah are mentioned in the Book of Judith, however the promises made to David in 2 Sam 7 are echoed in Jdt 13:14: ¸Ċżė̼ ÌġÅ ¿¼ĠÅ ğË ÇĤÁ ÒÈñÊ̾ʼŠÌġ ì¼ÇË ¸ĤÌÇı ÒÈġ ÌÇı ÇċÁÇÍ Êɸ¾Â. There she praises God by recalling 2 Sam 7:15: Ìġ »ò ì¼ÇË ÄÇÍ ÇĤÁ ÒÈÇÊÌûÊÑ ÒÈЏ ¸ĤÌÇı; cf. Ps 66:20 and Dan 3:35. Here the AJu seems to follow in the footsteps of the Dtn authors: Deuteronomy is also known to transfer to the nation the attributes of royal ideology and the divine promises given originally to the Davidic dynasty.31 There are however a few expressions that clearly evoke the idea of covenant in the book of Judith. First, Jdt 5:18 alludes to covenant by the verb »À¸ÌÀ¿ñŸÀ “to establish (a covenant)”: Ğ̼ »ò ÒÈñÊ̾ʸŠÒÈġ ÌýË ĝ»Çı úË »Àñ¿¼ÌÇ ¸ĤÌÇėË.32 Second, as in Deut 4:26; 30:19 and 31:28 where Yahweh himself invokes Heaven and Earth as witnesses and “guarantors that punishment will be executed should the treaty be violated”

31

32

Bernard M. Levinson, “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah,” VT 51 (2001): 511–34 (530– 31). So also Zenger, Das Buch Judit, 473.

380

Anssi Voitila

(»À¸Ä¸ÉÌįÉÇĸÀ ĨÄėÅ ÊûļÉÇÅ ÌĠŠ̼ ÇĤɸÅġÅ Á¸Ė ÌüÅ ºýÅ ĞÌÀ...),33 AJu put the same expression in the mouth of the inhabitants of Bethulia adding heaven and earth with God himself as witnesses to their distress when they complain against the decision made by the town leaders: Jdt 7:28: ĸÉÌÍÉĠļ¿¸ ĨÄėÅ ÌġÅ ÇĤɸÅġÅ Á¸Ė ÌüÅ ºýÅ Á¸Ė ÌġÅ ¿¼ġÅ ÷ÄľÅ Á¸Ė ÁįÉÀÇÅ ÌľÅ È¸ÌñÉÑÅ ÷ÄľÅ ... ďŸ.... They are convinced that God has sold them into the hands of the Assyrians (7:25: ÈñÈɸÁ¼Å ÷ÄÜË ĝ ¿¼ġË ¼ĊË ÌÛË Ï¼ėÉ¸Ë ¸ĤÌľÅ), because God is the one who punishes Israelites for their sins and for the sins of their fathers (7:28: ğË ëÁ»ÀÁ¼ė ÷ÄÜË Á¸ÌÛ ÌÛË ÖĸÉÌĕ¸Ë ÷ÄľÅ Á¸Ė Á¸ÌÛ ÌÛ ÖĸÉÌûĸ̸ ÌľÅ È¸ÌñÉÑÅ ÷ÄľÅ) as he promises in the imprecations of the Deuteronomic covenant in Deut 28 (particularly applicable in their situation would be vv. 49–53, but also 32:30). Employing this formulation the author makes the inhabitants confess their guilt, even though they do not know exactly what the actual sin is, so as to shift the responsibility onto God just in case they have sinned, and precisely because they do not know it.

Law The exact contents of the law, as stipulations of the treaty between God and his people, are rather seldom mentioned in Jdt. The word “law” occurs only once. In her speech, Judith uses the word “law” in the plural (ÅĠÄÇÀË), repeating to Holofernes what Achior said earlier about the effects of sin on Israelites. The word ÅĠÄÇÀË refers rather ambiguously to the dietary laws (11:12: Á¸Ė ÈÚÅ̸, Ğʸ »À¼Ê̼ĕ¸ÌÇ ¸ĤÌÇėË ĝ ¿¼ġË ëÅ ÌÇėË ÅĠÄÇÀË ¸ĤÌÇı Äü θº¼ėÅ). Another reference to the law is found in Jdt 5:18. There, in the relative clause, it is said that the way in which one should walk is the one established by God (“but when they departed from the way which he established for them”; Ğ̼ »ò ÒÈñÊ̾ʸŠÒÈġ ÌýË ĝ»Çı úË »Àñ¿¼ÌÇ ¸ĤÌÇėË). The phrase—along with its context—denotes the law as the stipulations of the covenant made with God, even though in Achior’s speech the law is never mentioned. In the previous verse the text only notes that God hates iniquity/injustice. Furthermore, the phrase has reminiscences in Dtn/Dtr phraseology: the expression ÒÎÀÊÌÚŸÀ ÒÈġ ÌýË ĝ»Çı, ”to turn away from the way,” corresponds to the Dtn/Dtr (:! 0/ :#2.34 At v. 19 the idea of repentance and return from

33 34

Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 62, 66; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 102–3. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 339; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 231, 255; Zenger, Das Buch Judit, 473.

Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage

381

the evil ways is equally Dtn/Dtr,35 Á¸Ė ÅıÅ ëÈÀÊÌÉñиÅÌ¼Ë ëÈĖ ÌġÅ ¿¼ġÅ ¸ĤÌľÅ (cf. Deut 30:2 ('!+ !#!' 3 =<#//Á¸Ė ëÈÀÊÌɸÎûÊþ ëÈĖ ÁįÉÀÇÅ ÌġÅ ¿¼ĠÅ ÊÇÍ; 1 Sam 7:3 [with all the heart] ëÈÀÊÌÉñμ̼ ÈÉġË ÁįÉÀÇÅ; 1 Kgs 8:47 [repent], 48). So is the idea that to do what is pleasing to the Lord, to walk according to his will (Jdt 5:17: ÇĤÁ ÖĸÉÌÚżÀÅ ëÅļÈÀÇÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı; 13:20: ëÈЏ ¼Ĥ¿¼À¸Å ÈÇɼį¼Ê¿¸À ëÅļÈÀÇÅ ÌÇı ¿¼Çı;36 Jdt 8:17; 15:10) is rewarded with all good things in life, with prosperity to the nation (Jdt 5:19–20; 15:8–10).37 This is not an automaton; it only happens if it pleases God (Jdt 8:17: ëÛÅ Ă ¸ĤÌŊ ÒɼÊÌĠÅ; see also 4:15 “so that he will make everything go well”). In Deut 5:30; 6:24; 10:13; 19:1338; and 13:20 the good things are prayed for although the conditions are clearly fulfilled. Moreover the story of Judith and Bethulia includes an incident that presents an obvious contradiction between the Deuteronomic law and actual practice. At the end of the book, the Ammonite Achior had himself circumcised (ȼÉÀ¼ÌñļÌÇ) and was received (ÈÉÇʼÌñ¿¾) into the house of Israel. In Deut 23:4, this is explicitly prohibited (see also Neh 13:1). It is of course noticeable that, in the entire book, our author leaves the presentation of the contents of the law rather meagre: he deals only with the dietary laws and those prohibiting the foreign gods. But then the narrator does not need to go into any details: the Israelites have not committed any important sins. Thus I do not believe that the author would not have known or had forgotten the law concerning the Ammonites; on the contrary, he used this Ammonite figure in his narrative purposefully. A member of an old enemy nation is a powerful figure when he narrates the impressive history of the Israelites and then witnesses the outcome of the threatening situation. He surely deserves to enter the assembly of God; after all Ruth the Moabitess, grandmother of King David was accepted into the Israelites.39 It may also be that there were interpretations concerning this prohibition in Deuteronomy that 35

36 37 38 39

Hans Walter Wolff, “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,” ZAW 73 (1961): 171–86; Walter Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte (FRLANT 108; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 141; Rose, “Idéologie deutéronomiste et Théologie,” 464, 467, 475; Raymond F. Person, The Deuteronomistic School (Studies in Biblical Literature 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 50–54; see also note 5. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 334; see also Zenger, Das Buch Judit, 510. To live in peace in the land requires observance of the law, Deut 12:9–10; Römer, “The Book of Deuteronomy,” 203; Person, The Deuteronomistic School, 55. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 345–46. For other solutions, see Moore, Judith, 235; Terence L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles (Waco: Baylor, 2008), 62; Navarro Puerto, “Reinterpreting the Past,” 135; Loader, Histories, Legends, and Related Writings, 206–7.

382

Anssi Voitila

we do not know about that would have facilitated the actions taken in the case of Achior in this text. These interpretations may be reflected in such verses as Isa 19:24–25; 25:6–8; Zeph 2:11; Zech 2:15; and Mal 1:11.40

The Land The land as an inheritance (!+%1 //ÁÂýÉÇË/Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸; !<:' //Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸) conquered by the people and given by God is also central to the Dtn/Dtr theologians.41 In the speech of Achior, as was already stated earlier, God led the Israelites to Kadesh Barnea (5:14: ôº¸º¼Å ¸ĤÌÇİË ¼ĊË ĝ»ġÅ ÌÇı ÀŸ Á¸Ė ¸»¾Ë ¸Éž). They drew out (ëÆñ¹¸ÂÇÅ ÈÚÅÌ¸Ë ÌÇİË Á¸ÌÇÀÁÇıÅ̸Ë) and destroyed (v. 15 ëÆÑÂñ¿É¼ÍʸŠ— <:' hiph., -:%, /< hiph. etc.) the Amorites and Hesbonites there, passed over Jordan and possessed (ëÁ¾ÉÇÅĠľʸŠ— <:') the hill country. Next they drew out (ëÆñ¹¸ÂÇÅ) the Canaanites, Pheresites, Jebusites, Sichemites and Gergesites,42 and settled (Á¸ÌňÁ¾Ê¸Å) into their lands. This picture reflects the Dtn/Dtr vocabulary of the conquest of the land.43 On the other hand, there are some features that are not in accordance with the Dtr presentation of the process. As a whole, Achior represents the conquest as a complete success. The people alone conquered the land; God had no role in the process. In Deuteronomy, on the contrary, God drew out (ëÁ¹Ú¼ÀÅ) the nations (Deut 11:23; 29:27; 32:27), walked in front of the people and gave the land to them (Deut 1:36, 39 etc.).44 Without communicating any divine order to conquer the land and to drive out its former habitants, Achior’s presentation leaves only the people responsible for the action even more so than the Dtn narrative, making them 40

41 42

43

44

Zenger speaks here about a certain theological purview that is reflected in these texts from the Hebrew Bible, Das Buch Judit, 512. Note also that this prohibition was still taken literally in the Hellenistic period, at least in some circles, see e.g. 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) 1:4. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert Tigchelaar, ed., 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) (vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 352–53. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 341–43.; Norbert Lohfink, “<:',” TDOT 6:368–96 (383); Veijola, Deuteronomium, 45–46, 114. This list of nations resembles the list we encounter in the Dtr tradition, e.g. Deut 7:1; 20:17; Josh 9:1; 11:3; see Veijola, Deuteronomium, 199–200; only some of the nations are lacking and Sichemites added; further, the list in Jdt appears in a different order. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 342. Deuteronomy 1ȭJoshua 22 pictures “the occupation as the result of military conquest” and it is associated with Yahweh’s giving 0=1; Lohfink “<:',” TDOT 6:384–85. In the Dtn presentation the conquest was a cooperation between God and the people.

Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage

383

appear a violent nation before the audience. However, what seems to agree with the Dtn view is the fact that the disobeying of God’s will appears immediately after the people have settled in the conquered land. In Dtn theology the giving of the land and the obeying of Yahweh’s will are strictly connected; the law is operative in the land (so also Jdt 8:18–20).45 The land occupied by the Israelites is called either the land of Canaan (÷ ºý ¸Å¸¸Å; Jdt 5:9–10) or Judea ( ÇÍ»¸À¸, 8x). On five occasions, Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸ is found.46 In two cases, the word refers to the people of Israel as the inheritance of God47 (cf. Deut 32:9). The narrative figure of Judith uses them as an emotional device to appeal to God (Jdt 9:12: ¿¼ġË Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸Ë Êɸ¾Â “(you) God of Israel’s inheritance”; Jdt 13:5: “it is time to come to the aid of your inheritance”). God should act according to his commitment to the people. The people, as God’s inheritance, does not belong to anybody else but to God. In the rest of the cases, Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸ denotes the land of the Israelites as inheritance or possession. It is never explicitly indicated that the land is given by God, but the textual context proves that the theological idea behind its use is the Dtn/Dtr concept of retribution: if his will is obeyed, God allows the people to live peacefully on their inherited property (Deut 3:20; 12:8–11; Josh 1:15; Judg 2:6; 21:24;48 2 Chr 31:1; Ps 79:1; Jer 12:15). In Jdt 4:12 and 8:22, Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸ appears in a context where the Assyrians threaten the Israelites. The author/speaker wants to remind his readers/addressees of this idea of inheritance, while at the same time he invokes the audience’s sympathy towards the Israelites in the face of this great distress. And then it is not by chance that Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄĕ¸ occurs for the last time when the distress is over, Judith has won and the Israelites may return in peace to their inheritance, in Jdt 16:21. Judith and the people are presented as ideal figures (ideal Judge and her God’s people) that have fulfilled the Dtn/Dtr ideals. This is already stated in v. 15:9 where the leaders of the people proclaimed 45 46

47

48

See Lohfink, “<:',” TDOT 6:386–90. There is still one case of Á¸ÌÚÊϼÊÀË “possession” in Jdt 9:13 denoting the temple in Jerusalem (The Assyrians acting against the house of the possession of thy children ÇċÁÇÍ Á¸Ì¸ÊÏñʼÑË ÍĎľÅ ÊÇÍ). This word corresponds in the LXX to the Hebrew word !$% which, according to Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 342), appears only in P not in D. In Dtn/Dtr formulation !+%1# -3/!+%1 -3 “a people of inheritance” appears in Deut 4:20; 9:26, 29; 1 Kgs 8:51, 53; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 328; see also Edward LipiÚski, “+%1,” TDOT 9:331. For more examples, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 343.

384

Anssi Voitila

Judith as the exaltation of Jerusalem, the great glory of Israel and the great rejoicing of the nation (Êİ ĩÐÑĸ ¼ÉÇÍʸ¾Ä, Êİ º¸ÍÉĕ¸Ä¸ Äñº¸ ÌÇı Êɸ¾Â, Êİ Á¸įϾĸ Äñº¸ ÌÇı ºñÅÇÍË ÷ÄľÅ). This is what has been promised in Deut 26:19 (Á¸Ė ¼čŸÀ ʼ ĨȼÉÚÅÑ ÈÚÅÌÑÅ ÌľÅ ë¿ÅľÅ, ĸË ëÈÇĕ¾ÊñŠʼ ĚÅÇĸÊÌġÅ Á¸Ė Á¸įϾĸ Á¸Ė »ÇƸÊÌĠÅ) as a reward for the life in accordance with the law. Judith is as strong and resolute as Joshua who does not fear.49 She is a guarantor of peace for her people all the days of her life (16:25) like the judges in the Dtr narrative (Judg 3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28). Her hand is God’s mighty and outstretched arm (Jdt 8:33; 9:10; 16:5) that saved her people from their enemy like Jael before her (Judg 4:9; 5:26).

Sacral and Festal Observances Weinfeld argues that sacrifice does not have sacral and institutional meaning in Deuteronomy but is a personal practice.50 God himself does not need the sacrifice. Sacrifice ”has two principal objects: a) humanitarian—to share the sacrificial repast with the poor... b) a private—to fulfil a religious obligation and express one’s gratitude to the deity by means of votive offerings.”51 In the book of Judith, sacrifice is carried out as a religious obligation or for personal reasons; no other reason is given. It is never said to expiate sin or sanctify anything, as is the case in Priestly legislation. In Deuteronomy, “the expiation is attained through prayer and confession.”52 On the textual level, sacrifice is one of the religious practices through which AJu displays the faithfulness and gratitude to the deity of the figure(s) of his story. The notice of daily sacrifices in Jdt 4:14 and of the sacrifice being offered in Jerusalem every evening in Jdt 9:1 demonstrates the sincere devotion of the people to the deity. This sacrificial practice accords perfectly with the Dtn concept of the sacrifice presented by Weinfeld. The offerer always has sincere intentions and good grounds for his/her worship: the coming of the Assyrians is good reason for the priests to offer sacrifices (the daily burnt offerings, with the vows and free gifts of the people) to the Lord (Jdt 4:15) among other practices, such as prayer, fasting, wearing sackcloth

49 50 51 52

For the phraseology, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 343–44. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 210–17; Regev, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness,” 245–46. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 212. Regev, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness,” 246 and n. 10, see also the literature there.

Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage

385

and crying unto the Lord. These are intended to show the whole nation throwing itself on the mercy of its God.53 The people conform with the Dtn idea of personal piety: personal prayer and confession of sins. The same attitude is later confirmed when, after the final victory, people are presenting sacrifices as an expression of joy and gratitude, in complete accordance with the Dtn idea of sacrifice,54 in 16:18. The regularity of some sacrifices is mentioned (Jdt 4:14; 9:1) but never that they had any sanctifying function. In the same way, Judith’s devotion and piety is highlighted by mentioning her fasting and praying and that she is God-fearing (Jdt 8:5–6, 8; 9:1). She does not keep the booty from Holofernes’ tent but she offers it to God (16:19) as ÒÅÚ¿¼Ä¸, which is the equivalent of -:% in the LXX. In the book of Deuteronomy, purity is not something that is required of an Israelite in order to be holy but an obligation of a holy person.55 In the same way, Judith when she refuses pagan food and drink, she does not do so because she wants to remain pure but because it is an offence against the law. The pagan food and drink is often associated with pagan cult practices, i.e., with idolatry. Another reason may be that pagan food included blood, which is prohibited.56 Thus by following the dietary laws (Jdt 12:1–8), she shows her commitment to the will of God; cf. Jdt 12:2: ďŸ Äü ºñž̸À ÊÁÚÅ»¸ÂÇÅ (likewise ÒºÅĠ¾Ä¸ and ÖĸÉÌÚżÀÅ causes offence in Jdt 5:20). On the contrary, to prevent impurity—and this means ritual impurity—is explicitly given as motivation in Dan 1:8; 1 Macc 1:62–63 and 2 Macc 5:27.57

53 54 55 56

57

Which, in Deuteronomy, seems preferable to the priestly rituals, see Regev, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness,” 248. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 212–13. See (also for the other literature) Regev, “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness,” 249–50. John J. Collins, Daniel: a Critical and Historical Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 142–43. Foreign foods and drink are not prohibited in the Pentateuch. Eating pagan food is however often associated with pagan cults, i.e., with idolatry, see John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 434–35. In the book of Judith, it does not seem to bother Holofernes and his guests that Judith does not share their meal. Collins, Daniel, 142.

386

Anssi Voitila

Conclusions In the course of this study, we have noted several elements of the socalled Deuteronomic and/or Deuteronomistic phraseology that the author of the book of Judith has used. It is obvious that this usage demonstrates a good command of Jewish religious traditions but moreover a dependence on Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic ideals. It has come out to be common knowledge among Judith scholars and commentators that the author of the book of Judith agreed with at least some important points in the theology of the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic writers, in particular the theme of sin-punishmentrepentance-forgiveness. That the author shares other themes too has become evident in the foregoing analysis: 1) in the sphere of personal piety, the author emphasizes a) the significance of the confession of one’s sins. He highlights further b) the importance of personal prayer through which one submits oneself to God’s mercy. c) He makes Judith follow the food regulations to demonstrate her religious obligation and devotion. These are advocated as the religious values the true member of Israelite community (God’s people) should follow. 2) Prayer is used along with the speeches on the literary level of Jdt to present the author’s religious ideas, in the way the Dtn/Dtr authors employed speeches in their text. 3) The sacrifice and the temple service illustrate the piety of the individual or the people as a whole; the sacrifices do not expiate sin or sanctify the sacred precincts. 4) The law and covenant are referred to but their actual contents remain vague. 5) Particularly interesting is the theme of exclusive monolatry. The author does not explicitly deny the existence of other gods, but Yahweh is the only God for Israel. Consequently, the author does not demonstrate any need to promote Yahweh worship for the whole world. The Israelites are not explicitly said to have been elected by God, albeit they are his inheritance and sanctified by him. The author seems to consider that belonging to God’s people, the status of an Israelite, is restricted to those members of the community who put their trust solely in God and throw themselves on his mercy.

Judith and Deuteronomistic Heritage

387

Bibliography Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996. Botterweck, Johannes G., Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry ed. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, David E. Green, Douglas W. Stott, and John T. Willis. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006. Collins, John J. Daniel: a Critical and Historical Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Dietrich, Walter. Prophetie und Geschichte. FRLANT 108. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Dogniez, Cécile and Marguerite Harl. Le Deutéronome. La Bible d’Alexandrie 5. Paris: Cerf, 1992. Donaldson, Terence L. Judaism and the Gentiles. Waco: Baylor, 2008. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert Tigchelaar, ed. 4QFlorilegium (4Q174). Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Latvus, Kari. God, Anger and Ideology. JSOTSup 279. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Levinson, Bernard M. “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah.” VT 51 (2001): 511–34. Loader, William. The Pseudepigrapha on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in Apocalypses, Testaments, Legends, Wisdom, and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming 2011. Lohfink, Norbert. “Dt 26, 17 – 19 und die ‘Bundesformel’.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 91 (1969): 517–53. Ȱ. “Gott im Buch Deuteronomium.” Pages 101–26 in La notion biblique de Dieu: Le Dieu de la Bible et le Dieu des philosophes. Edited by J. Coppens. BEThL 41. Gembloux: Duculout, 1976. Ȱ. “Zur deuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel.” Biblica 65 (1984): 297–329. Ȱ. “2 Kön 23,3 und Dtn 6,17,” Biblica 71 (1990): 34–42. Ȱ. “Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?” Pages 313–82 in Jeremia und die “deueronomistische Bewegung.” Edited by W. Gross. BBB 98. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Ȱ. “Opferzentralisation, Säkularisierungsthese und mimetische Theorie.” Pages 219–60 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur III. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände: Altes Testament 20. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995. Ȱ. “Zorn Gottes und Exil.” Pages 137–55 in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt. Edited by R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann. FRLANT 190. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. López, Félix García. “Analyse littéraire de Deutéronome, V–XI (fin).” RB 85 (1978): 5–49.

388

Anssi Voitila

McCarthy, Denis J. “The Wrath of Yahweh and the Structural Unity of the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 97–110 in Essays in Old Testament Ethics: J. Philip Hyatt in Memoriam. Edited by James L. Crenshaw and John T. Willis. New York: Ktav, 1974. Moore, Carey A. Judith. AB 40. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981. Pakkala, Juha. Intolerant Monolatry in Deuteronomistic History. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 76. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Person, Raymond F. The Deuteronomistic School. Studies in Biblical Literature 2. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Puerto, Mercedes Navarro. “Reinterpreting the Past: Judith 5.” Pages 115–40 in History and Identity: How Israel's Later Authors Viewed its Earlier History. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2006. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Rajak, Tessa. Translation & Survival: the Greek Bible and the Ancient Jewish Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Regev, Eyal. “Priestly Dynamic Holiness and Deuteronomistic Static Holiness.” VT 51 (2001): 243–61. Römer, Thomas. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” Pages 178–212 in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Rose, Martin. “Idéologie deutéronomiste et Théologie de l'Ancient Testament.” Pages 445–76 in Israël construit son histoire. L'historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by Albert du Pury et al. Le Monde de la Bible 34. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1996. Veijola, Timo. Das 5. Buch Mose / Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1,1ȭ16,17. ATD 8,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. Wolff, Hans Walter. “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks.” ZAW 73 (1961): 171–86. Zenger, Erich. Das Buch Judit. JSHRZ I,6. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1981.

A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit? Stuart Weeks As has often been observed, the book of Tobit1 has affinities with many different strands of early Jewish literature and thought. At various times, its protagonist is reminiscent of the patriarchs in Genesis, of the righteous but suffering Job, of the parental instructor in Proverbs, and even of Daniel, preserving his piety in exile. The book itself has been linked to works as diverse as Enoch and Ben Sira. Along with references to biblical laws and customs and echoes of biblical poetry, it also cites or alludes explicitly to biblical literature at certain points, as when Tobit recalls the words of Amos (2:6),2 or when his son Tobias recalls the creation of Adam and Eve (8:6). For all the emphasis sometimes placed on its links to folklore, then, this is a work that stands very 1

2

The textual problems posed by the book are notorious. The Qumran witnesses are too fragmentary to reconstruct a continuous text, and the principal witness to the earliest Greek version, Codex Sinaiticus, is frequently corrupt or defective in Tobit. This version may also be reconstructed to some extent, however, from ms. 319 (in part of the book) and from the very diverse Old Latin tradition. So far as possible, and except where otherwise noted, I discuss here what I take to have been the original text of the earliest Greek, which in turn was apparently very close to the Aramaic and Hebrew versions attested at Qumran. I have used the chapter/ verse divisions and nomenclature from Stuart Weeks, Simon Gathercole and Loren Stuckenbruck, The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions. With Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac (Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes 3; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). In addition to the Greek recension reflected in Sinaiticus (GII), there are two others: GI dominates the manuscript tradition, and GIII is found in a few late minuscules. Both appear to be later re-workings of GII. Although the subsequent development of the text suggests that GII and the Qumran texts may stand at some remove from the original composition, I am not persuaded that we can identify specific sections of the material, such as the prayer in ch. 13, as secondary additions: there is much stylistic variety in the book, but a general coherence of theme and thought. The subsequent reference to Nahum in Sinaiticus at 14:4 (“Jonah” in the GI tradition) is lacking in the Old Latin witnesses, and is probably a secondary specification. On the switch to Jonah, see Mark Bredin, “The Significance of Jonah in Vaticanus (B) Tobit 14.4 and 8,” in Studies in the Book of Tobit: a Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. M. Bredin; Library of Second Temple Studies 55; London: T & T Clark, 2006), 43–58.

390

Stuart Weeks

self-consciously in the traditions of Jewish writing. In its clever characterization, along with its use of simultaneity and converging plotlines, moreover, it is also quite a sophisticated composition. We might find it rather surprising, therefore, if the book did not reflect some knowledge of Deuteronomic ideas and traditions, and the righteous Tobit’s conscientious piety seems rooted in such things. To speak simply of Deuteronomic influence, though, would be to underestimate the complexity of the picture which the author paints for us, and it seems astonishing that recent scholarship on Tobit has become dominated by a paradigm of the book as a quintessentially Deuteronomic work.3 This presentation sometimes involves considerable over-simplification of earlier Jewish traditions: not all biblical ideas of retribution and mercy, for instance, are Deuteronomic,4 any more than are concerns with the promised land or with the Jerusalem Temple – unless pan-Deuteronomism has finally swallowed, say, the patriarchal narratives or the book of Isaiah.5 More

3

4

5

Thus, even in one of the most thoughtful and important recent commentaries, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Tobit (CEJL 1; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), we are told with little subsequent qualification that “In a special way, the Tobit story is dominated by the teaching of Deuteronomy” (36). See the recent views cited in Micah D. Kiel, “Tobit and Moses Redux,” JSP 17 (2008): 83–98, which itself offers a much more nuanced opinion. So, for example, writing about the farewell speech in ch. 14 and referencing di Lella (see below), Fitzmyer, Tobit, 332, claims that “Tobit’s thinking sums up ‘the great Deuteronomic equation’, viz. that those who love God and fear him will be rewarded, whereas those who do not will suffer. See Deut 6:13; 10:12; 28:58, 63.” Now, it is difficult to imagine that any writer in the Hebrew Bible, except perhaps the author of Job, did not hold this view, more or less, and it is arguably a commonplace of ancient religion more generally, so to describe it as specifically “Deuteronomic” seems a little selective. On the other hand, the passages which Fitzmyer cites from Deuteronomy do not actually express such an opinion, and the “great Deuteronomic equation” is an interpretation of the book, not something ever expressed by Deuteronomy itself. To understand the passages in this way is to extinguish the elements which do make them characteristically Deuteronomic. Deut 28:58, for instance, is a warning that God will bring afflictions on the Israelites and their descendants (it is the nation which is being addressed), if they do not carefully follow “all the words of this Torah, written in this book so as to fear this honourable and awesome name”: the Deuteronomic emphasis is upon national obedience to the law, which will serve as, or bring about fear of God. Likewise, Deuteronomy seems almost incapable of referring to love of God without mentioning obedience to his commandments almost in the same breath, and to detach one activity from the other is, in essence, to misrepresent one of the most basic elements of Deuteronomic thought. As Norbert Hofmann, “Die Rezeption des Deuteronomiums im Buche Tobit, in der Assumptio Mosis und im 4. Esrabuch,” in Das Deuteronomium (ed. G. Braulik; ÖBS 23; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003), 311–42 (311–26), recognizes, key concerns about Jewish practice which seem to link Tobit to Deuteronomy are also frequently

A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?

391

importantly, though, it seems to involve an over-simplification of Tobit itself.

Tobit in Exile To begin at the beginning, there is nothing in the book of Tobit which suggests that its central story is based either on historical events or on pre-existing traditions about the central character. The author’s decision to set his story in the Assyrian diaspora, therefore, is an interesting one in itself – especially since his knowledge of that setting seems rather shaky.6 Whatever the reasons, though, the result is that Tobit’s piety isolates him from the very outset of the story. As a citizen of the Northern Kingdom, he belongs to a tribe which has seceded from the House of David (1:4), and while all his family sacrifice “to the bull-calf which Jeroboam the king of Israel had made in Dan, on all the mountains of Galilee,” he claims to have been left alone to fulfil the eternal commandment made to all Israel, by going to Jerusalem on feast-days (1:5–6). After his capture and exile, he finds himself in Nineveh, where he does much for his fellow exiles, but is again the only one to remain properly pious: “both all of my brothers and the members of my race would eat of the gentiles’ food, but I kept my self safe from eating the

6

to be found in much other biblical and later Jewish literature, and seem to be tied up with broader notions of Jewish identity at the time of the book’s composition. As I completed this article, a new study by Devorah Dimant became available to me, which addresses just this question: “Tobit in Galilee,” in Gershon Galil, Mark Geller and Alan Millard, Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded (VTSup 130; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 347–59. As she observes, “The choice of an Israelite background for Tobit is not … self-evident. It is, in fact, unique in the ancient Jewish literature known to the modern reader.” She rejects the suggestion of Richard Bauckham, “Tobit as a parable for the exiles of Northern Israel,” in Bredin (ed.), Studies, 140–64, that the book was actually written for northern exiles in Adiabene and Media, and concludes instead that, “the Israelite backgroundwas selected as representative of sin and punishment in exile. It permitted Tobit’s author to contrast with it the “Judahite” ethos embraced by Tobit, that is, the Jewish religious practice of his time” (353). It seems possible also, I think, that the international popularity of the Sayings of Ahiqar influenced the decision, especially since Ahiqar and his nephew appear as minor characters, related to Tobit, at 1:21–22; 2:10; 11:18; and 14:10. On the influence of Ahiqar, see especially Miriam Lichtheim, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: a Study of Demotic Instructions (OBO 52; Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1983). The author may offer a realistic portrayal of exile in Assyria, as Dimant suggests; his knowledge of the region where the story is set, however, seems very limited, and he famously, for instance, underestimates quite considerably the distance between Ecbatana and Rages.

392

Stuart Weeks

gentiles’ food” (1:10–11). When he subsequently prays for death and asks God not to punish him, in 3:1–6, Tobit links his own sins to the faults of his ancestors and of his people, whose punishment has become legendary: it is legitimate for God to make judgements with respect to Tobit’s sins “for we did not enact your commandments, and did not walk properly before you” (3:5).7 The book offers no challenge, then, to Deuteronomistic ideas about the faults and fate of the Northern Kingdom or the legitimacy of the Jerusalem cult alone, and Tobit carefully disassociates his own behaviour from that of the community to which he belongs.8 This selfportrayal, though, is undermined at points by Tobit himself: in 1:8 he observes that he was taught to tithe by his grandmother, which suggests that not everybody in his tribe had gone bad, while in 5:14, after we have ceased to hear the story solely from Tobit’s point of view, he lets drop that others used to accompany him on his trips to Jerusalem. More generally, indeed, Tobit’s self-perception sits uncomfortably beside the comments of others. When he is restored after losing every7

8

I find it difficult to accept without some reservations, though, the suggestion that Tobit’s reference to his own sins in 3:5 indicates a role as representative of his people, and that by “being joined to his people, he identifies himself with their sins and therefore also confesses them as his own”; cf. Beate Ego, “The Book of Tobit and the Diaspora,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004 (ed. G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér; JSJSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 41–54 (45). So, similarly, Will Soll, “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic Theology,” CBQ 51 (1989): 209–31: “Tobit not only affirms this theology but identifies himself with wayward Israel to a striking degree (note especially the use of the 1st pers. pl. in 3:3–5), even while his personal innocence makes him conspicuously righteous” (224). There is indeed a sudden transition in Sinaiticus from the first person singular to the first person plural, and so apparently from the individual to the collective: “And now many are your judgments: they are legitimate to make with regard to me, concerning my sins, for we did not enact your commandments, and did not walk properly before you.” In the first place, however, the reading is complicated by the fact that the principal Old Latin witnesses support GI against Sinaiticus: both have “my sins and those of my parents.” That the (possibly independent) L3 supports Sinaiticus – as does the Vulgate – is suggestive of variation within the early Greek tradition, and the texts divide in the same way at 3:3–4, when Sinaiticus, L3 and Vulgate have Tobit confess that he has sinned himself, while other OL and GI have him refer to the actions of his parents. More importantly though, it is not difficult to take Tobit simply to be indicating his acceptance of legitimate collective punishment: As Kiel “Tobit and Moses Redux” puts it (93): “Tobit’s singularity in righteousness cannot escape the collective guilt of his people, a sentiment found elsewhere in postexilic thought.” As for acknowledgment of his own sins, Tobit regards himself as righteous, but nowhere suggests that he is without sin. Kiel, “Tobit and Moses Redux,” 91–92, suggests a deliberate allusion to Moses in the presentation of Tobit as essentially separate and alone.

A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?

393

thing, his insistence on finding a poor man to share his food sets off a chain of events which results in his blindness and dependence on his wife: after Tobias reports a corpse, Tobit feels obliged to retrieve it, which spoils his supper, then to bury it which leaves him unclean; because he is unclean, he feels obliged to sleep outside, and because he sleeps outside, his eyes are damaged by the bird excrement. The extent to which his sense of obligation corresponds to any actual requirement in all of this is unclear,9 and Tobit’s understanding of his duties, as the only pious man in his community, does not self-evidently embrace any concern for his family, with whom he has just been re-united, and provokes ridicule from his neighbours. During the period after these events, when Anna is forced to support him (not least because he has forgotten about the substantial sum which he had previously deposited in Media), Tobit subsequently accuses his wife of theft, quite unjustly. We may again have some sympathy with her when she is apparently sarcastic about his piety in response – and it seems altogether too much for Tobit then to complain about “false reproaches” (3:6), even if these do offer a narrative link to the genuinely false reproaches thrown at Sarah, a few verses later. Tobit is a pious man, to be sure, but his piety comes close to the point of being obsessive and self-destructive, while his sense of isolated righteousness neglects the price paid by others for his behaviour.10 It is difficult to know what the author intends us to make of this, or what precisely it is that motivates Tobit: there is a risk of approaching the characterization from too modern a perspective, and seeing eccentricity in those facets which are supposed to evoke admiration, although it is true that even Tobit acknowledges that his behaviour might seem strange or annoying when he first interrogates Tobias’ prospec9

10

Indeed, a case could be made for suggesting that the book here reflects a preoccupation inherited more from Hellenistic literary culture than from Jewish practice, since it is in classical sources that we find a strong emphasis on burial of the dead, even strangers, as a requirement of ancient law, and it is a familiar motif in Greek tragedy; see János Bolyki, “Burial as an Ethical Task in the Book of Tobit, in the Bible and in the Greek Tragedies,” in The Book of Tobit, 89–101. A number of commentators have drawn attention to parallels with Antigone, who defies a royal command to bury her brother. Tobit’s insistence on almsgiving seems more characteristic of Judaism in the Second Temple period (cf. Sir 29:8–13), but biblical demands are much more modest, and the portrayal is either exaggerated or anachronistic. Anathea Portier-Young puts it more positively: “the greatest single cause of Tobit's suffering is his inability correctly to perceive and appreciate the extent of his connectedness in this human community.” See her “Alleviation of Suffering in the Book of Tobit: Comedy, Community, and Happy Endings,” CBQ 63 (2001): 35–54 (41).

394

Stuart Weeks

tive guide about his family in chapter 5. It is important to recognize, however, that the relationship between Tobit and those around him, even when a little strained, is shaped by a particular set of attitudes to community. Even from the days before his exile, Tobit’s focus is upon his own individual fulfilment of obligations to his community, whether in terms of tithing at Jerusalem, of charitable work, or of burial of the dead. The advice which he offers to Tobias, in chapter 4, similarly concentrates more upon charity than upon anything else (and this, along with his tithing, was perceived to be the essential message of the book by some later writers),11 although it also emphasizes the need to marry within the tribe (4:12–13). Tobit is very concerned with community, then, but his concern is with the obligations of each individual towards that community – whether construed as the greater Israel which was granted Jerusalem, the flawed group of Northern exiles, or his own particular tribe – rather than with the activities of the community as a whole. The Northern Kingdom has collapsed and the Southern Kingdom will do so (13:9; 14:4), but the obligations of individuals persist, as does their membership of their community.

Nation and Election In this respect, the book is underpinned by notions of individual and nation which are rather un-Deuteronomic. It has no interest in a covenant between God and the nation, or in the powers and forces which might lead the nation as a whole astray; its notions of election and distinction, moreover, are rooted in such ideas as the descent of the people from “prophets” – notably Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – whose

11

Two medieval Jewish versions of Tobit, which are clearly related to one another, each introduce the story with a brief discussion of the importance of tithing, and conclude it with a further commendation of alms and tithes, declaring, “So we learn how great is the power of alms and tithes, and how, because Tobi gave alms and separated out his tithes as is appropriate, the Holy One, blessed be he, rewarded him.” One of these (Codex Or. Gaster 28), has a heading “For the Second Day of Shabu’ot,” which suits both the mention of Pentecost in Tobit 2.1, and the general theme of tithing. Even more than the other text (Bodleian Hebrew Ms. 2339), it abbreviates the end of the story, and consequently downplays the miraculous elements. This presentation of Tobit as an exhortation to giving within the community (and supporting Torah scholars in particular, according to the introduction in the Gaster ms.) indicates one of the key reasons, perhaps, for the continued circulation of the story amongst Jews. Neither text, incidentally, shows any particular interest in Tobit’s burial of the dead. See Weeks et al., The Book of Tobit, 39–41, 44–46.

A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?

395

seed will inherit the earth (4:12).12 Individuals are supposed to behave according to this special status, and the scattering of Jews amongst the nations offers an opportunity for them to demonstrate God’s greatness to others individually (13:3–4), not through their behaviour as a nation in the land (cf. Deut 4:6–8) – at least until the proper re-building of the Temple (14:5–7). God punishes and shows mercy (13:2, 5; 14:5), but there is no hint that his relationship with Israel has been terminated, a covenant torn up, or a new situation come into being with the fall of the North and prospective fall of the South. The ideas of the book appear to rest on a pre-Mosaic election of Israel, which is ultimately interminable. Individuals are affected by broader divine acts against the nation as a whole; they are each judged by God, however, not as members of the nation, but with respect to their own behaviour, especially towards their community. Despite its affirmations of divine punishment and reward at a national level, then, Tobit seems more dependent on concepts of election and exceptionalism than on the conditional, covenantal ideas of Deuteronomy, and the book places more weight on individual support of the community than on the fidelity of the community itself.13

12

13

Sinaiticus is lacking here, but the general point is affirmed by GI. The Old Latin witnesses separate (and in one case omit) Noah, and the presentation of him both as a prophet and as a specifically Jewish ancestor in this context is curious. Noah’s marriage to his first cousin is noted in Jubilees 4:33, although not in Genesis, which indicates that Tobit may be drawing on established but non-biblical traditions here. Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3–11,” CBQ 41 (1979), 380–89, argues that Tobit’s dying speech in 14:3–11 deliberately echoes not just the language but the thought of Deuteronomy when it looks forward to divine punishment and mercy toward Judah. There are certainly Deuteronomic expressions in use here, but the passage notably does not refer to apostasy and infidelity as the causes of exile – Di Lella reads them in on the basis of the reference to Deuteronomy (see especially 381–82). More generally, there seem to be some questionable assumptions involved in his contention that the undoubted borrowing of Deuteronomic phraseology in the speech and book must reflect a corresponding dependence on Deuteronomic ideas, especially when the concepts are, at times, clearly very different. As for his more general assertion that Tobit shares the aim of the final redactors of Deuteronomy, to offer encouragement to the depressed people, it should be borne in mind both that this is a speculative interpretation of Deuteronomy, and that, more importantly, Tobit is set in an exile, but is not itself an exilic composition. Specific comparisons with Deuteronomy at certain points are by no means improper, and Steven Weitzman, “Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit,” JBL 115 (1996): 49–61, plausibly sees, for instance, deliberate allusions in Tobit 13 to the Song of Moses in Deut 32. He sensibly and significantly does not, however, draw from these the conclusion that the book must be dependent on Deuteronomic thought in toto; he rather associates them with a broader attempt in

396

Stuart Weeks

When it does talk about the nation and national history, Tobit tends to do so in terms of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Temple. This interest is announced, of course, in Tobit’s description of his youthful trips to the city, but it culminates in the idealized portrayal of Jerusalem’s rebuilding in 13:9–18, reminiscent of such prophetic texts as Isa 54, or of the later apocalyptic visions in 4 Ezra and Revelation 21:10–21. The text is difficult in places here, and 13:9 is lacking in Sinaiticus, but the Old Latin reading suggests that the city itself was blamed for its forthcoming downfall in the earlier Greek tradition of GII: “Jerusalem, holy city, he will punish you for the deeds of your hands.” Although this is altered to “the deeds of your sons” in the GI tradition, the address as a whole is to the city in verses 9–14, and the city seems to serve as a symbol or metonym for all Israel (cf. 13:18). It also has a role in the world, and curses are threatened in 13:12 not only for those who damage it, but also for “all those who reject you, and all who blaspheme you; cursed are all who hate you and all who speak a harsh word”;14 there are corresponding blessings in 13:14. Tobit’s prayer, in other words, implicates the city itself in its downfall, but then promises that it will serve as a touchstone for divine judgment of the peoples. This special emphasis is a particular feature of the prayer in chapter 13, but it does accord with the earlier statement (1:4), that the “temple of God’s dwelling” had been built in Jerusalem to serve “for all generations of time,” and with the further promises of 14:5–7, which again place the rebuilding of the Temple at the heart of a new era. In 14:5, the return from exile and rebuilding of the city and temple are explicitly linked to prophetic promises, and Tobit’s understanding of Jerusalem’s significance does indeed seem more strongly influenced by eschatological prophecy than by Deuteronomic ideas.15

14

15

Tobit to relate the narrative to early events in Israel’s history, as a way of contextualizing the experience of exile. Sinaiticus is again faulty here. There are variations amongst the Old Latin witnesses, but the original was probably something like that of L1: maledicti omnes qui spernunt te et omnes qui blasphemant te, maledicti erunt omnes qui odiunt te et omnes qui dixerint verbum durum. 4Q196 is very fragmentary, and DJD reconstructs the verbs largely on the basis of the Old Latin, but the first, 0'$', if correctly read, seems clearly equivalent to Old Latin spernunt. Moreover, although GI shortens the list to give a simple contrast, its “all who hate you” echoes the lists in the Old Latin and 4Q196, rather than Sinaiticus. It seems highly probable that the beginning of the list has simply been lost in the latter. It is possible that the concern also reflects a desire on the part of the author to emphasize the continuing significance of Jerusalem for Jews in the diaspora, and Hofmann, “Rezeption,” 325, raises the possibility that financial support for the Temple is at issue.

A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?

397

We should be wary of attempting to formulate a clear doctrine from the various references, and Tobit has no obvious concern to promote one, but it does seem that the book understands the past and future of Israel in terms which are only partly to be traced to Deuteronomic concepts. Israel, to be sure, is understood as one nation which enjoys a special relationship with God; the northern tribes have been punished for false worship, and many members of those tribes are still neglectful of their duties, while Judah is going to be punished for sins committed in or by Jerusalem. There is no suggestion that either punishment is misplaced, excessive or vicarious, and there is no idealization of Israel itself. To that extent, Tobit interprets history in much the same way as does the Deuteronomistic History, and there is little that resembles either, say, the predetermination of history in apocalyptic texts or the re-evaluation of Israel’s punishment in Second Isaiah. The book not only dispenses with explicit ideas of covenant, though, as we have already seen, but also picks up ideas about the future role of Israel and Jerusalem which suggest an indissoluble character to the relationship between God and Israel. There is no reference in all this to the “new covenant” concepts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, or to any other revisions of the relationship which might forge a link to the Deuteronomic covenant. The Temple, furthermore, takes on a role which is not incompatible with its place in Deuteronomy, but which is clearly much more significant.

Personal Piety and the Law Of course, the references to history and nation are largely confined to particular passages in the book, and its more general emphasis on individual behaviour might lead us to expect that this would be an area in which the affinities of Tobit might be clearer. As we have already seen, indeed, there is a particular focus upon certain aspects of piety, and it is not difficult to establish the concerns of the work in this area. It proves more difficult, however, to define the basis of those concerns. The apparent duty of Raguel to give Sarah to Tobias, for example, can probably be traced to a concern in Num 36:1–13, that if a daughter inherits, then she must marry within her tribe, so that the inheritance is retained by the tribe.16 As Raguel’s only child, Sarah is his heir, and the point is 16

See, e.g., John J. Collins, “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit,” in The Book of Tobit, 23– 40 (31), and Thomas Hieke, “Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis, and EzraNehemiah,” in the same volume, 103–20 (106).

398

Stuart Weeks

emphasized in 6:12. In the book of Ruth, furthermore, there is an expectation that the closest relative of a widowed woman’s husband should have the right to marry her, just as the levirate law of Deut 25:5–10 imposes a duty on brothers of dead husbands, and there is some perception in the rabbinic literature that Jews were once required to marry another member of their tribe.17 If this is more a matter of convention than strict law, it is at least a convention rooted in biblical statements and precedents. In Tobit 6:13, however, it is claimed without qualification by Raphael that, “according to the judgment of the book of Moses,” Raguel will render himself liable to death if he does not comply. If this is a reference to the death penalty, as opposed to extreme divine displeasure, it has no evident basis in the Torah.18 The text, moreover, threatens this penalty not only if Raguel gives Sarah to another man, now that he knows about Tobias’ claim, but also if he chooses simply to withhold her from Tobias. Further explicit references are made to the Torah and the “book of Moses” in 7:11–13, in connection with the marriage: it is not clear whether these are reminders of the constraint under which the reluctant Raguel feels himself to have been placed, or assertions that the marriage itself is in accordance with Mosaic law. If the latter, it is again difficult to identify any particular law,19 but the ambiguity itself points to an important characteristic of this material: it is driven more by the requirements of characterization and plot development than by any specific concern to promote legal principles. Raphael, masquerading as a human, needs to persuade the parties concerned that there should be a marriage between Sarah and Tobias. He correspondingly emphasizes or even exaggerates to Tobias the obligation of Raguel, and in 6:16, when he reminds Tobias of his father’s words (about which, incidentally, he is not supposed to know), he turns an exhortation to marry within the tribe (4:12) into a much more restrictive demand that Tobias take a wife from his “father’s house-

17 18

19

See Hieke, “Endogamy,” 106 n. 10. There is no evidence, furthermore, that it was a later Jewish interpretation of the law, as Fitzmyer suggests; see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 214. Collins, “Judaism,” 34, does note, however that Philo “cites numerous cases where the Law requires the death penalty, including some that are not so specified in the Torah,” and speaks of “a widespread tendency in Second Temple Judaism to construe ‘the law of Moses’ as something more inclusive than the written text of the Torah, and roughly equivalent to ‘normative Jewish tradition’ as a given author understood it.” Whether or not the original readers would have recognized Raphael’s assertion, it would clearly have possessed a certain plausibility if understandings of the law were indeed so elastic. See Collins, “Judaism,” 32.

A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?

399

hold” (6:16).20 In a sense, perhaps, Raphael is exploiting Tobias’ relative ignorance of the law to put him under pressure, and so we cannot reliably use his statements on the subject to assess the author’s understanding of the law in this area. Raguel’s own statements suggest no more than that he acknowledges Tobias’ right to Sarah as his next of kin (7:10), and he goes on to warn Tobias off: there is no sign that he believes himself liable to death if the marriage does not take place, although he is not optimistic about Tobias’ chances of survival (8:9–10, 16). If Tobias might seem a little naïve in such matters, it is possibly because the written Torah plays no explicit part in what little we are told about his upbringing, or indeed elsewhere in the story. Tobit is exceptionally pious, but he is not depicted as a student of the law.21 In 1:6–8, his tithing is based on an “eternal commandment,” which is “commanded in the law of Moses” – but this is apparently mediated through, or supplemented by, the instructions given by Deborah.22 In what he believes to be his final speech to his son, he urges him not to transgress God’s commandments (4:5), but the speech is hardly a summary of the Torah, and even when elements of his instruction accord with legal requirements, this is not explicitly noted. Strikingly, when Tobit commends marriage within the tribe (4:12–13), he does so with reference to the ancestral marriages in Genesis, and there is no mention of the legal requirements which Raphael is so keen to emphasize. Tobit is aware of the Torah and keen to please God, but we are not told directly that his piety derives from any detailed knowledge of the law or involves any specific promotion of that law: we are not shown him teaching the divine commandments to his son, or talking of them when he sits, walks, sleeps, or rises – let alone writing them upon his doorposts (cf. Deut 11:18–20). In short, the Torah is not characterized as central to Tobit’s piety in the way that we might expect were the story’s ideas about piety rooted directly in Deuteronomic understandings. We 20 21

22

There are no good grounds to suppose that this demand is already made by Tobit, contra Hieke, “Endogamy,” 105–6. Still less is there any suggestion in the book that the Torah should be an object of veneration or meditation; cf. Johann Gamberoni, “Das ‘Gesetz des Mose’ im Buch Tobias,” in Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. G. Braulik; Wien: Herder, 1977), 227–42 (240). Gamberoni offers a detailed discussion of Tobit’s references to, and ideas about law. The commandment to tithe only at Jerusalem is found in Deut 12:11, and some specifics of Tobit’s practice are probably drawn from Deut 14:22–28; cf. especially Fitzmyer, Tobit, 109–10. It is difficult to understand all that he does, though, simply in terms of biblical legislation, and there may be some reliance on later, Second Temple customs.

400

Stuart Weeks

might further observe, indeed, that even Raphael seems reluctant to talk about the Torah once he has used it to secure Tobias’ marriage: his speech in 12:6–15 offers quite a lot of advice and commendations – but makes no reference at all to the Torah.

The Role of God Again, we should be wary of assuming that this reflects some underlying, alternative ideology. Tobit is not a child of the Josianic reforms, but a Northerner who has spent much of his life abroad in royal service, and who has maintained an obstinate piety against all reasonable expectation, even when that piety has led to his flight and then his blindness. If we wish to maintain that the author is promoting some distinctively Deuteronomic agenda, or even that Deuteronomy furnishes the inspiration for his portrayal of proper Jewish piety, then it is surely significant that he pays so little attention to the Deuteronomic emphasis on Torah as the basis for such piety. On the other hand, if we allow that this author takes seriously the choices which he has made about character and setting, and that the actions which flow from Tobit’s piety are crucial to the development of the plot, we do not need to attribute them to some other particular set of values or beliefs. The book tells a story which ultimately promotes piety, but it is not a book specifically about piety. Indeed, the story also pays great attention to the power of God – but the demands of its plot raise some significant theological problems, which are noted, perhaps, but hardly addressed, and which should similarly remind us that this is not a book about God. When Raphael reveals his true nature, and recounts the underlying plan behind the events which have occurred, he makes it clear that Tobit had impressed God by his charitable works (12:8–9). His explanation then becomes very confusing, however. According to Sinaiticus, he tells Tobit: “And now, when you prayed, and Sarah, I presented the memorial of (both) your prayer(s) before the glory of (the) Lord, and when you used to bury the dead, likewise. And when you did not hesitate to get up and leave your meal, and went and laid out the corpse, then I was sent to you to test you, and at the same time God sent me to heal also Sarah, your daughter-in-law” (12:12–14). Tobit’s burial of the dead, though, preceded his prayer, and if the reference to “testing” is supposed to imply that Tobit’s blindness was a test, it is hard to see how it coincides with the attempt to solve Sarah’s problem, and why it is presented as subsequent to the prayer; the earlier summary in 3:15– 16, incidentally, mentions no such test, and it is difficult to square the

A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?

401

two accounts. Nevertheless, since it enjoys support in the Old Latin tradition, this account may well be very early, if not original, and the subsequent versions of Tobit have made some effort to resolve the difficulties – GI, for instance, makes Raphael a hidden observer of the earlier events. The problems, however, go deeper than the text, and the “testing” of Tobit may be no more than an effort to gloss over them. Earlier in the book, God recognized Tobit’s faithfulness by making the Assyrian king look favourably upon him, and so the book evidently accepts the idea of divine consciousness of, and intervention in individual human lives. When things begin to go wrong, however, such divine support is conspicuously absent.23 Tobit loses everything, including, ultimately, his sight and his self-respect. Sarah, in the meantime, has apparently done nothing to bring upon herself the unwanted attentions of the demon Asmodeus. It is only when each prays for death that God seems stirred into action: their common prayer is heard “in the presence of the glory of God” (3:16) – although that subsequently turns out to mean that Raphael drew the “memorial” of it to God’s attention (12:12). God then neither grants the prayers nor addresses the underlying problems directly. When the issues are subsequently resolved, through the judicious application of fish innards, Tobit and Sarah are both very pleased with the outcome, but no real explanation is offered for their previous difficulties. Even if we may detect an echo of Job’s situation, moreover, there is no direct attempt in Tobit to grapple with the problems of innocent suffering, and, beyond the difficult reference to “testing,” there is no acknowledgement of divine involvement in or awareness of that suffering.24 It is surely not 23

24

This is not itself indicative of Deuteronomic influence. Portier-Young, “Alleviation,” 37, rightly indicates the limits of Deuteronomic analysis: “Deuteronomic theology of divine justice offers a potentially fruitful model for interpreting national calamities and communal suffering. Yet in no way does this model purport to explain the unique suffering of individuals. Though it seems tempting to proceed by analogy from nation to person, and claim that God always rewards the good person and punishes the bad person (Job's friends make such a claim), such logic is not inherent in the Deuteronomic model.” She goes on to say, more problematically, that, “… though the Deuteronomist perceives God as active in history, that author does not hold God directly responsible for the immediate fortunes of all individuals.” That may be the case, but there is a danger of reading a positive doctrine into the book’s silence on such matters. There is not a “Deuteronomic” approach to divine involvement in the lives of individuals, but that does not mean that the Deuteronomists actively rejected such an idea. At best we might say, with Portier-Young in her more recent article, that “Tobit focuses less on the reasons for suffering, though it does affirm the idea of testing (12:14) and chastisement (13:14), than on responses to it”; see “‘Eyes to the Blind’: A Dialogue Between Tobit and Job,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays

402

Stuart Weeks

the intention of the book to depict God as distant or detached, but a consideration of the book in theological terms does little to explain the constant exhortations to thank and praise him. We are expected to applaud the way in which divine action brings about a tidy resolution of the two situations, and a happy ending for all concerned. We are probably not expected, though, to give too much thought to the role of God in permitting those situations to develop (especially when there are apparently so few pious Jews left for him to keep an eye on), and it would be positively inconvenient if we were to dwell on the possibility that the same resolution might have been accomplished without resort to angelic disguises or medicinal fish.25 Again, the point is that Tobit is shaped not principally by theological concerns or presuppositions, but by the requirements of its narrative. For that reason, it would probably be unfruitful to enquire too deeply into the characteristics and behaviour of God in the story. To be sure, we may recognize that we are dealing with a deity whose power is not limited to the land of Israel, although he enjoys a special relationship with Israel, and who works surrounded by angels – in these and other respects, the portrayal of God in Tobit is not incompatible with that in Deuteronomy, but it is very different in tone and emphasis. The focus on the individual, which we observed earlier, is matched by a portrayal of God as responsive primarily to prayer, praise and piety, although he acts to reward and punish both individuals and nations. Again, there is nothing here which runs up against the ideas of Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic literature, but the flavour is different. Where Deuteronomic ideas about nation and history furnish a backdrop for the situation of the exiles and for their recognition of certain duties, the book draws also on other biblical ideas of ancestry and prophecy, and on non-biblical ideas about angels and demons. All these ideas, though, are subsumed within a plot that has echoes of biblical narratives and that exhorts its readers to piety, but that seems, in the end, unconcerned with the systematic presentation of any specific

25

in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (ed. J. Corley and V. Skemp; CBQMS 38; Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005), 14–27 (16 n. 9). Portier-Young, “Alleviation,” 47, writes of 3:16 that, “In one short verse the narrative shifts dramatically and quickly, for God now enters the story” – which seemingly gives the lie to her earlier claim (p. 36) that, “in the book of Tobit we meet a God who is intimately present within the human community and consummately active in the lives of those who suffer.” God intervenes only after eight years of blindness for Tobit (according to GI) and seven husbands for Sarah, and it is a compliment to the narrator’s sleight of hand, perhaps, that so many commentators speak in such terms about the book as an account of divine proximity.

A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?

403

religious ideology. If there is a Deuteronomic heritage in Tobit, visible at least in the book’s presentation of the past, it jostles for space amongst many other concerns.

Bibliography Bolyki, János. “Burial as an Ethical Task in the Book of Tobit, in the Bible and in the Greek Tragedies.” Pages 89–101 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Bredin, Mark. “The Significance of Jonah in Vaticanus (B) Tobit 14.4 and 8.” Pages 43–58 in Studies in the Book of Tobit: a Multidisciplinary Approach. Edited by M. Bredin. Library of Second Temple Studies 55. London: T & T Clark, 2006. Collins, John J. “The Judaism of the Book of Tobit.” Pages 23–40 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3–11.” CBQ 41 (1979): 380–89. Dimant, Devorah. “Tobit in Galilee.” Pages 347–59 in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded. Edited by Gershon Galil, Mark Geller and Alan Millard. VTSup 130. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Ego, Beate. “The Book of Tobit and the Diaspora.” Pages 41–54 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Gamberoni, Johann. “Das ‘Gesetz des Mose’ im Buch Tobias.” Pages 227–42 in Studien zum Pentateuch: Walter Kornfeld zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Georg Braulik. Wien: Herder, 1977. Hieke, Thomas. “Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis, and EzraNehemiah.” Pages 103–20 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology: Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hofmann, Norbert. “Die Rezeption des Deuteronomiums im Buche Tobit, in der Assumptio Mosis und im 4. Esrabuch.” Pages 311–42 in Das Deuteronomium. Edited by Georg Braulik. ÖBS 23. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003. Kiel, Micah D. “Tobit and Moses Redux.” JSP 17 (2008): 83–98.

404

Stuart Weeks

Lichtheim, Miriam. Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: a Study of Demotic Instructions. OBO 52. Freiburg, CH: Universitätsverlag, 1983. Portier-Young, Anathea. “Alleviation of Suffering in the Book of Tobit: Comedy, Community, and Happy Endings.” CBQ 63 (2001): 35–54. Ȱ. “‘Eyes to the Blind’: A Dialogue Between Tobit and Job.” Pages 14–27 in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Soll, Will. “Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic Theology.” CBQ 51 (1989): 209–31. Weeks, Stuart, Simon Gathercole and Loren Stuckenbruck. The Book of Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions. With Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac. Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Weitzman, Steven. “Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit.” JBL 115 (1996): 49–61.

5. Indices

Index of Modern Authors Abegg, Martin G., 66 Abel, Felix-Marie, 298, 307, 312, 313 Ackroyd, Peter R., 186, 187 Aejmelaeus, Anneli, 4, 10, 12, 55, 133, 144, 259, 267 Albrektson, Bertil, 72 Alexander, Philip S., 32, 67, 218, 352 Armoni, C., 168 Arnold, Russell C. D., 352 Ausloos, H., 65 Baillet, Maurice, 236 Barclay, John M. G., 385 Barthélemy, Dominique, 81, 144, 282 Bartlett, John R., 298 Barton, John, 80, 94, 98 Baumgarten, Albert I., 75 Baumgartner, Walter, 155, 235 Batten, Loring W., 211 Bauschatz, John, 169 Beale, Gregory K., 225, 229 Becker, Uwe, 181, 185, 186, 188 Becking, Bob, 131 Beentjes, Pancratius C., 16, 276, 277, 278, 280, 284, 286, 290 Ben-Zvi, Ehud, 193 Berges, Ulrich, 186 Bergsma, John S., 36 Berlin, Adele, 154 Bernstein, Moshe J., 31, 78, 95, 96, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 126, 226, 227 Berrin, Shani L., 215 Bertholet, Alfred, 207 Beuken, Willem A. M., 182, 187 Bewer, Julius A., 183, 184

Black, Matthew, 66 Blenkinsopp, Joseph, 139, 207, 211 Boccaccini, Gabriele, 36, 37 Boda, Mark J., 194 Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice, 80 Böhler, Dieter, 71 Bolyki, János, 393 Borchardt, Francis, 16, 17 Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich, 178 Bredin, Mark, 389, 391 Brettler, Marc Zvi, 154 Briggs, Charles A., 155 Brooke, George J., 8, 30, 32, 72, 77, 82, 83, 84, 95, 99, 101, 102, 111, 115, 218, 227, 250, 251, 297, 356 Brown, Francis, 155 Brown, Teresa R., 337 Budde, Karl, 178, 182 Burke, David G., 322, 324, 328 Burkes, Shannon, 321, 332 Campbell, Jonathan G., 31, 77, 95, 98, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 111, 114 Cannawurf, E., 178 Carmignac, Jean, 229 Carr, David M., 24, 111, 112 Caquot, André, 289, 290 Cazelles, Henri, 177, 182 Charlesworth, James, 59 Chiesa, Bruno, 95, 103 Clines, David J. A., 213 Coggins, Richard J., 350 Collins, John J., 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 32, 224, 225, 232, 233, 275, 324, 385, 397, 398 Cowey, James M. S., 166 Cowley, A. E., 279 Crawford, Dorothy, 170

408

Index of Modern Authors

Crawford, Sidnie White, 7, 8, 11, 12, 30, 31, 33, 38, 39, 40, 58, 74, 77, 82, 84, 94, 95, 124, 125, 126, 127, 193, 196, 214, 218 Crenshaw, James L., 275, 276 Cross, Frank Moore, 57, 58, 60, 67, 72, 128, 129 Davies, Philip R., 25, 223, 226, 233, 234, 236, 239 De Troyer, Kristin, 13, 59, 71, 154, 159 Debel, Hans, 8, 10, 11, 65, 68, 69, 70, 81, 83 Deissmann, Adolf, 165, 172, Deutscher, Guy, 93 Devitt, Amy J., 115 Di Lella, Alexander A., 232, 233, 275, 278, 279, 280, 282, 284, 390, 395 Dietrich, Walter, 140, 381 Dillmann, August, 202, 203 Dimant, Devorah, 391 Dogniez, Cécile, 377 Donaldson,Terence L., 381 Duhaime, Jean, 223, 225, 226, 231, 234, 240 Duhm, Bernhard, 177, 179 Eberharter, A., 279 Egger-Wenzel, Renate, 339 Ego, Beate, 251, 392 Elledge, C. D., 227 Elliger, Karl, 154, 155, 156, 161, 202, 203 Epstein, Isidore, 279 Eshel, Esther, 123, 124, 125, 128, 131, 132, 225 Eshel, Hanan, 123, 124, 131, 132, 225, 235 Falk, Daniel K., 77, 103 Fernández Marcos, Natalio, 72, 82, 83 Fields, Weston W., 66 Fishbane, Michael, 24, 205, 213, 215 Fitzmyer, Joseph A., 390, 398, 399 Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Anne, 28 Flanagan, John, 79

Flint, Peter W., 66, 70, 96, 106, 107, 224, 225, 348 Flusser, David, 230, 234, 235, 237 Fox, Michael V., 72, 74 Freedman, David Noel, 66 Freedman, H., 279 Frey, Jörg, 25 Fuller, Russell, 249, 250, 251, 253, 254, 256, 260, 261, 262, 264 Gall, August F. von, 154 Gamberoni, Johann, 399 García Martínez, Florentino, 156, 161, 235, 250, 348, 382 Gathercole, Simon, 389 Gerstenberger, Erhard S., 154, 155, 202 Gesenius, Wilhelm, 182 Goering, Greg Schmidt, 277, 280, 286 Goldstein, Jonathan A., 298, 309, 310, 313, 315 Gooding, David W., 55 Goodman, Martin, 32, 83 Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H., 73, 74 Gosse, Bernard, 179 Gottwald, Norman K., 54 Graham, William A., 97 Grätz, Sebastian, 211, 215 Gray, George Buchanan, 179, 186 Grossfeld, Bernard, 155 Gunneweg, Antonius H. J., 322, 333 Haag, Ernst, 323 Hanson, Richard S., 66 Harl, Marguerite, 377 Harlé, Paul, 157 Harrington, Daniel J., 78 Harrison, Roland K., 155, 156 Haspecker, Josef, 277, 280, 339 Hartman, Louis F., 232, 233 Hayward, C. T. R., 101 Hayward, Richard, 155 Hempel, Charlotte, 8, 269 Hendel, Ronald S., 57, 71, 72, 73, 74 Hengel, Martin, 266 Hertzberg, H. W., 142, 143

Index of Modern Authors

Hess, Richard S., 82 Heszer, Catherine, 71 Hieke, Thomas, 397, 398, 399 Hiltunen, Chelica, 128 Himmelfarb, Martha, 35, 36, 37 Hjelm, Ingrid, 123, 132 Hofmann, Norbert, 390, 396 Hogan, Karina M., 331, 333, 334 Holladay, William L., 23, 257, 260 Holst, Søren, 223 Honigman, Sylvie, 166 Horsley, Richard A., 71 Houtman, Cornelis, 196, 210, 213, 217 Hughes, Julie A., 227, 228, 236, 242 Hugo, Philippe, 79 Ilan, Tal, 127 Jassen, Alex P., 363 Jastram, Nathan, 58, 124, 125 Jastrow, Marcus, 259, 260 Jeremias, Jörg, 180, 184, 185 Jones, Henry S., 158 Joosten, Jan, 74 Kaiser, Otto, 181, 183, 188 Kartveit, Magnar, 29, 123, 133 Kasher, Aryeh, 166 Kellermann, Ulrich, 195, 210 Kessler, Rainer, 178, 179, 180, 183, 187 Kiel, Micah D., 390, 392 Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi, 153 Klein, Ralph W., 57 Kleinig, John W., 154 Knibb, Michael A., 215 Knoppers, Gary N., 131, 132 Koehler, Ludwig, 155, 235 Koskenniemi, Erkki, 78 Kraft, Robert A., 94, 95, 96, 103, 113 Kratz, Reinhard G., 6, 217 Kruse, Thomas, 166 Kugel, James, 37, 38 Kugler, Robert, 13, 166, 167, 168 Kuhn, Karl Georg, 279 Kutscher, Edward Y., 56 Laato, Antti, 32

409

Lange, Armin, 29, 96, 98, 114, 130, 133 Latvus, Kari, 376 Lee, John A. L., 165, 172 LeFebvre, Michael, 27, 28 Lemmelijn, Bénédicte, 65, 68, 73, 74, 75, 76 Leonard, Jeffrey M., 229, 230 Leuenberger, Martin, 333 Levine, Baruch A., 38, 154, 155 Levinson, Bernard M., 9, 24, 26, 27, 102, 110, 379 Lichtheim, Miriam, 391 Liddell, Henry G., 158 Lim, Timothy H., 98, 99, 215, 248, 266, 297, 299 Lindqvist, Pekka, 78 Loader, William, 373, 381 Lohfink, Norbert, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 382, 383 López, Félix García, 374 Lüdertz, G., 166 Lust, Johan, 79 Machiela, Daniel A., 32 MacKenzie, Roderick A. F., 285 Magen, Yitzhak, 130 Magness, Jodi, 129 Maher, Michael, 155 Maier, Christl, 23 Marböck, Johannes, 285, 286, 288, 322 Maresch, Klaus, 166 Martin, James D., 292 Martola, Nils, 301 Marttila, Marko, 17 Mason, Steve, 165 Mathews, K. A., 66 Mathys, Hans-Peter, 194 McCarter, P. Kyle, 140 McCarthy, Denis J., 376 McConville, J. Gordon, 297 McKane, William, 182, 183 McKenzie, Steven L., 60, 275, 350 McNamara, Martin, 155 Menasce, J. P. de, 241 Metso, Sarianna, 193, 215

410

Index of Modern Authors

Metzger, Bruce M., 25 Meyer, Ivo, 321 Milgrom, Jacob, 156 Milik, Józef T., 66, 249 Moore, Carey A., 373, 381 Müller, Reinhard, 13, 14 Muraoka, Takamitsu, 157, 257 Najman, Hindy, 9, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 83, 102, 107, 108 Nasuti, Harry P., 347 Neubauer, A., 279 Newsom, Carol A., 115 Niditch, Susan, 71 Nihan, Christoph, 205 Nitzan, Bilhah, 360, 363, 364 Noth, Martin, 52, 54, 154, 155, 283, 370, 372, 375, 377, 378 Oesterley, William Oscar Emil, 298, 309, 312 Oorschot, Jürgen van, 324 Pajunen, Mika S., 17, 18, 349, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356 Pakkala, Juha, 14, 194, 195, 200, 202, 210, 213, 338, 362, 364, 374, 375 Patrick, Dale, 27 Penar, Tadeusz, 280 Perdue, Leo G., 25 Peremans, W., 170 Perlitt, Lothar, 337 Person, Raymond F. Jr., 297, 299, 306, 381 Peters, Norbert, 279 Petersen Klostergaard, Anders, 31, 77, 78, 95, 97, 109, 110, 111 Pietersen, Lloyd K., 41 Pietsch, Michael, 290 Pomykala, Kenneth E., 289, 290, 292 Popovi°, Mladen, 248 Portier-Young, Anathea, 393, 401, 402 Pralon, Didier, 157 Priest, John, 290 Pritchard, James B., 50

Puech, Émile, 40, 349, 352 Puerto, Mercedes Navarro, 373, 376, 381 Pummer, Reinhard, 131 Rad, Gerhard von, 138, 177 Rajak, Tessa, 372 Rappaport, Uriel, 298 Regev, Eyal, 377, 378, 384, 385 Rickenbacher, Otto, 282 Rofé, Alexander, 76 Römer, Thomas C., 350, 378, 381 Rooy, Harry F. van, 349 Rose, Martin, 272, 381 Rowlandson, Jane, 170 Ruether, Rosemary Radford, 93 Rüger, Hans-Peter, 281 Rupprecht, K., 140 Ruwe, Andreas, 203 Ryssel, Victor, 178 Sáenz-Badillos, Angel, 252 Saley, Richard J., 60 Salvesen, Alison, 321, 331, 333, 334 Sanders, James A., 7, 76, 83, 138, 348 Sanderson, Judith E., 55, 73 Saukkonen, Juhana, 216, 227 Schearing L. S., 275 Schenker, Adrian, 70, 79, 132, 143 Schiffman, Lawrence H., 38, 129, 216 Schmitt, Hans-Christoph, 324 Schnabel, Eckard J., 279 Schniedewind, William M., 24 Schuller, Eileen M., 349, 356, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364 Schultz, Brian, 223, 224, 226, 229, 230, 231, 232, 235, 236, 237, 241 Schürer, Emil, 27 Schwartz, Baruch J., 177, 182 Schwartz, Seth, 298 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger, 178, 179, 180, 181 Scott, Robert B. Y., 158, 186 Seely, D., 349 Segal, Michael, 6, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 78, 80, 82, 218, 248, 268

Index of Modern Authors

Segal, Moses Zevi, 279 Sharp, Carolyn, 23 Shaver, Judson R., 193, 203 Shenkel, James D., 146, 326 Sievers, Joseph, 298 Simon, Maurice, 279 Skehan, Patrick W., 55, 275, 278, 279, 280, 282, 348 Smallwood, E. M., 166 Smend, Rudolf, 279, 331 Smith, Henry Preserved, 140 Smith, John Merlin Powis, 183, 184 Smith, Mark, 108 Smith, Wilfred Cantwell, 97 Soll, Will, 392 Sollamo, Raija, 146, 326 Speiser, E. A., 138 Speyer, Wolfgang, 25 Stackert, Jeffrey, 24 Steck, Odil Hannes, 321, 322, 323, 324, 327, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335 Stone, Michael E., 106 Strydom, J. G., 178 Stuckenbruck, Loren, 389 Sukenik, Eleazar L., 56, 223 Sweeney, Marvin A., 180, 183, 186, 187, 229 Talmon, Shemaryahu, 67, 71, 73, 134 Talshir, Zipora, 71 Talstra, Eep, 283 Tanzer, Sarah, 348 Testuz, Michel, 256 Thackeray, Henry St. John, 144 Thompson, William, 54 Tigay, Jeffrey H., 4, 123 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C., 72, 74, 156, 161, 235, 248, 252, 253, 258, 263, 348, 382 Tov, Emanuel, 30, 56, 58, 60, 66, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 101, 103, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 354, 255, 263, 266, 268, 327, 328

411

Trebolle Barrera, Julio, 60, 65, 82, 98 Ulrich, Eugene C., 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 29, 48, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 94, 95, 96, 98, 100, 113, 116, 218, 224, 247, 251, 259, 266, 269, 348 van der Toorn, Karel, 24, 25, 71 van der Woude, Adam S., 99, 178, 348 van Ruiten, Jacques, 32 Van Seters, John, 48, 52, 68, 83 VanderKam, James C., 5, 30, 33, 34, 35, 37, 48, 49, 66, 77, 79, 81, 95, 96, 98, 101, 106, 107, 114 Vanonen, Hanna, 10, 14, 15 Veijola, Timo, 139, 140, 141, 142, 265, 275, 276, 277, 293, 325, 332, 333, 337, 339, 341, 347, 350, 361, 374, 375, 378, 380, 382 Vermes, Geza, 31, 32, 33, 66, 77, 78, 109 Vermeylen, Jacques, 178 Vogt, Peter T., 305 Voitila, Anssi, 18 Wacholder, Ben Zion, 33, 36, 66 Walters, Stanley D., 60 Ward, William Hayes, 183, 184 Webster, Brian, 129 Weeks, Stuart, 19, 389, 394 Weinfeld, Moshe, 265, 276, 277, 281, 282, 284, 285, 286, 287, 299, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 326, 329, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 349, 350, 351, 370, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385 Weis, Richard D., 80 Weissenberg, Hanne von, 15, 99, 215, 216, 248, 267 Weitzman, Steven, 395 Wellhausen, Julius, 178 Wenham, Gordon J., 155 Wenthe, Dean O., 226 Werman, Cana, 35

412

Index of Modern Authors

Westbrook, Raymond, 27 Wevers, John William, 148, 157, 158, 159, 160 White, Sidnie 7, 8, 11, 12, 30, 31, 33, 38, 39, 40, 58, 74, 77, 82, 84, 94, 95, 124, 125, 126, 127, 193, 196, 214, 218 Wildberger, Hans, 177 Willi, Thomas, 211 Williams, David S., 298 Williamson, Hugh G. M., 74, 75, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 196, 205 Willis, John T., 180 Wilson, Robert R., 276 Wise, Michael O., 229 Wolff, Hans Walter, 178, 183, 184, 185, 381

Woude, Adam S. van der, 99, 178, 348 Wright, Benjamin G., 327 Wright, David, 27, 28 Wyrick, Jed, 25 Xeravits, Geza, 288, 289 Yadin, Yigael, 66, 155, 156, 234 Zahn, Molly M., 5, 11, 30, 31, 102, 112, 247, 248 Zapff, Burkhard M., 178, 185, 186 Zeitlin, Solomon, 129, 130, 298, 307 Zenger, Erich, 373, 379, 380, 381, 382 Ziegler, Joseph, 291, 321 Zuckerman, C., 166

Index of Passages HEBREW BIBLE Genesis 1 1:1 1:31 2 5:3–32 5:26–30 6–9 7:6 7:23–24 10 12–22 12:10–19 14 15 15–16 16 17 17:1 17:9–14 18:1–2 18:18 22 24 28 28:6 30:36 31:10–13 31:24 31:29 32:16 39:21 41:1–7 41:2 41:3 41:17–24

53 51 51 53 57 57 53 57 57 223 50, 52 50 50 50 50 50 279, 285 285 279 51 184 50, 51 223 126 126 57 57 57 57 260 343 57 260 260 57

41:18 41:19 41:29 41:50 41:54 42:5

260 260 147 148 147, 148 148

Exodus 1–34 1:9 2:14 3:7 6:7 7:3 12:9 15 15:1 15:17 15:21 15:22 19:11 20:3 20:11 20:14 20:17 20:24 20:25 21-23 22:19 22:24 22:25–26 22:26–27 22:28 24:12–18 25–31 28 28:6 28:15

55 184 182 344 331 328 155, 157 127 51 283 127 55, 58, 127 182 374 125 310 132 209 301 110 304 212 172 172 50 34 55 223 57 57

414

Index of Passages

Exodus (continued) 28:30 57 28:31 57 29:17 155, 157 29:38 302 29:38–42 302 30:12 138 32:9 330 33:3 330 34:9 330 34:11 207 34:11–17 206 34:16 206, 213 34:20 50 35–40 55 39:2 57 39:8 57 39:21 58 39:22 57 Leviticus 1:9 1:13 4:11 8:21 9:14 10:21 11:2b–8 11:9–12 11:13–19 11:20 11:21 11:21–22 11:41 11:42 11:43 11:46 23 23:1 23:23–25 23:23–32 23:23–36 23:25–32 23:26–32

155, 157 155, 157 155, 157 155, 157 155, 157 158 153 153 153 153 13, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161 153 158 158 158 158 127, 202, 204, 205, 206, 217 127 205, 217 205 205 217 204

23:26–33 23:33–36 23:33–38 23:33–43 23:34 23:39 23:39a 23:39–42 23:39–43 23:40 23:41 23:41a 23:42 23:43 25:8–17 25:19 25:36 26:1 26:4 26:5 26:6–8 26:12 26:14–39 26:25–26 26:26 26:29 26:30 26:40–45 26:42–45 29 29:39–43

204 202, 203, 209 205 202 202 203, 204 204 204 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 216, 217 203, 204 203, 204 203 203, 204 204 212 265 212 373 51 265 354 331 343 141 265 327, 343 373 344 344 209 209

Numeri 1:47–4:49 8:5–26 13:18–20 13:19(18)–21(20) 14:4 14:12 14:38 17:1–15 18 18:36–39 19:2 19:6

210 210 147 148 313 184 313 292 210 213 260 260

Index of Passages

19:9 22–23 22:6 25:1–3 25:3 25:5 25:6–9 25:6–15 25:8 25:11–13 25:13 27 27:1–11 27:2–11 27:11 29:12 29:12–38 29:32–30:1 36 36:1 36:1–2 36:1–2[3–12] 36:1–12 36:1–13 36:2 36:3–4 36:5 36:5–12

260 200 184 304 313 304, 305 304 304 305 290 305 58, 58, 124 124 58 203 209 126 58 58 124 124 124 397 58 124 58 124

Deuteronomium 1–Josh 22 1:29 1:36 1:37 1:39 1:43 2:5 2:9 2:12 2:19 2:30 3:20 3:31 4 4–11 4:1

382 315, 316 382 376 382 375 313 313 313 313 329 313, 383 314 331, 335, 339 198 332

4:5–8 4:6 4:6–8 4:10 4:20 4:21 4:25 4:25–31 4:26 4:27 4:28 4:28b 4:29–31 4:31 4:32 4:32b 4:34 4:35 4:37 4:38 4:39 5:6 5:7 5:12–15 5:15 5:18 5:26 5:29 5:30 6:2 6:4 6:5 6:7 6:11 6:13 6:13–15 6:15 6:22 6:23 6:24 7 7:1 7:1–3 7:1–6 7:3

415 333 315 395 339 329, 357, 362, 383 376 326 198, 372 379 197, 327, 329, 330, 340, 343 282, 373 282 330, 331, 344 330 343 327 328, 343, 353 333, 374, 374, 375 357, 362 329, 362 333, 374, 375 328 374 125 328 310 339 311 381 339 331, 333, 337 280, 339 314 196, 265 339, 390 343 376 328, 343, 353 314 329, 339, 381 206, 208 196, 207, 382 207 210 195, 196, 206, 213

416 Deuteronomium (continued) 7:5 375 7:6 208, 362, 378 7:9 374, 375 7:10 362 7:16 375 7:17 314 7:19 328, 343 7:21 315 7:22 314 7:25–26 307 8:6 339, 343 8:10 265 8:12 265 8:14 314, 328 8:15–22 326 8:18 329 9:1 362 9:4–5 314 9:5 314, 340 9:6 330 9:7 343 9:7b 325 9:8 376 9:12 328, 375 9:13 330 9:14 184 9:16 375 9:18 326, 377 9:20 376 9:23 343 9:25 377 9:26 357, 383 9:29 328, 357, 383 10:12 339, 390 10:13 381 10:15 329, 357 10:17 362 10:20 339 11:1 339 11:2 328 11:8 196 11:8–10 195 11:13 339 11:14–15 196 11:15 265

Index of Passages

11:16 11:17 11:18–20 11:22 11:23 11:29 11:30 11:32 12 12:3 12:5 12:8–11 12:8–12 12:11 12:13–14 12:14 12:17–18 12:18 12:21 12:21a¸b 12:26 12:30 13:1 13:4 13:5 13:7–12 13:9 13:11 13:15 13:20 14:2 14:21 14:22–28 14:23 14:24 14:25 14:26 14:29 15:1–11 15:2 15:15 15:20 16:2 16:6

373 376 399 339 314, 362, 382 132 132 343 337 375 284, 329 383 337 198, 284, 329, 277, 399 337 284 337 284 284, 325, 377 337 284 314 28, 39 339 339 303 375 328 307 381 357, 362, 362, 378 362, 378 399 198, 284, 329, 339, 377 284, 329, 377 284 362 265 212 212 328 284 198, 329, 377 198, 329, 377

Index of Passages

16:11 16:13 16:13–14 16:13–16 17 17:2 17:2–7 17:3 17:4 17:11 17:19 17:20 18:9 18:9–14 18:14 18:15 18:15–22 19:9 19:10 19:13 19:21 20:3 20:5–8 20:15–16 20:17 20:18 21:8 23 23:3 23:4 23:4–6 23:4–9 23:5 23:6 23:7 23:20 24 24:6 24:10–11 24:12–13 24:17 25:5–10 25:12 26:2 26:5 26:8

198, 329, 377 209 124 203, 204, 209 311 326 303, 304 373 307 311 339 311, 375 196, 307, 314 195 314 196 326 339, 343 316 375, 381 375 315, 316 300 314 382 307 309, 316 200, 201, 207, 223 207 199, 200, 201, 381 199, 201, 202, 214, 207, 216 200 200 195, 196 212 39 172 173 172 172 398 375 198, 329, 377 184 328, 343

26:12 26:15 26:16 26:17 26:17–18 26:19 27 27:2 27:2b–7 27:4 27:4–6 27:5 27:5–6 27:5–7 27:6–7 27:7 27:15 28 28–30 28:1 28:7 28:9 28:10 28:13 28:14 28:15 28:15–68 28:20–24 28:49–50 28:49–53 28:53 28:58 28:59–61 28:62 28:63 28:64 29:2 29:3 29:12 29:15 29:16 29:20 29:25 29:27 30

417 265 309, 329, 344 357 343 331 362, 378, 384 59 59 132 59 59 59 208, 301 208 302 302 373 18, 335, 357, 363, 365 198 357, 362 354 378 286, 316, 329 343 311, 375 330, 343, 357 325, 343 373 335–336 380 327, 343 197, 286, 339, 390 354 330, 343, 344 327, 390 197, 340, 343 328, 343 330 331 308 308 343 373 329, 382 198, 332, 335

418

Index of Passages

Deuteronomium (continued) 30:1–4 197, 198 30:1–5 344 30:1–10 198, 331, 344 30:2 381 30:3 197, 327, 340, 343 30:4 198 30:5 198 30:6 339 30:11–14 332 30:15 332 30:15–20 341 30:16 332, 339 30:17 373 30:18 343 30:19 353, 379 30:20 339 31:1–10 330 31:3 314 31:6 315 31:6–7 314 31:12–13 339 31:20 265 31:23 314 31:27 330 31:28 353, 379 31:29 326 32 361, 362, 395 32:4 364 32:9 383 32:16–18 334–335 32:18 335 32:27 382 32:30 380 32:51 197 33:3 378 33:29 334, 336 33:29b¹ 336 34:5 325 34:11 328, 343 Joshua Deut 1–Josh 22 1:1–15 1:6 1:7

382 325 314 311, 314, 315

1:8 1:9 1:15 1:18 4 4:24 6 6:26 8:4 8:30–31 8:30–35 9:1 10:10 10:20 10:25 11:3 11:6 12:6–7 12:6 21:26 21:45 22:5 23:3–4 23:6 23:10 23:12 23:13 23:14 23:15–6 24:15 23:16

311 314, 315 313, 383 314 81 316 240 59 182 208 81 382 354 354 314 382 313 313 313 308 376 278, 310 314 311 354 312, 314 314 376 327 147 373

Judges 2:6 2:11 2:22 2:23 3:1 3:7 3:11 3:12 3:30 4:1 4:9 5:26 5:31

383 326 343 314 314 326 384 326 384 326 384 384 384

419

Index of Passages

6:1 6:6 6:7–10 6:11 6:28 8:28 10:6 10:10 11:33 13:1 15:8 17:8A 21:24

326 60 60, 81 60 375 384 230, 326 141 354 326 354 148 383

Ruth 2:14

265

1 Samuel 1 6:7 6:10 7:3 9:9 12:10 12:20–5 14:6 14:17 14:47 15:19 17–18 17:34–36 17:45–50 17:47 18:6–7 22:5

60 260 260 381 138 141 372 138 309 230 326 60, 79, 80, 81, 150 288 288 138 288 137

2 Samuel 5:7 7 7:13 7:15 7:22 7:23–24 8:12 11–12 11:2

285 288, 343, 379 284 379 287 309 230 289 144

12:9 12:13 22:36 24

24:14 24:14–15 24:15 24:15a¹ 24:16b 24:17 24:17–19 24:18 24:19b 24:20–25 24:21 24:21b¹ 24:23b 24:25 24:25b¸ 24:25b¹

326 289 257 12, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 149, 150 140 140 140 140 140 140 139, 140, 141 140 137, 139, 140 137, 140 142, 144, 146 140, 141, 142, 144, 145 142 137 140, 142 140 140 139, 140 140 137, 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140

1 Kings 2:3 2:11 2:45 3:2 3:6 3:9 3:14 5:5 5:15–8:66 5:17

310 144 182 284 329 330 310 184 283 284

24:1 24:1–9 24:2–9 24:3 24:3–4a 24:4a 24:10 24:10–14 24:11 24:11–13 24:12 24:13

420

Index of Passages

1 Kings (continued) 5:18 284 5:19 284 8:1 284 8:11 377 8:13 283 8:16 284, 329, 377 8:17 284 8:18 284 8:19 284 8:20 284 8:22 287 8:24 329 8:26 340 8:28 309, 310 8:29 329 8:30 309, 310 8:33–34 309 8:35 378 8:38 309, 310 8:39 283 8:41–43 375 8:42 328 8:43 283, 308, 309, 316, 337, 357, 377 8:44 284, 378 8:44–53 372 8:45 309, 310 8:46–53 330 8:47 343, 381 8:47b¹ 329 8:48 284, 378 8:49 283, 309 8:51 383 8:52 309 8:53 383 8:54 309, 310 8:58 310 8:60 316, 374, 375 8:61 310, 329 9:3 309, 377, 378 9:4 310 9:5b 293 9:6 310, 373 11:1 230 11:2 312

11:11 11:13 11:32 11:34 11:36 11:38 12:24a–z 12:28 13:33 13:34 14:8 14:16 14:21 15:12 17:13 21:9–10 21:20 21:25 21:26 22

310 284 284 310 284, 377 310 60 260 340 373 310 280 377 308 278 353 312 312 308 144

2 Kings 3:27 6:24–31 9:7 10:29 10:31 17:12 17:13 17:16 17:17 17:19 17:23 17:36 18:4 18:6 18:31 19:16 19:19 19:21 19:31 21:4 21:7 21:10 21:11 21:16

50 327, 343 340 260 343 308 310, 340 260 312 310 340 328 375 310 185 330, 344 330, 344, 374, 375 285 285 377 377 340 308 316

421

Index of Passages

21:21 22 22:2 22:8 22:11 23:3 23:24 23:27 24:2 24:4 25

308 311 311 311 311 310 308 329 340 316 144

1 Chronicler 17 18 18:11 21:9 21:10 21:11 21:12 22:2–26:32 22:7 22:8 22:10 22:19 23–25 28:3 28:7 29:29

288 230 229, 230 139 142 142, 145 141, 145 210 284 284 284 284 210 284 329 137, 139

2 Chronicler 1:18 1:18–7:10 2:3 6:2 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:10 6:30 6:33 6:34 6:38 6:39 15:14 20:8

284 283 284 283 284 284 284 284 283 283 284 284 283 286 284

29:25 31:1 31:10 33:15 Ezra 3:2 3:4 3:4–5 3:5 4:1–6:15 6:18 7:1–5 9 9–10 9:1 9:1–2 9:7 9:11 9:11–12 9:15 10 10:3 10:11 Nehemiah 1:8 1:8–9 1:9 1:10 4:1–23 5 5:1–5 5:1–11 5:1–13 5:6–8 5:7 8 8:13–18

8:14 8:15 8:17

137, 139 383 256 179

208, 216 209, 216 210 209 131 210, 216, 217 200 194, 206 215 207 206, 207, 208, 216 329 362, 363, 364 195, 196, 201, 207, 215, 217 329 210 210, 211, 216 210, 211, 216

197 197, 198, 199, 201, 215, 217 197, 198 328 131 212 212 212 211, 212 212 212 204 14, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 216, 219 202, 203, 204, 217 203, 204 204

422

Index of Passages

Nehemiah (continued) 8:18 204 9 194, 363, 364 9:10 329 9:13–14 363 9:20 363 9:25 265 9:26 343 9:32–34 343 9:33 361 10 213 10:30–40 213, 216 10:31 213 10:31–40 213, 217 13 200, 201 13:1 199, 200, 381 13:1–2 199, 200, 201, 202, 214, 215, 217, 219 13:2 200 Esther 9:18–32

61

Job 28 42:11

232, 331, 342 51

Psalms 15:1 17:36 18:36 19:2 21:4 22:27 29 30:9 30:10 33:14 34:6 36:10 38 43:3 46 46:3–4 46:7 48

357 257 257 51 292 265 51 344 330 283 182 186 250 186 180 184 184 180

48:6–8 50:15 51:6 59:16 66:20 78:29 79:1 83 83:7–9 88:10–12 89:16 89:30 89:38 91 102:22 103 104 105 105:45 106 106:2–5 106:3 115:4–7 115:17 119:34

184 331 326 265 379 265 383 230 229, 230 330, 344 186 292, 293 361 348, 352, 353 357 349 51, 349 348 278 18, 356 356, 357 357 373 330, 344 278

Proverbs 1–9 10–31 13:25 22:14 28:7 28:14

61 61 265 281 278 278, 281

Ecclesiastes/Qohelet 5:7 170 5:11 265 Isaiah 1–12 1 1:1 1:1a 1:2–20 1:8 1:10

181 177, 181, 187, 187 186, 187 188 181 181

423

Index of Passages

1:17 1:20 1:21–25 1:21–26 1:23 1:26 1:27 1:27–31 2 2–12 2:1 2:1–5 2:2 2:2a 2:2b 2:2–4 2:2–5 2:3 2:4 2:4a 2:4b 2:5 2:6–21 2:6 2:9 2:11 2:12 2:12–14 2:14 2:17 2:18 3:1 3:13 4:2–6 8:16 8:17 9:1 10:11 10:17 11 11:10 11:14

181 181, 185 188 188 181 181, 188 181 188 185, 186, 187, 188, 189 187 181, 186, 187, 189 4, 13, 14, 177 179, 181, 182, 183 182 182, 184 14, 180, 181, 187, 189 188 181, 182, 183, 184, 186 181, 183 183, 184 183 14, 184, 185, 185, 186, 189 183 186 186 188 183, 188 181 183, 188 188 373 187 181 181 177 186 186 373 186 230 181 229, 230

15–16 16:12 19:1 19:24–25 21:9 23:18 25:6–8 31:7 36:16 38:18 40–66 40:5 43:1 43:7 44:5 44:9–17 45:5 45:21 46:6 48:1 51:4–5 54 56:6–7 58:14 60 60:1 60:2 60:3 60:5 60:19–20 60:22 63:3 65:1 66:11

181 373 373 382 373 265 181, 382 373 185 330, 344 323 185 286 286 286 373 287 287 373 286 181 396 181 185 180, 186 186 357 186 182 186 184 260 182 267

Jeremiah 7:6 7:10 7:11 7:14 7:24 7:25 7:25–26 7:30–8:3 7:30 7:31

316 308 308 308 343 363 343 55 308 307

424 Jeremiah (continued) 7:34 344 8:1 344 9:15 197 9:26 230 10:3–4 373 11:4–5 343 11:17 344 12:5 257 12:15 383 16:4 344 19:4 316 19:5 307 19:9 327, 343 21:7 141 22:3 316 24:7 330, 331, 344 24:8–9 343 24:9 344 24:10 141 25:5 344 25:21 230 25:29 308 26 179 26:5 343 26:18 179 27:3 230 27:9 344 27:11 259 27:12 344 29:6 344 29:12–14 344 29:17 141 29:18 343 30:3 344 30:22 331 31:1 331 31:12 182 31:33 331, 344 32:20–21 343 32:21 309 32:32 343 32:34 308 32:35 307 32:36 344 32:38 331

Index of Passages

32:39 32:40 34:10 34:15 34:17 36:30 39:35 40:41 42:2 42:5 48 49 50:11 51:44

330 344 285 308 141 344 307 230 343 361 181 181 259 182

Lamentations 2:20 3:65 4:10 5:7

327, 343 257 327, 343 344

Ezekiel 5:12 6:12 7:24 11:16 11:20 12:15 16:8 14:11 20:23 22:15 24:21 36:28 37:23 37:27 39:20

141 141 257 197 331 197 286 331 197 197 257 331 331 331 267

Daniel 1–6 1:8 1:10–17 1:16–20 2:2–6 2:9–11 2:19–49

224 385 224 224 224 224 224

Index of Passages

3:1–2 3:8–10 3:22–30 3:23–25 3:35 4 4:5–9 4:12–16 4:23–25 4:29–30 5:2 5:4 5:5–7 5:10–12 5:11 5:12–14 5:14–16 5:16–19 5:18 5:19–22 5:23 6:8–22 6:11 6:27–29 6:28 7 7–12 7:1–6 7:5–7 7:11 7:15–23 7:25–28 7:26–28 8:1–5 8:1–8 8:13–16 8:16–17 8:20–21 9 9:4–19 9:6 9:7 9:8 9:9–10

224 224 224 224 379 51, 225, 240, 242, 243 224 224 240 224 324 373 224 224 324 224 224 224 324 224 373 224 378 224 373 225 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 224 232, 240, 242, 243, 323, 324 324, 342 344 330, 343 343 343

9:10 9:11 9:12 9:12–13 9:12–17 9:13 9:14 9:15 9:16 9:16–17 9:18 9:19 9:24–25 9:27 10:5–9 10:8–16 10:11–16 10:16–20 10:21 11

11–12 11:1 11:1–2 11:2 11:2–12:4 11:2b–40/45 11:2–45 11:3–4 11:5–20 11:7 11:9 11:13–16 11:13–17 11:21–40/45 11:25–29 11:27 11:29 11:30 11:30–41 11:31 11:32 11:33–36 11:35

425 343 343 343 343 224 343 343 324, 330, 343 343 344 329, 344 344 240 307 224 224 224 224 224 229, 230, 231, 232, 235, 237, 238, 242, 243 4, 15, 238, 242, 243 232 224 232 232 232 232 232 232 225 235 224 224 232 224 238 235, 238 230 230 307 230 224 238

426

Index of Passages

Daniel (continued) 11:38 224 11:40 233, 235, 237 11:40–45 232, 233, 234, 236, 237 11:40–12:3 15, 236, 242 11:41 230, 235 11:44 231, 233, 237 11:44–45 232 11:44–12:3 236 11:45 232, 233, 237 12 233, 238, 242 12:1 237 12:1–3 225, 233, 236 12:4 233 12:3 237 12:5–10 232 12:11 307 Hosea 2:13–15 3:1 3:2–4 4:1–5:1 4:10 4:16 4:18 4:18b 6:3 8:14 13:3–10 13:4 13:10 13:15–14:6 14:3

250 337 250 250 265 249 257, 258 257 182 265 250 251 256 250 256

Joel 1–2 1:10–2:1 1:12 1:17 1:18 2:8–23 2:10–23 2:11 2:12

266 250 259 258, 259, 260 260 250 264 260, 264 266

2:12–14 2:13 2:19 2:26 4:6 4:6a 4:6b–8 4:6–9 4:6–21 4:7 4:8 4:9 4:11 4:18 4:19

266 261, 264 255, 264, 266, 267 265, 266 262 262 262 262 250 262 262 262 253 262, 263 256, 267

Amos 2:11 2:11–4:2 3:1 3:6 3:12 4:1 5:26–27 6:13–7:16 7:2 7:4 9:11

363 250 256 51 155, 157 260 249 250 252 256 249

Jonah 1:5

185

Micah 1:1 1:2 1:4 1:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:12 3–4 3:1 3:5 3:8–9 3:9

177, 179 179 179 179 249 179 180 179 188 179 180 179 179

427

Index of Passages

3:9–12 3:10 3:11 3:12 4 4–5 4:1 4:1a 4:1b 4:1–3

4:3 4:3a 4:3b 4:4 4:4–5 4:5 4:5a 4:5b 4:6–7 4:6 4:7a 4:9 4:9–10 4:11 4:11–13 4:12 4:13 4:14 5:1–4* 5:3 5:6–7 6:14 7:2

188 179 179 178, 179, 180 189 180 179, 182 182 182, 184 14, 178, 179, 180, 181, 188, 189 4, 13, 177 179, 182, 183, 184, 186 179, 180, 183, 184 183, 184 183 14, 184, 185, 189 177, 184 14, 185, 186, 189 185 186 184 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 186 180 265 249

Nahum 1:2

249

Zephaniah 2:11 2:15 2:15–3:2 3:1

382 253 250 253

4:1–5 4:2

Haggai 1:6 2:7–9 2:16

256 180 260

Zechariah 2:15 3:10 8:22 11:3

382 185 180 257

Malachi 1:10 1:11 3:6–7 3:20 4:2

249 382 250 259 259

NEW TESTAMENT Revelation 1:4 4:5 21:10–21

240 240 396

APOCRYPHA/ DEUTEROCANONICAL WRITINGS Tobit 1:4 1:5–6 1:6–8 1:8 1:10–11 1:21–22 2:1 2:6 2:10 3:1–6 3:3–4 3:5 3:6 3:11 3:15–16 3:16 4

391, 396 391 399 392 392 391 394 389 391 392 392 392 393 378 400 401, 402 394

428

Index of Passages

Tobit (continued) 4:5 4:12 4:12–13 5 5:14 5:21 6:12 6:13 6:16 7:10 7:11–13 8:6 8:9–10 8:16 11:18 12:6–15 12:8–9 12:12 12:12–14 12:14 13 13:2 13:3–4 13:5 13:9 13:9–14 13:9–18 13:12 13:14 13:18 14 14:3–11 14:4 14:5 14:5–7 14:10

399 395, 398 394, 399 394 392 126 398 398 398, 399 399 398 389 399 399 391 400 400 401 400 401 389, 395, 396 395 395 395 394, 396 396 396 396 396, 401 396 390 395 389, 394 395, 396 395, 396 391

Judith 1:11 1:12 3:8 4:3 4:12 4:14 4:15

375 375 375 378 383 377, 384, 385 381, 384

5:5–21 5:8 5:9–10 5:9 5:14 5:15 5:17 5:17–18 5:18 5:19 5:19–20 5:20 5:20–21 6:2 6:4 6:9 6:18 6:19 7:23–25 7:25 7:28 8:5–6 8:8 8:17 8:18 8:18–20 8:20 8:22 8:33 9:1 9:4 9:8 9:10 9:12 9:13 9:14 10:8 11:10–11 11:12 11:15 11:20 12:1–8 12:2 13:5 13:14 13:17

372 379 383 379 379, 382 382 381 373 379, 380 380 381 373, 385 373 375 376 376 377 378 372 380 373, 378, 380 385 385 381 373 383 373, 374 383 384 377, 384, 385 378 377 384 378, 378, 383 378, 378, 379, 383 374 377 373 380 373 373 385 385 378, 383 379 377

Index of Passages

13:20 14:10 15:9 15:8–10 15:10 16:5 16:18 16:18–20 16:19 16:21 16:25

381 376 383 381 381 384 385 377 385 383 384

Wisdom 14:8

373

Sirach 1:1–10 1:9b–10a 1:10b 3:16 3:16b 7:27 7:27–28 7:27–31 7:29 7:29a 7:29b 7:29–31 7:30 7:30a 7:30b 7:31a 7:31b 10:12 15:15 24 24:1–22 24:25–27 24:23 29:8–13 30:14 30:14–20 30:18 30:19ab 30:19c–d 32:23–33:2

322 277 277 281 281 280 280 280 280 280 280 279, 280 281 280 280 280 280 281 278 322, 333 333 334 279, 332, 333 393 282 282 282 282 282 278

35(32):13 36:1–22 36:5 36:10 36:12(17) 36:13–14 36(33):13 36:17 36:17c 36:17d 36:23–37:15 37:12 37:12a 37:12b 37:12–15 38:15 43:5 43:11 44–50 44:1–45:25d 44:12 44:17 44:19–23 44:20 44:20a 44:20b 44:20c 44:22 44:22c 45:6–22 45:12 45:15 45:22 45:23–24 45:24 45:24c 45:24cd 45:24–25 45:24c–25b 45:25 45:25a 45:25ab 45:25c 45:25d 46:5a

429 281 286, 287 287 287 286 283, 285 281 287 287 287 278 278 278 278 278 281 281 281 284, 285, 288 286 289 289 278, 285 279, 285, 289 279 285 279 289 285 292 292 286, 289, 292, 293 292 290 286, 289, 291, 293 291 291 293 291 288, 289, 290, 292, 340 291 290, 291 290, 291 290 288

430

Index of Passages

Sirach (continued) 46:7 313 46:13 281 46:16a 288 47:1 288 47:1–11 288, 290 47:2 288 47:3 288 47:4–5 288 47:5a 288 47:5b 288, 289 47:6ab 288 47:7 288 47:7c 289 47:8 281, 288 47:8–10 288 47:9a 289 47:11 340 47:11a 289 47:11b–d 289 47:11b 289 47:11c 289 47:12–22 283 47:13c 284 47:13cd 283 47:18b 286 47:22 288, 340 47:23c 280 47:23d 280 47:23f 280 48:15 288, 340 48:20a 288 48:22 288 49:4 288, 341 49:5 289 49:10 249 50:24 286, 289, 292, 293 50:24b 293 50:24c 293 50:24d 293 51:12(4) 281 51:12a-o 284 51:12h 288 51:12m 284

Baruch 1:1–14 1:1–15a¸ 1:1–3:8 1:3 1:8 1:9 1:11–12 1:15 1:15–3:8 1:15a¹–3:8 1:15–2:35 1:16 1:16–17 1:18 1:19 1:20 1:21 1:22 2:1 2:1–2 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:13 2:14–15 2:15 2:16 2:17 2:17–18 2:19 2:19–20 2:20 2:21–23 2:21–24 2:24 2:24–26

322 322, 337, 342 321 340 341 340, 341 324, 341 343 15, 343 322, 324, 342 322 341 343 338, 343 324, 325, 343 325, 339, 340, 343 326, 343 326, 337, 338, 343 340, 340, 241 343 327, 340 327, 343 327, 329, 340, 343 343 343 343 340, 343 343 338, 343 327, 328, 329, 338, 343 329, 343 329, 343 343 329, 228 329, 330, 344 330 344 341 344 340 344 341 340 344

431

Index of Passages

2:26 2:27–35 2:28 2:29 2:29–35 2:30a 2:30b 2:34 2:35 3:1–8 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:8–4:4 3:9 3:9–14 3:9–23 3:9–4:4 3:9–5:9 3:10 3:13 3:24–4:4 3:29 3:29–30 3:30 3:36 3:37–4:1 3:38 4–5 4:1 4:4 4:5–5:9 4:7 4:7–8 4:13 4:15 4:18 4:21 4:25 4:29–30

337 344 330, 340 327, 330, 340 330 330 330 340 331, 342 322, 331, 344 331, 338 331, 339, 344 327, 340, 344 333 331, 332 332 331 321, 322, 333, 342 328 332 332, 338 331 332 332 332 333, 337 333 333 322 332, 333 331, 333, 336 322, 334, 342 337 334 338 335 339 339 336, 340 339

1 Maccabees 1:13 1:15 1:37 1:43

317 312, 313 316 307, 308

1:44–46 1:47 1:48–50 1:52 1:54 1:54–55 1:56 1:57 1:59 1:62–63 1:63 2:1–4 2:7 2:12 2:20–21 2:22 2:23–26 2:24 2:24–25 2:25 2:26 2:27 2:42 2:45 2:50 2:53 2:54 2:55 2:56 2:58 2:64 2:67 2:68 3:17 3:18–20 3:21 3:22 3:41 3:43 3:48 3:50–51 3:56 3:58 3:58–59 4:8 4:8–9

317 307, 308 317 317 307, 308 317 311, 312 317 307 385 317 315 317 317 311, 317 311 304, 305 303, 304 305 317 305 317 317 317 310, 317 310 315 310 313 310, 317 310, 314 310, 317 310 315 317 317 315 314 317 308, 311, 312 317 300 314 317 315 316

432

Index of Passages

1 Maccabees (continued) 4:9–10 317 4:11 316 4:31 309 4:33 317 4:37–38 317 4:41 317 4:42 301, 317 4:43 301 4:43–61 317 4:44 301 4:45 301 4:46 301 4:47 301, 302 4:52 302 4:53 301, 302, 318 4:56 302 5:43–44 317 5:68 317 6:7 307 6:24 313 6:59 317, 318 7:37 308, 309 7:42 317 10:14 317 10:43 317 10:84 317 11:4 317 13:3 317 13:41–42 318 13:47 308 13:48 317 13:50 317 14:29 317 15:33 313 15:33–34 318 15:34 313 2 Maccabees 5:27

151–155 152–153 152:4 153:2 154–155

347 349 350 350 348

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 1 Enoch 20 42

240 333

Jubilees 1:26 2:1 4:19 4:33 6:20–22 8:11 10:13 21:10 27:14 27:17 30:12

34 61 37 395 35 37 37 37 126 126 35

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum Pseudo Philo 21:7 59 Psalms of Solomon 11 322

DEAD SEA SCROLLS 1QH (Hodayot) 12:18

41

1QIsaa 19:3

56

385

1 Esdras 4:58

378

Psalms 151

350

1QM (War Scroll) 1 15, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243

433

Index of Passages

1–9 1:1–2 1:1–7 1:1–9a 1:2 1:3 1:3b–5a 1:4 1:4–5 1:4b–5a 1:5 1:6 1:6a¹ 1:8 1:8–9a 1:8–16 1:9 1:9a 1:9b 1:9b–10 1:9b–12a 1:10 1:10–11 1:11 1:12 1:12b 1:12b–13 1:12b–E 1:15 1:16 1:16–E 1:E–2:3 2 5 7 5–8 10–19 10–11 15–19 15:2 16:3–9 16:11–17:15 17:4–8b 17:6

226 229, 231, 242, 243 229, 236 15, 236, 237, 238, 241, 241, 242, 243 230 234, 240 233 231, 233, 234, 235, 237 234 231, 242 233, 234, 235, 237 237 231, 242 237, 240 236 229 237, 240, 241 234 237 241 238, 241, 242, 234 238, 240 238 239 241 238 240 238, 242, 243 238 238 229 236 223 223 223 239, 240 226 227 239 235 239 239 225 238

17:16–18:6a

239

1QS (Rule of the Community) 2:12 286 2:26 286 5:8 286 5:20 286 6:27 286 10:4 286 10:10 286 4Q24 (4QNumb) 31 58 32 58 4Q78 (4QXIIc) 7, 13 8 8, 7 9, 4 10 10–12, 7 10–12, 8 14 14–17 14–17, 2 14–17, 3 14–17, 10 18 18–20, 1 18–20, 1–2 18–20, 2 18–20, 4 18–20, 13 18–20, 14 30–33, 7 34, 3 35 36–37 38 39–43 45–47 50–51

257 251 256 256 260 258 260 264 264 260 261 264 252 262 262 262 253 262 256, 267 256 253 250 250 250 250 250 250

4Q83 (4QPsa) 27:11

62

434 4Q88 (4QPsf) 8:2–5 9:5–7 7:14–8-16

Index of Passages

350 350 350

4Q174 (Florilegium) 1:4 382 4Q185 (Sapiental Work) 1, 1 361 1, 1:8–9 361 4Q266 (4QDa) 1 1:15 4 6 7 15:5 16 20 20:15

249 41 249 249 249 286 249 249 41

4Q364 (4QRPb) 3 3, 2 4b–e, 2:21–26

30 126 57

4Q365 (4QRPc) 6, 2 6a, 2 6c 23 36

127 55, 58 55, 58 30, 127 58

4Q366 (4QRPd) 4, 1

126

1, 1:4 1, 1:5 1, 1:7–8 1, 1:9–11 1, 1:9–12 1, 2:1 1, 2:2 1, 2:2–5 1, 2:3–4 1, 2:5 1, 2:6 1, 2:8

356 356 357 365 357, 358 365 357 365 357 357 357, 365 349

4Q381 (4QNon-Canonical Psalms B) 1 360 14 360 24a, 6 350 33, 8 360 33a, 8 349 46a+b, 5–6 350 48, 4 350 69 358–360, 360 69, 1–3 362 69, 4–5 363 69, 4–6 362 69, 5A 363 69, 5A–5 363 69, 6 363 69, 7–9 363 77 358, 359, 360 77, 2 360, 364 77, 2–3 361 77, 2–8 361 77, 4 361 77, 6 361 77, 7 361 77, 9–11 362

4Q379 (4QapocrJoshuab) 22, 2:8 59

4Q434 (4QBarkhi Nafshia) 1, 1:7 350 2, 6–7 350

4Q380 (4QNon-Canonical Psalms A) 1, 1:1–2:6 355–356 1, 1:7–11 356 1, 1:2–6 356, 365

4Q496 (4QpapMf) 3 236 3:4 236

435

Index of Passages

11Q5 (11QPsa) 22:1–12 22:12 28:8–11

OTHER ANCIENT LITERATURE 350 350 350

11Q11 (11QapocrPs) 2:1–3:13 351–352 2:2 353 2:3–4 355 2:4–5 353 2:5–9 353 2:10–3:2 353 3:2–10 353 3:4–5 353 3:5–6 353 3:6–8 353 3:9–10 354 3:10 354 3:11 354 11Q19 (11QTemple Scrolla) 35 40 44:5 38 48:5 155, 156 50–66 40 50:5–9 39 50:17 39 51:6 38 54:5–7 39 56:20–1 39 57:1 39 59:7–10 39

JOSEPHUS Jewish Antiquities 5:20 59 8.45–49 353

RABBINIC WRITINGS b. Sanhedrin 21b

134

BGU 6.1244 41 8.1822

169 169

C.Ord.Ptol. 43

171

C.Pap.Jud. 1.43

169

P.Erasm. 1.1 1.1 24–26 1.1 35–37

172 170 170

P.Heid.Inv G 5100 1–2 168 4–12a 168 5–20 176–168 12b–16a 168 P.Polit.Iud. 1.19–20 4 6 7 8 9.34–35 16 11.10 12.24–25 19 20

169 169 169 169 169 169 169 169 169 169 169

P.Ryl. 4.578

169

P.Tebt. 1.5 1.57 1.61b 274, 377 1.72 3.796 3.1.768

171 171 171 171 169 171

436 3.1.699 3.1.764 3.1.790 3.1.817 3.2.970

Index of Passages

171 171 172 171 172

SB 8.9899 24.16295 24.16296

171 172 171

Schøyen Greek Leviticus 2649 ƹ 159