Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions

T h e exiles of Israel and J u d a h cast a long shadow over the biblical text and the whole subsequent history of J u d a i s m . Scholars have long recognized the importance of the theme of exile for the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, critical study o f the Old Testament has, at least since Wellhausen, been dominated by the Babylonian exile of Judah. In 586 B c , several factors, including the destruction of Jerusalem, the cessation of the sacrificial cult and of the monarchy, and the experience of the exile, began to cause a transformation of Israelite religion which supplied the contours o f the larger J u d a i c framework within which the various forms of J u d a i s m , including the early Christian movement, developed. Given the importance of the exile to the development of J u d a i s m and Christianity even to the present day, this volume delves into the conceptions of exile which c o n ­ tributed to that development during the formative period. J a m e s M . Scott, Dr.theol. (1989) in N e w Testament, University o f Tubingen, is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Trinity Western University in Langley, British C o l u m b i a , Canada. H i s publica­ tions include Paul and the Nations ( M o h r Siebeck, 1995).

EXILE OLD TESTAMENT JEWISH, A N D CHRISTIAN

CONCEPTIONS

SUPPLEMENTS TO THE

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF JUDAISM Formerly Stadia Post-Biblica Editor J O H N J. C O L L I N S

The Divinity School, University of Chicago Associate Editor FLORENTINO GARCIA MARTINEZ Qumran Institute, University of Groningen Advisory Board J . D U H A I M E - A . HILHORST -

M . A . KNIBB

M . M A C H - J . T . A . G . M . V A N R U I T E N - J . SIEVERS G . STEMBERGER - J . T R O M P - A . S . V A N D E R W O U D E

VOLUME 56

EXILE OLD TESTAMENT, JEWISH, AND CHRISTIAN CONCEPTIONS

EDITED BY

JAMES M.

SCOTT

BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • K 0 L N 1997

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library o f C o n g r e s s Cataloging-in P u b l i c a t i o n d a t a Exile : Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian conceptions / edited by James M. Scott. p. cm. — (Supplements to the journal for the study of Judaism, ISSN 1384-2161 ; v. 56) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 9004106766 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Jews—History—Babylonian captivity, 598-515 B.C.—Biblical teaching. 2. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Jews—History—Babylonian captivity, 598-515 B . C . -Historiography. 4. Jewish diaspora—Historiography. 5. Greek literature—Jewish authors—History and criticism. 6. Exile (Punishment) in rabbinical literature. 7. Bible. N.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Scott, James M. II Series. BS1199.B3E95 1997 296.3' 117—dc21 97-36234 CIP r97 D i e D e u t s c h e Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufhahme Exile : Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian conceptions / ed. by James M. Scott. - Leiden ; New York ; Koln : Brill, 1997 (Supplements to the journal for the study of Judaism ; Vol. 56) ISBN 9 0 - 0 4 - 1 0 6 7 6 - 6

[Journal for t h e s t u d y o f J u d a i s m / S u p p l e m e n t s ] Supplements to the journal for the study of Judaism. - Leiden ; New York ; Koln : Brill Fruher Schriftenreihe Bis Vol. 48 (1995) u.d.T.: Studia post-biblica

Vol. 56. Exile. - 1997

ISSN 1384-2161 ISBN 90 04 10676 6 © Copyright 1997 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 DanversMA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED EN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS

Introduction

1 BABYLONIAN A N D PERSIAN PERIODS

Reassessing the Historical and Sociological Impact of the Babylonian Exile (597/587-539 BCE) D A N I E L SMITH-CHRISTOPHER, Loyola Marymount University The Exile and Canon Formation

7

37

JAMES A. SANDERS, Claremont Graduate School

Deportation and Diasporic Discourses in the Prophetic Literature ROBERT P. CARROLL, University of Glasgow

63

GRECO-ROMAN PERIOD

Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature JAMES C. V A N D E R K A M , University of Notre Dame

89

Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls M A R T I N G. A B E G G , Trinity Western University

Ill

Exile and Return in Jubilees

. . 127

BETSY HALPERN-AMARU, Vassar College

The Concept of Exile in Josephus LOUIS H. FTELDMAN, Yeshiva University Exile and the Self-Understanding of Diaspora Jews in the Greco-Roman Period JAMES M . SCOTT, Trinity Western University

145

173

FORMATIVE JUDAISM

Exile and Return as the History of Judaism JACOB N E U S N E R , University of South Florida, Tampa

221

Salvific Exile in the Isaiah Targum B R U C E D . CHILTON, Bard College

239

The Idea of Exile in Early Rabbinic Midrash 249 G A R Y G. PORTON, University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign Notions of Exile, Subjugation and Return in Rabbinic Literature CHAIM MILIKOWSKY, Bar-Ilan University

265

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels CRAIG A. E V A N S , Trinity Western University

299

Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 3-4

329

SCOTT J. HAFEMANN, Wheaton College

Index to Biblical and Other Ancient Sources

373

FOREWORD

A volume such as this is possible only through the cooperation and encouragement of many people. Among those who simply must be mentioned here, I would like to thank, first of all, the contributors for their tremendous efforts in bringing this volume to a successful con­ clusion. I am also grateful to John J. Collins and Florentino Garcia Martinez for accepting this book for publication in the Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series. I owe a debt of thanks to Catherine Porter for her technical assistance on the project. Finally, words cannot tell how much I appreciate the help of my wife Gail at every stage of production, including the preparation of the indices. July 1997

JMS

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD AGJU ANRW ArBib AUSS ASTI BA BAR BASOR BBR BCH BETL Bib Rev BJS BTB CBQ CRINT DJD DSD EncJud FAT FRLANT HeyJ HSM HTR ICC IEJ JRT JAL JAOS JBL JESHO

D. N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt Aramaic Bible Andrews University Seminary Studies Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin for Biblical Research Bulletin de correspondance hellenique Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bible Review Brown Judaic Studies Biblical Theology Bulletin Catholic Biblical Quarterly Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad novum testamentum Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Scrolls Discoveries Encyclopaedia Judaica Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Heythrop Journal Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Issues in Religion and Theology Jewish Apocryphal Literature Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient

JJS JNES JQR JSJ JSNT JSOT JSP JTS KEK LCL NICNT NIGTC NovT NTS NTTS OTP PAAJR RB RevQ SBB SBEC SBLDS SBLEJL SBS SPB ST STDJ SVTP TANZ TAPA TAVO TD ThHK

Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal of Theological Studies Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber das Neue Testament Loeb Classical Library New International Commentary on the New Testament The New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies J. H. Charlesworth (ed.) The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Revue Biblique Revue de Qumran Stuttgarter Biblische Beitrage Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studia Postbiblica Studia Theologia Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigrapha Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter Transactions of the American Philological Association Tubinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Theology Digest Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

TRE TSAJ TynB UTB VT WBC WMANT WUNT ZAW ZDPV ZNW

Theologische Realenzyklopadie Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Tyndale Bulletin Uni-Taschenbiicher Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschriftfilr die altestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

INTRODUCTION

The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles.... We appeal to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream—the redemption of Israel. "The Declaration of the State of Israel" (1948)

In recounting the events leading up to and following the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, we cover some familiar ground. In the 8th century BCE a reborn Assyria swept out across the Fertile Crescent subduing the Aramean kingdoms of Syria, which had frequently threatened the two Israelite kingdoms. The Assyrian siege of Samaria under Shalmaneser V began in 724 BCE, and the Northern Kingdom fell to Sargon II in 722/721 BCE. In accordance with Assyrian policy, inhabi­ tants of Samaria were deported, and captives from elsewhere were re­ located there. In 701 BCE Sennacherib, the new Assyrian king, in­ vaded Philistia and Judah, suppressing the revolt in the west. He con­ quered forty-six cities surrounding Jerusalem, including Lachish. The wall reliefs in Sennacherib's palace at Nineveh (now in the British Museum) provide an unusually vivid pictorial account of his siege and capture of Lachish and of the subsequent exile of the city's popula1

1

Cf. Bustenay Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the NeoAssyrian Empire (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979). On Tiglath-Pileser's campaigns against Israel (733-732 BCE), including the ensuing deportations, see Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994) 279-82.

2

INTRODUCTION

2

tion. As Assyria gradually weakened, Babylon grew strong and by 600 BCE controlled all Mesopotamia. In 605 BCE the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptian pharaoh Neco in battle at Carchemish, placing Judah under the control of Babylonia. This was a turning point in Judah's history. In 587 BCE Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and deported Jehoiachin to Babylon, as well as thousands of leading citizens, among them Ezekiel, who became a prophet in Babylon. Zedekiah, the puppet who replaced the exiled Jehoiachin, rebelled against the Babylonians, and in 587/586 BCE Nebuchadnezzar attacked and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, deporting some of its inhabitants to Babylon, including Zedekiah himself. Whereas the Northern Kingdom never returned from exile, the Southern Kingdom fared better. In 538, Cyrus, king of Persia, whose army had taken Babylon the year before, permitted the Jews to return to their homeland, although many chose to remain behind. This attempt at return and restoration failed to actualize the grandiose prophetic expectations. In 587 BCE, several factors, including the destruction of Jerusalem, the cessation of the sacrificial cult and of the monarchy, and the expe­ rience of the exile, began to cause a transformation of Israelite religion which supplied the contours of the larger Judaic framework within which the various forms of Judaism, including the early Christian movement, developed. Given the importance of the exile to the de­ velopment of Judaism and Christianity even to the present day, it is 3

4

2

For the reliefs, see David Ussishkin, The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib (Tel Aviv University, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 6; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1982). Cf., e.g., Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) 19: "Is it possible that the origins of the Jewish exegetical tradition are native and ancient, that they developed diversely in ancient Israel, in many centres and at many times, and that these many tributaries met in the exile and its aftermath to set a new stage for biblical culture which was redirected, rationalized, and systematized in the lively environment of the GraecoRoman world? To ask the question this way is almost to answer it. What remains are the details...." For the modern discussion of the subject, see e.g. Etan Levine (ed.), Diaspora: Exile and the Contemporary Jewish Condition (New York/Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Steimatzky/Shapolsky, 1986); Daniel Boyarin and Jonathan Boyarin, "Diaspora: Generation and Ground of Jewish Identity," Critical Inquiry 19 (1993) 693-725; Arnold M. Eisen, Galut: Modern Jewish Reflection on Homelessness and Homecoming (The Modern Jewish Experience; 3

4

INTRODUCTION

3

surprising that more work has not been done on the conceptions of exile which contributed to that development during the formative pe­ riod. Symptomatic of this relative neglect is the fact that the compre­ hensive, six-volume Anchor Bible Dictionary, published in 1992, contains no article on "Exile." In order partially to redress this situation and to stimulate further re­ search on the topic, the present volume contains fourteen essays di­ vided into three parts which cover various aspects of the exile in Jewish and Christian tradition. Part One, dealing with the Babylonian and Persian Periods, includes essays on the historical exile (Daniel Smith-Christopher), canon formation (James A. Sanders), and the socalled "post-exilic period" (Robert P. Carroll). Part Two, covering the 5

6

Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1986); Leonard J. Fein, "Israel or Zion," Judaism 22/1 (1973) 7-17; Eliezar Don-Yehiya, "The Negation of Galut in Religious Zionism," Modern Judaism 12/2 (1992) 129-55; Jonathan Z. Smith, Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 23; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 119-28; Rudolf Mosis, ExilDiaspora-RUckkehr. Zum theologischen Gesprach zwischen Juden und Christen (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1978); Jurgen Moltmann, "Zeit der Hoffnung. Das Exil in christlicher und jiidischer Sicht," Evangelische Kommentare 27/11 (1994) 688-90; Walter Brueggemann, Hopeful Imagination: Prophetic Voices in Exile (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 92; idem, "A Shattered Transcendence? Exile and Restoration," in Steven J. Kraftchick, et al. (eds.), Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives. In Honor of J. Christiaan Beker (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995) 169-82. For some important exceptions to the prevailing trend, see e.g. Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968); Odil Hannes Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferung des deuternomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spatjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967); idem, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration 'kanonischer' Uberlieferung (FRLANT 160; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993); Michael A. Knibb, "The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period," HeyJ 17 (1976) 253-72; Donald E. Gowan, "The Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic," in Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt (eds.), Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam (Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 17; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977) 20523; Jacob Neusner, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Exile and Return in the History of Judaism (Boston: Beacon, 1987). Note, however, that Robert P. Carroll's article on "Israel, History of (PostMonarchic Period)" (ABD 3 [1992] 567-76) does include a brief discussion on the concept of exile (575). 5

6

4

INTRODUCTION

Greco-Roman Period, contains essays on apocalyptic literature (James C. VanderKam), the Dead Sea scrolls (Martin G. Abegg), land theol­ ogy in Jubilees (Betsy Halpern-Amaru), Josephus (Louis Feldman), and Diaspora Judaism (James M. Scott). Part Three, dealing with Formative Judaism, includes essays on exile and return as the history of Judaism (Jacob Neusner), the targumim (Bruce D. Chilton), the early midrashim (Gary G. Porton), and rabbinic literature (Chaim Milikowsky). Finally, Part Four, covering Early Christian Literature, contains essays on Jesus and the Gospels (Craig A. Evans) and Paul (Scott J. Hafemann). This final section could have included more es­ says, but the limitations of the series did not allow it. By the same to­ ken, however, the whole volume could have been expanded and deep­ ened at almost every point. What this collection shows, however, is that a diachronic study of the concepts of exile provides a fruitful field of research which warrants more attention. 7

7

Cf. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration, 247; Rudolf Mosis, "Das babylonische Exil Israels in der Sicht christlicher Exegese," in R. Mosis (ed.), Exit—Diaspora—Ruckkehr. Zum theologischen Gesprach zwischen Juden und Christen (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1978) 55-77; Clemens Thoma, "Jiidische und christliche Exilserfahrungen und Exilstheologien: Deutung des nachbiblischen Judentums aus christlich-theologischer Sicht," in Exil—Diaspora—Ruckkehr, 7894; L. Clerici, Einsammlung der Zerstreuten. Liturgiegeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Vor- und Nachgeschichte der Fiirbitte fiir die Kirche in Didache 9,4 und 10,5 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen 44; Minister: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1966); Oskar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr's Proof-Text Tradition (NovTSup 56; Leiden: Brill, 1987) 281-2, 283, 287, 288-9, 291-3; Richard Stoneman, "Jewish Traditions on Alexander the Great," in David T. Runia (ed.), The Studia Philonica Annual: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, Vol. VI (BJS 299; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994) 37-53 (51); Robert L. Wilken, The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1992) 56-64; Stefan Heid, "Das heilige Land. Herkunft und Zukunft der Judenchristen," Kairos 34/35 (1992-93) 1-26; idem, "Chiliasmus und AntichristMythos. Eine fruhchristliche Kontroverse um das Heilige Land," (Hereditas: Studien zur Alten Kirchengeschichte 6; Bonn: Borengasser, 1993); Georg Strecker, "Das Land Israel in fruhchristlicher Zeit," in Georg Strecker (ed.), Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 der HebraischenUniversitat und der Georg-August-Universitat (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 188-200.

BABYLONIAN AND PERSIAN PERIODS

REASSESSING THE HISTORICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

(597/587-539

BCE)

D. L. Smith-Christopher Loyola Marymount University ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

Among the many historical-critical issues surrounding the study of the Hebrew Bible, the changing perspectives and assessment of the Babylonian Exile over the course of the twentieth century ought to be cited as one of the debates most impressive for dramatic swings of opinion and perspective. Wellhausen's refinement of the "documentary hypothesis" at the turn of the twentieth century depended on his making important social and theological and presumptions with regard to the impact of the exilic experience on the life and faith of the Israelite peoples, however negatively he may have judged that impact. Indeed, John Barton has gone so far as to suggest that "...Wellhausen, it would be fair to say, discovered the exile." His view of the exile, for example, helped Wellhausen to provide the grounds for the late date of P which was, of course, the major pillar in his refined version of the earlier documen­ tary hypotheses. But the importance of the exile, and its impact on the life and faith of ancient Israel, was certainly not universally agreed. Torrey wrote in 1910 that the exile, "...which was in reality a small and relatively in­ significant affair, has been made, partly through mistake and partly by the compulsion of a theory, to play a very important part in the history of the Old Testament...." Thus there began a de-emphasizing of the exile which would continue to express (albeit not in the extreme terms Torrey used) the scholarly consensus about the exile. It is not that the exile was not mentioned as an event, but as a critically important 1

2

1

J. Barton, "Wellhausen's Prolegomena to the History of Israel: Influences and Effects," in D. L. Smith-Christopher (ed.), Text and Experience: Toward a Cultural Exegesis of the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 316-29 (328). C. C. Torrey, "The Exile and the Restoration," in Ezra Studies (New York: Ktav, 1910/1970) 285-340 (285). 2

8

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

event in the history and development of the Hebrew people the con­ sensus appears clearly more sympathetic to Torrey than Wellhausen. As recently as 1986, for example, in the influential historiography of ancient Israel edited by Hayes and Miller, H. Donner writes: It is easy ... to overemphasize the drastic and debilitating consequences of the fall of Jerusalem and the triumph of Babylonian forces. Various aspects of life certainly were greatly modified, but Babylonian policy was not overly oppres­ sive. The exiles were not forced to live in inhuman conditions... [and] ... remained free and certainly should not be understood as slaves. They would have been under no overt pressure to assimilate and lose their identities.. .. 3

But there were signs of different opinions along the way. In his Studies in the Book of Lamentations (1954), for example, Gottwald anticipates a changed attitude to the exile that would emerge- more fully at a later time: If the enduring memory of events and their impact upon succeeding genera­ tions is the major criterion of historical importance, then there can be no doubt that the sequence of happenings from 597 to 538 were among the most fateful in all Hebrew-Jewish history. It is far wide of the mark to recognize in the sixth century BC the severest test which Israel's religion ever faced? 4

Opinions remained mixed for some time. An excellent indication of this is the ambiguity in Bright's influential History of Israel On the one hand, Bright would write: "Although we should not belittle the hardships and the humiliation that these exiles endured, their lot does not seem to have been unduly severe...," and yet two pages later, writes: "When one considers the magnitude of the calamity that over­ took her, one marvels that Israel was not sucked down into the vortex of history along with the other little nations of western Asia...." This ambiguous assessment is shared in many of the recent works on the impact of the exile on biblical literature, such as the works of Ackroyd 5

6

3

H. Donner, "The Separate States of Israel and Judah," in J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes (eds.), Israelite and Judaean History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 381-434 (421, 433). For another attempt to depreciate the crucial significance of the exile, see now Willi Thomas, Juda-Jehud-Israel. Studien zum Selbstverstandnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12; Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1995). N. Gottwald, Studies in the Book of Lamentations (London: SCM, 1954) 19. J. Bright, History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981) 345. Bright, History, 347. 4

5

6

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

9 7

(still considered a classic study of exile), Raitt, Klein, and Foster. While each of these, in turn, attempts to present a balanced picture, the presumed "lack of evidence" seems inevitably to push the scholars toward a benign assessment of the human and social impact of the ex­ ile. A more severe impact, it seems to be presumed, would have left more evidence. When stated in this stark manner, the working con­ clusion appears more clearly tendentious. We may note, by the way, an interestingly similar debate about the impact of the earlier Neo- Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom in 722. Here, the debate centers on assessing the impact of the Assyrian crisis, and particularly whether the Assyrians imposed reli­ gious restrictions on the Northern Israelite cult. M. Coogan, in Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries BCE (Missoula, 1974) for example, argued in a manner similar to benign assessments of the later Babylonian Exile, stating that the Neo-Assyrian conquest had minimal impact on the faith and life of those who remained in the land after the exiles were taken. But in a later work by Hermann Spiekermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (Gottingen, 1982), much more attention was given to Neo-Assyrian practices and documents, leading to his suggestions of much more severe treatment by the Neo-Assyrian conquerors. Absent from this discussion, however, is any attempt to assess the extent of the human crisis itself because of a bias toward 8

7

Recent studies include: R. S. Foster, The Restoration of Israel: The Return from the Exile (London: Dartman, Longman and Todd, 1970); R. W. Klein, Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979); P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration (London: SCM, 1968). Ackroyd's work, still considered by many to be the major analysis of the exile, was written in conscious awareness of the neglect of the exilic and post-exilic periods in Biblical analysis (see "The Exilic Age," 1-16). In his assessment of the conditions of the exiles in Babylon, for example, Ackroyd writes that indications "...are of reasonable freedom, of settlement in communities—perhaps engaged in work for the Babylonians, but possibly simply engaged in normal agricultural life—of the possibility of marriage, of the ordering of their own affairs, of relative prosperity." Yet, a few lines later, Ackroyd acknowledges that the "uncongenial nature" of the situation should not be "understated" (32). It should be noted that one important essay challenged the prevailing assumptions about the generally light treatment of exiles. See J. M. Wilkie, "Nabonidus and the Later Jewish Exiles," JTS 2 (1951) 36-44. See also W. G. Lambert's descriptions of the violent claims of Nebuchadnezzar, "Nebuchadnezzar King of Justice," Iraq 27 (1965) 1-11. 8

10

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

measuring human impact only on the theological changes, or lack of changes, found in the text. It is the intention of this essay to argue along similar lines as has Spiekermann, namely that the assessment of the impact of the Babylonian Exile must make far more use of nonbiblical documents, archaeological reports, and imaginative use of biblical texts that report on the crisis and its aftermath in order to construct a more realistic picture of the trauma of the Babylonian Exile in both its "human" (that is, psychological and physical) and theological impact on the Hebrew people of the sixth and fifth cen­ turies BCE. It should be mentioned that recent work complicates the question of the impact of the Babylonian Exile by taking a radically skeptical view of reconstructing historical events before the exile with any con­ fidence whatsoever. Indeed, the exile is being reassessed in the 1990s as not so much a political, human, and theological crisis, but rather the geo-political maelstrom out of which the entire biblical "myth" arises. In its most extreme forms, this view suggests that post-exilic "Judaism" created, virtually ex nihilo, the entire biblical pre-exilic tra­ dition, from the Patriarchs, through the Exodus, and even the Monarchical period. The work of Thomas Thompson, John van Seters, and Philip Davies (whose title is provocatively entitled, In Search of Ancient Israel) suggests that Israelite history begins after the rise of the Persian Empire, and any events previous to this are questionable history at best. If such a view is combined with those of Jon Berquist, Judaism in Persia's Shadow (Philadelphia, 1995), that the Torah is, for all intents and purposes, a creation of the court of Darius for an enthusiastically pro-Persian group of settlers who need a basis for their claim to the Western coast of the satrap, "Beyond the River," then the exile becomes not so much a crisis in the develop9

9

The literature is growing, but the "classic texts" of the debate include P. R. Davies, In Search of Ancient Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992); T. L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel I: The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1-23 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987); idem, Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and Archaeological Sources (Leiden: Brill, 1992); J. V. Seters, In Search of History: History and Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). Important reactions include W. G. Dever, including "'Will the Real Israel Please Stand Up?' Archaeology and Israelite Historiography: Part 1," BASOR 297 (1995) 61-80 and the literature cited there.

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

11

ment of ancient Israelite identity and theology, as its cause! Further debate on this specific issue would take us far afield of the main ar­ guments of this essay. Suffice it to say, however, that most of these recent arguments for a fictitious pre-exilic Israel also tend not to in­ clude analysis of the exile event itself, but rather make assumptions with regard to its (usually somewhat benign) impact on the exiled people themselves. Clearly, there is a need for a re-assessment of how we may need to think about the exile event itself, as well as its subse­ quent impact on the writing, canonizing, and living of late biblical Hebrew history. TOWARD A SOCIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

It will be the argument of this essay that most assessments of the exile lack an important element of historical critical analysis—namely, an informed perspective on the social, socio-psychological, and therefore theological impact of the disasters of 597 and especially 587. In cer­ tain ways, therefore, this essay will result in (for all intents and pur­ poses) a call to return to the profound importance suggested by Wellhausen of the events of the exile, with the incorporation of Gottwald's significant question of 1954 which remained largely unan­ swered until recent work. Before we can turn to this matter, how­ ever, it is important to review some of the most significant historical issues associated with the events themselves, as best as we can recon­ struct them. 10

T H E EXILE AS HISTORICAL EVENT

In his History of Israel, Martin Noth perceptively commented that the Babylonian Exile of 587/6 BCE ought to be seen as the final event, or "...merely the conclusion of a long historical process..." of the fall of the independent Hebrew states in the western sector of the near east. Even the "rise" of these small states in ancient Palestine, argues 11

1 0

I would like to include my own work in this possible reassessment of the importance of the impact of exile: D. L. Smith, The Religion of the Landless: The Sociology of the Babylonian Exile (Bloomington: Meyer-Stone Books, 1989). M. Noth, The History of Israel (London: Black, 1960) 289. B. Oded begins his analysis of the exile by reviewing the events under the Neo-Assyrian Empire ("Judah and the Exile," in J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes [eds.], Israelite and Judaean History [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986] 435-88). 11

12

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

Otzen, was possible only because of a vacuum of power among the larger warring states after the decline of Egyptian hegemony over Palestine, and until the eventual rise of Neo-Assyrian power followed quickly by Neo-Babylonian usurpation after the rise of the aggressive Chaldean tribes to power. The most significant, and for Israel most ominous, development in the "fall" of the Hebrew states was the reign of Tiglath-Pileser HI (745-727). He reformed Assyrian power and or­ ganization, including a break-up of governmental units to reduce the threat of local rulers; strengthened the control of the central bureau­ cracy, and streamlined the process whereby new lands were incorpo­ rated into the Neo-Assyrian orbit. By 738, Tiglath-Pileser (known in the Bible by his Babylonian throne name, "Pul") had received tribute from the Syrian states (Hamath, Tyre, Byblos, Damascus) and already from Israel, although Israel would not be openly annexed to Assyrian territory until 722. The so-called "Syro-Ephraimite War" (2 Kings 15-16) brought about the direct interference of Assyrian power in Israel. Pekah of Israel joined Edom and Damascus in an anti-Assyrian coalition, and attempted to force Ahaz of Judah to join. Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:5-9) deter­ mined that the coalition was futile, and appealed for Assyrian assis­ tance. The result of Ahaz's meeting with the Assyrian monarch in­ cluded Ahaz installing an additional altar in the Temple (2 Kgs 16:10). The reference to this altar has invited interesting debate. Some scholars argue that it was not imposed by the Assyrians, even though the altar is discussed in the context of a condemnation of Ahaz by the Deuteronomic Historian (2 Kgs 16:2, "He [sc. Ahaz] did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord his God..."). In the northern territories of Israel, Hoshea tried to break free from Assyrian control by appealing to Egypt for assistance (2 Kgs 17:4). The Assyrian response was swift. There is some dispute as to whether it was the Assyrian monarch Shalmaneser who conquered Samaria in 722, or whether Sargon II did so when he claimed to deport 27,290 12

13

14

1 2

B. Otzen, "Israel under the Assyrians," in M. T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (Mesopotamia 7; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979) 251-61 (251). M. T. Larsen, "The Tradition of Empire in Mesopotamia," in Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda, 75-103 (86). J. McKay, Religion in Judah under the Assyrians (London: SCM, 1973) 612. 1 3

1 4

13

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

people in his conquest of this territory (ANET, 284). There soon fol­ lowed a massive upheaval in the population of the northern territories. Archaeological evidence suggests that there were many refugees who fled south into the Kingdom of Judah at this time, but surely many thousands were deported to other areas of the Assyrian territories. The fanciful legends surrounding these so-called "Lost Tribes of Israel" contain at least one basic truth—we have no idea what became of those northern Israelites who were deported. The Bible, as it is, contains no record of northern, Assyrian exiles (the late book of Tobit is of no historical value in this regard). Furthermore, attention quickly turns in the Deuteronomic Historical works to the Assyrian harass­ ment of Judah, especially given Egypt's attempts to lure some of the smaller states into their orbit of influence. It is likely that the siege of Jerusalem, when Hezekiah was King of Judah (2 Kings 18-20) was brought about as a result of Hezekiah's listening to Egyptian promises of support—and contrary to the apparent warnings of Isaiah not to trust that "broken reed of a staff (Isa 36:6). Geo-political circumstances would shift significantly with the rise of the Chaldean tribe to power in Babylon. Indeed, Galling refers to "eine umfassende Neuordnung der Verhaltnisse ..." in the second half of the sixth century. When Ashurbanipal died, the Babylonians un­ der Nabopolasser rose in revolt against the northern Assyrians. When the Medes entered the battle as allies of the Babylonians, the fate of Assyria was virtually sealed. The Medes begin to invade Assyrian territory in 626 BCE, and Nineveh, the capital, fell by 614 (although 612 is also mentioned by some scholars). In 609, when the last of the Assyrian armies were stranded in Harran, Pharaoh Necho II (609-595) attempted to shore up the failing Assyrian forces. Necho undoubtedly saw the advantages of a weak­ ened buffer state between Egypt and the rising Neo-Babylonian Empire, but the expedition failed, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded in 15

16

17

1 5

See population discussions, including the sudden growth of southern settlements after the fall of the north, in M. Broshi, "Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem," BAR 13 (1978) 46-57. The best source on the Assyrian deportation practices is B. Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979). K. Galling, Studien Zur Geschichte Israel im Persischen Zeitalter (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1964) 1. 1 6

1 7

14

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

removing the Assyrians as a factor in future imperial politics. Carchemish, however, was held by the Egyptians, thus blocking Babylonian trade interests. At the famous battle of Carchemish in 605, Pharaoh Necho's forces were decimated, and the way was clear for Nebuchadnezzar to proceed southwards, perhaps even attempting to enter Egyptian territories as the Assyrians had earlier done (and as Nebuchadnezzar tried in 601 as well as 568/7). From 609-605, Egypt exercised its control of these narrow land areas by installing its own puppet ruler in Jerusalem, Eliakim, who was given the regnal name Jehoiakim. Citing 2 Kgs 23:35 and Jer 22:13-19, many scholars as­ sume that Jehoiakim's rule was oppressive. When the Egyptians were defeated at Carchemish in 605, their hold on Palestine was perma­ nently weakened, and Nebuchadnezzar was in control. According to 2 Kgs 24:1, Jehoiakim was under Babylonian rule for three years. Nebuchadnezzar, who as the Prince had taken control of the army, was involved in numerous campaigns in the West. Askelon fell in 604, but in 601 Nebuchadnezzar failed to take Egypt, which may have been the occasion for unrest and even open rebellion in Palestine. In any case, in 600 Nebuchadnezzar is back in Babylon rallying his armies for another attempt on Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar was able fully to ex­ ercise control over this area in 598/7 when Jehoiachin, the young son of the Egyptian-installed ruler Jehoiakim, surrendered. Wiseman comments that the presence of a precise date for the capture of Jerusalem reveals the importance of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre undoubtedly took place in 598—al­ though some want to suggest that it was 588/7—and it lasted 13 years (Ezek 29:17-18). According to Nebuchadnezzar's inscriptions, he appointed in Jerusalem "...a king of his liking, took heavy booty from it, and brought it into Babylon" (ANET, 564—thus March 15/16, 597?). According to 2 Kgs 24:14, the number of exiles taken at this time was 18

19

20

21

22

1 8

D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon (London: British Museum, 1983) 28. Wiseman, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, 14. Nebuchadnezzar claims to have "finished them off completely" (ibid., 15). Oded, "Judah and the Exile," 470. Cf. D. J. Wiseman, "Wiseman Chronicles," Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 1956). See also idem, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985). Wiseman, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, 32. 1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

15

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

10,000, and then, adding the numbers of 7,000 artisans and 1,000 "smiths" (2 Kgs 24:16), in all 18,000. This compares to Jer 52:28 which notes 3,023 persons carried into captivity. Scholars have de­ bated whether this number counts only men—and if so, the total num­ bers of these initial exiles in 597 would have been considerable (15,000-30,000?). Even if the smaller number of Jeremiah (3,023) is accepted, one must still multiply by an average family size! Mattaniah, third son of Josiah, was renamed "Zedekiah" and placed on the throne as a puppet ruler of the Babylonians (further supporting the contention by many scholars that Josiah's line had a definite "proBabylonian" bias. Such a political leaning may partially explain Josiah's campaign to Megiddo in 609 to stop the advance of Pharaoh Necho I northwards). Jehoiachin himself, recognized by the Deuteronomic Historian and by Zedekiah as the true ruler, was de­ ported to Babylon. Zimmerli notes Ezek 17:13 as a reference to Jehoiachin's imprisonment: "He took one of the royal offspring and made a covenant with him, putting him under oath (he had taken away the chief men of the land)." Among the more striking archaeological confirmations of biblical historiography was the discovery of a "ration list" in the ruins of Babylon—a text that mentions Jehoichin himself. Zedekiah, on the other hand, eventually fell prey to the promises of Hophra, son of Psammetichus II of Egypt, and withheld tribute to Babylon. Tyre may have joined in this resistance (Josephus, Ant. 1.21). Jeremiah and Ezekiel give further evidence for the emergence of political, ideological, and theological splits that were emerging in the 23

24

25

2 3

Oded notes that Assyrian sources clearly identify families accompanying exiles (Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 23). There is little reason to doubt that Babylonian policies were the same, irrespective of the historical reliability one places in Jeremiah's advice to "marry your sons and daughters" in exile (Jeremiah 29). W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel, Vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979) 13. E. F. Weidner, "Jojachin, Koenig von Juda, in Babylonischen Keilinschrifttexten," Melanges Syriens Offerts A Monsieur Rene Dussaud (Paris: Geuthner, 1939) 923-35 (927). Albright concluded that Jehoiachin was recognized as ruler by the Babylonians, in "King Joiachin in Exile," BA 5 (1942) 49-54, which is an opinion now widely held, even though Weidner himself, noting that Jehoiachin was called "mar sarri (Prince)," thought that the Babylonians recognized their puppet king Zedekiah as legitimate ruler (Weidner, "Jojachin," 926). 2 4

2 5

16

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

Jewish communities with regard to Babylonian rule. Jeremiah 26-29 contains not only the "face-off between Jeremiah as a "proBabylonian" prophet and Hananiah, clearly disposed toward Egypt. Jeremiah's famous "Letter to the Exiles" and the response to it in Jeremiah 29, further reveal divisions. There are clear suggestions of Egyptian interference in a possible revolt of Zedekiah in the eleventh year of Nebuchadnezzar that required Nebuchadnezzar's return to re­ assert control. Wiseman, however, suggests that Zedekiah may have initiated contacts among many Western states, in hopes of building a coalition against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar finally returned to Jerusalem and laid siege to the city in 587. In August 5, 587 (or August 15, 586, according to M a l a m a t ) , the city fell to Nebuchadnezzar's closing siege and approaching siege engines. Thus, Zedekiah's halting resistance was crushed, and he was captured at Jericho. His sons were killed before his eyes, and then his eyes put out before he was taken "in fetters" (2 Kgs 25:7) to Babylon. It seems beyond dispute that Jerusalem was treated severely. Nearby towns, Lachish and Beth-Shemesh, show total cessation of occupa­ tion, and Wiseman noted ash layers at Gezer and Tell el Hesi, indi­ cating Babylonian battles. S. S. Weinberg writes: 26

27

28

29

30

...excavations by Kathleen Kenyon yield a picture of ruin and desolation that confronted the first returnees of 539/8. While some people had no doubt con­ tinued to live in Jerusalem, the archaeological picture is one of their squatting among the rubble, which increased as the terrace walls ... collapsed through lack of care and the debris accumulated in impassable piles on the lower 2 6

While it may not be fair to suggest that Jeremiah was actually favorably disposed to the Babylonians, certainly his view was considered such by the Babylonians themselves (cf. Jer 39:11-14). There is a good review of the issues in M. B. Rowton, "Jeremiah and the Death of Josiah," JNES 10 (1951) 128-30. One frequently sees a reference to Jeremiah's advice to "build houses, plant gardens, and marry your sons and daughters" as an indication of a tolerable life in exile. I have argued, however, that this should not be taken literally, but as an allusion to the laws of "Yahweh War" in Deuteronomy 20, where soldiers who have just built a home, planted a garden, or become engaged must not go to war. Thus, Jeremiah was proclaiming an armistice on the exiles using the stereotypical Deuteronomic images of "seeking the peace of the city where you are." See D. Smith, "Jeremiah as Prophet of Nonviolence," 750743 (1989) 95-107. Wiseman, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, 36. A. Malamat, "The Twilight of Judah: in the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom," VT Congress Volume 28 (1975) 123-45. Wiseman, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, 38. 2 7

2 8

2 9

3 0

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

17

slopes. No great change in the condition of the city occurred until the time of Nehemiah's arrival in 445.... 31

Weinberg further considers it unlikely that in these circumstances any viable material culture could have been maintained: "We must think more in terms first of squatters and then of people able to maintain only a mere subsistence level." More recent assessments concur. Ahlstrom states that the destruction of Jerusalem was: "...thorough. The walls were broken down and the city was plundered.... Arrowheads of northern origin and destroyed buildings that have been unearthed in excavations from this period bear witness to the disaster of the city." Stern's assessment contains the caution that the severest destruction seems to have been limited to Judah more than Benjamin, noting that evidence suggests that Bethel, Gibeon, and Tell en-Nasbeh continued to flourish. It is difficult to estimate the human extent of the crisis. Just arriving at a credible number for the population of Jerusalem is controversial. Broshi estimated that Jerusalem would have occupied 500-600 dunams in the seventh century, and that 40-50 inhabitants per dunam was a "reasonable" estimate. This results in a population estimate of nearly 24,000. LaSor, however, notes that highly accurate population figures from Ebla result in 446 persons per dunam, which would force a much higher estimate for Jerusalem if the two cities were in any way similar in population density. Indeed, LaSor tends to concur with Albright's estimate of 250,000 before the exile. Obviously, these es­ timates vary so greatly as to make confident assessments of a quanti­ tative impact on Judah extremely difficult. But combining the archae­ ological evidence of destruction, with any of these population esti­ mates, begins to draw a picture of horrific events that not surprisingly becomes permanently etched into the historical lore of the Hebrew 32

33

34

35

3 1

S. S. Weinberg, "Post-Exilic Palestine: An Archaeological Report," Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 4 (1971) 78-97 (80). Weinberg, "Post-Exilic Palestine," 81. G. Alstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1993) 798. Cf. P. King, "Jerusalem," ABD 3 (1992) 747-66 (757): "Shiloh found evidence of the Babylonian destruction everywhere: thick layers of dark ash, scattered iron and bronze arrowheads, and collapsed structures...." E. Stern, "Israel at the Close of the Period of the Monarchy: An Archaeological Survey," BA 38 (1975) 26-54 (45). See W. LaSor, "Jerusalem," ISBE 2 (mi) 1001-30. 3 2

3 3

3 4

3 5

18

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

Bible (e.g. Psalm 137; Lamentations; etc., see also the Lachisch Ostraca, ANET, 322). The Temple was destroyed, and many of the religious implements of worship were carried into exile with the people. It appears that the policy of Nebuchadnezzar was to place captured religious implements or statues in the temple of Marduk in the city of Babylon in order to symbolize the capture of the people and the defeat of their gods. In the case of the Jews, a capture of Temple vessels served the same pur­ pose, and may well be the tradition underlying the story of Belshazzar's Feast in Daniel 5, as well as the ability of Cyrus mag­ nanimously to return them in Ezra 1-6. The Babylonians moved the local administrative center of their con­ quered Palestinian territory north from Jerusalem to Mizpah, a further comment on the viability of Jerusalem after the destruction. Accounting for the exaggeration of Chronicles generally (2 Chronicles 36 portrays the land as virtually emptied), the numbers of the exiles must have been larger than the estimates of the book of Jeremiah, and closer to the estimates in 2 Kings 24. After all, if the chronological se­ quence of 2 Kings can be trusted—and we note that the number 18,000 is associated with the surrender of Jerusalem in 597—how much more must we contend with after the destruction of the city 10 or 11 years later? Notably, the biblical text does not even attempt to estimate the numbers of those who fled, were killed, or were taken as deportees (note the tripartite description of the fate of Judeans in Ezekiel 5—the sword, fire, and deportation). Finally, however, it is not likely that we can use the post-exilic number supplied for us in Ezra-Nehemiah (the so-called "Golah lists" which place the post-exilic community at over 42,000 persons), since we are not certain if these numbers reflect the post-exilic community of "Yehud" (if such a province existed early in Persian rule), whose numbers could include many who did not go into Exile. Oded has suggested the possibility that Babylonian exiles joined with the northern Israelite communities that were earlier deported by the Neo-Assyrian Empire, thus contributing to higher post-exilic numbers. We are well aware of the fact that both the Neo-Assyrian and NeoBabylonian rulers knew the significance of making examples of rebel­ lious cities (note Olmstead's famous observation in 1918 about Neo36

3 6

Oded, "Judah and the Exile," 480-85.

19

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE 37

Assyrian "calculated frightfiilness" ). Sociologists of disaster inform us of the significance of memories of such trauma, especially when they come in series of disasters, and I have argued elsewhere that we do not even begin, for example, fairly to assess the behavior of Ezekiel until we consider the extent of the trauma of 5 8 7 . There would have been a succession of crises for those back in the land as well. Josephus (Ant 10.9.7) alludes to a campaign of Nebuchadnezzar in Palestine in 582, probably in reprisal for the murder of Gedaliah. The historical evidence, then, suggests a series of traumatic events ex­ perienced by both communities, those in exile and those back in the land. The last Neo-BabyIonian ruler was the enigmatic Nabonidus, an Aramean who ruled the Babylonian Empire from 556-539 BCE. The events between these two rulers, Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus, are not reflected in many biblical texts. Nebuchadnezzar died in 562, and was succeeded by "Awil-Marduk" (Evil-Merodach). His reign only lasted an unstable two years before Neriglissar unseated him (559-556 BCE). His son, Labashi-Marduk, was the last of the line of Nebuchadnezzar and he reigned only three months before the revolt occurred which placed the Aramaen Nabuna'id (555-539 BCE) on the throne. Nabunaid, or " N a b o n i d u s , " was an officer in Nebuchadnezzar's service and was certainly a very elder leader. Our sources about Nabonidus are almost all hostile, emphasizing his ab­ sence from Babylon and his favoritism to gods other than Marduk (specifically Sin, the Moon-God). Marduk was the central Babylonian 38

39

3 7

A. T. Olmstead, JAOS 38 (1918) 209-63, quoted in Hayim Tadmor, "Assyria and the West: The Ninth Century and Its Aftermath/' in H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts (eds.), Unity and Diversity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975) 36-48 (45). M. Barkun, Disaster and the Millennium (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974) 77. See my sociological overview of these issues in D. Smith, The Religion of the Landless, 49-68. My essay, "Ezekiel on Fanon's Couch," is to appear in a Festschrift for Millard Lind (Herald Press). This is an attempt to read passages of Ezekiel, especially his famous "nonrational" behaviour, in the light of recent work on PostTraumatic Stress Syndrome. A helpful introduction to the implications of such a study is H. A. Bulhan, Frantz Fanon and the Psychology of Oppression (New York: Plenum, 1985) and E. and B. Duran, Native-American Postcolonial Psychology (New York: SUNY Press, 1995). I draw on both of these as suggestive for a study of Ezekiel. 3 8

3 9

20

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

central deity (ANET, 308-315), and the priests of Marduk were clearly inflamed against Nabonidus. The stories of madness and the emo­ tional instability of the Babylonian monarch that are portrayed in the first six chapters of Daniel are normally thought to be modelled on the historical ruler Nabonidus, particularly since the publication of an otherwise unknown Daniel-like tale among the Dead Sea texts known as "The Prayer of Nabonidus" which, as the title suggests, explicitly names Nabonidus in the context of a story that has an impressive number of the familiar elements of the stories of Daniel 1-6. The condition of the land and community back in Palestine after the crisis of 587 is also difficult to assess. It is often presumed that some form of religious life continued in the ruins of the Temple, but there is no direct evidence. E. Janssen, in his famous monograph, Juda in der Exilszeit (Gottingen, 1956), also claims that the Deuteronomic Historian was completed in Palestine, among other works, showing a very active community back in Palestine. Stern notes that: 40

...we can conclude that in the Babylonian period, despite the destruction of the temple, the culture of the Israelite period continued. Some 70-80% of every pottery group from this time consists of vessels which are usually attributed to the latest phase of the Israelite period... 41

The Chronicler's claim that religious life virtually ended back in Palestine is hotly contested, particularly since Janssen's arguments. The Chronicler's agenda is clearly to denigrate the remaining commu­ nities of people in the land, reflecting what had later become a serious division among the people whose roots were associated with various deportations. This is reflected in the intra-communal tensions re­ counted in Ezra 1-6, when there was conflict over who was, in fact, authorized by the Persians to rebuild the Temple. Certainly the evidence for conflict between those left behind and those taken to Babylonian territories suggests some form of active and organized life back in Palestine. As mentioned, archaeological evi­ dence points to continued economic activity which would, of course, 42

4 0

4QPrNab, available in a recent translation by F. Garcia-Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 1992) 119-20. E. Stern, Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538-332 BC (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1982) 229. Enno Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des Judentums (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956). 4 1

4 2

21

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

be precisely in the interests of the Neo-Babylonian regime to encour­ age. If one turns to Lamentations as in any way historically reliable, however, there is evidence for a depressing condition back in Palestine. The rubble of destroyed buildings is referred to (2:2), and in 5:2-5 especially there is strong suggestion of regimented economic activity in the land: Our inheritance has been turned over to strangers our homes to aliens we have become orphans, fatherless; our mothers are like widows We must pay for the water we drink the wood we get must be bought With a yoke on our necks we are hard driven we are weary, we are given no rest.

Violence in the area suggests lawlessness and danger from brigands: We get out bread at the peril of our lives because of the sword in the wilderness ...Women are raped in Zion virgins in the towns of Judah....

Finally, the evidence of conflict in Ezekiel between exiles and those back in the land suggests organized life in both locations, as well as deeply dividing ideas about land possession (e.g., Ezek 33:23-29; compare the "good" vs. "bad" figs in Jer 24:1-10). Whatever our as­ sessment of the damage back in Palestine, Ahlstrom warns that: "The archaeological material has not yet been systematized in a way that provides a clear picture of how destructive the Babylonian campaigns (598-570 BCE) against Judah, Tyre and Transjordan really were." To conclude our brief historical survey, the Persian conquest, and the end of the Neo-Babylonian regime, came with legendary swiftness (Isaiah 45). Cyrus the Persian, after unifying the Persian tribes, and defeating the Medes, conquered the city of Babylon in 539. According to classical sources (Herodotus 1.788-91), Cyrus was able to conquer the city without violence because the Persians surprised the Babylonians during the celebrations of the New Year (a historical 43

44

4 3

W. Brownlee, "The Aftermath of the Fall of Judah According to Ezekiel," JBL 89 (1970) 393-404. G. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine (Philadelpia: Fortress, 1993) 805. Ahlstrom also speculates about the possibility of Babylonian garrisons in many of the Judean locations (ibid., 807), but there is no firm evidence of this. 4 4

22

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

memory probably also reflected in the story of Belshazzar's Feast in Daniel 5). Cyrus himself boasts that he entered the city with no vio­ lence (ANET, 315-316), but attributes this accomplishment to his be­ ing selected by Marduk to be the legitimate successor. The biblical sources about the early Persian period, inexactly dis­ cussed in Ezra 1-6, indicate that the Persians were relatively generous in their return of exiles to their homelands, including the Jews. However, recent work on the Persian period reveals that this supposed "enlightened rule" of the Persians (including Cyrus) can be greatly ex­ aggerated. Hoglund, particularly, has invited modern scholars to a deeper appreciation of the missions of Ezra and Nehemiah as elements of a Persian imperial policy of increased military presence in the West in order to shore up the western flank facing the Greek enemies—par­ ticularly after the Egyptian revolt in 460 ("Inarus Revolt") where Greeks were involved. This revolt was eventually crushed by Artaxerxes I in 454. Part of the myth of Persian benevolence is the idea of an "end" to the exile in 539. But all that "ended" was Neo-Babylonian hegemony, to be replaced by that of the Persians. Ezra would point out, in his public prayer, that the Jewish people were "slaves in our own land" under the Persians (Neh 9:36-37). "Post-exilic" Hebrew writings, like Daniel, would go so far as to re-interpret Jeremiah's predicted "70 45

46

47

4 5

See my "Resistance in a 'Culture of Permission,'" in H. Macy and P. Anderson (eds.), Truth's Bright Embrace: Essays and Poems in Honor of Arthur O. Roberts (Newberg: George Fox University Press, 1996) 15-38; also A. Kuhrt, "The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy," JSOT 25 (1983) 83-97; and two summaries of papers: R. J. van der Spek, "Did Cyrus the Great Introduce a New Policy Towards Subdued Nations? Cyrus in Assyrian Perspective," Persica 10 (1982) 278-83, and K. D. Jenner, "The Old Testament and Its Appreciation of Cyrus," Persica 10 (1982) 283-4. K. Hoglund, Achaeminid Imperial Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). An alternative perspective is taken by J. Berquist in Judaism in Persia's Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), which is more along the lines of Ruben Richard's challenging dissertation, "The Role of the Imperial Decrees in Ezra-Nehemiah" (University of Cape Town, 1995). The publication of Richard's work will be very welcome. S. Harrmann effectively reminds us of this fact in A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 289. 4 6

4 7

23

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

years" into 490 years, effectively implying that the people were still in exile in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. 48

T H E STATUS A N D TREATMENT OF THE EXILE COMMUNITY

In his analysis of the conditions of exile, Noth suggested that ...the exiles were not "prisoners" but represented a compulsorily transplanted subject population who were able to move about freely in their daily life, but were presumably compelled to render compulsory labor service. 49

More recently, Oded suggests that the exile community became land tenants of royal land, that craftsmen were involved in projects, and that the religious personnel were able to conduct aspects of Jewish re­ ligious ritual at sites such as Casiphia (Ezra 8:15-20). In sum, Oded believes that there is no evidence of suppression or religious persecu­ tion, and that the community members had "...a certain internal auton­ omy and that they enjoyed the freedom to manage their community life (Ezek 33:30-33)...." Notable in Oded's sanguine picture of exilic life is a reference to the Murashu texts, and the terms "assume," "presume," and "no clear and explicit evidence...." It is precisely these tendencies to presume a tame, even if not entirely comfortable, existence that needs to be challenged in the light of an analysis in­ formed by the experience of exiles throughout history, and the evi­ dence of trauma in the Hebrew literature after the experience. A good example of this assumption is the view, nearly obligatory in the literature about the exile, that the exiles were not "slaves." This is hardly a precise observation, however, given the wide variety of slave systems in human history, and the typical lack of definition given for this term among biblical scholars who use it. For American authors, for example, this presumably means that the exiles were not slaves in the sense that African-Americans were slaves in ante-bellum United 50

51

52

4 8

On this matter, see the important essay by Michael Knibb, "The Exile in the Intertestamental Period," HeyJ 17 (1976) 253-72. Noth, The History of Israel, 296. Oded, "Judah and the Exile," 483. Ibid., 483. It is important to see the wide diversity in slave systems as carefully documented in O. Patterson, Slavery and Social Death (New York: Harvard University Press, 1982). 4 9

5 0

5 1

5 2

24

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER 53

States. To say, with Dandamaev, . that they were not "slaves" in the technical Neo-Babylonian sense, furthermore, is only to describe a detail of Neo-Babylonian jurisprudence. Neither opinion tells us very much about the human conditions of the exiles. For this, we must pull together the circumstantial evidence of the biblical and nonbiblical texts. While this is properly part of the task of the essays that follow in this volume, especially with regard to longer-term impact, we can point to some important issues on this matter. In 1938, Weissbach discussed a cuneiform inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II which reads, in part, as follows: ...the lands of Hattim, from the upper sea to the lower sea, the land of Sumer and Akkad, the land between the two rivers ... the rulers of the Lands of Hattim across the Euphrates where the sun sets, whose rulership, at the bid­ ding of Marduk my Lord, I overcame, and the mighty Cedars of the mountain of Lebanon were brought to the City of Babylon, the whole of the races, peo­ ple from far places, whom Marduk my Lord delivered to me—I forced them to work on the building of Etemenanki—I imposed on them the brick-basket.... 54

The terms used in this inscription ("I forced them to work...") clearly refer to corvee labor, and e-mi-id-su-nu-ti tu-up-si-ik-ku ("I imposed on them the brick basket") further implies strong terms of subservience. In his recent monograph, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Weinfeld relates the Akkadian tupsikku to the Hebrew term bio ("bearing burdens"; see 1 Kings 11:28 and 5:27ff. on Solomon's forced labor). Weinfeld points out that the terms ilku and tupsikku are two variants of forced labor—ilku involving travel (connecting with the verb alaku, "to go"), and tup­ sikku "...refers specifically to bearing burdens and construction work done locally." Similar differentiation in the types of forced labor are seen in Hittite and Egyptian nomenclature. The two terms, however, are used interchangeably of corvee labor. 55

5 3

Among many of Dandamaev's sources, one may cite "Social Stratification in Babylonia 7th to 4th Centuries BC," Acta Antiqua 22 (1974) 433-44 (437): "The forced labour sector in Babylonia, in contrast to Greek and Roman antiquity, was not able to absorb such masses of captives." F. H. Weissbach, Das Hauptheiligtum des Marduk in Babylon (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1938) 46-7 (my emphasis). The translation from Weissbach's German is my own. I wish to thank Fr. William Fulco S.J. for his helpful advice on many of the linguistic features of this text. M. Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995) 85. 5 4

5 5

25

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

Other Neo-Babylonian texts assert Nebuchadnezzar's claim to au­ thority over conquered peoples. Langdon's early translation of one of these texts effectively illustrates this: I called into me the far dwelling peoples over whom Marduk my lord had ap­ pointed me and whose care was given unto me by Samas the hero, from all lands and of every inhabited place from the upper sea to the lower sea from distant lands the people of far away habitations kings of distant mountains and remote regions who dwell at the upper and the nether seas with whose strength Marduk the lord has filled my hands that they should bear his yoke and also the subjects of Samas and Marduk I summoned to build E-temin-anki.... 56

It is significant how often labor is associated with rule over varied peoples in the Neo-Babylonian inscriptions. Furthermore, R. M. Adams' archaeological survey of the central flood plain of the Euphrates in 1981 led him to conclude that: There is no doubt about the rapid, continued growth that got under way, dur­ ing, or perhaps even slightly before, the Neo-Babylonian period. This is most simply shown by the rising number of sites ... the total increases from 143 in the Middle Babylonian period to 182 in the Neo-Babylonian period, to 221 of Achaeminid date ... the available documentary evidence suggests that large masses of people were involuntarily transferred as part of intensive NeoBabylonian efforts to rehabilitate the central region of a domain that previ­ ously had suffered severely.... 51

Such evidence should not be overlooked when considering the impact and conditions of the Babylonian exile (Jer 51:34-35). When this is combined with biblical references to "slavery" and conditions of exile, the emerging picture is painted in dark colors, even if we must care­ fully work with the use of metaphors and allusions rather than precise historical observation. For example, J. M. Wilkie argued in 1951 that we may need to reassess the attitude toward the treatment of the exiles in the light of Deutero-Isaiah's concept of the suffering of the "suffering servant": ...there is independent evidence to suggest that Second-Isaiah's language is neither metaphorical nor at variance with the actual conditions, but is an accu­ rate description of conditions which he knew only too well. 58

5 6

Langdon, Building Inscriptions, 149. R. M. Adams, Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981) 177 (my emphasis). J. M. Wilkie, "Nabonidus and the Later Jewish Exiles," JTS 2 (1951) 3444 (40). 5 7

5 8

26

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

EXCURSUS: THE MURASU ARCHIVE AS EVIDENCE FOR EXILIC CONDITIONS

Before continuing this line of investigation, it is important to address a common response to the suggestion that the exile involved a severe and traumatic experience—namely the evidence of the Murasu Archive, and less frequently, the Elephantine colony. It is frequently pointed out that many Jewish names appear in the Murasu Archive from Nippur, texts that were found in 1893, and al­ ready being analyzed in print by 1898. As these are business docu­ ments that appear to show Jews involved in commerce, the conclusion was quickly determined that life in exile was obviously not so bad. Two matters must be immediately clarified. First, and most important, the Murasu Archive dates from the reigns of Artaxerxes 1 and Darius 11 (464-404 BCE). While these texts reflect the Persian period, how much can we assume this to be a reflection of the earlier NeoBabylonian period? Second, however, is the controversy about what these Jewish names actually do reveal about socio-economic activity and social standing. M. Coogan notes that Jews appear as agricultur­ ists, fisherman, sheep-herders, and co-creditors in contracts. Zadok, however, challenges any assumptions about an image of comfortable Jewish communities in exile: 59

60

The highest positions in the Achaemenian administration of Babylonia were held by Persians and to some extent by Medes. The lower positions were manned mainly by Babylonians who constituted the majority.... Judging from their names, few officials were Arameans, Arabians and Phoenicians; nonetheless, collectively, these officials still largely outnumbered the Jews. Much like their Jewish colleagues ... these officials were mostly minor func­ tionaries. Nehemiah, who held a senior position, was an exception.... 61

In a later work, Coogan also tried to refine the analysis of names themselves, hoping to tease out information about the exiles from the selection of names. Conclusions around names using the root nbw for example, reveals the lines of this kind of analysis:

5 9

H. V. Hilprecht and A. T. Clay, Business Documents of the Murashu Sons of Nippur (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1898). M. D. Coogan, "Life in the Diaspora: Jews at Nippur in the Fifth Century BC," £ 4 37 (1974) 6-12(10). R. Zadok, The Jews in Babylonia During the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods According to the Babylonian Sources (Haifa: Haifa University, 1979) 87. 6 0

6 1

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

27

In the biblical sources the use of the root in personal names is suggestive.... Beginning in the late seventh century ... the root occurs with such frequency in personal names that we may speak of a fad in the naming of children, a eu­ phemistic tendency related to the absence of salom in the last decades of Israel's history.... 62

Such attempts to glean information from choice of names, however, has revealed little that is useful for our analysis of the impact of ex­ ile. The Elephantine colony is an entirely different matter, of course, as it was a military garrison in the era for which we have significant numbers of texts. Irrespective of the time of its founding, one can pre­ sume that attitudes toward the Persians would be different among those already disposed to serve the Persian Empire, and that this would have little helpful information for drawing conclusions about the treatment of exiles under the Chaldeans. There is further evidence that the Jews of the Elephantine colony had serious theological differ­ ences and disagreements with the Jerusalem community, making this a case with little direct relevance for any discussions of the conditions of exiles except by rough analogy. Finally, however, and most im­ portantly, it is likely that the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora was formed at the time when a significant number of Jews opposed the Chaldeans, and escaped to Egypt as a refuge. If this is the most likely origin for the Elephantine community, then the dynamics of a chosen "exile" to Egypt as a benign refuge, as opposed to a forcible relocation, make this community virtually irrelevant for any discussion of the impact and trauma of the Babylonian exile. 63

64

65

66

6 2

M. D. Coogan, West Semitic Personal Names in the Marasu Documents (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 85. Note the negative conclusions reached by Naomi G. Cohen, "Jewish Names as Cultural Indicators in Antiquity," JJS1 (1976-77) 98-128. See B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine: The Life of a Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968). Oded, "Judah and the Exile," 486-7. Cf. Smith, The Religion of the Landless, 50-65. In this earlier work, I give a detailed sociological examination of the psycho-social dynamics of chosen vs. forced relocation, and why examples of chosen relocation are not a significant source of comparative information. 6 3

6 4

6 5

6 6

28

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

HEBREWS IN THE LATE NEO-BABYLONIAN MILITARY?

In 1958, C. J. Gadd published an important article analyzing D. S. Rice's discovery, in 1956, of inscriptions from the court of Nabonidus, found on stones that were used to build a Mosque in Iraq. Included in these inscriptions was Nabonidus' claims to have "committed to my hands" the people of "Hatti-land" (among others), who also "kept guard for me." Because of the alienation between Nabonidus and the people of Babylon that is reflected in the antiNabonidus texts that we have, Gadd considers it "... unlikely that the army of Nabonidus, when he withdrew to Arabia, could be composed mainly of native Babylonians (using this term to describe inhabitants of the ancient cities and country of lower Iraq)...." Furthermore, Gadd pointed out that the list of places occupied by Nabonidus— namely Taima, Dedan-al-'Ula, Fadak, Khaybar, Yadi', YathribMedina—is a list that coincides, with one exception, to lists of oases where Jewish communities prospered at the time of the rise of Islam. When this observation is combined with the inscriptions, it suggests that Nabonidus drafted residents of the western sector of the Empire. Gadd believed that "... short of actually naming the Jews ... [the impli­ cation of his using Jews in his militia] could scarcely be stronger." Other scholars have also suggested such a use of foreigners, namely Arameans, in the Babylonian archery corps as well. 67

68

69

THE LEXICOGRAPHY OF TRAUMA

A further sobering judgment of the impact and experience of exile comes from a brief consideration of selections from the harsh vocabu­ lary of defeat. Chains and bonds are spoken of in at least three differ­ ent major terms, and frequently associated with the Babylonian con­ quest whether literally or figuratively: 1. " I O I D n.m., from noa "to tie, imprison" is usually translated "bonds" in Nah 1:13: "And now I will break off his yoke from you and snap the bonds that bind you." Significantly, of the Babylonian 6 7

C. J. Gadd, "The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus," Anatolian Studies 8 (1958) 35-92 (85). Gadd, "Harran Inscriptions," 86. Gadd, "Harran Inscriptions," 35-92. See also the evidence of Aramaen archers in the Neo-Assyrian army in J. E. Reade, "The Neo-Assyrian Court and Army: Evidence from the Sculptures," Iraq 34 (1972) 87-112. 6 8

6 9

29

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

exile in Isa 52:2: "Shake yourself from the dust, rise up, O captive Jerusalem, loose the bonds from your neck..." and Ps 107:14: "He brought them out of darkness and gloom, and broke their bonds asun­ der." 2. [pr] "fetter" (always in plural trp?); Nah 3:10: "Yet she became an exile, she went into captivity ... all her dignitaries were bound in fet­ ters..."; Isa 45:14 (of foreigners coming as prisoners, a reversal of fortune motif): "[they] shall come over in chains and bow down to you..."; Ps 149 echoes the treatment of the dignitaries: "...to bind their kings with fetters and their nobles with chains (a fourth term b^D, used of Joseph in Ps 105:18 ) of iron." Note the form in Jer 40:1: "...when he took him bound in fetters...." The LXX has xeipoTreSais (lit. "foot shackles"). 3. p^ntBra "bronze fetters" from the root nram, "bronze/ copper," is used in Jer 39:7 to refer to the bonds on Zedekiah (cf. 2 Kings 25). 2 Chr 36:6 speaks of such fetters on Jehoiachin. Finally, Lam 3:7 speaks of siege and chains in reference to post-event reflections on the con­ quest of Jerusalem. Further insights can be gained from a brief examination of three terms for "imprisonment": 1. TO from the verb K'PD "to hold back" in Jer 32:2; 1 Sam 25:33; Ps 119:101, and notably of exiles in Isa 43:6; 2. Ton TO, "pit with no water," occurs in the late Joseph material in Genesis 37, but see Jer 38:6 and Zech 9:11, where the reference is closer to exile; and 3. the image used of Egyptian bondage, anns-TO,in Exod 13:3, 14; 20:2; Deut 5:6; 6:12; 7:8 etc., but note also Jer 34:13 and Mic 6:4. i Clearly, various forms of the Hebrew terms normally rendered "imprisonment" turn up as metaphors for exile, along with the various 70

7

7 0

Note, however, the significance of the Joseph stories being post-exilic. See D. B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37-50) (Leiden: Brill, 1970). Serious questions can be raised about the application of this terminology to the Egyptian bondage before the Exodus. If Redford is correct that the tradition of the Hebrew "slaves" working in Pithom and Raamses can be no older than late sixth century BCE, then we cannot discount an "exilic" redaction of the Exodus traditions that may well reflect the Babylonian experience with more accuracy than the Egyptian experience. On this, see D. B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, and especially idem, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). 7 1

30

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

use of terms of binding and fetters. Can all of this be dismissed as mere metaphor? In more detail, however, note the frequent biblical motif that relates "sight to blind" and "release of prisoners" as metaphors of exile. This is found in many exilic and post-exilic passages (e.g. Ps 146:7-8; Zech 9:12; Isa 42:7; and Isa 61:1). Indeed, this may be a Babylonian motif borrowed by those who experienced aspects of the Babylonian tradi­ tion! Consider a Surpu Hymn, an incantation to Marduk the patron god of the Babylonians, which reads: [It rests with you, Marduk ...] to set free the prisoner, to show (him) daylight him who has been taken captive, to rescue him him whose city is distant, whose road is far away let him go safely to his city to return the prisoner of war and the captive to his people may the sick get well, the fallen get up the fettered go free, the captive go free the prisoner see the light (of day). 72

If there is a line of dependence here on Babylonian sources, then we cannot discount the possibility of rich irony in the borrowing of this phrase—God will accomplish the "freedom" about which the Babylonians only wax eloquent. Alternatively, the motifs of release from captivity and prison, so obviously applied to the conditions of exile by the biblical writers, may be borrowed from standard royal formulas for expressing great largess at special occasions, or at the enthronement of new rulers throughout the Ancient Near East, but nonetheless they are terms clearly and easily applied by the biblical writers to the memories of the conditions of exile. In short, the metaphor of imprisonment, and references to places of imprisonment, do not grow more plentiful during the exilic period by pure chance, especially noting its foreignness to the Israelite judicial system. 73

74

7 2

E. Reiner, Surpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations (London, 1958; reprinted., Osnabruck: Biblio Verlag, 1970) 26-7. Weinfeld, Social Justice, 75-96. Smith, Religion of the Landless, 11 A. There is a considerable literature on prisons and their antiquity. A special issue of JESHO 20 (1977) includes J. Renger, "Wrongdoing and Its Sanctions: On 'Criminal' and 'Civil' Law in the Old Babylonian Period, 65-77; T. S. Frymer, "The Nungal-Hymn and the EkurPrison," 78-89; J. Sasson, "The Treatment of Criminals at Mari," 90-113; K. K. 7 3

7 4

,,

31

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

Contemporary assessments of the exile must not simply dismiss this imagery as purely metaphorical with no historical basis. REVERSAL OF FORTUNE IN EXILIC/POST-EXILIC TEXTS

Jer 51:24 echoes an important theme of vengeance and "reversal of fortune" that emerges from the exilic experience: "I will repay Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea before your very eyes for all the wrong that they have done in Zion, says the Lord." The theme of reversal of fortune is a further source of theological reflection on the exile. From the punishment of the enemies of Daniel and his friends (Dan 6:24) to the punishment of the enemies of Jews in Esther, the theme is carried in poetry, parable, and oracle. Jeremiah 50-51 contains particularly vengeful examples. Reversal of fortune motifs may reveal important insights. For example, we have seen how treat­ ment of foreigners in Isa 45:14 may reflect memories of the writer's own treatment, or treatment of his/her people. Consider also the fa­ mous "Exile Psalm," Psalm 137, which concludes with the chilling sentiment: "Happy shall be they who take your little ones and dash them against the rock" (v. 9). If we place a conscious emphasis on dif­ ferent words of this verse, reading for example: "...they who take your little ones, and dash them against the rock," then the grim possibility suggests itself that the writer of this bitter psalm observed precisely this treatment of his own people by the Babylonians during the execu­ tions noted in 2 Kings 25. After all, we have Neo-Assyrian texts that are famous for their frightfulness: I built a pillar over against his city gate, and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted, and I covered the pillar with their skins.... Ahiababa I took to Nineveh.... I spread his skin upon the wall of Nineveh.... 75

When we reflect on the calculated terrorism of the Near Eastern regimes, do we really have any basis for an assumption that the NeoBabylonian Empire's military tactics were any less severe? Riemschneider, "Prison and Punishment in Early Anatolia," 114-26. Like Renger, Riemschneider does not believe that prisons as institutions existed in the Ancient Near East (ibid., 114). D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vol I: Historical Records of Assyria from the Earliest Times to Sargon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926) 433. See Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq (London: Pelican, 1977) 262-4. See also H. W. F. Saggs, "Assyrian Warfare in the Sargonid Period," Iraq 25 (1963) 145-54. 7 5

32

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

EZEKIEL ON THE COUCH

It is a frequent temptation in the analysis of the only exilic prophet that we have, namely Ezekiel, to subject his symbolic behavior to some form of psychological analysis. It is a complex subject that cannot be pursued here in great detail. We may observe, however, how the first five of Ezekiel's symbolic actions (that is, five of the traditionally noted "seven acts") take on different implications in the light of our discussions of the impact of the exile. If Ezekiel's actions are read with an eye to the book of Lamentations, then a different picture emerges. We are not speaking here of textual influence of Lamentations on Ezekiel; we are arguing rather for Lamentations and Ezekiel as synoptic observations of the exilic experience: (1) Ezek 3:22-21: Ezekiel sits confined in his home, with his hands tied by cords. Compare the images of confinement in Lam 3:7-9 and the language of chains in v. 7 (see previous discussion on chains, fet­ ters, etc.). (2) Ezek 4:1-3: The siege of Jerusalem that forces some people to eat impure foods, or foods prepared in an impure manner. Compare Lam 1:11; 2:12; 4:4, 9-10 about hunger leading to suggestions of can­ nibalism (cf. Jer 37:2; 52:6, 24; 2 Kgs 25:3?) (3) Ezek 5:1-17: Ezekiel acts out the threefold punishment of Jerusalem—a third burnt in the city, a third dying by the sword, and a third exiled ("scattered to the wind"). Compare Lam 1:1 and 2:21, "fallen by the sword...." (4) Ezekiel 12: Ezekiel prepares "an exile's bag" and is led through a hole in a wall to exemplify being taken as a prisoner of war. Compare Lam 1:3, 18, "Led into exile," and Lam 2:8 referring to de­ stroyed walls. (5) Ezekiel 21: Babylonian forces modeled by a sword. Compare Lam 2:21 and 5:9 on the "sword" as foreign rule. Lamentations forces us to take a fresh look at the actions and behavior of Ezekiel. Each of these "bizarre" actions can be seen as modeling the trauma of the fall of Jerusalem, whether Ezekiel is acting on per76

7 6

The latest work along these lines is David J. Halperin's Seeking Ezekiel (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993). While I do not agree with his specific psychoanalytic suggestions for the interpretation of the actions of Ezekiel, his review of previous psychological research on Ezekiel is interesting and helpful, and his own work is an important contribution to that history.

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

33

sonal knowledge, or knowledge brought to him by recent refugees, or whether the texts have been redacted to reflect these realities. It is only partly the consensus of scholars which has tended toward ques­ tioning the sanity of Ezekiel that has led scholars to question how seri­ ously these actions should be taken as reflecting social realities of the exilic experience and impact. Has the psychological exegesis of Ezekiel tended toward blaming the victim? 77

THE SOCIOLOGY OF SEPARATION AND PURITY

Finally, scholars have consistently underestimated the level of social and theological pressure on the exilic community that is implied both in the move toward a purified self-conscious ethic of separation (the Priestly Writer) and the stories of resistance that have been canonized as parts of the book of Daniel (e.g. Daniel 1-6). The Priestly concerns about separation, purity, and "quarantine" of the "holy seed" reveal a community responding to serious percep­ tions of social pressure and subordination. Comparative examples are plentiful: African-American slave meetings where ritual means of "shutting out the world of oppression" are employed; South African rites of entering worship centers and "shaking the dust of oppression" off at the door in a ritualistic fashion; and Native-American emphases on clearly avoiding foods associated with white settlers—an action one could call "politicizing cuisine." This can be easily documented in comparative cases. Powers and Powers, in their study of the "Metaphysical Aspects of the Oglala Food System," argue that: 78

79

...ritual foods are the most highly charged symbols of Oglala social and cul­ tural identity both positively (they are irrefutably Indian) and negatively (they are definitely not Euro-American). This two way approach helps to sharpen the ideological boundary.... 80

7 7

D. L. Smith-Christopher, "Ezekiel on Fanon's Couch: The Psychology of Ezekiel in Post-Colonialist Perspective, a paper read before the 1996 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans. The term "quarantine" as a category of social behaviour is taken from Lamin Sanneh's analysis of early Christianity in Translating the Message (New York: Orbis Books, 1989). The term "holy seed" is, of course, from Ezra 9:2. See Smith, Religion of the Landless, 139-51, for a detailed discussion of these and other examples of comparative sociological cases. W. K. Powers and M. N. Powers, "Metaphysical Aspects of Oglala Food System," in Mary Douglas (ed.), Food in the Social Order: Studies of Food and ,,

7 8

7 9

8 0

34

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

We may also consider Edmunds' study of the rise of a Shawnee Prophet among the Ohio Shawnee before the War of 1812, who called for a return to traditional foods as an aspect of resistance to encroach­ ing settler culture: The Shawnee and other Indians also were admonished to return to their food, implements, and dress of their ancestors. Although white men kept such do­ mestic animals as cattle, sheep, or hogs, such meat was unclean and not to be consumed by Indians.... Neither were the Indians "on any account to eat Bread. It is the food of the Whites...." 81

Such comparative accounts can sharpen our analysis of certain be­ havioral patterns in exilic and post-exilic biblical texts that may not otherwise be recognized as contributing to a picture of the treatment and context of the exilic community. Since the important work in symbolic anthropology by Mary Douglas (Purity and Danger, 1966; Implicit Meanings, 1975) we have come to understand Levitical-like concerns with purity to represent the self-conscious resistance of sub­ ordinated minorities toward surrounding, dominant cultures—particu­ larly when the human body becomes a symbol of the social group. All things that leave the body become "unclean," just as people who leave the group became traitors to the "holy seed" in Ezra-Nehemiah. That such a theology of "quarantine" came out of a traumatic minority ex­ perience in exile seems obvious, particularly when Ezra's fresh arrival from the Diaspora touches off the so-called "mixed marriage crisis" ca. 450 BCE in the Palestinian Jewish communities around Jerusalem. What are the pressures that exiles must have faced? Religious pres­ sure is surely evident in passages that polemicize against idolatry (Isa 44:9-20 and Daniel 2,3, and 6, however fictitious the characters, the themes must be reality-based for the work to even make sense), irre­ spective of the awareness that the exiles may have had of the religious claims of Nebuchadnezzar himself, who attributes his conquests (like all Near Eastern despots) to the power of the patron god, in his case Marduk. Similarly, there is a strong cultural pressure presumed in a story like Daniel 1, which takes on added significance in the light of

Festivities in Three American Communities (New York: Russel Sage, 1984) 40-98 (47). R. D. Edmunds, The Shawnee Prophet (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983) 37. 8 1

IMPACT OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

35 8 2

purification rites such as those enumerated in Leviticus l l . Ultimately, modern exegesis of the exile must decide to deal with the perceptions of the exilic writers. Furthermore, it is clear that the exilic, and particularly post-exilic, community reveals the typical behavior patterns of a minority com­ munity that has closed ranks tightly to maintain identity and faith. The social emphasis on separation in the mixed-marriage crisis of EzraNehemiah reveals a traumatized community that is often blamed for "closed-mindedness" by modern commentators. As I have indicated in the case of psychological comments on Ezekiel, such arguments amount to a hermeneutic of blaming the victim. When Ezra's actions are read, for example, by Native-Americans who oppose the adoption of Native children by non-Native parents, or Aboriginal Australians who live with memories of the "Mission Schools" where many of them (like Daniel and his friends) were given new names and some­ times even new cultural identities, the behavior patterns are uncom­ fortably familiar. What is required, I would suggest, is a hermeneutic 83

8 2

Classic studies in the Daniel stories have tended not to emphasize a resistance element to the stories, choosing to emphasize a more sanguine perspective toward the Persian rulers. See, e.g., W. L. Humphreys, "A Lifestyle for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel," JBL 92 (1973) 211-23; S. Niditch and R. Doran, "The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach," JBL 96/2 (1977) 179-93; and Lawrence Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King (HDS; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990); John J. Collins, "The Court Tales in Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic," JBL 94 (1975) 21834, and now in his magisterial work, Daniel (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993). A different direction is signaled by Dana Fewall, Circle of Sovereignty : A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6 (JSOTSup; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), and I have gone further in the direction of developing a negative view of foreign rulers in my work on the book of Daniel: "The Book of Daniel and the Additions to the Book of Daniel," The New Interpreter's Bible, Vol. VII (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996) 19194. My forthcoming study, It Sounds Like Us (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), is a comparative exegetical experiment where I engage in field interviews, and then compare the interpretation of Daniel 1 and 2 in three different indigenous communities (Lakota, Cree, and Aboriginal Australian). In each case, patterns of a minority under pressure are recognized by contemporary minorities who often perceive similar social elements in these texts. 8 3

36

SMITH-CHRISTOPHER

of the exile that is informed by a wider familiarity with patterns of dominance, resistance, and the dynamics of social subordination. 84

TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS: T R A U M A , HISTORY, A N D THEOLOGY

By way of conclusion, it is clear that I have largely omitted a discus­ sion of major theological themes that could have come from the exilic experience. Included would certainly be the self-blaming theology of Deuteronomic writers, or the New Mission concepts of Second Isaiah (49:6) and Third-Isaiah (56:3-8), as well as the importance of consid­ ering the exile community itself to be the so-called "suffering ser­ vant." I have chosen to put off a discussion of such theological themes because it is my contention in this essay that any and all theological reflection on the exilic experience—subjects more properly addressed in the essays that follow—must first contend with the enormity of the physical, social, and psychological trauma of this experience in the life of Ancient Israel, and only then proceed to an assessment of theo­ logical themes that are part of the recovery process of a frankly heroic survival of domination in the ancient Near East.

8 4

I examined this case in more detail in my essay, "The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9-10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Postexilic Judean Community Critique," in Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies, Vol. 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 243-65.

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION James Sanders Claremont Graduate School T H E L O S S OF A GIFT

The experience of the loss of the land Yahweh had given Israel would have been traumatic in the extreme. According to the old traditions that were edited into the form we call the Torah, Yahweh had made two promises to Abraham and Sarah, progeny and land. Now one of them, the land, has been painfully snatched away, first by Assyria and then by Babylonia. The trauma endured, as told in the horror stories recounted in Jeremiah (32-45) and 2 Kings (23-25), was enough to obliterate other peoples in the area, mainly by assimilation to another identity. But this people kept the memory and meaning of the night­ mare alive in the recitations of a remnant in exile who refused to as­ similate to the dominant cultures of their victors. The more one learns of the foreign policies of Assyria and Babylonia in their treatment of conquered peoples, the more one won­ ders at Israel's survival, albeit in a dramatically altered state. Other folk in the region, also conquered by the Mesopotamian powers, ap­ parently did not have strong enough traditions and stories to provide a remnant with identity sufficient to survive. Cultural anthropologists have shown the importance of a community's identity-giving stories to their survival. Michael Taussig, speaking at the University of Florida in 1988, quoted Columbian Indians' explanation for imperial­ ism's success in the Americas: "The others won because their stories were better than ours." In that light alone the Bible as a whole is a powerful, life-giving story for surviving remnants—but especially the Torah. Genesis 1-12 in effect says that God, who created all that is, made a pastoral call on Abraham and Sarah with a plan for migration and set­ tlement, accompanied by the two promises. One of the truly remark1

2

1

Chronicles softens the recitation considerably in its need to revise Israel's history for the sake of survival (2 Chronicles 36). Cited in an unpublished paper by my colleague Prof. Jack Coogan, "The Moving Image and Theological Education. 2

,,

38

SANDERS

able things about what ends up in the Jewish canon is that it includes stories that put Israel, the recipient of God's grace, in a bad light. "It tells it like it is." The Torah and the Prophets do not spare Israel's im­ age as a people. The Ketuvim modify the picture considerably, but the first two parts of the tripartite Jewish canon are designed in large part to explain the defeats. The promises made by God in Genesis become failed promises by the end of Kings. After the horrors of defeat and destruction, Judah's last king (Mattaniah/Zedekiah) was forced to wit­ ness the death of his sons, then had his eyes gouged out. The surviving member of the royal household, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah's young nephew, was already imprisoned in Babylon, hav­ ing been deported after only three months' reign in 597 BCE. He was in prison there for thirty-seven years, but when a new king, Evilmerodach, took the throne in Babylon he released Jehoiachin in about 560 BCE to be the king's house guest for his remaining years. Jehoiachin would have been fifty-five years old when released. But note, while he spent his declining years as a house guest and not a prisoner, he still was nonetheless totally powerless and lived more comfortably only by the good graces of the new king. There the story that began with God's promises in Genesis ends in disgrace barely re­ lieved. As Lou Silberman has sadly but wisely observed, loss of iden­ tity through absence of community, as in prison or exile, gives rise to despair. Despair then gives rise to torpor, out of which one gives in to a death wish, or turns to eschatological thinking in an apocalyptic mode, which is in actuality a rallying cry for a return to history, albeit seeking a favorable fulfillment or conclusion to it. The most stable part of the Jewish canon is precisely the story that goes from Genesis through Kings. The reason for its stability, even before the invention of the codex, was that the nine scrolls containing the Torah (five) and Early Prophets (four) told a story that had a be­ ginning, middle and end, and being out of order hardly mattered. Beginning with the Books of the Three major prophets, order remains somewhat fluid in the actual manuscripts until the invention of the printing press. Even so, the interrelationship of Torah, Early Prophets 3

3

In contrast to withdrawal from history or society into privacy and community. See L. Silberman, "The Human Deed in a Time of Despair: the Ethics of Apocalyptic," in Essays in Old Testament Ethics (J. Philip Hyatt, In Memoriam), James L. Crenshaw and John T. Willis (eds.) (New York: Ktav, 1974) 191-202.

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION

39

and Latter Prophets, is an intimate one. They form a powerful state­ ment in the sequence offered in the Jewish canon, quite different from any Christian canon of the First Testament. While the mood changes considerably beginning with the Ketuvim in the Jewish canon, it is obvious that Torah and Prophets hang together in conveying a clear message for surviving Judaism. T O R A H A N D PROPHETS

A major task of the Bible is explaining defeats. The Torah and the Prophets, as a discrete section of the Jewish canon, have in part the mission to explain to surviving Jews why they experienced the devas­ tating defeats at the hand, first of the Assyrians, and then the Babylonians, but then survived them, albeit in a mutated form. In like manner, the Christian Second Testament, especially its "sacred his­ tory" section, the Gospels and Acts, had the burden of explaining the ignominious arrest and crucifixion of Jesus as well as his "survival," albeit in a mutated (or resurrected) form. Most Jews remained scattered in the diaspora, well after the socalled Return to Jerusalem after Cyrus defeated Nabonidos, the final neo-Babylonian king, in about 540 BCE. In fact, Babylonia, where the authoritative Talmud was edited about the sixth century CE, was home to the majority of the world's Jews from the Exile until the end of an­ tiquity. Indeed, the diaspora has been spread throughout the world from the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B C E until the present. While there have been periods of flow of Jews back to Palestine, Judaism has until this century largely been a diaspora religion, always with the prayer and hope of returning to Jerusalem. The Ketuvim, which probably became stabilized into something like their current form after the Bar Kochba Revolt of 132-35 CE, present a Judaism withdrawn for the most part from the plane of history into a contemplative faith designed to induce obedience and the desire, on the part of Jews scattered wherever they might have been, to please God. Even the "history" presented in Chronicles/Ezra-Nehemiah is a history with a mission—to get surviving Jews to understand that Judaism, despite all the adversity and defeat in its past history, was meant to be a priestly theocracy, centered in Jerusalem, minding its own business under the hegemony of whatever power they had to live under. The Ketuvim, as a stabilized section of the Jewish canon, pro­ vided an attitude and a mode of behavior for Jews that survived the

40

SANDERS

Bar Kochba Revolt to understand that God meant Judaism, in order to please God, to withdraw from the world that had so abused it, and study and teach Torah (in sensu lato) to future generations, and in­ deed, to any of the outside world willing to learn. But the scattered Judaism that survived the Exile seven centuries earlier was not entirely ready yet to settle down into a community in stasis, as it were. One of the major points we have learned from the literature of the Qumran community, the Dead Sea Scrolls generally, and then from reviewing all the massive Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period in the light thereof, is that Judaism was highly pluralistic in the period from the fall of the first temple until after the Bar Kochba Revolt. The stabilization of the Ketuvim into the form the third section of the Jewish canon took thereafter would not have represented the other forms of Judaism of the earlier period. On the contrary, many forms of Judaism would have strongly disagreed with the idea underlined in the Ketuvim, that prophecy or revelation had ceased in the time of Ezra/Nehemiah. The theological review of the risings and fallings of the Iron Age which the Ketuvim provided, with the thrust of withdrawing into a closed, priestly community in which the principal name among them was Ezra the Scribe (see also First Esdras in some Christian canons), was easily understood as the principal message the surviving Pharisees/rabbis after the Bar Kochba Revolt wanted to send of what Judaism was about from their point of view. But the message of the Ketuvim as a corporate document (not necessarily its individual parts) was not one that the other Judaisms of the Persian/Hellenistic/Roman period wanted to hear, or would have believed was true. For most Jews, indeed, it would appear that prophecy or revelation had not ceased in the time of Ezra/Nehemiah. It certainly had not ceased for the Qumran Jewish community, the Christian Jewish community, or 4

5

6

4

See below, n. 11. Michael Stone, "Judaism at the Time of Christ," Scientific American 288 (1973) 80-87; and idem, Scriptures, Sects and Visions (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1980). The placement of Daniel in the Ketuvim in the Jewish canon, but among the Prophets in the Christian, indicates the different hermeneutics by which the different communities read the same book. See the discussion in the writer's "Intertextuality and Canon" forthcoming in the George M. Landes Festschrift, On the Way to Nineveh, Stephen L. Cook and Sara C. Winter (eds.), to be published by the American Schools of Oriental Research. 5

6

41

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION

the other Jewish communities that produced most of the literature of the so-called apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. There is no way they would have accepted the latent message of what later became the sta­ bilized Ketuvim, even though they probably all viewed some forms of some of the separate, individual Writings as inspired. I earlier advanced the thesis that the explanation for Joshua's not being in The Torah, in sensu stricto, is that the Torah was edited in ex­ ilic Babylonia by Ezra and the "men of the Great Synagogue," with a perspective on it that made sense to them. A Jew did not have actually to reside in Palestine to be a Jew; it was acceptable to be a Jew in Babylonia, or in diaspora, looking forward to the full Return. Gerhard von Rad had earlier asked the question why the early recitals did not include the stop at Sinai for reception of the Torah; I asked, instead, why, though the Entrance is included in the early recitals, the account of it is in the prophetic corpus, as though the Return was not yet fully complete, but still to be consummated. The Torah was then brought to Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century BCE to be read in the Water Gate (Nehemiah 8), and thereafter promulgated as the Torah of Moses edited by Ezra. The Water Gate account reports that the people wept upon hearing the Torah read in Hebrew and interpreted for them in Aramaic, the language of the Persian Empire (Neh 8:9). The weeping was testimony to the fact that the people deeply appreciated hearing so clearly who they were under God, and what God expected of them. They had a communal identity. The function of regular recitations of Torah, and eventually of the various canons, was and always has been twofold: to remind the peo­ ple who they were and what they should stand for, that is, identity and life style, mythos and ethos, story and stipulation, haggadah and ha7

8

9

7

See Shemaryahu Talmon, "Oral Tradition and Written Transmission, or the Heard and the Seen Word in Judaism of the Second Temple Period," in Henry Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSup 64; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 121-58; also Talmon, "Die Gemeinde des Erneuerten Bundes von Qumran Zwischen rabbinischem Judentum und Christentum," in TXon-Ort der Begegnung. Festschrift fiir Laurentius Klein zur Vollendung des 65. Lebensjahres, F. Hahn et al. (eds.) (Bodenheim: Athenaum Hain Hanstein, 1993) 295-312. Lee McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (2nd ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995) 25-133. In Torah and Canon (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1972 [11th printing, 1995]). 8

9

42

SANDERS 10

11

lachah. Those are the two principal elements of Torah. Some of the Judaisms of the ensuing period emphasized the haggadic element, and others the halachic element. Those that did not believe that prophecy or revelation ceased at the time of Ezra stressed the importance of the story aspect of Torah, such as the communities that produced most of what we call the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, preserved eventually by the churches but left aside by surviving rabbinic Judaism. The lat­ ter has clearly left its stamp on the Ketuvim, the former on the New Testament. The one was added by rabbinic Judaism to the Torah and the Prophets, and structured by them as the third part of the Jewish canon; the other added to the Torah, Prophets and "other writings," and structured as a continuation of the story of God's power and work in and through Israel. 12

GENESIS TO KINGS

If one then reviews the story that is told in Genesis to Kings, the Torah and Early Prophets, the message becomes clear. God's promises made to the patriarchs of land and progeny are fulfilled magnificently by 1 Kings 10. The Queen of Sheba visits Solomon in Jerusalem, ostensibly to admire his wisdom and wealth. But in the full sweep of the story the good queen, laden with gifts for Solomon, paid a visit to Jerusalem as the international witness to God's having in­ deed fulfilled those promises. One could not want in all the Bible a story of fulfillment more engaging and convincing than one sees in 1 Kings 3-10, the beginnings of the reign of Solomon. It was a city of gold, silver being as common as stones (10:27). The route to that ful­ fillment was full of vicissitudes and problems; it was not a smooth road. On the contrary, it may well be said that the Bible is a textbook in how to live in the gaps between God's promises and their apparent 1 0

See Sanders, "Torah and Christ," Interpretation 29 (1975) 372-90. See Sanders, "Torah and Paul," in Wayne Meeks (ed.), God's Christ and his People, Nils Dahl Festschrift (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977) 132-40. See the thesis of Bruce Chilton and Jacob Neusner in Judaism in the New Testament (New York: Routledge, 1995), xii-xix. As of this writing one eagerly awaits their second book authored together, titled Trading Places (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1996—projected for December) in which they changed places after Constantine, Judaism becoming private and communal and Christianity public and political. One wonders if surviving rabbinic Judaism had not begun moving toward being private and communal already after the failure of the Bar Kochba Revolt in mid-second century. 11

1 2

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION

43

lack of fulfillment. Even God's promise of progeny was not easily fulfilled (Genesis 15-22). But the fulfillment came, and it came in gold, silver, and precious gems. Beginning with 1 Kings 11, however, the same bumpy route contin­ ued but now toward defeat. God appointed satans or testers to Solomon, but he failed all the tests (1 Kings 11); from there (late tenth century BCE) it was largely downhill to the events of the eighth and seventh centuries when the neo-Assyrian Empire, followed by the neo-Babylonian Empire, brought about the destruction of all Israel's institutions in ignominious defeat and exile. God had withdrawn all the gifts God had so lavishly heaped on his people, and even the promise of progeny was in doubt because of the thorough assimilation of northern Israel into Assyrian culture, and the threat of assimilation and absorption of the conquered Judahites into the dominant, victori­ ous cultures of Babylonia and Persia. But a message comes through the whole of Torah that is epitomized in Deuteronomy 29-31. Deuteronomy had displaced Joshua in the Torah story. One can read from the end of Numbers to the beginning of Joshua and not miss a beat. Deuteronomy intruded between the two to cast its light backward to Genesis and forward to the Prophets. It purports to be a farewell address by Moses on the east banks of the Jordan in which he reviews their journey to that point, as well as the further laws of Deuteronomy, which begin in chapter 12 and extend to chapter 26. Deuteronomy 26 is an appropriate climax to the body of the book in its depiction of the Thanksgiving Service that Israel should engage in when it arrives in the Land at the place God will chose to have his name dwell. Deut. 26:5-11 records the ceremony in such a way that Israel's identity, Israel's essential story, becomes her confession of faith. Confession of identity ("My father was a wander­ ing Aramean who went down into Egypt...") becomes confession of faith. That is followed by a confession of obedience (Deut 26:1215). Chapters 27 and 28 then list the curses ensuant on disobedience, 13

1 3

It is often overlooked that the confession of identity or faith in Deut 26:511, is followed by a confession of obedience in 26:12-15, not unlike the "Declaration of Innocence" in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, for the pharaoh to recite as he approached the divine Hall of Judgment. It is quite clear that the Pharisee praying in the temple in Luke 18:11-12 was attempting to obey Deuteronomy's command to engage in a confession of obedience; the teacher's lesson was that the confession had become abused by slipping over into bragging and self-justification.

44

SANDERS

but the blessings that come with obedience, to the laws by those whose identity is found in the Torah story. The two confessions in Deuteronomy 26 form a fitting conclusion to the legal section of Deuteronomy, as a bridge to the curses and blessings of chapters 2728. Then Deuteronomy 29-31 state clearly the purposes of the divine judgment of destitution and exile. A) it is not God who let us down in these defeats; B) it is Israel who had let God down with all sorts of polytheism and idolatry; C) it will be God's greatest joy to restore all God's gifts of land and progeny if, in destitution, Israel takes the prophetic/Deuteronomic message to heart; and D) God had sent prophets early and often to explain how it really is in the divine econ­ omy. And those prophets made their points about God's using for­ eign powers to execute judgment against his own people well before it happened. One cannot escape into theories about vaticinia post eventurn to explain how the prophets could speak in advance of God's use of Assyria and Babylonia. God is the God of risings and fallings, vic­ tories and defeats, what humans may call good, and what they may call evil. Destruction and death do not stump God. Herein lies the re­ markable message of the Torah and the Prophets. Death stumps hu­ mans; indeed humans tend to fear death more than God. But God is the God of life and death. That theological point bears directly on the issue of hope. What is hope? In a polytheistic mentality, hope lies in a people's gods being powerful and strong enough to preserve them and their institutions. But in a monotheistic way of thinking hope lies in the one God of all, and in God only. If God has seen fit to assign adversity to his own people, it was with a purpose. In fact, adversity, according to the prophets might have two purposes, one to effect judgment for Israel's sins, but the other to bring correction or modification in Israel's way of thinking. The message of the Torah and the Prophets is clearly that God is One, the God of all creation, who chose Israel for a purpose in regard to all the families of the earth (Gen 12:3). Israel was God's special servant, and Israel had a purpose in life and history. 14

1 4

See Sanders, "Deuteronomy," The Books of the Bible, Vol. 1, The Old Testament/The Hebrew Bible (ed. by B. W. Anderson; New York: Scribner's, 1989) 89-102.

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION

45

That humans were created to be servants of the gods was a part of the common theology of the Ancient Near East. The Torah and the Prophets press the issue further and claim that Israel was created by divine promises to be the One God's special servant in regard to all the rest of God's creation. When God is the One and Only God, as the Torah story insists, then hope does not necessarily he in the pro­ tection and preservation of Israel's present institutions. It must have been a heady thing to realize that the future lay in God's working in and through the destruction of the present institutions to re-create the servant in another form. One cannot assume that God will follow Israel's agenda, even her best (most critical and scholarly?) thinking, as to what is best for her. Belief in One God requires total surrender and obedience. To try to politicize such a belief, or for one party of the people to have advocated and chosen destruction and re-grouping, would have totally missed the point. Hope for Israel lay beyond all human understanding of hope. The hope the Torah and Prophets offered, in the light of the foreign poli­ cies of ancient Assyria and Babylonia, was not one by which any party could grasp power for itself. One had to understand that God 15

16

17

18

1 5

See Richard J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible (Washington: Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 26, 1994) 42-53. See Marvin Sweeney, "The Book of Isaiah in Recent Research," Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 1 (1993) 141-62. Even though it incorporates early, polytheistic and henotheistic stories barely modified. See the four steps in adapting international Wisdom into Israel's narrative in the writer's Canon and Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984) 5660. See Morton Smith's Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia, 1971). Smith was attempting to explain how monotheism emerged as the faith of Judaism by positing a "Yahweh Only Party." The real question is not that why such party won out, but why the people responded to the "tough stuff," advocated by the monotheising hermeneutic in reviewing the old traditions, that survived the canonical process of reading and re­ reading the traditions newly edited. Smith also saw Jeremiah as a member of the Pro-Babylonian Party in the period before the destruction (Jer 40:1-6). To stop at such political observations without asking why such tough stuff then went on to survive the canonical process in the communities of faith, is to fail to go on to address the crucial issues of why Jeremiah's message survived in the prisoner-ofwar camps, and not Hananiah's. Why did the Yahweh Only Party win out—in Smith's terms? 1 6

1 7

1 8

46

SANDERS

was the God of enemies also. God might curse whom God wanted to curse, and bless whom God wanted to bless, self, friend or foe. What distinguished monotheism from belief in a whimsical god, the prophets made also clear. God's promises were sure, but the route to their fulfillment might be very rough, even threatening of present in­ stitutions. The agenda was God's, not Israel's, and not that of a politi­ cal faction in Israel. God had, however, imposed constraints on her­ self out of love of creation, and especially of humans. God is of a dif­ ferent order of being from humans, but, in human terms, God is af­ flicted with love. No power or force outside God imposed the afflic­ tion. Theologically, Israel had to try to understand God's love for hu­ manity as a self-imposed limitation. At the same time God is a God of justice and righteousness. God is both creator and redeemer, righteous and loving. How can this be? 19

THE COVENANT LAWSUIT TRADITION

The prophets struggled with the paradox. What issued was about as good as humans with their limited minds can manage. Abraham Heschel explained the paradox as stemming from "divine pathos." As one reads through the pre-exilic prophets it becomes clear that the prophets used the metaphor of a covenant lawsuit to explain God's judgments. God's covenant with Israel had been violated by the people, therefore God had to bring judgment upon them, even out of love for them. Had God not cared for his people, he might have sim­ ply let them continue to alienate themselves from Reality and become nothing. But care he did, and that involved sending prophets in ad­ vance of the suffering to explain the adversity as having two purposes: judgment and salvation. In the covenant lawsuit tradition the prophet was a kind of court of­ ficer who announced God's appearing in the life of the people to 20

21

1 9

It may well be that locating the politcal (in sensu lato) factor in history is as far as critical, inductive searches should go, but the biblical theological historians of both testaments would have responded that God was capable of using the political situation of any given moment to weave a larger picture of reality, especially the Integrity of Reality. In post-modern terms the real factor is that of human humility in doing historical searches; see the writer's "Scripture as Canon for Post-Modern Times," BTB 25/2 (1995) 56-63. Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper, 1962) 92, 190, et passim. Torah and Canon, 73-90. 2 0

21

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION

47

enumerate their erring ways, to exhort them to repent, to declaim their enemies' greedy moves as God's punishment of them, and to explain God's uses of adversity to transform Israel into a more obedient ser­ vant. The texts of the prophets exhibit the divine pathos in the very fact that the prophet urged the people to repent, and throw themselves on the mercy of the court, all the while the prophet declaimed God's judgments as corporate and inescapable. The indictments, or listings of sins, were both theological and ethical. They accused the people of the normal human bent toward polytheism (a way humans try to be in control of their own lives) and idolatry (loving the gift rather than the Giver), as well as oppression of the weak and powerless in their own society. They contrasted what God had done for them when their heads were in the dust of the earth in Egypt as slaves, to what they were doing, now that they had some power (God's gifts) of their own (Amos 2:6-11). What emerges theologically is that while God is One, the only God of all creation and all creatures, indeed, of risings and fallings, God is also biased toward the powerless and the dispossessed. The prophets appealed to two authorities to substantiate what they had to say to the people. The one was to share their "call" to ministry to answer questions about how they had the right to speak in the name of God. The other was reference to Israel's "call" or story of what God had done for them in the past, their special "history" as they under­ stood it, in becoming Israel—the people who constantly seemed to wrestle with God. It was that story, as later recited in the Torah as Pentateuch in the liturgical year, that gave them their identity in everchanging circumstances and situations. The function of recitation of variant forms of that story was both to contrast what God had done for Israel, when they themselves were poor and dispossessed in Egypt and in the Wanderings, with what they now did to their own poor and in­ digent in their own land. They also served to establish the authority of the judgments the prophet declaimed against the people in the name of God. Most of the rest of what the pre-exilic prophets are recorded to have said to the people were: pleas for repentance, indictments for their sins, explanation of the horrors to ensue if they did not repent, and then the kind of hope that lay through and beyond the judgment—be­ cause they believed that God was One. While critical scholarship has 22

2 2

Ibidem. The appeals to authority constitute categories 1 and 2. Category 3, the pleas for repentance, offered the people the opportunity to throw themselves

48

SANDERS

until recently concluded that the prophet Amos did not hold out any hope beyond destruction, the Book of Amos, as shaped in subsequent communities, insists that God will, in due course, restore the fallen booth of David (Amos 9:11-15). Actually all the prophetic books orig­ inating in pre-exilic times offer some kind of future hope due to (the early, or, later?) belief in God's intention to transform Israel beyond the adversity. What is more important is that all of the prophetic books (with the possible exception of Amos) also suggest that the adversity had trans­ forming powers for the people if they accepted the judgment as from God, and not as an accident of history. E x p r e s s i o n s ! transformation include the understanding that the suffering was a correction or discipline of the people so that they could once more be God's people. Other expressions were that the suffering should be viewed as purgational. This metaphor is fre­ quently found in the Book of Isaiah; the purgation might be by water or flood (Isa 8:5-8; 28:2,14-22), or by fire to smelt the dross from the alloy the covenant relation had become (Isa 1:24-27). The most poignant expression of the positive effect of judgment is that of surgery. God, the great physician, would conduct open heart surgery on the people corporately to suture God's Torah, God's will and ways of thinking (cp. Isa 55:8-9), onto the heart of the people (Jer 31:31-34; cf. 30:12-17). Or, God would replace Israel's heart of stone with a heart of flesh, thus giving Israel a new heart (Ezek 37:26); or God would give the people a new spirit and see to it that they obey (Ezek 37:27). In an era when there was no anesthesia this would have been a powerful explanation of suffering. One of the most common expres­ sions of the metaphor of surgery to understand the effects of destitu­ tion is that of circumcision of the heart. Jeremiah and Deuteronomy both exhorted the people to circumcise their hearts to the Lord (Jer 4:4; Deut 10:16), which was in the form of pleas for repentance, something the prophets apparently thought the people could do for 23

on the mercy of the court. Categories 4 and 5 indicated the indictments and sentences, and category 7 the kind of restoration God had in mind beyond judgment. Category 6 is the all-important statement in the prophets that God will effect in judgment and adversity what the people failed to do in response to category 3. See Sanders, Suffering as Divine Discipline in the Bible and Post-Biblical Judaism (Rochester: Colgate Rochester Divinity School Bulletin, Special Issue, 1955). 2 3

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION

49

themselves. Deuteronomy finally, however, says that the circumcision of the heart of Israel corporately would be effected by God herself as part of the effects of adversity, destitution and restoration (Deut 30:56). This was part of what Abraham Heschel meant by divine pathos: the prophets' continuing to plead with the people to repent when it had become clear that God was going to have to go through with the transforming effects of exile and destitution. These expressions and metaphors for the transforming powers of adversity in the hands of God are quite radical. They imply that God needed to engage in continuing acts of creation/re-creation (Torah on the heart, new heart, new spirit, circumcision of the heart) in order to effect the needed redemption if God's purposes for Israel were to be realized. This would eventually develop into various kinds of eschatology and apocalyptic speculations of what God would yet do to res­ cue the faithful even when things seemed bleakest. In the prophets the concept of a remnant meant those in Israel in whom the re-creative acts took effect. It did not imply escape from the effective powers of God's judgments, but rather, acceptance of the adversity as purposive: both punishment for their sins and transformation of their ways of thinking. The metaphors involving the heart meant Israel would un­ dergo a radical change in the way they thought about God and the world. *The heart in Semitic languages, as well as in Greek, meant the seat of thinking, not of emotion primarily. If God was going to suture his Torah and ways of thinking onto Israel's heart, it meant they would thenceforth intimately know the will of God, or as Jeremiah says, they would all "know God" (31:34) without their having to teach each other. God's acts of redemption were also, therefore, acts of continu­ ing creation. In fact, these expressions of the redemptive power of judgment will later develop into the apocalyptic idea of God's effect­ ing a whole new creation as the ultimate act of judgment/salvation. 24

25

2 4

Pilate said to Christ in Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation that Christ did not want people merely to change the way they lived or acted, Christ wanted people to change the way they thought; and Rome, Pilate said, does not want that. The radicality of the hope expressed in such transformation is perceived when it is realized that human freedom of will seems infringed upon in the new creation God would effect in adversity. That, too, is a part of the divine pathos involved in understanding God's love for his people. 2 5

50

SANDERS

A powerful example from the Prophets of the claim that God can reach in and through destitution, even death, to create new life with new institutions, is in Isaiah 28. There is almost universal agreement that chs. 28-33 address the Assyrian threat to Judah's existence. Ch. 28 specifically should be seen against the backdrop of the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib in 701 BCE. The first part of the chapter presents judgment speeches by Yahweh against northern Israel and the second part, at least verses 14-22, against Judah and Jerusalem. Isaiah was convinced that Assyria would take Jerusalem as it had taken the northern kingdom and all of Judah right up to Jerusalem. Such speeches include indictments and sentences, and hopefully a sugges­ tion of what effect the adversity would have toward transformation. The judgment speech against the leadership in Jerusalem is devastatingly harsh. The overwhelming scourge, the purgation by flood (one of Isaiah's favored metaphors for judgment) would sweep away the lies and deceit the leadership had buried itself in. They were con­ vinced that the covenant with Yahweh, and, of course, the alliance with Egypt alongside it, would save Jerusalem and themselves. Isaiah tried to convey to them as clearly as possible that that would not be the case. On the contrary, the present institutions of state, cult, and culture would be swept away in a cleansing act of Assyrian wrath, un­ der the aegis of Yahweh himself. Isaiah then, however, revealed Yahweh's plan. Understanding that plan would require some effort on the part of his hearers. One can imagine the threat of Assyrian siege stones being catapulted into the city from the war machines the Assyrians would surely establish for the purpose from their camp just north of the city. Isaiah then claimed that Yahweh will eventually take one of those Assyrian siege stones and convert it into a "precious cornerstone of a sure foundation" (28:16). Hope was thus injected into the otherwise completely deso­ late picture. Only an act of God could do it, but Isaiah had no doubt God could convert an enemy's siege stone into a precious cornerstone of a new construction, in which justice would be the line and righ­ teousness the plummet (28:17). This is exactly what Isaiah's pro­ grammatic statement of God's purposes in the whole matter of the Assyrian onslaught had proclaimed (Isa 1:21-27). The effort neces26

27

2 6

See now my colleague, Marvin Sweeney's Isaiah 1-39 (Forms of the Old Testament Literature, 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 353-73. Not just "swept clean" (cf. Isa 28:17). 2 7

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION

51

sary, on the part of the hearers of the time, and on the part of readers and hearers of the passage ever since, was actually to believe that God could convert an enemy's siege stone into a precious cornerstone of new life for Israel/Judah. Egypt's storming up to rescue Jerusalem and its besieged, isolated people (Isa 1:7-9) would have been easier on the belief mechanism, as in any age. Isaiah, however, had made it clear that Assyria was acting under the aegis of God. Assyria was the instrument of God's judg­ ments against his own people, said Isaiah, but Assyria would herself be severely checked if the axe with which Yahweh was hewing vaunted itself into thinking it was acting under its own power alone (Isaiah 10). But that did not deter the leaders and people in Jerusalem, facing the threat of destruction raining in upon them, from believing more in Egypt's chariotry than in God's purposes. They were human. The effort required on their part challenged normal, human thinking. Isaiah was asking if they believed that God could subvert the intention of the enemy and turn the desperate situation into a door of hope (cf. Hos 2:14-15, as well as Joseph's statement to his brothers in Gen. 50:20). Isaiah then said, lest some hear him wrongly, that that did not mean that God would stop the siege. Isaiah may have come to think that way later after the siege was indeed lifted before its goal was reached, though I doubt it. But for now, he had to convince the people that the Assyrian siege had first to effect its task of purgation. The lies and falsehood which ran deep would first have to be swept entirely away by the instrument of Assyrian expansionism. Then, at that point God's new construction upon the converted cornerstone could take place (28:17-22). Therefore, Isaiah says, the precious cornerstone will have upon it an inscription. Archaeology has shown that cornerstones in antiquity had inscriptions, as they do today. But this inscription would not give glory to some king or official, or provide a date of the laying of the cornerstone. On the contrary, it would have the words, "Those who believe will not panic" (28:16). Here is where a second major hermeneutic effort came in. How should the inscription be understood? As with any other text, that de­ pends on the hermeneutics brought to it, and by which it is under­ stood. Clearly the temptation would be to believe that God was going to take care of and spare them and the city (and hurry the Egyptians along?). The sparing did, in fact, happen, according to the later

52

SANDERS

Deuteronomic historians (2 Kgs 19:32-37; Isa 37:33-38), suggesting, pace Isaiah, that the siege had not even been mounted. The text indi­ cates Isaiah was so disappointed that the complete purgation did not finally take place, that he wept when the people rejoiced at the lifting of the siege (Isa 22:1-4), because now they were even further deceived (Isa 30:8-17). But there was another hermeneutic by which to read the inscription, the hermeneutic the Isaiah text engenders throughout. "Those who believe will not panic" could also mean that one ultimately fears God only and not the loss of God's gifts. It meant that one believed that God is the God of risings and fallings, of victories and defeats, and that God can reach through death and destruction to create new life. They who believe do not panic at the loss of the institutions on which they have relied in the present structures, because they believe that God can rebuild after the purging through the instruments of justice and righteousness. Salvation, according to Torah and Prophets, is not in God's gifts; it is in God alone. One of the most common under­ standings of sin in the Bible is that of loving God's gifts rather than God the giver of those gifts—and all future ones in restoration. But the transformation must come before the restoration, or nothing is gained. The pre-exilic prophetic message, as related in the canonical shape of the Torah and the Prophets, understood adversity in the hands of God as a newly creative, as well as redemptive, experience. A similar hermeneutic effort is required to understand Isaiah's ref­ erence in 28:21 to 2 Samuel 5, God's rising up to assist David to de­ feat the Canaanites on Mt. Perazim and in the valley of Gibeon. The leaders and the people would have been tempted to understand this historical reference as assurance of a rescue operation of Jerusalem for them, such as Yahweh had effected for David. But Isaiah says, "No." Right enough, God is a holy warrior and will be involved, but this time he will be at the head of the enemy troops entering the city—"to do his deed, strange his deed, and to work his work, alien his work" (28:21). Redemption through judgment was at work, in and through which the transformation and restoration were firmly assured. The New Israel that emerged from the "resurrection" experience (Jeremiah 31-33; Ezekiel 36-37) was the Judaism indicated in the Ketuvim, which in their turn were shaped and confirmed by the subsequent ex­ periences under Rome. 28

2 8

Torah and Canon, 83-8.

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION

53

THE EXILE AND THE TOUGH STUFF

The shock of defeat and submission to Babylonia in 597 BCE still would not have fully prepared the leaders and people remaining in Jerusalem for their experience of complete destitution in 586. The hostages taken in 597 did not think of their Babylonian prison camp as a permanent residence, or even having ultimate meaning for them. This is clearly indicated in the experiences recorded in both Jeremiah (chapters 24-29) and Ezekiel (chapters 33-34, 36-37). They could not believe what was happening to them. But when the POWs began to arrive in Babylonia after the cataclysm of utter devastation in 586, realization that they had lost everything, as well as corporate depres­ sion over the disaster, began to set in. Psalm 137, the only clearly datable Psalm in the Psalter, poignantly reflects the despair. "By the rivers of Babylon we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our harps.... How could we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land?" To sing one of the old songs, that probably lauded God's guarantee of the inviolability of Zion, would have been as depressing as recalling one of Hananiah's sermons doing the same (Jeremiah 28). Jeremiah was taken down to Egypt by Johanan, son of Kareah, and his party, much against Jeremiah's will. When he got there he found other refugees from Judah and Jerusalem, some of whom were wor­ shipping the Queen of Heaven because they felt Yahweh had indeed abandoned them. Polytheism was the mode by which they thought about reality. If one god can't do the job, find one that can. And "the job" was clearly whatever gave the people the greatest sense of secu­ rity against the forces of chaos from whatever quarter. They had not heard the "true prophets" like Jeremiah; they had heard and been convinced that Hananiah and his viewpoint were right. The only alter­ native they felt they had was also to abandon Yahweh. The "false prophets" had preached "blessed assurance, Yahweh is ours, what a foretaste of glory divine." But all that turned out entirely wrong. The tough message Jeremiah and the other "true prophets" preached still would have made little sense to most of them at that point. They had not learned to monotheize. 29

2 9

See the writer's "Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy," in G. Coats and B. Long (eds.), Canon and Authority (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977) 21-41. See also the writer's From Sacred Story to Sacred Text (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987)61-105.

54

SANDERS

It makes it all the more remarkable that what survived through a process of review, repetition, and recitation in Jewish communities was the monotheising tough stuff. The canonical process might well be thought of as the survival of the toughest thinking about God and reality, those traditions and reflections on them that stressed the Oneness of God. The prophetic literature that made it onto a tenure track toward canon was that which began in Exile gradually to make sense to them by re-reading in the new context. Yahweh was really a universal God who alone made sense of what was happening to them. God was One. God was a God of universal justice, righteousness and grace, who made sense of the power flows in the Near East that had been taking place since the mid-eighth century BCE, and used those terrible events to reshape and transform his people into God's servant and teacher of Torah to the world. So-called defeat and failure had not stumped God; they were part of a plan that made sense of the birth of Judaism in Exile, and its survival as the true heir of the traditions of old Israel and Judah. Polytheism, by contrast, would have sealed the fate of Yahweh, so to speak; he simply had not measured up. Yahweh had not acted in his own interest in letting his people be defeated; he had not acted for his own name's sake, or reputation among the gods. Ezekiel's response to that was to say that God was indeed acting for his name's sake in stepping in where the human leaders of the people had failed; and acting as his own shepherd of his own people, he would save the lost and gather the scattered (Ezekiel 34). This was a totally different twist on the idea of a god's being obliged to benefit his people for his name's sake among the gods. God had judged his people; now he would gather them to himself. And it was this kind of reflection on the old traditions that gave shape to God's New Israel, Judaism born in Exile, and gave rise to the concept of a canon that could explain the ups and downs, blessings and disasters. 30

CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL WORTH AND RESPONSIBILITY

Another thread of rather new thinking needs to be brought in at this point. The Bible, both testaments, is basically Semitic in hermeneutic and mentality. Covenants, though made through "individuals" (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David), were and are corporate in understanding. In 3 0

See Sanders, From Sacred Story (n. 27) 9-39, 175-91.

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION

55

fact, the Semitic base of all biblical thinking is corporate. God's rela­ tionship (Emanuel) with Israel was corporate. "Is it not in your going with us that we are distinct, I and your people, from all other peoples on the face of the earth (Exod 33:12-16)?" Generations are made up of leaders and followers, but covenant is with the people diachronically, as it were. The pre-exilic prophets' indictments of the leaders of peo­ ples of their time were declaimed in corporate terms. Semitic ways of thinking did not yet allow for dividing the people into sheep and goats, good and bad, not yet. In this manner, the Deuteronomic histo­ rians were able to account for the complete destruction that came about at the hands of the Assyrians in the North and at the hands of the Babylonians in the South. Mannasseh was singled out as scape­ goat, but mainly as a symbol of the people's having misunderstood the true nature of covenant. A later theologian from Tarsus would say that none was righteous, no not one (Rom 3:10, echoing Eccl 7:20 and Psalm 14). Biblical prophets and historians had had to explain the de­ feats as coming under the aegis of the one God of all. Much of the lit­ erature that ended up in biblical canons was engaged in explaining ad­ versity and defeat (the tough stuff—even the crucifixion of a teacher from the Galilee had to be explained). The whole people had come under the judgments of God. But beginning in the late pre-exilic period, concepts of the worth and responsibility of individuals began to play a role in the thinking of the people. Jeremiah (31:29) and Ezekiel (chapter 18) insisted that the people should no longer cite the proverb to the effect that later gener­ ations paid for the sins of ancestors (cp. Exod 34:6-7). The dialogue between Moses and Yahweh about the fate of Sodom in Gen 18:16-33 apparently reflects the debates of the late pre-exilic period. The Book of Job stands as a monument to rejection of laying corporate views of guilt on an individual. Ecclesiastes as a piece of literature describes a monumental struggle between individual and corporate views of worth and responsibility. In fact, as noted earlier, the Ketuvim gen­ erally reflect the new thinking of individual worth and responsibility within the corporate. And much of it came about because of Greek in­ fluence in the sixth to fourth century BCE, well before the hellenization process after Alexander. It was important that nascent Judaism, scattered over the whole eastern Mediterranean world, understand that it would not have again to endure the kinds of corporate judgment

56

SANDERS

which the prophets and the deuteronomists had declaimed on the people as a whole. After Alexander, Judaism had to face up to how to relate its corpo­ rate traditions to Jews becoming more and more focussed on the worth and responsibility of individuals. Precious community literature that had gone through traditioning processes, diachronically reflecting the importance of that literature to communities along the way, became at­ tributed to great names in Israel's past, all the Psalter to David, all the Proverbs to Solomon, etc. The Greeks knew that Homer wrote the Odyssey and that her great literature came with authors' names. So newer literature that was written in the old style nonetheless became attributed to individuals, like The Song of Songs to Solomon, the Gospels to individuals, most epistles to Paul, etc. The point was that while Semitic cultures easily tolerated anony­ mous, community literature, Greeks wanted to know who the individ­ ual author was. This move toward including individual worth and re­ sponsibility within the corporate affected all forms of Judaism, some more than others. The New Testament is basically Semitic but heavily influenced by European/Greek concepts. One of these would have been the derived Christian idea of God's incarnation in one Jew, rather than the Semitic notion of God's incarnation in the People, Israel (Abraham Heschel, following Maimonides), or God's incarnation in Torah or Scripture (Michael Fishbane, following Rosenzweig and Buber). To claim God's incarnation in one person would have been still sufficiently alien to repel many, if not most, Jews who survived the Roman destructions of Jerusalem with continuing identity as Jews. When then the Renaissance arose in Europe it affected biblical study and the question of authority. Until that time the Bible was clearly a community book, the church's and synagogue's book. But with the Renaissance came interest in authorial intentionality and the belief (and it was a belief) that the truth of the Bible would be found in a history of its formation with focus on authorial intentionality 31

32

3 1

See the writer's "Intertextuality and Canon," forthcoming in the George M. Landes Festschrift (above n. 6). See Jan Gorak's The Making of the Modern Canon (London: Athlone, 1991), especially the discussion of how the concept of canon arose in ancient Greek culture in the first chapter, 'The Early History of the Canon" (9-41); and see the writer's "Scripture as Canon for Post-Modern Times," BTB 25 (1995) 5663. 3 2

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION

57

33

within ancient contexts. The Sitz im Leben of study of the Bible moved from the believing community to the university. In the minds of an increasing number of students of the Bible the ties to faith com­ munities had been severed so far as discerning the truth of the Bible. Herein lies the strain between so-called conservatives and so-called liberals in biblical study today, the latter by-passing the importance of the communities out of which biblical literature, anonymous and pseudepigraphic for the most part, had arisen, and creating images of authors and giving them sigla and signs, if not Active names. It is little short of remarkable that Early Judaism was able to mutate into forms that would endure every imaginable onslaught and threat to its existence for centuries to come. It then finally mutated into two forms that have endured since the Roman destruction of Early Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism and Christian Judaism (three, with the surviving tiny Samaritan community in Israel), the Christian finally becoming so Greek in make-up and mentality as to go its way unre­ lated to the Rabbinic. It had been in the Exile and the early post-Exilic period that the Torah and Prophets took shape. One can imagine that all the old tradi­ tions were reviewed to be understood now in a totally different con­ text, that of the transformation the prophets had envisioned. Restoration of the Davidic monarchy failed with the Persian accep­ tance of a Judaism that focussed on the Temple and the priesthood. After the Job poet had struggled with the new issues of theodicy and the undeserved suffering of a righteous individual (note that the Book of Job presents the readers with one who was righteous, contrary to the Deuteronomists). The so-called Second Isaiah addressed the issue of excessive suffering, suffering beyond what any amount of sin might have indicated, and offered the idea of vicarious suffering, and the wounded healer (Isaiah 53). The authors of the creation account in Genesis 1 addressed the question of how to understand the Jewish desire to have a proper theogonic liturgy like the Enuma Elish, by re­ counting a story of creation done by God in six days. And in that liturgy (Genesis 1) all items created in the six days were actually symbols of ancient Mesopotamian (and Egyptian) deities—the mes-

3 3

The contribution of Baruch Spinoza. See the writer's "Scripture as Canon for Post-Modern Times" (n. 30 above).

58

SANDERS

sage being that they were not deities at all but precisely only items in creation. The Deuteronomists looked back and explained what had gone wrong. Things had gone badly wrong, but the end of the Deuteronomic history focusses on God's being the God of risings and fallings, fallings and risings. The Priestly theologians reworked the traditions that would make up the Torah and looked backward and forward toward a viable Judaism, whether in Exile or in the Land. And the Chronicler looked back over the old traditions with an eye on the kind of future that would permit Jews anywhere, corporately and individually to believe that they could be obedient, and could please God, by being committed to the newly rebuilt Temple wherever they might live, living lives of obedience "not walking in the way of the wicked ... but in the Torah of Yahweh" (Ps 1:1-2). 34

35

TRIPARTITE AND QUADRIPARTITE CANONS

When all else was lost, when all God's tangible gifts had been re­ tracted, in effect because of violation of the first three Commandments, Judaism had one gift from the past to which they could cling, and that was Torah. And whether one agreed eventually with the belief that prophecy or revelation had ceased in the time of Ezra, Torah displaced the pre-exilic oracular priests and prophets in Judaism as that which they would drash to seek guidance and help in ever changing circumstances. In nascent Judaism one no longer con­ sulted priest or prophet for "a torah" or instruction, Jews now con­ sulted or drashed God's Torah, edited in Babylonia and brought by Ezra to Jerusalem in mid-fifth century BCE. The exercise became known as "midrash," the function of searching Scripture for guidance,

3 4

See the writer's "God is God" in Foundations 6 (1963) 343-61, and "Mysterium Salutis," Year-Book 1972/73, Ecumenical Institute (Jerusalem, 1974) 103-27. Note that even Manasseh, the prime symbol of the reasons for the defeat and Exile, in Chronicles repents, his repentance was accepted by God, and he was restored (2 Chr 33:10-17). Then, a later poet, noting that Chronicles omitted Manasseh's prayer of repentance, supplied the words of Manasseh's change of heart; see "Prayer of Manasseh" in The Harper Collins Study Bible (ed. by Wayne Meeks; New York: HarperCollins, 1993) 1746-48. If Manasseh could repent and be restored, any Jew could; there was hope indeed. 3 5

59

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION 36

indeed for life itself (John 5:39). Torah became known as the Book of Life (sefer hayyim), because it had life and gave it as well. That is, it was Torah, shaped in Exile, that was the core of Judaism's being a mutated form of old Israel and Judah, and the very center of Judaism's continuing identity and existence as heir of the old pre-exilic tradi­ tions, now reviewed and resignified for the new situation. Most, if not all, other peoples conquered by Assyria and Babylonia were assimi­ lated to the new dominant cultures and lost their continuity with their past. Not so Judaism. Judaism was able to bring its past with them (re­ read and re-signified, of course), hence its identity. Torah, those wonderful old traditions that had their own continuity because of re-reading and repetition, now would get on a track of regular recitation, annual or otherwise, so that the people would know who they were no matter where they lived, and would know what they stood for (haggadah and halachah). Torah became the core of Judaism's canon, of no matter what form. Canon, by definition, is adaptable for life; and Torah functioned in that way for Judaism. The so-called Former Prophets (Joshua to Kings) provided the his­ torical sequels to the story line of the Pentateuch, and with it became the most stable part of Jewish Scripture. Genesis to Kings follows a story line, and whether scrolls or codices were used for copying out that portion of the Jewish canon, it has always been the most stable part of it. The latter Prophets, the Books of the Three and the Book of the Twelve, served as fifteen case histories to support the four-point message conveyed by the story. God had indeed sent prophets early and often to explain the divine economy, and the will of God, well in advance of the judgments they declaimed against leaders and people for polytheism and idolatry of all sorts; and that included the promise of restoration if in destitution the people took the message of God's judgments to heart. Because of the crucial role played by the Prophetic corpus in support of the message, one can well imagine the 37

3 6

See Luke and Scripture (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 1-13, by the writer and Craig A. Evans; also Mary Calloway's Sing O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). See the writer's "Adaptable for Life," in From Sacred Story to Sacred Text (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 9-39. 3 7

60

SANDERS

addition of that corpus (whether exactly in the form we receive it, or not) soon after Torah took on the role of canon for Early Judaism. Clearly many Jews found other writings inspired and worth recita­ tion, but the phrase from the prologue to Sirach, "and other writings," remains amorphous through the Early Jewish period. Septuagint codices show the uncertainties of order, and to some extent content, beginning with the Early Prophets. Since the Qumran manuscripts are in scroll form there is little certainty there except to observe that the canon simply was not yet fixed by the first century of the common era. The Ketuvim reflect clearly the Pharisaic/rabbinic understanding of Judaism and that of other Judaisms from the period, and offer a re­ view of the situation since the Exile from the point of view of surviv­ ing rabbinic Judaism in the middle to late second century of the com­ mon era. For them prophecy or revelation had indeed ceased at the time of Ezra. All the massive Jewish literature stemming from others of the diverse forms of Judaism that are found in Septuagint codices, at Qumran and elsewhere, that engaged so heavily in speculation about what God would do in history to bring it to fulfillment or clo­ sure, was simply to be set aside. What one added to the Torah and the Prophets showed clearly what Judaism meant to those who did the adding. The quadripartite canons of various Christian communities show what could be added, and even arranged in sequence of books of the Christian First Testament, to make a quite different statement as to what God was about in the human experiment. The quadripartite Christian canons were so arranged as to make adding the Gospels and Acts to the Jewish canon in its Greek guise a (theo)logical statement 38

39

40

3 8

Whether one can accept the dates assigned by David Noel Freedman to the addition of the Prophets to the Torah as canon, the thrust he perceived seems right. See "Canon of the OT," in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 130-36. Pace F. F. Bruce, Earle Ellis, Roger Beckwith and Sid Leiman whose arguments are well reprised in Lee McDonald's excellent book, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, 32-50. Adding a chapter to any writing throws light back on the earlier writing, and can even change its message and thrust; note what Deuteronomy did to the Tetrateuch, the Writings to the Torah and Prophets, and the Gospels and Epistles to the "Old Testament." 3 9

4 0

THE EXILE AND CANON FORMATION

61 41

about God's continuing activity in Christ and in the early churches. The placement and the additions made even the Torah and the Prophets make quite different statements from those of the Jewish canon, as to what God was doing. The Prophets, as the fourth part of the Christian canon, were now put into the role of being those who primarily predicted or foreshadowed Christ, rather than primarily ex­ plaining what judgment and salvation are all about in the divine econ­ omy. What is at stake in the additions, whether the Ketuvim by rab­ binic Judaism or the Gospels by Christianity, is nothing short of views of God and Reality that form the core of each religion. Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity share the same basic text of the First Testament, but in forms that make different theological statements, even before the adding of the Christian Second Testament. In this way one can see the vast importance not only of the destruction of the First Temple, but also of the Second by Rome. Each catastrophe caused reviews of the old literature that shaped the past in ways that made vi­ tal sense to those who did the arrangement of the books, and also did the adding of others. But it was the Exile that had formed the crucible from which Judaism arose as God's New Israel, no matter what ex­ pression one form of Judaism, or another, eventually gave to it there­ after.

4 1

See the writer's "Hermeneutics of Text Criticism," in Textus 18 (1995) 126, esp. 16-20.

DEPORTATION AND DIASPORIC DISCOURSES IN THE PROPHETIC LITERATURE Robert P. Carroll University of Glasgow

The language of exile muffles a cry, it doesn't shout.... Our present age is one of exile. How can one avoid sinking into the mire of common sense, if not by be­ coming a stranger to one's own country, language, sex and identity? Writing is impossible without some kind of exile. Exile is already in itself a form of dissidence, since it involves uprooting oneself from a family, a country or a lan­ guage. More importantly, it is an irreligious act that cuts all ties, for religion is nothing more than membership of a real or symbolic community which may or may not be transcendental, but which always constitutes a link, a homology, an understanding. The exile cuts all links.... For if meaning exists in the state of ex­ ile, it nevertheless finds no incarnation, and is ceaselessly produced and de­ stroyed in geographical or discursive transformations. Exile is a way of surviv­ ing in the face of the dead father, of gambling with death, which is the meaning of life, of stubbornly refusing to give in to the law of death. —Julia Kristeva

1

Ha, banishment! Be merciful, say "death"; For exile hath more terror in his look, Much more than death. Do not say "banishment." —Romeo

2

Too long in exile You can never go back home again. —Van Morrison 1

3

Julia Kristeva, "A New Type of Intellectual: The Dissident" in Toril Moi (ed.), The Kristeva Reader (trans. Sean Hand; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986) 298 (emphases original). On Kristeva and the notion of exile as a leading trope see Anna Smith, Julia Kristeva: Readings of Exile and Estrangement (London: Macmillan Press, 1996). Romeo and Juliet, III. 3, 12-14, in William Shakespeare: The Complete Works (The Tudor Shakespeare; London/Glasgow: Collins, 1951; reprint ed., 1962) 923. Van Morrison, "Too Long in Exile" from his CD, "Too Long In Exile" (London: Exile Publishing/Polydor, 1993). 2

3

64

CARROLL

The Hebrew Bible is the book of exile. It is constituted in and by nar­ ratives and discourses of expulsion, deportation and exile. From Genesis to Chronicles [Hebrew Bible grand narrative], that is, from the stories of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden to the moment when exiled Israel prepared to expel itself from Babylon to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, individuals, families, folk and the people of Judah (Jews) existed in situations of varying degrees of deportation awaiting possible return. In the narra­ tives between Genesis and Chronicles there may be discerned a metanarrative of a "homeland" occupied by the people, but the grand nar­ rative of the Hebrew Bible (especially as constituted by Genesis-2 Kings) seems to reflect and to testify to a subtext of deported exis­ tence. Thus Adam and Eve were driven out of (deported from) the Garden for the violation of a dietary ruling (non-kosher food in­ fringement); Abraham and his family chose to leave their own land by the divine command to wander the land of Canaan; Jacob fled from his own territory to escape the consequences of his own connivances and contrivances against his brother Esau; Joseph was deported from his land by means of his brothers' jealous subterfuge, his father Jacob had to leave his own land to go down to Egypt in search of food (and his son) and there died, an exile from home; Moses fled into the desert after his murder of an Egyptian; and out of Egypt there emerged the people under Moses which journeyed through the wilderness to the land of Canaan. In other biblical narratives David is driven from his land by Saul's paranoid madness and Israel and Judah are driven from their own lands by invasions and deportations. The mighty empires of Assyria and Babylon deported many nations, including the ancestors of the Jews. Deportation and diaspora are constitutive of the Jewish identity as it begins to emerge and evolve in the biblical narratives. The Bible is the great metanarrative of deportation, exile and potential return. While the term exile may have a nice sound to it, the much harsher word deportation better embodies the experience of diaspora and reflects the utter miseries of existence as declared in the Bible about life outside the "homeland" for the first diaspora generations. 4

4

The quotation marks around the word "homeland" reflect the fact that throughout their history life outside Palestine has constituted the norm for Jewish communities in general. This assessment remains true in spite of the UN resolution of 1947 which gave Jews a new "homeland" in Palestine (part of which is now called Eretz Yisrael). On a rather different view of what would constitute "home" for Jews see George Steiner's 1985 essay, "Our Homeland, the Text," in

DEPORTATION AND DIASPORIC DISCOURSES

65

Adam and Eve were driven out (Bha), expelled from the mythic Garden in a timeless past, whereas Judah's deportation from its land and temple was an event of great violence brought about by the ag­ gression of the invading Babylonians. One specific trope used by the prophets is that of "hurling" Onto; cf. Jer 16: 13; 22: 26, 28), so the na­ tion was "hurled" into foreign lands—hurled by YHWH out of its own land and made to live among the nations. Diasporic existence among alien peoples became then for the Jews (the erstwhile people of Judah) their natural, god-given environment. The trope of "hurling" captures well the aggression inherent in the savage acts which frequently ac­ companied deportation. Violent images of invasion, devastation, slaughter and deportation are highly characteristic of the discourses to be found in the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible. Hurled into existence in foreign lands, the dispersed people found in diaspora permanent alienation and, in ways quite difficult to discern, a hurling into existence of the people in the sense of coming to articulate and construct identity and story as given in and through the experience of diaspora. In that alienation, however, was also to be found the be­ ginnings of discourses which laid down foundations for communitar­ ian values which would greatly shape their future. And it is chiefly as tales and poetry of aggression that prophecy is now read in its canoni5

George Steiner (ed.), No Passion Spent: Essays 1978-1996 (London/Boston: Faber & Faber, 1996) 304-27. See also his "Cry Havoc," in George Steiner (ed.), Extra-Territorial: Papers on Literature and the Language Revolution (London: Faber & Faber, 1972) 41: "There is in the Jewish presence a kind of flagrant, ostentatious humanity, a resilient at-homeness in the world. When carried to extremes, misanthropy will soon find the Jew in its path." On the fundamental importance of diaspora for Jewish identity see Daniel Boyarin and Jonathan Boyarin, "Diaspora: Generation and the Ground of Jewish Identity," Critical Inquiry 19(1993) 693-725. In general see Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century BC (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1968); Enno Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des Judentums (FRLANT NF 51; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956); Ralph W. Klein, Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (Overtures to Biblical Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979); Thomas M. Raitt, A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); Nicolas Wyatt, "Symbols of Exile," Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 55 (1990) 39-58. There is a fascinating treatment of the symbolic discourse of exile in Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil (trans. E. Buchanan; Boston: Beacon Press, 1967). 5

66

CARROLL 6

cal forms in the Bible. In this chapter I shall limit my interest to sur­ veying the range of the discourses of diaspora to be found in the prophetic texts, with observations on some of the more useful distinc­ tions which may be drawn from the data. It would take a book-length treatment to map adequately the tropes and discourses of diaspora which constitute one of the most interesting features of biblical prophecy, so this exercise in writing about diaspora will be con­ strained and controlled by the space available for the discussion. For convenience sake I shall divide the prophetic literature into two parts: the so-called minor prophets, treated as a single volume, and the three major prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, taken as three separate elements in the second part. T H E B O O K OF THE TWELVE

7

As represented in the canons of the Bible the twelve scrolls constitut­ ing the so-called "minor" prophets (the order varies according to the different canons used) are represented redactionally as covering the historical period from the Assyrian invasions to the Persian (Greek) period, that is, the great period of deportations when the scattering of the people became constitutive of the future social context of the roots of Judaism. There is no uniform representation of deportation in these texts, but a variety of positions reflecting the threat and experience of deportation and further tropes of return and restoration. The grand nar­ rative of the Bible may influence the reading of these texts as narra­ tives of deportation and return, but there are many subtle variations in the individual scrolls which make it an unwise procedure to read them only in accordance with the dictates and constraints of canonical de6

It would take a book to do a proper analysis of the rhetoric of the prophetic texts, which seems to modern readers to be a strange admixture of deep realism and outrageous hyperbole. So much of the violent language inherent in the rhetoric of prophecy seems to arise from the bitter aggravations of the social violence accompanying invasion and deportation (rhetoric reflecting reality perhaps?). Following recent treatments of this collection of prophetic texts I shall take them as a collective volume: see James Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 217; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1993); idem, Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 218; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1993). See also James W. Watts and Paul R. House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (JSOTS 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 85-302. 7

67

DEPORTATION AND DIASPORIC DISCOURSES 8

formations of the text. Only when all the nuances of the different texts have been recognized and collated would it be possible to say what the prophetic discourses entail for the treatment of the topics of diaspora and exile in the Hebrew Bible. Hosea The images of deportation in the book of Hosea tend to reflect and participate in the discourses of turn/return (me)) to the land of Egypt and subjugation to Assyria (9:6; 11:5), with the concomitant notion of returning from such places of deportation (11:10-11). There is also in Hosea a rather distinctive set of images focused on the divine allure­ ment or seduction (nns) of the nation into the desert (2:14-15; cf. 12:9) which takes up and utilizes aspects of the grand narrative of the exo­ dus out of Egypt. Thus the book of Hosea would have to be cata­ logued under the subcategories of deportation and return in relation to the larger category of diaspora. The period in captivity or in the desert represents a temporary and disciplinary moment in the nation's educa­ tion, but is neither a permanent nor a terminal experience. In confor­ mity with the discourse of education, so prominent in the book of Hosea (cf. 10:11), the motif of the return to Egypt or deportation to Assyria represents a sentimental education on the part of Israel whereby the nation finally learns what it has failed to learn when liv­ ing in its own land. Exile as education is a major trope in the scroll of Hosea. Variations on the semantic field of the word mtf, especially on such notions as turning and returning, reflect tropes of worship and of national fate and harvest the many nuances in such portmanteau words as mtf (turn, return, apostasy etc) in biblical Hebrew. Under the 9

8

The constant clamouring for canonical readings of the Bible in the Guild today easily conceals from the superficial reader of texts the high degree of subtlety and variation within biblical texts. Canon is a profoundly countertextual way of reading the Bible. It is a way of frustrating the text by paying attention to such non-textual factors as canonizing processes and the ideologies of those who maintain their authority by means of such canons. For an insightful analysis of the role of canon in power relations see Gerald L. Bruns, "Canon and Power in the Hebrew Scriptures," Critical Inquiry 10 (1984) 462-80 (= idem, Hermeneutics: Ancient and Modern [New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1992] 64-82). For Hosea, especially the labyrinth of textual difficulties, see the standard commentaries of Andersen and Freedman, Mays and, most recently, A. A. Macintosh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1997). I will not deal here with more contemporary readings of Hosea which focus on the problematics of reading biblical prophecy from a postmodern 9

68

CARROLL

shadow of complex discourses about fate and education the Hosea scroll constitutes a rather complicated series of accounts about the ex­ perience of deportation and potential restoration. Joel This scroll does not really belong to a survey of diaspora discourses in the prophetic literature because it is focused on the twin themes of the destruction of Jerusalem and the devastations of the land by foreign invaders (locusts). Instead of a gathering of the deported and their restoration to the land, there is a gathering of the nations to the valley of Jehoshaphat where they will undergo the judgment of YHWH (MT 4:11-12; EV 3:11-12). The common prophetic trope about the restora­ tion of the fortunes (nine) me): restitutio in integrum) is used in Joel (MT 4: 1-3; EV 3: 1-3). It is a conventional phrase in the prophetic scrolls and while it may not necessarily carry any implication of de­ portation or return from foreign lands, it tends to indicate a notion of the restoration of things to how they were in the past. As such it may carry a trace of the idea of the ending of deportation and return from exile, for it is always possible to make such a use of me) a totalizing process whereby every conceivable nuance of me) is incorporated into the reading of the text. Amos In some ways the scroll of Amos is less complicated than Hosea, yet the rhetoric of its discourses is as complex as that of Hosea. The dominant images in Amos focus on invasion, defeat and deportation, the breaching of the walls (cf. 4:3) and the carrying off of the people into exile (5:27; 6:7; 7:11, 17), with the leaders being deported first. Repeated images of collapse without any ensuing rising (5:2; 9:1-4) emphasize the destructive aspects of these deportations, where there is no escape for anybody. The use of considerable funereal imagery also corroborates the negativity of Amos's visions of ultimate and utter de­ feat, destruction and deportation. Deportation without restoration represents the dominant note of Amos's oracles. Only the concluding sections of the scroll hint at a restoration, but not necessarily at a re­ turn from deportation—deportation rather than exile is Amos's contri-

perspective, but see the fine book by Yvonne Sherwood, The Prophet and the Prostitute: Hosea's Marriage in Literary-Theoretical Perspective (GCT 2/JSOTS 212; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).

69

DEPORTATION AND DIASPORIC DISCOURSES

bution to diaspora discourses in the Book of the Twelve. It is possible to read the strange trope of the raising up of the booth of David (9:1112) as some sort of allusion to the restoration of the Davidic empire, but even such a reading need not necessarily imply any return from exile. Yet the common prophetic trope of restoring the fortunes or turning the captivity (nine) me)) does have the sense of the reversal of YHWH's judgment in terms of a restoration of things to how they used to be in the past (restitutio in integrum). Thus the ending of the book of Amos (9:13-15) effectively reverses the force of most of the con­ tents of the scroll and updates Amos in relation to the dominant ideol­ ogy of the Jerusalem community in Persian/Hellenistic times. 10

Obadiah and Jonah These two minor pieces in the collection may not directly belong to the prophetic literature on deportation or diaspora, but appear to repre­ sent two pieces of reflective literature on foreigners. Obadiah is essen­ tially a celebration of the destruction of Edom, ostensibly because of the Edomitic collaboration in the destruction of Jerusalem. To modern readers of the Bible it may seem like a double standard that the text condemns Edom for celebrating the destruction of Jerusalem, when the so-called oracles against the nations (to be found among most of the prophetic scrolls) are themselves good examples of the mode of celebrating the destruction of one's enemies. The tale of Jonah is sufficiently enigmatic to leave modern readers deeply puzzled about its point or its place in the prophetic canon. It is ostensibly about for­ eigners, the sailors and the people of Nineveh, but the focalization throughout the story's four scenes is on Jonah rather than foreigners or themes of deportation or restoration. Whatever the symbolic meaning 11

1 0

There are too many highly contested interpretations available of Amos 9:11-15 for me to devote a further article here to debating the matter: see the standard commentaries of Andersen and Freedman, Mays, Soggin and Wolff. See also Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Book of Amos: Basic Issues in Current Interpretations (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991); Max E. Polley, Amos and the Davidic Empire: A Socio-Historical Approach (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). I still think Julius Wellhausen's famous comment about roses and lavender in place of blood and iron is pertinent as an insight into reading the ending of the book of Amos, even though it lacks the redactional sophistication of modern readings of the text. See Hans Walter Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary (trans. M. Kohl; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986). 11

70

CARROLL

generations of readers may have assigned to the tale of Jonah, the only bearing on the diaspora discourses of the prophetic literature that I can suggest for it is the possible allusion to the sparing of foreign cities where the diaspora may expect to find survival (cf. the praying for the atrt of Babylon in Jer 29:7). 12

Micah The rhetoric of this scroll has something of the fierceness of Amos's language. The people's children will be deported (1:16) and the city of Jerusalem will become a heap of ruins (3:12). But intertwined with this rhetoric of appalling destruction is a quite different rhetoric of restoration (2:12-13; 4:6-7, 10). The fate of the deported will be to live as lions among the nations (5:7-9; cf. 7:11-17), which is a rather different rhetoric of triumphalism from that to be found in Amos. The complex redactional features of the Micah scroll make it difficult to work out a rational account of how the different sections are to be re­ lated to each other, but the distinctive note of intertexual triumphalism in Micah should be noted. 13

Nahum and Habakkuk These two scrolls have little to offer on the theme of diaspora dis­ courses. Nahum is an oracle against Nineveh, similar to Jonah in its subject matter. The biblical convention of celebrating the destruction of an enemy often includes a note about the restoration of Israel and this motif also appears in the scroll of Nahum (cf. 2:2). Much of the language used against Nineveh in Nahum is used against Israel or Jerusalem in other prophetic literature (cf. 3:5 with Jer 13:26-27), but this feature only confirms the general view that much prophetic lan­ guage is non-specific in its usage (cf. the enemy from the north motif in Jeremiah where it is used of Jerusalem and of Babylon in Jeremiah 4-6; 50-51). The scroll of Habakkuk focuses on the devastations of the Babylonians against the nations and includes a prayer for renewal, but it does not really appear to be about the diasporic experience or its reversal.

1 2

The literature on Jonah is too vast to be detailed here; see the standard commentaries of Limburg, Sasson and Wolff. See the standard commentaries of Hiller, Mays and Wolff for detailed treatment of Micah. 1 3

DEPORTATION AND DIASPORIC DISCOURSES

71

Zephaniah This scroll celebrates the day of YHWH and reads like a proto-apocalyptic piece of rhetoric. The restoration of Judah's fortunes is one theme of the scroll (nine) me); 2:7; cf. 3:20), along with the concomi­ tant motif of the plundering of the nations (2:9). There is a hint of the return of the dispersed ones (3:10), so Zephaniah can be classed under the category of "deportation, with restoration theme." The catch-all motif of the restoration of the fortunes (nine) me)) is such that every­ thing may be subsumed under it. But such an inclusive sense entails the essential vacuity of the phrase. What I mean by that is the fact that conventional terms easily become buzz words or cliches where every­ thing or very little may be meant by such a common paronomastic phrase. 14

15

Haggai and Zechariah The Haggai scroll has nothing to say about deportation or restoration, but is devoted to a discussion of competing arguments about building the temple. The text is set in the Persian period, but only addresses lo­ cal domestic issues about the welfare of the people and the lack of a sacred house for YHWH. The scroll of Zechariah is much more focused on the details of the restoration of the fortunes of Jerusalem and the cities of YHWH (1:17), but generally is similar to Haggai in its focus on building. Intertextually these two scrolls can be read in conjunction with the Ezra-Nehemiah literature (cf. Ezra 5:1-2; 6:14). The text of Zechariah does recognize the deportation motif with its reference to named exiles who have returned from Babylon (6:10). That deportation had been caused by YHWH scattering the former inhabi­ tants of Jerusalem because they had failed to practise justice and mercy among themselves (7:9-14). The occurrence of the motif of the restoration of the dispersed people from different countries (both east and west) to Jerusalem (8:7-8) allows the scroll of Zechariah to be classified in the category of deportation-exile-restoration prophetic lit1 4

It is not easy to differentiate between prophetic discourses and apocalyptic language: see, for example, Daniel C. Olson, "Jeremiah 4. 5-31 and Apocalyptic Myth," JSOT13 (1997) 81-107 and the literature cited there. See also Stephen L. Cook, Prophecy and Apocalypticism: The Postexilic Social Setting (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) (esp. 1-84). See the general discussion of its various significations in the standard commentaries and esp. John M. Bracke, "nine) me): A Reappraisal," ZAW 97 (1985) 233-44. 1 5

72

CARROLL

erature. The oracles making up the rest of the Zechariah scroll are very similar to the poems to be found in most of the prophetic scrolls: themes of the destruction of the enemy and the restoration of Judah are mixed with poems about civic strife in Jerusalem. Perhaps one of the strongest expressions of the combined scattering-gathering motifs is to be found in 10:8-12: Though I scattered them among the nations, yet in far countries they shall re­ member me, and with their children they shall live and return. I will bring them home from the land of Egypt, and gather them from Assyria; and I will bring them to the land of Gilead and to Lebanon, till there is no room for them. (10:9-10)

The Zechariah scroll concludes with striking poems about the siege of Jerusalem and the final onslaught of the nations against Jerusalem. The aftermath of such battles will be a period of permanent peace and security for Jerusalem. 16

Malachi The concluding scroll in the Book of the Twelve seems to know nothing about destruction, deportation, exile or restoration. It appears to represent the Jerusalem community as a place at war with itself over ritual practices, mostly dishonoured in the breach of them. Questions of purity and correct action also appear to have split the community into warring factions. Family values, ritual observances and correct behaviour are advocated, especially in the light of the coming terrible day of YHWH. The scroll gives the impression of being a coda to the prophetic collection, addressing itself to current problems in the Jerusalem community, and as such it may not be an appropriate source for investigating the contribution of the Twelve to the topic of diaspora discourses. 17

In concluding this section I would summarize matters as follows: some of the scrolls in the collection of the Twelve contain certain el­ ements of diaspora discourses which reflect the sequence destructionexile-restoration, some scrolls only use discourses of destruction and 1 6

See the standard commentaries on Haggai-Zechariah by Meyers and Petersen. On canonical matters see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 3; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977). 1 7

DEPORTATION AND DIASPORIC DISCOURSES

73

deportation, and other scrolls lack all such allusions or concerns. The combination of the different scrolls into one collection, which we now call The Book of the Twelve, tends to have the effect of obliterating all differentiations between the contents of the individual scrolls. Canonic processes have a way of blurring distinctions, of making hard edges fuzzy and defeating texts by making them subservient to domi­ nant themes. It is among the functions of canons to be counter-textual and to render all texts subject to the hegemonic values of the canonizers and the hermeneutic frameworks used to shape and determine the contents of canons. But modern readers need to resist all such canon­ izing tendencies and to restore to texts their ancient voices of differ­ ence and distinction. We need to keep in mind that not all prophetic voices spoke of exile with restoration, but that some ancient voices never recognized any actual or possible return after catastrophic de­ portation. There is a literature of deportation which effectively has been silenced by the more dominant voices given prominence by the ideological holdings of the canonizing strategies. So a greater sophis­ tication is required in the reading of these ancient texts in order to catch the various nuances in them which reflect rather different per­ spectives on the discrete topics of deportation, diaspora and notions of return to the ancient homeland. 18

ISAIAH

19

Isaiah is the great scroll of diaspora discourses in the prophetic collec­ tion in the Hebrew Bible. It is shot through with images of devastation and deportation, of fugitives driven from their homeland and of aban­ doned territory which testifies to a disrupted cultivation, with loss of the civic centre. With Jerusalem as its central focalizing point—a uni­ versal centre to which all nations shall flow (2:2-4) and to which the 1 8

See Michael Knibb, "The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period," Hey J 17 (1976) 253-72; Robert P. Carroll, "Israel, History of (PostMonarchic Period)," ABD 3 (1992) 567-76. The literature on Isaiah is vast, but a Forschungsgeschichte of it would be irrelevant for my purposes. See Edgar W. Conrad, Reading Isaiah (Overtures to Biblical Theology; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991); Marvin A Sweeney, "Revaluating Isaiah 1-39 in Recent Critical Research," Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 4 (1996) 79-113; Hugh G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah's Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). On the search for the unity of Isaiah see the pertinent remarks of David Carr, "Reaching for Unity in Isaiah," JSOT 57 (1993) 61-80. 1 9

74

CARROLL

wealth of nations will be an overflowing stream (66:12) —deportation and diaspora become staging posts in the great return to the city and the renewal of the heavens and the earth (65:17; 66:22). As a subtheme of the greater theme of the renewal of everything, the topic of the renewal of Jerusalem encompasses the notions of deportation and return and makes the existence of the diaspora a temporary exile in the life of the holy city in the holy land. But the interwoven poems of the scroll of Isaiah make for difficult reading because so many different themes and topoi are to be found in this lengthy scroll. The themes of destruction, survival and deportation have rather different referents in the scroll and, because biblical prophecy is so very much a case of "one damn thing after another" , it is always a difficult task sorting out the discrete topoi into a coherent account of anything approximat­ ing to a rational story of sequential thoughts. If everything is to be renewed at a cosmic level, then it is possible to think of the diaspora as a temporary dispersal of those citizens who had survived the onslaughts of invasion and pestilence which had sent so many people to Sheol (5:14). The deported people had been made fugitives and were constituted as survivors awaiting YHWH's future gracious acts of restoration. In contrast to the holy people who had survived the devastations of Jerusalem's destruction and who had re­ mained in Jerusalem (4:3), these fugitives represented the diaspora whose fate and hope lay in the future. The destruction of Jerusalem had rendered the survivors holy by means of a purgation of judgment and burning (4:4), but had left the deported outside the sphere of holi­ ness and therefore subject to all the terrors of alienation from YHWH. It is not easy to provide a coherent account of these images in the scroll of Isaiah, but a case can be made for interpreting the isolated sayings as if they could be read together and transforming them into a message of hope for those in the diaspora (cf. 14:1-2; 19:18-25). There would be a return for the dispersed, but the scroll is not consis­ tent about the nature of that restoration. By means of deportation YHWH had devastated Jacob (27:8), but the retrieval of the dispersed will not be quite such a collective activity. It is envisaged as being an 20

2 0

Gerhard von Rad's (Old Testament Theology [Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1965] 2 n. 33) citation of Martin Luther's remark about the prophets is apposite here: "They have a queer way of talking, like people who, instead of proceeding in an orderly manner, ramble off from one thing to the next, so that you cannot make head or tail of them or see what they are getting at" (Works, Weimar edition, 19.350).

DEPORTATION AND DIASPORIC DISCOURSES

75

individuated event in which individuals among the people of Israel will return to their own land from Egypt and Assyria: In that day from the river Euphrates to the Brook of Egypt YHWH will thresh out the grain, and you will be gathered one by one, O people of Israel. And in that day a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were lost in the land of Assyria and those who were driven out to the land of Egypt will come and worship YHWH on the holy mountain at Jerusalem. (27:12-13)

That note of individuation may be contrasted with other statements in Isaiah which seem to represent the restoration of the diaspora as a mass movement whereby the deported people return to Jerusalem. Imagistic elements from the legend of the exodus which represented all the people leaving Egypt together (Exodus 12) may have been used to construct some of the images of restoration in the scroll of Isaiah, but not all readers of Isaiah would agree with that assessment of the language of the scroll. It would be equally as plausible to say that the language of restoration, of refugees returning from Egypt and Assyria, characteristic of some of the prophetic literature has been used else­ where in the Bible to construct the story of the exodus out of Egypt associated with Moses. Too much is going on in the scroll of Isaiah and far too many themes and topoi are interwoven together to allow for a single inte­ grated, consistent account of diaspora discourses and restoration ex­ pectations to be constructed by modern readers. Only by picking and choosing various texts and selecting certain phrases and verses is it possible to produce what looks like a coherent account of one set of diaspora discourses in Isaiah. The discourses about the servant in Isaiah 40-55 include poems which represent the servant as a figure for the restoration of the tribes of Jacob and the survivors of Israel (49:5). But such images of restoration need not imply a diasporic dimension. They are often read that way because so many modern readings of Isaiah 40-55 presuppose an exilic dimension to the text and place the imagined prophet (so-called Second Isaiah) among the Babylonian exiles. That is not a necessary reading of the text. It may be read as the production of the Jerusalem community and then the tropes of the raising up of the tribes of Jacob and the restoring (rrtfrf?) of the pre­ served of Israel would refer to the repopulation of the land and the 21

2 1

On some of these matters see Hans Barstad, A Way in the Wilderness: The "Second Exodus" in the Message of Second Isaiah (JSS Monograph 12; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989).

76

CARROLL

reemergence of life in the land of Israel. There are of course elements in the text of Isaiah which have a diasporic dimension: for example, 43:5-6; 49:12 allude specifically to the people who are scattered all around the then known world and to their gathering together to Jerusalem. In 45:13 Cyrus or the servant (the same entity?) builds the city (of Jerusalem) and sets free the deported (LXX: "the deported of my people"). That is a clear allusion to deportation and restoration. The theme of the liberation of Jerusalem (52:2; 61:1-7) is the central topic of Isaiah 35, 40-66 and within the latter part of the scroll the sub-theme of the restoration of the diaspora regularly makes its ap­ pearance. Discourses about the flow of nations and of the diaspora to Jerusalem constitute a dominant strand of imagery in the scroll and contribute to the diaspora discourses in Isaiah. Within such discourses it is easy to discover images of the return of the diaspora to the land and the city. From chapter, where everything is represented as having broken down (cf. 1:5-6, 7-9) to chapter 66, where all the nations are represented as seeing YHWH's glory (66:18), the scroll of Isaiah repre­ sents a comprehensive set of themes, topoi and tropes devoted to de­ picting a world of destruction restored through renewal. Such cycles of unmaking and remaking have a mythic quality which makes the scroll of Isaiah such a major production in the Hebrew Bible. Whatever its origins or the processes of its composition, the scroll it­ self represents a magnificent panorama of alienation, deportation and homecoming undergirding so much of biblical discourse. Its flowing discourses weave in and out of themes of destruction and restoration, taking in various eventful moments in the nation's past and highlight­ ing great expectations for a future of remaking that it would take a genuine poet to do justice to Isaiah's vision (small wonder that the scroll has as its virtual title "the vision of Isaiah . . ." 1:1). Here is

22

23

2 2

The standard commentaries of Westermann, North and Whybray may be consulted for the textual details which are often quite complex, but for my purposes here detailed exegesis is not possible given the space. I am aware that there are very many different ways of reading these highly allusive texts. My reading here is constrained by the nature of the topic of diaspora discourses in the prophetic literature. A much longer work would deal more adequately with the topic. For a treatment of the visionary aspects of Isaiah see Robert P. Carroll, "Blindsight and the Vision Thing: Blindness and Insight in the Book of Isaiah," in 2 3

DEPORTATION AND DIASPORIC DISCOURSES

77

one of the foundational myths of the Hebrew Bible: the destruction, deportation and restoration of the city of Jerusalem and its citizens. The grandeur of the vision of the scroll of Isaiah can all too easily blind readers to the less grandiose images in other prophetic literature, but that imperfection should not detract from the comprehensiveness of the vision of restoration in Isaiah. Of all the diaspora discourses in the prophetic literature this vision of a renewed heavens and earth is the most seminal one in the Hebrew Bible. As dominant biblical ide­ ology it effectively eclipses the more mundane truth of the actuality of life lived under the conditions of permanent diaspora (history). JEREMIAH

24

Jeremiah is much more the scroll of destruction, dispersion and dias­ pora than Isaiah. Its narratives and poems focus on the disintegration of life as lived in Jerusalem, the invading forces of the enemy from the north, the deportation of people to Babylon and the flight of so many fugitives to Egypt. The deep enmity of YHWH against the people of Judah and Jerusalem is a dominant theme of the scroll of Jeremiah. Tropes of wind and anger shape much of the rhetoric of the text and the concomitant theme of the scattering of the people contributes to the construction of Jeremiah's proclamations against the nation (cf. 4:11-12; 6:11; 13:24; 18:21-23). The deeply negative discourses of destruction make for a darker book than the visionary dreams and fanatsies of the Isaiah scroll. Indeed, with Jeremiah there is a (grand) narrative of the final dissolution of the people: they came from Egypt (2:6) and they return to Egypt, "until there is an end of them" (44:27). In effect, this representation of the history of the people of Israel succeeds in unravelling that history and rendering it null and void. After the destruction of Jerusalem the deportation of leading cit­ izens to Babylon and the flight of the survivors to Egypt effectively emptied the land of YHWH's people and terminated their history in the 25

Craig Broyles and Craig A. Evans (eds.), Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah (Leiden: Brill, 1997). See standard commentaries by Carroll, Holladay, Jones, McKane, and Thompson; also Robert P. Carroll, "Surplus Meaning and the Conflict of Interpretations: A Dodecade of Jeremiah Studies (1984-1995)," Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 4 (1996) 115-59. On the question of the literary coherence of Jeremiah 44 see William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, Vol 2: Jeremiah XXVI-UI (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1996) 1083-91. 2 4

2 5

78

CARROLL

land. As such, the people of Israel now lived in dispersed communities outside the land and in various threatened situations where there was a large question mark against their survival. Set into the book of Jeremiah are a number of texts which embody hopes of a future renewal of the nation. There is a reiterated sense of potential return in texts such as 3:12, 14, 22; 4:1, and in 3:18 (cf. 50:4) the rejoining of the two houses of Israel and Judah is mooted. This latter theme is much more fully addressed in Jeremiah 30-31 (cf. 12:14-15; 16:14-15; 23:7-8), where songs of the returning diaspora (31:7-9, 12-14) celebrate the goodness of YHWH. The so-called book of consolation (30-31) represents the fullest expression of diaspora discourses in Jeremiah, but also strongly reflects the conventional "restoration of the fortunes" (nine? mtf) theme to be found in other prophetic collections (almost a third of its occurrences are in Jeremiah). The story of Jeremiah's land transaction (32:6-15) in itself need not imply any restoration of the diaspora to their own land (cf. 32:42-44), but in the expanded text (32:16-44) there is included a ref­ erence to the return of the diaspora (32:37). The theme of the rebuild­ ing of the land may reflect the activity of the native inhabitants or it may include an allusion to the contribution to such reconstruction made by returning descendants of deportees. In the oracles against Babylon there is a command given to an unknown (unstated) audience (possibly "my people") ordering them to flee from Babylon (50:8; 51:6). In chapter 24 the vision of two baskets of figs set before YHWH's temple provides an important insight into how diaspora discourses in the prophetic literature should be read. Represented as an event 26

27

28

2 6

On Jeremiah 30-31 see Barbra A. Bozak, Life "Anew": A LiteraryTheological Study of Jer 30-31 (An Bib 122; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991); Georg Fischer, Das Trostbuchlein: Text, Komposition und Theologie von Jer 30-31 (SBB 26; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993); Konrad Schmid, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30-33 im Kontext des Buches (WMANT 72; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996). Biblical rhetoric is such that little textual differentiation is ever made between the people who were deported and the people who were expected to return from such deportations. Due allowance must be made for this kind of ahistorical prose in any modern reading of the text. For a different way of reading this vision in Jeremiah 24 see Walter Brueggemann, "A Second Reading of Jeremiah after the Dismantling, Ex Auditu 1 (1985) 156-68. 2 7

2 8

,,

DEPORTATION AND DIASPORIC DISCOURSES

79

having taken place after the deportation of Jeconiah and the leading citizens of Jerusalem (cf. 29:1-2), the literary report of the vision dif­ ferentiates between the members of Jeconiah's deportation and the cit­ izens of Jerusalem (and the fugitives in Egypt) who survived the ex­ pulsion from the city. The image of differentiation constituted by the figure of the baskets of figs may be the essential difference between the good and bad figs, but the import of the vision makes the deported citizens the figure of the future and writes off the survivors of the de­ portation as the especial target of YHWH's terror. I would read the vi­ sion of Jeremiah 24 as reflecting pro-deportation values entertained in Jerusalem by whomever in that community (unknown to us now) would have had reasons for supporting Babylonian or Persian parties in Jerusalem as opposed to older non-deported factions in the city. That is my own interpretation of the vision. But it does occur to me to offer the following explanation of all such expressions of expectations of return from deportation to be found in the prophetic literature: they may not necessarily represent hopes entertained among the deported communities in the diaspora, but could be expressions of beliefs, fan­ tasies or hopes of folk in Jerusalem shaped by an ideology of exile rather than deportation. That is, they may represent a global view of the diaspora in relation to the Jerusalem community which is not nec­ essarily to be found among those diaspora communities themselves. Reading some of the so-called diaspora novellas in the Bible (e.g., Esther, Daniel) we find little sense of a burning desire to return to Palestine (contrast Tob 14:3-7). From the point of view of historical hindsight we know that Jewish communities flourished for millennia in the diaspora, so we should not read the prophetic literature as if it represented a monolithic viewpoint about deportation and return. On the contrary, such a viewpoint is only one among a number of differ­ ing points of view in the diaspora literature as well as in the prophetic literature. Tropes of renewal, return and rebuilding are sufficiently vague in the Hebrew Bible to be read by modern readers with maximal or minimal content. From a historical reading point of view it is not easy to differentiate between realistic and fantastic figures of speech in the biblical text. It is also a matter for debated interpretation whether all such images of return and renewal should not be treated as intertextual matters generated by the development of the scrolls themselves. It is a practice endemic among biblical scholars to read biblical texts auto­ matically as having referents outside of the text in the sociohistorical

80

CARROLL

world imagined to be the setting of the construction of such scrolls. While this is one possible way of approaching such texts, it would be unwise to imagine that it is the only way of reading biblical texts. Given the great distance in time from the original production of the scrolls (whenever that may have been), it is no longer possible to say whether the diaspora discourses in scrolls such as Jeremiah reflect real expectations of living communities or have come about as the intertextual construction of such texts. In the so-called real world it is easy enough to imagine communities living in the diaspora and entertaining hopes that one day they would return to the land of their ancestors. It is equally possible to imagine such communities entertaining no such hopes at all. The diaspora discourses in the prophetic literature may well represent sentiments or textual constructions of writers living in Jerusalem and imposing (imagining) them on imagined groups else­ where. The means of differentiating between these possibilities are not to hand, even though the weight of traditional and conventional read­ ings of the Bible may tend to support one side of these reading possi­ bilities. EZEKIEL

29

If the Isaiah scroll is all about Jerusalem and its salvation in a renewed world and the Jeremiah scroll is mostly about the destruction of Jerusalem (it ought really to precede Isaiah in the canon, as the rabbis indicated), then the scroll of Ezekiel may be viewed as occupying a strangely mediating position between these two ends of a spectrum. Ezekiel is represented as a figure living among the deported people from the deportation of Jeconiah (1:1-3) and therefore his scroll may be seen as being ostensibly a piece of deportation writing. I think this is misdirection by the writer which gives rise to a misreading of the book. The bulk of the scroll has to do with Jerusalem: the opening chapters represent the removal of the divine presence from Jerusalem and the closing chapters reflect plans for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, especially its temple. In between these framing sections will be found 2 9

See the standard comentaries of Eichrodt and Zimmerli for the conventional treatments of the text. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezekiel, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990); Paul M. Joyce, "Dislocation and Adaptation in the Exilic Age and After," in John Barton and David J. Reimer (eds.), After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996) 45-58.

DEPORTATION A N D DIASPORIC DISCOURSES

81

the conventional assortment of prophetic oracles and narratives about Jerusalem, with a collection of oracles against the nations (25-35). Very little information is given about life in Babylon, apart from a very few glimpses of the poet among the leading citizens of the de­ ported community. The experience of diaspora is described as a divine scattering (a conventional trope) but is also represented (ironically?) as a time when YHWH functioned as a sanctuary in some sense (small measure or short time?) for the deported people (11:16). Essentially the book represents Ezekiel as a person living: in the midst of a rebellious house, who have eyes to see, but see not, who have ears to hear, but hear not; for they are a rebellious house. Therefore, son of man, prepare for yourself an exile's baggage, and go into exile by day in their sight. Perhaps they will understand ... they are a rebellious house ... (12:2-3; cf. Isa 6:9-10)

I would therefore favour reading the scroll of Ezekiel as a series of textual representations of Jerusalem life in terms analogous to living in the diaspora. It would take a book-length treatment to justify such a reading of Ezekiel over against a plethora of scholarly writings which favour a rather different reading of one of the most obscure and ab­ struse texts in the Hebrew Bible. Currently one of the fundamental problems of doing contemporary biblical criticism is the fact that ev­ ery topic requires to be rethought from scratch before it may be uti­ lized in any discussion. But having to reinvent the wheel each time one wants to travel is the least best way of going anywhere. Throughout the scroll of Ezekiel all the themes of the destruction of Jerusalem, of deportation to Babylon and of the return of Israel/Jacob to its own land are to be found in the most highly developed forms. In point of fact, the images of return and restoration are more fully de­ veloped in Ezekiel than anywhere else in the prophetic literature (e.g., chapters 34, 36-39, 40-48). The topoi of deportation and return be­ come key factors in the ideological (or theological for those who think there is a difference) construction of Ezekiel's viewpoint and their ex­ pression incorporates the full range of the dominant themes in his scroll: Now I will restore the fortunes (rmtf mtf) of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for my holy name. They shall forget their shame, and all the treachery they have practised against me, when they dwell securely in their land with none to make them afraid, when I have brought them back from the peoples and gathered them from their enemies' lands, and through them have vindicated my holiness in the sight of many na-

82

CARROLL

tions. Then they shall know that I am YHWH their God because I sent them into exile among the nations, and then gathered them into their own land. I will leave none of them remaining among the nations any more; and I will not hide my face any more from them, when I pour out my spirit upon the house of Israel, says the Lord YHWH. (39:25-29)

The continued existence of the diaspora communities deconstructs Ezekiel's ideology expressed here and renders it more a case of being the aspirational hopes of a Jerusalem/Palestine group than a realistic account of life in the Persian/Hellenistic eras. The more the matter is studied the more it becomes clear that elements in the Jerusalem community continued to entertain hopes that an imagined past would be replicated in an imagined future and that, as once Judah/Israel had lived in their own land without any parallel diaspora communities, in the future there would be an equally simple mode of existence in their own land without any such diaspora communities. Such hopes were never to be realized. From the vantage point of living outside and be­ yond these texts, modern readers know that such hopes never material­ ized and such knowledge has to be factored into any account of these texts. As Van Morrison's song has it: "Too long in exile/You can never go back home again." 30

CONCLUSION

I write on this topic of deportation and diaspora as a long-term mem­ ber of that great Irish Diaspora (permanent exile) which, since the Great Starvation of the 1840s, has flowed out of Ireland into all the world as economic exiles. I may have stayed quite close to home, confining my self-imposed (elective) exile to the Celtic Twilight Zone of Scotland, but the rabbinic phrase nfa "prn rrfa, "exile within exile," remains the most pertinent description I have ever encountered of the condition of living in any diaspora. Whether it is as a forcibly de31

3 0

Space does not permit a comprehensive treatment of the Ezekiel material, but my approach here is representative of what I would have to say in a much more fully worked out account of Ezekiel. If I were to write this piece from a confessional point of view, this is where I would start: with my membership of the Irish diaspora. For an important analysis of the hermeneutics of the Hispanic Diaspora see Fernando F. Segovia, "Toward a Hermeneutics of the Diaspora: A Hermeneutics of Otherness and Engagement" in Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert (eds.), Reading from This Place, Volume 1: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) 57-73. Of equal interest is Mae 3 1

DEPORTATION AND DIASPORIC DISCOURSES

83

ported person or as an economic exile deliberately choosing to go abroad in order to find work, one's new location invariably represents relocating to the chaos of exile. Yet the experience of exile and dias­ pora has been a hugely common one throughout human history. What is alluded to and hinted at in the Hebrew Bible, especially in the prophetic literature, represents the beginnings of the permanent dias­ pora of the Jews. Whatever the hopes and expectations of the Jerusalem community may have been for the return of the dispos­ sessed, diaspora proved permanent and profoundly significant. Since the collapse of Jerusalem against the Babylonians to this day, diaspora has been the normal and normative experience of the majority of Jews who have ever lived. Yet what is to be found about it in the prophets is, at best, "a muffled cry" (cf. Kristeva). What is significantly missing from the prophetic literature is any sense of the permanence of the disapora experience. That absence in itself may be significant or, there again, it might not convey very much positive information about the Hebrew Bible. My sense of its absence is that what we have as the dominant perspective in the Bible is the point of view of the Jerusalem community. From the vantage point of the city of Jerusalem's templeguild all Jews living elsewhere represented potential clients and pil­ grims. The rhetoric of return and rebuilding is very strong in Isaiah 40-55, but it may point to nothing more than fantasy or chauvinistic 32

33

Henderson's discussion of exile, borders and boundaries in her "Introduction: Borders, Boundaries and Frame(work)s," in Mae G. Henderson (ed.), Borders, Boundaries, and Frames: Essays in Cultural Criticism and Cultural Studies (New York/London: Routledge, 1995) 1-30. See G6rard Chaliand and Jean-Pierre Rageau, The Penguin Atlas of Diasporas (trans. A. M. Berrett; Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1997). It would be impossible to provide an adequate footnote to this Jewish experience, but for some recent reflections on it see Bernard Wasserstein, Vanishing Diaspora: The Jews in Europe since 1945 (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1997). If I may single out some specific Jewish experiences of the horrors of exile see the account of Walter Banjamin's last days in Momme Brodersen, Walter Benjamin: A Biography (trans. M. R. Green and I. Ligers; London/New York: Verso, 1996), esp. chapter 8: "Sad existence: Benjamin in exile" (201-63) and Paul Celan's response to exile in John Felstiner, Paul Celan: Poet, Survivor, Jew (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1995), esp. chapter 15: "Prophecy out of Exile" (244-52). For reflections on the Soviet Gulags and on the experience of exile from Soviet Russia see the poetry and prose writings of the poet Joseph Brodsky (1940-1996). This footnote could be extended into a whole book. 3 2

3 3

84

CARROLL 34

rhetoric. From the perspective of those living in various diasporas the notion of Jerusalem may have had some emotional pull (cf. Psalm 137:1-6), but for many generations it must have represented no more than a conventional trope. Perhaps at best only a distant echo of an­ cient tales passed down by the generations of ancestors, but without any sense of a place to which people might aspire one day to "return" thither. For comparative information enquire of modern communities of Jews or Irish in their respective diasporas. Two questions may be put to such groups: How do you feel about the "homeland"? Would you return in order to live there? Although circumstances have radi­ cally altered since biblical times, the answers to such questions might provide analogies for thinking about ancient history and the Bible. The first epigraph to this chapter is a lengthy extract from Julia Kristeva's meditation on the experience of marginality and exile which is so characteristic of the twentieth century, especially in rela­ tion to intellectuals and dissidents. This extract contains the sentence, "Writing is impossible without some kind of exile." Her examples of exiles include the diaspora of the Jews, up until the time of Spinoza, the exiles from the Soviet Gulags, the diaspora of those languages which are characterised by the literature of Kafka, Joyce and Beckett (note the Irish focus here) and her own type of experience as an exile from "socialism and Marxist rationality." I have used Kristeva's reading of exile because it raises for me the thought that there may be a direct relationship between the experience of exile and writing which might have something to say about the production of the Hebrew Bible. Did the Hebrew Bible come out of the experience of the diaspora? Was it reflection on the collapse of Jerusalem and the emergence of the diaspora which drove those ancient writers to pro­ duce the Bible? The fact that the grand narrative of the Bible starts with the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise and ends with the command of Cyrus to the deported Jews to prepare to return to Jerusalem in order to rebuild YHWH's house in Jerusalem is indicative of a sense of the Jewish story as something which could be represented as having taken place between two exilings. The writing of the story of that Jewish past, constituted as it was by such tales of deportation 35

3 4

In his article on Second Isaiah Joseph Blenkinsopp wisely allows for the possibility of reading these texts as "dreams and fantasies"; see his "Second Isaiah —Prophet of Universalism," JSOT41 (1988) 83-103. Kristeva, "A New Type of Intellectual: The Dissident," 298-9. 3 5

DEPORTATION AND DIASPORIC DISCOURSES

85

and exile, produced the Hebrew Bible—that homeland of the text (Steiner)—one of the major identity markers of what was to become Judaism. Throughout that Bible are to be found many traces of exile and diaspora in the production of scrolls which sought to give expression to identity. The experience of diaspora gave rise to writ­ ten reflections on the identity and the past of the nation and on the re­ lationship between Jerusalem and the communities which thrived in the diaspora and these reflections appear to represent both a muffled cry and an important subtext of the prophetic literature in the Hebrew Bible. Many voices in the prophetic scrolls give expression to the hope that things would be restored to a repristinated past in the rever­ sal of the deportations. As usual with hope, they were partly right and, I believe, almost wholly wrong. 36

3 6

See, for example, James Linville, "Rethinking the 'Exilic' Book of Kings," JSOT (forthcoming) and the thesis on which that article is based: idem, "Israel in the Book of Kings: The past as a project of social identity" (Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh, 1997).

GRECO-ROMAN PERIOD

EXILE IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE James C. VanderKam Notre Dame University INTRODUCTION

The term exile (with associated words such as captivity and scatter­ ing) has several meanings in the Hebrew Bible. One meets it in covenantal contexts as a threat which lies before Israel, should they disobey the covenant by worshiping idols (Deut 4:23-28); in the same context, however, one also reads about the possibility of return to the land if the people seek the Lord sincerely (Deut 4:29-31). Exile also appears in prophetic literature, a literature with intimate ties to covenantal theology, as a warning for continued disobedience (see Amos 5:27 as an example). A famous passage in this regard is Jeremiah's twice-repeated prediction that the exile of Judeans in his time would last for seventy years (Jer 25:11; 29:10). Exile can also refer to a historical experience which began at three different times for various Judean groups (598, 587/86, 582) and presumably ended at different junctures as well, including the return in the year 538 under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1). The places to which these ex­ iles went were Babylon and Egypt. A fourth sense in which the lan­ guage of dispersion and captivity may be used is as an ongoing, still unfinished experience for Judeans living after the so-called restora­ tion. This sense emerges from Ezra's prayer in Neh 9:6-37 and from another attributed to him in Ezra 9:6-15. Note that here Ezra includes his own time and circumstances in the desolate period that the people had brought on by their sins: "From the days of our ancestors to this day we have been deep in guilt, and for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been handed over to the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as is now the case." (9:7 [NRSV]). Captivity thus continues even for residents of Judah, as it does in another sense for those who remained in the lands of the dispersion. The suggestion that the conditions of captivity continued far past the year 538 and the initial return is developed more fully in Daniel 9. There Daniel is pondering the meaning of Jeremiah's prediction that Jerusalem would lie desolate for seventy years. Daniel prays for an

90

VANDERKAM

answer to his question and confesses his own sins and those of his people, past and present. " 'Righteousness is on your side, O Lord, but open shame, as at this day, falls on us, the people of Judah, the inhabi­ tants of Jerusalem, and all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery they have committed against you'" (9:7). He receives the familiar reply that the seventy years meant seventy weeks of years (9:24). The allusive language in vv. 24-27 strongly suggests, whatever questions of details may arise, that these seventy weeks continue into the time of Antiochus IV's decrees, issued in 167 and enforced for a few years afterwards. In other words, the condition of which Jeremiah spoke remained in force, ostensibly in the first year of Darius the Mede (Dan 9:1) but historically for the actual author more than three and one-half centuries after the return of 538. The several sections included in Daniel 7-12 are early examples of Jewish apocalyptic literature. While Daniel 9 is somewhat different in form than the other visions in the second part of the book, it does contain apocalyptic predictions. It turns out to be only one of several Jewish apocalypses that make exile an important theme in their mes­ sage, as their authors put the multivalent concept into use for varied purposes. The remainder of this essay is devoted to exploring how ex­ ile was used by the early Jewish apocalyptic writers. The evidence could be arranged in several ways (e.g., by chronology, by type of apocalypse); the one chosen here is by the way in which exile is em­ ployed in the texts. 1

2

1

For Dan 9:24-27 viewed from its understanding of exile, see M. A. Knibb, "The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period," HeyJ 17 (1976) 25372 (254-5). As Knibb writes: "The exile was now, and only now, to have its proper end, and in the author's view everything that had happened between the carrying away into captivity of the Jewish people and the time of Antiochus was of little importance" (p. 255). For a commentary on the passage and discussion of parallels, see J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 352-60. It should be noted that Dan 9:25 refers to a return, but it is only a part of the larger period indicated by the seventy weeks of years. See further Donald E. Gowan, "The Exile in Jewish Apocalpytic," in Arthur L. Merrill and Thomas W. Overholt (eds.), Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam (Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 17; Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977) 205-23. 2

91

EXILE IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

EXILE IN THE EARLY JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE 3

The early Jewish apocalypses, using J. Collins' definition of the term, employ the concept of exile in several of the biblical senses sketched above. It is possible to divide them into three categories: 1) apoca­ lypses that mention the exile much as it is presented in the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, that is, as a specific limited, historical pe­ riod, one with a beginning and an end separated only by a few decades; 2) apocalypses that present exile is an ongoing condition that extends to the present time of the authors and beyond to the final judgment; and 3) apocalypses that are extended meditations on the fact of exile, its causes, its place in the divine economy, and the divine justice (or lack of it) expressed through it. Exile as a Historical Event of Limited Duration Sibylline Oracles 3 The Sibyl, in something of a historical survey (it is interrupted by other kinds of passages) that begins with the story of the tower of Babel, reaches the exile in line 265. The text mentions that the temple will be abandoned and that the people will be brought to the Assyrians (who seem to be equivalent to the Babylonians here ), innocent women and children will be enslaved, and wealth and work will van­ ish. "The whole earth will be filled with you and every sea" (271). The writer goes on to say that all will be offended at their customs, the altar and temple will lie desolate; the reason is that the people did not obey God's law but worshiped idols (269-79). "Therefore for seven decades of times all your fruitful earth and the wonders of the Temple will be desolate" (280-81). But better times will follow: a new king will come, the temple will be built, and the Persian kings will adorn it (282-94). "... and then indeed the temple will again be as it was be­ fore" (294). The details of the poetic text show that the exile was not conceived as extending to the end; rather, the Jeremianic picture of 4

3

J. J. Collins, "Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre," in J. J. Collins (ed.), Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1979) 1-20 (9). He has supplemented the definition given in Semeia 14 with a statement about function in his "Genre, Ideology and Social Movements," in J. J. Collins and J. H. Charlesworth (eds.), Mysteries and Revelations: Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium (JSPSup 9; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 11-32 (19). J. J. Collins, "Sibylline Oracles" in OTP 1.368 n. e2. Translations of the text are from this work. 4

92

VANDERKAM

exile as a punishment for sin, of land and temple lying desolate, and of restoration in Persian times after seventy years is reflected. In fact the destruction of Babylon is treated in the following section (lines 30013). 5

The Testament of Moses 3-4 The Testament (or Assumption) of Moses pictures the great lawgiver predicting to Joshua what is going to happen during the nation's his­ torical existence. In the forecast, Moses reaches the time of the exile in chap. 3, where he predicts that a king from the East will destroy the city and temple and take the vessels from the temple along with the two tribes who lived around it (3:1-3). The Testament, with other works that will be treated below (e.g., 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra), considers not only the exiles from Judah but also the other ten tribes which were already in the dispersion. The two tribes will call to the other ten, and ironically all Israel will be unified in exile as they lament and recog­ nize the divine justice that has brought them to this condition. They summon God to remember the covenant made with the ancestors which included the oath that their offspring would never fail to be on the land he would give them. The exiles themselves are said to recall the pentateuchal passage which applied to them: 6

Then, in that day, they will remember me, saying from tribe to tribe, even each man to his neighbor, "Is this not that which was made known to us in prophecies by Moses, who suffered many things in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years, (when) he solemnly called heaven and earth as witnesses against us that we should not transgress God's command­ ments of which he had become the mediator for us? These things which have come upon us since that time are according to his admonition declared to us at that time. And (those words) have been confirmed even to our being led as

5

For the entire passage, see Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBLDS 13; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972) 35-9. Collins dates most of the third Sibyl, including the passages under consideration here, to the mid-second century BCE (pp. 21-33). For the form of 3:4-4:4 as a confessional prayer, see J. Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP 10; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 164-6. 6

93

EXILE IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE 7

captives in the land of the East." And they will be as slaves for about sev­ enty-seven years. (3:10-14) 8

Thus the exiles themselves recognize the fulfillment of Deut 4:26-27 in their time. The approximate number of years that the exile would last—sev­ enty-seven—is highly unusual in statements about the length of the captivity from the land. The meaning of the number is not clear, al­ though it is a multiple of seven, but it may involve a calculation that reflects a different starting or ending point for the exile, if the number is meant to be precise. What is unmistakable, however, is that the ex­ ile lasts for a limited period, just as it does in the various scriptural works that have a historical character. Someone, perhaps Daniel, prays for the exiles and reminds God of the covenant (4:1-4); after this a return will occur (4:5-9) because God will remember the covenant with the ancestors. There are some textual problems, especially towards the end of the section, but the prediction reads: 9

10

And in those times he will inspire a king to have pity on them and send them home to their own land. Then some parts of the tribes will arise and come to their appointed place, and they will strongly build its walls. Now the two tribes will remain steadfast in their former faith, sorrowful and sighing be­ cause they will not be able to offer sacrifices to the Lord of their fathers. But the ten tribes will grow and spread out among the nations during the time of their captivity." (4:6-9)

The words "some parts of the tribes" are interesting; they are appar­ ently distinguished from the two tribes who are mentioned in the next sentence. Moreover, when the two tribes are under consideration, it is their steadfast faith that is noted. Consequently, Tromp has concluded 7

Tromp (The Assumption of Moses, 173) lists other passages in which Israel's condition in exile is that of slaves: Ezra 9:9; Neh 9:36; and he compares Jer 25:11; 2 Mace 1:27; T Judah 23:5; T. Iss. 6:2; and T Naph. 4:2. The translation is that of J. Priest in OTP 1. Priest (ibid., 929, n. g) writes: "The background of the number here is unknown, but apocalyptic numerology often defies precise interpretation." Tromp (The Assumption of Moses, 173-4) notes some older interpretations and concludes: "The simplest explanation is probably that 77 is an approximation of 70 and suggests a higher degree of completeness. In the context, the factor of completeness makes sense: it reinforces the idea that the appeal to God's mercy can be supposed to lead to a favourable result: the more complete Israel's suffering, the more justified its expectation of rescue." This seems unconvincing. Tromp (ibid., 175-6) argues that the figure is Ezra. 8

9

1 0

94

VANDERKAM 11

that "some parts of the tribes" is "a derogatory designation". If this is the correct interpretation, then the sorrow of the two positively as­ sessed tribes at their inability to sacrifice to God expresses not only their lack of participation in the cult of the second temple but also a negative verdict on it. The fact that "some parts of the tribes" are as­ sociated with that sanctuary could be meant as a criticism of the sec­ ond temple (as in the Enochic Animal Apocalypse; see below), but the wording is not clear, and those scholars who hold that the text says no more than that distance prevented the two tribes from participating in the sacrificial cult may be correct. These two texts (Sibylline Oracles 3 and Testament of Moses 3-4), then, explain the exile as punishment for sin. They also state the num­ ber of years that it will last (seven decades or seventy-seven years), and they know about a return from exile. While Sibylline Oracles 3 says that the second temple would be like the first, it is not clear whether the Testament (or Assumption) of Moses denigrates it in com­ parison with the first temple. 12

13

Exile as a Continuing State A common portrait of exile in the apocalyptic literature envisages it as a state of affairs that began at some point near the end of the kingdom of Judah and continued to the author's day and even beyond. As was noted above, there is a biblical basis for this understanding of the con­ cept, though it is more fully developed in the apocalypses that will be treated below.

1 1

Ibid., 180. He suggests that their building walls is considered the beginning of apostasy (cf. 2:7 [pp. 180-81]) and that the punishment from 5:1 on is to be explained as a reaction to what "some parts of the tribes" did. So Priest, "Testament of Moses" 929 n. e. E.g., D. R. Schwartz, 'The Tribes of As. Mos. 4:7-9," JBL 99 (1980) 21723; R. Doran, 'T. Mos. 4:8 and the Second Temple," JBL 106 (1987) 491-92. Knibb ("The Exile," 261), consequently, overstates the clarity of the text when he says "it is no doubt to be seen only as a more extreme form of the condemnation of the post-exilic cultus that we have found to occur not infrequently in the writings of this period." 1 2

1 3

EXILE IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

95

The Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1-10; 91:11-17) The Apocalypse of Weeks is part of the Epistle of Enoch which may date to immediately pre-Maccabean times. If so, the apocalypse is probably the earliest Jewish apocalypse and, naturally, the oldest sec­ tion of this kind in Enochic literature. The brief, schematic text divides biblical history into units of time called weeks; biblical history and the different stages of the judgment occupy ten of these weeks. They are to be followed by many more without number. The week that includes the exile (in the historical sense of the term) is the sixth. The terse character of the apocalypse entails that few events are mentioned in the lines that it devotes to each week. The one sentence for the fifth week specifies only the building of a house of glory and sovereignty forever, an event that is said to have occurred at the end of the week. This refers to the eternal house of David ruling over Judah. "And after this in the sixth week all those who live in it (will be) blinded, and the hearts of all, lacking wisdom, will sink into impiety. And in it a man will ascend; and at its end the house of sovereignty will be burnt with fire, and in it the whole race of the cho­ sen root will be scattered" (93:8). It is not difficult to decode most of the allusions in the text. The blindness of those who reside in the house signals the foolish apostasy of Judeans from the true religion, and the ascension is that of Elijah. The last clauses describe the de­ struction of the Davidic kingdom and the exile of Judeans from their land. Note that the entire chosen race is scattered, not just a part of it. No details about the precise reason(s) for the dispersion are given, apart perhaps from blindness and lack of wisdom. Also, nothing is said about the place(s) to which the exiles were driven. Following these sentences the biblically literate reader would expect at least a brief notice about some return from exile, whether the one related in Ezra 1 or others such as the one associated with Ezra himself. Instead, the description of the pivotal seventh week—the one during which the author lives —is couched in exceptionally vague terms (93:9-10). The writer predicts the rise of an apostate generation, and, at the 14

15

16

1 4

For the evidence regarding the date of the apocalypse, see VanderKam, "Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1-10; 91:11-17)," CBQ 46 (1984)511-23. Translations of 1 Enoch come from M. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, Vol 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). For a defense of this position, see VanderKam, "Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks," 511-23. 1 5

1 6

96

VANDERKAM

week's end, the election of the righteous ones who will receive seven­ fold teaching about all God's creation. The eighth week (91:12-13) presents the beginning of a series of final judgments. Thus, in no place in the Apocalypse of Weeks does a return from exile receive mention. The clear implication is that for the author the situation of exile never ended from the fall of Jerusalem until his time in the early to mid-sec­ ond century BCE. Moreover, that condition is not destined to end, it seems, until the last judgment. Here exile is more like the condition depicted in Ezra's prayers and in Daniel 9 than a catastrophe that was terminated long ago. 17

The Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85-90) It is likely that the Animal Apocalypse is, after the Apocalypse of Weeks, the second oldest apocalypse in the Enochic tradition. It prob­ ably reflects some events during the early Maccabean wars but fails to symbolize the outcome of the revolt. Consequently it may be dated to ca. 164 BCE. The dream vision imparted to Enoch (85:1) rehearses the biblical story from Adam and Eve until the Maccabean revolt in the 160's BCE; it then continues the account beyond the author's time in history to the great judgment and redemption that lay in the future. The apocalypse is no simple retelling of the scriptural story line but is a carefully crafted and schematically arranged literary work that recre­ ates Jewish history through symbols (mostly from the animal world) and patterns chosen by the author, the better to communicate his mes­ sage. The image for Israel selected by the writer is that of a flock of sheep, a symbol chosen on the basis of familiar scriptural models (such as Ps 100:3). The period of Israel's history as a people is set off from the beginning and end of the apocalypse by means of a different 18

19

1 7

See Knibb, "The Exile," 259. So J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) 44; see VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS 16; Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984) 161-3. P. Tiller (A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of I Enoch [SBLEJL 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993] 61-82) furnishes a more extensive discussion of the date for the apocalypse, with a case for a later redaction. All agree, however, on a date near 164 BCE. A very helpful analysis of the structure and patterns in the apocalypse is offer by D. Dimant, "History According to the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 8590)," Jerusalem Studies in Israelite Thought (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982) 18-37 (Hebrew). 1 8

1 9

EXILE IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

97

set of symbols: not only is Israel a flock of sheep but it is owned by the lord of the sheep (God) and, late in the period, is misruled by sev­ enty shepherds. Israel's enemies are represented as a variety of preda­ tory animals and birds. There are alternating periods of harmonious relations between the owner of the sheep and the flock and disharmo­ nious ones when they stray and are punished for their sins (disobedience is said to be blindness). The period after the founding of the Davidic dynasty and the building of the temple is characterized as a time of apostasy (see 89:54). Through various ciphers the author conveys the idea that the nation was not swayed by the repeated ap­ peals of the prophets, including Elijah who was brought up to be with Enoch as he witnessed the historical panorama from above (89:52-53). After describing early punishments, the narrative reaches a decisive point at 89:56 where the visionary reports that the Lord of the sheep abandoned their house (the state) and tower (the temple) and left them to the lions and other ravenous creatures. The lions are the Babylonians, as the sequel demonstrates. At this point Enoch him­ self attempts to intervene with the Lord on behalf of the endangered sheep, but his entreaties fall on deaf ears; in fact the owner was happy with the carnage inflicted on his flock (89:57-58). Once the kingdom and temple no longer enjoy the presence of God, a new cast of characters enters the scene. The Lord himself, the text says, summoned seventy shepherds and transferred the flock to them (89:59). The period of the shepherds extends from this point in Judah's history until the end of time (their judgment arrives in 90:2223, 25). The deity commissions the shepherds to destroy a fixed num­ ber of sheep but knows in advance that they will exceed their quota. All their actions are to be recorded for future reference. According to the imagery of the vision, these shepherds, since they are depicted as humans, should be supernatural beings, i.e., angels. There is some dis­ agreement about who exactly they are thought to be. A commonly ac­ cepted notion is that they are the patron angels of the seventy gentile nations and thus symbolize the dominance of the gentiles over the Judeans. Dimant has objected that, according to the information in the Animal Apocalypse itself, the shepherds are not these angelic pa­ trons, since the passage that echoes the table of the seventy nations in Genesis 10—1 Enoch 89:10—records only fourteen types of ani20

21

2 0

2 1

6.

See Tiller, A Commentary, 34. Cf. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, 165-

98

VANDERKAM 22

mals. More recently Tiller has maintained that "the shepherds of the An. Apoc. are not the seventy patrons of the seventy nations, but sev­ enty patrons of Israel, each appointed for a particular period of time, both to care for and to punish Israel." Whatever their real identity may be, it is clear that they rule Israel successively and not all at one time. The text of the apocalypse provides the statistics for their peri­ ods of dominion: 89:72 (the shepherds pastured for twelve hours); 90:1 ("thirty-seven shepherds had pastured [the sheep] in the same way"); 90:5 (another twenty-three shepherds pasture the sheep); and 90:17 (the destruction carried out by the final twelve shepherds). Knibb and Tiller suggest that they should be divided such that the first twelve cover the Babylonian period of Judean history, the next twenty-three the Persian, twenty-three more the Ptolemaic, and the fi­ nal twelve the Seleucid period. The destruction of the nation and the temple occupy 89:68, but what follows is not very easy to understand. The reader learns that Enoch himself is grieved by the devastating events and that he was no longer able to see whether the sheep continued to go into the house. The Animal Apocalypse's specific understanding of the historical disper­ sion is expressed in v. 68: "And the shepherds and their companions handed those sheep over to all the animals that they might devour them; each one of them at his time received an exact number, and (of) each one of them after the other there was written in a book how many of them he destroyed...." The exile of the Judeans was not, therefore, regarded as a dispersion to one or two places but to the areas of the nations in general. The section regarding what in 2 Kings and Ezra is the historical exile continues with an account of the book in which the shepherds' excesses are recorded and which is read and sealed by God. He then puts down the sealed volume, presumably for future reference. 23

24

25

2 2

Dimant, "History According to the Animal Apocalypse,'' 26 n. 33, 29 n.

41. 2 3

Tiller, A Commentary, 54. As has long been recognized, "thirty-seven" must be a mistake for "thirtyfive" which alone allows one to arrive at the total of fifty-eight (mentioned 90:5) when combined with the preceding and following number and at seventy (mentioned in 89:59; 90:22) for the sum of all four numbers (see, e.g., Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 212 n.). Knibb, "The Exile," 256-7; Tiller, A Commentary, 55. 2 4

2 5

EXILE IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

99

Although it presents an enduring view of the exile, the Animal Apocalypse does relate the historical return of the exiles and the building of the second temple. The relevant passage has captured much scholarly attention because of the negative evaluation made of the sacrifices offered on the altar of the second temple. 1 Enoch 89:72 includes one of the numbers that appear in the shepherd section. Enoch saw, after the exile began, "how the shepherds pastured for twelve hours". These twelve hours apparently precede the return from exile that is the subject of the remainder of v. 72 and v. 73: 26

and behold, three of those sheep returned and arrived and came and began to build up all that had fallen down from that house; but the wild-boars hindered them so that they could not. And they began again to build, as before, and they raised up that tower, and it was called the high tower; and they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it (was) unclean and was not pure.

These significant words contain a number of exegetical problems, but the most telling point about the passage is that it occurs within a larger section and hardly seems a turning point, much less an end to the situ­ ation of exile. The immediate sequel shows that the violent rule of the shepherds and their slaughter of excessive numbers of sheep continue unabated after the historical return to Jerusalem. All the themes of the section that preceded the words about the return recur in vv. 74-77: slaughter of the sheep, recording the details of the slaughter, divine indifference, scattering of the surviving sheep, and showing the record book to the Lord who seems to do nothing with it for a time. The only indication of an end or turning point comes with the conclusion of the twelve hours, yet even this pales somewhat when one notices that the same conditions prevail for many more periods of pasturing (90:1). If anything, in the period that follows the return conditions worsen with the arrival of predatory birds (the Greeks ) during the rule of a particular shepherd. With the assistance of dogs, the birds left only bare bones and a few survivors (90:2-4). Such horrible conditions characterize the times of an additional twenty-three shepherds (90:5), thus bringing the total to fifty-eight. At this juncture one reaches what actually seems to be a turning point in the drama: "And small lambs were born from those white sheep, and they began to open their eyes, and to see, and to cry to the 27

2 6

Tiller (ibid., 38) thinks that two is the original reading. Tiller (A Commentary, 352) understands the ravens as the ones associated with persecutions at the time of the Hellenization of Judea. 2 7

100

VANDERKAM 28

sheep" (90:6). This reforming group appears to be unsuccessful in attracting the support of other sheep whose eyes remain "extremely and excessively blinded" (90:8); in fact their activity unleashed an at­ tack from ravens who wreaked havoc among both lambs and sheep and took one of the lambs. After this a number of events are described (some of which reflect events from the Maccabean revolt), but the end of the shepherds' misrule after the last twelve units of time (hence the total of seventy) does not arrive until 90:18. The events of their judg­ ment by God is played out in 90:22-23, 25. A glorious new age then begins. The fact that the period of the shepherds' dominion is divided into seventy parts reminds one of Daniel 9, which was written only a short time before the Animal Apocalypse, and its understanding of the pe­ riod of desolation as consisting of seventy extended units (weeks of years). Both writers were aware that the historical movement in 538, however momentous to some, did not mark an ultimately significant or meaningful point in the history of God's dealings with his people. The time of Babylonian exile was merely the first part (the first 12 times) of a larger and longer-lasting phenomenon—the cruel reign of the seventy shepherds which would continue to the imminent end. The word exile never surfaces in the symbolic narrative of the Animal Apocalypse, but the language of dispersion is used and continues to be employed even after the end of the historical exile (see, e.g., 89:75). For the author, exile was an ongoing condition that would soon end with the final judgment. 29

30

The Testament of Levi 16-17 These two chapters mention the topic of exile in the context of Levi's predictions to his children about the history of the priesthood. In 16:1 Levi is quoted as saying that he had learned "in the book of Enoch 2 8

Mention of the whiteness of the sheep from which the lambs were born could already indicate a favorable assessment (part of the chosen line) in the author's color scheme and a return to the conditions of the ancestral period (Dimant, "History According to the Animal Apocalypse," 35). As Dimant points out, this is also the first clue about the proximity of the days of the messiah, days which are a return to the circumstances of the first period in the historical sketch. See also Tiller, A Commentary, 351. It seems likely that both reflect the influence of Jeremiah's prophecy about a seventy-year exile. For other works that deal with seventy periods, see Tiller, A Commentary, 55-7. On this point, see Knibb, "The Exile," 257-8. 2 9

3 0

101

EXILE IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

that for seventy weeks you will go astray and profane the priest­ hood...." The remainder of v. 1 and all of vv. 2-3 specify more crimes that the priests will commit: polluting sacrifices, rejecting law and prophets, hating the righteous and their words, and finally killing Jesus Christ. If one bypasses the Christian addition in v. 3, the text could be read as moving from the end of v. 2 to the punishment in vv. 4-5: "Because of him your holy place will be desolate, polluted to the ground; and your place will not be clean; but among the Gentiles you will be for a curse and for dispersion, until he will again visit (you) and in pity receive you through faith and water." It is difficult to miss the heavy Christian redaction here, but at least dispersion is the pun­ ishment for the priestly violations that preceded it. But what should also be evident is that the seventy-week period of 16:1 is not the sev­ enty-unit age that we have met in other texts; rather, it refers to a pe­ riod of evil that leads to exile. Nothing is said in the chapter about when the exile is to take place, nor is the restoration ("he will again visit [them]") dated to a particular time. T. Levi 17:1 ties in directly with the contents of chap. 16: "And be­ cause you have heard concerning the seventy weeks, hear also con­ cerning the priesthood; for in each jubilee there will be a priesthood." The chapter states something about each of jubilees one through seven, and 18:1 ends the section by mentioning the failure of the priesthood. In 18:2 the Lord raises up a new priest who is Jesus Christ. The priest or priesthood in the first two jubilees of chap. 17 is pre­ sented positively, while for jubilees three through seven the picture is negative. "It seems that the author of the Testaments used the material known to him to illustrate once again the good beginning and, espe­ cially, the gradual decline of the levitical priesthood." The seventh and climactic jubilee is the most interesting one in the present context: 31

32

33

And in the seventh (jubilee) there will be pollution, about which I cannot speak before the Lord and men; for they who do these things will know. Therefore they will be taken captive and become a prey, and the land and their property will be destroyed. And in the fifth week they will return to their deso­ late country and they will renew the house of the Lord. And in the seventh

3 1

The translation is from W. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1982). See ibid., 174-5 for parallels to periods of seven jubilees at Qumran and in Jubilees. Ibid., 175. 3 2

3 3

102

VANDERKAM

week the priests will come, (who are) idolators, contentious, lovers of money, arrogant, lawless, lascivious, abusers of children and beasts. (17:8-11)

The seventh jubilee is the last one mentioned, and it is a time of dark­ ness (see v. 6) and pollution. Most of the description deals with the punishment that will be meted out to the defiling priests. They will go into captivity, and their land will be destroyed. A return is envisioned for the fifth week in the seventh jubilee; during it the Lord's temple will be renewed or dedicated. While the events of the historical exile (when priests were certainly prominent among those deported) and return are recognizable, the prediction continues with a renewed time of priestly evil. The new, eschatological priesthood of chap. 18 is the next event. The seven jubilees do not cover just the period from the exile to the end but appear to extend from perhaps Levi's or Aaron's time to the eschaton. The exile is a punishment for priestly malfeasance, yet it is followed by a return. The return itself is not judged negatively, but it is obvious that it did not transform the priesthood because even more evil priests arose after this (for the same pattern, see Testament of Naphtali 4; cf. T Zeb. 9:5-9). Knibb (in relation to chap. 16 and its seventy weeks) explains the situation by claiming that the author blurs the distinction between the pre-exilic and his own age: "The pre-exilic generations who originally were the cause of the exile belong in that 70-week period just as much as does his own generation which is still in a state of exile." The point seems somewhat clearer for chap. 16 than for 17 where the captivity is not extended past the return, only the evil of the priesthood is. Chap. 17 appears to take more the histori­ cal approach to exile and return, while chap. 16 belongs with those texts that see the exile as a perduring situation. These chapters in the Testament of Levi belong to the set of what are called the sin-exile-return (SER) passages in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. These contain a number of references to exile and destruction, and not all of them offer accounts of a return from disper­ sion (e.g., Testament of Levi 10 and 14-15; T Gad 8:2). The fact that Christian elements are frequent in these passages makes it difficult to discern what may have been original to the Jewish layer. Some of them do, however, take note of what looks to be the historical return 34

3 4

Knibb, "The Exile," 265 n. 52.

103

EXILE IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

(T. Jud. 24:5; T. Dan 9:9) while others speak only of the glorious eschatological gathering of the full people (e.g., T. Benj. 9:2). 35

Jubilees 1:7-18 The Book of Jubilees was written perhaps a decade after the Animal Apocalypse. Like the apocalypse, it too offers its message by re-pre­ senting biblical history, but for Jubilees that history extends only from creation to the episode on Mt. Sinai, not over all of history. The writer took the important step of prefacing a chapter to the biblical history so that it could be placed in a context different from the one it enjoys in Genesis-Exodus. That context should say something telling about the purpose that the author had in mind in re-writing the biblical text. Jubilees sets its narrative during the wilderness period with Moses on Mt. Sinai receiving the covenantal law. The book opens with Moses in direct conversation with the deity; the first chapter is the only place in the book where this occurs. We learn that "Moses re­ mained on the mountain for 40 days and 40 nights while the Lord showed him what (had happened) beforehand as well as what was to come." (1:4) The revelation would show the Israelites' offspring that the Lord had been more righteous than Israel which strayed from the covenant that bound the two together; moreover he did not abandon them because of their evil ways (1:5-6). The Lord predicts to Moses that once the people enter the promised land they will turn to other gods and then follow the impure ways of the nations and also abandon the ways of the covenant (1:7-11). The Lord will send prophets to warn them, but they will ignore their message and kill them (v. 12). 36

37

Then I will hide my face from them. I will deliver them into the control of the nations for captivity, for booty, and for being devoured. I will remove them from the land and disperse them among the nations. They will forget all my 3 5

For the SER passages and a discussion of their contents, see Hollander-de Jonge, The Testaments, 53-6. For a brief defense of a mid-second century date and discussion of the preMaccabean date suggested by some scholars, see VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (2 vols.; CSCO 510-11, Scriptores Aethiopici 87-88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989) 2.v-vi. The prologue to the book does say that it deals "with the events of the years, of the weeks of their jubilees throughout all the years of eternity as he related (them) to Moses on Mt. Sinai"; but these words may refer only to the eschatological predictions in chaps. 1 and 23. Translations from Jubilees are from VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, vol. 2. 3 6

3 7

104

VANDERKAM

law, all my commandments, and all my verdicts. They will err regarding the beginning of the month, the sabbath, the festival, the jubilee, and the decree. (1:13-14)

So exile results from disobeying the covenant, and the sin of idolatry is highlighted. The book says nothing about whether this is the cap­ tivity of Israel or Judah and neglects to indicate when it will occur. Banishment from the land is not, however, the end of the story. The Lord also predicts to Moses that the people will repent sincerely while living among the nations. Then I will gather them from among all the nations, and they will search for me so that I may be found by them when they have searched for me with all their minds and with all their souls. I will rightly disclose to them abundant peace. I will transform them into a righteous plant with all my mind and with all my soul. They will become a blessing, not a curse; they will become the head, not the tail. I will build my temple among them and will live with them; I will become their God and they will become my true and righteous people. I will neither abandon them nor become alienated from them, for I am the Lord their God. (l:15b-18)

The return, the sanctuary, and the new conditions of perfect covenan­ tal relations hardly appear to be a description of any known return from exile in the historical books. Rather, the ideal portrait of a future time looks much more like the new age that will arise at the end. If so, then Jubilees too is a witness to the idea that exile ends only at the eschaton (see, e.g., v. 23). Extended Meditations on the Exile (with Historical Surveys) 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra are two books that are dated to the decades af­ ter the fall of Jerusalem and burning of the temple in 70 CE—usually near 100 C E . While they were written at that time, their authors chose to package them in such a way that they appear to be reflections on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians in 587/86 BCE. The names of the protagonists in the two books articulate succinctly the perspective that their authors chose to adopt. 38

3 8

For the date of 2 Baruch, see P. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch (2 vols.; SC 144; Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1969) 1.270-95 (96 CE); and for 4 Ezra, cf. M. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 9-10 (latter part of Domitian's reign [81-96]).

EXILE IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

105

2 Baruch Jeremiah's scribe Baruch is the recipient of the revelations contained in this lengthy work and the one who engages in enthusiastic debate with the angel who communicates with him. There is little in the chap­ ters of the book that actually describes the exile, but the work serves to provide a context for the event and a theology for understanding it as part of the divine plan for the world and its history. Bogaert calls it "un cri d'esperance" and describes its goal as "de reveler les sens des evenements catastrophiques qui viennent de se derouler et de redonner confiance dans l'observance de la Loi au moment ou les sacrifices sont devenues ou impossibles ou tres difficiles." After he describes how the two remaining tribes have produced more evil than the ten that the Assyrians had deported, the Lord says to Baruch: 39

Behold, therefore, I shall bring evil upon this city and its inhabitants. And it will be taken away from before my presence for a time. And I shall scatter this people among the nations that they may do good to the nations. And my peo­ ple will be chastened, and the time will come that they will look for that which can make them prosperous." (l:4-5) 40

The Judean assignment of doing good among the nations is notewor­ thy; the exilic experience will be chastening, but the scattered people have a mission to perform. In the book the subject of exile recurs frequently. It is said that the nations who dispersed the Judeans serve the divine judge (5:3). At an­ other point Baruch tells the people that Zion will be rebuilt; yet the re­ built Zion, too, will be destroyed and remain desolate until it is re­ newed in glory to eternity (32:2-4). He urges the people not to be so sad about the present distress because worse is coming (32:5-6). In chap. 44 Baruch exhorts the people to be faithful to the Torah; then the just God will arrange matters in their favor (vv. 2-7; cf. 46:4-6). In the Apocalypse of the Clouds (53:1-74:4) the reader encounters a historical survey which speaks of twelve cycles of alternating dark and bright waters. The exile of the northern kingdom, a topic of consider­ able interest in the book, is found in the seventh cycle (chap. 62). The ninth cycle (chap. 64) symbolically represents the sin of King Manasseh's time as the black waters. God angrily determines that

3 9

Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 1.386. Here he contrasts its outlook with the more pessimistic stance of 4 Ezra. The translations of 2 Baruch are from A. F. J. Klijn in OTP 1. 4 0

106

VANDERKAM

Zion should be uprooted and that the two and one-half tribes should be taken into captivity (vv. 4-5). At this time the glory of the Most High removed itself from the sanctuary. It turns out that the black wa­ ters during the eleventh cycle represent "the disaster which has be­ fallen Zion now" (67:1). The angels mourn about this and the Most High does not rejoice, but the nations and their idols are happy and the exiles suffer tribulations. Indeed, "the flavor of the smoke of incense of the righteousness of the Law has been extinguished everywhere in the region of Zion; behold, the smoke of impiety is there" (67:6). Chapter 68 details the twelfth and last bright waters, the ones that follow the disaster of the eleventh black waters. These times seem to begin during the exile and continue until the return: 41

For there will come a time after these things, and your people will fall into such a distress so that they are all together in danger of perishing. They, how­ ever, will be saved, and their enemies will fall before them. And to them will fall much joy one day. And at that time, after a short time, Zion will be rebuilt again, and the offerings will be restored, and the priests will again return to their ministry. And the nations will again come to honor it. But not as fully as before. But it will happen after these things that there will be a fall of many nations. (68:2-7)

The final woes seem to be the next item in the vision; then comes the time of the messiah. Another major section about exile occurs in Baruch's letter to the nine and one-half tribes (78:1-87:1). In chap. 79 Baruch begins to de­ scribe the destruction of Zion at the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The destruction, which was caused by disobedience to the commandments, was abetted by angels sent from God himself (80:1). They destroyed the wall but also hid the temple vessels so that their enemies would not pollute them. Angelic aid serves to rob the attacking nation of any right to boast about their accomplishment (80:3). Even handing over the Judeans to the enemy must be viewed in this light: And they have also bound your brothers and carried them away to Babylon and have caused them to live there. And we have been left here with very few. That is the affliction about which I write to you. For truly I know that the in­ habitants of Zion were a comfort to you. As long as you knew they were happy, this was more important than the affliction you endured being sepa­ rated from them. (80:4-7)

To Baruch's question whether the current state of affairs would last until the end God responded with consoling words about "the myster4 1

See Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 2All.

EXILE IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

107

ies of the times, and ... the coming of the periods" (81:4; cf. 83:1). He says that "the end which the Most High prepared is near, and that his grace is coming" (82:2). The ascendancy of the nations will be mo­ mentary, like a vapor or passing cloud (82:3-9). It is clear from chap. 83 that the end of which Baruch writes is the end of the world (83:7). He reminds the addressees of Moses' calling heaven and earth as wit­ nesses and his threat of dispersion for the disobedient (84:2; see Deut 4:26-28). Therefore, now that the threat has materialized, Baruch urges obedience so that grace may again come to them (84:1-7). Baruch also advises them to remember Zion, the law, the festivals, the covenant, etc., but in chap. 85 he offers a theology for exile in which the essentials of the current situation are set forth: 42

But now, the righteous have been assembled, and the prophets are sleeping. Also we have left our land, and Zion has been taken away from us, and we have nothing now apart from the Mighty One and his Law. Therefore, if we direct and dispose our hearts, we shall receive everything which we lost again by many times. For that which we lost was subjected to corruption, and that which we receive will not be corruptible. (85:3-5)

The fact that the same message is sent to the exiles in Babylon indi­ cates that it is generally applicable to the situation of dispersion (v. 6). This is the way of hope (vv. 7-9). 4 Ezra 4 Ezra also adopts the exile as its setting, although it, like 2 Baruch, was most likely written to address the situation after 70 CE. One learns that Ezra is living through the thirtieth year after the destruction of Jerusalem—a date far off the mark for the historical Ezra—and is in Babylon lamenting the desolate condition of Zion and the opulence of the conquering city (3:1-2). As he prays, he surveys biblical history, arriving in 3:27 at the thought that because of transgressions by those who had both the law and evil hearts "you [God] delivered the city into the hands of your enemies" (3:27). He wonders whether the deeds of the Babylonians are better than those of the expelled resi­ dents of Zion (3:31) and asks "why Israel has been given over to the gentiles as a reproach; why the people whom you loved has been given to godless tribes, and the Law of our fathers has been made of no effect and the written covenants no longer exist..." (4:23-24). The 43

4 2

4 3

Ibid., 157-8. Translations of 4 Ezra are from B. M. Metzger in OTP 1.

108

VANDERKAM

angel with whom he is conversing assures Ezra that "the age is hasten­ ing swiftly to its end" (v. 26). In the second vision presented in the book Ezra asks in frank words why God has decided to punish his only people through others: why have you given over the one to the many, and dishonored the one root be­ yond the others, and scattered your only one among the many? And those who opposed your promises have trodden down on those who believed your covenants. If you really hate your people, they should be punished at your own hands. (5:28-30)

He does receive a divine answer that a time is coming when the wicked will receive their penalty and "the humiliation of Zion is complete" (6:19). The woes associated with the end are coming (vv. 20-24). In the third vision Ezra again asks why supposedly worthless na­ tions now rule over God's people for whom creation was made (6:5559). He learns that "unless the living pass through the difficult and vain experiences, they can never receive those things that have been reserved for them" (7:14). The fourth vision concerns the woman who weeps for her deceased only child. After Ezra criticizes her for in­ dulging her own despair when Zion lies desolate, she is transformed into an "established city" (10:27). Ezra learns from Uriel that she rep­ resents Zion (10:44) and her son seems to be the temple (or the temple and city of Solomon, v. 46). The death of the son as he entered the wedding chamber and the misfortune suffered by his mother as a re­ sult of his death symbolize "the destruction which befell Jerusalem" (v. 48). The transformed woman is the new Jerusalem. It should be added that 4 Ezra, too, is among the books that show an interest in the ten tribes (13:39-47). The book also contains the state­ ment that this age has twelve parts of which nine and one-half are al­ ready past (14:10-12). It speaks of losing all because of disobedience and issues a call for discipline in the present (14:31-34). The overall impression that one receives from the book is that exile continues to the end and that one must cope with the present distress. 44

4 4

Stone (4 Ezra, 23-36) analyzes Ezra's movement through the seven visions from despair to consolation, noting that a change is evident already in the third vision and that the decisive moment of conversion for him comes in the fourth (the vision of the grieving woman who is transformed into the new Jerusalem). He writes about Ezra's "gradual acceptance of some of the angel's teachings during the course of the first three visions and then, in the fourth vision, a powerful religious experience during which these teachings are internalized"

EXILE IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

109

In conclusion, it may be said that the concept of exile in the Jewish apocalypses is treated in varied ways, just as it is in the Hebrew Bible. One general inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that the historical return, even if the apocalyptic authors mention it, is usually considered of little importance. Only Sibylline Oracles 3 and the Testament of Moses 3-4 seem to ascribe greater significance to it. Almost all of the apocalypses do refer to a return (the Apocalypse of Weeks does not), but Jub. 1:7-18 and 4 Ezra see a return as occurring only at the end. In those apocalypses in which the historical return is mentioned it or aspects of it may at times be presented in a negative light (the Apocalypse of Weeks, 2 Baruch; the Testament of Moses is not clear). Several of the texts, in speaking of the exile, specify its length (Sibylline Oracles 3 [seven decades]; Testament of Moses [about seventy-seven years]; Testament of Levi [in the fifth week of the seventh jubilee]; and 2 Baruch [after a short time]). The sins that led God to banish his people from the land are diverse and often de­ scribed in general terms, but idolatry is noted (Sibylline Oracles 3; Testament of Moses 3-4 [this is entailed by the reference to Deut 4:2628; 2 Baruch uses the same passage]; Jub. 1:7-18). But in most of the texts, while a return from exile is acknowledged, the teaching is that exile is an ongoing condition, one that may never end in historical time. The burden of the authors consequently is to provide the neces­ sary information and consolation so that the readers of their messages are enabled to cope with the discouraging course of history and to re­ new their confidence in the God who governs and directs all of his­ tory. The writers of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra make particularly notable and extended pastoral contributions for their intended audiences who were experiencing a profound sense of alienation from all that the an­ cient promises had offered.

(31-32). The profound questions raised in the book are not resolved in a theoretically but in a religiously satisfying way. As Stone comments, the questions raised in the book "are much more interesting than the answers given by the angel" (36).

EXILE AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS Martin G. Abegg, Jr. Trinity Western University

The Dead Sea Scrolls, characterized early on by W. F. Albright as "the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times," have fulfilled their commendation in two areas of study. The first concerns the tex­ tual history of the Hebrew Bible. The scrolls have allowed a wealth of manuscript evidence fully ten to twelve centuries earlier than anything available previously. The second, to which this present study will turn, is that of the development of Judaism in the second temple period. Three questions face the student of the Dead Sea Scrolls so as prop­ erly to place these texts within our currently evolving and hopefully clarifying understanding: what group collected the manuscripts, where did this group originate, and when did they come to establish them­ selves? As to the first question, although nearly every group known from the literature of the Second Temple period has at one time or another been proposed, the research community more or less affirmed the early conclusion of E. L Sukenik that the Essenes were responsible for the collection and to some degree the composition. With the recent acceleration of text publication, this conclusion has been properly questioned. L. H. Schiffman, for example, has noted that legal views espoused by 4QMMT are in agreement in some cases with the posi­ tions that rabbinic literature attributes to the Sadducees. As the ongo1

2

3

4

1

In a letter from W. A. Albright to John C. Trever as quoted by F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 9. E. L. Sukenik, I rrnrr nmon mrm nfrao (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1948) 16. Elisha Qimron and John Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, V: Miq?at Ma 'as'eh Ha-Torah. (DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). Lawrence H. Schiffman, "The Significance of the Scrolls," Bible Review 6/5 (October 1990) 18-27 (24); "The Sadducean Origins of the Dead Sea Scroll Sect," in Hershel Shanks (ed.), Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Random House, 1992) 35-49; and "Pharisaic and Sadducean Halakhah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls," DSD 1 (1994) 285-99. 2

3

4

112

ABEGG

ing debate is still far from determining an absolute solution, I prefer in the present study to withhold judgment and refer to the collectors and sometime authors of the scrolls as the Qumran Sectarians. For these facts we know: the texts were found in the vicinity of the Wadi Qumran and attention to their contents reveals—contra N. Golb —that they represent the labor of those who might truly be called sectarian; that is, they represent the philosophy of a dissenting and schismatic religious group. Our present task lies along a variant tack: determining the "theology of exile" espoused by the corpus. The second question is a bit more pertinent to our present undertak­ ing: where did this group originate. Once again we enter the arena of some controversy. Two main issues have captured the attention of Qumran researchers: (1) the interpretation of *?mBP nto (the re­ turnees/captivity/repentant of Israel), and (2) the identification of the place of exile, called "Damascus" in the review of the sect's history in the text known as the Damascus Document (CD). The interpretation of btinw *nto has long been discussed in the litera­ ture. The first element of the expression is most commonly under­ stood as a construct plural participle of the verb (to return, turn back), thus nra, "those who turn/return from ..." In addition to com­ pleting the expression with bincr (Israel), the wordtfras(sin, wrongdo­ ing) is frequently found. In regard to the latter there is little doubt that the resultant statement determines the "repentant," those who turn from sin. The following example will suffice: 5

6

7

4

5

H e is very patient and forgiving, covering the sin of those who repent of wrongdoing. (CD 2:4-5 and 4Q266 2 ii 4-5) 8

The completion of the expression with "Israel" has, however, been the issue of some debate. Does the resultant phrase refer to the "repentant from Israel," or the "returnees of Israel." Or perhaps we are 5

I am in total agreement with P. R. Davies, 'The Birthplace of the Essenes: Where is 'Damascus'?" RevQ 14 (1990) 503-519 (508), as he writes, "I am coming reluctantly to the view that although I still believe that both CD and 1QS describe a group which falls into Josephus' 'Essene' category, I must at least exercise care in speaking of 'the Essenes.'" Norman Golb, "The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Perspective," American Scholar 58 (1989) 177-207. Samuel Iwry, "Was There a Migration to Damascus? The Problem of •anar- nto," Eretz-Israel 9 (1969) 86-8. See also: 1QS 10:20; CD 20:17; 1QH 6:24; 10:9; 14:6; 4Q260 1 iv 10; 4Q299 67 1; 4Q400 1 i 16; 4Q512 70-71 2. 6

7

8

113

EXILE AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

to understand a different word a l t o g e t h e r — ( c a p t i v i t y , captives)— and the resultant "captivity of Israel." Note the following examples as translated by E. Cook. 9

10

19

S o He built for them a faithful house in Israel, like none that had ever ap­ peared before; and even a t this day, those who hold firm to it shall receive everlasting life, and all human honor is rightly theirs, as God promised them by Ezekiel the prophet, saying, 'The priests and the Levites and the sons of Zadok who have kept the courses of My sanctuary when the children of Israel strayed from Me, they shall bring Me fat and blood" (Ezek 44:15). "The priests": they are the repentant of Israel, who go out of the land of Judah and the Levites are those accompanying them. (CD 3:19-4:3) 20

21

1

2

3

2

But God remembered the covenant of the forefathers; and He raised up from Aaron insightful men and from Israel wise men and He taught them and they dug the well: the well the princes dug, the nobility of the people dug it with a rod (Num 21:18). The Well is the Law, and its "diggers" are the captives of Israel who went out of the land of Judah and dwelt in the land of Damascus; because God had called them all princes, for they sought him and their honor was not denied by a single mouth. (CD 6:2-7 and 4Q267 2 7-14) 3

4

5

6

7

11

12

Other recent translations by G. Vermes and F. Garcia-Martinez agree on "converts of Israel," a reading which represents a continua­ tion of the decision reflected in Schechter's editio princeps of 1910. J. M u r p h y - O ' C o n n o r follows Samuel I w r y in suggesting 13

14

9

15

I. Rabinowitz, "A Reconsideration of 'Damascus' and '390 Years' in the 'Damascus' (Zadokite) Fragments," JBL 73 (1954) 11-35 (16 n. 20). It is also possible, although unlikely, to understand the word as ^nfo, "the elders of..." Unless otherwise specified, all English translations are from Michael Wise, Martin G. Abegg, Jr., and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper, 1996), hereafter WAC. Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (4th ed.; London: Penguin Books, 1995) 101. Florentino Garcfa Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 36. Solomon Schechter, Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910). See Michael Knibb, "Exile in the Damascus Document," 750725 (1983) 105-7 who also follows Schechter. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "An Essene Missionary Document? CD 11,14VI,I," RB 11 (1970) 201-29 (211-12). Iwry, "Migration," 86, and again more recently in his essay, "The Exegetical Method of the Damascus Document Reconsidered," in Michael O. Wise et al. (eds.), Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (Annals of the New 1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

114

ABEGG

"returnees of Israel." Shemaryahu Talmon has cautioned, "The entire complex of exile and repatriation imagery in Qumran literature per­ tains to a religious 'turn of the mind' and should not be construed as evidence for a 'bodily return,' which the Covenanters presumably ex­ perienced in a sociopolitical reality." Although it is wise not to be too dogmatic in light of the ambiguous nature of the expression, I suggest that the translation "Israelite returnees" best satisfies the con­ texts of all of the passages in which it occurs and the emphasis on ex­ ile imagery in the Qumran corpus. The other issue concerns the place from which the exiles returned. In the context of the midrash on Num 21:18, the location is called by name: "[the] 'diggers' are the captives of Israel who went out of the land of Judah and dwelt in the land of Damascus" (CD 6:4-5). Three positions have developed: 1) Damascus is Babylon. MurphyO ' C o n n o r , followed by such notables as F. D. Weinert, J. A. Fitzmyer, and P. R. Davies, has argued that the historical summary of CD 2:18-3:12 culminates in exile to Babylon, thus providing the context for "the new covenant in the land of Damascus" (CD 6:19; 19:33-34). F. M. Cross, who originally suggested that Damascus was to be taken literally, has posited that Damascus "is 'the prophetic name' applied to the desert of Qumran." Likewise, M. Knibb cri­ tiques the study of Murphy-O'Connor and concludes that while Babylon is "possible," Qumran is more "plausible." S. Iwry, noting 16

17

18

20

19

21

22

23

York Academy of Sciences 722; New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1994) 329-38 (333). S. Talmon, "Between the Bible and the Mishna," in The World of Qumran from Within (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989) 43-4. See also: CD 8:16; 19:29; 4Q166 1 i 16 (?); 4Q171 1-10 iv 24; and 4Q266 6 i 13. See the similar expression -imnn (4Q171 1-10 iii 1), translated by Garcia Martinez, "those who have returned from the wilderness" (204). Although WAC agrees (222), Vermes remains consistent with, "to the penitents of the desert" (349). Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "The Essenes and Their History," RB 81 (1974)215-44 (221). F. D. Weinert, "A Note on 4Q159 and a New Theory of Essene Origins," RevQ 9 (1977-78) 229-30. J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament after Thirty Years," Theology Digest 29 (1981) 357-8. Davies, "Birthplace," 518. Cross, The Ancient Library, 81-2, n. 46. Knibb, "Exile," 114. 1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

115

EXILE AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

that the "Jewish settlement in Damascus was the oldest outside of Palestine," suggests that Damascus can be taken literally, a "fulfillment" of Amos 5:27 quoted at CD 7:14-15. Although it is no­ table that the same passage quoted in Acts 7:23 replaces Damascus with Babylon, the conclusion of Davies regarding this issue as it re­ lates to the text of CE is appropriate for our present study as well: "I have tried to show that perhaps the issue of Babylonian versus Palestinian origins is not so fundamental as is sometimes maintained .. . " In the discussions which follow, however, I will follow MurphyO'Connor's argument that Damascus is indeed Babylon. The third question, concerning the time of the Qumran sect's estab­ lishment in the land, has—not surprisingly—been a matter of some debate as well. After all, if there is somewhat less than total agreement as to who these sectarians are and where they came from, the lack clear dating references within the texts has determined that the tempo­ ral issue must be debated as well. Although a sort of consensus has arisen which places the time of foundation in the first half of the sec­ ond century BCE, a preponderance of historical names and events dating to the early first century—especially in the most recently avail­ able materials—suggests that an early first century date is also defen­ sible. It is not my purpose, however, to determine solutions to the various theories as to the origins of the Essene and Qumran communities, but rather to investigate the echoes of exile in the Dead Sea manuscripts and to posit—fragmentary as it may be—a Qumran theology of ex­ i l e . I am fully aware of the methodological criticisms that such a statement might bring, as we have no guarantee that all of the manuscripts found in the caves at Qumran reflect the same theological positions. 1 am convinced, however, that the documents that will be adduced as evidence for such a theology—both old (1QS, CD, 1QM, lQpHab, 4Q158, 4Q161, 4Q169, 4Q171, 4Q177) and new (4Q372, 4Q385, 4Q387, 4Q390, 4QMMT)—do appear to emanate from a consistent approach to the topic. Whether this picture is unique—and 24

25

26

27

28

2 4

Iwry, "Migration," 88. Davies, "Birthplace," 518. For a more detailed discussion of this issue see WAC, 26-34. J. G. Campbell has concisely reviewed these theories in "Essene-Qumran Origins in the Exile: A Scriptural Basis," JJS 46 (1995) 143-56 (144-7). A more recent position is detailed in the introduction to WAC, 26-34. Norman Golb, "Who Hid the Dead Sea Scrolls," BA 48 (1985) 68-82. 2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8

116

ABEGG

thus determinative of the Qumran Sect—or common to Second Temple Judaism, I will leave to the reader of the present volume to ascertain. The theme of exile, as evidenced in the scrolls, is reflective foundationally of three important events recorded in the Hebrew Bible: the sojourn in and exodus from Egypt, the exile of the northern tribes at the hands of Assyria, and the sixth-century exile to Babylon. EGYPTIAN "EXILE"

Israel's stay in Egypt is well remembered in the manuscripts from the Dead Sea. 4Q158 is a type of text known as rewritten Bible, as it re­ works passages of Genesis and Exodus with occasional pause for in­ terpretation. The following passage may be an expansion on Gen 15:13: 5

[I shall rescue them from] the yoke of Egypt's power, and redeem them from their control. I shall make them My people forever [and ever . . . I shall bring them forth] from Egypt. The seed of your children I [shall settle in the] land safely for[ever . . . but Egypt shall I hurl into] the heart of the sea, into the fasts of the deep [...] (4Q158 14 i 5-8) 6

7

8

It may be that 4Q385 gives evidence that exile to Egypt served as a symbol for future judgment: 1

[These are the wor]ds of Ezekiel. And the word of the Lord came to [me... ] [ . . . ] And you shall say, "Behold the day of the destruction of the Gentiles is coming[. . . ] (...) [ . . . ] a sword shall scatter them among the citie[s] of Egypt and [they] shall perish[... ] (4Q385 1 1-2, 5) 2

5

Likewise, the fragmentary 1Q22, "The Words of Moses," appears to have been a pointed warning concerning the dangers of apostasy and the expectations of sure judgment using the exodus from Egypt as a vehicle. The traditional text of Deuteronomy is occasionally inter­ rupted by matters of particular importance to the sect in order to "update" the message for current needs. The following "prediction" that the festival calendar would be violated—a theme of high impor­ tance among the scrolls—is introduced following the warning against idolatry from Deut 4:25-28. 29

2 9

For further references to the Egyptian "exile," see 4Q365 25 2; 4Q379 12 3-5; 4Q504 1-2 v 6-14; 11QT 54:16 (Deut 13:6); 61:14 (Deut 20:1)

EXILE AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

117

8

. . . and they will violate [every sacred assembly] and covenant Sabbath [and the festivals], the very ones I am commanding them today to observe. (1Q22 i 8b-9) 9

A S S Y R I A N EXILE

The Assyrian exile of the ten northern tribes forms the backdrop to at least one scroll. 4Q372 fragment 1 first describes how the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, were deported because of their partici­ pation in idol worship. 30

2

3

[ . . . they followed] strangers and the false priests, and they honored those who craft [idols . . . they abandoned God] Most High, so He gave them into the power of the nations, to [... and He scattered] them among all the lands, and among all [the nations] did He disperse them. (4Q372 1 2-5 with 4Q371 8 1) 4

5

10b

Moreover, Joseph was carried off into lands he had not kn[own . . .] among a foreign nation, dispersed into all the world. (4Q372 1 10b-11 with 4Q371 1 8-9) n

The focus of the text, however, does not appear to be the fate of the Joseph tribes as much as the status of the peoples who dwelt in their place. The text goes on to describe the settlement of the Samaritans in the lands vacated by Joseph. HbAll their mountains were desolate of them, [...] and fools [were liv]ing [in their land,] fashioning for themselves a high place upon the high mountain, so as to arouse Israel's zeal. (4Q372 1 llb-12 with 4Q371 1 10-11, see also 4Q372 1 19-22) 12

The fragment ends with Joseph's prayer of repentance in which Joseph appeals to God to remove the blasphemers from his land in return for offering proper sacrifice (line 24) and teaching the rebel­ lious God's law (line 27). As noted, although exilic language abounds, the exile itself is subordinate to the Samaritan problem.

3 0

For a preliminary publication of this text see Eileen Schuller, "4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph," RevQ 14 (1991) 349-76; also Michael Knibb, "A Note on 4Q372 and 4Q390," in F. Garcfa Martfnez, et al. (eds.), The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 1992) 164-78; Eileen Schuller, "The Psalm of 4Q372 1 Within the Context of Second Temple Prayer," CBQ 54 (1992) 67-79.

118

ABEGG

BABYLONIAN EXILE The Babylonian exile is clearly remembered among the manuscripts from Qumran. Indeed, as will become clear in the review below, meditations on the exile to Babylon were incorporated into nearly every historical movement of the sect and even formed the framework for their understanding of God's future dealings with Israel. In the following passage from CD, the exile to Babylon is remembered as God's righteous judgment on wicked Judah. Note as well how Amos 5:27 is "updated" in their understanding to have relevance for the sixth-century exile. 9b

1 0

When God judged the land, bringing the just deserts of the wicked t o them, that is when the oracle of the prophet Isaiah son of Amoz came true, which says, "Days are coming upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house that have never come before, since the departure of Ephraim from Judah" (Isa 7:17), that is, when the two houses of Israel sepa­ rated, Ephraim departing from Judah. All who backslid were handed over to the sword, but all who held fast escaped to the land of the north, as it says, I will exile the tents of your king and the foundation of your images beyond the tents of Damascus (Amos 5:27). (CD 7:9b-15) 1 1

12

13

14

15

31

4Q385, a "prophetic apocryphon," rehearses this event as well. 3

4

[ . . .] they were taken captive from the land of Jerusalem and went [ t o Babylon . . . and when] Nebuzaradan the captain of the bodyguard struck [Jerusalem and took all the utensils of the House of God, along with the priests, [the chiefs, and] the sons of Israel and brought them to Babylon, Jeremiah the prophet went [...] (4Q385 16 i 3-6) 5

6

A recently published Aramaic text attributes the exile to the fact that Israelites were involved in demon worship. 2

*[. . .]The Israelites [ch]ose t[heir] presencef. . .] [ . . . they were sacrificing their children to demons of [. . .] [ . . .] to give them into the hand of 3

3 1

This difficult manuscript, along with 4Q384 and 4Q386-390, incorporates characteristics of the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Devorah Dimant, the modern editor, has suggested that 4Q385 be reorganized as three separate documents. See her "New Light from Qumran on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha - 4Q390," in J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner (eds.), Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls—Madrid, 18-21 March 1991 (Leiden: Brill, 1992) 405-48.

119

EXILE A N D THED E A D SEA SCROLLS

4

Neb[uchadnezzar . . .] [ . . . th]eir [land] from the[m . . . ] (4Q243 13 1-4, see also 4Q244 12 1-4). 32

The opening section of the Damascus Document, discovered by Solomon Schechter among manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza, again emphasizes the fact that the exile was a result of Israel's sin. 3

For when Israel abandoned Him by being faithless, He turned away from them and from His sanctuary and gave them up to the sword. (CD 1:3-4) 4

The document proceeds to describe a remnant led by a righteous teacher, dating, in their own reckoning, the roots of the group's origin from the beginning of the Babylonian exile. 33

4b

B u t when He called to mind the covenant He made with their forefathers, He left a remnant for Israel and did not allow them to be exterminated. In the era of wrath—three hundred and ninety years from the time He handed them over to the power of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon— He took care of them and caused to grow from Israel and from Aaron a root of planting to in­ herit His land and to grow fat on the good produce of His soil. They consid­ ered their iniquity and they knew that they were guilty men, and had been like the blind and like those groping for the way twenty years. But God considered their deeds, that they had sought Him with a whole heart. So He raised up for them a teacher of righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart. (CD 1:4b-11) 5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

A literal account of the dating—390 years following the destruction of Jerusalem, plus 20 years of "groping for the way"—would place the advent of the teacher and the establishment of the sect at 176 BCE. However, G. Vermes has written countering such a straight34

3 2

This translation by J. Collins and P. Flint, "Pseudo-Daniel," in George Brooke, et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4, XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (DJD 22; Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) 97-164 (105-6,129-30). The translation of the temporal clause in line 6 has been debated: I. Rabinowitz, "A Reconsideration of 'Damascus' and '390 Years' in the 'Damascus' (Zadokite) Fragments," JBL 73 (1954) 11-35; N. Walker, "An Awkward Reading in the Damascus Document," JBL 79 (1960) 169-70; E. Wiesenberg, "Chronological Data in the Zadokite Fragments," VT 5 (1955) 28692. The preposition b with the infinitive construct (irrrf?) is not commonly used in a temporal manner, n (when), 3 (while), (until), or )D (after) are to be expected. See, however, Exod 16:1, "after their departure (mxb) from the land of Egypt" (also Exod 19:1; Num 1:1; 9:1; 33:38; 1 Kgs 6:1) and 1 Kgs 3:18, "And it happened on the third day after I gave birth Orrf^)." I have thus emended E. Cook's translation (WAC, 52). H. H. Rowley, The Zadokite Fragments, 62-88; and idem, "The History of the Qumran Sect," BJRL 49 (1963) 203-32. 3 3

3 4

120

ABEGG

forward determination, that "since no ancient Jewish writer seems to have been correctly informed concerning the chronology of the Second Temple era, and especially of the Persian period, it is unlikely that the 390 years of the Damascus Rule are to be accepted at their face value." It may be that the scrolls have now provided their own verification of this assertion in a text recently published by D. Dimant. 35

36

8

Tb... in the seventh jubilee after the destruction of the land, they shall forget law, festival, Sabbath, and covenant, and shall bring an end to everything. They shall commit evil before Me. So I shall hide my face from them, give them into the hand of their enemies and deliver [them] over t o the sword. But I shall cause a remnant of them to escape in order that they might not be completely [des]t[royed] in my wrath. (4Q390 1 7b-10) 9

10

The same elements are present in this text as exist in CD 1:4-11. The temporal reference is the same: "from the time He handed them over to the power of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon"—"after the destruction of the land." The actions of the guilty are the same: "When in their treachery they abandoned Him"—"They shall commit evil before Me." The punishment is the same: "[He] gave them up to the sword"—"[I shall] deliver [them] over to the sword." And the ac­ tion taken in relation to the remnant is the same: "He left a remnant for Israel and did not allow them to be exterminated."—"But I shall cause a remnant of them to escape in order that they might not be com­ pletely [des]t[royed] in my wrath." The difference is in the period of time expressed in the two documents: "three hundred and ninety years"—"the seventh jubilee" (343 years). Each period is evidently programmatic rather than exact. The Damascus Document takes its cue from Ezek 4:5, while 4Q390 expands on the pattern of the Book of Jubilees. J. Campbell states, "Indeed CD does not mention the sixth century BCE return directly, because the writer considered the exile to have ceased only with the foundation of his own community." To some degree this is true, although we must now temper the picture with an additional passage from 4Q390. Consider the following text where 37

38

3 5

3 6

3 7

Geza Vermes, 'The Essenes and History/' JJS 32 (1981) 18-31 (25). Dimant, "New Light," 413-9. Note that the same temporal use of the preposition b is found here

(pan prrb) as at CD 1:6. 3 8

Campbell, "Essene-Qumran Origins," 148. Note that the sect still considers itself in exile as well.

121

EXILE AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

those priests of the sixth century return are pictured as righteous, whereas the current priesthood (Hasmonean?) is warned of an im­ pending judgment. 2

3

[ . . .] return [. . .] the sons of Aar[on . . . ] seventy years [. . .] The sons of Aaron shall govern it (?), but they shall not walk [in] My [wa]ys which I am commanding you, so you must warn them. And they also shall do evil before Me just as Israel did in the days of the kingdom of the forefathers; except for those who are the first to go up from the land of exile to rebuild ^ e Temple. (4Q390 1 2-6) 4

5

In the present "age of wrath" (CD 1:5) an incident occurred that created a continuing state of exile for the Qumran Sect. It is an ongo­ ing frustration to the student of Qumran literature that the nature or timing of this event is nowhere made clear. The text of 1QH, which has been understood as preserving a nucleus of Teacher Hymns, does suggest that this exile was inflicted upon them by the enemies of the Teacher of Righteousness. 39

8

Neither did they esteem me; even when You displayed Your might through me. Instead, they drove me out from my land as a bird from its nest. And all my friends and acquaintances have been driven away from me; they esteem me as a ruined vessel.(lQH 12:8-9) 9

4Q177, a commentary on biblical passages which were understood by the sect as referring to the last days, capitalizes on the Teacher's imagery from 1QH and extends it to the entire sect in an interpretation of Ps 11:2. The fragmentary lines which follow associate their separa­ tion with the uncleanness of Jerusalem and its environs. 7

['To the master singer,] to David. In the LORD [I have taken refuge, so how can You say to me, Flee] [to your mountain, little bird, for now the wicked are bending their bow,] and fitting arrows to [the string to shoot in the night at the honest in mind" (Psalm 11:1-2). This means that] the men of [the Yahad] shall flee [. . .] [ . . . like] a bird from its place and be exiled [from their land . . . they are written about] in the book of the [prophet Micah:] [ "Rise and go, this is not the right place to say, impurity has marred it, it is completely ruined.] It belongs to one who walks [in lies and tells untruths..." (Micah 2:10-11).] (4Q177 5-6 7-10) 8

9

10

This exile is also revealed in a famous incident recorded in the Habakkuk pesher, where the Wicked Priest, evidently intent on de­ stroying the Teacher and scattering his followers, pursued him to "his place of exile" on the Day of Atonement. 3 9

Talmon, "Between the Bible and the Mishna," 42.

122

ABEGG 2

3

"Woe to the one who gets his friend drunk, pouring out his anger, making him drink, just to get a look at their holy days." (Hab 2:15) This refers to the Wicked Priest, who pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to destroy him in the heat of his anger at his place of exile. At the time set aside for the repose of the Day of Atonement he appeared to them to destroy them and to bring them to ruin on the fast-day, the Sabbath intended for their repose. (lQpHab 11:2-8) 4

5

6

7

8

It appears that the Qumran Sect began to describes its exile as a self-determination, even part of God's plan, rather than something that was foisted upon them by their enemies. Indeed, they had been estab­ lished in exile in the wilderness in order to prepare for the coming of God. Two passages from the Community Rule links the sect's self ex­ ile to its mission based on Isa 40:3. 12b

1

When such men as these come to be in Israel, Conforming to these doc­ trines, they shall separate from the session of perverse men to go to the wilder­ ness, there to prepare the way of truth, a s it is written, "In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God" (Isa 40:3). (1QS 8:12b-14) 14

8

l He shall ground them in knowledge, thereby instructing them in truly won­ drous mysteries; if then the secret Way is perfected among the men of the Yahad, each will walk blamelessly with his fellow, guided by what has been revealed to them. That will be the time of "preparing the way i n the desert" (Isa 40:3). (1QS 9:18-20 and 4Q258 3 iii 4; 4Q259 1 iii 19) 19

20

Early in this wilderness exile the Babylonian experience provided a ready warning of future judgment upon the unrighteous—those who did not agree with the sectarians. 4QMMT is a document, perhaps best understood as a letter, which records some two dozen legal debates termed "works of the law" ( m i m and warns its recipient of the ramifications of disobedience. 18b

19

Indeed the curses which came in the days of [Jerjoboam the son of Nebat until the exile of Jerusalem and Zedekiah the king of Juda[h] when He sent them to [Babylon . . . ] (4QMMT C18b-20) 20

Although the lines following this passage are fragmentary, it is log­ ical to assume that the writer warned his reader that the pattern for the "Last Days" would be the same: the wicked would again be exiled from the land of promise. 2 1 b

N o w this is the sign o/the Last Days: when those of Isra[el] shall return t o the l[aw of Moses with all their heart] and will never turn away again. But the wicked will increase in wicked]ness and [shall then be taken into captivity...] (4QMMTC21b-22) 22

123

EXILE AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

The righteous, on the other hand, would be spared. 23b[N ] remember the kings of Israe[l] and consider their works carefully. For he who feared [the la]w was delivered from his troubles. (4QMMT C23b-24) OW

24

The Qumran Sect expected to remain in exile until the time of God's judgment on the nations (1QM 1:2-3). As we have already seen, 4Q390 presents a programmatic view of events of the end of the age based on cycles of jubilees; the seventh jubilee appears to mark the beginning of what CD 1:5 terms "the age of wrath." In another part of this document, catalogued as 4Q387, the author, apparently taking his cue from Dan 9:24-27 (or perhaps the reverse!), posits a period of ten jubilees (490 years) from the "destruction of the land" (4Q390 1 7-8 ) until the coming of Gadfan, "the Blasphemer" (cf. Dan 7:8, 11, 20), ushering in the final exile patterned after Babylon. 40

1

2

[ . . .] and you will attempt to serve Me with all your heart and with al[l your soul but I shall not accept the]m in their distress. Neither will I search for them because of their unfaithfulness [. . . b]ecause they profaned [Me] until the completion of ten full jubilees. You have walked about in mfadness] and blindness and confusion of the heart. 3

4

5

At the end of that generation I [shall remove] the kingdom from the hand of those who possess it and [establish strangers from another people over it. And the last of these shall rule in all the land. The kingdom of Israel shall be destroyed in those days. [ . . . And then he shall arise,] the Blasphemer. He shall commit abominations and I shall tear up that [wicked] kingdom for other kings, and My face will still be hidden from Israel. [ . ..] and the king­ dom shall be returned to many nations. Then the Children of Israel will cry out [to Me in weepi]ng by the River Chebar in the lands of their exile and yet they will have no savior because they have certainly rejected My statutes and they have despised My laws. Therefore I have hidden My face from [them un]til they finish their iniquity. (4Q387 3 ii 1-13) 6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

12

1 3

This pattern is echoed in 4Q169 where Nah 3:10 and its reference to "nobles bound with chains" is interpreted by the pesher as finding fulfillment in Manasseh, who in the last days would be taken into captivity. l

2

"She, too, w[ent] into exile [a captive,] her infants were smashed at the head of every street. They throw lots for her respectable citizens, all her no­ bles [have been bound] ^with chains." (Nah 3:10) This refers to Manasseh in the Last Days, for his kingdom shall be brought low in Is[rael . . .] h i s 4

4 0

See Dan 9:25, where the clock begins at the decree to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem."

124

ABEGG

women, his infants, and his children shall go into captivity; his warriors and his nobles [shall be killed] with the sword [...] (4Q169 3-4 iv 1-4)

Just who the code name Manasseh stands for is not clear, and although M. H. Horgan has suggested the Sadducees, and E. Cook, the fol­ lowers of Jannaeus, all that is certain is that they were Jews and en­ emies of the Qumran sectarians. Although 4Q387 breaks off before the promised reward for the righteous, it is clear elsewhere in the scrolls that at the end of the age the tables were to be turned. The Qumran Sect, true Israel, would be vindicated in the Last Days as the pesher on Ps 37:19 makes clear. 41

42

26

"They [will no]t be put to shame in [an evil time."] (Ps 37:19a) [This refers to] the ones who return from the wilderness, who will live a thousand genera­ tions in virtue. To them and their descendants belongs all the heritage of Adam for ever. (4Q171 1-10 ii 26-iii 2) l

2

The War Scroll speaks of the eschatological nature of this return. The sect would return to its rightful place, Jerusalem, at the time of the war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. The "Wilderness of the Peoples," referred to in this passage, is mentioned in the Bible only at Ezek 20:35 and may be interpreted as their exile from Jerusalem and the Temple. 43

2

The sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, those exiled to the wilderness, shall fight against them with[.. . ] against all their troops, when the exiles of the Sons of Light return from the Wilderness of the Peoples to camp in the Wilderness of Jerusalem. (1QM 1:2-3) 3

A pesher on Isa 10:24-27 links this return from the wilderness with the arrival of the Leader (wtol, "prince") of the nation, the Davidic messiah. 44

15

1 6

[This refers to . . .] [ . . .] when they return from the "Wilderness of the Peoples" (Ezek 20:35). . .] [ . . . the Staff is the] Leader of the nation, and afterward he will remove [the yoke] from them [ . . . ] . (4Q161 5+6 15-20) 1 9

2 0

It is likely that 4Q165 5 6, a pesher on Isa 21:14-15, incorporates the same imagery of a return from the Wilderness of the Peoples. 4 1

P. Maurye Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretation of Biblical Books (CBQMS 8. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979) 161. WAC, 218. Talmon, "Between the Bible and the Mishna," 42. Compare 4Q285 5, where the Branch of David (lines 4-5) is equated with the Leader (line 5), and 4Q252 1 v 2. In this latter text the Branch of David is equated to the Righteous Messiah. 4 2

4 3

4 4

EXILE AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS

125

Indeed, a fragment of a non-biblical psalm might well build on this picture of the wilderness as not only a place of exile but a place of hope as well. See 4Q434 1 i which certainly praises God for the future deliverance of Israel. 2

[ . . . He changed] their lodgings from there in the wilderness to a "door of hope" (Hos 2:15) and "He made a covenant" for their welfare "with the birds of the air and the beasts of the field" (Hos 2:18). He made their enemies like dung and dust, and he ground Edom and Moab to powder. (4Q434 3 ii 2-3) 3

CONCLUSION

It can now be readily appreciated just how central the theme of exile was to the authors of the Qumran manuscripts. While the sojourn in Egypt and exile of northern tribes was still reflected in their writings, it was the Babylonian exile which had captured the corporate imagi­ nation. In a very real sense it had become the new paradigm which spoke of how God dealt with his people Israel. The new going down to Egypt was the deportation to Babylon in fulfillment of God's warning of judgment (CD 7:9b-15). The return was followed by an important albeit unknown event which led to a lengthy wilderness wandering (1QS 8:12b-14)—the new Sinai—so as to prepare for the coming of God. The new Moses was the Teacher of Righteousness. The faithful then waited for God to bring them into the land of promise—the iniquity of the Amorites not yet being full—and estab­ lish them in their rightful place (4Q171 1-10 ii 26-iii 2).

EXILE AND RETURN IN JUBILEES Betsy Halpern- Amaru Vassar College

In Hebrew Scriptures Land is the focal point around which Israel for­ mulates its origins, defines its relationship with God, and interprets the flow of its history. Conversely, exile from the Land is the coun­ terpoint—a marker, so to speak, of fore-history, of God hiding His face, and of historical crisis. Critical scholarship has shown that this Land theology is a composite of perspectives. In the patriarchal narra­ tives exile is a condition prior or external to an unconditional covenant that assures enduring possession of the Land. The later deuteronomic tradition conceives of a conditional covenant in which exile becomes a stage in a cycle of redemption that closes with return to the Land. Merged in interpretation, the two conceptualizations coexist in the sacred texts of the First Temple period. This essay focuses on the literature of the Second Temple period and the continuation of the process of reinterpreting the covenant in the light of historical experience. Specifically, it explores the treat­ ment of exile and return in the book of Jubilees, composed in the sec­ ond century BCE. Not unlike the Deuteronomist, the author of this 1

2

3

1

On the significance of the Land in Hebrew Scriptures, see among others, W. D. Davies, The Territorial Dimension of Judaism, With a Symposium and Further Reflections (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); A. Halkin, "Zion in Biblical Literature," in Abraham S. Halkin (ed.), Zion in Hebrew Literature (New York: Herzl Press, 1961) 18-37; and Harry Orlinsky, "The Biblical Concept of the Land of Israel: Cornerstone of the Covenant Between God and Israel," in Lawrence A. Hoffman (ed.), The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986) 27-64. On the treatment of Land in Deuteronomy, see particularly Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomy School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971) and by the same author, "Inheritance of the Land—Privilege versus Obligation: The Concept of the Promise of the Land in the Sources of the First and Second Temple Periods," Zion 49 (1984) 115-37 (Hebrew). 100 BCE is the latest possible date for its composition. Still a matter of scholarly debate, the latest dates range from the Maccabean period to the reign of John Hyrcanus. On the dating of Jubilees, see among others, Jonathan Goldstein, 2

3

128

HALPERN-AMARU

pseudepigraphic work attempts to extend the perimeters of covenant theology such that they embrace his own time. From his post-exilic, indeed post-return, perspective, loss and recovery of the Land are no longer central theological issues. Rather, the concern is with the covenantal significance of an extended time in the Land after the re­ turn from exile. The author of Jubilees responds to that concern with a reformulation of the covenant. Viewing the biblical text as immedi­ ately relevant, he develops the reformulation through the technique of interpretive rewriting of biblical narratives. The narratives he se­ lects—Genesis 1 through Exodus 12 and more subtly, the vision of the covenantal future in Deuteronomy—are most telling. The reformula­ tion of Jubilees engages and deconstructs both biblical conceptualiza­ tions of the covenant. EXILE AND THE COVENANT WITH THE PATRIARCHS

The promise of the Land is one of a triad of promises (the others being future peoplehood and the assurance of a special relationship with God) that comprise the patriarchal covenant of Genesis. But in all the covenant making with the patriarchs, the Land promise dominates and provides the contextual focus for the narrative. God promises the Land to the patriarchs on eight occasions, five times to Abraham, once to Isaac, and twice to Jacob. The language of the promise generally includes a designation of recipient and a description of the territory 4

5

6

"The Date of the Book of Jubilees," PAAJR 50 (1983) 78-83; James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977); and Doron Mendels, The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature: Recourse to History in Second Century B.C. Claims to the Holy Land (TSAJ 15; Tubingen: Mohr, 1987) 57-88. For a detailed analysis of the covenant making passages in Genesis, see my discussion of the biblical Land theology in Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Post-Biblical Jewish Literature (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1994). The first two of the five occasions on which Abraham receives the promise precede formal covenant making (Gen 12:1-3,7; Gen 13:14-17; Gen 15:7, 18-20; 17:7-8; Gen 22:17-18). Isaac receives the promises directly from God (Gen 26:3-5). Jacob first hears them from his father (Gen 28:3-4) and subsequently twice engages in direct covenant making with God (Gen 28:13-15; 35:11-12). Usually the patriarch and his descendants. The exceptions—Gen 12:7 (only the descendants); Gen 13:17 (Abraham alone); and Gen 22:18 (only the 4

5

6

EXILE AND RETURN IN JUBILEES

129

set forth in terms of the patriarch's personal experience, geographic notations and/or references to the indigenous populations. On two oc­ casions—both with Abraham—there also is an assurance of eternal possession of the Land (Gen 13:15; 17:8). That assurance does not appear in the wording of the divine covenants with Isaac and Jacob. But when they hear the promises from their respective fathers, "the oath sworn to Abraham" (Gen 26:3-5) and "the blessings of Abraham" (Gen 28:4) are the referents. Thus eternal possession of the Land becomes understood as inherent in the covenant. It is in this form that Jacob recollects receiving the promise when he passes it on to his son Joseph (Gen 48:4). Subsequently, it is also the form in which Moses, interceding on behalf of the Israelites at the apostasy of the Golden Calf, recalls the promise God had sworn to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exod 32:13). There is no intimation in the Genesis narrative of future tension be­ tween the promise of everlasting possession of the Land and the rela­ tionship between the patriarchal progeny and God. There is an ac­ knowledgment of a connection between morality and tenure of the Land. That connection, however, is explicitly stated only for the in­ digenous population ("the Amorites") whose behavior will eventually require forfeiture of the Land (Gen 15:16). By implication, one might assume the future progeny of the patriarchs are bound by the same standard; but that is neither stated nor developed in the Genesis text. Apart from the command of circumcision that signifies rather than conditions participation in the covenant relationship, there are no stipulatory terms in the language of the patriarchal covenant. One narra­ tive passage suggests that, at least theoretically, some conditions do exist. Deciding to share the decision to destroy Sodom with Abraham, God reflects on how he had selected him so that he might instruct "his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right in order that the Lord may bring about for Abraham 7

descendants)—reflect the different narrative contexts in which the promise is made. Neither of the narratives of covenant making at Bethel includes assurance of eternal possession of the Land. But, years later speaking to Joseph, Jacob includes it in a citation of the promise he received at Luz (the name of Bethel prior to the covenant making). 7

130

HALPERN-AMARU 8

what He has promised him" (Gen 18:19). The possibility of way­ wardness, of iniquity and injustice on the part of the future progeny living in the promised Land is never explored. Like the divine mus­ ings, the substance of the patriarchal covenant simply assumes that the heirs will follow the teachings of their progenitors. Consequently, ex­ ile, indeed punishment in any form, is not included in the formal structure of the patriarchal covenant. On the other hand, there is an exile component to the narratives that surround the covenant making. Developing a cycle of stories around the motif of patriarch as resident alien or stranger, the Genesis writer presents the promises of Land and future empowerment against a backdrop of a homelessness and insecurity suggestive of the condi­ tions of exile. Abraham is prime exemplar of such a stranger. He re­ ceives the promise of the Land only after responding ko a divine command to exile himself from his country, birthplace, and home of his father (Gen 12:1). Before the second promise, he suffers the in­ dignities of the powerless stranger in Egypt (Gen 12:10-20). The pa­ triarch fares little better inside the Land. In spite of the promise, he remains a stranger moving about in a Land not yet his. On the third and fourth covenant making occasions God Himself confirms the pa­ triarch's status. Fulfillment of the promise will be delayed because the current inhabitants, "the Amorites," have not yet forfeited their right of possession (Gen 15:16); the Land of promise is "the land of your sojourning," i.e., the land you live in as an alien (Gen 17:8). Thus it is not surprising that in his dealings with Abimelech in the Land, Abraham demonstrates the same concern with personal safety (and employs the same pattern of deception) as he had with Pharaoh in Egypt. The course of the Gerar narrative suggests that there was no real threat and that the patriarch had overreacted. Still, the narrative leaves no doubt about the reality of the patriarch's alien standing. Abimelech urges Abraham to settle in "my land" (20:15); and the omniscient narrator closes the Gerar episode with "Abraham lived as an alien (nri) in the land of the Philistines a long time" (Gen 21:34). 9

8

In "Inheritance of the Land" (n. 2 above), Weinfeld cites this passage to support the argument that the uniqueness of the biblical concept of land being given by God lies in the accompanying notion of associated obligations. The motif is developed around the verb ~m, which in biblical Hebrew means to dwell temporarily or as resident alien. 9

131

EXILE AND RETURN IN JUBILEES

The experience of living as a stranger also provides the narrative framework for the covenant making with Isaac and Jacob. The single scene in which Isaac receives the promise of the Land opens with God commanding him not to go to Egypt, but "to reside as an alien (TU) in this land" (Gen 26:3). The narrative of Isaac's difficulties with the Philistines at Gerar immediately follows (Gen 26:6-33). Although Isaac refers to the "land of your sojoumings" (yvn pR) when he transfers the covenantal blessings to Jacob (Gen 28:4), there are no descriptions of Jacob as an alien resident in the Land. The third patriarch experiences the powerlessness of the exiled stranger outside the Land when he resides with Laban in Haran (Gen 32:4). Setting that sojourn as a bridge between the two covenant making oc­ casions at Bethel, the Genesis writer demonstrates how the experience of exile alters the state of mind in which the patriarch hears the promise of the Land. Even after he is told at the first meeting at Bethel that God not only would bring him back to "this land" but also would give it to him, Jacob vows to offer up a tithe, "if I return safe to my father's house" (28:21). Years later in Haran God mimics the patriarch's limited expectations with a command to return to "the land of your fa­ ther where you were born" (Gen 31:3). Having God's protection dur­ ing the difficult years of exile in Haran, a changed Jacob hears the command not as spoken, but in the context of the initial promise at Bethel: "Return to your land and to the place where you were born" (Gen 32:10). Inversely echoing the initial command to Abraham to 10

11

12

13

1 0

In fact, God issues the command twice, once with "dwell" (pto) and once with "reside as an alien" (ma). The doubling prefigures the nature of Isaac's experiences at Gerar. On the one hand, he, like his father before him, is the insecure sojourner. On the other, the closure to this Gerar story has him discover that "God has granted ... ample space to increase in the land" (Gen 26:24). The expression could refer to journey through the Land that Jacob is about to embark upon on his way to Haran. Or, since Isaac describes the promises as "the blessings of Abraham," it could be understood as a citation of Gen 17:8. Rebecca tells him "Flee at once Haran, to my brother Laban. Stay (ram) with him a while..." (Gen 27:43-44). Jacob simply says: "Rise and go to Padan Aram, to the house of Bethuel, father of your mother" (Gen 28:2). Upon his return, however, Jacob describes the stay with Laban in terms of living as an alien Cma) (Gen 32:4). Jacob is recalling the command in a prayer for God's protection in his reunion with Esau. 1 1

1 2

1 3

132

HALPERN-AMARU

leave Haran, the flawed wording precedes the final scene of covenant making and closes the cycle of patriarch-in-exile tales. A new cycle begins with the descent of Jacob and his family to Egypt where the Israelites, like their forbears, experience the life of the stranger-in-ex­ ile as a fore-history to beginning their venture with the covenant making and the Land. This association between exile, covenant, and Land makes the cycle of Genesis narratives problematic for Jubilees. Reinforcing the idea that the Land promise is the essential element of, if not identical with, the covenant, the cycle promotes the very perception that the author of Jubilees needs to deconstruct. Consequently, there is no exile theme in the rewritten patriarchal narratives. God does command Abraham to leave "your land, your family, and your father's house" (12:22). But preceding the command are a se­ ries of tales which present Abraham as aware of the Creator from early childhood, as a worthy combatant to Mastema and his demons, and as a believer whose iconoclast activities cause the family to flee from Ur to Haran "to go to the land of Lebanon and the land of Canaan" (12:15). In Haran Abraham, not God, is the initiator. Rejecting the local belief in astrological signs, he prays for God to establish him and his seed forever such that they never depart from the correct belief. Within this context Abraham asks whether he should return to Ur of Chaldees or remain "here in this place" (Haran) (12:1621). The command to depart (the citation of Gen 12:1 emended as noted) then comes as the divine response. Given the conflicts in Ur and the patriarch's own clear lack of identification with Haran, how­ ever, it no longer carries the connotation of loss of home. Jubilees also retains the story of Abraham's descent to Egypt. But it too loses the import of the original. The narrative is significantly ab­ breviated. The patriarch stayed in Egypt five years before Pharaoh took his wife and God brought plagues upon him and his house (13:11, 13). There is no reference to the alien status of the patriarch, to his fears, or to his act of deception. To the contrary, the author uses 14

14

Jubilees changes "birthplace" to "family" because Abraham was bora in Ur of Chaldees and the family had moved to Haran at the time of the command. All citations of Jubilees are from the translation of James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, Vol. 2 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 511; Scriptores Aethiopici 88; Louvain: Peeters, 1989).

133

EXILE AND RETURN IN JUBILEES

the Egypt story solely to demonstrate how God protected the patriarch and caused him to thrive. Similarly, Jacob's stay with Laban ceases to be an exile story. The deception that brings the elder daughter to Jacob's bed is justified (28:6-7). The clash with Laban is reduced to jealousy and an evil in­ tent yet to be actualized (28:30). There is no command from God to return, no change of wording in a recollection of the command; and Jacob never describes his stay in Haran as involving the status of a stranger. The author maintains fidelity with the sojourner language that ap­ pears in the Genesis covenant making scenes. He keeps "land of your sojournings" in God's promise to Abraham before the annunciation of Isaac, as well as the command "to sojourn in this land" preceding the covenanting with Isaac. But the terminology serves only to indicate that the Land is in the hands of others, for in Jubilees there are no de­ scriptions of the exile-like experiences of the patriarchs in the Land. The author has no need to retain personal exile narratives that portray the patriarchs and their families in an unfavorable light. Far from casting the patriarchs as exiles in the Land, he creates a fore-history that transforms the patriarchal sojourn in Canaan into a restoration narrative. 15

16

17

1 5

Jacob decides on his own to return; there is no dream to recollect (28:3029:4). There also is no prayer scene before the meeting with Esau. In Genesis the description of the sojourn with Laban comes in Jacob's directions to the messengers he sends to meet with Esau. In Jubilees, there are no messengers. The meeting between the two brothers receives only a brief notice from the narrator (29:13). Abraham's encounter with Abimelech of Gerar is deleted as is the reference to his alien status when he buys land for Sarah's burial (19:3-9). Omitting the Rebekah-in-danger narrative, the author has Isaac simply stay at Gerar under the protection of Abimelech (24:13). The clash with the Philistine herdsmen over water is retained but with a dramatically altered ending. In Jubilees the servants find that the well they have dug at Beer-sheba is dry. Isaac attributes the absence of water to the mistake of having concluded a treaty with Abimelech and the narrative closes with a lengthy curse of the Philistines (24:1433). Generally the biblical narratives of life as an alien involve settings that the author of Jubilees finds unsuitable for the ideal patriarch and matriarch. A similar concern with the quality of family relationships causes him to alter the unappealing characterization of Laban. 1 6

1 7

134

HALPERN-AMARU

Immediately after the Flood the sons of Noah apportioned the earth by lot (8:11). The territory promised to the patriarchs was within the allotment that fell to Shem (not Ham as in Genesis) "to occupy it for­ ever" (8:17). Within Shem's line that particular piece of territory went to Arpachshad, the ancestor of Abraham. However, contrary to the counsel of his father and brothers and in violation of an oath sworn "before the holy judge and before our father Noah" to honor the divi­ sion (10:32), Canaan, son of Ham, seized the territory. He and his line settled there; and consequently the territory came to be called "the land of Canaan." Nonetheless, since the initial division explicitly stated that the portion was for Shem and his sons "to occupy it forever, throughout his generations for eternity" (8:17), the Land remained the legitimate patrimony of the line of Arpachshad. Thus when Terah left Ur to "come into the land of Lebanon and into the land of Canaan" (12:15) and when Abraham subsequently came to the Land, the family was returning to a territory that was legitimately theirs. In other words, from Arpachshad to Abraham, the line of Shem had been in exile from its land. The inventive tale serves a number of purposes. Exegetically, it ex­ plains the otherwise troublesome notation in Gen. 11:31 that Terah originally intended to settle in "the land of Canaan." More signifi­ cantly for our purposes, it not only strengthens the claim to the Land, but does so in a manner that is quite independent of the covenant. The promise of the Land in the patriarchal narratives no longer involves a theologically complex new title to territory inhabited by others. The first patriarch, like the first generation of Israelites to enter the Land, is a returnee to the Land of his forefathers. Deliberate details in the rewriting associate the two returns. The division of the earth in Jubilees is by lot, the same method by which the Land is apportioned among the tribes of Israel in the biblical narrative. Similarly, Abraham's move southward after the first promise is accompanied by a description of the Land that foreshadows Moses's description in Deut 8:7-8 (13:6). Moreover, the first patriarch does not simply walk about in the Land, but like the head of the next generation of re­ turnees, he assumes symbolic possession through viewing it (13:21). 18

1 8

All the territorial allotments are to be permanent (8:24, 29), but the author makes a particular point of stressing the eternality of Shem's inheritance (8:12, 17,21).

EXILE AND RETURN IN JUBILEES

135

The new context of returning heir does not prevent the author of Jubilees from presenting all eight promissory scenes with the patri­ archs. With one exception, he remains relatively faithful to the biblical versions of the Land promise. That fidelity aside, his story of the bestowal of the Land by a cast of lots to Abraham's forefathers sub­ stantially changes the idea of the patriarchal Land promise. In Genesis the promise to the patriarchs and their progeny is a gift or grant of Land to possess forever. Jubilees transforms that promise into a divine guaranty to forever honor a right of inheritance acquired through a cast of lots that allocated the Land to the antediluvian ancestors of the patriarchs. The difference between the two understandings of the promise is particularly pertinent to the issue of exile. In the Land the­ ology of Genesis, exile by definition involves a crisis or, at least, a qualification of the promise, such as appears in Gen 15:11-14. With the usurpation tale placed outside the context of covenant and promise, the Jubilees conception deprives the phenomenon of exile of theological import. Exile in no way interrupts or compromises the status of the Land promise. Whether the heirs are in actual possession of the Land or not, their right of inheritance and the divine commit­ ment to honor that right remain firm. Such an understanding of the Land promise establishes a new con­ ceptual umbrella for the subsequent conquest of the Land. Abraham's return as heir to the Land from which his forefathers had been exiled is the first in a series of returns. The patriarchal progeny go down to Egypt and in their turn come back as heirs to reclaim the patrimony. No covenantal significance is attributed to the reclamation. The author of Jubilees cites the biblical prophecy of the sojourn in Egypt verba­ tim, but gives little attention to the redemption (48:5-19) and none to the process by which the Israelites subsequently take possession of Canaan. Instead, with notably little drama, he simply pictures a new generation of heirs eventually living in the Land. 19

1 9

There are minor changes in wording and the addition of eternal possession of the Land in the promise to Abraham before the birth of Ishmael (14:7). For a detailed analysis of the Jubilees reworking of the covenant and the Land promise, see my Rewriting the Bible, ch. 3. The exception involves the last promise to Jacob at Bethel. The territory promised to the patriarchal seed is not just Canaan, but "all the land under heaven." Ruling over nations, Jacob's descendants will "gain the entire earth" and "possess it forever" (32:18-19). The dramatic expansion is obviously significant and worthy of further exploration.

136

HALPERN-AMARU

When the Israelites enter the Land which they will possess—the land of Canaan... (49:18). 20

It is still forty years off (for learning the Lord's commandments) until the time when he leads (them) across to the land of Canaan, after they have crossed the Jordan to the west of it. (50:4).

The lack of interest in the conquest cannot be attributed solely to the Genesis framework, for retrojection of future events into past contexts is a marked characteristic of Jubilees. Rather, the minimization is part of the systematic effort to reorient the biblical concept of covenant. The prior antediluvian exile and patriarchal return transform the con­ quest from a seminal event into a second return of the heir. Returns to the Land thus become single events within covenantal history rather than the singular event that signals fulfillment of the covenant. The component of the biblical covenant around which fulfillment does become manifest in Jubilees is the special relationship between God and Israel. No product of a cast of lots, that relationship is di­ vinely decreed by God at the time of Creation. I will now separate a people for myself from among my nations. They too will keep sabbath. I will sanctify the people for myself, will bless them as I sancti­ fied the sabbath day. I will sanctify them for myself; in this way I will bless them. They will become my people and I will become their God. I have cho­ sen the descendants of Jacob among all of those whom I have seen. I have recorded them as my first-born son, and have sanctified them for myself throughout the ages of eternity (2:19-20). 21

The forecast election becomes the central theme of the Jubilees ver­ sion of the patriarchal covenant. Anticipation of election appears in the prayer Abraham addresses to God before departing from Haran (12:19-20). The special relationship is added to the divine promises that accompany the directives to move to Canaan (12:24), to the for­ mal covenant making preceding the conception of Ishmael (14:7) as well as to the command of circumcision that follows his birth (15:3132). It appears in an annunciation scene the author develops for the

2 0

The rest of the passage deals with erection of the tabernacle and subsequently the temple for proper observance of the Passover festival. The created passage is constructed from a selection of phrases abstracted from Exod 4:22; 6:7; 31:6. The recollection and reaffirmation of the patriarchal Land promise in Exod 6:8 is omitted. There is no reference to the Land in the other Exodus passages the author uses to create the divine speech. 2 1

137

EXILE AND RETURN IN JUBILEES

birth of Isaac (16:17-19), and is the highlight of various blessing scenes the author creates for Jacob and his progeny (19; 22; 25). 22

EXILE AND THE SlNAI COVENANT The election of Israel also is the primary motif in the Jubilees formu­ lation of conditional covenant of Sinai. The biblical characterization of that covenant involves an intimate link between adherence to the law and fulfillment of the promise of the Land. At the very least, vio­ lation of divine command results in delayed or diminished acquisi­ tion. Obedience and disobedience effect the physical and emotional quality of Israelite life in the Land. Most significantly from the per­ spective of Jubilees, the linkage of Land and Law insinuates the pos­ sibility of exile into the framework of the covenantal relationship. There are several formulations of that possibility in the biblical text. One asserts that certain actions pollute the Land and cause it to vomit forth its inhabitants. More generally, adherence to God's command­ ments results in long life in the Land; violation brings loss of the 23

24

25

2 2

See particularly 19:17-18, 21-29; 22:11,15, 29-30; 25:18-22. Num 14:22-23; 32:10-11; Deut 4:1; 8:1; 11:8. Exod 23:25-26; Lev 26:3-10, 14-32; Deut 5:30; 6:3; 7:12-15; 11:17; 28:11-12, 20-24; 30:9-10. The pollution theme is particularly developed in Leviticus. Incestuous relations, harlotry, adultery, various violations of sexual purity, and the sacrifice of children in worship of Molech are pollutive, regardless of the perpetrator (Lev 18:18:6-30; 19:29; 20:2-22). Concern with violation of commandments regarding sabbath and jubilee years is specific to the Israelite settlement of the Land (Lev 26:34-38). In both cases, the personified Land expels its offenders. In the case of the pollutive acts, the expulsion is described in terms of incompatibility and physical rejection. In the instance of the sabbaths, however, the expulsion is reparative, i.e., the Land finds its own rest by expelling those who withheld it. Pollution of the Land also appears in connection with the shedding of innocent blood and permitting the body of criminal executed by impalement to remain unburied; but in these instances, the consequence of exile is not explicitly stated (Num 35:29-34; Deut 21:1, 6-9, 22-23.) Loss of the Land as a consequence of its defilement and/or violation of its sabbaths is also a major theme in prophetic literature, e.g., Isa 56:1-8; 58:13-14; Jer 17:21-27; 23:10-12; Ezek 7:22-23; 20:12ff.; 37:17-19; Amos 8:5; Neh 13:1718. 2 3

2 4

2 5

138

HALPERN-AMARU

Land. In this broader formulation the prohibitions against intermar­ riage and idolatry are of particular importance. The author of Jubilees firmly sustains the concept of a covenant de­ fined by adherence to stipulated law. Moreover, he manifests a par­ ticular interest in precisely those matters of purity, intermarriage and idolatry that are linked to retention of the Land in Torah legislation. However, when he inserts the legal material into his rewriting, he makes a point of not connecting them with acquisition and/or reten­ tion of the promised Land. Frequently he places them in contexts that have nothing to do with the Land, e.g., into accounts of the Flood and Noah's directives to his children and grandchildren (7:20-31). Other times, given an appropriate context, he substitutes election of the people for retention of the Land in the conditional relationship. For instance, he presents the stories of Dinah and the Shechemites, of Bilhah and Reuben, and of Tamar and Judah as morality tales exem­ plifying a levitical principle that pertains to future Israelite purity. Each narrative concludes with a statement about, or and an allusion to, a future ordinance that, in the biblical context, is associated with pol­ lution of the Land. In each instance, Jubilees ignores that Land con­ nection and shifts the point of emphasis from defilement of the Land to defilement of the people of Israel, God's holy nation, "his own pos­ session," the nation that "he owns" (33:11). 26

27

28

2 6

In Num 33:55-56 the threat of exile is directly related to failure to expel the Canaanite nations; in Deuteronomy (4:25-28; 6:14-15; 11:16-17; 28:63-64; 29:25-27; 30:17-18) the threat is specifically associated with worship of the Canaanite gods. In Josh 23:12-13, 15-16 exile is the threatened punishment for intermarriage and worship of Canaanite gods. The association of obedience with long life in the Land is particularly strong in Deuteronomy. It is positively expressed in Deut 4:40; 5:16, 30; 6:1-2; 8:1; 11:7-9; 16:20; 25:15; 30:20; 31:1213; 32:47 and negatively stated in Deut 4:25-26; 30:17-18. There are multiple examples of such displacement. Among others, Isaac curses and predicts the total destruction of the Philistines with a paraphrase of Amos 9:2-3 that predicts the exile of Israel from the Land (24:28-32). Abraham warns all his children and grandchildren, not just the covenantal heirs, against the intermarriage with the Canaanites and against idolatry lest they make their "name a curse" and all "their life a hissing" (20:6)—expressions describing the exile destiny of the Israelites in Deuteronomy 28. On the morality tales, note also 30:8, 10, 13; 41:26. The substitution also appears in Abraham's last testament to Isaac. The created scene has Abraham use terms and phrases associated with the loss of the covenanted Land in the 2 7

2 8

EXILE AND RETURN IN JUBILEES

139

The problem for Jubilees is not the connection between violation of Law and loss of the Land per se. Indeed, on the single occasion when he mentions exile, the author explicitly relates it to transgressions against God's sabbaths, His sanctuary, and His ordinances against idolatry (1:10-13). At issue is the theological significance of exile and return. When the linkage of Land and Law dominates covenantal his­ tory, as it does in Moses's vision of Israel's future in Deuteronomy, return from exile marks a closure to the historical cycle. This is pre­ cisely the conception that our author must supplant in order to incor­ porate his own post-exilic era within covenantal history. He does so by introducing his rewriting of Genesis against the backdrop of a re­ construction of the Deuteronomy presentation of future history. The Jubilees narrative opens with Moses on Mount Sinai receiving a revelation of past and future. The past, i.e., the rewritten material from Genesis and early Exodus, is dictated by an angel. The future, i.e., a vision deliberately crafted over against Moses's final discourses on the plains of Moab in Deuteronomy, is directly revealed by God. The Israelites will come into the Land as God had promised to their forefathers. Once there, they will forget the commandments, imitate the gentiles, and engage in all the evils of idolatry. God will send his witnesses to warn them; but they will not listen. Finally, He will turn them over to the control of nations, remove them from the Land and disperse them into exile where they will forget all the laws and com­ mandments. 29

(12c) They will abrogate everything and will begin to do evil in my presence. (13) Then I will hide my face from them. I will deliver them into the control of the nations for captivity, for booty, and for being devoured. I will remove them from the land and disperse them among the nations. (14) They will for­ get all my law, all my commandments, and all my verdicts. They will err re­ garding the beginning of the month, the sabbath, the festival, the jubilee, and the decree. (15) After this they will return to me from the nations with all their minds, all their souls, and all their strength. Then I will gather them from among all the nations, and they will search for me so that I may be found by them when they have searched for me with all their minds and all their souls. I

tochachot of Deuteronomy to describe the loss of God's favor should Isaac imitate the gentiles (21:21-22). There is a reference to "captivity" in the detailed description of destruction that precedes the post-exilic eschaton (23:22); but the subject is not developed. 2 9

140

HALPERN-AMARU 30

will rightly disclose to them abundant peace. (16) I will transform them into a righteous plant with all my mind and with all my soul. They will become a blessing, not a curse; they will become the head, not the tail. (17) I will build my temple among them and will live with them; I will become their God and they will become my true and righteous people. (18) I will neither abandon them nor become alienated from them, for I am the Lord their God (1:15-18).

The characterization follows the deuteronomic paradigm of sin, punishment, repentance, and restoration. But the emphasis has changed. The description of invasion, destruction, and exile is far more abbreviated that its counterpart in Deuteronomy 28. The crisis is not the destruction and loss of the Land, but rather Israel's loss of righteousness. Focusing on that issue, the author has Moses respond with a plea that the cycle not even be permitted to begin for fear that the gentiles will ensnare the Israelites even further into sin. God re­ jects the intercessory appeal; and restates the necessity for repentance and self-reform before divine intervention will effect the total purifi­ cation that marks the end-time (1:19-25). Even without that created intercession, the Jubilees cycle does not close with the return from exile. The author splits the repentance stage so as to create a double-tiered restoration. Repentance ends the exile. But repossession of the Land no longer is the culminating point. It is followed by a more thorough-going repentance, by a spiritual regener­ ation that reflects the relationship between God and Israel decreed at Creation. The exegetical technique that the author employs to alter the paradigm clarifies his intent. The description of the repentance in exite (v. 15) is a paraphrase of Jer 29:13-14—"You will search for Me and you will find Me if only you seek Me wholeheartedly. I will be at hand for you.... And I will gather you from all the nations.. .and I will bring you back to the place from which I have exiled you." Jubilees 31

32

3 0

VanderKam's choice of "transform" instead of "transplant" or "plant" for the problematic Ethiopic verb here does not fit the plant imagery that is favored by the Deuteronomist, Jeremiah, and by the author of Jubilees. Note the extent to which the author draws upon deuteronomic structure and language: Sin: Jub 1:8/Deut. 31:20; Jub 1:9/E>eut. 7:16; Jub l:10/Josh 23:13; Jub l.Tl/Deut 32:17. Punishment: Jub l:13/E>eut 31:17-18; 32:20; Jub l:14/Deut 4:27-28; 28:64. Repentance: Jub l:15a/Deut 4:29-31; 30:2. Restoration: Jub l:15b/Deut 30:3; Jer 29:13-14; Jub l:16/Deut 28:13; Jer 32:41. The author may be basing Moses's concern on the absence of repentance in the cycle of Deuteronomy 31. 3 1

3 2

141

EXILE AND RETURN IN JUBILEES

inverts the sequence and places the physical return before the whole­ hearted spiritual return. As a result, the ingathering of exiles that is so dominant in the Jeremiah passage, is de-emphasized. Similarly, the deletion of the crucial phrase, "in this land," from a citation of Jer 32:41 ("I will plant them in this land in truth with My whole heart and with My whole soul") in Jub. 1:16a, passes over the return and makes repair of the relationship between God and Israel the sole issue at the close of the cycle. The reconstruction fills the purpose for which it is intended. The covenant history that the author has God reveal to Moses on Sinai ex­ tends beyond the return from Babylonian exile to the post-exilic era of the author. Placed at Sinai, it not only rests on divine authority, but also avoids the deuteronomic focus on the return from exile. The cru­ cial issues of the author's day—spiritual return and regeneration— stand in its place. A detailed portrait of the eschaton inserted into the narrative of Abraham's death supplements the theology of history. Again the au­ thor draws upon the Land theology of Deuteronomy for his central motif. In Moses's final discourses on the plains of Moab the exhorta­ tion to maintain fidelity with the commandments or risk forfeiture of the Land is most commonly expressed (negatively and positively) in terms of the phrase "that you might live" (|vnn ]vnb) or "that you might prolong your days (WW p n a n ]sch) on the Land." Extracting the expression from its threat-of-exile context, Jubilees totally trans­ forms the biblical concepts of exile and final return. From Adam to "the times of the ancients were nineteen jubilees for their lifetimes" (23:8). After Noah, however, because of the wickedness, human lives became progressively shorter. The corruption of the generations was 33

34

3 3

The Ethiopic text of Jub. 1:16 is corrupted and has been reconstructed. Charles suggests that the words "in this land" were originally included but were lost (R. H. Charles [ed.], The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis [London: SPCK, 1927] note on 1:6). However, the deletion of comparable phrases related to the Land in sections where there is no question of textual corruption, strongly argues against such a possibility. The phrase appears in a positive formulation in Deut 4:26, 5:16, 30; 6:1-2; 8:1; 11:7-9; 16:20; 25:15; 30:20; 31:12-13; 32:47 and in a negative formulation in Deut 4:25-26; 30:17-18. On the few occasions when the verb appears without specification of place, the Land is understood. See Orlinksy, "The Biblical Concept of Land," 61 n.15. 3 4

142

HALPERN-AMARU

so great that even Abraham who "was perfect with the Lord in every­ thing that he did" (23:10) died before he had completed four jubilees. The generations from Moses until "the great day of judgment" have even shorter lives. People grow old quickly and suffer from senility even though their days will be limited to seventy or eight years of misery (23:11-15). In the era of the worst corruption, the deterioration so accelerates that "the children's heads will turn white with gray hair. A child who is three weeks of age will look old like one whose years are 100..." (23:25). However, with the onset of the end-time, the pro­ cess reverses until lifetimes will approach 1000 years in which there is "neither a satan nor any evil one who will destroy"(23:27, 29). The magnitude of the vision suggests a mythic recovery of paradise lost. Indeed that precisely is the conception. The process that con­ cludes with restoration of thousand year lifespans began in Eden with Adam eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge. That first violation of divine law initiated what became the progressive shorten­ ing of human life. Adam's full life was to have been thousand years. Because of the sin, he died seventy years short of his full "day"(4:30).35

It appears that at the cosmic level of his eschaton the author has to­ tally disengaged exile and return from the historical context of the Land. However, in Jubilees cosmic and covenant history intersect. The garden of the first humans is not the usual paradise. It is God's special dwelling place, the site of the holy of holies. Adam and Eve 36

3 5

Describing 1000 years as "one day in the testimony of heaven," the author thus demonstrates that God in fact executed the threat, "on the day that you eat from it (the tree of knowledge) you will die." When the earth was divided and the garden together with the rest of Eden were allotted to Shem (8:16), Noah rejoiced for he knew "the garden of Eden was the holy of holies and the dwelling of the Lord" (8:19). Numerous passages in the work suggest the association between the Garden and the Temple. The Garden is enumerated as one of the places on earth that belong to the Lord (4:26; 8:19). Adam and Eve are both created outside the Garden; their sexual activity takes place outside the Garden; each is required to be in state of purity before entering the Garden (3:4-14); and Adam offers an incense offering before departing (3:27). On the association of the Garden of Eden with the Temple, see Joseph Baumgarten, "Purification after Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q65 and Jubilees" in George Brooks (ed.), New Qumran Texts and Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 3-10; Gary Anderson, "Celibacy or Consummation in the Garden? Reflections on early Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Garden of Eden," HTR 82:2 (1989) 121-48; John R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism, 3 6

EXILE AND RETURN IN JUBILEES

143

were forced to leave the sacred space because they, like the future Israelites, violated divine command (3:32). Their departure, however, has none of the drama of the biblical exile tale. The first couple are "dismissed/sent" (3:26) or "depart" (3:32) from the garden. There is no tree of life and no God-appointed cherubim to guard against the possibility of human return. To the contrary, the pure Enoch is brought to the Garden of Eden where he is protected from the Rood (4:23-26). Moreover, when the earth is divided among the sons of Noah, the garden and the rest of Eden are part of the territory allotted to Shem (8:16). Cosmic and covenant history intersect. But thereafter no more is heard of Eden. It is not mentioned in the division of lands among Shem's sons; in the usurpation tale, in the rewritten narratives of the promises to the patriarchs, or in the Jubilees reconstruction of deuteronomic history. The omission is quite deliberate. The author has no intention of introducing a Land focus into his system. It is suffi­ cient to locate the dwelling place of God in the territory of Noachite father who ancestors the line of the elected people of God. Eden is in the Land. But return to the Land is not return to the Garden. That restoration, like the recovery of longevity, is the signpost of a new time and a new creation "when the heaven and earth and all of their creatures shall be renewed...," "when Zion and Jerusalem shall be holy" and "the sanctuary of the Lord is created in Jerusalem upon Mount Zion" (1:28-29). The basic structure of the biblical covenant remains in Jubilees: promises to the patriarchs, a national covenant conditional on obedi­ ence to divine law; a conception of history organized around the paradigm of sin, punishment, repentance and restoration; and an endtime in which perfection is achieved. But in the Jubilees reconstruc­ tion the Land is no longer the key component in the structure. The election of the descendants of Jacob as God's people, not the promise of the Land, is the focal point around which Israel formulates its ori­ gins. The quality of Israel's relationship with God, not possession of the Land, is the gauge for interpreting covenantal history. Most signif(JSOTSup 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988); Howard N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative (HSM 32; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); and Jon Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48 (HSM 10; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976).

144

HALPERN-AMARU

icantly from the postexilic perspective of the author, restoration of a lost purity, not exile and return to the Land, is the signature of the imminent eschaton.

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS Louis H. Feldman Yeshiva University THE TERMINOLOGY OF EXILE

When Socrates has been judged by his jury to be guilty of the crimes of atheism and corrupting the youth, in accordance with Athenian practice he then is expected to propose a penalty. Among those penal­ ties which he considers and rejects is exile (Plato, Ap. 37C; Cri. 52C). The word which he uses for "exile" is clearly the standard word, namely <J>uyT|, as we see in many other instances in Plato, Greek tragedians, historians, and orators. When the Septuagint deals with exile (rfm), it uses the language of emigration or colonization. Thus, they translate rfnx in 2 Kgs 24:15 (LXX 4 Kgs 24:15) by the Greek word d T r o i i c e a i a , which means "emigration." The same Greek word is used by the Septuagint in Ezra (6:19) in referring to the rfTB. They use a word from the same stem, drrroLKLa ("migration," "colony") or its corresponding verb, diTOLKLCeiv, in translating the word rfmin Jeremiah (29:1, LXX 36:1) and the word ntn in Jer 28:4 (LXX 35:4), 29:22 (LXX 36:22), and 52:31, and 2 Kgs 25:27. The synonymous noun, jieToiiceala is also used by the Septuagint to translate rtfa (Judg 18:30) or n t o (Obad 1:20 [bis]) orrtm (Ezek 12:11, Nah 3:10). The picture that one gets is of the founding of a colony, since this, or the verb dTroiKiCa) derived from the same stem, is the word used by Herodotus in referring to the colonies established by the Athenians in Iona (1.146) and by the Therans in Cyrene (4.155) and the colony which Aristagoras the Milesian is thinking o f founding (5.124). The word &TToiKLa is likewise used by Hecataeus of Abdera (ap. Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica 40.3.3) is referring to the "colony" in Jerusalem 1

2

1

3

4

Ap. 21A, Grg. 516D, Leg. 638A, Prt. 325B. E.g., Aeschylus, Ag. 1412, Cho. 254, Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus 659; Euripides, Hipp. 37, 1043; Med. 400; Or. 900. Herodotus 7.3. Lysias 3.42,13.74,14.38; Andocides 1.78,1.106. 2

3

4

146

FELDMAN

and other cities established by Moses and his followers when they are allegedly driven by the Egyptians during a pestilence. That Philo is clearly aware of the significance of the term vyr\ as referring to exile is to be seen in the passage (Abr. 14.64) where, par­ alleling the discussion in Plato's Apology, Philo declares that actually exile is far a heavier punishment than death itself, since "death ends our troubles but banishment (cfnryTJ) is not the end but the beginning of other new misfortunes and entails in place of the one death which puts an end to pains a thousand deaths in which we do not lose sensation." When Philo (Cher. 1.2) speaks of the expulsion of Adam from the Garden of Eden and of the expulsion of Hagar (Cher. 1.3-2.4, 3.9) he refers to them as eternal banishment (4>vyr\v, "exile"). He likewise (Post. 2.9) refers to the exile of Cain in going forth into banishment (<J>uyfjsO from the God as the greatest possible penalty that one could possibly imagine. Philo thus adopts the word which is used by Plato and the other classical Greeks noted above for "exile." He stresses (1.1) that such people as Adam were not merely "sent forth" but "cast forth." He, moreover, uses the term (J>uyf| in connection with the exile into which those who have slain people must go (Fug. 10.53, 17.89; Spec. Leg. 1.161, 3.123, 3.150, 3.168). It is clear that Philo looks upon such exile as a punishment, inasmuch as he speaks (Quod Omn. Prob. 1.7, 8.55; cf. 20.145; Flacc. 12.105, 18.151, 21.181; Legat. 14.110, 43.341) in juxtaposition of those who have been condemned to dis­ franchisement or banishment (<J>uyTJ) and declares (Spec. Leg. 3.181) that those legislators deserve censure who prescribe banishment ($\)yT\) for wilful murder, since the penalty does not fit the crime. That, however, Philo does not regard the Jews who, in his day, were living in the Diaspora as "exiles" in this sense may be deduced from his statement (Virt. 19.117) that God may with a single call easily gather together from the ends of the earth to any place that He wills the exiles (an(^Kio\ievovg) dwelling in the utmost parts of the earth. The word which he here uses for exiles connotes those who have em­ igrated, who have settled in a far land, and who have been sent to col­ onize it, and has not the connotation of having been punished thus. The New Testament, on the other hand, uses the word <j>vyr\ only once (Matt 24:20), and then not in connection with exile but rather with the flight that will take place at the end of days. In connection with the Babylonian exile the word which is used is \ieroiKeoia (Matt 1:11, 12, 17) signifying merely a change of abode or a migration.

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

147

Similarly, Josephus, though he uses the word \)yi\ no fewer than 147 times, never employs it with reference to the exile of Israelites in 722-721 BCE or of the people of Judah in 586 BCE. The only occa­ sions where he uses it with reference to banishment is in connection with those who have committed involuntary manslaughter and for whom cities of refuge are appointed (Ant. 4.172-173). Clearly such exile is not a punishment but rather a refuge given to such people so as to escape revenge by kinsfolk of those whom they have slain. When Josephus (Ant. 10.33) cites the prophecy of Isaiah (2 Kgs 20:17-18; Isa 39:6-7) to King Hezekiah that within a short time his wealth would be taken away to Babylon and his offspring made eunuchs and ser­ vants to the king of Babylon, he avoids using any particular word for "exile." In describing (Ant. 10.149) the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar Josephus says that the Babylonian general removed (lieTavaoTiiaasO the people and carried (6K6\LIG€) them off, but he does not use the word for "exile." Again, when he comes to the ac­ count of Cyrus' decree permitting the return from Babylon (Ant. 11.1) Josephus asserts that this was the seventieth year from the time when the Jews were fated to migrate (|ieTai/a<jT"nvai) from their own land to Babylon. Here he mentions their servitude (SouXeuaaL) under Nebuchadnezzar but avoids the word "exile." Similarly, throughout the narrative of Daniel and his companions in Nebuchadnezzar's court in Babylon Josephus (Ant. 10.186-281) avoids using any word for "exile." Elsewhere the language which Josephus (Ant. 10.223) uses for the deportation is that of the founding of colonies (KCXTOLKLCIS , "settlements," "residences")—a standard word for colonies, as we see in Strabo (5.4.11, 6.2.5), in Plutarch (Ant.16, Pomp. 47), in Appian (B Civ. 5.19) and in papyri (Tebtunis Papyri 61 [b].227, dating f r o m the second century BCE), or for a body of residents in a foreign city, as we see in an inscription (IGRom. [Paris, 1927] 4.834). Nebuchadnezzar, he says (Ant. 11.91), took the people captive (alxM-dXcoTov) to Babylon, where he settled (\L€T&KIO€V) them. Elsewhere (Ant. 11.180) Josephus speaks of those who returned to Jerusalem f r o m the land of their captivity (alxM-aXajcrias) rather than of their exile. Again, in his summary of the list of high priests, he remarks (Ant. 20.231) that Nebuchadnezzar "carried away (|i6Tf|veyK6v) our nation" but does not use the word "exiled." He asserted (Ap. 1.132) that Nebuchadnezzar dislodged (dvaaTT|aas ) and transported (p.eTtoiaaev) the entire popu­ lation of the Jews to Babylon. Josephus (Ant. 10.223) says, quoting >

,

148

FELDMAN

the Babylonian historian Berossus, that on becoming master of his fa­ ther's entire realm Nebuchadnezzar gave orders to allot to the cap­ tives, when they came, settlements (KQTOIKIQS; dTroiKtas', "colonies" in Ap. 1.138) in the most suitable places in Babylonia. Finally, when Josephus (Ant. 11.8) speaks of the return of the Jews from Babylon, whereas the Bible (Ezra 2:1) mentions the return of those who came up out of the captivity of the exile (rfrin), the Septuagint renders this as diTOLKtas' and Josephus himself does not refer to the exile as such at all. Indeed, even in his own day Josephus (Ap. 2.38) viewed the Jewish community of Alexandria as a colony; and in his argument there that the Jews are entitled to be called Alexandrians, he insists that "all per­ sons invited to join a colony ( d T r o u d a v ) , however different their na­ tionality, take the name of the founders." 5

JOSEPHUS' POSITIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD EXILE

One would expect that Josephus would have a positive attitude toward the concept of exile. One indication of this is to be found in his auto­ biography, where he remarks that Titus, upon his departure for Rome in 70 CE, took Josephus with him, treating him with every mark of re­ spect (Life 422). Josephus adds that when he arrived in Rome he re­ ceived great consideration from the Emperor Vespasian (Life 423), who gave him lodging, citizenship, and a pension. Josephus then notes 6

5

In the Slavonic version of Josephus' Jewish War replacing 1.364-370 we find a reference in the speech of a certain Jonathan predicting the coming of a Messiah who will not give over the Jews to desolation and ruin as under Nebuchadnezzar. He then adds that the prophets then made promises concerning the captivity and concerning the return. In another passage replacing 4.407 the revolutionaries are accused of having forgotten what the Jews had endured during their bondage in Egypt, during their captivity under Nebuchadnezzar, and during the implementation of Antiochus Epiphanes' decrees. These passages, however, with their very negative view of the exile, have no parallel in the Greek of Josephus. I am indebted to J. Bernard Orchard, who is the director of the English translation project of the Slavonic version and who has been kind enough to send me a first draft of this forthcoming version. Adolf Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1932) 87, ascribes significance to the fact that Josephus completely avoids the word "Diaspora," but, as he himself notes, Josephus does use the verbs 8iaaTre£pa> (Ant. 8.271 and Ap. 1.33) and TTapacnTetpci) (7W7.43) (incorrectly cited by Schlatter as 7.113). 6

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

149

that his privileged position exposed him to envy but that Vespasian supported him and that he was able to overcome all these accusations (Life 425). Upon Vespasian's death, he adds, the new emperor, Titus, Vespasian's son, showed him the same esteem (Life 428-429). What is striking is that Josephus nowhere expresses pain at being exiled from his homeland, whether this is due to his fear of offending the Emperor or whether he really felt at home in his new residence in Rome. And nowhere does he express the hope of prayer that he will be able to re­ turn to Jerusalem, his birthplace and the site of his beloved Temple, where he had served as a priest. Indeed, Schalif concludes that after the abortive revolution of 66-74 Josephus gave up on the land of Israel and saw the future of the Jews as being in the Western diaspora. Kaufmann asserts that Josephus gave up the traditional Messianic hope in complete silence, so that he even claimed that the oracle that someone from Judaea would become ruler of the world applied to Vespasian (JW 6.312-313); hence he no longer saw the land of Israel as central to the Jewish people. Moreover, the pride with which Josephus refers to the spread of Jews throughout the inhabited world (JW 6.442, 7.43; Ant. 14.114) would indicate that he did not regard the exile in pejorative terms. In a striking passage (Ap. 2.284) he compares the spread of the Law, that is of Judaism, to the degree to which God permeates the universe. It is likewise with pride that Josephus (JW 7.43) remarks that the Jewish people are densely interspersed Crrapea-rrapTai) among the native populations of every portion of the world. Other clues to Josephus' attitude may be seen in his paraphrase of the Bible in the first half of the Antiquities. The first place where Josephus might have mentioned the concept of exile was in his para­ phrase of the biblical account of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. In the biblical account the expulsion (Gen 3:23) is clearly a punishment intended to prevent Adam and Eve from par­ taking of the tree of life and thus of living forever. To enforce this punishment we are told (Gen 3:24) that God placed cherubim and a flaming sword at the east of the Garden of Eden. That the expulsion from Eden is a punishment inflicted by God upon Adam and Eve be7

8

7

Abraham Schalit (ed.), Josephus, Jewish Antiquities [in Hebrew], vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Bailik, 1944) lxxxi. Yehezkel Kaufmann, "03i rbv [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1929) 297. 8

150

FELDMAN 9

cause of their disobedience is clear in Philo (Post. 2.9-3.10, as well as in the rabbinic tradition (Gen. Rab. 11:7), with both of which there is good reason to believe Josephus was acquainted. What is further­ more significant is that the rabbinic tradition (Gen. Rab. 21:8), which has a play on the word tthm ("drove out") as onri ("crushed"), de­ clares that this intimates that when God drove out Adam He showed him the destruction of the Temple, in connection with which it quotes the verse, "He has made my teeth grind (onri) on gravel" (Lam 3:16), the implication being that the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE was, like the expulsion of Adam, due to sinful behavior. On the other hand, Josephus (Ant. 1.51) makes no such connection and, in­ deed, after mentioning the penalties imposed upon Adam, Eve, and the serpent, then states that God removed (|ieToiKi£ei, "resettled," "led to another abode") them the garden to another place, clearly sepa­ rating this from the penalties themselves. In the case of Cain, the Bible (Gen 4:12) states that, as a punish­ ment for the murder of his brother Abel, he was to be "a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth." The parallel of Cain's wandering with the ex­ ile of the Jews to Babylonia may be inferred from the statement of Rabbi Judah the son of Rabbi Hiyya, who lived in Babylonia and Palestine at the end of the second and at the beginning of the third century, that exile (mbi) atones for half of men's sins (b. Sank. 57b). To be sure, Philo (Post. 3.10) asserts that Cain left the land voluntar­ ily, in contrast to Adam, whom God drove out. Josephus (Ant. 1.58) specifically says that God expelled him from the land. But even here whereas Cain in the Bible (Gen 4:14) expresses the fear that whoever finds him will slay him and whereas God, in turn (Gen 4:15), reas­ sures him that if anyone slays him vengeance will be taken upon him sevenfold, in Josephus (Ant. 1.59) God reassures him that he will be in no danger from beasts and that he may fare unafraid "through every land" (8id TOOT|s\..ynsO, a hint, we may suggest, that the Jew wan­ dering in exile through every land in the Diaspora need not be afraid, since God will protect him. 10

9

Nevertheless, elsewhere Philo (Plant. 8.34) adopts language similar to that of Josephus in stating not that Adam and Eve were expelled but rather that the migrated (iieTavac7Tr]i>ai) from the Garden of Eden. As to Philo see my Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984) 410-18. As to the rabbinic tradition see my "Josephus' Portrait of Ezra," V743 (1993) 190-214 (211-12). 1 0

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

151

It is, furthermore, significant that in the discussion that follows after Noah emerges from the ark, Josephus (Ant. 1.110-112), in a passage which has no parallel in the Bible, in Philo, in Ps-Philo, and in rab­ binic literature, focuses on the failure of Noah's descendants, despite an increase in population, to send out colonies (crreXXeiv diTOLKLot^). Josephus (Ant. 1.110) cites another reason for sending out colonies, namely so that the inhabitants might not quarrel with one another, a motive which is reminiscent of that which led Abraham to divide his land with Lot (Ant. 1.169). It is such quarreling (ardaig in Corcyra) which Thucydides (3.82-84) so bewails and which David (Ant. 7.372) asks his sons to cease from which Solomon (Ant. 7.337) asks to be free. To Josephus (Ant. 1.110) this failure to send out colonies and, in effect, to establish a diaspora, is a result of the people's blindness, and the consequence is that they were plunged into calamities. As Josephus (Ant. 1.112) puts it, in their refusal to emigrate, the descen­ dants of Noah were suspicious that God was plotting against them so that they would be divided and thus more open to attack, whereas in point of fact they did not realize that they owed their blessings to His benevolence rather than to their own might. This is, we may suggest, in contrast to Herodotus' favorable description (1.94) of the founding of Etruria by Lydians due to lack of food, presumably owing to over­ population. To be sure, the Midrash (Pirqe R. El. 24) also notes a rapid increase in population among Noah's descendants, remarking that women gave birth to sextuplets, but it says nothing about the founding of colonies. As to the patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—, whereas the Bible, as Betsy Halpern-Amaru stresses, emphasizes the covenanted promise of the Land of Israel, Josephus speaks in more universal terms to a Roman audience out of his perspective as a diaspora Jew writing in the year 93, two decades after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, whose commitment is to a diaspora coexisting with a home­ land. Whereas in the Bible (Gen 15:18-21) there is a covenantal promise by God that Abraham's descendants will possess the Land of Israel, in Josephus (Ant. 1.185) there is merely a prediction that his 11

1 1

Betsy Halpern-Amaru, "Land Theology in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities" JQR 71 (1980-81) 201-29 (211); idem, Rewriting the Bible: Land and Covenant in Postbiblical Jewish Literature (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994) 103.

152

FELDMAN 12

descendants will vanquish the Canaanites and possess the land. In particular, whereas the Bible (Num 4:7-8) speaks o f Palestine as an exceedingly good land flowing with milk and honey, abounding in water and fruits and metals (Deut 8:7-9) which will be forever under the watchful eyes of God (Deut 11:12), Josephus has none of this mystical and poetic description but rather refers to the land as he does to the earth in general by the most general word for land yfj, on two occasions referring to Canaan and immediately thereafter "the earth" by the same word yf\. Moreover, in a passage which is Josephus' own, since it has no parallel in the Bible, God in a dream reminds Amram, the father of Moses, that Abraham had bequeathed Arabia to Ishmael, Troglodytis to his children by Keturah, and Canaan to Isaac (Ant. 2.213). Significantly, whereas the Bible (Gen 25:6) states the Abraham sent away his sons by Keturah to the East, Josephus (Ant. 1.239) says that Abraham sent them out to found colonies (dTroiKcSv), a word which is used in place of exile by both Philo (Virt. 19.117) and Josephus (Ap. 1.138). As Amaru insightfully stresses, there is no dis­ tinction among Arabia, Troglodytis, and Canaan; and what is even more striking is that it is Abraham, not God, who grants these lands to Abraham's children. Again, whereas in the Bible (Gen 28:15) the climax of God's mes­ sage to Jacob in his dream is to assure him that He will bring him back to the land of Canaan, in Josephus' version (Ant. 1.280-283) God re­ assures him that He will be with him on his journey to Mesopotamia to find a wife but says nothing about Jacob's return to the Land. To Josephus the Diaspora is clearly a blessing, since God promises Jacob (Ant. 1.282) that Jacob's children shall fill all that the sun beholds of earth and sea and not merely the land of Canaan. In the case of Joseph, it would seem that his sale to Egypt was pun­ ishment, and this would appear to be the implication from Thackeray's version that Joseph was "banished to remotest exile;" but this is a mistranslation, since the Greek says merely that he was "furthest away" (TroppwTdTO)), with no implication of exile. 13

14

15

1 2

Amaru, Rewriting the Bible , 96-7. Amaru, Rewriting the Bible , 102, 105. Amaru, Rewriting the Bible, 98-9. Henry St. J. Thackeray (trans.), Josephus IV (LCL 242; London: Heinemann, 1930) 183 on Ant. 2.33. 1 3

1 4

1 5

153

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

It is extremely effective that, in an addition to the biblical text (Num 23:7-10, 18-24, 24:3-9, 15-24), it is a pagan prophet, Balaam, who predicts, in the most glorious terms (Ant. 4.155-116), the spread of the Israelites throughout the world: With their fame shall earth and sea be filled: aye and ye shall suffice for the world, to furnish every land with inhabitants sprung from your race. Marvel ye then, blessed army, that from a single sire ye have grown so great? Nay, those numbers now are small and shall be contained by the land of Canaan; but the habitable world (olKoupiifiv), be sure, lies before you as an eternal habitation, and your multitudes shall find abode on islands and continent, more numerous even than the stars in heaven.

What is particularly noteworthy is that the Diaspora is not only pre­ sented in very positive terms (Num 23:7-24 makes no mention of the Jews' being dispersed throughout the world) but that it is said to be eternal. Again, whereas just before his death Moses (Deut 28:64) warns the Israelites that if they disobey the Law God "will scatter ( - p w i ) thee among all the nations, from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth," Josephus (Ant. 4.313) omits all mention of the forth­ coming Diaspora and asserts that they will be sold into slavery to men who will take no pity on their misfortunes. Though he very greatly abbreviates Moses' speech warning the Israelites in great detail of the misfortunes that they will endure for disobedience to the Law, he adds that their cities and the Temple will be lost not once but often, but without indicating that these losses will be accompanied with a disper­ sion of the Jews. Moreover, in his accounts of the threatened disper­ sion, Josephus omits completely the promises of redemption and re­ turn, such as is found in Deut 30:3: "He [God] will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you." Josephus' treatment of the exile of the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel in 722/721 BCE is likewise significant. To be sure, exile is pre­ sented as a punishment, but this is only when it is a prediction on the part of the prophet Ahijah (1 Kgs 14:15; Ant. 8.271). When, however, the Bible describes the actual final defeat of the Kingdom of Israel, it (2 Kgs 17:6-7) puts into immediate juxtaposition the statement that the Assyrian king carried away the Israelites to Assyria and explicitly as16

17

1 6

Cf. Schalit, Josephus, l.lxxxi, who interprets this as a plea for the viability of Jewish life in the Diaspora. Amaru, "Land Theology;' 224. 1 7

154

FELDMAN

serts that this was so because the people of Israel had sinned against God. Such a juxtaposition is lacking in Josephus (Ant. 9.279). At one point (Ant. 9.249) the prophet Oded rebukes the army of the Kingdom of Israel for daring to take captive people of tribes of Judah and Benjamin and warns them that if they do not release these captives "they should suffer punishment at the hands of God." But he does not specify what the punishment will be and gives no hint that it will be exile from the land of Israel. And when the Kingdom of Israel is fi­ nally defeated by the Assyrians, Josephus does not say that they were "exiled" or "dispersed" but rather says that the Assyrian king Shalmaneser transported OieTioKiaev, "led to another abode") the Israelites to Media and Persia (Ant. 9.278); two paragraphs later, using a verb based on the same stem, he says that the ten tribes "emigrated" (p.eTO)KTi(jav, "changed their abode") from Judaea (Ant. 9.280). The punishment, or at any rate the main ingredient of the punishment, is in the fact that the Assyrian king "utterly destroyed" (dpSr|v f|dvia€) the government of Israel, that is, the political end of the Kingdom of Israel. As for the great exile as a result of the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, one view of the rabbis was that it actually served a positive purpose. One positive view of exile in general, as expressed by an anonymous rabbi (Ber. 56a), is that exile (rrfa) gives an opportunity to atone for iniquity. Another positive aspect may be seen in the statement of the second-century Palestinian Rabbi Nehorai (m. Avoth 4:14) that one should go into exile (nbi) to a place of Torah, that is, the very experience of exile is of positive benefit since it brings about greater self-reliance. Still another reason why God exiled the Jews is, is the words of the third-century Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedath, in order that proselytes might join them (ft. Pesah. 87b). That exile is generally viewed positively is clear from the remark (ft. Pesah. 49a) of the Babylonian Rabbi Kahana, who lived in the third and fourth centuries, that if he had not married a priest's daughter he would not have gone into exile (vbi) and that even though the place of exile was one of learning, he was not exiled as people are ordinarily exiled, that is voluntarily and beneficially, but rather had been forced to flee. That the Babylonian exile should be viewed positively may be inferred from the remark (ft. Pesah. 87b) of Rabbi Hiyya, who lived in Babylonia and Palestine at the end of the second century, that since God knew that the Jews would be unable to endure the cruel decrees

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

155

of Edom (i.e. the Romans) he therefore exiled them to Babylonia, to this the third-century Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedath added that they were exiled to Babylonia because it is as deep as Sheol, that is, its very depth guaranteed a speedy redemption. The third-and early fourthcentury Palestinian and Babylonian Rabbi Hanina then remarked that the reason why the Jews were exiled to Babylonia was that the lan­ guage of that country, that is Aramaic, is similar to Hebrew. The final comment in this sequence is by the third-century Palestinian Rabbi Johanan ben Nappaha and is most positive in its view of the exile, namely that God exiled the Jews to Babylonia because "He sent them back to their mother's house," that is, to Babylonia, since Abraham had originally come from there. Finally, lest one think that the pres­ ence of God was to be found only in the Temple in Jerusalem, Rabbi Judah ben Menasiah, a Palestinian Amora, declares—and is not con­ tradicted—that God fills the whole world, as the soul fills the body. In fact, there is even a debate (Pesiq. R. 160a) as to whether the presence of God dwelled in the Second Temple at all. Even more, as expressed by the Palestinian Hoshaiah Rabbah in the third century, "The Holy One, blessed be He, showed righteousness unto Israel by scattering them among the nations" (Pesah. 87b). In support of this position Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedath (ibid.) quotes Hosea (2:25), "I will sow her unto Me in the land," since a farmer sows a certain amount of seed in order to harvest much more. As Modrzejewksi points out, in the Greek version of this text from Hosea, mronn ("I will sow") becomes onepQ, the future of cmreipa), the verb from which diaspora is derived. He suggests, very plausibly, that this positive evaluation by the rabbis of the diaspora may well have originated in a Jewish rejoinder to the Christian interpretation—which was negative—of the notion of the diaspora, as we see, for example, in Origen (C. Cels. 5.22), who sees it as a just retribution for the crime of deicide. As for Josephus' depiction of the Babylonian captivity, he does not use such a word as f evoopm ("to go into banishment") for "exile" but rather asserts that the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar "took captive" the people of Judah and "carried them away" (&Trrjyayev) to Babylon. Far worse than being carried away is the prospect of the city of 18

1 8

Joseph MeUeze-Modrzejewski, "How to Be a Greek and Yet a Jew in Hellenistic Alexandria," in Shaye J. D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (BJS 288; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) 65-92 (71).

156

FELDMAN

Jerusalem being destroyed, as we see from Josephus' striking remark (Ant. 10.100) that the Judaean king Jehoiachin did not think it right to allow the city to be endangered on his account and consequently re­ moved his mother and his relatives and delivered them to the com­ manders sent by the Babylonian king. As we can see from his portrait of Jehoiachin, Josephus saw a striking parallel between the events leading up to the destruction of both the First and Second Temples and those of his own day; hence he concludes (Ant. 10.100) that it is wiser to surrender to the superpower and to endure exile than to resist and bring about destruction of the Temple and of the land. He was certainly aware of the criticism that must have been leveled against Jehoiachin for surrendering the city of Jerusalem, as he was of the bitter criticism that he himself had suffered for surrendering Jotapata to the Romans. It is surely striking that in his address to his rival John of Gischala and to his fellow-Jews, Josephus appeals to the same mo­ tives that led Johoiachin to surrender, namely, to spare his country and to save the Temple from destruction. As a sole precedent, he cites (JW 6.103-4) the instance of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), whose action he refers to as a noble example, in that he voluntarily endured captivity together with his family rather than see the Temple go up in flames. He then, in a veritable peroration and clearly disregarding the biblical statement that Jehoiachin did evil, remarks that because of this action Jehoiachin is celebrated in sacred story by all Jews and will be remembered for­ ever. It is significant, too, that aside from David and Solomon, Jehoiachin is the only king mentioned by name in the Jewish War. Indeed, so impressed is Josephus with Jehoiachin's behavior that in­ stead of characterizing him, as does the Bible (2 Kgs 14:9; 2 Chron 36:9), as one who did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, he de19

20

1 9

,,

See my "Josephus' Portrait of Jehoiachin, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 139.1 (1995) 11-31. So also the rabbinic tradition (Lev. Rab. 19:6), which praises Jehoiachin because, in his devotion to his people, he did not wish the city of Jerusalem to be exposed to peril for his sake but rather surrendered himself to the Babylonians after they had sworn that neither the city of Jerusalem nor the people should suffer harm. The Midrash (Lev. Rab. 19:6), clearly refusing to denigrate life in the Diaspora, remarks that while Jehoiachin was living in Jerusalem he did not observe the ritual laws of family purity but that he did so in Babylonia and consequently was pardoned by God for his sins. 2 0

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

157

scribes him (Ant. 1 0 . 1 0 0 ) as being kind (xpy\or6g) and (SLKGUOS'). The Bible ( 2 Kgs 2 4 : 1 2 ) says nothing about Jehoiachin's motive in surrendering. Moreover, the Bible ( 2 Kgs 2 4 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) describes graphi­ cally and in detail how Nebuchadnezzar "carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon; the king's mother, the king's wives, his officials, and the chief men of the land, he took into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. And the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon all the men of valor, seven thousand, and the craftsmen and the smiths, one thousand, all of them strong and fit for war." Josephus, on the other hand (Ant. 1 0 . 1 0 1 ) , says the Babylonian king ordered his men to take captive all the young men and craftsmen in the city and to bring them in chains to him, but says nothing about their being brought to Babylon. Indeed, it is only in the third deportation (Ant. 1 0 . 1 5 0 ) that we hear specifically that the Babylonian king took all the Judaean captives and King Zedekiah to Babylon; and even there he does not say that he "exiled" them there but rather that he led (fjyayev) them there. Similarly, Josephus rehabilitates Zedekiah. In the Bible ( 2 Kgs 2 5 : 4 , Jer 3 9 : 4 ) we are told that this king, together with all his soldiers, fled when a breach was made in the city. Josephus (Ant. 1 0 . 1 3 6 ) , on the other hand, notes, in the first place, that Zedekiah's primary concern was for the Temple, since it is only when he learned that the Temple had been entered by the enemy that he fled; and, in the second place, it is Zedekiah who takes the initiative to take his wives and children with him in his flight, as well as his officers and friends. Moreover, in order not to detract from Zedekiah's reputation for bravery, whereas the Bible ( 2 Kgs 2 5 : 8 ) indicates that it was the Babylonian army that was responsible for the pursuit and capture of the king, Josephus (Ant. 1 0 . 1 3 7 ) puts the blame on the Jews who had earlier deserted to the Babylonians and who informed the Babylonians of Zedekiah's at­ tempt to escape. Josephus' clear message is that it is wiser to surren­ der and to endure exile, as he himself did, rather than to bring about the destruction of the country and, in particular, of the Temple, which was so dear to him, the priest belonging to the first of the twenty-four courses of priests (Life 2 ) . Indeed, Jeremiah (Ant. 1 0 . 1 2 8 ) bids Zedekiah to take courage and tells him that he would suffer no harm 21

2 1

For a discussion of the significance of this complete reversal of the biblical statement see my "Josephus* Portrait of Jehoiachin," 11-31.

158

FELDMAN

in surrendering to the Babylonians and (in an addition to Scripture, Jer 38:17) that the Temple would consequently remain unharmed. In fact, in his summary of the deportations of the people of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Josephus (Ant. 10.183) says that ten tribes were driven out (ef eireaev, "fell out," "were driven out") by the Assyrians, as were the two tribes by Nebuchadnezzar. He says that Shalmaneser "removed" ( d v a a T r j a a s ' ) the Israelites rather than that he exiled them, and similarly that the king of Babylon "led away" (efayayuiv) the two tribes (Ant. 10.184). Finally, in his summary (Ant. 10.185) of the deportations of 721 BCE and 586 BCE, he speaks of the interval of time between the captivity (alxM-aXwaiasO of the Israelites until the removal (Avaoraaiv) of the two tribes but avoids the word "exile." To be sure, in the War (5.389) Josephus does refer to the seventy years of the Judaean's bondage in Babylon as an exile (\jLeravdaTT\g, "one who has changed his home," "wanderer," "emigrant"), but the crucial point here is that it is Josephus who is speaking, endeavoring to convince his countrymen to surrender, since it is quite clear that God is not on their side, any more than that He was on their side when they fought the Babylonians. "In short," as he concludes (JW 5.390), "there is no instance of our forefathers having triumphed by arms or failed of success without them when they committed their cause to God: if they sat still they conquered, as it pleased their Judge, if they fought they were invariably defeated." In his account of Ezra and Nehemiah, who were leaders in the re­ turn from the Babylonian captivity, we might have expected that Josephus would magnify the figure of Ezra the priest, just as the rab­ bis elaborate on his tremendous achievements as a scholar, teacher, legislator, prophet, and holy man, especially since Josephus is so proud of his own priestly status, which he mentions in the very first sentence of his Life ( l ) . Indeed, as Koch remarks, Ezra's work was 22

2 2

23

See my "Josephus' Portrait of Ezra," 190-214. K. Koch, "Ezra and the Origins of Judaism," JSS 19 (1974) 173-97 (196). To be sure, as Morton Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971) 122, has noted, outside the traditions which are preserved in the Books of Chronicles and 1 Esdras, Ezra cuts no great figure in early Jewish Legend. Thus, for example, Ben Sira (49:1113), in his list of heroes, does not mention him but rather praises Nehemiah; similarly, he is ignored by 2 Maccabees. However, by the time of Josephus, if we 2 3

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

159

probably as all-encompassing as that of Moses himself, since his ambitious aim was to rebuild Israel as the nation of twelve tribes, in­ cluding even the Samaritans. Furthermore, we would expect special attention to be given to Ezra by Josephus in view of his great knowl­ edge of and general antagonism toward the Samaritans, who, in turn, according to the Second Samaritan Chronicle, looked upon Ezra as their arch-enemy because he altered the script and contents of the Torah. Moreover, whereas such major biblical figures as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, and Solomon are mentioned by Josephus on numerous occasions outside the pericope devoted specifically to them, once Josephus completes his narrative of Ezra with the mention of his death, he nowhere refers to him again. In actuality, however, the ratio of space given by Josephus as compared with the Hebrew text for Ezra is only 1.22, where the ratio for such figures as Korah is 3.42, for Rehoboam is 3.51, and for King Zedekiah is 7.45. Furthermore, because to a writer of a history of the Jews like him­ self Nehemiah's memoir would be of immense importance and be­ cause, indeed, a whole biblical book is devoted to Nehemiah and be­ cause Nehemiah was of crucial importance in the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of the Temple, which were so important to Josephus, who was born in Jerusalem and who, as a priest, had a special attach­ ment to the Temple, one would expect Josephus to aggrandize his portrait. The lack of attention given to Nehemiah, where the ratio of Josephus' coverage to that in the biblical original is .24, is even more striking, in fact the least of all major figures in the Bible. We may attribute this brevity in part to Nehemiah's unpopularity in his own 24

25

may judge from rabbinic literature, Ezra had come to be regarded as a key figure in Jewish history. See my "Josephus' Attitude toward the Samaritans: A Study in Ambivalence," in Menachem Mor (ed.), Jewish Sects, Religious Movements, and Political Parties (Omaha: Creigton University Press, 1992) 23-45. A late rabbinic tradition (Tanhuma on Vayesevl [end]; Pirqe R. EL 37 [38]) recalls the total excommunication of the Samaritans, allegedly proclaimed by Ezra with great solemnity in the presence of three hundred priests, three hundred children, and three hundred scrolls of the Torah, to the accompaniment of three hundred trumpets. See my "Josephus' Portrait of Nehemiah," JJS 43 (1992) 187-202. 2 4

2 5

160

FELDMAN 26

lifetime or to the fact that he was supposedly excessively self-com­ placent (b. Sank. 93b) or to the relative paucity of aggadic material about Nehemiah. Nevertheless, the fact that Nehemiah was identified with the famed Zerubbabel (b. Sank. 38a), the leader of the original caravan of repatriates who is spoken of a the builder of the Temple which frequently bear his name (Ezra 3:2), should, it would seem, have induced Josephus, who was so proud of his priesthood, to give him much more attention. Apparently, the concept of return from exile was not for Josephus a matter of major importance. That Josephus did not view the exile negatively may also be de­ duced from his version of Hainan's charge against the Jews of Persia, namely that they are "a wicked nation scattered (8iea7Tdp0ai) throughout the habitable land (olKOvpivTisO ruled by him." The fact that he {Ant. 11.212) closely follows the Septuagint's version (Esther 3:8) that the Jews are "a nation scattered (Siecrrrapiiivov) among the nations in all your kingdom" indicates that for him the verb 8LaaTreLpa) from which Diaspora is derived is not to be viewed nega­ tively, inasmuch as this word is put into the mouth of the Jews' arch­ enemy Haman, and especially since he has Haman add immediately thereafter, in phrases that have no counterpart in the Hebrew original or in the Septuagint, that the Jews are unsociable (dpiKTov, "unmingled"—a term used of Centaurs and Cyclopes ) and incompat­ ible (dLG\)\L<\>v\ov, "unsuitable," "not akin"). Since these are stock charges similar to those used by the Alexandrian Jew-baiters whom Josephus answers in his essay Against Apion, we may assume that Josephus did not view the scattering of the Jews in a negative sense. Indeed, one reason why Josephus presents the account of Esther so extensively is to show what Jews can do in an alien environment and how God will rescue them. Finally, we may note Josephus' use of the verb Siaa-nre'ipo) in a neu­ tral sense (Ap. 1.33)—but certainly not in a negative sense—where he 27

28

29

2 6

Cf. b. Sank. 103b, which points out that Nehemiah, like David, had many enemies; yet both were truly righteous men. Sophocles, Track. 1095; Euripides, Cyc. 429. See my "Hellenizations in Josephus' Version of Esther," TAPA 101 (1970) 163-4. See Willem C. van Unnik, Das Selbstverstandnis der jiidischen Diaspora in der Hellenistisch-rdmischen Zeit (ed. Pieter Willem van der Horst; AGJU 17; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 139. 2 7

2 8

2 9

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

161

remarks that Jewish priests keep a strict account of their marriages not only in Judaea but also in Egypt, Babylonia, and "other parts of the world in which any of the priestly order are living in dispersion" (SieaTTapiievoi). JOSEPHUS' VIEW OF EXILE AS PUNISHMENT

The prevalent view of the rabbis is that exile is a punishment inflicted upon the Jews for their sins. Thus (m. Avoth 5:9) we read that "exile comes into the world because of the worship of idols, fornication, and bloodshed." Indeed, in an anonymous comment (b. Yoma 9b) we are told that it is these three sins that are responsible for the destruction of the First Temple. Similarly (b. Shabb. 33a), in an anonymous state­ ment, we are told that the Jews suffer exile (nbi) as a punishment for incest, idolatry, and the non-observance of the sabbatical and jubilee years. A clearly negative view of exile is to be seen in the statement of the third-century Babylonian Rabbi Hana bar Abba, namely that there are three things of which God repents that He had created, namely Exile, the Chaldeans, the Ishmaelites, and the Evil Inclination (b. Sukk. 52b). In particular, the juxtaposition of the Exile with the Evil Inclination is conclusive indication of the extent to which Exile is viewed negatively. That the exile is a cause for weeping is clear from the statement of the third-century Babylonian Rabbi Isaac ben Samuel in the name of the third-century Babylonian Rav at God himself (b. Ber. 3a) is said to remark, "Woe to the children on account of whose sins I destroyed My house and burned My temple and exiled them among the nations of the world." It is likewise to be inferred from the explanation of the third-century Palestinian Rabbi Eleazar ben Pedath of the prophet Jeremiah's threefold mention of weeping (Jer 13:17, that it refers to the first Temple, to the second Temple, and to Israel who have become exiled from their place (b. Hag. 5b). Likewise negative is the observation of the second-and third-century Babylonian Rab that exile is a greater hardship for men than for women (b. Sanh. 26a). Again, the second-century Palestinian Rabbi Ishmael speculates whether because Israel is now exiled they should revert to the restriction forbidding the eating of meat (b. Hul. 16b). On

162

FELDMAN

the other hand, the ultimate goal of Judaism is the return of all Jews to the Land of Israel (Gen. Rab. 98:9). ° Though the noun Diaspora is not found in Josephus, the verb 8 r aaireLpa), which is found in many writers ranging from Herodotus to Sophocles and appears sixteen times in Josephus, generally has a neg­ ative nuance. In Josephus, however, it is used in connection with exile and viewed as a punishment in only one passage (Ant. 8.271), which closely parallels the Bible (1 Kgs 14:15), namely where the prophet Ahijah predicts to King Jeroboam of Israel that not only is his line doomed but that his people, too, shall share this punishment (Tip.a)p'iasO "by being driven from their good land and scattered (Siacrrrapei/) over the country beyond the Euphrates because they have followed the impious ways of King Jeroboam." That Josephus, however, elsewhere viewed exile as punishment may be deduced from Moses' speech to the Israelites before his death. In Josephus (Ant. 4.190), as in the Bible (Deut 4:27), Moses warns the people that if they disobey God's laws He will scatter them (fam, LXX Siacrrrepet, Josephus OKebaaQeves) throughout the habitable world (olKOupiwris, Ant. 4.190). But here the focus is on rejection of Moses' leadership; as Josephus has Moses declare, "Think not that liberty lies in resenting what your rulers require you to do" (Ant. 4.187). Likewise, whereas in the Bible (1 Kgs 9:7) God warns Solomon that if he or his children fail to keep His commandments, He will cut off Israel from the land which He has given them, Josephus (Ant. 8:127) amplifies this statement by asserting that after driving them out of the land which He had given to their fathers He would make them aliens (eTrrjXuSas', "strangers," "immigrants") in a strange (dXXoTpias' ("foreign," "alien," "hostile") land. The emphasis here is on the 3

31

3 0

The Church Fathers viewed the exile similarly as a punishment; but whereas the rabbis looked upon it as retribution for the sins noted above, Fathers such as Origin (C. Cels. 5.22) regarded it as punishment for the crime of deicide. Cf. van Unnik, Selbstverstandnis der judischen Diaspora, 140, who notes that this is the only passage where the verb SiacjTTdpa) in an unfavorable sense but remarks that this is true for only a portion of the Jewish people. We may suggest that is in line with Josephus' overwhelmingly unfavorable view of Jeroboam as the one who had caused the dissension that had split the Jewish people. See my "Josephus' Portrait of Jeroboam," AUSS 31 (1993) 29-51. 3 1

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

163

penalty for disobedience to the Law and on the prediction of the forth­ coming disaster of 586 BCE. Similar significance may be seen in Azariah's prophecy (Ant. 296297) to King Asa that if the Jews abandoned the worship of God, they, as a punishment, would be scattered (aTrap^aeTa) over the face of the earth so that they would lead a life as aliens (eTrr|Xw) and wanderers (dXnTTiv). In the corresponding passage in the Bible (2 Chron 15:2) we read merely that if the Jews will forsake God He will forsake them, and there is no mention of the Jews being scattered throughout the earth. We should note, however, that there is no hint in Josephus of the traditional Jewish hope that the Jews would some day be gathered together from the exile and return to the land of Israel. This omission may well be due to the fact that Josephus was sensitive to the charge that the Jews were a nation within a nation who would forever be sub­ versive until their return from captivity. Again, whereas in the Bible (2 Kgs 22:11; 2 Chron 34:19) when King Josiah discovers the books of Moses and has them read, he rents his clothes since he realizes that the people have failed to observe the laws, Josephus (Ant. 10.59) adds that Josiah was afraid that his people would be "driven away (dvdcrraToi, "driven from house and home") and, after being cast out of their own country into a foreign (dXXoTp'iasO land where they would be destitute of all things, might there miserably end their lives." Here, too, Josephus' emphasis is on the importance of obeying the Law and on the prediction that the de­ feat in 586 BCE will be due to disobeying that Law. That Josephus viewed the Babylonian exile as a punishment may be deduced from Josephus' speech to his fellow-countrymen urging them to surrender to the Romans. "You know," he says (JW 5.389), "of the bondage (8ouXeiav) in Babylon, where our people passed seventy years in exile (|±eTavdcnT|S\ "wanderer," "vagrant") and never reared their heads for liberty." Here, however, Josephus is appealing to his fellow-countrymen in terms that would be most effective, since they predominantly looked upon the exile in the most negative terms. 32

33

3 2

So Amaru,Rewriting the Bible, 111. Azriel Shochat, "The Views of Josephus on the Future of Israel and Its Land" [in Hebrew], in Michael Ish-Shalom, et al. (eds.), Yerushalayim (review for Erez-Israel research dedicated to Isaias Press; Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kuk, 1953) 47, asserts that in Azariah's admonition to Asa Josephus is portraying the situation in his own time; but there is no indication of this in the text. 3 3

164

FELDMAN

Another passage which appears to view the diaspora negatively is the passage (Ant. 12.139) in which King Antiochus HI of Syria, in his letter to his governor Ptolemy, pays tribute to the Jews for their loy­ alty and assistance against the Egyptians and, as a reward, decides to repeople the city of Jerusalem by bringing back to it those who have been dispersed abroad (8ieaTTappiva)v). It is clear that in this context the Diaspora is a condition which the Jews will be happy to see termi­ nated. Significantly, however, when Josephus (Ant. 20.166), in what we might term an editorial comment, remarks on the fact that God him­ self turned away from Jerusalem and deemed the Temple no longer a proper dwelling place for Himself, he says that He "inflicted slavery upon us, together with our wives and children, for He wished to chas­ ten us by these calamities." What is significant is that he avoids using the word "Diaspora" as the punishment which God inflicted. THE RECONCILIATION OF THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE VIEWS OF EXILE

To understand what Josephus has done with the biblical narrative in the Antiquities we must first ask for whom the work is intended. It would seem that Josephus actually had two audiences in mind. On the one hand, the statement in his prooemium, in which he cites (Ant. 1.10) as a precedent for his work the translation of the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy Philadelphus, is clearly designed as a justifi­ cation for his directing his work to Gentiles with apologetic intent. The fact that Josephus (Ant. 1.12) says that even Ptolemy failed to obtain all the records (i.e. the entire Bible) of the Jews, since he re­ ceived only the translation of the Pentateuch, clearly indicates that Josephus' aim is to present a version of the entire Bible to Ptolemy's Gentile successors. He inquires (Ant. 1.9) whether Jews have previ­ ously been willing to communicate such information to Gentiles, the implication being that the present work is intended for Gentiles. Finally, the fact (Ant. 1.8) that it was his patron Epaphroditus, a nonJew, who, above all, urged him to write the history would indicate that it was intended for his patron and for other Gentiles like him. The fact, moreover, that Josephus asks (Ant. 1.9) whether any of the Greeks have been curious to learn "our history" and that he specifi­ cally declares (Ant. 1.5) that his work was undertaken in the belief that the whole Greek world would find it worthy of attention indicates that

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

165

he was directing the Antiquities to pagans. In transcribing the decrees issued by the Romans on behalf of the Jews, Josephus (Ant. 16.174) explains that he felt it necessary to cite them, "since this account of our history is chiefly meant to reach the Greeks in order to show them that in former times we were treated with all respect." The fact that at the end of the work (Ant. 20.262) he boasts that no one else would have been equal to the task of issuing so accurate a treatise for the Greeks (els^EXXqi/as) indicates that he directed the work to the nonJewish world, since the term "Greeks" for Josephus is used in contrast to Jews. We would expect, however, that Josephus would also seek a Jewish audience for his work. After all, the primary language of the Jews in the Diaspora, numbering several millions, was Greek; and some of them might well be expected to be interested in reading Josephus' history. Josephus clearly says (Ant. 1.14) that "the main lesson to be learnt from this history by those who care to peruse it" is that God re­ wards those who obey His laws and punishes those who do not. His highlighting of certain episodes, notably the incident of Israel's sin with the Midianite women (Num 25:1-9; Ant. 4.131-55)—Josephus expands it from nine verses to twenty-five paragraphs—and Samson's relations with alien women (Judg 14:1-16:31; Ant. 5.286-317), is di­ rected, apparently, to those Jews who sought assimilation with Gentiles. Josephus (Ant. 4.150-151) vehemently condemns Zambrias (Zimri) and bestows exalted praise upon Phinehas, "a man superior in every way to the rest of the youth" (Ant. 4.152), who, after all, might well have been condemned for taking the laws into his own hands in 34

35

36

3 4

Elvira Migliario, "Per rinterpretazione dell' Autobiografia di Flavio Giuseppe," Athenaeum 59 (1981) 92, 96, 136; and Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 178, actually say that Josephus' works were addressed primarily to Diaspora Jews. Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (18 vols.; New York: Columbia University Press, and Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1952-83) 1.170, states that a Jewish world population of more than eight million in the middle of the first century, most of whom were in the Diaspora, is fully within the range of probability. Cf. van Unnik, Selbstverstandnis der judischen Diaspora, 259: "It is hardly conceivable that the words of the remarkable speech [Zambrias' defense of his apostasy: Ant. 4.145-149] arose out of Josephus' own imagination. They are the expression of what was thought by his contemporaries who broke away from the ancestral religion and gave these reasons for doing so." 3 5

3 6

166

FELDMAN

putting Zambrias to death without a trial. He condemns Samson (Ant. 5.306) for transgressing the laws of his forefathers and debasing (Trapexripaaaev, used with reference to coins) his own rule of life by imitation of foreign usages, which, he says, proved the beginning of his disaster. Josephus makes a point of stressing that the fortunes of Anilaeus and Asinaeus, the robber-barons who established an inde­ pendent Jewish state in Mesopotamia, began to deteriorate at the very peak of their success because Anilaeus, in his affair with a Parthian general's wife, plunged into lawlessness (Ant. 18.340) "in violation of the Jewish code at the bidding of lust and self-indulgence." There are a number of other indications that Josephus has a Jewish reading audience in mind, though clearly they are not his main audi­ ence. For example, he apologizes (Ant. 4.197) for rearranging the or­ der of the laws of the Torah, explaining, "lest perchance any of my countrymen who chance upon this work should reproach me at all for having gone astray," that he has thought it necessary to make this pre­ liminary observation, since Moses left what he wrote in a scattered condition. Furthermore, the fact that Josephus (Ant. 1.88) warns his readers not to examine the ages of the ante-diluvians at their death but rather the dates of their birth is an indication that he is addressing a Jewish audience, inasmuch this presupposes that the readers will con­ sult the biblical text. Hence, Josephus felt that he had to cater not only to a non-Jewish but also to a Jewish readership, and so he is often deliberately am­ biguous. We already see this ambiguity in his account of Balaam prophecies (Ant. 4.125), where Josephus speaks in the vaguest terms of the calamities which will befall cities of the highest celebrity, some of which had not yet been founded. There was no reason why Josephus had to mention this prophecy at all, since, as he himself says (Ant. 10.210), the historian is expected to write only of the past and not to predict the future. And yet, the fact that he does cite such a prophecy is an indication that he wished somehow to satisfy his Jewish readers, who might well have recognized an allusion to Rome here. Non-Jewish readers, of course, would not be offended since 37

38

3 7

Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, LukeActs and Apologetic Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 1992) 306. Such is the rabbinic tradition, with which, as we have noted, Josephus was likely acquainted. See Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols., 3 8

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

167

Josephus does not mention Rome specifically by name. As Bruce has remarked, Josephus, writing two decades after the fall of Masada, may even have come to entertain second thoughts as to whether the Jewish revolutionaries in the war against Rome were altogether wrong, though we may well doubt Bruce's further suggestion that in the end Josephus' patriotism triumphed and that he foresaw his people's vin­ dication. The most striking indication of Josephus' ambiguity with regard to the Romans may be seen in his evasiveness (Ant. 10.210) concerning the meaning of the stone which, in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, destroys the kingdom of iron (Dan 2:44-45). His excuse on this point, as we have noted, is that, as an historian, he is expected to discuss the past and not to predict the future, although Josephus certainly saw a kin­ ship between the prophet and the historian, particularly since he must have been aware of the dictum of Thucydides (1.22.4), one of his fa­ vorite authors, that "whoever wishes to have a clear view of the events which have happened and those which will some day, in all human probability, happen again in the same or a similar way" will find his 39

40

Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1911-28) 3.380, and the rabbinic passages which he cites, vol. 6 (1928) 133 n. 782. Frederick F. Bruce, "Josephus and Daniel, ASTI 4 (1965) 160. In a similar effort not to offend the Romans, Daniel, in describing Nebuchadnezzar's dream, says (Ant. 10.206) that the legs and feet of the image in the dream were of iron, whereas, according to the biblical text (Dan 2:33), the legs are of iron, but the feet are partly of iron and partly of clay. Perhaps the might of iron would be regarded as a reference to Rome (Exod. Rab. 35:5), whereas Josephus felt that a mixture of iron and clay would be a sign of Rome's fragility. Likewise, Josephus (Ant. 10.209) omits the portion of Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Dan 2:42) referring to the division of the fourth kingdom, perhaps because, like the rabbis (cf. Exod. Rab. 35:5), he may have identified this with Rome and so would have been careful not to offend his Roman readers by mentioning it. The perceptive reader might well have connected this remark with the passage (Ant. 10.276) in which Josephus states explicitly that Daniel wrote about the empire of the Romans, though admittedly there is no necessary connection between the two passages. Giinter Stemberger, Die romische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983) 33-7 concludes that Josephus is more critical toward Rome in the Antiquities than in the War and aligns himself with the apocalyptic tradition in the former. Perhaps we should say not that he is more critical but rather that he is more ambiguous. 3 9

4 0

,,

168

FELDMAN 41

history useful. This is the only place in his writings where Josephus makes such a statement; and, in fact, no other extant ancient historian makes any such remark either. Of course, inasmuch as Josephus, especially in his references to the prophets is highly selective, he might have simply omitted to para­ phrase the above passage, as he did the prophecy (Dan 2:44) of a messianic kingdom which would destroy all previous kingdoms and which itself would last forever, as well as the passage in Daniel (7:18), in which it is made clear that the fifth, world-wide, and everlasting empire would be ruled by the people of "saints of the Most High," that is the Jews—a passage which would, to the obvious embarrassment of Josephus as spokesman for the Romans, imply the overthrow of Rome. The fact that he does not, nevertheless, omit the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream is an indication of the deliberate ambigu­ ity of his attempt to reach both of his audiences, the non-Jews and the Jews, for the latter of whom the reference would apparently be taken as announcing a messianic kingdom which would make an end of the Roman Empire. Perhaps he felt that to omit it altogether would have been regarded by his Jewish readers as a clear indication that he had sold out to the Romans. In fact, Klausner goes so far as to argue that Josephus' trip to Rome in 64, despite his statements in the War that Rome's ascendancy was part of a Divine plan, may be actually in­ creased his enthusiasm for the cause of the revolutionaries, inasmuch as he must have been impressed with Rome's decadence and hence saw that it was only a matter of time before Rome would fall; on this 42

43

4 1

Louis H. Feldman, "Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus," JTS 41 (1990) 386-422 (397-400). Conversely, a prophet is concerned with recording the past, as may be seen from the fact that Moses (Ant. 4.320), at the close of his life, "prophesies" to each of the tribes the things that are past. David Flusser, "The Pharisees and the Pious Men of the Stoa according to Josephus" [in Hebrew], Iyyun 14 (1972) 148-75 concludes that Josephus (Ant. 10.276-77) could not speak of the common interpretation of the four empires in Daniel because of its anti-Roman character, but that in Ant. 15.385-87, where no such danger would arise, he gives the common Jewish sequence of the four empires—Babylonia, Persia, Macedonia, and Rome. We may remark, however, that there is no indication in the latter passage that the Roman Empire is destined to be overthrown. Joseph Klausner, History of the Second Temple [in Hebrew] (5 vols., Jerusalem: Ahiasaf, 1949) 5.167-8. 4 2

4 3

169

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

view the passage in Antiquities 10.210 would be a clue to his real feelings toward the Romans. When Josephus goes on to direct anyone who is eager for exact in­ formation about these hidden things of the future to read the Book of Daniel for himself, he surely realized that non-Jews were unlikely to follow through on this suggestion, whereas this would seem to be a hidden hint to Jews to read the Book of Daniel itself and to perceive the reference to the future downfall of Rome. That Josephus' evasive­ ness here is deliberate seems apparent from the fact that elsewhere (Ap. 2.168-169) Josephus proudly contrasts the great Greek philoso­ phers Pythagoras, Anaxagorus, Plato, and the Stoics, who did not venture to disclose their true beliefs to the masses, with the openness of Moses. If Josephus really took seriously his statement that it is not the function of the historian to deal, through prediction, with future events, he had no need to mention the above prophecy at all, since it does not concern historic events that had already occurred. If he does so, nevertheless, it is, it would seem, for the benefit of Jewish readers, who would certainly find great comfort in that prophecy. In this re­ spect it would seem likely that Josephus shared one of the major and distinctive tenets of the Pharisees, namely their apocalyptic hopes. While it is true that there is no mention in the works of Josephus of a Messiah (other than the references in Ant. 18.63 and 20.200, the for­ mer of which is probably partly interpolated), inasmuch as the belief in a Messiah was a cardinal tenet of the Pharisees, with whom 44

45

4 4

Cf. Jay Braverman, Jerome's Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978) 111, who perceptively remarks that Josephus must have been confident that his Roman readers would not check his source by snooping in the Book of Daniel itself, and hence that this reference is evidence that he was addressing two different audiences, telling each one what it wanted to hear. That the rabbis understood the stone (Dan 2:44-45) to refer to the Messiah is clear from Tanhuma B 2.91-92 and Tanhuma Terumah 1. Marianus de Jonge, "Josephus und die Zukunftserwartungen seines Volkes," in Otto Betz, et al. (eds.), Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament, Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) 205-19 (211-12), argues that Josephus' speech (JW 5.367) in which he states that God, having made the round of the nations, had now caused the rod of empire to rest over Italy, is making the point that it is only 4 5

170

FELDMAN

Josephus (Life 12) identified himself, it seems most likely that Josephus did share this view. Moreover, although Josephus (Ant. 10.268) makes a point of contrasting Daniel with other prophets as a bearer of good tidings whereas they foretold disasters, those good tidings are not recorded in Josephus' subsequent presentation. Once again, however, we may suggest that here, too, he is cryptically ad­ dressing his statement to his Jewish readers who, in accordance with Josephus' recommendation (Ant. 10.210), would read the Book of Daniel (notably 9:24ff., which Josephus significantly omits), with its prophecies of future Jewish greatness which Josephus, in his delicate position as a protege of the Flavians, did not feel free to cite. 46

47

That Josephus was really walking a tightrope in his handling of Daniel's (purported) predictions about the Romans may be seen in his comment (Ant. 10.276) that Daniel wrote about the empire of the Romans and that Jerusalem would be taken by them and the Temple laid waste. As his formulation here shows, Josephus apparently was 48

for "now" (vvv) that Rome is supreme and that this is actually an indication that its supremacy is not to last forever. Hence, according to de Jonge, Josephus here, as in Ant. 4.114-17, 10.210, and 10.267, evidences a clear eschatological messianic faith. We may, however, express doubt that the passage in JW 5.367 expresses a messianic anticipation, since it seems very unlikely that Josephus, having been commissioned by the Romans to urge the Jews to surrender, would have ventured to suggest such an anticipation in clear defiance of his Roman hosts. See Graham I. Davies, "Apocalyptic and Historiography," JSOT 5 (1978) 15-28 and Valentin Nikiprowetzky, "Josephus and the Revolutionary Parties," in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (eds.), Josephus, the Bible, and History (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989) 216-36. If Josephus thus suppresses the messianic ideals of those who led the revolution against Rome in 66-74, he apparently did so to avoid the wrath of the Romans, who would have seen the Messiah as a political rebel against Rome. The fact is that Josephus in the last book of the Antiquities lists at least ten leaders who were probably regarded as Messiahs by their adherents, though Josephus himself avoids calling them such. The meaning of the term "Messiah" was apparently flexible enough to accommodate the careers of all these figures. Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae ofFlavius Josephus (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 105. The text is in doubt here; and Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus' Recently Rediscovered "Capture of Jerusalem" and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources (trans. Alexander H. Krappe; New York: MacVeagh, Dial, 1931) 631, suspects an interpolation. The restoration is based upon an excerpt in John Chrysostom. See Ralph Marcus (ed. 4 6

4 7

4 8

THE CONCEPT OF EXILE IN JOSEPHUS

171

reluctant to tell the reader what it was that Daniel wrote about the Romans (at least as interpreted by tradition), namely that the Roman Empire would itself be overthrown and that the Jews would ultimately triumph. Indeed, though he devotes more attention to Daniel than to any other prophet, he omits any reference to the celebrated seventyweeks prophecy of Dan 9:24-27, which foretells the coming of a mes­ sianic redeemer, presumably from Roman rule. The apparent contradiction in Josephus' attitude toward the Diaspora may, therefore, be similarly explained as due to the various 49

and trans.), Josephus VI (LCL 326; London: Heinemann, 1937) 310-11, n.c, who concludes that there is no reason why a mere reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans would have been avoided by Josephus as likely to offend his Roman readers. We may, however, respond that such a reference would not merely have offended his Roman readers but, on the contrary, would have given them cause for pride in overcoming such a mighty revolt; rather, it is the reference to what Daniel wrote about the Roman Empire, namely its ultimate overthrow (Dan 9:26), which would surely not have set well with them. For a discussion of the ambiguity in the Josephan passage (Ant. 10.276) see Braverman, Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, 109-110. Valentin Nikiprowetzky, "La Mort d'Eteazar fils de Jaire et les courants apolog&iques dans le De Bello Judaico de Flavius Josephe," in Andre* Caquot and Marc Philonenko (eds.), Hommages a Andre Dupont-Sommer (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1971) 461-90 argues that there are esoteric references in the War to Messianism, suggestive of Josephus' belief that the Roman power was destined to be overthrown by a messianic kingdom; but we may reply that the passage (JW 6.310-15) which he cites in support of his thesis refers to a prediction that someone from Judaea would become the ruler of the world. There is no indication that this "someone" would necessarily be a Jew, and indeed, at least according to Josephus (JW 6.313), the reference was, rather, to Vespasian, who was proclaimed emperor while he was leading his army in Judaea. In fact, it would have been foolhardy and outright dangerous for Josephus to imply that the reference was to a Jewish Messiah; consequently, Josephus suppresses the messianic ideals of the revolutionaries in the war against Rome, so much did he apparently fear Roman wrath. Per Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and Their Importance (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988) 188, on the basis of the cryptic passage (Ant. 10.210) in which Josephus mentions the stone without revealing its meaning, concludes that Josephus did have an eschatology but that it was different from that of the militant nationalists, being, in fact, similar to that which we find in the contemporary apocalyptic circles represented by the Book of Daniel, the Essenes, John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul. We may, however, comment that if so, Josephus certainly was careful to conceal his eschatological beliefs or to wrap them in ambiguity. 4 9

172

FELDMAN

audiences that he is addressing. On the one hand, there were those who, like himself, felt very much at home in the Diaspora and were indeed thriving in it. Shochat suggests that Josephus' positive por­ trayal of the dispersion of the Jews throughout the Diaspora is an indi­ cation of encouragement and prediction of mass conversion; but Josephus, it would seem, was too loyal to his Roman benefactors not to realize the danger of such a view, with its inherent threat to the Roman way of life. Schlatter remarks that the joy with which Josephus notes the size of the Jewish population abroad, which to him is a sign of Jewish power, leads him to be careful to avoid the word Diaspora. Moreover, Romans in his audience would certainly not have appreciated the view that the Diaspora was a punishment and, in fact, only a temporary expedient until the Jews would be restored to their land and to an independent state—a status that would require still an­ other revolt against Rome. On the other hand, Josephus, as we see in the cryptic statements in his paraphrase of Balaam and of Daniel, also sought to reach a Jewish audience; and many of them might well, like the prophet Jeremiah, have viewed the exile as a punishment and one destined to end eventually with the restoration of the Jews to their homeland. When Josephus is talking to his fellow-countrymen he uses language that will appeal to them, namely exile; but his deepest felt sentiments, as seen in his Life, are to view the Diaspora positively. Most significantly, and in sharp contrast to Philo (Praem. 29.165), who envisages an ingathering of the exiled Jewish people, Josephus clearly regarded the exile as everlasting and never foresees an end to it. 50

51

52

5 0

Shochat, "Josephus on the Future of Israel," 50. Schlatter,Theologie des Judentums, 87. See Harry A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1947) 2.408-409, who notes that this reunion of the exiled will be followed, according to Philo (Praem 29.168), by national prosperity in the homeland to which they will have returned. 5 1

5 2

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS IN THE GRECO-ROMAN PERIOD* James M. Scott Trinity Western University INTRODUCTION

How did Diaspora Jews in the Greco-Roman period understand their life outside the Land in a non-Jewish environment? Two diametri2

1

An earlier version of the present chapter was read before the Graduate Seminar on Jewish History and Literature of the Graeco-Roman Period in Wolfson College, Oxford. I am grateful to Professor Martin Goodman for his kind invitation and to the participants of the Seminar for their stimulating discussion of my paper. After the present chapter was substantially completed, Isaiah M. Gafni's new book, Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity (JSPSup 21; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), became available to me. I am indebted to Professor Gafni for his thorough reading of and interaction with the present chapter during the final stage of its completion. Finally, my special thanks go to Professor Martin Hengel for his helpful criticism of this chapter on the eve before it went to press. Cf. John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad, 1983); Irina Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, Vol. 5: The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996) 1-17; Pieter W. van der Horst, "Jewish Self-Definition by Way of Contrast in Oracula Sibyllina III 218-247," in P. W. van der Horst (ed.), Aspects of Religious Contact and Conflict in the Ancient World (Utrechtse Theologische Reeks 31; Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, 1995) 147-66; Daniel Boyarin and Jonathan Boyarin, "Diaspora: Generation and the Ground of Jewish Identity," Critical Inquiry 19 (1993) 693-725. The vexed issue of the "identity" and "self-understanding" of Diaspora Jews in the period under discussion is at least as complex as, say, that of Greeks in the Roman period, on which see Simon Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World AD 50-250 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) 9-10, 68, 89. For the rabbinic period, see Sacha Stern, Jewish Identity in Early Rabbinic Writings (AGJU 23; Leiden: Brill, 1994); Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity. Remarkably, it is Josephus, a Diaspora Jew writing in Rome during the late first century CE who not only describes the self-identity or "ethnicity" of the Jewish people through time but also composes the only surviving history of any Near Eastern people to link their past in the ancient Orient with their present under Roman rule, and in doing so to link the past and present of those non-Jewish 2

174

SCOTT

cally opposed views on Jewish self-understanding have emerged in the literature on which we would like to focus here. On one hand, Thomas Kraabel argues that the originally negative concept of exile was gradually transformed into a positive concept of Diaspora. On this view, Diaspora Jews generally felt quite good about their situa­ tion. They were successfully interacting with their Gentile neighbors, building permanent synagogues, accommodating themselves to their new homelands, and developing a new theology to replace the out­ moded one. On the other hand, Willem Cornelius van Unnik argues that Diaspora Jews of the Greco-Roman period commonly regarded their own state of dispersion as divine punishment in accordance with the covenant curses in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 2 8 . In that case, the negative concept of living outside the Land was not trans­ formed into a positive concept, at least during the period under con­ sideration. Despite their very different approaches and conclusions, both Kraabel and van Unnik deny that Diaspora Jews of the Greco-Roman period viewed their situation outside the Land as "exile." In the fol3

4

5

people with whom the Jews had had contact in the course of their history (cf. Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 BC-AD 337 [Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1993] 5, 513). For theoretical considerations, see, e.g., Uffe 0stergard, "What is National and Ethnic Identity, in Per Bilde, et al. (eds.), Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992) 16-38. A. T. Kraabel, "Unity and Diversity among Diaspora Synagogues," in Lee I. Levine (ed.), The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (Philadephia: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1987) 49-60. Cf. already Rudolf Schnackenburg, "Gottes Volk in der Zerstreuung. Diaspora im Zeugnis der Bibel," in idem, Schriften zum Neuen Testament. Exegese in Fortschritt und Wandel (Munich: Kosel-Verlag, 1971)321-37. Willem Cornelius van Unnik, Das Selbstverstdndnis der judischen Diaspora in der hellenistisch-rbmischen Zeit (ed. by Pieter Willem van der Horst; AGJU 17; Leiden: Brill, 1993). This postumously published book stems from a series of five lectures which van Unnik delivered at the Swedish Theological Institute in Jerusalem during Easter 1967. The choice of topic for the series was influenced by the the location and occasion of the lectures, particularly by the traditional cry, "Next year in Jerusalem," proclaimed at Passover by Diaspora Jews who celebrate the great redemption from Egypt in remembrance and hope (ibid., 51). Cf., e.g., van Unnik, Selbstverstdndnis, 85. Kraabel ("Unity and Diversity," 57) does, however, admit that after 70 CE, "exile theology" persisted among Jews who were taken as Roman prisoners, and that exile even became the ,,

3

4

5

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

175

lowing, I would like (1) to examine each author's arguments in more detail and then (2) to suggest evidence that at least some Diaspora Jews may have seen their situation as an "exile." T w o DIVERGENT PERSPECTIVES

Summary of A. T. Kraabel Kraabel states his thesis very succinctly: "The Judaism of the syna­ gogue communities of the Roman Diaspora is best understood, on the basis of the present evidence, as the grafting of a transformed biblical 'exile' ideology onto a Greco-Roman form of social organization." Let us examine each of these elements in turn, beginning with the no­ tion of a "transformed biblical 'exile' ideology." Originally, "exile ideology," or "exile theology" as Kraabel also calls it, was the idea that the displacement from the Homeland was a punishment from God, and that the great hope of the nation was to return to the Land. It was during the Babylonian exile that the synagogue developed both ideologically and socially in an effort to maintain Jewish identity and cohesiveness outside the Land. This was a major innovation, for it represented a shift from a national religion of Holy Land and Temple to that of a minority community in other nations. After the return from Babylonia, "exile theology" remained a part of Jewish religious thought, although it was gradually transformed into a more positive "Diaspora theology," as more and more Jews either voluntarily stayed outside the Jewish homeland or purposely moved there. The idea of return to the Land lost its importance, with the result that one of the major themes of "exile theology" was thereby transcended. The syna­ gogue itself proved to be a decisive factor in this transfomation, for it 6

dominant interpretive symbol by which Jews themselves understood Jewish existence in the Roman world outside of Palestine. Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson ("Galut," EncJudl [1972] 275-94 [275]) goes so far as to imply that "exile" does not apply to the Jewish Diaspora during the Second Temple period: "The Hebrew term galut expresses the Jewish conception of the condition and feelings of a nation uprooted from its homeland and subject to alien rule. The term is essentially applied to the history and the historical consciousness of the Jewish people from the destruction of the Second Temple to the creation of the State of Israel. The residence of a great number of members of a nation, even the majority, outside their homeland is not definable as galut so long as the homeland remains in that nation's possession." Kraabel, "Unity and Diversity among Diaspora Synagogues," 49. 6

176

SCOTT

provided a form of social organization sanctioned by earlier genera­ tions that would allow Jews to maintain an existence outside of the Land without forfeiting their cultural and religious heritage. In a sense, therefore, we might say that, in Kraabel's view, the exile syna­ gogue deconstructed "exile theology," for it legitimatized life outside Palestine. It made clear how Jews might exist faithfully in a minority community in the Gentile world. They did not understand themselves to be in exile, but rather welcomed and desired immigration as part of a new situation that was also under the control of Providence. As Kraabel poignantly expresses it, "The Diaspora was not Exile; in some sense it became a Holy Land, too." According to Kraabel, this transformed "exile theology," whereby residence outside the Land became voluntary, was grafted onto a "Greco-Roman form of social organization," that is, the Hellenistic voluntary association. The period from Alexander the Great and on into the Roman Empire was a period of political upheaval and social dislocation, replete with expansions and movements of peoples. To bring order out of this chaos and to cope with the sense of loss and powerlessness that most people, and particularly immigrants, felt in the new ethnic melting pot, Hellenistic voluntary associations made ad hoc attempts to unite people within a local area around common inter­ ests which transcended national and international concerns. In Kraabel's view, the Diaspora synagogue community adapted this Hellenistic social organization by forming a successful network of voluntary associations which extended beyond national boundaries while maintaining Jewish identity. Hence, the Diaspora synagogue community represents the harmonious blend of Jewish and Hellenistic social forms. 7

8

7

Ibid., 58. Elsewhere, Kraabel regards the notion that Jews knew themselves to be aliens in the Roman world as one of several unfounded assumptions about the Jewish Diaspora ("The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions, JJS 33/1-2 [1982] 445-64 [452-3]). See now J. S. Kloppenborg and S. G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (New York: Routledge, 1996); M. N. Tod and S. Hornblower, "Clubs, Greek," Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) 351-2; G. H. Stevenson and A. W. Lintott, "Clubs, Roman," Oxford Classical Dictionary, 352-3; Thomas Weber, "Gadarenes in Exile: Two Inscriptions from Greece Reconsidered," ZDPV112/1 (1996) 10-17 (esp. 13-4). ,,

8

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

177

Kraabel provides us with an interesting explanation for the devel­ opment of the Diaspora synagogue community from its origins in the Babylonian exile through Roman times. Yet it leaves unexplained why a Diaspora which had come to regard its new homeland as terra sancta would form a network of associations around a common cen­ ter—Jerusalem. For, as Kraabel admits, the common tie of the Diaspora communities was the Land. Hence, as Kraabel himself ac­ knowledges, Diaspora synagogues place the Torah shrine on the wall closest to Jerusalem, thus orienting the building towards the Holy City. If, as Kraabel maintains, "most Diaspora Jews had no wish to re­ turn to the Holy Land, except perhaps on a brief pilgrimage," why did Jerusalem and the Land "remain the center of their world" and the destination of their annual Temple tax? Was Jerusalem merely a vestigial organ of the old "exile theology" which had long since out­ lived its usefulness or importance? Moreover, if, as Kraabel admits, "exile theology" persisted after 70 CE among Jews who were taken as Roman prisoners, and that exile even became the dominant interpre­ tive symbol by which Jews themselves understood Jewish existence in the Roman world outside of Palestine, why should we assume that in the intervening period "exile theology" was replaced by so-called "Diaspora theology," especially since Jews continued to experience forced population transfers throughout the Greco-Roman period? We shall come back to these points in a moment. 9

10

11

12

13

9

Kraabel, "Unity and Diversity among Diaspora Synagogues," 55. Ibid., 55. Martin Goodman surmises how catastrophic the destruction of the Temple was even for Jews in the Diaspora, despite the dearth of direct literary evidence ("Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple," in James D. G. Dunn [ed.], Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135 [WUNT 66; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992] 27-38). Kraabel, "Unity and Diversity among Diaspora Synagogues," 57. Indeed, Kraabel argues differently elsewhere: "... for biblical thought before the Common Era there was no positive theological symbol for life outside Palestine. The only two kinds of biblical 'space' were Promised (or Holy) Land and Exile. Diaspora could only be Exile; and no one who read the Hebrew Scriptures carefully could come to any other conclusion than that Exile was punishment. On this point Christians and Jews saw the Old Testament in the same way; on a 'biblical' basis, each group could view Jewish life in the western Diaspora only as flawed, and inferior to life in the Holy Land" ("The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions," 462 [emphasis mine]). Note that Gafni attributes the kind of transformation which Kraabel has in mind to a later period (Land, Center and Diaspora, 96-117). 1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

178

SCOTT

Summary ofW. C. van Unnik According to van Unnik, Diaspora Jews of the Greco-Roman period viewed their existence outside the Land as a judgment of God and a situation which was difficult to bear, in both a political and a theologi­ cal sense, a situation which could only be overcome by return to the Land. Let us briefly examine each of the five chapters of the book in succession. In Chapter 1 (pp. 51-68), van Unnik introduces the subject at hand and his approach to it. He wants to know how self-professed Jews of the Diaspora experienced their life outside the Land in a non-Jewish environment. As the antithesis of his own view, van Unnik adduces the influential article on SiacnTopd by Karl Ludwig Schmidt in the TWNT (2 [1935] 98-104). According to Schmidt, the reason that Diaspora Jews gradually abandoned the use of "exile" (n^tt; LXX: alxiiaXtoala, diroLKta, etc.) in favor of "diaspora" is that they no longer understood themselves to be in exile in the sense of the curse of divine judgment in exile which the OT prophets had pronounced. In fact, Diaspora Jews, many of whom had voluntarily left the Land for the Diaspora, now felt an exalted sense of pride in the worldwide dispersion of the Jews. Hence, they used the Greek term SiaaTropd both to obscure the original idea of exile as curse and to express their pride in the dispersion. It is this view which van Unnik seeks to correct through his examination of the history of the word SiacnTopd. In Chapter 2 (pp. 69-88), van Unnik dismisses Schmidt's interpre­ tation of two texts which are used to show that Jews were proud of the dispersion (Sib. Or. 3.271; Ps. Sol. 9:2). Then, van Unnik goes on to 14

15

16

1 4

Cf. also Johannes Irmscher, "Der Diasporabegriff in der Antike," in John M. Fossey (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Hellenic Diapora from Antiquity to Modern Times, Vol. I: From Antiquity to 1453 (McGill University Monographs in Classical Archaeology and History 10.1; Amsterdam: Gieben, 1991) 11-14, which is heavily dependent on K. L. Schmidt. See already I. L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah (Mededelingen en Verhandelingen 9; Leiden: Brill, 1948) 113 n. 40: "K. L. Schmidt ... appears to lack insight into the fatal implications of the term SiaaTropd in Jewish Hellenistic Greek." Dating to the second century BCE, the Third Sibyl explains to the Jews who will be exiled by the Assyrians and Babylonians (cf. Sib. Or. 3.160) that "it is your fate to leave your sacred ground" and to be dispersed so that "the whole earth will be filled with you and every sea" (3.266-271). In the second half of the first century BCE, the psalmist declares that "among every nation are the dispersed of Israel according to the word of God" (Ps. Sol. 9:2). On the worldwide extent of 1 5

1 6

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

179

investigate the meaning of SiaaTropd/SiacjTretpeiv in classical Greek literature, patristic writers, and the NT. He observes that in these lit­ eratures the noun and the verb are often used in the negative sense of destructive decomposition into individual parts. This leads him to the conclusion that the Septuagint translators chose the rare Greek term SiaaTropd because they stood in a situation which the original writers of the Scriptures had not known, a situation which could no longer be characterized as "captivity," "exile," or "deportation." What exactly this situation was the author leaves for the final chapter. In Chapter 3 (pp. 89-107), van Unnik discusses the use of SiacnTopd/SiaaTreLpeiv in the Greek translation of the OT. He notes that SiacnTopd translates a variety of terms in the Hebrew Vorlage, but that it is never a translation of n^l3 or its derivatives. Then, proceeding stepwise through the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, the author comes to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of occur­ rences in the Septuagint use the noun and verb in the negative sense of being scattered or decomposed into individual parts, just as in the classical Greek literature. When these terms are applied to Israel, they occur in the context of the covenant of God with his people, where dispersion is seen as the final punishment for disobedience, a great calamity which is almost tantamount to destruction. Only when the remnant of the nation repents will the merciful God remember the covenant and regather them into the Land. In Chapter 4 (pp. 108-47), van Unnik surveys the use of SiaaTropd in the Jewish literature of the Greco-Roman period. Here again, our author comes to the conclusion that the Diaspora is seen predomi­ nantly as a misfortune and as a punishment for Israel's sins, either as a threat or as a presently experienced reality. For example, the book of Tobit, a Diaspora text from ca. 200 BCE, exhorts Jews outside the Land: "Acknowledge him before the nations, O children of Israel; for 17

18

the Diaspora, see the geographical survey in Schurer, Hist, 3/1.1-86; Hanswulf Bloedhorn, et al., "Die jiidische Diaspora bis zum 7. Jahrhundert n.Chr." (Tubinger Atlas des vorderen Orients B VI 18; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1992). The conquests of Pompey were also seen as a cause of exile (Ps. Sol. 17:13-14, 18). Van Unnik points specifically to Epicurus, Ep. 1.65; Plutarch, Mor. 1105A, 1109F, 1110F-1111 A; Herodotus 3.68; Plato, Leg. 3.699d. Van Unnik includes the following authors and works in his survey: Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Tobit, Judith, Daniel, 1 Baruch, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 1-3 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, Philo, Josephus. 1 7

1 8

180

SCOTT

he has scattered (SieaTreipev) you among them" (Tob 13:3). As the subsequent context makes clear, this scattering is a punishment for sin (vv. 5-6). Even Philo and Josephus cannot be used to mitigate the conclusion that the Diaspora is seen predominantly as a great calamity. For apologetic reasons, Philo and Josephus refer to the great geographical expansion of the Jewish Diaspora, and repress the more judgmental side of the biblical view of the Diaspora. In fact, they avoid using the noun SiaaTropd and the verb SiaaTretpeiv to describe the situation of the Jews, although on one occasion Josephus (Ant 8.271) does insert into the Septuagint account of the prophecy against the house of Jeroboam (3 Kgdms 14:7ff.) the prediction that the peo­ ple of Israel will be "scattered to places beyond the Euphrates" (Kal 8iaaTrap£v elg TOVS Trepav Eucf>pdTou TOTTOU?) because of their idolatry (cf. 1 Kgs 14:15 MT). <> Finally, in Chapter 5 (pp. 148-65), van Unnik discusses the theolog­ ical understanding of "Diaspora." He argues that when Jews in the lands of the Mediterranean during the Greco-Roman period under­ stood their existence as "diaspora," they did not think of their geo­ graphical expansion but rather their relationship with their God. Originally, "diaspora" is not a geographical term at all, but rather a word which denotes destructive decomposition into individual parts. The geographical sense of the word derives from the Septuagint, where Deut 28:25 refers to a "diaspora among all the kingdoms of the earth." Based on these observations, van Unnik makes a major dis­ tinction between "exile" and "diaspora." Whereas "exile" denotes something horrible, "diaspora" denotes something even more horrible, he argues. For "exile" refers to the deportation of the people to cer­ tain places where the coherence of the nation is preserved in groups, whereas "diaspora" refers to the scattering of the nation throughout the whole world where coherence is dissolved and the nation itself is 19

2

21

22

1 9

Cf. Philo, Legal. 281-282; Flacc. 45-56; Josephus, JW 6.442; 7.43. But see also Ant. 4.190-191, paraphrasing Deut 4:26-27. Van Unnik goes so far as to suggest that the Septuagint translators may have borrowed the term from Epicurus, although he admits that this is merely a guess (Selbstverstandnis, 150). See, e.g., van Unnik's interpretation of Dan 12:2 LXX (ibid., 116). Van Unnik's idea that the Diaspora was considered "horrible" relates to the fact that in Deut 28:25 and Jer 41 [34] 17, the Septuagint translates SiaaTropd, where the Hebrew Vorlage reads mur "horror." Cf. van Unnik, Selbstverstandnis, 95, 101. 2 0

2 1

2 2

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

181

almost destroyed. This semantic distinction is not affected by the ac­ tual facts to the contrary in real life, e.g., that Diaspora Jews often lived together in large communities (in Alexandria, Rome, and Asia Minor) and that they had synagogues. For it is a conception based on the theological belief that God scattered Israel among the nations as punishment for the sin of his people, that this situation of dispersion endangers the existence and identity of Israel, and that in accordance with his covenant faithfulness, God himself will gather his people and bring them back to the Land. Thus, Deut 30:4 promises: "Even if your diaspora is from one end of heaven to the other, the Lord your God will gather you from there." Hence, with this one word, Diaspora Jews gave expression both to their guilt and their hope. This conception of diaspora was reinforced and actualized as a continuing reality by the regular reading of Scripture in the synagogue, including such passages as Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, 30. Van Unnik has elucidated an important aspect of Diaspora self-understanding. Nevertheless, there are several difficulties with the find­ ings of his study. First, although van Unnik's central thesis—that the Diaspora was commonly viewed as a great misfortune which God will someday remedy—is fundamentally sound as far as it goes, it is doubtful whether his word-study approach is sufficient to describe the self-understanding of the Jewish Diaspora. As we shall see, other kinds of evidence can be adduced to bolster some of van Unnik's views. Yet we should not be misled to believe that the evidence points only in one direction. Some Diaspora Jews may well have viewed their situation in a far more positive light. In fact, given the great di­ versity in the Jewish Diaspora in the Greco-Roman period, we must 23

24

25

2 3

For example, according to van Unnik (Selbstverstandnis, 70-1), Sib. Or. 3:271, a pre-Christian text from the Egyptian Diaspora which alludes to Deut 28:30-33, views the present Diaspora as a consequence of the punishment of Assyrian/Babylonian exile: "The whole earth will be filled with you and every sea." Cf. van Unnik, Selbstverstandnis, 154: "Immer wieder kehrte in einem festen Rhythmus das alles zuriick, auch die Perikopen iiber der Zerstreuung. Durch die Schriftlesung wurde das jtidische Volk, auch in der Diaspora, mit den Gesetzen durchdrankt." Cf. Laurence H. Kant, "Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin," in Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini (eds.), ANRW II.20.2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987) 671-713 (686): "... a great diversity of expression and selfunderstanding was open to Jews in the Greco-Roman world." See further Martin Hengel, Juden, Griechen und Barbaren. Aspekte der Hellenisierung des 2 4

2 5

182

SCOTT

reckon with the probability that Jews living in foreign lands repre­ sented a whole spectrum of different perspectives on their Diaspora situation, depending in part on time, place and circumstances. In view of the differences, perhaps we should speak not of "the Jewish Diaspora" but rather of various Jewish "Diasporas," which to some degree nevertheless have a common identity. 26

27

Second, although van Unnik quite rightly rejects the common but unfounded view that "exile" refers to enforced deportation of Jews from Palestine, whereas "diaspora" refers to voluntary emigration, or 28

Judentums in vorchristlicher Zeit (SBS 76; Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1976) esp. 116-75; John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Edinburgh: Clark, 1996); Doron Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (The Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 9, 41-2, et passim. Cf., e.g., Robert Hay ward, "The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration," JJS 33/1-2 (1982) 429-43, who argues that in founding the temple at Leontopolis in Egypt, the Zadokite Onias IV and his community understood themselves as "exiles" who had "returned" and had restored the legitimate cultic center and city (cf. Isa 19:18-19; 1:26-27). As Gafni quite rightly stresses, the conditions that fashioned Jewish self-identity, and that also provoked the need to supply meaningful explanations for the very existence of that Diaspora, emerged in a variety of contexts (Land, Center and Diaspora, 19-20). He goes on to examine both positive and negative assessments of the Diaspora (ibid., 24-40). According to Gafni, for example, Josephus (Ant. 4.115) attempted to alleviate the stigma of the Dispersion by claiming that God had blessed Israel through his prophet Balaam by promising her "the whole inhabited world ... as an eternal habitation." Furthermore, the Diaspora afforded an opportunity for proselytes to join Israel, and it prevented the Jewish people from being destroyed with one blow (b. Pesah. 87b). God went into exile with his people (cf. N. J. Cohen, "Shekhinita ba-Galuta," JSJ 13 [1982] 147-59; see further in the present volume the essays by Bruce Chilton, Chaim Minkowsky, and Gary Porton). In positing a common identity among Diaspora Jews we will want to be careful not to slip into a harmonizing, ideal picture of an unchanging "common Judaism" such as that which characterizes E. P. Sanders' work on Palestinian Judaism. Cf. Martin Hengel, "E. P. Sanders' 'Common Judaism,' Jesus, and the Pharisees: Review Article of Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah and Judaism: Practice and Belief by E. P. Sanders," JTS NS 46 (1995) 1-70. Van Unnik, Selbstverstandnis, 152. See, e.g., Barbara KirshenblattGimblett, "Spaces of Dispersal," Cultural Anthropology 9/3 (1994) 339-44 (343 n. 5): "Diaspora and exile are intertwined in the terms galut (Hebrew) and goles (Yiddish), though the Encyclopaedia Judaic a, taken as a normative (Zionist) text (it was published in Israel in 1972), sharply distinguishes diaspora and exile: it refers diaspora to voluntary dispersion and exile to forced dispersion, which by 2 6

2 7

2 8

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

183

that "exile" is a negative term, whereas "diaspora" is positive, his own distinction between the two terms seems equally problematic. His per­ spective is controlled by the aforementioned Epicurean use of the verb SiaaTre'ipeiv in the sense of destructive composition into individual parts, as if the Jewish Diaspora meant the dismantling of the nation into disconnected individuals, rather than simply its being spread abroad across a geographic area, whether in groups or as individuals. Without particular warrant from the context in which SiaaTropd or SiaaTreipeiv occurs, we should not assume a specialized philosophical usage of the term, especially when closer parallels can be found. Let us look at two striking examples. Diodorus Siculus (1.28.1-3), for instance, reports the Egyptians as saying that "very many colonies were scattered from Egypt over the whole inhabited world (dTroiKia^ -nXeiarag e£ AlyimTou KOT& T r a a a v SiaaTrapfjvai TT\V OIKOIT (ievT|v)," including to Babylon, Greece, Pontus, and Judea. There is no hint here of the notion of decomposition into individual parts, for the dispersion takes place in colonies. According to this text, the Jews themselves were originally scattered to Judea as colonists from Egypt. Our next example shows that the vocabulary of scattering is used not just of colonization but also of exile. Thucydides (2.27) recounts that when the Athenians exiled the whole population of Aegina in 431 BCE, some of the refugees settled in Thyrea, while others "were scat29

definition ends with the formation of the state of Israel—once there is a homeland, those who remain outside it do so voluntarily. Conversely, 'only the loss of a political-ethnic center and the feeling of uprootedness turns Diaspora (Dispersion) into galut (Exile).'" Cf., similarly, Meyer Reinhold, Diaspora: The Jews among the Greeks and Romans (Sarasota and Toronto: Stevens, 1983) 11; W. D. Davies, "Reflections on the Territorial Dimension of Judaism," in Jewish and Pauline Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 49-71 (66-7); idem, The Territorial Dimension of Judaism, With a Symposium and Further Reflections (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 79-80. In modern Jewish discussion, other distinctions between the terms "exile" and "diaspora" are made. Cf., e.g., Leonard J. Fein, "Israel or Zion," Judaism 22/1 (1973) 7-17, who argues that exile is a religious conviction irrespective of one's actual location, while diaspora is a demographic-geographic term (cf., similarly, Pinchas E. Rosenbluth, "Exil II. Judentum," TRE 10 [1982] 710-14 [711]). Philo's positive view of the Diaspora a worldwide colonization (cf. Flacc. 45-46; Legat. 281-283; Mos. 2.232) is probably in part a response to this Egyptian tradition. See J. M. Scott, "Philo and the Restoration of Israel," in Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. (ed.), SBL1995 Seminar Papers (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995) 553-75 (556-62). 2 9

184

SCOTT

tered over the rest of Hellas (ol 8k eaTrdpriaav Kcrra rf\v &Xkf\v *EXXd8a)." Here again, the verb (albeit orreLpeiv instead of SiaaTretpeiv) does not imply destructive decomposition, but rather the spreading of the exiles over a broad geographical area. Historically, this dispersion did not spell the end of the people as a group at all, for Lysander restored the island to the Aeginetans in 405 BCE, "gathering together as many of them as he could" (Xenophon, Hell. 2.2.9). Both of these examples display the same geographical and commu­ nal aspects of the verb that we find in the Septuagint and other Hellenistic-Jewish texts. One text which van Unnik failed to include in his study clinches the point. According to Josephus (Ant. 12.139), Antiochus HI wrote a letter after the "hundred years' war," command­ ing Ptolemy, his commander of Coele-Syria, to restore Jerusalem and "to repopulate it by bringing back to it those who have been dispersed abroad (T(3V SieaTrappivon/)." In light of these texts, the major dis­ tinction which van Unnik makes between "exile" and "diaspora" sim­ ply collapses. Instead, what we find is that the two terms are in fact synonyms, as can also be seen by the fact that they sometimes occur together, and they often stand within the covenantal context of sinpunishment-return. 30

31

32

33

3 0

The geographical aspect of the verb is apparent, for example, in Philo, Praem. 165, where Jew people are said to be "scattered in Greece and in barbarian lands, over islands and continents" (cf. Flacc. 45-46; Legat. 214 and 281-83). The communal aspect is clearly seen in Josephus, Ap. 1.32-33, which refers to the dispersed (SieaTrappii/oi,) who live in a Jewish community (aiiaT7)[ia) outside Judea. Contrast the explanation of the latter passage in van Unnik, Selbstverstandnis, 139. Hence, a complete philological study of the Jewish Diaspora in the GrecoRoman period must include not only a broader range of terms for "scatter" (e.g., (jTropds, 8ia(JKopTr£Ca>, SiaaKopmaiife, XtK^da), o-neLpw) but also the whole vocabulary of exile and return in both literary and non-literary sources. This is an urgent desideratum. A good beginning for such a project is made by Robert E. Price, "A Lexicographical Study of glh, shbh, and shwb in Reference to Exile in the Tanach" (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1977). Cf., e.g., Tob 3:4 ("So you gave us over to plunder, exile [alxjiaXwatav], and death, to become the talk, the byword, and an object of reproach among all the nations among whom you have dispersed [£(7KopTrt<7iie0a] us"); Bar 2:13-14; 3:8; Ps. Sol. 17:17-18; T. Naph. 4:2, 5; T. Levi 10:4; 4Q216 ii:14-15 (= Jub. 1:13); Gen. Rab. 73:6. See also van Unnik, Selbstverstandnis, 84,145-7. Van Unnik fails to mention that both terms are used in the context of the divine judgment which comes upon Israel as a consequence of sin; that both terms have the same range of meaning (process and condition); that both terms are used 3 1

3 2

3 3

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

185

If Kraabel and van Unnik were perhaps too quick to deny that Diaspora Jews could have understood their situation as "exile," we may ask what evidence, if any, shows that Diaspora Jews did have an exilic self-understanding. In the following we shall examine some lit­ erary, non-literary, and historical evidence which points in this direc­ tion. Since there is a dearth of relevant material before 70 CE from the Jewish Diaspora, we are largely dependent here on post-70 evidence. It remains for another study to discuss what effect this event may have had on the exilic self-understanding of Diaspora Jews. LITERARY EVIDENCE

Van Unnik has already collected much of the literary evidence, al­ though some of his observations can now be refined by more recent studies or complemented with additional texts. For the purposes of the present study, we would like to look more closely at the Septuagint, arguably the most important and influential literary pro­ duction of the Egyptian Diaspora. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures is crucial for the self-understanding of the Egyptian Diaspora which produced it. In particular, several actualiz­ 34

35

36

37

ed the worldwide exile/dispersion of the Jewish people; and that both terms are used in the context of the return from exile/dispersion upon repentance. Cf. Steven Weitzman, "Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit," JBL 115/1 (1996) 49-61, who argues that the allusion to the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 31-32) at the end of Tobit (chapters 12-13) expects that Israel will soon return to the promised land, just as its biblical ancestors once did. On Josephus as a Diaspora Jew, see in the present volume, L. Feldman, "The Concept of Exile in Josephus." Cf., e.g., James H. Charlesworth, "Lost Tribes, The," ABD 4 [1992] 372, who refers to the third-century Christian Latin poet Commodian (in the Carmen and Instructiones) and the author of the Acts of St. Matthew as possibly preserving an otherwise lost Jewish apocalyptic and apocryphal work that apparently described the living conditions of the lost ten (or nine and a half) tribes which were taken into exile by the king of Assyria; Johannes Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (SVTP 10; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 164ff., 174ff. Cf. Kurt Treu, "Die Bedeutung des Griechischen fur die Juden im romischen Reich," Kairos NF 15/1-2 (1973) 123-44. Cf., e.g., Robert Hanhart, "Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta fur die Definition des 'Hellenistischen Judentums,'" in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986 (Leiden: Brill, 1988) 67-80; Sylvie Honigman, "The Birth of a Diaspora: The Emergence of a Jewish Self-Definition in Ptolemaic 3 4

3 5

3 6

3 7

SCOTT

186

ing interpretations of exile and return texts are relevant for our discus­ sion, for they show that the translators were very keen to apply the text of Scripture to their own situation in Egypt. First, we may turn to passages containing the phrase "to this day" or the like to indicate that the condition of exile still prevails in the translators' own day. For example, Deut 29:27(28) reads: "The Lord uprooted them from their land in anger, fury, and great wrath, and cast them out into an­ other land, as is now the case (cbae! vui/)." Here the Septuagint changed the wording of the text in order to make it even more imme­ diately relevant ("now") to the contemporary reader than the original Hebrew (nrn D V D ) . Likewise in 4 Kgdms 17:23, we read: "[Israel sinned] until the Lord removed Israel from his presence, just as the Lord had spoken by the hand of all this servants, the prophets, and Israel was exiled (dTRpKiaOri) inland from its land to the Assyrians un­ til this day (eco? rf\s 1\[Lipas TauT-risO" While the phrase "until this day" is a direct translation of the Hebrew Vorlage (nrn o v n iv), Josephus clearly interprets it as referring to contemporary situation of the Northern Kingdom: "the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates until now (euyg Seupo), countless myriads whose number cannot be ascer38

39

40

41

Egypt in the Light of Onomastics," in Shaye J. D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (BJS 288; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993) 93127. We shall never be able to quantify the readership and actual influence of the Septuagint, but its quality and rank should not be doubted. Seeligmann regards Greek Isaiah as providing "a striking insight into the Galuth psychology of Alexandrian Jewry" (The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 111). Although we may whince at some of Seeligmann's unfavorable generalizations ("... a hypersensitive pusillanimity and vulnerable inferiority complex are characteristic of the Galuth psychology of the Hellenistic diaspora" [ibid., 112]), nevertheless many of his observations about the text are more substantial (ibid., 111-20; see further below). On actualizing interpretations in the Septuagint, including the notion of exile, see also Emanuel Tov, "The Septuagint," in Martin Jan Mulder (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT 2.1; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 161-88 (176-7). See further Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (WUNT 2.76; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995). Cf. Brevard S. Childs, "A Study of the Formula, 'Until This Day,'" JBL 82 (1963) 279-92. For allusions to Deut 29:27(28), see Jer 39(32):37 and m. Sanh. 10:3. Theodotion and Aquila translate more literally with cos f| fj^pa (afrrn). 3 8

3 9

4 0

4 1

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

187

42

tained" (Ant. 11.133). According to m. Sank. 10:3 and b. Sank. 110b, R. Aqiba goes so far as to argue on the basis of the phrase "as to this day" in Deut 29:28 that the ten tribes will never return to the Land. 2 Chr 29:9 provides a further example. In keeping with the Chronicler's perception that Israel still languishes in typological "exile" long after the return to the Land, the Greek translator adds a phrase in order to signal that the exile is ongoing even in his own day: "... And your sons and your daughters and your wives are in exile, in a land that is not theirs, which is even now the case (o Kal vw eaTii/)" (2 Chr 29:9; cf. 1 Chr 5:26). These and similar passages can be compared to the notice in Diodorus (17.110.4-5) about Boeotians who were settled by Xerxes beyond the Tigris: "There dwells here (sc. in Sambana) to the present day (pixP vui/) a settlement of Boeotians who were de­ ported in the time of Xerxes' campaign, but still have not forgotten 43

L

their ancestral customs ([Le\ivr\[ievov

8' en

rav

Tron-piow vop.a)v).

They are bilingual (Sicfxovoi) and speak like the natives in the one lan­ guage, while in the other they preserve most of the Greek vocabulary, and they maintain some Greek practices." The phrase "to this day" is evidence of the concept of a protracted "exile" which extends through the Second Temple period (and be­ yond). "Exile" can even be used in a metaphorical sense which is not limited geographically. As Robert P. Carroll concisely states, this concept is well documented in Jewish literature: "Much of the litera44

4 2

Cf. Origen, In Jeremiam 4.1.16: Israel went into exile "until this day" (1 Esdr 8:74/Ezra 9:7), whereas Judah went into exile only for "seventy years" (Jer 29:10). B. Yoma 53b-54a is a dispute about whether the phrase "to this day" in 1 Kgs 8:8 means "forever." William Johnstone, "Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles," in James D. Martin and Philip R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (JSOTSup 42; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986) 11338 (esp. 114, 117, 125, 126, 130, 133, 134). See, e.g., ibid., 134: "After the excitements and disappointments of the 'Zionist' phase of Israel's history from Second Isaiah to Ezra/Nehemiah, it is hardly surprising that, faced with the apparently meagre achievements of the restoration period, the Chronicler, in a way no doubt representative of many within the community, looks for a more ultimate 'Return', not only for the thousands still in the Diaspora but even for those physically present in the land. But this 'Return' and the ending of the present 'Exile' depend on atonement, an act in which the initiative lies always and only in God himself." A similar notice about another exile community is found in Herodotus 4.204. 4 3

4 4

188

SCOTT

ture of the Second Temple period recognizes a category of exile after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587/86, but it does not recognize any return in subsequent centuries. This literature ... represents Israel as being in exile for centuries, virtually in permanent exile. (See the in­ terpretation of the seventy weeks of years in Dan 9:24 which replaces the seventy years of other texts). Exile becomes a symbol in this litera­ ture; a symbol of alienation of the group (or sect) from power in Jerusalem, or one related to messianic expectations which alone would restore the people to their land. Here the Qumran literature has a rather different understanding of exile from that represented by Ezra-Nehemiah and one wonders if these differences do not indicate a clash of ideological and sectarian holdings. If the origins of Qumran were to be traced to Babylonian reform groups which only arrived in Palestine during the Maccabean period, this would account for its nonrecognition and for its belief that the exile as punishment for Israel's sins had continued unbroken to its own time (see CD 3:10-14). Whatever the origins of Qumran might have been, the community clearly believed in exile as a continuing experience, even though it might be regarded as living in its own land. The books of 1-3 Enoch, Baruch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Qumran Damascus Document, and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs all represent exile as a permanent state of the community and recognize no restoration or return from exile." We can find traces of this concept of a protracted exile in the Septuagint. 45

4 5

Robert P. Carroll, "Israel, History of (Post-Monarchic Period)," ABD 3 (1992) 567-76 (575). See further Jonathan Goldstein, "How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees Treated the 'Messianic' Promises," in Jacob Neusner, et al. (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 69-96 (70); Michael A. Knibb, "The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period," HeyJ 17 (1976) 253-72; Jonathan G. Campbell, "Essene-Qumran Origins in the Exile: A Scriptural Basis?" JJS 46/1-2 (1995) 143-56; Odil Hannes Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967); idem, "Das Problem theologischer Stromungen in nachexilischer Zeit," EvT 28 (1968) 445-58; idem, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration 'kanonischer' Uberlieferung (FRLANT 160; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993); Rudolf Schmid, "Exil I. Altes und Neues Testament," TRE 10 (1982) 707-10 (707): "Da bedeutenden Gruppen in Babylonien und anderswo auBer Landes blieben, wird die Diaspora mit der Exilslage identisch gesehen und entsprechend dem pragenden EinfluB Judas auf das Judentum vom babylonischen Exil her theologisch gedeutet. Der Exilsbegriff

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

189

Second, the Septuagint actualizes the Hebrew text by using d-rroLKta "colony" to translate rfTUi and other terms for "exile." At first glance, 46

this use of d i T o i K i a seems to be a deliberate attempt by the

Alexandrian translators either to rewrite Jewish history in terms of the glorious adventure of Greek colonization that took place at the dawn of the city-state or to soften the true meaning of the Hebrew text. Philo seems to take the former approach when he uses dTroiicCa. 47

48

ist somit primar alttestamentlich zu verstehen und wird als solcher Ausgangspunkt verschiedener heilsgeschichtlicher Reihen und Identitatsaussagen fur das nachbiblische Judentum und Anknupfungspunkt neutestamentlicher Deutungen. Many of the essays in the present volume also attest to a protracted exile, which is often seen as a theological, rather than primarily a geographical, concept. yfro (Ezra 1:1; 2:1; 4:1; 9:4; 10:6, 7, 8, 16; Neh 7:6; Jer 30[49]:19[3]; 31[48]:7; 35[28]:6; 36[29]:1, 4, 31); rto (Jer 13:19; 36[29]:l);m a (Jer 35[28]:4; 36[29]:22; 47[40]:1); rratf (Jer 37[30]:3; 39[32]:44; 40[33]:7, 11); no Hebrew equivalent (Jer 37[30]:18). Cf. Joseph Meleze Modrzejewski, "How to be a Jew in Hellenistic Egypt?" in Shaye J. D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (BJS 288; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993) 65-92 (69-70): "... the Jewish experience appears indeed as the opposite of the Greek experience. The two peoples have in common the fact that a decisive period of their respective histories was placed under the sign of a great migratory movement. However, whereas Greek colonization at the dawn of the city-state took on the colors of a glorious adventure, the contemporary migrations of the Jews were the consequence of the multiple catastrophes which annihilated Israelite royalty, and culminated in the deportation of the entire people. ... The Alexandrian translators refused to face this reality. In their presentation of the golah as a 'colony' (apoikia or apoikesia), they retrospectively aligned the Jewish past with the Greek past." On Greek colonization, see further Karl-Wilhelm Welwei, "Apoikia," Der neue Pauly 1 (1996) 849-51; D. W. W. Ridgway, "Colonization, Greek," Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed.; 1996) 362-3. According to Philo, Jews were sent out from Jerusalem as colonists because of overpopulation in the mother city (Legat. 281-282; Flacc. 46-47). As I have shown elsewhere, Philo has apologetic motives for recounting the history of the Diaspora in this way, which nevertheless dovetails with his expectation of return to the Land ("Philo and the Restoration of Israel," 553-75; cf. Robert L. Wilken, The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought [New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1992] 34-37). On Philo's concept of "colonization," see further Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora, 28-9, 58-9; Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (TSAJ 7; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1985) 236-8; van Unnik, Selbstverstandnis, 157: "Diese individuellen Ansichten sind jedoch nicht entscheidend fur das Judentum in seiner Ganzheit. Selbstverstandlich konnte Philon nicht anders sagen, ,,

4 6

l

4 7

4 8

190

SCOTT

Upon closer examination, however, we can see that in using dTroiida to render terms of exile, the Septuagint translators were probably not trying to obscure the original meaning of the text; rather, they were again trying to actualize the text and to apply it to their own situation in Egypt. The Septuatint translators were apparently expressing the conviction that their own experience of forced colonization under the Ptolemies was nothing more than a continuation of the exile existence to which Scripture bears such abundant witness. Even before the Ptolemaic period, there had been a history of Judean exiles and refugees in Egypt. Pharaoh Necho (609-593) invaded Palestine and took a portion of the population with him back to Egypt (2 Kgs 23:34; 2 Chr 36:4). After the murder of Gedalijah (587-582), some Judeans took Jeremiah hostage and fled to Egypt, in order to escape Babylonian revenge (Jer 42:18-22; 43:1-7). Alexander the Great (336323) took Jews with him to Egypt (Josephus, Ant. 11.345). And per­ haps uppermost in the minds of the Septuagint translators, Ptolemaios I Soter (367/6-282) is said to have deported 100,000 Jews to Egypt and to have resettled 30,000 of them there in colonies as cleruchs (Arist. 12-13; Josephus, Ant. 12.7; Ap. 1.205-211; cf. Zech 14:1b). * 4

als daB die Juden ihren Wohnort als ihr Vaterland betrachten, denn gerade ihr Lebensrecht stand auf dem Spiel. Aber diese Erklarung der jiidischen Ausbreitung durch den Vergleich mit der bei den Griechen bekannten Kolonisation steht sehr vereinzelt da. Sie paBt auch nicht zur jiidischen Gedankenwelt, wie sie im Alten Testament gezeichnet ist." Cf. Modrzejewski, "How to be a Jew in Hellenistic Egypt?" 76: "Although the existence of Jewish captives in third century Egypt remains a plausible hypothesis in individual cases, mass deportations and freeing of slaves were hardly compatible with the policy of the first Ptolemies in this matter. Voluntary immigration was by far the principle source of the Jewish establishment in the Ptolemaic kingdom. In this respect, the Jewish diaspora in Egypt was a tefusah rather than a golah." Actually, however, the Ptolemies seem to have had a policy of deportation similar to that in Pharonic Egypt. Cf. Wolfgang Helck, "Fremde in Agypten," Lexikon der Agyptologie 2 (1977) 306-10 (308); Getzel M. Cohen, "Colonization and Population Transfer in the Hellenistic World," in E. Van't Dack, et al. (eds.), Egypt and the Hellenistic World (Studia Hellenistica 27; Leuven: Orientaliste, 1983) 63-74 (68-74). According to Diod. Sic. 19.85.4, Ptolemy I, after the battle of Gaza, arranged the distribution of 8,000 prisoners of war among the nomarchies of Egypt. On cleruchy in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Fritz Uebel, Die Kleruchen Agyptens unter der ersten sechs Ptolemdern (Abhandlung der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse fiir Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst 1968 Nr. 3; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1968), who provides an extensive list of persons belonging to cleruchies in the Ptolemaic period, giving in 4 9

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

191

Here, it is interesting to note that &TToiKia is sometimes used of cleruchy. Although the Letter ofAristeas claims that at his own very great expense, Ptolemaios II Philadelphus (308-246) released the Jews who had been forcibly deported to Egypt by his father and any others who were there previously or were subsequently taken there (Arist. 19-27), this account of mass deportation under Ptolemaios I shows that the memory of Jewish colonization in Egypt was very much alive when the Greek translation of the Pentateuch was beginning. Not surprisingly, the Septuagint translators in Ptolemaic Egypt look particularly to the words of the prophet Jeremiah for perspective on their plight, for Jeremiah was taken to Egypt. Egyptian Jews evidently had a high esteem for Jeremiah, even making Alexander the Great transfer the prophet's bones to Alexandria and reverently place them around the city for protection (Vitae Prophetarum 2:5). It is in fact in Jeremiah that most of the occurrences of dTTOLKia are found in the Septuagint. The translators must have particularly identified with Jer 36(29):4-7, for whereas the Hebrew Vorlage refers to an exile "to Babylon" (v. 4), the phrase rfann is left unrepresented in the Greek, thus opening up the possibility of a broader interpretation of the pas­ sage (cf. also Jer 35[28]:4). According to this text, "the colony" (TTJV dTTOLKiav/ii^n) which the Lord "exiled" (dTTco Kiaa/Trtn) from Jerusalem is instructed to do all the things that colonists might be ex­ pected to do: build houses, plant gardens, take wives, beget children, etc. Here as elsewhere, there is no attempt to obscure the fact that the "colony" is an exile community. Instead, by their choice of the term 50

51

52

each case (insofar as preserved) the person's name, his ethnic, his family members, etc. Of the 1473 names, twelve (= 1.3 %) are listed as 'IouSalos (nos. 311, 436-44, 492-3). However, most of these names (9) are from one papyrus (P. Teb. 818) dating to 174 BCE. Several other names are probably those of Jews (nos. 358, 663, 665, 1164). See also R. S. Bagnall, "The Origin of the Ptolemaic Cleruchs," Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 21 (1984) 7-20; Fritz Heichelheim, Die auswartige Bevolkerung im Ptolemaerreich (Klio Beiheft 18, N.F. 5; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1925; reprinted., Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1963). Cf. Michel Casevitz, Le vocabulaire de la colonisation en Grec ancien (Paris: Klincksieck, 1985), 120-30. Cf. Anna Maria Schwemer, Studien zu den fruhjudischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum, Band I: Die Viten der grofien Propheten Jesaja, Jeremia, Ezechiel und Daniel: Einleitung, Ubersetzung und Kommentar (TSAJ 49; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995) 184-90. Cf. Jer 37(30): 18 LXX, where "colony" (dTroiicCa) and "exiles" ((uxiiaXwata) stand in parallel. Indeed, the historical exilic situation appears 5 0

5 1

5 2

192

SCOTT

for nbv, the Ptolemaic Jews affirm the history of their people and, more importantly, their own place within that history as a contin­ uation of exile "to this day." Moreover, the term occurs in many pas­ sages which speak of the return of the "colony" from exile, even as a future hope. The Septuagint's language of colonization is appropriated in other Diaspora writings of the period, most notably in 3 Maccabees, a writ­ ing of the Egyptian Diaspora from the first century BCE. In the con­ text of a severe persecution of Egyptian Jews under Ptolemaios IV Philopator (ca. 244-205 BCE), 3 Maccabees records the prayer of a priest named Eleazar at the climax of the onslaught (6:1-15), which petitions God on behalf of "the nation of Jacob" (6:13) to save his people from imminent destruction: "Even if our lives have become entangled in impieties in our colony (dTToiidav), rescue us from the hand of the enemy..." (6:10). In this prayer, the priest describes Egyptian Jewry as "a foreign people in a foreign land" (kaov ev fevfj yr\ £ e v o v ; 6:3), indeed "in the land of their enemies" (<£v TT| yf\ T<3V tyQp&v, 6:15; cf. Lev 26:44). The use of the term TrapoLKla elsewhere in 3 Maccabees (6:36; 7:19) suggests that much like Israel's first "sojourn" in Egypt (cf. Gen 47:4; Num 20:15; Deut 26:5), the present "sojourn" in Egypt is for a limited time, and a new exodus to the Land is expected. Third, the Septuagint actualizes the Hebrew text by reapplying prophetic expectations to Egyptian Jewry. Perhaps the most striking dTTOLKia.

53

54

55

similar to colonization in many ways. Cf. Bustenay Oded, "Observations on the Israelite/Judaean Exiles in Mesopotamia during the Eighth-Sixth Centuries BCE," in K. van Lerberghe and A. Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipinski (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 65; Leuven: Peeters, 1995) 205-12. For a different interpretation of the Jeremiah passage, see D. Smith, "Jeremiah as Prophet of Nonviolence," JSOT 43 (1989) 95-107. Indeed, the Septuagint frequently uses the term in passages on the return. Cf., e.g., Ezra 1:11; 2:1; Jer 35(28):3-4,6; 37(30):18; 39(32):44; 40(33):7,11. Cf. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 192-203. Cf. Bar 3:8 (L8ou fuels' (Tfpepov ev Tfj diroiidqi i\\i&v oh biioneipag £icei), which similarly uses the term "colony" in a prayer. As Steck cogently argues, the second-century BCE author of Baruch views the exile as continuing even to his own day (Das apokryphe Baruchbuch. Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration 'kanonischer' Uberlieferung, 267-8). Note Josephus' interchangeable use of dTroiicta and i c a T o i i c t a in describing the Babylonian exile (Ap. 1.138; Am. 10.223). 5 3

5 4

5 5

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

193

example is found in the prophecy of the return in the Septuagint ver­ sion of Isa 11:11-16. Verse 16 reads: "And there will be a highway for my people left in Egypt, and it will be for Israel as the day when they came out from the land of Egypt." Here, the highway will be made not, as in the Hebrew text, for the Assyrian Jews, but for "my people left in Egypt"—a "thoroughfare" (8to8os0 across the Delta and the "Egyptian sea" (v. 15). In this way, the remnant of the people of Israel is identified with the Jewish Diaspora in Hellenistic Egypt. Such a passage will have reflected and fueled the expectation of the return among the Egyptian Diaspora (cf. also Isa 27:12-13; Zech 10:9-10). 56

NON-LITERARY EVIDENCE

Non-literary evidence, including synagogue buildings and grave in­ scriptions, is more difficult to work with because by its very nature, it tends to reveal little about the theological self-understanding of the Jewish Diaspora. Nevertheless, several examples have been adduced to show that Diaspora Jews from different places in the Greco-Roman period had an exilic perspective. First, we may consider the syna­ gogue at Dura-Europos, on the remote eastern rim of the Roman Empire in Syria, which flourished during the second to the mid-third 57

5 6

Cf. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 116-17, cited in William Horbury, "The Beginnings of the Jewish Revolt under Trajan," in Peter Schafer (ed.), Geschichte—Tradition—Reflection, Bd. I: Judaism (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996) 282-304 (300). It may be questioned whether Syria should be included in a discussion of the Jewish Diaspora, for there is evidence that at least part of Syria was considered to lie within the Land (or within the messianic kingdom). For example, a recently published ossuary inscription from Jerusalem mentions a certain "Ariston of Amamea," who may be identical with the Ariston mentioned in the Mishnah. According to m. Hallah 4:11, "Ariston brought his firstfruits from Apamea, and they [sc. the priests] accepted them from him, for they said, 'He who owns [land] in Syria is as one who owns [land] in the outskirts of Jerusalem'" Cf. Tal Ilan, "New Ossuary Inscriptions from Jerusalem," Scripta Classica Israelica 11 (1991-92) 149-59 (150-54), cited in Martin Hengel, "Jerusalem als judische und hellenistische Stadt," in Bernd Funck (ed.), Hellenismus. Beitrdge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalters. Akten des Internationalen Hellenismus-Kolloquiums 9.14. Mdrz 1994 in Berlin (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996) 269-306 (298). According to Jewish tradition, including lQapGen 21.16-17, the "Taurus Amanus" mountain range forms the northern border of Israel. Cf. m. Sheh. 6:1; y. 5 7

194

SCOTT

centuries CE. Our attention is drawn particularly to the paintings that adorn the inside west wall of the synagogue, to the right and left of the Torah shrine situated in the center. Although the interpretation of these paintings remains disputed, the recent perspective of Jonathan Goldstein has special relevance for the present study. Goldstein ar­ gues that the paintings to the left of the Torah shrine represent past and temporary wonders in Israel's history, whereas the paintings to the right of the shrine represent eschatological and permanent won­ ders. Although, at first glance, both sides appear to portray biblical scenes, the seemingly innocuous scenes on the right side actually refer subversively to the eschatological, second-exodus redemption of Israel from exile and the defeat of the Roman Empire! Hence, one pic­ ture on the right side (WA3) which seems merely to show the exodus from Egypt led by Moses actually portrays a latter-day Exodus to be led by a Second Moses (Messiah), one in which the Romans (symbolized as a walled city and the Porta Triumphalis) is vanquished and destroyed. Goldstein concludes: "The Jews of Dura were vitally interested in eschatology. They passionately believed in the coming destruction of the oppressive empires that ruled over them, and in the destruction of pagan religion, in the liberation of the Jews and their restoration to their homeland, in the coming of the Messiah, in the resurrection of the dead, in God's bestowing the gift of prophecy upon all Israel. Until God in his own time brought about their restoration (and that time would be soon), they could worship only in a syna­ gogue, not in a temple. Great as was their discretion in concealing the full import of the paintings by labels and by other means, we can be 58

59

60

Hal 4.4; Exod. Rab. 23:5; b. Git. 8a. See further Philip S. Alexander, "Geography and the Bible (Early Judaism)," ABD 2.977-988 (986). On the problem that each scholar finds a different meaning in the cycle depending on his conceptual framework that he brings to his interpretation, see Joseph Gutmann, "Programmatic Painting in the Dura Synagogue," in Joseph Gutmann (ed.), The Dura-Europos Synagogue: A Re-Evaluation (1932-1992) (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 25; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992) 137-54. Jonathan A. Goldstein, "The Judaism of the Synagogues (Focusing on the Synagogue of Dura-Europos)," in Jacob Neusner (ed.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 2: Historical Syntheses (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.17.2; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 109-57. Goldstein, "The Judaism of the Synagogues," 132-9. 5 8

5 9

6 0

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

195

astonished by the audacity they showed in displaying such perilous topics." Goldstein's view, albeit somewhat speculative, has much to com­ mend it. We may note, for example, that the artwork of other syna­ gogues have also been interpreted in terms of the hope for eschatolog­ ical restoration. Furthermore, the very location of Dura may be sig­ nificant. Goldstein points out that the Jews of Dura lived near the re­ gions to which the ten tribes are said to have been exiled (2 Kgs 17:6). According to Josephus (JW 1.5; Ant. 11.133) and 2 Esdras (13:45-46), the Jews in "Assyria," beyond the Euphrates, were still thought to in­ clude the multitudinous ten tribes who would return at last. It may also be important that Dura probably lay on the route which the Judean exiles originally traveled on their way to B a b y l o n . Since Nebuchadnezzar's camp was at Riblah (cf. 2 Kgs 25:6, 20-21), the exiles went from Jerusalem, via Hazor, Damascus, and Riblah. From Riblah they went north to Halab, following the Euphrates and passing through Mari and Dura-Europos before finally arriving in Babylon. If this reconstructed itinerary is correct, then this may have fueled a de­ sire in the Jews of Dura to return to Jerusalem by the same route. Perhaps most importantly, the pictures allegedly depicting the es­ chatological restoration occur on the inner west wall of the synagogue that has the Torah shrine in the center. Like other Diaspora syna61

62

63

6 1

Goldstein, "The Judaism of the Synagogues," 154. Cf., similarly, Kurt Weitzmann and Herbert L. Kessler, The Frescoes of the Dura Synagogue and Christian Art (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 28; Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1990) 178: "Even though the specific meaning of every scene in the synagogue has not been agreed upon, the overall significance of the program is clear. Undoubtedly, the overriding themes are God's enduring protection of the Jews, especially in exile, and the messianic hope for the restoration of Israel, through the ingathering of the peoples and the rebuilding of Jerusalem." Cf., e.g., Ze'ev Weiss and Ehud Netzer, Promise and Redemption: A Synagogue Mosaic from Sepphoris (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1996) 36-7, who argue that the third section of the synagogue mosaic, located above the zodiac, includes objects from the Temple and food staples which express the eschatological hope of the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of blessing for the people. This evidence is, of course, subject to other interpretations and in any case stems from a later period. Furthermore, the Sepphoris synagogue is not oriented towards Jerusalem. Cf. Paul L. Redditt, "The Trip from Jerusalem to Babylon," Biblical Illustrator 16/3 (1990) 42-9. 6 2

6 3

196

SCOTT

gogues, the Dura synagogue placed the Torah shrine on the wall clos­ est to Jerusalem, thus orienting the building towards the Holy City. Although one of the common names for Diaspora synagogues is npooevxA ("house of prayer"), we can only guess what prayers may 64

have been uttered in the Dura synagogue. There is little doubt, how­ ever, that such prayers would have been said in the direction of Jerusalem. This is prescribed already in Solomon's prayer of dedica­ tion for the Temple in 1 Kgs 8:22-53 (cf. vv. 35, 48), the latter part of which (vv. 41-43) may be an expansion by a writer during the exile: "If they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin—and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near; yet if they come to their senses in the land to which they have been taken captive, and repent, and plead with you in the land of their captors, saying, We have sinned, and have done wrong; we have acted wickedly'; if they repent with all their heart and soul in the land of their enemies, who took them captive, and pray to you toward their land, which you gave to their ancestors, the city that you have chosen, and the house that I have built for your name; then hear in heaven your dwelling place their prayer and their plea, maintain their cause and forgive your people who have sinned against you, and all their transgressions that they have committed against you; and grant them compassion in the sight of their captors, so that they may have compassion on them (for they are your people and heritage, which you brought out of Egypt, from the midst of the iron-smelter)." The 65

4

66

6 4

Cf. Frowald G. Huttenmeister, "'Synagoge' und 'Proseuche' bei Josephus und in anderen antiken Quellen," in Dietrich-Alex Koch and Hermann Lichtenberger (eds.), Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum inAntike und Mittelalter. Festschrift fur Heinz Schreckenberg (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 163-81; David Noy, "A Jewish Place of Prayer in Roman Egypt," JTS 43/1 (1992) 118-22; Martin Hengel, "Proseuche und Synogoge," in Judaism et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I (WUNT 90; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996) 171-95. On the direction of prayer in synagogues, see David Amit, "Architectural Plans of Synagogues in the Southern Judean Hills and the 'Halakah,'" in Dan Urman and Paul V. M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (SPB 47.1; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 129-56 (140-45). 1 Kgs 8:46-51. Cf. Dan 6:11: "Although Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he continued to go to his house, which had windows in its upper room open toward Jerusalem, and to get down on his knees three times a day to pray to his God and praise him, just as he had done previously." This implies that 6 5

6 6

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

197

Mishnah prescribes that one who prays must turn his face to the Holy of Holies, and that if he cannot turn his face he must turn his heart (m. Ber. 4:5). Likewise, Sifre Deut. 29 (ed. Finkelstein, 47) states : "They who stand [in prayer] outside the Land [of Israel] turn their faces toward the Land of Israel and pray, as is said, 'and they pray to you in the direction of their land' (1 Kgs 8:48). ... if they are standing in the north, they turn their faces toward the south; in the south, they turn their faces to the north; in the east, [they turn] their faces toward the west; in the west, [they turn] their faces toward the east. [Thus] all Israel are found praying towards one place." One wonders how many of the Diaspora prayers towards Jerusalem may have been prayers for return to Jerusalem and to the Land, for the hope of the return from exile is central in Jewish prayer. Seen in this light, the pictures on the west wall of the Dura synagogue take on added significance as aids to prayer for the long-expected return. Much depends, however, on whether Goldstein's interpretation of admittedly equivocal scenes is correct. And even if his interpretation is correct, we still do not know whether the symbols of restoration betray any real commitment to return to the Land. A second possible piece of non-literary evidence can be found in Anatolian epitaphs dating from the mid-third century CE which in67

68

69

when Daniel prays the penitential prayer on behalf of his people in anticipation of the end of exile (Dan 9:4-19), he does so in the direction of Jerusalem. See also 1 Esdras 4:58: "When the young man [sc. Zerubbabel, who had received authorization from Darius to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple] went out, he lifted up his face to heaven toward Jerusalem, and praised the King of heaven, saying..." Cf. also Beate Ego, Im Himmel wie aufErden. Studien zum Verhaltnis von himmlischer und irdischer Welt im rabbinischen Judentum (WUNT 2.34; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989) 75-7. Cf. Ps 106:47; Sir 36:10,13; Tob 13:5, 13; 2 Mace 1:27, 29 (cf. 2:18); Ps. Sol. 8:27-28; 11; 17:26, 31; Shemoneh 'esreh 7 and 10. See further Bilhah Nitzan, Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry (STDJ 12; Leiden: Brill, 1994); Esther Glickler Chazon, "Prayers from Qumran and Their Historical Implications," Dead Sea Discoveries 1/3 (1994) 265-84 (278-9); J. M. Scott, "Tor as many as are of works of the Law are under a curse' (Galatians 3.10)," in James A. Sanders and C. A. Evans (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup 83; SSEJC 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 187-220. See below on the prayer for King Jonathan and the Jewish Diaspora (4Q448 ii:3-6). For the texts, see Johan H. M. Strubbe, "Curses Against Violation of the Grave in Jewish Epitaphs of Asia Minor," in Jan Willem van Henten and Pieter 6 7

6 8

6 9

198

SCOTT

voke the "curses that are written in Deuteronomy" (al dpai f) [sic!] yeypap.p.evai ev T<3 Aeirrepovopiq)) against tomb violators. Paul Trebilco suggests that these epitaphs reflect the eschatological expec­ tation of Diaspora J e w s . Like Philo of Alexandria (Praem. 127172), Jews of Asia Minor saw their current Diaspora situation in negative theological terms, as exile in punishment for the violation of the covenant by their ancestors, from which they could hope to be de­ livered by proper observance of Torah. Hence, by applying the Deuteronomic curses to grave violators, these Jews were acting in ac­ cordance with the intent of Deut 30:7, which states that, when the people have returned to Yahweh, one of the blessings He will bestow on them is the transference of the covenant curses in Deuteronomy 2770

71

72

Willem van der Horst (eds.), Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy (AGJU 21; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 70-128 (115-20); Pieter W. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE—700 CE) (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 2; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991) 54-60. Cf. Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 60-69. See my essay, "Philo and the Restoration of Israel," 553-75. Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 66: "In Deut 29-30 Moses exhorts the people to faithful obedience. It is certain that future generations will abandon the covenant and that the curses of the previous chapter will come upon the people. This passage is not, as in the standard curse lists, a mere listing of possible evils. Rather the threats have become horrible realities and the question is asked why the have come about. It is because Yahweh has brought upon the land all the curses written in the book of this law', and has scattered the people into other lands (v 26-7). The catastrophe is assumed and the present destruction is placed in the context of the broken covenant and the realised covenantal curse. Like Deut 28, the passage would speak to people of the Diaspora as an explanation of their current situation." See also ibid., 214 n. 38: "Philo in Praem. 127-72 follows Deut 28-30 quite closely, but includes some expansions. He interprets Deut 30:1-10 to refer to 'those who a little while ago were scattered in Greece and the outside world' (165). They will pass from exile to the land of Israel. God will turn the curses against the enemies of these people scattered throughout the world (169, with reference to Deut 30:7). We see therefore that another Diaspora Jew understood Deut 30:1-10 to be significant for his situation, and thus interpreted it in a similar way to Acmonian Jews, although without reference to grave violation. This confirms that our view is very likely." 7 0

7 1

7 2

4

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

199

29 "to your enemies, to those who hate you, to those who have perse­ cuted you." Trebilco's interpretation of curse formulas in the Acmonia inscrip­ tions has largely been dismissed by scholars, although there may be some additional corroborating evidence for i t . Much depends on whether these curses presuppose a coherent understanding of the latter chapters of Deuteronomy and their future hope for the nation. The in­ scriptions themselves provide no clue that this is the case. In fact, the Deuteronomic curses cited elsewhere in Jewish and Christian sources suggest that they were used in a rather formulaic way, devoid of any substantive connection to their original context or to eschatological hopes. Furthermore, Jub. 23:30-31 may provide a more cogent ex73

74

75

76

7 3

On the transference of curses to Israel's enemies, see Philo, Praem. 169 and Place. 170. Cf. Strubbe, "Curses Against Violation of the Grave in Jewish Epitaphs of Asia Minor," 91: "I doubt this very much. Those who violated the graves were not necessarily enemies or persecutors of the Jews; they did not desecrate the graves out of hate for the Jews, but usually because of poverty..."; Ross S. Kraemer, "Review of Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities of Asia Minor," Ioudaios Review 4.021 (September 1994), § 2.2: "That some Jews placed great value on the final chapters of Deuteronomy is without dispute: that they did so because they understood their own residence in Asia as punitive exile is not evident in any of the inscriptions themselves, and we simply lack literary sources, Jewish or otherwise, to confirm or deny what thus remains nothing more than an interesting hypothesis." We may point out, for example, that in a similar way to Acmonia inscriptions, Book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles, which originated in the Egyptian Diaspora during the second century B.C., turns the curses of Deuteronomy 28 against the nations instead of against Israel, their original addressees (Sib. Or. 3.520-544). Cf. Yehoshua Amir, Studien zum Antiken Judentum (Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 2; Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 1985) 83-100 (88-90). The theme of placing the curses of Israel on their enemies is quite common in Jewish literature (e.g., Tg. Isa 10:25: "For in a very little while, the curses shall come to an end for you of the house of Jacob, and my anger shall be against the nations who practice abomination, to destroy them"). Furthermore, the final chapters of Deuteronomy are frequently used to express the eschatological hopes of Jews facing death. See the citation of Deut 32:39 in 4 Mace 18:18 and Tob 13:2, and the citation of Deut 32:36 in 2 Mace 7:6. Cf. Marvin Meyer, et al. (eds.), Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (San Francisco: Harper, 1994) 184, 211-12; John G. Gager, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) 184 n. 25; G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1978 7 4

7 5

7 6

200

SCOTT

planation for the transfer of the curses to enemies as is found on the epitaphs of Acmonia: "Then the Lord will heal his servants. They will rise and see great peace. He will expel their enemies. The righteous will see (this), offer praise, and be very happy forever and ever. They will see all their punishments and curses on their enemies. Their bones will rest in the earth and their spirits will be very happy. They will know that the Lord is the one who executes judgment but shows kind­ ness to hundreds and thousands and to all who love him." Hence, the epitaphs cannot be used a solid evidence for an exilic perspective among Diaspora Jews of Asia Minor. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE Non-Jewish

Diasporas

In order to set the historical context properly, we must consider the experience of other "diasporas" in the Greco-Roman world—peo­ ples who, like the Jews, found themselves forcibly separated from their homelands. It is surprising that this kind of comparison has not 77

78

(North Ryde, N.S.W., Australia: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1983) 123-5 (no. 96 on IG XH 9.1179). On the plural use of the term, see Marguerite Harl, "'Et il rassemblera les "dispersions" d'Israel.' Une note sur le pluriel de SiaaTropd dans le Psaume 146 (147), 2b," Cahiers de Bihlia Patristica 4 (1994) 281-90. Here, I use "diaspora" in the extended modern sense of the collective forced dispersion of a religious and/or ethnic group, precipitated by a disaster, often of a political nature. Cf. Gerard Chaliand and Jean-Pierre Rageau, The Penguin Atlas of Diasporas (New York: Viking Penguin, 1995) xiii-xxi. We need not be too concerned about the exact reasons for which people were forced out of their homelands, for as Seneca (Dial. 12.7.5) aptly remarks, all kinds of population transfers are nothing more than mass exiles (Omnes autem istae populorum transportationes quid aliud quam public a exilia sunt). Cf. Ernst Doblhofer, Exil und Emigration. Zum Erlebnis der Heimatferne in der romischen Literatur (Impulse der Forschung 51; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1987) 255-6. If, for example, colonization was deemed necessary due to overpopulation, the ones chosen for the expedition either had to go willingly or face the death penalty. Cf. Russell Meiggs and David Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (rev. ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) 5-9; Matthew Dillon and Lyda Garland, Ancient Greece: Social and Historical Documents from Archaic Times to the Death of Socrates (c. 800-399 BC) (London/New York: Routledge, 1994) 1-28 (19-20). 7 7

7 8

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

201

79

been given greater attention in the modern discussion, for the Jewish Diaspora coined the term which became applied to other peoples who are forced to live outside their homelands. Moreover, Jews themselves were aware of the existence of other diasporas. The benefits of such a comparison are readily apparent. We prevent an over concentration on the Jewish Diaspora which leads to distortions, and we gain an ap­ preciation of general trends among diaspora populations which may lead to insights into the Jewish situation. Non-Jewish diasporas were quite common in the ancient world, and often the result of mass population transfers involving whole cities, islands, or even regions. Philip II (382-336) is said to have shifted 80

81

82

7 9

Despite its promising title, Shaye J. D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs (eds.), Diasporas in Antiquity (BJS 288; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), contains only one study on the subject (i.e., Ramsay MacMullen, "The Unromanized in Rome," 47-64). See also Jonathan Z. Smith, Map is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 23; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 119: "The category of exile is not an exclusively Jewish one. I have learned a great deal from studying the many texts expressing exilic traditions that may be found in the history of religions; and it is to be hoped that... some scholar in the near future will undertake a study of exile as it has appeared in the history of religions (a study which would include both texts which reflex [sic] an exile from a sacred land on earth and those which report an exile from a primeval or heavenly home)." Cf. Lam. Rab. 1.28 (cited in Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora, 30): "'Judah has gone into exile' (Lam. 1:3)—Do not the nations of the world go into exile? [The fact is, however, that] though they go into exile, their exile is not really exile. The heathen nations who eat their bread (i.e. local bread) and drink their wine their exile is not real exile, but Israel, who do not eat their bread or drink their wine, do experience real exile." This presupposes that other nations always assimilated to the lands to which they were exiled, whereas the Jewish Diaspora did not (cf., similarly, Elias Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees: Foundations of Post-Biblical Judaism [New York: Schocken, 1962] 3-4). As we shall see, this distinction between Israel and the nations is not borne out by historical evidence. Jonathan Z. Smith provides some seminal observations on the relationship between homeland and diasporic centers in Hellenistic religions ("Native Cults in the Hellenistic Period," Histoty of Religions 11 [1971] 236-49). Cf. Getzel M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor (Hellenistic Culture and Society 17; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995) 15-23; Hans Volkmann, Die Massenversklavungen der Einwohner eroberter Stddte in der hellenistisch-romischen Zeit (2nd ed.; ed. by Gerhard Horsmann; Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 22; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1990); Jakob Seibert, Die politischen Fluchtlinge und Verbannten in der 8 0

8 1

8 2

202

SCOTT

populations about rather capriciously: "Returning to his kingdom, as shepherds move their flocks now to winter, now to summer pastures, so he [sc. Philip] transported people and cities, according to his whim, as places appeared to him to need to be restored or abandoned.... Some people he installed on the frontiers against his enemies, others he placed in more remote parts of his kingdom; some whom he had taken prisoner he distributed to supplement the populations of the cities. And thus from many tribes and nations he established one kingdom and people." This included, for example, leading more than 10,000 Sarmisii whom he had defeated back to Macedonia (Polyaenus 4.2.12). Very much in the same way, Alexander and the Diodochoi planned and/or executed massive population transfers. Alexander's al­ leged plan to exchange European and Asian peoples, found among the memoranda that Alexander left on his death, specified his intention, in effect, to continue the program of his father: "to found cities and to transfer populations from Asia to Europe and in the opposite direction from Europe to Asia, in order to bring the largest contingents to com­ mon unity and to the friendship of kinsmen by intermarriages and family ties" (Diod. Sic. 18.4.4). Of the Diodochoi, Antipater trans­ planted about 12,000 Athenians to Thrace (Plutarch, Phoc. 27; Diod. Sic. 18.18.5) and intended also to transplant the Aetolians to the fur­ thest and most desolate regions of Asia (Diod. Sic. 18.25.5). It is esti­ mated that more than two million enslaved alien peasants were trans­ ported to Italy beween 80 and 8 B C E . Although it is sometimes doubted that Ptolemaios I could have deported 100,000 Jews to Egypt, an inscription dated to 66 CE, records honors to one Ti. Plautius Silvanus, who brought more than 100,000 Transdanubians and settled them in Moesia with their wives, children, chieftains, etc. 83

84

85

griechischen Geschichte. Von den Anfdngen bis zur Underwerfung durch die Rbmer (Impulse der Forschung 30; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979) 215, 405-6 (table of statistics). Justin 8.5.7-6.2. Cf. J. R. Ellis, "Population-Transplants by Philip II," Makedonika 9 (1969) 9-17. Cf. K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978) 7-8. H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Vol. 1 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1892) 214-5 (no. 968): "Ti. Plautio M. f. Ani. Silvano Aeliano ... legat. pro praet. Moesiae, in qua plura quam centum mill, ex numero Transdanuvianor. ad praestanda tributa cum coniugib. ac liberis et principibus aut regibus suis transduxit...." 8 3

8 4

8 5

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

203

For the exiled population, the pain of separation from the homeland was often deeply felt. Population transfer was seen in the ancient world as a negative experience from which it was hoped the exiles would return. Displaced peoples so longed to return to their native homelands that they did so whenever possible, often by means of force if necessary. In one case, a people to whom citizenship and other privileges had been conferred in the place to which it was trans­ ferred kept its identity and the hope of return alive, and when the po­ litical situation changed, they took the first opportunity to make their 86

87

88

8 6

Isocrates' Plataicus (46-50) describes the tragic plight of the Plataeans, whom the Thebans had twice exiled from their city. In his treatise entitled De Exilio (Mor. 599A-607F), Plutarch deplores those who wrongly "assume that exile is a calamity, as the multitude declare in speech and song" (599F), arguing that, in reality, exile is basic to all human existence (607D-F; cf. Ps-Phocylides 39-41; Pesiq. Rab. Kah. 15.1.1). See also Diod. Sic. 34/35.4.1-2 (cited in Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora, 61): "These same captives [i.e., probably the 'barbarians' captured by Scipio following the fall of Numantia in 133 BCE], on reaching the boundaries of their land, threw themselves to the ground and with cries of lamentation kissed the earth and even collected some of the dust in the folds of their garments." In 190 BCE, the exiles of Iasos convinced the Romans not to destroy their city, to which they wanted to return in the future (Livy 38.17.3ff.). Cf. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 197-198. When a population remained in diaspora even after they were allowed to return to the homeland, it was often because they needed careful planning, major financial help, and/or military intervention to accomplish their goals. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 165, 196. It was not as simple as packing their bags and leaving. When the Plataean exiles in Athens finally gained the opportunity to return to their lost homeland, some of the Plataeans evidently chose not return, for after 330 BCE there is still evidence of them in Athens (Aeschin. 3.162). Cf. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 146, 385-90, 403-4. In this regard, Gafni's statement {Land, Center and Diaspora, 12) is in need of revision: "Needless to say, the fact of Jewish dispersion was not a unique phenomenon in the ancient world. Other ethnic or religious communities also found themselves removed from their historical homelands, some by choice and others as a result of forced exile and captivity. What may have been unique in the case of the Jewish dispersion was that it was frequently—but not universally—accompanied by a broad-based yearning for a reverse process of ingathering, that is, a geographical as well as national restoration." As we have seen above, some rabbis also made a sharp distinction between the Jewish Diaspora and the diaspora of other peoples {Lam. Rab. 1.28). In private conversation with me, Professor Gafni concurred that yearning for return to the homeland was not unique to the Jewish Diaspora, but he also stressed that, generally speaking, the Jewish hope was both longer in duration (centuries rather than a generation or two) and more theologically developed. 8 7

8 8

204

SCOTT

way back home, even though a new generation had grown up in the meantime. Sometimes an exiled people had to wait for many years, even centuries, for their fortunes to change. Often it was the children or grandchildren who actually returned. In the interim, the exile popu­ lation may have acquired a second language, as we have seen above on the Boeotians, or it may even have lost its native tongue alto­ gether. In fact, a huge number of refugees from Athens living widely scattered ended up losing their language but not their identity by as­ similation, and they eventually returned to their homeland. In 348, Philip II destroyed Olynthus, and its inhabitants were scattered to ev­ ery wind. For centuries, many Olynthians retained the designation of their origin 6Xuv8ioi, thereby keeping alive the memory of their for­ mer homeland. In 316 (i.e., 32 years after their dispersal), Cassander gathered them up again and settled them in his new city, Cassandreia. Sometimes a people was scattered over many different lands, yet there are cases in which a people was repatriated even after a considerable length of time. The pages of history are filled with examples of exiled peoples who eventually returned to their homeland. Like the original exile, the 89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

8 9

Cf. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 226-8, 361. Cf. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 356. Judging from Herodotus 6.119, it was remarkable when an exiled people retained its native tongue: "When Datis and Artaphrenes touched Asia in their voyage, they carried the enslaved Eretrians inland to Susa (d.vt)yoyov eg Zouaa). Before the Eretrians were taken captive king Darius had been terribly wrath with them for doing him unprovoked wrong; but seeing them brought before him and subject to him, he did them no harm, but gave them a domain of his own called Ardericca in the Cissian land to dwell in.... There king Darius planted the Eretrians and they dwell in that place till my time (ol Kal JJL£XP elx TT)V xdpw TGUTT|V), keeping their ancient language (QvXdooovTes TT)V dpxatn.i/ yAioaaav)." See also Diod. Sic. 17.110.4-5 (cited above). Cf. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 13-4. Cf. ibid., 360: "Die Integration der Vertriebenen an ihrem Aufnahmeort war sehr verschieden, sie hing auch ganz davon ab, ob man mit einer baldigen Ruckkehr rechnete." Cf. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 137. Cf. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 169. For example, the Samians, who were scattered over the whole Greek region, returned to their homeland after 44 years of exile, and the Messenians, who were scattered to Sicily, North Africa, and Cypress, came back after several centuries. Cf. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 360; Graham Shipley, A History ofSamos 800188 BC (Oxford: Clarendon, 1987) 155-201. Cf. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 400-405. 9 0

9 1

L

9 2

9 3

9 4

9 5

9 6

ov

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

205

return usually required the fiat of a superior power. We have already noted the case of the Aeginetans, whom the Athenians exiled from Aegina in 431 and scattered to Thyrea and over the rest of Hellas (Thucydides, Hist. 2.27), but whom Lysander returned to their home­ land in 405 (Xenophon, Hell. 2.2.9). "The pattern of mass exiling by a controlling faction followed by an attempted (in the Athenian case, successful) return of the exiles is a completely typical feature of the fourth century in Greece till Alexander." A letter purportedly from Aristotle to Alexander, quoted in an Arabic treatise of the early twelfth century by the poet Moses b. Ezra, who says he found the text in a treatise called On Justice which was addressed by Aristotle to Alexander, contains Aristotle's admonition that Alexander should re­ turn the Greeks of Milesia, Etretria and other cities whom the Persians had exiled to Persia. In 324, Alexander's "Exiles Decree" allowed the return of more than 20,000 exiles to their homelands (Diod. Sic. 18.8.5)." The Hellenistic monarchs made extensive use of synoecism, the repopulation of a city with former inhabitants who had scattered or fled. In 197, the Roman general Flaminius so fanned the hopes of many exiles when he began to pursue a politics of restoration, allow­ ing first the Boeotians to return and then others, that exiles from other places began to cooperate with the general's campaigns against Sparta, hoping that they too would be restored. In subsequent years, the Roman senate facilitated the return of the Lacedaemonians, the Messenians, and the Achaeans. In 77 BCE, Tigranes of Armenia in97

98

100

101

102

103

9 7

Paul McKechnie, Outsiders in the Greek Cities in the Fourth Century BC (London/New York: Routledge, 1989) 23. S. M. Stern, Aristotle on the World State (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1970) 3-6. Cf., e.g., Marcus N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Vol. 2: From 403 to 323 B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1948) 289-94 (no. 201), on restoration of exiles to Mytilene; 294-301 (no. 202), on restoration of Tegean exiles. See also A. J. Heisserer, Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence (Norman, OK: University of Olkahoma Press, 1980) 182-93; Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 158-62. Cf. Cohen, Hellenistic Settlements, 428-31 (Appendix V: "Refoundations and New Foundations"), referring to the repopulation of Lysimacheia (82-7), Sardis (230-31), and Amyzon (246-2). Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 191-2,196. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 192. 9 8

9 9

1 0 0

1 0 1

1 0 2

206

SCOTT

vaded Cappadocia and Cilicia, combed through the land systemati­ cally, and brought 30,000 people to Armenia, where he settled them in his new capital, Tigranocerta (Appian, Mithr. 67). After taking the city of Tigranocerta in 69 BCE, Lucullus enabled the Greeks and barbar­ ians who had been forcibly settled there to return to their homelands (Plutarch, Luc. 14.2, 19; 29.5; Strabo 11.532). During the Hasmonean expansion under Alexander Jannaeus (104/3-76 BCE), Gadara, a hellenized city on the east bank of the Jordan River, was conquered and part of its population was forced to spend the years of Hasmonean rule in exile. In 64 BCE, the exiled citizens of Gadara were invited to return home and to be reinstated to their former rights and properties. 104

The Jewish Diaspora By examining non-Jewish diasporas, we gain a sense of the constant upheaval that populations underwent in the Greco-Roman world in which the Jewish Diaspora lived. It would be surprising if all this up­ heaval had no effect at all upon the Jewish Diaspora, or if the hopes of other peoples to return to their homelands did not inspire the Jews themselves to long for their homeland as well. Despite the significant differences between the Jewish experience of exile and the experience of other Diaspora populations in the Greco-Roman period, some analogy can still be drawn. In the following two points will be consid­ ered. First, throughout the Greco-Roman period Jews, too, were sub­ jected to forced population transfers. It was not always a matter of 105

106

1 0 3

Seibert, 207-8. On the rare practice of restitutio libertatis which was effected by the senate or the popular assembly for some enslaved populations, see Volkmann, Massenversklavungen, 91-105. Cf. Weber, "Gadarenes in Exile," 10-17. Whereas many of the exiles that we considered above are political in nature, involving predominantly Greeks who transfer to other Greek cities, where they could continue worshipping the same Greek gods, the Jewish Diaspora was quite different in these respects. Comparison with the widespread Samaritan Diaspora in the Greco-Roman period would be interesting at this point. An inscription from Delos dating to 15050 B C E shows that the Samaritans preserved a strong identity, perhaps in conscious distinction to that of the Jews on the island: "The Israelites [i.e., those from the Northern Kingdom of Israel] on Delos who make offerings to sacred Argarizein [= D'nann, the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim] crown with a golden crown Sarapion, son of Jason, of Knossos, for his benefactions toward them" (Philippe Bruneau, "Les Israelites de Delos et la juiverie delienne," BCH 106 [1982] 465-504; A. T. Kraabel, "New Evidence of the Samaritan Diaspora has 1 0 4

1 0 5

1 0 6

207

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

free will that Jews departed from the Land or stayed in the Diaspora. Second, Diaspora Jews kept the hope of return alive, and may even have decisively acted on it in one major offensive during the early second century CE. First, let us look briefly at some of the forced population transfers to which the Jews were subjected in period under question. Although many Jews undoubtedly went into the Diaspora and remained there of their own volition, many others were taken there under compulsion and forced to live among foreign nations. We have already referred to the massive deportations of Jews to Egypt under Ptolemaios I Soter, who also settled Jewish colonists in Cyrene and other Libyian cities in 107

108

109

been Found on Delos," BA 41/1 [1984] 44-7). It is often uncertain whether Samaritans were forcibly exiled from their homeland or voluntarily left it in response to adverse economic circumstances, nor is it known whether they had any hopes of return. If we accept the Samaritan account at face value, then the beginning of the Samaritan Diaspora must lie in the Israelite exile from Samaria at the hands of the Assyrians in 721 BCE (cf. 2 Kings 17). In any case, Samaritans were forcibly expelled from their land in subsequent centuries. Josephus (Ant. 11.345) reports, for example, that, on the death of Alexander, Ptolemy Lagus carried numerous Samaritans as captives to Egypt, where they were settled, and that many followed of their own accord. A village called Samaraeia near the delta of the Nile is known from Ptolemaic times. See further Alan D. Crown, "The Samaritan Diaspora," in A. D. Crown (ed.), The Samaritans (Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1989) 195-217; idem, "The Samaritan Diaspora," in A. D. Crown (ed.), A Companion to Samaritan Studies (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1993) 72-5. See further Volkmann, Massenversklavungen, 65, 67, 69-70, 103-4; E. M. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 20; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 2, 27-8, 36, 46, 49-50, 112. On the negative Jewish reaction to these forced population transfers, see Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora, 21-2. Already after Cyrus II conquered Babylon in 539/38 BCE, some Jews who had been deported under Nebuchadnezzar decided to remain in Babylon and Mesopotamia. In the Greco-Roman period, other Jews left the Land to live in the Diaspora. The reasons for this are mostly unknown. Several factors may have played a role, including overpopulation in the Land, avoidance of a region that repeatedly served as a theater of war between Syria and Egypt, and the prospects of a better life elsewhere. Cf. Josephus, Ap. 1.194: "Then he [sc. Hecataeus] goes on to speak of our vast population, stating that, though many myriads of our race had already been deported to Babylon by the Persians [sic!] (TTOXX&S yap f|p.d)i/, T|(jti/, di/acjTTdaTous eis BaPuXaii/a Il^paai irp6Tepoi/ e*rrotT|(7ai> p.upid8as), yet after Alexander's death myriads more migrated to Egypt and Phoenicia in consequence of the disturbed condition of Syria." Cf. Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora, 28. 1 0 7

1 0 8

1

1 0 9

208

SCOTT

order to protect his possessions in that region (Josephus, Ap. 2.44). Josephus (Ant. 12.148-153) cites a letter of the Seleucid king Antiochus III (ca. 242-187 BCE) to Zeuxis, his governor in Asia Minor, regarding the establishment of 2,000 Babylonian Jews as mili­ tary colonists. This letter specifically alludes to the fact that the move would be "difficult" (§ 150), presumably referring either to logistical problems or "the reluctance of the Jews to g o . " During the changing politics of the Seleucids, the Jews were occasionally subjected to mass enslavements. Whereas in ca. 200 BCE Antiochus III issued an edict emancipating the Jerusalemites who had been sent into slavery (Josephus, Ant. 12.144), the capture of the city in 168 under Antiochus IV caused women and children to be sold into slavery (1 Mace 1:32). As a consequence of the Macabean revolt and attendant political dis­ orders, Jewish refugees poured from Judea into Egypt. The most prominent of these was Onias IV, a member of the hereditary family of high priests (the Zadokites), who served as a commander of troops in Egypt. He was granted permission to build for the Jewish military colony a temple of Yahweh at Leontopolis in the Heliopolite nome, twenty-two miles northeast of Memphis, the old capital of Egypt. In the bitter struggle for the throne between Ptolemaios X Alexander and Ptolemaios IX Philometor, part of which was carried out in Judea, Ptolemaios IX conquered Asoheito and took as spoils some 10,000 people, who were probably sold (Josephus, Ant. 13.337). After con­ quering Jerusalem in 63 BCE, Pompey brought many Jewish prisoners to Italy, including Aristobulus and his children, who were led in tri­ umph in R o m e . Indeed, Jews must have featured prominently in the Roman slave-markets not only in the immediate aftermath of Pompey's victory, but also as a consequence of continuing fighting in Judea during which both Gabinius and Cassius took large numbers of prisoners. Many of these later ended up as freedmen who lived in a 110

111

112

113

1 1 0

Cohen, Hellenistic Settlements, 18. See further Richard A. Billows, "Macedonian Settlers and Colonists in Asia," in Kings and Colonists: Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 22; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 146-82. Cf. Robert Hayward, "The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration," 429-443. Cf. Philo, Legat. 155; Ps. Sol. 17:12; 8:21, 28; 9:1-2, 11; Josephus, Ant. 14.70-71,79. In the counter-offensive against the Parthians in 52/1 BCE, Cassius took 30,000 Jews prisoner in Tarichea and sold them (Josephus, JW 1.180; Ant. 14.120; 1 1 1

1 1 2

1 1 3

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

209

large district on the other side of the river Tiber (Philo, Legat. 155158), but others, including 4,000 men, were transferred to the island of Sardinia in order to prevent the further spread of the "Jewish supersti­ tion" in Rome (Tacitus, Ann. 2.85.4). At the outbreak of the Jewish War, as many as 20,000 Jews were killed in Caesarea, and the rest were rounded up in captivity (JW 2.457). During the protracted revolt, the Jews suffered many more mass enslavements, insofar as the Romans did not simply kill the rebels: for example, 2,130 women and children in Japha (JW 3.304-305); in Tarichea 6,000 young people were sent to Corinth to work on the canal planned by Nero, and an­ other 30,400 inhabitants were sold into slavery (JW 3.532ff.). After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the old and weak were killed, the most impressive were designated for the triumph, and the rest over 17 years of age were sent to work in the Egyptian mines or to appear in gladia­ tor contests; those under 17 were sold. Altogether, 97,000 Jews went into Roman captivity (Josephus, JW 6.416-418). The Greco-Roman period was an era of tremendous population upheaval for the Jewish people. Second, many Diaspora Jews kept alive the hope of return through­ out the Greco-Roman period. The aforementioned petitionary prayers make this abundantly clear. Lack of assimilation and/or preservation 114

on the historical reliability of this large figure, see Volkmann, Massenversklavungen, pp. 116-7). In 43 BCE, Cassius sold the inhabitants of Gophna, Emmaus, Lydda and Thamna, and in this way, together with other revenues, collected 700 talents from tiny Judea (Ant. 14.275; JW 1.222). On the hope of the return, see also 1 Enoch 57; 90:33; 4 Ezra 13:12-13; 39-47; Bar 4:36-37; 5:5; 11QT 59.9-13; Str-B 4/2:902-910; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992) 290-1. Returning to the Land from the Diaspora is seen as salvation: "All the Israelites who are saved in those days and are truly mindful of God will be gathered together; they will go to Jerusalem and live in safety together in the land of Abraham, and it will be given over to them" (Tob 14:7). We can only speculate whether Obadiah 20, which contains the promise that "the exiles of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad (= Sardis?) shall possess the towns of the Negeb," became a watchword for Diaspora Jews in Lydia, including those who moved there under Antiochus i n . Obadiah 20 is commonly regarded as the first historical record of the Jewish community in Sardis. Cf. Andrew R. Seager and A. Thomas Kraabel, 'The Synagogue and the Jewish Community," in George M. A. Hanfmann (ed.), Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times: Results of the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis 1958-1975 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983) 168-90 (esp. 178-9); Colin Hemer, The Book of 1 1 4

210

SCOTT 115

of a distinctively Jewish identity may also be indicators that a Diaspora community expected to return to the Land, particularly if 'IouSalos' denotes "Judean." The fact that some Diaspora Jews ac116

117

Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (WUNT 49; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989) 134-6. See, however, Schurer, Hist, 3.20. Even a Jewish Christian document like the Ps-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71, which dates to ca. 200 CE, looks forward to the return to the Land. Cf. Stefan Heid, "Das heilige Land. Herkunft und Zukunft der Judenchristen," Kairos 34/35 (1992-93) 1-26; F. Stanley Jones, An Ancient Jewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71 (Texts and Translations 37; Christian Apocrypha Series 2; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995). Cf. Seibert, Fluchtlinge, 360 (cited above). The term 'IouSalos , which we usually translate "Jew," is not primarily a religious signifier but rather a designation for a member of an ethnic group from Judaea (cf. Josephus, Ant. 11.173: "This name [sc. ol 'IouSaloi], by which they have been called from the time when they went up from Babylon, is derived from the tribe of Judah; as this tribe was the first to come to those parts, both the people themselves and the country have taken their name from it"). Hence, in HellenisticJewish literature we frequently read of "the nation of the Jews" (T6 TQV 'IouSortow eQvos), meaning the nation of those who stem from Judaea (cf. J. M. Scott, Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul's Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians [WUNT 84; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995] 57-114). After defeating Judea in 70 CE, the Romans imposed a poll tax (the fiscus Judaicus) on all Jews, wherever they lived (cf. Martin Goodman, "Nerva, the fiscus Judaicus and Jewish Identity," JRS 79 [1989] 40-44). Shaye J. D. Cohen ("Ioudaios: 'Judaean' and 'Jew' in Susanna, First Maccabees, and Second Maccabees," in Peter Schafer (ed.), Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion. Festschrift fur Martin Hengel zum 70.Geburtstag, Bd. I: Judentum [Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996], 211-20 [2112]) argues that "all occurrences of the terms Ioudaios and Yehudi before the end of the second century BCE mean not 'Jew' but 'Judaean.' After the end of the second century BCE these terms may mean either 'Jew' or 'Judaean,' depending on the context." See also Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 21, with n. 4; Ross S. Kraemer, "On the Meaning of the Term 'Jew' in Graeco-Roman Inscriptions," HTR 82 (1989) 35-53. Both Cohen and Barclay suggest that the geographical connotations of the term weakened in the course of time. Note, however, that d( TTOTC 'IouSdioi in CI J 742, an inscription from Smyrna in Ionia of the second century CE, probably refers to "the former inhabitants of Judea," rather than to "the former Jews," i.e., a group of apostates. A full-scale study of this matter would include comparative material from other ethnic groups (e.g., Koen Goudriaan, "Ethnical Strategies in Graeco-Roman Egypt," in Per Bilde, et al. [eds.], Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt [Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992] 74-99). As we have seen above, for 1 1 5

1 1 6

1 1 7

1

EXILE A N D THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING O F DIASPORA JEWS

211

tually returned to the Land in order to live does not affect our thesis that other Diaspora Jews could only hope of returning. Much depends on opportunity and timing. While emancipated Diaspora Jews may well have been free to return from the Diaspora to the Land, as, for instance, the Theodotus inscription possibly attests, it is doubtful whether the Romans would have allowed whole Diaspora communi­ ties unilaterally to initiate unscheduled returns to the Land, even if such moves were economically feasible, for the Romans viewed as threatening the spontaneous movements of the masses. At least the 118

119

example, the inhabitants of Olynthus retained the designation of their origin (oXuvGioi), thereby keeping alive the memory of their former homeland. This inscription refers to the refurbishment by Theodotus son of Vettenus of the synagogue founded by his forebears (CI J 2.1404; cf. Frowald Huttenmeister and Gottfried Reeg, Die antiken Synagogen in Israel, Teil 1: Die jiidischen Synagogen, Lehrhauser und Gerichtshofe [TAVO Beiheft 12/1; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1977] 192-5, 525). The apparently Roman name "Vettenus" has encouraged a communis opinio that this was a family of returnees from Rome. When Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 B C E , he took many Jews prisoner to Rome; when they were later emancipated, they sought possible ways of returning to Jerusalem. Such returnees from Rome may have formed the nucleus of the "synagogue of the freedmen" mentioned in Acts 6:9. As Martin Hen gel argues, the Roman authorities probably even encouraged such a return to the Land, because it gave them the possibility of reducing the number of supporters of the many oriental cults in the imperial capital, who were suspect to them (The PreChristian Paul [London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991] 13). According to Seutonius, 80,000 Roman citizens were compelled to migrate to the East (Vita Caesaris 42), and Tiberius posted young Jews who were Roman citizens on military service to regions with an unhealthy climate, and expelled the rest of the Jews from Rome, as Claudius later did as well (Vita Claudii 25). See also above on Tacitus, Ann. 2.85.4. Alternatively, the Theodotus inscription may simply record the benefaction of a Jew who still resided in Rome. For other possible evidence of Diaspora Jews who returned to the Land, see L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994) 17, 55, 102 (no. 99), 125 (no. 209), 126-28 (no. 209), 138 (no. 254), 145 (no. 290?), 168-69 (no. 404), 176-77 (no. 445?), 188 (no. 497), 195-96 (no. 555?), 202-3 (no. 579), 238-9 (no. 789); Martin Hengel, "Jerusalem als jiidische und hellenistische Stadt," in Bernd Funck (ed.), Hellenismus, 269-306 (297-300). Josephus tells us of several episodes in which Jewish rebels encouraged crowds to follow them into the wilderness with disasterous results. During the administration of Fadus (44-46 C E ) , for example, "a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded the majority of the populace to take up their possessions and 1 1 8

1 1 9

212

SCOTT

blessing of the Roman authorities, if not their actual intervention, would have been necessary. Moreover, many Diaspora Jews were probably content with praying for the expected return rather than try­ ing to effect it themselves. During the relatively brief period of independence under the Hasmoneans, the hope for the return was particularly acute, as at­ tested, for example, by the now famous, if enigmatic, prayer for "all the congregation of your people Israel who are in the four winds of heaven" (4Q448 ii:3-6). During the rest of the Greco-Roman period, 120

follow him to the Jordan River. He stated that he was a prophet and that at his command the river would be parted and would provide easy passage. With this talk he deceived many" (Ant. 20.97-98). The Roman governor dispatched the cavalry, which scattered Theudas' following. The would-be prophet was himself decapitated and his head was put on display in Jerusalem. According to Acts 5:36, he had a following of about four hundred men. Josephus also tells of a similar incident involving an Egyptian: "At this time [ca. 56 CE] there came to Jerusalem from Egypt a man who said that he was a prophet and advised the masses of the common people to go out with him to the mountain called the Mount of Olives, which lies opposite the city.... For he asserted that he wished to demonstrate from there that at his command Jerusalem's walls would fall down, through which he promised to provide them an entrance into the city" (Ant. 20.169-170). Felix promptly dispatched the cavalry, which routed and dispersed the crowd. In the parallel account in Jewish War Josephus says that the Egyptian, who had a following of thirty thousand, "proposed to force an entrance into Jerusalem and, after overpowering the Roman garrison, to set himself up as tyrant over the people" (JW 2.261-263). According to Acts 21:38, a Roman tribune asked Paul: "Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the assassins out into the wilderness?" Cf. Esther Eshel, et al., "A Qumran Composition Containing Part of Ps. 154 and a Prayer for the Welfare of King Jonathan and his Kingdom," IEJ 42 (1992) 199-229; Ayala Sussmann and Ruth Peled (eds.), Scrolls from the Dead Sea: An Exhibition of Scrolls and Archaeological Artifacts from the Collections of the Israel Antiquities Authority (New York: Braziller, 1993) 40-43 (color photograph). The dispersion of Israel to "the four winds of heaven" alludes to Zech 2:10, which the Septuagint interprets as a promise of the future ingathering of the people: "Therefore, I will gather (auvdfw/MT: 'nfcna) you from the four winds of heaven, says the Lord" (cf. Deut 30:4; Mark 13:27). It is, of course, something of an anomaly that a prayer for king Jonathan (if that is the correct reading) should be preserved among the Qumran scrolls, for the Qumran community clearly despised the Hasmoneans. Various explanations have been offered, but none has become established. On Jewish "kings" as rulers of world Jewry, including the Diaspora, see Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 211-2, 216-7, 287-8, 313. 1 2 0

213

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

the ruling Gentile powers allowed various groups of the Dispersion to return to the Land from time to time. We have already mentioned Antiochus Ill's decision to repopulate Jerusalem by bringing back those who had been dispersed (Josephus, Ant. 12.139). Antiochus' edict, with its overwhelming display of generosity to the Jews, includ­ ing the plan to rebuild the Temple at royal expense (§§ 140-144), re­ calls the edict of Cyrus (cf. 2 Chr 36:22-23), as if a second attempt at return and restoration was being attempted under Antiochus. Such initiatives by Hellenistic monarchs and later by Roman r u l e r s may have periodically sparked Jewish hopes for the return and restoration of the nation as a whole. Given the historical precedents of return and restoration among other exile populations in the Greco-Roman world, many Diaspora Jews may have reckoned with their eventual return to the Land, especially since their own Holy Scriptures repeatedly and unambiguously promised i t . 121

122

1 2 1

In 41 BCE, Jews requested that Antonius set free their fellow Jews in Gophna, Ammaus, Lydda, Thamna and other places who had been enslaved by Cassius and his subordinates, since these Jews had not been enslaved in accordance with the law of war (Josephus, Ant. 14.304). Antonius fulfilled their request with an edict ordering that everything that belonged to the Jews that had been sold, whether people or possessions, should revert back to their previous owners, and that the Jews themselves should be freed (Ant. 14.313, 321). A similar point is made by Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora, 77-8: "... I would be most surprised to find any sort of 'Zionist activism' negating the legitimacy of the diaspora and demanding an immediate return to the Land as early as the Second Temple period, even among the Pharisaic forerunners of the rabbis. All this, of course, did not prevent the cultivation of hopes for an ultimate ingathering, expressed not only by authors in Judaea (see e.g. Pss. Sol. 17.44) but by [Diaspora] Jews such as Philo as well. The same sentiment is also expressed in the second letter prefaced to 2 Maccabees (1.27-29) wherein the Jews of the diaspora are informed by their Palestinian brethren that prayers to bring about the end of their dispersion are being offered in Jerusalem. This hope, however, need not have engendered any practical calls for aliya. On the contrary, I would imagine that the advantages of a large, thriving and at times politically influential Jewish diaspora were apparent to the majority of Jews living at the time of the Second Temple.... the unique type of Palestinian patriotism that would ultimately emerge is still totally lacking in the statements of sages prior to the Bar-Kokhba uprising. It is only by the second half of the second century that we encounter an enhanced call for loyalty to Eretz Israel (and, interestingly, this takes place precisely at the same time that active, militant political messianism is rendered taboo....)." Gafni does not consider the Diaspora Revolt of 115-117 CE. 1 2 2

214

SCOTT

In light of all the evidence we have considered in this chapter, it is tempting to interpret the Diaspora Revolt of 115-117 CE as historical evidence that Diaspora Jews harbored hopes of return to the Land which could be fanned into a flame under the right conditions. If later rabbinic writings viewed the Bar Kokhba Revolt as an attempt to go up from the exile (rfrirr) by force (Song Rab. 2:7), thereby preempt­ ing the divine timetable of Israel's return (b. Ket. 111a), then per­ haps the Diaspora Revolt can be viewed in a similar w a y . Admittedly, the causes of this revolt are much debated because the meagre sources which survive are unspecific on this p o i n t . Nevertheless, an eschatological motivation seems possible. 123

124

125

126

127

1 2 3

Song Rab. 2:7 records various interpretations to the four adjurations in the Song of Songs (i.e., Song 2:7; 3:5; 5:8; 8:4). First, R. Helbo interprets the adjurations as meaning that Israel "should not rebel against the kingdoms (rwzbcn), that they should not seek to hasten the end (fpn), that they should not reveal their mysteries to the nations of the world, and that they should not attempt to go up from the exile (rfjian) [by force]. For if they do, why should the King Messiah come to gather the exiles of Israel (jimr ?:!)?" Second, R. Oniah follows with another interpretation: "... four generations who tried to hasten the end and came to grief, namely, once in the days of Amram, once in the days of Dinai, once in the days of ben Kosiba, and once in the days of Shutelah son of Ephraim: The children of Ephraim were as archers handling the bow'" (Ps 78:9). Finally, an anonymous group give their interpretation of the adjurations: "Some say, 'Once in the days of Amram, once in the generation of the persecution (IOD n n n ), once in the days of ben Kosiba, and once in the days of Shutelah son of Ephraim. Cf. Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora, 73-7, 83, 87, 92-4, 115. Maurice Simon goes so far as to interpret "the generation of the great persecution" in Song Rab. 2:7 as referring to the revolt under Trajan (Midrash Rabbah: Song of Songs [London: Soncino, 1951], 115 n. 4). See further Peter Schafer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand. Studien zum zweiten jiidischen Krieg gegen Rom (TSAJ 1; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1981) 59. For an analysis of the possible causes, see Shim'on Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 28; Leiden: Brill, 1979) 201-344; T. D. Barnes, "Trajan and the Jews," JJS 40 (1989) 145-62. Cf. Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 386: "To put it bluntly, the revolt of 115-117 CE. was a war of Judaism against Greco-Roman paganism. We may even conclude that in certain regions the jews may have formed independent Jewish pockets with a ruler (or even a king, as in Cyrene), some sort of army, and a separate 'constitution.' Can this development be seen as a reflection of some of the eschatological universal view that we have already met in Judaism, which are associated with a Jewish domination of the whole eastern ecumene, not just of Palestine? Is it accidental that this sort of insurrection occurred only in the eastern provinces simultaneously with the revival (and even actualization) of the 1

1 2 4

1 2 5

1 2 6

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

215

Involving both the eastern and the western Diaspora in an excep­ tionally fierce and devastating war against the Romans, the Diaspora Revolt may have had as its ultimate goal a return to Judea, in order to liquidate the Roman regime, to set up a new Jewish commonwealth in the Land, and to inaugurate the messianic e r a .

128

If so, this may ex­

plain why the physical damage especially in Cyrenaica, but also in Egypt and Cyprus, was so thorough and extensive: the Jews did not intend to continue living in these countries. Leading the Jews from Cyrenaica was a messianic figure named "King Loukuas,"

129

who may

have stirred the people to believe that God would intervene on their behalf in accordance with biblical prophecies of a coming king and re­ turn from the Diaspora (e.g., Isa 11:10-16) and eschatological expecta­ tions of the final battle as expressed, for example, in Book 5 of the Sibylline

Oracles, where the Jews return to the Land to dwell in the

"city at the center of earth (TTOXLS' ev

p.eooyaLOLS')."

130

For these

Alexander myth by the emperor himself? These questions cannot be answered until new evidence is found." Cf. Martin Hengel, "Messianische Hoffnung und politischer 'Radikalismus' in der 'judisch-hellenistischen Diaspora'. Zur Frage der Voraussetzungen des jiidischen Aufstandes unter Trajan 115-117," in Apocalypticism in der Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism (2nd ed.; Tubingen: MohrSiebeck, 1989) 655-86 (668-74). Cf. William Horbury, "The Beginnings of the Jewish Revolt under Trajan," in Peter Schafer (ed.), Geschichte—Tradition—Reflection, Bd. I: Judaism (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996) 282-304, who argues that at least the combined Cyrenian and Egyptian forces aimed ultimately at returning to Judea, while the eastern Diaspora may also have been involved in a concerted effort and a common strategic aim. The possibility of a combined effort accords with the fact that both the eastern and the western Diaspora—"Assyria and Egypt"—figure prominently in OT and Jewish messianic hopes (ibid., 299-301). I am grateful to Dr. Horbury for providing me with a copy of his essay in manuscript form. Eusebius, Hist Eccl 4.2.4. Sib. Or. 5.249-250; cf. Ezek 38:12. The Fifth Sibyl is probably a witness to the eschatological hopes of Egyptian Jews around the time of the revolt in 115117. Also relevant to this discussion is the War Scroll of Qumran. The main subject of the War Scroll is the war between "the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness" which will take place "when the exiles of the Sons of Light return from the wilderness of the nations to encamp in the wilderness of Jerusalem" (1QM 1.1-3). The ensuing war against all nations on earth culminates with Israel's receiving universal sovereinty in place of the Kittim (i.e., the Romans). A similar expectation may have motivated the participants in the Diaspora Revolt. 1 2 7

1 2 8

1 2 9

1 3 0

216

SCOTT

Jews, the great shofar of Isa 27:12-13 may have sounded, and the time may have at last come when those who were lost in the land of Assyria and those who were driven out to the land of Egypt would come and worship the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem. Images of a Second Exodus and of a defeated Porta Triumphalis, not unlike those in the Dura synagogue, may have spurred the rebel forces onward. Such expectations explain the explosive beginning of the war, the rapid progress of the campaign toward a particular geographical goal, and the ruthless fury with which it was conducted. The Jewish Diaspora had long considered themselves a force to be reckoned with, even though they failed to come to the aid of the homeland during the first Jewish revolt (66-70 CE). According to Philo {Legal 214-215), Petronius, the Roman governor of Syria who was in charge of introducing the statue of Gaius into the Temple, "considered the vast number of people comprised in the nation, which needed to contain it not like every other the circumference of a single country allotted to itself alone, but, one might almost say, the whole inhabited world. For it is spread abroad across all the continents and islands (K6XUTCLI ydp dvd re rag ^nelpovs KOLI VT\GOV£ &TrdaasO so that it seems to be not much less than the indigenous in­ habitants. To draw all these myriads into war against him was surely dangerous. Heaven forbid indeed that the Jews in every quarter should come by common agreement to the defense. The result would be something too stupendous to be combated." Considering Philo's many other remarks about the Jews as "the most populous nation," we may wonder whether Philo envisions a day when the Jewish nation would simply overwhelm the world with its numbers (cf. Dio Cassius 131

132

1 3 1

According to Josephus (JW 1.5), the rebels hoped for military support from the Eastern Diaspora (Josephus, JW 1.5), although Agrippa n warned them that help from the Diaspora would not be forthcoming (JW 2.345-404). Diaspora Jews in Antioch and Alexandria were dragged into the conflict only after being attacked by their Gentile neighbors (cf. JW 2.457-498). Jacob Neusner ascribes the apparent indifference of Babylonian Jewry to the fact that they could not have foreseen the destruction of the Temple ("The Jews East of the Euphrates and the Roman Empire, I. lst-3rd Centuries A.D.," in ANRW II.9.1 [ed Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976] 46-69 [52-5]; cf., similarly, Goodman, "Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple," 27). On the military pressure that the Egyptian Diaspora could exert on the Roman army, see Josephus, Ant 14.131 (cited in Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora, 48). Cf. Scott, "Philo and the Restoration of Israel," 559-62. 1 3 2

EXILE AND THE SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF DIASPORA JEWS

217

69.13.1-2), especially if, as he also thinks, the world is filled with proselytes and sympathizers (cf. Mos. 2.19-20). In any case, Philo does expect a final eschatological battle against the most populous nations of the world (cf. Praem. 95). He also believed that the day of the return would come suddenly, as indeed happened during the Diaspora Revolt: "And even if (the Jews) are slaves at the ends of the world under the enemies who have led them captive—at one signal and in one day all of them shall be freed, and their unanimous con­ version to virtue will strike their masters with amazement ... and when this unexpected liberation comes, they, who were originally scattered over Greece and the barbarian lands, over islands and conti­ nents, shall arise with one impulse, hastening from all quarters to the destination shown to them, with a divine insight beyond the power of human nature, invisible to others and visible only to them, as they pass from exile to their motherland... and as they go, the ruins shall be­ come cities again and the ravaged land shall become fruitful." Is it possible that while Trajan was distracted with his Parthian war in the east (114-116 CE), Diaspora Jews from west and east made a daring attempt to realize this dream of return and restoration? If this was the intention of Diaspora Jews, the attempt ended in utter catastrophe. According to Dio Cassius (68.32.1-3), 220,000 people were killed in Cyrenaica and 240,000 in Cyprus. However, unlike the aftermath of the first Jewish revolt and the later Bar Kokhba revolt, the sources mention nothing about mass enslavement of the Jews after the Diaspora Revolt, although mass enslavement would normally be expected. Possibly, therefore, this was a desperate campaign fought 133

134

135

1 3 3

In his famous letter to the Alexandrians in 41 CE, Emperor Claudius expressed a current idea that Jews might attempt to dominate the whole inhabited world: "If they do not obey, in every way I will move against them just as if they were raising up some common plague for the inhabited world" (P. Lond. 1912 = CP/153, lines 100-101). Philo, Praem. 165-166. On this passage, see further Scott, "Philo and the Restoration of Israel," 553-75; Peder Borgen, "Philo and the Jews in Alexandria," in Per Bilde, et al. (eds.), Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 3; Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1992) 122-138 (135-37). See also Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora, 29: "[Philo] apparently found no contradiction between his stressing of the positive implication of dispersion as a sign of the nation's growth (Vit. Mos. 2.232), and his cultivation, at the same time, of a belief in a future ingathering of the people of Israel to their Land (Praem Poen. 115)." Cf. Volkmann, Massenversklavungen, 59. 1 3 4

1 3 5

218

SCOTT

to the last man, as befitting a holy war with lofty ideals and character­ istic of the last-gasp attempt of exiles to regain their homeland. If the Diaspora Revolt was an attempt to reoccupy the Jewish homeland by force, it was the largest, most concerted, and most sustained armed reoccupation of a homeland ever attempted by an exile population in the Greco-Roman world. The Diaspora Revolt dwarfs, for example, the attempt in 401 BCE of Cyrenean exiles to join forces with 3,000 Messenian exiles in order to seize Cyrene by force, although heavy casualties were sustained on both sides, and the Messenians were killed almost to a man (Diod. Sic. 14.34.3-5). Before 115 CE, the model that Diaspora Jews had normally followed was that of the exile population passively waiting for a change in political climate and the favorable intervention of a superior power—a Cyrus or a Ptolemaios or simply God himself—which would lead them back to their land and bring about the desired restoration for them. It is a distinct possibility, however, that in 115, with the horror and humiliation of the first revolt behind them, Diaspora Jews decided to change models, opting instead to follow the example of desperate exiles who took the initiative in restoration, who tried to retake their own homeland by sheer, unbri­ dled force. 136

CONCLUSION

There is evidence that at least some Diaspora Jews of the GrecoRoman period understood themselves as living in an ongoing "exile" which would be remedied by an eventual return to the Land. By com­ paring Diaspora Jews with other diasporas, we can see how such dreams could be maintained and cherished even over the course of many years. By examining the literary and artifactual remains of Diaspora Jews, we can see how they sometimes gave expression to an "exilic" self-understanding.

1 3 6

Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene, 341: "It may be doubted whether there ever arose in the early Roman Empire any movement which so imperilled Roman authority as did the Jewish Diaspora revolt in the reign of Trajan. No one of Rome's subject peoples had risen in active rebellion on this scale, and none was both located within and without the imperial frontiers and distributed over several important provinces of the Empire itself. Nor do we know of any instance of so extensive a degree of cooperation between various communities which were both within the Empire and hostile to it."

FORMATIVE JUDAISM

EXILE AND RETURN AS THE HISTORY OF JUDAISM Jacob Neusner University of South Florida, Tampa T H E PARADIGM OF JUDAISM

The paradigm of exile and return contains all Judaisms over all times, to the present. A Judaism is a system made up of a world-view, a way of life, and a social group that defines its life through that world view and lives in accord with the descriptions of that way of life. Through time there have been many Judaisms, that is, many Judaic systems that have defined for Jews the way they should live and understand life: their world. These Judaisms do not unfold in a linear pattern, one begetting the next, nor do they stand in a continuous and incremental relationship to one another, one on the ruins of the last. Each takes shape on its own, identifying a critical question urgently demanding an answer, presenting a self-evidently valid answer to that question. All then for justification refer back to a remote and continuous past. None may as a matter of fact trace itself in a unitary and linear path to "Sinai," that is, the moment of God's revelation. All as a matter of fact recapitulate a single experience—a reading of what happened to some Jews between 586 and 450 BCE. It is the ex­ perience of exile and return, and a very specific set of historical events is interpreted by those two categories. In 586 BCE, the Judaeans of the land of Israel suffered the destruction of their capital, Jerusalem, their government, and their temple. Some of them—the political classes mainly—were removed from Jerusalem and brought by the victors to their own country, Babylonia, the area around present-day Baghdad in Iraq. The "exiles" at that time drew together whatever stories, laws, prophecies, and other writings that they had inherited out of their past in the land of Israel and produced the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. For what they called "three generations" these Jews lived in Babylonia. 1

1

The present chapter summarizes the main thesis in Jacob Neusner, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Exile and Return in the History of Judaism (Boston: Beacon, 1987).

222

NEUSNER

Their captors, the Babylonians, lost a war with the Iranians under the emperor, Cyrus, who came from Persia, in the southwestern corner of Iran. In the process of inheriting the Babylonians, Cyrus and his suc­ cessor reversed the policy of the former empire and gave permission to diverse groups, taken away from their places of origins ("exiled") by the Babylonians, to go back where they came from ("return home"). Not much happened in Judea—the rebuilt Temple added up to little, so the prophets of the time complained—until, around 450 BCE, when a Jewish viceroy for Jerusalem appointed by the Iranian government took up his duties and rebuilt the Temple of that city. A small number of the Jews who had settled in Babylonia ("the exiles") went with Ezra and participated in the project of resettling the land. Most did not. Whether or not they saw themselves as "exiles," they did not "return" at that time. That, sum and substance, is the experi­ ence of exile and return. Exile and return formed the basic experience that defined the basic structure of every Judaism that would come into being. How and why the exile and return became the pattern for Judaic systems to which the actual experience of exile and return was alien tells us much about the power of religion, not merely to respond to, but to define the world. The Torah (together with the prophetic writings) that reached clo­ sure between the destruction of 586 and the reconstruction concluded in 450, preserved the judgment of the generation that first—and for all time—experienced what became the paradigm and pattern, the definitive paradigm that would impart its outline on every Judaic sys­ tem that appealed to those original scriptures, and, to date, that has en­ compassed them all. In particular the Five Books of Moses, promul­ gated by Ezra in 450 at the climax of the process of restoration of Israel to its Temple and its Land, made the first and authoritative statement of the paradigm that Israel could never take its very exis­ tence as permanent and unconditional. That statement based on the experience that began in 586 and ended in 450 came to expression in such diverse propositions of the Mosaic narrative as these/ttie land is not a given, but promised^the promise to Israel is conditionalj/fhe land is there to be lost, the people there to lose it and to cease to be-^-all because of what they do or do not do. That document then captured, for perpetual restatement, the original point of resentment. As re­ peated by diverse Israels in various circumstances, the document would recapitulate for all Israels the original experience, transformed

EXILE AND RETURN AS THE HISTORY OF JUDAISM

223

into pattern and paradigm, of alienation and reconciliation. To state the matter in one sentence: the life of an "Israel" was never to be taken for granted but always to be received as a gift. Therefore, while there cannot be one history of a single Judaism, a continuous story that tells how first came this, then came that, there can be an exercise of description, analysis, and interpretation—an ex­ amination of system after system. True, there never has been a single, unitary and linear Judaism, any more than as a matter of mere fact there has been a single, linear and incremental "History of the Jewish People," let alone a single People, "One People." These statements of theological or ideological program do not describe how things have been or are today. But there have been Judaisms, and, as historical entities, there have been groups of Jews. There can be histories of Judaisms and histories of Jewish groups. And through these Judaic systems, these Judaisms, we can describe, analyze through comparison and contrast, interpret by locating the ineluctable questions, the selfevidently true answers, and the circumstances and context that imparted urgency to both questions and answers. But, as to Judaisms' having histories in a single line, each Judaism made its appearance whole and complete, presenting to its chosen Israel its system, that is, its set of self-evidently true answers to in­ eluctable questions—its recapitulation, in its context and circum­ stance, of that paradigmatic point of resentment: who are we, where do we come from, what are the conditions of our sustaining life? Having ascended from logical potentiality onto the stage of actual time, each Judaism invented for itself such past as it found necessary. That past has ordinarily consisted of a set of selections not so much of particular events—set into a linear and incremental story of how things came to be what they are—but singular documents, holy books that purported to tell the story and therefore also to justify and validate the Judaism at hand. So there cannot be a history of Judaism, because there have been many Judaisms, each with its distinctive history, and histories of Judaisms do not provide a cogent and intelligible picture. But all Judaisms recapitulate the same paradigm. Specifically, in re­ capitulating resentment provoked by Scripture's picture of Israel, Judaism turned out to provoke and precipitate that same resentment; but also to resolve its tensions. For there was no given to the experi­ ence of exile and restoration, and no self-evident truth to the explana­ tion—sin, suffering, atonement, reconciliation—attached to that expe-

224

NEUSNER

rience. Jews knew pretty well who they were (as they know today, though the indicators shift), and if they did not remind themselves by rehearsing their long-past history as a statement of the acutely present possibility that they were unsure of themselves and uncertain of their situation, they would not have had to know it every morning. But they did remind themselves, and they have known, along with the light of the rising sun and the shades of night, that things never are always what they now seem—and they do not have to be. A single, encom­ passing theory may thus explain the entire history of Judaism—past, present, and future. I account for the shape and character of all Judaisms that have ever flourished and predict the structure of any Judaism that will ever come into existence. I state that theory in a sin­ gle paragraph. Because the Mosaic Torah's interpretation of the diverse experi­ ences of the Israelites after the destruction of the Temple in 586 invoked,whether pertinent or not, the categories of exile and return, so constructing as paradigmatic the experience of only a minority of the families of the Jews—most in Babylonia stayed there, many in the Land of Israel never left—through the formation of the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses, the events from 586 to 450 BCE, became for all time to come the generative and definitive pattern of meaning. Consequently, whether or not the paradigm precipitated dissonance with their actual circumstances, Jews in diverse settings have con­ structed their worlds, that is, shaped their identification, in accord with that one, generative model They therefore have perpetually re­ hearsed that human experience imagined by the original authorship of the Torah in the time of Ezra. That pattern accordingly was not merely preserved and perpetuated; it precipitated and provoked its own replication in age succeeding age. A Judaism—that is, a Judaic system, way of life, and world view, worked out by a distinct social group (an "Israel")—therefore would for time to come represent a reworking of the theme of exile and re­ turn, alienation and reconciliation, by an Israel, a group troubled by the resentment of that uncertain past and of that future subject to stipulation. Each Judaism therefore recapitulates the original experi­ ence. To state matters in more general terms, religions recapitulate resentment. All Judaisms that have come into being have conformed to that paradigm, and, so long as framers of Judaic systems—ways of life, world views, addressed to an Israel subject to particular defini-

EXILE AND RETURN AS THE HISTORY OF JUDAISM

225

tion—refer to that same holy scripture, the Five Books of Moses in particular, all Judaisms that emerge will focus, in one way or another, upon that same generative resentment. Many maintain that religion originates in or expresses considera­ tions of an extrinsic character, for example, motives of a psychologi­ cal, economic or political character. That theory overstates the impact upon religion, of the society and politics that sustain religion. I argue that, in the case of Judaism, religion exercises the power to impart its pattern upon its social world, the polity of Jews. As is clear, my gen­ eral theory of the history of Judaism is that a particular experience, transformed by a religious system into a paradigm of the life of the social group, became normative—and therefore generative. Under other circumstances, in other times and places, that experience pre­ served in authoritative Scripture consequently imparted its form and substance upon Jewish polities that, in point of fact, faced the task of explaining a social world quite different from the one that, to begin with, had generated that original and paradigmatic experience. That is why I maintain that the social world recapitulates religion, not that re­ ligion recapitulates that social and political datum—the given of soci­ ety, economy, politics—let alone of an imaginative or emotional real­ ity. The study of Judaism provides a source of interesting cases for the proposition that religion shapes the world, not the world, religion. In our setting and language, religion creates social worlds of meaning and explanation, a society, a polity—in the case of this general theory of the history of Judaism, an Israel, a Judaism. Specifically, it is the Jews' religion, Judaism, that has formed their world and framed their realities, and not the world of politics, culture, society, that has made their religion. THE INVENTION OF THE PARADIGM

We may account for the character and definition of all of the diverse Judaisms that have taken shape since the destruction of the first Temple of Jerusalem in 586 and the return to Zion, building of the second Temple of Jerusalem, and writing down of the Torah, a pro­ cess complete in 450 BCE. Since the formative pattern imposed that perpetual, self-conscious uncertainty—treating the life of the group as conditional and discontinuous—Jews have asked themselves who they are and invented Judaisms to answer that question. Accordingly, on account of the definitive paradigm affecting their group-life in various

226

NEUSNER

contexts, no circumstances have permitted Jews to take for granted their existence as a group. Looking back on Scripture and its message, Jews have ordinarily treated as special, subject to conditions, and therefore uncertain what (in their view) other groups enjoyed as un­ conditional and simply given. Why the paradigm renewed itself is clear: this particular view of matters generated expectations that could not be met, hence created resentment—and then provided comfort and hope that made possible coping with that resentment. To state my thesis with appropriate emphasis: Promising what could not be deliv­ ered, then providing solace for the consequent disappointment, the system at hand precipitated in age succeeding age the very conditions necessary for its own replication. The original reading of the Jews' existence as exile and return de­ rives from the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses, which were com­ posed as we now have them (out of earlier materials, to be sure) in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE and in response to the exile to Babylonia. The experience selected and addressed by the authorship of the document is that of exile and restoration. But that framing of events into the pattern at hand represents an act of powerful imagination and interpretation. It is an experience that is invented, because no one person or group both went into "exile" and also "returned home." Diverse experiences have been sorted out, various persons have been chosen, and the whole has been worked into a system by those who selected history out of happenings, and models out of masses of persons. I say "selected," because no Jews af­ ter 586 actually experienced what the aggregate Scripture says hap­ pened. None both went into exile and then came back to Jerusalem. So, to begin with, Scripture does not record a particular person's expe­ rience. More to the point, if it is not autobiographical—writing for so­ ciety at large the personal insight of a singular figure—it also is not an account of a whole nation's story. The reason is that the original exile encompassed mainly the political classes of Jerusalem and some use­ ful populations alongside. Many Jews in the Judea of 586 never left. And, as is well known, a great many of those who ended up in Babylonia stayed there. Only a minority went back to Jerusalem. Consequently, the story of exile and return to Zion encompasses what happened to only a few families, who identified themselves as the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their genealogy as the his­ tory of Israel. Those families that stayed and those that never came

EXILE AND RETURN AS THE HISTORY OF JUDAISM

227

back, had they written the Torah, would have told as normative and paradigmatic a different tale altogether. That experience of the few that formed the paradigm for Israel be­ yond the restoration taught as normative lessons of alienation. Let me state with emphasis the lessons people claimed to learn out of the events they had chosen for their history: the life of the group is uncer­ tain, subject to conditions and stipulations. Nothing is set and given, all things a gift: land and life itself. But what actually did happen in that uncertain world—exile but then restoration—marked the group as special, different, select. There were other ways of seeing things, and the Pentateuchal pic­ ture was no more compelling than any other. Those Jews who did not go into exile, and those who did not "come home" had no reason to take the view of matters that characterized the authorship of Scripture. The life of the group need not have appeared more uncertain, more subject to contingency and stipulation, than the life of any other group. The land did not require the vision that imparted to it the en­ chantment, the personality, that, in Scripture, it received: "The land will vomit you out as it did those who were here before you." And the adventitious circumstance of Iranian imperial policy—a political hap­ penstance—did not have to be recast into return. So nothing in the system of Scripture—exile for reason, return as redemption—followed necessarily and logically. Everything was invented: interpreted. That experience of the uncertainty of the life of the group in the century or so from the destruction of the First Temple of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 to the building of the Second Temple of Jerusalem by the Jews, with Persian permission and sponsorship re­ turned from exile, formed the paradigm. With the promulgation of the "Torah of Moses" under the sponsorship of Ezra, the Persians' viceroy, at ca. 450 BCE, all future Israels would then refer to that for­ mative experience as it had been set down and preserved as the norm for Israel in the mythic terms of that "original" Israel, the Israel not of Genesis and Sinai and the end at the moment of entry into the promised land, but the "Israel" of the families that recorded as the rule and the norm the story of both the exile and the return. In that minor­ ity genealogy—that story of exile and return, alienation and remission, imposed on the received stories of pre-exilic Israel and adumbrated time and again in the Five Books of Moses and addressed by the framers of that document in their work over-all—we find that

228

NEUSNER

paradigmatic statement in which every Judaism, from then to now, found its structure and deep syntax of social existence; the grammar of its intelligible message. Why insist that exile and return form the paradigm for the history of Judaism? The reason is simple. No Judaism recapitulates any other, and none stands in a linear and incremental relationship with any prior one. But all Judaisms recapitulate that single paradigmatic experience of the Torah of "Moses," the authorship that reflected on the meaning of the events of 586-450 selected for the composition of history, and therefore, interpretation. That experience (in theological terms) rehearsed the conditional moral existence of sin and punishment, suffering and atonement and reconciliation, and (in social terms) the uncertain and always condi­ tioned national destiny of disintegration and renewal of the group. That moment captured within the Five Books of Moses, that is to say, the judgment of the generation of the return to Zion led by Ezra; about its extraordinary experience of exile and return; would inform the attitude and viewpoint of all the Israels beyond. In its original statement the system of the Torah after 586 did not merely describe things that had actually happened, normal events so to speak, but rather contrived events, rendering them normative and mythic, turning an experience into a paradigm of experience. Let me state the important point in em­ phasis: The paradigm began as a paradigm, not as a set of actual events transformed into a normative pattern. And the conclusions generated by the paradigm, it must follow, derived not from reflection on things that happened but from the logic of the paradigm—there alone. Not only so, but that same paradigm would create expectations that could not be met, so would renew the resentment captured by the myth of exile, while at the same time setting the conditions for remission of re­ sentment, so resolving the crisis of exile with the promise of return. This self-generating, self-renewing paradigm formed that self-fulfill­ ing prophecy that all Judaisms have offered at as the generative ten­ sion, and critical symbolic structure of their systems. To state matters simply, the paradigm that imparted its imprint on the history of the day did not emerge from, nor was it generated by, the events of the age. First came the system, its world-view and way of life formed whole: we know not where or by whom. Then came the selection, by the system, of consequential events and their patterning

EXILE AND RETURN AS THE HISTORY OF JUDAISM

229

into systemic propositions. And finally, at a third stage (of indetermi­ nate length of time) came the formation and composition of the canon that would express the logic of the system and state those "events" that the system would select or invent for its own expression. Since, chief among the propositions of the system as the Torah of Moses de­ fined it is the notion of the election of Israel effected in the covenant, we may say that, systematically speaking, Israel—the Israel of the Torah and historical-prophetic books of the sixth and fifth centuries— selected itself. The system created the paradigm of the society that had gone into exile and come back home, and, by the way, the system also cut its own orders, that contract or covenant that certified not election but self-selection. At the very foundations of the original and generative Judaic paradigm, the account of the sequence of events from 586 when the Israelites were exiled to Babylonia to ca. 450 when they had returned to Zion and rebuilt the Temple, we find history systematically se­ lected, therefore by definition invented, and not described. That would make slight difference—everyone understands the mythopoeic power of belief—except for one thing. I maintain that a particular experience, transformed by a religious system into a paradigm of the life of the social group, has become normative and therefore generative. That particular experience itself happened, to begin with, in the minds and imaginations of the authors of Scripture, not in the concrete life or in the politics and society of Israel in its land and in exile. No one, of course, imagined that the Temple lay in ruins. But as to its restoration and reconstruction people clearly differed, as the incessant complaints of the post-exilic prophets about the neglected condition of the altar attest. No one denied that some of Israel had stayed home, while oth­ ers went into exile, but as to the exclusion of those who had stayed home and not undergone the normative experience of alienation and return, opinion surely differed, since it was only by force that the dis­ solution of families was effected. While making ample use of ancient tales, the framers of the Pentateuch, as we now have it, flourished in Babylonia after 586 and conceived as their systemic teleology the return to Zion and the re­ building of the Temple—hence the centrality in the wilderness-narra­ tives of the tabernacle and its cult. So the setting of the Judaism of the priests imparts to the scripture of that first setting its ultimate mean-

230

NEUSNER

ing: response to historical disaster followed by (to the Jews' mind) unprecedented triumph. Their vision is characterized as follows: In the priests' narrative the chosen people are last seen as pilgrims moving through alien land toward a goal to be fulfilled in another time and place, and this is the vision, drawn from the ancient story of their past, that the priests now hold out to the scattered sons and daughters of old Israel. They too are exiles encamped for a time in an alien land, and they too must focus their hopes on the promise ahead. Like the Israelites in the Sinai wilderness, they must avoid setting roots in the land through which they pass, for diaspora is not to become their permanent condition, and regulations must be adopted to facilitate this. They must resist assimilation into the world into which they are now dispersed, because hope and heart and fundamental identity lay in the future. Thus, the priestly document not only affirms Yahweh's continuing authority and action in the lives of his people but offers them a pattern for life that will ensure them a distinct identity. 2

The net effect of the Pentateuchal vision of Israel, that is, its world view seen in the aggregate, lays stress on the separateness and the ho­ liness of Israel, all the while pointing to dangers of pollution by the other, the outsider. The way of life, with its stress on distinguishing traits of an Israel distinct from, and threatened by, the outsider corre­ sponds. The fate of the nation, moreover, depends upon the loyalty of the people, in their everyday life, to the requirements of the covenant with God, so history forms the barometer of the health of the nation. In these ways the several segments of the earlier traditions of Israel were so drawn together as to make the point peculiarly pertinent to Israel in exile. It follows that the original Judaic system, the one set forth by the Pentateuch, answered the urgent issue of exile with the self-evident response of return. The question was not to be avoided, the answer not to be doubted. The center of the system, then, lay in the covenant, the contract that told Israel the rules that would govern: Keep these rules and you will not again suffer as you have suffered. Violate them and you will. At the heart of the covenant was the call for Israel to form a kingdom of priests and a holy people. THE PERSISTENCE OF THE PARADIGM

Now we wonder why the system persisted as paradigmatic and why its structure proved definitive long after the political facts had shifted 2

W. Lee Humphreys, Crisis and Story: Introduction to the Old Testament (Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1979) 217.

EXILE AND RETURN AS THE HISTORY OF JUDAISM

231

dramatically, indeed, had ceased to pertain at all. The whole, original Judaism answered the question of exile and restoration. With the con­ tinuing authority of the Torah in Israel, the experience to which it originally constituted a profound and systematic response was reca­ pitulated, age after age, through the reading and authoritative exegesis of the original Scripture that preserved and portrayed it: "Your de­ scendants will be aliens living in a land that is not theirs ... but I will punish that nation whose slaves they are, and after that they shall come out with great possessions" (Gen 15:13-14). The long-term rea­ son for the persistence of the priests' Judaism as the self-evidently valid explanation of Israel's life derives from two facts. First, the Scriptures themselves retained their authority. But that begs the ques­ tion. For the reason does not account for the continuing assent to, ac­ knowledgment as authoritative of, those Scriptures. The second reason that the Judaic system devised in the Pentateuch by the priests retained its power of self-evidence is that that system in its basic structure ad­ dressed, but also created, a continuing and chronic social fact of Israel's life. So long as the people perceived the world in such a way as to make urgent the question that Scripture framed and answered, Scripture en­ joyed that power of persuasion beyond all need for argument that im­ parted to it the self-evident status of God's revealed will to Israel. And that interval lasted for a very long time. But Scripture gained its own authority, independent of the circumstance of society. The priests' paradigm therefore imposed itself even in situations in which its fun­ damental premises hardly pertained. Accordingly, it is the fact that when the world imposed upon Jewry questions of a different order, then Jews would go in search of more answers—an additional Torah (hence the formation of the Judaism of the dual Torah)—and even dif­ ferent answers (hence the formation, in modern times, of Judaic sys­ tems of a different character altogether). But even then a great many Jews continued to envision the world through that original perspective created in the aftermath of destruction and restoration, that is, to see the world as a gift instead of a given; themselves as chosen for a life of special suffering but also special reward. I therefore see two reasons for the perennial power of the priests' system and perspective. One is that the generative tension, precipi­ tated by the interpretation of the Jews' life as exile and return, that had formed the critical center of the Torah of Moses persisted. Therefore,

232

NEUSNER

the urgent question answered by the Torah retained its original charac­ ter and definition—and the self-evidently valid answer—read in the synagogue every Sabbath morning, as well as on Monday and on Thursday—retained its relevance. With the persistent problem renew­ ing that same resentment, generation after generation, the product of a memory of loss and restoration joined to the recognition, in the here and now, of the danger of a further loss, the priests' authoritative an­ swer would not lose its power to persist and to persuade. The other reason is that people saw what was not always there because, through the Torah of Moses, they were taught to. That is why the second of the two reasons—the one explaining the long-term power of the Judaic system of the Priests to shape the world-view and way of life of the Israel addressed by that Judaism—is the more important: the question answered by the Five Books of Moses persisted at the center of the national life and remained, if chronic, also urgent. The answer provided by the Pentateuch therefore retained its self-evident importance. The question persisted, to be sure, because Scripture kept reminding people to ask that question, to see the world as the world was described, in Scripture's mythic terms, out of the perception of the experience of exile and return. To those trou­ bled by the question of exile and return, that is, the chronic allegation that Israel's group-life did not constitute a given but formed a gift ac­ corded on conditions and stipulations, then, the answer enjoyed the status of (mere) fact. The human condition takes on heightened in­ tensity when God cares what you eat for lunch, on the one side, but will reward you for having a boiled egg, on the other. For a small, un­ certain people, captured by a vision of distant horizons, behind and before, a mere speck on the crowded plain of humanity, such a mes­ sage bore its powerful and immediate message as a map of meaning. Israel's death and resurrection—as the Torah portrayed matters— therefore left nothing as it had been and changed everything for all time. But the matter—central to the history pf Judaism—demands yet another angle of analysis. We have to ask what was at stake and so penetrate into the deepest layers of the structure to state the issues at their most abstract and general. For the sacred persistence in the end rested on judgments found self-evidently valid in circumstances re­ mote from the original world subject to those judgments. The Temple and its rites formed the center-piece of the national life of Israel. Large numbers of people came to Jerusalem on the pilgrim

EXILE AND RETURN AS THE HISTORY OF JUDAISM

233

festivals of the autumn and spring, Tabernacles in the autumn, Passover and Pentecost in the spring. So it was not only the minor sects or the writings of a small political-theological elite that testify to the centrality of the priests' vision in the life of Israel, the Jewish people. The very critical role played by Jerusalem, with stress on the holiness of the Temple and the supernatural importance of its cult, makes us realize the importance of that original Judaism,! the Judaism of the Five Books of Moses, that took shape after 586. Accordingly, we have to wonder why the priestly themes and repertoire of concerns should have so occupied the imagination and fantasy of the people as a whole. It is the continuity from the priestly code of the sixth century BCE, to the beginnings of the Mishnaic code of the second century CE—a period of seven hundred years, that is, a longer spell than the span of time that separates us from Edward the Confessor and an in­ dependent Wales or from the West's fourth Crusade to the Land of Israel—that requires explanation. For the Mishnah and therefore the Judaism that flowed from that central document represents the funda­ mental, categorical structure generated by the priestly perspective on the condition of Israel. The deep syntax of the sacred, the metaphysical grammar, belonged to the priesthood from olden times. That is why it becomes urgent to dwell on why the priestly code should have exercised so profound and formative an influence upon the life of the Second Temple and be­ yond. The reason that the priestly code and of the Five Books of Moses that expressed the priestly emphasis on sanctification exercised the formative power it did may be stated with appropriate emphasis: The problems addressed and solved by the Judaism of the Five Books of Moses remained chronic long after the period of its forma­ tion, from the seventh century onward down to its closure in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The Priestly Code states a powerful answer to a pressing and urgent question. Since that question would remain a perplexity continuing to trouble Israelites for a long time, it is not surprising that the categorical structure of the priestly answer to it, so profound and fundamental in its character, should for its part have continued to define systems that would attract and impress people. We have once more to locate ourselves in the time of closure of the Mosaic Scriptures, that is, in the late sixth and fifth centuries BCE, and to specify the critical tensions of that period. Once we have seen the character of these tensions, without needing much exposition we shall

234

NEUSNER

realize that the same tensions persisted and confronted the thinkers whose reflection led to the conclusions, in resolution of those ongoing points of dissonance, that the Temple's holiness enveloped and sur­ rounded Israel's Land and demarcated its people too. What marks an­ cient Israel as distinctive is its preoccupation with defining itself. Let me state, again with appropriate emphasis, the main point: The reason for that obsession—that is to say, the persistence of the exegesis of the everyday as a sequence of acts of sanctification—was the Torah's encapsulation, as normative and recurrent, of the experi­ ence of the loss and recovery of the land and of political sovereignty. Israel, because of its (in its mind) amazing experience, had attained self-consciousness. Others, never subject to exile and return but per­ petually living in a single place under a long-term government, would have to discover in other ways what the Israel represented by the Pentateuchal theory of matters had learned through exile and return: that the social order is a gift, not a given; stipulative, not guaranteed; never to be taken for granted. There was nothing given, nothing to be merely celebrated (as the Yahwist thought) or at least taken for granted, as the Deuteronomist thought, in the life of a nation that had ceased to be a nation on its own land and then once more had re­ gained that (once-normal, now abnormal) condition. Judaism took shape as the system that accounted for the death and resurrection of Israel, the Jewish people, and pointed for the source of renewed life toward sanctification now, and salvation at the end of time. The upshot of the codification and closure of the law under Ezra and Nehemiah was to produce the Torah as a law code that laid heavy emphasis on the exclusivist character of the Israelite God and cult. "Judaism"—that is to say, the priestly Judaism of the Pentateuchal composite—gained the character of a cultically centered way of life and world view. Both rite and myth aimed at the continuing self-def­ inition of Israel by separation from the rest of the world and exclusion of the rest of the world. Order against chaos meant holiness over uncleanness, life over death. The purpose was to define Israel against the background of the other peoples of the Near and Middle East, with whom Israel had much in common, and, especially, to differentiate Israel from its near-relations and neighbors, e.g., Samaritans, in the same country. The issue of who is the other persisted, extending be­ yond the nearest frontier in the definition of the other: the woman, the slave, the minor; the near-Israelite; the gentile; later on, the Christian

EXILE AND RETURN AS THE HISTORY OF JUDAISM

235

(sharing common Scriptures) as a special kind of not-gentile-gentile; and on and on. Acute differentiation was required in particular because the social and cultural facts were precisely to the contrary: common traits hardly bespeaking clear-cut points of difference, except of idiom. The mode of differentiation taken by the Torah literature in general, and the priestly sector of that literature in particular, was cultic. The meaning, however, also was social. The power of the Torah composed in this time lay in its control of the Temple. The Torah made that Temple the pivot and focus. The Torah literature, with its concerned God, who cares what people do about rather curious matters, and the Temple cult, with its total exclusion of the non-Israelite from participation, and (all the more so) from cultic commensality, raised high those walls of separation and underlined such distinctiveness as already ex­ isted. The life of Israel flowed from the altar; what made Israel Israel was the center, the altar. Note the contrast to the life of Israel, the Jewish people, before 586. So long as Israel remained essentially within its own land and frame of social reference, that is, before the conflagration of the sixth cen­ tury BCE, the issue of separation from neighbors could be treated ca­ sually. When the very core and heart of what made Israel into Israel were penetrated by the doubly desolating and disorienting experiences of both losing the Land and then coming back, the issue of who is Israel came to the fore. Exercises in confusion in economic and social relationships, and the fact that the Land to which Israelites returned in no way permitted contiguous and isolated Israelite settlement, made it certain that the issue of self-definition clearly would emerge. It would persist for the rest of Israelite history, from the return to Zion and the formation of the Torah literature even down to our own day. The rea­ son for this persistence? It is that the social forces which lent urgency to the issue of who is Israel (later, who is a Jew) would remain. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that this confusion about the distinctive and ongoing identification to be assigned to Israel would define the very framework of the social and imaginative ecology of the Jewish people. So long as memory remained, the conflicting claims of exclusivist Torah literature and universalist prophecy, of a people living in Utopia, in no particular place, while framing its vision it itself in the deeply locative symbols of cult and center—these conflicting claims would make vivid the abiding issue of self-definition. At issue was,

236

NEUSNER

and is, life, its source, its sustenance. For if we ask why the Temple with its cult enduringly proved central in the imagination of the Israelites in the country, as indeed it did, we have only to repeat the statements which the priests of the Temple and their imitators in the sects were prepared to make. These explain the critical importance of cult and rite. If we reread the priestly viewpoint as it is contained in the books of Leviticus and Numbers, as well as in priestly passages of Genesis and Exodus, this is the picture we derive. The altar was the center of life, the conduit of life from heaven to earth and from earth to heaven. All things are to be arrayed in rela­ tionship to the altar. The movement of the heavens demarcated and celebrated at the cult marked out the divisions of time in relationship to the altar. The spatial dimension of the Land was likewise demar­ cated and celebrated in relationship to the altar. The natural life of Israel's fields and corrals, the social life of its hierarchical caste-sys­ tem, the political life (this was not only in theory by any means) cen­ tered on the Temple as the locus of ongoing government—all things in order and in place expressed the single message. The natural order of the world corresponded to, reinforced, and was reinforced by, the so­ cial order of Israel. Both were fully realized in the cult, the nexus be­ tween those opposite and corresponding forces, the heavens and the earth. The lines of structure emanated from the altar. And it was these lines of structure which constituted high and impenetrable frontiers to separate Israel from the gentiles. Israel, which was holy, ate holy food, reproduced itself in accord with the laws of holiness, and conducted all of its affairs, both affairs of state and the business of the table and the bed, in accord with the demands of holiness. So the cult defined holiness. Holiness meant separateness. Separateness meant life. Why? Because outside the Land, the realm of the holy, lay the domain of death. The lands are unclean. The Land is holy. For the Scriptural vo­ cabulary, one antonym for holy is unclean, and one opposite of un­ clean is holy. The synonym of holy is life. The principal force and symbol of uncleanness and its highest expression are death. So the Torah stood for life, the covenant with the Lord would guarantee life, and the way of life required sanctification in the here and now of the natural world. The Torah of "Moses" created the world that it revealed, which in no way corresponded with the world either out of which it emerged or

EXILE AND RETURN AS THE HISTORY OF JUDAISM

237

to which, for the following centuries, it spoke. And, to recount the reason for persistence of the paradigm: the condition for the continu­ ing power of the Judaic system of the Torah not only required the re­ capitulation of resentment, but also produced what was required. That was the constant renewal of the resentment precipitated and provoked by the discrepancy to begin with present in the Torah's own system. The Torah of Moses therefore did more than recapitulate resentment. In age succeeding age the Torah generated that resentment which powered the system. Religion, which imparts its pattern upon the social world and polity of Jews, stunningly emerges in the simple fact before us: that what the record of 586 says happened and what that same record shows hap­ pened do not correspond. What really happened, the biblical narrative makes explicit, is that the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and exiled its political classes as well as skilled workers. The scriptural record is equally explicit that large numbers of Jews remained in the land and continued to live out their lives there. The system of the Torah, then, not only presented the paradigm of Israel as the covenanted people whose heightened social reality derived from the experience of exile and return, but invented that paradigm, treating the experience of those for whom it spoke—those who had gone into exile and who had come back to the land—as normative, when, descriptively speaking, it was not even normal. The reason is that since sizable numbers of Jews did not go into exile, the experience of exile and restoration—pre­ sented as normative and paradigmatic in the Torah and in the histori­ cal-prophetic literature redacted in the sixth and fifth centuries—sim­ ply did not describe what happened to them. And, it goes without saying, it also had no bearing upon those other Jews who did not leave Babylonia and return to the land. Consequently, events—mere facts of history as such, let alone facts of history as interpreted—-scarcely can be said to have generated the paradigm at hand. The system selected happenings and treated them as events, then ranked events in order of priority, then interpreted important events as part of a larger system: world view, way of life, addressed to its particular Israel. So the order of the systemic process is (1) system, then (2) selection of things that have happened as events, and finally (3) the formation out of events of a pattern that is called history or theology. There is no material differ­ ence.

SALVIFIC EXILE IN THE ISAIAH TARGUM Bruce Chilton Bard College

Exile appears at first to be a simple dispossession from one's land, and therefore a condition of longing for return. But that clear-lined picture of removal from home to a distant and alien place proves to be far too crude to account for how exile is actually reported among those who experience it. "Exile" (Km ?)) is a central term of reference within the Isaiah Targum, and the Targum is an especially good lens through which the variegation of the experience and concept of exile may be viewed. The Targum is not simply a translation at one moment for a single community or kind of community, but emerged during both the Tannaitic and Amoraic periods under conditions in which the commu­ nities involved explained their situations in terms of "exile." Because those situations were quite different, and the theological valuation of "exile" was also different, the Targum provides us with an opportunity to understand how a single term of reference can reflect distinct cir­ cumstances, aspirations, and ideologies. 4

1

EXILE IN THE TANNAITIC FRAMEWORK

Chapter 28 sets up a clear indication of its provenience at the outset (28.T): 2

Woe to him who gives the crown to the proud, the foolish master of Israel, and gives the turban to the wicked one of the sanctuary of his praise....

The italics indicate where the Targum is substantially innovative at this point; the Masoretic Text is nothing like as specific in its refer­ ence. The interpreter (in Aramaic, the meturgeman), best understood as the collective agency of interpretation in synagogues and schools, obviously has in mind a ruler who has both royal and priestly power at

1

See Bruce Chilton, The Glory of Exile: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982). The translation follows B. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (ArBib 11; Wilmington: Glazier, 1987). 2

240

CHILTON

his disposal. He can give the crown to the foolish and the turban—an emblem of the high priest —to the wicked. What is worse, he does so. That this hegemony refers to the Romans seems evident. What is less evident is the surprising use of the symbol of exile which immediately follows in the text (28:2-4): 3

Behold, strong and hard strokes come from the LORD; like a storm of hail in a whirlwind, like a storm of strong, overflowing waters, so the gentiles will come upon them and exile them from their land to another land with the sins which are in their hand.?. The crown of the proud, the foolish master in Israel will be trodden under foot; and he who gives the turban to the wicked one of the sanctuary of his praise ... will be like a first-ripe fig before the summer....

"Exile" here is verbal, rather than nominal: it is what the gentiles do— and do rightly, according to God's will—to sweep away Roman rule and its surrogates, both royal and priestly. The positive valuation of exile is confirmed by the innovative sequel in the Targum (from 28:5), which refers (again, innovatively) to the rule of the Messiah. After the devastating arrival of the "gentiles" the Messiah himself is to be the "crown" ("iro, innovatively in v. 5) which is to be the efficacious stan­ dard of "true judgment" (v. 6). Exile becomes the prelude to mes­ sianic vindication, and is to that extent eagerly anticipated. Here, then, at the Tannaitic stage of the Targum, exile is positively anticipated as the punishment due to those who have perverted Israel's royal and cultic institutions. But how can exile, the paradigmatic pun­ ishment of Israel, be applied as a threat to Roman hegemony? The un­ derlying reason is that the acceptance of the Romans by Israel implies a denigration of the Torah and a perversion of the Temple's function on the part of Israel (28:13): And this will be the cup of their retribution, because they transgressed the word of the LORD, even because they were commanded to perform the law and what they were commanded they did not wish to do; therefore they will be handed over to the gentiles, who do not know the law. And because they went in their own pleasure and did not desire to perform my pleasure, there­ fore they will hope for help in the time when I bring distress upon them, and there will be neither help nor support for them. And because my sanctuary was little in their eyes, to serve there, therefore they will be left as little among the gentiles where they will be exiled, that they may go, and stumble backward, and be broken, and caught and taken.

3

It was so at least from the time of Zech 3:5. The turban features prominently in that role at 22:18 in the Isaiah Targum.

SALVIFIC EXILE IN THE ISAIAH TARGUM

241

Now the eschatological expectation of the meturgeman, which turns on the theme of exile, becomes plainer. "The house of Israel" was made to perform the law, but failed and rebelled against the Torah, ig­ nored the prophets, and practiced idolatry (so 28:9-12). That rebellion, together with the Roman hegemony which is its primary symptom, is to be swept away by exile, conducted in the person of a "strong, mighty, and terrible king" (28:16). Exile is therefore turned against the Romans as a just punishment, because Israel accepted their rule and the idolatry it involved. But who is this king who is the instrument of exile in this expanded sense? The agent of judgment is clearly portrayed as an invader (28:19): In the moment he passes through he will exile you, for morning by morning he will pass through, by day and by night; and it will happen, before the moment of the curse comes, that you will consider the sayings of the prophets.

The Tannaitic framework of the Isaiah Targum, an exegetical scaf­ folding of coordinated terms, characteristic motifs, and typical styles of interpretation, came into existence during the two great revolts. Within that setting the campaign of Vespasian (and then of Titus) has been turned into an instrument of just punishment. He sweeps away the puppets of Rome (and, of course, Vespasian even replaced the Roman Emperor). This picture portrays exile as a messianic punishment, in that it is a preliminary to the vindication of the Messiah himself. Oddly, then, Vespasian approaches to being included within the messianic sce­ nario, if only in an ancillary way. In that sense, we may be reminded of Josephus' conviction that Vespasian was destined for Imperial glory (see JW 3.8.9 §§399-408) and he makes his case in exegetical terms (6.5.4 §§312-313). Josephus' conviction is not merely oppor­ tunistic, but reflects his programmatic interest in the combined pros­ perity of the Empire and the Temple. The point in the Targum, how­ ever, is that the "strong, mighty and terrible king" (28:16) is to clear the way for the Messiah, so that the exilic theology of the Tannaitic framework comports well with the hope of messianic vindication be4

5

4

For further discussion, and supporting evidence from outside the Targum, see Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, 55-7. Cf. B. Chilton, "Joseph bar Matthias's Vision of the Temple," in The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program Within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992) 69-87. 5

242

CHILTON 6

tween the two great revolts. Justice of the exile is that it clears the way for what is to come. But chapter 28 has yet more to teach us about the possibilities of reference to exile. Although the valuation might, as we have seen, be positive, ultimately the ground meaning of the experience is under­ stood to be negative for those who suffer it. For that reason, vindica­ tion itself is to involve a gathering from exile (28:25a): If the house of Israel set their face to perform the law, would he not repent and gather them from among the gentiles among whom they are scattered, be­ hold, as dill and cummin which is strewn?

The bivalence of "exile" is therefore honored in a single chapter within the Tannaitic framework of the Targum. Exile is proximately good, as the just punishment of an evil regime, and ultimately an ob­ stacle to be overcome in the interests of Israel's vindication. The particular focus which makes this bivalent understanding of exile appropriate and powerful is made explicit rather early in the Isaiah Targum (8:16-18): Prophet, guard the testimony, do not testify among them, for they do not at­ tend. Seal and hide the law; they do not wish to learn from it. The prophet said, For this reason I prayed before the LORD, who threatened to take up his Shekhinah from those of the house of Jacob, and I besought before him. Behold while I exist, and the children whom the LORD has given me, signs and portents will be realized among us which were promised to come upon Israel, that if they see and repent, the decree which was decreed against them—that they go into exile so as not to appear before the LORD of hosts, whose Shekhinah is on the Mount of Zion—will be void.

This richly innovative prophecy instances the Targumic freedom in shaping and refashioning the biblical text. The two aspects of "exile," the just punishment and the obstacle which is ultimately to be over­ come, find their center of meaning. That meaning has to do with the "Shekhinah," God's dwelling in the Temple. The threat of the removal of the Shekhinah is in response to impure cultic approach. The defiled hands of priests are raised in prayer, only to cause the removal of God's presence (so Isaiah 1:15 in the Targum). The removal of the 6

On this hope, see Jostein Adna, "Der Gottesknecht als triumphierender und interzessorischer Messias. Die Rezeption von Jes 53 im Targum Jonathan untersucht mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung des Messiasbildes," in B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher (eds.), Der leidende Gottesknecht. Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte (FAT 14; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996) 129-58.

243

SALVDFIC EXILE IN THE ISAIAH TARGUM

Shekhinah, in turn, means that Israel is exiled "so as not to appear before the LORD of hosts" (8:18). For just that reason, exile is just, but it also must be overcome, as surely as the Shekhinah is to return (an axiomatic expectation in the Targum). Indeed, exile is here a theo­ logical, rather than primarily a geographical, concept. Even those liv­ ing in Jerusalem are exiles, once the Shekhinah has been removed. The bivalent understanding of exile in the Tannaitic framework of the Isaiah Targum is therefore a function of an unequivocal focus upon the Shekhinah in the sanctuary. It is justly—and purely—re­ moved by God in view of defilement, and that means that exile is a reality: even in territorial Israel. What is holy has been removed from the holy land (cf. Zech 2:17 ). But just as surely as the Temple is to be built again and the Shekhinah is to return, so exile—within Israel and beyond—is ultimately to come to an end. 7

EXILE IN THE AMORAIC FRAMEWORK

The Amoraic framework of the Isaiah Targum fully re-evaluates the condition of exile. The principal reason for the re-evaluation is the ex­ perience of exile as salutary (if not actually salvific). Talmud (b. Meg 29a) loosely attributes the shift in the understanding of exile to the teaching to Simeon ben Yohai, a prominent rabbi of the second cen­ tury, in the midst of a comment upon Isaiah (43:14): "They were ex­ iled to Babylon, and the Shekhinah was with them, as it says, For your sake I was sent to Babylon." The usual sense of exile is collapsed here, into the notion that it is a protection for Israel, which is sustained by God's presence, rather than being alienated from it as a result of exile. The shift is all the more marked, because the Masoretic Text has God say, "For your sake I sent to Babylon," rather than "For your sake I was sent to Babylon." Both conceptually and grammatically, this ef8

7

The Targumic rendering is especially interesting, because it has God "revealed" from his holy abode. The root involved is the same as means "to go into exile." (Both meanings derive from the basic sense, "to uncover." See Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period [Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum; Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1990].) The entire chapter in the Zechariah Targum explores the systemic connection between exile and revelation. The difference, of course, is a matter of vocal pointing, which makes a pi'el into a pu'al. Such shifts are a matter of inference, but contextually the 8

244

CHILTON

fectively invents a new meaning for the Masoretic Text: Isaiah is made to speak of a divine displacement, such that exile is now a pro­ tective condition. The Isaiah Targum offers a particularly good window into the de­ velopment of this exegesis. It does so within a part of the document which represents its Amoraic framework, evident in terms of refer­ ence from the later period. The chapter opens with a strong image of divine protection in the midst of exile (43:2): 9

At the first when you passed through the reed sea, my Memra was your help; Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who were as numerous as the waters of the river, did not prevail against you; the second time also, when you will walk among the gentiles who are as strong as fire, they shall not prevail against you, and kingdoms which are as powerful as flame shall not destroy you.

This "second time" from the perspective of the Hebrew text of Isaiah, would refer to the exile after 587 BCE. But as the italics indi­ cate, those are innovative words within the Isaiah Targum. As an in­ novative reference in the Targum, it refers both to the distant past and also to the contemporary experience of thriving academies in Babylonia. Indeed, at least one of them—in Pumbeditha, under the leadership of Joseph bar Hiyya—actively contributed to this very framework of the Isaiah Targum. Still, the Isaiah Targum at 43:14 does not at all match the boldness of the Talmudic claim in the attribution to Simeon ben Yohai. Although the Messiah is invoked as a present witness before the LORD (43:10), rather than the purely eschatological figure he is in the Tannaitic framework, what he joins to attest is not the comforting news of the exile with God's presence. Instead, a strong theology of sin is invoked (43:14): "For your sins' sake you were exiled to Babylon...." At an earlier stage of development, punishment within the Isaiah Targum was envisaged as occasioned by specific deeds with the Temple and against the Torah. As we have already seen, in our mention of Isaiah Targum 1:15, cultic abuse was particularly in view. 10

inference is warranted in this case. See William G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati (Yale Judaica Series; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968) 151 n. 24. On the interpretation of Isa 43:14 in rabbinic literature, see further in this volume, Chaim Milikowsky, "Notions of Exile, Subjugation and Return in Rabbinic Literature." For a discussion of the authorship of the Isaiah Targum, see Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, xiii-xxx, and idem, The Glory of Israel, 1-12. 9

1 0

SALVIFIC EXILE IN THE ISAIAH TARGUM

245

The present generality of "sins" suggests that exile is more the dispen­ sation of an epoch than a direct retribution. Further, this reflexive us­ age of the verb is not common with the meaning "to be exiled" in the Isaiah Targum. Still, both of these developments extend the earlier Tannaitic understanding of exile as punishment. It is just that the sins in view are of a more global order, and exile is more a general condi­ tion into which Israel slips than a specific punishment. The Targumic rendering itself was apparently the occasion of the later Talmudic exegesis. "For your sake I was sent to Babylon" in the Talmud is actually closer in grammatical terms to "For your sake I have sent to Babylon" (so the Masoretic Text) than is the Targum's "For your sins' sake you were exiled to Babylon." Indeed, the Talmudic version makes sense as a correction of the Targumic para­ phrase, towards closer conformity to the Masoretic Text. But that conformity is superficial, in that the exile is now portrayed as an op­ portunity to encounter the divine presence. The First Rabbinic Bible actually has the Targum conform to the Talmudic rendering, by reading "For your sake / was exiled to Babylon," and that is not surprising. Pesiq. R. 8.4; 28.2; 29/30.1; 30.2, as well as Mek. Pisha 14, 103; Sifre Numbers 161; Midr. Rab. Exod 15.16; Lev 32.8; Num 7.10; Lam 1.19-20 §154; Song 4.8.1, reinforce the impression, by the repetition of the motif, that the conviction of the Shekhinah's presence with Israel in Babylon developed later in the Amoraic period. The variant reading in the First Rabbinic Bible permits us to see the medieval successors of the meturgemanin con­ forming the text of the Targum to the Talmud. Conceptually, the moment of transition from the originally Targumic reading, "For your sins' sake you were exiled to Babylon," to the later variant, "For your sake / was exiled to Babylon," marks a change in the attitude to text and the attitude toward exile itself. Textually, there is a greater fidelity of a certain kind in the decision to restore the "I" of the Masoretic Text. But any such notion of fi­ delity is immediately to be qualified in two senses. First, the Targumic decision to employ the passive voice of the verb is retained. Second, that verb is "exile," and not "send." In both regards, the variant read­ ing in the First Rabbinic Bible is a Targum, not only of the Masoretic Text, but also of the main text of the Targum itself. The dual textual loyalty of the variant is precisely what opens up a creative possibility in theological terms. The main text of the Isaiah

246

CHILTON

Targum represents only a cautious expansion, within the Targum's Amoraic framework, of the Tannaitic theology of exile. It is still negative, but a consequence of unspecified "sins," rather that the more specific abuses which tend to be named in the Tannaitic framework. Moreover, as we have already seen, return from the exile is assured by means of the rescue from Egypt. Interestingly, this assurance is in turn linked with the promise to Abraham (43:12): "I declared to Abraham your father what was about to come, I saved you from Egypt, just as I swore to him between the pieces.... The fact that the promise to Abraham was fulfilled by means of the exodus makes the current promise all the more secure. Yet the promise here is not invoked in re­ spect of Isaac, as occurs in other places in Targum Jonathan (cf. Micah 7:20). Within the Amoraic framework, the Aqedah of Isaac seems to be a later development. The relative caution of the Amoraic framework, as it is represented in Isaiah Targum 43:14, made it a foil for the reinvention of the meaning of "exile" within the variant. The new text represents both the Masoretic Text and the Targum grammatically, and it represents neither conceptually. Exile is now a new category, of the place where revelation might occur. The fresh reading stands in the line of those discussions of which academies the Shekhinah was particularly asso­ ciated with, and when (see b. Meg 29a, a few lines after the passage cited). 99

11

CONCLUSION

Within the nexus of concepts that characterize the two principal frameworks of exegesis within the Isaiah Targum, two distinct eval­ uations of exile stand out clearly. The Tannaitic evaluation conceives of exile as the military incursion of a figure such as Vespasian, whose removal of the corrupt authority of the Romans and their Israelite sup­ porters will herald messianic vindication. The Amoraic evaluation imagines exile as a condition which God himself endures, so as to be near to his people in the revelation of the Torah. 1 1

See Chilton, "Isaac and the Second Night: a Consideration," and "Recent Discussion of the Aqedah," in Targumic Approaches to the Gospels. Essays in the Mutual Definition of Judaism and Christianity (Studies in Judaism; Lanham: University Press of America, 1986) 25-49.

SALVinC EXILE IN THE ISAIAH TARGUM

247

In both cases, the close association of exile with the concept of the Shekhinah helps to elucidate their distinctive meanings. The sense of the Shekhinah's removal at the Tannaitic stage is more acute, and ex­ tends even to those living in Jerusalem. For the Tannitic meturgeman(im), therefore, a catastrophe of militarily painful "exile" will clear the ground for the Shekhinah's return. For the Amoraic meturgeman(im), that Shekhinah cannot ultimately be altered by any human power, and it finds ways to reveal itself, no matter what condi­ tions obtain. Especially in view of the their differences in how the fact of exile is to be encountered, an agreement of all the meturgemanim is signifi­ cant: exile is at base a theological condition, which God overcomes, whether eschatologically or by his special revelation.

THE IDEA OF EXILE IN EARLY RABBINIC MIDRASH

1

Gary G. Porton University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign

Although each midrashic collection has something to say on the sub­ ject, the topic of exile does not greatly occupy those who compiled the early rabbinic midrashic collections—Sifra, Sifre Numbers, Sifre Deuteronomy, or Mekhilta. This suggests that to the compilers of these texts, probably composed in the middle of third century of the common era in Palestine, exile from the Land of Israel or residing in the Land were not burning issues. Indeed, following the Bar Kokhba revolt, the sages in the Land of Israel looked askance at those who had fled the Holy Land during the war and encouraged them to return to their ancestral homeland. At this time many of the most famous rabbinic dicta concerning the im­ portance of dwelling in the Land of Israel were penned. Perhaps these materials responded to the fact that although some of those who had left the Land were taken away by Roman soldiers and slavers, many had fled of their own freewill, so that not all were "exiles" in the classic sense of the term. However this might be, it is suggestive that while the rabbinic authors had an important message to convey to the Jews of their day, they only infrequently focused on exile in that message regard. These and the other statements lauding residence in 2

3

1

I wish to thank Professor Alan Avery-Peck, the Kraft-Hiatt Professor of Judaica Studies at the College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, for his invaluable assistance with this article. Michael Avi-Yonah, The Jews of Palestine: A Political History from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest (New York: Schocken Books, 1976) 25-8. Such as the following: "There are ten degrees of holiness and Eretz Yisrael is holier than all other countries"(m. Kelim 1:6); "Whoever lives in the Land of Israel is free from sin" (b. Ketub. 111a); "A person should dwell in the Land of Israel, even in a town with a gentile majority, and not outside the Land, even in a town which is totally [populated] with Israelites. [This] teaches that residing in the Land of Israel is equal [to performing] all of [the other] commandments which are in the Torah. And anyone who is buried in the Land of Israel it is as if s/he were buried under the altar [itself]" (t. Abod. Zar. 4:3). 2

3

250

PORTON

the Land of Israel together with the halakhic materials which encour­ aged one to dwell in the Holy Land testify to the sages' concern for those who were not part of the Jewish population of the ancestral homeland. Let us be clear from the start that the rabbis' relative disinterest in this topic is not a result of the exegetes' being limited by the Torah's contents, such that they had few occasions on which to focus their at­ tention on the idea of exile or the exiles themselves. There are, first, a number of biblical references in the latter four books of the Torah to the expulsion of the Israelites from the Land of Israel, so that biblical instances existed which could, and did, serve as pegs on which to hang discourses on exile. In addition, we shall see that there are other places where references to exile are not obvious but which in all events served the exegetical purposes of some of the rabbis. Given the nature of Midrash, it is difficult to conclude that the Torah's contents necessarily served as a constraint for the rabbis when they wished to deal with a particular issue. Rather, it seems clear that other issues were more central than exile to the authors of these early midrashic collections. Where the topic of exile does occur, the rabbis' interests are rather limited. The midrashim focus on those transgressions that caused the Israelites to go into exile. At times the texts are precise, delineating specific commandments which the Israelites failed to observe; at other times focus is on the general cause, the people's failure to follow God's will. Alongside this topic, for the most part the midrashim build on the information in the Bible itself, for instance, describing how God has joined the Israelites in exile, an idea which may be hinted at in the Bible, but which becomes explicit for some of our sages. There is also an attempt to turn a rather dire biblical passage into a much 4

5

4

Sifre" Deuteronomy Eqev 37-40, Finkelstein 69-84 contains numerous praises for the Land of Israel. The bibliography on rabbinic midrash grows daily. For example see the following: H. L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. Markus Bockmuehl; Edinburgh: Clark, 1991), 254-395; Jacob Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (The Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 221-547; Gary G. Porton, "Rabbinic Midrash," in Jacob Neusner (ed.), Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 1: Literary and Archaeological Sources (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.17.1; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 217-36. 5

THE IDEA OF EXILE IN EARLY RABBINIC MIDRASH

251

more positive picture, suggesting that God's exiling the Israelites is not as bad as it might have been. But these ideas do not receive ex­ tended discussions; they are only touched upon in our documents. Although the midrashic collections share common traits, even at times sharing passages and interpretations, each text is a unique col­ lection of rabbinic sayings. Over the recent past, a good deal of evi­ dence has been amassed which demonstrates that each rabbinic col­ lection has its own agenda, so that even when one compilation appro­ priates a passage from another, those borrowings are neither random nor haphazard. Before we can interpret the entire range of rabbinic sayings on any given issue, we must first examine the comments as they appear in each individual document. Indeed, the following con­ sideration of the idea of exile in each of the four early rabbinic midrashim shows that each collection has a specific sub-topic or sub­ topics it wishes to discuss under the heading of exile. 6

7

SlFRA Sifra is probably the earliest compilation of midrash, dating from about the second half of the third century. Although it is organized as an exegesis of the biblical book of Leviticus, it has a close connection to Mishnah. Its author(s) set about proving the validity of many of Mishnah's legal statements by locating appropriate scriptural prooftexts. In addition, Sifra discusses its own topics, and it contains many 8

9

6

The following publications clearly demonstrate the complex relationships which exist among rabbinic documents which deal with the sayings of individual sages. It becomes clear that each collection has its own agenda and reasons for saying what it does about the sage in question. Jacob Neusner, Development of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai (Leiden: Brill, 1970); idem, The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1971-1973); idem, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Traditions and the Man (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973); Gary G. Porton, The Traditions of Rabbi Ishmael (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1976-1982). Jacob Neusner has been the scholar who has most forcefully demonstrated that each rabbinic document should be studied as an entity on its own terms before it can be related to other rabbinic texts. This principle forms the basis of his Introduction to Rabbinic Literature, and the reader is encouraged to refer to the publications listed there for Neusner's arguments. Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 287. Neusner, Introduction, 271-4; Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 287. 7

8

9

252

PORTON

passages which are independent of Mishnah, such as its treatments of the idea of exile. Sifra offers several reasons for the Israelites' going into exile. After detailing those with whom an Israelite may not have sexual inter­ course, Lev 18:24-28 states: 10

Do not defile yourselves in any of those ways, for it is by such that the nations that I am casting out before you defiled themselves. Thus the land became de­ filed; and I call it to account for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhab­ itants...; for all those abhorrent things were done by the people who were in the land before you, and the land became defiled. So let not the land spew you out for defiling it, as it spewed out the nation that came before you. 11

The Bible explains that defilement is the reason for exile from the Land of Israel. Lev 18:24 states that YHWH cast out the people who occupied the Land before the Israelites because they had become de­ filed. Lev 18:25 and 18:28 describes the Land as the actor who spews out her inhabitants when she becomes defiled by their abominations. The Israelites are warned that if they engage in the same abomina­ tions, the Land will spew them out also. Sifra explains that the Land is defiled and made culpable for exile because of things which 12

13

14

15

16

1 0

Lev 18:6-23. The Bible not only mentions those members of one's family with whom one may not have intercourse, but it also prohibits intercourse with a woman who is experiencing her menstrual period, offering children to Molech, male homosexuality, and bestiality. The Hebrew root is ROD. The Hebrew root is rbti in the in the intensive, pie I, rbtin. The Hebrew root is irp, the word which appears in Jonah 2:11 with reference to the big fish's spewing forth Jonah. Levine writes: "The interdependence of the people and the land is a prominent theme in prophetic teaching. Those who violate the code of family life commit an outrage that defiles the land—which in turn, will spew them out. This, is, of course, one way of explaining the exile of a people from its land, a threat intrinsic to chapter 18. It is though the land, personified, is angered by its defilement at man's hand. Exile is punishment for an abhorrent way of life, not only as regards Israel, but also for all other nations. So, for example, until the prior inhabitants of Canaan reach the limit of their sinfulness, the Israelites cannot occupy their land...." Baruch A. Levine, The JPA Torah Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 123-4, n. 25. Aharei Mot, Pereq 13:19, Weiss 86c. The text reads "because of these things." This is the only passage in rabbinic literature in which we find "the Land is culpable for exile, (nkira^n-pwro)." This portion of Sifra does not occur in all editions and 1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

15

1 6

253

THE IDEA OF EXILE IN EARLY RABBINIC MIDRASH

the humans have done. The midrash implies that the Land, as well as the people, suffers when the Israelites are exiled from her. Clearly the Bible and Sifra agree that violating sexual taboos defiles the peo­ ple and the Land and is a reason that the Israelites, and the Canaanites, were exiled from her. Elsewhere, Sifra identifies another act which defiles the Land and causes Israel to go into exile. Lev 19:15 states, "You shall not render an unfair decision." A judge who acts in this manner cause five things to happen: 1) he defiles the Land, 2) he desecrates The Name of God, 3) he causes the Shekhinah to leave, 4) he causes Israel to fall by the sword, and 5) he causes Israel to be exiled from the Land. Here also we see the juxtaposition of one who defiles the Land with exile. This same passage occurs as an exegesis of Lev 19:35 where the same bib­ lical expression, oa^nn bty appears in the context of using fair mea­ sures and weights in the market, and as a comment on Lev 20:3, "because he gave of his seed to Molech and so defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name." Lev 25:18-19 twice refer to the Israelites' living securely in the Land: "You shall observe my laws and faithfully keep my rules, that you make live upon the land in security; the land shall yield its fruit and you shall eat your fill, and you shall live upon it in security." Sifra reads the first verse as follows: "that you may live upon the land" and not go into exile. "In security" refers to the fact that Israelites will not be scattered about. Similarly, "upon it" in the second verse means that they will not go into exile, while "in security" means not scattered and not frightened. Here we find that exile is caused by not keeping YHWH's rules and laws; however, there is no reference to defiling the Land, and we do not find any specific rules enumerated. 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

manuscripts; see Weiss' comment on 65d. B.Shab. 33a does mention that the violation of the sexual laws is one of the causes of exile. Interestingly, below we shall see that when the Israelites are in exile the Land does not suffer; rather, she enjoys the Sabbatical and Jubilee years which the Israelites failed to keep while they dwelt on her. Sifra Qedoshim, Pereq 9:14, Weiss 92c. Sifra Qedoshim, Pereq 4:1, Weiss 88d-89a. This set appears also in Sifre" Deuteronomy, infra, n. 52. Sifra Qedoshim Pereq 8:5, Weiss 91a. Sifra Qedoshim Parashah 10:8, Weiss 91c. Sifra BeHar Pereq 4:3, Weiss 107d. Sifra BeHar Pereq 4:4, Weiss 107d- 108a. 1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

254

PORTON

Leviticus 26 lays out the benefits that YHWH will bestow upon the Israelites when they follow God's law and the punishments YHWH will mete out to them if they do not observe God's commandments. Lev 26:30-33 read in part: "I will spurn you. I will lay your cities in ruin and make your sanctuaries desolate.... I will make the land deso­ late, so that your enemies who settle in it shall be appalled by it. And you I will scatter among the nations.... Your land shall become a desolation and your cities a ruin." While some midrashic texts claim that I will spurn you speaks of the removal of the Shekhinah, others hold that it refers to exile. Taken together these two opinions equate the removal of God's presence from Israel with the removal of the Israelites from the Land of Israel. Both of these reflect God's spurning the Israelites, so that living in the Land and having God's presence among the people are similar positive aspects of the Israelites' rela­ tionship to the Deity. Those who hold that the biblical text refers to the removal of the Shekhinah imply that only when the Shekhinah dwells in the Land among the people will the Land not be desolate. Aqiba maintains that Lev 26:38, "you shall perish among the nations," is about the ten tribes who went into exile in Media; others suggest that it is a reference to exile of any kind. Aqiba holds that the verse refers to the ten northern tribes whom he believed would never return to the Land of Israel. Finally, we are told that the years are interca­ lated, so that those living in exile have time to come to Jerusalem for a festival and return home. This seems to imply to normality of exile, for the calendar is manipulated to meet the needs of those who do not live in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, these people are assumed to follow tradition and travel to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage festivals. The midrash explains that God's making "the land desolate" is ac­ tually a good thing for the Israelites because once they go into exile they need not fear that their enemies will come into the Land of Israel and derive pleasure and reward from dwelling there. This is how Sifra reads Scripture's statement that God has made the Land desolate, "so that your enemies who settle in it shall be appalled by it" (Lev 25

26

27

28

2 5

Sifra Behuqotai Pereq 6:4, Weiss 112a. Sifra Behuqotai Pereq 8:1, Weiss 112b. M. Sanh. 10:3; b.Sanh. 110b. There Aqiba does not connect his opinion to this verse in Leviticus, but relates it to verses from Deuteronomy. Sifra Emor Parashah 9:1, Weiss 99d. 2 6

2 7

2 8

THE IDEA OF EXILE IN EARLY RABBINIC MIDRASH

255

29

26:32). But his reading is far-fetched. The Bible's specific point, indicated by the statement that YHWH will scatter Israel "among the nations," is that Israelites shall suffer because their communities will not be large enough for them to gain comfort from one another. Similarly, that fact that YHWH will cause the Israelites' cities to be a waste indicates that, while they are in exile, they must lose all hope from returning to their homes, vineyards, and cities. In Lev 26:41 YHWH states, "when I, in turn, have been hostile to them and have removed them into the land of their enemies, then at last shall their obdurate heart humble itself, and they shall atone for their iniquity." Again, the midrash reads this frightening picture into a positive image: while they are in exile God will not allow the Israelites to follow the ways of the gentiles; rather, YHWH will send prophets among them to guarantee that they will remain faithful to YHWH even though they are in exile. Sifra fairly consistently takes a detailed negative biblical passage and presents it in a positive manner. It is easy to understand why verses of despair were turned into verses of hope if this were composed after the disastrous war under Bar Kokhba, for even in the third century Palestine's agricultural economy had not been revived and numbers of Israelites were living throughout the Roman and Sassanian empires with little hope, or even desire, to return to reside in the Land of Israel. Sifra, again following the implication of the biblical text, relates the Jubilee years and exile. Lev 25:10 states that in the fiftieth year "you shall proclaim a release throughout the land for all its inhabitants," which the midrash interprets to mean that while the Israelites are liv­ ing on the Land they celebrate the Jubilees; however, they will not celebrate them in exile, or in the Land of Israel while some of them are living in exile. The Jubilee years have been canceled because the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh are in exile. Again, following the biblical text Sifra notes that one of the reasons that the Israelites 30

31

32

33

34

2 9

Sifra Behuqotai Pereq 6:5, Weiss 112a. Sifra Behuqotai Pereq 6:6, Weiss 112a. Sifra Behuqotai Pereq 7:1, Weiss 112b. Sifra Behuqotai Pereq 8:4, Weiss 122b. Sifra BeHar Pereq 2:3, Weiss 107a. Lev 26:34-35: "Then shall the land make up for its sabbath years throughout the time that it is desolate and you are in the land of your enemies; then shall the land rest and make up for its sabbath years. Throughout the time 3 0

3 1

3 2

3 3

3 4

256

PORTON

have been sent into exile is so that the Land can enjoy the Sabbatical and Jubilee years. In all, Sifra seems to have no clear theory of exile, but rather fol­ lows themes which appear in the biblical text. Clearly, exile results from the people's inappropriate sexual activities which have defiled the Land, and the Land caused the people to be removed from her. Because the Land is the major actor, any people which dwell on her is subject to exile for acting inappropriately. This merely repeats Leviticus' view. Sifra also holds that perverting justice or using unfair weights, among other things, defiles the Land and causes exile, among other things. Sifra reads this into the biblical text and connects exile with defilement of the Land, following the model of Leviticus 18. Elsewhere, exile results from the more general failure of the Israelites to follow YHWH's rules, but again, this merely follows the biblical narrative. Sifra's one interesting contribution is the interpretation of Lev 26:30-33, which puts a positive spin on the biblical verses that de­ scribe the terrible situation in which the Israelites' property within the Land is laid waste while they are scattered among the nations of the world. The midrash states that while destruction and exile are bad, YHWH has done it in such a way as not to destroy the Israelites com­ pletely or to irradicate their hope of returning to the Land. In this way, the midrash tones down the sharp pitch of the biblical text. Finally, again following the biblical text, exile is related to the Sabbatical and Jubilee years, which depend on the Land and upon which the Land is dependent. On the one hand, we are told that when any part of Israel goes into exile, the Jubilee years are canceled. On the other hand, following Leviticus, we learn that the Land will be able to enjoy a rejuvenating rest while the Israelites are in exile be­ cause she was unable to rest while they lived on the Land. Thus, while exile may not be beneficial to the People Israel, it is a positive thing for the Land to experience. This again serves to mitigate the negativity of the exile. Sifra frequently merely follows the biblical narrative in its discus­ sions of exile. However, it does seek to cast a somewhat positive light on another wise completely negative experience. 35

that it is desolate, it shall observe the rest that it did not observe in your sabbath years while you were dwelling upon it." Sifra Behuqotai Pereq 7:2, Weiss 112b; Behuqotai Pereq 8:9, Weiss 112c. 3 5

257

THE IDEA OF EXILE IN EARLY RABBINIC MIDRASH

SIFRE NUMBERS

While arguing that Sifre Numbers does not have a topical program other than systematically explaining Scripture, Neusner claims that this compilation in all events makes two important points: "(1) Reason unaided by Scripture produces uncertain propositions. (2) Reason op­ erating with the limits of Scripture produces truth." This collection is also dated to the middle of the third century of the common era. For our purposes the midrash consistently demonstrates from Scripture that God goes into exile with the Israelites; thus, this fact is estab­ lished in author(s)'s mind without question. Sifre Numbers demonstrates that exile affects God as well as the Israelites, for the Shekhinah, it maintains, goes into exile with the Israelites. 1 Sam 2:27, "I revealed Orrta) myself to your father's household while they were in Egypt, in Pharaoh's house," demon­ strates that the Shekhinah was in Egypt with the Israelites. While the interpretation depends on a pun—the Hebrew root nbi can mean "revealed" as it does in 1 Sam 2:27, or "exiled," as it does in the midrash—it does follow the clear implication of the biblical text. However, the biblical text explains that in Egypt God revealed himself to the Israelites. Although Egypt is not normally considered to be a place of exile, it is outside the Land of Israel, and for later genera­ tions, any place outside the Land is considered to be part of the exile. The passage further cites Isa 43:14, "for your sake I sent (Tlfatf) to Babylonia" to prove that the Shekhinah was in Babylonia with the Israelites. Apparently the midrash, which has Tnb% is reading this in the passive, "I was sent off." Next, Jer 49:38, "I put my throne in Elam," demonstrates that the Shekhinah went into exile in Elam. And finally, Isa 63:1, "Who is coming from Edom..." indicates that the Shekhinah was in Edom with the Israelites. Similarly, the midrash reads Deut 30:3 in such a way that it demonstrates that when the exiles return to the Land of Israel the Shekhinah returns with them. The biblical text is normally translated "YHWH your God will restore your 36

37

38

39

3 6

Neusner, Introduction, 306. Ibid. Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 292. Sifre* Beha'alotekha 84, Horovitz, 83. On this passage, see further in the present volume, Chaim Minkowsky, "Notions of Exile, Subjugation and Return in Rabbinic Literature. 3 7

3 8

3 9

,,

258

PORTON

captives;" however, the midrash notes that the verb is not in a transi­ tive form; rather, it appears to be in an intransitive conjugation. Thus, the midrash reads the verse as meaning: "YHWH your God will return with your captives" (the nfc which marks the direct object in Deuteronomy as the preposition na, meaning "with"). The passage is repeated as the last section of the collection, which adds that the Shekhinah's going into exile proves that Israel is beloved by God. The impact of the exile on YHWH is described in another passage as well. Job 25:3 implies that God's armies are unlimited, "Is there any number to his armies?" while Dan 7:10 limits them to a specific size, "a thousand thousand served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him." The midrash explains that the verse from Job ap­ plied before the Israelites were exiled; after they were exiled, the numbers in Daniel were correct. God's forces, that is, were limited be­ cause the Israelites were exiled. God suffered a loss while they were in exile, and perhaps afterward as well. Sifre Numbers goes out of its way to stress that God was affected by exile along with the Israelites. The midrash makes the point that the Shekhinah, God's presence on earth which interacts with hu­ mankind, went wherever the Israelites went and returned with them to the Land of Israel. For the most part, the biblical texts from which this is derived are not as clear-cut on the matter as the Midrash suggests. Clearly, the author wanted to make this point and was forced to find biblical warrant for it. This concept of the Shekhinah's going into ex­ ile with the Israelites was so important to the final compilers of the collection that they repeated this message in a section of consolation with which the entire midrashic document was to end. While for Sifra there was a rather consistent connection between the Land and exile, in Sifre Numbers the connection is between God and those in exile. Sifra was concerned with the causes of exile and focused its attention on the Land from which the Israelites were expelled. In brief, Sifra fo­ cused on from where the Israelites had been exiled. Sifre Numbers, on the other hand, is concerned with the Israelites' destination, and with offering them hope even though they are no longer on the Land. By emphasizing that God accompanied the Israelites when they departed from the Holy Land, the author(s) assure the exiles that they can still 40

41

4 0

Sifre* Beha 'alotekha 84, Horovitz, 83. Cf., Mesaei 161, Horovitz, 222-223. Significantly, this is the last section of the midrash. Sifre* Naso 42, Horovitz, 47. 4 1

259

THE IDEA OF EXILE IN EARLY RABBINIC MIDRASH

experience God's blessings even though they are no longer residing where they belong. Interestingly, both Sifra's reinterpretation of Lev 26:30-33 and Sifre Number's insistence that God accompanies the Israelites into exile serve to lessen the horrors of living outside the Land of Israel, the Land where Y H W H was thought to reside by the biblical authors and the Land on which the Israelites were meant to live. SIFRE DEUTERONOMY

Neusner argues that the authors of Sifre Deuteronomy attempted to reframe the specific rules and cases in Deuteronomy, so that they could be more generally applied. The message in this compilation is that violation of God's commandments leads to punishment, and exile serves as a good example of this principle. This is a complex collec­ tion made up of material from different periods; however, the final redaction is probably in the late third century of the common era. Deut 11:10 states: "For the land that you are about to enter and pos­ sess is not like the land of Egypt from which you have come." The midrash explains that the Israelites were not required to go into Egypt and that they dwelt there whether or not they followed YHWH's com­ mandments. On the other hand, the Israelites were required to settle in the Land of Canaan, and if they fail to obey God's will, they will be sent into exile, as Lev 18:28 makes clear. By citing the verse from Leviticus, the passage again brings to mind the defilement of the Land and the Land's spewing out those who defile her. This is important, for this is the only place in this compilation where the Land is referred to as the Land of Canaan, and not the Land of Israel. This indicates that the Israelites should remember, as the passage in the Leviticus states, that they can be spewed out in the same way that the Land spewed out the Canaanites. Following one sense of the biblical text, an interpretation of the phrase fierce anger in Deut 11:17 suggests that Israel goes into exile as a result of God's anger, which was aroused in the biblical context when the Israelites served other divine beings besides YHWH. Deut 11:16-17,state, "Take care not to be lured away to serve other gods 42

43

44

4 2

4 3

4 4

Neusner, Introduction, 328-9. Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 297. Sifre* Deuteronomy Eqev 38, Finkelstein 77.

260

PORTON

and bow to them." For YHWH's "fierce anger will flare up against you and he will shut up the skies so that there will be not rain...and you will soon perish from the good land that YHWH is assigning to you." On the basis of several gezarot shavot on the phrase "fierce anger" will flare, the midrash explains that the phrase refers to punishment by sword, pestilence, evil wild beasts, withholding rain, and exile. The midrash then offers an alternative interpretation of "for YHWH's fierce anger will flare up" which claims that when exile is weighed against the forms of YHWH's punishments, we discover that exile is the most severe. Deut 29:27 notes that YHWH was so angry with the people that he cast them into another land as is still the case, which means that exile lasts longer than the other forms of punish­ ment. Jer 15:2 lists several punishments, apparently in the order of their severity: death, sword, famine, and captivity, taken to mean ex­ ile. Apparently this means that immediate death is less severe than dying by a sword; dying by a sword is faster than starving to death in a famine; and starving to death in a famine is better than living in ex­ ile in captivity. Similarly, Amos 7:17 contains a list of punishments also placing captivity last: "Your wife shall play the harlot in the town, your sons and daughters shall fall by the sword, and your land shall be divided up with a measuring line. And you yourself shall die on unclean soil; for Israel shall be exiled from its soil." Jer 22:10 is also cited. The former verse refers to one "who goes away, for he shall return no more, nor see his native country." The phrase, "and you shall soon perish," in Deut 11:17, is rephrased as follows: "I will exile you immediately, and I will not grant you any extension." While God granted an extension of 120 years to the gen­ eration of the flood, YHWH will not be so generous to the Israelites because unlike the generation of the flood, they had previous genera­ tions to learn from. The phrase is also taken to mean that the 45

46

47

48

4 5

Sifre* Deuteronomy Eqev 43, Finkelstein 99. Finkelstein refers to Sifra Behuqotai 8 in which we are told that the word perish refers to exile; Finkelstein 99-100, note on line 8. However, the plain sense of the biblical text permits the meaning of exile in this context. See the note of Rabbenu Hillel who refers to Yohanan's statement; Finkelstein also has the reference; Finkelstein 100, note to line 12. Sifre* Deuteronomy Eqev 43, Finkelstein 100. Sifre* Deuteronomy Eqev 43, Finkelstein 101; however, compare Heezenu 325, Finkelstein, 377 where we are told that God waits before he punishes Israel. 4 6

4 7

4 8

261

THE IDEA OF EXILE IN EARLY RABBINIC MIDRASH 49

Israelites will experience one exile after another. Another passage focuses on the phrase "the good land" and notes that the Israelites will be exiled from a good land to a land which is not like it in goodness. Although the Israelites may live in exile, they are still responsible for fulfilling the commandments and following God's word. The midrash conjoins the end of Deut 11:17 with the opening of Deut 11:18 to make this point: "And you will soon perish...therefore im­ press these my words...." God tells Israel that even though they are going into exile, they must still follow the commandments, so that when they return to the Land of Israel God's law will not be new and foreign to them. Jer 31:21 is appropriately cited, for in the context of his promise that the Israelites will return to their native land, Jeremiah states, "Erect markers, set up signposts; keep in mind the high, the road that you have traveled. Return maiden Israel! Return to these towns of yours!" The commandments are the "markers," and the "signposts" refer to the obligation to remember the destruction of the Temple. A similar point is made elsewhere, where we read that those commandments which depend on the Land of Israel can be observed only when Israel dwells in the Land; however, those commandments which are not dependent on the Land, must be observed even while the people dwell outside the Land, which implies, but does not state, even in exile. At one point the midrash describes the "men of exile" as well-versed and mighty in Torah who are able to engage in Torah study. Despite this fact, the collection does maintain that living in the Land of Israel is equal to all of the other commandments. Deut 17:2 refers to one "who has affronted YHWH your God and transgressed his covenant." Such a person defiles the Land, profanes the Name of God, causes the removal of the Shekhinah, causes Israel to fall by the sword, and causes Israel to be exiled from their Land. The midrash also demonstrates that this applies to one who worships 50

51

52

53

54

4 9

5 0

5 1

5 2

5 3

5 4

Sifre* Deuteronomy Eqev 43, Finkelstein 101. Sifre* Deuteronomy Eqev 43, Finkelstein 102. Sifre* Deuteronomy Eqev 43, Finkelstein 102. Sifre* Deuteronomy Eqev 44, Finkelstein 103; cf., Reah, Finkelstein 125. Sifre* Deuteronomy Heezenu 321, Finkelstein 370. Sifre* Deuteronomy Reah 80, Finkelstein 147.

262

PORTON 55

56

idols. Elsewhere we learn that exile is a result of sin. In a rather long passage that explains the evils of and abundance of food, drink, and ease of life we read that the ten tribes were exiled because of an abundance of food and drink. Sifre Deuteronomy focuses on the commandments in relationship to the idea of exile. Sifre Deuteronomy argues that the Israelites were commanded to live in the Land of Israel; therefore, being in exile in­ dicates that they have violated YHWH's law. By implication the viola­ tion of the sexual taboos leads to exile, but also does worshipping deities other than Y H W H , sinning, or an overabundance of food and drink. While God visits many different types of punishment upon the Israelites, exile is the worst of them all, a point made by the Torah as well as by some of the prophets. And the Israelites' evilness can pro­ duce a succession of exiles. Although the Israelites are experiencing a form of punishment by being in exile, they still are required to per­ form all of the relevant mitzvot. 57

MEKHILTA D E RABBI ISHMAEL

Neusner describes Mekhilta as follows: "...[T]he document comprises the first scriptural encyclopedia of Judaism. A scriptural encyclopedia joins together expositions of topics and disquisitions on propositions, in general precipitated by the themes of scriptural narrative or the dic­ tates of biblical law, and collects and arranges in accord with Scripture's order and program the exegesis...of clauses of biblical verses." The "encyclopedic nature" of this midrash is evidenced by its lack of a clear thematic focus on or a unique contribution to the discussion of exile. There is a good deal of debate concerning the date of this collection, partially as a result of its composite nature. However, the material probably comes from the latter half of the third century of the common era. Mekhilta has little to say concerning exile. The midrash contains the same passage that we saw above in Sifre Numbers which demon58

59

5 5

Sifre* Deuteronomy Shoftim 148, Finkelstein 203. We have seen this phrase several times above in Sifra. Sifre* Deuteronomy Shoftim 158, Finkelstein 210. Sifre* Deuteronomy Heezenu 318, Finkelstein 362. Neusner, Introduction, 251. Strack and Stemberger, Introduction, 277-8; cf. Neusner, Introduction, 249-51. 5 6

5 7

5 8

5 9

263

THE IDEA OF EXILE IN EARLY RABBINIC MIDRASH 60

strates that the Shekhinah went into exile with the Israelites. We read that exile is a result of the Israelites' "feebleness of hands," which re­ sulted in their failure to uphold the Torah. We are also told that when God exiled Israel, he did so by means of clouds; however, God also brought them into the Land by means of clouds. Mekhilta notes that there is an end to exile, for the exiles of Judah returned to their exact place. Here we find R. Ishmael's teaching that God's anger refers to withholding rain and causing the Israelites to go into exile. 61

62

63

64

CONCLUSIONS

While the midrashim differ regarding the exact causes of exile, all concur on what is, in all events, explained in Scripture: Exile is pun­ ishment for disobeying God. In fact, according to Sifre Deuteronomy, exile is one of the worse, if not the worst, form of punishment God can deliver. Another central idea, explicit in Leviticus, is that the Land sends into exile people who defile her, so that she expels the Canaanites as well as the Israelites. While exile obviously is bad, the texts record some mitigating factors. While the Israelites are in exile, the Land can rest during the Sabbatical and Jubilee years. Also, God acts in such way that the Israelites would not be totally despondent while in exile. Alongside the rather obvious encompassing agenda, each collection, with the exception of Mekhilta, the "encyclopedia," has its own con­ cerns and primary focus. Sifra stays fairly close to its selected texts from Leviticus, and it is most concerned with the relationship between the Land and exile. The Land spews out people and sends them into exile. The celebration of the Jubilee years is connected to exile, and the Land's ability to enjoy rest is also connected to exile. Sifra is fo­ cuses on the place from which the Israelites were expelled. Sifre Numbers is most interested in demonstrating that the Shekhinah goes into exile with the Israelites. Even though exile is a form of punish­ ment, God does not desert the Israelites when they are expelled from the Land of Israel. That is, this midrashic compilation focuses its at-

6 0

6 1

6 2

6 3

6 4

Mekhilta Ishmael Bo 14, Horovitz and Rabin 51-52. Mekhilta Ishmael BeShalah/Amalek 1, Horovitz and Rabin 177-178. Mekhilta Ishmael BeShalah 5, Horovitz and Rabin 108. Mekhilta Ishmael BeShalah/Amalek 1, Horovitz and Rabin 178. Mekhilta Ishmael Mishpatim 18, Horovtiz and Rabin 314; cf., supra, n. 40.

264

PORTON

tention on the areas to which the Israelites were driven when they forced to leave the Land. Sifre Deuteronomy stresses the relationship between the commandments and exile. It makes it clear that the Israelites are responsible for observing the appropriate commandments even though they are being punished by living in exile. Taken as a whole, the early midrashim teach us that exile is a severe punishment which results from the Israelites' defiling the Land by failing to observe God's commandments. However, the Bible's horri­ ble description of the Land's desolation may not be as bad for the Israelites as it may appear at first. Being in exile does not mean that the Israelites cannot benefit from God's blessings and protection, for the Shekhinah, God's presence on earth, accompanies them. God is everywhere that the Israelites dwell, and the system of mitzvot is rele­ vant wherever the Israelites live. By the middle of the third century of the common era, the Jews of Palestine had lost two major wars with Rome. Their settlements had been severely damaged during these struggles, and any hope of re­ building the Temple, or even visiting Jerusalem freely and openly, was gone. The agricultural economy of Palestine had been seriously disrupted, and the Roman empire as a whole was undergoing major economic changes. Living in the Land of Israel did not conform to the picture painted by the biblical texts. In addition, the Babylonian Jewish community was beginning to prosper and to show its vitality. Babylonian rabbis were challenging the superiority of their Palestinian counterparts. Finally, Jews were spread throughout the expanding Roman empire. The midrashim walk a fine line between the biblical insistence that all Israelites, and only Israelites, are supposed to live on the Land, and the reality that many Israelites dwell in other loca­ tions and the majority of the people who lived on the Land did not worship YHWH. Also, the Jews residing in the Holy Land were not necessarily more prosperous than their counterparts living elsewhere, so that the Bible's message that exile was a form of punishment had to be adjusted to the fact that Jews outside the Land seem to be enjoying God's blessings. In brief, the midrashim seem to tell us what we would expect if God's eternal word had meaning for the period in which they were composed.

NOTIONS OF EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE Chaim Milikowsky Bar-Ilan University INTRODUCTION

It is a common truism in Judaism to speak of the two exiles that the Jewish people underwent, the Babylonian exile and the Roman exile, these two exiles taking place immediately after the destruction of the two temples. As is well known, the discourse of exile and return is paradigmatic and dominant from Deuteronomy on, and we often see texts which presuppose or explicitly propose a close correlation be­ tween the events surrounding the first destruction and those surround­ ing the second destruction: before each destruction, the conquering army laid siege to Jerusalem for an extended period, eventually breached the walls and then destroyed the temple, and subsequently exiled the Jews from the Land of Israel. Obviously, the comparison and contrast of these two temple destructions and mass exiles can have many different functions, didactic, homiletic, exegetic, as we shall see in a minute, and most interestingly, also halakhic. We shall not be dealing here with this entire construct; those as­ pects of these two conquests which center upon the destruction of the Temple will concern us only when they impinge upon the direct sub­ ject of our focus—the notion of twin exiles, Babylonian and Roman. It should be pointed out, however, that very often the various strands of 1

2

3

1

It is in a sense anachronistic to speak of the Jewish people when dealing with the first exile, but of course we are not dealing with the events of the first exile, only with the perceptions of these events. A famous passage which parallels the first and second destructions is found in t. Ta'an. 3.9 and parallels: Both destructions occurred on the same day of the week, the same day of the month, the same year of the sabbatical cycle, and the same priestly watch. I use the term "construct" here advisedly. In our present context, the extent of correspondence between these constructs and the facts of the situation is of little or no importance. 2

3

266

MILIKOWSKY

these notions are so closely tied in with one another that it is difficult to detach them. "EXILE" AS FOREIGN DOMINATION

A classic example of a twinning focusing solely upon the exile is found in the medieval biblical commentary of Nachmanides (Ramban) on Lev 26:16; he discusses there the meaning and purpose of the two large curse passages included in the Torah, Lev 26:14-39 and Deut 28:15-60. His brilliant explanation—brilliant, that is, from a homiletical point of view—is that the curse passage located in Leviticus, i.e. the first one, refers to the first exile, the Babylonian exile, and the curse passage located in Deuteronomy, i.e. the second one, refers to the second exile, the Roman exile, which, he explains, is "our presentday exile, [within] which we are dispersed from one end of the world to the other." Nachmanides' comments are ideal for our purposes because they are controlled by the biblical contexts and these have nothing in them which would motivate him to underline the interrelationship of mass exile and temple destruction—an interrelationship which was all too obvious to him, and never even needed to be stated explicitly. And in­ deed, other passages focusing on the two exiles of the Jewish peo­ ple—and there are many such comparisons and contrasts of the two exiles in Jewish literature throughout the centuries—generally fuse together the destruction and the exile of both the Babylonian and Roman conquests. The question we shall attempt to address is if this notion of com­ bined conquest, temple destruction, and exile—which, of course, de4

5

4

The identification of the Roman exile with the present-day exile is, for Nahmanides and all medieval and subsequent scholars, dependent upon the simple fact that since the conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans, there had been no rebuilding of the Temple nor any mass ingathering of the exiles. There may also be here a subtext which accepts the common medieval view of seeing the Holy Roman Empire specifically and the Christian European commonwealth in general as being the direct continuation of the Roman Empire of antiquity. For Jews who lived in Christian Europe, no problems were caused by this basic historiographical scheme, but for Jews who lived in the Muslim East, there was of course a need to fit their political reality into the earlier conceptions. See, for example, Kimchi's commentary on Isa 40:2; Responsum of R. Solomon b Abraham ibn Adret (Rashba), Part 4, Responsa 187. 5

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

267

rives clearly from the biblical data with regard to the Babylonian con­ quest of Jerusalem, destruction of the first temple and subsequent ex­ ile—is found already in rabbinic literature with regard to the Roman conquest. Unquestionably, later centuries saw the events which fol­ lowed the Roman destruction of the Second Temple as being parallel to the events which followed the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple. Our concern is to try and determine if this paradigmatic and typological "reading" of relatively recent history was already known to the Rabbis. To put it plainly, did they perceive and speak of the Roman exile in parallel to their perception of and discourse on the Babylonian exile? At first glance, the answer to this question would seem to be an un­ qualified yes. Thus, a famous passage in Sifrei Numbers, section 84, which tells of the Shekhina (= Divine Presence) going into exile to­ gether with the People of Israel—following the editio princeps and the standard editions—reads as follows: 6

So one finds that every place to which they [sc. Israel] were exiled, the Shekhinah was with them, as it says, "I was exiled (TP'aa rfrun) to your fa­ ther's house while they were in Egypt, in Pharaoh's house" (1 Sam 2:27). They were exiled to Babylon and the Shekhinah was with them, as it says, "For your sake I was sent Onn^tf [Bible]; rrtrti [Sifrei]) to Babylon" (Isa 43:14). They were exiled to Edom and the Shekhinah was with them, as it 7

6

The editio princeps was printed in Venice, 1545, and a photographic reproduction was published in Jerusalem, 1971; the passage is found on p. 12b. The same text is also found in, e.g., Sifrei... 7m nushat ha-sifrei... u-bi'ur... 'emeq ha-neziv me- et...naftali zevi yehudah berlin (Jerusalem, 1960) 1.270 and Sifrei 'im pirush zera' 'avraham le-ha-rav...'avraham yequti'el zalman...likhtstein (Dyhernfurth, 1811) 32a, two typical editions of the standard text of the Sifrei. My translation of the biblical texts quoted in this passage follows the midrashic reading of the verse, and in several of the cases differs quite radically from the standard literal-contextual translation of the verses. On the idea of the Divine Presence going into exile, see the article by Cohen (below, n. 9), the earlier secondary literature he cites, and the material assembled by R. Hammer, "Galut ve-sevel ha-shekhinah in Tura: Studies in Jewish Thought; Simon Greenberg Jubilee Volume (Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbuz Ha-Me'uhad, 1989) 20-27. See further in the present volume, Gary G. Porton, "The Idea of Exile in Early Rabbinic Midrash," and Bruce Chilton, "Salvific Exile in the Isaiah Targum." Edom, Esau and Se'ir are all epithets for Rome in rabbinic literature. This usage has been discussed extensively; see G. Cohen, "Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought," Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, in A. Altmann (ed.), (Cambridge: Harvard, 1967) 19-27; L. Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of ,

7

268

MILIKOWSKY

says, "Who is this that comes from Edom [It is I]" (Isa 63:1). And when they return, the Shekhinah returns with them, as it says, "And the Lord your God will return (ntfi) with your retura. ,,

The parallelism seems indisputable: the Shekhinah was with Israel while they were in Egypt and then twice again, when they were exiled to Babylon and when they were exiled to Rome. This would seem to imply that the author of this passage knows of an exile to Rome and considers it to be essentially analogous to the Babylonian exile. This same coupling of Babylon and Rome as the two locales to which Israel were exiled after they entered the Land of Israel also appears in the Babylonian Talmud parallel to this passage, Meg 29a. Though the standard vulgate editions of the Talmud in general use include only Egypt and Babylon, the first edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Venice 1520, contains Egypt, Babylon, and Edom, just like Sifrei Numbers. However, when one peruses the testimony of the manuscript tradi­ tion of these two rabbinic works, one sees immediately that this in­ terpretation of the passage cannot stand. As cited by H. S. Horovitz in his critical edition of Sifre Numbers, all witnesses to this text, other than the editio princeps and the printed editions based upon it, add to the two places of exile quoted above, that is, Babylon and Edom, a third place to which Israel was exiled, Elam, and as prooftext the midrash quotes "And I will set my throne in Elam" (Jer 49:38). The exact same phenomenon is true for the passage in the Babylonian Talmud: all of the witnesses to this text, other than the printed edi­ tions, contain Babylon, Rome, and Elam. 8

9

Jacob," JQR 79 (1988-9) 130-33; M. Hadas-Lebel, "Jacob et Esau ou Israel et Rome dans le talmud et le midrash," Revue de VHistoire des Religions 201 (1984) 369-92, and the further literature they cite. H. S. Horowitz, Sifre Numbers (Leipzig, 1917; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1966) 83. R. N. N. Rabbinovicz, Diqduqe Sofrim: Variae Lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Babylonicum (reprint: New York, 1960), ad. loc, already noted many years ago that (1) the early editions contain Babylon and Edom; (2) the text found in the standard vulgate editions which contains only Babylon is a late emended text, indeed a censored text, from which the mention of an exile to Edom was removed; and (3) all manuscripts whose readings he checked—that is, London MS, British Library Harl. 5508, Oxford MS, Bodleian Opp. Add. Fol. 23, and Munich MS, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek hebr. 95—include all three locales, Babylon, Edom, and Elam. The same basic particulars are true for the three 8

9

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

269

Elam, for the Rabbis, was nothing other than another name for Persia and Media, which were themselves generally considered to be one entity. This identification is just about explicit in Ber. Rab. 41.4 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 409), where Chedorlaomer, the king of Elam, is 10

additional manuscripts of tractate Megilla known today: Gottingen MS, Niedersachsische Staats-und Universitatsbibliothek hebr. 3, New York MS, Columbia University Library X893 - T141, and Vatican MS, hebr. 134. Thus N. J. Cohen, "Shekhinta Ba-Galuta: A Midrashic Response to Destruction and Persecution," JSJ 13 (1982) 147-59 (155), is clearly mistaken in claiming that it was the "Rabbis" who cut this list of exiles from four to two. (It should also be pointed out that Cohen, ibid., n. 34, misunderstood the nature of Buber's edition of Lamentations Rabbah\ the text is always based upon a specific manuscript, which belongs to a different recension than the text found in the standard editions, and Buber's notes on readings seen in medieval works have the purpose of indicating agreement between these citations and the manuscript he is using). There are, however, interesting discrepancies between the various witnesses to the text regarding the order of the nations mentioned: as opposed to the situation in all the other parallels, which follow the historical order, beginning with Egypt, continuing with Babylon and Elam, and ending with Edom, the majority of textual witnesses of b. Meg. 29a have the sequence Egypt, Edom, Elam and Babylon, with the sequences Egypt, Elam, Edom and Babylon and Egypt, Babylon, Elam and Edom also attested. It is quite possible that Babylon was purposely placed last because the subsequent discussion in the Talmud focuses on the continuing presence of the Shekhina in Babylon, but I have no explanation for Edom's preceding Elam. See, e.g., Ber. Rab. 2.4 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, 16), 16.4 (147), Vayyiqra Rabbah 13.4 (ed. Margulies, 285), 15.9 (338), and many more, all of which identify the national entity found in the story of Esther as the Medes. Indeed, as J. M. Cook, The Persian Empire (London: Dent, 1983) 42-3, writes, .. .the Greeks generally continued to know the great power in Asia as the Medes And it is not only the Greeks; Jews, Egyptians (who also used the word Mede as a term of abuse) and even Minaeans from southern Arabia continued almost indefinitely to speak of the Medes and not of the Persians." There are, however, a number of rabbinic traditions which differentiate between the reign of Darius the Mede, who is mentioned in Dan 6.1 as the conqueror of Babylon, and that of the later Persian kings; see, e.g., Exod. Rab. 15.6. This distinction is presumably based upon Dan 9:1: "In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans." One can legitimately infer that if he were king "over the kingdom of the Chaldeans," then the kingdom of the Persians and Medes had not yet begun. (Note that many translations render this verse as "became king over the realm of the Chaldeans," which I think introduces an implication not found in the verse itself and conceals the problem). 1 0

44

270

MILIKOWSKY 11

understood to denote Media, and entirely explicit in the Palestinian Talmud, Ta 'an. 1.1 (64a), which cites as its proof text Dan 8:2, where Susa is said to be the capital of Elam. The above-noted manuscript evidence is sufficient in and of itself to prove that the passage in both Sifrei Numbers and in the Babylonian Talmud originally spoke of at least three exiles, Babylon, Elam and Edom. In addition, two early parallels to this passage, one located later in Sifrei Numbers itself, section 1 6 1 , and the other in the Mekhilta on Exodus, Pasha, section 14, as well as an additional parallel found in the Palestinian Talmud, Ta 'an. 1.1 (64a), also con­ tain Elam. Before we recommence our analysis of this passage in the light of the inclusion of Elam, we must point out another difference between the passage we cited above from Sifrei Numbers and its parallels. Though the aforementioned passage speaks of Israel being in Egypt and of the Shekhina being there with them, it does not speak of the exile of Israel to Egypt, as it does of the exile to Babylon and to Rome. There is a certain logic in this: after all, the journey made by Jacob and his sons to Egypt was entirely of their own free will, and it does not seem quite proper to call it an "exile." Nonetheless, all four parallels to this passage cited above state explicitly, "They were exiled to Egypt and the Shekhinah was with them, as it says, T was exiled (TP^a r\bysi) to your father's house while they were in Egypt, in Pharaoh's house'" (1 Sam 2:27). There can be little doubt, therefore, that the original formulation of this passage, which underlies all five parallels, specified four different exiles of Israel—to Egypt, to Babylon, to Elam and to Edom (= Rome). We have therefore diverged considerably from our original 12

13

14

15

16

11

It is possible to claim that this identification is midrashic in the same way that the identification of Ellasar as Greece is clearly midrashic (and perhaps based, as Theodor suggests in his commentary, on the similar sounds of Ellasar and Hellas). The reason I write "at least" will be clear in a moment. Ed. Horovitz, 222-3. Ed. Horovitz-Rabin (Jerusalem, 1960) 51-2. The Palestinian Talmud passage—and also its close parallel in Lam. Rab. 1.54—will be examined in detail below. I distinguish here between the original formulation of this passage, which definitely included all four exiles, and the original reading of the Sifrei Numbers, section 84. Since the sentence, "They were exiled to Egypt and the Shekhinah was 1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

271

understanding of this passage. This midrash cannot be using the phrase "were exiled" in its standard denotation, since this would imply that Israel was at different specific points in its history expelled from their home and transferred against their will to Egypt and Elam, and clearly, no one would ever make such a suggestion. Consequently, one cannot deduce from the passage anything about an exile to Rome ei­ ther; there is no need to think that the midrash presumes a specific ex­ ile from Israel to Rome, which would supposedly have taken place at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. However we will in­ terpret the "exiles" to Egypt and Elam, so will we interpret the "exile" to Rome. I think the key to the proper understanding of this passage can be found in the Palestinian Talmud parallel mentioned above. Interestingly, it has not four exiles, as do all the other above-noted parallels, but five: it adds Greece to Egypt, Babylon, Elam and Edom, placing it between the latter two. It is improbable that this is a more original formulation of the passage inasmuch as all the other parallels do not include Greece; nonetheless, this formulation tells us how the original passage was understood by a later rabbinic expositor. The crucial point is that the progression Babylon, Media, Greece and Rome is classic in rabbinic literature, and represents the subjuga17

with them," is not found in any primary witness to this latter text, it may very well have been excised by an editor or redactor as a result of his contemplation of the problem we noted above—there never was an exile to Egypt, and therefore never was included in the text of Sifrei Numbers, section 84. On the other hand, it very well may be that this passage also originally included the missing sentence, and it fell as a result of a homoeoteleuton. The word used is "Yavan," which is the standard rabbinic term for Greece. The parallel in Lam. Rab. 1.54 also includes Greece, but not Edom. This is presumably a scribal error or a censor's emendation; it is difficult to conceive why an expositor in a synagogue or a redactor of a finished midrashic work should omit Rome purposefully. The passage was also changed in that it skips Egypt and begins with Babylon; this was quite possibly an editorial revision. There is no possibility of determining if Lamentations Rabbah is directly dependent upon the Palestinian Talmud or not. It should be noted, though, that the passage appears only in the recension of Lamentations Rabbah text presented by the standard vulgate editions, but not in the recension printed by Buber. For the very basic facts about the two recensions of Lamentations Rabbah, see G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1996) 284, to which should be added the still useful note in H. L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1931) 338 n. 4. 1 7

272

MILIKOWSKY

tion of Israel by the gentile nations of the world, from its first loss of independence at the time of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar un­ til the future redemption. Israel's "going into exile" in this passage should not be understood as denoting a physical removal from the Land of Israel to Babylon, Media, Greece and Rome, but rather the subordination and vassalage of Israel to these nations. Israel was never exiled from Israel to Media or to Greece, but it was subjugated to these nations. In the light of our claim that this progression of four kingdoms is so canonical in rabbinic literature—and we shall indeed return to it di­ rectly—we must ask why the original formulator of this midrash in­ cluded only three of the four kingdoms, Babylon, Media and Rome, and did not also include Greece, thereby leaving it to his later reviser, that is, the author of the modified midrash found in the Palestinian Talmud, to add Greece. The answer is, in truth, very simple but has an important methodological lesson to teach us: it is essential to be aware of the exegetical and homiletical foundational context for so much of rabbinic literature. After all, the focus of the passage is not the various exiles themselves but the biblical indications that the Shekhinah was present with Israel when they were exiled: the original formulator simply had no possible prooftext which could apply to Greece. And indeed, it is difficult to see how Zech 9:13, which is the verse cited as prooftext in the Palestinian Talmud, even together with the following verse, which is added in Lam. Rab. 1.54, can be used to support the claim that the Shekhinah was present in Greece. Though I am convinced that this understanding of the "exile" pas­ sage is correct, nonetheless, it is possible to suggest another interpre­ tation of the original passage. Rather than understanding the four 18

19

20

21

1 8

The notion of the Four Empires is a famous one and has been extensively discussed in the scholarly literature; see the references I cite below, n. 33. The "exile of Greece" refers therefore to the conquest of the Near East by Alexander the Great and the subsequent subjugation of the Jews to the Hellenistic kingdoms, which lasted until the Roman conquest of the Near East. The verses in Zechariah indicate that God fought against Greece, not that he was present there. This, by the way, is a not infrequent characteristic of secondary midrashic texts; the revisor of the original midrash is less attuned to the interplay of the biblical text and the midrashic assertion than the original formulator. As we shall see, this interpretation cannot be applied to the passage as it is formulated in the Palestinian Talmud. 1 9

2 0

2 1

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

273

"exiles" as representing unequivocally "subjugation," it is possible that they are also meant to suggest "foreign lands where Israel was dispersed at various times in its history." At various times, parts of the people of Israel lived in Egypt, Babylon, Media and Rome, and when they were there the Divine Presence was there with them. A further possible corollary of such an interpretation would be that the Shekhina is present with Israel in all these various lands, even after they had al­ ready been "exiled/dispersed" to the next land on the list. Some such an amorphous understanding of the Tannaitic "exile" passage seems to be implied in the Amoraic discussion found in Babylonian Talmud after its citation: the Talmud asks, where in Babylon is the Shekhina to be found, though it, of course, knows that the "Babylonian exile" is over. It is, however, extremely improbable that any Rabbi would have felt it necessary to include Greece among the foreign lands where Israel was dispersed at various times in its history, and so this interpretation cannot be applied to the Palestinian Talmud formulation of this midrash. Furthermore, I do not think that itemizing the various lands where Jews are to be found is a widespread motif in rabbinic litera­ ture, while, as we mentioned above, the motif of the subjugation of Israel by four kingdoms is very extensive. And lastly, the tannaitic midrash seems to presume specific moments in time when something happened, and this fits in better with subjugation than with dispersion. Subjugation must therefore be considered a central component of the cluster of ideas invoked by the mention of a "going into exile" since at least one rabbinic formulator had no hesitation in talking of Israel "going into exile" to a country to which no Jews were exiled, though quite possibly dispersion is also in mind. What is abundantly clear, however, is that this passage cannot be used as evidence to support the notion that the Rabbis conceived of 22

2 2

Another occurrence of the phrase "exile of Greece" is found in Midr. Pss. 30:6 (ed. Buber, 236), and there the context compels us to discount any element of actual population transfer or dispersion in our understanding of the word exile. The midrash reads: "'0 Lord My God, I cried to you for help' (Ps 30:2), in the Exile of Greece; 'and you have healed me' (ibid.), by means of the Hasmonean and his sons." Note that the healing of Israel, while in the Exile of Greece, takes place in the Land of Israel. Also worth noting is Midr. Pss. 120:2 (505), where Israel is speaking in the first person and says that "they made me go from Babylon to Media, and from Media to Greece, and from Greece to Edom."

274

MILIKOWSKY

the Roman destruction of the temple and exile of Israel in similar terms to its conception of the Babylonian destruction and exile. Though the passage does not prove the opposite either, at the very least it leaves open the question whether the rabbinic conception of Israel's exile to Rome is comparable to its conception of Israel's exile to Babylon. Quite possibly, one should further conclude that if the ex­ ile to Babylon and the exile to Rome were considered to be analogous to one another, it is unlikely that the author of this midrash would be inclined to include along with these two exiles the exile to Egypt and the exile to Elam. We must also draw an important conclusion about the rabbinic us­ age of the word "exile" from our examination of this passage in its various manifestations: "exile" and "going into exile" in rabbinic lit­ erature should often be understood as being used in what we would define as metaphorical senses. To say that Israel "was exiled" to Greece and mean that it was subjugated to Greece indicates that "being in exile" denotes more a state of mind than the result of an ac­ tual journey. It is worth inquiring why this midrash uses language of exile and does not speak plainly of subjugation, since, as we have already pointed out, the notion of Israel's subjugation to the various nations of the world is very common in rabbinic literature. The solution to this 23

24

2 3

It is worth noting here how our analysis demonstrates the singular misconception involved in analyzing the ideas and conceptions of each rabbinic work on it own without looking at the larger intertextual constructs. We have seen how this one passage appears six times—twice in Sifrei Numbers, and once each in the Mekhilta, in the Babylonian Talmud, in the Palestinian Talmud, and in Lamentations Rabbah. In some of these works, the passage itself has been changed, and many of them have differing contexts. Only after analyzing both the formal structure and ideational focus of the passage in all of its contexts and then concentrating upon the specifics of the passage in any one work can the significance and import of the passage in that work be determined. The term used as a general denotation of the "Four Empire" motif is almost always nvo^a, which I have translated as "kingdoms." The term rm^a, which is Hebrew for "exiles," or the singular form m^a, is very rare, and as a general denotation for the Empires appears only in late texts. See, for example, Exod. Rab. 15.6; 51.7, and Midr. Pss. 8:8; 69:2 (ed. Buber, 79, 321). (Note, though, that the formulator of Exod. Rab. 15.6 felt uncomfortable with the phrase ]rrrf» (Greek exile), and, in spite of his using * m rrfa and HD nV?a, when he came to Greece, he wrote ]V tnshD). Interestingly, this substitution of "empire" by 2 4

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

275

question is implicit in what we already stated above: the formulator of any midrashic passage is both bound and led by exegetical and homiletical constraints. His subject in this midrash is God's empathy and radical identification with Israel and His continued Presence among them even when they are being punished/subjugated/exiled/ dispersed, but he obviously cannot talk of the Shekhina's subjugation to Babylon, to Elam or to any other nation. Consequently, the author's explicit discourse must focus on the specific moment of exile, even if the range of thoughts and ideas he wishes to convey is appreciably wider. In other contexts, however, where there are no reasons for the midrash to restrict itself, the various subjugations of Israel are the subject of considerable contemplation and discussion. For our pur­ poses here, the most interesting of these are a cluster of midrashim which clearly suggest that the subjugation of Israel was continuous from the time of the Babylonian Empire, through the duration of Persian and Greek Empires, until the tenure of Roman Empire, which is, according to these midrashic texts, still in power, and to whom Israel is still subjugated. The most famous of these midrashic texts is Lev. Rab. 29.2 (ed. Margulies, 670-671), and its very close parallel, Pesiq. Rab Kah., 23 (ed. Mandelbaum, 334-335). The biblical context is Jacob's dream detailed in Gen 28:12, and the specific subject is the identification of those angels who are ascending and descending the ladder. Rabbi Shemu'el the son of Nahman says that they are the guardian angels (onto) of the nations of the world, and then he describes the scene more specifically: Jacob saw the guardian angel of Babylon ascend 70 25

26

"exile" became more and more common as time went on and the notions merged together. Thus, though the manuscripts and editio princeps of Genesis Rabbah never use nvV?: as a general term for the Four Empires, it is used with this meaning in the late printed editions: see Gen. Rab. 2.4; 16.4; and 44.19. I do not mean to imply that I think all the midrashic texts which discuss the subjugation and exile of Israel to the various nations of the world are of the opinion that these subjugations and exiles were in continuous succession one after another. Thus, if we look, for example, at the passage which in its several different manifestations has been the object of our analysis, we cannot determine what was its author's position on this question. Chapter 29 in Leviticus Rabbah and chapter 23 in Pesiqta dRav Kahana are essentially the same, with the differences between them being limited to moreor-less minor redactorial revisions. 2 5

2 6

276

MILIKOWSKY

rungs, the guardian angel of Media ascend 52 rungs, the guardian an­ gel of Greece ascend 180 rungs, and the guardian angel of Edom as­ cend an unknowable number of rungs. The number of rungs represents the number of years that each of these empires—according to the Rabbis—reigned. Only Edom's ascent was not enumerated because their reign was a present reality for the Rabbis, and no human knew when it would end, which is of course the reason for the practical de­ spair we encounter in the next line of the midrash, "he [sc. Jacob] said: O Master of the Universe, Say that it [sc. Rome] too will de­ scend!" The presumption of this midrash is clearly that the subjuga­ tion of Israel to these four kingdoms is continuous: this can be de­ duced from the phrase which appears a few lines later, when God speaking to Jacob says, "Now because you did not believe and did not 27

2 7

The attribution of 70 years to the Babylonian Empire, during which period the three kings, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil Merodach and Belshazzar, reigned; the attribution of 52 years to the Persian Empire, during which period the three kings, Cyrus, Ahasuerus, and Darius, reigned; and the attribution of 180 years to the Greek Empire, is explicit in the second century CE rabbinic chronography Seder Olam, Chapter 30. The first and second particulars in the list are derived from the biblical data, and the third is a relatively accurate datum regarding the time that passed from the conquest of the Near East by Alexander the Great in 331 BCE until the independence of the Hasmonean state around 160-155 BCE. However, according to Seder Olam, and the tannaitic parallel in b. Avod. Zar. 8b-9a, the Greek Empire is followed by the Hasmonean Kingdom, and not by the Roman Empire. For later rabbinic sources, though, as we see in the Amoraic discussion found in b. Avod. Zar. 9a, as well as in the passage being discussed here and in all the texts to be cited below which imply a continuous subjugation from the Babylonians until the Romans, the end of the Greek Empire marks the beginning of the Roman Empire. From a universal history perspective, there is of course a great deal of truth in this statement: the Roman Empire became the world empire of the East after the defeat and disintegration of the Seleucid Kingdom and the later defeat of the Ptolemaic Kingdom. Historically speaking, however, there was no immediate transfer of Jewish subjugation from the Seleucid Empire to the Roman Empire, and definitely not 180 years after Alexander's defeat of the Persians. I suspect therefore that the later Rabbis took a popular notion concerning the continuity which had existed between the world empires of the Greeks and the Romans, which would have been applied originally to the period of Pompey, Caesar and Antony, when the Roman Empire made its big push to the East, and applied them to Judea and the Jews, on the basis of the earlier known tradition which claimed that the Greek Kingdom lasted 180 years.

277

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE 28

ascend, your children will be grasped by the nations and entangled by the kingdoms, from Babylon to Media, and from Media to Greece, and from Greece to Edom," and also from the fact that in this midrashic context the very image of angels ascending and descending implies an unbroken successive progression of subordination to the angels and their respective nations. And indeed the notion of a continuous subjugation from the time of the Babylonians is a recurring motif in many midrashic passages. In addition to this Leviticus Rabbah passage and its four parallels, quite a few other rabbinic passages imply quite clearly that the subjugation of Israel shifted from Babylon to Media, from Media to Greece, and 29

2 8

This comment is logically dependent upon the immediately preceding passage in which God tells Jacob, "Ascend, for you will ascend, and you will not descend," as opposed to the four other kingdoms who all ascend and then descend, but nonetheless, in spite of God's promise, "Jacob is afraid and does not ascend." This midrashic complex is extremely enigmatic: why does the midrash add this completely new plot-line detailing God's telling Jacob to ascend, Jacob resisting, and then God revealing to Jacob the punishment his resistance will bring about? The mood of this dramatic elaboration is very critical towards Jacob, but there is no biblical justification for either Jacob's disobedience nor for God's displeasure. (Note the parallel in Exod. Rab. 32.1, a considerably later work, which simply excluded the sentence depicting Jacob's disobedience). This difficulty leads me to suggest, with some diffidence, that we have no choice but to understand the passage in a historicizing context. Since "ascending" in this midrash means political sovereignty, and "descending" means the loss of political sovereignty, and in the light of the fact that both parts of this midrashic complex are attributed to Rabbi Meir, who lived one generation after Bar Kochba, and was a student of Rabbi Akiva, one of the few Sages about whom we know just about for certain that he supported the Bar Kochba rebellion, perhaps the criticism of Jacob for not ascending was meant to be a criticism of Israel for not supporting Bar Kochba's push for political sovereignty more assertively. Though, of course, as Professor Jim Kugel pointed out to me in a private conversation, if Jacob was to ascend after the descent of all four guardian angels of the empires, how can his refusal to ascend cause his descendants to be subjugated to these empires? This, however, is a problem in the logical structure of the midrash according to any interpretation, unless one would actually make the claim that the two passages attributed to Rabbi Meir are not related one to another. On this midrash, and the various exegetical traditions dealing with Jacob's ladder, see Kugel's important article, "The Ladder of Jacob," HTR 88 (1995) 209-27. It is found in the aforementioned Pesiqta dRav Kahana midrash, and also Exod. Rab. 32.7; Midr. Tanhuma, Vayyeze', 2; and Midr. Pss. 78.6 (ed. Buber, 347). 2 9

278

MDLIKOWSKY 30

then finally from Greece to Rome. While some of these passages— especially those that simply list the subjugations as in "and they were subjugated from Babylon to Persia and from Persia to Greece and from Greece to Edom"—should possibly not be taken to necessarily mean that the subjugation was continuous, others, like those which re­ fer to the specific years of subjugation, or those which tell of the wish of the Jews while under Babylonian subjugation for the Persian Kingdom to commence already, and especially the passage in the Babylonian Talmud which explicitly relates the end of Greek domin­ ion to the beginning of Roman dominion, must be understood as per­ ceiving the subjugation as continuous. To summarize our analysis up to this point: The tannaitic text which seemed at first sight to draw a parallel between the Babylonian exile and the Roman exile actually does no such thing, and indeed seems to use the term "exile" as meaning "subjugation." Furthermore, a number of other rabbinic texts which deal with Israel's exiles and subjugations lead us to reconstruct a rabbinic trajectory of ideas which saw the sub­ jugation as beginning with Babylon and not yet having ended in their day. In these contexts, the Roman exile is perceived no differently than the Persian or Greek exile, other than with regard to the very ba­ sic fact that it has lasted for a so much longer period of time. If we conceptualize these notions at a higher level of abstraction, we can conclude, first, that the events surrounding the Roman conquest of Jerusalem were not perceived as a definitive caesura in the flow of Jewish history, and second, that there is a strong tendency in rabbinic literature to see the entire Second Temple period as part of the larger period of exile and subjugation, which began with the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and which, for the Rabbis, still endured. The vassalage of Israel to foreign powers during the Second Temple period meant that God's favor had not yet returned to Israel and they were 31

3 0

See y Ta'an. 2.4 (65d); Gen. Rab. 56.9 (606); Esth. Rab., Petihta 2; and Midr. Pss. 120:2 (505). Though one could conceivably claim that the subjugation of Israel to each of these empires did not necessarily last during the entire reign of that empire, in which case one could divide the Second Temple period into intervals of subjugation (e.g., during the reign of Antiochus IV) and intervals of nonsubjugation (e.g., during the reign of other Seleucid kings), I do not find such an interpretation cogent. 3 1

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

279

still in exile, in spite of the existence of both the Temple and some level of political sovereignty at varying times. Before we go on to reconstruct a varying trajectory of ideas, one which, as we shall see, is not quite in accord with this first trajectory, there are several qualifications which must be added on to the above conclusions. First of all, I have not found the notion of a continuous subjugation and exile in the tannaitic texts. Of course, the idea of the four empires is of biblical origin for the Rabbis, and as such, is a re­ curring motif in all of rabbinic literature, whether tannaitic or amoraic. My sense though is that it is much less widespread in the earlier texts, and various secondary motifs focusing upon the four 32

33

3 2

On the Hasmonean period, see above, n. 27. It should of course be pointed out that the Rabbis' knowledge of the Second Temple period appears to have been considerably less than ours. In the first place, they either did not know or ignored just about all books which were not biblical, and this category was defined, in the final analysis, by strictly chronological criteria: for the Rabbis, prophecy ended at the time of Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian Empire, and no book written after that point could be considered biblical. Secondly, the Rabbis had just about no interest in historiography, definitely not regarding this genre as being of value in and of itself, but also not as a means to a greater end (as is the case, for example, in the Bible). Consequently, they both had little opportunity and little interest in reconstructing the events of the Second Temple period, and therefore had no problem in claiming, for example, that the entire Persian period lasted a total of 52 years (see above, n. 27). I have dealt with both these subjects in greater detail in other places; see "The End of Prophecy and the Closure of the Biblical Canon in Rabbinic Thought," Sidra 10 (1994) 83-94 (Hebrew), and my forthcoming introduction to Seder Olam where I deal with the rabbinic attitude towards history and historiography. It is important to note that the only identification of the Four Empires extant in rabbinic literature is the one we have already seen: Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. For the Rabbis, as is true for Josephus also (cf. Ant 10.203210, 269-281), there is no doubt that these are the Empires about whom Daniel prophesied. The secondary literature on the notion of the Four Empires and its history is sizeable; see the recent articles by E. C. Lucas, "The Origin of Daniel's Four Empires Scheme Re-examined," TynB 40 (1989) 185-202; and C. Caragounis, "History and Supra-history: Daniel and the Four Empires," in A. S. van der Woude (ed.), The Book of Daniel In the Light of New Findings (BETL 106; Leuven: University Press, 1993) 387-97, and the extensive earlier literature they cite. The emphasis of Lucas' article is on the history of the idea, while that of Caragounis is on the various ways that the Book of Daniel has been understood; the two articles therefore complement each other quite well, especially in terms of further bibliography. 3 3

280

MILIKOWSKY

empires developed through the course of the rabbinic period, as the exile became more and more protracted. Additionally, I have found two texts which, more or less, do present the Roman exile in parallel to the Babylonian exile: Exod. Rab. 16.6, commenting on Song 4:8, interprets "the dens of lions" as the "Babylonian and Median exile," and "the Mountains of leopards" as "Edom," and Midr. Pss 7.17 (71) refers explicitly to the "first exile" when speaking of Babylon and then moves on to talk of the future re­ demption, thus implying that at present Israel is in its "second exile." The crucial point, however, is that both of these texts are relatively late midrashic texts; both seem to have received their final redaction well into the medieval period. Thus, the very fact that we have no early midrashic texts which see the Babylonian and Roman exiles in parallel to each other, while this notion does develop in the late strand of midrashic literature, proves our very point. Early rabbinic literature, in what is generally consid­ ered its classic period, did not perceive the events surrounding the Roman conquest of Rome at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple as including a mass exile of the Jewish people, in the same way that an exile followed the destruction of the First Temple. Only as the period of the Temple's nonexistence lengthened, and as the popu­ lation of the Jews who lived in the Land of Israel became less and 34

35

3 4

I suspect that the idea of the continuous exile is one of them: as the years without the Temple being rebuilt became greater and greater, surpassing by far the 52 years or 70 years which passed between the destruction of the First Temple and the erection of the Second Temple, it became easier to conceive of oneself living in a lengthy period of exile and subjugation which began more than half a millennium ago, than in a period of exile and destruction which began only a century or two ago. However, as we shall see, another conflicting idea also developed: seeing the course of events surrounding the Roman conquest of Jerusalem completely parallel to the earlier Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, and thus emphasizing these two dates as clear breaking points in the ongoing history of the relationship between God and the Jewish people. For a short survey on scholarly opinion concerning their dates of redaction, see Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud, 308-9, 322-3. Regarding the Exodus Rabbah passage, it should be added that are good internal reasons to consider it a late formulation: Much of the passage is paralleled by Cant. Rab. 4.8.3 and Tanhuma Buber, Beshallah, 11 (59), but neither contain the two noted identifications proposed by Exodus Rabbah. Numbers Rabbah 7.10 is so clearly a medieval-formulated passage that I do not even cite it. 3 5

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

281

less, were these two quite unrelated phenomena conceived as both de­ riving from the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Rome was no longer seen solely as the last and most recent in a consecutive string of four kingdoms which exiled and subjugated Israel, but as the perpetuator of a distinctive exile of the Jews from Israel at the time of the de­ struction completely analogous to the destruction and exile perpetu­ ated by the Babylonians. T H E FIFTY-TWO Y E A R S OF EXILE

We now turn to another complex of ideas, also focusing on the inter­ relationship of temple-destruction and exile. Again we shall see how the original rabbinic understanding of the events surrounding the Roman destruction of the Temple did not incorporate any notion of an exile which accompanied this destruction. Most importantly in fact, one of the texts we shall look at claims explicitly—if our re­ construction of its original meaning is correct—that there never would be another exile comparable to the Babylonian exile! The issue which is the focus of discussion in these texts is the no­ tion of the land-holiness of the Land of Israel. It is a commonplace of the last fifteen hundred years of rabbinic thought that the land-holiness of the Land of Israel is closely related to the presence of a Temple and the people of Israel in the Land of Israel. This notion is prominent in the Babylonian Talmud, and has been widely discussed in the multifarious modes of rabbinic literature that have developed since then, such as talmudic commentaries, responsa, and law codes. The reason for such widespread concern with this subject is not primarily the intrinsic theological importance of the Temple and the Land in Judaism, but much more the fact that this correlation of land-holiness to presence of Temple and people in the Land has been understood to have some very crucial halakhic implications. Certain biblical commandments, according to the Rabbis, were only in effect when the Land was in a state of land-holiness. Many biblical laws, especially those dealing with agricultural mat­ ters, seem to be closely tied to the possession of the land. If one sim­ ply browses through the Torah, mainly Deuteronomy but also in other sections, one constantly comes across passages which seem to have the force of connecting—both historically and legally—the obser-

282

MDLIKOWSKY

vance of the commandments in general and also many specific pre­ cepts to the entry into the land. Clearly, by rabbinic times it had already been firmly established that in spite of what seems to be implied by various passages in the Bible, the commandments in general are binding on the Jew wherever he might find himself, whether in the Land of Israel or out of it. Nonetheless, regarding a number of statutes, the biblical context relat­ ing the commandment to the land was seen as definitive: thus, the majority of the commandments dedicated to agricultural matters were, according to the Rabbis, obligatory only in Israel. The classic rab­ binic expression of this distinction between agricultural and non-agri­ cultural laws is found in m. Qidd. 1.9: "Any commandment that is de­ pendent upon the Land is observed only in the Land; any command­ ment that is not dependent upon the Land is observed in the Land and outside the Land; [this is true] except for the laws of Orlah and Mixing-Kinds [which are dependent upon the Land and are also ob­ served outside of the Land]. Rabbi Eliezer says: Also the law of the New Produce." The Mishna itself neither relates the question of the observance of the commandments that are dependent upon the Land to the question of the land-holiness of the Land nor does it ever suggest that the obli­ gatory nature of these commandments should be affected by the de­ struction of the Temple and the exile of the people. However, a num­ ber of passages in the Babylonian Talmud, when seen in the aggre­ gate, seem to express exactly this complex of ideas: the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the people may affect the holiness of the Land and the abrogation of its land-holiness may render the landcommandments non-obligatory. A good example showing how this complex of ideas works is found in b. HuL 6b-7a. The question under discussion is the justification of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch's regulation that the laws of tithing do not apply to Bet Shean (Scythopolis). The explanation given for his ac36

37

38

3 6

See, e.g., Exod 12:25; 19.23; Lev 25:2; Deut 6:10; 7:1; 11:29; 17:14. See the extended discussion of tithing from the Diaspora, in both rabbinic literature and in pre-rabbinic times, in E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM Press, 1990) 283-308. Though the regulation itself and the immediate context do not mention the laws of tithing explicitly, it can be inferred quite clearly from the immediately succeeding passage in the Babylonian Talmud that it understands Rabbi Judah the 3 7

3 8

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

283

tion has two parts: (1) Bet Shean is among those cities of Israel which were not taken over by the Babylonian exiles who returned to Israel; and (2) the first holiness, i.e. the holiness which was in effect during the time of the First Temple, was a holiness for its time alone and not for the future. Since the context of this holiness is a discussion of the laws of tithing, it must be understood as land-holiness, and not merely templeholiness. The Babylonian Talmud is therefore presuming (1) that land-holiness is dependent upon the existence of the Temple and the presence of the people on the Land, and (2) that land-command­ ments are dependent upon land-holiness. The consequence of these presumptions is that after the Temple was destroyed and the people exiled, it was no longer obligatory to fulfill those commandments 39

40

41

42

Patriarch's regulation as dealing with the laws of tithing. However, a very similarly framed regulation of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch is mentioned in y. Dem. 2.1 (22c), and there the laws of the sabbatical year—when the land cannot be worked and all crops that sprout by themselves are not considered private property but can be eaten by the general public—are explicitly cited as being the subject of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch's regulation. For our purposes, obviously only the Babylonian Talmud's understanding has any relevance, but the basic point would be the same for both the laws of tithing and the laws of the sabbatical year. In a very real sense, of course, the holiness which was in effect during the time of the First Temple actually began earlier than the building of the First Temple, i.e., at the time of the Tabernacle if dealing with the Temple vessels, and at the time of the entry into the Land of Israel if dealing with matters related to the Land of Israel, such as, for example, tithing. Only with regard to the actual physical location of the Temple, i.e., the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, can it be said that the holiness began at the time of the building of the First Temple. Text: *±> Tnsjb rrcnp *6i rTrwe?? rrenp mn&m mnp. In other contexts, the Babylonian Talmud claims that this very point is the subject of contention, and so, according the logic of the Talmud here, if someone holds that "the first holiness was a holiness for its time and also for the future," then the land-commandments are obligatory in Bet Shean also. See, e.g., b. Mak. 19b; Zebah. 60b; and Tern. 21a. This point is very important, for, as we shall see, in early rabbinic texts, the meaning of the sentence "the first holiness was a holiness for its time alone and not for the future" is limited to the context of temple-holiness and never applied to general land-holiness of the entire Land of Israel. For the interrelationship of existence of Temple and presence of people, see below. 3 9

4 0

4 1

4 2

1

284

MILIKOWSKY 43

which are associated with agricultural matters such as tithing. After the return from Babylon and the rebuilding of the Temple, the landholiness returned, but only to those areas which were occupied by the returnees. Bet Shean was not occupied at that time, according to this claim, and so the land-holiness never returned, and therefore the laws of tithing do not apply there. The theological implications of these postulates are fascinating: ac­ cording to the Babylonian Talmud, the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the People generated new realities not merely in the hu­ man sphere, but also in the jurisdiction of the divine. On the most ba­ sic level, it is of course legitimate to claim that all manifestations of the holy derive from a relationship with the divine, but here in our context the transformation in the realm of the divine induced by the destruction is indeed great. Inasmuch as the land-holiness generates the land-commandments, the removal of the land-holiness as a result of the destruction and exile means, in effect, that God has declared that the land-commandments are no longer valid commandments. The nature of the relationship between God, the people and the Land has changed. In other words, the physical and material destruction and exile have created new metaphysical realities—the land has lost its holiness—and this in turn affects a different realm of the material, i.e. the nomistic realization of the connection between the people and the Land, and therefore the land-commandments are no longer binding. One physical reality, destruction and exile, has affected another physi­ cal reality, the necessity to observe the land-commandments, with a metaphysical reality, abrogation of land-holiness, mediating between them. All this is true for the Babylonian Talmud's understanding of the statement, "the first holiness was a holiness for its time alone and not for the future." When, however, we look at its earlier occurrences, we see a much more narrow range of meanings. This sentence appears three times t. Sotah 13.1, 'Ed. 3.3, and Menah. 11.6. The first and last of these three passages focus on Temple vessels which were used in the Tabernacle and in the First Temple which never need resanctification because "the first holiness was a holiness for its time and also for the future," and the second states that sacrifices may be offered and 4 3

A good summary of this entire complex of ideas as they developed through later rabbinic literature can be found in "Eretz Yisra el,' Talmudic Encyclopedia (Jerusalem, 1976) 2.215-18 (Hebrew). ,

,

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

285

sacral food eaten even after the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem because "the first holiness was a holiness for its time and also for the future." Both of these contexts deal explicitly with tem­ ple-holiness, there is no presumption of holiness conferred upon the entire Land of Israel, nor is the question of the continuation or noncontinuation of the land-holiness after the Temple's destruction raised. Only in the Babylonian Talmud do we have evidence that the meaning of this statement expanded so that "the first holiness" was understood to refer to the Land also. Furthermore, it seems quite likely that this expansion of meaning only occurred in the later stages of the composition and redaction of the Babylonian Talmud. Not many passages explicitly mentioning "the first holiness" are attributed to named sages—most are anony­ mous passages—and these named passages presume a purely templeoriented holiness. This would suggest that the earlier layers of the Talmud still adhere to the original meaning of this sentence. At a later period, this sentence, which focused upon the abrogation or nonabrogation of temple-holiness, was applied to the entire Land of Israel. 44

45

46

47

4 4

These two contexts necessitate slightly variant understandings of the sentence. In the first context, the "first holiness" is that of the sanctification of the vessels of the Tabernacle in the desert, while in the second context, the "first holiness" was conferred upon the consecration of Jerusalem and the building of the First Temple by David and Solomon. These attributed passages are located in b. Meg 10a, and its two parallels, b. Shebu. 16a and b. Zebah. 107b. With regard to b. Mak. 19a, and its two parallels, b. Zebah. 60a and b. Tern. 21a, several points must be made: first of all, the textual situation is itself unclear: many witnesses do not cite the name Ravina; secondly, an examination of the passage indicates that it underwent extensive modification during the course of its transmission, and I would include among these changes the introduction of the "first holiness" motif; and lastly (a related point), it is quite possible that the "holiness" in question was at least originally understood as a temple-oriented holiness. In other words, as is so often true, the Talmud does not talk with one voice, and only detailed philological analyses of the all relevant passages allow us to know what "the Talmud says." From a purely logical point of view, one could claim that the Talmud employs this same sentence—"the first holiness was a holiness for its time alone and not for the future"—in two separate contexts and with two disparate meanings, one related to temple-holiness and the other related to land-holiness, each of which could conceivably have commenced and concluded at different 4 5

4 6

4 7

286

MILIKOWSKY

There is nothing absolutely essential to the Babylonian Talmud's argument which necessitates the conclusion that the loss of land-holi­ ness follows upon the destruction of the Temple because this latter event was accompanied by the exile of the people of Israel from the Land of Israel. Nonetheless, the suggestion that there is a connection between the destruction of the Temple and the loss of land-holiness is more easily understood if we contend that a corollary of the destruc­ tion of the Temple was the subsequent exile of Israel from the Land of Israel. With all this as background, let us now turn to two passages in the Babylonian Talmud which deal with the status of the land-command­ ments after the destruction of the Second Temple. These two pas­ sages, b. Yebam. 82b and b. Nid. 46b, focus on the nature of the obli­ gation to offer nonn (heave-offering) to the priests in their own day, that is, after the destruction of the Second Temple. They cite a passage from Seder Olam, " 'Which your fathers inherited, and you will inherit it' (Deut 30:5); they will have a first inheritance and a second inheri48

times and for different reasons, temple-holiness beginning at the building of the Temple and concluding at its destruction and land-holiness beginning at the entry in the Land and concluding at the exile. Logic of this sort presumably underlies Maimonides' decision in his code of law (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Bet Ha-Behira 6.14-15) to conclude that "the first holiness" of the First Temple—which is relevant to the question of continued cultic performances at the Temple location— was not abrogated by its destruction, but "the first holiness" of the Land of Israel—which is relevant to the question of the continued obligation to observe the land-commandments—was abrogated by the destruction and exile. However, Maimonides was severely attacked for this conclusion (see, e.g., the comments of Rabbi Abraham ben David, whose glosses on Maimonides are included in the standard editions of Maimonides' work), since there is no talmudic basis for such a separation. Indeed, it is clear that Maimonides himself realized the tenuous basis for his distinction since he justifies his claim in a very untypical manner. And indeed our critical analysis leads us to conclude that the earlier conception expanded to include the more extensive conception, but the redactors of those stages of the Talmud which knew already of this more advanced conception would not have differentiated between the two disparate meanings. In other words, the point I am making here directly counters what I suggested in the immediately preceding note; there I surmised that one could logically connect temple-holiness to presence or absence of Temple and landholiness to presence or absence of people on land, and here I suggest—but only to reject of course—that both temple-holiness and land-holiness are dependent upon presence or absence of Temple. 4 8

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

287

49

tance, but they will not have a third inheritance," and state that its author is of the opinion that the obligation to separate the nninn from the harvest is of biblical origin even after the destruction of the Second Temple, while his disputant holds that the biblical obligation to separate the norm ended with the destruction of the Second Temple, just as it ended with the destruction of the First Temple. Interpreting this passage in the light of the previously-noted pre­ sumption, i.e. that land-holiness and land-commandments are con­ nected to the presence or absence of the Temple and exile of the peo­ ple, it must be claiming that even if one holds that the land-holiness in effect at the time of the First Temple was abrogated upon the destruc­ tion of that Temple and concomitant exile, and only returned upon the return of the people and the building of the Second Temple, this does not mean that the land-holiness in effect at the time of the Second Temple was abrogated at the end of that period. Basing him­ self upon Deut 30:5, which is interpreted to mean that God told Israel there would be a first and a second inheriting of the Land, but never a third, the author/editor of this passage clearly sees the difference be­ tween the first and second conquests of Jerusalem in the realm of metaphysical reality. From his perspective, the physical and material phenomena of the two conquests are directly analogous, and the sec­ ond could have generated the same consequences—that is, the abro­ gation of the land-commandments—as the first, were it not for the fact that God had already informed Israel that the metaphysical reality of removing land-holiness would only occur once in its history, never a second time. Let us now look at the passage cited from Seder Olam, which is used by the anonymous tradent(s) in the two passages of the Babylonian Talmud to prove that the metaphysical reality of land-ho50

51

4 9

The text and translation of this passage is found in my edition of Seder Olam, "Seder Olam: A Rabbinic Chronography" (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University 1981)438, 546. As we noted above (see n. 40), at other places the Talmud claims that this point itself is the subject of contention. For if the physical and material phenomena of the two conquests are not analogous, there would be no need for God to tell Israel that land-holiness would not be renewed a third time. 5 0

5 1

288

MILIKOWSKY

liness will never be removed a second time, in its larger context within Seder Olam itself: 52

"And all the assembly of those who had returned from the captivity made booths and dwelt in the booths; for from the days of Jeshua the son of Nun to that day the people of Israel had not done so" (Neh 8:17). Is it possible to say so? [Scripture] compares their entry in the time of Ezra to their entry in the time of Joshua; just as at their entry in the time of Joshua they became subject to tithes, Sabbatical years and Jubilees, and sanctified walled cities, and were happy and joyous before the Omnipresent, so too at their entry in the time of Ezra. So too it says, "And there was very great rejoicing" (ibid.). And it says, "And the Lord your God will bring you into the land which your fathers inher­ ited, and you will inherit it" (Deut 30:5). [Scripture] compares your inheri­ tance to the inheritance of your fathers; just as the inheritance of your fathers was accompanied by the inauguration of all these items, so your inheritance is accompanied by the inauguration of all these items. You might think that you will have a third inheritance? Scripture says, "and you will inherit it;" you have a second inheritance, but you will not have a third inheritance. The main thrust of the passage is to compare the second entry into the Land, in the time of Ezra, to the first entry into the Land, in the time of Joshua. For us the crucial aspect of this comparison is the reference to the renewed obligation to separate tithes and observe the sabbatical and jubilee years at the time of the second entry in the Land. At first glance, this seems to be a classic expression of that in­ terrelationship of physical and metaphysical realities we discussed ex­ tensively above: the destruction and exile effected by the Babylonians nullified the land-holiness of the Land of Israel and this in turn ren­ dered the land-commandments non-obligatory. At the time of the re­ turn from Babylon and the rebuilding of the Temple, the Land became 53

54

5 2

The translation is taken, with some modification, from my 1981 translation of Seder Olam (above, n. 49). For the Rabbis, Ezra and Zerubabel were contemporaries, both living in the time of the short-lived Persian Empire; see n. 27 above. Furthermore, as I show in my forthcoming commentary on Seder Olam, the Ezra who is mentioned in Neh 12:1 as coming to the Land of Israel together with Zerubabel was identified by Seder Olam as being that same Ezra who later returned to Babylon and again journeyed to the Land of Israel in Artaxerxes seventh year (Ezra 7:17). We will call this larger passage in Seder Olam the Comparison passage, and its end, which is paralleled in the Babylonian Talmud, Yebam. 82b and Nid. 46b, the Third Inheritance passage. 5 3

,

5 4

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

289

again holy and the obligation to observe these commandments was re­ newed. If, however, this were indeed Seder Olam's intent, why does he mention, of the multifarious land-commandments, only these three? Why not mention norm, first-fruits, or poor-offerings, or, better yet, why not say plainly that they became obligated with all the landcommandments in the time of Ezra just as they became obligated with all the land-commandments in the time of Joshua? Furthermore, if we look at what Seder Olam says much earlier in his history of the world when he discusses the entry into the Land at the time of Joshua, we see that the combination "tithes, sabbatical years and jubilee years" cannot be considered a synecdoche for all the land-commandments. Seder Olam writes there that the People of Israel became obligated to observe three land-commandments, rfr"W, rf?n, and tfin, immediately upon their entry into the Land, while the obligation to observe tithes, sabbatical years and jubilee years began fourteen years later. This is not the place to enter into a detailed analysis of this passage we quoted from Seder Olam, but what we have already seen is suf­ ficient to tell us that according to Seder Olam only these three com­ mandments became obligatory at the time of the second entry into the Land. What about the other land-commandments? The obvious answer is that they never became non-obligatory. In other words, the de­ struction of the First Temple and the exile of the people of Israel to Babylon only caused the abrogation of these three commandments, tithes, sabbatical years and jubilee years—and therefore they had to be renewed at the time of the second entry—but not that of all other landcommandments. Of course, the obvious question is why does Seder Olam distinguish between different categories of land-commandments, some of which became non-obligatory at the time of the destruction and exile and others which did not. Again, without going into the particulars of the argumentation, we shall just direct attention to the main point. For 55

56

51

5 5

n'rm refers to the interdiction of eating the fruit of trees which are less than four years old; if^n refers to the priest-offering given from bread dough; and eftn refers to the interdiction of eating from the new harvest until the first sheaf was offered in the Temple. See my 1981 edition and translation of Seder Olam (above, n. 49) 279-80, 284-5,479,481. For the rationale behind this distinction, see below, n. 59. It will be found in my forthcoming commentary on Seder Olam 5 6

5 7

290

MILIKOWSKY

Seder Olam the abrogation of these three commandments, i.e. tithes, sabbatical years, and jubilee years, is not dependent upon any prior abrogation of the holiness of the Land of Israel. Rather, these three commandments needed to be renewed because they are all dependent upon a communal counting of the years, and during the years of the exile this counting was not performed for the simple reason that ev­ eryone was in exile. So when they returned to Israel, and re-estab­ lished a common communal authority, the counting began anew and they became obligated to perform these commandments. The upshot of this analysis is that we find no hint in Seder Olam of those interrelationships which we identified as basic to the Babylonian Talmud's understanding of the nature of the land-commandments, i.e. that they are dependent upon land-holiness, and that the latter is de­ pendent upon the existence of the Temple and the presence of the people on the Land. According to Seder Olam, all the land-com­ mandments—other than the three it specifically mentions—remained in force from the time of the entry of the people of Israel into the Land of Israel, through the period of the destruction of the First Temple and the exile of the people, continuing through the period of the Second Temple, and presumably they are also still in force in the time of Seder Olam itself. In the light of these conclusions, let us now turn to the Third Inheritance passage, the section which parallels the citation of Seder Olam in b. Yebam. 82b and b. Nid. 46b. We showed above that ac­ cording to the Talmud's understanding of its citation, the point of this passage is quite clear: there was a renewal of land-holiness at the time of second entry into the Land, but there will be no need for a renewal of land-holiness ever again, and therefore the obligation to separate the nomn offering to the priest remains in force even after the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. 58

59

5 8

With regard to the sabbatical years and jubilee years, their dependence upon a communal counting system is obvious; tithes also depend upon a communal counting system in the rabbinic halakhic system because various sorts of tithes are distributed in different years of the six working years of the sevenyear sabbatical cycle. This is the same reason why these three commandments began, as we noted above, according to Seder Olam, only fourteen years after the entry into the Land in the time of Joshua: only then was a communal counting system established. 5 9

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

291

This, however, cannot be the meaning of the passage in its Seder Olam context, for we have just shown that according to Seder Olam all the land-commandments—other than tithes, sabbatical years and jubilee years—remained in principle obligatory even during the period of the Babylonian exile. This means that the land-holiness remained in effect even after the destruction and exile and there was no need for a renewal of land-holiness at the time of the second entry into the Land. So, on the one hand, the context in Seder Olam tells us that there was no need for renewal of land-holiness at the time of the second entry into the Land, but according to the Talmud's understanding of the Third Inheritance passage, there was a need for renewal of land-holi­ ness at the time of the second entry into the Land, just no need for re­ newal of land-holiness at the time of the third entry into the Land, and therefore no need to inherit the Land a third time. We must conclude therefore, that the meaning of the phrase "you will have/not have a second/third inheritance" espoused by the Talmud, i.e. that it refers to the need for renewal of land-holiness at the time of an entry into the Land, cannot be the meaning of the phrase in its Seder Olam context. But what then does it does mean to say that there will be no "third inheritance?" After all, we cannot take it to mean that according to the author of the Third Inheritance passage there will be no renewal of sovereignty and no rebuilding of the Temple in the future; it is inconceivable that any text included in the rabbinic corpus would make such a claim. In order to understand the Seder Olam claim that there will be no third inheritance, it is necessary to unpack some of the conclusions we made above with regard to the Third Inheritance passage in the Babylonian Talmud. We showed there that this passage in the Talmud sees the historical occurrences of the two conquests as directly analo­ gous; only the metaphysical reality was changed by God's fiat. The dispute proposed by the Talmud with regard to the obligation to sepa­ rate n n n n cannot be understood in any other manner. Both sides in the 60

6 0

Ze'ev Safrai and Chana Safrai, "Qedushat 'erez-yisra'el ve-yerushalayim: qavvim le-hitpathuto shel ha~ra'ayon" in Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple; Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1993) 362 n. 100, cite this passage as proof for their statement that rabbinic literature does not emphasize the role of the Land of Israel as the place to which the exiles will be returned, and so they may indeed be interpreting the Third Inheritance passage in this inconceivable fashion.

292

MILIKOWSKY

dispute agree that there was a destruction and an exile at the time of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and at the time of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and both agree that at the time of the Babylonian conquest, these events generated the abrogation of landholiness and land-commandments. They join issue with regard to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem: one argues that just as the events at the time of the Babylonian conquest generated the abrogation of land-ho­ liness and land-commandments, so also the events at the time of the Roman conquest generated the abrogation of land-holiness and landcommandments, while the other claims that Deut 30:5 tells us of God's decree that the events at the time of the Roman conquest shall not generate the abrogation of land-holiness and land-commandments. In theory, the position that the land-commandments were not abro­ gated at the time of the Roman conquest could be dependent upon the claim that there was no exile at that time. But then it would be impos­ sible to explain the opposing position, that the land-commandments were abrogated. After all, it makes no sense to suggest that the talmudic dispute about the abrogation or non-abrogation of the landcommandments after the Roman conquest is generated by an argu­ ment regarding the facticity of an exile at the time of the conquest. Additionally, such an explanation of the abrogation of the land-com­ mandments would fly in the face of the many talmudic passages which directly relate the obligatory nature of the land-commandments to metaphysical reality of land-holiness and then back to the entire context of destruction and exile we analyzed at length above. When, however, we turn to Seder Olam, the situation is radically different. There is no dispute there, and we have already seen that nei­ ther the obligatory nature of the land-commandments nor the general holiness of the land of Israel is being discussed in this passage. God's words in Deut 30:5 have nothing to do with the interrelationship of the destruction/exile complex with the land-holiness/land-commandments complex. They simply record for posterity God's promise to the peo­ ple of Israel that there will never be a third inheritance, which simply means there will never be a second exile. The Babylonian exile, for Seder Olam and for rabbinic literature in general, was an absolute exile. As Seder Olam, Chapter 27, states in 61

6 1

This argument need not be explored at length, since the previous justification for rejecting this hypothetical explanation is sufficient in and of itself.

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

293

the name of Rabbi Judah: "Fifty-two years no man passed through Judea, as it says, T o r the mountains I take up weeping and wailing, and a lamentation for the pastures of the wilderness; for they are laid waste, with no man passing through'" (Jer 9:9). Rabbi Judah under­ stands Jeremiah as literally as possible; no poetic license is allowed here. No one lived in the Land of Judea for the fifty-two years which passed from the destruction of the Temple in Nebuchadnezzar's eigh­ teenth year until Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Judea in his first year. This notion of a radical complete exile helps us understand what we noted above in our discussion of the Comparison passage in Seder Olam, that during the years of the Babylonian exile there was no communal counting of the years and therefore the three land-com­ mandments dependent upon this counting, i.e. tithes, Sabbatical years and Jubilee years, needed to be renewed after the second entry into the Land. Quite obviously, anyone living in the Land of Israel during the rab­ binic period knew that this representation of what happened after the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem could not be reproduced with re­ gard to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. After all, Judea itself re­ mained the center for Jewish life after the Roman destruction of the Temple, and after the Bar Kochba rebellion, rabbinic culture was con­ centrated in the Galilee, also in the Land of Israel. This distinction underlies Seder Olam's understanding of Deut 30:5. In the past, he says, the People of Israel had two "inheritances" of the Land, the first was at the time of Joshua, and the second, at the time of Ezra, was necessitated by the Babylonian exile during which all of Israel was expelled from the Land. But, he continues, God has promised us in this very verse which compares the second inheritance 62

63

6 2

The translation is taken, with some modification, from my translation of Seder Olam; see my 1981 edition and translation of Seder Olam (above, n. 49), 418, 535. This passage also has various rabbinic parallels, some closer than others; see b. Shabb. 145b; b. Yoma 54a; y. Ta'an. 4.8 (69b); Ekha Rabbah, Proem 34 (ed. Buber, p. 39); Pesiq. Rab Kah., Divrei Yirmiyahu (ed. Mandelbaum, p. 233). This chronology is the accepted one in Seder Olam and in rabbinic literature in general: fifty-two years passed from the destruction of the First Temple under the return under Cyrus, eighteen years passed from Nebuchadnezzar's first conquest of Jerusalem until the destruction of the First Temple, and eighteen years passed from the return under Cyrus until the building of the Second Temple in Darius' second year. 6 3

294

MILIKOWSKY

to the first inheritance that there will never be a third inheritance; true, he means to affirm, we now are living without the Temple, and in that sense our situation is analogous to that of the Jews after the Babylonian destruction of the Temple, but we have God's promise that the other half of the first catastrophe, the exile, will never tran­ spire again. What we see here therefore is an explicit claim that there never would be another exile comparable to the Babylonian exile. In spite of this claim, as the centuries passed, and fewer and fewer Jews lived in the Land of Israel, this stark conceptual contrast between the conse­ quences of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and the Roman con­ quest of Jerusalem became muted. And so, for the editors of the two passages in the Babylonian Talmud, the Third Inheritance passage in Seder Olam could not be saying there would be no second exile—after all, there was a second exile—and so it must be referring to the meta­ physical consequences of this exile: they will not come into existence and abrogate the land-commandments as they did after the first exile. The exile itself—that is, the second exile—is assumed to have existed and to have been analogous to the first exile. The conceptual development we have identified here is very similar to that which we saw in the first half of this paper. Originally, the events surrounding the two conquests of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the Romans were not seen as analogous, and were not compared and contrasted one to another; both were seen as part of a larger continuum of subjugation to the nations of the world, which began with Israel's subjugation to Babylon, continued with its subju­ gation to Persia and Greece, and was still in effect with Israel's subju­ gation to Rome during the time of the Rabbis. Only in late midrashic texts, more so in emended texts attested in various printed editions, and even more so in the writings of medieval scholars, was the Roman exile seen in parallel to the Babylonian exile. In the final analysis, however, the two parts of this paper have dis­ closed two radically different conceptions of Israel's exile, concep­ tions which are not actually in contradiction to each other, but rather 64

6 4

I do not think it likely that this passage was originally formulated before the destruction of the Second Temple, in which case Deut 30:5 would have been seen as a promise that there would be no destruction and exile. In any event, the understanding here suggested would have been that in effect after the destruction of the Second Temple.

EXILE, SUBJUGATION AND RETURN IN RABBINIC LITERATURE

295

are operating on different planes of thought. As just noted, in the first half of this paper we saw the merging together of the twin ideas of exile and subjugation. Israel's exile, which is nothing other than its subjugation to the nations of the world, began at the time of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and was continuous until the days of the Rabbis. God's favor had been taken from Israel at the time of the Babylonian conquest, and not yet been returned. The Rabbis con­ ceived of Israel being in a state of uninterrupted exile, in spite of the existence of both the Temple and some level of political sovereignty at varying times during this extended period of Persian, Greek and Roman domination. This basically theological orientation sees God distancing himself from Israel since the Babylonian conquest, but also has implicitly at its center the guiding principle that in the future God will wrench Israel out of its exile and subjugation, and make them again a sovereign nation serving only Him. The text analyzed in the second half of this paper is primarily con­ cerned with more prosaic and mundane matters, though it of course has a conceptual context also. The halakhic implications of exile are contingent upon the complete banishment of all Jews from the Land of Israel, a situation which was understood to have ended immediately upon the return from the exile in the days of Ezra. This exile was stark and unequivocal but also short: it lasted only fifty-two years. After this return, the halakhic status of the Land of Israel was identical to its halakhic status before the Babylonian conquest: the unmarred nomistic relationship of the people to the land was reestablished, and by God's promise, never to be modified again. CONCLUSION

The early rabbinic texts we have examined teach us that, at one and the same time, the Rabbis saw themselves as being in a state of exile which had begun at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar and was still in ef­ fect, and also as having received a promise from God that the connec­ tion between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel will never be sundered again. 65

6 5

To a certain extent, it is misleading to talk of what "the Rabbis" thought and what they believed; after all, even if we are talking of early rabbinic texts, "the Rabbis" consisted of very many individual personages whose lives spanned hundreds of years. Nonetheless, I think it is both possible and worthwhile to

296

MILIKOWSKY

attempt to delineate basic trajectories of rabbinic thought, and disagree strongly with that position which claims that any attempt to systemize rabbinic attitudes and thought is mistaken. However, because of the nature of rabbinic literature, there are two crucial methodological points we must constantly keep in mind: (1) it is essential not to harmonize varying and conflicting points of view; and (2) it is essential to be aware of the exegetical and homiletical foundational context for so much of rabbinic literature, a twin context which can easily lead to formation of specific traditions which clash strongly with basic ideational thrusts of rabbinic literature.

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

ASPECTS OF EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS AND THE GOSPELS Craig A. Evans Trinity Western University

That Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God is one of the few items in which scholars are virtually unanimous. But just exactly what Jesus meant by this proclamation is an item of ongoing debate. One of the more difficult questions concerns the place of Israel as a nation in his proclamation. In what condition did Jesus see Israel in his time? What changes in Israel did Jesus envision? There has been a tendency among Christian interpreters and theologians down through the cen­ turies to understand Jesus' language in metaphorical, other-worldly terms. The hopes of redemption that Jesus entertained were confined to personal and spiritual dimensions, not national. Recent work, how­ ever, is very different. That Jesus intended significant social, political, and economic changes in Israel, perhaps in the world as a whole, is now seriously considered. The present essay hopes to make a contri­ bution to this newer outlook. Did Jesus think of Israel as still suffering exile? Was part of Jesus' agenda the end of Israel's exile and the restoration of the nation, per­ haps in terms of the idealizations found in the prophets? It is with these questions that this essay will grapple. Before treating the teach1

2

1

See B. D. Chilton, "Introduction," in Chilton (ed.), The Kingdom of God (IRT 5; London: SPCK; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 1-26; idem, "The Kingdom of God in Recent Discussion," in Chilton and C. A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 255-80. As a sampling of some of the work that now takes the social, political, and economic dimensions of Jesus' teaching very seriously, see E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (eds.), Jesus and the Politics of His Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); M. J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (SBEC 5; New York and Toronto: Mellen, 1984); R. A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); idem, Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989); D. E. Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day (SBEC 8; Lewiston and Queenston: Mellen, 1986). 2

300

EVANS

ing and actions of Jesus, it will be necessary to review the evidence that bears on the question of ideas of exile in the intertestamental pe­ riod. How did Jews of late antiquity understand Israel's condition? To this question we shall now turn. FIRST-CENTURY RESTORATION HOPES A N D THE IDEA OF EXILE According to Josephus two Jewish men in the first century promised fellow Israelites signs of salvation; one by parting the Jordan River, the other by bringing down the walls of Jerusalem. These men and their provocative claims offer features of interest for the present study. We begin with Theudas (Josephus, Ant. 20.5.1 §97-98): 97 4>d8ou 8£ life 'IouSatas CTTITPOTTCOOVTO^ y6i]g Tig avi\p QevSas 6v6~ [LOLTI Tre£0ei T6V TrXeXaTov &xXov dvaXa(36vTa rdg KrY\oeis eneoQai Trp6s T6V '\opddvT\v TroTap.6v airrar TTpo^rns' y d p £Xeyev elvai, ical €lv TrpoaTdyjiaTL rbv TroTap.6v oxLoos 8to8ov ^x f ^ l Trap^feiv auToX? pqBlav. 98 Kal TauTa X£ywi> TroXXote f|TrdTT|aei/. ov p.f|v elaoev avrovg TT}S d(f>poG^VT]g bvaoQai 4>d8os\ dXX' ete-ne^ev 1\T\V Itttt^coi/ eir' air TOVS, I\TIS d*rrpoa86icr|Tos emTreaoiKja. TroXXote \iev dveXXev, TroXXote 8£ C&vras ZXafiev, CLVT6V 8£ rbv QevSav Cuypf\oavTes dTTOT£p.i/ouai Tf|v Ke<J>aXf)i/ Kal KoiiL£ouaii/. el? 'Iepoa6Xu^a. Louis Feldman renders the passage as follows: 97 During the period when Fadus was procurator of Judaea, a certain impostor name Theudas persuaded the majority of the masses to take up their posses­ sions and to follow him to the Jordan River. He stated that he was a prophet and that at his command the river would be parted and would provide them an easy passage. 98 With this talk he deceived many. Fadus, however, did not permit them to reap the fruit of their folly, but sent against them a squadron of cavalry. These fell upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took many prisoners. Theudas himself was captured, whereupon they cut off his head and brought it to Jerusalem. 3

Next we may consider the episode of the Jew from Egypt (Josephus, JW 2.13.4-5 §258-263; Ant. 20.8.6 §167-172): €l

258 2w£(rrn 8£ irpbg to{>tois CTtX^os" %Tepov Trovripwv x 9^ H-^ Ka0apaiTepoi/, TaX? yv&pais &e d(je(3£(7Tepoi>, btrep ov&ev fJTTOi/ 259 t w CTtry£a>i> rt)v eu8aip.ovlai> TT\S Tr6Xea>s £Xup.f|va*ro. TrXdvoi y d p dvOpanToi ical dTTcrreaives TTpoax ip.aTi Q€iao\LOV vearrepiCTiious' K a t iieTa(3oXds Trpayp.aT€u6^ew)l 8aip.ovav T6 TTXTJSOS £TT6I9oia Kal Trpofjyov els TT\V T

3

Translation, with some modifications, from L. H. Feldman, Josephus IX (LCL 433; London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965) 441,443.

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

301

kpr\\dav cos* £KCX TOU 9eo0 SelfovTos' abrdis arpeXa £X£u9epias. 260 eirl Tofrrois' ^ X L ^ , £86K€L ydp dirooTdaea)? elvai KaTaPoXtV i\e[Li\fas ITNREXS' Kal Treto&s 6^X^09 TTOXU TTXT|6O9 8i£9eipev. 261 Melfovi 8£ T O U T O U TRXNYFJ 'IouSalou? ^KdKwaev 6 Alyinrnos t|>eu8oTTpoY|TTis- TTapayev6p.EVO9 ydp els rf\v x&P dvOpamos y6j\s K a l Trpo<()^Tou TTICTTIV £m9cls eavrq irepl rpia\jLvplovs [Lev d9pot£ei TCOV f)TraTTip.^i/a)v, 262 Trepiayaywv de airfoil £ K rf\s epr)\das eis T6 e\ai&v KaXotijievov bpos £KeX9ev 0X69 re f\v els Iepoa6Xup.a TrapeX0eXv (3r dteaGai K a l Kpa-nfaas rf\s re 'PcojidCicng <J>poupas K a l TOO 8i^p.ou Tir pavvelv XP^H-evos' &S oweicneoovoiv 8opu6pois. 263 Qdvei 8' auToO TT\V bp\d\v inravTiTaas [Lerd TWV Pco^aiKfiV 6TTXLTO)V\ K a l TT&S 6 Sfip-os awecfn^aTo TT\S dp.uvr)s\ &OTe ov[L$o\f\s yevo[Levr\s T6V \iev Aly^TTTLov Qvyelv \ieT 6Xlya)i>, 8ia<J>9apf|vai 8£ Kal £a>ypT|9fii>ai irXelaTous T W V ovv OLVTQ, T 6 8£ XOITT6V TTXT|9OS (TKe8aa9£v e u i TT\V eauTwv ^KatJToi/ 8iaXa9eXv. 1

av

c

TC

1

y

167 T d \Lev ohv T&V XnaTWv £pya ToiavTT\s dvoai^TTiTos' eirXfipou T1\V ol 8£ ybryres Kal diraTecoves &v9pa)TToi rbv &xXov £Trei9ov auToXs eis TTTV £pT|plav 2Trea9ai* 168 8et£eiv ydp (-Qaoav evapyfj T^paTa Kal OT|p.eXa KaTd ii\v TOV Qeov Trp6voiav yiv6p.eva. Kal TroXXol Treia^vTes' TT|9 dpoaui/r|S Tip.wplas' vtreoxov avax^vras ydp auTous 4>fjXi£ eK6Xaaev. 169 diKi>eXTai 8£ TLS" e£ AlyiiTiTou KaTd TOOTOV T6V Kaip&v e l s *Iepoa6Xup.a Trpo^"^? elvai X£ywv Kal crup.(k>uXeua)i> TI3 8TJP.OTLKW TrX^9ei obv avrQ Ttpds bpos T 6 Trpoaayopeu6p.ei>ov eXaiwv, o rf\s TtbXeus di/TLKpus Kel^evov dir^X^ crrdSia Tiivre' 170 9^Xeiv ydp £a(TKev auToXs eKeWev emSeXfai, &s KeXeboavros auToO TrtTTToi Td TWV 'IepoaoXup.iTwv TCCXTJ, 81' I3V Kal ri\v etao8oi> auToX? Trap^^Lv 6TTTryy£XX£T0. 171 <J>TJXL£ 8* cos* eTttiQero TauTa, KeXetiei rovs QTpaTLcoTas dvaXaPeXv Td 6irXa Kal ^eTd TroXXtSv LTTTr^wv re Kal TreC6h> 6pp.f|aag dir6 TWV I epoaoXujiwv TrpoapdXXeL TOX? Trepl rbv Aly{rnrioi/, Kal TeTpaKoalou? [i€v auTwv dveXXev, 8taKOCTlous 8^ C^vTa? ZXafiev. 172 6 8* AlyuTTTios' ai>T6s' SiaSpds CK TT\S [Ldxr\S davi\s eyivero. TrdXtv 8* ol XrjOTal rbv 8i\[Lov eis Tbv irpbs Pwp.alous' T\b\e[Lov T\peQi~ Cov [LT\8ev UTraKouetv auToX? X^youTes, Kal Tds TWV aTrei9o{>vTa)v Kwp.as' e[Lmiypdvres 8tTipTraCov. TT6XIV,

1

1

f

1

H. St. J. Thackeray and Feldman render the passages as follows: 258 Besides these there arose another body of villains, with purer hands but more impious intentions, who no less than the assassins ruined the peace of the city. 259 Deceivers and impostors, under the pretence of divine inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, they persuaded the multitude to act like madmen, and led them out in to the desert under the belief that God would there give them signs of freedom. 260 Against them Felix, regarding this as but the preliminary to insurrection, sent a body of cavalry and heavy-armed infantry, and put a large number to the sword.

302

EVANS

261 A still worse blow was dealt at the Jews by the Egyptian false prophet. A charlatan, who had gained for himself the reputation of a prophet, this man ap­ peared in the country, collected a following of about thirty thousand dupes, 262 and led them by a circuitous route from the desert to the mount called the Mount of Olives. From there he proposed to force an entrance into Jerusalem and, after overpowering the Roman garrison, to set himself up as tyrant of the people, employing those who poured in with him as his bodyguard. 263 His attack was anticipated by Felix, who went to meet him with the Roman heavy infantry, the whole population joining him in the defence. The outcome of the ensuing engagement was that the Egyptian escaped with a few of his follow­ ers; most of his force were killed or taken prisoners; the remainder dispersed and stealthily escaped to their several homes. 4

167 With such pollution did the deeds of the brigands infect the city. Moreover, impostors and deceivers called upon the mob to follow them into the desert. 168 For they said that they would show them unmistakable signs that would be wrought in harmony with God's design. Many were, in fact, persuaded and paid the penalty of their folly; for they were brought before Felix and he punished them. 169 At this time there came to Jerusalem from Egypt a man who declared that he was a prophet and advised the masses of the common people to go out with him to the mountain called the Mount of Olives, which lies opposite the city at a distance of five furlongs. 170 For he asserted that he wished to demonstrate from there that at his command Jerusalem's walls would fall down, through which he promised to provide them an entrance into the city. 171 When Felix heard of this he ordered his soldiers to take up their arms. Setting out from Jerusalem with a large force of cavalry and infantry, he fell upon the Egyptian and his followers, slaying four hundred of them and taking two hundred prisoners. 172 The Egyptian himself escaped from the battle and disappeared. And now the brigands once more incited the populace to war with Rome, telling them not to obey them. They also fired and pillaged the villages of those who refused to comply. 5

Theudas and the Egyptian Jew were offering their contemporaries confirming signs, in keeping with the traditions of the exodus. The word "signs" (ar||i6la) is very common in the exodus story (some three dozen occurrences). The combination T e p a T a K a l ar^eia ("wonders and signs"; cf. Ant. 20.8.6 §168) is common in the exodus story, especially as retold in Deuteronomy (Exod 7:3, 9; 11:9, 10; Deut 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 13:3 [in reference to false "signs and

4

Translation, with some modifications, from H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus II (LCL 203; London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927) 423,425. Translation, with some modifications, from Feldman, Josephus IX, 479, 481. 5

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

303

wonders"]; 26:8; 28:46; 29:2; 34:11), while reference to "signs" taking place "in the wilderness" is also attested in the exodus tradition (Num 14:22). It is probable that Theudas and the Egyptian Jew were laying claim to the Deuteronomistic promise that someday God would "raise up a prophet like Moses." Such a prophet would have to be confirmed by the fulfillment of a prediction. The relevant portion of Deuteronomy 18 reads as follows: 15 Trpo<j>T)Tny £K T&V d8eX<J>a)v oov us e\ie dvacTTfjaei ooi Kvpiog b Qebg oov, avrov aKovoeoQe 16 KaTd TrdvTa, boa TjTTjo'to Trapd Kuptou TOU Qeov oov ev XwpriP TTJ fpepa TT\S eKKXriata? Xtyovres Ob -npoo&t]oo\L€v aKoOaat TTJV a)vf|v Kuptou TOO 0eoO fpaiv Kal T6 Tri)p T6 |ieya TOOTO OUK 6t/>6p.e0a in oboe p.f| dTTO0dva)p.ev, 17 Kal eX-rrev Kupios" npbs \ie 'OpOate TrdvTa, boa eXriXTjaav 18 npoG)v abr&v akrrrep ok Kal 8a>aa) T6 pfpd \LOV ev ™ or6p.aTi abrov, Kal XaXf|CT6t auToXs" KO06TI dv evTetXa)p.ai airrar 19 Kal 6 dv0pa)TTOs\ 09 edv p.f| aKouar) boa edv XaXrjoT) 6 TTpo^TTis' 6TTI TCO bvb\iaji \LOV, eya) 6K8iKf|aa) e£ auToO. 20 TrXf|v 6 TTpo<|>Y)TT|S\ bg dv daep^crrj XaXqaai etA TCO 6v6p.aTi \LOV pflp.a, b ob TrpoaeTa£a XaXnaai, Kal bs dv XaXrjaT) CTT' 6v6p.aTt 0£O)v 6Tepo)v, diro0a vci Tat 6 TTpo^TTis' 6K6LV09. 21 edv 8e 611171? €v TTJ Kap8(,a oov TTws yva)a6p.e0a TO pfpa, b OVK eXdXnaev Kiipios ; 22 boa edv XaXrjoTj 6 TTp©^^'^? £TTI TW 6v6p.aTi Kuptou, Kal p.f] yevrjTaL T O pfjp.a Kal \LT\ ov[L$i), TOUTO T6 pfjp.a, 6 OUK eXdXnaev K^ptos" ev daePeta eXdXnaev 6 Trpc^-nris' eKeXvos, OUK defea0e auToO. ,

1

1

1

15 The Lord your God shall raise up to you a prophet from your brothers, like me; you shall hear him. 16 According to all things which you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, "We will not again hear the voice of the Lord your God, and we will not any more see this great fire, and we shall not die." 17 And the Lord said to me, "They have spo­ ken correctly, all that they have said to you. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet from your brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them as I shall command him. 19 And whatever man shall not hearken to whatever words that prophet shall speak in my name, I will take vengeance on him. 20 But the prophet who shall impiously speak in my name a word which I have not commanded him to speak, and whoever shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die." 21 But if you shall say in your heart, "How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?" 22 Whatever words that prophet shall speak in the name of the Lord, and they shall not come true, and not come to pass, this is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; that prophet has spoken wickedly. You shall not spare him. There are several details that slip through the biased report of Josephus that suggest that Theudas and the Egyptian Jew did indeed

304

EVANS

view themselves as the promised Mosaic successor. The actions of Theudas are reminiscent of Joshua, the successor to Moses. According to Josephus, this man "persuaded the majority of the masses to take up their possessions and to follow him to the Jordan River." Theudas claimed to be a "prophet" (Trpocf^TTis') at whose "command the river would be parted" allowing for "an easy passage" (Ant. 20.5.1 §97). Calling himself a prophet coheres with the Mosaic promise of Deut 18:15, 18, 19. Persuading people to gather at the Jordan River, whose waters will be divided and which will then be crossed with ease, is surely patterned after the example of the generation of Israelites who crossed the Jordan, following Joshua (Joshua 1-4). Taking up posses­ sions heightens the parallel, for the ancient Israelites carried their pos­ sessions across the Jordan to the promised land. It is intriguing that the word for "possessions" used by Josephus (ai KTfjaeis) is found in Leviticus 25 in the passage concerned with the jubilee (cf. Lev 25:10, 13, 16). The choice of word may be coincidental, but it may reflect a jubilee promise in the preaching of Theudas. In the case of the Egyptian Jew the details are somewhat different, but the Joshua-successor-to-Moses pattern is just as obvious. Josephus speaks of people being led out into the desert (JW 2.13.4 §259). As al­ ready mentioned, this theme is common to the exodus story, but it also is a feature in the story of the great Joshua, conqueror of the promised land (Josh 1:4; 5:6; 24:7). The Egyptian Jew offered his followers "signs of freedom" (orpeia eXeuOep'ia). Although "freedom" is not used this way in the older part of the Old Testament, it is in 1 Mace 14:26: "For he and his brothers and the house of his father have established Israel, and fought off from them their enemies, and confirmed their freedom (eXeuOepla)." The Hebrew equivalent of the word appears on the coins struck during the great revolt of 66-70 CE (e.g. ]V* rmn = "Freedom of Zion") and on those struck during the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-135 CE (e.g. ^Knerrrnrrt = "for the freedom of Israel"; tf?cnT nnn*? = "for the freedom of Jerusalem"). Also very revealing is Josephus' reference to the "circuitous route" (TrepLdya) = "led around"). This word occurs in an important passage in LXX Amos 2:10 ("and I led you up from the land of Egypt and led you around [Trepidya)] in the desert [ev TTJ eprjiia)] forty years ..."). As the usage of the word in Amos shows, 6

6

E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (4 vols.; ed. G. Vermes et al.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973-87) 1.605-606.

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

305

what Josephus seems to be describing is a reenactment of the exodus. Finally, in the later account in Antiquities, Josephus says that this man "wished to demonstrate from there that at his command Jerusalem's walls would fall down, through which he promised to provide them an entrance into the city" (Ant. 20.8.6 §170). Here we have an unmistak­ able reference to Joshua's first major conquest in the promised land— the collapse of the walls surrounding the city of Jericho. Thus, although Josephus did not discuss the biblical precedents and goals of men like Theudas and the Egyptian Jew, we are able, never­ theless, to catch glimpses of their true purposes. It is very probable that both of these men promised a new conquest of the land, perhaps reflecting hopes of an eschatological jubilee in which the dispossessed could reclaim their lost patrimony. What may be inferred from such movements of restoration is that many Jews regarded Israel as in a state of bondage, even exile. A new conquest of the promised land presupposes the assumption that the people really do not possess the land. They have been dispossessed of their land—by foreigners, such as the Greeks and later the Romans, and by their own leaders who collaborate with the foreigners—and now they hope to repossess it. To ask what meaning Israel's exile of the biblical period (Egyptian, as well as Babylonian) and the exile of the later periods (Greek and Roman) had for Jesus and the evangelists, and therefore to ask how it may have shaped their respective understandings of Israel's plight and what solution is required, is to pose a question that is tantalizing and probably impossible to answer in any definitive manner. To explore it, nonetheless, is necessary and important. We must begin with the evi­ dence that suggests that many Jews believed that Israel had never truly escaped exile. ISRAEL STILL IN EXILE

The actions of men like Theudas and the Egyptian Jew are clarified by several intertestamental texts which appear to assume that Israel is still in exile, notwithstanding the century of freedom secured by the Hasmoneans or the semi-autonomy enjoyed during the reign of Herod the Great. In the view of Yeshua ben Sira (ca. 180 BCE) Israel remains in a state of oppression and, at least for those Jews scattered abroad, in a state of exile. Sirach 36 pleads for God's mercy, yearning for the ap-

306

EVANS

pearance of "signs" and "wonders" (v. 6) and "wondrous deeds" (v. 14) and for the fulfillment of prophecies (vv. 15-16). The sage peti­ tions God: "Gather all the tribes of Jacob and give them their inheri­ tance, as at the beginning" (v. 11; cf. 48:10). Taken in context, the signs and wonders for which ben Sira longed are those God performed in liberating Israel from Egypt, protecting Israel in the wilderness, and enabling Israel to take possession of the promised land. The respec­ tive agenda of Theudas and the Egyptian Jews were in answer to this kind of longing. When righteous Tobit laments, "He has scattered us among them" (Tob 13:3), we should not assume that the reference is simply histori­ cal, that is, a reference to the Assyrian exile of the northern tribes of Israel (the ostensible setting of this pseudepigraphon). The book of Tobit was written in the second century BCE; chapter 13 (Tobit's prayer) may have been written later. The reference to the scattering of the Jewish people probably reflects a contemporary concern. The whole of the prayer is addressed to Israel's intertestamental malaise. Its futuristic hope is in places tinged with apocalyptic (cf. vv. 16-18). The same should probably be assumed with respect to Baruch, a work composed sometime between 150 and 60 BCE. "All those calamities with which the Lord threatened us have come upon us. Yet we have not entreated the favor of the Lord by turning away, each of us, from the thoughts of his wicked heart. And the Lord has kept the calamities ready, and the Lord has brought them upon us, for the Lord is righteous in all his works which he has commanded us to do. Yet we have not obeyed his voice, to walk in the statutes of the Lord which he set before us" (Bar 2:7-10). The disobedience and the result­ ing calamities over which the prophet's secretary laments reflect the late intertestamental period and not simply what the author imagined 7

8

9

7

See P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Leila, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987) 421-22. See F. Zimmermann, The Book of Tobit (JAL; New York: Harper, 1958) 112. For a recent study that argues that chap. 13 is original to the book of Tobit, see S. Weitzman, "Allusion, Artiface, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit," JBL 115 (1996)49-61. Zimmermann, The Book of Tobit, 113; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, "Tobit," in J. L. Mays (ed.), Harper's Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988) 792: "Tobit is thoroughly exilic in its viewpoint, and return to the land of Israel and Jerusalem is a consummation devoutly to be awaited." 8

9

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

307

10

the exiles of the sixth century to have thought. O. H. Steck has con­ cluded that according to the author of Baruch, the "present Israel should see itself still in a condition of exile." 1 believe he is correct. The author of 2 Maccabees leaves us with a similar impression. According to him, Jeremiah rebuked those trying to find the cave where the prophet had hidden the "tent and the ark and altar of in­ cense." The prophet is said to have told the people: "The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy" (2 Mace 2:7). From the perspective of this author, who com­ posed his epitome of Jason's history sometime in the first century BCE, the period of exile is not over. The "tent and the ark and altar of incense" have not yet been recovered, nor can they be recovered "until God gathers his people together again." The point is made again a lit­ tle later, when the author affirms: "We have hope in God that he will soon have mercy on us and will gather us from everywhere under heaven into his holy place" (2 Mace 2:18). Jonathan Goldstein rightly concludes that the author of the second epistle (contained in 2 Mace 1:10b—2:18) believed that the Jewish people were still experiencing the Age of Wrath, with many Jews still in exile. Exilic imagery is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The language used to describe the events that lead up to the long awaited eschatological battle draws upon exilic imagery: "when the exiles of the Sons of Light return from the wilderness of the peoples to camp in the wilder­ ness of Jerusalem" (1QM 1:3). This expectation coheres with the idea elsewhere expressed that the Teacher of Righteousness went into exile and was pursued by the Wicked Priest (lQpHab 11:4-6, commenting* on Hab 2:15). It applies also to the Qumran covenanters as a whole: "The Well is the Law, and its 'diggers' are the captives of Israel who 11

12

1 0

See C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions (AB 44; New York: Doubleday, 1977) 257-58, 291. O. H. Steck, Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration 'kanonischer' Uberlieferung (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 267. 2 Baruch appears to be a composite work, parts of which are quite pessimistic. J. A. Goldstein, "How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees Treated the 'Messianic' Promises," in J. Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 6996, esp. 81-85. 1 1

1 2

308

EVANS

went out of the land of Judah and dwelt in the land of Damascus" (CD 6:4-5, commenting on Num 21:18). The "Words of the Heavenly Lights" (4Q504-506) contains several expressions that strongly suggest that the author viewed Israel (2nd century BCE) as enduring a period of exile and God's wrath. Almost the entire document could be cited, but only a few excerpts can be of­ fered here: 13

7

Please, Lord, act as is your character, by the measure of your great power. Fo[r] you [for]gave our fathers when they rebelled against your command, though you were so angry at them that you might have destroyed them. Still, you had pity on them because of your love, and because of your covenant (indeed, Moses had atoned for their sin), and also so that your great power and abundant compassion might be known t o generations to come, forever. 8

9

10

n

May your anger and fury at all [their] sin[s] turn back from your people Israel. Remember the wonders that you performed while the nations looked on— surely we have been called by your name. [These things were done] that we might [repe]nt with all our heart and all our soul, to plant your law in our hearts [that we turn not from it, straying] either to the right or the left. Surely you will heal us from such madness, blindness and confusion. [ ... Behold,] we were sold [as the price] of our [in]iquity, yet despite our rebellion you have called us. [ ... ] Deliver us from sinning against you, [ ... ] give us to un­ derstand the seasons [of your compassion ... ] (4Q504 2:7-17). 12

1 3

14

15

16

17

18

8

You have raised us through the years of our generations, [disciplining us] with terrible disease, famine, thirst, even plague and the sword— [every reproa]ch of your covenant. For you have chosen us as your own, [as your people from all] the earth. That is why you have poured out your fury upon us, [your ze]al, the full wrath of your anger. That is why you have caused [the scourge] [of your plagues] to cleave to us, that of which Moses and your servants the prophets wrote: You [wou]ld send evil ag[ain]st us in the Last Days[...] (4Q504 3:7-14). 9

10

1 1

12

13

14

7

Nevertheless, you did not reject the seed of Jacob nor spew Israel out, making an end of them and voiding your covenant with them. Surely you alone are the living God; beside you is none other. You have remembered your covenant whereby you brought us forth from Egypt while the nations looked on. You have not abandoned us among the nations; rather, you have shown covenant mercies to your people Israel in all [the] lands to which you have exiled them. You have again placed it on their hearts to return to you, to obey your voice [according] to all that you have commanded through your servant Moses. [In]deed, you have poured out your holy spirit upon us, 8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

1 3

Translations from M. O. Wise, E. M. Cook, and M. G. Abegg, Jr., The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996) 56, 121, 151.

309

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS 16

[br]inging your blessings to us. You have caused us to seek you in our time of tribulation, [that we might po]ur out a prayer when your chastening was upon us. We have entered into tribulation, [cha]stisement and trials because of the wrath of the oppressor. 17

18

19

Surely we ourselves [have tr]ied God by our iniquities, wearying the Rock through [our] si[ns.] [Yet] You have [not] compelled us to serve you, to take a [pa]th more profitable [than that] in which [we have walked, though] we have not harkened t[o your commandments] (4Q504 5:7-21). 20

2 1

14

Commenting on this text, as well as several others from Qumran, Paul Garnet finds the vocabulary of exile, often drawn from the prophetic tradition, liberally sprinkled throughout. He has concluded that an ex­ ile theology plays an important role in Qumran's understanding of salvation: Israel remains in a state of exile, awaiting redemption. There are also texts that attest to the incompleteness of Israel's restoration, following the return from Babylon and the rebuilding of the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem. The earliest witness to this un­ derstanding is found in Hebrew Scripture. Ezra the scribe confesses (Ezra 9:8-9): 15

But now for a brief moment favor has been shown by the Lord our God, to leave us a remnant, and to give us a secure hold within his holy place, that our God may brighten our eyes and grant us a little reviving in our bondage. For we are bondmen; yet our God has not forsaken us in our bondage, but has ex­ tended to us his steadfast love before the kings of Persia, to grant us some re­ viving to set up the house of our God, to repair its ruins, and to give us protec­ tion in Judea and Jerusalem. 16

Elsewhere Ezra is even more explicit when he says: "Behold, we are slaves this day; in the land that you gave to our fathers to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts, behold, we are slaves" (Neh 9:36). 1 Enoch's fourth book (the "Dream Visions"; chaps. 83-90) con­ tains some relevant material. After the Babylonian-Persian exile the people of Israel again began to build as before; and they raised up that tower which is called the high tower [i.e. the Temple]. But they started to place a table before the tower, with all the food which is upon it being polluted and impure. Regarding all these matters, the eyes of the sheep became so dim-sighted that they could 1 4

Translations from Wise, Cook, and Abegg, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 411-12. P. Garnet, Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls (WUNT 2.3; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1977). Garnet speaks of an "exilic motif' in the Scrolls. H. G. M. Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah [WBC 16; Dallas: Word, 1985] 136) comments that "the final consummation is by no means yet reached." 1 5

1 6

310

EVANS

not see—and likewise in respect to their shepherds—and they were delivered to their shepherds for an excessive destruction, so that the sheep were tram­ pled upon and eaten. The Lord of the sheep remained silent until all the sheep were dispersed into the woods and got mixed among the wild beasts,—and could not be rescued from the hands of the beasts (1 Enoch 89:73-75). 17

This reflects the Greek period, prior to the Maccabean revolt, which it was believed would lead to the messianic kingdom (cf. 1 Enoch 90:20-42). The significance of the passage lies in its assumption that oppression would continue until the messianic era dawned. The Testament of Moses also attests the idea that restoration is yet to be realized. "Now, the two tribes will remain steadfast in their for­ mer faith, sorrowful and sighing because they wil not be able to offer their sacrifices to the Lord of their fathers. But the ten tribes will grow and spread out among the nations during the time of their captivity" (4:8-9). Israel's oppression and travail continue until the appearance of God's kingdom (see comments below). The author of Tobit has the righteous exile prophesy: "But (after the exile) God will again have mercy on them, and bring them back into their land; and they will rebuild the house of God, though it will not be like the former one until the times of the age are completed" (Tob 14:5). The inferiority of the second Temple symbolizes the incom­ pleteness of Israel's partial post-exilic recovery. Restoration will not finally be realized "until the times of the age are completed." The same idea is expressed in 2 Baruch, composed near the end of the first century CE or beginning of the second: "And at that time, af­ ter a short time, Zion will be rebuilt again, and the offerings will be restored, and the priests will again return to their ministry. And the nations will again come to honor it. But not as fully as before" (2 Bar. 68:5-7, my emphasis). We also find a very revealing statement in Josephus: "Whence did our slavery begin? Was it not from party strife among our forefathers, when the madness of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus and their mutual dis­ sensions brought Pompey against the city, and God subjected to the 18

19

1 7

Translation from E. Isaac, "1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch/' in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols., New York: Doubleday, 1983-85) 1.69. Translation from J. Priest, "Testament of Moses," in Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1.929. Translation from A. F. J. Klijn, "2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch," in Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1.644. 1 8

1 9

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

311

Romans those who were unworthy of liberty?" (Josephus, JW 5.9.4 §395-396). Even when we allow for his bitterness and cynicism, we may have here a hint of the idea that many Jews considered Israel to be in a state of "slavery" (SouXeia). According to Josephus, this slav­ ery was brought on by "party strife," not sin. Most of the writers al­ ready considered would sharply disagree with this assessment. But it is interesting nonetheless that even Josephus regarded the Roman pe­ riod as slavery. Finally, there are texts that look for another disaster (comparable to the one of 586 BCE) to precede final restoration: The sixth and seventh weeks in Enoch's "Apocalypse of Weeks" (7 Enoch 93) speak of spiritual decline, destruction, and apostasy (93:8-9). At the end of the seventh week "there shall be elected the elect ones of righteousness from the eternal plant of righteousness" (93:10). The author of the Testament of Moses foresees nothing but gloom and doom until the appearance of the kingdom of God. But just before the apperance of the kingdom a great catastrophe is predicted: "See, sons, behold a sec­ ond punishment has befallen the people; cruel, impure, going beyond all bounds of mercy—even exceeding the former one" (9:2); "Then his kingdom will appear throughout his whole creation" (10:1). The "second punishment" (ultio altera) probably refers to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, described in T. Mos. 3:1-3. In a certain sense, then, these Babylonian destructions bracket Israel's exile. The first one inaugurates Israel's exile; the second terminates it. The evidence surveyed above is such that we should agree with N. T. Wright who has recently argued forcefully that for many Jews the exile of Israel had not ended and would not end until God redeemed his people. The expectations of redemption, to be considered next, 20

21

22

2 0

So J. Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commen­ tary (SVTP 10; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 225. This expectation helps us understand the prophetic frenzy that gripped the inhabitants of Jerusalem when the army of Titus surrounded the city in 69 CE. According to Josephus, many "prophets" spoke of imminent salvation. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 268-72; idem, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 126-27, 203-204. D. J. Verseput ("The Davidic Messiah and Matthew's Jewish Christianity," in E. H. Lovering, Jr. [ed.], Society of Biblical Literature 1995 Seminar Papers [SBLSP 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995] 102-16) puts it succinctly when he says that the exile "remained for many an unfinished story" (p. 104). 2 1

2 2

312

EVANS

also imply that Israel remains in a state of exile. To these expectations we now turn. EXPECTATIONS OF REDEMPTION

Most of the texts that in various ways speak of Israel's continuing ex­ ile and oppression also express hopes of redemption and restoration. They foresee the day when the scattered tribes will be regathered, the city of Jerusalem rebuilt, and the Temple either rebuilt, refurbished, or purified. As already noted, Tobit's prayer and prophecy ostensibly anticipate the end of the Babylonian-Persian exile. But in all probability they express intertestament hopes that Israel's degraded condition will some day finally and completely come to an end: "He will afflict us for our iniquities; and again he will show mercy, and will gather us from all the nations among whom you have been scattered" (13:5); "for they shall be gathered and shall bless the Lord" (13:13); "again God will have mercy on them, and bring them against into the land, where they shall build a temple ... and afterward they shall return from all places of their captivity" (14:5). Similar expectations are expressed in Baruch: "Look toward the east, O Jerusalem, and see the joy that is coming to you from God! Behold, your sons are coming, whom you sent away; they are coming, gathered from east and west, at the word of the Holy One, rejoicing in the glory of God" (4:36-37; cf. 5:5). Jonathan's prayer expresses the same hope: "Gather together our scattered people, set free those who are slaves among the Gentiles ... plant your people in your holy place, as Moses said" (2 Mace 1:27-29). The epitomist in his second epistle goes on to say: "God, who saved his entire people and restored the heritage to us all, will also restore (dTroSaiaei) the kingdom and priest­ hood and the sanctification" (2 Mace 2:17). 23

2 3

As rendered by J. A. Goldstein, / / Maccabees (AB 4lA; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983) 187; idem, "How the Authors of 1 and 2 Maccabees Treated the 'Messianic' Promises," 83. Goldstein restores dTroScoaet, which he believes has dropped out. Without the restoration, the text reads: 6 be 0e6s 6 o&oag rbv TTdira Xabv avrov Kal d*rro8oi^ TT)V K\T]poi/ojitai/ TOOM/ Kal T6 fJaalXeiov Kal T6 tepdTeup.a Kal rbv d y i a o r ^ i / ( = "God who has saved his entire people and has restored to us all the heritage, the kingdom, the priesthood, and the sanctification"). The problem with the unemended text is that the sentence lacks a verb. Goldstein's restoration could well be correct.

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

313

The author of Enoch's Dream Visions also anticipates the end of the exile: "All those (sheep) which had been destroyed and dispersed, and all the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky were gathered to­ gether in that house; and the Lord of the sheep rejoiced with great joy because they had all become gentle and returned to his house" (7 Enoch 90:33). The author of the Psalms of Solomon (first century BCE) looks for­ ward to the regathering of the twelve tribes of Israel, part of the mes­ sianic task: "Bring together the dispersed of Israel with mercy and goodness, for your faithfulness is with us" (8:28). "Sound in Zion the signal trumpet of the sanctuary; announce in Jerusalem the voice of one bringing good news (cfxovfjv eiayyeXLCopivou), for God has been merciful to Israel in watching over them. Stand on a high place, Jerusalem, and look at your children, from the east and the west as­ sembled together by the Lord. From the north they come in the joy of their God; from far distant islands God has assembled them. He flat­ tened high mountains into level ground for them ..." (11:1-4; cf. Isaiah 40). "Lord, you chose David to be king over Israel, and swore to him about his descendants forever, that his kingdom should not fail before you ... See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the time known to you, O God ... He will gather a holy people whom he will lead in righteous­ ness ... He will distribute them upon the land according to their tribes" (17:4, 21, 26, 27, 28). "Blessed are those born in those days to see the good fortune of Israel which God will bring to pass in the as­ 24

sembly of the tribes" (17:44).25

In the aftermath of the tragedy of the Roman destruction of the city and the Temple, the author of 2 Baruch clings to the hope that the dis­ persed of Israel will someday be regathered: "For if you do these things in this way, he shall continually remember you. He is the one who always promised on our behalf to those who are more excellent than we that he will not forever forget or forsake our offspring, but

2 4

R. H. Charles ("Book of Enoch," in R. H. Charles [ed.], The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament [2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913] 260) understands the gathering of the "destroyed" sheep as an allusion to the resurrection of the righteous. Translation from R. B. Wright, "Psalms of Solomon," in Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2.660-62,665,667, 669. 2 5

314

EVANS

with much mercy assemble all those again who were dispersed" (2 Bar.

78:7).26

We find in the Isaiah Targum, whose exegetical roots have been traced to the first century, great interest in the gathering of the exiles of Israel (6:13; 8:18; 27:6; 28:2, 6, 13, 19, 25; 35:6, 10; 42:7; 43:6, 14; 46:11; 51:11; 54:7, 15; 66:9; cf. Tg. Neof. Num 24:7; Tg. Jer 30:18; Tg. Hos 2:2; 14:8; Tg. Mic 5:3). The Aramaic paraphrase of Isa 28:1-6 is especially suggestive. The priesthood is criticized in the first four verses. Because of their sin and folly, "Gentiles will come upon them and exile them from their land to another land" (v. 2). Exile ends with the appearance of the Messiah: "In that time the Messiah of the Lord of hosts will be a diadem of joy and a crown of praise, to the remnant of his people; and a command of true judgment to those who sit in the house of judgment, to judge true judgment and to give the victory to those who go forth in the battle, to return them in peace to their houses" (vv. 5-6). The exile of Israel will come to an end when the Messiah appears, judges truly, enjoys victory in battle, and returns the Jews "in peace to their houses." This paraphrase reflects the early Roman period and its ideas may reach back to the time of Jesus. Of special interest also is the paraphrase of Tg. Isa 53:8: "From chastisements and punishment he will bring our exiles near." It is im­ portant to remember that in the Isaiah Targum the servant is under­ stood as the Messiah (Tg. Isa 52:13; 53:10: "they will see the kingdom of their Messiah"; cf. Tg. Hos 14:8: "They shall be gathered from among their exiles, they shall dwell in the shade of their Messiah"; Tg. Mic 5:1-3: "from you shall come forth before me the Messiah, to ex­ ercise dominion over Israel....He shall arise and rule with might... and they shall be gathered in from among their exiles"). Bruce Chilton believes this servant song received its distinctive shape in the period between the two major wars with Rome (i.e. 70-135 CE). New Testament usage of Isa 52:13-53:12, in that the song is associated with Jesus (e.g. Matt 8:17; 12:18-21; Luke 22:37; Acts 8:32-33; Heb 27

28

29

2 6

Translation from Klijn, "2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch," 648. See B. D Chilton, The Isaiah Targum (ArBib 11; Wilmington: Glazier, 1987) xx-xxviii. Translation from Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, 54. See B. D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum (JSOTSup 23; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982) 97,110-11. 2 7

2 8

2 9

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

315

30

9:28; 1 Pet 2:24-25), suggests that messianic interpretation was prob­ ably pre-70. The messianic hopes expressed in the Psalms of Solomon further suggest that the idea of the Messiah gathering Israel's exiles and distributing them according to traditional patrimony was an an­ cient one. Some traditions articulate requirements or conditions as prerequi­ sites for restoration and the end of the exile. According to Tobit, God will regather his people if they repent: "If you turn to him with all your heart and with all your soul, to do what is true before him, then he will turn to you and will not hide his face from you" (13:6). According to Jubilees, restoration cannot take place until the Law is interpreted properly and obeyed faithfully (23:18-31). Hardship and persecution will be Israel's lot, according to the Testament ofJudah, until there is repentance: "Then the Lord will be concerned for you in mercy and will free you from captivity under your enemies" (23:5). Finally, we should take into account Philo of Alexandria who makes a very revealing statement about Israel's condition. Philo warns against armed rebellion, based on empty boasting (Philo, Praem. 16 §94-97). He believes that liberty will come when his fellow Jews obey God's word whole heartedly (Praem. 28 §162-163): "For even though they dwell in the uttermost parts of the earth, in slavery to those who led them away captive, one signal, as it were, one day will bring lib­ erty to all. This conversion in a body to virtue will strike awe into their masters, who will set them free, ashamed to rule over men better than themselves. When they have gained this unexpected liberty, those who but now were scattered in Greece and the outside world over is­ lands and continents will arise and post from every side with one im­ pulse to the one appointed place, guided in their pilgrimage by a vi­ sion divine and superhuman unseen by others but manifest to them as they pass from exile to their home" (Praem. 28-29 §164-165). Philo adds: "Everything will suddenly be reversed, God will turn the curses against the enemies of these penitents, the enemies who rejoiced in the misfortunes of the nation and mocked and railed at them ... then those of them who have not come to utter destruction, in tears and groans 31

3 0

For further echoes and allusions, see C. H. Dodd, According to the Scrip­ tures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952) 9294; see also Chilton, The Glory of Israel, 90. For further discussion of the exile theme in the Isaiah Targum, see in this volume the essay by B. D. Chilton, "Salvific Exile in the Isaiah Targum." 3 1

316

EVANS

lamenting their own lapse, will make their way back with course re­ versed to the prosperity of the ancestral past" (Praem. 29 §169-170). Although one encounters differences in detail, a fairly consistent pattern emerges. Many Jews during the intertestamental period be­ lieved that the exile perdured. Most obviously, the exile was evident in the dispersion of the Jewish people and in the continuing foreign domination of Israel. Less obviously, the exile was evident in the failure on the part of many Jews to obey the Law. Just exactly what was entailed in obedience to the Law was itself a matter of dispute; and many groups and individuals were eager to make their views known. The activities of men like Theudas and the Egyptian Jew, as well as many others of whom we now know little or nothing, were driven by the hope that Israel's liberation from exile was finally at hand. Calls to repentance, such as we have in John the Baptizer (Matt 3:2, 8, 11; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3, 8; Josephus, Ant. 18.5.2 §116-117), promises of signs, as in Theudas and others, or, in the case of Jesus' critics, demands for signs, are symptomatic of a society in which many of its members hoped for and anticipated national deliverance. Against this backdrop Jesus must surely be interpreted; but in what sense Jesus proffered deliverance is a difficult question. To it we now turn. 32

EXILE AND REDEMPTION IN JESUS AND THE GOSPELS

Exile theology at several points underlies Jesus' teaching and ac­ tions. In a general way, therefore, his conception of Israel's plight and of his own calling runs parallel to that of such as Theudas. There are, however, important points of difference between Jesus and these other would-be deliverers. There are at least six significant features in Jesus' teaching and activities that justify the claim that exile theology played an important role: (1) Jesus' appointment of twelve apostles; (2) the request for a sign; (3) Jesus' appeal to Isa 56:7 while demon­ strating in the Temple precincts; (4) Jesus' allusion to Zech 2:6, a pas­ sage which envisions the gathering of Israel's exiles; (5) Jesus' 33

3 2

Translation from F. H. Colson, Philo VIII (LCL 341; London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939) 417-21. For a very preliminary assessment, see P. Garnet, "Jesus and the Exilic Soteriology," in E. A. Livingstone (ed.), Stadia Biblica 1978, II: Papers on the Gospels (Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Oxford, 1978) (JSNTSup 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980) 111-14. 3 3

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

317

prophetic threats against Israel's rulers, which threaten exile; and (6) traces of exile theology and motifs in the New Testament and early Christian writings. We shall consider these six points in turn. (1) The single most important datum that attests to the presence of exile theology in Jesus' thinking is his appointment of the "twelve." They are called the "twelve apostles" (Matt 10:2 = Luke 6:13), the "twelve disciples" (a Matthean favorite—Matt 10:1; 11:1; 20:17; 26:20), and simply the "twelve" (Matt 10:5; 26:14, 47; Mark 3:14; 4:10; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; 11:11; 14:10, 17, 20, 43; Luke 8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31; 22:3, 47; John 6:67, 70, 71; 20:24; Acts 6:2). The latter, sim­ pler designation has the strongest claim to originality because of its widespread attestation and because the fuller epithets are probably secondary. The authenticity of the tradition of the twelve is supported by the criteria of embarrassment and of dissimilarity. The first criterion may be invoked because it is not easy to explain why the early Church would invent a tradition of twelve disciples, one of whom betrayed Jesus. That the name of Judas Iscariot stubbornly clings to the various lists of twelve apostolic names confirms that the appointment of the twelve derives from Jesus, who attached significance to this number. The "twelve" was too early and too deeply entrenched in the early community's memory of Jesus to be discarded, despite having been tainted by Judas' defection and betrayal. The second criterion also lends a measure of support to the authenticity of the tradition of the twelve simply because "twelve" proved to be of little theological con­ sequence for the Church. To be sure, it plays a symbolic role in Revelation (see 7:5-8; 12:1; 21:12, 14, 16, 21; 22:2) and may have played a role in the Church's early mission to Israel (see Acts 26:7), but it does not seem to play any role whatsoever in the development of early Christian ecclesiology (with the possible, minor exception of Jas 1:1). Had it been otherwise, then suspicion that the tradition of the twelve had been read back into the life and teaching of Jesus would be justified. But such is not the case. 34

3 4

For arguments supporting authenticity, see B. F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979) 172-73; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 98-106; idem, The Historical Figure of Jesus (Lon­ don: Penguin, 1993) 184-87; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 299-301. The criterion of dissimilarity in this case applies to the discontinuity between Jesus' use of the symbol "twelve" and its later use by the early Church. There is, however, important continuity between Jesus and Jewish eschatological hopes of

318

EVANS

It is probable that Jesus' appointment of the twelve was intended to symbolize the reconstitution of the twelve tribes of Israel. With refer­ ence to Jewish eschatological hopes in late antiquity, E. P. Sanders comments, rightly in my judgment, that "'twelve' would necessarily mean 'restoration.'" Wright agrees with Sanders, asserting that Jesus' summons to become part of his family was "remnant-theology, return-from-exile theology," and that the "call of the twelve said ... this is where YHWH was at last restoring his people Israel." Jesus' assertion, moreover, that his mission is to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt 15:24; cf. 10:6) implies an interest in regathering Israel. The "lost (i.e. leaderless) sheep" probably do not refer to the lost ten tribes (which would make no sense in Matt 10:5-15), but to the nation as a whole. But tending to the lostness of Israel carries with it the implication that the scattered Jews of the Diaspora would be gathered. Another important feature of the symbolism of "twelve" in Jesus' theology is seen in the saying that the twelve disciples "will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt 19:28 = Luke 22:30). The twelve are to rule over Israel, "judging" the nation much as the judges of old judged the twelve tribes (see Judg 3:10; 4:4; 10:2,3; 12:7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14; 15:20; 16:31; 1 Sam 4:18; 7:6, 15). That is, the disciples are to protect and provide the nation with new and just leadership. Israel's current leadership will itself be judged and re­ moved from its stewardship (see Mark 12:1-12). The restoration of the twelve tribes, as implied by the symbolism of the "twelve" disciples, coheres with the promise that the disciples will someday sit on thrones judging the tribes. What we may have here is a fragment of the idea that restored Israel will be similar to the idealized pre-exilic period when Israel's king was God. 35

36

37

38

39

his time. This sort of continuity does not, pace many scholars of the New Quest and the Jesus Seminar, tell against the authenticity of tradition credited to Jesus. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 98. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 430-31. On the authenticity of this saying, see Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 167-68, 29798 n. 129. As is argued in D. C. Allison and W. D. Davies, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew: Volume II (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1991) 551. See T. C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958) 350. 3 5

3 6

3 7

3 8

3 9

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

319

(2) The request for a "sign from heaven" (Mark 8:11-13) is a piece of tradition, however contextualized by the evangelists, in which the nature and validity of Jesus' ministry were questioned. Given the promise of "signs" proffered by men like Theudas, the Egyptian Jew, and others, it is probably wise to assume that Jesus' ministry was in­ terpreted by some of his contemporaries in a similar light. The re­ quest itself conforms to biblical precedent (1 Sam 2:34; 10:1-8; Isa 7:10-14; 2 Kgs 19:29; 20:8-9; Ps 74:9; Jer 44:29 = LXX Jer 51:29) and is even regulated by biblical tradition (Deut 13:1-2; 18:21-22). The idea in Jesus' day that signs would presage the approach of the eschaton is attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 40

5

" This shall be the sign (nwr) that this shall come to pass: when the sources of evil are shut up and wickedness is banished in the presence of righteous­ ness, as darkness in the presence of light, or as smoke vanishes and is no more, in the same way wickedness will vanish forever and righteousness will be manifest like the sun. The world will be made firm and all the adherents of the secrets of <sin> (MS: wonder) shall be no more. True knowledge shall fill the world and there will never be any more folly. This is all ready to happen, it is a true oracle, and by this it shall be known to you that it cannot be averted" (1Q27 frag. 1, l:5-8). 6

7

8

41

Josephus provides significant evidence of the importance that his contemporaries attached to signs (for references to "signs," see JW 1.1.11 §28; 1.19.4 §377; 2.13.4 §259; 3.8.9 §405; 4.10.7 §623; 6.5.2 §285; 6.5.3 §296, §297; 6.5.4 §315; 7.11.1 §438; Ant. 20.8.6 §168). Josephus does not doubt the validity of signs, but he does dispute with his fellow Jews their meaning (for example, the signs augured the coming Jewish defeat and destruction of the Temple; for the Romans they augured the accession of Vespasian). His description of the star is particularly significant (JW6.5.3 §288-291): Thus it was that the wretched people were deluded at that time by charlatans and false messengers of God; while they neither heeded nor believed in the manifest portents that foretold (TTpocrrpatveiv) the coming desolation, but, as if thunderstruck and bereft of eyes and mind, disregarded the plain warnings of God. So it was when a star (dorpov), resembling a sword, stood over the city, and a comet which continued for a year. So again when, before the revolt and the commotion that led to war, at the time when the people were assem­ bling for the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month Xanthicus,

4 0

See J. A. Trumbower, "The Historical Jesus and the Speech of Gamaliel (Acts 5.35-9)," NTS 39 (1993) 500-517. Translation from Wise, Cook, and Abegg, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 176. 4 1

320

EVANS

at the ninth hour of the night, so brilliant a light shone round the altar and the sanctuary that it seemed to be broad daylight; and this continued for half an hour. By the inexperienced this was regarded as a good omen ... . 4 2

The appearance of the star and comet probably called to mind the prophecy of Num 24:17 (LXX: "a star [daTpov] from Jacob will arise, and a man from Israel will stand up") and would have whipped up eschatological expectations in the minds of many. It is probably to this prophetic passage that Josephus alludes when he refers to the "ambig­ uous oracle," which more than anything else incited his countrymen to rebellion (JW 6.5.4 §312-313). However, Josephus applied it not to a Jewish ruler but to the Roman general Vespasian, "who was proclaim­ ed Emperor on Jewish soil" (§313). Josephus goes on to describe other signs and portents: the cow that gave birth to a lamb; the eastern gate of the inner court of the Temple precincts that opened by itself; the appearance in the sky of chariots and armies "hurtling through the clouds"; the voice, heard by priests, that cried, "We are departing from here" (JW 6.5.3 §292-300). Josephus tells us that the "uninitiated" interpreted these signs as good omens, while the "learned" saw them as portending coming desola­ tion. The point of all of this is to underscore how important signs were to Jews, even to the sophisticated and skeptical person like Josephus. Paul is not guilty of an unfair generalization when he asserts that "Jews ask for signs" (1 Cor 1:22). It is also important to underscore the fact that the only signs, of men who proclaimed salvation, to be described by Josephus have to do with the exodus and the conquest of the promised land. I refer, of course, to Theudas and the Egyptian Jew. Both of these men promised signs that recalled Israel's conquest of the land. Jesus' wilderness wanderings, feeding of the multitude, and various other activities and teachings reminiscent of Moses, the exo­ dus, and Israel's wilderness sojourn may have led some of his con­ temporaries to interpret his ministry in a light somewhat similar to the claims and promises of men like Theudas. It is against this backdrop that the demand for a "sign from heaven" should probably be inter­ preted. Jesus' ministry was viewed as a prelude to Israel's redemption; a confirming sign was required.

4 2

Translation, with some modification, from H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus III (LCL 210; London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928) 459-61.

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

321

(3) During the Temple incident (Matt 21:12-13 = Mark 11:15-18 = Luke 19:45-46) Jesus is said to have alluded to Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11. Mark's version, which is longer and probably more original, reads: "And he taught, and said to them, Ts it not written, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations"? But you have made it a cave of robbers'" (Mark 11:17). The midrashic juxtaposition of these texts from Isaiah and Jeremiah is intriguing. If Jesus has in mind the wider contexts of these respective oracles, then we may infer that he has criticized the Temple establishment for failing to live up to the eschatological expectations enunciated in Isa 56:1-8 and so now stands under the judgment uttered by Jeremiah (esp. in Jeremiah 7) against the Temple establishment of his day. 43

44

What is of particular interest for the present concerns is that the or­ acle in Isaiah 56 comes to be understood as a time of ingathering of Israel's exiles. The text according to the Masoretic tradition reads: 1 2

4 3

Thus says the Lord, "Safeguard justice, and do righteousness; for my salvation is about to come, and my righteousness to be revealed." Blessed is the man that does this, and the son of man that holds it fast; that observes sabbath, not profaning it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.

Both Matt 21:13 and Luke 19:46 omit "for all the nations." Having been destroyed, the Temple can hardly serve as a place of prayer for the nations. Also, would not the Church be the place of prayer for the nations? For these reasons the later evangelists modified Mark's longer, but older version. The improbability that the early Church would have invented a saying about the Temple as the place of prayer for Gentiles strongly supports the authenticity of the saying. Sanders {Jesus and Judaism, 66-67) dismisses the saying because it compromises his problematical theory that Jesus' demonstration in the Temple precincts was not critical or judgmental. For studies that defend the saying as authentic, see C. A. Evans, "Jesus' Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?" CBQ 51 (1989) 237-70; idem, "Jesus' Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption in the First-Century Temple," in D. J. Lull (ed.), Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 28; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989) 522-39; idem, "Jesus and the 'Cave of Robbers': Towards a Jewish Context for the Temple Action," BBR 3 (1993) 93-110. See Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 418-19; C. A. Evans, "From 'House of Prayer' to 'Cave of Robbers': Jesus' Prophetic Criticism of the Temple Establishment," in C. A. Evans and S. Talmon (eds.), From Tradition to Interpre­ tation: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). 4 4

322

EVANS

3

4 5

6

7

8

Neither let the son of a foreigner, that has joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, "The Lord will surely separate me from his people"; neither let the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree." For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and hold fast my covenant: "To them will I give in my house and within my walls a memorial and a name better than of sons and of daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of a foreigner that join themselves to the Lord, to min­ ister to him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants; ev­ ery one that keeps sabbath from profaning it, and holds fast my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer. Their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." The Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, "Yet will I gather others to him, besides his own that are gathered."

The LXX represents a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew, with only a few minor variants. Verses 7-8 read: "I will bring them to my holy mountain, and make them rejoice in the house of my prayer. Their whole-burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the Gentiles, said the Lord that gathers the dispersed of Israel, For I will gather to him a congregation." The only noteworthy variant in this portion is in v. 7, where the Hebrew's "the peoples" (D^nan) be­ comes "the nations" (T& eQvr\)A 5

The Aramaic paraphrase also offers us something of interest. Verses 6-8 read (with departures from the Masoretic Text italicized in the English): 46

rrrmxh

m m ™ > bv paown wnnu * m

w p a papnm nrn^nwa woo ian bs *mf» n m p n n m i w m p i wveh JOTVUI TOTD bo ¥osnb ppom jvrtnp- n » n \m\bo

6

i

wnno bsb i?n r?n vartpn rra n n 4 5

The appearance of TOI ef0i/rj in Jesus' allusion to Isaiah hardly constitutes evidence against authenticity (pace A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History [London: Duckworth, 1982] 132). The text is taken from A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (5 vols., Leiden: Brill, 1959-73) 3.112-13; J. F. Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah (Oxford: Claren­ don, 1949). The English translation is based on Chilton, The Isaiah Targum, 109. 4 6

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS L

AR«R MAA- vwrh- T W H CRRFM MM

323

s

ym worb ymb* NNPN TO 6

7

8

And the sons of Gentiles who /lave been added to f/ie people o/the Lord, to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, every one who will keep the sabbath from profaning it, and hold fast my covenants— these I will bring to the holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their holy sacrifices will even go up for my pleasure on my altar; for my sanctuary will be a house of prayer for all the peoples. Thus says the Lord God who is about to gather the outcasts of Israel, yet will I bring near their exiles, to gather them."

The Aramaic paraphrase offers a few interesting contributions of its own. The rephrasing found in vv. 3 and 6 ("Gentiles who have been added to the people of the Lord") is probably intended to make it clear that these foreigners, who "minister" to the Lord, are in fact proselytes and not simply Gentile visitors. Understood in this sense, the transla­ tor does not object to their ministering to the Lord (as apparently did the scribe of the Great Isaiah Scroll, which reads: "Also the sons of a foreigner that join themselves to the Lord, to be his servants, and to bless the name of the Lord ..."). Probably the most important inter­ pretive element is in v. 8, where the meturgeman renders the Hebrew's "yet will I gather others to him, besides his own that are gathered" with "yet will I bring near their exiles, to gather them." The hope of the eschatological gathering of Israel's dispersed and exiled people finds expression in the liturgy of the ancient synagogue (cf. Amida §10; Sir 51:12f. [in the Hebrew version]), a liturgy that also longs for the appearance of the Davidic Messiah (cf. Amida §14; Sir 51:12h [in the Hebrew version]). Later midrashim state: "They should not attempt to go up from the diaspora by force. For if they do, why should the King Messiah come to gather the exiles ( j i T m ^ ) of Israel?" (Song Rab. 2:7 §1); "For what purpose will the royal Messiah come, and what will he do? He will come to assemble the exiles (jrrnv'a) of Israel" (Gen. Rab. 98.9 [on Gen 49:11]). If the utterance in Mark 11:17 is authentic and if the whole of the oracle of Isa 56:1-8 is in view, then an important aspect of Jesus' exile theology lies before us. As the Davidic Messiah, and as such invested with the authority to appraise the Temple and its activities, Jesus has complained of the failure of the ruling priests. Instead of becoming a place of prayer for Gentiles and a place for the regathering of Israel's

324

EVANS

exiles, the Temple fosters oppression and neglects the needy (as seen in many of the pericopes that make up Mark 12). Temple polity, it seems, is out of step with Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom. (4) Mark 13:27, which alludes to Zech 2:6 (Hebr. v. 10), envisions a gathering of the exiles: "And then he will send forth the angels and he will gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven." Zechariah 2:6-12 (Hebr. vv. 10-16) envisions the regathering and restoration of Israel: "And the Lord will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem" (v. 12 [Hebr. v. 15]). The passage from Zechariah speaks of Gentiles joining the Jewish people in this era of reconciliation to God. This feature coheres with the early Church's interest in the Gentile mission (note also the Great Commission in Matt 28:18-20). The exilic orientation of Zechariah 2 is rendered explicit in the Targum: "These are the kingdoms which scattered the people of Judah and did not permit anyone to walk with erect stature; and these have come to frighten them, to destroy the kingdoms of the nations which took up arms against the land of the house of Judah and to drive it into exile" (Tg. Zech 2:4 [Engl. 1:21]). But even without "to drive it into exile" the Hebrew's "to scatter it" is a reminiscence of the Babylonian exile. Did Jesus utter these words, or do we have here the theology of the early Church, or possibly that of the evangelist Mark? It is not easy to decide. However, in favor of authenticity is the possibility that the "elect" who are to be gathered include the exiles of Israel. If this is correct, and it is admittedly uncertain, it is probable that the saying derives from Jesus. The early Church would probably not invent a saying having to do with the regathering of Jewish exiles. What we may have here is an authentic saying of Jesus, which original had to do with the regathering of exiles, which the early Church later under­ stood as referring to those who believe in Jesus (i.e. Christians). The 47

48

4 7

In The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial Program Within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park: Penn State Press, 1992), B. D. Chilton has made a compelling case that Jesus' demonstration in the Temple precincts was largely motivated out of concerns over purity. Although not disputing his conclusions, I do think that concerns over perceptions of injustice and of callous disregard for the poor and the defenceless, whom the Temple establishment is to protect not exploit (cf. Deut 14:29; 26:12-13; Jer 7:6; Ps 68:5), played an important part. Translation from K. J. Cathcart and R. P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (ArBib 14; Wilmington: Glazier, 1989) 187-88. 4 8

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

325

wider context of Zechariah 2, in that it anticipates Gentiles joining Israel, coheres with Isa 56:1-8, which lends further support to the pos­ sibility of authenticity. Elsewhere in Jesus' teaching, the theme of return from exile seems to be presupposed. One immediately thinks of the return of the Prodigal Son from a foreign land to his father's house (Luke 15:1132). Wright, in reference to this parable, says: "Jesus and the people around him, his motley group of followers, either constitute the real Israel or they are nothing. They are the returned-from-exile people, the people who at last know YHWH and are known by him, the newcovenant people whose sins are forgiven, at whose coming into exis­ tence the angels sing for joy." The Parable of the Prodigal Son, as well as other parables, enjoin Israel to welcome those who repent. Jesus' proclamation of repentance, moreover, coheres with the Jewish belief that repentance was a prerequisite for ending the exile. Jesus' allusion to Isa 35:5-6 in his reply to the Baptist (Matt 11:5 = Luke 7:22), given the wider context (cf. Isa 35:1-10), may have implied that Jesus' healing ministry signaled the end of the exile. (5) Some of Jesus' critical statements appear to threaten exile. Two texts which enjoy reasonable claim to authenticity predict disaster: "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! ... It shall be more tolerable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades" (Luke 10:13-15 = Matt 11:21-23a). Joseph Fitzmyer leans in favor of the authenticity of this Q saying. But does Jesus threaten eschatological judgment, or temporal destruction and exile? Being "brought down to Hades" favors the former alternative. But how are cities judged in this manner? Threats made against cities in the Old Testament anticipate temporal judgement and exile of the in­ habitants (cf. Isa 14:2-20; 16:1-7; 17:1-3; 60:11; Nah 2:7; 3:10). Jesus' language may be metaphorical (compare the highly colorful or­ acles of doom pronounced against Babylon and Tyre in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28). 49

50

51

52

4 9

Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 444; see also p. 129. See Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 106-108; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 248-49. See Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 428-30. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke X-XXIV (AB 28A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985) 852. 5 0

5 1

5 2

326

EVANS

More promising is another Q saying: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is for­ saken" (Luke 13:34-35a = Matt 23:37-38). Arguments against the au­ thenticity of this saying are not compelling. Jesus' desire to gather the children of Jerusalem could imply hopes of gathering the exiles of Israel. Because of the city's refusal to repent, the gathering will not take place. Indeed, Jerusalem's lot will become worse: Her "house is forsaken." If "your house" refers to the Temple, then we again have an important point of coherence with Jesus' demonstration in the Temple precincts and his employment of Jer 7:11. Threats of exile are found elsewhere. Luke 19:41-44 and 23:27-31 may contain authentic utterances of Jesus, but their lack of multiple attestation and the distinct possibility of Lukan composition (from words and phrases taken from the LXX) makes appeal to them haz­ ardous. Nevertheless, Fitzmyer thinks they may ultimately derive from Jesus, even if edited and recontextualized by the evangelist. Luke 21:20-24 is another oracle that appears to have been heavily edited by the Lukan evangelist (cf. Matt 24:15-19 = Mark 13:14-17). This text explicitly threatens exile: "they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations" (v. 24; cf. Deut 28:64). Perhaps we may infer from these threats a foil against which the earlier positive message of the Kingdom should be read. I see no rea­ son why we should suppose that Jesus could not have revised his mes­ sage. Following his entry into Jerusalem he has been rejected by the religious leaders, the High Priest and his ruling priestly colleagues, and evidently has been ignored, perhaps even shunned by most of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Jesus may very well have revised his mes­ sage and began speaking of judgment. (6) The word "exile" ({leroiKeaia) appears twice in Matt 1:11-12 + 17 as a pivotal point in the "messianic" genealogy. Fourteen genera­ tions lead up to the Babylonian exile, fourteen follow it leading up to the birth of the Messiah. The Matthean genealogy may have been in­ tended to suggest that the exile did not really come to an end until the appearance of Jesus, the Davidic Messiah. Although it is a post-Easter reflection, it may be rooted in a pre-Easter belief that as the Davidic 53

54

5 3

5 4

See Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, 1034; Meyer, Aims of Jesus, 207-208. Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, 1254-55.

327

EXILE AND RESTORATION IN THE PROCLAMATION OF JESUS

Messiah Jesus would deliver Israel from its exile. If so, then we have further evidence of exilic ideas in the theology of Jesus and his fol­ lowers. Finally, this essay concludes with a general observation that may have relevance for our concerns. It is interesting to reflect on Jesus' use of traditions from Daniel, Zechariah, and Second Isaiah. All 55

5 5

56

57

The Danielic dimension in Jesus' ministry is most readily seen in the ubiquitous epithet "son of man." Jesus alludes to this figure, who according to Dan 7:14, is given "dominion (Aramaic: |D^)/authority; LXX: efouatcj) and glory and kingdom." He appeals to the authority of this human figure in forgiving sins (Mark 2:10) and with respect to his activities on the sabbath (Mark 2:28). The promise that the disciples will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28 = Luke 22:30) echoes Dan 7:9, which describes "thrones" being set up, as well as Dan 7:14, which promises the son of man "glory." Jesus' asseveration that "the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve" (Mark 10:45) appears to be a deliberate reversal of Dan 7:14, which says that "all peoples, nations, and languages will serve him (the son of man)." Jesus' reply to Caiaphas, "You will see the son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven" (Mark 14:62), alludes to Dan 7:13. Daniel's understanding of "kingdom," both human and divine, is instructive for understanding Jesus and his predilection for referring to himself as the "son of man." According to Daniel, God is the giver of kingdoms. He gives the kingdom to the Babylonian king (in 2:36-38; 5:18) and, after taking it away, returns it (in 4:36). Likewise, God gives the kingdom to the "son of man" (in 7:13-14) and to the "saints of the Most High" (in 7:27). Indeed, God gives the kingdom to whomsoever he will (4:32). In reference to God, Daniel frequently says "his kingdom (nrnr^o)" (3:33 [Eng. 4:3]; 4:31 [Eng. 4:34]; 6:27 [Eng. 6:26]; 7:27). In the first three passages it is the pagan king who confesses that God's kingdom is eternal (in contrast to their own). Jesus' reference to himself as "son of man," his proclamation of the kingdom of God, and his claims to authority reflect the language of Daniel. Jesus' entry into the city, mounted on an ass (Mark 11:1-11), in all proba­ bility was consciously patterned after Solomon and the prophecy of Zech 9:9. The obscure description of Jesus' refusal to permit anyone to carry a vessel through the Temple (Mark 11:16) seems to reflect in some way Zech 14:20-21. On the night of his arrest Jesus foretells his disciples' defection, paraphrasing Zech 13:7: "I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered" (Mark 14:27). Jesus' reference to the "little flock" in Luke 12:32 and his description of the people of Israel as "sheep which have no shepherd" probably allude to the sheep/shepherd imagery of Zechariah (cf. 11:11; 13:7). Jesus' saying about faith that can move mountains may allude to Zech 14:4. The language of Zech 11:6 may have contributed to Jesus' anticipation of arrest and martyrdom and the language he used to express it (Mark 9:31). The saying about the coming of the son of man, 5 6

328

EVANS

three of these books play a major role in Jesus' theology; and all three reflect periods of exile in the life and history of Israel. Daniel reflected an exilic perspective, ostensibly the Babylonian exile, but in reality the Seleucid period of oppression and terror. Zechariah stems from the exilic period and entertains hopes that Israel's kingdom will be re­ stored under the leadership of the "two sons of oil" (4:14), Zerubbabel of Davidic descent and Joshua the High Priest. Second Isaiah calls for a new exodus and a new Israel, which he dubs the Servant of the Lord. Jesus' utilization of these books, indeed his being informed and shaped by them, is very revealing. It strongly suggests that Jesus identified himself and his mission with an oppressed Israel in need of redemption and that he himself was the agent of redemption. He was the Danielic "son of man" to whom kingdom and authority were en­ trusted. He was the humble Davidic king of Zechariah's vision who entered the Temple precincts and offered himself to the High Priest and took umbrage at Temple polity. And, of course, he was the eschatological herald of Second Isaiah who proclaimed the "gospel" of God's reign and the new exodus. All of this suggests that, among other things, Jesus understood his message and ministry as the begin­ ning of the end of Israel's exile.

accompanied by his angels (Matt 25:31), may echo the words of Zech 14:5 (esp. "Then the Lord your God will come, and all the holy ones with him' ). Jesus' proclamation and understanding of the "gospel" (euayy^ALov, which is derived from "ifon) are rooted in Isa 40:9 ("Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news"); 52:7 ("How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news"); and 61:1-2 ("The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted"). His miracles were probably understood in terms of Isa 35:5-6 ("the eyes of the blind shall be open") and 61:1-2 ("to bind up the broken hearted ... recovery of sight to the blind"), as seen in the reply to the messengers of the Baptist (cf. Matt 11:4-5 = Luke 7:22). The Servant imagery also probably played a role in Jesus' understanding, though to what extent is much debated (see discussion above and accompanying footnote). ,

5 7

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4 Scott J. Hafemann Wheaton College

There is no longer any consensus in recent scholarship concerning the generating principle of Paul's thinking, or even if such a principle ex­ isted. But though there may not be an agreed upon center for Paul's thought, there remains an agreed upon question. Regardless of their diverse perspectives concerning the contours of Paul's theology, stu­ dents of Paul continue to be convinced that, in order to defend his gospel and to validate his own personal experience as the Jewish apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had to deal with the central question of Israel's current status as God's covenant people in view of her largescale rejection of Jesus as the messiah. Moreover, Paul also had to come to grips with the future of Israel as a social and political entity in the light of his own conviction that it was those Jews and Gentiles "in Christ" who now constituted the eschatological people of God. As E. P. Sanders puts it, "Paul's thought contains one overarching difficulty, and he himself was aware of it: how does God's recent revelation in 1

1

For the Reformation emphasis that the righteousness of God and justification by faith is still the generating principle of Paul's thinking, see e.g. P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Bd. 1: Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992) 311-48; for the recently revived emphasis on Paul's own personal experience of being "in Christ," now usually conceived of either as an expression of his "participationist eschatology" or as some sort of Jewish "apocalyptic mysticism," see e.g. E. P. Sanders, Paul (Past Masters; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) and Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert, The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990) 34-71; for the view that the apocalyptic expectation of the imminent cosmic triumph of God, now proleptically fulfilled in and through Christ, is the "core" of Paul's thought, see J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle, The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); and for an expression of skepticism concerning the existence of any central, driving force to Paul's overall thought, see H. Raisanen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), esp. his "concluding reflections" (264-9).

330

HAFEMANN 2

Christ relate to his former revelations to Israel?" Or as J. Christiaan Beker observes, "If Israel has a salvation-historical advantage, an ur­ gent dilemma arises. How can Paul maintain such a position in the face of his basic theological claim that undergirds his apostolate to the Gentiles, that is, the equality of Jew and Greek in Christ on the basis of justification by faith alone (Rom 3:28-31)?" Indeed, Peter Stuhlmacher views Paul's "theologische Leistung" to be "daB er den einen Gott, der die Welt erschaffen und Israel zu seinem Eigentumsvolk erwahlt hat, die Sendung Jesu Christi zu Israel und den Volkern und die christliche Heilsgemeinde aus Juden und Heiden theologisch prinzipiell aufeinander bezogen hat. Damit hat er der Kirche ihre theologische Existenzgrundlage gegeben." Even Heikki Raisanen, who sees radical inconsistencies in Paul's thought at every turn, returns to "the problem of Jews and Gentiles" as the distinguish­ ing mark of Paul's view of the Law over against the perspective found within the Pastorals, considered by him to be deutero-Pauline writ­ ings. These observations illustrate that in raising the question of Paul's view of Israel's "exile" we find ourselves confronted by Paul's more fundamental, apocalyptic conviction that in Jesus as the Messiah "the end of the ages has arrived" and, with it, the eschatological deliver­ ance of God's people (1 Cor 10:11; Gal 1:4). This is the lens through which Paul now looks at Israel's history. The present informs the past. However, the opposite is just as true. For at the three places where the relationship between Israel and the Church is addressed most di­ rectly—Gal 4:1-7, 21-31; 2 Cor 3:4-18, and Rom 11:1-26—Paul turned to Israel's past in order to explain her present rejection of Jesus and its implications for Israel's future restoration as God's people. For Paul, Israel's past was not only a "history" to be interpreted, but also a heuristic paradigm for understanding her present and future. The epis­ tolary occasion could consequently determine which object should come into focus. Hence, Galatians 4 deals primarily with the question 3

4

5

2 Sanders, Paul, 44. This, for Sanders, is "Paul's fundamental theological problem" (cf. 117). Beker, Paul the Apostle, 331. The urgency of the dilemma derives from the fact that, in Beker's estimation, ".. .among all the New Testament writers Paul is most passionately concerned with Israel (cf. Rom 9:1-5; 10:1-2)" (328). Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 222 (emphasis mine). Raisanen, Paul and the Law, 206. 3

4

5

331

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

of Israel's past, whereas 2 Corinthians 3 is concerned principally with the present, while Romans 11 explicitly raises the question of Israel's future. Though these three aspects certainly overlap in all three pas­ sages, Galatians 4 is therefore the primary subject of our present in­ vestigation. 6

ISRAEL'S PAST AND THE ESCHATOLOGICAL STATUS OF JEWS IN

CHRIST (GAL 4:1-3)

Galatians 4 presents the interpreter with a myriad of challenges, both historical and theological, most of which cannot be met here. Our modest purpose is to delineate those assertions within Paul's argument that directly express his own thought concerning Israel's history. But it is important that we first gain our immediate contextual bearings by recognizing that the structure of the chapter falls into three sections: 1) a statement of the status of Jews in Christ (4:1-5) and the conse­ quent problem now facing the Gentile Christians in Galatia (4:6-11), which is then followed by 2) an appeal from Paul's own apostolic suffering on behalf of the Galatians (4:12-20), and 3) an appeal from the Law and the Prophets, i.e. from the Scriptures themselves (4:21-30). 7

8

6

For the explicit references to Israel and the Jews within the Pauline corpus, see: 'Iapaf|X (Rom 9:6, 27, 31; 10:19; 11:2, 7, 25, 26; 1 Cor 10:18; 2 Cor 3:7; Gal 6:16; Eph 2:12; Phil 3:5); 'ICTpcrnXLTns'(Rom 9:4; 11:11; 2 Cor 11:22); 'IouScuos (Rom 1:16; 2:9, 10, 17, 28, 29; 3:1, 9, 29; 9:24; 10:12; 1 Cor 1:22, 23, 24; 9:20; 10:32; 12:13; 2 Cor 11:24; Gal 2:13, 14, 15; 3:28; 1 Thess 2:14); 'IouSaia^s (Gal 1:13, 14); tou8atCeii/ (Gal 2:14); 'Iou8aiKGfc (Gal 2:14); and 'Iou8aiK6s" (Titus 1:14). Paul's thought in this regard is part of the larger trajectory of tradition dealt with in this volume. Hence, the relevant traditionsgeschichtliche perspectives that formed the wider context of Paul's thought can be readily observed within the wider "context" of this essay. Note the indicative introduction \£ yo) 8£ of the analogy in 4:1, together with the indicative statements throughout 4:1-11, followed by the imperatives ytveoGe us eyw and X£ye-r£ jioi in 4:12 and 4:21 respectively. The inferential 816 of 4:31 (or the variant dpa), introducing the two indicative statements of 4:315:1a, followed by the c&v of 5:1b, with its imperative aT^KCTe, mark out the transition to the next unit of Paul's argument. The traditional chapter break between 4:31 and 5:1 is therefore misplaced. Unless indicated otherwise, all text references are to Galatians. For the view that already at 4:12 Paul turns from the 7

8

332

HAFEMANN

Thus, chapter four presents the climactic restatement of the issue now facing the Galatians (4:1-11), together with Paul's initial, fulllength hortatory arguments for rejecting the message of the Galatian agitators (4:12-30). In examining Galatians 4, the reader must there­ fore pay close attention to the important thematic links that precede this unit as their contextual preparation. It is what Paul has just said that clued his original listeners into the intent of what he is now say­ ing. In 4:1-7 Paul continues his discussion of the inheritance and its heirs introduced in 3:15-29 in relationship to the contrast between the covenants of Abraham and Sinai (cf. 3:18: icXTipovo|jua and 3:29: KXr|pov6p.oi with 4:1: K\Tipov6p.osO. Paul's understanding of this con­ trast led him to the conclusion that those who belong to Christ, "the seed (singular) of Abraham" (3:16), are the true "seed (plural) of Abraham" and, as such, the rightful heirs of the covenant-promise first 9

"rebuke" of 3:1-4:11 to a "request" or "appeal" aimed at the Galatians (i.e. from "forensic" to "deliberative rhetoric"), see G. Walter Hansen, Abraham in Galatians, Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts (JSNTSup 29; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 141-54. For a survey of the current debate over the rhetorical structure and genre of Galatians, see now Robert G. Hall, "Arguing like an Apocalypse: Galatians and an Ancient Topos outside the Greco-Roman Rhetorical Tradition," NTS 42 (1996) 434-53. Though I would evaluate certain sections of Paul's letter differently, Hall's overall thesis that Galatians exhibits a coherent logical structure in which Paul establishes a juridical argument in accordance with the pattern often found in Jewish apocalyptic writings is persuasive. According to Hall (436), like many apocalypses, Paul first claims inspiration, then reveals that "in Christ God has inaugurated a righteous sphere, urges the Galatians to stand fast in this righteous sphere, and shows how standing in the righteous sphere entails cleaving to himself [i.e. Paul] and to his gospel and repudiating the gospel of circumcision and those who preach it." Hence, "Paul, who had unequivocally claimed inspiration, now reveals two spheres and exacts a choice between them" (444). For Paul, these "spheres" or "realms" do not merely reflect cosmic orders based on "opposed spheres of heavenly judgment" (439, 445); they also correspond to two periods within redemptive history. Specifically, the two "realms" may be equated with the epoch of Israel's experience under the Sinai covenant (which Hall terms "the sphere of the Law governing wickedness" or "of the works and curse of the Law [3:10-12]") and the epoch of the covenant now inaugurated by Christ's death (cf. 1:4; 4:4, 26). 9

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

333

10

made to their ancestor (3:29). This is true even for Gentiles (cf. the second person plurals of 3:26-29) who exercise faith in Jesus as the messiah (cf. the clearly instrumental 8id mareus £v XptaTw Tricrou in 3:26) and are incorporated into his inheritance by baptism (3:27). In a word, "in Christ" they are all uiol 8eo0 (3:26). In view of this affirmation, Paul's purpose in 4:1-7 is to explicate the signifi­ cance of this change in status or "sphere" for these descendants of Abraham now that the epoch of "faith" has dawned with the sending of God's son in the "fullness of time" (4:4; cf. 1:4). The use of "faith" as a marker within the history of redemption can be seen thematically in the parallel between bre ?|X0ev T6 TrXrjpwijLa TOU xpo^ou in 4:4 and the personification of Titans' in 3:23-25 (cf. the correspondence between dxpL? oh ?X&rj T6 a*rrep|ia in 3:19, Trpo TOU eXQeiv TTJV in 3:23, and £X0OUOT|£ T % maTea)? in 3:25). That Paul has

TTLOTLV

u

the significance of this change in the ages in view is evident struc­ turally in the two tva-clauses of 4:5 and in the implication of the Rare-clause in 4:7, the two outcomes of God's sending the Son (4:4) and the Spirit of the Son (4:6), respectively. Hence, if Paul's intention in 4:1-7 is to indicate the theological significance of being Abraham's descendants "in Christ" in the epoch of "faith" (cf. uloOea'ia in 4:5 with vloLAAfc in 4:6-7), his correspond1 0

Paul's conviction in 3:16 is not some exegetical slight of hand, but is built upon the Old Testament and Jewish understanding that the messiah fulfills the Abrahamic promise (cf. e.g. the link between Gen. 15:8; 17:7f. and 2 Sam. 7:12, the association of Gen. 12:3 [cf. Gen. 18:18] with Ps. 72[71]:17; Sir. 44:21 in Gal. 3:8, and Paul's explicit statement in Rom. 15:8 that Christ fulfills the promises to the Patriarchs. For these points and their support, see now James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God, An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of TIOOEZIA in the Pauline Corpus (WUNT 2.48; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992) 180-2, based esp. on the works of O. Betz, D. Daube, N. Dahl, R. P Gordon, R. E. Clements, and M. Weinfield. For "faith" in Galatians as the means for receiving the gospel, as well as a metonomy for the eschatological reality of the gospel itself, see C. H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit, A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988) 55-7. Hence, as a metonomy for the gospel, TT(CTTL9 can designate the soteriological reality in Christ that embraces "both the opening up of an eschatological reality from the divine side ('the promise that comes from Jesus-Christ-Faith might be given') and the grasping of eschatological life in faith by believers ('to those who believe')" (57). Moreover, "it is not the existential but the eschatological nature of Christ-Faith that receives the stress in Galatians.. ."(57f.). 11

334

HAFEMANN

ing focus in doing so is consistently eschatological. This has been confirmed by the important and extensive work of James Scott. In the conventional reading of this passage as an application of an "illustration" drawn from the legal practice of testamentary guardian­ ship over minors, Paul's illustration is commonly recognized to be problematic historically, since it does not correspond completely with either Hellenistic or Roman law. Furthermore, the application itself is viewed to be misguided, since 1) the "father" in vv. 3-7 (i.e. God) ac­ tively sends and adopts others, while the father in v. 2 is posthumously concerned with his own son; 2) the guardianship of a minor in vv.1-2 is suddenly transposed into an adoption in v. 5; and 3) the equation of the role of the heir with that of a slave is seen to be a confusion of c a t e g o r i e s . But as Scott has demonstrated, Gal 4:1-7 is not an idiosyncratic "illustration" of a timeless principle, i.e. that in regard to one's inheritance, a minor (i.e. the i/r^TTio^) is functionally no better off than a slave (4:1-2), that is then misapplied. Rather, the explana­ tory backdrop to Paul's thought in 4:1-7 is the first Exodus/second Exodus typology used in both the OT and post-biblical Judaism to picture Israel's future restoration from her "slavery" in exile. When 12

13

14

1 2

Scott, Adoption, 121-86. Inasmuch as I regard Scott's work to be a turning point in the exegesis of the argument and Cosgrove's reconstruction to set the stage for reading the occasion of the letter (see below, n. 29), in what follows I am indebted to and will interact most directly with their work. For the history of the commentary tradition and secondary literature on this passage, see Scott's comprehensive footnotes. For these problems and others, with varying attempts to solve them within the traditional paradigm, see the literature surveyed by Scott, Adoption, 123-5, especially H. D. Betz, Galatians, A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 202-4. Indeed, J. C. O'Neill could even conclude that the images employed in verses 1-7 were so "strictly incompatible" because the section had been glossed by two different hands (quoted by Scott, Adoption, 124f., emphasis Scott's). In contrast, Scott's alternative brings an intrinsic harmony to Paul's images that corresponds to the carefully structured nature of the passage itself. For the six lexical arguments in support of this reading, see Scott, Adoption, 126-45, on the referents of eTrtTpoTTos' (taken to mean "guardian of an orphan" as used in Jewish papyri from Nahal Hever); 6 KXTIPOI^OS (taken to refer to "the seed of Abraham" from 3:29, rather than as a general reference); WITTLOS' (taken as a general designation referring to those needing instruction and moral development, not as a technical term referring to a "minor" [d(J>fj\L£] in a legal sense); Kvpiog iravruv (a Hoheitstitel of universal sovereignty used to refer 1 3

1 4

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

335

read from this perspective, Paul's argument evinces a "basic harmony between the 'type'—Israel's redemption to divine adoptive sonship (uloOecjia [cf. Rom. 9:4]) at the foreordained time of the Exodus from Egypt (vv. 1-2)—and the 'antitype'—believers' redemption to divine adoptive sonship (uioOeaia) at the foreordained time of the Second Exodus (vv. 3-7)." Although Scott's analysis of the traditionsgeschichtliche back­ ground and lexical referents for 4:1-7 is convincing and presents a breakthrough in the conundrum surrounding this passage, his applica­ tion of them to 4:1-2 needs to be refined. This refinement will then lead to a reassessment of the first element of Paul's Exodus typology. As Scott himself points out, the only key term found in 4:1-2 that oc­ curs explicitly in the OT or post-biblical accounts of the Exodus from Egypt is the use of vf|TTios' in Hosea 11:1 to refer to Israel as "young" at the time God called her out of Egypt. Scott is able to apply the other terminology of 4:1-2 to the Exodus from Egypt only by pointing to general conceptual parallels and by reading Trpo9ea|iia (i.e. the 15

16

17

to the rule over and inheritance of the world promised to Abraham's descendants [cf. Rom. 4:13], not a reference to the minor's legal, though not yet realized possession of the inheritance); the collocation of eTTtTpoTTos" Kal oiKoi>6p.os (used together as official titles of subordinate state administrators, not guardians of a minor); and TrpoGeapla (a set date or predetermined time limit, not a date set by a father for the termination of guardianship). On the connection between Israel's "slavery" and her exile, see VanderKam's discussion of T. Mos. 3:10-14 in his essay on "Exile in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature." Scott, Adoption, 186; cf. 149-51. For the concept of Israel's adoption as God's son at the Exodus, Scott, 130, points to Exod 4:22; Deut 1:31; 14:1; Hos 11:1; Isa 63:16; Wisd 18:13; m. Aboth 3:14. For his helpful summary of the Exodus-typology in the OT, Judaism, and the NT, see 151-5. Scott, Adoption, 129. Scott, Adoption, 134f., 144f. argues that 1) ictipios TTdi/Twv is related to Israel as the heirs of the Abrahamic promises (cf. 6 k\tipoi/6^os' in 4:1; and see Rom 4:13 for this singular use for the plural seed of Abraham) inasmuch as the Abrahamic promise of land led to the eschatological hope that Israel would rule over and inherit the world (cf. Rom 4:13; Jub. 22:11b, 13-14; 32:19; Sir 44:1923); and that 2) even though £irtTpoiros' Kal otKoi/6^09 are never employed among the wide variety of titles used in the LXX, Philo, and Josephus to refer to Israel's overseers in Egypt (cf. e.g. dpxwv, apxitfTpd-nryosY £icaT6i/apxos, fryouiicvosY kmard-n^, ^pyoSiakTai, ^ c a T W T e s [Philo, Mos. 1.40.43], 6 £ttI t(3v 'Eppatan/ T£T

1 5

1 6

1 7

336

HAFEMANN

predetermined "date" set by God as the "Father" of 4:2) as a referral to the 430 years of 3:17, since this is the nearest relevant time refer­ ence. Hence, rather than letting TTpoBeajjLia refer to the period of the emTpoTros' Kal oiKo^p.os' as expressed in 4:2 itself (i.e. to the period

of the Law, see below), it is now interpreted in view of Gen 15:13 and Exod 12:40 to r e f e r to the foreordained time-period of Israel's bondage in Egypt. Further, Scott admits that his reading of 4:1-2 as a direct reference to Israel in Egypt cannot explain the transition in 4:3 to an enslavement UTTO T& OTOLxeta TOU K6O\LOV during this same time period. Finally, if 4:1-2 refers to Israel's past enslavement in Egypt, it is striking that Paul's discussion in 4:1-2 is stated in t h e present tense, not the past, which is then restated in the past tense in 4:3 from t h e standpoint of Paul's no longer being in t h e status of i/rjmoi. Though it is difficult to distinguish precisely between t h e nuances of t h e present tense, this change in tense f r o m 4:1-2 to 4:3 and Paul's self-identification with the period in view in 4:1-2 together point either to a "durative" ("progressive") u s e of the present in 4:1-2, in which a state of being or a c t that began in t h e past (Israel's "child"/"slave" status) is described as continuing "up to and including the present," or an "aoristic (effective) present," in which t h e affirmation is presented as a simple event or present fact. As such, t h e present tense of 4:1-2 carries t h e same s e n s e as t h e present of 3:17 18

19

20

functions and the wide variety of terms used in the literature indicates that the exact title of the Egyptian taskmasters was not fixed in Paul's day. This is then confirmed by the use of the rabbinic loan-word psnosR in Tg. Ps.-J. to Gen 41:35 to refer to Pharoah's officials and by the fact that two kinds of overseers are mentioned in the Mekilta to Exod 14:5. Scott, Adoption, 141f. Cf. Acts 7:6-7,17 for this same period of fixed time between Abraham and the Exodus. Scott, Adoption, 160, must therefore conclude that no interpretation of this phrase offered to date "seems to satisfy the context." For my reading, see below. Quotes from F. Blass, A. DeBrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) [= BDF] §322 and James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1978) 77, 79, 81. Both point out that one indication of the durative use is the common presence of a temporal adverbial modification (cf. e.g. Luke 13:7; 15:29; John 5:58; 15:27 [with eljit], etc.). Here that would be e' boov xpoi/oi/. 18

19

2 0

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

337

(cf. dicupoi), which, in contrast to Scott's suggestion, should also not be taken to be a historical present. Hence, the allusion to Hos 11:1 and the use of 8013X09 in 4:1 (cf. Gen 15:13, where SouXoa) is used to refer to Israel's sojourn in Egypt), together with the "adoption" and "redemption" motifs in 4:5 (see be­ low), certainly establish an Exodus-typology as the basis of Paul's comparison. But though a wide variety of terminology was available to refer specifically to the Exodus from Egypt, Paul does not employ them in 4:1-2. Indeed, in 4:1 Paul does not link Israel as the "heir" with the period of time leading up to the Exodus event, but with her status as a "child." Moreover, £<\> baov xpovov is not used demon­ stratively to refer to specific periods of time (like the definite 430 years of 3:17), but is employed here to signify "incorporation" (i.e. "for the whole time in view"). This corresponds to the general terms used in 4:2 to describe Israel's "bosses" and to the use of the present tense throughout 4:1-2, all of which combine to indicate that Paul is here viewing Israel's period of childhood/slavery as an interpretive principle representing whatever period of time is contextually in view. Paul's point is not to describe the specific period of time of Israel's sojourn in Egypt, but rather the time of Israel's status as a "child" who, as such, is no better off than a "slave." Furthermore, rather than referring solely to Israel's first captivity, Paul uses the images of Israel's first captivity as the framework for describing Israel's period of history as a "child" as one long period of slavery for as long as it may exist (e<\>' baov xpovov). In other words, Israel is under govern­ mental authorities dxpi Tffc TrpoGeajitas* TOU TraTpo?. Within its 21

J

22

2 1

Scott, Adoption, 146. In 3:17 dKupoi is also best taken to be a "durative" present in reference to the fact that the Law still does not annul the Abrahamic covenant with its promise, just as 3:18a is certainly to be taken in the same way. After all, the problem is that Israel still finds herself "under this Law." Of course, if 3:17 is not in view in 4:1, then this argument collapses. Scott also points to Paul's ability to recount OT events in the present under his conviction that the Scripture still speaks (cf. Rom 11:2). But in Gal 4:1-2 we have no parallel Scriptural citation. For this classification of its use in Gal 4:1 and the other categories of usage for the 108 occurrences of the relative pronoun boos in the NT, see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 732-3, who points out that its use with an antecedent is not common apart from a few stereotypical constructions (such as -n&mes boot). 2 2

338

HAFEMANN

own context of 4:1-2, this latter designation is therefore best taken not to refer to the specific time of 3:17, but to that set period of Israel's childhood until she is enabled by God to come into her inheritance. Within the immediate context of 3:22-29, this refers explicitly to the period from the granting of the promise of inheritance to Abraham to its realization with the coming of Christ. The point of mentioning the 430 years in 3:17 is to stress that this was not the time of the inheri­ tance when Israel stopped being a child/slave. Conversely, Paul's point in 4:1-2 is that Israel's "childhood," i.e. her "slavery in Egypt," which according to Gen 15:13-14 was also declared to Abraham as part of the covenant promise, must be seen as extending over Israel's entire experience "as a slave" from Abraham to Christ. This too ac­ cords with the Exodus-typology of the OT, in which Israel's exile is viewed as an enslavement comparable to her time in Egypt. Indeed, Hos 11:1 pictures Israel as a v^mos- at the time she was called from Egypt in order to establish the drastic nature of Israel's subsequent re­ bellion in view of the fact that she had been "adopted" and cared for by God (cf. Hos 11:2-4). The point of Hos 11:1-4 is that in judgment for her sin Israel will experience a second enslavement in Assyria like her first in Egypt (Hos 11:5). This is part of a wider prophetic motif which pictures Israel as still a "youth" during her time of rebellion leading up to the Exile. Thus, the only difference between the prophets and Paul in this regard is that, given Paul's historical and es­ chatological vantage point, this exilic period of slavery in judgment for Israel's rebellion is seen as stretching until "Christ/faith came" in the "fullness of time" (3:19, 23, 25, 4:4). Paul's intention in 4:1-2 is to remind his readers that, in contrast to the Galatian Gentiles who are already declared to be heirs in 3:29, the 23

24

2 3

Cf. e.g. Lev 26:13; Isa 10:24-27; 11:11; 35:9f.; 43:1-7; 48:10; 51:9f.; 63:764:12; Zech 10:8-11; Jer 11:4, etc.. Jer 3:24f.; 22:21; 31:19; 32:30; Ezek 16:22, 43, 60; 23:3, 8, 19, 21; Mai 2:14f. Cf. too Ps 129: If. and the more general concept of one's youth as a period of time associated with sin in Job 13:26; Ps 25:7. Conversely, Isa 54:4 looks forward to the time when Israel will be redeemed from her youth, here understood to be a period of abandonment and shame paralleled to that of widowhood. Jer 2:2f. and Hos 2:15-17 are usually given as exceptions to this pattern, though they too may be read in a similar light; see my Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel, The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (WUNT 81; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995 and Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996) 235 n. 148. 2 4

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

339

25

one who is the heir (i.e. collective Israel; cf. Rom 4:13) will remain in the same position functionally as a slave, i.e. without the inheri­ tance, for as long as she remains a "child." This is true even though, by covenant status, Israel, and not the Gentiles, is the eventual "lord" (icupiosO, i e . rightful owner, of the "earth" as her "estate" (contextually, &v in 4:1 is to be taken concessively). Hence, even though the "child" is the future heir of "all things," Israel's present status of rebellion requires that she continue to be under the judgment of being ruled by others until God should end her period of slavery (4:2). This is the import of dXXd in 4:2, which is "rhetorically ascensive" to the main assertion of verse 1 (in the sense of "not only this, but.. . " ) . As a child, not only is the heir in no way different from the slave (ou8ev 8taepeL SouXou), but (dXXa) she is UTTO eTTtTpoTTous leal olKovop.ous' dxpi TiS' irpo0eap. ias' TOU TTGLTP6S\ 'AXXd in 4:2 thereby heightens the contrast between Israel's status as heir and her current treatment like a slave under the authority of others. The main point of the analogy is therefore clear, even under the traditional reading, though its heilsgeschichtliche implication will then be missed. In terms of actualizing his inheritance, the "child" (= Israel) is no better off than the slave for as long as this status remains. But we must be careful to carry Paul's central point through to its comparison in 4:3-7. Here too, as in 3:23-29, Paul's emphasis is not 26

27

T

/

28

1

Following Scott, Adoption, 128, in taking the article in 6 KXTipoi/dp-os to be anaphoric, not generic. Even Scott, Adoption, 133 n. 45, 134, must acknowledge that the Hoheitstitel ictipios TT&VTUSV, though often used of rulers and in political contexts of a ruling body of people, can also be used "under the figure of a household (cf. Epict. Diss. 4.1.12; Arist. Pol. 1285B,30).' Following W. Bauer, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (2nd. ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) 38, meaning 5. E.g., see now the recent presentation of the traditional reading of this text by Hans-Joachim Eckstein, Verheifiung und Gesetz, Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2:15^:7 (WUNT 86; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996) 225-8. Eckstein rightly concludes, 228 n. 271, "Auf die Details der Bildhalfte geht Paulus allerdings sowenig ein wie auf mogliche MiBverstandnisse seines Vergleichs auf der Sachebene. Vielmehr konzentriert er sich ganz auf das eine tertium comparationis: den Kontrast zwischen fruherer 'Versklavung' und jetziger Freiheit und Wtirde." 25

2 6

,

27

28

340

HAFEMANN 29

existential, as these texts are so often interpreted, but eschatological. The "inheritance" in view does not establish two ways of life (i.e. "works" versus "faith" or "law" versus "grace"), but two distinct peri­ ods of time: Israel's period of "childhood" in anticipation of the inher­ itance and the time of inheritance itself in accordance with the unal­ terable will of the Father (cf. 4 : 2 with 1:1 and 1:4). By comparison (cf. the ODTO)? Kai of 4 : 3 ) , these same two periods of time apply to those Jews who, like Paul as their prime example, have now experi­ enced both periods of Israel's history ( 4 : 3 - 5 ) . Like all the children of 30

31

2 9

Here and throughout the essay I am following the understanding of the epistolary "problem" addressed by Galatians as argued by Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, 1-86. Cosgrove has shown that the central issue in Galatians was not the proper conditions for justification before God per se (as if 2:15-21 were the center of the debate), or the proper foundation for ethics in the age of the Spirit (as if 4:3Iff. were the heart of the letter), or the proper entrance requirements for membership within the people of God (as if the references to circumcision, ritual purity, and the calendar represented Paul's fundamental concern)—i.e. the three most influential theories in the history of interpretation. Rather, an analysis of the structure of the letter shows that the Galatian problem is first addressed directly in 3:1-14, within which 3:1-5 presents the crux of the dispute (cf. Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, viii, 8-15, 32-35, 38-42, 49-51, 86). In short, "Galatians is not about whether justification is by 'works' or by 'faith,' but about whether believers can promote their ongoing experience of the Spirit by doing the law" (ibid., 2, emphasis mine). In the categories now made famous by E. P. Sanders, and contra his own reading of the letter, Galatians is not about "getting in," but about "staying in" the people of God (cf. Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, 12, 44). The controversy addressed by 3:2b is a disagreement over the relationship between keeping the Law and experiencing life in the Spirit. The answers to the rhetorical questions in 3:2b and 5, based on the Galatians' own experience, are therefore meant to settle the argument: the source of the Galatians' continuing life in the Spirit is the same as their initial reception of the Spirit, i.e. £f dKoffc iriareoyg (as seen in their experience of justification), and not £f Zpyuv v6\iov. For my understanding of the meaning of this contrast, see below. 3 0

For the use of OUTO>S in typological arguments, cf. Matt 12:40; 24:37, 39; John 3:14; Rom 5:12, 18, 19; 1 Cor 15:22; pointed out by Scott, Adoption, 150f. n. 102. But the analogy to the child does not apply to the Gentiles. The change from the first person plurals of verses 3-5 (t^€i9...iVei/...fiii£0a SeSouAio^i/oi ...dTToXd|3a)^ei/) to the second person of verses 6-7 (eaTc.el) is to be read in the same way as the pronoun contrasts in the other two sections dealing with redemption, 2:15-17 and 3:23-29, i.e. as contrasts between Jews and Gentiles. This is reinforced by the explicit qualification in 4:5a that those who receive 3 1

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

341

Abraham who were destined to inherit the promises granted to Israel's patriarch, Paul too had a period of childhood/enslavement during which he could not yet receive his inheritance (4:3: 0 T 6 f\\iev vTJmoi.. .fip.60a SeSouXcojievoi). However, this comparison between the present of 4:2 and the past of 4:3 further underscores the continuing enslavement of Israel's exile during Paul's own day for those Jews who have not experienced the redemption brought about through the sending of the Son as described in 4:4-5. For being UTT6 e m T p o i T o u s ' Kal olKOvop.ous during Israel's period of slavery in 4:2 parallels being UTTO T& aroix^la TOU Koap.ou in 4:3 andinro vop.ov in 4:5 as those things which also rule over Israel in her period of "slavery." Conversely, it is only the coming of the Son and faith in him that, in accordance with the will of God (i.e. the TTOLTTIP of 4:2), brings this "period of time" (i.e. the XP° °S of 4:1) to an end. Within the larger context, Paul's reference to Israel being UTTO VO\LOV in 4:5 picks up his earlier reference in 3:23 to the fact that "before faith came [i.e. during the period of Israel's "childhood" without the inheritance], Israel was being held under custody UTTO i/6|iov," which is the particular application to Israel of the universal statement in 3:22 that during this period "Scripture confined all things UTTO D|IAPTLAV." The nature of Israel's experience "under the Law," V

32

adoption are those UTT6 V6\LOV, which can only refer to Jews. In our present context the one exception to this contrast between Jews and Gentiles may be els T&S Kap8tasr f^wv in 4:6, which may be an inclusive reference employed to stress the unity of Jew and Gentile as a result of their common reception of the Spirit. But it is not until 4:31 that Paul consistently uses ev^ev in an inclusive sense, where he indicates this by way of the vocative d8e\(f>oL This corresponds to the common use of the first person plural in admonitions (cf. 5: Iff.). For the attempt to read the first person plurals of 3:23-25 and 4:3-5 to refer to "Jews and Gentiles ' and "mankind," see Scott, Adoption, 155-157 and the literature cited there. Scott's central argument is that in 4:6-7, as elsewhere in the epistle, "Paul bases a statement about 'us' on a statement about 'you' and then oscillates suddenly between 'we' (v. 6b) and 'you' (v. 7)" (157). Though beyond the scope of this present work, suffice it to say that in each of these cases Paul's oscillation is to be explained on the basis of his heilsgeschichtliche understanding of the interrelationship between the redemption of Israel and that of the Gentiles and vice versa. Contra those who, like F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 180f., rightly see that the reference to the "Scripture" here, as in 3:8 and Rom 11:32, is "practically equivalent to 'God,'" and that the general use of the neuter T& Trdi/Ta "embraces the whole human ,

3 2

342

HAFEMANN

i.e. her covenant-breaking rebellion against YHWH during her "childhood" as a "slave," is determined by the fact that God confined all things, Israel included, "under sin." In addition, the temporal distinction between the coming of "faith" and a period "under Law," together with the contrast between the Law and the "promise" associated with the Abrahamic covenant, demonstrates that, like TTtaTis', v6p.os too is being used as a metonomy, in its case for the Sinai covenant (cf. 3:17 and 4:24). Hence, Israel's being "held in custody by the Law" is descriptive of her particular experience in the pre-redemptive period of time (i.e. the period of the Sinai covenant) in which all things are "under" or "ruled by sin" until the epoch of "faith" is revealed with the coming of Christ (3:23b; cf. 3:19, 24). Though a matter of much debate, the conceptual link between Israel's being "under the Law" (3:23; 4:5) as a consequence of all things being "under sin" (3:22) is therefore best explained when the former is seen to be a short-hand reference back to Paul's explication in 3:10-13. There Paul reminded his readers that those who are ef epycov V6\LOV, i.e. those who are living according to the stipulations of the Law as the embodiment of the Sinai covenant, are in fact birb Karapav (3:10). 33

situation.. .in the aeon which the gospel age has displaced," but who then miss the distinction between 3:22 and 23. For Bruce, namely, "The sense of v. 22 is here repeated in different terms...a distinction without much of a difference.... As Gentiles and Jews alike are 'confined under sin' in v. 22, so Gentiles and Jews alike are 'confined under law' here" (18If.). For this same view in the continental tradition, see Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (14th ed.; KEK 7; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 164-6. But for the recognition of the distinction between mankind and the Jews in 3:22-23, see Joachim Rohde, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (ThHK 9; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1989) 160f. Though beyond the scope of the present paper to argue in detail, Paul's much debated reference to Td £pya V6\LOV (cf. Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5; 10; Rom 3:20, 27f.; 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32) is here taken as a subjective genitive to refer to what the Law itself commanded or enjoined as a whole in its positive role as setting forth the stipulations of the Sinai covenant that flow naturally from Israel's prior election and continuing reception of God's mercy, an essential part of which is the forgiveness for sins. In my view, the phrase therefore carries no necessary negative connotations. However, this covenantal and eschatological reading of Paul's references to Td Zpya V6\LOV underscores the fact that maintaining allegiance to the old covenant and its particular stipulations once the new has arrived not only denies the saving efficacy of Christ's work, but also may lead to a false boasting in one's heritage as a by-product. Indeed, at times this may have 3 3

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

343

James Scott has now gone to demonstrate that Paul's combination of Deut 27:26 with Deut 29:19b (or 28:58) in Gal 3:10, together with the formulaic expression yeypaiipia kv TW (3ij3Xtco TOT) v6|iou TOUTOU (cf. Deut 28:58, 6 1 ; 29:19, 20, 26; 30:10), shows that Paul's been its very appeal (cf. Gal 6:13; Rom 2:17-24; 3:27; 4:2; 1 Cor 1:26-29). For the various understandings of this term, see now T. R. Schreiner, "Works of the Law," in Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, IL/Leicester: IVP, 1993) 975-9. The interpretation of "works of the Law" taken here is now confirmed by the possible use of the parallel phrase rmrrfcwn in 4QFlor [4Q174] 1:7 and by the certain reading rrnnrrftWD ("deeds/works of the Torah") in 4QMMT [4Q398] 29. For the arguments surrounding the former text and a positive reading of the parallels between Qumran and Paul, see my "The Spirit of the New Covenant, the Law, and the Temple of God's Presence: Five Theses on Qumran Self-Understanding and the Contours of Paul's Thought," in J. Adna, S. J. Hafemann, and O. Hofius (eds.), Evangelium Schriftauslegung Kirche. Festschrift fur Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997) 172-89,178-85. For a rejection of the reading mm in favor of rmn ("thanksgiving") in 4QFlor, and for a rejection of a parallel between 4QMMT and Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10, see now Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, "Die Bedeutung der Qumrantexte fur das Verstandnis des Galaterbriefes aus dem Munchener Projekt: Qumran und das Neue Testament," in George J. Brooke (ed.), New Qumran Texts and Studies, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 169-221, 173-5, 202-13. The jury is still out on the former text, but the rejection of the parallel between Paul and 4QMMT is based, of course, on one's reading of Paul. Of significance for our present study is the fact that 4QMMT also uses this phrase in reference to the curses and blessings of Deut. 27-30 in a way that is "quite similar to Paul's own Israel-reflection in Gal 3:8-14;" for this point and further support for the translation "deeds/works of the Law" offered above, see now J. D. G. Dunn, "4QMMT and Galatians," NTS 43 (1997) 147-53, 148, 150 (in reference to 4QMMT C13-22 [Qimron ed.] or 99-108 [Martinez trans.]). Dunn himself recognizes that MMT thus "shared a more widespread fascination with this section of Deuteronomy as a way of making sense of the ups and downs of Israel's history," but he questions whether this means that its authors thought that they were still in exile, since they themselves were experiencing a type of inaugurated eschatology similar to the Christian self-understanding (149). This objection, however, overlooks the concept of the remnant in the thought of both Qumran and Paul. Dunn's further thesis that in both 4QMMT and Galatians the phrase "works of the Law" refers to a subset of the Law's commands that were used in their respective disputes as boundary markers cannot be taken up in detail here, nor the apparent contrast that is often seen between "faith" in Paul and "obedience" or "covenant faithfulness" in this text and others like it (cf. his "4QMMT," 150-2). On the first two of these points, see the next note.

344

HAFEMANN

understanding of this "curse of the Law" is to be taken from Deuteronomy 27-32, read as a conceptual whole. Hence, the "curse" in view is the Law's pronouncement that those who fail to keep the covenant stipulations as set out in the "book of the Law" will suffer the judgment of God, a judgment which Moses declares will eventuate in the exile of the nation (cf. Deut 29:20-30:1; 3L16-18). Indeed, the "Song of Moses," together with the rest of Deuteronomy, is intended to serve as a witness against Israel when she falls under the exilic judgment of God for her idolatry (Deut 31:19-21, 26; 32:5, 15-42). Paul's point, therefore, is that under the Sinai covenant Israel continued to remain in the sin that rules "all things" and thus 34

3 4

See James M. Scott, "Tor as Many as are of Works of the Law are Under a Curse' (Galatians 3:10)," in James A. Sanders and Craig A. Evans (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (JSNTSup 83; Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 187-221, esp. 1945. Though in agreement that the phrase "written in the book of the Law" "simply underlines the extent to which Paul was recalling the whole of that concluding section of Deuteronomy, indeed 'the book of the law' itself . . .," James D. G. Dunn (The Epistle to the Galatians [BNTC; London: Blackwells, 1993] 170, 172) objects to this view in favor of taking £pya V6\LOV to be Paul's own "code" for that subset of the Law which was used to form "boundary markers" between Jews and Gentiles (here, above all, circumcision and food laws; cf. 1:6-8; 2:4, 12). In 3:10, Paul thus pronounces a curse on this attitude and practice by using the wider context of the Law against them, i.e. its more fundamental call for faith and love (cf. 173). For Dunn, therefore, Paul's argument in 3:10 is based on an "idiosyncratic reading of Deut 27:26" (171). In defense of his view, he points to "deeds of the Law" in CD 1:5-8 and 4QMMT as expressing confidence in a re­ established and sustained covenant, not to a sense of being in judgment under exile. Moreover, "certainly the attitude within Judaism attested by Paul from his own experience in such passages as Rom 2:17-20; 10:2f.; Gal 2:13f. and Phil 3:6 evinces no sense of being still under the curse of exile" (172). But Dunn fails to take into account that both Qumran and Paul viewed themselves as representatives of the faithful remnant within disobedient Israel as a whole. For both Qumran and Paul the point is precisely the contrast between Paul (both as a Pharisee and as a Christian) and the Qumran community, as those who keep the covenant and are consequently not cursed by God, and the hardened nation as a whole, which needs to be called to repentance. For this point, see my "Five Theses," and Paul's understanding of himself as part of the remnant in Rom 11:1-5 as developed in my "The Salvation of Israel in Romans 11:25-32," (see below, n.75). The strength of the reading followed here is that it need not conclude that Paul's use of ipya V6\LOV and the OT is idiosyncratic or that Paul employs the Law against itself to make his argument.

345

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

continued to transgress the commandments laid down in "the book of the Law," thus incurring God's judgment (Gal 3:10, 19, 23). Against this backdrop, the purpose of the comparison between the covenants of Abraham and Sinai in 3:15-18 is to reassure Paul's readers that Israel's transgressions against the Sinai covenant have not overthrown the covenant promises granted to Abraham. Although the Sinai covenant is broken and Israel as a people still remains under the exilic "curse of the Law," the promises granted to Abraham (which climaxed with the blessing of Abraham being extended to the Gentiles) stand firm because it is the Messiah (the one seed), not Israel under the Law, who is the true heir of Abraham (cf. 3:16). Those who inherit the promise as the "seed of Abraham" do so, therefore, not because they submit to the Sinai covenant, but because they are baptized els XpiaTov, are one people ev XpLa™ lr|aoi), and hence now find their identity as those who are XpioroO (3:3:27-29). The parallels between 3:10, 22, 23, and 4:1-5 therefore point to Paul's own summary of the flow of biblical history in which, from the time of her sin with the golden calf onward, Israel lived under the judgment of God proclaimed in the Law (i.e. "the curse of the Law" of 3:10) because of her transgressions against the covenant as detailed by that same Law (3:19). Furthermore, as the Deuteronomic backdrop to 3:10 makes clear, the curse of the Law climaxed in Israel's eventual exile. However one understands Paul's view of the role of the Law it­ self under the Sinai covenant, it is clear that for him its purpose was "to shut (Israel) up to the faith which was later to be revealed" (3:23b) at the time when Christ would redeem (Israel) from "the curse of the Law" (3:13; N.B., not from the Law itself). In other words, in the terms of 4:1-5, the purpose of the Law was to teach Israel that "under the Law" she was still a sinful "child" awaiting her inheritance of re­ demption. Read in this light, Paul's reflections on the function of the Law and its curse are part of an extensive post-biblical tradition in which Israel's rebellious nature is stressed as evidence of the need for 35

3 5

The argument of 3:15-18 thus naturally raises the question of 3:19a and its answer in 3:19b-21; 24-25. The vexed question of the role of the Law under the Sinai covenant in relationship to its role under the new covenant as promised in Jer 31:31-34. and Ezek 11:19; 36:26-27 cannot be pursued here. For my understanding of the these latter texts and their implications for understanding Paul's view of the role of the Law "in Christ," see my Paul, 119-73.

346

HAFEMANN

a restoration of the people through a renewed, eschatological manifes­ tation of the power of God.

36

This same two-epoch perspective may also cast new light on Paul's corresponding description of Israel's pre-redemptive enslavement un­ der T d

aToixeta

TOU K6G\LOV

in 4:3 (cf. Col 2:8, 20). Though its

precise denotation remains disputed, the most natural reading is to take the phrase here in accordance with its only attested meaning out­ side of Paul, where it consistently refers to the basic physical "elements" of the created world as it was then known (usually earth, air, fire, water, and sometimes ether). Certainly this must be attempted before concluding that it is a technical term unique to Paul designating the stars or the ruling demonic or cosmic powers of this a g e .

37

Moreover, Paul does not subordinate the Law to the "elements of the world" or vice versa, so that the common attempt to speak of the Law in service to the demonic powers or of the demonic (angelic) powers expressing themselves through the law is without textual support. Rather, the functional parallel between UTTO TOI

aToixeta

TOU KOCT

p.ou in 4:3 and VTT6 v6p.ov in 4:5 makes it clear that the "elements,"

3 6

It is beyond the scope of this present work to trace this development here. For this point and a listing of many of the key texts, see my Paul, 378. For a helpful study of the motif of Israel's hard-heartedness in the LXX and postbiblical literature, see Klaus Berger, "Hartherzigkeit und Gottes Gesetz. Die Vorgeschichte des antijudischen Vorwurfs in Mc 10:5," ZNW 61 (1970) 1-47; and for the thesis that the biblical and post-biblical view of the sinful plight of Israel and the world preceded Paul's solution, see Frank Theilman, From Plight to Solution, A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul's View of the Law in Galatians and Romans (NovTSup 61; Leiden: Brill, 1989). For a listing of the now 26 attested relevant uses of the phrase (all of which refer to the physical elements) and the important secondary literature, see Cosgrove, Cross and Spirit, 75 n. 63; 76 n. 64f., and Scott, Adoption, 157-61. Cosgrove himself, however, follows those who, like Vielhauer and Delling, take it to refer to spiritual powers (cf. 18 n.34, 75f.). Scott follows those who read it as a reference to the non-deities of 4:8. It is significant, however, that the a-roixeiaterminology does not occur in the passages usually adduced as parallels (see e.g. 1 Cor. 2:6, 8; 8:5; 15:24; Rom. 8:38) and that in 4:8-9 the idols in view are seen to be false extensions of the created order. In neither case do the "elements" themselves exercise any power over the Jews or Gentiles, and, as Scott points out, "the attempt to interpret a T o i x e f a in terms of demonic forces.. .seems to be ruled out by the late date of the source material" (159 n.136). For contextual arguments against the attempts to render the phrase in some way unique to Paul, see now Eckstein, Verheifiung und Gesetz, 231-3. 3 7

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

347

38

like the Law, rule Israel's life while she is a "child." In her life of re­ bellion/sin, Israel is related to both in the same way, i.e. as "under" (UTT6) them. Like the Law, T& aToixeta TOU K6O\LOV is therefore not a negative term in and of itself, but only takes on a negative nuance in this context because of its historical/eschatological placement and function. Paul's point is that Israel's life under the curse of the Law is being lived out in this age in accordance with the created order that is also under a curse because of humanity's sin (cf. Gen 3:17-18). Paul's reference to Israel's being "under the elements of the world" reflects his understanding of Scripture's having consigned all things under sin (3:22) to include the created order as well as the Law. For this reason, in 4:8-9 Paul can also describe Gentiles in their idolatry as enslaved to this same creation, whereas, by definition, he describes only Jews as being "under the Law," since they are the chosen people of the Sinai covenant. The point of referring to the crroixeia in 4:3 is 39

40

3 8

See too Linda Belleville, "'Under Law': Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3:21-4:11," JSNT26 (1986) 53-78, 64-9, for the governing function of T& c r T o i x e i a TOU K6O[LOV in parallel to, but not identical with the Law, as well as for the contrast between Jew and Gentile in 4:15 and 4:6-7. Belleville, however, argues that the phrase itself refers to "elementary" or "rudimentary principles" or "rules" that govern life, thereby referring to the problem among Jews and Gentiles of subjecting "every aspect of their lives to strict regulation and close supervision" in a way suitable only for the age of minority. In addition to following the traditional reading of 4:1-3, this view treats a T o i x e l a in isolation from its technical meaning of the phrase TA (TToixeia TOV K6G\LOV. Moreover, part of the problem in Galatia was not that believers were overly concerned about rules and regulations as such, but that they were overly concerned with the wrong ones. Indeed, a comparison of 4:8-11 with 5:6-26 and 6:12-15 make it clear that the "different gospel" of the agitators did not necessarily lead to moral transformation. This may explain why Paul chose the "scientific" term T& (TToixeia TOU K6O\LOV, rather than simply using K d a j i o s , since for Paul the latter commonly carried a negative theological nuance as the realm and power of sin. On this point, see still R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (8th ed.; UTB 630; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1980) 256-60. For the contrary reading in which the phrase itself is seen to represent "die von der Sunde gezeichnete Schopfung," 4:3, 5b are taken to refer to both Jews and Gentiles, and the Law is paralleled to the idols of the Gentiles as a futile means of salvation that is orientated on this "alten Weltzeit," see Eckstein, Verheifiung und Gesetz, 230-1, 238. Cf. Scott, Adoption, 158 (and the literature in 158 n.133), for the prevailing view of the implication of this parallel: "In effect, therefore, Paul 3 9

4 0

348

HAFEMANN

to make plain that Israel's Ufe under the curse of the Law is part and parcel of greater humanity's existence in this world as lived out in ac­ cordance with the cursed elements of "this present evil age" (1:4). But the careful contrast between the Jews in 4:1-5 and the Gentiles in 4:6-11 reflects Paul's understanding that being "shut up under sin" (3:22) has worked itself out differently for Jews and Gentiles. On the one hand, Adam's Fall in the Garden has led to the direct idolatry of the Gentiles as they respond to the created order by worshipping it (4:8-9; cf. Rom 1:18-23). On the other hand, Israel's "Fall" in the wilderness has led to a history of idolatrous syncretism in which they fail to keep the covenant (3:10, 22, 23, and 4 : l - 5 ) . This similarity and yet distinction between Jews and Gentiles is confirmed by the fact that when Paul turns his attention to the salvation of the Gentiles in 4:6-7, he is careful to make a contrast between their past, pre-inheritance status, even though their present status as heirs is the same. Unlike the Jews, who go from being God's v^mos', who is no differ­ ent than a slave (4:1), to being adopted as heirs (4:5), the Gentiles go from being actual "slaves" to being "sons" and "heirs" (4:6-7). These parallels and contrasts between the Jews and Gentiles in 4:1-7 indicate clearly that, in spite of his own personal zeal for the Law and its tradi­ tions (1:13-14; cf. Phil 3:4-6), Paul saw his own Ufe prior to his faith in Christ as part of the period of Israel's unfulfilled inheritance as a people in which she was still ruled by the impact of sin in the world. 41

42

classes Judaism with polytheism as enslavement under the a T o i x e i a . " Scott, however, sees the references in 4:3 and 5 to include both Jews and Gentiles, even though he recognizes "the fact that the only other occurrence of ol UTT6 V6[LOV in the Corpus Paulinum [i.e. 1 Cor 9:20-21] refers unequivocally to the Jews and that the Jews—of all people—deserve the title..." (173). Hence, in 4:21, the Galatians who want to join the "Judaizers" are described as ot UTT6 V6\LOV QtXovres elvai, not as being "under the Law" Qvoei (cf. 2:15). So too Cosgrove's understanding of the implication of Paul's argument (Cross and the Spirit, 77): "Now those who belong to the present (old) cosmos have no recourse but to order themselves by it....But under whatever forms or conceptions 'serving the a T o i x e l a ' appears, it represents activity fitted only to the present order rather than to that of the new creation in Christ (Gal 6:14-15)." Conversely, the Spirit is the power of the new creation and is already establishing its realities in anticipation of the final transformation of the earth (ix). For the role of the golden calf as Israel's "Fall" after her "creation" at Sinai (without the implications Ferdinand Weber drew from this for viewing Judaism as an inferior religion of "works"), see my Paul, 228f. 4 1

4 2

349

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

By way o f summary, therefore, "until faith came," Paul defines Israel's existence as a people by the following mutually interpreting concepts, now arranged according to their logical interrelationships: During the period of the Sinai covenant, i.e. between Abraham and Christ, Israel, like the rest of the world, remained VTT6 djiapTtai/(3:22).

As a result, she transgressed the Law (3:19), i.e. broke the covenant, and thus was UTT6 TT|V KaT&pav TOU v6p.ou(3:10, 13).

In other words, Israel was UTT6 V6\LOV (4:5; 3:23)

in its divinely appointed role at that time of preparing the way for the coming of the Messiah. Metaphorically speaking, in her sinful state Israel was UTT6 TTaL8aya)y6v (3:24-25). Since Israel too was therefore still part of this fallen creation and living in an­ ticipation of her eschatological redemption, she lived "under the (curse of the) Law" as part of being UTT6 T& a T o i x e t a TOU Koap.ou (4:3).

Thus, in its most general terms, Israel's life as a "child" can be described as a time UTT6 6TTlTp6TT0US' Kdt OIKOlASp.OUS' (4:2). THE ESCHATOLOGICAL PROBLEM IN GALATIA ( G A L 4:4-11)

Gal 4:4-7 make it clear that, for Paul, the turning point in Israel's his­ tory, and in the history of the world, took place with the sending of Christ (cf. Rom 8:3). By his death Christ inaugurates the new age (1:4; 4:4-5a) in which Jewish believers in the messiah no longer live under the curse of the Law and are thereby also freed from life accord­ ing to the cursed "elements" of this created order (3:13, 23-25; 4:4-5; cf. 6:14). In other words, by implication, the inauguration of the mes­ sianic age in the "fullness of time" is also the proleptic inauguration of the new creation (cf. 6:15 and the parallel between the deliverance from this evil age KOTOL TO 8e\T|[ia TOU Qeov Kal TraTpos' f p c o v in 1:4 and Israel's time under guardians and managers fixP irpoQeo\jiias TOU TraTpos' in 4:2). Moreover, Paul's technical and escha43

L

4 3

On the motif of the "fullness" of a time as the completion of a divinely ordained period that corresponds with the appearance of the messiah, see the discussion and texts in Scott, Adoption, 161-2. Of special interest is Jer 36:10 LXX, where this fullness is associated with bringing back the exiles.

350

HAFEMANN 44

tological use of ££ayopd£eiv ("to redeem [out of slavery]") and uio

-

45

Qeaia ("adoption as sons") in 4 : 5 makes it evident that the inaugura­ tion of the messianic age/new creation is to be viewed as the begin­ ning of the "second Exodus-restoration" of Israel from her exile. In other words, the "new covenant" entails the "adoption" of Israel as God's "son," as evidenced by the pouring out of God's Spirit upon his people.

46

As the corollary of this restoration, those Gentiles who be­

lieve in the Son have also been adopted as "sons" (ulo'i) so that "in Christ" they too, as Gentiles, now share in Israel's inheritance as Abraham's heirs (KXTPOVOJIOS; 4 : 6 - 7 ; cf. 3 : 1 6 , 2 2 , 2 6 , 2 9 ) . For in both cases, Jew and Gentile alike have received the Spirit as the promised "blessing of Abraham" or "inheritance" as a result of having become "sons of Abraham" etc "dKoffc n'loreus

avb 8i& TTJ9 TTLCTT6(X)9 ev

X p i a r a 'Ir^ou ( 3 : 2 - 5 , 7 - 9 ; 3 : 1 4 , 1 6 - 1 8 , 2 6 - 2 9 ; 4 : 6 ) . Hence, it is this common-ground experience of the Spirit as the ul­ timate content of the Abrahamic promise, and not the penultimate sta­ tus of sonship per se, that provides the foundation of Paul's polemic in

4 4

For Paul's use of eforyopdCeii/, cf. Gal 3:13; Col 4:5; Eph 5:16. The consensus view that in Paul's writings it means "to redeem (from slavery)," employing an Exodus typology, rather than simply "to buy (something)" is confirmed by Scott's extensive study, cf. Adoption, 173. For the meaning of uio0eata as "adoption as son" rather than "sonship," see the full-length lexical study of its semantic field in Scott, Adoption, 1-57, 175f. In the NT it occurs only in Paul (cf. Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; Eph 1:5), and is not found in the LXX or other Jewish sources. Though Paul's transferred religious use of the term is unparalleled (cf. 55), Deut 14:1-2, Philo, Sobr 56, and Joseph and Asenath 12 reflect the concept of a two-stage adoption in which God, as the Father of all, subsequently adopts his people in a more particular and realized sense (95f., 176 n. 195). Of special significance for Gal 4:6-9 is the fact that in Philo, Sobr 56, Abraham is the prototypical example of the adopted son of God as a result of his conversion to monotheism from polytheism. The traditionsgeschichtliche support for this confluence of ideas has now been elucidated by Scott as a central contribution of his study; cf. esp. Adoption, 106-116,176-179. Scott demonstrates that the eschatological role of the Spirit, the fulfillment of the Law, the advent of the messiah as the "adopted Son," and the establishment of the new covenant are all associated with or expressed by the adoption-formula from 2 Sam 7:14a as it is taken up and developed in the contexts of 4QFlor 1:11, Jub. 1:24, and T. Jud. 24:3 to describe the post-exilic restoration of Israel. 4 5

4 6

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS

351

3-4

47

Galatians 3-4 (cf. 3:l-5). The reason is immediately evident: the presence of the Spirit is the mark of the new age of the new creation under the new covenant. Paul's focus on the status of Abraham's heirs in 3:26-29 and 4:1-7 is therefore not for its own sake. Paul introduces the issue of status-transfer for Jews and Gentiles in order to raise the issue of inheritance (cf. 3:29; 4:5, 7), which in turn points to the es­ chatological transition from "the present evil age" (1:4) to the age of what Cosgrove calls "realized heirship." Hence, for the Galatians to move back to the Sinai covenant now would be to deny that Christ and faith in him were the foundation for the reception of the Spirit as the fulfillment of the promise and covenant with Abraham. "To live like a Jew" (iouSatCeiv) as a requirement for continuing on with Christ is to import life "under the Law" into the new age of the Spirit. From Paul's perspective, to accept such a requirement would imply a radical denial of the need for and the eschatological significance of the death of Christ, both anthropologically, as that which frees one from the power of sin, and historically, as that which brings about the turn of the ages (1:4; 2:19-21; 3:13; 4:5; 5:2; 6:14; cf. Rom 6:14-15 for the explicit link between living as a slave to sin and being UTT6 VO\LOV). 48

49

50

47

So too Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, 32: "...if we take seriously the identification of the inheritance with the Spirit, via the medial terms 'blessing of Abraham* and 'promise' (3:14), then we may view all of 3:1-4:7 as thematically unified: the Spirit (3:2; 3:3; 3:5; 3:14) = the blessing (3:8; 3:9; 3:14) = the content of the promise (3:14; 3:16; 3:17; 3:18; 3:19; 3:21; 3:29) = the inheritance/'realized heirship' (3:18; 3:29; 4:7). In Rom 4:13 the content of the promise to Abraham is 'inheriting the world.' In Galatians the content of the promise is 'inheriting the Spirit'" (86). Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, 5If., 69. "Inheritance in Galatians means 'realized heirship' as life in the Spirit" (52). Because of the inextricable link between the status of sonship and the reception of the Spirit, Paul can also argue in Rom 8:16 from the reception of the Spirit to one's status, just as he argues from one's status to the reception of the Spirit throughout Galatians; for this point, see ibid., 51. Cf. 1 Cor 9:20 for the explicit link between living like a Jew and being w 6 V6\LOV, which Paul too could still do as a matter of missionary strategy without attaching to it salvific significance, i.e. he could live
49

5 0

352

HAFEMANN

Of interest for our present topic is the fact that at the root of the controversy in Galatia was a failure on the part of agitators to recog­ nize the eschatological implications of their demands. This is made evident by the temporal contrast between "then" (T6TC) and "now" (vvv) in verses 8-9, which reflects the same history of redemption con­ trast we saw in 4:1-5. In other words, the death of Christ accomplishes for the Gentiles in 4:6 the same thing it does for the Jews in verse 4:5. In terms of Paul's typology, this means that while Israel was "adopted as sons" at the First Exodus, the Gentiles were "adopted" at the Second Exodus brought about by the coming of Christ. But given Israel's history of rebellion and exile during her "childhood," during which time she was treated no better than a "slave" in regard to her inheritance (4:1-2), both the Jews and Gentiles are now receiving their inheritance simultaneously. Moreover, given the parallels between 4:1-5 and 4:6-8, the TOTC/VVV temporal contrast in 4:8-9 indicates for Paul that this redemption signals not merely a point of transition in the life of an individual, but also a corporate transition from a past to a present period of time that corresponds to these same periods within Israel's history. In the past, while Israel was a "child," the Gentiles were excluded from the covenant. Now, in the period of Israel's in­ heritance, the Gentiles too are being incorporated into the covenant people of God. In other words, the age of the Sinai covenant is the age of this world, during which the Gentiles, sinners by definition, are ex­ cluded from the people of God (2:15). The age of the new covenant is the new age of the new creation in which Gentiles, as Gentiles, are in­ corporated into God's people (2:2-5; 3:1-5, 26-29; 4:28; 6:15). This explains why in verse 9b Paul expresses incredulity over their desire to submit to the demands of the Judaizers by means of a forceful 51

5 1

This accords with the OT expectation of the incorporation of the Gentiles into the people of God, usually associated with the restoration of Israel from exile (cf. Isa 2:2-5 [Micah 4:1-4]; 25:6-8; 56:3-8; 60:3-4; 66:18-24, 23; Zech 2:10-13; 8:20-23; Zeph 3:9f.; Jer 16:19-21; etc. For these texts and the development of this theme in the OT and post-biblical Judaism, see now Wolfgang Kraus, Das Volk Gottes. Zur Grundlegung der Ekklesiologie bei Paulus (WUNT 85; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996) 16-107. Against this OT backdrop, the startling aspect of Paul's theology is that this incorporation of Jews and Gentiles in Christ is only a proleptic restoration of a remnant of both peoples (see below).

353

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4 52

rhetorical question and a return to the theme of the crroixeia. In Paul's view, to accept the gospel of the agitators is to deny that the new age has dawned. The Galatians are not contemplating a return to paganism, but a return to a way of life characteristic of this created order. For as we have seen, the reference to the crroixeia is a refer­ ence to the status quo of this present created order, now specifically qualified as daOevfj and TTTtoxd in terms of their ability to redeem the Gentiles. The argument in 4:8-10 is therefore an adversative one. Although their earlier life in paganism was understandable (v. 8), now that God has rescued them (v. 9a) Paul cannot fathom that the Gentiles would desire to return to calendar practices that correspond to life in this world (cf. Gen 1:14), since he considers such practices to be irrel­ evant now that the new creation has dawned (vv. 9b-10). The prior 53

5 2

On this point, see now the contrary reading of Troy Martin, "Apostasy to Paganism: The Rhetorical Stasis of the Galatian Controversy," JBL 114 (1995) 437-61, who takes seriously the rhetorical function of the two accusations of 1:6-9 and 4:8-11 and argues that the latter one, which accuses the Galatians of apostatizing to paganism, is actually the primary one within the epistle. Martin argues that the Galatians were therefore not contemplating circumcision, but, having now accepted that circumcision and the Jewish Law were indeed requirements of the true gospel (to which they would not submit), were using the message of the agitators as the reason for their returning to paganism. Though this reading is open to question (cf. e.g. his reading of 4:21 and 5:1-6 as addressing the proponents of the circumcision gospel, not the Galatians, 450-6), Martin's rightful emphasis on the centrality of 4:8-11 must be taken seriously in reconstructing the Galatian controversy. Their temptation to return to the way of life that corresponds to the old creation leads Paul to fear that his labor for them may have been "in vain" (elicrj; cf. 3:4). Could it be, then, that Paul's reference in 4:11 to his having "labored in vain" (elicfj KeicoTrtaKa; cf. 3:4) recalls Israel's empty labor as God's "servant" in Isa 49:4 (icei/ofr eKOTrtaaa)? If so, then it would correspond to the promise that God would one day indeed make Israel to be "a light for the Gentiles" (Isa 43:6), which is given as the rationale for Paul's ministry to the Gentiles in Acts 13:47 and forms the backdrop for his appeal to the Corinthians in 2 Cor 6:1-2 (quoting Isa 49:8). That Paul viewed himself in this light is confirmed by his use of Isa 49:1 to describe his call in Gal 1:15. Read in this light, Paul's point in 4:11 is that he fears that in the end the Galatians may not be part of God's people, since their rejection of the gospel will mean that his role as a remnant of eschatological Israel has not been fulfilled toward them. Conversely, Paul's confidence that his ministry will prevail among those who are God's people may have been based on the corresponding promise of Isa 65:23 that God's elect "will not labor in vain" (ou icomdaouaiv eis Kev6v) in the new creation (cf. the related motif in Isa 5 3

354

HAFEMANN

slavery of the Gentiles to idols thus corresponds to Israel's slavery under the Sinai covenant. T H E ESCHATOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF P A U L ' S SUFFERING ( G A L

4:12-20) Having stated his case in 4:1-11, Paul turns to support it in 4:12-30, first by recourse to his own suffering and to the initial response of the Galatians in 4:12-20, and then by reference to the Scriptures in 4:2130. Though it is beyond the scope of our present study to pursue Paul's argument in 4:12-20 in detail, three things may be said by way of summary. First, Paul's appeal to his suffering and to the response his sickness engendered from the Galatians' is not an aside in his ar­ gument, but an essential aspect of his polemic. Both demonstrate that the new age of the inheritance of the Spirit has in fact dawned and that the Galatians' previous experience of God's covenant blessing was le­ gitimate (cf. 4:14-15 with 3:1-5). From Paul's perspective, nothing else can adequately explain either his own suffering (4:13-14; cf. 1:10; 5:11; 6:17) and willingness to live like a Gentile (4:12; cf. 1 Cor 9:21), or the loving response of the Galatians in return (4:14; cf. 5:6, 13-23; 6:15). Conversely, the Judaizers' exclusion of the Galatians until they conform to the practices of the Sinai covenant reveals the impurity of their motives (4:17-18; cf. 2:13; 6:12). As a result, if the Galatians were to follow them, they would be denying the reality of their previous "blessing" (4:15a; cf. 3:1-5). Second, Ernst Baasland has insightfully pointed out the conceptual link between Paul's suffering in 4:14 and the OT "curse" tradition based on the connection between sin and suffering/persecution, of which "the most convincing evidence is found in the n r i K catalogue in Deut 27:15-26; 28:16-19," based on the use of Deut 27:26; 28:15. 54

63:13). In other words, it is not Paul's legitimacy that is on the line here, but the Galatians'. Hence, in 4:11, as in 3:3-4, the evidence of their genuine reception of the inheritance is not turning back to the laws and ordinances that pertain to the time in which the Gentiles as Gentiles were still disenfranchised. See E. Baasland, "Persecution: A Neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians," ST 38 (1984) 135-50, 141. In addition, Baasland points to Gen 3:14, 17; 4:11. This link in the "curse" tradition would further establish the intertextual link within the Torah between the Fall of Adam and Eve and the "fall" of Israel with the golden calf. See too Jer 11:3; Mai 2:2; and Gen 12:3 (142). But of more direct significance here is Baasland's observation that "...it is really only in Deut 5 4

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

355

Against this backdrop, the polemical significance of Paul's statement in 4:14 becomes readily apparent. Paul's reference in 3:10 to Deut 27:26 (28:15) as an essential part of his dispute with the Judaizers points to the likely inference that they were probably using this same tradition against Paul, arguing from his suffering that he was the one who was still under the curse of the Law (cf. his fivefold punishment as a transgressor by the synagogue in accordance with Deut 25:1-3 [2 Cor 11:24]). Thus, Paul's suffering had posed a "temptation" (TreipacJiJLOsO to the Galatians (4:14a). But in contrast to Paul's oppo­ nents, the Galatians' earlier acceptance of Paul in spite of his suffering indicated their former approval of Paul's gospel and of his apostleship d)S" dyyeXov Qeov...
55

56

Finally, it is striking in this regard that Paul's argument in Galatians 4 follows the same structure and content exhibited in 2 Cor 2:14-4:6,

28:20ff. and in the passio iusti tradition that the persecution theme plays any important role in the Old Testament." Thus, Gal 6:1 ought also to be read as a call to restore the fallen brother back to covenant faithfulness and a warning to do so in a way that keeps one from falling under the same "curse of the Law," i.e. p.f| Kal oh TreipaaOffe. 5 5

Though these points are now widely accepted as essential to understanding Paul's polemic in 2 Corinthians, Baasland, "Persecution," 142-7, posits that in Galatians as well "...Paul's misfortune was used against him" (142). As he argues, the central placement and development of the theme of persecution and suffering in Galatians shows that "the problem was not that (Paul) himself had been a persecutor (thus e.g. Mussner) but the fact that he was being persecuted (cf. l:13f., 23; 3:4; 4:29; 5:1-12; 6:12ff.). It is very easy to imagine that many Jews used this argument against Paul" (142). From their perspective, Paul's suffering and persecution could be viewed as God's judgment/curse for his apparent failure to keep the Law (145). Conversely, the Judaizers are merely trying to help the Galatians avoid a similar fate (cf. 6:12). After all, Gen 12:3 pronounces a curse on those who curse Abraham, which Paul must surely be doing in his disregard of circumcision (142). Against this, Paul's argues that his suffering both embodies and mediates the message of the gospel and the power of the Spirit as an extension of the sufferings of Christ (cf. 2:20; 3:1; 6:14, 17). For this last point as developed from Galatians, see now Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, 169-94. Baasland, "Persecution," 146. Hence, Gal 1:8 stands as Paul's counter inference. 5 6

356

HAFEMANN

where Paul is fighting a similar challenge against his apostleship and the nature of the gospel. In both cases Paul supports the legitimacy of his apostleship by pointing to the mediatorial role played by his suffer­ ing in the preaching of the Gospel (cf. 2 Cor 2:14-17 with Gal 4:13) and then turns to the past response of his readers as evidence not only of his own legitimacy, but also of their past experience of the SpiritTblessing" (cf. 2 Cor 3:1-3 with Gal 4:14-15).5 And in both cases Paul subsequently offers an argument from Scripture in order to fortify the appeal from his own personal experience and that of his readers (cf. 2 Cor 3:4-18 with 4:21-20, esp. 3:14f. with 4:21-25; see below). In Gal 4:12-30, Paul is therefore establishing the same twofold argument he employed elsewhere when the gospel was on the line. A comparison with 2 Cor 3:4-4:6 also makes it clear that Paul's founda­ tional argument for the truth of the gospel and for the legitimacy of his own apostleship derives from the Scriptures themselves as they testify to the essential difference between the nature of the old and new covenants (cf. 2 Cor 3:6, 14 with 4:24). It is to Paul's foundational ar­ gument that we now turn our attention. 7

T H E PRESENT STATE OF ISRAEL ( G A L

4:21-25;

2 COR 3:14-15; ROM 11:7-10) As in 3:1-5 and 4:9, Paul's incredulity over those Galatians who de­ sire to return to the Law under the Sinai covenant is again expressed in 4:21; such a desire can only mean that they must not understand the teaching of the Law itself (TOV V6[LOV OVK OLKOU6T6;). Thus, as in 3:6-20, Paul returns to the Law to drive home his point. But this time, rather than turning his attention to Israel's history "under the Law" in relationship to the promise granted to Abraham (3:6-16), Paul recalls 5 7

For 2 Cor 2:14-3:3 as a reference to Paul's apostolic suffering as the vehicle through which the Spirit is mediated in fulfillment of the promises of the new covenant, see my Suffering and the Spirit, An Exegetical Study of II Cor 2:14-3:3 within the Context of the Corinthian Correspondence (WUNT 2.19; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986) = Suffering and Ministry of the Spirit, Paul's Defense of His Ministry in II Corinthians 2:14-3:3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990); for the development of this theme, see now Jens Schroter, Der versdhnte Versdhner, Paulus als unentbehrlicher Mittler im Heilsvorgang zwischen Gott und Gemeinde nach 2 Kor 2:14-7:4 (TANZ 10; Ttibingen/Basel: Francke, 1993), though he rejects my reading of 2:14 as a reference to Paul's suffering under the image of "being led to death in the triumphal procession."

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

357

the well-known beginning of Israel's covenant history. Paul reminds his readers in 4:22-25 that from the very beginning of Israel's history not all of Abraham's descendants can be considered members of the covenant community (cf. Rom 9:6-13 for this same basic point: ou ydp lY&vreg oi £f 'Iapaf)X olrroi 1 apaf|X). Rather, Paul recounts that according to Genesis 16-21 Abraham had two sons by two women of different status, £va 6K rife TraiStoricrp (i.e. Ishmael from Hagar) Kal e-va £K TT\S tXevQepas (i.e. Isaac from Sarah). Moreover, the son born of the servant was born KOTGL adpica, while the son born of the free-woman was born 8i' ^TrayyeXias' (v.23). This corresponds to the Genesis narrative, where Ishmael was the result of Abraham's own initiative in view of Sarah's barrenness (cf. Gen 16:13), whereas Isaac comes about in direct response to God's promise (cf. Gen 17:16). Consequently, Ishmael is rejected, as is made clear by the fact that he must now live "to the east of all his brothers" (Gen 16:12). As the parallel to Gen 3:24 and 4:16 indicates, to be "east of his brothers" means that he is separated from God's presence among his people. Thus, the slave-status of Hagar is associated with the unbelief expressed in giving birth to those descendants of Abraham who, de­ spite their ethnic origin, are nevertheless outside the covenant people. In stark contrast, Sarah's "freedom" is matched with the granting of the covenant promise through Isaac. For Paul, therefore, as in the original context of Genesis (cf. Gen 16:1 If.; 25:17f.), the contrast between the sons of Hagar and Sarah points to the distinction between being outside and inside the covenant people of God in accordance with the promise to Abraham (cf. Gen 12:2; 15:5; 17:4-5; 18:18; 22:17; 26:4 [granted to Isaac, not Ishmael]; 28:14 [granted to Jacob, not Esau]). From Paul's eschatological perspective, this distinction corresponds to the difference between being left to one's own devices under the power of sin, i.e. being born Kara adpica, and receiving the Spirit in accordance with the promise to Abraham, i.e. being born KaTd m/ev[ia (4:29; cf. 3:1-5, 14; 5:16-26; 6:8; esp. the summary in 5:26 in comparison to the description of Ishmael in Gen 16:12). In 4:24-25 Paul elucidates the significance of this contrast for un­ derstanding the history of Israel. The "things" outlined in 4:22-23 (the STLVO of 4:24a), in reality, "are being expressed in allegory" (evriv dXXnyopoup.£va). However we understand Paul's definition of dXkry yopeiv and its application in 4:24-25, for our purposes it is enough to recognize Paul's point itself: the mothers and sons of the Abrahamic

358

HAFEMANN

narrative introduce from the very beginning "two covenants" (4:24), the first of which is indicated immediately in 4:24b-25. By now Paul's readers should be prepared for the shocking announcement of 4:24: this first covenant, associated with Hagar, is the Sinai covenant, which, like Hagar, has given birth to children for slavery (elg SovXeiav yew&aa). In other words, here too, as in 3:17-4:5, Paul is careful to indicate that the Sinai covenant did not fulfill the promises granted to Abraham, but instead adjudicated over a people who, like Ishmael, stood outside the covenant blessing. Like the son of the slave woman, the children of the Sinai covenant are born into "slavery," i.e. into a status characterized by not inheriting the promise (cf. 4:1-2). In view of Paul's argument in 3:22-24, this can only mean that Israel un58

59

5 8

Our purpose here is not to analyze in any detail how Paul actually derived his points from the biblical account. All that can be done is to pose the question of whether Paul's reading is as farfetched as usually supposed. For a forceful statement of this approach, see Richard B. Hays' central thesis, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 86-87, 111-21, that what Paul characteristically saw when he read the Scriptures was "a prefiguration of the church as the people of God," an "ecclesiocentric hermeneutic," for which Gal 4:21-31 offers central support as "a fancifully subversive ecclesiocentric reading of Genesis 21" (111). Thus, for Hays, in 4:2131 Paul practices "hermeneutical jujitsu" (112) in presenting a "hermeneutical miracle" that deflects Gen 21:1-10 back against his opponents, based on his earlier rereading of the Abrahamic promise in 3:1-14 "that has no discernible warrant in the text" (110). In the end, Paul's association of Hagar with the Law is a "strong misreading" of the OT narrative based on the Christian community's experience of the Spirit (115). The validity of such an evaluation needs to be investigated. Cf. Hays, Echoes, 114-15, and Ben Witherington Ill's reminder, Paul's Narrative Thought World, The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph (Louisville: Abingdon, 1994) 48, that H.D. Betz's reading of Galatians 3-4, i.e. that Hagar represents the old covenant and Sarah the new, so that the contrast eventually becomes one of Judaism and Christianity, is not to be followed. As Witherington points out, "The argument is about which form of Judaism is the legitimate one— the Christian form with its link to the Abrahamic covenant, or the Mosaic form as maintained by the Judaizers and elsewhere by non-Christian Jews" (emphasis mine). To make Witherington's point more precise, the argument seems to be whether the "Christian form" is indeed the long-awaited fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant (with its promise of the inclusion of the Gentiles, cf. 3:14a), and if so, what becomes of the "Mosaic form" now that Christ has come, since in its own epoch, Paul sees the Sinai covenant as the legitimate extension of the Abrahamic covenant, albeit not its fulfillment (cf. Gal 3:21-24). 5 9

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

359

der the Sinai covenant was born into a slavery to sin, from which the Law could not redeem her (cf. Rom 8:3-4). At the Exodus, Israel was rescued from Egypt, but not from the hardness of her heart that char­ acterized her time as a "child'V'slave" (3:10,19; 4:1-2; cf. 1 Cor 10:110; 2 Cor 3:6-7, 9a, 13-14a). Thus, 4:22-24 restates the point of 4:1-5, i.e. that under the Sinai covenant Israel did not inherit the promise to Abraham, but, as a people, remained outside the Abrahamic covenant, being under the "curse of the Law" as those who were "under sin." In short, Israel remained a son of Hagar, ethnically descendant from Abraham, but outside the line of the promise as determined by the sovereign election of God. But what the reader is not prepared to hear is the point of 4:25. In spite of Christ's having come to redeem Israel from the curse of the Law by freeing her from being "under sin," Paul declares that "the present Jerusalem" (f| vvv 'I epouaaXfip.) is still part of the lineage of the Hagar-born people of the Sinai covenant. In other words, though Christ has come, Israel, here represented by Jerusalem as the city of the temple and hence the focal point of the nation, remains unre­ deemed. As Cosgrove puts it, "the law has given Sarah no children." In Paul's words, Jerusalem "is in slavery with her children" (4:25b). As Paul understands Israel's history, this can only mean that the curse of Law remains over the nation as a whole and that, outside of Christ, the people therefore still find themselves under God's judgment. In terms of Paul's analogy from 4:1-5, Israel is still a "child" awaiting her inheritance. Within the context of Paul's argument, this explains two things. First, it explains why Paul's Jewish contemporaries con­ tinue to reject Jesus and to persecute those who now live for him, in­ cluding Paul (cf. 1:13; 6:17). Second, it explains in part why the Christian Judaizers seek to bring Gentile converts back to the Sinai covenant, namely, because they view it as still in force in anticipation of Israel's restoration. That such a reading of Gal 4:21-25 is justified can be seen by its close conceptual parallels to Paul's statements in 2 Cor 3:14-15. There Paul argues that "the sons of Israel" continue to reject the gospel, in spite of its bold proclamation by Paul and "unveiled" nature (cf. 3:1213), because, from the very beginning of her covenant history, "their 60

6 0

Cosgrove, Cross and the Spirit, 83.

360

HAFEMANN 61

minds were hardened" (2 Cor 3:14a). In short, Israel is not respond­ ing to the gospel in Paul's day for the same reason she did not respond to Moses: Israel has been hardened to the revelation of God's glory in her midst not only at Sinai, but from then on (taking the aorist e*rra)pc59r| to be gnomic and a divine passive). The evidence for this evalu­ ation is then given in 3:14b-15: 62

3:14b: For (ydp) until this very day (dxpi Tffr ofijiepov YipipasO the same veil remains at the reading of the old covenant 3:14c: because it is not being unveiled, 3:14d: since (6TL) it (i.e. the veil) is being rendered inoperative in Christ, 3:15a: nevertheless (dXX') until today (^w? CTTpepov) a veil has been laid upon their hearts, 3:15b: whenever (fji/tKa dv) Moses is being read. 63

Here, rather than establishing a type based on Hagar and Sarah, Paul uses the veil of Moses from Exod 34:29-35 as a metonomy for the hardness of Israel's heart and her consequent exclusion from the inheritance of the covenant. It was Israel's "stiff-necked" nature that originally necessitated Moses' veiling himself in order to prevent Israel from being destroyed by the presence of God's glory in her midst after her covenant-breaking sin with the golden calf (cf. Exod 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9 with 2 Cor 3:7, 13). Against this backdrop, Paul can use Moses' veil as a figure of speech in which one thing (i.e. 6 1

For the role of 2 Cor 3:14-15 within the argument of 3:4-18 and the detailed support for what follows, see my Paul, 363-86. A key aspect of this reading is the realization that the strong contrast introduced in 3:14a (cf. the dXXd) is best taken as the positive counterpart to the negative assertion of 3:13a (cf. the ov Ka0dTTep Mwuafjs), rather than forcing it to be reinterpreted as the ground to 13b (cf. 363-365). Moreover, Paul's use of Trwpdo) in 3:14a, rather than the terminology of the MT or LXX from Exodus 32-34 itself, corresponds to the early Christian use of this same term to depict Israel's hardened condition as derived from Isa 6:9f.; 29:10-12, Jer 5:21-24, and Ezek 2:3-8; 12:2 as reflected in Mark 4:12; 6:52; 8:17f.; John 9:39; 12:40 (cf. 366f.). I.e. the use of the aorist to represent "an act which is valid for all time.. .because (originally at least) the author had a specific case in mind in which the act had been realized," BDF, §333. The specific case in mind here is Israel's sin with the golden calf. Taking the participle jifj dwncaXuTrT6p.£i/oi/ to be either a predicate participle modifying T6 avrb Ka\v\i\ia or an accusative absolute, with the 8TL then being taken as causal, rather than taking it to introduce an additional thought defined by a 6TI of content (e.g.: "it being revealed that...") or to be a negative purpose clause (e.g.: "lest it be revealed that..."); cf. Paul and Moses, 380. 6 2

6 3

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

361

Israel's hardened nature as manifested in her sin with the golden calf) is called by the name of that with which it is intimately associated (i.e. Moses' veil in 3:7, 3), here employing the consequence for its under­ lying cause. Decoded, Paul's point is clear. Because Israel's hard­ ened condition can only be taken away "in Christ" (2 Cor 3:14d), it is evident that Israel's large-scale rejection of the gospel indicates that she remains in the same hardened condition that has characterized the nation's history ever since its "fall" in the wilderness with the golden calf (2 Cor 3:14c and 15a). 64

And since Israel's hardened condition means that she will fall under the judg­ ment of God, Renwick is correct in concluding that "in Christ" in 3:14 refers to "the new covenantal sphere within which...the death penalty (integrally re­ lated to the curse of Gal 3:13) is being abolished (icaTapy£a>)." Hence, even though Paul preaches the Gospel of the new covenant in the power of the Spirit, Israel's hard-heartedness is destined (by God) to continue throughout the dawning of the new age, since the very one whom they reject is the only one who can remove their blindness. Only in Christ can the heart of stone be removed by the Spirit. 65

Israel remains hardened and cut off from the significance of the very Law that was intended to lead her to the messiah, not because the "real" meaning of the Sinai covenant is somehow hidden or veiled, but because Israel is veiled (= hardened) whenever Moses (= the old covenant given at Sinai as codified and recounted in the Law) is read (3:14b, 15b). Israel's "hermeneutical problem" is not intellectual, but moral. This description of Israel's condition is intended to support Paul's assertion that Israel's rejection of Christ does not call into question the legitimacy of his own apostolic ministry or the validity of his gospel 6 4

For a discussion of this use of metonomy, see G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 136-7, with many biblical examples. Hafemann, Paul, 381, quoting, David Renwick, Paul, the Temple, and the Presence of God (BJS 224; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 148f. Renwick's further point is equally insightful, i.e. that for Paul the abolition of the veil is a "declaration that the 'death penalty' of the old covenant has been removed" (150). But since the removal of this penalty takes place only in Christ, Paul's point in v.15 is that any attempt to continue to look to Moses/old covenant for God's glory is misplaced (cf. 150f.). For this same point in regard to the restoration from the curse of the Law in Christ as portrayed in Gal 3:10, see now Scott, "Works of the Law," 213-21. 6 5

362

HAFEMANN

as the revelation of the glory of God (cf. 2 Cor 3:7-13). In order to support this assertion, Paul picks up the widespread Scriptural pattern of pointing to Israel's current hardened rejection of God's work as ev­ idence, not of the inadequacy of the prophetic message, but of the fact that Israel remains in the same hardened state that has characterized her from the beginning. Indeed, as Carroll has concluded concerning the biblical view of Israel's narrative, "rebellion was endemic in an­ cient Israel at the level of theological interpretation of history." Here this interpretation of Israel's history is reflected in Paul's use of the phrases dxpL rf\g arjiiepov f p e p a s av8 eug armepov (2 Cor 3:1415), which recall the parallel designation in Deut 29:3 (LXX; MT: 29:4) in which Moses declares that, despite the Lord's deliverance, "the Lord has not given (Israel) a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear until this day (eas rf\g r\[iipag T C U I T T I S O " Within its original context, God's divine prerogative as explicated in Deut 29:3(4) not only explains Israel's past disobedience, but also undergirds Moses' proclamation that, despite God's warnings (cf. Deut 29:18), Israel will continue to break the covenant in the future. Consequently, she will not escape the coming exilic judgment of the nation, which, as we have seen above in regard to Gal 3:10, was pre­ dicted as the culmination of the curses of the Law (Deut 29:20-30:1; 31:16-18). Further confirmation of this interpretation is found in the prophets' use of the corollary motif of Israel's rebellion continuing 66

67

6 6

For the extensive biblical and post-biblical development of the theme from Exodus 32-34 that Israel was "stiff-necked" from the very beginning of her history, in spite of the redemption brought about in the Exodus and Sinai covenant, and the corresponding emphasis on Israel's continuing hardened nature, often pictured in the terms of Exodus 32-34 itself, see my Paul, 230-36; for the specific pattern of arguing from Israel's current rebellion (and consequent judgment in the Exile) to her being hardened from the beginning, see e.g. Isa 63:7-19; 65:2-7; Jer 3:25; 7:18-26; 11:7-10; 15:1 (where not even Moses himself could prevent the ensuing judgment of God); 16:11-13; 17:23; 19:15; 44:9f.; Ezek 2:3; 20:8-36; Amos 2:4; Zech 1:2-4; 7:11-14; Lam 5:7; Mai 3:7; Neh 9:16-31; and Pss 78:5-8, 54-64; 106:6-39. Of course, one of the strongest evidences that this line of argument was a common one is Paul's own mixed citation of Deut 29:3 and Isa 29:10 in Rom 11:8, where the latter prophetic text concerning Israel's hardening in Isaiah's day is explicated in terms of the continuing hardening during the days of Moses. R. P. Carroll, "Rebellion and Dissent in Ancient Israelite Society," ZAW 89 (1977) 176-204, 197. 6 7

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS

363

3-4 68

from the days of the Fathers "[even] to this [very] day." Hence, for Paul, like Moses and the prophets before him, Israel's continuing hard-heartedness against the Sinai covenant up until the present, now seen in her present rejection of Christ, is sure evidence of her hard­ ened condition from the beginning. Paul's use in 2 Cor 3:14-15 of the same argument found in the prophets and his specific allusion to the Law in making it provide a strong apologetic in favor of the legiti­ macy of his own apostolic ministry. Rather than calling his apostle­ ship and message into question, Paul views Israel's rejection of the gospel to be evidence that Israel remains in his own day in the same hardened state that Moses encountered and predicted would continue and that the prophets met throughout their own ministries. Thus, Paul's use of the Law and the prophets in 2 Cor 3:14-15, like his use of Deut 27:26 and 29:19b in Gal 3:10 (together with his use of Hab 2:4 in Gal 3:11), again points to the fact that, for Paul, Israel's exilic judgment has not yet been lifted. Rather, as in the days of the prophets, only a small remnant have turned to the Lord, having had the veil over their hearts taken away (2 Cor 3:16-18 and 4:1-6). In making this move from 2 Cor 3:14a to 14b, Paul establishes through the in­ troduction of the metonomy of the veil the same point that he makes and sup­ ports in Rom 11:7-10. There too Paul explains the fact that only a remnant of Israel has responded to the Gospel by pointing to God's elective grace (1 l:5f.; cf. Rom 9:11). Once again using the same vocabulary as in 2 Cor 3:14a, Paul can therefore conclude that "those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened" (eTTCopwOnaav, 11:7). As in 2 Cor 3:14a, this gnomic charac6 8

1

See Jer 3:25 (£cos TT\S T\[i£pas ravrvg); 7:25 (Zug TT\S fi^epas TmrrrisO; 11:7 (MT); 32:20-21 (MT); 44:10 (MT), and Ezek 2:3 (eus TT\S crf)\Lepov fjpipas). These parallels speak against the attempts of those who deny this biblical backdrop to 2 Cor 3:14. See e.g. Linda L. Belleville, Reflections of Glory, Paul's Polemical Use of the Moses-Doxa Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3:118 (JSNTSup 52; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 226-7. Belleville notes that Deut 29:3(4) and Isa 29:10 provide the background to Rom 11:8, but then denies that Deut 29:3(4) is also in view in 2 Cor 3:14 since the correspondence is not exact. She takes &XP "nfe oi\\L€pov fp£pas merely to be a common idiomatic phrase found in all types of literature. She also rejects Deut 29:3(4) as behind 3:15a. But the structural parallels between the arguments of Rom 11:7-10 and 2 Cor 3:14-15 are too close for the same background to be denied to 2 Cor 3:14-15, while the conceptual identity between Paul's choice of &Xpi and the use of ^to? in the LXX of Deut 29:3, Jer 3:25, etc. is so close as to make the allusion unmistakable, esp. in view of Paul's subsequent and synonymous use of 3:15a. L

364

HAFEMANN

terization in Rom 11:7 is the inference to be drawn from Israel's history of re­ bellion, which in 2 Cor 3:7ff. is pictured in terms of Exod 32-34 and in Rom 10:21 is stated directly from Isa 65:2. Moreover, just as in 2 Cor 3:14b, in Rom 11:8-10 Paul supports this assertion by describing Israel's continuing hardness, this time not in symbolic terms derived from the Scriptures, but by introducing a combination of Isa 29:10 and Deut 29:3(4), with a secondary al­ lusion to Isa 6:9f. (cf. the use of TTO)p6o) in 11:7). Paul's point from these texts is clear: God has given Israel "a spirit of stupor" (Isa 29:10) "until this very day" (<EO>9 *nfr arpepov fj^pas, Deut 29:3; cf. the almost direct parallel to 3:14b, 15), which can then be described as eyes which have been darkened not to see and backs which have been bent always (8id navrds, Ps 68:23). Moreover, the inability of Israel and her prophets in "to see" the things of the prophet's vision because they are "asleep" in Isa 29:10 is interpreted in Isa 29:11 in terms of their inability to read the words of a sealed book. But here too, this inability is not intellectual but moral, as indicated in Isa 29:13a, where the people who cannot see the words of the book are described as those who "draw near to the Lord with their mouths and honor him with their lips, but their heart (icapSta) is far away from me." For Isaiah, the people cannot respond to YHWH correctly because, like a book which cannot be read be­ cause it is sealed (cf. the oi \6yoi TOO (3ip\lou TOU €o<j>payio\i£vov TOUTOU), their hearts are hardened to the presence of God, even in their wor­ ship of him (Isa 29:13b). 69

The same combined argument from the Law and Prophets that is implicit in 2 Cor 3:14-15 and explicit in Gal 3:10-11 is thus once again made explicit in Rom 11:7-10. In all three passages Paul's thought is consequently not new, but part of a long canonical tradition in which Israel's present rejection of God's word is seen as the out­ working of her continuing recalcitrant condition, which in turn is traced back to the beginning of her history. In Gal 3:10-22 Israel re­ mains "under the curse of the Law" because she remains "under sin;" in 2 Cor 3:6-15 she continues to live under the Law that kills in its ministry of condemnation as she reads Moses with "hardened minds" and "veiled hearts"; in Rom 11:7-10 only the chosen remnant have ob­ tained grace in Christ, while the rest "were hardened." Moreover, Paul's argument in 2 Cor 3:14-15, like his objection to the Judaizers in Galatia, makes it clear that, ironically, the proof of Israel's continued hardening is her persistent, albeit "veiled" adherence to the Sinai covenant, in spite of the fact that the eschatological renewal by the Spirit has dawned in Christ (cf. 2 Cor 3:1-11). As Paul puts it for the 6 9

Hafemann, Paul, 375f. For substantiation of these points over against contrary readings, see 375f., nn. 128-131.

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

365

first time in Christian literature, they continue to subscribe to the "old covenant" even though the "new covenant" has been established (2 Cor 3:6, 14). Paul's introduction of the terminology "old covenant" is a reflection of his eschatology. Paul can refer to the Sinai covenant as "old" only because he is convinced that Jesus as the Christ has inau­ gurated the "new covenant" of Ezek 36:26-27 and Jer 31:31-34 (cf. the allusions to these two texts in 2 Cor 3:3, 6 respectively). Moreover, in both cases the context of the promised new covenant is the post-exilic restoration of Israel (cf. Ezek 36:17-37:28; Jer 31:140). The designation "old" is therefore not a pejorative evaluation of the character of the Sinai covenant, but an eschatological designation of its fulfillment. In turning our attention back to Gal 4:21-30, we can now see more clearly that here too Paul makes the same argument, once again based on the Law (i.e. his argument from Hagar and Sarah as the interpretive key for understanding the Sinai covenant) and the prophets (cf. his ar­ gument from Isa 54:1 in 4:27 as his key for understanding the eschato­ logical inauguration of the new covenant). But whereas in 2 Cor 3:1415 and Rom 11:7-10 Paul elucidates Israel's hardening by pointing to her "fall" in the wilderness with the golden calf, in Gal 4:22-25, as in Rom 9:6-13, he traces it even farther back to God's original election of only a remnant from within Abraham's descendants. Paul's point, however, remains constant: the Israel of Paul's day remains "under sin"/"veiled"/"hardened"/"in slavery'V'under the [curse of the] Law"/"under the elemental things of the world," in spite of the fact that the eschatological renewal of the Spirit promised to Abraham has begun. Paul's evidence for this is her rejection of Christ, which results in her clinging to the "old covenant"/"Sinai covenant" even though the new covenant has dawned. Conversely, unlike the nation of Israel that remains "in exile," the remnant of Israel, together with those Gentiles who have now been incorporated into the new covenant people of God, has already begun to inherit the transforming power of the Spirit under the dawning of the new creation (cf. 2 Cor 3:18 with 2 Cor 5:14-21 and Gal 3:1-14; 4:1-9). This means that the "two covenants" in view in Gal 4:24-30 are the Sinai covenant and the covenant now associated with the coming of Jesus as the Christ in fiil70

7 0

For an interpretation of Jer 31:31-34 and Ezek 36:25f. in support of this point, see Paul, 119-173.

366

HAFEMANN

fillment of the promises originally made to Abraham. For against the backdrop of Paul's understanding of the hardened nature of "the pre­ sent Jerusalem" and the promise of the restoration of Jerusalem from exile in Isaiah 5 4 : 1 , the Jerusalem from "above" that is "free" is a reference to the "second Exodus" inauguration in Christ of the new covenant of the new creation. Isaiah 54:1, and Paul's use of it here, thus picks up the use of the "second Exodus" motif to portray Israel's restoration from exile as developed throughout Isaiah. In this new creation, those who have this Jerusalem as their "mother" have been freed from their slavery to sin and the consequent exilic curse of the Law that has been levelled against all those who break the covenant. The transition in Paul's thought from the current state of Israel un­ der the Sinai covenant in Gal 4:21-25 to those who are inheriting the promise of Abraham in 4:26-28, now pictured in terms of the postexilic restoration of Jerusalem, further supports the view that, for Paul, the Israel of his day, as a nation, had not yet begun to experience the restoration from curse of the Law under the Sinai covenant that cul­ minated in their exile. Hence, though still children of Abraham "according to the flesh," the Jews of Paul's day had not yet become descendants of Abraham "according to the [promise of the] Spirit" (4:23, 29). Paul can therefore find Scriptural warrant in Genesis 21:10 for his admonition to the Galatians, as the "Israel of God" (6:16), to separate themselves from those Judaizers who wish to bring them 71

72

7 1

See Hays, Echoes, 119, who insightfully points to Isa 51:1-3 as the wider context for understanding Paul's use of Isa 54:1 (cf. Paul's link between Sarah and the redeemed Jerusalem), where Sarah is represented as the mother of Jerusalem (the only OT development of the Genesis narrative). Hence, 'Isaiah's description in 54:1 of Jerusalem as a 'barren one' creates an internal echo hinting at the correspondence between the city in its exilic desolation and the condition of Sarah before Isaac's birth, a correspondence that also implies the promise of subsequent blessing" (119f.). In turn, "It is Isaiah's metaphorical linkage of Abraham and Sarah with an eschatologically restored Jerusalem that warrants Paul's use of Isa 54:1" (120). Cf. Isa 4:2-6; 10:24-26; 11:11, 15-16; 35:5-10; 40:3-5; 41:17-20; 42:1416; 43:1-3, 14-21; 48:20-21; 49:8-12; 51:9-10; 52:11-12; 55:12-13; 58:8; 60:2, 19; 63, etc. For these texts and the development of this motif as the "controlling theme" of Isaiah 40-55, see now G. P. Hugenberger, "The Servant of the Lord in the 'Servant Songs' of Isaiah: A Second Moses Figure," in P. E. Satterthwaite, et al. (eds.), The Lord's Anointed, Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Carlisle/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 105-139, esp. 122-38. 7 2

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

367

back to the created order and covenant that existed before the inaugu­ ration of the eschaton (cf. 4:30-31). Like Ishmael before them, the Judaizers are not God's heirs (4:30). To join them under the Sinai covenant would be to give up one's inheritance as "children of the free woman" (4:31). We saw above that Paul's contrast in 2 Cor 3:12-14a between his own boldness and the divine hardening of Israel not only supported his own legitimacy as an apostle, but also contained an im­ plicit warning. A rejection of Paul's ministry is sure evidence of the blinding influence of Satan among those who, like Israel under the "old covenant," have been hardened according to God's sovereign will (cf. 2 Cor 4:4 with 2 Cor 3:14a). We also saw that this same warning may be implicit in Paul's "fear" in Gal 4:11. So too, the contrast in Gal 3:1-5 and 4:21-30 between the covenant of the "free woman," with its inheritance of the Spirit, and the Judaizer's demand that they return to the "yoke of slavery" (cf. 5:1) of the Sinai covenant contains the same warning. To capitulate to their desires is to be satanically "bewitched" (3:1; cf. 5:8) by those who preach a "different gospel" (1:6) and, as a result, to "fall from grace" back under the judgment of God that still resides over Israel (5:4) and the world (4:8-11). CONCLUSION: A FUTURE FOR ISRAEL?

The first thing to be said concerning the topic at hand is that Paul never mentions the exilic judgment of Israel directly. Indeed, the Septuagintal vocabulary for the exile never occurs within the Pauline corpus in reference to the exile. However, to deduce from this that 73

7 3

See E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint, Vol. 1 (Graz 1975) 38f., for c u x M - ^ ^ ("captivity," "body of captives"), ai[ia\i)iT€V€iv ("to capture"), alp.aXa)Tt£eiv ("to take prisoner"), al^dXwTO? ("captive," "prisoner"), 130f. for diroiKciv ("to emigrate," "dwell far o f f ) , dTTOLKcata (the "captivity"), dTToiida ("colony" "settlement far from home"), dTToiidCeii/ ("to send away from home," "to banish"), dTTOLKia^ ("settlement of a colony"), and Vol. 2 (Graz 1975) 917f. for jieToiKeii/ ("change one's abode," "be a settler"), [ieroiKeoia ("captivity," used esp. of Israel's captivity), p.€Toiida ("change of abode," "removal," "migration"), p.eToiKt£eiv ("lead settlers to another abode"). For the other more descriptive designations (e.g. alxM-dAwTos' &yeiv in Amos 7:11), cf. Vol. 2, p. 227 to rb*. The only occurrences are the use of aixvahwjLa and alxnaXwTetieiv in the quotation of Ps 68:19 in Eph 4:8 and the figurative use of aliiaAwTtCeii/ in Rom 7:23; 2 Cor 10:5; and 2 Tim 3:6. The one a

w(T

a

368

HAFEMANN

Paul did not reflect on the exile of Israel and its significance for un­ derstanding his own day would be to misinterpret Paul's terminologi­ cal silence. As this volume makes clear, post-biblical Judaism re­ flected seriously on the implications of Israel's Diaspora, the failure of the Hasmonean kingdom, and the significance of her continuing domination by foreign nations. But Paul's concern was not to reflect on Israel's fortunes per se, but to make a clear distinction between the two epochs of redemptive history, of which the events of the exile are merely one aspect of the "old covenant" epoch that stretches from Abraham to Christ. For Paul, the import of this history is its implica­ tions for understanding why the Jews of his day, except for a small remnant (cf. Gal 4 : 3 ; Rom 11:1-5), were rejecting Christ. But here 74

exception may be Rom 7:23, where alp.aAa)T(.£eii> could possibly be an allusion to the exile, though here too it is most likely a general, metaphorical reference. For a recent criticism of the basic thesis proposed here, see Mark A. Seifrid, "Blind Alleys in the Controversy Over the Paul of History," TynB 45 (1994) 73-95 (86-92). Seifrid's critique of Wright's position that Israel's history of exile came to an end in Christ (ibid., 75, 91) and his caution that the Jewish tradition concerning the theme of the exile is often more complicated than recent studies have implied (ibid., 87), a problem now dealt with in this present volume, are well taken. But Seifrid's own position does not deal adequately with the role of the remnant within Israel's history as portrayed either in the OT and postbiblical Judaism or in Paul's theology. Seifrid admits that "the outworking of covenantal threats and promises in exile and restoration provides a generally consistent pattern through most early Jewish writings" (ibid., 87). He objects, however, that many authors and their communities in this period who picture Israel in this way also "assume the role of the prophetic voice, implicitly excluding themselves ... from the envisioned waywardness and decline of the people" (ibid., 87f.). Therefore "all" Israel was not consistently viewed as under the exilic curse of God, and for some writers the exile was already over for their group (ibid., 88). Yet such a distinction is precisely what is to be expected from those who, like Paul and the Qumran writers, viewed themselves as the remnant of the new covenant whose role it was to call the nation as a whole to repentance (cf. this same distinction within Israel under the old covenant as portrayed in Jer 31:34). It is this exception that proves the rule. Hence, Paul's use of 6aoi ef Ipyuv v6\iov and iras 8s, not "Israel," in Gal 3:10 to describe those under the curse of the Law does not mean that Paul did not view Israel as a people as under such a curse (contra ibid., 90 n. 53). Rather, it reflects Paul's conviction that not all Israel was in fact under God's curse; from Moses onward there had always been a remnant of faithful people within the nation who had fulfilled the covenant stipulations. Likewise, Paul's confidence in his own standing before God in Phil 3:4-6 and Gal 1:14 is not a reflection of his confidence in the state of all his 7 4

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

369

too Paul's interest is not with the hardened character of the Jewish people and current "exilic" state of the nation as such. His ultimate concern is to make clear that the time of eschatological restoration has now dawned in Christ, bringing to an end the time of the Sinai covenant and its resultant divine judgment against Israel and the world. But it has done so only for the remnant of those Jews and Gentiles who have now proleptically received the inheritance of sonship "in Christ" that was first promised to Abraham (Gal 3:16, 26; 4:5f.; cf. Rom 8:9, 14-17; 11:1-10)75 As Paul's own "Mosaic" an-

people as his "contemporaries" (contra ibid., 90). Instead, it reflects Paul's preconversion confidence in his own standing and that of his fellow Pharisees, whose identity as the truly pious, like that of the Qumran community, was formed in contradistinction to the nation as a whole. Finally, in Rom 11:5, Paul is not saying that "in the present time ... there has come to be a remnant" (ibid., 91), but that there continues to be a remnant of faithful Israelites in the present in continuity with the remnant that has always existed, as seen in Elijah's experience, so that in Paul's day too there is still evidence that God has not rejected his people (Rom 11:1-4). Seifrid is right in emphasizing, contra Wright, that for Paul Jesus, as the messiah, did not bring Israel's "exile" to and end. Wright's view represents an "over-realized eschatology." But Seifrid is wrong in assuming that this also meant that Paul did not conceive of Israel as a nation as being under the exilic judgment of God. Just the opposite is true. For Paul, Israel's rejection of Jesus demonstrates that, apart from a remnant, the nation remains under the judgment of God that culminated in the exile. Indeed, it has been intensified. Seifrid's conclusion that "Paul's judgment on Israel is derived from the cross, and does not represent a continuation of a pre-conversion belief does not find support in this present study. The "plight" Paul fought as a Pharisee for the purity of his people, even to the point of persecuting Christians, is the "plight" he still fights as an apostle to the Gentiles. This emphasis on an inauguration in Christ, short of consummation, is, of course, what separates Paul's view of Israel's restoration from exile from that found in most of post-biblical Judaism on the one hand, and in the Qumran writings on the other. Compare, e.g., Paul's emphasis on the inauguration of the new covenant restoration with the use of the same theme of Israel's exile as proclaimed in the "Song of Moses" from Deuteronomy 31-32 in Tobit 12-13 as outlined by Steven Weitzman, "Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit," JBL 115 (1996) 49-61. Weitzman concludes, 61, that "The evocation of the prophet's song in Tobit 12-13 hints that Jews presently living in exile have reached a similar turning point in their history—that their sojourn in exile is almost over and their life in the land is about to resume" (emphasis mine). Conversely, in contrast to Qumran, who viewed the inauguration of the new covenant to be taking place proleptically through their own lives of obedience to 7 5

370

HAFEMANN

guish over his people reflected (Rom 9:1-5; cf. Exod 32:3If.), Israel as a whole still remains hardened and outside the restoration of the new covenant people of God. The promise of Spirit-filled descendants of Abraham is still awaiting fulfillment for the rest of Israel, and with her redemption, for the rest of the world as well (cf. 2 Cor 3:14; Rom 9:1-13; l l : l l - 3 6 ) . Israel's return from exile is still to come. 76

77

the Law as interpreted by the Teacher of Righteousness and his community, Paul viewed Jesus, as the Messiah, to be the one who inaugurates the age of inheritance; for this point, see my "Spirit of the New Covenant," 188. The future of Israel in relationship to the eschatological eKKXTicjta now made up of Jews and Gentiles is, of course, a much debated question. In support of the view represented here, see now the extensive work of Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996) 670739. For the opposing view that Paul's thought implied two distinct covenants and salvation-histories, see Krister Stendahl, Meanings, The Bible as Document and As Guide (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 205-15, 217-44 and my rejoinder, 'The Salvation of Israel in Romans 11:25-32, A Response to Krister Stendahl," Ex Auditu 4 (1988) 38-58. For the view that Paul's understanding of Israel's continuing exile and redemption in Christ meant that Jesus, as the embodiment of Israel, also "encapsulates her destiny in himself," see N. T. Wright, "Christ, the Law and the People of God: the Problem of Romans 9-11," in his The Climax of the Covenant, Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 231-57, quote from 237; and his development of Israel's continuing exile and its implications for understanding the NT as a whole in his The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). For Wright, Christ's death therefore brought about the culmination and hence the end of Israel's history as the covenant people of God apart from their conversion into the Church now. And for the view that the TTX^pw^a of Rom 11:12 and the Trds 'Iapctf|X of Rom 11:26 refer to the gradual ingathering of Jews, and in the latter case most likely Gentiles as well, over time to a full number, see O. Palmer Robertson, "Is there a Distinctive Future for Ethnic Israel in Romans 11 ?," in K. Kantzer and S. Gundry (eds.), Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, Papers from the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 209-27. 7 6

1

7 7

See now John M. G. Barclay, "Paul: an Anomalous Diaspora Jew," in his Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Edinburgh: Clark, 1996) 381-95, 387f., who points out that what made Paul so anomalous in stark contrast to his contemporary Jews of the Diaspora was the fact that, in spite of many years of intimate association with Gentiles, Paul nevertheless maintained "the traditional categories by which Jews had demarcated themselves from the rest of humanity" ("a strongly antagonistic cultural stance" against Hellenism), while at the same time forming "multi-ethnic communities" ("a radical redefinition of traditional Jewish categories"). Such a stance makes

PAUL AND THE EXILE OF ISRAEL IN GALATIANS 3-4

371

Thus, in view of the promises to the Patriarchs and the corresponding prophetic hope concerning Israel's restoration, Paul came to grips with Israel's "salvation-historical advantage" by underscoring the fact that Israel's restoration from the exile had not yet taken place. However, those Jews and Gentiles now "in Christ" already constitute the escha­ tological people of God who, though presently sharing in the inheri­ tance of the Spirit, continue to "wait for the hope of righteousness" (Gal 5:5) and for the consummation of their adoption as God's sons (Rom 8:23-39). For Paul, the current state of Israel outside of the new covenant is another expression of the tension inherent between the "now" and the "not yet" of his inaugurated eschatology. The unex­ pected outcome of the proleptic dawning of God's kingdom is that the "two covenants" of the "two Jerusalems" will continue to co-exist un­ til the consummation of the age. Until then, Paul's theology led to his affirmation of the present equality of Jew and Greek in Christ on the basis of justification by faith, all the while that the Church continues to anticipate the consummation of Israel's election as the people of God. Indeed, as Peter Stuhlmacher has emphasized, this is Paul's "theologische Leistung."

perfect sense in the light of Paul's dual convictions concerning the present reality of God's covenant people "in Christ" and the future promise of Israel's restoration.

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1 3: 17-18 3: 23, 24 4: 12, 14, 15 11:31 12 12:2 12:3 13: 15 15-22 15:5 15: 11-14 15:13 15:13-14 15: 16 15: 18-21 16: 1-3, 12 17:8 17: 4-5, 16 18: 16-33 18: 18 18: 19 20: 15 21:34 22: 17 25:6 26:3 26:3-5 26:4 26:6-33 28:4 28: 12 28: 15 28:21 31:3 32: 4, 10 37 47:4 48:4 50:20 Exodus 7: 3,9 11:9,10 12 12:40 13: 3, 14 20:2 32:9 32:13 32: 3If. 33:3,5 33: 12-16 34:6-7

58 347 149 150 134 130-132 357 45 129 43 357 135 116,336 231,338 129,130 151 357 129,130 357 55 357 130 130 130 357 152 131 129 357 131 129,131 275 152 131 131 131 29 193 129 51 302 302 75 336 29 29 361 129 370 361 55 55

34:9 34:29-35 Leviticus 11 18:28 25: 10, 13, 16 26 26:44 Numbers 4:7-8 14:22 20: 15 21:18 23:7-24 24: 3-9, 15-24 24: 17 25: 1-9 Deuteronomy 4:23-28 4:25-28 4:26-27 4:26-28 4:27 4:29-31 4:34 5:6 6: 12 6:22 7:8 7: 19 8:7-8 8:7-9 10: 16 11:3 11:12 13: 1-2 13:3 18: 15,18,19 18:21-22 25: 1-3 26 26:5 26:5-11 26:8 26: 12-15 27: 15-26 27:26 28 28: 16-19 28:25 28:46 28: 58, 61 28: 64

361 361 35 259 304 174, 181 193 152 303 193 113-4,308 153 152 320 165 89 116 93 109 162 89 302 29 29 302 29 302 134 152 49 302 152 319 302 304 319 355 43 193 43 303 43 354 343 140, 174, 181 354 180 303 343 153, 326

374

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

29 29:2 29:3 29: 19, 20, 26 29: 19b 29:27 29:28 29-31 30 30:3 30:4 30:5 30:5-6 30:7 30:10 31: 16-18 31:19-21,26 32: 5, 15-42 34:11 Joshua 1:4 1-4 5:6 24:7 Judges 3: 10 4:4 10:2,3 12:7-14 14: 1-16: 31 15:20 16:31 18:30 1 Samuel 2: 27 2:34 4: 18 7:6,15 10: 1-8 25:33 2 Samuel 5 1 Kings 3-10 5:27ff 8:22-53 8:48 9:7 10 10:27 11 11:28 14: 15 (MT) 14: 15 2 Kings 14:7ff.

363 303 364 343 343 186 187 43 181 153,258 181 287 49 199 343 363 344 344 303 304 304 304 304 318 318 318 318 165 318 318 145 257, 270 319 318 318 319 29 52 42 24 196 197 162 42 42 43 24 180 153,162 180

14:9 16: 2, 5-9 16:10 17:4 17:6 17:6-7 17:23 18-20 19:29 19:32-37 20:8-9 20: 17-18 22: 11 23:34 23:35 23-25 24 24: 1 24: 12 24: 14 24: 15-16 24: 16 25 25:3 25:4 25:6 25:7 25:8 25:20-21 25:27 1 Chronicles 5:26 2 Chronicles 15:2 29:9 34:19 36 36:4 36:6 36:9 36:22-23 Ezra 1-6 2: 1 3:2 5: 1-2 6: 14 6: 19 (LXX) 8: 15-20 9:6-15 9:8-9

156 12 12 12 195 153 186 13 319 52 319 147 163 190 14 37 18 14 157 15 157 15 29,31 32 157 196 16 157 196 145 187 163 187 163 18 190 29 156 213 18, 20, 22 148 160 71 71 145 23 89 309

Nehemiah 8 8:9 9:6-37 9:36 9:36-37

41 41 89 309 22

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

Esther 3:8 Job 25:3 Psalms 1: 1-2 11:2 14 37: 19 74:9 100:3 105: 18 107: 14 119: 101 137 137: 1-6 137:9 146:7-8 149 Ecclesiastes 7:20 Isaiah 1: 1 1:5-9 1:7-9 1:21-27 1:24-27 2:2-4 4:3 4:4 5: 14 6:9-10 6:9f. 7: 10-14 7: 17 8: 5-8 10 10:24-27 11: 10-16 11:11-16 14: 1-2 14:2-20 16: 1-7 17: 1-3 19: 18-25 21: 14-15 22: 1-4 27:8 27: 12-13 27:12-13 28 28: 1-6 28: 2, 14-22 28: 14-22 28:16 28: 17 28: 17-22 28:21

160 258 58 121 55 124 319 96 29 29 29 18,31,53 84 31 30 29 55 76 76 51 51 48 74 74 74 74 81 364 319 118 48 51 124 215 193 74 326 326 326 74 125 52 74 75 193,216 50 314 48 50 50,51 51 51 52

29: 10 30:8-17 35: 1-10 35:5-6 36:6 37:33-38 39:6-7 40 40:3 42:7 43:2 43:5-6 43:14 43:14 44:9-20 45 45:14 49:5 49:6 49: 12 52: 2 53 54: 1 56: 1-8 56:7 56:3-8 60: 11 61: 1 61: 1-7 63:1 65:2 65: 17 66: 12 66: 18 66:22 Jeremiah 2:6 3: 12 3: 18 3:22 3: 14 4: 1 4:11-12 4:4 6: 11 7:11 9:9 12: 14-15 13:17 13:24 13:26-27 15:2 16:13 16: 14-15 18:21-23 22:10 22: 13-19 22: 26, 28 23:7-8 24 24: 1-10

375

364 52 325 325 13 52 147 313 122 30 244 76 243 257 34 21 29,31 75 36 76 29, 76 58 365 321-323,325 316,321 36 326 30 76 258 364 74 74 76 74 77 78 78 78 78 78 77 49 77 321,326 293 78 161 77 70 260 65 78 77 260 14 65 78 78-79 21

376

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

24-29 25:11 26-29 29: 1-2 29:7 29:10 29: 13-14 30: 12-17 31-33 31: 12-14 31:7-9 31:21 31:29 31:31-34 31:34 31:31-34 32 32-45 32:2 32:41 34: 13 35:4 35: 4 (LXX) 36:1,22(LXX) 36:4-7 37:2 38:6 38: 17 39:4 39:7 40: 1 42: 18-22 43: 1-7 44:27 44:29 49:38 49:38 50-51 50:4 50:8 51:6 51:24 51:34-35 52: 6, 24 52:31 Lamentations 1: 1 1:11 1:3,18 2:2 2:8 2: 12 2:21 3:7 3:7-9 3: 16 4: 4, 9-10 5:2-5 5:9

53 89 16 79 70 89 140 48 53 78 78 261 55 48 49 365 78 37 29 141 29 192 145 145 192 32 29 158 157 29 29 190 190 77 319 257 268 31,70 78 78 78 31 25 32 145 32 32 32 21 32 32 32 29 32 150 32 21 32

Ezekiel 1: 1-3 3:22-27 4: 1-3 4:5 5 5: 1-17 11:16 12 12:2-3 12:11 17: 13 18 20:35 21 29:17-18 33:23-29 33:30-33 33-34 34 36-37 36:26-27 36-37 37:26 37:27 39:25-29 44:15 Daniel 1 1-6 2, 3, 6 2:44 2:44-45 5 6:24 7:8 7: 10 7: 11 7: 18 7:20 9 9: 24 9: 24-27

34 20,33 34 168 167 18,22 31 123 258 123 168 123 90 170, 188 123, 171

Hosea 2:14-15 2:15 2:18 2:25 9:6 10: 11 11:1 11:2-4 11:5 11:10-11 12:9

51,67 125 125 155 67 67 335 338 67 67 67

80 32 32 120 18 32 81 32 81 145 15 55 124 32 14 21 23 53 54 53 365 53 48 48 81-82 113

Joel 3: 1-3 3:11-12

68 68

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

Amos 2:6-11 2: 10 (LXX) 5:2 5:27 6:7 7: 11,17 7: 17 9: 1-4 9:11-12 9:11-15 9: 13-15 Obadiah 1:20 Micah 1: 16 2:10-11 2: 12-13 3: 12 4: 6-7, 10 5:7-9 6:4 7:11-17 7:20 Nahum 1: 13

47 304 68 68,89,115,118 68 68 260 68 69 48 69 145 70 121 70 70 70 70 30 70 246

2:2 2:7 3:5 3: 10 Habakkuk 2: 15 Zephaniah 2:7 2:9 3: 10 3:20 Zechariah 1: 17 2: 6 2: 17 4: 14 6: 10 7:9-14 8:7-8 9:11 9:12 9:13 10:8-12 10: 9-10 14: lb

377

70 326 70 29,123,145, 326 122, 308 71 71 71 71 71 317, 324 243 328 71 71 71 29 30 272 72 72, 193 190

29 NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 1:11 1:11-12 3:2,8,11 8: 17 10:1,2,5 10:5-15 11:1 11:5 ll:21-23a 12: 18-21 15:24 19:28 20: 17 21: 12-13 23:37-38 24: 15-19 26:14,47 26:20 28: 18-20

146 326 316 315 317 318 317 325 325 315 318 318 317 321 326 326 317 317 324

Mark 1:4 3:14 4: 10 6:7 8: 11-13

316 317 317 317 319

9:35 10:32 11:11 11: 15-18 11:17 12: 1-12 13: 14-17 13:27 14: 10,17,20,43 Luke 3:3,8 6: 13 7:22 8: 1 8:31 9: 1,12 10: 13-15 13:34-35a 15: 11-32 19:41-44 19:45-46 21:20-24 22:3,47 22:30 22:37 23:27-31

317 317 317 321 321,323 318 326 324 317 316 317 325 317 317 317 325 326 325 326 321 326 317 318 315 326

378

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

John 5:39 6:67,70,71 20:24 Acts 6:2 7:23 8:32-33 26:7 Romans 1: 18-23 3: 10 3:28-31 4: 13 6: 14-15 8:3 8: 9, 14-17 8:23-39 9:4 9:6-13 11: 1-26 11:7-10 1 Corinthians 1:22 10: 1-10 10: 11 2 Corinthians 2: 1 4 ^ : 6 3:4-18 3: 6-7, 9a, 13-14a 3: 7, 13 3: 14-15 3: 18 5: 14-21

59 317 317 317 115 315 317 348 55 330 339 352 349 369 371 335 365 330 357-367 320 359 330 356 330 359 361 357-367 366 366

11:24 Galatians 1:4 2:2-5 3: 1-5 3: 1-5, 26-29 3: 1-14 3: 15-29 3:26-29 4: 1-3 4: 1-7 4: 1-11 4:1-7,21-31 4:4-7 4:21-25 4:4-11 5: 16-26 6:8 6: 15 Colossians 2: 8, 20 Hebrews 9:28 James 1: 1 1 Peter 2:24-25 Revelations 7:5-8 12: 1 21: 12,14,16,21 22:2

355 330 353 351 353 366 332 351 331-349 349 354 330 349 357-367 349-354 358 358 353 346 315 317 315 317 317 317 317

APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA Baruch 2:7-10 4:36-37 5:5 2 Baruch 68:5-7 78:7 105 1 Enoch 85-90 89:73-75 90:20-42 90:33 91:11-17 93 93: 1-10

306 312 312 310 314 107 96-100 310 310 313 95,96 311 95

2 Esdras 13:45-46 4 Ezra 107 Jubilees 1:7-18 1: 10-13 1: 15-18 1: 16a 1: 19-25 1:28-29 2: 19-20 3:26 3:32 4:23-26 4:30

195 109 103-104 139 139, 140 141 140 143 136 143 143 143 142

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

7:20-31 8: 11 8: 16 8: 17 10:32 12 12:15 12: 19-20 12:24 13 13: 6, 21 14:7 15:31-32 16: 17-19 23 23: 18-31 23:30-31 28 33:11 48:5-19 49:18 50:4 1 Maccabees 1:32 14:26 2 Maccabees 1:27-29 2:7 2: 17 2: 18 3 Maccabees 6: 1-15 7: 19 Letter of Aristeas 12-13 19-27 Psalms of Solomon 8:28 9:2 11: 1-4 17:4 17:21 17:26-28 17:44

138 134 143 134 134 132 134 136 136 132 134 136 136 137 141-142 315 200 133 138 135 136 136 208 304 312 307 312 307 192 193 190 191 313 178 313 313 313 313 313

Sibylline Oracles 3 3.271 5 Sirach 36 48:10 51: 12 Testament of Benjamin 9:2 Testament of Dan 9:9 Testament of Gad 8:2 Testament of Judah 23:5 24:5 Testament of Levi 10 14-15 16 17 Testament of Moses 3 3: 1-3 4 4:8-9 Testament of Naphtali 4 Testament of Zebulun 9:5-9 Tobit 13: 3 13: 13 13:5 13:6 14:3-7 14:5 Vitae Prophetarum 2:5

379

91-92 178 215 306 306 323 103 103 102 315 103 102 102 100-101 101-102 92 311 93 310 102 102 180, 306 312 312 315 79 310,312 191

DEAD SEA SCROLLS CD 1:3-4 1:4-11 l:4b-ll 1:5 2:4-5 2:18-3:12

119 120 119 121,123 112 114

3: 10-14 3: 19-4:3 6:4-5 6: 19 6:2-7 6:4-5 7: 14-15

188 113 308 114 113 114 115

380

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

7:9b-15 19:33-34 1Q22 i8b-9 1Q27 frag. 1,1: 5-8 1QH 12:8-9 1QM 1:2-3 1:3 lQpHab 11:2-8 11:4-6 1QS 8: 12b-14 9: 18-20 4Q158 1415-8 4Q161 5+6 15-20 4Q165 56 4Q169 3-4 iv 1-4 4Q171 1-10 ii 26-iii 2 4Q177 5-6 7-10 4Q243 13 1-4 4Q244 12 1-4 4Q258 3 iii 4

118,125 114 117 319 121 123,124 307 122 307 122, 125 122 116 124 125 124 124, 125 121 119 119

4Q259 1 iii 19 4Q266 2 ii 4-5 4Q267 2 7-14 4Q371 18-9 1 10-11 181 4Q372 12-5 1 10b-ll 1 llb-12 1 19-22 4Q385 11-2,5 16 i 3-6 4Q387 3 ii 1-13 4Q390 12-6 17-8 17b-10 4Q434 3 ii 2-3 4Q448 ii: 3-6 4Q504 2:7-17 3:7-14 5:7-21 4QMMT C18D-20 C21b-22 C23b-24

122 112 113 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 116 118 123 121 123 120 125 212 308 308 309 122 122 123

122 JOSEPHUS

Antiquities 1.51 1.81 1.9 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.21 1.51

65 64 164, 165 164 164 165 15 150

1.58 1.59 1.88 1.110 1.110-112 1.112 1.169 1.185 1.239 1.280-283

150 150 166 151 151 151 151 151 152 152

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

1.282 2.213 4.125 4.131-55 4.150-151 4.152 4.155-116 4.172-173 4.187 4.190 4.197 4.313 5.286-317 5.306 7.337 7.372 8.127 8.271 153, 9.249 9.278 9.279 9.280 10.9.7 10.33 10.59 10.100 10.101 10.128 10.136 10.137 10.149 10.150 10.183 10.184 10.185 10.186-281 10.210 166, 167, 10.223 10.268 10.276 11.1 11.8 11.91 11.133 11.180 11.212 11.345 12.7 12.139 164, 12.144 12.148-153 13.337 14.114

152 152 166 165 165 166 153 147 162 162 166 153 165 166 151 151 162 162, 180 154 154 154 154 19 147 163 156 157 157 157 157 147 157 158 158 158 147 169, 170 147 170 170 147 148 147 187,195 147 160 190 190 184,213 208 208 208 149

381

16.174 165 18.5.2 316 18.63 169 18.340 166 20.5.1 300,304 20.8.6 300,302,305,319 20.166 164 20.200 169 20.231 147 20.262 165 296-297 163 Contra Apion 1.33 160 1.132 147 1.138 148,152 1.205-211 190 2.38 148 2.44 208 2.168-169 169 2.284 149 Jewish War 1.1.11 319 1.5 195 2.13.4 304,319 2.13.4-5 300 2.457 209 3.8.9 241 3.304-305 209 3.532 209 5.9.4 311 5.389 158, 163 5.390 158 6.5.2 319 6.5.3 319 6.5.4 241,320 6.103-4 156 6.312-313 '149 6.416-418 209 6.442 149 7.11.1 319 7.43 149 Life 1 2 12 422 423 425 428-429

158 157 169 148 148 149 149

OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES ANET (J. B. Pritchard, ed.) 284 308-315 315-316

13 20 22

322 564 Appian Bella Civilia 5.19

18 14 147

382

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

MiepiSd-reios 67 Dio Cassius 68.32.1-3 69.13.1-2 Diodorus Siculus 1.28.1-3 14.34.3-5 40.3.3 17.110.4-5 18.18.5 18.25.5 18.4.4 18.8.5 Herodotus 1.146 1.788-91 1.94 4.155 5.124

206 218 217 183 218 145 187 202 202 202 205 145 22 151 145 145

Philo De Abrahamo 14.64 De Cherubim 1.2 1.3-2.4 3.9 De Fuga et Inventione 10.53 17.89 De Posteritate Caini 2.9 2.9-3.10 3.10 De Praemiis et Poenis 16 28 28-29 29

146 146 146 146 146 146 146 149 150 315 315 315 316

29.165 95 127-172 De Specialibus Legibus 1.161 3.123 3.168 3.150 3.181 De Virtutibus 19.117

172 217 198 146 146 146 146 146

146,152

In Flaccum 12.105 146 18.151 146 21.181 146 Legatio ad Gaium 14.110 146 43.341 146 155-158 209 214-215 216 Life of Moses 2.19-20 217 Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 1.7 146 8.55 146 20.145 146 Plato Crito 52C 145 Apology 37C 145 Plutarch Antony 16 147 Lucullus 14.2 206 14.19 206 29.5 206 Pompey 47 147 Phocion 27 202 Polyaenus 4.2.12 202 Strabo 5.4.11 147 6.2.5 147 11.532 206 Tacitus Annals 2.85.4 209 Thucydides 1.22.4 167 2.27 184,205 3.82-84 151 Xenophon Hellenica 2.2.9

184,205

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

383

MISHNAH, TALMUD, AND OTHER RABBINIC WORKS Mishnah Avoth 4: 14 Berakot 4:5 Qiddusin 1.9 Sanhedrin 10:3 Babylonian Talmud Berakot 3a 56a 'Eduyyot 3.3

154 197 282 187

161 154 284

Hagiga 5b

161

Hullin 6b-7a 16b Ketuvot 111a Menahot 11.6 Megilla 29a Niddah 46b Pesahim 49a 87b Sanhedrin 26a 38a 57b 93b 110b Shabbat 33a Sukka 52b Yebamot 82b

282 161 214 284 243, 246, 268 286,290 154 154 161 160 150 160 187 161 161

Yoma 9b 161 Palestinian Talmud Pesahim 87b 155 Ta'an 1.1 270 Mekhilta Pisha 14103 245 Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael 262-263 Midrash Rabbah Exodus 15.16 245 16.6 280 Genesis 11:7 150 21:8 150 41.4 269 98: 9 162, 323 Lamentations 1.19-20 245 1.54 272 Leviticus 29.2 275 32.8 245 Numbers 7.10 245 Song 2: 7 214, 323 4.8.1 245 Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 23 275 Pesiqta Rabbati 8.4 245 28.2 245 29.1 245 30.2 245 160a 155 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 24 151 Seder Olam 287, 289, 290, 293, 294 Sifra Leviticus

286,290

18:24-28

252

384

INDEX TO BIBLICAL AND OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

19:15 25:10 25: 18-19 26: 30-33 26:32 26:38 26:41 Sifre Deuteronomy 11:10 11:16-18 17:2 29 29:27 Numbers 84 161 Targumim Hosea 2:2 14:8 Isaiah 1:15 8: 16-18 28 43:12 43: 14 6: 13 8: 18 27:6 28:13,19,25 28:2,6, 35:6,10 42:7 43:6,14 51:11 52:13 53:8 54:7,15 66:9 46:11 Jeremiah 30: 18 Micah 5: 1-3 5:3 Zechariah 2:4

253 255 253 254, 256 255 254 255

259 260-261 262 197 260 257-258 267 245

314 314 242,245 242 239,242 246 244, 246 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 324

SUPPLEMENTS TO THE

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF JUDAISM Formerly Studia Post-Biblica

4 9 . LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, L J . The Antecedents of Antichrist A Traditio-

Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents. 1 9 9 6 . ISBN 9 0 0 4 1 0 4 5 5 0 5 0 . YARBRO COLLINS, A. Cosmology and Eschatology in Jewish and Chris­ tian Apocalypticism. 1 9 9 6 . ISBN 9 0 0 4 1 0 5 8 7 5 51.MENN, E. Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis. Studies in Literary Form and Hermeneutics. 1997. ISBN 9 0 0 4 1 0 6 3 0 8 52.NEUSNER, J . Jerusalem and Athens. The Congruity of Talmudic and Classical Philosophy. 1 9 9 6 . ISBN 9 0 0 4 1 0 6 9 8 7 5 3 . LARSON, E.W. The Translation of Enoch from Aramaic into Greek. ISBN 9 0 0 4 1 0 6 9 0 1 (In preparation) 5 4 . COLLINS, J.J. Seers, Sibyls & Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. 1 9 9 7 . ISBN 9 0 0 4 1 0 7 5 2 5 55.BAUMGARTEN, A.I. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. 1997. ISBN 9 0 0 4 1 0 7 5 1 7 5 6 . SCOTT, J . M . Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. 1 9 9 7 . ISBN 9 0 0 4 1 0 6 7 6 6

ISSN 1384-2161