Libraries, Translations, and 'Canonic' Texts: The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism)

Libraries, Translations, and ‘Canonic’ Texts

Supplements to the

Journal for the Study of Judaism Editor

John J. Collins The Divinity School, Yale University Associate Editor

Florentino García Martínez Qumran Institute, University of Groningen Advisory Board

j. duhaime – a. hilhorst – p.w. van der horst a. klostergaard petersen – m.a. knibb – h. najman j.t.a.g.m. van ruiten – j. sievers – g. stemberger e.j.c. tigchelaar – j. tromp

VOLUME 109

Libraries, Translations, and ‘Canonic’ Texts The Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions

by

Giuseppe Veltri

BRILL LEIDEN BOSTON 2006 •

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISSN 1384–2161 ISBN 90 04 14993 7 © Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

Devoted to the memory of my grandparents Teresa Guarascio and Salvatore Veltri

CONTENTS Foreword

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction: (De)canonization and Deconstruction . . . . Torah as the Unique Gift: The Traditional Pattern and the Tripartite Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canon as Censorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deconstruction and Decanonization: A Paradigmatic Model The Present Study: Several Concrete Examples of Decanonization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

.

1

. . .

9 14 17

.

22

1. Libraries and Canon: Ascent and Decline of the Greek Torah 1.1 Jewish-Hellenistic Sources of the Legend: The Greek Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Christian Theology: From the Veritas Graeca to the Veritas Hebraica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 (De)canonization of Libraries or Between Alexandria, Athens, and Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26 31 42 78

2. Deconstructing History and Traditions: The Written Torah for Ptolemy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 2.1 Changed Verses as Midrashic Parenthetic Reference 2.2 Deconstructed Elements and Contextual Stories 2.3 Hermeneutics and Canon

. . 106

. . . . 134

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

3. Deconstructing Translations: The Canonical Substitution Aquila/Onkelos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 3.1 Translation as Production of Texts: The Sacred Tongue 3.2 Targumic Rendering as Mediation of Teaching

. 148

. . . . 158

3.3 The Targumim of Aquila and Onkelos: Canonical Substitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

viii

contents

4. (De)canonization in the Making: The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 4.1 The Greek Prologue to the Book of Ben Sira . 4.2 Ben Sira’s Quotations in Rabbinical Sources . 4.3 Wisdom and Rabbinic Literature: A Struggle for Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 A Decanonized Author . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion

. . . . 194 . . . . 204 . . . . 212 . . . . 220

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Primary Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Documentation Style, Transliteration and References . . . . . 261 Index of References . . . . . . . . 1. Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . 3. Jewish Hellenistic Literature . . 4. New Testament . . . . . . . . 5. Greek and Roman Authors . . . 6. Rabbinic Literature . . . . . . 7. Church Fathers . . . . . . . . 8. Jewish Medieval Texts and Authors

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

263 263 265 266 266 267 270 272

Index of Ancient and Medieval Names

. . . . . . . . . . 273

Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

FOREWORD A book is paradoxically a chapter in an author’s life, as if the written words it contains were traces on pathways snaking through human existence. And this is also my experience when I look back on the last two decades of the 20th century. Bible translations were my entry ticket into the study of Judaism, something like a window on the characteristic landscape of Jewish literature, history and philosophy. That was not a purely academic choice but a result of my inquiry over many years into the nature of Judaism as mirrored and codified in its experience of the so-called “People of the Book.” Looking back on the origins of my curiosity toward religion as transmission, I first heard the story of the Septuagint from my grandmother Teresa in Calabria. She told me how seventy-two sages worked out a miracle translating the Bible in separate cells using the same words and expressions. I still do not know where and from whom she had got the tale. I suppose that she heard it from oral tradition, probably told by my grandfather who, being welltraveled and educated, used to also read out the Bible to his wife and his (mostly unwilling) children in the cold and dark evenings of Calabrian winters, as my father told me. Biblical stories, a mystical world of angels, demons, spirits and magical practices and convictions were the world I navigated in my childhood, a variegated cosmos of Mediterranean origins, just as the cultural experience of the Jews who penetrated in almost every corner of the ancient world was also distinctively Mediterranean. The penetration of Jewish culture into the European world also has something to do with the Septuagint and the Jewish sages who performed a wondrous work, translating the library of the Jewish past into the world of Hellenistic culture. Later in my academic study, I learned that the theory of the Jewish rejection of the Septuagint, spread all over the world by willing church fathers and their modern scholarly followers, is misleading, historically, psychologically and in terms of literature. I hardly found any evidence that Judaism rejected its own literary and historical past because others identify with it, considering themselves part of it. Identity is a multifarious world where the singular is as erroneous as, alas, existential. Everybody searches for an identity which can always

x

foreword

change, it all depends on how many conscious moments a human being experiences in his or her daily routine. In speaking of historical consciousness, we can see that there is no moment in which a religion, people or better, encircled community totally rejects its own past. Following this conviction, I prepared my PhD at the Free University in Berlin, researching the origins of Rabbinic tradition concerning the Septuagint and the nature of translating in antiquity. My research, published in German in 1994, produced a well-received book with numerous reviews in leading journals. Among others, a very productive review by Emanuel Tov was, although generally very positive, especially critical of my method and some of my results. He strongly and emphatically defended a Rabbinic rejection of the Septuagint because the Christians adopted it as their Bible. A step further came ten years later, in July 2004, when Emanuel and I first met at Groningen (and later also in Halle, Germany); Emanuel told me about his new insights regarding my Torah le-Melekh Talmai, stating that he now agrees with my interpretation of the Talmudic passages concerning the Septuagint, among others Bavli Megillah 9a. I confess I could not answer properly on that occasion and this book is in a way an attempt to react to his new position. For in the meantime, my studies on the canonization of the Hebrew and Greek Torah have led me to other results: in Rabbinic Judaism, there was officially no rejection of the Septuagint as Torah (until the early Middle Ages), but rather a de-canonization and deconstruction of its historical origins. If a canon is the ability of a text to produce and authorize commentary deconstructing its original context by generalization, de-canonization is the inverse way of contextualizing a “canonical” text by reconstructing the supposed original context. That is the core of the following book, which deals with the Septuagint in Christian and Jewish sources, the fortune of Aquila and the destiny of Ben Sira in the context of canonization and deconstruction. My sincere thanks to all the scholars and friends who in one way or another contributed to this book, my teachers in Berlin as well as in Rome, my colleagues in Jewish studies as well as my scholarly adversaries in the biblical sciences. In particular, I owe a special debt of gratitude to Bill Templer for editing and improving my English, my wife Lucie Renner for her patience and deep insights in discussing some aspects of the topic, my colleagues Hanna Liss and Gianfranco Miletto for exciting open-ended discussions on Judaism, Christianity and the canon of the “Truth”, and Ellen Birnbaum for several precious

foreword

xi

notes. I would like to express my special thanks to John J. Collins for his careful and painstaking reading of the book, his improving of some wording, and for having accepted this monograph for the series. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. I am of course fully responsible for all mistakes and errors. Further, I would like to thank my student Simone Lober for the indices, Marianne Seegelken-Reeg for the typesetting, Hans van der Meij and Mattie Kuiper from Brill Academic Publisher in Leiden for their care in producing the book. The book is dedicated to the memory of my grandmother Teresa Guarascio and to my grandfather Salvatore Veltri, in remembrance of a world of hermeneutic references which has ceased to exist––one may wonder if definitively––at least in the European countries. Halle-Frohe Zukunft (Germany)

October 2005

INTRODUCTION: (DE)CANONIZATION AND DECONSTRUCTION The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails-given by one shepherd. Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body (Kohelet 12:11–12). In common with clothing, household furnishings and many other accompaniments of daily life, scholarship has its fashions, which reflects, in their evervarying forms and patterns, the changing interests of the times (Sidney Jellicoe).1

The history of the process of biblical canonization has recently enjoyed great popularity in academic teaching and research around the world of the Bible.2 From the last decade of the past century down to the present, there has been considerable interest in this field of research––a field of inquiry which affects almost all the branches of biblical sciences, from the hermeneutics of textuality (inter- or trans-textuality), to archaeology and codicology and on to church history and the history of theology down to today.3 Interestingly enough, while canonic studies were ini-

1 Sidney Jellicoe, “Some Reflections on the kaige` Recension”, Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 15. 2 Margalit Finkelberg and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., Homer, the Bible, and Beyond. Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Jean-Marie Auwers and Henk J. De Jonge, eds., The Biblical Canons (Leuven: Peeters, 2003); John Barton and Michael Wolter, eds., Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003); Johann Maier, Le scritture prima della Bibbia (Brescia: Paideia, 2003); Christine Helmer and Christof Landmesser, One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological and Philosophical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); Jed Wyrick, The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004). 3 For a first approach to the literature of the last decade of the 20th century, without pretending to be exhaustive, see John Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text: the Canon in

2

introduction

tially primarily carried out confined to the Christian academies, in recent times the topic has held out considerable appeal to the world of Jewish studies, where there have been intensive investigations. Until the last decade of the 20th century, there were scarcely any monographs in this area of study, with the notable exception of the dissertation by Sid Z. Leiman in 1976,4 devoted entirely to the canonization of the Bible. In addition to numerous articles on the topics, two particular monographs by Menahem Haran5 and Moshe Halbertal6 should be mentioned because they tried to do justice to the major implications and consequences of textuality connected with and dependent on canon and authority. Most modern publications are primarily concerned with the topic of the biblical canon, without touching much on the more general problem of the “canonization” of Jewish-Hellenistic and Rabbinic texts, i. e. without treating the Jewish Hellenistic idea of tradition/transmission––in the case of the Jewish Greek canon––and without focusing on the process of formation and increasingly pervasive assertion of the (mainly Babylonian) Talmud and related texts and traditions7 in the case of the Hebrew Bible. Yet the “canonization” or “decanonization” of books and traditions of the Bible (biblia) cannot be separated from the fortunes of the literature as a whole among the communities in Early Christianity (Westminster: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997); Michael J. Broyde, “Defilement of the Hands, Canonization of the Bible, and the Special Status of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs”, Judaism 44 (1995): 65–79; John J. Collins, “Before the Canon: Scripture in Second Temple Judaism”, in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker, ed. James L. Mays (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995): 225–241; Philip R. Davies, Scribes and Schools. The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998); E. Earle Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity. Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991); John F. A. Sawyer, Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts (London: Routledge, 1999); Arie van der Kooij and Karel van der Toorn, eds., Canonization and Decanonization (Leiden: Brill, 1998). 4 Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: the Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamden: Archon, 1976). 5 Menahem Haran, The Biblical Collection. Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, Magnes, 1996–2003). 6 Moshe Halbertal, People of the Book. Canon, Meaning, and Authority (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1997). 7 For a first approach, see Margarete Schlüter, “Zur Frage eines Kanons der rabbinischen Literatur im Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon und in der Vorrede zum Mishne Tora des Rambam”, Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 15 (1987): 91–110, and David Stern, “On Canonization in Rabbinic Judaism”, in Finkelberg, ed., Homer, the Bible, and Beyond, 227–252.

introduction

3

which these privileged corpora were produced. No literature of an ethnic and/or religious entity is a confused hill or archive of manuscripts, books, written and oral traditions, where a small segment of these then somehow “mysteriously”8 rose to the highest degree of authority and political, social, and religious influence. A pure coincidence cannot be invoked as an explanation for the growth, development and selection (inclusion/exclusion) of literary production, not even in the case of vanished libraries and archives. A maiori, we can adopt such an explanation with regard to the entire literary (oral and written) production of a people, which consists of a hierarchy of documents, traditions and texts composed and ordered according to precise rules. These rules, the object of every treatise on canon and canons, produce or are the product of a sharp differentiation (discrimen9 in the Latin world) on the one hand between works of the past and/or the present and their consequent use in liturgy, law, private reading, etc., and literary productions which did not have the same fortune on the other. Pure coincidence can scarcely be called the law of human experience in its historical dimension, and canon is nolens volens always a law of experience and faith. Canon bears on every historical experience and therefore does not belong to the so-called essence (i. e. dogmatic aspect) of a religion or religious groups. That is the reason why we are still concerned with the question of a canon, and that is because of the Christian (largely modern) interest in it,10 and not the alleged, hardly demonstrable fact of some ancient Jewish desire and will to establish it. The Christian interest in canon and its impact on the history of canonship, not unknown to the scholars of biblical studies, is decisive in ascertaining clear-cut criteria of “canonicity” in Jewish “post-Christian” sources. If we privilege Christian criteria for examining Jewish literature we may reach very dubious results. Thus it is not surprising that ancient and recent scholarship on the Greek and Hebrew canon(s) focus on the question of the Jewish-Hel-

8 Allusion to the sentence of Stern, “On Canonization”, 227: “. . . the canonization of the Bible remains to this day one of the great literary mysteries of all time”. 9 The Latin “discrimen”, from which the English “discrimination” is derived, is in my opinion the best term to define the concept of canon, because of the decisive act in an attempt to differentiate, i. e. to show favour for some traditions and scriptures over against others. It is what Carlin A. Barton names “moment of truth”, see her Roman Honor: The Fire in the Bones (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001). 10 Menahem Stern, “On Canonization”, 229, assumes a “quintessentially” Christian use of the term.

4

introduction

lenistic and Rabbinic canonization of Scriptures. For the main part, they employ the same categorizations used for the Christian canon, i. e. searching for canon formulae, alleged synods and lists of books as proof for effective canonization, thus revealing the proper Christian concentration on the Bible as Scripture. Scripture here is understood as a list of books transmitted from late antiquity down to the Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation, when the Christian canon(s) were first established.11 In this way, a Christian mikracentrism has been formed, based on the consideration of the entire Old Testament as the centre of the biblical canon, while Jewish Hellenistic and Rabbinic tradition were typically torahcentric, being (almost only) exegetically and authoritatively oriented to the first five books.12 Not surprisingly, the Christian interest in enlarging the number of the canonical books aims at including the prophetic tradition, considered the heart of early Jewish (and then Christian) faith, while the Rabbinic focus on the legal Torah (as nomos) and correspondingly the teaching of legal material and relative exegetic debate, has been regarded as a tendency typical of the post-Christian Jewish (post-Pharisaic) community. Yet the theology of the first Christian community was directed at enforcing the identity of the new religion by distancing itself from the legal, i. e. normative (nomic) tendency of the Jewish tradition, clearly imbued with “Pharisaic” origins and influence. Torah and prophecy, perceived as the abolition/abrogation of the first in favour of the second, become a binomial combination which, in its ideological affirmation, was exclusive of every other interpretation of tradition interested in putting a different accent on texts and related contexts. Following this perspective, the quotation of the Psalms and their position in the history of the canon should be not overburdened with speculations about their importance in the third canonical group, the so-called “Writings”. The reason is that they were not emphasised for their autonomous quality as inspired texts but because they were considered prophetical testimonies of Christian faith. The Psalms were

11 I do not deny the presence of books already in the period before the Christian era. Yet the existence of books is not to be confused with their value and authority in the school or/and synagogue. The presence in a library is only the expression of existence without content and text. For further discussion on the topic, see my Gegenwart der Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2002): 23–27. 12 That is a well-know element both in Jewish-Hellenistic and Rabbinic theology, see Peter Katz, “The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria”, Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 47 (1956): 191–217, esp. p. 192.

introduction

5

basically quoted as another well-known corpus which was prophetical evidence of the Coming of Christ. The emphasis of ancient Christian texts lies primarily, even exclusively, on the messianic expectations with which they infused the incipient community. Sources of the New Testament highlight the triad “Torah, Prophets and Psalms”,13 creating a paradigm of interpretation where the prophecy became more and more important, evidently more central than the Mosaic Torah for being a messenger of a new Torah and a new world system in contrast to the ancient one. The Christian inclination to justify exegetically its own existence as sole inheritor of the ancient prophecies of the Old Testament was partly encouraged by the Pauline interpretation or foundation of Christianity, and partly necessarily followed by the subsequent Christian authority as identity against the still “dangerous” reference back to its Jewish origins. And this ideological factor became the identifying mark of the ancient Christian theology that also influenced the idea of the “canon of the Truth” as claimed by some Church fathers and their followers. “Prophetic” becomes the countersign of Christendom in contrast to the Rabbinic “hermeneutics” of the Torah (the so-called “second teaching”, or secunda). We will see below in looking at the legend of the Greek translation of the Torah, the so-called Septuagint, that the Church fathers accepted and apologetically defended this translation as the canonical one, actually because of the prophetic testimonies of the Christian doctrine, allegedly included in the “Old” Testament. At least at the beginning, Christian canon was the search for identification of a new form of religious experience and thought which was clearly dissociated from the common Jewish past. In this process of identity, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah played a role which was not indifferent. Why? Because it provided the incipient theology with the linguistic background and the semantic grammar of the new religion which can be considered in this context a scion of the theological vitality of the Alexandrian community. A crisis of this “canonical” understanding of the past was first experienced in the 3rd –4th century when the absolute authority of the Septuagint began to vacillate and other Greek translations from the Hebrew text were considered worthwhile, sometimes “prophetic” of the new Christian 13 See my article “Canone, Scrittura e contesto immanente in alcuni testi del I secolo dopo Cristo (Philo, Vit. Cont., § 25; Lc 24,44; Jos., Cont. Ap. I, cap. 8)”, Laurentianum 30 (1989): 3–24.

6

introduction

doctrine––a suspicious use of prophecy post eventum! Canon is then no longer only a list of books together with “traditional” Greek text, but also the Hebrew original. From then on, we have the Christian question of the true canon. In contrast with ancient and modern theories about sectarianism as a negative incentive for canonization, the only crucial point of canonization was the inclusion or exclusion of a Jewish Hebrew past. And that was at the same time the beginning of the doctrine of “common” tradition. In this context, the topic of an alleged forgery of Scripture, carried out by Jews on their own (!) text, played a significant role in explaining the differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts. This argument did not, of course, bear close scrutiny, at least at the school of the Church father Jerome, as we will see.14 In the process of canonization and decanonization, a change in language thus played a key if not decisive role. The progressive loss of the Greek language in the western Church generated the first serious crisis of canonical importance. Because by inserting the criterion of the Hebrew language and therefore trying to infuse Christianity with the Jewish Hebrew past, the Christian authority was necessarily forced to give up immediate control over the text to specialists who, volens nolens, were dependent on Jewish scholars. This was the case at least until the study of Hebrew language developed in 14th –15th century,15 and definitely after the separation of Christian biblical studies from Jewish scholarship in the 19th century.16 We will come back to this question below in connection with the story of the Greek translation of the Septuagint.17 Language was also the decisive criterion of acceptance or rejection of traditions among Jewish scholars in antiquity and late antiquity. The gradual Rabbinic turning away from the oldest Greek translation of the Torah, the so-called Septuagint, has little or nothing to do with the Christian appropriation of this translation. Rather, it is due to the loss of the Greek language among the Jews and the disappearance of the Jew-

14

See below, pp. 74–78. See the recent volumes: Allison P. Coudert and Jeffrey S. Shoulson, eds., Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2004); Giuseppe Veltri and Gerold Necker, eds., Gottes Sprache in dem philologischen Werkstatt: Hebraistik vom 15. bis 19. Jahrhundert (Leiden: Brill, 2004). 16 See my contribution “Athen und Jerusalem” in Veltri/Necker, eds., Gottes Sprache, 75–96. 17 See chapter 1 below (pp. 26–100). 15

introduction

7

ish community of Alexandria. Both departures from the Greek Torah, the Christian Western theoretical turning to the Hebrew text and the Rabbinic process of distancing from the Septuagint, originated what can be termed deconstruction of canonical entities, a process to justify past canonization by de-contextualising their origin and authoritative validity.18 Change in language is an element of deconstruction of past authoritative canons, if we understand deconstructing decanonization as refusal, devaluating and exposing of past authorities in their explanation of texts and traditions as dependent on time and space. The Rabbinic discussion about the Aramaic part of the Torah and of Ezra and Daniel19 testifies to the preoccupation of Rabbinic academies with trying to justify a transformation of language by hypothesizing a change of alphabet, from the old Ivrit characters to the square characters, already at the time of Ezra. Only the authority of Ezra permitted such a change. According to the Rabbinic mind, Ezra was among the very few who were worthy of receiving the Torah had Moses not been born before him.20 With this formula, the Rabbis certify not only a self-awareness of dignity of the subsequent generations, but also the will to linking their authority directly to that of Moses. However, the change in language in Ezra and Daniel is allowed only because of the Torah’s use of some Aramaic words. Seen from a political viewpoint, the canonical life of the Aramaic language depended on its common use in Palestine and its (literary) function in Babylonia. On the other hand, the destiny of the Greek language, exegetically based on Genesis 9:27 (“May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave)”, was exclusively anchored on the political force of Greek-speaking Jews. The problem of changes in the language (Aramaic instead of Greek) and the loss of community power and authority will lead in Rabbinic Judaism to the replacement of Aquila (Western Greek tradition) by Onkelos (Eastern Aramaic tradition).21

18

See chapter 2 below (pp. 101–147). See Mishnah Yadayim 4:5, where the redactor speaks of the Aramaic parts of Ezra and Daniel, but does not mention the Aramaic words of Genesis 31:47 and the verse of Jeremiah 10:11. 20 See Tosefta Sanhedrin 4:7. 21 See chapter 3 below (pp. 148–190). 19

8

introduction

Canon, if we have to use this term at all, means in Judaism a hermeneutical and normative orientation to the Torah, obviously in the double meaning of written and oral text. The real emphasis of Rabbinic academies relies little on the “physical” transmission of the text, according to a common and alleged textual meaning of the so-called canon formula “Do not add and do not subtract anything” in Deuteronomy 4:2.22 Rather, it depends on the reception and hermeneutical adaptation of the Oral Torah. Only the Torah she-be- al peh is, according to a well-know Rabbinic tradition, the clear-cut criterion of difference and distinction between Israel and the “others”.23 Ben Sira’s position in the history or story of the canon attracted the attention of the Rabbis. For they had to decide whether this book should be considered a valid part of the tradition, or a commentary on it, or only a reflex of it, or even totally outside of it, like the mysterious book of ben La aga.24 Rabbinic canon, if at all, is the authoritative judgment on what has to be considered the frames of history (the contingent situation of a particular community) against the background (or the claim) of eternity of the so-called “valid” and common text (what is intended to be transmitted from generation to generation). To defend the claim of eternity of a special text or tradition is the task of the authority and the results of its impact on the life of the(ir) community. Canon perception is thus a sociological and historical problem of elitist groups of the community which dictates the rules of adoption or/and rejection by stressing the different importance of books, and by creating passive and active canonization, the hierarchy of truths and traditions. For there is a canon within the canon and canon can vary within generations and geographical entities.25 The idea that Judaism stands for itself in every generation is a mythical conception or Freudian paternalistic desire of continuity, and an almost dogmatic thought coming from outside. I will begin by outlining the history of scholarship on the Hebrew canon. The following section is not conceived as a history of the Bible canon, but only as draft of some critical points in examining and reading it. The canonization of Hebrew Scriptures is a matter of herme22

See my Gegenwart der Tradition, 3–22. On this text see further below, pp. 97 f. 24 See chapter 4 below (pp. 191–223). 25 See also the conclusions of David Stern, “Sacred Text and Canon”, in Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought. Original Essays on Critical Concepts, Movements, and Beliefs, ed. Arthur A. Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr (New York: Free Press, 1987): 841–847, esp. p. 846. 23

torah as the unique gift

9

neutics which has attracted the attention of modern scholars since the Enlightenment, in particular with regard to its literary, social, philosophical religious and generally historical importance. There are three attempts to explain canonical development as I view the history of the Hebrew canon: the traditional pattern, the negative theory, and finally the paradigmatic model. I cannot deny that my history of canonical attempts is a simplification of the age-old scientific concern with the topic; however, generalization is a suitable method to acquire and explain knowledge, although not the only one.

Torah as the Unique Gift: The Traditional Pattern and the Tripartite Canon The first explanation of the genesis of a canon in Judaism presupposes the unique gift of the Torah, of the truth or of the wisdom in a unique moment of the history of Jewish people. From then on there is no other revelation but an emanation of the truth or way of life in every corner of the oral and written tradition, transmitted from generation to generation (tradition of the Torah). Against the background of defending the originality and the trustfulness of the Jewish tradition, the historiographer Josephus seems to refer to this concept of canon when he apologetically affirms: We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable (. . . oute prosthenai tis ouden oute aphelein auto¯n oute metathenai tetolme¯ken); and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as the decrees of God, to abide by them, and if need be, cheerfully to die for them.26

Stressing the readiness of the Jewish people for martyrdom,27 the adoptive son of the Flavii means to call to mind the recent catastrophe of the years 67–72 C. E., when the symbol of Jewish observance, the Temple was destroyed and thousands of Jews, who escaped death, were deported. However, the attentive reader could not overlook that Josephus is stressing here the “observance” of the Torah, in agreement with 26

Josephus, Contra Apionem I:42. See Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), and recently Alyssa M. Gray, “A Contribution to the Study of Martyrdom and Identity in the Palestinian Talmud”, Journal of Jewish Studies 54 (2003): 242–272. 27

10

introduction

his source, Deuteronomy 4:2, which speaks of lishmor, the ethical commitment to the commandments, given to Moses during the wandering in the desert. Josephus’ theory of the transmission of the Torah is also corroborated by the Rabbinic tractate “Chapters of the Fathers” (Pirqe Avot): Moses received the Torah on Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the prophets; and the prophets transmitted it to the men of the kneset ha-gedolah (Great Assembly). They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence round the Torah. Simeon the Just was one of the last survivors of the Great Assembly. He used to say: By three things is the world sustained: by the Torah, by the (Temple) service, and by deeds of loving kindness.

Seen from the point of view of the history of the canon, the Torah is handed down to the early and latter prophets (mesarah) until the men of the Great Assembly at the time of Ezra. From then on, there is not a process of massoret (transmission of the Torah) but of qabbalat Torah and limmud torah (receiving and learning of the Torah). Ezra is the end point of the tradition of the written Torah (massoret), while the men of the Great Assembly around him advised people to “be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples and make a fence round the Torah”, all the essential and fundamental tasks (and self-understanding) of Rabbinic academies as judges, teachers and scribes. A very similar position is supported by Josephus. Speaking of the entire chain of tradition, “where there is no discrepancy”, he ends with the period of Artaxerses, while the record starting from this period to his time “has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets”.28 The reader cannot help supposing here that Josephus is defending his account of the history of the Jews, claimed as the exact report of the event contrasted with the inaccuracy of others. On the other hand, it would be erroneous to believe that he is describing the state of the Jewish library, something like a canon of the “Bible”, although he transmits the number of 22 books which becomes the canonical one. We should not attach too much significance to the factor “number of books”, since Josephus in his Contra Apionem is contrasting the validity and authority of Homer and his 22 books. His apology is directed against the trustfulness of the Greek records and historians by shielding 28

Josephus, Contra Apionem I:41.

torah as the unique gift

11

the moral virtue of the Jewish history/prophecy as an accurate retelling of the past and faithful observance of the laws of God. The laws revealed to Moses are the centre of his apologia, and they are also the reason why a Jew is ready to sacrifice his life. The laws of Moses are the education every Jew received every Shabbat: He (Moses) appointed the Law to be the most excellent and necessary form of instruction (paideuma), ordaining, not that it should be heard once for all or twice or on several occasions, but that every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Law and to obtain a thorough and accurate (akribo¯s) knowledge of it, a practise which all other legislators seem to have neglected.29

The cognitive process is an educative project (lishmor means both to observe and to learn) which consists of the adherence to the written letters with the aim of reaching a perfect knowledge or of fully achieving the perfect observance of the Torah. There is no progress in the revelation of the Torah (qabbalat Torah), only progress in the knowledge of the individual in his process of learning (limmud Torah). The teacher is the mediator of wisdom and at same time the one who oversteps the distance between the Torah on Sinai and the present of the (oral and written) texts. That is the hermeneutical reason why I called this conception “traditional pattern”, because there is no perfect transmission of the whole Torah to the following generations, as the Babylonian Talmud affirms “The mind of the former is like the entrance into an arcade, the mind of the latter is like the eye of a needle.”30 What I have just tried to define here is in nuce the Rabbinic conception of revelation (and of canon) which presupposes the epiphany on Sinai and the gift of the whole Torah for the Sinai generation and all succeeding ones. The written as well oral Torah had been given as an inheritance to the Jewish people whose task was to observe, explain, and transmit it to the present and future generations. This conception affects all the Hebrew canon of the first five books though not necessarily the others. These never had the same position, degree and honour of the Mosaic Torah. Only in the case of the written Torah is it valid

29

Josephus, Contra Apionem II:175. Talmud Bavli Eruvin 53a. The conviction of the superiority of the “former generations” plays an epistemological role in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, see Azariah de’ Rossi, Me or Enayim, Imre Bina 14 (ed. David Cassel, p. 196), and my article “The Humanist Sense of History and the Jewish Idea of Tradition: Azaria de’ Rossi’s Critique of Philo Alexandrinus”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 2 (1995): 390–391. 30

12

introduction

that every element, verse, every crown on the letters has a deep meaning which has to be interpreted in its context. Every written sign is like a seed sown in the field of knowledge: it will yield fruit, each according to its kind and time. Jewish hermeneutics is the inner need to explain everything in a logical and continuous way. Ancient Jewish exegesis can be termed the hermeneutic concretisation of and vital reaction to a diffuse timor vacui.31 Against the background of the sacred reverence for the material text of the Torah, the letter, the signs, the words, the crown on the letter and the number of letters and words, and their meaning for the development of ideas and of mystical as well as cosmogonic theories, scholars of biblical literature have interpreted the story of the Mikra as inclined already from the beginning to canonization, or to protect the traditional order of verses, chapters and books. The protection of the text is confirmed, on the other hand, by the development of biblical text of the Pentateuch which is basically uniform––in so far as we can judge on the basis of the history of the text, and the critica textus. Yet, the historical and philological argument is not as cogent as the history of exegesis would like to have it. For the accent on the written and oral Torah as the entire tradition is not only an ideological starting point of Rabbinic Judaism but also an exegetical, programmatic affirmation of all Judaism down to the 19th century. It is necessary to emphasize that the absolute majority of Jewish exegetical treatises (Midrashim) deal with the Humash (Pentateuch) and very little with the other books. This statistical˙ argument is the more cogent the more the Aramaic translations of the Bible (Targumin) are also taken into consideration. There are indeed only a few works and traditions dealing with the Prophets as well as with wisdom writings. That is not merely accidental but intentional, since the Prophets, Psalms and wisdom books form a link in the chain of the tradition, not the expression of the whole, like the Pentateuch. They are de facto only “special” comments on the Torah. We will return to the attitude of the author of the Greek prologue to Ben Sira as media propaganda. Here it is sufficient to stress 31

There is a rich literature on biblical hermeneutics; for recent developments, see Günter Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 8th edition (München: Beck, 1992): 25–40; Martin Hengel and Hermut Lohr, eds., Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994); Hendrik M. Vroom, ed., Holy Scriptures in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997); Gerhard Bodendorfer, ed., Bibel und Midrasch. Zur Bedeutung der rabbinischen Exegese für die Bibelwissenschaft (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998).

torah as the unique gift

13

that there is not enough literary and historical proofs for a tripartite canon, as commonly believed, because the two other parts are a corollary to the first one. Read in the perspective of Christian canon, as mentioned above, the tripartite canon formula is nothing but an intensification of revelation until Christ, which marks the end of the revelation. In this case, the hermeneutical pyramid is, of course, inverted: from the plurality of original interpretations to the text of the (Christian) truth. This conception naturally includes all expressions of wisdom, philosophy and sciences up to the revelation of Jesus, and stopped there. All the phenomena prior to Christian scripture are praeparatio evangelica in Eusebian terminology. The attempt to read the history of canon as the development of the so-called tripartite form of Torah-ProphetsWritings, a theory which is commonly and erroneously attributed to ancient Judaism, is nothing but a corollary aspect of the qabbalat Torah, by no means an indication of a progressive process of revelation. The traditional pattern does not explain the rise and decline of books and traditions in Judaism. It is only a conviction, mythical in nature, of a glorious and fundamental act of revelation of a paradigm (the written Torah) and a revolutionary element, the hermeneutics and the contents of the oral tradition. As an act of hermeneutics, this pattern is based on the authority of the Rabbi as an active member of the chain of the tradition. A word should be said about the final shape of the 22 books in Judaism. No one can deny that they have a special status irrespective of whether the Pentateuch is considered more “canonical” than the other corpora. The special status is a product of centuries and of influence of various schools and Rabbis, an influence which has little to do with their original texts and collected sayings. They had a special status because they had a history of tradition and commentary and not because they were in the canon of the books. Modern scholars of the biblical canon and canon process should notice that the only list of books present in Rabbinic sources is transmitted by the Babylonian Talmud and not in other Tannaitic tractates. The fact that the tradition of Talmud Bavli Bava Batra 14b–15a, where a precise list of Prophets and Hagiographa as well as the question of the authorship is handed down as Tannaitic teaching (tanu rabbanan), should not hide the other indisputable truth that no Tannaitic source confirms any list and number of books.32 Also here, modern scholars do not often distinguish be32

List and sources in Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, 51–56.

14

introduction

tween the existence of books and their importance and political weight in Rabbinic teaching. The reasons for the list of the 22 books and their importance in the history of the Jewish hermeneutics are not only their “inspiration” and “holiness” but also the hermeneutic readiness of these books to be commented upon and understood in the flow of the tradition. The main cause behind canonization is doubtless the particular interest of the leading forces among Rabbinic movements for transmitting these books instead of others (as proven by the history of the Song of the Songs and Kohelet). Yet, students of the history of late antiquity should not underestimate the pressure of new “sects” and sectarian groups which automatically provoke an answer in “orthodox” communities. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that the list of Bava Batra imitates similar Christian lists of the 3–5th centuries (Epiphanius, for example) which also circulated in Aramaic (or Syrian). The history of Christian influences on Rabbinic texts (and not only of the contracts between Jews and Christians) is a chapter which should be (re)written. If a Christian influence or imitation is not to be fully excluded, the Baraita of Bava Batra can be better understood as an imitation of available lists of Hebrew books among Christian or Gnostic groups, or as a response to them, as for example the (late) Midrash Pesiqta Rabbati 533 proves. Instead of speaking of a canon of exclusion/inclusion of books because of sectarianism, one should take into consideration the possibility of the re-appropriation of traditions and texts which the “others” claimed for themselves. Imitation and re-appropriation, as literary and intellectual categories known above all in the Renaissace, should also be applied to the Rabbinic period.

Canon as Censorship The second explanation is directly opposed to the traditional way because it interprets history as a history of violence: “canon” is more and more meant to be tantamount to censorship,34 i. e. the authoritative 33

For the text see below, p. 98. To my knowledge, only one book of collected essays focuses on the theoretical question of canon and censorship, see Aleida and Jan Assmann, eds., Kanon und Zensur II. Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation (München: Fink 1987). However, criticism against canon as censorship is present in almost all the scholarly works concerned with canon, see for example Charles Altieri, “An Idea and Ideal of a Literary Canon”, Critical Inquiry 10 (1984): 37–60. 34

canon as censorship

15

power of some members of the religious community which did not desist from selecting a book and pushing through their interpretation of texts, even intervening in the textual transmission by cutting off every text or tradition dissonant with their ideology. Following this perspective, the canonization is nothing but an instrument for the subjugation of marginal groups and “sects” and their scriptures. The canonization of the Torah was, accordingly, nothing but an answer to the Samaritan schism, while the closure of the prophetic canon as well as the “rejection” of the Septuagint was first an offensive act against the birth of Christianity and then of the Gnostic “sects”. The Rabbinic discussion of sifre minim (translated as “books of the heretics”) and on sefarim hisonim (translated as “profane books”) is commonly accepted as proof ˙of˙ a way of distancing themselves from the religion or sect. My conviction is that modern scholarship since the Enlightenment constantly tends to emphasize the negative dimension of canonization as a linear way of interpretation. Or to put it differently: after having rejected as naive the ancient theological belief in the harmonious gift of divine revelation, we construct a negative history of the texts by devaluing past literature as treacherous and perfidious. Irrespective of the question as to whether our scientific arsenal is really a suitable instrument to gain perfect and true knowledge of ancient texts and history, it goes without saying that every literary process is noteworthy in itself––and not because it confirms more or less our idea of the past. The canon of books and the common textus receptus offered the material for subsequent theology and philosophy. That the “canonization” process automatically requires a decision by an authority is as self-evident as the history of preservation of books and documents in the Genizah. The crucial question is whether storing the “canonical” books automatically means burning the “heretical” documents, as for example Moshe Halbertal maintains,35 or whether neglecting use and commentary is the very reason of its decanonization, i. e. deconstruction of their validity for the present and the future generations. A consequence of negative, destructive canonization is the clear separation of the Old and New Testament also echoed by the pronunciation of the Tetragramm, used in Christian literature. The God of the Jews, JHWH is not more reliable than the GOD of the Christians. The understanding of separation is also echoed in the modern translation of

35

Halbertal, People of the Book, 4–5 and passim.

16

introduction

the Old Testament where the name of the “Jewish” God is spelled out, perhaps as an “enlightened” sort of education about ancient Israel and its cult(s) against the tendency of enlightened German scholarship of the 18th and 19th century, as personified by Johann David Michaelis. The German scholar did not refrain from fully censoring the Song of the Songs, eliminating it from the German translation of the Bible on the grounds that erotic love was so prominent that he did not want to present it.36 The historical-critical tendency of enlightened scholars intended, thus, to deconstruct the canon of ancient hermeneutics. Restoring the ancient context means here decanonizing it. Opposed to the vision of canon as censorship is Haran’s theory of canon as a work of anthologization of the traditions already esteemed as sacred and thus canonical.37 According to him, the work of the compilers consisted of including all the traditions present to them. With regard to the Pentateuch, the principal object of his hypothesis, this could surely explain double stories (of the creation, for example) and double legislations on the same topics (for example the Decalogue), in the end all the repetitions included in the Torah. But what about the original contexts? The theory of sources, borne out in the past century, also presupposes a process of anthologization, though by cutting off the original text and context. If the work of the scribe was only to collect all the vital traditions of the past, one should ascribe to him/to his group an extreme authority capable of imposing his text on all the community. The talmudic and midrashic tradition, which can also be termed as anthological, shows that parallel traditions can be used for different corpora (the various Midrashim, the material present in Mishnah and Midrash, in Talmud of the land of Israel and of Babylonia etc.) which were both authoritative and canonical at the same time. The formation of the canon of the five books was of course a result of an authoritative decision, which by including and excluding material offered a text, suitable for consensus among priests, scribes (and scholars) and the people, as the corpus of Ezra-Nehemiah reports. Only the (annual?) reading of the past traditions provided the occasion to preserve the traditional text, as Deuteronomy 31:9–13 states and 36 Johann David Michaelis, Deutsche Übersetzung des Alten Testaments mit Anmerkungen für Ungelehrte. Der zwölfte Theil (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1758): XXIV: “. . . mir die Gemahle von Liebe so vorkommen, da ich sie nicht meinen Lesern zugleich mit der Bibel vorlegen möchte”. 37 Haran, The Biblical Collection, vol. 1, 28–54; brief summary in Stern, “On Canonization”, 230–231.

deconstruction and decanonization

17

2 Kings 22–23 and Ezra 7:12–26 illustrate.38 By reading before the people, the text in its whole could be preserved as crystallized tradition. A change of such proclaimed text was de facto impossible. This could be said only for the Pentateuch and not for all the other books, simply because only the Pentateuch was considered “canonical” by reading (see chapter 1 in this book). This cannot be said about any of the other texts. Liturgical reading is the distinctive mark of the so-called Rabbinic understanding of canon. This aspect is to be inferred from the most quoted mishnaic text according to which “one who reads the excluded books (ha-qore bi-sfarim hisonim) has no share in the future world”.39 ˙ ˙ Judaism does not intend excluding books As noted by others, Rabbinic and their private reading, but does forbide their use in the synagogue with the same tune and therefore the same authority reserved to liturgical reading. The liturgical reading was first possible when the biblical text of the Torah (and related books) was written in a particular way (in Assyrian characters, on parchment, and in ink).40 Only these texts have the distinctiveness of “defiling the hands”,41 namely are subjected to the laws of purity reserved for liturgical material. In a discussion between Sadducees and Pharisees, as narrated and formulated in this context in Mishnah Yadayim 4:6, the distinctiveness of the liturgical books does not affect the books of Homer, which––although highly honoured and well-known in Rabbinic as well as Greco-Roman schools––do not fulfil the prerequisites of “defiling the hands”. Here, Rabbinic texts speak of kitve ha-qodesh (Holy Scriptures or Scriptures of the Holy) in comparison to the “Books of Homer”. Such a discussion is only possible 1) if both books had the same or comparable authority and 2) if the question of Homer’s use in teaching and liturgy has been raised. There are no traces here of censorship.

Deconstruction and Decanonization: A Paradigmatic Model A new perspective of canonization is offered by the modern theory of deconstruction, if understood as instrument elaborated and developed by ancient scholars (scribes, Rabbis, etc.) for preserving texts, tradi38 39 40 41

See here the first chapter, pp. 26 f. Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1. Mishnah Yadayim 4:5. On this expression, see my Gegenwart der Tradition, 34–36.

18

introduction

tions, and books by introducing or excluding some elements in the texts which regulate and guide their interpretation. A tradition transmitted in a Midrash is of hermeneutic value in this context: Wherefore are the dots (in the biblical text)? Nay, thus said Ezra: If Elijah will come and say, why didst thou write them? I shall say unto him: I have already put dots over them. And if he will say: Thou hast written well, I shall remove the dots from over them.42

The perfect scribe, Ezra, did not hesitate to change the text of the Torah if the prophet Elijah praises him for his work. Prophecy is here clearly seen as opposed to transmission, or in other words, scribal authority is based authoritatively only on itself. The interaction of text and exegesis of the text, also present in the text itself,43 reveals the existence of other texts not included in the “final” directory of the Mikra. Before I go into details, some word should be said on the theory of deconstruction with regard to the process of canonization. The impact of theories of a negative process on texts and what is around the texts is sometimes as fertile as other methods of producing and interpreting textual and meta-textual documents or entities of meaning. That is also the case with deconstruction and decanonization, words whose negative meaning has been created by prefixing “de-” to a systemic structure of enquiry like “construction” and to an epistemological item of literary significance like the “canon”. There is no doubt that the deconstruction theory of Jacques Derrida, a product of literary structuralism and philosophical adherence to or simply use of Nietzscheanism, influenced almost every further theory of the text and their impact on the reader in recent decades. It also affected biblical and Jewish studies, although with different accentuations and results, and seems to be an accepted method (alas poor Derrida!)44 of reading texts and contexts. Yet, deconstruction is not a way of understanding and, at the same time, undermining processes of learning, like the pars destruens of the philosophical scholastic school, but something which happens inside of the history of literary affirmative action whose main result is the trans42 Midrash Ba-Midbar Rabbah 3:3 in the English translation of Moses H. Segal, “The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the Hebrew Bible”, Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1953): 42. There is also a commentary on the text there. 43 See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985). 44 It is well-known that Derrida did not speak of deconstruction as “method”.

deconstruction and decanonization

19

mitted literary and cultural canon.45 This last point is not in tune with the position of Derrida, who refuses a canon. It is for him perfectly indifferent whether an ancient text of Greek philosophy or gender study is taken as an object of research. From my point of view, we cannot speak of text without a canon. For canon is the decisive intervention in the texts with the clear aim to uproot them from their particular situation, a sort of de-construction to preserve these texts for “immortality”. According to ancient and medieval opinion, every text has a life something like that of the human being with an origin, a development, a mature activity and ending in death. Only a small number of texts can be realized as “important”. We cannot read all the texts produced nor select them by chance. Every educative project relies on the principle of canonical selection and that is why we read Plato and Aristotle instead of others (probably at their time also influential) authors who have left little trace. My third explanation of the “canonical” process does not arise from a continuous growth of canonical interest in Judaism. Rather it tries to analyse the single book, tradition, or piece of tradition and their “life”. The ancient stoic conviction, present for example in Philo of Alexandria, speaks of the word as “living body” with an origin, an apex and often a death. It was also the destiny of a book. Terentius Maurus, an African Latin grammarian of the 2nd century, authored the well-known adage fata sua habent libelli, unfortunately often quoted without the first three words: Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli: “the books have their fate which depends on the power of comprehension of the reader”.46 That the reader decides on the fortunes of a book, is a hermeneutic, political and religious truth which cannot be stressed often enough. A Christian medieval author, Pierre de Blois,47 proposed to raise the reader to the highest possible level of religious hermeneutics, the divine, capable of re-vitalizing dead letters,48 a conviction 45 On the use and abuse of Derrida, see the very useful introduction of Jack Reynolds, ed., Understanding Derrida (New York, London: Continuum, 2004). According to Nikolaus Wegmann, “Dekonstruktion”, in Reallexikon der Deutschen Literaturwissenschaft [Neubearbeitung des Reallexikons der deutschen Literaturgeschichte, ed. Klaus Weimar (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1997), vol. 1: 334–337, modern students should research “die Anleihen der Dekonstruktion bei der jüdischen Schriftgelehrsamkeit bzw. beim theologischen Denken”. 46 Terentius Maurus (2nd century C. E.), De literis, syllabis et metris, 1:1286. 47 Pierre de Blois, Epistula XCII ad Reginaldum Episcopum (Patrologia Latina 207: 290): “. . . quasi jam mortuas in quamdam novitatem essentiae suscitamus”. For a hermeneutical evaluation of this text, see my Gegenwart der Tradition, XIV–XVI.

20

introduction

which we can find expressed down to the baroque era in Judaism too.49 The power of comprehension is the capacity of the reader to evoke the presence and the absence of the transmission of ideas, but it is also up to him whether a book can get the necessary attention for being creative and stimulating. The power of a book depends less on its more precise and accurate reproduction of meaning but rather on its ability to convey the conviction that it has a meaning at all. It goes without saying that speculations on the transmission of Socratic and Platonic ideas were and are much more fertile than the exact analysis of original texts by Socrates and Plato (the ipsissima dicta). This interaction itself has a story and a course which is decisive for the survival of the book. Ancient scribes and scholarly works should be characterized as having the task of dismantling the founding texts, not only of founding their exegetical discoveries on ancient texts. The task of the modern scholar is to find how the textual transmission works and only by looking for the essential elements in classifying, storing and re-working ancient texts can we ascertain the reason why they transmitted these and not other texts. As stated above, although very interesting results have been achieved in the area of biblical and Rabbinic exegesis, theology and anthropology, the main question of canonization of the Bible and Rabbinic literature remains unanswered.50 This state of affairs results first from the absence of reference to the scholarly achievements of the 19th century which paved the way in Jewish studies down to the present era. Second, from the modern scholarly separation of biblical sciences from talmudic studies and their hermeneutical inner dimension. A very intriguing theory of canonization as deconstruction of (original?) context was the first literary theory on the growth of the biblical canon as expressed by the “father” of the German Science of Judaism (Wissenschaft des Judentums), Leopold Zunz (1794–1886), mainly based on 48 That is the hermeneutical consequence of the topos “nos quasi nani”; see my “The Humanist Sense of History”, 372–393, and Jeffrey R. Woolf, “Between Diffidence and Initiative: Ashkenazic Legal Decision-Making in the Late Middle Ages (1350–1500)”, Journal of Jewish Studies 52 (2001): 85–97. 49 See Avraham Portaleone, De Auro dialogi tres (Venice: a Porta, 1584), at the beginning of the 3rd dialogue; for a commentary see Alessandro Guetta, “Avraham Portaleone, le scientifique repenti”, in Torah et science: perspectives historiques et the´oriques. E´tudes offertes a` Charles Touati, ed. Gad Freudenthal and Jean-Pierre Rothschild (Paris, Louvain: Peeters 2001): 221–223. 50 I do not think that this state of the question is a matter of consensus in definition as Stephen B. Chapman put it: “. . . at the present there exists no real consensus in the field at all about how to define the term ‘canon’”, in “How the Biblical Canon Began: Working Models and Open Questions”, in Finkelberg, ed., Homer, the Bible, and Beyond, 35.

deconstruction and decanonization

21

the Rabbinic understanding of canon. A little known introduction by Zunz to a new translation of the Song of Songs (Shir ha-Shirim), posed the question of the canonization of this love composition in following terms: For more than a millennium and a half, the meaning and significance of the Song of Songs has been sought in a distant place [far from its original context, GV], seeking the solution to the supposed riddle in all sorts of human knowledge [i. e. between the soul and God, GV] and in national relations [between Israel and God, GV]. This riddle was not something offered by the contents of the poem but rather by its place in (the canon of) Holy Scripture, of which a competitive song of tender did not appear to be a worthy text. But when the poet composed this song, the language had not yet died the painful death of the “Holy language” [some time after the composition of the Bible, GV]. Those who first took delight in its words did not know anything of the symbolic meaning of canonical books. It was necessary to cast off the dream which saw theological doctrines in those verses, rising to a genuine hermeneutics.51

Leopold Zunz’ genial intuition on the process of canonization and transmission of the text had no impact in Biblical and Jewish study until Arnold Goldberg52 developed the same thesis on the growth of biblical (and Rabbinic) literature, speaking of “Entkontextualiserung” as the premise of the canonization,53 a process of de-contextualizing.54 51 Leopold Zunz, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Curatorium der Zunzstiftung (Berlin: Louis Gerschel Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1875) vol. 1, 142: “Länger als ein und ein halbes Jahrtausend hat man in weiter Ferne des hohen Liedes Sinn und Bedeutung, und in mancherlei menschlichen Erkenntnissen und nationalen Beziehungen die Lösung des vermeintlichen Räthsels gesucht. Dieses Räthsel bot nicht der Inhalt der Dichtung dar, sondern ihr Platz unter den heiligen Schriften, deren ein Wettgesang zärtlicher Liebe nicht würdig schien. Aber als der Dichter sang, war die Sprache noch nicht den schmerzhaften Tod der heiligen gestorben, und die ersten, die sich am dem Liede ergötzten, wussten noch nichts von sinnbildlicher Deutung kanonischer Bücher. Man musste endlich aus dem Traum, der theologische Lehrsätze unter jenen Versen sah, zur ächter Hermeneutik erwachen”. 52 The first to note this hermeneutical consonance was the biographer of Zunz, Ce´line Trautmann-Waller, Philologie allemande et tradition juive. Le parcours intellectuel de Leopold Zunz (Paris: Du Cerf 1998): 194. 53 Arnold Goldberg, “Die Zerstörung von Kontext als Voraussetzung für die Kanonisierung religiöser Texte im rabbinischen Judentum”, in Assmann, ed., Kanon und Zensur II, 202–211. 54 David M. Carr, “The Song of Songs as a Mirror of the Canonization and Decanonization Process”, in van der Kooij, ed., Canonization and Decanonization, 173–189, focuses on some very important aspects of the question without mentioning either Eichhorn or Zunz. On the other side, the author does not clearly explain what is meant by speaking of decanonization with regard to the Song of Songs, a poem where God does not appear.

22

introduction

Of course, modern scholars concur that we no longer have the original context of the original texts.55 But the intriguing point of Zunz’ and Goldberg’s thesis, however, is that this was also the purpose of the (later) redactors/co-authors of the text. Trying to restoring the original historical context of books, traditions and texts, we do the work of decanonization to such an extent that they do not have the same value as an ancient reader attributed to them. This process of “decanonization” by deconstructing texts and traditions is, however, not a new literary phenomenon, but goes back to Rabbinic period, as I try to explain below.

The Present Study: Several Concrete Examples of Decanonization The main assumption of the present study is that we cannot research the development of the ancient authoritative intervention in the Bible text without taking into consideration those texts and traditions which were once canonical and then lost their “canonicity”. Rabbinic authorities show a particular interest in the text(s), which becomes the definitive one. However, there are some written or oral traditions which are considered or condemned to be “marginal”, not authoritative for liturgy and scholarly teaching, not important enough to be transmitted partly or fully. Their destiny was, on the contrary, to be severed from their context or, alternatively, their context from the own texts. We are speaking here not of “objectively” marginalized texts56––as the traditionally so-called “external books” (sefarim hisonim), but of texts ˙˙ which once had been highly authoritative and therefore chiefly capable of tradition, the main characteristics for being memorized, transmitted and commented being a part of the tradition. I have chosen three traditions/texts which are by no means exhaustive but surely can serve as examples: the anonymous translation of the Pentateuch, called the Septuagint, the authored translation of the whole Hebrew Bible by Aquila the Proselyte and finally the authored 55 See e. g. Peter R. Ackroyd, “Original Text and Canonical Text”, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 32 (1977): 166–173. 56 There are texts which did not claim to be valid for the entire community, as for instance the report of the Pseudo-Aristeas (written for the Jewish community of Alexandria). There are other texts claimed to be universally valid, as for example the apocalyptic works, but which were not enough known, or were damned to silence.

the present study

23

text of the Wisdom by Jesus ben Sira. All three texts have something common: the claim of canonicity/authority and the method of producing texts instead of commentary on extant texts. The Greek translation of the Torah, the so-called Septuagint,57 and the Greek translation of Aquila, the proselyte, were, according to ancient Christian sources, the bone of contention between the Church fathers and the Rabbis. Christian authors report the belief that the Septuagint was divinely inspired as God inspired Moses to write down the Torah on Mt. Sinai. In a similar way, seventy-two or seventy translators, assembled near the library of Alexandria, provided a perfect reproduction of the Hebrew text. Aquila, a later Greek translator of the Bible, was, on the contrary, viewed as the expression of Jewish obstinacy against the eternal validity of the Septuagint, considered as a prophetic testimony of Christian religion. The vivid interest in this translation is fully confirmed by the history of transmission. For while the Septuagint, thanks to the Christian tradition, remains one of the best attested texts of antiquity, the translation of Aquila is extant only in a fragmentary form. Neither Church fathers nor the Rabbinic authorities had any interest in transmitting the whole version(s) of the proselyte, although Aquila was very skilled in his art. Rabbinic Judaism mentions only some Hebrew “translations” or texts of the “Torah for the King Ptolemy” (Talmai in Hebrew) and a small number of “translations” or targumin by Aquila into Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew (!). The Proverbs of Ben Sira, transmitted partly by the Church fathers and medieval sources and partly but fragmentarily from Rabbinic and medieval Judaism, have known a similar fortune: their beginnings were marked by esteem and authority, in the end they experienced rejection by the Rabbinic academy, at least in Babylonia. Ancient and modern scholarship follows here a very simple scheme of explanation: the confrontations between Christian and Jews are considered to be the main reason for the ascent and descent of books in Rabbinic and Christian evaluation. In other words: the Christian adoption of Greek Torah was the reason for Jewish rejection of it, and Aquila’s revision of the Septuagint was the polemical alternative to the 57 The name “Septuaginta” or in Latin numerals “LXX” refers to the number of the translators in the traditional narrative pertaining to this translation. Although the tradition vacillates between seventy and seventy-two, it is customary to term their translation Septuagint, as Augustine of Hippo already said: “quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta vocetur, iam obtinuit consuetudo”, in De Civitate Dei XVIII:42 (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 48): 638.

24

introduction

Christian use and abuse of Hellenistic literary production. There is no well-argued explanation for the decline of Aquila and the persistence of Ben Sira in Rabbinic and medieval Judaism. The main assumption of the present study is that the ascent and decline of books has something to do with the moving forces of community and their leaders and little with polemical attitudes to other “confessions”, and “sectarian” teaching. That is the story of the Jewish evaluation of the Greek Torah, Aquila, and Ben Sira as I will try to elucidate below. These texts were once very important, then lost their importance and were substituted by other texts. For canon is not static, but a dynamic aspect of texts and traditions. The question I attempt to answer here concerns the inner dynamics (or historical-literary moving spirit) of the traditions about the Septuagint and Aquila in Patristic literature and Rabbinic Judaism and the historical context of the re-interpretation of the Septuagint as a written Hebrew text for the Egyptian King Ptolemy in Rabbinic sources.58 We will search for Rabbinic contexts for texts which are not extant or only transmitted fragmentarily in the sources we are dealing with. The first hypothesis I would like to introduce already at this early juncture is that the lack or the presence of a tradition is a consequence of the process of canonization. According to both Christian and Jewish sources, canonization is not a product of literary or historical coincidence (as the discoveries of Qumran and its documentary sources), but a historical process of conscious and effective influence on contemporary theology and the history of ideas. I attempt to answer the fundamental question of the canonization and de-canonization of the Septuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in Judaism and Christianity. My earlier studies on the reception of the Septuagint in Jewish-Hellenistic and Rabbinic Judaism and on the translation of Aquila according to Rabbinic sources (see bibliography) have been totally reworked for the present study with regard to the question of how the process of deconstruction actually works, or how Rabbinic Judaism and Christian Patristic experienced and, at the same time, de-authorized the past traditions. This book addresses three aspects of (de)canonization: (1) the process of canonization of the Greek Torah in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian tradition (first chapter) and its decanonization in Rabbinic

58

See the section 1.2, below pp. 42ff. and section 2, pp. 101–147.

the present study

25

literature (second chapter). Two complementary aspects of the traditions about the Septuagint are examined: the importance of ancient libraries for canonizing and decanonizing cultural areas and traditions and the Jewish and Christian apologetic claim of antiquity in favour of Jewish law. (2) The use and abuse of the translation(s) of Aquila in Patristic and Rabbinic literature and the substitution of Aquila by Onkelos in Rabbinic Babylonian academies (third chapter). In this context we will face the complementary aspect of the Jewish-Hellenistic and Rabbinic understanding of “tradition” and “translation”. Finally, I treat the book of Jesus ben Sira according to the Greek prologue to the book and Rabbinic literature (fourth chapter).

1. LIBRARIES AND CANON: ASCENT AND DECLINE OF THE GREEK TORAH . . . it is but natural that when people are not flourishing their belongings to some degree are under a cloud. Philo of Alexandria on the impact of the Greek Torah on non-Jewish world1

Ancient libraries were a privileged centre of learning, teaching and research, an academy comparable to modern universities and research centres. They had also a cultic dimension, often located in a or the temple. By entrusting a book/scroll or a simple document to the temple, an ancient scholar or group of scholars pursued to give it a two-fold function, intrinsically conjoined: to publish it as well as to have a guaranteed controlled storage of the author’s text. In the temple, the scrolls were preserved in order to have an authorized copy in the frequent case of controversy or argument about legal, historical, liturgical documents, customs and traditions. There, a college or advisory board was instituted to keep an eagle eye on the texts & scrolls to safeguard the literary past and its present actualisation for future generations. This historical background regarding ancient libraries can shed light on the historical frames of Deuteronomy 31:9–13 where the Torah of Moses is handed over to the priests, to the sons of Levi and to the Elders with the duty of reading it “at the end of every seven years . . . before them in their hearing . . .”. The procedure, followed also in the book of Ezra 7:12–26 and in the proclamation of the Greek Torah in the so-called letter of Aristeas (see below), is intended to be a publication of the text of the Torah and official proclamation of the observance of the commandments, both meant as a means to educate the people. However, this cultic procedure can also be interpreted as control of the text and its actualisation before a public audience: The act of reading before an audience is a guarantee that the text will be safeguarded against arbitrary changes. Moreover, the story of the scrolls, “discovered” by Josiah in 2 Kings 22–23 followed a similar logic, i. e. to 1

De Vita Mosis II:43.

ascent and decline of the greek torah

27

illustrate fictively the event of “reading in their hearing” the word of the book found in the temple in the presence of Elders, the priest and the prophets. Reading and hearing2 was the ancient way to propose and accept the authoritative actualisation of the effective tradition. Libraries were tantamount to what today is called “canon”, namely the authoritative, inclusive, exclusive, selective tradition and corresponding texts. In Judaism, the need to have a select shelf of scrolls was felt as vital the more it experienced an identity crisis through exile (for example the Babylonian captivity) and inner political destabilisation. The identity crisis was naturally not the main reason for the establishment of authoritative books. The Hellenistic culture, for example, infused every corner of ancient life and with its centre in Alexandria created a library of “classical” texts with the obvious intention of propagating a select shelf of the classics of Greek culture as a norm. The Greek translation of the Jewish literary and legal tradition, the Torah, into Greek at the beginning of the 3th century B. C. E. should be understood in this context, i. e. as a reaction to the canonization of the Greek culture, or as the creation of a canon of “classical” texts, normative in every aspect of cultural and daily life. For Jewish-Hellenistic communities, the Greek translation of the Torah represents the magna charta, the foundation document of their identity as a cultural minority within a “pagan” environment. The relatively voluminous production of Greek literary, philosophical and religious works from the (mainly Alexandrian) Diaspora can be explained as a corollary effect of the Septuagint edition, viewed as a publication reflecting Jewish wisdom and its heritage. For subsequent Christian writers, the Greek Torah and Jewish-Hellenistic literature constitutes the theological, philosophical and even lexicological basis for their developments in the intellectual and religious tradition. The theory of the inspiration of the Septuagint, arising from the speculations of Philo of Alexandria and borne out in Christian sources, is nothing but a claim of canonicity which aims to confirm the importance of the translation for Christian identity. The story of the circumstances which led to the translation of the Torah into Greek is commonly called the legend of the Septuagint. The term legend (from Latin legenda) originates in medieval liturgical 2 A very interesting late parallel is the procedure of the listening to texts as described by Stefan Leder, Spoken Word and Written Text: Meaning and Social Significance of the Institution of Riwa¯ya (Tokyo: Islamic Area Studies Project, 2002).

28

libraries and canon

practises of celebrating birthdays or death-days of saints by reading their life and miracles (probably a literary development of martyrologium and necrologium). It originally involves literary-historiographical and cultural factors: on the one hand, it is a hagiographical liturgical text which has to be read for stimulating morality and devotion, a kind of ethic and religious incentive; and it is also a literary model/pattern of virtue to be expanded, or shortened, embellished or re-worked according to actual historical, political, social perspectives and literary imagination.3 The first factor is of course of historical value in referring to historical, well known elements of the life of a saint, the second is of cultural importance because it involves the imagination of people in renarrating facts in tune with the needs of the present.4 Legends are important as historical and cultural hints illustrating the contingent situation storytellers and writers are confronted with, as mirrored by the elements which they composed, or changed and reinterpreted. Legends are in the main a literary celebration of something which cannot per definitionem be reached by common people, as the hagiographical legends show. Legends are, however, the free space to express oneself beyond the constraints of everyday life, an expression of memory without the official (liturgical) celebration of it. Every legend is also a literary play with elements arising from historical facts or historical coordinates, or at least reputed as such. The development of the literary elements is not purely arbitrary, because of the verifiability of the leading elements the storyteller presumes. The verifiability is presupposed by parenthetical formulae like “as everyone knows”, “as everybody can today see”, etc. These formulae should not obscure the fact the storyteller/writer is conscious of, namely that especially in regard to this point, his story can be considered weak and questionable and that is the reason why he tries to ensure himself against possible criticism by referring to the common verifiability of facts. This is a very important element of the legend of the Septuagint, especially in

3 Among the most popular legends of saints, particular mention should be made of the Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine for its influence on the successive literature; see Giovanni Paulo Maggioni, Ricerche sulla composizione e sulla trasmissione della “Legenda aurea” (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’ alto medioevo, 1995). 4 On the meaning of allegorical elements of legends, see David H. Brumble, Classical Myths and Legends in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. A Dictionary of Allegorical Meanings (London, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998); on modern research on legends, see Felix Karlinger, Legendenforschung. Aufgabe und Ergebnisse (Darmstadt: Buchgesellschaft, 1986).

ascent and decline of the greek torah

29

Christian sources, calling to mind the fact that everybody can verify the presence of the manuscript(s) of the (Greek) Torah in the library of Alexandria as a proof that the story is true. The charge of deceit against the story of the Septuagint did not originate in the modern period. Already in the so-called Cohortatio ad Graecos, attributed in the past to Justin the Martyr, the author asserts that the existence of the little cells where the translators translated the text is no legend or fairy-tale (mythos):5 for he was there and saw the remnants of the cells.6 With the notable exception of the church father Jerome, whose sharp assessment against the embellishments of the legend will be analysed below,7 criticisms against the legend of the Septuagint first appeared in the 16th century with Luis Juan Vives (1492–1540)8 and above all Justus J. Scaliger (1540–1609), who doubted the historical data of the story in its origins in Aristeas’ letter.9 In 1705, Humphrey Hody carefully checked the Aristeas’ report on the Septuagint, revealing its fictitious character.10 From then on we have the crystallization of a “legend” of the Septuagint. To avoid false conclusions on the nature of this legend, I have to stress already at the outset that the use and the abuse of a legend has little to do with its credibility and verifiability of the subjacent sources.

5

On the meaning of mythos in Patristic literature, see Adam Kamesar, “The Evaluation of the Narrative Aggada in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature”, Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1994): 37–71, passim; idem, “The Narrative Aggada as Seen from the Graeco-Latin Perspective”, Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994): 52–70. 6 See further details below, pp. 45–48. 7 See below, pp. 74–78. 8 In his commentary Augustinus Aurelius. De Civitate Dei libri XXII (Basileae: per Ambrosium et Aurelium Frobenios fraters, 1570): 1107, on Augustin, De Civitate Dei XVIII:42: “circumfertur libellus eius nomine de LXX interpretibus conficitus, ut puto, ab aliquo recentiore”. 9 Joseph Justus Scaliger, “Animadversiones in Chronologia Eusebii”, in idem, Thesaurus temporum Eusebii Pamphilii (Leiden: Commelinus, 1606): 122–125: “Omnes uno ore & Demetrium Phalereum curatorem Bibliothecae Philadelphi fuisse, & ex suggestu ejus sacros Hebraeorum libros conversos dicunt: cujus rei non parva mihi incessit admiratio, quum Demetrius Phalereus statim initio regni Philadelphi perierit, & maximo in odio ei semper sub Ptolemaeo Lagi fuerit”. See Jürgen C. H. Lebram, “Ein Streit um die hebräische Bibel und die Septuaginta”, in Leiden University in the Seventeenth Century. An Exchange of Learning, ed. Theodor Herman Lunsingh Scheurleer (Leiden: Universitaire Pers, 1975): 21–63. On Scaliger, see Anthony Grafton, Joseph Scaliger. A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship, vol. 1: Textual Criticism and Exegesis, vol. 2: Historical Chronology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983; 1993). 10 Humphrey Hody, “Contra historiam LXX interpretum Aristeae nominem inscriptum dissertatio” (1685), in idem, De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus, Versionibus Graecis (Oxonii: E Theatro Sheldoniano, 1705): 1–89.

30

libraries and canon

For a legend, considered in its literary form a “readable document” for the collective and public audience, is a political assessment in favour of virtue and piety (in the case of the saints) or an authoritative assurance for a precise form of text (in the case of legend of canonical relevance). The fortune of a legend depends, therefore, on the moving craft which supports the object of the legend. The deconstructive element of a legend does not rely on the historical weakness or even fictional nature of elements of its written or oral form, but on the political or cultural context. As interest in the object decreases, the legend loses its authority and reliability. I term this the factor of “vital dependence”. The authoritative reader of a legend, moreover, feels he can properly change, add and omit every element not in tune with his interpretation of the object of the legend. The reader identifies himself with the author and is more than a “lector in fabula”, as Umberto Eco terms him. He is even “auctor in fabula”, because he changes the text according his understanding and mind. The revision of a text, a legend, a tradition, cannot be ascribed to the literary genre of counterfeiting, as some modern authors maintain. For in faking a text or tradition, the agent is conscious of doing something against the author’s mind, while the authoritative reader thinks of doing something in consonance with the intention of the author. This element is called the factor of “hermeneutic appropriation”. The two factors of vital dependence and hermeneutic appropriation are the coordinates of my interpretation of the Septuagint and its legend in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian tradition, which I would define as a construction and deconstruction of hermeneutic past. A peculiarity of Jewish legends, as already noted by Louis Ginzberg, is their scriptural centrism or torahcentrism: “The Scripture, or, to use the Jewish term, the Torah”, Ginzberg adds, “was the only remnant of its former national independence, and the Torah was the magic means of making a sordid actuality recede before a glorious memory”.11

11 Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909): X. Ginzberg’s opinion deeply depends from Leopold Zunz’s approach to Jewish literature after the destruction of the second temple: “Israel Geschichte, abgeschlossen mit dem Untergange des jüdischen Staates, durch die Zerstreuung des Volkes erschwert, lag fertig da dem Auge der Gläubigen erkennbar . . . Die ehemalige Freiheit, mit dem Gesetzesstudium die Fortsetzung des politischen Lebens, die Uebung im Wissen des Rechten gleichsam ein Unterpfand der endlichen Befreiung”; in Leopold Zunz, Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie (Berlin: Gerschel, 1865; reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1966): 1.

jewish-hellenistic sources of the legend

31

That is indeed the centrepiece of the story of the Septuagint both in Jewish-Hellenistic/Christian and Rabbinic sources, as treated in the following. I will first try to do justice to the most common testimony of the legend in Jewish Hellenistic sources, and then venture in the second section of this chapter some reflections on the vexing question of the interpretation of the Septuagint and its story among Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian writers. A very peculiar aspect of the third section of the following chapter will be the task of delving into the connection between the legend of the Septuagint, the legend of the restoration of the poems of Homer and the restoration of the Torah by Ezra, the scribe. All three stories are legends of libraries, probably arising during the first century before and after the common era, which met each other at a special point in the development of the history of the canon of the Hebrew Bible around the second-third century C. E., as the authority of the Septuagint began to decrease while the prestige of the Hebrew text was increasing among some Christian scholars.

1.1 Jewish-Hellenistic Sources of the Legend: The Greek Torah Five, seventy or seventy-two Elders translated the five books of the Torah into Greek at the time or following the initiative of a king of the Ptolemy dynasty, probably at the beginning of the third century B. C. E. This news is the origin of a story or legend which most likely belongs to the more widespread literary narratives in the Greco-Roman and ancient Christian world.12 The importance of the legend of the 12 For the sources of the legend, see Andre´ Gallandi, ed., Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, vol. 2 (Venice: Zatta, 1767): 805–824 (Greek, Latin and Arabian sources with Latin translation); Paul Wendland, ed., Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula cum ceteris de origine versionis LXX interpretum testimoniis (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900): 85–166 (only Greek and Latin texts); Henry St. John Thackeray, ed., The Letter of Aristeas (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917): 89–116 (English translation of some traditions); Andre´ Pelletier, ed., Lettre d’Ariste´e a` Philocrate (Paris: Du Cerf, 1962): 78–98 (French translation of almost all texts of the legend); Gilles Dorival, “Les origines de la Septante: la traduction en grec des cinq livres de la Tora”, in La Bible grecque des Septante, ed. Gilles Dorival, Margarethe Harl, and Olivier Munnich (Paris: Du Cerf, 1988): 47–50; Giuseppe Veltri, “L’ispirazione della LXX tra leggenda e teologia. Dal racconto di Aristea alla veritas hebraica di Girolamo”, Laurentianum 27 (1986): 3–71 (Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian sources of the legend); idem, Eine Tora für den König Talmai (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994): 220–247 (Jewish mostly ancient testimonies of the legend); idem, Gegenwart der Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2002): 120–152 (Jewish reception of the legend in the Middle Ages).

32

libraries and canon

Septuagint goes beyond its mere apologetic tendency as justification of the precision of a translation, even of a sacred text. There was no need for such justification, as other traditions of translating show,13 but to show the importance of such an event for the community of Alexandria over others (Hellenistic or “Palestinian” Jews?) who perhaps were not convinced of it or did not accept concurrent texts of the same religious/political constitution. The legend of the Septuagint is not a legend of a translation of the Torah, but of the translatio sapientiae, of a revelation renewed in Greek language, similar if not identical to that on Sinai. According to the writers of the Egyptian Diaspora and their Roman follower (Aristobulos, Aristeas, Philo of Alexandria, and Josephus) the translation of the Septuagint was an act of revelation for “pagan ears”––as the Church Fathers formulated it. Revelation should not be interpreted, here, as a divine election of the whole ancient humanity (of Mediterranean origins), but as an announcement of the original truth, revealed first and foremost to the Jews. This elaborate apologia for Jewish traditions, without doubt to be explained as a defence against the diffuse power of Greek culture and philosophy, is a constant of the story of the Greek translation. The first mention14 of the legend appears in a fragment of Aristobulos,15 a Jewish philosopher of the Hellenistic period,16 who wrote his lost work On the Mosaic Law apparently during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (181–145 B. C. E.). He discusses a first Greek incomplete translation of the Torah, (allegedly) followed by Plato and Pythagoras17 13 See the anonymous writer of the Oxyrhynchus-Papyrus no. 1281 (second century C. E.), published in Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, eds., The Oxyrhinchus Papyri, part 11 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1915): 221–234; on this text, see more details below, pp. 151 f. 14 Thus according to Nikolaus Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos (Berlin: Akademieverlag, 1964): 88–103; see further Joseph Me´le`ze-Modrzejewski, “Philiscos de Milet et le jugement de Salomon: La premie`re re´fe´rence grecque a` la Bible”, Bullettino dell’istituto di Diritto Romano 30 (1988 [1992]): 571–597. 15 Apud Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 12:12:2 in Albert-Marie Denis, ed., Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca una cum historicorum et auctorum judaeorum hellenistarum fragmentis (Leiden: Brill, 1970): 222. 16 On the identification of Aristobulos, see Bacchisio Motzo, “Aristea”, Atti della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 50 (1914–1915): 207–225; 547–570, here pp. 202–209; but see also Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C.–A. D. 135), ed. Geza Vermes et alii, vol. III.1 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1986): 525. Further, see Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1998): 246–247. 17 Apud Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 12:12:1 in Fragmenta, ed. Denis, 221; see also Walter, Der Thoraausleger, 45; Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, ed.

jewish-hellenistic sources of the legend

33

and a second of the whole Torah in the time of Ptolemy II, Philadelphos (285–246 B. C. E.) and his counsellor Demetrius of Phalerum, or in his own words: “through the efforts of Demetrius of Phalerum a complete translation of Jewish legislation was executed in the days of Ptolemy”. The aim of this news is to vindicate the antiquity of the Jewish tradition in comparison with the expansive power of Hellenistic culture. The double account of a first (incomplete) and then whole translation of the Torah aims at justifying a supposed knowledge of the Torah in Greek philosophy before the translation of Torah under the Egyptian patronage of the Ptolemy family. A more precise account of the event of the translation is offered by an Alexandrian Jew, called Aristeas in a letter or report to an unknown, more likely fictitious, Philocrates.18 The letter/report19 depicts first the situation of the Ptolemaic library in Alexandria and the wish of the Ptolemaic dynasty or of its librarian Demetrius to have all the books of the world to complete the library which was glory of the ancient world.20 To sum up Aristeas’ report: the king asked his librarian how many books were in the present in his library. His librarian Demetrius Carl R. Holladay, vol. 1 (Chico, Ca.: Scholar Press, 1983): 209–210; see also below, pp. 92 f. 18 On bibliography about the sources of the legend see above; further see also Aristeas to Philocrates, ed. Moses Hadas (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951); Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate, ed. Francesca Calabi (Milano: Biblioteca universale Rizzoli, 1995). 19 Some bibliographic references to the immense body of scholarship on the letter are Israel Abrahams, “Recent Criticism of the Letter of Aristeas”, Jewish Quarterly Review 15 (1902): 321–342; Sylvie Honigmann, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study of the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas (London: Routledge, 2003); Giacomo Lumbroso, “Dell’uso delle iscrizioni e dei papiri per la critica al libro di Aristea”, Atti della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 4 (1868–1869): 229–254; idem, Recherches sur l’e´conomie politique de l’E´gypte sous les Lagides (Tourin: Bocca, 1870); Henry G. Meecham, The Letter of Aristeas. A Linguistic Study (Manchester: University Press, 1935); Norbert Meisner, “Untersuchungen zum Aristeasbrief”, (Diss. Berlin, 1973); Arnaldo Momigliano, “Per la data e la caratteristica della lettera di Aristea”, Aegypt 12 (1932): 161–173; Oswyn Murray, “Aristeas and his Sources”, Studia Patristica 12 (1975): 123–128; Harry Meyer Orlinsky, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators”, Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975): 89–114; Fausto Parente, “La Lettera d’Aristea come fonte per la storia del giudaismo alessandrino durante la prima meta` del I secolo a. C.”, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 2 (1972): 177–237, 517–567; Victor Tcherikover, “The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas”, Harvard Theological Review 51 (1958): 59–85. 20 On the library of Alexandria, see Roy MacLeod, ed., The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World (London, New York: I. B. Tauris, 2000); further Luciano Canfora, The Vanished Library (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, 1989); idem, Il viaggio di Aristea (Bari: Laterza, 1996); see also Nina L. Collins, The

34

libraries and canon

mentioned the number of half a million scrolls. Only the “laws of the Jews” is not included. The king asks the High Priest of Jerusalem to send to him skilled translators to fulfil this task. Accomplishing the wish of Ptolemaic kingship, the High Priest Eleazar send to him 72 Elders, 6 for every tribe of Israel. They were received with high honours upon their arrival in Alexandria and in a symposium were asked 72 questions by the king on different problems and insights, especially pertaining to government. After the symposium they set about their task, translating the five books of the Torah in 72 days. The Torah was praised by the Jewish community of Alexandria as accurate and every person was cursed who tried to add or subtract something in the text. Both original and translation were stored in the library and the translators came back to their land bearing gifts for the High Priest of Jerusalem. For Pseudo-Aristeas, the event of the translation is only a useful peg on which to hang the celebration of Jewish wisdom and way of life. The author devotes in fact but a few paragraphs at the beginning and end of the letter to the translation: in his report on the state of the library, Demetrius notes that “laws of the Jews” should be translated for the King’s library, because they are written in a peculiar alphabet and dialect (§§ 9–10); the initiative of the King Ptolemy to search for translators in their mother land was successful (§§ 11 and 28–51). The author spends further some paragraphs in describing the translators (§§ 102–127) and finally the last part of the report is devoted to the translation itself (§§ 301–322). Of 322 paragraphs of the text, only 72 (!) are expressly devoted to this event. Purely statistically then, the translation of the Septuagint is clearly not the core of Aristeas’ report. Further evidence of my assertion are the “additions” to the account which have little to do with the translation: the mention of the liberation of the Jews captured “who had been transported from Judea by the king’s father” (§§ 12–27);21 the description of the gifts of the king

Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2000); further, see the very intriguing article of Roger S. Bagnall, “Alexandria: Library of Dreams”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 146 (2002): 348–362. 21 The historicity of this information, supported by Josephus (Contra Apionem I:208–211 and Liber Antiquitatum XII:5–6) on the basis of a report of Agatharchides of Cnidus is doubtful. According to Hecataeus of Abdera, also reported by Josephus (Contra Apionem I:183–204), the (Egyptian) Jews followed the king voluntarily. On the question, see Joseph Me´le`ze-Modrzejewski, “How to be a Jew in Hellenistic Egypt”, in Diaspora in Antiquity, ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen (Atlanta, Ge.: Scholars Press, 1993): 75–76.

jewish-hellenistic sources of the legend

35

(§§ 51–72) to the High Priest in Jerusalem; the careful narrative of the journey to Palestine, the description of the Temple and of the land (§§ 83–128); the discourse of Eleazar (§§ 128–171) and finally and about all, the fictive representation of a symposium where Jewish wisdom is praised as an important philosophical and moral aid for government.22 This symposium is an important key to understanding the aim of Aristeas’ report: the emancipation of the Torah as a political-moral treatise for government. According to Plutarch, Demetrius of Phalerum advised the king to collect “books on kingship” (Peri Basileias), giving the following explanation as a reason for this: he could find in books what his counsellors would not dare to say to him:23 Demetrius of Phalerum recommended to Ptolemy the King to buy and read the books dealing with the office of the king and ruler (ta peri basileais kai e¯gemonias biblias). “For,” as he said, “those things which the kings’ friends are not bold enough to recommend to them are written in the books”.24

Aristeas’ propaganda provides the Ptolemaic family with the laws of the Jews as a political document useful for the necessities of the king’s government. According to Luciano Canfora,25 Plutarch’s text shows evidence of Aristeas’ reception among Roman writers. This thesis seems to me very intriguing if one considers that Josephus also read the letter of Aristeas in Rome where he composed his abstract of the report of the Septuagint translation. The richness of Jewish libraries in Rome––in the synagogues or in private hands––and its Jewish (and non-Jewish) readership is a chapter in Roman-Jewish relations which has yet to be written. Without doubt it acted as a cultural centre, especially for Hellenistic Jews albeit it should not be excluded that “pagan” readers also may have had access to it. However, extreme caution should be exercised to avoid erroneous conclusions based on one source which seems to quote 22 On the symposium, see Tcherikover, “The Ideology”, 59–85; Günther Zuntz, “Aristeas Studies: The Seven Banquets”, Journal of Semitic Studies 4 (1959): 21–36; John J. Lewis, “The Table-Talk Section in the Letter of Aristeas”, New Testament Studies 13 (1966): 53–56; Doron Mendels, “‘On Kingship’ in the Temple Scroll and the Ideological Vorlage of the Seven Banquets in the ‘Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates’”, in idem, Identity, Religion and Historiography: Studies in Hellenistic History (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998): 324–333. 23 Diogenes Laertius, Apophtegmata Regum, 189d, see also Lumbroso, “Dell’uso”, 246. 24 English translation from Plutarch’s Moralia in Fifteen Volumes, vol. 3, ed. Frank Cole Babbitt (Cambridge, Ma.; London: Harvard University Press, 1931, reprint 1989): 119. 25 Luciano Canfora, Il viaggio di Aristea, 8.

36

libraries and canon

the main argument of Aristeas’ report. As matter of fact, the Torah (even in its Greek form) had no impact on Greek and Roman writers until the ascent of Christianity as a state religion.26 In addition to this, knowledge of Jewish traditions among Roman writers is rather meagre or non-existent, with the exception of some news and traditions chiefly based on prejudices and polemical attitudes, a destiny which Judaism shared mutatis mutandis with Britannia, Germania and other cultural “minorities”. Aristeas’ report is an apology of translators more than of a particular translation. Very expressive are the paragraphs 310 and 311, where after the translation Demetrius summoned an assembly composed of the priests and the Elders of the translators, the Jewish community, the leaders of the politeuma27 and of course the people. After having read the text of the translation, the Jewish leaders proclaimed that the translation was completed with care and devotion and therefore should remain so. So they cursed “according to their customs” whomsoever would seek to change the text by addition or subtraction. The focal message of this section is that the translated text of the Torah should be kept in the library of the king. There are doubtless similarities with Deuteronomy 4:2: “You shall not add to the word I commanded you, not subtract from it. You should keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you”. The main difference consists of a change in the meaning: in Deuteronomy, the focus is the observance of the Torah, without stress on possible divine copyright; in Aristeas, the accent is on the preservation of the Torah without changing the text. The author of this report wanted to stress the importance of the Greek Torah for the non-Jewish world, a Torah now kept in the renowned library of Alexandria. Aristeas’ emphasis on the material text instead of observance of it is a hint regarding the interest of the Alexandrian library as a centre eager to obtain a precise and critically excellent manuscript according to a canon of classicism, as Quintillian notes.28

26

See the third section of this chapter, pp. 78–100, and here footnote 43, p. 39. On the Jewish politeuma, see Aryeh Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. The Struggle of Equal Rights (Tübingen: Mohr, 1985): 4–6 and passim; further, see James M. S. Cowey and Klaus Maresch, eds., Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.) (P. Polit. Jud.). Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001). 28 Quintilian, Institutiones Oratoriae X:1:54: “Panyasin ex utroque mixtum putant in eloquendo neutriusque aequare virtutes, alterum tamen ab eo materia alterum disponendi ratione superari. Apollonius in ordinem a grammaticis datum non venit, quia Ari27

jewish-hellenistic sources of the legend

37

Following this proposed interpretation, Aristeas highlights the function of the Alexandrian library as an editorial and “canonical” centre more than he tries to face the attempt by the Jewish community to discredit the validity of the Greek Torah. The sections 310–312 of Aristeas’ report necessarily refer to the section 30 where the bad quality of the Torah manuscripts is criticized. Without going into detail on the legend of Homer, treated below, I can note in advance that that the Seventytwo fulfilled the task proposed by Pisistratus to the (72) grammarians to mend the epic of Homer. The Torah of the Jews is accordingly not only the best guide for government but also a “classic text”, comparable to the poems of the famous Greek blind poet. Likewise for Philo of Alexandria, the best-known philosopher of Judaism in the Christian world, the main question in his report of the translation has little to do with the text of the Septuagint but rather with its alleged importance for Greek culture. Philo is conscious that the Torah of the Jews is bound up with their political destiny, or expressed with his own words: Thus the laws are shewn to be desirable and precious in the eyes of all, ordinary citizens and rulers alike, and too though our nation has not prospered for many a year. It is but natural that when people are not flourishing their belongings to some degree are under a cloud. But, if a fresh start should be made to brighter prospects, how great a change for the better might we expect to see! I believe that each nation would abandon its peculiar ways, and, throwing overboard their ancestral customs, turn to 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.29

In his report on the origins of the Septuagint, he follows the Letter of Aristeas.30 In the “Life of Moses”,31 he describes the event of the translation in terms of a revelation to the Greeks, specifically to the Alexandrian Jews. In contradiction with his own statement in De Specialibus Legibus IV:61, where he claims a dependence of the Greek starchus atque Aristophanes, poetarum iudices, neminem sui temporis in numerum redegerunt . . .” X:1:59: “Sed dum adsequamur illam firmam, ut dixi, facilitatem, optimis adsuescendum est et multa magis quam multorum lectione formanda mens et ducendus color”. 29 De Vita Mosis II:43–44. 30 First noted by Paul Wendland, “Zur ältesten Geschichte der Bibel in der Kirche”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1900): 269–270; see a detailed analysis of Aristeas and Philo in my, Eine Tora für den König, 128–131. 31 De Vita Mosis II:25–44.

38

libraries and canon

lawgivers on Exodus 23:1a and therefore a knowledge of the biblical text, Philo speaks here of the absolute originality of the Greek translation: the Torah had remained in the shadows for a long time and the Greeks had to content themselves with the rays streaming in, refracted through the Jewish way of life. The translation of the Torah had thus introduced a new age because something exceptional had occurred. Like Aristeas, who was impressed by the wisdom of the translators of the Torah and by their ability to produce an unchangeable text, Philo’s view of the translators is as hierophantai, a technical term for the highest officers of the heathen mysteries and the demonstrators of their knowledge, as Wolfson defined them.32 The need to appeal to these figures of the mystery cults originated in his vision of the task to translate “the laws which have come into force through prophetic oracles” (thespisthentas nomous chre¯smois dierme¯neuein).33 Following the Platonist conception of poetry,34 Philo believes that nobody can interpret (or translate) a prophetically “inspired” text without being himself inspired. Therefore he does not consistently apply the so-called prohibition against adding to or subtracting from the translated text except to the translating act, i. e. the translators have not added to or subtracted anything from the original text in composing their translation.35 The translators know their dual task is to avoid any changes in the laws and to “preserve their primitive form and shape” (te¯n ex arche¯s idean kai ton typon auto¯n diaphylattontas).36 Also reporting on the act of translation, Philo uses an exact terminology probably originating in mystic cults.37 The translators look for a quiet place, suitable for contemplation and distant from the impurities of Alexandria. Such a place as a scenic element calls to mind the idyllic place of the so-called Therapeutae in Philo’s tractate About the Contempla-

32 Harry A. Wolfson, Philo, 2nd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962): 43. Philo uses the term hierophantes only for God, Moses, the translators of the Septuagint, the High Priest and the prophet Jeremiah. 33 De Vita Mosis II:34. On Philo’s definition of Torah, see Adam Kamesar, “The Literary Genres of the Pentateuch as Seen from the Greek Perspective: The Testimony of Philo of Alexandria”, The Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997): 143–189. 34 As expressed for example in Ion 535e, as the power of a magnet is transmitted through a series of iron rings. 35 In Aristeas, the prohibition is against them who add to or subtract from the translated text of the Septuagint. 36 Philo, De Vita Mosis II:34. 37 “Mystic” means here only related to ancient cults like Orphic or Pythagorean groups.

jewish-hellenistic sources of the legend

39

tive Life.38 Similar to these “Jewish monks” of the Diaspora, “taking the sacred books, stretched them out towards heaven with the hands that held them, asking of God that they might not fail in their purpose”.39 An atmosphere of religious, cultic and liturgical feeling pervades the “second” revelation to the pagans, which he sees as a re-creation similar to Genesis 1. As Philo states: Sitting here in seclusion with none present save the elements of nature, earth, water, air, heaven, the genesis of which was to be the first theme of their sacred revelation, for the laws begin with the story of the world’s creation, they became as it were possessed, and under inspiration, wrote, not each scribe something different, but the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter.40

The result of such a revelatory act is expected: both the original and the translation are “sisters”. A translation is, Philo argues, a very difficult undertaking because many words can mean the same thing.41 This “special” event was possible because of the exceptionality of the translators and the magnanimous interest of the King Ptolemy Philadelphos.42 Philo’s note of nostalgia for an (allegedly) tolerant period, which witnessed enthusiasm for the laws of the Jews, is historically highly questionable. For even the “second revelation” had no effective impact on the pagan world.43 Philo canonizes the Greek Torah by giving her the

38 De Vita Contemplativa 25, see my article “Canone, scrittura e contesto immanente in alcuni testi del I secolo dopo Cristo”, Laurentianum 30 (1990): 6–13. 39 De Vita Mosis II:36. 40 De Vita Mosis II:37. 41 On the language theory of Philo, see Klaus Otte, Das Sprachverständnis bei Philo of Alexandrien (Tübingen: Mohr, 1968); Maren R. Niehoff, “What is in A Name? Philo’s Mystical Philosophy of Language”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 2 (1995): 220–252; for the context of Philo’s translation theory, see my contribution “(Un)übersetzbarkeit und Magie der ‘heiligen’ Sprache: Sprachphilosophien und Übersetzungstheorien”, in Tradition und Translation. Zum Problem der interkulturellen Übersetzbarkeit religiöser Phänomene, Festschrift für Carsten Colpe zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Christoph Elsas (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1994): 299–314, and here section 3.1, pp. 149–159. 42 De Vita Mosis II:31. 43 There is no trace of a “pagan” readership of the Torah, at least until the 2nd century C. E. The first to mention Genesis 1 is the so-called author of the Sublime (PseudoLonginos). For the text, see Menachem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1974), vol. 1: 364. More generally, see the standard work of Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), and the very useful anthology of Giancarlo Rinaldi, ed., Biblia gentium: primo contributo per un indice delle citazioni, dei riferimenti e delle allusioni alla Bibbia negli autori pagani, greci e latini, di eta` imperiale (Rome: Libreria Sacre Scritture, 1989).

40

libraries and canon

same status and the same degree of the Hebrew “sister”. Like an official document, whose translation was effective if and only if the translators were officially acknowledged as specialized in the sector,44 the precision of the translation of Jewish documents and legislation is, according to Philo, ensured by the high quality and official task of the translators. The new “Greek revelation” is nothing but the canonization/legal justification of the development of the Greek community of Alexandria. Josephus, the Jewish historiographer of the first century C. E., quotes nearly the whole report of Aristeas without referring to the author in his Liber Antiquitatum XII:11–11945 and he cites a short excerpt in Contra Apionem II:45–47. The aim of the translation is, according to him, political: the appreciation and honour of the Jews. The translation seeks to address the leading figures of Hellenistic culture. Unfortunately, however, it did not reach the Greek historians who did not read these Hebrew books, even though they were translated.46 In his evaluation of the translation work, Josephus also appears to have read the Greek prologue to Ben Sira. In the first book of his Antiquities, he compares his work with the Septuagint, considering himself as the High Priest Eleazar who did not hesitate to follow the wish of King Ptolemy in his intention to let the Torah be translated. He adds: “(Eleazar) did not scruple to grant the monarch the enjoyment of a benefit, which he would certainly have refused had it not been our traditional custom to make nothing of what is good into a secret”.47 For the Jews are still today “lovers of learning (philomatheis) like the king”. The word philomatheis and the context of communicating knowledge through a tradition/translation calls to mind the Greek Prologue to Ben Sira, where the grandson similarly says that his grandfather, after giving himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and the other books of our fathers, and having obtained therein good judgment, was also drawn himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to intent that those which desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things might profit much more in living according to the law.48 44

See Arthur Stein, Der Sprachgebrauch in der Verwaltung Ägyptens unter römischer Herrschaft (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Buchhandlung, 1915). 45 Chief omissions are §§ 82–171 and 187–292. A classic study on Josephus’ paraphrase of Aristeas is Andre´ Pelletier, Flavius Jose`phe adaptateure de la Lettre d’Ariste´e. Une re´action atticisisante contre la koine` (Paris: Klincksieck, 1962). 46 Contra Apionem I:217–218. 47 Liber Antiquitatum I:12.

jewish-hellenistic sources of the legend

41

Here too the author addresses the philomatheis, the lovers of learning, to advertise the translation he is writing or the book he is introducing. Josephus is also a useful witness to certain critical voices that questioned the perfection of the Septuagint. Josephus and the grandson of ben Sira tell us that some differences between the original and translation were noted. For Josephus, all additions or/and subtractions from the Septuagint are unacceptable and the Bible must be retained in the original form. Ben Sira’s grandson notes that “the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them. And not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language”.49 Josephus has no theory about translations and the original, but he changes the wording of Aristeas § 310. He interprets this source as follows: . . . if anyone saw any further addition made to the text of the Law or anything omitted from it, he should examine it and make it known and correct it; in this they acted wisely, that what had once been judged good might remain forever.50

Both the grandson and Josephus give evidence of a critical attitude regarding the quality of the translation. A reading of Josephus’ text confirms his preoccupation with the text of the Greek Torah, whose changes should be approved by public attention after a renewed analysis of the text (palin episkopounta touto kai poiounta phaneron). A simple, basic question pertains to the historical frame of this assertion: If the Torah was stored with care by the librarian of the Alexandrian library, who would have interest in changing something? And who would notice possible changes? Josephus (and the grandson of Ben Sira) takes as an evident starting-point that the Greek Torah circulated, at least in communities of the Diaspora, as an official book and in other public as well as private libraries. A small remark should be added about the “revisions” of the Septuagint in the first century. The historical-critical question whether Jewish revisions of the Septuagint which were circulating in the first 48 English translation by Lancelot C. L. Brenton, ed., The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (London: Bagster, 1851, reprint Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1980). 49 For an evaluation of this text and of the prologue see below, chapter 4, pp. 195–205. 50 Liber Antiquitatum I:12.

42

libraries and canon

century before and after the Common Era can be interpreted as a denigration of the “glory” of the Septuagint should be answered in the negative because the Septuagint has a meaning beyond the pure text. On the contrary, by speaking of “revision” of the text, we stress that these were not alternative “translations” (like that of Aquila, according the Church father),51 but only a “revised” text with the goal of trusting the authority of the Septuagint. The evident “changes” of the Septuagint text could be ascribed to the careless transmission of the scribes without questioning the authority of the Seventy-two. This authority is the core of the Christian theology of the legend.

1.2 Christian Theology: From the Veritas Graeca to the Veritas Hebraica Christian sources on the legend of the Septuagint are very numerous; however, most depend on others in a chain of direct and indirect tradition. I do not intend to introduce the reader to the multifarious world of Christian exegetic52 and apologetic literature,53 but only attempt to show some interpretative coordinates of the legend in Christendom.54

51

But not according to recent scholars who speak of revision as well with regard to Aquila’s translation; on the concept of revision, see Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, “Les rapports du Judaisme avec l’histoire de la Septante et de ses revisions”, in Tradition orale et e´crite, ed. Luc Dequeker (Bruxelles: Institutum Iudaicum, 1976): 122–149; Leonard J. Greenspoon, “Recensions, Revision, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthe´lemy and Early Developments in the Greek Traditions”, Textus 15 (1990): 153–167. 52 On the influence of the LXX on the Latin Church, see Enrico Rodolfo Galbiati, “La versione dei LXX: influsso sui Padri e sulla liturgia greca e latina”, Annali di Scienze Religiose 1 (1996): 57–70. 53 I already examined a selection of some Christian sources in my “L’ispirazione”, 3–71. 54 On the topic Septuagint in the early Church, see Mogen Müller, “Jødedommens Bibel pa˚ nytestamentlig tid og den Kristne Bibel. Hebraica sive Graeca veritas?”, Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrif 51 (1988): 220–237; idem, “Graeca sive Hebraica Veritas? The Defence of the Septuagint in the Early Church”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 1 (1989): 103–124; idem, “Hebraica sive Graeca Veritas. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament and the Christian Bible”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2 (1989): 55–71; see especially the very detailed study by Martin Hengel, “Die Septuaginta als ‘christliche Schriftensammlung’, ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanones”, in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994): 182–284; now also in English, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon, with the assistance of Roland Deines, introduction by Robert Hanhart (Edinburgh, New York: T. & T. Clark, 2002).

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

43

We can distinguish three interlaced tendencies of reception of the Septuagint in some cases: 1) apologetic quotation of the legend to affirm the antiquity of Christian religion, based on the antiquity of the Jewish tradition (a topic related to the Jewish-Hellenistic apology of Aristobulos, Aristeas and Philo followed by Josephus); 2) apologetics of the antiquity of the Septuagint translation which contains prophetic “proofs” of the truth of the Christian religion against Jewish “new” translations or revisions of the text; 3) critics against the Septuagint (and therefore any apologetic defence of it), because of a different text, transmitted by the Jews. This last tendency helps western Christianity rise to the consciousness of the veritas hebraica. The topic of the king’s interest in the book of the Jews and consequently his appreciation and respect for Jewish wisdom is a basic element in Christian apology, read however in Christian messianic terms. For the church father and martyr Justin (100–166), Ptolemy is interested only in the books of the prophets, because only in these books does the Christian Justin confess55 that “do we find Jesus our Christ foretold as coming, born of a virgin56 etc.”. The king sent for the texts to “Herod, the king of the Jews”, who sent them, though in the Hebrew language. The King of Egypt sent anew for translators and their translation remained in his library “until now”––an element which calls to mind the terminology of legends mentioned above. Justin seems to have read the report of Aristeas either in the original or in the short text in Josephus. A hint to this conclusion can be the double sending to the “king of the Jews” which can explain the texts, written in a careless Hebrew, as Aristeas §§ 30–31 put it: “. . . these [works] are written in Hebrew characters and language. But they have been transcribed somewhat carelessly, and not as they should be, according to the report of experts, because they have not received royal patronage”.57 The erroneous indication “Herod, King of the Jews”, to be 55 Apologia I, chapter 31:1–5 (Patrologia Graeca 6): 375–377, also to be found in Wendland, ed., Aristeae ad Philocratem Epistula, 121. Further edition: Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro Christiani, ed. Miroslav Marcovich (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994): 76 ff. 56 See Hengel, “Septuaginta”, 192–193; on the place of the virgin of Isaiah 7:14 (according to the Septuagint) in Christian anti-Jewish polemic and exegetical literature, see the study of Adam Kamesar, “The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: The Philological Argument from the Second to the Fifth Century”, Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990): 51–75. 57 English translation by Rowland James H. Shutt, “Letter of Aristeas”, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985): 14, there also the discussion whether the author is speaking of a pre-septuagintal translation or of the text which was in circulation before the Torah was

44

libraries and canon

ascribed to Justin––and not, as once proposed, to the copyist58––is only a reference to the polemical attitude of the author against the Jews: according to Christian polemics, every Jewish king (or High Priest) is extremely zealous for obscuring the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament about Jesus, which does, in other words, mean to kill Jesus or the Christians. That is not a mere coincidence that he notes in the same chapter that the Greek translation is in the possession of the Jews all over the world, but although they read these translations, they cannot understand what is written and, as in the case of Bar Kokhba––Justin adds––, they cruelly punish the Christians unless they deny Jesus Christ. Justin reads the story of the Septuagint clearly from the perspective of the infancy of Jesus, when Herod tried to kill him because he was afraid of the fulfilment of the prophecies in the little child.59 A defence of the testimonia Christi, revealed in the Septuagint text, is also Justin’s aim in his “Dialogue with the Jew Thryphon” (Dialogus cum Thryphone Iudaeo) against Jewish attempts to change the text of the Septuagint by removing many passages which “clearly” give evidence of the Christian doctrine.60 This accusation is a refrain in the so-called Jewish-Christian controversies down into the Middle Ages. The author of the Cohortatio (Exhortatio) ad Graecos,61 once attributed to Justin, gives a first expansion of the legend of the Septuagint,

translated into Greek. Cf. also the version of Josephus, Liber Antiquitatum XII:14. On this aspect, see David W. Gooding, “Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review of Recent Studies”, Vetus Testamentum 13 (1973): 357–379; see also the paragraph on the library of Alexandria, below pp. 80 and ff. 58 As stated by Christian W. Thalemann, see Marcovich, 76, footnote: Marcovitch writes: “Iustini error”. 59 See also his Dialogus cum Thryphone Iudaeo 71–73 (Patrologia Graeca 6): 641–650. 60 Dialogus 71 and ff. See David E. Aune, “Justin Martyr’s Use of the Old Testament”, Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 9 (1966): 189–197; Angus J. B. Higgins, “Jewish Messianic Belief in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Thripho”, Novum Testamentum 9 (1967): 298–305; Lesley W. Barnard, “Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought” (Ph. D. University of Southampton, Dept. of Theology, 1970); idem, “The Old Testament and Judaism in the Writings of Justin Martyr”, Vetus Testamentum 14 (1974): 395–406; Oskar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy: a Study in Justin Martyr’s ProofText Tradition: Text-type, Provenance, Theological Profile (Leiden: Brill, 1987); Daniel Boyarin, “Justin Martyr Invents Judaism”, Church History 70 (2001): 427–461; David Roke´ah, Justin Martyr and the Jews (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 61 Cohortatio ad Graecos, ed. Miroslav Marcovich (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1990); Ps.-Justin (Markell von Ankyra?), Ad Graecos de vera religione, ed. Christoph Riedweg (Basel, Berlin: F. Reinhardt, 1992).

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

45

reported by Josephus and Philo, expressly quoted.62 He recounts the events of the translation in the context of the apologia of the antiquity of Jewish writings. This apology is only understandable against the background of the almost total absence of any reception of Jewish tradition in “pagan” literature. Jewish as well as Christian apologetics could only cope with a possible “pagan” derision of their cultural (and political) condition if evoking the antiquity of their literary and philosophic tradition, literarily first encountered in the Alexandrian apology (Aristobulos and Philo).63 A new argument against Greek cultural supremacy appears for the first time in the Cohortatio: The Greek alphabet was brought to Greece by Cadmus of Phoenicia (chap. 13: “Cadmus first brought the letters from Phoenicia, and transmitted them to the Greeks”). The author indirectly refers here to the comment by Herodotus on the transmission of the Phoenician alphabet to Greece by the legendary founder of Thebes, Cadmus.64 The antiquity of the alphabet speaks against Greek supremacy in literature. In this context, the author transmits the legend of the Septuagint intending to prove that the Torah of Moses was also translated and preserved in Greek letters at the time of “Ptolemy the King of Egypt”. The author adds some noteworthy details to the legend. The translation was completed “in freedom from all disturbance” and therefore the king ordered the construction of a building seven stadia from Alexandria, precisely where the Pharos was built, with as many cells as there were translators. The aim of this measure was not to ensure rest and silence for the translators, but their separation, which was intended to prevent any contact with each other, “so that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their agreement”. Examining the texts produced, the king could ascertain that they had not only given the same meaning but also the same wording for the same thing. By force of this agreement, the king believed that the translation was a work of divine power: “and, as was natural, having marvelled at the 62

Cohortatio, chap. XIII. On the topos of the theft of the wisdom by the Greek, see below, pp. 91–100. 64 Herodotus, The Histories V. 58, see Rhys Carpenter, “The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet”, American Journal of Archaeology 37 (1933): 8–29: Berthold L. Ullman, “How Old is the Greek Alphabet?”, American Journal of Archaeology 38 (1934): 359–381; Peter Kyle McCarter Jr., The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet and Early Phoenician Scripts (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975); and the unpublished article of Immanuel Velikovsky, “Cadmus”, now in virtual version in http://www.varchive. org/dag/cadmus.htm; see further Ruth B. Edwards, Kadmos the Phoenician: A Study in Greek Legends and the Mycenaean Age (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1979). 63

46

libraries and canon

books and concluded them to be divine, he consecrated them in that library”. The author let it be known that there was some diffidence about such pretension of authority because of the story of the translation, adding that these things . . . are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part of their country’s tradition, we now tell to you what you can also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others.65

The reference to Philo is misleading. For the author is simply expanding the Philonian tradition, adding particulars clearly taken and re-interpreted from his source. So I think that the creation of cells for the translators is nothing but an interpretation of Philo’s “They (the translators) settled in a secret place (. . . apokrypho¯)” (De Vita Mosis II:37) where the idea of seclusion could be originated, especially if the author of the Cohortatio realized the above mentioned similarity between the Therapeutae and the translators of the Septuagint, which I assume. For according to Philo, the Therapeutae lived in separated cells, near Alexandria. On the other hand, Philo’s text can also be understood in the sense of a reclusion of the translators with wonderful harmonic results, because he speaks of a divine inspiration “as under influence of a divine inspiration, they did not pronounce different things, but all of them the same names and the same words, as if each could perceive a voice of an invisible breath”.66 Some scholars maintain that the tradition of the cells is a creative development made by pilgrims to Pharos.67 The hypothesis is intriguing because although there is no proof for a festival in Pharos, Philo reports of an annual festival commemorating the translation or revelation of the Septuagint.68 However, the proof of the existence of Jewish or Christian 65 All the English translations are from The Writings Of the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (first published Edinburgh: Clark, 1867, then more other editions). 66 De Vita Mosis II:38. 67 See Dominique Barthe´lemy, “Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle e´te´ traduite en grec?”, in On Language, Culture, and Religion: in Honor of Eugene A. Nida, ed. Matthew Black and William A. Smalley (The Hague: Mouthon, 1974): 27. 68 Philo, De Vita Mosis II:41. That is similar to a simhat torah because I do not think that the revelation on Sinai was a “glorious open-air ˙picnic”, as Roland Williamson assumes in Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970): 67.

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

47

pilgrimages to Alexandria and the isle Pharos can hardly be supported by such an apologetic source as the Cohortatio, primarily concerned with the celebration of the Mosaic Torah against “pagan” wisdom and science. The second very important thing to note is the indirect charge of appropriatio indebita, i. e. to retain as Christian what is indeed Jewish. The author vehemently answers: That the books relating to our religion are to this day preserved among the Jews, has been a work of Divine Providence on our behalf; for lest, by producing them out of the Church, we should give occasion to those who wish to slander us to charge us with fraud, we demand that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, that from the very books still preserved among them it might clearly and evidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men for instruction pertain to us.69

The Cohortatio proclaims that even the fact the book was preserved among the Jews proves the truth of the Christian religion, because they had no interest in forging the prophecies in favour of Christian doctrine. We cannot ascertain without a doubt whether the Cohortatio ad Graecos had a wide transmission among the Church fathers. However, it is quite sure that a new apologetic tendency was soon to crystallise: the conviction that the Jewish seventy(-two) translators of the Torah had been unwilling messengers of Christian doctrines. Here we note evidence of a new spiritual achievement in the history of canonization, namely the belief that the author has no consciousness of the object/message he is transmitting (or even should have none), a sort of premise for true inspiration. A further consideration, based on this text, is the implicit discussion on the ownership of the books, a topic then developed by Chrysostom (see below). As seen above, to store/preserve books is a task of libraries or temples/synagogues, as a guarantee and protection against forgeries. By stressing that the Jews preserve the book, the author is referring to a “neutral” body of evidence, beside the Christian (ab)use of the text, nevertheless to be considered confirmation of the Christian truth. As a consequence, a third consideration of interest for the history of the (de)canonization is that the author’s attitude toward “inspiration” of the (prophetically revised) texts is valid only for the Septuagint trans-

69

Cohortatio, chap. XIII.

48

libraries and canon

lators: they are considered like the Balaam of the Bible text, almost forced by God to prophesy without knowing the object and subject of their prophecy. That is without doubt also the position of Irenaeus (120–203).70 In the third book of his Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus reports the legend of the Septuagint with inclusion of the particularity of the segregation of the translators. Irenaeus is convinced that the segregation is to avoid “concealing of the truth in the Scriptures by their interpretation” (me¯ ti ara synthemenoi apokrypso¯si te¯n en tais graphais dia te¯s herme¯neias ale¯theian). The result of the translation proves that “the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine”. In reading the translation and acknowledging their agreement by translating the Hebrew texts with “the very same words and the very same names”,71 the Gentiles “perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the help of the divine inspiration” (. . . kat’ epipnoian tou theou eisin e¯rme¯neumenai). This new inspired translation into Greek is comparable to a new “restoration” of the Torah. In this context, Irenaeus calls to mind a similar event to the translation of the Septuagint, namely the restoration of the Torah at the time of Artaxerxes King of the Persians, because at that time “Scripture had been corrupted”. God inspired Ezra who reestablished Mosaic legislation. By linking both the legend of the Septuagint and the legend of the restoration of the text of Scripture though Ezra, Irenaeus stresses the nature of the successive revelation, more favourable to the Christians, which in the end elevated a translation to the high degree of a holy Scripture.72 This new revelation, experienced by the Seventy-two, is a perfect involuntary act––a typical concept of prophecy as possession by God––because, if the Jewish translators had acknowledged the future Christian use of their Scriptures, they would have not hesitated to burn their translation (numquam dubitassent ipsi suas comburere scripturas).73 Remembering that the consonance of the translation had been proved by “the very same words and the very same names”, 70 Adversus Haereses III:21:1–4, edition: Ire´ne´e de Lion, Contre les he´re´sies, ed. Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau (Paris: Du Cerf, 1974); Greek in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica V:8:10. 71 . . . to¯n panto¯n ta auta tais autais lexesi kai tois autois onomasin anagoreusantos ap’ arche¯s mechri telous. 72 The connection of the legend of the Septuagint with the legend of Ezra will concern us below, see pp. 80–91. 73 The fragment is only transmitted in Latin, see Sources Chre´tiennes 210–211 and Veltri, “L’ispirazione”, 29–30.

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

49

Irenaeus directly refers to his sources Philo and perhaps also to the Cohortatio. The difference between them consists in the intention of the separation of the translators. Irenaeus insinuates a possible cooperation between them in concealing the right meaning of the Scripture. We will later analyse the Rabbinic interpretation. Jerome speaks on the other hand of a conscious intention on the part of the translator to explain the right meaning by changing the text of some verses. The voluntary “changes” of the text are acknowledged as a peculiarity of the Septuagint and a plan of divine providence. In reporting the legend of the origin of the Greek translation, Clement of Alexandria (150–211/216)74 wanted to stress that the Septuagint is a translation “for the benefit of Grecian ears” (eis Helle¯nikas akoas). In considering the Greek Torah as a revelation for Greek people, he slavishly follows the interpretation of Philo75 and Aristobulos76 (and perhaps also of the Cohortatio ad Graecos) expressly quoted. The interesting turning point in the case of Clement is that the polemics against the Jews77 do not play any role. Although in his report of the legend he is clearly reading Irenaeus, any allusion to the “involuntary” prophecy of the Septuagint is suppressed or at least avoided. The testimony of Philo, Aristobulos and above all Numenius of Apamea aims at “converting” Greek people because of the antiquity and therefore authority of Jewish tradition. In this context, he mentions Numenius’ well-known dictum: “For what is Plato but Moses speaking in Attic Greek?” (ti gar esti Plato¯n e¯ Mo¯yse¯s attikizo¯n?).78 Clement is concerned only with the ques74

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata I, XXII:148–149. Edition: Cle´ment d’Alexandrie, Les Stromates. Stromate I (Sources Chre´tiennes, 30), ed. Claude Monde´sert and Marcel Caster (Paris: Du Cerf, 1951). 75 On the Christian reception of Philo, see David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature. A Survey (Assen, Minneapolis: Van Gorcum, 1993); idem, Philo and the Church Fathers (Leiden: Brill, 1995). 76 See Nikolaus Walter, “Zur Überlieferung einiger Reste früher jüdisch-hellenistischer Literatur bei Josephus, Clement und Euseb”, Studia Patristica 7 (1966): 314–320. 77 On Clement’s attitude to the Jews, see Marianne Dacy, “Jews and Christians in Alexandria”, Australian Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (1996): 78–93; James N. B. Carleton Paget, “Clement of Alexandria and the Jews”, Scottish Journal of Theology 51 (1998): 86–97. On Clement and the Greek Bible, see Eric Osborn, “Clement and the Bible”, in Origen and the Bible. Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum, Chantilly, 1993, ed. Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec (Leuven: Leuven University Press, Peeters, 1995): 121–132; Johann Cook, “Greek Philosophy and the Septuagint”, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 24 (1998): 177–191. 78 Clement, Stromata I, XXII:149 (Sources Chre´tiennes, 30:152). See on this Mark J. Edwards, “Atticising Moses? Numenius, the Father and the Jews”, Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990): 64–75.

50

libraries and canon

tion of the antiquity of Jewish law and the question of the revelation to the Greeks, looking for convincing proof of the “theft of wisdom” perpetrated by Greek philosophy. Clement also compares the legend of the Septuagint to the legend of Ezra. Differing from his source Irenaeus, he does not speak of (polemical) corruption of the text, but of destruction of what more precisely corresponds to the story of the apocryphal fourth Book of Ezra (4 Ezra 14:18–47).79 The location of the legend of the Septuagint in the stories of libraries is also a topic treated by the Latin writer Tertullian in his Apologeticum (150/60–240/50).80 Two elements of his use of the Septuagint legend are common to Clement: the apologetic intention to prove the antiquity of the biblical tradition and the comparison of the translation of the Greek Torah with another library and philological project in the ancient world: the restoration of Homer’s work at the time of Pisistratus (Tertullian) which corresponds to the restoration of the Torah at the time of Ezra (Clement). Also for Tertullian, the main point is not the antiJewish polemics,81 but on the contrary the need to defend Christian faith on the basis of Jewish antiquity, which can prove the openness and honesty of Christendom. Tertullian is the first Latin writer who is concerned with the story of the Septuagint in an apologetic tendency, namely to confirm the validity of Christian doctrine against its (Graeco)Roman critics. The main problem of his Apology was the Roman negation of Christian existence, or “you are not allowed to exist” (non licet esse vos).82 The defensio of the Church Father is concentrated above all 79

See the following section on canonization of libraries and culture identities. Tertullian, Opera, Pars II, vol. 1: Apologeticum, secundum utramque libri recensionem, ed. Henricus Hoppe (New York: London: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1964) (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, 69); Tertullian, Apologia del cristianesimo, ed. Claudio Moreschini (Milan: Rizzoli, 1984). 81 On this aspect, see William H. C. Frend, “Tertulliano e gli ebrei”, Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 4 (1968): 3–10; idem, “A Note on Tertullian and the Jews”, Studia Patristica 10 (1970): 291–296; William Horbury, “Tertullian on the Jews in the Light of ‘De Spectaculis’ 30,5–6”, Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972): 455–459; David P. Efroymson, “Tertullian’s Anti-Jewish Rhetoric”, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 36 (1980): 25–37; Wendy E. Helleman, “Tertullian on Athens and Jerusalem”, in Hellenization Revisited. Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World, ed. Wendy E. Helleman (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994): 361–381; Eric Osborn, “The subtlety of Tertullian”, Vigiliae Christianae 52 (1998): 361–370; Gedaliahu Guy Stroumsa, “Tertullian on Idolatry and the Limits of Tolerance”, in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998): 173–184. 82 Tertullian, Apologeticum IV:4 and V:5 and Moreschini, Apologia, 19–36; see Abel Bourgery, “Le proble`me de l’Institutum Neronianum”, Latomus 2 (1938): 106–111. 80

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

51

on the divine and prophetic revelation given to the Jews, a revelation which is not concealed like the mysteries religions, but written in ancient books, open to all (ne istae latent). In aiming at proving the openness of Christian religion, he quotes the legend as transmitted by Aristeas, though with interesting changes. Ptolemy is led by his curiosity to know the traditions of the Jews. This characteristic made him an emulator of Pisistratus who, according to the legend, collected and edited the songs of Homer.83 The translators were seventy-two and produced a common result.84 The original volumes and the translation can be seen today, adds Tertullian, in the Serapeum of the library of Ptolemy.85 The Jews read them publicly.86 Here mention is made by a Christian source of the third century that Jews read the Septuagint in Greek. A commonly assumed rejection of the Septuagint on the basis of Christian adoption does not seem to be a widespread opinion, as some scholars today still maintain. The context of the report of the Septuagint in Tertullian refers to the publice et palam of the new religion, based on Judaism. The Jewish tradition imbues the new religion with authority by dint of the fact that it itself refers and belongs to ancient traditions. Tertullian uses here the argument of authority on the basis of antiquity of a tradition recalling a Roman custom.87 The interesting point of the Christian apologetic tradition is the liaison to Judaism and Jewish tradition in order to defend Christian identity and existence. We will see below that this African writer wants at the same time to stress that Christians already possess all necessary wisdom.

83

See the following section on canonization of libraries and culture identities. Tertullian, Apologeticum XVIII:7: “. . . sed ne notizia vacaret, hoc quoque a Iudaei Ptolomeo subscriptum est, septuaginta et duobus interpretibus indultis, quos Menedeus quoque philosophus, providentiae vindex, de sententiae communione suspexit”. 85 Tertullian, Apologeticum XVIII:8: “Ita in Graecum stilum exaperta monumenta reliquit; hodie apud Serapeum Ptolemaei bibliothecae cum ipsis Hebraicis exhibentur”. If this news can be evaluated as of historical interest, we can suppose that the library of Alexandria, or at the least that of the temple of Serapis, was not burned at the time of the writer; on this see Canfora, The Vanished Library. Giving a text to a temple was equivalent in antiquity to modern book publication; see Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 2nd edition (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962): 83–89. 86 Tertullian, Apologeticum XVIII:8: “Sed et Iudaei palam lectitant. Vectigalis libertas; vulgo aditur sabbatis omnibus. Qui audierit, inveniet deum; qui etiam studuerit intellegere, cogetur et credere”. 87 Tertullian, Apologeticum XIX:1: “Primam instrumentis istis auctoritatem summa antiquitas vindicat; apud vos quoque religionis est instar fidem de temporibus adserere”. 84

52

libraries and canon

With Iulius Africanus (d. 240/50) and Origen (182–251), we come to a further step in the history and story of the Septuagint: here we encounter the new problem of the consonance of the Septuagint with the Hebrew text (and the other translations). While the majority of the Church Fathers both of the Greek and Latin Church down to Tertullian see the changed text of Scriptures as Jewish perfidy (perfidia Iudaeorum), with the intention of obscuring prophecy in favour of Christian doctrine, the next generation has some problems with the Philonic thesis of sister-identity between Greek and Hebrew texts and does not believe in a perfidious Jewish change of their own texts against Christianity. Their critical remarks also concern the Greek Bible, not only the Torah, raising the question of canonicity, because the Septuagint has additions and expansions not transmitted by the Hebrew text. This question about the canon is also raised because the Septuagint includes several other books not considered “canonical” by the Hebrew tradition. The first question of canonical interest was put by Iulius Africanus in a letter to Origen regarding the history of Susanna88 and the correspondent answer by Origen (185–232).89 Africanus questions the canonicity of the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Draco (Septuagint–Daniel, chapters 13–14) because of the play with the words prinos in “under a holm tree” and “asunder” (the angel would saw him asunder) (prizein) and schinos in “under a mastic tree” with “being rent asunder” (schisthenai), possible only in the Greek language not in Hebrew. On the other hand, both stories are absent in the manuscript of the Jews: “From all this I infer that this section is a later addition”. Origen’s answer reveals his attitude to the Hebrew texts and his translation from the point of view of “textual criticism”.90 As he admits in his long and documented letter, he is well aware of the additions, omissions and transpositions of the Septuagint when compared with the Hebrew text and vice versa, and therefore he marked them in the

88 Iulius Africanus, De Historia Susannae epistola ad Origenes, in Patrologia Graeca 11: 41–48. 89 Origenes, Epistola ad Africanum, in Patrologia Graeca 11: 48–85. Text: Orige`ne, La Lettre a` Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne, ed. Nicholas De Lange (Paris: Du Cerf, 1983). 90 On Origen and the Jews, see Nicholas De Lange, Origen and the Jews. Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge: University Press, 1976); Gerard J. Norton, “Jews, Greeks and the Hexapla of Origen”, in The Aramaic Bible; Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994): 400–419.

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

53

Hexapla, applying special signs (asterisk, obelos, and metobelos).91 The principle of his dealing with the Hebrew and other Greek versions of the text are quite unambiguous, namely to offer a basis for understanding the Septuagint text: Again, in Genesis, the words, “God saw that it was good”, when the firmament was made, are not found in the Hebrew, and there is no small dispute among them about this; and other instances are to be found in Genesis, which I marked, for the sake of distinction, with the sign the Greeks call an obelisk, as on the other hand I marked with an asterisk those passages in our copies which are not found in the Hebrew. What need is there to speak of Exodus, where there is such diversity in what is said about the tabernacle and its court, and the ark, and the garments of the high Priest and the priests, that sometimes even the meaning does not seem to be akin? And, forsooth, when we notice such things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery! Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died (I Corinthians 6:20); whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all things? (Romans 8:32).92

The aim of Origen concerning the biblical text is not to reconstruct a veritas hebraica,93 but to offer a tool for apologetic purposes against Jewish “forgeries” of the text, “faithfully” transmitted by the Christian churches.94 Origen offers a detailed answer to the attempts by Africanus to prove that some philological peculiarities and stylistic wordplays are also possible in Hebrew and Greek. In any case, his efforts to compare Greek and Hebrew tradition have a clearly apologetic aim in defence of the Christian faith. Yet, it is interesting to note that Origen is supposed to have also consulted the opinion of a Jewish “lover of wisdom”, 91 These signs were devised by the second century B. C. E. textual critic, Aristarch of Alexandria in the edition of Homeric poems: the obelos marked passages which the critic wished to omit, while the asterisk all those which has to be worthy of special attention. 92 Origen, Ad Africanum 8: English translation from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts et alii, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1956); see also Nicholas De Lange, ed., Orige`ne. La lettre a` Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne (Paris: Du Cerf, 1983): 533. 93 On the origin and meaning of Origen’s Hexapla, see the contributions collected by Alison Salvesen, ed., Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998). 94 See also Origen, Ad Africanum 9 and the commentary of De Lange, Orige`ne. La lettre a` Africanus, 496.

54

libraries and canon

called by the Jews the “son of a wise man”, who did not reject the history of Susanna (“he did not consider it as forgery, referring to Jeremiah 29:23 where Ahab son of Kolaiah and Zedekiah son of Maaseiah, are said to ‘have done outrageous things in Israel; they have committed adultery with their neighbours’ wives’”). The story is considered as plausible by the Rabbi95 because of a possible exegetical (aggadic) expansion. The exegetical principle implied here is the truth of a story on the basis of plausibility, as developed by the Midrash. Two considerations can be inferred, provided that Origen really had met the Rabbi: The aggadic expansion as argument in favour of a tradition is read by Origen as proof of canonicity and second, the testimony of the Jews, which he denied in reference to the Hebrew text, is here accepted via oral Torah! For Christian readers, the principle exposed here is the validity of Church tradition: what the Church transmits as canonical cannot be refused by means of a comparison with the original text because Jewish traditions are only prophetic references to the Christian truth, but by no means the truth. From the third century on, Christian scholars were concerned with the difficult question of the relationship of the Septuagint to the Hebrew text(s) and to the other Greek translations. Eusebius of Caesarea (265–340),96 for instance, is the typical case of a vir doctus who collected everything pertinent to the Christian religion or at least reputed as such. In his Praeparatio Evangelica, a masterwork of composition on the basis of different sources with the goal of demonstrating the antiquity of Christian beliefs, he reports the legend of the Septuagint97 95 In Rabbinic Judaism there is no written trace of the story of Susanna. On possible parallels, see Louis Ginzberg, The Legend of the Jews, vol. 6, 426, note 106. 96 On the Jewish sources of Eusebius, see Michael E. Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius (Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1989). 97 On Eusebius and the Jews see Dominique Barthe´lemy, “Euse`be, la Septante et ‘les autres’”, in La Bible et les Pe`res. Colloque de Strasbourg (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971): 51–65; Manlio Simonetti, “Eusebio tra ebrei e giudei”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 14 (1997): 121–134; Aryeh Kofsky, “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Christian-Jewish Polemic”, in Contra Iudaeos. Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews, ed. Ora Limor and Guy G. Stroumsa (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996): 59–83; Michael J. Hollerich, “Eusebius as a Polemical Interpreter of Scripture”, in Christianity and Judaism, ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata (Leiden: Brill, 1992): 585–615; Eugene Charles Ulrich, “The Old Testament Text of Eusebius. The Heritage of Origen”, in Origen of Alexandria. His World and His Legacy, ed. Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen (Notre Dame, In.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988): 543–562; Jörg Ulrich, Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden. Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1999).

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

55

mostly taken from Aristeas and Philo of Alexandria.98 Eusebius sees in the translation of the Septuagint a revelatory sign of God who wanted to commence Christian revelation with this work. God himself (theos autos) inspired Ptolemy to have Scripture translated in order to put it at the ready disposal of all those summoned to the new faith.99 The initiative of God is clearly dictated by the anti-Jewish premise (following Irenaeus) that the Jews would have concealed their book rather than to put it at the textual disposal of the Christians. Eusebius adds that although the Jews have in the Septuagint offered a truthful exemplar of the texts, the old Alexandrine translation involves various obscurities which can be solved by the “others”.100 A very peculiar aspect comes to light here: Eusebius also accepts as scriptural authority the testimonies of the translators who did their work after the birth of Jesus Christ. Two new factors must be stressed: first, the Septuagint seems to be losing that authority which is increasingly ascribed the Hebrew text; second, and as a consequence of the first, younger translators (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) can also be “inspired”.101 With reference to this peculiarity, Dominique Barthe´lemy speaks of a paradox of Eusebius’ theology of Providence which “uses the recent Jews who have not believed in Jesus the Messiah for rendering the prophecies limpid which the translators of Alexandria made obscure by another plan of Providence”.102 I do not think that Eusebius ends in a paradox when he allows the “younger” translators to explain what the Seventy-two had left obscure. For he is extremely consistent in the theology of inspiration which follows the propagation of the legend of the Septuagint step by step: the best way for grounding the messianic (i. e. Christian) prophecies of the Greek Torah is to assume that the translators unwillingly were possessed by the divine spirit. The exegetical paradigm of Christian actualisation is the episode of Numbers

98

Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica liber 8,1 (Patrologia Graeca 21): 585–597. Patrologia Graeca, 21:585D–588A. 100 Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Prooemium, 35 quoted by Ulrich, Euseb, 178, and note 226. On this aspect, see Barthe´lemy, “Euse`be”, 63; see also Wendland, Testimonia, 129. 101 Eusebius introduces translations other than the Septuagint with thaumasto¯s he¯rmeneuse (“he wonderfully translated”). 102 Barthe´lemy, “Euse`be”, 53: “Ce qui donne un tour paradoxal a` l’interpre´tation d’Euse`be, c’est qu’elle implique de la parte de la Providence le dessein d’utiliser des juifs re´cents qui n’ont pas reconnus en Je´sus le Messie pour rendre limpides les prophe´ties qu’avaient obscurcies, par un autre dessein de la Providence, les vieux traducteurs d’Alexandrie”. 99

56

libraries and canon

22–24, a prophecy ex parte alterius which furnished the new religion with a theological basis: it is not the apology of Christianity which evidences the truth of Christian beliefs––rather, it is even Jewish prophets, all the more so if they are born after the coming of Christ and his Church. The argument is not a paradox, but the most consistent exegetical discourse. Eusebius’ interpretation of Septuagint and of the “other” constitutes a turning point in the “de-canonization” of the Greek Torah. This was, of course, not intended, yet emerged as the consequence of his canonization theory and exegetical Demonstratio. He wanted to prove that Christian beliefs are prophetically included in the Ancient Testament and thus definitely had to go back to the original. If the original text, even corrupted, can be taken as a prophetical testimony of the new religion, that means that the birth of Christianity was divinely inspired and not a Jewish sect. It may be, as Jörg Ulrich has recently supposed, that Eusebius’ aim was to discuss the nature of Christianity on a “neutral” (or as he says “objective”) basis, also mentioning the “others”. The effect of his “evangelical demonstration” on the basis of the Septuagint and the “others” was nothing but an unwilling form of “affirmative action” for the Hebrew text. The Septuagint is no more the Greek Torah of the Christians; it is reduced to a reference to the Hebrew truth (veritas Hebraica), unknown to the Christians, but well known to the Jews. We must perhaps explain from this perspective what he writes about the Hebrew language: “One should not disregard the fact that the prophecies made possible different translations because of their difficulties. For they contain in the Hebrew a great deal that is odd both in regard to the sense of the word (lexis) as well as its deep meaning (dianoia)”.103 The differences between the translations go back to the Hebrew original which, according to him, is polymorph and polysemic. This argument will be picked up by Hilarius of Poitiers to sustain the authority of the Septuagint104––and (notably) not of the Hebrew text. Eusebius’ turning point, doubtless a consistent step after the Hexapla of Origen, had no lasting effect in Eastern Church, which follows the Jewish-Hellenistic tradition of Philo of Alexandria, as Cyrillus of Jerusalem (ca. 313–386) clearly shows: he addresses the Greek Torah as directly inspired by the same Spirit of the Sinai Torah (. . . all’ek 103 Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica V: prooemium 35, quoted in this context by Ulrich, Euseb, 195. The English translation is mine. 104 See below, pp. 64–66.

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

57

pneumatos hagiou e¯ to¯n hagio¯i pneumati lale¯theiso¯n grapho¯n hermeneia syneteleito).105 John Chrysostom (ca. 354–407) rejects the “recent” new translators because these made their translation after Christ’s coming, and therefore must be suspected of “having spoken rather in enmity, and as darkening the prophecies on purpose”. The Seventy cannot be viewed with suspicion, having entered upon this work before the coming of Christ, and on account of the “date, and of their number, and of their agreement”.106 In his homilies against Judaizing Christians,107 he adds two more interesting aspects: When he (i. e. Ptolemy) learned that the Jews had writings which treated of God and the ideal state, he sent for men from Judea and had them translate those books, which he then had deposited in the temple of Serapis, for he was a pagan. Up to the present day the translated books remain there in the temple. But will the temple of Serapis be holy because of the holy books? Heaven forbid! Although the books have their own holiness, they do not give a share of it to the place because those who frequent the place are defiled.108

A first element is the remark that the books of the Jews are kept in the temple of Serapis, a particular claim which we know from Tertullian. A second is the rhetorical use of such news. Chrysostom’s aim is not to introduce his believers into the theological problem of the sacrality of books which are in unholy places, (a Rabbinical discussion!), but to 105 Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Catechesis IV. De decem dogmatibus (Patrologia Graeca 33): 497, see also Wendland, Testimonia, 138. 106 Ioannes Chrysostomos, In Matthaeum Homiliae V:2 (Patrologia Graeca 57):57; Wendland, Testimonia, 139. 107 Here is not the place for a detailed discussion as to whether John Chrysostom wrote his homilies against the Jews (and therefore we have to speak of an anti-Jewish text) or against Christian sympathizers of Jews. For the discussion see Fausto Parente, “Le omelie di Giovanni Crisostomo ed il loro significato nello svolgimento della polemica cristiana antiebraica”, in Associazione Italiana per lo Studio del Giudaismo: Atti del II Convegno tenuto a Idice, Bologna, novembre 1981, ed. Fausto Parente and Daniela Piattelli (Roma: Carucci, 1983): 27–34; Robert Louis Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983); Adele Monaci Castagno, “Ridefinire il confine; ebrei, giudaizzanti, cristiani nell’ ‘Adversus Iudaeos’ di Giovanni Crisostomo”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 14 (1997): 135–152; Wendy Pradels, “The Sequence and Dating of the Series of John Chrysostom’s Eight Discourses ‘Adversus Iudaeos’”, Journal of Ancient Christianity 6 (2002): 90–116. 108 John Chrysostom, Adversus Iudaeos, I:6,1. Translated text from http://www.ford ham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html; see also Mervyn C. Maxwell, Chrysostom’s Homilies Against the Jews: an English translation (Ph. D. University of Chicago, 1967); John Chrysostom, Discourses against Judaizing Christians, transl. Paul W. Harkins (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1979).

58

libraries and canon

show by contrast that the Jewish synagogues own the holy books yet are devoid of holiness, because their places defile everyone who wishes to enter. Therefore he adds: “You must apply the same argument to the synagogue. Even if there is no idol there, still demons do inhabit the place”.109 According to the current opinion, Chrysostom is worrying about Christians who went into raptures about Jewish holidays110 and consequently, his harsh statement against Jewish tradition and customs can be understood as an assertion of identity to discourage Christians from becoming proselytes. It is difficult to ascertain whether the Jewish community of Antioch was numerous and so much a part of official and everyday life that it caused such a reaction. Although the only source from the 5th century which speaks of a philo-Jewish tendency in Christian community is Chrysostom, we cannot definitively argue e silentio that it cannot be accepted as true. However, such virulent attacks on Judaism can also conceal a tactical theological move to deconstruct Jewish authority on the basis of Scripture against some other of his colleagues, his proper enemies. For Chrysostom, the origins of the holy books in Judaism do not affect the truth of Christianity, because they are not holy. In his eyes, antiquity is not the criterion of truth but rather holiness, as he says in the Homily VI: Do not tell me that the Law and the books of the prophets are there. These do not make it a holy place. Which is the better thing? Is it better to have the books there or to speak out the truths they contain? Obviously it is better to articulate these truths and to keep them in your heart.111

That was indeed the main point: the possession of the books of the Law and the Prophets in Jewish hands. Chrysostom’s option is to separate books and truth: the former belonged to the Jews, the latter to the Christians. He is not the first but is surely the most prominent advocate of the division between what should be called the contrast between dogmatics and philology. This played a major role in the western controversy between Rufinus, Augustine and Jerome (see below). The authority of Christian tradition is based in principle on the inspired 109 John Chrysostom, Adversus Iudaeos, I:6,2. Translated text from http://www.ford ham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html. 110 See Bernard Kötting, “Die Entwickelung im Osten bis Justinian”, in Kirche und Synanogue. Handbuch zur Geschichte von Christen und Juden. Darstellung mit Quellen, ed. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Siegfried von Korztfleich (Stuttgart: Ernst Kletter, 1968), vol. 1: 158–165. 111 John Chrysostom, Adversus Iudaeos, VI:6,8. Translated text from http://www. fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html.

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

59

translation of the Septuagint. To revert to the Hebrew text and to the recent translations undermines this authority and therefore also undermines Christianity. That is the very question. The contribution of Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 315–403) to the story of the Septuagint is twofold: as a theological summarizer of the precedent traditions on the uniqueness of the Septuagint as well as an antiquarian encyclopaedist who uncritically collected all legends, facts, curiosities, and stories on biblical text and its translations. The two characteristic elements are not contradictory: the latter is the ideological support of the former. His theological work is considered uncritical and in the main reactionary, although his erudition was highly appreciated in antiquity and the Middle Ages and had a very farreaching influence. Interestingly enough, only “his Attic inelegance” was negatively emphasized as a stylistic minus by Photius in his Bibliotheca.112 However, his Latin admirer Jerome especially stressed that he was skilled in languages,113 (a “pentaglottic man”) and that, contrary to Rufinus’ criticism, he was not a “plagiarist of Origen”.114 The admiration of Jerome should not obscure the fact that at least his Hebrew “was not all that Jerome’s praise would lead us to believe”, as James E. Dean affirms referring to an example of “barbarous Hebrew text” quoted by Epiphanius.115 The knowledge of Hebrew by the Church fathers (also including Jerome) is a very difficult chapter in modern scholarship, which still oscillates between apology and methodical apartheid. For the history of the Septuagint, his encyclopaedia De Mensuris et Ponderibus (“On Weights and Measures”) is of a certain importance, being directly or indirectly a commentary on the Hexapla.116 The aim of 112

Bibliotheca or Myriobiblon, codex 122. Jerome wrote (Contra Rufinum II:22): “Should it be considered a crime for knowing Greek, Syrian, Hebrew, Egyptian, and in part also Latin?”; see Hugo Gressman, “Jüdisch-Aramäisches bei Epiphanius”, Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 16 (1915): 191–197; Jürgen Dummer, “Die Sprachkenntnisse des Epiphanius”, in Die Araber in der alten Welt, ed. Franz Altheim, vol. 5/1 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1968): 392–435; see also Judith M. Lieu, “Epiphanius on the Scribes and Pharisees (Pan. 15.1–16.4)”, Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 509–524. 114 Jerome, Contra Rufinum I:21–22. 115 James E. Dean, ed., Epiphanius’ Treatise, ix (see following footnote). 116 For the Syrian text, see Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures: The Syraic Version, ed. James E. Dean (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935); for the Georgian text, see Les versions ge´orgiennes d’E´piphane de Chypre, Traite´ des poids et des mesures, ed. Michel-Jean van Esbroeck (Lovanii: Peeters, 1984); for the Armenian text, see The Armenian Texts of Epiphanius of Salamis “De mensuris et ponderibus”, ed. 113

60

libraries and canon

Epiphanius’ treatise is primarily to introduce the reader to measures and weights in the divine Scriptures. In effect, it is a little encyclopaedia on everything he supposed to be of importance for his readers: the signs on words and the letters, the accents, and their meaning; the number of the (Hebrew) letters and of the biblical books, their division and canonical meaning. Dealing with asterisk, obelus, lemniscus and hypolemniscus (signs from the Hexapla of Origen), he introduces the reader into the world of biblical translations.117 There is no proper order in this and the story of translation of the Seventy-two, reported according to Aristeas, is spread all over the work, according to the Syrian and Greek version, while the Georgian and Armenian versions seem to have more consistencies118 (and therefore may be of a later redaction).119 The first impression is that the treatise presents a draft of something he wanted to deal with at length but had still not finished. He talks indeed about the translation, mentioning the twenty-two books of the Bible in comparison with the letters of the alphabets, to which he also adds the books of Wisdom and of Ben Sira. No distinction is made between the canon of the Septuagint and that of the Hebrew text. The immediate context of the legend is the explanation of the Origenian obelus, as a sign of omissions from the Septuagintal text in comparison with the translation of Aquila and Symmachus. His commentary: For they omitted those that had no need of repletion; but where there was a word that was considered ambiguous when translated into the Greek language, there they made an addition. This may be surprising, but we should not be rash to bring censure, but rather praise that it is according to the will of God that what is sacred should be understood.120

Michael E. Stone and Roberta R. Ervin (Lovanii: Peeters, 2000). A first Greek edition is in Patrologia Graeca 43; for a Greek critical edition, see E¯lia D. Moutsoula, “To ‘peri metro¯n kai statho¯n’ ergo¯n Epiphaniou tou Salaminos”, Theologia 44 (1973): 157–200. For the problems inherent this tractate and in reference to the Septuagint, see Michel-Jean van Esbroeck, “Une forme ine´dite de la lettre du roi Ptole´me´e pour la traduction des LXX”, Biblica 57 (1976): 543–546 and Michael E. Stone, “Concerning the Seventy-two Translators: Armenian Fragments of Epiphanius on Weights and Measure”, Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 331–336; see also my “L’ispirazione della LXX”, 47–48. 117 De mensuris et ponderibus 3 and ff. I follow here above all the Syrian version, according to the English translation of James E. Dean. 118 On this aspect, see the introduction of Stone and Ervin, eds., The Armenian Texts, 20–22. 119 On this question, see the introduction of van Esbroeck to the Georgian version, Traite´ des poids, 1–3. 120 De mensuris et ponderibus 3, 48c in James E. Dean, ed., Epiphanius’ Treatise, 18.

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

61

The hermeneutical principle of “understanding” is accordingly not capricious and arbitrary, because the authority of the Septuagint is founded in the event of the “perfect” translation itself, which is narrated with a score of legendary and “historical” details. The following text is worth quoting for the consistency of elaboration, extending even into the architectonic structure: For while they were seventy-two in number and on the Pharian island, but called Ano¯ge¯, opposite Alexandria, they were in thirty-six cells, two in each cell. From morning to evening they were shut up, and in the evening they would cross over in thirty-six small boats and go again to the palace of Ptolemy Philadelphus and dine with him. And each pair slept in (one of) thirty-six bedchambers, so that they might not talk with one another, but might produce an unadulterated translation. Thus they conducted themselves. For, having constructed the thirty-six cells already mentioned, over the island, and formed them into pairs, Ptolemy shut them two by two, as I have said. And with them he shut up two youths to minister to them in preparing food and (in other) services, and also skilled scribes. Moreover, he had made no opening into these cells through the walls, but in the roof above he opened what are called roof windows. But while thus abiding from morning to evening shut in by locks, they were translating as follows. To every pair one book was given. That is to say, the book of the Genesis of the world to one pair, the Exodus of the Israelites to another pair, that of Leviticus to another, and the next book in order to the next; and thus the twenty seven recognised canonical books were translated, but twenty-two when counted according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.121

The fabrication of the cells doubtless goes back to the author of the Cohortatio ad Graecos, provided this text was known to him, or to intermediary sources. Epiphanius’ addition to the legend is the more precise description of the cells in the building, the course and the order of the translation and the reference to the two canons: for him there is no difference between the Hebrew and the Greek canon, reducing the question to a problem of account. The bishop of Salamis is also conscious of that tradition which speaks only of the Pentateuch and not of the entire corpus as the books translated by the Seventy-two, for he is the sole person who tries to reduce the entire canon to four “Pentateuchs”122 (+ two other books). After the 36 translations of the books, a royal review took place: 121

Ibidem. Or five “Pentateuchs”, if the division of the Psalms in five books is also added, De mensuris et ponderibus 4–5, 48b–c in James E. Dean, ed., Epiphanius’ Treatise, 20–21. 122

62

libraries and canon An when they were completed, the king sat on a lofty throne; and thirtysix readers also sat below, holding thirty-six duplicates of each book, and one has a copy of the Hebrew Scripture. Each reader read alone, and the other kept watch. No disagreement was found, but it was such an amazing work of God that it was recognized that these men possessed the gift of the Holy Spirit, because they agreed in translation. And wherever they had added a word all of them had added the same, and where they had made an omission all alike had made the omission. And there was no need for the omitted words, but for those they added there was need. But that what is said may be clear to you, how marvellously, under the guidance of God and in the harmony of the Holy Spirit, they translated harmoniously and were not at variance with one another . . . 123

Epiphanius is conscious of the problem of pluses and minuses of the old Greek translations, which he tries to justify. For other Church scholars, the inspiration of the Septuagint was a premise underlying its status as Christian Bible. In Epiphanius’ view, inspiration is the justification of the changes in some texts, an opinion which we will also find in Babylonian Rabbinic sources. After the legendary report about the reading of the translated text and the meaning of the lemniscus and hypolemniscus,124 Epiphanius astonishingly returns to beginning of the legend (according to Aristeas),125 dealing with the causes and the event of the translation, the library of Alexandria in the quarter of Bruchion (“a quarter of the city today lying waste”), the authors of the translation, their names and above all the two letters of the king to the High Priest in Jerusalem.126 In first letter to the “teachers of the Jews”, the king asks for the books of the prophets “which tell about God and the creation of the world”. The teachers of Jerusalem “had great joy and without delay transcribed the books in Hebrew letters of Gold”. Of course, the king could not read them and it was necessary to write a second letter, in which the king, quoting Ecclesiasticus 20:30 and Canticus 4:12 and complaining “as to the hidden treasure and the sealed fountain, what profit is there in either of them?”, asks about translators of the text. Epiphanius must have read the comment on the two letters of Ptolemy in Justin’s Apology (see above), as a legendary accretion to Aristeas’ report. He also follows Justin, as I stressed above, in his interpretation of Egypt as a 123

De mensuris et ponderibus 6, 50b in James E. Dean, ed., Epiphanius’ Treatise,

20–21. 124

Ibidem 8, 49b in James E. Dean, ed., Epiphanius’ Treatise, 21. But see the Georgian version by van Esbroeck, Traite´ des poids, 1–3, where the parts are inverted. 126 Ibidem 10–11, 52b–53c in James E. Dean, ed., Epiphanius’ Treatise, 25–27. 125

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

63

counterpart to Sinai. In this perspective, he adds to the interpretation of the story a theological reference to Exodus 24:1: “. . . according to the example that Moses once set when he went up to the mountain at the command of the Lord, having heard: ‘Take with thee seventy men and go up to the mountain’”.127 Epiphanius’ De Mensuris et Ponderibus was of far-reaching influence not only in Christianity, but also among Muslims,128 Karaites and Jewish authors. There are many biblical translations which made use of it. The reworked version of Sefer Yosippon seems to have used the De Mensuris.129 Several sidre olam, transmitted by the medieval Sefer Yerahme el have used it at least as an indirect source; the Kairaite ˙ Yaqub al-Qirqisa¯ni130 must have read him when he reports: scholar Many of them argue that no alteration or change has been introduced into the translation because King Ptolemy, having assembled seventy Elders of the Jews, divided them up and placed every pair in a separate place and then he ordered them to translate for him the twenty-four books; which they did, and when their translations were compared, no difference was found between them.131

There is no doubt that the fortune of Epiphanius in the various cultural and geographical areas has to be connected not only to the sundry translations of his opus, but also to his very simple style seeking to repeat the canonical past by trying to harmonize everything. He was evidently conscious of the problems inherent to the legend and the Septuagint (the number of the books, the library of Alexandria, the contradictions in the report by Aristeas, the method of translation, their textual additions and omissions, the value of the other translators etc.); but he offered an irenic solution to all problems, giving an “ironed” version of them all and aiming at converting all his readers to the Septuagint. In the Western Church, the question about the text of the Old Testament becomes very awkward, although Christian Latin authors try to avoid a direct undermining of the Septuagint’s authority, at least until the turning point of the Vulgata of Jerome. As we have already seen, 127

Ibidem. On Exodus 24:1 see below, pp. 134–138. See Georges Vajda, “La version des LXX dans la litte´rature musulmane”, Revue des E´tudes Juives 89 (929–1930): 65–70. 129 See my Gegenwart der Tradition, 122–132. 130 Kita¯b ar-riyad 1,4,16, quoted according to Bruno Chiesa and Wilfrid Lockwood, eds.., Yaqu¯b Al-Qirqisa¯nı¯ on Jewish Sects and Christianity (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1984): 130–131; see Veltri, Eine Tora für den König, 243–246. 131 Ibidem. 128

64

libraries and canon

Eusebius of Caesarea seems indirectly to accept the authority of the Hebrew text, by accepting the “truth” of the other translators after the coming of Jesus Christ. In contrast to the Eastern Church, which defended the ‘ownership’ of the Greek Old Testament as Christian Scripture by appealing to the prophecies, the use of the New Testament and above all by referring to a legend of inspiration, the main problem of the Latin Church is the authority of the Septuagint as authors (“auctores”) and their text. The legend of the Septuagint and its inspiration did not play any further role. However, the authority of the Septuagint in toto was undermined because of the increasing authority granted to the “other” translations. On the other hand, the Christian Latin Church was precisely Latin and in the main used a translation of a translation (Vetus Latina). For this essential reason, the original only hinted at Hebrew original texts, but slowly it became more and more necessary to refer to the Veritas Hebraica in toto. Yet how can we go back to the Hebrew text without leaving the Christian Church? That will also be the unresolved problem in Jerome’s attempt. The first Latin author concerned with the problem of the auctoritas of the Septuagint is Hilarius of Poitiers (ca. 315–367). Dealing with the second psalm in his Tractatus super Psalmos, Hilarius discusses the question of the Septuagint.132 According to him, the Seventy old men (septuaginta seniores) translated the book of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek (libros Veteris Testamenti ex hebraeis litteris in graecas) before the coming of Jesus, son of God (priusquam unigenitus Dei filius ante saecula manens Deus Verbum, homo nascitur).133 The premise priusquam unigenitus Dei filius . . . homo nascitur is by no means a theological and rhetorical cliche´, but an indirect reference to Irenaeus, who stressed the factor of antiquity to contrast the new translations134 completed after Christ’s Passion (post Passionem Domini).135 132 Hilarius, Tractatus super Psalmos. In Psalmum II, ed. Anton Zingerle (Vindobonae: Tempsky, 1891) (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 22): 38–40. On Hilarius and the Septuagint, see Ne´stor J. Gastaldi, Hilario de Poitiers: exegeta del salterio. Un estudio de su exe´gesis en los comentarios sobre los salmos (Paris: Beauchesne, 1969): 97–142; Marc Milhau, “Un texte d’Hilaire de Poitiers sur les Septante, leur traduction et les autres ‘traducteurs’ (In psalm. 2,2–3)”, Augustinianum 21 (1981): 365–372; on the question of probably Rabbinic influence on the work of Hilarius, see Jean Danie´lou, The´ologie du jude´o-christianisme (Paris: Descle´e, 1958). 133 In Psalmum II (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 22): 38. 134 Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses III:21:1 (Sources Chre´tiennes 211): 400: “Multum ante tempore adventus Domini nostri ut nulla relinquatur suspicio ne forte morem nobis gerentes Iudaei ita sint interpretati”. 135 So In Psalmum LIX:2 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 22): 192.

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

65

A very peculiar aspect of Hilarius’ dealing with the Septuagint is his original distinction between written and oral tradition, a notably Rabbinic element, but used here contra Judaism. According to him, a distinction needs to be made in Jewish tradition between the written texts, which are ambiguous in the letters, and the oral tradition transmitted separatim to the Seventy old men, teachers of the synagogue (erat autem iam a Moyse antea institutum, in synagoga omni Septuaginta esse doctores), here clearly identified with the Seventy of Exodus 24:1. Moses transmitted a secret teaching, necessary to understand the sacred text,136 only to the congregation of the Seventy. The Septuagint impressed on the text the seal of the tradition.137 This transmitted doctrine is legally valid for the Church.138 Without the oral tradition, impressed on the Greek text, the spiritual understanding of the Scripture is not possible because we remain in this way under dominion of the literal sense like Aquila, who translated literally after Christ’s Passion, and thus without understanding the spiritual meaning.139 According to him, the Hebrew language is ambiguous and it is for that reason that we need the “canon” of the tradition which can help in understanding it.140 Hilarius’ aim is not to offer any apology for the Septuagintal text against the Hebrew Bible, but to defend the importance of the authority of tradition. In effect, he does not avoid mentioning other texts and translations in his commentary. He does not slavishly render the Septuagint text141 or, in the Latin tradition, the Vetus Latina. His commitment to the Septuagint is only a question of principle. The authority of the Seventy old men relies exclusively on the authority of Moses,142 136 In Psalmum II (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 22): 38: “. . . quamvis verba Testamenti in litteras condidisset, tamen separatim quaedam ex occultis legis secretiora mysteria septuaginta senioribus, qui doctores deinceps maneret, intimaverat”. 137 Gastaldi, Hilario, 101. 138 In Psalmum CXXXI:24 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 22): 680: “sed nobis sequenda est prima illa et sub Iudaeorum temporibus ante domini adventum ad ecclesiae doctrinam consignata translationis auctoritas”. 139 In Psalmum LIX:2 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latirnorum 22): 192. 140 In Psalmum II:2 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latirnorum 22): 39: “et ex eo fit, ut, qui postea transtulerunt, diversis modis interpretantes magnum gentibus adtulerint errorem, dum occultae illius et a Moyse profectae traditionis ignari ea, quae ambigue lingua hebrea commemorata sunt, incertis suis ipsis iudiciis ediderunt”. 141 On the text of Hilarius, see detailed information in Henri Jeannotte, “Le texte du Psautier de Saint Hilaire de Poitiers”, Revue Biblique 13 (1916): 61–89 and idem, Le Psautier de saint Hilaire de Poitiers (Gabalda: Paris 1917). 142 In Psalmum II:3 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latirnorum 22): 39: “dehinc, quod ipsi illi principes doctoresque synagogae et praeter scientiam legis per Moysen

66

libraries and canon

who perfected them in the art and science of transmitting a hidden doctrine. The reader of Hilarius’ Psalter should at least notice here that he is not directly speaking of the Seventy two of Alexandria, but of the Seventy old men of Exodus 24:1. We will see that this comparison plays a significant role in the history of the legend of the Septuagint. For Hilarius of Poitiers, the story of the Seventy is the theological basis for introducing his concept of authority. He defines the old men as certissimi et gravissimi . . . auctores docendi. They could not be guilty of arbitrariness in interpreting because they were “the more sure and serious authorities in teaching”. They are “authorities” because they possess a particular hidden doctrine beside the written law (praeter scientiam legis). Hilarius’ definition represents a turning point in the Christian view of authority, because he does not consider the text as sole authority but also the interpreters of the law.143 There is no doubt that Hilarius here is defending the principle of authority in the Christian ecclesiastical teaching. “Authority” is nothing but a description of the teachers, successors of the apostles. The Seventy-two men of Exodus and the Seventy of the synagogues are “authorities of/in teaching”, auctores docendi, the only men responsible for the true meaning because they possess the laws and the secret doctrine.144 By using Rabbinic categories like the authority of the oral tradition, Hilarius of Poitiers clearly aimed at consolidating the theological place of the Septuagint. Yet what seems to be the apex of the story of the Septuagint in the Latin Church is also at the same time its decline and end. The argument and dispute between Augustine of Hippo (354–430) and Jerome (ca. 347–419/20) unmistakably marks the official separation of the Latin world from the Septuagint, or at least denotes a change in mentality. Jerome, both indirectly and directly, questions not only the legend but also the authority of the Septuagint, because he had worked out a new translation from the Hebrew, or at least with help of the Hebrew text. The changes, operating in his translation against the text of the Septuagint, were, of course, not without consequences. His younger colleague Augustine, whose knowledge of languages was

quoque doctrina secretiore perfecti non potuerunt inprobabiles esse arbritri interpretandi, qui certissimi et gravissimi erant auctores docendi”. 143 On the concept auctoritas, see my “L’ispirazione della LXX”, 42–44 and related footnotes. 144 See Gustave Bardy, “L’inspiration des Pe`res de l’Eglise”, Recherches de science religieuse 40 (1951–1952): 7–26.

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

67

rather poor, if not totally absent, tries to object that the Septuagint is more than a translation, it becomes an “ecclesiastical” authority145––and is for that reason a pillar of the ecclesiastical tradition. In approaching the dispute between the bishop of Hippo and the ascetic of Bethlehem, we cannot avoid the question as to whether this debate deals basically with ecclesiastical authority and philological consistency, as modern scholarship suggests. Our conclusion tries to go beyond the mere and superficial appearance of the sources. I prefer to begin with the position of Augustine, because he was defending the traditional thesis at a first stage in his confrontation with Jerome. Central to an understanding of the cultural changes of the 4th–5th century in the Latin world is the letter LXXI of Augustine to Jerome,146 written in 394–395, in which (in the name of the episcopate) he asks him for a new translation from the Greek, refusing a direct translation from the Hebrew. A translation from the Hebrew means for Augustine to reject the Septuagint and all the associated dangers. The first argument of Augustine is very simple but at the same time extremely cogent: he calls into question the problem of the verifiability of Jerome’s translation. All the Latin translations which were in circulation could be verified by other scholars because the Greek language was known to most of them.147 On the contrary, if he translates from Hebrew who can judge it? Only himself and the Jews:148

145 On the characterisation of Augustine’s approach to the Septuagint as “ecclesiastical”, see George Jouassard, “Re´flexions sur la position de Saint Augustine relativement aux Septante dans sa discussion avec Saint Jerome”, Revue des Eˆtudes Augustiennes 2 (1956): 99. 146 On the attitude of Augustine to Jerome, see Alfons Fürst, “‘Veritas Latina’: Augustins Haltung gegenüber Hieronymus’ Bibelübersetzungen”, Revue des E´tudes Augustiniennes 40 (1994): 105–126. 147 The knowledge of Greek at Augustine’s time is a debated question. Augustine does not seem to be acquainted with it and Rufinus’ letter to Jerome testifies that Greek had almost disappeared from Western culture, as he noted before their entering into monastery (“conversio”): “Ante enim quam converteretur, mecum pariter et litteras graecas et linguam penitus ignorabat”, see Rufinus, Apologia contra Hieronymum II:9:20–22 (Corpus Christianorum Latinorum 20): 91. On this question, see Franz Blatt, “Remarques sur l’historie des traductions latines”, Classica et mediaevalia 1 (1938): 217–242; Gustave Bardy, La question des langues dans l’Eglise ancienne (Paris: Beauchesne, 1948); Pierre Boyance´, “La connaissance du grec a` Rome”, Revue des e´tudes latines 34 (1956): 111–131. 148 Augustine, Epistula LXXI II:4 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 34): 252: “Ego sane mallem Graecas potius canonicas te nobis interpretari scripturas, quae septuaginta interpretum perhibentur. Perdurum erit enim, si tua interpretatio per multas ecclesias frequentius coeperit lectitari, quod a Graecis ecclesiis Latinae ecclesiae

68

libraries and canon For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit to have so many Latin and Greek authorities pronounced to be in the wrong? Besides all this, Jews, if consulted as to the meaning of the Hebrew text, may give a different opinion from yours: in which case it will seem as if your presence were indispensable, as being the only one who could refute their view; and it would be a miracle if one could be found capable of acting as arbiter between you and them.149

A second argument against Jerome’s translation is the reaction of the people against his innovations. He calls to mind an episode in the community of Oea (Tripoli) where the local bishop read Jerome’s translation of Jonah 4:6 (quiddam longe aliter abs te positum) instead of the traditional Latin one, provoking a revolt in the community, especially dissonabunt, maxime quia facile contradictor convincitur Graeco prolato libro, ist est linguae notissimae. quisquis autem in eo, quod Hebraeo translatum est, aliquo insolito permotus fuerit et falsi crimen intenderit, vix aut numquam ad Hebraea testimonia pervenitur, quibus defendatur obiectum, quod si etiam perventum fuerit, tot Latinitas et Graecas auctoritates damnari quis ferat? Huc accedit, quia etiam consulti Hebraei possunt aliud respondere, ut tu solus necessarius videaris, qui etiam ipsos possis convincere, sed tamen quo iudice, mirum si potueris invenire”. On Augustine attitude’s to the Jews, see Marcel Jacques Dubois, “Jews, Judaism and Israel in the Theology of Saint Augustine. How he Links the Jewish People and the Land of Zion”, Immanuel 22–23 (1989): 162–214; Paula Fredriksen, “‘Excaecati occulta justitia Dei.’ Augustine on Jews and Judaism”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 3 (1995) 299–324; eadem, “Divine Justice and Human Freedom. Augustine on Jews and Judaism”, in From Witness to Witchcraft. Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought, ed. Jeremy Cohen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1996): 29–57; Jeremy Cohen, “‘Slay them not’. Augustine and the Jews in Modern Scholarship”, Medieval Encounters 4 (1998): 78–92; Paula Fredriksen, “Augustine and Israel. ‘Interpretatio ad litteram’. Jews, and Judaism in Augustine’s Theology of history”, Studia Patristica 38 (2001): 119–135; Lisa A. Unterseher, “The Mark of Cain and the Jews. Augustine’s Theology of Jews”, Augustinian Studies 33 (2002): 99–121. 149 English translation from Philip Schaff, ed., A Select Library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 1 (reprint Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–1988).

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

69

among the Greeks, who considered the new translated text false. The Jews,150 called in to settle the controversy,151 declared the Greek translation correct.152 The third reservation against a new translation from the Hebrew, expressed in letter XXVIII to Jerome in the same period, was in Augustine’s eyes without a doubt more crucial: although the merits of Jerome as translator of the New Testament are known and acknowledged, he does not have sufficient authority to work out the project of a totally new translation of the Hebrew text if compared to the story and place of the Septuagint in the Christian church: But I should be incredibly surprised if anything is found at this time of day in the Hebrew manuscripts that has escaped so many translators possessing expert knowledge of that language. I leave the Seventy out of account; of their unanimity of mind or of inspiration, greater than if only one man had been concerned, I should not venture to express a definite opinion in any direction, except that I think there can be no question that in this sphere they must be conceded an outstanding authority. I am more concerned about the later translators; they are said to have possessed a more thorough grip of the course and the rules of Hebrew words and phrases, and yet they are not only at variance with each other, but have also left many points that have remained to be unearthed and brought to light after so long. For if these points are obscure, then it is quite credible that you too may go astray in them; if they are clear, it is incredible that they could have gone astray in them.153 150 On the Jews at Augustine’s time, see Helmut Castritius, “The Jews in North Africa at the time of Augustine of Hippo: Their Social and Legal Position”, World Congress of Jewish Studies 9,B1 (1986): 31–37. 151 Augustine (see above): “These, whether from ignorance or from spite, answered that the words in the Hebrew MSS. were correctly rendered in the Greek version, . . .”. The Greek translation of qyqiyun was kolo´kyntha or in the Vetus Latina cucurbita (“pumkin”). Jerome translated it with hedera (“ivy”). 152 On the episode of Oea, see Yves-Marie Duval, “Saint Augustin et le Commentaire sur Jonas de saint Je´roˆme”. Revue des E´tudes Augustiniennes 12 (1966): 9–40; Alfons Fürst, “Kürbis oder Efeu? Zur Übersetzung von Jona 4,6 in der Septuaginta und bei Hieronymus”, Biblische Notizen 72 (1994): 12–19. 153 Augustine, Epistula XXVIII II:2 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 34): 106–107: “. . . Omitto enim Septuaginta, de quorum vel consilii vel spiritus maiore concordia, quam si unus homo esset, non audeo in aliquam partem certam ferre sententiam, nisi quod eis praeeminentem auctoritatem in hoc munere sine controversia tribuendam existimo. Illi me plus movent, qui cum posteriores interpretarentur, et verborum locutionumque hebraearum viam atque regulas mordicus, ut fertur, tenerent, non solum inter se non consenserunt, sed etiam reliquerunt multa, quae tanto post cruenda et prodenda remanerent. Et aut obscura sunt, aut manifesta: si enim obscura sunt, te quoque in eis falli posse creditur; si manifesta, illos in eis falli potuisse non creditur”. English translation from Augustine. Selected Letters, ed. James Houston Baxter (Cambridge, Ma.; London: Harvard University Press, 1953, reprint 1993): 59–61.

70

libraries and canon

Augustine deals with the problem of authority of the text and the relationships of the translation and Hebrew original to each other above all in his De Doctrina Christiana154 and later in his monumental De Civitate Dei.155 In the Doctrina, he tries to underpin the exceptionality of the Septuagint with its legend and its inspiration: And to correct the Latin we must use the Greek versions, among which the authority of the Septuagint is pre-eminent as far as the Old Testament is concerned; for it is reported through all the more learned churches that the Seventy translators enjoyed so much of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their work of translation (qui iam per omnes peritiores ecclesias tanta praesentia sancti spiritus interpretati esse dicuntur, ut os unum hominum fuerit), that among that number of men there was but one voice. And if, as is reported, and as many not unworthy of confidence assert, they were separated during the work of translation, each man being in a cell by himself, and yet nothing was found in the manuscript of any one of them that was not found in the same words and in the same order of words in all the rest, who dares put anything in comparison with an authority like this, not to speak of preferring anything to it (quis huic auctoritati conferre aliquid nedum praeferre audeat)?156

But Augustine was aware of the critics of Jerome against the legend of the “cells” (see below) and therefore he adds: even if they conferred together with the result of an unanimous common labour and judgment, “even so, it would not be right or becoming for any one man, whatever his experience, to aspire to correct the unanimous opinion of many venerable and learned men”.157 The problem of the variant readings does not affect the authority of the Septuagint: For even if anything is found in the original Hebrew in a different form from that in which these men have expressed it, I think we must give way to the dispensation of Providence which used these men to bring it about, that books which the Jewish race were unwilling, either from religious scruple or from jealousy, to make known to other nations, were, with the assistance of the power of King Ptolemy, made known so long beforehand to the nations which in the future were to believe in the Lord.158

The topic of Providence, widespread in Patristic literature and constituting the pillar of Septuagintal authority, represents at the same time 154

Chapter II:XV:22 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 32): 47–48. Chapters XV:11–13; XVIII:42 (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 48): 467–472; 638. 156 Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 32: 47. English translation from Philip Schaff, ed., A Select library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 2. 157 Ibidem. 158 Ibidem. 155

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

71

the first step toward the decline of the Greek Torah because of the theological and philosophical problem of how the Holy Spirit can infuse opposite truths. That is also the main problem in De Civitate Dei. In the City of God, Augustine anew expressly deals with the question of the variant readings of the Septuagint (XV:10–14) and the legend of Aristeas (XVIII:42), read probably in Epiphanius of Salamis. The clue to the introduction of the problem is the discrepancy in the computation from the beginning of the world on, because Septuagint and Hebrew texts have a different number of years.159 The bishop of Hippo does not charge the Jews with forgery or lies (Iudeorum mendacium), as some other of his colleagues did, because the Seventy-two were also Jews (septuaginta interpretes laudabiliter celebratos viros non potuisse mentiri). On the other hand, it seems absurd, the bishop contends, that the Jews faked their own traditions, quite apart from how they could correct all the manuscripts all over the world.160 On the contrary, it is more plausible that the discrepancy in computation should be attributed to errors of copyists in some cases, and in others to a voluntary change, though without any clear reason for that. In rendering the report of Aristeas, Augustine notices of course only the elements suitable to his interpretation: the superiority of the Septuagint as a work of the spirit, as revealed by the following text: It is reported, indeed, that there was an agreement in their words so wonderful, stupendous, and plainly divine, that when they had sat at this work, each one apart (for so it pleased Ptolemy to test their fidelity), they differed from each other in no word which had the same meaning and force, or, in the order of the words; but, as if the translators had been one, so what all had translated was one, because in very deed the one Spirit had been in them all. And they received so wonderful a gift of God, in order that the authority of these Scriptures might be commended not as human but divine, as indeed it was, for the benefit of the nations who should at some time believe, as we now see them doing.161 159

On this problem, mirrored also by the Rabbinic literature, see below, pp. 127–129. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 48: 466–474: “Sed absit ut prudens quisquiam vel Iudaeos cuiuslibet perversitatis atque malitiae tantum potuisse credat in codicibus tam multis et tam longe lateque dispersis, vel septuaginta illos memorabiles viros hoc de invidenda gentibus veritate unum comunicasse consilium”. 161 De Civitate Dei XV,42: Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 48): 638: “Traditur sane tam mirabilem ac stupendum planeque divinum in eorum verbis fuisse consensum, ut, cum ad hoc opus separatim singuli sederint (ita enim eorum fidem Ptolomaeo placuit explorare), in nullo verbo, quod idem significaret et tantundem valeret vel in verborum ordine alter ab altero discreparet; sed tamquam unus esset interpretes, ita quod omnes interpretati sunt unum erat; quoniam re vera spiritus erat unus in omnibus. Et ideo tam 160

72

libraries and canon

After this theological interpretation of the act of translating, the conclusion is consistent and logical: all other translations (of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and the Quinta) as well as Jerome’s new Latin translation are inferior seen from the perspective of the ecclesiastical adoption. For only the Septuagint is unique in its being been accepted as such by the Church, adopted by both Latin and Greek Christians (hanc tamen, quae Septuaginta est, tamquam sola esset, sic recepit ecclesia, eaque utuntur Graeci populi Christiani, quorum plerique utrum alia sit aliqua ignorant). The key to understanding such translation is prophecy, because only the Greek Torah was created under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (spiritus enim, qui in prophetis erat, quando illa dixerunt, idem ipse erat etiam in septuaginta viris, quando illa interpretati sunt).162 The logical and theological position of the bishop of Hippo is clear: the rejection of other translations is based on the exceptional work of the Seventy-two. But what about Jerome’s translation in consideration of the fact that even the Jews acknowledge its veracity? The question raised here is clearly the problem (touched on above) of the relationship of the Septuagint to the Hebrew text. The pluses and minuses of the Greek Torah reported by the Hexapla cannot be ignored. Jerome’s solution was to return to the Hebrew version. Augustine’s solution is surprising and intriguing and therefore should be quoted at length: For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the Seventy men when they translated them, so that assuredly they could also say something else, just as if the prophet himself had said both, because it would be the same Spirit who said both; and could say the same thing differently, so that, although the words were not the same, yet the same meaning should shine forth to those of good understanding; and could omit or add something, so that even by this it might be shown that there was in that work not human bondage, which the translator owed to the words, but rather divine power, which filled and ruled the mind of the translator.163

mirabile Dei munus acceperant, ut illarum scripturarum non tamquam humanarum, sed sicuti errant, tamquam divinarum etiam isto modo commendaretur auctoritas, credituris quandoque gentibus profutura, quod iam videmus effectum”. English translation from Philip Schaff, ed., A Select library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 2. 162 All the quotation in this paragraph are from Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 48: 638–639. 163 Ibidem: “Spiritus enim, qui in prophetis erat, quando illa dixerunt, idem ipse erat etiam in septuaginta viris, quando illa interpretati sunt; qui profecto auctoritate divina et

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

73

Augustine seems here to propose the free will of the spirit as criterium veritatis. He can inspire something in the Septuaginta and something else in the Hebrew text, or in his own words: If, then, as it behoves us, we behold nothing else in these Scriptures than what the Spirit of God has spoken through men, if anything is in the Hebrew copies and is not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets. For in that manner He spoke as He chose, some things through Isaiah, some through Jeremiah, some through several prophets, or else the same thing through this prophet and through that.164

Augustine is to be considered the last attempt in the Western Church to save the authority of the Septuagint, falling back on the doctrine of the inscrutable inspiration of the divine spirit, which does what it wants. The rise of the Septuagint in the Christian Church was also a product of anti-Jewish propaganda––namely of the accusation that Jews forged the biblical text. Its decline begins precisely at the moment in which the authority of the Hebrew text was reestablished. This was the indirect consequence of the Hexapla but above all the work of Jerome. Jerome was the first to attack the legend of the Septuagint as such. He rejected the story of the Septuagint as transmitted by the Church fathers. According to him, the Seventy-two translated only the Pentateuch;165 they were not in separated cells, but together;166 they had no aliud dicere potuit, tamquam propheta ille utrumque dixisset, quia utrumque idem spiritus diceret, et hoc ipsum aliter, ut, si non eadem verba, idem tamen sensus bene intellegentibus dilucesceret, et aliquid praetermittere et aliquid addere, ut etiam hinc ostenderetur non humanam fuisse in illo opere servitutem, quam verbis debebat interpres, sed divinam potius potestatem, quae mentem replebat et regebat interpretis”. 164 Ibidem: “Si ergo, ut oportet, nihil intueamur in scripturis illis, nisi quid per homines dixerit Dei Spiritus, quidquid est in Hebraeis codicibus et non est apud interpretes septuaginta, noluit ea per istos, sed per illos prophetas Dei Spiritus dicere. Quidquid vero est apud septuaginta, in Hebraeis autem codicibus non est, per istos ea maluit quam per illos idem Spiritus dicere, sic ostendens utrosque fuisse prophetas. Isto enim modo alia per Esaiam, alia per Heremiam, alia per alium aliumque prophetam vel aliter eadem per hunc ac per illum dixit, ut volui”. 165 Jerome, Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 72): 2: “. . . accedit ad hoc quoque Iosephus, qui LXX interpretum proponit historiam, quinque tantum ab eis libros Moysi translatos refert, quos nos quoque confitemur plus quam ceteros hebraicis consonare”. See also Commentarium in Ezechielem Prophetam V:2 and XVI:13 (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 75): 60 and 179; Commentarium in Micham Prophetam II:2 (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 76): 447. 166 Praefatio in Pentateuchum (Patrologia Latina 28): 181–182: “Et nescio quis primus auctor septuaginta cellulas Alexandriae mendacio suo exstruxerit, quibus divisi

74

libraries and canon

prophetic spirit167 and finally and consequently, the Septuagint is not inspired by God.168 Besides these comments, which can attest to a philological interest in Jerome’s defence of the Hebrew text, it would be highly erroneous to think that Jerome upholds Jewish tradition169 over against the traditional Christian text of the Septuagint. He always reacted vehemently if his opponents tried to pose the question of his conscious removal of long-standing tradition. In this context, he speaks of a certain “inspired” character of the Greek translation in his Praefatio in librum Paralipomenon,170 datable around 389–392, which he repeated in his polemics against Rufinus in year 401.171 How to reconcile Jerome’s critical comments against the Seventy-two who are considered at times inspired, but at times only mere “translators”? Pierre Benoit followed by Colette Estin distinguished between a first period in which Jerome was ready to concede to the tradition and the later years in which he was an opponent of the Septuagint.172 It is unquestionable

eadem spriptitarent cum Aristeas [. . .] et multo post tempore Iosephus nihil tale retulerit: sed in una basilica congregatos contulisse scribunt, non prophetasse”. 167 Ibidem: “Aliud est enim vatem, aliud esse interpretem. Ibi Spiritus ventura praedicit; hic eruditio et verborum copia, ea quae intelligit, transfert”. 168 See the preceding footnote. Paul Auvray, “Comment se pose le proble`me de l’inspiration des Septante”, Revue Biblique 59 (1952): 321–336, especially p. 323, assumes on the basis of Praefatio in Pentateuchum (Patrologia Latina 28:183), that Jerome is speaking of inspiration of the Septuagint. The context of the passus clearly excludes this hypothesis. 169 On Jews and Jewish tradition in Jerome, see Ilona Opelt, “San Girolamo e i suoi maestri ebrei”, Augustinianum 28 (1988): 327–338; Günter Stemberger, “Hieronymus und die Juden seiner Zeit”, in Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter. Festschrift für Heinz Schreckenberg, ed. Dietrich-Alex Koch and Hermann Lichtenberger (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993): 349–364; Benjamin Kedar-Kopfstein, “Jewish Traditions in the Writings of Jerome”, in The Aramaic Bible. Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994): 420–430; Hillel Isaac Newman, “Jerome’s Judaizers”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001): 421–452. 170 In librum Paralipomenon iuxta LXX Interpretes (Patrologia Latina 29): 424: “Nec hoc Septuaginta interpretibus, qui Spiritus Sancto pleni, ea quae vera fuerant, transtulerunt, sed scriptorum culpae ascribendum, dum de inemendatis inemendata scriptitant”. (italics mine). 171 Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 79: 61: “Egone contra Septuaginta interpretes aliquid sum locutus, quos ante annos plurimos diligentissime emendatos meae linguae studiosis dedi, quos cottidie in conventu fratrum edissero, quorum psalmos iugi meditatione decanto? tam stultus eram ut, quod in pueritia didici, senex oblivisci vellem? universi tractatus mei horum testimoniis texti sunt. Commentarii in duodecim prophetas et meam et Septuaginta editionem edisserunt”. 172 Pierre Benoit, “L’inspiration des Septante d’apre`s les Pe`res”, in Homme Devant Dieu. Me´langes Offerts au Henri De Lubac (Paris: Aubier, 1963–1964): 181, 183, foot-

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

75

that Jerome’s attitude progressed from an unlimited respect for the Septuagint to a reshaping of its meaning for Christian tradition. Yet, the ascetic of Bethlehem never denied the value of the “testimonia” offered by the Septuagintal texts, or those texts valid and accepted as prophetic by the ecclesiastical tradition. That is the meaning of “tam stultus eram ut, quod in pueritia didici, senex oblivisci vellem?”––or in English: “should I be so crazy as to forget in my age what I learned in my youth?” Several passages from Jerome’s work clearly support the conviction that he tries to defend the authority of the Septuagint because he attributes its “errors” and variant readings to sleepy copyists.173 Sometimes he speaks of obscurities as a precautionary measure against the Jews (!)174 or changes made in the text of the Torah so that the monotheistic king was not mislead by a possible dualistic but of course erroneous conception of reality in the Hebrew text.175 In any event, all these different changes were not clearly seen by the translators, i. e. they translated regardless of the (messianic and Christian) consequences of their “changes”.176 The reader acknowledges here the typical matrix of Irenaeus’ and Eusebius’ attempt to justify the “changes”, additions or omissions in the Septuagintal text. Yet, Jerome shows a contradictory posture, rejecting all those parts of the Septuagint which are lacking in the Hebrew text. His position in favor of the Hebrew tradition will reach an extreme intensity when he rejects the Greek canon and adopts the Hebrew canon.177 It is very note 84; Colette Estin, “Saint Je´roˆme, de la traduction inspire´e a` la traduction relativiste”, Revue Biblique 88 (1981): 201 and 205. 173 Commentaria in Ezechielem II,V:12–13 (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 75): 60: “. . . nec hoc dicimus ab illis factum, quibus vetustus auctoritatem dedit; sed per multa saecula scriptorum atque lectorum vitio depravatum . . .”. 174 Commentaria in Ieremiam III,XVII:1 (Patrologia Latina 24): 816: “. . . quod cur a Septuaginta praetermissum sit, nescio; nisi forsitan pepercerunt populo suo; sicut et in Isaia II:22 eos fecisse manifestum est . . . multa huiusscemodi, quae si voluero cuncta digerere, non dicam libro sed libris opus erit”. 175 Hebraicae quaestiones in Genesim (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 72): 2: “. . . cum illi Ptolemaeo regi Alexandriae mystica quaeque in Scripturis sanctis prodere noluerint, et maxime ea quae Christi adventum pollicebantur: ne viderentur Iudaei et alterum Deum colere: quos ille Platonis sectator magni idcirco faciebat, quia unum Deum colere dicerentur”. 176 Praefatio in Pentateuchum (Patrologia Latina 28): 182–183): “. . . quod igitur? damnamus veteres? minime: sed post priorum studia, in domo Domini quod possumus laboramus. Illi interpretati sunt ante adventum Christi, et quod nesciebant, dubiis protulere sententiis”. 177 Praefatio in libros Samuel et Malachim (Patrologia Latina 28): 600–603): “. . . hic prologus Scripturarum, quasi galeatum principium omnibus libris, quos de Hebraeo

76

libraries and canon

difficult to ascertain the true aim of Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew.178 Augustine is provocative enough in his letter to Jerome when he states: whatever the Septuagint interpreted can either be evident or obscure: if it is obscure, you can be in error too (in your translation), if evident one cannot believe that they were erroneous.179 Using an argumentatio ad hominem, Jerome’s answer aims at introducing the hermeneutic argument of necessity for commentaries. He argues: some ancient writers wrote commentaries on the whole Bible. Either they commented on it perfectly and therefore there is no necessity for commentaries, or they did not succeed. Yet, how can we dare hope to solve what they have not deciphered? (tu quomodo post eos ausus es disserere, quod illi explanare non potuerunt). Nevertheless, Jerome’s intent is not, as he directly adds, to abolish the contribution of the old men (veteres), but rather to offer an alternative coming from the Hebrew text.180 Nobody is forced to follow his translation, everyone would continue to “drink the old wine” (si cui legere non placet, nemo compellit invitum. bibat vinum vetus . . .). vertimus in Latinum, convenire potest: ut scire valeamus quidquid extra hos est, inter apokrypha (Greek in text, GV) esse ponendum. Igitur Sapientia, quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Iesu filii Syrach, et Iudith, et Tobias, et Pastor, non sunt in canone. Machabaeorum primum librum, Hebraicum reperi. Secundum Graecus est”. 178 It is not my intention to discuss here whether Jerome really translated from the Hebrew or (more probably) he was helped by contemporary Jews. 179 “. . . aut obscura fuerunt quae interpretati sunt septuaginta, aut manifesta. si obscura, te quoque in eis falli potuisse credendum est. si manifesta, illos in eis falli non potuisse perspicuum est”, text mentionned also by Jerome in the letter CXII (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 55): 389. 180 On the veritas Hebraica, see Sarah Kamin, “The Theological Significance of the ‘Hebraica veritas’ in Jerome’s Thought”, in ‘Shaarei Talmon’. Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov (Winona Lake, In., Eisenbrauns, 1992): 243–253; Stefan Rebenich, “Jerome; the ‘Vir trilinguis’ and the ‘Hebraica veritas’”, Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993): 50–77; Gianfranco Miletto, “Die ‘Hebraica veritas’ in S. Hieronymus”, in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition. Festschrift für Johann Maier, ed. Helmut Merklein (Frankfurt a. M.: Anton Hain, 1993): 56–65; Christoph Markschies, “Hieronymus und die ‘Hebraica Veritas’. Ein Beitrag zur Archäologie des protestantischen Schriftverständnisses?”, in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994): 131–181; Emanuela Prinzivalli, “‘Sicubi dubitas, Hebraeos interroga’. Girolamo tra difesa dell’ ‘Hebraica veritas’ e polemica antigiudaica”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 14 (1997): 179–206; Eva SchulzFlügel, “Hieronymus, Feind und Überwinder der Septuaginta? Untersuchungen anhand der Arbeiten an den Psalmen”, Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Symposium in Göttingen 1997, ed. Anneli Aejmelaeus and Udo Quast (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000): 33–50. See the very extensive and learned study by Adam Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship and the Hebrew Bibel. A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).

from the veritas graeca to the veritas hebraica

77

Besides the polemical tones of a controversy in which the Spartan of Bethlehem was involved against Rufinus and Augustine because of his expertise in the Hebrew and Greek language in a time of ignorance of such languages, Jerome wanted, according to his own words, only to offer the veritas Hebraica “propter notitiam Scripturarum”,181 an alternative reading such as commentaries present for the discreet reader. What he precisely means by “notice of Scripture” is clear from his Apology against Rufinus (Contra Rufinum I:16): In those which I wrote upon the Ephesians, I only followed Origen and Didymus and Apollinarius, (whose doctrines are very different one from another) so far as was consistent with the sincerity of my faith: for what is the function of a Commentary? It is to interpret another man’s words, to put into plain language what he has expressed obscurely. Consequently, it enumerates the opinions of many persons, and says, Some interpret the passage in this sense, some in that; the one try to support their opinion and understanding of it by such and such evidence or reasons: so that the wise reader, after reading these different explanations, and having many brought before his mind for acceptance or rejection, may judge which is the truest, and, like a good banker, may reject the money of spurious mintage.182

Jerome leaves his work in the hand on the discreet reader, who is capable of discerning something false from the truth. Despite the criticism of Augustine and Rufinus, the veritas hebraica of Jerome (but not the Hebrew text!) will replace the Graeca veritas for the Latin Church, at least until the 16th century. The purported canonical apex of the Latin version, called the Vulgata, will also be the beginning of its decline. Intriguing enough is the place which Jerome’s translation reached in the first synoptic printing of the Hebrew, Latin and Greek text, in the Polyglotta Complutensis. The Vulgata is in the center, the Hebrew at left and the Greek in the right, with the explanation: that is similar to the Christ’s cross with Jesus in the middle and the two robbers at his sides.183 Alas, poor Jerome! 181

Epistula CVI:46 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 55): 270. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 79: 14–15: “. . . ego in commentariis ad Ephesios sic Origenem et Didymum et Apollinarem secutus sum, qui certe contraria inter se habent dogmata, ut fidei meae non amitterem veritatem. commentarii quid operis habent? alterius dicta edisserunt, quae obscura scripta sunt plano sermone manifestant, multorum sententias replicant, et dicunt: hunc locum quidam sic edisserunt, alii sic interpretantur, illi sensuum suum et intelligentiam his testimoniis et hac nituntur ratione firmare, ut prudens lector, cum diversas explanationes legerit, et multorum vel probanda vel improbanda didicerit, iudicet quid verius sit et, quasi bono trapezita, adulterinae monetae pecuniam reprobet”. English translation from Philip Schaff, ed., A Select library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 6. 182

78

libraries and canon

1.3 (De)canonization of Libraries or Between Alexandria, Athens, and Jerusalem The legend of the Septuagint is a legend of libraries und corresponding cultural identities. The Christian discussion on the truth of facts and circumstances around the legend is obviously guided by the preoccupation with defending their own theology, tradition and faith against Graeco-Roman “pagans”, the Diaspora and Palestinian Jews. As shown, the legend is not a superficial story of a translation, but primarily a translatio sapientiae, a translation/transmitting of the wisdom to the “others”, where the numbers and the (accurate) text play a significant role. That was of the task and the scope of ancient libraries, namely to canonize texts, manuscripts and literary patterns for future generations and for the enlightenment of the present.184 This section is concerned with the interpretation of the legend of the Septuagint in its historical and cultural context and in connection with the general question of whether a change in the guiding concepts of a community can explain the development of a literary and religious document and its subsequent decline. Two elements of Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian interpretation of the legend recur repeatedly, although they are admittedly contradictory: the tradition of the antiquity of Jewish wisdom, revealed to Moses on Sinai counterposed to the supremacy of Greek culture and the role of the library of Alexandria in Egypt as the place of publication (or better the site of revelation) of the Septuagint. Both elements are also mirrored in the Rabbinic literature. 183 Vol. 1, f. 3b: “Nunc de modo quo linguas Pentateuchi in libro ipso disposuimus: brevibus agendum est. Primum itaque aperto codice duae se tibi chartarum facies hinc et inde offerent: quarum unaquaeque tres praecipuas columnas habet. Ex quibus ea quae ad marginem exteriorem sita est: Hebraicam continet veritatem. Quae vero interiori margini adhaeret: Graeca est Septuaginta interpretum editio: cui superponitur latina interlinearis traductio de verbo ad verbum. Mediam autem inter has latinam beati Hieronymi translationem velut inter Synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus: tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones medium autem Jesum hoc est Romanam sive latinam Ecclesiam collocantes”, quote from Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897) (repr. New York: Ktav, 1966): 911–912, footnote 1. 184 See Quintilian, Institutiones Oratoriae X:1:54: “Panyasin ex utroque mixtum putant in eloquendo neutriusque equare virtutes, alterum tamen ab eo materia alterum disponendi ratione superari. Apollonius in ordinem a grammaticis datum non venit, quia Aristarchus atque Aristophanes, poetarum iudices, neminem sui temporis in numerum redegerunt . . .” X,1,59: “Sed dum adsequamur illam firmam, ut dixi, facilitatem, optimis adsuescendum est et multa magis quam multorum lectione formanda mens et ducendus color”. On the use of “canon” in ancient worlds. Hermann W. Beyer, “kano¯n”, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 3 (1967): 600–660.

(de)canonization of libraries

79

Some Church fathers, such as Ireneus,185 regarded Egypt (and not the desert, the Sinai or Palestine) as the privileged place of divine revelation, accomplished with the Septuagint, and the locus of the journey of the infant Jesus. Thus, revelation has less to do with Sinai and more with Alexandria (and its library). Some other church fathers defended the new (or recent) Egyptian revelation, recalling the (legend of the) restoration of the Torah under the direction of Ezra and the restoration or edition of Homer under the direction or authorship of Pisistratus. For Rabbinic Judaism as well, the existence of the Greek Torah was bound up with Egypt (and its renowned library). The Greek (or “changed”) Torah was composed for the Egyptian King Ptolemy, a sort of revelation cum commentary for a foreign king.186 The Rabbinic literature also reports about changes in manuscripts found both in the Ptolemy’s (Talmai’s) scroll and in the Temple library in Jerusalem,187 and hence claims that the Temple had a role in establishing the textus receptus. Greek-speaking Jews and later Christians apologetically defend the superiority of Jewish culture by stressing its antiquity and charging Greek writers with plagiarism, the theft of Jewish ideas and wisdom. Such an idea could only be supported on the premise of a translation of the Torah or of some parts of it into Greek. Rabbinic authorities do not insist on there having been plagiarism of the Jewish Torah, but make it perfectly clear that if non-Jews take possession of the written Torah, the oral Torah will remain the sole patrimony of the Jews. Intriguing is the fact that Hilarius of Poitier likewise uses the same argument to defend the authority of the Seventy-two, because they were bearers of both the written and the secret oral doctrine of Moses. The “Canonization” of Homeric, Jewish Greek, and Hebrew Literature It is surprising that three legends of “canonization” of libraries came into being almost at same time, probably in the same geographic area: the translation of the Torah into Greek, the collection of the songs of Homer at the time and Pisistratus’ initiative188 and the restoration of the Law by Ezra, enabled by God to “dictate in forty days ninety-four 185

See above, pp. 48 f. See the next chapter, pp. 101–147. 187 See the next chapter, pp. 136–138. 188 The bibliography on this legend is huge, and divided into the different aspects the legend addressed: (1) the initiative of Pisistratus to collect the scattered/fragmentary poems of Homer; (2) the forgery of some verses in favor of Athens; (3) the redaction of 186

80

libraries and canon

books” (the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible that were lost, and seventy secret books).189 The last two legends are quoted by the Church fathers as support for the reliability of first. This fact has scarcely been taken into consideration by modern scholars, although all three legends have much in common, or, more cautiously expressed, their common heritage was acknowledged by ancient, medieval and early modern scholars and even contributed to their deconstruction as legend in modern times. The interaction of these legends also led to a contamination of details one with the other. This phenomenon is of literary origin, although an apologetic connotation cannot be excluded. The first contamination can be traced back to the Byzantine period. Some elements of the legend of the Septuagint (the number seventy-two) and the legend of Ezra (the destruction of the Torah) contributed to creating or embellishing the story of the origin of the redaction of Homer. The conviction first appears––perhaps at the school of the grammarian George Choiroboskos (VII century C. E.?)190 – that the commission, the corpus homericum worked out by 72 grammarians, as convoked by Pisistratus. The following bibliographic references are only indicative of the abiding interest in the topic, but by no means exhaustive: Friedrich August Wolf, Prolegomena ad Homerum (Halle: Libr. Orphanotrophei, 1795) (reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1963): 109–114; Maximilian Sengebusch, Homerica dissertatio posterio (Leipzig: Teubner, 1856); Friedrich Ritschl, Opuscula Philologica, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1866); Victor Be´rard, “Pisistrate, re´dacteurs des poe`mes home´riques”, Revue de Philologie 46 (1921): 194–233; Thomas W. Allen, Homer. The Origins and the Transmission (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924) (reprint 1969): 225–248; Reinhold Merkelbach, “Die pisistratische Redaktion der homerischen Gedichte”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 95 (1952): 23–47; John A. Davison, “Peisistratos and Homer”, Transactions of the American Philological Association 86 (1955): 1–21; Dorothea Gray, in John L. Myres, Homer and his Critics (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958): 290 ff. 189 4 Ezra 14:42–47: “And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns they wrote what was dictated, in characters which they did not know. They sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime, and ate their bread at night. As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night. So during the forty days ninety-four books were written. And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, ‘Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge’” (translation quoted from Revised Standard Version of the Bible). For the sources of this legend, s. Schürer-Vermes, The History of the Jewish People, vol. 3.1, 301. A similar story is also reported by the Rabbinic literature where the Hebrew script (ketav) was changed at the time of Ezra, s. Tosefta Sanhedrin 4:7; Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 21b; s. also Peter Schäfer, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums (Leiden: Brill, 1978): 210 ff. 190 His scholia apo fo¯ne¯s on the techne¯ grammatike¯ of Dyonisos of Thrace were transmitted by his students, s. the manuscript Barocc. Oxon. 116 (14th century), edited by

(de)canonization of libraries

81

entrusted with the redaction of Homer, was formed by seventy-two grammarians. According to this tradition, the Homeric verses were lost, scattered or burnt in the course of the time. Pisistratus reacted to this sad state of affairs by convoking a commission of seventy-two grammarians, guided by Zenodotos of Ephesos and Aristarchus of Samothrace, a historically intriguing convocation when one recalls that these grammarians lived several centuries later!191 Nonetheless, the reference to the two grammarians was not erroneous because they were concerned with the edition of Homer in the Alexandrian library.192 Even though John Tzetzes193 attacked the reliability of this conviction as evident from Scholium Plautinum, edited and analyzed by Friedrich Ritschl,194 the humanist Giannozzo Manetti quoted the legend of the 72 grammarians of Pisistratus to prove (!) the historicity of the legend of the Septuagint, read in the version of Eusebius of Caesarea.195 The vicious circle of supporting a legend by a legend was broken by the critique directed against the legend of the Septuagint. Doubts first arose about the reliability of the historicity of the circumstances of the translation of the Greek Torah in the 16th century.196 The contamination between the legends was noted and the 72 grammarians of Choiroboskos were thus considered as historical as the Seventy-two old men in the commission of Ptolemy.197 Alfred Hilgard, Scholia in Dionysii Thracis artem grammaticam, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1891): 67–107; see also H. Schultz, Paulys Realencyclopädie, vol. 15 (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1912): 40–41; vol. 6 (1899): 2364; s. also Wolf, Prolegomena, 112–113, note 2; Hilgard, ed., Scholia, 29 and 481; Be´rard, “Pisitrate”, 207–208. 191 So Diomedes s. Be´rard, “Pisistrate”, 208. 192 See Franco Montanari, “Zenodotus, Aristarchus and the Ekdosis of Homer”, in Editing Texts. Texte edieren, ed. Glenn W. Most (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998): 1–21. 193 In Aristophanem bis bina prooemia perı` ko¯mo¯dı´as, Pb I 22, Georg Kaibel, ed., Comicorum Graecorum fragementa, vol. 1 (Berlin Weidmann, 1899): 20; s. Allen, Homer, 232–233; Be´rard, “Pisitrate”, 210 ff; Davison, “Peisistratos”, 19. 194 Manuscript s. 4.c.39 of the Collegio Romano, s. Friedrich Ritschl, “Die alexandrinischen Bibliotheken unter den ersten Ptolemaeern und die Sammlung der homerischen Gedichte durch Pisistratus”, in idem, Opuscula Philologica, vol. 1 (Lipsiae: Teubner, 1866): 1–31; see also Allen, Homer, 233. 195 Apologeticus adversus suae novae Psalterii traductionis obtrectatores libri 5, still in manuscript according to Charles Trinkaus, “Italian Humanism and the Scriptures”, in idem, In Our Image and Likeness, vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970): 588–89 and note 75 (821), but now published: Apologeticus, ed. Alfonso De Petris (Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1981). 196 See above on Justus Scaliger, p. 29. 197 See. Ernst W. A. Gräfenhan, Geschichte der klassischen Philologie in Alterthum, vol. 1 (Bonn: König, 1843) (reprint Osnabrück: Biblio, 1973): 311, note 7 (“offenbar eine

82

libraries and canon

The “illuminist” use (ante litteram) of comprehensible reasons and analysis of historical circumstances to question a legend does not do justice to the historical value of this story. Yet, the main question remains unanswered: why did Patristic authorities and later Byzantine grammarians fashion an amalgam of data, clearly recycled from the three legends. What is the connection between Pisistratus, Ptolemy, and Ezra the scribe or between Athens, Alexandria and Jerusalem? Which role did the library of Alexandria and its controversies with other contemporary libraries of this period play? What is the reason for a new “edition” of the Hebrew Bible under the rule of Ezra the scribe? And finally, what can be said about the libraries of Athens, Jerusalem and Alexandria of Egypt and their attempt to monopolize cultural heritage in their respective literary traditions? I attempt to address these questions below. Let me begin with a relatively late, but highly influential source, very important because of the fusion of all three legends, Isidore of Seville’s “On libraries” and “On translators”, quoted from his encyclopaedic book on Etymologies (VI:3:3–4):198 On libraries: (1) Library is a Greek word which means a place where books are stored. For biblion means books, theke store. (2) The library of the Ancient Testament were restored by Ezra, the scribe inspired by the divine spirit, after having been burned by the Chaldeans. He corrected all the books of the Law and of the Prophets which had been corrupted by the Gentiles. He established the entire Old Testament in 22 books so as to have so many books as letters. (3) Among the Greeks, the first to establish a library is believed to have been Pisistratus, the tyrant of Athens. Afterwards, the library was enlarged by the Athenians. After having burned Athens, Xerxes brought it to Persia. After a long time, Seleucos Nicanor brought it back to Greece. (4) From this story of the library of Athens, a (new) passion to own the books of different peoples and to have them translated into Greek spread through all kings and cities. (5) That is why Alexander the Great, or perhaps his successors, were concerned to establish libraries which had to include all the books. Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphos, a man of vast acquaintance with all literature, emulating the

späte Erdichtung und Anspielung auf die 70 Bibelübersetzer”); Otto Stählin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, vol. 1 (München: Beck, 1929): 161 (“gar eine Homerseptuaginta”); but s. Johann G. Eichhorn, “Über die Quellen, aus denen die verschiedenen Erzählungen von der Entstehung der alexandrinischen Übersetzung geflossen sind”, Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur 1 (1777): 266–280. 198 Etymologiarvm sive Originvm libri XX, ed. W. M. Lindsay, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911).

(de)canonization of libraries

83

bibliophilic enthusiasm of Pisistratus, gathered not only the works of the Gentiles in his library, but also the divine Scriptures. At this time, in fact, there were seventy-thousand volumes in Alexandria. On translators: Therefore, [Ptolemy] asked the High Priest Eleazar for the books of the writings of the Old Testament and let them be translated by seventy translators from the Hebrew language into Greek. These books are stored in the library of Alexandria . . . 199

The bishop Isidore is not known for his originality, but rather because, quite analogous to Epiphanius of Salamis for the East, he had old, sometimes lost sources. Yet to establish whether the nexus between the legend of libraries and their canonization is a product of the Latin and Greek tradition or a combination sprung from his powerful imagination, we should have all his sources at our disposal; unfortunately, this is not the case. Thus we have to investigate every detail in searching for sources and their (possible) context. A first source can be Jerome’s letter to Marcella, in which he compares Demetrius of Phalerum to

199 The whole Latin text reads: “[III:1] De Bibliothecis. Bibliotheca a Graeco nomen accepit, eo quod ibi recondantur libri. Nam biblion librorum, the¯che¯ repositio interpretatur. [2] Bibliothecam Veteris Testamenti Esdras scriba post incensam Legem a Chaldaeis, dum Iudaei regressi fuissent in Hierusalem, divino afflatus Spiritu reparavit, cunctaque Legis ac Prophetarum volumina quae fuerant a gentibus corrupta correxit, totumque Vetus Testamentum in viginti duos libros constituit, ut tot libri essent in Lege quot habebantur et litterae. [3] Apud Graecos autem bibliothecam primus instituisse Pisistratus creditur, Atheniensium tyrannus, quam deinceps ab Atheniensibus auctam Xerxes, incensis Athenis, evexit in Persas, longoque post tempore Seleucus Nicanor rursus in Graeciam rettulit. [4] Hinc studium regibus urbibusque ceteris natum est conparandi volumina diversarum gentium, et per interpretes in Graecam linguam vertendi. [5] Dehinc magnus Alexander vel successores eius instruendis omnium librorum bibliothecis animum intenderunt; maxime Ptolomaeus cognomento Philadelphus omnis litteraturae sagacissimus, cum studio bibliothecarum Pisistratum aemularetur, non solum gentium scripturas, sed etiam et divinas litteras in bibliothecam suam contulit. Nam septuaginta milia librorum huius temporibus Alexandriae inventa sunt. [IV:1] De Interpretibus: Hic etiam et ab Eleazaro pontifice petens Scripturas Veteris Testamenti, in Graecam vocem ex Hebraica lingua per septuaginta interpretes transferre curavit, quas in Alexandrina bibliotheca habuit. [2] Siquidem singuli in singulis cellulis separati ita omnia per Spiritum sanctum interpretati sunt, ut nihil in alicuius eorum codice inventum esset quod in ceteris vel in verborum ordine discreparet. [3] Fuerunt et alii interpretes, qui ex Hebraea lingua in Graecum sacra eloquia transtulerunt, sicut Aquila, Symmachus et Theodotion, sicut etiam et vulgaris illa interpretatio, cuius auctor non apparet et ob hoc sine nomine interpretis Quinta Editio nuncupatur. [4] Praeterea sextam et septimam editionem Origenes miro labore repperit, et cum ceteris editionibus conparavit. [5] Presbyter quoque Hieronymus trium linguarum peritus ex Hebraeo in Latinum eloquium easdem Scripturas convertit, eloquenterque transfudit. Cuius interpretatio merito ceteris antefertur; nam [est] et verborum tenacior, et perspicuitate sententiae clarior [atque, utpote a Christiano, interpretatio verior]”.

84

libraries and canon

Pisistratus.200 Jerome can have taken his comparison from another earlier source, Tertullian, quoted almost literally. To vindicate the antiquity of Judaism (and therefore of Christianity), the African Church father 201 has recourse to the legend of the Septuagint, also comparing the work of Ptolemy with that of Pisistratus:202 The most learned of the Ptolemies, whom they surname Philadelphos, most acute in all literature, the rival (I would say) of Pisistratus in love of libraries, in addition to the other documents which age and art recommended to fame (it was Demetrius of Phalerum that gave him the hint, of all scholars of that day most expert, chief librarian of the King)––Ptolemy, then, also asked the Jews for their books, their own literature in their own tongue, which they alone possessed .203

In quoting Philadelphos’ emulation of Pisistratus and comparing the library of Alexandria with that of Athens, Tertullian should have read a notice on libraries which we find for example in Aulus Gellius204 and later in the Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville, who, according to Augustus Reifferscheid,205 must have taken this from De Viris inlustribus of Suetonius:

200 Epistula XXXIV to Marcella: “. . . cum Demetrium Phalereum et Pisistratum in sacrae bibliothecae studio vellet aequare”; s. Luciano Canfora, La biblioteca scomparsa, 137. 201 The first to quote Tertullian in this context as a reference to legends of Pisistratus and of Aristeas was Moses Hadas in Aristeas to Philocrates, ed. Moses Hadas (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951): 78, footnote 106. 202 In my italics the indirect quotation. 203 Apologia XVIII:5 “Ptolemaeus, quem Philadelphum supernominant, eruditissimus rex et omnis litteraturae sagacissimus, cum studio bibliothecarum Pisitratum, opinor, aemularetur, inter cetera memoriarum, quibus aut uetustas aut curiositas aliqua ad famam patrocinabatur, ex suggestu Demetrii Phalerei, grammaticorum tunc probatissimi, cui praefecturam mandauerat, libro a Iudaeis quoque postulauit, proprias atque uernaculas litteras, quas soli habebant”. English translation from Tertullian. Apology. De Spectaculis, with an English Translation by T. R. Glover (Cambridge, Ma., London: Cambridge University Press, Heinemann, 1931, reprint 1974). 204 VII, cap. XVII:1–3; Aulu-Gelle. Les Nuits Attiques, vol. 2 (V–C), ed. Marache, Rene´ and Yvette Julien (Paris: Le belles Lettres, 1978): 106; s. also Wolf, Prolegomena, 111, footnote 7; Aulus Gellius. Le notti attiche, ed. Giorgio Bernardi Perini, (Torino: Unione tipografico-editrice torinese, 1992); Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae, ed. Peter K. Marshall (reprint Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990). 205 Frag. 102; C. Svetoni Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliqviae, ed. Augustus Reifferscheid inest Vita Terenti a Friderico Ritschelio, second edition (Lipsiae: Teubner, 1860): 130.

(de)canonization of libraries Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae VII, XVII:1–3

85

Isidorus VI,3:3

Libros Athenis disciplinarum liberalium publice ad legendum praebendos

Apud Graecos bibliothecam

primus posuisse dicitur Pisistratus tyrannus. quam

primus instituisse Pisistratus creditur Atheniensium tyrannus,

Deinceps studiosius deinceps accuratiusque ipsi Athenienses auxerunt;

ab Atheniesibus auctam

sed omnem illam postea librorum copia Xerxes, Athenarum potitus, urbe ipsa praeter arcem incensa

Xerxes incenses Athenis

abstulit asportauitque in Persas. Eos porro libros uniuersos

euexit in Persas

multis post tempestatibus Seleucus rex, qui Nicanor appelatus est,

longoque post tempore Seleucus Nicanor rursus

referendos Athenas curauit Ingens postea numerus librorum in Aegypto

in Greciam retulit hinc studium regibus urbibusque ceteris natum est comparandi uolumina. dehinc magnus Alexander

ab Ptolemaeis regibus uel conquisitus uel confectus est

ad milia ferme uoluminum septingenta; sed ea omnia bello priore Alexandrino,

uel successores eius instruendis omnium librorum bibliothecis animum intenderunt, maxime Ptolemaeus cognomento Philadelpho nam septuaginta milia; librorum huius temporibus Alexandriae inuenta sunt.

dum diripitur ea ciuitas, non sponte neque opera consulta, sed a militibus forte auxiliaris incensa sunt.

Aulus Gellius, Tertullian and consequently Isidore offer a very similar story on the constitution of the library of Pisistratus. All of them (though not Jerome!) are unsure whether the news about Pisistratus is reliable, because they agree in using a typical ancient “quotation” mark:

86

libraries and canon

dicitur (Aulus), opinor (Tertullian), creditur (Isidore). The philological argument is all the more convincing since no doubt is expressed concerning Ptolemy. I will return to this doubt about Pisistratus. I do not intend here to investigate the sources of Isidore, because all the other possible ancient texts which could serve as possible sources for such a comparison, such as the De bibliothecis of Varro and the Viris inlustribus of Suetonius, are no longer extant.206 According to Luciano Canfora, the source of Isidore is only Gellius. But the fact that Isidore does not refer to the fire in the library of Alexandria, reported by Ammianus Marcellinus207 more then three centuries before him, leads the author to believe that the text of Gellius is interpolated, since his interpolator quotes Ammanius without mentioning the fire in the library. If we do not postulate an interpolator of Gellius, we should perhaps return to the hypothesis of some other scholars already mentioned, namely that the source of Gellius (and then of Isidore) is the missing De viris inlustribus of Suetonius, where presumably there was no reference to an alleged fire in the library of Alexandria during the Alexandrian war of Caesar, as Ammianus claims. For in his life of Domitian,208 Suetonius writes: At the beginning of his rule he neglected liberal studies, although he provided for having the libraries, which were destroyed by fire, renewed at very great expense, seeking everywhere for copies of the lost works, and sending scribes to Alexandria to transcribe and correct them.209

This means that the library of Alexandria (at least for Suetonius) was not (totally?) burned out, otherwise it makes no sense to dispatch 206 For a carefully discussion on this topic, s. Heinz Gomoll, “Suetons bibliotheksgeschichtliche Nachrichten”, Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen 52 (1935): 381–388; Andrew Wallace Hadrill, Suetonius. The Scolar and his Caesars (London: Duckworth, 1983): 81, footnote 15; Canfora, La biblioteca scomparsa, 130–138; Giorgio Brugnoli, Studi Suetoniani (Lecce: Micella, 1968): 209 ff. (non vidi); on the influence of Suetonius on Gellius s. Leofranc Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius (London: Duckworth, 1988): 122–123. 207 XXII, 16:13 “. . . loquitur monumentorum ueterum concinens fides septingenta uoluminum milia Ptolemaeis regibus uigiliis intentis composita bello Alexandrino, dum diripitur ciuitas, sub dictatore Caesare conflagrasse”., quoted from Ammianus Marcellinus Römische Geschichte, ed. Wolfgang Seyfarth, vol. 3 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1986): 60. 208 Text quoted in this context by Gomoll, “Nachrichten”, 383. 209 Vita Domitiani XX: “Liberalia studia imperii initio neglexit, quamquam bibliothecas incendio absumptas impensissime reparare curasset, exemplaribus undique petitis, missisque Alexandream qui describerent emendarentque”; English translation from Suetonius, ed. John C. Rolfe, 2 vols. (London: William Heinemann; New York: The MacMillan, 1914), vol. 2: 339–385.

(de)canonization of libraries

87

scribes to Alexandria. However, Isidore had no interest in spreading the news about the fire in the library. His source, Tertullian does not speak about that, clearly assuming that the library is accessible and can still be visited. That is indeed a basic point in his apology: to refer to the existence of a copy of the Hebrew original and of the Greek translation of the Torah of the Jews in the library, available to all who desire to look at the antiquity of the Jewish (and Christian) tradition.210 Isidore’s sources in his De bibliothecis are not entirely of Christian origin, as Canfora claims, although he may have read some of them in Christian authors such as Tertullian, Jerome and perhaps Epiphanius. That he adopts the legend of the Septuagint from Christian sources needs no further commentary. The same holds in connection with his report of the legend of Ezra. Tertullian had already mentioned it in his De cultu feminarum, I:III,3.211 The first to compare Ezra with the Seventy-two translators was the above-quoted Ireneus,212 followed by Clement of Alexandria.213 I believe that the legend of Ezra and the corruption (Irenaeus) or destruction (Clement) of the Hebrew books should be attributed to the Rabbinic story of the “changing” of script (from, old Hebrew, Ivrit to square letters, so-called Ashshurit), as developed by Ezra, the scribe. The Rabbinic literature transmits a conviction according to which at the time of Ezra, the old Hebrew letters were changed into the new Aramaic (Ashshurit) script (quadrate letters, used down to today). The tradition of Pisistratus in the context of legends of the library is not Christian, but testifies to a historical rivalry between Greece (the mother of the Hellenistic culture) and Alexandria (the forum of Hellenistic fusion and diffusion). The legend of Pisistratus, or better of a Homeric edition before Aristarchus, is nothing but an apologetic answer directed against the Alexandrian editorial function and supremacy. The first mention of this story is Cicero in his De Oratore, III:34 § 137 written in year 55 B. C. E.:214 From Cicero’s text we can 210 Apologia XVIII, 8 (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 1:119): “. . . Ita in Graecum stilum exaperta monumenta hodie apud Serapeum Ptolemaei bibliothecae cum ipsis Hebraicis exhibentur”. 211 “. . . Hierosolymi Babilonia expugnatione deletis omne instrumentum Iudaicae litteraturae per Esdram constat restauratum”, Sources Chre´tiennes 173: 58–59. 212 See above on Ireneus and especially fragment 30 (Sources Chre´tiennes 211: 404–406), in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica V:8:11,11–15. 213 See above and especially Stromata I, XXII (Wendland, Testimonia, 125. 214 “Sed ut ad Graecos referam orationem, quibus carere hoc quidem in sermonis genere non possumus––nam ut virtutis a nostris, sic doctrinae sunt ab illis exempla

88

libraries and canon

learn: 1) for him, the vulgate of Homer was the “revision” made by Pisistratus and not that of the Alexandrian library done by Aristarchus; 2) before Pisistratrus’ edition, the poems of Homer were “confused” (qui primus Homeri libros confusos antea sic disposuisse dicitur ut nunc habemus). The Jewish historian Josephus refers to this theory, the so-called “Liedertheorie”,215 in his polemics against Greek writers, who are deemed incapable of reporting chronological data with precision: Throughout the whole range of Greek literature no undisputed work is found more ancient than the poetry of Homer. His date, however, is clearly later than the Trojan war; and even he, they say, did not leave his poems in writing. At first transmitted by memory, the scattered songs were not united until later; to which circumstances the numerous inconsistencies of the work are attributable.216

That Josephus does not mention Pisistratus as mentor or author of the initiative is no proof that he had no knowledge of it. Rather, he quoted from the story only what he needed for his polemical attack. However, one cannot rule out the possibility that the name Pisistratus did not belong to the nucleus of the legend of Homer’s later redaction. A reference to other possibilities of attribution is, for example, the story according to which some verses of Homer have been changed. Dieuchidas of Megara (4th century B. C. E.)217 and Apollodoros (2nd century B. C. E.)218 reported about the counterfeiting of Iliad B,557 in favour of Athens, attributing this to Solon or Pisistratus. Plutarch speaks only of Solon.219 I would presume that the only “historical” element in the tradition of the Athenian redaction of Homer before that of Aristarchus is the antinomy between the two cities, arising from the more effective supremacy of the Alexandrian library. That is also what the above quoted passage of Gellius suggests, where the author indirectly defends the petenda––septem fuisse dicuntur uno tempore, qui sapientes et haberentur et vocarentur: hi omnes praeter Milesium Thalen civitatibus suis praefuerunt. Quis doctior eisdem temporibus illis aut cuius eloquentia litteris instructior fuisse traditur quam Pisistrati? Qui primus Homeri libros confusos antea sic disposuisse dicitur, ut nunc habemus. Non fuit ille quidem civibus suis utilis, sed ita eloquentia floruit, ut litteris doctrinaque praestare”, source of the text is M. Tulli Ciceronis: de Oratore Libri Tres, ed. Gulielmus Friedrich (Teubner: Leipzig, 1892). 215 See Merkelbach, “Redaktion”, 43. 216 Contra Apionem I:12. 217 485 F 6 apud Diogens Laertius 1:57; s. Merkelbach, “Redaktion”, 25. 218 Apud Strabo, 9,1:10. 219 Solon 10:1; s. Davison, Peisistratos, 15–18.

(de)canonization of libraries

89

theory that the only extant library is that of Athens, because the fire in the library of Alexandria destroyed 700,000 books. For (Suetonius and) Isidore, Alexandria is the authoritative successor of Athens. Historically, we can take for granted that the alleged supremacy of Athens is purely a desideratum and the redaction of the poems before that of Aristarchus is purely fictional. This supposition is confirmed by the Anecdotum Parisinum, codex Paris 7530, from the year 780 C. E.,220 whose polemical tendency cannot be overlooked: Pisistratus is the author or mentor 221 of the revision of Homer, but his initiative was a miscarriage; they had corrupted the text. Fortunately, Aristarchus recollected, restored and expurgated the original text. Alexandria is seen as the centre of edition and redaction. This can also explain the tendency of Aristeas and the Patristic emphasis (especially in the case of Justin) on the corrupted character of the Torah stored in Alexandria before the king’s request to Eleazar for the original Hebrew one. In my opinion, paragraph 30 of Aristeas’ letter should be interpreted as a reference to the corrupted texts, present in Egypt: “. . . these [works] are written in Hebrew characters and language. But they have been transcribed somewhat carelessly, and not as they should be, according to the report of experts, because they have not received royal patronage”. Aristeas wanted to present the translation of the Torah as ekdosis, the edition of the Law of the Jews comparable to the redaction of Homer. In summary then, a discussion on the supremacy of libraries aims, as shown, to stress the superiority of their own (literary and oral) traditions over against the actual domination of literary canons. The legend of Pisistratus, editor of Homer’s poems, is an apologetic answer by certain (Greek, Pergamon?)222 opponents to the supremacy of the edi220 See Reiffenscheid, Suetonii Tranquilli, 137 and 108: “obelus uersibus apponitur hac causa. Pisistratus quondam Atheniensium tyrannus inordinata et confusa adhuc poesi Homeri praemio sollecitare proposuit eos qui eam ordinarent iisque praemii nomine in singulos uersus singulos obolos constituit. mercede multi inducti pauperes quibus ingenium affluebat, quoniam aut inuenire aut disponere (ut) debebat non poterant, fingendo plurimos uersus operis nobilitatem corruperunt. unde euenit, ut postea prudentiores uiri, quorum summus in hac re fuit Aristarchus, quotiens inprobarent uersus quasi aut malos aut non Homericos, obelum potissime notandum existimarent. nam et ipsius Homeri proprios sed non eo dignos eadem hac nota condemnarunt”. 221 Note the ironic play between obolus, “a small Greek coin” and obelus, “critical mark shaped like a spit (†), placed opposite suspected passages in books”. 222 For Allen, Homer, 233–237, it was Pergamon, the rival library of Alexandria, which spread the legend of Homer to deconstruct the authority of Alexandrian grammarians.

90

libraries and canon

torial activity of the Alexandrian library. Christian uses of the legend of Ezra are aimed at sapping the authoritative foundation of the Hebrew tradition and consolidating (or founding) the authority of the Septuagint: the edition of the Greek Torah is comparable with the edition of Ezra, the scribe. Both are divinely inspired. It is very difficult to ascertain the relation between the two legends. If Patristic literature mentions Ezra as precedent to the “edition” of the Septuagint, this does not mean that the legend of Ezra is to be considered prior to the legend of the Greek Torah. I would think in an opposite direction: i. e. that the story of the destruction of the 22 books of the Torah at the time of Ezra is nothing but an imitation of Aristeas’ legend. This becomes (at least in Judaism) very likely because of the parallel tradition of a changing of the Hebrew script also attributed to Ezra. On the other hand, the Rabbis were also aware of the methods of the Alexandrian grammarians in their editions, as we will see in the next chapter: the changes found in three Torot in the court of the Temple223 with a terminology similar to that of Greek grammarians. These changes are also listed in the devarim le-talmai ha-melekh (see the following chapter). The story of the origin of the Septuagint is for the Rabbis a document of an edition, even though meant for the King Ptolemy. The written Torah was no longer the property of Israel, becoming only the oral Torah heritage of Israel. That is also the Rabbinic answer to the question of the antiquity of Jewish wisdom and the thesis of the “theft” of the Torah perpetrated by the Gentiles, a topic I examine below. Supremacy and Apologetic Answers: Gentile “Thefts” of Jewish Wisdom As a literary and historical parallel and an apologetic addition to the legend of libraries, another legend arises, namely the “theft” of the wisdom perpetrated by the Greeks from the original Hebrew texts. This is a legend defended by some (Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian) writers, also involved in the aforementioned legends of the libraries. There is no agreement in the scholarship as to whether the apology was directed against Jewish “converts” to Hellenistic culture or really against “pagan” writers. In any case, this apologetic literature was important for Christian apology against Greek and Roman attacks contra the new religion and it is for that reason that we have some fragments from Jewish-Hellenistic writers. 223

See below, pp. 136 f.

(de)canonization of libraries

91

Fragments are much more important than books because they testify to texts potentially at the apex of an ancient period and now, for whatever reason, no longer extant. The claim of a wisdom from the ancient period extant only in fragments represents a secret apologetic weapon directed against the supremacy of the majority. Restoration of ancient fragments (or translation from “barbarian” languages) are the work of libraries which seek to publish the literary tradition of a people; to recur to fragments or claim the “theft” of ideas from the ruling culture is a testimony of identity. Fragments of ancient wisdom constitute that literary past which the libraries want to canonize in their attempt to establish their supremacy over other cultural moving forces of ancient society. That is also the story of the “theft” of wisdom which, according to Jewish sources, Hellenistic authors perpetrated in a bid to undermine Jewish supremacy. The peoples of the ancient Mediterranean and Middle East were fascinated by the literature, philosophy, and life-style of ancient Greece. Yet not every group was brought to a point of cultural and political subjugation where its people (and especially the upper social classes) totally repudiated their own traditions. In Judaism, for instance, the resistance to Hellenism grew not only into the Maccabean military confrontation, but also into a creative reaction to the new cultural demands and impulses. There is no doubt that some “barbarians”, as the Greeks called foreign peoples, attempted to resist the pervasive Greek influence on their culture.224 The danger of being entirely assimilated, however, spurred the “barbarians” into productive thinking and an apologetic reworking of their traditions, stressing their illustrious origins and their antiquity.225 Thus, the Hermetic tradition claimed that the Greeks had derived (“stolen”) most of their own wisdom from the Egyptians, while in Judaism, Greek wisdom was widely believed to be based on the Mosaic Law. From this point of view, it is obvious why Jewish thinkers in the centuries before and after the beginnings of the

224 On the Greek “invention of the barbarian” s. Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-definition through Tragedy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991); Philip Hardie, “Fifth-Century Athenian and Augustan Images of the Barbarian Other”, Classics Ireland 4 (1997): 46–56; on Roman attitudes to “barbarians”, see Iain H. Ferris, Enemies of Rome: Barbarians through Roman Eyes (Stroud: Sutton, 2000). 225 See the classic study by Arnaldo Momigliano, Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975); Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).

92

libraries and canon

Common Era apologetically claimed that Greek philosophy and culture had in fact “stolen” their wisdom. According to them, Plato, for instance, was guilty of “plagiarism”. Aristobulos states: “There is no doubt that Plato followed our legislation”.226 In another fragment, taken from his lost work, he maintains: “In my opinion, Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato, who tried to answer these questions as well as possible, did follow in his (i. e., Moses’) footsteps”.227 Aristobulos’ assertion of the antiquity of Jewish Law and customs has to be understood in the context of the cultural milieu of GrecoRoman Egypt, where there had been continuous Jewish settlement since at least the third century B. C. E. Gradually, they gained influence in the Ptolemaic kingdom and, later, even in the army. This ethnic group and their cultural life and literary production provoked reaction, especially within the class of Egyptian priests, as for instance in the case of Manetho, who contested the antiquity of the Jews’ origins.228 On the other hand, Hellenistic culture was very attractive for young people of the Egyptian Diaspora, so that the apologetic claim to antiquity was mobilized to stem conversions to the Greek and Egyptian religions.229

226 See also Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, V.14–97, in Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca, collegit et ordinavit A.-M. Denis (Leiden: Brill, 1970): 228. 227 Apud Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 13:12:2, in Denis, Fragmenta, 222–223. 228 This is a well-known controversy; see for example Lucia Raspe, “Manetho on the Exodus. A Reappraisal”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 5 (1998): 124–155; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, “The Reliability of Josephus Flavius. The Case of Hecataeus’ and Manetho’s Accounts of Jews and Judaism. Fifteen Years of Contemporary Research (1974–1990)”, Journal of Jewish Studies 24 (1993): 215–234; Erich S. Gruen, “The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story”, Jewish History 12 (1998): 93–122; John J. Collins, “Reinventing Exodus. Exegesis and Legend in Hellenistic Egypt”, in For a Later Generation. The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, ed. Randall A. Argall et alii, Festschrift for George W. E. Nickelsburg (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000): 52–62. 229 This point is controversial in the scholarly literature; s. Louis H. Feldman, Jews and Gentile in the Ancient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993): “The question, then, is not how thoroughly Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel were Hellenized, but how strongly they resisted Hellenization. In other words, what was the power of Judaism that enabled it to remain strong despite the challenge of Hellenism and later of Christianity and even to counterattack through conversion of non-Jews to Judaism?” Martha Himmelfarb in her review of Feldman’s book in Judaism 43 (1994): 334 notes: “In this short passage one can discern both the shadow of the Middle Ages and the shadow of the present. If it is not ‘lachrymose’ in its conception, it has certainly erected barricades between the Jews and the rest of the world”.

(de)canonization of libraries

93

The Jewish claim of the antiquity of their traditions should not be interpreted as turning a blind eye to all Greco-Roman findings in science, politics and philosophy,––there is no evidence of such a sweeping rejection on the part of Jewish thinkers. It is questionable whether the Greco-Roman “theft” of ancient Jewish wisdom, alleged by Jewish sources, refers to all of philosophy, literature, and science, or rather acknowledges the “barbarian” origin of certain ideas and findings. Aristobulos, Aristeas, Artapanus, Philo of Alexandria and Josephus spoke of a Jewish supremacy solely in reference to certain GrecoRoman findings and concepts. The tradition originated primarily in the discussion of the “first inventor” (Protos heuretes), most probably as a claim of intellectual and technical supremacy.230 Yet it was also the apologetic claim by an ethnic minority attempting to assert its identity in the eyes of their fellow Jews of the Greek Diaspora. Jewish literature in Ptolemaic Egypt was above all apologetic literature, with a clear tendency ad intra: the main issue was by no means Gentile acknowledgement of Jewish intellectual and political achievements, but Jewish awareness of the value of their own traditions. It can therefore be supposed that Alexandrian Judaism was in fact aware of the pervasive power of the literature and Weltanschauung of Greece side by side with Jewish predominance in the philosophical arena. Philo of Alexandria, for example, a deeply knowledgeable expert on Greek philosophy, does not question the origin of philosophy in Athens. Although he was aware of the traditional notion of the Greek “theft” of Jewish wisdom and achievements231, he noted only a very few specific Romans: for example, he notes that Athenian legislators “copied” Exodus 23:1a from the Law of Moses (the principle: solum esse bonum propter se amandum placendumque).232 He polemizes in his work against Greek scholars who plagiarized certain principles of Mosaic doctrine. However, the polemic represents less a real claim of plagiarism on the part of Greek intellectuals and politicians than a sad observation on the non-reception of Jewish literature within the non-Jewish world, as had already been noted by Pseudo-Aristeas.233 230 See Adolf Kleingünther, Protos heuretes: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1933); Klaus Thraede, “Erfinder”, Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 5 (1962): 1191–1278. 231 See Philo, Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 1 ff. 232 Philo, De Specialibus Legibus IV:61, see my “Dalla tesi giudeo-ellenistica del ‘plagio’ dei Greci al concetto rabbinico del verus Israel: Disputa sull’appartenenza della sofia”, Revista Catalana de Teologia 17 (1992): 93. 233 See the list in Veltri, “Plagio”, 93.

94

libraries and canon

According to both authors, Jewish wisdom, the Torah of Moses, had languished in the darkness of Gentile ignorance until the Greek Septuagint translation.234 Philo hesitates over Socrates and his philosophy: he could have copied from Moses (“sive a Moyse edoctus”) or perhaps was moved by the nature of the things itself (“sive ex rebus ipsis motus”).235 Harry A. Wolfson summarized Philo’s thinking as the postulating of a double divine revelation, for the Greeks through philosophy, for the Jews in the Torah.236 Josephus, in his Contra Apionem, imagines for us a context in which the discussion on the “theft of wisdom” takes place. In his Contra Apionem, the adoptive son of the Flavii addresses the polemics of Apion and Apollonion Molon, who claimed that Judaism made no findings in either technology or the history of thought.237 In his defence of Jewish originality and supremacy in philosophy, he quotes Clearchos of Soli, a pupil of Aristotle, saying that his master had called the Jews “philosophers” (Contra Apionem I:179); other authors such as Megasthenes note the similarity in the speculations about nature by Greeks, Jews and Indian Brahmans (Contra Apionem I:215–216); Numenius of Apamea even identifies Moses with Plato and, according to Eusebius, claims a similarity of institutions between the Greeks, the Brahmans, the Jews, and the Egyptians.238 The lists of the testimonies pro Iudaeis reveal a clear tendency: the Jewish and Christian authors stress the originality of Jewish thinking because it was not evident that Jews (and then Christians) could be called philosophoi. Regardless of one’s assessment of the truth or believability of the statements of non-Jewish authors on Jews and Judaism (I tend towards skepticism––because we are familiar only with fragments lacking in adequate context), Jose-

234 Letter of Aristeas, § 312, see Raffaele Tramontano, ed., La lettera di Aristea a Filocrate (Napoli: Civilta` Cattolica, 1931): 247. 235 Quaestiones in Genesim II:6. 236 Wolfson, Philo, 138–143. 237 Contra Apionem II:135, 148 and the commentary of Lucio Troiani, Commento storico al “Contro Apione” di Giuseppe (Pisa: Giardini, 1977); see also Christine Gerber, Ein Bild des Judentums für Nichtjuden von Flavius Josephus: Untersuchungen zu seiner Schrift Contra Apionem (Leiden, New York: Brill, 1997); Louis H. Feldman, John R. Levison, eds., Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek (Leiden, New York: Brill, 1996). 238 Besides the common edition of Josephus, all the texts discussed here can be found with a detailed commentary in the collection of Menahem Stern, ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1974), vol. 1, 47–48 (on Clearchus); 45–46 (on Megasthenes), vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980): 206–216 (on Numenius).

(de)canonization of libraries

95

phus, as well as Eusebius of Caesarea (the famous antiquarian and a collector of such fragments) testify to an elementary fact: the speculation on the part of non-Jewish authors as to the similarity of the Jewish and Indian traditions can be explained by the fact that both traditions were in fact virtually unknown to these authors. All these traditions claiming the supremacy of Jewish culture and Mosaic traditions originated from within Alexandrian Judaism and were transmitted by Christian Apologetics. There are no traces of the theory of the theft of Jewish wisdom by “occidental” intellectuals in the Rabbinic tradition until the Middle Ages. No special theory of the supremacy of Jewish Torah over Greek philosophy is present in Rabbinic documents from Palestine and Babylonia, and Rabbinic Judaism initially shows no interest in philosophical speculation.239 However, it should be borne in mind that apologetics in connection with Jewish traditions is more a feature of the Greek Diaspora than of Palestinian and Babylonian Judaism. It goes without saying that Christian propaganda collected all fragments by pre-Christian writers commenting on the validity of Jewish tradition as contrasted with Greek philosophy. The need for justification of Christian identity could only be satisfied by basing it on the premise that all wisdom was given to pre-Christian Judaism and then transmitted in toto to Christianity. The idea of the ontological character of the possession of wisdom developed after the advent of Christianity: Christian writers stressed that all wisdom240 belonged to them as verus Israel.241 The story of the transmission of wisdom had a specific missionary task, namely to convince both “pagans” and Jews of the (politically effective) supremacy of Christianity. The genealogy of science

239 Scholarly opinion about the alleged philosophic preoccupations of the Rabbis reveals no evidence that the main philosophical themes (ontology, metaphysics etc.) awakened the interest of the yeshivot, pace Daniel Krochmalnik, see his “Der ‘Philosoph’ in Talmud und Midrasch”, Trumah 5 (1996): 137–178; see also Hans-Jürgen Becker, “‘Epikuree’ in Talmud Yerushalmi”, in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998): 397–421. 240 See Tertullian, Apologeticum. XIX:15* (Corpus Christianorm Latinorum 1): 120: “Quod prius est, hoc sit semen necesse est. Inde quaedam nobiscum, vel prope nos habetis. De sophia amor eius philosophia vocitatus est: de prophetia affectatio eius poeticam vaticinationem deputavit. Gloriae homines, si quid invenerant, ut proprium facerent, adulteraverunt. Etiam fructibus a semine degenerare contigit”. 241 On this question, s. Veltri: “Dalla tesi giudeo-ellenistica”, pp. 85–104, and “On the Influence of ‘Greek Wisdom’: Theoretical and Empirical Sciences in Rabbinic Judaism”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 5 (1998): 300–317.

96

libraries and canon

and philosophy as first a Jewish and subsequently a definitively Christian heritage aimed at converting the non-Christian world to the new religion. A possible Rabbinic answer to the discussion as to whom the Torah of Moses belongs can be reflected in the tradition of the Torah offered to the people of the world (ummot ha- olam), but refused by them.242 There is no consensus in the scholarship whether this tradition really and apologetically addresses Greek, Roman, Christian (Gnostic etc.) writers or is an inner exegetical need to explain why, directly connected with the revelation on Sinai, the Torah also speaks about a revelation on Seir and Paran (Deuteronomy 33:2: . . . “the Lord came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran”). Some scholars maintain that Rabbinic authorities seek with this tradition to explain the very difficult question of why revelation happened outside the land of Israel. In any event, one cannot rule out the possibility that the topic of the election of Israel could give rise to polemical writings.243 The Midrash offers an answer to this question supporting the conviction that the gift of the Torah was not a divine particularism, but a conscious, positive answer of the Jews when the Torah was offered to them. According to Mishnah Sotah 7:5, the Torah was revealed in seventy ˙ altar (see Joshua 4:2–8 and 20–24): languages on the stones of the After having transported the stones and built the altar, they covered it with lime and inscribed on it the words of this law in seventy languages as it is written: “very clearly” (Deuteronomy 27:8). Then they took the stones and set them up in their places.

The sentence of the Mishnah openly implies the universalism of the Jewish Law, offered to the Gentiles with the help of the Jews in the Diaspora, an allusion contained in “their places”. The written Torah is the property of the Jewish people in its entirety,244 but also open to 242 Midrash Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma el ba-hodesh Yitro § 5 and parallels; Ephraim ˙ (Jerusalem: Magnes, Hebrew UniverE. Urbach, The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs sity, 1975): 532 ff.; Peter Schäfer, “Israel und die Völker der Welt. Zur Auslegung von Mekhilta deRabbi Yishma el, bahodesh Yitro 5”, Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 4 ˙ (1976): 47 ff. 243 The literature on this topic is too voluminous to list here. I refer only to Eugene Mihaly, “A Rabbinic Defence of the Election of Israel”, Hebrew Union College Annual 35 (1964): 103–143. 244 See also Devarim Rabbah wa-yelekh and Midrash Tehillim 90:3: Moses wrote 13 Torot, 12 for the 12 tribes and one to be stored in the Holy Ark.

(de)canonization of libraries

97

others. The version of the Tosefta Sotah 8:6 is polemical against the nations of the world, addressing their ˙direct responsibility in acknowledgment of the Torah. Rabbi Judah answers the question of how the nations of the world could have learned the Torah, saying: The Holy one, blessed be He, infused intelligence in the hearts of the nations of the world and their sent stenographs who rendered the writings on the stones of the altar in seventy languages. In this moment, the judgment of the nations of the world has been ratified in the pit of corruption.245

The judgment of the nations of the world originates in their rejection of the Torah despite their knowledge of it. Seen from an historical perspective, the Midrash mirrored the ignorance of Gentiles of the Jewish Torah, although they had an opportunity to learn it. A successive development of the tradition is offered by later Midrashim which focus on a changed historical situation in which the nations of the world did read/accept the written Torah. We have two versions of this tradition which deal with two different perspectives. The first tradition is transmitted by the Midrash Tanhuma ki-tissa 17 (ed. Buber):246 ˙ When Moses learned it (the Torah), the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: “Go and teach it to my son”. Moses answered: “I would give it to him in writing, if it had not been revealed to me that in a (future) time the nations of the world will subjugate them and take it away and this my son will become as one of the nations of the world. Give them the Mikra (i. e. the Torah and the other writing) in writing, but give the Mishnah, the Aggadah, and the Talmud in oral form. Then the Lord said to Moses, Write down for you . . . 247 That is the Mikra; because on the mouth248 that is the Mishnah and the Talmud. For they constitute the difference between Israel and the nations of the world“.

This tradition focuses on the role played by the imperial power (Roman or Christian) in subjugating the Jewish people and the on the loss of Jewish autonomy. Torah is in this case the law of the Jews which, for example, the Romans repealed. The second tradition of this Midrash adds the peculiarity of the loss of “religious” authority over the Mikra and is transmitted by the Midrash Pesiqta Rabbati 5 (ed. Friedman, 14b):

245 246 247 248

See Psalm 55:23. See also Midrash Shemot Rabbah 47:1 and Yalqut ki-tissa § 405. ˙ interpretation of the Midrash. Exodus 34:23, ktav lkha, translated according to the Exodus 34:23, al pi, translated according to the interpretation of the Midrash.

98

libraries and canon Rabbi Judah, pupil of Rabbi Shalom said: Moses prayed [God] to have the Mishnah in writing. The Holy one, blessed be He, predicted that in the future the nations of the world would translate the Torah and recite it in Greek and make it known: “They (the Jews) are not Israel”. The Holy one, blessed be He, said to him: “Oh Moses: one day the nations will say: ‘We are the sons of God’. Israel will answer: ‘We are the sons of God’”. And this will hold the scales even. The Holy one, blessed be He, said to the nations: “Why do you claim that you are my sons? I know only that my son is the one who owns my secrets” (word in Greek: misterin). The nations answer to him: “What are ˙ “The Mishnah”. your secrets”? He says to him:

The message of the Midrash is unambiguous: The Mishnah constitutes the discrimen, the only difference between Israel and the nations of the world.249 Unclear remain the historical circumstances in which this tradition should be placed. The common opinion views this text in relation to the so-called Jewish-Christian controversy because of the Christian claim to be the verus Israel.250 Some scholars even see in this text a discrediting of the Greek Torah.251 I cannot recognize any blame or reproof of the Septuagint here. On the contrary, look first at the liturgical terminology of the text: the nations of the world would translate (in the meaning of targum! see chapter 3) and recite the text in Greek. Liqro and letargem are Jewish liturgical technical terms for the synagogue service (see Mishnah Megillah 4). Second, after the appropriation of the written Torah by the nations of the world, the scales are even. This means that the claim of the nations is upheld to base of 249

See Schäfer, Studien, 173–178. George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 7th edition (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1927), vol. 2:68, footnote 6; Dominique Barthe´lemy, “L’Ancien Testament a muˆri a` Alexandrie”, Theologische Zeitschrift 21 (1965): 364–365; now in E´tudes d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (Fribourg, Göttingen: E´ditions universitaires; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978): 133–134; see further Julius Bergmann, Jüdische Apologetik (Berlin: Reimer, 1908): 61; Ephraim E. Urbach, “Halakha we-nevu a”, Tarbiz 18 (1946–1947): 6–7, footnote 50; idem, The Sages, 305–306; Marcel Simon, Verus Israel. E´tude sur les relations entre Chre´tiens et Juifs dans l’empire romain (135–425), 2nd edition (Paris: Boccard, 1964): 225; Leo Baeck, “Haggadah and Christian Doctrine”, Hebrew Union College Annual 23/1 (1950–1951): 557–558; Marcel Simon, “La Bible dans les premie`res controverses entre Juifs et Chre´tiens”, in Le monde grec ancien et la Bible, ed. Claude Monde´sert (Paris: Beauchesne, 1985): 111; but cp. Johann Maier, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike (Darmstadt: Buchgesellschaft, 1982): 184–185. 251 So De Lange: “It is the purpose of such apologetic to discredit the Greek version of the Bible at the same time as bestowing a spurious respectability on the Rabbinic traditions. The Rabbis persistently deprecated the translation of the Bible into Greek”; Origen and the Jews, 50. 250

(de)canonization of libraries

99

their adoption of the written Torah, an act which could authorize them to be son of God according to Exodus 7. But that is not enough according to the the Rabbis. Only the Mishnah as secret doctrine252 of the Jewish people authorized the Jews, but not the nations, to be named “son of God”. If here we recall what was stated with reference to Hilarius––according to whom the Seventy are “authorities” because they possess a particular hidden doctrine in addition to the written law (praeter scientiam legis) and incorporated in the written text––we can fully understand the focus of the Midrash. Moreover, the attempts to canonize the Septuagint as a synolon (the whole) of oral and written Torah do not give them, “the Gentile”, the right to consider themselves sons of God. Because the specific difference lies in the Mishnah, transmitted orally. We can thus conclude with two very important results: the legend of the libraries attests to a (successful) attempt to deconstruct or strengthen the authority of some libraries over against others. This is not applicable primarily to the real shelves of Alexandria, Athens or Jerusalem, but above all to the function of the ancient library that is comparable to contemporary academies and universities. Alexandria of Egypt was a school of canonization of Greek literature in its editions and propagation of books (scrolls) and commentary on them. The same function was claimed by Athens (supported by Pergamon) and mutatis mutandis by Jerusalem. Seen from Jewish-Hellenistic, Rabbinic (and the Christian) perspectives, the Septuagint was the best edition project because it succeeded in universalising Jewish traditions and law. That does not mean that the dangers of this “edition” were not evident. Probably many centuries after the edition of the Septuagint, the Rabbis understood that the written Torah was accepted and considered as part of the heritage of other cultures (not only Christian, but also other ‘heretic’ groups). The oral Torah takes on the role of discrimen, the element of elective separation between Israel and the nations of the world. The oral Torah is also the element which distinguishes the written Greek Torah from the Targum, as we will show in next chapters.

252 Talmud Yerushalmi Pe ah 2:6 (17a/43–50) and Talmud Yerushalmi Hagigah 1:8 (76d/17–24). On this terminology, s. Gerd A. Wewers, Geheimnis und Geheimhaltung im rabbinischen Judentum (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1975): 87–90.

2. DECONSTRUCTING HISTORY AND TRADITIONS: THE WRITTEN TORAH FOR PTOLEMY Bereshit bara elohim (“In the beginning God created”): This is one of the passages which the Elders of Israel changed for the King Ptolemy. They wrote for him: Elohim bara bereshit (“God created in the beginnings”). For he [the King] did not have enough knowledge to reflect on the Midrash of the Torah (Midrash Leqah Tov to bereshit 1:1). ˙ ˙

If the canonical, philosophical and theological meaning of the Egyptian Torah is obvious for Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian writers, it is difficult to ascertain what the Septuagint represented for Rabbinic Judaism, supposedly immersed totally and always in the Hebrew tradition of the Torah. Obviously, the corpus of Rabbinic literature is an intellectual, religious, hermeneutic product of Rabbinic academies and is based on the Hebrew text. In addition, no Rabbinic literary work in Greek1 is extant after the destruction of the Jewish community of Alexandria and after the revolt of Bar Kokhba. A discerning reader might well infer from these facts that Greek and Jewish-Hellenistic culture had no impact on Rabbinic Judaism. Was Greek literary production banned by the Rabbinic authorities? That question has not been adequately answered by modern scholarship.

1 There is of course likewise no Rabbinic Greek literary composition before the destruction of the Second Temple, because we cannot speak of a “Rabbinic” Judaism before Yavneh. On the other hand, Rabbinic Judaism did not have interest in transmitting any literary product in Greek. However, some literary texts and objects with Greek inscriptions (contracts, gravestones, amulets, etc.) are extant. For an example of a literary text, see the archive of Babatha and its documents in Greek Yigael Yadin, The Finds from the Bar-Kokhba Period in the Cave of the Letters (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1963); Naphtali Lewis, ed., Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters, vol. 1: Greek Papyri (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989). For Jewish traditions in amulets in Greek amulets, see my article “Jewish Traditions in Greek Amulets”, Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies 18 (1996): 33–47.

the written torah for ptolemy

101

Ever since the magna charta of the Wissenschaft des Judentums, Leopold Zunz’ Etwas über die rabbinische Litteratur,2 the Rabbinic attitude to Greek culture has been often discussed.3 At least two generations of scholars have tried to shed light on the relationship between Judaism and its Greek environment and vice versa.4 The theoretical premises behind and the scholarly results of inquiry on this material are well-known: some deny any influence of Greek culture on Rabbinic Judaism while others emphasise the significance of the encounter. Prudence is the guideline of a third category of scholars: they avoid speaking of the influence or of the encounter between Hellenism and Jewish culture but rather of two different cultural and social units with some points of contact.5 In my view, the Rabbinic attitude toward Greek culture and language was positive: Greek was even presumed to have been the language that was spoken from the beginning of the world up to the time of the Tower of Babel (see Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah 2 See Leopold Zunz, “Etwas über die rabbinische Litteratur”, in idem, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1, ed. Curatorium der “Zunzstiftung” (Berlin: Louis Gerschel Verlagsbuchhandlung. 1875, first published in 1818): 3–31; English, short translation by A. Schwarz in The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History, ed. Paul MendesFlohr and Jehuda Reinharz, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995): 221–230. 3 The main thesis of the “new science” was that Jewish talmudic culture contributed to European cultural development. Moreover, the analysis of talmudic literature aimed at proving its antiquity. For instance, Zacharias Frankel’s studies on the Septuagint intended above all to date talmudic data; see his Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Wilhelm Vogel, 1841): VIII. 4 To my knowledge, the first comprehensive contribution to this issue was made by Israel Lewy, “Über die Spuren des griechischen und römischen Alterthums im talmudischen Schriftthum”, Verhandlungen der Versammlung Deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner (Leipzig: Teubner, 1878): 77–88. 5 On these three tendencies, see Yishaq Baer, “The Historical Foundations of the ˙˙ Halakha”, (in Hebrew) Zion 17 (1952): 1–55; idem, “On the Problem of Eschatological Doctrine During the Period of the Second Temple”, (in Hebrew) Zion 23–24 (1958–1959): 3–34 and 141–165; Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B. C. E. – IV Century C. E., 2nd ed. (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962); idem, “How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine”, in Studies and Text, vol. 1: Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1963): 123–141; idem, Greek in Jewish Palestine. Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II–IV Centuries CE, 2nd edition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965); idem, Texts and Studies (New York: Ktav, 1974); on the Homeric and Rabbinic exegesis see E. E. Hallewy, “The Writers of the Aggada and the Greek Grammarians”, (in Hebrew) Tarbiz 29 (1959): 47–55; idem, “Biblical Midrash and Homeric Exegesis”, (in Hebrew) Tarbiz 31 (1961): 157–169 and 264–80. For a general overview, see Henry Albert Fischel, ed., Essays in Graeco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature (New York: Ktav, 1977); Nicholas de Lange, “Sem et Japhet. Les Juifs et la langue grecque”, Parde`s 12 (1990): 90–107; idem, “Judaeo-Greek Studies: Achievements and Prospects”, Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies 17 (1995): 27–34.

102

deconstruction history and traditions

1:11 [71b]). It can be assumed with some certainty that the ban on Greek culture, ordered in Rabbinic Judaism, concerned at most only special circumstances and certain periods.6 The fact that only very few Greek texts are extant from the Rabbinic period (most transmitted by Christian authors, or in magical texts and materials etc.), does not affect the thesis proposed here that the Rabbis had a more than accidental interest in Greek literature. Although Rabbinic Judaism had not transmitted any Greek manuscript or text, we cannot assume that the Rabbis totally ignored Greek literary heritage. Another argument is more cogent: The majority of the traditions of Rabbinic Judaism were transmitted (and therefore canonized) by Babylonian academies which had little interest in Palestinian traditions (the history of the text of the Palestinian Talmud is exemplary evidence in this regard) and a maiori in Greek literature. Language is closely bound up with spoken (or at least understood) tongues and with the major trends of Rabbinic hermeneutics,7 which I would call moving forces in production or suppression of texts. Traditions which are not more “current” and cannot be hermeneutically updated are either suppressed (censorship) or totally reinterpreted. That is the Rabbinic method, to “save”, maintain and store traditions and this can explain why we do not have any Greek texts from Rabbinic Judaism. Yet, it should be expressly stressed that not everything the ancient (likewise Christian) world produced and spread all over the world, perhaps also known in Rabbinic circles, was considered worthwhile of Rabbinic discussion in their academies, then transmitted in written form––as the whole body of literature of Rabbinic literatures clearly shows. There are indeed no traces either of Plato or Aristotle or of very influential Christian councils and imperial measures in Rabbinic documents, although there is no reason to believe that the Rabbis were completely unaware of every general political change or intellectual trends that had spread broadly. 6

See Mishnah Sotah 9:14 and parallels where reference is made to the war of Titus (or Quietus?). On the ˙alleged ban of Greek wisdom, see Lieberman, Hellenism, 100–114; E. E. Hallewy, “Concerning the Ban of Greek Wisdom” (in Hebrew), Tarbiz 41 (1971): 269–274. 7 A very intriguing example are medical treatises transmitted in the Babylonian Talmud, influenced by Akkadian traditions rather than by Greco-Roman medical practices, as Markham Geller has shown, see his “An Akkadian Vademecum in the Babylonian Talmud”, in From Athens to Jerusalem Medicine in Hellenized Jewish Lore and in Early Christian Literature, ed. Samuel Kottek et alii (Rotterdam: Erasmus Publishing, 2000): 13–32. Palestinian talmudic medicine is, however, imbued with Greco-Roman medical theories and recipes, see my Magie und Halakha (Tübingen: Mohr, 1997), passim.

the written torah for ptolemy

103

Rabbinic literature is particularly selective in importing “foreign” traditions. It discriminated them on the basis of a careful filter selection which acted, in addition, as standardization and canonization of halakhot and aggadot. I intend to present here the main reason for the Rabbinic interest in the Septuagint traditions, by trying to delve into the field of Rabbinic transmission where confusion of literary texts is often deliberate in covering up all tracks of past canonization. It is obvious that the Septuagint translation contains elements of Jewish exegesis; it was, after all, a product of Jewish scribes or scholars in a tradition of continuity and dependence on the motherland––at least according to the account of Aristeas, Philo of Alexandria, and Josephus. In analysing exegetic tradition in the transmitted Septuagint manuscripts, modern scholars face a crucial decision: whether to date Midrash traditions in respect to their occurrence in the Greek Torah or to explain Septuagintal “changes” as textual variants and the Midrash as commentary on earlier Hebrew texts other than the so-called Masoretic one, the textus receptus common from the early Middle Ages onwards. Depending on whether we take as our starting point the Septuagint or the Rabbinic Midrash, we have two different images or patterns of their mutual connections. In the first case, we have to postulate an influence of the Septuagint in Rabbinic Midrash, in the second case we can date Rabbinic exegetical tradition as early as the early centuries B. C. E., as Zacharias Frankel in the 19th century hypothesized.8 A third very intriguing question concerns the Rabbinic view of exegesis in relation to the Septuagint story and its text. As we will see below,9 according to the Rabbinic view every translation is always an authoritative interpretation because it originated in the exegetical Rabbinic teaching. Seen from a Rabbinic perspective and speaking of the text of the Bible, there is no place for literary creation as an aesthetic paradigm. Accordingly, the biblical text is a multifarious hermeneutic grid, a map without territory,10 because it presupposes the Rabbi/teacher

8 See Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841); idem, “Zur Frage über das Verhältnis des alexandrinischen und palästinischen Judenthums, namentlich in exegetischer Beziehung”, Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 4 (1850): 102–109; idem, Über den Einfluß der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Barth, 1851); Über palestinische und alexandrinische Schriftforschung (Breslau: Wilh. Gottl. Korn, 1854). 9 See the next chapter. 10 For this terminology, reference is to be made to Jonathan Z. Smith, Map is not Territory. Studies in the History of Religions (Leiden: Brill, 1978).

104

deconstruction history and traditions

or interpreter as draftsman of his landscape in accordance with precise hermeneutic rules. According to this view, the Septuagint crystallizes one moment of this exegetical discourse in written form. My interest here is to introduce the reader to the perception of history and transmission of history in Rabbinical academies. My study then seeks to explain the “canonization” or better de-canonization of the Septuagint in Rabbinic Judaism. The change in attitudes toward the Greek Torah was a prolonged process, considering the fact that different factors contributed to the dissociating of Judaism from its Greek heritage in which the Septuagint was also included: the association of the Greek language with Greco-Roman imperial literature,11 the discarding of Greek liturgy because of the increasing importance of the Hebrew language, the Christian attempt to control Jewish liturgy in the time of Justinian,12 the debate on Greek wisdom etc.13 The Patristic thesis, still supported by scholars,14 namely that Judaism before Constantine’s seizure of power refused to use the Greek Torah because the Christians used it, is pure Christian propaganda. There is no Rabbinic source which we can date incontestably to this period which expressly attacks the Septuagint as being “Christian infected”, as Patristic authorities would have it. On the contrary: Greek language15 and the Greek text of the Torah were highly honoured in 11 To what extent the ban on Greek wisdom (see the introduction to preceding section) is an indirect product of Roman imperial politics is an unexplored and controversial aspect of ancient Judaism, if we call to mind that only Latin was defined in Rabbinic sources as an “imperial language”, see Giuseppe Veltri, “Römische Religion an der Peripherie des Reiches: ein Kapitel rabbinischer Rhetorik”, in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. Peter Schäfer and Cathrine Hezser, vol. 2 (Tübingen: Mohr, 2000): 81–138, esp. 87–88. 12 Giuseppe Veltri, Gegenwart der Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2002): 104–119. 13 Giuseppe Veltri, “On the Influence of ‘Greek Wisdom’: Theoretical and Empirical Sciences in Rabbinic Judaism”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 5 (1998): 300–317. 14 See the status quaestionis in Giuseppe Veltri, Eine Tora für den König Talmai (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994): 15–21. 15 A turning point in the evaluation of Greek in Judaism is the 6th–7th century in the inscription of Venosa in which a revival of the Hebrew instead of Greek is present, see Vittore Colorni, “L’uso del greco nella liturgia del giudaismo ellenistico e la novella 146 di Giustiniano”, Annali di Storia del Diritto 8 (1964): 33–42; further Cesare Colafemmina, “Insediamenti e condizioni degli ebrei nell’Italia meridionale e insulare”, in Gli Ebrei nell’Alto Medioevo, vol. 1 (Spoleto: La Sede del Centro, 1980): 202 ff.; idem, “Archeologia ed epigrafia ebraica nell’Italia meridionale”, Italia Judaica. Atti del primo convegno internazionale (Rome: Multigrafica, 1983): 199–210). On the first century, see Martin Hengel, The “Hellenization” of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (London, Philadelphia: SCM Press, 1989): 7 ff.; and generally Heikki Solin, “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethnisch-demographische Studie mit besonderer

the written torah for ptolemy

105

Palestinian and Babylonian academies insofar as they transmitted traditions about a Torah version written for King Ptolemy with no trace of blame or critical distance from it, except for the two texts to be discussed below. Rabbinic literature offers two groups of traditions concerned with the Greek Torah:16 quotations of verses or list of verses, “changed”, or “written” for King Ptolemy or in Hebrew Talmai,17 and an account about the origin of this writing, mostly followed by a list of “changed” verses.18 The fascinating but tricky question I will address here is whether these snapshots of the Rabbinic sea of hermeneutics, the translated Torah verses for the King Ptolemy as transmitted in Midrash, represent canonized moments of exegetical discussions (exegemata) or rather the exclusion of traditions no longer canonical by means of emphasis. In other words, we ask whether in canonizing a particular her-

Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.29/2 (1983): 587–789; Shlomo Simonsohn, “The Hebrew Revival Among Early Medieval European Jews”, Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume: On the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1974): 838–840. 16 On the modern evaluation of Rabbinic tradition concerning the Septuagint, see my Eine Tora für den König, 15–18. 17 On these “alterations”, see Avigdor (Victor) Aptowitzer, “Die rabbinischen Berichte über die Entstehung der Septuaginta”, Ha-Kedem 2 (1908): 11–27; 102–122; 3 (1909): 4–17; Karl-Heinz Müller, “Die rabbinischen Nachrichten über die Entstehung der LXX”, in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch. Beiträge zur Septuaginta, ed. Joseph Schreiner, vol. 1 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1972): 73–93; Emanuel Tov, “The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the ‘Alterations’ Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX” (in Hebrew), in Isaac Leo Seeligmann Volume. Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, ed. Aharon Oppenheimer and David R. Schwartz, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein, 1983): 371–393, now in idem, The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999): 1–20 (see also there his criticism of my book, p. 75–82); Abraham Wasserstein, “On Donkeys, Wine and the Use of Textual Criticism: Septuagintal Variants in Jewish Palestine”, in The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World. Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, ed. Isaiah M. Gafni (Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center, The Historical Society, 1996): 119–142. 18 The Rabbinic source concerned with the “Torah for King Ptolemy” are the following: midrashic sources: Midrash Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma el bo 14 to 12:40; Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 8:11; 10:9; 38:7; 48:17; 63:3; 96:6; Midrash Shemot Rabbah 5:5; Midrash Tanhuma shemot 22; Midrash Tanhuma shemot 19 (ed. Buber); Yalqut bereshit ˙ ˙ Midrash Leqah Tov bereshit to˙ 1:1 (1b); § 825 to Deuteronomy 4:19; § 3; wa- ethannan ˙ ˙ ˙ shemot to 4:20 (12b); Midrash Sekhel Tov shemot to 4:20; Midrash ha-Gadol shemot to ˙ from talmudic literature: Talmud Yerushalmi 4:20; devarim to 4:19 and 17:3. Sources Megillah 1:11 (71d); Talmud Bavli Megillah (9a–b). Sources from the “external tractates”: Soferim 1:7; Soferim (version B) 1:8; Sefer Torah 1:6; Avot de-Rabbi Natan (version B) 37. For a commentary of the manuscript material on these texts, see Veltri, Eine Tora für den König, 220–242.

106

deconstruction history and traditions

meneutic interpretation of the Torah as illustrated by the “changes” for Ptolemy, the Rabbis withheld other possibilities of interpretation they construed as dangerous for their students or for the fictive “foreign” king. The question is, however, much more complicated because the multifarious Rabbinic world of interpretation is echoed not only in the different literary forms (Talmud, Midrash etc.), but also in the different readings, the variae lectiones, of the manuscripts. Methodologically, I prefer to present a synchronic analysis of the quotations of “changed verses” out of context, and the contextual story which mentions biblical verses, changed by the Elders or Sages for King Ptolemy. The stories or contexts in which the “changed verses” (devarim le-talmai ha-melekh) are transmitted belong to two patterns: parenthetic reference and the contextual story with an enumeration of examples.

2.1 Changed Verses as Midrashic Parenthetic Reference In most midrashic instances, the parenthetic reference to the “changed/written verses for the King Ptolemy” functions as an exegetical tool for introducing another explanation of a lexeme, a word, a preposition etc., especially a difficulty of a biblical verse which the Elders or Sages of Israel had to change for the King Ptolemy. Before an explanation of such figura rhetorica can be offered, I would like to present the corresponding changes which occur throughout Rabbinic literature as parenthetic references and enumeration of examples. I will present the results of the Rabbinic discussion without lingering on the philological and text-critical analysis, which I deal with elsewhere.19 Genesis 1:1: In the Beginning God Created All the redactors of the midrashic material concerned with “verses for the King Ptolemy”20 agree that a change has been made in the order of first three words of Genesis 1:1. Instead of “In the beginning God created” (bereshit bara elohim), they wrote: “God created in the beginning” (elohim bara bereshit). Midrash and Talmud did not transmit any explanation of this allegedly reordered verse, and neither the Greek translation nor the Targum show peculiarities which could help 19 20

See my Eine Tora für den König, 22–112. See the list above.

midrashic parenthetic reference

107

us to understand the exegetical changes. Only in the Middle Ages do we find an explanation: the philosopher and historiographer Abraham Ibn Daud put forward an interpretation contending that the change was made because of the nature of the Greek language “so that the king does not understand that bereshit is the creator and elohim the creation”.21 Ibn Daud’s attempted explanation is only a result of his ignorance of the Greek language, as Azariah de’ Rossi already observed in the 16th century.22 For there is no difference between en arche¯i epoı´e¯sen ho theos and ho theos epoı´e¯sen en arche¯i. However, Ibn Daud is right in saying that the first three words of the Torah could lead to exegetical deviancy. Unfortunately, no Rabbinic text is eloquent enough about illustrating such difficulties, so that we must be content with some very small hints and enigmatic allusions. Two attempts to explain the difficulty will be examined: the first put forward by Ibn Daud foresees a danger of polytheism; the second, followed by medieval exegetical discussion in Rashi and Ibn Ezra, avoids speaking of censorship because of deviant sects, preferring to see only a question of hierarchy in the creation. a) Polytheistic preoccupation. Some worry about polytheism is surely not far-fetched if one thinks about the Gnostic adaptation and actualisation of Genesis 1:1 in connection with creation myths and theory. The grammatical facts that God is named after two other words and that the consonant beth can also be interpreted as an instrumental preposition (“together with” or “by”) could sustain the belief that Elohim created heavens and earth together with or by Reshit. This interpretation might be echoed by Proverbs 8:22:23 “The Lord created me beginning his ways”24, and is adopted by some Targumim.25 The danger of a polytheistic interpretation is echoed by some Midrashim, as for example Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 1:14, oft quoted as explanation of this “change” for King Ptolemy.

21

Abraham Ibn Daud, Divre Malkhe Yisra’el (Amsterdam 1711): 50a. Me’or Enayim, Imre Bina chapter 7; see the English translation in Azariah de’ Rossi, The Light of the Eyes, ed. Joanna Weinberg (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2001): 162. 23 With Zacharias Frankel, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Wilhelm Vogel, 1841): 30–31. 24 Masoretic Text: YHWH qanani reshit darko: LXX: Kyrios ektisen me arkhe¯n. 25 Fragment Targum Paris He´br. 110, Vatican Ebr. 440 (edition: Michael E. Klein, ed., Fragment-Targum [Rom: Biblical Institute Press, 1980]) and Neophyti 1. 22

108

deconstruction history and traditions Bereshit bara elohim et shammayim we-et ha-ares (Genesis 1:1): Rabbi ˙ were a disciple of Yishma el asked Rabbi Aqiva saying to him: You Nahum from Gam-Zu, according to whom (the words) akh (“only”) and raq˙ (“only”) are limitation and et (sign of accusative) and gam (“too”, “also”) are inclusions. Tell me: what about the et here (in Genesis 1:1)? He said to him: If we had Bereshit bara elohim shammayim we-eres, ˙ shammayim we-eres could be understood as godheads. He said to him: ˙ words for you (Deuteronomy 32:47). If the word is They are not just idle idle, it depends on you yourself because you are not able to search (further): et shammayim includes sun, moon, and constellations; et haares includes trees, grass, and the Garden of Eden. ˙

This well-known and often quoted Midrash cannot explain the changed text for King Ptolemy because the problems addressed are not heaven and earth (shammayim we-eres) but bereshit, the first word of the Torah. However, the reason for˙ the popularity of this Midrash among modern scholars hinges rather on its exegetic similarity to the translation of Aquila, who, slavishly faithful to the Hebrew text, as Jerome maintained,26 tried to imitate Hebrew style, rendering et (sign of accusative) by the Greek syn (“together with”, see below). b) Hierarchy of creation. Another Midrash is directly concerned with the order of the first three words of the Torah, Midrash Tanhuma ˙ bereshit 4: Rabbi Azzai said: Come and see the humility of the Holy one, blessed be He! If one mentions a king of flesh and blood, one names first his name and thereafter his work (Greek in text: ktisma). That is not the case of the Holy one, blessed be He. For He (God) first mentions His work (bereshit) and afterwards his name (elohim), as it is said: In the beginning God created (Genesis 1:1).

Although this Midrash focuses on the first word of the Torah, and therefore is quoted by some scholars in this context,27 this nonetheless does not explain the difficulty of the “changed verse for King Ptolemy”. What is the reason for an inversion of the first three words? Perhaps the intention is to treat Ptolemy with care? The explanation is still more inconsistent if the parallel tradition in Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 1:12 is taken into account, a passage in which a Roman prefect and not a king is the subject of the parable!

26 Jerome, Liber de optimo genere interpretandi: (Epistula LVII), 19–20 and below pp. 175 f. 27 See Barthe´lemy, “Euse`be”, 61–62 (E´tudes, 189–190).

midrashic parenthetic reference

109

My explanation of the changed verses goes back to the ancient and medieval discussion on the creatio ex nihilo: the inversion of the verse makes it impossible to read the first three words as a modal sentence: “As God created the heaven and the earth . . . and the earth was formless and empty . . . God says: Let there be light”. This translation presupposes a different vocalization: bereshit bero elohim... instead of bereshit bara elohim.28 A changed order at the beginning would definitely prevent any other possibility. The Rabbinic Torah for Ptolemy focuses in this way on an old theological question which we find in the Hellenistic Book of Wisdom 11:17, according to which God created the world from a formless matter (ex amorfou hyle¯s). Against this opinion, II Maccabees 7:28 maintains: “God did not make them (heaven and earth) out of things that existed” (ouk ex onto¯n epoie¯sen auta ho theos). This interpretation is also confirmed in a text by Jerome who, quoting the Rabbinic understanding of some changes for Ptolemy in Genesis 1:1, reports that the Seventy-two changed the text so that the monotheistic king would not be misled by a possible dualistic conception of reality in the Hebrew text.29 He says “dualistic”, meaning the Platonic distinction between matter and divine substance in the creative act. Modern scholars could not help thinking that here there is an allusion to an alleged debated question about the unity of God which the King Ptolemy can use as pretext against Jewish claims of monotheism, as Ibn Daud maintained. The Torah for the Ptolemy is a revised text for a Greek king who, of course, was not able to read the Hebrew “changed” text of the Rabbis, a fact which the Rabbis surely did not ignore. The aim of the midrash is to present an image of harmony of Rabbinic academies on a topic that was perhaps a highly explosive theological and political subject: the influence of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy on Jewish thought, as the quoted text of Jerome clearly supposes. Whatever the nature of a change may be, the desired effect is without doubt to stress the absolute creation of God without any help and by refusing any emanation theory. 28 For the modal sentence in Rabbinic and medieval exegesis, see Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhængigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau: Hainauer, 1857): 344 ff. and 439; Peter Schäfer, “Bere¯sˇit ba¯ra¯ Elo¯hı¯m. Zur Interpretation von Gen 1,1 in der rabbinischen Literatur”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 2 (1971): 161–166. 29 Prologus in Pentateuchum, Patrologia Latina 28): 121 (see also Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem. ed. Weber, 1975, p. 3–4) “Iudaei prudenti factum dicunt esse consilio, ne Ptolomeus, unius dei cultor, etiam apud Hebraeos duplicem divinitatem deprehenderet, quos maximi idcirco faciebat, quia in Platonis dogma cadere videbantur”.

110

deconstruction history and traditions

Genesis 1:26–27 and 5:1b–2a: Gnostic Mythology in Rabbinic Garb According to the Rabbinic literature, two questions are addressed by the Hakhamim by “changing” Genesis 1:26–27 and 5,1b–2a for King ˙ Ptolemy: the plural form in the singular of “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” and the meaning of the creation of the human being in the image of God (see below). It would be erroneous to believe that the tradition of the Septuagintal changes is concerned here first and foremost with the problem of monotheism arising from “Let us make”. For connected with the problem of monotheism, Rabbinic exegesis also faces the question of how many and which human beings are created by God if Scripture says: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Was one person created or two, and was each person male or female or was one person both male and female? The anthropological problem leads to the theological question of the uniqueness of the godhead. The question of monotheism in biblical literature is much debated in Rabbinic literature. There are some lists of difficult verses which were, of course, disputed in the Rabbinic school as examples of biblical verses which are exegetically similar to each other.30 We read in Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 38b:31 Rabbi Yohanan says: every biblical verse which the heretics take as pre˙ text (to found their criticism against monotheism) also has the corresponding answer near (the questioned verse): (plural) “Let us make man in our image, etc.” (Genesis 1:26), and (singular) “he created man in his own image” (Genesis 1,27); (plural) “Come, let us go down and confuse their language” (Genesis 11:5) and (singular) “The Lord came down to see the city and the tower etc.” Rabbi Yohanan said: God does not undertake anything without getting advice from˙the celestial ministers (literally: “family”) etc.32

The talmudic Midrash transmits a cogent exegetical consideration because in the biblical context the author speaks in both the singular and plural. The plural is said to be the expression of the pluralis maiestatis with regard to the advisory function of His “family”, but He is indeed 30 Or enumeration of scriptural examples as proposed by Wayne see Towner, The Rabbinic “Enumeration of Scriptural Examples” (Leiden: Brill, 1973). 31 See Müller, “Nachrichten”, 80 and Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven. Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977): 121–134. 32 The Midrash continues with Genesis 35:7; 35:3; Deuteronomy 4:7; 2 Samuel 7:23 and Deuteronomy 7:9; s. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 122.

midrashic parenthetic reference

111

acting in creation and nobody else. A very similar tradition is also transmitted in the school of Rabbi Simlai according to Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 8:9: Rabbi Simlai said: every biblical verse which the heretics (minim) take as pretext (to found their criticism against monotheism) has the healing near the (questioned verse).33 They (the minim) asked him further:34 What is the meaning of following verse: Let us make man etc.? He said to them: Let us read further: It is not written “and the gods created a man” but and God created a man (Genesis 1:27a). When they (the heretics) went forth, his disciples said to him: Your answer was too imprecise. (Perhaps it could satisfy the heretics), but for us, what do you intend to answer? He said to them: One day Adam was created from the soil and Eve from Adam. From then on and further (mi-kan we-illakh), the verse in our image, in our likeness (Genesis 1:16b) (is related to the following time): neither man without woman nor woman without man, neither of them without the divine presence (shekhinah).35

Jacob Neusner rightly notes that the introduction of the disciples is the main point of the Midrash36 and adds: “the center-piece, the creation of man, is made to provide a paradigm for the marriage of an Israelite husband and wife”. I do not think that the goal of the Midrash is the marriage of an Israelite. The disciples observe that with his first answer, Rabbi Simlai could convince the heretics (minim), but not them, because there are two other plurals in the sentence beside the first one: “in our image, in our likeness” (be-salmenu ki-dmutenu). The subsequent answer of the Rabbi relates to ˙this express problem. According to him, God first created Adam and Eve as prototypes, and with the help of these prototypes he created people as males and females.37 The parallel text in Talmud Yerushalmi Berakhot 9:1 (12d) confirms my interpretation in replacing mi-kan we-illakh (“from now and further”) with mi-adam we-illakh (“from Adam and further”), supposing the double creation of man and reading “in our image, in our likeness” (be-salmenu ki-dmutenu), related to male and female. ˙ 33 This translation is according my corrected text, for the manuscript tradition s. my Eine Tora für den König, 39. 34 The first difficulty here is Genesis 1:1. 35 See on this verse Arnold Goldberg, “Kain: Sohn des Menschen oder Sohn der Schlange”, Judaica 25 (1965): 218. 36 Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, vol. 1 (Atlanta, GA.: Scholar Press, 1985): 81. 37 Against Arnold Goldberg, Untersuchung über die Vorstellung der Schekhinah in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969): 353, who speaks of the contribution by God to the formation of the embryo.

112

deconstruction history and traditions

Rabbi Simlai’s interpretation is not an expression of a primitive anthropology but a careful consideration of all elements which contributed to the formation of a human being: the soil, adamah as the materia of Adam and Adam as the materia of Eve. These prototypes, together with the divine Presence, lie at the origin of the creation of male and female, expressed by zakhar and neqevah. The “changed” or revised verses for Ptolemy transmit another hermeneutical approach because they reject the double creation of man in Genesis 1:26–27. For according to the Rabbis, the Elders also changed zakhar and neqevah in the following ways:38 1) zakhar u-nequvaw bra o (“he created him male with his holes”); 2) zakhar u-neqevah bra o (“he created him male and female”): i. e. creation of an androgynous type. These Rabbinic interpretations articulate here the two most popular theories of creation of man in antiquity: the creation of an androgynous being and the creation of a male/or neutral being. Both theories have their origin in the Greco-Roman environment. The creation of a male as prototype and with his “holes” is the thesis of Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 8:11: Male and female he created them (Genesis 5:2). That is one of the (biblical) verses which they wrote for the king Ptolemy: Male with his holes he created him (Genesis 5:2). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Rabbi Nehemya in the name of Rabbi Hanina ben Yishaq and the Rabbis in the ˙name of ˙ ˙ ˙ qualities from the higher and four in him four Rabbi Le azar: He created from the lower hierarchy. From the higher hierarchy: He stays erect like the ministering angels; he speaks like the ministering angels; he is capable of understanding like the ministering angels; he is capable of seeing like the ministering angels; but does a beast not see? Yes, but it sees like an animal!39 From the lower hierarchy: he eats and drinks like an animal; he is fruitful and increases in number like an animal; he defecates like an animal; he dies like an animal. Rabbi Tiflai in the name of Rabbi Aha (said): The heavenly beings have ˙ been created with the image and the likeness. They are not fruitful and do not increase. The earthly beings are fruitful and increase. They (i. e. the earthly beings) have not been created with (his) image and (his) likeness. The Holy one, blessed be He, said: Well, I will create him with the image and the likeness from the higher beings. He has to be fruitful and to increase from the lower beings.

38 The manuscript’s transmission oscillates between plural and singular, s. Veltri, Eine Tora für den König, 41–42. 39 On this translation, see Veltri, Eine Tora für den König, 42–43, footnote 67.

midrashic parenthetic reference

113

The topic of the changed verse for Ptolemy concentrates in one sentence what the Midrash is seeking to explicate: the human being is a synolon of the higher and lower beings or the summary of demut/selem ˙ from the ministering angels and zakhar and neqevah from the animals, where neqevah is literally interpreted as “holes”. The anthropological statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is clear: the human being has four holes: mouth, genitalia, anus, and nose.40 A similar conception of a male––or better neutral creation of man––is also supported by Philo of Alexandria, who in his De Opificio Mundi 134 discusses the creation of man as “without body, neither male nor female, naturally immortal” as the prototype who, on the other hand, possesses the quality of male and female (see De Opificio Mundi 76).41 The second interpretation of the creation of man as echoed by the tradition of “changed verses for King Ptolemy” sees in the human being a hermaphrodite. We read in Midrash Wa-Yiqra Rabbah 14:1 (see also Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 8:1):42 Rabbi Yishma el bar Nahman said: “As the Holy one, blessed be He, ˙ He created him androgynous. He cut him in created the first human being, two and formed two backs, one for one side and the other for the other side.” Rabbi Shim on ben Laqish said: “As the Holy one, blessed be He, created the first human being, He created him with two faces. He cut him in two and formed two backs, one for the man and the other for the wife.”

It is very difficult to ascertain whether the exegetical tradition on the basis of this Midrash is influenced by the Greek philosophy of Plato, Symposium 189e–190a.43 For according to Plato, the androgynous human being is the third gender besides male and female, a tradition which we find in other Rabbinic texts, as for example Mishnah Bikkurim 2:3: “and the androgyne has ways in common with the males and the females”. This tradition is possibly related to Symposium 189e:

40 This “hole” is not directly understandable: through the nose, God infuses the breath of life and according to Job 27:3 it will remain there as long we are alive: “as long as I have life within me, the breath of God in my nostrils.” 41 On this question see Richard A. Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female (Leiden: Brill, 1961). 42 On this text, see David H. Aaron, “Imagery of the Divine and the Human: On the Mythology of Genesis Rabba 8 § 1”, Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 5 (1995): 1–62. 43 On this aspect, see Ephraim Urbach, The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1975): 228.

114

deconstruction history and traditions . . . not merely the two sexes, male and female, as at present: there was a third kind as well, which had equal shares of the other two, and whose name survives though, the thing itself has vanished. For “man-woman” was then a unity in form no less than name, composed of both sexes and sharing equally in male and female44

The difference between Plato’s text and the Bikkurim lies in the fact that the androgyne no longer exists for Plato, while for Rabbinic Judaism it is also a real medical question: the case of hermaphroditism was as topical as today and relevant for the halakhah because the malefemale being has to fulfil the commandments of both man and woman! To my mind, the creation of an androgyne (not gender!) goes back to or at least is influenced by Gnostic mythology. According to the hermetic tractates Poimandres, the godhead is in its nature male-female, and his creation is also male-female. In specific reference to animals, the authors write: “For all the animals being male-female, at the same time with Man were loosed apart; some became partly male, some in like fashion [partly] female. And straightaway God spake by His Holy Word”.45 The quality of androgyny is highly positive, attributed also to the Son of Man, as “Eugnostos the Blessed” affirms: . . . the perfect Savior said: Son of Man consented with Sophia, his consort and revealed a great androgynous light. [His] masculine name is [called] “Savior, Begetter of All things.” His feminine name is called “Sophia, All Begettress.” Some call her “Pistis.” The Savior consented with his consort, Pistis Sophia, and revealed six androgynous spiritual beings who are types of those who preceded them . . . 46

The variegated readings of the alleged “changes” of the Torah for King Ptolemy are a first-hand testimony of the midrashic imagination, a kind of officina exegetica where tools and assistance are offered to the willing reader to cooperate with the text in creating new exegemata (exegetical units) capable of generating traditions. The exegetical difficulty here is the double creation of one human being as male and female as 44 Plato in Twelve Volumes (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd.), vol. 3: 1967; quoted from Perseus http://www.perseus. tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plat.+Sym.+189e#fn1. 45 Poimandres 18: English by G. R. S. Mead in G. R. S. Mead, Thrice Greatest Hermes: Studies in Hellenistic Theosophy and Gnosis (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 1992, first 1906), also accessible at http://www.houseofthehorizon.org/public/docu ments.php?id=126 (October 2004). 46 NHC III 81,23–82,12 in The Coptic Gnostic Library. A complete edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, ed. James M. Robinson, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill 2000): 115–116.

midrashic parenthetic reference

115

image and likeness of the unique God. The “revised” Torah for the king has to resolve the possible polytheistic difficulty––two human beings as male/female refers necessarily to two principles in the Godhead––making at the same time possible the generation of humanity in the differentiations of the sexes. The uniqueness of the divinity plays here the decisive role. Genesis 2:2: The Shabbat of God or the Eternal Creation As is well known, a locus classicus where the Hebrew (masoretical) text and the Septuagint differ from each other is Genesis 2:2: “In the seventh day God finished the work he had been doing; and in the seventh day he rested from all his work.” The Septuagint, the Peshitta (Syriac translation), and the Samaritan tradition47 are of the opinion that God ceased from his work by the sixth and not the seventh day. Rabbinic Judaism also sees in this verse a change for King Ptolemy which has been almost unanimously transmitted by all the midrashic texts related to this topic.48 My interest here is not to search for exegetical or historical reasons why the Greek Septuagint (and the Samaritan tradition) shows another variant reading in relation to the Hebrew text, but to delve into the Jewish-Hellenistic and Rabbinic tradition to find any text which speaks about the motivation for this variant. The main problem of the traditional Hebrew text is that Genesis 2:2 clearly contradicts Exodus 20:11, if he also works on the seventh day: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day”. On the other hand, some modern scholars affirm that the Septuagint and the Samaritan text are “rigorist” in limiting the action of God.49 Other scholars try to justify the Hebrew text by interpreting the first verb as pluperfect: “he had finished by the seventh day”, i. e. he brought to a close his work so that on the seventh day God ceased creating. Umberto Cassuto thus translated the verse as follows: “Since God was on the seventh day in the position of one who had already finished . . .”.50 In my opinion, the 47

On the Samaritan tradition, see Simeon Lowy, The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis (Leiden: Brill, 1977): 106–107. 48 See above, p. 106, note 18, and Veltri, Eine Tora für den König, 48 and note 83. 49 See Bernd Schaller’s dissertation (“Gen 1,2 im antiken Judentum”, Universität Göttigen, 1961), quoted by Werner H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964): 156. 50 A Commentary to the Book of Genesis, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961): 62.

116

deconstruction history and traditions

modern exegesis minimizes the tension between “he finished” (wayekhal) and “he rested” (wa-yishbot), a contrast acknowledged by the ancient hermeneutics. For the very fundamental question in this verse is whether the divine resting on the Sabbath also represents the completion and end of his creative act. The Septuagintal reading had little to do with the Sabbath rest but rather concerns the act of creation and its interpretation beyond the Sabbath. For the Seventy-two did not translate the verb lishbot with sabbatizo¯, or with the Hebrew coinage sabbaton, which first appears in Exodus 16:25, but with katepausen (“to rest”). Anyway, by rendering Genesis 2:2, the translators had Exodus 20:11 in their mind’s eye because the creation of the world and everything in it had to be created in six days, so then a further creation ceased after the sixth day: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy”. But is this creative act the image of the Sabbath? Can it in this meaning be repetitive of the divine act or is it an act which finishes by or on the Sabbath? We read in Jubilees 2:16: And He finished all his work on the sixth day––all that is in the heavens and on the earth, and in the seas and in the abysses, and in the light and in the darkness, and in everything.51

The emphasis is here unambiguously on “all”. The reason of this special stress goes back to the opposite opinion which contended that the creation is a continuous act, as Aristobulos and also Philo of Alexandria52 argued. For Aristobulos, the Sabbath was the day of the creation of the light in which all things are contemplated (e¯ de¯ pro¯te¯ . . . fo¯tos genesis); on the seventh day, he did not rest, but ordered all things.53 A similar opinion was reflected in a gloss of the Septuagintal minuscule manuscript 135: “The ‘Hebrews’ say: If God ceased in the seventh day, that means that he made something in this day!” Speculations on the eternal creation of the world could be possible only following the Hebrew text. Rabbinic tradition does not particularly focus on the question (see Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 10:10 and 10:11), but openly supports the idea of a continuous creation. According to 51

My translation from Epiphanius, De Mensuris 22 according to Denis, Fragmenta,

74. 52

See Decalogus 97–98. Text transmitted by Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 13:12:9 ff; Denis, Fragmenta, 224. See Walter, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos, 59. 53

midrashic parenthetic reference

117

Targum Pseudo-Yonatan to Genesis 2:3, “he rested from his whole works, which God created (and from them) which he intended to created in future”. If a continuous creation was the common opinion of Jewish-Hellenistic and Rabbinic tradition, the question arises why the Elders propose a change in Genesis 2:2. It is not important to ascertain whether the Rabbis really had a Septuagint manuscript at hand because the very reason of the change––according to Rashi and the Tosafists––was apologetic in nature: for Ptolemy could take Genesis 2:2 as a evidence against the Sabbath rest insofar as God was also a violator of the Sabbath. The same opinion is shared by Jerome who saw the change of Genesis 2:2 as inhibition of a possible polemic against the Sabbath.54 Genesis 11:7 and the Tower of Babel After the creation of the world and the parting from the mythical golden age where God used to speak on familiar terms with human beings, an intriguing question of ancient mythologies pertaining to the origin of languages suggested that humanity at its beginnings was speaking one unique language, as Genesis 11:1 maintains. However, the building of the Tower of Babel is not only a creation to explain human ambitions and pride and consequent divine punishment. Other problems and difficult questions are involved, as the attention of ancient hermeneutics emphasizes in reference to Genesis 11:7. Genesis 11:7 presents three exegetical difficulties: the anthropomorphic appearance of God, the plural form and the confusion of one language as origin of the (seventy) languages of the world. The supposed changes in the Torah for Ptolemy, transmitted in the Rabbinic literature, face the second and third difficulty by changing the plural to singular and interpreting the confusion of the languages as destruction of the generation of the Tower. The preoccupation with the plural is not the main problem of Jewish-Hellenistic and Rabbinic literature; rather, interest centres on the problems of how to interpret the confusion and, related to this, the question of how languages and destruction of the Tower are inter54 Jerome, in Genesim 2:2 (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 72): 4: “Pro die sexta in Hebraeo diem septimam habet. Artabimus igitur Iudaeos, qui de otio Sabbati gloriantur, quod iam tunc in principio sabbatum dissolutum sit, dum Deus operatur in sabbato, complens opera sua in eum, et benedicens ipsi diei, qui in illo universa compleverit”.

118

deconstruction history and traditions

connected. The first question was emphasized by scholars concerned with Jewish and Christian relations. They are of the opinion that Rabbinic Judaism proposed a change in the plural of Genesis 11:7 to counter the Trinitarian use of the verse by Christianity.55 This interpretation presupposes that the sole concern of Rabbinic Judaism in their exegesis of the Bible was to defy Christian exegesis. Perhaps it should be called to mind that in Christianity too the Trinitarian interpretation of this verse was not a commonly held view. Augustine of Hippo, for example, mentions in Quaestiones in Genesim the Trinitarian interpretation, adding the others (pluralis maiestatis and the inclusion of angels) as possible.56 It is striking that the Targum Onkelos does not “correct” the plural of Genesis 11:7; rather, it is worried about the anthropomorphism and instead of “Come, we will go down”, translates: “Come, we will reveal ourselves”. Moses Aberbach and Bernard Grossfeld’s comment: “Jews had long ceased to question the monotheistic basis of their faith”.57 I am not convinced that the disappearance of a particular textual and therefore exegetic difficulty in the targumim or in the exegesis can be interpreted as theological, incontestable consensus of the Rabbinic academies. An argumentum e silentio is always lacking in probative value. It should be valid as an empirical point of departure for ancient and modern hermeneutics that the targumist as well as every exegete cannot delve into every difficulty of the biblical text! We can only infer that Onkelos’ particular concern was to avoid anthropomorphism.58 Nothing else can be inferred. In my view, the real problem of Genesis 11:7 is the appearance of the divinity and the destruction of the common language. While the

55 Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, 51; Etan Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible (Berlin: New York: De Gruyter, 1988): 190. Margherite Harle, La Bible d’Alexandrie. La Gene`se (Paris; Du cerf, 1986): 149 mentions as an unambiguous example only Basilius in the 4th century. 56 Corpus Christanorum Series Latina 33:7: Venite descendamus et confundamus ibi linguam eorum, ne audiat uniusquisque vocem proximi. Utrum Utrum ad angelos dominus hoc dixisse intellegitur? An secundum illud accipiendum est quod in exordio libri legitur: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram? Nam et quod postea dicitur singulari numero: quia ibi condundit dominus labia terrae, sic et illic cum dictum esset: faciamus ad imaginem nostram, in consequentibus tamen non dictum est “fecerunt” sed: fecit deus. 57 Targum Onkelos to Genesis (Denver, Co.: Center for Judaic Studies University of Denver. 1982): 74-75. See also Andrew Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986): 100. 58 Michael L. Klein, Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopatisms in the Targumim of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Makor, 1982): VII–VIII.

midrashic parenthetic reference

119

majority of the Rabbinic sources of the changed verses do not comment, only Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 38:7 gives a reason for the “change”: Come, let us go down (Genesis 11:7): That is one of the (biblical) verses which they changed for the King Ptolemy. (They wrote): Come, I go down and confuse their language. Rabbi Abba said: “I will make them cadavers by their languages. One said to the other: ‘Hand me water’ and the other handed him dust. The (first) beat him and split his skull. (One said to the other): ‘Hand me an axe’ and the other handed him a shovel. The (first) beat him and split his skull, as it is written: I will make them cadavers (nevelah) by their languages.”

The verse I will make them cadavers (nevelah) by their languages is not biblical, only a typical Rabbinical example where the lemma (the Hebrew verse) and the dictum (Rabbinic exegesis) are summed up together. The redactor plays here with the meaning of the verb bll and the correspondent word nevelah (destruction, but also cadaver) and corrects the Hebrew text, because there the redactor speaks of a singular: their language, relating to Genesis 11:1: “Now the whole world had one language”. For the Rabbinic mind, the action of the divinity cannot imply that he was teaching or creating new languages for the world. On the other hand, how can we reconcile the confusion with the origin of the languages? This question was put by Philo of Alexandria, who objects that instead of “confusion” we should write “division”.59 Nevertheless, he explains the “confusion” as a chemical process of dissolution of the constructed unity into its original elements.60 The question of whether the origin of the languages is a result of the destruction/confusion has no satisfactory explanation in ancient sources. Josephus refers to the book of the Sibyl by suggesting that God sent winds to let the tower collapse and to teach every people their languages.61 The text of Sibyl reports, however, that God sent winds (pneumata) to destroy the tower, but the languages were already present when God enacted the confusion. The changed verse for Ptolemy is a reaction to the question of the origin of the languages which, according to ancient common opinion, were spoken at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel. The 59

De Confusione Linguarum 181. De Confusione Linguarum 187. On Philo’s position, see Giuseppe Scarpat, “La torre di Babele in Filone e nella Sapienza (Sap 10,5)”, Rivista Biblica 39 (1991): 167–173. 61 Sibylline Oracles 3:97–98; Josephus, Liber Antiquitatum I:118. 60

120

deconstruction history and traditions

action of the divinity consisted in confounding communication between the workers on the tower so that they were unable to complete their project. The origin of the languages of the world was too positive an element to have been generated by a punishment. Genesis 18:12: Sarah’s Laughter In Mamre, God promised Abraham that Sarah would give birth to child a year after the meeting in the tent. Sarah was eavesdropping at the entrance to the tent and laughed to herself, saying: “After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have ednah”? The real difficulty of this verse is not primarily the meaning of ednah, also today an object of controversy, but rather its congruence with Genesis 18:13, where God says to Abraham: “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old’”. If Sarah was laughing to herself, why does God ask Abraham who could not hear? We read in the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 48:17: And Sarah laughed to herself and said: That is one of the (biblical) verses which they changed for the King Ptolemy in this way: And Sarah laughed among her relatives saying: “After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have ednah”? The woman said: As long as the woman can give birth to a child, she has pieces of jewellery and I, after I am worn out, will I now have ednah? Ednah means “pieces of jewelry” as in the verse: (wa- e dekh edi) I adorned you with jewellery (Ezekiel 16:11). The woman (said): As long as the woman can give birth to a child, she menstruates and I, after I am worn out, will I now have ednah? ( Ednah) means period.62 But my husband is old (Genesis 18:12). Rabbi Yehudah said: He grinds but does not produce anything!63 Rabbi Yudah in the name of Rabbi Simon (said): “You considered yourselves young and treat your friends as old. Am I perhaps too old to perform miracles?”

The change for King Ptolemy consists of the addition of a consonant waw: instead of be-qirbeha, (to herself), the Sages read be-qerovehah (among or by her relatives). The change explains why God and Abraham hear of her scepticism about the promise of a child. In the perspective of the Midrash, the situation is now clear enough. Sarah is sceptical of the fulfilment of the divine promise, but not in reference to herself. For they will get menstruation and pieces of jewellery, mean62 63

A popular etymology from iddan (“period of time”). A euphemisms for coitus. To grind corresponds to Greek myllein, see Job 31:10.

midrashic parenthetic reference

121

ing: she becomes or is considered a young woman. But what about her husband? He is old and cannot father a child. The dictum of Yehudah introduces something new as long as he is rebuking Sarah and Abraham for considering themselves young and the three men of Mamre (the friends) old, as if the sentence “And my master is old” should refer to God and not to Abraham. How can this reading be explained? The primary reference is of course Genesis 18:13: “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old’”. “Now that I am old” is, according to the Midrash, a reference to God and not to Abraham. Therefore, the object of derision is God himself. The Midrash supposes that God feels insulted and does it consciously, i. e. he consciously misunderstands the wording of Sara’s expression. This “change” for Ptolemy is based on a further midrashic list of biblical verses according to which God is forced to lie for the sake of freedom. There Genesis 18:12 is also listed:64 Attributing Sarah’s derisive note of being too old to father offspring to God himself as source of the statement, the Midrash removes the difficulty of the biblical verses and “saves” the honour of the patriarch. The variant reading be-qerovehah has nothing to do with the transmitted text of the Septuagint. However, the Greek text for Genesis 18:13 shows an addition: en aute¯ (to herself). The Septuagint tried in this way to solve the problem the Rabbis solved by means of an aggadic innovation. Genesis 49:6: Simeon and Levi In Genesis 49:5–7, Jacob excludes Simeon and Levi from his benediction because “they have killed men (ish) in their anger and hamstrung oxen as they pleased.” The difficulty of this verse lies in the hamstringing of an ox (shor). Genesis 34 (to which Jacob alludes) reports of killing of men (as revenge for the abominable deed against Dinah) and plundering of the city, but not of hamstringing an ox.65 This verse was 64 See Midrash Sifre Ba-Midbar 42; Midrash Wa-Yiqra Rabbah 9:9; Talmud Yerushalmi Pe ah 1:1 (16a); see Gerard Wewers, Pea. Ackerrecke (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986): 25, note 191. 65 On modern attempts to solve the question, see Bruce Vawter, “The Canaanite Background of Genesis 49”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955): 1–17; Patrick D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew”, Ugarit Forschungen 2 (1970): 177–186; Calum M. Carmichael, “Some Sayings in Genesis 49”, Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 435–444; R. Peter, “Note de lexicographie he´braı¨que”, Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 486–496.

122

deconstruction history and traditions

very difficult to explain, as the history of the exegesis shows. The word ish was interpreted either as Hamor (“the father of Shechem”: Midrash Tanhuma , wa-yehi, 12, ed. Buber 12) or as the whole city of Shechem ˙ ˙ wa-yehi 10). The targumim, Aquila and Symmachus (Midrash Tanhuma ˙ ˙ wall of the city (shor). understood the shur as the The midrashic topic of the “changed verses for Talmai” transmits two different variant readings for solving the exegetical difficulty: according to some sources, the Elders changed shur in abus or ebus ( bws), while other sources transmit a first alteration from ish to shor (in the first hemistich)66 and from shor to abus (in the second hemistich).67 The first interpretation relates the verse to the story of Shechem, as the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 98:6 (fragment from the Cairo Genizah) expressly states: For they have killed men in their anger (Genesis 49:6a). This refers to Hamor, the father of Shechem. And hamstrung oxen as they pleased (Genesis 49:6b). You have demolished the wall of the proselytes. Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yirmiyah in name of Rabbi Hiyyah in name of ˙ (said): For sake of satisfaction of your desire,˙ your have demolBar Abba ished the wall of the proselytes. Another explication: For they have killed men in their anger and hamstrung an bws as they pleased (Genesis 49:6). That is one of the (biblical) verses which they changed for the King Ptolemy.

The first exegetical explanation reads shwr as shur (wall) and calls to mind the episode of Genesis 34 where Simeon and Levi “looted the city where their sister had been defiled” (Genesis 34:27). The changed verse for Ptolemy introduces a change from shwr to abus. bs can mean either “fattened” from ebus, “manger” (see Isaiah 1:3) or even Greek from bous (cattle) with article e¯ (female), and that is also the meaning of the Greek Septuagint which has tauros (ox, bull). This interpretation would of course satisfy that stream of Rabbinic tradition which transmitted only one variant reading in the second hemistich. Yet there is reason to doubt a consonance of the Rabbinic tradition of the “changed verses for Ptolemy” with the Greek text. The alteration of the first hemistich (ish to shor) in some of the Rabbinic sources cannot be explained as an accident of the transmission, with only the 66 As, for example, Midrash Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma el bo 14 to 12:40 (in the printed versions); a fragment from the Cairo Genizah of Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 98:6, published da Sokoloff. 67 As in the manuscripts of Midrash Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma el bo 14; Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah 1:11 (71d), and Talmud Bavli Megillah 1:8 (9a–b).

midrashic parenthetic reference

123

variant reading of the second hemistich deemed “original”, as some scholars maintain.68 I suspect that a new (or just another) tradition is expressed in these changes: the identification of Joseph in shor and abus, with reference to Deuteronomy 33 (Birkhat Moshe). We read in the Midrash Leqah Tov wa-yehi to Genesis 49:6: ˙ ˙ ˙ For they have killed men in their anger (Genesis 49:6a): These are the inhabitants of Shechem. And hamstrung an shwr as they pleased (Genesis 49:6b). That is the wall of the city. For “wall” (humah) is in Aramaic ˙ shur. Another opinion: And hamstrung an shwr as they pleased (Genesis 49:6b). That is Joseph because it is written in reference to him: Here comes that dreamer! They said to each other (ish el ahaw) (Genesis 37:19). These are Simeon and Levi., called here “brothers”.

And in the Midrash ha-Gadol bereshit to Genesis 49:6: For they have killed men in their anger (Genesis 49:6a): This is Hamor, the father of Shechem. And hamstrung an shwr as they pleased (Genesis 49:6b). That is the wall of the Goyim. Another opinion: For they have killed men in their anger (Genesis 49:6a):. That is Joseph because it is written in reference to him: In majesty he is like a firstborn bull (bekhor shoro) (Deuteronomy 33:17).

This Midrash tradition offers us the second way to interpret Genesis 49:6: Jacob does not refer to the episode of Shechem but to the collaboration of the two brothers in killing Joseph (at least intentionally in Genesis 37:19: “But they saw him in the distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him”). The brothers of Joseph here means only the two brothers Simeon and Levi. The Rabbinic tradition of the “changed verses” alludes to this interpretation in changing ish to shor in the first hemistich and shor to abus in the second hemistich. That ’bws has something to do with Joseph was the opinion of Michael Sachs, a view seconded by Nehemias Brüll and Samuel Krauss.69 In my opinion, Sachs rightly maintains that ’bws 68 On this variant, see Geiger, Urschrift, 442–443; idem, Nachgelassene Schriften, vol. 4: 52; Müller, “Die rabbinischen Nachrichten”, 78; Tov, “The Rabbinic Tradition”, 88; and my criticism in Eine Tora für den König, 66–67. 69 Michael Sachs, Beitraege zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung: aus jüdischen Quellen (Berlin: Veit, 1854), vol. 2: 99; Nehemias Brüll, “Fremdsprachliche Wörter in den Talmuden und Midrashim”, Jahrbuch für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 1 (1874): 144–145; Samuel Kraus, “Ägyptische und syrische Götternamen im Talmud”, Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut, ed. George Alexander Kohut (Berlin: S. Calvary, 1897): 341–342.

124

deconstruction history and traditions

is nothing but another transcription of Apis or Sar Apis (the bull god of Memphis), as we read in Talmud Bavli Avodah Zarah 43a: It is taught: Rabbi Yehudah added also the images of Meniqah and Sar Apis. Meniqah because of Eve who suckles the entire world; Sar Apis because of Joseph who rules the entire world (sar) and brings peace to it (mapis).70

The identification of Joseph with Serapis may be inferred from the exegetical identification of Joseph with a bull (Deuteronomy 33:17). The fact that this second interpretation (shur = Joseph) against the former (shur = wall of Shechem) is transmitted as “another interpretation” (davar aher) testifies to a change in the exegetical mentality and her˙ school: The plain meaning refers to the episode of Shemeneutical chem, the other interpretation tries to spare the other brothers of Joseph, with critics attributing the abominable intended deed of killing their brother only to Simeon and Levi, who are indeed excluded from Jacob’s benediction. Exodus 4:20b: Moses and the Donkey After the revelation on Sinai, Moses travelled together with his wife and the children to Egypt: “And Moses took his wife and sons, let them ride on a donkey (hamor) and started back to Egypt.” The Septuagint ˙ with “and Moses took his wife and his sons, put translated its Vorlage them on ta hypozygia” (“beasts of draught/burden”). The Rabbis were of the opinion that the Torah for King Ptolemy contained a variant reading here, changing al ha-hamor into al nos e adam, probably to be translated with “draught ˙animals/chariots, reserved for human beings”. Some scholars are of the opinion that a variant reading is indeed present in the Septuagint and that can explain the concern of the Rabbi with this verse.71 Perhaps, they note, the donkey was not appropriate for Moses, he had to take an animal more suitable like a camel or horse.72 On the other hand, there may be something to this, considering 70 On this text, see Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 136–138; and above all Margarete Schlüter, D eraqo¯n und Götzendienst. Studien zur antiken jüdischen Religionsgeschichte, ausgehend von einem griechischen Lehnwort in mAZ III 3, (Frankfurt a. M., Bern: Lang, 1982): 65 and ff. and 95 and ff. 71 See Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Fribourg; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, Vandenhoeck, 1981): 135. 72 See Jakob Levy, Neuhebräisches und chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midrashim, vol. 1–4 (Leipzig: Brockhaus: 1876–1889): vol. 3: 447.

midrashic parenthetic reference

125

the contempt and simultaneous awe of the Egyptians for such an animal.73 In the end, Jews were also confronted with the reproach of venerating a donkey, a reproach extended then also to the Christians.74 Although many elements of this discussion are very important for illustrating the history of the Jews in Egypt, they do not satisfactorily explain the Greek and Rabbinic variant reading attributed to the Septuagint. For to hypozygion is synonymous with onos, the common Greek word in a later period for donkey,75 as Emanuel Tov correctly maintains.76 The medieval chronographer and philosopher Abraham Ibn Daud construed the difficulty of this verse as lying in a purely physical aspect, although he also alludes to the ancient theory of honour: “(The Elders changed this verse) so that the king did not despise our teacher, because he rode on a donkey and also did not have to object: How could one donkey transport a woman and two children?”.77 This observation is surely not illogical and can perfectly explain the plural of the Greek Septuagint and of the Rabbinic Torah for King Ptolemy, regardless of whether the Rabbis had really seen the text of the Septuagint and its variant reading. Ibn Daud is of course not alone in his explanation of the difficulty. A relatively young collection of Midrashim, Sekhel Tov shemot to 4:20 ˙ exegesis of the (ed. Buber, 28) transmits the following meaningful verse: And Moses took his wife and sons, let them ride on a donkey. In w-yrkbm (Masoretic text: wa-yarkivem) the consonant yud is lacking. In h-hmr (Masoretic text: ha-hamor), a waw is lacking. The verse teaches us that˙ he had only a donkey. ˙He let only his two sons ride on the donkey, but not his wife. That is one of the (biblical) verses which the Elders of Israel changed for the King Ptolemy. They wrote for him: he let them ride on a draught animal for man. (They do this) because of Moses’ honour.

73

Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, 53; idem, Urschrift, 360. Elias J. Bickermann, “Ritualmord und Eselkult. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte antiker Publizistik”, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 71 (1927): 171–187; 255–264; see also Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia (Cambridge, Ma.; London: Harvard University Press, 1997): 55–62 and passim. 75 See Xenophon, Oeconomicus, 18:4 and Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 197. 76 Tov, “Rabbinic Traditions”, 88. 77 Divre Malkhe Isra’el, 50b. 74

126

deconstruction history and traditions

The absence of the consonants waw and yud refers to the plene and defective of the Masoretic text. The very peculiar interpretation of the Midrash which let only the two children ride on the donkey goes back not only to the above-questioned problem of “three persons on a donkey” but also to the violation of the honour of Moses, forced to walk. How can such an interpretation be justified? Simply with a pause: And Moses took his wife; his sons he let ride on a donkey. The grammar is damaged, but the honour of Moses is saved! Exodus 12:40: The Sojourn of Israel in Egypt A further verse from the Torah considered by the Rabbis as having been changed for King Ptolemy is Exodus 12:40: “Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years”. The Hebrew Masoretic text is not consistent in giving the length of time of the stay, revealing different traditions at work: For the chronology of Genesis 15 speaks of 400 years (15:13: “and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years”) and at same time of four generations. According to Genesis 15:16, the fourth generation of the descendants will come back to the land of Canaan. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Greek Septuagint add to Exodus 12:40 “and in the land of Canaan”. Modern scholars have no agreement on whether the variant readings of Samaritan and Septuagintal tradition are an addition of the scribes or are to be attributed to another way of interpreting chronological data.78 According to the Rabbinical literature,79 the disagreement between Genesis and Exodus can be settled if 78 Ludwig Couard, “Gen 15,12–16 und sein Verhältnis zu Ex 12,40”, Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 3 (1893): 156–159; Harold H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua. Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeology (London: British Academy, 1950, reprint 1964): 66–73; Naftali H. Tur-Sinai, “Auf wieviel Jahre berechnet die Bibel den Aufenthalt der Kinder Israels in Ägypten?”, Biblia et Oriens 18 (1961): 16–17; Ben Zion Wacholder, “How Long Did Abram Stay in Egypt? A Study in Hellenistic, Qumran, and Rabbinic Chronography”, Hebrew Union College Annual 35 (1964): 42–56; idem, Eupolemus. A Study of Judeo-Greek Literature (Cincinnati, Oh.: Hebrew Union College, 1974): 97–128; Pierre Grelot, “Quatre cent trente ans (Ex 12,40)”, in Homenaje a Juan Prado: Miscela´nea de estudios bı´blicos y hebra´icos, ed. L. Alvarez Verdes and E. J. Alonso Herna´ndez (Madrid: Instituto Benito Arias Montano, 1975): 559–570; Siegfried Kreuzer, “430 Jahre, 400 Jahre oder 4 Generationen. Zu den Zeitangaben über den Ägyptenaufenthalt der Israeliten”, Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 98 (1986): 199–210; Osvalda Andrei, “The 430 years of Ex. 12:40, from Demetrius to Julius Africanus. A Study in Jewish and Christian chronography”, Henoch 18 (1996): 9–67. 79 See Ginzberg, The Legend of the Jews, vol. 5:420; Josef Heinemann, “210 Years of Egyptian Exile. A Study in Midrashic Chronology”, Journal of Jewish Studies 22

midrashic parenthetic reference

127

we add the 30 years from the promise until the birth of Isaac. The calculation of the years of slavery thus starts with Isaac.80 In addition to this, a certain agreement does exist in Rabbinic literature on the calculation of the Egyptian period, which should be distinguished from the actual period of slavery: 210 years. According to Rabbinic sources, this calculation is also confirmed by the Gematria of the Genesis 42:2 rdu, that is: resh (200) plus dalet (4) plus waw (6) that is 210.81 Different from the tradition, based on the so-called later Masoretic text, the Samaritan, the Septuagint, Demetrius and Josephus give other figures for the period spent in Egypt, amounting to 215 years. According to the Samaritan source Memar Marqa 2:11, the actual period of slavery amounted to 140 years, for the reason that the 75 years of Joseph had to be subtracted. This resulted in 260 years of sojourn in Egypt and 140 years for the period spent in Canaan, adding up to the number 400 of Genesis 15:13. For the historiographer Demetrius, the period spent in Egypt amounted to 215 years, exactly like the period in Canaan.82 On the basis of this precise chronology of Eupolemos, Ben Zion Wacholder is of the opinion that the Septuagintal variant reading was close to his if not created by him.83 Josephus oscillates between the 400 years of Genesis 15:13 in Liber Antiquitatum II:204 (“For full four hundred years they endured these hardships”)84 and the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 in Liber Antiquitatum II:318 (“They left Egypt in the month of Xantichus, on the fifteenth by lunar reckoning, 430 years after the coming of our forefather Abraham to Canaan, Jacob’s migration to Egypt having taken place 215 years later”).85

(1971): 19–30; Hartmut Hahn, ed., Wallfahrt und Auferstehung zur messianischen Zeit. Eine rabbinische Homilie zum Neumond-Shabbat (PesR 1) (Frankfurt: Gesellschaft zur Förderung Judaistischer Studien, 1979): 331–333. 80 Midrash Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma el bo 14; Midrash Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shim on ben Yohay bo to 12:40; Seder Olam Rabbah 3; Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli ezer 48; ˙ cp. Liber Antiquitatum IX:3. 81 See on this Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 91:2. 82 Apud Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 9,21:18, see Carl R. Holladay, ed., Frag- ments from Hellenistic Jewis Authors, vol. 1: Historians (Chico, Ca., Scholar Press, 1983): 72. 83 Wacholder, Eupolemos, 102; but see Gooding, “On the Use”, 4. 84 English translation by Thackeray, vol. 4:253. 85 English translation by Thackeray, vol. 4:305. On this text, see Jakob Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Breslau: Verlag von H. Skutsch, 1875): 49.

128

deconstruction history and traditions

Some modern scholars maintain that the reading of the Samaritan and Septuagint text is original because of a simple calculation, taken from the Masoretic text:86 Genesis Genesis Genesis Genesis Genesis Genesis Genesis

12:4 16:3 16:16 17:24 21:5 21:26 47:9

Abraham 75 years old 10 years in Canaan Abraham 86 years old, birth of Ishmael Abraham 99 years old, Abraham 100 years old, birth of Isaac Isaac 60 years old; birth of Esau and Jacob Jacob, 130 years old; Jacob arrival to Egypt

0 10 1 13 1 60 130 215

There is doubt that these figures, taken from the Hebrew text, support the reading of the Samaritan and Septuagintal text (“the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt and in the land of Canaan”). Nevertheless, there is also no doubt that they are a later attempt to harmonise Genesis 15 and Exodus 12. Note the purely historiographical disharmonic information: Egypt and Canaan, where one should expect Canaan and Egypt. The Samaritan redactor noted this incongruity, adding be-eres ˙ kana an (“in the land of Canaan”) before be-misrayim (“in Egypt”). ˙ The logic is apparently resolved, though not completely, because the Samaritan text adds we-avotehem (“and their father”) after bne isra el (“the Israelite people” or “the sons of Israel”), inverting the historical order. The Rabbinic topic of the changed verses for King Ptolemy which include Exodus 12:40 are a different question, although bound up with the chronological difficulty. Only relatively late sources have the “right” Septuagintal variant reading (tractate Soferim 1:7, manuscript Adler 3861, which also added the variant reading be-sha ar arsot [“in the other lands”]). This variant reading, present in almost all ˙the Rabbinic sources of the changed verses for Ptolemy, testifies that the redactors of Rabbinic traditions had no possibility to control the Greek Septuagint, and thus quoted according to what they supposed was in the Torah for the King Ptolemy. Perhaps a tradition of this change was present in the mind of the writers, though without a refer-

86 Klaus Koch, “Sabbatstruktur der Geschichte”, Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95 (1983): 416; Dieter Lührmann, “Die 430 Jahre zwischen den Verheißungen und dem Gesetz (Gal 3,17);” Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 100 (1988): 420–423.

midrashic parenthetic reference

129

ence to a precise text, as confirmed by the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 63:3, where the variant reading is quoted without reference to the Torah for Ptolemy as mileta amiqta (“a deep word/meaning”). Numbers 16:15: Moses’ Behavior In the revolt of Dathan and Abiram, the authority and the competence of Moses is criticised and questioned, because they assert that he had not led them into the Promised Land. In his complaint before God, Moses says: “Do not accept their offering. I have not taken so much as a donkey from them, nor have I wronged any of them”. Instead of the common onos (“donkey”), the Septuagint translated epithyme¯ma, which corresponds rather to Hebrew himmud, while the Rabbinic “changes for the King Ptolemy” show ˙a variety of solutions: hemed (“beauty”); himmud (“desire”) or hamud (“valuable object”). ˙ ˙ ˙ Some authors explain this variant reading as a change because of Moses’ honor: he should not be associated with a donkey.87 A further attempt is of course to justify the exegetical value of the Masoretic reading “donkey”. Emanuel Tov refers in this context to 1 Samuel 12:3, where the prophet is defending his behavior: “Here I stand. Testify against me in the presence of the Lord and his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken?” (hamor mi laqahti)88 ˙ Similar to the case of Samuel, Moses is called to˙ justify his conduct. That is a plausible parallel, also acknowledged by ancient sources as Avot de-Rabbi Natan 37, where in addition to the variant reading nasa ti (from Numbers 16:15) we also have the reading laqahti (clearly ˙ taken from Samuel 12:3). The Rabbinic tradition also considers both episodes as very similar. According to the Midrash Ba-midbar Rabbah 18:10, Midrash Shemot Rabbah 14:9 and Midrash Tanhuma qorah 7, ˙ ˙ only Moses and Samuel have been guilty of theft. The Midrash Shemot Rabbah thus testifies to a high political commitment: Moses had the right to demand help from the people to transport his belongings because he acted in the general interest (sorkhe sibbur), but he did not ˙ ˙ the object of theft is demand help. According to this interpretation, not very important; rather, what is central is the deed itself. The explanation of the innocence of Moses is also supported by the Rabbinic 87

So Geiger, Urschrift, 360; Müller, “Die rabbinischen Nachrichten”, 84. See Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Revised and Enlarged Edition (Jerusalem: Simor, 1981): 157–158. 88

130

deconstruction history and traditions

Torah for Ptolemy when speaking of “I have not taken something desirable from them”, because desire (lahmod) is the premise for ˙ engaging in theft (ligzol). Yet the traditional explanation of the verse is not cogent enough. The context of the confrontation of Dathan and Abiram with Moses speaks neither of theft nor of the transport of something, but of the claim of both to the same rights of the priests as the Levites (see Numbers 16:10). Therefore they contest the authority of Moses. There is no point of similarity with Samuel, because in this episode the catchword is the charge of corruptibility, not the contestation of authority. The answer of Moses in his complaint to God is highly consistent: “Do not accept their offering”. This has something to do with their function and claim to have more competence in the cult and therefore greater influence on the community. The accusation to have stolen a donkey makes no sense in this context. The Septuagint’s attempt to gain meaning is also marked by difficulties. For the Septuagintal text can be translated in three ways: 1) “I have not desired something which belongs to them”; 2) “I had no sexual desire towards them”;89 3) “I have not taken something they loved”.90 None of these attempts to offer a meaning for the text fits into the contexts if we consider the second part of the verse: “. . . nor have I wronged any of them”. According to the context of Numbers 16, there certainly was something which wronged them: the refusal of the high honour to be priest. The variant reading of some manuscripts of the “changed verses for Ptolemy” hamud can perhaps help us to gain a new dimension in this discussion.˙ hmd and all its derivatives has something to do with desire, ˙ denotes above all the object of desire, the precious and passion91 and valuable object. In Psalms 39:12, Ezra 8:27, Job 20:20 and Daniel 11:38, hmd signifies a cult object which was needed in the Temple or in ˙ cults. I can suppose that an object here is meant, as for idolatrous example Urim and Tummim for the sacerdotal class. This interpretation is confirmed by Numbers 16:17, where the “censer” is considered the status symbol of the Levites. So the meaning of the verse can be: “I have not taken any precious object from them (belonging to their class).” That means: Moses behaved very rightly and politely with them, without wronging them. 89

On this meaning, see Josephus, Liber Antiquitatum VII:134. On this meaning, see Philo, De Confusione Linguarum 50. 91 See Tov, The Text-Critical Use, 157–158; Gerhart Wallis, “hmd”, Theologisches ˙ Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament 2 (1977): 1024. 90

midrashic parenthetic reference

131

Deuteronomy 4:19 and 17:3: Star Worship Star worship in Egypt was of course not unknown and that is the reason, according to ancient and modern scholars, why the Rabbis stress a change in the Torah for King Ptolemy, so that the king might say after reading the Torah: “The Holy one, blessed be He, has apportioned them (the heavenly bodies) to all the nations and allowed to them to worship them!” (Ibn Daud).92 We do not know whether Rabbinic Judaism worried about “pagan” critics against its monotheism on the basis of a pagan cults “tolerated” by the Torah, as some scholars maintain.93 Contrary to the fundamentalist position of Deuteronomy, Rabbinic tradition does not reject a priori the “power” of the stars and their influence on human destiny.94 A form of star worship is also present at least in mystical-magical groups, as perusal of the Book of the Secrets (Sefer ha-Razim) proves. There a prayer to the sun and invocation to the moon are transmitted.95 The reason for a fundamental scepticism against the position of Deuteronomy obviously lies in the fact that there was no clear distinction between astrology and astronomy or the everyday experience of atmospheric phenomena such as the sun and moon. Lucian of Samosata saw the peculiarity of the cult of Helios and Selene in the fact that neither of them are local deities.96 Astrology was known in antiquity by different names which, however, all had something to do with heavenly bodies, observation, calculation or with the supposed inventors of the science, the Chaldeans. Despite the controversy, already raging in antiquity, about astrology’s origins, we can assume with certainty that this science began in Babylon. Diodoros of Sicily, who traces the main points of astrological theory, depicted the Chaldaeans of Babylon as being similar to the priests of Egypt. “For being assigned to the service of the gods they spend their entire life in study; their greatest renown being in the field of astrology.”97 Astrology first became known in the Mediterranean 92

Divre Malkhe Isra’el 50b. See Etan Levine, The Aramaic Version of the Bible: Contents and Context (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1988): 183. 94 See Veltri, Gegenwart der Tradition, 226–232. 95 See Johann Maier, “Die Sonne im religiösen Denken des antiken Judentums”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II/19.1 (1979): 346–412; Günter Stemberger, “Biblische Darstellungen auf Mosaikfußböden spätantiker Synagogen”, Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 13 (1998): 145–170. 96 De Dea Syria 34. 97 Diodoros II:29,1–3, ed. and transl. by C. H. Oldfather (Cambridge, Ma., London: Harvard University Press: 1946): 445. 93

132

deconstruction history and traditions

world at the end of the 4th century B. C. E. The wide diffusion of astrology was doubtless due to the conquest by Alexander which allowed diviners and astrologers to fan out to all corners of the empire. Diodoros of Sicily tells us about the principles of Chaldaean philosophy, thereby suggesting a reason for the dissemination of astrology throughout the Mediterranean world.98 Now, as the Chaldaeans say, the world is by its nature eternal, and neither had a first beginning nor will at a later time suffer destruction; furthermore, both the disposition and the orderly arrangement of the universe have come about by virtue of a divine providence, and to-day whatever takes place in the heavens is in every instance brought to pass, not at haphazard nor by virtue of any spontaneous action, but by some fixed and firmly determined divine decision. And since they have observed the stars over a long period of time and have noted both the movement and the influence of each of them with greater precision than any other men, they foretell to mankind many things that will take place in the future.

Diodoros tells us that the scientific activity of the Chaldeans was based on their observation of the stars over a long period of time, i. e. they analysed such motions empirically and thus calculated mathematically the movement of the sun, the moon and the heavenly bodies. Their first aim was doubtless to calculate the calendar in order to »predict« when a new month would begin, or when an intercalary month was needed. With reference to their proven experience in the calculation of the calendar, they extended their own authority in also determining the influence of heavenly bodies on human beings, which is the claim of astrology. The success of astrology is nothing but the success of astronomy, really a by-product of astrology. It is not surprising that the Rabbis had knowledge of astronomy. For it was of vital importance both for the liturgical year and for everyday life. The determination of the calendar required “a sound knowledge of astronomy, since not only were Jewish festivals fixed on given days of the lunar month, but they also depended on the position of the sun”.99 The Babylonians collected portents of lunar and solar eclipses, of meteorological phenomena which were used for the calculation of the calendar as well as prognostications for kings or country, and the Rabbinic literature shows a

98 99

Diodoros II:30,1 ff. W. M. Feldman, Rabbinical Mathematics, p. 5.

midrashic parenthetic reference

133

similar use.100 The influence of the stars starts of course from birth and ends with a person’s death. In Talmud Bavli Mo ed Qatan 28a, we read: ˙ Length of days, children, and sustenance depend not upon merit but upon the mazzalot. For look at Rabba and R. Hisda, who were both righteous men. One used to pray for rain and it descended, whereas the prayer of the other was of no avail. R. Hisda reached the age of ninety-two and Rabba died at the age of forty. In the house of the former, sixty marriages were celebrated, but in the house of the latter sixty funerals occurred. In R. Hisda’s house bread of the finest flour was eaten by the dogs and nobody was concerned about it, but in Rabba’s house there was not even bread for the human beings there.101

The same circumstances, the unpredictability of human fate led other Rabbis to critical statements against astrology and prognostics: Rabbi Ashi said: I and Dimi bar Qaquzita were born on Sunday. I became king (i. e. Head of the School), and he became leader of robbers. All things can lead to lucky or unlucky fate (Talmud Bavli Shabbat 156a).

I believe a preoccupation with monotheism was not the reason for the transmission of Deuteronomy 4:19 and 17:3 in the list of the changed verses for the royal Torah. Once more, an exegetical problem leads the Rabbis to resort to direct intervention in the text to avoid difficulty. In the first text, star worship for non-Jews is tolerated: “And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars-all the heavenly array––do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshipping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.” In 17:3, however, it was forbidden at least for “pagans” living in the land of Israel: “(man or woman living among you) has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky which I have not allowed to them”. According to the “verses for Ptolemy”, the solution of the difficulty consists in an addition in 4:19 “after has apportioned to all the nations to illuminate (leha ir) under heaven” and in 17:3 at the end: “. . . which I have not allowed them to worship” (le ovdam). In my view, here too we are dealing with an exegetical problem of the Hebrew text without any relevance for the real Septuagint text. This is confirmed by the Midrash Sifre Devarim 148, where the addition “to worship them” 100 See Erica Reiner, Astral Magic in Babylonia (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1995): 12 ff. 101 Translation based on Abraham Cohen, Everyman Talmud (London: Dent & Sons, 1932): 298.

134

deconstruction history and traditions

(le ovdam) in Deuteronomy 17:3 is considered canonical text and in the Midrash Aggadah wa- ethannan to 4:19: ˙

And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars-all the heavenly array (Deuteronomy 4:19). For they had still not seen the sun and the moon until now because of the cloud (of the shekhinah) which surrounded them. Moses said to them: You will see the sun and the moon. Do not think that they are deities! For God created them so that they illuminate the earth, as it is written: . . . the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations to illuminate (them) under heaven.

2.2 Deconstructed Elements and Contextual Stories Three elements in the Rabbinic interpretation of the Torah for the king prove a direct and indirect knowledge of Septuagint traditions: The interpretation of Exodus 24:11, Leviticus 11:6 and the contextual story of the origin of the Torah le-Talmai ha-Melekh. The Seventy of Exodus 24 and the LXX of Alexandria The story of the Septuagint is in its core a literary development of the 24th chapter of Exodus. That was the view of Daniel Heinsius (1580–1655), professor at Leiden University and one of the most famous Dutch scholars of the late Renaissance, who in his Aristarchus sacer attempted to attack the textual validity of the Septuagint, considering its origin a myth.102 Exodus 24:11 tells about the establishment of a group around Moses, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel, to mediate between God and the people with the aim of worship. They “went up and saw the God of Israel” (Exodus 24:9–10). The Hebrew adds: “But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites (asile bne Israel); they saw God, and they ate and ˙ privileged over against the masses of the people. drank.” They are thus The Septuagint reads: kai to¯n epilekto¯n tou Israe¯l ou diefo¯nesen oude eis which can be translated: “And of the chosen ones of Israel none 102 Danielis Heinsii Aristarchvs sacer, sive ad Nonni in Iohannem Metaphrasin exercitationes. Quarum priori parte Interpres examinatur, posteriori Interpretatio ejus cum Sacro Scriptore confertur: in vtraque S. Euangelistæ plurimi illustrantur loci. Accedit Nonni [et] S. Euangelistæ contextus: tres item Indices: vnus Sylburgii in Nonnum Græcus; duo recentes in Aristarchum; alter Græcus, alter Latinus (Leiden: Elzevir, 1627); see Jürgen C. H. Lebram, “Ein Streit um die hebräische Bibel und die Septuaginta”, in Leiden University in the Seventeenth Century. An Exchange of Learning, ed. Theodor Herman Lunsingh Scheurleer (Leiden: Universitaire Pres Leiden, Brill, 1975): 21–63; and further Canfora, Il viaggio di Aristea, 5–7.

deconstructed elements and contextual stories

135

perished” or “And of the chosen ones of Israel none disagreed”, according to the usual meaning of diafo¯nein.103 The second translation would be a clear hint pointing toward the legend of the Septuagint.104 Heinsius’ reference to Exodus as a probable “source” of the legend was neither new nor original, going back at least to the Church fathers Epiphanis of Salamis and Hilarius of Poitiers, as seen above. The Rabbis of Babylonian tradition indirectly refer to this tradition, because they quoted a “change” in Exodus 24:5 and 24:11 for King Ptolemy: “Then he sent young Israelite men (na ar bne isra el), and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings” and “But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites (asile bne Israel); they saw God, and they ate and drank.” Both na ar ˙ isra el and asile bne israel have been changed into za atute bne bne ˙ ˙to anisra el. However,˙ the question is that these “changes” go back other tradition, called the “three scrolls of Torah found in the Temple court” which has another historical and literary background different from the “changes for King Ptolemy” (s. below). In my opinion, the Babylonian Rabbis must have read Christian sources and combined both traditions. My supposition is confirmed by the fact that only the Babylonian tradition of the “changes for King Ptolemy” also contains the peculiar element of the “cells” (see below), taken from Christian sources, probably from Epiphanius, who notably also associated the Septuagint of Alexandria with the Septuagint of Exodus 24:1 ff. The tradition of the three “three scrolls of Torah found in the Temple court”, transmitted by Midrash Sifre Devarim 356, Talmud Yerushalmi Ta anit 4:2 (68a), Soferim 6:4 and Avot de-Rabbi Natan B 46 has nothing to do with the Septuagint. However, it touches on our main topic, the decanonization of libraries, text and hermeneutics, and so it is useful to sum up the main results.105 According to this tradition, three scrolls were found in the Temple court: one of the me onim, the second of the hi hi and the third of the za atutim. ˙ ˙ 103 See Henry St. John Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship. A Study in Origins, 2nd edition (London: British Academy, 1923): 12. 104 Tramontano, La lettera di Aristea, 208*. 105 Azaria de’ Rossi, Meor Enayim, chap. 7 (ed. Cassel, vol. 1:131); Alexander Kohut, “Correction d’une erreur de copiste plusieurs fois se´culaire”, Revue des E´tudes Juives 22 (1891): 210–212; Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Editions of the Hebrew Bible, 408–409; Ludwig Blau, Studien zum althebräischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen Litteratur- und Textgeschichte (Straßburg: Trübner, 1902): 102–106; Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “The Three Books Found in the Temple at Jerusalem”, Jewish Quarterly Review NS 8 (1917–1918): 385–423; Massekhet Soferim, ed. Michael Higger (New York: Hotsa’at De-ve-Rabanan 1937): 169–170, note 17; Elias J. Bickerman, “Some Notes on the Transmission of the Septuagint”, in Alexander Marx Jubilee

136

deconstruction history and traditions In one scroll the words me ona elohe qedem (Deuteronomy 32:27,) were found (written), in two others the words me onah elohe qedem; the Sages declared the first to be invalid, the second valid. In one scroll nine hi were found (written), in the other two eleven; the Sages declared the first to be invalid, the second one valid. In one scroll it was written: wa-yishlah et za atute bne isra el (Exodus 24:5) and we-el za atute bne Israel ˙ ˙ In the other two wa-yishlah et na are bne ˙ ˙ isra el and ˙ (Exodus 24:11) we-el asile bne Israel. the Sages declared ˙the first to be invalid, the second ˙one valid.106

As Saul Lieberman rightly stated, the terminology here is very similar to the Alexandrian grammarians: “it was found written”, nimse u katuv, ˙ corresponds to heuromenon gegrammenon.107 According to Lieberman, a specimen copy of the Torah was stored in the Temple as an authoritative text, an idea which he borrowed from the above quoted Midrash from Devarim Rabbah wa-yelekh.108 According to him, the aggadah does not deal with a correction of the original text of the Bible, stored in the temple, rather with the revision of the “common text”, the vulgata.109 I think, on the contrary, that here the aggada suggests or tells about a comprehensible correction of the stored manuscripts on the basis of a chosen Vorlage. That the text declared valid is always identical with our Masoretic text is a testimony to the accurate work of the “commission”, regardless of whether this aggada refers to a unique work or rather to continuous care to assure accurate copies of the Torah. We thus have precisely the text that they wanted to hand down. This is not a matter of orthodoxy or heterodoxy, as Shemaryahu Talmon puts it, because the Talmud Yerushalmi attributes a very similar discussion on grammatical peculiarities, a non-Masoretic variant reading or pronunciation of letters to the people of Jerusalem, without noting that they are minim! Volume, English Section, ed. Saul Lieberman (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950): 167–168; idem, Hellenism, 22–27; Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law that were Found in the Temple Court”, Textus 2 (1962): 14–27; Veltri, Eine Tora für den König, 82–86; Solomon Zeitlin, “Were There Three TorahScrolls in the Azarah?”, Jewish Quarterly Review 56 (1965–66): 269–272. 106 Midrash Sifre Devarim 356. For the other versions of this Midrash, see Veltri, Eine Tora für den König, 81–82. 107 Lieberman, Hellenism, 21. 108 See above, footnote 244, p. 97. 109 Frank M. Cross rightly states: “The distinction ‘official versus vulga’ must be abandoned, however, as anachronistic. Official and vulgar text do exist, but after official definition, that is precisely after the promulgation of an official text”, in “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert”, Harward Theological Review 57 (1964): 298.

deconstructed elements and contextual stories

137

While the first two variant readings found in the temple scroll are concerned with Masorah (the text as written and pronounced), the third is not a variant reading but a problem of pure exegesis which nonetheless denotes a change in the understanding of the authority on the biblical texts. According to the Rabbinic literature, the young people who made burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings have no precise identity as priests or Levites. According to Mishnah Zevahim 14:4, they are the firstborns who practised the sacer˙ dotal service before the Levites. A sign of a radical change are Targum Onkelos, Mishnah Kallah 1:17. and Seder Eliyahu Rabbah (ed. Friedman, 52), for they interpreted them purely as common Israelites (“Even Israel is capable of offer offerings on the altar”). Targum Onkelos offers the same translation in Exodus 24:5 and Exodus 24:11 in reference to the asile bne Israel. However, the variant reading of the three scrolls or of ˙the Babylonian version of the changed verses for King Ptolemy stress the same matter because za atute bne Israel is Aramaic ˙ ˙ for “young Israelites.” Here was a radical change in leadership and a new shift in understanding. For the first time, as testified by Josephus, the storage of the biblical books was a sacerdotal task (Contra Apionem I:35 ff.). The priests were entrusted with the correction of the Torah for the king (Midrash Sifre Devarim 160), a task passed on to the Sanhedrin in Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2:4 (20c). The Babylonian list of the changed verses for Ptolemy and the list of the three scrolls testify to this radical change in leadership, stressing that the people chosen to see God without suffering death are not priests or Levites, but the young Israelites. This matter was of course only exegetical in nature and that is the reason why the revisers of the texts corrected them in the now valid Masoretic text. Leviticus 11:6: the Lagides and the Impurity of Rabbit Among the impure animals, the rabbit is also listed in Leviticus 11:6: “The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.” The Septuagint translated arnevet with dasypous, not with lago¯s.110 The Rabbis noted this peculiarity, assuming here a con110 The first to note the consonance between the Septuagint and the Rabbinic “changed verses for Ptolemy” was Menasse ben Israel, Vindiciae Iudaeorum (Amsterdam; 1656): 3,3.

138

deconstruction history and traditions

scious change so as to avoid the anger of King Ptolemy because the Rabbis believed that his mother or his wife was called rabbit. It is not my task to correct the opinion of the Rabbis, though neither the mother nor the wife of Ptolemy was actually called rabbit. However, they were right in stressing that to translate using the term lago¯s could provoke the anger of Ptolemy, because the whole dynasty was named the Lagides. There is no doubt that the Rabbis have acknowledged the problem, since they said that the Elders or Sages had changed arnevet to se irat regalim, the perfect back-translation of dasypous: dasys = hairy= se ir; and pous = foot = regel/regalim. The Stories of Ptolemy The third example where the Rabbinic authority of Babylonian origin shows some familiarity with the legend of the Septuagint is the story of the translation in Talmud Bavli, Megillah 9a–b (see also Soferim 1:7):111 The permission of our teachers to write in Greek is extended only to the Pentateuch because of the events with the King Ptolemy. It is taught there: It so came to pass that King Ptolemy summoned seventy-two Elders and put them in seventy-two houses without communicating to them why he had summoned them. He went to everyone separately, saying to them: write out for me the Torah of Moses, our teacher. The Holy one, blessed be He, conceded knowledge in the hearth of everyone and they agreed with each other in their judgement. They wrote for him: (here the changed verses follow).

The number and the separation of the Elders, the houses (or cells) and the intervention of God either to inspire the “writing” or the translation of the Pentateuch, the royal attempt to avoid an agreement of the Elders/translators are all basic elements in the Christian version of the legend of the Septuagint. Although this tradition is transmitted as baraita and thus a status as Mishnah-like of Palestinian origin should be attributed to it, there is no doubt that it is a product of Babylonian academies. For no Palestinian source before the Babylonian Talmud is concerned with the story of the Seventy-two or Seventy. They speak only of “changes for the King Ptolemy/Talmai” in the form of lists or individual verses, but no mention is made of the circumstances of the translation. I suppose that Babylonian teachers read the legend of the Septuagint in the edition of Epiphanius of Salami, the only Patristic 111

Soferim is a later tractate which depends on talmudic material existing at the time of the writer, see Veltri, Eine Tora für den König, 236–239.

deconstructed elements and contextual stories

139

source which collected all the elements the Rabbis needed with the notable exception of the number, because Epiphanius speaks of 36 and not of 72 cells. That the Babylonian Rabbis privileged the number 72 is fully understandable because of the Gematria of the Hebrew name of Greece (see below). Epiphanius is of the opinion that divine “inspiration” produced the agreement among the translators in making changes in the text, an element also emphasized by the Babylonian teachers. At any rate, a Christian influence on the Gemara is undeniable. The sources examined to date are either positive or indifferent in regard to the evaluation of the circumstances of the translation of the Torah into Greek. However, there are two other sources which are definitely negative in judging the process of translation of the Septuagint and its aftermath. The first is the talmudic minor tractate: Soferim 1:7: The text of the Torah must not be written either in (Old) Hebrew or in Aramaic, or in Median or Greek. The Scripture (ktav) in every language and every writing may only be recited if it was written in Assyrian script. It came to pass that five Elders wrote the Torah for the King Ptolemy. This day was as ominous for Israel as the day when the golden calf was made. For the Torah could not be adequately translated. Once again it happened that the King Ptolemy summoned seventy-two Elders and put them in seventy-two houses without communicating to them why he had summoned them. He went to everyone separately, saying to them: write out for me the Torah of Moses, our teacher. The Holy one, blessed be He, conceded knowledge in the hearth of everyone and they agreed with each other in their judgement. Each person wrote a Torah for him in which they changed thirteen passages (here the changed verses follow).

To understand this text, we also have to quote Sefer Torah 1:6: The text of the scroll of the Torah must not be written in (old) Hebrew, nor in Elamitic, nor in Median, or Greek. Seventy Elders wrote the whole Torah in Greek for the King Ptolemy and that day was as ominous for Israel as the day when the Israelites made the golden calf. For the Torah could not be adequately translated. They changed thirteen passages (here the changed verses follow).

In Megillat Ta anit Batra, a gaonic scroll of fasts, we can read:112

112 On the scroll, see Sid Z. Leiman, “The Scroll of Fasts: the Ninth of Teveth”, Jewish Quarterly Review 74 (1983): 174–195; on the fast of eight of Tevet see Veltri, ˙ Gegenwart der Tradition, 144–150.

140

deconstruction history and traditions On the eight of Tevet, the Torah was translated into Greek at the time of ˙ three days, darkness descended upon the world.113 King Ptolemy. For

There is no doubt that Soferim, Sefer Torah and Talmud Bavli Megillah follow the same tradition, only the accents are different, although they seem to speak of two different translations. The negative aspects of translating are emphasised only by Soferim (first translation), Sefer Torah and Megillat Ta anit Batra, to the “execrable” deed, without specifying a reason for it. The Babylonian Talmud is openly positive in following the halakhah of the Mishnah, which permits the Greek letters (and language). The story of the two translations reported by the tractate Soferim has occupied the attention of ancient and modern Jewish scholars since the Renaissance. According to the Italian humanist Azariah de’ Rossi, the first negative report refers to the translation of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.114 Geiger was of the opinion that the editor of Soferim was confused and had fused the positive report of the Babylonian Talmud with the negative story of Sefer Torah.115 Joel Müller, editor of Massekhet Soferim, considers both translations as referring to one and unique translation; however, the negative report on the Torah of the five translators goes back in his opinion to a later period under the negative influence of Megillat Ta anit Batra.116 Manuel Joe¨l distinguishes between a first translation of the Seventy-two and that of the five translators at the time of Traian or Hadrian, as the first was considered a danger for Israel equal to that provoked by the episode of the golden calf.117 The thesis of a translation, worked out by five translators, had no lasting influence in modern scholarship, because the number five can be explained on the basis of other considerations: a misprint in the manuscript (Berliner); an indirect or direct reference to the five books

113 On the text of the scroll, see Hans Lichtenstein, “Die Fastenrolle: eine Untersuchung zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte”, Hebrew Union College Annual 8–9 (1931–1932): 318–351. 114 Me or Enayim, chapt. 8 (ed. Cassel): vol. 1:136. 115 Geiger,˙ Urschrift, 419–420 and 441. According to Frankel, the report of the five translators is fictious, see his Vorstudien, 61, note k. 116 Joel Müller, ed., Masechet Sopherim. Der Tractat der Schreiber, eine Einleitung in das Studium der althebräischen Graphik, der Masora und der altjüdischen Liturgie, nach Handschriften herausgegeben und kommentiert (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1878): 12. 117 Manuel Joe¨l, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des zweiten christlichen Jahrhunderts vol. 1 (Breslau: Schottlaender,1880): 3.

deconstructed elements and contextual stories

141

of the Torah (Frankel, Graetz, Aptowitzer, Hadas),118 or as an allusion to the fifth column of the Hexapla of Origen (Joe¨l).119 The number of translators120 oscillates in Jewish and Christian sources between seventy (Sefer Torah and Soferim, manuscript Halberstamm), seventy-two (Talmud Bavli Megillah 9a–b), and five (Sefer Torah, Soferim and Avot de-Rabbi Natan B 37). An explanation for Aristeas’ report is surely the number of the tribe, while Josephus gives also seventy beside the traditional seventy-two. I think that the Gematria may also have played a role: take the composition of the geographical name of Greece, Yewwan, ywwn (yud = 10, + 2 × waw = 12 + nun = 50, that is 72!). The number seventy refers to the Elders of Exodus 24 (s. above). The number five can also be explained on the basis of the following reasons: influence of Avot de-Rabbi Natan (version B, 37), provided that this source does not depend on the same one; allusion to the “five Elders” in Mishnah Eruvim 3:4, Talmud Bavli Rosh Ha-Shanah 15a and Tosefta Shevi it 4:21;121 and finally a reference to the tradition of the five sages, entrusted by Moses to restore the Bible after its destruction/fire (4 Ezra 14), a very intriguing reference if we take into consideration that the legend of Ezra influenced the legend of the Septuagint. The number five is, in my opinion, no proof or historical reference to a new translation different from the Torah for King Ptolemy, but only a literary clue to distinguish two different traditions, one negative and the other positive. The only constant in every report on the “Septuagint” is the information about the aim of the translation: for Ptolemy according to Rabbinic

118 Frankel, Über den Einfluß, 228–231; Graetz, Geschichte, vol. 3/2: 579; Aptowitzer, “Die rabbinischen Nachrichten”, ha-Kedem 2 (1908): 120; Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates, 81. 119 Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte, vol. 1:4. 120 The number of translators was also discussed in Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian literature. Philo, for example, does not give any information on the number of the translators; on the number 70 and 72, see Moritz Steinschneider, “Die kanonische Zahl der muhammedanischen Secten und die Symbolik der Zahl 70–73, aus jüdischen und muhammedanischen Quellen nachgewiesen”, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 4 (1850):145–170; idem, “Nachtrag”, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 57 (1903): 474–507; Bruce M. Metzger, “Seventy or Seventy-two Disciples”, New Testament Studies 6 (1959–60): 319–321; Gill Dorival, “La Bible de la Septante: 70 ou 72 traducteurs?” in Tradition of the Text. Studies Offered to D. Barthe´lemy in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano (Fribourg, Göttingen: E´ditions universitaires; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991): 45–62. 121 See Berliner, Targum Onkelos, vol. 2: 78, note 2.

142

deconstruction history and traditions

sources, for the royal library of Alexandria according to Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian literature. The king plays a role in Jewish-Hellenistic tradition as a patron and lover of Jewish wisdom, while in the Christian tradition he emerges rather as an “unwilling” initiator of the Christian religion. In the Jewish tradition, in the main Palestinian in origin, King Ptolemy is neither the initiator nor the mentor/patron, but the addressee of the Torah, and that is an intriguing peculiarity. For the tradition of a Torah for the king is not new in Rabbinic sources and refers to Deuteronomy 17:18: “When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites”. Katav lo (so the Masoretic text) can mean either that he should write it for himself or that someone else should write it out for him.122 That is also the explanation of Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2:4 (20c): “they wrote for him (means) in his name.” According to Midrash Sifre Devarim, the priests correct the copy of the king, while the above quoted Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2:4 (20c) adds that the Sanhedrin should correct the copy on the basis of the scroll of the Temple court. In this context, it is obvious that the text of Deuteronomy 17:18 is read in a different way: instead of mishneh torah, they understand meshanneh torah (“he changes the Torah”) or even meshunnah torah (“an altered Torah”). And this tradition is also present in Rabbinic tradition as expression of a change of the Torah (perhaps in the messianic era), a possible reference to the change of the Torah beginning in Ezra’s time.123 If interpreted in terms of this logic, the Rabbinic interpretation of the Septuagint as Torah for King Ptolemy suggests a deconstruction of meaning in the history of hermeneutics: the high value of this translation lies in its nature as a written (ketav) alteration of the Torah of Moses, an alteration implemented by the Priests or by the Sanhedrin. This is only the copy for royal needs. Of course, this excludes that the Septuagint can be a liturgical and didactical document: it is solely a Torah for the king’s use, so that he may learn from it. Returning to the relation of Sefer Torah and Soferim (first report) to the mishnaic and talmudic halakhah, we have to stress that both tractates should be dated after the talmudic period, because they prohibit

122

See M. A. Friedman, “u-katevu lo, ose lo ktav”, Sinai 84 (1979): 177–179. See Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah 11 (71b); Tosefta Sanhedrin 4:7–8; Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 21b–22a; see also Peter Schäfer, “Die Torah der messianischen Zeit”, in idem, Studien, 210 ff. 123

deconstructed elements and contextual stories

143

what the Talmud allowed, via the literary distortion of the meaning taken from the Talmud. Neither the tractate Soferim nor Sefer Torah distinguishes clearly between writing and language and confuse the halakah they are quoting. The redactor of the tractate of the scribe affirms that it is not allowed to write in Old Ivrit, Median and Greek. If one has written in other languages, he could recite from them in the liturgy only if written in Assyrian script (Ashshurit). What is the aim of this halakhah, the script or the language? The question is not pointless: from the time of the Mishnah until at least Maimonides, a very lively discussion took place on whether other alphabets were suitable for liturgy.124 In the Middle Ages, the opinion gained acceptance that in the time of the Mishnah, first only the Greek alphabet was allowed (though not the language); later it was replaced by the Assyrian square characters.125 The disharmony between the premise (no other alphabet is permitted) and the conclusion (reading in other languages) is also confirmed by the sentence “The Scripture (ktav) in every language and every form of writing may be recited only if it was written (ketuvah!) in Assyrian script”. The feminine ketuvah is a small but precious reference to the fact that the redactor of the tractate of the scribe is quoting from earlier texts: the expression “only if it was written (ketuvah!) in Assyrian writing” originates from the reading of the Megillat Ester, which according to the Mishnah (Megillah 2:1; cp. Talmud Bavli Shabbat 115a; Talmud Bavli Megillah 18a) has to be written in Assyrian characters and recited in the Hebrew language. The redactor of Soferim deconstructs the original context and applies and extends a ban on other scripts for the Megillah to the Torah, without specifying whether he opts for Assyrian characters or for the language. This confusion proves that he collects texts without much interest in really understanding them. The distortion of earlier halakhot can also be observed in the case of Sefer Torah if the redactors maintain: “Seventy Elders wrote (katevu) the whole Torah in Greek for the King Ptolemy and that day was as ominous for Israel as the day when the Israelites made the golden calf. For the Torah could not be adequately translated (tirgem)”. The sen-

124 See Maimonides, Hilkhot Tefillah 1:19; in Mishneh Torah. The Book of Adoration, ed. Moses Hyamson (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1981): 121a. 125 See the fragment published by Etan N. Adler in Jewish Quarterly Review 9 (1897): 669–716 and Rabbi Me iri, Beyt ha-behirah al masekhet megillah, ed. Moses Hersler (Jerusalem: Mekon ha-Talmud ha-Israeli˙ ha-Shalem, 1967–1968): 35–36.

144

deconstruction history and traditions

tence she-lo hayetah ha-torah yekholah le-targem kol sorkhah is a ˙ the omisquotation from Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah 1:11 (71c) with sion of ella yevvanit (“with the exception of Greek!)”. In the Talmud Yerushalmi, the halakhah states that only the Greek language is suitable for the translation (as Targum), while the redactor of Sefer Torah omits the language and extrapolates an absolute ban on all languages from this sentence. The comparison with the golden calf is also a quotation from earlier Rabbinic traditions, namely from Talmud Yerushalmi Shabbat 1:4 (3c) and Talmud Bavli Shabbat 17a, where the comparison to the execrable day refers to the (historical?) disputation between the schools of the Hillelites and Shammaites, which ended in violence. The golden calf here symbolises the division between two Rabbinic schools and the consequences of that division. It is not clear what the redactor of Sefer Torah was aiming at when comparing the Septuagintal translation to the golden calf. But if we think that according to the Midrash Pesiqta Rabbati 5, the written Torah is an example of a discussion between the nations of the world which translated the Torah and read it in Greek, and Israel, we can perhaps conclude that what is important here is the claim to possession of the written Torah. However, there too the texts are not clear enough to spell out the object of the controversy: the written or the oral Torah, the text (ketav) or the liturgical, didactic translation (targum)?126 In any event, the negative stories and reports on the Septuagint should be placed in a later post-talmudic period when a revival of Hebrew took place accompanied by dangers to one’s identity because of Christian or Gnostic adoption of the Jewish Torah.

2.3 Hermeneutics and Canon A concluding word in this section addreses the question of whether the transmission of the written Torah for the King Ptolemy is a conscious pendant to the canonization of past (hermeneutic) traditions or alternative texts, or a remnant of old proto-septuagintal texts mostly not included in the textus receptus of the “canonical” Septuagint. A perusal of the alleged variant readings has undoubtedly demonstrated that the Rabbis were worried about the interpretation of the already established text of the Torah, if this text falls into the hands of 126

See below, chapter 3.

deconstructed elements and contextual stories

145

people not aware of the Jewish hermeneutical method in approaching Scripture. An inexperienced reader could falsely be misled by a literal interpretation of some verses which the Rabbis take into consideration. In Genesis 1:1, the main problem is the absolute creation of God and therefore its uniqueness. In Genesis 1:26–27 and 5–1b–2a, a possible (dualistic) image of the Godhead is addressed and worked out by the postulation of the creation of one hermaphrodite human being. The typically text-critical difficulty of Genesis 2:2, the work of God on Shabbat, could be interpreted as violation of the Shabbat; the change is seen as inhibition of a possible polemic against the seventh day. Also for the revision of Genesis 11:7, an anti-polytheistic change is not excluded, although the main difficulty of this verse is the origin of the languages from the original one. An exegetical dissonance between Genesis 18:12 and 18:13 is the subject of the next revision for the King Ptolemy: the derision of the patriarch Abraham is avoided, referring the laughing by Sara to God instead of Abraham. Apology of the image of the patriarchs is also involved in the case of the benediction of Jacob, where Simeon and Levi are excluded because of their destructive action against Shechem: the Rabbinic Septuagint minimizes the significance of the deed because it changes the verses intended as an object of their anger: not men but the wall of the city or an ox. In the case of Exodus 4:20b, the changes into the plural (“donkeys” instead of “donkey”) save the honour of Moses not forced to walk, with his children and his wife riding on the donkey. The honour of Moses is also concerned in the change of Numbers 16:15, where according to the Hebrew text he is accused of wronging Dathan and Abiram stealing a “donkey” (hamor). The Rabbinic Torah for Ptolemy supportes here the innocence of˙ Moses speaking of “I have not taken any precious object (hamod) from them (belonging to their class).”. The two last difficulties˙ which were faced by the “Elders” in the Torah for the King Ptolemy focus on the question of chronology in Exodus 12:40 and last but not least a possible accusation of idolatry in Deuteronomy 4:19 and 17:3. The conclusive key to understanding the Rabbinic traditions about the Greek Torah is offered by a later Midrash, Leqah Tov to bereshit 1:1: ˙ ˙ Bereshit bara elohim (“In the beginning God created”): This is one of the passages which the Elders of Israel changed for the King Ptolemy. They wrote for him: Elohim bara bereshit (“God created in the beginning”). For he did not have enough knowledge to reflect on the Midrash of the Torah.

146

deconstruction history and traditions

The redactor of this midrashic anthology sums up the conclusions of the Rabbinic academies about the Septuagint: the text of the Torah was changed because of the king’s ignorance of the meaning of the Torah. A king is not a student from a Rabbinic academy capable of penetrating to the level of a deeper meaning of the text; consequently, he needs an abridged or better “altered” version where the difficulties or the mysteries of a verse are unmistakably explained by a clear change in the corresponding verse. This version of the Torah is a Torah for the king. This midrashic interpretation is also echoed by the testimony of the Church father Jerome, who reports that according to the Jewish tradition, the Seventy-two translators of the Torah changed the text so that the monotheistic king was not misled by a possible dualistic––but of course erroneous––conception of reality in the Hebrew text.127 Accordingly, the Septuagint was created for a foreign king––not, as one could historically more correctly presume, for liturgical and didactic purposes of the Jewish community. Regardless of whether the attitude of the Rabbinic teachers toward the Septuagint was polemical against Christianity, as Christian authors assumed and some scholars still contend, it is by no means an indirect but rather vivid acknowledgment of the great and vital importance of this version. The reception of the Greek version of the Torah in Rabbinic Judaism, interpreted as a particular text for a particular person, is evidence of the high esteem for it, but at same time a reduction of its importance by stressing that it was written for a foreign king as didactical help. Aside from the question of whether the Rabbinic interpretation of the Septuagint is historically correct, it shows in any event that a new interpretative element comes to light: the deconstruction or construction of a historical context leads to a finely differentiated argumentation in severing authority from former canonical texts. For only universalization of an experience can be of canonical interest; to reduce something to a particular situation is, on the other hand, a process of de-canonization.

127 Prologus in Pentateuchum, Patrologia Latina 28:121 (see also Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem. ed. Weber, 1975, p. 3–4) “Iudaei prudenti factum dicunt esse consilio, ne Ptolomeus, unius dei cultor, etiam apud Hebraeos duplicem divinitatem deprehenderet, quos maximi idcirco faciebat, quia in Platonis dogma cadere videbantur”.

3. DECONSTRUCTING TRANSLATIONS: THE CANONICAL SUBSTITUTION AQUILA/ONKELOS Rabbi Yehudah says: Whoever translates a biblical verse as it reads, is a liar. Whoever adds something, is a blasphemer. It is not allowed to the meturgeman who is before his Sage to subtract or add or change something except if he is his father or Rav (Tosefta Megillah 4:41)

Translation of an authoritative (liturgical or didactic) text could be defined as the decisive interference by a/the “watcher” of the written tradition with the aim of establishing what is important to be transmitted and suppressing (e. g. by censorship) what is no longer or not yet significant for the community. The dictum of Rabbi Yehudah, quoted above, clearly links the authoritative canon and translation, i. e. the past heritage of the tradition and the transmission of it. In this manner, the role of the Rabbi mediator of the text is similar to that of Moses, combining both the task of receiving the Torah and the duty of explaining it to the community. That is in nuce the meaning of divine revelation, a gift of interpreting the textual tradition that in the end associates translation and transmission. The ancient scholar of the Rabbinic academy claims for himself the duty and the right to control the text, ultimately the chief aim of canonization. The hermeneutic task of commenting or translating is the privileged path of the ancient scholar to pursue and to carry through a/the canon of traditions. Translation is the way of the effective canon, as I try to demonstrate in this chapter. After analysis of the Jewish-Hellenistic, Christian and Rabbinic sources regarding the origin and meaning of the Septuagint in ancient times, we turn to a very important related question: the attitude of Rabbinic academies and Christian writers toward translation. In dealing with the Septuagint, I have tried to reformulate the current ideas of ancient theory on translation by stressing the central factor of authority, or better, the dependence of the act of translation itself on a school or on personal commitment. The interlacing of tradition and translation was also noted in Christianity, although Patristic literature rarely refers to

148

deconstructing translations

this very fundamental (and doctrinal) question. An exception is Hilarius of Poitiers, who addresses the problem at some length. However, it is interesting enough that Church fathers slowly came to acknowledge that the oral Torah, the secunda for Jerome, was not a secret doctrine, but could contribute to placing great value on the Greek Torah. As noted, Christian writers changed their assessment of the Septuagint, a shift in perspective that also affected its authority, at least in the Latin Church. Initially, the authority of the Septuagint was based solely on the assumption that the translators were inspired and on the concept that the translation is a divinely inspired act of textual composition. The underlying theory can be seen as the extension of views about inspiration which also underlie the concept of prophecy. A second related point is that Patristic literature adopted the Jewish understanding of translation as tradition. As already seen above, Origen views Rabbinic aggadic expansion as an argument in favour and even proof of canonicity.1 Moreover, the testimony of the Jews, which he rejected in reference to the Hebrew text, is here accepted via the oral Torah. Hilarius drew the obvious conclusion that it was necessary to go back to Jewish tradition to establish the authority of the ancient translators: for they had a secret doctrine handed down from Moses (the oral Torah) which they “engraved in stone” in the Greek Torah. For the Patristic authorities, translation is thus likewise basically tradition. Yet, if the translation is the synolon, the composite of the oral and written Torah––and consequently, as Hilarius claims, the consummate embodiment of tradition more generally––why to go back to the original Hebrew? This raises the question of sacred language and its translatability.

3.1 Translation as Production of Texts: The Sacred Tongue 2 At least until Origen’s Hexapla, Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian literature were firmly convinced that the Greek Torah was nothing but a sister of the Hebrew text, because the translation was done by Jewish 1

See above pp. 52–54. On ancient translation theories, alphabetically ordered, see Philip S. Alexander, “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum”, Vetus Testamentum Supplement 36 (1985): 14–27; Sebastian P. Brock, “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint”, Old Testament Studies 17 (1972): 11–36; Naomi Janowitz, “The Rhetoric of Translation: Three Early Perspectives on Translating Torah”, Harvard Theological Review 84 (1991): 129–140; Marc B. Launay, “Pour une philosophie de la traduction”, Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale 1 (1989): 5–22; idem, “Babel”, Revue de Meta2

canonical substitution aquila/onkelos

149

Sages under the guidance of divine intelligence. According to Philo, translation is a very difficult undertaking due to lexical synonymy. The “special” event of the translation of the Septuagint was possible because of the exceptional character of the translators and the magnanimous interest shown in the project by King Ptolemy Philadelphos.3 Their translation embodies the perfect agreement between “object” (pragma) and name (onoma), comparable to Adam’s primal naming, because there “the giving of the names and the thing agreed” (Legum Allegoriae 2:15).4 Accordingly, the translators acted under influence of a divine inspiration: . . . they did not pronounce different things, but all of them [uttered] the same names and the same words, as if each could perceive the voice of an invisible breath.5

Endorsing this theological perspective, the author of the Cohortatio ad Graecos comments: And when he [the King] ascertained that the Seventy men had not only given the same meaning, but had employed the same words, and had failed in agreement with one another not even to the extent of one word; but had written the same things, and concerning the same things, he was struck with amazement, and believed that the translation had been written by divine power, and perceived that the men were worthy of all honour, as beloved of God.6

physique et de Morale 1 (1989): 93–105; Johannes Leipoldt, “Von Übersetzungen und Übersetzern”, in Aus Antike und Orient. FS Wilhelm Schubart zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Siegfrid Morenz (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1950): 54–63; Claire Pre´aux, “De la Gre`ce classique a` l’E´gypte helle´nistique: traduire ou ne pas traduire”, Chronique d’E´gypte 42 (1967): 369–383; Werner Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation (Cambridge: University Press, 1955); Arthur Stein, Der Sprachgebrauch in der Verwaltung Ägyptens unter römischer Herrschaft (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Buchhandlung, 1915); Emanuel Tov, “Approaches toward Scripture Embrached by the Ancient Greek Translators”, in Der Mensch vor Gott. Forschungen zum Menschenbild in Bibel, antikem Judentum und Koran. Festschrift für Hermann Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Ulrike Mittmann-Richert (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004): 213–228; Benjamin Wright III, “Access to the Source: Cicero, Ben Sira, the Septuagint and their Audiences”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 34 (2003): 1–27. 3 De Vita Mosis II:31. On Philo’s conception of translation see below, p. 200. 4 On this aspect, see Tilmann Borsch, “Name”, Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 6 (1984): 375 f.; on thesis and physis see Maurus Hirschler, Sprachphilosophie und Namenmagie im Neuplatonismus: mit einem Exkurs zu “Demokrit” B 142 (Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 1979). 5 De Vita Moses II:38. 6 Cohortatio ad Graecos chap. XIII; English translation from The Writings Of the Apostolic Fathers.

150

deconstructing translations

Irenaeus followed this interpretation, stressing that they translated the Hebrew texts with “the very same words and the very same names”.7 The authors/translators have no consciousness of the object/message they are transmitting (or even should have no such awareness), akin to a premise or prerequisite for true inspiration (Cohortatio; Irenaeus, but notably not Clement of Alexandria). By emphasizing the role played by God, the Hellenistic Jews and the Christians wanted to qualify the Septuagint as another example of divine revelation, this time actualized in Egypt, comparable to that on Sinai. The idea that a translation is nothing but a new revelation was also the opinion of the author of Oxyrhynchus-Papyrus n. 1281, datable to the 2nd century C. E.8 Expressing his intention to translate an ancient Egyptian papyrus roll dealing with the worship of Imhotep, the writer notes that initially he shrank back from the task: Having often begun the translation of the said book in the Greek tongue, I learnt at length how to proclaim it, but while I was in the full tide of composition, my ardour was restrained by the greatness of the story, because I was about to make it public; for to God alone, not to mortals is it permitted to describe the mighty deeds of the gods.9

After three years of illness, he was healed by the divinity and ImhotepAsclepius “demanded the fulfilment of the promise through the priest who serves him in the ceremonies.” Further: But since thou hadst once noticed, master, (i. e. Asclepius), that I was neglecting the divine book, invoking thy providence and filled with thy divinity I hastened to the inspired task of the history. And I hope to extend by my proclamation the fame of thy inventiveness; for I unfolded truly by a physical treatise in another book the convincing account of the creation of the world. Throughout the composition I have filled up defects and stuck out superfluities, and in telling a rather long tale I have spoken briefly and narrated once for all a complicated story. Hence, master, I conjecture that the book has been completed in accordance with thy favour, not with my aim; for such a record in writing suits thy divinity. And as the discoverer of this art, Asclepius, greatest of gods and my teacher, thou art distinguished by the thanks of all men. For every gift of a votive offering or sacrifice lasts only for the immediate moment, and 7 . . . to¯n panto¯n ta auta tais autais lexesi kai tois autois onomasin anagoreysantos ap’arche¯s mechri telous. 8 Edition: Bernard P. Grenfell, Arthur S. Hunt, ed., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, part XI (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1915): 221–234; see further Johannes Leipoldt, “Von Übersetzungen und Übersetzern”, 56 f. 9 English translation by Grenfell, Hunt, eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, part XI, 230.

canonical substitution aquila/onkelos

151

presently perishes, while a written record is an undying meed of gratitude, from time to time renewing its youth in the memory.10

The author sees the translation into Greek as an act of publishing, reserved per se for the divinity qua revelation; it can be realized by human beings only under divine inspiration and demand. Therefore, the translator feels free to amend the text, adding and subtracting what he deems either superfluous, confused or long-winded. The unambiguous aim of his work is to celebrate divinity by the publication of “his” book. That was also the task of Josephus, according to his own word, for he considered himself like the High Priest Eleazar, who “did not scruple to grant the monarch the enjoyment of a benefit, which he would certainly have refused had it not been our traditional custom to make nothing of what is good into secret.”11 For the adoptive son of the Flavii, his work is nothing but a narrative in concise revelation of the Jewish people meant for his Roman hearers or readers. Translation is also a revelation which can redirect the original written message and amend or make more precise what was difficult to understand, as Eusebius of Caesarea affirms: One should not disregard the fact that the prophecies made possible different translations because of their difficulties. For they contain in the Hebrew languages a great deal that is odd in reference to the sense of the word (lexis) as well to its deep meaning (dianoia).12

Hilarius of Poitiers developed the idea of the difficulty of the Hebrew language due to its ambiguity,13 regarding the Septuagint translation as the perfect agreement of oral and written tradition. In his eyes, the Seventy translators bore responsibility for the true meaning because of their possession of the written laws and the secret doctrine.14 At the end of chain of tradition, translation is defined as authoritative revelation. A second concept of translation as an imperfect endeavour was first articulated by the author of the Greek prologue to Ben Sira: The so10

Ibidem, 231. Liber Antiquitatum I:12. 12 Demonstratio evangelica V, prooemium, 35, quoted in this context by Ulrich, Euseb, 195. 13 In Psalmum II:2 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latirnorum 22): 39: “et ex eo fit, ut, qui postea transtulerunt, diversis modis interpretantes magnum gentibus adtulerint errorem, dum occultae illius et a Moyse profectae traditionis ignari ea, quae ambigue lingua hebrea commemorata sunt, incertis suis ipsis iudiciis ediderunt”. 14 On this aspect see Gustave Bardy, “L’inspiration des Pe`res de l’Eglise”, Recherches de science religieuse 40 (1951–1952: 7–26. 11

152

deconstructing translations

called nephew of Jeshu ah Ben Sira notes that “the same things uttered in Hebrew and translated into another tongue do not have the same force in them (. . . tisin to¯n lexeo¯n adynamein). And not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference (isodynamein) when they are spoken in their own language”. The nephew is not speaking of the theoretical problem of translation as a whole as less authoritative because it lacks the proper equivalent meaning, but of “force”, a concept which calls to mind the translator’s distinctive expertise (Septuagint, Oyrhinchus-writer, Josephus), basing his “perfect” work on his own authority. On the other hand, the word dynamis or “force” refers to the concept of sacred language, dealt with by the hermetic writings, Iamblichus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome. According to the Corpus Hermeticum XVI:1–2,15 Asclepius called upon King Ammon to store the hermetic writings and did not permit all translations into Greek. The contents of the revelation should be explained in the shape in which they were revealed. The structure and external shape of the book (e¯ syntaxis) are simple and understandable, while the meaning is confused and concealed (asafe¯s . . . kai kekrymmenon ton noun to¯n logo¯n). If the Greeks try to translate “our language” into theirs, the words will be more confused. “Only in one’s own language does the expression retain the meaning of the words. For the characteristic sound and the force of the Egyptian name possess the energy of their meaning”.16 In contrast to the Greek language, the Egyptian words are not simply vocabulary items, but “sounds filled with energetic effect” (e¯meis de hou logois chro¯metha alla pho¯nais mestais to¯n ergo¯n). The Neoplatonic philosopher Iamblichus supports the idea of the existence of sacred languages whose “names” cannot be translated: If one translates the names, they do not keep the same meaning. For among every people, there are certain concepts which are impossible to be rendered into the language of another people. On the contrary, if one translates these names, they do not keep the same force in the translated texts (epeita kan hei oion te auta metherme¯neuein alla te¯n ge dynamin ouketi phylattei te¯n aute¯n).17 15 Edition: Corpus Hermeticum, ed. A. D. Nock, 2 vols. transl. A. J. Festugie`re (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1945). 16 Corpus Hermeticum XVI:2. 17 Iamblichi de Mysteriis Liber 5, ed. Gustav Parthey (Berlin: Nicolai, 1857, reprint Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1965); Erec R. Dodds, The Greek and the Irrational, 3rd edition

canonical substitution aquila/onkelos

153

Clement of Alexandria follows Iamblichus’ onomastic theology when he postulates the existence of “barbarian” peoples and thus languages (hai pro¯tai kai genikai dialektoi barbaroi men) whose words are more original, more primal (physei de ta onomata echousin). That is why their prayers are more effective than those of others.18 This is also the opinion of Origen in his discussion with Celsus19 when speaking of the “nature of the effective names” (physin onomato¯n energo¯n). In this context, he wrote: If then, we shall be able to establish, in reference to the preceding statement, the nature of powerful names, some of which are used by the learned amongst the Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian philosophers called Brahmans, or by the Samanaeans, and others in different countries; and shall be able to make out that the so-called magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle suppose, an altogether uncertain thing, but is, as those skilled in it prove, a consistent system, having words which are known to exceedingly few; then we say that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and the other names treated with so much reverence among the Hebrews, are not applicable to any ordinary created things, but belong to a secret theology which refers to the Framer of all things. These names, accordingly, when pronounced with that attendant train of circumstances which is appropriate to their nature, are possessed of great power; and other names, again, current in the Egyptian tongue, are efficacious against certain demons who can only do certain things; and other names in the Persian language have corresponding power over other spirits; and so on in every individual nation, for different purposes.20

Origen’s comments on holy names are clearly influenced by ancient theories of the magic of the word, a vessel containing a force which cannot be translated and transmitted to other languages. That is the (Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1959): 293. see Peter Crome, Symbol und Unzulänglichkeit der Sprache. Jamblichos. Plotin. Porphyrios. Proklos (München: Fink, 1966): 56 ff; Hirschle, Sprachphilosophie, 45–48. 18 Stromata I, 143:6, see Willy Theiler, “Die Sprache des Geistes in der Antike”, in idem, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1966): 303 ff.; I. Opelt, W. Speyer, “Barbar”, Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum Supplement 1.5/6 (1992): 891; Hirschler, Sprachphilosophie, 4–5. 19 Orige`ne contre Celse, vol. 1, ed. M. Borret (Paris: Le belles letters, 1967). 20 Contra Celsum 1:24; Orige`ne contre Celse, vol. 1: 136–138; English translation by The Ante-Nicene Fathers, transl. of the writings of the Fathers down to A. D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1956). See Hans-Dieter Betz, “The Formation of authoritative Tradition in the Greek Magical Papyri”, Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 3: Self-Sefinition in the Greek-Roman Papyri, ed. Ben F. Meyer and E. P. Sander (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982): 162; Naomi Janowitz, “Theories of Divine Names in Origen and Pseudo-Dionysus”, History of Religion 30 (1991): 359–372.

154

deconstructing translations

reason the words Sabaoth and Adonai (as well as Amen and Halleluiah) are preserved in Christian liturgy. A very similar position is also supported by Jerome in a text already quoted in connection with the Targum of Aquila. In letter to Pammachius on the “best method of translating”, he notes: For I myself not only admit but freely proclaim that in translating from the Greek (except in the case of the holy scriptures where even the order of the words is a mystery), I render sense for sense and not word for word.

The words in brackets are treacherous: absque scripturis sanctis ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est. Here the ascetic monk of Bethlehem contradicts himself in the same letter when he attacks the translation of Aquila because of his literalism in slavishly following the biblical text.21 If the order of the words is a mystery, how can they be translated if not by an exacting literalism? Most probably, a new tendency was slowly gaining authority and influence at this time in the Christian world, a theory which would become the moving force for the acceptance of the Kabbalah in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance: the sacred character of the Hebrew language, based in Judaism on the theological conviction that God spoke to Adam in the leshon ha-qodesh.22 The question of a holy language was already relevant in the 5th C. E. century if the theory of “three holy languages” (tres linguae sacrae), much in vogue until the Renaissance, can indeed be traced all the way back to Augustine, who based this view on the inscription on the cross of the crucifixion.23 For Rabbinic Judaism, the reference to 21 Epistula LVII ad Pammachium, 11: “Aquila autem proselytus et contentiosus interpretes, qui non solum verba, sed etymologia verborum transferre conatus est, iure proicitur a nobis.” 22 The Hebrew language is also called in the targumim lishan bet qudsha (“language of the holy house/temple”); see Alejandro Dı´ez Macho, “Datacio´n de Neofiti 1”, in Neophyti 1, vol. 3, (Madrid, Barcelona: Consejo superior de investigaciones cientı´ficas,1971): 26*–33*; further Peter Schäfer, Die Vorstellung vom heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (Munich: Kösel, 1972): 138; Avigdor Shinan, “’lishan bet qudsha be-targumim ha-aramiyim le-torah”, Bet Miqra 66 (1976): 472–474; Andre´ Paul, “La Bible grecque d’Aquila et l’ide´ologie du judaı¨sme ancien”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.20/1 (1987): 235–244; Avigdor Shinan, “The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry”, The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I. Levine (Cambridge: University Press, 1992): 241–251; Nicholas De Lange, “The Revival of the Hebrew Language in the Third Century CE”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 3 (1996): 342–358. 23 In Iohannem 117:4 (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 36): 653; see Hilarius, In Psalmum 15 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 22): 13; on the three holy languages Isidorus, Etymologiae IX:1:3: “Tres sunt autem linguae sacrae: Hebraea,

canonical substitution aquila/onkelos

155

holy language was Genesis 11:1, as we read in Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah 1:11 (71b): It is written: Now the whole world had one language and a common speech (Genesis 11:1). R. Le azar and Rabbi Yohanan (had a controversy on this verse). One of them said that they talked˙ in the (seventy) languages; the other one maintained that they talked in the unique language of the Holy One, in the holy language. Bar Qappara taught: May God create beauty for Japheth; may he live in the tents of Shem (Gen 9:28).24 They talked in the tents of Shem in the language of Japhet (i. e. Greek).

For the Rabbis, the exegetical problem was not the holiness of the Hebrew language but the origin of the Seventy-two languages of the world. Therefore, the opinion of Rabbi Le azar is an attempt to resolve the difficulty by postulating a plurality of languages before the building of the Tower of Babel. Rabbi Yohanan, by contrast, is concerned with the unity of God and that is why˙ he supports the idea of the uniqueness of language. This position was not substantially contradicted by Bar Qappara, who gives more precise details on the language of the Holy, for him Greek. In lands where the Greek language was almost unknown, we can note a substitution of Greek by Aramaic (Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 38b: “Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rab said: The first Adam spoke Aramaic”), and by Syriac (Theodoret, Quaestiones in Genesim 40–41). A further substitution of Syriac by Arabic is quite understandable.25 And so on. Tannaitic sources were not keen on defending the Hebrew language as the primeval and revelatory language; we have seen that the first revelation was in seventy-two languages, while the restriction to Hebrew was the consequence of the refusal by other peoples to accept the Torah.26 A glance at the semantic development of the expression leshon ha-qodesh also confirms that special stress on the Hebrew language as a sacred tongue was not possible until a point when this language was no longer a spoken vernacular and was acknowledged only for its liturgical role. It is a little recognized fact that the expression leshon ha-qodesh or hiera glotta with reference to Hebrew does not Graeca, Latina, quae toto orbe maxime excellunt. His enim tribus linguis super crucem Domini a Pilato fuit causa eius scripta. Vnde et propter obscuritatem sanctarum Scripturarum harum trium linguarum cognitio necessaria est, ut ad alteram recurratur dum siquam dubitationem nominis vel interpretationis sermo unius linguae adtulerit.” 24 Translated according to the meaning of the Midrash. 25 Sources and bibliography in Veltri, Eine Tora für den König Talmai, 244, footnote 80. 26 See above, pp. 98 ff.

156

deconstructing translations

appear in documents during the period 100 B.C.E to 100 C. E. It is unknown in Jewish-Hellenistic literature and the New Testament and first appears in the Mishnah Sotah 7:2–4. In this passage distinction is made between the Parashat Sot˙ah, which should be recited in all languages, and other parashot listed˙ there, which have to be recited only in the holy language.27 In this case, the understanding of the text does not have priority, but rather the precise rendition of the letters of the text. It is difficult to ascertain whether the theurgy of the spoken word played a role in this ruling or only exegetical reasons, according to the discursive principle ko emor (“so have you to say”). The Midrash Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishma el ba-hodesh 2 illustrates this principle as follows: ˙ (You have to recite) in this way, in the holy language, in the same order, in the same situation, in the same way, without adding and without subtracting something.

The problem of the Midrash is to adapt these parashot to other legal and exegetical cases or situations. The intention is obviously to consider these texts as legally unique, i. e. applicable only to these cases. There is no doubt that at a certain time in connection with the Rabbinic story, theurgic elements were also introduced to explain the nature of the Hebrew language, which is also interconnected with the very creation of the world. The nexus between dynamis and creation is stressed by Rabbi Aqiva in Talmud Bavli Eruvin 13a in his advice to the scribe to be careful in writing the biblical text: “. . . for if you omit a sign, you will destroy the entire world”. How can one reconcile the theurgic value of the Hebrew with the rather free method which the Rabbis used in his dealing with the biblical text? One answer is to consider the crucial difference between the liturgical and non-liturgical use of Hebrew. Only the liturgical use which can be fulfilled solely under special conditions has certain theurgic consequences (recall the sacerdotal benediction of Yom Kippur); more than anything else, this pertains to the divine name. The discussion about a “permitted use” of the Jewish name of the Godhead, the tetragramma, goes back to the Rabbinic period when the halakhic importance of God’s name was emphasised in connection with written material to be concealed in the Genizah or to be saved from fire. We read in Midrash Sifre Ba-Midbar 16 (ed. Horowitz 21): 27

Deuteronomy 26:3–10; 25:7–9; 27:15–26; Numbers 24–26; Deuteronomy 17:14–20; 21:7 f; 20:2–7.

canonical substitution aquila/onkelos

157

Do we not find here the use (of the hermeneutic rule) of the qal wa-ho˙ mer? Regarding the reconciliation of a man and his wife, if God says: The book which was written in holiness is to be erased by water, (a maiori), the books of the Minim should be taken out of the world because they cause hostility, hatred, jealousy and war. Rabbi Yishma el (says): Sifre minim: What about them? The name of God has to be cut out and the rest must be burnt. Rabbi Aqiva says: They are to be completely burnt because they have not been written in holiness.28

The status of the name was totally altered because it was not written according to the biblical and Rabbinic laws of purity. There is no doubt that the redactor of Midrash Sifre actualised the halakhah from Numbers 5 by mentioning the similarity between the act by a priest of writing curses on the parchment/book and the Rabbinical laws about writing a Torah scroll which “pollutes the hands”. This comparison would be incomprehensible if we did not bear in mind that writing on parchment was also considered the precondition for the theurgic value of a written text. Only tefillin or mezuzot, written according to Halakhah, have the power to protect (Mishnah Megillah 1:8).29 It is not the characters of the tetragramma and other divine names which have theurgic energy but only those written according to the Halakhah of purity. Only when we follow this interpretation can we understand the argumentum a maiori: Praemissa: A book which was written in holiness is to be erased by water (i. e. it can be reused); Conclusio: the books of the Minim, where the divine name was also written, must be removed from the world (i. e. they must be totally burnt); argumentum: all the more so because they were not written in holiness.

We could also note here a certain antitheurgic tendency in Rabbinic Judaism: the mere characters of the tetragramma have no intrinsic power per se. Only if produced in terms of rules for what is permitted can the text be considered theurgic in its effect. If compared with the theurgic concept of the above-mentioned Hermetic tradition of Iamblichus, Clement and Origen, we can conclude that the Rabbis do not like to let the text act external to his authority. Moreover, the power 28

On this Halakhah and its parallels, see Johann Maier, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike, Erträge der Forschung, 177 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982): pp. 26–33 and passim. 29 Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and 11:13–21 were commonly written in a mezuzah; In Qumran 8Q (DJD III) a mezuzah was found with a longer text (Deuteronomy 10:12– 11:21). According to Talmud Bavli Menahot 32b, the improper fixing of a mezuzah might ˙ the house would be protected against demons. be the source of bad luck. Rashi adds that

158

deconstructing translations

of the divine name cannot act without a Rabbinic premise (or authority). A sacramental ex opere operato cannot exist if the circumstances in which this happens are not permitted by the Halakhah, of course as decided by Rabbinic academies. Bearing in mind the theurgic liturgical element of the Hebrew Torah and the restrictions on Rabbis in dealing with mikraic text, we can conclude that the Torah for King Ptolemy is an altered text where the explanation of one or more difficulty has been added to the text. This rules out consideration of the Torah for King Ptolemy as a liturgical text, since it lacked very fundamental characteristic elements, such as the Ashshurit script (and later the Hebrew language). The royal Torah is a written text meant solely for the king. This Rabbinic definition cannot obscure the fact that we have here a genuine deconstruction of the Jewish-Hellenistic liturgical Septuagint, reducing it to the mere function of a midrashic tool! In the Rabbinic mind, the Septuagint is a unique example of a technique which the Rabbis use for alternative but authoritative explanation of the biblical text. The Rabbinic expression “the Torah for King Talmai/Ptolemy” is used as a midrashic expedient to introduce another exegetical opinion on the Torah text. There is little or no trace of the historical Septuagint. Qua written text and not as translation, the Torah for King Ptolemy is regarded as an exceptional undertaking of the “Elders” or “sages” and thus was canonized. The written translation or rendering of a text in written form touches upon a pivotal question of Rabbinic academies: the question of oral and written tradition and above all the control of Rabbinic academies over the liturgical and scholarly mediation of tradition. While the Torah for King Ptolemy should be located unambiguously in the Rabbinic academy, the Targum unifies liturgy and school.

3.2 Targumic Rendering as Mediation of Teaching The story of Targum is as old as the canonical text and as young as the canonization of the Hebrew language as a holy language.30 The two coordinates are very difficult to date because there is no period which 30 It is not my aim here to give, even summarily, a sketch of Targum studies today. They have developed immensely since the discoveries of the scrolls of Qumran and new discovery of manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts in European libraries. Nevertheless, in the history of the Targum, the opinions are not distant from the traditional one,

targumic rendering as mediation of teaching

159

can successfully stand up to closer scrutiny. Every attempt in the past and present to ascertain the precise period when the Targum originated or the targumic method was developed has proved inadequate under closer scrutiny. The traditional hypothesis of a Targum in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah presupposes the discussion on the terms meforash, as exegesis/translation of the words in detail (parash), which is typical of the Rabbinic age. Provided that an Aramaic translation of the Bible goes back to the period after the Babylonian exile, the theory of the beginning of targumic activity does not sufficiently resolve the problem of how to reconcile the introduction of Aramaic in Palestine as an everyday language and symbol of the new Jewish identity and the political program of those elitist groups returned to build Jerusalem, the Temple and the Torah of Moses.31 Of course, the more complicated problem of why modern scholars always associate the Targum with the Aramaic language, although there is no evidence for this identification, makes the question all the more difficult, the more Targum specialists for their part take it for granted. Just recall, for example, Aquila’s Greek translations, almost always introduced with tirgem aqilas! Like every other Rabbinic hermeneutic tool, the literary and exegetic method of the Targum presupposes a lengthy process of formation and consolidation as a genre and activity. It goes without saying that Targum is bound up essentially with liturgy and school, those domains where the authority of the Rabbi was present and influential.32 We cannot ascertain which Targum is attributed to which school, although every extant Targum mirrors a discussion in a specific (though not easily determinable) situation. The concept of Targum I want to introduce here is not defined in terms of a whole, as the literary products we have today in manuscripts and print editions, but rather in terms of verse-to-verse explication. For there is no Targum without some bib-

placing its origin in the period of Ezra, and seeing already written Targumim at Qumran. I expressed my quite different opinion in Eine Tora für den König, 173–214 and also in Gegenwart der Tradition, passim. I wish here only to stress some aspects regarding authority and Targum. 31 Veltri, Gegenwart der Tradition, 55–74. 32 For a bibliography on the Rabbinic school, see Moshe Schwabe, “On the Jewish and Graeco-Roman Schools in the Days of the Mishna and the Talmud” (in Hebrew), Tarbiz 21 (1949–50): 112–123; M. Arzt, “The Teacher in Talmud und Midrash”, in Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume (New York: 1953): 35–47; Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Lund, Copenhagen: 1961): 56–66; 85–92; David M. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Institutions in Sasanian Babylonia (Brill: Leiden, 1975); see also the monograph of Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr, 2001).

160

deconstructing translations

lical verse and that is the difference between Septuagint and Targum: the first is a substitution (for the king according to the Rabbis), the second a liturgical and exegetical tool. The Babylonian Talmud went so far as to compare the reader of the biblical verse (pasuq) with Moses and the meturgeman with God.33 Simply because the Torah goes back to the Masorah transmitted on Sinai, its explanation is a divine task, or in other words: Mikra is a field of the scribes, the realm of meaning a field of the Rabbis. Rabbinic academies have not hesitated to censure the Bible liturgically, abolishing its rendering into targumic explanation. There are, indeed, some liturgical texts (for example, the golden calf episode) whose reading is permitted in the synagogue, though it is forbidden to translate them.34 This measure has nothing to do with concern “to prevent mistranslation”, as Etan Levine maintains.35 Rather, it is an expression of the exercise of Rabbinic control over the text and the community. Targum is thus connected with the relationship of the disciple to his teacher or Sage, as the above quoted Tosefta Megillah 4:41 expressly states: Rabbi Yehudah says: Whoever translates a biblical verse as it reads, is a liar. Whoever adds something, is a blasphemer. It is not allowed to the meturgeman who is before his Sage to subtract or add or change something except if he is his father or Rav.36

The translator (meturgeman)37 who is in the school of his sages has to follow his teaching without changing one iota. This halakhah has no 33 Talmud Bavli Berakhot 45a. See also Maimonides, Hilkhot Tefillah 12:11 (ed. Hyamson 112b). 34 Moses Ginsburger, “Verbotene Thargumim”, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 44 (1900): 1–7; L. Smolar and M. Aberbach, “The Golden Calf Episode in Postbiblical Literature”, Hebrew Union College Annual 39 (1968): 92–93, 107–9; Philip S. Alexander, “The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumim”, Journal of Jewish Studies 27 (1976): 177–191; Michael L. Klein, “Not to be Translated in Public – lo metargem besibbura,” Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988): 80–91. 35 ˙ Etan Levine, “The Biography of the Aramaic Bible”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft: 94 (1982): 353–379. 36 On this aspect, see Abraham Berliner, Targum Onkelos. Einleitung und Register (Berlin: Gorzelanczyk, 1884), vol. 2: 84–88. 37 On the meturgeman see J. E. Ephrati, “Ella she-adam hayyav lomar bilshon ˙ rabbo”, Bar-Ilan 9 (1972): 221–238; See S. Y. Glicksberg, “Ha-meturgeman bitqufat ha-talmud”, Sinai 3 (1938): 218–221; Joseph Heinemann, “Birkat ha-kohanim . . . lo niqret we-lo’ meturgemet”, Bar-Ilan 6 (1968): 33–41; Y. M. Kosovsky, “Ha-meturgeman bidrashah ha-sibburit”, Sinai 45 (1959): 233–243; C. Levias, “Meturgeman”, Encyclo˙

targumic rendering as mediation of teaching

161

validity when he is the father or the Rav of the Sage. Changes are allowed only if the principle of authority is ensured. The meturgeman is a mediator of the distance between Rabbi/Sage and “the others”, as during the liturgy he is an intermediary between text and the community.38 This mediation is not arbitrary because it follows the guidelines of his teacher and his school. In this context, the discussion on the definition of meturgeman in Talmud Bavli Qiddushin 49a opens new insights: according to this text, the Rabbanan recognized a reader of the Scripture as such after he had recited three verses from the Scripture before the public (the community). That means that he should have already had experience in his job in the synagogue so that he could be recognized as such a reader. For Rabbi Yehudah, on the contrary, he should recite and translate the text. He replies in the negative to the question whether the lecturer can translate on his own authority. He may not add, subtract or change what in Babylonian Judaism has been transmitted as Targum, i. e. “our Targum” (Targum didan), i. e. the Onkelos Targum. In other words, according to the interpretation of the Babylonian teachers (reflected in the statement by Rabbi Yehudah), only a Babylonian meturgeman can be recognized as such in the Babylonian synagogue––because only he can master the exegesis of Babylonian provenience needed for a targumic explanation of the Bible. The relation between Rav and Amora (meturgeman) was closer than expected. A Rabbi cannot lecture if the Amora is not present at his lecture for “translating.” The lecture of the Rabbi was in Hebrew and the Amora had to mediate, rendering it in Aramaic. At least in Babylonia, the meturgeman slowly gained an established place in the synagogue and academy and therefore also as an authority. There is an intriguing (perhaps fictive) discussion between the wife of the Amora (= meturgeman) of Rabbi Abbahu und the wife of Rabbi Abbahu on the importance of their husbands. Rabbi Abbahu tries to appease his wife, maintaining there is no difference between them. For “through myself and him, the Almighty reveals himself”.39 The perfect identification of teaching and mediation of teaching takes place as the natural conse-

paedia Judaica 8 (1904): 521–522; E. Stauffer, “Der Meturgeman des Petrus”, Neutestamentliche Aufsätze, ed. J. Blinzler et alii (Regensburg: Pustet, 1963): 283–293; Veltri, Eine Tora für den König, 193–211. 38 See Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah 4:11 (74d) and A. D. York, “The Targum in the Synagogue and the School”, Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (1979): 74–86. 39 Talmud Bavli Sotah 40a. ˙

162

deconstructing translations

quence of a hermeneutic circle which began in the Bible and developed within Rabbinic Judaism as the written and oral Torah. Taken as granted and incontestable that both Torot stem from the same source, one must infer that both possess the same authority, i. e. the same authority between text and exegesis, pasuq and midrash, Midrash and Targum, etc.40 In a later period, Targum was a perfectly developed method of exegesis and distanced itself from the oral form. We read in Talmud Bavli Megillah 3a that the bat qol (the heavenly voice) calls Yonatan ben Uzziel to account for his translation: “ Who has (dared to) reveal(ed) my secrets to the sons of man?” Yonatan ben Uzziel stood up and answered: “I was the one who revealed your secrets to the sons of man. I would, however, announce to you and inform you that I did not do it for my honour and for the honour of the house of my father, but for Your honour so that the controversies in Israel do not increase.”

The matter treated here is not a Targum according to the school of a Rabbi but the publication of a Targum of the prophets. There is no doubt that here the redactor speaks of publication, whether in oral form or written is immaterial, provided that it was a text. For Yonatan ben Uzziel asked further permission to likewise publish/reveal the Targum of the ketuvim, and the bat qol answered: enough for you! (we- od biqqesh liglot targum al ktuvim we-iastah bat qol we-amrah dayyekha). Yonatan ben Uzziel (or the redactor˙ of this story) wanted to make precise that only the publication of a particular exegesis of the text can mitigate controversies, i. e. different opinions on the meaning of the text. The divine voice is not happy with this method, probably found in every Babylonian academy, to resolve questions by propagating one authoritative opinion as the mainstream view. Perhaps this is evidence of an indirect awareness of the power of publication of a Targum which indeed drove away every other rival. For the Babylonian academy had a strong interest in canonizing one tradition over against previous plurality, as we will see in the next section.

40

On this hermeneutic circle, see also Arnold Golberg, “Die Schrift der rabbinischen Schriftausleger”, Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 15 (1987): 1–15.

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

163

3.3 The Targumim of Aquila and Onkelos: Canonical Substitution According to ancient Christian polemics against Judaism, the proselyte Aquila wrote a new Greek translation of the Bible intentionally directed against the authoritative “canonical” Greek Torah, the Septuagint, because the clearly messianic character of the Alexandrian translation favoured the Christian doctrine. Palestinian Rabbinic Judaism transmits some stories about Aquila, mostly in a midrashic context, describing him as a skilled meturgeman who was able to interpret Hebrew texts and words in the beautiful Greek language. Babylonian Rabbinic teachers ascribe to the Aramaic translation of Onkelos almost everything that Palestinian sources had said about Aquila. Patristic sources speak of a more or less successful Jewish attempt to decanonize the Septuagint while Rabbinic texts, on the other hand, go a step further and declare an additional substitution: Aquila is none other than the Aramaic meturgeman Onkelos. The (anonymous) Aramaic translation of the Torah takes the place of the Greek translation. The development of the story of Aquila in Rabbinic literature offers the historian of culture the ideal example of a typical decanonization process, in this case the decanonization of Palestinian exegesis in the ascent of the Babylonian academic canonization of school ideology. Seen from the perspective of Christian polemics, Aquila is an attempt to replace the text of the Alexandrian Torah, while Babylonian Rabbinic Judaism provides the Targum Onkelos with a new garb, i.e the story and the importance of the translation of Aquila. In both Christian and Jewish Babylonian tradition, Aquila is a substitute for something else. That is our concern here. Patristic and Rabbinic Traditions on Aquila The evaluation of Rabbinic stories as historical data is an unprofitable and pointless undertaking.41 Although some ancient and recent scholars have sought to inquire into the puzzling details of Rabbinic texts for 41 There is no Rabbinic historiographical interest. This thesis goes back to Azariah de’ Rossi (see Giuseppe Veltri, “The Humanist Sense of History and the Jewish Idea of Tradition: Azaria de’ Rossi’s Critique of Philo Alexandrinus”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 2 [1995]: 372–393) and was supported by the “father of the Wissenschaft des Judentums”, Leopold Zunz (see his Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie [Berlin: Gerschell 1865, reprint Hildesheim: Olms 1966]: 1: “Zur Geschichtforschung mangelte der wis-

164

deconstructing translations

hints to historical events or have suggested these details be interpreted as such, a more pessimistic but realistic approach points out the inner dynamic of Rabbinic stories, stressing their historical irrelevance, since the general tendency of the Rabbinic literary pattern is to use historical data only to introduce an exegetical or moral statement. The emperors Hadrian, Titus, and Antoninus, and other roman dignitaries as well as well-known Rabbis are in the main actors in the midrashic theatres, whose performances are aimed at illustrating a message as the main point of the story regardless of its historical boundaries. The first Christian author to mention Aquila42 expressly was Irenaeus of Lyon in a polemical note against the Jews. He states that two

senschaftliche Sinn, ja das Bedürfniss. Israel Geschichte, abgeschlossen mit dem Untergange des jüdischen Staates, durch die Zerstreuung des Volkes erschwert, lag fertig da dem Auge der Gläubigen erkennbar . . . Die ehemalige Freiheit, mit dem Gesetzesstudium die Fortsetzung des politischen Lebens, die Uebung im Wissen des Rechten gleichsam ein Unterpfand der endlichen Befreiung.” On the status quaestionis see Ephraim E. Urbach, “Halakhah and History”, in Jews, Greeks and Christians. Essays in Honor of William David Davies, ed. Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs (Leiden: Brill, 1976): 112–128; Moshe David Herr, “Tfisat ha-istoriyah esel hazal”, Proceedings of the ˙ ˙ ˙ Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies 3 (1977): 129–142; Peter Schäfer, “Zur Geschichtsauffassung des rabbinischen Judentums”, in idem, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums (Leiden: Brill, 1978): 23–44; Jacob Neusner, “Judaic Uses of History in Talmudic Times”, Essays in Jewish Historiography, ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert (Middletown, CT.: Wesleyan University, 1988): 12–39; Martin Jacobs, Die Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995): 10–12; Catherine Hezser, Form, Function, and Historical Significance of the Rabbinical Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin (Tübingen: Mohr, 1993): 362–405. 42 For introductory literature to Aquila, see (alphabetically quoted) Domenique Barthe´lemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila. Publication inte´grale du texte des fragments du Dode´caprophe´ton trouve´s dans le de´sert de Juda, pre´ce´de´e d’une e´tude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible re´alise´es au premier sie`cle de notre e`re sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien (Leiden: Brill, 1963); Meir Friedmann, Onkelos und Akylas (Wien: Lippe, 1896); Louis Ginzberg, “(Aquila) In Rabbinical Literature”, Jewish Encyclopaedy 2 (1902): 36–38; Kyösti Hyvärinen, Die Übersetzung von Aquila (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977); Samuel Krauss, “Akylas, der Proselyt”, in Festschrift zum achtzigsten Geburtstage Moritz Steinschneider’s (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1896): 148–163; Andre´ Paul, “La Bible grecque d’Aquila et l’ide´ologie du judaı¨sme ancien”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.10/1 (1987): 220–245; Adrian Schenker, “Septuaginta und christliche Bibel”, Theologische Revue 91 (1995): 459–464; Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. Geza Vermes et alii (Edinburgh: Clark, 1986): 493–499; Alec Eli Silverstone, Aquila and Onkelos (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1931); M. Stössel, “Zur griechischen Bibelübersetzung”, Ben Chananja 6 (1863): 693–694; 717–718; 733–735; Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902); M. Zipser, “Von der Wichtigkeit der griechischen Bibelübersetzungen zur Erkenntnis des Thalmuds und der Tradition”, Ben Chananja 6 (1863): 162–164; 181–185; 598–599; 609–610; 660–662.

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

165

new translations into Greek, “daring to translate the writing”, give erroneously Isaiah 7:14 (Septuagint: “a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”) with “a young wife shall conceive” (e¯ neanis en gastri exei. . .). These translations are “as Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila of Pontus, both of them proselytes, have translated”.43 Irenaeus’ note reflects only an exegetical and apologetic worry, i. e. the “new” translations (or revisions) of the prophets undermine the authority of the Septuagint on which the validity of the New Testament and the Christian theological tradition are based. In revealing that there is another possibility of translation of almah in Isaiah 7:14, they indirectly let it be known that the story of the infancy of Jesus can be a midrashic expansion of only one meaning of the prophetic word and not, as Luke tries to show, an accurate report, written according to the literary canon of ancient historiography. In this sense, Aquila (and Theodotion) represent an attempt to contrast Christian beliefs, “making insignificant the divine dispositions, and annihilating the prophetic testimonies”.44 The Church father Origen called Aquila a “slave of the Hebrew version” (douleuo¯n te¯ hebraike¯ lexei) who was highly esteemed by the Jews because he translated the holy writ with zeal. Origen produced the Hexapla, a hermeneutical and literary tool that presents in columns a transliteration of the Hebrew text and variant readings of the extant Greek translation.45 Those who do not know the Hebrew language prefer to use his translation, considering it as the “most successful one.”46 In the above quotation, Origen is without doubt speaking not only about Jews ignorant of Hebrew, but also (perhaps especially?) of Christian writers like himself who use Aquila as a dictionary of the Hebrew 43 Adversus Haereses III:21:1–4, Ire´ne´e de Lion, Contre les he´re´sies, ed. Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau (Paris: Du Cerf, 1974); Greek in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica V:8:10; most of the texts, mentioned in this paragraph are quoted also in Schürer, History, 495–498. 44 Transmitted only in Latin: “. . . tantam dispositionem Dei dissolventes quantum ad ipsos est, frustrantes prophetarum testimonium quod operatus est Deus”, quoted from Contre les he´re´sies, frag. 30, pp. 210–211. 45 For the Hexapla see Friderichus Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum vetus testamentum fragmenta, vol. 1–2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875, reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1964) and the recent volume of collected essays, edited by Alison Salvesen, Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998). 46 Origenes, Epistola ad Africanum, Patrologia Graeca 11: 48–85. Text: Orige`ne, La Lettre a` Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne, ed. and transl. Nicholas De Lange (Paris: Du Cerf, 1983): 526.

166

deconstructing translations

language. We should note that almost all the “translations” of Aquila in Rabbinic sources are explanations of very difficult words or expressions of the biblical text. Thus, his knowledge in translating can be interpreted as expertise in rules of grammar and ancient etymology. The tradition of Aquila as a particularly skilful translator is confirmed by Rabbinic sources (see below). Epiphanius of Salamis is the first Christian author to offer a more detailed account about Aquila (and the other Jewish translators). His reports are, alas, full of fantasies, imaginative power and uncritical adoption of information circulating in his world. In his De Mensuris et Ponderibus (“On measures and weights”),47 the aforementioned work, intended as an introduction to the Bible, Epiphanius deals with Aquila48 in detail. In his biography of Aquila, Epiphanius starts with his ascent of a “pagan” translator, native of Sinope in Pontus, in the time of the emperor Hadrian, who even becomes a relative of his by marriage. According to him, Hadrian established Aquila in Jerusalem as overseer of the work of building the city. There he converted to Christianity, but did not leave his habit as astrologer, although reproved by his Christian teachers. After his expulsion from the church, he became a proselyte and learned Hebrew. His translation into Greek was moved, Epiphanius contends, by the desire to distort certain Septuagintal words and translations, and especially those testifying to Christ in Scripture. As stressed by some scholars, Epiphanius utilizes everything he can find of historiographical and apologetic value. If Aquila’s translation really targeted Christianity apologetically, one wonders why Origen, Eusebius, Jerome and other church fathers used it. A mention of the novella 146 “On the Hebrew” in which Aquila plays a significant role should be made.49 On the ides of February 553, the emperor Justinian enacted the novella Peri Hebraio¯n, allegedly

47

James E. Dean, ed., Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures: The Syraic Version (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935); see also my contribution “L’ispirazione della LXX tra leggenda e teologia”, Laurentianum 27 (1986): 47–48 and about all above on Epiphanius’ dealing with the Septuagint. 48 De Mensuris, Patrologia Graeca 43: 261–264; Syriac Version: Dean, ed., Treatise, 29–32. 49 For bibliographic references, see Amon Linder, ed., The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit, Mich.: Jerusalem: Wayne State University Press, The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987): 411; Alfredo M. Rabello, Giustiniano, Ebrei e Samaritani alla luce delle fonti storico-letterarie, ecclesiastiche e giuridiche, vol. 2 (Milan: Giuffre` Editore, 1988): 814–828; Giuseppe Veltri, Gegenwart der Tradition (Leiden: Brill 2002): 104–119.

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

167

preceded by a Jewish controversy on the usage of Hebrew and Greek language in the liturgy as a consequence of a difference of opinion. He permitted only the Greek language both in the Septuagint and Aquila version, although the latter was of foreign origin and often deviated from the Septuagint. In any case, he forbade the Rabbinic teaching, termed in this document deutero¯sis. Here is not the place to disentangle this difficult legal text which challenged scholars as regards its historical value and importance for the history of Hebrew and Greek in Jewish communities in the East. An element may be recorded as a turning point in the Christian evaluation of Aquila’s translation of the Bible. The regular usage of Aquila in Christian texts made him acceptable as an alternative to the Septuagint. Only the Rabbinic teaching, without doubt the oral Torah, is forbidden. The aim of the novella is clear-cut: to bring about a conversion of the Jews. For the deutero¯sis is the decisive point in distinguishing the non-Jewish world from Judaism, as a Midrash states: “And the Lord said to Moses: Write for you;50 that is the Mikra; in accordance with the mouth,51 these are the Mishnah and Talmud because there constitute the difference between Israel and the peoples of the world.”52 Among the Latin authors, only Jerome should be mentioned here.53 Although he was very negative in his judgment about Aquila, because of his slavish literalism in rendering words and their etymology,54 he was impressed by Aquila’s accuracy.55 He mentions two editions of Aquila (prima et secunda editio),56 also noted by Epiphanius.57 I am not convinced that two different versions were in circulation or that one of them was attributed to him “because of his growing prestige”, as the modern editors of Emil Schürer’s prestigious History of the Jewish People maintain.58 Nor am I persuaded by the argument that, because his translation was only for people acquainted with Hebrew language,

50

Ktav lekha [et ha-devarim ha-elle], Exodus 34:27, translated according to the meaning of the Midrash. 51 ki al pi [ha-devarim ha-elle]. 52 Midrash Tanhuma ki-tissa 17 (ed. Buber); see my commentary on this passage ˙ above. 53 On Jerome’s uses of Rabbinic traditions, see bibliographic references above, p. 74, footnote 169. 54 Epistula LVII ad Pammachium; see below, pp. 154 f. 55 Sources in Schürer, History, vol. 3,1: 496 and Veltri, Gegenwart, 82. 56 Field, Hexapla, xxv f. 57 Epiphanius, De Mensuris, Syriac version, ed. Dean, 32. 58 Schürer, History, vol. 3,1: 495.

168

deconstructing translations

his texts needed Rabbinic approbation for publication. This argumentation is indebted to modern (Christian) and Rabbinic authorisation practices and has little to do with ancient Rabbinic attitudes toward Targum, as I will try to show below. Modern readers of ancient translation practices should be careful with summary judgments on the translation practice in Judaism, for example accusing Aquila of “absurdity”, without looking into the meaning of literalism in ancient biblical translation, as James Barr rightly states.59 On the other hand, in examining ancient translation theories and concrete examples, scholars of Christianity and Judaism should pay attention to the inner logic of translating in Rabbinic academies as an expression of oral and written Torah, as I have shown elsewhere and will summarize here. Rabbinic authorities deal at length with Aquila as compared with other proselytes, yet there is little or nothing which can be of historical importance. Modern scholars try to harmonize Christian and Jewish reports on two points: his origin in Pontus and his activity in the time of Hadrian. That Aquila was originally from Pontus is not necessarily historically reliable because of the Christian report and support of it. That Christian authors tend to localize Aquila in Pontus can go back to a historical (con)fusion between the proselyte and Aquila mentioned in Acts of the Apostles 18:2 (“and he [Paul] found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus”), an identification which has modern proponents too, such as Heinrich Graetz.60 The illustrious historian, followed later by Samuel Krauss and Alec Eli Silverstone,61 was convinced of the historical value of the origin of Aquila in Pontus, reported by the Church fathers, calling to mind an alleged confirmation by the Midrash Sifra be-har pereq 1 to Leviticus 25:7: “What is permitted in your land to eat and not what Aquila exported [from Palestine) for his slaves lpwnshwm.” The common correction pwnshwm to pwntwn, an allegedly ˙ Hebrew transcription for Pontos, is far-fetched and contradictory, because it is corrected on the basis of the Church fathers sources. The Rabbinic source cannot be corrected on the basis of a testimony which should be proved by the same sources: this is a clearly a vicious circle. 59

James Barr, James Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979): 8–9. 60 Heinrich Graetz, “Jüdisch-geschichtliche Studien”, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 1 (1852): 148, note 7; idem, Geschichte der Juden, 4th edition (Leipzig: Oskar Leiner, 1908), vol. 4: 405. 61 Graetz, Geschichte, 405; Kraus, “Akylas”, 148 together with note 7 and Silverstone, Aquila, 30 f.

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

169

The Midrash anthology Yalqut be-har § 659 reads pntws and refers to ˙ Onkelos (not to Aquila). The commentary Qorban aharon reads pndws ˙ and refers to a place in Syria. The Targum Pseudo-Yonatan to Genesis 10:10 refers the term pwntws to shin ar, the biblical terms for Babylon. ˙ to the conclusion that we have to be careful All these references lead us in dealing with ancient geographical data as historical references. Geography as an ancient and medieval branch of science should not be confused with its modern successor science, a study of the earth’s physical features, resources, political divisions, climate, population and so on. In writing about their journeys (most often fanciful and full of geographic imaginings), depicting customs and “geographical” data, mentioning place and landscape, ancient geographers reproduced a typical product of their “mental map” of history and peoples.62 As defined by Downs, mental mapping is “the process by which all humans organize and make sense of the environment around them. Cognitive, or mental, maps arise from the storage and memory of spatial information that is necessary to survive. They reflect the world as perceived, not necessarily as it is.”63 The perception of other peoples and lands often stems from one’s own self-perception and identity. In the case of Sifra be-har pereq 1, the geography of the Halakhah aims only at describing a place outside of the land of Israel and not the assumed origin of Aquila. On the other hand, scholars of biblical texts should pay attention to the fact that in this text Aquila is not called ha-ger, “the Proselyte”, his appellation in the Rabbinic literature which can help us to identify him (though not necessarily trustworthy!). The Christian and Rabbinic reference to the geographical origin of Aquila has little or nothing to do with his homeland, the northeastern province of Asia Minor, but rather is connected with extra-exegetical preoccupations (meta-textual meanings). For Rabbinic Judaism, the

62

On this aspect, see Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen, “Terra Incognita: the Subjective Geography of the Roman Empire”, in Studies in Ancient History and Numismatics presented to Rudi Thomsen, ed. Aksel Damsgaard-Madsen et alii (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1988): 148–61; Kai Brodersen, Terra Cognita. Studien zur römischen Raumerfassung (Olms: Hildesheim, Zurich, New York, 1995); Jan Willem Drijvers, “Ammianus Marcellinus on the Geography of the Pontus Euxinus”, Histos 2 (1999), http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1998/drijvers.html (April 1999). 63 Mary E. Downs, “Spatial Conception in the Ancient Geographers and the Mapping of Hispania Baetica.” Classical Bulletin 72 (1996): 37–49, here 43, quoted by A. C. Bernard, “Stumbling Through Gaul: Maps, Intelligence, and Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum”, The Ancient History Bulletin 11.4 (1997): 107–122, here 118; also accessible at http://www.uni-frankfurt.de/fb08/SAG/ahb/ahb11/ahb–11–4a.html.

170

deconstructing translations

Greek origins of Aquila “justifies” his very excellent mastery of the Greek language, a rare element in Rabbinic teaching because of the so-called “ban” on the learning of Greek wisdom.64 In the case of the well-know Rabbi Gamliel, the knowledge of Greek was justified because of his closeness to the Roman administration.65 Aquila’s mastery of the Greek language and its grammar was also recognised by the Church father Jerome, who called him “eruditissimus linguae graecae”.66 For Christian writers, the non-Jewish origin of Aquila is apologetically important: the Jews have rejected the Septuagint, a work of wisdom produced by Jewish scholars, yet have accepted a Greek translation by a proselyte. Regardless of the historicity of local references, geography is only a hermeneutic tool for exegetical conclusions. A similar observation can also be made in reference to historical data. Both Rabbinic tradition and Christian historiography date Aquila’s activity to around the second century C. E. The “historical” data are underpinned by two facts: 1) his relationship to the emperor Hadrian and 2) his closeness to the school of Rabbi Aqiva (according to some sources) or Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eli ezer (according to others). The Midrash Tanhuma mishpatim 3 (ed. Buber) transmits the fol˙ lowing tradition:67 ˙ Aquila, the son of Hadrian’s sister, desired to become a proselyte, but was afraid of his uncle Hadrian. He said to him: “I wish to do business.” Hadrian answered him: “If perchance you are lacking silver or gold, behold my treasures are before you.” He answered: “I want to do business, and to know the opinion of others. And I desire to take counsel with you how to proceed.” [Hadrian said to him]: “Every trade that you see one can do on the earth––occupy yourself with it, for it will ultimately improve.” But Aquila intended to become a proselyte; he came to Land of Israel, and studied the Torah. After some days, Rabbi Eli ezer and Rabbi Yehoshua found him, and saw that his countenance was changed. They said to each other: “Aquila has studied the Torah.” When they came to him, he began to ask them questions, and they answered him. He went back to Hadrian, who asked him: “Why is your countenance changed? Has your business depreciated, or has anybody troubled you?” 64 See Mishnah Sotah 9:14 and parallels where reference is made to the war of Titus ˙ (or Quietus?). 65 Talmud Bavli Sotah 49b; cp. Tosefta Sotah 15:8. 66 ˙ ˙ See Field, ed., Hexapla, XXI. 67 English translation by Silverstone, Aquila, 25–26, with some improvements and corrections.

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

171

He answered: “No.” [Hadrian asked]: “Why then is your countenance changed?” He answered: “Because I studied the Torah, and not only that, but I have been circumcised.” Hadrian asked him: “Who told you to do this?” He answered: “I took your advice.” He asked him: “When did I advise you?” He said: “When I told you I wanted to do business, you said to me: Every trade that you see is running on the earth––occupy yourself with it, for it will ultimately improve. I went around to all the people and did not find a people so debased as Israel which will ultimately be exalted. So Isaiah says: ‘This is what the Lord says––the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel––to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation, to the servant of rulers”(Isaiah 49:7).68 His sundukrus said: “Those kings you have hit will rise up, for its written: ‘Kings will see you and rise up, princes will see and bow down’”. Hadrian struck his cheek.69 He said to him: “One needs a only a bandage on a wound. Is it perhaps thinkable that one uses a bandage on healthy flesh? Wont he use it on a wound? Now, if one sees a common soldier, one will not rise up.” What did his sundukrus do? He climbed on the roof, fell down and died. The holy spirit cried: “So may all your enemies perish, oh Lord” (Judges 5:31). Hadrian said to him: “You should have studied the Torah, but not have become circumcised.” Aquila answered: “If a man be not circumcised, he cannot study, as it is said: ‘He revealed his words to Jacob, [his statutes and his judgments to Israel’ (Psalms 147:19)––to Jacob], to him who is circumcised like Jacob. ‘His statutes’ (mishpatim) are the Torah, ‘his judgments’ are the decrees (dinin). ‘He does not ˙do so to any nation’ (Psalms 147:20).”

We cannot historically prove that Aquila was related to Hadrian as the Midrash assumes, even though Epiphanis of Salami also seems to endorse it when it affirms: “Aquila was related to the king by marriage and was from Sinope in Pontus.”70 A direct literary influence on Epiphanius by the Midrash Tanhuma cannot de principio be excluded.71 ˙ The Christian writer must have read or received this tradition from other sources, because his report is also consistent without Aquila’s

68 Silverstone omits the episode of a sundukrus (“co-regents”?) which in his view interrupts the discussion between Hadrian and Aquila. See also Silverstone, Aquila, 26–27; and Peter Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand. Studien zum zweiten jüdischen Krieg gegen Rom (Tübingen: Siebeck, 1981): 242–244. 69 That is a sign of very deep humiliation according to Job 16:10. 70 De Mensuris et Ponderibus 15, Dean, ed., Treatise, 30. 71 See Marc Bregman, “Early Sources and Traditions in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu ˙ Midrashim”, (in Hebrew) Tarbiz 60 (1991): 269–274.

172

deconstructing translations

relationship to the Roman emperor, while Epiphanius’ claim that the Greek translation originates from Pontus can be considered as an expansion of the aforementioned text from the Acts of the Apostle. For the Midrash Tanhuma, Aquila’s circumcision plays a role, be˙ which Hadrian rebuked him for. The learncause that is the only thing ing of the Torah can be accepted, but not the circumcision. There is no doubt that the redactor of the Midrash addresses the question of the mishpatim, the divine statutes and decrees and distinguishes between ˙ the giving of the Torah (clearly understood as learning of the Torah) and the legal implication of this giving, because the circumcision implies a visible sign of the binding to God. Without the circumcision, there is no Torah. Behind the exegetical explication, the modern historian tries to search for the historical reason why Aquila, the Proselyte and Hadrian are related. The introduction of Aquila into the Midrash narrative does not give rise to any problems because he was concerned with the leaning of Torah and was a proselyte. The conversion to Judaism was the premise for the giving of the Torah, i. e. his concern with Jewish law. If Epiphanius did read this Midrash, he could not ignore the polemical accent against Christianity and its claim to understand the Torah without circumcision. The historical liaison to Hadrian is also understandable, because one of the Roman emperor’s measures against the Jews was the ban on circumcision (but not the express ban on teaching the Torah).72 The story about the sundukrus acts as an anticlimax of the Greek comedy. It should not be interpreted as a parenthetic introduction: the sundukrus alludes to the common practice according to which subjugated kings rise up before the winner in a sign of devout submission. Hadrian objects that the winner is the one who will gain the definitive victory. The apocalyptic connotation of the Midrash cannot be overlooked, because the same tendency also occurs in Midrash Tanna im (ed. Hoffmann, 262), where Hadrian kneels in front of a Jewish girl, who was dirty besides, giving reason for his gesture by quoting Isaiah 49:7: “Kings will see you and rise up, princes will see and bow down.” 72 I do not intend here to address the question of the cause of the revolt of BarKokhba, for this see Schäfer, Der Bar Kokhba-Aufstand, 29–50; idem, “The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt”, in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, ed. Jakob J. Petuchowski and Ezra Fleischer (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1981): 74–94; contrary to the thesis of Schäfer is Alfredo M. Rabello, “The Ban on Circumcision as a Cause of Bar Kokhba’s Rebellion”, Israel Law Review 29 (1995): 176–214; but see also Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia (Cambridge, Ma., London: Harvard University Press, 1997): 103–104.

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

173

The hypothesis of a relation between Aquila and Hadrian is the weaker the more one considers the logic of the Rabbinic literary system. Another text of Palestinian origins can perhaps help us to better illuminate this aspect, Talmud Yerushalmi Hagigah 2:1 (77a):73 Rabbi Yehuda bar Pazzi in the name of Rabbi Yose be-Rabbi (says): Hadrian asked Aquila, the Proselyte: “It is true that you say this world exists by wind?” Aquila answered: “Yes”. He said to him: “How can you prove it”? Aquila answered: “Bring me camels”. They brought him camels. He loaded them with loads, raised them and caused them to kneel, took them and suffocated them. Then he said to Hadrian: “Here are they: raise them!” He asked: “After you have suffocated them?” He answered: “Have I taken anything from them? Is it not merely the wind that as departed from them?”

The figure of Hadrian literally corresponds to those of other Roman dignitaries who (allegedly) met with Jewish Sages.74 However, we have to take into consideration the literary topos of the wise king, without doubt a remnant of the Platonic myth of a philosopher king which was partly realized by Marc Aurelius. In Jewish literature, the figure of Hadrian also has a positive side, as e. g. the fifth book of the Sibylline Oracles 5:48 prophesises: “he will be a most excellent man and will consider everything”. In Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 13:9 ff., Hadrian discusses with the Sages about the nature of the water of the sea. All these aspects do not obscure the fact that episodes of pity, acknowledgement of the superiority of subjugated peoples, if in the mouth of the conquerors, exalt even more the victory of the winner and his “just government”. At the same time when expressed by the loser it is only a proud statement on of his own identity which, however, originates in the experienced defeat or in the continuous and bitter subjugation. That is the logic of winner and loser. According to this interpretation, Aquila has historically nothing to do with Hadrian, yet literally he acts as alter ego of Hadrian in his “acknowledgement” of the Jewish people, because he/the Roman was occupied with an object, i. e. Judaism, which was debased to earth and that will improve his status in the future. 73 Text also quoted by Silverstone, Aquila, 27. My translation of the text is based on his. See also Tanhuma, Bereshit 5 (ed. Buber). 74 ˙ On the Roman empire as judged by the Jews, see Günter Stemberger, Die römische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden (Darmstadt: Buchgesellschaft, 1983), on Hadrian especially 78–86.

174

deconstructing translations

Much more difficult is the question of Aquila’s relationship to his teachers. According to Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah, 1,11 (71c) he studied in the school of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eli ezer, while according to Talmud Yerushalmi Qiddushin 1,1 (59a) he was disciple of Rabbi Aqiva. The second bit of information is echoed by Jerome, who expressly relates the Scribes and Pharisees to the “families” of Hillel and Shammay (duas familias interpretantur, Sammai et Hellel, ex quibus orti sunt Scribae et Pharisaei) and Aquila to the Akiva’ school, pupil from the former (quorum suscepit scholam Akybas, quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant).75 Jerome’s knowledge of Rabbinic Judaism is, according to this ‘echo’, without doubt almost meagre, because he identifies Hillel and Shammay as the founders of the groups of the Scribes and Pharisees, perhaps influenced by the New Testament. But the association with Rabbi Aqiva can also originate in reading Aquila’s translation of Genesis 1:1 (fragment in the Hexapla and in Jerome) in comparison with the above already quoted Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 1:14, as Silverstone supposes: Bereshit bara elohim at ha-shammayim we-et ha-ares (Genesis 1:1): Rabbi Yishma el asked Rabbi Aqiva, saying to him: You˙ were a disciple of Nahum from Gam-Zu, according to whom (the words) akh (“only”) ˙ (“only”) are limitation and et (sign of accusative) and gam (“too”, and raq “also”) are inclusions. Tell me about the et which is written here. He said to him: If we had bereshit bara elohim shammayim we-eres, one could understand shammayim we-eres as godheads. He said to him:˙ They ˙ are not just idle words for you (Deuteronomy 32:47). If the word is idle, its up to you because you cannot search for it: Et shammayim includes sun, moon, and constellations; et ha-ares includes trees, grass, and the ˙ Garden of Eden.

Aquila seems to have been a disciple of Rabbi Akiva because he translated the first verse of Genesis as “. . . created together with heaven and together with earth (syn ton ouranon kai te¯n ge¯n),” a stylistically cacophonic translation which has been criticized by Jerome in his wellknown letter LVII to Pammachius “on the best method of translating”: On the other hand we do right to reject Aquila, the proselyte and controversial translator, who has striven to translate not words only but their etymologies as well. Who could accept as renderings of ‘corn and wine and oil’ such words as cheuma, opo¯rismos stilpnote¯s, or, as we might say, ‘pouring,’ and ‘fruit gathering,’ and ‘shining‘? or, because Hebrew has in 75

Commentarium in Esaiam 8,11 (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 77): 116.

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

175

addition to the article other prefixes as well, he must with an unhappy pedantry translate syllable by, syllable and letter, by letter thus: syn ton ouranon kai te¯n ge¯n, a construction which neither Greek nor Latin admits of, as many passages in our own writers show. How many are the phrases charming in Greek which, if rendered word for word, do not sound well in Latin, and again how many there are that are pleasing to us in Latin, but which––assuming the order of the words not to be altered––would not please in Greek.76

Jerome obviously did not understand the exegetical valence of this unusual translation, although he considered Aquila a disciple of Rabbi Akiva. The opponent Rabbi Yishma el calls to mind that this typical hermeneutic method was not discovered by his adversary but by his teacher Nahum from Gam-Zu, an ironical local name, if one considers ˙ the etymology “also this”! In conclusion then, one cannot consider Akiva’s peculiarity to be what the Midrash attributed to his master. In my opinion, the attribution of exegetical methods to particular teachers follows the logic of Rabbinic biographies: Not everything attributed should be taken as historically correct, but rather designates a school of interpretation. The question of whether Aquila was really a disciple of the Rabbi is unimportant; much more significant is the conviction that what he translated follows this school, that is: he was a meturgeman. Besides the above quoted Midrash of Aquila’s conversion, the Midrash literature reports other stories in which Aquila is connected with Rabbi Eli ezer and Rabbi Yehoshua ; in Midrash Qohelet Rabbah 8:8 (to Ecclesiastes 7:8) he discusses with both Rabbis the problem of whether a proselyte daughter can marry into the priesthood; in the Midrash Pesiqta Rabbati 23 (ed. Friedmann, 117a), he asks Rabbi Eli ezer about the question as to why circumcision is not included in the ten commandments. The most quoted text in this context is Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah 1:11 (71c):77 Its is thought: Rabban Shim on ben Gamliel said: The books also are not allowed to be written except in the Greek language: they examined and found that the Torah could not be translated perfectly except in Greek. A 76 Jerome, De optimo genere interpretandi (Epistula LVII), ed. Gerard J. M. Bartelink (Leiden; Brill, 1980): 19–20: “. . . Aquila autem proselytus et contentiosus interpres, qui non solum verba, sed etymologies verborum transferre conatus est, iure proicitur a nobis . . .”. On the so-called “literalism” of ancient Bible translation see James Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations. English Translation adapted and quoted from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Electronic version copyright © 1996 by New Advent, Inc., in http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001057.htm. 77 See Silverston, Aquila, 57–59. I follow his translation, although with slight changes.

176

deconstructing translations watchman produced for them Aramaic from the Greek.78 Rabbi Yirmiya in the name of Rabbi Hiyya bar-Ba [said]: Aquila the Proselyte translated ˙ Eli ezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and they praised the Torah before Rabbi him saying: You art fairer than the children of men (Psalms 45:3).

Following this halakhah from the Yerushalmi, there is no doubt that the only language permitted for transcribing and translation was Greek and that Aquila was considered the skilful disciple who was praised for his translation by his teachers. To understand the meaning of this praise, we have to briefly analyse his “translations” according to the Rabbinic tradition. Rabbinic Texts on the “Translations” of Aquila Aquila’s translation is a mirror of Rabbinic exegesis, as Lester Grabbe put it.79 This mirror reflects Aquila not only according the Hexapla and other testimonies but also and most particularly according to the Rabbinic exegetical literature. For it is the hermeneutic task of his “translations” transmitted in Rabbinic literature with the formula tirgem aqilas, “Aquilas translates (as Targum)” to render a difficult term, name, expression in the language of Yafet, i. e. Greek. That is also the origin of Aquila’s “translations” in Rabbinic transmission. These targumim can be divided in three groups: 1) into Greek; 2) into Hebrew and 3) into Aramaic. Similar to the “changed verses for the King Ptolemy”, analysed earlier, I would like here to present only the results of the Rabbinic discussion without dwelling on the philological and text-critical analysis available elsewhere.80 Targumin into Greek Genesis 17:1: On Divine Attributes In Genesis 17:1, God is named el shadday, a very difficult term. According to the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 46:1:81 Rabbi Natan in the name of Rabbi Aha, Rabbi Berekhya in name of Rabbi Ishaq: “I am El Shadday. I am he ˙who says to my world: ‘Enough!’. ˙˙ Heavens and earth would have continued to spread themselves out till 78

The meaning of this sentence is not perfectly clear, see my Eine Tora für den König, 170–173 for some ways to interpret it. 79 See Lester L. Grabbe, “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis”, Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 527–536. 80 See above all my Gegenwart der Tradition, 83–92. 81 Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, ed. Judah Theodor and Hannoch Albeck, 2nd edition, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Shalem, 1965): 460–461.

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

177

now. It was taught in the name of Rabbi Eli ezer b. Ya aqov: I am he for whose Godhead the world with his fullness is not worthy. Aquila translated: qsiws w yqnws.

The Midrash quotes here a “translation” or interpretation by Aquila of the term shadday. The interpretation of qsiws w yqnws is of course difficult not only because of the variant readings among the manuscripts and print transmission, but above all because of the meaning of the supposed Greek terms. I think that the difficulty of the reading lies in a methodological problem rather than in the manuscript transmission. If we presume that a quotation of the version of Aquila is offered here as Origen transmitted it, we must logically assume a corruption because the Aquila of Origen reads ischyros (“powerful”), or according to the Latin Version, the Vulgata “omnipotens”. But if we take into consideration that Aquila is quoted in a Midrash and not in the variant readings of Origen’s “text-critical” apparatus, the meaning of the text is clear: Aquila adopts the Rabbinic opinion both of Rabbi Natan (and his school) and of Rabbi Eli ezer. For the first, creation had reached the “adequate” point, to say “enough”, and that is in Greek hikanos, “be adequate, sufficient, etc.” For the second Rabbinic school, the text is speaking of the dignity of God, whereas the world and what it contains is not worthy of his divinity. It goes without saying that both are synonymous, although both terms and their exegetical application are differently interpreted. In the first midrashic meaning, the world reached its sufficiency in the act of creation, while the second exegetic unity limits the dignity of the world because it is inadequate. In the end, then, a typical Rabbinic discussion with a typical dialectic result! Leviticus 23:24 and the Feast of Tabernacles In the context of the Feast of Tabernacles, the biblical text speaks of peri es hadar (Leviticus 23:24: “. . . and you shall take on the first day ˙ of a splendid tree, branches of palm trees and boughs of leafy the fruit trees . . .” The problem of the Midrash is the identification of the vague description of the fruit of a splendid tree. To make the text more precise, Aquila translated the word hadar with the Greek word hydo¯r. As noted in the Talmud Yerushalmi Sukkah 3:5 [53d]): Rabbi Tanhuma said: Aquila translated hadar (with the Greek word) ˙ hydo¯r (“water”). (It means) a tree which grows at waters (or: on surface of waters al pene mayim).

178

deconstructing translations

The Yerushalmi Gemara transmits a detailed discussion on the meaning of hadar, referring to possible identifications with pomegranate (and carob tree). According to the redactor of the text, only the etrog (citrus fruits) has a chance to be accepted because the tree and the fruit are beautiful (hadar as magnificent). The tradition of the translation of Aquila in this context cannot be interpreted as a confirmation of the Rabbinic discussion, because the etrog does not grow at or on the surface of water. According to Josephus it was called “the fruit of the Persian-tree”, and probably has to been identified with the botanical definition by Theophrastus82 of a plant which grew in Persia and Media, identified by botanists with the citrus medica. This botanical discussion on the origin and spreading of citrus fruits cannot solve the question as to why Aquila (and some other midrashic texts) speaks of water. In my view, the translation of Aquila has nothing to do with etrog, which notably does not grow near water, (“willow” would be preferable!) but is a typical midrashic element to extract meaning from an apparently meaningless or indistinct and ambiguous text. To refer to water means only to stress a very important element of the Feast of Tabernacles, the water of the water-drawing ceremony, which according to Tosefta Sukkah 3:3–13 is to be associated with the primeval water of the creation (also there al pne ha-mayim!), and especially the miraculous well which accompanied the Israelites in their wanderings (dar) in the desert.83 The tree which dwells on the surface of the water cannot be anything but Israel itself. In this exegetical conclusion, Aquila uses a talmudic procedure of an implicit al tiqre (“do not read in this way but rather in this way”), gaining the meaning from a foreign language, likewise a widespread philological practice. Different from the Aquila of Rabbinic schools, the Aquila of the Hexapla translated the term hadar without exegetical mastery diaprepeia, i. e. “magnificence”. Isaiah 3:2084 and Female Jewellery Isaiah 3 offers a detailed description of the jewellery, finery and beauty culture of the “women of Zion” . . . “. . . ankle chains and sashes, the batte nefesh and charms”. The Septuagint translates the very singular 82 Historia plantarum IV:4:2 f, quoted in this context by Ha˚kan Ulfgard, The Story of Sukkot (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998): 85. 83 Ulfgard, The Story, p. 273. 84 On this text, see my “Greek Loanwords in the Palestinian Talmud: Some New Suggestions”, Journal of Semitic Studies 47 (2002): 239–240.

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

179

expression batte nefesh with an enigmatic “fashion of in-breathing” (ta skeue¯ te¯s empnoias), while Aquila according to the fragments of the Hexapla renders it very literally “the houses of the soul”. Talmud Yerushalmi Shabbat 6:4 (8b) transmits another Greek translation of Aquila for this verse: “. . . and batte nefesh.85 Aquila translated: stw mukry .” It is a titanic task to try to decipher the Greek expression of˙Aquila which was meant to explain the difficult expression of Isaiah. However, in my understanding of the text, the difficult expression bty npsh is clearly understood by Aquila to mean bt nfsh. This is indeed the meaning of the talmudic explanation davar shenitten al nefesh (“something which is on the nefesh”). The expression bat nefesh is a new formation in Hebrew and it would be possible that we are dealing here with bet nefesh, the Rabbinic designation of the pharynx (or aesophagus).86 However, the local preposition al suggests something on, not in something. In my opinion, nephesh means here the neck, rather than an inner organ like the pharynx. Therefore I propose that we read sjum (iun) kri n, i. e. Greek stomion charein, “fine ornament for the neck”.87 And this is also the meaning of sto´mion in Pollux Grammaticus 5.98 and perhaps also the meaning of the Septuagint translation above. With regard to the hermeneutic method used here, both Aquila and the Septuagint interpret the word according to the context of the biblical verse (ankle chains and sashes) and probably contemporaneous female fashions.88 Ezekiel 16:10 on Dressing According to Rabbinic exegesis, a difficulty lies in Ezekiel 16:10: We read in Midrash Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah: I clothed you with an embroidered dress (riqmah) (Ezekiel 16:10). Rabbi Simay said: porfyra. Aquila translated: ipliqt .

85

Aquila’s translation in the Hexapla reads: kai oikous te¯s pschyche¯s. See Julius Preuss, Biblisch-talmudische Medizin (edit. by S. Paley, New York, 1971, 1st edition 1911): 103. 87 Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, eds., Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968): 1649. 88 A very similar interpretion can be read in Azariah de’ Rossi interpretation of the term, see Azaria de’ Rossi’s Observartions on the Syriac New Testament, ed. Joanna Weinberg (London: The Warburg Institute––Nino Aragno editore, 2005): 100–101: . . . “direi esser veste longa da portar sotto gli altri panni, come nella romagna la chiamano guarda core”. 86

180

deconstructing translations

The first interpretation, transmitted in name of Rabbi Simay is clear: riqmah means “purple.” Aquila’s translation is obscure in the transcription into Greek. Some authors try to decipher ipliqt reading poikilta (“variegated, embroidered”) because this is the translation of Aquila in the Hexapla. The Septuagint always translated the root rqm with the root poikilt- (see Exodus 35:35; 37:21; and Judges 5:30). According to the parallel tradition in Midrash Ekha Rabbati 1:1 (ed. Buber 21b), we have to read piquliton, while Midrash Ekha Rabbah 1:1 (first edition) reads pqlturin pliqt˙ , though attributing the translation to Onkelos. I do ˙ took his translation from the Septuagint, although not think ˙that Aquila the Hexaplarian Aquila likely did. I prefer to decipher pqlturin pliqt , ˙ ˙ simply reading it as epikalypte¯rion ple¯kton, “plaited covering.” As 89 Samuel Krauss noted, a peculiarity of Aquila is to give difficult terms a double possibility, likewise here the case. The very interesting question here is why Rabbi Simay is introduced by “say” (amar), Aquila on the other hand by tirgem, although both of them “translated” the word into Greek. The language is not important when a pupil renders the teaching of a Rabbi into the Targum, or in other words, when a student mediates the teaching of a master. We will return to this at the end of the chapter. Ezekiel 23:43 on Prostitution We read in Midrash Wa-Yiqra Rabbah 33:6: And I said about the one worn out by adultery (Ezekiel 23:43). What is the meaning of lblh? Aquila translated: “palaiai porne¯i” which means “worn-out adulteress”.90

The word lblh is very difficult for modern exegesis as well. Aquila derives it from blh, in the meaning of “worn”, and translates it not literally “to the old prostitute”, re-translated by the Midrash, also here not very literally, into Hebrew “worn-out adulteress.” A very similar tradition can also be found in the Targum to Ezekiel. The Hexaplarian fragment of Aquila, however, reads quite differently in lexical terms, though semantically very similar: tou katatripsai moicheias. Silverstone’s explanation, according to which Aquila’s reading from the Hexapla really belongs to Symmachus or Theodotion,91 is far-fetched, 89 90 91

Krauss, “Akylas”. The explanation is in Aramaic. Silverstone, Aquila, 44.

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

181

trying to solve a problem by creating another. The interesting point here is that the Midrash translates the Greek translation back into Aramaic as though the redactor does not expect his reader to understand Greek. I suppose that in mentioning the Greek translations of Aquila, the redactor refers to an authority of a past tradition. Psalms 48 (47):15 and the Eternal World A further difficult word from the Psalter is addressed in the Palestinian Talmud: lmt For this is God our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide l m w t (Psalms 48:15). (The expression has to be understood) with alimut, skilfullness; lmwt (means) like young women ( alamot). Aquila translated athanasia, a world in which there is no death. And the righteous point with the finger and say: For this God is our God for ever and ever. He will he will be our guide in the worlds. He will guide us in this world and he will guide us in the future world.92

That is a beautiful example of a talmudic academy with different attempts to explain a difficult expression from the biblical text. The first interpretation vocalizes the text in contrast with the Masoretic reading alimut, from elem (vigorous, skillful), the second opinion prefers the vocalization alamot, from almah (young girl), perhaps indirectly referring to Psalms 68:26 (Hebrew): “with them are the maidens playing tambourines”. Aquila interprets it al mawet, a world in which there is not death”. The saddiqim opt for the other solution, ˙ to read olamot, the two worlds. Friedman opines that Aquila must have read l mwt93 (“Do not die!”). Silverstone considers the change unnecessary, adding: “Aquila’s rendering is compatible with either [ alimut, for him, ‘youthfulness’, and olamot, ‘worlds’], for immortality may be taken to mean perpetual youth, or may refer to the immortality in the next world.”94 We have here four different interpretations, each of them possible. Aquila chooses to break the word into two pieces al mawet what literally means “over the death”, i. e. a-thanasia: he will be our guide over/beside the death. The very intriguing question here is why the redactor explains the Greek word. The reason could be that reader does not understand what 92 Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah 2:4 (73b); see also Talmud Yerushalmi Mo ed Qatan ˙ 3:7 (83b). English translation from Silverstone, Aquila, 45 with some changes of mine. 93 Friedman, Onkelos, 44. 94 Silverstone, Aquila, 45.

182

deconstructing translations

a-thanasia is, i. e. immortality. If so, there is no reason to mention and explain what no one can immediately understand––for this contradicts the logic of understanding in translating. I believe the real reason lies elsewhere: because a-thanasia (im-mortality) offers the same play in words supposed also for lmwt or vice versa. This confirms the philological tendency of his translating method. Proverbs 18:21 and Rhetorical Figures The Midrash Wa-Yiqra Rabbah 33:1 transmits another Greek interpretation of Aquila in reference to Proverbs 18:21: Death and life are in the power of the tongue (Proverbs 18:2). Aquila translated: mystrw mkirin, death on the one side and life on the other. ˙

The usual interpretation of these two Greek words are mystron machairion, “spoon and knife”, which in the opinion of Field are nonsensical (“absurda et ridicula”).95 Silverstone tries to justify it, supposing the “spoon and knife as symbolical of life and death is based on some Midrash current in his day.”96 These attempts to explain the Greek words do not take into consideration the Hebrew text which follows the Hebrew letters: death on the one side (mi-kan) and life on the other (mi-kan). As I see it, the local preposition mi-kan presupposes one object and not two. It follows that the composition can be deciphered as meso/mesaiterio¯ (te¯s) machairas, “in the middle point of a sword”. The pictures call to mind the rhetorical figure of the word as a sword with two tasks: to put to death or to produce life (see, for example, Apocalypse 1:16), the first in the war, the second used by a surgeon. Proverbs 25:11 on Rhetoric Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 93:3 transmits an interpretation of Aquila in relation to Proverbs 25:11: A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in maskiyyot of silver (Proverbs 25:11). Aquila translated: apples of gold in a vessel/cup (diskarion) of silver.

The whole translation of Aquila is in Aramaic except for the Greek word. The translation of Aquila diskarion as “cup, vessel” raises some problems because that is not the equivalent of maskiyyot, which means 95 96

Field, Origenis . . ., Prolegomena, xvii. Silverstone, Aquila, 47.

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

183

an object (for example, the wall) embellished with pictures or of engraved metal (see, for example, Ezekiel 8:12). Silverstone is right to stress that “ornamental object” is the meaning of maskit, but by no means the explanation of diskarion, probably coined from Latin discus. According to Epiphanius of Salamis, diskarion was the common word for “cup”97 and not an engraved cup. The more simple explanation is that diskarion was a common word for a cup for Latin and Greek people, but probably not for Jews who associated something else with an engraved cup. We read in several Rabbinic texts that a diskarion or Lat. Discus was rejected as a gift by Rabbis due to the danger of idolatry.98 This is only possible when engraved on the disk or paten was the image of a divinity or a idolatrous motto etc. With his translation, Aquila explains to his reader (hearer) what is a meant by the biblical text: apples of gold in an engraved cup of silver, and that is probably also the meaning of Proverbs 25:11. Esther 1:6 on Colours In reference to Esther 1:6, Aquila addresses two difficult words, which are hapax legomena in the Bible, in Midrash Esther Rabbah 2:7: The garden had hangings of white and blue linen (Esther 1:6).99 Aquila translated aerinon karpasinon (light blue, fine linen or flax). Rabbi Bini said: iantinon (violet-colored).

The difficulty of a hapax legomenon lies obviously in the nature of it, i. e. its uniqueness in the vocabulary or literary corpus. The common tool, also used today, is to get at the meaning starting from linguistically and semantically related lexemes in other languages or to get help changing one letter––and this is the case of hur/hor of the biblical text, interpreted by Aquila as or. Therefore, he ˙read˙ hor in the Greek language as aer- (air). For the second word, there is ˙no difficulty be97 Epiphanius, De Mensuris et Ponderibus 86:8: toublion to en te¯ synete¯iai legomenon diskarion. 98 See Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 78:12; Yerushalmi Avodah Zarah 1:1 (39b); see Saul Lieberman, Texts and Studies, 143; Gerald Blidstein, “A Roman Gift of Strenae to the Patriarch Judah II”, Israel Exploration Journal 22 (1972): 150–152; Giuseppe Veltri, “Römische Religion an der Peripherie des Reiches: ein Kapitel rabbinischer Rhetorik”, in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 2, ed. Peter Schäfer and Cathrine Hezser (Tübingen: Mohr, 2000): pp. 116–117. 99 This is the new common International English translation without regard to the Midrash.

184

deconstructing translations

cause the Greek equivalent is of Semitic origin.100 Rabbi Bini’s translation attempt is not easily deciphered because the manuscript tradition is not definite and it is only an attempt. Here too, his translation is introduced by amar, while Aquila uses targem. Daniel 5:5 and the Candelabrum In Talmud Yerushalmi Yoma 3:8 (41a), there is discussion on the form of the golden light source made by Helene at the entrance of the temple. One teacher (amora) says that was a chandelier, the other a shell-like light-source (Greek konche¯). “Aquila translated in front of the nbrwta (of Daniel 5:5), in front of the torch” (Greek gen. lampados). The translation of Aquila is a combination of Aramaic (from Daniel’s text) and Greek. Here too, only Aquila is introduced by targem. Targumim into Aramaic and Hebrew As already above mentioned, the exegetical literature reports Aquila’s translation as a mixture of Greek and Aramaic, attributed by some scholars to the redactional transmission and not to Aquila himself. We have a Midrash which unmistakably attributes Armaic instead of Greek to Aquila. In Midrash Qohelet Rabbah 11:3, Aquila translates Isaiah 5:6 (“And I will command the clouds not to rain on it”) into Aramaic with “and I will command the prophets that they prophecy to them no more prophecy”, which is indeed the translation of the Targum PseudoYonatan. In Talmud Yerushalmi Qiddushin 1:1 (59a), Aquila interprets Lev 19:20 according to the teaching of Rabbi Aqiva: Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Yohanan said: “Aquila the proselyte ˙ is a slave who was destined to translated before Rabbi Aqiva: ‘as she another man’ with ‘deflowered by a man’ as you say: ‘his wife took a covering and spread it out over the opening of the well and scattered grain over it.’”

With his interpretation, Aquila equates the condition of a deflowered slave to that of a wife, namely that after the death of the husband/master she will be free.101 A last “translation” of Aquila is a text from Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 21:1: 100

This in accordance with the common Hebrew vocabulary. See the interpretation of Heinz-Peter Tilly, ed., Qiddushin. Antrauung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995): 31–32. 101

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

185

“And one holy one said unto that certain other (le-palmoni) holy one who spoke” (Daniel 8:13). Rabbi Huna (said): “To the certain one.” Aquila ˙ translated: “To the inner one, that is Adam whose habitation was within that of ministering angels.”

The difficult world is le-palmoni, which modern scholars interpret as a mixing of almoni ploni (“one certain”) and therefore, according to Rabbi Huna, they suppose ploni. Aquila interprets it as “to the inner one”, to˙ Adam who dwells among the ministering angels. The suggestion by Stössel and Krauss to read Greek pneuma, “soul” (for Rabbi Huna) and pyleo¯n, gatekeeper (for Aquila) does not correspond to the ˙ actual content of the Midrash. Aquila’s Substitute: Onkelos Medieval Judaism was aware of the similarity of traditions between Aquila and Onkelos and therefore it is not surprising to read in the Sefer Yerahme el the following story: ˙ 124102 years after the crucifixion, at the time of Hadrian, Aquila, alias Onkelos appeared. He translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic. Other say that he translated from the Hebrew into Greek.103

The medieval difficulty to locate Onkelos in the sea of the tradition goes back to the tradition itself which presents both of them as one person, as Silverstone rightly sees it. Onkelos is indeed nothing but the Babylonian counterpart of Aquila. I would like to quote in the following the main sources of this identification. In Talmud Bavli Megillah 3a, the Gemara attributes the Targum Torah to Onkelos: Rabbi Yirmiyah, others say Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba: “The Targum of the Torah was spoken by Onkelos the ˙ proselyte from the mouth of Rabbi Eli ezer and Rabbi Yehoshua . The Targum of the Prophets was spoken by Yonatan ben Uzziel from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.”

It would be erroneous to believe that the Talmud is speaking here of a historical attribution as if Yonatan ben Uzziel was called the author of the Targum of the Prophets and Onkelos of the Torah. For according to the Rabbinic mind, Targum is oral Torah. We have to include the whole text of the attribution of the Targum with the immediate context 102 The date is not referenced. Epiphanius, probably the source of Yerahme el, speaks ˙ of the year 129/130 C. E. as apex of the activity of Aquila. 103 Medieval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes, ed. Adolf Neubauer, vol. 1 (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1887): 174–175.

186

deconstructing translations

in Talmud Bavli Megillah 3a. As a commentary to Nehemiah 8:8 (“They read from the Book of the Law of God, in detail and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read”), the Gemara transmits a dictum of Rabbi Iqa bar Abin in the name of Rabbi Hanan el in the name of Rav: ˙ They read from the Book of the Law of God That is the Mikra (i. e. the consonantic text) In detail (meforash) That is the Targum giving the meaning (of the words) That is the division in verses so that the people could understand That are signs of meaning (accents?) They say to him: That is the Masorah.104

The subject the Gemara is facing is the attribution of the Targum to Onkelos and the indirect question of “dating”: If the Targum of the Prophets goes back to Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the Targum of the Torah should logically be earlier. The majority of medieval Jewish commentaries assume that the Targum goes back to Ezra. That is not the plain meaning of the Gemara text because “they read in a book” where all the signs and the meanings are. The Levites of Ezra read in the book what the book offers the reader. Accordingly, the Targum is Torah from Sinai (mi-sinai) as well as every other oral teaching. The opinion that the Targum cannot be attributed to Ezra is confirmed by the explanation of Talmud Yerushalmi Megillah 4:11 (74d) where it speaks of Targum in reference to Genesis 9:27 (“May God extend the territory of Japheth, may Japheth live in the tents of Shem”): One used to say the words of the Torah in the language of Yafeth (i. e. the Greek language) in the tents of Shem: From this, one concludes that the (Scriptures) are speaking of Targum.

What the Babylonian Gemara attributes to the Aramaic Targum of Onkelos, the Palestinian attributes to the Greek Targum of Aquila. The origins of the Greek and Aramaic Targum are on Sinai, as oral Torah. The (later) identification of Aquila and Onkelos is not only a matter of “production” of a Targum, but also concerns questions of the strength of the law (Tosefta Demai 6:12; Tosefta Hagigah 3:1; Tosefta ˙ 104

37b.

In addition to this text, see Talmud Bavli Nedarim 37b and Talmud Bavli Zevahim ˙

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

187

Kelim 2:2; Tosefta Mikwaot 6:1) and proselytism (Midrash Tanhuma ˙ bereshit 6 and Talmud Bavli Avodah Zarah 11a). For our aim of evaluating de-canonization and substitution, Talmud Bavli Gittin 56b–57a, a ˙˙ Jesus, shows very well-known talmudic text because of the mention of 105 a peculiar aspect: Onkelos, son of Kalonymus, was the nephew of the emperor, Titus. Onkelos desired to become a proselyte. So he went and, with the aid of necromancy, raised his uncle Titus from the dead. He asked him: “Who is respected in the highest regard in the other world?” He answered: “Israel.” “Shall I then,––Onkelos asked,––join them?” He answered: “Their precepts are so numerous that it is impossible to endure them. Go and persecute them in this world, and you will become a chief, as it is written: Her adversaries are the chiefs (Lamentations 1:5); whoever oppresses Israel becomes a chief.” He asked him: “What is your punishment?” He answered: “What I myself decreed: Every day they gather together my ashes, and judge me, and burn me, and then disperse the ashes to the seven seas”. Next Onkelos went and, with the aid of a necromancer, raised Balaam from the dead. He also asked him: “Who is respected in the highest regard in the other world?” Balaam answered: “Israel.” “Shall I then,––Onkelos asked,––join them?” Balaam said: “Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days forever” (Deuteronomy 23:7) He asked him: “What is your punishment?” He answered: “Lying in hot seed”. Then Onkelos went and, with the aid of a necromancer, raised Jesus106 from the dead. He asked him: “Who is held in the highest regard in the other world?” Jesus said: “Israel.” “What do you say about my joining them?” Jesus said: “Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of God’s eye. Observe the difference in behavior between the sinners in Israel and the prophets among the nations of the world.” He asked him: “What is your punishment?” He answered: “Lying in hot filth”, as Mar says: Whoever ridicules the word of the wise is punished by hot filth. 105 106

On this English translation, see Silverstone, Aquila, 8–9 with some slight changes. According to the uncensored edition of the Talmud, the other editions have “sinner”.

188

deconstructing translations

The enemies of Israel are here listed and Titus and Balaam do not suggest to Onkelos to convert to Judaism, only Jesus or the sinners of Israel (according to other manuscripts) recommend to him to become a proselyte. The motive of the conversion of Aquila as a conviction that this debased people will apocalyptically prevail is here echoed by Onkelos’ query about “Who is held in the highest regard in the other world?”. To conclude, there is no doubt that Onkelos is nothing but a canonical substitute of Aquila in Babylonian Judaism, which did not possess other traditions to confirm the high regard for the common Targum, or Targum didan. A few comments have to be made about the question of which elements have contributed to the substitution Onkelos/Aquila. The answer cannot be other than the application of the main argument in this book: a change in language provokes a change in canon or in canonical elements. The destiny of the Septuagint was connected to the survival of the Greek language. That of Aquila was too. The Babylonian Rabbinic academy needed a glorious past for the exigencies of the present, a cultural identity in continuity with Palestinian Judaism, but at the same time also proud to be the mainstream of tradition. I like to call to mind the typical Babylonian claim that the original language of Adam was Aramaic (Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 38b: “Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rab said: The first Adam spoke Aramaic”). Aramaic was also the language that the angels do not understand (Talmud Bavli Sotah 33a: “R. Yohanan declared: If anyone prays for his needs in ˙ Aramaic, the Ministering Angels do not pay attention to him, because they do not understand that language”). The explanation of the Gemara is not conclusive enough: And do not the Ministering Angels understand Aramaic? Behold it has been taught: Yohanan, the High Priest, heard a Bath Kol issue from within the Holy of Holies announcing: ‘ The young men who went to wage war against Antioch have been victorious.’ It also happened with Simeon the Righteous that he heard a bat qol issue from within the Holy of Holies announcing: ‘Annulled is the decree which the enemy intended to introduce into the Temple.’ Then was Caius Caligula slain and his decrees annulled. They noted down the time [when the bat qol spoke] and it tallied. Now it was in Aramaic that it spoke!––If you wish I can say that it is different with a bat qol since it occurs for the purpose of being

the targumim of aquila and onkelos

189

generally understood; or if you wish I can say that it was Gabriel who spoke; for a Master has declared: Gabriel came and taught [Joseph] the Seventy languages.107

The Gemara ends here in an aporia: the angels understand Aramaic because an angel, Gabriel taught the seventh language to Joseph (or Israel, see above). On the other hand, the bat qol speaks Aramaic in order to make the message understandable to all people. Aramaic is considered the language of communication between God and the humanity in reference to rahamim and therefore the angels have no ˙ the contrasts between angels and human interest in it, as the tradition of beings testifies.108 The predominance of the Aramaic language in the Babylonian Talmud should not be expressly stressed here. Hellenistic and Byzantine traditions played a little or no role there. The orientation of the Rabbanan was almost exclusively to the environment in which they lived. Scientific texts show no or few traces of Hellenistic scientific and pseudo-scientific material, because they were dependent on Assyrian texts, as Mark Geller has recently demonstrated. Palestine and the Western world were a necessary point of orientation, but surely not the predominant one. The Aramaic language and the Eastern tradition rise up to the “canonized” level. If the change in language determines the change in canon, the reader can object that the subsequent image of the world after the Muslim conquest had to provoke a withdrawal from Aramaic in favour of Arabic or dialects near to it. That was indeed the case. In the 10th century, some communities of Africa disregarded the Aramaic explanation of the Bible and began to turn towards more common idioms. That was the political and intellectual power of some scholars like Yehuda ibn Quraish, Shmuel ha-Naggid, Natronai Gaon109 who decisively contributed to the preservation of the Aramaic Targum, seen as an expression of the oral Torah. In the epoch of high criticism against the oral Torah, put forward by the Karaites, every change in the tradition was seen as deviation from Judaism. The Targum Onkelos takes on a really canonical role as preservation of the Torah, a role claimed, some centuries before, by the Proverbs of Yeshu ah ben Sira. 107

Translated by Abraham Cohen in Epstein, ed., Babylonian Talmud. See Peter Schäfer, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und Menschen. Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen Engelvorstellung (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1975). 109 For the sources see Berliner, Targum Onkelos, 2. part, 167 ff. 108

4. (DE)CANONIZATION IN THE MAKING: THE WISDOM OF JESUS BEN SIRA Rabbi Akiva says: Also whoever reads the outside books such as the books of Ben Sira and the books of Ben La aga. However, whoever reads the books of Homer and all other books that were written from then on, is considered like one who is reading a secular document, for it is written: And furthermore, my son, beware of making many books, and much study of them is a weariness of flesh (Ecclesiasticus 12:12). Hence casual reading is permissible but intensive study is forbidden.1

The book of Jesus ben Sira, the so-called Ecclesiasticus or Siracides, considered in Jewish and Protestant tradition to be apocryphal, but in the Catholic Church to be a canonical book, is very peculiar in the history of the biblical canon likewise in regard to its use and understanding in midrashic and talmudic tradition. Composed as a book of proverbs and maxims, it claims to be an ethical tribunal not only for Israel’s contemporary society but also for its past. Ben Sira is one of the first Jewish authors in Hebrew who abandoned the ancient paths of pseudonymity or anonymity by putting his signature to the work he produced. Probably for this very reason, in Rabbinic Judaism and partly, too, in early Christianity, his text was not accepted as “canonical”, although both traditions regarded it, at least at times, as belonging to that body of sacred literature revered as being divine in origin and normative for the community.2 Maybe as a consequence of its withheld canonicity, the text of these wisdom dicta was transmitted fully only in

1 Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10:1 (28a) in the translation of Sid Leiman, see below. 2 I avoid here speaking of “inspiration” because this concept is not typically Rabbinic. Inspiration includes the divine participation to the conception and writing down of the book. For a discussion on Ben Sira and the canon see the introduction above and below pp. 202–204.

the wisdom of jesus ben sira

191

Greek (and, moreover, in different textual versions)3 and only fragmentarily quoted in its Hebrew version by Rabbinic and Jewish medieval authors. The discoveries of the Cairo Genizah, Qumran, and Masada made possible a fresh look at the transmission of a Hebrew text which has so far remained fragmentary.4 The fortunes of Ben Sira’s text in Greek (and Latin) Christian tradition are also connected with the Prologue to its Greek version, which related the circumstances in which the translation of the book came about and the problems inherent in the translation from Hebrew into a foreign (Greek) language. This document is extremely important for our subject of investigation because it is the first unambiguous Jewish testimony of what we can term decanonization or, the process of interlacing wisdom texts with translation theory/technique and canon ideology. The Prologue is considered the only testimony for dating the book and its translation, since its author identifies himself as a grandson of Jesus ben Sira. He praises his grandfather’s work as the quintessence of the wisdom of the ancient tradition of Israel, hereby classifying its teachings in the appropriate terms of a Rabbi of his later generation: i. e. paideia which can be translated into Hebrew as limmud or talmud torah, as education in the (oral and written) Torah. The grandson also tries to convey the impression that only the Hebrew tradition (such as his grandfather’s work) has the real “power” (dynamis) of the “words”, while any translation gives merely an imprecise idea of the content of the original. The main point of the grandson’s defence of the author’s original text is the conviction that a translation can be only one way of transmitting tradition; however, it cannot substitute for the original. This aspect will be examined in the first section of the following chapter. 3 On the Greek text of Ben Sira see Joseph Ziegler, ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 2nd edition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980): 7–120; on the Hebrew texts see Maurice Gilbert, “L’Eccle´siastique: Quel texte? Quelle autorite´?”, Revue Biblique 94 (1987): 233–250 and following footnote. 4 All of the extant fragments and texts––without any reference to talmudic materials––were collected by Pancratius C. Beentjes, ed., The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1997). But see also The Book of Ben Sira. Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, ed. The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1973). The book does not include any quotations from the Book of Ben Sira found in talmudic and midrashic literature because “this would have required special examination of these sources according to MSS and versions” (p. xiv). For Beentjes, the Rabbinic sources have no importance at all. Rudolf Smend, ed., Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach Hebräisch und Deutsch (Berlin: Reimer, 1906) took account of the Rabbinic variant readings.

192

(de)canonization

in the making

According to ancient scholarship explored above in this book,5 the translation process is qualitatively possible only if the translator has the privilege of being acquainted with the sources of revelation/inspiration (God or divinity) which gave rise to the text(s). This is the concept of “inspiration” maintained by both Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian authorities with respect to the Septuagint. Nevertheless, translation does have something to do with translatio sapientiae (transmission of wisdom and science) from one culture to another, as we have seen in the first chapter, or from a particular experience to that of the more general or public audience. Following this perspective, translation is a kind of authoritative publication––a derivative meaning that can also be found in Rabbinic sources, as shown above.6 Authority and inspiration are deemed to originate in the same source of mediated knowledge, namely in the consciousness of being acquainted with the process of transmission. If, on the one hand, ancient translations can only be understood in their nature as a conscious process of authoritative transmission linked as such to the schools or academies, wisdom, on the other hand, belongs to the core of tradition as its philosophical-ethical raison d’eˆtre. It is tradition in its beginnings and foundations, in the ways of the present process of mediation and as a gift to the future generations who reflect on life. Deconstruction/Decanonization of biblical translations is a common method adopted by every religious community to express both its distance and closeness to the text by abolishing former actualisations and creating new ways of understanding. Wisdom, by contrast, is deemed to be eternal and therefore unaffected by chronological (and temporal) life. Yet wisdom is more than translation. It is dependent on authority because it primarily involves practical aspects and ethical behaviour, the well-known privileged field of Rabbinic authority. With the notable exception of the mishnaic tractate Pirqe Avot (“the chapters of the Fathers”), wisdom literature is at first sight missing in Rabbinic Judaism, although the literary production, transmitted by both Talmud and Midrash, covers almost all the four corners of the ancient cultural world. Pirqe Avot, however, does not properly correspond to the literary composition of proverbs and wisdom treatises, but rather transmits only some isolated sayings of the Rabbinic patriarchs

5 6

See above, pp. 149 ff. See above, p. 163 and passim.

the wisdom of jesus ben sira

193

(“fathers”) which did not leave a lasting imprint on the Rabbinic academies. This amazing aspect is underscored by the apparent lack of a Rabbinic commentary on Pirqe Avot7 until the Middle Ages,8 as if this tractate had the function of being a haggadic basis of the whole Mishnah without practical consequences for the establishment of the authoritative Halakhah. This impression is deceptive. The Rabbinic literature transmits ethical material, proverbs, maxims, and everything that belongs to wisdom literature. An organic and extensive discussion of wisdom is missing, probably because the whole production of the Rabbinic academies is understood to be the output of Rabbinic wisdom. That wisdom is transmitted according to the chain of tradition from father to son/pupil as hermeneutics to be applied to text, experience (of the text) and the world where human being lives in. Nobody else can and may assume to possess the key of wisdom if not the Rabbi himself. Therefore, per definitionem, a piece of wisdom which would be different from the Rabbinic understanding of it cannot exist. That, however, is the contradictory fate of Ben Sira’s book, as we will note. The hermeneutic fusion of the Torah and wisdom probably goes back to the period between the second century B. C. E. and the ascent of the Rabbinic schools after the destruction of the Second Temple. A clear-cut turning point is expressed in Proverbs 8:22 and ff. where the creation of the world is presented not only as a hierarchical act of God, whose first concern is wisdom, the primeval creation (“God created me, the first of his way”), not only as God’s primary principle (reshit darko), but also as the incarnation of the cooperation between God and the universe. Wisdom is omnipresent in every creative act of the divinity. If we follow this perspective, creation is nothing but the divine beginning already at the outset directed towards and connected with hokhmah.9 Modern scholars of both Jewish-Hellenistic and Rabbinic ˙literature assume here an influence of the Stoic and Epicurean schools

7 But see the talmudic reception of Massekhet Avot, first analyzed by Günter Stemberger, “Die innerrabbinische Überlieferung von Mischna Avot”, in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion. Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, vol. 1: Judentum, ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996): 511–527. 8 Of course, there is no talmudic commentary to most of the mishnaic tractates. The lack of a commentary to Avot is even more striking because it is concerned with how the Rabbis established their authority. 9 See also Ellis Rivkin, “Ben Sira and the Nonexistence of the Synagogue: A Study in Historical Method”, in In the Time of Harvest, ed. Daniel Jeremy Silver (New York, London: Macmilian, 1963): 320–354.

194

(de)canonization

in the making

of philosophy, imbued with sofos-ideology,10 an ideology which first left its mark on the Jewish community in Egypt, later also in Palestine and Babylon. There is no doubt that Greek gnomic literature, the canon of virtue of Platonic philosophy and the Platonic and Aristotelian speculations on happiness and virtual life, were known to the Rabbinic academies.11 However, we cannot reduce the origin and development of Rabbinic academies to an imitation of Hellenistic schools. The reason lies not so much in the sofos-ideology––because the wise men, the sofoi, are only one group among the Rabbinic authorities––but rather in the logic of transmission. Rabbinic Sages do not admit any authority other than their own, according to the order of tradition from father to disciple (or son). In this context, we have of course the “sayings of the fathers”; however, they belong to wisdom, a transcendental hermeneutic category which expresses the “de-authorization” of individuality in favour of a collective identity. So in my view the Rabbinic maxim “whosoever lets a thing be known in the name of him that said it brings redemption to the world”,12 should be interpreted as follows: a scholar or disciple must always transmit something according to the authority of those who first said it (be-shem omro). In this vein, the sayings of the wisdom author Ben Sira––as analysed in the second section of this chapter––cannot be accepted as authoritative per se, because they belong to wisdom, the Torah, and therefore cannot be considered more authoritative than the Rabbinic academy. This will be examined in the third section below.

4.1 The Greek Prologue to the Book of Ben Sira Ben Sira’s text, a book transmitted in the so-called canon of the Septuagint and found in fragmentary form in Masada and the Cairo Genizah, is an almost unique example of authored wisdom literature in

10 See the excellent chapter of Catherine Hezser, “Awareness of Being a Sage”, in eadem, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr, 1997): 132–137 and the bibliography quoted there. 11 See the useful commentary on Pseudo-Phocyclides’ Sentences by Walter T. Wilson, The Mysteries of Righteousness. The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocyclides (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), together with his historicalphilosophical overview on pp. 1–59; see also Catherine Hezser, “Die Verwendung der hellenistischen Gattung Chrie im frühen Christentum und Judentum”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 27 (1996): 371–439. 12 Mishnah Pirqe Avot 6:6.

the greek prologue

195

a world where the rule was to publish with pseudonyms by attributing one’s own work to ancient “canonical” authors. The status of Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) and Song of Solomon (Shir ha-Shirim) was questioned in Rabbinic literature because of certain theological problems which led some Rabbis to consider them unsuitable for liturgical use.13 The more complicated question of Ben Sira’s book was precisely his proclaimed authorship of a written work with an explicit claim to transmit wisdom, hokhmah. This was in fact the reason why the authorized transmission ˙of the text was forbidden. It was indeed regarded as explicitly antinomous to Rabbinic teachings. The focus of the following contribution is to investigate not so much the book’s original structure or its different versions, translations or their revisions, but rather its reception in Rabbinic texts. A first testimony of a cultural perhaps even commercial advertisement is the above-mentioned Greek Prologue to the book of Ben Sira, in which the author announces the existence of the book and its Greek translation, stressing at the same time the importance of Ben Sira’s teachings for the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora.14 To illuminate its importance for the history of the Bible canon and the position of Ben Sira in the history of his text, I would like to quote the Prologue in its entirety: Whereas many great teachings have been given to us through the law and the prophets and the others that followed them, on account of which we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom; and since it is necessary not only that the readers themselves should acquire understanding but also that those who love learning should be able to help the outsiders by both 13

See Giuseppe Veltri, Gegenwart der Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2002): 23–37. On the prologue see (alphabetically ordered) Paul Auvray, “Notes sur le Prologue de l’Eccle´siastique”, in Me´langes bibliques re´dige´s en l’honneur de Andre` Robert, ed. William F. Albright (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1956): 281–294; Henry J. Cadbury, “The Grandson of Ben Sira”, Harvard Theological Review 46 (1955): 219–225; George B. Caird, “Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint”, Studia Evangelica 7 (1973–1982): 95–100; Steinly Arthur Cook, “An Arabic Version of the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus”, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology 28 (1902): 173–184; Donatien de Bruyne, “Le prologue, le titre et la finale de l’Ecclesiasticus”, Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 47 (1929): 257–263; Bernd Jörg Diebner, “‘Mein Grossvater Jesus’”, Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament 16 (1982): 1–37; J. H. A. Hart, “The Prologue to Ecclesiasticus”, Jewish Quarterly Revue 19 (1907): 284–297; Eberhard Nestle, “Zum Ecclesiasticus”, Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 (1897): 123–124; idem, “Jesus Sirach Neffe oder Enkel des Amos Sirach”, Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 23 (1903): 128–130; Harry Meyer Orlinsky, “Some Terms in the Prologue to Ben Sira and the Hebrew Canon”, Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 483–490; David S. Williams, “The Date of Ecclesiasticus”, Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994): 563–565. 14

196

(de)canonization

in the making

speaking and writing, my grandfather Jesus, after devoting himself especially to the reading of the law and the prophets and the other books of our fathers, and after acquiring considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, in order that, by becoming conversant with this also, those who love learning should make even greater progress in living according to the law. You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed. When I came to Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes and stayed for some time, I found opportunity for no little instruction. It seemed highly necessary that I should myself devote some pains and labor to the translation of the following book, using in that period of time great watchfulness and skill in order to complete and publish the book for those living abroad who wished to gain learning, being prepared in character to live according to the law.15

Modern scholarship quotes the Prologue 1) as cogent proof that by this time the majority of the “Writings” (ketuvim) had been translated into Greek, indeed the grandson has had access to the entire Septuagintal corpus, 2) as the earliest testimony of the difficulty in translating a book and 3) as an attestation––if not the earliest evidence––of the socalled tripartite canon formula.16 However, we must reject an attempt to derive all three inferences as “evidence” from the Prologue, on both methodological and semantic grounds. For the intention of the author is to convince his readership that his grandfather’s work is, nothing more or less, than the quintessence of past wisdom. The thesis that the grandson of Ben Sira had access to almost all the Septuagintal translations of the whole Hebrew Bible is very weak. As George B. Caird rightly observed, there is no evidence for Sidney Jellicoe’s suggestion, based

15 English translation from the Revised Standard Version, see also Lancelot C. L. Brenton, ed., The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (London: Bagster, 1851, reprint Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan, 1980, here p. 74 of the Book of the Apocrypha. 16 A further reason for quoting the prologue is to date the book of Ben Sira itself. As I tried to show elsewhere (Eine Tora für den König, 138–139), some scholars have not taken into consideration that the author of the text uses many neologisms and words which we first meet in the first century C. E. For that reason, I argue that the date offered for the author for his coming to Egypt should not be overestimated.

the greek prologue

197

on the Greek Prologue, that “the Greek translation of the Law, the Prophets, and the Books had been in existence for some time”.17 Analytically comparing the Greek books of Ben Sira with the extant Septuagintal manuscripts, Caird comes to the much more “modest” conclusion that “the translator of the Ecclesiasticus had access to Greek versions of the Law, of some of the prophetic books, and some of the writings”.18 However, there is no reason to conjecture that something was canonical at the time of Ben Sira or of his grandson merely because it was mentioned. Both Rabbinic and Patristic literatures contain allusions to texts and text traditions that have not achieved lasting canonicity; they were just related to a particular situation and community. A mere quotation is no evidence of the relevance of a book. The inference is logically wrong. What about the second claimed aspect of the Prologue, the derivation of a seemingly modern theory of translating? Modern scholarship maintains that the author is speaking of the impossibility of a word-forword translation,19 or “that the Greek text he had written was often semantically not very close to his Hebrew original.”20 The grandson stresses a fundamental translating problem as follows: “. . . For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language”.21 The author claims that in reading his translation the reader may find something “of not equal force” (isodynamein) when spoken in Hebrew or translated into another tongue. How could his readers ascertain the difference between the original Hebrew and a translation?22 If they could read Hebrew, they did not need the translation; if not, they would not have noted any difference. Yet, if we presuppose that the author is to speak of an (established) written text, we proceed from false assumptions. In fact, the grandson 17

The Septuagint and Modern Studies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968): 60. George B. Caird, “Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint”, 96. 19 J. H. A. Hart, ed., Ecclesiasticus (Cambridge: University Press, 1909): 267. 20 James Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979): 43. 21 I am following here the translation of Lancelot C. L. Brenton. The RSV has “sense” instead of “force”. 22 See also the article of Benjamin Wright III, “Access to the Source: Cicero, Ben Sira, the Septuagint and their Audience”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 34 (2003): 1–27. 18

198

(de)canonization

in the making

uses only the word for “hearing” and not for “writing”: the differences between the grandfather’s original book as well as the Torah, the book of prophets and the other books do not concern the written but the oral forms. Some reflections on this are called for. The author is not dealing with the general problem of translation, but with precise expressions or idioms (. . . tisin to¯n lexeo¯n) which are different if spoken in a language other than Hebrew (. . . en autois hebraisti legomena). According to a first check of the participle legomena with regard to linguistic usage in the common Greek (the koine¯ dialektos), it is apparent that the media vox refers to the pronunciation, or something spoken, not to a written translation.23 But there is a more cogent argument that weakens the idea of an alleged semantic discussion of the value of translation: the use of Hebraisti in the common Greek of the Second Temple period. The term Hebraisti occurs before the first century only once, precisely in this Prologue to Sira. As used in the first century C. E., in almost all the sources I examined, it means the common and spoken language of the Jews.24 I infer this lexical assumption from the fact that both Josephus and the author of the Fourth Gospel use Hebraisti for Aramaic terms.25 The confusion is understandable if we regard Hebraisti as the corresponding denomination for Hellenisti in referring to the Greek language, in other words, as an expression for the koine¯ dialektos of the Jews. That is also the lexical use of Ivrit, which occurs not in biblical Hebrew26 but only in post-biblical texts and denotes either the language of the Jews in general (as opposed to la az, “foreign language”)27 or the common everyday language among the Jews,28 or the particular Old Hebrew script which was replaced by the Square Script (Ashshurit), still in use today. If the author is speaking of the spoken language (and not of the literary one), we should raise the question of the meaning of legomena en hebraisti: Does he intend to point out that the “force” of Hebrew, 23

See the Gospel of John 4:25; 11:16; 20:24; 21:2 and the Acts of the Apostles 9:36. On this aspect, see Giuseppe Veltri, Eine Tora für den König, 118–119; idem, Gegenwart der Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2002): 57–59. 25 See Liber Antiquitatum III:252 and Gospel of John 5:2. With the exception of Josephus, Hebraisti occurs only in the so-called corpus Iohanneum: Gospel of John 5:2; 9:13: 9:17; 9:20; 20:16; Apocalypse 9:11 and 16:16. 26 See Edward Ullendorf, “The Knowledge of Languages in the Bible” (in Hebrew), in Studies in the Bible Presented to Professor M. H. Segal by His Colleagues and Students, ed. Yehoshua M. Grintz and Yaakov Liver (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1964): 145. 27 Only in the Tosefta; see Tosefta Megillah 2:6; 3:13. 28 Mishnah Gittin 9:17; Tosefta Bava Batra 11:8; Mishnah Yadayim 4:3 and 4:5. ˙˙ 24

the greek prologue

199

emanating from the Hebrew letters and words, cannot really correspond to their rendition in the Hellenistic idiom? I think rather that he is polemically countering a diffuse conviction among Egyptian Jewry of the existence of an autonomous development in Jewish literature and wisdom on the basis of the Septuagint translation, as seen by Aristeas and Philo of Alexandria. According to the latter writers, the Septuagint was the perfect copy of the Hebrew original; Philo even speaks of two sisters, as we analysed above29 and here only refers to: (38) Yet, who does not know that every language, and Greek especially, abounds in terms, and that the same thought can be put in many shapes by changing single words and whole phrases and suiting the expression to the occasion? This was not the case, we are told, with this law of ours, but the Greek words used corresponded literally with the Chaldean, exactly suited to the things they indicated. (39) For just as in geometry and logic, so it seems to me, the sense indicated does not admit of variety in the expression which remains unchanged in its original form, so these writers, as it clearly appears, arrived at wording which corresponded with the matter, and alone, or better than any other, would bring out clearly what was meant.30

A perfect translation, according to Philo, requires the perfect synonymy. The Jewish philosopher of Alexandria explains this fact, speaking of homonymy and synonymy (De plantatione 149 ff.) in general. Everyone will allow that homonymy and synonymy are opposites, homonymy meaning one name applied to one object, synonymy many names applied to one object.31

And further: There are other names which are different though one thing is meant by them (allai d’eisi prosre¯seis diaphoroi kata se¯mainomenoy henos), as “arrow”, “shaft”, “dart;” for the thing discharged at the mark from the string of the bow is called by all these names. Again, the instrument which does as well as sails for propelling a vessel is called an “oar”, “scull”, “rowing-sweep” . . . 32

In contrast to Philo’s vision of translation theory, the author of the Prologue claims that the translators (and he himself) were not able to produce an “isodynamic” copy of the original. We have to stress here 29 30 31 32

See above, p. 39 f. De Vita Mosis II:38–39. De Plantatione 150. De Plantatione 152.

200

(de)canonization

in the making

that the grandson is quite aware of the topic he is tackling because the term in this context, isodynamein, is a technical word of ancient grammar to denote synonymy whereas diaphoros is the antithetical term for designating semantic differences. Let me quote some examples taken from Polybius’ Histories. Since, among those authors who were contemporaries of Aratus, Phylarchus, who on many points is at variance and in contradiction with him, is by some received as trustworthy, it will be useful or rather necessary for me, as I have chosen to rely on Aratus’ narrative for the history of the Cleomenic war, not to leave the question of their relative credibility undiscussed, so that truth and falsehood in their writings may no longer be of equal authority (hina me¯ to pseudos en tois syngrammasin isodynamoun apoleipo¯men pros te¯n ale¯theian).33

Polybius charges Phylarcus (3th century B. C. E.) with partiality to Cleomenes and at same time unfairness toward his contemporary Aratus. He speaks of falsehood and truth in their writings, which cannot be, for that very reason, of equal authority. The stridence of the contrast between opposing components, between historical “truth” and “partiality” (even falsehood), leads to the conclusion that isodynamein is semantically more than a minor craft in translating; rather, it can absolutely corrupt the original meaning. Another text: For an introductory summary is not only of equal value to a prologue but even of somewhat greater [value], while at the same time it occupies a surer position, as it forms an integral part of the work (te¯s gar proektheseo¯s ou monon isodynamouse¯s [pros] te¯n prographe¯n, alla kai pleio¯n ti dynamene¯s . . .).34

Polybius’ text is here of importance because he is comparing two literary forms or genres: the introductory summary and the prologue. The prologue has a function of advertisement, or in Polybius words “fixes the attention of those who wish to read the work and stimulates and encourages readers in their task”,35 while the introductory summary gives the main events (in each Olympiad)36 at the outset. The genres are not comparable. Another cogent example: 33

Polybius, Historiae II:56:2. All English translations are from The Histories of Polybius (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1922– 1927). 34 Historiae XI:1a:4 (fragment). 35 Ibidem. 36 As known, ancient Greeks followed the event of the Olympiad in indicating of the date.

the greek prologue

201

The Aetolians, after some further observations about the actual situation, decided to refer the whole matter to Glabrio, committing themselves “to the faith” of the Romans, not knowing the exact meaning of the phrase, but deceived by the word “faith” as if they would thus obtain more complete pardon. But with the Romans to commit oneself to the faith of a victor is equivalent to surrendering at discretion (para (de) Rho¯maiois isodynamei to t’ eis te¯n pistin auton encheirisai kai to te¯n epitrope¯n dounai peri autou to¯i kratounti).37

The Aetolians did not understand that to commit themselves to the “faith” of the Romans did non mean to “obtain more complete pardon”, but was equivalent to “surrendering at discretion”. That is linguistically a complete misunderstanding to their disadvantage. In all these examples, the expression “to have equal force” means linguistically the perfect semantic and meta-semantic consonance between two different things. “To not have the same force” means, on the contrary, to be simply antonyms and hence for translation praxis fully unsuitable because it suggests the wrong meaning. To have equal force means to be perfectly synonymous with something whereas a different word (“difference” = diafora) denotes a basic similarity, but by no means an equal force, as Philo’s vision of the Septuagint claims. If we read the Greek Prologue to Ben Sira as a reaction to the widely held thesis of similarity, we can understand the author’s polemical allusions. The reference to the Septuagint translation is therefore deliberately reverent, but not positive: The Seventy-two translators have themselves done their best, but in Palestine and Egypt there is no such thing as the twice-revealed truth: for wisdom is a product of Palestine so that the Egyptian Jews have to be content with imperfect copies of it. The aim of the “grandson” in promoting his and his grandfather’s work is to present the attitude of Ben Sira towards the books of the past, his own among them. The grandson or perhaps better, the descendent38 of Jesus ben Sira39 starts his “foreword” to the Greek translation of the book by mentioning the things “delivered by the law, the prophets and by others that have followed their steps”.40 The aim of this 37

Historiae XX:9:9–12. The term pappos can mean either “grandfather” or “forefather”, see Plato, Theaetetus 174c; Josephus, Liber Antiquitatum VIII:155 speaks of Abraham ho pappos e¯mo¯n (“our forefather”). 39 There no agreement in the manuscript tradition about the name of the author; see Diebner, “Mein Grossvater”, 8–9 for a synoptic view of all the names of the author according to the Hebrew and Greek traditions. 40 Brenton, ed., The Septuagint, 74. 38

202

(de)canonization

in the making

statement is obviously to create a chain of tradition from the Torah (nomos) via the prophets and ending with the other books. In my opinion, to see here a history of the canon is an unprofitable and pointless undertaking. For the author attempts to announce the novelty of Ben Sira’s wisdom and not to list all the canonical books preceding it. The canon is not the main concern of the Prologue, although its author mentions the ancient literature of Israel three times. An unambiguous, but indirect hint of his disinterest in this matter is the linguistic vagueness in defining the “third” group of the books: line 2:41 “the law, the prophets, and by others that have followed their steps”;42 line 19: “the law, the prophets, and the other books of our fathers”; line 25: “the law, the prophets, and the rest of the books”. The vagueness of the so-called “third” part of the canon, as I see it, is a deliberate device enabling the author to introduce his grandfather’s wisdom and educational program. He tells the Diaspora public that Israel ought to be commended for its education and wisdom (. . . hyper o¯n deon estin epainein to Israe¯l paideias kai sophias). His grandfather’s aim was to write something pertinent to learning and wisdom for those who are desirous to learn (philomatheis). The object of the grandson’s diligence and labour in translating the book is obviously the same, i. e., to reach those living in a foreign country who are willing to learn, “being prepared before in manners to live in accordance with the law.” A similar tendency is seen in the second book of the Maccabees, where two letters to the Jews of Egypt are recorded. In the second letter, 2:13–15, whose unambiguous intention is “to demonstrate the legitimacy of the Second Temple and of the Hasmonean temple in particular, by linking it up with Moses’ tabernacle and Solomon’s temple via Jeremiah’s preservation”,43 mention is made of the sources of the claim of legitimacy: 41 The line numbers refer to the edition of the Greek text by Joseph Ziegler, ed., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae scientiarum Gottingens, vol. 12.2: Sapientia Iesu filii Sirach, 2nd edition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980). 42 On this expression see Orlinsky, “Some Terms”, quoted above, footnote 13. 43 Daniel R. Schwartz, “On Something Biblical about II Maccabees”, in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Michael E. Stone and Esther Chazon (Leiden: Brill, 1998): 223–232, also in http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/symposiums/1st/papers/Schwartz96.html (July 2003).

the greek prologue

203

The same things also are reported in the documents (anagraphais) and in the memoirs of Nehemiah (hypomne¯matismois), and also that he founded a library and collected the book on the kings and prophets (perı´ to¯n basileuo¯n kai prophe¯to¯n), and on David, and letters of kings about holy gifts. In like manner Judas also collected all those things that had been lost on account of the war which we had, and they are in our possession. So if you have need of them, send people to get them for you.44

That is the author’s propaganda, not only to legitimate the Hasmonean temple, but also to remind the Jewish people that the true records on Israel’s past and present are in the possession of the Jews of Jerusalem, of the library of Nehemiah, the library of the gerousia and of Judas the Maccabee. Like the Prologue of Ben Sira, the Jews to be “educated” are those of the Egyptian Diaspora who, according to Aristeas, depend upon their Palestinian co-religionists for records and books. In this context, we cannot speak of a detailed canon description, as some modern scholars maintain, but of the alleged supremacy of Palestinian Judaism over the Diaspora,45 and of its consciousness of being the source of knowledge for contemporary and future generations. Here as there, the library of Jerusalem plays the major role of “canonicity”, if we understand by this word the authoritative tradition of manuscripted archives, valid for reconstructing Jewish history. The truly historical data are therefore preserved only in Jerusalem. Other items are not considered to have the same authority. Like Joseph in his “canon theory” in the “Against Apion”, the archives of the Jews (and dealing with all of Jerusalem) are the guarantee of the past of the Jewish people. Paideia kai sophia, “education and wisdom” can be viewed as the summary of Rabbinic teachings, but refer not to the world of scribes, but rather to that of wisdom. The descendent of Ben Sira found in his move to Egypt “a way of conducting himself in conformity with a high level of instruction” or, in other words, a cultural and ethical environment receptive to the doctrines of his forefather’s book.46 He believes that Ben Sira’s work deserves the effort of being made available to another cultural group,47 that of the Egyptian Diaspora, and precisely in the form in which he translated it for this audience.48 44

See the English translation of Brenton, ed., The Septuagint, 185. Contrary to what is maintained by Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (London: SPCK, 1985): 150–151. 46 Paul Avray, “Notes sur le prologue”, 285–287. 47 H. J. Cadbury, “The Grandson of Ben Sira”, 220. 48 In view of the sharp stylistic differences between the prologue and the book, students of Greek language should be cautioned in attributing to the “grandson” the 45

204

(de)canonization

in the making

4.2 Ben Sira’s Quotations in Rabbinical Sources 49 The effective and media potency and impact of Ben Sira’s book were recognized not only in the Greek Diaspora in the ancient period but also in the homeland Palestine, in the Aramaic Diaspora of Babylonia during late antiquity, and in the Mediterranean world in the Middle Ages, as the Cairo Genizah proves. While in the Middle Ages the book was associated with many traditions, originally not necessary connected with the author and his teaching, Ben Sira also has a curious fate in the Rabbinic literature, connected above all with the text of his proverbs. His book was quoted as “biblical” text (with the formula “as it has been written”), as recommended reading but not very important, and finally considered as an “external” book (to be enumerated among the sefarim hisonim). This progressive way of “decanonization” is worth further ˙study. ˙ Modern scholarship since the humanist Azariah de’ Rossi50 acknowledged the importance of Ben Sira in talmudic transmission, but also noted the difficulties it makes for textual research (critica textus) and for the historical evaluation of this book in Tannaitic and Amoraic academies. Examining the “quotations” of Ben Sira in Rabbinic sources, we meet with similar difficulties, also noticed above in our study of the Torah for the King Ptolemy and of Aquila/Onkelos: modern researchers are in the main convinced that the Rabbis offer a “paraphrase” of the “real text” (according to Schechter and other scholars).51 translation of the book. To my knowledge, the differences were first noted by Wright, “Access to the Sources”, 3. 49 Bibliography: Salomon Schechter, “The quotations from Ecclesiasticus in Rabbinic Literatur”, Jewish Quarterly Review 3 (1890–1891): 682–706; Jonas C. Greenfield, “Ben Sira 42.9–10 and Its Talmudic Paraphrase”, in A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed. Philip R. Davies and Richard T. White (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990): 167–173; Manfred R. Lehmann, “Jewish Wisdom Formulae. Ben Sira, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Pirke Avot”, World Congress of Jewish Studies 11,A (1994): 159–162; Benjamin G. Wright III, “Sanhedrin 100b and Rabbinic Knowledge of Ben Sira”, in Treasures of Wisdom; Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom (Festschrift M. Gilbert), ed. N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1999): 41–50; Tal Ilan, “‘Wickeness Comes from Women’ (Ben Sira 42:13). Ben Sira’s Misogeny and Its Reception by the Babylonian Talmud”, in eadem, Interpreting Women into Second Temple History (Tübigen: Mohr, 1999): 156–174. 50 Me or Enayim, Imre Bina chapter 2; see the English translation in Azariah de’ Rossi, The Light of the Eyes, ed. Joanna Weinberg (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2001): 86–89. 51 Schechter, “Quotations from Ecclesiasticus”, 683, expressly states: “These quotations I give all in full, except the Aramaic one in Synedrin 100b, which is already recognised as not having formed a part of the real Sirach”(italics in original).

ben sira’s quotations in rabbinical sources

205

Several methods of quoting Ben Sira’s body of wisdom literature can be found in Rabbinic sources. I would like to present some of these quotations without being exhaustive. I only mention the related and the corresponding texts both in Rabbinic literature and in Ben Sira,52 generally without taking into consideration any of the Hebrew fragments or the Greek and Syriac texts, a field already worked on by eminent scholars. The explicit references to Ben Sira are quoted mainly according to Salomon Schechter’s version,53 although with some corrections and further commentaries. My interest in the following quotations relies little on the often treated topic of the consonance or dissonance of the text with other manuscripts, fragments, translations and adaptations of Ben Sira’s text. Rather it is grounded on the Rabbinic understanding in quoting a verse or a series of verse taken from the/a book of Ben Sira, or quoted as a saying attributable to him.54 Similarity of Some Rabbinic Texts to the Extant Fragments of Ben Sira Modern scholarship has observed some similarity between certain sayings, transmitted in Rabbinic texts, and the proverbs in the extant book(s) of Ben Sira. These sayings are transmitted in sapiential contexts and are testimony for a sea of hermeneutic tradition where attribution as well as pseudonymity were only a way or literary method to transmit wisdom and opinions. Mishnah Avot 4:4 Rabbi Levitas of Jamnia used to say: Be exceeding lowly of spirit, For the hope of man is but the worm.

The dictum me od me od hewi shefal ruah she-tiqwat enosh rimma can ˙ be compared with Ecclesiasticus 7:17: “Humble yourself greatly, for the hope of man is worms” (me od me od hashpel ga awa ki tiqwat enosh rimma). The similarity of both verses is unambiguously given 52

Sefer ben Sira ha-shalem, ed. Moshe S. Segal (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1972). Schechter, “Quotations from Ecclesiasticus”, 682–706, with slight corrections of the transcription. This list of quotations is taken from different scholarly contributions, above all the articles of Salomon Schechter and Benjamin Wright III, “Some Methodological Considerations on the Rabbis’ Knowledge of the Proverbs of Ben Sira”, Ioudaios, in [ftp://ftp.lehigh.edu/pub/listserv/ioudaios-l/Articles/bwsira (September 2001). 54 For the first aspect, I can refer to other very important studies, quoted above p. 205, footnote 49. 53

206

(de)canonization

in the making

although in Pirqe Avot the dictum is attributed to Rabbi Levitas of Jamnia (note the Greek name!); moreover, the sentence is not literally the same in the two works. Mishnah Avot 5:12 Four characteristics are found among students: Quick to learn and quick to forget, His gain is cancelled by his loss. Slow to learn and slow to forget, His loss is cancelled by his gain. Quick to learn and slow to forget, His is a happy lot. Slow to learn and quick to forget, His is an unhappy lot.

“Quick to learn/hear” (maher lismo a) can be compared with Ecclesiasticus 5:11: “Be quick to hear, and be deliberate in answer” (hewe memaher le-h azin). The context of the dictum is not the same. For in Mishnah Avot, the expression is used with a negative meaning, while in Ben Sira to be quick in learning is recommended. I would like to speak here rather of a casual consonance than of a deliberate quotation or allusion to a corpus of Ben Sira’s proverbs.55 Avot de-Rabbi Natan (version A) 24:456 And so the proverb says: If in thy youth thou hast not desired (hefastam) them, ˙ (bizqenutkha)? ˙ How will thou find them in thy old age

Instead of “to desire”, Ecclesiasticus 25:3, according to the Septuagint, has another reading, “to gather” (en neote¯ti ou synage¯ogas), which presupposes the variant reading qafasta. Some manuscripts of Avot ˙ 57 de-Rabbi Natan, quoted by Solomon Schechter, have a different text: As it written: From thy youth (mi-n urotekha) thou hast not cut them (qasasta). How wilt thou find them in thy old age (beshebatkha)? ˙ ˙

The introductory formula unambiguously refers here to a text considered as “biblical”, she-ne emar, “as it written”. 55 56 57

A similar position is contained in Segal, Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem, 33. Edition Solomon Schechter (London: Nutt, Vienna: Lippe, 1887): 78. Schechter, “The Quotations from Ecclesiasticus”, 703, footnote 83.

ben sira’s quotations in rabbinical sources

207

Quotations with Reference to Ben Sira A second kind of quotation, already analysed by scholars since Azariah de’ Rossi, refers to Ben Sira, but without explicit mention of a “book” or extant “books” by his authorship. In this context, Ben Sira is only a name comparable to that of the Rabbis. The hermeneutic principle is to quote a past bearer of tradition as authority to confirm or reject ethical maxims. Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 10:658 Bar Sira said: God brought forth spices from the earth. With them the physician heals the wound, And the apothecary compounds the drug.

The dictum of Bar/Ben Sira belongs thematically to the so-called eulogium of the physician, a Hellenistic development in Jewish tradition previously anchored in avoiding, even refusing every positive attitude to the work of physicians and druggists.59 According to the Septuagint (Ecclesiasticus 38:4), God brought forth medicaments (kyrios ektisen ek ge¯s pharmaka) from the earth. This corresponds to the meaning of terufot, a reading confirmed also by the Genizah.60 According to Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 10:6 and Yalqut iyyov § 910, the text of Bar ˙ Sira speaks of sammim, (see also the Syriac version) which could be much better the basis for farmaka because of the double meaning of “remedy” and “poison”. The editors of Midrash Bereshit Rabbah Theodor and Albeck see here a direct translation from the Septuagint. The second and third part of the verse can be compared to Ecclesiasticus 38:7, where the verse speaks of “pain” (ke ov) and not of wound (makkah). The LXX has myrepsos en toutois poie¯sei magma. It is very difficult to ascertain whether the Midrash has the better variant. According to the MSS of Ben Sira, the power of medicine heals the pains while the Midrash suggests that the physician heals the wound with spices and the apothecary compounds the drug. Perhaps it is only a question of medicine and medical understanding which changed the meaning of the verses.

58 59 60

Edition: Bereshit Rabbah, ed. J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck. See my Magie und Halakha (Tübingen: Mohr, 1997): 266–281, especially 266–270. Schechter/Taylor 16.312.

208

(de)canonization

in the making

Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 73:12 Ben Sira said: The heart of man changes his countenance both for good and for evil.

Ecclesiasticus 13:25 transmits a similar sentence where instead of ben . . . uven we have im . . . im. Segal comments61 that this is a linguistic change from biblical to mishnaic Hebrew. However, Theodor and Albeck62 transmit the Yemenite variant of Midrash Bereshit Rabbah where we have the verse in the “biblical” version. Midrash Wa-Yiqra Rabbah 33:1 Death and life are in the power of the tongue (Proverbs 18:2). Aquila translated: mystrw mkirin,63 death on the one side and life on the ˙ other. Ben Sira said: If a coal is before a man: He blows upon it and it is kindled; He spits upon it, and it is quenched.

In Ecclesiasticus 28:12, a similar text is transmitted: im tippah benisos ˙ ˙ yiv ar/we-im taroq mippikha alaiw yikhbeh. The consonance˙ of both texts is solely in regard to the contexts but not literally. For the Midrash text reads: hayeta lephanaiw gahelet u-nappaw bah u-ve era raqaq bah ˙ Rabbinic Literature has changed the we-kabta. We cannot say that the text, while the Talmud Bavli has the reading somewhat closer to the “textual” Ben Sira, but clearly not against the Midrash: benisos ˙ ˙ mav ir g a h e l e t . ˙ Quotations with Reference to the/a Book of Ben Sira The third kind of quotations unmistakably refers to a book of Ben Sira. The redactors of the Rabbinic text make unmistakably clear that a Sefer Ben Sira is the object of the debate and this book was read and studied to awaken their watchfulness as guardians of the tradition. Talmud Yerushalmi Berakhot 7:2 (11b) In the book of Ben Sira it is written: Exalt it, and it shall promote thee, and it shall seat thee among princes (salseleha uteromemekha uben naggidim toshivekha) 61 62 63

Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem, 88. Vol. 2, p. 857. On this translation of Aquila, see above p. 183.

ben sira’s quotations in rabbinical sources

209

Compare with Ecclesiasticus (Syriac) 6:32.64 The same tradition is reported in the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 91:4.65 In the parallel tradition of Talmud Bavli Berakhot 43a, no mention of Ben Sira and his book is made. The quoted text does not appear in the extant manuscripts or Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira. The first part of the quotation is reminiscent of Proverbs 4:8 (“Exalt her and she shall promote thee”). Midrash Tanhuma mi-qes 10 ˙ ˙

R. Elea zar said: It is written in Ben Sira: Honour your physician before you need him.

The verse, attested by the Hebrew version of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus 38:1) in the so-called eulogy of the physician (see above), is a popular proverb whose different versions appear in Shemot Rabbah 21:7, Talmud Yerushalmi Ta anit 3:6 (66d), Midrash Pesiqta Rabbati 127a (ed. Friedman) and at the beginning of the medieval tractate Alphabeta de-Ben Sira.66 While in Ben Sira, the accent is on honoring the physician according to his merit (re e rofe lifne sorko), the talmudic literature stresses the practical-pragmatic aspect˙ of respect for medical science: before you need a physician you should honor him. In other words: the respect of the art does not begin when a patient needs him. Bavli Bava Batra 98b As is written in the Book of Ben Sira: I have weighed all things in scales of the balance and found nothing lighter than bran; lighter than bran is a son-in-law who lives in the house of his father-in-law, lighter than (such) a son-in-law is a guest who brings (with him another) guest, and lighter than such a guest [is he who] replies before he hears the question, for it is written for it is written He who answers before listening, that is his folly and his shame.67 64

English translation by Schechter, “Quotations from Ecclesiasticus”, 693. Edition Theodor-Albeck, 1117. 66 Modern Edition: The Tales of Ben Sira in the Middle Ages. A Critical Text and Literary Studies, ed. Eli Yassif (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1984): 261 67 Proverbs 18:13. English translation by Israel W. Slotki in the Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra, second volume 2 (London: The Soncino Press, 1976). 65

210

(de)canonization

in the making

The context of the Gemara speaks about the Mishnah and its “incidental” teaching according to which “it is not a good custom for a son-inlaw to dwell with his father-in-law”. Salomon Schechter does not report the quotation of Mishle in the context of Ben Sira’s verses. Talmud Bavli Niddah 16b He requires it for [an explanation to the same types] as those described in the Book of Ben Sira: There are three [types] I hate, four that I do not love: A scholar68 who frequents wine-shops, [or, as others say, a scholar that is a gossip]69 A person who sets up a college in the high parts of a town70 One who holds the penis when making water71 and one who enters his friend’s house suddenly.

The dictum has no direct reference to the extant fragments of the book of Ben Sira. The text is sapiential in its wording although its typical Rabbinic actualization can be noted. The important element of the quotation relies on the circumstance that Ben Sira’s book is quoted as a reference to the many aspects of the Halakhah: the modes and the circumstances of intercourse. The continuation of the text is as important as the text itself: R. Yohanan observed: Even his own house. ˙ on b. Yohai observed: R. Shim ˙ There are four [types] which the Holy One, blessed be He, hates, and as for me, I do not love them: The man who enters his house suddenly And much more so [if he so enters] his friend’s house, The man who holds the membrum when he makes water [17a]The man who when naked makes water in front of his bed, And the man who has intercourse in the presence of any living creature.72

The same verses are also quoted as the tradition of Rabbi Shim on ben Yohai, as if the former text does not belong to the Book of Ben Sira. My˙ impression is that Ben Sira is also quoted here as a Rabbi among the community of Rabbis. 68

Sar can be also translated as “governor” or “prince/magistrate”. In various editions, this verse is considered an addition. 70 Or: “Who is spoken of in public houses” with Schechter, “Quotations from Ecclesiasticus”, 702, n. 66. 71 Omitted by Schechter without explanation. 72 Both translations from The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Tohorot, transl. by I. Epstein (London: The Soncino Press, 1948). 69

ben sira’s quotations in rabbinical sources

211

Bavli Sanhedrin 100b The text of the Bavli Sanhedrin 100b is one of the longest quotations of a “non-canonical” text in Rabbinic sources, of obvious importance for its text-critical value, dealt with at length by many scholars and therefore not a focus here.73 My interest lies rather in the context of the transmission. Text, Context and Attribution Modern scholarship has often concerned itself with Ben Sira’s wisdom text as quoted in Rabbinic literature, emphasizing the latter’s great interest in the textual aspects.74 Invariably the question arises whether another text was available to the Rabbis different from the one known to us or whether the Rabbis changed the text for exegetical reasons or whether the passages quoted are from memory or altered because the wisdom text was not a canonical book.75 Starting from Maurice Gilbert’s reflections on the nature of the Ben Sira tradition from its origin down to the Middle Ages, Benjamin Wright III maintains that the Rabbinic transmission of Ben Sira is nothing but a mirror of the expansion of the text of Ben Sira’s book itself. His conclusion: “. . . it seems clear that numerous changes and additions as well as entire proverbs . . . provide evidence of an ongoing and gradual process that continued to shape the book of Ben Sira well into the first several centuries”.76 In my opinion, this conclusion is right, but it applies not only to the history of Ben Sira, but also to the Rabbinic textual and hermeneutic experience and deals with biblical texts in general. Changes in the biblical text, whether seen as exegetic actualisation or halakhic inference, or aggadic embellishment are not only a dominion of Midrash and Targum, but also affect the transmitted biblical text. Even the vocalization, which almost definitely “canonizes” the text, is a phenomenon of exegesis and tradition. 73

See bibliography above, p. 205, footnote 49. See Jonas C. Greenfield, “Ben Sira 42,9–10 and its Talmudic Paraphrase”, in A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, eds. Philip R. Davies & Richard T. White (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990): 167–173. 75 Status quaestionis in Maurice Gilbert, “The Book of Ben Sira: Implications for Jewish and Christian Traditions”, in Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991): 81–91. 76 Wright, “B. Sanhedrin 100b”, 50. 74

212

(de)canonization

in the making

The attribution of text and dicta, which are not attested in any other sources––and may therefore be dismissed as spurious––is also a wellknown procedure in Rabbinic Midrash. I have already examined here the midrashic reception of the Septuagint and of Aquila, which both follow the same pattern of expansion, changes and exegetic interpretation. Most of the attributed changes of the biblical text in the Septuagint and some of the “translations” of Aquila are not extant in other sources, being only a product of exegetical actualization. These “changes” and expansions of the text have little to do with the canonical status of these corpora; they have more to do with the inner midrashic way of dealing with texts. But why has the book of Ben Sira not reached the final highest form of a text in the Hebrew “canon”?

4.3 Wisdom and Rabbinic Literature: A Struggle for Authority In the Rabbinic literature, a spirited discussion took place on the status of the book of Ben Sira. Should it be considered as “defiling the hand” or not? The Rabbinic non-biblical expression “to defile the hands” (metamm im et ha-yada im), which I have already treated elsewhere,77 has˙ to do with liturgy and with liturgical books written in a special fashion to make them halakhically suitable for the liturgy. We read in Tosefta Yadayim 2:13: The gilyonim and the books of the minim do not defile the hands. The books of Ben Sira and all the books which have been written from then on, do not defile the hands.

Already before establishing the possible translation of gilyonim, the reader has to decide how to interpret the expression “to defile the hands.” If we follow the majority of scholars, who interpret it as “to canonize”, i. e., to establish a hierarchy of authoritative books excluding others, the translation can be “gospels” and minim may be translated with “heretics” or “Christians.” From this hermeneutical perspective, the redactor of the text mentions some books used by heretics, to which no canonical status should be attributed. I would be loathe to see here anything similar to a church index of prohibited books (index librorum prohibitorum), in view of the fact that across the spectrum of Rabbinic tradition, Ben Sira is quoted as a biblical source in Tannaitic 77

See Veltri, Gegenwart der Tradition, 27–37.

wisdom and rabbinic literature

213

as well as Amoraitic texts. The common interpretation of a canonical status goes against a purely exegetic rule. It is necessary to take into consideration the context here, which is relevant in order to establish the meaning of “defiling.” In Tosefta Yadayim 2:11, some remarks on the defiling of the hands with regard to the sefer and its material composition are made. In this text, the Halakhah is concerned with the effective material and the circumstances in which the sefer or scroll was made. Gilyonim and sifre minim are used to denote particular forms of scrolls which are unsuitable for liturgical purposes. What is the meaning of “after Ben Sira”? Are we to suppose that before Ben Sira the stamp of canonicity was impressed on the books by force of the Halakhah sic et simpliciter because of an alleged time of revelation and inspiration? On the other hand, the chronological interpretation makes no sense, as no indication of the time in which Ben Sira wrote is given. I would prefer to see here a modal indication on the special matter of how to write the texts; “on this side” can be a reference to a particular form used for gilyonim (probably pages of books in untied format), the book of minim and the book(s) of Ben Sira (Sifre Ben Sira), as they are sometimes called. This indication refers to the common way of writing a text for liturgy which cannot be used for other documents like the book(s) of Ben Sira and the gilyonim. Following this interpretation, we can determine that the term gilyonim describes only scrolls written in the particular art of liturgical books. The redactor of the Halakhah suggests, therefore, that a halakhically valid document is likewise not ipso facto a liturgical one, i. e. it defiles the hands. The quotation from Ben Sira in this context is not connected with heresy, but with its use in the liturgy and or in (private) reading. That is also the meaning of Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10:1 (28a): Rabbi Akiva says: Also whoever reads the outside books such as the books of Ben Sira and the books of Ben La aga.78 However, whoever reads the books of Homer and all other books that were written from then on, is considered like one who is reading a secular document, for it is written: And furthermore, my son, beware of making many books, and much study of them is a weariness of flesh (Kohelet 12:12). Hence causal reading is permissible but intensive study is forbidden.79

78 79

With the variant reading of the manuscript Cairo 262.18. I follow here the translation of Leiman, Canonization, 93, with slight changes.

214

(de)canonization

in the making

In this text as well, a chronological indication as a reference of canonicity is wholly inappropriate: Are the books before the book of Homer “canonical”? Homer, Ben Sira or La aga are only indications for books (un)suitable for reading. Here is the paradox: Ben Sira is no longer accepted in the Rabbinic academy (according to the redactor) while a private, casual reading of Homer is permissible. The redactor assumes that the mythology of Homer is less dangerous for the reader than reading of the wisdom of Ben Sira. This enormously important assertion of Rabbinic authority, pregnant of consequences for the process of canonization of Rabbinic literature, is fully understandable if read with reference to the Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 100b:80 Rabbi Akiva says: Also whoever reads the outside books etc. A Tanna taught: This means the books of the heretics.81 R. Yoseph said: It is also forbidden to read the book of Ben Sira. Abbaye asked him: Why so? Shall we say because it is written therein: Do not strip the skin (of a fish) from its ear, lest you spoil it, But roast it [all, the fish with the skin] in the fire and eat it with two twisted loaves.82 Now if you take its plain sense, the Torah also states (Deuteronomy 20:19). You must not destroy its trees. If you take it allegorically, it teaches proper conduct, that one should not cohabit unnaturally: If you take exception to the passage (Ecclesiasticus 42:11–14) A daughter is for her father a vain treasure. Through his anxiety about her he does not sleep at night; During her minority lest she be enticed; During her majority, lest she commit adultery; When she has ripened, lest she not marry; When she has married, lest she have no children; When she has grown old, lest she should practise witchcraft The Rabbis have said the same: The world cannot exist without males and females; [Still] happy, is he whose children are males, And woe to him whose children are female. If you take exception to the passage (Ecclesiasticus 30:29–30): Let not anxiety enter your heart, for it has slain many a person.

80

Here in the English translation by Leiman, Canonization, 94, with slight changes and some additions. The text I used is that of Venice with the variant readings also reported by Schechter. 81 The traditional edition has sa d o q i m , “Sadducees”, while the edition Venice ˙ reads minim. 82 This verse does not appear in any extant manuscripts of Ben Sira. Abbaye quotes it in Aramaic.

wisdom and rabbinic literature

215

Solomon has said the same (Proverbs 12:25): Anxiety in a man’s heart weighs him down. Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi disagreed: one said: ‘let him remove it’, the other: ‘let him relate it’ to other. If you take exception to the passage (Ecclesiasticus 11:36): Keep the multitude away from your house, And do not bring everyone into your home. Rabbi [Yehuda] said the same. For it has been taught. Rabbi said: One should never have a multitude of friends in his house, For it is written (Proverbs 18:24): A man with friends brings evil upon himself. But (the reason why the book of Ben Sira may not be read is) because it is written therein: A thin-bearded man is very wise: A thick-bearded one is a fool: He who blows away [the froth] from off his glass is not thirsty; He who says, with what shall I eat my bread? Take the bread away from him; He whose beard is parted will be defeated by none. Rav Yoseph said: [If our masters had not hidden the Book of Ben Sira] we might interpret the good things which are in it. A good woman is a good gift; Who shall be given to a God-fearing man. An evil woman is a plague to her husband. How shall he mend matters? Let him divorce her, So he shall be healed from his plague. Happy is the man whose wife is beautiful; The number of his days is doubled. Avert your eyes from a charming woman, Lest you be caught in her snare. Do not seek the society of her husband to drink wine with him. Many are the wounds of itinerant peddlers, who seduce to adultery. As the spark that kindles the ember . . . As a cage is full of birds, Keep the multitude away from your house, And do not bring everyone into your home. Though many inquire after your well-being, Reveal your secret to one in a thousand. Guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your bosom. Do not fret over tomorrow’s trouble. For you do not know what a day may bring forth. For tomorrow he may be no more, And thus he is grieving over a world that is not his. All the days of the poor are bad (Proverbs 15:15) Ben Sira said: His night too. His roof is among the roofs,

216

(de)canonization

in the making

And his vineyard is on the highest mountain. The rain of the other roofs drains onto his, While the earth from his vineyard is carried to other vineyards.83

Before we concern ourselves with the significance of these verses for the history of “canonization” of the Bible, we have to answer the very important question why the most important quotation of Ben Sira in the Rabbinic literature deals mostly with women. Reading the literature on Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 100b, we ascertain to our astonishment that only few scholars have been concerned with this page referring to the content of the text, as Tal Ilan in a recent study noted.84 In addition and with fine irony, Ilan observes that “all in all [. . .] the Babylonian Talmud contains 31 verses from Ben Sira. Of these, 13 (or 40 %) refer to women” while the whole book of Ben Sira’s dealing with women is not longer that 7 % of its contents. This means that his teaching about women “has rendered this book exceptionally popular (at least in Babylonia)”.85 Nevertheless, the author qualifies her very intriguing observation, noting that not all the verses are “authentic”, i. e. originally taken from the real book, and secondly his “verses” are quoted elsewhere without any reference to the author. After a very interesting exegetical analysis of the “quotations”, she concludes: Ben Sira “was, for the Babylonian Rabbis, a very popular book, above all because of what it had to say about women. They cherished Ben Sira because he condensed in his wisdom rhetoric their own ideas about members of the ‘other’ sex and because they could support their blatantly misogynistic assertions by appealing to a great Sage of the distant past.”86 I do not intend here to contradict any of the conclusions of Tal Ilan about the misogyny of the Talmud Bavli. I dealt with the topic elsewhere,87 supporting the point of view that in Rabbinic academy (and above all in Babylonia), there was something like a struggle of authority between Rabbis and “women” as a social group, especially about what should be termed as “empirical” sciences. My question here is rather why the Rabbis quote Ben Sira speaking of women. The sharp position of Tal Ilan would fit better into the context of the Sanhedrin if the book or “proverbs” of Ben Sira had been considered as “canonical”, i. e. if the

83 84 85 86 87

English translation by Leiman, Canonization, 95. See Ilan, Integrating Women, 155 and ff. Ibidem, 158. Ibidem, 170. Magie und Halakha, passim.

wisdom and rabbinic literature

217

Rabbinic authority had taken the authority of the book as starting point. On the contrary, the Rabbis are dealing with its “fall” in canonical status, with his decanonization! The author, who against the common opinion clearly understands that Abbaye is suggesting verses for the book’s rejection88 does not explain why the Rabbis quote a book which should be rejected as an authority. Note the words of Rabbi Yosef: “. . . we might interpret the good things which are in it”. In other words, although the book of Ben Sira is not worthwhile for any consideration, we can nevertheless derive benefit from it. The starting point is therefore of paradoxical value: Ben Sira concerned himself with a topic of minor substance and significance, even already dealt with by others. On this page of the Talmud, the cautious reader should observe that the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:19), Salomon (author of the Proverbs) and the Rabbis are quoted with the same authoritative claims! Only Ben Sira is missing because he does not belong to this privileged category. Far from quoting a support of their misogyny, as Tal Ilan asserts, the Babylonian teachers deal with Ben Sira’s decanonization looking for reasons which support their aversion for his proverbs. Let us strengthen this position. Abbaye’s quotations from Ben Sira’s book and his very short commentaries are a deconstruction of the text, not admiration of the wisdom of Ben Sira. Without doubt, the first example, used as catch-word for the successive quotations “taken” from Ben Sira, is highly significant: “Now if you take its plain sense, the Torah also states (Deuteronomy 20:19). You must not destroy its trees. If you take it allegorically, it teaches proper conduct, that one should not cohabit unnaturally.” For orah ar a , translated by Leiman with “proper conduct”, is nothing but the Aramaic for derekh eres and means: “custom” while liv ol ke-darka can be translate with: “to˙have intercourse in an unnatural manner (anal, oral?)”, as medieval authorities maintains, or “according to her custom.”89 If we put both expressions derekh eres (custom) and “her custom” (ke-darka) we come to a ˙ plausible interlaced inclusion between the first and second part of Abbaye dictum: Roasting and eating the fish with its skin mean in another context to have sexual intercourse according to man’s desire and God’s benediction, i. e. the redactor alludes to the logic of having

88 89

Ilan, Integrating Women, 160. Jastrow, Dictionary, 323, translates with “natural gratification of sexual appetite”.

218

(de)canonization

in the making

all the profits of intercourse, gratification of sexual desire and fulfillment of divine miswah. Besides, the expression derekh eres may in˙ clude a form of sexual intercourse, preferred by women for ˙what ever reason, but not necessarily approved by the Rabbis.90 In Abbaye’s view, taking the text according to the plain sense is only a commentary on Deuteronomy 20:29, in its “allegorical” meaning, an affirmation to assert Rabbinic authority in a very delicate sector where presumably Rabbis had none. That is the real link to the other quotations of an originally misogynist hatred. It does not matter if the quoted verse was or was not taken from the “original” Ben Sira, because the main point is the Rabbinically asserted authority over woman and the frustration of Rabbis to note that “something” does not go according to their wishes. The literary structure of this text is a unambiguous sample of Rabbinic rhetoric: Premise:

(or catch-word to the Halakah) Rabbi Akiva/Rabbi Yoseph says: “Also whoever reads the outside books such as the books of Ben Sira” Thesis: It is forbidden although there are some good things in it Demonstration: Because the ketuvim or Rabbis have said the same thing Conclusion: Since it belongs neither to the ketuvim nor the Rabbinic teaching, (ergo) it is similar to a secular document as Rabbi Akiva asserts. From the point of view of Rabbinic exegesis, as transmitted by the Babylonian Talmud, it is sufficiently and unmistakably clear why the book of Ben Sira is forbidden: because his teaching is not new for the Rabbis. The same teaching can be found both in Salomon’s wisdom and in the oral Torah, as interpreted and taught by the Rabbis. In other words, the text competes with Rabbinic teachings and therefore should be not read at all. The key to understanding the text as a whole is the expression: “The Rabbis have said the same”. The redactor of the text presupposes an exegetical and hermeneutical contemporaneous activity of Ben Sira and the Rabbis. In his view, Ben Sira belongs among those who did not produce texts in the conventional traditional way, and therefore these texts do not belong to the body of written tradition, the Torah she-katuv. 90

I would suggest here a form of intercourse to avoid pregnancy.

wisdom and rabbinic literature

219

This Rabbinic vision presupposes a consensus about the written books which is also echoed by Kohelet Rabbah 12:12 (31b),91 a definitely late Midrash: And furthermore (mehemah), my son, be admonished (Kohelet 12:12). [Read the word as] mehuma (confusion), because whoever brings into his house more than twenty-four books [of the Bible] introduces confusion into his house, as e. g. the book of Ben Sira and the book of ben Tagla. And much study is a weariness of the flesh. They were given for discussion and not for intensive study.

The midrashic text testifies both to the interest in the book of Ben Sira and to the preoccupation with enlarging the number of written books to be studied for private and public purposes. There is no ban on Ben Sira because open learned discussion on the book is permitted, but not an intensive private study. Private study of the book is permissible only if the corresponding texts are a generally accepted tradition, but other books should be debated in a public academy.92 However, precisely at the moment of a clear-cut decision not to introduce the book for intensive study (which I would first date sometime after the establishment of talmudic literature), a wisdom-like literature was experiencing its beginnings in Judaism, the piyyutim and later the imitations of wisdom literature.93 The gnomic literature underwent a renaissance in the early medieval period, probably before the 12th century, when Judaism gained new perspectives from Arabic philosophy and sciences and learnt about a literary corpus that was called “Jewish”, although its existence was not acknowledged in the traditional sources. This is the body of literature collected and transmitted by the Syrian church, the Nestorians and the Jacobites, then translated, commented upon or quoted by Arabic historians and philosophers as belonging to Jewish tradition, albeit unknown to Jewish writers. The rediscovery of this Jewish past was not to be concluded until the 16th century, when Azariah de’ Rossi presented to his readers works by authors of Jewish 91

English translation by Leiman, Canonization, 96. The debate on public and private study goes beyond the scope of this contribution, for the topic see Catherine Hezser, “‘Privat’ und ‘öffentlich’ im Talmud Yerushalmi und in der griechisch-römichen Antike”, in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 1 (Tübingen 1998): 423–579. 93 I think it useful to refer here to the introduction by Schechter to his article, “Quotation”, 686–689, where some medieval texts are mentioned similar to the composition of Ben Sira. The study of how the medieval period dealt with and itself produced wisdom texts is still a desideratum. 92

220

(de)canonization

in the making

origin who had left no trace in Jewish tradition. In this context, philosophy, history, historiography and wisdom literature were “canonized” anew, in a process of delayed canonization. During this period, Ben Sira was directly or indirectly regarded as a pattern to be imitated.94

4.4 A Decanonized Author Already in the author’s intention, the book of Ben Sira was aimed at presenting the history of the fathers of Judaism in a clear wisdom perspective. The Greek translator of the book, of course not to be confused with a professional translator of our time but certainly a propagator of the books, tries to present the book of Jesus ben Sira as the veritable quintessence of the past. The “grandson’s” preface is not an advertisement for the Hebrew book, but only for the Greek translation, as a product of a veritable school of wisdom comparable to the Septuagint, although in some insights something better. However, the original Hebrew text is the only worthwhile one to be studied. For text translations are only an inferior form of transmission. On the basis of the translation theory of the “grandson”, there is no doubt that the Hellenistic community (of Alexandria) does not have any authoritative impetus of its own, because wisdom is a product of Palestinian origins. The Septuagint is necessarily a bad rendering of the original. Similarly, the “grandson’s” personal attempt to translate the wisdom dicta of his “grandfather” is necessarily inadequate. Wisdom is and remains a product of the motherland, concentrated in the dicta of Ben Sira as the quintessence of the wisdom of Israel. The Rabbinic academies accepted the claim of the book to be a/or the valid ring in the chain of transmission of wisdom. Ben Sira, his book and his proverbs ultimately gained renown, at least in the schools of Palestinian Judaism. The Rabbis dealt with his text as if it belongs to the authoritative past, to the past of transmission of the Torah. In Babylonian academies, the book and its proverbs experienced a new approach. Although some Rabbis considered it as authoritative, there was some disagreement about the novelty and thus the authority of his teaching. Rabbi Yosef, the Rabbi with whom the Babylonian academies

94

See Giuseppe Veltri, “Mittelalterliche Nachahmung weisheitlicher Texte”, Theologische Rundschau 57 (1992) 405–430.

a decanonized author

221

connected a de-canonization of the text, analysed some texts. He concluded that the same things were said by the proverbs of Salomon and by the Rabbis. Yet caution should be used in attributing traditions, because it would be erroneous to believe that the process of decanonization of the book was first started in Babylonian academies. The teaching of Rabbi Akiva in the Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin already represents the first step, because he forbade every liturgical reading of the book, but allowed a casual reading. For Rabbinic Babylonian academies, a casual reading is also forbidden because it is nothing but a waste of time. To conclude: in examining the traditions concerned with JewishHellenistic and Rabbinic literature on “canon”, my first assumption was that the rise and decline of a book is more connected with the moving forces of the community and their leaders and less with their polemical attitudes to other “confessions” and “sectarian” teachings.95 Such is the story of the Jewish evaluation of the book of Ben Sira. At one time, this text was very important, then waned in popularity and was superseded by other writings/traditions. The reason for its ascent was of course the claim of incorporating and representing the wisdom of Israel, a claim also made by leading Rabbis. His Achilles’ heel was doubtless the fact that he “wrote” his book and/or his proverbs, and therefore implicitly challenged his readership, demanding to have an everlasting “place” in the library of the past of Israel. His conscious or unconscious “plans” did not work out, at least in the Babylonian academies. There, not only a liturgical use as reading was forbidden, but a deep study of the text was also frowned upon. This was because according to the Rabbis, he did not say anything better than leading Rabbis and wisdom literature. In this sense, reading his book can be only a waste of time. Two elements should be particularly stressed here: Rabbinic teaching in Babylonia is quoted as of equal authority as the proverbs of Salomon (Sanhedrin 100b) and secondly––and far more importantly––every negative judgment concerning Ben Sira is commented on in Palestinian

95 That the book of Ben Sira was venerated in sectarian circles is the main opinion of Leiman, Canonization, 100 f. In my view, no text can be taken as the cogent proof that sefarim hisonim (“outside books”) should be interpreted as sifre minim (“herectical ˙ claim that Sefer Ben Sira was used in Qumran and Masada, is also not books”). ˙The convincing proof for his thesis. For the Torah was also venerated there and for that reason cannot be considered as a product of heresy. The thesis according to which the inclusion of the book in the sectarian canon could be the reason for the Rabbinic ban, is, in my opinion, vitiated by the premise that canon is a product of identity in face of heresy.

222

(de)canonization

in the making

sources with Kohelet: And furthermore, my son, beware of making many books, and much study of them is a weariness of flesh (Kohelet 12:12). On the shelves of the Jewish library, there is no place for another book just because it has been written, although the author did not say anything more or better than the traditional Rabbinic teaching. The fact that the book has been written is no premise and claim to having a place in the liturgy. On the other hand, his teaching is not new. The conclusion is consistent: reading Ben Sira is a waste of time. In our terminology, the book came to the end of its canonical status. In effect, the Hebrew text of Ben Sira, which probably was at the disposal of Jewish and Christian scholars at least until the fourth century, as Jerome confirmed, ceased to be transmitted and is extant only in fragments. The fragmentation of a text, originally conceived as a unity, is the confirmed end of canonicity as a product of time and cultural changes, since it does not belong to the so-called “essence” of a religious entity.

CONCLUSION In talmudic times, the Greek translation of the Torah, the Septuagint, the Greek translation or Targum of Aquila and the book of Ben Sira had a very strange fate, connected with the phenomenon of canonization and decanonization. Irrespective of whether “canon” means authority in the liturgy and/or in academic teaching, the Septuagint and Ben Sira had a canonical status as authoritative books, the first because it was the Torah for Hellenistic Jews, the second since it was accepted as an authoritative source of wisdom, radiating its energy in original Hebrew. The Septuagint lost its authority because of the loss of the Greek language in Judaism and because of the attack against the perfection of such translation (as the Greek prologue to the Greek Ben Sira proves). According to Rabbinic academies, translation is the mediation of teaching which cannot be written and cannot be everlasting. Aquila’s translation is the perfect mediation of teaching, which, always connected with schools and tendencies among scholars, has a circular life beginning with the start of the activity, its apex and its substitution with other tools of mediation. Tradition and translation are deeply connected with authority, a concept of literary and philosophical value which I attempted to examine above. At the beginning of this book, I assumed that the lack or presence of a tradition is a consequence of the process of canonization which in Christian and Rabbinic sources is not a product of literary coincidence (as the discoveries of Qumran and its documentary sources), but a process of affirmative action. Christian interest in Jewish-Hellenistic literature is obvious because these documents, their vocabulary and their theological spectrum lie at the origin and basis of Christian Weltanschauung. The Septuagint was the prerequisite for Christian religion. The Greek language played a significant role, because Christians abandoned the Palestinian dialects as they moved to the lingua franca of the ancient cultural world. From the 4th century onward, the Latin Church abandoned the Septuagint due to ignorance of the Greek language. This also had an impact on theology. The Christian use of the Septuagint is

224

conclusion

bound up with an ecclesiastic tradition which remained faithful to the old tradition of a Greek Torah, namely the Greek Orthodox Church, while the Latin Church slowly went down a different path. For Jewish-Hellenistic communities, both of Egyptian or GreekRoman origins, the Septuagint represents a certificate of autonomic life, a literary and liturgical self-portrait to affirm their own identity against the “temptation” of the Hellenistic environment. The translation, stored in the famous library of Alexandria, is like the publication of a political constitution and/or of a cultural perception. Some traces of resistance against the predominance and canonization of this translation should not be ignored. There are unmistakable signs of opposition in the sections 310–311 of Aristeas’ reports when he stresses the perfect nature and meticulous precise character of this translation and the consequent directive to store the text as it was written. The critical attitudes against the Septuagint are understandable as a reaction to the fear of being estranged from the tradition of the motherland. The emphasis of Aristeas on the Palestinian origin of the translators and of the more precise texts is a point in favour of my thesis that the relationship to the Jews of Palestine and especially the priestly class of the Temple of Jerusalem, described and pictured with Old Testament details, was involved. Although Jewish-Hellenistic writers pointed out the revelatory character of the Greek Torah for “paganism”, the main interest was to regain control over those who abandoned Judaism and were following the Hellenistic culture and way of life. The Jewish community was caught between recovering its lost identity in contrast to Hellenism and a loss of connection to the Jewish mother culture. The canonization of the Septuagint could perhaps halt the Hellenization of Jewish intellectuals, but was unable to stabilize the relationship with Palestine. The historical disappearance of the Jewish community of Alexandria resolved the question. The Septuagint forfeited its “political” moving force. The canonization of the Septuagint in Christian world followed the logic of a new religion in looking for roots: it was the fundamental document to supply Christian intellectuals with a vocabulary and theological doctrines derived largely from the Greek-speaking Diaspora and its creations. In Egyptian Judaism, the doctrine of the inspiration was a question of identity based on the necessity of having a scriptural past “blessed” by the divinity in a foundational act. In Christianity, the doctrine of inspiration was of inner political interest, namely to bind itself to Judaism without dependence on the Hebrew tradition. The

conclusion

225

Septuagint lost its canonical authority only in the Latin Church in Latin, because Greek was no longer considered the universal language. Jerome supplied Christianity with a new Veritas Hebraica. The creation of an inspiration theory is the expression of the theological need for a new revelation, performed in a land outside Israel by seventy-two interpreters of the law (and for the prophets) who are as unwillingly inspired as Bileam. Their translation is comparable to the restoration of the Torah in the time of and by Ezra the writer. Already beginning with Irenaeus, the conviction developed that a divine plan was at work in concealing the right meaning of the Scripture, obviously an allusion to the hermeneutical differences of interpretation which in the ancient period were attributed to the text itself. Related to this question is the apologetic query of the ownership and location of the “books”. Both the author of the Exhortatio ad Graecos and Tertullian refer to the Jewish original possession of the transmitted writings as an argumentum ex parte alterius, a proof of the uninhibited character and honesty of the new religion which did not forge any documents in its favour. Otherwise, they indirectly indicate something of their worry about an authoritative translation of a text which is not under their control. If translation continually refers to the original one, and transmitted texts in circulation to the guaranteed copy, kept in a temple or library, the very question was how to trust the current versions of the Septuagint without referring to the Jewish tradition. The topic of the ownership of the book of the Jews, later adopted by the Christian religion, provoked a very interesting aporia. According to Jewish-Hellenistic and Christian sources, the Hebrew text and the Septuagint were stored in the library of Alexandria and in (the libraries of) the synagogues all over the ancient world. This argument should sustain the validity and honesty of the Christian religion––this was the view of the Church fathers. On the other hand, an (ancient and modern) conviction claims a Jewish rejection of the Septuagint because of the “clearly” messianic proofs for Christian religion. Although the theory of the unwilling prophets (Bileam!) could explain the pre-Christian use of the Septuagint, the modern reader cannot understand why the synagogues were still using and storing the text. Rabbinic Judaism shows an astonishing interest in transmitting not only “revised” texts from the Alexandrian translation, but even its legend. However, this interest is ambiguous: a testimony of the high value of the Septuagint and at the same time a deconstruction of its importance: it was (only) a written text for the King Ptolemy.

226

conclusion

The aggadic expansion as argument in favour of a tradition is read by Origen as proof of canonicity. Second, the testimony of the Jews, which he denied in reference to the Hebrew text, is here accepted via oral Torah! For Christian readers, the principle exposed here is the validity of Church tradition: what the Church transmits as canonical cannot be refused. Jewish traditions of the Bible are only prophetic references to the Christian truth, but by no means the truth. Chrysostom’s option is to separate books and truth: the former belonged to the Jews, the latter to the Christians. He is not the first but is surely the most prominent advocate of the division or contrast between dogmatics and philology. A very peculiar aspect of Hilarius’s dealing with the Septuagint is his original distinction between written and oral tradition, a notably Rabbinic element, but used here contra Judaism. Language is closely interconnected with spoken vernaculars and moving forces among communities. Traditions which are no longer linguistically “actual” and cannot be hermeneutically updated are either suppressed (through censorship) or totally reinterpreted. That is the Rabbinic way to “save” and store traditions. That explains why little or no trace of Jewish-Hellenistic literature remains in Rabbinic Judaism. Loanwords and allusions to Greek texts refer mostly to the GrecoRoman environment, but not to Philo of Alexandria, Eupolemos, Aristobulos or even Josephus. After the destruction of the Egyptian Diaspora, Rabbinic authorities had no interest in adopting either their literature or their liturgical texts and customs. The lack of interest underlay the decanonization of the importance of the Septuagint. The use and abuse of Greek Torah led to the rejection of such translation as evident in Sefer ha-Torah and Megillat Ta anit Batra. Whether the Christian adoption of the sacred text was determinant in such a process is difficult to ascertain, although it should not be minimized, as the novella 146 of Justinian shows. The traditions of Rabbinic Palestinian Judaism were transmitted by Babylonian academies which had little interest in Palestinian traditions (the history of the Palestinian Talmud is an exemplary testimony) and a maiori in Greek literature. It was only in Jewish-Byzantine communities that a keen interest in Greek literary traditions first arose. In this period we have a revival of interest in Jewish-Hellenistic literature, surely supported by Josephus’ translation into Hebrew. The book Josippon become a veritable handbook of patriotic history, perhaps because of the place his Vorlage, Josephus, acquired in Christianity.

conclusion

227

The reception of the Greek version of the Torah in Rabbinic Judaism, interpreted as a particular text for a particular person, is evidence of the high regard for it, but at same time a reduction of the importance of this very famous translation, relegating it to a contingent case. Aside from the question of whether the Rabbinic interpretation of the Septuagint is historically correct, it shows that a new interpretative element comes to the fore: the deconstruction or construction of a historical context led to a finely differentiated argumentation in severing authority from former canonical texts. For only universalization of an experience can be of canonical interest; to reduce something to a particular situation is, by contrast, a process of decanonization. In sum, the main conclusions are as follows: a) By no means was the Septuagint considered to be a Targum. The current opinion according to which the Septuagint was regarded “not as an authoritative Bible text, but rather as a Greek targum”1 is in need of revision. Targum is a translation (largely oral) of the Torah (and other writings) under the guidance and authority of a particular Rabbinic school. Targum follows the rules of the oral Torah and has to be interpreted like other genres of Rabbinic discourse. In the eyes of Rabbinic authorities, that is not the case with the Septuagint. It was a written text composed for the needs of the Jewish community of Greek provenience (in Egypt as well as in Palestine and Rome). b) Rejection of the Septuagint by Rabbinic authority and expressed in the above mentioned documents does not mean that all the Jews refused to have any contact with this text. Such an explanation would be too naı¨ve and dogmatic. We can only say that some Jewish authorities passed on a negative opinion regarding the Greek translation. That did not mean the end of Graecophonic Judaism.2 The fact that medieval Judaism, at least in Italy and in Spain, returned to the Greek heritage (Josippon, Megillat Antiochos, but also the book of Wisdom and Ben Sira)3 means that a ban was never issued on Greek literature, or if issued was seldom effective. 1 D. W. Gooding, “On the use of the LXX for Dating Midrashic Elements in the Targums”, Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1974): 2; but see Roger Le De´aut, “La Septante: un Targum?”, in, E´tudes sur le judaı¨sme helle´nistique, ed. Raymond Kuntzmann and Jacques Schlosser, Paris 1984, pp. 147–195. 2 On Graecophonic Judaism in the Middle Ages, see Nicholas De Lange, “Sem et Japhet. Les Juifs et la langue grecque”, Parde`s 12 (1990): 90–107. 3 On the reception of Greek literature in the Middle Ages, see Günter Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 8. Aufl., München 1992, 323 f.; M. Gaster, “The Scroll of Hasmonenas,” in idem, Studies and Texts, 1928 (1928, reprint New York: Ktav,

228

conclusion

c) Aquila, the skilled Meturgeman and curious proselyte, furnished the reader of Rabbinic texts with a surprising richness in exegetical imagination, solving in particular various problems and difficulties of vocabulary. He is quoted as a dictionary of hapax legomena and difficult expressions, a function quite similar to that of the medieval grammarians. His personality should have been authoritative in Judaism, and his story was so popular that Babylonian Judaism was also fascinated by him. The substitution of Aquila by Onkelos is a sign of interest in updating tradition, akin to “translating” the Greek deities into a Roman Olympus. For in the final analysis, translation is only tradition updated. d) The Septuagint was canonized not because of eminent heretical trends, but on the contrary because of the constitution of a community. It was decanonized in Rabbinic Judaism and western Christianity because of the lack of a moving community force: Greek-speaking Jews were no longer a geometrical axis of the new politics in Rabbinic and Christian circles. The principle of decanonization was clearly the increasing role of the Hebrew text for Christians, who recurred to a new Latin version, and the reduction of the Septuagint to an exercise in exegesis in Rabbinic tradition. Accordingly, the Septuagint is a unique document for a unique matter, namely the king’s interest. e) Ben Sira’s fortune is, on the other hand, bound to the Rabbinic attitude toward Rabbinic teaching and wisdom. His work and activity were thus not viewed as exemplary, valid for generations. He was as authoritative as the Rabbis. He lacked the unique element which permits canonicity, the de-construction of his context. Very peculiar is the ascent and decline of the Wisdom of Ben Sira. The quotation of his book as “biblical” text in the Tannaitic period testifies to a reverence for sapiential traditions in Rabbinic Judaism which decline as soon as clear-cut criteria developed to separate oral from written tradition. In this book, I argued that Babylonian teachers did not recognize the

1971), vol. 1: 165–183; vol. 3: 33–43; M. Z. Kedari, “Megillat Antiochos ha-aramit,” Bar-Ilan 1 (1963): 81–105; 2 (1964): 178–214; Angelo Vivian, “La Megillat Antiochus: Una reintepretazione dell’epopea maccabaica,” in Aspetti della storiografia ebraica. Atti del IV congresso internazionale dell’AISG. S. Miniato, 7–10 novembre 1983 (Roma, 1987): 163–195; a translation of the widsom of Salomon is quoted by Nachmanides in his commentary to the Pentateuch, see Alexander Marx, “An Aramaic Fragment of the Wisdom of Salomon,” Journal of Biblical Literature 40 (1921): 57–69; Gershom Scholem in Kirjat Sepher 1 (1924–25): 163–164; Z. Werblowsky, “Philo and the Zohar. A Note on the Methods of the scientia nuova in Jewish Studies,” Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (1959): 30.

conclusion

229

privileged character of Jesus ben Sira because they denied his book the main quality for being “canonized”: a higher authority than that given to the teacher of the oral tradition. To be concerned with him is most certainly not a waste of time; however, it is not necessary for understanding the Torah, and not required for liturgical purposes. In view of the brevity of human life and many books, produced by past and recent scholars, Rabbinic Judaism chose a pragmatic way, perhaps suitable likewise for today: And furthermore, my son, beware of making many books, and much study of them is a weariness of flesh.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Texts Al Qirqisa¯nı¯, Yaqu¯b Yaqu¯b Al-Qirqisa¯nı¯ on Jewish Sects and Christianity, ed. Bruno Chiesa and Wilfrid Lockwood (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1984). Ammianus Marcellinuns Römische Geschichte, ed. Wolfgang Seyfarth, 3 vols. (Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1986). Apostolic Fathers The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (first published Edinburgh: Clark, 1867, then more other editions). Patrologiae Latinae Cursus Completus, ed. Jean-Paul Migne, 217 vols. (1844–1855). Patrologiae Graecae Cursus Completus, ed. Jean-Paul Migne, 77 vols. (1856–1861). Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (Brepols: Turnhout, 1953 ff.). Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca (Brepols: Turnhout, 1977 ff.). Sources Chre´tiennes, ed. Henrie Marie de Lubac (Paris: Cerf, 1941 ff.). Aristeas Aristeae ad Philocratem epistula cum ceteris de origine versionis LXX interpretum testimoniis, ed. Paul Wendland (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900). Aristeas to Philocrates, ed. Moses Hadas (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951). Lettre d’Aristee´ a` Philocrate, ed. Andre´ Pelletier (Paris: du Cerf, 1962). Shutt, R. J. H., “Letter of Aristeas”, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985): 7–34. Lettera di Aristea a Filocrate, ed. Francesca Calabi (Milano: Biblioteca universale Rizzoli, 1995). Augustine Selected Letters, ed. James Houston Baxter (Cambridge, Ma.; London: Harvard University Press, 1953, reprint 1993). Epistulae in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 34. De Civitate Dei (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 48). Aulus Gellius Auli Gellii Noctes Atticae, ed. Peter K. Marshall (reprint Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990). Le notti attiche, ed. Giorgio Bernardi Perini (Torino: Unione tipograficoeditrice torinese, 1992).

232

bibliography

Avot de-Rabbi Natan Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, huius libri recensiones duas collatis varies apud bibliothecas et publicas et privatas codicibus, ed. Solomon Schechter (London: Mauritius Knöpflmacher, 1887 (reprint: Hildesheim: Olms, 1976). Avraham Ibn Daud Divre Malkhe Yisrael (Amsterdam: Yosef Propsictor, 1711). Avraham Portaleone De Auro dialogi tres (Venice: a Porta, 1584). Azariah de’ Rossi Me or Enayim, ed. David Cassel (Vilna, Romm, 1864–1866). Azariah de’ Rossi, The Light of the Eyes, ed. Joanna Weinberg (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2001). Les Nuits Attiques, vol. 2 (V–C), ed. Marache, Rene´ and Yvette Julien (Paris: Le belles Lettres, 1978). Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts, ed. Pancratius C. Beentjes (Leiden: Brill, 1997). The Book of Ben Sira. Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, ed. the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1973). Sefer ben Sira ha-shalem, ed. Moshe S. Segal (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1972). Cicero M. Tulli Ciceronis de Oratore Libri Tres, ed. Gulielmus Friedrich (Teubner: Leipzig, 1892). Clement of Alexandria Cle´ment d’Alexandrie, Les Stromates. Stromate I, ed. Claude Monde´sert and Marcel Caster (Paris: Cerf, 1951). Cohortatio ad Graecos Cohortatio ad Graecos, ed. Miroslav Marcovich (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1990). Ps.-Justin (Markell von Ankyra?), Ad Graecos de vera religione, ed. Christoph Riedweg (Basel, Berlin: F. Reinhardt, 1992). Corpus Hermeticum Corpus Hermeticum, ed. A. D. Nock, 2 vols. transl. A. J. Festugie`re (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1945). Cyrillus of Jerusalem Catechesis IV. De decem dogmatibus in Patrologia Graeca 33. Diodoros Siculus Diodoros Siculus, ed. and transl. by C. H. Oldfather (Cambridge, Ma., Harvard University Press, London 1946). Ecclesiasticus, see ben Sira Epiphanius of Salamis Epiphanius’ Treatise on Weights and Measures: The Syriac Version, ed. James E. Dean (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935). E¯lia D. Moutsoula, “To ‘peri metro¯n kai statho¯n’ ergo¯n Epiphaniou tou Salaminos”, Theologia 44 (1973): 157–200.

primary texts

233

Les versions ge´orgiennes d’Epiphane de Chypre, Traite´ des poids et des mesures, Michel-Jean van Esbroeck, (Lovanii: Peeters, 1984). The Armenian Texts of Epiphanius of Salamis “De mensuris et ponderibus”, ed. Michael E. Stone and Roberta R. Ervin (Lovanii: Peeters, 2000). Eusebius of Caesarea Praeparatio evangelica in Patrologia Graeca 21. Ezra, Forth Book of Fourth Ezra, ed. Michael E. Stone (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990). Fragment of Jewish Hellenistic Writers Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt graeca una cum historicorum et auctorum judaeorum hellenistarum fragmentis, ed. Albert-Marie Denis (Leiden: Brill, 1970). Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, ed. Carl R. Holladay, 4. vols. (Chico, Ca., Scholar Press, 1983–2001). Hilarius of Poitiers Tractatus super Psalmos. In Psalmum II, ed. Anton Zingerle (Vindobonae: Tempsky, 1891) (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 22). Iamblichus Iamblichi de Mysteriis Liber, ed. Gustav Parthey (Berlin: Nicolai, 1857, reprint Amsterdam 1965). Irenaeus of Lion Irene´e de Lion, Contre les he´re´sies, ed. Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau (Paris: du Cerf, 1974). Isidore of Seville Etymologiarum sive Originum libri XX, ed. W. M. Lindsay, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911). Iulius Africanus Iulius Africanus, De Historia Susannae epistola ad Origenes, in Patrologia Graeca 118. Jerome Commentaria in Ieremiam in Patrologia Latina 24. Epistulae, in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 55. Commentaria in Ezechielem in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 75. Commentarium in Esaiam (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 77). Commentarium in Micham Prophetam in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 76. In librum Paralipomenon iuxta LXX Interpretes in Patrologia Latina 29. Praefatio in Pentateucum in Patrologia Latina 28. Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim in Corpus Christianorum Series Lattina 72. Hieronymus’ Liber de optimo genere interpretandi (Epistula 57), ed. Gerard J. M. Bartelink (Leiden; Brill, 1980). John Chrysostom In Matthaeum Homiliae in Patrologia Graeca 57. Chrysostom’s Homilies Against the Jews: an English translation, ed. C. Mervyn Maxwell, (Ph. D. University of Chicago, 1967). John Chrysostom. Discourses against Judaizing Christians, transl. Paul W. Harkins (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1979).

234

bibliography

Josephus Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context With a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. Louis H. Feldman and John R. Levison (Leiden, New York: Brill, 1996). Josephus, 2nd edition, vols. 1–9, ed. Henry St. John Thackeray, (Cambridge, Ma., London: Harvard University Press, 1966–1969, 1st edition 1926–1965). Justin Dialogus cum Thryphone Iudaeo (Patrologia Graeca 6). Iustini Martyris Apologiae pro Christianis, ed. Miroslav Marcovich (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994). Maimonides Mishneh Torah. The Book of Adoration, ed. Moses Hyamson, new and corrected edition (Jerusalem: Feldhein, 1981). Masoretic Text Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, quae antea cooperantibus A. Alt et alii, adjuvantibus H. Bardtke, cooperantibus H. P. Rüger et J. Ziegler ed. K. Elliger et W. Rudolph. Textum Masoreticum curavit H. P. Rüger. Masoram elaboravit G. E. Weil 5th ed. emendata (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). Massekhet Soferim, Sefer Torah Masechet Soferim: der talmudische tractat der Schreiber, eine Einleitung in das Studium der althebräischen Graphik, der Masora und der altjüdischen Liturgie, ed. Joel Müller (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1878). Seven Minor Treatises, ed. Michael Higger (New York: Bloch, 1930, reprint: Jerusalem: Makor, 1970–1971). Medieval Jewish Chronicle Medieval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes, ed. Adolf Neubauer, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1887). Midrash Aggadah Midrash ha-aggadah al hamishe humshe torah, ed. Salomo Buber (Vienna: ˙ 1884, reprint Jerusalem: ˙Blum, 1961). Midrash Bereshit Rabbah Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar, ed. Julius Theodor, nach dem Ableben des Verfassers bearbeitet und ergänzt von Chanoch Albeck (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1912–1936, reprint: Jerusalem: Shalem, 1965). Midrash Devarim Rabbah Midrash Devarim Rabbah, ed. for the first time from the Oxford ms. No.147 with an Introduction and notes by Saul Lieberman, 2nd edition (Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1964). Midrash Ekha Rabbah Midrasch Echa Rabbati. Sammlung agadisher Auslegungen der Klagelieder, ed. Salomon Buber (Wilna: 1899, reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1967). Midrash Ha-Gadol Midrash haggadol on the Pentateuch, 2. vols., ed. Mordecai Margulies (Jerusalem: Mosad Haraw Kook Publ., 1947). Midrash haggadol on the Pentateuch. Numbers, ed. Salomo Fisch (Manchester: University Press, 1940). Midrash ha-gadol al hamishah humshe Torah. Sefer Devarim, ed. David ˙ (Jerusalem: ˙ Adani and Salomo Fisch Mosad ha-Rav Kuk, 1975).

primary texts

235

Midrash Leqah Tov ˙ ˙ tov, ed. Salomo Buber (Vilna: Rom, 1884). Midrash leqah ˙ ˙de-Rabbi Yishma el Midrash Mekhilta Mechilta D’Rabbi Ismael cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus, ed. Saul Horovitz and Israel A. Rabin (Frankfurt: 1928–1931, reprint Jerusalem: Bamberger and Wahrman, 1960). Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael vol. 3, ed. Jacob Z. Lauterbach (Philadelphia: JPS, 1933–1936, reprint 1976). Midrash Mekhilta deRabbi Shim on b. Yohai ˙ in Geniza Cairensi reperta Mekhilta d’Rabbi Sˇim on b. Jochai. Fragmenta digessit apparatu critico, notis, praefatione, instruxit J. N. Epstein, defunti . . . curavit E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1955). Midrash Rabbah Sefer Midrash Rabbah, 2. vols. ed. Enoch Zondel (Warshaw: 1867, reprint s. l., s. d. Israel). Midrash Rabbah, vol. 1–10, ed. Harry Freedman and Maurice Simon, 3rd editio (London: Soncino Press, 1983). Midrash Sekhel Tov ˙ Sechel Tob. Commentar zum ersten und zweiten Buch Mosis von Rabbi Menachem ben Salomo verfasst i. J. 1139. Zum ersten Male herausgegeben nach den beiden Handschriften cod. 165 u. 166 in der Bodlejana kritisch bearbeitet, commentirt und mit einer ausführlichen Einleitung versehen, ed. Salomon Buber (Berlin: Selbstverlag des Vereins M’Kize Nirdamim, 1900–1901). Midrash Shemot Rabbah Midrash Shemot Rabbah: chapters I–XIV. A critical edition based on a Jerusalem manuscript with variants, commentary and introduction, ed. Avigdor Shinan (Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1984). Midrash Sifra Sifra on Leviticus: According to Vatican Manuscript Assemani 66 with Variants from the Other Manuscripts, Genizah Fragments, Early Editions and Quotations by Medieval Authorities and with Reference to Parallel Passages and Commentaries, 5 vols., ed. Louis Finkelstein (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1983–1991). Midrash Sifre Siphre ad Deuteronomium H. S. Horovitzii schedis usus cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus, ed. Louis Finkelstein (Berlin: Abteilung Verlag, 1939). Siphre d’be Rab. cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus, ed. Saul Horovitz (Lipsia: Gustav Fock, 1917). Midrash Tanhuma ˙ First edition Constantinople 1520–1522 (Jerusalem: Midrash Tanchuma. Makor, 1971). Midrasch Tanchuma Ein agadischer Commentar zum Pentateuch zum ersten male nach Handschriften aus den Bibliotheken zu Oxford, Rom, Parma und München, ed. Salomon Buber (Vilna: Rom, 1885, reprint Jerusalem: 1964).

236

bibliography

Midrash Tehillim Midrash Tehillim, ed. Shlomoh Buber (Vilna: Wittwe & Gebruder, 1891). Midrash Wa-Yiqra Rabbah Midrash wa-yiqra rabbah. A critical edition based on manuscripts and Genizah fragments with variants and notes, ed. Mordecai Margalioth (New York, Jerusalem: The Maxwell Abbell Publication Fund, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993). Mishnah Chanokh Albeck, ed., Shisha Sidre Mishnah. 6 vols. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1952–1956). NHC III The Coptic Gnostic Library. A complete edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, ed. James M. Robinson, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill 2000). Origen Ad Africanum, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, A. Cleveland Coxe (Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1956). Origene contre Celse, vol. 1, ed. M. Borret (Paris: Le belles letters, 1967). Origene. La Lettre a` Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne, ed. Nicholas De Lange (Paris: Du Cerf, 1983). Epistula ad Africanum, in Patrologia Graeca 11. Oxyrhynchus Papyri The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, part XI, ed. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1915): 221–234. Pesikta Rabbati Pesikta rabbati. Midrasch für den Fest-Cyclus und die ausgezeichneten Sabbathe, ed. Markus Friedmann (Wien: Selbstverlag des Herausgebers, 1880). Pesiqta rabbati. A Synoptic Edition of Pesiqta Rabbati Based upon all Extant Manuscripts and the Editio Princeps, ed. Rivka Ulmer, 3 vols. (Lanham, Oxford: University Press of America, 1997–2002). Philo Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit, ed. Madeleine Petit (Paris: Cerf, 1974). Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, ed. Leopold Cohn and Paul Wendland (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1896–1915). The Works of Philo, ed. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker (Cambridge, Mass: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1929–1953), vols. 1–10, Ralph Marcus, ed., vols. 10–12. Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum. Fragmenta Graeca, ed. Franc¸oise Petit (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1978). Pierre de Blois Epistula XCII ad Reginaldum Episcopum (Patrologia Latina 207). Plato Plato in Twelve Volumes (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1964 ff.). Poimandres Thrice Greatest Hermes: Studies in Hellenistic Theosophy and Gnosis, ed. G. R. S. Mead (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 1992, first 1906).

primary texts

237

Polybius The Histories of Polybius (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1922–1927). Quintilian Institutiones Oratoriae: The Orator’s Education, ed. D. A. Russell (Cambridge, Ma, London: Harvard University Press 2001). Rufinus Apologia contra Hieronymum in Corpus Christianorum Latinorum 20. Seder Olam Rabbah Midrash Seder olam. A photostatic reproduction of Ber Ratner’s Edition of the Text, ed. Samuel K. Mirsky (New York: Moznaim, [1988]). Seder Olam Rabbah, we-Seder Olam Zuta we-Megillat Ta anit we-Sefer ha-Kabbalah . . . (Amsterdam: S. Proops, [1711]). See also Medieval Jewish Chronicles Sefer Pirqe Rabbi Eli ezer Sefer Pirqe Rabbi Eli ezer (Warshaw: Bomberg, 1852). Sefer Torah, see Massekhet Soferim Septuagint The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, ed. Lancelot C. L. Brenton (London: Bagster, 1851, reprint Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1980). Septuaginta id est vetus testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, ed. Alfred Rahlfs (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979). Joseph Ziegler, ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, 2nd edition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980). Soferim, see Masekhet Soferim Suetonius Suetonius, ed. John C. Rolfe, 2 vols. (London: William Heinemann; New York: The MacMillan, 1914). Svetonius, C. Svetoni Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliqviae, ed. Augustus Reifferscheid inest Vita Terenti a Friderico Ritschelio, second edition (Lipsiae: Teubner, 1860). Talmud Bavli Der babylonische Talmud, ed. Lazarus Goldschmidt (Berlin: Harz and later Nijhoff, 1897–1935). The Babylonian Talmud, translated into English with notes, glossary and indices under the editorship of rabbi dr. I. Epstein (London: The Soncino Press, 1935–1948). The Minor Tractates of the Talmud. Massektoth Ketanoth, ed. Abraham Cohen, 2 vols., 2nd edition (London: Soncino 1971). ˙ Talmud Yerushalmi Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi, ed. Peter Schäfer and Hans-Jürgen Becker, 4 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991–1995. Talmud Yerushalmi according to Ms. Or. 4720 (Scal. 3) of the Leiden University Library with Restoration and Correction, ed. Yaacov Sussmann (Jerusalem: The Academy of Hebrew Language, 2005). Pea. Ackerrecke, transl. Gerard Wewers (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986).

238

bibliography

Targumim Pseudo-Jonathan: Thargum Jonathan ben Usie¨l zum Pentateuch. Nach de Londoner Handschrift (Brit. Mus. add. 27031), ed. M. Ginsburger (Berlin: S. Calvary & Co., 1903). Neophyti 1. Targum Palestinense Ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana Edicio´n Prı´ncipe, edit. by Alejandro Die´z Macho, 6 vols. (Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo superior de investigaciones cientı´ficas, 1968–1979). Fragment-Targum, ed. Michael E. Klein (Rom: Biblical Institute Press, 1980). Targum Onkelos to Genesis (Denver, Co.: Center for Judaic Studies University of Denver. 1982). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch. Text and Concordance, ed. E. G. Clarke (Hoboken, N. J.: Ktav Pub. House, 1984). The Bible in Aramaic. Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, ed. Alexander Sperber (reprint Leiden, Boston: 2004). Terentius Maurus De literis, syllabis, pedibus et metris, tractatus insignis, suspiciendus antiquitate etiam reuerenda (Paris: Apud Simonem Colinaeum, 1531). Tertullian Apology. De Spectaculis, with an English Translation by T. R. Glover (Cambridge, Ma., London: Cambridge University Press, Heinemann, 1931, reprint 1974). Opera, Pars II, vol. 1: Apologeticum, secundum utramque libri recensionem, ed. Henricus Hoppe (New York: London: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1964) (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, 69). Apologia del cristianesimo, ed. Claudio Moreschini (Milan: Rizzoli, 1984). Tosefta Tosephta. Based on the Erfurt and Vienna codices. With parallels and variants, ed. Moshe S. Zuckermandel, 2 ed. (Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann 1937). The Tosefta, ed. Samuel Lieberman, 5 vols. (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955–1988). Vulgata Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, adiuvantibus B. Fischer et alii; recensuit et brevi apparatu instruxit Robertus Weber, 4th edition by Roger Gryson (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. Yalqut ˙ shim oni al ha-torah, ed. Aharon Heiman (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Yalqut Kook,˙ 1986). Yalqut shim oni al nevi im (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1999). ˙

modern authors

239

Modern Authors Aaron, David H., “Imagery of the Divine and the Human: On the Mythology of Genesis Rabba 8 § 1”, Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 5 (1995): 1–62. Abrahams, Israel, “Recent Criticism of the Letter of Aristeas”, Jewish Quarterly Review 15 (1902): 321–342. Ackroyd, Peter R., “Original Text and Canonical Text”, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 32 (1977): 166–173. Alexander, Philip S., “The Rabbinic Lists of Forbidden Targumim”, Journal of Jewish Studies 27 (1976): 177–191. –, “The Targumim and the Rabbinic Rules for the Delivery of the Targum”, Vetus Testamentum Supplement 36 (1985): 14–27. Allen, Thomas W., Homer. The Origins and the Transmission (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1924) (reprint 1969). Altieri, Charles, “An Idea and Ideal of a Literary Canon”, Critical Inquiry 10 (1984): 37–60. Andrei, Osvalda, “The 430 years of Ex. 12:40, from Demetrius to Julius Africanus – A Study in Jewish and Christian Chronography”, Henoch 18 (1996): 9–67. Aptowitzer, Avigdor, “Die rabbinischen Berichte über die Entstehung der Septuaginta”, Ha-Kedem 2 (1908): 11–27; 102–122; 3 (1909): 4–17. Arzt, M., “The Teacher in Talmud und Midrash”, in Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume (New York: 1953): 35–47. Assmann, Aleida, Assmann, Jan, eds., Kanon und Zensur II. Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation (München: Fink 1987). Aune, David E., “Justin Martyr’s Use of the Old Testament”, Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 9 (1966): 189–197. Auvray, Paul, “Comment se pose le proble`me de l’inspiration des Septante”, Revue Biblique 59 (1952): 321–336. –, “Notes sur le Prologue de l’Eccle´siastique”, in Me´langes bibliques re´dige´s en l’honneur de Andre` Robert, ed. William F. Albright (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1956): 281–294. Auwers, Jean-Marie, and Henk J. De Jonge., eds., The Biblical Canons (Leuven: Peeters, 2003). Baeck, Leo, “Haggadah and Christian Doctrine”, Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1950–1951): 557–558. Baer, Richard A., Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female (Leiden: Brill, 1961). Baer, Yishaq, “On the Problem of Eschatological Doctrine During the Period of ˙˙ the Second Temple”, (in Hebrew) Zion 23–24 (1958–1959): 3–34; 141–165. –, “The Historical Foundations of the Halakha”, (in Hebrew) Zion 17 (1952): 1–55. Bagnall, Roger S., “Alexandria: Library of Dreams”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 146 (2002): 348–362. Bardy, Gustave, La question des langues dans l’Eglise ancienne (Paris: Beauchesne, 1948).

240

bibliography

–, “L’inspiration des Pe`res de l’Eglise”, Recherches de science religieuse 40 (1951–1952): 7–26. Barnard, Lesley W., “Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought” (Ph. D. University of Southampton, Dept. of Theology, 1970). –, “The Old Testament and Judaism in the Writings of Justin Martyr”, Vetus Testamentum 14 (1974): 395–406. Barr, James, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). Barthe´lemy, Dominique, Les devanciers d’Aquila. Publication inte´grale du texte des fragments du Dode´caprophe´ton trouve´s dans le de´sert de Juda, pre´ce´de´e d’une e´tude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible re´alise´es au premier sie`cle de notre e`re sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien (Leiden: Brill, 1963). –, “L’Ancien Testament a muˆri a` Alexandrie”, Theologische Zeitschrift 21 (1965): 364–365. –, “Euse`be, la Septante et ‘les autres’”, in La Bible et les Pe`res. Colloque de Strasbourg (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971): 51–65. –, “Pourquoi la Torah a-t-elle e´te´ traduite en grec?”, in On Language, Culture, and Religion: in Honor of Eugene A. Nida, ed. Matthew Black and William A. Smalley (The Hague: Mouthon, 1974): 23–41. Barton, Carlin A., Roman Honor: The Fire in the Bones (Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press, 2001). Barton, John, Holy Writings, Sacred Text: the Canon in Early Christianity (Westminster: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997). Barton, John, and Michael Wolter, eds., Die Einheit der Schrift und die Vielfalt des Kanons (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003). Becker, Hans-Jürgen, “‘Epikuree’ in Talmud Yerushalmi”, in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998): 397–421. Beckwith, Roger T., The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (London: SPCK, 1985). Bekker-Nielsen, Tønnes, “Terra Incognita: the Subjective Geography of the Roman Empire”, in Studies in Ancient History and Numismatics presented to Rudi Thomsen, ed. Aksel Damsgaard-Madsen et alii (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1988): 148–161. Benoit, Pierre, “L’inspiration des Septante d’apre`s les Pe`res”, in Homme devant Dieu. Me´langes Offerts au Henri De Lubac (Paris: Aubier, 1963–1964): 169–187. Be´rard, Victor, “Pisistrate, re´dacteurs des poe`mes home´riques”, Revue de Philologie 46 (1921): 194–233. Bergmann, Julius, Jüdische Apologetik (Berlin: Reimer, 1908). Bernard, A. C., “Stumbling Through Gaul: Maps, Intelligence, and Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum”, The Ancient History Bulletin 11.4 (1997): 107–122. Betz, Hans Dieter, “The Formation of Authoritative Tradition in the Greek Magical Papyri”, in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 3: Self-Sefinition in the Greek-Roman Papyri, ed. Ben F. Meyer and E. P. Sander (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982): 161–170; 236–239.

modern authors

241

Beyer, Hermann W., “kano¯n”, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 3 (1967): 600–660. Bickermann, Elias J., “Ritualmord und Eselkult. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte antiker Publizistik”, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 71 (1927): 171–187. –, “Some Notes on the Transmission of the Septuagint”, in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, Engl. Section, ed. Saul Lieberman (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950): 167–168. Blatt, Franz, “Remarques sur l’historie des traductions latines”, Classica et mediaevalia 1 (1938): 217–242. Blau, Ludwig, Studien zum althebräischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen Litteratur- und Textgeschichte (Straßburg: Trübner, 1902). Blidstein, Gerald, “A Roman Gift of Strenae to the Patriarch Judah II”, Israel Exploration Journal 22 (1972): 150–152. Bodendorfer, Gerhard, ed., Bibel und Midrasch. Zur Bedeutung der rabbinischen Exegese für die Bibelwissenschaft (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998). Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice, “Les rapports du Judaisme avec l’histoire de la Septante et de ses revisions”, in Tradition orale et e´crite, ed. Luc Dequeker (Bruxelles: Institutum Iudaicum, 1976): 122–149. Borsch, Tilmann, “Name”, Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 6 (1984): 375–376. Bourgery, Abel, “Le proble`me de l’Institutum Neronianum”, Latomus 2 (1938): 106–111. Boyance´, Pierre, “La connaissance du grec a` Rome”, Revue des e´tudes latines 34 (1956): 111–131. Boyarin, Daniel, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford University Press 1999). –, “Justin Martyr Invents Judaism”, Church History 70 (2001): 427–461. Bregman, Marc, “Early Sources and Traditions in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Midrashim”, (in Hebrew) Tarbiz 60 (1991): 269–274. Brock, Sebastian P., “The Phenomenon of the Septuagint”, Old Testament Studies 17 (1972): 11–36. Brodersen, Kai, Terra Cognita. Studien zur römischen Raumerfassung (Olms: Hildesheim, Zurich, New York, 1995). Broyde, Michael J., “Defilement of the Hands, Canonization of the Bible, and the Special Status of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs”, Judaism 44 (1995): 65–79. Brugnoli, Giorgio, Studi Suetoniani (Lecce: Milella, 1968). Brüll, Nehemias, “Fremdsprachliche Wörter in den Talmuden und Midrashim”, Jahrbuch für Jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 1 (1874): 144–145. Brumble, David H., Classical Myths and Legends in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. A Dictionary of Allegorical Meanings (London, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998). Cadbury, Henry J., “The Grandson of Ben Sira”, Harvard Theological Review 46 (1955): 219–225. Caird, George B., “Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint”, Studia Evangelica 7 (1973–1982): 95–100.

242

bibliography

Canfora, Luciano, The Vanished Library (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, 1989). –, Il viaggio di Aristea (Bari: Laterza, 1996). Carpenter, Rhys, “The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet”, American Journal of Archaeology 37 (1933): 8–29. Carr, David M., “The Song of Songs as a Mirror of the Canonization and Decanonization Process”, in van der Kooij, ed., Canonization and Decanonization, 173–189. Castritius, Helmut, “The Jews in North Africa at the time of Augustine of Hippo: Their Social and Legal Position”, World Congress of Jewish Studies 9, B1 (1986): 31–37. Chester, Andrew, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986). Cohen, Jeremy, “‘Slay them not’. Augustine and the Jews in Modern Scholarship”, Medieval Encounters 4 (1998): 78–92. Colafemmina, Cesare, “Insediamenti e condizioni degli ebrei nell’Italia meridionale e insulare”, in Gli Ebrei nell’Alto Medioevo, vol. 1 (Spoleto: La Sede del Centro, 1980): 197–227. –, “Archeologia ed epigrafia ebraica nell’Italia meridionale”, Italia Judaica. Atti del primo convegno internazionale (Rome: Multigrafica, 1983): 199–210. Collins, John J., “Before the Canon: Scripture in Second Temple Judaism”, in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker, ed. James L. Mays (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995): 225–241. –, “Reinventing Exodus. Exegesis and Legend in Hellenistic Egypt”, in For a Later Generation. The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, ed. Randal A. Argall et alii, Festschrift for George W. E. Nickelsburg (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000): 52–62. Collins, Nina L., The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2000). Colorni, Vittore, “L’uso del greco nella liturgia del giudaismo ellenistico e la novella 146 di Giustiniano”, Annali di Storia del Diritto 8 (1964): 33–42. Cook, Johann, “Greek Philosophy and the Septuagint”, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 24 (1998): 177–191. Cook, Stanley Arthur, “An Arabic Version of the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus”, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology 28 (1902): 173–184. Couard, Ludwig, “Gen 15,12–16 und sein Verhältnis zu Ex 12,40”, Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 3 (1893): 156–159. Coudert, Allison P., and Jeffrey S. Shoulson, eds., Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press, 2004). Cowey, James M. S., and Klaus Maresch, eds., Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis: (144/3–133/2 v. Chr.) (P.Polit.lud.); Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001). Crome, Peter, Symbol und Unzulänglichkeit der Sprache. Jamblichos. Plotin. Porphyrios. Proklos (München: Fink, 1966). Cross, Frank M., “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert”, Harvard Theological Review 57 (1964): 281–299.

modern authors

243

Dacy, Marianne, “Jews and Christians in Alexandria”, Australian Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (1996): 78–93. Danielis Heinsii Aristarchvs sacer, sive ad Nonni in Iohannem Metaphrasin exercitationes. Quarum priori parte Interpres examinatur, posteriori Interpretatio ejus cum Sacro Scriptore confertur: in vtraque S. Euangelistæ plurimi illustrantur loci. Accedit Nonni [et] S. Euangelistæ contextus: tres item Indices: vnus Sylburgii in Nonnum Græcus; duo recentes in Aristarchum; alter Græcus, alter Latinus (Leiden: Elzevir, 1627). Danie´lou, Jean, The´ologie du jude´o-christianisme (Paris: Descle´e, 1958). Davies, Philip R., Scribes and Schools. The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998). Davison, John A., “Peisistratos and Homer”, Transactions of the American Philological Association 86 (1955): 1–21. De Bruyne, Donatien, “Le prologue, le titre et la finale de l’Ecclesiasticus”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 47 (1929): 257–263. De Lange, Nicholas, “Judaeo-Greek Studies: Achievements and Prospects”, Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies 17 (1995): 27–34. –, Origen and the Jews. Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge: University Press, 1976). –, “Sem et Japhet. Les Juifs et la langue grecque”, Parde`s 12 (1990): 90–107. –, “The Revival of the Hebrew Language in the Third Century CE”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 3 (1996): 342–358. Diebner, Bernd Jörg, “‘Mein Grossvater Jesus’”, Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament 16 (1982): 1–37. Dı´ez Macho, Alejandro, “Datacio´n de Neofiti 1”, in Neophyti 1, vol. 3, (Madrid, Barcelona: Consejo superior de investigaciones cientı´ficas,1971): 26*–33*. Dodds, Erec R., The Greek and the Irrational, 3rd edition (Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963). Dorival, Gilles, “Les origines de la Septante: la traduction en grec des cinq livres de la Tora”, in La Bible grecque des Septante, ed. Gilles Dorival et alii (Paris: du Cerf, 1988): 39–82. –, “La Bible dela Septante: 70 ou 72 traducteurs?”, in Tradition of the Text. Studies Offered to D. Barthe´lemy in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano (Fribourg, Göttingen: Editions universitaires; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991): 45–62. Downs, Mary E., “Spatial Conception in the Ancient Geographers and the Mapping of Hispania Baetica”, Classical Bulletin 72 (1996): 37–49. Drijvers, Jan Willem, “Ammianus Marcellinus on the Geography of the Pontus Euxinus”, Histos 2 (1999), http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/histos/1998/ drijvers. html (April 1999). Dubois, Marcel Jacques, “Jews, Judaism and Israel in the Theology of Saint Augustine. How he Links the Jewish People and the Land of Zion”, Immanuel 22–23 (1989): 162–214. Dummer, Jürgen, “Die Sprachkenntnisse des Epiphanius”, Die Araber in der alten Welt, ed. Franz Altheim, vol. 5/1, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1968): 392–435. Duval, Yves-Marie, “Saint Augustin et le Commentaire sur Jonas de saint Je´roˆme”, Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes 12 (1966): 9–40.

244

bibliography

Edwards, Mark J., “Atticising Moses? Numenius, the Father and the Jews”, Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990): 64–75. Edwards, Ruth B., Kadmos the Phoenician: A Study in Greek Legends and the Mycenaean Age (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1979). Efroymson, David P., “Tertullian’s Anti-Jewish Rhetoric”, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 36 (1980): 25–37. Eichhorn, Johann G., “Über die Quellen, aus denen die verschiedenen Erzählungen von der Entstehung der alexandrinischen Übersetzung geflossen sind”, Repertorium für biblische und morgenländische Litteratur 1 (1777): 266–280. Ellis, E. Earle, The Old Testament in Early Christianity. Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991). Ephrati, J. E., “Ella she-adam hayyav lomar bilshon rabbo”, Bar-Ilan 9 (1972): ˙ 221–238. Estin, Colette, “Saint Je´roˆme, de la traduction inspire´e a` la traduction relativiste”, Revue Biblique 88 (1981); 199–215. Feldman, Louis H., Jews and Gentile in the Ancient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). Ferris, Iain M., Enemies of Rome: Barbarians through Roman Eyes (Stroud: Sutton, 2000). Finkelberg, Margalit and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., Homer, the Bible, and Beyond. Literary and Religious Canons in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill, 2003). Fischel, Henry Albert, ed., Essays in Graeco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature (New York: Ktav, 1977). Fishbane, Michael, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985). Frankel, Zacharias, Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (Leipzig: Vogel, 1841). –, “Zur Frage über das Verhältnis des alexandrinischen und palästinischen Judenthums, namentlich in exegetischer Beziehung”, Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 4 (1850): 102–109. –, Über den Einfluß der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (Leipzig: Barth, 1851). –, Über palestinische und alexandrinische Schriftforschung (Breslau: Wilh. Gottl. Korn, 1854). Fredriksen, Paula, “Divine Justice and Human Freedom. Augustine on Jews and Judaism”, in From Witness to Witchcraft. Jews and Judaism in Medieval Christian Thought, ed. Jeremy Cohen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1996): 29–57. –, “‘Excaecati occulta justitia Dei.’ Augustine on Jews and Judaism”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 3 (1995) 299–324. –, “Augustine and Israel. ‘Interpretatio ad litteram’. Jews, and Judaism in Augustine’s Theology of history”, Studia Patristica 38 (2001): 119–135. Freidman, M. A., “u-katevu lo, ose lo ktav”, Sinai 84 (1979): 177–179. Frend, William H. C., “Tertulliano e gli ebrei”, Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 4 (1968): 3–10. –, “A note on Tertullian and the Jews”, Studia Patristica 10 (1970): 291–296.

modern authors

245

Freudenthal, Jakob, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Breslau: Verlag von H. Skutsch, 1875). Friedmann, Meir, Onkelos und Akylas (Wien: Lippe, 1896). Fürst, Alfons, “‘Veritas Latina’: Augustins Haltung gegenüber Hieronymus’ Bibelübersetzungen”, Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes 40 (1994): 105–126. –, “Kürbis oder Efeu? Zur Übersetzung von Jona 4,6 in der Septuaginta und bei Hieronymus”, Biblische Notizen 72 (1994): 12–19. Galbiati, Enrico Rodolfo, “La versione dei LXX: influsso sui Padri e sulla liturgia greca e latina”, Annali di Scienze Religiose 1 (1996): 57–70. Gallandi, Andre´, ed., Bibliotheca veterum Patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, vol. 2 (Venice: Zatta, 1767). Gastaldi, Nestor J., Hilario de Poitiers: exegeta del salterio. Un estudio de su exe´gesis en los comentarios sobre los salmos (Paris: Beauchesne, 1969). Geiger, Abraham, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhængigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau: Hainauer, 1857). Geller, Markham, “An Akkadian Vademecum in the Babylonian Talmud”, in From Athens to Jerusalem Medicine in Hellenized Jewish Lore and in Early Christian Literature, ed. Samuel Kottek et alii (Rotterdam: Erasmus Publishing, 2000): 13–32. Gerber, Christine, Ein Bild des Judentums für Nichtjuden von Flavius Josephus: Untersuchungen zu seiner Schrift Contra Apionem (Leiden, New York: Brill, 1997). Gerhardsson, Birger, Memory and Manuscript (Lund, Copenhagen: 1961). Giannozzo, Manetti, Apologeticus, ed. Alfonso De Petris (Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1981). Gilbert, Maurice, “L’Eccle´siastique: Quel texte? Quelle autorite´?”, Revue Biblique 94 (1987): 233–250. –, “The book of Ben Sira: Implications for Jewish and Christian Traditions”, in Jewish Civilization in the Hel-lenistic-Roman Period (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991): 81–91. Ginsburg, Christian D., Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897) (repr. New York: Ktav, 1966). Ginsburger, Moses, “Verbotene Thargumim”, Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 44 (1900): 1–7. Ginzberg, Louis, The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909–1938). –, “(Aquila) In Rabbinical Literature”, Jewish Encyclopaedy 2 (1902): 36–38. Glicksberg, S. Y., “Ha-meturgeman bitqufat ha-talmud”, Sinai 3 (1938): 218–221. Goldberg, Arnold, “Kain: Sohn des Menschen oder Sohn der Schlange”, Judaica 25 (1965): 203–221. –, Untersuchung über die Vorstellung der Schekhinah in der frühen rabbinischen Literatur (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969). –, “Die Schrift der rabbinischen Schriftausleger”, Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 15 (1987): 1–15. –, “Die Zerstörung von Kontext als Voraussetzung für die Kanonisierung religiöser Texte im rabbinischen Judentum”, in Assmann, ed., Kanon und Zensur II, 202–211.

246

bibliography

Gomoll, Heinz, “Suetons bibliotheksgeschichtliche Nachrichten”, Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen 52 (1935): 381–388. Goodblatt, David M., Rabbinic Institutions in Sassanian Babylonia (Brill: Leiden, 1975). Gooding, David W., “Aristeas and Septuagint Origins: A Review of Recent Studies”, Vetus Testamentum 13 (1973): 357–379. Grabbe, Lester L., “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis”, Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 527–536. Gräfenhan, Ernst W. A., Geschichte der klassischen Philologie in Alterthum, vol. 1 (Bonn: König, 1843) (reprint Osnabrück: Biblio, 1973). Grafton, Anthony, Joseph Scaliger. A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship, vol. 1: Textual Criticism and Exegesis, vol. 2: Historical Chronology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983; 1993). Gray, Alyssa M., “A Contribution to the Study of Martyrdom and Identity in the Palestinian Talmud”, Journal of Jewish Studies 54 (2003): 242–272. Greenfield, Jonas C., “Ben Sira 42,9–10 and its Talmudic Paraphrase”, in A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, eds. Philip R. Davies & Richard T. White (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990): 167–173. Greenspoon, Leonard J., “Recensions, Revision, Rabbinics: Dominique Barthe´lemy and Early Developments in the Greek Traditions”, Textus 15 (1990): 153–167. Grelot, Pierre, “Quatre cent trente ans (Ex 12,40)”, in Homenaje a Juan Prado: Miscela´nea de estudios be´blicos y hebra´icos, ed. L. Alvarez Verdes and E. J. Alonso Herna´ndez (Madrid: Instituto Benito Arias Montano, 1975): 559–570. Gressman, Hugo, “Jüdisch-Aramäisches bei Epiphanius”, Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 16 (1915): 191–197. Gruen, Erich S., “The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story”, Jewish History 12 (1998): 93–122. –, Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1998). Guetta, Alessandro, “Avraham Portaleone, le scientifique repenti”, in Torah et science: perspectives historiques et the´oriques. Etudes offertes a` Charles Touati, ed. Gad Freudenthal & Jean-Pierre Rothschild (Peeters: ParisLouvain, 2001): 221–223. Hadrill, Andrew Wallace, Suetonius. The Scholar and his Caesars (London: Duckworth, 1983). Hahn, Hartmut, ed., Wallfahrt und Auferstehung zur messianischen Zeit. Eine rabbinische Homilie zum Neumond-Shabbat (PesR 1) (Frankfurt: Gesellschaft zur Förderung Judaistischer Studien, 1979). Halbertal, Moshe, People of the Book. Canon, Meaning, and Authority (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1997). Hall, Edith, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-definition Through Tragedy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991). Hallewy, E. E., “The Writers of the Aggada and the Greek Grammarians”, (in Hebrew) Tarbiz 29 (1959): 47–55.

modern authors

247

–, “Biblical Midrash and Homeric Exegesis”, (in Hebrew) Tarbiz 31 (1961): 157–169; 264–80. Haran, Menahem, The Biblical Collection. Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, Magnes, 1996–2003). Hardie, Philip, “Fifth-Century Athenian and Augustan Images of the Barbarian Other”, Classics Ireland 4 (1997): 46–56. Hardwick, Michael E., Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius (Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1989). Harle, Margherite, La Bible d’Alexandrie. La Gene`se (Paris; Du Cerf, 1986). Hart, J. H. A., “The Prologue to Ecclesiasticus”, Jewish Quarterly Revue 19 (1907): 284–297. Heinemann, Joseph, “Birkat ha-kohanim . . . lo niqret we-lo meturgemet”, BarIlan 6 (1968): 33–41. –, “210 Years of Egyptian Exile. A Study in Midrashic Chronology”, Journal of Jewish Studies 22 (1971): 19–30. Helleman, Wendy E., “Tertullian on Athens and Jerusalem”, in Hellenization Revisited. Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World, ed. Wendy E. Helleman (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994): 361–381. Hengel, Martin, The “Hellenization” of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (London, Philadelphia: SCM Press, 1989). –, “Die Septuaginta als ‘christliche Schriftensammlung’, ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanones”, in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994): 182–284. –, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: its Prehistory and the Problem of its Canon, with the assistance of Roland Deines, introduction by Robert Hanhart (Edinburgh, New York: T. & T. Clark, 2002). Herr, Moshe David, “Tfisat ha-istoriyah esel hazal”, Proceedings of the Sixth ˙ ˙ 129–142. World Congress of Jewish Studies 3 (1977): Hersler, Moses, ed., Bet ha-behirah al massekhet megillah, (Jerusalem: Mekon ˙ ha-Talmud ha-Israeli ha-Shalem, 1967–1968). Hezser, Catherine, Form, Function, and Historical Significance of the Rabbinical Story in Yerushalmi Neziqin (Tübingen: Mohr, 1993). –, “Die Verwendung der hellenistischen Gattung Chrie im frühen Christentum und Judentum”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 27 (1996): 371–439. –, “‘Privat’ und ‘öffentlich’ im Talmud Yerushalmi und in der griechischrömichen Antike”, in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. Peter Schäfer, vol. 1 (Tübingen 1998): 423–579. –, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr, 2001). Higgins, Angus J. B., “Jewish Messianic Belief in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho”, Novum Testamentum 9 (1967): 298–305. Hilgard, Alfred, Scholia in Dionysii Thracis artem grammaticam, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1891). Hirschler, Maurus, Sprachphilosophie und Namenmagie im Neuplatonismus: mit einem Exkurs zu“Demokrit B 142” (Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 1979).

248

bibliography

Holford-Strevens, Leofranc, Aulus Gellius (London: Duckworth, 1988). Holladay, Carl R., ed., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, vol. 1 (Chico, Ca.: Scholars Press, 1983). Hollerich, Michael J., “Eusebius as a Polemical Interpreter of Scripture”, in Christianity and Judaism, ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata (Leiden: Brill, 1992): 585–615. Horbury, William, “Tertullian on the Jews in the Light of ‘De Spectaculis’ 30,5–6”, Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972): 455–459. Humphrey Hody, “Contra historiam LXX interpretum Aristeae nominem inscriptum dissertatio” (1685), in idem, De Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus, Versionibus Graecis (Oxonii: E Theatro Sheldoniano, 1705): 1–89. Hyvärinen, Kyösti, Die Übersetzung von Aquila (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977). Ilan, Tal, “‘Wickeness Comes from Women’ (Ben Sira 42:13). Ben Sira’s Misogeny and Its Reception by the Babylonian Talmud”, in eadem, Interpreting Women into Second Temple History (Tübigen: Mohr, 1999): 156–174. Jacobs, Martin, Die Institution des jüdischen Patriarchen (Tübingen: Mohr, 1995). Janowitz, Naomi, “Theories of Divine Names in Origen and Pseudo-Dionysus”, History of Religion 30 (1991): 359–372. –, “The Rhetoric of Translation: Three Early Perspectives on Translating Torah”, Harvard Theological Review 84 (1991): 129–140. Jeannotte, Henri, “Le texte du Psautier de Saint Hilaire de Poitiers”, Revue Biblique 13 (1916): 61–89. –, Le Psautier de saint Hilaire de Poitiers (Gabalda: Paris 1917). Jellicoe, Sidney, “Some Reflections on the καιγε-Recension”, Vetus Testamentum 23 (1973): 15–24. Joe¨l, Manuel, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des zweiten christlichen Jahrhunderts, vol. 1 (Breslau: Schottlaender, 1880). Kaibel, Georg, ed., Comicorum Graecorum fragementa, vol. 1 (Berlin Weidmann, 1899). Kamesar, Adam, “The Virgin of Isaiah 7:14: The Philological Argument from the Second to the Fifth Century”, Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990): 51–75. –, Jerome, Greek Scholarship and the Hebrew Bibel. A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1993). –, “The Narrative Aggada as Seen from the Graeco-Latin Perspective”, Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994): 52–70. –, “The Evaluation of the Narrative Aggada in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature”, Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1994): 37–71. –, “The Literary Genres of the Pentateuch as Seen from the Greek Perspective: The Testimony of Philo of Alexandria”, The Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997): 143–189. Kamin, Sarah, “The theological significance of the ‘Hebraica veritas’ in Jerome’s Thought”, in Shaarei Talmon. Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov (Winona Lake, In., Eisenbrauns, 1992): 243–253.

modern authors

249

Karlinger, Felix, Legendenforschung. Aufgabe und Ergebnisse (Darmstadt: Buchgesellschaft, 1986). Kasher, Aryeh, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. The Struggle of Equal Rights (Tübingen: Mohr, 1985). Katz, Peter, “The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria”, Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 47 (1956): 191–217. Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin, “Jewish Traditions in the Writings of Jerome”, in The Aramaic Bible. Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994): 420–430. Klein, Michael L., “Not to be Translated in Public – lo metargem besibbura”, ˙ Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988): 80–91. –, Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Makor, 1982). Kleingünther, Adolf, Protos heuretes: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1933). Koch, Klaus, “Sabbatstruktur der Geschichte”, Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95 (1983): 403–430. Kofsky, Aryeh, “Eusebius of Caesarea and the Christian-Jewish Polemic”, in Contra Iudaeos. Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews, ed. Ora Limor and Guy G. Stroumsa (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996): 59–83. Kohut, Alexander, “Correction d’une erreur de copiste plusieurs fois se´culaire”, Revue des Etudes Juives 22 (1891): 210–212. Kosovsky, Y. M., “Ha-meturgeman bidrashah ha-sibburit”, Sinai 45 (1959): ˙ 233–243. Kötting, Bernard, “Die Entwicklung im Osten bis Justinian”, in Kirche und Synanogue. Handbuch zur Geschichte von Christen und Juden. Darstellung mit Quellen, ed. Karl Heinrich Rengstorf and Siegfried von Korztfleich (Stuttgart: Ernst Kletter, 1968), vol. 1: 158–165. Krauss, Samuel, “Akylas, der Proselyt”, in Festschrift zum achtzigsten Geburtstage Moritz Steinschneider’s (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1896): 148–163. –, “Ägyptische und syrische Götternamen im Talmud”, Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut, ed. George Alexander Kohut (Berlin: S. Calvary, 1897): 341–342. Kreuzer, Siegfried, “430 Jahre, 400 Jahre oder 4 Generationen. Zu den Zeitangaben über den Ägyptenaufenthalt der Israeliten”, Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 98 (1986): 199–210. Krochmalnik, Daniel, “Der ‘Philosoh’ in Talmud und Midrasch”, Trumah 5 (1996): 137–178. Launay, Marc B., “Babel”, Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale 1 (1989): 93–105. –, “Pour une philosophie de la traduction”, Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale 1 (1989): 5–22. Lauterbach, Jacob Z., “The Three Books Found in the Temple at Jerusalem”, Jewish Quarterly Review 8 (1917–1918): 385–423. Lebram, Jürgen C. H., “Ein Streit um die hebräische Bibel und die Septuaginta”, in Leiden University in the Seventeenth Century. An Exchange of Learning, ed. Theodor Herman Lunsingh Scheurleer (Leiden: Universitaire Pres Leiden, Brill, 1975): 21–63.

250

bibliography

Leder, Stefan, Spoken Word and Written Text: Meaning and Social Significance of the Institution of Riwa¯ya (Tokyo: Islamic Area Studies Project, 2002). Lehmann, Manfred R., “Jewish Wisdom Formulae. Ben Sira, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Pirke Avot”, World Congress of Jewish Studies 11, A (1994): 159–162. Leiman, Sid Z., The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: the Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Hamden: Archon, 1976). –, “The Scroll of Fasts: the Ninth of Teveth”, Jewish Quarterly Review 74 (1983): 174–195. Leipoldt, Johannes, “Von Übersetzungen und Übersetzern”, in Aus Antike und Orient. FS Wilhelm Schubart zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Siegfrid Morenz (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1950): 54–63. Levias, C., “Meturgeman”, Encyclopaedia Judaica 8 (1904): 521–522. Levine, Etan, “The Biography of the Aramaic Bible”, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94 (1982): 353–379. –, The Aramaic Version of the Bible (Berlin: New York: De Gruyter, 1988). Levy, Jakob, Neuhebräisches und chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midrashim, 4 vols. (Leipzig: Brockhaus: 1876–1889). Lewis, Naphtali, ed., Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters, vol. 1: Greek Papyri (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989). Lewy, Israel, “Über die Spuren des griechischen und römischen Alterthums im talmudischen Schriftthum”, Verhandlungen der Versammlung Deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner (Leipzig: Teubner, 1878): 77–88. Lichtenstein, Hans, “Die Fastenrolle: eine Untersuchung zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte”, Hebrew Union College Annual 8–9 (1931–1932): 318–351. Liddell, Henry George, Scott, Robert, eds., Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Lieberman, Saul, “How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine”, in Studies and Text, vol. 1: Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, Ma., Harvard University Press, 1963): 123–141. –, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B. C. E.–IV Century C. E., 2nd ed. (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962). –, Greek in Jewish Palestine. Studies in the Life and Manners of Jewish Palestine in the II–IV Centuries CE, 2 nd edition (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965). –, Texts and Studies (New York: Ktav, 1974). Lieu, Judith M., “Epiphanius on the Scribes and Pharisees (Pan. 15.1–16.4)”, Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988): 509–524. Lührmann,, Dieter, “Die 430 Jahre zwischen den Verheißungen und dem Gesetz (Gal 3,17)”, Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 100 (1988): 420–423. Lumbroso, Giacomo, “Dell’uso delle iscrizioni e dei papiri per la critica al libro di Aristea”, Atti della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 4 (1868–1869): 229–254. –, Recherches sur l’e´conomie politique de l’Egypte sous les Lagides (Tourin: Bocca, 1870).

modern authors

251

MacLeod, Roy, ed., The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World (London, New York: I. B. Tauris, 2000). Maggioni, Giovanni Paulo, Ricerche sulla composizione e sulla trasmissione della“Legenda aurea” (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’ alto medioevo, 1995). Maier, Johann, “Die Sonne im religiösen Denken des antiken Judentums”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II/19.1 (1979): 346–412. –, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike (Darmstadt: Buchgesellschaft, 1982). –, Le scritture prima della Bibbia (Paideia: Brescia, 2003). Markschies, Christoph, “Hieronymus und die ‘Hebraica Veritas’. Ein Beitrag zur Archäologie des protestantischen Schriftverständnisses?”, in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, ed. Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994): 131–181. McCarter Jr., Peter Kyle, The Antiquity of the Greek Alphabet and Early Phoenician Scripts (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975). McCarthy, Carmel, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Fribourg; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, Vandenhoeck, 1981). McQuail, Denis, Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest (London: Safe, 1992). Meecham, Henry G., The Letter of Aristeas. A Linguistic Study (Manchester: University Press, 1935). Meisner, Norbert, “Untersuchungen zum Aristeasbrief”, (Diss. Berlin, 1973). Me´le`ze-Modrzejewski, Joseph, “Philiscos de Milet et le jugement de Salomon: La premie`re re´fe´rence grecque a` la Bible”, Bullettino dell’istituto di Diritto Romano 30 (1988 [1992]): 571–597. –, “How to be a Jew in Hellenistic Egypt”, in Diaspora in Antiquity, ed. Shaye J. D. Cohen (Atlanta, Ge.: Scholars Press, 1993): 65–91. Menasse ben Israel, Vindiciae Iudaeorum (Amsterdam; 1656). Mendels, Doron, “‘On Kingship’ in the Temple Scroll and the Ideological Vorlage of the Seven Banquets in the ‘Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates’”, in idem, Identity, Religion and Historiography: Studies in Hellenistic History (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998): 324–333. –, The Media Revolution of Early Chirstianity (Grand Rapids, Mich., Cambridge, UK, Eerdmans, 1999). Merkelbach, Reinhold, “Die pisistratische Redaktion der homerischen Gedichte”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 95 (1952): 23–47. Metzger, Bruce M., “Seventy or Seventy-two Disciples”, New Testament Studies 6 (1959–60): 319–321. Michaelis, Johann David, Deutsche Übersetzung des Alten Testaments mit Anmerkungen für Ungelehrte. Der zwölfte Theil (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1758). Mihaly, Eugene, “A Rabbinic Defence of the Election of Israel”, Hebrew Union College Annual 35 (1964): 103–143. Miletto, Gianfranco, “Die ‘Hebraica veritas’ in S. Hieronymus”, in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition. Festschrift für Johann Maier, ed. Helmut Merklein (Frankfurt a. M.: Anton Hain, 1993): 56–65.

252

bibliography

Milhau, Marc, “Un texte d’Hilaire de Poitiers sur les Septante, leur traduction et les autres ‘traducteurs’ (In psalm. 2,2–3)”, Augustinianum 21 (1981): 365–372. Miller, Patrick D., “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew”, Ugarit Forschungen 2 (1970): 177–186. Momigliano, Arnaldo, “Per la data e la caratteristica della lettera di Aristea”, Aegypt 12 (1932): 161–173. –, Alien Wisdom. The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). Monaci Castagno, Adele, “Ridefinire il confine; ebrei, giudaizzanti, cristiani nell’ ‘Adversus Iudaeos’ di Giovanni Crisostomo”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 14 (1997): 135–152. Montanari, Franco, “Zenodotus, Aristarchus and the Ekdosis of Homer”, in Editing Texts. Texte edieren, ed. Glenn W. Most (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998): 1–21. Moore, George F., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 7th edition, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1927–1930). Motzo, Bacchisio, “Aristea”, Atti della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 50 (1914–1915): 207–225; 547–570. Müller, Karlheinz, “Die rabbinischen Nachrichten über die Entstehung der LXX”, in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch. Beiträge zur Septuaginta, ed. Joseph Schreiner, vol. 1 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1972): 73–93. Müller, Mogens, “Jødedommens Bibel pa˚ nytestamentlig tid og den Kristne Bibel. Hebraica sive Graeca veritas?”, Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrif 51 (1988): 220–237. –, “Graeca sive Hebraica Veritas? The Defence of the Septuagint in the Early Church”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 1 (1989): 103–124. –, “Hebraica sive Graeca Veritas. The Jewish Bible at the Time of the New Testament and the Christian Bible”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 2 (1989): 55–71. Murray, Oswyn, “Aristeas and his Sources”, Studia Patristica 12 (1975): 123–128. Nestel, Eberhard, “Zum Ecclesiasticus”, Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 (1897): 123–124. –, “Jesus Sirach Neffe oder Enkel des Amos Sirach”, Zeitschrift fürdie alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 23 (1903): 128–130. Neusner, Jacob, “Judaic Uses of History in Talmudic Times”, in Essays in Jewish Historiography, ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert (Middletown, Co.: Wesleyan University, 1988): 12–39. Newman, Hillel Isaac, “Jerome’s Judaizers”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001): 421–452. Niehoff, Maren R., “‘What is in A Name?’ Philo’s Mystical Philosophy of Language”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 2 (1995): 220–252. Norton, Gerard J., “Jews, Greeks and the Hexapla of Origen”, in The Aramaic Bible; Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994): 400–419. Opelt, Ilona, “San Girolamo e i suoi maestri ebrei”, Augustinianum 28 (1988): 327–338.

modern authors

253

Orlinsky, Harry Meyer, “The Septuagint as Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators”, Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975): 89–114. –, “Some Terms in the Prologue to Ben Sira and the Hebrew Canon”, Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 483–490. Osborn, Eric, “Clement and the Bible”, in Origen and the Bible. Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum, Chantilly, 1993, ed. Gilles Dorival and Alain Le Boulluec (Leuven: Leuven University Press, Peeters, 1995): 121–132. –, “The subtlety of Tertullian”, Vigiliae Christianae 52 (1998): 361–370. Otte, Klaus, Das Sprachverständnis bei Philo of Alexandrien (Tübingen: Mohr, 1968). Paget, James N. B. Carleton, “Clement of Alexandria and the Jews”, Scottish Journal of Theology 51 (1998): 86–97. Parente, Fausto, “La Lettera d’Aristea come fonte per la storia del giudaismo alessandrino durante la prima meta` del I secolo a. C.”, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa 2 (1972): 177–237, 517–567. –, “Le omelie di Giovanni Crisostomo ed il loro significato nello svolgimento della polemica cristiana antiebraica”, in Associazione Italiana per lo Studio del Giudaismo: Atti del II Convegno tenuto a Idice, Bologna, novembre 1981, ed. Fausto Parente and Daniela Piattelli (Roma: Carucci, 1983): 27–34. Paul, Andre´, “La Bible grecque d’Aquila et l’ide´ologie du judaı¨sme ancien”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.20/1 (1987): 235–244. Pelletier, Andre´, Flavius Jose`phe adaptateure de la Lettre d’Ariste´e. Une re´action atticisisante contre la koine` (Paris: Klincksieck, 1962). Peter, R., “Note de lexicographie he´braı¨que”, Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 486–496. Pradels, Wendy, “The Sequence and Dating of the Series of John Chrysostom’s Eight Discourses ‘Adversus Iudaeos’”, Journal of Ancient Christianity 6 (2002): 90–116. Pre´aux, Claire, “De la Gre`ce classique a` l’Egypte helle´nistique: traduire ou ne pas traduire”, Chronique d’Egypt 42 (1967): 369–383. Preuss, Julius, Biblisch-talmudische Medizin (edit. by S. Paley, New York, 1971, 1st edition 1911). Prinzivalli, Emanuela, “‘Sicubi dubitas, Hebraeos interroga’. Girolamo tra difesa dell’ ‘Hebraica veritas’ e polemica antigiudaica”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 14 (1997): 179–206. Pucci Zeev, Miriam, “The Reliability of Josephus Flavius. The Case of Hecataeus’ and Manetho’s Accounts of Jews and Judaism. Fifteen Years of Contemporary Research (1974–1990)”, Journal of Jewish Studies 24 (1993): 215–234. Raspe, Lucia, “Manetho on the Exodus. A Reappraisal”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 5 (1998): 124–155. Rebenich, Stefan, “Jerome; the ‘Vir trilinguis’ and the ‘Hebraica veritas’”, Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993): 50–77. Reiner, Erica, Astral Magic in Babylonia (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society 1995).

254

bibliography

Reynolds, Jack, ed., Understanding Derrida (New York, London: continuum, 2004). Rinaldi, Giancarlo, ed., Biblia gentium: primo contributo per un indice delle citazioni, dei riferimenti e delle allusioni alla Bibbia negli autori pagani, greci e latini, di eta` imperiale (Rome: Libreria Sacre Scritture, 1989). Ritschl, Friedrich, “Die alexandrinischen Bibliotheken unter den ersten Ptolemaeern und die Sammlung der homerischen Gedichte durch Pisistratus”, in idem, Opuscula Philologica, vol. 1 (Lipsiae:Teubner, 1866): 1–31. Rivkin, Ellis, “Ben Sira and the Nonexistence of the Synagogue: A Study in historical Method”, in In the Time of Harvest, ed. Daniel Jeremy Silver (New York, London: Macmillan, 1963): 320–354. Roke´ah, David, Justin Martyr and the Jews (Leiden: Brill, 2002). Rowley, Harold H., From Joseph to Joshua. Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeology (London: British Academy, 1950, reprint 1964). Runia, David T., Philo in Early Christian Literature. A Survey (Assen, Minneapolis: Van Gorcum, 1993). –, Philo and the Church Fathers (Leiden: Brill, 1995). Sachs, Michael, Beiträege zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung: aus jüdischen Quellen (Berlin: Veit, 1854). Salvesen, Alison, ed., Origen’s Hexapla and Fragments (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998). Sawyer, John F. A., Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts (London: Routledge, 1999). Scaliger, Joseph Justus, “Animadversiones in Chronologia Eusebii”, in idem, Thesaurus temporum Eusebii Pamphilii (Leiden: Commelinus, 1606). Scarpat, Giuseppe, “La torre di Babele in Filone e nella Sapienza (Sap 10,5)”, Rivista Biblica 39 (1991): 167–173. Schäfer, Peter, “Bere¯sˇit Ba¯ra¯ Elo¯hı¯m. Zur Interpretation von Gen 1,1 in der rabbinischen Literatur”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 2 (1971): 161–166. –, Die Vorstellung vom heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (München: Kösel, 1972). –, “Israel und die Völker der Welt. Zur Auslegung von Mekhilta deRabbi Yishma el, bahodesh Yitro 5”, Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 4 (1976): ˙ 32–62. –, “Zur Geschichtsauffassung des rabbinischen Judentums”, in idem, Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums (Leiden: Brill, 1978): 23–44. –, “The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt”, in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, ed. Jakob J. Petuchowski and Ezra Fleischer (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1981): 74–94. –, Judeophobia (Cambridge, Ma.; London: Harvard University Press, 1997). Schaller, Berndt, “Gen 1,2 im antiken Judentum”, (PhD. Universität Göttigen, 1961). Schechter, Solomon, “The quotations from Ecclesiasticus in Rabbinic Literatur”, Jewish Quarterly Review 3 (1890–1891): 682–706. Schenker, Adrian, “Septuaginta und christliche Bibel”, Theologische Revue 91 (1995): 459–464.

modern authors

255

Schlüter, Margarete, Deraqo¯n und Götzendienst. Studien zur antiken jüdischen Religionsgeschichte, ausgehend von einem griechischen Lehnwort in mAZ III 3 (Bern: Lang, 1982). –, “Zur Frage eines Kanons der rabbinischen Literatur im Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon und in der Vorrede zum Mishne Tora des Rambam”, Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 15 (1987): 91–110. Schmid, Wilhelm, Stählin, Otto, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, vol. 1 (München: Beck, 1929). Schmidt, Werner H., Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964). Schulz-Flügel, Eva, “Hieronymus, Feind und Überwinder der Septuaginta? Untersuchungen anhand der Arbeiten an den Psalmen”, in Der SeptuagintaPsalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Symposium in Göttingen 1997, ed. by Anneli Aejmelaeus and Udo Quast (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000): 33–50. Schürer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B. C.–A. D. 135), ed. Geza Vermes et alii, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1983–1986). Schwabe, Moshe, “On the Jewish and Graeco-Roman Schools in the Days of the Mishna and the Talmud” (in Hebrew) Tarbiz 21 (1949–50): 112–123. Schwartz, Daniel R., “On Something Biblical about II Maccabees”, in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Michael E. Stone & Esther Chazon (Leiden: Brill, 1998): 223–232, also in http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/symposiums/1st/papers/ Schwartz96.html (July 2003). Schwarz, Werner, Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation (Cambridge: University Press, 1955). 1972). Segal, Alan F., Two Powers in Heaven. Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977). Segal, Moses H., “The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the Hebrew Bible”, Journal of Biblical Literature 72 (1953): 35–46. Sengebusch, Maximilian, Homerica dissertatio posterio (Leipzig: Teubner, 1856). Shinan, Avigdor, “Lishan bet qudsha be-targumim ha-aramiyyim le-torah”, Bet Miqra 66 (1976): 472–474. –, “The Aramaic Targum as a Mirror of Galilean Jewry”, in The Galilee in Late Antiquity, ed. Lee I Levine (Cambridge: University Press, 1992): 241–251. Silverstone, Alec Eli, Aquila and Onkelos (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1931). Simon, Marcel, Verus Israel. Etude sur les relations entre Chre´tiens et Juifs dans l’empire romain (135–425), 2nd edition (Paris: Boccard, 1964). –, “La Bible dans les premie`res controverses entre Juifs et Chre´tiens”, in Le monde grec ancien et la Bible, ed. Claude Monde´sert (Paris: Beauchesne, 1985): 107–125. Simonetti, Manlio, “Eusebio tra ebrei e giudei”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi 14 (1997): 121–134. Simonsohn, Shlomo, “The Hebrew Revival Among Early Medieval European Jews”, Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume: On the Occasion of his

256

bibliography

Eightieth Birthday, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1974): 838–840. Skarsaune, Oskar, The Proof from Prophecy: a Study in Justin Martyr’s Prooftext Tradition: Text-type, Provenance, Theological Profile (Leiden: Brill, 1987). Smend, Rudolf, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach Hebräisch und Deutsch (Berlin: Reimer, 1906). Smith, Jonathan Z., Map is not Territory. Studies in the History of Religions (Leiden: Brill, 1978). Smolar, L., Aberbach, M., “The Golden Calf Episode in Postbiblical Literature”, Hebrew Union College Annual 39 (1968): 92–116. Solin, Heikki, “Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethnisch-demographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände”, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.29/2 (1983): 587–789. Stauffer, E., “Der Meturgeman des Petrus”, Neutestamentliche Aufsätze, ed. J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, F. Mußner (Regensburg: Pustet, 1963): 283–293. Stein, Arthur, Der Sprachgebrauch in der Verwaltung Ägyptens unter römischer Herrschaft (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche Buchhandlung, 1915). Steinschneider, Moritz, “Die kanonische Zahl der muhammedanischen Secten und die Symbolik der Zahl 70–73, aus jüdischen und muhammedabischQuellen nachgewiesen”, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 4 (1850):145–170. –, “Nachtrag”, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 57 (1903): 474–507. Stemberger, Günter, Die römische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden (Darmstadt: Buchgesellschaft, 1983). –, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, 8th edition (München: Beck, 1992). –, “Hieronymus und die Juden seiner Zeit”, in Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter. Festschrift für Heinz Schreckenberg, ed. Dietrich-Alex Koch and Hermann Lichtenberger (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993): 349–364. –, “Die innerrabbinische Überlieferung von Mischna Avot”, in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion. Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, vol. 1: Judentum, ed. Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996): 511–527. –, “Biblische Darstellungen auf Mosaikfußböden spätantiker Synagogen”, Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 13 (1998): 145–170. Stern, David, “On Canonization in Rabbinic Judaism”, in Finkelberg, ed., Homer, the Bible, and Beyond, 227–252. –, “Sacred Text and Canon”, in Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought. Original Essays on Critical Concepts, Movements, and Beliefs, ed. Arthur A. Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr (New York: Free Press, 1987): 841–847. Stern, Menachem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1974–1980). Stone, Michael E., “Concerning the Seventy-two Translators: Armenian Fragments of Epiphanius on Weights and Measure”, Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 331–336.

modern authors

257

Stössel, M., “Zur griechischen Bibelübersetzung”, Ben Chananja 6 (1863): 693–694; 717–718; 733–735. Stroumsa, Gedaliahu Guy, “Tertullian on Idolatry and the Limits of Tolerance”, in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. by Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998): 173–184. Swete, Henry Barclay, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambirge University Press, 1902). Talmon, Shemaryahu, “The Three Scrolls of the Law that were Found in the Temple Court”, Textus 2 (1962): 14–27. Tcherikover, Victor, “The Ideology of the Letter of Aristeas”, Harvard Theological Review 51 (1958): 59–85. Thackeray, Henry St. John, ed., The Letter of Aristeas (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917). Theiler, Willy, “Die Sprache des Geistes in der Antike”, in idem, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1966). Thraede, Klaus, “Erfinder”, Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 5 (1962): 1191–1278. Tov, Emanuel, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Revised and Enlarged Edition (Jerusalem: Simor, 1981). –, “The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the ‘Alterations’ Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX” (in Hebrew), in Isaac Leo Seeligmann Volume. Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, ed. Aharon Oppenheimer and Daniel R. Schwartz, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: E. Rubinstein, 1983): 371–393. –, The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999). –, “Appoaches toward Scripture Embrached by the Ancient Greek Translators”, in Der Mensch vor Gott. Forschungen zum Menschenbild in Bibel, antikem Judentum und Koran. Festschrift für Hermann Lichtenberger zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Ulrike Mittmann-Richert (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004): 213–228. Towner, W. Sibley, The Rabbinic “Enumeration of Scriptural Examples” (Leiden: Brill, 1973). Trautmann-Waller, Ce´line T, Philologie allemande et tradition juive. Le parcours intellectuel de Leopold Zunz (Paris: du Cerf 1998). Trinkaus, Charles, Our Image and Likeness, vol. 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Troiani, Lucio, Commento storico al“Contro Apione” di Giuseppe (Pisa: Giardini,1977). Tur-Sinai, Naftali H., “Auf wieviel Jahre berechnet die Bibel den Aufenthalt der Kinder Israels in Ägypten?”, Biblia et Oriens 18 (1961): 16–17. Ulfgard, Ha˚kan, The Story of Sukkot (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998). Ullendorf, Edward, “The Knowledge of Languages in the Bible” (in Hebrew), in Studies in the Bible Presented to Professor M. H. Segal by His Colleagues and Students, ed. Yehoshua M. Grintz & Yaakov Liver (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1964).

258

bibliography

Ullman, Berthold L., “How Old is the Greek Alphabet?”, American Journal of Archaeology 38 (1934): 359–381. Ulrich, Eugene Charles, “The Old Testament Text of Eusebius; the Heritage of Origen”, in Origen of Alexandria. His World and His Legacy, ed. Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen (Notre Dame, In.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988): 543–562. Ulrich, Jörg, Euseb von Caesarea und die Juden. Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1999). Unterseher, Lisa A., “The Mark of Cain and the Jews. Augustine’s Theology of Jews”, Augustinian Studies 33 (2002): 99–121. Urbach, Ephraim E., “Halakha we-nevu a”, Tarbiz 18 (1946–1947): 1–27. –, The Sages. Their Concepts and Beliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes, Hebrew University, 1975). –, “Halakhah and History”, in Jews, Greeks and Christians. Essays in Honor of William David Davies, ed. Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs (Leiden: Brill, 1976): 112–128. Vajda, Georges, “La version des LXX dans la litte´rature musulmane”, Revue des Etudes Juives 89 (929–1930): 65–70. Van der Kooij, Arie, van der Toorn, Karel, eds., Canonization and Decanonization, (Leiden: Brill, 1998). Van Esbroeck, Michel-Jean, “Une forme ine´dite de la lettre du roi Ptole´me´e pour la traduction des LXX”, Biblica 57 (1976): 543–546. Vawter, Bruce, “The Canaanite Background of Genesis 49”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955): 1–17. Veltri, Giuseppe, “L’ispirazione della LXX tra leggenda e teologia. Dal racconto di Aristea alla veritas hebraica di Girolamo”, Laurentianum 27 (1986): 3–71. –, “Canone, Scrittura e contesto immanente in alcuni testi del I secolo dopo Cristo (Philo, Vit. Cont., § 25; Lc 24,44; Jos., Cont. Ap. I, cap. 8)”, Laurentianum 30 (1989): 3–24. –, “Mittelalterliche Nachahmung weisheitlicher Texte”, Theologische Rundschau 57 (1992) 405–430. –, Eine Tora für den König Talmai (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994). –, “The Humanist Sense of History and the Jewish Idea of Tradition: Azaria de’ Rossi’s Critique of Philo Alexandrinus”, Jewish Studies Quarterly 2 (1995): 390–391. –, “Jewish Traditions in Greek Amulets”, Bulletin of Judaeo-Greek Studies 18 (1996): 33–47. –, Magie und Halakha (Tübingen: Mohr, 1997). –, “Römische Religion an der Peripherie des Reiches: ein Kapitel rabbinischer Rhetorik”, The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, vol. 2, ed. Peter Schäfer and Catherine Hezser (Tübingen: Mohr, 2000): 116–117. –, Gegenwart der Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2002). –, “Greek Loanwords in the Palestinian Talmud: Some New Suggestions”, Journal of Semitic Studies 47 (2002): 237–240. –, and Necker, Gerold, eds., Gottes Sprache in dem philologischen Werkstatt: Hebraistik vom 15. bis 19. Jahrhundert (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

modern authors

259

Vives, Luis Juan, Augustinus Aurelius. De Civitate Dei libri XXII (Basileae: per Ambrosium et Aurelium Frobenios fraters, 1570). Vroom, Hendrik M., ed., Holy Scriptures in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997). Wacholder, Ben Zion, “How Long Did Abram Stay in Egypt? A Study in Hellenistic, Qumran, and Rabbinic Chronography”, Hebrew Union College Annual 35 (1964): 42–56. –, Eupolemos. A Study of Judeo-Greek Literature (Cincinnati, Oh.: Hebrew Union College, 1974). Walter, Nikolaus, Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos (Berlin: Akademieverlag, 1964). –, “Zur Überlieferung einiger Reste früher jüdisch-hellenistischer Literatur bei Josephus, Clement und Euseb”, Studia Patristica 7 (1966): 314–320. Wasserstein, Abraham, “On Donkeys, Wine and the Use of Textual Criticism: Septuagintal Variants in Jewish Palestine”, in The Jews in the HellenisticRoman World. Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, ed. Isaiah M. Gafni (Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center, The Historical Society, 1996): 119–142. Wegmann, Nikolaus, “Dekonstruktion”, in Reallexikon der Deutschen Literaturwissenschaft [Neubearbeitung des Reallexikons der deutschen Literaturgeschichte, ed. Klaus Weimar (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1997), vol. 1: 334–337. Wendland, Paul, “Zur ältesten Geschichte der Bibel in der Kirche”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1900): 269–270. Wewers, Gerd A., Geheimnis und Geheimhaltung im rabbinischen Judentum (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1975). Wilken, Robert Louis, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983). Williams, David S., “The Date of Ecclesiasticus”, Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994): 563–565. Williamson, Roland, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970): 67. Wilson, Walter, ed., The Mysteries of Righteousness. The Literary Composition and Genre of the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocyclides (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994). Wolf, Friedrich August, Prolegomena ad Homerum (Halle: Libr. Orphanotrophei, 1795) (reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1963). Wolfson, Harry A., Philo, 2nd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962). Woolf, Jeffrey R., “Between Diffidence and Initiative: Ashkenazic Legal Decision-Making in the Late Middle Ages (1350–1500)”, Journal of Jewish Studies 52 (2001): 85–97. Wright III, Benjamin G., “Sanhedrin 100b and Rabbinic Knowledge of Ben Sira”, in Treasures of Wisdom; Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom (Festschrift M. Gilbert), ed. N. Calduch-Benages & J. Vermeylen (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1999): 41–50. –, “Some Methodological Considerations on the Rabbis’ Knowledge of the Proverbs of Ben Sira”, in Ioudaios, in ftp://ftp.lehigh.edu/pub/listserv/ ioudaios-l/Articles/bwsira (September 2001).

260

bibliography

–, “Access to the Source: Cicero, Ben Sira, the Septuagint and their Audience”, Journal for the Study of Judaism 34 (2003): 1–27. Yadin, Yigael, The Finds from the Bar-Kokhba Period in the Cave of the Letters (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1963). Yassif, Eli, ed., The Tales of Ben Sira in the Middle Ages. A Critical Text and Literary Studies, (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1984). York, A. D., “The Targum in the Synanogue and the School”, Journal of Jewish Studies 10 (1979): 74 86. Zeitlin, Solomon, “Were There Three Torah-Scrolls in the Azarah?”, Jewish Quarterly Review 56 (1965–66): 269–272. Zipser, M., “Von der Wichtigkeit der griechischen Bibelübersetzungen zur Erkenntnis des Thalmuds und der Tradition”, Ben Chananja 6 (1863): 162–164; 181–185; 598–599; 609–610; 660–662. Zuntz, Günther, “Aristeas Studies: The Seven Banquets”, Journal of Semitic Studies 4 (1959): 21–36. Zunz, Leopold, Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie (Berlin: Gerschel, 1865; reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1966). –, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Curatorium der Zunzstiftung (Berlin: Louis Gerschel Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1875).

DOCUMENTATION STYLE, TRANSLITERATION AND REFERENCES The documentation system follows in the main the Chicago Manual of Style (humanities style) with exception of the format for subsequent references to the same work, for which I preferred adding one or two words from the title of the book, article, or part of the book. The transliteration of Hebrew works follows the Encyclopaedia Judaica (1972), while the transliteration of Greek words retains the common rules of classicists (where for example υ in the diphthong is “au”, “ou” and standing alone “y”) with exception of the tonic accents, which are not necessary for the reproduction of Greek letters. Quotations from the Biblical text are taken from the New International Version unless I expressly quote from an English translation of a Rabbinic text. Slight changes to the quotation of Biblical texts are not mentioned provided there is no distortion of the original meaning. No abbreviation of biblical, Rabbinic, Jewish-Hellenistic or other Jewish or Christian literature is adopted. English translations of Josephus are taken from Henry St. John Thackeray, et al., Josephus, 2nd edition, vols. 1–9 (Cambridge, Ma., London: Harvard University Press, 1966–1969, 1st edition 1926–1965). English translations of Philo follow as a rule F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, eds., The Works of Philo (Cambridge, Mass: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1929–1953), vols. 1–10, Ralph Marcus, ed., vols. 10–12. If not expressly quoted, all other translations of Rabbinic or Christian as well as Jewish and Christian medieval authors are my own.

INDEX OF REFERENCES

1. Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 1:1 1:16 1:26 1:26–27 1:27 2:2 5:1b–2a 5:2 9:27 9:28 11:1 11:5 11:7 12:4 15 15:13 15:16 16:3 16:16 17:1 17:24 18:12 18:13 21:5 21:26 31:47 34 34:27 35:3 35:7 37:19 42:2 47:9 49 49:5–7 49:6

39, 110 106–109, 111, 145, 174 111 110 110, 112, 145 110 f 115–117, 145 110 112 7, 186 155 117, 119, 155 110 117–119, 145 128 126, 128 126 f 126 128 128 176 128 120 f, 145 120 f 128 128 7 121 f 122 110 110 123 127 128 121 121 121–123

Exodus 4:20b 7 12 12:40 16:25 20:11 23:1a 24 24:1 24:1 ff 24:5 24:9–10 24:11 34:23 34:27 35:35 37:21

124, 145 99 128 126–128, 145 116 115 f 38, 93 134, 141 63, 65 f 135 135–137 134 134, 136 f 97 167 180 180

Leviticus 11:6 19:20 23:24 25:7

134, 137 184 177 168

Numbers 5 16 16:10 16:15 16:17 22–24 24–26

157 130 130 129, 145 130 56 156

Deuteronomy 4:2 4:7 4:19 6:4–9 7:9 10:12–11:21

8, 10, 36 110 105, 131, 133 f, 145 157 110 157

264 11:13–21 17:3 17:14–20 17:18 20:2–7 20:19 20:29 21:7 f 23:7 25:7–9 26:3–10 27:8 27:15–26 31:9–13 32:27 32:47 33 33:2 33:17

index of references 157 134 156 142 156 214, 217 218 156 187 156 156 96 156 16, 26 136 108, 174 123 96 123 f

Joshua 4:2–8 4:20–24

96 96

Judges 5:30 5:31

180 171

1 Samuel 12:3

129

2 Samuel 7:23

110

2 Kings 22–23

17, 26

Isaiah 1:3 3 3:20 5:6 7:14 49:7

122 178 178 184 43, 165 171 f

16:11 23:43

120 180

Jonah 4:6

68

Psalms 39:12 45:3 48:15 55:23 68:26 147:19 147:20

130 176 181 97 181 171 171

Proverbs 4:8 8:22 12:25 15:15 18:2 18:13 18:21 18:24 25:11

209 107, 193 215 215 182, 208 209 182 215 182 f

Canticus 4:12

62

Job

Jeremiah 10:11 29:23

7 54

Ezekiel 8:12 16:10

183 179

16:10 20:20 27:3 31:10

171 130 113 120

Lamentations 1:5

187

Kohelet 12:11–12 12:12

1 213, 219, 222

Esther 1:6

183

Daniel 5:5 8:13 11:38 13–14 (LXX)

184 185 130 52

Ezra 7:12–26 8:27

17, 26 130

265

jewish hellenistic literature Nehemiah 8:8

186

2. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Aristeas 30 30–31 82–171 187–292 310 310–311 310–312 311

89 43 40 40 36, 41 224 37 36

Book of Wisdom 11:17

109

Ecclesiasticus 5:11 6:32 7:17 11:36 12:12 13:25 20:30 25:3 28:12 30:29–30 38:1 38:4 38:7 42:11–14

206 209 205 215 190 208 62 206 208 214 209 207 207 214

4 Ezra 14:18–47 14:42–47

50 80

Jubilees 2:16

116

II Maccabees 7:28

109

Sibylline Oracles 3:97–98 5:48

119 173

3. Jewish Hellenistic Literature Josephus Contra Apionem I:12 I:35 ff I:41 I:42 I:179 I:183–204 I:208–211 I:215–216 I:217–218 II:45–47 II:135 II:148

88 137 10 9 94 34 34 94 40 40 94 94

Liber Antiquitatum I:12 40 f, 151 I:118 119 II:204 127 II:318 127 III:252 198 VII:134 130 VIII:155 201 IX:3 127 XII:5–6 34 XII:11–119 40 XII:14 44 Philo De Confusione Linguarum 50 130 181 119 187 119 De Opificio Mundi 76 113 134 113 De plantatione 149 ff 150 152

199 199 199

De Specialibus Legibus IV:61 37, 93

266

index of references

De Vita Contemplativa 25 39

5. Greek and Roman Authors

De Vita Mosis II:25–44 II:31 II:34 II:36 II:37 II:38 II:38–39 II:41 II:43 II:43–44

Aulus Gellius 37 39, 149 38 39 39, 46 46 199 46 26 37

Decalogus 97–98

116

Legum Allegoriae 2:15 149

Noctes Atticae VII, XVII:1–3 84–85 Cicero De Oratore III:34 § 137

87

Corpus Hermeticum XVI:1–2 152 XVI:2 152 Diodoros II:29,1–3 II:30,1 ff

131 132

Quaestiones in Genesim II:6 94

Iamblichus

Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 1 ff 93

De Mysteriis Liber 5 152

4. New Testament

Justinian

John

novella 146

4:25 5:2 9:13 9:17 9:20 11:16 20:16 20:24 21:2

198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198

Acts 9:36 18:2 Romans 8:32 I Corinthians 6:20 Apocalypse 1:16 9:11 16:16

166, 226

Lucian of Samosata De Dea Syria 34

131

Oxyrhynchus-Papyrus No. 1281 32, 150 Plato

198 168 53 53 182 198 198

Ion 535e

38

Symposium 189e–190a

113

Theaetetus 174c

201

Poimandres 18

114

267

rabbinic literature Polybius Historiae II:56:2 XI:1a:4 XX:9:9–12

7:5 9:14 200 200 201

Quintilian Institutiones Oratoriae X:1:54 36, 78 X:1:59 37 Suetonius De Viris Inlustribus Frag. 102 84 Vita Domitiani XX

86

Terentius Maurus De literis, syllabis et metris 1:1286 19 Theophrastus Historia plantarum IV:4:2 f 178 Xenophon Oeconomicus 18:4

125

6. Rabbinic Literature Mishnah

96 102, 170

Gittin ˙˙ 9:17

198

Sanhedrin 10:1

17

Pirqe Avot 1,1 4:4 5:12 6:6

10 205 206 194

Zevahim ˙ 14:4

137

Yadayim 4:3 4:5 4:6

198 7, 17, 198 17

Tosefta Demai 6:12

186

Shevi it 4:21

141

Sukkah 3:3–13

178

Megillah 2:6 3:13 4:41

198 198 147, 160

Sotah ˙ 8:6 15:8

97 170

Bikkurim 2:3

113

Kallah 1:17

Bava Batra 11:8

198

137

Megillah 1:8 2:1 4

157 143 98

Sanhedrin 4:7 4:7–8

7, 80 142

Kelim 2:2

187

Sotah ˙ 7:2–4

156

Mikwaot 6:1

187

268 Yadayim 2:11 2:13

index of references Talmud Bavli 213 212

Talmud Yerushalmi Berakhot 7:2 (11b) 9:1 (12d)

208 111

Pe ah 1:1 (16a) 2:6 (17a)

121 99

Shabbat 1:4 (3c) 6:4 (8b)

144 179

Yoma 3:8 (41a)

184

Sukkah 3:5 (53d)

177 209 135

Megillah 1:11 (71b) 1:11 (71c) 1:11 (71d) 2:4 (73b) 4:11 (74d) 1,11 (71c)

102 144, 175 105 181 161, 186 174

Hagigah 1:8 (76d) 2:1 (77a)

209 160

Shabbat 17a 115a 156a

144 143 133

Eruvin 13a 53a

156 11

Rosh Ha-Shanah 15a

141

Megillah 3a 9a-b 18a

Ta anit 3:6 (66d) 4:2 (68a)

Mo ed Qatan ˙ 3:7 (83b)

Berakhot 43a 45a

181 99 173

Qiddushin 1:1 (59a)

184

Sanhedrin 2:4 (20c) 10:1 (28a)

137 190, 213

Avodah Zarah 1:1 (39b)

183

162, 185–186 105, 122, 138, 141 143

Mo ed Qatan 28a ˙

133

Nedarim 37b

186

Sotah ˙ 33a 40a 49b

188 161 170

Gittin ˙˙ 56b–57a

187

Qiddushin 49a

161

Bava Batra 14b–15a 98b

13 209

Sanhedrin 21b 21b–22a 38b 100b

80 142 110, 155, 188 214, 216, 221

Avodah Zarah 11a 43a

187 124

269

rabbinic literature Zevahim ˙ 37b

186

Menahot ˙ 32b

157

Niddah 16b

210

Minor Tractates Avot de-Rabbi Natan A 24 206 Avot de-Rabbi Natan B 37 105, 141 46 135 Soferim 1:7 6:4

105, 128, 138 135

Sefer Torah 1:6

105

Megillat Ta anit Batra

139–140, 226

Midrashim Mekhilta de-Rabbi bo 14 ba-hodesh 2˙ 5

Yishma el 105, 122, 127 156 96

Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shim on ben Yohai ˙ bo to 12:40 127 Sifra be-har pereq 1

168–169

Bereshit Rabbah 1:12 1:14 8:1 8:9 8:11 10:6 10:9 10:10 10:11 13:9 21:1 38:7 46:1 48:17 63:3 73:12 78:12 91:2 91:4 93:3 96:6 98:6

108 107, 174 113 111 105, 112 207 105 116 116 173 184 105, 119 176 105, 120 105, 129 208 183 127 209 182 105 122

Shemot Rabbah 5:5 14:9 21:7 47:1

105 129 209 97

Wa-Yiqra Rabbah 9:9 121 14:1 113 33:1 182 33:6 180 Ba-Midbar Rabbah 3:3 18 18:10 129 Ekha Rabbah 1:1

180

Sifre Ba-Midbar 16 42

156 121

Ekha Rabbati 1:1

180

Sifre Devarim 148 160 356

133 137 135–136

Qohelet Rabbah 8:8 11:3 12:12

175 184 219

270 Esther Rabbah 2:7 Tanhuma ˙ bereshit 4 6 mi-qes 10 ˙ wa-yehi 10 ˙ shemot 22 qorah 7˙

index of references 183

108 187 209 122 105 129

Tanhuma (ed. Buber) ˙ bereshit 5 173 wa-yehi 12 ˙ 122 shemot 19 105 mishpatim 3 ˙ 170 ki-tissa 17 97, 167 Pesiqta Rabbati 5 23 25

14, 97, 144 175 209

Midrash ha-Gadol bereshit to 49:6 123 Midrash ha-Gadol shemot to 4:20 105 Midrash ha-Gadol devarim to 4:19 105 to 17:3 105 Seder Olam Rabbah 3 127 Leqah Tov ˙ ˙ bereshit to 1:1 wa-yehi ˙ to 49:6 shemot to 4:20

105, 145 123 105

Sekhel Tov ˙ shemot to 4:20

105, 125

Aggadah wa- ethannan ˙ 134 to 4:19 Midrash Tehillim 90:3

96

Pirqe de-Rabbi Eli ezer 48 127 Yalqut ˙ bereshit §3 ki-tissa § 405 be-har § 659 wa- ethannan ˙ § 825 iyyov § 910

105 97 169 105 207

Targum Pseudo-Yonatan Genesis 2:3 10:10 Onkelos Genesis 11:7 Exodus 24:5 24:11

117 169

118 137 137

7. Church Fathers Augustine De civitate Dei XV:10–14 XV:11–13 XVIII:42

71 70 23, 70–71

De Doctrina Christiana II:XV:22 70

271

church fathers Epistula CVI:46 LXXI, II:4 XXVIII, II:2

77 67 69

In Iohannem 117:4

154

Hilarius of Poitiers

Clement of Alexandria Stromata I, XXII I, XXII:148 f I, XXII:149 I, 143:6 V.14–97

87 49 49 153 92

In Psalmum II II:2 II:3 XV LIX:2 CXXXI:24

64–65 65, 151 65 154 64–65 65

Irenaeus Adversus Haereses III:21:1 64 III:21:1–4 48, 165 Isidore of Seville

Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Catechesis IV

57

Epiphanius of Salamis De Mensuris et Ponderibus 3 60 3 ff 60 4–5 61 6 62 15 171 22 116 Eusebius Demonstratio Evangelica V: Prooemium 35 55–56, 151 Historia Ecclesiastica V:8:10 48, 165 V:8:11,11–15 87 Praeparatio evangelica 8:1 55 9:21:18 127 12:12:1 32 12:12:2 32 13:12:2 92 13:12:9 ff 116

Etymologiarum sive Originum libri VI:3:3 85 VI:3:3–4 82 IX:1:3 154 Jerome Commentaria in Ieremiam III,XVII:1 75 Commentarium in Esaiam VIII:11 174 Commentarium in Ezechielem II,V:12–13 75 V:2 73 XVI:13 73 Commentarium in Genesim II:2 117 Commentarium in Micham II:2 73 Contra Rufinum I:16 I:21–22 II:22

77 59 59

Epistulae XXXIV LVII LVII:11

84 108, 167 154

272 Praefatio in Pentateuchum

index of references Rufinus 73–75

Praefatio in libros Samuel et Malachim 75 Praefatio in librum Paralipomenon 74 Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim 2 73, 75 John Chrysostom Adversus Iudaeos I:6,1 57 I:6,2 58 VI:6,8 58 In Matthaeum Homiliae V:2 57

Tertullian Apologeticum IV:4 V:5 XVIII:7 XVIII:8 XIX:1

50 50 51 51 51, 95

Apologia XVIII:5 XVIII:8

84 87

De cultu feminarum I:III:3 87 Theodoret

Justin Apologia I:31:1–5

Apologia contra Hieronymum II:9:20–22 67

43

Dialogus cum Thryphone Iudaeo 71–73 44 71 ff 44 Origen

Quaestiones in Genesim 40–41 155

8. Jewish Medieval Texts and Authors Abraham Ibn Daud

Ad Africanum 8 9

53 53

Divre Malkhe Yisra’el 50a 107 50b 125, 131

Contra Celsum 1:24

153

Maimonides

45, 47, 149

Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Tefillah 1:19 143 12:11 160

Pseudo-Justin Cohortatio XIII

INDEX OF ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL NAMES Abihu 134 Abiram 129–130, 145 Africanus Iulius 52–53 Alexander the Great 82 Ammon 152 Apollodoros 88 Aquila 7, 22–25, 42, 55, 60, 65, 72, 108, 122, 140, 154, 163–186, 188, 212, 223, 228 Aristarchus of Samothrace 81, 87–89, 134 Aristeas 26, 32–33, 35–38, 40–41, 43, 51, 55, 60, 62–63, 71, 89–90, 93, 103, 199, 203, 224 Aristobulos 32, 43, 45, 49, 92–93, 116, 226 Aristotle 19, 94, 102, 153 Artapanus 93 Artaxerses 10 Asclepius 150, 152 Augustine of Hippo 58, 66–67, 69–73, 76–77, 118, 154 Aulus Gellius 84–85 Balaam 48, 187–188 Bar Kokhba 100 Ben Sira’s grandson 41, 191, 196–197, 200–203, 220 Caesar 86 Choiroboskos, George 80–81 Clearchos of Soli 94 Clement of Alexandria 49–50, 87, 150, 152–153, 157 Cyrillus of Jerusalem 56 Dathan 129–130, 145 Demetrius of Phaleros 33–36, 83–84, 127 Dieuchidas of Megara 88

Eleazar High Priest 34–35, 40, 44, 53, 62, 83, 151, 188 Epiphanius of Salamis 14, 59–63, 71, 83, 87, 135, 138–139, 166–167, 171–172, 183 Eusebius of Caesarea 54–56, 64, 75, 81, 94–95, 151, 166 Ezra 7, 10, 18, 31, 48, 50, 79–80, 82, 87, 90, 141–142, 159, 186, 225 Hadrian 140, 164, 166, 168, 170–173, 185 Herod 43–44 Hilarius of Poitiers 56, 64–66, 79, 135, 148, 151, 226 Homer 10, 17, 31, 37, 50–51, 79–81, 88–89, 213–214 Iamblichus 152–153, 157 Ibn Ezra, Avraham 107 Imhotep 150 Irenaeus 48–50, 55, 64, 75, 87, 150, 164–165, 225 Iulius Africanus 52 Jerome 6, 29, 49, 58–59, 63–64, 66–70, 72–77, 83–85, 87, 108–109, 117, 146, 148, 152, 154, 166–167, 170, 174–175, 222, 225 Jesus Ben Sira 8, 152, 197, 201, 203, 207, 213, 216–218, 220, 229 John Chrysostom 47, 57–58, 226 Josephus 9–10, 32, 35, 40–41, 43, 45–46, 88, 93–95, 103, 119, 127, 137, 141, 151–152, 178, 198, 226 Justin the Martyr 29, 43–44, 62, 89 Justinian 104, 166, 226 Maimonides 143 Manetho 92

274

index of ancient and medieval names

Megasthenes 94 Moses 7, 10–11, 23, 26, 37, 45, 49, 63, 65, 78–79, 92–94, 96–98, 118, 124–126, 129–130, 134, 138–139, 141–142, 145, 147–148, 159–160, 167, 202 Nadab 134 Numenius of Apamea

49, 94

Onkelos 7, 25, 118, 137, 161, 163, 169, 180, 185–189, 228 Origen 52–54, 56, 59–60, 77, 141, 148, 152–153, 157, 165–166, 177, 226 Philo of Alexandria 19, 27, 32, 37–40, 43, 45–46, 49, 55–56, 93–94, 103, 113, 116, 119, 149, 199, 201, 226 Philocrates 33 Pisistratus 37, 50–51, 79, 81–89 Plato 19–20, 32, 49, 92, 94, 102, 113–114 Plutarch 35, 88

Ptolemy II. Philadelphos 33, 39, 61, 82, 84–85, 149 Ptolemy III. Euergetes 196 Ptolemy VI. Philometor 32 Pythagoras 32, 92 Quintillian

36

Rashi 107, 117 Rufinus 58–59, 74, 77 Seleucos Nicanor 82, 85 Socrates 20, 92, 94 Suetonius 84, 86, 89 Symmachus 55, 60, 72, 122, 140, 180 Tertullian 50–52, 57, 84–87, 225 Theodotion of Ephesus 55, 72, 140, 165, 180 Titus 164, 187–188 Tzetzes, John 81 Xerxes

82, 85

Zenodotos of Ephesos

81

INDEX OF SUBJECTS Abolition 4 Abrogation 4 Adonai 153–154 Aggadah 103, 136 al tiqre 178 almah 165, 181 Alphabet 7, 34, 45, 60–61, 143 Androgynous 112–114 Apology 10–11, 32, 36, 43, 45, 50, 56, 59, 62, 65, 77, 87, 90, 145 Aquila’s translation 24, 159, 166–167, 174, 176–177, 180, 184, 223 Aristeas’ report 29, 33–37, 62, 141, 224 Ashshurit 87, 143, 158, 198 Asterisk 53, 60 Astrology 131–133 auctores docendi 66 auctoritas 64 Babel, Tower of Babel 101, 117, 119, 155 Barbarian 91, 93, 153 bat qol 162, 188–189 Ben La aga, Books of 8, 190, 213–214 Ben Sira, Books of 23–25, 60, 189–191, 193–195, 197, 202, 204–223, 227–228 Ben Sira, Wisdom of 228 Bible − books 2, 4, 6, 10–11, 13–15, 17, 34, 40–41, 43, 52, 57–58, 60–63, 82–83, 90, 137, 152, 196–198, 201–202, 213, 219 − books of the Law 58, 82, 87, 140 − Canon 2–4, 8, 10, 13, 20, 195 − Corruption 50, 87, 177 − five books 4, 16 − Restoration 31, 48, 50, 79, 225

− text 48, 227 Bruchion 62 Calendar 132 Canon 3–11, 13–19, 21, 24, 27, 31, 36, 52, 60–61, 65, 75, 89, 147, 165, 188–189, 191, 194, 202–203, 212, 221 − formula 8, 13, 196 − Hagiographia 13 − Prophets 13 − Torah 17 − tripartite 13, 196 − true 5–6 Cells 29, 45–46, 61, 70, 73, 135, 138–139 Creation 39, 62, 107–109, 111–114, 116–117, 145, 150, 156, 177–178, 193 criterium veritatis 73 Culture 67, 91, 99–100, 163, 178, 183, 192 − cultural minority 27, 36 − Greek 27, 32, 37, 45, 78, 92, 101–102 − Hellenistic 27, 33, 40, 87, 90, 92, 101, 224 − Jewish 79, 95, 101, 224 Death 9, 19, 133, 137, 181–182, 208 Decanonization 2, 6–7, 15, 18, 22, 24, 56, 104, 135, 146, 163, 187, 191, 204, 217, 221, 223, 226–228 dianoia 56, 151 diaphoros 199–200 Diaspora 27, 32, 39, 41, 78, 92–93, 95–96, 195, 202–204, 224, 226 discrimen 3, 98–99 discus 183 Donkey 124–126, 129–130, 145

276

index of subjects

Egypt 43, 45, 62, 78–79, 82, 89, 92–93, 99, 125–128, 131, 150, 194, 196, 201–203, 227 ekdosis 89 etrog 178 Exile 27, 159 Forgery

6, 47, 53–54, 71

gilyonim 212–213 Gnosticim 14–15, 96, 107, 114, 144 Halakhah 103, 114, 140, 142–144, 157–158, 160, 169, 176, 193, 210, 213, 218 Hebraisti 198 Hellenisti 198 Heritage 27, 80, 82, 90, 96, 99, 102, 104, 147, 227 Hermaphrodite 113, 145 Hermaphroditism 114 Hermeneutic 1, 5, 8, 12–14, 16, 19, 21, 30, 61, 76, 100, 102–106, 116–118, 135, 142, 147, 157, 159, 162, 170, 175–176, 179, 193–194, 207 Hexapla 53, 56, 59–60, 72–73, 141, 148, 165, 174, 176, 178–180 hiera glotta 155 hierophantai 38 hokhmah 193, 195 ˙hypolemniscus 60, 62 Identity 4–5, 27, 58, 91, 93, 137, 144, 169, 173, 188, 194, 224 − Christian identity 27, 51, 95 − Jewish identity 159 Inspiration 14, 27, 39, 46–48, 55, 62, 64, 69–70, 73–74, 139, 148–151, 192, 213, 224–225 isodynamein 152, 197, 200 Ivrit 7, 87, 143, 198 ketuvim 162, 196, 218 kitve ha-qodesh 17

Lagides 138 Language, Holy 21, 152, 154–156, 158 Legend 5, 27–32, 37, 42–43, 45, 48–51, 59–62, 64, 70–71, 78–84, 87–90, 99, 135, 141, 225 legenda 27 lemniscus 60, 62 leshon ha-qodesh 154–155 lexis 56, 151 Library 225 − Alexandria 23, 27, 29, 33–34, 36–37, 41, 43, 46, 51, 62–63, 78–79, 81–84, 86–90, 142, 224–225 − Athens 82, 85, 87, 89 − Jerusalem 79, 203, 221 − Serapeum 51 limmud torah 10–11, 191 lingua sacra 154 lishmor 10–11 martyrologium 28 Masorah 137, 160, 186 Masoretic text 103, 115, 125–129, 136–137, 142, 181 meturgeman 160–161, 163, 175, 228 Mikra 12, 18, 97, 160, 167, 186 Mikracentrism 4 minim 111, 136, 157, 212 Monotheism 109–111, 131, 133 Mythology 114, 117, 214 Mythos 29, 134 necrologium 28 nefesh 178–179 neqevah 112–113 nomos 4, 202 obelisk 53 obelus 60 Oea (Tripoli) 68 onoma 149 onos 125, 129 Oral tradition 3, 9, 13, 22, 65–66, 89, 151, 158, 226, 228–229

index of subjects pasuq 160, 162 Pentateuch 12–13, 16–17, 22, 61, 73, 126, 138 perfidia Iudaeorum 52 philomatheis 40–41, 202 Philosophy 13, 15, 19, 32–33, 50, 91–96, 109, 113, 132, 194, 219–220 Polyglotta 77 Polytheism 107, 115 pragma 149 prinos 52 Prologue (to Ben Sira) 12, 40, 151, 191, 195–199, 201–203, 223 Prophecy 4–6, 11, 18, 48–49, 52, 56, 72, 148 − Proofs of 44 protos heuretes 93 Providence 47, 49, 53, 55, 70, 132, 150 qabbalat torah

10–11, 13

Rabbit 137–138 Rejection 6, 8, 15, 23, 51, 72, 77, 93, 97, 217, 225–227 Restoration 31, 50, 79, 91 Revelation 9, 11, 13, 15, 32, 37, 39–40, 46, 48–51, 55, 78–79, 94, 96, 124, 147, 150–152, 155, 192, 213, 225 Sabaoth 153–154 schinos 52 sefarim hisonim 15, 17, 22, 204, ˙˙ 214, 221 Sefer Yerahme el 63, 185 Septuagint ˙ − changes 42, 44, 60, 103, 110, 124–125, 127–128, 212 − legend of the 27–32, 35, 42–45, 48, 50–52, 54–55, 59, 63–64, 66, 70, 73, 78, 80–81, 84, 87, 90, 103, 135, 138, 141, 144 − rejection 15, 23, 51, 225–227 − text of the 37, 44, 47, 55, 66, 74–75, 121, 125, 128, 133 Seventy, the 23, 31, 47, 57, 63–66, 68–70, 72–73, 83, 99, 134, 138–139, 141, 143, 149, 151, 189

277

Seventy-two, the 23, 31, 37, 42, 47–48, 51, 55, 60–61, 66, 71–74, 79–81, 87, 109, 116, 138–141, 146, 155, 201, 225 Shabbat 11, 145 shekhinah 111, 134 sifre minim 15, 157, 213, 221 sofos 194 talmud torah 191 Targum 98–99, 118, 137, 144, 158–163, 168, 176, 180, 185–186, 188–189, 227 testimonia Christi 4–5, 23, 44 tetragramma 15, 156–157 Textual variant 103 textus receptus 15, 79, 103, 144 Therapeutae 38, 46 Theurgy 156–158 tirgem 143, 159, 176, 180 Torah − oral 8, 11–12, 54, 79, 90, 99, 144, 148, 162, 167–168, 185–186, 189, 191, 218, 226–227 − she-be- al peh 8 − she-katuv 218 − written 8, 10–13, 79, 90, 96–99, 144, 148, 162, 168, 191 Torahcentrism 4, 30 translatio sapientiae 32, 78, 192 Transmission 2, 8, 10–11, 15, 18, 20–21, 23, 42, 45, 47, 95, 103–104, 122, 133, 144, 147, 176–177, 184, 191–192, 194–195, 204, 211, 220 variae lectiones 106 Variant readings 70–71, 75, 115, 121–130, 136–137, 144, 165, 177, 206, 213 veritas graeca 77 veritas hebraica 43, 53, 56, 64, 77, 225 verus Israel 95, 98 Vetus Latina 64–65, 69 Vulgata 63, 77, 136, 177 Wisdom 11–13, 23, 38, 40, 47, 51, 53, 60, 78, 91–92, 95, 170,

278

index of subjects

191–194, 196, 199, 201–203, 205, 214, 216–221, 227–228 − Greek 91, 104, 170 − Israel 191, 195, 220–221 − Jewish 27, 34–35, 43, 78–79, 90, 93–95, 142

− theft of 50, 91, 93–95 Written tradition 3, 9, 22, 65, 147, 151, 158, 218, 226, 228 zakhar

112–113