Jewish World Around the New Testament: Collected Essays I

RICHARD BAUCKHAM

The Jewish World around the New Testament

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testametzt 233

Mohr Siebeck

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Flcrausgeberl Editor Jarg Frey (Miinchen) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avcmarie (Marburg) Judith Gundry-Volf (New Haven, CT) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

Thio

One

Richard Bauckharn

The Jewish World around the New Testament Collected Essays I

Mohr Siebeck

RICHARD B A U C K ~ ~born A ~ I 1916; , 1973 P h D University of Cambridge, England; 1977-87 Lecturer in the History of Christian Thought, 1987-92 Rc.ader in the History of Christian Thought, University of Manchcster, England; 1992-2007 Professor of New Testament Studies, St Mary's College, St Andrews University, Scotland; now emeritus Profesqor, St Andrews University, arid Senior Scholar, Ridley Hall, Cambridge.

ISBN 978-3-16- 149614-1 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Ulitersuchungen Tun1 Neucn Testament) Die Ileutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available o n the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

O 2008 by Mohr Siebeck, 'Tubingen, Germany.

This book may not be repritduced, in whole o r in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. 'This applies particularly t o reproductions, translations, niicrofilms and storage and processing in elcctroriic systems. The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tubingen, printed by Guide-Llruck in Tuhingen o n non-aging paper and bound by Buchbindcrei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..............................................

1

2 . The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah: Jewish or Christian? ....... 3 3. Enoch and Elijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah ............ 27 4 . The Rise of Apocalyptic .................................... 39

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 6. A Note on a Problem in the Greek Version of 1 Enoch 1 . 9 . ...... 89 7. The Son of Man: 'A Man in my Position' or 'Someone'? ......... 93 8. The Apocalypses in the New Pseudepigrapha .................. 103 9. Pseudo-Apostolic Letters ................................... 123 10. Kainam the Son of Arpachshad in Luke's Genealogy ............151

5 . The Delay of the Parousia

11 . The List of the Tribes of Israel in Revelation 7 .................. 161 12. The Parting of the Ways: What Happened and Why ............. 175 13. The Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 10:34

................... 193

14. The Relevance of Extra-Canonical Jewish Texts

to New Testament Study

...................................207

15. Josephus' Account of the Temple in Contra Apionem 2.102-109

. .221 16. Life. Death. and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism ......... 245 17. What if Paul had Travelled East rather than West? ..............257 18. Covenant. Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses .........269 19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts ........................325 20. Paul and Other Jews with Latin Names in the New Testament . . . .371 21 . The Horarium of Adam and the Chronology of the Passion ......393 22 . The Spirit of God in us Loathes Envy ('James 4.5) ...............421

VI

Table of Contents

23 . Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 24. The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha ...........................................461 Particulars of First Publication ..................................485 Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .487 Index of Ancient Persons ...................................... 532 Index of Modern Authors ......................................538 Index of Place Names ......................................... 546

1. Introduction Most New Testament scholars would now agree that the New Testament writings belong wholly within the Jewish world of their time. However much some may be in serious conflict with other Jewish groups, these disagreements take place within the Jewish world. Even New Testament works authored by a n d l o r addressed to non-Torah-observant Gentile Christians still move within the Jewish world of ideas. Their God is unequivocally the God of Israel and of the Jewish Scriptures that they treat as self-evidently their own. Jesus for them is the Messiah of Israel and the Messiah also for the nations only because he is the Messiah of Israel. This is not to deny the obvious influence of the non-Jewish Greco-Roman world in which the New Testament writings also belong, but that influence was felt right across the Jewish world in varying ways and to varying degrees. The most profound influence of Hellenistic thought in the Jewish world of the first century CE is to be found, not in the New Testament, but in Philo of Alexandria, such that it was Philo, more than any of the New Testament writers, who prepared the way for the kind of profound engagement with Hellenistic philosophy that later Christian scholars, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen, pursued. The essays collected in this volume were written over the course of thirty years of study of the New Testament and early Judaism, and their topics are quite diverse, but they all share that basic perspective on the historical place of the New Testament writings within late Second Temple Judaism. In an essay I wrote to introduce students and beginning scholars to the relevance of extra-canonical Jewish literature to the study of the New Testament (chapter 14 in this volume) I said: 'The N T student and scholar must use the Jewish literature in the first place to understand Judaism. Only someone who understands early Judaism for its own sake will be able to use Jewish texts appropriately and accurately in the interpretation of the NT.' Accordingly the present volume includes some essays that make no o r only passing reference t a the New Testament but are intended as contributions to the understanding of Second Temple Judaism and its literature: these include chapters 15 (on Josephus), 16 (on Jewish beliefs about death and afterlife), 18 (on the Jewish apocalypses), and 23 (on the book of Tobit). Most of the

essays in this volume relate some part o r feature of the New Testament t o the literature, religion o r life of Jews in that period. The main literary sources for late Second Temple Judaism are the Apocrypha, Old Testament pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the works of Josephus and Philo. Rabbinic literature, though of much later date, can be relevant when used with caution, and we should not forget that the N e w Testament itself is evidence of the Judaism of its period, not only in the sense that the early Christian tnovement from which it comes was itself Jewish, but also in the sense that it refers to other forms and aspects of the Judaism of its period. As well as the literary sources, there is also documentary and epigraphic material, both from Palestine and from the Diaspora. Among these sources, these essays make rnost use (besides the New Testament) of the Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, which have long been my special interest, though many of the essays d o also refer to and discuss other sources. Among the sources, the most problematic as evidence for late Second Temple Judaism are the rabbinic literature, because of its date, and the so-called Old Testament pseudepigrapha. I d o not say 'the Pseudepigrapha' because, unlike the Apocrypha, these are not a defined body of literature with even approximately agreed boundaries, but an indefinite category. While some of these writings can be conclusively shown to be early Jewish writings, the fact that most of them are known only from manuscripts of Christian provenance means that, not only is their date often hard t o determine, but also whether they are of Christian o r Jewish origin may be rnorc debatable than some scholars have assumed. It is interesting that this issue of the Jewish o r Christian provenance, either of O l d Testament pseudepigrapha themselves o r of traditions they transmit, is common t o both the first and the last of the essays in this collection, showing that this is an issue of which I have long been aware. In chapter 21 I provide new arguments for the Jewish provenance of a text generally thought to be most likely of Christian origin. The essays appear in the chronological order of their original publication, except that chapter 3 belongs so obviously with chapter 2 that I thought it best t o place it out of chronological order. There is not much in these essays on which I have significantly changed my mind. Chapter 4 covers a large topic on which much has been written since I wrote it, but the most important point that would be different if I were to write it now is that I would not use the term 'apocalyptic' t o refer to a kind of eschatology o r a set of ideas, but only in a literary sense with reference to the literary genre apocalypse. To chapters 2 and 20 I have added appendices updating my treatments with reference to subsequently published information and discussion, but it would have been impractical to d o this in other cases. Special thanks are due t o Patrick Egan, who compiled the indices.

2. The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah: Jewish or Christian?':* From the standpoint of biblical theology "the establishment of the date of the apocalyptic tradition of the martyrdoni of the returning of Eliiah is of great importance" U. Jeremias).' Almost all references t o the martyrdom of the returning Elijah are to be found in early Christian literature and are references to the joint martyrdom of Elijah and Enoch at the hands of Antichrist:' the question of the origin of this Christian tradition of the martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah has, therefore, been regarded '1s a major line of inquiry in the search for a pre-Christian Jewish tradition of the martyrdom of Elijah. W. Bousset in 1895 sifted early Christian traditions about Antichrist to reconstruct a pre-Christian tradition which included the return of Enoch and Elijah to denounce Antichrist and t o suffer martyrd0m.j But texts of some importance to the question have come t o light only since Bousset wrote, including the relevant section of the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijak, on which Jeremias's case f o r a pre-Christian tradition of Elijah's martyrdom depends heavily. This article is an attempt to reexamine the origins of the Christian tradition of the martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah. To facilitate this a diagrammatic analysis of the relevant texts is included. T h e table lists only motifs which occur in more than one of the texts. 'The texts (which include several that were unavailable t o Bousser) are: (A) Rev 1 1:3-13. (B) Coptic Apocalypse of Elyah (in G . Steindorff, Drc Apokalypse des Elus VU 1713 a; I.eip7ig: Hinrichs, 18991). ( C ) Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter, chap. 2 (tr. in E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher (eds.), N m Testametzt Aponypha led. K.McL. Wilson; London. Lutterworth, 1965],2. 669). (D) Tcrtullian, De unrrna 50.

" First publication: Journal of Rablxcul Llterutrtrc 95 (1976)447-458.

t

T D N T 2 (1964)941.

- Jeremias (TDN7'2 [I9641 941 n. 106) cites one rabbinic reference to Elijah's death. For the death of Elijah in Lactantius and Cummodian, see n. 19 below. The Anrrchnsr Legend (L.trndon: Iiutchinson, 1896 [German original, Gottingcn: Vandenhoeck & Kuprecht, 18951)203-1 1. - T h e term "Antichrist" is strictly anacl~ronistrc with reference to Jewzsh literature, but for convenience I have used it throughout this article with reference to both Jewish and Christian concepts of an eschatological adversary.

4

2. The* Martyrdom of Enoch and Elrjah:Jtvutrsh or Chnstran?

(E) EIippolytus, De A~trthrtsto43,4647; In Danrcle~n,35, 50. (F) Acts ofPrlate 25 (Greek text in L. 1'K. 'I'ischendorf, hangelra aponypha [Leipzig: Mendelssohn, 18761 331; Latin text, ibid. 404-5). (G) Ephraem Syrus, Scr~nodc~jtzec'xtrenzo (in '1'. J . I.amy [ed.],Sanctr Ephruem Syn hymnr et ,errnones 3 [Mechlin: Ucssain, 18891 207-10). (H) Ephraem "Graecus," Sermo rn adventum IJornrnr (in J . S. Asseman1 led.], S~nctt Ephraem Syn opera omnta quae exstunt [Rome: Salvioni, 1746],3. 141-42). (I) 1's.-Ephraeni "Latinus," Sermo define mundr (in C. P. Caspari, Brtefc, Abhandlungen und Predtgtew [Christiania: Malling, 18901 219). U) Ps.-Hippolytus, De consurnmattone mundr 21 (in P. A. Lagarde led.], Hrppolytt Romanr quae ferurztur omnra gruece [Leipzig: Tcubner, 18581 10.1-5). (K) Ps.-Hippolytus, De consutntnatrone mrtndt29 (ibid., 111). (L) Ps.-Methodius, Rcwelatrones 14 (Greek and Latin) (Greek text in A. Vassiliev, Anecdota graeco-byzantrna [Moscow: lrnperial University, 18931 38; Latin text in E. Sackur, Srbryllrntsche T i t e und ForscC)rcngen [Iialle: Nienieyer, 18981, 95-96). (M) Vzsro Danrelfs (Greek) (in A. Va\siliev, Anecdota, 43). (N) Ps.-Methodius, Rkelatrons 6 (Syriac) (tr. in E Nautn, Rt;velatrons et ligcndes [Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 19171 31). (0)Syriac (Clementinr) Apotalypsc of Ater (tr. ill E. Bratke, "Handschriftliche Uberlieferung und Bruchstucke der arahisch-aethiopischen Petrus-Apokalypse," ZWi7'3611 [I8931 471-72). (P) Ethiopic (Clementine) Apocalypse of Peter (tr. in E. Bratke, "I.-fandschriftliche Uberlieferung," 483). (C)) 1,atln 7iburttne Srbyl (tn i . Sackur, Jtt7ylltntsche Teste, 186). ( R ) Greek fiburtmc Srbyl (in I!S. Alexander, The Oracle of Baalbtk [Dumbarton Oaks Studies 10; Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library, 19671 22). (S) Apocalypse of Ps.-Shenoutc (in I:. Amilincau, Me'rnorrc*spublresparles mcmbres de la mrssion archeologzque friznqarse arc G t r e (1885-1886) 4/1 [Paris: Ernest L.eroux, 18881 345). (T) Bohairic Hrstory of Joseph 31-32 (tr. in F. Robinson, Coptrc Apocryphal Gospels [Texts and Studie5 4/2; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 18963 146-47; Arabic in J. K. Thilo, Codex apooyphus Novr Testamentr [I-eipzig: Vogel, 18321 58-61). (U) Apocalypse of Ps.-John 8 (in I. E K. Tischendort, Apoca1.ypses apocryphae [Leipzlg: Mendelssohn, 18661 77). (V) Syriac Apocalypse of Ezrrr (tr. in E Baethgen, "Beschreibung der syrischen Handschrift 'Sachau 131' auf der koniglichen Bibliothek r u Berlin,* ZAW 6 [ 18863 209). (W) Adso, Lrbellus de Antrchnsto (in E. Sackur, Jrbyllrnisrhe Texte, 11 1-12). ( Y ) Adso, Ltbellus de Antrchnsto (longer text) (in PL 90: 1 186).

2. The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah:J ~ w r s hor Christran?

' Ps.-Hippolytus 21 adds John. Htstory ofJosepit (Arabic) adds "Schila" and 'hbitha. Tenullian: "They are rescrvcd to die, so that they may extinguish Antichrist with their blood." ' There is a gap in the MS. ti Tischendorf's Latin text das 3 V2 days; his Greek text 3 days. Is is not quite clear that the Apocalypse of Efrlah intends to describe an ascension: "They will raise cries of joy towards heaven, they will shine, and all the people and the whole world will see them."

T h e date and interrelationships of niany of these texts have not been established and cannot be o n the basis of examining only this one element of the eschatological traditions they share. But it is important t o notice that none of the texts 1:-Y rnay be dated before the fourth centuryi%nd many are much later. Undoubtedly, eschatological traditions in carly and medieval Christianity were transmitted in relatively stable forms; the same apocalyptic texts were frequently updated and adapted to new circumstances, and late texts are therefore by no rneans worthless evidence of early tradition. But they must nevertheless be used with care in attempts t o investigate the origins of traditions. Since it is rarely possible t o prove that a tradition did not exist at an earlier date than the evidence attests, the temptations t o project traditions further back than the evidence warrants must be painstakingly resisted. Of the pre-fourth-century texts, there is, of course, no doubt of the date of Tertullian and Hippolytus. T h e Apocalypse of Peter dates from the early second century, but we shall see that the Ethiopic version's reference t o Enoch and Elijah may not belong to the original apocalypse. T h e Apocalypse of Elijah is even more problematic. It has c o ~ n m o n l ybeen regarded as a third- o r fourth-century Christian redaction of carly Jewish material," and most scholars have thought that its account of Enoch and Elijah is dependent o n the account of the t w o witnesses in Revelation 1 1,12 though perhaps also embodying independent Jewish tradition. Jeremias thought that a Jewish tradition of the martyrdom of Elijah could probably be discerned beneath the Christian redaction," but much more confident of the Jewish provenience of the work is J.-M. Rosenstiehl." H e regards it as substantially an Essene work of the first century B. c., expanded in chap. 2 by another Jewish author of the third century A.D. Its account of the return of Enoch and Elijah he regards as wholly Jewish and pre-Christian, related t o Revelation 11 only via a common source. '"n carllcr date for the Acts of PrLte has sornetlnles been advocated, but G . C . O'Cealla~gh("Datrng the C:ornmentar~e\ of Nicodemu\," H T R 56 119631 21-58) has denionstrated a terminus post quem at 555 for the earliest part (Part 1) of the work. The L>cscent into Hell (whrch includes chap. 25) rs later. " E. Scliurer, review of Stclndorff's edltion, TL-Z 24 (1899) 7-8; W. Boussct, "Beitrage zur Ceschichte der kschatologle," %KG 20 (1899) 103-12; 1-1. Welncl, "Die spatere rur Reltgron und Lrteratur des christlichc Apokalyptlk," E Y X A P I ~ ~ k l P I O N5tudten : AIten und Neuen Evtaments (Gunkel Festschrtft; Gottrngcn: Vanderlhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 2. 164-66. k g . , L). Haugg, D J PZwet %i,ugen. Erne eregetrsthe 'itudte uber Apok 1 1 , 1-13 (NTAbh 17/1; Munster: Aschendorf, 1936) 94; h4. Black, "Servant of the Lord and Son of Man," 5JT6 (1953) 10 n. I; W. Wink, John the Raptrst 1n the Gospel Trizdrtron (SN'fSMS 7 ; London / N e w York: Cambridge University, 1968) 14 n. 1. T D N T 2 (1964) 939-41. l 4 L 'Apocalypse d'Elir (Parls: Geuthner, 1972).

2. The Mnrtyrdotn of Enoch and Elrjah: Jrnrsh or Chrtstran?

7

Rosenstiehl's arguments d o not carry complete conviction.15 A final conclusion as to the date of the Apocalypse of Elijah can only be reached after a fuller study of the traditions it contains, and since the present inquiry is part of such study the question of date must be regarded as still open. Initially, however, we may notice from the table that the Apocalypse of Elijah's account of Enoch and Elijah obviously has close affinities not only with Revelation 1 1 but also with the Christian tradition of the fourth century onwards. These affinities provide the obvious indications of date, and we shall require strong evidence for dating as early as the first century B.G. a tradition which is otherwise attested for the fourth century and later but not before. It should also be noticed that the undoubtedly strongly Jewish character of the Apocalypse of Elijah need riot mean that it always preserves pre-Christidn Jewish tradition. Some of its striking points of contact with Jewish apocalyptic are not with extant pre-Christian apocalyptic but with the so-called Neo-Hebraic apocalyptic of the Christian era.I6 It is probable that a two-way traffic in apocalyptic traditions between Judaism and Christianity continued long after the first century," and not beyond possibility that a Jewish tradition of the martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah could have resulted from the influence of Christian traditions based on Revelation 11. J. Munck, in a survey of many of the texts included in the table, argued, against Bousset and Jeremias, that there was no Christian tradition of the return of Enoch and Elijah illdependent of Revelation 11 and therefore no evidence of a pre-Christian tradition of their martyrdom. Revelation 11, subjected to a mistaken exegesis by such writers as Hippolytus and Ps.-Hippolytus, gave rise to the whole Christian tradition of the return of Enoch and Elijah.Ix In his major contention that the martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah is a tradition deriving from exegesis of Revelation 11, we shall see that Munck was probably correct. But it is less likely that all aspects of the tradition derive from Revelation 11. An expectation of the return of Enoch and Elijah is attested in preChristian Judaism, though much more rarely than the expectation of Elijah alone. 4 Ezra 6:26 expects the appearance of those who had not died (cf. 7:28; 13:52), but doubtless means not only Enoch and Elijah, for Jewish writers of this period exalted others (Moses, Baruch, Ezra) to the privilege of excaping death. But 1 Enoch 90:31 does seem t o refer to the return of '"ee sonle critical comments in a review by 1'. M. I'arvis, J'lS 24 (1973) 588-89. This is especially true of the description of Antichrist: see J.-M. Rosenstiehl, "Le portrait de I'Antichrist," Psetidepjgrapl7es de I'Anclcri fistlament et tnanuscrits de la Mer Mortc (Paris: Presses Universitaires dc France, 1967), 1 . 45-60. l 7 Cf. M. Wuttenwieser, Outline ofthe Nro-Ncbrilic Apocalyptrc Literature (Cincinnati: Jennings and Pye, 1901) 1. I s Petrzir und Pawlur in der O f f n l ~ a r u n J g o h a n n (Copenhagen: Roscnkilde og Bagger, l6

1950) 81-1 18.

Enoch and Elijah specifically, probably at a period when only these t w o were thought t o have escaped death. 'Che survival of this tradition in Christianity and its lack of attestation in Judaism ought perhaps t o be associated with the popularity of the Enoch literature in some early Christian circles and its corresponding lapse from favor in Judaism. Certainly early Christian writers tended t o regard Enoch and Elijah as the only two w h o had escaped death (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 5.5.1 ;cf. 4 Ezra 1:39; Apocalypse of Paul 20). If early Christian writers took over from Judaism the expectation that Enoch and Elijah would return t o earth before the Judgment, it is not s o clear that they took over specific functions that the t w o were t o perform. In 1 Enoch 90:31 they appear t o have no function. Among Christian writers Hippolytus at least seems t o have uscd n o extra-scriptural traditions except the mere expectation of Enoch and Elijah's return. His accounts are closely dependent o n Revelation 11 and he does little more than identify the t w o witnesses as Erioch and Elijah: his explanation that they are t o be martyred "because they will not give glory t o Antichrist" (De Antichristo 47) is surely an intelligent deduction from the text rather than a sign of the influence of independent tradition. But it is noteworthy that he apparently found it unnecessary t o argue for his identification of the witnesses: he cites M a l 4 5 - 6 for the return of Elijah but seems to regard as unquestionable the identification of the second witness as Enoch. Arguably, once one witness had been identified as Elijah, Enoch's claim to be the other was obvious, for these were the t w o men w h o had not died. But it is more probable that an existing tradition of the return of Enoch with Elijah influenced Hippolytus' exegesis. Lactantius and Commodian show attempts to interpret Revelation 11 in the light of an alternative tradition of the return of Elijah alone,I9 and patristic authors w h o gave close attention t o the text of Revelation 11 were quite capable, like modern scholars, of finding that the characteristics of the t w o witnesses in 11:5-6 recall Elijah and Moses and Jeremiah but not Enoch.'O T h e identification with Elijah and Enoch was not obvious from the text, and its prevalence in the early church must probably be explained by reference t o an independent tradition of the return of Enoch and Elijah in the light of which Revelation 11 was interpreted. The tradition in most of the texts other than Hippolytus goes further than naming Enoch and Elijah in its divergence from Revelation 11. At least from the time of Ephraem Syrus, the tradition seems to assume an independent ") I.actantius (lnst. 7,17)and (:crrnmodian (C'arrnc,mdc duobuspopults 833-64) are both patently dependent o n Rev 113-13, but 1.actantius speaks only o f one figure, Elijah, and Commodian speaks first of Elijah alorle (833, 839, 850) and then of prophctae (856-62). The tradition of the return of Elijah alone also appears in Justin, Dul. 49; S J ~Or. . 2:187; Tertullian, Dc resurrecttone 22; De ~tzrrnn25. '"-lilarius, In Mart. 20: 10 (PI. 9.1032);Victorinus, In rlpoc. 1 1 :5 (1'1- 5.334).

2. The Marlyrdom ofE~ocl7and Elij'zh: Jc-wish or Christtizn?

9

life of its own, so that the story as told in most of the texts bears little resemblance to the story of the two witnesses, and only in a few cases (J, W) does it appear that the writer himself made any reference t o the text of Revelation 11. In terms of the motifs listed in the table, there are t w o accounts (C, N ) which have no point of contact at all with Rcvelation 11, and one ( H ) which coincides only in describing the t w o as prophets. All the others agree with Revelation 11 at least in recounting the martyrdom, but six of these (L), L, M, T, U, V) coincide with Revelation 11 only at this point, and three (G, P, R) only at this point and at the resurrection. It is true that most of the accounts are niuch briefer than Rev 11:3-13; but this only highlights the significance in the tradition of recurrent motifs which are not found at all in Revelation 11. The idea that the purpose of Enoch and Elijah's mission is t o expose Antichrist's deceits is found in sixteen of the texts (B, C, G, H , I, J, K, L, N, 0,P, S, T, U, W, Y), while the motifs of Antichrist's rage against Enoch and Elijah occur in seven texts (B, G , L, M, 0,R, S). Other features clearly not derived from Revelation 11 are found occasionally: Enoch and Elijah come to fight Antichrist (B, F, N, R), they are put t o death on the altar (U, V), they are raised by Michael and Gabriel (G, P), their conflict with Antichrist continues after their resurrection (B, S), and they finally destroy Antichrist (B, N, S). The tradition is b y no means uniform, and the omission of some motifs is doubtless often determined by the nature of the context o r a desire for brevity; but most of the texts given in the table recount the return of Enoch and Elijah in the context of a sequential prophecy of the events of the last days and may, therefore, be expected t o convey what was regarded as the main point of the tradition. O n l y a few of the texts (D, F, T) are in the nature of more incidental allusions. Therefore the degree of divergence from Relevation 1 1 and the recurrent prominence of motifs not derived from Revelation 11 is striking. The point of most consistent divergence is the purpose of the mission of Enoch and Elijah. The two witnesses in Rev 11:3-13 are preachers of repentance; they are not represented as preaching against Antichrist specifically; they encounter Antichrist only when their witness is completed. In the Enoch and Elijah tradition, almost without exception," the two prophets are sent against Antichrist, after his reign has begun. This may mean that they are the instruments of his destruction (B, 11, N, S), but it most commonly means that they expose him as an imposter. They denounce hirn either t o his face o r t o the people o r both, and this is what provokes his rage and their

*'

'I-tie exceptions are I-iippolytus, w h o follows Revelation 1 1 cloqely; the Latin Trbur~rr~e S;byl (Q), where the ~ n i s s i o ~ofi Enoch and Elijah is "to announce the Lord's comingw;and the Syriac Apocalypse ofEzra (V), which has no reference to the purpose of their coming. Adso - and thence the whole Western medieval tradition - gives them the additional role of converting the Jews to Christianity.

10

2. The ~Martyrdorrio f f : ~ o c and h Elilrzh:J c ~ ~ %or i s CY~rzstian2 h

martyrdom. The fact that some accounts (B, G, H , K, 0)give details of the verbal exchange between Antichrist and the t w o prophets illustrates the prominence of this theme in the tradition. Sometimes the people at large are convinced by this exposure of the false Messiah (L), sometimes the faithful are encouraged o r reclaimed (I, W, Y), sometimes "few believe" (H). It is clear, therefore, that Bousset was correct in drawing attention t o the characteristics of the Enoch and Elijah tradition which distinguish it from Revelation 11. But his conclusion, that such texts as K, I,, U, V represent substantially a pre-Christian Jewish tradition uninfluenced by Revelation 11, was too hasty.'l According to Bousset the pre-Christian tradition was that Enoch and Elijah would return t o denounce Antichrist and would be slain by him. The rnotif of resurrection after three days he regarded as originating in Revelation 11 and appearing only in texts influenced by Revelation 11." In fact, it is very doubtful whether the resurrection can be regarded as a secondary addition to a tradition which already included the martyrdom. It seems, on the contrary, that the resurrection has dropped out of the tradition in those texts which conclude the story with martyrdom, just as the ascencion has been omitted by almost all the texts which include the resurrection. There are some texts evidently dependent o n Revelation 11 which omit both resurrection and ascension (E, J, W), and in many cases the motive for such an omission is clear. In most of the texts the account of the last days has been compressed so that the general resurrection follows swiftly upon the martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah, and their individual resurrection becomes redundant." In other cases, (D, T ) the allusion to the tradition is in order to make a particular point which depends o n the martyrdom, not the re~urrection.'~ If there was a pre-Christian tradition, it must either have included both martyrdom and resurrection o r have included neither. Those who, like Rosenstiehl, regard the account in the Apocalypse of Elijah asJewish will argue that there was a Jewish tradition of both martyrdom and resurrection. It is much more probable that both features entered the tradition from Revelation 11. Apart froin the debatable case of the Apocalypse of Elilah and the brief reference of Tertullian, the martyrdom is attested before the fourth century only in Hippolytus, w h o quite clearly derived it from Revelation 11. Thus t w o centuries before the texts from which Bousset constructed a pre-christian tradition, Christians were iden'?

Antrthrist 1 egcrld, 208-9.

'' lhrd., 209-10.

I' It rs lnterestrng to note that rn Acts of hlirte 25 the resurrection and ascensron of Enoch and Elijah are related In the 1.1riguagc of 1 'rhes 4:) 7, thereby assrm~latrngthem to the general resurrcctlon and rapture of tlie sa~nts. Munck has argued at length that tliere was rimer a tradit~onof martyrdom w ~ t h o u t rccurrcctron (Petrir, utzd P~zui'us,100-109).

"

2. The Murtyrdon~of Enoth and Elqluh: J e u ~ s hor Chnstran?

11

tifying Enoch and Elijah with the t w o witnesses of Revelation 11. It would be surprising if the later tradition showed no influence from Revelation 11, and such influence is surely responsible for the near unanimity of the texts in expecting the martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah. A more profitable approach t o the question of pre-Christian tradition is t o examine those three texts (C, H, N) which are remarkable for not mentioning the martyrdom.26These texts are the most dissimilar from Revelation 11 and the most likely to reflect entirely independent tradition. O n e of them, chap. 2 of the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter, would be the earliest Christian reference t o the return of Enoch and Elijah, if it could be shown t o be part of the original early second-century apocalypse. But the Ethiopic text of chap. 2 is suspect. A general comparison of the Ethiopic of the Apocalypse of Peter with the Greek fragments and the patristic citations suggests that, while "on the whole the Ethiopic presents the original contents of the Apo~alypse",~' in detail it is scarcely a reliable witness t o the original text. Moreover, the text of chap. 2 shows some degree of confusion. O n e part represents the "house of Israel" as following the false messiahs; another represents them as suffering martyrdom at the hands of the deceiver. T h e transition from the several false messiahs to the one Antichrist is oddly abrupt; and in favor of the originality of the former motif rather than the latter may be cited chap. 1 of the Ethiopic and vv. 1-2 of the Akhiminiic text, which must represent at least a summary of this part of the apocalypse. In this case the Apocalypse of Peter belongs with 2 Peter and the synoptic apocalypse in knowing of false prophets and messianic pretenders of the last days, rather than of the single Antichrist of 2 Thessalonians. The parable of the fig-tree and its explanation would then have been introduced around an original prophecy of false messiahs w h o would lead the people astray. T h e introduction of Enoch and Elijah at the end of chap. 2 seems almost an afterthought, unnecessary t o the interpretation of the parable and perhaps intended to clear up the difficulty of the preceding text: it is the preaching of Enoch and Elijah which will enlighten the Jews as t o the true nature of Antichrist and so make them martyrs.

N o t only d o all the other texts in the table refer to the martyrdom, but also other texts which were not sufficiently important to be included: Philippus Solitarius, Dtoprru 3.10; John of Damascus, D e j d e orthodoxu 4.20; Honorius of Autun, Elundunrtm 3.9. The only other example that I know of referring t o the return of Enoch and Elijah without the mention of their martyrdom is in the Arabic (Clementine) Apocalypse of Peter ( A . Mingana, W'oodbrooke Studres [Cambridge: Hcffer, I931],3.359). But the martyrdom may be ir~cludedin the section Mingana omits (p. 360), as it evidently is in the version described by Bousset (Antlchnst Legetzd, 74). <:. Maurer in E. Iiennecke, N e w Testament Apocrypha (ed. R. McI.. Wilson; London: I,uttenvorth, 1965), 2.665.

12

2. The iMartyrdorn of'Enoch rrnd I:'ltlah:Jewish or Chrzststran?

This is a conjectural explanation of the text, but it illustrates the difficulty of using it as evidence that the tradition of Enoch's and Elijah's return t o denounce Antichrist was already known in the early second century. O n the other hand, the singular absence of reference t o the martyrdom may indicate an early (though not necessarily second-century) tradition. It might be understood contextually, if the point of the reference to Enoch and Elijah is t o explain how the Jews are t o recognize Antichrist as an imposter. But even so the context of reference to martyrdom was one in which other writers would not be able t o resist adding that Enoch and Elijah too would seal their witness in blood. T h e point is well illustrated by comparing this text with a parallel one in the later Ethiopic (Clementine) Apocalypse of Peter (P), which is certainly dependent o n it: (C)

(P)

... he will kill with the sword and there

... they will be beheaded and become

shall be many martyrs. Then shall the boughs of the fig-tree, that is the house of Israel, sprout, and there shall be many martyrs by his hand: they shall be killed and become martyrs. Enoch and Elijah will be sent to instruct thern that this is the deceiver who must come into the world and do signs and wonders in order to deceive. And therefore shall they that are slain by his hand be martyrs and shall be reckoned among the good and righteous martyrs who have pleased God in their life.

martyrs. In that day will be fulfilled what is said in the Gospel: when the branches of the fig-tree are full of sap, know that the time of the harvest is at hand. Shoots of the fig-tree are those righteous men called, who become martyrs at his hand, and the angels will hring thern to the joy, and no hair of their head will be lost. Then Enoch and Elijah will descend. They will preach and put to shame that tyrannical enemy of righteousness and son of lies. Then they will be beheaded, and Michael and Gabriel will raise them up and bring them into the garden of joy, and no drop of his (stc) blood will fall on the ground.. .

In the second text the preaching of Enoch and Elijah against Antichrist is retained, but n o longer serves to make martyrs of anyone but Enoch and Elijah themselves. T h e parallelism of language between the account of the martyrs and the account of Enoch and Elijah shows the extent t o which they are here portrayed as examples of martyrdom, the very last of all the martyrs. This was the dominant trend of the tradition. The Apocalypse of Peter may thus be evidence that the tradition of the return of Enoch and Elijah to denounce Antichrist first existed independently of the tradition of the martyrdom. The same early tradition may also survive in Ephraem Graecus (H), where the martyrdom is not mentioned. The process of assimilation to Revelation 11 can be seen rather clearly in Ps.-Hippolytus: in chap. 21 U) the motif of exposing Antichrist has been introduced into an

2. The Martyrdom of Enoch nnd Elijuh: Jc~~lrsh or Chrtstiutt ?

13

account drawn from Hippolytus and dependent on Revelation 1I; in chap. 29 (K) the motif of martyrdom has been added t o an account of the mission of Enoch and Elijah very similar t o that in Ephraem G r a e c u ~ . ~ " T h e Syriac version of Ps.-Methodius (N) seems to represent another form of the tradition which did not include the martyrdom, a form in which Enoch and Elijah come to destroy Antichrist. It i;a quite distinctive account:

... when he comes to Jerusalem, Enoch and Elijah will leave the land of life; they will rise up against him, they will withstand him and he will curse them. When he sees them, he will melt like salt in the presence of water, and he will be the first to be punished, before all men, together with the demons who entered into him ... The only close parallel t o this account is at the end of the Apocalypse of Elijah, where Enoch and Elijah descend a second time from heaven, and "pursue the Son of Iniquity and kill him, without his being able t o speak. In that day he will be destroyed before them like ice destroyed by the fire ..." The destruction of Antichrist by Enoch and Elijah then reappears in the Apocalypse of Ps.-Shenoute (S), which is dependent on the Apocalypse of Elijah. Perhaps also t o be connected with this tradition is Tertullian's statement that "they are reserved t o die, s o that they may extinguish Antichrist with their blood" (morituri reservantur, ut Antichristum sanguine suo extinguarzt). This is a reinterpretation of the destruction of Antichrist in terms of the martyrological idea that the death of the martyr rebounds in judgment o n the persecutor and thereby secures his destruction. It is possibly a reinterpretation independent of Kevelation 11 but more probably Tertullian, like Hippolytus, identified Enoch and Elijah with the t w o witnesses and understood their death in the light of Rev 12:11, 1 5 2 as a conquest of Antichrist. This motif of the destruction of Antichrist by Enoch and Elijah is likely to be of Jewish origin, as is also the alternative tradition of his destruction by the archangel Michael, which found its way from Judaism into the Christian t r a d i t i ~ nthe : ~ ~elimination of the last great enemy of the people of God was a messianic function in both Jewish and Christian apocalypti~.'~ A Christian author is unlikely t o have originated a tradition in which Enoch and Elijah are permitted in this way t o usurp the role of Christ." But the messianic For the relationship of I%.-f-iippolytusto Ephraem Graecus, see W. Bousset, Anttchrrst Legmd, 4 1-42. W. Boussct, Anttchnst Legend, 227-31; M . Buttenwieser, Outlmcs, 43; Jnc.rsh '"ee Encyclopedur, 8.536-7. Jewish: 2 Apoc. Bar. 40:l-2; M . Buttenwieser, Ourhnes, 31,35,38. Ctlristian:2 7hes 2:8; Rev 19:1 1-2 1; W. Bousset, Anttchrtst Legend, 224-25. '' This is undoubtedly why it appears rarely in the Christian sources. Ps.-Shenoute (S), which is dependent on tlie Apoczllypse of Eltjah, retains the motif, bur the Greek TI-

''

14

2. The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elljab: Jctish or Christian!

expectations of first-century Judaism were more varied and could easily have accommodated a tradition in which Enoch and Elijah were a pair of messianic figures appearing at the end to combat and destroy Antichrist. Such a tradition has not survived in extant Jewish texts, but a messianic role for Elijah is attested," while Enoch in the Similitudes of Enoch assumes the messianic functions of the Son of Man. We may now attempt a classification of the traditions: Ia. 'The return of Enoch and Elijah (purpose unspecified): 1 Enoch 90:31. Ib. The return of Enoch and Elijah as the two witnesses of Revelation 11: I-lippolytus (E). la. The return of Enoch and Elijah to destroy Antichrist: Syriac Ps.-Methodius

(N). IIb. The return of Enoch and Elijah t o destroy Antichrist by sufferirlg martyrdom: Tertullian (I)). IIla. 'The return of Enoch dnd Elijah to expose Antichrist: Apocalypse of Peter (C), Ephraem Graecus (H) 1Ilb.The return of Enoch and Elijah to expose Antichrist and suffer martyrdom: Ps.-Hippolytus 29 (K) etc.

Ia and probably IIa are pre-Christian Jewish traditions. IIIa may also be a Jewish tradition, though we cannot be sure. The martyrdom appears only in the secondary development of each, probably in each case under the influence of Revelation 11. Certainly there is no evidence that this development had already taken place in Judaism. The majority of the texts belong to IIIb, with greater o r less assimilation t o Revelation 1 1. The tendency of many of the texts is t o emphasize the martyrological aspects of the tradition, not only by taking over the martyrdom motif itself from Revelation 1 1 but also by incorporating additional martyrological features such as Antichrist's rage (B, G, L, M, 0, R, S)" and the sacrificial understanding of martyrdom attested by death on the altar (U, V).34The tendency to represent Enoch and Elijah primarily as exemplary martyrs of the last days is illustrated by the Ethiopic (Clementine) Apocalypse of Peter ( P ) , quoted above, and is also to be seen in the account in the Apocalypse of Elijah, where Enoch and Elijah appear among a sequence of martyrs burtrne Sibyl ( R ) , which is also dependent on the Apocu(ypse ofEhjah, replaces it with the intervention of Christ himselt, who raises Enoch and Elijah and then fights and destroys Antichrist. ' V D N T Z (1964) 931; Str-B, 4. 782-84; J.A.T. Kobinson, "Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection," NTS 4 (1957-58) 263-81, esp. pp. 268-70. The rage of the persecutor is a stock feature of martyrdom stories: Dan 3:13, 19; 11:30; Bel8; 2 Macc 7:39; 4 Macc 8:2; 9:10; Acts 754; 1 i. Musurillo, The Acts of the C l ~ n s t u n Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendom, 1972) 22,26,54,66, 190. '4 The same understanding is found in the Apocalypse of Elijah, when Antichrist throws the blood of the martyr Tabitha on the temple and when the Sixty Righteous Men are burned on the altar.

"

2. The martyr do??^ of Etzoch and Eli'uh: Jewish or Christiun?

15

comprising Tabitha, Enoch, and Elijah, and the Sixty Righteous Men, and where the martyrological aspect of the tradition is strongly emphasized by the details of the narrative, including those which it shares with Revelation 1 1. A narrative of idealized martyrs of the end-time can be paralleled from pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic: the incident of "Taxo" and his seven sons in chap. 9 of the Assumption of Moses. But it was a Christian innovation to cast Enoch and Elijah in this role. Seen in the light of the rest of the evidence for the Enoch and Elijah tradition, the Apocalypse of Elijah has the characteristics of a relatively late version, taking up varied elements of eschatological tradition and elaborating them into an extended narrative of the reign of Antichrist. By means of incorporating two distinct forms of the tradition of Enoch and Elijah (IIIb and IIa), the Apocalypse of Elijah was able t o relate two distinct comings of Enoch and Elijah: first to denounce Antichrist and suffer martyrdom and then a second time at the end to destroy him. Possibly the second belonged t o an original Jewish Apocalypse ofElijab, but the first may be credibly attributed to the third- o r fourth-century Christian redaction which was responsible for the present form of the work.J5 To conclude: the Christian tradition of the return of Enoch and Elijah provides no evidence of a pre-Christian Jewish tradition of their manyrdom. The martyrdom is a Christian innovation deriving via Rev 11:3-13 from the Christian innovation of the martyrdom of the Messiah.

Additional Note A: More texts Since completing the article that is reprinted here as the above chapter, I have come across a variety of other ChristianJb apocalyptic works that contain the tradition of the martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah. They are all relatively late texts and they d o not suggest that any modifications of my argument in the article are needed, but they are listed here and tabulated in the same way as the my original set of texts in order to supplement the evidence: (A') Arabic Sibyl A (E. Y. Ebied and M. J. L. Young, 'An Unrecorded Arabic Version of a Sibylline Prophecy,' Orientalid C h r i s t ~ ~ nPeriodica a 43 [I9771 279-307). (B') Arabic Sibyl B (E. Y. Ebied and M. J. L. Young, 'A Newly-Discovered Version of the Arabic Sibylline Prophecy,' Oriens Christrana 60 [I9761 83-94).

35 I have discussed the account of Enoch and Elijah ill the Apocalypse of Elijah more fully in "Enoch and EIijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah" (chapter 3 below). '6 The Falasha Apoctzlypse of Ezm, like other Falasha literature, is a de-christianized version of an originally Christian text.

16

2. The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elzjah:Jcwrsh or Chr~sttrztt?

(C1) Greek Apocalypse of Duntel (Dtegeszs Dantelts) 14:1-1 5/14: 1-1 2 (Klaus Berger, Dtegnechzsche Danzel-Dtegese [SPB 27; Leiden: Brill, 19761 18, 144-148; G.T. Zervos, 'Apocalypse of Daniel [Ninth Century A. D.]: A New Translation and Introduction,' in James Charlesworth [ed.], The Old Testament Pseudeptgrapha, vol. 1 [London: Ilarton, Longman & Todd, 19831 755-770)'' (Dl) Apocalypse of Leo of Constanttnople 21 (Riccardo Maisano, L'Apocaltsse Apocrzfa dt Leone dt C~onstat~tuzopolz [Nobilti dello Spirito NS 3; Naples: Morano, 19751 98-99). (El) Oracles of Leo the Wtse 5.36-39 (E. Legrand, lacs Oracles de Leon le Sage, La Batazlle de Varnn, La Przse de Constanttnople: Poemes en grecs vulgatres [Collection dc Monuments pour servir i I'itude de la langue nCo-hellinique, NS 5; Paris: MaissonneuvdAthens: Corornilas, 18751 49). (F') Andreas Salos Apocalypse, 286-289 short text (L. RydPn, 'The Andreas Salos Apocalypse: Greek 'Text, Translation, and Commentary,' Dumbarton Oaks Papers 28 [I9741 197-261, here 212-213,223-224). (GI) Atzdreas Salos Apocalypse, 286-289 long text (RydPn, 'The Andreas Salos Apocalypse,' 2 12,223-224 n.). (HI) 7 b o Sorrows ofthe Kingdom of Heaven 8 (Miirc Herbert and Martin McNamara, lnsh Btblual Apocrypha [Edinburgh: 'I: & 'I'. Clark, 1989121). (I1) Karshuni Testament oforrr LordJesus 6 U. ZiadC, 'Un testament dc N.S. concernant les invasions des Mongols, ' R O C 2 1 [ 1918-19) 261-273,433444, here 443; Juan Pedro Monferrer Sala, Apdmtfos Arabes Crtstzanos [Madrid: 'rrotta, 20031 240-24 1). U1) Coptic Vtston of Dattzel 80-81 (Otto Meinardus, 'A Commentary on the XIVth Vision of Daniel: Accord~ngto the C o p t ~ cVcrs~on,'Onentalla Chnstuna Penodzca 32 [I9661 394-449, here 447).'" (K1) Falasha Apocalypse of Ezra (J. Halevy, TEJl;zazaSanbat (Comrnarzdements du

Subbat] accompagnhs de stx autres ecrtts pseudo-eptgraphtques admtts par les Falachas ou Juzfi d'Abyssmte [BEI 1E.I-I 137; Paris, 19021 195). T h i s list is still far f r o m exhaustive. Like o t h e r apocalyptic traditions this o n e m a d e its w a y far a n d wide in a variety of Christian traditions. F o r s o m e further examples, see J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrci~tCave 4 (Oxford: C l a r c n d o n Press, 1976) 119-123; Berger, Die griechische Daniel-Diegese, table facing page 148; Richard Kenneth E m merson, Antichrist in the Middle Ages (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 198 1 ) 95-1 0 1, 136-1 40; David Dumville, 'Biblical A p o c r y p h a a n d t h e Early Irish: A Preliminary Investigation,' Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 7 3 C ( 1 973) 299-338, here 308-3 1 1.

" 7011 this apocalypse, rce 1.oreni.o I)iTommaso, The Hook of Danteland the Apooyphal Danzel Ltteraturr (SVTP 20; I.eiden: Brill, 2005) 130-141, 356-359. '8 O n this apocalypse, sce DiTornmaso, The Hook of Dantel, 179-184,456458.

2. The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elz)ah:Jewish or Christian?

dcsccnd

I

fights them

I

ktlis them

~

tn the rtrrcts of lcruralem

I

everyone sees them

I

are ritscd b y M~chicland Gahnci

I

dcstrov Antichrist

I

17

x

X

X

X

X

x

X

X

X

x

X

X

X

X

x

x

'' With John the evangelist. With John the evangelist. " Two unnamed men.

O '

4 Z Two unnamed men from heaven (Enoch and Elijah) and one unnamed man from earth (John the evangelist). " Two unnamed men. " With John the evangelist. 4 5 Here they are called 'preachers ( x i l ~ v x ~of c ) the truth'.

18

2. The /\lm-tyrdom of'Enocl7 and Elxjah: Jewrsh or Cl~nrrtart?

Additional Note B: A pre-Christian Jewish tradition ofthe return of Enoch and Elijah? In the first paragraph of the chapter I said that Wilhelm Bousset 'in 1895 sifted early Christian traditions about Antichrist t o reconstruct a preChristian Jewish tradition which included the return of Enoch and Elijah t o denounce Antichrist and t o suffer martyrdom.' This statement was mistaken.16 Bousset's purpose in the whole book was to reconstruct a tradition about Antichrist t h a t early Christians inherited from Jewish source^.^' I must have assunled that he considered 'the return of Enoch and Elijah t o denounce Antichrist and to suffer martyrdom,' which he treats at some length in the course of working through the whole reconstructed narrative,'"^ be part of this prc-Christian Jewish tradition. In fact, however, at this point he draws some distinctions between the original Jewish tradition and the form in which it appears in early Christian literature. H e states that the 'original Jewish expectation, as is still to be seen in the gospel^,^^ was for the return of Elias alone (Malachi i~.l).'~O H e notes that this expectation of Elijah alone is found also in the second book of the Sibylline Oracles (2.187), in Justin (Dial. 49, where it is attributed to the Jew Trypho), in Lactantius and C o ~ n r n o d i a n , and ~ ' in the later Jcwish apocalyptic literature. After showing the way in which the existing tradition about Enoch and Elijah was adapted by the author of Revelation 1 1, he concludes: Still, with all this, o n e point remains unexplained - the origin of the idea of the t w o witnesses. There can scarcely be a doubt that it cannot have emanated from a Jewish source. I iere the return of Elias is expected, while the expectation of the t w o witdiffused, as is shown by the nesses would seem to have never been more later Jewish t r a d i t i ~ n . ~ '

Bousset's view seems to bc that in Jewish tradition Elijah alone was expected, but that in a Christian version of the tradition, predating Revelation, Enoch

'"'I'hrs was polnted out t o me in a personal letter trom Barry Blackburn, dated 23 May 1979. ." For rccerit cr~tlcal assessments of Bousset's overall t h e m about the Ant~christtradition, see Gregory C.Jenks, Thr Ongrns arid Early Dtvefopmcrrt of the Antrcbrrst Myth (BZNW 59; Bcrl~n/NewYork: de Gruyter, 1991) 5-13; G.W. Lorem, The Antrchn~t firme rrx the Intc~r~~~stament~rl Pcnod USPSup 44; 1 ondon/New York: 'I: & 'I: Clark International [<:ontinuum], 2003) 1-7,237. Wilhelnl Bous\ct, Thc Arrtrchrrst Tradrtro~,tr. A. It(. Keanc (1.ondon: Itiutchinson, 1896) 203-1 1. '' Mark 9:ll-13. 53 Boussct, T l ~ Antzrhn,~ r Trirdltron, 207. 5 i See n. 19 abole. '"ousset, The Antrchrr~lTmdrtrun, 2 10.

2. The ICtartyrdorn of Enoch and Eltjah: Jewish or Christiirn?

19

was added. In addition, he states clearly that the author of Revelation was 'personally responsible for the incident about the resurrection of the witnesses after the third day,' since this is clearly a Christian contributions3 (but why should it not have been already p a n of the Christian tradition that added Enoch t o Elijah?). What is wholly unclear is wliether Bousset thinks that the role of denouricing Antichrist and consequent martyrdom at his hands were already to attributed to Elijah in Jewish tradition o r belonged to that Christian redaction of the tradition that added the second figure, Enoch. If Bousset's view were the latter, then lie was in essential agreement with my own argument in the chapter above. However, he was mistaken in supposing that the idea of the eschatological return of Enoch and Elijah together had no non-Christian Jewish source. It is true that it is not t o be found in rabbinic literature o r in the medieval Jewish apocalypses that have parallels t o niany of the other traditions about Antichrist in the Christian apocalypses. Its absence from rabbinic literature may be due to the lack of a scriptural basis for expecting the return of Enoch, by contrast with the explicit prophecy relating t o Elijah (Mal 4:l). T h e medieval Jewish apocalypses, on the other hand, reflect non-scriptural traditions abundantly. T h e absence of Enoch from them is perhaps t o be attributed to the controversial nature of the figure of Enoch in Jewish tradition from the second century CP onwards. In any case, there is a pre-Christian Jewish reference to the return of Enoch and Elijah in a text Bousset neglected: 1 Enoch 90:31 .s4 This text deserves a little more attention than I gave it in the chapter above. It belongs t o the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch 85-90, which dates from the Maccabean period. In a work attributed to Enoch and in view of Enoch's assumption to heaven without dying (Gen 524; 1 Enoch 87:2-4), it is not very surprising to find this expansion of the already existing belief that Elijah would return at the end (Mal 4:1; Sir 48:lO). 1 Enoch 90:31 reads: After that, those three who were clothed in white and who had taken hold of me [Enoch] by my hand, who had previously brought me up (with the hand of that ram also taking hold of me), set me down among those sheep before the judgment took place.5s

The three are the angels who had taken Enoch up t o heaven at the end of his earthly life (87:2-4). T h e ram is Elijah, whose assumption t o 5 ' B ~ ~ ~The ~ A~zttchrtst e t , Tradttlon, 2 10. 54 There is a useful table of the sources used by Bousset and their contributions to his reconstructed Antichrist tradition in Jcnks, The Ongms, 8-9, while Jenks, The Orrgms,10, lists Jewish works of the Second Ten~plcperiod not used by Bousset, including 1 Enoch. 55 Trantlaticrn from George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VatiderKan~,1 Enoch: A New Tratrslat~on(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 134.

20

2. The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah: Jtwish or Christktr?

has also been described earlier in the Animal Apocalypse (89:52), which makes it clear that Elijah joined Enoch in paradise. N o other assumption to paradise has been mentioned in this Apocalypse's grand review of biblical history. This makes very improbable the alternative suggestion: that the ram of 90:31 is Judas Maccabeus (depicted as a ram in 90:9-10).5Wost scholars have agreed that the ram must be Elijah.57 The last phrase of 1 Enoch 90:31 ('before the judgment took place') is problematic. The judgment has already been recounted (90:20-27) and has been followed by an account of the New Jerusalem (90:28-30). N o further judgment follows. It may be that the text is 'completely corrupt.'5RIf not, then according to Nickelsburg 'either the verse has been (accidentally?) transposed from its chronologically correct location between vv 19 and 20, o r that "before the judgment took place* is a scribal gloss that ties Enoch's and Elijah's return to earth to the tradition of their participation in the j ~ d g m e n t . ' ~It" would seem easiest to suppose that, whatever the origin of the last phrase in the present Ethiopic text, the verse did not originally place the coming of Enoch and Elijah before the judgment. In that case, the significance of their return is not difficult to decide. They return in order to participate in the new age along with the rest of God's faithful people. What is clear is that they d o not oppose an Antichrist figure o r die at his hands. Those features of the later tradition are absent from this earliest reference to the return of Enoch and Elijah.

Additional Note C: A non-Christian Jewish tradition of the return and martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah? In a brief response o r addendum t o my article,@' Alexander Zeron pointed out the relevance of a passage I had not cited: Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiq-

"

J.T. Milik, The Rooks of Enoch: Aramarc Fragments of Qa~mrrinCave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) 45. 57 Matthew Black, 'The "Two Witnesses" of Rev. 11:3 f. in J e w ~ s h and Christian Apocalyptic Tradition,' in Ernst Bammel, C. Kingsley Barrett and W. 11. Davies (rd.), Donum Gentilrautn: New Testament Studtes In Honour of David Daubr (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978) 227-237, here 228 and n. 1; idem, The Rook of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTI' 7; Lciden: Brill, 1985) 279; I'atrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 04; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1993) 377-378; George W. E. Nickel~hurg,I Enoch 1 (Hermcneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 405. 5R Tiller, A Commentary, 379. Nickclsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 405. Alexander Zeron, 'The Martyrdom of Phineas-Elijah,'JBL 98 (1979) 99-100.

2. The Martyrdom of Enoch and Eltjah: Jewish or Christian?

21

uities 48:l. This passage, probably from the late first century, is the earliest evidence of a tradition, later found in the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum t o the Pentateuch (Exod 4: 13; 6: 18; 40:lO; Deut 30:4; cf. N u m 2512) and occasionally in rabbinic literature (Pirqe R. El. 29), that identified Elijah with the high priest Phinehas, the grandson of A a r ~ n . We ~ ' need not discuss the exegetical origins of the tradition here. What is important for o u r present purposes is that the version of the tradition in Pseudo-Philo refers t o the death of the returning Elijah: And in that time Phinehas laid himself d o w n t o die, and the Lord said to him, 'Behold you have passed the I20 years that have been established for every man. And now rise u p and go from here and dwell in Danaben o n the mountain and dwell there many years. And I will command my eagle, and he will nourish you there, and you will not come down t o mankind until the time arrives and you be tested at that time; and you will shut u p the heaven then, and by your mouth it will be opened up. And afterward you will be lifted u p into the place where those w h o were before you were lifted up, and you will be there until I remember the world. Then I will make you all come, and you [plural] will taste what is death (Rlb Ant. 48:1).62

Here Phinehas is commanded to hide o n a mountain, where G o d nourishes him, until the time - many centuries later - when he is to re-appear in the world as the prophet Elijah, unequivocally identified by the information that he will both conjure up a drought and put an end to it. Elijah's ascension is then predicted: 'you will be lifted u p into the place where those w h o were before you @riores tui) were lifted up.' Presumably this is paradise, and there Elijah and the others remain until, at the end time, G o d brings them back to the earth. O n l y then will Pl~inehas-Elijahand the others die. This reference t o the death of Phinehas-Elijah in the eschatological future seems t o be unique among the texts that identify Phinehas and Elijah. W h o are the ones w h o had been lifted up t o paradise before PhinehasElijah? Certainly they include Enoch, whose translation t o heaven PseudoPhilo has noted in its place, following Genesis 5:24 (Lib. Ant. 1 :16). Perhaps Pseudo-Philo's statement that Enoch 'was not found' (non inveniebatur), where Genesis has 'was not,' is intended t o assimilate Enoch's ascension t o h' Manin &tet~gcl, Thr Zedlors, tr. 1)avld Smlth (Ildinburglr: 'I: & T. Clark, 1089) cli.ap. IVB; Robert I-tayward, 'Phinehas-the Same is Elijah,' JJS 29 (1978) 22-34; Richard Bauckham, 'Messianism According to the Gospel of John,' in John 1,ierman (ed.), Challengtng Perspectrve, on the Gospel oflohn ( W U N T 2/219;'l'ubingen: Mohr Siebcck, 2006) 34-68, here 36-37. Translation from I).]. Harrington, 'Pseudo-I'hilo,' in James Charleswonh (ed.), The Old Estament Pseudeprgrapha, vol. 1 (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983) 297-377, here 362. For the argument that Phinehas is here identified with Elijah, see Frederick J. Murphy, Psertdo-Philo: Rewnttng the H~ble(New Yorkt'Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 184-1 85; Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo i Liber Antiquitntum Bibl~carum,vol. 2 (AGAJU 31; L.eiden: Brill, 1996) 1060.

22

2. The Martyrdom of'Enoth atzd Elljah: Jcu*rsl~ or C:hnstmn!

that of Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 2:17)."' Pseudo-Philo nowhere indicates that any other of his characters belong in the same category. According to 2 Baruch (13:3), Baruch does, and according t o 4 Ezra (14:9), Ezra does, but these lived long after Elijah's a ~ c e n s i o n . ~Later " rabbinic literature supplies other names of 'those who entered paradise alive': Eliczer the servant of Abraham, Serah the daughter of Ashcr (Gen 46:17), Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Chron 4:17, identified with the Egyptian princess w h o rescued Moses), Jabez (1 C h r o n 4:9-lo), Hiram king of Tyre, Ebed-melech the Ethiopian Uer 38:7-13; 39:15-18), Jonadab the Kechabite and his descendants Uer 35), the servant of Rabbi Judah the Prince, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, and the Mes~ i a h . 'Of ~ these, Eliezer, Serah, Bithiah, and perhaps Jabez, lived before the time of Phinehas, while Hiram lived before the time of Elijah's ascension. We have no evidence that precisely these persons were already, in the late first century CE, when Pseudo-Philo wrote, thought not to have died, but, in some cases at least, this idea about them was based in ingenious exegesis of the kind that certainly was employed in Pseudo-Philo's time and often presupposed by Pseudo-Philo's text. Some of these persons, therefore, may be those, besides Enoch, w h o had already been translated t o paradise before Phinehas-Elijah was. Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities has much in common, especially in its eschatological themes and language, with the t w o apocalypses of roughly the same date: 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch.& T h e notion of a group of people w h o had not died and whom G o d would bring to earth at the end-time is found in 4 Ezra (6:26; 7:28; 13:52; 14:9), which provides the closest parallel t o the Biblical Antiquities in this respect. T h e group are defined as 'those w h o were taken up, w h o from their birth have not tasted death' (6:26). T h e following passage is especially illuminating for our purposes: For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those w h o are with him, and those w h o remain shall rejoice four hundred years. After those years my son the Messiah shall die, and all w h o draw human breath. Then the world shall be turned back t o primeval silerice for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings, s o that n o one shall

--

"'Zeron, 'The Martyrdom,' 100.

&' 2 Macc 15: 13-16 is sometimes cited as evidence of a belief that Jeremiah had ascended without dying. This is not at all certain, but in any case, for our purposes, is not relevant, since Jeremiah lived after the ascension o f Elijah. 6C I.ouis Ginzbcrg, The L~egcrtdsof the JLWS,vol. 5 (I'hiladelphia: Jewish Publication Society of Anierica, 1925) 95-96. 'I'he Messiah is included in the list of nine (including Enoch and I'lijah) in IIerek Ere5 Zuta 1, because he was thought to have lived at some point in Israel's history and to have rhen been taken up to heaven, wherice God will bring him to earth in the last days. 'This tradition is probahly also presupposed in 4 Ezra 7:28. hh M. R. James, Thc Biblicul Antiqrtities of Philo (London: SPCK, 1917) 46-58; Harrington, 'I'seudo-Philo,' 302.

2. The IClartyrdom of Etloth and Eli~ah:Jeu*ishor Chnstzan?

23

be left. After seven days the world that is not yet awake shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish (4 Ezra 7:28-31 NRSV). In this passage those w h o are with the Messiah apparently share in the messianic kingdom, at the end of which both the Messiah and all living humans die. The latter must include those w h o had been taken u p without dying and w h o return t o earth with the Messiah at the beginning of the messianic kingdom. The idea seems to be that everything in this world must revert t o nothing before it can be recreated in the world t o comc. N o mortal being, not even the Messiah himself, can enter the new creation without dying and rising again. T h e issue seems t o be the same as that with which Paul deals in 1 Corinthians 15:50-52, though the solution is rather different.67 It is not easy t o parallel at all precisely these expectations of the death of the Messiah and the reversion of all creation t o chaos (though cf. 2 Bar 44:9), but it is notable how closely the end of this passage and the following verses (4 Ezra 7:3 1-35) are paralleled by Biblzcal Antiquities 3:10, including the idea of another, everlasting world t o comc. In view of the close parallels at these and other points between the eschatological expectations of 4 Ezra and Pseudo-Philo, it is reasonable to find in 4 Ezra 7:28-31 an explanation of the expected death of the returning Elijah in Biblical Antiquities 48:l. Phinehas-Elijah will finally taste death because every human must; it is the only way into the new creation. But he will die, not be killed. Thus, while Zeron was right t o find in Biblical Antiqtditics 48:l an expectation that both Enoch and Elijah (along with others w h o ascended without dying) will eventually die, he was mistaken to call this death ' m a r t y r d ~ m . 'This ~~ expectation has little in common with the expectation found in the Christian apocalypses that Enoch and Elijah will come to denounce Antichrist and will be put to death by him. Both the manner of their death and the rationale for it are quite different. Two studies that relate quite closely t o the chapter above were published, coincidentally, around the same time. T h e first was the major work by Klaus Berger: Die Auferstehung des Propheten und die Erhohuwg des Menschcnsohn: Traditionsgeschtichtlicbc Untersucl~ungenzur Deutung des Geschickes Jesu in friihchristlichen Texten ( S U N T 13; Cottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976). The second was a journal article: Joliannes M. Niitzel, 'Zum Schichsal der eschatologischen Propheten,' BZ 20 (1976) 59-94. " Rabbinic literature often denies that either Enoch or Elijah escaped death. This may he due to a comparable serise that human nature as it exists in this world is mortal and there can be no exceptions to the universality of death. Denying that Enoch and Elijah ascended without dying deals with this concern in one way, affirming that they will die following their future return does s o in another. Zeron, 'The Martyrdom,' 100.

"

24

2. The Martyrdotn of Enoch and Elstrjah: Je.wstrsh or Christstrun?

Berger's book argues that there was a pre-Christian Jewish tradition in which a prophet (or prophets) would come in the last days, be put to death and be raised u p by G o d prior to the general resurrection. This expectation of the pre-eschatological resurrection of a final prophet lies behind the early Christian accounts of the resurrection appearances of Jesus and the early Christian understanding of that event. For evidence of the pre-Christian Jewish tradition Berger relics on tradition-historical analysis of (1) Mark 6:14-16; (2) Rev I 1:3-13; (3) the tradition of the eschatological return, martyrdom and resurrection of Enoch and Elijah in a large number of Christian texts, most of which are also the texts listed and analysed in my chapter above. T h e arguments deserve fuller discussion than can be given here, but what is most problematic about the whole argument is that Berger can cite no non-Christian Jewish text that speaks of the resurrection of a martyred eschatological prophet. Everything depends on distinguishing pre- o r nonChristian elements from Christian elements in Christian texts. T h e lack of even a single unequivocally non-Christian Jewish text containing the preChristian Jewish tradition Berger constructs must throw serious doubt o n the whole argument, especially as there are non-Christian Jewish texts that speak of final prophets (especially Elijah) without the element that is crucial for Berger's case: their pre-eschatological resurrection. Nutzel's article, written just before the publication of Berger's book, is nevertheless in a sense a reply to Berger's main argument. H e is responding t o a suggestion made by Rudolf I'esch, made first in a lecture in'riibingen in June 1972 and then in a published version of the lecture in 1973.h9Between giving the lecture and publishing the article Pesch had read Berger's work in 1 ' version7' earlier than the one Berger published in 1976." It was primarily Berger's evidence that Pesch presented, briefly, in his 1973 a r t i ~ l e , 'when ~ he argued that there was, at the time of Jesus, a widespread Jewish expectation of the resurrection and ascension of the final prophet, prior t o the general resurrection, and that this expectation lies behind the early Christian beliefs about Jesus. Nutzel's article is an examination of the most important of the texts that both Berger and Pesch cite as evidence for this alleged expectation. H e discusses, as of prime importance, the Apocalypse of Elijah and Revelation 11:3-11, and then, more briefly, the Apocalypse of Peter, the various Sibylline texts that contain the tradition about the return of Enoch "'" Rudolf Pesch, 'Zur tntstehung dcs Glauhens an dic Auterstchung Jcsu: Fin Vorschlag 7ur L)iskussion,' T h o 153 (1973) 201-228. -"erger's Hah~litationci~ssertat~on, Harnburg. Klaus Bergcr: Die Aufc*rstehungdes Prr)phetuj rtnd die Crhohung des Menscl~ensohn (SUN?' 13; Gott~ngen:Vanderlhocck & Ruprccht, 1976) 5. I'esch'~ article generated a controversy among German scholars. Bcrger, Die Auferstehung, 5-6, lists contr~butions to this up to 1976, hut not Nutrel's article. 'V')c.scIi, 'Zur tntstehung,' 222-226.

''

2. The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah:Jetwish or Christkn?

25

and Elijah, Lactantius (Div. Inst. 17.1-3), a reference to the return of Elijah in one version of the Lives of the Prophets, and the Arabic Apocalypse of Schmoute. Like Berger, he engages in tradition-historical and redactional analysis, especially of Rev 11:3-13 and Apocalypse of Elijah 3:7-20a,73 and detects behind these two texts non-Christian Jewish traditions of the return, martyrdom and resurrection of two eschatological prophets, but insists that these traditions did not include the ascension of the prophets to heaven after resurrection. Moreover he argues that the time and place of these two instances of such a tradition (first century BCE, Egypt, and late first century CE, Asia Minor) make them of no value for establishing a tradition widespread in Palestine at the time of Jesus. Mark 6:16 provides only dubious evidence for such a tradition. Niitzel's study comes considerably closer to Berger's view of the tradition than my own does, but he nevertheless rules it out as plausible or relevant background for early Christian beliefs about the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus.

" 111 the chapter and verse division used by Niitzel, this is 3:7-21

3. Enoch and Elijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah" T h e account of Enocli and Elijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah has come t o light since W. Bousset in 1895 first attempted t o reconstruct from the early Christian traditions about Antichrist a pre-Christian Jewish tradition which included the return of Enoch and Elijah t o denounce Antichrist and suffer martyrdom at his hands.' Its relevance t o this question has not gone unnoticed. T h e majority of scholars, noticing the close parallels between the Apocalypse of Elijah's account of Enoch and Elijah and the account of the t w o witnesses in Rev. 11: 3-13, have concluded that the Apocalypse of Elijah is dependent o n Rev. 11, though perhaps also embodying independent Jewish t r a d i t i o n . T h e y have generally held the Apocalypse of Elijah t o be a third- o r fourth-century Christian redaction of earlier Jewish m a t ~ r i a l J. . ~Jeremias, arguing for a pre-Christian Jewish tradition of the martyrdom of the returning Elijah, thought that beneath the Christian recension of the Apocalypse of Elijah could probably be discerned a Jewish tradition attested also in Mk. 9: 12 and lying behind Rev. 11: 3-13.4 J. Munck, in a careful treatment of most of the early Christian material about Enoch and Elijah o n which Bousset's case rested and also of the Apocalypse of Elijah, argued, against both Bousset and Jeremias, that there was no Christian tradition of the return of Enoch and Elijah independent of Rev. 11 and therefore no evidence for a pre-Christian tradition of the

" First publication: Elizabeth A. 1.ivingstonc cri.. Studia P~rtristica,vol. X V I I'art I 1 (Berlin: Akadcmie-Verlag, 1985) 69-76. W. Boussct, The Antichrist Legend (Eng. tr., I.ondon, 1896), pp. 203-1 1. E. g. 1). i-Iaugg, Die zwei Zeugen: Eine exegetistde Studit, iibcr Apok 11,l-13 (Neutcstame~itlicheAhhandlungen 17. 1; h4unster, 1936). p. 94: 'Ile Elias-Apok kennt und vcrwertct das I I. Kap. der Jo-Apok schr reichlich, wenn sie sich auch verschicdcnc Anderungen erlaubt'; M. Black, 'Servant of the I.orci and Son of Man', SJT6 (1953), p. 10 11. I: 'As the passage [in the Apocalypsc of Elijah] is also drawing on Rev. 11, it is difficult to say which parts are Jewish, which are Christian'. E. Schiirer, review of Stcindorffi cdition in TI-%24 (1899), cols. 7f.; W. Bousset, 'Beitrige zur Geschichte der Eschatologie', Zeirrcl-lriftf i r Kirchengescl~ichte20 (1899), pp. 103-12; I1. Weinel, 'Die spiterc christliche Apokalyptik', in E<~X(LC)~~TC)L~V: Studien ~ dt's A1tcr1 u ~ h~i t >d u e7i.stilrnents ~ I1 (Gunkel Festschrift; Gotzur Religion N N 1.it~~yrltur tingen, lC)23),pp. 164-6. TDNT 2, pp. 939-4 1.

'

28

3. Enoch and Eliluh in the Coptic Apoculypse of Elijah

martyrdom of either. Munck regarded Rev. 11, especially as interpreted by Hippolytus and Ps-Hippolytus, as the source of the whole Christian tradition o n the ~ u b j e c t Similarly .~ W. Wink dismissed Jeremias' argument with the observation that the account in the Apocalypse of Elijah 'is obviously a haggadic expansion of Rev. 11: 3-12'." O n the other hand, J.-M. Rosenstiehl, in his recent edition of the Apocalypse of Elijah7, has argued that the work is essentially an Essene work of the first century B.c., expanded in ch. 2 by another Jewish author of the third century A.D., and hardly at all affected by Christian editing. For Rosenstiehl, the Apocalypse of Elijah's account of the return of Enoch and Elijah is wholly Jewish and is related t o Rev. 11 only via a common Jewish source. Rosenstiehl's arguments, while demorlstrating the strongly Jewish character of much of the material embodied in the Apocalypse of Elijah, are not wholly c o n ~ i n c i n Certainly ~.~ it is not enough t o show that a text could be pre-Christian in order to prove that it is, and Rosenstiehl's technique of providing many parallels from Jewish literature but few from Christian literature entails a distorted view of the work's affinities with other texts. We shall see that for its account of Enoch and Elijah the parallels in extant literature are all from Christian writers of the fourth century and later. Moreover, some of the Apocalypse of Elijah's most remarkable points of contact with extant Jewish apocalyptic are not with pre-Christian apocalyptic hut with the socalled 'Neo-Hebraic' apocalyptic: this is true, for example, of its description of Antichrist.' In such cases we should not too readily suppose that there was no interaction between Jewish and Christian apocalyptic traditions after the first century: it is niore likely, as Buttenweiser thought, that 'in the course of its development, the Christian apocalyptic drew freely from younger Jewish sources, and, o n the other hand, the later Jewish writings were influenced directly o r indirectly by the apocalyptic of the Church'.Io While it seems beyond question that the Apocalypse of Elijah is in some degree a Christian recension of Jewish material", it need not therefore be the case that the Jewish traditions it preserves are pre-Christian. It is not even beyond possibility that

' J . Munck, Petrus und I'aulus in dttr Offenbarung Johannis (Copenhagen, 1950), pp. 81-1 18. ' W. Wink, John the Baptist in thc Gospel Trudition (Cambridge, 1968), p. 14 n. 1 . J.-M. Kosenstiehl, L'Apocalypse d'Elie (Paris, 1972). In this paper I have employed Kosenstiehl's chapter and verse numbers. "3. sonie criticisnu in a rcview by P.M.Parvis in JTS 24 (1973), pp. 588f. See J.-kl. Rosenstiehl, 'L,e portrait de I'Antichrist', in M. Philonenko et al., Pseudkpigruphes de I'Antien Estament et Munusuits dt*In Mer Morte I (Paris, 1967), pp. 45-60. I%. Buttenweiser, Outline of the Neo-?iebruic Apoculyptic Literuture (Cincinnati, 1901), p. 1 . I ' Clear examples of Christian editing are 1:2,6f., 19; 3:13, 10, 35,66. For a longer list of possible allusions to the N'r, see Schiirer in TLZ 24 (1899), col. 7.

3. Enoch and Eliiah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah

29

a Jewish tradition of the martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah resulted from the influence of Christian traditions based o n Rev. 1 I. I have attempted elsewhere t o trace the development of the Christian tradition of the return of Enoch and Elijah.'zThe dominant Christian tradition from the fourth century onwards" is s o far different from the account of the witnesses in Rev. 11 that it is difficult t o accept Munck's argument that this was its sole source. I Enoch 90: 31 (cf. also IV Ezra 6: 26) is evidence that there was aJewish tradition of t h e return of Enoch and Elijah, and t w o texts which were unavailable to Bousset (ch. 2 of the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter; Syriac version of Ps.-Methodius) seem t o preserve traditions uninfluenced by Rev. 11. But at least from the time of Hippolytus the t w o witnesses of Rev. 1 1 were identified as Enoch and Elijah, and the tradition of the martyrdom and resurrection of Enoch and Elijah is probably t o be attributed wholly t o this identification. A common tendency of the tradition was towards emphasizing this martyrological aspect. This paper attempts t o place the account of Enoch and Elijah in the Apocalypse " See nly article, 'The Martyrdom of Enocli and Elijah: Jewish or Christian?' in JRI. 95 (1976), pp. 447-58 (reprinted as chapter 2 above). " The following list is of the Christian apocalyptic texts to which I refer by name only in the rest of the paper: Adso: Libellus de Antichristo, in E. Sackur, Sibyllinische Tcxte und Fo~schung~n (Halle, 1898), pp. 1 l l f.; longer text in PL 90: 1 186. Visio Danielis: in A. Vassiliev, Anecdota Grrteco-Ryzanrina (Moscow, 1893), p. 43. - Ephraem Graecus: Senno in adverrtum Domirti, in J. S. Asscmani ed., Sancti Ephraevn Syri opera omtria quae exisrant 111 (Rome, 1746), pp. 14 1f. - Ps.- Ephraem Latinus: Sermo de fine mundi, in C .P. Caspari, Rriefc, Abk'zrzdlungen rcnd I'redigtcn (Christiana, 1890), p. 2 19. - Ephraeni Syrus: Sermo define cxtremo, in 'r.J . 1,amy ed., Sancti FIphraem Syri fiymni et Semzones 111 (Mechlin, 1889), pp. 207-10. - Syriac Apocalypse of Ezra: translated in E Bacthgen, 'Beschreibung dcr syrischeri I-iandschrift "Sachau 131" aus der Kiiniglichen Bihliothek zu Berlin', ZAW 6 (I 886), p. 209. - kiippolytus: De Antichristo, 43,46f.; In Davtielem 35, 50. - History of Joseph: Bohairic translated in F. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels (Texts and Studies 4.2; Cambridge, 1896), pp. 146f.; Arabic in J. I(.l'hilo, Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti (1-eipzig, 1832), pp. 58-61. - Ps.-Hippolytus: De conswmrnatione rnurtdi 21 and 29, in P. A. Lagarde ed., Hippolytr Komani quae feruntur omnia graece (Leipzig, 1858), pp. 104 f., I 11. -Apocalypse of Ps.-John: in L. K. 'I'ischendorf, Apocalypses a p o q p h a e (Leipzig, 1866), p. 77. - 1's.-Methodius: Revelationc.~,Greek in Vassiliev, op. a t . , p. 38; Latin in Sackur, op. cit., pp. 95f. - 1's.-Methodius (Syriac): translated in F. Nau, R&Pf'zrion, of fkgcndi~s(I'aris, 1917), y . 31. - Apocalypse of Peter: Ethiopic vcrsion ch. 2, translated in E. t Iennecke, New Testdment Aporqpha I 1 (ed.R. McI.. Wilson; London, 1965), p. 669. - Arabic (Clementine) Apocalypse of Pcter: in A. Mingana, W'oodbrooke Studies 111 (Cambridge, 1931), p. 359. - Ethiopic (Clementine) Apocalypse of Pcter: translated in E. Bmtke, 'I-Iandschriftliche Uberlieferung und Bruchsti~ckeder arabischaethiopischen Petrus- Apokalypse', Zeitschrqtfir wissenschuftlichc~Theologicj 36.1 ( 1 893), p. 483. - Syriac (Ciernentine) Apocalypse of Peter: translated in Bratke, 'art. cit., pp. 471 f. - Apocalypse of Ps.-Shenoute: in E. Arnflineau, MPmoires publies par Ies rncrnbres de la au Caire (1885-1 886) IV.1 (Paris, 1888), p. 345. - Greek mission archPologi~irc~fiil~t~aisc* Tiburtine Sibyl: in P.S. Alexander, The Oracle of Haalbek (Dumharton Oaks Studies 10; Washington, D.C., 1Y67), p. 22.

-

30

3. Enoch arrd Elrlal~br the Coptrc Apocalypse of Elrjah

of Elijah within the broad context of the early Christian tradition of the return of Enoch and Elijah. Twice in the Apocalypse of Elijah Enoch and Elijah dcscerld from heaven. Their first appearance (3:25-39) is in the context of an extended narrative of the sufferings of the faithful during the tyranny of Antichrist. Antichrist encounters a series of opponents: the virgin Tabitha, w h o denounces him, suffers martyrdom, and rises to denounce him again (3: 16-24); Enoch and Elijah, whose rather similar career is described at greater length (3: 25-39); and the Sixty Righteous Men, w h o denounce Antichrist and are martyred (3: 51-4). Such a narrative of martyrs of the last days is not unknown in Jewish apocalyptic: the account of "Tixo' and his seven sons in the Assumption of Moses is somewhat comparable.'' A sequence of martyrs similar t o that in the Apocalypse of Elijah is found in a Christian text, the Arabic version of the History of Joseph chs. 31-32, in which Antichrist is t o slay not only Enoch and Elijah but also 'Schila' (= the Sibyl)I5and Tabitha 'because of the rebukes with which they rebuked and exposed him while they lived'. T h e portrayal of Enoch and Elijah in the Apocalypse of Elijah 3: 25-39 is as exemplary martyrs of the last days, following Tabitha in the vaguard of the resistance t o Antichrist. Many of the features of the account, both those which have parallels in Rev. 11 and some which d o not, are characteristic martyrological motifs, t o be found in both Jewish and Christian literature. Thus the understanding of persecution and martyrdom in terms of warfare (3: 25, 31, 37, cf. 50f.) is to be found in the popular 1V Maccabees as well as in Revelation and later Christian literature. T h e rage of the persecutor is a stock theme in stories of the martyrs1$ leaving the bodies of the martyrs unburied is a practice variously attested1'; and the idea that the whole city o r even the whole world witnesses the martyrs' conflict is again t o be found in the Maccabean literature" as well as in Rev. 11. Even the resurrection and glorification of Enoch and Elijah find parallels in stories of the Christian martyrs, w h o arc said t o ' s h i n e " 5 n d w h o are seen in visions ascending to heaven o r appearing alive after their martyrdom.20 In Acts of Paul 11: 4 Paul tells N e r o that, 'I will arise and appear t o you in proof that I am not dead, but alive to my Lord Christ Jesus, w h o is coming to judge the world'; ' I 0 1 1 'Saxo, see most recently J . J . C:c)llins, 'The I h t e and I'rovcnance of the 'l'estameot of Moses', in G. W. E. Nickelsburg ed., Studres on thc 7i.stnment ofMoses ( S B L Septuagint rrld Cognate Studies 4; Cambridge, Mass., 1973), pp. 22-6. I S S o W. I... Crum, 'Schila und Tabitha', ZNK' 12 (191 I), p. 352. I b Dan. 3:13, 19; 11:30; Bel8; I1 hilacc. 7:39; IV Macc. 8 2 ; 9 1 0 ; Acts 7 5 4 ; ki. hlusurillo, The Acts ofthe (:bnstun M~zrtyrs(Oxford, 1972), pp. 22,26,54,66, 190. " Musurillo, op. nt , p. 80; I Macc. 7: 17; Josephus, AJ 4:3 16 f. I Y I11 Macc. 4 : l l ; 5 2 4 ; IV Macc. 17:14. E.R. Musurillo, op. C I ~ . p. , 234. 2VILrd.,pp. 182, 184; kicnnccke, Kccz Testametzt Apocrypha 11, pp. 385f.

''

3. Enoch and Elitah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah

31

and he does so, much as Tabitha and Enoch and Elijah rise up and prove t o Antichrist that they 'live for ever in the Lord' (Apocalypse of Elijah 3: 23, 34, 36). The sacrificial understanding of martyrdom, while not present in the Apocalypse of Elijah's account of Enoch and Elijah, is emphasized in the stories of Tabitha, whose blood Antichrist is t o 'throw o n the temple' so that 'it will become salvation for the people' (3: 21 f., 24), and of the Sixty Righteous Men, whom Antichrist order t o be burned o n altars (354). In the Syriac Apocalypse of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Ps.-John Antichrist slays Enoch and Elijah o n the altar, but in the Apocalypse of Elijah features drawn from the death of the witnesses in Rev. 11 are preferred. The parallels with Rev. 11 are concentrated in 3: 3 1-33, 38, and are too close t o be attributed t o coincidence:

... The Shameless O n e will hear and be enraged and fight against them in the marketplace of the great city. They will be three days and a half dead, in the market-place, and all the people will see them. But the fourth day they will arise ... They will raise cries of joy towards heaven, they will shine, and all the people and the whole world will see them. The parallels are all the more striking in view of the fact that the Apocalypse of Elijah shows little other evidence of dependence on Revelation.*' But the author writes in general with relative independence of scriptural sources. H e may have remembered details from Rev. 11 as he composed his narrative of ~ n b c hand Elijah, o r they may have already entered the tradition o n which he depended. Equally significant are the differences from Rev. 11. There the two witnesses are preachers of repentance w h o apparently come into conflict with Antichrist only at the end of their three-and-a-half year period of ministry. In the Apocalypse of Elijah, however, Enoch and Elijah 'descend' specifically to 'fight' Antichrist, which seems t o mean primarily t o denounce him (3:25). The verbal assault is also renewed after their resurrection (3: 33). This last feature, of renewed conflict with Antichrist after resurrection, is unparalleled elsewhere in the tradition, except in the Apocalypse of Ps.-Shenoute, which is almost certainly dependent on the Apocalypse of Elijah. But the idea that Enoch and Elijah's mission is t o expose Antichrist by denouncing him as an imposter is f o u n d in most of the early Christian textsZ2and, along with the names Enoch and Elijah, constitutes the most

"

2:4, 24 are parallel to Rev. 9:6, but the context is entirely different and the saying may well be an apocalyptic comn~onplace.1:9; 3 5 8 (the name on the forehead and the seal on the right hand) are somehow related to Rev. 7:3; 13:16; 14:1,9, but in Rev. it is the beast, not God, who seals his servants on both the forehead and the right hand. 3:97,99 are ultimately but not directly dependent o n Rev. 20:4. 22 Apocalypse of I'eter, Ephraem Syrus, Ephracm Graccus, Ps.-Ephraem Latinus, Ps.-Hippolytus, Ps.-Methodius (Greek and Latin), Vzszo Drztzzelzs, Syriac (Clementine)

32

3. E?IOC/? and EIrlah 172 the Coptic Apocalypse of Eltlah

important point at which the tradition diverges from Rev. 11. Similarly in the motif of Antichrist's rage against the t w o (3: 31,37, cf. 20,40,54), which is also absent from Rev. 11, the Apocalypse of Elijah aligns itself with the Christian tradition attested from Ephraem Syrus onward^.^' The tradition that Enoch and ~ l i j a hwould return to expose Antichrist as a deceiver is one which probably antedates the tradition of their martyrdom. It is found without mention of the martyrdom in ch. 2 of the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter (though this may be a later addition t o the original early second-century Apocalypse of Peter), and also in Ephraem Graec~s.~"n this tradition Enoch and Elijah are preachers against Antichrist, a theme not incompatible with the motif of martyrdom by Antichrist which was commonly added to it under the influence of Rev. 11. But in the development of the tradition the portrayal of Enoch and Elijah as rnartyrs frequently became very much the dominant motif. A useful illustration of this development is a cornparison of a passage from the Ethiopic (Clementine) Apocalypse of Peter with the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter just mentioned, o n which it is dependent: Apocalypse of Peter ( E t h i o p ~c l ~2) .

... he will kill with the sword and there shall be rrrany rnartyrs. 'I'hen shall the boughs of the fig-tree, that is the house of Israel, sprout, and there shall be many martyrs by his hand: they shall be killed arid become martyrs. Enoch and Elijah will be sent t o instruct them that this is the deceiver who must come into the world and d o signs and wonders in order to deceive. And therefore shall they that are slain by his hand be martyrs and shall be reckoned among the good and righteous martyrs who have pleased God in their life.

Later (Clernentine) Apocalypse of Peter (Ethiopic)

... they will be beheaded and become martyrs, In that day will be fulfilicd what is said in the Gospel: when the branches of the fig-tree are full of sap, know that the time of the harvest is at hand. Shoots of the fig-tree are those righteous men called, w h o become martyrs at his hand, and the angels will bring them t o the joy, and no hair of their head will be lost. Then Enoch and Elijah will descend. They will preach and put to shame that tyrannical enemy of righteousness and son of lies. 'I'hen they will be beheaded, and Michael and Gabriel will raise them u p and bring them into the garden of joy, and n o drop of his (sic) blood will fall on the ground ...

Apocalypse of I'ectr, Fthiop~c(Clementrne) Apocalypse of I'eter, Apocalypse of 1's.Shenoute, History of Joseph, Apocalypse of 1's.-John, Adso. Ephraem Syrus, Ps.-Methodius (Greek and Latin), Syriac (Clemcntine) Apocalypse of Peter, Greek 'l'iburtinc Sibyl, Apocalypse of Ps.-Slierioute. "The only other Christian texts I know wlirch relate the return of Enoch and Elijah without nientioning their niartyrdorn arc Ps.-Methociius (Syr~ac)(see below) and the Arabic (Clernentinc) Apocalypse of Peter.

" "

3. Enoch and Eltlah zn the Coptic Apocalypse of 1:'lqah

33

Whereas in the first text the function of Enoch and Elijah is t o expose Antichrist to those w h o are t o be martyred by him, in the second text, while their preaching against Antichrist is retained, it n o longer serves t o make martyrs of anyone but Enoch and Elijah themselves. T h e parallelism of language in the references t o the martyrs in general and t o Enoch and Elijah in particular shows the extent t o which they have here lost their unique role in the events of the last days and become merely the outstanding and final examples of martyrdom. A rather similar trend is revealed by the Apocalypse of Elijah, where Enoch and Elijah come second in a series of martyrs and it is apparently the later martyrdom of the Sixty Righteous Men which effectively convinces men that Antichrist is not the Messiah he claims t o be (3: 54 f.). T h e strongly martyrological character of the Apocalypse of Elijah's account is not an infallible indication of a late date. Tertullian's brief reference t o the return of Enoch and Elijah is entirely to their martyrdom. But Tertullian does seem t o allot them a distinctive role: 'they are reserved to die, s o that they may extinguish Antichrist with their blood' (rnorituri reservantur, ut Antichristum sanguine suo extinguant) (De Anima 50). The Apocalypse of Elijah's series of martyrs seems rather t o indicate a writer w h o is spinning a narrative of the reign of Antichrist out of various diverse traditional materials available t o him. T h e Apocalypse of Elijah is not an altogether coherent piece of work but nor does it altogether lack artistic skill. Antichrist's reign of terror builds u p to a climax in the slaughter of the Sixty Righteous Men and his defeat then begins in earnest. The resurrections of Tabitha and of Enoch and Elijah had shown the limitations of his power: his victims rise from the grave, while he himself can perform all the miracles of the true Messiah except that of raising the dead (3: 10). But until the slaughter of the Sixty he is allowed t o d o his worst: then angelic interventions begin. Eventually the angels 'come d o w n and fight him in a battle of many swords' (3:81), and the cosmic conflagration of the last judgment begins (3: 82 f.). Oddly the destruction of Antichrist and the coming of Christ t o inaugurate the millennium follow the last judgment (3: 91-7). T h e destruction of Antichrist is accomplished by Enoch and Elijah appearing a second time (3: 91), as they had threatened (3: 35). This coming belongs in the series of angelic interventions, as the first belonged in the series of martyrs. 'They 'descend and lay aside the flesh (oat&) of the world (xoapos), and put o n their flesh (aa&) of spirit (nz~~iipa)' (3: 91). Presumably this means that while their first appearance was in mortal flesh, t o die as martyrs, they come now in 'spiritual flesh' t o oppose Antichrist with power. O n their first appearance they fought him as the martyrs fight him, by words and suffering; now they fight him as the angels did (3: 81), with

34

3 . Enoch nnci Clrph ~n[he C o p ~ Apoctxlypsc ~c of

Elrj'rh

power t o destroy him. 'In that day h e will be destroyed before them like ice by the fire' (3: 93). Two comings of Enoch and Elijah are not found in any other text. But the idea that they return in order t o destroy Antichrist is found in the Syriac version of 1's.-Methodius:

... when he c o n ~ c st o Jerusalen~,Enoch and EIijah will leave the land of life; they will rise u p against him; they will withstand him and lie will curse them. When he sees them, he will r11clt like salt in the presence of water, and he will be the first t o be punished, before all meti, together with the denlons who entered into him ... It is possible that Ps.-Methodius selected this one feature of the tradition represented by the Apocalypse of Elijah, but much niorc probable that lie prescnres a distinct tradition which t h e author of the Apocalypse of Elijah has combined with the nmre usual tradition that Enoch and Elijah come t o denounce Antichrist and be martyred. It is a remarkable tradition t o find in a Christian author, for the elemination of the last great enemy of the people of G o d is a task reserved f o r the Messiah both in Jewish and in Christian a p ~ c a l y p t i c . 'A ~ Christian author is unlikely t o have originated a tradition in which Enoch and Elijah are thus permitted t o usurp the role of Christ"; but it is quite conceivable in Judaism, where messianic expectations were more diverse and whence t h e alternative tradition of Antichrist's destruction by the archangel klichacl found its way into Christian ayvcaJ.' A.T. Robinson has questioned whether in first-century Jewish lypti~.~ eschatology Elijah was as often the forerunner of the Messiah as hc was himself a messianic figure2x,and we know that Enoch, exalted t o the role of Son of Man, assumed messianic functions in the Similitudes of Enoch. It is entirely possible that a Jewish tradition portrayed Enoch and Elijah as a pair of Messiahs appearing at the E n d t o combat and destroy Antichrist. That the author of the Apocalypse of Elijah preferred this tradition niay perhaps be attributed t o a desire to preserve, if somewhat artifically, the

"

Jewish: 11 Bar. 40: 1 f.; Ruttenwciscr, op. (.It.,pp. 31, 35, 38. Christian: I l Thess. 2 8 ; Rev. 19: 1 1-21; Bcrussct, Anric-brrst Lrgcnd, pp. 224 f. ?'"?'his is undoubtedly why it appears rarely in (Iliristian sources. 1's.-Shenoute, which is cfependent on the Apocalypse of Elijah, retains the motif, but the Creek Tiburtirle Sihvl, which is probably also dependent on the Apocalypse of Elijah, replaces it with the interverition of Christ himself, urho resurrects Enoch and Elijah and then fights and destroys Anticlirist. 27 See Rousset, op. a t . , pp 227-31; Buttcriwciscr, op. cit., p. 43; j ~ ~ w Encyclopediu ~sl~ VIII, pp. 536f. l". A.T. Robinson, 'F,lijah, John '111dJesus', NTS 4 (1957-8). pp. 268-70. Also for Elijah as a messianic figure, see Jeremias in 'I'DN.1' 11, p. 931; for rabbinic tr~ditionsof Elijah as .I rililitary deliverer of the last days, see Strdck-Billerheck, Kommentar IV, pp. 782-4. I.. Girizherg, The I.egends of t h e j ~ w (Plliladelphia, s 1913-38) IV, p. 235, cites .I late tradition in which Elijah slays Sarn.1~1(thereby assunling the role of Michael).

3. /,.noel) and El~jahr r ~thc Coptrc Apocalsp~eof E11jah

35

link Tertullian made between the martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah and the destruction of Antichrist. T h e martyrs' 'victory' over Antichrist (3: 50) is finally actualized when the greatest of the martyrs return in heavenly power t o destroy him.

Additional Note Important publications on the Apocalypse of Elijah that have appeared since the chapter above was written include: Wcdfgang Schrage, 'Die Elia-Apokalypsc,' in Werner Georg Kummel et al. (ed.), Apokaljpen (JSHRZ 5/3; Gutcrsloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus, 1980) 195-288; Albert Pietersma, Susan 'Turner Conistock and Ilarold W. Attridge (ed. and trans.), The Apocalypse of Eltjah based on I? Chester Beatty 2018 (SBL Texts and Translations Pseudepigrapha Series 9; Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1981); O.S. Wintermute, 'Apocalypse of Elijah (First to Fourth Century A.L).): A New Translation and Introduction,' in James Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudeptgrapha, vol. 1 (London: Llarton, Lorigman & Todd, 1983) 721-753; K. H. Kuhn, 'The Apocalypse of Elijah,' in 13. I:. 11. Sparks (ed.), The Apoqphal Old Estament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) 753-773; David T.M. Frankfurter, 'Tabitha in the Apocalypse of Elijah,' JT.7 41 (1990) 13-26; David T. M. Frankfurter, Eltlah tn Upper Egypt: TAe Apocalypse ofE/tjah and Early Egyptmn Chrtsttanrty (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); Albert-Marie Dcnis, Introductton a la 1tttt;rature relrgreuse judco-hellc;ntst~q~~e, vol. 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000) 618-628. Frankfurter, 'Tabitha,' argues that the figure of Tabitha is a combination of the Egyptian goddess Tabithet and Bithiah, the daughter of Pharaoh w h o rescued Moses. In some Jewish traditions the latter is regarded as one of those, like Enoch and Elijah, w h o ascended t o heaven without dying. I published the following review of Frankfurter, Elijah, in Jotrrnnl of Ecclcstrlstical History 46 (1 995) 488-1190:

Eltjah rn Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elrlah and Early Egjptian Chrrsttantty. By David Frankfurter. (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity.) I'p. xviii + 380. h4inncapolis: Fortrc\s P r c ~ \ ,1993. n. p. ISBN 0-800(>-3 106-4.

T h e Apocalypse of Elijal-), which was composed in Greek but survives only in Coptic (a Sahidic and an Achmimic version), has been widely recognized, by scholars wtio have studied it, t o have originated - or, at least, reached its present form - in late third-century Egypt. But the interest of most scholars who have studied it has been in identifying an earlier Jewish source o r at least Jewish traditions within it. This interest goes back to a period of scholarship when source criticism was the dominant method of study of the

36

3. Enoch and Elrlah rrt the Cbprrr Apocalypse of Elrlah

so-called Pseudepigrapha (Jewish and Christian works written under Old Testament pseudonyms), but it persists into the treatment of the Apocalypse of Elijah in volume 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H . Charlesworth (London: Darton, Longnlari & Todd, 1983), a collection of works supposed either to have been written by Jews before 200 C. E. or to preserve Jewish traditions from that period. A work such as the Apocalypse of Elijah, which belongs to the tradition of Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature that goes back to the second century B. C. E., certainly does need t o be placed and studied within that tradition, but it also needs to be placed and studied within the context of its composition (final redaction). The classification of such works as Pseudepigrapha unfortunately has a tendency t o isolate them from this context. David Frankfurter's book is a very welcome attempt to reverse this tendency and to study the Apocalypse of Elijah as evidence of late third-century Egyptian Christianity. Whatever sources the author may have used (and Frankfurter makes some important fresh contributions to this question, discounting any notion of a Jewish Urtext), clearly the composition of the work as we have it needs to be explained from its Egyptian Christian context. While Frankfurter handles the Jewish apocalyptic background of the work competently, he is also fully at home in the literature and history of Roman Egypt, Christian and non-Christian. His exploration of the relation of the Apocalypse of Elijah to that Egyptian context constitutes a massive advance in study of the Apocalypse of Elijah, as well as a significant contribution to the history of Egyptian Christianity. It is a model of the kind of work which needs to be done on many of the Christian apocalypses (both those bearing Old Testament pseudonyms and those bearing New 'Testament and other Christian pseudonyms). ( H e quite correctly points out, incidentally, that the Apocalypse of Elijah is not generically an apocalypse, though it bears this title in the Achmimic recension. Didymus the Blind called it the Prophecy of Elijah, distinguishing it from an Apocalypse of Elijah which he also knew. But it is nevertheless closely related to the tradition of apocalyptic literature.) The Apocalypse of Elijah has usually been dated by reading chapter 2 (a narrative prophecy of the reigns of a series of kings of Egypt) as vaticinia ex eventu, and attempting to identify the historical persons and events t o which cryptic reference is made. Frankfurter convincingly shows that this approach is mistaken. The chapter paints a picture of the eschatological future in traditional Egyptian mythological and prophetic colours. It employs very traditional Egyptian motifs, deriving especially from Egyptian priestly circles in which very ancient Egyptian traditions were preserved and adapted for conservative nationalist ends. This is one of the points where Frankfurter postulates a certain syncretism in which native Egyptian traditions are integrated into a Christian apocalyptic outlook. At some other

3. Enocb and Elrjah in the Chptrc Apncalyprc of Elrlah

37

such points it could be questioned whether his zeal to find native Egyptian resonances for the imagery may not go too far, privileging Egyptian over more obvious Jewish and Christian backgrounds t o particular motifs. But in general he has established that the Apocalypse of Elijah has its roots not only in the Jewish and Christian apocalyptic tradition, but also in native Egyptian prophetic literature. Sirice he does not accept earlier arguments for the late third-century date based o n alleged vaticinia cx eventu, his case for this date rests o n establishing more general correlations between the text and the historical and social conditions of Egypt in that period. H e sees in the text's rigorist treatment of martyrdom a millennialist ( a term which he uses in its social scientific sense as characterizing a kind of popular movement, not just religious ideas) response t o the Decian and Valerian edicts, which is all the more intelligible when set against the background of socio-economic decline in third-century Egypt and the evidence of 'nationalistic' revolts by a variety of groups during the century. His case for seeing the Apocalypse of Elijah as a Christian manifestation of wider nationalistic oppositional sentiments is strengthened by some evidcnce for Christian millennialism in rural Egypt at this time (the account by Ilionysius of Alexandria of how he had t o refute a literalist interpretation of Revelation current in Arsinoe). Finally, he rightly draws attention to the way the Apocalypse of Elijah places its apocalyptic expectation in the context of a contemporary dispute about fasting, and reconstructs a possible scenario in which the extreme fasting characteristic of the milieu of the work came under criticism from ecclesiastical authorities who associated it with Manichear~ism.It is a little disappointing to find that, in his thorough account of evidence on attitudes t o fasting in Egyptian Christianity, there is actually no real evidence for the case that opposition t o Manicheanism affected attitudes t o fasting and led t o condemnation of extreme fasting by Christian groups. I t sliould also be said that the use of cross-cultural evidence of millennialism in reconstructing the context of the Apocalypse of Elijah sometinies comes close t o the hazardous method of using social scientific models t o fill in gaps in the evidence, rather than t o interpret the evidence. Inevitably, Frankfurter's reconstruction of the context, while making full use of all the evidence there is, involves a certain amount of conjecture, but he paints a very plausible picture. In arguing for a relative difference between the Apocalypse of Elijah and the Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature in general, Frankfurter stresses not only the work's native Egyptian affinities, but also its relatively popular and rural background, distinguishing it from apocalypses whose background is highly literate and learned. There is certainly something in this contrast (the Apocalypse ofElijab is a far less sophisticated literary work than many of the apocalypses), but the rural context is very insecurely based

38

3. Enoch dnd Eitlrih 172 the Coptrc Apocalypse of Elilah

in the text (as Frankfurter really acknowledges in n.51 o n p. 98). That the text is designed for oral performance is probably true, but then s o was the book of Revelation, which is nevertheless a work of immense learning and literary complexity. 'That the author's relationship t o Jewish and Christian traditions is predominantly oral rather than textual I d o not think he has proved. T h e fact that allusions t o Scripture are not distinguished, as quotations, from the rest of the author's words is not an indication of orality, but a literary feature of almost all the Jewish and Christian apocalypses. Pseudepigraphy requires it (Elijah cannot quote the New Testament!). But finally I wonder if Frankfurter's full and useful discussion of the significance of attribution t o Elijah should not have taken more seriously the possibility that the text was not originally attributed t o Elijah at all. The facts that 1:5-6 refers t o the incarnation as a past event (with only a partial attempt t o correct this in the Sahidic recension), and that 4:7-19; 5:32-34 refer t o Elijah in the third person, are features inconsistent with the pseudonym (and such inconsistency is rare in works employing biblical pseudonyms), while n o aspect of the implied author is at all specific t o Elijah. 'Chese are questions which d o not detract from the value of this most impressive study, which succeeds in integrating a remarkably wide range of evidence into an illuminating historical reconstruction of the origin of a text.

4.

The Rise of Apocalyptic::

Apocalyptic is currently a growth area in biblical studies. Fresh study, more reliable texts, new editions, even hitherto unpublished docunients are enriching our understanding of the intertestamental apocalyptic literature. In addition, there has been fresh debate over the origins of apocalyptic and its relation to Old Testament prophecy, while in the wake of E. Kasemann's notorious claim that 'apocalyptic is the mother of all Christian theology" the importance of apocalyptic as the intellectual matrix of primitive Christianity is increasingly recognized. More and more, apocalyptic must be seen as a crucial historical bridge between the Testaments. All this raises serious theological questions. Is apocalyptic a legitimate development of O l d Testament religion? The historical investigation of apocalyptic origins cannot avoid a theological assessment, which has its implications also for New Testament theology t o the extent that apocalyptic was a forrrlative factor in early Christian theological development. In this way the question of the theological continuity between the t w o Testaments themselves is involved in the probleni of the status of apocalyptic. Moreover, as James Barr points out,= the status of apocalyptic raises the question of the status of the canon in which it is only marginally represented. Can an intertestatnental development be seen as providing theological continuity between the Testaments? In this article we shall be concerned primarily with the rise of apocalyptic up t o he flowering of Hasidic apocalyptic in the mid-second century BC. We shall be asking (in Part I) the historical question of the origins of apocalyptic, in the light of some recent studies, and (in Part 11) the theological question of the theological legitimacy of apocalyptic as a development of Old Testament religion.

" Frrst puhl~catron: 7;llcmc~lros 312 (1978) 10-23; reprinted 111:Carl K.'Iiucmari, 7bnv J. Gray, C r x g 1 . Blomherg cd., 501rii Grorctzd 25 Yeur, o f f vat~grlrtalTl~t~ology (Ix~cester: Inter-Vars~tyPros, 2000) 4 3 4 8 . ' 'The heglnri~rigsot Clir~rirantheology', JTC 6 (1969), p. 40 (= E. Kasernann, N r i Testament Q ~ e s t r o ~ozfs TOduy, London: SCM, 1969, p. 102). 'Jewnh apocal~ptrc111 recent \cholarl~study', RJRl 58 (1975-O), pp 28-29.

4.

Tbe Rzse of Apocalyptic

Apocalyptic in the prophets The most important recent investigation of the origins of apocalyptic in Old Testament prophecy is that of Paul D. H a n ~ o n Hanson .~ argues that apocalyptic eschatology developed in the early post-exilic period (late sixth and early fifth centuries) as a development rooted in the prophetic tradition. The extent of the development of apocalyptic in this period, as he estimates it, is indicated by his revision of the usual terminology: he uses the term 'proto-apocalyptic' for Second Isaiah, since he points in the apocalyptic direction; Third Isaiah and other prophetic material from the early Persian period (Zech. 9-13; Is. 24-27) he calls 'early apocalyptic'; Zechariah 14, which he dates in the mid-fifth century and thinks marks the point at which apocalyptic eschatology is fully developed, is 'middle apocalyptic'; Daniel, from the mid-second century, is already 'late apo~alyptic'.~ (To avoid confusion, in this article I shall use the term 'apocalyptic prophecy' to designate apocalyptic material within the Old Testament prophetic books, i. e. Hanson's 'early' and 'middle' apocalyptic.) Hanson admits a chronological gulf between Zechariah 14 and 'late' apocalyptic, but the special characteristic of his thesis is that he considers apocalyptic eschatology t o have already developed in all essentials before this gulf. This enables him to stress the continuity between prophecy and apocalyptic t o an unusual degree, and t o deny the importance of the non-Israelite influences (Iranian and Hellenistic) which have so often been regarded as contributing significantly to the development of apocalyptic. Such influences, he argues, enter the pictures only at a late stage when apocalyptic's essential character was already developed. Of course such a thesis can only be maintained if an appropriate definition of apocalyptic is used. Hanson's focuses on apocalyptic eschatology and relates it to prophetic eschatology, distinguishing the two in terms of the kind of balance which each maintains between myth and history. The characteristic of classical prophecy is he dialectic it maintains between the cosmic vision of Yahweh's plans and the prophet's responsibility t o

'

The J)rlwn o f A p o c u I ~ ~ t(Philadelphia: ic Fortress I'ress, 1975). See also Hanson's articles: 'Jewish apocalyptic against its Near Eastern environnient', RB 78 (1971), pp. 31-58; 'Old ?'estament apocalyptic re-examined', Int 25 (1971), pp. 454-479; 'Zechariah 9 and the recapitulaticrrl of an a~icientritual pattern', JBL 92 (1973), pp. 37-59; 'Apocalypticism', lnrerprereri Dictlo?~aryof the Bible: Supplementnry Volume (Nashville, Tennessee; Abingdom, 1976), pp. 28-34. V n this article I accept, as I-Ianson does, the usual critical conclusions as to the unity and date of the books of Isaiah, Zechariah and Ilaniel. Readers who maintain the traditional coriservativc views o n these issues will naturally have to differ very radically from both Hanson's and my o w n reconstructions of the rise of apocalyptic.

I. Origins

41

translate that vision into concrete historical terms. Prophetic eschatology is 'a religious perspective which focuses on the prophetic announcement t o the nation of the divine plans for Israel and the world which the prophet has witnessed unfolding in the divine council and which he translates into terms of plain history, real politics and human in~trumentality'.~ What apocalyptic lacks is that last clause. T h e balance between vision and history is lost. Despairing of the realization of the vision in the historical sphere, the apocalyptists were increasingly content t o leave it in the realm of myth. Apocalyptic eschatology is 'a religious perspective which focuses on the disclosure ... to the elect of the cosmic vision of Yahweh's sovereignty especially as it relates to his acting to deliver his faithful - which disclosure the visionaries have largely ceased t o translate into terms of plain history, real politics, and human instrumentality'.' This apocalyptic eschatology developed among the disciples of Second Isaiah (to whose tradition belong not only Is. 56-66 but also Zech. 9-14) in the post-exilic Palestinian community. Second Isaiah's prophecies of glorious restoration remained unfulfilled, and in the bleak conditions of the early Persian period the visionary group which maintained his eschatological hope increasingly presented it in purely mythical terms, in images of sheer divine intervention and cosmic transformation. To the possibility of fulfilment through human agency and favourable historical conditions they became indifferent. As the sociological context for the development of apocalyptic eschatology Hanson postulates an intra-community struggle between this visionary group on the one hand, and on the other hand the hierocratic group, a Zadokite priestly group which adopted a pragmatic approach to restoration. By contrast with the visionary programme of Second Isaiah and his followers, this latter group were at first inspired by the more pragmatic restoration programme of Ezekiel, and through the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah they succeeded in harnessing eschatological enthusiasm to their policies. After the rebuilding of the temple they won control in the community and thereafter discouraged all eschatological expectation as a threat to the stability of their achievement. The visionary group, on the other hand, consistently opposed the rebuilding of the temple in the name of their transcendent eschatology and waged the most bitter polemic against the hierocratic party. Their own political powerlessness encouraged their visionary indifference to the sphere of political responsibility. Hanson's reconstruction of this community struggle is speculative at best and probably the weakest part of his thesis. In particular it leads him kfanson, The Dawn of'Apoculyptic, p. 1 1.

Ibid.

42

4. The Rise ofApocitlypt~c

t o a polarization of the prophetic tradition of Second Isaiah, Third Isaiah and Zechariah 9-14 on the one hand, and o n the other hand the tradition of Ezekiel and Zechariah 1-8. The fornier he regards as the tradition in which apocalyptic emerged, while the latter only used apocalyptic motifs t o legitimate a pragmatic political programme. Such a polarization does far less than justice t o the significance of Ezekiel and Zechariah 1-8 in the development of apocalyptic,', as Hanson himself has begun t o recognize in a subsequent modification of his treatment of Zechariah.' To treat Zechariah 9-14 as belonging t o the tradition of Third Isaiah rather than t o the tradition of Ezekiel and Zechariah 1-8 is t o ignore the evidence that these chapters are quite heavily dependent o n Ezekiel and relatively little dependent o n Isaiah 40-66.9This in itself suggests that the emergence of apocalyptic must be reconstructed according t o a less rigid classification of prophetic traditions. This is not the place t o attempt an alternative reconstruction in detail, but what seems needed is greater recognition of the common features of the various post-exilic prophecies. Despite the varying emphases there is a common conviction that the eschatological promises of restoration in Second Isaiah and Ezekiel remained largely outstanding despite the restored city and temple. In all of these prophecies there is therefore a degree of dependence o n and reinterpretation of the earlier prophecies, and all are more o r less apocalyptic (according t o Wanson's definition) in the extent t o which they depict the coming salvation in terms of Yahweh's direct intervention and radical transformation of historical conditions. T h e distinctive aspect of Haggai and Zechariah (1-8) is that they focused these apocalyptic hopes o n the rebuilding of the temple and the leadership of Joshua and Zerubbabel. But these historical realities soon proved incapable of measuring up to the hopes aroused, and s o those who subsequently kept alive the eschatological expectation were not opponents of Haggai and Zechariah but successors who sought to remain faithful t o their prophecy. There is, however, a great deal of value in Hanson's analyses of Isaiah 56-66 and Zechariah 9-14. H e shows convincingly how various features of apocalyptic eschatology emerge in these passages. 'Thus, judgment and salvation are no longer prophesied for the nation as a whole but respectively for the faithless and the faithful within Israel." The doctrine of a trntversal

' For the contnr\ \ rew that apoialyptrc arrwr rn the tradrt~onof I. r c k ~ eand l Zechar~ah, cf. 13. Gcse, % I K 70 (1073), pp. 20-49; R. Noth, 'Prophccy to apocalyptrc vra Zcchar~ah', \'7'5r4p 22 ( C o n g r c s Volu~ne,Uppsala 1971), pp. 47-71. Interprctev's Drct~onrrryof the Brble 5trpplernentary Volume, pp. 32, 982-983. ' M. I>elcor, RR 59 (1952), pp. 3 8 5 4 1 1: contacts wrth Eireklel I~sted,p. 386, relat~onto 'Third Isaiah Jrscusrcd, pp. 387-390 K.A. M.~son,%AW 88 (1976), pp. 227-238, clalmr that contrnulty of themes shows that Zech. 9-14 \tan& In the tradrtlon of Zech. 1-8. D a o n , pp. 143f., 150-151.

judgment is adumbrated in Isaiah 63:6, 66:16,11 and eschatology takes on cosmic dimensions. Beyond the judgment lies a new age radically different from the present age and inaugurated by a new act of creation: this idea has its background in Second Isaiah and is already developed in such passages as Isaiah 65:17-25; Zechariah 14:6-9.12 These elements compose the transcendent eschatology of divine intenlention and cosmic transformation which forms the central core of apocalyptic belief. Hanson also shows how this developmerit entails the revivification of ancient mythical material, especially the Divine Warrior myth, t o depict the coming eschatological triumph of Yahweh." Here Hanson follows the pioneering work of his tcacher I1 M. Cross, whose studies of Canaanite myth in relation to the O l d Testament revealed the extent t o which 'old mythological themes rise to a new crescendo' in a p ~ c a l y p t i c . Other '~ studies have shown the extent to which Canaanite myth continues t o be used even in Daniel and Enoch,I5 while the apocalyptic assinlilation of myth extended also t o Babylonian, Iranian and Hellenistic material. This 'rcmythologization' of Israelite religion was not, however, a reversion t o an &historical worldview, but serves to represent an eschatological future which is now understood t o transcend the categories of ordinary history. Hanson has succeeded in demonstrating that the transcendent eschatology which characterizes apocalyptic emerged in post-exilic prophecy as an internal development in the Israelite prophetic tradition in response to the historical conditions of the post-exilic coniniunity. Tliis is an important conclusion. O n the other hand, there remains a significant gulf, which is not only chronological, between this apocalyptic prophecy of the fifth century and the Hasidic apocalyptic of the second century. Apocalyptic prophecy is not pseudonymous, though it is often anonymous. It does not include extensive surveys of history in the form of vaticinia ex everztu. Its angelology is relatively undeveloped. T h e temporal dualism of two ages is emerging, but the spatial dualism of heaven and earth, which also characterized intertestamental apocalyptic, is not yet apparent. Moreover, the transcendent

"

'hid., p p 185, 207. ?bid., pp. 155-161,376-379,397. " 0 1 1 the Divine Warrior myth: ibid., pp. 300-323, 328-333. l4 II M. <:ros~,Canaanite Myth and liebrew EPIC(Can~bridge,MA: Harvard Uni\ersits Press, 1 973), p. YO, cf. pp. 144, 170, 343-346. L)anrel: J . A . Emcrton, J73 ( N S ) 9 (1958), pp. 225-242; C r o s , op. cit., p. 17; M. Delcur, V'I' 18 (1968), pp. 290-312; idem, 1-e lrzv-r dc IlRnrcl (Paris: Gabalda, 1971), pp. 32,210-21 1. Enoch: M. Ilelcor, H I f R 190 (1976), pp. 3-53; R. J. Clifford, Thc Cosmic Mountrrtm In Canaan and the O l d Testament (Cambridge, M A : I-Iarvard University Press, 1972), pp. 182-189; J.T. Milik, The Rooks of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Presc, 1976), pp. 29, 39. "

44

4. The Rise of Apocalyptic

eschatology of apocalyptic prophecy does not yet include the transcendence of death, so central t o later apocalyptic belief.I6 In other words, although Hanson has demonstrated the continuity between prophecy and the apocalyptic prophecy of the early Persian period, there still remains a problem of continuity between this apocalyptic prophecy and the later apocalyptic of Daniel and the intenestamental literature. To the origins of this later apocalyptic we now turn. We shall see that it is really the heir of post-exilic prophecy and owes its transcendent eschatology to that source. But we shall also see that this is not the whole story, for the alternative derivation of apocalyptic from wisdom has some validity, and there is moreover a significant discontinuity between the self-understanding of apocalyptic prophecy and that of the later apocalyptists.

Daniel and mantic wrisdom The most radical rejection of the derivation of apocalyptic from prophecy is that of Gerhard von Rad, who argued that apocalyptic is not the child of prophecy but the offspring of wisdom." This proposal has been widely criticized," as being at least one-sided. In this section and the next, we shall argue that, while von Rad's thesis was too generalized and cannot be treated as an alternative t o the derivation from prophecy, it does have some validity in relation to the background of the books of Daniel and Enoch. In bath cases, however, the wisdom background needs more careful definition than van Rad gave it. An important attempt to refine von Rad's argumcnt is H.P. Miiller's proposal t o derive apocalyptic not from proverbial but from mantic wisdom.19 For alongside the wise men whose type of wisdom is represented by the book of Proverbs, the ancient Near East had also mantic wise men, Probably a doctrine of resurrection appears in Is. 26:19, which 'tjanson considers 'early apocalyptic' (op. cit., pp. 313f.), but he does not discuss it. " <;. von Rad, Old Testament Theology 2 (ET Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1965), pp. 301-308, is the original version of his argument; this was completely revised for the fourth German edition: Theologre des Alten Testaments 2 (Munich: Kaiser, 1965), pp. 31hff. (not in ET); and developed again rn Wasdom tn Israel(E'I' London: SCM, 1972), pp. 263-282. I R For criticism see P. Vielhauer i n New Testament Apocrypha 2, ed. W. Schneemelcher and R. McL. Wilson (London: I.utterwarth, 1965), pp. 597-598; W. Zimmerli, Man and his Hope zn the Old Zstament (London: SCM, 1971), p. 140; K. Koch, The Redzscovery of Apocalyptic (London: SCM, 1972). pp. 42-47; W. Schmithals, The Apocalypttc Mnven~ent (Nashville, T N : Abingdon, 1975), pp. 128-131; J. Barr, art. cit., p. 25. l 9 'Mantische Weisheit und Apokalyptik', VTSup 22 (Congress Volutne, Uppsala 1971), pp. 268-293. Muller's argument takes up von Rad's in the sense that, although von Rad faded to distinguish mantic from proverbial wisdom, his thesis did in the end concentrate on the mantic aspect of wisdom: Wzsdom m Israel, pp. 280-281. Cf. also J. J. Collins, J B L 94 (1975), pp. 218-231.

I. Origins

45

whose function was t o divine the secrets of the future by various methods including the interpretation of dreams, omens, mysterious oracles, and the stars.*' There is little trace of a class of ~nanticwise nlen in Israel, but t w o O l d 'restament figures who rose t o prominence in foreign courts did s o by virtue of their successful competition with the court diviners in the practice of the mantic arts: Joseph at the court of Pharaoh and Daniel at the court of Nebuchadnezzar. It is the case of Daniel which suggests that one of the roots of apocalyptic lies in mantic wisdom. Daniel was not a prophet in the sense of classical Israelite prophecy.*' His activity in chapters 2,4, and 5 consists in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dreams and of the mysterious message on Belshazzar's palace wall. In each case he is called in after the failure of the other diviners at court. Clearly he belongs among them (2:18), and as a result of his success becomes their chief (2:48; 4:9; 5:ll). His function is exactly theirs: the disclosure of the secrets of the future. Of course the source of his supernatural knowledge is the G o d of Israel, and his success is designed t o bring glory t o the G o d of Israel as the God who is sovereign over the political future. Daniel is the representative of the G o d of Israel among the magicians and astrologers of the Babylonian court, but he represents him in the practice of mantic w ~ s d o m(cf. 5:12). It is, moreover, this aspect of the Daniel of chapters 1-6 which most plausibly accounts for the ascription t o him of the apocalypse of chapters 7-12. We must therefore take seriously the claim that apocalyptic has roots in mantic wisdom. There are strong formal resemblances between the symbolic dream with its interpretation in mantic wisdom and the apocalyptic dream o r vision with its interpretation. T h e latter also has roots in prophecy (especially Ezekiel and Zech. 1 4 ) , but the connection with mantic wisdom is hard t o deny in the case of Daniel, where Nebuchadnezzar's dream and its interpretation in chapter 2 corresponds so well t o Daniel's dream-visions and their interpretation in chapters 7 and 8. Besides their dream-interpretation, the mantic wise men were doubtless responsible for the literary prophecies of the ancient east, such as the Mesopotamian 'apocalypses' which have

(Old Testament references to mantic wise nien: Gcn. 41:8; Est. 1:13; Is. 44:25; 17:lO-13; Jer. 50:35-36; Ilan. 2:2, 48; 4:4-5; 5:7, 1 1 . O n mantic wisdom in Mesopotaniia, see A.1,. Oppenheim, tlnrrc~nthfesopotumra (Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1964), pp. 206-227; o n interpretatiori of dreams in particular, see idem, The Interpretatlon of Dreams tn the anaent Near East: Wtth a Translatzon o f a n Assjtrun Dreum-book (Philadelphia: American Philorophical Society, 1956). 2' In later times he could be loosely called a prophet (Mark 13:14), as could David (Acts 2:30), in the sense that they gave inspired predictions.

46

4. The Rise of Apoculypt~c

been compared with Jewish apocalyptic in certain respects.22These provide precedent, which cannot be found in Israelite prophecy, for the long reviews of history in the form of predictions from a standpoint in the past, such as we find in Daniel 1 1 and other Jewish apocalypse^.^' The astrological aspect of mantic wisdom is naturally less well represented in Jewish parallel material, but it is noteworthy that interest in astrological prediction recurs at Qumram. The argument about the date of Daniel may have been conducted too simply in terms of a choice between the sixth and second centuries. We may now be able t o recognize the book's dual affinities, with Babylonian mantic wisdom o n the one hand and with Hasidic apocalyptic on the other, which indicate the probability of a developing Daniel t r a d i t i ~ n , ~which ' has its roots as far back as the exile in Jewish debate with and participation in mantic wisdom, developed it1 the Eastern diaspora, and finally produced Daniel apocalypses o n Palestinian soil in the time of Antiochus E p i p h a n e ~ . This ?~ is all the more probable in view of the similar chronological development which the Enoch tradition underwent (see below). The key t o the emergence o f apocalyptic in such a tradition is undoubtedly a growing concern with eschatology. Apocalyptic, like mantic wisdom, is the revelation of the secrets of the future, but in its concern with the eschatologrcal future apocalyptic rnoves beyond the scope at least of BabyIonlnn mantic wisdom.lb Thus, while Daniel's interpretations of the dream of chapter 4 and the oracle of chapter 5 belong t o the typical activities of the Babylonian diviners, his eschnto!ogical interpretation of the dream of chapter 2 is already in the sphere of apocalyptic. EIence it is chapter 2 which provides the point of departure for the apocalypse o f chapters 7-12, which " A. K. Grayson arid \V.C;. I.anibert, JCIS 18 (19641, pp. 7-30; W. W. Hallo, IEJ 16 (19661, p p 23 1-242; K.1). Biggs, Irilcj 29 (l967), pp. 1 17-132; W.\V. Hallo and R. Borger, B 1 b 0 r 28 (1971), pp. 3-24; H. Ilungcr and S.A. Kaufn~an,]AOS 95 (1975), pp. 371-375. N o t e that Hunger and Kaufman (p. 374) suggest that their text dates from the reign of Amel-Marduk. son of Nebuchadnezzar 11. 'The device of v~ztmnidex e v o ~ t uis used in the texts published by Grayson and L.arnbert, Hunger and Kaufman, and it1 kiallo and Borger's Sulgi text. Most of these texts are probably anonymous, but Eiallo and Borger's (like the Jewish apocalypses) are pseudonyn~ous. " T h e products of the 1)anicl tradition arc not lirtiited t o o u r book of Daniel: t o the 'court-tales' of Ilan. 1 - 6 nzust be added 4 Q Prayer ofNaLonzdus and the r xx Additions to Daniel; and t o the 'apocalypse' of Dan. 7-12 must be added the (still unpublisticci) fragments of a 1)aniel apocalvpse from Q u m r a n : 4Qpsl)an" '. 'That Dan. 1-6 originatcd in circles of Jewish mantic wise men in the eastern diaspora, and Dan. 7-12 in the same circles after their return t o Palestine, is argued by Collin$, art cit. In. , 19). M e s o p ~ t a m i a n'apocalyptic' (n. 22 above) has no properly eschatological features, at most a cyclical view of history: cf. Hallo, art. cip., p. 241.

''

''

"

r

I. Origins

47

interprets the future according t o the pattern of the four pagan empires succeeded by the eschatological kingdom. But even this contrast between mantic wisdom and apocalyptic rnay be too sharply drawn. If Nebuchadnezzar's prognosticators would not have given his dream an eschatological sense, the Zoroastrian magi w h o succeeded then1 at the court of Darius might well have done." precisely the four-empires scheme of chapter 2, with its metals symbolism and its eschatological outcome, has close parallels in the Iranian material which has been plausibly suggested as its source.** We touch here o n an old debate about apocalyptic origins: the question of the influence of Iranian e s ~ h a t o I o g ~ . ~ W h a t e the v e r extent of the influence, it is clear that there are parallels, of which the Jews of the diaspora cannot have been unaware. N o t even eschatology decisively differentiates Jewish apocalyptic from the products of mantic wisdom, insofar as eschatology developed also t o some extent in non-Jewish mantic circles. It becomes increasingly clear that apocalyptic, from its roots in mantic wisdom, is a phenomenon with an unusually close relationship t o its nonJewisli environment. At every stage there are parallels with the oracles and prophecies of the pagan world. This is equally true as we move from the Persian t o the Hellenistic age. Hcllcnistic Egypt has an 'apocalyptic' literature of its own: pseudonymous oracles set in the past, predicting political events, eschatological woes, and a final golden age.30 There is an extensive Hellenistic literature of heavenly revelations and celestial journeys sometimes remarkably similar in forni t o those of the apocalyptic sees.31 It is not surprising that H.D. Betz concludes that 'we must learn to understand apocalypticism as a peculiar manifestation within the entire course of Hellenistic-oriental ~yncretisrn'.~? Nevertheless this close relationship of Jewish apocalyptic t o its nonJewish environment is misunderstood if it is treated merely as syncretistic. Undoubtedly there is considerable borrowing of motifs, symbols, Iirerary

I:or the mantic activity of the magi at the courts of Media and I'ersia, cf. S. K. Eddy, The K ~ n grs Dead (L,incoln, N B : University of Nebraska I'rcss, 1961), pp. 65-71. D. 1.lusser, Israel Onentizl Strtd~es2 (1972), pp. 148-1 75. The Iranian sources are late, bur arc based on a lost pasage of the A v e , t ~arid tlic parallels are too close to l)c fortuitous. Note how the pascage from the Zand-I Vohuman Yasn (p. 166) incorporates precisely the connectitrn between rnantic wisdom and apocalyptic In terms of symbolic dream/vision: Ahurama~dagives Zarathustra a vision of a tree with branches of four nictals, which he explains as four periods. M. Hengcl, Judarsm and Hellenrsm 1 (London: SCM, 1974), pp. 182-1 83, prefers to trace Dan. 2 to Hellenistic Greek sources. Cf. Hengel, op. cit., p. 193; J.J. Collins, V T 25 (1975), pp. 604-608. C.C. McCown, HTR 18 (1925), pp. 357-41 1; liengel, op. cit., pp. 184-185. Ib~d.,pp. 210-218. "On the problem of the religio-historical understanding of apocalypticism', J T C 6 (1969), p. 138.

"

"' ''

" "

48

4.

The Rise of Apocalyptrc

forms - not only by Jew from Gentile but also vice versa.33Undoubtedly Judaism after the exile, especially in the diaspora but increasingly also in Palestine, was not immune from the moods and concerns of the international religious scene. T h e relationship, however, was not one of passive absorption of alien influence, but of creative encounter and debate in which the essence of Israelite faith was reasserted in new forms. This element of debate is already in evidence in the encounter with Babylonian mantic wisdom. Daniel, as w e have seen, practises it among but also in competition with the Babylonian diviners, t o show that it is the G o d of Israel who is sovereign over the future and gives real revelation of the secrets of destiny (2:27f., 46). Such a tradition of debate found one of its most natural expressions in the Jewish Sibylline Oracles, in which an internationally known pagan form of prophetic oracle was adopted as a vehicle for a Jewish eschatological message. T h e message, drawn from O l d Testament prophecy, of God's judgment o n idolatry and his purpose of establishing his kingdom, was attributed t o the ancient prophetesses, the Sibyls, largely, it seems, with an apologetic aim, t o gain it a hearing in the non-Jewish-world. Of course the bulk of Jewish apocalyptic was written for an exclusively Jewish audience, but behind it lay a close but critical interaction with its non-Jewish environment such as the Szbyllines bring to more deliberate expression. This kind of relationship is hazardous. T h e appropriation of pagan forms and motifs can become insufficiently critical and the voice of authentic Jewish faith can become muffled o r stifled. We cannot suppose that the Jewish apocalyptists never succumbed t o this danger, but on the whole the risk they took was justified by the achievenlent of an expression of prophetic faith which spoke t o their own age. From its potentially ambiguous relationship with paganism, apocalyptic emerged in the crisis of hellenization under Antiochus, not as the expression of hellenizing syncretism, but as the literature of the Hasidic movement, which stood for uncompromising resistance t o pagan influence. H o w did apocalyptic succeed in retaining its Jewish authenticity and avoiding the perils of syncretism? This is the point at which the derivation of apocalyptic from mantic wisdom fails us, and needs t o be supplemented with the derivation from O l d Testament prophecy. T h e t w o are after all not entirely dissimilar. While Jewish practitioners of mantic wisdom were entering into competition with the Babylonian fortune-tellers, Second Isaiah, the father of apocalyptic prophecy, was also engaged, at a greater distance, in debate with his pagan counterparts, exposing the impotence of the Babylonian gods and their prognosticators (Is. 44:25; 47:13) by contrast with Yahweh's

"

'I-engel, op. cit., p. 185: 'It is not i~nprohablethat Egyptian "apocalypticism"... and its Jewish counterpart had a rnutual influence o n each other.'

sovereignty over the future revealed t o his servants the prophets (Is. 44:26; 46:9-11). The apocalyptic heirs of Jewish mantic wisdom were not prophets, but their concern with God's revelation of the future made them students of O l d Testament prophecy, and the more they concerned themselves with the eschatological future, the more they sought their inspiration in the prophets. With the cessation of prophecy in Israel, the apocalyptists became the interpreters of Old Testament prophecy for their own age. So while the f o m of their work was stamped by its continuity with pagan oracular literature, its content was frequently inspired by Old Testament prophecy. Again we can see this in Daniel. His eschatological dream-interpretation in chapter 2 is, if not inspired by, at least congruous with the eschatological hope of the prophets. Taken as the fundamental idea of the apocalypse of chapters 7-12, it is then filled out by means of the interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. Thus the Hasidic apocalyptists stood in a tradition with its origins in mantic wisdom, but filled it with their own dominant concern to achieve a fresh understanding of prophecy for their own time. In that sense they were also the heirs of post-exilic apocalyptic prophecy.

Enoch and consmological wisdom We have traced the emergence of apocalyptic between the exile and the Maccabees, between prophecy and rnantic wisdom, in the tradition which produced our book of Daniel. We must now look at the emergence of apocalyptic in another tradition which spans the same period, the Enoch tradition. The discovery of the Aramaic fragments of Enoch at Qumran, now available in J.T. Milik's e d i t i ~ n , 'is~ most important for the study of apocalyptic origins. With the exception of the St-militudes (1 Enoch 37-71), fragments of all sections of 1 Enoch have been found: the Book of Watchers (1-36), the Astronomical Book (72-82), the Book of Dreams (83-90), and the Epistle of Enocl! (91-107). There are also fragments of a hitherto unknown Book of Giants. These discoveries clarify the issue of the relative dates of the parts of the Enoch c o r p u ~ . The ' ~ generally accepted date of the Book of Dreams (165 o r 164 BC) may stand, but the pre-Maccabean date of the Astronomical Book and the Book of Watchers, hitherto disputed, is now certainly established on palaeographic evidence. The Astronomical Book (now known to have been much longer than the abridged version in Ethiopic Enoch 72-82) cannot be later than the beginning of the second century, and Milik would date it in the

'' The Books of Enoch (Oxford: <:larendon, 1976). '5

On the relative dates, cf. also P.Grelor, R B 82 (1975), pp. 481-500.

early Persian p~riod.~"I'heBook of \Vatc-hers cannot be later than c. 150 tlc, and Milik thinks it was written in Palestine in the mid-third century." H e is alrnost certainly correct in regarding chapters 6-19 as an earlier written source incorporated in the Rook of 1YiLEtchers; these chapters he regards as contemporary with o r older than tlie Astronotnicil.l Rook." While Milik's very early dating of the Astronomic-a1 Rook and chapters 6-19 is uncertain, the important point for our purpose is their relative age as the earliest part of the Enoch corpus. This means that apocalyptic was not origirially the dominant concern in the Enoch tradition, for the apocalyptic elements in these sections arc not pro~iiinent.~" T h e expansion of chapters 6-19 with chapters 1-5,21-36 t o form the Nook of Watchers had the effect of adding much more eschatological content t o this part of the tradition. Then in the Maccabeati period a full-blown Enoch apocalypse appeared for the first tirne in the Book of Dreanzs. So we have a development parallel t o that in the Daniel tradition. Also like the K)anicl tradition, tlie Enoch tradition has its roots in the Jewish encounter with Babylonian culture, but in this case over a wider area than mantic w i s d o ~ n . 'T~ h e circles which gave rise t o the tradition had an encyclopedic interest in all kinds of wisdom, especially of a cosmological kind: astronomy and the calendar, meteorology, geography, and the mythical geograpliy of paradise. In all these areas of knowledge they were indebted t o Babylonian scholarship," 'while the picture of Enoch himself as the initiator of civilization, w h o received heavenly revelations of the secrets of the universe and transmitted thcrn in writing t o later generations, is ~nodellcdo n the antediluvian sages of Mesopotamian myth.J2 But, once again as in the Jewish involve~nentin niantic wisdom, this Jewish encyclopedic wisdom is not only indebted t o but also in cornpetition with its pagan counterpart. Civilization is represented as an ambiguous phenomenon, with its sinful origins in the rebellion of the fallen angels ( I Enoch 7:l; cf. 69:6-14) as well as an authentic basis i n the divine revelations t o

'" hlrllk, op. crt., pp. 7-9. Ibrif., pp. 22-25, 28. Ibld., pp. 25, 31. '' I . ~ c I i , ~ t o l o ~ niatcrr.~l r~al appear\ onl\ In 10:12-11:2 (which may ha\e been expanded wcrc 1ricorpor.1tcd111 the Book oj \Y/rztcj~o5);I6:l;72:l;80. \vlicn chs. ,!I-( 43 'I'hc debatc wrth rnanttc \vrsdorn 1 % reflecteti rn I Lnoch 7:l;8:3. Mlhk, op. clt., pp. 14-18,29-31, 33,37-38,277;P. Grciot, RR 65 (1958),pp. 33-69. '? I? Grclot, '1.3 1 cgende d'f Ienoch daris Ics .~pocrvphesct dam la Bible: orrglnc et \rgnlficatlori', KSK 46 ( 1 958), pp. 5-26, 181-210,K.Borgw,JR. f:\ 33 (1974),pp. 183-196. <;relot, 'I.igendc', p. 195,concludes that the Rabvlonlan exlle was tlie S ~ t zIm Lcben of the orrgln o f the I noch legend, \\ hence a contrnuoilr traditron rcaciicd the f-tasldrm o t the M.1ccabean age. It IS not alwavs oa\v to dlstrngursh Canaanrte and Rahylonran courccs: cf. Grclot, 'L Cgendc', pp. 24-26; RU 65 (1958),p, 68;and n. 15 above. "

''

51

I. Origins

Enoch." The true astronomy which Enoch learns from the archangel Uriel is not known t o the pagan astrologers w h o take the stars t o be gods (80:7) and distort the calendar (82:4f.). T h e true wisdorn which Elloch teaches is inseparably connected with the worship of the true God. So the scientific curiosity of the Erloch circle retains a genuitlely Jewish religious core. Von Rad's derivation of apocalyptic from wisdom relied heavily o n the evidence of 1 Enoch, but he was mistaken to generalize from this evidence. O n l y in the Enoch tradition was encyclopedic wisdom (as distinct from the mantic wisdom of the Daniel tradition) the context for the development of apocalyptic. Von Rad explair~edthis development simply from the wise men's thirst for knowledge, which led them t o embrace eschatology and the divine ordering of history within the sphere of their wisdom. 'There niay be some truth in this, but the increasing dominance of eschatology in the Enoch tradition demands a niore specific explanation. Perhaps the most prornisir~gis that the Enoch tradition SIIOWS from the start a preoccupatiorl with theodicy, with the origin and judgmcnt of sin. T h e myth of the Watchers, the fallen angels who corrupted the antediluvian world, is a myth of the origin of evil. Though the Watchers were imprisoned and tlie antediluvian world annihilated in the flood, the spirits of their offspring the giants becarne the evil spirits who continue to corrupt the world until the last judgment (15:8-16:l). Already in the earliest section of the Rook of Watchers (6-19), eschatology emerges in this context: the judgment of the antediluvian world prefigures the final judgment4-' when the wickedness of men will receive its ultimate punishment (l0:13 = 4QnL1:5:l f.) and supernatural evil be entirely eliminated (16:l; 19:l). With the expansion of the Book of Watchers, the emphasis on the final judgmcnt increases. Enoch, w h o in chapters 6-19 was primarily the prophet of God's judgment o n the Watchers at the time of the flood, now becomes, naturally enough, the prophet of the last judgment (1-5). Also, for the first t i n ~ cin Jewish literature, a doctrine of rewards and punishments for all men after death is expounded (22 = 4QEt1'1:22):-'~this

'' So the Fnoch wrtttng\ d o not rdevl~rfyI nocli wtth an antedtluvian sage of pagan rnyth. They present Erioch rn opposrtron to the pagan heroes and sages, who are tdcntrfieci rather wtth the tnllen angels atid thew offsprrng thc giant.;: ct. Miltk, op. crt., pp. 29, 313. 44 I n 10.20, 22 ~t I \ clcar t h a t t l i c dclugc a n d t l ~ c tin11 j u J g n ~ c n ta r c . ~ s s ~ n ~ ~ l . l t~c df;also . the descr~pttoriof tlie deluge as 'tlic first end' in 93:4 (f:pr,tle o f f h o t h ) . '' O n thts passage see Mrlrk, op. crt., p. 219. In view ot the tnention of Catti's ciesccndatits (22:7), 'the souls ot a11 the clilldren of men' (22:3) must tman all men, not ju\t all Icraelttcs. as K.11. Charle\ thouelit: I%e Hook o f I nocb (Oxford: Claretidon. 1912). D. 46. So a d o c t r ~ n eof general rewards and punishments after death was already debeloped in pre-Maccabcari ~pocalyptictradrtton. This is a d e c i ~ t t crefutation of the ttie.srs ot G. W. E. Nickclsburg Jr, Re,rtrrectron, Inrrr~ortalrr~, 'znd Eternal Lrfe rn Intrrtc,starnc.ntd Judarsm ( I iarvard Theological Stuciies 26: Cambrrdge, MA: 1 laward University I'ress, 1972), w h o argues that a doctrine of reward.i and punisli~nentsafter dcath developed at the time of the Antiochan crisis with reference only t o the martyrs and persecutor\ of the r

A

too expresses a concern with the problem of evil, the problem of the suffering of the righteous at the hands of the wicked (22:5-7,12). So the Enoch tradition included a strong interest in the problem of evil, which was first expressed in the antediluvian legends of chapters 6-13, but also gave rise to increasing preoccupation with eschatology. This was its point of contact with apocalyptic prophecy, which therefore began to provide the content of Enoch's prophecies of the end.46Apocalyptic prophecy was also much concerned with theodicy, specifically with the problem of Israel's continued subjection t o the Gentile powers, but this specific problem does not (at least explicitly) appear in the Enoch tradition until the Book of Dreams, in which the tradition at last related itself t o the prophetic concern with Israelite salvation history. The special mark of the Enoch tradition, linked as it was t o prehistoric universal history, was its treatment of theodicy as a cosmic problem. This proved a reinforcement of a general tendency in apocalyptic t o set the problem of God's dealings with Israel within a context of universal history and cosmic eschatology. T h e pre-Maccabean Enoch tradition left a double legacy. O n the one hand, much as in the Daniel tradition, the tradition became a vehicle for the interpretation of O l d Testament prophecy. In the Hasidic Book of Dreams and the (probably later) Episth of Enoch, we have classic expressions of the apocalyptic view of history and eschatology inspired by O l d Testament prophetic faith. O n the other hand, however, Enoch's journeys in angelic company through the heavens and the realms of the dead, discovering the secrets of the universe, are the first exaniples of another aspect of later apocalyptic literature. We need t o distinguish two types of apocalypse. There are those which reveal the secrets of history: the divine plan of history and the conling triumph of G o d at the end of history. These could be called 'eschatological apocalypses'. But there are also apocalypses which reveal the mysteries of the cosmos: the contents of heaven and earth, o r the seven heavens, o r heaven and hell. These could be called 'cosmological apocalypses'." T h e Hasidic apocalypses - Daniel, the Enochic Rook ofDrcarns, the Tetament of time. f lis discussion of I Etlocl~22 assumes a post-Maccabean date (p. 134 n. 15, p. 143), which the 4QEn fragments now render impossible. I Enocl~22 (cf. also 10:14; 27:2-3) is therefore of crucial in~portancefor the origins of Jewish beliefs about the afterlife, as is the fact that the Enoch tradition, unlike other apocalyptic traditions, never expresses belief in bodily resurrection, but rather the doctrine of spiritual irnrnortality which is also found in Jubilees and probably at Quniran. This is a striking instance of the continuing distinct identity of the various apocalyptic traditions. 46 The apocalyptic passages of the pre-Maccahcan parts of 1 Enocb are especially indebted to Third Isaiah: 5:h (cf. Is. 65:15); 5:9 (cf. Is. 65: 19-20,22); IO:I7 (cf. Is. 6520); 10:21 (cf. Is. 66:23; Zech. 14:lh); 25%(cf. Is. 65:19f.); 27:3 (cf. Is. 66:24); 72:l (cf. Is. 65:17; 66:22); 8 1 3 (cf. Is. 57: I). " This distinction, in different terminology, is made by I . Willi-Plein, VT 27 (1977), p. 79.

I. Origins

53

M ~ s e s '-~are eschatological apocalypses. But the cosmological interest did not die out, and was by no means divorced from eschatological apocalyptic, since the secrets of heaven were believed t o include the preexisting realities of the eschatological age. Cosmology really came into its own in the late Hellenistic apocalypses of the Christian era, such as 2 Enoch and 3 Baruch, in which the eschatological hope has disappeared and apocalyptic is well o n the way t o the pure cosmology of Gnosticism. As the revelation of cosnlic secrets the apocalypse becarne the typical literary form of Gnosticism. So we see once more how apocalyptic, from its origins in the Jewish encounter with the Gentile cultures of the diaspora, retained a somewhat ambiguous position between Jewish and Gentile religion. Its continuity with Old Testament prophetic faith cannot be taken for granted. Each apocalyptist had to achieve this continuity by creative reinterpretation of prophecy in apocalyptic forms. His success depended o n the vitality of his eschatological hope inspired by the prophets, and when this hope faded apocalyptic easily degenerated into cosmological speculation of a fundamentally pagan character. Apocalyptic as interpretation of prophecy The continuity between prophecy and apocalyptic occurred when the apocalyptists assumed the role of interpreters of prophecy. T11ey did not always d o this nor always to the same extent, for as we have seen there are other aspects of apocalyptic literature, but this was the dominant aspect of the major tradition of eschatological apocalypses. In this tradition the transcendent eschatology of post-exilic prophecy was taken u p and further developed in a conscious process of reinterpreting the prophets for the apocalyptists' own age. The apocalyptists understood themselves not as prophets but as inspired interpreters of prophecy."' The process of reinterpreting prophecy was already a prominent feature of post-exilic prophecy, but the post-exilic prophets were still prophets in their o w n right. The apocalyptists, however, lived in an age when the prophetic spirit was quenched ( 1 Macc 4: 46). Their inspiration was not a source of new prophetic revelation, but of interpretation of the already given revelation. 'l'here is therefore a decisive difference of self-understanding between prophets and apocalyptists, which irnplies also a difference of authority. The authority of the apocalyptists' message is only derivative from that of the prophets.

the datc of thc Testaments of Moses, see 11. 52 below. This is argued most rcccntly by Willi-Plein, art. cit. Cf. also D.S. Russell, The Method and hlessage of Jt"zi.~tsh Apocalyptrc (London: SCM, 1964), oh. 7. "'or 49

54

4.

The Rise of Apomlyptic

So when Jewish writers with a background in the mantic wisdom of the Daniel tradition o r the cosmological wisdom of the Enoch tradition inherited the legacy of post-exilic prophecy, they did s o as non-prophetic interpreters of the prophetic tradition which had come t o an end. 'There may course have been other groups without a wisdom o r diaspora background who stood in greater sociological continuity with the prophetic tradition, maintaining the eschatological hope of the disciples of Second Isaiah and influencing the Enoch and Daniel traditions. T h e strong influence of Isaiah 49-66 o n the apocalyptic of the Hook of Watchersso and l>anielslis suggestive in this respect. T o such a group we might attribute the eventual compilation of the book of Isaiah. But even in such a tradition a theo~ogicaldiscontinuity occurred (perhaps gradually) when consciousness of independent prophetic vocation disappeared. The puzzling apocalyptic device of pseudonymity is at least partly connected with this apocalyptic role of interpreting prophecy. The Testanzent of Moses, which may well be a Hasidic work contemporary with is the least problematic example: as an interpretation of Deuteronomy 31-34 it puts its interpretation of Moses' prophecies into Moses' mouth. Similarly Daniel 7-12 has been attributed t o Daniel because its fundamental idea is the schenle of the four empires followed by the eschatological kingciom, which derives from 1)aniel's prediction in chapter 2. Of course the apocalyptist does not interpret only thc prophecies of his pseudonym, but the pseudonyn~indicates his primary in~piration.~'Pseudonymity is therefore a device expressing the apocalyptist's consciousness that the age of prophecy has passed: not in the sense that he fraudulently wishes t o pass off his work as belonging t o the age of prophecy, but in the sense that he thereby acknowledges his work t o be mere interpretation of the revelation given in the prophetic age. Similarly the vntiania ex rwentu are not a fraudulent device t o give spurious legitimation t o the apocalyptist's work; they are his interpretation of the prophecies of the past, rewritten in the light of their fulfilnlent in order t o show how they have been fulfilled and 5"cc n. 46 above bor I>anlcl's (and general 1 larldtc) dcpendencc o n Thtrd Isaiah, cf. Nlckelsburg, op. clt., pp. 19-22. 'There arc two posslblc d.~tcsfur the Gstamenr of ,.Moses (also called Assumptron of Atoscs): c. 165 B( (wtth ch. 6 as a later rntcrpolatlon) or early first century A D . 'The former 1s \upported by J. I tcht, JJ\ 12 (1961), pp. 95-103; Nickelsburg, op. ctt., pp. 43-45, and In \tudz(v on the 'liastament of Mores, ed. G. W .E. Ntckclshurg ((:an~brldge,M A : SBL, 1973), pp. 33-37; J. A. Gcrldstctn In ~ b l d .pp. , 44-47. In later apocalypses, such ,IS those attributed to Frra and I)aruch, tlicre IS n o longer an) question of lnterprcttng the pseudonytn's prophectes. The authors of J t'rr'r and 2 Arzruch douhtlcss chose thclr preudonynis hccausc the) identlficd wlth the htrtortcal sttuatlon ot Erra and Baruch after the fall of Jcrusalem.

''

''

what still remains t o be fulfilled. In pseudonymity and vaticiniu ex eventu the apocalyptists adopted a fornl which was common in pagan oracular literature and made it a vehicle of their self-understanding as interpreters of Israelite prophecy.

/I. Theological issues The problem of theological c-vnluation Discussion of the origins of apocalyptic cannot really he isolated from a theological evaluation of apocalyptic. Implicitly o r explicitly, much recent discussion has involved the judgment that apocalyptic is a more o r less degenerate form of Israelite faith. Von Rad, for example, was clearly led t o deny the connection between prophecy and apocalyptic because he believed the apocalyptic understanding of history compared so badly with the prophetic, and even Hanson, despite his strong argument for the continuity of prophecy and apocalyptic, still treats pre-exilic prophecy as the high point of O l d Testament theology, from which apocalyptic is a regrettable decline, however much it may be an understandable development in post-exilic circumstances.

Moreover, the general theological outlook of the scholar can determine which new theological developments in the rise of apocalyptic he selects as the really significant ones. An older generation of scholars regarded the development of Jewish belief in life after death as a major landmark in the history of revelation, and so, however unsyrnpathetic they may have been t o other aspects of apocalyptic, this feature alone guaranteed the positive importance of apocalyptic. Recent scholarship in this area has paid rernarkably little attention t o this central apocalyptic belief, s o that von Rad barely mentions it, and Hanson can argue that apocalyptic eschatology was in all essentials already developed before the intraduction of a doctrine of irnmortality o r resurrection. Almost all modern attempts either t o denigrate o r to rehabilitate apocalyptic focus on its attitude to 1.listory. So discussion of Wolfhart Pannenberg's evaluation of apocalyptic in his systematic theology has centred o n whether he is correct in supposing that apocalyptic gave real significance to universal history as the sphere of God's self-revelatio~~.~' To a large extent recent discussion has rightly concentrated o n the apocalyptic view of history in relation t o eschatology, since this takes us t o the heart of the problem. 'I'he real issue is whether t l ~ e o l o gmay ~ seek the

'' E.g. f 1.11. Hetr, JTC 6 (1969), pp. 192-207; N7.R. Murdock, lnt 21 (1967), pp. 167-1 87.

ultimate meaning of human life and the ultimate achievement of God's purpose beyond the history of this world. For many modern scholars, pre-exilic prophecy is the Old Testament theological norm partly because it did not d o this, while apocalyptic is a serious decline from the norm, even a relapse into paganism, because it did. Thus for I-Ianson the transcendent eschatology of apocalyptic prophecy is 'myth' not merely in the literary sense (which is undeniable) but in a sense akin t o Bultmann's. In their literal expectation that Yahweh was going t o establish his kingdom by direct personal intervention rather than human agency, and in a way which involved radical transformation of this world beyond the possibilities of ordinary history, the disciples of Second Isaiah were mistaken. Such language of divine intervention arid cosmic transformation could only be valid as a mythical way of illuminating the possibilities of ordinary history. So when the apocalyptists did not translate it into pragmatic political policies but took it to mean that ordinary history would really be transcended with the arrival of salvation, they were engaged in an illusory flight from the real world of history into the timeless realm of myth. For the Christian the validity of transcendent eschatology is in the last resort a problem of New Testament theology. While the apocalyptic hope was certainly modified by the historical event of Jesus Christ, the N e w Testament interprets this event as presupposing and even endorsing a transcendent eschatology of divine intervention, cosmic transformation and the transcendence of death. T h e final achievement of God's purpose and the ultimate fulfilment of humanity in Christ really d o lie beyond the possibilities of this world of sin and suffering and death, in a new creation such as apocalyptic prophecy first began t o hope f o r on the strength of the promise of God. Of course the new creation is the transformation of this world thts distinguishes Christian eschatology from the cosmological dualism of Gnosticism - but it transcends the possibilities of ordinary history. So it seems that a serious commitment to the New Testament revelation requires us t o see apocalyptic eschatology as essentially a theological advance in which God's promises through the prophets were stirring his people t o hope for a greater salvation than their forefathers had guessed. This must be the broad context for our evaluation of apocalyptic. It still remains, however, a serious question whether the apocalyptists in fact abandoned the prophetic faith in God's action within history, and the prophetic demand for man's free and responsible action in history. Have they in fact substit~dtedtranscendent eschatology for history, so that history itself is emptied of meaning, as a sphere in which G o d cannot act salvifically and man can only wait for the End? To answer this we must look more closely at the apocalyptic attitude t o history in the context of the post-exilic experience of history t o which it was a response.

/ I . Theological isslccs

57

The negative view of history The apocalyptic attitude to history is commonly characterized by a series of derogatory terms: radically dualistic, pessimistic, deterministic. The apocalyptists are said t o work with an absolute contrast between this age and the age t o come. This age is irremediably evil, under the domination of the powers of evil, and therefore all hope is placed on God's coming intervention at the end, when he will annihilate the present evil age and inaugurate the eternal future age. In the history of this age God does not act salvifically; he has given up his people to suffering and evil, and reserved the blessings of life in his kingdom wholly for the age to come. So the apocalyptists were indifferent to the real business of living in this world, and indulged their fantasy in mere escapist speculation about a transcendent world to come. It is true that they engage in elaborate schematizations of history and emphasize God's predetermination of history, but this is purely to show that God is bringing history to an end, while their extreme determinism again has the effect of leaving man with no motive for responsible involvement in the course of history. This is the wholly negative view of history commonly attributed to the apocalyptists. Like so much that is said about apocalyptic, it suffers from hasty generalization. It would not be difficult to make it appear plausible by quoting a secondhand collection of proof-texts, and especially by preferring later to earlier apocalyptic, and emphasizing texts which are closer to Iranian dualism at the expense of those most influenced by Old Testament prophecy. We have seen that the apocalyptic enterprise, with its potentially ambiguous relationshipi to its non-Jewish environment, was hazardous, and the above sketch has at least the merit of illustrating the hazard. But it does no justice t o the apocalyptists t o draw the extreme conclusions from a selection of the evidence. The apocalyptic view of history must be understood from its startingpoint in the post-exilic experience of history, in which the returned exiles remained under the domination of the Gentile powers and God's promises, through Second Isaiah and Ezekiel, of glorious restoration, remained unfulfilled. Those who now denigrate apocalyptic rarely face the mounting problem of theodicy which the apocalyptists faced in the extended period of contradiction between the promises of God and the continued subjection and suffering of his people. The apocalyptists refused the spurious solution of a realized eschatology accommodated to Gentile rule and the cult of the second temple: they insisted on believing that the prophecies meant what they said, and undertook the role of Third Isaiah's watchmen, who are t o 'put the LORDin remembrance, take no rest, and give him no rest until he establishes Jerusalem' (Is. 62:6 f., RSV).

So the apocalyptists did not begin with a dogma about the nature of history: that G o d cannot act in the history of this world. They began with an empirical observation of God's relative absence from history rznce t h t fall of Jerzdsalem. It did not appear t o them that he had been active o n behalf of his people during this periocf. Consequently the comnlon apocalyptic view, which goes back to Thircf Isaiah,5i was that the exile had never really er1ded.~Waniel9therefore multiplies Jeremiah's seventy years of exile into sevcnty weeks of ycars t o cover the whole period sincc 586. It was of the history of this period that the apocalyptists took a negative view. Daniel's four world empires are not a scheme embracing all history, but specifically history since Nebuchadnezzar and the exile. The Enochic Book of Dreams contains an allegorical account of the whole history of the world since creation ( I Enoch 85-90), but again the negative view characterizes only the period sincc the end of the monarchy. In this period (89:59-90:17) G o d is represented as no longer ruling Israel directly but as delegating his rule t o seventy 'shepherds', angelic beings who rule Israel successively during the pcriod from the fall of Jerusalern t o the end. T h e number seventy indicates that the author is reinterpreting the seventy ycars of exile of Jeremiah's prophecy. G o d in the vision comtnands the shepherds to punish the apostates of Israel by means of the pagan nations which oppress Israel during the whole of the post-exilic period, hut in fact they exceed their commission and allow the righteous also to be oppressed and killed. G o d is represented as repeatedly and deliberately refusing t o intervene in this situation. Evidently this is a theologically somewhat crude attempt t o explain what the author felt t o be God's absence from the history of his people since the exile. Later the idea of angelic delegates developed into the idea of Israel's being under the dominion of Satan during this period. It was the 'age of wrath' (CD 1 5 ) in which Satan was 'unleashed against Israel' (CD 4:12). This view of post-exilic history came t o a head in the crisis of Jewish faith under Antiochus Epiphanes. 'This was the clirnax of the age of wrath, 'a time of trouble, such as never has been' (Dan. 12:l; cf. 'irest/znzetzt of Moses 8:1). T h e Hasidic movement, which produced the apocalypses of this period, was therefore a movement of rcpcntance and suffering interce~sion,~' seeking the promised divine intervention t o deliver the faithful. This was not a retreat from history but precisely an expectation that G o d would vindicate his people and his justice o n the stage of history, though in such a way as t o transcend ordinary historical possibility.

'' C. Westermann, 5h

I s d j d ~43-66 (London: S C M , 1969), pp. 348-349. M. A. K~iibt),111 17 (197h), pp. 253-272. tlengel, op. cit., pp. 17'9-180; cf. Dan. 9; 11:33, 123; 1 Ertoch 83f.; Estament of

Moses 9; 12%.

II. Thcolog~calissues

59

The apocalyptists faced not only the absence of God's saving activity from history since the exile, hut also the silence of God in the period since the cessation of prophecy. 'There is no longer any prophet, and there is none among us who knows how long' (Ps. 74:9). Behind apocalyptic lurks a fear that G o d had simply abandoned his people, and against that fear apocalyptic is a tremendous reassertion of the prophetic faith. In apocalyptic God's silence was broken by the renewal of his past promises in their relevance t o the present. G o d had not abandoned his people; his promised salvation was coming. Sometimes, perhaps, the apocalyptists broke God's silence with speculations of their own, forced too much contemporary relevance out of the prophecies, answered too precisely the unanswerable 'how long?'SRBut their work ensured the survival of hope. It is true that the act of divine deliverance for which the apocalyptists looked far transcended the great events of the salvation-history of the past. So the image of a new exodus is lcss common in apocalyptic than the image of a new creation. In the Enoch literature the dominant type of the end is the deluge, in which a whole universe was d e ~ t r o y e d . ~ ' T h iuniversalization s of eschatology resulted in part from the historical involvement of post-exilic Israel in the destiny of the world empires, and in part from the pressure of a universal theodicy which looked for the triumph of G o d over every form of evil: we saw how this developed in the Enochic Book of Watcl?ers. The apocalyptists dared to believe that even death would be conquered. So they expected an act of God within the temporal future which would so far transcend his acts in past history that they could only call it new creation. This is the expectation which gives rise t o the temporal dualism of apocalyptic: its distinction between this age and the age t o come which follows the new creation. T h e terminology of the two ages does not emerge in apocalyptic until a late stage, becoming popular only in the first century AD, as the New Testament evidences."O This is significant because it shows that apocalyptic did not begin from a dualistic dogma, but from an experience of history. For this reason the contrast between the t w o ages is never absolute. There is no denial that G o d has been active in the past history of Israel, and this can even be emphasized, as in the Enochic Book of Dreams. His coming eschatological intervention transcends, but is not wholly different in kind

'' In fact the apocalypt~stswere lcss addlcted to settlr~gdates for the end than 15 often thought: I . l-lartn~an,h'T\ 22 (1975-6), pp. 1-14. 1 I.nocl7 83 makc\ the flooci a cosmic cataytrophe; cf. n. 44 abo\c. "O 111 I Fnoch the term~nologyof the two ages appears only In the 5'1m1lrtu&s, now airnost universally adrnrtted to be nu earller than the first century AD. 'I'hc clasrlc statement of the cioctrine ot the two ages, from the end of the hr\t century A D , I F 4 I Ira 7:50: 'The examples from the first h4nst High has made not one age but two.' For poss~bler~~bblnlc century R C , see M I>clcor, I c Te,tarnent d'.clbraharn ( I elden: Rrlll, 1973), pp. 41-42.

''

60

4.

The Rise of Apocalyptic

from his past acts.h' Even in late apocalyptic where the dualism is sharpened, this world remains God's world. It is not totally given over to the powers of evil. So the temporal dualism of apocalyptic is not cosmological dualism. Apocalyptic eschatology does not therefore arise from an abandonment of the prophetic faith that God acts in history. It would be better to say that the apocalyptists held on to this in the face of the doubt which the universal experience of history provokes. Because they believed he had acted in the past they hoped for his action in the future. But they saw the world in terms which demanded the hope of total transformation as the only appropriate expression of faith in a God who rules history. In a sense, then, the prophetic faith could only survive the post-exilic experience by giving birth to eschatological faith. We may be grateful for that. Nevertheless, there was surely a danger. The apocalyptists might be so intent on eschatology that they could forget that God does act in history before the end .They might despair of history altogether, and the experience of God's absence from their a w n history might become the dogma of his absence from all history. So the Hasidic apocalyptists have often been contrasted with their contemporaries the Maccabees. The former are said to have deduced from their eschatology a quietist attitude of waiting for divine intervention, s o that they held aloof from the Maccabean revolt and were unable to see the hand of God in the Maccabean victories. We can see how this might have happened, but it is not really clear that it did. It is true that the book of Daniel refers to the Maccabees only as 'a little help' for the martyred Hasidim (1 1:34), but this need not be as disparaging a reference as is often thought. More probably it indicates that Daniel was written when the Maccabean resistance had only just begun. The Enochic Book of Dreams, written a year o r so later, regards the Maccabean victories as the beginning of God's eschatological victory and Judas Maccabacus as a practically messianic agent of God's eschatological intervention ( I Enoch 90:8-18). The truth would seem to be that the apocalyptic hope mobilized support for the Maccabees. Of course the Maccabean revolt did not turn out actually to be the messianic war, though it was a notable deliverance, but it does not follow that the apocalyptists must have concluded that their expectations of it were entirely misplaced. The fact that the Hasidic apocalypses were preserved without modification, and Daniel was even canonized, suggests otherwise. An historical event like the Maccabean deliverance could be regarded as a provisional realization of God's promises, an act of God within history h' A typological view o f history is still quite clear in 2 Baruch, a late first-century AD work which reflects growing dualism. 2 Baruch 63 tells of the dclivcrancc of Jerusalem from Sennachcrih in terms which prefigure the end.

II. Theological issues

61

which anticipated and kept alive the hope of the greater deliverance still to come. Transcendent eschatology need not empty history of divine action; it can o n the contrary facilitate the recognition and interpretation of God's action in history. Again I d o not wish to say that this was always the case. In this as in other respects the apocalyptists were walking a theological tightrope, and there was no guarantee that they would keep their balance, other than their study of O l d Testament prophecy. It seems that in the end they did not. The overwhelming disappointment of Jewish apocalyptic hopes in the period A D 70-140 proved too great for the healthy survival of the apocalyptic hope. The great apocalypses of that period - the Apocalypse of Abraham, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra -are the last great eschatological apocalypses of Judaism. In 4 Ezra in particular we can see the strain under which the apocalyptic theodicy was labouring. There is a deepening pessimism, an almost totally negative evaluation of the whole history of this age from Adam t o the end, a stark dualism of the two ages. This apocalyptist does not surrender his eschatological faith, but we can see how short a step it now was t o cosmological dualism and outright Gnosticism. Apocalyptic eschatology at its best spoke to a contemporary need. It was not identical with the faith of the pre-exilic prophets, but nor was the experience of history in which it belonged. Perhaps it is true that transcendent eschatology was gained at the cost of a certain loss of awareness of the significance of present history. This loss was recovered in the New Testament revelation, but it is worth noticing that it was recovered in a way which, so far from repudiating the apocalyptic development, took it for granted. The significance of present history was guaranteed for the New Testament writers by their belief that in the death and resurrection of Jesus God had already acted in an eschatological way, the new age had invaded the old, the new creation was under way, and the interim period of the overlap of the ages was filled with the eschatological mission of the church. So it is true that the apocalyptic tendency to a negative evaluation of history is not to be found in New Testament thought, but this is not because the New Testament church reverted t o a pre-apocalyptic kind of salvation history.62 It is because the apocalyptic expectation had entered a phase of decisive fulfilment.

Apocalyptic determinism We have still to answer the charge of determinism against the apocalyptic view of history. Von Rad made this a major reason for denying apocalyptic

" Contra W .G. Rollins, NTS 17 (1970-71), pp. 454-476.

an origin in prophecy."' I-ie correctly stresses the apocalyptic doctrine that G o d has determined the whole course of the world's history from the beginning: 'All things which should be in this world, he foresiw and lo! it is brought forth' (Testament of Moses 125). This is the presupposition of the comprehensive reviews of future history and of the conviction that the end can come only at the time which G o d has appointed (Dan. 11:27,29,35f.). It is the secrets of the divine plan, written on the heavenly tablets of destiny, which the apocalyptist is privileged t o know: 'what is inscribed in the book of truth' (Dan. l0:2l); 'the heavenly tablets ... the book of all the deeds of mankind, and of all the children of flesh that shall be upon the earth t o the remotest generations' (1Enoch 81:2). Von Kad correctly points out that this differs from the prophetic conception, in which Yahweh makes continually fresh decisions, and issues threats and promises which are conditional o n men's sin o r repentance Uer. 18:7-10). Granted that the apocalyptists share the prophetic concern for Yahweh's sovereignty over history, is their deterministic way of expressing it a denial of human freedom and responsibility and so a retreat from human involvement in history? Deternlinism certainly belongs more obviously in the context of apocalyptic's continuity with the pagan oracles than it does in the context of its debt t o O l d Testament prophecy. Pagan divination was generally wedded t o a notion of unalterable fate. There are n o threats o r promises calling for an ethical response, simply the revelation that what will be will be. T h e forms of oracle which apocalyptic shares with its pagan neighbours, including the vuticiniu ex eventu, tend t o reflect this outlook. Their popularity in the centuries when apocalyptic flourished may partly reflect the fact that the nations of the Near East had lost the power t o shape their political future. A genre which made the seer and his audience mere spectators of the course of history corresponded t o the mood of the time. Again we can see the hazardous nature of apocalyptic's relationship t o its environment. In its attempt t o express in this context the sovereignty of the personal and cthical G o d of Israel there was the risk of confusing hirn with fate. T h e avoidance of this risk depended o n the apocalyptists' ability t o place alongside a passage like Daniel 11, with its deterministic emphasis, a passage like Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9, with its conviction that G o d judges his people for their rebellion and responds in mercy to their repentance and to the -prayers of intercessors like Daniel. It is no solution t o this . paradox t o excise Daniel's prayer as later interp~lation,~'!for the conviction that G o d would respond to repentance and intercession was at the heart of the Hasidic movement and appears in all their apocalypses. A11 their

" \ V I S ~ O WJnZ/src~ef,pp. 268-277. ""

A\ von Rad does: Old fistntnent Theology 2, p. 309 n. 19.

pseudonymous seers were noted intercessors: Daniel (Dan. 9; Testament of Moses 4:1-4), Enoch ( I Enoch 83f.), Moses (TEstament of Moses 11:14, 17; 12:6).b5Belief in the divine determination of all events clearly exists in tension with the conviction that the covenant G o d responds t o his people's free and responsible action. T h e former does not result in fatalism because it is only one side of the apocalyptic faith. Positively, the apocalyptic belief in divine determination of history functioned t o support eschatological faith in the face of the negative experience of history. In an age when it was tempting to believe that G o d had simply abandoned the historical process and with it his promises t o his people, the need was for a strong assertion of his sovereignty. This functions, first, t o relativize the power of thc pagan empires in stressing that it is G o d 'who removes kings and sets u p kings' (Dan. 2 2 1 ) . So his purpose of giving the kingdom t o his own people is assured of success at its appointed time. Secondly, the apocalyptic belief emphasizes that in the last resort the promise of eschatological salvation is unconditional, as it was also for the prophets. For their sins, Moses predicts, Israel 'will b e punished by the nations with many torments. Yet it is not possible that h e should wholly destroy and forsake them. For God has gone forth, w h o foresaw all things from the beginning, and his covenant is established by the oath' (Testament of Moses 12:11-13). Similarly Second Isaiah had met the despair of the exiles with the message of Yahweh's sovereignty over the nations and his irrevocable purpose of salvation for his people. So the determinism of apocalyptic must be judged not as an abstract philosophy, but by its function within its context, which is precisely t o counter fatalistic despair, to lay open t o men the eschatological future, and call men t o appropriate action. In terms of that function the gulf between the prophetic and apocalyptic concepts of history is by n o means s o unbridgeable as von Kad a s s u ~ n e s . ~ Apocalyptic and the canon

We have defended the apocalyptists as interpreters of propl~ecyfor their own generation. A literature as varied as the apocalyptic literature must be evaluated with discrimination rather than generalization, and we have recognized the theological hazards which the apooalyptists did not always avoid. But they lived in an age whose dominant mood encouraged just such a flight from historical reality as eventually issued in Gnosticism. So if their hold on the full reality of O l d Testament salvation history seems sometimes h5

O n the significance of this theme in Testament of Moses, see A.B. Kolenkow in

Studies on the Testament of Moses, pp. 72-74. 6W~sdom in Israel, p. 270.

64

4.

The Risr ofrlpocalyptrc

precarious we should not be surprised. It is more surprising that they kept hold of it as well as they did. They faced the problem of believing in the God of the prophets against the evidence of history. Their transcendent eschatology was both a solution, in that the problem of history demands a solution which transcends history, and an aggravation of the problem, as apocalyptic hopes remained unfulfilled. But with New Testamcrit hindsight, we can see that this was their theological role between the Testaments: to keep Jewish faith wide open to the future in hope. The apocalyptists occupy an essentially intertestamental position. They interpret the prophets to an age when prophecy has ceased but fulfilment is still awaited. They understand their inspiration and their authority to be of a secondary, derivative kind. Their transcendent eschatology, which is apocalyptic's theological centre, is already developed in post-exilic prophecy,6' and the a p ~ c a l ~ p t i s trole s ' is to intensify it and enable their own generation to live by it. It was by means of apocalyptic that the Old Testament retained its eschatological orientation through the intertestamental age. In this sense apocalyptic is the bridge between the Testaments, and it corresponds to the character of apocalyptic that it is represented, but not extensively represented, in the Old Testament canon.

'' Probably even resurrection: Is. 26:19. But the dcvclopnient of this cioctrine remains a very significant dcveloprncnt in the intenestamental period.

5. The Delay of the Parousia') Early Christianity was both continuous and discontinuous with firstcentury Judaism. Its theology shared many features of contemporary Jewish thought, though these were given a distinctively Christian character by their relationship t o Christianity's unique faith in Jesus Christ. As in the case of many other issues, an adequate account of the understanding of the delay of the parousia in early Christianity must reflect both the continuity and the discontinuity with Judaism. In some respects the problem' of the delay of the parousia was the same problem of eschatological delay which had long confronted Jewish apocalyptic eschatology; in other respects it was a new and distinctively Christian problem, in that the End was now expected t o take the form of the parousla of Jesus Christ in whose death and resurrection G o d had already acted eschatologically. O u r subject therefore needs t o be approached from two angles: from its background in Jewish apocalyptic and in terms of its distinctively Christian characteristics. Within the limits of this lecture, I can attempt only one of these approaches, and I have chosen the former, both because almost all previous study has entirely neglected this approach,l treating the delay of the parousiu as a uniquely Christian issue,) and also because it is only when we relate the Christian understanding of the delay

* Tile Tyndale Biblical Theology I,ecture 1979. First publication: Tyv~daleBulletin 31 (1 980) 3-36. By using the word 'problem' I d o not mean t o endorse the hypothesis (now generally abandoned) of a uisis of delay in early Christianity. I mean simply that the delay raised questions which had t o be answered. T h e only sigr~ificantexception is the important work of A. Strobel, Untersuchungen

'

z u m rschatologisc/~cnV r . ~ ; r t i ~ e r u n ~ s p r o btzuf I e ~Grutrd n ckrr sprirjridisch.urchrist11cI~en Gc-

schichte von 1-Jabakuk 2.2fJ (Supplemerrts t o Novunl Testanieritum 2. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961). E.g. 0. Cullmann, Christ and Time (ET, London: SCM, 1951) 86-90; Salvation in History (El', 1,ondon: SCh4, 1967) 236-47; [ I . Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the N m Testament (ET, London: SCM, 1969) 307-17. It is remarkable that the scliool of 'Consistent Eschatology', for which the interpretation of Jesus and the early church by reference t o Jewish apocalyptic was a methodological principle and which postulated a major crisis of delay in early Christianity, seems not t o have asked how Jewish apocalyptic coped with the problem of delay: cf. M. Werner, The Formation of Christiirn Dogma (ET, London: A. & C. Black, 1957).

66

5. The I)eldy c$ the I'lz~ourtdz

t o its Jewish apoc'11yptic background that we shall be able t o appreciate its distinctively Christian features in their true significance. So if this lecture o n biblical theology seems t o linger r ~ t l i e rlong over Jewish extracanonical literature, I hope you will find that this procedure is justified by its contribution t o an understanding of the N e w Testament.

I. Eschatological delay in Jewish apocalyptic T h e problern of eschatological delay was familiar t o Jewish apocalyptic from its earliest beginnings. It could even be said t o be one of the most important ingredients in the mixture of influences and circumstances which prociuced the apocalyptic movement. In the face of the delay in tlie fulfilment of the eschatological promises of the prophets, the apocalyptic visionaries were those w h o believed niost fervently that the promises remaineci valid and relevant. Despite appearances, C o d had not forgotten his people. His eschatological salvation, s o long awaited, was coming, and now at last it was very close dt hand. In almost all the apocalypses there is n o mistaking both a consciousness, t o some degree, of the problem of delay, in that the prophecies had s o long remained unfulfilled, and also the conviction of their imminent fulfilment. It goes only a little beyond the evidence t o say that in every generation between tlie mid-second century BC and the mid-second century Ar> Jewish apocalyptists encouraged their readers t o hope for the eschatological redemption in the very near future. At the same time there is very little evidence t o suggest that during that long period the continued disappointment of that expectation discredited the apocalyptic hope o r even diminished the sense of iminence in later generations. T h e apocalypses of the past were preserved and treasured; and passages whose imminent expectation had clearly not been fulfilled were nevertheless copied and by no means always updated. Each apocalyptist knew that his predecessors had held the tinie of the End t o be at hand, but this knowledge seems t o have encouraged rather than discouraged his o w n sense of eschatological imminence. Clearly the problem of delay was an inescapable problem at the heart of apocalyptic eschatology, but the tension it undoubtedly produced was not a destructive tension. It was a tension which the apocalyptic faith somehow embraced within itself. T h e problem was felt but it did not lead t o doubt. T h e question we need to ask, then, is: how did Jewish apocalyptic manage t o cope with the problem of delay? T h e key to this question -and the theme of much of this lecture - is that alongside the theological factors which pronioted the imminent expectation there were also theological factors accounting for the fact of delay. These t w o contrary sets of factors were held

in tension in apocalyptic. They were not harmonized to produce a kind of compromise: expectation of the End in the fairly near future but not just yet. T h e factors promoting imminence and the factors accounting for delay (or even, as w e shall see, promoting an expectation of dclay) are held in paradoxical tension, with the result that the imminent expectation can be maintained in all its urgency in spite of the continuing delay. Strobel has shown that niany of the apocalyptic references to the delay allude to the text Habakkuk 2:3, which seems to have been the locus cl~~ssicus for reflecting on the problem of delay."The vision is yet for the appointed time. It hastens to the end and will not lie. If it tarries, wait for it, for it will surely come and will not be late.' This text and the history of its interpretation contain the basic apocalyptic 'explanation' of the delay, insofar as it may be called an explanation. It appeals t o the omnipotent sovereignty of God, w h o has determined the tinie of the End. Even though it is longer in coming than the prophecies seem t o have suggested, this apparent delay belongs to the purpose of God. It will not be 'late' according t o the timescale which God has determined. N o w it cannot be said that this explanation explains very much. The delay remains incompreliensible to men, but is attributed t o the inscrutable wisdom of God. But it is important t o notice that the effectiveness of this explanation derived not so much from its power as an intellectual explanation, but rather from its quality as an affirmation of faith in G o d which calls for an appropriate response. Acknowledging the sovereignty of G o d and the truth of his promises, the apocalyptic believer is called therefore to wait patiently, persevering in obedience t o God's conimandments in the meantime. As the Qumram comrllentary o n Habakkuk 2:3 puts it: 'Interpreted, this concerns the men of truth w h o keep the Law, whose hands shall not slacken in the service of the truth when the final age is prolonged. For all the ages of G o d reach their appointed end as he determines for them in the mysteries of his wisdom.'$ Thus the apocalyptic 'solution' to the problem of delay was practical as much as theological. The believer's impatient prayer that God should no longer delay was balanced by the attitude of patient waiting while, in his sovereignty, G o d did delay. And these t w o attitudes renlaincd in tension: the apocalyptists maintained both. O n the one hand the impatient prayer was met by the assurance that G o d would bring salvation at the appointed time and therefore witli an exhortation t o patience; o n the other hand the believer's patient waiting was encouraged and supported by the assurance that there would be only a short tinie to wait and therefore

' Strobel, op. at.,chs. 1 and 2. 1 QpHah 731 0 - 3 2; trans. in G. Vermes, The Dend Sea Srro!ls in Etzglrsh (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968) 239.

68

I . f i e Delay ofthe Parousca

by an exhortation t o hope. In this way the tension of imminence and delay was maintained and contained within the apocalyptist's faith. Essentially this is why the problenl of delay did not discredit o r destroy the apocalyptic hope. From the beginning apocalyptic faith incorporated the problem of delay. It was a real problem creating a real tension: there is genuine anguish in the apocalyptists' prayers ' D o not delay!' (Dn. 9:19; 2 Baruch 21:25) and ' H o w long?' (Dn. 12:6; 2 Baruch 21:19). But the tension was held within a structure of religious response which was adequate t o contain it. I have admitted that the basic apocalyptic response t o the problem of delay - the appeal t o the sovereignty of G o d - provided little in the way of explanation. Later we shall see how some apocalyptists, especially in the later period, filled out this explanation with some attempts at more positive understanding of the meaning of the delay. For much of the period when apocalyptic flourished, however, it would seem that the problenl of delay was contained mainly by the appeal t o the sovereignty of G o d t o balance the urgency of the imrrlinent expectation. It is necessary t o ask whether this was theologically legitimate. In other words, it may be that the fact of delay ought to have discredited the apocalyptic hopes, if only it had been squarely faced in the cool light of reason. What I have called the structure of religious response by which apocalyptic contained the problem may have been no better than a psychological means of maintaining false expectations. History could supply many examples of unfulfilled prophecies which managed to maintain their credibility long after they deserved t o d o so, often because believers w h o have staked their lives o n such expectations are not easily disillusioned. Is there any reason t o put the apocalyptists in a different category? I believe there is a good reason at least t o take the apocalyptic faith very seriously indeed. T h e problem of delay in apocalyptic is n o ordinary problem of unfulfilled prophecy. The problenl of delay is the apocalyptic version of the problem of evil. The apocalyptists were vitally cor~cernedwith the problems of theodicy, with the demonstration of God's righteousness in the face the unrighteousness of his world. They explored various possibilities as to the origins of evil and the apportioning of responsibility for evil: but of primary and indispensable significance for the apocalyptic approach t o the problem of evil was the expectation of the End, when all wrongs would be righted, all evil eliminated, and God's righteousness therefore vindicated. T h e great merit of the apocalyptic approach to theodicy was that it refused t o justify the present condition of the world by means of an abstract exonCf. the survey in A. I,. Thompson, Responsrbrhryfor E v ~~l r nthe Theodrcy o f I V Ezra (SBL Disscrrations Serics 29. Missoula, Montana: Scholars I'rcss, 1977) ch. 1 . 'I

I. Escl~atologicaldelay tn J m i s h apocrllyptic

69

eration of G o d from responsibility for the evils of the present. O n l y the overcoming of present evil by eschatological righteousness could vindicate G o d as righteous, and only the hope of such a future triumph of righteousness could make the evils of the present bearable. Of course, this was n o armchair theodicy, but was produced by concrete situations of injustice and oppression in which the apocalyptists lived and suffered: the continued oppression of Israel by the Gentiles, arid / o r the sufferi~igsof the righteous remnant of Israel with whom the apocalyptists often identified themselves. It is not always easy for us t o appreciate the apocalyptists' concern for righteoustiess in these situations: the desire for Israel's vindication and her enemies' condemnation can seen1 t o us like mere narrow nationalism, and the apocalyptists' conviction of belonging t o the righteous remnant which is unjusty suffering while sinners prosper can seem to us like arrogant self-righteousness. Undoubtedly those defects sometimes mar the apocalypses, but it is important to realize that the genuinely ethical character of the apocalyptic hope is far more dominant. What is at stake in the sufferings of God's people is the righteousness of God, which, as often in the O l d Testament, means at the sarlie time justicefor the oppressed and agaivzst the oppressor. It is true that the apocalyptists often fail to see that the problem of evil extends t o the sinfulness of the righteous themselves, but they have an agonizingly clear grasp of the problem of innocent suffering. When the problem of theodicy is posed in that form I think we still have much to learn from them. Moreover, the special characteristic of the apocalyptists' grasp of the problem is that, out of their o w n situation, they were able t o see the universal dimensions of the problem of evil, the universal dominance of evil in 'this present evil age', as they came to call the present. 'This universal challenge to the righteousness of G o d demanded a universal righting of wrongs, an elimination of evil o n a universal, even cosmic, scale. I have dwelt o n this aspect of apocalyptic because I hope it will enable us to see the real meaning of the problem of eschatological delay. The immtncnt expectation expresses the extremity of the situation, the intensity of the apocalyptists' perception of the problem of evil, in its sheer contradiction of the righteousness of God. Surely G o d can n o longer tolerate it. Yet he does: t o the credit of the apocalypthere is the problem of delry. What is tists is that in this dilemma they abandoned neither the righteousness nor the sovereignty of God, which make up the theistic form of the problen~of evil. Their belief in the powers of evil was not dualistic: G o d ren~ainedin ultimate control. And so in the face of the delay, they continued to hold that G o d is righteous - his eschatological righteousness ts coming - and that he remains sovereign - the delay belongs t o his purpose and the End will come at the time he has appointed. This is the tension of imminence and delay, the tension experienced by the theistic believer who, in a world of injustice,

cannot give up his longing for righteousness. Thus we d o not, I think, have the right t o ask the apocalpptist t o explarn tlie delay in any complete sense, because the probleni of evil is not susceptible t o complete theoretical explanation. T h e tension which apocalyptic faith contained within itself is the tension which all fornis of tt~eismmust soniehow contain if they take the problem of evil seriously. It is a tension which cannot be resolved by explanation but only by the event of the final victory of God's righteousness. 1 conclude, therefore, that the apocalyptists rightly maintained the tcnsion of imminence and delay, and that in some degree that tension must remain a feature of Christian theology. T h e promise of God's eschatological righteousness presses in upon the present, contradicting tlie evils of the present, arousing o u r hopes, motivating us t o live towards it. Because the righteousness of G o d himself is at stake in this expectation it demands immediate fulfilment. That the fulfilment is delayed will always contain a hard core of incomprehensibility: the greatest saints have protested t o G o d against his toleration of evil, and have done so in faith, because of their conviction of his righteousness. But must the delay remain completely incomprehensible? The difficulty of the mere appeal to God's sovereignty is that it is in danger of evacuating the present in which we live of all meaning. T h e present becomes the incomprehensible time in which we can only wait, and it must be admitted that the apocalyptists d o sometimes approach this bleakly negative view of the present. 'This danger, however, was partially met in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition itself in attempts to find sonle positive meaning in the delay. Such attempts become particularly evident in the later period of Jewish apocalyptic, especially after the fall of Jerusalem in A D 70, and they have parallels in the Christian literature of the same period. I think this fact must correspond t o a certain intensification of the problem of delay in late first-century Judaism. This was not due t o the mere continuing lapse of time; it is a mistake t o suppose the problem of delay necessarily increases the longer the delay. The problem is itensified not by tlie mere lapse of time, but by the focusing of expectation on specific dates o r events which fail t o provide the expected fulfilment. In the case of Jewish apocalyptic, the Jewish wars of A D 66-70 and 132-135 were disappointments of the most extreme kind, for so far from being the onset of eschatological salvation, they proved t o be unprecedented contradictions of all the apocalyptists had hoped for. Consequently the apocalyptic writers of the late first century are engaged in a fresh and agonizing exploration of the issues of eschatological theodicy. T h e imminent expectation seems if anything t o be heightened, but it seems t o require that o n the other hand some meaning be found in the interval of delay. So we will turn t o four specific examples of the problem of delay in the late first century, t w o Jewish examples and then for comparison t w o Chris-

I / . hrrv e,rump/c,sfiom thc /mtefirst cetltrrry AD

71

tian examples which are relatively close t o the Jewish discussion. In all of them we shall be looking especially for attempts to understand the delay.

II. Four examples from the late first century AD (a) A Rabbinic Debate There is a well-known rabbinic tradition of a debate about the delay of eschatological redemption7 between R. Eliezer b. I-fyrcanus and R. Joshua b. Hananiah.' If authentic, this debate will date from the late first century AD. Unfortunately its authenticity cannot be assumed as uncritically as it has generally been.' Neusner, in his classification of the traditions of R. Eliezer according to the reliability of the attestation, places this tradition in his least well attested category, 'The Poor tradition^':'^ this means not only that tlie attestation of the tradition is late, but also that its content is largely unrelated t o earlier traditions. Traditions in this category are not thereby shown t o be inauthentic, but their authenticity is very difficult t o establish with any degree of certainty. There are, however, some things to be said in favour of our tradition: (1) It belongs t o a group of traditions which together form a coherent set of opinions o n issues which were certainly matters of concern to the rabbis in the period imnlediately after A D 70. In other words, they are historically appropriate to Eliezer's historical situation, and they are mutually consistent." (2) Neusner also concludes that this group of traditions represent in substance what we should have expected Eliezer t o have thought about these topics, o n the basis o f the best attested sayings of Eliezer.'2 (3) Furthermore, there is a passage in the Apocalyysc of Ezra(c. A D 100) which proves that the contrasting views of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, as represented in our tradition, were held and debated during their lifetimes: in 4 Ezra 4:38-42, Ezra puts forward as a suggestion the attitude t o the probleni of eschatological delay which o u r tradition attributes t o R. Eliezer, wliilc the angel's reply maintains the position attributed t o R. Joshu'~.Thus, even if we cannot be quite sure that R. Eliezer arid R. Joshua then~selvesheld

' 1:or the sake of simplicit); in this and the following section 1 am ignoring the problems of the distinction hctwccn expectation of the messianic kingdom and expectation of the age to come. They d o not greatly affect our topic. iMidnlsh Tanl~urnaUel~rtqorai5; y Taran. 1 :I: G Smth. 97 b-98 a. The text's are given in translation in J. Neusncr, Eliezc~vben Hyvcanus (1-eiden: E . J . Brill, 1973) I 477-79. ' E. g. Strobcl, op. cit. 23-26. I C Neusncr, op. cit. I 1 235, no. 57. /Lid. I1 417-21. ILi(i. I I 42 I .

'

"

the opinions attributed to them, we can at least be sure that those opinions were debated in the late first century. In the briefest version of the debate the issue is succinctly stated as follows: R. Eliezer says, 'If Israel repents, they will be redeemed'. R. Joshua says, 'Whether o r not they repent, when the end cornes, they will forthwith be redeemed, as it is said, "I the 1,ord in its time will hasten it" (Is. 60:22).'13

R. Joshua maintains the traditional apocalyptic appeal to the sovereignty of God, who has determined the time of the End. When the appointed time arrives, the eschatological redemption will come as God's sovereign grace to Israel, in no way dependent on Israel's preparation. R. Eliezer, on the other hand, makes the coming of redemption conditional on Israel's repentance. The idea of Israel's repentance before the End was not new,';' but the view that it is a condition for the arrival of redemption is at least rare in the earlier literature,15though it subsequently became a common rabbinic view. It seems probable that Eliezer's saying represents a reaction to the disaster of AD 70, when hopes of redemption were dashed and Israel experienced instead a catastrophe which could only be interpreted as divine punishment. The conclusion must be that Israel was unworthy of redemption. Only when Israel repented would redemption come. Eliezer's position could mean that the divinely appointed date for the End had actually been postponed because of Israel's sins,16 as some late Rabbis certainly held." Alternatively it could mean that there is no such thing as a fixed date for the End,Ix or, finally, it could mean that Israel's repentance is itself part of God's predetermined plan. This is the view suggested by a longer version of the debate: R. Eliezer says, 'If Israel does not repent, they will never be redeerned ...' R. Joshua said t o him, 'If Israel stands and does not repent, d o you say they will never be saved?'.

"

Midrash Tznhumu R e h q u t a i 5 (Neusner, op. cit. 1 479). The use of Is. 60:22 with refererlce to this issue is well attested for this period: Ecclus. 2623; 2 Baruch 20:1 f; 54:l; 83:l; Ep. of Rarnabas 4:3; cf. Ps-Philo, Lib. Ant. Rib. 19:13; 2 Pet. 3:12. Cf. further rabbinic references in Strobel, op. a t . 92 11.6. l 4 C'' Testanlent of iMoscs 1:18. It is presupposed in the message of John the Baptist, but his teaching in Mt. 3:7-10 par. Lk. 3:7-9 seems to run counter to any suggestion that Israel's redernption was a necessary condition for the coming of the Kingdom. Sinlilarly L,k. I3:6-9 embodies the idea of delay in order to give time for repentance, hut explicitly not untrl repentance. '' But cf: Gst'zment o f l l a n 6:4; Acts 13:19-21. '" This is how Eliezer is understood by Strobel, op. cit. 23-26. l 7 h Sanh. 97b; b 'Abodah Zarnh 9a. I n 'I'his is how Eliezer is understood by E. E. Urbach, Thc Sages: Their Concepts and Rcliefs (E'I', Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975) 1669.

11. Fo14rexamples from the late first c e ~ ~ t r uAyD

73

R. Eliezer said t o him, 'The H o l y One, blessed be he, will raise u p over them a king as harsh as fiaman, and forthwith they will repent and be redeemed'."

In other words redemption cannot be indefinitely postponed by Israel's failure t o repent, because G o d himself will stir Israel t o repentance. The importance of this debate is that R. Eliezer's view is an attempt t o understand the delay. T h e meaning of the delay is not totally hidden in God's mysterious sovereign purpose. It is the time in which God graciously waits for his people to repent and chastises them until they repent.

(6) The Apocalypse of B a r d The Apocalypse of Baruch dates from the late first o r early second century AD. The pseudonym Baruch and the historical setting immediately following the fall of Jerusalem in 586 uc are transparent vehicles for the author's own reactiorls to the tragedy of A D 70. The note of imminent expectation pervades the book (20: 1 f,6; 23:7; 48:39; 54: 17; 82:2; 83: 1; c - 48:32), most memorably expressed in the often-quoted lines: T h e youth of the world is past, the strength of creation is already exhausted. T h e advent of the times is very close, yea, they have passed by. T h e pitcher is near t o the well, and the ship t o the port. T h e course of the journey is reaching its destination ~t the city, and life approaches its end (85:10).'"

The events of A D 70 have not dampened but inflamed the expectation of redemption, but it is clear that the delay, while Israel is humiliated and the Gentiles triumph, is an agonizing problem, especially as Baruch sees God's own honour at stake in the fate of his people (5:l; 2121). The problem of delay is focussed in Baruch's question, 'f-iow long will these things endure for us?' ((81 :3; cf: 2 1 :19), and his prayer that G o d may 'now, quickly, show thy glory, and d o not delay the fulfilment of thy promise' (21:25).

" y Ta'au. 1 : I (Neusner, op. n t . I 477). 1 follow Neusner ( I 479, cf I 1 4 18) in preferring this version t o that in b Srxtzh. 97b, which attributes the saying about the cruel king like (Urhach, up. cit. I669f., 1 1 996 n. 63, prefers the latter.) Neusner, op. IIaman to R. Jc>shu~. d t . 11 419f, also finds evidence in Prsigta Rabbati 23:1, that EIiezcr did believe in a fixe date at which redeniption rnust come. 20 Quotations from 2 Baruch are adapted from the translation I)y R. t I. Charles (in R. H. Charles and W.O. I:.. Oestcrle); The Apocalypse of Baruch (1-ondon: SPCK, 1917)), with reference to the French translatior1 in I? Rogaert, Apocalypse dr Baruch (Sources Chritiennes 144. Paris: Gditions du Cerf., 1969) 1463-528.

Alongside the imminent expectation, Baruch recognizes theological factors which account for the delay. First among these is the traditional appeal t o the divine sovereignty. Baruch has a strong sense of the qualitative difference between G o d and man, the majesty and sovereignty of G o d over against the cfependence and frailty of man (14:8-11; 21:4-10; 48:2-17; 54:1-13). O n e aspect of this is the eternity of G o d (21:lO; 48:13) contrasted with the transitoriness of man (14:1Of, 48:12). Unlike man, w h o cannot even foresee the outcome of his own brief life, G o d surveys the whole course of the world and is sovereign over all events, determining their times (48:2f; 54:l; 56:2f). Consequently only G o d knows in advance the time of the End which he has appointed (21:8; 48:3; 54:l). Baruch's repeated use of the phrase 'in its time' (5:2; 12:4; 13:5; 20:2; 51:7; 54:l; c - 4223) stresses that the End will come only at the time which the eternal sovereign G o d has appointed. This theme therefore provides a certain counterbalance t o the urgency of the imminent expectation. A minor attempt t o fill out this appeal t o the divine sovereignty over the times is the idea that G o d has determined a fixed number of people t o be born into this world, s o that the End cannot come until that number is complete (23:2-5). (A similar idea, of a predetermined number of the righteous, is found in 4 Ezra 4:36.) This scarcely constitutes an esplznation of the delay: it simply appeals again to the irlscrutahle divine d e ~ r e e . ~ ' Baruch, however, has something more substantial t o contribute t o the understanding of delay. I observed earlier that the imminent expectation in apocalyptic is connected with the apocalyptic perception of the character of God, in particular his righteousness. It is the contradiction between the righteousness of G o d and the unrighteousness of present conditions which fires the expectation of God's immediate conling in judgment. It is therefore of the greatest interest that Baruch's understanding of the delay is also related to the character of God, in this case to his longsuffering (patience, forbearance). As Baruch himself is reminded by the angel (59:6), this quality belongs t o the ccntr'll O l d Testament revelation of God's character, t o Moses o n Mount Sinai: "l'he Lord, the Lord, a G o d merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness ...' (Ex. 34:6): the description of G o d t o which the O l d Testament frequently refers (Nu. 14:18; Pss. 86:15; 103:8; Joel 2:13; Jon. 4:2; Wisdom 15:l; cf. CII 2:4). In Baruch's words, Moses was shown 'the restraint of wrath and the abundance of longsuffering' (59:6).22 God's longsufferi~lgis that quality by which he bears with sinners, holds back his wrath, refrains from intervening in judg? ' Cf I:/ra's (ut~anrwered)qucrtes in 4 L'rvii 5 : 4 3 4 5 : why could not all the prcdcrere a\ a single generatton? 111itledtlumber o f men h a ~ Ined 2Z Baruch reters to the other characteristtcr of (;od accordtng to I- u. 34:6 in 77:6 (merclful, gractous, fatthful) and 75:s (mcrclful, gractous).

11. Four csatnplt~sfrom thc late fint century AD

75

ment as soon as the sinner's deeds deserve it, though not indefinitely.*' As Baruch correctly sees, it is this quality of God which accounts for the whole history of this sinful world: 'the longsuffering of the Most High, which has been throughout all generations, w h o has been long-suffering towards all w h o are born, sinners and righteous' ( 2 4 ~ 2 1 . ~ ~ Baruch's use of this theme is unlikely t o be original; his references t o it are too casual (12:J; 21:20f; 24:2; 48:29; 59:6; 85:8). T h e related and nearly contemporary Apocalypse of Ezra also employs the theme of God's patience (3:30; 7:33,74; cf: 9:21), and includes it in a formal nleditation o n the character of God according to Exodus 34:6f (7:132-139).25 Evidently the apocalyptic tradition had already related its eschatological concerns t o the classic features of the character of God, and seen not only God's sovereignty but also his longsuffering in the delay. T h e attribution of delay to God's patience does not always enable Baruch to take a positive view of it. In his grief over the fall of Jerusalem and the contrasting prosperity of her enemies, Baruch, like Jeremiah before him Ue. 15:15; cJ: Jon. 4:2), reproaches C o d for his patience, for restraining his wrath while his people's enemies triumph (1 l:3; cf: Is. 64:12; 4 Ezra 3:30). And in his impassioned plea for G o d to hasten the judgment, Baruch prays: H o w long will those w h o transgress in this world be polluted with their great wickedness? C o m m a n d then1 in mercy, and accomplisl~what thou saidst thou wouldst bring, that t h y might may be k n o w n t o those w h o think that thy longsuffering is weakness (2 1 :I9 f).

It is worth noticing in that passage how God's rnercy is opposed t o his longsuffering. His mercy here means his mercy t o the righteous w h o suffer; the coming of God in judgment is at the same time mercy t o the righteous and condemnation t o the wicked (82:2).lh In other words Baruch asks that G o d in his mercy to the righteous should put an end to his longsuffering towards the wicked. H e is aware, then, that his plea that God should no longer delay, while it is founded, as grayer must be, o n the character and promises of God, appeals only t o o n e aspect of God's dealings with men against another. Baruch knows that if the imminence of the judgment is denlanded by God's mercy t o the righteous (which goes hand in hand with I' Note Strobel's remark (op. at. 31): 'der fur unsere Begriffe anschcinend nur psychologische Begriff der "I.andmut" im hchraischen Sprachgcbrauch einen ausgesprochen c/~ronologrrcl~cn Bedeutungsgehalt hat' (my italics). Like Paul (Kom. 2:4), Baruch can also sometimes connect this slightly negative quality of long-suffering with the nlore positive quality of kindness (48:29; cj: 13:12; 82:9). 25 O n this passage, see Thompson, op. czt. 202 f, 301-3. " Baruch holds the common Jewish view of this period, that G o d will show mercy to Judathe righteous and strict justice to the wicked; 4 E. I? Sanders, Pauland Palt~rt~tztan zsm (London: SCM, 1977) 421.

76

li. Tbt, Deldy of the Parousu

his judgment o n the wicked), the delay in jugdment is also founded o n the character of God, on his longsuffering, which restrains his wrath towards the wicked (but therefore also delays his mercy t o the righteous). Baruch's attitude t o God's forbearance varies according t o the aspect of the fall of Jerusalem which he considers. When he laments the humiliation of Israel at the hands of her godless enemies, God's tolerance of the situation seems incomprehensible t o Baruch. When, however, he considers God's patience with Israel it becomes a more positive concept (85:8). For Baruch interprets the fall of Jerusalem as God's chastisement of his people for their sins (l:5; 4:l; 13:10; 78:6; 79:2): 'They were chastened then s o that they might be forgiven' (13:lO). Although the fall of Jerusalem was God's judgment on Israel, it was a judgment which manifested God's patience with them. It was a warning judgment, designed t o bring them t o repentance, whereas when the final judgment comes there will no longer be any time left for repentance (85:12). In this way the delay gains the positive aspect of a respite, in which God's people, who would perish if the final judgment came sooner, are graciously granted the opportunity of r~pentance.~'In the paraenetic sections of the book Baruch urges this lesson o n his readers (44:2-15; 4 6 5 f; 77:2-10; 78:3-7; 83: 1-8; 84: 1-85: 15). Finally we must notice the initially puzzling statement in which G o d says: 'Therefore have I now taken away Zion, s o that I may hasten t o visit the world in its time' (20:2).2RThe meaning of this verse must be that because God wills the repentance of his people before the End, he has stirred them t o repentance by destroying Jerusalem. The fall of Jerusalem brings the End nearer, in that it brings about a precondition of the End, the repentance of Israel. The thought is similar t o R. Eliezer's saying about the cruel king like Haman. Here it is even clearer than in R. Eliezer's case that there is n o contradiction between this thought and the idea, which Baruch stresses, that the End will come at the time God has determined. That God will 'hasten t o visit the world in its time' does not mean that he will advance the date of the End, but that, now Jerusalem has fallen, the appointed time of the End is fast approaching. The present time of delay retains in the Apocalypse of Baruch a predominantly negative character: Baruch's expressions of the miseries and worthlessness of this life have often been cited as prime examples of apocalyptic pessimism." In the shadow of the tragedy of A D 70 this aspect is hardly surprising. More remarkable, for our purposes, are the traces of a positive theological understanding of the delay in terms of God's longsuffering and his desire for his people's repentance. Here Baruch fills out the

" ''

Baruch's hints that the delay can also benefit Gentiles are less explicit, but cf 1:4; 41:4; 42:5. 'This verse is dependent on Is. 60:22; q,f n. 13 above. 2Y 21:13 f; 83:10-21; but cJ: 526: 'Rejoice in the sufferings which you now endure.'

11. Four e,~umples from the lure first century A D

77

reported sayings of R. Eliezer.'Vhe urgency of the imminent expectation is not diminished by this recognition of the positive character of the delay: the two are held in tension.

(c) 2 Peter 3 2 Peter 3 contains the most explicit treatment of the delay of theparousia in the N e w Testament. It is also, as we shall see, the most thoroughly Jewish treatment, reproducing exactly the arguments we have been studying in the Jewish literature. In fact the passage 35-13 contains nothing which could not have been written by a non-Christian Jewish writer, except perhaps the use of the simile of the thief, derived from Jesus' parable, in verse 10. It is possible that the author is closely dependent on a Jewish apocalyptic writing in this chapter, just as he depends o n the epistle of Jude in chapter 2." T h e problem of delay has been raised by false teachers, w h o so far as we can tell from the letter combined eschatological scepticism with ethical libertinisrn (ch. 2), apparently supporting the latter by appeal to Paul's teaching o n freedom from the Law (2:19; 3:15). Whether, as has often been thought, both these features were connected with a Gnostic o r proto-Gnostic form ~ less certain, since there is no clear hint of of over-realized e ~ c h a t o l a g y 'is this in 2 Peter, but it is certainly a real possibility." T h e allegation of the 'scoffers' that the delay of the parousta disproves the expectation of theparousza is met in verses 8 and 9, with what I take t o be t w o distinct arguments. The first reads: 'But d o not ignore this one fact, beloved, that one day before the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand '"trobel, op. cit. 32f, thinks that Baruch agrees with R. Joshua rather than R. Eliezer, because he holds that R. EIiczer thought the date of the tind was postponed o n account of Israel's sins, while Baruch held to God's unconditional deterniination of the End. 1). von Allrtien, 'L,'apocalyptique juive et le retard d e la parousie en I1 Pierre 3:l-13' Hcwue dc. Theologie et de Pl~ilosophie16 (1966) 255-74, attenipts t o identify specific verses as quoted from .I Jewish apocalypse, but, in view of the way he uses Jude, it is unlikely that the author of 2 Peter would quote without adaptation. It is possible that tie is using the apocryphal writing quoted in 1 Clement 23:3 f and 2 Clement 11:2f. 'j E.g. C. H. Talbert, 'I1 Peter and the Delay of the I'arousia,' Vigili~zeC:hrrstiunae 20 (1966) 137-45, w h o holds that their realized eschatology was the real basis of their denial of tl~epurousia:'it sccrns that tircir qucstion about tlie delay o f thc parousia, just as ttieir appeal t o the stability of tlie universe, is but an argument used t o justify a position held o n other grounds' (p. 143). Cf also I:. Kasemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (ET, London: SCM,1964) 171. ?' In parallel passages where the reality of future eschatology is defended against overrealized eschatology, it is the reality of future resurrection which is usually given special attention (I Cor. 15; 1 Clerncnt 23--26; 2 Clement 9-12; '3 Corhthians'3: 24-32), but it is quite possible that the author of 2 Peter deliberately preferred t o deal with the questiori of future judgment because for him the ethical i~nplicationsof traditional eschatology were paramount and he clearly regarded the eschatology of the 'scoffers' as an excuse for their immoral behaviour (cf also Polycarp, Philippkns 7).

78

5. The Defr~p ofthe Paroitsla

years as one day.' Precisely what this argument is intended t o prove is a matter of debate among the exegetes, w h o divide into t w o schools: ( I ) those w h o interpret the verse according t o parallels in contemporary Jewish and Christian literature, and conclude that it is not intended to meet the problem of delay;'' (2) those who interpret the verse as an answer t o the problem of delay, and conclude that the author has here produced an original argument which has no known precedent o r parallel in the literature. T h e first school point to the many rabbinic and second-century Christian texts in which an eschatological chronology is based on the formula 'A day of the Lord is a thousand years'. This seems to have been a standdrd exegetical rule, derived from Psalm 90:4 ('a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past'), but existing as an independent formulation. T h e procedure is to quote a biblical text in which the word 'day' occurs; then the rule 'A day of the Lord is a thousand ycars' is cited, with o r without a further quotation of Psalm 90:4 to support it; the conclusion is therefore that where the text says 'day' it means, in human terms, a thousand years. T h e rule was sometimes applied to the creation narrative, in order to yield the notion that the history of the world is to last six thousand years, six 'days' of a thousand years each, followed by a millennial Sabbath: this calculation lies behind the widespread millenarianism of the second c e n t u r ~ . 'Or, ~ similarly, thc rulc could be applied t o tcxts which wcre thought t o mention the day o r days of the Messiah (Is. 63:4; Ps. 90:15): in another tradition of debate between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, R. Eliezer concluded that the messianic kingdom would last a thousand years, but R. Joshua argued that 'days' (plural, Ps. 90:15) implies t w o thousand year~.~"he application of the rule was not always to eschatological matters:" it was also very commonly used to interpret Genesis 2:17 in accordance with the length of Adam's life.'" But all of these instances are chronological calculations: the point is not, as originally in Psalm 90:4, to contrast God's everlasting life with the transience of human life, but simply t o yield the chronological information that one of God's days, when Scripture mentions them, is equal t o a thousand of o u r ycars.

'' E Spitta, Der zulrite Nritfdrs Petrus und dry Brief dt~sJwd'zs (1 ialle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1885) 25 1-257; Strohel, op. cit. 93 f; von Allmen, art, d t . 262. 3" -p: f Rnrnabns 15:4; Irenaeus, Adv. I-faer. 5:28:3; cf b Sanh. 97a. '" Mzdrash on Psalms o n Ps. 90:4; Pcsiqta Rczbbatt 1:7 (where K. Eliezer is the later K. Eliezer b.K. Jose the Galilean). There are further calculations on a similar basis in Prsiqra Rnbbati 1:7; b Sanh. 99b; Justin, Illrzl. 81. AS von Allmen, art. rit. 262 n. I; cf Strobel, op. cit. 93. Ji4bilet~4 3 0 (the earliest example of this use of Ps. 90:4); Grn. R. 19:8; 22:l; Midrash on Psalms on Ps. 256; Justin, l>ia1.81; Irenaeus, Adz? f-Jac,r.5:23:2; Pirge de H. Eliezer 18. Gen. R. 8:2 uses the rule to prove from Pr. 8:30 that the Torah preceded the creation of the world by 2000 years.

''

"

11. Four examples from thc h t e first crnntrrryAD

79

If these parallels are t o govern the interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8, then the verse means that the 'day of judgment', mentioned in verse 7, will last a thousand years. Verse 8 is then not ;contribution to the debate about the delay, but an explanation of the eschatological expectation set out in verse 7. N o w it is true that 2 Peter 3:8 appears to cite the current exegetical rule in the first half of the saying ('one day before the Lord is as a thousand years')" and then, in the second half, t o back it up by citing Psalm 90:4. It is also a sound hermeneutical principle t o expect a writer to follow the csegetical methods of his c o n t e r n p o r a r i e ~In . ~ this ~ case, the resulting exegesis of verse 8 is very hard to sustain in context: (1) The introductory words ('But d o not ignore this one fact, beloved') formally signal a fresh line of thought, not an explanatory footnote t o verse 7. (2) If verse 8 means that the day of judgment will last a thousand years, it contributes nothing t o the argument against the 'scoffers'. It is hard to believe that in such a brief section the author would have allowed himself this entirely redundant comment. (3) There is actually no parallel t o the idea that the day of judgment would last a thousand years, and it is difficult to see how it could fit into the eschatology of 2 Peter 3. Must we then conclude, with the majority of exegetes, that the author's use of Psalm 90:4 in this verse is entirely unprecedented?" N o t at all, for there are in fact two relevant Jewish parallels which, s o far as I can tell, the commentators have not noticed, presumably because Strack and Billerbeck niissed them. T h e first is a piece of rabbinic exegesis which belongs t o the tradition of apocalyptic interpretation of the revelation to Abraham in Genesis 15. It is ascribed t o the early second-century Rabbi Eleazar b. Azariah, and although the attestation is late, the fact that it seems closely related to the traditions embodied in the Apocalypse of A b r a h a ~ n .perhaps '~ permits us to consider

''

T h ~ IS s closer t o 1's. 9 0 4 than the usual tormulatrcrn of the rule, but, for x u ~ t cKvyic!), see Ep. of Barnabas 15:4 ( n c i ~~'O T ( ) ) , and, for tbs, see Justin, Dul. 8 1; Irenaeus, Adv. H a m 5:23:2; 5:28:3. " Vori Allmen, art. at 262 n. I . E.. g. J. N. I). Kelly, A commentary on tbt. Epzstles crf Pcter and o f / u d ~(I.ondon: A. & C:. Black, 1969) 362. ' l Apocalypse of Abraham 28-30: tlic text is partly corrupt and in cli. 29 has suffered C h r i s t ~ a n~nterpolaticrn,s o that it IS d~fficultt o be sure of the chronological reckonings. It seems that the whole of this 'age of ungodliness' i.i reckoned as one day of twelve hours (perhaps o n the basis on Gen. 15:l I), and perhaps each hour lasts 400 years (as in ch. 32) ratller than 100 years (as the present text of ch. 28 seems t o indicate). In any case, the general .~pproacht o Gen. 15 is sin~il.~r t o that in h r q c de R. I:'lic,~er 28, arid it is relevant that I,. Hartnian, "l'hc Functions of Some So-Called Apocalyptic 'I'imetables', N'TS 22 (1975-6) 10, considers that the message ot the 'timetable' in the Apocnlypw ofAbrahanz 'is riot a calculation of the end, but rather an attempt t o solve the moral and religious problem posed by the situation of the faithful'.

''

it in this context. From the text of Genesis 15 it is deduced that the period during which Abraham (according t o 15:11) drove away the birds of prey from the sacrificial carcasses was a day, frotn sunrise to sunset. 'The birds of prey are taken t o represent the Gentile oppressors of Israel during the period of the four kingdoms. Therefore, R. Eleazar says, 'From this incident thou mayest learn that the rule of these four kingdoms will only last one day according to the day of the I ioly One, blessed be he'." T h e reference to 'the day of the Holy One' must be to the maxim 'A day of the L.ord is a thousand years'. T h e relevance of this text is that, unlike the other rabbinic texts already mentioned, it does relate t o the delay of the End, for in Jewish apocalyptic the period of the four kingdoms is precisely the period of delay. Moreover, I doubt whether the exegesis is primarily intended as a chronological calculation," again unlike the other texts. T h e point is that the rule of the four kingdoms 'will only last one day', ir. that although for oppressed Israel the time seems very long, froni God's eternal perspective it is a very brief period. This reflection therefore has the function of consolation for Israel, in that it relativizes the importance of the period of Gentile domination. It thus provides a parallel t o the thought of 2 Peter 3:8, which is surely that those w h o complain of the delay have got it o u t of perspectivc: in the perspectivc of eternity it is only a short time. With the second parallel we are o n chronologically safer ground, for it comes from the Apocalypse of Rarr.rcC).In a passage clearly inspired by I'salm 90, Baruch reflects on the contrast between the transience of Inan and the eternity of God: For and But and

in a little time a r e w e born, in a little time d o w e return. with thee t h e h o u r s are as tlie ages, t h e d a y s arc a s t h e generations (2 Baruch 48:12f).45

Ptrcic. lit. K / l t e ~ e 28. r translatron trtrrn C;. Ertedlander, Ark2 dc Rabbx Elrc~er( N e w York: IIermon I'res\, 1965') 200. I o w e n ~ yknowledge of tilts text t o P. Bogacrt, op cu I1 88, w h o quotes from the sanie tradrtron tn Yalqut 5hztn'onr 76. 44 If the text were tntcrprcted chronologtcally, then perhaps rt would be plausrble t o suggest a date of ortgin for the t r a d ~ t l o nwhen the end of a period of o n e thousand years frorn 586 i ~ cwas approachrng. But eben rn the case of texts whtch appear t o be more Inof date cannot be trusted: rf 4 Ezra 10:45f, 14:11 f terested 111chronology, such calcul'~t~ons were taken literally and according t o modern chronology, the I.nd would hakc been far ~ Lzb Ant Rtb 1915 drstant 111 the tuturc when the book was wrlttcn, s ~ r n r l a r lPs-Phrlo, ( a ~ c e p t ~ nthe g very plausrblc emendatron proposed by M. Wadsworth, 'The L>eatli of Moses and the Rrddlc of the E nd of 'Trn~eIn Pseudo-I'hrlo,'JJS 28 (1 977) I ? f). IS As R. H Charles, The Apocalypse of R a r ~ c h(I ondon: A. & C. Black, 1896) 75, ud loc, notes, we should hake ekpecteci 'the ages are as the hours and the generattons are as the days'; perhaps this should cautron us agatnst scerng too much detatled srgntficance tn tlie t w o halves of the saying 111 2 I'et. 3.8

11. Four examples from the late first century AD

81

At least this text proves that it was possible for a contemporary of the author of 2 Peter to read Psalm 90:4 in its original sense of a contrast between God's endless existence and man's brief span of life. In its immediate context in 2 Baruch it is not directly related to the problem of delay, but it is an instance of Baruch's frequent theme of God's sovereignty over the times, which, as we have seen, is one of the themes which serves to balance the theme of eschatological imminence. These two parallels seem to me to illuminate the meaning of 2 Peter 3% This verse is not, as Kasemann complains, 'a philosophical speculation about the being of God, to which a different conception of time is made to apply from that which applies to us'.46 It does not mean that God's perception of time is s o utterly unrelated t o ours that the very idea of delay becomes quite meaningless and nothing can any longer be said about the time until theparousta. Rather the verse contrasts man man's transience with God's everlastingness, the limited perspective of man whose expectations tend to be bounded by his own brief lifetime with the perspective of the eternal God who surveys the whole of history. The reason why the imminent expectation of the apocalyptist tends to mean to him the expectation of the End within his own lifetime is, partly at least, this human limitation: he is impatient to see the redemption himself.The eternal God is free from that particular impatienc~.~' The implication is not that the believer should discard the imminent expectation," but that he must set against it the consideration that the delay which seems so lengthy to him may not be so significant within that total perspective o n the total course of history which G o d commands. In 2 Peter 3:9 the author offers his positive understanding of the delay: 'The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.' I hope that adequate comment on this verse has already been provided by the whole of our study of the Jewish apocalyptic material. The problem of delay is here met in a way which had become standard in the Jewish thinking of the time:" in fact this verse is a succinct statement Op. a t . 194. C& August~ne'ssaylng, quoted by C. Bigg, A Crrttcal and Exegetrcal Commentary on the Epstles ofSt Peter and St Jude (Edinburgh: 'l:& T. Clark, 1901)295, and repeated by M. Green, The Second Eptstle General of Peter and the General Eptstle of Jude (London: IVI', 1968) 134, that God ispatrens qura etemus. '* T. I'ornberg, An Early Church rn a Pluralrstrc Sonety (Coniectanea Biblica: N T Series 9. Lund: Gleerup, 1977)68, thinks that '2 I'et. 3:8 is the earliest example of the explrat abandonment by an orthodox Christian writer of the expectation of a speedy Parousia'. " Fornberg, rbrd. 71, who wishes to stress the I-Iellenistic and non-Jew~shcharacter of 2 Peter, neglects the Jewish parallels to 3:9 in favour of the parallel in Plutarch, Ile sera numtnts vrndrcata. But the whole context makes the Jewish parallels the relevant ones. '6 47

82

5. The Ilelay o f t h c Purousiu

of the ideas about the delay which we have traced in Jewish apocalyptic. There is first of all the appeal to God's sovereignty: he is not late in fulfilling his promise (this point is made by means of the standard reference to Hab. 2:3);50the delay belongs to his purpose. Then the positive meaning of the delay is explained as R. Eliezer and the Apocalypse of Baruch explained it. G o d restrains his anger in order t o give his people (now Christians rather than Jews) opportunity to repent.5' The author of 2 Peter, then, met the problem of delay as posed by the 'scoffers' from the resources of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition. His arguments were not novel arguments hastily contrived to meet the unexpected crisis of delay. They were arguments familiar in contemporary Jewish circles where the problenl of delay was part and parcel of the apocalyptic tradition. Like the author of the Apocalypse of Baruch, the author of 2 Peter recognized that alongside the theological factors which make for imminence must be set theological factors which account for delay. Against the apocalyptists' longing for escliatological righteousness, which this writer clearly shared (3:13), must be set the patience of God who characteristically holds back from condemning the sinner while he may still repent. The believer must hold the two sides of the matter in tension. Only God from the perspective of eternity knows the temporal point at which they meet, where the tension will be resolved in tlie event of the End. The problem of delay is thus contained within the expectation, as it always had been in the Jewish tradition.

(d) The Apocnlypse of John Finally, we turn t o the Apocalypse of John, which, rooted as it is in the apocalyptic tradition, employs the traditional Jewish approaches to the problem of delay, but also, being a deeply Christian apocalypse, employs them with far more creative Christian reinterpretation than we have found in 2 Peter.

': Cf. Ecclus. 3518, but there is the emphasis is very different.

''

'The xtiv~crgmust mean, initially at least, a11 tlie readers. ?'he Christian mission is not here in view: contra A. I.. Moore, The Parousiu in the New Tcstamerrt (Supplements t o N o v u m 'Ti.stanicnturn 13.1,ciden: E. J. Brill, 1966) 154. T h e further comment, in 3:12, that Christians by living holy lives may 'hasten' the coming of the End is the o b s c n ~ eof 3:9. T h e reference t o Is. h0:12 was traditional (see n. 13 above), though it is usually G o d w h o is said t o hasten the time of the End. There are, however, rabbinic parallels, such as the saying of K. Judah, 'Great is charity, for it brings redemption nearer' ( b Raba Ratra IOa), and the saying of K. Jose the Galilean, 'Great is repentance, for it brings redelription nearer' (b Yoma 86b). As we have already noticed in the case of R. Eliezer and the Apocizlypse ofRartcc-b, this idea need not contradict the view that G o d has appointed the time of the End; it only means that God's sovereign determination takes human affairs into account.

I I . Four ex~lmplesfrom the Lzte first century AD

83

By now it should come as no surprise t o learn tliat the imminent expectation and the delay of the parousia both feature in Revelation. The note of imminence is more obvious, owing to the emphasis it receives in the opening and closing sections of the book (1 :1,3; 22:6,7,10,12,20). T h e motif of delay is somewhat less evident to us, but would have been clear enough to John's readers: it can be found principally in the section chapters 6-1 1. We should notice first how the imminent expectation receives a thoroughly Christian character: if is thepurousia of Jesus Christ which is expected. N o t simply the End, but Jesus, is coming soon (2:16; 3:ll; 22:7,12,20; cf: 1:7; 3:3; 16:15). Moreover, this Jesus has already won the eschatological victory over evil (3:21; 5 5 ; 12:7-11); as the passover Lamb lie has already accomplished the new Exodus of the End-time (5:6-10; cj: 15:3); he already holds the keys of death, and rules the world from his Father's throne (1 :18; 3:2 1; 1:5). It has frequently been said that, by comparison with Jewish apocalyptic, the problem of eschatological delay was less acute for the early church because of the element of realized eschatology in Christian thinking. N o longer was the future expectation paramount, because in the death and resurrection of Jesus in the past G o d had already acconlplished the decisive eschatological act.5L'There is truth in this argument - and, as we shall see, it is this past act of G o d in Christ which gives the present time of delay its positive nieaning in Revelation - but it should also be noticed that the tension of 'already' arids 'not yet' in early Christianity also furictiorled t o heighten the sense of eschatological imminence. For if tlie victory over evil has already been won, it seems even more necessary that the actual eradication of evil from the world sliould follow very soon. T h e powers of evil at work in the world loom large in the imagery of Revelation: the problems of theodicy which they pose are, in one sense, not not alleviated but intensified by the faith that Christ has already conquered thern. Thus the characteristic tension of imniinence and delay in Jewish apocalyptic seems to be, if anything, sharpened by the 'already' of Christian faith, since it contributes to both sides of the tension. The message of Revelation is conveyed as much by literary impact as by conventional theological statenlent, and this is true of the motif of delay in chapters 6-1 1. In those chapters John portrays the movement from Christ's victory on the cross towards tlie fulfilment of tliat victory at tlie parousju, and he structures that movement in the series of sevens: the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the further series of seven bowls which follows in chapter 16. In chapter 5 the reader has heard of the victory of the Lamb, who is declared worthy t o open tlie scroll, 2. e. to release into the world God's

"

C f ; Cullmann, Chnrt and firne, 86-90, though Cullmann doe5 acknowledgc that the 'already o f primitive Christianity did inte~isifythe ercharolog~calexpectation.

purpose of establishing his Kingdom. T h e 1,amb's victory o n the cross is the fundamental achievement of that purpose; all that remains is its outworking in world history. So John's original readers would move into chapter 6 full of expectancy: a rapid series of apocalyptic judgrrients would quickly crush all opposition and inaugurate the Kingdom. This expectancy, however, is deliberately frustrated throughout chapters 6-1 1. T h e impressive quartet of horsenlen w h o are released into history when the Lamb opens the first four seals turn o u t (623) t o be disappointingly moderate judgments, affecting only a quarter of the earth. T h e readers' sense of disappointment will correspond t o the cry of the martyrs, ' H o w long?', at the opening of the fifth seal (6:lO). With the sixth seal, however, expectation will mount again: the familiar apocalyptic imagery heralds the actual arrival of the day of judgment. But again John holds his readers in suspense, inserting a long parenthesis (ch. 7) before the final, seventh seal. The series of trumpets follow a similar pattern. T h e judgments are now intensified, but they are still limited, this time affecting a third of the earth and its inhabitants. Instead of accomplishing a swift annihilation of the enemies of God, it becomes clear that these judgments are preliminary warning judgments, designed, in the patience of God, to give men the opportunity of repentance. Following the sixth trumpet, however, we are told that these judgments have not brought men to repentance; they remain as impenitent as ever (9:20f). O n c e again, therefore, the readers' expectation will rise: God's patience must now be exhausted; surely the final judgment of the seventh trumpet will now follow. O n c e again, however, John frustrates this expectation, inserting a long passage between the sixth and seventh trumpets, just as he had done between the sixth and seventh seals. O n l y when we reach the seven bowls (ch. 16), with which 'the wrath of G a d is ended' (15:1), d o we find an uninterrupted series of total judgments moving rapidly t o the final extinction of the evil powers. In this way John has incorporated the motif of delay into the structure of his book, especially in the form of the parentheses which precede the final seal and the final trumpet. John's understanding of the meaning of the delay we shall expect t o find in the content of these parentheses, and also in the episode of the fifth seal (69-1 I), which is his first explicit treatment of the issue of delay. The martyrs' cry ' H o w long?' (6:lO) is the traditional apocalyptic question about the delay (Dn. 12:6; Hab. 1:2; Zc. 1:12; 2 Baruch 21:25; 4 Ezra 4:33,35), and the problern from which it arises - the problem of justice and vindication for the martyrs - dates at least from the time of the Maccabean martyrs. T h e answer t o the question is also traditional. T h e delay will last 'a little while longer' (cf: Is. 26:20; Hg. 2 6 ; Heb. 10:37; the same motif in Rev. 1212; 17:lO) until the predetermined quota of martyrs is complete. This

I / . I.our cxamplcs fiom rhc lrrtt first century A D

85

idea is clearly akin to 2 Baruch 23:2-5 (discussed above) and even closer to I Enoch 47 and 4 Ezra 4:35-37: the last passage may suggest that John has taken over even the depiction of the scene from tradition. John has therefore taken over this tradition about the meaning of delay without modification, except that he has placed it in the context of the significance of martyrdom according t o his work as a whole." For John, Christian martyrdom belongs t o the Christian's discipleship of Jesus and the Christian's participation in Jesus' own witness and victory through the cross. In that context the meaning of the delay in this passage goes deeper than the idea of an arbitrarily decreed quota of martyrdoms. In advance of his final victory over evil by power, G o d has already won tlie victory of sacrificial suffering, the victory of the slain Lamb. H e has done s o because he prefers t o come to sinners in grace, rather than in merely destructive wrath. But the Lamb's mission and victory must be continued in the followers of the Lamb. 'l'herefore the vindication of the martyrs must wait until all have sealed their witness in blood and God's purposes of grace for the world have been fulfilled through them. T h e logic of delay here is the logic of tlie cross. This is the sigtiificance which 6:9-11 will gain as the rest of Revelation unfolds the significance of the martyrs. John does not, in s o many words, attribute the delay t o the longsuffering of God, but characteristically he pictures this motif. Chapter 7, the parenthesis between the sixth and seventh seals, opens with the picture of the four angels holding back the four winds of the earth, t o prevent them from harming the earth: a picture of what Baruch called 'the restraint of wrath" (2 Baruch 59%). G o d holds back the release of his final judgment on the world until the angels 'have sealed the servants of G o d o n their foreheads' (7:3): in other words, the delay is the period in which men become Christians and are therefore protected from the coming wrath of God. (Paradoxically, this protection makes them potential martyrs: 7:14.) Thus, from the treatment of delay within the sever1 seals sectio~i,we learn that God delays the End for the sake of the church, s o that the Lamb may be the leader of a vast new people of G o d drawn from every nation and sharing his victory through suffering. T h e treatment of delay in the scven trumpets section is less easy t o follow, because the parenthesis between the sixth and seventh trumpets (l0:l-11:13) is probably the most obscure passage in Revelation, as the wide variety of suggested interpretations shows. It will be easier to begin with the latter part of it: the story of the t w o witnesses (1 1 :3-13). With many commentators, 1

''

CJ <;. B . Caird, -I%r Rcwdc.fattortofSt John the Dtvtne ( I ondon: A. & C. Black, 1966) 87; J. Swcrct. Rmelcrrton (London: SCM, 1979) 142.

86

I. T / JDelay ~ ofrhe Parousza

take this as a parable of the church's mission t o the world.5' T h e witnesses are t w o because of the Deuteronomic requirement of t w o witnesses. They prophesy for three and half years (1 1 3 ) because this is the symbolic figure (taken over from Daniel) which John uses t o designate the 'little while' of the delay. Along with many O l d Testament allusions in the passage, the fact that the witnesses' career is modelled o n that of Jesus is noteworthy: their dead bodies lie in the street of the city 'where their Lord was crucified' (1 1:8), and after three and a half days they are raised and ascend t o heaven. In all probability the final words of the section, 'the rest were terrified and gave glory t o the G o d of heaven' ( 1 1:13), are intended t o indicate sincere r e p ~ n t a n c e . ~In ' other words, the men w h o after the judgments of the six trumpet-blasts remained impenitent (9:20f) are now brought t o repentance through the suffering witncss of the church. T h u s the question with which the original readers may well have concluded chapter 9 - 'Surely G o d will no longer be patient?' - is answered in chapter 11. Yes, he will be patient because he has another strategy t o reach the impenitent, a strategy which began with the sacrifice of the Lamb and continues in the suffering witness of his followers. This is John's further answer t o the meaning of delay: not only is the delay for the sake of the church itself (ch. i'), it is for the sake of the church's witncss t o the world. God's desire that sinners should repent does not stop at simply giving them time, o r even at inflicting warning judgments o n them; more than that, G o d actively seeks them in the mission of his Son and his church. T h e delay of theparotrsia is filled with the mission of the church. We turn t o the problematic chapter 10. T h e episode of the seven thunders (10:3 f) h ~ puzzled s the commentators. Probably the seven thunders represent a further series of warning judgments, like the seals and the t r u n ~ p e t s . ~ " T h e command t o 'seal u p what the seven thunders have said"(10:3) is odd, " 1 hair discusced this passage bnefl, in 'Tile Kole of the Spir~tIn the Apocal) pse', I Q 52 (1980) 66-83. (~ommentatorsw h o take a s~milarkicw tnclude I1.B. Swete, The Apocalypse o f J t John (1 ondon: Macmillan, '1007) 1 3 4 4 1 ; M. Kiddlc, T/?eRevelarton of $t John ( l ondon: t fodder and Stoughton, 1940) 176-206; Csird, op a t 1 3 3 3 0 ; G . R. Beasle, -hlurra\, The Rook of Revcliltton (L.orrdon: Ol~phantc,1974) 176-87; R. 1 I. Mounie, T i ~ Hook e ofRa~elrrtton(Gmnd Rapids: Eerdn~anc,1977) 222-9; Sweet, op at 181-9. 55 50 Swete, op a t 141; R. 11. Charles, A Cntzcal and Exegetrcal Commentary on the Rcvelatron of St John (kd~nburgh:'I: tL. '1: Clark, 1920) I, 291 f; Caird, op. ctt 139f; L . Morris, The Ktvc*lrrttonoJ St John (1 ondon: Tyndale I'ress, 1969) 152; C . k. I add, A Commentary on the Rc.ireltltron of John (Grand Kapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 139f; BeaslcyMurray, op a t 187; Sweet, op c-rt 189 '"j . Ilay, 'kchoes of Baal's reten thunders and lightnings in Psalnl xuu and Ilahakkuk 1 1 1 9 and the identitv of the seraphim in Isaiah vi,' V T 29 (1979) 143-51, finds a Ugaritic

rcferciice t o the se\cn thunders of Baal, which are reflected in Ps. 29. Probably, therefore, john's reference to 'the seven thunders' (10:3) is to a standard apocal) ptic image which derikcs ult~matel,,like ~ n u c hapocalt ptic imagery, trorrl Canaanite rnl thology.

[I. Four e.ua~nplcsfrornthe late first century AD

87

since John has not written what they said, and he is told not t o write it: there is no document t o seal up. Some have suggested that the content of the seven thunders is t o be kept secret: John is not t o reveal it as he has revealed the content of the seven trumpet^.^' In that case, there are t o be further warning judgments, but John's readers are not permitted t o know about them. This explanation has the disadvantage of seeming to contradict verse 6, where the angel swears that there will be no more delay. The alternative suggestion is that the seven thunders represent a further series of warning judgments which are They arc sealed u p because they are not d o occur. Here 'seal up' is being used as the antithesis of 'open the seal' in chapter 6: if t o 'open the seal' means to release the contents of the document into history, then t o 'seal up' would mean to prevent the seven thunders being released into history. O n this view, verse 6 follows logically: G o d has cut short the series of warning judgments, and so there will be no more delay before the final judgment of the seventh trumpet. However, when we turn to the angel's statement in verses 6f, there are further problems. These verses are dependent on Daniel 12:6f, where in reply t o Daniel's question 'I-low long?,' the angel swears that it will be 'for a time, two times, and half a time; and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes t o an end all these things would be accomplished'. John's angel appears t o contradict Daniel's: instead of three and a half times (years) of delay, there will be no more delay.5YBut if John means t o indicate that the words of Daniel's angel are inappropriate at this stage of history because there is now t o be no more delay, it is strange that, almost immediately (in 11:2 f), he goes o n t o use Daniel's period of three and a half years as his own symbol of the period of delay before the End, during which the power of the new holy people, the church, is being shattered in martyrdom. O n grounds of structureG0I would reject the suggestionh' that in chapter 10 John stands at the end of the three and a half years and then in chapter 11 recapitulates the tliree and a half years.

5 7 So Swetc, op. crt. 128; W Hcndriksen, More than Conyrterors (London: Intcr-Varsity Press, 1962) 114; Mot ris, op. t r r . 139; L.add, op. c t r . 143. 3' So A.M. f.'arrcr, The Kevelutron of St john the Drvzne (Oxford: Clarendori Prcss, 1964) 125; Caird, op. at. 126 f; Mounce, op. crt. 209 f. 5"1 cotnrnentators now agree that ~~hvcrc, oBx~rtImat (lO:6), should be translated 'there shall he n o more delay'. The wordc probably echo I Iab. 2:3. 63 The whole section 10:1-11:13 is a unit closely associated with the sixth trumpet (9:13-21) by nieaiis of 9:12 and 11:24. It is clear from 10:8 that 10:8-11 ~wcceedsthe episode of the seven thunders John is forbidden to reveal the content of the thunders but instead is given a tiew comniission to prophesy (1O:ll). This cornrnissioti IS fulfilled ~nitlallyin 11:l-13, more expansively in chs. 12-14. IIlcndrikson, op. at. 125; Morris, op. C Y ~ . 140.

"

88

S. The IIelrzy oJ the I'arousm

We seem, then, to be faced with a straight contradiction. In lo:!-7 we are told that there are to be no nlore warning judgments and no more delay before the final trumpet-blast which is about t o sound.'l In 11:l-13 (to which 10:s-11 is introductory) we find a deldy which is filled with the church's mission: if G o d has revoked further warning judgments it is not because his patience is ended, but because he purposes to reach men through the church's witness. I tentatively suggest that John intended this contradiction. The days of the sixth trumpet in which he placed himself are the days in which 'the time is near' (1:3; 22:10), when thc final 'woe' is coming 'soon' ( 1 1:24), when there is to be no more dclay (10:7). And yet, while G o d does still delay, the church is called t o bear her faithful witness in prophecy and martyrdom (1 1:l-13). The tension of imminence and delay is here starkly set out, and John makes no attempt t o resolve it: he only knows that the church must live in this tension. To conclude: Revelation maintains the typical apocalyptic tension of imminence and dclay, now sharpened and characterized in a peculiarly Christian manner. T h e imminent expectation focuses o n theparousia of the already victorious Christ: and the book ends with the promise, 'I am coming soon', and the church's urgent response, 'Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!' (22:20). Rut the manner of the victory which Christ has already won - a sacrificial offering to ransom sinners from every nation (5:9) - gives fresh meaning t o the delay, which now becomes the time of the church's universal mission, characterized by suffering witness in discipleship t o the crucified Christ. In this way, it should be noticed, the apocalyptic theodicy probleni of innocent suffering gains a fresh perspective. Innocent suffering still cries out for eschatological righteousness (6:10; cf: 18:1-1 9:3). But o n the other hand, G o d delays the parousta not simply in spite of his people's sufferings, but actually so that his people niay suffer that positive, creative suffering which comes t o the followers of the cross of Christ.

Sonie have sought to e v d c the difficulty by arguing either (1) that 10:6f means only that there will he n o niore delay before, thrprriod ofthree a n d a halfyeirrs (so Charles, op. cit. 1,263,265f; Caird, op. cit. 127f; Mounce, op. cit. 21 I; Sweet, op. dr. 127f), trr (2) that 10:6f means orily that when the seventh rrurnpet soirnds therc will he no morc delay (so Swete, op. cjt. 129). But these arc evasions which miss the point of the passage.

6. A Note o n a Problem in the Greek Version of 1 Enoch 1 . Y In Codex Panopolitanus (C) the opening clause of 1 Enoch i. 9 reads: 6 ~ 1 ' ~ ( ~ I2I U5Q L~~ U L u6toG V ncxi T O ~ Cixyiot~a6toG.. . The quotation K G ~ t o 5Ev ixyicry of this verse in Jude 14 differs considerably: iboic ;I~OEV pv~iciaivu8toD.. . Cf. Ethiopic: 'And behold! he comes with ten thousand holy ones. .."; Pseudo-Cyprian: 'ecce veriit cum multis milibus nuntiorum suorum ...'" Although it is widely agreed that Jude has inserted K u ~ t o g at , ~ three other points where his version differs from C it is likely that he is closer to the original Aramaic: (d) ibozi: Jude agrees with the Ethiopic and PseudoCyprian against C;" (b) fih0exr: Jude's 'prophetic perfect" is found also ~ : ~ agrees with the in Pseudo-Cyprian; (c) t v iryiuig p-ltr~uiotuc x i c ~ u Jude Ethiopic and, more importantly, with the Qumran Aramaic fragment ( 4 4 ~'"QXFTCX~ ui)v

"

'

First publication: Journal of 7%c~olo~ical Studios 32 (1 981) 136-1 38.

MS. OTFL. MS ~oi;.

Knibb, Tbr Ethiopic Book of Enoch (Oxford, 1978), vol. ii, pp. 59f. xvi; text in K.11. Charles, The Hook of Enorb (2nd edn., Oxforci, 19 12), p. 275. Presumably as a Christologic.d interpretation, but perhaps also by analogy with other theophany texts (Isa. xl. IG, Ixvi. 15; Zech. xiv. 5) which were also applied t o the parousia in primitive Christianity. In favour of the originality of Jude's vcrsiori here arc Charles, op. cit., p. 8; M. Black, 'The Maranatha Invocation and Jude 14, 1 5 (I Erioch 1: 9)', in Christ and Spirit in the N r w Testament; in honour ?fC. E D . Moule, ed. B. Lindars and S.S. Smalley (Cambridge, 1973), p. 195 ('It is a definite possibility that ihoii should be restored in the Aramaic text'); C.D. Osburn, "The C:lrristological U s e of I 111och i. 9 it1 Jude 14, 15', N. 7:s. xxiii (1976-7), pp. 335f.; cf. J. vander Kani, 'The 'Theophany of Enoch I 3b-7, 9', V. 7: xxiii (1973), pp. 147f. J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Ararnaic Fragments of Qumrrin Cave 4 (Oxford, 1976), p. 186, unaccountably prefers OTEL in (1, corrected t o &TF, as rendering Aramaic '7:. Jude's aorist is widely regarded as equivalent t o a prophetic perfect: c. g. J. R. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistkr of St. I'ipter (London, 1907), p. 45; j. Chaine, Les c;pitrescatholiqucs (2 nd edn., Paris, 1939), p. 322; W. Grundrnann, Der Rriefdes Judas und der zvcitc, Hrirfdes Petrus (Berliri, 1974), p. 42. T h e best attested reading in Jude (cf. discussion in Osburn, art, cit., pp. 337f.); o n the variants, iricluding I"< which add hyyi>,u)v, see below. ".A.

' Ad Novatmtzrtm,

90

6. A Note on ' 1 ProLletn

rtl

the (;reek l/t~rszo?zof I Enoch 1. 9

EnL I i. 15): [':]'=;'-; ~Kp2'2]." T h e readings of C in the first t w o of these cases have been explained: (a) both iboic and i i ~may t derive from an original 'YK,as Knibb suggest^,'^ o r possibly from an original K7 'YH,the phrase with in Mic. i. 3 (a theophany text on which which the Targunl renders -:7 T L (b)EQXFTCIL, 1 Enoch i. 4-6 depends), where the Septuagint has ~ I ~ iboiv;" like the Ethiopic's 'he cornes', is a more idiomatic rendering of an Aramaic prophetic perfect, while GAOFS is the more literal translation.'-' It is more difficult, however, t o explain the reading of C at (c). A possible solution t o this difficulty may be found by considering the early Christian treatment of a very similar eschatological theophany passage: L i y ~ ~6oOt.6~ j p.tov, xui Zech. xiv. 5 b, which the Septuagint renders: xui ~ C E K nuvtc.g oi tiyioi pctYcriwoP.Like many other O l d Testament theophany texts, this was from an early stage in primitive Christianity interpreted Christologically of the parousia of thc Lord Jesus. I t is explicitly quoted in Didachc xvi. 7, but probably also lies behind many other early Christian texts: Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31; Mark viii. 38; Luke is. 26; 1 Thess. iii. 13; 2 Thess. i. 7; Rev. xis. 14; Apocalypse of Peter i (Ethiopic); Ascension of Isaiah iv. 14; Sibylline Oracles ii. 242, viii. 221. It was the main source (though compare also Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. Ixviii. 18) of the expectation that the 1,ord at his parousia would be accompanied by a retinue of angels. 'She early church usually (and correctly) understood oi i-iyu~in Zech. xiv. 5 t o be the angels, the divine \Varrior's heavenly army. It is given this sense in Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31; Mark viii. 37; Luke ix. 26; 2 Thess. i. 7; Apocalypse of I'eter i (Ethiopic); Sibylline Oracle ii. 242; and probably in 1 Thess. iii. 13. But although 'the holy ones' was commonly used to mean angels in Judaism (and especially in the Qumran texts)," in the ordinary usage of the early church oi iiyio~usually meant Christians, not angels. Probably the only N e w 'Testament texts in which oi uyioi are angels are 1 Thcss. iii. 13 (echoing Zcch. xiv. 5); Jude 14 (quoting 1 Enoch i. 9); Eph. i. 18; Col. i. 12 (both, if they d o refer t o angels, echoing an established phrase).'%ost of

.:

blilik, op. cit., p. 184 anil Pldte IS. '"Op. cit. ii, p. 59. I:or *-n = 'for', sco J. A. t:itzrnyer, The Genesis Apomyphon of Q w r n ran C'zve I: A Cornnz~*ntary(2nd edn. Rome, 1971), p. 96; and especially 1 Q GenApoc xxi 14. " vander Kam, art. cit.. pp. 147f. " Ihid., p. 148; Osburn, art. cit., p. 337. The prophetic perfect is rare in Aramaic, but does exist: M. Black, art. cit., p. 196; idem, 'The Christological Use of the old Testament in the N e w Testament', N. 71.5. xviii (1971-2), p. 10n. ') S. II Noll, Angelology in the Qumrun Texts (unpublished 1%. 1). tlncsis, University of Manchester, 1979), pp. 220-2, lists fifty-four exarnplcs of FT; and r-;; ~neanirlgangels in the Qumran texts. '" Cf. E. L.ohse, Colosszuns and Pl~ilenzon(Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 35f.; cf. QS xi. 7; Wisd. v. 5. 2 'Thess. i. 10 echoes Ps. Ixxxviii. 7 I.XX, but probably with reference to Christians, not angels.

6. A More orr a Problern

~ T the Z

G r c e k Vc*rstonof I Enocl) 1. 9

91

the passages which reflect an interpretation of Zech. xiv. 5 as referring to angels d o so by introducing the word hyyekoi (Matt. xvi. 27, xxv. 31; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26; 2 Thess. i. 7; Apocalypse of Peter i (Ethiopic); Sibylline Oracle ii. 242). The variant readings at Jude 14 (beginning with P7'), which introduce (xyyihwv, also attest that iiycoi was not easily understood to mean angels, but needed an explanatory gloss.'j It is therefore not surprising that some early Christian texts provide evidence of an alternative interpretation of Zech. xiv. 5 in which oi 6yioi (especially in the light of the teaching of 1 Thess. iv. 14, 16f.) were taken t o be Christians. In Rev. xix. 15 it seems (cf. xvii. 14) that the heavenly army is composed of the Christian martyrs. Didache xvi. 7 quotes Zech. xiv. 5 with explicit reference t o the Christians w h o will rise from the dead and accompany the Lord at his parousia. Finally, in Ascension of Isa. iv. 14 the two traditions of interpretation are combined: 'the Lord will come with his angels and with the hosts of the holy ones' (and compare 16, which makes clear that 'the holy ones' are the Christian dead). It is this combination of the t w o early Christian interpretations of Zech. xiv. 5 which is reflected in the Greek version of 1 Enoch i. 9.16 Early Christian readers would immediately understand tczi~pu~iciuiva 0 ~ o i as i a reference t o the angels (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. Ixviii. 18; Dan. vii. 10; Matt. xxvi. 53; Heb. xii. 22; 1 Clem. xxxiv. 6) and roig Scyioy aDtoi) as a reference to Christians. The reading of C must therefore be explained either as a Christian interpretative gloss o n a Greek text which originally rendered the Aramaic more accurately, or possibly (though this, of course, would need to be supported by other evidence) as an indication that C represents an originally Christian translation of 1 Enoch."

I' The use o f the term 'the holy angels' was a way of preserving the traditional epithet but rcmovirig the ambiguity: Mark viii. 38; 1,uke is. 26; Acts x. 22; Rev. xiv. 10; Ifermas, VJS.Il.ii. 7; 111, iv. 1 f. I" Note that Ascension of Isaiah derives from those Christian apocalyptic circles which must especially have valued the Enocli literature. " J. Uarr, 'Aramaic-Greek notes o n the Rook of E~iocli(II)', J.S.S. xxiv (1979), p. 191, concludes tcntatively: 'It seems at first sight probable that the translation of Enoch into Creek belonged to the same general stage and stratuni of translation as the L.XX translation of Daniel.'

7. The Son of Man:

'A Man in my Position' o r 'Someone'?" A critique of Barnabas Lindars's proposal Professor Barnabas Lindar's new book, Jesus Son of Man,' is a work of major importance for the 'Son of Man' debate, and deserves the closest consideration. Its importance lies as much in its discussion of the extension and development of Son of Man sayings in Q and the four Gospels as in its novel proposal on the meaning of Jesus' use of the phrase, but my comments here are largely concerned with the latter. Lindars stands within the general trend of Son of Man scholarship pioneered (in its recent phase) by Geza Vermes and pursued also by Maurice Casey, which takes as the clue t o Jesus' usage the examples of bar nash and bar nasha as a form of self-reference in later Jewish Aramaic. But, like Casey, he rejects Vermes's claim that there are examples in which bar nasha is an idiomatic form of exclusive self-reference (a periphrasis for '1'), and agrees with Casey that all the examples in which bar nasha functions as a self-reference are examples of the generic use, in which self-reference is possible because the speaker is included among those to whom bar nasha refers. But whereas Casey recognized only a properly generic use (bar nasha = 'mankind', 'each and every man'), Lindars claims that there are examples of 'the idiomatic use of the generic article, in which the speaker refers to a class of persons, with whom he identifies himself' (bar nasha = 'a man in my position'). 'It is this idiom ... which provides the best guidance to the use of Son of Man in the sayings of J e ~ u s ' .H~e proceeds to use this idiom as a criterion of dominical authenticity: only Son of Man sayings which use the phrase as this kind of self-reference can be considered authentic. O n this basis, Lindars identifies (in chapter 3) six Son of Man sayings from Mark and Q as authentic, and (in chapter 4) adds three passion predictions: a total of nine authentic Son of Man sayings which can be ~ l a u s i binterpreted l~ according to the 'idiomatic generic' use of bar nasha.

" First publication: Journal fou the Study ofthe New Testament 23 (1985) 23-33.

'

London, 1983

B. Lindars, Jesus Son ofiMut~,p. 24.

94

7. The SONof Man: 'A Man in ?ny Position' or 'Someone'

This brilliantly argued case unfortunately, it seems to me, fails at two points: in the use of rabbinic examples t o establish the idiom, and in the application of the idiom to sayings of Jesus. O n the first point, it should first be noticed that Lindars discusses only four passages i* which bar nash(a) is a self-reference, and considers two of these examples of the alleged 'idiomatic generic' use. These four passages are the four adduced in Vermes's Lindars does not discuss the other abbreviated discussion in Jesus the five passages included in Vermes's more extended, original d i s c u ~ s i o nThis .~ is unfortunate. The known cases of bar nash(a) as a self-reference are so few that any attempt to determine their exact nuance should take all of them into consideratjon. It is especially unfortunate for Lindars's own case, since two o r three of the passages he does not discuss would fit the idiom he is attempting to establish as well as o r even better than the two passages which are his actual evidence for it. His discussion of these two passages (jBer. 3 b; jSheb. 38 d, with parallels) does not convince me that they are not examples of the properly generic use (bar nasha = 'mankind'). In the first, Simeon ben Yohai is, of course, only interested in requesting two mouths for those who are going to use one to recite the Torah, and really only interested in requesting two mouths for himself, since it is he who wants to d o this, but possession of one o r two mouths is a feature of human nature and so his prayer has to be that God would create mankind, human nature as such, with two mouths. Lindar's argument, that bar nasha refers to a class of men of which Simeon is in fact the only member, though in principle there might be others, seems rather contrived. Any statement about one person which could in principle also be true of other similar people, if there were such people, would by this argument become 'generic'. In the second example (jSheb. 38d) I see even less reason to prefer Lindars's interpretation to the properly generic one. To understand the sense of Simeon's conclusion as simply, ' N o man perishes without the will of heaven', seems both obvious and wholly appropriate to the context. More to the point would have been a passage not discussed by Lindars (jBer. 5 b: 'The disciple of bar nasha is as dear to him as his sod5), where one has to concede that the generic sense of bar nasha is a qualified generic sense. It applies not to every man, but to every man who has a disciple (i. e. every rabbi). But this is a natural way of using a noun generically, because the qualification is obviously provided by the context (just as it is ' A man who ...' o r 'A

' G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London, '1976), pp. 164-67.

' G. Vermes, 'The Use of BAR NASI [ / B A R

NASIIA in Jewish Aramaic', in PostRtbltcal J w r s h Studres (I,eiden, 1975), pp. 147-65 (reprinted from M. Black, An Aramnzc Appronch to the Gospels and Acts [Oxford, '19671, pp. 3 10-28). Quoted, tbrd., p. 160.

A mtique of' Barnnbns L.rnriitrs's proposal

95

good man...'). It does not justify postulating an idiom in which bar nasha refers t o a limited class of men ('a man in my position') where the limitation is not obviously provided by the context. Even if Lindar's 'idiomatic use of the generic article' were established from the later Jewish evidence, it has t o be stretched considerably to accommodate most of the six allegedly authentic sayings discussed in chapter 3. The saying which it fits most easily is the first (Mt. 8.20 = Lk 9.58), where bar enasha could in that case be rendered 'everyone in my position' (this is what the idiomatic generic use ought t o mean). But it certainly cannot be said that 'the gencric usage is essential t o the purpose of the saying', as Lindars claim^.^ If the Son of Man were an exclusive self-reference (and Lindars must admit that this is how the Evangelists understood it), it would still be a perfectly adequate reply t o the disciple's words in Mt. 8.19 = Lk. 9.57. In saying 3 (Mt. 12.32 = Lk. 12.10) the case for a generic sense is a good one, but here it is the proper generic sense ('mankind'), and Lindars makes no attempt t o argue for the special idiomatic generic sense in which the reference is restricted t o a class of men. It should also be noticed that a simple indefinite sense ('a man') would also be an appropriate interpretation, since in this kind of generalizing context ('Everyone who speaks a word against a man') there is no real difference between the generic and indefinite senses. A good test of whether the alleged idiomatic generic sense can really be detected in the sayings examined in chapter 3 is to try the translation, 'everyone in my position', since the idiom means that what is said of bar enasha is said of every man in the class t o which the speaker belongs. This translation appears possible in saying 5 (Mt. 9.6 = Mk 2.10-1 1 = Lk. 5.24), but impossible in sayings 2,4 and 6, because in these sayings what is said of bar enasha actually applies t o one man only, even if there could in principle be other people t o whom it could be applied. Thus in saying 2 (Mt. 11.19 = Lk. 7.34) Jesus is not suggesting that his hearers are saying, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard ...' about a whole class of non-ascetic evangelists. It will not d o t o claim that 'the generic bar enasha raises the matter t o the level of a principle',' because the statement about bar enasha is not made in the form o f a principle, but in the form o f a statement o f a specific fact about one man, precisely parallel t o the preceding statement about John the Baptist. Bay enasha could be made generic only by changing the grammatic structure of the sentence and spoiling the parallelism with the statement about the Baptist. Of course, the statement does not exclude the possibility that there could be other people in a similar position (non-ascetic evangelists) w h o Lindars, op. cit., p. 30.

' Ibid., p. 33.

96

7. The Son of Man: ' A Man m tny Pos~tron'OY 'Sonjeonc'

would incur the same t r e a t m ~ n t but ; ~ it does not refer t o them. As a matter

of fact, the translation of bar enasha which Lindars himself offers for this saying is not, 'everyone in my position' (or something of that kind), but 'someone else'.' This translation makes good sense, but 'someone else' is indefinite, not generic. T h e suspicion that 'generic' and 'indefinite' are being misleadingly equated is confirmed in the discussion of saying 4 (Lk. 11.30): 'It is another case of the generic usage ... Just as Jonah was a sign t o the Ninevites ... s o there is a man w h o will be a sign t o the present g e n ~ r a t i o n ' . 'But ~ this is not a generic usage. 'A man' here is neither 'each and every man' nor 'each and every member of a class of men', but just o n e man. Bar enasha, in that case, would be indefinite ('a man', 'someone'), not generic ('each and every man'). T h e role of being a sign t o the present generation nlight be one which a number of men could, in principle, fulfil, but the saying is a statement about only the one Inan w h o does (or will) fulfil it. Again, only a grammatical change (which Lindars suggests, but does not insist on, as the meaning of the postulated Aramaic original") could make bar enasha generic here: 'so a Inan may be t o this generation'." Is it not easier t o explain bar enash(a) as indefinite? Lindars makes the same move in the discussion of saying 5, where he offers the translation, 'But that you may know that a man tnay have authorit y...',13 but in the case of saying 6 no such suggestion is made. Lindars's exegesis of saying 6 (Mt. 10.32-33 = Lk 12.8-9) is attractive and plausible, but it involves no real attempt to make bar enasha generic, as distinct from indefinite. Lindars's paraphrase of the first half of the saying is: 'All those who confess me before men will have a man t o speak for them (i. e. an advocate) before the judgment seat of God.. .' T h e point is intended t o be that Jesus stresses that there will be an advocate, rather than that he hirrlself will be the advocate (though this is implied). But then bar enasha means 'someone' (indefinite), not 'each and every man' (generic) o r 'each and every member of the class of nlen that includes me' (idiomatic generic). In this saying, any appeal t o the special idiom seems t o have become quite redundant. According t o Iindars's o w n exegesis, Jesus is not identifying himself with some class of people (advocates at the last judgment) but referring to hinlself obliquely as 'someone'. Reconsideration of sayings 2 , 4 and 5 suggests that this is also likely to b e the idiom there.

' Cf. rh~d.,p. 3 3 . Ibrd., pp. 3 3 , 174. '"h~d., p. 1 1 . Ibrd., p. 42. Cf. lbrd., p. 172. Ibrd., p. 15; hi.; italics.

"

Besides the six Son of Man sayings discussed in chapter 3, Lindars believes that three passion predictions, discussed in chapter 4, are authentic because they use the alleged idiomatic generic idiom. The argument of this chapter (too intricate to be discussed here) involves reconstruction and interpretation of the sayings which can really only be justified if the alleged idiom has already been established as characteristic of Jesus' usage. The argument of chapter 4 requires that of chapter 3 for its premise; it cannot come t o its aid. I conclude that this highly ingenious attempt to make Jesus' usage conform t o an otherwise attested idiomatic use of bar nasha is a failure, though an heroic one. The idiom is not convincingly attested elsewhere, and it cannot explain all of even the small number of sayings of Jesus which Lindars judges authentic. However, as will become apparent, I d o not consider Lindar's exegetical work to be wasted.

W e r e do w e go from here? Recent study of the available Jewish evidence seems to me to lead to the following two conclusions, which must be taken as premises for further discussion of 'Son of Man' in the Gospels: (1) 'Son of Man' was not a recognized title for an apocalyptic figure, and cannot therefore by itself constitute an allusion t o Daniel 7." Only Son of Man sayings which otherwise allude t o Daniel 7 could have been understood as allusions to the figure in Dan. 7.13 o n the lips of Jesus. (2) The later Jewish evidence for the use of bar nash(a) as a self-reference seems to be evidence only for the properly generic use, where what is said of bar nash(a) is true of all men (unless the context provides an obvious qualification of 'all') and therefore also of the speaker. There is no real support for bar nash(a) as an exclusive self-reference equivalent to hahu gabra (Vermes),I5 o r for Lindars's idiomatic generic use. These conclusions imply that, if Jesus' use of 'Son of Man' conformed to an accepted usage for which we have evidence, there would seem to be only two possible types of authentic sayings: ( I ) Authentic Son of Man sayings are those in which allusion t o Ilaniel7 is explicit apart from the phrase 'Son

"

For the growing acceptance of this point in recent scholarship, see G. Vermes, 'The Present State of the *Son of Man" Llebatc', JJS 29 (1978), pp. 130-32. l 5 J . A . Fitzmyer, 'Another View of the "Son of Man" Debate', JSNT 4 (1979), p. 58, seems to admit that Vermes's interpretation applies in one case: the Cairo geniza fragment of the Palestinian Targum to Gen. 4.14 (see Vermes, 'The Use of BAR NASfi', p. 159). Clearly bar nush is here a substitute for 'l', but it may be a substitute introduced precisely in order to give an additional, generic nuance: no man (such as (lain) can hide from God.

of Man' i t ~ c l f . (2) ' ~ Authentic Son of Man sayings are those which conforni t o the properly generic use (Casey). However, neither of these possibilities is at all satisfactory. T h e niajor probleni in each case is that such a body of authentic sayings makes it very difficult t o account for the later proliferation of Son of Man sayings in the Gospel traditions, particularly in the light of Lindars's very valuable study of the use of 'Son of Man' in Q and the four Gospels. Lindars shows that there was never a Son of Man Christology in the early church: the use of 'Son of Man' was purely a feature of the literary editing of the sayings of Jesus. But in that case there has t o have been a sufficient body of authentic Son of Man sayings t o establish 'Son of Man' as a characteristic self-designation of Jesus, which could then be extended t o other sayings. Lindars also detnonstrates that, although in the Gospels 'Son of Man' becomes at least quasi-titular, it is not understood as a true messianic title but as a self-desigti,~tioriof Jesus, which not even the Evangelists (except perhaps Mark) regard as everywhere carrying an allusion t o Dan. 7.13. This rnakes it difficult ttr regard 'Son of Man' as a title for Jesus which originates purely from exegesis of Dan. 7.13. To account for Son of Man sayings which have nothing to d o with Dan. 7.13, it scetns there must have been some authentic sayings of this type. Thus the possibility that the original Son of Man sayings (whether authentic o r not) were only sayings which allude t o Dan. 7.13 is ruled out. But CaseYssview, that the only authentic sayings are those in which bar endsh(a) can carry the properly generic sense, is also problematic. Very few sayings can plausibly be given this sense without bcconiing incredible (e. g. Mt. 8.20 = Lk. 9.58) o r rather banal, and it could be argued that Casey, like Lindars, has extended his list of authentic sayings by including cases where the meaning he accepts is really indefinite, not generic." But the fewer the authentic Son of Man sayings and the more restricted the types of Son of Man sayings which are regarded as authentic, the more difficult it is t o account for the existence of inauthentic Son of Man sayings. Three o r four a) 'mankind' are riot likely to authentic sayings in which bar e ~ ~ s / ? (means have given the irnpression that the term was a characteristic self-designation of Jesus o r to have suggested a connection with Dan. 7.13. I" A g a ~ ~ i s t t l iteh e \ ~of~ A J R I Irgglns, Thc, \on of l;lcrn rn the Errchrng of jc,rts (SNTSMS, 39, Carnbrldgc, 19XO), ~t I S Important to cmphaclre that, of rhc future Son of htan sayings, ~t1s those rn .rvhrch the allus1011to Dan. 7 13 Is most cvphclt w h ~ c hhave the be5t cha~locof authcntlclt\, srncc the phrase 'Son of h?an' ~tsrffcannotconbey the rdca of an cschatologrcal judge '- k . g hit. I I 19 = I k 7 34, whrch M. (:a\cv, \on of illan The It~tt~rpretnttonand Irzfluencc of Datr1~17( 1 ondon, 1979), p. 229, calls a 'general statement', o n the authorltv (]bad, p. 240 ri 13) of Colpc and Jcremlas, but In fact both these scholars are qulte explicit rn lnterprcttng ~tas ~ndetinrrc,not gencrlc: C . <:olpe, 7 D X T , VIII, pp. 431-32 (espcclally n. 241), and J. Jeremias, N e e restirntcnt T/~eology,I (k.Tr.; London, 1971), pp. 261-62.

A further possibility, however, should be explored: that Jesus used bar enash (probably, rather than bar enasha) in the indefinite sense ('a man', 'someone'), which is itself a very common usage," but used it as a form of deliberately oblique o r ambiguous self-reference. This possibility has been suggested by my criticism of Lindars above, and would in fact preserve as correct a good deal of Lindars's exegesis of the sayings he accepts as authentic." It sliould be noticed that although this use of bar enarh is grammatically indefinite, meaning 'strmeone', in practice it can easily and naturally (like 'someone' in English) refer to a definite, though unidentified, person.20 (Vermes gives an cxarnple from jYeb. 13 a: 'I am sending you bar nash like myself'.") Thus it could be used as a n oblique self-reference, in which the self-reference would normally be exclusive but implicit. Jesus would be referring t o an unidentified 'someone', but those w h o fully understood his meaning would infer that the 'sorncone' was himself. Since the indefinite use (like 'a man' in English) can have a generic sense in certain contexts (e. g. jBer. 5c; jKet. 35aX), there will be no need to exclude the generic sense with self-reference in the few cases where it works (notably Mt. 12.32 = Lk 12.10), but in a much larger number of sayings the plausible meaning is indefinite, referring not t o 'everyone" but t o 'someone' (Mk 2.10 = Mt. 9.6 = Lk. 5.24; Mk. 2.28 = Mt. 12.8 = Lk 6.5; Mk. 8.31 = Lk. 9.22; Mk. 9.12; Mk. 9.31 = Mt. 17.22 = Lk 9.44; Mk. 10.33 = Mt. 22.18 = Lk. 18.31; Mk. 14.21 = Mt. 26.24 = Lk. 22.22; Mk. 14.41 = Mt. 26.45; Mt. 8.20 = 1.k. 9.58; Mt. 11.19 = Lk. 7.34; Mt. 12.40 = Lk. 11.30; Mt. 26.2; Lk. 12.8-9 [cf. Mk. 8.38 = Lk. 9.261; Lk. 22.48; J n 1.51). This proposal permits the authenricity of a similar range of sayings to those accepted by Casey and Lindars (to determine precisely which sayings are, by this criterion, authentic, would of course require detailed discussion), while allowing them, in some cases, a more natural exegesis, in other cases, a very similar exegesis. It also has other advantages. It would not, in the first place, necessarily exclude the authenticity of some Son of Man sayings which allude t o Daniel 7. (The most obvious candidate for authenticity here would be Mk. 14.62.) In such sayings, the use of the indefinite 'a man' (bar enash) would be neither a title n o r unambiguously a self-reference, but a literal echo of Dan. 7.1 3 (kc-bar ennsh). There seems no reason why Jesus

''

Cf. Vermcs, "The ure of BAR NASH', pp. 155-56. The wggestlon has been made with reference to a tew saylngs U.Y. Campbell, 'The Origin and Meaning of the 'I'erm Son of Man1,JT.\ 48 (1947), p. 152, of hilt. 11.19; Colpe, TDh'T, VIII, pp. 430-33; Jeremias, op. at., pp. 2 6 1 4 2 , both of Mk 2.10; Mt. 11.19; Mt. 8.20), hut I know of no attempt to see i t as Jesus' characteristic usage in a substantial number of 5ayrngs. 23 SO Campbel1,art. at., pp. 151-52. 2' Vermes, 'The Use of BAR NASH', p. 1.56. Quoted i n zbrd., pp. 158-160. I'

"

100

7. The Son of Man: ' A ,Van rn tny Pos~tlon'or 'Someone'

could not have exploited the coincidence between his accustomed form of oblique self-reference and the language of Dan. 7.13, s o that bar enash in a saying alluding t o Dan. 7.13 becomes the same kind of veiled hint of his own status as other authentic son of Man sayings convey. 'This would not at all imply that bar enash has any connection with Dan. 7.1 3 in sayings which d o not themselves allude to Daniel 7. T h e indefinite use therefore permits the authenticity of a wide range of types of Son of Man sayings, including some future Son of Man sayings which allude t o Llaniel 7. This makes the process by which 'Son of Man', understood in Greek translation as quasi-titular,13 was extended to other sayings, whether freshly created sayings or sayings in which 'Son of Man' was not original, quite readily intelligible. Once 'Son of Man' was understood as quasi-titular, this extension was simply an extension of the same kind of usage as was known in the authentic sayings. It might appear a disadvantage of the proposal that it cannot appeal to parallels in later Jewish Aramaic.24But if Jesus' use of bar enash was a form of deliberately ambiguous self-reference, then ex hypothest there do not need t o be parallels t o it. If Jesus had used a well established form of indirect self-reference, such as hahu gabra, the self-reference would have been explicit and easily recognized in most contexts.25But if Jesus wished to refer t o himself in a way which was not necessarily immediately obvious, s o that his hearers had to infer o r guess the self-reference, then it is understandable that he should adopt a way of speaking which was not s o well recognized an idiom. For such a purpose the use of the indefinite 'a man' o r 'someone' is well suited. It is in fact a relatively straightforward development of the natural use of 'a man' with reference t o the speaker in contexts which make the reference entirely obvious (e. g. J n 8.40).26 The ambiguity of the self-reference will vary from saying t o saying, from cases where the self-reference is obvious in the context (Lk. 22.48), through cases where the self-reference is deliberately unstressed (Mt. 10.32-33 = Lk. 12.8-9, following Lindars's exegesis), t o cases where the saying has a somewhat enigmatic o r riddling2' character (Lk. 11.30; the passion predicI' The translation of bar cnash by the definite 6 uih; ro6 ?ivO~tunouis sufficiently explained by the translator's wish to avoid the ambiguity of Jesus' own idiom: in his mind 6 uiit; r06 ?ivf)~)(i)jlo~~ was a definite person, Jesus (cf. Case); up. at.,p. 230). I4 But cf. Paul's use of civOoconov (as a modest form of self-reference\ in 2 Cor. 12.2. Of course, in particular contexts hahw gahra may be ambiguous, as Vertnes ("I'he Present State', p. 126) shows; but i t reniains true that an established idiom has less scope for arribiguity than an innovatory idiom. I6 Note how eas~lythe omlsslon of ~ r t . in Jn 8.40 would produce an oblique selfreference quite comparable with hilt. 11.19 = 1.k. 7.34. Cf. e.g., indirect and riddling references to himself and his mission in Mt. 11.4-5 = Lk. 7.22; Mt. 1 2 . 4 1 4 2 = Lk. 11.32-33; Mk 3.27. For an interpretation of Son of Man say-

"

\Vhcre do w e go from hcre?

101

tions2'), and cases where some hearers might easily assume Jesus' reference t o be t o a figure other than himself (sayings alluding t o Daniel 7). This does not make the proposed usage inconsistent, but rather reveals an habitual form of oblique self-reference which in all cases expresses Jesus' accustomed reticence about his status and authority, for which there is abundant evidence. T h e point is not that Jesus did not wish his God-given role and authority to be recognized, but that h e wanted people to recognize them for themselves. Claims are easy t o make and as easily dismissed. By his oblique self-reference Jesus avoided claims, but invited people t o think for themselves about the implications of the undeniable facts of his ministry. Then, in the paradoxical situation of the suffering and rejected prophet, he made the only kind of claim which is appropriate t o that situation: a reference t o future vindication, in which the obliqueness of the self-reference serves t o leave the vindication to G o d w h o alone can vindicate him. For the present, three brief illustrations must suffice: (1) Mk. 2.10-1 1. T h e reference t o 'a man' follows naturally as a response t o v. 7, but the point is not that Jesus' healing of the paralytic denlonstrates the general principle that men have authority t o forgive sins. Jesus neither denies nor asserts that others have such authority, but points t o his healing as evidence that at any rate one man, himself, does have it. Thus he claims no more than his deed demonstrates, and the obliqueness of the self-reference serves to make his authority not so much a clainl as an inference which his hearers may draw for themselves from what they see. (2) I,k. 11.30. Here the self-reference is less obvious, more enigmatic, but the implication is similar. To those w h o see the significance of Jesus and his ministry, he ~s a sign. To those w h o d o not, w h o cannot recognize the evidence which is before their eyes, there is no point in claiming to be a sign. All that can be said is that there is someone w h o is a sign. (3) Mt. 26.64 = Mk. 14.62 = 1,k. 22.67-68. Jesus avoids a direct claim to messiahship which, if his accusers cannot believe it from the evidence they already have (cf. Lk. 22.67), he cannot prove. Although, in the context, the allusion to Dan. 7.13 must amount t o a self-reference, the obliqueness makes his status one which he leaves it t o G o d t o vindicate. T h e allusion t o Dan. 7.1 3 is made not because Jesus prefers the 'title' Son of Man t o those offered by the high priest, but because (along with Ps. 110.1) it is appropriate t o the thought of eschatological vindication and allows an indefinite third person reference. ingr as riddling self-references, see also C . 1-indeskog, 'Das Ratscl des Mcnschcnrohnes', Srttdw theolog~cn22 (1968), pp. 149-75, though hc takes Son of Man to be an apocalyptic title. 2V0110wing Jeremias's interpretation of these as riddles (op. crt., pp. 281-82).

8. The Apocalypses in the New Pseudepigrapha':The publication of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (henceforth O T P ) , edited by J. H. Charlesworth,' is a major event for the current renaissance of pseudepigrapha studies and for biblical studies generally. The purpose of this article is to offer some assessment of the treatment of apocalyptic literature in vol. 1 of OTP,* with the interests of NT students and scholars especially in mind. 0 T P is the first collected edition of the pseudepigrapha in English translation since 1913 , when The Apocrypha and Psetidepigrapha of the Old Testament (henceforth APOT), edited by R. H. Charles, was published. Its most obvious difference from APOT is the very much larger number of works which are included. APOT contained only six apocalyptic works (4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, I Enoch, 2 Enoch and Sib. Or. 3-5). OTP includes these six, three of them in longer forms (4 Ezra with the additional chs. 1-2, 15-16; 2 Enoch with the final chs. 69-73; and the complete collection of Sib. Or. 1-14), and in addition thirteen other works in its section 'Apocalyptic Literature and Related Works'. None of these thirteen appear in APOT. In fact there are also two more works which really belong in this section of OTP, since they are unan~biguouslyapocalypses (Ladder of Jacob and Ascension of Isaiah), but which have been assigned to vol. 2.3 OTP's selection of apocalypses is also larger than that projected for the series Jiidische Schriften aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit (henceforth JSHRZ) or included in The Apocryphal Old Testament, edited by H . F. D. spark^.^ First publication: Journal for the Strrdy of the NPW Testament 26 (1986) 97-1 17; reprinted in: Evans / Porter ed., New Testnnrerzt Backgrortrzds: A Shcfield Reader (Biblical Seminar 43; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic I'ress, 1997) 67-88. Vol. 1: A p o a ~ l ~ p 1.lterat.lture t~c and 'Iestrzments (New York: L>oubleday; London: h r t o n , Longman & Todd, 1983). In order to keep this article w ~ t h i nreasonable bounds, I shall not discus5 the tectaments, which are also in vol. I , even though sonle of them include apocalyptic material. Since this article was written before the publication of vol. 2, I cannot discuss these two works. Presumably they are included in vol. 2 because they are regarded as legendary expansions of thc OT, but they arc n o more so that1 I Enoch or the Apocalypse of Abvdhanz, both of which include narrative material as well as apocalyptic visions. This volume, from Oxford University Press, was not yet published when this article was written. i owe the information about its contents and those of JSHRZ to J. H . Char-

'

'

104

8. The Apocalypses in the NFW Pseicdcpigrapha

Of course, biblical scholars have never depended solely o n A P O T for their knowledge of the pseudepigrapha, but it has tended t o influence their sence of the range of pseuepigraphical works which are really relevant as 'background' to the N T . Certainly, the common views of the character of ancient Jewish apocalyptic have been largely based o n A P O T s selection of apocalypses, and illuminating parallels to the NT have usually been sought in these. The standard studies of apocalyptic are based o n these apocalypses, usually with the addition of the Apocdlypse of Abraham. As O T P becomes the standard work of reference, this may o r may not change. Much depends o n whether OTP's additional apocalypses can really be treated as in any way reliable evidence for the Judaism of the N T period, a question which requires careful assessment in each case. In what follows I shall offer comments on OTP's treatment of each apocalyptic work, with the exception of the two calendrical works (Treatise of Shern and Revelation of Ezra), which belong in a distinct category of their own. These comments will, I hope, be of use t o those w h o will be using O T P as a work of reference. I shall then offer some more general comments o n the range of apocalypses which have been selected for inclusion in O T P . ( I ) I Enoch (E. Isaac) is probably the most important non-canonical apocalypse for students of the N T , though its dzrect influence o n the NT has often been vastly exaggerated (as here: y. 10). It has also been the object of a great deal of important recent research, rather little of which is reflected in Isaac's introduction and notes. Essentially Isaac gives us an i~itroductiorito and translation of the Ethiopic version of I Enocl?. Controversy is likely to surround his use of the Ethiopic manuscripts, in particular his judgment that one manuscript (Lake Tana 9) is not only the oldest but very much the best, so that its readings ~ translation is of this manuscript, correctare usually t o be p r e f ~ r r e d .His ing only its obvious errors, though many variants in other manuscripts are given in the apparatus. As far as a reader w h o is not an Ethiopic scholar can judge, a fair number of this nianuscript's unique o r unusual readings arc preferable, sometimes because they agree with the Greek version against other Ethiopic manuscripts (e.g. at 1,9; 24.5), but its readings cannot be preferable in every instance. This translation may supplement, but cannot replace, that of Knibb (whose edition of Ethiopic Enoch6 appeared after Isaac's work was completed). lesworth, The Pscudeprgrapha and itlodt~rnR c s e ~ r hwith rr lupplemetzr (SWI.SCS, 7s; Chico: Scholars Press, 198 I), pp. 19-30. ' This judgment is maintained in greater detail in E. Isaac, ' N e w I ~ g h Upon t the Book of Fnoch from Newly-Found Ethiopic hlSS',/OAS 103 (1983), pp. 399-41 1 . ".A. Knibb, The Ethropic Book ofLnoch, 2 vols. (Clxtord: Clarendon Prcss, 1978).

8. The Apociilypses tn the N c i *I'se~dept~raphn

105

The Greek versions of 1 Enoch are cited quite often in the apparatus, the Qumram Aramaic fragments only rarely. But the latter, though very fragmentary, are evidence of 1 Enoch in its (probably) original language, while the Greek versions cover about forty chapters of the book. In view of the special importance of 1 Enoch among the pseudepigrapha, should we not have been given translations of all versions, Greek, Ethiopic, and Aramaic, in parallel columns? (2) 2 Enoch (F. I . Andersen). O f all the apocalypses in APOT, 2 Enoch has always been the most puzzling and controversal. Some have insisted that it is Christian and of relatively late date, and the problems of provenance and date have scarcely been helped by disagreements over the relative priority of the two recensions, longer and shorter. Andersen's principal achievement is to provide us with a translation (of the t w o recensions in parallel) based o n more and better manuscripts than previous translations, though he is the first to insist on its provisionality. More work on the text still needs t o be done before we have an entirely secure basis for answering other questions. Andersen rightly argues that the question of priority between the two reccnsions should not be hastily answered: the evidence is too complicated t o allow the assumption that either the shortest o r the longest text is always the original. Andersen inclines to regard 2 Enoch as an ancient work from some group (perhaps of God-fearers) o n the fringes of Judaism, but he is more frankly cautious about his conclusions than many contributors t o this volume: 'In every respect 2 Enoch remains an enigma. So long as the date and location remain unknown, no use can be made of it for historical purposes' (p. 97). Rereading 2 Erzoch in Andersen's translation, I found myself constantly deciding that the material must be ancient. But a great deal of patient study of all the available parallels to 2 Enoch's contents will be necessary before NT scholars are able t o base anything on quotations from 2 Enoch. (3) 3 Enoch (P. Alexander) is the o n e Merkabah text already quite well known t o N'I' scholars, through Odeberg's edition and translation. Alexander's improved translation is based o n a corrected text, and is accompanied by abundant, very informative notes. The introduction is in fact a masterly brief introduction t o Merkabah mysticism in general, including its rclationship to ancient Jewish apocalyptic and specifically t o some of the texts in OTP. The links between aspects of apocalyptic texts of the first and second centuries A D and the Merkabah texts are becoming increasingly apparent, and make an acquaintance with the latter essential for scholars interested in the former. Perhaps this justifies the inclusion of at least one Merkabah text in OTP, but not necessarily the inclusion of this text, which, despite its dependence o n some very old traditions, is in Alexander's view to be dated in the fifth o r sixth century AD,i. e. it is probably not, as Odeberg thought,

one of the earliest, but one of the later, Merkabah texts. Reliable translations of the other major texts are an urgent need. (4) Sibylline Oracles U.J. Collins). Although the Sibylline Oracles are part Jewish, part Christian, and were written over a long period (book 14 is probably seventh-century), they form a continuous tradition of writing, and it is extremely useful t o have for the first time an accessible translation of the whole collection, with excellent introductions and notes. Particularly neglected but important are the Jewish parts of books 1-2, which were left out of APOT, and also out of Hennecke's New Testament Apocrypha, in which translations of only the Christian parts of books 1-2 were given.' However, Collins overestimates the possible extent of Jewish material in book 2 (p. 330), because h e has taken no account of M. R. James's demonstration that 2.196-338 is dependent on the Apocalypse of Pete9 (in fact, it is largely a poetic paraphrase of Apoc. Pet. 4-14). Since the passages in book 2 which are paralleled in book 8 (p. 332) are precisely the parts of this section which are not borrowed from the Apocalypse of I'eter, the priority of book 8 to book 2 can also be demonstrated, with implications for the date of both books. ( 5 ) Apocryphon of Ezek~el0.R. Mueller and S. E. Robinson). The Apocryphon of Ezektel survives only in a few fragments: the five which can be fairly securely identified are translated here (though the t w o longest are not, despite the claim in the section heading, nezi translations). Clement of Alexandria in fact gives a little more of fragment 5 than is translated here (while the Chester Beatty papyrus gives a good deal more, but in a highly fragmentary, untranslatable state). It would have been useful t o have had some reference t o other possible fragments (such as the quotation in Tertullian, De res. 22). That the work dates from the late first century BC o r early first century A D is well established. Its parable of the resurrection (the longest fragment) is well known, but has probably not been given the attention it deserves as evidence of Jewish ideas about resurrection in N"T times. It also has some relevance to the study of Gospel parables (cf. Matt. 22.2; Mark 12.9), as may the expansion of Ezekiel's image of the shepherd in fragment 5. (6) Apocalypse of Zephaniah (O.S. Wintermute). Of the apocalypses which OTP adds t o APOT's selection, this is the only one which has a real chance of being a pre-Christian Jewish work (apart from the fragmentary Apocryphon of Ezekiel). It has also been extraordinarily neglected by schol-

'

E.. 1 fenneckc, Nee. Estamcnt Apoqpha, cd.W. Schchncemclclicr and K.McL. Wilson (I.ondon: K.utterwortl1, 1963, 1965), I I , pp. 709-19. "1. R. James, 'A N e w 'kxt o f the Apocalypse of I'eter', Jr\ 12 (191 I), pp. 3 9 3 4 , 51-52. The material is all ultini,~telyJewish in or~gin,hut reaclicd the Slb.yll~ntvOrucle via the Apocalypse of P C ~ L ~ Y .

8. The Apocalyprcs rtz the New I'seud~~pr~rapha

107

ars.' Its inclusion in OTP is therefore fully justified, and any discussion which served t o bring it t o general scholarly attention would be welcome. While Wintermute's treatment is not wholly satisfactory, it is a significant start. His notes t o the text are gratifyingly extensive. It is unfortunate that he apparently wrote before Martha I-iimmelfarb's dissertation became a v a i l a b l ~ : ' her ~ discussion of the Apocalypse of Zephaniah (which she continues to call 'the Anonymous Apocalypse') within the broad context of tours of hell in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic is one of the most important contributions s o far t o the study of this apocalypse. It has the general effect of vindicating a fairly early date. Wintermute has also missed Scholem's discussion of the passage quoted by Clement of Alexandria:" both Scholem and Himmelfarb would have alerted him t o the contacts between these texts and the Merkabah literature. The texts in question are three: a short quotation in Clement of Alexandria, a brief manuscript fragment in Sahidic, and a long manuscript fragment in Akhmimic. The t w o Coptic fragments are from manuscripts which also contained the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah. Clement's quotation is explicitly said t o be from the Apocalypse of Zephaniah; the Sahidic fragment contains the words, 'I, Zephaniah, saw these things in my vision'; but the Akhmimic fragments contains n o indication of the identity of the seer (and has therefore sometinies been called the Anonymous Apocalypse). Two problems arise: (a) Arc Clement's quotation and the Sahidic fragment from the same Apocalypse of Zephaniah? (b) Are the Sahidic and Akhmimic fragments from the same work? Wintermute answers both questions affirmatively, but probably with too much assurance. I t is true that the two Coptic fragments are closely related in style and content, but we could be dealing with t w o distinct apocalypses, either by the same author o r one based o n the other. My hesitation about identifying the Akhmin~ictext as the Apocalypse of Zephaniah arises from 6.10, in which the seer refers t o events of the Babylonian exile as past historical events. This could be a slip on the author's part, but ancient pseudepigraphal writers, including apocalyptists, were usually careful to avoid such blatant anacl~ronisms.(In the apocalypses in this volume, I think the only other examples are Greek Apocalypse of Ezra

' Surprisingly it is not mentioned in G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jtrurrh L~teratureBetween the Bible and the Mrshnah (London: SCM I+css, 1981) or in <:. Rowland, The Open ffeaven: A Jludy of Apocalpytrc in Judaism and Early Chrrstran~ty(London: SPCZK, 1982). 'O M. Ilin~n~elfarb, Tours of Hell: The Development and Tratzsn~isstonof an Apocalyptic Form in Jr?;vsh and Chnstlan L~teratrtre(diss.; University of Pennsylvania, 1981; University Microfilms 81 17791). I have not yet seen this work in its published form (Philadelphia, 1983). G . G . Scholem, Jeu~rshGnostrasrn, Merkabah Mjlrtmsm, and Talnzud~tTrad~tron ( N e w York: Jewish Theological Seminary o f America, 21965), pp. 18-19.

"

108

8. The Apocalyps~sIn the Newt Pscudepigrapha

1.19; 2.1; 4.1 1; 5.22; Vision of Ezra 38; Apocalypse of Sedrach 15.2-5 - an indication that the authors or redactors of these late Christian apocalypses had lost any real sense of the historical identity of the pseudonym.) If the seer is therefore a post-exilic OT figure,I2 not many candidates are available. I wonder whether the text might be the Apocalypse of Zechariah," which in the Stichometry of Nicephorus is listed after the Apocalypses of Elijah a n d Zephaniah." Some support for this suggestion, which can only be conjecture, may come from the fact that the visions are partly modelled on those of Zech. 1-6 (though this is also true of the Sahidic fragment).'$ At any rate, the relationship between the Sahidic and Akhmimic texts cannot be regarded as settled. Just as problematic is the relationship between these texts and the quotation in Clement: the difficulties in supposing that the latter is from the same work as even the Sahidic fragment alone seem to me greater than Wintermute allows (p. 500). I agree with Wintermute that there is no reason to regard the Coptic texts as (a) Christian work(s), though I am more inclined than he is to see 10.9 as a minor Christian embellishment. O n the other hand, 8.9 ('my sons...') does not have to be a 'homiletical aside', indicating that the text was meant to be read in a religious assembly. It could be that the seer is represented as recounting his visions to his sons (cf. Isaiah's apostrophes to 'Hezekiah and Jasub my son', which punctuate his account of his vision in Ascension of Isdiah 4.1; 8.24; 9.22; 11.16), perhaps in a testamentary context (cf. Enoch's account of his visions, mixed with homiletical comments to his sons, in 2 Enoch 40-47). The extraordinary incoherence of the Akhmimic text (which not even the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra equals) must, it seems to me, result from abbreviation. We know from other cases where more than one recension survives that scribes not infrequently tried to abbreviate apocalypses (cf. 2 Enoch, 3 Baruch, Ascension of Isaiah, Apocalypse of Peter), sometimes resulting in the kind of non sequiturs and abrupt transitions which the Akhmimic text here shows. But in that case we cannot rely on the length A NT pseudonym seems ruled out by the purelv OT contcxt of the account: cf. 3.4; 6.10; 7.7; 9.4; 1 1.4.

'"he quotation which Origen (comment on Eph. 4.27, in J. A. E Gregg (ed.), 'The Commentary of Origcn upon the Epistle to the Ephesians: Part III', JTS 3 119021, p. 554) ascribes to Zechariah the father of John (cf. next note) would not be out of place in the work of which the Akhmimic text is part. l 4 It is there called, 'Of Zechariah the father of John', but this may be a mistake11 Christian identification of the seer. The ancient lists of apocryphal books nevertheless include this work among the O'S apocrypha in the chronological position of Zechariah the prophet. l 5 This dependence on Zech. 1-6 needs to be studied in connection with Himmelfarb's study of the 'demonstrative explanations' in tours of hell: Tours of Hell, ch. 3.

8. 7 %Apoculypses ~ in the l\ir"t Pseudeptgrrzpha

109

given for the Apocalypse ofZephaniah (or for the Apocalypse of Zechariah) in the Stichometry of Nicephorus for calculations related t o our fragment (cf. OTP, pp. 497-98). The manuscript which contained our Akhmimic fragment could have included abbreviated versions of two apocalypses (Apocalypse of Zephaniah and Apocalypse of Zechariah?) as well as the Apocalypse of Elijah. Probably the most important aspect of the Coptic texts is that they may well be, along with a fragment of the Apocalypse of Elijah,'b the earliest examples, in the apocalyptic tradition, of detailed visions of the punishments of the damned in hell. The tradition of such visions is very old (cf. I Enoch 22; 27), and from brief references t o such visions in apocalypses which d o not actually describe them (2 Apoc. Bar. 59.10-1 1; Apocalypse of Abraham 21.3; Ascension of Isaiah 1.3;" 4 Ezra 7.84; 3 Apoc. Bar. 16.4 S; 2 Enoch 40-41; cf. Btb. Ant. 23.6), we can be sure that they were to be found in apocalypses of the N T period. Scholars have tended t o think of the genre of the apocalyptic tour of the punishments of hell as belonging t o a later period, from the second century A D onwards,'' but in fact the evidence is good that it flourished already in the first century AD.'^ These Coptic 'Apocalypse of Zephaniah'texts may well be among the early sources of the whole tradition. At least in the present abbreviated texts, they refer only in a perfunctory way (9.4) t o the parallel tradition of visions of the bliss of the righteous in paradise. These rather extended comments may serve t o welcome one of the more important 'newcomers' t o the pseudepigrapha, and also t o indicate that much work needs to be done o n it. (7) 4 Ezra (B. M. Metzger). Here the words 'a new translation' included in the title of this, as of other sections of the volume, are quite misleading: the translation is that of the ~ s Apocrypha v (prepared by Metzger), first

'' This is the fragment quoted in the apocryphal Eptrtle of Tztu,. It is published, with related material, in M. E. Stone and J. Strugnell, Tho Books of Eltjah: Pixrts 1-2 (SBLTT, 18: Missoula. Montana: Scholars I'ress. 1979). no. 14-26. In my opinion this is not meant t o be a reference t o any of the contents of the present Ascert,rorr o f I,atuh. but refers to a lost Ertrc.mrrzt ol'iie~ekrrzh.whish must have been a work of thh first century A D o r earlier, in which ~clIekial1descr'ibcd his descent t o I-fades (the idea no doubt d e v e l o ~ e dfrom Isa. 38). l R The classic treatments are the Christian apocalypses of Peter, Paul and the Virgin; cf. also, in OTP, the Greek Apoculypse of Ezra and the Vtsron ofEzra. In both Jewish and early Christian apc>calyptic the genre flourished right through the medieval period. l V The account of the punishments in hell In the early second century Apocalypse of Peter must be hased on a Jewish apocalypse, perhaps that of Elijah: cf. my cliscussion in 'The Apocalpyse of Peter: An Account of Research', in Aufjtreg und Nredergang der romrscl~enWelt (ed. 11. 'lhmporini und W. I-faase; Berlin, N e w York: de Gruytcr), 2.25.6, pp. 47124750; and 1 Iinirnelfarb, Tours of Hell, ch. 5. I

' I ' ,

110

8. Thc.Apocirf.ypsesin the New P s e ~ d e p i ~ r a p h a

published in 1957, and only slightly amended here.20 Notes t o the text are purely textual, and the marginal references d o not even include the important parallels in 2 B a r ~ c hT. h e study of 4 Ezra is not advanced by this contribution, but probably we should not expect it t o be, since 4 Ezra is one of the few non-canonical apocalypses o n which much of the basic scholarly work has already been done. Much more disappointing is the treatment of the additions t o the original apocalypse: chs. 1-2 (5 Ezra) and 15-16 (6 Ezra), which were not included in A P O T , though they have always been well known from their inclusion in the Protestant Apocrypha, as well as the appendix t o the Vulgate. O T P includes them as part of the translation of 4 Ezra, bur readers are given practically no guidance on what t o make of them. Metzger's introduction t o 4 Ezra scarcely mentions them, except to inform us (with unjustified dogmatism) that 'Near the middle o r in the second half of the third century four chapters were added ... by one o r more Christian writers' (p. 520). In fact, 5 Ezra has been most commonly and most plausibly dated in the second century, as most recently by T>ani6louz1and by S t a n t ~ n . 'It~ is scarcely conceivable that both 5 and 6 Ezra come from the same author. 5 Ezra is a patently Jewish Christian work. In the case of 6 Ezra, which lacks any overtly Christian characteristics, the Jewish o r Christian origin of the text is certainly open t o debate, Against the usual, but not very well' ~ argued founded, belief in its Christian origin, Schrage2' and H a r n i ~ c h have that it is a purely Jewish apocalyptic work, t o be dated perhaps earlier than 4 Ezra. Such arguments should have been discussed and assessed in OTP, which may thus have missed an important opportunity of rehabilitating a neglected Jewish apocalypse. Even if 5 and 6 Ezra are both Christian, they bear the same kind of relationship t o underlying Jewish apocalyptic traditions as d o several other Christian works included in OTP, and are also probably earlier in date than the other Ezra apocalypses (apart from 4 Ezra) which O T P includes. They therefore merit the same kind of extended treatment as pseudepigraphal works in their o w n right. Furthermore, the sanie principles which have led t o the inclusion of 5 and 6 Ezra and the later apocrypha in O T P should also have led t o the inclu-

O '

"

Metzger points this out: O T P , p. 518. J. I)aniflou, The Qngtns of L a t ~ nChnstranrty (E'T, ed. J . A .Baker; London: IIarto11,

Longman & Todd; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), p. 18. I N. . Stanton, '5 Ezra and Matthean Christianity in the Second Century', JTS 28 (1977), pp. 67-83. " W. Schrage, 'Die Stellung rur Welt bei Paulus, Epiktet und in der Apokalyptik. Ein Beitrag zu 1 Kor 7,29-3 1 ', ZTK 61 (1964), pp. 139-54. W. I-iarnisch, Escl~atologtscl~e Exrstenz (FRLANT, 110; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), pp. 72-74.

"

''

8. The Apocalypses in the New Pseudepigrapha

111

sion of a translation of the Armenian version of 4 Ezra.25This is, in effect, a rather thoroughly revised version of 4 Ezra, including substantial additions to the text. Stone argues that these did not originate in Armenian, but derive from the Greek text behind the Armenian version and date from the fourth century at the latest. Though they constitute a Christian version of 4 Ezra, they may depend on early Jewish sources.26The inclusion of these additions t o 4 Ezra in OTP would have been particularly useful because they belong t o the same category of material inspired by 4 Ezra as d o the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, the Vision of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Sedrach. With their inclusion, OTP could have given us a fairly complete collection of apocalyptic works inspired by 4 Ezra.*' Another missed opportunity! (8) Greek Apocalypse of Ezra ( M . E. Stone). The translation of this work was made from one manuscript (that used by Tischendorf) and was completed before the publication of Wahl's edition of the text,"8 which is based on two manuscripts, but in fact the latter would have made practically no difference to the translation. The introduction and notes are thorough and learned, and constitute the fullest study of this work so far produced (fuller than Miillcr's in JSHRZ).2y It is important to realize that this work's O T pseudonym, which is one of the criteria for its inclusion in OTP, probably results simply from the fact that its author took 4 Ezra as a model for the kind of work he wished to write (a debate with God about his righteousness and mercy in judging sinners). It is no necessary indication of the Jewish (as opposed to Christian) character of its contents, and there is no real reason to regard this work (which is unquestionably Christian in its present form) as a Christian edition of an earlier Jewish apocalypse. (The same comments apply to other Ezra apocrypha: Vision of Ezra and Questions of Ezra.). As Stone recognizes, the work itself is Christian, but, as both the jumbled nature of its contents and the parellels with other works indicate, it is closely reliant on several sources, probably Jewish as well as Christian. That there is ancient Jewish apocalyptic material here is very probable. Its reliable identification 2 5 M.E. Stone, The Armentan Versron of 1V E z r ~ (University of Pcnnsylvariia Armenian Texts and Studies I ; Missoula, Montana: Schol.~r\Prcs\, 1979). *" Stone, Armentun Verslon, p. ix; ct. also M. E. Stone, 'Jewish Apocryphal Literature in the Armenian Church', Le itlusPor~95 (1982), p. 292. Stone promises t o give detailed evidence for this in his forthconiing Textual C:ornnzentary on the Armentan Versron of 4 Ezm. 'Che Syriac Apocalypse of Ezra and the I-alasha Apocalypse of Ezrd arc also inspired by 4 Erra. 0 . Wahl (ed.), Apocalypsu Esdrae, Apocalyp,rs Sedrach, Vlsto Beatt Esdrae (I'V'I'G, 4; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977). " Once again, it is a pity that it was written too soon to take account of Hinimelfarb, Tours of Hell.

*'

112

8. The Apocalypses in the New Pserrdepigrapha

must await further study especially in conjunction with paralled material in other Jewish and Christian apocalypses. In view of the nature of the work and the state of scholarship o n it, Stone wisely draws almost no conclusions about date o r provenance: 'a date sometime between A D 150 and 850 is probable. Its provenance cannot be discerned' (p. 563). (9) Viston of Ezra U. R. Mueller and G. A. Robbins). This work is quite closely related to the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, but the relationship is not one of simple dependence in either direction. I would be inclined to date it later than the Greek Apocalypse, partly because the role of Ezra is further removed from his role in 4 Ezra, which provided the original inspiration for this cycle of Ezra apocalypses. However, even the date which Mueller and Robbins suggest (between 350 and 600 AD)is, on present evidence, too precise: it might even be earlier, it could certainly be later. As Mueller and Robbins recognize, this work's closest relatiorlships (apart from with other works in the Ezra cycle) are with the apocalypses of Peter, Paul and the Virgin, and the apocryphal Apocalypse of John. This raises an important issue about the criteria for inclusion in a collection of O'T pseudepigrapha. All these apocalypses, whether they bear O T o r N T pseudonyms, are Christian works which draw on Jewish apocalyptic sources and traditions. In fact, the Apocalypses of Peter and Paul are probably closer to ancient Jewish apocalyptic sources than are the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra and the Vision of Ezra. To distinguish here between O T pseudepigrapha, which bear an O T pseudonym, and N'T apocrypha, which bear a N T pseudonym, is to draw a quite artificial distinction among works which arc closely related to each other and are equally useful, but also equally problematic, means of access t o Jewish apocalyptic traditions. (10) Questions of Ezra (M. E. Stone), of which Recension B is here published in translation for the first time, is an intriguing work, much of whose content must surely go back to ancient Jewish sources. But not even Stone can decide whether it originated in Armenian o r not. This is an extreme case of the tantalizing character of so many of the ostensibly late pseudepigrapha, which seem to preserve early material but offer no clues t o their time of origin. (11) Apocalypse of Sedrach (S. Agourides). It is annoying to find that this work has been given verse numbers which d o not correspond t o those in Wahl's edition (1977).30Although Agourides's work was completed without knowledge of Wahl's edition, the verse numbers could easily have been brought into line with what is likely to remain the standard edition of the Greek text.

" See n. 28 above.

8. 7%e Apocalypses In the New I'seudepigrapha

113

This work is related to the apocalypses of the Ezra cycle, but presses further the theme of the seer's debate with God in relation to his compassion for sinners. Agouridcs's arguments for seeing it as a Jewish work which has been only superficially Christianized should be considered carefully, but d o not carry complete conviction. The claim that much of its doctrinal content is 'atypical of medieval Christianity' (p. 606) is too broad a generalization to be useful. In the many centuries of Christian history during which the Apocalypse of Sedrach could, o n present evidence, have originated, there is plenty of evidence of minority Christian viewpoints not dissimilar to those of the apocalypse. Its general doctrinal tendency is consistent, for example, with the views of some of the 'merciful' Christians (rnisericordes) reported by Augustine (De civ. Dei 21,17-27). Views less extreme but tending in the same direction are found in the Apocalypse of Paul and the Apocalypse of the Virgin, and even though their ideas about mercy for the damned probably derive from Jewish sources, the popularity of these apocalypses shows that there were Christian circles in which such ideas were welcomed and propag a t ~ d . Moreover, ~' the apocalyptic genre of the seer's debate with God was attractive precisely to writers, whether Jewish o r Christian, who wanted a vehicle for some degree of protest against the official theology. The attribution of the apocalypse to Sedrach is not easy t o explain if it is Christian, but not much easier to explain if it is Jewish. The problern disappears if we accept the suggestion" that the name is a corruption of Ezra. This is not to deny that Jewish sources have undoubtedly been used (e.g. the substitution of Christ for Michael in ch. 9 is transparent), but the identification of Jewish material requires caution. The intriguing possibility that 6.4-6 preserves a pre-Christian parable of the prodigal son, which Jesus deliberately adapted to make a different point, should not be dismissed without further consideration, but it is also possible that the author has deliberately used only the beginning of Jesus' parable (as he understood it), leaving open the possibility of the prodigal's repentance, which forms the theme of the later part of his work. (12) 2 Baruch (A. F. J. Klijn). Klijn's introduction is largely a translation of his German introduction in JSHRZ. It is a commendably thorough treatment within its scope. (13)3 Baruch ( H . E. Gaylord, Jr) is the most neglected of the apocalypses which were included in APOT, no doubt partly because it seems to have little relevance to N T studies. But this neglect is mistaken, arising as it does

"

O n the place of the teaching of these apocalypses, as well as the Apocalypses of .qedrac/~ and Ezra, in the early Christian tradition, see now E. Lupieri, 'Poena aeterna nelle piu antiche apocalissi cristiane apocrife non gnostichc', Augustrnzanum 2 (1983), pp. 361-72. l2 M. E. Stone, 'The Metamorphosis of Ezra', JTS 33 (1982), p. 6.

114

8. T h Apocalypse, zrt the IVec Psr~deprgraph~l

from the tendency t o restrict relevance t o the mere search for parallels. A proper understanding of early Christianity requires a rounded picture of the religious context in which it originated and grew, and in this sense it is as important for the student of the N T to understand aspects of contemporary Judaism which bear little resemblance t o anything in the N T as it is for him t o study those which influenced early Christianity. If early Christians did not share the concerns of 3 Barz4ch, it is at least worth asking why they did not. Precisely because the N T scholar is unlikely t o find 3 Baruch very interesting, he should make the effort t o study it! It is a post-70 A D Jewish apocalypse which reacts very differently t o the catastrophe from the way in which the authors of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch reacted. Baruch's attention is turned away from the fate of the earthly Jerusalem and the problems of history and eschatology, and towards the mysteries of the heavenly realms. But this interest (which includes meteorological and astronomical topics as well as more obviously religious subjects) had always been a feature of the Jewish apocalypses, as we have recently been beconling rnore aware. 3 Raruc~')survives both in Greek and in a Slavonic version. As in A P O T , the translations of the t w o versions are here printed in parallel, since the differences between the t w o are such that any other treatment of them would be very misleading. By far the most important advance on A P O T is in the textual basis for the translati011 of the Slavonic and in the resulting estimation of the value of the Slavonic for access t o the original apocalypse. T h e translation is based on Gaylord's forthcoming edition of the Slavonic text, for which he has examined all known manuscripts of the Slavonic (though, unfortunately, in one respect the translation here is not as definitive as that in his forthcoming edition will be: see p. 655). From this it now becomes clear that where the Slavonic and the Greek ciiverge, it is the Slavonic that is frequently more original and represents a less Christianized version of the apocalypse than the extant Greek manuscripts do. Thus Gaylord's work o n the Slavonic not only takes us closer t o the original apocalypse; it also increases our confidence that 3 Baruch is an originally Jewish work. (Gaylord himself is unwilling t o assert this last conclusion, because he thinks that too sharp a distinction between Jewish and Christian works in the first t w o centuries A D may be artificial. H e has a point.) Gaylord's work o n 3 Barzrch is thus a striking instance of the great importance of work o n the Slavonic versions of the pseudepigrapha. Gaylord seems t o me too cautious about identifying 3 Rarztch with the Baruch apocryphon known t o Origen, especially since he concludes for other reasons that 3 Baruch was written before Origen. T h e problem is that there were seven heavens in the work known t o Origen, whereas in both o u r versions of 3 Baruch Baruch gets n o further than the fourth heaven. However, precisely Gaylord's vindication of the greater originality of the

8. :rhe Apocalypses

ztz

the New Pseudepigrapha

115

Slavonic indicates that both our versions of 3 Baruch are abbreviated. 16.4-8 in the Slavonic must be an abbreviation of an originally longer ending in which Baruch travelled t o higher heavens in order to view the punish~nents of the damned and the resting-place of the righteous. An early abbreviation of 3 Baruch by Christian copyists is easily explained, in that material on hell and paradise was readily available in well-known early Christian apocalypses such as those of Peter and Paul (the latter perhaps drew some of its material on these subjects from 3 Baruch), whereas 3 Baruch would have been copied and read for the sake of its more unusual material on the contents of the lower heavens. (14) Apocalypse of Abrahanz (R. Rubinkiewicz and H.G. Lunt). There can be no real doubt about the Apocalypsc of Al7raham's place among the ancient Jewish apocalypses: it should be the least controversial of OTP's additions to the apocalypses in A P O T . But since it has been preserved only in Slavonic, there is room for doubt about the originality of everything in the Slavonic version. Rubinkicwicz's suggestions of Bogomil interpolations (p. 684)'' probably go too far (23.5-1 1 seems to me the passage most likely to have been adapted under Bogomil influence), but in a Slavonic apocryphori they arc always possible. N o r can we tell what might have been omitted as objectionable in Bogoniil eyes (e.g. reference to bodily resurrection). However, most of the contents of the apocalypse have sufficient parallels in other early Jewish documents to give us confidence in their originality. The translation offers few really major differences from that of Box and Landsman," but it has a better textual basis, and it stays closer t o the original, with the result that, so far from clearing up obscurities in Box and Landsman's translation, it extends obscurity t o passages Box and Landsman had made relatively clear. It is as well that the English reader thereby gains a sense of the real difficulty of the Slavonic text. T h e French translation in the new edition by I'hilonenko-Sayor and Philonenko3' (which appeared too late to be noticed here) quite often makes plausible sense of passages which Rubinkiewicz and H u n t deliberately leave obscure." The scholar w h o cannot read Slavonic will probably have the best access lie can have t o the text by using these two new translations together.

"

H e dtrcussed these at greater lengtti In R. Kubtnktewtcr, 'I a clstori d e I'htstotre dans I'Aptrcalypse d'Abrshsni', in /llrfstieg rtnd Niedergang der rotnischen Welt (ed. I{. Tcniporlnt and W. £ 1aasc; I%crlln,N e w York: de Gruyter, 1979), 2.19.1. G . ki. Box and J. 1. I sndsmsn, Tbe Apotrrlypse ofAbr'&arn (London: SPCK, 1918). l5 B. Ph~lonenko-Sayorand M. Phtloncnko, L'Apocalypse d'Abraharn. Introductroti, textc ,lave, trrlduct~onet notes (= \ern 3 1 [I 981 1). '' E.g. their psrsptirfie of 10.12 (10.1 1 tn OTP's nurnberllig) I S clearly, tn the light of the followtng verse, the correct tntcrprctatton.

''

116

8. 7 h e Apocalypses in the New Pseudepzgrapha

The notes are purely textual. For help in understanding the text the reader must go to Box (whose notes are still very useful) and to Philonenko. The introduction is also disappointing: the work's relation to other Abraham traditions, its close affinity with the Ladder ofJacob, its important relationship to Merkabah mysticism, all go unmentioned. Its particular response to the fall of Jerusalem is hardly adequately characterized. ( 1 5 ) Apocalypse of Adam (G. MacRae) is the only Gnostic apocalypse included in OTP, chosen because of its arguably pre-Christian character. (16) Apocalypse of Elijah (0.S. Wintermute). There was an ancient Jewish Apocalypse of Elijah, probably existing as early as the first century AD, but this is not it. The ancient apocalypse survives probably in three reliably attributed quotations, the rather complex evidence for which has been collected in the edition by Stone and Stt-~gnell.~' These are more reliable evidence for the contents of the original apocalypse than anything in the Coptic Apoclaypse of Elzjah, which is translated here, and should certainly have been included in OTP (they are nearly as extensive as the fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel). It seems that out of the original Jewish Apocalypse of Elijah developed two later works, whose precise relationship to it can only be guessed: the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah, translated here, which in its present form is a Christian work of perhaps the forth century, and the Hebrew Apocalypse of Elijah, which, although in its present form is later, is as likely as the Coptic Apocalypse t o preserve material from the original apocalypse. It could well have been included in OTP, both for this reason and as a representative of the large body of medieval Hebrew apocalypses, in the same way as 3 Enoch is included as a representative of the Hekalot literature. The Coptic Apocalypse itself is an interesting work, for which Wintermute provides a thorough introduction and useful notes. H e is wisely cautious about the identification of a Jewish stratum (though he is sure it exists) until much more work on this and related documents is one. It is not clear to me how his suggestion (plausible in itself) that the title Apocalypse of Elijah is only a secondary identification resulting from the Christian account of Elijah's martyrdom (p. 722), is consistent with his acceptance of the view that a common ancestor lies behind this and the Hebrew Apocalypse of Elijah (p. 729). H e has not noticed the Coptic Apocalypse's dependence on the Apocalypse of Peter (at 3.1-4; 5.26-29). (17) Apocalypse of Daniel (G.T. Zervos). Again it is an unnecessary inconvenience to have the text divided into chapters and verses different from those in Berger's e d i t i ~ n , which '~ is bound t o remain the standard edition of j7

Stone and Strugnell, Hooks ofElzlah.

'R K . Berger, Dte gnechfiche Daniel-Dzegesr (SPB, 27; Leiden; E. J. Brill, 1976).

Gcrrrral comments

117

the text (despite some deficiencies: OTP, p. 756) and the fullest commentary on the work. Zervos folllows Berger in dating the work t o the early ninth century, o n the basis of an alleged reference t o the coronation of Charlemagne in 7.14. Even if this reference is not quite certain, the date is approximately correct. This is therefore one of the very large number of Byzantine apocalypses from the early medieval period, which include a confusingly large number of other Ilaniel apocalypses, the Armenian Vision of Enoch, and the several versions of Pseudo-Methodius. T h e fact that this text is attributed in one manuscript t o Daniel and in another t o Methodius is an indication of the fact that in the Byzantine period these were regarded as the two most appropriate pseudonyms for historical-eschatological apocalypses. Whether there is any particular justification for choosing this rather than other Byzantine apoclypses for inclusion in OTP I am not sure,3y but it is an extremely interesting work, which illustrates rather well the way in which such late apocalypses d o preserve early material. But Berger's commentary o n this work ( i n v a l ~ ~ ~as b l an e introduction t o the whole field of later Christian apocalyptic) is an education in the vast complexity of the task of understanding how early traditions passed t o an through such later apocalypses.

General comments It is likely that OTP will be criticized for including works which are too late a n d / o r too Christian to be evidence for the Judaism of the period before 200 AD. There probably are some works which should not have been included. O n the other hand, provided readers of OTP are fully aware of the character of the late works and of the problems of detecting early Jewish material in such works, inclusiveness can well be regarded as a virtue. Widcning horizons is always better than restricting them. Many of the apocalyptic 'newcomers' in OTP merit at least further study, which may o r may not vindicate their relevance t o the study of the NT and early Judaism. While the question remains open, it is better t o have them brought into the limelight for a time rathcr than left in the shadows whcrc they have bee11until now. The real problem is whether OTP, in selecting apocalyptic works other than those which because of their undoubtedly early date and Jewish -" An equally well qualified candidate for inclusion might be the 'Stburtine Sybil, o n which sec P J . Alexander, Thc Oracle of Naalbek: The Tzburtrne S1by1 rn Greek Drtw (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 19; Washington, I>. C:.: Dumbarton Oaks Centre for Bylantinc Studies, 1967); D . Flusser, 'An carly Jcwish-Christran L>ocument in the 'Ixurtinc Stbyl', in Pagan~srne,Judarstne, (:hrtsrrantsme: iblilange, ofjerts d Marcel Srmon (ed. A. Benoit, M. I'hilonenko, <:.Vogel; I'aris: E. de Btrccard, 1978), pp. 153-83.

118

8. 'The Apoc'zlypses In the New Pseri&prgrupha

character must be included, has not made a quite arbitrary selection. I have already pointed out several examples of works which are excluded, but whose claim to inclusion is at least as good as that of some works which have been included. The point should not be pressed too far, lest we be in danger of regarding the limits of the pseudepigrapha as another 'canon' to be fixed. Rather than discussing what the limits should be, it would be more profitable to establish that the pseudepigrapha must remain an open and fluid collection, not to be closed and fixed by O T P any more than it should have been by APOT. Once the limits of the O T pseudepigrapha have been opened to include works which are not even probably Jewish works of the period before 200 AD, then the limits can never be closed again, because the range of such works which may to some degree depend on early Jewish sources o r preserve early Jewish traditions is very large indeed, and scholarly judgments about them will always vary. However, there is one issue which may make the very concept of a collection of O T pseudepigrapha, as O T P has conceived it, less than useful. A collection of ' O T pseudepigrapha' can hardly include the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocalypse of Paul, the apocryphal Apocalypse ofJohn, o r a host of other Christian apocalypses bearing N T pseudonyms. Yet, as I have already pointed out above, such apocalypses are closely related to the Christian apocalypses which bear O T pseudonyms, some of which are included in OTP. The distinction, which the concept of the ' O T pseudepigrapha' forces, is quite foreign to the nature of the literature itself. Charlesworth's claim that the N T apocrypha 'only infrequently were shaped by early Jewish tradition' (OTP, p. xxvii) may be more true of other categories of N T apocrypha, but it is quite untrue of apocalypses. The impression (which O T P is bound to propagate) that a Christian apocalypse written under the name of Ezra o r Daniel is, in some undefined sense, more 'Jewish' than one written under the name of Thomas o r the Virgin Mary, is wholly misleading. Both classes of apocalypse are equally likely to preserve early Jewish apocalyptic material. Moreover, the two classes can only be adequately studied together, as one class, as well as in relation to older apocalyptic writings. It is a further danger of the concept of ' O T pseudepigrapha' that it tends to encourage the study of relatively late works primarily by means of their affinities with earlier works, whereas they also need to be very thoroughly related to the historical and literary context to which, in their present form, they belong. It will not advance our understanding of the Christian apocalypses with bear O T pseudonyms if, by their inclusion in the O T pseudepigrapha, they are artifically extracted from their place in the broader tradition of Christian apocalyptic 1iteratu1-e.40

" N o not mean here to cxclude tlleir possible relationship also to later Jewish apoca-

General comrrzents

119

I would suggest that the student of ancient Jewish apocalyptic, especially in the N T period, really needs to be acquainted with four bodies of literature, which for practical purposes can be distinguished as follows: (1) Apocalypses which were written o r probably written before 200 AD, and which have suffered no more than minor editing at a later date. This category will include both Jewish works (I Enoch, 2 Enoch?, Sib. Or. 3-5, 11, Apocryphon of Ezekiel, Apocalypse of Eliajah fragments, 'Apocalypse of Zephaniah', 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, Apocalypse of Abraham, Ladder of Jacob) and Christian works (NT Apocalypse of John, Shepherd of Hermas, Ascension of Isaiah, Apocalypse of Peter, Sib. Or. 1-2, 7-8,) Ezra), since in this period at least Christian apocalyptic was still in very close contact with Jewish apocalyptic. (With the exception of Sib. Or. 12-14, it is probable that no Jewish apocalypses from after 200 A D have been preserved outside categories (3) and (4) below.) (2) Christian apocalypses, whether bearing 01: or N T pseudonyms o r others (e. g. Methodius), written during the period from 200 A D to at least 1000 AD. This is a very large body of literature. (3) The Hebrew Merkabah texts written from c. 300 AD onwards (see Alexander's list in OTP, pp. 250-51). (4) The Hebrew apocalypses, such as the Hebrew Apocalypse of Elijah, the Book of Zerubbabel, the Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Y ~ h a i . ~ ' The apocalyptic tradition should be envisaged as essentially a continuous stream, which after c. 200 A D divided into the three streams (2), (3) and (4), which from then on producted distinct bodies of literature (though they were not without influence on each other).42But because the tradition was essentially continuous and also notably conservative, preserving and at the same time constantly reusing and adapting earlier material, all three later branches of the tradition are capable of illuminating ancient apocalyptic. They may throw light on the meaning of ancient material, they may preserve ancient traditions and reflect the contents of ancient apocalypses which as such are no longer extant, they may even contain as yet unidentified ancient documents. Because the apocalyptic literature we have from the period before 200 AD has almost exclusively been passed down to us via lyptic. Later Christian and later Jewish apocalyptic probably developed with more crossfertilization than is often recogni~ed. '" A convenient, if not wholly satisfactory, collection of translations is in G. W. Buchanan, Rmelatron and Redemptron (Dillsboro, North Carolina: Western North Carolina Press, 1978). See also the listing and description of some of the works in categories (3) and (4) in A.J. Saldarini, 'Apocalypses and "Apocdlyptic" in Rabbinic Literature and Mysticism', Semela 14 (1979), pp. 187-205. '? O f course, further divisions occur within (2): Ethiopia, for example, has its o w n apocalyptic tradition.

120

8. The Apocalypses In the N e v I'scrtdep~gnrphn

stream ( 2 ) , the Christian stream, we have tended to look especially t o this stream for further light o n ancient apocalyptic. Recently, the light which stream (3) can throw o n ancient apocalyptic has begun t o be appreciated. The contribution of stream (4) has as yet been scarcely at all explored. It should be stressed that all three later streams can only contribute reliably t o the study of ancient apocalyptic if they are first of all understood in their own right, as literature of their o w n period. If they are simply plundered for parallels o r scoured for ancient-looking material, serious mistakes are likely t o be made. In relation t o this classification of apocalyptic literature, it can be seen that O T P tends t o distort the picture: it does not even include all of (1); it includes a fairly arbitrary selection of (I), one example, not the earliest, of (3), and n o exaniples of (4). Even this, however, is probably better than a very narrowly defined collection of ancient Jewish apocalypses. For the student of ancient apocalyptic must be encouraged to acquaint himself with the later phases of the tradition. Otherwise he will not be able to perform even such necessary tasks as assessing arguments for a late date for 2 Enoch o r for the Parables of Enoch, o r assessing the extent of Christian editing in a work such as 3 Baruch. H e will therefore have to venture into many unfamiliar areas, such as B y ~ a n t i n ehistory o r Merkabah mysticism o r Bogornil religion o r Ethiopian Christianity, and will have t o rely heavily o n specialists in such areas. But this simply highlights once again the necessarily cooperative and interdisciplinary nature of peudepigraphal studies. Finally, it is worth pointing out that serious attention t o the collection of apocalypses in O T P , for all its deficiencies, ought t o change our common impressions of Jewish apocalyptic and its relationship t o the N T . Used with proper discrimination for the light they can shed o n Jewish apocalyptic in N T times, these docunients bring t o light a concern with a very wide range of apocalyptic revelations: tours of the seven heavens with their various meterological, astronomical and angelological secrets; tours of hell and paradise; revelations of the secrets of the creation and the primeval history; visions of the glory of G o d and his worship in heaven; anguished demands for answers t o problems of theodicy; as well as interpretation of history and the events of the last days. Most of these themes go back in some form as far as the early parts of 1 Enoch, and scholars such as Stone" and Rowland'" have pointed out how mistaken it is to see eschatology as the only o r even in every case the central concern of Jewish apocalyptic. But the prominence of some of these topics in some of the later apocalypses helps t o focus our attention more carefully o n their presence in the earlier literature too. What "

M . I:..

"

Rowland, Open Heaven.

Stonc,

Scr~ptrtres,Sects a~zdVzs~ons(Oxford: Bl,~ckwell,1982).

Gencval comments

12 1

we have still to take full account of is the fact that most of the concerns of Jewish apocalyptic in NT times d o not appear in the NT writings. Heavily influenced by apocalyptic as primitive Christianity undoubtedly was, it was also highly selective in the aspects of apocalyptic which it took over. This is a fact about the NT which can only be appreciated by diligent study of pseudepigraphal works which d o not look at all relevant to the NT!

+

9. Pseudo-Apostolic Letters:;

New Testament scholars are now nearly unanimous in the opinion that at least one N'T letter, 2 Peter, is pseudepigraphal,' but opinions arc still t o a greater o r lesser extent divided over the authenticity of a considerable number of other N T letters which have been alleged t o be pseudepigraphal. It seems unlikely that further progress will be made without the use of some fresh criteria for distinguishing pseudepigraphal from authentic letters. This article aims t o derive such criteria from the study of undoubtedly pseudepigraphal letters among the Jewish pseudepigrapha and the N T apocrypha.' T h e problem of pseudepigraphy in the N T has often been set within the very large coritext of the general phenomenon of pseudepigraphy in the ancient world, without sufficient appreciation of the fact that the pseudepigraphal letter is a genre with some special features of its own. In the first section of this article we shall explain these specific features of the pseudepigraphal letter by setting it within the context of a comprehensive classification of types of letters in antiquity. The pseudepigraphal letter itself will be subdivided into a series of types, which for the sake of clarity will in this first section be simply explained without reference to actual examples frorn ancient Jewish and Christian literature. Then, in sections I1 and 111, comprehensive accounts of ancient Jewish pseudepigraphal letters and of pseudoapostolic letters among the N T apocrypha will demonstrate that all such letters d o in fact conform t o the types of pseudepigraphal letters explained in section I. This will establish the presumption that any pseudepigraphal letter in the N'r ought also t o confc~rmt o one of these types, and publication: J o u r n ~ofl Riblicizl I.iter.zrurc 107 (1988) 469-494. For the history of the debate about the authenticity of 2 Peter and the growth of the current consensus, see niy article "2 I'cttr: An Account of Research", in AIVRW 2.25.5 (1988) 3719-3721. The rnost ~tsefulprevious attempts to d o soniething of this kind are those of 1). Guthric: NLIZ~, Gstument Introduction ( 3 d ed.; Landon: InterVarsity, 1970) 672-77; and "Acts and Epistles in Apocryphal Writitigs," in Apostolir History and the Gospel: Bibliczl and Historical Essays prt,rented to E E Bruce on his 60th Birthday (ed. W. Ward Gasque and R. P. Martin; Excter: Paternoster, 1970) 328-425. But Guthrie lnissed the most important Jewish examples and failed to sce the importance of the issue of the addressees of a pseudepigraphal letter.

'

'

First

124

9. Pseudo-Apostoltc Letters

therefore in the last t w o sections of the article conformity t o the types of pseudepigraphal lcttcr known from ancient Jewish and Christian literature outside the N T will be used as a criterion t o test the pseudepigraphy o r authenticity of N T letters.

I. Types of Pseudepigraphal Letters Types of letters

Authentic Letters

Pseudepigraphal Letters

A. Real letter content: specific general

A P. Real fetter content: specific 1. imaginative 2. historiographical 3. unchanged situation 4. typological situation 5. testamentary 6. general AaP. Real letter not tn letterform content: 1-6 (as above)

Aa. Real fetter not in letter form content: specific general B. Letter-essay content: general C . Lttera y letter (only formally a letter) content: usually general D. Work not in letter fown, wrongly called a letter

BP. Letter-essay

DP. Work not m letter form wrongly called letter

E P. M~sattrrbutcdwork

T h e diagram is an attenlpt at a rough classification of types of letters in the ancient world, made primarily with a view to understanding the types of pseudepigraphal letters which will be studied in this a r t i ~ l eFor . ~ the purposes of this article and the diagram, authentic letters are defined as those whose professed author is in some sense the real author, and include letters which may have been written, partly o r even wholly, by a secretary o r colleague of the professed author,' s o long as the professed author authorized the letter; "ecausc the purpose is different, this classification differs from that of W. G. Doty, "The Classification of Epistolary I.iterature," CHQ 31 (1969) 195-98; idem, Letters itz Primitive Christianity (I'hiladelphia: Fortress, 1973) 4-8. His category of "non-real" letters fails to indicate that in most cases these are fictional versions of the other types. For the role of secretaries in ancient letter-writing, see G. J. Bahr, "Paul and 1.etter Writing in the First Century", CHQ 28 (1966) 465-77.

I. Types of Preudepigraphal Letters

125

that is, it was sent out in the author's name with the author's consent. For the purposes of this article, a pseudepigraphal letter is defined as one whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past. This definition excludes letters falsely attributed to someone during his own lifetime. Such letters were written in antiquityS and could quite properly be called pscudepigraphal letters, but since it is very unlikely that any N T letter belongs in this category they will not be considered in this article. Nor is this article concerned with letters whose real authors did not intend them to be pseudepigraphal, but which later came to be mistakenly attributed to other authors. A good deal of ancient literature is pseudepigraphal in this sense of mistaken a t t r i b u t i ~ n ; ~ and this type of pseudepigraphal letter is included in the diagram as type EP, but letters in this category will be mentioned only in order to be left out of the discussion. Some N?' letters may well belong in this category (Hebrews almost certainly does), but this article will not help to identify them. Originally and properly the letter is a literary genre that enables a writer to address a specific person or persons directly. It is a literary substitute for speaking t o someone in person, used when for some reason (most commonly, geograpliical distance) the contents of the letter cannot be communicated orally. Thus, what makes a letter a letter is not so much the nature of its contents, which can vary e n ~ r m o u s l y ,but ~ the fact that the content is directly addressed by one person to another (or, of course, more than one person in either cases). Hence the really essential feature of the literary form of the letter is the parties formula in which the sender(s) and the recipient(s) are named or specified in some other way. In order to write a letter, an author must name himself and must name or otherwise specify his adressees.' (An anonymous letter is a defective letter, a deliberate abuse of the form, as the recipient's reaction to its anonymity shows.) In special cases, the addressees may be an extrcniely large group: Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 addresses a letter to "all peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth" (a conventional hyperbole for all his subjects). But even so, the addressees must be specified and directly addressed. Type A, the authentic real letter, is the original type of letter, and the model of which types AP, B, BP, and C are imitations. Type A is the letter Jerome (Apol. 3.25) complains of a forged letter put about under his name, and if 2 Thessalonians is authentic. 2:2 seems to mean that forged letters attributed to Paul circulated during his o w n lifetime. "ee B.M.Metzger, "Pseudepigraphy in the Israelite Literary Tradition", in Pseudepigraphs I: P s e ~ d o p ~ t h a ~ o -n cLettres u de Platon - L~tteraturepseudf;p~graphtque~utve (cd. K . von Fritz; Entretiens sur I'antiquiti. classique 17; Geneva: Vandoeuvres, 1971) 194-98. Iloty, Letters, 15-1 6. For coauthorship, see Cicero Ad. Art. 1 1.5.1. For these features of the definition of a letter, see Dot); Letters, 193.

'

126

Y. Pseudo-Aposrolrc Letters

whose real author writes in his own name with the intention of addressingthe recipient(s) named o r otherwise specified in the parties formula. In every such letter the contents are intended for the recipient(s), but the nature of the contents can vary from material which bears very specifically o n the recipient's situation o r relationship with the author and which would make no sense addressed t o anyone else, t o material of a very general character (say, an account of the author's philosophical views) which could be addressed t o any interested reader. Many letters, of course, contain a mixture of relatively specific and relatively general contents, but a letter that is largely o r even exclusively general in content is still a real letter (type A) s o long as it is genuinely meant for its specified addressee(s).'O Even though the special value of the letter genre for most letter writers is that it makes it possible t o communicate relatively specific rnatet-id, there is nothing to prevent a letter writer w h o wishes to communicate very general material t o the recipient(s) from doing so." However, the fact that a real letter can contain general material that would be of interest t o readers other than the specified addressee(s) makes possible the extension of the use of the letter genre t o types B and C. For type B, I rely o n M. L. Stirewalt's study of the "Greek letter-essay," but I would define it a little less restrictively than he does.12 This is a letter which, while formally and really addressed t o a named recipient, is also explicitly intended t o be read by a much wider readership, t o whom its main content will be equally relevant." For example, Epicurus, addressing an account of lo Of course, it is possible for a letter t o be really meant for its specified addressees, but for the writer also t o have in mind the possibility of future publication for a wider readership; see Doty, lLetters, 2-3. For simplicity, and because it is scarcely relevant t o psdeudcpigraphal letters, this possibility is riot included in the diagram. NT scholars sometirnes argue that a letter whose content is of general applicability must be a "literary lettcr" (my type C ) , not a real letter; see, o n James, S. Laws, A Cornmenfury on The Epistle of/irmes (Black's N T (:ornmentaric; I.ondon: A. & C . Black, 1980) 6. But from this point of view there is n o reason why Janles should not be a real letter, written and delivered t o actual Jewish Christian communities. l 2 h4.L. Stircwalt, Jr., "'The Form and Function of the Greek Ixtter-Essay", in The Rornuns Debate (ed. K . I". I h n f r i e d ; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977) 175-206. I d o not consider it essential that a type B letter should be "supplementary in some way t o another writing" (Stircwalt, "I:orn~," 176). I' "'The letter-setting behind the letter is triangular, I-thou-they" (Stirewalt, "Form," 204). Col ):I6 probably does not put Colossians in this category, since the letter is presumably written for the Colossiaris and has their o w n situation in view. That the 1.aodiceans may also find it valuable is quite secoridarv t o its wurmse. li)the extent that I'aul envisareti the wider circulation of his letter5 t o specific churches, his letters are type A verging somewhat toward type B. 1 an1 not convinced by the argunicnt of K. P. Ilonfried ("False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans," C RC) 36 119741 332-55 [reprinted in The Romans Debate, 120481) t o the effect that Romans actually belongs t o type B. T h e later church (cf. the Muratoriari Canon) camc t o think of Paul's letters as implicity type B letters; that is, while addressing specific churches I'aul was implicitly addressing all churches.

"

a

a

I. Q p e s of Psertdc.pigrapl.)al Letters

127

his philosophy to Pythocles, says that "many others besides you will find these reasonings useful" ( d p . Diogenes Laertius 10.85). Such a letter may often be a response to an actual request from the recipient and is therefore a real letter, but it is also written for the benefit of others t o whom the recipient is expected t o pass it on. T h e specified recipient is thus, as it were, a stage o n the way to the general publication of the work for an indefinite readership. Type B letters are therefore very similar in function t o dedicated treatises and are readily distinguishable only by their use of the letter form, consisting of at least a formal letter opening." Type C letters are those which, while retaining the form of a real Ictter, naming and addressing a specific recipient, are actually letters only in form. The named addressee is (though he may be a real person) only fictionally the addressee, for the work is in fact intended for a general readership. Since type C letters d o not differ in form, but only in intention, from type A letters (which can, of course, be published later for a general readership), it will not be easy t o identify them with certainty,15 but some ancient letters, such as those of Seneca, are normally considered examples of type C. It should be noted that the element of fiction which type C letters introduce into the use of the letter form creates a distinction between the supposed addrcssee(s) and the real readers. This is a distinction that (as we shall see) characterizes most pseudepigraphal letters. The only really essential formal feature of a letter was the letter opening, consisting of at least the parties formula, normally also a greeting. There were, of course, in the ancient world more extensive letter forms, which have been usefully studied, but they were not cssentkl to the letter and d o not affect the argument of this article. T h e fact that only a letter opening is required t o make a letter a letter means that a letter could easily be written that also belonged t o another literary genre. A speech o r a sermon that would have been delivered orally had the author been able t o visit the addressees becomes a letter when instead he writes it down for them and adds an epistolary opening and perhaps also an epistolary conclusion. Genres that are written forms of oral address (speeches and sermons) are the most obvious genres t o be combined with that of the letter,'"ut in principle almost any genre could also be a Ictter. The papyri offer examples of legal docunients in letter form. T h e book of Revelation is an apocalypse put into I' The dedicated treatise is more likely to confine direct address to the dedicatee to the preface and conclusion, but this is not an absolute distinction. l 5 Doty therefore rejects the use of intention as a criterion for distinguishing types of letters ("Classification," 194-95). I agree that it cannot be a basis for distinguishing letter forms, but it is ~ieverthelcssa real distinction. l 6 See J.L.. White, "Saint Paul and the Apostolic Letter Tradition," CBQ 45 (1983) 435-56.

128

9. Pseudo-Apostolic 1-etters

the form of a circular letter t o the seven churches of Asia and containing a specific address t o each church." There are examples of letters that lack every trace of specifically epistolary form, even the parties formula.'"n some cases this may be because the literary context in which the letter has been preserved (or, in the case of some pseudepigraphal letters, composed) provides the information that the parties formula would give (e. g., 2 C h r 2 1:12?;Jer 29:4?; Bar 1 :10; E p Jer 2). In other cases the letter opening rnay have been thought inapplicable when the letter was copied for a wider readership (Hebrews?. 1 John?, Bamabas?). It may also be that there were occasions when a speech o r sermon was written and sent as a letter, but it was left to the messenger to supply the information that an epistolary opening would normally provide." All such cases of documents that functioned as letters but now lack epistolary form are included in type Aa (pseudepigraphal examples in type AaP). However, a written speech o r sermon that lacks any element of epistolary form may often be indistinguishable from one written either for the author t o read aloud to the hearers o r in order t o preserve it for the hearers' benefit after they have first heard it delivered orally. Some works may therefore have been misclassified as letters in antiquity (type D). A good example is 2 Clement (first called a letter in Eusebius Nist. eccl. 3.38.4), whose text makes it clear that it is a sermon read aloud by the speaker in the actual presence of the congregation (152; 17:3; and especially 19:1).*O There is some evidence t o suggest that ancient scribes, working o n the principle that a letter is a literary substitute for oral address t o specific persons, tended t o classify works written in the form of direct address as letters." Such misclassified works must be ruled out of o u r discussion. I' See E. Schiissler Fiorenza, " C o n ~ p o s i t i o n and Structure of the Revelation of John," C R Q 39 (1977) 367-81; White, "Saint Paul," 444.

A special category here is documents that lack the parties formula but display some other epistolary features. I k b r e w s lacks any epistolary opening, but has a conclusion that must be epistolary (13:22-25). F. 0.Francis argues for epistolary features in 1 John, which lacks a parties formula ("The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John," Z N W 61 [I9701 110-26), but against the view that 1 John is in any sense a letter, see R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John (AB30; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 86-92. l 9 For the importance of the messe~igeri n the ancient epistolary situation, see Dory, "Classification," 193-94; L.etiers, 2, 30. O n the genre o f 2 Cletncnt, which L)onfried classifies as a "hortatory address", see K. I". Donfried, The serting o/Second Clement in early Christiunity (Nov'TSup 38; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 19-48. But, even in the case of 2 Clement, we cannot rule out the possibility that this hortatory address was later sent as a letter t o other churches (Donfried, Second Clement, 47-48). I' Thus, in the longer version of the Apocalypse of Thomas, the second part of the work, which is a discourse of Christ addressed t o Thomas, is introduced: incipit epistula domirti

''

I. Types of Pse~depi~raphal Letters

129

Pseudepzgraphal letters are not, of course, distinguishable in farm from authentic letters, of which they are fictional imitations. The diagram does not include type CP, which could in theory exist, but would be a rather sophisticated fiction, involving two levels of fiction, and is therefore unlikely. In fact, as will become clear, type AP6 could well be regarded in another sense as the pseudepigraphal equivalent of type C. All letters, including pseudepigraphal letters, must specify both sender(s) and recipient(s). In the case of pseudepigraphal letters the supposed author, named in the parties formula, is not the real author. But it is important to notice also, since the point is sometimes neglected, that the supposed addressee(s), specified in the parties formula, cannot be the real readers for whom the real author is writing. The supposed addressee(s) must (except in some special cases to be considered later) be a contemporary or contcmporaries of the supposed author. Not only does the "I" in a pseudepigraphal letter not refer to the real author, but "you" does not refer to the real readers. The readers of a pseudepigraphal letter cannot read it as though they were being directly addressed either by the supposed author or by the real author (except in the special cases to be noted later); they must read it as a letter written to other people, in the past. Thus, the pseudepigraphal letter, by its very nature, requires a distinction between the supposed addressee(s) and the real readers. We shall discover a few cases of pseudepigraphal letters that contrive by special devices to include the real readers in the supposed addressees. But in no indubitably pseudepigraphal letter known to me are the supposed addressees and the real readers identical. This means that a pseudepigraphal letter cannot, as scholars sometimes too readily assume, perform the same function as an authentic real letter. The authentic real letter (type A) is a form of direct address to specific addressee(s). The pseudepigraphal letter, it seems, can be this only fictionally. The real author of a pseudepigraphal letter can only address real readers indirectly, under cover of direct address to other people. This is what distinguishes the pseudepigraphal letter from most other types of pseudepigraphal literature, which d o not need to have addressees at all. For the writers of the vast majority of ancient p~eudepi~raphal letters this was no problem. The typical ancient pseudepigraphal letter is a letter from a famous figure of the past to one of his contemporaries, and is intended to be of interest to its real readers for the same kinds of reasons as an authentic letter preserved from the past might be. Most ancient pseudepigraphal letters can be classified as either imaginative literature (type API) or as historiography (type AP2). The point of letters of type AP1 was simply to entertain ad Thomam. See E. I-ienneckc, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. W. Schneemclcher and K.McL. Wilson; London: Lutterwonh, 1963, 1965) 2. 799 n. 1 .

o r t o instruct in the ways in which fiction can entertain and instruct. Letters of famous men were often written as exercises in the rhetorical schools, and pseudepigraphal letters of this kind, often in the form of collections, became in the early centuries of the C o m m o n Era one of the most popular forms of light reading. Classics of this typc were the letters of Alciphron, sonic attributed to invented characters, some t o real historical characters, such as the nineteen letters of famous courtesans. Some pseudepigraphal letter collections are really historical novels in the form of letters. The so-called Socratic Epistles (thirty-seven letters t o and from philosophers and their friends in the circle of Socrates) are full of historical details in which fiction is liberally mingled with fact. 'Che line between historical romance and serious historiography is not always easy t o draw, but we should probably distinguish letters (type AP2) that serve a more properly historiographical purpose, whether as forgeries t o provide documentation for alleged historical facts not otherwise documented o r as historical illustration written on the Thucydidean principle of historical speeches. Thus, types API and AI'2, which cover the vast majority of ancient pseudepigraphal letters, are types in which n o problern is caused for the author by the fact that the supposed addressees of the letter cannot be the real rcaders. T h e author is not writing the type of literature in which he needs t o aJdress real readers directly. 111 other words, he does not want his fictional letter to perform for htm a n d hts readers the function which an authentic real letter would perform, that of making possible direct address t o specific addressee(s). Both for hini and for his readers, it is someone else's letter t o other people. But suppose an author wished to write, under a pseudonym, a letter with the kind of content characteristic of N T letters: religious teaching and ethical exhortation. H o w could the genre, which necessitates direct address t o supposed readers in the past, accommodate didactic material applicable to the real readers? T h e problem for the author in this case is that he wants his pseudepigraphal letter t o perform for hirn and his readers something like the function which an authentic real letter from him t o his readers would perform. H e wants, under cover of his pseudonym, t o address his real readers, but his genre allows his letter to be addressed only to supposed addressees contemporary with the supposed author. Thus, he needs t o find some way in which material that is ostensibly addressed t o supposed addressees in the past can be taken by his real readers as actually o r also addressed t o them,. T h e various ways in which this can be and was done define the remaining types of pseudepigraphal letters, and they will also become o u r criteria for testing the alleged pseudcpigraphy of N T letters. For any pseudcpigraphal lettcr which has the didactic aims of N T letters must find some such way of bridging the gap between the supposed

I. Q p e s of' Pserccir~p~~riiphIrl I.ctto.1

13 1

addressee(s) and the real readers, which the pseudepigraphal letter as a genre seems necessarily to create. T h e solution to the problem was not especially difficult if the intended real readers were a very general readership which the author is content t o address in very general terms. In this case he could write a letter of type AP6; that is, he could represent his pseudonym as addressing to the supposed addrcssee(s) material so general that it coould equally well be addressed to anyone (or, at any rate, t o anyone of the author's religion). By this means the author could d o with a pseudepigraphal letter much the same as an author writing in his own name could d o with a letter of type C. Even more suitable t o the pseudepigraphal writer's purpose would be a letter of type BP, in which he can explicitly say that the material addressed t o the supposed recipient is also relevant to others, among whom the real readers will understand themselves t o be included. In a letter of this type, the supposed recipient can even be asked o r instructed to pass the material o n to others, thus creating a fictional channel by which the letter written initially for the supposed addressee in the past can be supposed t o have been handed down to the real readers in the present. However, in themselves these two expedients (AP6 and BP) only enable the pseudepigraphal writer to address a general readership in general terms. They d o not enable him to d o what Paul did in his authentic letters, that is, to write material of specific relevance t o specific churches in specific situations. 'There seem to have been only three ways which writers of pseudepigraphal letters found to move beyond general didactic material to material of more specific application to their real readers (types AP3, AP4, AP5), though they never reached the degree of specificity found in most Pauline letters. Two of these possibilities bridge the gap between the supposed addressees and the real readers by placing the supposed addressees in a historical situation in the past that was similar to the situation of the intended real readers in the present, so that remarks relevant to the situation of the supposed addressees will be relevant also to the situation of the real readers. O n e way t o d o this was to address supposed addressees w h o were ancestors o r predecessors of the real readers in a situation supposed not to have changed, in relevant respects, up to the present, so that the real readers are still in the same situation as the supposed addressees once were (type AP3). A second possibility was to depict the historical situation of the supposed addressees as a kind of type of the similar present situation of the real readers, s o that what is said t o the supposed addressees applies typologically to the real readers (type AP4). In both these cases the situation of the supposed addressees has t o be described sufficiently for the real readers to identify it as analogous to their own. The final possibility (type AP5) was t o write a testament o r farewell speech in the form of a letter. T h e farewell speech was a well-established

132

9. Pseudo-Apostolic Letters

genre of Jewish literature, in which a biblical figure, shortly before his death, could be represented as addressing not only his immediate hearers but also future generations to whom his words will be transmitted, and with prophetic insight as foreseeing the situation of future generations, especially the generation of the end-time. The writing of such a farewell speech in letter form makes possible a pseudepigraphal letter explicitly addressed to readers living after the death of the supposed author. Thus, in some ways at least, the testamentary letter appears to be the ideal solution to the problem of writing a pseudepigraphal letter with didactic intentions. By these three means a few pseudepigraphal letter writers, as we shall see in the following sections, managed to say something relatively specific to their contemporaries. What must be emphasized, in conclusion, is that without an explicit literary device such as the testament, no pseudepigrapha1 letter could be addressed by a figure of the past to addressees living in the real author's present. This would have been a blatant transgression of the logic of the genre, and therefore it is not found in any indubitably pseudepigraphal letter from antiquity. If a pseudepigraphal writer wished to address his own contemporaries under cover of the supposed addressees of a pseudepigraphal letter, then either he had to keep his content very general (types AP6, BP) or he had to make clear that the situation of the supposed addressees was comparable to that of the real readers (types AP3, AP4). Only in a very special kind of pseudepigraphal letter (type AP5), in which the supposed author actually expresses his intention of addressing readers living after his death and foresees their situation, can the real readers of a pseudepigraphal letter be explicitly addressed. This case still needs to be established from the study of indubitably pseudepigraphal letters outside the NT. The next two sections of this article will survey Jewish pseudepigraphal letters and those attributed to apostles in the N T apocrypha, on the assumption that these categories are likely to include some of the most relevant material for comparison with the N T letters.

11.Jewish Pseudepigraphal Letters2* For the sake of completeness, we shall first mention works which were misclassified as letters in antiquity, in order to rule them out of our discussion and letters of the imaginative and historiographical types, before 22 For brief comments a n such letters, see M. Smith, "Pseudepigraphy," 212-13, 215: he sees then1 as largely due to Greek influence o n Jewish literature, and thus t o be distinguished from the indigenous Israelite tradition of pscudcpigraphy. A very valuable survey of ancient Jewish letters, both authentic and pseudepigraphal, is P.S. Alexander,

considering in detail the four didactic letters, which bear some comparison with N T letters: (1) Misclassified (type DP), The so-called Letter of Aristeas, which is not described as a letter by the earliest writers who refer to it:' should probably be classified as a dedicated treatise. If a letter, it is type AaP2. The book of Esther is called a letter in Add Esth 11:1, probably because the author of this colophon to the Greek Esther identified the book as Mordecai's letter to which Esth 9:20-23 refers; but plainly the author of Esther did not intend it to be a letter. (2) Imaginative and historiographical types (AP 1, AaP 1, AP2, AaP2). These include the majority of Jewish pseudepigraphal letters, and for our purposes the two types need not be distinguished. Omitting examples of seriously disputed authenticity, we may list: 2 C h r 21:12-15; Dan 4:1-37; 6:25-28; Add Esth 13:1-7; 16:l-24; Ep. Arist. 35-40; 41-46; 3 Macc 3:12-29; 7:1-19; Eupolemus, up. Eusebius, Praep. rvang. 9.3 1-34.3; Josephus, Ant. 8.2.6-7 $50-54; Philo, D e leg. 276-329; Par. Jer. (4 Bnr.) 6:19-25; 7:24-34. These letters call for no special discussion here. (3) Didactic letters. There are only four examples ( 1 Enoch 92-105; Epistle of Jeremiah; 1 Baruch; 2 Bar. 78-87), but all four are of considerable significance for our purpose. 'I'he Epistle of Enoch ('Ex~utohil'Evti)~)is the title given to the section (chaps. 91[92]-105) of I Enoch in the Chester Beatty Michigan papyrus of the Greek version of these chapters.2JThe work also refers to itself as ~ 4 5 &n~crtoAfi~ ttwittrl~in 100:6, where the Ethiopic versions has "this book." N o Aramaic fragment from Qumran survives for 100:6. It may therefore be that the work was not unambiguou~lycalled a letter in the Aramaic original, but that the Greek translator introduced the term. The work is in fact Enoch's farewell speech before his assumption to heaven. But whereas most farewell speeches in Jewish and Christian literature are represented as delivered orally and then reported as speeches in narrative works written by others, Enoch is said to have written his testament and then to have read it aloud to his sons (92:l; 93:1,3). That this written testament should have been regarded as a letter is analogous to the practice already noted of describing written sermons as letters. It may be significant that in Jewish and Christian literature only three other testaments are supposed to have been put in writ"Epistolary I.iterarure," in Jmrsh Wrrtrngs ofthe Second Temple Penod (ed. M . E. Stone; CKIN'I' 2.2; Asscn: Van Gorcum; I'hiladelphia: Fortress, 1984) 579-96. 2'Josephus,Ant. 12.100; Epiphanius, De mensurrs et ponderrbus 9a; Eusebius, Praep. rvang. 9.38. See A. Pelletier, LAcpttredlArzstke a Phrlocrdte (SC 89; I'aris: Cerf, 1962) 47; Alexander, "Epistolary Literature," 580. 24 The title is a subscription after chap. 107, but chaps. 106-7 cannot have been originally pan of the work. Only 976-107 survives in the papyrus.

ten form by the testator himself, and all three are in letter form ( 2 Rar. 78-87; 2 'Timothy; 2 Peter). T h e opening of Enoch's testament in fact reads more o r less like the parties forrnula of a letter, in which the writer names himself and specifies his addressees: "Written by Enoch the scribe.. . for all my sons w h o dwell upon the earth and for the last generations who will practise uprightness and peace" (92:1).25T h e term "letter" may be inappropriate for Enoch's testament as read aloud t o his sons, but it is intelligibly applicable to Enoch's testament as bequeathed t o future generations. We may therefore regard the Epistle of Enoch as a pseudepigraphal letter of type AP5. 'The description of tlie addressees in 92:l is remarkable: not only Enoch's contemporaries, his sons, but also the righteous of the last generations which, of course, means a group of tlie real author's contemporaries, the religious group to which he belonged. As an apocalyptic seer, Enoch can foresee the circumstances of this group and prophesy their future, but because he is writing a testament he can not only foresee them but also directly address them, as he docs throughout the work, in direct exhortations and promises (he also turns aside t o address woes t o their enemies). It is clear that Enocli's sons, t o whom he reads the testarnent, are (as in niany testaments) merely a channel through which it can be passed down t o the elect of the last days, who are his real addressees. As we can see clearly from this example, the written teqtament is a letter with the almost unique capacity of allowing a ~ age ~ ~ x p l i c itot l address ~ readers in a later agc. supposed writer i r one T h e three other didactic letters t o be discussed are all associated with Baruch o r Jeremiah. This is no accident. The reason is not just that Jeremiah's letter to the exiles in Jeremiah 29 provided a nlodel for such letters, though this is one factor. A further important factor is that the years immediately before and after the fall of Jerusalem, in which these three pseudepigraphal letters are set, provided a situation analogous t o that of the Jews in the periods when these works were written, that is, a situation where Jews lived not only in the land of Israel but also in the Diaspora. Writers who wished t o address either Jews in the situation of Diaspora or Jews in both situations (the land of Israel and the Diaspora), and who wished t o d o so under an O T pseudonym, rather naturally went back t o the historical origin of this state of affairs, a period when (as Jeremiah 29 shows) letters were exchanged between Jews in Jerusalem and Jews in exile in Babylon. This historical situation could be treated either as a situation whicli had not changed up to the present, making possible a type AP3 letter, o r as a type of the similar situation in which the real readers lived, making possible a type AP4 letter. 25 Ethiopic, trans. in M. A. Knihh, 7%e Ethrop~cHook of Lnoch (Oxford: (Jarendon, Milik, The Hooks of Enoch 1978) 2.222. 'l'hc Creek is not extant. ~QICI-i:1.2.22-24 0.1: [Oxford: Clarendon, 19761 261) is very fragmentarc: it confirms something similar to, but not exactly; the rest rendered hy the Ethiopic.

11. Jewlsh P~ercdrpi~rityh'zl Letters

135

T h e Epistle of Jeremiah seems t o reflect a tradition, also found in Tg. Ps.-J. Jer 10:11,'"hat Jer 10:11 (which is in Aramaic) is an extract from a letter of Jeremiah. Certainly it is based o n Jer l0:ll and surrounding verses, and the rather surprising fact that it is addressed to Jews w h o are soon t o go into exile, rather than t o Jews already in exile, must result from the place of Jer 10:11 in the book of Jeremiah. This is interesting evidence for a pseudepigraphal letter writer's careful attention t o the supposed historical setting of his letter. T h e work is entirely devoted t o warning the addressees how t o react t o the pagan idolatry they will cncounter in Babylon. Obviously this message could still apply t o Jews in the Babylonian exile when the work was written (probably late fourth century B.c.)" because the situation was unchanged (and the letter therefore belongs to type AaP3). But it is noteworthy that the writer does not simply take this for granted, but very carefully makes the continued applicability of the letter explicit. In Jeremiah's authentic letter Ueremiah 29) the prophet predicted seventy years of exile; the Epistle of Jeremiah (3) reinterprets this period as seven generations: "when you come t o Babylon you will remain there for many years, for a long time, up t o seven generations; after that I will bring you away from there in peace." In this way, at the outset of his work, the author establishes that his "you" means not only Jeremiah's contemporaries, but also their descendants, u p t o seven generations. Because Jeremiah the prophet can foresee that the situation will not have changed by the real author's time, he can address not only his o w n contemporaries, but also succeeding generations up t o and including the real author's contemporaries. This is the only example known t o me of a pseudepigraphal letter, other than testamentary letters, in which the real readers are explicitly addressed along with supposed addressees in the past. This is possible in this case, as in testamentary letters, only by means of a clear and deliberate literary device, according t o which the supposed author foresees the future. 1 Baruch (called Pi@hiovin 1:1, following, Jer 36:l LXX) is, apart from the introduction (1: 1-9), in the form of a work (1: 15-59) sent with a covering letter (1:lO-14) from the Jewish exiles in Babylon t o the Jews i n J e r ~ s a l e r n . ~ ~

It IS posslble that the targutn here reflects the exlstencc ot the hplstle ot Jerem~ah. See C. A. Moore, Danlel, Esther, and Jerc~rnzczhTbe Addzrtons (AH 44; Garden City; NY: r)oubleday, 1977) 328; G. W. E. N~ckclrburg,J e ~ ~1-tterature sb between the B ~ b l e i ~ n d the Mtshnab (I.oncion: SCM, 1981) 38.'I'h1~ approximate date is securely based on v 3, hut cannot be made too precise because w e d o not know how accurately the author reckoned the per~odfrom the fall of Jerusalem to h ~ os w n time. This work ir called the Fpt,tle of Baruch In Armen~an,and the Sotond Eplstle o f Raruch in Skriac (the Fzrst is 2 A ~ o cBar 78-861. We need not he concerned here with the possible previous existence of partr of the work, sincc it can be only in its present form that I Baruch is a letter. 27

i

.

136

9. Pseudo-Apostolzc 1,etters

It is supposed t o have been written b y Baruchzyin Babylon five years after the fall of Jerusalem and is said t o have been read by Baruch to the exiles (1:3-4) and then sent t o the Jews still in Jerusalem, w h o are to recite the prayers contained in it on the site of the Temple.'Thus, the real author contrives t o write both for Jews in the Diaspora in his own day and for Jews in Jerusalem. Whether the situation o f the book is simply one that remains unchanged in the author's day (type AaP3) o r whether it is typological (type AaP4) depends o n whether the book should be dated in the aftermath of an event analogous to the fall of Jerusalem in 586: that is, Antiochus's sack of Jerusalem in 169 13.c.j'o r the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.32 In 2 Baruch there is no doubt that the situation is typological: Baruch's reflections o n the fall of Jerusalem in 586 are really the author's reflections o n the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.33 T h e testament device is rather extensively used in 2 Rar~ch:~"aruch delivers two farewell speeches before his assumption to heaven, one (chaps. 44-46) to the leaders of the people in Jerusalem (where Baruch has remained after the destruction of the city) and another (77:i-10) to all the people. But the people then ask him if, before leaving him, he would also write his message, "a letter of doctrine and a roll of hope" (77:12),35to the exiles. So Baruch writes t w o letters: one t o the t w o and a half tribes in Babylon and one t o the nine and a half tribes in exile since the fall of the northern kingdom. Rather surprisingly, the former is not recorded,lh but the latter occupies chaps. 78-86 of the book.'' Why does the author choose to record this letl'' 1'. M. Bogaert shows that 1 Barucll was wrdely krlown as part of Jeremiah, rather than as a separate book of Baruch, and coriscquently ~t was often quoted under the name of Jeremrah ("La nonl d e Baruch cianc la lrtterature pseud6prgraphrque: I'apocalypse syrraque et Ic Irkre deutdrocanonrque," rn Qldrlqrrrs problenzcs led. WC. van Unnik; KechBib 9, L.erdcn: Brill, 19743 56-72). Rut rt 1s drfficult to heireve that rt was rntended by rts author to be a Jeremrah pseudep~graphon.If Bar 1:l means that Baruch wrote at Jeremrah's drctat~on, rt 15 curprlsrng that Jerernrah rs not rilentroned (if. Jer 3h:4, 32; 4 5 1 ) S' In fact 1:14 hac, "rn the house of the I ord," perhaps hetrayrng that in the real author's day there was a temple In Jerusalem. 'I Nrcklcsburg, J r w r s / I 1 rtcrrrlurc, 1 13. 0 . C . Whttehouw In The Apocrypha and Pst*seudt.prgrilphaof the O l d fistament (ed. K. i t . Charles; Oxford: <:larendon, 1912-13) 569; J. J. Kneucker, Da:, Buch Baruch ( I erplrg: Brockhaus, 1879) " Bogacrt, "1.a nom," 57-58; rdcm, Apocalypsc~ dc Bnurcth (\C 144115; Parts: Clerf, 1969) 1.453-54. '' l b ~ d . ,I. 121-26 '' Tram. A.F.J. Klrjn In The O l d Test~irnentP~eudeprgrapba(cd. J. 11. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; 1 ondon: I)arton, I ongman & 'Ihdd, 1983, 1985) 1. 647. For suggest~on.,as t o the rdentrty of thrs (loct?) letter; sec Bogaert, Apocalypse, 1. 78-80. Bogaert shows that the letter I \ an rntegral part of 2 Baruci), and rts c~rculatronas an rndependent work rn Svrrac 1s n secondary phenomenon (Apocalypse, 1. 67-68). Cf. the relatronshrp between 3 Connthwm, and the Acts of Paul, drscusccd below.

''

"

"

111. Nonc~xnonrc~zl Pseudo-Apostohc 1.etters

137

ter, when his real readers would have associated themselves more readily with the two and a half tribes in exile?3xT h e answer is t o be found in the logic of the typological situation. In this letter the author wants t o address the Diaspora Jews of his own day, Jews w h o have lived in the Iliaspora for generations and have no immediate connection with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Those w h o were in an analogous situation after 586 were not the exiles of Judah but the exiles of the northern kingdom. Baruch's account of the religious significance of 586 for the exiles of the northern tribes is typologically an account of the religious significance of A.D. 70 for Diaspora Jews. Although Baruch does ask that the recipients of his letter pass it on to their descendants (84:9), the author does not really exploit the potential of a testamentary letter to address future generations explicitly. H e did not need to d o s o because instead he has made Baruch's contemporaries types of some of his real readers (those in the Diaspora). 2 Baruch 78-86 is a clear case of type AP4, and its applicability t o its real readers depends on their recognition of its typological character.

III. Noncanonical Pseudo-Apostolic Letters Again we shall list all apocryphal letters attributed to apostles, but the first t w o categories need not detain us long: (1) Misattributed (type EP). T h e Epistle of Barnabas, which lacks an introductory parties formula, probably only later came t o be attributed to Barnabas, as Hebrews did to Paul. T h e Epistle of Titus is identifiable as such only from its title: it is probably an anonymous homily, misclassified as a letter (type UP) and misattributed t o Titus (type EP). If either of these works was in fact written as a pseudepigraphal letter, it would be type A(a) P6. ( 2 ) Itnnginattve and historiographical (types A P I , AP2). These are represented only by the correspondence of Paul and Seneca, and the letter which opens the Nag Hammadi tractate called Letter of Peter to Philip (CG VIII, 2).3Y At the tlme of writling of 2 Baruch, t h e nine and a half (ten) tribes were believed t o be in a remote, inaccessible land (4 b r a 13:40-46). T h e problem is not alleviated if we follow Bogaert (Apocalypse, 1. chap. 11) it1 taking the t w o and a half tribes t o represent the western Iliaspora and the nine anci a half tribes the eastern Diaspora. O n the contrary, this makes the problem of the missing letter t o t h e t w o and a half trihes even more acute. Presumably the title was originally that of the letter itself (I32:10-13323) hut was later appropriated as the title of the tractate. O n the title, see M. W. Meyer, The Letter of l'eter to Phrlrp (SBLDS 53; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981) 91-93, and o n the letter itself, ibid., 93-101.

"

(3) Letters z;*ttbma~nlyGospcl contetzr. Two letters can be classed together here: the A p o c ~ p h o nof James (CG I , 2) and tlie Epistle of the Apostles. Though their content is Inore comparable with that of the N T Gospels than with that of the N T letters, they are letters in form and the means by which they bridge the gap between the supposed addressce(s) and the real readers are instructive for our purpose. The A p o q p h o n of James belongs t o the very popular second- and third-century genre of postresurrection dialogues between Christ and the disciples. But it is also a letter, with an epistolary opening and a first paragraph addressed to the recipient. Unfortunately, the recipient's name, given in the parties forrnula (l:2), has been lost in the manuscript except for the last syllable (-thos); I' very plausible suggestion is Cerinthus.'o The point of this letter form is to authenticate one of the chains of secret tradition by which Gnostic teaching was held t o have passed down from the risen Christ t o later Gnostics. The A p o q p h o n of James is a "secret book," revealed by Christ only to James and Peter (1:ll-12, 23-24, 35; 2:34-37) and conitnuriicatcd to the recipient, "a rninister of the salvation of the saints" (1:19-20), so that he may pass it on to others but not to "many" (121-22). T h e work can therefore be classified as a speci'll f o r n ~of type BP:" the content is explicitly intended for a readership wider than the recipient himself and he is t o pass it on t o others, but the Gnostic concern for a secret message for the few means that the wider re'aciership is not a very wide readership, but a deliberately restricted one. T h e Epzstle of the Apostle,, which is anti-Gnostic, also contains largely Gospel material. T h e eleven apostles narrate the whole Gospel history in outline (chaps. 3-5, 9-12) and a long conversation with the risen Christ (chaps. 12-51). Nevertheless, it is a letter in form, addressed by the eleven apostles t o "the churches of the east and west, towards north and south" (chap. 2).42 This letter form enabled the apostles to address Christians directly in a short passage of exhortation (chaps. 6-7), which is mainly concerned with urging Christians t o remain in the true faith and t o avoid

'".

1-lcldcrnian, "Anapausis in the Epistula Jacobi Apocrypha," in Nag i-larnmadii~nd

(;nosls (ecl. K.blcl.. Wilson; NI IS 1.1; L.eidcn: Brill, 1978) 37, following kI.-M. Schenke.

'' 'I'he Apot~yphonofjrimes fits Stirewalt's criteria for the "letter-css.~y"remarkably well: it is a resporise to the recipient's re
''


the false teaching of Simon and Cerinthus, who are travelling around the churches (chap. 7). Thus, the addressees are imagined as first-century Christians, troubled by the first-century heretics Simon and Cerinthus, whom second-century Christians believed t o have sown the seeds of later Gnostic heresy. It is therefore set within a first-century situation which is regarded either as unchanged (type AP3) o r as typological (type AP4) from the point of view of the real readers threatened by mid-second-century Gnosticism. (4) Didactic letters: the Epistle of Peter to James, Laodiceans, 3 Corinthians. The Epistle of Peter to James, prefaced to the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, can be included under this heading when it is regarded as a covering letter for "the books of my (Peter's) preachings" which accompanied it, since these were of general didactic content.J3 The letter functions very similarly to the Apocryphon of James, since Peter instructs James to pass on his preachings not to Gentile Christians o r to any Jewish Christian (1:2) but to seventy carefully selected brethren (1 :2), who in turn are to use them to instruct teachers (2:l). This is therefore an example of type BP. But there is a further feature of the letter which introduces a small element of specificity into the situation envisaged. Peter explains the need for his teaching to be carefully preserved by trustworthy teachers in the way he describes, by referring to false teachers who misrepresent him (2:3-4). From the beginnings of this danger in his lifetime, Peter concludes (by common sense, not prophecy, 2 2 ) that it is likely to increase in the future: "if they falsely assert such a thing whilst I am still alive, how much more after my death will those who come later venture to d o so?" (2:7).'"'Thus, the real author contrives to let Peter foresee the situation of those to whom his "preachings" will be passed in the future, that is, the real readers. Once again we see an explicit attempt to bridge the gap which the pseudepigraphal letter genre requires between the supposed addressee and the real readers. None of the pseudo-apostolic letters so far discussed are comparable to the major Pauline letters in being addressed to a specific church. Three noncanonical pseudo-Pauline letters of this type are known to have existed, though only two of these have survived. The lost Letter to the Alexandridns is known only from the Muratorian Canon, which describes it as a Marcionite forgery.45The two surviving letters, Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians, " It is thought to have originally introduced the Kerygmata Petrou, which formed a source for the later Clernenttne Homzbes; see G . Strecker in Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha 2. 103-6. Trans. in Fiennecke, hlew Testament Apocrypha 2. 112. This refererice is not sufficient to make the letter a testamentary letter. 45 The Muratorian Canon also rnentiorls "many other" ( a l u pluua) pseudo-Pauline letters, which is probably an exaggeration. We have n o other information about them. For other possible traces of lost pseudo-apostolic letters, see W. Schneemelcher in Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha 2, 91-92: it is unlikely that they existed.

''

140

9. Pseudo-Apostolic Letters

may both be attempts to fill gaps in the existing Pauline corpus of letters. Laodiceans is certainly supposed to be the missing letter t o which Col4:16 refers, and 3 Corinthians may well be intended as the "severe letter" written between 1 and 2 Corinthians (2 C o r 2:4; cf. 3 Cox 2:5).46 The practice of filling gaps in an existing correspondence is one that is attested also in Hellenistic pseudepigraphal letter writing, but can scarcely have been operative in the writing of N T letters, unless Ephesians really was originally meant to be Laodiceans, as Marcion believed. Laodiceans (which can be classified as type AP6) is a remarkably incompetent attempt t o fill the gap. It is nothing but a patchwork of Pauline sentences and phrases from other letters, mainly Philippians. The result is a series of highly generalized exhortations which address no particular situation and reveal no intention by the author to communicate any clear message." It seems as though he may really have been motivated only by the desire to produce something that would look as though Paul could have written it, and s o it might be better t o regard Laodiceans as a type API o r AP2 letter, rather than a type AP6 letter in which the author actually intends a didactic message for his readers. 3 Corinthians is more interesting, and is the only extracanonical apostolic letter that bears any real comparison with the major N T letters; that is, it addresses itself to the particular situation of a particular church. It is part of the late second-century Acts of Paul. Some have argued that it was originally independent and only subsequently incorporated in the Acts of P a ~ l , 'but ~ their arguments are not convincing." All the indications are that it was composed for its context in the Acts of Paul and only later circulated separately as an extract.50

+' See Guthrie, "Acts," 339-40. +? This makes it very unlikely that L,aodtcerlns is a Marcionire work, as argued by A. Harnack and G . Quispel (see Schneemelcher in Mennecke, New Testament Apocrypha 2. 130-31). The theory is based on the Muratorian Canon1$ reference to a letter to the 1,aodiceans as a Marcionite forgery along with Alexrlndrrans (Fnrtae a d heresem Mrlraonrs). This reference may be based on a confusion, since Marcion himself thought that Ephestans was the letter to Laodicea (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.1 1.17). Otherwise the Marcionite letter to the 1,aodlceans must be another work, now lost. 4 X A. F. J. Klijn, "The Apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians," V C 17 (1963) 10-16; M. T e s t u ~ ,"La correspondence apocryphe de saint Paul et des Corinthrens," in Lztte'rature et Thc'ologte Paullt~zennes(ed. A. Descamps et al.; RechBib 5; Louvain: Descl@ede Brouwer, 1960) 22 1-22. " So W. Scl~ncenielchcrin Hennecke, New Testament Aponypha 2. 341-42; Guthrie, "Acts," 339. The fact that material has undoubtedly been lost at the beginning and end of the Philippi episode of the Acts of Paul makes some of Klijn's arguments weak. 3 COY. 1:8, 2:2 clearly require previous narrative material for their explanation. 50 When it did circulate independently, the Corinthians' letter t o Paul always accompanied Paul's reply, and frequently the narrative connecting them was retained.

111. Noncanonical Pseudo-Apostolic Letters

14 1

Paul's letter is set within a narrative that relates the arrival of the false teachers Simon and Cleobius in Corinth, explains their teaching and the Corinthians' decision t o write to Paul about it, includes a copy of the Corinthians' letter t o Paul, relates its delivery to Paul in Philippi and the circumstances in which Paul wrote his reply. Probably (though the subsequent section of the Acts of Paul is lost) the reception of Paul's letter in Corinth was then described. Thus, Paul's letter is firmly anchored in a carefully described first-century situation. His addressees are unmistakably firstcentury Corinthian Christians, troubled by the first-century false teachers Simon (Magus) and C l e o b i u ~ . ~ ' The false teaching is quite carefully described and, although it comes quite close t o Marcionite views, is probably not meant as a precise account of the teaching of any particular second-century Gnostic group. The description is of Gnostic beliefs with quite wide currency in the second century, and Paul's response to them consists of typical second-century anti-Gnostic argument. However, two points should be noticed about the setting of these teachings in first-century Corinth. First, the author may well have thought that Simon and Cleobius really taught these doctrines: Christians in his time commonly traced such views back to the first-century precursors of Gnosticism. Second, he has found for them their most plausible setting within Paul's ministry, since he knew that Paul's authentic correspondence with Corinth had to deal with denials of the resurrection. Doubtless the author intended 3 Corinthians to be relevant to the Gnostic controversies of his own time, but he went so some lengths to give it a pseudo-historical setting which he probably thought entirely plausible. It should also be noticed that, although in its supposed first-century setting 3 Corinthians resembles a genuine Pauline letter in addressing the situation in a specific church, as far as its relevance to the late second century goes that particularity vanishes. It is not aimed at the late second-century church in Corinth - o r anywhere else in particular - but only at the widespread problem of Gnostic teaching. Since in the lost section of the Acts of Paul which followed 3 Corinthians the author probably described the success of Paul's letter in extirpating the false teaching in C ~ r i n t h , we ? ~ should probably regard the situation of 3 Corinthians as typological (AP4) rather than unchanged. Finally, it is worth observing the rarity of apocryphal apostolic letters, by comparison with other genres of Christians apocryphal literature (Gospels, Acts, Apocalypses). The authentic letter remained a vigorous literary genre 5 1 For Cleobius, see f-icgesippus, ap. Euscbius, H~st. eccl. 4.22.5. The mention of Simon and Cleobius in Aposr. Const. (6.8.1; 6.10.1) may be deperident on 3 Corrnthrans. Cf. Acts of Paul 9 (I lamburg Papyrus, p. 6). H e may even have described the conversion of Cleobius to the truth.

142

9. Pseudo-Apostolic L.ettc~rs

in second- and third-century Christianity, when many Christian leaders wrote letters t o churches in their o w n names, but pseudepigraphal letters from that period arc rare. Whatever other reasons there may be for this,5' one reason may well have been the sheer difficulty of using a pseudepigrapha1 letter t o perform the same functions as an authentic letter.

IV: General Conclccsions o n Epistolary Pseudepigraphy in rhe New firestament T h e evidence examined in sections I 1 and 111 establishes and illustrates the conclusion t o section I. In all examples studied, pseudepigraphal letters are addressed t o supposed addressees living in the past, contemporaries of the supposed author, except in the case of the testamentary letter (Epistle of Enoch) and in a special case of type AP3 (Epistle of Jeremiah), where the supposed authors are able, by prophetic foresight, explicitly t o address readers living after their deaths. In o n e other case (Epistle of Peter to James) the supposed author is credited with natural foresight of the situation after his death, s o that he can refer explicitly t o an aspect of the situation of the ultimate recipients of this type BP letter (or rather, strictly speaking, of the material for which this type BP lcttcr is the covering letter). In other cases, where the supposed author is not credited with foresight of the situation after his death, relevance t o the real readers is achieved either by making the content s o generalizeci as not t o presuppose a specific situation at all (type AP6: Laodiceans; type BP: Apocryphon ofJarnes), o r by describing the situation of the supposed addresses in such terms as t o make it analogous t o that of the real readers (types AP3, AP4: 1 Baruch, 2 Baruch 78-86, Epistle of the Apostles, 3 Corinthians). It should be noted that among the letters surveyed there is n o really good example of a pseudepigraphal letter that achieves didactic relevance by the generality of its contents (types AP6 and BP). Laodiceans is only a poor example. The Apocryphon ofJames is a letter whose contents actually belong t o another genre, the postresurrection dialogue. It seems that not many pscudepigraphal writers wished to produce generalized didactic works, and those who did preferred other genres, such as wisdom literature (cf. Wisdom of Solomon, Teachings of Silvanus). O n the other hand, the seven pseudepigraphal letters in which there is a serious attempt t o address relatively specific situations (Epistle of Enoch, Epistle of Jeremiah, 1 Baruch, 2 B a r ~ c h78-86, Epistle of the Apostles, Eprstle 5' For suggestions, see M. K.Jarncs, The Apocryphd N m * Testament (2d td.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1953) 476; Guthrie, "Acts," 338, 3 4 4 4 5 .

IV: General Conclusions on Epistolary Pseudepigrczphy in the N e w Testament 143

of Peter to James, 3 Corinthians) achieve only relatively specific relevance t o the real readers. Only one of them, the Epistle of Enoch, is likely t o have been intended for one specific community or small group of communities. The others were meant for a wide Jewish o r Christian readership. The three pseudo-apostolic letters are specific only in the sense of envisaging heretical teaching that was widespread in the author's time. None of these letters achieves anything like the particularity of the major Pauline letters, or even of such allegedly pseudepigraphal letters as Colossians and Jude. We must now enquire whether the actual types of pseudepigraphal letters which we have discussed are applicable to any N T letters. (1) Type AP6. Are there N T letters whose content is so general that it could equally well be addressed not only to the supposed recipients but also to any Christians at any time? Only Ephesians and James seem serious candidates for this ~ategory.~' If their contents can rightly be regarded as generalized in this way, then, as far as our criteria go, they could be pseudepigraphal. Of course, they could also be authentic, since authentic real letters (type A) and authentic literary letters (type C ) can also have very general content. But it is important t o notice that in the case of these two letters, since they conform t o no other type of pseudepigraphal letter, the possibility of their being pseudepigraphal depends upon the generality of their content. The more exegesis tends toward envisaging a specific situation as addressed in these letters, the less likely pseudepigraphy becomes. ( 2 ) Type BP. A useful means of bridging the gap between the supposed addressee(s) and the real readers of a pseudepigraphal letter was the letter whose contents are explicitly meant t o be passed on t o others by the named addressee. Again, of course, the presence of such a feature raises only the possibility o f pseudepigraphy, since it is found also in authentic letters (type B) of which type BP letters are fictional imitations. Among N T letters, this feature is found only in the Pastorals, which frequently instruct Timothy and Titus to pass on their teaching to others (1 'Tim 4:6, 11; 6:2; 2 Tim 5VOpinions differ on how far James addresses a specific situation; see the most recent assessment ~n P.H. Davids, The Epistle of J~zrnes(NIGF1'C:;Exeter: Paternoster, 1982) 28-34. LIavids seems to hold that the contents of J a m s address a Palestinian situation, but that the letter was sent to Jewi.sh Christian communities outside Palestine, in Syria and Asla Minor (ibid., 64). ?'he generality of the address gas 1:l) is not an infallible indication that the letter wac meant for all Jewich Christians indiscriminately or for all Jewish Christians outside I'alcstinc. Specific addresses were sometimes elin~inated when letters were copied for circulatiorl beyonci the churches or~ginallyaddressed: see N.A. Dahl, "The particularity of the Pauline Epistles as a problem in the Ancient Church," in Neotestarnetztrca ct P~trzstlca(0.Cullrnann Festschrift; NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962) esp. 266-70. Against occasional atternptr to see Jude as addressed generally to all churches, see R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Word Biblical Cornmcntary 50; Waco, TX: Word, 1983) 19-20.

144

9. Pseudo-Apostolic Letters

2:2, 14; Tit 2:2, 6, 9, 15; 3:l). It should also be noticed that, as in the Epistle of Peter to James, this type B(P) characteristic in the Pastorals is combined with foresight of the situation which will prevail after the supposed author's death (see below). (3) Type AP5. 2 Peter is the only N T letter that explicitly addresses readers living not only during the supposed author's lifetime but also after his death (1:12-15). It does so by a careful and deliberate use of the testament genre, which enables Peter to foresee and address a specific situation after his death.55Since this literary device so precisely meets the need of the author of a pseudo-apostolic letter to bridge the chronological gap between the supposed author and the real readers, and since there are no known examples of its use in authentic letters, it makes the pseudepigraphal character of 2 Peter at least extremely likely. It is also worth noticing that, whereas the Epistle of Enoch clearly distinguishes the real readers as generation subsequint to the generation of those who heard Enoch read his testament aloud, 2 Peter does not make such a distinction of generations (cf. 1:12-16; 3: I ) but only of periods before and after the apostle's death, probably because in this case the letter was composed not so very long after the apostle's death. 2 Timothy is also a testamentary letter, but is not exactly addressed to readers living after Paul's death. However, Timothy seems to be being instructed with a view to his own conduct (including teaching others) after Paul's death (2 Tim 3 5 , 10-42, 5)' and 1 and 2 Timothy both refer to the period after Paul's death (1 Tim 4:l-3; 2 Tim 3:1-9,4:34). In no other NT letter does the author or supposed author foresee the situation following his death.56 (4) Types AP3 a n d AP4. These two types are not always easy to distinguish, but their common characteristic is that they set the supposed readers in a situation analogous to that of the real readers. In one of the cases we have studied (Epistle of the Apostles) this situation is clearly but only briefly described (chaps. 1, 7), but in this case of a letter with mainly Gospel content, in which the orientation to a specific situation is more implicit than explicit, the specific character of the situation addressed does not need spelling out at length. In the other cases, where the whole content of the letter is angled to a relatively specific situation (1 Baruch, 2 Baruch 78-86, 3 Corinthicrns), the writers find it necessary to provide quite full details of the supposed historical situation, so as to locate the letter firmly within its historical situation, while at the same time showing that this situation has parallels with the real readers' situation. Even though the context of the

a

''

For the use of the testament genre in 2 Peter, see Bauckham, Jrtde, 132, 173, 194, 196-97,199-200,237-38'282. 5"ude 17-18 is not such a reference, since the prophecy is considered fulfilled in the false teachers active as Jude is writing (v 19).

I V: General Conclusions on Epistolary Preudepigraphy in the New Zstament 145

Baruch letters could have been understood in a general way from the O T , this historical scene-setting was still thought necessary. In all three cases, the scene-setting is achieved largely b y placing the letter within a narrative context, which in the case of 3 Corinthians also includes the letter to which Paul's is a reply. Thus, whereas the authentic real letter can take for granted the situation to which it is addressed, merely alluding to what the addressee(s) d o not need t o be told, it is characteristic of pseudepigraphal letters of types AP3 and AP4 that they must describe the situation of their supposed addressee(s) sufficiently for the real readers, w h o would not otherwise know it, to be able to recognize it as analogous to their own. N o w the large majority of N T letters, both those generally accepted as authentic and some that are often thought to be pseudepigraphal (Colossians, 1 Peter, Jude), take for granted the specific situations to which they are addressed, in the manner of authentic real letters. They d o not, in the manner of pseudepigraphal letters of types A1'3 and AP4, describe it for the benefit of readers who would not otherwise know it - often t o the frustration of modern scholars! N o N T letter has a narrative context, like the Baruch letters and 3 Corintl~ians,and in no N T letter is there historical scene-setting which clearly goes beyond what could be expected in an authentic letter. 'Thus, there is no unambiguous case of a type AP3 o r type AP4 letter in the NT. The Pastorals seem to show some interest in historical scene-setting, in that the false teachers, supposed t o be already active at the supposed time of writing, are described perhaps a little more fully than would be necessary for Timothy and Titus themselves (see esp. 2 Tim 2:17-18), but not decisively so. In the case of 2 Thessalonians it could be argued that 2:2; 3:11 provide all the historical scene-setting that is really necessary in this case, with the additional consideration that 2 Thessalonians could be seen as a kind of pseudepigraphal appendix t o the authentic 1 Thessalonians, which thus provides to some degree the historical context for 2 Thessalonians. Thus 2 Thessalonians could be a pseudepigraphal letter of type AP3 o r AP4, though it could also be authentic. But Colossians, 1 Peter, and Jude cannot plausibly be regarded as type AP3 o r AP4 letters. Like the undoubtedly authentic letters of Paul, they assume a specific situation without having to describe it, because, we niust conclude, it was the actual situation of the real readers, not a parallel situation in the past. In other words, they are authentic letters. The same would have to be said of James and Ephesians, if they are interpreted as addressing relatively specific situations. It might be suggested that some N T letters, if pseudepigraphal, could constitute a special case of AP3. If they were composed within a relatively short time after the death of the supposed author and therefore after the supposed time of writing, and if they were written for the actual churches

criteria make possibly pseudepigraphal (Ephesians, James, 2 Thessalonians) are probably the next most popular candidates for pseudepigraphy. Those whose authenticity could be regarded as vindicated by this study (Colossians, 1 Peter, Jude5" are those which many scholars still regard as having a reasonable claim t o authenticity. N o n e of the letters whose authenticity is universally admitted ernergcs as even possibly pscudepigraphal by o u r criteria. 'This general correspondence with the scholarly consensus suggests that o u r criteria arc reliable and should therefore be given weight in the disputed instances.

V The Problem of the Pastorals In the light of the preceding discussion, t w o characteristics of the Pastorals seem readily totnputiblc with pseudepigraphy, a third points rather strongly in the direction of pscudcpigraphy, while a fourth will lead t o a particular suggestion about the date and authorship of the I'astorals: (1) The personal details about Paul and Timothy can be paralleled from letters of types AP1 and AP2. If the Pastorals are pseudcpigraphal, Timothy and Titus d o not have to represent any particular sort of later leader (such as monarchical bishops) but are sirnply themselves, as historical characters, in the same way that Paul is. T h e author has thought himself into situations in Paul's ministry and, as many pseudepigraphal letter writers did, has filled out whatever historical inforniation was available t o him with historical fiction. (2) T h e bulk of the didactic m,~terialin the Pastorals is given to 'Timothy and Titus to pass on to the churches and t o particular categories of people within the churches. As already mentioned, this is a type BP characteri~tic,~' which makes the role of Timothy and Titus comparable with that of the supposed recipients of the Apouyphon of Jarnes. T h e resemblance to the Epistle of Peter to Jarnes is very striking in 2 Tim 2:2. (3) 'The treatment of false teachers and heresy. If the Pastorals are considered not only as general teaching, but (as they must be) also as teaching relevant t o a relatively specific situation, that situation is really characterized by the threat of false teaching and the evils that flow from it. T h e false teachers are plainly represented CIS active at the supposed time of writing. Some of them are named (1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2: 17), and these must, of course, be contemporaries of Paul, real o r imagined, not contemporaries of the real 55 For the debate about the authenticity of Jude, see K.Uauckliarn, "The L.etter of Jude: An Account of Rcscarch," in ANRW2.25.5, pp. 3791-3826. Of course, it is also a type I) characteristic and s o is compatible with authenticity ar well as with pceudepigraphv.

"'

148

9. Pseudo-Apostolic Letters

author. If the Pastorals are pseudepigraphal, this historical situation of the letters must be regarded as an unchanged o r typological situation (type AP3 o r AP4). Ilas the author done sufficient scene-setting for this to be possible? The false teachers are fairly fully characterized, probably just fully enough for the author's purpose, provided we assume that he wished to characterize a broad range of false teaching in his own time and therefore could not afford to detail their doctrines too specifically. However, in addition to the account of false teaching at the supposed time of writing, the picture is complicated by three passages that refer t o false teaching and apostasy in the future tense (1 Tim 4:l-3; 2 Tim 3:1-5; k3-4). It is noteworthy that two of these passages occur appropriately in the testamentary letter 2 Timothy, where Paul is explicitly instructing Timothy with a view t o the period following his impending death (see esp. 2 Tim 4:6). The first two of the three passages could be understood as citations of earlier prophecies about the last days which Paul is intending to say are being fulfilled at the time of writing,60 but this cannot be the case in 2 Tim 43-4, and so it is better to take all three passages as really future from the standpoint of Paul when writing the letter^.^' In that case they are very similar to passages in the testamentary letter 2 Peter, where Peter looks into the future after his death, the last days in which false teachers will appear, who are plainly the false teachers of the real readers' own time (2 Pet 2:1-3; 3:1-4). Moreover, the odd phenomenon in 2 Tim 3:l-9, where the futuretense prophecy of the false teachers continues in the present tense (vv 6 4 , is also amply paralleled in 2 Peter, where passages prophesying the false teachers alternate with passages describing the same false teachers in the present tense (2 Pet 2: 10-22; 3:5, 16).62 H o w are we to understand the combination in the Pastorals of false teaching at the supposed time of writing and false teaching prophesied for the future? The answer must lie in 2 Timothy's indications that Paul is envisaging a situation that, already bad at the time of writing, will get worse in the future (2 Tim 2:16-17; and esp. 3:13). Again this is reminiscent of the Epistle ofPeter to James (217). So it seems that the material about false teaching in the Pastorals, when taken as a whole, amounts to a careful and deliberate attempt t o bridge the gap between the situation at the supposed time of writing and the real contemporary situation of the author and his readers.

63 So J. N . 1). Kelly, A Commentary on The Pastortzl Epistles (Black's NT Commentaries; London: A. & C . Black, 1964) 93-94, 192-93. So M. Dibelius and N.Conzelmann, The Pastoral Ep~stles(Hermerieia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) 64, 1 15, 120-2 1 . Note also that 1 'rim 4:t-5, where the prophecy of the false teachers is followcd by their refutation, is paralleled by 2 Pet 3:3-10.

'' ''

149

L: The Prolle7n ofrhc Pastorals

(4) If, however, we take seriously the pseudepigraphal implication that the situation Paul foresees after his death is the situation of the real readers, we must also reckon with the fact that Timothy seenis t o be part of this situation. It seems t o be one which fallows Paul's death but not Timothy's death. In 2 Timothy, Paul is instructing Timothy how t o react to it, most obviously in 3 5 , where, after the prophecy of the false teachers in the future tense, Timothy is inimediately told, "Avoid these people" ( t o i r ~ o u s&norecl.nov) (cf. also 4 5 ) . Ought we t o press the apparent implication that at the real time of writing, the time Paul foresees, Timothy was still alive? It might be unwise t o d o s o were it not for a confirmatory piece of evidence in 1 Tim 6:14, where, on a natural reading of the text, Paul expects Timothy t o survive until the parousia." It is just possible that a pseudepigraphal writer had observed that Paul in his authentic letters tends t o write as though his readers will survive till the parousia, and deliberately imitated this way of speaking, but this is not likcly."'The otherwise attested practice of postapostolic writers is carefully t o avoid the implication that the apostles and their contemporaries had expected t o see the parousia in their lifetime (cf. Apocalypse of Peter [Ethiopic] 1; Epistle of the Apostles 34; Testament of our Lord 1 :2; Testanrcnt of our Lord trz Galrlee)."5 If the Pastorals were written after Paul's death but within Timothy's lifetime, then most probably they were written by Timothy himself. This could also perhaps explain the difference between the letters to Timothy, where we learn a good deal about Timothy, and the letter t o Titus, where we learn next t o nothing about Titus."

"

So Kelly, Commentary. 145. S. G. W ~ l s o nd e n ~ c this, c but without offering .In alternative explanation of the text (Luke and t h r I'dstoral Epistle, [Loridon: SPCK, 19791 16-1 7). 1 ?im 6:15 niay sound a note ot caution (especially if there ic an allusion t o H a b 2 2 , the classic text crn c s c t ~ a t o l o ~ ~dccall. ~ ~but ) , can Inrdly cancel our the implication of ( ~ 1 4 . 3 (:or 3:3 has Paul wrlte, "the I.ord Christ will accomplish his conling quickly" (ti; T~XFIUV ~ o i i l a ~ tf)lF\~(~tv), (x~ but t h ~ i\ s less specific (cf. Rev 22:20) and could stdl be s a ~ dat the real time of writing, whereas a prediction ot the paroiisia in the lifctirne of the gcncration of the apostlec could n o longer he valid in postapostolic times. O n these passages, see K. Rauckham, *'l'hel'wo Fig'Iiee I'arables in the Apocalypse of Peter," J R L 104 (1985) 276-77. bh I an1 grateful t o mcrnbers of the Lhrhardt seniinar in the Univcrsity of Manchestcr, w h o heard a draft of this article and niade useful comments. and es~eciallv , t o Dr. P.S.Alexander, for several discussions about letters in the ancient world, which helped nle t o formulate and clarify my thoughts.

"

.

10. Kainam the Son of Arpachshad

in Luke's Genealogy': In an article in this journal', Gert J. Steyn has recently argued that the last part of Luke's genealogy (3,34-38) is dependent on Gen 11,10-32 and Get1 5,l-32 in the LXX version. H e regards as the clinching evidence for this the occurrence of the name Kutvcilc in I,ukc 3,37, where Lukc agrees with the I,XX (Gen 5,9-14: Kuivtiv; cf. also 10,24, where A has K a l ~ c i p against )~ the M T and the Samaritan Pentateuch, which d o not have this generation at all. Steyn's argument, however, is very unsatisfactory for three reasons: (1) H e offers no justification for dealing only with the last part of the genealogy (the generations from Tcrah t o Adam and God). O n e has to presume that he does not think the earlier parts of the genealogy are dependent o n the LXX, but he does not explain why the genealogy should be divided in this way. (2) H e does not discuss the significant divergences from the LXX in other parts of the genealogy. (3) Most remarkably, he nowhere refers t o the fact that Kainam the son of Arpachshad appears not only in LXX Gen 5,9-14; 10,24 and Luke 3,37, but also in Jubilees 8,l-5. It is true that in Lukc 3,34-38 the only divergences from the LXX are minor differences of spelling (Luke 3,36: K u ~ v u l ~ l G e5,12-13: n Ku~vuv; Luke 3,37: ' I a e ~ t l G e n5,15-20: '1bet.b; Luke 3,37: K a ~ v a p / G e n1 1,9-14: Ktnvciv), but in the rest of the genealogy they are much more significant. The generations from Nathan to Abraham (Luke 3,31-34) compare with the relevant biblical passages in the LXX as follows: L.XX

Luke NuOtip Aavib

N(lt)<~v Aci~)ib

'Ituacti

'IFU(IU~

'Itof3ilh

'22grjb (A: 'IoBilh) 'npfib

1 C h r o n 3,s 1 Chron 2,15; 3,l I C h r o n 2,12-13; Kuth 4,22 1 C h r o n 2,12 K U ~ 4,21-22 ~ I

* 1:irst publication: Ephemendiv Theologjcne Lovanrenres 67 (1991) 95-103. I G.7: Stcyn, The Ocurrence of *Katnnmm in Luke's Genealogy: Evldence ofSeptunglnt Influence?, in ETL 65 (1989) 409-4 1 1. The additional occurrence of the name Kurvciv in Gen 10,22 LXX, as a sixth son of Shern, is puzzling. If it is not simply misplaced, it may represent an earlier, distinct attempr to include Ku~viivin the descendants of Shem.

152

10. Ka~natnthe Son of Arpncl~shadIY; Luke? G c n e a l o o

Bcioj 2rhlrc;)v (A: X<:txhlrii) Xuhpciv (A: 2ahpti)v) Nuucrc~6v 'A~iivcrbu@ ' A ~ i t i (B: t Appav) ' A ~ p u v(v. 1. 'Apup) 'Eaopci)v (A: 'Ea~ti~p) 'EapCv (A: Topwp, 'Ec~pcbv) @&QEC 'Ioijba

1 Chron 2,ll-12; Ruth 4,21 I Chror12,I 1 Ruth 3.20-1 1 1 Chron 2,10-11; Ruth 4,20 1 Chron 2,10; Ruth 4,19-20

1 Chron 2,')-10 Ruth 4,19 1 Chron 2,5.9 Ruth 4,18-19 1 Chron 2,4-5: Ruth 4,18 1 Chron 2.1-4

'Iff %(;If3

'ioaiiit 'A@QCLU~

In this list the differences in the form of some of the names is notable. But especially significant is the fact that Luke's genealogy has an additional generation. The sequence of three names 'Ap~vubup, 'AGpiv and 'Aevi (Luke 3,33) is a point of great confusion in the manuscript tradition, partly because scribes attempted to correct the discrepany with the Old Testament and with Matthew 1,3-4, but these three names in these forms are the best reading3. Before NtrOup the genealogy has no clear parallels with the Old Testament, except for the two names Zo~of3uf3khand his father XuhaOiqh (Luke 3,27). These represent a notable divergence from 1 Chronicles 3,17-19 (both M T and 1-XX),according t o which Zerubbabel was descended from David not through Nathan but through the royal line, his grandfather being king Jeconiah. (According to 1 Chron 3,19 MT, Zerubbabel was the son not of Shealtiel but of his brother Pedaiah. This discrepancy from the usual O T description of Zerubbabel as son of Shealtiel [Ezra 3,2.8; 5,2 etc] is corrected in 1 Chron 3,19 LXX.). It may be, as has sometimes been argued4, that a few of the names preceding Zo~of3af36h in Luke's genealogy are to be identified with names among the descendants of Zerubbabel in 1 Chronicles 3,19-24, but if so the genealogy is certainly not directly dependent o n the text of 1 Chronicles 3,19-24. In view of these divergences from the LXX, it might be argued that Luke took over from a source a traditional genealogy taking the line of Jesus back to Abraham, as in Matthew 1,l-17, and himself used the LXX of Genesis to W f . R. Bauckham,Jude and the Refattves ofJesus tn the Enrly Church, Edinburgh, T. & 1:Clark, 1990, chapter 7: "Addrtlonal Note on the Text of the I.ukan Genealogy". A. IIervey, The Genealogtes ofour Lord and Savrour Jesus Chrtst, Cambridge, Macrnlllan; London, Hatchard, 1853, pp. 115-120; J. Jeremias,Jc~rusalemtn the Trme of Jesus, I,ondon, SCM Press, 1969, p. 296; G. Kuhn, Drr Gr.schlechtsregtster Jesu be1 Lukas und Matthaus, nach rhrer Herkunft unten~tcht,in ZNW 22 (1923) 212-213.

10. khinarn the Son of A~pachsbad~n 1.ukc1sGenealogy

153

extend the line back t o Adam. In order t o argue, t o the contrary, that Luke took over the whole genealogy as far as Adam from a source which was probably independent of the LXX, w e need to return to Kainam the son of Arpachshad. In Jubilees 8,l-5 he is n o mere name in a genealogy, but a figure of some significance: And o n [sic] the twenty-ninth jubilee in the first week, at its beginning Arpachshad took a wife and her name was Rasu'eeya, daughter of Susan, daughter of Elam, as a wife [sic]. And she bore a son for him in the third year of that week, and he called him Cainan [Syriac: Kanan; Ethiopic: Kainam15, (2) and the child grew. And his father taught him writing. And he went forth in order that he might seek a place where he could build a city. (3) And he fourld a writing which the ancestors ellgraved o n stone. And he read what was in it. And he transcribed it. And he sinned because of what was in it, since there was in it the teaching of the Watchers by which they used t o observe the omens of the sun and the moon and stars within all the signs of heaven. (4) And he copied it dawn, but he did not tell about it because he feared t o tell Noah about it lest he be angry with him because of it. (5) And in the thirtieth jubilee irr the second week in its first year, he took a wife and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, son of Japheth. And in its fourth year he begot a son and he called him Shelah because, he said, u I have certainly been sent out"'.

The narrative serves t o explain how the unlawful teaching of the Watchers, given before the Flood, continued t o influence humanity after the Flood. In particular, it traces the origins of Chaldean astrology (1 1,s) t o the Watchers, by contrast t o the true astronomical knowledge which Enoch taught (4,17-18). This story about Kainam is therefore closely connected with the traditions about thk teaching of the Watchers which are found in the Enoch literature (for their astrologkal teaching, cf. especially 1 Enoch 8,3). Jubilees had earlier referred to the story of the Watchers (4,15.22; 6,l-11; 7,21-22)', but had not in fact mentioned their unlawful teaching (4,15 refers only to their original mission from G o d t o give true teaching, before they sinned). The spelling with a final 'm' recurs remarkable often in reference to the son of Arpachshad. The Ethiopic of Jubilees calls the son of Enosh Kiinin (4.13-14). but the son of Arpachshad Kilnin1 (8.1). The Syr~acof 8,l may have assimilated the name of the son of Arpachshad to that of the son of Enosh. In the I.XX the son of Enosh is Kutvckv (Gen $12-16; 1 Chron 1,2); the son of Arpachshad is Katvuv 1x1Gen 11,12-13; but in Gen 10,24 M S A lias Kn~vulcfor thc son of Arpa~l~slrad. Luke alone calls the son of Enosh, as well as the son of Arpachshad, Kutvcip, but since the latter occurs first in his genealogy he could have assimilated the name of the son of Enosh to it. Thus it is possible that the two names were originally distinct and that the son of Arpachshad was n:p, not ;:.; "ranslation by O.S. Wintermute, in J.13. Charlesworth (ed.), Tbe O l d Tesament Pseudeptgrapha, vol. 2, London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985, p. 71. For Jubilees' dependence on the Enoch literature, see J. VanderKam, Enoc/~Tradtttons rrr Jubtkes and Other Second-century .Sources, in SRI. 1978 Semrnar Papers, vol. 1, Missoula, MT, Scholars Prccs, pp. 228-251; In., Enoch and the Growth o f a n Apoc~zlyptrc Tradrtton ( C B Q MS. 16), Washington, Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984, p. 180.

'

154

10. Kamam thc Son of Arpuchshad rn 1-ukei C;enealogy

Thus it seems probable that the story of Kainam's discovery of the inscription belonged t o the same cycle of traditions as those about Enoch and the Watchers, t o which Jubilees is indebted. It is likely that ~ a i n a malso occurred in a genealogical tradition known t o Jubilees. R.H. Char1es"uggested that Jubilees added Kainam t o the line frorn Shem t o Abraham in order t o make possible the analogy in 2,23 between the twenty-two kinds of work created o n the six days of creation and the "twenty-two chief men from Adam until Jacob". This is not a convincing argument, since if Kainanl is ommitted there are twenty-two names, including both Adam and Jacob, from Adam t o Jacob, s o that it would still be possible t o reckon twenty-two. More convincing is the idea that both in ~ u b i l e e sand in Genesis 11 1-XX, Kainam has been Hdded t o make ten generations in the line frorn Shem t o Terah, parallel t o the ten generations from Adam t o Noahs. But since Jubilees doe.; not set o u t t h e s e t w o genealogies in schematic parallel as Genesis does (5,l-32; 1],lo-26), it is less plausible that the author of Jubilees added Kainam for this reason than that ile found Kainam already in the text of Genesis o r in an independent genealogy of the patriarchs. Furthermore, the presence of Kainam in the genealogy cannot be isolated from the question of the various differing chronologies of the generations from Adam t o Terah. In the generations from Adam t o Shem the age of each patriarch at the birth of his eldest son, as given in Jubileeslo, virtually agree in every case with the figures in the Samaritan Pentateuch, diverging from the M T in the cases where the Samaritan Pentateuch does so". But in the generations from Arpachshad t o Terah, where the Samararitan Pentateuch agrees with the L X X in figures which simply add 100 o r 50 t o those of the M'T, Jubilees has a quite different set of figures, higher than the MT's, lower than the LXX's, but unrelated t o eitheri2.This means that the occurrence of Kainam the son of Arpachshad in Jubilees is not simply paralR. H. Charles, Tbe Rook ofJubrlees or the Little Genesrs, I.ondon, A. & C. Black, 1902, p. 66.

For tlie L XX, cf. R. W. Klein, Archarc Chror~olo~ies and the Textual f-itstory o f t h e O l d Testatnent, in N T R 67 (1974) 258. 'O These ages have t o be calculated from the dates Jubilees gives. I ' Since these agreements with the Samaritan Pentateuch have t o be calculated and are not explicitly textual agreements, they are riot included in the lists of biblical textual variants in Jubilees and their affinities given by J. VanderKam, Textual and H~stortcalStudtes tn the Rook of Jubrlees (HSM, 14)' Missoula, M'I', Scholars Press, 1977, pp. 139-198, but they could be addcd t o his lists R and E and support his case for the affinity of Jubilees' biblical text with the Samaritan. IZ I)iscussions of the divergent chronologies in the texts of Getiesic in the MT, 1,XX and Samaritan Pentateuch (e.g. Klein, Archarc C,'hronologtes, 253-263; G . Larssan, The Chronology o f t h e Pentateuch: A Conzpanson of the M T and 1-XX, in JBL 102 119831 401-409) d o not seem t o have given due attention t o the data of Jubilees o r those of Pceudo-Philo, LAR (which appears t o have yet another distinct chronology, although the trarlsmission of figures in the text of LAB is unreliable).

10. Kahlam the Son of Arpacl~shadzn I.ukei Genealogy

155

Iel t o his occurrence in the LXX. In Genesis 11,13 the figures of Kainan's life (130 years t o the birth of Shelah, 330 years afterwards) are the same as those of his son Shelah. This duplication, found nowhere else in the genealogy, makes it very probable that Kainan is a secondary addition t o it. But this is not the case in Jubilees (where Kainam is 57 at the birth of Shelah, and Shelah 71 at the birth of Eber). In Jubilees the occurrence of Kainam in the genealogy seems t o be part of a divergent tradition of the whole genealogy from Arpachshad t o Terah. It is difficult t o know whether the author of Jubilees derived this divcrgent tradition from the tcxt of Genesis he used. VanderKam's meticulous and exhaustive examination of the variant biblical readings in Jubilees shows that Jubilees agrees more frequently with the LXX a n d t h e Samaritan than with the MT, and concludes that it depends o n an early Palestinian text of the Hebrew Bible which was closer t o the Vorlage of the LXX than to the MT13. However, in this case, Kainam occurs only in LXX and Jubilees, not in other witnesses t o a Palestinian type of tcxt (Samaritan; 1 Chronicles 1,18; Pseudo-Philo, LAB 4,9), while Jubilees' chronology of the line from Arpachshad t o Terah is unparalleled elsewhere. Jubilees may reflect a distinctive tradition of the tcxt of Genesis 11, o r it may reflect an independent genealogy which has also influenced the LXX at Genesis 10,24; 11,12-13. There is additional evidence that a form of the genealogy from Shem t o Abraham which included Kainam the son of Arpachshad was already known before JubileesI4.This evidence comes frorn the Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93,3-10; 91,l 1-17)15 and thus confirms the suggestion made above that the tradition about K a i n a n ~in Jubilees 8,l-5 was connected with the traditions about Enoch and the Watchers which Jubilees knew from the Enoch literature. T h e Apocalypse of Weeks divides the whole history of the world from Adam t o the judgment of the Watchers at the last judgment into ten "weeks". T h e clear indication of 93,3 (in which Enoch, the seventh in line from Adam, says, "I was born the seventh in the first week") is that the weeks consist of seven generations each. T h e majority of VanderKarn, Texttcal and Historicul Studies, pp. 1 16-1 38. The latest full discussion of the date of Jubilees is VanderKam, and liistorical Studies, chaptcr 3: he concludes that it must be dated hctween 163 and 140 8.c.r. 'I'he Apocalypse of Weeks has usually been dated just before or during the Maccabean revolt. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth, pp. 142-149, argues for a date between 175 and 167 l3

l4

B.C.E. l 5 This rearrangenlent of the text, long postulated by scholars, has been shown to be the original form of the Apocalypse of Wceks b y the Aratnaic fragrnerlts from Qumran: see J.T. Milik, The Hook of Enoch: Aramaicfiagnzents of Qumran Cave 4, Oxford, Clarendon Prcss, 1976, p. 247; E Dexinger, Henochs Zchnwoci~enapokalypseund o f i t Probleme der Apokalyptikjbrschut~(SPB, 29), Leiden, Brill, 1977, pp. 102-109; M. Black, The Apocalypse of Weeks in the Light of 4Q En", in V T 28 (1978) 464-469; ID., Thc Book ofEnoch or I Enoch: A N e w English Edition (SVTP, 7), 1-eiden, Brill, 1985, pp. 287-289'291-292.

156

10. Kainam the SONof Arpachshad in I.ukei Genealogy

scholars have concluded that the Apocalypse cannot be made to fit a scheme of ten weeks of generationst6, but attempts t o understand it as using units other than generations have all failed." In fact, a generational scheme works very well. If we include Kairlam the son of Arpachshad, the first five weeks arc as follows: I st week: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch End of I st week: Enoch (93,3) 2 n d week: Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arpachshad, Kainam, Shelah End o f 2 n d week: Noah's law (93,4)

3 rd week: Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, 'Terah, Abraham End of 3 rd week: Abraham (93,s) 4 t h week: Isaac, Jacob, Judah,

Perez, I-lezron, Ram, Amminadab

End o f 4 th week: Sinai (93,6)

I t h week: Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David, Solomon End of 5 th week: Temple (93,7)

Most important events noticed in the Apocalypse happen at the end of each week, i. e. o n the sabbath of each week, in the seventh generation. Provided we include Kainam in the generations of the second week, Abraham occurs at the end of the third week, exactly where the Apocalypse indicates. T h e law made for sinners by Noah, following the growth of iniquity after the Flood (93,4) should probably be identified not with the Noahic covenant of Genesis 9,l-17, but with the testament of Noah found in Jubilees 7,20-3918. Jubilees dates this in the jubilee immediately before the birth of Kainam, but the author of the Apocalypse could easily have supposed it t o have happened during the lifetime of Shelah, when Noah was certainly still alive. Kainam's sin in connexion with the inscription could then be connected with the renewed growth of iniquity to which 1 Enoch 93,4 refers. If the genealogy continues through the biblical line t o Solomon, the thirty-fifth generation, then the giving of the law at Sinai at the end of the fourth week l 6 Cf. the discussion, with references to earlier literature, in Dexinger, Nenochs Zehnz*ochemapokirlypse, pp. 119-120. But C. Kaplan, Some N m f Testament Problems in the Light of Rabbinics and the Pseucieyigrupha: :The Chteration Schernes in Matthew 1:J-17 and Luke I l l : 24ff; in Biblrotheca S r ~ r a87 (1930) 465-471, rightly measures the weeks

generations. " The most detailed alternative reckonings of the weeks are those of R.'f. Beckwith, The Signijicance ofthe Calendarfor Intcv-preting Essene Chronology and Eschatology, in R m Q 10 (1980) 167-202, and K. Koch, Sabbutstruktur und Geshichte: Die sogenannte und das Ringen rrm die alttestarnentl~chen Zehn- Wochen-Apokalypse ( I Hen 93'-lo;9f1-17) Chronologicn im sputen Israelitmturn, in Z A W 95 ( 1 983) 4 13-420:by comparison with a generational scheme both are very contrived. For the failure of attempts to reckon the weeks, cf. also VanderKarn, Enoch and the Growth, p. 158. " L)exinger, Henochr Zehnwochenapokadypse, pp. 123-124; Black, Tbe Book of Enoch, 289-290. in

10. Kaitlam the Son of Arpachshad in L.uke's Genealogy

157

(93,6) is approximately correctly placed and the building of the Temple accurately placed at the end of the fifth week (93,7). T h e generational scheme appears to fail after this, because the Apocalypse allows only one week, the sixth, for the whole period of the divided Inonarchy down to the destruction of the Temple, which it places at the end of the sixth week (93,8). From Rehoboam t o Jeconiah there were seventeen generations (1 Chron 3.10-16). This is the main reason why most scholars have rejected the idea that the Apocalypse of Weeks uses a generational schcme. However, the mistake is t o suppose that the author would count his generations according t o the royal line, in which he shows n o interest at all. His interests are priestly interests in the Law and the Temple, and he is much more likely t o have followed a priestly genealogy. Since the O l d Tcstament supplies no standard priestly genealogy after Phinehas, we cannot tell what genealogy he would have used. However, if we use, for the sake of illustration, the genealogy given (as that of Ezra) in Ezra 7,l-5, we can see how such a genealogy could fit the scheme of the Apocalypse. We need t o go back to the fourth week t o d o so:

4th week: Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Arnram, Aaron, Eleazar End of 4 th week: Sinai (93,6) 5 th week: Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Azariah End of5 th week: Temple (93,7) 6 th week: Arnariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Shallum, Hilkiah, Azariah, Seraiah End of 6 th week: Fall of 'Scmple (93,8) The generation of Eleazar the son of Aaron could be rnore plausibly than that of Amminadab regarded as the generation of Sinai (Exod 28,l; N u m 3,211.22). Azariah at the end of the fifth week could be considered contcmporary with the building of the Temple (as in 1 Kings 4,2; 1 Chron 6,lO) and Seraiah at the end of the sixth week was high priest at the time of the fall of Jerusalem (2 Kings 25,18). This simply shows that the schemc of the Apocalypse could fit a priestly genealogy, which could well record, as this one does, far fewer generations than the line of the kings of Judah. We may also allow for the fact that genealogies were frequently manipulated to fit a numerical schcme. The author of the Apocalypse of Weeks had t o cover the monarchical and post-exilic periods in n o rnore than t w o weeks in order t o put his own generation, which received the secrets of Enoch's revelations (93,10), in the key position at the end of the seventh week, since this was the "jubilee" position, the seventh generation of the seventh week. If his schemc fitted s o well the recorded genealogies as far as the building of the Temple, we should not be surprised if he stretched it thereafter. T h e point of this examination of the Apocalypse of Weeks has been to show how probable it is that its author knew Kainam the son of Arpachshad

158

10. Kainam the Son of Arpachshad in L+ukeiGenealogy

in the genealogy of the patriarchs. Without this generation, the otherwise precise placings of Abraham and the building of the Temple at the ends of the third and fifth weeks would not be possible. Thus the occurrence of Kainam the son of Arpachshad in the genealogy from Shem t o Abraham was not a peculiarity of Jubilees alone, but was more widely known, in the second century B.C. E., in the circles from which the Enoch literature comes. It remains to demonstrate that the occurrence of Kainam in the Lukan genealogy is more likely t o depend o n a tradition connected with Jubilees and the Enoch literature than t o depend o n the LXX. T h e Lukan genealogy has seventy-seven names from Adam to Jesus'? If the order of these is reversed, t o follow the usual order of a biblical genealogy, the genealogy can be seen t o have been constructed t o fit a numerical similar t o that of the Apocalypse of Weeks. T h e names in the seventh, sabbatical position at the end of each week of generations are then as follows: 1 st week: 'Evcbx, 2nd: IcxAti, 3 rd: 'APectiip, 4th: AAbpiv, 5 th: huuih, 6 th: 'Iwtri,c(, 7th: 'lqrroic5,8th: >xhuf)~rjh,9th: M u ~ m 8 i u c 10 , th: "Ict)cri~ql, 11 th: 'I1100Uq

Whereas the scheme in the Apocalypse of Weeks correlates Enoch in the seventh generation with the author's own generation in the forty-ninth (seven x seventh) generation, this scheme primarily correlates Enoch in the seventh generation with Jesus in the seventy-seventh generation. This is a Hebraic use of seventy-seven as the fullest extension of seven, as in Genesis 4,24; Matthew 18,22. Enoch, well known t o be the seventh generation from Adam (1 Enoch 60,s; 93,3; J u b 7,39; Jude 14; Lev Kab. 29,1 I), was considered of very special significance for that reason. Jesus as the seventy-seventh generation is thereby shown t o be of ultimate significance, the furthest the generations of world history will go, both in number and in significance. However, we should also note that the Lukan genealogy has the name 'Iquo.ii~not only in seventy-seventh place, but also in forty-ninth place, the jubilee position, where the only namesake of Jesus among his ancestors appears (Luke 3,29). Moreover, at the end of each week preceding those in which the name ' I ~ l u o 6is~seventh, stands the name 'Iwutjcp, thus parallelling in the scheme of weeks the position of '1tr)cnilq as the father of Jesus, the seventy-sixth generation immediately before "Itluoij~at the end of the list. It looks as though the author w h o has constructed the genealogy according t o this scheme has used the key positions at the ends of the sixth, seventh

''

"I'he seventy-seven narnes in modern pririted ctiitlo~isof the Greek N e w Testament are found in most but riot a11 ILISS. For discussion of the textual questions, see Bauckharn, Jude and the Kelatrves of jcstts (n. 3 ) , chapter 7: "Additional N o t e on the Text of the I.ukan Genealogy." Since in a list of this kind it is easier for names to drop out than for names to he added, a nanie whlch is lacking in a tew MSS should not be rejected without good reason.

10. K a ~ r ~ athe m Son of Arpachshnd in Luke3 Genealogy

159

and tenth weeks to point forward t o the end of the whole line. According to on world history, these positions d o not themseives the author's mark turning-points in history, but are significant only as pointing forward to the climax of all history in Jesus the son of Joseph. Like the scheme in the Apocalypse of Weeks, the Lukan genealogy has Abraham at the end of the third week. But unlike the Apocalypse of Weeks, which places the building of the Temple at the end of the fifth week, the Lukan genealogy ends the fifth week with David. As we have seen the biblical genealogy, if followed, would place Solomon in this position. The Lukan genealogy secures this place for David because, as we have already noticed, it adds a generation t o the biblical line of David's descent from Judah: where the Bible has only Ram, it has ' A ~ v and i 'AGpiv. However this extra generation may have originated20, it serves an important purpose in the genealogical scheme. Unlike the Apocalypse of Weeks, which is not interested in David o r the monarchy, the Lukan genealogy is intended to show Jesus' Davidic descent. It therefore highlights David by means of his sabbatical position at the end of a week. The appearance of ZahaOulh (Shealtiel) at the end of the eighth week might also be significant. With this name the line of non-royal descent from David via Nathan rejoins the biblically attested succession t o the throne of David (1 Chron 3,17). If the Lukan genealogy thus resembles the Apocalypse of Weeks in its construction, it differs in having eleven weeks of world history rather than the ten of the Apocalypse. This difference not only gives Jesus the very significant seventh-seventy place. It also shows that the Lukan genealogy is constructed with reference to another part of the Enoch literature: 1 Enoch 10,12 (= 4QEnb 1,4,10). The archangel Michael is there instructed to bind the watchers "for seventy generations under the hills of the earth until the [great] day of their judgmentn". From verse 14 it is clear that this day of judgment of the Watchers is the day o f judgment at the end of world history. The binding of the fallen angels occurred during the lifetime of Enoch's son Methuselah. Thus according to 1 Enoch 10,12 the whole of world history from Adam to the last judgment comprises seventy-seven generations, seven up to and including Enoch, following by a further seventy. For anyone familiar with 1 Enoch 10,12 the Lukan genealogy would clearly designate Jesus the last generation of world history before the end. These features of the Lukan genealogy, which cannot be coincidental, show it to be constructed according to an apocalyptic world-historical 20 See Jeremias, Jerusalem (n. 4), p. 293, for a suggestion that it originated by scribal error. 2 1 Translation of the Ethiopic from M. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, vol. 2, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1978, p. 789, but with 'great' supplied from the Aramaic in 4QEnb 1,4,10.

160

10. Kainarn the Son of Arpachshad in Luke's Genealogy

scheme inspired by the Enoch literature. I have discussed the nature and origin of the genealogy in more detail elsewhere2< For the present purpose, we can now draw three conclusions: (1) The generations from Adam to Abraham are integral to the structure of the whole genealogy and cannot be considered without reference to the rest. (2) The structure of the genealogy is only clear when it is seen as a descending genealogy, beginning with Adam and ending with Jesus. It is probable therefore that Luke found it in this form in a source, reversed it t o form an ascending genealogy, in order to accommodate it t o his narrative, and at the same time added the reference to God at the end, for his own theological purpose. But he made n o other changes. (3) It cannot be completely excluded that the author of the genealogy referred to the LXX. But since the genealogy shows striking independence of the LXX in the generations between Abraham and David, it is most likely not dependent o n the L,XX for the generations between Adam and Abraham. An author as familiar with the Enoch literature as this author was would probably have known of Kainam the son of Arpachshad from Jubilees, and may well have known other genealogical traditions in related literature not known to us. H e may even have known a Hebrew text of Genesis in which Kainam the son of Arpachshad appeared.

2'

Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus ( n . 3), chapter 7.

11. The List of the Tribes of Israel in Revelation 7::In a recent article in this journal,' Christopher R. Smith has offered an ingenious explanation of the anomalous features of the list of the twelve tribes of Israel in Rev. 7.5-8. The list, he claims, is 'a systematic reworking of a paradigmatic list of the sons of Israel grouped by maternal descent, whose otherwise perplexing features are clearly explained by the author's design of portraying the church as the N e w Israel'.* H e suggests that an original list (see Fig. I ) was transformed by the author of Revelation into the list he gives by making three changes, for the following reasons: (1) Judah is moved from fourth place to first, because Christ, the head of the church, was of that tribe; (2) Dan is omitted and Manasseh substituted, in order to assimilate the list to that of the twelve apostles, in which Judas was removed and Matthias substituted. The choice of Dan as the tribe to be omitted is said to be 'because of that tribe's longstanding association with idolatry, and because of the Jewish tradition that the antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan'.' (3) The sons of the handmaids are moved up, as a group of four, from the end of the list to follow Reuben near the top. This is partly because they were tribes living in 'Galilee of the Gentiles', the focus of Christ's early ministry, but more especially so that the nullification of privilege based on difference of birth might represent the inclusion of Gentiles in the church. Reuben retains his place as first-born, however, to represent the inclusion of believing Israelites in the church. The first of these three arguments is plausible, but the others are unconvincing for the follow reasons; (1) The tradition that Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan is first found in Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.30.2 and Hippolytus, De Antichristo 14; it is found in no Jewish text and is very unlikely to be pre-Christian. The

First publication:Jortrnal for the Study ofrhe New Testament 42 (1991) 99-1 15. C. R. Smith, 'The Portrayal of the Church as the New Israel in the Names and Order of the Tribes in Revelation 7 . 5 4 , JSNT 39 (1990), pp. 11 1-18. Ibld., pp. 115-16. Ibid., p. 115.

1I . 7 % L~sr ~ of the Tr~Gcsof Israt1 tn H ~ w c ~ l a t r7o ~ ~

Figure 1 Otzgznul Il,t

Juduh moved up; liandrnatdr 'son, Munusseh for Zln?~ nroved trp

Reuben Simcon I.cvi Judah Issachar Zcbulun

Judah Reuben Sitneon Levi Issachar Zebulun

Joseph Benjamin

Joseph Benjamin

(Zilpah)

Gad Ashcr

(Bil hah)

Dan Naphtali

C; ad Asher - Elan Naphtali + Manassch

--

( Leah)

(Rachel)

--

Judah Reuben Gad Ashcr Naphtali Manasseh Simcon Ixvi Issachar Xcbulun Joseph Benjamin

'Antichrist' figures of Jewish apocalyptic arc always Gentiles.' It is true that Tesmnzent of Dun 5.4-4 predicts the apostasy of Dan, but 5.9-13 envisages the tribe's restoration and participation in the eschatological salvation of Israel. In any case, even if there had been such a tradition, it is i n ~ o r n ~ r e h e n sible that the author of Revelation, whose Antichrist is the imperial power of Rome, should have made use of it. (2) The replacement of Dan by Manasseh is hardly a convincing parallel t o the replacement of Judas by Matthias. Manasseh frequently appears in lists of the tribes of Israel, but always along with Ephraim in place ofJoseph. What needs explaining is not the appearance of Manasseh in this list, but the appearance of Manasseh along with Joseph, rather than Ephrairn. (3) T h e tribes whose territory was included in Galilee in New Testament tinies were Naphtali, Zebulun and Issachar, two of which are actually moved down the Iist by the alleged rearrangement. The tribes actually associated with 'Galilee of the Gentiles' in Isa. 9.1, cited in Mt. 4.15, are Naphtali and Zebulun. Gad, Asher, and Manasseh were not Galilaean tribes. (4) T h e idea that the rearrangement of the Iist nullifies the difference of birth depends on assuming that the Leah and Rachel tribes were normally W. Bousset (Thr Anrrthrzsr I.cgend [Idondon: 1 lutcliinson, 18961, pp. t 71-74] argues for the p r e - C h r ~ s t ~ aorigln n of thc tradition, but can adduce only Christian sources. Bcsidcs the irlflucnce of Gcn. 49.17, Jcr. 8.16, a n d the omissior~of Dan from Rev. 7.5-8, the Christian tradition that Antichrist will be a Darlite rtiay have originated as an ant-Jewish irlterpretation of the coninion expectation of an Antichrist from thc East, beyond the Euphrates, which was where thc tcrl tribes were believcd to be.

given priority over tlie Bilhah and Zily'lh tribes. In fact, few O l d Testament lists arrange the tribes in this way (only Gen. 35.23-26; Exod. 1.2-4; Num. 1.5-15), while, as we shall see later, in New Testament times there seem t o have been t w o standard ways of listing the tribes, one of which gives the sons of tlie wives priority over the sons of the handmaids, but the other of which places the kachcl tribes at the end of the list where they belong in the order of birth. Tliough John's list conforms to neither of these standard patterns, it is not at all clear that it would have been recognized as reordering precedence among the tribes. (5) It is in any case hard to see how a revision of the order of precedence among the tribes of Israel could represent the inclusion of Gentiles in the N e w Israel. More generally, Smith's argument fails to consider adequately the relation between the 144,000 of the tribes of Israel (7.4-8) and the great multitude (7.9-1 7). H e merely answers I'euillet's arguments that the t w o groups must be different, but fails t o consider whether the juxtaposition of the t w o may not assist the understanding of the first. Here I must summarize an argument I have presented in detail e l s e ~ h c r e . ~ Literary links and parallels suggest that tlie vision of the 144,000 and the innumerable multitude in ch. 7 should be seen as a parallel to the vision of the Lion and the L,an~bof 5.5-14.qn 5.5 John hears that victory has been won by the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David. These two messianic titles, alluding t o Gen. 49.9 and Isa. 11.1-5, both classic texts for Jewish messianic hopes in the first century CE,' evoke the image of the messiah as a new David w h o wins a military victory over the enemies of Israel. But after hearing this description of the victorious messiah, John sees the slaughtered Lamb (5.6), whose blood has ransomed a people from every tribe, language, people and nation (5.9). By juxtaposing these images, John gives his Jewish Christian interpretation of Jewish messianic hopes. T h e conquering Davidic messiah is not repudiated,' but his victory is shown t o be by sacrifice, not military conflict, while the people he delivers are not '"

R. Bauckham, "The Book of Rcvelat~onas a Christian War Scroll', N~orestnmentrta

22 (1988). pp. 17-40.

"or this paragraph see ,also R. Bauckham, 'The frgurae of John o f I'atmos', in A. Will~anis(ed.), Prophecy and Mtllennrr~lntsm:Es$ay, tn Ifonour o f i t l a ~ o r t eReeves (1.ondon: Longman, 1980), pp 107-25. ' For allusion\ t o both p'1ssage.i together, see 4QPBless; IQSh 5.20-29; 4 E7ra 12.3132; and for the Shoot of David, see 4Qf.lor 1 .11-12; 4QpIsa frag. A; Prr. 501. 17.24,35-37; I Enoch 49.3; 4 Ezra 13.10; 1Jrtd. 24.4-6. For Revelation's emphasi.i o n the fulfilment of Old Testament rlavidic promises in Christ, see J . Fekkes, 'Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development' (unpublished P h D thesis, University of Manchester, 1988), pp. 153-54.

164

I I . T%c Ltst of the Tibes of Israel tn Kt-.~clatton7

only Israelites, but from all the nations. Moreover, the second image, the slaughtered Lamb, is just as scriptural as the first: there is probably an allusion t o Isa. 53.7 and certainly to the Passover lamb: whose blood effects the new Exodus and redeems the eschatological people of God (5.9-10, alluding to Exod. 19.6). By juxtaposing the two scriptural images of the conquering messiah and the slaughtered Lamb, John builds the notion of a messiah who conquers by sacrificial death. In ch. 7, John hears the number of those sealed from the tribes of Israel, but he sees the innumerable multitude from all nations. Just as he has deliberately juxtaposed the contrasting images of the messiah in 5.5-6, so he has deliberately juxtaposed contrasting images of the messiah's followers in 7.4-9. The contrast is obvious in two respects: the 144,000 are counted, whereas the great multitude cannot be counted; the 144,000 are from the twelve tribes-of Israel, whereas the great multitude are from all nations, tribes, peoples and l a n g ~ a g e s . ' ~ T hcontrasting e images are parallel to those of 5.5-6: the 144,000 are the Israelite army of the Lion of Judah, while the international multitude are the followers of the slaughtered Lamb. The purpose of the contrast is the same as in 5.5-6: t o give a Christian interpretation of an element of Jewish messianic expectation. Moreover, just as in 5.6 the image which conveys John's Jewish Christian interpretation of Jewish hopes is a scriptural one, so in 7.9 the image of the innumerable multitude from all nations is a scriptural allusion. It echoes God's promise to the patriarchs that their descendants would be innumerable (Gen. 13.16; 15.5; 32.12; Has. 1.10; Juh. 13.20; 14.4-5; Heb. 11.12; cf. Gen. 22.17; 26.4; 28.14; Jub. 18.15; 25.16; 27.13; Lad. Jac. 1.10). By contrast with some contemporary Jewish expectations that this promise would be fulfilled by the growth of the exiled ten tribes t o vast numbers in the lands of their exile," John has probably understood it in terms of the other form of the promise t o the patriarchs: that their descendants would be a multitude of nations (Gen. 17.4-6; 35.1 1; 48.19; cf. Rom. 4.1 6-1 8; Justin, Dial.119-120). Unlike the twelve tribes which can be numbered, the great multitude is innumerable because it is international, drawn not only from Israel but from all the nations. Less obvious than the contrast between the fixed number of Israelites and the innumerable multitude from all nations is the contrast between the 144,000 as an army called to military service in the messianic war, and the Fekkes ('Isaiah', pp. 154-59) rejects Isa. 53.7 in favour of the paschal Iamb as John's

Old Testament source here. ' O 5.9 and 7.9 are the first two occurrences in Revelation of this fourfold expression, which John uses five more times, always varying the order or terms: 10.1 I; 11.9; 13.7; 14.6; 17.15. I t Evidence in Bauckham, 'Revelation as a Christian War Scroll', p. 25.

11. The List ofthe Tnbes of I s r ~ c in ~ l R~wcdation7

165

innumerable multitude as victors w h o have won their victory by following the Lamb in his sacrificial death. That the multitude are the martyrs in heaven, w h o have conquered by their suffering witness as a participation in the Lamb's own sacrificial death, becomes clear only in 7.14, which must be read in connection with later passages such as 12.1 1 and 15.2.12 That the 144,000 are an Israelite army is implicit in the fact that 7.4-8 is a census of the tribes of Israel. In the O l d Testament a census was always a reckoning of the military strength of the nation, in which only males of military age were counted.') Accordingly, it later becomes apparent from Rev. 14.4 that the 144,000 are adult male Israelites: those eligible for military service." T h e only divinely conl~naridedcensuses in the O l d Testament were those in the wilderness (Num. 1; 26). It looks as though the repeated formula of ~ is modelled o n that of Numbers (1.2 1, 23; etc.: E-x Rev. 7.5-8 (tx v v h i i ...) T ~ (SD U ) ...). ~ ~ ~AS possible link with the census of Nurnbers 1 is of particular interest, since the account of the organization of the military camp of Israel in the wilderness which this census introduces considerably influenced the Qumran War Rule (1QM). Israel, organized in the wilderness for the conquest of the promised land, was readily treated as a model for the eschatological Israel w h o would come from the wilderness ( l Q M 1.2-3) t o reconquer the promised land in the messianic war.I5 Of course, the number 144,000 has symbolic appropriateness, which in Revelation reappears in the dinlensions of the New Jerusalem (21.16-17). But it would be natural t o think of a n army of all Israel, assembled for the messianic war, as composed of twelve equal tribal contingents. T h e small force which Moses sent against Midian was 12,000 strong, composed of 1,000 from each of the tribes (Num. 3 1.4-6; cf. Philo, Mos. 1.306). Moreover, not only was the return of the ten tribes and the reunion of all Israel a strong traditional element in the eschatological hope,'&s o that the list of equal numbers from the twelve tribes in Rev. 7.4-8 would readily suggest to any Jewish Christian reader the eschatological restoration of the people of For this interpretation, see Bauckllarn, 'Revelation as a Christian War Scroll', pp. 27-28.

" N u ~ n 1.3, . 18,20, etc.; 26.2,); 1 Chron. 27.23; cf. 2 Sam. 24.9; 1 Chron. 21.5.

"

Hence also the sexual abstinence of the 144,000 (14.4) is to be explained according to the requlremcnt of ritual purity for soldiers in the holy war: Bauckham, 'Revelation as a Christian War Scroll', p. 29. For the influence of N u m . 1-3, 10 o n I Q M , see P.R.Ilavies, 1 Q M , the War Scroll from Qumran: Its Srructure'and Ntstory (BibOr, 32; Rome: Biblical Institute I'rrrs, 1977), pp. 28,30-3 1: Y. Yadin, The Scroll cfthe War ofthe Sons ofLlght against the Sans ofDarkness (Oxford: C>xforii University I'ress, 1962), pp. 3 9 , 4 2 4 8 , 54-56; J. van der Ploeg, LC Rouleau de 14 Cuewe (STDJ, 2; L i d e n : Brill, 1959), pp. 27-28. l6 Isa. 1 1 . 1 1-12, 15-16; 27.12-13; Jer. 31.7-9; Ezek. 37.15-23; Sir. 36.1 1; Tob. 13.13; 2 Hav. 78.5-7; T Jos. 19.4; cf. Mt. 19.28; rn. Srznh. 10.3; 1. Sanh. 10.6.

God.17 There is also evidence for the expectation that the ten tribes would return specifically to take part in the messianic war of liberation (Sib. Or. 2.1 70-76; Commodian, Carmen apol. 941-86).IS The army in l Q M , modelled on Numbers 1-2, is organized according to the traditional division of Israel into twelve tribes.'' It follows that we should not look, as Smith does, for a Christian interpretation of the list of twelve tribes within 7.4-8. This image as such is a traditional Jewish image of the people of God called to military service in the messianic war. 'The Christian interpretation comes in 7.9-14, which shows the same people celebrating their victory in heaven, but shows them to be an innumerable multitude of martyrs from all the nations. Smith is right in thinking that John does not list the twelve tribes in order to represent-~ewish Christians only, but intends to reinterpret the twelve tribes as the new international people of God. H e does this; however, precisely by means of the contrast between 7.4-8 and 7.9. We return to the names and order of the tribes. Smith has failed to consider whether we have evidence for the way Jewish writers of the first century CE listed the tribes. It so happens that we have such evidence: in Josephus and in Pseudo-Philo's Iiber Antiquitaturn Biblicarurn (LAB). (The five lists in P s e ~ d o - P h i l oare ~ ~given in Fig. 2.) We may also take into account the lists in Jubilees, the Qumran Temple S c r ~ l l ,and ~ ' the Testaments

ofthe Tzlelve Patrjizrchs.

'' Cf. A. Geyser, "The *l'wel\~e'li-ibesin Revelation: Judean and Judeo-Christian Apocalypticisni', NTS 28 (1982), pp. 388-99. '' For Conirnodian's depcndcnce on a Jewish apocalyptic source, see Bauckhani, 'Revelation as a Christian War Scroll', p. 23; M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota (Texts, 213; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893), pp. 90-94; M. K. James, The Lost Apooypha ofrhc Old Testament (London: SI'CK, 1920), pp. 103-106; F. Schmidt, 'Une source essenienne chez Comniodien', in M. Philonenko, J.-C. Picard, J.-M. Rosenstiehl and F. Schmidt, Psesrudepigraphes de l'An&en Testament et nzarrusm'tsde la Mer Morte, I (Cahiers de la RHPR, 41; Paris: Presses Univcrsitaires de France, 1967); J. I)aniflou, The Danon, Longrnan & W d , 1977). pp. 116-19. Origins of I~ztlnC l ~ ~ i ~ t i i l n(London: ity " IQM 2.2-3.7; 3.13-14; 14.16;5.1-2; 6.10; arid cf. Yadin,Smll, pp. 79-83. IQM 1.2-3 may indicate that the first six years of the war will be fought by the three tribes of Ixvi, Judah and Benjamin, who will then be joined by the lost tribes for the remainder of the forty years' war. 23 'There is a sixth list in LAB 10.3, but it is not of the same kind: the tribes are divided into three groups of four according to their response to the situation at the Red Sea. O n this passage, see my discussion in 'The Liber Antiqrritatum Riblicarum of Pseudo-Philo and the Gospels as Micirash', in R.T. France and I). Wenham (eds.), Studies in Midrash and ffistonography (Gospel Perspectives, 3; Sheffield: JSOT I'ress, 1983), pp. 44-46. As well as the list in 1 lQ'1' 24, which will be discussed here, the tribes are also listed in 1 IQT 39-41,44-45, in connection with the gates and rooms allotted to the tribes in the Temple. For the way in which they are arranged, see J. Maier, The Temple Scroll USOTSup, 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 1 12-12, 114.

"

11. The Ltst ofthe Trthes of Isrdel ttt Revelatton 7

Figure 2 LAB 8.6

8.1 1-14

26.30-1 1

25.4

25.9-13

Reuben Simeon Levi Judah Issachar Zebulun

Reuben Simeon Levi Judah Issachar Zebulun

Keuben Simeon 1.evi Judah Issachar Zebulun

Judah Reuben Simeon I.evi Issachar Zcbuluri

Judah Reuben

Joseph Benjamin

Dan Naphtali

Dan Naphtali

Dan Naphtali

Gad [Asher]

Gad Aslier

Gad Asher

Gad Ashcr

Gad Asher

Joseph Benjaliiin

Joseph Benjamin

Manasseh Ephraim Benjamin

Manasseh Ephraim Benjamin

Levi Issachar Zebulun Dan Naphtali

The first of Pseudo-Philo's lists, in LAB 8.6, lists all the Leah and the Rachel tribes before the Bilhah and Zilpah tribes. This is a matriological list (i. e. arranged according t o the mothers of the patriarchs), which gives precedence t o the sons of the two wives of Jacob over the sons of the t w o handmaids. The senior wife Leah has precedence over Rachel, but Rachel's maid Bilhah , hecause Bilhah bore her children precedes Leah's maid ~ i l p a hpresumably before Zilpah bore hers (Gen. 30.1-13). (Alternatively the arrangement could be understood as chiastic: Leah-Rachel-Rachel's maid-Leah's maid.) In LAB 8.6 the list is simply copied from Gen. 35.23-26, the passage which Pseudo-Philo is following at this point in his work. For the same reason this list is found also in Jub. 33.22. More significant is the fact that Josephus uses this list in Ant. 2.177-83, wherc the biblical passage he is following, Gen. 46.8-27, has a different order (sons of Leah, sons of Zilpah, sons of Rachel, sons of Bilhah: see Fig. 3). This matriological order makes a lot of sense in Genesis: the sons of Leah's maid follow Leah's own because they are in a sense hers, and the sons of Rachel's maid similarly follow Rachel's. But Josephus rearranges it in order t o give both wives precedence over the handmaids. That this was the order he regarded as standard is confirmed by Ant. 1.344, where he indicates the same order (though without naming the tribes themselves). It is worth noticing, however, that when he mentions the order in which the names of the tribes appeared o n the stones of the high priest's breastplate, he says that the order was that of birth (Ant. 3.169). Since this is not the order he himself prefers, he must be reporting what was well known.

11. The List of the 'li-ibes of Israel in Rmelution 7

Figure 3 Gen. 29-30

Gen. 46

1 1 ~ 24 'r

Reuben Sinieon Levi Judah

Reuben Sinicon I.evi Judah Issachar Zebulun

I.evi Judah

Dan Naphtali Gad Asher Issachar Zebulun Joseph Benjamin

Gad Asher Joseph Benjamin Dan Naphtali

Benjamin Joseph Reuben Simeon Issachar Zebulun Gad Asher Dan Naphtali

At this point we may mention the unique list in 1I Q T 24.10-16 (see Fig. 3), which gives the order in which burnt offerings for the twelve tribes are to be offered on the six days of the Wood Festival (hence the grouping of the tribes in pairs). This list is best understood as a modification of a matriological list, which was like that preferred by Josephus but more logically places the Bilhah tribes last, after the Zilpah tribes. The author has moved to the top of the list the three tribes which composed the southern kingdom and made up the majority of Jews in his day, and his own levitical interests dictate the precedence: Levi, Judah, Benjamin. But this precedence also assures that a matriological arrangement still obtains, in that the first pair of tribes are Leah tribes. To ensure that the next pair are also of the same mother, Joseph has had t o be moved up the list also along with Benjamin. Then follow the remaining four Leah tribes, the Bilhah tribes, and the Zilpah tribes. The list is of interest in illustrating how strong the matriological principle of ordering was, even when another principle was also employed. The second of Pseudo-Philo's lists occurs in 8.1 1-14 and the same list reappears in 26.10-1 1. The genealogical section 8.1 1-14, which lists all the children and grandchildren of Jacob, is closely dependent on Gen. 46.8-27. Jub. 44.1 1-34, also closely dependent on Gen. 46.8-27, follows its order, but, as we have just seen, Josephus finds this order unsatisfactory and rearranges it. Pseudo-Philo also rearranges the list, but differently from Josephus. Pseudo-Philo has gone to some trouble to rearrange the genealogical information so that the patriarchs appear in this order: sons of Leah, sons of

11. The LIst ofthe Tribes of Isrizel in Revelation 7

169

Zilpah, sons of Bilhah, sons of R a ~ h e l . ~ Wmust e have regarded this order as a normative one and attached some importance to it, despite the fact that it nowhere appears in the Old Testament. When Pseudo-Philo uses it again in 26.10-1 1, it is in connection with the twelve precious stones from paradise which are given to Kenaz so that he can place them on the ephod alongside the twelve precious stones Moses placed on the breastplate of the high priest (cf. 26.4, 12). They are so described as to resemble closely the stones on the b r e a ~ t p l a t e .Like ~ ~ the stones on the breastplate (Exod. 28.21; 39.14), these twelve stones have the names of the twelve tribes of Israel engraved on them. They are carefully listed in order ('first.. .second.. .', etc.). The remaining lists in LAB (25.4; 25.9-13) are, as we shall see, modifications of this list in 8.6 and 26.10-1 1. N o r is this list a peculiarity of PseudoPhilo: it also occurs in Jub. 34.30, and is the order in which the testaments of the patriarchs appear in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Moreover, it is also found, as the order in which the names of the tribes appeared on the stones of the high priest's breastplate, in two of the Targums (Fragm. Tg. Exod. 28.1 7-20; Tg. Neof: Exod. 28.1 7-20; 39.10-1 3) and in Midrash Rabbah (Exod. R. 38.8-9; Num. R. 2.7).*"his must be evidence of a strong tradition of the normative status of this particular order of the tribes. The order, as we have noticed, is not found in any Old Testament list of the tribes. It is in fact a modification of the order of birth of the patriarchs (as given in Gen. 29.31-30.24; 35.16-18: see Fig. 3), obtained by moving Issachar and Zebulun, the fifth and sixth sons of Leah, who were born after the sons of the handmaids, up the list t o follow the first four sons of 1-eah. In this way the order of birth is modified so as to keep the sons of each of the four mothers together. We see once again the strength of the matriological principle of ordering. However, this modification of the order of birth is treated in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs actually as the order of birth of the patriarchs. Issachar calls himself Jacob's fifth son ('I:Iss. 1.2), and Gad calls himself Jacob's ninth son ('I:Gad 1.2). We recall also Josephus's statement that the tribs appeared on the breastplate of the high priest in the order of birth (Ant. 3.169). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (to Exod. 28.17-20; 39.10-1 3) lists the tribes on the breastplate in the order of birth as given in Genesis 29-30, but the other texts which give the order on the breastplate agree with In the text as it stands, the name Asher is missing, but cornparison with Gen. 46.16-17 shows that a section of text has been lost in 1,AR 8.13. The list is probably based on a list of the stones on the breastplate: cf. W. R. Reader, "I'he Twelve Jewels of Revelation 21:19-20: Tradition 1 Iistory and Modern Interpretations', JRI. 100 (1981), p. 446. 24 111 Num. R. 2.7, the positions o f Gad and Naphtali are reversed. Reader ('Twelve Jewels', pp. 440-44) gives the lists in the 'I'argums and Exodus Rabbah, but riot that in

Numbers Rabbuh.

170

I I . The Lsrt of thc Trzbes of Isr~aeli n Rcwelrrtzon 7

Pseudo-Philo's list in LAB 26.10-1 1. It looks very much as though the universally accepted tradition was that the tribes were named on the breastplate in the order of the birth of the patriarchs, and that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan merely differs from other traditions as t o what the order of birth was. Thus it would seem as though the reason why the list in LAB 8.1 1-14 and 26.10-1 1 was widely given normative status, and regarded as the order in which the tribes appeared on the stones of the breastplate, is that it was treated as the order of birth. This need not have been in disregard of Genesis. It could have been based on an interpretation of Genesis which, because Gen. 30.9 says that Leah had stopped bearing children, concluded that the story of Leah's bearing of Issachar, Zebulun and Dinah in 30.14-21 must actually have happened before 30.9. Thus there seem, in the first century CE, to have been two standard ways of listing the tribes. Both were matriological, grouping all the sons of each mother together. One, preferred by Josephus, gave precedence to the sons of the wives over the sons of the handmaids. The other, which seems to have been more popular, was a matriological modification of the order of birth, and seems to have been treated as the order of birth. O n this latter list Pseudo-Philo also has two variations: in 25.4 and 25.9-13. Both these Iists occur in the story of Kenaz's discovery of the sinners among the tribes, and so the two lists should correspond. Both include both Manasseh and Ephraim, rather than Joseph, as is natural in a narrative involving the actual tribes of the Old Testament, but the first list omits Dan and Naphtali, whereas the second list omits Simeon. As a result the first list has only eleven tribes, the second twelve. If both lists were originally of twelve tribes, omitting one name t o achieve the number twelve, then they were inconsistent. If both lists were originally the same, they must have been of thirteen tribes. It is impossible to be sure of the original text, but at least the problen~illustrates the difficulty encountered by any one listing the tribes, not as names of the patriarchs but as actual tribes: Israel was supposed to have had twelve tribes, but in fact had thirteen. However, both these Iists agree on another variation from what we have called the normative order: Judah appears first. 'The reason is clear: the tribes are led by Kenaz, whose own tribe was Judah (25.9). Kenaz, whom PseudoPhilo glorifies as the first and greatest of the judges, is depicted by him as a kind of forerunner of David (cf. 21.4-5; 49.1) and probably as a prototype of the future messianic deliverer of Israel from the gentile^.'^ Thus LAB 25.4 and 25.9-13 are clear disproof of Smith's claim that in a first-century vision of the literal twelve tribes of Israel and their spiritual future, one must

?5

I hope to argue this in detail elsewhere

I I . The List ofthc.

Tribes of' Israel in R~velatiotz7

171

expect Levi rather than Judah to head the list."The place of Judah in the list in Rev. 7.4-8 is entirely explicable in terms of Jewish Davidic messianism, with which, of course, John's own belief that Jesus fulfilled the hope of a messiah of David coincided. Comparing the lists I have discussed with the list of Revelation 7, the most anomalous feature of the latter is the position of Manasseh, since this is such a complete and apparently pointless breach of the matriological principle. If we could amend the text to read Dan instead of Manasseh, the tribes would at least be grouped in matriological pairs, as they are in I I Q T 24. We could then understand the list as an attempt to list the tribes in an intelligible order which failed owing to faulty memory" (whereas no Jew who knew the Scriptures as well as John did would, simply from faulty memory, associate Manasseh with Naphtali, rather than with Joseph and Benjamin). Amending the text in this way would also eliminate the other great anomaly in the list: the presence of Manasseh along with Joseph (rather than Ephraim). It is therefore tempting to amend the text, as others have suggested. But if the present text is accepted, the following is an attempt to explain it. In Fig. 4 I suggest how the list in Revelation 7 could have resulted from the order which was widely accepted as standard at the time of writing, the order found in L A B 8.1 1-14; 26.10-1 1; and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Column 1 gives this normative order. Column 2 is the result of the following changes: (a) The order of the Bilhah and Zilpah tribes is reversed. this could easily happen in reproducing the list from memory.28(b) Judah is moved to the head of the list, as in L A B 25.4 and 25.9-13. (c) Manasseh and Ephraim appear as two tribes, again as in L A B 25.4 and 25.9-13. (d) Dan is omitted in order to keep the number to twelve. Column 3 is the list in Rev. 7.5-8. It is the result of two changes: (a) Ephraim is renamed Joseph. (b) Two blocks of four tribes (Levi-Zebulun; Gad-Manasseh) have changed places. This account of the origin of the order in Revelation 7 can explain the very odd place of Manasseh without supposing it to be a textual error. If it is not a textual error, then the order of the list must result from copying a written list like that in column 2 and either deliberately o r carelessly moving a block of four tribes to a different position. Such a change of position could be made if a list which was deliberately ordered were copied by a writer who did not really care in what order he listed the tribes. But hardest of all to explain is the inclusion of Joseph, rather than Ephraim, along with Manasseh. This is unparalleled in any extant list of the lb

"

"

Smith, 'Portrayal of the Church', p. 114. Note that the last four names correctly follow the Genesis order of birth. Cf. the variation in Arum. K. 2.7, noted above.

1 1 . Tbe L~stofthe Tribes of Israel in Revelation 7

Figure 4 Normative order Reuben Simeon Levi Judah Issachar Zebulun

Judah Reuben Simeon Levi Issachar Zebulun

Dan Naphtali

Gad Asher

Gad Asher

Naphtali

Joseph Benjamin

Manasseh Ephraim Benjamin

Judah Reuben

Gad Asher Naphtali Manasseh

Simeon Ixvi Issachar Zebulun Joseph Benjamin

tribes. However, there is one apparent parallel which might explain it." In the account of the census in Numbers 1, on which I have already suggested Rev. 7.4-8 may be partly modelled, the repeated formula introducing the number of each tribe is varied once. Whereas for every other tribe, it begins: 'for the sons of Reuben...', 'for the sons of Simeon...', etc. in the case of Ephraim it begins: 'for the sons of Joseph, for the sons of Ephraim.. .' (Num. 1.32).j0 If this is why John o r his source called the tribe of Ephraim Joseph, he did not, however, follow the order of the tribes in Numbers 1. That order is a unique one, related to the places of the tribes in the camp (Num. 2). It may have suggested to John o r his source that the order of tribes in a military census should not be the normative order of the tribes, so that he rearranged the normative order to form an anomalous order of his own. A more plausible explanation may yet be dis~overed!~'

29 In Bauckham, 'Revelation as a Christian War Scroll', p. 24, I drew attention instead to Ezek. 37.16, 19, where the name Joseph has been glossed with references to Ephraim in such a way that a reader might think 'Joseph' was being used as a name for the tribe of Ephraim. Since this is an account of the reunion of the twelve tribes in the messianic kingdom, 'Joseph' might therefore seem a suitable name for Ephraim in a list of the tribes of the eschatological, reunited Israel. ' O 'For the sons of Joseph' should really be understood as a rubric which covers both the reference to the sons of Ephraim which immediately follows and the reference to the sons of Manasseh in v. 34. After completing this article, I came across another recent attempt to explain the order of the tribes in Rev. 7: R. E. Winkle, 'Another Look at the List of Tribes in Revelation', A USS 27 (1989). pp. 53-67- The key point in Winkle's argument is a novel explanation of the omission of Dan: that the tribe was associated with Judas Iscariot. However,

"

I f . The List of the Tribes of Isrue1 in Revelation 7

Abstract The anomalous features of the list of the tribes of Israel in Kev. 7.5-8 are not satisfactorily explained by the arguments of C.R. Smith (ISNT 39 [1990], pp. 11 1-18). Me misunderstands the relationship between the 144,000 (7.5-8) and the great multitude (7.9-14): the former is a traditional Jewish image which is given a Christian interpretation only in 7.9-14. Smith also neglects the many lists of the twelve tribes t o be found in Jewish literature of the New Testament period. From these it appears that a list in the order of the birth of the patriarchs, but modified by the matriological principle, was widely regarded as normative. The list in Rev. 7 can be understood as derived, by changes ~ a r t l yintentional and partly unintentional, from this normative list.

this association is known only from Christian sources several centuries later than the New Testament.

12. The Parting of thc Ways:

What Happened and Why'$ T h e problem of the 'parting of the ways' between Judaism and Christianity (to use the increasingly popular term for a currently popular subject) is in part a problem of finding an appropriate conceptual model with which t o interrogate the evidence. Recent discussion of the issue seems t o indicate that one conceptual model, which used t o be dominant, has now been widely, though not entirely, discredited, while another is becoming popular, if not dominant. The older model thought of Judaism as essentially a constant and Christianity as a new development which grew out of Judaism to become a new religion. Curiously this view suited the old confessional approaches of both Jewish and Christian scholarship. It could legitimate rabbinic Judaism as the legitimate heir of the religion of the Hebrew Bible, o r it could legitimate Christianity as the fulfilment arid successor of the religion of Israel, leaving the Judaism of the Christian era as a kind of unfulfilled, fossilized anachronism. But this model can accommodate a good deal of modern insight into variety and development within Judaism. Second Teniple Judaism rnay be conveived as highly diverse, and rabbinic Judaism may be seen as the result of a considerable development in t h e post-70 period, but nevertheless all these forms of Judaism are Judaism, whereas Christianity is sometliirig else. There is one religion which continued (Judaism) and another which broke away (Christianity). This model is silently endorsed by nearly all the niodern textbooks on Second Temple Judaism, which d o not consider even early Palestinian Jewish Christianity part of their subject, studiously ignoring Jewish Christianity as t h o u g h there w c r c n o r e a s o n e v e n t o raise t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r J e w i s h C h r i s -

tianity was also a form of Judaism.' T h e first treatment of Second 'Ti.mple Judaism to pass over Jewish Christianity in coriiplete silence was Joscphus' Antiquities, the latest is E. P. Sanders'Judaism: Practice a n d Belief..' " First publication: Stuciln Theologlcu 47 (1993) 135-1 51. An exception is 13. Jagcrsma, A H ~ s t o r yof Israel from Alexander the Crcaat to Bar Kochla, tr.J. Howden (Laondon:S<:M Press, 1985). F.. P. Sanders, Jsih~srn:Practlct, and Belref 63 BCE - 66 CE (I.ondon: SCM I'ress/ Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992).

'

176

12. The Parting of the Ways: \What f Iappened and Why

For the new, increasingly popular model a particularly outspoken advocate is the Italian scholar Gabriele Boccaccini, in his recent book Middle J ~ d a i s r n As . ~ well as proposing a new name, 'Middle Judaism,' for what was once called Late Judaism and has more recently been called Early Judaism, Boccaccini's book is notable for its attempt t o treat early Christianity consistently as one form of Judaism among others - or, more precisely and to use his own terminology, as one Judaism among others. Middle Judaism, according to Boccaccini, is the genus, while the various Judaisms of the period (Pharisaism, Essenisn~,Christianity and so on) are specie^.^ According to Boccaccini, the first century C.E. was a highly pluralistic phase of the history of Judaism, in which the most diverse Judaisms coexisted. By the end of the century, however, this diversity was largely reduced to the two Judaisms which from now on would be dominant, Christianity and rabbinic Judaism: 'After having tried long and hard to convince one another of their own conviction that they represented the true Israel, the Christian and Pharisaic roads grew further apart, finally reaching a reciprocal estrangement. A pluralistic Judaism had generated two much less plural'~ insistence istic and tolerant but more homogeneous J u d a i ~ m s .Boccaccini's that Christianity remains a Judaisrn and should be called such (even down to the present day) in the classification of religions is unusual, but his basic model is currently quite influential: that from the diversity of pre-70 Judaism two forms of Judaism survived, defining themselves in opposition t o each other, and becoming two religions: Christianity and rabbinic Judaism. This rnodel has the merit of seeing the distinction between Christianity and rabbinic Judaism as resulting as much from the development of rabbinic Judaism as from the development of Christianity. It is probably preferable to the first model, but it is also too simple, as we shall now see. As far as the post-70 developments go, this model tends t o attribute too much power and influence too quickly to rabbinic Judaism as compared with non-rabbinic forms of non-Christian Judaism. We d o not know how quickly rabbinic Judaism became the overwhelmingly dominant form of non-Christian Judaism. The rabbis at Yavneh set out to delegitimize all other kinds of Judaism, including Jewish Christianity (this was the purpose of the Birkat ha-Minim). They probably did not succeed fully in Palestine until the third century, in the Diaspora much more slowly and not fully

G . Boccaccini, Middle Judarsm:Jeze*13hThought 300 B. C. E, to 200 C. E. (Minneapolis: I'ortress I'ress, 1991). Boccaccini, Middle Judazsm, 18-21. H e lists the various Judaisms as 'Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, followers of Jesus, apocalyptics, Essenes, Judeo-k.IeIlenists, and s o forth' (p. 2 14). Boccaccini, Middle Judasm, 2 15.

I.?. The Parting of the Ways: \War Happened and Wh,y

177

until the early middle ages.6 The opposition of the rabbis to Jewish Christianity was important for the fate of Jewish Christianity in Palestine, but it is unlikely to have been the major factor in the estrangement of Jews and Christians in the Diaspora. We have t o envisage a different process whereby most Diaspora synagogues, largely independently of the rabbis at Yavneh, came t o regard Jewish Christianity as not a legitimate form of Judaism. If we are not t o exaggerate the influence of rabbinic Judaism, we have t o say that by the end of the first century not just rabbinic Jews but most non-Christian Jews placed Jewish Christians outside the community of Israel. As far as pre-70 Judaism goes, we need t o look more closely at the nature of diversity in Judaism and at Christianity's place within that diversity. T h e currently fashionable talk emphasizes the diversity by talking of Judaisms in the plural.' I think this usage is misleading, for several reasons: (a) It encourages one t o think of the varieties of Second Temple Judaism as rather like Christian denominations. Just as (at least until recently) every Christian was either a Baptist o r a Lutheran o r a Roman Catholic o r a Syrian Jacobite o r something of the kind, so every Jew belonged t o one of the so-called Judaisms. But this was not in fact the case at all. T h e groups t o which we can give names (the four parties defined b y Josephus, Jewish Christianity, some other much more obscure pietist groups) were a small minority of Jews. These groups advanced a specific interpretation of Judaism, self-consciously distinct from other interpretations. But the vast majority of Jews, both in Palestine and in the Diaspora, did n o t adhere t o such a group and did not think of themselves as following any particular interpretation of Judaism. They were just Jews. J. D. G. Dunn, in his The Partings of the Ways, comes close to recognizing this problem but evades it: 'Second Temple Judaism t o a large extent, latterly at least, consisted of a range of different interest groups.' H e lists the four parties from Josephus, postulates others, and adds: 'Not to mention the mass of the people, the people(s) of the land (am[me] ha'arets) ..., and the large proportion of Jews who lived outside the land of Israel, that is, the d i a ~ p o r a . ' ~ But these two categories of Jews were not 'interest groups' in the way that Pharisees and Esscnes were. 'The mass of the people w h o did not belong t o a party cannot be regarded as another party alongside the others. See I?S. Alexander, "'The Paning of the Ways' from the Perspective of Rabbinic Judaism," in J. I). C;. Ilunn ed., Jews and Chnstmns: The Purtrng of the Ways A. 1).70 to 131 ( W U N T 66; 'Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1993) 20-21. ' Besides Boccaccinl, see also J. Neusner, W.S. Green and E. Frericlis ed., Judatsms and Thetr Messruhs at the Turn of the Chrrstran Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), especially Neusner o n pp. ix-xii. J. D. G . Ilunn, The Parttttgs of the Ways: Between Judatsrn and Chrtstrantty and therr S~gnrficantefor the Character of Chrrstrantty (London: SCM Press/Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991) 18.

178

12. The Partzng oftthe Whys: What f-inppened and Why

(b) T h e talk of many Judaisnis (like the corresponding talk of many Christianities in the N e w Testament) moves too easily from the different interpretations of Judaism in the literature t o postulating distinct groups of Jews, each holding o n e of these interpretations. T h e logic of this approach is t o divide Judaism into as many different Judaisnis as there are extant texts from the period, since virtually every text has its own emphasis o r interests which distinguish it from other texts. But nunlerous parallels from religious history show that somewhat differing interpretations of a religion can easily coexist within a single, even a strongly unified community, and can even be preached from the same pulpit t o the same congregation without the congregation consciously perceiving the differences. T h e fact that much of the extant literature of Second Tenlple Judaism cannot easily be assigned t o a specific group should not lead us t o invent such groups, but rather t o recognize that such literature, whoever wrote it, belonged like the Bible t o common Judaism. Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiqtritzes, for example, does, of course, have its o w n theological perspectives and emphases, but there is no reason wliy Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Christians and mere Jews should not have read it with interest and profit, without identifying it as belonging t o a Judaism not their own. (c) Very iniportantly for o u r purposes, the talk of many Judaisms obscures the distinction between variety and separation o r schism. T h e distinction between Pharisees and Sadduccees is not of the same order as the distinction between Jews and Samaritans. If w e are t o speak of more than o n e Judaism, it may be better t o reserve that terminology, before the rise of Christianity, for the t w o Judaisms that resulted froni the Samaritan schism. This is a point t o which we shall return. It does, however, suggest that all those Jews wlio regarded Samaritans as not Jews at all but did not, even at their most polemical, say the same of each other, recognized a common Judaism which they shared but which the Samaritans did not. It may also help us t o understand how they could come t o think the same of Christians. (d) T h e final point may be another way of putting the same point. It is that the niodel of many Judaisms, while it makes it easy t o locate Christianity as one more Judaism among the other pre-70 Judaisms, also makes it impossible t o trace any roots of the parting of the ways before 70, in case there may be such roots. llunn, for one, does want t o trace such roots, and is therefore not content with the model of many Judaisms, though he uses it, but goes o n t o define 'a common and unifying core for Second Temple Judaism, a fourhold foundation o n wliich all these more diverse forms of Judaism built, a common heritage which they all interpreted in their own ways." T h e thesis of his book is that Christians also inherited the same ' Ilunn, 7 %Partings ~ ofthc Wys, 18.

12. Thc Partrrzg ofthe Khys: What I f a p p ~ n e Jand Why

179

common heritage (what Dunn calls 'the four pillars of Judaism') in their own way, but did so in such a distinctive way that other Jews saw it not as interpretation but as denial. T h e four pillars were thus each an occasion for various 'partings of the ways', before arid after 70, of which the final parting was the cumulative result. Ilunn's 'four pillars of Second Teniple Judaism' are monotheism, election, torah and temple. 'I'his is an accurate arid useful classification of what virtually all Jews had in comnion. But unfortunately, because it is still an account of what various Judaisms had in common, it still sounds like an account of what, say, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Calvinists and Pentecostalists have in common. In that case the parti~igof the ways - o r Dunn's partings of the ways - lacks reality. We niight imagine a new and very distinctive form of Christianity arriving on the scene of denoniinational Christianity - a form s o distinctive most Christians come t o doubt its right to be called Christianity. Mormonism niight be an example. But the analogy rapidly breaks down. Nothing rescriibling the parting of the ways described by Dunn occurs. It is much better to change tlie model, as E. P. Sanders does in his Judaism: Practice and Relief. What Llunn regards as the common denominator of all the Judaisms, Sanders regards as 'common Judaism', which for most Jews (those w h o did not belong to the parties) simply was Judaism. Because he sees it as focused on the temple, he says it is 'what the priests and the people agreed on."O However, the merit of Sanders' account of common Judaism is that this notion actually means more than what, as it happens, Jews agreed about. Sanders shows how the temple and shared religious practices gave Jews a real sense of conimonality with all other Jews." At one of the great pilgrim festivals at tlie temple, attended by Jews from all parts of the world (even if not from Qumran), what they concretely arid emotively shared was not simply what different forms of Judaisrn had in common, but what gave them their own ethnic-religious identity as Jews. Common Judaism - the temple, the torah, the one God w h o was worshipped in the teniple and obeyed in following the torah, election as his covenant people to whom he had given temple and torah - tliis common Judaism gave Jews comnion identity in very concrete ways. This common Judaism makes the parting of the ways a real issue, as the niodel of many Judaisms does not. To put it another way, Sanders' model makes it meaningful t o ask what could exclude a group of Jews from this common Judaism, in the eyes of other Jews. From tliis point of view, there are t w o groups with whom the position of Christians vis-a-vis common Judaism might usefully be lo

I'

Sander%,Jatdarsn~,47. 1 . g. Sanders. Jutfarsm, 256-257

180

12. The Parting of the Ways: What I-iappened and \Vby

compared. The first is the Samaritans, whom Sanders ignores, presumably because their exclusion from common Judaism can be taken for granted in his period. But the position of the Samaritans is in fact very i n s t r u ~ t i v e . ' ~ The prevalent contemporary scholarly view is that Samaritanism was a form of Judaism.I3 Although the terminology is odd (in that it does not correspond to ancient usage), it indicates that Samaritanism was not simply a continuation of the pre-exilic religion of Northern Israel, but a schismatic form of post-exilic Judaism. Samaritans claimed descent from the patriarch Joseph, worshipped the God of Israel as the one and only God, kept the law of Moses rigorously, practised circumcision as a sign of the covenant, understood themselves to be the faithful part of the elect people of God. But most Jews regarded them as outside the covenant people, more o r less on a par with Gentiles. The key issue was the disagreement over the true site of the one sanctuary of the God of Israel prescribed in Deuteronomy." As the Samaritan woman in the Fourth Gospel puts it, 'Our ancestors worshipped on this mountain [Mount Gerizim], but you uews] say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem' (4:20). This account of the issue between Jews and Samaritans was, it should be noted, still entirely accurate when John's Gospel was written, even though no temple then stood o n either mountain. Jews also regarded Samaritans as Gentile by race, or at best of dubious ancestry, but it is doubtful if this issue would have carried much weight were it not for the issue of the temple. (Other Gentiles who were circumcised and kept the law were included in the covenant people, not excluded.) Of course, the mutual antipathy of Jews and Samaritans had centuries-old roots, but in the late Second Temple period it was focused on the Samaritan rejection of the Jerusalem Temple, not just as a matter of theological debate, but as a matter of deeply felt, highly emotive popular sentiment. Galilean pilgrims l 2 Cf.F. Dexinger, 'Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example,' in E. P. Sanders ed., Jewrsh and Chrzstun Self-Definrtron, vol. 2 (London: SCM Press, 1981)

88-1 14.

" F o r a survey of the issue, see J. U. Purvis, 'The Samaritans and Judaism,' in K.A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickclsburg, ed., Early Judaum and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1986) 81-98. Cf. E. Bickerman, quoted in Ilexinger, 'Limits of Tolerance,' 109: 'The whole controversy between Jews and Samaritans was now subordinated to the questions: Which place was choserl by God for His habitation, Zion o r Gerizim?' Whether the temple at Leontopolis was the object of a similar controversy is uncertain, since we d o not really know how either its own priests o r the Jerusalem ternple authorities regarded it. Although Joscphus attributes its foundation to a desire to rival the Jerusalem sanctuary, in the sense of attracting worshippers who would othenvice have gone to Jerusalem (War 7:431), it is unlikely that its priesthood claimed it as the single, divinely-ordained place of Yahweh's presence on earth, as was claimed for Zion and Gerizim. The mere fact that it was not in Palestine must have greatly reduced its significance as a rival to the Jerusalem temple.

12. The P'zrting o f t h e \T'uys: W a t HuppenrJand Why

181

travelling through Samaria on their way to the temple in Jerusalem risked not only being refused hospitality, as Jesus was (Luke 952-53), but even their lives (as in a famous incident recorded by Josephus, War 2:232-246; Ant. 20:118-136), not because they were Jews but because they were Jews o n their way to the rival sanctuary. T h e case of the Samaritans illustrates a number of points. In the first place, it shows how central the temple was t o Jewish identity (as also to Samaritan identity). That Samaritans and Jews shared all other features of common Judaism in no way mitigated the effect of the difference over the place of God's earthly presence with his people. This alone was sufficient, in Jewish eyes, t o put Samaritans as definitively outside the covenant people as uncircumcised Gentiles were. Secondly, the case of the Samaritans shows how a Jewish group's self-identity could remain completely at odds with other Jews' identification of them. Samaritans asserted their identity as Israel just as strongly as Jews denied it t o them. Thirdly, such a conflict over identity can produce confusion over terminology, as used by outsiders as well as by the groups immediately concerned. Samaritan called themselves Israelites, as Jews did.15 But Jews called them Samaritans, when not using the more polemically abusive term Cutheans. Gentiles, w h o never normally called anyone Israelites, seem not t o have called Samaritans Jews but adopted the Jewish term: Samaritans Uosephus, Ant. 9:290). But the relation between Samaritans and Jews was not unequivocally clear to outsiders.'Wegcsippus includes Samaritans in his list of the seven Jewish parties (npud Eusebius, Nist. Eccl. 4.22.7),17 but Justin, himself a Gentile native of Samaria, does not include them in his 80.2). similar list (Dial. With such a conflict of terminology it is worth comparing the book o f Revelation's description of the synagogues at Smyrna and Philadelphia, as 'those w h o say they are Jews but are not' (2:9; 3:9). N o doubt this description throws back at non-Christian Jews what non-Christian Jews said about Christian Jews. Such polemic suggests at least incipient schism of the Jew" 'rile Samaritan community on Ilelos called themselves, no doubt in order to distinguish tl~cniselvcsfront Jew-,, 'the lcraclitrs on I>eltr\ who pay firstfruits to sacred Cerizini' (oi &v Aificp 'io~uilMtcaoi & J I U Q X ~ ~ I cis F~O u y~ ~ o v'Agytx@t
''

182

12. The I'artrng ofthe \Y/6ys: %%at ff,zppcned and Why

ish1Samaritan kind, rather than mere diversity, and it suggests t w o groups, like Jews and Saniaritans, both understaridi~igtheir self-identity as Jewish, while denying Jewish identity to the other. T h e second group whose relation t o common Judaism is worth considering for comparison with that of Christians is the Quniran community. Sanders treats them as the only Jewish group which can properly be called a sect rather than a party since they excluded theniselves from common Judaism by not participating in the worship of the templc.'Wecisive for their relation t o common Jud,lism was not tlieir distinctive halakhah o r their eschatological consciousness, but thcir withdrawal from temple worship, constituting themselves a temporary substitute for the temple.I9 We d o not really know what other Jews thought of them. (Since Josephus' account of is s o obscure, it is impossithe Essenes' relation t o the temple [Ant. 18:19JZ0 ble to tell whether he is thinking of Esseries w h o withdrew completely from temple worship o r of Essenes who, though critical, continued t o participate to some degree.) T h e Qumran community must have been perceived as a marginal group, but their non-participation in temple worship probably did not put them outside Israel, since unlike the Samaritans their opposition t o the temple was contingent (resulting from their disapproval of the practice of the priests). They strongly believed that the C o d of Israel should be worshipped in Jerusalem and w o i ~ l db e again in the future. T h e examples of the Samaritans and the Q u m r a n community suggest the heuristic model that Christianity began as a party, like the Pharisees, within common Judaism, and becarne either a group marginal t o common Judaism, like the Qumran comniunity, o r a community definitively separated from common Judaism, like the S a ~ n a r i t ~ i n sThat . ~ ' '~lternativeleaves appropriate scope for variation and indcterminatencss. N o t all non-Christian Jews at one time (say, in the early second century) need have seen Cliristianity in precisely the same terms, not all need have been very clear about the status of Christianity, not all Christian groups need have been in precisely the same relationship t o c o m n i o l ~Judaism. My suggestion is not, of course, that the Pharisees o r the Quniran community o r the Samaritans could be '"anders, Judaism, 352. According to Sanders, the Qilimran community, represented by IQS and related documents, was a sect, while other Esscr~es,rcprescntcd by <:I>, were an 'extremist party'. j 9 Sanders, Judai,m, 362. 1 % )discussion ~ see ' I S . Beall, Josephzrs' r l e s ~ i p t i oof~ the ~ Esscnes illrtrtv~ztedl ~ ythe Dead Se~rScrolls (SN'I'SMS 58; Cambridge: <:ambridge University I'rcss, 1988) 1 15-1 19. This proposed model is not, as stated, an explicitly sociological one, but it could be cieveloped with the aid of sociological insights: cf. the discussion of the move from reform movement to sectarian group as a sociological model for Christianity's break with cornmori Judaism in P. F. Eslcr, Cornn~uniryand Gospel tm Lukc-Acts (SNTSMS 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 5 1-53.

" "

12. The Partirtg ofthe Ways: 1Wat flappened und Why

183

precise parallels to Christianity's relation t o common Judaism. But the model may enable us to identify, by comparison, both the similarities and the differences. O n e implication of the model is t o direct o u r attention t o the temple. The cases of Qumran and the Samaritans show how central the temple was to Jewish self-identity. T h e temple was not s o exclusively important to the parting of the ways between common Judaism and Christianity. In general Dunn is right to argue that all four of his 'pillars of Judaism' featured in the process that separated Christianity from common Judaism: i.e. ( I ) the temple (we shall explicate the difference over the temple below); (2) the covenant people, in that Christians redefined the covenant people so as to include Gentiles; (3) the torah, in that Gentile Christians included in the covenant people were not obligated to keep the whole law as Jews were; (4) monotheism, in that Christians redefined monotheism t o include Christology. O n all four points, which were basic t o Jewish self-identity, Christians interpreted what all Jews had in common in a way that other Jews eventually considered un-Jewish, unrecognizable as common Judaism. But the rest of this article will focus o n the temple. There are several reasons why this will prove a useful focus: (a) the role of the temple in 'the parting of the ways' has been con~parativelyunderplayed in the literature on this issue. This is true even of DUIIII'Swork, although he does regard the temple as the first of the four pillars that occasioned a parting of the ways,22while Maurice Casey's recent analysis of Jewish identity and the process of Christian departure from it omits the temple altogether.13 (b) It was in relation t o the temple that there was precedent for schism between Jews and Jews, which could have provided non-Christian Jews with a category to apply t o Christianity. (c) The Christian view o n this point is closely connected with the Christian view of the other three pillars, in a way that is not sufficiently recognized. (d) T h e Christian view of the temple enables us t o understand the inner dynamic which moved Christianity from being a party within common Judaism to being a community separated from common Judaism. We must first return t o the centrality of the temple for the self-identity of common Judaism. Why was this so? Fundamentally, the temple was -

Dunn, The Purtrngs ofthe Ways, chapters 4-5. 2 ' M . Casey, From J e v i s l ~Prophet to Gent& God: The Ortgrns and Development of New Testamertt Chnstology (Cambridge: James Clarke/I.ouisville: Westminster/John 2Z

Know, 1991) chapter 2. In this chapter Casey lists eight 'identity factors' which provide an 'identity scale' for measuring whether people would have regarded themselves as Jewish. This methodological approach is useful and illuminating, but its application to the parting of the ways in the rest of the hook is less satisfactory. For example, Casey recognizes that a person's or group's self-identification and the perception of their identity by others may conflict (p. 12), but he fails to make full use of this insight in his later discussion of Jews and Christians.

184

1.2. The Partrng of the Ways: \ h a t Ffappened and W i ~ y

the place where God's covenant people had access to his presence.24 It was where Israel's privileged relationship to God took place. The importance of the temple in this respect by no means necessarily depended on an individual Jew's ability t o visit it, important though it was to d o this if possible. Whether or not they could offer their own sacrifices by attending the temple, all Jews everywhere offered, in a sense, the daily burnt offerings every morning and evening, because these were paid for by the temple tax which all Jews paid and offered on behalf of Israel by the priests. The assiduity and enthusiasm with which Iliaspora Jews paid their temple tax were not just because the temple tax was a symbolic expression of their allegiance to the religious centre of their nation; it was also actually the means by which the sacrifices offered in the temple enabled their own access to God. Also, of course, the ritual of the day of atonement effected atonement for all Jews without their having to be present. We should not underestimate the importance of the temple for Diaspora Jews even apart from pilgrimage to Jer~salem.~~ As the temple was God's gracious means of presence with his covenant people, so it defined the covenant people in distinction from others: Gentiles, who were debarred from access to his presence in the temple. The temple was the greatest, the most meaningful boundary-marker between Jew and Gentile. However fluid the distinction between Jew and Gentile might seem in a Diaspora synagogue, where Gentiles who kept some Jewish laws but stopped short of conversion attended, in the temple thc distinction was dramatically absolute. O n pain of death, no Gentile could pass from the outer court into the sacred precincts proper.26 In this way the temple made clear the real meaning of all the other boundary-markers - such as circumcision, food laws and Sabbath - which Jews sensitive to Jewish distinction from Gentiles stressed. With regard to Christian views of the temple, it is important to recognize, though this is rarely stressed, that the early Jerusalem church already had a highly distinctive attitude to the temple. What we know about its attitude anlounts to the following three points: (1) Christians continued to partici-

'"

For the presence of God in the Second Temple, see G . 1. Davies, "She Presence of G o d in the Second E m p l e and Rabbinic Doctrine,' in W. Horbury cd., Ternplum Amtatme: Essizys on the Second Terrzplc~prescrrted to Ernst Ramrnel (JSNTSS 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 32-36. Diaspora Jews had at least partial substitutes for sonie of the temple's functions forms of ritual purificat~on,prayer regarded as a substitute for sin- and guilt-offerings - but these were peripheral to the temple's continuing centrality both in its sacrificial effectiveness and its symbolic significance. It is noteworthy that this rule and its sanction presuppose a clear, workable, accepted definition of what made one a Jew arid not a C;entile. 'This is neglected by tliose who emphasize the fluidity of definitions of Jewishness in the Second Temple period.

"

''

12. The Parttng ofthe Ways: W u t Happened and \Vhy

185

pate in temple worship. Evidence for this is in fact extremely sparse, but, as well as the evidence of Acts (2:46; 3:l; 5:42), we should probably also count as evidence Matthew 5:23, a saying of Jesus which takes for granted that its hearers offer sacrifice in the temple. Although this saying is preserved by Matthew at a time when certainly no Christians continued to offer sacrifices, if only because the temple no longer existed, it is difficult to imagine that it would have been initially preserved in the earliest church had the earliest Jewish Christians not continued to offer sacrifice. (2) The earliest Jerusalem church must have preserved Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple. Since this occurs in nearly all strands of the Gospel tradition in a variety of fornis (Matt 23:38; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mark 13:2; 1458; 1529; Luke 13:35; 19:44; 21:6; John 2:19; G T h o ~ n71; cf. Acts 6:14), it must have been current in the earliest community. Therefore they must have viewed the temple as a doomed institution, in which they participated while it lasted, but which they did not expect to last long. (3) The early Jerusalem church saw itself as the new, eschatological temple of God. This is made probable by the fact that the concept of the Christian community as the eschatological temple is very widespread in early Christian literat~re.~' It is found in Paul (1 C o r 3:16-17; 2 C o r 6:16), Jude (20),?$ 1 Peter (25; 4:17), Ephesians (2:20-22), Hebrews (13:15-16), Revelation (1 1:1-2),29 the Didache (10:2), Barnabas (4: 11; 6: 15; 16)' Ignatius (Eph. 9:1) and Hermas (Vis. 3; Sim.3),'O and throughout this literature it is regularly taken for granted, not argued. It must therefore stem from an early stage of Christian history. But that it stemmed from the early Jerusalem church is made even more probable by Paul's reference to James, Peter and John as those who were 'regarded as pillars' of the new teniple (cf. Rev 3:12).$'

" 7On the general theme, see R.J. McKelvey, The New l i w p l r : The Church rn the New Gstament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969). Zs For the temple image here, see R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Word Biblical Commentary 50; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983) 112-1 13. 29 For the temple as an image of the church in this passage, see R. Bauckham, The C/rmax of Prophecy: Studtes rn the Book of Rrve/dtton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993) 266-273. Other instances of the frcqucntly used ~netrphorof 'building' the Chrrstiarr cornmunity are probably alro evidence of the widespread currency of the image of the church as the eschatolog~caltemple: see Matt 16:18; Acts 9:3 1; 15:16; 20:32; Rorn 14:lY; 15:2, 20; 1 Cor 8:l; 10:23; 14:3-5, 12, 17, 26; 2 C o r 10:8; 12:19; 13: 10; Gal 2: 18; Eph 4:12, 16; Col 2:7; 1 Thess 5:ll; Polycarp, Phil. 3:2; 12:2; Odes Sol. 22:12. " C. K. Barrett, 'Paul and the 'Pillar' Apostles,' in: J. N. Sevenster and W. C. van Unnik ed., Studu Paultna (FS J. dc Zwaan; Haarlern: Bohn, 1953) 1-19. For an alternative interpretation, see R. Aus, 'Three Pillars and Three Patriarchs: A Proposal Concerning Gal 29,' ZNW 70 (1979) 252-261 (comparing the Jewish tradition that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were the three pillars on whom the world was supported). But the idea of pillars in the eschatological temple was current (I Enoch Y0:28-29; JosAsen 17:6; Hermas, Vrs. 3:8:2) and

186

12. T l x Partrng of the Uirz)!s: What tfappencd arrd \Vhy

That the early Jerusalem church understood itself in this way is a remarkable fact.'? T h e concept of the t e n ~ p l eas a community, not a building, is found outside Christianity only at Qumran." (This is surely the most impressive of all parallels between Qumran and early Christianity.) At Qumran it was connected precisely with the community's sectarian status vis-a-vis common Judaism, in that, withdrawing from the Jerusalem temple, they saw themselves as a substitute for the temple. In the Jerusalem church, the idea of the community as temple was evidently not accompanied by withdrawal from the Jerusalem temple. Unlike the Qumran community, they did not regard the temple service as invalid. And so by this criterion they remained fully part of common Judaism. Why then was it believed that the community constituted the eschatological temple? This must have expressed the conviction that in t h e Christian community, through the mediation of the exalted Christ, God's promised eschatological presence in the midst of his people was taking place. T h e place of God's eschatological presence - the new temple - was the church. Compared with Qumran, this Christian view was, in different ways, both less radical and more radical. Unlike the Qumran community, Christians did not regard worship in the Jerusalem temple as defiled and illegitimate, and so they could continue t o participate in it. But whereas for the Qumran community the identification of the temple with the community was only an interim situation, to he succeeded by the new temple t o be built by G o d in Jerusalem in the eschatological age, the temple envisaged in the N e w Jerusalem text from Qumran,'" the early Jerusalem church seems t o have regarded itself as the eschatological temple. Nowhere in early Christian literature is there any trace of an expectation of an eschatological temple still to come in the future: this common Jewish expectation was evidently coheres best with other early <:hristian imagery. O n Rev 3:12, see also K.H. Wilkinson, 'The E~fiAojof Revelation 3: 12 and Ancierit Coronation Rites,'JHL 107 (1 988) 498-501. '? L h n n , The Partings ofthe Whys, 60, recognizes but underestimates the significance of this fact. While denying that the Jerusalem church's view of the Christian community as the new tcrnple had any implications for their attitude t o the Jerusalem temple, he inconsistently concludes from Paul's expression of the same idea that 'the Temple n o longer functioned for him as the focus of God's prcsence' (75). For the cornrnunity as temple at Qumran, see B. Girtner, The Temple and the Community in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testatnent (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965) 16-46; I). Juel, Messidzh and Tcmnplc: The Trial ofJesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLLIS 3 1; h4issoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977) 159-168; F1. I.ichtcnberger, 'Atonement and Sacrifice in the Q u m r a n Community', in W. S. Greerr cd., Approaches to Ancient Jud~zistn,vol. 2 (Brown Judaic Studies 9; Chico, California: Scholars Press, 1980) 159-171; G . J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qrrmran: 4QFlorilegirrm in its J w i s h Context USOTSS 29; Sheffield: J S O T Press, 1985) 178-193. For an argumerlt that this text is a product of the Q u m r a n comniunity and envisages the eschatological temple, see I. Garcia Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Textsfrom Qumran (STDJ 9; L.eiden: Brill, 1992) 180-213.

"

"

12. The Parting oftltc Ways: \-Y'l~arHappened urrd \Vby

8,

187

replaced from the beginning of Christianity by the belief that the community itself was the eschatological place of God's presence. Such a view in effect relativizes the Jerusalem temple more radically than the Qumran view. Whatever the value of the temple, it was highly provisional and soon t o be replaced by that eschatological presence of G a d t o which the church already had access in its own fellowship. The importance of this view for o u r purposes is that it explains both how the Jerusalem church could remain a party within common Judaism and how other Christian groups could move t o a more marginal position from a common Jewish standpoint. From this view of the comniunity as the eschatological temple it was possible t o conclude either that Christians should (or at least could) continue to take part in the worship of the Jerusalem temple while it still stood (until, that is, G o d himself removed it), or that, since the temple was already superseded by the community as the new temple, Christians should not participate in the temple worship. T h e Jerusalem church seems t o have taken the former view and by its praxis with regard t o the temple maintained its standing in the Jewish community, even if with some difficulty. T h e author to the Hebrews is the only Christian voice from before 70 c.1:. w h o clearly takes the latter view." Paul is often supposed t o have taken this view, but the evidence is lacking. More likely the temple no longer mattered t o P a ~ l , 'it~ was in principle superseded by the Christian ~ o m m u n i t y , ~but ' Paul did not actually oppose participation in temple worship, while his principle of becoming as a Jew in order t o win Jews (1 C o r 9:20) makes his bchaviour according t o Acts 2 1:26 entirely ~ r e d i b l e . ~ ' Thus a common early Christian premise - that the church constitutes the eschatological ternple - had varied consequences with regard t o Christianity's relation t o common Judaism. Some Christian Jews remained regular participants in temple worship, others neglected the temple, others specifically opposed participation in temple rituals. Where Christians were '5 For tlic view that the argumerit of Iiehrews presupposes that the Second 'I'emple sttll stood, see B. I,indars, '1 ichrcws and the Secorld Temple,' in [forbury cd., Trmplurn Arnzatmt,, 4 10-4 13. It IS surely stgnificant that in fourteen years (Gal 2:l) I'aul only vtsrted Jerusalem

"

onc c. " But Dunn, Thc Pirrtrngi o f t h e 1Vays, 70, 77-79, concludes much t o o readily that Paul? understandtng of the death of Christ as a sacrifice made the sacrifictal cult ot the temple redundant. Such an argument would apylv only t o sin-offerings. It would leave the greater part of the sacrificial cult - for example, the regular daily morning arid evening burnt-offerrngs - unaffected. Although the argument of I lebrews focuses on the death of Christ, the developing C h r t ~ t t a nsense of the redunciancy of the temple cult most liavc had a bro'lder chrictologtcal haris in the renw of Jecus Christ as the way of access t o God In tlic mcsst.arirc age. "'ec J. P.M. Sweet, ' A I insue N o t hlade With Hands,' in f lorbury ed., Ternplum Anzrcrt~ac~, 368-369, especially 388-390.

188

12. The Parting of the Ways: What Happened and Why

perceived to be treating the temple in the way Samaritans did, nothing was more calculated to categorize them as sectarian, schismatic and a threat to Jewish identity. Hence controversy about the temple was evidently the occasion for the first major persecution of Christians (Acts 6-8).39 Conversely, non-Christian Jewish suspicions about Christianity could best be allayed by Christians demonstrating their loyalty and reverence for the temple. Hence the Jerusalem church elders' advice to Paul in Acts 21:20-25. (We shall see below why it was not successful in Paul's case.) The issue of the temple did not disappear after 70 c.E., because the temple did not cease to be central to Jewish identity. Few Jews would have expected the loss of the temple to be permanent. The temple had been destroyed before - and rebuilt before, significantly after a period more o r less the length of the period between 70 C.E. and the Bar Kokhba revolt. Consequently, in Christian literature of this period, between the two Jewish revolts, the temple issue is alive and well p;ecisely in texts in which the schism between Christianity and common Judaism is clear and painful: the Gospel of John, the Epistle of BarnabaseJO For Palestinian Jewish Christianity the effect of 70 C.E. was paradoxical. Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple was vindicated. As a messianic movement, but a non-militant messianic movement dissociated from the disastrous consequences of the revolt, and a movement, virtually unique among Jewish groups, for which the loss of the temple was no kind of problem, Jewish Christianity must have had some appeal and probably enjoyed some success in Palestine between the two revolt^.^' But the destruction of the temple also had an unfortunate consequence for Palestinian Jewish Christians. While the temple stood they could maintain their place in common Judaism by worshipping in it. But once the temple was destroyed, what they could not d o was participate in any movement to rebuild the temple. Such a movement was Bar Kokhba's revolt. The attempt to build the temple was the principal raison d'itre of the revolt and the main reason it gained such widespread support.'* Probably it was because Bar Kokhba

-j9 However, I am not convinced that Stephen and the Hellenists took the radically antitemple position that is now commonly attributed to them. But the issue cannot be discussed here. 'O For the view of the temple in Rarnabas, see M.R. Shukster and P. Richardson, "remple and Bet Ha-mtdrash in the Epistle of Barnabas,' in S. G. Wilson ed., Antt-Judatsm in Early Chnstunrty, vol. 2 (Studies in Judaism and Christianity 2; Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1986). '" Cf. R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatrves of Jesus rn the Early Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990) 1 16,375. " B. Isaac and A . Oppenheimer, 'The Revolt of Bar Kokllba: Ideology and Modern Scholarship,'JJS 36 (1985) 47-49; L. Mildenberg, The Cornage ofthr Bar Kokhba Revolt (Aarau/Frankfurt am Main/Salzburg: Sauerlander, 1984) 31-48.

12. T ~ JParting C of the Ways: What Huppenedand Why

189

looked like succeeding in this aim that he was widely regarded as Mes~ i a h . ~ W h r i s t i a could ns not regard him as Messiah (cf. Justin, I Apal. 31.6), but even more significantly they could not join a movement to restore the temple. Their non-participation in the Bar Kokhba revolt" probably sealed their exclusion from common Judaism and removed the rabbis' main rivals for dominance in Palestinian Judaism. However, we must now return t o a much earlier point in the story, in order t o notice the most radical implication of the common early Christian view of the eschatological temple. T h e identification of the Christian community as itself the new temple was, of course, an expression of the eschatological consciousness of the earliest church. The messianic age was dawning, and G o d was newly, eschatologically present in the midst of his people, the Christian community which constituted the core of the renewed covenant people. Another expression of this eschatological consciousness was the inclusion of Gentiles in the Christian community, fulfilling those remarkably universalistic prophecies from the post-exilic period which predicted the inclusion of the nations in the covenant people of God.45 O n the basis of these prophecies, Christian could justify the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles, without their becoming Jews. T h e arrival of the messianic age made possible the Pauline, but by no means only Pauline, vision of the eschatological people of G o d as continuous with Israel but n o longer bounded by the observances which distinguished Jew from Gentile. However, such a people of G o d could not have the Jerusalem temple as its temple, its place of access t o the covenant Gad. The Jerusalem temple embodied, as the principle of its sanctity, the exclusion of Gentiles from the covenant and from access to the G o d of the covenant. The point is vividly made by the account in Acts 21:17-36, in which Paul's attempt t o demonstrate his loyalty to common Judaism by taking part in temple rituals fails disastrously. It does so because visiting Jews from Ephesus make a natural mistake (21:27-29). To them Paul was notorious for insisting that Gentiles were included as Gentiles, without becoming Jews, in the covenant people of God. They naturally assume that the logic of such a position must be that Paul's Gentile converts should be admitted to the temple, and they jump t o '"gainst some recent doubts that Bar Kokhba was regarded as Messiah, see A. Rheinhartz, 'Rabbinic Perceptior~sof Sirneon bar Kosiba,'JSJ 20 (1989) 171-194. "'For the Apocalypse of Peter as evidence of Palestinian Jewish Christian attitudes to the revolt at the time of the revolt, see R. Bauckham, "rhe Two fig Tree Parables in the Apocalypse of I'eter,'JBL 104 (1985) 269-287; idem, "The Apocalypse of Peter: At1 Account of Research,' in W. Haase ed., At6frtic.g w~zdNiedergang der uomischen Welt 11.25'6 (BerlinINew York: de Gruyter, 1988) 4738-4739. '5 0 1 1 the continuation of this tradition of expectation in post-biblical Second Ikmple Judaism, see T. I.. I)onaldson, 'I'roselytes or 'Righteous Gentiles'? The Status of Gentiles in Eschatological I'ilgrimagc Patterns of Thought,'JSP 7 (1990) 3-27.

190

12. The Partlng of the Wuys: What Huppenczd and Why

the conclusion that Paul actually has defiled the sanctity of the temple by taking Trophimus the Ephesian into the court of the Israelites. The inclusion of Gentiles in the covenant people was actually possible only because the eschatological covenant people had its own new temple, the community itself, in which Gentiles could have access t o G o d equally with Jews. The connexion between the image of the community as temple and the inclusion of Gentiles in the covenant is explicit in Ephesians 2:11-22 and 1 Peter 2:4-10, but already implicit in 2 Corinthians 6: 16-7: 1. But it was certainly not the Gentile mission that gave rise t o the idea of the community as temple. The reverse was the case. From this point of view it is of great significance that the early Jerusalem church, under James's leadership, already saw itself as the temple of the messianic age. This made possible what happened at the Jerusalem conference recounted in Acts 15, when those members of the Jerusalem church w h o opposed the inclusion of Gentiles as Gentiles were marginalized and the Pauline mission approved, with t h e qualifications stated in the so-called Apostolic Decree (Acts 1529-29). This was given its required scriptural basis by James'quotation of Amos 9:ll-12 (Acts 1516-17): 'After this I will return and I will rebuild the tent of David [i.e. establish the new temple of the messianic age] ... so that the rest of humanity, the Gentiles over whom my name has been called [i. e. Gentiles included as Gentiles in the covenant people of God], may seek the Lord [i. e. seek God's presence in his temple, the Christian c o m m ~ n i r y ] . ' ~ ~ O n c e again, the parallel and contrast with Qumran is illuminating. In both cases the community's consciousness of access t o G o d independently of the Jerusalem temple effectively relativized the latter. But the Q u m r a n community, w h o thought the Jerusalem temple ritually defiled by the practice of the priests, constituted themselves a temple s o pure as to require even more strictly restricted access than the Jerusalem temple had. As 4QFlorilegium puts it, this is 'the house t o which shall not come even t o the tenth generation and for ever, Arnnionite n o r Moabite nor bastard nor stranger nor proselyte for ever, for his holy ones are there' (1:3-4). T h e careful selection and interpretation of OT prohibitions (Deut 23:2-3; Ezek 44:6-9)" are designed t o exclude any kind of Gentile, even the issue of mixed marriages and even proselytes. By contrast the effect of the Christian community's understanding of itself as temple was .to break out of the restriction enibodied in the Jerusalem temple in a quite unprecedented way. The relativizing 4h I2or this interpretation of Acts 15:16-17 and for the argument of the paragraph in detail, see my article: 'James , ~ n dthe Gentilcs (Acts 15:1.21),' in B. Witherington 111 ed., The Acts ofthe tl~stonuns:Acts and Anczent Hrstonogruphy (C,~mhridgeUniversity I'ress, 1994). " See Brooke, Exegchls at Qumran, 180- 181.

12. The Parting of the Ways: What Happened and Why

191

of the Jerusalem temple enabled both communities t o redefine the covenant people, but whereas the Qumran sect did so by taking to an extreme the emphasis of Second Temple Judaism on purity and differentiation from gentile^,^^ the Christian community did s o in a way quite opposite to this emphasis. Therefore, even though the earliest church's praxis with regard t o the temple maintained its place within common Judaism, its view of itself as the new temple, its eschatological consciousness of access to God independently of the Jerusalem temple, already contained the dynamic of the process which increasingly differentiated Christianity from comtnon Judaism. The Christian reinterpretation of one of the 'four pillars' of Judaism (the temple) made possible the Christian reinterpretation of the three other pillars (election, torah and monotheism) in ways which were in the end decisive for the parting of the ways.J9We have already seen how this happened with respect to election, i. e. the belief that Israel was the chosen covenant people of God. The reinterpretation of the temple made possible the inclusion of Gentiles in the covenant people of God. Along with this went a new Christian attitude to the torah. Since Gentiles, as Gentiles, were now included in the covenant people and had access t o the covenant God in his new temple equally with Jews, the specifically Jewish requirements of the law of Moses no longer constituted the boundary of the covenant people. These were Christian interpretations of election and torah which common Judaism rejected as denials of Jewish identity. Finally, the reinterpretation of the temple was not unrelated to the specifically Christian interpretation of Jewish monotheism. The church's eschatological sense of access to G o d independently of the Jerusalem temple was connected with the christological understanding of Jesus as the eschatological presence of God with his people, which led to that inclusion of Jesus in the definition of the one God of Israel which common Judaism rejected as a denial of Jewish monotheism. It is no accident that the two New Testament books with the highest Christologies - the Fourth Gospel and the Book of Revelation - both includeJesus in the definition of the one

" Note also how sacrifices made by Gentiles, a traditional practice in the temple, were prohibited in 66 c.E., as one of the tirst acts of the revolt Uosephus, War 2:409-421). 49 O n universalism, torah and monotheism as the issues between Christianity and Judaism, see, besides Dunn, The Partlngs of the Whys, also A. I:. Segal, Rebecca? Chrldren: Jrrddrsm and Chnstratztty In the Roman World (Cambridge, Massachusetts/l,ondon: Harvard University Press, 1986). Note also the mid-second-century Jewish characterization of Christianity (preserved by Justin, Dral. 17.1; 108.2) as 'a godless ad lawless scct' (U&JF&S TY (~OEOS X U ~~VOCLOS: D i d . 108.2), discussed by G. N. Stanton, 'Aspects of Early Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic,' NTS 31 (1985) 383-384.

192

12. The Parting of the \Vayr: Whnt fippened and Why

God of Jewish m o n ~ t h e i s mand , ~ ~ both give a new, christological twist to the theme of the eschatological temple: it is Jesus himself who replaces the Jerusalem temple as the place of God's presence with his covenant people (John 1 :5 1,2:19-22; Rev 2 1 :22).

SC For Revelation, see R. Bauckharn, Thc Theology of the Book of Revelatton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) chapter 3; idem, The Cltmax of Prophecy, chapter 4 .

13. The Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 10:34'$ Isaiah 11:l-5 was probably the nlost popular text of Davidic messianism in early Judaism. Modern readers usually assume that this prophecy begins at Isaiah 11:1 and d o not connect the preceding verses with it.' Ancient Jewish exegesis, however, frequently sought the connexions between adjacent passages of Scripture. In this article we shall examine evidence that a Jewish exegetical tradition which appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch not only connected Isaiah 10:33-34 closely with the following verses, but also found a reference to the Messiah in Isaiah 10:34. This tradition of messianic interpretation of Isaiah 10:34 will then be shown to inform the preaching of John the Baptist, as it appears in the Gospels, with the implication that, contrary to many interpretations of John's message, he did expect the coming of the Davidic Messiah.

Dead Sea Scrolls

The texts 4QpIsaa ( 4 4 1 6 1 ) fr. 8-10, lines 2-9? T;*= ..-7i. , , ,8 $.--, [-,y.z] .:3'1:: - ,8

...,L,. k w 7.2 I

11'715'

I-km c.n.r(:;

'Er'*J

'?snm

C2b m>Tm C71221 C.RI33 $.I rwinr: '13; -in1c.971;;mv~ I.011

2 90 3 4

5

" First publication: Dead Sea Dtscoverzes 2 (1995) 202-216. But see 0. Kaiser, /satah 1-12 (London: SCM Press, 1972) 156-162, for an exegesis which treats 1033-11:9 as a unit, and connects the tree imagery of IO:33-34 with that of 11:l. These fragment nun~bersand line numbers are those used in the edrtroprmceps: J.M. Allegro, Qumrcin Cave 4: 1 (4Q1584Q186) (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968)1314. M. P. Horgan, Peshartm: Quntran Interpretatrotts of Brblrcal Books (CBQMS 8; Washington, D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979) 75-76, renumbers the section as fragments 7-10 (column 3), lines 6-13. The text given here follows Allegro with tnodifications adopted from J. Strugnell, 'Notes en marge du volume V des "Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan,"' R Q 7 (1970) 185, and Horgan, Peshnrrrn, 83-85. (I have not

13. The illessritnrc Interpretlztromof Isatrill 10:34

2 and the th]rckets of [thc forest u ~ lbe l cut dowtz] si'ltlt an axe, a~zdf-ebanon by st

powerful one 3 shall faif (Isa I0:34). Its interpretation concerns the KiJttim, wh[oJ will fa[ll] by the hand of Israel. And the poor ones of 4 ] all the nations, and the warriors will be dismayed, and [their] he[arts] will melt and thc tall] rn stature wrN be h r i n down (Isa 10:33). They are 5 the warriors of the Kitt[im 6 1 an(! the thtckets of [the]forest wlll be cart down wzth nn axe. 'I.h[ey are 7 ] for the battle of the Kittim. And Leb'znon by a pozi~[erfulone 8 shall fall. the] Kittim w h o will be gi[ven] into the hand of his great one [ '1 1 when he flees from bcfo[re Islrael [ 4Q285, fr. 5:'

1 1 Isaiah the prophet: [and the thtckets of the forest ]wlill be cut /down 2 with am axe, and Lebanon by a powerful one shall f i l l . And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse (fsa 10:34-11:l) [ 3 1 the Branch of 1)avid and they will enter into judgment with [ 4 ] and the Prince of the Congregation, the Branlch of David] will kill him [ ] will command [ 5 ] and by wounds. And a priest [ ti the s]lai[n] of the Kitti[m

Discussion There are two Qumran texts which preserve the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 10:34. The first is 4QpIsaa (4Q161), which is a continuous pesher o n Isaiah 10:22-11:s and interprets this whole section of Isaiah as prophetic of the eschatological war against the Kittim, conducted and won by the indicated doubtful lettcrs.) Note especially that in line 3 I have preferred Horgan's reading Allegro's 7: ['Liz'. The translation is indebted to Allegro and I-lorgan. j Text and translation from C;. Vcrmes, 'The Oxford Forum for Qumran Research on the Rule of War from Cave 4 (4Q285),'/JS 43 31991) 88. (I have not indicated doubtful letters.) In R. I i . Eisenman and M. Wise, The Dead Sea Scvolls Uncovered (Shaftesbury, Dorset: Element, 1992) 28-29, this is numbered fragment 7.

-.-\I"?]r to

nedaJ Sea Stvoll>

195

Davidic Messiah, w h o is called both the Prince of tlie Congregation4 and the Branch of D a ~ i dThe . ~ second text is the only recently published 4Q285, fragment 5, made famous in 1991 by the claim of Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise that it describes the Ilavidic Messiah as put t o death. T h e group of fragments t o which it belongs h ~ affinities s with the War Scrollh and evidently represent a text which, like the War Scroll and 4QpIsa" concerned the escl~atolo~ical victory over the Kittim. As a seminar of the Oxford Forum for Qumran Research showed,' precisely these parallels with other Quniran texts make the interpretation of fragment 5 by Eisenman and Wise quite implausible. Fragment 5 is especially close t o 4QpIsa" since it is itself a pesher on Isaiah 10:34-11:1 a, the verses which are quoted in its first t w o lines and then interpreted. These two texts (4QpIsaa and 4Q285 fr.5) are so closely parallel that there can be little doubt they share the same interpretation of Isaiah 10:34. Both are fragmentary, but what is not quite clear in one can be clarified by the other. Isaiah 10:34 is taken in both texts to describe the defeat of the Kittim. 4QpIsaAreads the whole of the preceding passage of Isaiah as an account of the war of the sons of Light, led by the I'rince of the Congregation, the Davidic Messiah, against the Kittim.Vsaiah 10:28-32 seems t o be understood t o describe the Messiah's victorious campaign which leads to his confrontation with the Kittim at Jerusalem.' Isaiah 10:33-34 are then taken to refer to the final battle in which the Kittim are destroyed. T h e Messiah described in Isaiah 11:l-5 is therefore the one whose victory over the Kittim has already been described at the end of chapter 10. However, we must examine the more detailed interpretation of Isaiah 10:33-34. 4QpIsa3 interprets the tall trees of Isaiah 10:33, the 'tall in stature' ( ~ ~ i p':~ 7 :w) h o are t o be hewn down, as 'the warriors of the Kittim' (rwc2 .-.-. ii,,),'o and although the specific interpretation of v 34a ('and the thickets of the forest will be cut down with an axe') has not been preserved,'' most likely 'the thickets of the forest' ( 1 ~ *7x e ) are taken t o be the Kittim

' 5 4 x 3 [Allegro] = 2-6:19

[ t iorganj [Allegro] = 7-10:22 [Horgan] Vcrmcs, 'Oxftrrd f'orunl,' 86, 89-90; J.T.Milik, 'Mtlki-scderl ct Mzlki-rcsnc tfarls Ic* anciens fcrits juifs et chrftieris,'JJS 23 (1972) 143. ' Verrnes, 'Oxford Forum,' 88-90. W o t e tlie parallel between 5-6:2 [Allegro] = 2 4 x 1 8 [f-lorgan] and 1QM 1:3. S o J . M . Allegro, 'Further Messianic References in Qumran I.iterature,' J R L 75 (1956) 181; idem, 'Addendum to I'rofessor Millar 13urrow's N o t e o n the Ascent from Accho in 4Qplsaa,' V7'7 (1957) 183. This is also hour Tg. Isaiah understands w 28-29 (following its statemerit in v 27: 'the Gentiles will be shattered before the Messiah'), though the later verses of the chapter are applied to Sennacherib. 'O 8-105 [Allegro] = 7-10:9 [Horgan]. " See 8-1 06-7 [Allegro] = 7-1 0:lO-11 [Horgan].

' 8-10:17

196

13. The Me,stuntc Interpretatton of lsatuh 10:3J

in general, w h o 'fall by the hand of I ~ r a e l . "%22, ~ which in the context of thiimage of felling a forest must mean 'with an axe,' could easily have been understood, in the Qumran interpretation with reference to a battle, as 'with a sword,' as it is in the LXX ( n ~ c i o i i v ~6t r~~q h opi t x ~ t r i ~ q ) . T h e precise interpretation of v 34 b ('and Lebanon will fall by a powerful one') is again not entirely clear in either text, but careful attention t o both texts reveals that probably 'by a powerful one' ( ~ 7 ~is2understood ) t o refer t o the Prince of the Congregation and 'Lebanon' t o the king of the Kittim. In 4QpIsaa the interpretation of this half-verse begins: '[Its interpretation concerns the] Kittim w h o will be given into the hand of his great one (Ih71).'" T ~ Kwhich , often in the Hebrew Bible refers t o those with power in society - nobles o r princes, is here paraphrased by %'I;, which can have the same sense, and the suffix (:%7:) makes it clear that the reference is t o God's great one, his Messiah. An interpretation of 7 ' 7 ~as the Messiah would have been assisted by the fact that this word is used of the messianic ruler in Jeremiah 30:21. This messianic reading of Isaiah 10:34 b is confirnied by 44285, fr. 5, which quotes v 34 along with at least the first half of 11:1, and presumably ixiterprets both verses together in the fragmentary text (lines 3-5) about 'the Prince of the Congregation, the Branch of David.' Ilere it is said that the The singular masculine object of the Branch of David 'will kill him' (;r-~;--).'~ verb can only be the king of the Kittim (cf. 1 Q M 15:2).15But if the statement is meant to be an interpretation of the Isaianic text quoted, then 'Lebanon' in Isaiah 10:34 b must have been understood t o refer t o the king of the Kittim.Ib At first sight this may appear t o be a difference from 4QpIsaa, since

-I"-10:3 = 7-10:7 [I-lorgan]. 'l'h~\readmi: IS the one suggcsteci by Iiorgan, Peshnnm, 83-84. I ' 'I'he word could be read as o r .+-:('the great oncs ot'), but the text b e ~ n g not for 'great oncs.' ~ntcrpreted(Isa 10:34 b) g ~ v c sa rctcrence t o r 'h15 great one' (-'-=), f Iorgan, Perl~artm,84, falls t o recognr/c this. j 4 Eisenrndn and W ~ s e , Dead \c,i Scrolls, 29, translate: 'and they w ~ l lput t o death the Leader of the Comniunitv, the Rr.ul[~hof I)avid].' Thrs translation is the basis of their view that the text refers t o a slam Mess~ah.W h ~ l ethrs tran~lationIS possible (despite the absence of N; before -2- n-~:),it does not fit the context of an interpretatron of Isa 10:34-11: 1, and the parallels with 4C;)p1sa2and 1Q M make 11 rrnprobable: see Vermes, 'Oxford Forum,' 88-89. l 5 SO Vermes, 'Oxford 1-orum,' 89. I h It rs Ilkel) that Isa t0:34 1 XX reflects a s ~ ~ n r lrntcrpretatlon ar of Lebanon as the krng of Assvr~a.LXX Isa 10:33-34 removes a l n ~ o \ teritirelv the M'l"s n l e t a ~ h o of r a forest. turnink all the MT's trees into people, slain b y the s w o r i in a battle, but iiretains the word nr.crt-itc~r). L.ebanon: 'I.ebanon shall fall w ~ t hthe lofty ones' ( h h i A~fl(tvo; crvv roic; ily~~lhoi; Since in+~i,rl),oi; here are not trees but people, the reference is prcsurnably t o the king with liis nlilitarv leaders. Note also that the reference in Isa 2 1 3 t o 'all the cedars of L.ebanon' appears in the Targum as 'all the kings of t h e <;cntiles.' O t h e r illstances of the interpretation of l.cbanon as 'kings' in the 'Grgums are assembled in G. Vermes, Scrzpture nnd :-.+ '

the beginning of the interpretation of v 34 b in the latter can be understood as identifying Lebanon with the Kittim," but this interpretation also apparc ently includes the words: 'when he flees before Israel' @~:[ij" ' : ] P ~ 1m21).'~ Again, the singular can scarcely refer to anyone but the king of the Kittim, w h o is presumably envisaged as fleeing, after the defeat of his army, and then being apprehended, brought before the Prince of the Congregation, condemned and executed. Another fragment of 4Q285 (fr.4)IYpresumably refers to the same events when it says that 'they will bring him before the W~J: *:EL: ~JIK.~.). Prince of [the Congregation]' ([J-x]

2 Baruch Among explicit interpretations of Isaiah 10:34 in extant Jewish literature, these t w o Qumran texts are unique in taking "OH= as a reference t o the Messiah. Both the L.XX of Isaiah 10:33-34 and the Targum to these verses interpret them as referring t o a battle in which the enemies of Israel are defeated and slain, but neither understands 3'7N2 as the Messiah. A different interpretation, attributed in rabbinic literature t o Yohanan ben Zakkai, takes : Isaiah 10:34 b t o refer t o the destruction of the Temple in 70 c . ~ .Lebanon is interpreted as the Temple, following a widely attested exegetical tradition of understanding Lebanon in many biblical texts in this way," and - * 7 ~ 2 is understood to refer t o the emperor Vespasian, tl~roughwhom the temple fell (Lam. R. 1:5:31; b. Gitt. 56a-56 b). A development of this tradition concluded, by understanding 10:34 and 11:1 in close connection, that the Messiah was born at the time when the temple was destroyed (j. Ber. 2:5a). This exegesis shares with 4Q285 and 4Qplsa"hc practice of reading 10:34 in close connexion with 11:1, but it does not take ?'7K= t o refer t o the Messiah. We might therefore have t o corlclude that the specifically n~essianic interpretation of Isaiah 10:34 was a peculiarity of the Qumran community, were it not for a passage in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch which, while it is not explicitly an interpretation of Isaiah 10:34, is certainly implicitly such.2' In 2 Baruch 36-40 Baruch is given a vision and its interpretation. T h e v i s i o n is a prophecy of t h e way in w h i c h t h e f o u r t h kingdom (2 Bar 39:5), Trarlrr~onEW Judazsm (SPH 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961) 27; cf. also K.I! Gordon, 'Appendix 2: The Interpretation of "I.cbanonnand 4Q285,' in Vernies, 'Oxford Forum,' 93. S o Vcrnics, 'Oxford Forum,' 89. '* Tliic reading is Strugncll's correction of Allegro: Strugncll, 'Notes,' 185. l 9 Numbered fragment 6 in Eisenmari and Wise, Ilmd Scrc Strolls, 28-29. 20 Vermes, Scrrprurc,, 26-39. 2' 1 had independently ncrticed the correspondence between 4Q285, fr.5, and 2 Bar 36110, before noticing that this correspondence was also pointed out by W. bliorbury at the Oxford Foruni seminar: Vermes, 'Oxford Foruni,' 89-90.

i.e. the Roman empire, will be destroyed and succeeded by the rule of the Messiah. The Roman empire is symbolized by a large forest surrounded by high mountains (40:2); tlie Messiah and his kingdom are symbolized by a vine and a fountain (40:3; 39:7). T h e fountain comes to the forest and submerges it, uprooting all the trees and levelling the mountains (40:4-5). O n l y one cedar is left, which is felled and then brought to the vine, w h o denounces it for its evil rule and condemns it t o be reduced to ashes like the rest of the forest (40:G-11). According to the interpretation, the cedar is the last ruler, i.e. the last Koman emperor, who, when his army is destroyed, will be bound and brought t o the Messiah o n Mount Zion. T h e Messiah will convict him of his wickedness and put him t o death (39:8-40:2). T h e Messiah's peaceful and prosperous rule follows (37:l; 40:3). With the help of the Qumran texts w e have examined, we can see that this vision is based on an interpretation of Isaiah 10:34 very similar t o that found in 4Q285 and 4(l)pIsaA.T h e whole vision can be explained as resulting from an exegesis of Isaiah 10:34 in its immediate context and in close connexion with a number of other passages which have been exegetically linked with it. The forest is the forest of Isaiah 10:33-34a. When the account of the vision says that 'the height of the forest became low' (36:5), there is an echo of Isaiah 10:33 b: 'the tall in stature will be lietvn down, and the lofty will be brought low.' The fact that the forest seenls t o be first uprooted (36:4-6) and then burned t o ashes (36: 10) is probably due to tlie fact that the phrase 'the thickets of the forest' (-;.n -22:) occurs not only in Isaiah 10:34 a, where the thickets are said t o be cut down, but also in Isaiah 9:17 (EVV la), where they are said to be burned. (The phrase is found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible.) T h e fact that the eniperor is portrayed in 2 Baruch as a cedar is due t o the fact that he is the '1,ebanon' t o which Isaiah 10:34 b refers. T h e fact that the cedar is first thrown down (36:6), and then judged, sentenced and executed by the vine (the Messiah), may well be due t o a sequential interpretation of Isaiah 10:34a-l1:4. I:irst, Lebanon falls by the Messiah (10:34b); then the Messiah, acting as righteous judge (1 1:3-4), kills the wicked one (23") with the breath of his lips (I l:4; note the stress o n the cedar's wickedness in 2 Bar 36:7-8; 40:l). T h e fact that the cedar is finally destroyed by burning (36:lO; 37:l) may result from an exegetical link between the reference to Lebanon in Isaiah 10:34 b and the prophecy that Lebanon will burn in Zechariah 11:l. Alternatively, it may derive from Daniel 7:11, since the cedar has been identified as 'the fourth kingdom' (2 Bar 39:5), which is the fourth beast in the vision of Daniel 7.12 Other features of the vision can also be explained by exegetical links between Isaiah 10:33-11:l and other passages of scripture. The vision's symbol

" This point

w35

suggcstcd

to

me by Gcorgc W. E. Nickclsburg.

of the Roman empire is not only the forest which is thrown down but also the high mountains which are levelled: 'the height of the forest became low, and that top of the mountains became low' (36:5). This is probably due t o Isaiah 2:12-14: For the LORL) o f hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty (P.), against all that is lifted up; and it shall become l o w (%z:); against all the cedars o f Lebanon, lofty ( r c - 7 ) and lifted up; and against all the oaks o f Bashan; against all the lofty ( r m ~ mountains, ) and agzinst all the high hills.

N o t only the reference t o Lebanon links this with Isaiah 10:34, but also other verbal links associate it with Isaiah 10:33 b: 'and the tall ( ~ 7 ;in) stature will be hewn down, and the lofty will become low (;~EV).'" O n e thinks also of Isaiah 40:4: 'every mountain and hill shall become low (15r?i?.).' The messianic shoot (:m) o r branch (71;:)of Isaiah 11:1 (usually in the Scrolls called 7 . ; ~Ens, following the use of r;r?sin Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5; 33:15; Zcch 3 9 ; 6:12) has been interpreted as a vine, perhaps under the influence of Psalm 80, but more probably by association with Ezekiel 17:6-8, where the twig which symbolizes a scion of the royal house of Judah is said to have 'sprouted (FEY:) and become a vine' ( 1 7:6), and is later described as a 'noble ( n ~ ~ vine' n ) (1 7:8). T h e use of 7 ' 7 ~links this vine with the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 10:34 b (:'-HZ). Finally, the use of a fountain to symbolize the royal power of the Messiah2' may owe something to Song 4:15 (where a fountain is associated with Lebanon), but probably more t o 'the waters of Shiloah that flow gently' (Isa 8:6), interpreted with the aid of a messianic interpretation of Shiloh (Gen 49:10)25 as a reference t o the kingdom of the Messiah. T h e emphasis o n the peace and tranquillity of, first, the fountain (2 Bar 36:3), and then the vine with the fountain (36:6), which is surprising in view of their destruction of the forest and the cedar, may be due not only t o the statement that 'the waters of Shiloah flow gently' (Isa 8:6) but also t o an association of the name Shiloah (n5a) with (to be quiet, tranquil) o r r i b (peace). Baruch's vision is constructed from a detailed exegesis of Isaiah 10:33-11:5, including the messianic interpretation of 10:34, in association with several o t h e r scriptural passages. This k i n d o f cxegctical basis for a vision is by n o means unique. For example, the pair of visions of the harvest and the vintage in Revelation 14:14-20 are based o n Joel 4:13 (EVV 3:13) in association with

" Cf. also Ezck 17:24. 2 Bar 39:7 is not clear as to the distinction between the fountain and the vine, but from the whole account of the vision anti its interpretation it is clear that the vine is the Messiah in person and most likely the fountain is his dominion or royal power. 3 5~1' 11s lrlterprctation is attested in the 'rargums, rabbinic literature, and probably the '

L.XX.

other passages, especially Daniel 7:13-14 and Isaiah 63:3. Abraham's dream of the cedar and the palm tree in l Q a p G e n 19:14-19 is probably based, rather more loosely, on Psalm 92:13 (which was applied t o Abraham and Sarah because of v 15; cf. Gen. R. 41: 1).

John the Baptist 2 Baruch 36-40 demonstrates that the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 10:34 was not confined t o the Qumran community, but must have been more widely known and accepted in the New Testament period. This means that, in arguing, as I shall now do, that it is also presupposed in the preaching of John the Baptist I d o not need t o lay any weight o n the possibility, which has been frequently suggested, of an association between John and Qumran, though others may find in my argument a further support for postulating such an association. 'The preaching of John the Baptist, as recorded in the Gospels, contains two allusions t o Isaiah 10:34. The first is in Matthew 3:10 = Luke 3 9 : Ght] hi [Luke: xtxi] fi Etgivq n ~ b tci p ditav .cir~vh~vbpci~v xel~cltndv o;v b~vbqovptj notoliv xclynbv xuhbv i.xxcixr~rutxcri E ~ Gniy ~ ~ . ~ I & T U L .

'The image of trees cut down by an axe, as an image of divine judgment, is found in the Ijebrew Bible in Isaiah 10:34; Jeremiah 46:22-23; Ezekiel 31:12; and Daniel 4:10 (EVV 13), but only the first t w o of these passages explicitly mention the axe (Isa 10:34) o r the axes Uer 46:22), and in any case it is clear that only Isaiah 10:34 is a suitable text for allusion in this saying of John. Unlike the others it is easily susceptible t o the interpretation John seems t o give it, as referring not t o the judgment of Gentile kings, armies o r nations, but t o the judgment of those within Israel who d o not repent in response t o John's message. The tall trees of Isaiah 10:33, especially when associated with Isaiah 2:12-13, can readily be taken t o symbolize the proud and arrogant who, priding themselves o n their descent from Abraham (Matt 3:9 = Luke 3:8), refuse t o admit their need of repentance. If, then, the saying alludes t o Isaiah 10:34, it understands that verse differently from the texts we have already discussed: the forest is not the Roman army and Lebanon is not the Roman emperor. However, John's interpretation does have one further point in common with that in 2 Baruch 36-40: he expects the trees t o be not only felled but also burned. N o doubt this agreement results from the use of the same exegetical procedure: the association of the two passages (Isa 9:17 [EVV 181 and 10:34) which use the highly distinctive phrase 'the thickets of the forest' (?st.> *=32).

John the Baptist

20 1

The saying in itself cannot tell us whether John adopted a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 10:34. The axe might be wielded by the Davidic Messiah, understood to be the 1.7~of Isaiah 10:34 b. But, in the light of Isaiah 10:33, it could be wielded by God himself coming in judgment. Identifying an allusion to Isaiah 10:34 does not immediately settle the much debated issue of the identity of the figure John expected to come. However, we can initially make two points. First, the reference to the axe probably does make implicit reference to a figure who wields it. The opening words of our saying, in which John envisages the imminent judgment so vividly26that he sees the axe already positioned to chop down the trees,27are parallel to the opening of another of John's sayings, which uses a different image of judgment and similarly envisages the instrument of judgment already poised for action: 'His winnowing shovelZ8is in his hand ...' (Matt 3:12 = Luke 3:17). The figure implicit in the first saying becolnes explicit in the sec0nd.~3econdly, it seems most likely that, if John adopted the image of Isaiah 10:34 as an especially significant image of the imminent eschatological judgment, this was because of its connexion with the well-known messianic prophecy that follows in 11:l-5. As we have seen, there was an exegetical tradition of reading Isaiah 10:33-11:s as a unit. Thus we should expect that John's allusion to Isaiah 10:34 indicates some connexion between his message of imminent judgment and the expectation of the Davidic Messiah. The problem of the identity of the one who wields the axe can be resolved by attending to a second allusion to Isaiah 10:34 in the reported sayings of the Baptist. Unlike the allusion in Matthew 3:10 = Luke 3:9, which has sometimes been recognized, at least as a p o s ~ i b i l i t y ,the ~ ~ second allusion seems not t o have been noticed before. It occurs in the best attested saying of John: For a similar image of the immediacy of judgment, cf. Jas 5:9. The blade of the axe is 'placed against the lowest point of the exposed trunk (i.e. the root) in order rightly to judge the first swing of the felling operation': J. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20 (WBC 35A; Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1989) 147; so also R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Hrrtorrcul Srrcdy USNTSS 62; Sheffield: JSO'I' Press, 1991) 301. " For this translation, rather than the usual 'wlnnow~ngtork,' see Webb, John the Bapttzer, 296-298. l9 This point is oddly neglected by Webb, John the Baptrter, who in his discussion of the identity and activities of the figure John expected (chapterr 7-8) gives much attention to the image in Matt 3:12 = Luke 3:17, but none to the image in Matt 3:10 = 1,uke 3:9. 'O E.g. by J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel Accordrng to Luke (I-IX) (New York: Doubleday, 1981) 469. If the saying is an authentic saying of John, then the fact that Matthew and , reason Luke use hgivq, while Isa 10:34 MT has %-, and Isa 10:34 LXX has p a ~ u l ~isano to hesitate about the allusion, as Fitzmyer thinks. 5;-2 in this context certainly means 'axe' (as in Deut 195; Ecclcs 10:10), arid hEivll is a good translation. The L X X uses p a ~ a q a because it replaces the iniage of felling trees with that of slaughter in battle. 26

27

Mark 1:7: Pc)xF~(~I 0 ~ ~ T X I I Q O ~ F1~01% Q~C Onic~(c) ~IOV... Matthew 3:11: G bk cinicrcl) pov PC)Y,(~CIFVO~i u ~ v e i ) t ~ ~~ oO jPOTLV U ... Luke 3: 16: ZQXE~CIL 6 ~ ( T X ~ Q ~ T!IOU.. E ~ O .~ J o h n 1 :15: t bnicic~)~ t o vb q ~ , 6 p ~ v oCkrngoc~OCv c ~ t o vy6yovrv.. . John 1 :30: ci~riutr)ltov F~QXETUI i l v i l ~65 ) Zpn~)ocrOdv ~1ovy i y o v ~ v ...

These five versions probably derive from three distinct traditions of the saying: Markan, Q (represented here by Matthew rather than Luke) and Johannine. 'Shere are t w o significant variations among the versions. T h e first is between, 'There is corning after me the one w h o is more powerful than I / ranks ahead of me,' and 'The one w h o is coming after me is more powerful than I / ranks ahead of me.' This variation occurs not only between Mark and Q(Matthew), but also between the t w o Johannine forms of the saying (1:30 agreeing with Mark, 1:15 agreeing with Matthew). Which is the more original w e need not decide here. T h e second variation is between the o q and the Johannine hpn~oa0i-vpov. Synoptic expression i c r ~ u ~ o t c ~pot! This should probably be regarded as a translation variant. Even without the Johannine addition (iiti n ~ G t 6 5poz) qv) t o the saying in both its occurrences Uohn 1:15,30), which serves t o interpret it in terms of a preexistence Christology, the Johannine versions of the saying are characteristically loaded with paradox and double meaning. There is the apparent temporal paradox: 'The one w h o comes after me is before me.' And there is the apparent paradox of status: 'The one w h o is following me [= is my disciple] has taken precedence over me.' But the basic meaning must be: 'The one w h o is coming after me ranks ahead of me' (I:15) o r 'After me is coming a man w h o ranks ahead of me' (l:3O). With this meaning, the t w o Johannine versions of the same saying arc equivalent t o the Synoptic versions, provided that Fpn~oc~Otiv k~otlcan be regarded as equivalent t o i a x u ~ , i > t ~ ~ o ~ pou. At first sight this does not seem possible, because i a ~ u ~ c i t pou ~ e ois~ commonly understood t o mean that the expected figure is stronger than John." In fact, however, the expression must refer, not t o physical strength, but t o the power associated with high social status. This is clear from the way the saying continues in the Synoptic versions, with John's declaration that he is not worthy to untie (Mark, Luke; cf. also Acts 13:25) o r t o carry (Matthew) the expected figure's sandals." In other words, the figure is s o much more eminent than John that John is unworthy even t o act as slave

"

'I'hus, when Webb, Jol.ln the Rnprlzer, chapter 7 (and ct. 303), looks for parallels to this feature of John's expectation in figures of Jewish eschatological expectation, he looks for referericcs to their strength. '? The Johannine parallel is in John 1:27. John seems to have split the traditional saying of the Baptist in two, using part of it in 1:15, 30 and part in 1:27. 'This division is made partly to rnake pocsihle the interpretation in ter~nsof preexistence which the Fourth Evangelist adds in 1 5 , 30. But it seerns that he does not interid to report the Baptist's utterance of the saying itself: in 1 : I j and 1:30 the Baptist refers back to what he had said

John the Baptzst

203

to him. In this way John indicates a difference of status greater than any in human society. The phrase i o x u ~ o t e ~pou o ~does not make a different point, but is John's initial statement of the expected figure's preeminence over him; he then explains just how great this preeminence is by means of the statement about the sandals.33 There is no difficulty in taking i c n v ~ t i t ~ ~ino this q sense, but we may wonder why John should have spoken of the expected figure in this way. The answer may lie in the messianic interpretation of 7.7~2in Isaiah 10:34. T 7 N , used as a substantive, refers to a person of powerful status in society, a prince o r noble or military leader. In this sense, the LXX sometimes translates it by i u x v ~ o Uudg s 5:13,25; Jer 37:21 [= 30:21 MT]), as well as by p~yiotcivUer 14:3; Nah 2:5; Zech 11:2), b u v a a t i l ~(Nah 3:18) and iivvcctci~ (2 Chron 23:20). If John, speaking in Aramaic, referred to the expected ~ o ~would be a natural translafigure as 12 TlK, the Synoptic i o x u ~ o t e lkou tion, but, in the context of John's saying, which goes o n to emphasize the figure's eminence rather than his power as such, the Johannine FvI~x~ooOi.v pou would be even more appropriate. Like the tradition of exegesis we have traced in the Dead Sea Scrolls and 2 Baruch, the Baptist, it seems, read Isaiah 10:33-34 as referring to a divine judgment executed by the Messiah ( Y H ~ )i.e. , by the Davidic Messiah whose rule is described in Isaiah 11:l-5. Unlike that tradition, however, John was not concerned with victory over the Gentiles. The judgment he envisaged was closely connected with his own ministry of calling Israel to repentance. It was a judgment on Israel - a discriminatory judgment on the arrogant and unrepentant within Israel. These are the forest which the Messiah will fell with his axe and burn.3' The reason why John did not previously, while in 1:27 tlie traditional saying is not reproduced, but echoed in order to make a further point about the one who is cornirrg after him (1:26b). "j.1). Crossan, The H~stoncnlJesus (Edinburgh: T. & 'T. Clark, 1991) 235, is the latest of many who have understood this saying to refer to God rather than to a nlessianic figure. A decisive objection to this view is that of C . t 1. Kraeling, John the Baptrst (New York/London: Scribners.. 19511, 54: 'It is a ~ronouncemcntabout one who can be arid is being compared to(stc]John, albeit to the latter's disadvantage. The fact of the comparison shows tliat the person in question is not God, fur to compare oneself with God, even in the most abject humility, would have been presumptuous for any Jew in John's day.' Cf. also Webb, John the Baptizer, 284-286. The parallel image of the threshing-floor (Matt 3:12 =Luke 3:17) does not portray the Messiah as winnowing the grain, but rather as acting after the winnowing has taken place, to clear the threshing-floor by shovelling the wheat into the barn and by burning up the chaff (see Webb, John the R~ptlser,292-300). Presumably it is John's preaching which achieves the winnowing, i.e. it separates the wheat from the chaff, the repentant from the unrepentant. The Messiah, portrayed as the owner of the threshing-floor, then deals appropriately with each. If there is a scriptural source for this image, it is most likely Mal 3:19 (EVV 4:1), which not only provides an image of the burning of the chaff (as distinct froni the more conimon image of the chaff blown away by the wind) but also relates (from

'.'

204

13. The Messianic Inrerpretatlon of Isaiah 10:34

refer to the Messiah as the Lord's Messiah or the Branch of David or by some other clear reference t o the Davidic Messiah of Isaiah 11:1-5 will be that such terms were so ~ r e d o m i n a n t associated l~ with the messianic role of defeating the Gentiles. In order not t o distract attention from the theme of a judgment hanging over the heads of his Jewish hearers, which they urgently needed to avoid b y responding to John's message, John only hinted at the messianic identity of the figure who would execute this judgment.35 H e carefully chose and spelt out the meaning of a scriptural term for the Messiah - T - ~ R - which had not acquired associations from common usage, but which, as he expounded it, said what needed to be said about the figure whose coming he predicted: that he is the preeminent one whose authority surpasses all earthly rulers and judges. If this hypothesis about John's interpretation of Isaiah 10:34 is correct, several other implications for interpreting the Gospel traditions about the Baptist may be drawn. First, since it is now clear that John did expect the Messiah described in Isaiah 11:l-5, it may be that John's prediction that the one who comes after him will baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mark 19; John 1:33) and or with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16) derives from exegesis of Isaiah 1 I:4: 'with the breath of his lips he will kill the wicked.' Interpreting this text, the vision of the Messiah in 4 Ezra 13:9-11 reads: 'he neither lifted his hand nor held a spear or any weapon of war; but I saw only how he sent forth from his mouth as it were a stream of fire, and from his lips a flaming breath, and from his tongue he shot forth a storm of sparks. All these were mingled together, the stream of fire and the flaming breath and the great storm, and fell on the onrushing multitude which was prepared t o fight, and burned them all up ...' (cf. the interpretation given in 13:37-38).3b its context in 3:17-20) t o the the theme of differentiating the righteous from the wicked in Israel, which seems t o have been John's conception of his ministry. 'S In this sense, Jesus' reticence with regard t o his messianic role, avoiding the usual titles and terms associated with the expectation of the Davidic Messiah, is continuous with John's preaching. 36 'The figure in this vision in 4 Ezra 13 is not only the Messiah of Isaiah 11:l-5 but also the 'one like a son of man' of Daniel 7 (see 4 Ezra 13:2). This identification of the Davidic Messiah of Isaiah 1 1 with the Danielic figure 'like a son of man' is also made, not only in the Parables of Enoch, but also in 2 Baruch 35-40 (cf. 39:s; 40:3, with Dan 7:23, 27). (For this tradition of interpretation, see G . W. E. Nickelsburg, 'Son of Man,' Anchor Btble Dacttotrary, vol. 6 [ N e w York: Doubleday, 19923 138-142). T h e possibility therefore arises that John the Baptist shared with 2 Baruch not only the messianic interpretation of Isaiah 10:34 but also the identification of the Messiah of Isaiah 10:34-115 with the 'one like a son of man' of Daniel 7. George Nickelsburg points o u t t o me, in this connexion, that in Matthew 13:30,40-41, imagery very close t o that used by the Baptist in Matthew 3:12 is interpreted as eschatological judgment by 'the Son of Man.' However, there is n o unequivocal evidence that the Baptist made use of Daniel 7. His interest in judgment o n

John the fluptist

205

Secondly, it may be that the peculiarly Johannine claim that the Baptist recognized Jesus to be the Messiah when he saw the Spirit descend and remain o n him ( ~ ~ i v 6nku-irtciv: ov John 1:33) should be allowed more historical plausibility than it usually is. The statement probably alludes t o Isaiah 1 1 2 ('The Spirit of the Lord shall rest on him [;*% ;in:>]' ), and means that John saw Jesus anointed with the Spirit by G o d and so knew him to be the Messiah of Isaiah 11:l-5. Thirdly, another feature peculiar to the Fourth Gospel's account of the Baptist is that it represents him as identifying himself by quoting Isaiah 40:3 (John 1:23). In the Synoptics, this quotation is applied to John (Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4-Q7), but not attributed to him. That the quotation does in fact go back to John himself becomes plausible when we remember how 2 Baruch associates the image of felling of tall trees in Isaiah 10:33-34 with that of levelling mountains. The association is easily made on the basis of Isaiah 2:12-14, the more so for John the Baptist who thought of judgment coming on the arrogant within Israel, which is the theme of Isaiah 2:12-14 in its context. Thus John could have understood Isaiah 40:4, which predicts that 'every mountain and hill shall be made low,' as a prophecy parallel to Isaiah 10:33-34, and therefore as one which made clear, in verse 3, his own role as a voice calling for repentance in view of the coming judgment.

Israel, rather than on the Gentiles, would m ~ k 1)anicli' c less appropriate for the Baptist's use than for the authors of 2 Baruch, 4 b r a and the Parables of Enoch. Luke quotes the whole of Isaiah 40:3-5a.

14. The Relevance of Extra-Canonical Jewish Texts to New Testament Study':Introdrrction Jesus was a Galilean Jew whose ministry took place almost entirely within Jewish Palestine. The earliest Christian churches were composed of Palestinian Jews (including some Jews from the diaspora w h o were resident in Jerusalem). When Christianity spread outside Palestine, it was among Jewish communities in the diaspora that it first made converts. Even when large numbers of Gentile converts entered the church in the course of the N e w Testament period, the leadership of the churches still remained largely in the hands of Jewish Christians. Most of the writers of the New Testament were Jews. T h e Hebrew Bible in Greek translation becarne the Bible of Gentile Christians, and, although they read it from the perspective of their faith in Jesus, they also read it within the Jewish traditions of interpreting Scripture which they learned from Jewish Christians. Furthermore, even Jewish religious literature which they did not regard as canonical Scripture must have been read and valued by Gentile Christians. It is a very striking fact that, apart from the Hebrew Bible itself and apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few other Jewish documents which have been recovered by archaeologists in recent times, almost all of the Jewish literature which has survived from the period before 200 C.E. was preserved, not by Jews, w h o ceased t o use it, but by Christians. Even Jewish works which were not written until the Christian church was already well established and most of the New Testament writings were already written, such as the apocalypses of Ezra (4 Ezra o r 2 Esdras) and Baruch (2 Baruch arid 3 Baruch), were appropriated by Christians. These facts clearly suggest, not only that first-century Judaism was the principal religious context of Christian origins, but also that the character of early Christianity was decisively determined by these origins, so much so that, in terms of the history of religions, the Christianity of the N e w Testament period must be seen, not as something quite different from Judaism,

* First Publication: Joel R. Green ed., Heanng the New Tcstrxtnent (Grand Rapids: Eerdmanr/Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995) 90-1 08.

208

14. The Relevance of

Extra-Canonical J~rz)tshTexts to New Testatnent Study

but as a distinctive form of Judaism. The fact that by the end of the first century probably the majority of Christians were Gentiles who had not adopted the full observance of the law of Moses does not contradict this description, though it is one of several reasons why Christianity was coming to be seen by most non-Christian Jews as not a legitimate form of Judaism. Yet even this 'parting of the ways' between Christianity and Judaism was essentially a dispute between divergent interpretations of a common religious heritage. All this is not to deny that both Jews and Christians were strongly influenced by the culture of the Greco-Roman world. Both Jews and Christians shared, in many respects, a common cultural world with their pagan neighbours. It would be a serious mistake to isolate the Jewish context of early Christianity from the wider Greco-Roman context. Nevertheless Jews of this period had a strong sense of their religious distinctiveness and the necessity to preserve it, and Christians, by worshipping the God of Israel, retained the core of this distinctiveness, while relaxing its strict connexion with observance of the law of Moses. In recent decades of New Testament study older theories which attributed a determinative influence on early Christianity t o non-Jewish religious cults o r ideas, such as the mystery cults o r pre-Christian Gnosticism, have largely lost credibility (though very recently the parallels between the Gospel traditions and Cynicism, which was not a religious cult, but a school of Greco-Roman philosophy, have attracted fresh attention). The thoroughly Jewish character of the New Testament literature has been constantly demonstrated by the intensive study of this literature in relation to relevant Jewish literature. Moreover, such study has taken place in a period in which the study of early Judaism and its literature has itself blossomed. New discoveries, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, serious study of works which have long been known but largely neglected, such as many of the so-called Pseudepigrapha, properly critical work on the extent to which traditions of the New Testament period may be preserved in the Targums and the rabbinic literature, and major works of historical analysis and synthesis, such as Martin Hengel's influential work o n the hellenization of Palestinian Jewish culture,' have transformed the study of early Judaism. The resources now available to the New Testament student and scholar for understanding the Jewish context of early Christianity are abundant. There are introductory textbooks and major reference works. Editions, translations, commentaries and studies of texts make them available and more accurately usable than ever before. At M. Hengcl, jrrdaism and Hellenism (ET; London: SCM Press, 1974); jm)s, Greeks and Rarbariuns (ET;London: SCM Press, 1980); The 'Hellenizatwn'ofjudaeain the First Century after Christ (ET; Idondon:S C m Press, 1989).

Introduction

209

the sanle time, there is much to be done. Important texts still await editing. Some have still been very little studied. Major issues of interpretation are highly debated. Students of the New Testament who take the Jewish context of early Christianity seriously cannot expect t o find simply uncontroversial facts and agreed conclusions. They will encounter major debates between the leading scholars, such as that over the character of Pharisaism in the first century. They will have t o learn that, as in the study of the New Testament, the textbooks sometimes make unqualified assertions, for example about the date of a work, which in fact rest o n the slenderest of evidence and arc highly debatable. They will find themselves trying t o understand puzzling texts without the kind of help that is readily available in the commentaries for interpreting difficult New Testament texts. They will have to realise the uncertainties involved in relying, for example, o n an English translation of a badly transmitted Old Slavonic version of a n o longer extant Greek text which might have been translated from a Semitic original. This may make the use of non-canonical Jewish literature in New Testament study seem a dauntingly difficult task. It is! The study of early Judaism is a complex and constantly developing field of study, in reality conlposed of a variety of highly technical and specialized disciplines. Advanced students who wish to make original contributions t o this aspect of New Testament study will have to gain same understanding of the skills and tools of these disciplines, even if only t o understand the way they are deployed by the scholars they read. In fact, many N e w Testament researchers who have turned to Jewish texts for the sake of comparing them with the New Testament have found themselves involved in major projects of interpretation of the Jewish texts for their own sake. Some such firsthand work o n Jewish material should now be virtually a prerequisite for competent historical research in New Testament studies. But students who are only beginning New Testament study o r have no expectation of doing original work in the field should not be deterred from reading Jewish texts of the period along with the excellent introductory literature now available. They cannot in any case avoid the extensive references to Jewish parallels and discussions of the Jewish context in virtually all literature about the New Testament. Even a small degree of firsthand acquaintance with the Jewish texts will make a considerable difference to their appreciation of such references and discussions.

2 10

14.

T l ~ Refcwance e of Extrtz-Cznonrcul /~*ci'zsh E ~ t to s New fisttztnent Study

Using the Literature T h e general usefulness of the extra-canonical Jewish literature for N T interpretation is obvious. Insofar as the context of Jesus, the early church and the N T writings was Jewish, these writings provide us with most of what we know about that context (along with archeological evidence and some references t o Judaism and Jewish history in pagan literature). Of course, we must understdnd the historical context here in the most comprehensive sense. It involves not only the religious, but (insofar as the distinctions are valid in a religious culture) the political, social, economic and cultural life of the Jews in Palestine and in the western diaspora. To take a very simple exan~ple,we should not know w h o the 'king I-Ierod' of Acts 1 2 1 was, we might well confuse him with the tetrarch Ilerod of Luke's Gospel, and we might accuse Luke of inaccuracy in attributing t o him authority in Jerusalem at this time, if we did not have Josephus' indispensable political history of first-century Jewish Palestine. I-lowever, since most of the sunriving Jewish literature is religious in purpose and content, as is the N T , it will not be surprising if the religious dimension of life (including the religious dimension of political, social, economic and cultural life) predominates in the value of the former t o illun~inatethe context of the latter. To take a much less simple example, every serious student of the Gospels wants t o know w h o the Pharisees were, since, although the N T offers some indications (c. g. Acts 26:5), for the most part it refers t o them without explaining w h o they were. T h e Gospels are interested solely in the Pharisees' interaction with Jesus, and so, even if their account of the Pharisees were entirely accurate, it could still be very incomplete and onesicled. But the Gospels could also be suspected of having polemically distorted their picture of the Pharisees, o r of having retrojected o n t o pre-70 Pharisaism concerns belonging t o the late first century. Unfortunately, the other main sources of information about the Pharisees - Josephus and rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees - are also problematic: Josepllus because he had his o w n agenda which made him very selective and (some would say) not wholly accurate in what he records about the Pharisees; the rabbinic evidence because the selection, preservation and redaction of rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees was controlled by the concerns of the post-70 rabbinic movement. I t is not surprising, therefore, that reconstructing the nature of Pharisaism in the N T period is a complex historical task with n o fully agreed conclusions, but o n e of vital importance t o N T scholarship. O n e important methodological point for N T interpretation is that clearly it will not d o for N T scholars sinlply t o plunder the Jewish evidence t o illustrate what the various N T texts say about the Pharisees. Of course, it is true that, for example, Matthew 1 9 3 can be greatly illuminated by the rab-

binic traditions about the debate between the schools of Hillel and Shammai over the grounds for divorce. But if we are t o discuss the relationship of Jesus o r the early Christians to the Pharisees in broader terms, we need as rounded and accurate an understanding of the Pharisees as a Jewisli religious movement as we can gain. For this purpose, we cannot allow the N T material t o control the agenda, but must study the Pharisees for their own sake, with the full range of evidence available, problematic though it is. Having said that, of course, it should not be forgotten that the N T is, among other things, itself evidence of early Judaism, including Pharisaism. If the Gospels are problenlatic as evidence for Pharisaism, so are the other sources. What is true of the Pharisees, is true of the whole subject. T h e N T student and scholar niust use the Jewish literature in the first place t o understand Judaism. O n l y sonieone w h o understands early Judaisni for its own sake will be able t o use Jewish texts appropriately and accurately in the interpretation of the N T . T h e famous warning issued by Saniuel Sandmel against 'parallelomania' in N T s t u d i e s q a s its most general application here. Someone w h o knows the Jewish literature only in the form of isolated texts selected for the sake of their apparent relationship t o NT texts will not understand those texts in their own contexts (literary and otherwise) and s o will riot know whether they constitute real o r only apparent parallels and, even supposing they are real parallels, will not be able t o use them properly. A principle which N T students and even N T scholars rarely take t o heart is that, for the sake of a balanced view of the relationship of Christianity t o early Judaism, it is just as i~nportanrt o study Jewish texts which are least like anything in the N T as it is t o study those with which the N T writings have most affinity. Of course, it would be a mistake t o wait until one has mastered the broad picture - whether of early Judaisrn o r of early Christianity's relationship t o Judaism - before studying the detailed ways in which Jewish texts can illuminate specific N T texts. In this as in most fields of study, one's understanding of the general will be enhanced by study of particulars, and the two will be constantly interrelating. What is important in the study of particular Jewish parallels t o particular N T texts is never to forget that the former have a context which is essential t o their meaning and relevance. This context will need t o be explored in a variety of ways. 'l'he theme may need t o be traced in other Jewish texts, o r related t o other themes. A particular word o r expression o r image may have to be traced in a variety of texts before the significance of its occurrence in o n e can be evaluated. It is usually also important t o know as a whole the particular Jewish work which is being used. (Compared with modern books, all ancient Jewish works are short,

".

Sandmel, 'Parallelornania,'JNL 81 ( 1 962) 1-13.

2 12

14. The Keltvance of Extra-Cknonrtnl J t w ~ s hTe.xts to New Testatnent Study

most extremely short. It does not take long t o read one through!) N o N T student would quote a verse frorri a Pauline epistle, without further ado, as evidence of early Christianity in general, because Paul was a highly individual and creative thinker, and even what he shared with other Christians, which was certainly a great deal, would not have been shared equally with all Christians. But early Jewish writers were also individual and creative writers, and early Judaism was more diverse than early Christianity. Precisely in what sense a Jewish text constitutes evidence of the Jewish context of early Christianity needs t o be more carefully considered than it often is. It is extremely probable that all of the N'f writers read some extra-canonical Jewish literature and that sonie of them were very familiar with some such literature. (In addition, many of them would have known Jewish oral traditions, such as the legal traditions of the Pharisees and the exegetical traditions of the synagogues.) However, it is very rarely possible t o prove that a particular N T writer knew a particular Jewish writing that we know. T h e letter of Jude, which not only explicitly quotes Uude 14) from part of that collection of Enoch literature we know as 1 Enoch, but can also be shown t o make several allusions to parts of the Enoch literature, is very unusual. In most cases we cannot treat the Jewish literature as sources the NT writers used, but must see them as evidence of the ideas and terminology with which N T writers were familiar. But at this point we must raise two problems. O n e is the kind of Judaism of which a particular Jewish writing is evidence. In the unusual case o f the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know at least that these writings all belonged to the library of the Qumran community. Some of the literature was written within the community and is unlikely to have been known outside it, except by other Essenes, but clearly the community also read extra-canonical religious literature which was not peculiarly its o w n and had either a wide o r limited circulation among other Jews. These categories cannot always be easily distinguished. In the case of most other pre-rabbinic Jewish literature we d o not know who wrote o r read it. For a text to be relevant t o N T interpretation, we need to be able to suppose (from various kinds of evidence, including the NT) either that Christianity was influenced by (or, in relevant cases, opposed) the particular kind of Judaism represented by the text, o r that in relevant respects what text says was not peculiar to the group that produced and read it, o r that the writing in question was not restricted to a particular Jewish group but circulated widely. Such judgments cannot be made in isolation from current discussion of the extent of variety in early Judaism. The current trend t o emphasize diversity t o such an extent as to speak of 'Judaisms' in the plural3 has rightly E.g. J. Ncusner, W.S. Green drld I.. Frerichs eci., jttdarsms and therr Messwhs at the 7um of the Chnstratz Era (Canibr~dgc:Cambridge University Press, 1987); G. Boccaccini,

Using thr Literature

2 13

been challenged by E. P. Sanders' claim that it makes sense t o speak of a 'common Judaism' which most Jews shared and in which even those Jews w h o belonged to the parties, such as the Pharisees, p a r t i ~ i p a t e d .Much ~ of the literature that has survived may well have circulated quite widely and have been read by Jews w h o differed from each other o n some issues. Even literature which belonged rather exclusively t o particular groups, such the Qumran community's own writings, can be shown t o share many themes, traditions and concerns with wider Jewish circles. This makes virtually all the literature of the period poterltially relevant t o N T interpretation, but it does not enable us to shirk the difficult questions about the extent t o which a particular text in any particular case is representative o r idiosyncratic. However, the reference in the last sentence t o 'literature of the period' raises the second problem: that of t h e date of the literature. In the past, many scholars made rather indiscriminate use of evidence from the rabbinic literature (all of which was written t w o centuries o r more after the N T ) as evidence for pre-70 Judaism, influenced by a rnislcading historical model, according t o which Pharisaism was 'normative Judaism' and later rabbinic Judaism essentially a continuation of Pharisaism. This model, along with the uncritical acceptance of all ascriptions of traditions t o early rabbis in the literature, is n o longer credible. In reaction, some N T scholars are reluctant t o admit the relevance of any Jewish literature which cannot be shown t o have been written before the N T . But this seeming methodological stringency is a spurious kind of purism. Judaism changed after 70 ce, but not in such a way as t o destroy all continuity with its past. Many of the Targums, though of uncertain date, can be shown t o preserve exegetical traditions from the N T period. Their evidence must be used with care, but it is not unusable. Similarly, many of the so-called O l d Testament Pseudepigrapha are of very uncertain date - and not a few included in the now standard collection edited by J.H. Charlesworth5 are much later than the N T and even of Christian origin - but that they preserve early Jewish traditions can often be argued. They cannot be used in the same way as those which are certainly pre-Christian in date, but they are not unusable. Sornctimes a striking parallel between the N T and a later Jewish work can itself show (since the influence of Jesus o r Christian literature on the Jewish work is Mtd& jtccfatsrn: jm~,;shThorrght 300 R. C. E. to 200 C E. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). ' E. P. Smders,Juda;sm:I'ract~ceand Rehef63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM Press / I'hiladelph~a:Trinity Press International, 1992). For this issue, see also R. Bauckham, 'The Parting of the Ways: What I-iappencd and Why,'ST 47 (1993) 135-139 (= chapter 12 above). j J. El. Charlesworth ed., The Old Testament Pseudtpigrapha, 2 volg. (I-ondon: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983, 1985). For discussion of some of the problems created by the scope of this collection, see R. Bauckham, "The Apocalypses in the N c w Pseudepigrapha,' jSNT 26 (1986) 97-1 17 (= chapter 8 above).

not, in such cases, usually plausible) that the Jewish work here preserves an old tradition. T h e use of Jewish sources later than the N T for N T interpretation requires careful and informed historical judgment by a scholar well acquainted with the literature, but it cannot be ruled out. Sornetinies parallels are instructive irrespective of date. This is sornetimes the case, for example, in one of the most important areas of relationship between N'C writings and Jewish literature: exegesis of the Jewish scriptures. Evidence from early writings, especially the Qumran pesharim (commentaries o n scripture), shows that, despite some important differences, many of the techniques of exegesis known from rabbinic midrash and the Targums were already in use in the N T period. A later Jewish writing may therefore be able to illutninate the way in which a Jewish exegete is likely t o have read a particular O T text, even if we cannot be confident that it preserves an ancient piece of exegesis. But this too is a field where it is important t o go beyond parallels t o an understa~idingof how Jewish exegetes worked and thought. Sometimes N T writers and the Christian exegetical traditions they used followed Jewish traditions of exegesis of particular texts, as we can demonstrate from parallels, but sometimes their exegesis was original. In the latter cases, however, they were still engaged in a Jewish kind of exegesis, with Jewish exegetical presuppositions and methods. In these cases, it is not particular parallels, but real understanding, gained from study of Jewish exegesis, of how Jewish exegesis was done, which will enable us t o understand the N T texts in their Jewish context.

Example: James 4:13-5:6 T h e question of how the letter of James is related to Jewish religious traditions is an important issue in determining the character of this N e w Testament writing. Some scholars have stressed its affinities with and indebtedness t o wisdom traditions, and havc therefore seen James as a Christian wisdom writing. Others havc pointed out its reseriiblance t o prophetic-apocalyptic material (especially in 5:l-8). Interpretation of the law of Moses also has a significant place in the letter (especially in 2:8-13). Study of the passage 4:13-5:6 in the light of Jewish literary parallels will enable us t o see how these three elements coexist and cohere within the letter. This passage is in t w o sections, introduced by the t w o parallel addresses in 4:13; 5:l, denouncing in turn t w o different categories of wealthy people: merchants (4:13-17) and landowners (51-6). N o t only are the t w o categories of people distinct: they are also condemned in quite different terms. The merchants are denounced for their arrogant self-confidence, treating their lives as though they were entirely within their own control, without

Esntnple: James 4:13-Ii:6

215

reference to God. The landowners are denounced for their oppression of the poor, at whose expense they have accumulated wealth and lived in luxury. The most obvious affinities of the first section are with wisdom literature, while the second section resembles prophetic-apocalyptic traditions. This is in keeping with their respective themes. Like the rich fool in Jesus' parable, which also has affinities with the wisdom literature, the merchants are fools to think they can make plans for themselves without reference to God's will. They lack the religious wisdom to take into account even the obvious fact that they cannot tell what will happen tomorrow. The landowners, on the other hand, are threatened with the eschatological judgment, when justice will at last be done for the righteous whom they have defrauded and murdered. Confirming the wisdom character of the first section is the fact that Proverbs 27:l ('Do not boast about tomorrow, for you d o not know what a day may bring')6 certainly lies in the background to it. Also a wisdom theme is the transience of life to which verse 14 b calls attention. By contrast with 1:lO-11, which uses a similar image, the point in 4:14 does not seem to be that the life of the wicked will be cut short by God's judgment, whether at death or at the endtime, but rather that all human life is transient. The general thought is therefore not unlike Ben Sira's reflection that, when the rich man 'says, "I have found rest, and now I shall feast on my goods!" he does not know how long it will be until he leaves them to others and dies' (Sir 11:19). The image which James uses - mist o r (more probably) smoke that appears for only a little while before vanishing completely - is one of a traditional set of images of transience, which were frequently used in Jewish literature (biblical and post-biblical) both for the transience of human life in general and for the short life left to the wicked who will soon perish under God's judgment. (It is very important, in a case like this, to take note of the full range of parallel material, rather than to focus prematurely on one or two texts, preempting the decision as to which are most relevant to the interpretation of James.) The most popular such image of transience was that of the grass or flowers withering, which James uses in 1:lO-ll (transience of mortal life: Job 14:l; Ps 90:5-6; 103:15-16; Isa 40:6-8; fate of the wicked: Job 15:30; Ps 37:20; 1 Q M 15:ll; 4Q185 1; 2 Bar 82:7). But the image of smoke which soon vanishes is also found frequently (transience of mortal life: 4 Ezra 4:24; apocryphal quotation in 1 Clement 17:6;' fate of the wicked: Ps 37:20; 68:2; Cf. Pseudo-Phocylides 1 1 6 - 1 17: 'Nobody knows what will be after tomorrow or after an hour. Death is heedless of mortals, and the future is uncertain.' Rut the best MSS of Pseudo-Phocylides lack these lines. 'I am as srnoke from a pot': the speaker is Moses, and the source probably a lost Jewish work.

216

14.

Thr Relcvancc~of E x t r a - C a ~ o n t c ~ ~ l J e z cTexts ' ~ s I to ~ N e w Testiznzent Stcrdy

H o s 13:3; Wis 5:14; 1Q M 15:10; 4 b . r a 7:6 1; 2 Bar 82:6).' However, the distinction between the transience of all human life and the judgment coming to the wicked is not as clear as might at first appear, especially in the later texts.' In 4 Ezra 4:24, b r a , who is preoccupied with the sinfulness even of the righteous, closely connects this with the transience of life ('we pass from the world like locusts, and our life is like a mist, and we are not worthy t o obtain mercy'). What becomes clear in sonic texts (2 Bar 14:lO-14; Wis 5:7-16) is that the expectation of reward and punishment after death made a considerable difference t o the significance of such traditional images of transience. T h e transience of this rnortal life, though true of the righteous as well as the wicked, is of real consequence only for the wicked, who have set all their hopes o n the worldly goods they enjoy in this life and face only judgment after death, while for the righteous, who expect eternal life and reward in the next life, it is insignificant. Ezra therefore discovers (4 Ezra 7:61) that the image of the mist that vanishes properly applies only to the wicked, who will be consumed by the fire of judgment. Especially interesting for our purposes is the passage in the hook of Wisdom (5:7-16), where the wicked discover, at the last judgment, that their arrogance and wealth (5:8) have done them no good, because all such things proved as transient as their own lives (5:9-14), while the righteous whom they oppressed in their lifetime receive eternal life and glory (5:15-16). This passage helps us to see that the point in James 4:13-16 is not only that the merchants d o not reckon with the transience of life, but that their plans are preoccupied with obtaining wealth which they will only be able to enjoy for the uncertain length of their transient life. T h e later Jewish literature therefore enables us t o see that, while the primary force of the image in Janics 4:14b is to highlight the transience of mortal life, it carries the overtone of judgment for those who set their hopes o n this mortal life. T h e meaning is therefore much closer than at first appears t o that of the parallel image in 1 :10-1 1, where it is only the life of the rich that is depicted as transient. It is also closer than at first appears t o the corresponding feature of the denunciation of the landowners in 5:l-6, where eschatological judgment is very clearly in view. It is also noteworthy that these traditional images of transience were never confined t o wisdom literature, but already occur in the O l d Testament prophets (Isa 40%-8; H o s 13:3). In later Jewish literature they are found in apocalyptic and related literature (1QM 15:lO-11; 2 Bar 14:10-11; 82:6-9; 4 Ezra 7:61) and in wisdom literature (4Q185; Wis 5:9-14; cf. Sir 14:17-19). Especially when wisdom literature takes on the notion o f escl.iatological

'

Imor other rriiages of transience, see, e.g., 1 <:hron 29:15; PF 37:6; 109:23;144:4; Fcclcs h:12; Hos 13:3; Srr 14:17-1 9; 4 1- /ra 4:24; 1320; 2 War 14:10; 82:8-9. Vt II\ worth noting tllat the'lirgurn to Isa 40:6-8 rnterprcts t h ~ yasuge s as referring to the judgment of the urrcked.

judgment, as in Wisdom 5, and wisdom motifs appear in apocalyptic, as in 2 Baruch 14:8-9, it is clear that in the Jewish literature of N e w Testament times wisdom and apocalyptic are by no means completely distinct traditions. Although there is truth in the observation that James 4:13-16 relates t o the wisdom tradition and 5:1-6 t o the prophetic-apocalyptic tradition, this distinction does not mean that there is any incongruity in their juxtaposition. T h e second section (5:1-6) uses the style of prophetic oracles of judgment (with 5:l cf. especially Isa 13:6).1° In 5:5 ('you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter')" there is a specific allusion t o a prophetic text, Jeremiah 12:3, where the prophet, having cornplaincd of the prosperity of the wicked, prays: Pull them o u t like sheep for the slaughter, and set them apart for the day o f slaughter.

There is an allusion t o this same text in 1 Q H 15:17: But the wicked T h o u didst create for [the time] of T h y [wrath], T h o u didst set them apart from the w o m b for the day of slaughter . . . . I 2

T h e Qumran psalmist shares James' interpretation of the text as referring t o the eschatological day of God's judgment o n the wicked, but in other respects the two authors have been attracted t o the text for quite different reasons. The context in 1 Q H is a strongly predestinarian passage which contrasts the righteous, created by God for eternal salvation, with the wicked, created by God for eternal judgment. T h e righteous are the members of the community; the wicked are the rest of humanity. T h e author has seen predestinarian significance in the words of Jer 12:3: 'set them apart (haqdiicm) for the day of slaughter.' This predestinarian exegesis of the text is not James' interest. H e has been attracted t o the metaphor which Jeremiah uses: animals selected from the flock for slaughter. Since he applies it specifically to the rich, he is able t o make a highly effective extension of the metaphor. By their luxurious living they have fattened themselves, as domestic animals a r e f a t t e n e d i n r e a d i n e s s f o r slaughter. This c o n t r a s t between I Q I I a n d James illustrates how relatively unhelpful it is when commentators merely give references t o extra-canonical Jewish literature as texts to be compared with a N T text. It is important to study both texts before establishing Cf. also Isa 14:31; 23:1, 6, 14; Jer 48:20; Mic 2 4 . My translation. Since 'the day of slaughter' is certainly the eschatological day of judgment, hv must be used with the sense of E ~ C . I have altered the translation in G. Vermes, The DeadSea Scrtvlls rn Emghsh (London: Penguin, 3rd ed. 1987) 203, in order to make clear the allusion to Jer 12:3. 'O

2 18

14. The Relevance

of Extm-C:iznortrct~l Jcwtsh 'Ie.xtsto New Test*ment Study

precisely where the point of comparison lies. In this case, the fact that both texts allude t o Jer 12:3 with reference t o the eschatological judgment of the wicked is probably not coincidental, but shows that current Jewish exegesis interpreted this verse of Jeremiah eschatologically. But it is unlikely that 'the day of slaughter' had become simply a stock phrase for the day of judgment, used independently of its source in Jer 12:3, because both 1QH and James both make use of further, though different, features of Jer 12:3. Both authors are exegetes, making their o w n use of Jer 12:3 within a common exegetical tradition of referring the verse t o the eschatological judgment. At first sight, such a tradition niay be a little surprising, since Jer 12:3 is not as such a prophecy, but only Jeremiah's prayer for the judgment of the wicked. However, there are features of the text which would have made it attractive t o Jewish apocalyptic eschatology. T h e phrase 'the day of slaughter' would naturally be associated with other phrases using 'day' (e. g. 'the day of the Lord') which were taken t o refer to the day of judgment. T h e word 'slaughter' (h"rt;gi), a rare noun (only 5 times in OT), is used twice elsewhere in Jeremiah (7:32; 19:6) in prophecies that the valley of the son of Hinnom will be renamed 'the valley of slaughter.' This is the valley which gave its name to Gehenna, because these prophecies were interpreted as referring t o the eschatological judgment of the wicked. The common Jewish exegetical practice (known as gezi;ri izwli) of associating, for purposes of interpretation, scriptural passages which use the same words o r phrases, would easily lead to an association of Jer 1 2 3 with Jer 732; 19%. James himself probably made this association, since Jer 753; 19:7 both state that the wicked w h o are slaughtered in 'the valley of slaughter' are t o become food for the birds and animals. Interpreting Jer 12:3 in connexion with these texts, he depicts the rich as fattening themselves in order t o provide the food for this gruesome eschatological feast (cf. Ezek 39: 17-20; Rev 19:17-1 8). The connexion would be all the more appropriate since, according to Ezek 39:17, the feast is a sacrificial feast, and when Jer 12:3 asks G o d to 'set apart' the wicked for the day of slaughter, it uses a verb which indicates that they are t o be devoted, like sacrificial animals, to sacrificial use. This conclusion, that behind James 5:5 b lies an exegesis of Jer 1 2 3 in connexion with Jer 732; 19:6; Ezek 39:17, is only partly based on comparison with 1 Q H 15:17, but is made very plausible by our general knowledge of methods of Jewish exegesis in this period. Somewhat closer than I Q H 1 5 1 7 t o James' use of Jer 12:3 would be 1 Enoch 949, if we could be sure that it alludes t o Jer 12:3. T h e rich, it says, are ready for the day of the outpouring of blood and for the day of darkness and for the day of judgn~ent.'~ " Translation from M.A. Knibb, The Ethzopzc Rook ofEtzoch, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978) 227.

Example: Jamcr 4:13-li:h

219

Unfortunately, since neither the original Aramaic nor the Greek translation of this verse is extant, we rely o n the Ethiopic version alone. T h e phrase 'the day of the outpouring of blood'I4 may allude to 'the day of slaughter' in Jer 12:3, but we cannot be sure. However, there are much broader resemblances between James 5:1-6 and chapters 94-99 of the so-called Epistle of Enoch (1 Enoch 91-108). These chapters address alternately the wicked, w h o are portrayed especially as wealthy and as oppressors of the righteous (9453-952; 96:4-8), and the persecuted righteous (953; 96:l-3; 97:1), just as James addresses first the rich oppressors (5:1-6) and then their victims (5:7-1 I), who are said to be righteous (5:6, cf. 16). Both Enoch and James address prophetic oracles of denunciation and judgment to the rich, though the literary form differs (Enoch uses 'Woe' oracles), and just as in Enoch this direct address t o the wicked is a rhetorical device which does not indicate that they are expected t o be among the readers (cf. 1 Enoch 92:1), s o we should almost certainly assume that the same is true in James. In Enoch, the rich are condemned for exploiting the poor (96:5) and for accurnulating wealth which will not last (94:7-8; 979-10; 98:2-3). They will 'groan and weep' (96:2). Their ill-gotten wealth will be 'a testimony against you' o r 'a reminder against you for evil' (96:4,7; 97:7; cf. Jas 5:3). T h e parallels cannot prove that James was inspired by these chapters of 1 Enoch, though this is certainly quite possible, but the resemblances go considerably beyond corn' ~ must show that Janles writes in a mon dependence o n OT p r o p h ~ c y .They continuing tradition of prophetic denunciation of the rich. Finally we must consider James 5 4 . Throughout his letter James is expounding the implications of the law of the love of neighbour (Lev 19:18 b; Jas 2:8) by alluding t o the more detailed commandments in its context in Leviticus 19:l 1-18.Ib In 5:4 he alludes t o Lev 19:13 ('you shall not keep for yourself the wages of a labourer until morning') as well as t o the fuller law on the same subject in Deuteronomy 24:14-15, and t o Isaiah 5:9 (LXX). But this is another case where James' allusion to an O T text is illuminated by allusions t o the same text in other Jewish literature. References t o the law of Lev 19:13; Dcut 24:14-15 are surprisingly frequent (Mal 3 5 ; Sir 34:27; Tob 4:14; TJob 12:4; Ps-Phoc 19; h. B. Mes. 1 11 a; cf. J o b 31:39; Jer 22:13). T h e reason why it was taken s o seriously is apparent in Sir 34:25-27:

l 4 Cf. other phrases used in these chapters of 1 Enocli for the coming day of judgment on the wicked: 9653; 97:l; 98:lO; 99:4,h; 102:5. l 5 They are also more extensive than the resemblances between Jas 5:1-6 and the woes in Luke 6:24-25. " See I,.T. Johnson, 'The Use of 1.eviticus 19 in the 1.etter of James,'JBL 101 (1982) 391-401. For a passage of Jewish ethical paraenesis which is extensively based on 1 . c ~19, see Pseudo-Phocvlides 9-2 1 .

220

14. The Relevance of Extra-Canonical Jewish Texts to N

m Testament Study

The bread of the needy is the life of the poor; whoever deprives them of it is a murderer. To take away a neighbour's living is to commit murder; to deprive an employee of wages is to shed blood. The day-labourer, who neither owned nor rented land, but was employed a day at a time on the estates of others and paid his wages at the end of each day's work, was, of all peasant workers, in the most vulnerable position. His employment could be terminated at a few hours' notice. H e had no security. H e might often be unemployed. His wages were too small to make savings possible. H e lived from hand to mouth. H e could well need his day's wages t o feed himself and his family that very day. Withholding his wages even until the morning was a serious matter. An employer who delayed paying his employees might without hyperbole be accused of murder. This may partly explain James' accusation of murder in 5:6, though (especially in view of 'condemned') the reference may also be to misuse of the courts in order to deprive smallholders of their land and absorb their farms into the big estates. It is worth noting that allusions t o the duty not to withhold the wages of the day-labourer are found in both prophetic (Ma1 3:s) and wisdom (Sir 34:27; Ps-Phoc 19) contexts. Both prophetic and wisdom literature, of course, were concerned with moral instruction, and in the late biblical and the teaching of the law of Moses was readily drawn post-biblical upon for this purpose in both contexts. Once again, we see that there is nothing incongruous in the conjunction of prophetic-apocalyptic, wisdom and halakhic material in James. In various ways this conjunction was quite typical of contemporary Jewish literature which shared James' concern with practical religion.

15. Josephus' Account of the Temple in Contra Apionem 2.102-1 09:' I . Introduction Josephus provides our most reliable and most extensive evidence about the Jerusalem temple in the middle decades of the first century C E - on both the physical features of the temple as reconstructed by Herod and on the practice of the priests in the temple in this period. In general, more attention has been given to the material in the War and in the Antiquities, less to that in the Contra Apionem. The latter, however, includes some extremely interesting references to the temple, its priests and its practices (1.29-36; 2.76-77, 102-109, 1 19, 185-1 87, 193-1 98). The present essay is a detailed investigation of the longest of these passages, which offers a number of points of detailed information about the temple not precisely paralleled elsewhere. Virtually every statement of Josephus in this passage, however, raises problems of interpretation or of consistency with information elsewhere in Josephus or in other sources. These problems require thorough discussion before the value and reliability of this passage for our knowledge of the temple can be accepted. The general result will be to show that, although the Contra Apionem is Josephus' last work, he retained, from his close association with the temple in his youth, a thorough knowledge of the temple which makes him even thirty years later a generally trustworthy witness. At the same time, the apologetic purpose of this passage has t o be understood if it is to be read accurately. Finally, however closely Josephus may have depended on sources in other parts of the Contra Apionem, it will become clear that he composed this passage himself.

" First Public~tion:Louis 14. Feldrnan and John R. I.evison ed., Josephus' Contra Apzonem: Studres In rts Character and Contcpxt with a I.attn C~oncordanceto the Portron Mtssrng rn Greek ( A G A J U 34; 1.eiden: Brill, 1996) 327-347, with the addition of a previously unpublished section.

222

15. Josephus' Account ofthe Tetnple tn Contra Apzoncm 2.102-109

2. Pzo preliminary questions Two preliminary questions, though they cannot be answered primarily frorn the Contra Apioncrn, are worth raising before turning t o our passage, because they affect the expectations we may justifiably have of Josephus' k~iowledgeof the temple and its practices.

2.1. WasJosephus a priest? T h e question may seem unnecessary, since Josephus clearly states a number of times that he was a priest. For example, in C A 1.54 he calls himself 'a priest by descent' ( ~ E Q E ~ JEXS Y ~ V O V S ) .Consequently, scholars have rarely doubted that Josephus belonged t o a prominent priestly family and was himself a priest. However, Tessa Kajak argues, from t w o passages in which Josephus refers t o his connexion with the Hasmoneans, that he and his male relatives claimed priesthood only through their descent by the female line from the Hasmoneans. H e r position is difficult t o understand, since she admits that priesthood was transmitted through the male line, but accepts the fact that Josephus o n one occasion freely declined to take the tithes which were his due as a priest (V 80) as evidence that he and his male relatives 'did actually minister as priests." There is n o evidence at all that priesthood could be inherited through the female line. T h e genealogical records, from which Josephus himself claims t o have taken his family tree (V 6), were carefully kept in order to ensure, among other things, that priests could only be those w h o could convincingly claim descent in the male line from Aaron. Despite Josephus' strong tendency t o self-aggrandizing claims, it is extremely unlikely that it would ever have occurred t o him that he could claim priesthood by descent through sthe female line. That his family should have been accepted as priestly o n such a basis is inconceivable. If Rajak's interpretation of the t w o passages in which Josephus refers t o his connexion with the Hasmoneans is correct, then Josephus was not really a priest at all. We need t o consider these passages. T h e first is Vita 1-2:

... xtr~"jtiv

il rqj i~~tuniivrls pc-~ovcriur~xltiietovi-cniv yivovg Aa~tn~cir~lroc;. i.ltoi

b'

$5 i ~ ~ t i c uEuaiv v

t b yivoq uhhit xui 6% tiis n ~ i i j t ~ t ql r~l p ~ ~ i b oTGV g b~ % < t TOI'~T~!, ~ httrqo~ti,xui TGV&V T C I U T b~ ~ ~ r(iuh6v ex T ~ C dtpicntlc. i + x t i ~ ~ h& t r txcti to6 PacrtAtxoij yivovc i ~ n bttij 11t1apijoi y i t ~'Aaul~tuvc~iou u a c t v xciib~j,Gv EYyyovo~Ctx~ivq,TOO E"(fvovj ilp(5v hxi itijxitnov ~ ~ o v ~o ~v ~ ~ ~ a r c xcli $(3cinih~uaciv(V 1-2). oil

pbvov

F~%OULTFOUUQWV, xoMil

... With us participation in the priesthood is a sign of illustrious descent. In my case, my family is not only descended from priests, but is also fro111the first of the

' T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historiun 17-1 8.

and his Society (1.ondon: I>uckworth, 1983)

2. F L J preliminary ~ qut>stions

223

twenty-four priestly courses - a great distinction -and from the best of the clans in that course. Furthermore, I am of royal descent on the mother's side. For the children of Asamonaeus, froni whom she was descended, ruled our nation as high priests and kings for a very long timc.

This passage clearly makes two different claims. First, Joscphus comes of a very distinguished priestly clan. The first of the twenty-four priestly courses - that is, the divisions into which priestly families were divided for purposes of ministry in the temple - can only be the course of Jehoiarib (1 Chron 24:7), which appears first in the list which Josephus himself regards as definitive (Ant. 7.365-366) and which was certainly followed in temple practice in his timc. The order of the courses in the list was thought t o have been determined by lot (Ant. 7.366), and s o it is not clear what sort of superiority attached t o belonging t o the first. But Josephus clearly wants t o make the most of his nlenlbership of this course, and enhances it by claiming that the clan to which he belonged was the most distinguished of the clans in that course. Each course, we should note, was composed of several clans (cpvhq in Josephus, V 2; BJ 4:155; 2R 3':: in rabbinic literature), five t o nine according to y. Ta'an. 68 a. Unfortunately, only in one case has the name of one of these clans been preserved for us (BJ 4.155). We d o not know the name of Josephus' clan. In addition t o this claim t o distinguished priestly descent, Josephus also, secondly, claims royal descent through the female line. When he proceeds t o give the genealogy, it turns out that the woman t o whom he refers was not his mother but his great-great-greatgrandmother, the daughter of the first Hasmonean high priest Jonathan. Josephus does not here appear to connect his priesthood with his descent from the Hasmoneans. But we should notice that the Hasmoneans also belonged t o the priestly course of Jehoiarib (1 Macc 2:1; 14:29; Josephus, Ant. 12.265). (It has often been thought that the list of the courses in 1 Chron 24:7-18 must have been composed in the Maccabean period and that its placing of Jehoiarib first reflects the Hasmonean assumption of the high priesthood. But the point is not relevant here, since Josephus himself clearly did not believe this [Ant. 7.365-3661.) Moreover, it seems likely that the reason Josepl~uscan call his o w n clan the best in the course is that it w a s the clan t o w h i c h the EIasmoneans belonged. I t is hard t o see h o w

any clan in the course could have been considered (from the Maccabean period onwards) more distinguished than that t o which the Hasmoneans belonged. (It has sometimes been thought that Hashmonai was the name of . ~ may be so, but the priestly clan t o which the Hasmoneans b e l ~ n g e d This

J. Jeremias,Jerrtsalem in the Time of Jesus (tr. F. H. and C. H. Cave; London: SCM Press, 1969) 188-1 89.

224

15. Josephus' Account ofthe Tetnple in Contr'z Apioncw 2.102-109

it is not proved by the use of the phrase 'house of I-iashmonai' in rabbinic literature, where it merely designates the Hasmonean royal family.) If Josephus claimed t o belong t o the same priestly clan as the Hasmoneans, then the sequence of thought in V 1-2 shows that he did not base this claim on his descent from a Hasmonean princess. H e claims that his priestly ancestors in the male line belonged t o this clan. Only his (more tenuous) claim t o royal lineage is based o n t h e more specific genealogical datum that one of his direct ancestors married the daughter of a Hasmonean high priest. It is not in the least unlikely that the high priest Jonathan should have married his daughter t o a rnernbcr of the same priestly clan as his own. It is much less likely that he should have married her t o a member of a non-priestly family. Finally, confirmation of the fact that Josephus claims his ancestors in the male line were already a priestly family before their marital connexion with the Hasmoneans can be found in the nickname of whose the first ancestor he mentions. Simon 'the Stammerer' (6 ~P~)ihog), son married the Hasmonean princess, was probably s o called because this physical defect disqualified him from ministering as a priest. IZorthe same reason his grandson Matthias bore the nickname 'the Hunchback' (V 3-4; cf. Lev 2 1:20). The second passage t o which Rajak draws attention is Ant. 16:187: ilpt-ij bt' xui y d v o v ~iivrt-5 c " l y p i t ~ t b v2.5 'Au(oclttu,vcxiov Pcxtrtkktuv xui biu t o o t o uwv

tyifi tilv i ~ ~ o o i w tTl vx o v r ~ q... We, however, being of a family close t o the kings (descended) from Asamonacus, and for this reason possessing the priesthood with honour ...

Rajak takes this t o mean that Josepl~arscites his descent from the fiasmoneans (which we know from V 2-3 t o have been through the female line) as the basis for his priesthood. It is possible t o respond, as Seth Schwartz does,> that the emphasis is on uirv tipfj: it is not his priesthood as such, but 'priesthood with honour' that Josephus derives from his connexion with the Hasmoneans. However, in the light of o u r discussion of V 1-2, we can now see that in this passage Josephus does not allude specifically t o his descent from the Hasmoneans, but rather t o the fact that his family belonged t o the same clan as the Hasmoneans.

2.2. Did Joscphus ever minister as a priest in the temple? This question seems worth asking, if only because I have not found anyone else asking it, though it is not unlikely that somewhere in the voluminous literature on Josephus someone has d o n e so. T h e first obstacle t o answering

'

S. Schwartz, Josephus clnd J~dizeunPolitrcs (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 18; Leiden: Brill, 1990) 4 n.4.

2. Two preliminary questions

225

the question is the fact that it seems impossible to be quite sure at what age priests were ordained for service in the temple. The Old Testament provides information o n this point only for Levites, and the information is not consistent: thirty (Num 4 3 , 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47; 1 Chron 23:3), twenty-five (Num 8:23-26), twenty (Ezra 3%; 1 Chron 23:24, 27; 2 Chron 31:17). 'The rabbis discussed whether a priest was qualified to serve on reaching puberty o r only on attaining the age of twenty, while claiming that the latter was actual practice (b. Hull. 24a-b). T h e two views represent different ways of determining adulthood. (1QSa I:$-15 also indicates that twenty was regarded as the age of adulthood.) We cannot really be sure that the rabbis were correct about the practice before 70. If the age of ordination was thirty, then Josephus would have qualified only in 67 c.E., and, while entitled to receive tithes (V 80), would not have had the opportunity to minister in the temple. It is possible that Josephus' reference to tithes being brought to him, to which, as a priest (hs ~EQE~), he was entitled but which he did not accept, should be read in close connexion with the information that he was then about thirty (V 80). The tithes to which he refers would be the first he was offered. O n the other hand, if the age of ordination was twenty, there would be about six years, from 57/58 G.E., when Josephus, a year after his return to Jerusalem from his period with Bannus (V 12), attained that age, to 64 c.E., when he was sent on embassy to Rome (V 13). In these six years he could have ministered in the temple. The course of Jehoiarib would have been on duty in the temple for thirteen weeks (one in every period of twenty-four weeks) in this period, and since apparently the days of a course's week were divided among its constituent clans, Josephus' own clan might (if there were seven clans in the course) have been on duty for thirteen days in these six years. Illness o r impurity could have prevented his attendance on occasion. Specific duties connected with the incense and burnt-offerings at the two daily ceremonies were determined b y lot. The lot might never have fallen to Josephus, but he would still have been in attendance with the other priests, and he would be likely to have offered sacrifices brought by individuals on the days when his clan served. In addition to the days on which his clan was on duty, there were the three great annual pilgrim festivals when (according to rabbinic tradition) priests of all courses took part in the sacrifices. So, if ordination was at twenty, it seems likely that Josephus did perform some sacrifices in the temple, unless, of course, he was disqualified from officiating by some physical defect. Since small blemishes and abnormalities were sufficient to bar priests from service such disqualification was not uncommon, as the presence of two such disqualified priests in Josephus' own genealogy (V 3-4) shows. Such priests did not officiate but did enter the Court of the Priests to receive their share of the sacrifices (BJ 5.228). Prob-

226

IS. Jo,c*phtrs'A~coutz~ ctfthr Temple rn Contrii Aploncarn 2.102-109

ably, therefore, they were also entitled to tithes, so that Josephus' reference t o his own entitlement t o tithes (V 80) does not rule out the possibility that he was one of these disqualified priests. If he was, we should not expect him to have mentioned it. The fact that Josephus does not refer to ordination o r ministry in the temple in V 12 is probably not very significant. T h e point was not especially important t o his self-serving apologetic, which made his association with the Pharisees a more significant point t o make. Whether Josephus in fact ever ministered in the temple o r not probably should not make very niuch difference to o u r estimate of his knowledge of the temple and its practices. Everything that went o n in the Court of the Priests was easily seen from the C o u r t of the Israelites, from which it was separated only by a low parapet. As a young man expecting t o become an officiating priest, Josephus would surely have observed with more than just ordinary devout interest. l i e would not have seen inside the holy place, but then, even as a qualified priest, he would probably have done this only if he were selected by lot for the specific duties connected with the incense o r the shewbread (statistically less likely than that he would have sacrificed in the Court of the Priests). But as a member of a prominent Jerusalem priestly family, he would be accurately infc~rmedabout the contents of the holy place, whether o r not he had ever entered it.

3. Contrd Apionem 2.102-109 3. I . Introduction In the Contra Apionem, of course, Josephus is engaged in a defence of Judaism and the Jews against anti-Jewish accounts by pagan writers. T h e passage with which we are concerned is part of his refutation of a story told by Apion about Antiochus Epiphanes' entry into the temple. According t o the story Antiochus found in the temple a Greek, reclining at table before a sumptuous feast. T h e man said that he had been kidnapped and imprisoned in the temple, where he was lavishly fed. Eventually he learned from the servants w h o fed hirn that he was t o be the victim of a Jewish law which required that once a year they should sacrifice and eat a Gentile ( C A 2.91-96). After general criticisms of the plausibility of the story (CA 2.97-102), Josephus proceeds t o refute it by reference to the facts - which turn out t o be facts about the temple. H e argues that the strict purity rules governing admission t o the courts of the temple and the temple building make it unthinkable that a Greek would have been taken into the temple. H e points out that n o vessels not belonging t o the temple could be taken

3. Contra Ap~ouem2.102-10')

227

into it, and that no food o r drink, other than those specifically authorized for sacrifice by the teniple authorities, could be taken into the temple, so that there was no way the Greek could have been sutnptuously fed within the ternple for a year. H e argues that the ternple was under the strict supervision of the priests, w h o served in rotation, such that in the course of a year many thousands of priests would have had to know about the Greek, had he been in the temple. What Josephus says about the temple is thus carefully selected t o serve his apologetic purpose of refuting Apion's slander. In order t o discuss his information in detail, we shall divide it into four sections:

3.2. The cordrts of'the temple and their restrictions on entry Sciunt igitur ornnes qui uiderunt constructionern templi nostri, qualis fierit, et intransgressibileni eius purificationis intcgritatem. Quattuor etenim habuit in circuitu porticus, et harum singulae propriarn secundum legenl habuere custodiam; in exteriorem itaque ingredi licebat omnibus etiam alienigenis; niulieres tantumno do menstruatae transire prohibebantur. In secunda uero porticu cuncti Iudaei ingrediebantur eorumque coniuges, cum cssent ab omni pollutione mundae, in tertia masculi Iudaeorum mundi existentes atque purificati, in quartani autem sacerdotes stolis induti sacerdotalibus, in adytum uero soli principes sacerdotum propria stola circumamicti ( C A 2.102-104).

All who have seen our temple's construction know what it was likc and the inviolable purity of its holiness. For it had four courts surrounding it, and each of these according to the law had its own protection. All, even foreigners, were allowed to enter the outer court; only menstrualit wornen were prohibited from passing through it. But all Jews entered the seccrnd court, as did also their wives, when the latter were uncontaminated by any defilement. Male Jews who were clean and purified entered the third court. Priests robed in their priestly vestments entered the fourth court. But only the high priests, clad in their own special vestments, entered the sanctuary [i.e. the holy of holies].

Josephus' concern here is to show how impossible it would have been for Antiochus t o have found a Greek in the inner part of the temple, since strict rules, of increasing restrictiveness as o n e approached the holiest part of the temple, governed admittance to the tcmple's various courts. His account of t h e rules is similar t o his earlier account in t h e War: y o v o ~ ~ o i oktiv ~ c 61'1 xui k ~ x ~ ilo n02~1q i ~ iA.11 ~b b' ipybv yz,vtx~xti)vEp~tijvoq i i x t . x i x b ~ m oncrpt-hO~ivhP ~ u i ~ t u obbP tj xc10ueuij CEqv ijv T [ Q O E ~ J I ( I I I F Viieov &vh~cijv b' oi pi1xcxf)&nclvfiyve1tx6~~= ~ G y o v t tqq o fvhov t18hii~xtxi tcijv i ~ ~ i w niihlv v oi [btil] xtxOa~e8om~; ~ i ~ y o v (BJ r o 5.227). The whole city was closed to persons with a discharge and to lepers, while the temple was closed to women during menstruation. Even when pure, women were not permitted to pass the boundary to which we referred above [i.e. the wall between the Court of the Women and the Court of the Israelites, cf. BJ 5.1991. As for men,

228

11.Joscphus' Account ofthc Tcrnpke in Contra Apioncm 2.102-109

those not completely purified were excluded from the inner court, and even those of the priests w h o were undergoing purification were excluded.

This passage from the War goes on (5.228-236) t o explain that the Court of the Priests was entered even by priests who were disqualified by physical blemish from officiating and from wearing the priestly vestments, but only officiating priests, wearing their vestments, went u p to the altar and the sanctuary (vaov) - meaning here the first part of the sanctuary building, the holy place (cf. also Ant. 3.278). Only the high priest, once a year, wearing his high-priestly vestments, entered the holy of holies (iibutov, as in C A 2.104: adytum). The passage in the War gives a little more detail, including the purity rules restricting entry to Jerusalem itself, which was not relevant to Josephus' purpose in CA, but otherwise the two passages agree. They are sufficiently different t o make it quite clear that Josephus in C A has not copied his own earlier work, but had these rules very firmly and clearly in his mind, as we would expect of a man who spent his early years in Jerusalem as a member of a priestly family. A well-known passage in the Mishnah (m. Kel. 1:6-9) gives a somewhat different account of the rules. It specifies ten" degrees of holiness, extending from the land of Israel, which is holier than any other lands, to the holy of holies, w h i c h is t h e holiest place of all. W e need only n o t i c e t h e rules

restricting admission of persons o n grounds of purity. Lepers are excluded from all the walled cities of Israel. From the temple mount (the so-called Court of the gentile^)^ were excluded men and women with a discharge (in biblical and rabbinic terminology r'x and n~zr),menstruants and pari. e. the t u r i e n t ~(women impure through childbirth). From the terrace ( k , area immediately inside the barrier which prohibited Gentile entrance and enclosed the sacred area proper) were excluded Gentiles and people with corpse-impurity. From the Court of the Women was excluded anyone who had immersed himself that day (i.e. had not completed his purification which required both immersion and waiting till sunset). From the Court of the Israelites was excluded anyone whose atonement was incomplete (i. e. someone who had purified himself by waiting the specified period and by immersion, but had not yet offered the sacrifice required [cf. Lev 15:13-151). From the Court of the Priests, lay Israelites were excluded except when taking part in sacrifices. From the area between the altar and the porch (of the sanctuary building) were excluded priests with a physical blemish o r

' So m. Kcl. 1:6. In fact, counting inclusively, there are eleven. The term Court of the Gentiles, though convenient, is a modern term, not used in antiquity. It is potentially misleading if it suggests that the court was positively intended for Gentile use.

3. Cbntva Apionenz 2.102-109

229

whose hair was unloosed. From the holy place were excluded priests who had not washed hands and feet. From the holy of holies were excluded all save the high priest on the day of atonement. (The Mishnah, of course, takes for granted that women may not pass beyond the Court of the Women, but does not mention this, perhaps because it is not strictly a matter of purity: women are not regarded as intrinsically less pure than men.) Josephus and the Mishnah share the general concept of degrees of purity which increase as one nears the holy of holies, and agree o n several details, such as the restriction o n priests with a physical blemish (in both cases corresponding t o Lev 2 1:2 1-23). If owever, there are significant differences. In principle, Josephus' account should be preferred. The differences are likely to represent different interpretations of the biblical purity laws (note that in C A 2:103 Josephus claims that the rules he reports are based on the Torah secundum legem). Josephus' account must reflect the interpretation of these laws followed - and no doubt enforced - by the temple authorities, while the Mishnah reflects rabbinic interpretation. The most important differences between Josephus and the Mishnah are four, though the third, as we shall see, niay be more apparent than real. The first two differences concern admission t o the city and to the Court of the Gentiles: (1) The Mishnah excludes only lepers from the city, whereas Josephus excludes also zavim and zavot, whom the Mishnah excludes only from the Court of the Gentiles; (2) From the Court of the Gentiles the Mishnah excludes (besides zavim and zavot) both menstruants and partur i e n t ~whereas , Josephus excludes only menstruants. The second difference might be explained as Josephus' abbreviation of the rules,6 but in CA 2.103 he is quite specific that only menstruants are excluded from the Court of the Gentiles. Since the first point is an irreconcilable difference, we should see the second point also as a real difference. Leviticus 13:46 provided a clear basis on which both Josephus and the Mishnah agree in excluding lepers from the city. In debarring three kinds of people with impurity (zavim and zavot, menstruants, and parturients) from the Court of the Gentiles, the Mishnah is consistent with the way it groups these three categories of impurity together elsewhere (m. Pesah. 9:4; m. Mo'ed Qat. 3:2; m. Ker. 2:l; m. Zabim 5:6). Probably the impurity of the parturient was treated as analogous to that of the menstruant o n the basis of Leviticus 12:2,5.? However, the way the rules reported by Josephus distinguish the zavim and zavot (excluded from the city), the menstruant (excluded from the Court of the Gentiles), and the parturient (excluded only Jeremias,Jerusalem, 373, apparently thinks this.

' 11QT 48:14-17 also classifies parturients along with zrtvzm, zuvot and menstruants, and goes further than the Mishnah in excluding all three categories, along with lepers, from all the cities of Israel.

from the Court of the Women), is intelligible as interpretation of the Torah. In Leviticus 152-15, 19-30, it is clear that the zav, the zavah, and the menstruant all have highly contagious fornis of impurity. T h e presence of these people in the Court of the Gentiles would imperil the purity of other people entering tlie temple. But the account of the parturient in Leviticus 12:2-8 does not explicitly treat tier impurity as contagious. 'I'he rabbis treated it as such, by analogy, but the rules followed by the temple authorities evidently adopted a more literal interpretation. T h e fact that the zav (Lev 15:14-15) and the zavah (Lev 1529-30) are required to offer sacrifice o n the eighth day, following the seven days of their purification, unlike the menstruant, but like the leper (Lev 14:8-lo), makes it readily intelligible that the rules reported by Josephus classify the zav and zavah with the leper, excluded from the city, but treat the impurity of the menstruant less seriously. (In any case, to have excluded menstruants from Jerusalem would have been hopelessly impracticable.) The interpretation of the Torah underlying the rules restricting entry t o the temple, which Josephus reports, need not be precisely the same as Josephus" own interpretation of the law, but the latter, in Ant. 3:261, is certainly relevant. Probably Josephus is here interpreting Nunibers 52-3, according t o which three categories of impure people are to be excluded from the camp: lepers, z a v m and zavot, and people with corpse-impurity. Josephus takes 'the camp' to be 'the city' (Jerusalem o r all Jewish cities?), and reports that Moses banished lepers, zavrm and zavot from it. This accords with BJ 5.227, and should be noted as an instance where Josephus'own hakakhah in the Ar~tiqtr~ties agrees with that of the chief priests rather than with that later codified in the Mishnah. Josephus then says, rather ambiguously, that menr~) struants and people with corpse impurity Moses removed ( ~ l e ~ e m i l tfrom society for seven days. If this means that they were also excluded from the city, then Josephus has added menstruants, by analogy, to tlie three categories in the text, and must be thinking in purely ideal terms, rather than of the practice of his time. More probably, he means only that menstruants and those with corpse-impurity must avoid contact with people. Corpse-impurity, though also contagious ( N u m 19:22), may have been regarded, by those w h o framed the rules restricting entry t o the temple, as less seriously s o than menstrual impurity. But this brings us t o the third difference between Josephus and the Mishnah. T h e two texts in Josephus, especially C A 2.104, appear t o say that, while the only Jewish women admitted t o the C o u r t of the Women were those free of any impurity, impure Jewish men (excepting only lepers and zavim) could enter the C o u r t of the Women and were prohibited anly from the Court of the Israelites. T h e Mishnah, o n the other hand, excludes people with corpse-impurity from the terrace and anyone with any impurity at all from the Court of the Women. Josephus'

232

15. josephus' Accorrnr ofthe Temple in Cbntra Apionem 2.102-109

3.3. The shifts of the priests Tanta uero est circa omnia prouidentia pietatis, ut secundum quasdam horas sacerdotes ingredi constituturn sit; mane etenim aperto templo oportehat facientes traditas hostias introire ct meridie rursus, dum clauderetur templum (CA 2.105). So great is the careful forethought concerning all matters that it is laid down that the priests enter at specific hours. For their duty was to enter in the morning when the temple was opened, in order to offer the sacrifices which are traditional, and again at midday, until the temple was closed. This might mean that t w o successive watches of priests divided a day's duties between them, the first coming o n duty in the early morning when the temple was opened and the morning burnt-offering was offered, the second taking over from them at midday and continuing until evening when the temple closed, after the afternoon burnt-offering. But according t o m. Tamid 1:l-2 the watch of priests responsible for the morning burntoffering spent the night in some of the rooms built into the wall around the inner court of the Temple (the C o u r t of the Israelites and the Court of the Priests). According t o the Mishnah, they entered the inner court (by a small gate) and prepared for the burnt-offering and the incense offering some time before the great eastern gate of the inner court was opened t o let lay worshippers in, but this scarcely really contradicts Josephus' vague expression that they entered when the temple was opened. Moreover it is confirmed by BJ 6.299, where Josephus speaks of priests entering the inner court of the temple by night. H e must mean: in the early hours before dawn, in order t o prepare for the burnt-offering. So it may be that each watch of priests spent twenty-four hours in the temple, coming o n duty at midday, sleeping overnight in the temple, and handing over t o the next watch at midday the following day. Alternatively, one watch entered the temple when it closed in the evening, and at midday handed over t o another, which then served until the temple closed that evening. The only problem for either of these reconstructions is m. Tamid 5:3, according t o which the vestments of priests w h o had not been chosen by lot t o officiate at the morning burnt-offering o r inccnse-offering were removed from them at that point, because they would not now be needing them. O n e would expect such priests t o stay in order t o sacrifice offerings brought by individuals during the rest of the morning. So it may be that the Mishnah envisages one watch handing over t o another immediately after the morning burnt-offering, but, if so, we should preferJosephus' account. His clear statement that priests entered the temple at morning and midday makes it unlikely that there were more than t w o shifts.I0 l a Against Sanders,jrtrlazsm, 1 17. His statement, 'ljuring the morning service the new watch of priests came in, and orie of the praycrs was for them (Trrrnzd 5.1),' seems to be

3. Contra Apionern 2.102-109

3.4. Objects in the temple Denique nec uas aliquoci portari licct i11 templum, sed erant in e o solummodo posita altare mensa turibulum candelabrum, quae omnia et in lege conscripta sunt. Etenim nihil amplius ncque mysteriorum aliquorum ineffabilium agitur neque intus ulla epulatio ministratur (CA 2.106-107). Finally, n o vessel whatever is allowed to be carried into the temple, but in it were placed only an altar, a table, a censer, and a lampstand, all of which are also referred t o in the law. There was certainly nothing more; n o unmentionable mysteries take place; n o feast is served inside.

Josephus, we should remember, is responding t o the claim that Antiochus found in the temple a man reclining o n a couch before a table o n which a sumptuous banquet was laid (CA 2.91). In response, he asserts that no vessel (such as would be needed to convey the food and drink for such a banquet) was permitted t o be brought into the temple, which in fact contained only four items of furniture. In the list of these four items, turibulum must translate Ovltiutil~~ov. Both words normally mean 'censer', but the latter was used, not in the LXX but in other Jewish Greek writers, t o refer t o the altar of incense in the tabernacle and the temple (Josephus, BJ 5.216, 218; Ant. 3.147, 198; H e b 9:4; I'hilo, Mos. 2.94; Ker. Div. Her. 226). T h e altar (altare) must therefore be the altar of burnt-offering. Josephus refers to one object in the Court of the Priests (the altar of burnt-offering) and three objects in the holy place (the table of shewbread, the altar of incense, and the lampstand). All these are mentioned, as he says, in the account of the tabernacle in the Torah (Ex 25:23-40; 27:1-8; 30:l-lo)." It follows that templum in this passage does not, as Thackeray's note suggests, refer only to the temple building (the vucil;), which contained the holy place and the holy of holies, but includes the C o u r t of the Priests. It would be astonishing if Josephus thought there was another altar besides the altar of incense within the holy place. H e may never have entered it, but its contents were extremely well known, and he himself describes them accurately in BJ 5.216 (huxviuv t ~ u n ~ t c Oupia-ofi~iov). rv Since there d o not seem t o have been any items of furniture in the Court of the Israelites o r the Court of the Women (though the chambers and storerooms in these courts may well have conin error. M. Tam. 5:l says that on the Sabbath an additional benediction was said for the outgoing course of priests. This is because o n the Sabbath one of the twenty-four courses, which had officiated for the previous week, handed over to the next course. The statement does not tell us at what time after the morning burnt-offering the outgoing course handed over to the incoming course. " For the objects in the temple according to the Temple Scroll, which basically follows Exodus, see I.. 1 I. Schiffman, "fhe Furnishings of the Temple According to the Temple Scral1,'in J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner ed., The Madrtd Qumrnn Congress, vol. 2 (STDJ 11/2; 1,eiden: Brill / Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 1992) 621-634.

234

1 5 . Josephus' Atcount ofthe Tempkc In Contra Aptomem 2.102-109

tained some), ternplum probably refers to the whole of the properly sacred area, within the enclosure, excluding only the outer court (the so-called Court of the Gentiles). If we assume that Josephus was intending t o enumerate only large items of furniture, was he correct in stating that the temple contained only these four? The Torah, to which he refers for corrobation, in fact adds t w o others: the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies (Ex 2510-22), and the laver (or basin), which stood between the altar of burnt-offering and the holy place (Ex 30: 17-21). Since Josephus is writing for Gentiles w h o have not read the Torah, he need not here explain that there was no ark in the second temple, whose holy of holies was completely empty (BJ 5219). But the laver is problematic. Josephus, in his account of the tabernacle in the wilderness, describes the laver, following Exodus (Ant. 3.1 14), but makes n o mention of a laver in either of his accounts of Iicrod's temple (BJ 5.184-226; Ant. 15.391402). The Mishnah, however, places a laver in the temple, between the altar and the porch (m. Midd. 3:6),'5. e. in the sanle place as the Torah places it in the tabernacle. We might suppose the Mishnah's laver t o be entirely fictional, deriving from biblical precedent rather than historical memory, were it not for the information (given in m. Yom. 3:lO; m. Tam. 3 9 ) that Ben Katin made specific improvements to the laver, information that is hard to understand except as a historical memory. If the laver was used for the purpose which the Mishnah attributes to it - for washing of hands and feet before ascending the ramp to the altar of burnt-offering (m. Yom. 4:s; rn.Tam. 1:4; 2: 1; following Ex 30: 19-21) - then it must have been in the Court of the I'riests. Perhaps Josephus failed t o mention it in C A 2.106 because he thought of it as a fixture, rather than an item of movable furniture. According t o the Mishnah, there were other items of furniture in the temple t o which Josephus does not refer: two tables in the porch, one of marble and one of gold, o n which the shewbread was laid when it was being brought into and taker1 out of the holy place (m. Sheqal. 6:4; m. Men. 11:7); eight marble tables, on which the p ricsts flayed the sacrificial animals, placed in the shambles area in the Court of the Priests (m. Sheqal. 6:4; m. Tam. 3:s; m.Midd. 35); and two tables, one of marble and one of silver, near the altar of burnt-offering, used rcspcctively for parts of the offering and for vessels (m. Sheqal. 6:4). These tables may be partly based on biblical precedent (Ezek 40:39-43), and their historicity may be doubted. O n the other hand, Josephus himself refers to goldcn tables, only one of which could be the table of shewbread in the holy place, which were handed over t o the Ro-

"

?(>rherreferences to the laver arc in m. Yom. -1:s; m. Sukk. 4:lO; n ~Sot. . 2::2; n ~Tam. . 1 :4: 2: I .

mans during the siege of Jerusalem (BJ 5.388). It is possible that these were not in regular use, but brought out for special purposes at festivals. If Josephus' accuracy may therefore just about be saved thus far, the impression his words give that there were no vessels in the temple is misleading. There were, of course, a very large number of temple vessels (93 according t o m. Tam. 3:4), used for a variety of purposes connected with the sacrifices. They were famous (cf. P. Oxy. 840),13 and had been displayed in Rome at Titus's triumph (BJ 7.161). Josephus refers to them as huge and of solid gold (BJ 5.388; cf. also BJ 1.152; Ant. 14.72). There is no way he could have forgotten them when writing C A 2.106. Indeed, he mentions them a few sentences later (CA 2.108). His statement that no vessels were allowed to be carried into the temple must refer to vessels other than those that belonged to the temple. Such a rule is entirely intelligible, since the temple's own vessels were considered holy, like the temple itself (Zech S4:20-21), whereas other vessels might convey impurity. Presumably, materials for sacrifices such as flour and wine were placed in temple vessels either in the Court of the Gentiles o r even outside it. Josephus therefore combines two facts that vessels from outside the temple could not be taken into it, and that the four items he mentions were the only items of movable furniture inside the temple - to create a rather misleading impression. Large quantities of food and drink - meat, flour, bread, oil, wine - were constantly being taken into the temple, as materials for sacrifice and as the shewbread. From them a feast such as the story about Antiochus described could, with the exception of the fish, have been prepared in one of the many chambers built into the sides of the sanctuary building (BJ 5.220). In his anxiety to refute the ridiculous story, Josephus is somewhat economical with the truth. Reference to C A 2.106 has often been made in connexion with Mark's statement (unique to the Markan account of Jesus' demonstration in the temple) that Jesus prevented anyone from carrying an object o r vessel (on~Dos)through the temple (Mark 11:16). However, Josephus' concern cannot be that of Mark's Jesus. The latter is unlikely to have been especially concerned about an issue of temple purity, but in any case it is scarcely conceivable that he would have encountered people breaking the rule to which Josephus refers. Vessels other than the temple's own may have been brought into the so-called Court of the Gentiles, but Levite gatekeepers would have seen that they were taken no further. Jesus' action is more plausibly connected with his other actions aimed at the trade that the temple authorities were conducting in the outer court. T h e vessels may have contained flour,

''

See D.R. Schwartz, 'Viewing the t-loly Utensils (P.Ox. V,840),' NTS 32 (1986)

153-1 59.

236

15. Josephus' Account ofthe Temple in Contra Apionem 2.102-109

oil and wine which were being brought into the outer c o u n to be sold for sacrifices, at a profit to the temple.'4 3.5. The priestly courses Haec enim quae praedicta sunt habent totius populi testimonium manif~stationem~ue gestorum. Licet enim sint tribus quattuor sacerdotum et harum tribuum singulae habeant hominum plus quam quinque milia, fit tamen obseruatio particulariter per dies certos, et his transactis alii succedentes ad sacrificia ueniunt et congregati in templum mediante die a praecedentibus claues templi et ad numerum uasa pcrcipiunt, nulla re, quac ad cibum aut potum adtineat, in templum delata. Talia namque etiam ad altare offere prohibiturn est practer illa, quae ad sacrificia praeparantur (CA 2.107-108). The foregoing statements are attested by the whole people and evidenced by the procedures. For, although there are four tribes of priests and each of these tribes comprises more than five thousand men, nevertheless the duties are performed by each in turn for a fixed period of days. When some have completed their term, others, succeeding them, come to perforni the sacrifices, and, assembling in the teniple at midday, take over from their prcdccessors the keys of the temple and all the vessels, to their full number, and nothing in the nature of food or drink has been brought within the temple. For such things are not even permitted to he brought as offerings to the altar, with the exception of those which are prepared for the sacrifices.

Josephus' last remark here implicitly acknowledges the point we noticed earlier: that niany of t h e ingredients of t h e alleged feast were constantly being taken into the temple for use in the sacrifices. The final sentence does not mean that only certain kinds of food and drink (such as doves and wine) - those used in the sacrifices - were brought into the temple. Since a rather good feast could be prepared from those that were, this point would not be worth making. Rather it means that those animals and other comestibles which were brought into the temple had all been specially prepared to meet the requirements of the sacrificial system. The requirement that sacrificial animals be unblemished, for example, was interpreted so stringently that animals were reared and sold under the auspices of temple officials, in order t o ensure that only animals certified as fit for sacrifice were purchased and offered by the public (cf. m. Sheqal. 5:l; L,am. R. 2:2:4).15 The flour, oil and wine which accompanied most animal sacrifices were supplied by and purchased from the temple authorities (m. Sheqal. 5:4-5), who presumably took care to ensure their freedom from impurity (cf, m. Men. 8:2, 7). The temple had its own bakery in the buildings around the inner court (m. Tam. 1:3), where the high priest's offering of cakes was made every morning, as were presumably the cakes and wafers regularly offered by individual " See R. Bauckhani, 'Jesus' Demonstration in the Temple,' in B. Lindars ed., LAW and Relrgzon (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988) 78. I 5 ?'he specific evidence available is for birds rather than other animals.

3. Contra Apionem 2.102-109

237

worshippers in the 'peace offering' (Lev 7: 12-14) and the loaves offered by the priests at Pentecost (Lev 23:17; cf. t. Sheqal. 2:14,177). The preparation of the shewbread, which Josephus omits to mention was the one category of foodstuff brought into the temple that was not strictly a sacrifice, seems t o have been the hereditary privilege of the priestly family of Garmu (m. Sheqal. 5 1 ; m. Yom. 3: 11; cf. m. Midd. 1:6). Though some of the evidence of the Mishnah and rabbinic literature o n such points might be doubted, the cumulative evidence of a variety of detailed points, such as the remembered names of temple officials responsible for aspects of the supply, inspection and sale of materials for s a c r i f i c ~ , ' ~ amounts t o a good case for the widely accepted view that the temple authorities had a monopoly in the provision of animals and other materials for sacrifice." Josephus, C A 2.108, though I have never seen it cited in this connexion, provides valuable confirmation of this state of affairs. In the context of his apologetic argument, Josephus means that people could not bring their own animals o r other food o r drink into the temple - even t o offer at the altar. The only sacrificial offerings which could be brought were those prepared for the purpose. In other words, nothing escaped the close supervision of the thousands of priests who were in constant control of everything that went on in the temple. Of course, a suspicious Gentile reader inclined to believe Apion's slanderous story might think these priests perfectly capable of using such sacrificial materials t o fatten up a Greek for human sacrifice. But Josephus's point is that, since the several tribes of priests served in the temple in rotation, each serving for only a matter of days before handing over t o the next, all the many thousands of priests would have t o know what was going on. In effect, the matter would be public knowledge. This brings us to the problematic part of the passage: the statement that there are four tribes of priests, each comprising more than five thousand people. There are very good reasons for supposing that the number four must be a scribal error for twenty-four, and that the statement refers to the twenty-four priestly courses, t o which we have already referred in our discussion of Josephus' own membership of the course of Jehoiarib. A little more information about the way the courses operated will help t o make this clear. There is abundant evidence that the system continued in operation at least from the time of the composition of 1 Chron 24:7-18,

'

Sanders, Judilrsrn, 85-89, ignores such evidence. Against Sanders, Jtrdatsm, 88-89, it is not likely that people bought animals (other than birds) from private dealers outside the walls of Jerusalem and simply had them inspected for fitness by priests when they brought them into the temple. People would want to know, before purchasing an animal, that it met the stringent requirements for sacrifice. "

238

15. Josephus' Account of the Temple in Contra Apionem 2.102-109

whether that be the late Persian'' o r the Maccabean p ~ r i o d , until ' ~ 70 CE, and that in fact not only the memory, but the careful preservation of the twenty-four courses continued long after 70 ct.ZC T h e Q u m r a n Mishmarot contribute important texts (4Q319,4Q320,4Q321,4Q323,4(2324,4Q325) 1 Q M 2:2 refers t o twenty-six priestly courses,22 new e ~ i d e n c e . ~Whereas ' a number which is readily intelligible as neatly fitting the community's 52week solar year:' the Mishmarot texts show that, at least for part of its history, the community recognized the same rotation of twenty-four courses as operated in the temple.2The texts use it for calendrical purposes, especially in elaborate correlations between the community's solar calendar and the lunisolar calendar in use in the temple. Since the courses serve, a week at a time, in strict and continuous rotation, they provide a sequence which is apparently neutral between the two calendars. The day which is called the first of a course's period of service is always a Sunday, and its seventh and final day is always a Sabbath. But the texts also date the 'arrival' of a course on the Sabbath before its first day (44323, 324). This confirms the evidence of both Josephus (Ant. 7.365) and the Mishnah (m. Sukk. 5:8; m. Tam. 5:l) that the outgoing course handed over t o the inconling course o n the Sabbath, the former offering the Sabbath morning incense-offering and burnt-offering, the latter offering the Sabbath afternoon burnt-offering and incense-offering. CA 2.108 can very naturally be read as describing the ceremony o n the Sabbath when the outgoing course handed over t o the incoming course. Josephus puts it at midday, the same time as he has already told us one shift

'9 I-1. 0 G. M. Williamson, "The origins of the twenty-four pr~estlycourses: a study of 1 Chrorlicles xxiii-xxvii,' in J. A. Emerton ed., Studies rn the Hzstoncal Books oftha Old fistament (VTSup 30; 1,eiden: Brill, 1979) 251-268. " So, rnost recently, J. Dequeker, '1 Chronicles xxiv and the Royal Priesthood of the I-Iasmoneans,' Oudtestamentrsche Studzen 24 (1 986) 94-1 06. Cf., e.g., M. Stern, 'Aspects of Jewish Society: 'The Priesthood and O t h e r Classes,' in S. Safrai arid M. Stern ed., The J~ulzshPeople zn the, Ftrst Centrtry, vol. 2 ( C R I N T 1/2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976) 587-595. " O n these texts, see M.O. Wise, Thunder rn Gemtmr USPSS 15; Sheffield: J S O T Press, 1994) 222-232; C. Martone, 'Un calendrario provenicnte da Q u m r a n recentemente pubblicato,' Henoch 16 (1994) 49-76; S. 'Talmon and I. Knohl, 'A Calendrical Scroll from a Q u m r a n Cave: Mzimarot B", 4Q321,' in D. P. Wright, L). N. 1-reedman and A. I Iirvitz ed., Pomegranttes and Golderr Bells U. Milgrom FS; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 267-30 1. 2L So also 44471: see E. and If. Eshel, '4Q471 Fragment 1 and Ma'amadot in the War Scroll,' in Trcbolle Barrera and Vegas Montarler ed., The Madrzd Qumratr Congress, vol. 2 , 6 11-620. P. Winter, 'Twenty-six Priestly Courses,' VT 6 (1956) 215-2 17. Against the view that the Q u m r a n community expressed their opposition t o the kiasn~oneansby demoting the course of Jehoiarib from first place, see D. R. Schwartz, ' O n Two Aspects of a Priestly View of 1)escent at Qumran,' in L. H. Schiffman ed., Archaeology and Hzstory zn the Dead Sca Scrolls USPSS 8; Sheffield; J S O T Press, 1990) 168-169.

" "

of priests handed over t o the next every day (CA 2.105). O n the Sabbath, we should assume, this change of shifts (within one priestly course) was replaced by the change of courses. T h e keys of the teniple court (cf. m. Tam. 1:l; m. Midd. 1:8-9), together with custody of the fabulously precious vessels used in the teniple, were transferred from the heads of one course and its constituent clans to those of the next course. Probably we should imagine all the priests of each course assembling for this ceremony, as one course arrived in the temple and the other prepared t o leave. For the rest of the week each clan in the course would then take its turn t o serve. If, in CA 2.108, Josephus intends t o say that each of the tribus of priests serves for a specified period of days, and that on the day when the period of service of one ends, it assembles in the temple at midday t o hand over t o the next, then his tribus must be the twenty-four courses. In this case we have to conclude that a textual error has reduced twenty-four tribus t o four. There is n o difficulty in postulating such an error.25 If we were t o apply what Josephus says about the rotation of the priests t o four large units, each comprising six of the course, then it seems we should have t o make the highly improbable assumption that all the priests of six courses stayed in Jerusalem for the six weeks in which each of their courses served in the temple for one week and, at the end of the six weeks, all assembled in the temple t o hand over to the priests of the incoming six courses. which Although tribus is not likely to be a translation of ~~:(VI)~IE.Q~CI, Josephus uses, rather inappropriately, but apparently following standard f o r the priestly courses in V 2, it could usage (cf. Luke 1:5, 8: Cqnjp~~ia), easily translate ncxrgicx, which designates the priestly courses in Ant. 7.364, ~ the h j clans within a course: BJ 4.155; V 2.) 366. (Josephus reserves y ~ ~for However, CA 2.108 is by n o means clear. Josephus need not mean that each of the (four) tribus serves in turn f o r a fixed period. H e could mean that a unit smaller than a tribus serves for a fixed period and then hands over t o another such unit.2h In that case, the number four could be original, and the tribus would be divisions much larger than the courses. T h e originality of the number four in C A 2.108 has been defended2' by appeal t o the fact that, according t o Ezra 2:36-39 = Neh 7:39-42 (cf. Ezra 1O:I 8-22), four priestly families returned from exile: Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur and Harim. A rabbinic tradition (y. Ta'an. 68a; t. Ta'an. 2:1,216) relates that the twenty-four priestly courses, which, of course, it regards as originally of Davidic origin, were reconstituted after the exile by dividing up the four families into twenty-four. This tradition has no historical value. It is merely 25 Nunibers in the I.atin version of <:A not infrequently differ from those in the Greek text, where the latter is extant. J . C . O'Neill suggested this interprctation to me. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 204-205; Stern, 'Aspects,' 588-589.

"

240

/I. Josc~phus'Account of the Temple in Contra Apionem 2.102-109

an attempt t o explain how the twenty-four courses could exist in Second Temple times, even though only four priestly families returned from exile. It ignores other possibilities: that other priestly families returned from exile at later dates (cf. Ezra 8:2-3), and that priestly families who did not go into exile were incorporated into the division into twenty-four courses.28 But even if the twenty-four courses were originally subdivisions of larger family groups, there is no evidence that these larger groups persisted as units into which the priests were divided in Josephus' time. Josephus' statement about the tribus only makes sense if they were a generally recognized way of dividing the priesthood into divisions of notionally equal size. In the absence of any other evidence that four such divisions were known, it is probably easier t o suppose that the number four is corrupt and that Josephus referred t o no divisions other than the twenty-four courses. In that case, we cannot follow J e r e m i a ~and ~ ~Sanders30 in accepting the figure of 20,000 (4 x 5,000) as an accurate estimate of the total number of priests. Assuming that the number 5,000 is not itself corrupt, Josephus will have originally referred to a total number of over 120,000 priests (24 x 5,000). Since Josephus is speaking specifically of priests serving in the temple by rotation, it is unlikely that he intends his figure to include women and children. N o r is he likely to be including the corresponding courses of I,evite~.~' It is true that the Levites were also organized into twenty-four courses, each serving for a week (Ant. 7.267), and it seems that each of these served alongside one of the priestly courses (cf. m. Ta'an. 4:2). But Josephus, a priest himself, is unlikely t o have called Levites priests. Moreover, the whole point of his argument is t o refer t o those who entered the inner parts of the temple, where Apion's story alleged that a Greek was imprisoned. Levites, who were not allowed beyond the Court of the Israelites, would not be relevant to the argument. So we must accept (assuming 5,000 is not a textual error) that Josephus intended to say that there were more than 120,000 priests. The figure is too large t o be credible. Josephus was certainly capable of exaggerating numbers. An example, near at hand and also with reference t o the temple, occurs in his refutation of the next anti-Jewish story he cites from Apion. The story concerns an Idumean who is alleged to have got into the holy of holies and stolen the golden head of an ass supposed t o be kept there. Josephus responds that he lX The evidence for priestly divisions in the post-exilic period before 1 Chron 24 is complex (see Ezra 10:18-22; Neh 10:3-9; 12: 1-7, 12-2 1). Clearly the situation changed a number of times. Jeremias,Jtprrtsaletn, 205. '~anJers,Judr?ism,78. 'I Against E. Schiirer, Ti?e ifistory ofthe Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C. - A. D. f35),vol. 2, revised by C;. Vernies, 1;. Millar, M. Black (Edinburgh: T. & T Clarke, 1979) 247.

3. Contra Apionem 2.102-109

24 1

could not, by himself, have opened the gates of the sanctuary (TOOvaoij) which were 60 cubits high and 20 wide, and which took 200 men to close them every day (CA 2.1 19). He has usually been thought to be referring to the gates of the inner court32- either to the eastern gate alone or to all ten gates. According to BJ 5.202, these were all the same size: each door (of the pair of doors in each gateway) was 30 cubits high and 15 wide. Josephus also says that it took 20 men to close the eastern gate, which, being of bronze, he implies was heavier than the other nine (BJ 6.293). The sugge~tion'~ that in CA 2.1 19Josephus envisages ten bands of twenty men, each closing one of the ten gates of the inner court, is implausible, not only because the eastern gate was probably much heavier than the rest, but because the Idumean in the story did not have to open all ten gates at once, but just one. All that was relevant was how many men it took to open the one gate he would need to open to get into the sanctuary. But if Josephus in CA 2.1 19 was referring to one of the gates (pair of doors) to the inner court, he not only exaggerated its size and vastly exaggerated the number of men needed to open it, he also misdescribed it. He says that these doors were wholly overlaid with gold (CA 2.1 19), whereas the eastern gate of the inner court was Corinthian bronze, and the other nine gates were overlaid with gold and silver (BJ 5.201). In fact, in CA 2.1 19 he must be describing, not a gate into the inner court, but the gate that led from the porch of the sanctuary building into the holy place. It was the doors of this gate which were most appropriately described as tog vaoii ai Oiqai (CA 2.1 19), and it was through these doors that the Idumean had to pass to reach the holy of holies. In the WarJosephus describes them as golden (just as the whole entrance porch was golden), and as 55 cubits high and 16 broad (BJ 5.211). But the room into which they opened (the holy place) was 60 cubits high and 20 wide (BJ 5.215). It is probably these latter figures which Josephus reproduces in CA 2.1 19. H e may not be intentionally exaggerating: the precise figures for the doors had not stayed in his mind, but the much better-known size of the sanctuary building itself was firmly fixed in his mind. In that case, we must ask: did it take 200 priests (for they would have to have been priests) to open the doors of the sanctuary? Assuming each of the two doors was 16 cubits wide, the total width, along which people pushing the doors could stand, was 48 feet. It is hard to see how 200 men could have been used, unless ropes were needed. The figure must be an exaggeration, though the Mishnah's view that a single priest opened these doors (m. Tam. 3:7; m. Midd. 4:2) is also hardly credible. Perhaps, as Josephus claims for the eastern gate, twenty men were 32 So H.St.J.'fhackeray,Josephus, vol. 1 (LCL;Cambridge, Mass.: Hanard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1966) 340, notes a, c; Sanders,Judaism, 60. 33 Thackeray,J o s e p h ~vol. , 1,340-343, note c.

242

15. Josephus' Account ofthe 'Temple in Contru Apronem 2.102-109

required, and Josephus has multiplied by ten. Writing perhaps thirty years after the destruction of the temple, perhaps his memory failed him, but it suited his apologetic purpose to exaggerate. This parallel case shows that we should probably not try t o save the accuracy of Josephus' figure of over 5,000 priests in each of the courses. O n the basis of information in the Mishnah, Jeremias calculated that each morning ceremony (incense-offering and burnt-offering) required 27 priests, each evening ceremony (burnt-offering and incense-offering) 29, and that 28 more were needed for additional duties o n the sabbath.'" N o t all the details in the Mishnah may be historical, but in general these figures are credible. But priests for these duties were chosen by lot. T h e figures d o not really help us to tell how many were in the clan (the subdivision of a course) which supplied the priests o n duty o n any one day, especially as we d o not know whether priests worked a twenty-four hour shift o r a twelve-hour one (see above). Courses and clans, being hereditary, must in any case have varied in size. Even if the twenty-four courses were roughly equal in numbers when first constituted, they could have become widely divergent in size by the first century CE. An average of 500 in a course would be a reasonable guess, and would mean that Josephus has again multiplied by ten. But there is one text which may give us better information on this point than Josephus. Pseudo-Aristeas, whose account of the temple looks as though it is based o n eyewitness observation, says that niore than seven hundred ministers ( i i e ~ ~ o u ~ y were i i , ~ ) present (ntr~civ~rc~v), and also a large number offering (x~oouy6vrtvv)the sacrifices (EpArist 95). Jeremias thought that the figure of more than 700 refers t o all tile priests and Levites of the weekly course, while the large number (he estimates 50) bringing sacrifices are the priests of the clan actually o n duty that day and carrying out the sacrifice^.'^ Sanders criticizes this view, claiming that the 700 must be the priests actually on duty and sacrificing in the Court of the Priests. H e rightly concludes that the figure is in that case far too large, and dismisses Pseudo-Aristeas'evidence as worthless." However, tliere is more t o be said for Jeremias' view than he allows. Since Pseudo-Aristeas says that the high priest was officiating (EpArist 96), he must intend to describe the scene on, if not a feast day, at least a sabbath (cf. UJ 5.23 1). O n a sabbath, as we have seen, the whole of the outgoing priestly course would assemble, in order to hand over custody of the temple t o the incoming course. So Jeremias' view is plausible, except that the number probably does not include Levites (cf. EpArist 92). Of course, 700 sounds like a conventional figure. We might suppose that Pseudo-

" Jeremias, JcrttsLtlcrn,201 -202. '' Jeremias,Jc,rusa~cm,200. '"mrrders,

J ~ t d a ~ >78-79. m,

Aristeas was told both that a whole priestly course was present and that 700 was the number in a course. 700 would be the ideal figure, but would presurnably also bear some relation t o reality. At any rate, 16,800 (700 x 24) is a niore plausible cstirnate of the total number of priests than 120,000. Finally, we should notice that whereas Josephus began this whole passage by describing the teniple in the past tcnse, he has moved by the end into the present tense. This might be an unremarkable use of the historic present, if it were not for tlic fact that it fits a pattern seen elsewhere in CA. When describing the temple building, Josephus spoke of it, very naturally, in the past tcnse (CA 2.102-104), just as he does also in C A 2.1 19. It is when describing the ministry of the priests in the temple that he moves into the present tcnse. Similarly, in C A 2.76-77, Josephus remarkably describes the daily offering of sacrifices in the temple o n behalf of the Ernperor in the present tense, while in 2.193 he again speaks of the continuous ministry of the priests in the teniple in the present tcnse. T h e present is timeless rather than historic. It means that Josephus, even when he wrote CA, could not envisage Judaisni without the ministry of the priests in the temple at its heart. 0 1 1 this another study could be written."

" This chapter originated as a paper read to the Studiorum Novi 'kstamenti Soc~ctas seminar o n 'tarly Jcwi\li Writings and the N e w Xstanient' at the SNTS Conference in Edinburgh, August 1994. I an1 grateful to Pieter W. van der IIor\t and Jail Willen \an Henten, co-chair\ o f tlie seniinar, tor iri~itingme to glve the paper, to the nienihers ot tlie seminar wlio niade valuable comments, aid especially to John C)'Ncill for hic detailed and perceptive response,

16. Life, Death, and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism' H o p e for eternal life beyond death was a remarkable development in Israelite/Jewisli faith in the Second Temple period. At the beginning of that period, in the late sixth century BCE,there may not have been any such belief at all. At most only a small number of Jews are likely t o have held such a belief at that time. At that time and for several centuries afterwards most Jews retained the old Israelite idea that the dead exist as shades in the underworld (Sheol). Sheol is a kind of mythical version of the tomb, a place of darkness and silence, from which noone returns. This idea of the shades in Sheol is not belief in the survival of the spirit, the spiritual o r mental part of a human being which goes on living when the body dies, as much Greek thought after Plato believed. T h e shades are not irnmaterial beings, but shadowy, ghostly versions of the living, bodily person, and they can hardly be said t o live. They are the dead, in a silent, dark, joyless - indeed, deathly - existence, cut off from C o d , the source of all life. It is this view, not peculiar to Israel but comnion t o many ancient peoples, that rnost of the Hebrew Scriptures take for granted. There is one O l d Testament text, Ilaniel 12:2-3 (cf. 13) which quite certainly refers to a desirable immortality for the righteous and t o judgment after death for the wicked. This occurs in what is probably the latest book of the O l d Testament (mid-second century BCE).A few scholars hold that it is the only reference to life after death in the Hebrew Scriptures. Many scholars see a hope for eternal life also in Isaiah 26:19 (cf. 25:7-8) and in some passages in the Psalms (especially 49:15; 73:24) - texts which cannot be dated with any degree of certainty. O t h e r possible references to life beyond d e a t h i r i t h e Old Tcstamcrit a r c highly d c b a t a b l c . So the evidence for such belief is very little within the O l d Testament. But in the post-biblical period that belief in life after death which only a very few O l d Testament texts suggest carne t o be the general belief of Judaism. Ben Sira, writing at the beginning of the second century BCE,is probably the last Jewish writer of the Second Temple period of whom it can be con* First Publication: R~cliard1.origenccker ed., I . f i JN the F ~ C ofDeath: P The Resumctton Message ofthe N e w Testarnt*nt(<;rind Rapids: Eerdnians, 1998) 80-95.

246

16. 1 rfc, Dearh, ~

n the d Afterlrfe

rn Second f i t n p k ~ ] u d ~ z r s t n

fidently stated that he did not expect eternal life and judgment after death. (There are later writings which contain no reference t o such a belief, but they cannot be shown t o exclude it.) From the evidence of the literature of the period it would seem that by the end of the Second Temple period (late first century c t ) the vast majority of Jews believed in a desirable immortality for the righteous and in punishment after death for the wicked. T h e one identifiable Jewish group w h o did not were the Sadducees. They were a small group of aristocratic families in Jerusalem w h o wielded much power but had little influence over the beliefs of other Jews. Since they have left us n o writings, it is not clear why they stood out against the dominant trend, but it is generally thought that they were theologically very conservative and continued to reject belief in resurrection because they could not find it in the Torah. (There may also be relevance in the observation that wealthy and privileged people, w h o have their reward now, have less reason than others for hope beyond death.) Because both the Jewish historian Josephus and the New Testament writer 1-uke (in Acts 23:8) distinguish between the Sadducees who did not believe in resurrection and the Pharisees w h o did, it has often been thought that resurrection was a distinctively Pharisaic belief. But this is a misunderstanding. Belief in resurrection distinguished Pharisees from Sadducees, but it did not distinguish Pharisees from most other Jews. N o doubt there were some other Jews besides the Sadducees w h o were sceptical about rewards and punislinients in the afterlife. Sonic would have been influenced by the popular Epicurean philosophy which promoted such scepticism in the Mediterranean world generally. We have, of course, very little nieans of access t o the beliefs of ordinary people, since even tornb inscriptions generally use conventional phrases which indicate little about beliefs. Moreover, we should remember that most of the Jewish literature we have from the period was preserved by Christians for religious use. They were unlikely t o preserve literature denying life after death. Yet the literature we have rarely seems t o be asserting o r arguing belief in life after death against disbelief o r denial. The impression we get is that by the first century c~ belief in eternal life and judgment after death was fairly general in Judaism.

Circtirnstancts of origin Thus belief in eternal life and judgment after death was a late development in Israelite religion, appearing only in a few texts within the Hebrew Bible, but became general and dominant in Jewish belief in the later part of the Second Temple period. H o w did this happen? There are t w o ways of answering such a question. O n e approach is t o enquire into the specific historical circumstances in which belief in life

Continuity with Old Testtzmmt faith

247

after death originated and gained widespread acceptance. T h e middle of the second century BCE has often been pinpointed as the period of origin. This period, the Maccabean period, was a time of severe crisis for Jewish religion. It was the period when the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes, with some Jewish support, attempted t o paganize Jewish religion, and many Jews fought and died for the sake of faithfulness t o God's law. In this situation the old problem of the flourishing of the wicked and the sufferings of the righteous arose with special force. Martyrs died without seeing any reward for their sacrifice, while pagan persecutors and Jewish apostates seemed to triumph. Even if, as faithful Jews hoped, God were t o intervene t o overthrow his enemies and establish the kingdom of his holy ones, what of the martyrs for whom this would come t o o late? Surely they should participate in the future glory of God's people? In these circumstances the expectation that G o d would raise the dead, reward the righteous and punish the wicked spoke with great relevance t o the specific situation. It is not surprising that it appears in the apocalypses written in this period (Dan 12:2-3,13; 1 Enoch 90:33), as well as in the rather later account of the Maccabean martyrs found in 2 Maccabees (7:9, ll,22-23,28-29; cf. 12:43-45; 14:36). ffowever, it is unlikely that this was actually the historical point of origin for the belief in rewards and punishments after death. Isaiah 26:19, which very probably speaks of resurrection, is almost ccrtainly older, as is 1 Enoch 22, which portrays the dead in Sheol waiting for their resurrection at the day of judgment. It seems that we are in fact too ill-informed by our sources t o be able to know when and in what circumstances Jews began to believe in judgment after death and eternal life. 'The most we can say is that the circumstances of the Maccabean period may well have been important for the spread of a belief which already existed but was not widely held until this time. O u r ignorance in this matter is not of crucial importance. Even if we knew the circumstances in which belief in life after death originated in the Israelite/Jewish tradition, we should not really have accounted for the importance this belief acquired. T h e circumstances of its origin could not explain why it became and remained general Jewish belief long after these particular circurnstanccs had passed.

Continuity with Old Testament faith A more profitable way of understanding how belief in life after death became general in Judaism is t o enquire whether this belief is an intelligible development of the faith contained in the Hebrew Scriptures. Even though it is rarely expressed in them, could it nevertheless be seen as an appropri-

248

16. Llfc,, Denth, and the Afterlye

in

Second Temple Jrtdnlsnr

ate o r even necessary consequence of belief in the G o d revealed in those scriptures? Was this belief in continuity with central elements in Israel's tradition of faith? The most important point t o make is that hope for resurrection is in strong continuity with the O l d Testament's portrayal of God. Essential t o this is God's sovereignty over Iife. All life comes from him. H e gives it and takes it away. The conviction that God is the source of Iife and the sovereign power over life several times takes the form of the claim that God 'kills and makes alive' (Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6; 2 Kings 5 7 ; cf. Tobit 13:2; Wisdom 16:13): Y H W H kills and makcs alive; hc brings down to Sheol and raises up ( I Sam 2:6).

These biblical texts are echoed in the post-biblical texts which see G o d as 'the G o d w h o makes the dead live' (Joseph and Aseneth 20:7; cf. PseudoPhilo, Biblical Antiquities 3:lO). Deuteronomy 32:39 is quoted in 4 Maccabees 18:19, where it forms the climax of a rehearsal of scriptural bases for expecting G o d t o give the martyrs eternal life. These biblical texts in their O l d Testament contexts hardly refer t o the resurrection of the dead. They mean that G o d is the living G o d of unlimited power, who can save his people out of the most serious threats t o life, since lifc is his gift which he alone grants and withdraws. H e gives life t o the living and rescues the living from dying. T h e question of new life for those w h o have died had not yet arisen when these texts were written. However, it is clear that if it were t o arise then the G o d of whom these texts speak has power t o raise the dead. T h e texts had potential meaning which later Jewish writers quite legitimately realised. T h e thought of G o d as source of life and sovereign over life is not, of course, unconnected with the thought of G o d as Creator. The stories of the martyrs in 2 Maccabees are in this respect very illuminating. T h e martyrs are confident that G o d will raise them t o new lifc after death, and they base this faith o n a thoroughly biblical understanding of G o d as 'the Creator of the world w h o shaped the beginning of humankind and devised the origin of all things' (7: 11 NRSV) and as 'the Lord of life and spirit' (14:46). T h e G o d w h o gave body and life in creation can be trusted t o give them back, in new creation, t o those w h o have given them up through faithfulness to his law t o the point of death (7:11,22-23; 14:46). T h e hope of resurrection did not (as has sometimes been thought) originate only in connexion with the martyrs. But the martyrs are paradigmatic. They arc those w h o s o trust G o d with their lives that they can give them u p for him in the hope of receiving them back from him. This hope for resurrection is a radical version of the O l d Testament faith, found especially in the Psalms, that G o d will deliver from premature death

Contznuzty wzth

Old Testament fatth

249

those who are faithful to him and trust in him. In the Psalms death frequently appears as a power which threatens the psalmists. Premature death - from illness o r from the attacks of enemies - is perceived as an evil from which G o d can be trusted t o deliver his people. Usually the expectation is that God will save the psalmists from dying prematurely, but occasionally the psalmists seem t o take the further step of hoping for final deliverance from death. Two of them hope that G o d 'will receive' them (Ps 49:15; 73:24), language which probably echoes the stories of Enoch and Elijah (Gen 5:24; 2 Kings 2:3). It is noteworthy that both of these psalms (49 and 73) are preoccupied with the problem of the prosperity of the wicked. The psalmists discover hope in the reflection that the fate of those who trust in God must be different from that of those who trust in riches. God's justice and God's love are at stake in this. The breakthrough in these psalms is to faith that even death cannot frustrate God's justice and God's love. If necessary God's justice and God's love must triumph even beyond death. What is new here is not these psalmists' faith that the righteous G o d will vindicate the righteous against their oppressors o r their faith that the loving G o d will not abandon his people to death. These are fundamental aspects of O l d Testament faith, but in these psalms they give rise to faith in life with G o d even beyond death. The same Old Tesrament faith is taken to a newly radical conclusion. Radical trust in God's justice and faithful love is what gives these psalmists their death-transcending hope. The same trust is implicit in the one undisputed reference to resurrection in the Hebrew Bible (Dan 12:2-3) and it continues through the post-biblical Jewish writers. The Old Testament God - the Creator, the Source of life, the Lord of life - undoubtedly could raise the dead. That he would d o so became clear once death was perceived as contradicting God's righteousness and God's love. The Old Testament God could be trusted to vindicate the righteous and to be faithful in his love for his own. If these purposes could be fully attained only beyond death, then he could be trusted to raise the dead. In this way it was precisely faith in the Old Testament God which led t o the hope of resurrection as a virtually necessary implication. It cannot be over-emphasized that when Jews came to believe in life after death the ground for their belief was God. They did not conclude, as philosophers in the ancient Greek tradition did, that human nature is such that part of it, the real human person, is naturally immortal. It was not from reflection on what human nature is that Jews came t o hope for eternal life, but from reflection on who God is: the sovereign Creator, the righteous Judge, the faithful Father of his people.

250

16. L-+, Death, and the Afierlfe in Second Temple /crcl
Biblical features of post-biblical belief We have seen that, although belief in life dfter death was largely a development of the period after the composition of most o f the Hebrew scriptures, it was a development of the faith in God which is expressed in those scriptures. This continuity with O l d Testament theology also accounts for significant features of life after death as it was understood in Second Temple Judaism. It is these features which largely account for the distinctiveness of Jewish belief in Iife beyond death, as compared with the beliefs of other ancient cultural traditions such as the Greek tradition. In the first place, we should note that this Jewish tradition takes death itself very seriously. There is hope for life after death not because death is mere appearance o r does not affect the real core of the person, but because God can and will raise the dead. Death is an evil which, when all the dead have been brought back from it, will itself be destroyed by God (Isa 257-8; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 3:lO; 4 Ezra 853). Secondly, for the most part the Jewish tradition of belief in life after death maintains the holistic view of the human person which is found in the Hebrew scriptures. In the Greek (Platonic) tradition human beings consist of a physical and therefore riiortal part (the body) and an immaterial and therefore immortal part (the spirit o r the mind). At death the body dies, but the spirit is freed t o live an immaterial existence for ever. In the Jewish tradition, o n the other hand, human beings are a psychosomatic whole. Their bodiliness is intrinsic to their created nature. This does not niean that nothing survives death. O n the contrary, as we have seen, in the old Israelite tradition the shades of the dead are in Sheol. But this existence in death is not the eternal Iife beyond death for which later Judaism hopes. That can only be conceived as fully embodied life. The way in which the holistic view of the human person was maintained in Judaism varied. The older view simply thought of the dead returning to life. This could be pictured as the shades in Sheol being raised by G o d from the underworld to new life. As they had passed from bodily life to shadowy existence in death, so they will be brought back from that shadowy existence to bodily life. Or, alternatively, the return of the dead to life could be pictured as the rising of the corpses of the dead from their graves. These are alternative pictures, both reflecting a unitary view of the human person, which in its full bodily reality dies and is raised. A later view, which by the later Second Temple period was overtaking the older, thought more dualistically of soul and body. At death these are separated: the soul o r spirit goes to Sheol o r 'the chambers of the souls,' while the body is laid in the tonib. At the resurrection soul and body are reunited. This view is closer to the Greek one, but decisively different, in

Biblical features of post-biblical belief

25 1

that the souls in Sheol are the souls of the dead, who return to life only when soul and body are reunited. Both components of human nature die. Eternal life requires both together to live again. (The words 'soul' and 'spirit' [of the dead] are therefore somewhat ambiguous in the Jewish literature of this period. In some texts they refer to the shades of the dead, in accordance with the old non-dualistic view [e.g. 1 Enoch 22:3-101. In others they refer to that part of the person which is separated from the body at death and reunited with the body in resurrection [e-g. 1 Enoch 102:4].) The third feature of Jewish belief in life after death which reflects its continuity with the faith of the Hebrew scriptures is the concern with God's righteousness and judgment. That G o d governs the world in righteousness, delivers and vindicates those who suffer injustice, and judges those who act unjustly, is a pervasive theme in the Old Testament. The tensions that occur in faith in this God when the righteous suffer unjustly, while their oppressors prosper and God does not appear to intervene, are recurrent in the Old Testament. Just as Jewish eschatology believed that, for God to be God, his righteousness must finally prevail on the stage of world history, so it also held that individuals must face God's judgment after death. The righteousness that is not apparent in this life will come to light after this life. This is why Jewish eschatology (already in Dan 12:2) expects a dual destiny after death: vindication for the righteous and condemnation for the wicked. It is why the expectation of resurrection so commonly appears in a context of judicial language about the final judgment and the perfected righteousness of God. Fourthly, individual eschatology is not divorced from corporate eschatology. The fate of the individual after death is placed within the context of the final future of God's people in the world. This is a consequence of the way Jewish eschatology developed. It was first and foremost a hope for God's action, in salvation and judgment, in the world, for the coming of his kingdom over Israel and the nations. When hope for the future of individuals entered the picture, it was hope that they would rise t o share in the fulfilment of God's promises for the redemption and restoration of Israel. Thus hope for life after death is not purely individualistic in the Jewish tradition. Certainly God values the individual - so much that he will not let the one he loves perish in death. But the individual belongs to a people, and finds his o r her future in the future of that people and of the world. God's final purpose for individuals, for Israel and for the world is one, and is envisaged coming about in one eschatological event ( o r conlplex of events). A result of the inseparability of individual and corporate eschatology is that individuals d o not enter o n their final destiny immediately at death, but must wait for the general resurrection and the last judgment at the end of history. Sheol now becomes an intermediate state in which the dead

252

16. Life, Death, and the Afterlife in Second Temple Judaism

await their future. From an early date (cf. 1 Enoch 22) Sheol is envisaged as having distinct compartments for the righteous who await vindication and glory at the last day and for the wicked who await condemnation. Both categories of the dead already know what awaits them at the last judgment, and so, although the righteous are not yet rewarded and the wicked are not yet punished, the former d o already delight and the latter d o already suffer in anticipation of their respective destinies (4 Ezra 7:75-101). This seems to have been the most common view of the intermediate state in the Second Temple period. The view that the righteous already enjoy the delights of paradise and the wicked already suffer the torments of hell in the intermediate state before the resurrection at the end can also be found in the late Second Temple period and was to become dominant after that period. (This development is probably an example of the influence of non-Jewish religious traditions, of which we shall have more to say in the next section. Such traditions always portrayed the souls of the dead attaining their postmortem destiny immediately at death.)

Exceptions The features listed in the last section characterize most Jewish belief in the afterlife in the later Second Temple period. However, such beliefs were not uniform, and o n occasions took forms which lack one o r more of these features. In most cases this was due to influence from non-Jewish, especially Greek, traditions of belief about the afterlife. Jewish life and culture in this period was far from isolated from the increasingly international culture of the Mediterranean world. Faithfulness to the G o d of Israel and his law did not prevent Jews from appropriating elements of other cultural traditions which did not violate their central beliefs. These cultural traditions included both sophisticated philosophical thought and rich mythological imagery related t o the afterlife. That Jewish beliefs about the afterlife were, in varying degrees and in different ways, influenced by these is natural. Some of the cases where such influence led t o expressions of Jewish belief which depart from the features listed in the last section can be mentioned here. Two Jewish works of the late Second Temple period which borrow hellenistic philosophical ideas and language quite freely are 4 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Solomon. Both sound Greek in the way they speak of the righteous as not dying but only seeming to die (Wisdom 3:1-4; 4 Maccabees 7:18-19; 16:25). However, even in these works the Greek idea of spiritual immortality is qualified by Jewish elements. Although, according to 4 Maccabees the martyrs become immortal at death, this immortality is given t o them, not an inherent quality of the soul. The Wisdom of

Images of Afterlife

253

Solomon even continues to place the future of the righteous in the context of collective and cosmic eschatology (Wisdom 3:7-8), a notion quite alien to Greek thinking. The Testament of Abraham, a Jewish work which, like Wisdom, comes from the Egyptian diaspora, portrays the afterlife in images borrowed from Platonic a n d / o r Egyptian descriptions: here the judgment of individual souls and their assignment t o their eternal destinies at death seem altogether to take the place of any expectation of resurrection and judgment at the end of history. The Jewish historian Josephus can express his own beliefs in thoroughly Greek ways and even, for the benefit of his Gentile readers, report the views of other Jews in much more Greek terms than they themselves would have used. When, for example, he claims that the Pharisees believed in reincarnation (JewishWar 2.164), he is translating their expectation of bodily resurrection - a belief which non-Jews in the Grcco-Roman world found very strange - into a form which was very familiar t o his Gentile readers. Such examples show that Jews were quite willing to recognize commonalty between their own religious beliefs and those of other cultural traditions. What is generally impressive, across the range of Jewish literature which we have from this period, is the extent to which borrowings from non-Jewish sources are usually made consistently with (rather than at the expense of) the distinctively Jewish shape of Jewish expectations of life after death.

Images of Afterlife In attempting t o specify in more detail how the future of the dead was envisaged in late Second Temple Judaism it is useful to focus on the images that are used in the literature. Since the eschatological future has not been experienced it cannot be the object of literal description, but must be evoked by images. Though the images have conceptual content, it is in images rather than in concepts as such that the literature of our period generally portrays life after death. Some of these images become very stereotyped (and most recur in the New Testament). Several images portray the dead coming back to life. The simplest is: the dead person who now lies in the grave will stand up (e.g. Isa 26:19; Dan 12:13; 2 Maccabees 12:44; Psalms of Solomon 3:12). O r it may be said that G o d will raise them up (e. g. 2 Maccabees 7:9, 14). This is the image evoked by the term 'resurrection' (e.g. Testament of Job 4:9). A variation on this image is to imagine the dead as sleeping in the grave. In the future they will awake (Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2-3) o r get up from sleep (1 Enoch 91:10; 92:3; 2 Baruch 30:2). O r God will awaken them (Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 3:lO; 19:12, 13).

254

16. Llfe, Death, and rhe Afterhfe zn Second Temple Judaism

A different image sees God re-creating the dead from their remains 'as they were before' (Sibylline Oracles 4:181-182). This picture, with its reference to bones as the part of the body that remains after decay, is inspired by Ezekiel's famous vision of the valley of bones (37:l-14), originally a parable of the restoration of the nation, but read in later Second Temple times as a picture of God restoring flesh to the skeletons of the dead and bringing them again to life in the resurrection (4 Maccabees 18:17; 4QPseudo-Ezekiel). Another powerful image of resurrection pictures the places of the dead (the earth, the sea, Sheol, the chambers of the souls) restoring what has been entrusted to them (e. g. 1 Enoch 51 :l; 4 Ezra 4:41-43; 7:32; 2 Baruch 21:23; 42:8; 50:2; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 3:lO; 33:3). This legal image makes the point that the places where the dead go at death d o not own the dead, as though they had a right to keep them for ever, but are merely entrusted with the dead for temporary safekeeping. When God, who so entrusted them, reclaims his deposit, the places of the dead must surrender them back to life. All these images, with their various pictures of restoration from death to life, might seem in themselves to suggest mere resuscitation: a return t o the same life as mortal people live in this life and in just the same bodily form. Indeed, some of the texts we have cited actually stress that the dead are restored just as they were before death (Sibylline Oracles 4:182; 2 Baruch 50:2). However, the concern which the texts express in this way is with the preservation of personal identity. Those who rise must be understood to be the same persons, in their distinctive embodied forms, who had died. As other images make clear, these texts are not denying that there will also be a highly significant transformation of the dead in a resurrection which is not resuscitation to this life, but entry into eternal life. 2 Baruch 49:l-51:1 is unusual in explicitly reflecting on this issue, much as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 15:35. In answer t o Baruch's question about the form in which the dead will live again, he is told that they will first be raised in precisely the form in which they died, so that they may be recognized and recognize each other as the same people who died. Then they will be transformed: the wicked into a worse condition than their present one, the righteous into glorious s ~ l e n d o u appropriate r to the eternal world in which they will then dwell. Two common and closely related images show the righteous raised into heavenly glory. According to one, which has biblical precedent in Daniel 12:3, they will shine like the stars (1 Enoch 104:2; 4 Ezra 7:78,125; 2 Baruch 5 1:10; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 33:5; 4 Maccabees 17:4-6). Because the sky and the heavenly bodies are bright and shining, Jewish tradition always imagined heavenly beings, such as God and the angels, as luminous and shining. Because the righteous dead will rise to share the incorruptible

and undying life of the heavenly beings, they too will then be like the stars. So it amounts t o the same thing when, according the second of these two images, they are said to be like the angels (1 Enoch 104:4; 2 Baruch 51:5,10, 12). Whether they are sometimes said actually to become angels is somewhat doubtful (1 Enoch 51:4; Wisdom 5:5), but the meaning would not be significantly different. This imagery might be thought t o imply that the resurrected righteous will live in the heavens rather than o n earth. Perhaps this is occasionally the picture (cf. 1 Enoch 104:2; 2 Baruch 5 1:lo; Testament of Moses 10:9-lo), but more commonly it is said that, in the renewed cosmos, they will dwell on the transformed earth (1 Enoch 454-5; 51:5; Sibylline Oracles 4:187). Sometimes Enoch and Elijah, whom God 'took' to be with him in heaven (Gen 5:24; 2 Kings 2:3), are understood as representative of life beyond death, as we have already noticed may well be the case in Psalms 49:15 and 73:24. The image of assumption to heaven is thereby evoked. In Wisdom 4:la-15, Enoch, though anonymous as all biblical figures are in this work, is clearly recognizable, and functions as a paradigm of those whom God loves and 'takes' away from the wicked world. Their removal from the world, misunderstood by the ungodly, is therefore really a blessing to them. In the Testament of Job, Job claims that not even his children's bones will be found in their graves, because they have been taken up into heaven (39:8-40:3). At the end of the story, three days after Job's death, he himself is taken up to heaven in a chariot (like Elijah), but in his case it is his soul that ascends, while his body is laid in the tomb (52:l-12). This ascent to heaven at death does not seem to be an alternative t o resurrection at the end of history, in which Job is promised he will participate (49). We have alluded t o the importance of light in the image of the resurrected righteous as shining like the stars. Reference to eternal light is frequent in references to the destiny of the righteous (1 Enoch 58:3; 92:4; 108:12-13; Psalms of Solomon 3:12; 2 Enoch 65:8; 1QS 4:8). When they are said t o wear garments of glory (1 Enoch 62:15-16) and to sit on thrones of glory (1 Enoch 108:12), it should be remembered that this glory is both the visible splendour of shining light and the honour which God will give them, by contrast with the dishonour they have suffered in this life. The light in which the righteous will dwell contrasts with the darkness that is the fate of the wicked (e. g. 1 Enoch 108:14). We have treated here the most common images which portray the resurrection of the dead and their transformation, in the case of the righteous, into incorruptible and immortal life. Many other images occur which portray the circumstances and character of life in the age to come, such as the descriptions of Paradise and the New Jerusalem, and those of the punishments in Gehenna.

256

16. Lifc, Death, and the Afterlife in Second fimple Judaism

Conclusion Some scholars have laid great emphasis on the variety of Jewish beliefs about life after death in Second 'Temple Judaism. In my view this emphasis is mistaken. Most of the texts are thoroughly consistent with each other, though not every aspect of the beliefs we have outlined is present in every text. This is only to be expected, since few of the texts set out t o give a full account of human destiny after death. Moreover, to a large extent, as we have seen, the texts deal in images rather than concepts: images which might not be fully consistent if taken entirely literally may nevertheless converge in the impression they convey. Although there are exceptions to the general view in certain respects, as we have noted, the texts d o seem to offer a general view which we may reasonably suppose was shared by most Jews in the late Second Temple period. The fact that virtually all aspects of this view common to most of the Jewish texts are also found in the New Testament confirms this conclusion. The first Christians did not derive their understanding of the afterlife from any specific Jewish group, such as the Pharisees o r the Essenes, but shared the views which had become general in the Judaism of their time. Like other Jews, they will have recognized that this Jewish understanding of the afterlife, though only rarely explicit in the Hebrew scriptures, was strongly rooted in faith in the God of Israel as he was revealed in those scriptures.

17. What if Paul had Travelled East

rather than West?'" The Jewish East For first-century Jews, Jerusalem was not at the eastern edge of a world defined by the Roman Empire, the Mediterranean world depicted in maps of Paul's missionary travels in Bibles and reference works. For first-century Jews, Jerusalem was the centre of a world which stretched as far east as it did west, and, equally importantly, the centre of the Jewish diaspora, which also stretched as far east as it did west. New Testament scholars rarely remember the eastern diaspora. Of course, the New Testament texts give them very little occasion to call it to mind. The Acts of the Apostles, which probably more than any other New Testament document has fashioned the general impression we have of the geographical scope of the early Christian world, focuses, once the narrative leaves Palestine, exclusively on Paul's missionary travels to the north-west and west of Palestine. But Acts in fact contains its own warning against taking this focus as more than apars pro toto story of the spread of the Christian Gospel in the early years. Its precise and accurate sketch of the geography of the Jcwish diaspora (2:9-1 I), from Panhia in the east to Rome in the west, from Pontus in the north to Arabia in the south, with Jerusalem at the centre, is programmatic. It defines, not the world that the Gospel must finally reach (1:8), since in none of these directions does it reach one of the ends of the earth, as conceived at the time,' but the Jewish world which would be reached by Jews travelling from Jerusalem to all pans of the d i a ~ p o r aJust . ~ such a crowd of pilgrims as Acts 2 depicts would be present at every major festival in Jerusalem and so, surely Acts implies, the Gospel would be taken home to all parts of the diaspora not just after this

* First Publication: Brbhcul Interpretatron 8 (2000) 171-184; also in J. Cheryl Exuni ed., V~rtualNrstory and the Btble (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 171-184. O n e of these, Ethiopia, does appear implicitly in Acts 8:39, as the destination to which the Ethiopian eunuch will take the Gospel when, beyond the narrative, he reaches home. See R. Bauckham, 'James and the Jerusalem Church,' in K.Bauckham ed., The Rook of Acts tn its Ptzlestrn~nSetting (Carlisle: Paternoster/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 419-422.

initial preaching by the apostles at Pentecost, but continually as the leaders of the Jerusalem church continued t o preach their message t o the crowds in the temple court. For first-century Palestinian Jews links with the eastern diaspora were as frequent and important as those with the western diaspora. Beyond the Euphrates in the east lived descendants of the exiles both of the northern Israelite tribes, deported by the Assyrians in the eighth century BCE, and of the southern tribes, Judah and Benjamin, deported by the Babylonians in the sixth century Bce. T h e largest concentrations of Jewish communities were still in the areas t o which their ancestors had originally beer1 deported. T h e exiles of the northern tribes, not yet regarded as 'lost', lived mainly in north Mesopotamia (Nisibis and Adiabene) and Media,3 while the exiles of the southern tribes lived mainly in southern Mesopotamia. In a somewhat confusing passage, Josephus s e e n ~ st o think that the eastern diaspora, comprising the northern as well as the southern tribes, was far more numerous than the western, comprising members only of the southern tribes (Ant. 11.131-133). His depiction of the former as innumerable myriads probably reveals his desire to see in them the fulfilnient of the promises t o the patriarchs, that their descendants would be innumerable (Gen 13:16; 15:5; 32:12), but, however exaggerated, it suggests the importance of the eastern diaspora in first-century Jewish eyes. Josephus also recounts (Ant. 18.31 1-313, cf. 379) how thc t w o cities of Nehardea (in south Mesopotamia) and Nisibis (in north Mesopotamia) served as the collecting points for the temple tax contributions from the eastern diaspora, where the resulting huge sums of money could be kept safe until they were conveyed t o Jerusalem along with the caravans of pilgrims, whom Josephus numbers at tens of thousand^.^ For first-century Jews the eastern diaspora was the original, biblical and paradigmatic diaspora. It comprised members of all twelve tribes, all twelve of whom were expected, on the basis of the prophecies, t o return from exile t o form the re-gathered and reunited Israel of the future. Whereas much of the wester11 diaspora resulted from voluntary migration, though deportation and enslavement played a part in its origins, the eastern diaspora was paradigmatic in that it clearly resulted, in the narrative of the Hebrew Bible, from involuntary deportation embodying God's judgment o n his people. It was therefore from the circumstances of the eastern diaspora that the Jewish theological conception of the diaspora - as divine punishment which would be rescinded in the future - derived. For these reasons the eastern diaspora had a theological and symbolic priority over the western.

' O n the Median diaspora in this period, see R. Bauckharn, 'Anna of the Tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36-38); K B 104 (1997) 166-1 69,173-1 77. ' O n this passage, see Bauckham, 'Anna,' 174.

Communication between Jerusalem and the eastern diaspora was frequent, especially, as already mentioned, through pilgrimage t o Jerusalem and the conveyance of tcniple tax. There were also official letters circulated from the Jerusalem religious authorities, on such matters as the religious calendar, to the eastern as t o the western d i a ~ p o r aJewish .~ merchants travelled with ease along the major trade routes from Palestine as far as the Gulf and beyond Uosephus, Ant. 18.34), which were also the routes travelled by Jewish pilgrims. Natives of the eastern diaspora migrated to live permanently in Jerusalem, just as natives of the western diaspora did. (As native Aramaicspeakers, any Christian converts among the former would have been among the 'Hebrews' of Acts 6:1, whereas Christian converts from the latter were the 'Hellenists.') It should also be remembered that, whereas Palestine's incorporation in the Roman Empire was a very recent development, Palestine's participation in a cultural world which stretched east to Mesopotaniia and Persia was very old and influential in countless ways. This participation had two cultural layers: the Aramaic-speaking civilization of the Persian Empire, in which local cultures, while by no means replaced, were t o some degree assimilated t o an international Aramaic culture, and the hellenization of the Middle East that followed in the wake of Alexander's conquests, was concentrated in the Greek cities established throughout the area, and was absorbed t o varying degrees by the local aramaicized cultures." T h e Konianization of the western part of this cultural world was, by comparison with aramaicization and helle~iization,only the thinnest of veneers. Hence the demise of the hellenistic empires, succeeded b y the Parthian empire in the east and the Roman in the west, while it divided politically the world that aramaicization and hellenization had united culturally, by no means severed the cultural links. The Greek cities of Mesopotamia, for example, maintained close cultural relationships with those of the eastern Mediterranean. An example that nicely niakes the point f o r o u r present purposes is that of the Stoic philosopller Archedemus of Tarsus w h o left Athens to establish a Stoic school in B a b y l ~ n i a Thus, .~ whether we consider Paul, native of Tarsus, as a Jew of the western diaspora o r Paul, trained as a Pharisaic teacher in Jerusalem, as at home in the primarily Semitic-speaking religious culture of Jewish Palestine, he would have felt part of a cultural world that stretched east of Tarsus and Jerusalem t o the hellenistic cities of Mesopotamia and t o Bauckham, 'Anna,' 174-1 76. W n the importance of both layers in our period, and against a one-sided empliasis o n helleriizatron, see A. Wasserstein, 'Non-Hellcni7ed Jews in the Semi-I-lellenized East,' Smptn C/nssrm Israelicu 14 ( 1 995) 1 11-137. J. Neusncr, A l-llstory ofthc J e w s In Babylonu: I: The Parthratr Perzod (SPB 9; 2 nd edition: Leiden: Brill, 1969) 9.

'

260

17. What if Paul hud Travelled East rather than West

those parts of the Jewish diaspora that had every claim to be considered the diaspora. Why should Paul not have thought of travelling east?

Why should Paul have travelled East? Paul became a Christian in Damascus, following his encounter with the risen Christ on the way there. It seems that from the beginning he understood this experience as a call to proclaim Jesus the Messiah to the nations (Gal 1:16; cf. Acts 22:14-15; 26:17-18). The impression his own account gives is that, so strong was this sense of a special vocation from G o d and so urgent his understanding of the task, he did not wait until he could consult those who were already apostles, but immediately set about fulfilling his call (Gal 1:17-18). But how could he decide where t o begin? It would not be surprising if he were guided by two factors: providence and scriptural exegesis. H e must have reflected o n the fact that it was in Damascus - just outside the land of Israel - that he received his call t o take the Gospel t o the nations. Damascus must surely be the divinely intended geographical threshold of his mission. Where would one go from Damascus? Though it was possible to travel west through Abila t o the Mediterranean coast at Berytus, no Jew from Palestine would think of Damascus as the starting-point for travelling west. The obvious routes were south and north-east. It was the route south through the Hauran and along the King's Highway to Petra that we know Paul in fact took (Gal 1:17). All of this area composed the Nabatean kingdom which Jews often called Arabia.' This was the area inhabited by the Gentile peoples who, according to the Genesis genealogies as understood at this time (cf. Josephus, Ant. 1.221, 239), were the most closely related t o IsraelY:the Arab tribes descended from Abraham by his wife Keturah (Gen 25:1-4) o r through his son Ishmael (Gen 25:13-15). Ishmael's eldest son Nebaioth (Gen 25:13) was thought to be the ancestor of the Nabateans, who took their name from him (Josephus, Ant. 1.221). Their closeness, by kinship as well as geographically, to Israel would make them the obvious starting-point for a mission to the nations. But this would have been confirmed for Paul by his reading of prophecy, specifically the later chapters of Isaiah which were pivotal both for the early church's self-understanding and for Paul's own understanding of his role in turning the nations to the God of Israel (Gal 1:15; cf. Isa 49:1-6). In the pilgrimage of the nations J. Murphy-O'Connor, 'Paul in Arabia,' CBQ 55 (1993) 732-733.

' The Edornites, descended from Jacob's brother Esau, had by this time convened to Judaism.

Why should Paul have travelled East?

261

to Zion it is the Arab tribes of north-west Arabia that are the first to be named: Midian, Ephah, Sheba, Kedar and Nebaioth (Isa 60:6-7), all of them descendants of Abraham (Gen 25:24,13). It is remarkable that Rainer Riesner, who argues persuasively that Paul's later missionary travels followed a geographical programme provided by Isaiah 66:19,1° does not recognize that a first-century Jewish exegete would be likely t o read Isaiah 66:19-20 in connexion with Isaiah 60:9.11 Tarshish (understood in Paul's time as Tarsus) comes first among the place names in Isaiah 66:19, but in Isaiah 60:9 it follows the Nabateans (60:7). Thus Paul had every reason to begin obeying his missionary calling in Nabatea. That Paul deliberately began his mission in Nabatea should be taken more seriously than it usually is, because it disturbs the common assumption that Paul, the strongly hellenized Jew from Tarsus, chose as an obvious matter of cultural affinity t o preach in the cities of the north-east Mediterranean world. The Nabateans, in this period before their annexation as the Roman province of Arabia in 106, were among the least hellenized peoples of the Near East.I2 There is rather little evidence for the use of Greek. Nabatean remained the language of government, law, religion and ordinary speech.I3 But Paul, a 'Hebrew born of Hebrews' (Phil 3:5), that is, a native Semitic speaker," was certainly fluent in Aramaic as well as Greek.'Vhere were Jewish communities in Nabatea (probably mentioned in Acts 2:l I), which no doubt Paul would use as a point of contact with sympathetic Gentiles, as was his regular missionary strategy later. Paul's policy of prioritizing the synagogue precisely in his Gentile mission (cf. Rom 1:16) was not merely pragmatic. It corresponded to the prophetic expectation that in the last days the nations would come to Zion bringing with them the Israelites of the diaspora (Isa 11:10-12; 609-9; 66: 18-20). Paul's Gentile mission was therefore bound t o be t o the lands of the Jewish diaspora, though it was l o R. Riesner, Paul's Early Penod: Chronology, M~sstonStrategy, Theology, tr. I). Stott (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 1998) 245-253; hut cf. the critique in J. M. Scott, Paul and the Natrons: The Old Testament and Jeverh Background of Paul's Mrssron to the Centrles wtth Spenal Reference to the Desttnatton of Galattans (WUNT 84; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1995). Therefore he denies that Paul's purpose in going to Arahia was missionary: Paul's Early Penod, 258-260. IZ M. Hengel and A.M. Schwcmer, P a d Between Damascusand Antrocb, tr. J . Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1997) 112, give a somewhat exaggerated impression of hellenization in Nabatea at this time. " E Millar, The Roman Near East 31 RC-AD 337 (Cambridge, Massachusetts/ Idondon: Harvard University Press, 1993) 401-407. M. Hengel, The Pre-Chnstlan Paul, tr. J . Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1991) 25-26; J. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul: A Cnttcal Ltfe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) 36-37. Hengel and Schwemer, Paul, 1 1 8-1 19.

''

262

17. \Yfbat rf Paul had Travelled East rather thcln West

in any case comnlonly supposed that there were Jews in every part of the inhabited world (e. g. Philo, Leg. Gai. 283-284). After a period, perhaps more than two years (Gal 1: 17-1 8), in Arabia Paul returned to Damascus. Why t o l)amascus? There were more direct routes to Jerusalem. If Paul had become persona non grata to the Nabatean authorities, as is commonly deduced from the circumstances of his leaving Damascus (2 C o r 11:32-33), there were more rapid routes out of Nabatean territory. It must be that Paul now intended t o travel the other main route from Damascus: the caravan route north-east t o Palmyra and thence t o Mesopotamia. That way the whole of the eastern diaspora, the original diaspora not just of the Judean tribes, but of all the twelve tribes who must all be brought back t o Jerusalem by their Gentile neighbours in the last days, lay before Paul. Moreover, the nations t o the east were Semites. T h e descendants of Shem lived from Syria eastwards to India (Gen 10:21-31) o r even to China, as Joscphus seems t o indicate (Ant. 1.143-147). O n the principle of beginning with Israel's closest kin, these were the nations to whonl Paul should turn after the Abrahamic tribes of Arabia. Prophecy explicitly envisaged the return of the eastern diaspora along with the nations of the east (Isa 11:lO-12, 15-16; cf. 45:6,22; 48:20; 49:12). Probably it was only the attempt of the Nabatean ethnarch in Damascus t o arrest Paul and Paul's ignominious flight from the city (2 C o r 11:32-33) that prevented Paul following this direction to the east. The Nabateans controlled the routes north-east as well as south, and so Paul, in flight for his life, could take only the road to J c r u s a l e ~ n .Doubtless, '~ for Paul, this was providential guidance, an instance, as he was later to see it, of God's ability to further his purpose through Paul's weakness (2 C o r 11:32-12:lO). From Jerusalem Paul made, as it were, a new start (cf. Acts 22:17-21), understanding the prophctic programme now to direct him first t o Tarsus (Isa 60:9; 66:19; Gal 1:21; Acts 9:30) and so in an arc from Jerusalem to the furthest west (Rom 15:19,23-24). His own origin in Tarsus n o doubt now provided the providential indication that this was his own role in the eschatological events, as missionary not to the descendants of Shem but to those of Japheth." T h e apostle who, but for the antipathy of the Nabatean authorities, might have travelled to the eastern end of the earth now followed a consistent imperative towards its opposite extremity.

''

Kiesner, Przuli Early Pcrrod, 261-262; cf. Millar, The Roman Nc.ar &st, 298-299. Perhaps not only the location of the places in Isaiah 66:19 in the territory of Japhcth, but also the priority of Japheth in the table of the nations (Gen 10:2-5) influenced this decision. For the territory of Japhetli as the area of mission which Paul regarded as allotted to him, see Scott, Paul, chapter 3. "

Paul in the East

Paul in the East Paul's missionary strategy in the east would have been similar t o that which we know he followed in the west. We would have targeted the hellenistic cities with significant Jewish communities in them, like those we know him t o have worked in in Asia Minor and Greece. H e might, in the first place, have travelled north from Palmyra t o cross the Euphrates at Nicephorium and then followed the route alongside the river Balikh to the hellenistic cities of Ichnai, Charax Sidou and Charrhae. This would also take him to Edessa, whence he could travel east t o Nisibis and Adiabene, where many of the northern Israelite exiles still lived. H e would be unlikely to travel further north o r east to Media, but would turn south, perhaps ending this journey by crossing the Euphrates at Doura Europos, another hellenized and (at this date) Parthian city with a significant Jewish community, and thence back to Palmyra and Damascus. Another journey might take him to Babylonia, the area of the largest Jewish settlement in the east, travelling through Doura and south-east along the Euphrates to the Jewish settlement at Nehardea and then t o Seleucia o n the Tigris, the old capital of Seleucid Babylonia, the centre of hellenistic culture in Babylonia, with a large Jewish community. Continuing south-east he could visit Antioch in Mesene and Charax Spasinou o n the Gulf, perhaps also Susa. In many of these cities he might have stirred up the kind of local Jewish opposition that he encountered in some of the cities of Asia Minor and Greece, according to Acts, but he is unlikely to have been harassed by the tolerant Parthian authorities.I8 Finally, Paul could have set his sights o n travelling even further east, towards the eastern end of the earth, just 'IS the Paul of Romans intended to travel west as far as Spain. This would take him as far as Alexander's empire had stretched, t o north-east India, where the Acts of Thomas take their hero the apostle Judas Thomas. Like the Palmyrene merchants who travelled down the Euphrates to Charax Spasinou where they embarked o n ships,I9 Paul would no doubt have travelled by sea through the Gulf t o India. Although it is intrinsically likely that some Jews had already travelled this far and settled in India, we cannot be sure that there were already Jewish communities in India at this date. O n e difference from Paul's travels in the west might have been that he would probably have preached in the synagogues in Aramaic rather than Greek, and in general might have used some Greek but more Aramaic. This is difficult to judge precisely. Greek was spoken in the hellenistic cities in But the civil war in Parthia during ttic early years of his ministry there could have complicated matters for Paul. j Y Millar, The Roman Near Enst, 330-33 1.

264

17. Whar if Paul had TraveNcd East rathc~rthan \Vest

which Paul would most likely have spent most of his time, and Greek is used o n most Parthian coins. But Josephus, writing the first (no longer extant) version of his Jewish War in Aramaic for readers east of the Euphrates, presumably judged that this language was the most effective for reaching both a Jewish and a Gentile readership in the east. We may thus presume that the letters Paul would have written to some of his newly founded Christian communities in the Parthian empire would probably have been written in Aramaic. This is an important point for following through o u r speculation, because it would inhibit their circulation to the west of the Euphrates outside Syria unless they were translated into Greek. This in turn would prevent the influence of Pauline theology on Greek and Latin Christianity and their successors. But translation of Paul's Aramaic letters into Greek would be not unlikely. Some of the earliest Christian literature in Syriac, probably all from Osrhoene, such as the Odes of Solomon, the Acts of Thomas,and some of the works of Bardaisan, were translated into Greek. T h e contacts with Greek-speaking Christians that would make a translation of Paul's letters into Greek desirable and likely certainly existed at an early date. Abercius, bishop of E-iierapolis, w h o recorded his extensive travels in a rather cryptic epitaph o n his tombstone, travelled t o Kome and then to the east, around the middle of the second century. H e 'saw the plain of Syria and all the cities, even Nisibis, having crossed the Euphrates. And everywhere I had associates. Having Paul as a companion, everywhere faith led the way...'" In our present context the somewhat puzzling reference to Paul is tantalizing. Did Abercius mean that he was following in Paul's footsteps, not only t o Rome, but also to Nisibis? The lack of any other trace of a tradition that Paul ever crossed the Euphrates makes this unlikely. Perhaps Abercius meant only that, like Paul, he travelled extensively, visiting Christian communities. Perhaps he meant that his copy of the Pauline letters was something he had in common with the 'associates' (fellow-Christians) he encountered everywhere. Would Paul's travels in the edst have made a significant difference t o Christianity east of the Euphrates? If his letters had came down t o us a n d / o r he had inspired a Luke t o write a Mesopotamian equivalent t o Acts, we should certainly know a great deal more about the beginnings of Christianity in Mesopotamia than we do. Though scholars w h o begin with the legends and find it impossible to ascertain the truth behind them tend to think Christianity did not reach Mesopotamia in Paul's lifetime o r even in the first c e n t ~ r y , it~ 'has t o be said that the constant communication and 'Iianslat~onin J. Quasten, PatrologY, vol. l(Utrecht/Brusscls: Spectrum, 1950) 172. E.g. M.-L,. Chsurnont, La C~hrzst~anrsat~on de /'Enrprre Iranren des orrgzncnsarrx Grandcv Persc;cutron drr IVCS~ecle(CSCO 199; L,ouvain: Peeters, 1988) Part 1. j3

"

Paul r n the East

265

travel between Jerusalem and the eastern diaspora makes it virtually incredible that it dici not.22Jewish pilgrims and merchants from the east would have heard the Gospel in Jerusalem and taken it back t o their synagogue cornmunitie~.~' This would surely have been the way Christianity initially spread to much of the diaspora, including such areas as Egypt and Cyrene, about which w e know no more than we d o of Mesopotamia. In addition, there is no reason t o doubt the basic historicity of Addai, the apostle of Edessa, and his links with the pre-70 Jerusalem church,24 o r Mari, whom traditions suggest planted the church in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, travelling there from Nisibis, in the following generation. Such names, handed down in local traditions, are often reliable even when the stories told of them are legendary." However, even these traditions d o not indicate flourishing Christian communities as early as Paul's lifetime, other than in Edessa. H a d Paul travelled east, this might have been otherwise. The churches of Seleucia o n the Tigris and Charax Spasinou on the Gulf might have been as important as those of Ephesus and Corinth actually were. Moreover, the character of the Christian theological tradition east of the Euphrates might have been different. The great Syriac Fathers, Ephrem and Aphrahat of Nisibis, evidently formed in a theological tradition influenced by the kind of Jewish Christianity that first took root in northern M e s ~ p o t a m i a , knew ?~ and used Paul's letters, but were not deeply influenced by them. H a d Paul been the apostle of the east and his letters addressed t o churches of the east, this might have been otherwise.

l 2 In my view the address of James t o 'the twelve tribes in the diaspora' Uas 1:1) is actual evidence of this: see R. Bauckham, James: Wisdom ofJanzes, Disciple ofJesus the Sage ( N T Readings; London / New York: Routledge, 1999) 14-16. 2 3 Compare the way in which Izates, before his accession t o the throne of Adiabene in 36 CE, was converted t o Judaism by a Jewish nierchant in Charax Spasinou, while his mother was similarly converted by another Jew in Adiabene. Later Izates was influenced by a Pharisee from Galilee Uoscphus, Ant. 20.34-35, 38-48). Discussions of Addai have yet t o take account of what is probably the earliest known refcrcncc to him in thr First Apocalypse of Jamrs (CC V,3) 36:15.-25. Though this tcxt had long been published by the time he wrote, there is n o refercncc t o it in the discussion of Addai by Chaumont, La Christianisation, 14-16. By linking Addai with Jarncs of Jerusalem, it makes improbable the conclusion of Chaumont and others that, though historical, Addai's ministry in Edessa should be dated c. 100 at the earliest. N o t e also thc possibility that relatives of Jesus were n~issiorlariesin the eastern diaspora in the early second century: K.Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Churcl~(Edinburgh: T. & 1:Clark, 1990) 68-70; and the full account now of the evidence in Chaumont, La Christianisation, 42-47 (he does not credit it). *' R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdon2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) Introduction and Part 2.

17. What If Paul had Trrlvelled East rather than West

The West without Paul 'I'he most challenging issue o u r counterfactual hypothesis raises is that of imagining what Christianity in the Roman Empire would have been like without Paul. T h e prominence of Paul in Acts and in the western theological tradition d o w n the centuries has led t o such absurd exaggerations of Paul's significance as the claim that Paul invented Christianity o r that without Paul Christianity would have remained a sect within Judaism. Since the German Liberalism of the nineteenth century Paul has been required t o effect the transition between Jesus, the preacher of ethics, the fatherhood and kingdom of God, and the dogmatic Christianity which proclaimed a christocentric gospel of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus." In the many versions of this view, it has been Paul w h o hellenized the Jewish religion of Jesus and his first followers, Paul w h o created Christianity as a Gentile religion for Gentiles, Paul w h o made Jesus the object of faith and worship, Paul w h o set Christianity o n the road t o becoming the religion of credal orthodoxy it was in the age of the ecumenical councils. All aspects of this understanding of Paul and his significance have been comprehensively refuted in recent decades, both in Pauline studies and in studies of early Jewish and non-Pauline forms of Christianity. Against such exaggerations of Paul's role in the development of early Christianity, we must note, first, that, creative thinker though he was, not everything in Paul's writings is originally Pauline. Rather than detecting Pauline influence wherever other early Christian writings employ terms o r ideas also found in Paul, we should take such phenomena as evidence for the extent t o which Paul shared a common understanding of the Gospel, a tradition t o which he held himself responsible (1 C o r 15:3), common Christian vocabulary, common Christian traditions of exegesis of the Hebrew scriptures, common paraenetic traditions, and so on. It is also clear that other major writings in the N e w Testament, such as the Gospels of Matthew and John, the letter t o the Hebrews and the book of Revelation, are not plausibly influenced by Paul t o any significant extent but develop non-Pauline versions of the Christian Gospel which present it as a christocentric message of salvation through faith in the crucified and risen Jesus n o less than Paul's version does. In comparison Paul appears as n o less Jewish than these others, while, conversely, later patristic credal and doctrinal development was at least as much Johannine as it was Pauline. T h e N e w Testament without Paul and his influence would still contain a range of Christian writings, each with its o w n idiom, nuances and creative theological developments, but ?'

'This is still Paul's role in, e.g., G. Vermcs, The Relzgron ofjesus the jrmr (London:

SC h.1 Press, 1993) chapter 8.

The West u*tthoutPaul

267

all sharing common features which must have characterized the Christian movement from its earliest Jerusalem form, all highly christological, all focused on an eschatological-soteriological reading of the story, as well as the teachings, of Jesus, his life, death, resurrection and future coming. Some particularly Pauline features would certainly be noticeably missing - such as Paul's special contributions t o pneumatology and his use of the cross as a cultural-critical principle, as well as his thinking about justification - but the Christianity of the New Testament would be still, from the perspective of later centuries, recognizably Christianity. Moreover, we should note, in transition t o our second point, that all these non-Pauline forms of New Testament Christianity are fully supportive of the Gentile mission. The second respect in which we should not exaggerate Paul's role is in his importance in spreading the Christian Gospel in the Mediterranean world of the Roman Empire. The Gentile mission began without reference to Paul's apostolic calling (Acts 10-1 I)28and took place quite independently of Paul in areas such as Rome and Egypt which were not evangelized by Paul. Though without Paul the issue of Gentile membership of the eschatological people of God would no doubt have been posed and debated in rather different ways, it is likely that without Paul there would have been general acceptance of the terms of the apostolic decree (Acts 1519-20,28-29), which did not have a Pauline theological basis but established unequivocally that Gentile Christians belong to the people of God as Gentiles, not by becoming Jews.29 The prominence of Paul's missionary travels in Acts should not disguise their geographical limitations. In Acts, as in Romans, it is clear that Christianity - Gentile as well as Jewish - was well-established in Rome (soon t o be the most important church of all) quite independently of Paul.30 Though Paul had worked with some of those Christians in Rome whom he especially mentions in Romans 16 (verses 3-4, 7, 13), it is notable that all these - Prisca and Aquila, Andronicus and Junia, Rufus and his mother (cf. Mark 15:21) - had been Christians before they met Paul. The two latter pairs must have been very early members of the Jerusalem church, as were other 28 Cf. the rather desperate attempt by Hengcl and Schwen~er,Paul Retween Damascus, 149, t o postulate Paul's influence on the Jerusalem 'pillar' apostles. 29 See R. Rauckham, 'James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21),' chapter 7 in B. Witherington I11 ed., Htstory, Ltteratureand Soaety 1n the Rook of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 154-184; and Bauckham, 'James and the Jerusalem Church,' 450-480. 30 O n the origins of the church in Rome, see W. Wicfel, 'The Jewish C:onimunity in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity'; P. Lampe, 'The Ronlan Christians of Romans 16,' both in K. P. Donfried ed., The Rornans Debate (expanded edition; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991) 85-101, 216-230; R. Brandle and E. W. Stegemann, 'The Formation of the First "Christian Congregations" in Rome in thc Context of the Jewish Congregations,' in K. P. Donfried and P. Richardson ed., Judazsm and Chnstiantty rtz Ftrst-Century Rome (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 117-127.

268

17. What if Paul had Travelled East rather than Wkst

travelling missionaries: Peter and Philip, Barnabas and Mark, the brothers of the Lord (1 C o r 9:5), Silas/Sylvanus. Christianity almost certainly reached Rome from Jerusalem, quite possibly even before Paul's conversion, and soon attracted Gentiles already associated with the Jewish synagogues in the city. Even in Luke's account of the Pauline mission in the peculiarly Pauline mission areas of the north-east Mediterranean, we can detect hints of what might have happened even there had Paul not travelled there: Barnabas and Mark go to Cyprus without Paul (15:39); Prisca and Aquila, presumably converted to Christianity in Rome, come to Corinth (1 8:2); the Alexandrian Apollos is teaching in Ephesus and is assisted in his understanding of the Gospel by Prisca and Aquila (18:24-26), before evangelizing in Corinth, without having met Paul (18:27-28; cf. 1 C o r 3:6). Paul was probably the most gifted evangelist and the most fertile theological thinker of the first Christian generation, though he himself would have seen only the power of God at work in his own weakness. But he worked within the context of the remarkably vigorous and creative movement which was earliest Christianity. The attempt to make Paul solely responsible for anything is either a kind of modern theological Marcionism o r a reflection of the modern notion of original genius. The historical Paul is not diminished if we conclude that, although without Paul much would have been different about the way the early Christian movement would have spread across the Roman Empire, it would still have spread, with much the same long-term effects.

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses" The apocalypses are a literature of revelation in which seers receive, by heavenly agency, revelations of the mysteries of creation and the cosmos, history and eschatology. Within the common literary genre and this rather broad definition of the kind of content the genre can be used to convey, the Jewish apocalypses of this period are fairly diverse, and on the subjects of covenant, law and salvation present a spectrum of approaches such as also characterizes other Jewish literature of the same period. Apocalyptic is not an ideology but a genre, and we rnust abjure the habit of considering that the apocalypses propound a certain kind of Judaism different from that expressed in other forms of Jewish literature. Those who read and valued apocalypses also read and valued hymns and halakhah and retellings of Israel's history and wisdom literature. Even those who wrote apocalypses may well have written other forms of religious literature too. N o t the ideology but the kind of content determined genre. Certainly there were traditions of thought continued in a succession of apocalypses, especially the Enoch literature, but there are also groups of apocalypses characterized by their varied responses to similar issues, as in the case of 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch and 3 Baruch. Some apocalypses have more in common with certain other works of different genre than they d o with other apocalypses. However we characterize the variety in early Judaism - which can easily be either smoothed over o r exaggerated - we should not confuse it with the variety of literary genres. The apocalypses included are those which are non-canonical (therefore excluding Daniel), indubitably o r probably non-Christian Jewish, and which date from before 200 crr. Two which fulfil these conditions - the Apocalypse of Abraham and the Ladder of Jacob - have been omitted for reasons explained in section 3.1 below.

* First Publication as aApocalypses,n chapter 6 in Donald A. Carson, Petcr T. O'Brien and Mark A Siefrid ed., Justrficatton and Varregated Nomrsrn, vol. 1: The Complexttles of Second %mple Judalsm (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 2001) 135-187.

270

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewtsh Apocalypses

1. The Enoch Tradition

The work we know as 1 Enoch consists of several distinct compositions, all o r most of which probably existed as independent works before being incorporated in this compilation of Enochic works: (1) the Book of Watchers (chapters 1-36); (2) the Parables (or Similitudes) of Enoch (chapters 37-71); (3) the Astronomical Book (chapters 72-82); (4) the Book of Dreams (chapters 83-90); (5) the Epistle of Enoch (chapters 91-105); (6) the Noah Appendix (chapters 106-107); (7) another Writing of Enoch (chapter 108). The complete text of this corpus of Enochic writings survives only in the Ethiopic version, but Greek versions of sections (I), (4), (5) and (6) are partially extant. Whether these are from a compilation of Enochic works in Greek corresponding t o the scope of the Ethiopic 1 Enoch we cannot be sure. All of the four sections partially extant in Greek are also evidenced among the fragments of Enoch writings in Aramaic from Qumran. These fragments are from several manuscripts,' some of which show that at Q u m ran there was a compilation of Enochic writings somewhat different from that which we know as 1 Enoch. It comprised: (1) the Book of Watchers; (2) the Book of Giants; (3) the Book of Dreams; (4) the Epistle of Enoch; (5) the Noah Appendix. As well as manuscripts which probably contained all these five components, there are manuscripts which probably contained only the Book of Watchers, which probably contained only the Book of Giants, and which perhaps contained only the Epistle of Enoch, suggesting that these were also known as independent works. In addition, there are fragments of manuscripts of the Astronomical Book, in a considerably longer form than that preserved in the Ethiopic version, too long t o be incorporated with other Enochic works in a single manuscript. Thus the Qumran fragments preserve, in fragmentary form, the original Aramaic of all sections of Ethiopic 1 Enoch, except for the Parables, which, s o far as the evidence goes, was not known at Qumran, and chapter 108. (The Parables probably was first written in Aramaic, but we still know only the Ethiopic version. Chapter 108 may have been added t o the Enochic collection in Greek, but is still only extant in Ethiopic.) It also appears likely that the particular collection of Enochic works we know as 1 Enoch has been

'

O n the scope of the manuscripts, scc J.T. Milik ed., The Books of Enoch: Arrrmaic Frzlgments from Qurnrin Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarcrldon Press, 1976); E Garcia Martirlez, Qumran and Apocalyptrc: Studzt~son the Arrctnutc 7i7xts from Qumran (SJDJ 9; Isiden: Brill, 1992) 46-47; L.T. Stuckcnbruck, The Book of Gwnts from Qumran (TSAJ 63: Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1997).

I . The Enoch Tradition

271

formed on the basis of the collection known at Q ~ m r a n with , ~ the Parables of Enoch substituted for the Book of Giants, and-an abridged version of the Astronomical Book integrated into the collection. This second compilation of writings of Enoch is almost certainly also a Jewish compilation from the Second Temple period, but very probably made at a considerably later date than the compilation known at Qumran. It is probable that all the Enoch writings known at Qumran date from before the middle of the second century BCE. The Book of Watchers and the Book of Giants3 (the latter written with knowledge of the former) date from the third century, as does the Astronomical Book, which many regard as the oldest of the Enochic works. The Epistle of Enoch, though it has often been dated to the first century BCE,is probably pre-Maccabean; while the Book of Dreams was certainly written during the Maccabean revolt. Thus the Enochic writings known and valued at Qumran all date from before the foundation of the Qumran community (which may also be true of most of the pseudepigraphal works known but not written at Qumran). The absence of the Parables of Enoch shows only that it was written outside Qumran at a later date. Since it probably presupposes the Book of Watchers, but also seems to incorporate traditions both similar to and differing from those in the Book of watcher^,^ it is evidence that the Enoch writings were read and traditions about Enoch transmitted in circles outside Qumran. O n internal evidence, the Parables arc most plausibly dated to the first century CE before 70. The New Testament letter of Jude, which alludes to material in the Book of Watchers, chapter 80 of 1 Enoch (whether or not this is an original part of the Astronomical Book), and the Book of Dreams: is also evidence that It is possible that 1 Enoch is a compilatiori of Enochic works know11to the compiler only as independent works. But (1) it shares with the Qumran collection the order: Book of Watchers, Book of Dreams, Epistle of Enoch; and (2) it has the Noah Appendix (chapters 106-107) which niost probably owes its place in both Enacli collections not to a preexisting connexion with the Epistle of Elloch in particular, but to its having been added to the Qumran collection as an appendix to the whole collection. See Garcia Martinez, Qumran and Apoculyptrc, 95-96. O n the date of the Book of Giants, see Stuckenbruck, The Rook of Gutzts, 28-31. ' 1 agree with Garcia Martinez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 79-94, who argues, contrary to rnuch previous scholarship, that there are no convincing arguments for treating the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:3-10; 91:11-17) as an independent work which preexisted the rest of the Epistle of Erioch. l i e also argues correctly that the Apocalypse of Weeks must have been written before the Maccabean Revolt, and so that the whole Epistle of Enoch, of which the Apocalypse of Weeks is an originally integral part, must also be pre-Maccabean. D. W. Suter, Tradrtton and Composrtron m the Parables of Enoch (SBLLIS 47; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979), especially chapter 4. R. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983) 7, 37-40, 50-53,87-9 1,94-99; idem, Jude and the Relnrtves ofJesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990) 137-141, 188-201,211-216. In Jude nnd the Rekztmes, chapter 7 , I

'

2 72

18. Covenant, Law and Salvatzorr in the Jewish Apocalypses

the major Enochic writings were known and valued outside Qumran, as is the popularity of Enochic writings in post-apostolic Christianity.' Thus, although the major Enochic writings may derive from a community o r tradition that the Qumran community regarded as its predecessorYsit would be a mistake t o associate them too closely with Qumran. T h e Enochic tradition was continued also apart from Qumran. This is clear also from the last Enochic workYthat concerns us: 2 Enoch, which is unfortunately preserved only in an O l d Slavonic version and in differing recensions that make it very difficult to distinguish earlier and later forms of the text. It is a single work (though some think the final chapters, 69-73, a secondary addition), probably presupposing at least some of the earlier Enochic writings and representing itself as Enoch's last testament t o his descendants, recounting the last revelations made t o him before his final translation t o heaven. Since, unlike the other Enochic works, 2 Enoch uses the scheme of seven heavens, through which Enoch ascends, viewing the contents of each and the throne of G o d in the highest, it is unlikely t o date from before the first century CE, when other evidence suggests that that particular form of visionary ascent was first employed in apocalypse^.'^ If its references t o the temple are t o the Jerusalem temple, it would date from before 70, but they may not be. If 3 Baruch stands in a polemical relationship t o it," then the early second century is the latest plausible date. It is clear that the various Enoch writings form a distinctive tradition of thought and writing. This does not necessarily imply that they derive from a single, historically continuous socio-religious group, though this may be plausible for some o r all of the Enochic writings known at Qumran. It does mean that later writers in the tradition knew and depended on earlier Enochic writings, and that certain central themes and concerns run through the literature, in spite of some ideological variations between some of the also argued that the Lukan genealogy of Jesus derives from the same early <:hristian circle as the letter of Jude and depends o n the scheme of history found in the Book of Watchers and the Apocalypse of Weeks in the Epistle of Enoch. ' R. Bauckha~n,'The Fall of the Angels as the Source of I'hilosophy in Iiernlias and Clement of Alexandria,' VC 39 (1985) 313-330; J.C. VanderKani, ' 1 Enoch, Enochic Motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature,' in J . C . VanJcrKani and W. Adler ed., The Jewish Apocnljptic H ~ r i t a g ein Early Chrzstianity ( C R I N T 3/4; Assen: Van Gorcum / Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 33-1 01. "ee now G . Boccaccini, Re)iond thc Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Q u n ~ r a nand Enochic/udczjsnz (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 1998). Other Jewish and Christian Enochic works, including so-called 3 Enoch and the Seventh Vision of Enoch, date from too late a period to be relevant to our present purpose. ."I Bauckham, The Fate oj'the Dead: Studies on the J ~ w i s land ) Chrzstiun Apocalypses (Supplements to N o v u ~ n*Ihstamentum 93; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 84-85. I ' Bauckham, 7'he h t e ofthe Dead, 67.

1. The Enoch Tradition

273

Enochic works. It is likely that the Book of Watchers was known to the authors of all the other Enochic works, apart from the Astronomical Book, which may have been written before the Book of Watchers. It was certainly the most influential of the Enochic writings and it set the agenda of themes and concerns which run through the others to a greater or less extent. For this reason we shall begin our survey with the Book of Watchers and discuss it at greatest length. The survey will not include the Book of Giants, whose surviving fragments are too small to provide material for our present purpose, or the Astronomical Book, whose relevance to our concerns is very limited.'2

1.2 Book of Watchers ( 1 Enoch 1-36) From the Qumran manuscripts which begin with the first five chapters of 1 Enoch and seem to have included only the Book of Watchers, we know that these first five chapters formed the introduction to the Book of Watchers when it was an independent book and were not written as an introduction to the whole collection of Enochic works, admirably as they also fulfil this latter function. Very probably the Book of Watchers incorporates earlier sources, but we cannot easily tell how far they were rewritten in the book as we have it, and, since it was this book that was influential on the rest of the Enoch tradition and much more widely also, we are justified in considering the Book of Watchers as a unity. The book has three main themes, corresponding to successive parts of it. The first is Enoch's prophecy of the universal judgment to come, addressed to the elect who will live at the time of this judgment, seventy generations after Enoch's own lifetime (chapters 1-3). The second is the story of the Watchers (chapters 6-16), disobedient angels who, in the time of Enoch's father Jared, descended from heaven to satisfy their lust for women. The offspring of these unions were the giants, who tyrannized the earth with their violence in the period before the Flood. The Watchers also corrupted humanity by revealing forbidden and dangerous heavenly knowledge. The story is a myth of the origin of evil (cf. especially 10:s). Although the Watchers were chained in the underworld, the giants were exterminated by their own violence, and the earth was cleansed of its corruption by the Flood, their evil has continued to influence humanity, since the ghosts of the giants survived as the evil spirits who are abroad in the world until the last judgment and are responsible for idolatrous religion. The story is linked to Enoch because he is commissioned by God to announce to the Watchers their irrevocable judgment. The third element in the Book of Watchers is " Relevant material is in chapters 80-82, which readers may easily compare with our studies of the other Entrchic works.

274

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

the cosmological tours on which Enoch is taken by the angels, revealing the mysteries of the cosmos t o him (chapters 17-36). Clearly the Book of Watchers is concerned with the origin and nature of evil, and provides, probably for the first time in extant ~ e w i s hliterature, a fully-fledged account of evil as due t o supernatural beings who corrupt almost all humanity and the earth itself. But it is even more concerned with the judgment of evil.'3 The relevance of the antediluvian world to Enoch's implied readers in the last generation of history before the last judgment is that it was a thoroughly corrupt world whose evil was comprehensively judged by God. Only the fanlily of Noah was saved to make a fresh start after tlle Flood. The world in Enoch's time functions as a type of the implied readers' world and the judgments on the Watchers and humanity at the time of the Flood are a type of the coming last judgment, through which the righteous will be saved from angelic and human evil. Whereas in the first judgment in Enoch's time evil was provisionally defeated, but survived to corrupt the world again, in the second and last judgment God will remove the threat of evil altogether. The same concern fo; judgment also appears in Enoch's journeys, where, alongside other cosmological secrets, he sees both the places where the dead and the Watchers are presently awaiting the last judgment, and also the places where the Watchers and the unrighteous will be punished and the righteous will enjoy the blessings of paradise after the judgment. The introductory chapters also exploit the typological parallel in that Enoch's condemnation of the wicked (chapters 2-5) parallels his announcenlents of judgment t o the Watchers (1 3: 1-3; 1 6:2-4).14 These chapters, with their vivid evocation of the coming theophany of the divine Judge (chapter I), and their prophecy of salvation for the elect but irrevocable doom for the ungodly, are programmatic in that they define the book's subject as the eschatological judgment and direct the implied readers to read the rest of the book with this in mind.I5 The antediluvian story, perhaps inevitably, gives the immediate impression that the book is not concerned wit11 the specifically Israelite thenles of Abrahamic or Sinai covenant and Mosaic law, but only with universal evil "

For the eschatological judgment as the tocal point of the whole of 1 Enoch, see

(3. W. E. Nickelsburg, 'The Apocalypt~cConstruction of Reality in I Enoch,' In J . J . Collins and J. I 1. Charlesworth ed., M ~ ' J ~ Cand T ~ Revelations: ES Apoculypttc Studtes stnce the Upp~akzColloqutum USPSS 9; Shcffield: Sheffieid Acadeniic Press, 1991) 52-53. Fie concludes that 'there is scarcely a page of I Enoch that is not in some sense related to the expectation of an inipending divine judgment' (53). l 4 111 both cases there 1% rcfcrcnce to hardness of heart (5:4; l h:3), and in both cases there can be neither mercy nor peace for the offenders (5:4-5; 13: 1-2; 16:4). l 5 0 1 1 chapters 1-5 as introduction t o the Book of Watchers, see especially L. Hartman, Askzng for a Mennmg: A Study of 1 Enoch 1-5 (ConB(NT) 12; I.und: Glecrup, 1979). 138-1 45.

I . The Enoch Trudition

275

affecting the world as a whole.I6 Sacchi argues that, in the Book of Watchers, the 'problem of evil is not connected in any way to the Law, nor does salvation come in any way through the Covenant.'" This enables him to interpret the Enochic tradition as distinct from and opposed t o the 'official' o r 'nomistic' tradition of Jerusalem in early Second Temple Judaism, which relied on Moses and the law.'$ In neglecting both Moses and the prophets, the Book of Watchers 'gives the impression of a conscious break with the tradition.'I9 However, we should note that Sacchi is able to maintain this position only by ignoring chapters 1-5, which, as we have seen, must be included if we are to characterize the theology of the Book of Watchers in the only form we know it, rather than excavating sources behind it. I-Iowever, before considering this question in relation t o chapters 1-5, we should first reject the possibility that Enoch and his teaching are presented in the Enochic tradition, or the Book of Watchers in particular, as an alternative to Moses and the law. The real contrast is between Enoch and the Watchers, both presented in terms of the ancient idea of culture-heroes who were responsible for introducing the arts and knowledge of civilization revealed to them by the gods.20The Watchers are negative culture-heroes, who descended from heaven with secrets that led humanity astray and proved to be only 'a worthless mystery' (16:3).2' In this sense the story is doubtless a polemic and warning against pagan culture and learning. But in contrast to the misleading and harmful secrets revealed by the descending and disobedient angels there is the genuine revelation of heavenly secrets given to Enoch when he ascends to heaven and keeps company with the holy angels. In this aspect, therefore, the stories of Enoch and the Watchers function to draw a sharp distinction between pagan culture and the wisdom cultivated in the Jewish circles from which the early Enochic literature comes. For this purpose, in view of the importance attached to antiquity in such contexts, the antediluvian Enoch, as ancient as any of the l 6 But note that on his travels Enoch sees the land of Israel and the environs of Mount Zion and Jerusalem (unnamed and, of course, in Ikoch's time, before there was a city or temple there) (chapters 26-27), and is told about the temple in Jerusalenl in the eschatological age (25:5-6). P. Sacchi, Jezslrsh Apocalyptn and ~ t sHr5rory (tr. W . J .Short; JSPSS 20; Sheffield: Shcffield Academic I'ress, n. d.) 22. Sacchi, Jmrsh Apoculyptlc, 18-19, 106-107. A rattler similar view is taken by M. Barker, The Older Tistumcnt (1,ondon: SPCK, 1987). Sacchi, Jmrrh Apoculyptrc, 58. 2Qauckham, 'The Fall of the Angels,' 3 14-319. 2' This translation follows the Ethiopic rather than the Greek, with M.A. Knibb, The Ethioplc Book of Enoch, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978) 102-103, against M. Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enorh (SV'TP 7; Leicien, Brill, 1985) 35, 155, who prefers an emended form of the Greek text at this point. Elsewhere my quotations of 1 Enoch are from Black's translation unless otherwise noted.

''

2 76

18. C;n,mattt, Law and Salvation

111

the J ~ , ~ * lApotalypses sh

culture-heroes t o whom pagans traced their culture, was more useful than Abraham o r Moses, w h o were also portrayed as culture-heroes in some Jewish literature. But the secrets revealed and communicated by Enoch in the Book of Watchers (chapters 17-36), as also in the Astronomical Book and in the Parables, in no way compete with the Torah. Their subject-matter is different and complementary. There is certainly a genuine element of universalism in the Book of Watchers, which persists through much of the rest of the Enochic tradition. T h e coming judgment is emphatically represented as a universal one (l:7-9), while, when the earth has been cleansed of evil, 'all the children of men are t o become righteous and all nations shall serve and bless me [God], and all shall worship me' (10:21). O n the other hand, Hartman has argued at length and convincingly that chapters 1-5 evoke God's covenant with Israel ' ~ ~ may note especially that 1:1, 3-4, 9 as their 'referential b a ~ k g r o u n d . We allude unmistakably t o Deuteronomy 33:l-2 (along with other passages in the Hebrew Bible), implying that the author, like some other Jewish writers, read Deuteronomy 33-34, the last words of Moses in the Torah, as prophecy of the future history of Israel, and 33:2 as referring to the eschatological theophany of G o d as judge.2' T h e reference t o Sinai as the location of the theophany (1 Enoch 1:4) is borrowed from Deuteronomy 33:1, but did not have to be had the author not wished to evoke the giving of the law by which G o d will judge the world.2J Hartman also shows the affinity of chapters 2-5 with the covenantal denunciation speeches of the I lebrew Bible and early Jewish literature, in which those addressed and denounced are those w h o had violated the covenant." It looks as though, while speaking of universal

"

Hartman, Askrttgfor a Mranlng. T h e reason for which J. J. Collins, The Apoc~lypttc Irnaglnatlon ( N e w York: Crossroad, 1984) 38, rejects I iartman's argument is not cogent. H e claims that chapters 2-5 refer t o the law of nature rather than the law of Moses. But the examole of the works of creation which never deviate from obevine God's command, ments t o them cannot supply humans with the content of what G o d requires of them. ?'he mcani~ic n i s that. bv contrast with nature's obedience t o God's commarids to them. the apostates are d ~ s o b e d ~ etnot God'\ corrimands to thetn ( ~ the n Torah). 2' Cf. D.J. Ilarrlngton, 'Interprcrlng Israel's Hlstory: T h e Testament of Moses as a Kewr~trngof Ileut. 31-34,' 1x1 G . W.C. N~ckelsburged., Studres on the Testament of Moses (SBI S C 5 4; C a m b r ~ d ~Mas\achusetts. c, Scholars Pre\s, 1973) 59-68. T M o s 10:l-7 dcscrrbes the eschatological thcopliany In s~mrlarterms t o 1 Enoch 1:3-9, because both ~ m s a g e callude t o the same O T sources. In Deuterononly 33:2 YFIWII comcs 'from Slna~,'whereas rn 1 Enoch 1:4 he will 'tread upon the earth upon Mount S i n a ~(a ' nilxed alluslon t o Mlc 1:3 and Ileut 33:2). T h e difference does not lndlcatc that 'Slnar has a place In Enoch's revelation, but it 1s not the ultlmate s o u r ~ e , as ' <:oll~ns, The Apocalyptzc Inraglrtatzan, 37, suggests. Rather 1 Enoch corrects the text of I)euterononiy because ~t uriderstands G o d t o dwell In heaven, not o n Mount Stna~. 21 Hartman, Askrngfjr a Mennrng, 49-95 ' 7

judgment, these chapters focus o n those w h o are faithful t o God's covenant with Israel and those who have committed apostasy from it. The two categories of people are designated in these chapters, o n the one : hand, 'the righteous' (Aramaic ;-em;=:1:1, 8, 5:6) and 'the elect' (;.rn=1:1, 3, 8; 5:7, 8), and, o n the othcr hand, 'the sinners' (j-~un:1:9; 5:6, 7) and 'the wicked' (;.u.m: 1:1, 9; 5:6, 7). Of these terms, the most interesting is 'the elect,' which also occurs once more in the Book of Watchers (25:5), occurs just twice in the Epistle of Enoch (93:2, and is frequent in the Parables of Enoch (38:2, 3, 4; 39:6, 7; 40:5; 41:2; 45:3, 5; 48:1, 9; 50:l; 51:5; 56:6, 8; 58:1, 2, 3; 60:l; 61 :4, 13; 62:7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15; 70:3), often used alongside 'the righteous' to refer t o the same people as 'the righteous and elect.' The prominent use of the term in 1 Enoch 1-5 is very significant. The plural of the noun -*n2 ('chosen ones,' 'elect') is rare in the ltfebrew Bible. O n just four occasions, in closely related texts, it refers to Israel as 'his' o r 'your [YIiWIi's] chosen ones' (Pss 105:6,43; 106:5; 1 Chron 16:13). But also three times in Isaiah 65 'my VI IWH's] chosen ones' (vv 9, 15,22), parallel with 'my servants' (vv 8-9, 13-15) and 'my people' (v 22), refers to the righteous remnant of faithful Israelites contrasted with the apostates of Israel whom God will destroy (vv 1-8, 11-15). That this chapter of Isaiah is the actual source of the usage of 'the elect' in 1 Enoch 1-5 must be virtually certain since 1 Enoch 5:6 clearly alludes t o Isaiah 65:15, one of the three verses in which 'my chosen ones' appears in that chapter. There are other echoes of this and neighbouring chapters of Isaiah in the Book of Watchers: 10:17-19 (cf. 5:9) alludes t o Isaiah 65:20-23; the repeated theme that the righteous will have peace (1:s; 5:6-7,9; 10:17) but the sinners will not have peace (5:4-5; 12:5--6; 13:l; 16:4) derives from Isaiah 57: 19,21 (cf. 48:22; 60:17); and the idea of 'the plant of righteousness' (10:16, cf. 3) probably echoes Isaiah 60:21 b (cf. 61:3), while the first half of the same Isaianic verse seems t o have influenced 1 Enoch 56-8 (cf. 10:21). Barker argues that the people whose prophet speaks in 'rrito-Isaiah, Israelites opposed t o the innovative Deuteronomic temple establishment of the restoration period, actually were the people who preserved the Enoch traditions.17 It is less speculative to assume that the third-century author of the Book of Watchers, like many others in the Second Temple period, read the later chapters of Isaiah as the key eschatological prophecies depicting the 2h Sacchi, J w t s h Apocalypttc, 115, claims that 'for the first time the righteous are called "elect"' in 93:2, while conceding in a footnote (5) that, 'The word "elect" appears also in the firrt chapter of Erzoch, where it constitutcs a problem by reason of its isolated character.' H e niissed the occurrences not only in 5:7, 8, but also in 25:s. H e correctly refers to 'Trito-Isaiah, but is mistaken in thinking that the term there refers t o 'the Jews.' We also fails to notice the significant influence which I Enoch 1-5 has exercised o n the Epistle of knoch. ?' Barker, The Older Testilrnent, chapters 1 , 7,8.

278

18. Covenant, Law and Salt~~zrton ~nthe je"utsl7 Apocalypscr

coming judgment and restoration of Israel. H e saw the widespread apostasy of his own time, as he viewed it, predicted in Isaiah 65, and the faithful Israelites of his time, with whom he identified, as the elect of YI-IWH t o whoni the sanie chapter refers. These chosen ones were such because they constituted the true Israel, the elect nation, YIIWH's true covenant partners, while other Israelites had excluded themselves from Israel by their apostasy. T h e apostasy is described only in general terms (5:4), while it is left entirely unstated what is entailed by being righteous. The righteous are evidently not sinless, since they are promised that they will be sinless after the judgement, as a result of God's gift of wisdom t o them (5:8-9).2s What is at stake seems t o be a fundamental attitude and practice of loyalty t o G o d and his law, contrasted with a fundamental refusal of obedience. T h e lack of reference t o specific commandments of the law does not mean that they are ~ n i m p o r t a n t In . ~ part, ~ this is a matter of genre.'O It is possible that behind the accusation of apostasy lie disputes about the correct interpretation of the law, but halakhic discussion does not belong to the genre of apocalypse and would not be appropriate o n the lips of Enoch. O u r text presupposes its readers know what is involved in keeping the law properly and focuses o n the fundamental distinction between those w h o live by it and those w h o reject it. This is also why there is an absolute and apparently exclusive division of people into the righteous and the wicked, a characteristic that continues in the rest of the Enochic tradition and in other apocalypses too. (But it may be rioted that in this respect chapters 1-5 seem not entirely consistent with what Enoch sees, according t o chapter 22, in the place where the dead are kept awaiting the judgment. Here there are t w o classes of the wicked: sinners w h o escaped justice in their lifetime and will be assigned t o punishment at the last judgment, and those 'who were not wholly lawless' but 'collaborated' with the lawless. T h e latter will experience neither punishment nor resurrection at the day of judgnient. This passage is not only the earliest Jewish depiction of the intermediate state of the dead. It is also unique: no other Second 'litniple period Jewish text classifies the dead into more than the t w o categories of righteous and wicked.) lR 'This is clear in the Ethionic. translated hv Knihb. The E r h ~ o ~Rook. tc 66-67. but the matter is more obscure in the additiotial mate;i.~l founh in the &eek at this poi";. 29 O n previous discussion of this issue in the apocalypses generally, see J. (1. I+. I.ebram, "The Iqiety of the Jewish Apocalyptists,' in D. Ficllholni, ApocidYpticism in the Meditermnean World and the hfeurEast (2 nd edition: 'I'iihir~lren:Mohr ISiebeckl, 1989) 177-178. 'O 'The Qumran community provides clear evidence that one and the same religious cornniunitv could read and value a ~ o c a l v ~ s ehalakhah s, and wisdom ~aracncsis.These are different k n r e s of literature with different and complementary funitions in the life of a Jewish group. 'fherc are n o necessary lines of ideological difference between the genres. E

'

a

a .

1. The Enoch Trddition

2 79

In chapters 1-5 there is no exhortation to the wicked to repent or to the righteous to continue in obedience. There is simply announcement of judgment on the apostates and mercy and peace for the righteous. Presumably, there is no possibility of forgiveness for the wicked, any more than there is for the paradigm apostates, the Watchers (12:4-14:7). As for the righteous, the text simply presupposes that they are living obediently and need primarily the reassurance that justice is going to be done. Similarly, there is no indication of the way the two attributes 'righteous' and 'elect' relate to each other: it is simply assumed that the elect are those who are loyal and obedient to God. This is generally true of the rest of the Enochic literature also, though exhortations to the righteous not to be deflected from the path of righteousness someti~nesoccur (e. g. 91:3-4, 19).

1.3 The Epistle of Enoch ( I Enoch 91-105) The Epistle of Enoch comprises, in the first place, introductory material, including an account of Enoch's writing of the letter for his children and for later generations, and exhortations addressed to his children (91:I-10, 18-19; 92:l-5). Secondly, there is the Apocalypse of Weeks, a summary and interpretation of world history from creation to new creation (93:l-10; 91:11-17). Thirdly, there are several chapters of admonitions addressed to the righteous and woes addressed to thc sinners in the last days (94-105). The Apocalypse of Weeks helps t o set the context of the work as the writer himself envisages it. The first event after the destruction of the first temple is that 'a perverse generation shall arise, and many shall be its misdeeds and all its doings shall be apostate' (939). Then 'the elect shall be chosen, as witnesses to righteousness, from the eternal plant of righteousness' (93:lO). There can be no doubt that these elect are the group with whom the real author identifies and whom he regards as the righteous remnant of Israel in his own time. The description of them recalls 91:2: 'the children of righteousness and the eternal elect sprung from the plant of righteousness and uprightness' - evidently the same people. It also recalls the description of Abraham at an earlier point in the Apocalypse of Weeks: 'a man shall be chosen as a plant of righteous judgment; and his posterity shall come forth as a plant of eternal righteousness' (935). The plant (cf. also 103, 16; 62:8; 84:6) is an image, drawn from Isaiah 60:21, of the chosen ones, stressing God's gracious act of election. The picture appears to be that from the descendants of Abraham G o d chose those who now constitute the elect ones in a time of widespread apostasy when the rest of Israel no longer qualify for that description. Again the existence of this group is attributed to God's act of choice. But in all cases, as in 1 Enoch 1-5, this language of election and the plant is closely associated with language of righteousness

280

18. Covenarzt, Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

(93:2,5, 10). The elect ones are also 'the children of righteousness' (93:2; cf. 105:2), 'witnesses to righteousness' (93:lO) and simply 'all the righteous' (91:12). In this case, we may say a little more about the relationship of God's grace and human activity in righteousness than was possible for the Book of Watchers. Here the righteous are exhorted 'to seek and choose for yourselves righteousness, and a life of goodness' (94:4): thus election is not envisaged as contradicting human freedom to choose the go0d.j' But it is also noteworthy that, in the resurrection, when for the first time people will be able to be wholly righteous forever, this is the result of God's grace and power (92:3-5; cf. 91:17): God 'will be gracious to the righteous and give him eternal uprightness' (92:4). After the Apocalypse of Weeks, the righteous are not called 'the elect' again, no doubt because the admonitions and woes concern the contrast bitween the ways of life of the two categories of people. Besides 'the righteous,' they are occasionally called 'holy' (100:5), 'pious' (100:5; 103:9; 104:12) and 'wise' (98: 1,9,99: 10; 100:6; 104:12). The last is an indication of the influence of wisdom tradition, with its contrasts of wise and foolish, righteous and sinners. In line with this, we also find the image of the two ways: 'the paths of righteousness' and 'the paths of wrong-doing' (91:18-19; cf. 93:14; 94:l--4; 99:10; 104:13). All this accords with the absolute and exclusive distinction between the two groups which, as in I Enoch 1-5, runs through the whole of chapters 94-105. It also accords with the assumption that what is at stake is a matter of fundamental loyalty and life-orientation. The only warning to the righteous is, in effect, to keep to the way of righteousness and not to apostatize (94:3; 99:lO; 104:5), while of 'the truly righteous'j2 it is said that 'no unrighteousness has been found in them till they die' (102:IO). We hear nothing of repentance o r forgiveness, though a single verse addressed to the wicked exhorts them not to d o evil (104:9). The contrast between righteous and sinners is also given quite concrete social definition. The sinners are powerful, rich, arrogant, unscrupulous, and oppress the poor, such that 'the paths of wrong-doing' can also be called 'the paths of oppression' (91:19). They are not Gentiles," but Jewish apostates, same of whom cause others to apostatize (99:l): these 'alter the

"

Some scholars, including Sacchi, Jmzsh Apocalypttc, 114, cite 98:4 as evidence that the Epistle of Enoch stresses human responsibility for sin to the extent of denying that evil was brought into the world by the Watchcrs or Satan. But the text of Y8:4 is very uncertain: see Black, The Book ofEnoch, 301. The myth of the fall of the Watchers is s o integral to the rest of the Enochic literature that w e should need better evidence to conclude that the Epistle of Enoch reject5 it. ?On the translation. see Black. The Hook o f Enoch. 113. But the rulers, whb ignore thc comp1ain;s of thk righteous against the oppressors (103:14-15), could be Gentiles. Pagans appear in Y1:9, and perhaps in 99:7-10 (though here the meaning may be that Jewish apostates practise pagan idolatry).

"

I . The Enocl.) Tradition

281

words of truth, and pervert the everlasting law, and count themselves to be without sin' (99:2; cf. 98:15). The righteous, who by comparison with the wicked are few (103:9, 15), are objects of their contempt, persecution and oppression (94:ll; 955'; 96:8). This situation explains why it is that, whereas the sins of the oppressors are amply characterized, almost nothing is said about what the way of righteousness entails. It is assumed that they are pursuing that path, and what they primarily need is hope and courage, not to be intimidated by the oppressors, not to be discouraged by their apparent impunity (95:3; 96:1,3; 97:l; 104:2,4,6). The message of the certain doom of the wicked provides for this need. The wicked, who might suppose that their evils go unnoticed, are assured that 'all your iniquities are written down day by day until the day of judgment' (98:8; cf. 104:7). The well-known formula that they will be judged according to their deeds is also used (955; 100:7).34Neither of these motifs should be understood in the sense of a nice calculation of the guilt of individual deeds. Both are consistent with the holistic sense of judgment on a whole way of life, and the main rhetorical function is to stress that the wicked will not escape justice. 1.4 The Book of Dreams ( 1 Enoch 83-90)

We need pause only briefly over this Enochic work, which contains little of direct relevance to our theme, though it continues the dominant interest of the Enoch tradition in the origin and nature of evil and especially in its coming eradication through eschatological judgment and renewal. Most of the work consists of the Animal Apocalypse, an allegory of history from creation to new creation. Up to the Flood it follows the Book of Watchers. The account of the history of Israel differs in emphasis from the Apocalypse of Weeks, in that it stresses not only the repeated apostasy of the people but also the hostility of the Gentile nations, whom God permits to punish Israel. (The relative dates of the two works, before and during the persecution of Antiochus and the Maccabean revolt, may well account for this difference.) The theme of angelic evil affecting human history is also extended from the antediluvian period, the subject of the Book of Watchers, to the period of Israel's history from the exile onwards, in which Israel's sufferings are attributed to angelic shepherds who abuse their God-given position over their flock. Finally, the Animal Apocalypse illustrates again the universal element in the Enoch tradition: although the Gentile nations feature in most of the

)'O n this motif in OT and OT Pseudepigrapha, see K. L. Yinger, Paul, Judatsm and Judgment According to Deeds (SNTSMS 105; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) chapters 1-2; and for early Christian literature, see Bauckham, The Fate ofrhe Dead, 195-198.

282

18. Covenant, Law and Salvattan tn the Jewish Apocrllypses

history as enemies and oppressors of Israel, in the eschatological age all the nations will worship G o d in the temple, and the very distinction between Israel and the nations will disappear (90:33-38). T h e point is strikingly made by the symbolism. During the history of Israel, the pagan enemies of Israel are represented by unclean animals, following the nation found in Leviticus that the food laws serve t o represent the distinction between the holy people of G o d and the other nations as profane. (Thus the Mosaic law, never explicitly mentioned in the Animal Apocalypse, is not absent from its conceptuality.) But in the eschatological age all the species, representing the various nations, are transformed into white bulls (90:38), as Adam had been (853). 1.5 E. (! Sanders on I Enoch

Since Sanders excludes the Parables of Enoch frorn his discussion, this is the appropriate point at which to pause to compare our findings with those which is one of the two apocalyptic of Sanders' investigation of 1 Enoc11,~~ works he discusses. Sanders' work depends o n an earlier stage of scholarly study of 1 Enoch, still dominated by the work of R. H. Charles and unaffected by the Qumran evidence, but this is not decisive for his assessment of the ideological stance of the major Enochic writings. Broadly, o u r findings coincide with Sanders'. It is true that, in the perspective of the texts, the righteous are the true Israel, sharply distinguished from the sinners, w h o are Jewish apostates o r Gentile oppressors. It is true that the classifications are holistic, concerned with fundamental and permanent loyalties rather than with individual transgressions o r good works. Obedience t o the law is a matter of 'staying in' rather than 'getting in.' It is usually taken for granted that the true Israel will inherit the promises G o d in his grace has made t o his elect people. Indeed, the general picture of the coming judgment is not that the righteous will come well out of the same judgment according t o works in which the sinners are condemned, but that only the sinners are Sanders recognizes that the texts tend t o presuppose a rather narrow definition of the righteous o r the true Israel, compared with the broader definition he finds in the rabbinic literature, but that the texts offer few clues t o the criteria which distinguish the faithful from the apostates. (In passing, we may note that this enabled these writings t o be popular among groups, such as the early Christians, w h o would have used different criteria from

" E. P. Sanders, Paul crnd Palestznl~nRelzgion (1,ondon: S C M Press, 1977) 346-362.

'" But it is debatable whether Yinger, P'zrtl, is right t o cite 60:6 as evidence of this point:

I am inclined t o think the reference (in a disordered textual context) is t o the Flood and to the Noahic covenant.

1. The Enoch

Tradition

283

those used by the circles in which the texts originated.) The reason is that the implied readers are in no doubt that they belo~lgto the category of the righteous, and understand the boundaries of this category from other genres of literature. (Sanders does not here make this latter point, but it would be congenial to his general approach to Second Temple Judaism.) However, it is less clear that Sanders does justice to these texts by claiming that they exhibit 'much the same pattern of religion' as he finds in the rabbi^.^' This claim results from isolating the particular question he is pursuing from its wider context of thought, as well as from playing down the material difference between larger and narrower definitions of the true Israel in favour of a purely formal understanding of the issue. It must be recognized that the Enoch literature deals with issues of righteousness and salvation in the context of a vision of a world presently dominated by evil. Evil on a cosmic and universal scale is the inescapable problem to which the solution is eschatological judgment. The righteous are those who are already part of God's solution to the cosmic problem of evil. Their election and perseverance (getting in and staying in) take place in a context in which apostasy (getting out) is widespread and domination by the pagan enemies of God and his people an all too familiar fact, while behind these earthly realities the seductive and oppressive power of supernatural evil is vividly perceived. Addressed to the righteous in such a context, the texts modulate between, on the one hand, assuring them of their election, of God's mercy to the elect and of the certainty of his promises to them, and, on the other hand, encouraging them to remain loyal to God and his law in very adverse situations. Less often remarked is the striking combination of the focus on the righteous remnant of Israel and of the universal and cosmic vision of these writings. Contrary to some caricatures of apocalyptic literature, the Enochic tradition retains the prophetic hope for the time when all the nations will acknowledge and worship the God of Israel. Not merely the vindication of the righteous, important as that is in this literature, but universal righteousness is the outcome of the contest against evil in which the righteous are currently engaged. 1.6 The Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71)

Read as part of the collection of Enochic writings, the Parables of Enoch seems in many respects a less coherent version of the Book of Watchers. Most of the key themes of the latter recur, though without the narrative framework of the Book of Watchers and with more movement between the events of Enoch's time and tableaux of the coming last judgment. As in 1 Enoch 1-5 and the Epistle of Enoch the main focus is the respective

'' Sanders, Pad,361.

284

18. C'ovenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

destinies of the righteous and the sinners, and as in the Epistle of Enoch the righteous are an oppressed group while the sinners are the powerful oppressors. The most innovative and most studied feature of the Parables is the figure of the Son of Man, a heavenly being who, as the Righteous O n e and the Elect One, is a kind of heavenly counterpart of the righteous and elect, and who will be God's agent in the judgment, enacting the vengeance of the righteous o n their enemies. H e functions as a kind of guarantee of the destiny of the righteous, who will live with him in blessedness for ever. Of the various terms for the righteous, 'righteous' is the most common (48 occurrences), followed by 'elect' (30) and 'holy' (17, used more commonly of the angels). Other key descriptions are 'the righteous and elect whose works depend on the Lord of spirits' (38:2), 'the elect who depend o n the Lord of spirits' (40:5), 'the faithful who depend o n the Name of the Lord of spirits' (46:8), those 'who believe o n the Name of the Lord of spirits for ever and ever' (43:4), those 'who have made supplication t o my glorious Name' (45:3), 'those who hold fast to righteousness' (61:4). These descriptions are distinctive of the Parables, not found in the other Enochic writings, and, along with the frequent use of 'elect' (paralleled only in 1 Enoch 1-5), serve to emphasize the grace of God and the corresponding belief, faith and reliance o n God o n the part of the elect. In view of what we have already said about 1 Enoch 1-5 and the Epistle of Enoch, it will not be surprising that nothing is said about the righteous deeds of the righteous (other than that they 'hold fast t o righteousness') o r their obedience to the law, presumably not because these things are denied, but because they are taken entirely for granted. They d o not need exhortation to be righteous, but assurance that God and the Son of man are on their side, that they will be vindicated against the wicked, and that they have a secure destiny of blessing and righteousness. It is important that righteousness is represented as a quality (alongside mercy in 39:5 and wisdom in 48:l) which characterizes not only the coming judgment but also the life of the righteous with the Son of man for eternity (71:16-17). There is also a notion that righteousness in human and divine affairs corresponds to the order of the creation as Enoch perceives it in his cosmological journeys. The wicked are called not only sinners, but, more revealingly, 'those who have denied the Name of the Lord of spirits' (38:2; 45:2), those who 'deny the name of the Lord of spirits' (41:2; 45:1), those who 'have denied the Lord of spirits and his Anointed One' (48:10), those who 'have denied the Lord of spirits'(67:8, cf. 10) and 'do not extol the Name of the Lord of spirits' (46:6). These expressions might suggest Jewish apostates, as in 1 Enoch 1-5 and the Epistle of Enoch, but 46:7 characterizes them as idolworshippers and therefore presumably pagans. There and in most places the sinners are the kings, the mighty, the powerful, those who occupy o r possess

1. The Enoch h d i t i o n

285

the earth (or the land). The judgment is t o be a reversal of status, such that from then onwards 'those who possess the earth will be neither powerful nor exalted' (38:4). But there are some passages which seem t o acknowledge a general class of sinners other than the powerful and the rulers (53; cf. 42). Jewish sinners seem never t o be mentioned, and so the usual view that, as in other Enochic works, the righteous (called 'the congregation of the righteous' [38:1] and 'the congregations of the godly' [41:2]) are a group within the nation who considered themselves the true remnant of Israel is hard t o verify. The powerful and the rulers are t o be judged according to their works (45:3; 63:9; cf. 41:1), with a justice they themselves acknowledge (63:8-9). This justice requires that mercy is refused them even when at the time of judgment they ask for it (62-63; 38:5-6). But although this refusal of mercy applies to the arrogant oppressors, for Gentiles in general the Parables offers much more hope, in line with the ultimately universal emphasis of the Enochic tradition. When the Gentiles38witness the victory of the elect over their oppressors, then they may repent and renounce their idols, and God will have compassion on them. His compassion grants salvation t o those who repent, while his righteousness requires that those who d o not repent must perish (50:2-5).

2 Enoch has much in common with other Enochic works, and probably presupposes specifically at least the Book of Watchers (some such background would be necessary, for example, t o understand the appearance of the Watchers themselves in chapter 7). Enoch's cosmic tour, accompanied by angels who show him cosmological and eschatological secrets, does not here take him t o the edges of the world, as in the Book of Watchers, but upwards through the seven heavens t o the throne of God. But this merely corresponds to a shift of cosmological picture in late Second Temple Judaism. As in the Book of Watchers and the Parables, revelations t o Enoch are about the workings of the cosmos as well as eschatological matters, and the topics are probably connected by a sense that God's judgment is part and parcel of God's ordering of the cosmos. As in the Book of Watchers, Enoch in 2 Enoch sees thc places of eschatological judgment, reward and punishment, already prepared as an integral part of creation. As in all the ' T h i s depends o n Black's interpretation of 'others' (50:2) as Gentiles: see Black, The Book ofEnoch, 213. Hut it rr in accord with the Isaianic expectation to which the description of the Son of man as 'the light of the Gentiles' (58:4) clearly also alludes. 39 For a survey of scholarshrp o n 2 Enoch, see C. Bottrich, 'Recent Studies in the Slavonzc Book of Enoth,'JSI' 9 (1991) 35-42.

286

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jm*ishApocalypses

Enoch literature, eschatological judgment is a very dominant theme. Similarly, 2 Enoch seems to rely on the implicit typology of its setting before the Flood: the sinfulness of humanity before the Flood parallels that of the end-time, the readers' own time, and the Flood itself prefigures the cschatological judgment. More novel in the Enoch tradition is the considerable attention 2 Enoch gives to questions of cosmological origins: the processes of God's creation of the world and of Adam. An important difference from the other Enoch literature is that 2 Enoch does not seem to address a situation in which the readers, a righteous minority, are troubled by widespread apostasy o r by oppression. The function of eschatological promise and judgment as encouragement and consolation for the faithful is largely missing.J0 Instead, there are considerable portions of ethical paraenesis, in which, exceptionally among the Enoch literature, the content of righteous living is expounded in some detail, and ethical exhortation is both accompanied by eschatological sanctions of punishment and reward and also frequently grounded in creation. But it is hardly correct t o characterize the content of the exhortation as only 'a simple ethical code,'" since there are also cultic requirements, including animal sacrifice (2:2; 45:l-3; 59:l-5; 62:l; 66:2)" and thrice-daily attendance at 'the Lord's temple' (51:4).'3 (These references are decisive in demonstrating the Jewish origin of 2 Enoch, which, if the references are to the Jerusalem temple cult, must date from before 70 CE. But the Jewish temple at 1,eontopolis in Egypt might be in view, if, as many have argued, 2 Enoch was written in Egypt.) Set as it is in the time of Enoch, Enoch has no reference to the covenants with Israel, the Torah o r the history of Israel, except in a very indirect sense in the predictive reference to the preservation of Enoch's books until the last generation of his descendants, when they will be revealed (352-3). This rather obscure statement may refer to 2 Enoch's implied readers as 'the faithful men.' The ethical teaching is not obviously based on the Torah, but, as wisdom instruction, need not be seen as competitive with the T ~ r a h , " ~ just as Ben Sira's wisdom was not meant t o be an alternative to the law. Like the law, Enoch's teaching is referred t o as a yoke (48:8-9), no doubt because it embodies God's commandments, also described as a yoke (34:l). " V h a p t e r 50 is a partial exception, but even here the form is ethical exhortation. F. I. Andersen, '2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,' in Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudc.prgrapha, vol. 1,96 j2 The book also depicts the practice of animal sacrifice b y the righteous in the antediluvian period (68:s-7; 69:9-18; 70:2, 19-21), though n o temple is mentioned. "'Quotations of 2 Enoch are from the translation of Andersen, '2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch.' " 2 Enoch t7:2J seems to claim superiority for Enoch's books over all other books ever to be written, but the relevant words are found only in recension J, and may not be original.

I . The Enoch Tradition

287

It was not uncommon for Jews to see the essence of the Torah, without its specifically Jewish features, as known to people from the time of Adam. The strong insistence on monotheistic belief and worship throughout 2 Enoch is very typical of late Second Temple Jewish literature, and, since 2 Enoch is not plausibly a work of propaganda aimed at pagan readers, the implied readership can hardly be other than Jews and those Gentiles who attached themselves to synagogues and worshipped the God of Israel as the only god. The universalistic, not specificallyJewish, tenor of the book is therefore to be understood as a requirement for a work set in the antediluvian period and attributed to Enoch. The question is whether 2 Enoch takes for granted the specifically Jewish teaching known to its readers in the Hebrew scriptures or whether it defines a form of religion for which Enoch's writings would take the place of the Torah of Moses. The former is more likely. But the consequence of this feature of 2 Enoch is that there are no covenantal features in 2 Enoch, no election or covenantal promises, only God's commandments and rewards and punishments for observance or neglect of them. The major concerns of 2 Enoch's many references t o the last judgment are that nothing in a person's life, inward or outward, will escape scrutiny, and that strict justice will be done, such that retribution or reward will correspond to merit. Several conventional motifs convey this. O n e is the light from which noone can hide, so that 'there will be true judgment, without favouritism, for true and untrue alike' (46:3J). Another is the book in which all the deeds of every person are recorded, so that they can be made known at the judgment (50:l; 52:15; 53:2-3; cf. 1 Enoch 98:8; 104:7; 2 Bar 24:l; ApZeph 7). According to 19:5(J) angels keep this exhaustive record of each life, but elsewhere Enoch himself is the scribe (50:l; 53:2-3).45In either case, the scribe has the benefit of God's total knowledge of a person, their inward thoughts as well as their outward deeds (533; cf. 66:3,5), so that, once again, nothing can be hidden and noone can escape God's judgment (50:l; 66:3, 5). 2 Enoch's strong emphasis on the heart (in the biblical sense of the seat of thought and motivation) as the interior source of behaviour and on the need for purity of heart (e. g. 2:3; 453; 46:2; 61:l; 63:2) requires an emphasis on the full exposure of the heart to the divine scrutiny. Another aspect of judgment which emphasizes its absolute justice is the eschatological lex t a l i ~ n i sin , ~which ~ the punishment is described in a way that fits the crime or the reward in terms that parallel the righteous act. For example, 'He who 45 For this role of Enoch, cf. Jub 4:23-24; TAbr Bl0-11, and Coptic Christian literature discussed in B. A. Pearson, 'The Pierpont Morgan Fragments of an Enoch Apocryphon,' in G. W. E. Nickelsbuq ed., Studies on the Testament of Abraham (SBLSCS 6; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972) 244-249. 46 O n this see Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead, 123-124,210-215.

288

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

expresses anger to any person without provocation will reap anger in the great judgment' (45:3J), while someone who willingly suffers financial loss for the sake of a brother can expect to receive 'a full treasury' in the age to come (50:5J; for other examples, positive and negative, see 22; 4 4 3 bJ; 45:l-2; 50:6A; 60:3). Finally, there is the image of weighing people or their deeds in the scales of justice (445; 49:2; 52:15).47This motif is found also elsewhere in the Jewish apocalypses with reference to eschatological judgment (I Enoch 41:l; 61:8; ApZeph 8:5). Tempting as it is to trace this motif to Egyptian origins,48 it is in fact no more common in Jewish and Christian literature of Egyptian and its immediate source is certainly biblical: origin than If you say, "Look, we did not know this" does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it? And will he not repay all according to their deeds (Prov 24:12 NRSV; cf. also Prov 16:2; 21:2; Job 31:6; Dan 5:27).

The significance of this text is that it couples the image of weighing with the formula about requiting each according to his or her deeds (also in Ps 62:12; Job 34:11; Jer 17:10), which became a standard way of describing the justice 2 Enoch of the eschatological judgment in early Jewish l i t e r a t ~ r eThough .~~ does not use the formula, the image of weighing deeds is clearly intended in the same sense. Particularly interesting is the extended image in 445, which shows how it refers to the use of instruments for measuring by weight and quantity in the marketplace: Because o n the day of the great judgment every weight and every measure and every set of scales will be just[,] as they are in the market. That is to say, each [person] will be weighed in the balance, and each will stand in the market, and each will find out his own measurement and in accordance with that measurement each will receive his reward (44:5J).

Evidently the just weights and measures are the divine standard of justice, and the correct price (reward) will be paid for each person's weight o r measurement on those scales.51Peculiar to 2 Enoch seems t o be the notion that a scale for weighing each person is already prepared for that person, along with a place for their judgment, before the person existed (49:2-3; 47 In 52:15 both scales and books are mentioned together at the judgment; the two images are also combined in TAbr A12-13. 48 S. G. F. Brandon, The Judgment of the Dead (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1967) 3748,120-126. 49 Pearson, 'The Pierpont Morgan Fragments,' 249. 50 Yinger, Paul, chapters 1-2; Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead, 195-198. 5' Cf. the 'measure for measure' idea and terminology in Jewish and Christian literature: Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead, 212.

I . The Enoch Tradition

289

cf. 23:4). This is the extreme case of the notion, important in 2 Enoch, that judgment is an integral pan of the cosmos as God has created and ordered it, as is expressed more generally in Enoch's viewing of paradise and hell, already awaiting the inhabitants to be assigned to them at the last judgment (8-10; cf. 61:2-3). It is not explained how the assessment of recorded deeds or the weighing of people's lives operates such as to produce two distinct categories of people, the righteous and the wicked. Even if there are also gradations of reward or punishment within each category (cf. 43:3J), the overall division into two categories, one destined for paradise, the other for hell, is everywhere taken for granted in 2 Enoch, as in other apocalypses and most early Jewish literature. In the Testament of Abraham (A12-14; B9) it is clear that people are assigned according to whether their sins outnumber their righteous deeds. But this crudely arithmetical notion can hardly be intended literally. We should probably think of a process of just judgment on the overall quality of a person's whole life. In other apocalypses, we can detect the idea that the division into two categories at the judgment rests on the fundamental choice and loyalties of people, who direct their lives either in accordance with God's commandments or in rejection of them, and that the deeds done and the lives lived are the outworking of this basic orientation of life in one or the other direction. One way in which this is expressed is the well-known picture of the two ways, one of which everyone must choose to take. This image is used of Adam in 2 Enoch 30:15J: And I [God] gave him [Adam] his free will; and I pointed out to him two ways -light and darkness. And I said to him, "This is good for you, but that is bad"; so that I might come to know whether he has love toward me or abhorrence, and so that it might become plain who among his race loves me.

It is clear that for 2 Enoch all of Adam's descendants have the same free choice as Adam had. It may also be that 2 Enoch's considerable emphasis on monotheistic faith and worship as opposed to polytheism and idolatry implies that other acts follow from a fundamental choice between faith in or rejection of the one true Something like this is suggested by the images of the two yokes and the sowing of two kinds of seed: I [God] know the wickedness of mankind, how they have rejected my commandments and they will not carry the yoke which I have placed on them. But they will cast off my yoke, and they will accept a different yoke. And they will sow worthless seed, not fearing God and not worshipping me, but they began to worship vain gods, and they renounced my uniqueness. And all the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities and wickednesses ... (34:l-25: the reference is to the period before the Flood). 52

10:4J could well imply this.

290

18. C ( ~ j o l u n tl,izw , '2nd Salvntron rn the Jea*rshApocczfypses

Carrying the yoke is doubtless undertaking t o obey the commandments of the one true God, arid the seed are the deeds that follow from such an undertaking. Using the same image of the yoke for the comnlandments of G o d as conveyed in his own writings, Enoch says that those 'who are discerning so that they may fear God' delight in them, but 'those w h o arc undiscerning and w h o d o not understand the Lord' renounce them and find the yoke a burden weighing them down (48:7-8). At first sight, 2 Enoch 41:2 suggests total perfectionism: someone w h o avoids being sent t o hell is one w h o 'has not sinned before the face of the Lord.' This appears t o justify Andersen's note that 2 Enoch 'does not admit the possibility of any remedy for sin through repentance and reparation from the human side, let alone compassion and forgiveness from the divine ~ i d e . ' ~But ' such statements are not usually intended in as absolute a sense as they seem t o be. That 2 Enoch allows for repentance and forgiveness in the case of some sins we should probably conclude from the fact that for certain sins there is explicitly said t o be no possibility of repentance o r forgiveness: murder and other forms of serious harm against another person, and failure t o fulfil a vow made to G o d (60--62). It is likely that for more minor sins, repentance (and sacrifice?) obtain forgiveness if repentance takes place in this life. What is truly remarkable is that 2 Enoch (a work of 72 chapters) has n o reference whatever t o the mercy of God. As Andersen justifiably puts it: 'A blessed afterlife is strictly a reward for right ethical c ~ n d u c t . ' ~ ' E. P. Sanders judged 4 Ezra as, among the early Jewish works he studied, a unique exception t o the general pattern of covenantal noniism as he defined it, especially because it lacks the notion that 'the basically righteous but not always obedient members of Israel' require God's mercy in order t o be saved.55As we shall see, 4 Ezra does not in fact exclude God's mercy entirely (10:24; 12:34; 14:34), though it s o marginalizes it that all the emphasis is on the merit of good works. H a d he taken account of 2 Enoch, Sanders would have found it even more worthy of the description: 'the closest approach t o legalistic works-righteousness which can be found in the Jewish literature of the p e r i ~ d . ' ~Andersen " gives the verdict for him: 'harsh legali~m,'~' 'rigorous I e g a l i s ~ n . Yet ' ~ ~ we should remember that according t o 2 Enoch, for those 'who are discerning,' Enoch's writings, containing the cornmandments of G o d and their eschatological sanctions, 'will be more enjoyable than any delightful food o n earth' (48:7J). O n l y for the undiscerning d o

'' Andersen, '2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,' 167. 5C ih 5'

58

Andersen, '2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,' 96. Sanders, Paul, 422. Sanders, Puul, 4 18. Andersen, '2 (Sla\,onic Apctcal y psc of) Enoch,' 167. Andersen, ' 2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,' 188.

they seen1 a burden (48:8). And there is just one hint that 2 Enoch's religion of the heart is not devoid of grace. After his parting summary of his ethical instruction t o his children in chapter 2, Enocll prays: 'may G o d make your hearts true in reverence for him' (2:3J).

2. Apocalypse of Zephaniahsy Although the Apocalypse of Zephaniah has not yet acquired a generally recognized place among the Jewish apocalypses of the Second Temple period, there is a reasonable probability that it belongs there. But a Christian origin cannot be ruled out,hOand so, until riiore thorough studies are made, its evidence must be treated cautiously. It may well be the earliest extant example of a specific type of apocalypse, in which the seer is taken o n a tour of the places of the dead and sees the dead in their various conditions. Whereas in Enoch's cosmic tours, in the Book of Watchers and 2 Enoch, Enoch sees the places prepared for the dead but also many other contents of the hidden parts of the cosmos, Zephaniah's travels in the other world are confined t o the places of the dead and to sights of the living o n earth in relation t o their fate after death.6' Abraham's cosmic journey in the Testament of Abraham provides the closest parallel in extant literature of the Second Temple period. The Apocalypse of Zephaniah reflects that view of the intermediate state, gaining ground towards the end of the Second Temple period, according to which the dead already enjoy o r suffer, in a provisional way, the fates to which they will be finally assigned at the day of judgment."' As far as can be gathered from the fragmentary and probably abbreviated Coptic texts, Zephaniah follows the path of a dead person through Hades t o paradise. The fragmentary beginning of the Akhminiic text (1:l-2) niay describe his body appearing t o be dead. Evidently Zephaniah has gone into a cataleptic trance in which his soul could leave his body and be taken by an 59 It is generally thought that the long fragnlent of an apocalypse in Akhmimic, first called an 'Anonymous Apocalypse' by Steindorff, belongs to the same work as the smaller fragment in Sahidic, in which the speaker is Zephaniah. I threw some doubt o n this in Bauckham, 'The Apocalyp.ic\ in the New Pscudcpigraplia,'in C . A . Evanc and S.E. Porter cd., New Testament Hackgrounds: A Shefield Reader (Biblical Seminar 43; Sheffield: Shcffield Academic Press, 1997) 71-74 (this article was first published in 1986), but for convenier~ccI use the title Apocalypse of Zephaniah which has brcome standard scholar1y usage. " 10:9 almost certainly betrays a Christian editor, if not origin, and 2:2-4 (cf. Matt 24:40-41; I.uke 17:34-35) needs careful assessnlent in relation to this issue. '' For such apocalypser, see Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead, 80, 85-86, 91-94; M. Himmclfarb, Tows of Hell: An Apoculyptzc Form tn Jewzsh and C:hrrsttan Ltteratrtre (Philadelphia: University o f I'ennrylvania I'ress, 1983). 62 Bauckham, The Fate ofthe Dead, 86-90.

292

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

angel through the world of the dead. His angelic guide protects him from the angels of punishment who seize the souls of the wicked when they die (4:l-10). Entering Hades, he encounters the angel Remiel (cf. 1 Enoch 20:7), who is in charge of the souls in Hades, and another terrifying angel, who is Satan in his traditional, biblical role of judicial accuser (8:5; cf. Zech 3:l). He reads out all Zephaniah's sins from a scroll; Zephaniah prays to God for mercy and is told that he has triumphed over the accuser; another angel reads out the record of his righteous deeds (though this part of the text is lost). H e travels from Hades to paradise, where the patriarchs are (7-9). From here it is possible to look back to Hades and down into its pit, where the wicked dead are being punished. This is a text whose primary concerns are with the post-mortem judgment of the dead on the basis of their deeds done in this life and also with the possibilities for God's mercy after death. The recording angels whom we have met in 2 Enoch appear here observing people during their lifetimes from the gates of heaven. Some record 'all the good deeds of the righteous,' and the records are taken to God who then records the names of these people in the book of the living (3:5-7).63 Others, the angels of Satan, record sins, so that Satan can accuse people when they die (39). As we can see in the case of Zephaniah himself, certainly a righteous man (4:9), two books, one of sins and one of righteous deeds, are read out in relation to each soul when it comes into Hades (7). The picture is similar to that in the Testament of Abraham (A12-13), though Satan does not appear there. As in 2 Enoch and the Testament of Abraham, the image of the two books of deeds is associated with the alternative image of the scales (8:5). We would expect that, as in the Testament of Abraham, the assessment of each soul would be a matter of whether sins outnumber righteous acts or vice versa. Unfortunately, the section of the text describing the reading of the scroll of Zephaniah's righteous deeds (7:10-11) and what happens then is missing. But it is notable that after hearing the painfully accurate record of his sins, Zephaniah prays for God's mercy: 'may you wipe out my manuscript [i.e. the record of his sins] because your mercy has come to be in every place and has filled every place' (7:s). Then, even before his righteous deeds have been read out, the angel tells Zephaniah that he has 'prevailed' and 'triumphed over the accuser' and has 'come up from Hades and the abyss' (79). This places the text firmly in the tradition that holds that even the righteous can be saved only by the mercy of God in forgiving their sins. 63 Quotations from the Apocalypse of Zephaniah are from the translation by O.S. Wintermute, 'Apocalypse of Zephaniah,' in Charlesworth ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigraphs, vol. 1,497-5 15.

2. Apocalypse of Zt,phatriah

293

Another feature of the two books is remarkable. It is on the basis of the record of the good deeds of the righteous that God writes their names in 'the book of the living' (35'; for this term, also in 9:2, rather than 'book of life,' see 1 Enoch 47:3; JosAsen 15:4). The biblical source of this term is Psalm 69:28: Let them be blotted out o f the book o f the living; let them not be enrolled among the righteous.

The idea is found quite often in the context of eschatological judgment, distinguished from the books recording the deeds of people,6' and functioning rather as a register of the elect who are to be saved (Dan 12:l; 1 Enoch 47:3; 108:3; Rev 20:15). Therefore, as in Psalm 69:28, the usual image is not of names being added to the book, but of the names of sinners being blotted out of it (Exod 32:33; Jub 30:22; 1 Enoch 108:3; Rev 3:5; JosAsen 15:4), even though the second line of Psalm 69:28 could be read (and may well have been-read by the author of the Apocalypse of Zephaniah) as indicating a process of adding names, additional to the process of subtracting names to which the first line of the verse refers. The usual use of the image of the book of life therefore coheres with the covenantal view that Israelites belong to the elect people of God and will receive the eschatological promises of life unless they apostatize and are blotted out of the book of life. By contrast, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah suggests that the righteous qualify by their righteousness to be included in the people of God who will receive eschatological ~alvation.'~ Zephaniah's view of the wicked undergoing punishment in the abyss leads him to ask God to be merciful to them (2:8-9)." H e also learns that at a certain hour of every day, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob pray for God's mercy on these sinners, and are joined in their prayer by all the righteous in paradise (11:1-6). We d o not learn God's response to the prayers, but Zephaniah's angelic guide does tell him that repentance by sinners in hell after death is possible up to the last judgment (10:lO-11). This is a very unusual view in the context of Second Temple Judaism (or early Christianity). 4 Ezra, for example, says, specifically of sinners after death and before the last judgment, that 'they cannot make a good repentance so that they may live' (7:82). But in limiting the possibility of repentance to the time before the last judgment, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah conforms to the usual view, in the Jewish Our text is helpful in making the distinction clear, since scholars sometimes confuse these books: e.g. Black, The Book of Enoch, 209. 65 I know only one other example of the idea that people who live righteous lives get t o have their names put into the book of life: TJac 7:27, a clearly Christian passage. u, This theme is comnlon in later Christian apocalypses which doubtless derived it originally from Jewish sources: see Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead, 137.

294

18. Crritcnant, Law '2nd Slzlvatton ~n the Jrdrsh Apocalypses

apocalypses, that the possibility of repentance and mercy for the wicked comes t o an end at the last judgment (1 Enoch 60:5-6; 4 Ezra 7:33-34; 2 Bar 85:12-13) and that G o d will not listen t o prayers for mercy by the damned after the judgment (1 Enoch 62:9-10). These works also, rather emphatically, deny that intercession by the especially righteous for the wicked will be possible o r efficacious at the last judgment (4 Ezra 7:102-115; 1 Enoch 38:6; 2 Enoch 53:l; 2 Bar 85:12-13). This is a denial of the argument that, just as such people as Moses and the prophets had successfully interceded for the sinners of Israel in this world (TMos 11:17; 126; 4 Ezra 7:106-111; 2 Bar 85:l-2), surely they might d o the same in the next?67T h e Apocalypse of Zephaniah seems t o have taken advantage of the possibility of recognizing the finality of the last judgment but allowing for intercession, repentance and forgiveness between death and the last judgment. That the principal intercessors in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah are the three patriarchs is surely significant. Despite this apocalypse's unusual use of the image of the book of life, the appearance of the patriarchs suggests that they are pleading for the sinners among their descendants o n the basis of the covenant G o d made with them. Though it is a much later text, it is worth comparing the medieval Hebrew Story of Daniel, according t o which, at the end of history, the three patriarchs will stand at the three entrances t o Gelienna and ask G o d t o remember his covenants with them. In response G o d will be merciful t o all Israelite sinners and none of them will be sent t o Cehenna." While it is not likely that the Apocalypse of Zephaniah goes ds far as this in its notion of the intercession of the patriarchs and the extent of God's mercy, it evidently expresses a generous view of God's willingness t o be ~nercifult o members of his covenant people. (There is no evidence for the author's view of Gentiles.)

3. Responses to the Fall ofJerusalem

It is well known that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in 70 CE was a traumatic event which eventually provoked major changes in Jewish religion and thought, though many of these may have been less obvious after 70 than they were after the failure of the second Jewish revolt in 135. Some of these changes were practical accommodations t o a radically changed situation, but, as the apocalypses written between

','

O n this whole subject, see Bauckham, The h r e of'the Dead, 136-148. G. W. Buchanan, Rcwehtron and Redemptron (Dillsboro, North Carolina: Western North Carolina Press, 1978) 476. hX

3. Responses to the F~zllo f l e r ~ s a l c m

295

the two revolts o r perhaps after the second show, the catastrophe also raised profound theological and existential questions. The perplexing issues, which actually threatened faith in the G o d of Israel unless they could be adequately met, concerned the covenant and theodicy. That the catastrophe was divine punishment for Israel's sin was the most obvious interpretation available, but how could punishment t o such a degree and involving the triumph of Israel's pagan oppressors, God's enemies over God's people, be understood in the light of God's covenant with Israel? Was the covenant invalidated? H o w were the justice, the mercy and the faithfulness of Y H W H t o be understood in this unexpected new event in his history with Israel? Such questions challenged not so much those who already presupposed a very restrictive definition of the true Israel w h o would inherit the promises (though they may well have had problems of their own unrepresented in our literature), but rather those w h o understood the promises t o belong t o the whole of ethnic Israel (excepting only those w h o actually renounced Jewish identity). It was natural that people accustomed t o understanding G o d and his purposes for his people from the biblical narratives should explore these perplexing issues by putting themselves imaginatively within the story of the closest analogy in Israel's history: the fall of Jerusalem t o the armies of Nebuchadrezzar. Hence the three apocalypses attributed to Baruch and Ezra and set at the time of the fall of Jerusalem o r the exile that followed. Another appropriate literary vehicle was an apocalypse attributed t o one of the patriarchs to whom G o d gave the covenant promises that he would never forsake their descendants. Two other apocalypses probably writtcn in the period after 70 fall into this category: the Apocalypse of Abraham and the Ladder of J a ~ o b . 'Unfortunately, ~ the state of the extant texts (both in old Slavonic) of these two works is such that their treatment of the topics of interest t o our present concerns is obscure in the extreme, and so they have had t o be onlitted from the present study. 3.2 4 Ezra 4 Ezra70is a sustained theological reflection o n the justice and mercy of G o d in his dealings with Israel in particular and humanity in general. T h e special hY There are close re\cmblanccs between the 1,adder of J , ~ c o b and the Apocalypse of Abraham which probably indicate that the former is to be dated in the same period as the latter. It is remarkable that the L.adder of Jacob, misleadingly included in volume 2 of Charlesworth's Old 'Testament Pseudepigrapha, has not heen recognized as an apocalypse. There can be no question that generically it is. '"mong other studies of 4 Ezra I am especially indebted to B. W. I,ongcnecker, Eschatology and the Covenant: A Cornpanson of 4 Ezra and Romans 1-11 USNTSS 57; Sheffield: Sheffield Acadeniic Press, 1991) and 2 Esdras (GAP; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

296

18. Coverzant, Law and Salzutron rn the Jewzsh Apoc~lypses

problematic, as well as the agonized character, which this issue has in 4 Ezra derives from its context following the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in 70. The fictional setting, according t o which Ezra, in Babylon in the thirtieth year of the Babylonian exile, is in severe distress and theological bewilderment over the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in the late sixth century BCE, is plainly meant to be read as typological of the situation of the real author and his readers at the end of the first century CE. The starting-point for the theological journey Ezra undertakes in the book is the apparent fact that, if the destruction of Jerusalem is understood as God's judgment on Israel's sin, as much of the Hebrew Bible would suggest, then God must be understood t o treat even his own covenant people with merciless justice. H o w can this be consistent with the merciful character of the God of Israel portrayed in Israel's scriptures and with the covenant he made with Abraham and his descendants? 4 Ezra is carefully structured in seven episodes (I: 31-5:20; 11: 5:21-6:34; 111: 635-9:26; IV: 9:27-10:59; V 11:l-12:51; VI: 13:l-58; VII: 14:1-48)." The first three are dialogues (each initiated by Ezra's prayer to God) between Ezra and the angel Uriel, who speaks for God, sometimes directly in God's name. At first sight it might seem that throughout these dialogues Ezra doggedly maintains his own perspective on the matter, resisting the alternative theological approach recommended by Uriel, but closer attention shows that in fact Ezra step by step accepts elements of Uriel's case, so that by the fourth and central episode he appears to have wholly accepted Uriel's This episode and the two which follow consist of visions which are then interpreted by Uriel. At the beginning of the fourth episode, Ezra, although he has accepted Uriel's account of God's justice, is no less distressed than he has been all along. The three visions of God's eschatological judgment and salvation have the effect of consoling him, so that at the end of the sixth episode he is full of praise for God's sovereignty (1357-58). In the last, distinctive episode, Ezra is inspired to rewrite both the twenty-four books of the Hebrew scriptures, which had been lost, and seventy other secret books.

I'ress, 1995). though I differ from his views in significant ways. The fine commentary of M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) is now indispensable for all study of 4 Ezra, though it is not especially alert to the issues that are of particular concern in the present context. There are useful reviews of scholarship in L.ongenecker, 2 Esdras, chapter 2, and Stone, Fourth Ezra, 9-2 1. Chapters 1-2 and 15-16 of the work known, in English editions of the Apocrypha, as 2 Esdras, d o not belong to the original Jewish apocalypse (4 Ezra) but are hter Christian additions (often known respectively as 5 and 6 Ezra). 72 For the progressive character of the dialogues, see Stone, Fourth Ezra, 24-28, and his commentary on the passages.

3. Responses to the Fall of Jerusalem

297

The whole book is evidently composed as a progressive argument, which must be understood as a whole for the message of the book to be appreciated. It may well be that, as Longenecker argues, the process of Ezra's dispute with Uriel, conversion to Uriel's position, and the fuller understanding which follows reflect the real author's own dialogue with himself and the way his own thinking changed and developed.73Stone may also be correct in arguing that the psychological process of what could be termed the author's religious conversion is reflected especially in the fourth episode.74But it is unlikely that the purpose of the work is autobiographical. Ezra's intellectual and spiritual progress is more likely a rhetorical strategy designed to carry readers who start where Ezra does at the opening of the book through a process of enlightenment, conversion and consolation similar to that which Ezra undergoes. From chapters 12 and 14 it is clear that these implied readers are not the generality of Jews, but 'the wise among your people'75(12:38; 14:46). Plausibly they are the Jewish theological elite, such as the sages who assembled at Yavneh in the period between the two Jewish revolts. But they are not envisaged as an insider group who already perceive themselves as the few who are to be saved. They are expected to be sympathetic with Ezra's starting-point rather than his concluding position; they need to follow Ezra on his theological journey. In that sense, although, as we shall see, the understanding of salvation which 4 Ezra read as a whole propounds is not dissimilar to that in the Enoch tradition, 4 Ezra differs from the works comprising 1 Enoch in not presupposing the narrow definition of the true Israel which the Enoch literature could evidently expect its readers to take for granted. Otherwise put, 4 Ezra does not address a sectarian audience, but rather those, such as the rabbis at Yavneh, who understood themselves as religious leaders of all Israel. The choice of Ezra, the man who taught all Israel the whole Torah (1 Esd 8:7), as the work's pseudonymous author, is in this, as in several other respects, appropriate. Ezra's position in the dialogues is based on an understanding of God's purpose in creation and world history as centred on his covenant people Israel. These are the descendants of Abraham, with whom God made an eternal covenant, promising that he would never forsake them (3:15). Even after Uriel has told Ezra that he should see himself as one of the very few righteous, not one of the many sinners (Jewish and Gentile), he continues to identify himself with the whole of Israel (9:29-37; contrast the significant alternation of first and second person plurals in 14:29-35). Throughout the first three episodes it is the failure of God's mercy that Ezra cannot under-

'' Longenecker, 2 Esdras, 96-98. 74 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 32-33; also M . E. Stone, 'On Reading an Apocalypse,' in Collins and Himmelfarb ed., Mysteries and Revelations, 65-78. 75 Quotations from 4 Ezra are from the NRSV version of 2 Esdras.

298

18. Cmle~rlnt,I,uw and Jnlvat~on~nthe Jewrsh Apoc~zlypses

stand. H e accepts that Israel has sinned, but not that this explains God's abandonment of his people t o their enemies. Although G o d gave Israel his law, how could he have expected them to obey it, since he did not remove the evil i n ~ l i n a t i o n 'which ~ all people have inherited from Adam and hardly any succeed in resisting (3:20-23; cf. 7:48)? In any case, Israel has certainly kept the commandments much better than Babylon o r the other nations, w h o prosper while Israel suffers (3:28-36). Having deliberately selected the one people Israel from all the nations, why has G o d now handed his people over to the nations w h o oppose God (523-30)? G o d intended Israel t o rule the world, but instead the nations rule over Israel (655-57). These arguments imply that G o d has broken his covenant with Israel in that he has not exercised mercy to his people in order to fulfil his covenant promises t o them. The point is reinforced by Ezra's eloquent appeal t o God's character as merciful, revealed in the revelation t o Moses which played a foundational role in the Jewish understanding of G o d (7:132-140; cf. Exod 34:6-7). But by this stage Ezra's argument has developed, under pressure from Uriel's responses, t o a consideration of the whole of humanity as sinful and bound t o perish unless G o d were merciful. This is in considerable tension with his earlier appeal to God's declared estimation of the Gentile nations as nothing (6:56-57) and Ezra's real concern remains Israel (cf. 8:15-16). T h e shift t o considering, sin and its punishment as universal is significant not as indicating a more sympathetic attitude t o the Gentiles, but as indicating the difficulty Ezra is having, through the long dialogue that forms the third episode, in maintaining his view of ethnic Israel as having a special claim o n God's mercy. Though he cannot yet accept it, he is being prepared for the view that G o d is as little concerned for Israelite sinners as he is for Gentile sinners (cf. Uriel in 7:59-61). The high point of the unconverted Ezra's argument is his prayer for G o d t o be merciful (8:20-36). H e pleads with G o d t o consider not the sinners, but the righteous in Israel, sparing the whole people for the sake of the latter (8:26-30). H e ends by claiming that God will be seen t o be merciful, righteous and good, not by rewarding the righteous, if there arc such, w h o have stored up good works, but by being merciful t o those who have no such store of good works (8:32-35). It is important t o appreciate in what an eloquent and appealing form Ezra voices an inclusive covenantal view of God's gracious and forgiving relationship with Israel. It is a view that takes human and Jewish sinfulness very seriously, such that God's covenantal prtrmises t o his people can be fulfilled only if he is gracious to those w h o deserve nothing. It founds this hope on the Torah's own revelation of God's character. This view is certainly '"On the evil inclination in .I t ~ r a see , Stone, Fourth Ezra, 63-67

3. Responses to the Fall of Jerusalem

299

not caricatured. It is presented so sympathetically, even persuasively, that it must be pan of the book's rhetorical strategy to allow this view its full weight. Not that the book is in the least equivocal about which view it finally endorses. But the unconverted Ezra's position must be given its full due, which is considerable, if the need for it t o be superseded is to be presented convincingly to those whose response to the fall of Jerusalem Ezra voices. In the overall context of the book, Ezra's position in the first three episodes fails in that it cannot provide what he is seeking. It cannot account for God's actual abandonment of his people to his and their enemies in late first-century history. Uriel's position in the dialogues is very different from Ezra's. Ezra's anguished desire to understand how the destruction of Jerusalem can be consistent with the covenant promises of God to Abraham and his descendants is initially met by Uriel's insistence that Ezra, a mortal creature of God, should not expect to understand God's ways. Uriel does not, it should be noted, deny the covenant promises, only that Ezra can understand how God will fulfil them (5:40). All the same, the initial impression that Ezra is going to be left, like Job, in chastened agnosticism about the problem of theodicy he confronts is not entirely confirmed by the rest of the book, in which Ezra in fact learns a good deal about the outworking of God's justice and mercy, both from Uriel and from the visions he is given.77 The key elements in Uriel's account of the matter are a stark eschatological dualism and a corresponding distinction between the way God treats the many, who are sinners, and the way he treats the few righteous: 'The Most High made this world [or age78]for the sake of many, but the world [or age] to come for the sake of only a few' (8:l). This age is dominated by sin, which has frustrated God's good intentions for humanity and for which sinners themselves, not God, are to be held responsible (8:59-61). In this age the righteous are bound to suffer whle sinners prosper. Only with the advent of the age to come will God intervene on behalf of the righteous. Only then will God act in judgment on sinners and act with mercy to the righteous, and only then will the evil inclination be removed from human nature (6:26-28). Uriel agrees with Ezra that, given the difficulty of keeping the law in this age, only a few succeed in doing so, such that they can be considered righteous. But whereas Ezra found it intolerable that therefore only these few could be saved, Uriel strongly affirms that this is indeed the case. Difficult " According to Stone, Fourth Ezra, 373, what cannot be revealed are 'cosmological and uranological speculation, mystical ascent and theosophical speculations' (all to be found in other apocalypses, such as those in the Enoch tradition), whereas 'eschatological secrets' are seen in 4 Ezra as 'a proper subject of revelation' (cf. 3:14; 14:5). 78 See the 'Excursus on the Term "Age"' in Stone, Fourth Ezra, 21 8-21 9.

300

18. Coverlunt, Law and Salvation in the J ~ a r s hApuca1)pses

though it may be t o keep the commandments, those w h o d o not are unequivocally t o blame and deserve n o mercy. G o d rejoices over the few w h o will be saved, but wastes n o grief o n the many w h o will perish (7:59-61). So Ezra should not be concerned for them either, nor should he count himself among them. As Sanders fairly puts it, with allusion to 7:20, 'It is better for transgressors t o perish than for the glory of the law to be besmirched by having mercy on them."' We shall return shortly t o the precise terms in which the righteousness of the righteous is understood and their salvation brought about. First, it is important t o notice what the visions add t o what Ezra has already learned from Uriel in the dialogues. O n e point which the three visions consistently make is that eschatological salvation will be brought about by G o d alone (10:53-54) o r through the sole agency of his Messiah, w h o achieves victory without the use of military means (12:31-34; 13:8-11,37-38). This is a forceful rejection of the kind of militaristic messianic activism which had issued in the Jewish revolt and led t o the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. It also distinguishes 4 Ezra from the Enoch tradition as represented in 1 Enoch (though not in 2 Enoch), where the righteous are expected to take an active part in God's judgment o n the wicked (1 Enoch 1:l; 38:5; 90:19; 91:12; 953). For 4 Ezra the role of the righteous is t o keep God's law; judgment and salvation should be left to G o d alone. In the post-70 context it is clear how this functions t o direct faithful Jews away from the political and military activism that had proved futile and instead into renewed effort t o keep God's law faithfully. The latter remained possible even in the circurnstances of suffering and oppression which 4 Ezra does not expect t o be lifted other than by the sheer initiative of G o d himself at the eschatological moment which he has alreaciy determined and which Ezra reveals t o his readers at the end of the first century to be soon. In the wake of the tragedy of 70 CE, 4 Ezra does not shift emphasis from eschatological hope to keeping the commandments, as the rabbinic movement in general would eventually do, but does define rather carefully the relationship between the eschatological hope and the observance of Torah. Apart from the exclusion of human participation in God's eschatological victory, the visions depict the eschatological events in ways that are scriptural and traditional, drawing, like most Jewish eschatology, especially on Isaiah and Daniel. By no means alien to this tradition, but probably not a feature of the hopes that had accompanied the revolt of 66-70 for most of its Jewish participants, and certainly a feature of special significance in 4 Ezra, is the fact that not the whole of ethnic Israel, but only a righteous remnant will be the beneficiaries of eschatological salvation (12:34; 13:48-49). (It

'' Sanders, Paul, 4 16.

3. Responses to the Fall ofkurusalern

301

seems t o have escaped the attention of most scholars writing on 4 Ezra that the Ezra of the biblical book of Ezra also expresses a remnant theology: Ezra 913-15; cf. also 1 Esdras 8:78, 86-90. The implied readers of 4 Ezra could understand this theology t o have been learned by Ezra through the experiences recounted in 4 Ezra, set chronologically earlier than the story of Ezra recounted in biblical Ezra.) This idea of the remnant is, of course, coherent with Uriel's insistence o n the fact that only the righteous few within Israel will be saved. Uriel had used 'remnant' language in this sense already in the dialogues (6:25; 7:28; 9:7-8).'O Thus the visions d o not simply reaffirm the traditional hope for Israel; they reaffirm it in a form different from the inclusive covenantalism expressed by the Ezra of the first three episodes and expressive rather of Uriel's distinctive position against Ezra in those dialogue^.^' This does not mean that we should downplay the traditional material which comprises most of the visions and much even of Uriel's interprctations of the visions. T h e traditional hopes of God's fulfilment of his covenant pron~isest o his people Israel, as expressed in the prophets, are not being denied in favour of a thoroughly individualistic understanding of salvation. Rather the visions and their interpretations affirm that G o d will indeed fulfil his covenant promises while at the same time explaining that fulfilment as salvation only for the righteous remnant of Israel. (It is important that the remnant is emphatically the remnant of Israel: see 12:34; 13:48.) Both aspects are important to the overall message of 4 Ezra. That God, in the eschatological hope expressed in these visions, is fulfilling his covenant with Abraham and his descendants becomes especially clear in a special feature of the last vision (chapter 13). Here not only the remnant of Israel in the land participate in the messianic salvation, but also the nine and a half (or ten) exiled tribes of northern Israel, w h o return to the land of Israel as a 'peaceable multitude' (13:12, 39). I'robably the author and his readers knew a tradition in which the ten tribes were expected t o return t o join in the nlessianic war against Israel's oppressors." This role for the northern tribes he not unexpectedly repudiates: they are peaceable and arrive only after the Messiah has already defeated the innumerable multitude of hostile Genrile nation5 (13:8-13). Their function in this vision is quite different. They are a kind of eschatological surprise revealing to Ezra that the righteous remnant is not as tiny as he had been inclined t o think, rather as Elijah, so O n the terminology - 'those who remain' or 'the surv~vors'- see M. E. Stone, Features of the Eschatology of IV E7ra ( H S S 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 103-104. Demonstrat~ngthis is a rriajor contribution of 1,ongenccker's work o n 4 Ezra; cf. already, very briefly, Collins, The Apocalyptrc Irnagmatron, 167. 2.Bnuckham, The Clrtnax ofProphecy: Studtes on the Book of Revelatton (Edinburgh: I: 81 T. Clark, 1993) 219-220.

"

302

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

thinking himself the only faithful Israelite left, learned that the remnant actually numbered seven thousand (1 Kgs 19314-18). But the point is not simply to encourage Ezra. It shows that God will in fact fulfil his promise to Abraham that he would be the ancestor of a multitude (Gen 17:4) with whom God would maintain his covenant for ever.83This is the covenant to which Ezra referred in his first prayer to God (3:15) and to which he felt the destruction of Jerusalem to be in inexplicable contradiction. This is the covenant promise which seemingly could not be fulfilled if only a very few were to be saved, as Ezra feared and Uriel insisted. N o t until the third of his visions, which adds to the message of the second vision precisely the fact that, through the return of the ten tribes, the remnant who are finally saved will be a multitude, does Ezra discover that, after all, God will be faithful t o his covenant with Abraham. This is why it is only after this vision that Ezra, finally consoled, glorifies God for the wonders of his sovereign governance of history (13:57-58). Uriel's contrast between the few saved and the many who will perish is not contradicted by the vision, but is put in a different light: the ten tribes are a multitude (13:12, 39,47), but the Gentile nations whom the Messiah destroys are an innumerable multitude (135, 11, 34; cf. 3:7).84Thus 4 Ezra's remnant theology finally maintains the distinction between Israel and Gentile sinners as more significant than that between righteous and sinners within Israel. The concerns of Ezra's opening prayer (chapter 3) turn out t o be fully met in the end, though he has only been able t o come t o appreciate this by adopting Uriel's apparently quite contradictory theology. Incidentally, these concerns also exclude from 4 Ezra's vision of the future any such hope for the Gentile nations as is found in the Enoch tradition. The function the ten tribes fulfil in this vision is only possible by virtue of a novel element 4 Ezra introduces into their story. N o t only have they repented of the sins for which they were exiled; they also decided t o leave the

"

4 Ezra is not alone in seeking the fulfilment of the promise of very numerous descendants of Abraham in the exiled ten tribes: Josephus also does so (Ant. 11.133: 'countless myriads whose number cannot be ascertained'), alluding to the promise of znnccmerable descendants to Abraham (Gen 15:5). However, it is significant that, by contrast, 4 Ezra does not call the ten tribes an innumerable multitude: see below. Like 4 Ezra and also with allusion to the covenant with Abraham, Revelation 7 juxtaposes the innumerable company from all nations with the determined number (144,000) of Israelites; cf. Bauckham, The Clzmax, 223-225. 84 Once the importance of the term 'multicude' as part of the covenant with Abraham is recognized, its occurrence elsewhere in 4 Ezra acquires more significance: 7:140; 8:55; 9:22; 10:10-11. Note that in Uriel's definitive statement in 8:l-3, the contrast is between the 'many' created and the 'few' saved (not between many and few Israelites), as is also the case in 9: 19-22.

3. Rcsponscs to the Fall of Jerusalem

303

land of their exile, among Gentiles, and migrate t o an uninhabited region,85 'so that there at least they might keep their statutes that they had not kept in their own land' (13:40). This is h o w it comes about that, whereas of Israel in the land only a few manage t o keep the commandments adequately, all of the exiles of the ten tribes apparently succeed in doing so. They are a model of what the Israel t o which 4 Ezra's implied readers concretely belonged could have been. 4 Ezra's 'individualism' - in which righteous individuals in Israel manage to keep the law while most of their neighbours d o not - is thus not represented as inevitable, though it seemed s o t o Ezra in his ignorance of the history of the ten tribes before his third vision. All Israel could have kept the law and have been saved. But this would have only been possible through national effort and determination equivalent t o the ten tribes' journey of a year and a half t o a land distant from any other nation. This determined self-isolation (assisted by divine action: 13:44) represents the kind of isolation Israel could have achieved in the land had they rigorously kept themselves apart from Gentile contamination as the Torah c ~ m r n a n d e d . ~ ~ Thus the account of the ten tribes, while diverging from Ezra's original view that observing the law was near impossible because of the evil inclination, coheres with Uriel's view that it is not impossible but does demand very considerable determination and effort. Much study of 4 Ezra has found the question of the coherence between the dialogues and the visions highly problematic. T h e older source-critical approaches tended t o solve the problem by dissolving the unity of the work; the more recent work which rightly sees 4 Ezra as a deliberately and carefully constructed unity tends t o argue, in varying ways, that the problems Ezra raises in the dialogues, silenced rather than rnet by Uriel in the dialogues, are overcome by the visions, but in a psychologically o r existentially

'' 'She name Ari.areth,

given t o this land in 4 Ezra 13:45, probably derives from

1.7~

i:m in Ileut 29:28, which according t o m. Sanh. 10:3 K. Aqiva and K. E l i e x r hen H y rcanus, co~~ternporaries of 4 Ezra, applied t o the ten tribes, debating whether it implied that they would o r would not return. For 4 Ezra, the true meaning of Dcut 29:28 is o n e of the 'secret things' t o which Lleut 29:30 refers (cf. 4 Ezra 14:6), i.e. secrets not revealed by Moses t o the people in the Torah but revealed bv G o d to Ezra and thereby t o the wise among the peopie only (1 4:46). Rh

I.ongcncckcr, Eschatology, 128, 5ecs the \ignificancc of tllc ten trihr*' distant hahita-

tion rather in showing that 'keeping the h w does not depend o n the existence of the temple, the priesthood o r any sacrificial offering.' But (1) the usual Jewish view was that the key elements of the temple cult -such as daily burnt-offerings and the day of atonement ritual - were efficacious for Israelites wherever they lived and without their attending the temple in person. As long as the temple stood, the ten tribes in exile were not without its benefits. (2) 4 Ezra nowhere shows any awareness that the absence of the temple cult could be a problem for obsenring the law. In the fictional llistorical setting, the temple had been in ruins for thirty years, but this is never a point of attention. (3) In any case, the explicit emphasis in the narrative about the ten tribes is o n their remoteness from all other nations, not o n their lack of access t o the temple.

304

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

rather than rationally satisfying way.87What has been missed is the crucial role of the ten tribes in relation to God's faithfulness to his covenant with Israel. It is this that provides Ezra at last with a rationally coherent way of understanding how God can fulfil his covenant promises without relaxing the strict demand for observance of the Torah that Uriel, along with the fall of Jerusalem itself, had persuaded Ezra God must maintain however small the number of the saved may in consequence be. The multitude of Abraham's descendants whom God had promised never to forsake will be found after all in the form of the ten tribes who have, in their hidden remoteness, remained faithful to the Torah as very few of the Israelites in the land or in the later diaspora have been. We must now consider in more detail the question of the relation between the covenant, keeping the law and salvation in 4 Ezra. Bruce Longenecker usefully characterizes the options that have been taken by various scholars thus: (I) 4 Ezra ultimately supports a kind of covenantal framework in which God's gracious faithfulness to ethnic Israel is assured in the end, even if it looks suspect in the present; (2) 4 Ezra redefines traditional covenantalism, narrowing the scope of divine grace and thereby limiting covenant membership to include only a remnant, a much smaller group than the whole of ethnic Israel; (3) 4 Ezra breaks out of traditional covenantal confidence in God's faithfulness to corporate Israel and postulates another concept of the ways of God, in which salvation is a matter of the efforts of each individual in order to overcome sin and to amass works of righteousness in one's favour before God. Perhaps these approaches can be entitled "covenantal confirmation," "covenantal redefinition," and "covenantal abrogationn re~pectively.~~

In his earlier full study of 4 Ezra, Longenecker himself had taken the third view, arguing that 4 Ezra replaces the 'ethnocentric covenantalism,' which Ezra expresses in the early chapters and which could not cope theologically with the destruction of Jerusalem, with a 'legalistic individualism,' in which God's grace, the primary quality of God in his covenant with Israel, is given up and salvation, restricted to those who fulfil the law perfectly without sin, is made to depend entirely on their good works.89 In his later work, Longenecker opts rather for the second of the three views, arguing that the third view depends on too one-sided an emphasis on certain elements in 4 Ezra. Thus 4 Ezra is 'animated by a covenant theology,' but one defined by an ethical rigorism, such that the benefits of the covenant are available only to exceptionally righteous people. While 'confidence in God's justice and faithfulness' characterize 4 Ezra's covenant theology, God's graciousness, so important to the general Jewish view of the covenant, has practically 87

89

Collins, The Apocalyptic Zmgimtzon, 168-169, is quite typical. 2 Esdras, 31-32. See the summary of his findings in Longenecker, Eschatology, 149-157

3. Responses to the Fad oflerusafem

305

disappeared: 'traditional notions such as atonement and divine mercy are practically v a c u o u ~ . Thus ' ~ the redefinition of the covenant is not merely a matter of numbers - not all Israel but only the righteous within Israel - but a matter of the very basis a n which people are saved. We have seen that 4 Ezra certainly does not regard the covenant as abrogated, though only in the third vision does it finally become clear how this can be so. We have also seen how the inclusive covenantalism with which Ezra begins his theological journey, which depends on expecting God to be merciful to those who not observe the law faithfully, is replaced by a restriction of the benefits of the covenant to those who succeed in the very demanding task of fulfilling the law in the adverse circumstances of the human condition in this age. The covenantalism with which 4 Ezra evidently expects its readers to begin, as Ezra himself does, is redefined in the course of the book. But it is not clear that the conception of the covenant that emerges from 4 Ezra is novel in itself. The understanding we have observed in the Enoch tradition similarly divides Israel into the righteous and the sinners and restricts the eschatological benefits of the covenant to the former. In Sanders' terms, the righteous 'stay in' by observing God's commandments, while the sinners, by in effect repudiating the covenant, opt out. Is this not also the case in 4 Ezra? This is what Uriel says of sinners in general, Israelite as well as Gentile: they were not obedient [to God's commands] and spoke against him; they devised for theniselves vain thoughts, and proposed t o themselves wicked frauds; they even declared that the Most High does not exist, and they ignored his ways. They scorned his law, and denied his covenants; they have been unfaithful to his statutes, and have not performed his works. (7:22-24, cf. 37, 79; 855-56; 9:9-11)

Just as Gentile sinners have repudiated God by abandoning the commandments he gave them, so Jewish sinners have themselves repudiated the covenant by not keeping the Torah faithfully. Significantly, Uriel's only explicit quotation of scripture9' - taken stratcgically from the closing words of Moses' address to Israel in D ~ u t e r o n o m y-~reminds ~ Ezra that Moses Longenecker, 2 Esdras, 99-1 00. The rarity of Uriel's explicit allusioris to scripture is not an indication that the author of 4 Ezra sees his osition as radically novel in relation to the Iiebrew Bible. Uriel is an angel who comes [om God and speaks on God's behalf; he does not need to bolster his own authority by citing scripture. 9 q h i s , together with the allusion to Dcut 29:28 in 4 Ezra 13:45 and the allusion to Deut 29:29 in 4 Ezra 14:6, shows that 4 Ezra found special eschatological significance in 9'

306

18. Covenant, I.i2z9cznd Salvatron tn theJm~rshApocr?lypser

'spoke t o the people, saying, "Choose life for yourself, s o that you may live! "' (7: 129, quoting Deut 30: 19;9' and cf. 4 Ezra 8:56: 'when they had opportunity to choose, they despised the Most High'). T h e difference between the righteous and the sinners seems t o consist in a fundamental choice t o observe the law faithfully o r not t o take it seriously. The latter option is described in terms of fu&iamental apostasy from G o d and his ways. Of course, it is also true, as Sanders stresses,YJ that the righteous w h o 'choose life' must maintain their choice by continuous effort-to be faithful t o the law: loyalty must be fulfilled in obedience. But the foundational importance of the basic choice between G o d and apostasy, means that for the sinners who have made the wrong choice there remains, while this life lasts, the possibility of repentance, i. e. of changing the whole direction of their lives in order to align it with the law they have previously neglected (7:82; 9:ll). This, after all, is what the exiles of the ten tribes did (13:42). Significant ways in which Ezra and Uriel describe the righteous are as follows:95 They are those w h o keep God's commandnlents (Ezra: 3:35-36; 7:45, cf. 72; Uriel: 13:42) o r his ways (Uriel: 7:79, 88)96 o r the law (Uriel: 7:94; Ezra: 9:32) o r God's covenants (Ezra: 8:27). In this way they have stored u p 'good works' o r 'works of righteousness'with G o d (Uriel: 7:77; E n d : 8:32-33,36). They will be rewarded for thcir deeds (Ezra: 8:33; Uriel: 7:35, cf. 83,98; 8:39) at the last judgment, when all deeds, righteous and unrighteous, will be made rnanifest (Uriel: 7:35;14:35) and 'all shall bear their own righteousness and unrighteousness' (7:105). As well as the language of 'works,' the language of 'faith' Pdes) is also common. T h e heavenly store of works can also he called 'treasures of faith' (6:5), where 'faith' scerns t o mean fidelity o r faithfulness in keeping the law (as probably in 5:l; 6:28; 7:34, cf. 114). T h e remnant are described as those 'who have works and faith towards the Almighty' (Uriel: 13:23; cf. Ezra: 8:30), o r as those w h o 'escape on account of their works, o r on account of the faith by which they have believed' (Uriel: 9:7). In these cases, 'faith' seems t o be trust o r belief in God, and the point may be that the righteous live by the faith that G o d will save and reward them in the eschatological future, just as this is probably the sense of the description of them as those 'who believed the covenants of the Most High' (Uriel: 7:83; cf. Ezra: 3:32; 5:29). In any case, it seems clear that faith and works are not alternatives but necessary complements in the the final chapters of I)euteronomy, juct as w e ha\e observed is the cafe In 1 Enocli 1:3-9 In rclatlon to Ileut 33:2. '' The tiescrrpt~onof the Iorah $15 'the law of Ilte' I r i 1 k /ra 11.30 1s probably also based o n Deut 30:19-20. Sanders, Purtl, 1 16. ?'hew crtatlonr show that there 1s n o slgntficant d~fferer~cc In the ways Urlel and F ~ r dcscr~be a the r~ghtcous. For thte cence of God's 'wayc' as hrc comrn.~ndments,cf. 7:23-24; X:5h; 9:9; 14:31.

'' "

3. Responses to the Fall of Jerusalem

307

righteousness of the righteous. We should also note the ways in which Uriel speaks of the fulfilment of the law by the righteous as very laborious: 'they have striven with great effort to overcome the evil thought that was formed in them, so that it might not lead them astray from life into death' (7:92); and the righteous have to 'pass through the difficult and futile experiences' in this age in order to receive their inheritance in the next (7:12-14). Finally, we should notice two passages which especially lend credence to the description of 4 Ezra's soteriology as 'legalistic perfe~tionism':~'the righteous kept the law 'throughout their life' (7:94; cf. 6:32) and they are those who 'laboriously served the Most High, and withstood danger every hour so that they might keep the law of the Lawgiver perfectly' (7:89). Does this mean that they never transgress? It is hard to be sure, since 4 Ezra's dualistic division of humanity into the two categories of sinners and righteous is typically expressed in extreme terms: apostates who repudiate God and h s commandments, and the righteous who keep the law perfectly. It is never a case of weighing the righteous and unrighteous deeds of an individual to see which outweighs the other. As we have noticed, in 4 Ezra as in the Enoch tradition, being righteous or wicked is primarily a matter of a fundamental choice to orientate one's life in accordance with or in repudiation of God's law. The former choice must be faithfully maintained in order to lead to salvation, but we should not too readily conclude that keeping the law 'perfectly' excludes the commission of sins which are regretted and forgiven while the overall adherence of the person to God and his law is maintained.98Since salvation is not represented as the result of weighing an individual's righteous deeds against his or her sins, the storing up of good deeds is not a matter of calculating merit on an abstract scale, but of rewarding the kind of life the righteous person has led in faithfulness to God and the Torah. This is why, as we have seen, repentance is a possibility. We have considered the contribution of the righteous to their salvation. What of God's grace? It is not true that God's mercy is entirely excluded from 4 Ezra's vision of God's dealings with humanity. While sinners at the judgment receive merciless justice (7:33-34), it is in mercy to the righteous that God saves them in the end (12:34; 14:34; cf. 10:24). This could mean that, while the righteous have not lived completely sinless lives and would not in strictest justice merit salvation, God overlooks their comparatively minor failings in order to reward their general faithfulness. More likely, mercy is here God's favour to the covenant people to whom he promised Sanders, Paul, 409, cf. 416. Sanders, Paul, 422, takes the view that for 4 Ezra any disobedience to the law (rather than, as in other Jewish literature, only certain extreme violations) constitutes denial of God and the covenant, but Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 169, objects that we 'do not know what level of legalistic performance was regarded as necessary.' 97

98

308

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

salvation. It was in God's free grace that he chose Israel and made his covenant with this people. The terms of the covenant - understood in 4 Ezra as God's promise to give the eschatological reward to those who themselves keep the covenant by observing the law - make salvation for the righteous both a matter of reward, within the terms God has given, but also a matter of God's grace, in that he freely chose to make such a covenant with Israel. To suppose that for 4 Ezra God gives the righteous eschatological salvation not because they are members of his elect people but because, regardless of their corporate affiliation, they have individually merited salvation,99is to pose a false alternative. God gives salvation to those members of his elect people who have kept the terms of the covenant and so merit the salvation promised in the covenant. The remnant, as we have seen, is the remnant of God's elect people Israel. What God does not do, according to 4 Ezra, is exercise mercy to Israelite sinners by withholding judgment from them. Ezra had wanted God to do this because it seemed to him the only way in which God could be faithful to the covenant himself, but by the end of the third vision Ezra had learned how God will fulfil his covenant promises by rewarding only those who keep his law. Undoubtedly the result is a strong emphasis on the need to merit eschatological reward by difficult obedience to the law. (That divine assistance accompanies human effort is very rarely mentioned: 9:21-22; 13:44.) This does not make it, as Sanders thought, a unique exception to the 'covenantal nomism' he described: 'the closest approach to legalistic works-righteousness which can be found in the Jewish literature of the period.'loOThe idea that God will fulfil his covenant promises in the end only for the faithful remnant and not for the unfaithful mass of ethnic Israel is not new in 4 Ezra, though it is presented here as a view to which the work seeks to lead readers who are expected to begin with a more inclusive covenantalism. But 4 Ezra does rather importantly illustrate how the basic and very flexible pattern of covenantal nomism could take forms in which the emphasis is overwhelmingly on meriting salvation by works of obedience to the law, with the result that human achievement takes centre-stage and God's grace, while presupposed, is effectively marginalized. In the case of 4 Ezra, this emphasis was a reaction to the failure of the Jewish revolt and the fall of Jerusalem, which This contrast plays a key role in the argument of Longenecker, Eschatology. Sanders, Paul, 418. Sanders' view is to some extent dependent on his sympathy with the older source-critical views of 4 Ezra, which enable him to assign at least chapters 13-14 to a later redactor who was not in agreement with the author of the original apocalypse. Recent work has demonstrated more than adequately the literary unity of 4 Ezra, indeed that 4 Ezra is a very carefully constructed whole. In his Eschatology, L,ongenecker, broadly speaking, finds Sanders' view of 4 Ezra's relation to covenantal nomism valid while rejecting Sanders' source-critical views. 99

loo

3. Responses to the Fall ofleuusalem

309

for the author made it clear that God does not deal leniently with his erring people but punishes them in strict justice. As Collins rightly comments: 'The pessimism of the book springs not so much from its lofty standards as from historical e~perience."~' The seventh and last episode (chapter 14) presents the two sides of the solution Ezra has reached to the distressing dilemma that preoccupied him at the beginning of the book. They are represented by the two categories of books: the twenty-four books of the Hebrew scriptures, which may be read by 'the worthy and the unworthy,' and the seventy secret books which are reserved for the wise (14:45-47).'02 The former, containing the law, make salvation possible: they are given to the people 'so that people may be able to find the path, and that those who want to live in the last days may do so' (14:22). The path to salvation is what it has always been and what Israel has always known it to be: fulfilling God's commandments. Accordingly, in his last speech to the people, Ezra tells them that their present sufferings are God's judgment on them for not keeping the law (14:29-33). Therefore what they must now do is put renewed effort into the demanding task of observing the law ('rule over your minds and discipline your hearts') in order to obtain mercy from God after death (14:34). Thus the way to salvation is genuinely open to any of God's people who manage to follow it. In this sense, 4 Ezra remains, at the end, non-sectarian103literature for those, like Ezra himself, who are teachers of the law to all Israel. The distinction between them, the wise, and the rest of Israel is not a soteriological distinction between the saved and the wicked.'04 The secret books which can be entrusted only to the wise do not reveal the way to attain salvation, which is made known to all in the Torah. Rather they reveal to the wise what Ezra has learned105about the way in which God will fulfil his covenant promises in spite of the fact that the people as a whole deserve the judgment God has inflicted on them by handing them over to their Gentile oppressors.

Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 169. The two categories derive from Deut 29:29, to which 4 Ezra 14:6 alludes. O n the significance of the number seventy as indicating 'secret,' see Longenecker, Eschatology, 143-144. lo3 Cf. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 169: 'There is no reason to regard 4 Ezra as sectarian in any sense.' ' 0 4 The phrase 'the worthy and the unworthy' (digni et indignz) in 14:45 does not mean 'worthy and unworthy of salvation,' but, as 12:36-38 shows, capable and incapable of understanding the eschatological secrets revealed to Ezra. '05 That the seventy books include Ezra's own work seems clear from the parallelism between 12:36-38 and 14:45-46. lol

Io2

310

18. Covenant,

Llvl

and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

2 Baruch has so many resemblances to 4 Ezra, from broad structural and thematic similarities down to precise verbal correspondences, that all scholars agree that a close literary relationship must be postulated. Most likely the author of one work was very familiar with the other work, but the direction of dependence is debated. Without being able to argue the case here, I will state my preference for the view that 2 Baruch is indebted to 4 Ezra rather than vice versa. 'The typological situation in 2 Baruch is similar to that of 4 Ezra in that it focuses on the fall of Jerusalem t o the Babylonians: in this case the setting is Jerusalem shortly before and shortly after the destruction of the city and the temple. Like 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch divides into seven sections (I: 1-9; 11: 10-12; 111: 13-20; IV: 21-34; V: 35-47; VI: 48-77; VII: 78-86),'" which contain prayers of Baruch, dialogues between Baruch and God, symbolic visions (in sections V and VI), and addresses of Baruch to the people. Broadly, there is a movement from problems to solutions, and from Baruch's great distress over the destruction of Zion t o consolation for himself and the people. As in 4 Ezra, much of the dynamic of the earlier sections is due to the religious problem which the fall of Jerusalem is for Baruch. However, along with these broad similarities, there are equally broad diffcrcnccs. O n e of grcat importance is that, whereas the revelations to Ezra are eschatological secrets to be communicated only to the wise, making 4 Ezra as a whole intended for a select circle of readers, while only 14:27-36 exemplifies the message these teachers may give the people on the basis of the Torah, in 2 Baruch the revelations to him'" lead directly to addresses to the people. By the end of the fourth section of the book Baruch is already I % Among recent studies of 2 Baruch, the most relevant to o u r present concerns are G.B. Saylor, / l a v e the Promises I-;rilrdZ A Litttrnry Analysis of 2 Baruch (SBLI>S 72; Chico: Scholars Press, 1984); and E J . Murphy, The Structurc~nnd Meurring of Second Baruch (SRI,I>S 78; Atlanta; Scholars Press, 1985); cf. also M. Ilesjardins, 'Law in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra,' SR 14 (1985) 25-37. Surveys of scholarstlip o n 2 Baruch can be found in Murphy, The Structrtue, 1-9; A. I;. J . Klijn, 'Recent I)evelopments in the Study of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,'JSP 4 (1989) 3-17. E.P. Sanders, Paul, does not discuss 2 Baruch except in passing in a comparison with 4 Ezra (427), but devotes more attention t o 2 Baruch in his article, 'The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and I-iellenistic Judaism,' in R. EIamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs cd., Jt""iis,Creeks and Christians (W.1). I3avies 13; SJL,A 2 1; Ixidcn: Brill, 1976) 17-20. '" 711is understanding of the structure is that of Collins, The Apocalyptic Imaginution, 170. It has the strong advantage of depending o n clear structural markers in the text, such as ancient readers required t o discern major divisions of a work. Other proposals accept many of the sanle divisions between sections but differ at some points: see the sunitnary of proposed structures in Murphy, The Structure, 12. 'OR According t o 54:4-5, God's revelations of eschatological secrets are made t o those who fear him and obey the law.

3. Responses to the Fall of Jerusalem

311

sufficiently instructed and consoled himself to be able to instruct the people. He addresses them at the end of the fourth, fifth and sixth sections,'09while the whole of the seventh section is a letter addressed by Baruch to the exiles of the northern tribes, in effect digesting the message of the whole book into paraenesis of general application. The implied readership must be a general Jewish audience. The content and the message of the book are appropriate to this. While Baruch's distress over the fall of Jerusalem parallels Ezra's in its concern with the respective fortunes of God's people and the Gentile nations (5,11,14), and while Baruch like Ezra implores God to show mercy to the people and is told that justice cannot be compromised (48), the peculiar intensity with which Ezra explores the problem of sin and salvation is lacking in 2 Baruch. Ezra's convictions about the ineradicable root of sin and the near impossibility of keeping the law, his anguish about the fact that only few will be savedl10and his persistence in sceptical questioning of God's justice, are all missing from 2 Baruch. In 2 Baruch the problem and the solution are both simpler, and Baruch is accordingly more easily satisfied and more quickly enlightened. Furthermore, the solution is not simply understanding of God's ways, but strongly paraenetic: the book's overall message is that, since God has not abandoned his covenant with Israel, it is imperative that Israel keep the law in order to benefit from the covenant promises. One could imagine that a Jewish leader, deeply impressed by and very familiar with 4 Ezra, the work of a colleague, wished to write a comparable work for the people in general, containing not esoteric revelations for the wise, but what needed to be said in response to the general distress over the fall of Jerusalem. 2 Baruch enters into the questioning that any Jew might have felt after 70, offers such insight into God's ways and visions of the eschatological future as the people in general could understand, and thus provides them with the eschatological urgency and hope needed to sustain.their obedience to the law. It is a full-scale apocalypse elaborating and reinforcing the message of Ezra's concise discourse to the people in ' 0 9 The speech at the end of the fifth section (44-46) is directly addressed to the leaders of the people, but with a view to their instruction of the people generally. "O 18:l suggests that only 'few' kept the law, but the reference is to Moses' own generation (cf. 19:l). Saylor, Have the Promises, 62, translates 48:19 as 'behold the few who have submitted to you,' but R. H. Charles translates: 'Behold the little ones that are subject to Thee,' P.-M. Bogaert: 'Regarde les humble qui te servent,' and A.F.J. Klijn: 'Look at the small ones who submit to you.' Saylor's argument for a literary connexion between 18:l and 48:19 fails because the Syriac words 'few' and 'little ones' are different. According to 21:l I, 'while many have sinned once, many others have proved themselves to be righteous.' 'Many' in 44:15 ('the habitation of the many others will be in the fire') is textually uncertain, but if it is read it need not mean that the saved are few. 2 Baruch simply does not seem to be exercised with the numerical problem as 4 Ezra is. Probably in consequence it also retains a relatively generous hope for the Gentile nations (72:4-5), as 4 Ezra does not.

312

18. Cove~jant,Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

4 Ezra 14:27-36. Accordingly, its presentation of the problem is milder, its theological approach more familiar and less demanding, its message more encouraging and more practical. This is certainly not to deny that there are some real theological differences between 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, o r that the author of the latter may have felt he had more satisfactory explanations of some problems than the former. But since it is hard to read the relationship between the two works as actually polemical, this view of their relationship can explain how they may both have belonged to the rather diverse circle of Jewish sages and teachers in the period between the two revolts, both conscious of their role as teachers of the Torah to the whole people, one concerned in his work to address the problems of this theological elite themselves lest their own belief in the God of the covenant fail, the other writing to fulfil directly his calling as a teacher of the law to Israel. In 2 Baruch's theological response to the fall of Jerusalem there are two main elements. O n e is that salvation is to be found not in this transient world, but in the eternal age t o come. The other is an understanding of Israel's punishment as chastisement with Israel's repentance in view. Both themes are announced in the first section of the book (1:s; 4), developed throughout the book and strongly affirmed in the final section, the letter. The first theme is shared with 4 Ezra,"' but is developed in a characteristic way as a dominant feature of 2 Baruch. Again and again the point is made that the present world is transient and soon to pass away (e.g. 83:9-20; 85:10), so that any good to be had in this world is worthless by comparison with the transcendent good of the age to come: 'For that which is now is nothing. But that which is in the future will be very great' (44:8).'12 Suffering in this world is well worth bearing if it leads to eternal reward in the next (1 5:8). The restoration of Israel is to be understood in terrns of this contrast between the two ages:

... if we direct and dispose our hearts, w e 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 (85:4-5). Particularly is this true of Zion, the temple and the city (cf. 31:2-32:6), whose destruction is the fundamental problem the book resolves. The city which G o d promised never to forget o r forsake (Isa 49:16, quoted in 4:2), the city whose glorious restoration the prophets predicted, is not the earthly Jerusalem at all, but the heavenly Zion, prepared before the creation of I" On this point I think Murphy, The Structure, 140-142, probably n~isrepresents 4 Ezra. " I Quotations from 2 Baruch arc from the translation by A. t:.J. KIijn in J. I I. Charleswonh ed., The Old Testament I'se~depr~rapha, vol. 1 (I.ondon: IIanon, I-ongman & 'Todd, 1983) 61 5-652.

3. Responses to the Fall of Jerusalem

3 13

humanity, preserved in heaven for the faithful to enter in the age to come (4:1-6). The eternal dwelling of God with his people was never intended to be the temple that, forsaken by God, has fallen t o their enemies, but rather the heavenly temple. The second theme is that Israel's punishment by God is not intended to result in her destruction, but to produce repentance to which God will respond with mercy and restoration. Like 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch understands the Mosaic covenant especially in the terms given by the final section of Moses' address to the people in Deuteronon~y(both 19:l and 84:2 quote Deut 30:19, which is also quoted in 4 Ezra 7:129), but 2 Baruch's understanding of Deuteronomy 28-30 differs significantly from 4 Ezra's. There is the same emphasis on the decisive choice between obedience and apostasy, life and death (Deut 30:19-20, to which 2 Bar 46:3; 7 6 5 allude), but from these chapters as whole, especially 28:58-68; 30:l-10, 2 Baruch derives the following pattern of God's dealings with his errant covenant people: (1) Israel's disobedience to the law; (2) God's punishment of Israel by destruction and exile; (3) Israel's repentance; (4) God's mercy in restoring Israel; (5) the punishment of Israel's enemies. This pattern is found, wholly or partially, in all of Baruch's addresses to the people as well as the letter to the ten tribes."' The pattern functions both to console the people with the prospect of future salvation and future punishment of their enemies, and also to require them to rededicate themselves to the fulfilment of the law, so that, point (4) Being the case, point (5) may follow. Hence the paraenetic sections of the book contain many conditional propositions, such as: 'For when you endure and persevere in his fear and d o not forget his Law, the time again will take a turn for the better for you' (44:7; cf. 32:l; 465-6; 757-8; 77:6, 16; 786-7; 84:6; 85:4)."4 Such propositions are instances of the general principle which is 2 Baruch's own summing up of the Mosaic covenant as taught by Moses to Israel in Deuteronomy: 'If you trespass [sic) the law, you will be dispersed. And if you shall keep it, you shall be planted' (84:2). Therefore Baruch can tell the tribes in exile that, assuming they are repentant, they 'have suffered now for your good so that you may not be condemned at the end and tormented' (78:6). Israel is chastised in this age in order to be saved in the next, whereas judgment is withheld from her enemies in this age so that they may be punished finally (13:3-11). Baruch generally addresses and speaks about the people as a whole. (In the narrative context of most of the work this means those who survived in Jerusalem after the Babylonian capture of the city, but the same message is ' I ' See the detail in Murphy, The Structur~~, 1 1 7-120, with the chart o n p. 119, following the work o n 0.H. Steck. "4 Murphy, Thc Structure, 1 2 6 1 3 0 , relates these to the similar conditional forms in Deuteronomy.

314

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewrsk Apocalypses

also conveyed by letter to both the exiles of the southern tribes and those of the northern tribes: 77:11-26.) But this does not rllean that all of ethnic Israel will be saved. With regard to humanity in general Baruch makes a clear distinction between righteous and sinners, of whom only the former will be saved (21 :11; 24:l-2; 51:l-5; 54:21). As for the Israel who will inherit the eschatological promises, Baruch himself asks God: 'For whom and for how many will these things be?,' raising the question because he sees 'many of your people who separated themselves from your statutes and who have cast away from them the yoke of the Law' (41:1,3). Such apostates and their exclusion from Israel's salvation are, after all, clearly envisaged in the key chapters of Deuteronomy on which 2 Baruch's covenantalism is especially bdsed (Deut 28:18-21). As well as these apostates who have rejected God's law, Baruch also notes that there are proselytes who have taken on the yoke of the Law. Since both categories have obeyed the Law, but only for a part of their lives, he wonders how they can be justly rewarded: 'Their time will surely not be weighed exactly, and they will certainly not be judged as the scale indicates?' (41:6). Though the reply in chapter 42 is at some points very o b ~ c u r e , "the ~ essential answer seems clear: the obedience of the apostates before their apostasy is not counted in their favour, while the disobedience of the proselytes before their conversion is not counted against them in the judgment. The passage is important, not only because it shows that the author is concerned about issues of equitable correspondence between obedience to the law and salvation, but also because it shows that, for 2 Baruch, the Israel who will be saved is constituted by those who either remain within the covenant by remaining faithful to the law o r opt into the covenant by subjecting themselves t o the law. 2 Baruch almost completely lacks (cf. 40:2) the remnant language which is so important in 4 Ezra, and therefore probably does not regard faithful Israel as no more than a minority of ethnic Israel. This is certainly a more inclusive covenantalism than 4 Ezra's, much more like the position with which Ezra begins than the one he learns in the course of that book, and we must shortly consider the reasons for this difference. But it should be noted that, in principle, 2 Baruch's position is no less 'individualistic' than the remnant theology of 4 Ezra: if it is possible to be excluded from Israel's salvation through apostasy, then every individual's participation in that salvation is dependent on his o r her continued faithfulness to the covenant through subjection to the law. Sinners in general are 'those who have not subjected themselves to [God's] power' (54:14), 'those who d o not love your Law' (54:14), those

'I5 See the discussion in P.-M. Bogaert, Apocalypse Jc B a r ~ c h vol. , 2 (SC 144; Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1969) 76-78.

3. Responses to the Full ofJerusalem

315

who 'have once rejected the understanding"' of the Most High' (54:17), those who 'did not know [God's] Law because of their pride' (48:40), and those who 'despised [God's] Law and stopped their ears lest they hear wisdom and receive intelligence' (51:4)."'Jewish apostates are 'those who have withdrawn' (42:4), those who 'withdraw from the way of the Law' o r 'from the commandments of the Mighty One' (443). As we have seen in earlier sections to be typical of our literature, the distinction between righteous and sinners comes down t o a fundamental acceptance or rejection of the Law. With regard to sinners, 2 Baruch is notably concerned to make clear that they are those who consciously and deliberately act wrongly (48:29, 40). That being righteous is a matter of fundamental alignment of life with the law appears in descriptions of them as 'those who subjected themselves to [God] and [God's] law in faith' (545, where 'faith' probably means faithfulness, as in 54:21; for righteousness as subjection to God, cf. also 66:1; 755') and as those who 'always feared [God] and did not leave [God's] ways' (14:5; cf. 54:4; 38:4). Like 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch can speak of them both in terms of good works (14:ll; 24:l) and as 'those who have believed' (42:2; 54:16; 59:2; cf. 54:16; 83:8), where the object of belief may be primarily the eschatological reward prepared for those who obey the law (cf. 57:2).11*Like 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch speaks of the good works that the righteous have stored up for themselves in heaven and because of which they can be confident of salvation (14:ll; 24:l; 44:14). Similarly, they are 'those who are saved because of their works and for whom the Law is now a hope, and intelligence, expectation and wisdom a trust' (51:7), where the last phrase refers, in a way characteristic of 2 Baruch, to the understanding to be found in the Torah (cf. the similar passage in 51:3; also 38:l; 44:14). It is clear that salvation is perceived as reward for adherence to the law (cf. also 54:16; 59:2). At the same time, the righteous (or at least most of them) are not sinless (85:15) and their salvation is attributed t o God's mercy (77:6-7; 78:7; 84:lO). In its frequent reference to God's mercy (not only in Baruch's prayer for the people 148) but also in authoritative statements) 2 Baruch resembles the Ezra of the early dialogues in 4 Ezra more than the position which 4 Ezra as a whole endorses. Without God's mercy, none, except perhaps a very exceptional few, could be saved (75:5-6; 84:11): the implication here, unlike the similar assertion in 4 Ezra, is that many are indeed saved by God's "Wnderstanding is here knowledge ot the right way to live which the Law gives. Like 4 b r a , 2 Baruch evidently considers that Gentile nations have had the opportunity to be subject to God's law (though perhaps not in its Sirlaitic form) but have rejected it; cf. 15:3. I l S O n the meaning of 'belief' in 2 Baruch, see Murphy, The Structure, 64-66; Yinger, Paul, 84-85.

"'

316

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

mercy. Significantly, the righteous are those who 'have not withdrawn from mercy' (44:14), as apostates have. God's mercy deals with the sins of those who subject themselves to his law, but those who reject the law have cut themselves off from mercy. Therefore the book's concluding summary of the fate of people at the judgment reads: Then he will make alive those whom he has found, and he will purge them from their sins. and at the same time he will destroy those who are polluted with sins (85:15).

As in 1 Enoch 5:8-9, sinlessness is eschatological gift for those who have proved sufficiently righteous in this life. While this view of God's mercy contributes to 2 Baruch's more inclusive covenantalism, as compared with 4 Ezra, and makes 2 Baruch resemble the Ezra of the dialogues more than the position which 4 Ezra as a whole endorses, 2 Baruch's view of God's mercy still stops far short of that advanced by Ezra in his plea to God for mercy (4 Ezra 8:20-36). For the unconverted Ezra, the exceptional people who are truly righteous secure their reward by their deeds, while God's mercy must be mercy for sinners who have no store of good works (8:31-36). This is not 2 Baruch's view of God's mercy. For 2 Baruch, as for the Enoch tradition, mercy is for the righteous, who live in accordance with the law and have a store of good works, but are not perfect (as well as passages already cited, cf. 61:9). For 2 Baruch's more inclusive covenantalism depends not only on emphasizing God's mercy for the righteous, as 4 Ezra does not, but also on taking a more optimistic view than 4 Ezra of the possibilities of keeping the law faithfully. 2 Baruch does not mention the problem of the evil heart, and while at one point the book appears to share 4 Ezra's view of the legacy of Adam (48:42-43) it later clarifies the point, making clear that Adam merely set an example which his descendants are free to copy or not (54:15-19)."9 2 Baruch does not refer to the difficulty of keeping the law. Because the law can be kept adequately, if not perfectly, because God will be merciful to those who keep the law adequately, though not perfectly, and because the fall of Jerusalem is his chastisement of his people for their own good, not his destruction of irredeemable apostates, 2 Baruch does not face the most acute problems in Ezra's theological journey nor require the unusual solutions he is given. E.P. Sanders contrasts the two works in order to contrast the 'legalistic perfectionism' unique, in the literature of early Judaism, to 4 Ezra, and the view of 2 Baruch, which he sees as representative of the covenantal "9 On the differences between 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in this respect, see P.-M. Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, vol. 1 (SC 144; Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1969) 402-405.

3. Responses to the Fall ofjerrtsalem

317

nomism characteristic of the rest of early Jewish literature.I2O H e gives 'the usual formulation' of the latter as: 'God punishes the wicked for their deeds, while bestowing mercy on the righteo~s."~' Yet this contrast between 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch is probably overdrawn. As we have seen, 4 Ezra does not altogether exclude God's mercy for the righteous, while it is difficult to tell what standard of law observance qualifies as keeping the law perfectly. With reference t o 2 Baruch, it would be more accurate to say not simply that God bestows mercy o n the righteous, but that God has mercy on the righteous because of their good works. As Carson puts it, mercy 'is a kind response to merit.'I2l As 2 Baruch's discussion of apostates and proselytes (41-42) shows, the notion of salvation as the reward far the good works of the righteous does not imply a nice calculation of merit and reward, but it does make salvation dependent on adherence t o G a d and his law. As we have seen in discussion of 4 Ezra, the idea of salvation as reward for righteousness need not be alternative to the idea of salvation as God's covenantal grace. It is in his grace that God makes the covenantal promises and lays down the requirement of obedience to the law as the condition for receiving them. Within this general framework it is possible to emphasize the need for human achievement to the point of marginalizing grace, as 4 Ezra does, and it is possible to stress the need for human achievement at the same time as assuring people who adhere to the law that G o d will be merciful to them, as 2 Baruch does. While 4 Ezra's pessimism about the prospects of salvation for Israel in the land in his time would make it thoroughly discouraging for a general audience and suitable only for a learned elite who can appreciate its novel way of maintaining God's covenant faithfulness, 2 Baruch is addressed to Israel as a whole, encouraging that renewed adherence t o the law which, along with God's mercy, would ensure salvation. 3.4 3 Baruch

This apocalypse is extant in Greek and Slavonic versions, which frequently differ in textual detail and both of which have been subject to Christian influence, though the original work was undoubtedly non-Christian Jewish.I2j The differences between the versions are one factor which make interpretation difficult, but this work has p r o v e d curiously resistant to coherent interpretation for other reasons too. The fact that the interpretations Sanders, Paul, 427; 'The Covenant,' 17-22. Sanders, Paul, 421: italics original. Iz2 D . A . Carson, Dzvine Soverezgnty atzd Human Rrsponszbrlrty (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 198 1) 69. I z 3 This has been adequately demonstrated by D.C. Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) zn Nellentstzc Judarsm and Early Chrzstlanzty (SVTP 12; Leiden: Brill, 1996) chapter 3. I"

12'

3 18

18. Covenant, Law and Salvat~onrn the J w r s h Apocalypses

offered in the most significant recent studies - by Picard,IZJN i c k ~ l s b u r g ' ~ ~ and Harlow126- differ very widely suggests that we must be very cautious about any conclusions drawn from this work. However, certain points may be made. Since the indubitably Christian additions to the text are in every case found only in one of the two recensions, never in both, we should also be very cautious about accepting the originality of other material present in only one of the recensions. This applies t o references t o the fate of righteous and sinners after death which occur only in the Greek version (4:3, 4-5, 15; 10:s) as well as to 164-8 in the Slavonic version.12' It is likely that the original work referred t o existence after death only in the special case of its depiction of the planners and builders of the tower of Babel in the second and third heavens (3-4). Scribes who expected an apocalypse to deal with this subject supplied the lack, differently in the two versions. Therefore I cannot accept Harlow's argument that 3 Baruch substitutes personal eschatology for a national, collective eschatology such as would involve the restoration of J e r ~ s a l e m . ' *Surprisingly, ~ there is no explicit eschatology at all in 3 Baruch. Another important point at which I differ from Harlow also concerns the differences between the versions. In chapters 11-16, evidently the climactic part of the revelation given t o Baruch, the Slavonic version refers consistently to what the angels bring as prayers (1 1:4,9; 14:2; 15:2-3), while the Greek, after first referring to prayers (1 l:4), subsequently refers t o virtues and good works (1 1:9; 12:s; 14:2; 15:2).'29 It is surely probable that the Slavonic is more original in this. Most other parallels to the general notion concern prayers (Tob 12:12, 15; 1 Enoch 47:l-2; 99:3; TAdam 2:7; Rev 8:34), but the Apocalypse of Paul speaks of deeds. The clumsy mixture of the two in the Greek version of 3 Baruch may well reflect the influence of the Apocalypse of Paul on it. Therefore I must dissent also from Harlow's interpretation of the significance of chapters 11-16 for the meaning of the whole apocalypse: 'A present and universal system of rewards and punish12' J.-C. Picard's essays o n 3 Baruch are now collected in Le Contrnent Apocryphe: Essal SUY les LtttPratures A p o q p h e s Jurve et Chritrenne (Instruments Patristica 36; Turnhout: Brepols, 1999) 55-1 61. G. W. E. Nickelsburg, J m t s h L*tteratrtre between the Btble and the Mtshnah (London: SCM I'ress, 19881) 299-303. '16 f larlow, The Greek Apocalypse. In Bauckham, The Fate ofthe Dead, 67-69, I argued that these verses in the Slavonic summarize the original ending of 3 Baruch. I no longer think this, mainly because I am impressed by the inclusio which 816:l-3 forms with 1:2 (see below). 1 now think that 16:4-8 in the Slavonic [nust have been added by a scribe w h o knew other cosmic tour apocalypses which follow this pattern. IZXHarlow, The Greek Apocalypse, argues this at various points; see the summary on p. 208. Nickelsburg, Jcvtsh L~terature,300-305, also takes this view. 'z9 Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse, 148, notes these differences hut procccds as though the ortginality of the Grcek version can he taken for granted.

3. Responses to the Fall of Jerusalem

319

ments replaces any hope for an eschatological restoration of Jerusalem that would involve the collective salvation of the Jewish people.'130 Thus I cannot agree with his overall understanding of the way 3 Baruch aims to deflect concern from the restoration of Jerusalem by attention instead to individual eschatology and to good works as the only means of access to God.131If this were the case it would be of considerable interest for our present concerns, but the evidence is against it. 3 Baruch, surely in dependence on 2 Baruch, opens with a scene in which Baruch laments and questions God about the fall of Jerusalem, posing the problem in much the same way as the opening chapters of 2 Baruch do, with evident reference to the way the event seems to contradict the special status of Israel as the covenant people by contrast with the nations. But then an angel, announcing that Baruch's prayer has been heard, promises to reveal mysteries to him and does so by conducting him through the various heavens up to the fifth. This follows the model of other heavenly tours through the heavens, except that others proceed to the presence of God in the seventh heaven. The climax in 3 Baruch is different: he sees how the prayers of people on earth are received and rewarded in the heavenly temple, where the angelic high priest Michael officiates before God. The significance, for the overall meaning of the book, of what Baruch sees in the lower heavens is obscure, and we should probably not expect too much coherence in this kind of apocalypse, which typically discloses miscellaneous contents of the various heavens. We shall focus here on the way the events that transpire in the fifth heaven and the book's conclusion might relate to the opening problem. Nickelsburg has provided a major key by showing how Baruch's opening question (1:2) and Michael's closing words (16:l-3) form an inclusio by both alluding to Deuteronomy 32.132Admittedly, the most important part of Michael's words for this observation (16:2) occurs only in the Greek, but here it may be permissible to rely on the Greek because we have already seen how the closing chapters of Deuteronomy were a regular resource of Jewish eschatology, including those apocalypses which wrestled with the problem of understanding God's purpose for Israel in the light of the catastrophe of 70 CE. Deuteronomy 32 depicts the punishment of Israel by God for faithlessness and idolatry. God's instrument is a pagan nation which Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse, 156. These are two of the four themes Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse, 148, specifies; cf. 208-209. 13* Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 302-303; Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse, 155-156, reports and even develops the argument a little, before rejecting it on the grounds that 16:2 is only in the Greek text and that the interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of Harlow's argument about the meaning and purpose of 3 Baruch. 130 13'

320

18. Covennnt, Law and Salvation in the Jezvish Apocnlypses

foolishly takes the credit for itself, not recognizing that its victory was possible only because God handed over his people to it. This is exactly the issue in 3 Baruch 1:2, and 16:2-3, by alluding to Deuteronomy 32:21-27, explains how this was an appropriate form of punishment for God to give his faithless pe0p1e.I~~ It was a response to the evil of those of his people who did not invoke him (their guardian angels are those in chapter 13 who have no human prayers to bring, and who beg not to have to accompany such evil people). Since they did not pray for mercy, God punished their evils justly. But those angels who d o bring prayers to G o d receive mercies in response to a degree corresponding to their prayers (151-3 Slavonic). Deuteronomy 32 goes on to declare that, following his punishment of his people by means of their enemies, God will have mercy o n them and vindicate them (Deut 32:36) by taking vengeance himself o n their enemies. The implicit message must bc that, just as God has punished his people in response to their evil, so he will have mercy in response to their prayers. Thus, despite the arguments of other scholars precisely to the contrary, it seems that 3 Baruch is solely concerned with the corporate destiny of the covenant people, not at all with the destiny of individuals after death. In a way which is parallel to but also different from 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch understands the punishment of Israel as just, and also as consistent with the covenant promises of God because God's mercy will in the future supervene. Instead of directing attention to observance of the law, as 2 Baruch does, 3 Baruch's implied message is that prayer for God's mercy is the appropriate action to take.

Sibylline Tradition The Jewish Sibylline Oracles are a form of prophetic oracle, not apocalypses, but they share with the apocalypses the character of literature of revelation, and so may be conveniently included here. Since two of the major books (4 and 5) were written in the wake and under the impact of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, this is also a reason for considering the oracles at this point in our chapter. There were pagan Sibylline oracles, attributed to prophetesses known as Sibyls, and the Jewish oracles continue this literary tradition, making the Sibyl into a daughter-in-law of Noah, who was inspired to prophesy by the one true God. The original intention must have been to gain a hearing for their message from Gentile readers who would

'"

The repetition of 'provoke' in both Deut 32:21 and in the virtual quotation of it in 3 Bar 16:2 indicates a lex talionis judgment, i.e. one which is just by virtue of the correspondence between the crinie and the punishment.

4. The Sibylline Tradition

321

take them seriously as ancient prophecy. Though it is debatable whether Jewish literature that has the appearance of apologetic for Gentile readers was really intended for outsiders, some at least of the Sibyllines are very likely propaganda, promoting an ethical code that condemned the practices Jews found objectionable in pagan life (especially sexual misconduct and infanticide) and urging worship of the one God the Creator in place of renunciation of idolatry. The role of the Jewish people in this one God's purpose is also a significant topic. Typically the Sibyllines contain many oracles of destruction on nations, places, cities and empires, condemned for their various misdeeds, and reviews of world history culminating in an imminent climax of judgment leading to a golden age on earth, in which God will be universally honoured and his people Israel central. With the exception of the conclusion to book 4 (179-192) and a probably Jewish part of book 8 (401423) there is no reference to resurrection or judgment of the dead,134one of the features which limits the significanceof these works for our theme. The ultimate salvation of individuals is no more a concern here than in most of the Old Testament prophets. In view of their genre and implied audience, it is not surprising that the Sibyllines are a literature of the diaspora. Books 3,5 and 11 were written in Egypt, with the bulk of the earliest (book 3) coming from the mid-second century BCE,and the fifth book written between 70 CE and the Egyptian Jewish revolt of 115. The Jewish parts of books 1-2 were written in Asia Minor, probably in the first century CE. Book 4 may come from the vicinity of Palestine and was written after 70 CE. The Jewish pans of book 8 date from the end of the second century CE. The third book refers to the Mosaic law as given by God to 'the people of the twelve tribes,' such that whoever disobeys it is punished by humans or by God (256-259).135 Israel's life in obedience to the law (245: 'fulfilling the word of the great God, the hymn of the law') is eulogized (218-247, 594-600) in terms which refer to none of the specifically Jewish features of the law but only those which are commended also to Gentiles. But as well l j 4 Book 2 contains a long eschatological section (154-338) in which resurrection and the judgment and destinies of the dead are prominent subjects. But most of this section (178-338) is a paraphrase of the Christian Apocalypse of Peter, supplemented by passages taken from Sibylline Oracle 8. All the material on resurrection and judgment of the dead is from the Apocalypse of Peter. This dependence on the Apocalypse of Peter was already demonstrated conclusively by M.R. James, 'A New Text of the Apocalypse of Peter,' ITS 12 (1911) 39-44, 51-52, but his work is not known to J. J. Collins, who therefore underestimates the extent of the Christian material in book 2: 'Sibylline Oracles,' in Charlesworth ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1,330-334; and The Apocalyptic Imagination, 192. Thus the only eschatological material from the original Jewish book 1-2 is in 2:154-177. '35 Quotations from the Sibylline Oracles are from the translation in Collins, 'Sibylline Oracles,' 317-472.

322

18. Covenant, Law and Salvation in the Jewish Apocalypses

as the ethical requirements of the law, the cultic worship of the one God, centred on Jerusalem, is also prominent (574-594, cf. 273-294). Both are commended to Gentiles, since the Jews are to be 'guides of life for all mortals' (195). The Sibyllines in general, as well as most of the apocalypses we have studied, take for granted that the basic ethical commandments of the Torah are also God's commandments to all people, and that the requirement to worship not idols, but the God who has made himself known to Israel and dwells in Jerusalem is also incumbent on all people. Therefore Gentiles are judged for 'transgressing the holy law of the immortal God' (599-600) and 'because they knew not the law nor the judgment of the great God' (686-687), this ignorance being understood as culpable. In the eschatological age, seeing the blessed state of Israel in the holy land, the Gentiles will wish to worship Israel's God and to 'ponder the Law of the Most High' (719). When, finally, God puts 'in effect a common law for men throughout the whole earth' (757-758), the Stoic language refers to the essence of the Torah. In all t h s the covenant with Israel appears only in the favoured status of Israel as those given the law and the understanding it brings (585-586) and as those destined to share this knowledge with others. Jews and Gentiles alike are punished for disobeying God's commandments and enjoy thisworldly well-being as a result of keeping them. The assumption that God's law is for Gentiles as well as Jews - with no attempt to define the difference between its universal and specifically Jewish features - appears particularly strikingly in a passage in book 8, in which the notion of the two ways in the form in which it is presented by Moses to Israel at the end of Deuteronomy 30 expresses God's address to all his human creatures: 'I myself proposed two ways, of life and death, and proposed too the judgment to choose good life. But they turned eagerly to death and eternal fire' (399-401). 4 Ezra too, quoting this very text (Deut 30:19), assumes that, though spoken by Moses to Israel, it is also the choice that confronts every human being (4 Ezra 7:127-129). The expectation that in the future the Gentile nations will also worship God and obey his law is also found in the fifth Sibylline book: 'they will have a mind in their breasts that conforms to your Werusalem's] laws' (265, cf. 357). The Egyptian book 5 includes an impressive prophecy of judgment on Egypt's idolatry and her conversion to the true God (484-51 1).Book 4 issues a call to repentance and conversion to all humanity, threatening the eschatological destruction of the world as punishment for continued disobedience to God (162-178). Books 4 and 5 both respond to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, in very different ways but both much more simply than the three apocalypses we have considered. Neither seems concerned about the question of the validity of the covenant that so distressed the apocalyptists. Book 5 responds entirely with denunciation of Rome and prophecies of her doom. Book 4,

4. The Sibylline Tradition

323

perhaps a product of one of the Jewish baptist sects, treats all human-made temples and animal sacrifices as inappropriate to the true God (6-30), in such a way that the Jerusalem temple can hardly be an exception. This, of course, reduces the impact of the fall of Jerusalem t o a minimum, and the latter is unproblematically treated as punishment for Israel's folly and sin (1 15-1 18).

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts" I . Introduction It is generally recognized that an expectation of the restoration of Israel was widespread in late Second Temple Judaism, including such elements as: Israel's return to God in repentance, the liberation of Israel from pagan rule and the overthrow of Israel's enemies, Israel's re-possession of the land of Israel, the return of the diaspora to the land of Israel, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple in splendour, the conversion of the nations t o the worship of the God of Israel and their pilgrimage to the temple in Jerusalem, the reconstitution of Israel as an independent theocracy under the rule of a legitimate king of the line of David and a legitimate high priest of the line of Zadok, the supremacy of Israel in the world. The sources of these hopes were, of course, the scriptural prophecies, with special importance given t o the concluding chapters of the Torah (Deut 30-33)' and the later chapters of Isaiah (4046). There was also special attention given to the models provided by the Exodus and the conquest of the land, as prototypes for a new exodus from oppression and a new conquest of the land from its pagan rulers and occupiers, as well as to the empire of David and Solomon as a model of Israel as an independent theocracy dominant over Israel's Gentile n e i g h b a ~ r sbut ,~ these historical prototypes were usually read through the lens of the prophecies which already worked with these rnodcls for the future. The presupposition for such hopes was, of course, that Israel's current condition, as a result of the nation's past sins, was far from that which God intended and promised for his people. The scriptural prophecies of restoration, mostly given with a view to the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests and exiles of Israel, were " First publication: James M. Scott ed., Restortznon: Old fistament, Jewlsh and Chnstran Perspectrves (JSJSup 72; 1,eiden: Brill, 2001) 435-487. O n the importance of this passage in Second 'Temple Jewish literature, see D. J. Harrington, 'Interpreting Israel's History: The Testtzment of Moses as a Rewriting of Deut. 31-34,' in G. W. E. Nickelsburg ed., Strrdzes on the 7kstament of /Closes (SBLSCS 4 ; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1973) 59-68. T h i s aspect is emphasixd by S. 'Ihlmon, 'The Concept of Ma'iiah and Messia~lism in Early Judaism,' in J . H . Charlcsworth ed., The Mess~uh(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984) 79-1 15, esp. 83,99, 1 1 3-1 14.

'

326

19. 7 % R~storatron ~ ofI,rcrel rn Luke-Acts

not generally understood as already fulfilled in the return from exile and the foundation of the post-exilic Jewish temple state in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE, nor in the period of Iiasmonean rule. This was especially because, by the late Second Temple period, a large majority of Jews lived in diaspora outside the land, a condition still comr~lonlyunderstood as God's punishment, while in the land itself Israel lived under the domination of oppressive pagan rulers who claimed divinity and contested YI-IWH's sovereignty over his land, o r (in the case of the Herods) under their almost equally hated puppet rulers, while the land itself was defiled by Gentile inhabitants with their idolatrous worship. Of course, specific Jewish groups, such as the Qunlran community, had additional reasons for deploring the status q u o and hoping for change, such as a belief that the priestly ministry in the temple was so corrupt and misguided as to be invalid. But the more general picture sketched above was evidently very broadly accepted. Some controversy' has surrounded the prominence Tom Wright, in his reconstructions of the Jewish context of Jesus and Jesus' own intentions, has given t o the idea that Jews, even those living in the land, regarded themselves as 'still in exile' and awaited the 'end of' o r 'the return from exile.'' T h e idea of the Jews as 'exiles in their own land' is justified in the sense that Jews living in the land felt dispossessed of it by pagan rule (which, of course, had an important economic element), as wcll as by the way Wright tends t o use 'exile' as a temporal rather than a geographical term, referring to the period that, in Israel's understanding of history, ran from the Babylonian exile t o the future restoration. But some misunderstandings might be avoided if one were t o speak not simply of continuing exile, but of continuing exile and subjugation. The latter is how the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, even in narrating the sixth and fifth-century return from exile and even under the conditions of the relatively benign and tolerant Persian empire, speak of the returned exiles: 'slaves in the land that you gave t o o u r ancestors' (Neh 9:36; cf. Ezra 97-9). Restoration meant liberation from slavery to oppressive pagan rule as well as return from exile.5 That this is how many Jews, in the land and in the diaspora, understood their present and future in relation

'

See A. E. Harvey, review of Jesrts and the Victory of G o d by N.T. Wright, Theology 100 (1997) 296; C. hlarsh, 'Theological History? N.'I Wright's jesm and the Victory of God,'JSN7'69 (1998)77-94; M . Casey, 'Where Wright is Wrong: a critical review of N.T. Wright's Jesus and the C'ictory o f G o d , ' J S N T 6 9 (14198)95-10; I..'I Johnson, 'An Flistoriographical Response to Wright's Jesus,' in C. C. Ncwmari cci.,Jesus and the Restoration of Israel (Downers Grove: Intervarsity I'ress / Carlisle: I'atcrnostcr, 1999) 21 0-2 16. First in N.1: Wright, The Tcstrrrnent arzd rhc People o f God (L.ondon: SI'CK, 1992) 268-272,299-301. Wright, of course, knows this ,tnd is nicrely using shorthand terminology.

'

Nc-dl

1. Introduction

327

t o the scriptures and the promises of G o d is widely evidenced in the extant Jewish l i t e r a t ~ r e . ~ T h e theme of Israel's restoration has been prominent in recent studies both of the historical Jesus7 and of Luke-ActsXT h e aim of this essay is not t o study the historical Jesus o r even L.ukeYsaccount of Jesus' ministry and death, which would be important in a full study of o u r subject but must be omitted here for reasons of space. Rather the aim is t o study the restoration of Israel in the framework of understanding Luke provides for seeing the significance of the events of Jesus' ministry and the early church through the lens of Israel's hope and the prophecies of Israel's restoration. It is widely agreed that in the first t w o chapters of his Gospel Luke creates for the beginning of Jesus' story a setting which expresses the messianic and eschatological hopes of Israel, based in the prophetic scriptures. I W U s u l reviews of the evidence are provided by C. A. Evans, 'Aspects of Exile and Restoration in the Proclamation of Jesus and the Gospels,' in J. M. Scott ed., Exile: O l d Testament, Jewish, and Christkn Conceptions (SJSJ 56; 1,eicien: Brill, 1997) 299-328; and 'Jesus and the Continuing Exile of Israel,' in Newrnan ed., Jesus, 77-100; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: I'racticc and Belief63 BCE - 66 CE (I.olidon: SCM I'ress) 290-291; J.M. Scott, 'Philo and the Kcstoration of Israel,' in E. [-I. Lovcring cd., Society of Biblical 1,iterature 1395 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 568-569. J. M. Scott, 'Exile and the Self-understanding of I h s p o r a Jews in the Grcco-Roman Period,' in Scott ed., Exik, 173-218, discusses the eviciencc that diaspora Jews thought of themselves as in exile iron> the land. ' Significant studies include: R.F. Meycr, The Aims of Jesus (I.ondon: SCM Press, 1979); E.1'. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (L.ondon: SCh4 Prcss, 1985); E.1'. Sanders, The IJistorical I:igurc of Jesus (1.ondon: Penguin, 1993); N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of G o d (I.ondon: SI'CK, 1996); I).<:. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998); Newrnan ed., Jcstcs; S. McKnight, A New Vision for Isrdzel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). ' Significant studies include: J. Jervell, I.uke and the People ofGod (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972); A. W. Wainwright, 'Luke and the Restoration of the Kingdom t o Israel,' ExpT 89 (1977) 76-79; PI.I,. Ticde, Prophecy cznd N ~ s t o r yin Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980); R.C. Tannehill, 'Israel in 1.uke-Acts: A Tragic Story,'JBL 104 (1985) 69-85; D. I.. Tiede, "She Exaltation of Jesus and the Restoration of Israel in Acts 1,' HTR 79 (1986) 278-286; J. B. 'Tyson ed., Luke-Acts and the/twish People (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988); C.A. Evans, 'The Twelve Thrones of Israel: Scripture and Politics in Luke 22:24-30,' in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders, Luke and Siriptrrre: The hcnction of Sacred Tiirditiort in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 154-1 70; J. B. Chance, Jerusalem, the Temple and rhr Nc"~i> Agc in I.~~kc*-Ac-ts (Macon, Gcclrgia: Merccr University Prcss, 1988); J.T. Carroll, Response to the End ofllistory: Eschatology arrd Situation in Luke-Acts (SBI.L1S 92; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1988); 1). Ravens, Luke and the Restorczriort oflsrac,l USN'rSup 119; Shcffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); M. Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel's Restoratiorr and Witness in 1.rtke-Acts UP'SSup 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic I'ress, 1996); V. Fusco, 'Luke-Acts and the Future o f Israel,' NovT 38 (1996) 1-17; P. W. I.. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: NYLL*Testament Perspectives on Jcrusalern (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) chapter 3; I). Seccombe, "The New People of God,' in I. 1-1. Marshall and D. Peterson ed., Witness to the Gospel: The Theology ofActs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 349-372; 11.1'. Moessner cd., Jesus and the Heritage of Israel (I-larrishurg, I'ennsylvania: Trinity I'ress International, 1999).

328

19.

The Restorat~onofIsrai*l it1 Lake-Acts

shall argue that these chapters provide, more specifically, a programme of restoration corresponding closely t o the kind of hopes for restoration and the kinds of readings of scriptural prophecies that, o u r evidence suggests, were widely held in late Second Temple Judaism. These hopes are strongly affirmed in Luke's opening chapters9 by the attribution of them t o the archangel Gabriel and to persons who speak under the inspiration of the divine Spirit (Zechariah, Simeon and probably Mary). Evidently Luke thereby provides his readers with a framework of expectation and significance within which t o read the rest of the story of the Gospel and Acts. But it is also clear that this framework of hope is itself subject t o interpretation by the events which fulfil it only in unexpected ways. H o w Luke envisages the restoration of Israel t o have actually happened, o r t o be happening, o r as still t o happen in the future when he wrote, has been much discussed. Insofar as this essay has new evidence and interpretation to offer it lies principally in an attempt to look in more detail than has usually been done at how Luke's depiction of Israel's hope is grounded in the scriptural prophecies and relates to the ways they were understood in late Second Temple Judaism. This will bring t o light neglected aspects of Israel's restoration according to Luke (such as the restoration of all twelve tribes and the return of the diaspora t o Jerusalem) and allow some refining and correction of conclusions reached by others.

2. The restoration programme in Luke 1-2 If the passages of messianic and eschatological hopes, alluding t o prophecies of the Scriptures, in Luke 1-2 are read as a whole, they comprise a comprehensive programme of messianic restoration for Israel. For the purpose of close study, we shall identify the following six themes: (2.1) Elijah restores the people in preparation for the coming of the Lord; (2.2) The Davidic Messiah delivers the people from oppression; (2.3) The consolation of Israel as a light for the nations; (2.4) T h e redemption of Jerusalem and the return of the diaspora; (2.5) The Messiah reigns forever; (2.6) God exalts the lowly and humiliates the exalted. A seventh and final theme (2.7: the Messiah is opposed and causes division in Israel) falls, as we shall see, into a different category from tile others.

The complex ~ s s u cof Ieuke's sources in Luke 1-2 cannot be pursued here. liowever, I an1 convinced that, whatever sources Luke used, he is thoroughly in control of them, and that attempts to identify pre-lukan material hy showing that it does not fit its context or is not characteristicallv 1,ukan are mistaken.

2. The restaratton progrrrmnte t n I . ~ k e1-2

329

2.1. Elijah restores the people in preparation for the coming of the Lord

This theme will be treated at greater length than most of the others, both because it has been less studied than Davidic messianism and also because it has a special importance for Luke as signalling the beginning of the restoration of Israel. 2.1.1. Jewish traditions of Elijah as rt7storer

The only indisputable reference in the Hebrew Bible t o the return of Elijah in the last days associates him with restoration: Behold, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of Y H W H comes. H e will turn (?;in) the hearts of fathers t o their sons and the hearts of sons t o their fathers, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse (Ma1 3:23-24 (English versions 4:5-6]).

The verb 2x3 has considerable eschatological resonance. Frequently (and usually, as here, in the Hiphil) it is used of God's restoration of his people from exile t o the land of Israel (e.g. Isa 49:5-6; Jer 16:15; 23:3; 24:6; 29:14; 32:37; 50:19; Ezek 39:27; H o s 11:l I),'' as well as of the restoration of Jerusalem (Isa 58:12; Dan 9:25) and the land (Ezek 38:8). It can also be used of Israel's turning back to God in repentance, which is the anticipated condition for her eschatological restoration by God (Deut 30:2; Isa 59:20; H o s 6:l). Malachi himself demanded Israel's repentance and return t o God in these terms (3:7). Both uses are found in the key passage of the Torah about the restoration from exile: Deuteronomy 30:l-5, and find echoes in later texts alluding t o that passage (e. g. Neh 8:l-9; Tob 13:5-6; 14:5; 4QI)ibHam"4Q504] 1-2 5: 12-1 3; J u b 1: 15; Bar 2:30,33). In the Septuagint v, x a O i ~ l ~ a vand a i c3tnoxa0tmuvat are such verbs as E ' ~ L ( T c Q ( ~ ~ I F ~i?Lnomei(~~tv, used t o render 2x7 in these contexts. In the Septuagint version of Malachi 3:24(4:6) (3:23 in LXX)" i?Lnoxuf)~m~vui is used, as in some other instances of 70 with reference t o God's eschatological restoration of Israel (Jer 16:15; 24:6; 50[LXX 27]:19). The multivalent significance of ziu in eschatological contexts evidently stimulated the exegetical imagination of interpreters of Malachi 3:24 (4:6). The earliest extant interpretation is Ben Sira's: At the appointed time, it is written, you are destined to put an end t o wrath before the day of YHWI-I, to turn (rz*,frx~rngiy~ut) the hearts of fathers t o their sons

, restore from captivity,' in Deut 303; Jer 29:14; ' W o t e also the phrase n.2; ~ m'to 30:2, 18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7, 11, 26; Lam 2:14; Ezek 16:53; 39:25; Fdos 6:l 1; Amos 9:14; Zeph 3:20. I ' LXX rearranges the last three verses of Malachi, such that this verse becomes the penultimate verse and is followed by 3:22(4:4).

330

19.

The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

arid t o prepare (;.xi,'hxtcrucr~ljatn) the tribcs o f Israel. "Blessed is he w h o shall have secn you before h e dies!" (Sir 48310-1 1 a)I4

The last clause of verse 10 probably does not refer to the restoration of exiled Israel to the land, even though Ben Sira elsewhere expresses the hope that all the tribes will again possess the land (36:13, 16). The Greek version may have understood it in this sense (xuffimtxvui has this meaning, rendering 212,in Jer 23:3 LXX), but xutlimttvut only once renders ;i= in the Septuagint (Prov 29:14). The Hiphil of 7 2 often means 'to prepare' and is often translated by E'~oip&S~iv in the Septuagint. Ben Sira has taken over the first half of Malachi's description of Elijah's task ('he will turn the hearts of fathers to their sons'), but for the corresponding phrase that follows in Malachi ('and the hearts of sons to their fathers') he has substituted a clause which probably extends Elijah's task of restoration to a more general preparation of the people for the eschatological coming of Y H W H in salvation and judgment. This may well have been influenced by identifying Elijah with the rnesscnger of Malachi 3:1 a (an identification made by most readers, ancient and modern), who is said to prepare the way before Y H W H . There is no need to suppose that Ben Sira is here influenced by Isaiah 49:6, which does refer to return from exile;'5 an identification of Elijah with the Servant of Isaiah 49 would be unparalleled, as well as odd, especially as Ben Sira docs not go on to attribute other aspccts of the Servant's role to Elijah. More plausible would be an allusion t o Isaiah 40:3, which describes the preparation for the new exodus. The words 'prepare [literally: clear] the ) virtually identical in Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1, so that way' (77- 2 : ~ are the association of the two was easily made and was certainly made in early Christian traditions about John the Baptist. But it is impossible to be sure that Ben Sira made this connexion. Ben Sira's expansion of Elijah's restorative role is paralleled by the Septuagint version of Malachi 3:24(4:6) (3:23 in I.XX). Like Ben Sira, the Greek translators have preserved the first half of the account of Elijah's task as it is in the Hebrew of Malachi, but have substituted a different phrase for the second half:

''

P. Winter, '1.ukanische Mis7ellen,' Z N W 4 9 (1958) 65-66, reads . . r i , but this cannot explain the Greek Y.(LTCICIT~)CJ~~. I ' With this beatitude, cf. 1% Sol 17:44; 18:h. I' This translation follows P. W. Skehan arid A. A. t)i Lelia, The Wzsdorn of Ben Jrra (AB39: N e w York: Doubleday, 1987) 530-532, in reconstructing the kIcbrew text as far as possible (the text of M S R is fragmentary here). l 5 Contra Skehan and Di laella, 7'he Wsdotn of Ben Slra, 534.

2. The restoration programme in Luke 1-2

33 1

And, behold, I will send you Elijah the Tishbite, before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes. He will restore (Clxoxurumiiot.~)the heart of the father to his son and the heart of a man to his neighbour, lest I cotne and strike the earth utterly. Here the work of reconciling families has been extended to that of reconciling people in general in Israel. Evidently the former was thought too restricted to be adequate preparation for the coming day of wrath. Mark 9:11 (par Matt 17:ll) seems best understood as reflecting the Jewish tradition of Elijah as the agent of eschatological restoration in a form which appears t o generalize his role completely: 'Elijah, when he comes first, restores all things (hxoxaOtmciv~incivta).' (Since John the Baptist, identified with Elijah in this passage, did not 'restore all things,' the idea is not likely to be an early Christian innovation.) T h e much discussed 'first' (J~Q~>TOV)" need mean no more than Malachi 3:l and 3:23(4:5) say: 'I am sending my messenger toprepare the way before me'; 'I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Y H W H comes' (cf. also 3:l). N o Jewish text from the Second Temple period puts Elijah and the Messiah of David in chronological order in the sequence of eschatological events, although 4 Ezra refers t o a group of people w h o have been taken u p t o heaven without dying (6:26; 1352) and w h o in the last days will be revealed together with the Messiah (7:28; 14:9). Doubtless these include Elijah, but he is not named and no restorative role is attributed t o him.'' Since 'all things' in a Jewish eschatological context usually means the whole of the created world, Mark 9:11 might seem t o attribute t o Elijah a much larger role than any other tradition suggests, but probably we should understand it t o mean simply that Elijah will restore all that has t o be restored before the eschatological coming of the Lord G o d t o save and to judge.ls Another interpretation of Elijah's restorative role is found in a work contemporary with Luke's, the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo, in a passage which, while it does not mention Elijah by name, clearly alludes t o Malachi 3:24(4:6). It concludes a speech of G o d t o Israel through Joshua (a rewritten version of Josh 24:2-15): Ih

See M.M. Faierstein, 'Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?,'/RL 100

(1981) 75-86; D.C. Alliron, "'Fiijah

m u s t tortic

firrc,"'jAI

103 ( 1 9 8 4 ) 256-258; J . A .

Fitzmyer, 'More about Iilijah coming first,'/BL 104 (1985) 295-296; J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (L.ouisville:Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 110; M. Casey, AramarcSources of Mark's Gospel (SNTSMS 102; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) 122-123. I' Rather similarly, in 1 Enoch 90:31 Enoch and Elijah return to earth, but no role is attributed to them. I t is tempting to think that 4 Ezra 6:26b ('the heart of the earth's inhabitants shall be changed and converted to a different spirit') reflects Ma1 3:24(4:6),but Ezek 1 1:19; 36:26 are more likely the source. '' Cf. Casey, Aramarc Sources, 125-126: he thinks that Mark 9:11 alludes to Ma1 3:24(4:6) and Sir 48:10, and that therefore the numa is defined by the content of these texts.

332

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

But also at the end the lot of each one of you will be life eternal, for you and your seed, and I will take your souls and store them in peace until the time allotted the world be complete. And I will restore (reddam)you to your fathers and your fathers t o you, and they [the Gentiles?] will know through you that I have not chosen you in vain (LAB 23:13).

Here the 'restoration' of fathers to sons and sons to fathers in Malachi has been understood as the restoration of the dead to each other through resurrection.19 The eschatology of Pseudo-Philo is often close to that of 2 Baruch, and this passage is reminiscent of the portrayal of resurrection in 2 Baruch 50-51. There it is said that the dead are initially raised in precisely the form in which they died: For then it will be necessary t o show those who live that the dead are living again, and that those who went away have come back (2 Bar 50:3).

Later the apocalypse speaks of the mutual receiving of earlier and later generations of the dead in a way that parallels Pseudo-Philo's understanding of the restoration of fathers to sons and sons to fathers: For the first will receive the last, those whom they expected; and the last, those whom they had heard that they had gone away (51:13).

While neither of these passages refers to Elijah himself, it is likely that the interpretation of Malachi 3:24(4:6) which Pseudo-Philo attestsz0is the l 9 For reddo used of the restoration of the dead in resurrection, see also LAB 3:10 (twice); 333. In these cases, as in a series of other passages in Jewish and Christian literature, it is the places of the dead that 'give back' the dead to God: see my study of this tradition: 'Resurrection as Giving Back the Dead: A Traditional Image of Resurrection in the Pseudepigrapha and the Apocalypse of John,' in J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans ed., The Pseudepzgrupha and Early Biblical Interpretation (Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 2; JSPSup 14; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1993) 269-291. More like 23:13 is 18:5, in which God 'gave back' (reddidi) Isaac to his father Abraham when the latter is about to kill him in sacrifice. Perhaps this divine restoration of a son to a father when the son was as good as dead encouraged Pseudo-Philo to read Ma1 3:24(4:6) in terms of resurrection. 20 It is possible that there is another example of this interpretation of Malachi 3:24(4:6) The very fragmentary in 44521 2 3:2: 'fathers will return to their sons' (ova5~ niaH n-~x). context of these words makes it impossible to be sure of their significance, but the use of HIZ must indicate a literal spatial movement rather than the metaphorical meaning of ~ l w in Malachi. So the meaning may be that dead fathers (or ancestors) will return from Sheol to their sons (or descendants). This interpretation is given some probability by the references to resurrection elsewhere in the fragments of 44521 (2 2:12; 7+5 2:6). It is notable that, like LAB 23:13, this fragment of 44521 appears to allude to Malachi 3:24(4:6) without mentioning Elijah (though a reference to Elijah in the lost context is possible). Another allusion to Malachi in which Elijah is mentioned occurs in 44558 1 2:4: 'to you I will send Elijah befo[re.' But since this is no more than four words of Malachi 3:23(4:5) translated into Aramaic, while the very fragmentary context is quite obscure, nothing more can be said about it.

2. The vestoratton pvogranjme rn Luke 1-2

333

source of the tradition, found in later rabbinic literature, that 'the resurrection of the dead comes through Elijah' (b. Sot. 49 b). As we have seen, there is n o clear reference to the restoration of the diaspora in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira 48: 10, though preparing 'the tribes of Israel' might well be thought t o require a prophetic ministry in the diaspora and in that sense prepare for the return. 'The Greek version of Ben Sira may indicate the diaspora more clearly. But traditions found later in the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan t o the Pentateuch associate the returning Elijah precisely with the diaspora, and, even though these cannot be dated securely t o the Second Temple period, they are worth noticing as evidence of the way Elijah's biblical role of restoration could be understood. According to the Targum, Elijah will be 'sent to the exiles' at the end of days (Exod 6:18; 40:10), while one text specifies his role as that of beginning, o n God's behalf, the work of gathering the exiles which the Messiah of David will complete (Deut 30:4). O n e way in which Elijah could be related exegetically t o the return from exile would be t o connect Malachi 3:24(4:6), together with Malachi 3:7, with Deuteronomy 30:2, where n2 is used of Israel's turning t o God in the diaspora. If Elijah's restorative work is t o be placed in the definitive sequence of events in Israel's restoration portrayed in Deuteronomy 30, then Elijah's turning of Israel's hearts (Ma1 3:24[4:6]) must relate t o Israel's wholehearted turning t o G o d (Deut 30:2), as a result of which God will restore Israel t o the land. That Elijah would be instrumental in the actual gathering of the exiles far the return could derive from observing the close verbal parallel between the first six words of Malachi 3:l and Exodus 23:20: Behold, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me.. ;'p. ?"- -?.,n50 onk) (Mal 3:1 a). I am sending a messenger before you, to ~ u a r dyou on the way 1

( 7 ; ?Y& ~

;.:D+

Y+Cn%)

and to bring you to the place that I have prepared (Exod 23:20).

This comparison puts Elijah in the role of God's messenger leading the eschatological exodus of his people from the lands of their exile back to the promised land. The parallel was certainly noticed in early Christian exegesis and accounts for the assimilation o f the tcxts o f Malachi 3:l and Exodus

23:20 in the Gospels (Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27). Pseudo-Jonathan's Targum t o Numbers 25:12 refers t o Elijah as a 'messenger of the covenant' (Mal 3:l) who will 'bring the good news of the redemption (~n5tentmc5) at the end of days.' This role of preparing for the eschatological redemption by announcing its coming beforehand is not explicit in other Jewish texts about Elijah. It results from another identification: this time of Elijah the messenger (Ma1 3:1) with the messenger of Isaiah 52:7-10.

334

19. The Restoratton of Israel in Luke-Acts

All these Targumic texts identify Elijah with Phinehas the grandson of Aaron (see also Tg. Ps-Jon. Exod 4:13). This remarkable piece of exegesis is attested, as early as the first century CE, in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Phil~.~' There God tells him that, instead of dying, he will be hidden away until he returns as the historical figure of Elijah. Then you will be lifted up into the place where those w h o were before you were lifted up, and you will be there until I remember the world. Then I will make you [plural] come and you [plural] will taste what is death (LAB 48:l). This passage is clearly connected with the tradition found in 4 Ezra 6:26; 7:28-29; 13:52; 14:9; 2 Baruch 76:2, according to which, not only Elijah, but a whole group of people who never died will return at the end and only then die. What is not explicit in Pseudo-Philo, but is clearly stated in the Targums (Exod 6:18; 40:lO; Deut 30:4), is that Elijah will be the eschatological high priest.12 But this is implicit in his identification with Phinehas, the greatest high priest after his grandfather Aaron. In the identification of Phinehas with Elijah2j there were probably a number of exegetical moves at work." O n e of these was doubtless the fact that Scripture does not record Phinehas' death (in its reliance on the silence of Scripture this is an interesting parallel to the case of Melchizedek in Heb 7:3), along with the fact that he was given 'a covenant of perpetual priesthood' (Num 25:13; cf. Num. R. 21:3). Another factor is that both figurcs are noted in the biblical narratives for their 'zeal' in slaughtering idolaters (Phinehas: Num 25:ll-13; cf. Sir 4523; 1 Macc 2:26,54; 4 Macc 18:12; LAB 47:1, 7; Elijah: 1 Kings 19:lO; cf. Sir 48:2; identified: PRE 29). But finally there is the link between 'the covenant of peace' made by God with Phinehas (Num 25:12; Sir 4524) and Malachi 2:4-7, referring to God's covenant of peace with Levi and describing 'the priest' as a 'messenger of YHWH of hosts."I'his links Phinehas with 'the messenger of the covenant' (3:1), who is Elijah, and the covenant of peace with Elijah's eschatological ministry of reconciliation (3:23[4:6]; cf. Isa 52:7). It was also known to Origen: In Joann. h.14(7). This tradition may explain John 1:19-24: John is asked whether he is one of three eschatological figures: the Messiah (the Davidic king), Elijah (the eschatological high priest) and the prophet (eschatological prophet like Moses). l 3 See M. Hengel, The Zealots (tr. I). Smith; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989) chapter IV.B for a fuller study of the evidence; and R. Hayward, 'Phinehas - the Same is Elijah: The Origins of a Tradition,'JJS 29 (1978) 22-34, for a theory about the origins of the tradition. 24 Against Hayward, 'Phinehas,' I think that the origins of the tradition are likely to be exegetical, even though the exegetical basis is explicit only in the later texts. It is characteristic of L A B to use traditions which have exegetical bases without making these bases explicit. 2'

2. The restoration programme in Luke 1-2

335

2.1.2. The Elijah-like restorer in Luke I The traditions about the returning EIijah appear in two passages in Luke's first chapter: xai noMoirg rav uiav 'Io~ailkt n ~ a q i qEni ~ i xu~lovrbv 8 ~ b a4rhv. v I7xaia8tog x ~ o e M o e t kvti)nwv a~ alitoij 6v xvev~~urt xai buvap~t'Hhiou, C m o r ~ i ~xa~biug ui x a r i ~ w vExi tixva xai heiOei5 kv (CIQOWJOEL8ixaiw. froy~cjlaa~ xvqiq habv xareaxeuaapbvov. We will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. I7Withthe spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared (Luke 1:16-17). n ~ o n o ~ e 6 uyaq g Pvtbniov xvqiou htoy~6atx~ bboirg a6roij, 7 7 ~boOvat o ~ yvau~voottl~iugr+ haw a4rofi Ev 6cpPae1cillaqritiiv u6rGv. You will go before the Lord to prepare his ways 77 to give knowledge of salvation to his people by the forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:76 b-77). We may notice first that the strong allusions t o Malachi 3:l (1:17: aGtos n ~ o ~ h ~ u o ekvhnlov tai a6tou; 1:76: x~oxoge6oflyag 6v&xwv xugbu ktotpaoat 6bovs a'ljtou) and 3:24(4:6) (1: 17: E n ~ a t ~ Qxagbicls at nat6qov Eni tCxva) are not based on the Septuagint, with which Luke has scarcely a word in common here. Similarly, the link between Malachi 3:l and Isaiah 40:3, which is here presupposed (especially in 1:76 b), cannot be made on the basis of the Septuagint texts of these verses, which have no words in common, but only on the basis of the Hebrew texts which use the same phrase 717 ;TE,'to prepare the way' (also in Isa 57:14; 62:lO). As in many other cases in the New Testament, it is clear that the exegetical work behind these verses of Luke was done with the Hebrew texts. The key words of Malachi 3:23(4:6) are here treated in a way which is different from but parallel to the Septuagint and Ben Sira: to turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous (1: 17). Like the Septuagint and Ben Sira, Luke reproduces only the first half of the description of Elijah's task from the Hebrew text of Malachi, and like the Septuagint and Ben Sira, he substitutes for the second half a phrase designed to extend Elijah's restorative work beyond the reconciliation of family members. The exegetical move is the same but the content different. Luke is perhaps thinking of the duty of young men t o learn from the ethical wisdom of their elders. In any case, a different kind of 'turning' of hearts is

336

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

envisaged, not reconciliation of families but amendment of life in a general sense. Then in the last clause of 1:17 ('to make ready for the Lord a people prepared') Luke comes close to Ben Sira: 'to prepare the tribes of Israel' (48:lO). In both cases Elijah's task according to Malachi 3:l and 3:23(4:6) is understood as that of moral and spiritual reformation to prepare the people of Israel for the eschatological day of YHWH. (rendering 3w, as often in LXX, though not The key word hn~at~i.cpetv in Ma1 3:24[4:6]) characterizes Elijah's work as restoration not only here in verse 17, but also in v 16: 'He will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.' This looks like an allusion to Deuteronomy 30:2 ('[if you] return to Y H W H your God'; cf. also 4:30; 30:10; Hos 14:1), though Malachi 3:7 may provide the exegetical link. As we have noted, Deuteronomy 30:1-5 is the foundational text for Israel's hope of restoration from the exile, establishing the sequence of Israel's 'turning' to Y H W H followed by Y HWH's 'turning' Israel's captivity and regathering the scattered people to the land. Luke's text here joins many other Jewish texts about the hope of restoration. The theme of preparation for the coming of the Lord recurs in Luke 1:76b, with allusion to both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3. The further description of the prophet's task in verse 77 is less familiar, but there could be allusion to the role of the messenger in Isaiah 52:7, who, as we have seen, is easily identified with the messenger of Malachi 3:1 (as in Tg. Ps-Jon. N u m 25:12). This verse achieves a connexion between Israel's turning in repentance to the Lord and, not only the threat of judgment thereby averted (Ma1 3:24[4:6]), but also the positive salvation to come for those who d o repent, the Lord's turning t o those who have turned to him (Ma1 3:7), the new exodus (Isa 52:7-12). Everything Luke says in these texts about the Elijah-like figure of the last days is paralleled in the Jewish exegetical traditions surrounding Malachi 3:23-24(4:5-6). Moreover, the central themes of these traditions are all to be found in Luke's accounts. H e makes no explicit connexion between Elijah's task and the diaspora, but nor d o any of ;he texts from the Second Temple period. H e does not identify Elijah with Phinehas or portray him as the eschatological high priest,25but these themes occur in extant Second Temple Jewish literature only in Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities (48:1), as does the interpretation of Elijah's restorative work as resurrection (LAB 23:13). If Luke knew them (and there are some striking parallels between the 25 Luke's John the Baptist is a priest, but his particular priestly lineage, carefully noted by Luke (15; cf. 1 Chron 24:10), would presumably disqualify him from being the legitimate high priest of the line of Aaron and Phinehas through Zadok. It would probably therefore be a mistake to connect John's priesthood with expectations of an eschatological high priest.

2. The restoratwn programme in Luke 1-2

337

Lukan infancy narratives and Pseudo-Philo), he discounted them as inapplicable to John the Baptist, as well as, perhaps, more remote from the plain sense of the key texts in Malach. The one outstanding difference between Luke and the Jewish traditions is that the latter often make clear and never deny that the eschatological figure of Elijah is the same human person as the historical Elijah who ascended to heaven. Luke's innovation - entailed by the very fact that he is narrating the birth of his Elijah-like figure - is to avoid such identity, substituting the phrase: 'in the Spirit and power of Elijah' (1:17), for which he had some precedent in Elisha's relation to Elijah (2 Kings 2: 15). 2.2. The Davidic Messiah delivers the people from oppression Luke 1:68-73, 78-79 (i.e. the Benedictus with the two verses about John the Baptist omitted) depicts God's liberation of Israel, by the Messiah of David, from Gentile domination and oppression, in order for God's people to be free to serve him, rather than their enemies, in the land God has given to them for an eternal possession. In this expectation three main scriptural motifs are brought together: (1) God's promises to the patriarchs, especially the promise of the land (w 72-75); (2) redemption from domination by enemies in fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs (w 68, 74-75); (3) a new Davidic king as the deliverer of the people from their enemies (w 69-71,78-79). The logic of the second motif is that the exodus (redemption) from Egypt was God's fulfilment of his promise to give the descendants of Abraham the land of Canaan (Gen 15:18-21; Exod 2:24; 6:5). So, when Israel experienced exile from the land and subjection to pagan rule in the land, God's promises to the patriarchs require fulfilment in a new exodus, as depicted in Deutero-Isaiah. The convergence of the second and third motifs brings together the expectation of a new exodus and the hope of a new Davidic ruler, but this combination is to be found in Jewish literature as early as Isaiah 11:10-16.26 In what follows we shall not be able to study every detail 26 See M. L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts USNTSup 110; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995)292-297; G. W. Buchanan, 'Isaianic Midrash and the Exodus,' in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders ed., The Function of Scripture in Early Jewbh and Christian Tradition (JSNTSup 154; Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 98-109. Alternatively, the human agent of the liberation of God's people might be seen as a Moses-like figure, a 'prophet' in the sense of an inspired leader of the people, as Moses was. The first-century 'sign prophets' described by Josephus (Ant. 20:97, 169-170; BJ 2.259,261-262) seem to have cast themselves in the role of either a new Moses or a new Joshua. But it is a mistake to suppose that whereas this was the popular expectation, Davidic messianism was an eschatology of the learned Clite (R. A. Horsley and J.S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messzahs [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 19851chapter 3). The new David was expected to bring justice to the poor (Isa 11:4). There is no reason to doubt the evidence of the Gospels that Davidic messianism was espoused by ordinary people.

338

19. The Restorat~onof Israel ~nLuke-Acts

of Luke 1:68-73,78-79, but we shall pick out key themes, one representing each of the first two motifs (the oath sworn t o Abraham, redemption as new exodus) and t w o expressions of the third motif (the horn of salvation, light for those in darkness).

2.2.1. The oath sworn to Abraham He has shown the mercy promised to our fathers, and has remcnlbered his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham noi,jaai i."hEo~ 1 ~ ~T~ ~6 ~1V[ a ~ i ~(p(i)v tov xui pwlo0,jvcn btuOfixqc;I~yicy(IGToD, ii~xov6v t>lkc)aev xeb5 'Afl~uilprbv n u ~ i ilpav ~ u (Luke 1:72-73 a) T h e covenant is that made with Abraham in Genesis 15, in which G o d promised to Abraham's descendants the land of the Caananites (Gen 15: 1821), and l o r that made with Abraham in Genesis 17, in which G o d promised to make Abraham the ancestor of many nations and t o give his descendants the land of Canaan for a perpetual possession (Gen 17:4-8). Following Abraham's demonstrated willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac, G o d reiterated the promise, this time with a solemn oath: By n~yselfI have sworn

... I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring

as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is o n thc sershore. And your

offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your offspring shall all the nations of the world gain blessing for themselves (Gen 22:16-18; cf. Sir 44:21). T h e promise of the land, which is integral t o all the promises t o the patriarchs, from Genesis 15 onwards, here t ~ k e the s form of possessing 'the gate of their enemies' (cf. the interpretation in LXX: 'inherit the cities of their enemies'), introducing the enemies from whom the land has t o be won, and to whom Luke 1:71,74 also refer. The same elements recur in God's promise t o Isaac t o fulfil the oath sworn t o Abraham, and his promises t o Jacob: the land, innumerable descendants, blessing for the nations (Gen 26:3-4; 28:13-14; 35:ll-12; cf. Ps 1057-11). These promises, the covenant and oath are the basis of Israel's expectation, in the Second Temple period, of recovering the land as Israel's own possession in freedom and safety. Since, in the Roman period, Rome claimed ownership of the land it ruled, it is easy t o see why, despite the presence of Jews in the land, they did not see themselves t o be in possession of the land as G o d had promised t o the patriarchs. So, just as G o d at the time of the Exodus 'remembered his covenant' with the patriarchs o r fulfilled 'the oath he swore to Abraham' (Exod 2:24; 6 5 ; 4Q378 [4QPsJoshua" 11 2-3) and did s o again on later historical occasions (Ps 106:45; 1 Macc 4:10; 4Q504[4QDibHarna] 1-2 5 9 ; LAB 30:7), s o he could be expected t o d o in the future in circunlstances of exile from the

2. The restoration progratnrne in Luke 1-2

339

land and of oppression in the land (Lev 26:42,45; Mic 7:20; Sir 36:10; TMos 12:13; Bar 2:34; 2 Macc 1:2; PsSol 9: 10; 2 Bar 78:7). As Moses predicts in Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities: [God] will bring upon you those who hate you [cf. Luke 1:71],?' and they shall rule over you, but not forever, because he will remember the covenant that he established with your fathers (LAB 19:2). For Israel t o serve Goci in the land 'without fear' (Luke 1:74) is also Tobit's understanding of the promise t o Abraham: 'they will go t o Jerusalem and live in safety forever in the land of Abraham, and it will be given over t o them' (Tob 14:1 I), and the hope of possessing the land in safety, secure from oppression and attack by enemies, was a prominent part of the expected restoration of Israel (Lev 25:18-19; Isa 32:18; Jer 23:6; 32:37; Ezek 28:26; 34:28; 38:8; Zeph 3:13). In the light of such parallels it is clear that Luke 1:72-75 expresses, in familiar terms, the late Second Temple period Jewish expectation of restoration t o the land and restoration of the land, o n the basis of God's sworn promise t o Abraham. 2.2.2. Redemption as new exodus

He has visited his people and accomplished redemption for them 6n~axP1yatoxai &noblut.vh u r ~ w u ~T@v ha@cxil~ol?(Luke 1 :68 b) It was in the redemption of his people from Egypt that YI-IWEI first 'remernbcred' and fulfilled his covenant with Abraham (cf. Gen 15:13-21; Exod 2:24; 6:5). Though not confined t o the exodus, the language of God's 'redemption' of his people (both 'x and 7:s) in the Hebrew Bible is associated especially with the exodus, and also, consequently, with the new exodus from exile and bondage expected in the prophecies of Isaiah (e. g. Isa 35:V-10; 44:22-24; 52:V; cf. also Jer 3 1:11; Zech 10:8).28Just as the covenant with Abraham entailed redemption at the first exodus, s o it must entail redemption again in the future. 'I'he Q u m r a n War Scroll refers t o this great salvation event of the future, when Israel will be finally delivered from all : 1:12; 15:1; 18: 11; cf. her enemies, as 'eternal redemption' (c'G%~n ' ~1(2M 14:5). T h e phrase 'the redemption (7%:) of Israel' is used in documents of the Bar Kokhba revolt, and the phrases 'the rcdcri~ption(nL.n;) of Zion' and 'the redemption (7%) of Israel' occur o n the coins of the t w o revolts.2Y

" This expression for encrnies is quite common in the OT; cf. also Jub 31:17, 18,20.

lW.Ringgren in TDOT 2.354-355. l9 J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospelnctordrrrg t o Luke I-IX (AB 28; New York: Doublcday: 1981) 432; U. Flusser, 'Jerusalem in the 1.iterature of the Second Temple Period,' Imh in the Age oflesus Cbnst mnnuel6 (1976) 44; E. Schurer, The Hrstory qfthe J w ~ s People (171 B. C.-A. D.130, revised by G. Vern~esand F. Millar, vol. 1 (Edinburgh:'I:Lk 'I: Clark, 1973) 605-606.

340

19. The Restarat~onof Israel ln Luke-Acts

As well as the word 'redemption' in Luke 1:68 (cf. also 2:38; 24:21), the idea that the people are liberated from their enemies in order t o serve G o d (vv 74-75) is also an exodus motif (Exod 423; 7:16; 8:20; 9:13; 10:7; 19:5-6).

2.2.3. The horn of salvation H e has raised u p a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (I~YELQEV XSQUS ( J W T T ~ Q Uilpiv ~~;

EV o i x q Auvib xaibbf;uijtoi,)

(Luke 15 9 ) There I will cause a horn t o sprout u p (-.EL*) for David; I have prepared a lamp for my anointed o n e (Ps 132: 17) O n that day I will cause a horn t o sprout u p ( - u n ) for the house of Israel (Ezek 29:21)

YI-IWH is ... the horn of my salvation (Ps 1H:2 = 2 Sam 22:3)

He will give strength t o his king ) horn of his anointed o n e and exalt ( t ~ the (1 Sam 2:lO) In m y name his [David's] horn shall be exalted (Ps 89:25[English versions 2.11).

(r~)

W h o raises the horn from Jacob, and the judge of the nations from Israel (Syriac Apocryphal Ps 154:19)53 Give thanks t o him w h o makes a horn t o sprout u p (YESD")for the house of David (Sir 5 1 ~ 1 2viii)." Cause the shoot ( i . 2 ~ )of David your servant t o sprout u p ( r i l r ~quickly, ) and exalt ( ~ 3 7his'? ) horn by your salvation. For we wait o n your salvation all the day. Blessed are you, Lord, w h o makes the horn of salvation t o sprout u p (FEXC) (Shenioneh 'Esreh, Babylonian recension, 15 th benediction).

T h e three non-biblical Jewish texts here are all dependent o n the texts in the Hebrew Bible, especially Psalrn 132. (Ps 154:19 also echoes N u m 24:17, a favourite messianic text in Second Temple Judaism.) What is striking is that Luke's text is closest to that of the fifteenth benediction in the Babylonian ' O The psalm is known rn Iiehrew in 1 1C)Pca 18.1-18, but little of the text of line 18 (corresponding to vv 18 b--19 in the Syriac) survives. P ~ c M. e Kister, 'Notes o n Some New Texts trom Qurnran,'JJS 44 (1993) 289-290, there I \ no reason t o doubt that v 19 was part of this version of the psalm. The I Icbrew prayer that tollowc $11-51:12 in h4S B is probahly not part ot the orlginal text, but nevertheless seems to be pre-Maccabe.~nin date: Skchan and 13 I ella, The Wtsdarn of Ben 'irrii, 569. '? Some MSS read 'our.'

"

2. The restoration programnte in Luke 1-2

34 1

version of the Eighteen Benedictions, which is the only text besides Luke's that combines the phrase 'horn of salvation' from Psalm 18:2 with allusion to Psalm 132:17, making the phrase a description of the Messiah of David. This benediction is missing from the Palestinian recension known in the Cairo Geniza text of the Eighteen, but there are grounds for thinking its inclusion in the Eighteen is older than its omission.33 The text of the benedictions seems never to have been stable, and so we cannot be sure that this text was known as such in the first century C E . O n the other hand, its closeness to the Hebrew prayer in Ben Sira 51 :12 and to Luke 1:69 suggests that it does represent Jewish liturgical tradition and that Luke is dependent not directly o r not only on the Old Testament texts but on Jewish prayer usage. While Psalm 132, followed by Sir 5 1 ~ 1 2viii and the Fifteenth Benediction, uses a verb (Hiphil of ncs) which calls to mind the messianic 'branch' (ncs) of David Uer 23:s; 33:15; Zech 3%; 6: 12), Luke perhaps avoids this because he will use in verse 78 the Greek noun &va~oLfi,which translates nns in the Septuagint and for which the corresponding verb is d t v a ~ P M ~(cf. t v Ps 131(132):17 LXX: 65uva~~l.6)). But since, as elsewhere in the canticles of Luke 1-2, he is clearly not working from the Septuagint, to render rns;: by d v a t ~ h h e ~may v simply not have occurred to him. The significance of the fact that Luke uses precisely this way of referring t o the Messiah of David at this point has not been fully appreciated. Luke is here referring to the Uavidic Messiah as deliverer of his people froin their enemies (v 71). It was common in the Davidic messianism of the later Second Temple period to think of the Davidic Messiah in this way,3J but most of the texts of the Hebrew Bible which refer to a future Davidic king portray him as reigning, not as saving. Texts which seem to have been commonly used in the messianism of the later Second Temple period to portray the Messiah as delivering the people are Genesis 49:9;" N u m 24:17-19 (not explicitly Davidic, but usually understood as referring to the Davidic Me~siah);~' Isaiah 11:4 b (originally referring to the reigning king's activity as judge, but interpreted later as referring to his destruction of Israel's Gen" E. Schurer, The Htstory of the Jewtsh People rn the Age of Jesus Chnst (175 B. C.-A. D.135), e d . G . Vermes, E. Millar and M. Black, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: 7:& '1:Clark,

1979) 461-462. The popular~tyof Ilavtd~cM e s s ~ a n ~ sIn m the Seccrnd Temple perlod has been debated in recent work, though most agree it becanle more popular in the Roman period: for a niinimal~stview, see K.E. I'omykala, Thc Davidtc Tradtrton tn Early Judarsnz (SBLEJL 07; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1995); tor a maximalist view, see A. L.aato, A Star is Rrsrng (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); cf. also Strauss, The D a v ~ d l cMesstirh, chapter 2; G . S . Oegema, The Anointed and his People: I2.lessranrc Expectatrorts from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba (JSPSup 27; Shcffield: Shefficld Academic Press, 1998). j5 l Q S b 5:29; 4 E7ra 1 1-12. j6 Sir 36:12; 1's 154:19; 4QTe5t 9-13; I Q S b 5 2 4 ; CD 7:19-21; cf. 1QM 11:6-7; I'hilo, De Praem. 95; Mos. 1.290; Josephus, RJ 6.312.

"

342

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

tile oppressors)37and Psalm 2 (commonly interpreted as m e ~ s i a n i c ) All .~~ of these texts, if understood in this way, portray the Messiah's deliverance of Israel in a way that highlights violent destruction of enemies, although Isaiah 11:4 b could be understood as destruction by judicial word rather than by military means (4 Ezra 13:lO-11, 37-38). Although victory over enemies is certainly implied in Luke 1:71, verse 69, introducing the Messiah of David, portrays him positively as 'a horn of salvation.' Such a reference to him as positively the saviour of his people, rather than negatively the destroyer of the wicked, could not be obtained by allusion to Genesis 499; Num 24:17-19; Isaiah 11:4 b or Psalm 2. Nor would allusion to Psalm 132:17 alone suffice, since, although 'horn' is a common metaphor for power, there is nothing in that verse to suggest that the power is to be exercised in salvation rather than merely in reigning. It is the typically Jewish exegetical move of interpreting the 'horn' here by means of the similar phrase 'the horn of my salvation' in Psalm 18:3 (= 2 Sam 22:3) that produces a biblically-derived phrase depicting the Davidic Messiah as saviour: 'a horn of salvation ... in the house of his servant David.' That the same exegetical move lies behind the Fifteenth Benediction shows that Luke was probably not original in making it, but he certainly took advantage of it.

2.2.4. Lzght for those in darkness The rising light from o n high has visited us, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, and to guide our feet into the way of peace ( k ~ c ~ a x i $ a tfip6s o ~ ~ &vatohfi8EI, i j ~ o v g , i~c~rpdv t oug~ Ev U ~ O T E Lxai uxta Bavatou xaBqpSvoy, tofi xateuOfivai TOGS nohag fipOv E ~ S6hov eiQ4vqg) (Luke 1:78 b-79). The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who sat (.zm.)in a land of the shadow of death (mnk), on them light has shined (Isa 9:1[English versions 9:2]) Some sat in darkness and in the shadow of death (nln'xi lmn 12m.), prisoners in misery and irons.. .. They cried to YHWH in their troubles, and he saved them from their distress; he brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death (nin5n y~~nn), and broke their bonds asunder (Ps 107:10,13-14).

1QSb 5:24-25; PsSol 17:24 ;4 Ezra 13:10-11,37-38; 2 Bar 40:l-2; 1 Enoch 62:2. 4QFlor 1-3 1:18-19; PsSol 17:23-24. j9 I think this reading more probable than kxtankq~ta~. The inclusio with v 68 is more likely to be original than created by a scribe. 37 38

2. The restoration programme in Luke 1-2

... to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness (lun ?3ra.). (Isa 42:7) The words of the first half of Luke 1:79 ('to give light t o those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death') could have been derived from Isaiah 9:1(2) alone, but, since the phrase 'who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death' is not found as such in Isaiah 9 but is in Psalm 107, it is likely that Luke's wording alludes to Psalm 107 and perhaps also t o Isaiah 42. In other words, Luke's text, here as in some other instances we have observed, results from the Jewish exegetical practice of bringing together texts which share key words and phrases and interpreting them in the light of each other. Here the combination of Isaiah 9:1(2) with the other texts establishes that the darkness in which people sit is that of imprisonment, while the correlation of Isaiah 9:1(2) with Isaiah 42:7 (which is addressed to the Servant of YHWH, though strictly the subject of 'to bring out' is YHWH) may also help to establish that the light in the former text is an image for the Messiah, though this might well have been deduced anyway from the rest of Isaiah 9. Thus Luke 1:78-79 depict the Messiah lighting the way of escape for his people from the darkness of captivity and into the way of peace.40Though neither exiles in the diaspora nor Jews living under pagan domination in the land were literally in gaol, the image of imprisonment is appropriate to the way Jewish literature often portrayed their situation in subjection to their enemies (Isa 52:2; Ezra 953-9; Neh 9:36-37; Tob 13:10; Philo, De Praem. 164; Josephus, BJ 5.395). Surprisingly, there does not seem to be any extant Jewish text from the Second Temple period which expresses a messianic or eschatological interpretation of Isaiah 9.41But the meaning conveyed by Luke 178-79 is nevertheless fully in line with common Jewish hopes.

2.3. The consolation of Israel as a light for the nations The two prophetic figures, Simeon and Anna, who recognize the infant Jesus as the promised Messiah (Luke 2:25-38), are associated respectively with 'the consolation of Israel' (v 25) and 'the redemption of Jerusalem' (v 38). The two phrases reflect Isaiah 52:9b (though, as usually in Luke 1-2, not the LXX): 'YHWH has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem.' More generally, the reason 'the consolation of Israel' can serve here (as also later in the rabbis) as a comprehensive term for the restoration 40 For peace, see Isa 96-7, but it is a very common term with reference to the messianic age to come. 41 The closest parallel to the way the image of light and darkness is used in Luke 1:79 may be 4 4 4 3 4 1 1 3 .

344

19. The Restornt~onof Isrriel in 1-uke-Acts

of Israel is the importance of the verb 'to comfort, to console' (en:) in Isaiah 40-66 (40:l; 49:3; 51:3,12; 52:9; 61:2; 66: 13; cf. Jer 31:13; Zech 1:17; Bar 4:30; 2 Bar 44:7), beginning with the opening repetition of the term in Isaiah 40:l as stating the theme for the whole of the succeeding prophecies of return from exile and restoration of the people and the city in the land. That the significance of the term precisely in Deutero-Isaiah is intended by Luke becomes clear in Simeon's song, which alludes to Isaiah 52:10 ('Y HWM has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of o u r God')

and Isaiah 49:6 b ('I will give you as a light t o the nations, that my salvation may reach t o the ends of the ~ a r t h ' ) . ~ "

(Note the key words which forge the exegetical link between the two passages: 'the nations,' 'the ends of the earth,' 'salvation.') Isaiah 60:l-3 links Israel's glory with the light for the nations, as Simeon's song does. The expectation, in Deutero-Isaiah and in Simeon's song, is that God's salvation of his own people Israel will demonstrate his deity to the nations, who will then themselves turn to Israel's God for salvation. This is the authentically Jewish universalism of the later prophets: God's dealings with Israel will bring all the nations to know him as the only true God (cf. Isa 2:2-4; Mic 4: 1-3; Zech 8:20-23; 14:16). Allusions to this theme in non-biblical Jewish literature of the Second Temple period are not very common, but not absent (see Tob 14%; 1 Enoch 91:30; SibOr 3:710-723; PsSol 17:3 1; Philo, Virt. 1 19-120).J3 Examples which use the light image from Isaiah as Luke does are: A bright light will shine t o all the ends of the earth (Tob 13:ll).

I believe that each nation would abandon its peculiar ways, and ... turn t o honouring our laws alone. For, when the brightness of their shining is accompanied by national prosperity, it will darken the light of the others as the risen sun darkens the stars (Philo, Mos. 2.44).

2.4. The redemption ofJerusalem and the return of the diaspora We have seen that, in Luke's account of Simeon, the Isaianic reference to 'the consolation of Israel' is associated, as in Isaiah, with the enlightenment of Cf. also Isa 40:5; 426; 46:13. to thy people Israel": Luke-Acts and the Jews,' in Tyson ed., Luke-Acts, 31, mistakenly quotes 4 Ezra 2:33-35 as evidence of Jewish expectation of the conversion of Gentiles. The first two chapters of 4 Ezra (often known as 5 Ezra) are not, of course, an original part of the Jewish apocalypsc of Ezra (4 Ezra 3-14) but a Christian text. 42

" D. L. 'I'iede, '"<;lory

2. The restoratzon programme in Luke 1-2

345

the nations (Isa 52:9-10). Similarly, the reference, in Luke's account of Anna, to 'the redemption of Jerusalem' (Luke 2:38) would have, as its expected Isaianic counterpart, the return of the exiles to Jerusalem (Isa 52:9, 11-12). In Isaiah it is the Gentile nations, drawn by the light of the gloriously restored Jerusalem, who will bring mother Zion's exiled children back to her (Isa 60:l-9; cf. 11:11-12; 49:22-23; 66:20). This picture is echoed by some later Jewish literature (PsSol 17:31; ?I Enoch 57). In other texts, even if the Gentiles do not appear as agents of the return from the diaspora, the latter is still closely connected with the restoration and glorification of Jerusalem and its temple (Bar 4:36-37; 55-9; Tob 13:13-14; 14:5 b, 7b; 2 Macc 2:18; PsSol11; 1 Enoch 90:29-33). In Luke's text it is Anna's membership of the tribe of Asher (2:36) which evokes the association of the restoration of Jerusalem with the restoration of all the tribes of Israel to the land. I have argued in detail elsewhere44that a competent contemporary reader of Luke would have understood Anna most readily as a returnee from the exile of the northern tribes of Israel in Media. ~ h ten ; northern tribes were not, at this period, regarded as 'lost,' but were known still to live in the regions of their exile, especially in Media, and were regularly included in the hope for the return of all the exiles of all the tribes. They sent their temple tax and came as pilgrims to Jerusalem, as Luke himself indicates in Acts 2:9. They shared with the rest of the diaspora a hope of return to the land, and no doubt some individuals and families actually settled in Jeru~alem;~as returnees from other parts of the diaspora did. Anna would be one who had returned to Jerusalem to await the ingathering of the rest of the exiles and to maintain a constant vigil of prayer in the temple in readiness for the moment of redemption. Her importance in Luke's narrative is to ensure that the Israel whose hopes of messianic restoration are so fully represented in Luke's first two chapters is truly Israel as a whole, northern tribes as well as southern, exiles as well as inhabitants of the land.46 Thus the roles of Simeon and Anna are complementary, representing the two aspects of the Isaianic vision of restoration. Simeon, presumably a native of Jerusalem, waiting for the consolation of Israel, hails the Messiah Jesus as the one who will fulfil Israel's destiny to be a light to the nations (2:31-32). H e represents the hope of the centrifugal movement of salvation out from Jerusalem to the Gentiles. Anna, a returnee from the diaspora of the northern tribes, waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem, recognizes the Messiah Jesus as the one who will fulfil Jerusalem's destiny to be the centre 44

R. Bauckham, 'Anna of the Tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36-38),' RB 104 (1997) 161-191.

We know of one such: Nahum the Mede, who was remembered in rabbinic tradition (m. Nazir 5:4; m. Shabb. 2:1; m.B. Bat. 5:2; b. Ketub. 105 a; b. 'Abod. Zar 7 b). 46 For the hope of the return of all twelve tribes, see Ezek 37:15-23; 47:13-14; 48; Sir 36:ll; PsSol 11; 17:28; 4 Ezra 13. 45

346

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

to which all the tribes of Israel are regathered. She represents the hope of the centripetal movement of salvation as the diaspora returns t o Zion. 2.). The Messiah of David reigns forever Whereas the Benedictus portrays the Davidic Messiah in his salvific role of defeating the enemies of Israel and thereby establishing the messianic peace (Luke 1:69-71,78-79), the annunciation to Mary complements that picture by portraying him as the king who will rule Israel forever. Luke 1:32-33 constitute a messianic interpretation of God's promise to David in Nathan's oracle (2 Sam 7:12-16). The promise that David's descendants will rule forever (cf. also Isa 9:7; Jer 33:17; Ps 89:4, 29; 132:12; Sir 47:11, 22; 1 Macc 2:57;47PsSol17:4) is interpreted t o mean that the Messiah, son of David and son of God (2 Sam 7:14), will himself reign over Israel forever. This messianic understanding of Nathan's oracle is attested also in 4Q174(4QFlor) 1 1:lO-13, and probably lies behind other assertions that the Davidic Messiah's rule will last forever (SibOr 3:49-50; 2 Bar 73:1), even if the 'forever' is not always to be taken in an absolute sense (2 Bar 40:2-3). 2.6, God exalts the lowly and humiliates the exalted

The main theme of Mary's Magnificat (Luke 146-55) is the eschatological reversal of status: God exalts the lowly and humbles the exalted. Mary sees God's choice of herself to be the mother of the Messiah as itself an instance of God's blessing of the lowly and as paradigmatic of the general reversal of status in favour of God's oppressed people which the messianic salvation will bring.48 In this respect, the Magnificat follows the lead of the song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:l-lo), o n which it is partly modelled and which contains one of the most extended of Old Testament expressions of God's characteristic action of reversing status. In view of the references t o YHWH's king49 and YHWH's Messiah (anointed one) at the end of Hannah's song (210) it is not surprising that it should have been given a messianic interpretation. This does not happen in Pseudo-Philo's rewritten version of Hannah's song (LAB 51:3-6), but it does occur in the paraphrase and expansion of the song in Targum Jonathan to the Former prophet^.^^ O n this text, see Laato, A Star, 277-278. See my essay, 'Elizabeth and Mary in Luke 1: Reading a Gynocentric Text Intertextually,' in R. Bauckham, Gospel Women (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2002) chapter 3. 49 LXX has 'our kings.' 50 Translation in D. J. Harrington and A. J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets (Aramaic Bible 10; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987) 105-106; discussion in D. J. Harringon, 'The Apocalypse of Hannah: Targum Jonathan of 1 Samuel 2:1-10,' in D.M. Golomb and S. T. Hollis ed., "Working With No Datan: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas 0. Lambdin (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1987) 147-152; "

48

2. The restoration progrnmme in L ~ k 1-2 e

347

The Targum 'transforms Hannah's song into an apocalypse that charts the course of Israel's future history and climaxes in a vision of the e ~ c h a t o n . ' ~ ' It understands verse 1 b-5 as prophecies of six great acts of deliverance in Israel's history, in which God will reverse the fortunes of oppressed Israel and her pagan oppressors. Thus, for example, verse 4 refers t o the Seleucid emperors and to the Hasmoneans, verse 5 a to the sons of Haman (reduced from wealth t o poverty) and t o Mordecai and Esther (exalted from poverty to wealth and freedom), and verse 5 b t o Jerusalem (no doubt post-70 CE Jerusalem, 'like a barren woman' without inhabitants, but 'to be filled with her exiled people') and t o Rome (the populous city which will become desolate). The following verses o n reversal of status (vv 6-9) are referred to the general fate of the righteous and the wicked in the world to come, while the last verse (v 10) is understood t o predict God's judgment on Gog and the nations from the ends of the earth and his establishment of the messianic kingdom. Of course, none of this detail is paralleled by the Magnificat, but the two rewritings of Hannah's song share the general approach of understanding the activity of God in reversing status as characteristic both of his general activity in his people's history but also of the messianic salvation of Israel. Harrington's conclusion that since the 'language, paraphrastic technique, and theology set the passage apart from the bulk of Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets ..., we are most likely dealing with a traditional piece taken over in the final redaction of the T a r g ~ m , ' ~cannot ' be followed with any confidence. It is true that the Targum generally keeps much more closely to the Hebrew text, but its exceptional treatment of Hannah's song is similar to that of the other songs in the narrative of the Former Prophets: Deborah's song in Judges 5, David's song in 2 San~ucl22, and David's last words in 2 Samuel 23:I-7 (this passage is developed into a fully messianic prophecy in the Targum). In particular, it is notable that the Targum evidently recognizes the interpretative role which the two songs of Hannah ( 1 Sam 2) and David (2 Sam 22) play in encompassing the narrative of 1-2 and, since J. E. Coc~k,'Hannah's Later Songs: A Study in Comparative Methods of It~terpretation,'in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders ed., The Funcrion of Stripture in E ~ rJruish l ~ and (7hrtstiun Tradition (JSNTSup 154; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic I'ress, 1998) 244-249. 5' I-iarrington, 'The Apocalypse of Hannah,' 149. s2 Harrington, "The Apocalypse of I-iannah,' 152; cf. Cook, 'I Iannahi 1,ater Songs,' 249 11. 8. Harrington no longer draws this conclusion in Harringtori and Saldarini, T a r g ~ m Jonathan, 10-1 I, where he recognizes the parallels with the Targum's treatment of Judges 5 , 2 Samuel 22, and 2 Samuel 23: 1-7. 5 3 Cf. P.E. Satterthwaite, 'David in the Books of Samuel: A Messianic Expectation?' in I? E. Satterthwaite, K.S. Hess and G. J . Wenham ed., The 1,ordi Anointed: Intevretation of O l d fisturnent rMessianic Ti.xts (Carlisle: Paternoster/ Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995) 43-47.

348

19. 7 % Krstoratzon ~ of Isracl rn Luke-Acts

both end with reference t o YHWH's king and YHWH's Messiah (anointed one) (1 Sam 2:10; 2 Sam 22:51), reads the song of David also in a messianic sense, seeing the Lord's victories through David as prototypical of those of the Davidic Messiah, with their climax in the deliverance from G o g and his army of nations (Tg 2 Sam 22:50), as in the Targumic version of Hannah's song. David's reference t o the theme of reversal of status (2 Sam 22:28) is developed more explicitly with reference to Israel and her oppressors: 'the people, the house of Israel, w h o are called in this world a poor people, you will save; and by your Memra you will humble the strong w h o are showing their might against them' (Tg 2 Sam 2:28).54 From what stage in the development of the Targum these interpretations of I lannah's and David's songs date it is hardly possible t o tell, even though there is nothing t o prevent their being as early as c. 100 C F , . ~ ~ While these considerations of date must caution us against concluding too much from the parallel between Mary's song, as an adaptation of Hannah's, and the Targum's version of Hannah's song, the latter does show that the kind of messianic reading of Hannah's song and of its key theme of reversal of status that we find in the Magnificat is easily understood on the basis of common Jewish exegetical practice and messianic expectation. The exegetical practice of reading as apocalyptic and eschatological prophecy passages of Scripture which are by n o means obviously such was certainly already current before Luke's time: Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Anttquities, for example, 28:6-9; cf. 13:8-10). provide several examples (LAB 19:10-1 5; 23%-7; Otherwise, Second Temple Jewish literature rarely states the theme of messianic o r eschatological reversal of fortunes as sharply and specifically as Luke 1:50-53, though one good example occurs in the Qumran War Rule: You have raised the fallen with your strength, but those who arose, you cut down to hun~iliatethem ( l Q M 14:10-11).

But implicit in much messianic o r eschatological expectation is the hope that Israel (or the righteous remnant within Israel), currently poor and oppressed, will be delivered and exalted by God, while the oppressors, the wealthy and powerful, will be brought low. This is assumed, for example, in the talk of faithful Israel as 'the poor' in the Psalms of Solomon, and forms the overall theme of the sustained contrast between the righteous and their wicked oppressors in 1 Enoch 94-104.

j'' Note also how the 'IBrgurn's interpretation and expansion of 1 Sam 2:2 and 2 Sam 22:32, already similar in the IIebrcw text, depends on developing the similarity between the two verses. 55 Cf. kfarrington and Saldarini, Targurn Jonathan, 13-14.

2. The restoratron programme In Luke 1-2

2.7. The Messiah is opposed and carrses division in Israel The last prophetic words spoken about Jesus in Luke's infancy narrative are those of Simeon's prophecy given specifically to Mary (2:34-35). Compared with the material we have discussed s o far, this prophecy is notably enigmatic and obscure, not least in the prospect it suggests far Mary h e r ~ e l f . ~ " This enigmatic character is to be explained by the fact that here we no longer find an expression of widespread Jewish messianic and eschatological hopes, expressed in clear allusions to the Hebrew Bible, but rather a first indication of the unexpected route that Luke's narrative of the Messiah Jesus will take in demonstrating how Israel's messianic hopes are fulfilled in him in a different way from that in which the restoration programme of Luke 1-2 might otherwise have led us t o expect. His people will be divided in their response to him and in the consequences for themselves. H e will be opposed and rejected and (though this is only very obscurely hinted at) suffer s o severely that even his mother's consequent suffering will be as though her soul were pierced by a sword.57 Probably Simeon's words contain an allusion t o Isaiah 8: 14 (not LXX!), one of the 'stone' passages (with Isa 28:16; Ps 118:22; Dan 2:34-35,4445) which were widely understood in early Christianity as prophecies of the rejection of Jesus by his people and the failure of many of his people t o believe in him (Matt 21 :42--44; Mark 8:3 1; 12:10; Luke 9:22; 17:25; 20: 17-1 8; Acts 4:11; Rom 9:33; Eph 2:22; 1 Pet 2:4, 6-8). There is n o evidence in the literature of Second Temple Judaism either of the use of Isaiah 8:14'%r of the theme it expresses in Simeon's prophecy. We can take it, then, that Simeon's prophecy introduces a discordant and riddling note into Luke's programme of messianic restoration.

"

Cf. J.B. <;reen, The Gospel of Luke (NICN'I'; Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 1997) 149-150: Luke 'introduces ncw puzzles, making certain that the climax of the birth narrative actually carrim us over into the story of Jesus' niissitrn in subscqucnt chapters.' 5 7 I prefer this interpretation of the words about Mary (so also J. Nolland, Luke 1-Y:20 [WBC 3511; Dallas: Word, 19893 121-122) t o various other proposed interpretations (sce R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messlah [revised edition; N e w York: Utrubleday, 19931 462465,687-688; Fitzmyer, The Gospelaccording to Luke I - I X ) 429-430. Contra Brown, this interpretation does not presuppose the Johannine picture of Mary standing at the foot of the cross (though Luke 23:49 with Acts 1:14 may, in fact, imply that 1.ukc understood her t o bc present at the cross). It presupposes merely the notion, which for most readers will be self-evident, that a mother is likely t o suffer from her son's suffering. jK Isa 8:14 is interpreted messianically in b. Sanh. 381, but in a way that is portrayed as unacceptable.

350

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

2.8. Conclusions - The passages we have studied in Luke 1-2 present a remarkably comprehensive programme of restoration for Israel, expressed throughout in exegetical allusions to texts of the Hebrew Bible. - There is nothing in these passages that suggests use of the Septuagint, much that requires o r suggests that the underlying biblical texts are Hebrew.59 - Most of the biblical sources are also found interpreted messianically o r eschatologically in non-biblical Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. (The exceptions are 1 Samuel 2, Isaiah 8:14 and Isaiah 9.) - The Lukan passages we have examined exhibit the same kind of exegetical moves and developments we find in Jewish texts (see, for example, the parallel, rather than identical, treatment of Ma1 3:24[4:6] in Ma1 3:23LXX; Sir 48:10b and Luke 1:17; o r the parallel between the Magnificat and the Targum's version of the song of Hannah). - Though some of the elements in the messianic expectation presented in Luke 1-2 are paralleled more frequently than others in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, there is none that is unparalieled. Each of these elements, as presented by Luke, could easily stand in a non-Christian Jewish text of the late Second Temple period, as could the whole restoration programme that Luke here outlines. - Given the diversity of messianic and eschatological expectations in the late Second Temple period (though this has been exaggerated in many recent studies), it is nevertheless probable that in substantial outline the restoration programme of Luke 1-2 could have been recognized as their own expectation by the majority of Jews of the period.

'' The scholdrly literature contains much misinformation on this point. For e x a n ~ ~ l e , Brown, The Brrth of the Messlab, 349, writes: 'At times the Magnificat and the Benedictus seem to depend more closely o n the LXX than on the Hebrcw Bible (see the asterisked passages in Tables XI1 and XIII).' Several of these asterisks mark texts to which it is not likely I.uke is alluding at all. In other cases, the assertion that Luke's text is closer to the 1,XX than to the MT is completely fallacious. For example, it is impossible to see how Luke 1:46b-47 is closer to thc LXX than to the M T of 1's 35:9 (LXX 34:9). In the case of Isaiah 9:1(2), echoed in Luke 1:79, not only is Luke's text not closer to the LXX than to the MT, it is actually closer to the MT than to the LXX: xtt0tlp~voy('sitting') is a literal Not rendering of the Hebrew . 2 r , which LXX translates idiomatically as xc~ro~xofim~g. one of Brown's nine examples is convincing. Ravens, Luke, 29, writes: 'not only is the style reminiscent of the LXX, but so also is the conttnt of the Magnificat and Bcnedicrus in which Creed has noted some forty allusions to a wide range of passages in the LXX.' But J. M. Creed, 'The Gospel accordrng to St. Luke (London: Macmillan, 1942) 303-306, merely lists a series of OT texts in Greek which resemble the texts of the Magnificat and the Benedictus. H e makes no attempt to show that Luke follows the LXX rutl~erthan the Hebrew.

2. The restoration programme in Luke 1-2

351

- These first six points suggest that w e should credit Luke with the intention of representing accurately the hopes of restoration that would have been espoused by just the kind of circles of pious Jews as we meet in Luke 1-2. These chapters fulfil that intention skilfully and successfully. - Along with this broad correspondence with current Jewish messianic hopes, we need t o notice certain specific omissions and emphases in this Lukan restoration programme. In the first place, it is very considerably focused o n the restoration of Israel, with only one reference to the positive effect of this restoration o n the Gentile nations (2:31-32). This is probably representative of a considerable range of messianic expectation in Second Temple Judaism. - Secondly, the programme is exclusively composed of the more 'immanent' aspects of Israel's hope, the 'this-worldly' future of Israel and the nations. There is n o reference t o the resurrection of the dead, to the end of all evil and suffering, o r t o the renewal of the created world. The same can be said of some significant expressions of the messianic hope in Second Temple Judaism, such as the Psalms of Solomon and the writings of the Qumran community. It may reflect an expectation of a messianic kingdom preceding the resurrection, the last judgment and the renovation of the cosmos (as is explicit in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra).'O - Jewish messianism was t o a considerable extent a tradition of exegesis of Scripture. Given the large range of O l d Testament texts which could be applied t o the Davidic Messiah o r t o eschatological events associated with him, much depended on which texts were selected and emphasized. From this point of view it is worth observing that Luke does not allude in these chapters to some of the favourite texts of Davidic Messianism in this period: Numbers 24: 17-19; Psalm 2;" Isaiah 11:1-5; Daniel 7. - It is at least partly owing to this exegetical selectivity that this Lukan restoration programme does not refer t o the military o r violent overthrow of Israel's oppressors (though 1:71,74 imply their defeat o r destruction) o r t o the subjecting of other nations to rule by Israel. - Three important elements in the most common forms of Jewish expectation are not explicitly mentioned in Luke 1-2, though they are very strongly implied: the repossession of the land (cf. 1:72-7S), the restoration of the temple (cf. 2:38) and the return of the diaspora t o the land (cf. 1:68, 72-75,79; 2:36). It is possible that Luke leaves these inexplicit, not because he does not recognize their firm basis in biblical prophecy o r their im-

""

Bar 40:2-3 shows that the Messiah can be said to reign forever even in such a scenario. 6' Cf. allusions to and quotation from Ps 2:9 in Luke 3:22; 9:35; Acts 13:33.

352

19. The Restorarton of Israel in Luke-Acts

portance to current Jewish messianism, but because he understands their fulfilment to be one which significantly reinterprets them. - The only indication in Luke 1-2 that the Messiah's way to his kingdom would be through rejection and death comes in Sinieon's prophecy given to Mary (2:34-35). This passage has an enigmatic character which marks it, not as p a n of the widespread messianic expectation of Second Temple Judaism which Luke 1-2 otherwise expresses, but as a hint of the unexpected which the rest of Luke's narrative must portray and explain.

3. Restoration accomplished and to come That Paul, in Rome in the last chapter of Acts, can say that 'it is for the sake of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain' (28:20; cf. 26:6-7), is indicative of the extent t o which the theme of the restoration of Israel dominates Luke's narrative and does so in a way that does not negate but actually entails the Gentile mission. In some sense the whole narrative from Luke 3 to Acts 28 is recounted as the fulfilment of the hopes of restoration expressed in Luke 1-2. 3.I . John the Baptist and the beginning of restoration

From Luke's account of John the Baptist in chapter 3, it is clear the restoration programme announced in chapters 1-2 has unambiguously begunSh2 The lengthy quotation of Isaiah 40:3-5 (Luke 3 : w ) summarizes the whole restoration programrne of both Isaiah 40-66 and Luke 1-2 from beginning to end, from the preparation of the Lord's people for his coming (Luke 1:17, 76) to his salvation of his people in the sight of all peoples (2330-31), such that they too share in salvation. There is a revealing contrast here with the quotation of Isaiah 40:l-5 in 4 Q 176[4Q'I'anh] 1-2 1:4-9, part of an anthology of 'words of consolation' drawn from Isaiah 40-55. This quotation ends with the first line of Isaiah 40:5 ('And the glory of YHWH will be revealed'), omitting the next line (MT: 'and all flesh shall see it together'), with which Luke's quotation ends (in the more emphatic LXX form: 'and all flesh shall see the salvation of God'). Luke is certainly concerned with the 62 Against I-i. Conzelmann's view that in Luke-Acts John belongs to 'the period of Israel' and not to 'the period of Jesus,' see J . A . Fitlmyer, Luke the Theologzurz (NewYork/ Mahwah: Paulist, 1989) 102-1 10. But Conzelmann's whole scheme of periodization in Luke's theology is seen to be inappropriate once we see that Luke is concerned with the restoration of Israel. What begins with John's ministry is the period of the restoration of Israel, within which there are several stages, of which John's ministry (in Luke complete before Jesus' begins) is the first.

3. Restorat~onaccomplished and to come

353

consolation of Israel, but not just for its own sake. It is the necessary first step from which the conversion of the nations will follow. John the Baptist calls people to turn to God and to each other (cf. Luke 1:16-17) in repentance and its practical fruits (Luke 3:7-14). H e not only calls to repentance but also announces the good news of salvation arriving (3:18; cf. Isa 52:7; Luke 1:77). For readers of Luke 1-2 there are no surprises here, but for what follows the reader has not been prepared. In terms of the programme laid out in chapters 1-2 from Scripture and in accord with late Second Temple period Jewish expectation, nothing further seems to go according to plan. It is important that fulfilment does begin according to plan, with John's ministry, so that the beginning of the restoration of Israel can be unequivocally recognized, but it is just as important that thereafter fulfilment turns out to happen in unexpected ways. 3.2. Unexpected route to Israel's restoration It is not that what happens departs from the plan of God already indicated in Scripture. Quite the contrary: Luke continues to quote and allude to Scripture in order to identify messianic fulfilment, but his use of Scripture as messianic prophecy in the rest of the Gospel and Acts contrasts remarkably with his use in chapters 1-3. The texts are for the most part not those familiar in Jewish messianic and eschatological expectation, while the few we do know to have had a place in that expectation are understood differently in Luke-Acts. The Gospel narrative itself interprets this phenomenon. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus 'had hoped Wesus] was the one to redeem Israel' (24:20; cf. 1:8; 2:38). Their disappointment, after his death, was that of people who had shared the messianic expectations of Zechariah, Simeon, Anna and 'all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem' (2:38; cf. also 23:51). Only retrospectively was the risen Christ able to show them, from 'all the scriptures' (24:26), that what had happened was in fact God's plan for the Messiah as prophesied (24:25). What could have been expected in fact was not. We are surely to understand that in the very events that first convinced the two disciples Jesus was not the one to redeem Israel, he was in fact - and according to the Scriptures! - redeeming Israel. Here we can only summarize very briefly the way Luke reads Scripture as indicating Jesus' unexpected route to the restoration of Israel: (1) the Messiah as authoritative teacher and healer before and after his death (Isa 61:l-21Luke 4:18-19; 7:221Deut 18:15-19/Luke 9:35; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37); (2) the Messiah rejected and exalted (Ps 118:22/Luke 20:17; Acts 4:l I);&'

h3 For the importance of Ps 118 in Luke-Acts and for further allusions to Ps 118:22 in 1-uke-Acts, see J.R. Wagner, 'Psalm 118 in Luke-Acts: Tracing a Narrative Thread,' in

354

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

(3) the Messiah treated as a criminal and put to death (Isa 53:12/Luke 22:371Isa 53:7-8IActs 8:32-33(Ps 2:l-2/Acts 4:25-26); (4) the Messiah raised from death (Ps 16:s-11/Acts 2:25-28, 31; 13:351Isa 55:3/Acts 13:34); (5) the Messiah exalted to the heavenly throne of God (Ps 1lO:I/Luke 20:42-43; 22:69; Acts 2:34-35; 530; 756); (6) the Messiah bestows the Spirit (Joel 2:28-321Acts 2:17-21);'j4 (7) the Messiah will come in the glory of universal rule (Dan 7:13/Luke 21:27).

Thus it turns out that the new exodus is accomplished through the Messiah's death (Luke 9:31) and he enters upon his messianic reign, not by ascending the throne of David in Jerusalem, but by sitting at the right hand of God on the throne of the cosmos (Luke 20:42-43). The problem for interpreters of Luke-Acts has been to understand what this means for the restoration of Israel. In what way are the hopes of chapters 1-2, Israel's scriptural and traditional expectations of restoration, fulfilled through these unexpected but divinely intended events? Are we to understand the restoration of Israel as completed, as in process, as frustrated by Israel's unbelief, as superseded by God's purpose for the Gentiles, as still to be fulfilled in the future? 3.3. The twelve tribes and the twelve apostles

Evidently both the twelve tribes (Acts 26:7) and the twelve apostles matter for Luke. The number of the twelve itself must be significant for Luke, since he reserves the term 'apostle' almost exclusively for them, and since he narrates the replacement of Judas by Matthias in order for the number twelve to be maintained (Acts 1:15-26). The reason why the number of the twelve apostles matters is their connexion with the twelve tribes, made in Jesus' promise at the Last Supper that the apostles are to sit on thronesh5 rulingh6the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:30). The twelve are the phylarchs of the restored Israel, whose constitution requires that the tribes C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders ed., Early Christian Interpretation of the Sniptures of Israel (JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 154-178. 64 For the role of the Spirit in the restoration of Israel, according to Luke-Acts, see the important study of Turner, Power. The subject deserves much more attention than we can give it in this essay. Although, on the basis of Isaiah 11:2, Second Temple Jewish messianic hopes certainly expected that the Messiah would be endowed with the Spirit of God (PsSol 17: 37; 18:7; lQSb 5:25; 1 Enoch 49:3; 62:2) and sometimes refer to a creative activity of the Spirit at the end-time (2 Bar 23:5; 44521 2 2:6), there does not seem to be clear evidence that the Messiah was expected to bestow the Spirit (44521 2 2:6 is debatable: see Turner, Powev, 117). 65 Jemell, Luke, 85, is probably right in suggesting that Luke, unlike Matthew, does not specify 'twelve thrones' because he is conscious that Judas is present and the promise does not apply to him. 66 The context shows that xeive~vhere means 'to rule' rather than 'to judge' in a narrow sense.

have each a prince, as in Israel's primal leadership in the wilderness ( N u m 1:4-lh)." 1,uke cannot have thought that the twelve were literally members of all twelve tribes, one drawn from each, because the twelve included two pairs of brothers (Luke 5:1-11; 6:14). But the number does indicate that the restoration of Israel is t o be of all twelve tribes, as traditionally in the Jewish eschatological hope. 'There is an instructive parallel in 1 Esdras 5 8 , where the leaders of the return from the Babylonian exile under Zerubbabel number twelve (in the parallel text in Ezra 2 2 , one name has dropped out). These are most unlikely to have been (or t o have been thought to be) drawn one from each of the twelve tribes, but they presumably indicate that the return is understood as the beginning of the restoration of all twelve tribes of Israel to the land. Notionally, if not actually, the return represents all Israel, and therefore its leaders are twelve. If the twelve apostles represent the tribes notionally, are the twelve tribes thelnselves only notional, a merely conventional expression no longer corresponding to actuality in the time of Jesus and Luke? Evidently Luke did not think s o (Luke 2:36), nor is there any reason t o suppose that most of his Jewish contemporaries would have thought so. But d o the notional leaders of the restoration of the twelve tribes encounter Israelites of all twelve tribes within Luke's story? Since the deportations of the northern tribes (the ten o r nine-and-a-half tribes as they were variously reckoned in Jewish literature of the late Second Temple period) had carried off only part of their populations, it is probable that in Galilee and Transjordan there were still, in this period, people w h o counted themselves members of tribes other than Judah, Benjamin and Levi. But Luke draws no attention to this and notably ignores Galilee once Jesus has left it o n the way t o Jerusalem (though he knew of Christian communities there: Acts 9:31). Samaria, however, is an area t o which Luke gives special attention, both in his Gospel (952-56; 10:33; 17:ll-19) and in his story of the church's early expansion (Acts S:4-25). T h e Samaritans themselves claimed descent from the two Joseph tribes, Eyhrainl and Manasseh, though Jews often refused to believe this."' Since Luke's Jesus calls a Samaritan 'this foreigner' (&Moyevil~:Luke 17:lS; cf. Joseplius, Ant. 9.291: &hhoeOv~2c,the term

'' See W. Iiorbury, 'The 'Swelve and the Phylarchs,' A1T.S 32 (1986) 503-527; J . A . Draper, 'Tlic twelvc apostles as foundation stones of the N e w Jerusalem and the foundation of the Qumran community,' Neot 22 (1988) 41-63. The hitherto unknown work 4 0 3 7 1 , 3 7 2 , which has been ratlier misleadingly called '4QApocryphon of Joseph' (Joseph appears in it as the personification of the two Joseph tribes, Epllraim and Manasseh), is a very interesting expression of this Jewish view of the Samaritans. I t scums to represent the Joscph tribes as entirely exileti from the land ('scattered in the whole world'), while 'fools' (cf. Sir 5 0 2 6 ) build the temple o n mount Gerizi~n.Joseph? prayer seems to express the conviction that, because of God's covenant with Abraham, the tribes in exile will never be completely exterminated.

356

1% The Xestovatlon ofisrdel m I.uke-Act.,

Josephus says Samaritans use when they d o not wish to claim kinship with Jews), it is far from clear that Luke himself regarded them as of true Israelite descent. But David Ravens has argued that the prominence of the Samaritans in Luke-Acts is the way in which Luke includes the northern tribes in the restoration of Israel: 'the inclusion of the Sanlaritans as the descendants of the northern tribes is, for Luke, an indispensable element in the restoration of Israel.'69 H e connects Luke's interest in the Samaritans with Luke's stress on the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles. T h e difficulty with his argument is that, although he himself states accurately that the Samaritans 'claimed t o be descended from the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh and Levi,'?O he speaks as though they were the descendants of the northern tribes in general.?' In fact, as Luke" narrative fully recognizes, Samaria in the first century C E corresponded very closely to the old tribal territory of Ephraim and Manasseh (apart from the transjordanian part of Manasseh). T h e tribes of Asher, Zebulun, Issacher, Naphtali, Dan, Gad, and Reuben never lived in that area and Samaritans never claimed descent from them. To include Samaritans in Israel, along with Judah and Benjamin, is still to include only a minority of the twelve tribes, as Luke must certainly have known. But is it the case that, if Luke was t o include mernbers of the northern tribes in Israel, 'Samaritans were the only possible candidates for that role'?72 Descendants of the northern tribes were in fact well known t o be living in the eastern diaspora Uosephus, Ant. 11.131-33; TMos 4:9; 2 Bar 77:2), probably still in areas of northern Mesopotamia t o which they were first deported (Nisibis and Adiabene) but more especially in Media Uosephus, Ant. 9.279; LivProph 3:16-17; t. Sanh. 2%; b. 'Abod. Zar. 3 4 4 39a; cf. T a b 1:14; 3:7; 4:l; 5:6; 14:4, 12-15). These exiles had nothing t o d o with the Samaritans, but had, at a time and by means unknown to us, adopted the same Jerusalem-centred Judaism as the rest of the eastern diaspora. They sent their temple tax t o Jerusalem, and no doubt some pilgrims made the journey toJerusalem occasionally, despite their r e m o t e n e s ~To . ~ ~an informed reader, Luke's inclusion of Medes in his list of diaspora Jews present in Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2:9) could refer t o n o one but members of the northern tribes," while 'residents in Mesopotamia' could certainly include not only the major area of settlenlent of the exiles of the southern tribes (MesopotaRavens, Luke, 47. Ravens, Luke, 74; cf. the earlier argument of Jervell, Lrckcp, 113-132, E.g. Ravens, Luke, 45,99. 72 Ravens, I.ick(~, 99. O n the evidence for the Medno d~asporaand its contacts wit11 Palestine, see Bauckham, 'Anna,' 167-1 70, 173-1 78. '' I'anhia (Acts 2 9 ) is not a reference to the whole Parth~anempire, but to Parthia proper, most likely to Iiyrcania, where Judean Jews had been settled in the fourth century h'

O '

''

''

RCE.

3. Restoration accomplished and to come

357

mia) but also the northern Mesopotamian settlements of northern Israelite exiles. Whether Luke's list of l e k s categorized by their places of origin in the diaspora (Acts 2:9-11) is of Jews who had migrated from the diaspora to settle permanently in Jerusalem or, as is much more likely, of pilgrims visiting Jerusalem for the festival, it certainly indicates the presence of members of all the twelve tribes of Israel. They are said to be 'from every nation under heaven' (2:s) because the Jewish diaspora was con~rnonlysaid to be in every nation of the world (e. g. Philo, Leg. Gai. 283-284), but Luke's list is not, as has sometimes been thought, a list of all nations, but a list of major areas of Jewish settlement in the d i a ~ p o r a . ' It ~ does not, of course, list such places exhaustively, but it is broadly accurate and comprehensive. In particular, it seems designed to include places in all four directions from Jerusalem, from Parthia in the far east to Rorne in the west (on ancient maps these are roughly equidistant from Jerusalem), from Pontus in the north to Arabia in the south. In Jewish mental maps Jerusalem was both at the centre of the world and at the centre of the diaspora, and the diaspora was often said to be in the east and the west (since these two directions were the most obvious ones in this case: Zech 8:7; Bar 4:37; 5:5) o r in all four directions from Jerusalem (Zech 2: 1OCEnglish versions 2: 101; 4 4 4 4 8 23-6; Isa 11:12; 43:5-6; 49: 12; Ps 107:3; PsSol 11:2-3). Such a list, together with the phrase Luke uses in Acts 2:5, could well bring to mind the hope of the return of all the exiles. 2 Maccabees 2:18 expresses the hope that God 'will gather us from everywhere under heaven into his holy place,' probably echoing the classic treatment of exile and restoration in the Torah: Deuteronomy 30:4-5 (cf. also Deut 2:25; 4:19). Most of the passages just cited as locating the diaspora in two o r four directions from Jerusalem are in fact descriptions of the exiles' return from these directions t o Jerusalem. Luke himself includes just such a description in a saying of Jesus: 'people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will cat in the kingdom of God' (Luke 13:29). Both Luke's version with four points of the compass and Matthew's with only two (Matt 8:11) have precedents in Jewish literature, but Luke's four directions accord with his own geographical outline of the diaspora in Acts 2:9-11. Whether Luke 13:29 refers t o diaspora Jews o r (as Matthew's version undoubtedly does) to Gentiles may not be of decisive significance, since, as we have noted, one prominent version of the return frorn the diaspora has the nations of the world bringing to Jerusalem, as offerings to God, the exiled Israelites from their homelands (Isa 49:22-23; 60:l-9; 66:20; PsSol 17:31). Another 75 See R. Bauckliam, 'James and tlie Jerusalem Churcli,' in R. Bauckhani ed., The Book of Acts in t t s Palesttnun Settzrrg (Carlisle:Paternoster/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 4 19-422.

358

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

version pictures Gentiles, ten for every single Jew, asking the Jews to take them with them to Jetusalem (Zech 8:20-23).76 In these images, the return from the diaspora and the end-time pilgrimage of the nations coincide. We can see how the twelve tribes of Israel could matter to Luke as an essential ingredient in the wider picture of salvation for all the nations.77 Pentecost may be not so much the birthday of the church as the beginning of the restoration of the diaspora. In the form of Peter's preaching the twelve apostles commence their task of reconstituting the renewed Israel of the regathered twelve tribes. Appropriately, Peter's sermon ends with a proclamation to 'the whole house of Israel' (Acts 2:36; cf. Lev 10:6; Num 20:29; 1 Sam 7:2-3; 2 Sam 6:5; Jer 9:26; 13:11; Ezek 3:7), a term which naturally encompasses all twelve tribes, in the diaspora as well as in Jerusalem, and which readily suggests restoration (Ezek 20:40; 36:lO; 37:11, 16; 39:25; 45:6).78 In Ezekiel 37, the term is associated with the reunification of the southern and northern tribes and their restoration to the land (37:15-22), as well as with the giving of God's Spirit to revive and restore his people (37: 14; cf. 39:29) and with the rule of the new David (37:24-25). Accordingly, in Acts 2 Israelites from the whole diaspora return to God ('repent': Acts 2:38) and receive from the Davidic Messiah, enthroned in heaven, the promised gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:33, 38-39), which is not yet the 'restoration of all things' (Acts 3:21) but is the earnest of it. The narrative appears to assume that the three thousand who respond to Peter's message in this way (2:41) form the community of messianic Jews in Jerusalem which is then described (2:42--47). It may be a natural assumption that many of those who were visitors from the diaspora would have returned home, but the narrative is certainly less concerned with this than with portraying a community in Jerusalem including at least some Jews drawn from the whole diaspora. Moreover, in the narrative of Acts, chapter 2 is surely programmatic, in the sense that the apostles' continued preaching in Jerusalem would reach the constant flow of many thousands of visitors from the diaspora that assembled for all the major festivals in the temple. Luke has shown us very graphically and plausibly how the twelve apostles, without leaving Jerusalem, were able to witness to members of all the tribes of Israel, both from the land of Israel and from the diaspora. 76 Note that this follows a prophecy of the return of the diaspora from east and west to Jerusalem (Zech 8:7-8) and an allusion to the blessing of Abraham, predicting that the Jews in the diaspora will become a blessing to the nations (8:13). Another reference to the regathering of the diaspora to Jerusalem might be found in Luke 13:34, but in context it seems much more likely that the image of gathering indicates protection and that therefore Jerusalem's children are here not the exiles but her present inhabitants. 78 The term 'house of Israel' is especially characteristic of Ezekiel, used far more often in Ezekiel than in other books of the OT.

3. Restoration accomplished attd to cotnc

359

That the restoration of the diaspora was also naturally connected with the turning of the Gentiles to the God of Israel is also suggested, in significant hints, in the narrative. These hints are not anachronistic in suggesting that the conversion of Gentiles was already taking place in the earliest days of the church, but they are suggestive of the association which could readily be expected between the restoration of Israel and the conversion of the nations. The quotation from Joel begins with the promise that God will pour out his Spirit o n 'all flesh' (Acts 2: 17; Joel 3:1 [English versions 2:28]). The context might seem to define this as all Jewish flesh, except that it recalls the identical phrase in Isaiah 403, quoted in Luke 5 6 . There it forms the climax of the Isaianic summary of the whole restoration programme from the preaching of the new Elijah to the conversion of the nations, and serves to indicate how the restoration of Israel will be the means of making the God of Israel known to the nations. The reference to 'all flesh' in Joel seems to be taken up by Peter when he says that the promise is not only for his hearers and their children, but also 'for all who are far away' (Acts 2:39). Like references t o the four points of the compass (with which it is combined in Isa 43:6; 49:12), this is language which could easily suggest both the Jewish diaspora in the distant lands of its exile and also the distant nations among whom they lived (cf. 1 Kings 8:46; Isa 6:12; 43:6; 49: 12; 57:19; Dan 9:7; 4 4 5 0 4 1-2 6:12-13). In Isaiah 43:6, 'far away' is parallel to 'the ends of the earth,' while several of these passages are explicitly concerned with the return from exile (Isa 43:6; 49:12; 4 4 5 0 4 1-2 6:12-13). In Acts 22:2 1, Jesus commissions I'aul for his mission to the nations with the words, 'I will send you far away t o the Gentiles.' Of course, in fulfilment of that mission Paul went to the diaspora at the same time and in the same places as he went to the nations. Luke's account of Paul's mission never loses sight of the connexion between the restoration of Israel and tlie conversion of the nations. We have seen, then, that Luke carefully relates the role of the twelve apostles to the whole of Israel, all twelve tribes, both in the diaspora and in the land, and t o the restoration of Israel, including both the regathering of the diaspora to Jerusalem and the closely connected hope of the conversion of the nations to the God of Israel. W still have to understand precisely how Luke understands this role of the twelve in the restoration of Israel. Their commission in Acts 1:8 (cf. Luke 24:48-49) portrays their role as that of witnesses, beginning in Jerusalem and extending to the end of the earth. There are clear allusions here to Isaiah 43:10-12 (cf. also 44:8), in which Israel (here not personified as singular but addressed in the plural) are YHWH's witnesses to the nations, and Isaiah 49:6, in which the servant of Y H W H is not only t o restore the tribes of Israel, but also to be 'a light t o the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.' (The singular, 'end of the earth,' as also in the quotation of this verse in Acts 13:47, makes clear that

the allusion in Acts 1:8 is to Isaiah 49:6, rather than to other texts of Isaiah which speak of 'the ends of the earth.' The singular is not significant geographically, as though Luke expected the apostles' witness to reach only one of the ends of the earth, but scripturally, as constituting an allusion to Isaiah 49:6.) Luke thus relates the 'witnessing' task of the twelve apostles both to the restoration of Israel and to the conversion of the nations. Their witness, as emerges in the later speeches of Acts, is primarily t o the fact that Jesus is Messiah and Lord, in consequence of his resurrection and exaltation to the throne of God. God's lordship, which the nations in Isaiah 40-66 come t o acknowledge and to know as salvific (Isa 4522-23), is his lordship exercised by his Messiah enthroned on his cosmic throne. It is this messianic form of God's lordship that leads to the restoration of Israel and to consequent conversion of the nations. The apostles' testimony t o it is therefore the essential basis of both. Acts 1:8 does not require that the twelve personally witness to the nations as far as the ends of the earth, though Peter's role in initiating the mission t o the Gentiles is important. Acts 1:8 does require that their witness - as the witness of those specially appointed to be the witnesses of the saving events - be integral to the message of salvation as others preach it t o the diaspora and the nations (as in Acts 13:31). At Pentecost the witness of the twelve begins t o be effective in the gathering of the exiled tribes into the restored Israel, already with the implication that thereby their witness will also come to the nations at the end of the earth (2:39: 'all who are far away'). It is, of course, Jesus who both restores Israel and enlightens the nations. But he does so by means of the Spirit who empowers the witness of the apostles to his saving kingship. As witnesses the twelve are the leaders of the restored Israel both in furthering its restoration and in furthering its role of enlightening the nations. The difficult question we must now ask is whether this leadership, as portrayed in the narrative of Acts, is itself the fulfilment of Jesus' promise that the twelve will take part in his own kingly rule and sit on thrones ruling the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:29-30)?'Vn the preceding context of this saying (22:24-27) Jesus radically redefines rule, as not a niatter of status or domination, but of humble service. The lesson applies to the apostles" as leaders of the restored Israel, but is reinforced by Jesus' own example as one who serves (22:27 b). However, Jesus' example of service and suffering in his earthly ministry precedes his enthronement as king, which in Luke-Acts occurs at his exaltation t o heaven (Acts 2:34-36). His humble senlice qualifies him for rule, and shows that his rule will be

''

The parallel in Matt 19:28 can leave n o douht that the proniisc is for the ochatological future, but this is less clear in Luke's vcrsicrn. N o t e that in 22:14 Luke has, unusually for the Gospel, defined Jesus'.iudicnce as 'the apostles.'

"

3. Restoration accomplished and to come

36 1

exercised in a spirit of service, but his earthly role as a servant is not itself his rule. Is it at the time of his own enthronement that he confers a share in his rule on the twelve, so that their witness in the service of Israel and the nations is their kingly rule over the twelve tribes, o r will it be only at the parousia that he will confer kingship on the twelve, whose humble service to his people as witnesses in the meantime will have qualified them for this role? Probably the reference to the eschatological banquet ('eat and drink at my table in my kingdom') requires the latter interpretation, since Luke seems elsewhere to reserve this image for the still future consummation of salvation (cf. Luke 12:37; 1529; 14:15; 22:16, 18). This passage about the rule of the twelve over the tribes of Israel is quite closely connected with two references in Luke-Acts to the restored Israel's own rule, presumably over the nations. Naturally the rulers of Israel also exercise Israel's rule over the nations. Thus Luke 1232 promises the royal rule to the 'little flock,' the small group of disciples who constitute the nucleus of the restored Israel, while in Acts 1:6 the apostles' question about the time of the restoration of the royal rule to Israel is implicitly also a question about their own rule as leaders of the restored Israel. With Jesus' answer t o the question, we face a similar question to the one we have discussed with reference to Luke 22:29-30: Is the apostles' role as witnesses to the end of the earth (I:$) itself the restoration of Israel's royal rule, o r is it the role that they exercise in the meantime, on the way to that restoration? The logic of vv 6-8 seems t o require the latter (otherwise why is v 7 required?). However, in both these cases (Luke 22:29-30 and Acts 1:6-8), it is important to notice that the way to the future restoration of Israel's kingdom is through the service and witness of the apostles. This unexpected route to the kingdom, parallel to Jesus' own unexpected route to his own enthronement, must make a difference to the nature of the kingdom itself, even though Luke does not spell this out, content as he usually is with the traditional eschatological imagery when speaking of the still future aspects of salvation. This is not a kingdom that comes through violent overthrow of enemies but through service and witness.

3.J. The continuing and future restoration The second half of Peter's second sermon in Acts (3:19-26) is full of restoration terminology: Four instances are noteworthy and require some discussion: (1) The people are urged to 'repent' and to 'turn ( E x i a t ~ i . ~ c t tto e ) God' (3:19). (2) God sent Jesus 'to bless you by turning (ixnoot~ricyje~v) each of you from your wicked ways' (3:26). Both Greek verbs very frequently translate no in the Septuagint. While, in this respect, Peter's message continues that of the new Elijah, John the Baptist, as well as that of Jesus, there is no need to

362

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

see here reference specifically to Elijah's restorational task. The terminology is widely used in Old Testament prophecies of Israel's restoration (3) The result of repentance and forgiveness will be that 'times of revival ( x a ~ o& i v a q v g ~ ~may s ) ~come ~ from the face of the Lord' (3:20). The meaning of the word & v a q v E is ~ ~not as obvious as many commentators tend t o assume. This noun (like the verbs $CIOxo/$vEoo and &vaqvxw) can s or t o qvx+ (life, The be understood as related either to 9 ~ x 0(cool) meanings usually cited for &vatpvEiq (cooling, relief, respite, refreshment) assume a connexion with QBXOS,but 'refreshment' is close to 'revival,' which would be the natural meaning if the word is connected with qvx+. Greek speakers could easily make either connexion and not always be sure of the difference. When the Septuagint uses dlvaqo'ljx~~v to translate 7.n Uudg 1519) or the Niphal of mo~(Exod 23:12; 2 Sam 16:14), it seems that the verb is being associated with qvx+ (It is thus being understood as the opposite of & ~ O ~ U X E 'toL faint, V , t o stop breathing') The important difference is that 'times of refreshment' could be understood to be temporary periods of spiritual r e f r e ~ h m e n t ,or ~ ~'the breathing space ... accorded for Israel's repentance and s a l ~ a t i o n ,whereas '~~ 'times of revival' would refer to Israel's eschatological restoration under the image of restoring life. The former would have a parallel in 4 Ezra 11:46, where the result of the destruction of the Roman empire is that 'the whole earth, freed from your [Rome's] violence, may be refreshed and relieved (refrigeret et relevetur), and may hope for the judgment and mercy of him who made it.' The Latin verb refrigero (literally, 'to cool') is precisely equivalent to & v a q v ~ oand , so it is very likely that &vaqwxo was used in the Greek Vorldge of our Latin text of 4 Ezra 11:46. But this parallel would suggest that Acts 3:20 refers not to conversions, miracles or opportunity for repentance, but to the kind of hopes for liberation from oppression by enemies that we have observed in Luke 1:71, 74.85O n the other hand, if the word & v u ~ v Eisy used in Acts 3:20 because of its connexion with $vx+, the reference could be to the restoration of life to Israel through the gift of the Spirit, as depicted in Ezekiel 37:1-14 8' The major views on the interpretation of this phrase are summarized, with references to the scholarly literature, by H. F. Bayer, 'Christ-Centered Eschatology in Acts 3:17-26,' in J. B. Green and M. Turner ed., Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ ( I . H . Marshall FS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994)245-247. s2 The confusion can be illustrated by the fact that TDNT (9.663-665) includes i , gives them meanings appropriate to the &va1)6xwand &vaI)uEy in the entry on ~ ) v ~ fbut connexion with ~ i i x o s . s3 C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994) 205. 84 J.A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles ( A B 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998) 288. It is hard to see how this breathing space for repentance could be the result of repentance and forgiveness (v 19). 85 Cf. Turner, Power, 308.

3. Restoration ficcomplished and to come

363

(cf. also H o s 6:2). In that case, Peter is putting in a different way what he said at Pentecost in Acts 2:38: if people repent and are forgiven, they will receive the Spirit, though in 3:20 the emphasis is probably more on the corporate revival of Israel as a people. Interesting corroboration for the latter interpretation is the fact that Symmachus translated m c c my (a spirit from on high) in Isaiah 32:15 as & v a ~ u E i kE q i i ~ o u gThis . is clear evidence of an understanding of the noun 2 r v a ~ u as ~ ~connected q with Q V X ~It~is. clear that in this context it refers to revivification, and was no doubt chosen by Symmachus because the pouring out of 'a spirit from o n high' is shown by the rest of the verse to result in fertility and fruitfulness. We d o not have to suppose that this translation of Isaiah 32:15 was already known t o Luke in order to find its evidence relevant, but it could even be suggested that Luke's phrase 'times of revival from the face of the Lord' is a paraphrase of the opening words of Isaiah 32:15 ('until a spirit from on high is poured out on us'). The context is a prophecy of Israel's restoration, and Luke makes probable allusion to these words of Isaiah 32: 15 in Jesus' promise of the Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8). O n either interpretation, it is debatable whether the x a i ~ o di v a ~ u 5 e a ) s coincide with o r precede the x~civtowirscoxcxrumuaawq (v 21). It may well be that, in the use of these plurals (cf. Acts 1:7), Luke is indicating that the restoration of Israel is a process rather than a single event. (4) A fourth significant instance of restoration terminology is in 3:21: 'until the times of restoration of all things of which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.' There is a grammatical problem which affects the interpretation: what is the antecedent of Gjv in the words ? obvious GXQL x ~ c i v o v&scoxatanraaew~nixvtcuv h v 6hbhqaev b O E O ~The antecedent is navtwv, but 'the restoration all the things of which God spoke' can hardly be the meaning. T h e prophecies are of the restoration, not of the things themselves. It is awkward, even if possible, to regard x ~ c i v o v as the antecedent of &v.'The best solution seems to be to treat the phrase as elliptical, meaning: 'the restoration of all things of [whose restoration] God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets.' This helps to determine the meaning of 'all things,' which would then be qualified as all the things whose restoration the prophets predicted. We have noticed (section 2.1.1 above) that in the similar phrase in Mark 9:12 (iinoxaOiatave~navta) the 'all things' are probably defined by the prophecy in mind (Mal 3:24[4:6]) as all the things Elijah is expected to restore. In Acts 3:21 the reference is probably broader, but most likely, given the context, restricted to the various aspects of the restoration of Israel that the prophets predicted. There is a helpful parallel in 2 Baruch 85:3-4, where Baruch writes to the exiles: u, As Barrctt, Acts, vol. 1,206, does.

364

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

.

.. we have left our land, and Zion has been taken away from us, and we have nothing now apart from the Mighty O n e 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. Similarly, what Peter promises is the restoration of all that Israel had lost, including no doubt the sovereignty to which Acts 1:6 refers. (Not only the in word dmoxaQmzavey [1:6], but also the reference to X Q O V O W ~4 x a ~ o v g 1:7 links Acts 1:6-7 with 3320-21.) The rest of Peter's sermon (3:22-26) hinges on two Old Testament quotations (neither following LXX), making two complementary points about the consequences of Israel's response to Jesus the Messiah. The prophecy of the prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15-20, conflated with Num 15:3187) makes the point that anyone who does not heed this prophet, identified as Jesus, will forfeit their place in the Israel whose restoration is expected. The words of God's covenant with Abraham (a conflated quotation from Gen 12:3 and 22:1888),together with Peter's comment in verse 26, make the point that repentant Israel, blessed by God, will fulfil the promise that Abraham's seeds9 will be a blessing to all the families of the earth. God sent Jesus to Israel 'first' (v 26) so that they should be blessed by God in repentance, and the Israel thus restored would then be a blessing to the nations. This is the familiar connexion between the restoration of Israel and the conversion of the nations. Peter's words at Pentecost had hinted at it. Here the main point of Peter's sermon is still the restoration of Israel itself, but the consequent Not Lev 23:29, as the commentators generally assert, following the erroneous premise that Luke is working from the LXX. The connexion between Deut 18:19 and Num 15:31 is intelligible as a piece of interpretative exegesis, but the connexion between Deut 18:19 and Lev 23:29 is not exegetically intelligible. 88 Reference to Gen 18:18 here (Barrett, Acts, vol. 1,212) is superfluous. Again, the text of Acts 3:25 b is easily intelligible when the unjustified assumption of a LXX basis is discarded. The word order corresponds to the Hebrew of both Genesis verses, as LXX i is from Gen 22:18, ~6koyq6fioovca~ occurs in both Genesis does not. El, t@a n k ~ p a tuov verses, while n & o a a~i n a t ~ ~tT;'tj~ a i yfjs is from Gen 12:3 (where LXX has a i p h a i ttjs yfj~). xateui is an accurate translation of mmn (which it quite often translates in LXX), and there is no reason to suppose that Luke has changed the ta &hqof Gen 22:18LXX i order to include Jews as well as Gentiles in the term (Turner, Power, 309, to ai n a t ~ u xin following S. G. Wilson). The idea that a i nateuxi includes Jews in any case makes no sense, because Abraham's seed (Israelites) and the families of the earth are obviously mutually exclusive categories. The reason for conflating Gen 12:3 and 22:18, instead of quoting Gen 22:18 alone, may be that the emphasis on antiquity in the whole passage made reference to the very earliest promise of God to Abraham appropriate. s9 It would be misleading to suppose that 'seed' is here applied to Jesus rather than to Israel in general. The introduction to the quotation in v 25 makes clear that Peter is identifying his hearers, the descendants of Abraham, with the 'seed' in the quotation. Similarly, in Luke 155 the 'seed' of Abraham is his Israelite descendants.

3. Restoratton accotnplrshed and to come

365

blessing of the nations is now made explicit by the quotation of the covenant with Abraham. Frorri the passage as a whole, as well as in connexion with chapter 2 and with the accounts of the Gentile mission that follow later in Acts, it seems that Luke envisages the restoration of Israel as a process that has already begun with the formation of the Jerusaleni church and which will be complete only at the parousia. The blessing of the Gentiles that follows from the restoration of Israel need not therefore be delayed until the completion of that restoration. Before long Peter himself will be involved in its beginning. It is also clear that the sifting process in Israel whereby some will 'fall' and others 'rise' (Luke 2:34) through their response t o Jesus is now beginning. It is Jesus who, through the Spirit, is restoring Israel. 'Those w h o reject him are excluded. This division in Israel in the course of its restoration continues t o the end of Acts (28:24). It is important t o notice, however, that, although the possibility of rejecting the Messiah is clearly stated in Peter's sermon as a warning (3:22-23), it is o n the positive note of blessing and restoration for Israel that the sermon ends. This sequence is the same as that of 'falling' and 'rising' in Sinieon's prophecy (Luke 2:34). It is very clearly not from Israel's rejection of the Messiah that the blessing of the nations results, but rather from Israel's heeding the Messiah and being restored. There is a possibility that Peter's message about the restoration of Israel is more closely linked with the healing of the lame rnan (Acts 3:1-lo), which occasions the sermon, than at first appears. T h e explicit connexion is that the healing in the name of Jesus den~onstratesthat the risen Christ is the source of eschatological salvation (3:16). In a sense, therefore, the lame man's restoration t o health is indicative of Israel's restoration. T h e parallel is closer, however, when we remember that in one of the prophecies of restoration the exiles whom G o d will restore and reign over in Jerusalem are described as the lame (Mic 4:6-7: E Iebrew, not LXX!; cf. Zeph 3:19; and Isa 35% with Acts 3:s). From this point on in L.uke's narrative the restoration of Israel proceeds apace in the form of the growth and spiritual flourishing of the churches in Jerusalem and the rest of Jewish Palestine. In a whole series of summary passages 1-uke presents this ar: an tlnqualificd succcss story (4:4; 5:14; h:I, 7; 9:31,35,42; 12:24) and one which h e gives his readers n o reason to suppose has concluded. When his narrative returns t o Jerusalem after many chapters following Paul's travels elsewhere, we learn from James that there are 'myriads of believers among the Jews' (i. e. in Jerusalem o r perhaps in Jerusalem and Judea) (21:20). The witness of Palestinian Jewish Christians to their non-Christian Jewish neighbours continued in Luke's own time, quite possibly with renewed success, and there is no reason why Luke should not have approved of it. When Jervell writes: 'At the time of Luke there was no

366

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

longer a mission to Jews,'90 he follows the old practice of writing post-70 CE Jewish Christianity out of history. The restoration of Israel has not been completed within Luke's narrative, and, if our interpretation of 3:20 is correct, it will not be completed until the parousia. Nevertheless the renewed Israel, in the form of the Palestinian Jewish Christian communities, is by chapter 10 sufficiently established for the light to begin to go out from it to the Gentiles. Shortly before the Cornelius narrative, Luke gives the first of his two summaries that describe not just the Jerusalem church but the flourishing state of the churches throughout Jewish Palestine. It is quite distinctive among the summaries also in the language it uses: Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was ~ ~ fear ) of the Lord and in the built up (oixoGopoupSq). Living ( X O Q E V Oin~ the consolation ( x a ~ a x h f i o a of ~ ) the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers (Acts 9:31).

All of this language can be understood in restorational terms. Most notably perhaps, 'consolation' ( x a ~ a x h q a ~ recalls g) 'the consolation of Israel' for which Simeon was waiting (Luke 2:25) and the proclamation of which stands as a kind of statement of theme at the head of the whole prophecy of the restoration of Israel in Isaiah 40-66 (Isa 40:lLXX: xagaxaheX~e;cf. 51:12; and 52:9 Hebrew). 'Living [literally: going] in the fear of the Lord' may recall the language of Deuteronomy: 'keep the commandments of YHWH your God, by walking in his ways and by fearing him' (Deut 8:6; cf. 10:12; Neh 5:9), which is closely associated in Deuteronomy 8 with entering the promised land. 'Peace' is a well-known summation of eschatological blessing, which forms the climax of the Benedictus: 'to guide our feet into the way of peace' (Luke 1:79; cf. also Luke 2:14; Acts 10:36). Finally, 'being built up' (oixoGopoup8vq), which Luke uses in this metaphorical way of the church elsewhere only in Acts 20:32, may well allude, as in similar usage elsewhere in the New Testament, to the image of the church as the eschatological temple (cf. Matt 16:18; Rom 15:20; 1 Cor 3:9-17; Eph 2:20-22; 1 Pet 2:5).9' Luke has used the verb with reference to Solomon's temple and with reference to the impossibility of building with human hands an adequate temple for God (Acts 7:47-49), and he will use Orvo~xoGop~'iv (to rebuild) of the eschatological temple that God himself builds, i. e. the church (Acts 15:16).92 In various ways, therefore, this verse (9:31) describes the Jewish Jervell, Luke, 68. It is noteworthy, in this connexion, that Acts 9:31 speaks of 'the church' (singular) in all of Jewish Palestine. 92 I have dealt elsewhere with Acts 15, especially vv 13-21, in a way that is consistent with my present argument, but I will not attempt to summarize that discussion here. See R. Bauckham, 'James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21),' in B. Witherington ed., History, 90 91

3. Restoration accomplished and to come

367

Christian church throughout Jewish Palestine as Israel restored in the last days. While this summary occurs shortly before the story of Cornelius, Luke's last summary about the continued increase of the Palestinian Jewish church (12:24) is placed at the precise point at which the Acts narrative takes leave of the story of the Jerusalem church and takes up instead the story of the missionary journeys of Paul and Barnabas. The message must be, not that the restoration of Israel is complete, but that the restoration is sufficiently under way for the witness to the Gentiles to proceed. Once we realise that in Luke's understanding of salvation history, the restoration of Israel is indeed the means of the conversion of the Gentiles, but that the two events are processes that can go on simultaneously, we need not seek finality in Luke's account of the first process any more than in his account of the second. Jervell convincingly showed that in Acts it is not Israel's rejection of the Gospel that clears the way for the evangelizing of the Gentiles, but rather Israel's acceptance of the Gospel which makes it possible for the Gospel to reach the gentile^.^^ Luke's portrayal of the impact of the preaching of the Gospel by Paul and his missionary colleagues on Jews in the diaspora is in fact quite varied. But on three or four occasions there is a clear common pattern: Paul preaches first in the synagogue; then mixed response by the Jewish community, some believing but others strongly rejecting the message, makes further preaching in the synagogue impossible and leads Paul t o move explicitly from preaching in the synagogue t o speaking directly to the gentile^.^^ This pattern occurs first in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:40-48), where the account is perhaps programmatic for the general pattern of Paul's missionary activity and is therefore interpreted by two quotations of Old Testament prophecies (13:41=Hab 1:5; 13:47=Isa 49:6). The pattern is repeated at Corinth (Acts 18:5-8), less clearly in Ephesus (19:8-lo), and then, in the final chapter of Acts, in Rome (28:17-28). The pattern is consistent with the idea that it is the restored Israel that provides the Gentiles with the witness to God that brings the Gentiles to faith in the God of Israel, because Paul and his missionary colleagues are seen as themselves representative of this restored Israel. This point is made by the quotation of Isaiah 49:6 in Acts 13:47 (recalling also, of course, Luke 2:32 and Acts 1:s). Jervell argued correctly that in Pisidian Antioch and in Corinth Paul is not portrayed as abandoning his mission to the Jews from then onwards, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 154-1 84. 93 Jervell, Luke, 41-74. 94 For a full discussion of the pattern, see R. C. Tannehill, 'Rejection by Jews and Turning to Gentiles: The Pattern of Paul's Mission in Acts,' in J. B. Tyson ed., Luke-Acts and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988) 83-101.

368

19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts

but merely as moving from preaching t o the synagogue community in that place to giving all his attention to the Gentile citizens of that place. In the next place he visits, Paul once again begins in the synagogue. But Jervell also argued that the final instance of this pattern, in Kome. is different in being a final abandonment of mission t o the Jews as such.'5 The reason why this is unconvincing is a reason Jervell himself gives, when he says, with respect to the events at Pisidian Antioch: 'According to Luke, one cannot be purged from the people v i c a r i o u ~ l y . 'In ~ ~other words, the response, in whatever combination of positive and negative, to the Gospel has t o be made by each Jewish community in each city. The Jewish community in Rome has no status which allows it t o represent all other Jewish communities. Whatever the meaning of Paul's pronouncement o n the Jews' lack of response t o the Gospel, citing Isaiah 6:9-10, in Acts 28:25-28, in its context it is a statement about his Jewish audience in Rome, not about the Jewish people as suche9' Jervell supposes that when the Jews in Kome have heard the Gospel, all Jews in the whole world have heard the Gospel.98 But surely no intelligent reader of Acts with a minimal knowledge of geography could think this. Paul's missionary travels have taken him to no more than a small minority of Jewish communities throughout the world, and this is clear to readers of Acts because Luke himself provides, at the outset, a quite detailed sketch of the extent of the Jewish diaspora (2:9-11). Paul's missionary journeys are not presented by Luke as the whole of the church's mission, but only as pars pro toto. Probably Paul in Rome has not even reached the western end of the earth; he has certainly not been anywhere near the others. Whether o r not Paul himself would move on to other as yet unevangelized areas the conclusion to Acts leaves us ignorant, but Luke certainly gives us no reason not to suppose that other people will. The conclusion to Acts is conspicuously lacking in finality. Nothing has ended, not even Paul's own ministry.

3.6. A relatively open future? The scholarly debate about the significance of the last chapter of Acts for Luke's view of Israel may be motivated, on all sides, by an expectation that -

Jervell, Luke, 64. ?'he same point is put in a considerably qualified way by 'I'annehill, 'Rejection,' 98-99; and similarly in Moessner ed., Jesus, 335-336. Yh .lervell. , . Luke. 62. 97 Scholars writing o n Acts have shown a strong tendency to take it in the latter sense. M. Wolter. 'Israel's Future and the Ilelav of the Parousia. according to Luke.' in Moessner ed., Jesus, 307-308, cites a variety of views o n these verses, some seeing a final rejection by and of the Jewish people in them, others questioning the finality of the verdict, but all take the reference to be to the Jewish people as a whole, rather than sirnply the Jewish community in Rome. " Jervell, Luke, 49, 64. "

r

3. Restoration accomplished and to come

369

Luke must provide a definitive statement about the restoration of Israel. O n the one hand, some see a statement that the mission to the Jewish people as such has ended, either in failure o r in sufficient success t o be regarded as the completion of the restoration of Israel. O n the other hand, others seek, in this and some other passages, a clear implication that, beyond the temporary hardening of the hearts of part of Israel, there lies an expectation of future large-scale conversion of the Jews. It may be that the difficulty in reaching a generally convincing view of this issue reveals that in fact Luke has left the future of Israel relatively open. We conclude with t w o points about the future of Israel in Luke-Acts. First, L,uke does make clear that there is a future for Israel with Jesus the Messiah according t o the purposes of God. T h e restoration of all that G o d had promised through the prophets would be restored t o Israel will be complete only at the parousia (3:21; cf. also 1:33). But neither Luke's Jesus nor his apostles have anything t o say about this that is not couched in the images of the prophecies in Scripture (Luke 13:28-29; 22:30). Insofar as the prophecies of restoration expressed in scriptural and traditional terms in Luke 1-2 find fulfilment in events which are narrated in Luke's story, the fulfilment takes place in unexpected ways. But insofar as those prophecies remain open t o further fulfilment in the future and at the end, the fulfilment can be described only in the scriptural and traditional language and images. Luke is no prophet. As a writer of salvation history he interprets his narrative as fulfilment of prophecy, but he cannot go beyond the already given prophecies that point t o the future. H o w these prophecies are t o be fulfilled remains open in his work. That Jesus is the Messiah for Israel is clear; in what ways he will prove t o b e the Messiah for Israel in the future remains open. Luke's treatment of Jesus' prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem is instructive in this respect. T h e event itself is described in scriptural language which strongly suggests that it constitutes a second exile o r second stage of the exile of Israel, comparable with the fall of Jerusalem t o the Babylonians (Luke 21:20-24; cf. 19:42-44). This is how the Jewish apocalypses of the late first century, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, also portrayed it. But exile suggests hopes of restoration. In particular, 21:24 a ('captives among all the nations') echoes Deuteronomy's threat of exile (28:64) which precedes the well-known prophecy of restoration (30-33). Verse 24 b ('Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled') echoes Daniel 8:13 (cf. Zech 12:3), where the expectation is that the period of Gentile destruction and domination of Jerusalem will be succeeded by the restoration of Israel's temple and city. Luke's language suggests such hopes, but fails t o state them. As far as Israel is concerned, the future is left ambiguous.

370

19. The Restoration of'lsrael in Luke-Acts

Secondly, it is notable that Luke's view of Israel and her future is open to (without requiring) a Pauline interpretation. Whether or not Luke intended it, Luke-Acts in canonical context can easily be read in this way. O n the first occasion that Paul turns from the Jews to the Gentiles, the Jewish opposition to Paul is said to be motivated by the 'jealousy' that the eagerness of many Gentiles to hear the Gospel provokes in them (Acts 13:39; cf. also 17:s). This is readily connected with Paul's view that God's (and Paul's) purpose in the Gentile mission was to provoke Israel t o jealousy and thereby accomplish Israel's salvation (Rom 11:11,14), a notion which has its basis in the Torah's classic prophecy of restoration (Lleut 32:21, quoted in Rom 10:19). Paul's parting words to the Jews in Rome (Acts 28:28: 'Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles: they will listen'), which are also his final words in Acts, can be understood as calculated t o provoke Jewish jealousy in the way that Romans 11 envisages. Similarly, the citation of Isaiah 6:9-10 (Acts 28:26-27) can be read as referring to the hardening of part of Israel of which Paul speaks in Romans 11:8-10, 25, a hardening limited to the time of the Gentile mission, but to be followed by the salvation of 'all Israel' (Rom 11:26).

20. Paul and Other Jews with Latin Names in the New Testament The most famous Jew with a Latin name is, of course, Paul, but there are also in the New Testament fourteen o r fifteen other persons (three women and twelve o r thirteen men) who are Jewish and bear Latin names. All occur in the Pauline corpus o r the Acts of the Apostles (or both), with the exception of the Rufus of Mark 15.21, who may o r may not be identical with the Rufus of Romans 16.13: hence the uncertainty as to whether the full list is of fifteen o r sixteen persons. Two of the persons in this category who appear in Acts and Paul are also named in 1 Peter (Mark and Silvanus). Idere is the conlplete list in Latin alphabetical order: 1. Agrippa - king Agrippa 11 (full name, not given in N T : Marcus Julius Agrippa) (Acts 25.1 3-26.32). 2. Aquilu - from Pontus, co-worker of Paul, husband of Prisca/Priscilla (13 below) (Acts 18.2, 18,26; Rom. 16.3; 1 Cor. 16.19; 2 Tim. 4.19). 3. Crispus - ruler of the synagogue in Corinth (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1.14). 4. D r u s t l l ~- sister of king Agrippa I 1 (Acts 24.24). 5. Iunta - apostle, probably wife of Andronicus (Rom. 16.7). 6. Iustus - 'Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus' (Acts 1.23). 7. Iustus - 'Jesus called Justus,' co-worker of Paul (Col. 4.1 1). 8. Luaus - from Cyrene, a leader of the church in Antioch (Acts 13.1). 9. Luaus -co-worker with Paul in Corinth (Rom. 16.21)'

* Fir.st publication: Alf Christophersen, Carster~Claussen, Jorg Frey and Bruce L.ongenecker ed., Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Ronian \Vi,rld: I:'s,ays in Honour of Alexand~r].M. lvedderbrrrn USNTSup 21 7 ; Sheffield: Sheffield Acadcrriic Prcss, 2002) 202-220. ' This Lucius has sometimes been tdentified with Luke (Aovxriq), a co-worker of Paul meritioncd in Col .4.14; 2 Tim. 4.1 I ; I'hlm. 24, and traditionally considered the author of Luke-Acts (e.g. E. E. Ellis, 'Coworkers, I'aul and I frs,' In G. f.. Hawthorne and K. P. Martin ed., Diettonary of Prlul and Hts Letten [Ilowners Grove/ L.eiccster: Intervarsity Press, 19931 186). Aouxcic is a Greek hypocortstic f o r n ~of 1,uciu.s(Aoux~og).Both forms of the name could be used of the same person, and there is no great difficulty in supposing Paul to refer to the same person in both ways (see A. Ileissmann, L.tght from the Anctent East [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2 nd edition, 19271 435-438). But (a) Col. 4.1 1 probably means that those named in vv 12-14, including Luke, are Gentiles, wtiereas thc Lucius of Rom. 16.21 is Jewish; (b) Paul wrote Romans from Corinth (Rom. 16.23) at the time when Acts places him in Greece (Acts 20.2-3), and (if the "we" passages of Acts indicate the parts of the narrative in which 1,uke accompanied Paul) before he was joined by Luke

372

20. Paul and Other Jews wrth I-iltcn Names In the hrew Testament

10. Marcus - 'John, also called Mark' (so Acts 12.12,25; 15.37), 'cousin of Barnabas' (Col. 4.10; other references: Acts 15.39; 2 Tim. 4.1 1; Phlm. 24; 1 Pet. 5.13). 11. Nlger - 'Simeon called Niger,' a leader of the church in Antioch (Acts 13.1). 12. Paulus - 'Saul, also called Paul' (Acts 13.9; his Jewish name Saul [both Xuo6h and X(~:cxtiho~] is used in Acts 7.58-13.9; 22.7, 13; 26.14; elsewhere he is IIui3.o~). 13. Prtsca/Prtsczlla -co-worker of Paul, wife of Aquila (2 above) (Priscilla: Acts 18.2, 18, 26; Prisca: Rom. 16.3; 1 Cor. 16.10; 2 Tim. 4.19). 14. Rufus - son of Simon of Cyrene (Mk. 15.2 1). 15. Rufus - (Rom. 16.13). 16. Srlvanus - co-worker of Paul (2 Cor. 1.19; 1 Thess. 1.I; 2 Thess. 1.1; 1 Pet. 5.12), probably the same person as Silas (Acts 15.22, 27, 32, 34, 40; 16.19, 25, 29; 17.4, 10, 14, 15; 18.5).2

Of these, we know that Paul was a Roman c i t i z e n b n d would have had the usual tria nomina: Paul(1)us was probably his cognomen. (Since the cognomen was the name that normally distinguished the individual, it would be the obvious one to use alone.) From Acts 16.37 it seems that Silas / Silvanus was also a Roman citizen: Silvanus would be his cognomen. Agrippa and Drusilla were Roman citizens by virtue of the grant of citizenship t o their ancestor Antipater. We cannot tell whether any other of these persons were Roman c i t i ~ e n sbut , ~ no doubt most bore just one Latin name, with or without also a Semitic name. Those whose Latin name is merely a common Latin praenomen (Marcus, Lucius) were certainly not Roman citizens.

in Macedonia or Troas (Acts 20.3-5). 'There is even less reason to identify Luke with the l.ucius of Acts 13.1, since, if Luke is the author of Acts, he never refers to himself in the third person in this way, and since the names Ao6xtog and Aovxil; were comnlan among Greeks and diaspora Jews. It is uncertain whether Maria (Rom 16.6) should be included in this list. She may be a Gentile bearing the Roman name Maria, the feminine of the nomen gentilicium Marius (so P. Lampe, Die St;idromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhundert [ W U N T 2/18;'Tiibingen: Mohr [Sicbeck], 19871 147). She may be Jewish, bearing the Hebrew name . that case her Hebrew name would Miriam, which could he rendered in Creek as M u ~ i uIn function in a Latin-speaking context as also a well-known Latin name, whether o r not it was given her with this double function in view. Cf. G.f 1. R. Horsley, '... a problem like Maria,' New Ilocuments 4 (1987) 229-230 (no. 115). O n the issue of I'aul's Roman citizenship, see S. LCgasse, 'l'aul's Pre-Christian Career according t o Acts,' in R. Bauckham ed., The Book of Acts jrt its Pakstinian Setting, vol. 4 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995) 368-372; R. Riesner, Paul's Early Period (tr. D. Stott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 147-156; M. Hcngel, The Pre-Christian Paul (tr. J . Howden; London: SCM Press, 1991) 6-15. .' The Corinthian Crispus is the most likely. For Crispus as the cognomen of a Jew with trk nomina at Acmonia, see P. R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNI'SMS 09; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 76.

Sound-equivalents (homophones)

Sound-equivalents (homophones) It seems to have been quite common5 for Jews to adopt Greek o r Latin names that sounded similar to Semitic names (even though the meaning was quite different).Verhaps some diaspora Jews used onlythe Greek o r Latin name, but many, along with some Palestinian Jews, would seem to have used either name according to context. The two names were not used together, like a name and a nickname o r a name and a patronymic o r the nomen and cognomen of a Roman citizen, but were treated as alternative versions of the same name. Probably the commonest, as well as the neatest example is the Greek name Simon used as equivalent to the Hebrew name Simeon.' In pronunciation these two names would have sounded very similar indeed. Other Greek names we know to have been used by Jews because of their assonance with Hebrew names include Alkinlos - Jakirn! Eliakim8 Aster - Esthery

' The evidence is underestimated by G.H.R. I-lorsley, 'Names, Double,' in D.N. Izreedman ed., The Anchor B~bleD~ctiotzary,vol. 4 (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 1015, who calls the practice 'not especially common.' This is partly because he distinguishes it from what he calls 'substitute name' (1016). But his examples of the latter d o not differ from the former: Simon (Peter) did not discontinue the use of the Sernitic form of his name Simeon (Acts 15.14; 2 Pet. l.t), nor did Silas simply replace this name with the Latin Silvanus. As is clear from Acts, the alternatives names were used in different, appropriate contexts. Horsley's niistakc was earlier made by A. Deissmann, Bible Studies (tr. A. Grieve; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2 nd edition, 1903) 315 11.2. For evidence of the same practice among non-Jews, see Horsley, 'Names, Double,' 1015; Deiss~nann,B~bleStudies, 315; C.J. I-iemer, 'The Name of Paul,' Q n B 36 (1985) 179-183, citing the interesting case of a native of Cilicia called both Lucius Antonius L.eo and Neon son of Zoilus ( C I L X.3377). ' See N.G. Cohen, 'Jewish Names as Cultural Indicators in Antiquity,'jSj 7 (1976) 112-1 17; but she does not take account ot the fact that the popularity of Sin~on/Simeonin later Second Temple Judaism was to a large extent due to the fact that it was a Hasmanean name. 1:Ilan, 'The Names of the I-lasmoneans in the Second Temple Period' (i lebrew), Eretz-Israel19 (1987), f-iebrcw section 238-241, shows that the most popular niale names among Palestinian Jews were all those of the Maccabees: Simeon, Joseph, Judah, Eleazar, John. (For Joseph as one of the Maccabee brothers, Ilan relies rather perilously on 2 Macc 8:22.) A nice example of the equivalcnce of Simon and Simeon is N. I<ewis,Y. Yadin and J. C. Greenfield ed., The Documents fiom the Bar Kokhba Penod in the Cave of 1,etters (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989) nos. 21-22, where two Jews are called Xilrtr~v in the Greek pans of the documents, but Shirn'on in the Aramaic and Nabatean of the sh in the Collectzons of attestations. See also L. Y. Rahm~ni,A <,htalogue o f j t ~ ~ z Os~uanes the State of Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority /Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994) 215, no. 651, where the name is written both in the usual Hebrew and in the Greek form trar1sliter,1ted into Hebrew (7~3). form (.:~m) Josephus, Ant. 12.385. ' A O T ~isQ a fairly uncommon Greek name, hut popular with Jews in both Greek ('Atrril~o r 'Ant)rl~) and Latin (Aster) (for the Greek spellings see D. Noy, jerulsh I~scrtp-

374

20. Paul iznd Other Jews uvth Latttz Names in the New Testament

Cleopas - Clopaslo Jason -Jesus (Yeshu'a)'l Mnason / Mnaseas - M a n a s ~ e h ' ~ Mousaios - Moses.13

Latin names include Annia - Hannah?I4 Annianus - H a n i n a / Hananiah" Iuliusl iulianus - Judah'" Iustus -Joseph Lea - I,eah?" Maria - Mary (Miriam)?Ix Rufus - Reuben." ttons of Wt~sternE~trope,voi. I [C:aml>rtdgc: Cambrrdgc Unrversrty Press, 19931 66-67; M. Schwahe and B. L i t s h ~ t Beth ~ , Sl?chrtm, vol. 2 [New Brunsw~ck:Rutgers Unlvcrstty Press, 19743 64. 'Atrffrl~ass~milatedthe Greek name to the Iiebrew: e.g. M. Williams ed., The Jeus among Greeks a n d Romans (Baltimore, Maryland: John Efopk~nsUniversity Press, 1998) 47 (no. 11.70)(= C I I V I I I .8499), 77 (no. I11.55)(C:IJ 874); Noy, Jmlrsh Inscrtptrons, vol. 1, nos. 26, 47, 130, 192; 1). Noy,]a~zsh Inscrzpttons of W"c.stet-nEurope, vol. 2 (Cambrrdgc: Canlhrtdge Un~versityI'ress, 1995) nos. 91, 140,278,552,596; Schwabe and Ltfshttr, Beth Shr'urrm, nos. 147, 176. The possrble dcrlvatton of Esther from the Pers~arl word for star would p r o b a b l ~not hake been known to Jews of this penod. 'Wetssmann, Bzble Studres, 315 n. 2; R. Bauckham, 'Mary of Cloyas (John 19:25),' in C;. J. Brooke cd., Wnrncn In t k t Brbl~cillfitdztrnn (l.ewirton, New York: kdwin Mellen Press, 1902) 231-255 (thrc e\say is rcpublishcd in rny book, Gosped W m e n Studtes ofthe Named Wonren rn the Gospels [Grand Rap~ds:Ecrdmans, 20021 chapter 6). " Josephus, Ant. 12.239; Rom. 16.21. See also N. C;. Cohen, '?'he Narnes of the Translators 11) the Letter of Arrsteac: A Study In the I>vnam~csof Cultural 'Tratis~tion,'JSJ 15 (1984) 46-48. Acts 2 1.16; CIPJ 28 1.17; Noy, Jet,,tsh Inscrrpttons, vol. 2, no. 544. See also I f . J. Cadbur!, 'Some Semrtrc I'ersonal Names tn Luke-Acts,' ~nI i. (;. Wood ed., Anztcrrue C,brolld (J. R. 'tiarrrs FS; I,ondon: Un~vcrsrtyot 1-ondon Press, 1933) 51-53. " C P J 20; Noy, Jewrsh Insmptzot~s,vol. 2, no. 74. I' No)., Jc-wtsh Irt,cnprzons, vol. 2, no. 15. l 5 Schwabe and Lifshitr, Beth 5hcdannz, 147-148; see nos. 166, 175; No): Jewtsh Inscrrprtons, voi. 2, nos. 120,288,466 (?); NO),Jtwrsh Inm-zptt~n,,VOI. 1, no. 176. I h For the three male names rn this Itst, see I ev. R. 32:s (and the same tradttion in Cant. R. 56.6 to Cant. 4.12): 'R. Eluna stated tn the name of Bar Kapyara: Israel were redecnied trorn Egypt on account of four things, c17. hccause they d ~ driot change char names.... 'They did not change their name[s], hav~nggone down as Reuben arid Sirneon, and having come up as Reuben and S~mcon.They drd not call J u d ~ h"I,eon," nor Reuben "Rufus," nor Joseph "Lcstes" [corrected: Justus], nor Bcnjan~in"Alexander."' The form of the text rn Cant. R. 56:O has: "l'liey d ~ dnot call Reube~l"Rutus," Judah "Julranus," Joseph "Justus," or Henjamrn "Alcxaridcr"' (adapted from J. Neu\rier, 5ong of Songs Rakbah: An Analytzcal Transl~tzon,col. 2 [Brown Judaic Studtes 196; Atlanta, Gcorg~a:Scholars Press, 19891 73). Noy, Jf.rr31sh Inst~rptrons,vol. 2, no. 377. See n. 2 above. O n thrs equ~valer~ce, see Collen, 'Jew~sllNames,' 117-128. She also discusses the equrvalence betweeti Reuben and the Sern~ticname Roubel.

''

Sound-equtvalmts (homophones)

375

In our list of New Testament Jews with Latin names, there are seven names which are probably to be understood as sound-equivalents 5. lunicl -Joanna? 6. Iustus -Joseph 7. Iustus -Jesus (Yeshu'a) 12. Paulus-Saul 14. Rufus - Reuben 15. Rufus - Reuben 16. Silvanus - Silas

In the case of the two Roman citizens, Paul and Silvanus, their Jewish name is an equivalent to their Latin cognomen. Neither of these equivalencies is attested outside the New Testament. That Silvanus20 and Silas should be regarded as sound-equivalents is generally accepted, but the case has understandably been much less discussed than Paul's. Less understandably, it has not been given its due weight as a parallel in discussion of Paul's names. That Saul and Paul were used as sound-eq~livalentshas been suggested2' but also often d ~ u b t e d . 'We ~ should first notice that it is not true, as Riesne?' and HengelZ4still assert, that we know n o other case of an ancient Jew named Paul: there is one example from S a r d i ~and ~ ~one from Aphr~disias.~'We cannot prove that these Jews regarded the name as a sound-equivalent t o the Hebrew name Saul, but in view of the practice attested in other cases of sound-equivalents we may at least suspect it.r7 It is relevant to note that the name Saul is very rare among diaspora Jews but relatively common in Pale~tine.~~ *O For another Jew called Silvanus, see Schwabc and Lifshitz, Beth She'antn, no. 21 1 . Schwabe and I,ifshitz ignore the Sllvanus of the New *l'estament when they say of this inscription: 'Until now, the name was not known to have been borne by a Jew' (195). 21 Deissmann, Bible Studies, 315-3 17; A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Soczety and Roman Law tn the New Testament (Oxford: Clarcndon, 1963) 153. E.g. G. Ludemann, Early Chrrstranzty accordzng to the Traditions zn Acts (tr. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1989) 241; Riesner, Paul's Early Perzod, 145; Hengel, The Pre-Chnstran Paul, 9. 2'Ricsner, Paul's Early Penod, 144-145 and n . 57. Hengel, The Pre-Chnstran Paul, 8-9. 25 Trebilco, Jewtsh Communities, 48. 26 J. F y n o l d s and R. Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodzsras (Cambridge Philologtcal Society Supplementary Volume 12; Cambridge: Cambr~dgePhilolog~cal Society, 1987) 6, 103. 27 For Aphrodisias, so G. Mussies, 'Jewlsh Personal Names in Some Non-L~terary Sources,' in J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst ed., Studres zn Early Jewtsh Epzgraphy (AGAJU 21; Leiden: Bn11, 1994) 273. But Delssmann, Bzble Studies, 316, was mistaken in thinking that the I'aulos who appears in papyrus fragments of the Acta Paul1 et Antonrnt is Jewish: see the edition in CPJ 158,159. Xengel, The Prr-Chrzstzan Paul, 9, 107-108 n. 78. To his list of occurrences of the name Saul in Jewish Palestine, add those in the Murabba'at and Nahal Hever documents: P. Benoir, J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Les Grottes de Murabba'at (DJD 2; Oxford: Claren-

''

"

376

20. Paul and Other Jews w ~ t hI ~ t t nNames In the New Estnment

However, some discussion of the spelling of the name Saul in Greek is needed at this point. Three Greek forms of the Hebrew name are known: one simply a transliteration and used as an indeclinable word (Z(io.lih),the other two with Greek case-endings added (ZaoOho~and Zciijhos), as was often done with names adopted into Greek. In Acts, the form 2ao6h is used for the king of Israel (13.21) and when the heavenly voice o r Ananias addresses Paul (Acts 9.4, 17; 22.7, 13; 26.14); elsewhere the apostle's Hebrew name is rendered as Xcxijhog. (This variation resembles the way Luke has James address Peter, uniquely, by the Hebrew form of his name, Si~neon:Acts 15.14. It helps give readers a sense of the Palestinian Jewish context of the narrative.) Uniquely, however, the text of Acts in Pd5has Zuovl. t h r o u g h ~ u tIn . ~1940, ~ G. A. Harrer argued that this was the original reading, and that the form Z(iGhog was only created in the third o r fourth century by analogy with TluGAos.'O His argument has recently been revived by Riesner, who, however, states it misleadingly: 'the form with the Greek ending might be simply a Christian construction analogous t o Ilcr6Aos.'31 Harrer argued that specifically the form ZcxOhoq was a Christian construction. H e was aware that Josephus used the form ZcxoOhoc;, formed by adding the Greek ending t o the usual transliteration of the name as &o6A.'* So his argument is not refuted, as Murphy-O'Connor thinks, simply by referring to Josephus' usage.33 It is true that, in the manuscripts of Josephus, as well as the 196 occasions on which ZaoGhog appears, with reference both to the king of Israel and to first-century Jews, there is one occurrence of Z u ~ k o s , referring t o a first-century Jew whom Josephus elsewhere calls ZaoOhos (RJ 2.418). This exception should probably be explained as due to a Christian scribe (all our ~nanuscriptsof Josephus were, of course, transcribed by d o n Press, 1961) nos. 30, 42, 74,94; I-I. M. Cotton and A. Yardeni ed., Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nabal @ever and Other Sites (DJD 27; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997) no. 8; three occurrences in J. Naveh, 'The Ossuary Inscriptions from Giv'at 1 la-Mitvar,' IEJ 20 (1970) 36-37 (= Rahmani, A Catalogue, 132, nos. 226,227, 228); and t w o ossuaries from East Talpiyot, Jerusalem in Rahniani, A Catalogue, nos. 716 (p. 224), 730 (pp. 227-228). O n the text of this third-century papyrus, see C . K. Barrett, A Criticaland Exegc~tical Comtnentary on the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 ( I C C ; Edinburgh: T. & 'I:Clark, 1994) 3. Its text of Acts covers only 4.27-1 7.17. 33 G . A . Iiarrer, 'Saul W h o Also Is Called Paul,' H T R 33 (1940) 19-33. H e was

"

primarily arguing against the view that some form of Saul could have been the apostle's

cognomt,n, while Paul was a narne he adopted later in life. So he argues that n o form of Saul with Greek case-endings is known t o have been extant before Josephus wrote. T h e claim that E1~i.o; was Paul's cognomen has been generally abandoned, and it is comnionly recognized that he would have had both names from birth. Riesner, Paul's Early Period, 145. Harrer, 'Saul,' 25. J. Murphy-O'Connor, Paul: A Critical La+ (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

" "

"

1997) 42.

Christians) more familiar with the form X a ~ h o gfrom his reading of Acts. The epigraphic evidence for Jewish usage offers the forms Euouh (CIJ 956: JaffajJ) and XuoCho~(CIJ 803: A ~ a m e a )This . ~ ~example of 2ho6Aos is from 391 ct, but k o i j h o g also occurs o n three ossuaries, probably from before 70 C F , from Mount S ~ o p u s , Qiryat ~" Tiv'on" and an unknown location in the Jerusalem area,'$ and in a fragmentary list of accounts from Palestine dating from before the Bar Kokhba revolt."' These occurrences prove that this form of the name was not invented b y Josephus, as Harrer argued, but must have been in use by Palestinian Jews already in Paul's time. It remains true, however, that we have no example of the form Zaijhog outside the manuscripts of Acts. Harrer and Riesner are probably wrong t o think the form Xtxouk the original reading throughout Acts. As I-Iengel says, this could be 'a bigoted whim of the copyist, who preferred for the Jewish name of Paul ~ probably the version which had as it were the divine a p p r ~ b a t i o n . "Xa6hog belongs to the original text of Acts but it is unique t o that document as far as extant evidence goes. It is possible that the form X u ~ h o goriginated as a closer sound-equivalent t o nctiihos than ZxoiiAog, a closer equivalent t o the Hebrew (Sha'ul), is$' but it may simply be a normalisation of the word in line with Greek usage (compare the various Greek forms of Hebrew names such as Joseph and John). Was it Luke w h o originated the form ZaGhos o r was he following Paul's own usage, itself original, o r was it already in use by diaspora Jews? We cannot tell, and it is important t o remember how limited o u r evidence is. In any case, Xuo6Aos and n u ~ A o s ,though the latter has a diphthong where the former has t w o distinct vowel sounds, are already sufficiently close to constitute a sound-equivalence, as close as Joseph (Yehosef) and Justus (on which, see below). Since the sequence of vowel-sounds a and ou is not normal in Greek, Greek speakers may in any case have tended to approximate to ZuGhos in their pronunciation of Xtro6hog. In that case, whatever the spelling, it is still relevant that the Greek adjective aaijAog

''

Also an inscription from I'hthiotis in 'rhessaly: Hengel, The Pre-Chnst~unPaul, 107 n.78. ' 5 R. Iifshit,, Dotrareurs er ronciareurs dnns les 'iytzagogues Jrtrves (Cahicrs dc la Kevuew Biblique 7; Paris: Gabalda, 1967) no. 38 (p. 39). A Catalogue, no. 122 (p. 109). This ossuary has the name both in I-iebrew '"ahmani, (+w)and Greek (XuoirAo;). " Rahniani, A Catalogue, no. 425 (p. 173). Rah~nani,A Catalogue, no. 349 (p. 157). " Beno~t,Milik and de Vaux, Les Grottes, 224: no. 94 (a 1.10). Thc Pre-Cbnst~unPaul, 106 n.73. '"engel, '' Hengel, The Pre-Chnsrun Paul, 9, rrcognires this, hut oddly thinks it is an alternative to thinking that the name Paulus was chosen for Paul because of its sound-equivalence to Saul.

"

378

20. Paul and Other Jt"zi*swith Latrn Names rn the NCW Testament

refers to walking in a wanton manner like courtesans o r Bacchantes" (Leary suggests the translation 'slut-arsed'"). T h e name might invite ridicule, explaining why diaspora Jews avoided calling themselves by it while using its sound-equivalent Paulus, and providing Paul with an additional reason, in addition t o wider cultural ones, for preferring his Latin name t o his Jewish while engaged in his mission t o Gentiles. T h e probability that Paul bore his t w o names because they were regarded as sound-equivalents is increased when we observe that there is an impressive number of other known cases of Jews who were Roman citizens choosing as their cognomen a Latin name which had a Jewish sound-equivalent. Silvanus/Silas is one, since Silas is not a hypocoristic form of Silvanus but a Semitic name, perhaps a hellenized version of the Aramaic form of S a ~ l . ~ ' There are also the Egyptian Jews Antonius RufusJS and Achillas K u f u ~ , ) ~ Gaius Julius Justus, gerusiarch of the synagogue in Ostia," the Roman synagogue officer Flavius J u l i a n ~ sJunius , ~ ~ Justus and Gaius Furfanius Julianus of Kome," a Jew of Smyrna called Lucius Lollius Justus," Tiberius Claudius Julianus of A ~ m o n i a , ~ Aurelius ' Rufus of A ~ a m e a , ~and ' a Jewish priest of Ephesus called either Marcus Mussius o r Marcus Aurelius M u s ~ i u s Mus.~~ sius is a known Latin nomen, but it would surely in Jewish usage suggest

" LSJ s. v. " 'EJ. I.eary, 'I'aul's Improper Name,' NTS 38 (1992) 469. '"C.J. l-iemer, The Rook of Acts in the Setting of ilellt~nisticHistory (WUNT 49; Tiibingen: Mohr [Sicbeck], 1989) 230. 4 5 CPJ 162, 164, 170, 173, 174, 176, 178, 239, 240, 243, 246, 249, 252, 253, 257, 259, 263,264,266,269,270, 271, 274, 275, 276. H e gave o n e of his sons the cogtlotnen Niger, a conirlion I.atiri cognomen, but seems ttr have added also as an alternative, superrlomen the Greek name Theodotos, which Jews uscd as a translation of Nathaniel (or similar Jewish names) and s o is a Greek/Jewish equivalent in a different way: CPJ 269,274,275 etc. Fattier and son illustrate t w o different ways of combining a fully Latin trirc norninn with a Jewish name. ' T P J 375,376-403. " No): Jtwis11 Inscriptiotls, vol. 2, no. 18. 'X Noy, Jewish Inscriptions, vol. 2, no. 290. 'Way,Jewish Irzscriptions, vol. 2, nos. 4, 71. L. Robert, Hellenica: Receuil d ' ~ p i ~ r a p h de i e Numistnatrque et d'Antiq~itlsGrecqrces, vols. 1 1-12 (Paris: Adrien-Maisoririeuve, 1960) 259-262. 5' CIJ 767. 52 CIJ 774. '"obert, Hellenici?, vols. 11-12, 381-384. 1 ie prefers the latter, because Mussius is known as a nornen, not a cognomen (his conclusion is misrepresented by I. L,evinskaya, The Rook of Actr jn Its Ilkspora Setting, vol. 5 of The Rook of Actr in Its first Century Setting [Grand Kapids: Ilerdmans /Carlislc: Paternoster, 19961 147-148). But it is possible that a Jew, for the sake of the name's assonance with Moses, would have used it as a cogriomen. A rare case (arnong ttic rather few instances of Jews w h o were Roman citizens arid whose nomina and cognomina are known) of a Jew w h o uscd a Jewish name as the third of his tvra nominn is Publius Rutilius Joses of 'fios: Kobert, Hellenica, vols. 11-12, 384.

also the name Moses and have been adopted precisely for that reason. These parallels rather strongly suggest that, in Paul's case, his Jewish namc Saul should not be regarded as a 'by-name' in the sense of a namc that could be used alongside another name (s~tp~rtzomen), as in the case of Simon Peter o r Joseph Barsabba~,~' but as the alternative, Jewish form of his cognornen. T h e phraseology Luke uses to put thc t w o names togcther on the one occasion in the N e w Testament where they occur together, Xcl6i.o~G xcii n(16hos (Acts 13.1: 'Saul who [is] also [calleci] Paul'), could be used as well in such a case as in the case of other kinds of double T h e equations of Reuben with Rufus and Justus with Joseph are known from the rabbinic tradition in I,eviticus Rabbah 32.5 and Song of Songs Rabbah 56.k5' Both were very popular Rornan cognomina," but whereas Rufus ('Poijqloc) had come into comrnon use in the Greek-speaking as well as Latin-speaking world, Justus ('IoC:(crto~)had not. T h e three volurnes so far published of the Lexicon of Greck Personal NamesSSlists 125 occurrences of 'Poivckoc but only nine of 'locoto< and only four of these from ~' before the third century cl:. By contrast, among Jews ' I o ~ t r t o ~scerns more common than "Po6clo;" (though not in Egypt o r Cyrenaica). T h e -

'.IA case ot a Jew w h o was Roman crtt/eli and liad a ircpcrnomen 15 the son of Antontuc Rufus ( m e n t ~ o n c da b o ~ e ) wlio , probabl, hat1 the cogtlorrri>rrN ~ g c rand the wpcrnomen

Thcotiotos: CPJ 269,274,275 ctc. " I Iortleb, 'Namec, l>ouble,' 1013, gl\ e s full d c t . ~ ~ot l s the barlous form\ ot pliraseology used; ct. also I > c ~ s s m a n ~HrGlr, i , \tctrires, 3 14-3 15.

See n. I6 abobc. I. Kajanto, Thf3l-~zrtn<,ogworncrr (hoclcta\ Sc~cnt~arirrn I-erin~ca:(:ommentatlonet I funianarurn I lttcraruni 36/2; t-ielslnk~:t fels~ngtors, 1905) count5 rriore than 1500 111stances of Rufus (229) a i d niorc than 600 oi Justuc (252). 5q 1'. M. I'rrlscr and F. Mattliewt cd , A 1 cxrton of Grrck Pc,rsonal h'tzme,, vol.;. 1-3 (O\ford: Cl.~rcndoriI'rcss, 1987-1997). " O n e evarllplc (no. 148), an Alcxincir~arr Jew hurled tn Jatfa (CIJ 928), 111 W. f-lorbury s h of(~rizcto-Korniztri g'pt (C:amhrlJge: Ca~nbrliigeUnrand 1). N o \ , J ~ ~ t ltzscnptrons vcrslt) Press, 1992); a Jew troni Chalctc In a n occuarv 111Jerusaleni (cIJ 1233); 3 I~urledat ti . ~ n dI ~ f s h r t lBeth , Sl?e'artnr, Jaffa ( ( . I / 928,920,946); 3 burled at Beth \ h c ' a r ~ ~ (Schwabe nos. 125, 127, 100); 2 at (2apernaum ((,I/ 983, %6h); Juctuc ot Tlhcrlac (lo\ephuc, Vlta 34 etc.); a bod! guarcl ot Agrtpya 11 arid Jocepliut (Vlta 397); the tlilrti Jewlsh C h r l w a n blsliop 01 Jerusaleni (f usebruc, H ~ s t I id 4.5.3); Justuc con ot Juciac one of the rrgoromorrror ot Cepphor~ron a lead wc~glit(N k o k katioc, Ihc fi~rr~dfirtr 1)yrrnsty [J\I'\(r 30; Sheffield s o t \rn) rna ('lrcbllco, Shcttield Acadernrc I'ress, 19981 234 n 103); I uclus I o l l ~ u Justus Jcwtsh Comn~r4nrtres,173); a p o s \ ~ b l ccxaniple , ~ Ntconiedra t In Blth\ rila ( N c z *Ilotulnents 3 119781 122); Jo\ephus'son, born In Konic ( V ~ t 5,427); a 13 o r 14 exarnplcs ( I 0 Greek, 3 o r ) N o t , j1.t IS)?Irr~~rprrotrs, 4 1,atln) In N u \ , Jc~ershIn,crrptron,, to1 1 (Knmc); 3 (.dl I , ~ t l nIn vol 2 (1t.1ly arid Gaul). T h e female 'loittr~tco r Ju\ta occurs oncc o r twlcc 111 N o \ , J r ~ r s h Inscrrprrons, t o l . I (Rome); oncc in No), l e ~ r s hIn,cllptlotl,, kol. I (\kno\a). Antoniu\ Rutus (C'fy 162 ctc.) ancl Ach~llasK u h (C i-'j 3 7 5 4 0 3 ) trt 1-gtpt; 1 J e ~ s6,, 104); I at Acnic>n~a( l i e e\aniple at Aplirodl\lar (Re\ ~ i o l d \and I.~nnc~ib.iunl, I>lleo,J C * L I ~Conrr?lforr~r(~~, /J 77); 1 . ~ t i1p.1rnc.a (l'rcb~lco,Jccr,l> Cotnmrorrttes, 100); 4 In Ze~cgrzrssearo der C,~?cm'trk~l Inscr1ptlons In ( ' j renarca In (; I udcrltl, Corprrs Jucf~~cher 5h 5*

"

380

20. Paul and O t h e r Jews wrth Lattn Numes rn the NLW Tesfan2ent

explanation is probably that, of the Jewish names t o which they correspond, Joseph was Inore popular than Reuben.(" T h e suggestions that Justus was popular with Jews because it could be considered a translation of the name Zadok o r represent a nickname, 'the righteous' (ha-saddiq), continue t o be repeated,b2 but there is n o evidence for them. Zadok was a very rare name among Jews, and the nickname 'the righteous' was given t o the high priest Simon and t o Jesus' brother James because they were regarded as very exceptional people. For Justus as the sound-equivalent of Joseph, however, we have the evidence of Acts 1.23 t o confirm the later rabbinic tradition. When Luke refers t o 'Joseph called Barsabbas, w h o was Bcxgacxf3p&v, 65 hrr~xh,iOq also known as Justus' ('Ioailcp TOV xcrhoir~~rvov 'Ioiimoc;), he does not mean that Justus was a second nickname, additional t o Barsabbas,6' but that he used Justus as the sound-equivalent of his first name, Joseph. When Josephus named his second surviving son, born in Rome when Josephus was a Roman citizen, Justus (Vita 5, 427), he surely intended the name as equivalent t o the family name Joseph, borne by himself and his grandfath~r."~ Colossians 4.1 1 is the only evidence we have that Justus could also be used as the sound-equivalent of Joshua (Greek 'Iiluoii~for the usual Hebrew form at this period: Yeshu'a). O n the basis of Josephus' statement that the hellenizing son of the high priest Simon changed his name from Jesus t o Jason (Ant. 12.239) it is usually supposed that the Grcek name Jason served

(Belhcftc /unl 'fubrnger Atlas dcr Vorderen Orients B53; Wrcsbacien: Relchcrt, 1983) nos. 37, 45a, App. IXd, App. 19q; 3 111 N o ) , Jea~tshIn~mptiorrs,vol. 1 (Rome); and once ( ~ n Greek) o n an ossuary from Jerusalem (Rahmanl, A Catalogue, 113, no. 142). Ruhnus o r 'Pouy tivo; occurs 2 o r 3 trrnes in Noy, Je-~*rshIrzscrrptrons, vol. 1 (Rome); once rn Nov, j~-i,i,h l?rs~)rpttot?>, vol 2 (Italy). T h e fcriialc RufinaJPotcyivcl occurs clilce (no. 145) In Nov, Jc~zi,h Inscrzptrons, vol. 1 (Rome); and at Acmoma (Trebllco, Jewish Comrnunztzes, 77). Smyrna (CIJ 741) and Jaffa (CIJ 949). f ierod the G r e a t t rnllltary commander Rufus (Josephu\, BJ 2.52 etc.) 1s more lrkcly Sa~narrtano r Gentrle than J c w ~ s h . In I'alcstrnc In the Second Temple p e r ~ o d ,Ilan, 'The Names,' counts 150 examples of Joseph, m a k ~ n g~ttlic m o ~ popular t nanie after Suneon (173), whereas Reuben docs not make ~t o n t o the list (meanlng that rhe counted less than 5 examples) (For lnstarlccr of Roubcl and Roubc, for Reuben, rn Palestine, see Cohen, 'Jewrsh Names,' 124-125.)'I't1esc figures arc not automatlcall~relevant t o the dlaspora, where the Jewlsh onomastlccrn was srgnrficantl~drfferent trorn the I'alest~nlan (bl. 1-1. Wllllams, 'Palcst~nranJcwtsh Personal Names rn Acts,' In Bauckhani ed., The Rook ofActs, 106-log), but there 1s good evrdence that Joseph ( ~ nvarlous hellenl/ed forms: 'Iwtri);. 'Icutrtlq 'lo,qno;. 'Itr~criic(.cy.losrs) was also popular In the dlaspora. "? f g Musstcs, 'Jewrrh I'ersonal names,' 245; FIorslcy, 'Names, Ilouble,' 1014; Schwabc and I.tfshltr, Beth (hckrrm, 21 I; Wllllams, 'Palcctlnlan,' 104-105. Contra Horsley, 'Names, I)ouble,' 1013. 'fhe name o f h ~ stirst survlvrng son, Elyrcanur, celebrated hlr boasted ancestral conncxlon wlth the Hasmonean h ~ g hprlest J o h n 1 fyrcanus, and the thlrd, Agrrppa, was named after hrs patron Agrrppa 11.

.

"' "

as the sound-equivalent of Jesus/Joshua, a supposition that explains the quite common use of the name Jason among Jewsh"including the Jewish Christian Paul names in Roni. 16.21). Justus is phonetically closer to Yehosef and Jason ('1cjlacr)v) than t o Yeshu'a/"I~luoDc. But perhaps Jews in Latin-speaking environments, such as Rome, might prefer t o use Justus for Joseph as well as for Joshua. This consideration would explain Colossians 4.1 1 especially if Colossians was written from Rome. Jesus / Justus could be a native of Rome o r a Jewish Christian w h o had been working as a Christian missionary in Rome for sonic time and had adopted the locally appropriate sound-equivalent of his name. If he is an example of a wider practice, then the popularity of Justus among Jews would be the result of its functioning as a sound-equivalent t o Joshua as well as Joseph. There is no longer any need to demonstrate that the narne which appears in the accusative as 'Iouviuv in Romans 16.7 is the Latin female name Junia, not the postulated but unrecorded male name "Ioz~vr(-Lg, which would be a Greek hypocoristic form of Julianus."' This woman, probably the wife of her fellow-apostle Andronicus, is the only Jewish woman known to have borne the name Junia, which was t h e fernale version of the nornen of a prestigious Ronian fan~ily."' I:reedmen and freedwomen often adopted the nomen gentiliaurn of their patron, and Larnpe therefore argues that Junia was probably of slave origin (either a freedwoman herself o r descended from a frcedrna~i).~' But it was not uriusual for Jews and other non-Romans to use a Roman notnen gentilrcium as their sole name o r sole Latin name."" We have noted t h ~Jews t used the names Julius and Juli'~nusbecause they were sound-equivalents of Judah. So tllere is n o need t o p ~ s t u l ~any ~ t econnexion of the Jcwish Christian Junia with thegens Junia. What has not been suggested before is the possibility that Junia in this case was chosen because it could serve as a sound-equivalent for the Jcwish name Joanna. This sug-

h 5 Exarnples In I .V Kutgcrs, The Ilzdden Ifentizge of'DzrrsponiJardrlzsvz ((:ontrrhut~on\ to I3rhlrcal l . \ e g e \ ~ \.lnJ 'rheologr 20; Lcu\cn: I'eeters, 2 r~dcdrtron, 1998) I46 11.44.But note also the caw of a Jew called, In Hebrew letter\, J u d ~ Jason: h K. M. Baron, 'A Sur\ey of Inscrlptlons tound rn Israel, and publ~shedI I I 1992-1993,' (crrpta Classrcn Is~aelrccr13

(1')')4)

145 (o\\uar) t r t m i blourit Scopuh) (= Kaht1i.xt11,A C:~ritfog~te, 183- 184, 110. 477).

K.J. Brootcn, 'Junta ... Outstandrng among the Apostles (Romans lh:7),' 111 I.. and A. \wldlcr ed., Wi)vzrn Pnr~ts( N e w York: Paulr\t Press, 1977) 141-144; P. I ampc, 'Iunla/ Iunrac Skla\enherkunft rm Krercc der \orpaulrnrschen Apostel (Korn 16,7),' LA'W 76 (1985) 132-134; 1 ampc, n t e Jtadromi,then, 137 11. 40, 139-140; K.S. Ccrvrn, 'A Note Kef:rdrng the Nanic uJu~ira(\)" rn Romans 16.7,' NTS 40 (1994) 4 6 4 4 7 0 . O n e cxample of a Jew 1 ~ 1 t hthe correspondrng male narnt Juriruc I S Noy, jewrsh Inscrrptions, vol. 2, no. 71 (frorn Montc\ercia): ' l o ~ ~ 'Ioi~tno; v~o~ L,arnpc, 'Iunral Iunras,' 133-1 34; I.anipc, I>ie Stadromircbe~i,147, 152-1 53. h" f I. J . [.eon, 'l%cl e e s of Anticnt Rome (Phrladclphra: Jewryh I'ublrcat~on Socrct\ of A~nerica,1'160) 1 13. M1

"'

382

20. Pal61 and Other Jews wrth I.atrn Narnes In t l x A ' e z IL~~tilmer~t

gestiori will be supportecl in the next section when we ssk why this Jewish woman w h o was evidently originally from Palestine sliould have borne this Idatin name.

Palestinian Jews with Latin names T h e use of Latin names was rare among Palestinian Jews. T h e reasons are fairly obvious. For Jews w h o wished t o add a non-Semitic name t o o r substitute one for their Semitic name, the practice of adopting Greek names was well-established before the Roman occupation. Moreover, adopting a Latin name would not imply culture, as a Greek name might, but alignment with Ronisn politicsl rule. Few Palestinian Jews would have wanted a nsme that proclaimed allegiance t o Rome. It is therefore easily understandable that almost all Palestinian Jews bearing Idatin names in the works of Josephus7%elorig t o the following exceptional categories: (a) rnembers of the Herodian royal family (Agrippa I, Agrippa 11, Agripps son of Aristobulus, Agrippinus grandson of Agrippa I, Drusilla, Drusus, Julius Archelaos); (b) close friends, court officials, army officers and other members of the Herodian households (Aequus Modiuc, Carus, Crispus, Fortunatus, Jucundus, Justus," Tiro, Varus);'? (c) members of the Glite of Herod Antipas' capital city, Tiberias (Crispus'' son of Compsios, Julius Capella son of Antylios, Justus son of I'istos). These belong t o precisely the only circles in first-century Jewish Palestine that could be described '1s rornanized. Their Roman natnes are a statement, and it is notable that in the case of the three Tiberisn aristocrats their fathers bear Greek names. Naming their sons was an act of allegiance t o Rome and its Herodian client rulers. Category (b) are probably the people Mark calls 'Hcrodians' (Mk. 3.6; 12.13),'+ and it is notable that this term ( ' H ~ t ~ ~ b ~ c c v o i ) is a Latinism, reflecting the romanized identity of members of the courts and governments of the Iierods. Outside these three categories, we meet

--

-'I-or the refcrcnccs rn Joscphus to the persons Ircteci here see A. Schalit, hu?rrenc~ov-

tolrcth r u Ilavrus /r)it;~hrrs(1 erden: Rr~ll,1968).

" 'This Justus (Vrta 397) had hsen h o d y g u ~ r dto Agrrppa I1 before cicrbing Joscphuc the samc cnpa~itb. *' Rufus dnci Gratus, ~ o m n ~ a n d e ctf r s the Sehnsten~.~n ttoops of I lerod the Grrat (I3J 2.52, 58-59, 63, 74, 236; Ant. 17.266, 2'14), are more lrkely to h , ~ \ ebeen Sarnnrrt.~nso r (;entrlcs than Jews. -'This (:rrepus (Vita 33) 1s unlrkcl) to he the enme person as AgrippdI'c groom ot the bedchalnher (Vita 382, 388-389, 393), lrsted in (h) abobc (ag.un\t Schalrt, il;zr~z(~niuortetllcth, 76). c a i and the f Irst~rrcal1 Ierodra~is,'JH~119 - 9 c e now J . I! hlcre~,'-l'hc I l ~ ~ t o r ~ Jesus (2000) 740-746. 111

only t w o other Palestinian Jews with Ldtin names in the pages of Josephus: Cornelius son of Cero (the Roman narne Cerio?), a Jerusalem Jew who headed a Jewish delegation sent to the emperor Claudius in Rome (Ant. 20.14), and Niger, a native of Pcrea and governor of Idumea (BJ 2.520,566; 3.11, 20, 25, 27; 4.359, 361, 363). Cornelius (the only Jew known to have borne this Roman nomcn) was presumably chosen t o head the delegation for reasons connccteci with his name: he may have spoken Latin fluently o r have had contacts at the imperial court. The implication is probably that he had lived in Rome. Niger was a common Roman cognomen, which this Niger may well have acquired as a nickname because of his dark hair. Epigraphic sources yield two additions t o category (c): Animus son of M o n i m o ~ and ' ~ Gaius Julius,'" both of Tiberias, while Justus son of Judas, J member of the d i t e of Antipas' previous capital Sepphoris," the only other rornanized city in Galilee, merely expands essentially the same category.'" The wealthy Roman citi7cn Julia Crispina, w h o appears in the Babatha archive, cannot be certainly be identified as Jewish. If she was, she may have been, as Kokkinos argues," a descendant of Crispus of 'Tiberias, and s o an addition t o category (b), or, as Ilan argues,s% member of the Iierodian dynasty, and so an addition to category (a). T h e few Latin names found in ossuaries from the Jerusalem area either c e r t ~ i n l yo r very plausibly belonged to Jews from the d i a s p ~ r a . There ~' are only three among the many names

'' Kokkinos, The Ilcrocfian I ) y ~ ~ n s t397-398. y, A. Stein, 'Gaius Ji~lius,an tlgoronomos from Tberias,' Z P E 93 (1992) 144-148, argues that the (;aius Julius in question, servirig as agorononios of 'I'ibcrias, is Agrippa I, but Kokkiiios, Thct IIerodiirn Dyrrasty, 233 11. 100, 272 n. 26, 277, argues that the year when Agrippa 1 was agorononios of Tibcrias was 34/35, and that his full name must have been the sanie as that of liis so11 Agrippa 11: Marcus Julius Agrippa. " Kokkinos, The Herodlun Djvidst): 234 11. 103. 7 S Inscriptions from Capernaurn, referring t o Ilerod son of Monimos and his son Justus (CIJ 983 = l.ifshitz, Donatc~urs,61, no. 75) and t o S y ~ ~ i m a c l i son o s of Justus (CfJ 986b), are tiiuch later than the first century, as is the Ararnaic inscription from Noarah iii which thc narnc Yustah, an Aramaic forni of J~tstus,occurs (CIJ 1197). O n the many Latin names in inscriptions at Beth She'arim, see Schwabe arid I.ifsliit7, Beth She'arrm, 21 1: Agrippa, Anniznus, Antoninus, I)oninica, Furia, Gaius, Gernianus, Juliarius Capito, Julius, Justus, Lolianus, Magna, Magnus, Maxima, I'aulinus, I'rimosa, Quirinius, Sahinus, Severius, Vitu\, Saturnilus, Silvrnus. Hut these iriscriptio~isall date from no csarlier than the entf of the second century CI:, many arc considerably Inter, and some relate t o diaspora Jews brought for burial in Israel. "' Kokkinos, The Ncrod~unDynasty, 293-294. %"Ian, 'Julia Crispina, daughter of Berenicianus, a Ilcrodian I'rincess in the Habatha Archive: A Case Study in lclistorical Identification,'J(SH 82 (1992) 361-381. 1 rely especially o n a list compileci by I)r John 1'. Kane from ossuary inscriptions puhlislied u p t o 1967, and on Rahmani, A C~talogtte.Latin nariies o n ossuaries catalogued by Kahmani are Appia(98,1io. 84), Claudius (1 56-157, no. 348), Gaius (168-189, no. 404; 172, n o . 421), Julia (188-189, no. 498), Marcius (199-200, no. 568), Niger? (199, no. 565), Popilia (90,110. 56), Rufus (I 13, no. 142). A tonib in which several diaspora Jews were bur-

384

20. Paul and Other Jews with Latin Names in the Nett1 Testament

on the Jewish ostraca from Masada.$*The consistency of this evidence is impressi~e.~~ It suggests we should look very closely at those of our New Testament Jews with Latin names who were or may have been natives of Palestine: 1. Agrippa ( I I ) 4. Drusilla 5. lunia 6. Joseph Barsabbas, also called Iustus 10. John, also called Marcus 15. Rufus (Rorn. 16.13) 15. Rufus (Mk. 15.21) 16. Silvanus /Silas.

Agrippa and Drusilla, members of the Herodian family, present no problem. Rufus (Rom. 16.13) is listed only because Paul had known him and his mother well, and so they must have lived somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean area before moving to Rome. But he need not have been a native of Palestine. It has often been suggested that he is the same Rufus as the son of Simon of Cyrene (Mk. 15.21), which is entirely possible but cannot be

ied provides the Latin names Justus of Chalcis (CIJ 1233), Africanus (CIJ 1226), Furius Africanus and Furia Africana (CIJ 1227), Catulla (CIJ 1234). O n ossuaries found on the Mount of Olives are the names Verutaria (CIJ 1273, 1274) and Castus (CIJ 1275). 82 H.M. Cotton and J. Geiger, Masada II: The Yigael Yadin Excavattons 1963-1965; The Fznal Reports: The Latzn and Greek Documents (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration SocietyIHebrew University, 1989) no. 788 (p. 126): Appius Marcus; no. 926 (pp. 202-203): Patricus. g3 It is rather surprising to find the names Magnus and Aquila and perhaps one or two other Latin names in a Qumran text in Hebrew (4Q341), but this list of names is probably a writing exercise. The name Gaius appears in a list of names in a document from Nahal Seelim: B. Lifshitz, 'The Greek Documents from Nahal Seelim and Nahal Mishmar,' IEJ 11 (1961) 55 (though it is not certain that this Gaius is Jewish). Two Jews with Latin names Uudah called Cimber, and Germanus son of Judah, a scribe who calls himself by the Latin title 'librarius') appear in documents from the Babatha archive from the years 128-132: N. Lewis, Y. Yadin and J. C. Greenfield ed., The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Perzod tn the Cave ofLetters Uerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989) nos. 18,20 (Cimber), 20-23, 25-27 (Germanus). The documents are from Moaza in the Roman province of Arabia (as Nabatea had become in 106), though Cimber resided in En-gedi (on the name Cimber, see R. Zadok, 'Notes on the Biblical and Extra-Biblical Onomasticon,'JQR 71 [I9801 116-1 17). Lewis, The Documents, 16, observes that, because Nabatea had remained considerably less hellenized than other parts of the Near East, it quickly absorbed more Roman influence after 106 than other Roman provinces in the east. The names Cirnber and Germanus, together with the latter's use of the term 'librarius' (military clerk), suggest the influence of the Roman army. In the Muraba'at documents there are a few possible but very uncertain occurrences of Jews with Latin names: Benoit, Milik and de Vaux, Les Grottes, no. 92 (the personal name Nero or Neronias as Simon's place of origin?), no. 114 (Saturninus, probably a Roman soldier, not Jewish), no. 116 (Aurelius: a Jewish freedman or a Roman?).

proved," since the name was so commonly used by diaspora Jews.85Simon, a Jew from Cyrenaica, had evidently settled in Jerusalems6; we d o not know whether his son Rufus was born before o r after he did so, but if he was born in Jerusaleni Sinion named him according to the naming practices of Cyrenaican J e w ~ , ~ not ' those of Palestinian Jews. Silas/Silvanus, a leading member of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15.22)'' w h o also travelled in the diaspora with and without I'aul, was, as we have seen, a Rornan citizen. Presumably, therefore, he had borne his Roman name Silvanus, along with its Semitic sound-equivalent Silas, from birth. Like Paul, tic may have been a native of the diaspora w h o had returned to Palestine. Like Paul, it is his Latin name that he seems to have used when engaged in Christian missionary activity in the diaspora (2 Cor. 1.19; 1 Thess. 1.1; 2 'Thess. 1.1; 1 I'et. 5.12), though I-uke, w h o likes authentic Palestinian touches in his narrative, consistently calls hirn Silas. John Mark also had family connexions with the diaspora (his relative Joseph Barnabas was a native of Cyprus: Acts 15.36), but this rnay not be what accounts for liis Latin name. John (Yehohanan o r Yohanan) was little used in the diaspora and Marcus was one of commonestpmcnomina. As Margaret Williams suggests: 'The Gentiles he was seeking to convert would have found Mark a far easier name t o cope with than the outlandish and unfamiliar Yehohanan'") [even, we might add, in its shortened form Yohanan]. In other words, he probably adopted the name Marcus when he started travelling in the diaspora, and Luke merely identifies him retrospectively in Acts 12.12,25, perhaps even intending t o indicate the chronological point at which he adopted his Latin name in Acts 15.37-39. That Luke can call him, retrospectively, 'John whose other name was Mark,' when in Luke's narrative he is still in Jerusalem (Acts

"

But it is not correct t o label the suggestion '[ojnly pious speculation,' as E. Kiseriiann, Commentnryon Romans (tr. G.\V. LBrorniley; I.o~idon:SCM f'ress, 1980) 414, does. It is possible t o argue that, if Mark is a Roman Gospel, the reason he names the two sons of Simon of Cyrene is hecause they were well-known in the Roman church, as the Rufus of Rom 16:13 evidently was. It is also possible tliat the tonih of a Cyrenaican Jewish family in the Kidron \,alley (N. Avigad, 'A 1)epository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley, ' IEJ 12 119621 1.--12:and cf. J. I? Krnc,, 'The O ~ s u a r yInscriptions of Jenrsalcm,'JSS 23 119781 278-279) belonged t o Simon's family. Its twelve ossuaries include those of Alexander of Cyrene, son of Simori, arid Sarali o f Ptoleniais, daughter of Sirnon. If this is the torrlh of Simon's family, it is riotable that ossuaries belonging to Simon himself, liis wife and his son Rufus have not been found, perhaps because they moved t o Rome. In h4k. 15.21 lie seems t o be returning to the city after working in the fields. l o u r exan~plesare known of Jews called Rufus in Cyrenaica: Liideritz, C : o ~ r t s , nos. 37, 45.1, App. 18d, App. 19q. Thess. 2.7 may indicate tliat Paul regarded hi111 as an apostle, i.e. as having been corn~nissionedby the risen Lord in a resurrccrion appearance. Williams, 'Palestinian,' 105.

''

'' "

'"

12.12, 25), is A valuable clue t o the significance of the Latin name of tlie last man on o u r list: Joseph Barsabbas, also called Justus (Acts 1.23). As we llave noticed already, Justus is the sound-equivalent of Joseph. To qualify for the position for whicli he was proposed, Joseph tilust almost certainly have been '1 Galilean (Acts 1.21-22). Williams suggests he acquired the namc Justus in the environment of ti be ria^,"^ but it is more likely that his case is parallel t o Mark's: he later bccanie a missionary in the diaspora and adopted 'In appropriate Latin name for the purpose. T h e only information about him other than I.ukc's one reference in Acts 1.23 is in Papias, w h o heard from the daughters of Philip (who settled in Papias' Iiotne town H i ~ r ~ ~ p o that lis) he had once drunk deadly poison without ill effects" (cf. Mk. 16.18). That Papias knew such a story suggests that he was later known as a travelling missionary. Significantly, Psipias calls him 'Justus w h o was also called Barsabbas,' as he would have been known in the diaspora, substituting his Latin riarne for its Hebrew sound-equivalent Joseph. Like the three men discussed in the preceding paragraph, Junia was also a leading member of the early Jerusalem church and subsequently travelled as a Christian missionary in the diaspora. We know this because Paul calls her and her husband Andronicus apostles, meaning that they had been conimissioned by the risen Christ in a resurrection appearance, and says that they were 'in Christ' before him and had been imprisoned (Rom. 16.7). So what is the significance of Junia's Latin namc? I suggested above that it could have been used as a sound-equivalent for the Hebrew narrle Joanna (Yehohannah o r Yohannah).'? T h e latter, like its male version John (Ychohanan o r Yohanan), was popular in Jewish Palestine. Ilan lists eight instances," making it the fifth most popular riatnc among Palestinian women, after Salomc (218 instances), M'iriammc (Mary) (146), Martha (15) and Shappira (Sapphira) (lo), though the overwhelming dominance of Salome and Mary considerably reciuces the significance of this. But, again like the male name John, Jo~ririais rare in the diaspor.1: t w o o r three instances ("Icr~tivvtr)from Egypt are the only known instances." To Greek- and Latin-speakers it was strange. This suggests that Junia's scds is parallel t o that of t w o other members of

"Wtllranis, 'I'ale\ttn~an,' 104. ' I ApuJ I- u\cbrus, 1f1,t f ctl 3.39.'). But Yohannah or Yohanna 111 ~Iraniatcor Nahatc.~nwa\ a l w u\ed a\ a male namc: Rcntrtt, hlrlrk arid de Vaux, I es Crottes, no. 18; Bcriott, Mtlrk and de Vaux, 1 c.5 Crotce,, no\. 14, 15, 16,20, 22; <;en. K. 6 4 9 ; ~ t Musstcs, . 'Jcwt\li I'ersonal Names,' 252. O n e o f these ( C I ' J 1 ) 1 5 not ccrtainly ot Palc.;ttntan ortgiri, and atlother 1s not ccrratnl) a temalc name (13cnolt, Mtllk and dc Vaux, I r, Grotte,, 167: no. 48). "'(,PI 133; florburi and N o ) , Jc-ursh Itrstrzptzorzs, no. 6 . Tllc slat c 'l~tr)trvtrrn ( , I ' / 1 ma) t i a ~ ehccn ot I'aale\ttntanorrgrn, a5 Ilan ludgcd, tnclud~nglicr In her ctght I'alcstrntan rtirt,znccs ot tlie name.

"' "

the early Jerusalem church: Joseph/Justus Barsabbas and John Mark. She adopted a Latin name, in her case a close sound-equivalent t o her Hebrew name Joanna, when she neccicd a Inore user-friendly namc in the diaspora, in her case especially Kotnc. It becomes rather probable that the Junia of Komdns 16.7 is the same person as Luke's Joanna (Lk. 8.3; 24.10; and cf. Acts 1.14), 'I wealtlly woman disciple of Jesus dnd wife of Chuza, Herod Antipas's 'steward' (meaning either nianager of a royal estate o r manager of the estates and finances of Antipas's whole real~n).Perhaps C h u m (a Nabatean name) adopted tlie Greek narne Andronicus for the same reason his wife adopted the namc Junia, o r perliaps Andronicus was her second husband. We should also note that in Palestine C l i u ~ aanti Joanna were menibers of Herod's court at Tiberias, the most romaniled place in Jewish Palestine, where we have already located some of the reire Palestinian instances of Jews with Idatin names. Joarina might have adopted the sound-equivalent and appropriately aristocratic name Junia already in Tiberias. Wheri she and her husband ciecided to become Christian missionaries in Rome, she may already have had, not only the means to support herself and a degree of acculturatiori to Roman ways, hut also even a Roman n a ~ n e . ~ ~

A dditionirl N o t e Since this chapter was written, several reference works of great value for the study of Jewish names in antiquity have been published. 'GI Ilan's Lesicon'"ists all known Jews bearing every namc attested in Palestine in the period 330 ucr. -200 cr:, while the three volumes of Inscriptiones J ~ d a t cae Ortentis'' (IJCI) contaisi all known Jewish inscriptions from Eastern Europe, Asia Minor, Cyprus and Syria. These volumes add very little t o the data about the name Saul presented in the chapter above. Ilan confirms that the namc Saul was quite common in Jewish Palestine. According to my ow11 calculations from Ilan's data, it is fourteenth (along with Honi) in order of popularity of Palestinian Jew-

" I ~ I S C U S Joanna, S ,111dtlrc posstblc tc~cri~tficdtton ot tier wttl1 Junra, at length In chapter 5 of Gospel \Y'omcrr. Levtcorz of J L - ~ - il'dmcs I T ~ rn 1 irtc Antrqurty I)i(rt I 12tkcst1ne 330 R C f - 2 0 0 ( I ('I'SAJ 91; l'ubttigcn: Mohr Stcbcck, 2002). " 'at td No): AIcvarldcr Panab otot and I3answolt Bloedhorn cd., ~nsc~tprro?resJud~~~m e Orrcnrt,, \ol 1: lnsttv~z1 N I O ~ C('I'SAJ 101; l'ubtngen: Molu Srebcck, 2004); Walter Onc*nfls,vol. 2: K ~ ~ ~ ~ t(TSAJ ~ a s ~99; e nl'ubingen: Mohr Anielttig ed., Insc7tptro?zesJirdit1'zc~ Judrrrcirc Ortcrlrr,, Stcbeck, 2004); I l a ~ t dN o y arlri t lan\wolt Bloedllorn cd., Irtst~tptrone~ vol. 3: Syru '2nd Cyprus ('I'SAJ 102; 'Tuhtngcrl: Mohr Stcbcck, 2004).

"

388

20. I?rrrlLznd Other /rut, uvth f,utrn Name, rn the 1L'c.w fistamcvrt

ish male names in the period." Ilan lists thirty men who bore the name,')" though one is Saul of Tarsus (included because he studied in Jerusalem, but not properly a PalcstirliariJew because he was born in the diaspora). In only eight of these cases does the name occur in a Greek form. XtxOho~is attested only for Saul of Tarsus in Acts, and the unique form Zuohog occurs once. There are six instances of C a o 6 h o ~t:w o persons in J o s e p h ~ s ,three ' ~ ~ names o n ossuaries, arid one o n a Muraba'at parchment. These last four instances are those to which I refer in notes 36-39 of the chapter above. T h e I J O volumes include the synagogue inscription from Apamea in which Xc1oOhog occurs as the name of one of the synagogue elders (IJO 3 Syr 53 = CIJ 803: 392 c ~ )as, noted in my chapter, and the epitaph of Xcrov). from Phthiotic Thebes (IJO I Ach 17: 3 rd-4 th cerituries cl: o r later) to which my note 34 refers. To the two instances of Jews (other than Paul the apostle) bearing the nanie Paul to which my chapter referred (notes 25, 26) we can now add three more, though one of these, in an epitaph from Iconium referring t o ntxuhov huir.ovo~~ (IJO 2 226: 4 th ccritury c ~o ,r later), is far from certainly a Jew. The other two occur in a t o n ~ binscription of the first century c~sfrom Jatt, near C a ~ s a r e a . ' ~Since ' this t o m b is in a burial cave with a corisiderable concentration of Herodian it further illustrates the point, niade in my chapter, that most occurrences of Latin nanies borne by Palestinian Jews are connected in some way with the Herodian family. Edwiri A. Judge, 'The Ko~nariBase of Paul's Mission,' 7jnN 56 (2005) 103-1 19, is a learned and significant study of the phenornerion of Latin narnes among the New 'I'estament persons 'around Paul,' by which he means 'those mentioned by nanie [in Acts o r the I'aulinc epistles] who seemed linked with his niission t o the extent of sharing it in some way (traveling for him, o r giving Ii~spitality)."~'H e reckons a total of 91 such (including Paul hirnself), of whorn 29 bear at least one Latin name.Io4 .people . 1 his proportion (more than 30%) cannot be expl'lined by the use of common Latin names as Greek personal names. Judge provides evidence that in the Greek cities of the east only 3 % of Greeks bore Latin names: 'Ih Rtchard Bauckhani, Je,rr, inrd the i-ycurtnes,es I%c (;o,pels 11s f yczr lrne,s Te,trrnony (Grand Rapitls: Ecrdnians, 2000) 85-86. 'jV Ilan, I rutcon, 121-2 13, 4-19. I" Ilan doe\ rtot note the spcllltlg Xc~itE.ocIn \KIY2.418 "I Ilan, 1.~xrto11, 336. I" ?Ian, I curcon, 53. I:' kdwtn A. Judge, "I'hc Konian Ba\c of I'auli M ~ s s ~ o n7, j' n N 56 (2005) 108. There 1s only one case ut an I ~ J dI u\ a l bear~ngtwo L atin n.lnicr: 'rttiuc Justus (Acts 1X:7). 'l'h~rcare rncans thdt Judge's l ~ s tof th~rty'I'aultnc I atln names' (Table 5) accounts for 29 person\. In Tables 3 and 4, howcccr, the figure for persons around Paul bearing 1,atln names 1s glven as 31. I cio not know the reason tor t h ~ sdtscrepanc).

"

By the mid-first century up to three percent of such people ['Greeks of good standing in their own cities'] might be using Latin names, but around St Paul it i.; more than thirty percent. We might have to say either that the latinising tashton in names had caught on far rliorc at Icvel.r below that ot the local elites (assuming, as some people still do, that Paul operated well down the social scale), or that Paul is picking up strong support not only tronl Greeks but from the various sorts of Rtrrilan by now well settled it1 the Greek Iast [i.e. Roman citizens or so-called 'Junian Latins," i.e. freedmen who were half-way to citi7enshipl. But of course we need not make these two possibilitie.; esclude each other.1o* In spite of the last sentence, it is clear that Judge favours the second explanation. By taking account of the fact that many Rornan citizens o r freedrnen would have beeti known by Greek rather than Latin cognomina, Judge calculates that probably 'more than half of Paul's associates ranked as

Of the 29 persons 'around Paul' with Latin names in Judge's list, 12 appear in my own list (in the chapter above) of Jews with Latin n a n ~ e sin the New Testament. This is a significant proportion. Judge himself allows only eight of these t o be certainly Jewish.I3' T h e four persons whom I list as Jewish but he does not regard as certainly Jewish are 1-ucius of Cyrene (Acts 13:1), Rufus (Rom 16:13), Lucius (Rom 16:21) and Junia (Rom 16:7). Iloubt is certainly possible in the first two cases, but it is very strange that Judge does not consider the 1,ucius and Junia of Romaris 16 as certainly Jewish. 'They . i ~ ) ,is usually thought are both described as Paul's 'relatives' ( t r ~ * ~ ~ v twhich to mean 'fellow-Jcws'(cf. Paul's use of the word in this sense in Rom 9:3). Judge evidently takes it t o rnean that they were familial relatives, members of Paul's extended family,'o"but in that case too they would be Jews. However, even the eight persons 'around I'aul' with Latin names whom Judge considers certainly Jewish make up a significant proportion of his list of 29. It is rather surprising he does not consider the signific,~nceof this. H e treats the Jews arrlong Paul's associates as either Greeks o r Romans, without regard t o their distinctiveness as Jews. But if Judge's figures show a propensity of Paul's mission to recruit Koman citizens o r freedmen as collaborators, they also show that this propensity overlaps with a propensity t o recruit Jews. T h e overlap is rather striking. Judge considers that probably 19 of the total of 91 persons around I'aul wcrc Jewi~h.'~"'I'his is a ti~ucllsnialler proportion than the proportion of Jews among those w h o bear Latin names. Jucige, "Sl~cRom.an Rase,' 108. Judge, "l'lie Koman Base,' 103, cf. 113-1 16. I C 7 Juctge, 'The Roman 13ase,' 1 1 1 ('hble 7). 'lhble 7 also strows tliat Judge ttiiriks 9 of those peoplc arouncl 1';tul who were 'quite likely' Jewish bore I.atin names, but he d o o riot reveal who the extra o~icis. I" Judge, "IIic Koman Rase,' 1 OX. IC9 Judge, lie Roman B.zre,' 111. I"

390

20. Paul and Other Jews with Latin Names in the New Testament

When Judge's article is read in connexion with my chapter above, a specific issue that arises is: H o w many of these Jews with Latin names were Roman citizens? Judge distinguishes the implications of the three kinds of Latin names in this respect. The Latin names that were widely adopted as Greek personal male names were the praenomzna, and so persons bearing these names in the New Testament would normally not be Roman citizens. Judge therefore agrees with my statement that those Jews in the New Testament who bore these names - Marcus and Lucius - would almost certainly not be Roman citizens. The nomen, however, being the inherited family name, 'clearly marks a person as a Roman citizen by birth.'"O In the case of a woman, this would be her only name. So Judge says, of the three women 'around Paul' who bear a Roman nomen (Junia [Rom 16:7], Julia @om 16:15], Claudia [2 Tim 4:21]) that the 'feminine form' is 'decisive' for their identity as Roman citizens. However, as we have already noted, he does not seem to recognize that Junia is Jewish. We shall return to the significance of this shortly. Of the cognomina Judge writes, in a passage significant for our topic: The Latin cognomina of the New Testament should imply Roman citizenship, except where they are referred to in the text as extra names. Jews in particular might adopt a fine-sounding Latin name (e. g. Justus) for common use, their Hebrew one perhaps being echoed in the lingua francs."'

Of his own examples of people around Paul who are called in the New Testament by Latin cognomina, this would suggest that Niger (Acts 13:l: 'Simeon who was called NigerJ) and Justus (Col 4:ll: 'Jesus who is called Justus') were not Roman citizens. Both, of course, are Jewish. But the same principle would imply that Paul himself (Acts 13:9: 'Saul, also known as Paul') was not a Roman citizen. But since it is the same author who both informs us that Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 16.37-38) and that the name Paulus was additional to his Hebrew name Saul, the principle can only mean that people named in this way need not have been Roman citizens, not that they could not have been. So on these grounds we cannot know whether Simeon Niger and Jesus Justus were Roman citizens or not. In Niger's case, however, there is a different reason for doubting that he was a Roman citizen. Although the Latin word suggests it was used in imitation of the Latin cognomen Niger, it is most likely to have functioned as a nickname, referring to the colour of the man's skin or hair, and used to distinguish him from others called Simeon.'12

"O

"'

'I2

Judge, 'The Roman Base,' 111. Judge, 'The Roman Base,' 113. Margaret H. Williams, 'The Use of Alternative Names by Diaspora Jews in Graeco-

Additional Note

391

Also questionable in Judge's statement is the insistence that Roman cognomina 'should imply Roman citizenship, except where they are referred to in the text as extra names.' It is not clear why we should expect the texts always to refer to such people by both names. In the cases of Niger and Justus this is done because their Hebrew names (Simeon/Simon and Jesus) were extremely common Jewish names, in the diaspora113as well as in Palestine, and their Latin alternative names serve to distinguish them from others. But Silvanus/Silas is never in our literature called 'Silas who was called Silvanus.' Precisely because the names were alternatives they would both be used together only for specific reasons. In Acts 13:9 the reason is that Luke is marhng the point at which Saul, known by his Hebrew name in Palestine and Antioch, switched, as he embarked on his mission to Gentiles as well as Jews in the diaspora, to his Roman name as his common usage. In Romans 16 Paul evidently saw n o need to refer to any of the persons he greets by two names, but this does not mean that none of them had an alternative name. In the case of Rufus, whom Judge thinks must be a Roman citizen because he bears a Latin cognomen and no additional, non-Latin name, we are justified in suspecting that he was Jewish precisely because Rufus was a popular name among Jews, used because of it was heard as a sound-equivalent of Reuben. The Latin and Hebrew names would be considered alternative forms of the same name, and naturally, addressing him in Rome,l14Paul uses the Latin version. Thus, if he was Jewish, Rufus need not have been a Roman citizen, though, like Paul / Saul, he might have been. Finally, we return to the case of Junia. Since the only female Latin names were nomina, a Jewish woman (or her parents) wanting to adopt a Latin name could only give her a nomen. Since Junia was undoubtedly Jewish and since Paul need not have called her by both her names, if she had an additional name, we cannot tell whether she was a Roman citizen or not. With the nomen of a Jewish woman, we are in the same position as with the cognomen of a Jewish man: we cannot tell whether these people were Roman citizens or not. These cases introduce a further element of uncertainty as to the real significance of the large proportion of people 'around Paul' who bore Latin names. Roman Antiquity,'JSJ 38 (2007) 307-327, here 315-316. She refers both to this Niger and to a Jew of the Egyptian diaspora: 'Theodotus, also called Niger.' "3 Margaret H. Williams, 'Palestinian Personal Names in Acts,' in Richard Bauckham ed., The Book of Acts zn Its Palestznlan Settzng (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995) 79-1 14, here 87,93. ' I 4 ?'he way I'aul speaks of Rufus's mother (Rom 16:13) implies that Paul had known the family either in Jewish Palestine or in one of the Greek cities of Syria, Asia Minor or Greece. Rufus was therefore probably not a native of Rome.

392

20. P'zul and O t h c r Jew, wrtl? Lattn iYrrrnrs 171 the Nczi

7ixstamolr

Iiowcvcr, there is a further consideration, for which we must turn to another recent article, by one of the foremost experts on ancient Jewish ononiastics: Margaret H. Williams, 'The Use of Alternative Narnes by Diaspora Jews in Graeco-Roman Antiquity,'JSJ 38 (2007) 307-327. She argues that the use of alternative rlanles was considerably less common in the diaspora than in Palestine, and that there are significant differences from I'alestine in the kinds of names that were used as alternative names and the reasons for using them. She provides a valuable list of 54 diaspora Jcws, from the literary, documentary and epigraphic sources, w h o are recorded as bearing t w o names (mostly with some variant of the formula, 'who is also called ...').'IiThe rnajority have a Hebrew name and a Greek o r Latin one, but some have no Semitic iiarne. O n l y one is a case of sound-equivalents in Ilebrew and Latin o r Greek: Saul / Ibul, for whom Williams cites the verse of Acts (13:')) that attributes both rianies to him. Does this evidence that alternative narnes were co~nparativelyuncommon arnong Jews in the diaspora support the view that those Jcws whose only recorded nanies are a Latin cogno)ne~zare likely to have been Roman citizens o r freedmen? 'This must depend partly on whether the contexts i r ~which these names are found are contexts, such as epitaphs and formal inscriptions, where we niight expect both names to be used if there were two. We sliould not necessarily cxpect tliiq in all litersry o r epigraphic contexts. But, furthermore, in cases where the t w o names were sound-equivalents and generally treated as alternative forms of the sanie name, we need not cxpect both names t o appesr even in highly formal contexts of naming. We must also reckori with tlie possibility tti'ir only the Greek o r Latin name was ever actually used, but had been chosen because it was the sound-equiv,~lentof a well-known Hebrew name and for this reason considered an appropriate Greek o r Latin name for a Jew. This may have been the case for rliany Jcws called Rufus o r Justus. The same could also be true of names, such as Theodotus or Theodorus, which were popular with Jews because they had a similar niea~iingt o well-known EIebrew iianies, though none of tlie New Testament Jews bearing ,I I.atin name seeriis to fsll into this category. O u r conclusion must be that it is very difficult t o tell wliether a Jewish man bearing 1' I.atiti cogrzomen as the only name attested for him in the sources o r a Jewish wornsri bearing a Latin norvzen as the only name sttested for her in the sources was really a Rolnan (i.e. citizen o r Juriian Latin). Judge's conclusions need t o tske more account of specifically Jewish onom,~sticpractices.

2 1. The Horarium of Adam and the Chronology of the Passion Annie Jaubert is best known t o N e w Testament scholars for her pioneering work o n early Jewish calendars and her innovative theory about the chronology of the passion. Even though the latter as a whole has not won much support, it has undoubtedly stimulated fresh thinking about the topic. T h e present article is a minor contribution t o the issue of understanding the chronologies of the Gospel passion narratives by way of a neglected Jewish work about the hours of the night and the J a y which, I shall argue, can be fairly confidently dated within the Second temple period.

I . Introduction to the Horariuwz of Adam T h e work which I am here calling the t I o r a r i u n ~of Adam is a catalogue of the hours of the night and the day, detailing how the worship of G o d by all his creatures takes place throughout the twenty-four hours, in most cases specifying which of the creatures worships o r petitions G o d at each hour. It is widely attested in several languages and forms: three recensions in Syriac,' t w o in Greek,l t w o in Arabic,' one in Garshuni,Qwo in

" First publication: Kristianski] Vostok [Christian East] 4 (X) (2002) 413-439 (this volume is in honour of Annie Jaubert). ~ ofildam: Ari Examination of Edited and translateci by S. I:. Robinson, 7 % fistarnent the Syriacancf Grcck Traditions (SHI.I)S; Chico, California: Scholars I'rcss, 1982) 45-104. A more idiomatic translation crf the first Syriac recension, also by Robinson, appears in J. H. Cliarlesworth, The O l d &~strlmmtP~twdepi~raphtz, vol. 1 (Idondon: Darton, Longma: & Todd, 1983) 993. - Edited arid translated by Robinson, The fistiznlent, 105-133. T h e second recension is a passage from the Cowipendi~mof <;eorge Ccdrenus, which n o doubt abbreviates a text of the Iiorariurn, but does specify what happens at each hour of the day. Since it frcqucntly agrees with the Syriac rcccnsioris against the first Creek recension, it is clearly independent of the latter, and its value as a witness t o the text is disniissed too quickly by 139. Robinson, The Ti~strzmc~nt, ' Shorter recension edited by
Ethiopic,j t w o in Armenian" and o n e in Georgian.' Its p o p u l ~ r i t yin Christian use may be ciuc partly t o nionastic interest in the theme of worship throughout the hours of day and night, as well as t o its cornbination with other Adam literature, while in o n e Greek recension and o n e Armcnian it hds been aciaptcd t o magical use. These last t w o recensions form a quite distinct forni of the work, distinguished especially by the fact that names are given t o all the hours and instructions about the talism,lns that can be rnadc during them arc addeci. In this form ,ilso the work is 'lscribed not t o Adani, but t o Apolloriiu, of Ty'111a.~'There is now scholarly agrcenient that thi\ form of the work is a secondary and relatively late dcvelopnicnt. All other versions except thc E'alasha Ethiopic and the Garshuni' 'Ire ascribed t o Adani, anci in most of these cares (all except thc second Armenian rcccnsion) the [Iorarium forms the first part of the 'restarnent of Adarn.13 This and B R.igattt. I 1' C 'iz*i~rtz,rdebt fil\ort (Studtum Bthllcurn l-r;tric1cc.1riurn;CoIIcctro h l r n ~ r 25; Jerus.2lcm: 1.raricrscan I'r~ntrng I'rcss, 1980) rcpuhlrsli Gth\on's text, \trth ltalran tr.~r~.ilatron (474")). I trrlgcr rccctlslon publrshctf .lnd trarlslatcd b\ <;. 'rt'roupc.~u,'Unc Vcrslon Ardbc Ju "*I1.,t,tn1cnt d'i\ctam,"' 111 K.-C;. C o q u t ~ ed., i ,lle1atige, tintotwe Glrtllirrcnto?ir (<'.iI~tersd'Or~critalrsriie20, ( I ~ I I ~ \ I'. I ('rawer, : 1088) 3-14, 'incl transl.1ted trom a drttercnt ni.~nuscr~pt I>\ I . <;.~lhratr,'11 'kst.1rnento dl Adsriio 111irn C:odrcc i\rlbo clella B1b1rothcc.i Anlhrosrana,' in 1 hlnnns and I-. I\llrata cd., I IY!) C,hn,ttrr?llt~1 , ~Co,zti.xt ~ I.ranc~\canurn:Collectro ,2lonuntcnts crtrd Documrur, (b .lc$ta I \, S t u d ~ u nBrhlrcurn hfaror 38; Icrur.ilem: I.ranctsc.111 I'rtnting I'rccs, 1003) 4 5 0 4 7 2 l ' h e longer rcccncron I S .I con\rrlc.rahl\ expanded anif rcwrrttcr1 kerrrori ot the t lorarrum. I nglrsh tt.lr~~l.lt~r)ll 111 A Mtngatln, \\i)orlb)ooke (turftc\ 111 I \i,ro?z of Tl7c~ophtlr4,, 2 Apocizlypsc~of P c ~ r o(Camhr rdgc: I-icftcr, 103 1) 1 1 1-1 15. f-rrst rcccn.iron cdrtctl b\ Bezold, 'L)a\ aral)rscli-athropt\chc 'k\tanicnturn'; 1.rcnch translatron In \ Grcbaut, 'I rttcrdturc f throplcnrlc I'.;cudo-<:let1icr1t1rieI l l . 'ikaductron ciu Q.llcnicntos,' R O C 16 (I'll I) 172-174 ('l'hc I-nglrsh translatron 111 I-.I\. W. Budge, I b e Hook of rhe C1z.c oj lici~,tocs11ondon. Kclrgtous Tract \ocrct\, 1927) 245-245, IS tran\latccl fro111Bczold'r Ar.ihlc .itrd I thtoptc t c x t ~ . )A I.ald5h.1 \ C I ~ I O I I ( ~ I i ~ cdoes l i 110t see111 t o Il.>\e hccn rlotrccci 111 studre\ ot tlic li.st.~nlerlt ot A t l a n ~I)S translated In W. L c.ilau, f nliz,l~rr A ~ r r b o l o g(Y,~lc ~ Jud.lrca 5crrcs 6, N c u f l.i\ en / I oridon: Yale Unr\ crrrtt Press 1951) 118 II'), fro111the I . t l i r o p ~tc\t ~ pi~hlrslicdh \ J f I.~lc\\,f',rc*rc*sdcs Inlirshirs (P.~rts, 1877). ' 1.11st I ccerisrotl edrrcd .ind tr .~n\l.itedh \ hl. 1 . Stolic, i l ~ ? n ~ + t t tApoc~y/)l)~i tz~l Kekittwg to Pi~trt~qtcl~, ,utd I'topl~c'ts U c ~ u s ~ I e ~Isr.1~1 i i . Ac.ltlcrn\ ot \crcnccs, 1982) 39-77; second rcccn\ron etittcd . ~ n dtr.irisl.ttcd I)\ hl. 1 . \tor~c,Arttlcrn~at~ rl/)otq/)hiz Relrtttng to Adurn ,znd I via(5V'I.I' 14; I crdcn. Nrtll, 1906) 107-173. ' 1 drtcd .irld tran\lated I)\ %. ~\\.~ltcIr\~lr, 'Notrcc sur unc Vcrvon Georglcnne cic In C:'i\c~ne cics 'l'recors: Appcnd~cc,' K O ( 26 (1937-28) 306-405; new ccirtton: (1. k o u r crkrdzc cd , I ,r < 'rvctttr Ircsot, l/c*?,to?z(;corgic?z?ic~(("A 0 526; Scrrptorcs lhcrrcr 23; I ou\atn I'cctcrs, 1993) 17-21, 1 rctich transl.ltron rrr J -I' hIs1hc, I n < 'ricrtze dcs lrcsnrs \ o),zo?j ( ~ i ~ ~ r g t t ~(< ? i \( ? t c0 ~ 527, \crlptorcs 1hcr1e124, 1 otr\n~ri:I'cctcrs, 10'12) 13 -1 5 . ' l%.~lrri.r\in i\lrncnran I ' I hr\ ts c i \ ~ r t b et ~o iIc\us C h r ~ s t 1-Iic .iccoriti \ \ r u e reCcrv,IoIr, the ~ C C O I I i\rrncnr,itl ~I rcccrlslon, ant1 the I alaslla 1 tht ~ p r ccorit'lin orllt tlic hours ot thc ntglit, \\ lirle Lcorgc C'cdrcnus' report of the coiltent.; (secorld Crrcck rcccrl\ron) refers or111 t o thc hours ot the cia\. 1\11 \erston\ corltatrlrrig the Iioirr\ ot both nrgllt .1nd d . ~ \ pl.irc thosc ot the ii.i\ f ~ r s t c\ccpt , the firct \ ~ r t . ~\ct>ton, c

'

rfcp,

'-

I . Introductior~to the Horarirrm of Adant

395

latter work comprises the Horarium and a Prophecy given by Adam to his son Seth before Adam's death and burial." In one case only (the first Syriac reccnsion) a third component is added: an Angelology.'qt is very probable that the Horarium originated separately from the patently Christian Prophecy, and it may not have been ascribed to Adam until it was combined with the Prophecy. References to the priests (N7, N12, DlO)" are anachronistic as spoken by Adam, while the two passages in which Adam speaks in the first person, recalling his experiences in paradise (N4, N5), could be additions to the text. The problem of the relationships between the many forms of the text is too complex to be discussed here. Stephen Robinson makes a good case for regarding the first Syriac recension as the most original of the texts we have," but he also correctly points out that while this entails 'the overall priority of recension I,' 'any of the three [Syriac recensions] may preserve the original reading at a given point.'I5 The same may be said, with greater caution, of some of the versions in other languages, especially Greek 2 (George which most likely preserves the original order, following the Jewish understanding that a twenty-four hour day begins at sunset. In the first Arabic, Garshuni, first Ethiopic and Georgia11 recensions, theTcstanient of Adam itself is incorporated into the work known as the Cave of Treasures, which in its Syriac texts does not contain the Testament of Adam. In the first Arabic, Garshuni and first Ethiopic recensions, the Cave of Treasures is in turn incorporated into the Rook of the Rolls (Ethiopic Qalementos). S.-M. Ri, 'L,e Testament d'Adam et la Caverne des Tresors,' Onentalta Chnstnna Analects 236 (1990) 11 1-122, argues that the Testament of Adam is a work supplementary t o the Cave of 'Treasures, forming an exegesis of the text of this latter work, but the argument is unconvincing. T h e hours of prayer in the Horarium d o not in fact correlate with the times of Adam's first day according t o the Cave of Treasures 5:1 o r with the times of Christian prayer attached t o the IHorarium, in a clearly secondary development, in the Garshuni version (Mingana p p 116-1 18). l 2 For a survey of scholarship o n the Tcstamerlt of Adam u p t o 1982, see Robinson, The zstamevtt, chapter 2. It is unfortunate that Robinson's book was published in the same year as Stone's edition of the first Armenian recension, s o that neither was able t o refer t o the other's work. In Robinson's article, 'The Testament of Adam: An U dated Arbeitsbericht,'/SP 5 (1989) 95-100, he was still unaware of Stone's work, and in z c t the article adds nothing t o his survey of scholarship in his 1982 book, except for a reference t o M. Beit-Arif's unpublished Hebrew University dissertation o n the Perek Shirah. See also M. F. Stone, A History of the L~teratuveof Adam and F v e (SBI.EJIL 03; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 77,85-87,95-97,100,108-109,111. l 3 I follow Stone In des~gnatingthe sections of the text that deal with the hours of the night N1-N12 and those that deal with the hours of the day D l - D 1 2 . Robinson's treatment of the hours of the night as chapter 1 (divided into 12 verses) arid the hours of the day as chapter 2 (divided into 12 verses) is potentially confusing because only in Syriac 1 d o the hours of the ni ht precede the hours of the day. (The confusion occurs in Robinson's book ioelf: in the t r s t paragraph o n p 140, the references t o chapter 2 should be t o chapter I, and vice versa). Robinson, The Testament, 102-1 04. l 5 Robinson, The Testament, 103.

''

396

21. The Horatlurn of Adam and the Chronology of the Passion

Cedrenus' summary of the text he knew), which Robinson dismisses rather too ~avalierly.'~ The fact that it uniquely agrees with Syriac 1 at Dl suggests that it reflects an early form of the text, and this may also throw some doubt o n Robinson's argument that the Horarium was first composed in Syriac. While there can be no doubt, in view of Robinson's evidence," that Greek 1 is derivative from the Syriac tradition, Greek 2 (which is clearly quite independent of Greek 1) could be evidence of a Greek Vorlage behind the Syriac. In such a short text the absence of indications in the Syriac of translation from GreekI8 may not be very significant. Alternatively, a Hebrew original still remains a possibility. 2. The Horariurn of Adam: translation and notes

For our purposes in this article it will not be necessary t o establish the original text of the Horarium in every detail. For the convenience of readers I reproduce below Stephen Robinson's translation of Syriac l,I9 with some notes and comments on other readings in cases where they may be preferable. The hours of the night ( N l ) The first hour of the night: the praise of the demons. And in that hour they neither injure nor harm any human being. (N2) The second hour: the praise of the doves. This reading is unique to Syriac I . Other forms of the text refer here to fish and other aquatic animals and omit fish from N3. Syriac 1 i inciuston of the fish in N3 is odd, since 'the depths' of that hour are probably not the seas, but the subterranean regions. Probably other forms of the text are in this respect preferable to Syriac 1. But cf Psalm 148:7-8, which may be the source, and 44401 Frags. 1-2 7:8-9.

(N3) The third hour: the praise of the fish and of fire and of all the depths below. (N4) The fourth hour: the trishagion of the seraphim. Thus I used to hear, before I sinned, the sound of their wings in paradise when the seraphim were beating them with the sound of their trishagia. But after I transgressed against the law, I did not hear that sound any longer. (N5) The fifth hour: the praise of the waters that are above the heavens. Thus I myself used to hear, with the angels, the soundZoof mighty waves, a sign which would inspire them t o raise a mighty hymn of praise to the Creator.

Ih

l7 l9

Robinson, The Testament, 139. Robinson, The Testament, 139-1 40. Robinson, The Testament, 140. From Robinson, The Testament, 53-59. Or, 'both the angels (and) the sound' (Robinson's note).

1. Introduction to the Norarium of Adam

397

(N6) The sixth hour: the construction of clouds and the great fear which occurs at midnight. The reading of Erhiopic 1 - 'the clouds worship the Lord in fear and trembling' (Arabic I is similar) - may be preferable, since the fear of midnight in Syriac I seems to have no connexion with the clouds. (N7) The seventh hour: the viewing of their powers when the waters are sleeping. And in that hour the waters are taken up and the priest of God mixes them with consecrated oil and anoints those who are afflicted and they rest. Syriac 35 version of the first sentence (supported by Armenian 2 and broadly by several other forms of the text) may be preferabk: 'thepowers of the earth are resting when the waters arc1sleeping.' (N8) The eighth hour: the springing up of the grass of the earth while the dew is descending from heaven. (N9) The ninth hour: the praise of the cherubim. AN other forms of the text refer to angels variously described, partly in language corresponding to 0 7 and D9 in Syriac I . Priority here is hard to establish. (NIO) The tenth hour: the praise of human beings and opening of the gate of heaven where the prayers of all living things enter and worship and depart. And in that hour whatever a man will ask from God is given to him when the seraphim and the roosters beat their wings.

(NI I ) The eleventh hour: joy in all the earth while the sun is rising from paradise, and shining forth upon creation. (N12) The twelfth hour: the awaiting of incense and the silence which is imposed upon all the ranks of fire and of wind until all the priests burn incense to his divinity. And at that time all the powers of the heavenly places are dismissed.

The hours ofthe day (Dl) The first hour of the day: the petition of the heavenly beings. Thrs rs supported by Greek 2 (Cedrenus: 'the first prayer 1s completed In heaven '), but all other f o m s of the text refer to prayer by humans. Syrrac I u probably more ortgtnal, allmvng Dl and D2 to correspond to the first two verses of Psalm 148. Other f o m s ofthe text may be ~nfluencedby Chrzstran practtce of prayer at the first hour of the day2' (D2) The second hour: the praycr of the angels.

(D3) The third hour: the praise of flying creatures. (D4) The fourth hour: the praise of the beasts. The best reading of Syriac 3 has 'creeping things' here at D4 and 'cwery beast'at DS, while Greek 2 has 'domestic animals' here and 'wild animals' at DS. In either case D2,D3 and 0 4 would then correspond to three ofthe four categories of creature 2 1 Cf. the references to this practice in the Christian supplement the Garshuni version: Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies III, 1 16-1 17.

to

the Horarium in

398

21. The Horarium of Adam and the Chronology of the Passion

in Psalm 148:lO. Arabic I, Ethiopic 1, and GarshuniaN refir in 0 4 to spiritual beings, meaning probably creatures with souls (so Georgian). (D5)'The fifth hour: the praise which is above heaven. This odd reading has no support from other forms of the text, which all (except Greek I ) refer in some way to animals here (see note above on D4). (D6) The sixth hour: the praise of the cherubim who petition against the iniquity of our human nature. (D7) The seventh hour: the entry and exit from before God, when the prayers of all that lives enter and worship and depart. Greek 2 and Ethiopic 1 refer to the entry and exit of angels, doubtless understood as carrying the prayers. (D8) The eighth hour: the praise of fire and of the waters. Instead offire and waters, various manuscripts of Syriac3 have 'heavenly and fiery beings, ' 'heaven and earth and fiery beings,' 'sun and fire' and 'heaven and fire' (cf: Arabic I: 'all heavenly beings and fiery creatures'; Ethiopic 1: 'heavenly and shining beings: Georgian: 'winged beings of heaven '). If some form of this reading is original, the reference may be to the heavenly bodies (4 Ps 148:3), otherwise surprisingly absent from the Horarium (except for the reference to the sun's rise in NI1).

(D9) The ninth hour: the supplication of those angels who stand before the throne of majesty. (DlO) The tenth hour: the visitation of the waters when the Spirit is descending and

brooding over the waters and over the fountains. And if the Spirit of the Lord did not descend and brood over the waters and over the fountains, human beings would be injured, and all whom the demons saw, they would injure. And in that hour the waters are taken up and the priest of God mixes them with consecrated oil and anoints those who are afflicted and they are restored and they are healed. ( D l 1) The eleventh hour: the exultation and the joy of the righteous. (D12) The twelfth hour, the hour of the evening: the supplications by human beings, for the gracious will of God,22the Lord of all.

3. Affinities with early Jewish literature and practice In this section we shall build a case for the origin of the Horarium within Second Temple Judaism by demonstrating its affinities with pre-Mishnaic Jewish literature and practice. O n e particular feature of the text (discussed in [6] below) will enable us to be more precise and to date the original Horarium in the period before 70 CE. 22

Lit. 'which is with God' (Robinson's note).

3. Afinrties v ~ i t hearly Jrdish literature and practice

( I ) The praise of all neation.

The Horarium is a particular kind of expression of the conviction that all creatures praise their Creator. That conviction is found in the Hebrew Bible most fully in Psalm 148 (cf. also Pss 19:l; 96:ll-13; 98:7-9; 103:20-22; 150:6; Isa 42:lO-12; and in early Jewish literature: Tob 8 5 ; 2 Enoch 5155; 4 4 2 8 7 Frag. 3; 4Q501 Frag. 1:1-5). Psalm 148 calls on the various creatures, mentioned one by one in some detail, from the heavens to human beings, all to praise God their Creator. This psalm is evidently the most important scriptural source of the H ~ r a r i u m , 'as ~ the following allusions show:

The Song of the Three among the Greek Additions to Daniel is also deeply indebted to Psalm 148.24The Horarium shows no specific correspondences with the Song of the Three beyond those which derive from common dependence on Psalm 148 (which might be a minor indication that the Horarium does not come from a context in which the Septuagint was commonly used), but the resemblance shows that it is not difficult to envisage the origins of the Horarium in Second Temple Judaism. Also in the tradition of Psalm 148 is the Qumran text 44504 Frags. 1-2 7:4-9. The idea of the praise of God by all his creation is also expressed in another Jewish work, Perek Shirah.15 Here each of category of the creatures (e. g. each kind of plant or bird) has its own hymn of praise, usually consisting of an appropriate sentence or two from the Hebrew Bible. This kind of attribution of biblical sentences is characteristic of rabbinic Midrash and probably dates the Perek Shirah after the Second Temple period. Nevertheless it is further evidence that the theme of creation's praise is at home in the Jewish religious tradition.

" T h e other major source appears to be the Genesis 1 creation narrative. C.A. Moore, Daniel, Esthrr, and Jeremrah: The Adcittrons (AB 44; N e w York: Doubleday, 1977) 70-73,75. 25 M. Beit-Ari6, 'Perek Shirah,' Encyclopedm Judu~ca, vol. 13 (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972) 274-275.

400

21. The Horanum of Adam and the Cl~ronologyofthe Passion

(2) Praise a t each hour of day a n d night. Neither Psalm 148 nor the Song of the Three assigns the praises and prayers of the various parts of creation t o the various hours of night and day as the Horarium does. But there are a few traces of this idea in early Jewish literature. In the Apocalypse of Abraham, the angel Yahoel includes among his powers and responsibilities: 'I teach those w h o carry the song through the medium of man's night of the seventh hour' (10:lO). From 18:11 we know that those he teaches the song are the living creatures (the Hayyot) o r the cherubim, while the song he teaches them is evidently 'the song of peace which the Eternal O n e has in himself' (1 8:ll; cf. J o b 252). T h e text is too obscure to permit any very secure conclusions, but the reference t o the seventh hour of the night would suggest some relationship to the kind of traditions we find in the Horarium. T h e allusion is evidently not to precisely the same traditions, since in the Horarium the praise of the cherubim occurs at the ninth hour of the night (according to Syriac 1, though not other forms of the text) and / o r at the sixth hour of the day (according t o most forms of the text). But in the latter case it is described as 'the praise of the cherubim w h o petition against the iniquity of o u r human nature' (D6 Syriac I), which might suggest a connexion with 'the song of peace' sung by the cherubim according t o the Apocalypse of Abraham (1 8:11). T h e Life of Adarii and Eve explains that Eve sinned when her guardian angels were not with her: 'the hour drew near for the angels w h o were guarding your mother to go u p and worship the Lord' (Greek 7:2; cf. 17:1; Latin 33:2).26 A similar reference t o a specific time of the day at which the angels worship G o d occurs in the shorter recension (B) of the Testament of Abraham: Michael 'was taken u p into the heavens to worship before God, for at the setting of the sun all angels worship God' (4:4-5). However, the fact that this point is not made in the longer recension (A), along with the fact that the Apocalypse of Paul expresses the belief that all the angels worship G o d at sunset (long Latin recension 7), means that w e may here be dealing with a Christian contribution t o the Testament of Abraham. Finally, mention may be made of 2 Enach 5 1 5 - 6 (recension J), where the injunction to humans to worship G o d in his temple in the morning, at noon, and in the evening, is followed by the reason: 'For every kind of spirit glorifies him and every kind of creature, visible and invisible, praises him.' T h e association of this statement with the hours of prayer in the temple could perhaps suggest the kind of sequence of human prayers and those of other creatures at various hours that we find in the Horariurn.

"

See the various versions in G. A. Anderson and hl. t.Stone cd., A Synopsrs o f t h r Hooks of Adam dnd Eve: Second Kmrsed Edition (SBL-EJIL 17; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 36,37,51.

3. Affinities with early Jewish literature and practice

401

Two early Christian apocalypses, quite plausibly dependent on Jewish sources, also contain similar ideas. In a passage, already mentioned, of the Apocalypse of Paul (long Latin recension 7), humans are exhorted to 'bless the Lord God unceasingly, every hour and every day; but especially at sunset,' since this is the hour at which all the pardian angels of men and women go to worship God and to bring before God all the deeds which people have done during the day.27This is said to be the first hour of the night. They do the same at the twelfth hour of the night. Previously unnoticed in this connexion is a passage in the Coptic Mysteries of John. When the apostle wishes to know how the hours of day and night are ordered, he is told that twelve cherubim each sing a hymn that lasts for one hour of the day. The hours of the night are similarly ordered, but by animals rather than angels: 'when the beasts, and the birds, and the reptiles pray, the first hour is ended. When the second hour is ended, the beasts pray [again?], and so on until the twelfth hour of the night; it is the animals of God which set limits to them.'28 This is clearly not dependent on the Horarium of Adam, but belongs to a similar world of ideas about a daily liturgy of the creatures.

(3) The times of human prayer.29 The best evidence from the Second Temple period shows that devout Jews prayed at home at the very beginning and at the end of the daylight hours (Wis 16:28; Sir 39:5; Josephus, Ant. 4:212; SibOr 3:591-592; Ps-Aristeas 160, 304-305; 1QS 10-10; l Q M 14:13-14; Ps Sol 6:4; 44503). These times were understood to be set by Deuteronomy 6:7 as the times when the Shema' was to be recited ('when you lie down and when you rise') (Josephus, Ant. 4:212-2 13; Ps-Aristeas 160; 1QS 10:10). The Shema' was accompanied by the decalogue and prayers, and this act of worship was normally the first thing to be done on waking and the last thing done before sleeping. Since most people got up at or even just before first light in order to make the most of all the daylight hours, the morning prayers would have preceded sunrise (this is explicit in Wis 16:28; cf. Ps 57:s) by as much as an hour or more. Later the Rabbis in the Mishnah rule that the Shema' must be said between first light and sunrise, and debate exactly what constitutes first light 27 This idea is also found in the Greek version of 3 Baruch 11-16, where it is clearly a secondary addition to a text which originally referred to angels bringing the prayers (not the deeds) of humans to God, as in the Slavonic version of these chapters. 28 Translated in E. A. W. Budge, Coptic Aponypha in the Dtalect of Upper Egypt (London: British Museum, 1913) 254. 29 O n this subject, see especially D. F. Falk, 'Jewish Prayer Literature and the Jerusalem Church in Acts,' in R. Bauckham ed., The Book of Acts in its Palestintan Setting (Carlisle: Paternoster / Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995)267-301.

402

21. The Horarium of Adam and the Chronology of the Passion

and whether the third hour of the day might not be considered the later limit (m. Ber. 12). Since modern scholars often write vaguely about dawn, not distinguishing first light and sunrise, it is important to stress that the distinction was important to ancient people in general, but especially to the Jews because of its relationship to the times of prayer. These practices are clearly reflected in the Horarium, which assigns prayer to the tenth hour of the night and the twelfth hour of the day.30The former, as we shall see below, is the time of daybreak, before sunrise, which is assigned to the eleventh hour of the night. Most forms of the text of the Horarium refer to human prayer also at the first hour of the day, but, as we have noted above, the more original text is probably that of Syriac 1 and Greek 2, which refer here to prayer in heaven. There is minimal evidence for a third time of Jewish prayer also at noon (Dan 6:lO; Ps 5517; 2 Enoch 51:4;31 Acts 10:9). This might have been a minority practice of those who wished to supplement the more common twice-daily prayers. The Horarium apportions noon (the sixth hour of the day) to the cherubim rather than to humans, though the prayer of the cherubim is for humans. The curious events of the seventh hour of the day, to be discussed below, might indicate the entry into heaven of prayers offered at noon on earth, but the prayers are said to be those of all living beings, not just humans. In addition to the twice- or thrice-daily prayers whose time was determined by the daily cycle of the sun, there is also evidence of Jewish prayers at the times of the daily morning and evening burnt-offerings in the Temple in Jerusalem, or, more especially, at the times of the offering of incense which preceded the morning sacrifice and followed the evening sacrifice. Such prayers certainly took place in the Temple itself, where people assembled to pray at both times (Josephus, C. Ap. 2:193-197; Sir 50:19; Luke 1:IO; Acts 3:l). The time of the evening sacrifice changed during the Second Temple period from the last hour of daylight to the ninth hour of the day, and we have evidence from before this change of time (Ps 141:2; Ezra 95;

30 M. Philonenko, 'Prikre au soleil et liturgie angklique,' in A. Caquot ed., La Littirature Intertestamentaire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985)227, thinks that the Horarium of Adam is of Essene origin, on the grounds that it contains a liturgy to be followed throughout the hours of the night. He seems to have been misled by the second Greek recension, which includes prescriptions for making talismans at each hour. This is a magical adaptation of the Horarium, which in its more original forms does not expect humans to do anything at most of the hours of day and night. 31 This last text is apparently the only one which speaks of prayer at morning, noon and evening in the Temple (though Dan 6:10 may well indicate that Daniel prayed at the times when prayers would have been offered in the Temple). But 2 Enoch might refer to the Jewish temple at Heliopolis in Egypt.

3. Affinities with early Jewish literature and practice

403

Dan 9:21; Jdt 9:132) of people not in Jerusalem praying at the time of the evening sacrifice. But at that time this would have coincided in any case with the regular prayer around sunset. After the change, Acts 10:3,30 attests prayer at the time of the evening sacrifice (and for possible early rabbinic corroboration, cf. m. Ber. 4:1), but we have n o evidence for prayer outside the Temple at the time of the morning sacrifice. We d o not know whether prayer at the ninth hour was alternative or additional to prayer around sunset. But certainly the evidence suggests that outside the Temple itself prayer was much more commonly at sunset than in the afternoon. It is therefore unproblematic that the Horarium does not refer to the latter.

(4) The entry and exit of prayers. At the seventh hour of the day, according to the first and the third Syriac recensions, occur 'the entry and exit from before God, when the prayers of all that lives enter and worship and depart.' Although Greek 1 (Cedrenus' summary) refers to 'the entrance of the angels to God and the exit of the angels,' the reading of the Syriac recensions is probably original. It is confirmed by the Georgian ('every prayer enters before God'), while Arabic 1 has modified the text t o make it more intelligible, but without mentioning angels: 'the entrance to God and the exit from his presence, for in it the prayers of every living thing rise to the Lord.' Ethiopic 1 introduces angels: 'the angels enter before the Lord; they go out from before him, for, at this hour, the prayer of all living things rises to the Lord.' This passage may be related to the picture of the offering of prayers in heaven found in 3 Baruch 11-1 6. (The Greek and Slavonic versions of these chapters differ in that while the Slavonic speaks consistently of prayers, the Greek refers to deeds as well as prayers. Probably the Slavonic preserves the original text more faithfully, while the Greek has been influenced by the ideas found in Apocalypse of Paul 7.) There, in the fifth heaven, the seer sees the guardian angels of humans bringing their prayers to Michael, who fills a huge receptacle with them and then enters through the door into the higher heavens, where, unseen, he presents the prayers to God. H e returns to the fifth heaven bringing the angels the answers to or rewards (negative as well as positive) for the prayers, for the angels to take back to the humans whose prayers they had

32 Since the date of the change is unknown and the date of the book of Judith is uncertain, it is not possible to be sure whether this text refers to prayer at the earlier or the later time. 33 For angels bringing human prayers to God, cf. also Tob 12:12, 15; 1 Enoch 47:l-2; 99:3.

404

21. The Horarium of Adam and the Chronology of the Passion

The passage in the Horarium differs in that angels are not mentioned; instead the prayers themselves, personified, go in and out before God. It also differs in that it refers to the prayers of all living beings (presumably o n earth and in the lower heavens; the prayers of the cherubim would not need t o enter before God), not just those of humans. Perhaps we are to understand that the prayers offered at all the other hours of the day and night come into God's presence at this special hour, the seventh of the day. (If so, the passage is in tension with the meaning of the events of the twelfth hour of the night, as we shall see.) ( 5 ) Cocks at daybreak.

Some of the words of D7 occur also in NIO: D7: 'the entry and exit from before God, when the prayers of all that lives enter and worship and depart.. .' N10: 'the praise of human beings and opening of the gate of heaven [where] the prayers of all living things enter and worship and depart. And in that hour whatever a man will ask from God is given to him when the seraphim and the roosters beat their wings.'

There is reason to think that these words, original in D7, are a secondary intrusion into N10, borrowed from D7 by a scribe who thought that the significance of the 'opening of the gate of heaven' (NIO) in conjunction with 'the praise of human beings' must be that prayers enter God's presence through this gate. But parallels with the rest of the content of D7-8 show that the opening of the gate of heaven here has a different significance. There are three passages in early Jewish apocalypses in which the seers get to view sunrise and sunset from a high point in the heavens: 3 Baruch 6-8; 2 Enoch 11-15; and 1 Enoch 72. In all three cases there are gates of heaven which are opened before sunrise so that the sun may enter the world through them.34 According to 3 Baruch 6:13, angels open 36535 gates of heaven. The number must correspond to the days of the solar year, o n each of which the sun enters the world through a different gate and so at a different point on the horizon. Enoch sees six gates in the east, through which the sun comes in the morning (2 Enoch 13:2), and six in the west, through which it leaves in the evening (14:l). In probably the best text at 13:2 (recension A), he sees one of the six eastern gates open, since presumably only one is open at any one time. There is a quite elaborate scheme (defective in our texts) explaining how the sun uses different entrances and exits in different portions of the year (13:2-5). The same kind of scheme, with six gates of 34

35

There are also gates of heaven for the stars and the winds: 1 Enoch 33-36, 75-76. T h ~ figure s in the Greek version is clearly preferable to 65 in the Slavonic.

3. Affinities with ~ a r ~ ~ jliteratitre ~ i s hand practice

405

heaven in the east and six in the west (1 Enoch 72:2-3), along with a more complete and elaborate explanation of the way the sun's use of these various gates accounts for the varying lengths of day and night throughout the year, is found in the Astronomical Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 72).36 Finally, the rather fragmentary Qumran text (44503) which provides blessings t o be said at sunrise and in the evening o n each day of a month refers o n the sixth day t o 'the six gates of light' (Frags. 7-9 2), o n the fourteenth day to 'fourteen gates of light' (Frags. 1-3 3), and similarly o n each day for which the relevant portion of text survives. In the fragmentary state of the text it is difficult to know the function of these gates, but they would seem most probably to be those through which the sun enters the world. We should also notice that, according t o 2 Enoch, the light of the sun is already seen, presumably through t h e open gate of heaven, before the sun rises (14:3J). According t o 1 Enoch 72, it seems that each gate has twelve windows through which, when opened at the proper time, flames from the sun emerge ahead of the sun's o w n rising (72:3,7). In the light of these parallels, it becomes clear that the description of the events of the tenth hour of the night in the Horarium really refers to the opening of that gate of heaven through which the sun will rise in the next, the eleventh hour. Already before sunrise light from the sun comes through the gate, and it is at this time, at first light, that people get u p and recite the shema' and pray before starting their daily work. According t o the Horarium, this time of the opening of the gate of heaven is also the time 'when the seraphim and roosters beat their wings' (N10). 3 Baruch and 2 Enoch can also help us with this statement. Baruch sees a huge bird, the phoenix, whose function is t o fly in front crf the sun, absorbing some of the ciangcrous heat of the sun's rays with its wings.37 When the angels open the gates of heaven for the sun t o rise, Baruch hears this bird cry out, 'Light giver, give splendour t o the world!' (3 Bar 6:13-14). This cry, Baruch is told, is what wakens the cocks on earth, s o that they crow, announcing to the world that the sun is going to rise (6:16). A somewhat differing version of the same idea occurs in 2 Enoch, where the sun is accompanied by several flying creatures called phoenixes and chalcedras (2 Enoch 12:l-25). It is these who, before sunrise, burst into song, celebrating the imminent coming of the light-giver and announcing

" For the text and explanation see 0. Neugebauer in M. Black, The Book ofEttoth or 1 Enoch (SVTP 7; I-eiden: Brill, 1985) 389-396. " O n the wider religious historical parallels to 3 Baruch's account of the phoenix, see D.C. Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch) rn HellentsttcJrtdatsm and Early Cl~ristranrty(SV'rP 12; I.eiden: Brill, 1996) 13 1-138. The parallels between 3 Bar 6 and 2 Enoch 12-15 were first discuswd by M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota: Second Sertes (Texts and Studies 5/1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897) Ixiv-lxvii.

406

21. The Uorilnunz of Admn and the Chronology of the Passron

the morning watch, which begins at first light (151-25). 2 Enoch does not refer specifically t o the cock, but merely notes that, when the phoenixes and chalcedras sing, 'every bird flaps its wings, rejoicing at the giver of light' (15:l J). This generalizing (perhaps a secondary development in the textual tradition of 2 Enoch) obscures the more specific point made in 3 Baruch about the crowing of the cock, which was thought t o crow even before first light, announcing the dawn before any other creature o n earth is aware of its approach. (Hence the benediction that the rabbis taught should be said o n hearing the cock crow: 'Blessed is h e w h o has given the cock understanding to know the difference between d a y and night' [b. Ber. 60 b].) 2 Enoch explains this remarkable ability of the cock by supposing that, while the angels are still preparing the sun for its rising, the cock hears the cry of the phoenix when it calls o n the sun t o rise.3" It seems that the Horarium alludes t o a similar but distinct tradition, according t o which the imminent arrival of the sun was announced by the seraphini beating their wings. T h e cocks hear the seraphim and in turn beat their wings while crowing. As w e know from N4, the seraphim sing with their wings, a notion which is elsewhere found in rabbinic and Jewish mystical literature with reference t o the Hayyot o r cherubim (b. Mag. 13 b; 3 Enoch 22:15; Hek. Rab. 11:4; Pesiqta d e Rab Kahana 9:3; Pirqe d c Rabbi Eliezer 4)3') and which probably originated as an interpretation of Ezekiel 1:24-25. T h e idea may already be implied in 4QShirShabb ( 4 4 4 0 5 frags. 20-21-22). T h e Horarium connects it with the observation that cocks beat their wings while crowing. Since N 4 {in Adam's reminiscence of his time in paradise) connects the seraphim with paradise, and according t o N11 it is froni paradise" (usually, in Jewish tradition, located in the east, following Gen 2:8) that the sun rises over the earth, we should probably think of the music of the seraphim greeting the sun's arrival in paradise in preparation for its rising. Brief though the descriptions in N10-Nl1 are, they allude t o a coherent cosmological picture of t h e dawn compar,~blet o those found in 3 Baruch and 2 Enoch. 'h Another such euplamtion 1s p e n in the I'erek Shlrah, as ,unimarired by Ginzbcrg: 'When God at ni~dnlglitgoes to the plous rn I'.~radrse, all the trees tliere~nbreak out into adoration, and tlie~rsor~gsawaken the cock, wlio beg111s111 turn to pralse God' (I . G n r berg, The Laegcndsofthe j t ~ ~vol. s , I [I'h~ladel~hla: J e w ~ s hPubllcatlon Soclety of Amer~ca, 1913144); cf. also the Zohar as reported 111 1 . G n ~ b e r g'Cock,' , In I. S~rigered., TheJezw~sh Lncytlopeduz, vol. 4 (New York / l ondon: Iwnk Sr Wagnalls, 1903) 138-139: when God vis~tsparadlse to confer w ~ t hthe souls of the pious, a fire proceeds trom paradise and touches the wlngs of the ccrck, who then breaks out Into praise of God, at the \ame time calling on hunians t o pralce the I,ord ,and d o hlr sconce. h r other references a11d dlscusslon, see I). J. lialperln, The Faces of the Cl)arrot. (TSAJ 16; Tublngen: Mohr [Slebeck], 1988) 52, Early j w r s h Respotzses to f rek~cl'sV~r~otz 59 and 11.20, 122, 131-132,388-389,398. ' T f . the refcrcricc to p.arad~se111the I'errk Shtrah's account of the cock's crowing.

"

3. Affinities with early Jewish literutlrre and practice

(6) Incense and silence.

Following daybreak at the tenth hour of the night, the sun rises from paradise, bringing joy to all the earth (N11). Syriac 1 probably gives us the best text of what then happens, at the twelfth and last hour of the night: 'the awaiting of incense and the silence which is imposed upon all the ranks of fire and of wind until all the priests burn incense to his divinity. And at that time all the powers of the heavenly places are dismissed.' I have discussed this passage elsewhere, along with detailed discussion of later Jewish texts which evidence a similar t r a d i t i ~ n . ~These ' texts explain that the worship of the angels in heaven is silenced at the time when Israel prays on earth, s o that Israel's prayers may be heard by God in heaven. For example, according to b. Hagigah 12 b, the fifth heaven is full of angels who sing God's praise during the night, but are silent by day so that God may hear the prayers of his people o n earth. Here the silence begins at dawn, when Israel prays the morning prayer on rising, and presumably continues until the evening prayer at sunset has been said. Another text, in the early medieval Jewish mystical work Hekhalot Rabbati, describes how every day at the approach of dawn God sits o n his throne and blesses the Hayyot before commanding them t o be silent so that he may hear the prayers of his children Israel.42 In view of the Horarium's notion of the seraphim singing by beating their wings, a notion elsewhere in Jewish literature associated with the Hayyot, it is also worth noticing that Ezekiel 1:24-25 was interpreted to mean that it is when the Hayyot drop their wings that they fall silent (44405 frags. 20-21-22, lines 12-13; Tg. Ezek 1:24-25). In Genesis Rabbah (65:21) this is connected with the silence of the Hayyot during the times when Israel says the Shema' (at dawn and sunset). Dating from periods after the destruction of the Second Temple, these texts refer t o the angelic worship in the heavenly temple and to the prayers of Israel o n earth, but not t o the ritual of the Jerusalem Temple. What is distinctive about the Horarium is that it refers to the silence of all the ranks of angels in the heavens ('all the ranks of fire and wind' alludes t o Ps 104:4, the basis of a Jewish notion of two kinds of angels: those of fire and those of R. Bauckham, The Climax Propheqt: Stwdres on the Rook of Rmclntron (Edinburgh: T. & 'T.Clark, 1993) 70-83. See also P. Wick, "I'here Was Silence in Heaven (Kevelation 8:l): An Annotation to Israel Knohl's "Between Voice and Silence,"'JBL 117 (1998) 512-514 (written without reference to my work), who connects Rev 8:l and Horarium of Adam N12 with the fact that sacrifices took place in silence in the Jerusalem Temple (as shown by I. Knohl, 'Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship between Prayer and Temple Cult,'JBL 115 I19961 17-30), but fails to take full account of the fact that in Horarium of Adam N12 it is the worship in heaven that is silenced while the prayers of peoplc on earth are offered. ' I I? Schafer, 0bersetzung der Hezkhalot-Lzteratwr 11, $881-334 (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987) 112-1 13.

408

21. The Norunum ofAdnm and the Chronology ofthe Passion

wind; cf. 2 Bar 2 1:6; ApAbr 1 9 6 ) until the priests o n earth b u m incense. In its position at the twelfth hour of the night, this can only refer t o the daily morning service in the Jerusalem Temple, in which the burning of incense o n the altar of incense took place soon after daybreak between the slaughter of the sacrificial lamb and its offering as the daily morning burnt-offering. This passage in the Horarium is indubitably Jewish rather than Christian, since there is n o evidence of liturgical use of incense by Christians until the late fourth century,43while, even when it was used, it did not have the key significance which the Horarium's singling out the offering of incense for mention requires. In the daily Temple ritual the incense offering did have this significance, as accompanying,~symbolizing and assisting the prayers of the people. If this -passage - in the Horarium is indubitably Jewish rather than Christian, it also most probably dates from before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. The refeience t i t h e incense offering as current practice cannot be explained by the attribution of the Horarium t o Adam (whether by a Christian o r post-70 Jewish writer), since it is, of course, anachronistic as spoken by Adam. Comparison with Revelation 8:1,3-5 is also instructive. If the Horarium is a pre-70 C E text, then, among texts that deploy the theme of silence in heaven for the sake of God's hearing of prayers by humans o n earth, Revelation is chronologically the closest t o the F-Iorarium, though (in my view) Revelation should be dated after 70. It is also the only other text t o refer specifically t o the incense offering, though in Revelation 8:3 this is the incense offering performed by an angelic priest o n the altar of incense in the heavenly temple. This is clearly the heavenly counterpart of what had happened, before 70, in the Jerusalem Temple, and, like the latter, it serves the function of conveying the prayers of God's people o n earth up to the throne of God. T h e silence specifically for half an hour, t o which Revelation refers, is most plausibly explained as more o r less the time which the incense offering in the earthly Temple had taken when it was part of the daily Temple ritual. In the light of Revelation 8:1,3-5 we can recognize in Horarium N12 a pre-70 reference t o this Jerusalem Temple ritual itself along with the belief that the angelic worship of heaven ceases while the levitical priests burn the incense in Jerusalem. N12 gives the clearest indication we have of the date of the original Horarium.

'> E. Fehrenbach, 'Encens,' in F. Cabrol and I+.1,eclercq ed., Drcttonnarre dJArchiologre Chritrenne et do fa Ltturgre, vol. 5/1 (Paris: Letouzey & AnC, 1922) 6-8; E . G . C . F . Atchley, A flrstory of the Use of lnctwse rn D ~ v l n eWorshrp (Alcuin Club Collcctiuns 13; London: Longnians, Green, 1909) 81-96; S. Ashbrook Harvey, 'lnccnse Offerings in the Syriac Tranrltus Marue: Ritual and Knowledge in Ancient Christianity,' in A. J. Malherbe, F. W. Norris and J. W. ']Thompson ed., The Early Church tn tts Context ( E . Ferguson FS; NovTSup 90; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 176-1 79.

3. Affinities with early J ~ z i s hliterature and practice

409

For the precise timing of the morning ritual in the Temple our only substantial evidence is that of tractate Tamid of the M i ~ h n a h . ~Even ' though we cannot be sure how far this account reflects accurate memories of what happened in the Second Temple, its references to timing seem very plausible. Events in the Temple begin when the officer whose task is t o cast lots to determine which of the serving priests undertake which duties arrives: 'sometimes he came at cockcrow and sometimes a little sooner o r later' (m. Tam. 1:2). Clearing the altar of ashes and other preparations then take place in darkness. After casting lots to determine the respective duties of the priests in the acts of sacrifice, the officer 'said to them, " G o and see if the time is come for slaughtering"' (3:2). This time is first light, but there appears to be a disagreement in the Mishnah as to precise indication of this that was required. O n e view was that the priest who had observed reported, 'The morning star!' (referring t o the appearance of Venus which accompanies the first glimmerings of dawn). The other view was that he said, 'The whole east is alight,' and when asked, 'As far as Hebron?,' replied, Yes' (m. Tam. 3:2). In either case, it is not yet sunrise. Having ascertained that dawn was beginning, the priests proceed t o a variety of other duties preparatory to the sacrifice, of which the most important were the opening of the main doors of the sanctuary and, immediately following, the slaughtering of the lamb. The priests then recite the Shema' and other prayers. (Presumably at this point it is still not quite sunrise, since, according to m. Ber. 1:2, the Shema' should be recited between daybreak and sunrise.) Further lots determine who is to offer the incense that morning. The incense offering takes place o n the altar of incense inside the holy place, and the priests concerned with it come out and pronounce the priestly blessing on the assembled people. The offering of the sacrificial animal on the altar of burnt-offering follows, then the grain-offering and drink-offering are offered, immediately following which the Levites begin singing psalms and blowing trumpets. Sunrise itself is not mentioned in the account, presumably because it was not regarded as a point of time which the priests had t o note in order to proceed with the appropriate duties, but it must have occurred around the time of the incense offering. The reason the priests had to determine that dawn was beginning, before proceeding with the main preparations for sacrifice, was presumably t o ensure that the incense- and burnt-offerings would be made when there was sufficient light and as early as possible once there was sufficient light. Since the Temple faced east, the rising sun would shine into the holy place, where the incense was offered, and onto the court

''

M. Eriuy. 6:l attributes t o R. Judall b. Baba the view that the morning burnt-offering was offered at the fourth hour of the day. But in context it appears that this was a singular view held by R. Judah, and it is not easy to harmonize with m. l'amid.

410

21. The Horarium of' Adrlm and the Chronology ofthe Passion

of the priests, where the altar of burnt-offering stood. The holy place had its own lighting, the menorah lamps, but the sun may have enabled the people assembled outside the court of the priests to see the incense offered. Thus the ri~orningTemple ritual, so far as we are able to ascertain it, does correlate chronologically with the sequence in the Horarium. The events in NlO-N12 in sequence seem t o be: cock-crow, first light, morning prayers, sunrise, incense offering. More dubious is the way three hours are allotted to these events, in particular because it seems to require an hour to elapse between sunrise and the incense offering. While not impossible, this is unlikely. But the Horarium is also surprising at this point in that it treats the hour after sunrise, the hour in which the incense is said to be offered after the heavenly hosts have waited in silence for it, as the last hour of the night, rather than the first hour of the day, as it would usually have been reckoned. Hours of the night were, of course, of a length that varied through the year, consisting of a twelfth of the actual time between sunset and sunrise, but since they were also very difficult to determine with accuracy, they were also very appro xi mat^.'^ Observable events of the early morning - cock-crow, first light, sunrise, and, for people in the Temple, incense offering - were the real indicators of time in practice. Cockcrow, rather than some independent way of knowing that it was 3.00 am, signalled the beginning of the fourth of the three watches of the night; the gradually dawning light indicated the progress of these last three hours of the night; sunrise marked the beginning of the day itself. The degree of artificiality in the way the Horarium assigns these events to three hours would not have concerned ancient readers. We need not press the scheme to requiring a full hour between sunrise and incense offering, since it is the sequence that matters much more than the duration. What is interesting is that the Horarium, uniquely so far as our evidence goes, places the boundary between night and day not at sunrise itself but at the liturgical act in the Temple (the only one the Horarium mentions) that occurred probably soon after sunrise. This may be because the Horarium views the events of N1O-N12 as a unified sequence, beginning with morning prayers (N10) and ending with the incense offering that symbolically and effectively raised these prayers u p to the heavenly throne of G o d where the angels kept silent while the prayers were heard by Gad. We have noted above that, whereas people assembled in the Temple court itself would have prayed at the time when the incense was offered (cf. Luke 1:10), there is no evidence that Jews elsewhere prayed at the time of the morning incense offering rather than at first light. (Since most people started work before sunrise, this would in any case not 4 Wthe~reckoning ~ of hours of the day and night, see E.J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (revised ed.; London: Thames & [-iudson, 1980) 13-16.

3. Afjnities with early Jcwish literature and practice

41 1

have been practicable for many.) Most Jews could not have understood the link between their own morning prayers and the Temple liturgy as strictly chronological coincidence. Rather they would think that the prayers they had uttered o n rising would come into God's presence and be heard at the time of the incense offering. A degree of confirmation for this can be found in Revelation 8:3, where the prayers of the saints that the angel offers with the incense o n the heavenly altar are not being prayed at that moment. They are the prayers already in the golden incense bowls held by the twenty-four elders in 5:8.

(7)Priests anointing the sick. So far we have demonstrated how the Horarium of Adam fits well into a context in early Judaism and also that there is one strong indication of a date before 70 C E . However there is one feature of the Horarium which may be considered problematic in a Second Temple Jewish context. The events described at the seventh hour of the night and the tenth hour of the day are exceptional. They d o not consist in the praise of G o d by his creation. Rather, at the seventh hour of the night, all the natural powers on earth, including the waters, rest without movement: 'And in that hour the waters are taken up and the priest of G o d mixes them with consecrated oil and anoints those w h o are afflicted and they rest.' This is a kind of medicinal sympathetic magic: the sleeping waters bring rest t o those w h o cannot rest for pain. At the tenth hour of the day the Spirit of God descends and broods over waters and springs (with allusion t o Gen 1:2), preventing the harm the demons would otherwise d o (by poisoning the waters?): 'And in that hour the waters are taken u p and the priest of G o d mixes them with consecrated oil and anoints those w h o are afflicted and they are restored and they are healed.' Here the water that has been healed by the Spirit brings healing to sick people. T h e difficulty these accounts pose is that there seems t o be no other evidence in Jewish literature associating priests with healing. In other ancient cultures priests were often healers, but not, it seems, in Judaism according t o extant sources. T h e only association between priests, disease and healing in the Biblc is in the case of the purification of someone with skin disease (leprosy), according t o Leviticus 14. Here the priest does use oil as part of the purification ritual (14:12, 15-18, 21, 26-29), but he has no part in the physical healing. T h e disease must be healed before the person comes to the priest t o have the healing verified and purification from ritual impurity secured. However, despite the lack of corroborative evidence, it is not difficult t o suppose that, at the level of popular practice in the localities of Palestine where most priests lived most of the time, when not officiating in

4 12

21. The Horallrtm of Adam and the Chronology of the Passion

the temple, priests may have functioned as healers because they were able to consecrate the oil that was used to anoint the sick. If the EIorarium is accepted as evidence for such practice in Second Temple Jewish Palestine, then it very interestingly provides evidence, such as hitherto been lacking,46 that Jewish practice lies behind the religious anointing of the sick t o which two New Testament passages refer (Mark 6:13; Jas 5:14).

4. Cock-crow and chronology in the Gospels According to all four Gospels Jesus on the evening of his arrest predicted that Peter would deny him three times before a cock crowed (Matt 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34; John 13:38). All four Gospels record the cock-crow itself after recounting Peter's denials (Matt 26:74; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:60; John 18:27). In Mark uniquely the prediction is that Peter's denials will occur before the cock crows twice, and the actual cock-crow, when it occurs, is said to be the second (Mark 14:30, 72). The meaning of these references t o cock-crow and the time of the night to which they refer have been much discussed. Notable discussions include those of Kamsay (1917)," Mayo (1921)," Lattey (1953),49 Kosmala (1963 and 1967-68):O Brady (1979),5' Derrett (1983),52and Brown (1994).53None of these mentions the evidence of the Horarium N10,54 which we can now recognize as one of perhaps only half a dozen references to the morning cock-crow in non-Christian Jewish literature up to the Mishnah (the others are 3 Macc 5:23; 3 Bar 6:16; m. Yoma 1:s; m. Sukk. 5:4; m. Tamid 1:2). In the following discussion the Horarium will corroborate and supplement the other evidence. We should note, first, that 'cock-crow' (gallicinium, dthexzogorpovdu) was used as the name for the third watch of the night, according to the Roman system that divided the night into four theoretically equal parts, j h Cf. I.. P. Hogan, Heabng zn the Second Temple Penod (NTCIA 21; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag/Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992) 295-296. ." W. M. Ramsay, "I'he Denials of Peter,' ExpTzm 28 (1916-1917) 276-281. '8 C. H. Mayo, 'St I'eter's 'Soken of the Cock Crow,'JTS 22 (1921) 367-370. jY C. 1-attey, 'A Note on Cockcrow,' Scrzpture 6 (1953) 53-55. 5C H. Kosmala, 'The Time of the Cock-Crow,' ASTI 2 (1963) 118-20; 'The Time of the Cock-Crow (II),' ASTI 6 (1967-68) 132-134. 5 ' Ll. Brady, 'The Alarm t o Peter in Mark's <;ospel,'JSNT4 (1979) 42-57. J. D. M. Derrett, 'The Reason for the Cock-crowings,' NTS 29 (1983) 142-144. Derrett argues that cock-crow was the time when evil spirits, who had been abroad during the hours of darkness, returned to their own abode, but remarkably he cites no evidence that actually makes this point. 5' R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messlab, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1994) 136-137,605-607. s' Nor d o they notice 3 Bar 6:16.

4. Cock-crow and chronology in the Gospels

413

two from sunset to midnight and two from midnight to sunrise. By New Testament times this Roman system of four night watches had replaced the older Israelite scheme of three watches.55The four watches are listed in Mark 13:35, which gives them their usual names ('late' or 'evening' [696], 'midnight' [p&oov6xzmv],'cock-crow' [&hExzo~ocpovia], 'early' or 'morning' [jc~o'i)).The suggestion of Mayo and others that Jesus' prediction in the Gospels referred not to the actual crowing of a cock but to this period of three hours after midnight has been adequately refuted.56We may add that Kosmala is certainly wrong when he cites m. Yoma 1:8 as an instance of 'at cock-crow' (7sl;r n w ~ p sreferring ) to the whole period of the third watch.=' This reference ('at cock-crow, or near it, either before or after it') is parallel to m. Tamid 1:2 ('at cockcrow and sometimes a little sooner or later' ), in the account of the morning service in the Temple, cited above. Neither can conceivably refer to a three-hour period. While the references to cock-crow in the Gospel passion narratives are not to the third watch of the night, there is some relevance for us in asking why the third watch was called cock-crow. Kosmala assumes it got this name because there were three regular cock-crows within it (as well as irregular cock-crows if the birds were d i s t ~ r b e d )But . ~ ~it is worth noting that the second watch was called 'midnight' because it ended at midnight. If, as we shall argue below, there was one cock-crow, shortly before first light, which was considered the cock-crow, the one on which people actually relied for telling the time, it seems more likely that the third watch was also named by what occurred at its end: the cock-crow that heralded the dawn. Pliny (N.H. 10.24.47) speaks of this cock-crow as the beginning of the fourth watch. Probably the most significant of the arguments about the actual time at which the cock-crow in the passion narratives would have occurred is that of Kosmala and consists of three major points: (1) He claims, on the basis of his own observation over twelve years, that in Jerusalem the cocks crow three times in the later part of the night, each time for three to five minutes. These crows occur with regularity at about 12.30, about 1.30 and about 2.30 a.m., and do not vary through the year, despite the fact that the time of the dawn does vary. (In addition to these three regular crowings, 55 Luke 12:38 is not an exception, pace R.T. Beckwith, Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian (AGAJU 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996) 2 n.7. People such as the servants

in the parable got up at the end of the third watch and started work around the beginning of the fourth watch. During the fourth watch the servants would not be staying awake exceptionally to await their master's return; they would be awake then in any case, even if they had gone to bed earlier in the night. 56 Brady, 'The Alarm,' 44-46; Brown, The Death, 606. 57 Kosmala, 'The Time,' 119. 58 Kosmala, 'The Time,' 118.

4 14

21. The Horanrrm of Adam and the Chronology of the P~ssron

Kosmala allows that cocks may also crow at other times if alerted by any disturbance.) (2) H e takes two ancient references to a 'second' cock-crow (Aristophanes, Eccl. 390-391; Juvenal, Sat. 9.107-108) to be to the second of the three regular crows he observed, i. e. at around 1.30 a. m. (3) Assuming this to be the most important of the three, he thinks it is the one intended in most of the references to cock-crow in Greco-Roman literature, where only one cock-crow is m e n t i ~ n e d . ~ ~ However, with reference to (I), Kosmala's observations are in apparent conflict with those of Pkre Lagrange, who often listened for the first cockcrow in Jerusalem during late March and early April. H e observed that the time of the first cock-crow varied much, but that 2.30 a. m. was the earliest time he heard it and that it occurred mast often between 3.00 and 5.00 a. m."O The conflict with Kosmala's evidence diminishes if we suppose that in every case Lagrange heard the cock-craw that Kosmala reckoned as the third, and that Lagrange was simply not listening for cock-crows as early as 12.00 o r 1.30. It would have been more helpful if both observers had noted the times of first light and the times of sunrise, but it seems likely that Kosmala's third regular crowing and 1,agrange's earliest crowing are the one that ancient writers speak of as occurring before first light and which was used as an important indication of time during the hours of darkness, marking the time at which most people woke and got up in preparation for beginning work as soon as there was sufficient light. That the time of this cock-crow and the interval between it and first light varied quite a lot would not have mattered to people who had few other means of easily telling time at night and expected only very approximate t i m ~ s . ~ ' With reference to points (2) and (3) in Kosmala, he can cite only one ancient reference to three cock-crows at night (b. Yoma 21 a) and two to two cock-crows (Aristophanes, Eccl. 30-31,390-391; Juvenal, Sat. 9.107-108; he could have added Ammianus Marcellinus 22.14.4).h2Other Greco-Roman references, like those in Jewish literature (Horarium of Adam N10; 3 Macc 5:23; 3 Bar 6:16; m. Yoma 153; m. Sukk. 5:4; m. Tamid 1:2), refer to a single event of cock-crow at the time when most people woke and got up. This cock-crow served to wake them if they had not already woken. But the texts 59

Kosmala, 'The Time ( I I),' 135-1 36.

a Lattey, 'A Note,' 53. Other observations of the times of cock-crow are reported in Ramsay, 'The I>enials,' 280 (his o w n in Asia and London) and Brady, 'The Alarm,' 48-49. Ranisay distinguishes between 'isolated crowings, at long intervals, and at last a real chorus' just before first light. Fie considers only the latter to be fairly regular. These and other writers, including, in antiquity, Cicero (De DIV.2.26,54), point out that random cock-crows could be heard at any hour of the night. The texts of these three passages; are quoted in Rrady, "I'he Alarm,' 51 11.24, 55 n. 39.

"

4. Coh-crow and chronology in the Gospels

41 5

Kosmala himself cites make it implausible that this was the second of the regular three he observed, i. e. the one around 1.30 a. m. Even on a summer day, Kosmala's third cock-crow (c. 2.30 a.m.) would surely be early enough for people to rise in time to begin work in the daylight. We should probably conclude that for most people, most of the time, there was only one cockcrow that mattered, the one that occurred sometime before first light. It is therefore also likely that this was the one occasionally called, for the sake of greater accuracy, the second cock-crow. Most people, of course, would not have been woken each night by each cock-crow, regular or not, and have counted them. Most people would sleep soundly through any cock-crows before the only one that mattered, the one that coincided with the time their body-clocks were accustomed to register as the time to wake. Like Lagrange, they would not normally be interested in earlier crowings. Poor sleepers might sometimes be wakened (and misled, for only the passage of time would reveal the mistake) by earlier cockcrows, but more often by Kosmala's second than by his first. This kind of experience might lead to the cock-crow becoming known sometimes as the second cock-crow. But, more probably, this reckoning could derive from soldiers and guards who kept watch through the night, and were interested, not in a cock-crow near the beginning of the third watch (Kosmala's first), but in Kosmala's second cock-crow, since this would indicate that a considerable part of the third watch had passed. There is one Jewish text which does seem to confirm Kosmala's observation of three regular cock-crows, the first occurring not long after midnight. This is the Perek Shirah, here summarized by Ginzberg: Great among singers of praise are the birds, and greatest among them is the cock. When God at midnight goes to the pious in Paradise, all the trees break out into adoration, and their songs awaken the cock, who begins in turn to praise God. Seven times he crows, each time reciting a verse. The first verse is: "Lift up your heads, 0 ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in. Who is the King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle" [Ps 247-81. The second verse: "Lift up your heads, 0 ye gates; yea, lift them up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, H e is the King of gloryn [Ps 249-101. The third: "Arise, ye righteous, and occupy yourselves with Torah, that your reward may be abundant in the world hereafter." The fourth: "I have waited for Thy salvation, 0 Lord!" [Gen 49:18]. The fifth: "How long wilt thou sleep, 0 sluggard? When wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?" [Prov 6:9]. The sixth: "Love not sleep, lest thou come to poverty; open thine eyes, and thou shalt be satisfied with bread" [Prov 20:13]. The seventh verse sung by the cock runs: "It is time to work for the Lord, for they have made void Thy law* [Ps 119:126].63

63

Ginzberg, Legends, vol. I, 44-45.

416

21. Tbe Horarztrrn offldxn?dnd t l ~ c(;l-,ronolog)~ of the Passron

T h e number scven is no doubt contrived, but it is notable that if we correlate the first three songs with Kosmala's three cock-crows, the first two d o not relate to wakening o r rising from bed. T h e third cock-crow is the first that constitutes a wake-up call, confirming that, of Kosmala's three, it must have been the third, not the second, that was generally regarded as the one cock-crow that actually mattered for most people most of the time. It may well be significant that the words of the cock's third crow are the only ones of the seven that d o not consist of words of Scripture. These words, summoning the righteous t o get u p and t o recite the Shema', rnay have been a traditional understanding of the one important cock-crow, t o which has been added in this account appropriate scriptural quotations t o make u p the unusual series of scven. The fourth crow perhaps greets first light o r sunrise, and the remaining three are addressed t o sluggards w h o sleep late. There remains the one text Kosmala himself cited as evidence that the Rabbis knew of the three regular cock-crows he observed: b. Yoma 21 b: We have learnt in accord with K.Shila: If one starts out o n a journey before keri'uth ha-geber [cock-crow'"], his blood comes upon his o w n head! R. Josiah says: [ f i e should wait] until he has crowed twice, sonic say: Until he has crowed thrice. What kind of cock? The average type.

Kosmala's interpretation of this passage is possible, but produces an odd meaning. The general point must be that it is dangerous t o travel in the hours of darkness. But it is no more dangerous before 12.30 than before 1.30 o r before 2.30 a. m. Another possible interpretation is that R. Shila refers t o the cock-crow, the one not long before first light. R. Josiah envisages that someone might be wakened and rnisled by an earlier cock-crow (regular o r not), and s o counsels waiting to see if the cock crows again before daybreak. Then the cock-crow will be the second one heard. The anonymous 'some' think the would-be traveller should play even safer, in case the cock-crow that wakes him o r her should turn out t o be an even earlier one. It seems that we can reasonably assume that the cock-crow, the one that mattered and the one usually referred t o in ancient literature, marked the division between the third and fourth watches of the night, which was also the time at which most people woke and got up. Since the night was envisaged as lasting twelve hours, these being each a twelfth of the actual time from sunset t o sunrise, whatever that was at the time of year, and since each watch was a three-hour segment of the night, the cock-crow would conventionally be thought t o occur three hours after midnight and three hours before the beginning of the day proper. Measured as we would measure the time, in strict clock-time, the time of the cock-crow would n o doubt vary quite a The Soncino translation leaves the phrase untranslated herc because in the context there is debate as to whether geLer means cock or man.

4. Cock-crow and chronology

IN

the Gospels

417

lot and the interval between it and sunrise would also vary according t o the time of year, and s o the third and fourth watches, divided by the cock-crow, would often be of rather unequal length. But this is to think with a temporal precision quite foreign t o the ancients w h o lacked, especially during the night, the means of being at all precise about time (a star-clock, the most accurate means of telling time during the night, would not be accessible t o most Moreover, such temporal precision was quite unnecessary for them. A conventional time for cock-crow placed it in relation t o other times quite sufficiently accurately for ordinary purposes. It is this conventional time that appears in the Horarium, which assigns cock-crow t o the tenth hour of the night, three hours after midnight and three before the beginning of the day proper. What, s o far as our evidence goes, is unusual is that the latter is marked not by sunrise but by the incense-offering, placed a conventional hour later. As we have noted, it may not have occurred in strictly measured time much after sunrise. But the Horarium here illustrates how vague even the point of transition from night t o day might be.& After all, again for most people, cock-crow and daybreak, rather than sunrise, marked the beginning of their o w n day, the time during which they were awake and active. Jesus' prediction in the Gospels cannot mean that Peter will deny him three times before any cock is heard t o crow at any time during the night. It must mean that Peter's denials will occur before the cockcrow, before the end of the third watch of the night, before the time when those w h o slept would be u p in the morning. Three of the evangelists follow the usual practice of calling this simply cock-crow, whereas Mark follows the apparently rare practice of calling it second cock-row. Perhaps, since Peter spends the third watch of the night with people who, like him, stayed awake all night, it seemed appropriate t o Mark t o refer t o cock-crow as those o n watch hS In b. Pesah. 1 I b-12 b there is a discussion of the degree of error that could be expected in the reckorilng the hour of a reported incident by a witness in court. Opinions differ from half an hour to almost three hours. But the subject is hours of the day, for which the height of the sun and the length of shadows provided a reliable guide, not hours of the night, which were much more difficult t o reckon. O n the beginning of the day in rntiquity, see G . E Unger, 'Tagcc Anfang,' Ph~hrlnlng14s 15 (1892) 14-45, 212-230; Beckwith, Calendtr, 3-9; W.M.Ramsay, 'The Sixth Hour,' Expos~tor5 th Series, vol. 3 (1896) 457-459; J. Finegan, Handbook of Rlblrcal Chronology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964) 3-7. Although the Roman civil day ran from midnight t o midnight (Pliny, N. H. 2.79.188), Ramsay (following Unger) disputes that it was ever reckoned in hours: 'Even when a Roman was describing a civil Day, o r series of civil Days, he still counted his "first hourn as beginning from sunrise; and he called midnight, whicti was the beginning of his twenty-four hours day, "the sixth hour of the night"' (458). If this is right, it is the decisive argument against the claim (adopted hy Finegan) that John, unlike other N e w Testament writers, reckons tile hours of the day from midnight.

418

21. The Eiorariurn of Adam and the Chronology ofthe I'assion

through the night might do. But, in any case, even Mark does not record the occurrence of the first cock-crow6' presupposed by his reference to the second. Even Mark is not counting cock-crows, but employing one way of referring to the one cock-crow that usually mattered. The reference t o the cock-crow in the four Gospels, while it cannot provide a precise time in terms of our modern understanding of temporal precision, does provide a precise time within the conventions of ancient time-keeping. It signals the transition from the third to the fourth watch of the night. Moreover, each evangelist follows it with an indication that events now take place from daybreak onwards, during the fourth watch which was known as 'early' or 'morning' (x~trii)and lasted for a conventional three hours until sunrise or the beginning of the day proper: Mark 15:l: 'And immediately, in the early morning (n~wl), the chief priests ...' Matthew 27: 1: 'And when the early hour had come (rr(2w1~1yt-vop~vil~), g all the chief priests ...' Luke 22:66: 'And when daylight came (&s ~ ~ E + F TilCL(i~)u), O the assen~blyof the elders of the people.. .' John 18:28: 'Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the practorium. N o w it was early (fiv b; YKQCOL).'

There is no difficulty in supposing that the evangelists represent the Jewish authorities as taking Jesus to Pilate a considerable time before sunset. It was at daybreak that the working day began, and Roman officials, like other people, began work as early as po~sible.6~ It is also not especially surprising to find that, according to Mark's chronology, Simon of Cyrene is coming back into the city from working in the fields outside not long before the third hour of the day. H e could easily have put in four hours' work (Mark 15:2 1-25). It has not infrequently been observed that Mark's passion narrative seems to follow a schematic division of time dividing the whole day from sunset on Maundy Thursday to sunset on Good Friday into three-hour segments. The sequence begins with 'evening' (Mark 14:17: 6qriag y ~ v o p i v q ~suggesting ), the beginning of the first night-watch at sunset. The crucifixion itself takes place at the third hour of the day (15:25), the preternatural darkness falls at the sixth hour, i.e. noon (15:33), and Jesus dies at the ninth hour (15:34). It is when the whole day's cycle is completed with the coming of evening (6yiug yevopciqg) again, that Jesus' body is taken down and buried (15:42). Between the commencement of the Last Supper and the time of the cruci-

"'I take it that the words xczi ciicix~tu~ E y x j q o ~ vin Mark 14:68, omitted in some manuscripts, are not original but added by a scribe in the light of 14:72; cf. Brown, The Death, 601,605. '",videncc in Brown, The Death, 629.

4. Cock-crow and chronology in the Gospels

4 19

fixion itself, Mark has only one (double) indication of a similar temporal moment, at 14:72-15:1, which indicate the transition from the third to the fourth watch of the night. Contrary t o some representations of the Markan Mark does not allocate three hours, the first three of the day, to the trial before I'ilate. H e overlooks the transition from night to day at sunrise completely. N o r does he indicate the transitions between the first, second and third watches of the night. His indications of time thus divide the whole day: (1) from the beginning of the first t o the end of the third watch of the night (9 'hours'); (2) from the end of the third/ beginning of the fourth watch of the night to the third watch of the day (6 'hours'); (3) from the third t o the sixth hour of the day (3 'hours'); (4) from the sixth to the ninth hour of the day (3 'hours'); (5) from the ninth hour of the day until sunset (3 'hours'). The lack of division within the first nine hours of this scheme is intelligible in that there were no readily observable signs of the transition from first to second and from second to third watch. Few would be aware of them. The omission of sunrise, one of the most easily observable time-markers, is less easily explicable, since it would have divided Mark's six hour period into precisely two three-hour blocks like the three which follow. However, Mark's narrative in fact has relatively little to fill these six hours. We have t o suppose that sunrise occurred during the trial before Pilate, but there is no turning-point in Mark's narrative which it could appropriately mark. Mark's chronological scheme is therefore not imposed rigidly on his material, but adapted both to the realities of time-keeping and to the components of his narrative.

6".g.

J . Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53 (WBC 35C; Dallas: Word, 1993) 1025,

22. The Spirit of God in Us Loathes Envy (James 4:5)* It is understandable that the letter of James hardly ever appears in discussion of New Testament pneumatology. T h e word nvt-fipa occurs only twice (2:26; 4 5 ) and only one of these references could coriceivably refer to the ~ aJames 4:5 Holy Spirit o r Spirit of God. But whether the words ti>n v ~ o l in refer to the divine Spirit o r t o t h e / a human spirit is only one of the many debatable aspects of this verse and cannot be decided without discussion also of other controverted issues. According t o most, though not all interpreters, X in a short quotation from Scripture (fi the reference t o t b X V F O ~ C occurs y~crryq),but the quotation is not t o be found in any of our Hebrew o r Greek texts of the Bible. Perhaps it is froni a n apocryphal work n o longer extant. But the quotation also presents a series of problems of translation which together make a whole series of proposed translations apparently possible. Deciding between such proposed translations is not easy.' In this article we shall review the proposed translations of thc verse, finding none of them wholly satisfactory, and then offer a new proposal. This new proposal for translating the verse will then lead t o a suggestion about the source froni which James drew this quotation.

I . The Problem of Translation (1) In the first place, we must note a text-critical issue. The readings x c t t ~ ~ x t a e('he v made t o dwell') and xcxtc;?x~ltr~v ('he took u p residence') are both attested: in the former case the subject of the verb must be G o d (understood) while in the latter case it must be TO nveopu. Nearly all modern scholars2 p e f e r t h e former, a s t h e h a r d e r reading, b o t h b e c a u s e s c r i b e s are * First publicatton: Graham N . Stanton, Bruce W. 1,ongenecker and Steyheri C. Bartori ed., The Holy Spznt and Chrutlan Ong~ns:Essay, 172 Honor ofJames D. G. D ~ t n n(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 270-28 1 . W. Popkcs, Der Rrrefdes Jakolrus ('Sheologische lianciktrmmentar 7urn Neuen Testament 14; 1-eipzig: Evangclischc Verlaganstalt, 2001), pp. 269-71, considers the problem insoluble. O n e exception is J. Adamson, T%e Epptstlcs ofJames ( N e w Internatior~al<:on~nientary o n the N e w Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 165.

'

422

22. The Sprrrt of Cod rn Us i.olrthrs f:nvy (J'zmrs

4:j)

more likely t o have replaced the verb X ~ T O I X ~ < F I('to V make t o dwell'), used only here in the New Testament, with the much more cornmon X ~ T O ~ X P ~ V ('to dwell'), than vice versa,' and because scribes who understood tb x v ~ i $ ~ u t o be a spirit of envy might wish t o avoid the idea that G o d made such a spirit dwell in humans.' (2) There is also a question about how to punctuate the vcrse. Most translations and scholars take il y ~ u ily J.Cyt.1 ('the Scripture says') to introduce a scriptural quotation and take the rest of the verse (nebs y 06vov PnmoO~i i.v iil~iv)t o be that quotation. However, the fact that t b nveiilta 6 xtx~cbxtu~v these words cannot easily be understood as a quotation from the known text of the canonical Jewish scriptures, various other ways of punctuating and interpreting the verse have in the past been proposed, sometimes involving taking n ~ i xq~flcivov j wit11 ki.yt.1, often involving treating the second part of the verse, along with the operiing words of the next verse ( p ~ i < o v a bk bibwuiv XUQLV: 'but he gives greater grace'), as a parenthesis, such that 4 y~cxy!ilhCyt.1 in vcrse 5 refers t o the quotation from Proverbs 3:34 in verse 6.$T h e version of this view that has been advocated by some recent scholars is that which reads verse 5 as two rhetorical questions: ' O r d o you think that the Scripture speaks in vain? Does the spirit that he [God] made t o dwell in us desire enviously?' According to Sophie Laws, w h o pioneered this interpretation in recent scholarship," the second question alludes indirectly t o scriptural passages, while according to others both questions refer forwards t o the scriptural quotation in verse 6.' The plausibility of such an interpretation will be discussed below.

8. M. Metlgcr, A Texru~zl(Jornrnentary ou the Creek hlcw Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975), p. 683. ' R. W. Wall, Ckmrnunrty ofthe Wrsc. The I.etter ofJfirrzcs (New 'Testament in Context; Valley Forge: Trinity Press Intern.~tional,1997), p. 203. For references to and arguments agatnst such proposals, see J. B. Mayor, The Eplstle of James, 2 nd ed. (1,ondon: Macmillrn, 1897), p. 136; J. F-i. Ropes, A Cntzcal tznd Exegetrcal Commentary on the Eprstlc of St. Jamc*, (International Crttical Commentary; Edinburgh: 7:& 1:Clark, 1916), pp. 262-63; M. 1)ibelius and H. (;reeven, James (tr. M.A. Williams; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortrcs\, 1975), pp. 22 1-22. S. Laws, 'Doe\ Scripture Speak in Vain? A Recorisidcration ot James iv. 5,' New Testrcment Studres 20 (1974): 210-15; S. Laws, A Commentary on the Eprstle 01James (Black's New lkstanicnt Ckmmentary; 1.ondon: A. & C. Black, 1980), pp. 176-79; followed by T.C. Penner, The Epzstk ofiznzes find Escl~nrology(Jourrtalfot the Study ofrhe New Testament Slrpplements 121; Shcffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), p. 152. ' 1-.'I: Johnson, The I.etrer ofJclmes (Anchor Bible 37A; New York: Doubleday, 1995), pp. 280-82; Wall, C:or?zmunrty of the Wrse, pp. 202-4. Johnson's earlier study ('James 3:134:10 and the Topos X E Q I (1 O~VOI*,' hro-zleum Te~tan~entum 25 [19831: 330-3 1, 346) follows Laws in general but does not makc clear what he takes to be the referent of il y ~ ( l ~~ i Yi E ill L verse 5.

'

I . The Problem of Translation

423

(3) Besides p u n c t u a t i o n t h e r e a r e a series of other issues a b o u t t h e translation of t h e s e c o n d p a r t of t h e verse.8 The m a i n issues are: (a) D o e s ZQOS cpeovov indicate t h e goal of t h e action of t h e v e r b &sccnoO~;i ('longs f o r envy') o r s h o u l d i t be u n d e r s t o o d adverbially, a s equivalent to c p 0 o v ~ ~ G('envi5 ously'). (b) D o e s cp8ovov have a b a d sense ('envy') o r a g o o d sense ('jealously' in a good sense)? (c) Is t h e subject of 6jccno0~1God (understood), m a k i n g God t h e subject of both verbs, or to xvet$m? (d) Is to n v e e p a t h e divine Spirit o r t h e h u m a n spirit ( u n d e r s t o o d a s either good or bad)? Different answers t o these questions i n different combinations account largely for t h e differences of translation of t h e s e c o n d p a r t of t h e verse. W e shall consider first the m a i n translations offered of t h e s e c o n d p a r t of t h e verse by those w h o consider it a q u o t a t i o n i n t r o d u c e d by fi y ~ u c p qh&ye~, and then the translations t h a t treat it as a question: (3.1) Among scholars o v e r t h e last century, t h e m o s t p o p u l a r o p t i o n h a s b e e n t h e translation: 'He [God] longs jealously for t h e spirit h e h a s m a d e t o dwell i n us.'9 A m o n g m a j o r English translations, this is a d o p t e d by R S V a n d N R S V (and cf. R V Margin). T h i s translation takes n ~ o rp0ovov < adverbially, gives cp86vov a g o o d sense ('jealousy'), takes G o d t o be t h e subject o f &nm08e;i (it is, i n fact, t h e only proposed translation t h a t does), a n d unders t a n d s to Z V ~ ~ ~ t Mo be X t h e h u m a n spirit (given in creation, as i n G e n . 2:7). I t s appropriateness to t h e context in James can b e defended, as recently by

There have also been proposals to amend the text, though these do not seem to have appealed to any recent scholars; cf. J.A. Findlay, 'James iv.5, 6,' Expository Times 37 (1926): 381-82 (Bovov for qBovov); some earlier attempts at emendation are listed in H. Coppieters, 'La Signification et la Provenance de la Citation Jac. iv, 5,' Revue Biblique 12 (1915): 38. E.g. F. J.A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James (London: Macmillan, 1909), pp. 93-94; Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, pp. 262-65; J. Moffatt, The General Epistles (Moffatt New Testament Commentary; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928), pp. 60-61; J. Marty, pitre re de Jacques (Paris: FClix Alcan, 1935), pp. 159-60; H. Windisch and H. Preisker, Die katholischen Briefe, 3rd ed. (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 15; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1951), pp. 26-27; C. Spicq, '"EnmoB~Zv,Desirer ou ChCrir?,' Revue Bibliqtre 64 (1957): 189-91; J. Jeremias, 'Jac 4 5: EnmoO~t,'Zeitschrqt fir die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 50 (1959): 137-38; F. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief (Herders Theologische Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1311; Freiburg: Herder, 1964), pp. 181-82; C. L. Mitton, The Epistle of James (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1966), pp. 154-56; Dibelius and Greeven, James, pp. 223-24; P. Davids, The Epistle of James (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Exeter: Paternoster, 1982), 163-64; D. J. Moo, The Letter of James (Tyndale New Testament Commentary; Leicester: InterVarsity Press1 Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), pp. 1 4 4 6 ; H. Frankemolle, Der Brief des Jakobus (Gutersloher Verlag, 1994), pp. 602-5; M. Klein, "Ein vollkommenes Werk ":Vollkommenheit, Gesetz und Gericht als theologischen Themen des Jakobusbriefes (Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 17/19; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995), pp. 112-15; D. J. Moo, The Letter of James (Pillar New Testament Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Leicester: Apollos, 2000), pp. 188-90.

424

22. The Spirit of God in Us Loathes Envy (James 4:li)

Moo, for whom this is the decisive criterion for preferring this translation, given the inconclusive nature of other criteria in his view.I0 However, this translation founders on its need to understand rp0ovov in a good sense, as the divine jealousy (or zeal) frequently attributed to God in the Scriptures and in Jewish literature. The Greek word for this positive divine quality is always Gqhos. The use of cp00~05in this sense is unattested and hardly conceivable, since in Hellenistic moral philosophy, while Cijhog can be a vice or a virtue, rp0Ovo5 is always a vice." For this reason Jewish writers, while frequently using t j j h o ~of God, consistently avoid using cp0ovog of God. The fact that cp0Ovog was often used of the gods of Greek mythologyt2 in 'the true Greek sense of a spiteful god's envy of man'13 would certainly not have recommended it to a Jewish writer wishing to speak of the God of Israel; indeed, the opposite would more likely be the case.I4 That the two words cpe6vo~and 2;qho~are often linked and can be ' not used virtually synonymously (e. g. 1 Macc. 8:16; 1 Clem. 3:2; 4:7; 5:2) is a basis for thinking that James could, exceptionally, have used cpeovo~positively of a divine attribute,15 since the two words are used synonymously only in a bad sense, not in the good sense of Qhog. Moreover, even if we could think of James (or his source) inappropriately and incompetently using cpeovos of divine jealousy, it is scarcely credible that he could have done so in this context. James has used 1;ijhocjin a bad sense in 3:14 and the cognate verb LqhoGv also in a bad sense in 4:2. Luke Johnson has shown that themes common to the ancient moral topos on envy run through 3: 13-4:10.16 If James had wanted to distinguish the positive divine quality in verse 5 from the negative human quality in the preceding passage, he should have used cqhog in verse 5 and cp0ovo~/cp0ov~Xv in the other cases. But even this might not have served the purpose of contrasting the two terms. In a passage so heavy with resonances of envy and using both terms, they are most likely

lo

Moo, The Letter of James (2000)' p. 190.

" Johnson, 'James 3:13-4:10,' p. 335 (and see the whole article); Johnson, The Letter of James, p. 281. l2 E. g. Mayor, The Epistle of James, pp. 136-37. l 3 Adamson, The Epzstle of James, p. 171. l 4 Davids, The Epzstle ofjames, p. 163, is mistaken in claiming that G. W. H. Lampe ed., A Patrzstzc Greek Lextcon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961) cites three passages in the Alexandrian Fathers where q30bvog is used of God. O n the contrary, these deny that God acts out of envy ((p6i)yo~) and echo Plato's famous statements (Phaedrus 247 a; Tzm. 29e) that envy is absent from the divine realm; cf. P. W. van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylzdes (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978), pp. 163-64. l5 Davids, The Epzstle of James, pp. 163-64; R.P. Martin,]ames (Word Biblical Commentary 48; Waco, Texas: Word, 1988), p. 150; Moo, The Letter of James (2000), p. 190. l 6 Johnson, 'James 3:13-4:10,' pp. 327-47.

1. The Problem of Translation

425

both to be read in the same negative sense that is the only sense in which they are synonymous. (3.2,3.3) There are two translations which give a similar sense in English but differ at just one point in how they understand the Greek: (3.2) 'The spirit he [God] made to dwell in us longs for envy';17 (3.3) 'The spirit he [God] made to dwell in us longs e n v i o ~ s l y .Among '~~ major English translations, 3.2 is adopted by NEB ('The spirit which God implanted in man turns towards envious desires'), while 3.3 is apparently adopted by REB ('The spirit which God implanted in us is filled with envious longings') and NIV ('The spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely'). Both translations give q100vov a bad sense, take zo nvecpu to be the subject of knwco0~i, and understand zo nve@puto be the human spirit. They differ in that 3.2 understands neb5 rp00vov as the goal of the action of the verb, while 3.3 3.2 is the understands the phrase adverbially as equivalent to ~~BOVEQOS. least plausible of these options. Although the use of nebs after En;ut00&i,~~ as proposed by this translation, can be paralleled (LXX Ps 41[42]:1: knwco0ei fi ~ v x fpov i nebs ok,b 0~05),it is hard to make much sense of 'longs for envy,' and advocates of this meaning often give inm00~1the reduced sense of 'tends, inclines,' which does not seem to be paralleled. The verb always refers to strong desire. However, there is no such difficulty in understanding nebs (p80vov as an adverbial phrase equivalent to the adverb rpeovee~s(cf., e. g., similar phrases in Josephus, BJ 2.534; Ant. 7.195; 12.398), as translation 3.3 does. It is true that the verb knmoe~ivgenerally has a good sense in the biblical literature,20 but it certainly can have a bad sense when its object or some other aspect of the context implies that (e. g. Sir. 25:21; Ezek. 23:5,7,9 Aquila). An entirely possible translation of nebs (p80vov kzm00~iwould be 'lusts enviously.' If this phrase has a bad sense, as it does for both translations 3.2 and 3.3, then clearly -co nve6pa must be the human spirit. The most plausible account of the meaning, in that case, is that which sees here the Jewish idea " E.g. Coppieters, 'La Signification,' pp. 35-50; J. Adamson, The Epistles of James (New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), p. 171-73; J. Marcus, 'The Evil Inclination in the Epistle of James,' Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 608-9 n. 7,621; L. J. Prockter, 'James 4.4-6: Midrash on Noah,' New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 625-26; C. Burchard, DerJakobusbrief (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 15/1; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), pp. 171-74. l 8 E. g. J. Chaine, pi pit re de Saznt Jacques (etudes Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1927), pp. 101-3; A. Meyer, Das Ratsel des Jacobusbriefes(Giessen: Topelmam, 1930),p. 258; J. Michl, 'Der Spruch Jakobusbrief 4,5,' in J. Blinzler, 0.Kuss, and F. Mussner ed., Neutestamentliche Aufsatze (Festschrift for J. Schmid; Regensburg: Pustet, 1963), pp. 167-72; E.M. Sidebottom, James, Jude and 2 Peter (New Century Bible; London: Nelson, 1967), pp. 52-53. l 9 One would expect a direct object or tni. 20 Spicq, "E~trno$&ZY,' pp. 184-95.

426

22. The Jptnt of God rn Us L-outhes Envy (Jatnes 4:5)

of the 'evil inclination' (T),~' which was based o n Genesis 6:5; 8:17, and is well illustrated by Sirach 15:l 1-20.2qhis shows that the evil inclination was understood to belong to the created nature of humans, but that this did not make God directly responsible for evil, since humans have the choice whether to yield to the inclination o r t o resist it. James 1:13-15 is very close to this passage of Sirach and certainly reflects a similar notion of the evil desire, which James there calls fn~Ovpiu.There are two difficulties about finding the same idea in James 4 5 . O n e is the word xve~lna.Can this be equivalent to 6st~f)vpia('desire') in 1:14-153 It is true that in the Qumran literature n : ~('spirit') is used in a somewhat similar sense: Abraham 'did not n (CD 3:2-3, cf. the choose according to the will of his own spirit ( ~ n ;IST)' use of TY in 2:16), and the well-known passage about the 'two spirits' G o d placed in humanity, to one of which, 'the spirit of deceit,' sin is attributed (IQS 3:17-4:26).23 But even these passages use 'spirit' for the evil inclination only with some further specification. James's own anthropological use of nvefipcx in 2:26 certainly does not have this sense. Secondly, while this translation of James 4:s fits well with the succeeding context (which would mean that for those who wish to resist the evil inclination God's grace is available and proves stronger), it does not follow so well from the preceding context. In what sense might thoseJamcs has been attacking in the preceding verses think the sentence quoted in verse 5 spoken 'in vain'? By simply acknowledging their envy as deriving from the inclination God placed in them at creation what does it say t o counter their behaviour o r their ideas? In spite of these difficulties, 3.3 is probably the most satisfactory of the translations that have been proposed. (3:4) 'The Spirit he [God] made to dwell in us longs jealously': this translation, advocdted by Mayor,24 was adopted by J B ('the spirit which he sent to live in us wants us for himself alone'), and is also given in RV Margin and b ~ adNIV Margin. I t gives qk)ovov a good sense, understands n ~ cptlovov verbially, takes ti) nvc.iipa t o be the subject of finuroOt.i, and understands -GO nvecpu to be the divine Spirit. It also requires something to be understood as the object of 6nuroOt.i (Mayor interprets: 'The Spirit which he made to dwell in us jealously yearns for the entire devotion of the heart'). But it is

''

See especially Marcus, 'The Evil Inclination,' pp. 606-21, for an account of this idea in Second Temple Jewisli sources arid in James. But note that Di L,ella in I! W. Skehan and A.A. D i Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Anchor Bible 39; N e w York: Doubleday, 1987), pp. 271-272, understands . Y in 15:14 as free will. O n the relationship of James t o Sir. 15:l 1-20, see 11. Frankcrniille, 'Zum Thema des Jakobushriefes in1 Kontext dcr Rezeption von Sir 2,l-18 und 15,11-20,' Biblische Notizen 48 (1989): 2 1-49. But cf. also the two spirits in some passages of I lermas: O . J . E Seitz, 'Two Spirits in Man: An Essay in Biblical Exegesis,' New Tertamcnt Studies 6 (195940): 82-95. Mayor, The Epistlt~of St. Jumes, pp. 1 3 6 4 0 .

'' ''

"

I . The Problem of Tratrsfation

427

untenable primarily for the same reason as translation 3.1: qrOovov cannot have a good sense. (3.5) Ralph Martin offers this translation: 'The Spirit God made t o dwell in us opposes envy.'25 Of all the translations offered, this provides the best fit with the context, both preceding and following, but unfortunately it is hard t o see how the Greek can mean this. Martin writes: 'the meaning must be that God's jealous yearning over his people is set over against (nebs + accusative) their "jealousy"; hence our rendering, admittedly more a p a r a ~ h r a s e . 'But ~ ~ can nebs cpOovov 6nucoO~ireally mean 'opposes'? Mayor is surely right t o object: ' n e t s can only mean "against" when joined with a word that implies hostility: it cannot have this force when joined with a word which implies strong affection like 6xuroO~i.'~' (3.6, 3.7) We turn finally t o proposals to translate the verse, not as containing a quotation, but as two rhetorical questions. O n e such proposal (3.6) translates the whole verse thus: ' O r d o you think that scripture speaks to no effect? Does the spirit which he made t o dwell in us long e n ~ i o u s l y ?This '~~ adopts the translation given above as 3.3, but turns it into a question. The scholars who propose this translation understand it as a question expecting the answer 'no.' The spirit is not the evil inclination, but the good spirit given by God, and s o the reader is expected t o respond, 'No, of course the spirit given by God does not envy!' This avoids the difficulty about the use of the word n v ~ i j p uwhich was raised in our discussion of translation 3.3. There is, however, a grammatical difficulty in that a question expecting a negative answer should include the particle pfi, as Johnson admits.29This problem is avoided if the question is understood t o expect an affirmative answer, as in Robert Walls' proposal t o translate the verse (3.7): ' O r d o you think that Scripture says foolish things? Does the spirit that God made t o dwell within us incline us intensely towards envy?'30 H e takes TO nve6pu t o be the evil inclination, and apparently thinks that the second question

'5 Ih

l7

Martin, James, p. 140. Martin, James, p. 141. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, p. 138. Mayor is responding to older interpreters

who took nyiq to harr the scnsc of 'against.'

''

S. Laws, 'Does Scripture Speak in Vain? A Recor~sideration of James iv. 5,' New Testametit Studies 20 (1974): 212-215; S. Laws, A Commentay on the Epistle of James (Black's N e w Testament Commentary; London: A. & C. Black, 198O), pp. 176-79; L.T. i Novurn Testamentum 25 (1983): Johnson, 'James 3:13-4:10 and the Topos n e ~yiObvou,' 33531,346; L.T. Johnson, The Letter oflames (Anchor Bible 37A; N e w York: Doubleday, 1995), pp. 280-82; T. C. Penner, The Epistle oflames and Esthatology (Journalfor the Study ofthe Ntwl Testament Supplements 12 1; Sheffirld: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), p. 152. The translation given is by Laws; Johnson translates similarly. Johnson, The Letter oflames, p. 282. Wall, Comzmuntty afthe Wise, p. 202.

" "

42 8

22. The Spirit of God in Us Loathes Envy games 4:IiJ

expects the answer yes, by contrast with the first question.31This translation is therefore subject to the same objections we made to translations 3.2 (of which this is the interrogative version) and 3.3. Moreover, all proposals to treat the latter p a n of this verse as other than a quotation face the objection that the formula 4 yeacpfi Uyei elsewhere directly introduces a quotation (John 1937; Rom. 9:17; 10:ll; 1 Tim. 5:18), even when it is used interrogatively (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30; cf. Rom. 11:2).

2. A New Proposal for Translation Since none of the proposals reviewed above are entirely satisfactory it is appropriate to offer a new proposal. This postulates that the quotation in James 4:5 is taken from an apocryphal text originally written in Hebrew (and the Greek translation in Jas. 4:s either taken by James from an already existing Greek translation of the apocryphal work or made by James himself). The verb enmo0~ivis used twelve times in the ~ e ~ t u a g i and n t renders no less than eight different Hebrew verbs in those occurrences which have an extant Hebrew Vorlage. One of these is zwn ('to long'), used in Psalm 118(119):174('I have longed for your salvation, 0 LORD').This verb is rare in the Hebrew Bible. It occurs also in Psalm 119:40, and the cognate noun ; r ~ t mis used in Psalm 119:20. The only other occurrence of 3wn is in Amos 6:8, where the Pi'el is used with God as the subject. This is problematic, because the context here requires the verb x n , a more common verb which in the Pi'el means 'to regard as an abomination, t o abhor, to loathe' (with God as subject: Pss. 5:7; 106:40; with human subject: Deut. 7:26; Pss. 5:7; 107:18; 119:163; Amos 5:10; Mic. 3:9). In Amos 6:s the Septuagint has f3Geh600eiv, indicating either that the Vorlage had mno instead of 3wm, or that the translator understood 3 ~ n nto have the same meaning as ~ i r m . Modern scholars and lexicographers regard 3tmn in Amos 6:s as a scribal error or a deliberate alteration replacing an original 3 ~ n n . ~ But * it may be that some ancient Hebrew speakers thought of the two verbs Iwn and Ivn as the same verb with two different meanings: 'to long for' and 'to regard as an abomination.' Both meanings entail intense feeling, positive in one case, negative in the other. The Hebrew original of the quotation in James 4:5 may have used lwnhvn in the sense of 'to abhor,' giving the meaning of the sentence: 'The Spirit [or Wall, Community of the Wise, pp. 202-4. W. R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905), p. 153 n.; J. L. Mays, Amos (Old Testament Library; London: SCM Press, 1969), p. 11 7 n. 31

32

2. A New Proposal for Translation

429

spirit] God made to dwell in us abhors envy.' The translator used ~3tI,?'C08Ei nebs, which would appropriately translate snn/mn in the sense of 'to long for.' He attributed to the Greek verb Cnmo0~ivthe same range of meaning as he attributed to mn/sun. He meant Cnmo0~inebs to mean 'abhors, is intensely opposed to,' but unfortunately b z r n o 0 ~ has ~ the positive sense of sttn but not the negative sense of 3un. To extend the range of meaning of a word in one language to match the range of meaning of a word in another language is a natural error in t r a n ~ l a t i o n . ~ ~ The translation, 'The Spirit [or spirit] God made to dwell in us abhors envy' is close to translation 3.5 above ('The Spirit God made to dwell in us opposes envy'), which we observed would, of the proposals hitherto made, make best sense in the context, but which seemed impossible as a rendering of James' Greek. The new proposal explains how such a meaning could have been intended owing to the improper use of Crcmo0~tvto translate ~tmin this sentence. If the quotation is read attributing to b ~ u c o 0the ~ i strong meaning of the Hebrew 2un - 'the Spirit [or spirit] regards envy as an abomination, something to which God is implacably opposed' - it follows very well not only from 3:13-4:3, where envy is the theme, but also from 4:4, with its sharply dualistic correlation between friendship with the world and enmity with God. The quotation in 4:5 provides the scriptural basis for this by pointing out God's enmity towards envy. This contextual consideration makes it much more likely that, if this proposal for translation is correct, then TO nveBpa refers to the divine Spirit rather than the human spirit. A reference to the human spirit here would be an unnecessarily indirect way of pointing out God's own opposition to envy. If we are correct in finding a reference in James 4:5 to the divine Spirit indwelling Christians, is this a unique reference to the Holy Spirit in James? It has sometimes been observed that the way in which James 3:13-18 speaks of the wisdom that 'comes down from above' and produces the fruits of ethical qualities in Christians resembles the Pauline understanding of the Holy Spirit, especially in Galatians 5:22-23,34 where there is a contrasting list of works of the flesh (519-21) comparable with many of the vices James attacks in 3:14-4:3. Understanding James as deploying here a wisdom pneumatology (cf. Wisd. 1:3-8; 7:7, 22-25; Sir. 24:3)35fits very well with 33 Cf. J. M. Voelz, 'The Language of the New Testament,' in W. Haase and H. Temporini ed., Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt, Part 2, vol. 2512 (Berlin /New York: de Gruyter, 1984), pp. 957-58, for Greek words whose meaning was extended by their Jewish and Christian use to correspond to Semitic terms. 34 E. g. Windisch and Preisker, D ie katholischen Briefe, p. 26; Davids, The Epistle of James, p. 154. 35 J. A. Kirk, 'The Meaning of W~sdom in James: Examination of a Hypothesis,' New Testament Studies 16 (1969): 24-38, argues that wisdom in James functions in some re-

2. A New Proposal for Translation

429

spirit] God made to dwell in us abhors envy.' The translator used ~3tI,?'C08Ei nebs, which would appropriately translate snn/mn in the sense of 'to long for.' He attributed to the Greek verb Cnmo0~ivthe same range of meaning as he attributed to mn/sun. He meant Cnmo0~inebs to mean 'abhors, is intensely opposed to,' but unfortunately b z r n o 0 ~ has ~ the positive sense of sttn but not the negative sense of 3un. To extend the range of meaning of a word in one language to match the range of meaning of a word in another language is a natural error in t r a n ~ l a t i o n . ~ ~ The translation, 'The Spirit [or spirit] God made to dwell in us abhors envy' is close to translation 3.5 above ('The Spirit God made to dwell in us opposes envy'), which we observed would, of the proposals hitherto made, make best sense in the context, but which seemed impossible as a rendering of James' Greek. The new proposal explains how such a meaning could have been intended owing to the improper use of Crcmo0~tvto translate ~tmin this sentence. If the quotation is read attributing to b ~ u c o 0the ~ i strong meaning of the Hebrew 2un - 'the Spirit [or spirit] regards envy as an abomination, something to which God is implacably opposed' - it follows very well not only from 3:13-4:3, where envy is the theme, but also from 4:4, with its sharply dualistic correlation between friendship with the world and enmity with God. The quotation in 4:5 provides the scriptural basis for this by pointing out God's enmity towards envy. This contextual consideration makes it much more likely that, if this proposal for translation is correct, then TO nveBpa refers to the divine Spirit rather than the human spirit. A reference to the human spirit here would be an unnecessarily indirect way of pointing out God's own opposition to envy. If we are correct in finding a reference in James 4:5 to the divine Spirit indwelling Christians, is this a unique reference to the Holy Spirit in James? It has sometimes been observed that the way in which James 3:13-18 speaks of the wisdom that 'comes down from above' and produces the fruits of ethical qualities in Christians resembles the Pauline understanding of the Holy Spirit, especially in Galatians 5:22-23,34 where there is a contrasting list of works of the flesh (519-21) comparable with many of the vices James attacks in 3:14-4:3. Understanding James as deploying here a wisdom pneumatology (cf. Wisd. 1:3-8; 7:7, 22-25; Sir. 24:3)35fits very well with 33 Cf. J. M. Voelz, 'The Language of the New Testament,' in W. Haase and H. Temporini ed., Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt, Part 2, vol. 2512 (Berlin /New York: de Gruyter, 1984), pp. 957-58, for Greek words whose meaning was extended by their Jewish and Christian use to correspond to Semitic terms. 34 E. g. Windisch and Preisker, D ie katholischen Briefe, p. 26; Davids, The Epistle of James, p. 154. 35 J. A. Kirk, 'The Meaning of W~sdom in James: Examination of a Hypothesis,' New Testament Studies 16 (1969): 24-38, argues that wisdom in James functions in some re-

430

22. The Spirit of God ia Us Louthes Envy (James 4:5)

our proposed understanding of the quotation in 4:s. Both the wisdom from above of 3:13-18 and the Spirit of 4:5 are opposed to envy.

3. The Source of the Quotation We need not here review the many suggestions as to the source of the quotation in James 4:5 which find some kind of basis for it in the Hebrew Bible, since our new proposal for translating the quotation provides a fresh starting-point for considering this question. One of the very few passages in the Hebrew Bible which could be understood as a warning against envy is the story of Eldad and Modad in Numbers 11:25-30. It speaks of the Spirit that rested upon the seventy elders, with the result that they prophesied (1 and also upon Eldad and Modad, who were outside the camp at the time and also prophesied (1 1:26). Because this was anomalous, Joshua protested to Moses, asking him to stop Eldad and Modad from prophesying. Moses replied, 'Are you jealous ( R I ~ D ; ~LXX: , pfi cqhoiq) for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the LORDwould put his Spirit on them' (11:29). The reference to jealousy is picked up in an interesting way in PseudoPhilo's Biblical Antiquities, where the content of Eldad and Modad's prophecy is said to have been that after Moses' death the leadership would pass to Joshua36: 'And Moses was not jealous (zelatus) but rejoiced when he heard them' (205). Despite the usually positive word zelatus, it is clear that jealousy here has a bad sense. The theme of jealousy is also taken up in a quite different way in Midrash Numbers Rabbah 15:19, where Moses, commanded by God to appoint seventy elders (Num 11:16), wondered how to select this number from the twelve tribes without taking more from one tribe than from another with the result that 'I will introduce jealousy between one tribe and another.' These examples illustrate how Jewish exegesis of this passage could seize on the reference to 'jealousy' (Num 11:29) and develop it as a quality to be avoided. It is not difficult to imagine how a Jewish re-telling of the story of Eldad and Modad could have expanded Moses' words to Joshua (Num 11:29) and included the sentence: 'The Spirit God made to rest on us (dwell in spects as the Spirit does in other Jewish and Christian literature, and cites much evidence for the association of the Spirit with wisdom. 36 Cf. Sifre Num. 95: 'And what did they [Eldad and Modad] say as their prophecy? "Moses will die and Joshua will bring Israel into the Land"'; similarly b. Sanh. 17a; Tg. Ps-Jon. Num. 11:26; Tg. Neof. Num. 11:26; Num. Rab. 15:19. All of these sources, apart from Sifre, also attribute to Eldad and Modad a prophecy about Gog and Magog (a tradition doubtless intended to explain Ezek. 38:18).

3. The Source of the Quotation

43 1

US)abhors envy.' But where might James have found such a re-telling of the biblical story? There was an apocryphal book of Eldad and Modad, t o which the ancient canonical lists refer, and of which we have only one explicitly attributed quotation. Hermas, Vis.2:3:4 reads: '"The Lord is near to those who turn to him," as it is written in the book of Eldad and Modad, who prophesied to the people in the wilderness.'That this quotation occurs in the Shepherd of Hermas is significant, because it is also in Hermas that a remarkable parallel t o James 4:s is found: 'the Spirit which God made t o dwell in this flesh' ( t o nve.ijlra 6 b OEOS xat+xtaev Ev tfi o a ~ x~i a h n ) ' (Mand. 3:l; cf. also Mand. 5:2:5; 10:2:6; 10:3:2). There is a similar passage, though with reference to the flesh of Jesus, in Sim. 56:s: 'The Holy Spirit which goes forth, which created all creation, God made to dwell in the flesh ) he willed.' These three passages Uas. 4:s; (xax+x~uev6 OEOS eiq a c i ~ x athat Hermas, Mand. 3:l; Sim. 5:6:5) contain the only occurrences of the verb xato~xi<eXvin Christian literature before Justin. Other resemblances between James and Herrnas have often been not i ~ e d . ~Most ' significant of these is the word Giyuxos Uas. 1:s; 4:8), a New Testament hapax, which occurs 19 times in Hermas, who also uses the verb b i ~ u ~ e ' 20 i v times and the noun Si+uxia 16 times. This vocabulary also appears in a quotation from an unknown apocryphal work (called fi y~acp4 ts in 2 Clement) which appears in both in 1 Clement and b n e o c p q ~ ~ xA6yog 1 Clement 23:3 and 2 Clement 11:2 (biyuxoi). Otherwise this vocabulary (completely unattested in non-Jewish, non-Christian Greek) is found in Jewish and early Christian literature before Clement of Alexandria only in 1 Clement 23:2; 2 Clement 11:5 (both with reference to the quotation); 19:2 (b~quxia);Didache 4:4; and Barnabas 19:5 (both b l ? # ~ x ~ ' i ~It) . 'has ~ sometimes been suggested that the apocryphal quotation in 1 Clement 23:3 and 2 Clement 1 1 2 comes from the book of Eldad and M ~ d a dand , ~ ~it has also been argued quite cogently that the work from which this apocryphal quotation was drawn was also the source of Hermas' use of this very dis37

E. g. Laws, A Commentary, pp. 22-23.

" For the usage in the Fathers, see S. E. I'orter, 'Is cfrpsucl)osGames 1,8; 4,8) a "Chris-

tian" Word?,' B~blcca71 (1990): 484-96. 0.F. J. Seitz, 'Antecedents and Signification of the Term AIYYXOZ,'Jorcrnaf of B~bbcalLtterature 66 (1947): 218-19, shows that the ~ i xa'1 ~ I \ ~ I U X- (does O V not imply that Philo title given to a fragment of Philo - n ~ h~iAhv actually used the word h i y w ~ o. ~ 39 E. g. J. B. Lightfoot, reported in M. R. James, The Lost A p o q p h a of the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1920) pp. 39-40; James himself thinks the apocryphal Ezekiel a more likely source of the quotation. O.J.F. Seitz, 'Afterthoughts on the Term "Dipsychos,"' New Testament Studtes 4 (1958): 332-34, agrees with Lightfoot, and goes on to speculate that the Book of Eldad and Modad might actually be the 'little book' which Hermas, Vis. 2 describes and that Hermas himself was instrumental in the publication of the Book of Eldad and Modad.

432

22. The Sprnt of G o d rn Us Loathes Envy game,

4:j)

tinctive v o c a b ~ l a r y We . ~ ~should note that one of the t w o occurrences of b i t l v ~ o sin James (453) is in close proximity t o the quotation in 4:5. There are also other striking resemblances t o Hermas in this immediate context (Jas. 4:7: cf. Hermas, Mand. 12:5:2; Jas. 4:12: cf. Hermas, Mand. 12:6:3). Finally, also in this immediate context James even has a quite close parallel (423: &yyiuuteT@OF@x a i E y y ~6piv) i t o the one explicit quotation we have from the Book of Eldad and Modad (Hermas, Vis. 2:3:4: "EWi,sx v e m ~ o i 5 8niat~e~o~ivoy). We can conclude that there is considerable probability that the quotation in James 4:s comes from thc apocryphal Book of EIdad and Modad, which was also well-known in the Roman church,'" quoted by Hermas, and described as ii y~uylfiin 1 Clement (23:3) and 6 neocpqtixcis hoyos in 2 Clement (1 l:2).

30. F.J. Seitz, 'Relationsh~p of the Shepherd o f f Iermas t o the Epistle of James,' Jortrnulof Brblrcal Lrtcrature 63 (1944): 1 3 1 4 0 . S. I;. Porter, 'Is drpsud~as,'maintains that o ; its cognates, but can d o s o only James is the source of all other occurrences of h t y l ~ ~ ~and by apparently just denying that 1 Cleln. 23:3 and 2 Clem. 11:2 d o quote an apocryphal source. While he recognizes that 'I and 2 Cletrzent are riot apparently directly surnmariring o r paraphrasing Jamer at this point' (p. 476), it is wholly unclear what he thinks they are doing. '' S. S. Marshall (subsequet~tlyS. Laws), 'ALYIVXO;:a local term?,' Studra Evangelrca 6 = Texte und U n t ~ r s u c b u n g ~112 n (1973): 348-51, argues that b i v ~ ~ was o i a local term used in Jewish arid Christian circles In Rome a n d may have been coined in a Greek-speaking Jewish community in Rome. O n the relationship ot the letter of James t o the Roman church, see R. Uauckha~m,James: Wrsdom of Jcrrne,, Drsc7pl~+ o f i s u s the Sagc (New Testament Readings; 1,ondon / New York: Routledge, 1999), p. 18,23.

23. Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern IsraelxThe proposal The book of Tobit is probably best classified as an Israelite religious novella. It is generally agreed that the works it most resembles are the books of Esther and Judith. Like them, it is designed as both entertaining and instructive, and is composed with great skill in both character construction and narration. It is one of the finest short stories t o have come down to us from non-classical antiquity. But whereas in the cases of Esther and Judith scholars agree that the stories of individual Israelites are not told purely for their own sakes but with a view to their significance for the story of the nation, in the case of Tobit this has been much less commonly recognized.' The book has been generally read as the personal story of Tobit and his family.2 Some scholars have even found the predictions of the national future in chapters 13-14 so lacking in congruity with the rest of the book that they have pronounced them later additions: a position that is hardly tenable now that these chapters are known t o have belonged to the Aramaic text of Tobit used at Q ~ m r a n . ~ The proposal of this essay is that, not only is the story of Tobit and his family set within the broader context of national history and destiny, but also it functions as a kind of parable of that national history and destiny.

* First publication: Mark Bredin cd., Studies m the Book of Tobtt: A Multtdisnplt~ry Approach (LSTS 55; I,ondon/New York: 1:& ' I Clark, 2006) 140-164. Scholars who have recognized this include G. W. I",. Nickelsburg, Je-ze~rshLrterature Between the Brble and the Mlshnah (London: SCM Press, l981), pp. 33-35; W. Soll,

'

'Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Talc Source and Deuteronomic 'Iheology,' CBQ 5 1 (1 989), pp. 209-3 1 . "ce, for example, the account of 'The 'Scathing of the Book' in J. A. Fitzmyer, Tobzt (CEJL; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003), pp. 46-49. Notably F. Zimmermann, The Book of Tobrt (Jewish Apocryphal Literature: Dropsie College Edition; New York: Harper, 1958); and P. Deselaers, Das Buch Tobrt: Studren zur Entstehung, Komposttton und Theologtc ( O R 0 43; Freiburg: Universitatsverlag/Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprccht, 1982), who makes this part of a complex redactional theory. ' For this and other reasons not to deny the integrity of the book as we have it, see Fitzmycr, %bat, pp. 42-45.

434

23. Tobit us a Parable for the Ex~lesof Northevrr Israel

Tobit's story is a parable of Israel's story from exile to restoration. In using the term parable I distinguish it from allegory. I d o not propose that every character o r event in Tobit's story has its non-allegorical counterpart in the story of Israel, but that the overall shape of Tobit's story models that of Israel. The story of Tobit has its own narrative integrity, such that it entertains and instructs readers even if its parabolic function is not recognized (unlike, for example, the extended allegories in Ezek 17 and 19). N o r am I proposing that the book is to be categorized generically as a parable. Rather parable (mashal, comparison) describes the way that Tobit's story functions in the wider national-historical framework of the book as a model for the past, present and future story of Israel, a personal story with which the national story can be compared. A further aspect of the proposal in this essay is that it takes seriously, as no other modern interpreters of the book have done, Tobit's narrative setting in the exile of the northern Israelite tribes (those which even nlodern scholars have inappropriately conceived as 'lost'). Tobit's eschatological prospect is not simply the restoration of the exiles of Judah, but, more importantly for the message of the book, the return of the exiles of the northern tribes to the land of Israel and their reconciliation to Jerusalem as the national and cultic centre.

The pattern of judgment and mercy The plot of the book of Tobit focuses on three misfortunes and the way that each is reversed. They are Tobit's poverty, Tobit's blindness and Sarah's lack of a husband. In a sense all three are Tobit's own misfortunes, since his desire that Tobias marry a close relative makes Sarah the most eligible wife for Tobit's son and the most eligible mother of his grandchildren. Through Sarah's deliverance Tobit's line is perpetuated. Although the remedy for each of the three misfortunes is different, Tobias is the agent of all three and AzariahIRaphael is in all three cases the helper who enables Tobias to succeed. The three misfortunes are therefore closely interlinked and the stories of how they are remedied are closely intertwined. Moreover, as Will Sol1 has pointed out,? all three lnisfortunes are 'acute manifestations of a ' ~ the narrative is told, Tobit suffers more chronic problem, the exile i t ~ e l f .As the common Inisfortune of his tribe and nation, exile under Assyrian rule, W. Soll, 'Misfortune and Exile in Tobit: 'She Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic 'Sheolog);' CBQ 51 (1989), pp. 222-25. Soll, 'Misfortune,' p. 225. This is least obvious in the case of Sarah, but it is arguable that the activity of the demon Asmodeus is an aspect of the misfortunes of exile in a CGentile land, as Soll, 'Misfortune,' p. 225, argues.

The pattern of judgment and mercy

435

before the more specific evils - the loss of his property (120) and the loss of his sight (2.10) -come upon him. Correspondingly, at the end of the book, after his sight and his property have been restored, Tobit foresees the end of exile for his descendants and his nation. The national story of misfortune and its reversal thus forms a lund of broad inclusio around Tobit's individual story of misfortune and its reversal. Tobit attributes both his misfortune and its reversal to God. When his eyes are opened, he says, 'Though he has afflicted me, he has had mercy upon me" (11.15; cf. also 11.17).8 This formula is very significant. As several scholars have recognized, it reflects the theology of Deuteronomy and the deuteronomic history, in which the nation's misfortunes are understood to be divine judgments on its sin, while repentance and righteousness can lead to God's mercy, delivering from judgment and restoring the nation's fortunes? God's treatment of Tobit is, at the very least, along the same lines as his treatment of Israel. But the parallel becomes quite explicit in chapter 13, Tobit's great hymn of praise to God. Just as the formula - God afflicts and God shows mercy - occurs in 11.15 as the reason for Tobit to bless God on his own account, so it recurs three times in chapter 13 as the reason why all Israelites should join Tobit in blessing God.'* The first occurrence of the formula is a general statement about God: For he afflicts, and he shows mercy; he leads down t o Hades in the lowest regions of the earth, and he brings up from the great abyss, and there is nothing that can escape his hand (13.2).

This echoes God's great self-declaration at the end of the Torah, in the Song of Moses, with reference also to the parallel claim in the Song of Hannah: See now that I, even I, am he; there is n o god beside me. I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and no one can deliver from my hand (Deut. 32.39).11

' The second clause is lacking in G", but preserved in G1and OL. Quotations of Tobit in English translation are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted. NRSV translates the longer Greek recension (G"),witnessed primarily by Codex Sinaiticus. A. A. Di Lelia, 'The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3-11,' CBQ 41 (1979)' p. 382; C.A. Moore, Tobit (AB 40A; New York: Doubleday, 1996),pp. 263-64. lo Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, p. 33, recognizes the importance of this application of the formula both to Tobit and to Israel, suggesting that the application to Tobit is secondary and the national expcctation foremost in the author's mind and intention. l 1 Quotations from the Bible in English translation are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.

436

23. ToLtt as a Parable for the Estles of Northcrn Israel

The LORI) kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up (1 Sam. 2.6). In Second Temple Judaism the Song of Moses was often read as a prophecy of Israel's future, predicting Israel's subjection t o the nations and subsequent deliverance and restoration by YHWH.12 If Tobit's hymn can be seen as in some sense an equivalent to the Song of Moses, as Steven Weitzman argues,13it is not because the latter ends with Moses' prediction of Israel's original settlement in the land, whereas Tobit's foresees the corresponding re-settlement of exiled Israel in the land," but because the Song of Moses was widely understood as itself predicting Israel's restoration after exile. Tobit takes up Moses' own prophecy, elaborating it with allusions to later prophecies of restoration in the prophets. In the Song of Moses, deliverance and restoration for Israel can be expected from G o d because he is as h e drscribes himself in 32.39: the one whose will none can resist, the one who, in sovereign power, kills and makes alive, wounds and heals. Tobit's hymn takes u p this characterization of G o d for just the same purpose: t o ground the promise of God's restoration of Israel following judgment and exile. The same G o d w h o scattered sinful Israel will re-gather repentant Israel (Tob. 13.5-6). Following this initial use of the formula - God afflicts and G o d shows mercy - to characterize Goci's ways in general at the beginning of Tobit's hymn (13.2), he subsequently uses it more specifically, addressing all Israel: He afflictedI5you for your iniquities, but he will again show mercy on all of you. He will gather you from all the nations among whom you have been scattered (13.5). But Tobit's vision of Israel's future is also Jerusalem-centred (and in this respect also deuteronomic), just as his understanding of her punishment is. It was for worshipping Jeroboam's calf in Ilan and o n all the mountains of Galilee, rather than going t o Jerusalem, as Tobit alone did ( 1 . 6 4 , that his tribe had been exiled (1.4-5). Therefore his prophecy of Israel's restoration in chapter 13 gives pride of place to the glorious Jerusalem of the future (13.9-1 7). H e ends his address to Israel by calling o n all t o acknowledge the divine King 'in Jerusalem' (13.9), the place of his earthly dwelling (1.4), and I Z R. 1-1. Bell, Proaoked to jealottsy: 'The Origin and Purposc of tht*j~~alousy Motif in Romans 9-1 1 (WUNT 2/63; Tiihingen: Mohr Sieheck, 1994)chapter 7. '9. Weitzman, 'Allusion, Artifice, and I x i l e in the Hymn of Tobit,' CHQ 115 (1996), pp. 49-61; idem, Song and Story in Biblical N a m t i v e (Rloomington:Indiana University

Press, 1997),pp. 67-68. I' Weitznian, 'Allusion,' pp. 54-55; idem, Song, pp. 67-68. I s The past tense is found here in 01. and Vg, whereas G" (Sinaiticus)has 'will afflict.' NRSV follows G1' in the text, but gives 'afflicted' in the marginal note.

Tobit i solidarity with his peoplr*

437

turns to address Jerusalem herself in the rest of the hymn. Significantly this address to Jerusalem begins by applying the formula - God afflicts and God shows mercy - to Jerusalem: 0 Jerusalem, the holy city, he will afflictihy o u for the deeds o f y o u r hands, but will again have mercy o n the children o f the righteous (13.7).

Thus the four occurrences of the forrnula (1 1.15; 13.2, 5,7) describe God's ways in general and apply it to the particular cases of Tobit himself, Israel and Jerusalem. This creates a strong parallel between Tobit's story and that of the nation. Indeed, it indicates that thc reason Tobit sings his hymn of joyful praise to God for his future dealings with Israel is that he himself has experienced precisely the mercy of God after judgment that Moses and the prophets have predicted for Israel. He takes his own experience to be a confirmation of God's intention for the nation." H e also takes this demonstration of God's powerful mercy in his own case as a basis for calling on Israel to repent so that the whole nation tnay likewise experience God's mercy after judgment (13.6). It is clear that, so far from chapter 13 being unrelated to Tobit's own story, there is a close correlation and connexion between Tobit's own experience and his celebration of Israel's future in this hymn.

fibit's solidarity with his people In the early part of the book Tobit is portrayed as a righteous man, who, when he lived in Israel, was an exception to the apostasy that brought exile on his people, and, when in exile, was known for his acts of charity to his people, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and burying the dead. 'This might seem to obviate a comparison between his misfortune and Israel's. Israel's misfortune was deserved, but Tobit's, apparently, was not. However, we must also take account of the way Tobit sees himself as in solidarity with his people, in their sin as well as in their misfortune. There is only one formal quotation from Scripture in the book, which therefore deserves closer attention than interpreters have given it. When Tobit's celebration of the feast of Pentecost with his family was interrupted by the news that the corpse of a murdered Israelite was lying unburied, l 6 Here NRSV prefers the reading of OL.and Vg ('afflicted'), consigning that of G i i ('will afflict') to the marginal note. But the latter is confirmed by 4 q T o b a 17.2.8. It niakes good sense, because froni 'Ibbit's perspective the fall of Jcrusalern to the Babylonians lies still in the future (cf. 144). " Moore, Tobit, p. 284, rccogtiizes this but in rather too getieral terms: 'If God had done all that for Tobit and his family, how much more, concludes Tobit, will God d o for his people anci his Holy City ?'

438

23. Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel

Tobit left his food untouched and went t o bury the body (2.1-4). O n his return from this sad task, he ate [his] food in sorrow. Then I remembered the prophecy of Amos, how he said against Bethel, "Your festivals shall be turned into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation." And I wept (Tob. 2.5-6). The quotation is from Amos 8.10: I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation.

Tobit has modified the quotation only t o the extent of turning the firstperson speech by Y H W I i into the 'divine passive' that only implies Y H W H as the agent of the action. The change is probably not due to 'an unwillingness to ascribe evil to God,"8 for there is another example of the 'divine passive' in 1.4 and in this case the action is not judgmental (Jerusalem 'had been chosen from among all the tribes of Israel'). Elsewhere Tobit shows no reluctance to attribute his misfortunes to God (3.5; 11.15). The alteration of the words of Amos may be due to a reverential unwillingness by Tobit t o speak as though in the divine first-person. The appositeness of the quotation depends not only on the fact that Tobit's celebration of a festival has given place t o mourning, but most probably also on the fact that in the unquoted context in Amos the mourning is related to the unburied bodies of the dead, just as Tobit's is: "The songs of the temple shall become wailings in that day," says the Lord GOD; "the dead bodies shall be many, cast out in every place" (Amos 8.3). Evidently Tobit sees the way in which his own celebration of Pentecost had been overtaken by mourning for the murdered man as an instance of the judgments of God on Israel to which the words of Amos refer. What is striking is the fact that, by explicitly informing the reader that Amos's words were spoken against Bethel, Tobit explicitly problematizes their reference to his own case. The words are certainly not being reapplied by ignoring their context in the book of Amos, where it is the festivals at the illegitimate sanctuary in Bethel (among others) that are being condemned (cf. Amos 5.5; 7.10-13; 8.3). Tobit has himself made clear both that it was for this illegitimate worship in sanctuaries other than Jerusalem that his tribe had been condemned t o exile (IS), but also that he alone had not participated in it, instead fulfilling all the requirements of Torah in ~ e r u s i l e m IY

Zinimermann, The Rook of Tobtt, p. 56, followed by Moore, Tobit, p. 129.

7i)bit'ssolidarity wtth his people

439

(1.6-8). Of course, the feast of I'entecost should have been celebrated in Jerusalem (Deut. 16.9-1 I), and the fact that, by virtue of his exile,19 Tobit had to celebrate it at home in Nineveh may serve to associate his worship with the apostate worship that had brought the exile on his people. While it can hardly be blameworthy in the way that that apostasy was, nevertheless Tobit's inability fully to fulfil the requirements of Torah highlights the way he, despite his innocence, had had to suffer the full consequences of the sins of the rest of his people. Because they had refused to worship in Jerusalem, now he, no less than they, was obliged to worship apart from Jerusalem. Though innocent, he is identified with the sins of his people. The point is reinforced by the circumstance that, whereas those condemned by Amos were also, in the immediate context, denounced for exploitation of the poor (Amos 8.4-6; cf. 2.6-7; 5.1 1-12), the occasion for Tobit's quotation of Amos had come about through his charitable concern for the poor (Tob 2.2-3). By applying Amos 8.10 to his own case Tobit is not protesting his innocence, compared with the sins of his people, but accepting God's treatment of him because of his solidarity with his people. This significance of the quotation becomes even more notable when we appreciate a point that previous interpreters have missed: that the quotation in its context in Tobit not only points backwards to the preceding episode (2.1-5) but also forwards to what follows. What precedes the quotation is an instance of the first line ('Your festivals shall be turned into mourning'), but it is what follows that instantiates the second line ('and all your songs into lamentation'). It anticipates Tobit's lament in 3.1-6, which culminates the whole account of Tobit's misfortunes and expresses the extremity of his grief over them. In this light we can see that the quotation from Amos, the only formal quotation from Scripture in the book, has pivotal importance for understanding the meaning of Tobit's sufferings as a whole. What brings Tobit to the extremity of grief expressed in his lament is not only his blindness (2.9-lo), but also the taunts and reproaches thrown at him even by his (presumably Israelite) neighbours (2.8) and even by his wife (2.14). These form an inclusio around the section that describes the infliction and consequences of his greatest misfortune: blindness (2.8-1 1). This coheres with the special prominence reproaches and insults have in Tobit's lament (2.4,6). Anna's reproach, rather like Job's wife's (job 2.9-10),2O proves the final aggravation that precipitates his lament. But there is a crucial difference from Job. Tobit does not protest his innocence, but confesses his sins along with those of his people (3.3,s). Unlike Job's questioning of the justice of God, Tobit begins his lament by emphatically confessing it l9

The Jerusalern Temple, of course, was still standing at this time.

" But note the differences pointed out b y Moore, Tobtr,p. 135.

440

23. Toht as a Parable for tlte Exzles of Northern Israel

(3.2). Tobit never questions God's justice, however much the reader of the book may be tempted to d o so. It is likely that, in the episode that leads to Anna's reproach, Tobit is portrayed as finally acting in a way that is not entirely blameless. H e is unjustifiably suspicious of her, refusing to believe her truthful explanation, and angry with her (2.13-14). It is a sin t o which his extreme misfortunes have finally driven him. Just as his innocent participation in the exile his people deserved gave him no choice but t o disobey Torah t o the extent of not celebrating the festivals in Jerusalem, so now his further misfortunes provoke him t o a truly blameworthy act. Perhaps the realisation that he has acted wrongly and that Anna's reproach was at least partly justified is what leads t o his grief and his voicing of the lament. O n the other hand, he evidently still feels Anna's reproach, which appears to question either the sincerity o r the value of his charitable acts (2.14), t o have been 'undeserved' (3.6). E.Iowever, what is notable about the lament is how Tobit treats himself as a sinner alongside his people and even acknowledges God's justice in punishing him as well as them: D o not punish me for my sins and for my unwitting offences and those that my ariccstors committed before you. They sinned against you, and disobeyed your commandments. So you gave us over t o plundcr, exile, and death, to become the talk, the byword, and an object of reproach aniong all the nations among whom you have dispersed us. And now your many judgments are true in exacting penalty from me for n ~ sins. y For we have not kept your commandments and have not walked in accordance with truth before you (3.3-5).

This acknowledgement of sin and just punishment could not be more different from Job's approach t o G o d or, closer t o home, from Sarah's lament, which speaks only of her innocence (3.14-15). Thus, despite the initial portrayal of Tobit as exemplary in his faithful observance of Torah, the narrative of Tobit's misfortunes climaxes in his own representation of himself as fully in solidarity with his people's sins and their punishment." It is this solidarity that qualifies Tobit t o function in the book both as a representative of Israel's just punishment and as a representative of God's merciful reversal of that punishment. His solidarity with his people in the lament introduces a kind of logic that is worked out in the closing sections of the book. For if G o d does respond t o Tobit's prayer

''

Cf. Soll, 'Misfortune,' p. 224: 'I'obit 'identifies hir~~self with wayward lsrael to a striking degree.'

Images of exile and restoratiorr

44 1

that he not be further punished for his sins (3.3), then his solidarity with his people should also mean that God will withhold further punishment also from Israel as a whole.

Images of exile and restoration The parallels between the misfortunes of Tobit and their reversal, on the one hand, and the misfortunes of Israel and their reversal, on the other, are strengthened by the way the former reflect ways in which Deuteronomy and the prophets predict the misfortunes of Israel's punishments and restoration. We recall that there are three key personal misfortunes that are reversed: Tobit's loss of his property, Tobit's blindness and Sarah's lack of a husband. In the case of Tobit's deprivation of his property - taken from him by the Assyrian king Sennacherib (1.20) - Tobit himself provides the parallel when he characterizes Israel's punishment as 'plunder, exile, and death' (3.4). The plundering of faithless Israel's goods by the nations who oppress her is predicted in Deuteronomy's catalogue of evils that God will bring on his people who rebel against him (Deut. 28:30-31,33, 51; cf. 2 Kgs 21.14), but the more fundamental parallel to Tobit's misfortune may be Israel's loss of 'the good land' (as Deuteronomy echoed by Tob 14.4 calls it), the source of all her material sustenance and prosperity. The reversal of Tobit's plight, in this aspect, will be paralleled in Israel's case not only by the restoration to the land (Tob. 14.5, 7), but also by the wealth of the nations that will pour into the gloriously restored Jerusalem (Tob. 13.1 I; cf. Isa. 60.5-7,9,1l; 61.4; 66.12). Blindness also occurs among the punishments Deuteronomy predicts for faithless Israel (Deut. 28.29,65). But we should also notice that Tobit speaks of his blindness as equivalent to death: I am a man without eyesight; I cannot see the light of heaven, but I lie in darkness like the dead who no longer see the light. Although still alive, I am among the dead (Tab. 5.10).

There may scriptural allusions here: We wait for light, and lo! there is darkness; and for brightness, but we walk in gloom. We grope like the blind along the wall, groping like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight, among the vigorous as though we were dead (Isa. 59.9-10).

I am one who has seen affliction

442

23. Tobit as n Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel

under the rod of God's wrath; he has driven and brought me into darkness without any light .... he has made me sit in darkness like the dead of long ago (Lam. 3.1-2,6; cf. also Mic. 7.8-9). We might also note that, in common with the speakers in Isaiah 59.10, blind Tobit stumbles (Tob. 11.10). As for Tobit's healing, the opening of the eyes of the blind is a standard feature of the Isaianic prophecies of Israel's restoration (Isa. 29.18; 35.5; 42.7, 16, 18; cf. 9.2). The vocabulary of healing is used in Tobit for both the healing of Tobit's blindness and the delivery of Sarah from the demon (2.10; 3.17; 5.10; 6.9; 12.3, 14). In most of these cases (all except 6.9), the Greek verb is IiioOa~, the verb that usually, in the Septuagint, translates the Hebrew HI?^. This Hebrew verb is also, of course, part of the name of the angel Raphael ('God has healed') and it is Raphael who is sent by God to heal both Sarah and Tobit (3.17; 12.14). In the Hebrew Bible, RDY is often used to speak of God's healing of the nation of Israel or of Jerusalem (e.g. 2 Chron. 7.14; 30.20; Jer. 3.22; It-30s. 11.3; cf. Isa. 19.22). It is a standard image of restoration (Isa. 30.26; 57.18-1 9; Jcr. 30.17; Hos. 6.1; 6.1 1-7.1; 14.4), sometimes associated with the gathering of the exiles and the rebuilding of Jerusalem Uer. 33.6-9; Ps. 147.2-3). Often it is God who has wounded his people as punishment and who subsequently will heal them (Isa. 57.17-19; Jer. 30.10-17; 33.5-6; Hos. 6.1). Perhaps especially significant is God's declaration of his identity and ways in the Song of Moses: I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and no one can deliver from my hand (Deut. 32.39).

We have already pointed out that Tobit's hymn paraphrases this: For he afflicts, and he shows mercy; he leads down to Hades in the lowest regions of the earth, and he brings up from the great abyss, and there is nothing that can escape his hand (1 3.2). Here Deuteronomy's 'I wound and I heal' corresponds to Tobit's 'he afflicts and he shows mercy,' which we have seen t o be the formula by which Tobit's own suffering and restoration are correlated with those of Israel and Jerusalem. Among Deuteronomy's predictions of evils for apostate Israel we also find: 'You shall become an object of horror, a proverb, and a byword among all the peoples where the LORDwill lead you' (Deut. 28.37; cf. 28.25; 1 Kgs 9.7; Jer. 24.9; Ps. 44.13-16). Tobit himself alludes to this passage when he laments the punishments God has inflicted on his people:

S a r a l ~story i as a parable of the desolation and restoration of Jerusalem

443

So you gave us over to plunder, exile, and death, to become the talk, the byword, and an object of reproach among all the nations among whom you have dispersed us (Tob. 3.4). The correspondence with his own suffering of reproaches and insults (2.8, 14; 3.6) is obvious in the context. This suffering of reproaches is a form of distress that Tobit shares with Sarah (3.7, 10, 13). Finally, among Deuteronomy's curses is one that Anna suffers: 'you will strain your eyes looking for them [the sons and daughters who have been taken from you] all day but be powerless to d o anything' (Deut. 28.32). Anna instantiates this curse when, day after day, she spends the whole of the daylight hours watching the road Tobias had taken (Tob. 10.7). The curse is reversed when finally she sees him coming (1 1.5-6).

Sarah's story as a parable of the desolation and restoration of Jerusalem In the previous section we have mentioned Sarah's plight and restoration only in two respects that she shares with Tobit: she suffers insults and is healed by Raphael. But in Sarah's story in particular there are also scriptural

resonances that suggest that (whereas Tobit models the story of Israel) Sarah models the story of the city of Jerusalem, often portrayed as a woman or, more specifically, a bride. Sarah's plight is that of a childless widow with no prospect of marriage or children. Her plight is reversed when Tobias marries her and she bears seven sons. She resembles Jerusalem after its fall to the Babylonian armies: deserted, without inhabitants. But in marriage and childbearing she resembles the gloriously restored Jerusalem of the prophets: You Uerusalem] shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be called Desolate; but you shall be called My Delight Is In I Ier, and your land Married (Isa. 62.4). The account of Sarah in Tobit seems especially designed to recall the portrayal of the desolate Jerusalem in the book of Lamentations, which begins: How lonely sits the city that once was full of people! How like a widow she has become, she that was great among the nations! She that was a princess (rw) among the provinces has become a vassal (Lam. 1.1 ).

444

23. Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel

Given (as we shall show more fully below) that most of the names in Tobit seem carefully chosen for their significance, it is probably not coincidental that Sarah's name (ma, meaning 'princess') occurs in this opening verse of Lamentations as an epithet of Jerusalem. Lamentations goes o n to describe Jerusalem weeping bitterly in the night (Lam. 1.2; cf. Tob. 2.10) and the taunts she suffers (Lam. 2.14-15; cf. Tob. 3.7-9). Sarah does not become the bride of God, as Jerusalem is in some of the prophets. It may be that her marriage to Tobias prefigures the embracing of Jerusalem as Israel's cultic centre o n the part of the northern tribes. Or it may be that the joy of the marriage celebration is simply an appropriate image of the restoration of previously desolate Jerusalem: In this place of which you say, "It is a waste without human beings or animals," in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem that are desolate, without inhabitants, human or animal, there shall once more be heard the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride.... Uer. 33.10-1 1).

The personal names It has been widely recognized that many of the personal names in Tobit have been chosen for their significance in relation to the story, but the correct significance has not always been recognized and the full significance not appreciated. This is particularly true of the names Tobit and Tobias. Tobit's father, Tobit himself and his son bear related names. His father's name Tobiel (%?a) means 'God is good,' his son's name Tobiah (;r.rn) means 'Y H W H is good,'22 while his own name (TopiB o r Tof3it.t' is a hypocoristicon (i. e. abbreviated form) of one o r the other. The names are not, as Carey Moore claims,25 to be considered ironic - in view of Tobit's sufferings. Rather they are prophetic of the goodness of the Lord as it appears in the reversal of the family's misfortunes. When Tobit, his sight restored, blesses God, saying, 'Though he afflicted me, he has had mercy upon me. Now I see Tobias my son' (1 1.1 5), there may be a double entendre: 'Now I see that Y H W H is good.'26 His son's name comes true, as it were, when the divine pattern of scourging and having mercy is completed. " The names are sometimes said to mean 'God is my good' and 'YHWII is my good,' hut this is probahly incorrect; see R. Zadok, The Pre-Hellenlstzc Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 28; Leuven: Peeters, 1988)52. On the Greek forms of the name, see Fitzmyer, Tobrt, p. 93.

"

" That this was the original, Semitic form of the name is now confirmed by the Qumran Aramaic and Hebrew fragments (44197 4.3.5,6; 44200 4.7; 6.1). 25 Moore, Tobrt, p. 25. *' Soll, 'Misfortune,' p. 229, citing J. Craghan.

The personal names

These names may well constitute an allusion to Nahum 1.7: The LORDis good (ZW ra),a stronghold in a day of trouble; he protects those who take refuge in him. This is one of the few statements about God's salvation of his people2' in the midst of a book largely devoted to prophesying God's judgment o n Nineveh. Because of this dominant theme Nahum is, besides Amos, the only prophet named in Tobit (14.4). His book clearly had a special significance for exiles of northern Israel, and the fulfilment of its prophecy of the destruction of Nineveh (14.4, 15) was an assurance that all the prophecies, especially those of future restoration, would also come true: 'not a single word of the prophecies will fail' (14.4). It would be quite appropriate for Tobit's and Tobias's names to echo Nahum's prophecy. The words, 'YHWH is good,' are also well known in the recurrent refrain in the Psalms: 'The LORD is good; his steadfast love endures forever' (Pss 100.5; 106.1; 107.1; 118.1, 29; 135.3; 136.1; 1 Chron. 16.34; 2 Chron. 5.13; 7.3; Ezra 3.1 I), but there is also an occurrence of this refrain, especially significant for the theme of Tobit, in Jeremiah 33.1 1. The context is a prophecy of the restoration of Israel (33.6-12) t o which we have already referred. In the once desolate cities of Judah, there will again be heard voices of joy. The climax of the list of such voices is the voices of those who sing, as they bring thank offerings to the house of the LORD: "Give thanks to the LORDof hosts, for the LORDis good (717' IIC), and his steadfast love endures forever!" (Jer. 33.1 1) Tobias's name is what the exiles will sing when they have returned to the land and give thanks to Y I-IW H in the Jerusalem Temple. The prophetic significance of the name thus paints far ahead of the personal experiences of Tobit's family to the ultimate fulfilment of the divine promises of national restoration. Several names of Tobit's relatives28contain the Hebrew root ;:n ('to show favour, to be gracious'): Hananiel ('God has been gracious') (Tob. 1.1); Hananiah ('Y H WE4 has been gracious') (5.13-1 4); and, most importantly, Tobit's wife Anna or Hannah ('[God's] grace'). In the Hebrew Bible grace is a key attribute and activity of Y H W H and is closely related to his mercy (cf. Exod. 34.6). It can refer to God's favour shown to individuals or to Israel, 27 Note also Nah. 1.12: "Though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no more.' This may have influenced Tobit's phrasing of the formula 'he afflicts but he shows mercy.' NRSV gives the name Eianael ('the grace of God') in 1.21 for the Greek Availh, but l Q l 9 6 2.6 shows the original Semitic form of this name is 5 ~ u .

446

23. Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel

not least in acts of restoration after judgment (Amos 5.15; Ps. 102.13; Isa. 30.19; Jer. 31.2), including that of the northern tribes (2 Chron. 30.9). We have already noticed the significance of the names Raphael ('God has healed') and Sarah ('princess'). The appropriateness of Raphael's assumed human name, Azariah ('YHWH has helped'), is obvious. The names of 1 , of God') and Edna (K-~P, cf. Xlu, Sarah's parents, Raguel ( 5 ~ ~'friend 'delight'), seem to be appropriate in only a rather general sense. 'Friend of God' suggests Abraham (cf. 2 Chron. 20.7; Isa. 41.8), but the word 07 is not used in his case. Edna's name recalls the Garden of Eden ( ; X I ) , and it is worth noticing that the prophecies of the restoration of Jerusalem speak of the city as a desert that will become like the garden of Eden (Isa. 51.3; Ezek. 36.35; cf. Joel 2.3), while the precious stones said by Ezekiel t o be in Eden (Ezek. 28.13) resemble those of which the restored Jerusalem will be built (Tob. 13.16).

Restoration for the northern tribes Recognizing that Tobit's story is told as a paradigm for the restoration of Israel requires us to take particularly seriously the fact that Tobit is a Naphtalite. His tribal membership is of considerable significance for him. H e is precise about his geographical origins (Tob. 1.2). It was primarily for people of his own tribe that he performed acts of charity (1.3, 16). We himself married within his tribe and clan (1.9) and he expects his son to d o the same (4.12; cf. 3.15). It was because Azariah belonged to a good family closely related to Tobit's that Tobit was willing to put his son into Azariah's care (5.1 1-14). A narrative so embedded in such specific tribal loyalty can scarcely serve as the paradigm for a restoration of the nation in a sense that would exclude this tribe from it. Indeed, within his hymn, Tobit includes his personal hope for his own descendants: How happy 1 will be if a remnant of my descendants should survive to see your Uerusalem's] glory and acknowledge the King of heaven (13.16). We cannot suppose the author's hope of restoration was such as t o exclude this hope expressed by the hero of his tale. Why should the author have chosen a Naphtalite family for his story? In the deportations of Israelites by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, according to the biblical history, the tribe of Naphtali has a special place. They were the first to be deported: In the days of King Pekah of Israel, King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria came and captured Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Kedesh, f-iazor,Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali; and he carried the people captive to Assyria (2 Kgs 15:29).

Restoration for the northern tribes

447

Though it remains mysterious that Tobit has transferred this action from one Assyrian king (Tiglath-pileser) to his successor (Shalmaneser) (Tob. 1.2), it is certainly to this deportation that he refers. Tobit's references to Kedesh NaphtaliZ9and Hazor place his home village, Thisbe, clearly within the geographical area to which 2 Kings 15.29 refers.30 By making a family deported in this very first of the deportations the subject of his story, the author of Tobit has devised a story that can apply inclusively to all the deported tribes. Tobit's family stands for all those who were exiled subsequently, down to the fall of Jerusalem. From his vantage-point at the beginning of exile, Tobit can foresee the whole history of exile: All of our kindred, inhabitants of the land of Israel, will be scattered and taken as captives from the good land; and the whole land of Israel will be desolate, even Samaria and Jerusalem will be desolate (Tob. 14.4).

Not only was Naphtali the first tribe to be deported; it is also specifically mentioned in a prophecy of restoration in which that deportation is recalled: In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness

have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness on them the light has shined (Isa. 9.1-2 [Hebrew 8.23-9.1 1).

The precise meaning of verse 1 is obscure and debated,)' but it could certainly have been read as an instance of Tobit's formula for the judgmental and restorative action of God: he afflicts and he has mercy.)* In that case, the subject is God, who humbled these northern tribes by subjecting them to exile, but will glorify their land when he restores them. That such a reading has informed the book of Tobit seems especially attractive when we notice also that verse 2 puts the twofold experie&e of-the tribes into language applicable literally to Tobit's experience. Blind Tobit lay 'in darkness like the 29 It is clcar that Tobit took the Kedesh Naphtali of Judg. 4.6 to be Kedesh in Upper Galilee. This is why his grandmother was called Deborah (1.8). O' This makes the identifications of the places by J.T. Milik, 'La Patrie de Tobie,' RB 73 (1966),pp. 522-30, implausible. A reference to two phases of Assyrian conquest seems likely: cf. Y. Aharoni, The Land ofthe Bible: A Historrcal Geography (2 nd edition; London: Burns & Oates, 1979) 374; J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39 (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 247. Cf. B.S. Childs, Isaiah (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001),p. 80: 'two qualities of time, judgmental and redemptive, are being contrasted .... [This verse] anticipates both the humiliation and exaltation of the land by the use of the perfect form of the verbs.'

448

23. Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel

dead who no longer see the light' (Tob. 5.10) until he was healed and saw the light (I 1.8). Thus Tobit models the experience of his tribe, and his tribe that of all the tribes. This understanding of the treatment of Naphtali as paradigmatic of all the tribes of Israel coheres with an emphasis, also found in Tobit, on all the tribes. Jerusalem, he insists, 'had been chosen from among all the tribes of Israel, where all the tribes of Israel should offer sacrifice' (Tob. 1.4). The centrality of Jerusalem to Tobit's eschatological expectation (13.9-17) is not, from this perspective, a particularly Judean hope but a genuinely panIsraelite hope: 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 forever in the land of Abraham (14.7). An expectation of the return and reunification of all the tribes of Israel is found frequently in the prophets (Nah 2.2; Isa. 11.11-16; 27.12-13; 43.5-6; Jer. 3.18; 16.14-15; 23.6-8; 31.7-14, 31; Ezek. 11.14-17; 20.1-44; 37.16-23; 47.13-14, 21-23; 48.1-35; Hos. 11.10-11; Zech 8.13; 9.1; 10.6-12) and in the literature of early Judaism (e. g. Sir 36.13, 16; 48.10; 2 Macc 1.27-29; 1 Enoch 90.33; Pss Sol. 8.28; 11.1-9; 17.26; 4 Ezra 13.39-50; 2 Bar. 78.1-7). It is therefore not at all surprising to find it in Tobit. As in Tobit, many of these passages explicitly make Jerusalem the centre of the regathered tribes. What is distinctive in Tobit is that the regathering and return of all the tribes is viewed from the perspective of the northern tribes in exile. This point can be appreciated particularly if we consider the role of the fall of Nineveh in Tobit. The conclusion of the book narrates how Tobias, now in Media, heard of the destruction of Nineveh and saw the citizens of Nineveh led captive into Media. Tobias praised God for all he had done to the people of Nineveh and Assyria; before he died he rejoiced over Nineveh, and he blessed the Lord God forever and ever (14.15).

The point is not just that God judged Nineveh for its oppression, but that the fulfilment of this prediction of the prophets guarantees the fulfilment of the rest of their predictions, including Israel's restoration to the land, along with the glorified Jerusalem to which all Israel will adhere. Earlier in the chapter Tobit has associated Nahum's prophecy of the judgment of Nineveh, in which he firmly believes, with his confidence that 'everything that was spoken by the prophets of Israel, whom God sent, will occur' (14.4). The point is given remarkable emphasis, twice repeated. O n this basis Tobit then goes on to predict what will happen up to and including the final restoration (14.4-7). The further waves of deportation, the fall of both Samaria and Jerusalem, and especially the destruction of the temple,

What became of the exiles of the northern tribes?

449

are predicted. But the return and rebuilding of the Temple in the time of the Persian Empire are mentioned mainly in order to indicate that they are relatively minor acts of God's mercy, not to be mistaken for 'the times of fulfilment' (14.5). Only later they all will return from their exile and will rebuild Jerusalem in splendour; and in it the temple will be rebuilt, just as the prophets of Israel have said concerning it (14.5).

From the perspective of the northern tribes in exile, the one event still in Tobit's future that is of decisive significance for their future is the fall of Nineveh. This is the event that brings with it the assurance that God will also restore them to the land. God's judgment of Nineveh is the obverse of his mercy for his people oppressed by Nineveh. The fall of Nineveh concludes the book because it is the last event that really matters to the exiles of northern Israel prior to the still future restoration of all Israel and Jerusalem. Notably, Tobit's predictions d o not include the fall of Babylon, so important for the exiles of Judah. If Tobit has in view an audience primarily of exiles of the northern tribes, then the particular focus of the book provides an intelligible message. It makes clear to them that their exile was the consequence especially of their apostasy from Jerusalem, the God-given cultic centre for all Israel. The words of the prophets, especially Amos, who denounced their apostasy and foresaw their judgment were vindicated in their exile. But the further fulfilment of the prophecies of judgment on Nineveh, especially by Nahum, should assure them that God's promises to have mercy on his people will be fulfilled in their restoration to the land. The glorious new Jerusalem of the future will be theirs just as much as Judah's and Benjamin's. What is required of them meantime is repentance and righteousness. For this Tobit, in his loyalty to Jerusalem and his assiduous practice of charity, provides a model. They have shared his affliction, and, if they practise his righteousness, they will also experience God's mercy as he did. His story will set the pattern for the story of all Israel. Is Tobit then a book for the diaspora of the northern tribcs? For this to be plausible, we must establish that, at the time of writing, there was such an identifiable diaspora of the northern tribcs.

What became of the exiles of the northern tribes? The date of the book of Tobit is difficult to determine with any precision. O n the one hand, it presupposes the building of the Second Temple (14.5) and probably the final editing of the Pentateuch. O n the other hand, the

450

23. Tobit as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel

lack of belief in a personal destiny after death (also characteristic of Ben Sira) suggests a relatively early date. But the book's failure t o reflect either the events or the spirit of the Maccabean period does not necessarily, as has been commonly held, make it 'unquestionably pre-Nla~cabean,'~~ since this would not be surprising in a work written, as we shall argue Tobit was, in the eastern diaspora and for the exiles of the northern tribes. It is now widely agreed that the Aramaic fragments from Qumran preserve the text in its original language. Fitzmyer has classified this as Middle Aramaic, along with other Qumran Aramaic texts such as the Genesis Apocryphon, the books of Enoch, and the Targum ofJob. O n the basis of the language and his agreement with other critics that it must be pre-Maccabean, Fitzmyer opts for a date between 225 and 175 B C E . ~I ~doubt if we can be so precise. The available texts in Middle Aramaic for comparison are few, and Fitzmyer himself points out that 'copyists often changed the forms to their customary modes of ~ r i t i n g . "Neither ~ a date earlier in the Hellenistic period (or even the late Persian period)36 nor a later second-century date is impossible. For our present argument a more precise dating would make no difference, since most scholars seem agreed that exiles of the northern tribes preserving their Israelite identity in the eastern diaspora had ceased to exist long before the Hellenistic period. Shemaryahu Talmon (who uses here the term 'Ephraimite' to refer t o the northern kingdom of Israel as a whole) writes: O n account of the small size of their community and their second-class status, the Ephraimite expatriates were unable to organize any resistance to their captors. Under duress, they adjusted to the difficult situation of life in exile. Neither biblical nor extra-biblical sources attest to the emergence in Assyria of an Israelite exilic community that was marked by identifiable culrural characteristics which set it apart from the surrounding foreign society, and distinguished the faith system of its members from that of their compatriots in the homeland who had escaped banishment." Their passivity was further deepened by the fact that the biblical sources do not give any reason for assuming that the Ephraimite diaspora ever developed an expectation of a return to the land. It may be said that the absence of the hope of a restoration on the Samarians' spiritual horizon, of the deportees as of those who remained on their soil, was a primary cause of the disappearance of the ten tribes from the stage of history. Lacking the spiritual stamina for successfully resisting assimilation to the surrounding society, in the diaspora as well as in the homeland, the population of the Northern Kingdom fell prey to a process of internal dissolution, which culminated in its final Moore, Tobit, p. 41. Fitzmyer, Tobit, pp. 18-27'50-52. Fitzmyer, Tobit, p. 52. 36 Cf. L. L. Grabbe, 'Tobit,' in J. D. G. Dunn and J. W. Rogerson ed., Eerdrndns Cornmentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 736. 37 He appears to mean the worship of YHWH only as one god of the Canaanite pantheon. j3

34

'*

What became ofthe exiles of the northern tribes?

45 1

eclipse not long after the fall of Samaria. Consequently the Ephraimite diaspora in Assyria shall have no part in the post-exilic restitution of a new x o h ~ t e i ain the land, possibly with some exceptions (see below).38

The possible exceptions to which he refers are a group of three families listed among those who returned from Babylonia to Judea in the early Persian period. These families, who came from a series of named but not now ider~tifiable'~ places, were unable to authenticate their genuinely Israelite descent (Ezra 2.59-60). Talmon suggests that these families had lived in the diaspora for longer than the Judeans deported in 586, and so may have lost information about their ancestry.40Although, intriguingly, one of the three families is that of Tobiah (Ezra 2.60),41this suggestion must remain no more than a guess unless the place names in Ezra 5.59 can be identified with places in the areas where exiles of the northern tribes settled (i.e. in northern Mesopotamia or Media). There are several problems with Talmon's remarks on the fate of the exiles of the northern tribes. One is that he fails to refer at all t o Assyrian deportations prior to the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE (thus ignoring 1 Chron. 5.6,26 as well as 2 Kgs 15.29), with the result that his reference to the small numbers of the deportees may well be mistaken. Tiglath-Pileser, himself, in an Assyrian text about his campaign of 733-32 (the one t o which 2 Kgs 15.29 and Tob. 1.2 refer), claims to have deported 13,520 Israelite captives, while an archaeological survey has confirmed a marked decline in the population of the area at this time. Moreover, as well as the unknown numbers deported in Shalmaneser's campaign up to 722, we know from Assyrian sources that 27,290 were deported by Sargon in 720 and probably others in 716.42There seems good reason t o suppose that the northern Israelite exiles were more numerous than the exiles of Judea deponed later by the Babylonians (only 4600 according to Jer. 52.28-30), and so the number of the northern Israelite exiles cannot be said to have inhibited their survival as a distinctive ethnic and cultural group. (Incidentally, the book of Tobit's strong concern for 38 S. Talmon, '"Exile" and "Restoration" in the Conceptual World of Ancient Judaism,' in J.M. Scott ed., Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), pp. 119-120. 39 For the best suggestions up till now, see J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1988), p. 91. 40 Talmon, '"Exile",' p. 130. 4 1 More likely than a connexion with the book of Tobit is the possibility that this name is connected with the Tobiah clan that we know from Babylonian sources to have formed a large part of the Jewish community in the Babylonian city of Nippur during the Persian period: see R. Zadok, The Jews in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods according to the Babylonian Sources (Haifa: University of Haifa, 1979), pp. 54-55, 62-64. 42 K. L. Younger, 'Israelites in Exile,' BAR 29/6 (2003), pp. 41-42.

452

23. Tobzt as a Parable for the Exiles of Northern Israel

endogamous marriage illustrates one way in which such identity could be preserved across generations.) Talmon's assertion of their lack of 'spiritual stamina' is, of course, sheer speculation. When he states that 'the biblical sources do not give any reason for assuming that the Ephraimite diaspora ever developed an expectation of a return to the land,' we must ask in what sort of biblical sources we could expect to find evidence of such an expectation. The Bible preserves no texts or even traditions from northern Israelite sources subsequent to the fall of Samaria. We have only Judean sources. What is impressive - and ignored by Talmon - is the persistent expectation in the prophets (notably Jeremiah, Ezekiel, later parts of Isaiah, and both Zechariah and Deutero-Zechariah) of the return of the northern tribes to the land and their reunification with the southern tribes. This is surely the strongest evidence we could reasonably expect from Judean sources about the continuing identity of the northern Israelite exiles. While we cannot exclude the possibility that this prophetic expectation had no connexion with empirical reality, it seems unlikely to have persisted so strongly if no one had heard of any such Israelite exiles for a century or two. Talmon has also ignored the considerable number of Israelites, identifiable mostly by their theophoric names referring to YHWH, who appear in Assyrian texts down to the end of the seventh ~entury.~' If Israelites preserved their distinctive identity among the Assyrians for more than a century there seems no reason why they could not have preserved it for much longer. Like Tobit and his relative Ahikar in the book of Tobit, some of the Israelites who appear in Assyrian sources were employed in the imperial administration and attained high office. Others served in the army and even as Assyrian priests. Of course, there is little evidence of the majority of Israelite deportees and their descendants, who were poor and in some cases slaves. K. Lawson Younger detects in these Assyrian sources a process of 'Assyrianization' of Israelite families. This is evidenced by families in which the father bears an Israelite name but the son an Assyrian one.44Doubtless many families did become completely assimilated to Assyrian culture, intermarried with non-Israelites and forgot their Israelite identity. But the evidence is quite insufficient for us to tell whether these were a majority or even a large minority of the northern Israelite exiles. Even the evidence of

43 Younger, 'Israelites in Exile,' pp. 45, 65-66. The latest such text he notes is from 602 BCE. Zadok, Tbefews in Babylonia, pp. 35-37, gives a somewhat less complete list of instances down to 621 BCE. Younger, 'Israelites in Exile,' p. 66.

"

What became of the exiles ofthe northern tribes?

453

names is not conclusive, for it was possible to adopt an Assyrian name in addition to an Israelite one (cf. Est. 2.7; Dan. 1.7).45 The Israelites deported from the northern kingdom by the Assyrians were settled in three areas: (1) Halah, which is probably the Assyrian Halahhu, an area and town north-east of Nineveh; (2) the Habor river, which flows into the Euphrates in northern Mesopotamia, and on which the city of Gozan stood; and (3) the cities of Media (2 Kgs 17.6; 18.11; 1 Chron. 5.26). Assyrian sources confirm these three 10cations.~"The first two locations are both within the northern Mesopotamian area of Assyria proper. Later evidence tends to associate the northern Israelite exiles especially with the third location, Media Uosephus, Ant. 9.279; 11.131-1 33; Liv. Proph. 3.16-17; Arc. Isa. 3.2), and thus confirms the impression given in Tobit that Media became the most important place of exile for them (cf. Tob. 1.14; 3.7; 4.1; 5.6; 14.12-15). Josephus, writing in the late first century GE, certainly supposes that the descendants of the exiles of the ten tribes were still living in Media in his time (Ant. 11.131-133). The locations are crucial to establishing the continuity of the northern Israelite diaspora. By rabbinic times, the three main areas of the eastern Jewish diaspora were (1) southern Mesopotamia, where the exiles of Judah had been settled by the Babylonians and where many of them remained after the resettlement of some in Palestine during the Persian period; (2) northern Mesopotamia, the area known in Roman times as Nisibis and Adiabene, and corresponding to the Assyria of earlier times; (3) M ~ d i a . ~It' is a very likely deduction that the Jews of northern Mesopotamia were predominantly descended from the northern Israelite exiles who settled aroLnd Halah and the Habor river, while those of Media were descended from those Israelites of the northern tribes who settled there in the eighth century, perhaps augmented later by others. This is much more likely than that the original Israelite exiles in these areas entirely lost their Israelite identity, but were replaced later by Jews emigrating from the land of Israel or Babylonia. 4 5 An especially interesting comparable case is that of Ahikar, i.e. the historical figure on whom the later Book of Ahikar was based (and, in turn, the figure of Ahikar in Tobit). H e was a high official of king Esarhaddon's time and bore the Assyrian name Aba-enlil-dari. But, according to an Assyrian text, the Ahlamu (Arameans) called him Ahuqar (Ahikar). See J.C. VanderKam, 'Ahikar/Ahiqar,' in D.N. Freedrnan ed., The Anchor Bible D~ctronary(New York: Doubleday, 1992), vol. 1, p. 114. It could be because Ahikar was an Ararnean that the author of Tobit felt able to make him an Israelite (cf. Deut. 26.5). +"ounger, 'Israelites in Exile,' p. 66. " For rabbinic references to the Median diaspora, see R. Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studres of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), pp. 88-90. Note especially the letter of Gamaliel the Elder addressed to 'our brothers belonging to the exile of Babylonia and belonging to the exile of Media and all the other exiles of Israel' (t. Sanh. 2.6).

454

23. 'Ibbrt as a Parable for the Exrles of Northern Israel

But there is an iniportant corollary. The rabbinic sources assume that the Israelites of those areas shared the same general kind of Judaism as the Jews of Babylonia and Israel, i. e. they accepted the Torah of Moses as known to other Jews and the (by then, of course, theoretical) exclusive centrality of the Jerusalem Temple for Jewish faith. At some point the northern Israelite exiles must have adopted Jerusalem's form of the Israelite religion. There is probably evidence in Josephus that this had happened by the late Second Temple period. H e recounts (Ant. 11.3 1 1-1 3, cf. 379) how the two cities of Nisibis and Nehardea served as the collecting points for the temple tax contributions from the eastern diaspora, where the resulting huge sums of money could be kept safe until they were conveyed to Jerusalem along with the caravans of pilgrims, whom Josephus numbers at tens of thousands. Nehardea was the most important centre of the Jewish exiles in Babylonia, located o n the Euphrates t o the west of Seleucia and Ctesiphon. Because Josephus appears to locate Nisibis on the Euphrates near Nehardea (Ant. 18.3 1 I), many scholars have saved his geographical accuracy by supposing it to be, not the famous Nisibis in northern Mesopotamia, but another, otherwise unknown Nisibis near N~hardea.~"ut it is more likely that Josephus made a geographical mistake. Rather than two collecting points for the tax contributions in close proximity, it would make sense that for the eastern diaspora as a whole there was one (Nehardea) in southern Mesopotamia and another (Nisibis) in northern Mesopotamia." The latter would be the natural centre to which the exiles in Adiabene and northern Mesopotamia would send their tax and gather for making the journey to Jerusalem, but it would also serve the Median diaspora, being located on the main route from Media to Jerusalem. We have no information at all about when and how the exiles of the northern tribes adopted the Jerusalem-centred version of their religion that they evidently did come t o share with their fellow-exiles from Judah in Babylonia - unless the book of Tobit bears some relation t o this process. As we have seen, its message amounts t o an argument that, just as the northern Israelite exiles have seen the fulfilment of the prophecies of Deuteronomy and the prophets in their own punishment and in the punishment of their adversary Assyria, so, if they repent, they can expect to share in the restoration of all the tribes in the land, as the same prophets also predicted. But Tobit emphatically links this interpretation of both the past and the future of the northern tribes with the centrality of Jerusalem, as promoted by Deuteronomy and the prophets. We can surely imagine Israelites in

'q g.. A. Oppenheimcr, Babylonza Judzrcu in the Talmudic Perzod (Beihefte zur Tubtnger Atlas der vorderen Orients B47; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1983) 333-34. '' J. Neusner, A Hzstory ofthe J e w s In Babylonu: I. The Purthrun Perrod ( S P B 9; revised edition; 1-eiden: Brill, 1969) 13-14,47 n.2.

Geographical errors?

455

northern Mesopotamia and Media finding hope and inspiration in the book of Tobit and in its reading of the law and the prophets, and finding in Jerusalem a welcome symbolic focus both of national-religious identity in the diaspora and of hope for a better future. Thus the book of Tobit itself may have played a part - we cannot tell how significant - in the conversion of the northern Israelite exiles to its own Jerusalem-centred Judaism, and may have been composed precisely for this purpose.

Geographical errors?50 We have argued that the book of Tobit not only reflects a diaspora situation, as most scholars have agreed, and more specifically the context of the eastern diaspora, as some scholars agree,51but also that it addresses precisely the situation of the exiles of the northern tribes. O n this view, it must either have been written in Media itself for the Median diaspora o r written elsewhere in the eastern diaspora, most likely Babylonia, but with the Median diaspora as its intended audience. The historical errors in chapter 1 of the which are often cited in this connexion, really only exclude an origin close in time t o the end of the Assyrian empire. In the ancient world such errors are easily possible even a century after the events and even in areas geographically close to the events. They are no argument against the composition of Tobit in Media o r Babylonia in the Persian period. More serious arc the commonly alleged geographical errors, which are two.53 The first concerns the location of Nineveh. In 6.2, Tobias and Raphael, having set out from Tobit's home in Nineveh on their way t o Ecbatana, This section IS a revised version of Bauckham, Gospel Women, pp. 103-107. Listed in Moore, Tobit, pp. 42-43; and in Fitzmyer, Tobrt, p. 54. Dcselaers, Tobit, p. 322, summarizes the arguments which have been advanced for an origin in the eastern diaspora (which he does not accept), and in n.24 l~ststhose who have taken this view. Deselaers, Tobit, p. 323, advances against the hypothesis of an origin in the eastern diaspora the remarkable argument that there is no hope for return from exile, so characteristic of the eastern diaspora, in the book. This argunient is poscible only because his theory of several stages of expansion of the book eliminates such a hope from the Grunderzahlung. 5"'These are listed in Fitzmyer, Tobrt, p. 32. 5' C.C. Torrey, The Apocryphal Llteratcrre (Hamdcn, Connecticut: Archon, 1963 rcprint of 1945 edition), p. 86; D.C. Simp~on,'The Book of'robit,' in R. H. Charles ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudeplgrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), p. 185; Zimmermann, Tobit, 16; C. A. Moore, 'Tobit, Book of,' in D. N. Freedman ed., The Anchor Rtble D~cttonary(New York: Doubleday, 1992), vol. 6, pp. 587-588; Fitrmyer, Tobtt, p. 33. Fitzmyer, Tobzt, p. 54, finds the 'geographical and historical anomalies' a great difficulty for placing the origin of ?'obit in the eastern diaspora, and so tentatively prefers Palestine. 51

456

2.3. Tobtt as a Parable for the Exrler of Northern Israel

camp for their first night beside the river Tigris. From Nineveh, which lay just to the east of the Tigris, the road to Ecbatana led east: it would not meet o r cross the Tigris. We should note that it is not really clear that the author thought Nineveh lay t o the west of the Tigris, since he does not say that Tobit and Raphael had t o cross it." H e may have thought only that their route ran beside the Tigris for some d i ~ t a n c e . But ; ~ that the relation of Nineveh t o the Tigris was vague in his mind is not inconsistent with his living in Media o r Mesopotamia two o r more centuries after Nineveh's destruction in 612 BCE. Nineveh did not exist in his time. When Xenophon passed through the area in 401 BCE,he saw a ruined, uninhabited city, which he was told had been a Median city called Mespila (Anabasis 3.4.10-12).5h It was certainly the ruins of Nineveh that he saw, but evidently his guides could not identify it as the famous capital of the Assyrian empire (of which Xenophon would certainly have heard). T h e southern part of ancient Nineveh (Nebi Yunis) was later resettled and rebuilt as a Hellenistic city, but this was probably not before the second century BCE." The second, more serious error concerns the location of the t w o most important cities of Media: Ecbatana and Rhagae (Rages, Ragha).58 According t o 'I'obit 5.6 b, 'It is a distance of t w o regular days' journey from Ecbatana t o Rhagae, for it lies in the mountains (Ev t@ ~ Q P I ) , while Ecbatana is in the middle of the plain.'5' Rhagae (modern Rai, about five miles south-east of Teheran) is in the plain, though a minor mountain ridge curves around it and the major range, the Elburz mountains, is close. Ecbatana is located in the Zagros mountains, far from the plain. Moreover, they are 180 miles 54 N o r is it clear, as 'Torrey, Apocryphal Lateruture, p. 86, claims, that 11:l iniplies they have t o cross the Tigris o n their return journey. "" It is even possible, though not likely, that he thought of the suburbs of Nineveh spreading across the Tigris t o the west, as indeed they probably did (cf. I). Oates, Studies in the Ancient History of Northern I r q [L,ondon: British Acaderny, 19681, p. 77), and, influenced by Jonah 3:3, supposed that from Tobit's house in these western suburbs it was a day's journey t o the Tigris. Moore, Tobit, 198, cites t w o other possible explanations of the geography of 6.2: 'Tobit and Raphael 'may have stopped at either one of [the l'igris*~] eastern tributaries.. . or, because the "fish" caught there was "large" (v 3). possibly the Upper o r I.ower Zab, both of which are called "the'I'igrism (Herodotus, Hist. V.52).' For these suggestions, see also I:itzn~yer,Tobit, 205. Sh Oates, Studies, p. 60, supposes that Xenophon saw 110th the ruins of a Media11 city (Ni~ieveh)and a nearby town called Mcspila, but this is clearly a misunderstanding of the passage. 57 C)ppenheimer, Rabylon~ir,pp. 3 12-3 13. 5R For the information in ancient sources o n Rhagae, see A. V. W. Jackson, 'A Historical Sketch of Ragha, the Supposed H o m e of Zoroaster's Mother,' in J.J. Modi cd., Spiegel Memorial Volunze: Papers on IratzMn Subjects (I1 Spiegel FS; Bombay: British India Press, 19Clf), pp. 237-245. 'This is my translation from the text of Greek Recension 11. There arc rnariy minor variations in the manuscripts of the O l d Latin in this passage, but the text I have translated is nevertheless well supported.

Geographical errors?

457

apart, by the most direct route.60Thus the whole statement is erroneous. N o inhabitant of Media could have made it. However, it is possible to question whether it is an original part of the text of Tobit.61 It does not fit its context very happily. Raphael explains how far it is from Ecbatana t o Rhagae, but has not explained how far it is from Nineveh t o Ecbatana, even though Tobias has told him he does not know the roads to Media or how to get there (5.2). Even if the distance between the cities has some relevance to the conversation, it is not at all clear why their respective locations in the mountains and the plain should be added. The whole statement could easily be a later gloss, by someone, a scribe or the Greek translator, who thought the relation of the lesser known city, Rhagae, to the better known, Ecbatana, needed e ~ p l a n a t i o n . ~ ~ A better test of the author's knowledge of Median geography is whether the story, as told in 8.20-10.8, allows sufficient time for Raphael to travel from Ecbatana to Rhagae and back. The narrative assumes that, within a period of fourteen days, the period of the wedding celebration (8.20; 10.7), Raphael travels from Raguel's home in Ecbatana t o the home of Gabael in Rhagae, and Raphael and Gabael then travel to Ecbatana, arriving before the end of the wedding celebrations (9.6). Raphael travels with four servants and two camels, the latter for the purpose of transporting the money bags o n the return journey. This means that, although Raphael is an angel in disguise and is capable of moving from place t o place very rapidly indeed (8.3), we cannot suppose that he in fact travels faster than a human could. We can assume that both journeys are made with as much speed as possible, since Tobias has sent Raphael on this mission precisely so that he should not have to stay in Ecbatana longer than strictly necessary (9.4), while Gabael will be anxious to arrive in time to join at least the end of the wedding celebrations. Allowing for Sabbaths, when they could not travel, six days is the most that the journey in each direction could take. For the view that this is too short a period for the journey from Ecbatana to Rhagae, recent commentators have followed Frank Zimmermann's reference to Arrian's account (Anabaszs 3.19.8-3.20.2; cf. also Plutarch, Alexander 42) of Alexander the Great's pursuit of Darius, in which it took

* R.D. Milns, 'Alexander's Pursuit of Darius through Iran,' Histork 15 (1966), p. 256. 61 Zimmermann, Tobit, p. 73, doubts that it is (but his statement that it is laclung in the Old Latin is mistaken), though, inconsistently, on p.16 he treats it as evidence that the author of Tobit was ignorant of the geography of Media. 62 That the statement does not occur in the manuscripts of the abridged Greek recension (I) has little significance. Unfortunately neither this verse nor its context is represented among the Qumran fragments of Tobit. The view that Ecbatana was located on a plain was apparently a common western mistake, found also in Diodorus 2.13.6 (Moore, Tobit, p. 184).

458

23. &bit as u Purable for the Exrles of Northern Israel

ten (or eleven) days of forced marches for Alexander and his army to make the journey from Ecbatana to Rhagac6' But this is certainly not good evidence that this was the fastest time in which the distance could be covered, as the various discussions of Alexander's route in this area make clear. A. B. Bosworth argues that Arrian is incorrect in saying that Alexander travelled to Rhagae via Ecbatana, preferring Curtius's report (5.8.5) that when Alexander heard that Darius had left Ecbatana, he broke off his march into Media and went in pursuit.64 But those who accept Arrian's account have long pointed out that it could not have taken Alexander's army this long to cover the direct route from Ecbatana t o Rhagae. J. Marquant pointed out in 1907 that the distances given in the Arabic itineraries make it no more than a nine days' journey, and concluded that Alexander must have made a detour.h5 A. F. von Stahl calculated that the direct route would take eight days, and argued for a detour to the south,b6 while G. Radet argued for a detour t o the north.67 J. Seibert suggests that Alexander could have been delayed by battles.68 Clearly Alexander's march provides no secure basis for calculating the time the same journey would take Raphael and Gabael. It is better to begin with the fact that the distance of 360 (180 x 2) miles (581 kms) would have to be covered in twelve days (the longest time available within the narrative) at the rate of 30 miles (48 kms) per day. Reliable estimates of the distances foot-travellers in the ancient world could cover per day are hard t o come by. William Ramsay, discussing the Roman world, cites Friedlander's estimate of 26 or 27 Roman miles6\er day, but thinks it too high, largely on pragmatic grounds of what modern people find possible, and the fact that people not in a hurry and travelling in the Mediterranean summer, Zlmmermann, Tobtt, p. 16; Moore, Tobrt, p. 184; F:itzmyer, Tobrt, p. 189. A.B. Bosworth, 'Errors rn Arrlan,' CQ 26 (1976), pp. 132-136. The latest discussion of the issue, in J. Seibert, Dre Eroberung des Perserrerche, durch Alexander d. Gr. auf kartographtscher Grundkzge (Beihefte zur Tubinger Atlas des vorderen Orients B68; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1985), pp. 111-1 12, n. 46, notes B o s w o n h i view but finds difficulties with it. J. Marquant, 'Alexanders Marsch von I'ersepolis nach Herat,' Phrlologus: Stcpplementband 10 (1907), p. 2 1. " A.F. von Stahl, 'Notes on the March of Alexander the Great from Ecbatana to H y rcania,' Geographical Journal 64 (1924)' pp. 317-318. H e calculates that the direct route measures about 310 kms (193 miles), which he says would take 8 caravan stages at the rate of 35 kms (22 miles) per day. In fact, it would take about 39 kms (24 miles) per day for 8 days. His proposed southern detour would make 440 kms (273 miles), requiring 40 kms (25 miles) a day for 1l days. '"G. Radet, 'La dernic"rc carnpagne d'Alexandre contre Darius (juin-juillet 330 avant J.-C.),' in Mt;kz?zges Gustav Glotz, vol. 2 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1932), pp. 767-77 1. Seibert, Dte Eroberung, p. 112. 6y The Rornari mile was 1,618 Engl~shyards. 6'

64

"

Geographical errors?

459

when most travel was done, would probably travel only in the morning, a five-hour stage before noon. But h e admits that people in a hurry would travel a second such stage in the evening.70O n the other hand, it has been calculated that Roman soldiers managed a daily maximum distance of only 30 kms (1 8.6 miles) per day.71These calculations seem t o make 30 miles (48 kms) per day an almost impossible pace t o maintain for t w o weeks, even for people in a hurry, as Raphael and Gabael are. Eighteen days, at a rate of 20 miles (32 kms) per day, would seem more realistic.72This agrees with Marquant's calculation that, according t o the Arabic itineraries, the journey from Ecbatana to Rhagae would take nine days.73 These considerations make it unlikely that the author of the book of Tobit himself lived in Media. However, the error, if such it is, in calculating the travelling distance between Ecbatana and Rhagae is not gross. Even for people living in Babylonia o r Adiabene, Rhagae was remote. T h e mistake would be quite possible. There is therefore n o serious obstacle here t o concluding that the book was written largely for the benefit of exiles of the northern tribes, w h o lived in Adiabene and especially in Media, by an author living somewhere in the eastern diaspora other than Media.

W. M. Ramsay, 'Roads and Travel (in N'r),' in J. Eiastingc ed., A Drctronary of the Brble: Extra Volume (Edinburgh: ?: & T. Clark, 1904), p. 388. " C.P. Tiede, The Emmaus Mystery (1-ondon: Continuum, 2005), p. 33, citing M. Junckelmann, Dre Legronen des Augustus: Der rornrsche Soldat rm archaologrschen Expenment (Mainz, 1986), pp. 233-34. '2 Tiede, The Emmaus Mystery, 26, says of a distance of 43 Roman miles (63.5 kms) (from Rome to Forum Appii), that, 'For someone in a hurry, it could be done in two days, but the seasoned traveller would have taken three.' " Marquant, 'Alexanders Marsch,' p. 2 1 .

24. The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha" For most scholars and students of the New Testament the most important question about the indefinite category of works generally known-as Old Testament pseudepigrapha is: which of them are reliable evidence for the Judaism of the late Second Temple period? Since most of them have been preserved only in Christian traditions and in manuscripts dating from centuries after the New Testament ~ e r i o d(as well as frequently only in languages other than those in which they were composed), the question has to be asked individually and specifically about each such work. There is a core of such works that are almost universally accepted as composed by non-Christian Jews before the middle of the second century CE. This includes those of which at least fragments have been found at Qumran (Jubilees, all parts of 1 Enoch except the Parables, and the apocryphal Psalms 151-155), as well as the Psalms of Solomon, the Testament of Moses, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch,' Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, the Letter of Aristeas, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees2 and Sibylline Oracles book 3. But a much larger range of works,) whose date andlor provenance remains debatable, have in the last few decades been treated by many scholars as also of nonChristian Jewish provenance and of sufficiently early date t o be relevant t o New Testament research: the Parables of Enoch, 3 Baruch, 2 Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Ladder of Jacob, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Testament of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the

* This essay also appears in Gerbern S. Oegema and James H. Charlesworth (eds.), The Pseudeprgrapha and Chrrstlan Orzgrns: Essays from the Studrorum Novr Testamentz Soaetas, London: T & T Clark, 2008. Rivka Nir, Thr Destructton of Jerrtsalem and the Idea of Rrdemptton 1r1 the Syrrac Apocalypse of Baruch (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 20; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) has argued that 2 Baruch is a Christian composition, but she seems to have persuaded few scholars. For an argument against her proposal, see James R. Davila, The Provenance ofthe Pseudeprgrapha:Jewrsh, Chrrstlan or Other? USJSup 105; Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2005) 126-13 1. * 4 Ezra (in the expanded form 2 Esdras) usually and 3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees sometimes are included in English editions of the Apocrypha, but are also regularly classified with the Pseudepigrapha. I am excludirlg here works, such as the Apocryphon of Ezekiel, which survive only in small fragments.

'

462 24. The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

Martyrdom of Isaiah (a section extracted from the Ascension of Isaiah), Joseph and Aseneth, the Lives of the Prophets, the Life of Adam and Eve (Apocalypse of Moses), the Testament of Job, 4 Baruch (Paralipomena of Jeremiah), Pseudo-Phocylides, Jannes and Jambres, the Prayer of Manasseh, and Sibylline Oracles books 1-2 (in part), 4, 5 and 11. Most (though not all) of these works contain some manifestly Christian features, but scholars who treat these works as of Jewish provenance judge the Christian features to be secondary accretions to the original works and no impediment to use of these works as evidence of the Jewish context of the New Testament writings. All or most of them are treated as early Jewish compositions in such standard works as George Nickelsburg's Jewish Literature between the , ~ Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum Bible and the Mishnah (first ~ d i t i o n ) the ad Novum Testamencum volume on Jewish Writings ofthe Second Temple the revised version of Schiirer's The History of the Jewish People Peri~d,~and in the Age of Jesus C h r i ~ tall , ~published in the 1980's.

More o r fewer, sooner o r later, more o r less Jewish? Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in two volume^,^ also from the 1980s, probably represents the highest point of scholarly optimism as to the number of such works that can be confidently considered Jewish and of sufficiently early date to be relevant to the study of the New Testament. This is the judgement, more or less confidently made, by the authors of the introductions to virtually all of the works I have just listed in Charlesworth's edition. Though it was manifest to most readers that some of the fifty-two works included in the collection, such as the Greek Apocalypse of Daniel and the Odes of Solomon, were of unequivocally Christian provenance, the collection did foster the

J a m e s Charlesworth's landmark e d i t i o n of t h e

" George W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewuh L~teraturebetween the Btble and the Mlshnah (London: SCM Press, 1981). Of the works I have listed, the Ladder of Jacob, the Lives of the Prophets, Pseudo-Phocylides, the Prayer of Manasseh, Jannes and Jambres, and the Sibyllines other than book 3 are not included. Michael E. Stone ed., Jewtsh Wnttngs of the Second Temple Penod (CRINT 212; Assen: Van Gorcum/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). Of the works I have listed, only the Ladder of Jacob, and Jannes and Jambres are not included. Emil Schurer, The Htstory of the J w t s h People rn the Age of Jesus Chnst (171 B. C. - A. D. 135), new English edition edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman, vols. 311 and 3/2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986, 1987). The Apocalypse of Zephaniah and the Ladder of Jacob are considered dubiously Jewish. James H. Charlesworth ed., The Old Testament Pseudeptgrapha, 2 vols (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983, 1985).

'

'

More or fewer, sooner or later, more or less Jewish?

463

impression that all of its contents were in some sense early Jewish and that the Christian dimension of many of these works, whether redactional or interpolated, was a relatively unimportant addition to their substantially Jewish character. After all, Charlesworth's definition of the Pseudepigrapha claimed that these writings 'almost always were composed either during the period 200 B. C. to A. D. 200 or, though late, apparently preserve, albeit in an edited form, Jewish traditions that date from that p e r i ~ d . Charlesworth '~ himself admitted that a 'few documents now collected in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha are far too late for New Testament research," and listed thirteen such,1° none of which occur in the list I have given of works treated by many scholars as substantially early Jewish. Few of Charlesworth's list of thirteen have ever been used as evidence for the Jewish context of the New Testament. Charlesworth also urged considerable caution in the use of the works preserved only in Slavonic (the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Ladder of Jacob, and 2 Enoch) because of the strong possibility of Bogornil interpolation and redaction of such works." Also to 'be used with great circumspection' are works that 'are originally Jewish but have received both Christian interpolations and extensive and occasionally imperceptible Christian r~daction."~ But again, with the exception of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, those Charlesworth mentions as belonging to this category13 have never been much used by New Testament scholars. Moreover, Charlesworth's specific discussion of this problem in the case of the Testaments of the Twelve leaves the distinct impression that it is a problem specialists can easily and adequately overcome: Again we must perceive that the Jewish source o r sources behind the Testaments would have looked appreciatively different from the extant Greek version; and that, of course, means that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is not t o be read as a Jewish document, like Jubilees o r 1 Enoch, that pre-dates Early Christianity ... The explicit christological phrases and passages are the result of Christian interpolation and redaction. They must not be used in describing the background of the N e w

James H. Charlesworth, 'Introduction for the General Readers,' in Charlesworth ed., The Old Tertamettt Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, xxv. James I+. Charlesworth, The Old Testamertt Pseudeplgrapha and the New Testament (SNTSMS 54; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 32. l o 3 Enach, the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, the Latin Vision of Ezra, the Questions of Ezra, the (calendrical) Revelation of Ezra, the Apocalypse of Sedrach, the Greek Apocalypse of Daniel, theTestament of Isaac, theTestament of Jacob, the Testament of Solomon, the Testament of Adam, the History of Joseph, and Syriac Menander. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the N w Testament, 32-36. l 2 Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudep~graphaand the Neu, Testament, 36. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Iiistory of the Rechabites, Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers.

" "

464 24. The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Testament. Yet, most specialists can perceive the relatively obvious, and at times quite clear, limits of the Christian addition t o the Jewish document.14

The kind of approach taken by Charlesworth and many of the contributors to his collectibn - a confident delimitation of the Christian element in texts that display both ostensibly Christian and ostensibly Jewish features - largely resembles that of R. H. Charles, while extending the approach to many more works than Charles included in his own edition. One of the other great pioneers of the modern study of Old Testament pseudepigrapha, M. R. James, was more inclined to regard such works as simply Christian compositions. A smaller collection of Old Testament pseudepigrapha (containing only twentyfive works), edited by H. F. D. Sparks and published contemporaneously with Charles~orth's,'~ followed more in the footsteps of James than of Charles.16 Though the translations were done by other scholars, Sparks himself wrote the introductions t o the works, and he was much more ready than any of the contributors to Charlesworth's collection to leave open the issue of ~ e w i s h or Christian provenance. H e does this in the case of the Life of Adam and Eve, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testament of Abraham, the Ladder of Jacob, the Paralipomena of Jeremiah (4 Baruch), and the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, while, like James, he considers the Testament of Job to be Christian and 3 Baruch to be a Christian composition using Jewish materials. The Testaments of the Twelve in his view, dhich owes much more to the work of Marinus de Jonge than Charlesworth's a p p r ~ a c h , 'is~ a Christian work, using Jewish sources. Thus Sparks takes a much more cautious approach to the question of early Jewish provenance than Charlesworth, even taking account of Charlesworth's own exhortations to caution in some cases. Almost all the pseudepigraphal works that Sparks accepts as unequivocally early Jewish belong to the core of works I indicated as so regarded by almost all scholars: Jubilees, the Assumption (i. e. Testament) of Moses, the Psalms of Solomon, and 2 Baruch.ls In addition he follows Marc Philonenko in judging the short recension of Joseph and Aseneth to be early Jewish, but the longer recensions to be Christian. At the time it looked as though the mainstream of scholarship on the Old Testament pseudepigrapha was going with Charlesworth towards a maximal l4

l5

Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the New Testament, 40. Hedley F. D. Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1984). lb For his conscious difference of approach from that of Charles, see Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Testament, xiii-xvii. " De JongeS work is discussed below. '"parks did not include in his collection works that occur in the English Apocrypha, and so 4 Ezra is missing. He also understands the term 'Apocryphal Old Testament' rather strictly, such that the Sibylline Oracles and the Letter of Aristeas do not qualify. It is rather surprising that he does not include Pseudo-Phil05 Biblical Antiquities.

More o r f m e r , sooner or later, more or kss Jeeoish?

465

view of early Jewish provenance rather than with Sparks' much more cautious a p p r o a ~ h .Few ' ~ would disagree that the great merit of Charlesworth's edition was t o bring many hitherto little known O l d Testament pseudepigrapha t o the attention of scholars of early Judaism and the N e w Testament. Charlesworth urged an expansion of horizons: The whole Pseudepigrapha is to be digested and assessed for its possible assistance in clarifying the characteristics of Early Judaism. That should mean a careful evaluation of all the fifty-two documents and all the excerpts in the Supplement [i.e. 'The Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works'] in the light of all the other Jewish writings we have from the p e r i ~ d . ' ~ This statement gives the unfortunate impression that Charlesworth's collection somehow defines what 'the whole Pseudepigrapha' is (note the o d d use of 'Pseudepigrapha' as a singular noun), as though there were not a great many more O l d Testament pseudepigrapha not included in Charlesworth's ~ o l l e c t i o n . ~Sparks ' had a more modest approach: To refer to 'the Pseudepigrapha', without further definition or qualification, creates the impression in the popular mind that alongside the 'canonical' Old Testament and the 'deutero-canonical' Apocrypha there is a third, universally recognized, 'tritocanonical' collection of books - when there is not. Any collection of books of this kind, however chosen, is bound to mirror the predilections and the prejudices of its editor(s); and it is well that this should be re~ognized.~' But, aside from this issue of a definitive collection, Charlesworth's exhortation was reasonable. Many of the works in his edition had been far too little studied for their relevance t o the study of early Judaism and the N e w Testament t o be conclusively established. It was only a pity that this was not more clearly recognized in the introductions t o many of the works in his edition. So far as relevance t o the study of early Judaism and the N e w Testament is concerned, Charlesworth's collection should be regarded as heuristic. Since Charlesworth wrote that exhortation there has, of course, been a great deal of valuable work o n individual pseudepigrapha, and much it has tended in the maximal direction that Charlesworth himself favoured. But there have also been a series of important studies that have argued that the ultimate provenance of some of these works is not at all easy t o determine, I Y Cf. Lorenzo DiTommaso, 'A Report on Pseudepigrapha Research since Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,'JSP 21 (2001) 179-207, here 189: 'one principal characteristic of this period of scholarship is a greater willingness on the part of scholars to use a wider variety of texts and methodologies.' Charlesworth, The Old Testament Psewdep~graphaand the N a o Testament, 28. 2' James Davila and I are currently editing a large collection of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha that were not included in Charlesworth's edition: see http://www.standrews. ac.uMacademic/divinity/MOTP/index-motp.htm1. Sparks, The A p o q p h a l Old Testament, xvii.

466 24. The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha that the works as we have them must be regarded as Christian compositions and/or of considerably later date than the New Testament period, and that their use of identifiably Jewish traditions, still less of traditions that just look Jewish, does not necessarily make them Jewish compositions. In 1995 David Frankfurter published a study of the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah that is exemplary in its detailed attempt to understand the work in its context of composition in third-century Egyptian C h r i ~ t i a n i t yFrankfurter .~~ rejected any attempt to identify a Jewish Grundschrift for this work, while acknowledging that its Christian writer must have drawn on (in his judgment, oral) sources in the Jewish and Christian apocalyptic tradition. In 1995 David Satran published his study of the Lives of the Prophets, arguing that this work as we have it in the earliest identifiable recension is 'in the fullest sense a text of early Byzantine Christianity,' however much it may be dependent on earlier Jewish tradition^.^^ Like Frankfurter's work this is a carefully contextualized study of an Old Testament pseudepigraphon as a Christian composition that must be appreciated as such and cannot simply be mined for early Jewish material. Ross Kraemer's book on Joseph and Aseneth, published in 1998,25issued a strong challenge to the consensus that dates this work in the first century BCE or the first century CE, locates it in Egypt and attributes it to purely Jewish authorship. Kraemer dated it in the third or fourth century CE and judged the evidence inadequate either to locate it or to attribute it to Jewish, Christian, 'Godfearer' or even Samaritan a~thorship.'~ Differently from Frankfurter and Satran, Kraemer's work offers, nor a specific historical contextualization of this pseudepigraphon, but a challenge to the accepted one by opening up a wide range of paral23 David Frankfurter, Elijah in Upper Egypt: The Apocalypse of Elijah and Early Egyptian Christianity (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). See my review in JEH 46 (1995) 488-490. 24 David Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the

Prophets (SVTP 11; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 120. But for restatements of the view that the Lives of the Prophets is a Jewish composition of the first century C. E., with only very limited Christian interpolation, see A.M. Schwemer, Studien zu fruhjiidischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum (2 vols.; TSAJ 49-50; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995, 1996); Pieter W. van der Horst, 'The Tombs of the Prophets in Early Judaism,' in idem, Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Studies on Jewish Heflenzsm in Antiquity (Leuven: Peeter, 2002) 119-138. 25 ROSSShepard Kraemer, When Joseph Met Aseneth: A Late Antzque Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered (New YorMOxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). See my review in JTS 51 (2000) 226-228, where I suggest that the possibilities for reading Joseph and Aseneth as embodying Christian theological allegory are greater than Kraemer has recognized. O n the other hand, John J. Collins, 'Joseph and Aseneth: Jewish or Christian?,'jSP 14 (2005) 97-112, re-affirms, against Kraemer, the early date and Jewish provenance accepted by most recent scholars. 26 See also Ross S. Kraemer, 'Could Aseneth be Samaritan?,' in Benjamin G. Wright ed., A Multt;formHeritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (Homage Series; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 149-165.

More orfewer, sooner or lrlter, more or less Jewish?

467

lels, connexions and possibilities. Daniel I-Iarlow's work o n 3 Baruch is also of interest in this connexion. In his monograph, published in 1996, he argued that the original work was a Jewish composition from the decades following 70 CE, though he notably also included a study of the work as a Christian text in order t o account for the Christian interest in and redaction of this work.27 But in a paper t o an S N T S seminar devoted t o the topic of the Christianization of Jewish te~ts,~%ubsequently published in 2001t9 he revised his view. While maintaining that the explicitly Christian features of the text are not original, he leaves it open whether the original work was of Jewish o r Christian provenance. T h e works just surveyed all date from the 1990s, but they cohere closely with the work that Marinus de Jonge has done o n the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs over fifty years, beginning with his dissertation, published in 1953.j0 It is not surprising that he writes warmly of the work of Satran, Kraemer and H a r l ~ w . D ~ 'e Jonge has consistently maintained that the Testaments as we have them are Christian works and, although there is evidence of some Jewish sources, there is n o reason to suppose, as many scholars do, that the Testaments are a Jewish work to which some Christian interpolations have been added. O n the contrary, he has argued that the content of the Testaments coheres well with ideas t o be found in such early Christian authors as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Hippolytus. More recently he has extended his approach t o the Life of Adam and Eve, arguing that, while the earliest Greek recension has hardly any features that can be regarded as distinctively Jewish o r distinctively Christian, the content fits well into mainstream Christianity of the patristic period and there is no reason not to attribute the work t o a Christian author.32 In the course 27 Daniel C. Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Barucli) in HellenisticJudaism and Early Christianity (SVTP 12; Leiden: Brill, 1996). '"his was the seminar on Early Jewish Writings and the N e w Testarnerit meeting during the SN'TS conference in Ttl Aviv, 2000. Other papers from these sessions were also published in JSJ 32/4 (2001). *' 1I)aniel C. Harlow, 'The Christianization of Early Jewish Pseudepigrapha: 'I'he Case of 3 Brrruch,'JS] 32 (2001) 416-444. Marinus de Jonge, The Testdments ofche Tclelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition find Origin (Assen: van G o r c u n l , 1953); scc also Marinus dc Jclnge ed., Studies of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP 3; 1.eidcn: Brill, 1975); H. W. Hollander and Marinus de Jonge, The Testament ofthe Fi~elvePatriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden: Brill, 1985); Maririus de Jonge, Ji~wishEschatology, Larly Cbnstirln Cbristology and the fistaments of the Fi1elz.e Patriarchs (NovTSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1991); idem, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literatrrre (SVTP 18; Leiden: Brill, 2003). D e Jonge, Pseudepigrapl~a,4 3 4 8 , 5 6 - 5 8 , 6 1 4 2 . Z e Jonge, Pseudepigrapha, chapters 1 1 -13; hlarinus dc Jonge and Johannes Tromp, The Lzfe of Adam and E.te and Related Literature (Sheffield: Shcffield Academic Press, 1997) chapter 4. Note also his questioning of the claini that the Paralipomena of Jeremiah

"

"

"

468 24. The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pse~depi~rapha

of his work de Jonge has formulated some methodological principles for the study of pseudepigrapha transmitted by Christians ;hat have also been proposed by Robert Kraft. Since Kraft's work in this respect has probably been more influential, we shall shortly consider these principles as he has propounded them. Also noteworthy is the complete abandonment, since 1983, by scholars working on the ~ s c e n s i o nof Isaiah, of the theory that a Jewish source, the so-called Martyrdom of Isaiah, can be extracted from its Christian redaction in chapters 1-5 of the Ascension of Isaiah.33 As in other cases just mentioned,-the plausibility of the incorporation of Jewish traditions by a Christian author has to be distinguished from the identification of a Jewish text from which Christian redaction can easily be distinguished. The extensive work of a mainly Italian research group - on the ~ s c e n s i o nof Isaiah has shown that at least each of the two sections of the work (chapters 1-5 and 6-1 1) is a thoroughly coherent Christian composition that does not require source criticism.34 A significant sign of the growing ascendancy of the trend we have been tracing is the second edition of George Nickelsburg's Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, published in 2005.35In this edition, some works which were treated as early ~ e w i s hin the first edition have been omitted altogether (Martyrdom of Isaiah, 3 Baruch, Paralipomena of Jeremiah), while five others are treated as 'of disputed provenance7(Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Job, Testament of Abraham, Life of Adam and Eve, Joseph and Aseneth). was originally a Jewish work: Marinus de Jonge, 'Remarks in the Margin of the Paper, "The Figure of Jeremiah in the Paralipomena Jeremiae," by Jean Riaud,'JSP 22 (2000) 45-49; idem, Pseudepigrapha, 52-56. The Christian origin of the Paralipomena of Jeremiah is also maintained by Pierluigi Piovanelli, 'In Praise of "The Default Position", or Reassessing the Christian Reception of the Jewish Pseudepigraphal Heritage,' N T T 61 (2007) 233-250, here 241-249. 33 The case against this view was first made by Mauro Pesce, 'Presupposti per l'utilitazzione storica dell'Ascensione di Isaia,' in idem ed., Isaiu, il Diletto e la Chiesa: Visione e esegesiprofetica cristiano-primitive nell'Ascensione di Isaia (Texte e Ricerche di Scienze Religiose 20; Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1983) 40415; idem, I1 "Murtirio di Isata" Non Existe: L'Ascensione di Isaia e le Tradizione Giuduiche sull'UcnSione del Profeta (Bologna: Centro Stampa Baiesi, 1984). Cf. Jonathan M. Knight, Disciples of the Beloved One: The Christology, Social Setting and Theological Context of the Ascension of Isaiah (JSPSup 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 28-32. 34 Especially, Enrico Norelli ed., Ascensio Isuiue Commentarius (CCSA 8; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995). Cf. also Richard Bauckham, 'The Ascension of Isaiah: Genre, Unity and Date,' in idem, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (NovTSup 93; Leiden; Brill, 1998) 363-390. 35 George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (revised edition; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), especially 301-344, 412-423. I have not had access to this edition, and the information I give about it derives from Piovanelli, 'In Praise of "The Default Position",' 234-239.

Robert Kraft: Methodological Proposals

Robert Kraft: Methodological Proposals In a paper first presented in 1976 and finally published in 1994,j6 a paper that Ben Wright called 'perhaps the most well-known unpublished paper in the field of Pseudepigrapha studies,')' Robert Kraft addressed the methodological issues involved in determining the provenance of Old Testament pseudepigrapha. He rightly observed that many scholars have approached the issue of distinguishing between Jewish and Christian materials among Old Testament pseudepigrapha with too little methodological r i g o ~ r . )H~e returned to the same concerns, developing his proposals a little further, in a paper for the already mentioned SNTS seminar on the Christianization of Jewish texts.)WhiIe he has not himself published studies of particular pseudepigraphal texts deploying the kind of methodology he proposes, Kraft's work has influenced some American scholars, such as Kraemer and Harlow (in the works mentioned above)40and James Davila (whose work will be discussed below), who have questioned the confidence with which some pseudepigraphal works have in recent decades been treated as Jewish rather than Christian." Two methodological principles of particular importance emerge from Kraft's work. The first is that, when we know a work only as preserved by Christians, as is the case with most Old Testament pseudepigrapha, the starting-point for study of the work must be its Christian context: 'when the evidence is clear that only Christians preserved the material, the Christianity of it is the given, it is the setting, it is the starting point for delving more deeply into this literature to determine what, if anything, may be safely identified as originally Jewish.'42 O n this basis, he maintains that 'the default position' must be that 'sources transmitted by way of Christian communities are "Christian," whatever else they may prove to be.' That such works are Christian does not need to be proved. The burden of proof lies with

"

Robert A. Kraft, 'The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity,' in John C. Reeves ed., Tractng the Threads. Studtes tn the Vttaltty of Jevtsh Pseudeptgrapha (SBI-EJL 06; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) 55-86. Benjamin G. Wright, 'Introduction,' in Benjamin G. Wright ed., A Multtform Herrtage: Studxes on Early Judaism and Chnsturntty tn Honor of Robert A. Krnft (Homage Series 24: Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) xvii. j8 In 'The Pseudepigrapha,' 56, he speaks of 'the relatively uncontrolled and hasty approach pursued by most scholars sift~ngthese materials for clues regarding Judaism.' 39 Robert A. Kraft, 'Setting the Stage and Framing Some Central Questions,'JSJ 32 (2001) 370-395. A slightly different version is available on-line at htpp://ccat.sas.upenn. edu/rs/raWpublics/pseudepig/sntsnew.html. ' O Also the Israeli scholar David Satran: see Satran, Btbltcal Prophets, 31-32. D e Jonge, P~rudept~rapha, chapter 3, provides an approving overview of Kraft's approach to the Pseudepipha. 4Z Kraft, 'The Pseudepigrapha,' 75.

"

''

470 24. The Contznuzng Quest for the Provenance of Old Testamewt Pseudeprgrapha

claims that they are originally Jewish or incorporate material of originally Jewish p r o v ~ n a n c e . ~ ~ The second key methodological principle to emerge from Kraft's work is that the absence of any distinctively Christian features in a text does not prove it is Jewish. It is possible that 'self-consciously Christian authors,' adopting the perspective of the Old Testament Scriptures and other Jewish literature they knew and valued, wrote works that had an Old Testament setting and no explicitly Christian reference^.'^ After all, much that is Jewish is also Christian. As Kraft noted, Sparks had also made this point," but it challenges directly the opposite principle, espoused by, for example, many of the contributors to Charlesworth's edition, that 'Whatever is not clearly Christian is J~wish.'~' But if Kraft and Sparks are right, how will it be possible to distinguish a Jewish composition from a Christian one of the type we call Old Testament pseudepigrapha? Given that some Jewish compositions of this type undoubtedly were faithfully preserved by Christians (for example, Jubilees and those parts of 1 Enoch of which we have texts from Qumran), careful reflection on the possible criteria that could enable us to make that distinction seems to be needed.

James Davila: Methodology in Action James Davila's important book, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other?,4' has taken up that challenge. H e offers a fairly detailed and precise methodology for identifying the provenance of Old Testament pseudepigrapha. The 'Other' in the book's title is significant because Davila maintaints we must take account of all the kinds of persons or groups that could have authored Old Testament pseudepigrapha, not

"

Kraft, 'Setting the Stage,' 372-373, cf. 386.

'' Kraft, 'The Pseudepigrapha,' 74; 'Setting the Stage,' 389-391. 4 5 Sparks, The Apocryphal Old Estument, xiv-xv. It is recognized also by Michael E. Stone, 'The Study of the Armenian Apocrypha,' in Wright ed., A hiultlform klentage, 139-148, here 140-141; idem, A Hzstory ofthe 1.zterature of Adum and Eve (SB1,EJL 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) 57-58; Marinus de Jonge, Pseudeptgrapha, 28; and William Adlcr, 'Introduction' in James C. VanderKam and William Adler ed., The J w l s h Apocalyprtc Herztage zn Early Chr1stlan~t)l( C R I N T 3/4; Assen: Van Gorcum/Minneapolis: 1:ortress. 1996) 1-31, here 27. Kraft, 'The Pseudepigrapha,' 62, cites this formulation from Adolf von Harnack. The principle is also challenged by Michael E. Stone, 'Categori~ationand Classification of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,' in Stone, Apocrypha, Pse~depzgraphaand Amenran Stttdtes: Collected Papers, vol. 1 (Orientalia 1,ovaniensia Analecta 144; Leuven: I'eeters, 2006) 3-13, here 7 (this article was first published in 1986). " JSJSup 105; I.eideri/Boston: Brill, 2005.

''

James Davila: Methodology in Action

471

simply 'Jews' and 'Christians.' So, as well as ethnic Jews and proselytes,4' we must take account of Gentile 'God-fearers,' Gentile sympathizers, nonJewish Israelites (Samaritans), syncretistic Jews, Jewish (i. e. Torah observant) Christians, judaizing Gentile Christians, and other Gentile C h r i ~ t i a n s . ~ ~ This wide range of possibilities means that he often finds it impossible to narrow the possible authorshp of a work to only one of these categories. Moreover, this range of possible communities and individuals highlights the fact that there was a good deal of continuity between Judaism and nonChristian Gentiles, and between Judaism and Christianity. When we try to make distinctions in assigning provenance, the works we are most likely to be able to identify will be those deriving from 'boundary-maintaining' Jews or Christians, those who themselves made sharp distinctions and who only later, in Davila's view, became the m a i n ~ t r e a m . ~ ~ Davila works with the two methodological principles that I have isolated from Kraft's work. Moreover, he provides a much more adequate grounding for the second of these. He demonstrates that it was possible for a Christian in the patristic period to write about an Old Testament period, person or topic without what he calls Christian signature features, or with only few or peripheral ones. He does so by providing examples of texts or substantial parts of texts that are securely known to have been authored by Christian writers. Two sermons of John Chrysostom on Genesis and one of Augustine on Micah and Psalm 72 have very few Christian signature features, while the Heptateuch of Pseudo-Cyprian and sections of Ephrem the Syrian's commentaries on Genesis and Exodus arguably have none.51 These examples provide evidence, not only against the assumption that a work with no Christian signature features must be Jewish, but also against the frequently made claim that, even if there are a few explicitly Christian features or passages, if these can removed without damage to the integrity of the work, it is to be considered Jewish. Davila's demonstration that such claims and assumptions are unjustified is one of the most valuable features of the book. Davila only briefly indicates what Christian signature features might be:* though he often refers to such, but he does draw up a considered list of eight Jewish signature features drawn from undoubtedly Jewish literature of the period. He treats these as a 'polythetic' description of the common Judaism of the late second Temple period, meaning that all forms of Judaism 48 Davila rightly thinks it is unlikely to be possible to distinguish a work by a born Jew from one by a proselyte. 49 Davila, The Provenance, 23-59. 50 Davila, The Provenance, 59-61. 51 Davila, The Provenance, 84-1 11. 52 Davila, The Provenance, 64 n. 109.

472 24. The Cont~nuingQuest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha have at least some of these features, but no single feature is a sine qua non, necessarily t o be found in every form of J u d a i ~ mWhile . ~ ~ I agree with him that 'different forms of Judaism will emphasize different elements in different ways, and some forms of Judaism may emphasize features that are not characteristic of "common J~daism,"'~'I would be much more inclined to treat several of them as common to all forms of Judaism in the period and to specify the Torah of Moses as authoritative scripture for all such forms,55 but this is not a major issue for our present purposes. The ways in which Davila uses these criteria of Jewishness are complex and nuanced and cannot be detailed here.56 In general, however, they enable Davila to proceed with identifying works of Jewish provenance with positive criteria rather than the commonly used negative criterion of absence of Christian signature features. H e asserts that Positive criteria may isolate texts more likely t o be Jewish in origin, but negative criteria (such as a lack of Christian signature features) have much less, if any eight.^'

This may be an over-statement of his case, since, for the identification of the work as Jewish, there must surely also be a lack of pervasive or integral Christian features. The latter is not a sufficient criterion (since Christians could write works without Christian signature features), but it is surely a necessary condition. I suspect that Davila neglects this point because the works he considers candidates to be tested for Jewish origin are those that scholars have already identified as having no or easily dispensable Christian features. Davila admits one weakness of his methodology: O f O l d Testament pseudepigrapha transmitted solely by Christians, those texts that we can label with confidence as "Jewish" are mostly the ones strongly concerned with boundary maintenance, and it will thus be these that make the main contribution toward reconstructing ancient Judaism. This is an unfortunate fact, but it arises inevitably from the nature of o u r evidence: if we start with the Christian manuscripts in which these works are now preserved and only work backwards t o a Jewish origin as the evidence requires, Jewish works superficially congenial t o Christianity, at least

" Davila, The Provennnc-~.,15-20. 'The eight characteristics are: (a) worship of the God of lsrael alone; (b) the acceptance of certain books as Jewish scriptures given as revelation by this God; (c) the acceptance of a historical narrative drawn from those scriptures; (?). the following of the customs, laws, and rituals mandated in those scriptures; (e) partrcrpation in or support of the temple cult in Jerusalem; (f) self-identification as Jews; (g) membership in and acceptance by a particular Jewish community; and (h) acceptance of Palestine as the Holy 1.and. " Davila, The Provenance, 20. 55 Davila follows Gabriele Boccaccini in postulating an 'Enochic Judaism' that did not acknowledge the Mosaic Torah. ''' Davila, The Provenance, 59-71. 5 7 Davila, The Provenance, 63.

James Davila: Methodology in Action

473

in their surviving forms, will be largely undetectable. We may suspect that some works of this kind are Jewish but we cannot be confident that they are, and so, at best, we should pigeonhole them in a "possible" or "doubtful" ~ategory".~" But may it not be possible to refine and extend the methodology in order to make some progress even with this group of works? It is, after all, a group we might expect to be quite numerous, since such works would be prima facie more congenial t o Christian use and more likely to have been preserved by Christians than those with obtrusively Jewish features. Armed with a relatively rigorous methodology, Davila proposes t o 'accept particular works as Jewish only when this is established beyond ' ~e~establishes this in reasonable doubt o n the basis of positive e ~ i d e n c e . H the cases of eight Old Testament pseudepigrapha that are almost universally accepted as Jewish and which were mentioned as such at the beginning of this essay (Letter of Aristeas, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, the Testament of Moses, Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, and the Psalms of S o l o m ~ n ) In . ~ the same category he includes also the Similitudes of E n ~ c h , whose ~' Jewishness and early date have sometimes been doubted. H e is confident that all of these works were in existence by the beginning of the second century CE, with the possible exceptions of the Similitudes of Enoch and 3 and 4 Maccabees, which could be later. Along with those pseudepigrapha (and Apocrypha) for which there is manuscript evidence from Qumran, these are the works 'that are likely to give N e w Testament scholars the best information about Judaism in the time of Jesus and the formative years of early C h r i ~ t i a n i t y ' .In ~ ~the case of these works, therefore, Davila's more rigorous methodology has confirmed the general view of scholars. However, in the cases of several other pseudepigrapha his verdict as to their Jewish provenance is more negative, though in none of these cases does he think Jewish provenance impossible. Book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles, widely accepted as Jewish, turns out to have been 'written either by a highly Hellenized Jew o r by a gentile who was much taken with o r influenced by Judaism in the second or first centuries BCE,'h3 while for the fifth book, also generally regarded as Jewish with only minor Christian interpolation, Davila offers three possible authorships, all in the period 70-132 CE: Jewish, SS Davila, The Provenance, 70-71; cf. 232: 'it is by nature extremely difficult to confirm that a work transmitted only by Christians is Jewish unless that work represents boundary-maintaining Judaism.' 59 Davila, The Provenance, 8. Davila, The Provenance, chapter 3. b' Davila, The Provenance, 132-1 37. b2 Davila, The Provenance, 164. " Davila, The Provenance, 186.

474 24. The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of O l d Testament Pseudep~grapha Jewish-Christian o r Gentile God-fearer: 'I d o not believe that any of these possibilities can either be proven o r d i s m i s ~ e d . For ' ~ ~ Joseph a n d Aseneth, there are four possibilities: a Christian work of late antiquity, a Jewish work (possibly from Leontopolis), the work of a God-fearer o r a Samaritan work: 'The first involves the least extrapolation from the earliest physical evidence for the document [i. e. the earliest manuscripts, from c. 600 CE] and should perhaps be our working hypothesis for the present, but none of the other possibilities should be d i s m i ~ s e d . 'In ~ ~the case of the Testament of Job, 'although composition by a Jew, o r for that matter a God-fearer, cannot be ruled out, if we start from the manuscript evidence and move backward only as needed, no positive evidence compels us t o nlove beyond a Greek work written in Christian, perhaps Egyptian, circles by the early fifth century CE.'66 The Testament of Abraham is a particularly interesting case for exemplifying Davila's methodology. It offers real difficulties, which Davila admits, for ascribing it to Christian authorship, but Davila here deploys the principle that Christians, who alone preserved the text, must have found it acceptable, and if they could read it in a way acceptable to Christians, why should they not have written it? Composition of an Urtext by a Jew o r a Gentile God-fearer cannot be ruled out, but identifying such an Urtext is virtually impossible and not required for a satisfactory explanation of the work. In other words we are not compelled to go beyond the 'default position' that Davila shares with Kraft. The case of the Story of Zosimus, including its two main sources, he finds easier t o resolve: it fits the context of Christian monasticism in late antiquity and nothing suggests a Jewish p r o v ~ n a n c e . ~ ' Finally Ilavila examines t w o works conventionally classified among the Apocrypha o r deutero-canonical works of the O l d Testament: Baruch (1 Baruch) and the Wisdom of S o l o n ~ o nIn . the case of Baruch, the Jewish signature features, though few, are such as t o make Christian provenance unlikely, but Davila cannot decide between composition by a Jew o r by a Gentile God-fearer.68 His treatment o f the Wisdom of Solomon is the case that will occasion the most surprise. H e is not actually the first scholar t o suggest Christian authorship of this work, but the suggestion does not seem to have been made for well over a century.b9 Davila finds its use in Davila, The Provenance, 189. Davila, The Proverlance, 195. " Davila, The Provenance, 199. 67 Among pseudepigrapha he does not discuss, Davila indicates that he 'concur[s] with the doubts expressed in recent publications about the alleged Jewish origins of the Ltves of the Prophets, the Testaments o f t h e F z e l v e Patrturchs, and the L ~ f eof Addm and Eve' (referring to the work of David Satran and hiiarinus de Jonge). Davila, The Prrwenancr, 227. For references to scholars w h o argued for Christian authorship, see Joseph Reider ed., The Book of\Vzsdom (Jewish Apocryphal Literature; N e w York: Harper, 1957) 16-17 b4 "5

"

Comments: on starting-points and default settings

475

1 Clement to be the earliest evidence of the existence of the work and finds no compelling reason to move back from this earliest known context of use to a different context of origin. He 'would by no means rule out the possibility of composition by a Hellenistic Jew, a God-fearer, or a JewishChristian any time in the Hellenistic period up to the second half of the first century [CE],' but 'finds nothing in the work that prohibits or even renders unlikely its having been written by a gentile Christian in the second half of the first century CE.'70This is the most striking example of the way Davila's methodology shifts the burden of proof to those who wish to argue for the Jewish provenance of a work only known to have been transmitted by Christians.

Comments: on starting-points and default settings Kraft and Davila both maintain that the starting-point for understanding a pseudepigraphon transmitted only by Christians should be 'the social context' of our earliest manuscripts (or the earliest quotations of the Michael Stone also makes the point: 'before the Pseudepigrapha are used as evidence for that more ancient period [the Second Temple period], they must be examined in the Christian context in which they were transmitted and utilized.'72There is obvious sense in this principle. That context is the earliest one in which we undoubtedly know that the work in question existed (though how much we know about that context varies enormously). Davila maintains that, if the work fits comfortably into that social context, 'we may take note of other possible origins, but our working hypothesis should be that it is a Christian composition of roughly that milieu.' Only if it does not fit comfortably do we have 'positive evidence that we need to work backwards from the context of the earliest manuscript, and presumably we will also have some idea of what kind of original context to look for.'73 It is perhaps surprising that Davila actually does so little in his book by way of understanding the texts in the social context of the earliest manun. 74; William Horbury, 'The Christian Use and the Jewish Origins of the Wisdom of Solomon,' in John Day, Robert P. Gordon and Hugh G.M. Williamson ed., Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 182-196, here 182 n. 2. O' Davila, The Provenance, 225. 71 Reference to quotations is a point Davila adds to Kraft's proposal: The Provenance, 238. 72 Stone, 'Categorization,' 9. 73 James R. Davila, 'The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha as Background to the New Testament,' ExpT 117 (2005) 53-57, here 55.

476 24. The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

scripts o r quotations of them. In the case of the Testament of Job, for example, he argues that it fits comfortably into 'Christian circles in Egypt' in the early fifth century at the latest, but takes only a dozen lines to establish this point, referring only to works from the Nag Hammadi library and Coptic magical texts.74 Might not Job's conflict with a vividly imagined figure of Satan correspond rather well to the spirituality of the Desert Fathers who retreated to the desert in order t o d o battle with Satan? The point would seem to be at least worth pursuing and experts in early Egyptian Christianity could probably suggest other avenues t o pursue. Davila might justifiably claim that in the context of his book he cannot be expected to d o more than sketch the kind of argument required, but he offers no indication that the Testament of Job's relationship to a fifth-century Egyptian context really needs further exploration in detail, and he moves with remarkable assurance to the conclusion that there is n o compelling reason to move backwards from that context to an earlier one.75Naturally there is also the question of how much a single scholar can be expected t o know about all the various contexts in which Old Testament pseudepigrapha were transmitted (and for this reason Davila avoids any discussion of the psuedepigrapha preserved in O l d Slavonic), but the field is therefore one requiring a great deal of interdisciplinary collaboration among scholars of many disciplines. A weakness of Davila's work may be that he makes it all seem too easy. Davila follows Kraft in presuming that, in the context of the earliest manuscripts o r quotations, a pseudepigraphon 'functioned as a Christian work,' since it presumably meant something to the Christians who preserved and copied it.76 U p to a point this is valid, but it is worth remembering that we have most of the literature of Greek and Roman antiquity only in very late manuscripts, typically of the ninth to the fifteenth centuries." In this respect, there is nothing unusual about the O l d Testament pseudepigrapha (though the fact that they so often survive only in translations into such languages as Ethiopic and Armenian is relatively more unusual). The Greek and Latin classics were preserved by Christians, often in communities of monks dedicated t o the rigorous practice of Christianity. Does that mean that they 'functioned as Christian works'? The fact is that, in the Latin West and the Byzantine East, all sorts of works from antiquity were preserved for a wide variety of reasons, including literary quality and antiquarian interest. We need to consider more carefully the reasons why Old Testament pseudDavila, The Provenance, 197-198. Davila, The Provenance, 198. 76 Davila, The Provenance, 7. 77 For the Latin classics, full information is readily available in Leighton D . Reynolds ed., Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). "

75

Comments: on purposes and uses

477

cpigrapha were preserved in specific cases and contexts before we can be clear what it means to say that they functioned as Christian works. Is it not the case that in most of the contexts in which our earliest manuscripts of the pseudepigrapha are found, most other manuscripts were of literature composed long before? The probability must be that a pseudepigraphon did not originate in the immediate context of our earliest manuscript, but long before. The context of the earliest manuscript may be the earliest context of the pseudepigraphon that we can be sure of, but we should also admit that, in mast cases, if we cannot find positive evidence for an earlier context of origin, then we simply d o not know its provenance. These considerations make me dubious about the 'default position' that works transmitted only in a Christian context should be considered Christian unless positive evidence for a Jewish provenance can be advanced. If our earliest evidence for an Old Testament pseudepigraphon is, for example, an eleventh century Byzantine manuscript, I think it is more likely than not to have been composed at an earlier time, and I d o not see that we have reason to think it more likely to be of Christian than of Jewish provenance. But why should we need a 'default position'? If we have nothing more to go on than such general probabilities, then we had better say simply that we d o not know whether it was of originally Jewish o r Christian provenance (or of any of the various possible combinations of the two). What we need is to build up a body of considerations that enable us to go beyond such very general probabilities. These could include, not only those employed by Davila, but also some idea as to whether in various different Christian contexts works of this type were composed as well as preserved o r only preserved, and whether in various different contexts such works tended to be preserved fairly faithfully o r were commonly redacted and expanded.

Comments: on purposes and uses A point of fundamental importance is that the reasons for which a work is valued, preserved and used d o not have to be the purpose for which it was composed. Seldom d o I read O l d Testament pseudepigrapha for the purposes for which they were composed, and this may well be true also of many who read them in the past. A pertinent example is Daniel Harlow's study of the reception history of 3 Baruch. There is little direct evidence available, but one approach that Harlow pursues is to observe the other works that accompany 3 Baruch in the manuscripts. In the Slavonic tradition these are quite various, but it appears most often, as we might expect, along with other apocalypses and eschatological works. Harlow deduces that

478 24. The Continuing Qucst for the Provenance of O l d Gstament Pseudepigrapha the contents of the Slavonic manuscripts point to no single rationale for the inclusion of 3 Baruch. That our apocalypse most often appears in the company of historicaltype apocalypses and other eschatological works, however, does suggest that it was valued in the Slavic tradition above all for its cosmology and eschatology, that is, for what it offers by way of pseudo-information about the heavenly realm and the post-mortem fate of human beings.78

However, from the manuscript tradition of the Greek version of 3 Baruch we gain a quite different impression of the use to which it was put. Here the contents of the two manuscripts in which it is found suggest that in the Greek tradition 3 Baruch was valued as a work of hagiography, the apocalypse having been received as a kind of autobiographical installment [sic] narrating a noteworthy episode in the life [of] a figure who had come t o be venerated as a saint in the Christian East. The institutional framework for the reception of 3 Baruch was provided by the liturgical calendar of the Eastern churches, which commemorated Old Testament notables right alongside Christian martyrs and saints.79

What is important here for my argument is, not only that 3 Baruch was evidently valued for quite different reasons in different Christian contexts,*O but also that the use suggested by the Greek manuscripts cannot be the purpose for which the work was written. While it is understandable that 3 Baruch, once it existed and was transmitted, could be put to hagiographical use, it is very unlikely that it could have been written as hagiography. Therefore, even if we knew only the Greek tradition of 3 Baruch, we could be fairly certain that the work did not originate in the earliest context in which we actually find it. The discussion of the original provenance of the work can therefore move t o consideration of the work's original purpose. In his book Harlow's reading of this purpose understands it as a specifically Diaspora Jewish response to the specifically Jewish situation following the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.8' In his later article he allows the possibility of a different construal of the work's purpose, suggested by Martha Himmelfarb, that would make Christian authorship c~nceivable.'~ My own proposal for understanding the overall message of the book, different from both Harlow's and Himmelfarb's, would, if correct, require a Jewish rather than Christian provenance.*' Harlow, 'The Christianization,' 435. The material is presented in more detail in Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 175-1 77. 79 Harlow, 'The Christianization,' 436. The material is presented in more detail in Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 178-181. so Harlow continues with evidence for yet more possible reasons why Christians may have valued this work. 8' Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, chapters 2-3; cf. idem, 'The Christianization,' 427-429. 82 'The Christianization,' 429-430 Richard Bauckham, 'Apocalypses,' in Donald A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien and Mark

"

Comments: on purposes ilnd uses

479

This example illustrates that determining the purpose of a pseudepigraphon may not be easy, but it also shows that it is closely related to the search for a work's original provenance. We certainly cannot simply conclude that, because a work was evidently valued and used in a particular Christian context, it could have been written in that context. We heed t o enquire carefully into the kinds of reasons for which the work was valued and used as well as whether those reasons could explain the origin of the composition. It seems to me that Davila gives too little attention to determining the purpose of a work. A mismatch between the purpose of a work and the reasons for its use by the Christians who transmitted it is one way in which a pseudepigraphon may not 'fit comfortably' (in Davila's phrase) in the social context of the earliest manuscripts we have of it and therefore require that we postulate a different context of origin for it. There is a great deal we d o not yet know about the reception history of Old Testament p~eudepigrapha,~) and the uses to which they were put in their Christian contexts of t r a n s m i s s i ~ nProbably .~~ most Christians who have valued such works in some way have not regarded them in the same way as they did the canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament (though a few pseudepigrapha have been reckoned canonical in some Christian traditions, such as the Ethiopian). This is clear enough from the fact that the texts were not preserved with the care accorded to Scripture, but were frequently abbreviated, interpolated, extended and redacted in various ways. This means that Christian readers of these works could have been interested in them without approving o r agreeing with everything in them. In many cases it may be that the stories rather than the teaching were what attracted them. This would have been true at a popular level, but we should also not forget that from as early as Julius Africanus in the third centurys6 there A., Seifrid ed., Justrjicatron and Vanegated Nomrsm, vol. 1: The Complexrtres of Second TempleJudrrsm (WUNT 2/140; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 135-187, here 182-185. '' An example of what can be done is Antonio Acerbi's reception history of the Ascension of Isaiah: Serra Lrgnea: Studr sulla Fortuna della Ascensione di Isaia (Rome: Editrice A. V. E., 1984). 85 Cf. Michael E. Stone, 'The Study of the Armenian Apocrypha,' in Wright ed., A Multifom Hentage, 139-148, here 14 1: 'The: study of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha is still in its infancy and so far little attention has yet been paid ro the history of their reception in the cultures which preserved and transmitted them.' Anke Holdenried, The Sibyl and Her Scrtbes: Manuscrtpts and lnterpretatron of the I.attn Sjbylla Tiburtrna c. 10IO-1500 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006) is a fine example of what can be done, given the right sources. Whereas previous scholars have thought the popularity of the Tibunine Sibyl (translated from Greek In the eleventh century) in the late medieval West was for the sake of its political apocalyptic, f4oldenried is able to show, partly from the manuscripts, that this was by no means the only factor. Many who read it were more concerned with personal eschatology o r with the Sibyl as a prophet of Christ. 86 O n Africanus as a polymath, see William Adler, 'Julius Africanus and Judaism in the Third Century,' in Wright ed., A Multtfom Hentage, 123-138.

480 24. The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of Old Testurne~ttPseudepigrupha were Christian scholars with antiquarian interests, especially in the kind of ancient history about which such works as Jubilees and the Enoch literature could inform them. Much material from Old Testament pseudepigrapha has been preserved in the works of the later Christian chronographers such as ' scholars tend to be interGeorge Syncellus and Jacob of E d e s ~ a . ~Modern ested in the teaching o r message of a work, but this is not necessarily what interested Christian readers o r even what they noticed. They preserved these works for all sorts of reasons that may not correspond at all well to the purposes for which the works were written.

Comments: on Jews, Gentiles and Jewish Christians An interesting feature of Davila's work is that he takes seriously the possibility that Old Testament pseudepigrapha could have been written not only by Jews (born o r proselytes) or Christians Uewish o r Gentile), but also by God-fearers, i.e. Gentiles who did not convert to Judaism, but were attracted to it, worshipped the God of Israel, observed some Jewish rituals and took a very positive view of the Jewish people.R"ome of the w o r k s f o r w h i c h s u c h a p r o v e n a n c e Davila t h i n k s a possibility seen1 t o m e

to belong, in some respects, to the same category, despite their generic and other differences: Sibylline Oracles books 3 and 5, the Wisdom of Solomon and P s e u d o - P h o c y l i d e ~ .In ~ ~all these cases, Davila observes some Jewish signature features, but also notes, despite their paraenetic character, a lack of reference to such Jewish distinctives as circumcision, Sabbath and dietary laws. H e makes the point most fully in relation to Sibylline Oracles book 3: It is pro-Jewish, pro-temple, pro-sacrifice, arid sings the praises of the Jewish I.aw ... Although the work repeatedly refers t o the Law and advocates obeying it, when the contents of the Law are specified they seem niainly t o involve proper worship s' See William Adler, Time Intrnemorial: Archaic History nnd its Sources in Christkn Chronography from Jxrliur Africanrts to George 5)lncellus (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 26; Washington, D.C.: Dumbanon Oaks Research L,ibrar): 1989); idem, 'Jacob of Edessa and the Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Chronography,' in Reeves ed., Trucing, 143-171. Note also the learned interest in matters Jewish in the Armenian tradition, noted by Stone, T h e Study,' 146-148. See Davila's definition: Tht. Provenance, 28-29. '' H e discusses these in The Provenance, 181-186, 186-189, 219-225, 36-37. That Pseudo-Phocylides was written by a Gentile God-fearer is one of four possibilities discussed by Pieter W. van der Horst, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides (SVTP 4; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 76, but it is a possibility that, ten years later, he discounted: idem, 'I'seudoPhocylides Rcvisited,'JSP 3 (1 998) 3-30, hcre 16.

Comments: on Jews, Gentiles and Jewish Christians

481

of God, as opposed to idolatry, and sexual morality. Circumcision, the dietary laws, the Sabbath, and the Jewish festivals are ignored. This viewpoint could reflect a liberal Judaism that was highly assimilated to its surrounding Hellenistic environment ..., but it could also reflect the perspective of a gentile God-fearer who was quite familiar with Judaism but who picked and chose what was appealing for his or her own religion. Such a writer might well have subsumed the Mosaic Law into natural law, considered the Jerusalem temple to be the central locus for the worship of God, and yet cheerfully ignored any ritual practices that seemed primitive or unsophisticated." What I think may be wrong here is a failure to consider that a mainstream Jewish writer - not necessarily 'liberal' - might distinguish between what God required of Jews and what God required of Gentiles, just as later rabbis thought Gentiles were subject to the Noachic laws and only Israel to the Mosaic Torah. All four of the works we are considering are ostensibly addressed to gentile^.^' We can assume this in the case of Pseudo-Phocylides because of the pseudonymous attribution to the pagan philosopher Phocylides. In the book of Wisdom Solomon addresses his fellow-rulers (Wisd 1:1; 6:1), a literary convention that implies a general, not an Israelite, audience. The Sibyls were ancient pagan prophetesses. There are a variety of views on whether these works were seriously intended to reach pagan readers. I am inclined to think they were, since this is the most obvious reason for their elaborately maintained pseudonymous attributions (even Solomon had an international reputation for wisdom). If, as seems probable, Virgil knew the third book of the Sibyllines (Eclog. 4.21-25), then this book at least reached pagan readers who did not recognize its Jewish provenance. In any case, what these books depict as God's requirements for Gentiles are abandonment of idolatryg2and worship of the one God, to whom sacrifice should be made in his temple in Jerusalem, together with adherence to basic moral norms, especially sexual. When judgment is threatened o r pronounced on Gentiles, it is for idolatry and sexual immorality (both characteristic of Gentile society, in the view of Jews). This is evidently what 'the law' - given to Israel in order to be spread to the Gentiles (Wisd 18:4) - means for Gentiles. It is the cultic and moral essence of the Torah, identified with nature or a common law of humanity, and, according to the Sibyllines, in the future the nations will turn to the God of Israel and observe his laws. There is here both an approximation of the Torah to Hellenistic ideas of natural law, and also strong inspiration from the hope for the conversion of the nations to be found in the post-exilic prophets. None of this means that these writers Davila, The Provenance, 184-1 85. In SibOr 3:266-294, the Sibyl addresses Israel, much as in other oracles she addresses Egypt, Rome, Greece and so forth. 92 A critique of idolatry is surprisinglyabsent from Pseudo-Phocylides. 91

482 24. The Continuing Quest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

exempted Jews themselves from the more particularly Jewish aspects of Torah. It is true that, in book 3 of the Sibyllines particularly, the Jews' own way of life is depicted without emphasis on the Jewish distinctives, but it is being held up as an example for Gentiles to emulate and so we should not expect such an emphasis. Understood in this way, these books do not seem to me to require, if their provenance is Jewish, that they represent an especially 'liberal' or 'highly assimilated' kind of Judaism. Such attitudes to Gentiles may be 'liberal' by comparison with, for example, Jubilees and 4 Ezra, but they nevertheless entail severe condemnation of most current Gentile life, while the openness to Gentile worship of the God of Israel featured in the Jerusalem temple itself in the permission for Gentiles to offer sacrifice there that obtained until the Jewish revolt, and the expectation of the future conversion of the nations is found, inter ulk,in Tobit, the Book of Watchers, and the Enochic Animal Ap~calypse.~' I have characterized a somewhat diverse group of books in rather too generalized terms, but the purpose is to show that they are broadly similar in relating the Torah to Gentiles in a way that leaves aside the Jewish particularities of circumcision, dietary laws, Sabbath and so forth, without any necessary implication that Jews are not bound to observe all the particularities of the law as given to Israel. This attitude will have enabled many Jews to be encouraging and welcoming to Gentile God-fearers without necessarily expecting them to become proselytes. Consequently, a pseudepigraphon maintaining this attitude might derive as well from a Jewish author representative of this widespread Jewish view of Gentiles as from a God-fearer who had learned the same approach from just such Jews. What of the two cases in which Davila leaves open the possibility of Jewish Christian authorship: Sibylline Oracles book 5 and the Wisdom of Solomon? In the former case, an obstacle that Davila negotiates much too easi1y94is the book's attitude to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans (especially Nero, who is here blamed for it), a prominent topic in this book of the Sibyllines (5:150-151,397-413). The event is treated as a tragedy visited on the blameless Jews, whereas throughout early Christian literature (as in some Jewish literature) it is understood as a divine judgment.

93 My account in this paragraph broadly agrees with Terence L. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle's Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) 60-74; Ed P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE - 66 CE (London: SCM Press, 1992) 267-270; John J. Collins, 'A Symbol of Otherness: Circumcision and Salvation in the First Century,' in idem, Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistzc-Roman Judaism USJSup 54; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 21 1-235. 94 Davila, The Provenance, 189: 'a Jewish-Christian who was outraged by the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.'

Conclusion

483

There is no evidence that Jewish Christians thought differently about this.95 Jesus' prophecies of the destruction of the temple are too widespread in the Gospel traditions to have been unknown to them.96As for the Wisdom of Solomon, although there may be no specific statement in it that could not have been written by a Christian (Jewish or Gentile) placing himself in Solomon's pre-Christian context, we must ask: why should a Christian in the second half of the first century C E have wanted to write such a work? The Christian literature that we have from this early period of the Christian movement is overwhelmingly concerned with the specific Christian message about Jesus and its implications. Interestingly, this is also true of the earliest Old Testament pseudepigrapha that are indisputably Christian: the ~ ' 8 of the Sibylline Oracles, and the Odes Ascension of Isaiah, 5 E ~ r a , book of Solomon (if this counts as an Old Testament p~eudepigraphon).~~ While we need to be aware of the danger of circular argumentation, it may be that study of those Old Testament pseudepigrapha we know to be Christian could assist our attempts to identify others.

Conclusion These comments should not detract at all from the importance of The Provwork achieves a major advance in the enance o f t h e P s e ~ d e p i ~ r a p hDavila's a. quest for the provenance of Old Testament pseudepigrapha and opens a new stage of discussion to which, I hope, this essay has contributed.

95 Harlow, The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, 107-108, after a survey of the evidence, concludes: 'Virtually nowhere in the literature of early Christiannity or Jewish Christianity d o we find evidence of regret over Jerusalem's loss or interest in the Temple's restoration.' Cf. also Geoffrey W.H. Lampe, 'A. D. 70 in Christian Reflection,' in Ernst Bammel and Charles ED. Moule ed., Jesus and the Politics of hts Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 153-1 71. 96 In the Gospel of the Ebionites, there is even a saying of Jesus: 'I came to abolish sacrifices, and if you d o not cease from sacrificing, the wrath will not cease from you' (frag. 6), while the probably Ebionite source of Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71 also sees the destruction of Jerusalem as the divine response to the refusal of the Jews to obey Jesus' command that they abandon sacrifice (see Richard Bauckham, 'The Origin of the Ebionites,' in Peter J. Tomson and Doris Lambers-Petry ed., The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature [WUNT 158: Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 20031 162-181, here 167-168). 97 A vision of the exalted Christ is the climax of this work. 98 It seems to me probable that the ascription to Solomon was not original.

Particulars of First Publication 1. Introduction 2. The Martyrdom of Enocb and Elijuh:/cwish or Christian? Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976) 447-458. 3. Enoch and Elijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of El~jah Elizabeth A. Livingstone ed., Studia Patristica, vol. XVI Part I1 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985) 69-76. 4. The Rise of Apocalyptic Tbemelios 3/2 (1978) 10-23; reprinted in Carl R. liueman, Tony J. Gray, Craig L. Blombcrg cd., Solid Ground: 25 Years of Evangelical Theology (1-eicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000) 43-68.

5. The Delay ofthe Parousia Tyndale Bulletin 3 1 (1980) 3-36.

6. A Note on a Problem in the Greek Version of 1 Pnoch 1:9 Journal of Theological Studies 32 (198 1 ) 136-1 38. 7. Tbe Son of Man: ' A Man in my Positton' or 'Someone'? Journal for tbe Study of the New Testament 23 (1985) 23-33. 8. The Apocalypses in the Ne~i+seudepigrapha

jo~rnalfor the Study of the N m Testament 26 (1986) 97-1 17; reprinted in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter ed., New Testament Backgrounds: A Sheffield Reader (Biblical Seminar 43; Shcffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 67-88. 9. Pseudo-Apostolic Letters

Journal of Biblical 1,iterature 107 (1988) 469-494. 10. Kainam the Son of Arpachshad In Luke2 Genealogy "Marc on Kainam the Son of Arpachshad in Luke's Genealogy," Epltemeridcps Theologtcae Lovanier~ses67 (199 1) 95-1 03. 1 1. The List oftke Tribes of Israel in Revelation 7 "The I.ist of the Tribes in Revelation 7 Again,"Journal for t l ~ Study e of the N m Testament 42 (1991) 99-1 15. 12. The "I'arting of the Ways ":What Happened and Why Studia Theologica 47 (1993) 135151.

13. The iilessranrc Interpretatror~of Isaiah 10:34 *The Messianic Interpretation of Isaiah 10:34 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 Baruch and the Preaching of John the Baptist," IJead Sea Discovcrics 2 (1995) 202-216. 14. The Relevance of Extra-Canontcal Jc-~i~ish Texts to Ak-u:t Testament Study Joel B. Green ed., Iieanng the N m Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmansl Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995) 90-1 08. 15. Josephus ' Account ofthe Temple rn Cotttra Apronem 2.102-1 09 Louis II. Feldman and John K. Levison ed., Josephus' Contra Apronem: Studies

In its Cl~aractcrand Context with a 1,atin Concordance to the Portton Mrssing In Greek (AGAJU 34; 1-eiden: Brill, 1996) 327-347, with the addition of a previously unpublished section. 16. L f i , Death, and the Afterlrfe In Second TempleJudaism Richard Longenecker cd., L ~ f eIn the Face of Death: The Resurrection Message ofthe Nm.1 Testament (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 1998) 80-95. 17. What rf Parrl bad Truvelled East ratl~erthan West? Biblrcal Interpretat~on8 (2000) 171-184; also in J. Cheryl Exum ed., Virtual History and the Bible (1.eiden: Brill, 1999) 171-184. 18. Covenant, Law and Salvatron 1n the Jcwrsh Apocalypses "Apocalypses," chapter 6 in Donald A. Carson, Peter T. O'Brien and Mark A Siefrid ed., Justrficattott and Vanegated Nomrstn, vol. I: The Complexttres of Second Temple Judarsn~(Tlibingcn: Mohr [Sicbeck], 2001) 135-1 87. 19. The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts James M. Scott ed., Restoratron: Old fistatnent, J ~ z r s hand Chrrstran Perspectrves (JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 435-487.

t Names rn the New Testament 20. Paul and Other Jews u ~ r l L-atrtz Alf Christophersen, Carsten Claussen, Jiirg Frey and Bruce Longenecker ed., Paul, Luke arzd the Graeco-Roman World: Essays tn Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderbrrrn USNTSup 217; Shefficld: Shefficld Academic Press, 2002) 202-220. 21. The Horanum of Adam and the Chronology of the Passton h'rtsthnskrj Vostok [Christian East] 4 (X) (2002) 413-439. 22. Thc Sprrrt of God tn Us Loathes Envy: James 4:5 Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. 1,ongenccker and Stephen C. Barton ed., The Holy Sprrrt and Chnsttan Ortgrns: Essays In Ilonor oflames D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 270-28 1. 23. Tobtt as a Parable for the Exrles of Northern Israel Mark Bredin ed., Studres rn the Book of' Tobrt: A Mrrlttdtsc~plrnaryApproach (LSTS 55; London/New York: 'T: & 1:Clark, 2006) 140-164. 24. The Contrn~rngQuest for the Provenance of Old Testament Pseudeptgrapha Also appearing in Gerbern S. Ckgema and James H. Charlesworth cd.,

The Pscudep~gruphaand C.'l~rtsttrrnOngins: Essays from the Studtorum Novr Tcstanzentr Soaetas (London: T. & T. C l ~ r k[Continuum], 2008).

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings Old Testament Genesis

Exodus

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

1519-30 15:29-30 15:31 19 19:ll-18 19:13 19:18 21:20 21:21-23 23:17 23:29 25: 18-1 9 26:42 26:45

Leviticus

Numbers 1 1-2 1-3 1:3 1:4-16 15-15 1:18 1:20 1:21 1:23 1:32 2 3:2-4:22 4:3 4:23 4:30 4:35 4:39 4:43 4:47 5:2-3 8:23-26 10 11:16 11:25-30 11:29 14:18 15:31 19:13 19:20 19:22 20:29

Index of Scrptures and Other Ancient Writings

Deuteronomy

Joshua 24:2-15

Ruth 3:2-11 4:18 4:18-19 4:19 4:19-20 4:20 4:2 1 4:21-22 4:22

1 Samuel

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

2 Samuel

1 Kings 4:2 8:46 9: 7 19:lO 19:14-18 2 Kings 2:3 2:15 2:17 5:7 15:29 17:6 18:ll 21:14 25:18 1 Chronicles 1:2 1:18 2: 1-4 2:4-5 2:5 2:9 2:9-10 2:10 2:lO-11 2:11 2:11-12

2 Chronicles

5:13 7:3 7:14 20:7 21:12 21:12-15 23:20 30:9 30:20 31:17

Index of Scriptares and Other Ancient Writings

Nehemiah

Esther

Psalms

Index of S@tures and Otber Ancient Writings Song of Songs (Canticles) 4:12 374 4:15 199

Isaiah

Proverbs

Ecclesiastes 6:12 10:lO

2:2-4 2:3 2:12-13 2:12-14 4:1 4:2 5:9 6:9-10 6:12 8:6 8:14 8:24 9 9:1 9:l-2 9:2 9:6-7 9:7 9:17 9:22 10 10:22-11:5 10:28-32 10:33 10:33-34 10:33-11:1 10:33-11:5 la34 10:34-11:l 10:34-11:4 10334-1 135 11 11:l 11:l-5 11:2 11:3-4 11:4 11:lo-12 11:10-16

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient W n t i ~ g s

Jeremiah

Index of Smptrcres and Other Ancient Writtngs

Lamentations

Ezekiel Daniel

Zndex of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings Joel

Amos

Jonah 3:3 4:2

Hosea 1:lO 6:1 6:2 6:11 6:ll-7:l 11:3 11:11 11:lo-11 13:3 14:1 14:4

Micah 1:3 2:4 3:9 4:l-3 46-7 73-9 7:20 Nahum

Habakkuk 1:2

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

Zephaniah 3:13 3:19 3:20

Haggai Malachi Zechariah

Apocrypha (Greek) Additions to Daniel 399

Additions to Esther 11:l 13:l-7 16:l-24

133 133 133

1 Baruch

1:l 1:l-9 1:3-4 1:lO

133,135-136, 144 135-1 36 135 136 128

Be1 and the Dragon 8 30 8:2 14

8tZ PSZ PEE 05 PSZ ZSZ OE ' P I OE 'PI ZSZ ZSZ 'OE

£€I Of PEP 'ZIP OE € II

zz LPZ ESZ LPZ ELI OE ' P I LPZ LPZ ESZ LPZ CSZ 'LPZ LSE 'SPE 8Pb 6EE 8PZ

PEE EZZ

9z:z

I:z

s a a q v m v ~1

TOE IOE L6Z SSE

06-98:8 8L:8 L:8 8:s

svdpsil I

IPE-OPE SSE ZOP OEC 8PP 'OSE ' I € € 'IEc ' 6 I PEE SPE PIE PEE 8EE

lo*

8Pt 8Pt IP I St€ ' ~ 9 1 6EE 28 OZZ-6 I Z 6IZ ZL SZP 6ZP 9zt 9TZ SIZ SEE 9ZP

ZI:IS 9Z:OS 6I:OS IT-O1:8P OI:8P 2:8t IE:LP tZ:SP EZISP IZ:Pt S:6E 9IZ9E El:9E ZIZ9E II:9E OI:9E 8I:SE LZ:PE LZ-SZ:PE 8:9Z IZZSZ E:PZ 0z-Il:SI 61-L I:tI 6I:I I LIZI

( ~ f l 3 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ a VAZS ~ 3 23.42~8 / ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~

index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

Wisdom of Solomon 1:3-8 3:14 3:7-8 4:lO-15 5 5:5 5:7-16 5:9-14

142,252-253 429 252 253 255 217 90,255 216 216

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

New Testament Matthew

Mark

Index of S e t u r e s and Other Ancient Writings

Luke

501

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

John

Acts

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

Romans

Index of Scrtpttsres and Other Ancient Writings 1 Corinthians 1:14 3:6 3:9-17 3:16-17 8:1 9:5 920 10:23 14:3-5 14:17 14:26 15 15:3 15:35 15:50-52 16:lO 16:19

Philippians 3:5

140 261

Colossians 1:12 2:7 4:lO 4:11 4:14 4:16

126,143,145,147,381 90 185 372 371,380-381,390 371 126,140

1 Thessalonians

2 Corinthians 1:l 2:7 3:13 4:16f. 4:17 5:11

145 372,385 385 90 91 10 185

2 Thessalonians

Galatians 1:15 1:16 1:17 1:17-18 1:21 2: 1 2:18 4:30 5:22-23

1:l 1:7 1:lO 2:2 2:8 3:11

11,125,145-147 372,385 90-9 1 90 125,145 13,34 145

1 Timothy

Ephesians 2 Timothy 134,144,148-149

Index of Scfdptstres and Other Ancient Writings

Titus

Philemon 24

1 Peter

Hebrews

2 Peter James

Z d x of Smjbtures and Other Ancient Writings

1 John

2 John 3 John

Jude

Revelation

508

Index of Scripttcres and Other Ancient Writings

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 61,79,103-104,109, 115,119,269,295,400 1O:lO 400 18:11 400 19:6 408 2 3 5 11 115 Apocalypse of Adam 116 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) 22,54,60-61,73, 76,80432, 103, 110, 113-114,119,136-137, 142,193,197-198,203, 205,207,269,310-31 7, 319-320,332,351,369, 405 1-9 310 1:4 76 1:5 76,312 4 312 4:l 76 4:2 312 5 311 5:l 73 5:2 74 10-12 310 11 311 11:3 75 12:4 74-75 13-20 310

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Wdtngs

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings 3 Baruch (Greek Apocalypse) 53,103,108,113-115, 119-120,207,269,272, 317-320,405406 1:2 3 18-320 6 405 6-8 404 6:13 404 6:13-14 405 6:16 405,412,414 11-16 318,401,403 11:4 318 11:9 318 12:5 318 12:12 318 12:15 318 13 320 14:2 318 15:1-3 320 152 318 15:2-3 318 16:l-3 318-319 16:2 319-320 16:2-3 320 16:4 109 16:4-8 115,318 4 Baruch (ParalejpornenaJeremiou) 6:19-25 133 7324-34 133

(Greek)Apocalypse of Daniel (Diegesis Danielis) 116 7:14 117 14:l-15 16 (Coptic) Apocalypse of Elijah 3,5-7,10, 13-15,24, 27-28,30-37,107-109, 116,119 1:2 28 1:5-6 38 1:6f. 28 1:19 28 3:14 116 3:7-20 25 3:10 28,33

Index of Scrtptwes and Other Ancient Writings

Apocryphal Syriac Psalms 154:19 340-341 Apooyphon of Ezekiel 106,116,119 Frag. 5 106

Hebrew Apocalypse of Elijah 119 (Syriac)Apocalypse of Ezra 4,9,29,31, 111 (Falasha)Apocalypse of Ezra 16,111 Apocalypse of Sedrach 111-113 15.2-5 108 Apocalypse of Zechariah 108-109 Apocalypse of Zephaniah 106-109,119,291-294 1:l-2 291 2:2-4 291 2:8-9 293 3:5-7 292

Aristeas, Letter of 133,242 3540 133 41-46 133 92 242 95 242 96 242 160 401 304-305 401 Ascension of Isaiah 91,103,108-109,119 1.3 109 3.2 453 4.1 108 4.14 90-91 8.24 108 9.22 108 11.16 108 Assumption of Moses (Testament of Moses) 15,30,54 6 54 Book of Zerubbabel 119

512

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

1 Enoch

19,49,51-52,59,91, 103-105,119-120,133, 212,219,270,273-276, 282,297,300,450 1 274 1-3 273 1-5 50-51,275-280, 283-284 1-36 (Book of Watchers) 49,54,59,270,273, 275-277,280-281,285 1:1 276-277,300 1:3 277 1:3-4 276 1:3-9 276,306 1:4 276 1:4-6 90 1:7-9 276 1:8 277 1:9 89-91,276-277 2-5 274,276 5:4 274,278 54-5 277 5:6 52,277 56-7 277 5:6-8 277 5:7 277 5:8 277 5:8-9 278,316 5:9 52,277 6-13 52 6-16 273 6-19 50-5 1 7: 1 50 8:3 50,153 10:3 277,279 109 273 10:12 159 10:13 51 10:14 52 10:16 277,279 10:17 52,277 10:17-19 277 10:20 51 10:21 52,276-277 10:22 51 12:5-6 277

Index of Scriptures dnd Other Ancient Writings 46:8 284 47 85 47:l-2 318,403 47:3 293 48:l 277,284 48:9 277 48:lO 284 49:3 163,354 50: 1 277 50:2 285 50:2-5 285 51:l 254 51:4 255 515 255,277 53 285 56:6 277 56:8 277 57 345 58:l 277 58:2 277 58:3 255,277 60:1 277 60:5-6 294 60:8 158 61:4 277,284 61:8 288 61:13 277 62-63 285 62:2 342,354 62:7 277 62: 8 277,279 62:9-10 294 62:ll 277 62:12 277 62:13 277 62:15 277 62: 15-1 6 255 63:s-9 285 63:9 285 67:8 284 67:lO 284 69:6-14 50 70:3 277 71:16-17 284 72 404-405 72-82 (Astronomical Book) 49,270 72: 1 52

72:2-3 404 72:3 405 72:7 405 75-76 404 80 271 80-82 273 80:7 51 81:2 62 81:9 52 82:4f. 51 83 59 83 f. 58,63 83-90 (Book of Dreams) 49,52,58-60,270,281 84:6 279 85-90 19,58 853 282 87:2-4 19 89:59-90:17 58 90:8-18 60 90: 19 20,300 90:20 20 90:20-27 20 90:28-29 185 90:28-30 20 90:29-33 345 90:3 1 19-20,29,331 90:33 247,448 90:33-38 282 90:38 282 91-105[107] (Epistle of Enoch) 49,51-52,133, 142-144,219,270-271, 279-280,283-284 91-108 219 279 91:l-10 91:2 279 9 1:3-4 279 91:lO 253 91:11-17 155,271,279 91:12 280,300 91:17 280 91:18-19 279-280 91:19 279-280 91:30 344 92-105 133 92: 1 133-134,219 92:l-5 279

Index of Srriptures and Other Ancient Writings

99:4 219 99:6 219 99:7-10 280 99:lO 280 100:5 280 100:6 133,280 100:7 281 102:4 251 1025 219 103:9 180,281 103:14-15 280 103:15 28 1 104:2 254-255,281 104:4 255,281 1045 280 104:6 281 104:7 281,287 104:9 280 104:12 280 104:13 280 1052 280 106-107 (Noah Appendix) 133,270 107 133 108 2 70 108:3 293 108:12 255 108:12-13 255 108:14 255

2 Enoch

2:2 2:3 7 8-10 10:4 11-15 12-15 12:l-2 13:2 13:2-5 14:l 14:3 151 15:l-2 195

Index of Scrtptures and Other Ancient Writings

3 Enoch 22:15

105,116,272,450 406

4 Ezra (Apocalypse of Ezra) 22-23,54,61, 103, 107-112,114,119, 205,207,269,290, 293,295-297, 300-305,307-313, 315-317,322,331, 344,351,369 1-2 110,296 1:39 8 2:33-35 344 3 302 3-1 4 344 3:1-58 296 3:7 302 3:14 299 3:15 302 3:30 75 3:32 306 3:35-36 306 4:24 215-216 4:27 311 4:33 84 4:35 84 4:35-37 85 4:36 74 4:38-42 71 4:4143 254 5 31 1 5:l 306 5:21-6:34 296 5:29 306 540 299 5:43-45 74 6:5 306 6:25 301 6:26 7,22,29,331,334 6:26-28 299 6:28 306 6:32 307 6:35-926 296 ,

Index of Scriptares and Other Ancient Writings

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings Joseph and Aseneth 15:4 17:6 20:7

293 185 248

Jubilees 1:15 2:23 4:23-24 4:30 7:20-39 7:39 8:l-5 13:20 14:4-5 18:15 25:16 27:13 30:22 31:17 31:18 31:20 32:22 34:30 44:ll-34

Ladder of Jacob 1:10

Liber antiquitaturn biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo)

5 Ezra

110,119,296,344 6 Ezra

110,296

1:16 3:lO

Genesis Apocryphon 450

History of Joseph (Arabic) 5

(Bohairic)History of Joseph 3 1-32

103,116,119,269,295 164

29,32 4, 30

4:9 8:2 8:6 8:&7 8:11-14 8:13 10:3 13:8-10

20-23,154,166-170, 178,331-332,334,337, 348,430 21 23,248,250,253-254, 332 155 133 167,169 133 167-168,170-171 169 166 348

Index of Sclptures and Other Ancient Writings

518

Pseudo-Phocylides 215 9-2 1 219 19 2 19-220 116-117 215

Questions of Ezra 111-112

Revelation of Ezra 104

Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai 119

Sibylline Oracles Life of Adam and Eve 400

Lives of the Prophets 3:16-17

25 356,453

Odes of Solomon 22:12

264 185

Psalms of Solomon 3:12 6:4 8:28 9:lO 11 11:l-9 11:2-3 17:4 17:23-24

348,351 253,255 40 1 448 339 345 448 357 346 342

1-2 1-14 2 2:154-177 2:154-338 2:170-176 2:178-338 2:187 2:242 3 3-5 3:49-50 3:195 3:218-247 3:245 3:256-259 3:273-294 3:399-401 3:574-594 3:585-586 3591-592

48,106,320 119,321 103 321 321 321 166 321 8, 18 90-9 1 32 1 103,119 346 322 321 321 32 1 322 322 322 322 401

Index of Smptskres and Other Ancient Writings Testaments of tbe Three Patriarchs Testament of Abraham 253,289,291-292,400 A12-13 288 A12-14 289,292 B4:4-5 400 B10-11 287 B9 289 Testament of Jacob 7:27 293

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 166,169,171 Testament of Dan 5:4-5 162 5:9-13 162 Testament of Gad 1:2 169

Testament of Adam 2:7

393-395 318

Testament of Job 4:9 12:4

255 253 219

Testament of Moses 1:18 4:14 4:9 8:1 9 1O:l-7 10:9-10 11:14 11:17 125 12:6 12:ll-13 12:13

53-54,63 72 63 356 58 58 276 255 63 63,294 62 58,63,294 63 339

Testament of Issachar 1:2 169 Testament of Joseph 19:4 165 Testament of Judah 24:163

Treatise of Shem 104

Visio Danielir (Greek) 4,29,31

(Armenian) Vision of Enoch 117

Vision of Ezra 38

111-112 108

(Coptic) Vision of Daniel 80-81

16

Index of Smptures and Other Ancient Writings

520

Scrolls From The Judean Desert 1QpHab 7:10-12

67

1 4 2 0 (Genesis Apocryphon) 450

1 4 2 7 (1QMysteries)

1QM (War Scroll) 165-166,196 1.2 339 1.2-3 165-1 66 1.3 195 2.2 238 2.2-3 166 2.7 166 3.13-14 166 4.16 166 5.1-2 166 6.10 166 11.6-7 34 1 14.5 339 14.10-11 348 14.13-14 401 15.1 339 15.2 196 15.10 216 15.10-11 216 15.11 215 18.11 339 1QS (Rule of the Community) 182 3.17-4.26 426 4.8 255 10.10 40 1

1QSa (1Q28a) 1.8-15 225

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

44242 (4Qprayer of Nabonidus) 46

Index of Scriptures and Other Annent Writings

522

Babatha Archive 383-384

P. Yadin 36

Early Christian Literature (Except New Testament) Acta Pauli et Antonini

(Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter

375

Acts of Paul 4 5 11:4

136,140-141 141 141 30

(Arabic [Clementine])Apocalypse of Peter

Acts of Pilate 25

1 2 4-14

6, 11-12,14,24,29-32, 106,108,116,118-119, 149,189,321 90-91 3,32 106

6 4, 10

29.32

(Ethzopic [Clementinel) Apocalypse of Peter

Acts of Thomas 263-264

4, 12, 14,29,32

Adso Libellus de Antichrist0 4

(Syriac [Clementine])Apocalypse of Peter

Andreas Salos Apocalypse

Apocalypse of Ps.-Shenoute

286-289

16

4,29,32

4,13,29,31-32

1 Apocalypse of James 265

Apocalypse of Ps.-John

Apocalypse of John

Apocalypse of Shenoute

82,112,118-119

Apocalypse of Leo of Costantinople 21

16

Apocalypse of Paul 7 20

113,118,318,400 401,403 8

4,29,31-32

25

Apocalypse of Thomas 128

Apocalypse of the Virgin 113

Index af Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings Apocryphon of James 1:2 1:ll-12 1:19-20 1:21-22 1:23-24 1:35 2: 1 2:2 2:3-4 2:7 2:34-37

138-139,142,147 138-139 138 138 138 138 138 139 139 139 139 138

Commodian Carmen apologeticum 941-986

166

Carmen de duobus populis 833 833-864 839 850

8 8 8 8

Apostolic Constitutions and Canons 6.8.1 6.10.1

141 141

2:5 3:24-32

Augustine De civitate Dei 21.17-27

113

Barnabas, Epistle of 4:3 4:11 6:5 154 16 195

3 Corinthians

128,137,185,188 72 185 185 78-79 185 431

136,139-145 140 77

Didache 4:4 10:2 16:7

431 185 90-9 1

Ephraem "Graecus" Sermo in adventum Domini 4,12-14,29,31-32

Ephraem Syrus Sermo define extremo

1 Clement

4,29,31-32

Epiphanius of Salamis De mensuris et ponderibus 9a 133 Epistle of the Apostles

2 Clement 9-1 2 11:2 11:2 f. 115

128,431 77 431432 77 43 1

2 3-5 6-7 7 9-1 2 12-5 1 34

138,142,144 138 138 138 139 138 138 149

index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

524

Epistle of Peter to James 1:2 2: 1 2:2 2:3-4 2:7 2:17

139,142,144,147 139 139 139 139 139 148

Honorius of Autun

Elucidarium 3.9

11

Ignatius

Ephesians 9:1

185

Irenaeus Eupolemus apud Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 9.31-34.3 133 Eusebius

Adversus Haereses 5.5.1 5.23.2 5.28.3 5.30.2

8 78-79 78-79 162

Praeparatio Evangelica 9.31-34.3 9.38

133 133

Jerome

Apology against Rtifinus 3.25

125

Historia Ecclesiastics 3.38.4 3.39.9 4.5.3 4.22.7

128 386 379 181

John of Damascus

De jide orthodoxa 4.20

11

Justin

Gospel of Thomas

r ~p010gy

71

31.6

185

Dialogue with Trypho

Hegesippus

apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.22.5 4.22.7

141 181

Hilarius

In Matt 20:lO

189

17.1 49 80.2 81 108.2 119-120

191 8, 18 181 78-79 191 164

8

Kerygmata Petrou 139

Hippolytus 9, 12, 14,28 Lactantius

Divinarum Institutionurn 7 8 17 17.1-3

8 25

Laodiceans In Danielem 35 50

139-140,142 4,29 4,29

Index of Srriptwres and Other Ancient Writings Letter of Peter to Philip 137 137

132:lO-13338

Letter to the Alexandrians 139-140

Muratorian Canon 126,139-140

De consummatione mundi 21 29

4-5,12,29 4, 14,29

Pseudo-Methodius 13-14,29,31-32,34, 117

Revelationes 6 14

4 4

(Coptic) Mysteries of John 40 1

Shepherd of Hermas 119,426,431-432

Oracles of Leo the Wise 5.36-39

16

Origen In Joann. 6.14(7)

334

Papias

Visions 2 2.2.7 2.3.4 3 3.4.1 3.8.2

431 91 43 1-432 185 91 185

apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.9

386

Philippus Solitarius

Dioptra 3.19

Mandates 3.1 12.5.2 12.6.3

43 1 432 432

11

Similitudes Polycarp

3 5.6.5

Philippians 3:2 7 12:2

185 77 185

Pseudo-Clementine Homilies

Sibyl A (Arabic) 15

Sibyl B (Arabic)

139 Pseuco-Cyprian

15 Stichometry of Nicephorus 108-109

A d Novatiunum 16

185 43 1

89

Teachings of Silvanus Pseudo-Ephraem "Latinus"

142

Sermo define mundi 4,29,31

Tertullian

Adversus Marcionem Pseudo-Hippolytus 13,28,31

5.11.17

140

525

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

526

Tiburtine Sibyl (Greek)

De anima 25 50

4, 14,29,32,34

8 3,5, 14,33

Tiburtine Sibyl (Latin) De resuwectione 22

Testament of our Lord Jesus (Karshunt) 1:2 6

4,9

8,106

149 16

Testament of our Lord in Galilee 149

Two Sorrows ofthe Kingdom of Heaven 8

16

Victorinus o f Pettau In Apocalypsin 11:5

8

Other Ancient Greek And Roman Literature Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae 30-31 390-391

414 414

Cicero De Divinatione 2.26 2.54

414 414

Epistulae ad Atticum 11.5.1

125

Diodorus Bibliotheca Hastorica 2.13.6

457

Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosphers 10.85

126-127

Josephus Antiqtsities of the Jews 1.143-147 1.221 1.239 1.344 2.177-183 3.114 3.147

175,221,230 262 260 260 167 167 234 233

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

Contra Apionem 1.29-36 1.54 2.76-77 2.91 2.9 1-96 2.97-102 2.102-104 2.102-109 2.103 2.104 2.105 2.106 2.106-107 2.107-108 2.108 2.119 2.185-1 87 2.193 2.193-197 2.193-198

221-222,226,228,239, 243 22 1 222 221,243 233 226 226 227,243 221,226 229 228,230 232,239 234-235 233 236 235,237-239 221,241,243 22 1 243 402 221

Jewish War (Bellum) 221,227-228,241, 264 1.152 235 2.52 380,382 2.164 253 2.232-246 181 2.250 383 2.259 337 2.261-262 337 2.409-421 191 2.418 376,388

Vita 1-2 2 2-3 3-4 5 6 12 13 34 80 397 427

528

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings De virtutibus

Juvenal

Saturae 9.107-108

119-120

344

414 Plato

Phaedrus

Herodotus

Historiue 5.52

247a

424

456

Timaeus Philo

29e

424

De legatione ad Gaium 276-329 283-284

133 262,357

Pliny

Naturalis Historia 2.79.188 10.24.47

De praemiis et poenis 95 164

341 343

417 413

Plutarch

Alexander De vita Mosis 1.290 1.306 2.44 2.94

42 341 165 344 233

457

De sera numinis vindicata 81 Socratic Epistles

De speciulibus legibus 1.198-199 2.145-146

130

231 231

Xenophon

Anabasis Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 226

456

233

Rabbinic Literature Babylonian Talmud

b. Gittin

b. 'Abodah Zarah

56a-56b

7b 9a 34a

345 72 356

6. Hagigah

82

b. Hullin

12b 13b

197

407 406

b. Baba Batra 10a

24a-b

225

b. Baba Metzi'a llla

219

b. Ketubbot 105a

345

b. Berakot 60b

406

b. Pesahim 1lb-12b

417

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings

b. Sanhedrin

m. Mo'ed Qatan

17a 38a 97a 97b 97b-98a 99b

3:2

Mishnah

229

m. Pesahim 9:4

229

m.Sanhedrin 10:3

165,303

m.Shabbat 2: 1

345

m. Sheqalim 5:l 54-5 6:4

236-237 236 234

m. Sukkot 4:lO 5:4 5:8

234 412,414 238

m. Baba Batra 5:2

m. Berakot 1:2 4: 1

m. Ta'anit 4:2

m. Tamid m. Keritot 2:l m. Menahot 8:2 8:7 11:7

m. Middot 1:6 1:8-9 3:5 3:6 4:2

1:1 1:l-2 1:2 1:3 1:4 2: 1 3:2 3:4 3:5 3:7 3:8 5: 1 5:3

240

530

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings Canticles Rabbah 56.6

374

Derek Eretz Zuta 1

m. Zabim 5:6

22

Exodus Rabbah 229

169 169

38.8-9 Palestinian Talmud

j. Berakot 2:5a 3b 5b 5c

197 94 94 99

j. Ketubbot 35a

99

j. Sanhedrin 10:6

Fragment Targums Exodus 28:17-20 169

Genesis Rabbah 8:2 19:s 41:l 64:2 6521

78 78 200 386 407

165

Hekhalot Rabbati

j. Shebi'it 38d

94

j. Ta'anit 1:l 68a

407 406

Lamentations Rabbah 71,73 223,239

1:5:31 2:2:4

99

29:11 325

356,453

256 90:4

237 237

Midrash Tanhuma Behuqotai

j. Yebamot 13a

11:4

197 236

Leviticus Rabbah 158 374,379

Tosephta

t. Sanhedrin 2:6

Midrash on Psalms 78 78

t. Sheqalim 2:14 2: 177

t. Ta'anit 2: 1 2:16

71-72

Numbers Rabbah 239 239

Palestinian Turgum to Genesis 4:14

5

2:7 1519 21:3

169 169,171 430 334

97

Perek Shirah 395,399,406,415

Index of Scriptures and Other Ancient Writings Pesiqta de Rab Kahana 9:3

406

Pesiqta Rabbati 1:7 23:l

78 73

Targum Neofiti Exod. 4:13 28:17-20 39: 10-1 3

334 169 169

Num.

Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer (PRE) 4 18 28 29

406 78 79-80 21,20

11:26 25:12

430 336

Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan 170,333,346-347

Exod.

Shemoneh 'Esreh 340,341

Sifre on Numbers 95

430

4:13 6:18 28:17-20 39310-13 40:lO

Song of Songs Rabbah

Deut.

56:6

30:4

379

Targum Neofiti Exod. 28:17-20 39:lO-13

21

Num. 169 169

Num. 11:26

21,334 21,333 169 169 21,333

430

11:26 2512

430 21,333,336

2 Sam. 22:28 2250

348 348

Targum of Ezekiel

Jer.

1:24-25

10:11

407

Targum of Isaiah

Ezek.

195

1:24-25

450

76

Targum of Job

135

407

Yalqut Shim 'oni

Manuscripts Codex Panopolitanus 89 Codex Sinaiticus 435-436 Lake Tana 9 104

80

Index of Ancient Persons Aaron 21,157,222,334,336 Aba-enlil-dari 453 Abercius, bishop of Hieropolis 264 Abishua 157 Abraham 22,79-80,116,151-152, 154-156,158-160,185,200,260-262,

269,274,276,279,291,293,296-297, 299,301-302,304,332,337-339,355, 358,364-365,426,446,448 Achillas Rufus 378-379 Adam 61,78,151,153-156,158-160, 282,286287,289,298, 316, 394-395, 406,408 Addai 265 Admin 158-159 Adso 4,9,29,32 Aequus 382 Africanus 384 Agrippa - son of Aristobulus 382 - son of Josephus 380 Agrippa I 210,382-383 Agrippa I1 (Marcus Julius) 371-372, 379-380,382-384 Agrippinus, grandson of Agrippa I 382 Ahikar (Ahuqar) 452-453 Ahitub 157 Ahuramazda 47 Alciphron 130 Alexander 259,263,457-458 Alexander of Cyrene 385 Alkimos 373 Amariah 157 Amel-Marduk 46 Ammianus Marcellinus 414 Amminadab 152,156-157 Amos 438-439,445 Amram 157 Ananias 376

Andronicus 267,371,381,386-387 Anna - daughter of Phanuel 343,345,353 - wife of Tobit 443,445 Annia 374 Annianus 374,383 Antiochus Epiphanes 46,48,58, 226227,233,235,247,281 Antipas, Herod see Herod Antipas Antipater 372 Antoninus 383 Antonius Rufus 378-379 Aphrahat of Nisibis 265 Apollonius of Tyana 394 Appia 383 Appius Marcus 384 Aqiva, Rabbi 303 Aquila - named in 44341,384 - of Pontus 267-268,371 - of Sinope 425 Archedemus of Tarsus 259 Arni 159 Arpachshad 153-1 56 Arrian 457-458 Asamonaeus 223-224 Asher 162,167-169,171-172,345, 356 Asmodeus 434 Aster 373 Augustine 81, 113 Aurelius Rufus of Apamea 378 Azariah 157,434,446 Baal 86 Bannus 225 Bardaisan 264 Barnabas (Joseph) 137,268,367,372, 385

Index ofAncient Persons Baruch 7,22,54,73-77,80-81,85, 114-1 15,134,136-137,197,199,207, 254,295,310-311,314 Belshazzar 45 Benjamin 162,166-168,171-172,258, 355-356,374,449 Ben Sira 215,245,286,329-330,333, 335-336,450 Ben Katin 234 Bilhah 162-163,167-169,171 Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh 22,35 Boaz 152,156 Bukki 157 Cain 51,97 Caiaphas 418 Cams 382 Castus 384 Catulla 384 Cedrenus, George 393-394,396-397, 403 Cerinthus 138-139 Charlemagne 117 Chuza 387 Cimber 384 Claudia 390 Claudius (emperor) 383 Clement of Alexandria 1,106-108 Cleobius 141 Cleopas 374 Clopas 374 Commodian 3,8,18, 166 Cornelius 366-367,383 Crispus - ruler of synagogue in Corith 371-372 - of the Herodian household 382 - son of Compsios 382 - of Tiberias 383 Curtius 458 Dan 161-162,167-168,170-172,356 Daniel 41-46,48-52, 54,62-63,87, 117-1 18,294,402 Darius 47,457-458 David 45,151-152,156,158-160,163, 170-171,190,193-196,201,203-204,

Decian 37 Deborah 347,447 Didymus (the Blind) 36 Dinah 170 Dionysius of Alexandria 37 Domnica 383 Dmsilla, sister of Agrippa I1 371-372, 382,384 Drusus 382 Ebed-meiech 22 Eber 155-156 Edna 446 Eldad 430-432 Eleazar - ben Azariah, Rabbi 79-80 - Maccabeus 373 - son of Aaron 157 Eliakim 373 Eliezer - ben Hyrcanus, Rabbi 71-73,76-78, 82,303 - ben R. Jose the Galilean, Rabbi 78 - servant of Abraham 22 Elijah 3,5-15,17-25,27-35,38,116, 249,255,301,328-337,359,361-363

Enoch 3,5-15,17-24,27-35,4344, 46,49-52,54,59,63,108,133-134, 153-154,157-160,212,249,255, 269,272-278,281,283-287,290291,297,299-300,302,305,307,

316,331,404 Enosh 156 Ephraem Syms 8 Ephraim 162,167,170-172,355-356 Ephrem 265 Epictetus 126 Esarhaddon 453 Esau 260 Essenes 6,28,176-178,182,212,256, 402 Esther 347,373,433 Eusebius 181 Eve 400 Ezekiel 106 Ezra 7,22,54,71,74,112-113,118,

239,325,328-329,331,333-334,337,

157,216,295-306,308-311,313,

340-342,346348,351,354,356,358

315-316

534

Index of Ancient Persons

Flavius Julianus 378 Fortunatus 382 Furia 383 Furia Africana 384 Furius Africanus 384 Gabael of Rhagae 457-459 Gabriel (archangel) 5,9, 12, 17,32, 328 Gad 161-162,167-169,171-172,356 Gaius 383-384 Gaius Furfanius Julianus of Rome 378 Gaius Julius 383 Gaius Julius Justus 378 Gamaliel the Elder 453 Garmu (family) 237 Germanus 383 Germanus, son of Judah 384 Gratus 382 Haman 73,76,347 Hananiel 445 Hannah 346-348,350,435,445 Harim 239 Hegesippus 181 Herod - Antipas 210,382-383,387 - the Great 221,234,326,380,382 - son of Monirnos 383 Hezekiah 108-109 Hezron 152,156 Hilkiah 157 Hillel 2 11 Hippolytus 6-10, 13,29 Hiram, king of Tyre 22 Honi 387 Hyrcanus 380 Irnmer 239 Isaac 152,156-157,185,293,332,338 Ishmael 260 Issachar 162,167-172,356 Iulius 374 Iunia 371,375,384 Iustus - Joseph Barnabas 371,3 74-375,384 - Jesus, co-worker of Paul 371,375 Izates 265

Jabez 22 Jacob 152,154,156-157,167-169,185, 260,293,338,340 Jakim 373 James 138-139,185,190,217-219, 265,365,376,380,421,426,428, 43 1 Japheth 262 Jared 156,273 Jason 374,380-381 Jasub 108 Jeconiah 152,157 Jedaiah 239 Jehoiarib 223,225,237-238 Jeremiah 8,22,134-136,218 Jeroboam 436 Jesse 151,156 Jesus 1,24-25,30,56,61,65,77, 83,85-86,88,90,93-101,113, 152,158-160,171,176,181,185, 187-188,191-192,204-205, 207,210-211,213,215,235,260,

265-267,272,326-327,343,345, 349,352-355,357,359-361,

363-365,369,371,380-381,387, 394,412-413,417-418,431 Jesus Justus 371,381,390-391 Joanna 375,381,386387 Job 255,299,439-440 Job's wife 439 John - Hyrcanus 380 John - Mark 372,384-385,387 - of Patmos (author of Revelation) 83-88,163-164,166,171-172 - the Baptist 72,95, 108, 193,200205,330-331,334,336337,352-353, 361 - the evangelist 5, 17 Jonadab the Rechabite 22 Jonah 96 Jonathan Maccabeus 223-224 Jose the Galilean, Rabbi 78,82 Joseph - called Barsabbas (Justus) 371, 379-380,384,386-387 - father of Jesus 159

Index of Ancient Persons Maccabeus 373 son of Jacob (patriarch) 45,158,162, 167-168,170-172,180,355 - son of Jannai 158 Josephus 1-2,166-168,170,177,180, 210,221-243,246,253,258,262,264, 302,337,356,376-377,379-380,382, 382-383,388,453-454 Joshua - ben Hananiah, Rabbi 71-73, 77-78 - ben Levi, Rabbi 22 - son of Eliezer 158 - son of Jehozadak 42 - son of Nun 331,337,430 Josiah, Rabbi 416 Jucundus 382 Judah - ben Baba, Rabbi 409 - called Cimber 384 - Maccabeus 373 - patriarch 152, 156, 159, 161-164, 167-1 68,170-1 72 - the Prince, Rabbi 22,82 Judas - Iscariot 161-162,172,354 - Maccabeus 20,60 - Thomas 263 Jude 144 Julia 390 Julia Crispina 383 Julianus Capito 383 Julius - Archelaos 382 - Capella 382 - Crispina 383 Junia 267,381,386-387,389-391 Junius Justus 378 Justin Martyr 181,431 Justus - bodyguard of Agrippa I1 382 - of Chalcis 384 - of Tiberias 379 - son of Herod (son of Monimos) 383 - son of Josephus 380 - son of Judas 379,383 - son of Pistos 382 -

535

Kainam, son of Arpachshad 151, 153-158,160 Kedar 261 Kenan 156 Kenaz 169-1 70 Keturah 260 Kohath 157 Lactantius 8, 18 Lamech 156 Leah 161,163,167-1 70,374 Levi 157,161-162,166-168,170-172, 334,355-356 Lolianus 383 Lucius - Antonius Leo 373 - co-worker with Paul 371,389 - from Cyrene 371-372,389 Lollius Justus 378-379 Luke 246,264,268,327-328,336, 341-343,345,349,351,355-361, 363-372,377,379-380,385387,391 Magna 383 Magnus 383-384 Mahalalel 156 Malachi 329-330 Manasseh 161-162,167,170-172, 355356,374 Marcion 140 Marcius 383 Marcus - Aurelius Mussius 378 - Julius Agrippa 371,383 Mussius 378 Mari 265,268 Maria 372,374 Marius 372 Mark 235,371,382,385386,417 Mary, mother of Jesus 118,328,346, 348-349,352 Mattathias 158 Matthias 161-162,224,354 Maxima 383 Melchizedek 334 Meraioth 157 Methodius 117,119 Methuselah 156,159

536

Index of Ancient Persons

Michael (archangel) 5,9,12-13,17,32, 34,113,159,319,400,403 Miriam 372,374 Modad 430-432 Modius 382 Mordecai 133,347 Moses 7-8,22,30,35,54,63,74, 165, 169,180,191,208,214-215,220, 230,275-276,287,294,298,303,305, 311,313,322,334,337,339,364,374,

Phinehas (high priest) 21-23, 157,334, 336 Plato 245,424 Pliny 413 Pontius Pilate 418-419 Prisca / Priscilla 267-268,371-372 Pseudo-Aristeas 242-243 Pseudo-Hippolytus 7 Publius Rutifius Joses of Teos 378 Pythocles 127

378-379,430,435437,442,454

Quirinius 383 Nahor 156 Nahshon 152,156 Nahum - the Mede 345 - the prophet 445,448-449 Naphtali 162, 167-172,356 Nathan 151-152,159,346 Nathaniel 378 Nebaioth 260-261 Nebuchadnezzar 45-47,58,125,295 Neon son of Zoilus 373 Nero 30,384 Neronias 384 Niger 383 Noah 153-154,156,269-271,274,320 Obed 151,156 Origen 1,108,114 Papias 386,395 Pashur 239 Paul 23,30,75,77, 100, 109, 112, 115, 125-126,131,137,140-141,144-145, 147-149,185-190,211,254,257, 259-268,352,359,365,367-368, 370-372,375-379,381,384-386, 388-392,400 Pedaiah 152 Peleg 156 Perez 152,156 Peter (Simon) 109,138-139,144, 148, 185,268,358-361,363-365,373,376, 379,412,417 Pharaoh 45 Philip 268,386 Philo of Alexandria 1-2,43 1

Rachel 162-163,167,169 Raguel 446,457 Ram (Aram) 152,156,159 Raphael 434,442443,446,455459 Rehoboam 157 Remiel 292 Reu 156 Reuben 161,167-168,171-172,356, 374-375,379-380,391 Roubel 374,380 Rufina 380 Rufinus 380 Rufus 267,371-372,376375,379-380, 382-385,389,391-392 Sabinus 383 Salmon 152,156 Salome 386 Samael 34 Sappira (Sapphira) 386 Sarah 200,385,434,440444,446 Sargon 451 Saturnilus 383-384 Schila 5,30 Sedrach 113 Seneca 127,137 Sennacherib 60, 195,441 Serah 22 Seraiah 157 Serug 156 Seth 156,395 Severius 383 Shallum 157 Shalmaneser 447,451 Shammai 211

Index of Ancient Persons

Shappira 386 Shealtiel 152, 158-159 Shelah 153,155-156,158 Shem 151,154-156,158,262 Shila, Rabbi 416 Sibyl 30,320 Silas (Silvanus) 268,371-373,375,378, 384-385,391

Simeon - called Niger 372,390-391 - of Jerusalem 328,343-345,349, 352-353,365-366

- patriarch 161-162, 167-168,170-172 - ben Yohai 94 Simon - bar Kokhba 189 - Magus 139,141 - of Cyrene 372,386385,418 - Peter see Peter (Simon) - the High Priest 380 - the Stammerer 224 Solomon 156,159,325,366 Stephen 188 Symmachus - the Ebionite 363 - son of Justus 383

Tabitha 5, 14-15,3C-31,33,35 Taxo 30 Terah 151,154-156 Tertullian 6, 10, 13,33,35 Theodorus 392 Theodotos 378-379,391-392 Thomas 118,128,263 Thucydides 130 Tiberius Claudius Julianus of Acmonia 378 Tiglath-Pileser 446-447,451

Timothy 143-145,147-149 Tiro 382 Titus - companion of Paul 137,143,145, 147,149

emperor 235 - Justus 388 Tobiah 444,451 Tobias 434,443445,448,455,457 Tobiel 444 Tobit 433449,452,455457 Trophimus the Ephesian 190 Trypho 18 -

Uriel 51,296-307 Uzzi 157 Varus 382 Venus 409 Vespasian 197 Vitus 383 Xenophon 456 Yahoel 400 Yohanan ben Zakkai 197 Yustah 383 Zadok 157,325,336,380 Zarathustra 47 Zebulun 162,167-172,356,447 Zechariah - prophet 4142,108 - father of John 108,328,353 Zephaniah 107,291-293 Zerahiah 157 Zerubbabel 42,152,355 Zilpah 162-163,167-169,171

Index of Modern Authors Adamson, J. 422,424-425 Adler, W. 272 Agourides, S. 1 12-1 13 Aharoni, Y. 447 Alexander, P. J. 117,119 Alexander, P. S. 4,29, 105,132-133, 149,177 Allegro, J. M. 193-195,197 Alliata, E. 394 Allison, D. C. 327, 331 Allmen, D. von 77-79 Ameling, W. 387 Andersen, F. I. 105,286,290 Anderson, G. A. 400 Assernani, J. S. 4,29 Atchley, E. G. C. F. 408 Attridge, H. W. 35 Avalichvili, 2. 394 Avigad, N. 385 Baethgen, F. 4,29 Bagatti, B. 393 Bahr, G. J. 124 Baker, J. A. 1 10 Bammel, E. 20 Barker, M. 275,277 Baron, R. M. 381 Barr, J. 39,44,91 Barrett, C. K. 20,185,362-364,376 Barton, S. C. 421,462 Baaista, A. 393 Bauckham, R. J. 21,143-144,147, 149,152,158,160,163-166,172, 185,188-189,192,213,236,257259,265,267,271-272,275,281, 287-288,291,293-294,301-302, 318,345-346,356-357,366,372, 374,380,388,391,401,407,432, 453,455

Bayer, H. F. 362 BeaH, T. S. 182 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 86 Beckwith, R. T. 156,413,417 Beit-AriC, M. 395, 399 Bell, R. H. 436 Benoit, A. 117 Benoit, P. 375,377,384, 386 Berger, K. 16,23-25,116-117 Betz, H. D. 47,55 Bezold, C. 393-394 Bickerman, E. J. 180,410 Bigg, C. 81 Biggs, R. D. 46 Billerbeck, P. 34,79 Black, M. 6,20,27,89-90,94,155-156, 240,275,280,285,293,341,405 Blackburn, B. 18 Blenkinsopp, J. 447 Blinzler, J. 425 Blomberg, C. L. 39,461 Bloedhorn, H, 387 Boccaccini, G. 176-177,212,272 Bogaert, P.-M. 73,84 136-1 37,3 11, 314,316 Borger, R. 46,50 Boswonh, A. B. 458 Bousset, W 3,6-7,10-11,13,1&19, 27,29,34,162 Bowden, J. 175,261,372,375 BOX,G. H. 115-1 16 Brady, D. 4 12-41 4 Brandle, R. 267 Brandon, S. G. F. 288 Bratke, E. 4,29 Bredin, M. 433,462 Bromitey, G. W. 385 Brooke, G. J. 186,190,374 Brooten, B. J. 381

Index of Modem Authors Brown, R. E. 128,349-350,412413, 41 8 Buchanan, G. W. 119,294,337 Budge, E. A. W. 394,401 Bultmann, R. 56 Burchard, C. 425 Buttenwieser, M. 7, 13,28,34 Cabrol, F. 408 Cadbury, H. J. 374 Caird, G. B. 85-88 Campbell, J. Y. 99 Caquot, A. 402 Carroll, J. T. 327 Carson, D. A. 269,317,462 Casey, M. 93,98-100,183,326,331 Caspari, C. P. 4,29 Cave, C. H,. 223 Cave, F. H. 223 Cervin, R. S. 381 Chaine, J. 89 Chance, J. B. 327 Charles, R. H. 51, 73, 80, 86, 88-89, 103,136,154,282,311,455 Charlesworth, J. H. 16,21,3!5-36, 103-104,118,136,153,213,274,286, 282,295,312,321,325,332,393 Chaumont, M.-L. 264-265 Childs, B. S. 447 Christophersen, A. 371 Claussen, C. 371,462 Clifford, R. J. 43 Cohen, N. G. 373-374,380 Collins, J. J. 30,4547, 106,274,276, 297,301,304,307,309-310,321 Colpe, C. 98-99 Comstock, S. T. 35 Conzelmann, H. 65,148,352 Cook, J. E. 347 Coppieters, H. 423 Coquin, R.-G. 394 Cotton, H. M. 376,384 Craghan, J. 444 Creed, J. M. 350 Cross, F. M. 43 Crossan, J. D. 203 Crum, W. E. 30 Cullmann, 0. 65,83,143

539

Dahl, N. A. 143 Daniilou, J. 110,166 Davids, P. H. 143,423424,429 Davies, G. I. 184 Davies, P. R. 165 Davies, W. D. 20,310 Day, J. 86 Deissmann, A. 371,373-375,379 Delcor, M. 4243,59 Denis, A.-M. 35 Dequeker, J. 238 Derrett, J. D. M. 412 Descamps, A. 140 Deselaers, P. 433,455 Desjardins, M. 310 Dexinger, F. 155-156,180 Dibelius, M. 148,422423 Di Lella, A. A. 330,340,426,435 DiTommaso, L. 16 Donaldson, T. L. 189 Donfried, K. P. 126,128,267 Doty, W. G. 124-128 Draper, J. A. 355 Dumville, D. 16 Dunn, J. D. G. 177-179,183,186-187, 191,450 Ebied, E. Y. 15 Eddy, S. K. 47 Eduy, M. 409 Eisenman, R. H. 194-197 Ellis, E. E. 371 Emerson, R. K. 16 Emerton, J. A. 43,238 Eshel, E. 238 Eshel, H. 238 Esler, P. F. 182 Evans, C. A. 103,291,327,332,337, 347,354,461 Exum, J. C. 157 Faierstein, M. M. 331 Falk, D. F. 401 Fehrenbach, E. 408 Fekkes, J. 163-164 Feldman, L. H. 221,462 Feuillet, A. 163 Findlay, J. A. 423

540

Index of Modem Authors

Finegan, J. 41 7 Fitzmyer, J. A. 90,97,201,331,339, 349,352,362,433,444,450,455-456, 458 Flusser, D. 47, 117,339 Fornberg, T. 81 France, R. T. 166 Francis, F. 0. 128 Frankfurter, D. T. M. 35-38 Frankmolle, H. 423,426 Freedman, D. N. 238,373,453,455 Frerichs, E. 177,212 Frey, J. 371,462 Friedlander, G. 80 Friedlander, L. H. 458 Fritz, K., von 125 Galbiati, E. 394 Garcia Martinez, F, 186,270-271 Gartner, B. 186 Gasque, W. W. 123 Gaylord, H. E. 113-1 14 Geiger, J. 384 Gese, H. 42 Geyser, A. 166 Gibson, M. D. 393-394 Ginzberg, L. 22,34,406,415 Goldingay,J. E. 40 Goldstein, J. A. 54 Golomb, D. M. 346 Goodman, M. 181 Gordon, R. P. 197 Grabbe, L. L. 450 Gray, T. J. 39,461 Grayson, A. K. 46 Green, J. B. 207,349,362,462 Green, M. 81 Green, W. S. 177,186,212 Greenfield, J. C. 373,384 Greeven, H. 422423 Gregg, J. A. F. 108 Grelot, P. 49-50 Grieve, A. 373 Grundmann, W. 89 Guthrie, D. 123,140,142 Haase, W. 109, 115,189,429 Halkvy, J. 16,394

Hallo, W. W. 46 Halperin, D. J. 406 Hamerton-Kelly, R. 310 Hanson, J. S. 337 Hanson, P. D. 4 0 4 4 , 5 5 5 6 Harlow, D. C. 317-319,405 Harnack, A. 140 Harnisch, W. 110 Harper, W. R. 428 Harrer, G. A. 376-377 Harrington, D. J. 21-22,276,325, 346-348 Hartman, L. 59,79,274,276 Harvey, A. E. 326,408 Hastings, J. 459 Haugg, D. 6,27 Hawthorne, G. F. 371 Hayward, R. 21,334 Helderman, J. 138 Hellholm, D. 278 Hemer, C. J. 373,378 Hendricksen, W. 87 Hengel, M. 21,47-48,58,208,261, 267,334,372,375,377 Hennecke, E. 3,11,29-30,106,129, 138-140 Henten, J. W. van 243,375 Herbert, M. 16 Hervey, A. 152 Hess, R. S. 347 Higgins, A. J. B. 98 Himmelfarb, M. 107-109,111,291, 297 Hirvitz, A. 238 Hogan, L. P. 412 Hollis, S. T. 346 Horbury, W. 184,187,197,355,379, 386 Horgan, M. P. 193-1 96 Hordey, G. H. R. 372-373,379-380 Horsley, R. A. 337 Horst, P. W. van der 243,375,424 Hort, F. J. A. 423 Hunger, H. 46 Ilan, T. 373,380,383,386388 Isaac, B. 188 Isaac, E. 104

Index of Modern Authors Jackson, A. V. W. 456 Jacobson, H. 21 Jagersma, H. 175 James, M. R. 23,106,142,166,321, 405,431 Jaubert, A. 393 Jenks, G. C. 18-19 Jeremias, J. 3,6-7,27-28,34,98-99, 101,152,159,223,229,239-240,242, 423 Jervell, J. 327,354,356,365-368 Johnson, L. T. 209,326,422,424,427 Judge, E. A. 388-392 Juel, D. 186 Junckelmann, M. 459 Kaiser, 0. 193 Kajanto, I. 379 Kane, J. P. 383,385 Kaplan, C. 156 Kbemann, E. 39,77, 81,385 Kaufman, S. A. 46 Keane, A. H. 18 Kelly, J. N. D. 79, 148-149 Riddle, M. 86 Kirk, J. A. 429 Kister, M. 340 Klein, M. 423 Klein, R. W. 154 Klijn, A. F. J. 113, 136, 140,310-312 Kneucker, J. J. 136 Knibb, M. A. 58,89-90,104,134,159, 218,275,278 Knohl, I. 238,407 Koch, K. 44,156 Kokkinos, N. 379,383 Kolenkow, A. B. 63 Kosmala, H. 412,413,414,415,416 Kourcikidze, C. 392 Kraeling, C. H. 203 Kraft, R. A. 180 Kuhn, G. 152 Kuhn, K. H. 35 Kummel, W. G. 35 Kuss, 0. 425 Laato, A. 341,346 Ladd, G. E. 86-87

Lagarde, P. A. 4,29 Lagrange, P. 4 1 4 4 1 5 Lambert, W. G. 46 Lampe, G. W. H. 424 Lampe, P. 267,372,381 Lamy, T. J. 4,29 Landsman, J. I. 115 Larsson, G. 154 Lattey, C. 412 Laws, J. S. 126,422423,427,431432 Leary, T. J. 378 Lebram, J. C. H. 278 Leclerq, H. 408 LCgasse, S. 372 Legrand, E. 16 Leon, H. J. 381 Leslau, W. 394 Levinskaya, I. 378 Levison, J. R. 221,462 Lewis, N. 373,384 Licht, J. 54 Lichtenberger, H. 186 Lierman, J. 21 Lifshitz, B. 376375,377,379-380, 383-384 Lightfoot, J. B. 431 Lindars, B. 89,93-100, 187,236 Lindeskog, G. 101 Livingstone, E. A. 27,461 Lohse, E. 90 Longenecker, B. W. 295-297,301, 303-305,308-309,371,421,462 Longenecker, R. 245,462 Lorein, G. W. 18 Lovering, E. H. 327 Ludemann, G. 375 Liideritz, G. 379,385 Lunt, H. G. 115 Lupieri, E. 113 MacRae, G. 116 MahC, J.-P. 394 Maier, J. 166 Maisano, R. 16 Malherbe, A. J. 408 Manns, F. 394 Marcus, J. 331,425426 Marquant, J. 458459

542

Index of Modern Authors

Marsh, C . 326 Marshall, I. H. 327 Marshall, S. S. 432 Martin, R. P. 123,371,424,427 Martone, C. 238 Marty, J. 423 Mason, R. A. 42 Matthews, E. 379 Maurer, C. 11 Mayo, C. H. 412-413 Mayor, J. B. 89,422,424,426-427 Mays, J. L. 428 McCown, C. C. 47 McKelvey, R. J. 185 McKnight, S. 327 McNamara, M. 16 Meier, J. P. 382 Meinardus, 0 . 16 Metzger, B. M. 109-1 10,125,422 Meyer, A. 425 Meyer, B. F. 327 Meyer, M. W. 137 Michl, J. 425 Mildenberg, L. 188 Milgrom, J. 238 Milik, J. T. 16,20,43,49-51,89-90, 134, 155, 195,270,375,377,384, 386, 447 Millar, F. 181,240,261-263,339,341 Milns, R. D. 457 Mingana, A. 11,29,394-395,397 Mitton, C . L. 423 Modi, J. J. 456 Moessner, D. P. 327,368 Moffatt, J. 423 Monferrer Sala, J. P. 16 MOO,D. J. 423-424 Moore, A. L. 82 Moore, C. A. 135,399,435,437-439, 444,450,455-458 Morris, L. 86-87 Mounce, R. H. 86-88 Mueller, J. R. 106, 112 Miiller, H. P. 44, 111 Munck, J. 7,10,27-29 Murdock, W. R. 55 Murphy, F. J. 21,310,312-313,315 Murphy-O'Connor, J. 260-261,376

Murray, R. 265 Mussies, G. 375,380,386 Mussner, F. 423,425 Musurillo, H. 14,30 Naum, F. 4,29 Naveh, J. 376 Neugebauer, 0. 405 Neusner, J. 71-73,177,212,259,374, 454 Newman, C. C. 326-327 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 19-20,30,51, 54, 107,135-136,180,198,204,274, 276,287,318-319,325,433,435 Noll, S. F. 90 Nolland, J. 201,349,419 Norris, F. W. 408 Noth, R. 42 NOY,D. 373-374,378-381,386-387 Niitzel, J. M. 23-25 Oates, D. 456 O'Brien, P. T. 269, 462 O'Ceallaigh, G. C. 6 Odeberg, H. 105 Oegema, G. S. 341 Oesterley, W. 0 . E. 73 O'Neill, J. C. 239,243 Oppenheim, A. L. 45 Oppenheimer, A. 188,454,456 Osburn, C. D. 89-90 Panayotov, A. 387 Pamenberg, W. 55 Parvis, P. M. 7,28 Pearson, B. A. 287-288 Pelletier, A. 133 Penner, T. C. 422,427 Pesch, R. 24 Peterson, D. 327 Philonenko, M. 28,115-1 17,166,402 Philonenko-Sayor, B. 115 Picard, J.-C. 166,318 Pietersma, A. 35 Ploeg, J. van der 165 Pomykala, K. E. 341 Popkes, W. 421 Porter, S. E. 103,291,431432,461

Index of Modem Authors Preisker, H. 423,429 Prockter, L. J. 425 Purvis, J. D. 180 Quasten, J. 264 Quispel, G. 140 Rad, G. von 44,51,55,61-63 Radet, G. 458 Rahmani, L. Y. 373,376-377,380-381, 383 Rajak, T. 222,224 Ramsay, W M. 412,414,417,458459 Ravens, D. 327,350,356 Reader, W. R. 169 Reynolds, J. 375,379 Rheinhanz, A. 189 Ri, S.-M. 395 Richardson, P. 188,267 Riesner, R. 261-262,372,375-377 Ringgren, H. 339 Robbins, G. A. 112 Robert, L. 378 Robinson, F. 4,29 Robinson, J. A. T. 14,34 Robinson, S. E. 106,393,395-396 Rogerson, J. W. 450 Rollins, W. G. 61 Ropes, J. H. 422423 Rosenstiehl, J.-M. 6-7, 10,28, 166 Rowland, C. 107,120 Rubinkiewicz, R. 115 Russell, D. S. 53 Rutgers, L. V. 381 Rydkn, L. 16 Sacchi, P. 275,277,280 Sackur, E. 4,29 Safrai, S. 238 Saldarini, A. J. 119,346-348 Sanders, E. P. 75,175,179-1 80,182, 213,231-232,237,240-242,282-283, 290,300,305-308,310,316-317,327 Sanders, J. A. 327,337,347,354 Sandmel, S. 211 Satterthwaite, P. E. 347 Saylor, G. B. 310-311 Schafer, P. 407

Schalit, A. 382 Schenke, H.-M. 138 Schiffman, L. H. 233,238 Schmid, J. 425 Schmidt, F. 166 Schmithals, W. 44 Schneemelcher, W. 3,44, 106, 129, 139-140 Scholem, G. G. 107 Schrage, W. 35,110 Schiirer, E. 6,27-28, 181,240,339,341 Schiissler Fiorenza, E. 128 Schwabe, M. 374-375,379-380,383 Schwartz, D. R. 235,238 Schwartz, S. 223-224 Schwemer, A. M. 261,267 Scott, J. M. 261-262,325,327,451 Scroggs, R. 310 Seccombe, D. 327 Segel, A. F. 191 Seibert, J. 458 Seitz, 0.J. F. 426,431-432 Sherwin-White, A. N. 375 Sevenster, J. N. 185 Short, W. J. 275 Shukster, M. B. 188 Sidebottom, E. M. 425 Siefrid, M. A. 269,462 Simpson, D. C. 455 Singer, I. 406 Skehan, P. W. 330 Smalley, S. S. 89 Smith, C. R. 161,163,166,170-171, 173 Smith, D. 21,334 Smith, M. 132 Sol], W. 433434,440,444 Sparks, H. F. D. 35,103 Spicq, C. 423,425 Spina, F. 78 Stahl, A. F. von 458 Stanton, G. N. 110,191,421,462 Steck, 0.H. 313 Stegemann, E. W. 267 Stein, A. 383 Steindorff, G. 3,6,27,291 Stern, M.238-239 Steyn, G. J. 151

544

Index of Modern Authors

Stirewalt, M. L. 126, 138 Stone,M.E. 109,111-113,116,120, 133,296-299,301,394-395,400 Stott, D. 261,372 Strack, H. L. 79 Strauss, M. L. 337,341 Strecker, G. 139 Strobel, A. 65,67,71-72,75,77-78 Strugnell, J. 109, 116,193, 197 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 270-271 Suter, D. W. 271 Sweet, J. P. M. 85-88,187 Swae, H. B. 86,88 Swidler, A. 381 Talben, C. H. 77 Talmon, S. 238,325,450-452 Tannehill, R. C. 327,367-368,375 Tannenbaurn, R. F. 379 Temporini, H. 109,115,429 Testuz, M. 140 Thackeray, H. St. J. 233,241 Thilo, J. K. 4,29 Thompson, A. L. 68,75 Thompson, J. W. 408 Tiede, C. I? 459 Tiede, D. L. 327,344 Tiller, P. A. 20 Tischendorf, L. F. K. 4-5,29,11 Torrey, C. C. 455-456 Trebilco, P. R. 372,375,379-380 Trebolle Barrera, J. 233,238 Troupeau, G. 394 Trueman, C. R. 39,461 Turner, M. 327,354,362,364 Tyson, J. B. 327,344,367 Unger, G. F. 417 Unnik, W. C. van 136,185 Urbach, E. E. 72-73 VanderKam, J. C. 19,89-90,153-156, 272,453 Vassiliev, A. 4,29 Vaux, R. de 375,384,386 Vegas Montana, L. 233,238 Vermes, G. 67,93-94,97,99-100,181, 194-197,217,240,266,339,341

Vielhauer, P. 44 Voelz, J. M. 429 Vogel, C. 117 Wadsworth, M. 80 Wagner, J. R. 353 Wahl, 0. 111-1 12 Wainwright, A. W. 327 Walker, P. W. L. 327 Wall, R. W. 422,427-428 Wasserstein, A. 259 Webb, R. L. 201-203 Weinel, H. 6,27 Weitzman, S. 436 Wenham, D. 166 Wenham, G. J. 347 Werner, M. 65 Westermann, C. 58 White, J. L. 127-128 Whitehouse, 0.C. 136 Wick, P. 407 Wiefel, W. 267 Wilkinson, R. H. 186 Willi-Plein, I. 52-53 Williams, A. 163 Williams, M. A. 422 Williams, M. H. 374,380,385-386, 390-392 Williamson, H. G. M. 238 Wilson, R. McL. 3,11,29,44, 106, 129, 138 Wilson, S. G. 149, 188,364 Windisch, H. 423,429 Wink, W. 6,28 Winkle, R. E. 172 Winter, P, 238,330 Wintermute, 0.S. 35, 106-108,116, 153,292 Wise, M. 0. 194-197,238 Witherington, B. 190,267,366 Wolter, M. 368 Wood, H. G. 374 Wright, D. P. 238 Wright, N.T. 326-327 Yadin, Y. 165-166,373,384 Yardeni, A. 376 Yinger, K. L. 281-282,288,315

Index of Modern Authors Young, M.J. L. 15 Younger, K. L. 451-453 Zadok, R. 384,444,451-452 Zeron, A. 20,22-23

Zervos, G . T. 16,116-1 17 Ziadd, J. 16 Zimmerli, W. 44 Zimmermann, F. 433,438,455, 457-458

Index of Place Names Abel-beth-maacah 446 Abila 260 Acmonia 372 Adiabene 258,263,265,356,453-454, 459 Alexandria 1,37, 106-107,268,272, 379,424,43 1 Antioch 51,263,371-372,391 Antioch in Pisidia 367-368 Apamea 377-379,388 Aphrodisias 375,379 Apion 226-227,237,240 Arsinoe 37 Arzareth 303 Asia Minor 25, 128, 143,263,321,387, 391 Assyria 196,258,325,434,441,446448,450-456 Athens 259 Babel 318 Babylon 43,45-46,48, 50, 107, 134-136,258-259,263,296,298, 310,313,325-326,340,355,369, 437,443,446,449,451,453-455, 459 Balikh (river) 263 Berytus 260 Beth She'arim 379,383 Bethel 438 Bithynia 379 Caesarea 388 Cairo 97,341 Canaan 337-338 Capernaum 379,383 Chalcis 379,384 Charax Sidou 263 Charax Spasinou 263,265

Charrhae 263 China 262 Cilicia 373 Corinth 140-141,265,268,367, 371-372 Court of the Gentiles 228-23 1, 234-235 Court of the Israelites 226,228, 230-233,240 Court of the Priests 225-226,228, 231-234,242 Court of the Women 227-231,233 Cyprus 268,385,387 Cyrenaica 379, 385 Cyrene 265 Damascus 260,262-263 Dan 436 Danaben 21 Delos 181 Doura Europos 263 East Talpiyot 376 Eastern Europe 387 Ecbatana 455-459 Eden 446 Edessa 263,265 Egypt 22,25,35-37,4748,253,265, 267,286,288,321-322,337,339,374, 378-379,386,391,402 Elburz (mountains) 456 Emmaus 353 En-gedi 384 Ephesus 189,265,268,367,378 Ethiopia 119-120,257 Euphrates 162,258,263-265, 453-454 Forum Appii 459

Index of Place Names

Galilee 161-162, 180,207,265,355, 366,383,386,436,446-447 Gaul 379 Gehenna 21 8,255,294 Gilead 446 GO^ 347-348,430 Gozan 453 Greece 263,371,391 Habor (river) 453 Hdah (Halahhu) 453 Hauran 260 Hazor 446-447 Hebron 409 Heliopolis 402 Hierapolis 386 Hinnom (valley) 2 18 Hyrcania 356 Ichnai 263 Iconium 388 Idumea 383 India 262-263 Israel 1, 11,22,41,43,45,48-49,52, 58-59,62-63,69,72-73,7&77,80, 134,138,161-166,169-170,172173,175-177,180-182,184,189, 191,196-197,200,203-205,208,

228-229,245,248,251,256,258, 260,262,269,275-279,281-283, 285-287,299,294-298,300-305, 308-309,311-314,317,319-323, 325-331,333,336339,341-370, 376,383,407,424,434438,440-

446,448450,453454 Jaffa 377,379-380 Japheth 262 Jatt 388 Jerusalem 5, 17,54,57-58,60,70, 73,75-76,114,116,134-137,157,

180-182,184-1 92,195,207,2 10, 221,225-226,228,230,235,237, 239,246,257-259,262,265,267-268, 272,275,286,294-296,299-300, 302,304,308,310-313,316,318-320, 322-323,325,328-329,339,343-345, 347,353-359,365367,369,377,

547

379-380,383,385-388,402403, 407-408,413-414,434,436-449,

454-455 Jordan (river) 447 Judah 137,157,166,199,258,355-356, 434,445,449,453454 Judea 262,356,365-366,448, 451452 Kedesh Naphtali 447 Kidron valley 385 King's Highway 260 Laodicea 126,140 Lebanon 194,196200 Leontopolis 180,286 Macedonia 372 Magog 430 Masada 384 Media 47,258,263,345,356,448,451, 453459 Mesene 263 Mespila 456 Mesopotamia 4546,50,258-259, 262,266265,356357,451, 453456 Midian 165,261 Moaza 384 Mount Gerizim 180-181,355 Mount of Olives 384 Mount Scopus 377,381 Nabatea 261-262,384 Nahal Seelim 384 Naphtali 446-448 Nebi Yunis 456 Nehardea 258,263,454 Nicephorium 263 Nicomedia 379 Nineveh 439,445,448449,453, 455-457 Nippur 451 Nisibis 258,263,265,356,453454 Noarah 383 Osrhoene 264 Ostia 378

548

Index of Place Names

Palestine 2,25,46, 48, 50, 176-177, 180,188,207,210,257,259-260,356, 365-367,375,377,380,382,384-387, 391-392,411412,453,455 Palmyra 262-263 Parthia 257,263,356-357 Perea 383 Persia 47,259 Persian Gulf 259,263, 265 Petra 260 Philadelphia 181 Philippi 140-141 Phthiotic Thebes 388 Phthiotis 377 Pisidian Antioch 367-368 Pontus 257,357,371 Qiryat Tiv'on 377 Qumran 46,49,52,67, 89-90, 105, 133, 155,179,182-183,186-187,190-191, 194-198,200,212-214,217,238, 270-273,278,282,326,351,384,426, 433,444,450,457 Rhagae 456-459 Rome 162,198-200,225,235,257,259, 264,266-268,322,338,347,352,357, 362,367-368,370,378-385,387,391, 432

Samaria 181,355-356,366,448, 451-452 Sardis 375 Seleucia-Ctesiphon 265 Seleucia on the Tigris 263,265 Sepphoris 379,382 Sheba 261 Shiloah, waters of 199 Shiloh 199 Sinai (mount) 74,156157,274,276 Smyrna 181,378-380 Spain 263 Susa 263 Syria 143,262,264,387,391 Tarshish 261 Tarsus 259,261-262,388 Teheran 456 Thessaly 377 Thisbe 447 Tigris 263,265,456 Tiberias 383,386-387 Troas 372 Tyana 394 Tyre 22 Yavneh 1 7 6 177,297 Zagros (mountains) 456

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Alphabetical Index of the First and Second Series

Adna,~ostezn:~ e s StellungzumTempel. u 2000. VoL 11/119. Adna, ~ostetn(Ed.): The Formation of the Early Church.2005. Vol. 183. - and Kvalbetn, Hans(Ed.): The Mission of theEarly Church to Jews and Gentiles. 2000. Vol. 127. Alexeev, Anatoly A,, ChnstosKarakolis and UlrichLuz (Ed.): Einheit der Kirche im NeuenTestament. Dritte europGsche orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg,24.-31. August 2005. 2008. Vol.21 8. Alkter, Stefan: Wunder und Wirklichkeitin denBriefendes Apostels Paulus.2001. Vol. 134. Allen, David M.: Deuteronomy and Exhortation inHebrews. 2008. Vol.11/238. Anderson, PaulN.:The Christology of the FourthGospei. 1996. Vol.11/78. Appold, Mark L.: Theoneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel. 1976. Vol.II/I. Arnold, Cltnton E.: The Colossian Syncretism. 1995. Voi.11/77. Ascosgb, Rtchard S.: Paul's MacedonianAssociations.2003. Vol.I1/161. Astedu-Peprah, Martzn:Johannine Sabbath Conflicts As Juridical Controversy. 2001. Vol.11/132. Attridge, Harold K: see Zangenberg,Jurgen. Aune, Davtd E.: Apocalypticism, Prophecy and Magicin Early Christianity. 2006. Vol.199. Avemarte, Frzedrtch: DieTauferzahlungen der Apostelgeschichte.2002. Vol.139. Avemarte, Frzednch and Hermann Lzchtenberger (Ed.): Auferstehung-Ressurection. 2001. Vol. 135. - BundundTora. 1996. Vo1.92. Baarlznk,Heznrtch: VerkundigtesHeil. 2004. V O ~168. . Bachmann, Muhael: Sunder oder Ubertreter. 1992. Vol. fi9. Bachmann, Mtchael (Ed.): Lutherischeund Neue Paulusperspektive,2005. Vol.182. Back, Frances: Verwandlungdurch Offenbarung bei Paulus.2002. Vol.11/113. Baker, WzlltamR.: Personal Speech-Ethicsin the Epistle of James. 1995. Vol.11/68.

Bakke, Odd Magne: 'Concord and Peace'. 2001. Vol.11/143. Balch, Davtd L.: Roman Domestic Art and Early House Churches. 2008.Vol. 228.

Baldwm, Matthew C.:WhoseActs of Peter? 2005. Vod.11/196. Balk, Peter: Challengesto New Testament Theology. 1997. Vol.11/95. - The Child-Parent Relationship in the New

Testament and its Environment. 2003. V O ~ .i r r . Bammel, Ernst:Judaica. Vol. I 1986. Vol.37. - Vol. I1 1997. Vol.91.

Barton, Stephen C.: seeStuckenbruck, Loren 7: Bash, Anthony: Ambassadorsfor Christ. 1997 V O ~11/92. . Bauhham, Rzchard:The Jewish World around theNew Testament.Collected Essays Volume 1.2008. Vol.233. Bauernfetnd, Otto: Kommentarund Studien zur Apostelgeschichte.1980. Vol.22. Baum, Arrnzn Dantel: Pseudepigraphieund literarischeFalschungim friihen Christenturn. 2001. Vol.11/138. Buyer,Hans Frtednch: Jesus' Predictions of Vindicationand Resurrection. 1986. VoL 11/20. Becker, Eve-Marie: Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahrnen antiker Historiographie. 2006. Vol. 194. Becker, Eve-Mane and Peter Pilhofer (Ed.): Biographieund Personlichkeitdes Paulus. 2005. Val.187. Becker,M ~ h a e lWunder : und Wundertater im friihrabbinischenJudenturn. 2002. Vol.11/144.

Becker,Mzcbaeland M a r k ~ Ohler(Ed.): s Apokalyptikals Herausforderung neutestamentlicherTheologie. 2006. Vol.11/214. Bell, R~hardH.:DeliverUs from Evil. 2007. V O 216. ~. - The Irrevocable Call of God. 2005. Vol. 184. - No Oneseeksfor God. 1998. Vol. 106. - Provoked to Jealousy. 1994. Vol.11/63. Bennema, Cornelts:The Power of SavingWisdom.2002. Vol.11/148. Bergnzan,Jan: see Kteffer, Rene

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament Bergmeter,Roland: Das Gesetz imRomer-

- Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Um-

brief und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament. 2000. Vol. 121. Bernett, Monlka: Der Kaiserkult in Judaa unter den Herodiernund Romern. 2007. Vol.203. Betz, Otto:Jesus,der Messias Israels. 1987. Vol.42. - Jesus, der Herrder Kirche. 1990. Vol.52. Beyschfag, Karlmann:Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis. 1974. Vol.16. Btennger,Retmund: see Koester,Cratg. Btttner, WolfgangJ.: Jesu Zeichen imJohannesevangelium. 1987. Vol.11/26. Bjerkelund, CarlJ.:TautaEgeneto. 1987. Voi.40. Blackburn, Barry Lee: Theios Aner and the Markan MiracleTraditions. 1991. Vol.11/40. Bfanton 1% ThomasR.: Constructing aNew Covenant.2007. Voi.11/233. Bock, DawellL.: Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus. 1998. Vol.11/106. Bockmuehl, Markus N.A.:Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 1990. Vol.11/36. Boe, Sverre: Gog and Magog. 2001. Vol.11/131. Bohltg, Alexander: Gnosis und Synkretismus. Vol. 1 1989. Voi.47-Vol.2 1989. Vof.48. Bohm, Martina:Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas. 1999. Vol.I1/111. Bottrtch, Chrtstfred:Weltweisheit -Menschheitsethik-Urkult. 1992. Vol.11/50. - and Herzer,Jens (Ed.): Josephus und das NeueTestament. 2007. Voi.209. Bolykt,Janos:Jesu Tischgemeinschaften. 1997. Vol.11/96. Bosman, Phtlip: Conscience in Philo and Paul. 2003. Vol.II/166. Bovon,Franqois: Studies in Early Christianity. 2003. Vol.161. Bra'ndl, Martin:Der Agon bei Paulus. 2006. Vol.11/222. Breytenbach,Cillters:see Frey,Jorg. Brocke, Chnstophvom:Thessaloniki-Stadt des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus. 2001. Vol.11/125. Brunson, Andrew: Psaim 118in the Gospel of John. 2003. Vol.11/1>8. Buchli,J o g : Der Poimandres -ein paganisiertesEvangelium. 1987. Vol.11/27. Buhner,Jan A.:Der Gesandteund sein Wegim 4. Evangelium. 1977. Vol.11/2. Burchard, Chnstoph: Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth. 1965. Vol.8.

welt des NeuenTestaments. Ed. by D. Sanger. 1998. Vol.107. Burnett, Richard: Karl Barth's Theological Exegesis. 2001. Vol.IN145. Byron,John: Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaismand Pauline Christianity. 2003. Vol.11/162. Byrskog, Samuel: Story as History-History as Story. 2000. Vol. 123. Canctk, Hubert (Ed.): Markus-Philologie. 1984. Vol.33. Capes,Davzd B.: Old Testament Yaweh Texts in Paul's Christology. 1992. Vol.11/47. Caragounts,C h y s C.:TheDevelopment of Greek and theNew Testament. 2004. Vol.167. - The Son of Man. 1986. Vol.38. - seeFridrichsen,Anton. CarletonPaget,James:The Epistle of Barnabas. 1994. Vol.11/64. Carson,D.A., O'Bnen, Peter T. and Mark Se$rzd(Ed.): Justification and Variegated Nomism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of SecondTemple Judaism. 2001. Vol. II/140. Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. 2004. Vol.ZI/181. Chae, YoungSam:Jesus as the Eschatological DavidicShepherd. 2006. Vol.IZ/216. Chapman, David W: Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion. 2008. Vo!.11/244. Chester,Andrew:Messiah and Exaltation. 2007. Vol.207. Chcbtci-Revneanu,Nicole: Die Herrlichkeit des Verherrlichten. 2007. Vol.11/231. Cmmpa, Roy E.:The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1and 2.1998. Vol.11/102. Classen,CarlJoachim:Rhetorical Criticsm of the New Testament. 2000. Vol. 128. Colpe,Carsten:Griechen -Byzantiner-Semiten-Muslime. 2008. Voi.221. - Iranier -Aramaer-Hebraer- Heilenen. 2003. Vol. 154. Crump,Davzd:Jesus the Intercessor. 1992. Voi.11/49. Dahl, Nils Alstrup: Studies in Ephesians. 2000. Vol. 131. Datse, MtchaelA.: Feasts in John. 2007. Vol.11/229. Deines, Roland: Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias. 2004. Vol. 177. - Jiidische SteingefgBeund pharisaische Frommigkeit. 1993. Vol.11/52. - Die Pharisaer. 1997. Vol.101.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament Deines, Roland and Karl- WilhelmNzebuhr (Ed.):Philounddas NeueTestament. 2004. Voi.172. Dennzs,John A.: Jesus' Death and the Gathering of True Israel. 2006. Vol.21 7. Dettwiler,Andreas andJean Zumstean (Ed.): Kreuzestheologieim Neuen Testament. 2002. Vol. 111. Dickson,Johnl?:Mission-Commitment in AncientJudaism and in the Pauline Communities.2003. Vol.IN11 9. Dzetzfelbznger,Chrtsttan:Der Abschied des Kommenden. 1997. Vol.91.

Dimztrov, Ivan Z.,James D. G. Dunn, Ulrtch Luz and Karl- WtlhelmNiebuhr(Ed.): Das Alte Testamentals christlicheBibel inorthodoxerund westlicher Sicht. 2004. Vol.174. Dobbeler,Axelvon: Glaubeals Teilhabe. 1987. Vol.11/22. Downs, Davzd J.: The Offering of the Gentiles. 2008. Vol.11/248. Dryden,J, de WaalrTheologyand Ethics in 1 Peter. 2006. Vol.11/209. Diibbers, Muhael:Christologieund Existenz im Kolosserbrief.2005. Vol.11/191. Dunn,JamesD. G.:The New Perspectiveon Paul. 2005. Vol.181. Dunn,James D. G. (Ed.): Jews and Christians. 1992. Vol.66. - Paul and the Mosaic Law. 19%. Vol.89. - see Dimitrw, Ivan Z. -, Hans Klezn, Ulnch Luz, and VasdeMzhoc (Ed.): Auslegungder Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Perspektive.2000. Vol. 130. Ebel, Eva: Die AttraktivitLfriiherchristlicher Gemeinden. 2004. Vol.1/178. Ebertz, MuhaelN.: Das Charismades Gekreuzigten. 1987. Vol.4.5. Eckstezn,Hans-Joachzm:Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus. 1983. Val.11/10. - Verheii3ungund Gesetz. 1996. Vol.86. Ego, Beate: Im Himinel wieauf Erden. 1989. Vol.11/34. Ego, Beate,Armzn Lange and Peter Pilhofer (Ed.): Gemeinde ohneTempel -Community without Temple. 1999. Vol. 118. - and Helmut MerkelfEd.):Religioses Lernen in der biblischen,friihjiidischen und friihchristlichenUberlieferung. 2005. VoL.180.

Ezsen, Ute E.: seePaufsen,Henning. Elledge, C.D.: Lifeafter Deathin EarlyJudaism. 2006. Vol.11/208. Ellzs, E. Earle: Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. 1978. Vol.18. - The OldTestarnentin Early Christianity.

1991. Vol.14.

Endo, Masanobu: Creation and Christology. 2002. Voi.149. Ennulat, Andreas: Die'Minor Agreements'. 1994. Vol.11/62. Ensor,Peter W:Jesus and His 'Works'. 1996. Vob 11/81. Eskola, Tzmo:Messiah and theThrone.2001. Vol.11/142.

- Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline

Soteriology.1998. Vol.11/100. Fatehz, Mehrdad:The Spirit's Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul. 2000. Vol.11/128. Feldmeter,Reznhard:Die Krisis des Gottessohnes. 1987. VoL11/21. - Die ChristenaIs Fremde. 1992. Vol.64. Feldmeier,Reinhard and UlnchHeckel (Ed.): Die Heiden. 1994. Vol.70. Fletcher-Louis, CrispmH. T:Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology.1997.

Vol.11/94. Forster,Ntclas: Marcus Magus. 1999. Vol.114. Forbes, Christopher Bmn: Prophecy and Inspiredspeech inEarly Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment. 1995. Vol.11/71. Fornberg, Tord:seeFridrtchsen,Anton. Fossum,Jar1E.: TheName of God and the Angel of the Lord. 1985. Vol.36. Foster, Paul: Community, Law and Mission in Matthew's Gospel. Vol.11/177. Fotopouhs,John: Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth. 2003. Vol.11/151. Frenschkowskz,Marco: Offenbarungund Epiphanie. Vol. 1 1995. Vol. II/79-Vol. 2 1997. Val,11/80. Frey,Jorg:Eugen Drewerrnann und die biblische Exegese. 1995.Vol.11/71, - Die johanneische Eschatologie.Vol. I. 110.1997. Vol.96. -Val. 11.1998. VO~. V0l.III.2000. Vol.117. Frey,Jorg and CzllmsBreytenbach(Ed.): Aufgabe und Durchfuhrung einer Theologie desNeuenTestaments. 2007. Vol.201. - and UdoSchneUe (Ed.):Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums.2004. Vol.171. - andJens Schroter (Ed.): Deutungen des TodesJesu im NeuenTestament. 2005. Vol.181. -, Jan G.van der Watt,and Ruben Zzmmermann (Ed.):Imagery in the Gospel of John. 2006. Voi.200. Freyne, Sean:Galileeand Gospel. 2000. Vol. 125. Frzdruhsen, Anton: Exegetical Writings.Edited by C.C. Caragounis and T. Fornberg. 1994. Vol.76. Gabel, Georg:Die Kulttheologie des Hebraerbriefes.2006. Vol.11/212.

Wissenschaftllche Untersuchungen zum Netten Testament Gackle, Volker: Die Starken und die Schwachen in Korinthund in Rom. 2005. VoL 200. Garlzngton, Don B.: 'The Obedience of Faith'. 1991. Vol. 11/38. - Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance.1994. Vol. 79. Garnet, Paul: Salvationand Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls. 1977. Vol. 11/3. Gemrinden, Petra von (Ed.): see Wezssenrteder, Annette. Gese, Mlchael: DasVermachtnis des Apostels. 1997. Vol. 11/99. Gheorghzta, Radu: The Role of the Septuagint inHebrews.2003. Vol. 11/160. Gordley, Matthew E.: The Colossian Hymn in Context. 2007. Vol. 111228. Grabe, PetrusJ.:The Power of God in Paul's Letter~.2000,~2008. Vol. 11/123. Graber, Ench: Der Alte Bund im Neuen. 1985. Vol. 35. - Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte.2001. Vol. 137. Grappe, Chrzstlan (Ed.): Le Repas de Dieu / Das Mahl Gottes. 2004. Vol. 169. Gray, Tzmothy C.:TheTemple intheGospel of Mark. 2008. Vol. 111242. Green,JoelB.:TheDeathof Jesus. 1988. Vo1.11/33. Gregg, B m n Han:The HistoricalJesus and the FinalJudgment SayingsinQ. 2005. Vol. 11/207. Gregory, Andrew:The Receptionof Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus.2003. Vo1.11/169. Grzndhezm, Szgurd: The Crux of Election. 2005. Vol. 11/202. Gundry, RobertH.:TheOldis Better. 2005. Vol. 178. Gundry Volf,Judtth M.: Paul and Perseverance. 1990. Vol. 11/37. Hauber, Detlej Chrismsbekenntnis und Jesusuberlieferungbei Paulus. 2006. Vol. 210. Hafemann, ScottJ.: Sufferingand the Spirit. 1986. VoL 11/19. - Paul, Moses,and the History of Israel. 1995. Vol. 81. Hahn, Ferdtnand: Studien zum Neuen Testament. Vol. I: Grund~atzfra~en, Jesusforschung, Evangelien. 2006. Vol. 191. Vol. 11:Bekenntni~bildun~und Theologie inurchristlicherzeit. 2006. Vol. 192. Hahn, Johannes (Ed.):Zerstorungen desJerusalemer Tempels. 2002. Vol. 147. Hamtd-Khanz,Saeed: Relevationand Concealmentof Christ. 2000. Vol. 11/120.

Hannah, DarrelD.: Michael and Christ. 1999. VO~. 11/109. Hardzn,Justzn K.: Galatians and theImperial Cult72007. Vol. 11/237. Havzson;James R.: Paul's Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. 2003. Vo1.11/172. Hartman, Lars: Text-Centered NewTestament Studies.Ed. von D. Hellholm. 1997. Vol. 102. Hartog, Paul: Polycarp and theNew Testament.2001. Vol. 11/134. Heckel, Theo I%: Der Innere Mensch. 1993. Vol. 11/13. - VomEvangeliumdesMarkus zum viergestaltigenEvangelium. 1999. Vol. 120. Heckel, Ulrzch: Kraft in Schwachheit.1993. Vol. 11/54. - Der Segenim Neuen Testament.2002. Vol. 150. - seeFeldmeier, Reinhard. - see Hengel, Marttn. Hezbgenthal,Roman: Werke als Zeichen. 1983. Vol. 11/9. Heltso, Desta: Pistis and the Righteous One. 2007. Vol. 11/235. Hellholm, D.:see Hartman, Lars. Hemer, ColinJ.:The Book of ActsintheSetting of Hellenistic History. 1989. Vol. 49. Hengel, Marttn: Jesus und die Evangelien. Kleine SchriftenV. 2007. Vol. 211. - Die johanneischeFrage. 1993. Vol. 67. - Judaicaet Hellenistica. Kleine SchriftenI. 1996. Vol. 90. - Judaica, Hellenisticaet Christiana. Kleine Schriften11.1999. Vol. 109. - Judentumund Hellenismus. 1969,'1988. Vol. 10. - Paulusund Jakobus. Kleine Schriften111. 2002. Vol. 141. - Studien zur Christologie. KleineSchriften IV. 2006. VoL201. - Studien zum Urchristentum. Kleine SchriftenVI. 2008. Vol. 234. - and Anna Maria Schwemw: Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien. 1998. Vo1.108. - Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfange der Christologie. 2001. Vol. 138. - Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangeliumvon Jesus Christus. 2008. VoL 224. Hengel, Martzn and Ulrtch Heckel (Ed.): Paulus unddas antike Judentum. 1991. Vol. 58. - and Hermut Lohr (Ed.): S~hriftausle~ung imantiken Judentumund imurchristentum. 1994. Vol. 73.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

- andAnna Maria Schwemer (Ed.): Konigsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult. 1991. Vol. 55. - DieSeptuaginta. 1994. Vol. 72. -, Siegfried Mittmann and Anna Maria Schwemer(Ed.): La CitCde Dieu / Die Stadt Gottes. 2000. Vol. 129. Hentschel, Anni: Diakonia im NeuenTestament. 2007. Vol. 226. Hernandez Jr., Juan: Scribal Habits and Theological Influence in the Apocalypse. 2006. Vol. 11/218. Herrenbriick, Fritz: Jesus und die Zollner. 1990. Vol. 11/41. Herzer,Jens: Paulus oder Petrus? 1998. Vol. 103. - see Bottrich, Christfried. Hill, Charles E.: From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp. 2005. Vol. 186. Hoegen-Rohls, Christina: Der nachosterliche Johannes. 1996. Vol. 11/84. Hoffmann, Matthlas Reinhard:The Destroyer and the Lamb. 2005. Vol. 11/203. Hofius, Otfried: Katapausis. 1970. Vol. 11. - Der Vorhangvor demThron Gottes. 1972. Vol. 14. - Der Christushymnus Philipper2,6-11. 1976,=1991.Vol. 17. - Paulusstudien. 1989,21994.Vol. 51. - Neutestamentliche Studien. 2000. Vol. 132. - Paulusstudien 11.2002. Vol. 143. - Exegetische Studien. 2008. Vol. 223. - and Hans-Christian Kammler: Johannesstudien. 1996. Vol. 88. Holmberg, Bengt (Ed.): Exploring Early Christian Identity. 2008. Vol. 226. - and Mikael Winninge (Ed.): Identity Formationin the NewTestament. 2008. Vol. 227. Holtz, Traugott: Geschichte undTheologie des Urchristentums. 1991. Vol. 57. Hommel, Hildebrecht: Sebasmata. Vol. 1 1983. Vol. 31. Vol. 2 1984. Vof. 32. Horbury, William: Herodian Judaism and New Testament Study. 2006. Vol. 193. Horst, Pieter K! van der: Jews and Christians inTheir Graeco-Roman Context. 2006. Vol. 196. Hvalvik, Reidar: The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant. 1996. Vol. 11/82, Jauhiainen, Marko:The Use of Zechariah in Revelation. 2005. Vol. 11/199. Jensen, Morten H.: Herod Antipas in Galilee. 2006. Vol. 11/215. Johns, Loren L.:The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypseof John. 2003. Vol. II/l67.

Jossa, Giorgio: Jews or Christians? 2006. Vol. 202. Joubert, Stephan: Paul as Benefactor. 2000. Vol. 11/124. Judge, E. A.:TheFirst Christians in theRoman World. 2008. Vol. 229. Jungbauer, Harry: ,,EhreVater und Mutter". 2002. Vol. 11/146. Kahler, Christoph: Jesu Gleichnisseals Poesie und Therapie. 1995. Vol. 78. Kamlah, Ehrhard: DieForm der katalogischenPaAnese imNeuenTestament. 1964. Vol. 7. Kammler, Hans-Christian: Christologieund Eschatologie. 2000. Vol. 126. - Kreuz und Weisheit. 2003. Vol. 159. - see Hofius, OOtfd. Karakolis, Christos: see Alexeev, Anatoly A. Karrer, Martin und Wolfgang Kraus (Ed.): Die Septuaginta-Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten.2008. Vol. 219. Kelhoffer,JamesA.:The Diet of John theBaptist. 2005. Vol. 176. - Miracle and Mission. 1999. Vol. 11/112. Kelley, Nicole: Knowledge and Religious Authority in the Pseudo-Clementines. 2006. Vol. 11/213. Kennedy,Joe1:TheRecapitulation of Israel. 2008. Vol. 11/257. Kieffer, Reneand Jan Bergman (Ed.): LaMain de Dieu /Die Hand Gottes. 1997. Vol. 94. Kierspel, Lars:The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel. 2006. Vol. 220. Kim, Seyoon:TheOrigin of Paul's Gospel. 1981,21984.Vol. 11/4. - Pauland theNew Perspective. 2002. Vol. 140. - "The 'Son of Man'" as theSon of God. 1983. Vol. 30. Klauck, Hans-Josef Religion und Gesellschaft imfriihen Christentum.2003. Vol. 152. Klein, Hans: see Dunn, James D. G. Kleinknecht, Karl Th.: Der leidende Gerechtfertigte. 1984,21988. Vol. 11/13. Klinghardt, Matthias: Gesetz und Volk Gottes. 1988. Vol. 11/32. Kloppenborg, John S.:TheTenants in the Vineyard. 2006. Vol. 195. Koch, Michael: Drachenkampf und Sonnenfrau. 2004. Vol. 11/184. Koch, Stefan: Rechtliche Regelungvon Konfliktenimfriihen Christenturn. 2004. Vol. 11/174. Kohler, Wolf-Dietrich: Rezeption des Matthausevangeliums in derzeitvor Irenaus. 1987. Vol. 11/24. Kohn, Andreas:Der Neutestamentler Ernst Lohmeyer. 2004. Vol. 11/180.

WissenschafilicheUntersuchungen zwm Neuen Testament Koester, Crazg and Rermund Bzennger (Ed.): TheResurrection of Jesus in theGospel of John. 2008. Vol.222. Konradt, Matthias: Israel, Kircheund die Volker im Matthausevangelium.2007. Vol.215. Kooten, GeorgeH. van: Cosmic Christology in Paul and the PaulineSchool.2003. Val.II/171, - Paul's Anthropology in Context. 2008. Vol.232. Korn, Manfred: Die GeschichteJesu in veranderterZeit. 1993. Vol.11/51. Koskenntemi, Erkki: Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichenExegese. 1994. Vol.11/61, - The OldTestament Miracle-Workersin Early Judaism.2005. Vol. 11/206. Kraus, Thomas1.: Sprache, Stilund historischer Ort des zweiten Petrusbriefes.2001. Vol.11/136. Kraus, Wolfgang:Das Volk Goaes. 1996. Vol.85. - seeKawer, Martm. - see Walter,Nikolaws. - and Karl- WzlhelmNzebuhr (Ed.): Friih-

judentum und NeuesTestament im Horizont BiblischerTheologie.2003. Vol. 162. K~ephn,Matthzas: Das SelbstverstindnisJesu. 200 1. Vol.11/141. Kuhn, Karl G.:Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim. 1950. Vol.I . Kvalbern, Hans: see Adna, ~ostetn. Kwon, Yon-Gyong: Eschatology in Galatians. 2004. Vol.II/183. Launsma,Jon:I Will Give You Rest. 1997. Vol.11/98. Labahn, M ~ h a e lOffenbarung : in Zeichen und Wort. 2000. Vol.11/117. Lumbers-Petry, Dons: see Tomson,PeterJ. Lunge, Armin: seeEgo, Beate. Lampe, Peter: Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. 1987, ~. 1989.V O 11/18. Landmesser, Christofi Wahrheit als Grundbegriff neutestamentlicherWissenschaft. 1999. Vol.113. - Jiingerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott. 2000. Vol.133. Lau, Andrew: Manifestin Flesh. 1996. Vol.11/86. Lawrence,Louzse: An Ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew. 2003. Vol.11/165. Lee, Aquzla H.I.: From Messiah to Preexistent Son. 2005. Vod.11/192. Lee, Pilchan:The New Jerusalemin the Book of Relevation. 2000. Vol. 11/129.

Luhtenberger, Hemann: Das Ich Adams und das Ichder Menschheit.2004. Vol. 164. - see Avemarie, Frzedrzch. Llerman,John: TheNew TestamentMoses. 2004. Vol.11/173. - (Ed.):ChallengingPerspectiveson the Gospel of John. 2006. Vol. 11/219. Lzeu, Samwel N. C.: Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. 21992.Vol.63. LmdgZrd, Fredrik: Paul's Lineof Thought in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:lO. 2004. Vol. 11/189. Loader, Wzll&mR. G.:Jesus'AttitudeTowards the Law. 1997. Vol.11/97. Lohr, Gebhard:VerherrlichungGottes durch Philosophie. 1997. Vol.97. Lohr, Hermut:Studien zumfnihchristlichen undfriihjiidischen Gebet. 2003. Vol.160. - see Hengel, Marttn. Lohr, WtnrrchAlfrted: Basilides und seine Schule. 1995. Vol.83. Lorenzen, Stefanre: Das paulinischeEikonKonzept.2008. VoZ. 11/250. Luomanen, Petrz: Entering the Kingdom of Heaven. 1998. Vol.11/101. Luz, Ulrich:seeAlexeev, Anatoly A. - seeDunn, James D.G. Mackay, Ian D.: John's Raltionship with Mark 2004. Vol.11/182. Mackze, Scott D.: Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2006. Vol.11/223. Mazer,Gerhard:Mensch und freier Wille. 1971. Vol. 12. - DieJohannesoffenbamng und die Kirche. 1981. Vol.25. Markschtes, Christoph:Valentinus Gnosticus? 1992. Vol.65. Marshall, Peter: Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in PaulS Relations with the Corinthians. 1987. Vol.11/23. Marttn, Dale B.: see Zangenberg,Jurgen. Mayer, Annemarze:Spracheder Einheit im Epheserbriefund inderokumene. 2002. Vol.II/150. Mayordomo, Mozses: Argumentiert Paulus logisch?2005. Vol188. McDonough, Sean M.: YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1 :4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting. 1999. Vol.11/107. McDowell, Markus: Prayers of Jewish Women.2006. Vol.11/211. McGlynn, Moyna: DivineJudgement and Divine Benevokncein the Bookof Wisdom. 2001. Vol.IN139. Meade, D m d G . : Pseudonymity and Canon. 1986. Vol.39.

Wusenschaftliche Untersucbungen zum Neuen Testament Meadors, Edward I?: Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation.1995. Vol.11/72. Megner, Stefan: Die Heimholung des Ketzers. 1996. Vol.11/87. Mell, Ulnch:Die ,anderenu Winzer. 1994. VoL 77. - see Sanger,Deter. Mengel, Berthold: Studien zum Philipperbrief. 1982. Vol.11/8. Merkel, Helmut: Die Widerspriichezwischen den Evangelien. 1971. Vol. 13. - see Ego, Beate. Merklein, Helmut: Studien zu Jesusund Paulus.Vol.1 1987. Vol.43.-Vol.2 1998. Vol.lox Metzdorf, Chrzstma:Die TempelaktionJesu. 2003. Vol.11/168. Metzler, Karzn: Der griechischeBegriff des Verzeihens. 1991. Vol.11/44. Metzner,Rainer:Die Rezeption des Matthausevangeliumsim 1.Petrusbrief. 1995. V01.11/74. - Das Verstandnisder Siindeim Johannes-

evangelium. 2000. Vol.122. Mzhoc, Vaszle:seeDunn,James D.G.. Mtneshige,Kiyoshz:Besitzverzicht und Almosen bei Lukas. 2003. Vol. 11/163. Mrttmann, Siegfried: seeHengel, Martm. Mzttmann-Richert, Ulrike:Magnifikatund Benediktus. 1996. Vol.11/90. - Der Siihnetoddes Gottesknechts. 2008.

Vol. 220. Mzura, Yuzuru:David in Luke-Acts. 2007. Vol.11/232. Mourner, TerenceC.: Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency.2005. Vol.11/195. Mufiner,Franz:Jesus von Nazareth im Umfeld Israels und der Urkirche. Ed. vonM. Theobald. 1998. Vol. 111. Mutschler,Bemhard: Das Corpus Johanneum bei Irenaus von Lyon. 2005. Vol.189. Nguyen, V Henry T.: Christian Identity in Corinth. 2008. Vol.11/243. Ntebuhr, Karl- Wzlhelm:Gesetz und Paranese. 1987. Vol.11/28. - Heidenapostei aus Israel. 1992. Vol.62. - seeDemes, Roland - see Dimztrov, Ivan 2. - seeKraus, Wolfgang Nielsen, Anders E.: "Until it is Fullfilled". 2000. Vol.III126. Nusen, Andreas: Gott und der Nachsteim antikenJudentum. 1974. Vol. 15. Noack, Christun: GottesbewuBtsein.2000. Vol.11/116. Noormann, Rolf: Irenaus als Paulusinterpret. 1994. Vol.11/66.

Novakovic, Ltdea: Messiah, the Healer of the Sick. 2003. Vol,ZI/I 70. O b e m n n , Andreas:Die christologische Erfidlung der Schriftim Johannesevangelium. 1996. Vof.11/83. Ohler, Markus: Barnabas.2003. Vol. 156. - see Becker,Mzchaei. Okure, Teresa:TheJohannine Approach to Mission. 1988. Vol.11/31. Onukz, Takashc Heilund Erlosung. 2004. Vol.165. Oropeza, B.J.: Paul and Apostasy.2000. Vol.II/115. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrtch: Kommunikation mit GottundChristus.2006. Vol. 197. - Taufeund Typos. 2000. Vol.11/118. Paulsen, Henntng: Studien zur Literatur und Geschichtedes friihen Christenturns. Ed. von Ute E. Eisen. 1997. Vol. 99. Pao, David I??: Acts and the fsaianicNew Exodus, 2000. Voi. I1/130. Park, Eung Chun:The Mission Discourse in MatthewYsInterpretation. 1995. Vol.11/81. Park,Joseph S.: Conceptions of Afterlifein Jewish Insriptions. 2000. Vol.11/121. Pate, C. Marvtn:The Reverse of the Curse. 2000. Vol.11/114. Pearce, SarahJ. K.: The Land of the Body. 2007. Vol.208. Peres, Imre: Griechische Grabinschriftenund neutestamentlicheEschatologie.2003. Vol. 1S 7. Philtp, Finny:The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology.2005. Vol. 11/194, Phzlonenko, Marc(Ed.1:LeTr8ne de Dieu. 1993. Vol. 69. Pzlbofer,Peter:PresbyteronKreitton. 1990. Vol. 11/39. - Philippi.Vol.1 1995. Vol. 87. -Val. 2 2000. Vol. 119. - Die friihenchristenundihreWelt.2002. Vol. 145. - see Becker, Eve-Mane. - see Ego, Beate. Pztre, Brant:Jesus, theTribulation, and the End of the Exile. 2005. Vol.11/204. Pliimacher, Eckhard: Geschichte und Geschichten.2004. Vol.170. Pohlmann, Wolfgang:Der VerloreneSohn und das Haus. 1993. Vol. 68. Pokornj, Petrand Joseftl. SouEek: Bibelauslegung als Theologie. 1997. Vol.100. - andJan Roskovec(Ed.):Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis.2002. Vol.153. Popkes, Enno Edzard: Das Menschenbild des Thomasevangeliums.2007.Vol.206.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament - DieTheologie der Liebe Gottes in den

johanneischen Schriften. 2005. Vol. 11/197. Porter,Stanley E.: The Paul of Acts. 1999. Vol. 11 5. Prteur,Alexander: Die Verkundigung der Gottesherrschaft. 1996. Vol.11/89. Probst, Hermann: Paulus und der Brief. 1991. Vob 11/41i. Ratsanen, Hetkkt: Paul and the Law. 1983, *1987.Vol.29. Rehkopf, Frtedrtch:Die lukanische Sonderquelle. 1959. Vol.5. Rezn, Matthzas: Die Heilung des Blindgeborenen Uoh 9). 1995. Vol.11/73. Reznmuth, Eckart: Pseudo-Philo und Lukas. 1994. Val.74. Rezser, Manus: Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift. 2007. Vol.21 7. - Syntaxund Stildes Markusevangeliums. 1984. Vof.11/11. Reynolds, Benjamtn E.:The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospelof John. 2008. Vol.11/249. Rhodes,James N.:The Epistleof Barnabas and the Deuteronomic Tradition. 2004. Vo1. 11/188. Rtchards, E. Randolph:The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. 1991. Vol.11/42. Rlesner, Ruiner:Jesus als Lehrer. 1981,31988. Vol.II/7. - Die Fnihzeit des Apostels Paulus. 1994. Vol.71. Rtssz, Mathus: DieTheologie des Hebraerbriefs. 1987. VoL41. Roskovec,Jan: see Pokornj, Petr. Rohser, Giinter: Metaphorik und Personifikationdersiinde. 1987. Vol.11/25. Rose, Christran:Theologie als Erzahlung im Markusevangelium. 2007. Vol.11/236. - Die Wolke der Zeugen. 1994. Vol.11/60. Rothschtld, ClareK: Baptist Traditions and Q . 2005. Vof.190. - Luke Acts and the Rhetoric of History. 2004. Vol.11/175. Ruegger,Hans- Ulrtch:Verstehen, was Markus erzahlt. 2002. Vol.11/155. Ruger, Hans Peter: Die Weisheitsschrift aus der Kairoer Geniza. 1991. Vot.53. Sanger,Dteter: Antikes Judentum und die Mysterien. 1980. Vol.1115. - Die Verkiindigung des Gekreuzigtenund Israel. 1994. Vol. 75. - see Burchard, Christoph - and Ulnch Mell(Ed.): Paulusund Johannes. 2006. Vol. 198. Salier, WillzsHed1ey:The Rhetorical Impact of the Semeiain the Gospel of John. 2004. Vof.II/186.

Salzmann, Jorg Chrzstian: Lehren und Ermahnen. 1994. Vol.11/59. Sandnes,Karl Olav:Paul-One of the Prophets? 1991. Vol.11/43. Sato, Migaku: Q u n d Prophetie. 1988. V O 11/29. ~. Schiifer,Ruth: Paulus bis zum Apostelkonzil. 2004. Vol.11/179. Schaper,Joachzm: Eschatology in the Greek Psaher. 1995. Vol.11/76. Schtmanowski, Gonfrted: Die himdische Liturgie in der Apokalypse des Johannes. 2002. Vol.11/154. - Weisheitund Messias. 1985. Vol.11/17. Schltchtmg, G&nter:Ein judisches Leben Jesu. 1982. Vol.24. Schltej3er,Benjamtn: Abraham's Faith in Romans 4.2007. Vol.11/224. Schnabel,EckhardJ.: Law and Wisdom from BenSirato Paul. 1985. Vol. 11/16. Schnelle, Udo:see Frey,Jorg. Schroter,Jens:VonJesus zum Neuen Testament. 2007. Vol.204. - seeFrey,Jorg. Schutter, William L.: Hermeneuticand Compositionin I Peter. 1989. Vol.11/30. Scbwartz, Daniel R.: Studies in the Jewish Backgroundof Christianity. 1992. Vol. 60. Schwemer,Anna Maria: see Hengel, Marttn Scott, Ian W;: Implicit Epistemology in the Letters of Paul. 2005. Vol. 11/205. Scott,James M.: Adoptionas Sons of God. 1992. Vo1.11/48. - Pauland theNations. 1995. Vo1. 84. Sht, Wenhua:Paul's Message of the Cross as Body Language. 2008. Vol.11/254. Shum, Shzu-Lun: Paul's Use of Isaiah in Romans. 2002. Vol.11/156. Stegert,Folker: Drei hellenistisch-jiidische Predigten. Teil I 1980. Vol.20-Teil I1 1992. Vof.61. - Nag-Hammadi-Register. 1982. Vo1.26. - Argumentation bei Paulus. 1985. Vol.34. - Philonvon Alexandrien. 1988. Vol. 46. Szmon, Marcel: Le christianisme antique et son contexte religieux I/II.1981. Val.23. Smtt, Peter- B a : Fellowship and Food in the Kingdom. 2008. Vol.11/234. Snodgrass,K1yne:The Parableof the Wicked Tenants. 1983. Vol.27, Soding, Thomas:Das Wort vom Kreuz. 1997. Vol. 93. - see Thuszng, Wilhelm, Sommer, Urs:Die Passionsgeschichte des Markusevangeliums. 1993. Vol.11/58. Sorensen, E n c Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity. 2002. Vol.11/157.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchatngen zum Neuen Testament Soucek,Josef B.: seePokorny, Petr. Southall, Davzd J.: Rediscovering Righteousness in Romans. 2008. Vol. 240. Spangenberg, Volker:Herrlichkeit des Neuen Bundes. 1993. Vol.11/55. Spanje, T.E. van: Inconsistency in Paul? 1999. Vol.II/llO. Speyer,Wolfgang:Fruhes Christentumimantiken Strahlungsfeld. Vol. I: 1989. Vol. 50. - Vol. 11: 1999. Vol.116. - Vol. 111:2007. V O ~ 213. . Sptttler,Janet E.: Animals in the Apocryphal Actsof theApostles.2008. Vol.111247. Sprznkle,Preston: Law and Life. 2008. Vol.11/241. Stadelmann, Helge: Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. 1980. Vol. 11/6. MahlStezn, HansJoachzm: Fruhchnstl~che feiern. 2008. Vol.11/255, Stenschke, Chrtstoph W: Luke's Portrait of Gentiles Prior toTheir Coming to Faith. Vo1.11/108. Sterck-Degueldre,Jean-Pzewe:Eine Frau namens Lydia. 2004. Vol.11/176. Stettler, Chnstzun: Der Kolosserhymnus. 2000. Vol.11/131. Die Christologie der PastoS t e t t b Hanna: ~ ralbriefe. 1998. Vol.11/101. StoklBen Ezra, DanzeLThe Impact of Yom Kippuron Early Christianity. 2003. Vol.163. Strobel,August DieStunde der Wahrheit. 1980. Vol. 21. Stroumsa, Guy G.: Barbarian Philosophy. 1999. Vol. 112. Stuckenbruck, Loren T:Angel Veneration and Christology. 1995. Vol.11/70. -, Stephen C. Barton and Benjamzn G. Wold (Ed.): Memory in the Bible and Antiquity. 2007. Vol.212. Stuhlmacher,Peter (Ed.): Das Evangelium und dieEvangelien. 1983. Vol.28. - BiblischeTheologieund Evangelium. 2002. Vol. 146. Sung, Chong-Hyon: Vergebung der Sunden. 1993. Vol.11/57. Talra,Harry W:TheTrial of St. Paul. 1989. Vol.11/31. - The Martyrdomof St.Paul.1994. Vol. 11/67. Thezfien,Gerd:Studien zur SoziologiedesUrchr~stentums.1979,31989.Vol. 19. Theobald, Mzchael: Studien zum Romerbrief. 2001. Vol. 136. Theobald, Mzchael: see Mufiner, Franz. Thornton, Claus-Jurgen:Der Zeuge des Zeugen. 1991. Vol. 56.

Thuszng, Wzlhelm:Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie. Ed. von Thomas Soding. 1995. Vol. 82. Thuren, Laurz: Derhethorizing Paul. 2000. Vol. 124. Thyen, Hartwg: Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum. 2007. Vol.214. Tzbbs, C1int:Religious Experienceof the Pneuma. 2007. Vol.11/230. Tozt,DavtdS. du: Theios Antbropos. 1997. VoL 11/91. Tolmie,D. Francozs: Persuading the Galatians. 2005. Val.11/190. Tomson,PeterJ, and Dons Lumbers-Petry (Ed.): The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and ChristianLiterature.2003. VoL 158. Toney, CarlN.: Paul's Inclusive Ethic.2008. Vol.11/252. Trebzlco, Paul: The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paulto Ignatius. 2004. Vol. 166. Treloar,Geoffrey R.: Lightfoot the Historian. 1998. Vol.I1/103. Tsujz,Manabw: Glaube zwischenVollkommenheit undVerweltlichung. 1997. Vo1.11/93. Twelftree, Graham H.: Jesus the Exorcist. 1993. Vol. 11/54. Ulrichs,KarlFnedrtch: Christusglaube.2007. Vol.11/227. Urban, Chnstzna: Das Menschenbild nach demJohannesevangelium. 2001. Vol.11/137. Vahrenhorst,Martm: Kultische Sprache in den Paulusbriefen. 2008. Vol.230. Vegge,Ivar: 2 Corinthians - a Letter about Reconciliation. 2008. Vol.11/239. Vzsotzky, Burton L.:Fathersof theworld. 1995. Vol. 80. Vollenwezder,Samuel: Horizonte neutestamentlicher Christologie. 2002. Vol. 144. Vos,Johan S.: Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus. 2002. Vol.149. Waaler,Enk:TheShema and TheFirst Commandment in First Corinthians. 2008. Vol.11/253. Wagener,Ulrzke:DieOrdnungdes ,Hauses Gottes". 1994. Vol.11/65. Wahlen, Clznton:Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in thesynoptic Gospels. 2004. Vol.11/185. Walker,DonaldD.: Paul's Offer of Leniency (2 Cor 10:l). 2002. Vol.11/152. Walter,Nzkolaus:Praeparatio Evangelica.Ed. von Wolfgang Kraus und Florian Wilk. 1997. Vol.98. Wander,Bernd: Gotteshrchtige und Sympathisanten. 1998. Vol. 104.

WissenschaftlicheUnte~suchun~en zum Neuen Testament Wasserman,Emma:TheDeath of the Soul in Romans 7.2008. Vol.256. Waters,Guy:The End of Deuteronomy in the Epistles of Paul. 2006. Val.221. Watt,Jan G.van der: see Frey,Jorg Watts,Rzkkt: Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark. 1997. Vol.11/88. Wedderburn,A.J. M.:Baptismand Resurrection. 1987. Vol.44. Wegner,Uwe:Der Hauptmannvon Kafarnaum. 1985. Vol.11/14. We$, Hans-Frzedrich: F h h e s Christentum und Gnosis. 2008. Vol.225. Wezssenrzeder,Annette: Images of Illness in the Gospel of Luke. 2003. Vol. II/164. - Frzederzke Wendt and Petra von Gemunden (Ed.): Picturing the New Testament. 2005. Vol.11/193. Welck,Chrzstmn:Erzahlte,Zeichen'. 1994. VoL 11/69, Wendt,Frzederike (Ed.): see Wezssenrzeder, Annette. Wmrda,Ttrnothy:Peter in the Gospels. 2000. V01.11/127. Wzfstrand,Albert: Epochs and Styles. 2005. Vol.179. Wzlk,Flonan: see Walter,Nzkohus. Wtllmms,Catrzn H.: I amHe. 2000. Vol.11/113. Wtlson, ToddA.:The Curse of the Law and the Crisis in Galatia. 2007. Vol.11/225. Wtlson,WalterZ: Love without Pretense. 1991. Vol.11/46. Wznn,Adam: The Purpose of Mark's Gospel. 2008. Vol.11/245.

Winninge,Mikael: see Holmberg, Bengt. Wischmeyer,0da:Von Ben Sira zu Paulus. 2004. Vol.173. Wisdom,Jeffrey:Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law. 2001. Vol.11/133. Witmer,Stephen E.: Divine Instruction in Early Christianity. 2008. Vol.11/246. Wold,Benjamin G.:Women, Men, and Angels. 2005. Vol.11/2001. - see Stuckenbruck,Loren Z Wright,Archie Z:The Origin of Evil Spirits. 2005. Vol.II/198. Wucherpfennig,Ansgar: Heracleon Philologus.2002. Vol. 142. Yates,John W:The Spirit and Creation in Paul. 2008. Vol.11/251. Yeung,Maureen: Faith in Jesus andPaul. 2002. Vol.11/147. Zangenberg,Jurgen,Harold W Attridgeand Dale B. Martin (Ed.): Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee. 2007. Vol.210. Zimmenann, Alfred E.: Dieurchristlichen Lehrer. 1984,'1988. Vol.11/12. Zimmermann,Johannes:Messianische Texte ausQumran. 1998. Vol.11/104. Zimmermann, Ruben: Christologie der BiIder im Johannesevangelium. 2004. Vol.171. - Geschlechtermetaphorikund Gottesverhaltnis. 2001. Vol.II/122. - (Ed.): Hermeneutikder Gleichnisse Jesu. 2008. Vol.231. - see Frey,Jorg Zumstein,Jean: see Dettwiler,Andreas Zwiep,Arie W: Judas and the Choice of Matthias. 2004. Vol.11/187.

For a complete catalogue please wrzte to the publisher Mohr Siebeck I? 0.Box 2030 D-72010 Tiibingen/Gernany Up-to-date information on the internet at www.mohr.de

The essays in this volume result from the author's conviction that the New Testament texts can only be understood adequately through wide-ranging and detailed study of the Judaism of the late Second Temple period.

ISBN 978-3-16-149614-1

Mohr Siebeck