Old Testament Miracle-workers in Early Judaism

ERKKI KOSKENNIEMI

The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 206

Mohr Siebeck

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament • 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jorg Frey Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie • Judith Gundry-Volf Martin Hengel • Otfried Hofius • Hans-Josef Klauck

206

Erkki Koskenniemi

The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism

Mohr Siebeck

ERKKI KOSKENNIEMI, born 1956; Classical studies at the University of Turku; 1979 Mag. phil.; 1984 Mag. theol.; 1992 PhD at Abo Akademi; Adjunct Professor at the University of Helsinki, Joensuu and of at Abo Akademi; teacher of biblical theology in Lutheran Evangelical Asso­ ciation in Finland.

ISBN 3 - 1 6 - 1 4 8 6 0 4 - 8

ISSN 0 3 4 0 - 9 5 7 0 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de. © 2 0 0 5 by Mohr Siebeck Tubingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde-Druck in Tubingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Held in Rottenburg. Printed in Germany.

Preface I did not know where the path would lead me in 1983/84, when I prepared to leave Finland to study classical philology in Tubingen with the gentle help of the DAAD. After my master's thesis on Apollonius, which luckily was written only in Finnish and never printed, I was anxious about the theme of my further study. I could not find a way to approach Apollonius of Tyana, the primary target of my interest, and not Philostratus, who wrote about Apollonius in about A.D. 220. Shortly before leaving Finland I thought I had found a solution: I abandoned Apollonius and started to investigate Philostratus and his intentions. It took time before I - a young student of classical philology - realised that I had reinvented redaction criticism and done a lot of needless work seeking the method. Yet, I finally felt that I had advanced, and my time in Tubingen was a good one, during which I enjoyed and benefited from the deep knowledge of the philologists at the university. After my work was almost ready, I posted it to, among others, Professor Jukka Thuren (Abo Akademi), who had been my teacher during the slow progress of my theological studies. Typically for him, he reacted immediately, realising that my ideas had direct consequences for New Testament scholars: If Apollonius in Vita Apollonii Tyanensis was mainly a product of the third and not of the first century A.D., he was to be used only cautiously as a parallel figure to Jesus, although this had been common. After two enthusiastic weeks of work I could clarify my view on Apollo­ nius in the New Testament exegesis to my teacher, and also present it to Professor Martin Hengel, who had kindly invited me to his Oberseminar, and now strongly encouraged me to continue on the course I had chosen. I then published my work on Philostratus (Der philostrateische Apollonius, 1991), and wrote my theological dissertation on how Apollonius had been used in New Testament exegesis {Apollonius von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. Forschungsbericht und Weiterfilhrung der Diskussion, 1994). I challenged the view that Gentile miracle-workers were a common phenomenon among the Greeks and Romans and that they were a model for Jesus as he was presented in the Gospels. Scholars were never able to name these many alleged men, but uncritically used Apollonius when constructing the famous concept of "divine man". I wondered why Jewish miracle-workers were so sorely overlooked by the scholars.

VI

Preface

The present book investigates the way the biblical miracles of the Old Testament figures, such as Moses, Joshua and Elijah, are retold in early Judaism. Some stories appear often and they share common nonbiblical details, which leads to the supposition of a strong written and oral tradi­ tion. I hope to still publish a book on historical Jewish miracle-workers in Jesus' times, but even if that book is published someday, I still have no solutions to several fascinating questions on the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels, especially concerning the historical Jesus. This, then, is the third book by the anxious man who found a sudden solution to an impossible problem, and I do not know how many there will still be. It took about ten years before the first two were finished, and more than ten before the ap­ pearance of this volume. If anything, this process has taught me patience. I owe my warm thanks to several scholars. Prof. Antti Laato generously gave of his time to help me, and Prof. Martin Hengel's advice has been of great value during the decade this book was written. The learned recom­ mendations of Prof. Jorg Frey have improved this book. The warden of the Tyndale House in Cambridge, Dr. Bruce Winter, and Dr. David InstoneBrewer helped me during the most difficult phases of the work. Timo Nisula, M.A., M.Th. always combines friendship with a strong indicium. The scholars at the Centre of Excellence of the Finnish Academy, especially professors Lars Aejmelaeus, Karl Gustaf Sandelin and Timo Veijola, have helped me greatly. My father, Prof. Heikki Koskenniemi, and brother, the Rev. Olli Koskenniemi, have offered many opportunities to discuss my views. Nancy Seidel, M.A. has corrected the language. During the writing of my book on Apollonius and New Testament exege­ sis, our family grew by five sons. During the last ten years, Tuomas, Jo­ hannes, Antti, Jaakko and Pietari have grown up to be eager partners in discussions, and their love has given me strength and joy. My wife Marja has not only allowed me to work but also supported and encouraged me. "A wife of noble character who can find?" (Prov 31:10). For a professor to lead an impatient young student of classical antiquity into the rich world of the New Testament and to become his Doktorvater should have been enough. However, during the most difficult phases of the writing of this book, Professor Jukka Thuren still guided a slightly older student into the world of early Judaism. It is a pleasure to dedicate this book to him, although, as with all my works intended for his desk, it comes terribly late.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction

1

a. Preliminary definition of the task b. What is a "miracle"? c. Competing miracle-workers and a story about a modern category d. Jewish miracle-workers in religious-historical study e. A more precise definition of the task and method

1 1 3 5 11

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

17

a. Introduction b. Moses c. Joshua d. Elijah e. Elisha f. Isaiah g. Conclusion

17 19 26 31 37 39 41

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees a. Introduction b. Abraham c. Moses d. Conclusion

44 46 54 62

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

64

a. Introduction b. The dialogue at the burning bush c. The plagues told in advance d. The miracle at the Red Sea e. A miracle-worker - but how much more? f. Conclusion

64 66 69 73 81 86

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography: Artapanus a. Introduction b. The leader is called c. The return, plagues and d. The Red Sea and the desert e. Conclusion

44

freedom

89 89 92 96 103 105

VIII

Table of Contents

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo a. Introduction b. The literal interpretation of the miracle stories c. The allegorical interpretation of the miracle stories d. Miracles explained rationally? e. Miracles of the prophet f. God or Moses? g. Miracles and legitimisation h. Conclusion

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets a. Introduction b. Isaiah c. Jeremiah d. Ezekiel e. Daniel f. Elijah g. Elisha h. Conclusion

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum a. Introduction b. Moses c. Joshua d. Kenaz Excursus: Magical practices in L.A.B e. Samson f. David g. Elijah /Phinehas h. Conclusion

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus a. Introduction b. Moses c. Joshua d. Samson e. Solomon f. Elijah g. Elisha h. Conclusion

108 108 110 129 146 148 151 155 156

160 160 163 165 169 177 184 186 187

189 189 192 203 206 214 216 219 224 225

228 228 231 249 255 259 264 271 278

Table of Contents

10. Conclusion a. LXX b. The texts retold c. The themes d. The Greek influence e. Biases and functions of the miracle stories f. The audience g. The roles of God and man and Moses' extraordinary position h. Geography and chronology

IX

281 281 282 290 292 293 297 297 299

Bibliography

301

Index of References

321

Index of Subjects and Scholars

346

1. Introduction a. Preliminary

definition of the task

The task of this book is to study how the Old Testament stories about He­ brew miracle-workers were used in early Jewish literature. Everyone retell­ ing a biblical story left his trace, making it possible to study what he re­ tained, what he left, what he added and what he changed. The study also reveals the early Jewish tradition, as well as various biases reshaping the stories through nonbiblical details circulating in the oral and literary folk­ lore of different eras.

b. What is a

"miracle"?

Neither the Old nor the New Testament contains anything that could be characterised as a definition of a miracle, and the early Jewish texts do not help either. Moreover, the Old Testament uses a variety of terms. God's miracles are riVm, mK*?Q3, mn« or D T I D I Q : All these words have been used in different ways during the long history of the Jewish tradition and they may include things not usually covered by modern definitions of miracle. A definition can thus not be based on an ancient term. David Hume formu­ lated possibly the most famous modern definition, which is very close to Aristotle's words: A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. But even 1

2

3

4

5

1

nt>iy in the sense of God's 'mighty deeds' occurs in Deut 10:21; Jer 33:3; 45:5; Ps 71:19; 106:21; Job 5:9; 9:10; 37:5. 2 Kgs 8:4 uses it for Elisha's mighty deeds. On the word see Jenni 1984, 402-409. m«*?S3 (from K*?s) points mostly to God's saving deeds in the past (Exod 3:20; Job 37:14). It does not necessarily mean a breaking of what we call the laws of nature, but that God helps in a hopeless situation, perhaps in a very "natural" way; see Albertz 1984, 416-420. rriR occurs 79 times in the Old Testament in all historical layers. On rm in the Old Testament see Stolz 1984, 91-95. irriDiD occurs in Exod 4:21 when God speaks to Moses about the miracles he should make in Egypt. In Joel 3:3 it points to phenomena in the skies. Aristotle said that a miracle was n a p a (|>uaiv (GA 770b). The similarity is, of course, not a coincidence, since Aristotle's philosophy deeply influenced the medieval learned world. Spinoza symbolized a milestone on the road to the modern concept. He dealt with the possibility of miracles in 1670: God has created the world and its harmony and a 2

3

4

5

2

1. Introduction

that is very problematic in the study of the early Jewish material. The idea of the laws of nature as separate from God's almighty power is seldom even alluded to in the Jewish texts. Generally there are no laws to be bro­ ken by an unusual event. God's help may come in a very natural way and still be praised as his "miracle". Since Jewish texts thus do not give a basis for a definition, and the modern view differs greatly from the world view of the writers, the use of the term "miracle" is difficult. Further, it is not always obvious whether, for instance, physical strength should be consid­ ered a miracle or not: David's unexpected triumph over Goliath may not have been supernatural in 1 Sam (although obviously in L.A.B. 61), but Samson indeed had superhuman powers in Judges and certainly in L.A.B. Some miracles are perhaps interpreted "rationalistically" in part of the tra­ dition, but does a natural explanation mean that the writer has not believed in miracles? It is impossible to find an unambiguous definition covering the Jewish as well as the modern perspectives. It is understandable that most studies dealing with miracles define the miracle very briefly or even omit the definition altogether, as Barry Blackburn and Werner Kahl do. Actually, Eric Eve suggests a new terminology, reserving the word "mira­ cle" for the biblical phenomenon and using the concept "anomaly" for a supposed exception to the laws of nature. Nevertheless, a sufficient defi­ nition is possible. Bernd Kollmann studies the New Testament terminology and observes that a modern view is incompatible with it. He uses a short definition: 6

7

"In dieser Untersuchung wird der Begriff Wunder im uberkommenen Sinne als Sammelbezeichnung fur auBergewdhnliche, aufsehenerregende Taten Jesu wie anderer Gestalten der Antike verwendet." 8

It may be considered problematic that a modern category including dispa­ rate material is applied to the ancient texts, but Kollmann's formulation provides a basis for the definition: A miracle is a fortuitous breaking of what we (although not the writers) call the laws of nature and which God 9

miracle breaking the good order is not only a positive thing. A miracle is against nature and against reason (see G. Maier 1986, 50-51). On these works see below p. 4, 9, and 15. Eve 2002, 1-2. Kollmann 1996, 53-54. John P. Meier (1994, 512-515) also uses a short definition: "A miracle is (1) an un­ usual, startling, or extraordinary event that is in principle perceivable by any interested and fair-minded observer, (2) an event that finds no reasonable explanation in human abilities or in other known forces that operate in our world of time and space, and (3) an event that is the result of a special act of God, doing what no human power can do." However, it should be emphasized that also this definition results in a modern, collecting category. 6

7

8

9

1. Introduction

or his agent allegedly causes. several times in this study.

3

The theme, of necessity, must be discussed

c. Competing miracle-workers and a story about a modern category The study of the biblical miracles has held a central position in the New Testament exegesis from at least the early 20 century. Richard Reitzenstein (1906, 1910) and Gillis Wetter (1916) considered that the first Christians lived in an atmosphere of tough competition. This view is ex­ pressed in the work of Helmut Koster (1982): th

11

12

"Miracles were performed not only by Christian missionaries, as described in the Acts of the Apostles and as Paul encounters them in the opponents of 2 Corinthians, but also by Jewish preachers, Neopythagorean philosophers, and by many other teachers, physicians, and magicians. The entire scale of miraculous deeds of power was commonly used, from magical tricks to predictions of the future, from horoscopes to the healing of diseases and maladies, even the raising of dead people. In those circles which were addressed by these philosophers of the marketplace, the power of speech and the greatness of miracle would have more profound effects than the depth and dignity of rational, moral, and religious insight." 13

14

The competition with the "mob of divine or deified men" allegedly led the first Christians to remodel their image of Jesus according to a pagan pattern, and make him a Hellenistic divine man (0e?os avrjp). The ac­ commodation to this model or the reaction against it allegedly colours all canonical Gospels, the pre-Pauline tradition, Second Corinthians, First Thessalonians and Philippians. 15

10

There are several borderline cases, such as the exceptional military strength men­ tioned above. One of them is divination, either in dreams or through different particles or astrological skills. They are excluded from the present study, but if a text retelling the Old Testament miracles deals with these techniques with the aim of accepting (as Artapanus) or rejecting them (as Liber antiquitatum biblicarum), they are briefly men­ tioned. Hellenistische Wundererzahlungen (1906) and Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen (1910). "Der Sohn Gottes". Eine Untersuchung iiber den Charakter und die Tendenz des Johannes-Evangeliums. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Heilandsgestalten der Antike. Helmut Koster, History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age 1-2, (1982, 1, 357). "Mob of divine or deified man", Morton Smith 1970, 184. A survey of the history of the research is found in Koskenniemi 1994, 114-168. 11

12

13

14

15

4

L Introduction

The concept of divine men was rarely motivated by ancient sources and it is widely criticised today. The Graeco-Roman world knew famous fig­ ures with a reputation for being miracle-workers, but both the heroes such as Hercules and men from the past such as Pythagoras should be compared to the Old Testament figures rather than to historical Jewish miracleworkers. Scholars have been able to name very few pagan miracle-workers from the time of Jesus, although it has been somewhat easier to name miracle-working gods, rulers and anonymous magicians. Moreover, the concept is ambiguous in many ways. For example, Reitzenstein, Gillis Wetter, Otto Weinreich and Ludwig Bieler differed greatly from each other, and were all heavily influenced by the ideologies current in the late 16

17

16

The most important critique of the hypothesis of divine men comes from Klaus Berger, Otto Betz, Martin Hengel and Barry L. Blackburn (see Koskenniemi 1994, 232-233); my book Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese (1994) is also very critical. David du Toit (1997) showed later in a detailed analysis that the words 6e?os avrjp (av8pco7TOs) were not a fixed terminus technicus. See also the critical article of Aage Pilgaard (1995) and the review in Hans-Josef Klauck's The Religious Context of Early Christianity. A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions (2000, 174-177). On Bernd Kollmann's book see below p. 9. See Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219. The last pre-Christian pagan miracle-worker known to us is Menecrates, who lived about 300 BC. Alexander of Abonuteichos is the first pagan miracle-worker known to us from contemporary sources after the time of Jesus. His floruit was in about 150 AD. The man mentioned in most studies is Apollonius of Tyana, who lived in the first century AD. However, the main source is Vita Apollonii Tyanensis of Lucius Flavius Philostratus, which was written in the religious world of the early 3 century (see Bowie 1978, Dzielska 1986 and Koskenniemi 1991). The main lines of my dissertation (1994) have received mostly positive reviews so far (November 2003); see Peres 1995, 447-448; Thummel 1995, 801-802; Ziegenaus 1995, 154-155; Danker 1996, 757-758. Jaap-Jan Flinterman, however, criticised them in a long review (1996). He relies more on the sources on Apollonius than I do and considers it possible to deal with the historical Apollonius. Moreover, he claims that there were more miracleworkers in Jesus' time, especially since it is not easy to draw the line between miracleworkers and magicians. I fully agree with Flinterman that Apollonius was considered a magician before Philostratus (see Koskenniemi 1994, 211). However, although some prominent scholars have tried to define here the historical nucleus, the historical figure escapes us (Koskenniemi 1991, 58-69; I returned to the theme in an article, which is in print). Also, neither Flinterman nor other scholars (Werner Kahl was not yet aware of my book; see Kahl 1994, 58-61) have added many new figures to my list. Although it is not easy to differentiate between magicians and miracle-workers, I considered it important, after all the confusing discussion, to collect the names of the historical persons who acted as miracle-workers and to study the common magical practices separately. The 0e?os ocvrjp-hypothesis was constructed with very few sources and great ideological fervour, moreover, with no respect for Jewish sourcees. It now seems reasonable to study the religious-historical parallels carefully, step by step. Flinterman's article plays an impor­ tant part in this work. On the discussion and open questions see also Klauck 2000, 168177. 17

rd

1. Introduction th

5

th

19 and early 20 centuries. Some recent scholars have regarded the model as a Hellenistic concept, while others have seen it as a modern concept. It is thus not possible to speak about the divine man model; it includes several different models, partly mutually exclusive. 0e?os ccvrip should no longer be considered as a fixed and Hellenistic but as a modern concept. The best solution is to realise that the whole concept is rather part of the western history of ideas and to investigate the Graeco-Roman paral­ lels to Jesus' miracles without this modern pattern, which has clearly hin­ dered rather than helped scholarship. 18

19

d. Jewish miracle-workers

in religious-historical

study

The fact that we know of very few pagan miracle-workers makes Jewish men with such a reputation more significant than ever. They have been investigated, but often through the perspective of the BeTos avrjphypothesis. It is obvious that the old History of the Religions school did not show enough interest in them, but sought more parallels from the "Hel­ lenistic" world. Although there is no reason to return to the old opposi20

21

18

H.D. Betz (1983, 235) considers 0e?os avrjp to be an ancient pattern, which is treated by the ancient writers in many ways and in many phrases and which could be interpreted in several ways (1983, 364). Kollmann agrees and cites H.D. Betz (1996, 5859). It is rather problematic that the archetype of these interpretations seems to remain a platonic idea. H.D. Betz cannot convincingly show that 0e?os avrjp was an ancient cate­ gory. Unlike most supporters of the hypothesis, Corrington regards "the divine man" as a modern, hypothetical category (The "Divine man His Origin and Function in Hellenis­ tic Popular Religion, 1986; for a review see Koskenniemi 1994, 95-98). E.g. Willi Schottroff characterises Moses in Eupolemus, Philo, Josephus and Artapanus as 0e?os avrjp (1983, 229-233). Most scholars suppose that the Jews had learned the concept from the Greeks and then mediated it to the first Christians (the view of Fer­ dinand Hahn 1963; see Koskenniemi 1994, 121). Precisely this view is studied and criti­ cised by Holladay in an early and important study of the 0s?os avrjp -hypothesis. Ac­ cording to Holladay, the Jewish writers did not remove the line between God and man, but drew it very clearly (Theios aner in Hellenistic Judaism: a Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology, 1977; reviewed in Koskenniemi 1994, 88-90). Corrington criticises Holladay's work severely and claims that Holladay has overlooked the social factors in early Judaism (Corrington 1986, esp. 46-47). Louis Feldman's new and undoubtedly correct approach is to list the general virtues of the heroes in the pagan literature without constructing a fixed pattern (1998a, 82-131). Bultmann offers a representative example in his famous Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921, 147). According to him, scholars earlier considered the Old Testament the source of Christian miracle stories. Bultmann sees this as no longer credible, because the similarities are limited. Bultmann speaks now about a genealogy, but uses analogy to deal with the pagan stories (see Koskenniemi 1994, 45). Some scholars have always ob19

2 0

21

6

1. Introduction

tion between "Hellenistic" and "Jewish", it is strange how small a role the Jewish miracle-workers have had in the discussion about divine men. Si­ multaneously, characteristic Jewish features in the concept of miracle have been overlooked. The last decades have shown signs of better times, as the "new History of the Religions school" seeks the roots of Christianity in Judaism. However, neither the Jewish sources, which today are much wider than in the heyday of the 0 E T O S avrjp-hypothesis, nor the rich secon­ dary literature is given enough attention even to date. The pagan miracle-workers have thus won the interest of scholarship during the last century and provided most of the background for the New Testament study of Jesus' miracles. Yet, there have always been scholars who have observed the Jewish parallels. Two of them in particular pro­ vided an impulse to scholarship and deserve to be mentioned. Paul Fiebig (Judische Wundergeschichten im Zeitalter Jesu etc., 1911) argued that many Rabbis made miracles in Jesus' time, and that it was part of the Rabbi's image. Only the echoes of the vivid discussion between Fiebig and his opponent Schlatter, which related to the miracles of the his­ torical Jesus, can be heard today, but this debate was one of the most sig­ nificant in this area. These scholars opened the door for a study of the Jewish background of the New Testament miracles, but there were few who stepped in. Vivid research followed the first edition of Die Zeloten by Martin Hengel (1961), in which he investigates the movements, which revolted against the Romans and their religious background. Hengel's work has been subject to a discussion and severe criticism. Horsley and Hanson, for example, regard the zealots in his works as historical fiction. According to them there was not a unified movement before the Jewish war, in which armed revolt and the Jew­ ish religion were combined. Hengel responds to his opponents in the preface 22

23

24

25

26

served the Old Testament material. Berger, a critic of the 0e7os ccvrip-concept, empha­ sized the stories about Elijah and Elisha (Berger 1984, 305-306). Hengel was the first to use the phrase when introducing a book written by Larry W. Hurtado (1988). The programme of the school is formulated in Jarl Fossum's article "The New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule: The Quest for Jewish Christology" (1991). See also below, p. 82. Charlesworth (1995, 72) characterises the situation as follows: "In the sixties, when we considered the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha we usually meant 17 documents, but now we frequently mean at least 65. Then we examined about 12 Dead Sea Scrolls, but now well over 400." See Becker 2002, 16-21. Horsley and Hanson 1985, xiii-xvii. Horsley (1994, ix-xi) underlines the political relevance of New Testament scholar­ ship and openly expresses the political relevance of his own study: Observing the Jewish agrarian people and their problems leads to a better understanding of the South American theology of freedom. 2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

1. Introduction

1

and appendix of the English translation of his work. The unanimity of the scholars is obvious in the articles in the Cambridge History of Judaism III. However, Smith, who considers the concept of Horsley and Hanson absurd, attacks Hengel even more strongly. In contrast, Gabba is sympathetic to Hengel's position. Schaper characterises the zealots as "the left wing of Phari­ saism." The present book, which must often deal with the combination of religion and politics, certainly illuminates the question. During the discussion on the zealots, the research advanced in many ways. P.W. Barnett introduced the term "sign prophets", referring to men who tried to legitimate themselves as leaders by repeating Old Testament miracles (1981). Recently Rebecca Gray collected the evidence in Josephus (1993), and many figures have now been studied in detail. However, because, for instance, Atomus (Jos. Ant. 20,141-143) cannot be labelled either as a zealot or a "sign-prophet", he, as most men of his type, is usually not mentioned. The phenomenon of the historical figures has still not been studied thoroughly enough. The Jewish miracle-workers were again drawn to the centre of New Tes­ tament scholarship by Geza Vermes (Jesus the Jew, 1973; The Gospel of Jesus the Jew, 1981), who could combine his studies with the newly awak­ ened quest of the historical Jesus. Vermes underlined the Old Testament miracle-workers, especially Elijah and Elisha, and named many Jewish healers, exorcists and miracle-workers from the times of Jesus. He re­ garded the historical Jesus as one of the holy miracle-workers of Galilee. This view can either be accepted or rejected, but Vermes' studies are cited even today in discussions about the historical Jesus. Fiebig, as well as Vermes, dealt with historical, non-biblical Jewish miracle-workers, and several scholars have subsequently studied these figures. New Testament scholars can justly be criticised for what the Germans call Steinbruchsmentalitat: historical Jewish miracle-workers have all too often been studied because of the needs of New Testament scholarship; and the passages on 28

29

30

31

32

33

34

2 7

Hengel 1989b, xiii-xvii; 380-404. Smith 1999, 542-544, 566. "We cannot say with certainty exactly when this name (sc. Zealot) was first used, not least because the term was pregnant with religious and political significance the roots of which went back a long time", Gabba 1999, 154. Schaper 1999, 422. Prophetic figures in late Second Temple Jewish Palestine. The evidence from Jose­ phus. New York / Oxford 1993. Vermes 1973,58-85. Vermes 1973, 223. Goodman studied the differences between Judaism in Galilee and in Judea in the Cambridge History of Judaism 3 (1999, 569-617), but he did not deal with the miracles. See Becker 2002, 291. 337-340. 2 8

2 9

3 0

31

3 2

3 3

3 4

8

1. Introduction

Honi the Circle-drawer in Crossan's and Meier's books, for instance, lack the depth present in Green's and Becker's studies. However, these fig­ ures are studied vigorously. A further step was taken with Michael Becker's recently published dis­ sertation on rabbinical miracle-workers. According to Becker, the early rabbis were unwilling to tell about miracles made by men. This included biblical figures, as well as extra-biblical persons. Some miracles, however, were intimately connected to the history forming the Jewish identity, and were retold without reservation. That does not mean that they did not have to deal with miracles, but Becker's study reveals that the early rabbis wres­ tled long and hard with the problem. Statistics show the indisputable fact that the early collections contain fewer miracle stories, whereas the num­ ber grows markedly in the later texts. Becker's study confirms that the development in the Jewish world corresponds with the Graeco-Roman world, where miracle-workers were numerous from the late second century AD. 35

36

37

38

Just as the Graeco-Roman miracle-workers known to us were either his­ torical figures known from contemporary sources or great men of the dis­ tant past, their Jewish counterparts were either contemporaries of the early Jewish writers or figures known from the Old Testament. Much research must still be done on the historical, non-biblical figures for a clearer pic­ ture of the background of New Testament Christology. It is surprising, however, how little even the later traditions concerning the figures men­ tioned in the Old Testament have been studied. They are often noted sim­ ply in passing. On the other hand, scholars such as Martin Dibelius (1919) and Rudolf Bultmann (1921) tried to note the Jewish as well as the Graeco-Roman parallels, although their intention was to underline the "Hellenistic" world. Otto Bocher (1970, 1972) and Gerd Theissen (1974) have continued this kind of work. Some scholars have always pointed to the Old Testament and some very recent works attest that the Old Testa39

3 5

See Green 1979, 621-647; Crossan 1991, 142-148; Meier 1994, 581-584; Becker 2002, 291-337. "Wunder" und "Wundertdter" im fruhrabbinischen Judentum. Studien zum literarischen und historischen Phdnomen im paganen und fruhjiidischen Kontext und seine Bedeutung fur das Verstandnis Jesu (2002). See the summary in Becker 2002, 406-414. See Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219. In 1978, Michael Goulder, in investigating the Gospels, made cautious observations on Elijah's and Elisha's miracles; see 1978, 266-281 and also 1989, 304-305. Richard Glockner studied the connections between the Psalms and New Testament miracle stories (Neutestamentliche Wundergeschichten und das Lob der Wundertaten Gottes in den Psalmen. Studien zur sprachlichen und theologischen Wundergeschichten und Psalmen, 36

3 7

3 8

3 9

9

1. Introduction

ment miracle-workers are being given more attention today than some dec­ ades ago. However, Kollmann's book, mentioned above is a good exam­ ple of an unbalanced way to deal with the texts: He closely studies the traditions about Pythagoras, but not the traditions about Moses, Elijah or Elisha, which were certainly very close to the early Christians. Moreover, here as so often, the characteristic feature of the Jewish area, the combina­ tion of miracles of the past with the hope of future miracles, is mainly overlooked. It is now time to pay attention to the traditions about the Old Testament miracle-workers. 40

41

Many studies contain valuable material on the Old Testament heroes in later Jewish literature, but the timeline between the Old Testament and rabbinic literature is long and includes a great number of sources. Some special studies and works cover some parts of this vast material, some more or less all of it. Some figures have always been eagerly studied. Moses offers a good example: The early parts of the tradition have been thoroughly investigated, but descriptions given by later writers, such as Ezekiel the Tragedian, Artapanus or Pseudo-Philo in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, still offer extensive work for scholars. Other figures, such as David and Solomon, have received less attention. Much of the research covers a part of this rich material. Some studies follow traditions about heroes. Willy Schottroff, for example, investigated the images of the Old Testament miracle-workers in his RAC article 1983). Klaus Berger noted the Old Testament stories in his Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, 1984, 305-306. Kahl is well aware that the Jewish side is neglected (see 1994, 21-22), and Craig Evans closely studies the Jewish miracle tradition (1995, 213-244). Jesus und die Christen als Wundertater. Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schamanismus in Antike und Christentum (1996). Kollmann criticises some scholars, espe­ cially O. Betz and Glockner, because they one-sidedly observe the Old Testament and Jewish traditions and forget the Hellenistic parallels (1996, 26-27). He tries himself to observe both sides when studying the miracles of Jesus and the first Christians. Neverthe­ less, he overlooks several Graeco-Roman parallels, such as Eunus (about 136/135-132 BC, Liv. perioch. 56; Flor. epit. 2,7; Diod. 34); Damigeron (second century BC, Apul. apol. 90; Arnob. nat. 1, 52; we have only fragments of his own work de lapidibus), Publius Nigidius Figulus (about 100-45 BC; for the sources see Koskenniemi 1994, 209); the eremite in Plutarch (first century AD, Plut. mor. 421a-b); Peregrinus Proteus (died 165 AD, Lukian Peregr.; Gell. 8,3. 12,11; Athenag. suppl. 26,3-5) Arnuphis (about 174 AD, Dio Cass. 71,8-9, Hist. Aug. M. Aur. 24,4); Julianus (in the time of Marcus Aurelius, Prokl. Krat. 72, 10; rep. 2, 123, 12; Arnob. nat. 1, 52; Iul. epist. 12), Apsethus (before Hippolytus' haer. [222 AD], Hippol. haer. 6,7-8); and Neryllinus (about 177 AD, Athenag. suppl. 26,3-5). I give a list of the known pagan miracle-workers in my book; see Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219. On the other hand, Kollmann carefully notes such his­ torical figures as Theudas and the Egyptian, but shows no interest in the tradition of re­ telling new variants of the Old Testament miracles. 4 0

41

10

/. Introduction

(1983). However, he only observes the "divine men" (^GottmenscherT) of the Old Testament (Moses, Elijah, Elisha) and leaves aside even many later traditions about them. He also overlooks the Old Testament figures, such as David and Solomon, mentioned as miracle-workers only in the later tradition and not in the Old Testament. David L. Tiede (1972) and Carl L. Holladay (1977), two early critics of the 0 E T O S avrjp theory, studied many of the most important texts, and made observations still valuable today. Some studies do not follow the tradition of an individual miracle-worker through different texts, but instead concentrate on a certain text and all its heroes. In his monumental work, Louis Feldman studied the way in which Josephus treated the Old Testament figures, including all the miracleworkers. This does not mean that the work is complete because Feldman's work has been heavily criticised by Mark Roncace, who scrutinised his depictions of Deborah and Gideon, and Christopher Begg challenges Feldman's view in his study of Josephus' description of Elisha. Never­ theless, Feldman has collected and discussed a huge amount of material, which has been helpful in this study. Although there are no such works on, for example, the Lives of the Prophets or Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, the commentaries of Anna Maria Schwemer and Howard Jacobson are an equal contribution to the study of these texts. Eric Eve's book (Jewish con­ text of Jesus' miracles, 2002), in which the writer studies the role of the miracles in almost all relevant Jewish texts, deserves special attention. Eve has taken upon himself a huge task, because his work not only deals with the human miracle-workers, but also with the views on miracles, whether they be done by men or God, and he expands his investigation to historical figures such as Honi and the "sign prophets" in Josephus. The wide scope of the study necessarily means that he cannot investigate all the texts thor­ oughly enough. Scholars are now eagerly investigating the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and many studies and articles are of valuable help to the present work. Becker covers the rabbinical literature in his dissertation mentioned 42

43

44

45

4 2

Schottroff 1983, 220-233. He does not deal with the passages in Ben Sira, Ezekiel the Tragedian and L.A.B. Deborah and Gideon are not presented as miracle-workers in Josephus, and they are not treated in the present work, but Roncace's article may also affect other figures stud­ ied by Feldman. Roncace investigates Josephus' passages, but notes none of the strong redactional biases found by Feldman, and concludes in his article: "A close reading of the stories does not produce the results that Feldman claims. ... If the stories of Deborah and Gideon are any indication, then it appears that much of this work remains to be done" (2000, 247-274). Feldman promptly responded (2001, 193-220), but did not re­ move all doubts concerning his work. See below p. 271-278. See below e.g. p. 19, 109 and 162. 4 3

4 4

4 5

1. Introduction

11

above. However, there is still much to do before the Jewish tradition is observed as well as it deserves to be.

e. A more precise definition of the task and method The present work concentrates on the early Jewish interpretations of the miracles made by Israelites mentioned in the Old Testament. The Old Tes­ tament tells about many men who saved the nation with their great deeds, or manifested with their miracles that Israel's God was with them. They could be saviours of the nation, as Moses, or its great leaders, as Joshua, or miracle-working prophets, as Elijah and Elisha. They also could be strange figures, as Samson, the fighter with superhuman powers. It is interesting to note how their stories were retold in the Jewish texts. Some things may be omitted, intentionally or not, some things may be emphasized, and some totally new traits may appear in the picture. Moreover, it is interesting to discover which figures still play a role in the later traditions and which are largely forgotten in the sources we have. Certain elements were apparently crucial in different periods of Jewish history. Miracles could be connected with deep wisdom, with physical strength, great leadership or even with entertainment. In Judaism, unlike in Greek thought, they also could be linked with the glorious past of the nation and with an eschatological hope. The Jewish writers do not only retell new variations of the Old Testament miracles (possibly adding totally new features such as the prince of de­ mons, Mastema, in the events of Egypt in The Book of Jubilees). They also tell totally new stories about the Old Testament heroes. The Lives of the Prophets tells about Ezekiel, and some texts about men hardly mentioned in the Old Testament, such as Kenaz in L.A.B. The study of these stories and the traditions behind them is important, because they reveal the current values and hopes of the writers and their circles. This study aims to cover all Jewish literature, from the Old Testament to Liber antiquitatum biblicarum and Josephus. The early rabbinic literature is covered in Becker's book. The vast amount of material includes very disparate elements, as well stories and shorter passages. There are two ways to structure the material. One way would be to study all the tradi­ tions, for example, about Abraham; to collect every miracle-story we have about him and in so doing, track the history of the tradition. Some good studies of this kind have been done. I do not know of a study about Abra­ ham as a miracle-worker, and the traditions about Moses have been col­ lected only superficially. Elijah, however, has been investigated more 46

4 6

Many scholars have done valuable work. Willy Schottroff deals with Moses in his article "Gottmensch" in RAC (1983). Oberhansli-Widmer has collected abundant mate-

12

7. Introduction

thoroughly. An alternative, which has been chosen here, is to study the most important texts containing miracle stories about the biblical figures. It seems to offer better opportunities to investigate the role of the miracles and the biases of the different writers, and to trace the historical develop­ ment in Israel. It also enhances the collection of details that the tradition added to the biblical stories, and clarifies which stories passed into extinc­ tion in early Judaism. The shorter passages outside these writings, in which the miracles are mentioned or even briefly retold, will be observed to illus­ trate the texts receiving greater attention. In the study of recounted passages from the Old Testament, a series of questions is asked concerning every text. The writer has used either the Hebrew or the Greek text as the original. The first problem is the role of the Septuagint. Firstly, many books of LXX differ considerably from the Hebrew text, revealing the complicated his­ tory of the latter. In the texts studied below, the numerous deviations in the versions of the conquest of Jericho (Jos 5:13-6:27) make clear that the He­ brew original the translators used differed from the Masoretic text. The study of the Greek translation is thus useful even if it is compared with texts written originally in Hebrew (such as The Wisdom of Ben Sira and Jub.). Secondly, the Septuagint is not merely a translation; it is the first stage in the midrashic tradition of contextualizing and applying the He­ brew original, and the question is whether the intention of those translat­ ing the miracles-stories can be traced. Regardless of whether the devia­ tion is based on a different original or on an intentional change in the text, it may reveal a traditional, Hebrew interpretation. LXX is analysed in sev­ eral chapters dealing with writers who used the biblical stories, and the results are collected and evaluated in chapter 10. The task of identifying the biblical passages referred to is often easy and is part of the basic work of the editor or translator of the text (e.g. the Loeb editions of Philo and Josephus), but the passage that is paraphrased may 48

49

50

rial in her article in TRE (1994), but the material is too vast to be studied thoroughly in an article. On Elijah see especially Ohler 1997. See Hengel 2002, 84-85. See Hengel 2002, 85-90. Karl Ludwig Schimdt, for example, once expressed the common view that the Septu­ agint, in dealing with the fundamentals of the Jewish religion, was also strongly influen­ ced by the Hellenistic spirit ("Und gerade durch die genannte Septuagintabibel, die ja mehr als eine blofie Ubersetzung aus dem Hebraischen ins Griechische, namlich auf weite Strecken hin eine Hellenisierung sogar des herben semitischen Monotheismus bedeutet, ist das Judentum eine der selbstsichersten und werbekraftigsten Religionen des romischen Reiches geworden" (1927, 48). 4 7

4 8

4 9

5 0

13

1. Introduction

not be the only biblical text influencing the retold passage. It is a difficult task to identify the passages in Pseudo-Philo, for instance, because Liber antiquitatum biblicarum often links several other texts (the Psalms, for example) with the narration. A careful study is needed to find all the texts used or referred to. The subject has been extensively discussed, but the discussion should be continued. How the writers used the biblical ma­ terial, especially in the miracle stories, is always interesting. A thorough study is also needed to reveal the new traits in the stories and the biases of the writers. They may include omissions, additions, clarifica­ tions or alterations, with some details occurring repeatedly in different texts and revealing a common tradition. In dealing with all major versions of the retold stories about the biblical miracle-workers, the present study should throw more light on these common and traditional traits, which are collected in chapter 10. One important question involves the influence of Jewish and Gentile traditions. De Sampsone 23-24, for example, attests the obvious fact that the biblical stories were recounted in Jewish meetings and reveals that there were different oral traditions. Philo also considered the stories told by the elders as a source to be used alongside the Scriptures: 51

"[I will] tell the story of Moses as I have learned it, both from the sacred books, the wonderful moments of his wisdom which he has left behind him, and from some of the elders of the nation; for I always interwove what I was told with what I read, and thus believed myself to have a closer knowledge than others of his life's history" (Mos. 1,4).

We thus know that there was an oral tradition, that we have only fragments of the written, and part of all that was merged with the later traditions and written down in the texts dating after the scope of this study. As a result, dating the tradition is often very difficult. Some scholars intend to empha­ size the chain of the tradition and have often supposed that the traditions written down later were already known to writers such as Ezekiel, Philo and Josephus. Others have been more sceptical. On the other hand, some trait may resemble a Greek or Roman story. The versions of Moses' death are similar to the stories about the end of some Graeco-Roman famous men. The question is, did the writer himself borrow from the Gentile tradi­ tion, did he know it at all, or had the Jewish and Graeco-Roman traditions merged at an earlier stage? Although we may not be able to decide conclu­ sively whether a writer introduced a new trait to the biblical story or bor­ rowed it from an oral or written tradition, the question should be dealt with. 52

51

See below e.g. p. 195. Feldman generally supposes that the traditions were early and influenced the way Josephus deals with his material; see below, for example, p. 263. Jacobson is more cau­ tious and is well aware of the problems; see p. 75. 5 2

14

1. Introduction

The writers did not live in a vacuum. They were writing for a certain audience. Some Jewish authors wrote their works almost exclusively for the Jews, as the writer of The Book of Jubilees or Pseudo-Philo in his L.A.B. On the other hand, Philo and Josephus also intended their works for Gentiles. Differentiation between Jews and Gentiles, however, is not enough. Both audiences should be further analysed. What kind of Gentiles or what kind of Jews were supposed to read the story? Did many Jews, as often supposed, rationalise the miracle stories because of sceptical Gentile readers? It would be important to know more about each audience, and how it influenced the work. Moreover, since writers lived both in and out­ side Palestine, the geographical factor has to be observed, and finally, when all the texts are studied, some chronological lines can certainly be drawn in the final chapter. Many Jewish texts were written during crucial periods in the history of Israel, but the writers rarely if ever considered the Scripture as belonging only to the past. Everyone retelling the biblical original could adapt the holy past to his own situation. We could ask how much this was done consciously or not - in retelling the stories about the plagues in Egypt, the great exodus, the way in the desert and the conquest of the land in the times before and after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Miracles are, of course, always only one piece of the picture a writer draws of a biblical hero. While some writers do not mention, for example, Moses' miracles at all, in Philo's and Josephus' texts he is a philosopher, general, statesman and miracle-worker. Although it is unnecessary to deal with all these features in this study, we should ask what role the miracles play in the picture and what their function is. It is not always easy to treat them separately. Do mighty deeds make somebody a divine being, as many supporters of the 0e7os avrjp hypothesis have supposed? What other fea­ tures are linked with the miracles? It is important to ask these questions, especially if the stories are heavily remodelled on the biblical original. Why are the stories remodelled and what is the result? It is clear that usually, if not always, in the Old Testament God performs miracles, but may use a man as his agent. Also, the later Jewish writers followed the same method of retelling Old Testament miracles. It is often questionable whether a man can be called a "miracle-worker" at all. God may not use any human agent in the Old Testament, as for example, when destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, but Moses' person is very closely con­ nected with the plagues in Exodus. It is understandable that the roles of God and his possible agent strongly vary in such retold versions as the events in Egypt, at the Red Sea and in the desert. In some Jewish texts Moses' role is reduced to the point of no longer being mentioned (The 53

On Artapanus see p. 104, on Philo see p. 109-110, on Josephus see p. 228.

15

1. Introduction

Book of Wisdom highlights divine wisdom and not Moses), but sometimes (as in Artapanus or Josephus) he may appear as a more independent actor. The texts that characterise a man as a miracle-worker, as well as the roles of God and his agent in these texts, are studied here. Kahl developed a use­ ful tool for this work (1994): He tried to separate the different roles in the stories by identifying the "Bearer of the Numinous Power" (= BNP) actu­ ally causing the miracle, the "Mediator of the Numinous Power" (=MNP) used as the agent of the BNP, and the "Petitioner of the Numinous Power" (=PNP) asking the BNP to make the miracle. Eve asked the question studying many Jewish texts in his book (2002), but there is certainly still work to be done. 54

As seen above it is not easy to define a miracle, and even the genre "mira­ cle-story" is a subject under dispute. Scholars have long taken the exis­ tence of the genre for granted. In 1919, Martin Dibelius concluded (Formgeschichte des Evangeliums) that the early Christian stories were either short accounts ("Paradigmas") or longer narratives ("Novellen"), and that the latter were close relatives of Hellenistic stories. The birth of the Chris­ tian miracle stories has been based on either an extension of a paradigm from the Christian or non-Christian tradition, or on a non-Christian novel adopted and applied to Jesus. Rudolf Bultmann went on in his Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition to characterize the style of the miracle stories and give a list of stories similar to ones included in the New Testament. Gerd Theissen developed the methodology in his Urchristliche Wundergeschichten (191 A, transl. 1983) connecting the study of the mira­ cle stories with sociological aspects. Although all these scholars assumed the existence of the genre "miracle-story", this view has been justly chal­ lenged. Glockner pointed to the Psalms as the background of the New Tes­ tament miracle stories (Neutestamentliche Wundergeschichten und das Lob der Wundertaten Gottes in den Psalmen, 1983), abandoning the link be­ tween a miracle and a story. Fundamental criticism against the former scholarship came with Klaus Berger's two studies, "Hellenistische Gattungen und Neues Testament" (=1984b) and Formgeschichte (= 1984a), and radically new definitions of the central terms of form-criticism. They also concern the "miracle stories": Berger flatly denies the existence of such a genre, claiming that it is not a classical genre but a modern description defining the material poorly. According to him the "miracle stories" of the 55

56

57

5 4

5 5

5 6

5 7

Kahl 1994, 62-65. Dibelius 1919, 36-56, esp. 54-55. Bultmann 1921, 135-136. Bultmann 1921, 142-146.

16

I. Introduction

New Testament belong to several narrative genres. Recently, Kahl (1994) has also emphasized the variety of the genres in which the Gospel writers presented Jesus as a BNP. The criticism is also justified concerning the material studied in the present work: Ben Sira, for example, may describe the miracles of the ancient heroes in Laus patrum, Philo uses them in his ethical discourses and Josephus retells the history of Israel. It is very diffi­ cult to include them all in a single genre. The genre of a "miracle-story" is thus not an assumption here. Miracles of an Israelite could occur in very different kinds of texts, and they are all important. However, it is useful to study what kind of miracles occur in early Judaism, when the mighty deeds of the Old Testament figures were retold. A summary of "themes", follow­ ing mainly Theissen's catalogue, is given in chapter 10. 59

60

61

58

Berger 1984a, 305-307. Kahl 1994, 237. The Old Testament also tells about miracles made by non-Israelites, but Balaam, for example, is not included in this study. See below, p. 290. 5 9

6 0

61

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira a. Introduction As many other Jewish texts, the Wisdom of Ben Sira, written in Hebrew in about 180-190 and translated into Greek in approximately 130, has be­ come newly current. While not even a fresh commentary had existed some decades earlier, by the 1970s intensive research and even strong dis­ agreement had arisen on the main lines and goals of the work. Since then many detailed studies have revealed interesting new features of the work and about 600 publications regarding it were published between 1980 and 1997. Nevertheless, many questions are still open, and although many of them are part of the background of the present study, some may be clearly significant. In particular, the impact of politics and the writer's attitude toward Hellenism, both of which are discussed vividly, are relevant prob­ lems when investigating the role of the miracles, and the question that should be asked is how much Ben Sira contemporized the biblical stories. Although many important themes in the text have been studied, the role of the miracles in the work has not. While the main target of this study is the Hebrew original, the Greek translation is an interesting reworking of it and may reveal some independent tendencies. However, for most parts of the 1

2

3

4

5

1

Scholars agree almost unanimously on this date; for the older view, that the translator came to Egypt not in the 38 year of Euergetes II, i.e. 132, but already in the 3 century, see Stadelmann 1980, 1-3 and Reiterer 1997, 37. We have now the commentaries of Snaith (1974), di Leila and Skehan (1987) and Sauer (2000). Beentjes 1997, V. Did Ben Sira belong to the upper or lower echelons of society? Some scholars, such as Smend (1906, 345-346) have considered Ben Sira a member of the wealthy class, but Reiterer (1997, 35-37), as Tcherikover before him, assumes that he came from the poorer class and then rose in status. The question of his profession is closely connected with this problem. Stadelmann considers him a priest and scholar (1980, 14-26) and follows the line of Schlatter: "Gelehrte, die nichts als Gelehrte waren, kamen fur Jerusalem zuerst bei Sirach vor" (Stadelmann 1980, 17; cited also by Hengel 1991, 132 and Kieweler 1992, 53). Wright (1997, 189-222) underlines his support for the priests: "Ben Sira is a scribe, perhaps even a priest" (1997, 219). See below p. 31-36. th

2

3

4

5

rd

18

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

text we have only the Greek version and are thus unable to compare it with the original. The miracles of the Old Testament heroes are alluded to very briefly in some passages. Most of them are connected to the circle of exodus, the desert traditions and the conquest of the land (Sir 16:10; 38:5; 43:15-16). There was no need to retell or explain the stories, since it was assumed that the audience was familiar with the texts. The brief references are by no means uninteresting; on the contrary, they show how prominent the Old Testament miracles were in Israel. Moreover, the example in Sir 38:5 gives information about the writer's view. Nevertheless, although the miracles play a major role in only one part of the work, they are of notable signifi­ cance. Laus patrum, Sir 44-50, is an important section that has been given a variety of interpretations, and in which Ben Sira apparently discloses the influence that both the Jewish and Greek traditions had in helping him shape the hymn, although many literary models were written in prose and not in verse. On the other hand, the writer had many examples to follow in the holy writings. The Old Testament contains short presentations of Israel's his­ tory, such as Deut 26:5-11; Jos 24:2-25; Ps 78:105-106 and 135-136, Neh 9 and Ezek 20. Von Rad, however, already recognised the difference be­ tween Laus patrum and the earlier presentations: It was no longer God and his hidden or open presence but the famous men of the past that were the subject of praise. The Greek tradition also offered a model for short biographies, explain­ ing why Sir differed from the traditional Hebrew way of dealing with his­ tory. The most famous example of such biographies is Cornelius Nepos' 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

6

It is interesting that Ben Sira rejects divination in Sir 34:5 and prays for new miracles in Sir 36:5 (see below p. 31-36). In Laus patrum he refers to the deeds of David (Sir 47:3) and mentions that Enoch was taken to heaven (Sir 49:14). The passages, together with passages dealing with Moses and Joshua, are disputed below. The numeration follows Ziegler's edition of Septuagint, which is concordant with Beentjes' Hebrew text (1997). See below p. 20. Mack could still easily count the number of works on the hymn in 1985, 3, but since then the research has been prolific. On a history of the research see Reiterer 1997, 55-57. See Kieweler 1992, 59; Coggins 1998, 78-83. See von Rad 1989 (1962), 367-369; Mack 1985, 7. 217. Von Rad 1970, 330-331; see also Lee 1986, 23-31. It is strange that Whybray seems to be unaware of the long discussion. He denies the influence of Greek historiography and Greek and Hellenistic models (1999, 139). Whybray cites several Old Testament texts which touched on the history of Israel, but fails to see (as von Rad did) that the view is now different. On the historiographical and encomiastic influence see Mack 1985, 120-137. 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

19

De viris illustribus, although long before Nepos the philosophical tradition had created a way to briefly present a man and his deeds. Diogenes Laertius gives a good (although late) example of this genre in his work on the most famous philosophers. This type could be encomiastic, as Nepos' work was, but not necessarily. In the public and private libraries, espe­ cially, there was a need for works that briefly presented writers and his­ torical figures to the broader, superficially educated population. Given the transition from prose to Hebrew verse, Ben Sira was - as far as we know the first Jew who used the form of the Hellenistic short biographies to ful­ fil his task. Laus patrum is thus generally considered an important part of the work. Mack's analysis shows that it is carefully formulated and that the charac­ terisation of the fathers follows a well-planned pattern. He names their office, election, covenant, virtues, deeds, historical setting and rewards. The pattern works well but is not used mechanically. As far as I know, the role of the biblical miracles in Laus patrum has never been thoroughly in­ vestigated, although von Rad, and subsequently Stadelmann noted impor­ tant details. Eve deals with miracles in Ben Sira and makes many impor­ tant observations, but he writes quite briefly and without reference to sev­ eral important works. 15

16

17

18

b. Moses 19

Ben Sira is not the first early Jewish writer to write about Moses, but the first known to us to discuss the role of Moses' miracles. Moses occurs in 20

1 5

It is clear that the hymn shows encomiastic features, but, as he tries to show in his book (1986), it can hardly be labelled an encomium. The transition from prose to Hebrew verse means that the writer could not directly use any of the Greek genres. Von Rad inquired about the Hellenistic genre helping Ben Sira to shape the picture of Elijah, but could not find the answer (1970, 331). Later, the problem was solved when the study advanced to the Greek short biographies; see Mack 1985, 124-128; Mack Murphy 1986, 376-377 and Schwemer 1995, 43-50. Mack 1985, 17-26. Eve (2002, 106-114) does not refer to von Rad (1970), Tiede (1972), Middendorp (1972), Hengel (1974), Stadelmann (1980) or Beentjes (1989). Sauer's commentary (2000) and Ska's (1999), Whybry's (1999) and Hoffken's (2000) important articles ap­ parently came too late to be observed by him. Many Jewish writers deal with Moses, but not necessarily with his miracles. We, for example, have only a few fragments of Demetrius' work, written about 221-204 B.C. (see Walter 1989, 387; Collins 2000a,33-35). Alexander Polyhistor, who included these fragments in his lost work, has not cited the title (see Walter 1975,280-283; Holladay 1983,51-54). The method was Aporiai kai lyseis, common in the exegesis of Homer's works, in which the different passages were explained. Fragments F4 and F5 point to 1 6

17

1 8

1 9

20

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

Laus patrum, but also elsewhere in some passages which will be treated here. The writer mentions the 600,000 soldiers only briefly (Sir 16:10). More interesting for the present study is how Sir cites a miracle performed by Moses. It is part of the famous praise of the physician (Sir 38:4-7): 21

"God makes the earth yield healing herbs, which the prudent should not neglect. Was not the water sweetened by a twig that people might learn his power? He endows humans with the knowledge to glory in his mighty works, through which the doctor eases pain and the druggist prepares his medicines." Ben Sira clearly alludes to the story told in Exod 15:22-27, retold by several Jewish writers studied in the present book. Does the Septuagint already reveal some tendency in rendering the passage? The LXX translates the name m o / Meppcc (TTiKpi'cc) in v. 23. p is translated as £iiAov 25. God's words in v. 26 are given in the participle and not in the substantive 'iccxpds (l^sn m.T '»* o / eyed y a p E'IUI Kiipios 6 'icouevds as. Some of these details may be of some importance in the texts studied in the present book, al­ though hardly in Ben Sira. 22

m

v

The role of the physician in early Judaism is certainly obscure, but the Graeco-Roman point of view is not easy to define either. A simplified view sometimes suggested is that the traditional Old Testament belief banned the medicine used by the Greeks. It is easy to quote many critical passages from the Old Testament to show that it may have been considered a sin to seek help from physicians. According to Snaith and Sauer, Ben Sira is influenced by the Hellenistic view. The question is, however, 23

Moses' miracles, but contain no new interpretations. Appparently comparing Demetrius with Artapanus, Alexander Polyhistor claimed that the former wrote in accordance with the holy writings. Collins also includes Demetrius in the "faithful chroniclers" (Collins 2000a, 33). Aristobulus deals briefly with the miracles in Exodus in Fr. 2,8, rejecting all anthropomorphic interpretations. Moses' miracles are mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, sometimes briefly (as in 4Q226, 4Q422, 4Q434 and 4Q491), sometimes more extensively, but the text follows very faithfully the biblical original (4Q365). It is possi­ ble that even the mutilated 4Q377, which calls him "anointed", mentions his miracles (Zimmermann 1998,332-342). On Moses in Sir see Tiede 1972, 181-182; di Leila - Skehan 1987, 509. 510-511; Sauer 2000, 306-307. See Snaith 1974, 183-185; di Leila - Skehan 1987, 438-444; Sauer 2000, 260-263. The English translations given are by di Leila and Skehan (1987). Sauer (2000, 260-263) quotes the biblical passages in which the Lord is called healer: Gen 20:17; Exod 15:26; Deut 32:39; Ps 30:3; Isa 57:18. In 2 Chr 16:12 Asa seeks help from the physicians and not from God. Only the last of these texts unequivocally criticises the physician as such, while the others have different targets in addition to the physicians. 2 0

21

2 2

2 3

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

21

clearly more complicated. We know that medical treatment could be com­ bined with religious ideas in very different ways in classical antiquity as well as in early Judaism. Classical antiquity knew several medical traditions: Some were the first steps in empirical science, and medicine advanced strongly in Ptolemaic Egypt. Some traditions were related to religion, and healing gods were very popular. These two branches of traditions could easily be combined. The temples of Asclepius, for example, were centres offering a variety of medicaments and even longer cures. When magical treatments are added to the list of traditions it should be obvious that there is no "Hellenistic" view on the role of the physician, but many different views and their com­ binations. Also the view that medicine was banned in early Judaism is hardly cor­ rect. Admittedly Asa is criticised in 2 Chr 16:12 for seeking help from the physicians and not from God, and 1 En. 7:1 considers magical medicine as something taught to men by the Watchers. Common sense, however, tells us that these passages are not the entire truth: Men were ill and also treated in the Old Testament times. According to Exod 21:18-19, a man hitting another has to pay the costs ( K S T asm p TOSD p-i) and "Elijahu, the physician" is mentioned in a seal from the late seventh or early sixth cen­ tury. The Deuteronomistic belief explicitly rejected several arts of magi­ cal techniques (e.g., Deut 18:9-12), but Isa 1:4-9, Jer 8:22 and Jer 46:11 attest that a medical treatment was not always banned in Israel. Even Isa 38:21-22 / 2 Kgs 20:1-11 link God's help with a medical cure when a poul­ tice of figs is used to heal Hezekiah's boil. We know of different ways in which God's help and medical treatment were later integrated. Philo (Alleg. Interp. 2,6; Ios. 11,63) or Josephus (Vita 404, 421) never found it problematic. The community in Qumran, despite its awareness of 1 En. 7:1, seems to have used healing herbs and exorcistic techniques and repre­ sented a view close to the one in Jub. The most obvious parallel to Sir 38:1-15 is the book of Tobit, in which God's angel, who is ominously named Raphael, teaches the young Tobias to heal his old father (Tob 3:1624

25

26

27

2S

2 4

On the medicine of classical antiquity see Kollmann 1994, 61-72; Nutton 1999, 1107-1117. See van Cangh 1982, 264-269; Koskenniemi 1994, 220-221. Asclepius' cult cannot be regarded as a monolithic ideology. Chronological and pos­ sibly even geographical factors meant that the combination of religion and treatment was seen in different ways. Aelius Aristides writes that people stayed in sanctuaries for long periods (see LiDonnici 1995, 48-49). See Kaiser 2001, 12-19, who gives clear evidence of a positive attitude to medical cures. See below p. 51. 2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8

22

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

17; 11:7-8). In this book the apotropaic technique and medical cure are combined with the idea that God is the healer. Becker observes that the early rabbis often mention physicians in the Mishna and Tosefta. It is hardly a coincidence that Ben Sira, writing about the role of the physician, quotes Moses' miracle, because immediately after Moses casts the twig and makes the water sweet, God says to him: "If you listen carefully to the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay at­ tention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you" ("|»s"i mrr •»» o ) . Ben Sira thus reads Exod 15:25 very carefully, linking the miracle with verse 15:26: Moses acts skilfully, and this is precisely the way in which God acts as healer through his agent. But does Ben Sira rationalise the event? Sauer interprets the passage as displaying a marked rationalistic tendency, but offers no argument. Eve approaches the question briefly. It is obvious, though, that the term is problematic. Ben Sira hardly tries to rationalise the miracle. His concept of miracle differed from the modern one. According to Ben Sira, God helps his people in many ways. Philo later attests the view that the wood Moses cast naturally had such an ef­ fect, and apparently Ben Sira was also aware of the explanation that the water miracle was analogous to a physician's treatment: According to him, God has created everything and is able to let his people know how to treat others. The methods God uses to help his people may differ, but it is al­ ways God the Creator who should be praised. The combination of medi­ cal treatment and God's help differs somewhat from Tob or Jub., but all of these texts link the two in some manner. Ben Sira also retells other biblical stories without reservation. His link­ ing of a biblical story with the work of a physician does not indicate ra­ tionalisation, but the merging of different views into one. Labelling this view as Hellenistic or Jewish is problematic, since both cultures clearly 30

31

32

33

34

2 9

See Kottek 2000, 9. See Becker 2002, 385-388. "Eine bemerkenswert rationalistische Einstellung verrat Ben Sira dadurch", Sauer 2000, 262. According to Eve (2002, 108) Ben Sira does not make the work of the physicians more miraculous by association with the Mosaic story; he makes the Mosaic story less miraculous. However, the question is apparently not put properly, because neither of the two seems to be Ben Sira's intention. Philo mentions this as a possible explanation; see below p. 122. The Hebrew and the Greek texts differ markedly in Sir 38:15. The Hebrew reads im KSTI 'as ? naarr inenr ^a ? «oin, but the Greek 6 ccuapTccvcov evavri TOU noirjaavoTOs auTOV euTTeooi sis X ^P S 'taTpou. Eve (2002, 108) does not consider the text to be contradictory to a positive attitude towards the physician. 3 0

31

32

3 3

3 4

1

1

£

a

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

23

included several positions, most of which combined medical cures with religious beliefs. Ben Sira's way of alluding to the biblical stories makes it generally diffi­ cult to speak about a "numinous power." Consequently, Moses is not a BNP ("Bearer of Numinous Power") or a MNP ("Mediator of Numinous Power") in Kahl's terminology; instead, he could be considered a PNP ("Petitioner of the Numinous Power"). The function presupposed in the story has changed: When Moses in Exodus rescues his people by mediat­ ing God's help, the goal of the narrative is to connect the work of the phy­ sicians with God's helping hand. Ben Sira tells more about Moses' miracles in Laus patrum (Sir 44:2345:5): "From him he had spring the man, who should win the favour of all the living; Dear to God and humans, Moses, whose memory is a boon. God made him like the angels in honour and strengthened him with fearful powers, wrought swift miracles at his words and sustained him in the king's presence. He gave him the commandments for his people, and revealed to him his glory. For his trustworthiness and meekness God selected him from all humankind. He permitted him to hear his voice, and led him into the cloud, where he gave into his hand the commandments, the law of life and understanding, that he might teach his precepts to Jacob his covenant decrees to Israel." Ben Sira's brief summary of Moses' life does not allow a deeper study of its relation to the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Pentateuch (for a detailed comparison see pp. 20, 57, 66, 70, 74, 92, 99 and 123). However, one verse has played an important role in the scholarly debate, namely, Exod 7:1. In this verse (nvish crn^K -pnn] ntn) a man is appar­ ently honoured more highly than anywhere in the Old Testament, and Moses is called a god. Both Exod 7:1 and Exod 4:16 are highlighted in the studies investigating early Juda­ ism. Scholars supporting the OeTos avrjp hypothesis believed that the Jews were led to reinterpret their heroes as divine beings and half-gods. Exod 7:1 opened the door to this kind of reinterpretation, and it is interesting to examine whether or not it was used. In any case, the L X X preserves the sense of the Hebrew text (SESCOKO: oe 0e6v Qccpccco) without any trace that the words were problematic to the translators. However, here the Hebrew and Greek texts of Ben Sira differ (see below). 35

3 5

This view occurred sporadically earlier but was formulated by Hahn in his Chistologische Hoheitstitel (1963, 292-308).

24

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

Ben Sira mentions Moses more briefly than Aaron or many other persons after him. As usual Ben Sira shows less interest in certain periods of his­ tory or events than in persons. It is not easy to say which miracles pre­ cisely are referred to, especially because the Hebrew text is mutilated in 45,2-3: : t r a r m insotn Dvfr[ ] b'l (in margin) : -pn *Efr inptm nna [ ]-n rwn (in margin) 36

w

[

]-n

[...] %] irri2n

The Greek text reads E V Aoyois auTou OTjjjeTa KccTerrauaev eSo^aaev a u x o v KaTa rrpoacoTrov {JaaiAecov.

Skehan translates the Greek as "wrought swift miracles at his words", which seems to be correct. According to Eve, Ben Sira only refers to the miracles that Moses performed in the presence of the Pharaoh, "that is, the signs with rod and hand and the plagues", and he wonders why the mira­ cles of the Red Sea crossing and wandering in the wilderness are passed over in silence. However, it seems impossible to restrict the miracles re­ ferred to so precisely. The Pharaoh was of course present at the Red Sea, and unless the plural (3aaiAecov is a mistake it may even include the battle against Amalek or other nations. The fact remains, however, that although the water at Marah is mentioned in another context, Moses' miracles are reported only briefly. According to Skehan - di Leila and Eve, the reason is Ben Sira's desire to emphasise Aaron as the source of the Levitical priesthood. Still, the brief mention of Moses does not mean that he is relegated to a minor role in the hymn. On the contrary, in Sir 45:1-5, Ben Sira calls attention to two of his accomplishments: i.e., the miraculous leadership and the Law. These two aspects of his mission raise him above every other human being. Aaron may be the privileged heir, but Moses is the pioneer in Ben Sira. The hymn usually mentions the office of the fa­ ther, but it is now absent. This may indicate that Moses' mission was not easy to characterise: He was teacher, prophet and ruler, and his office was, as Mack says, certainly sui generis. Neither the events in Exodus nor the 37

38

39

40

41

36

See Mack 1985, 49. Eve 2002, 109. Di Leila - Skehan 1987, 510-511; Eve 2002, 110-111. Aaron is clearly given a larger role (Sir 45:6-26). The story about Dathan and Abiram and the "band of Korah" (cf. Num 16:1-17:31) is mentioned in this passage (Sir 45:18). Ska 1999, 186-187. See Mack 1985, 30. 37

3 8

3 9

4 0

41

25

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

journey in the wilderness is reported extensively: An allusion is enough, here as well as in Sir 43:16. Moses' miracles ( O T H J E T O C , Sir 45:3; the Hebrew text is mutilated) are alluded to very briefly, obviously because they were so well-known to the audience that they did not need to be retold. His role is summarised in words apparently essentially different in the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Hebrew text in Sir 45:2 is fragmentary. MS B reads crn^ ] with 'D*n in the margin. Vattioni reads Errf?[K IZPK ira]i, Tiede wrt7N2 irrcri (his translation: "he made him [Moses] as glorious as God"), but di Leila reads DTfrto m r o n . The Greek translation reads copoicooEv auxov 5ol;r) 42

4 3

44

45

46

47

4 8

t /

49

ayicov.

Alan Lowe, who is working on the manuscripts of Ben Sira, kindly checked the reading in manuscript B (Oxford). In his view, more letters can be read than Beentjes indicates in his edition: : D'orion insom •"'n^n* in3[ D ]i ™ (2a in margin), •nmon (2b in margin) : -pn "izb inpmn ino m m "Q-Q mm (3a in margin) : TTQD n[K ip *rm DOT imsn Although the exact Hebrew words are uncertain, they apparently followed the thought in Exod 7:1 (runs ? d'IYtk jam). The LXX still follows the sense of the Hebrew text, but Philo as well as the Samaritan tradition and ,

,

50

51

1

42

onn *)T irom in Sir 43:16 seems to point to Ps 114:4 and p'n *pnn mm in Sir 43:17a to Exod 14:21. A very similar allusion to Ps 114 is seen in Pseudo-Philo's L.A.B.; see below p. 195. On the word, see below p. 67-67. According to Mack, Ben Sira "recognised (the Pentateuch) as an epic and regarded it as significant mainly as an epic." The model is assumed to be the study of the Homeric epic in the Hellenistic schools "and especially among the Stoics" (1985, 114. 228-229). However, the view is hardly correct. Ben Sira shows very little signs of an allegorisation. Beentjes 1997, 78. Tiede 1972, 181-182. Di Leila - Skehan 1987, 509. Snaith (1974, 220-221) gives no Hebrew text, but according to him the Hebrew text compared Moses to a god, echoing Exod 7:1; the Greek translator misunderstood god to be angels. Sauer cites the manuscripts and gives a translation ("Gott lieB ihn hintreten", 2000, 306). The Vulgate reads similem ilium fecit in gloria sanctorum. Ben Sira apparently wrote in3[D]i, but, as in 44:23b the scribe has confused the rare verb H3D with the familiar pD. The small circles, which are in the manuscript, denote a variant reading. In ina[ D ] i (2a) n is not sure, and both the initial i and 3 are still more uncertain. In 3a the second i in mrriK is not sure, and the n in - m a is still more uncertain. In 3c uvn is uncertain, but fits the ink marks well. In 3d kti is definite and the b is fairly certain; all the following let­ ters are very uncertain but do fit the remaining ink. 4 3

4 4

4 5

4 6

4 7

4 8

4 9

5 0

51

,

,

, ,

26

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

the rabbinic texts found it problematic. The Greek text of the Wisdom of Ben Sira seems to share the problem, rendering the text in a changed form, in which copoicoaev auxov 5O£T] ayicov apparently indicates angels. Ben Sira himself seemed to have a problem with the Hebrew words. In neither Exodus nor in Sir do they mean deification, but a legitimisation by miracles: Moses' nature is not divine; he is a messenger of God. The Jewish tradition was, as Holladay noted, very careful not to mix the roles of God and man, and the Greek text is evidence of this view. The miracles certainly make clear in the Wisdom of Ben Sira that Moses is God's agent, but his miracles can be treated briefly, because he no longer needs legitimisation in a work written for Jews. In the passage dea­ ling with Joshua (Sir 46:1) Ben Sira refers to Moses as r w o n rwn m m . That he was a prophet (Deut 18:18) did not even need to be mentioned to the Jewish audience. 53

54

55

56

5 7

c. Joshua 58

After Aaron and Phinehas, Ben Sira summarises the miracles of Joshua: "Valiant conqueror was Joshua, son of Nun, aide to Moses in the prophetic office. Formed to be, as his name implies, the great saviour of God's chosen ones, wreaking vengeance on the enemy and giving to Israel their inheritance. What glory was his when he raised his hand to brandish his sword against the city! Who could withstand him

5 2

See below p. 153 and Holladay 1977, 124-125. Di Leila and Skehan cite Exod 4:16; 7:1 but also Ps 8:6 and interpret the Hebrew text to mean angels (1987, 509). For Abraham, Philo uses the words Tooe, CXYYeAoie, YCYOVWC, (Sacr. 5). Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 354-355) regards Sir 45:1-2 as the first example of Moses' divinisation in Jewish literature (1994, 354-355). However, she completely over­ looks Exod 7:1 as the source of the verses as well as the difference between the Hebrew and Greek texts. See Tiede 1972, 181-182; Holladay 1977, 124-125. Holladay summarises his study as follows: "As to the question of whether in Helle­ nistic-Judaism it became easier for Jews to conceive of a divine man because the line of demarcation between man and God had become blurred, we have seen evidence that sug­ gests that Hellenization among Jews, rather than bridging the gap, only widened it" (1977, 235). See below p. 27. On Joshua in Sir see Snaith 1974, 227-230; Stadelmann 1980, 189-192; di Leila Skehan 1989, 517, 518-520; Sauer 2000, 313-316. 53

5 4

55

5 6

57

58

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

27

when he fought the battles of the Lord? Was it not at his same hand the sun stopped, so that one day became like two? He called upon the Most High God when he was hard pressed, with enemies on every side; And God Most High gave answer to him with the driving force of glistening hail. Which he rained down upon the hostile army till on the slope he destroyed the foe; That all the doomed nations might know the Lord was watching over his people's battles. And because he was a devoted follower of God and in Moses' times showed himself loyal, he and Caleb, son of Jephunneh, when they opposed the rebel assembly, averted God's anger from the people and suppressed the wicked complaint because of this, those two alone were spared of the six hundred thousand infantry, to lead the people into their inheritance, the land flowing with milk and honey" (Sir 46:1-8).

The book of Joshua tells four stories about Joshua, which are clearly mira­ cles: the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 3:1-5:1), the conquest of Jericho (Jos 5:13-6:27), the hailstones (Jos 10:8-14) and the stopped sun at Gibeon (Jos 10:12-13). Ben Sira heavily condenses the extensive biblical material. The LXX does not attest to any clear redactional tendencies in these passages. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see below p. 249.

The last two events alone, which in Joshua are mostly miracles of God, are directly mentioned in the Wisdom of Ben Sira, and possibly with some inaccuracies. The omission of the first two, however, does not detract from the miraculousness of Joshua's leadership, especially because the hailstones are also mentioned in Sir 43:15. The Hebrew text uses the bibli­ cal words TODm m to characterise Joshua, but adds rwon (G: SidSoxos 59

60

61

5 9

Joshua's mission, of course, was "to lead the people into their inheritance" (Sir 46:8). Yet, the crossing of the Jordan is not retold in detail. According to Snaith, Ben Sira erringly connects Joshua's prayer with the hailstorm, whereas Jos 10:14 links it with the halting of the sun and moon (Snaith 1974, 229). The note is correct, but apparently Ben Sira has presumed that Joshua prayed prior to God's words "Do not be afraid of them" (Jos 10:8). Di Leila and Skehan (1987, 517) observe another possible inaccuracy, when Ben Sira links the miracle of halting the sun with Joshua's hand and not with his voice (Sir 46:4). However, it is also possible that Ben Sira supposed that Joshua was praying with raised hands. On similar questions, see below p. 36. Jos 1:1; Num 11:28. 6 0

61

28

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira 62

Mcouafj ev TTpo^riTEiais). Joshua is not only a helping hand, but also Moses' successor, and so Joshua is included among the prophets, not be­ cause of his words but because of his deeds. Moreover, this was the only time he was called a prophet: Josephus also calls him by this name (5id5oxos . . . E T T I . . . T O C ? S Trpo(|>r|TEiais, Ant. 4,165). If Josephus follows a tradition, it may have antedated Ben Sira's work. In Ben Sira, the miracles of Joshua are not only an isolated event in Joshua's life but clearly the main part of his mighty deeds. From the vast material included in Josh, the writer picked two of the four miracles for his short summary, and they thus play a prominent role. In contrast to Josh, the miracles now belong to the heart of Joshua's mission. They show that "the Lord was watching over his people's battles", and are now tightly bound with Joshua's militant leadership. Did Ben Sira believe that Joshua's miracles were important for his own time? This question, a sub­ ject of vivid discussion in the last 30 years, needs to be asked again. It is a wide issue that also has consequences for an interpretation of the miracles in the work. In 1972, Th. Middendorp published a book on the Wisdom of Ben Sira. He defended the view already presented long before, that the original work was not at all anti-Hellenistic. On the contrary, he identified some one hundred alleged quotations from Greek literature, about half of them from Theognis. Although the work was originally written in Hebrew, Mid­ dendorp assumed that Ben Sira had used a Greek florilegium and that his work was intended to be a schoolbook in the Greek manner. Some impor­ tant passages were now regarded as interpolations from the Maccabean 63

64

65

66

Sauer (2000, 313-316) correctly underlines Joshua's militant nature in The Wisdom of Ben Sira, but fails to see his prophetical mission. He is not only the servant of the prophet Moses, but also - as the Greek translation understandably puts it - his 5td5oxos in this mission. Ska (1999, 183.184) observes the innovation. See Snaith 1974, 228-229. Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (1972). Particularly Pautrel tried already in 1963 to establish a connection between Ben Sira and the Stoics (Ben Sira et le Stoicisme). Middendorp 1972, 7-34. Middendorp supposed that the writer knew Greek literature better than the translator, who could no longer find the original Greek expressions (1972, 8). The contacts between Ben Sira and Greek writers have been studied and discussed long before and after Middendorp. Most scholars agree that Ben Sira was under Hellenis­ tic influence, but some deny the proposed direct literary contacts. On this question see Mack 1985, 91. 222-223; Hengel 1991, 149-150; Reiterer 1997, 41-43. Kieweler (1992) scrutinised the evidence presented by Middendorp and found it very weak. Indeed, Mid­ dendorp fails to give exact citations but works with the similarity of the ideas. However, many ideas were common to the Greek as well as to the Hebrew literature and it is diffi­ cult to prove Middendorp's assertion that Ben Sira used a Greek florilegium. 6 3

64

6 5

6 6

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

29

period. Middendorp's book was immediately and severely criticised in a review (1974) by Hengel, who had represented a totally different view in Judaism and Hellenism (the first German edition in 1969 and the second in 1973). Since these studies the alleged anti-Hellenism - aggressive or not - in the work has divided scholars. Some of them underline the national colouring of the work and Ben Sira's connection of all universal wisdom with Israel. Other scholars emphasize Ben Sira's contacts with Greek thought and deny any contradiction with it. The study of heroes' miracles may shed light on the question. Joshua's mighty deeds clearly belong to the history shaping the identity of Israel, and he is not called a prophet by coincidence; he guarantees the continuity of the covenant. Ben Sira considers him to be the bridge be­ tween Moses and the judges (especially Samuel). The promise in Deut 18:18 is applied to Joshua, who gave his people their heritage in the Prom­ ised Land. Sir 46:1-8 is undoubtedly marked by pride in the leader's militant power. Joshua attacks "all doomed nations" (mn na, G has only eBvn, Sir 46:6). Here the miracles have become a significant part of his image. Neither ad68

69

70

71

72

6 7

See below p. 34-36. Hengel 1974, 83-87, reprinted with an epilogue in Kleine Schriften 1 1996, 252-257. Hengel calls Middendorp's book "eine typische Anfangerarbeit." In his view, Midden­ dorp failed to demonstrate the alleged literary relations between The Wisdom of Ben Sira and many Greek sources, overlooked the fact that in Ben Sira's work, wisdom dwells exclusively in Zion, and excluded everything that did not fit his view, considering them as later additions. The German edition of Schurer considers Ben Sira a traditionalist. "Es ist die Zeit des hereinbrechenden Hellenismus. Der Vertreter gehort zu den Altglaubigen und beklagt es tief, dafi die gottlose Manner das Gesetz des Hochsten verlassen haben (41,8)" (4. ed. 3 [1909], 3, 215). R. Smend claims that Ben Sira had a deep hatred of the Greeks (1906, xxiv) and expressed a Jewish declaration of war against Hellenism (1907, 33). See also Hengel 1974, 83-85; repr. 1996, 252-257. These scholars may not deny that Ben Sira was a cultured man of his time and familiar with Greek literature, but consider his book to be a reaction against the wholesale acceptance of Greek ideas to the detriment of their faith. Recently the national colouring has been stressed by Whybray 1999, 138, Sauer 2000, 30-31 and VanderKam 2001, 117: "Ben Sira's purpose seems to have been to convince his audience, presumably Jewish, that the true wisdom was not to be sought in the books and teachings of the Greeks but in the writings and instruction of the Jewish tradition." Pautrel (1939, 545) stressed Ben Sira's contacts with Greek thought. In Mack's view Ben Sira's book reveals "the marks of an erudite cosmopolitan" and "openness to Helle­ nistic thought" (1985, 85; similarly also Mack - Murphy 1986, 374-375). Eve considers Ben Sira opposed "not to Hellenism as such, but to any form of modernization that threatened what he saw as the ancestral faith" (2002, 106-107). On the history of research see Marbock 1997, 42-43. On his own view see Marbock 1999, 170-173. See Becker 2002,211. Stadelmann 1980, 191. 6 8

6 9

7 0

71

7 2

30

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

ditions nor alterations to the biblical original were needed; the picture is now radically changed. The biblical material opens the door for a reinterpretation, but only after a careful selection of the material. Miracles and politics are combined in an aggressive way. With the exception of Laus patrum the work admittedly contains very few verses showing Ben Sira's political activity. He may advise the reader not to get mixed up in political matters, but he also reveals his interest in the life of his people. Appar­ ently Ben Sira thought that God's covenant with David as it once was belonged to history and that it was the High Priest who represented conti­ nuity. If that is true, one theocracy had made room for another, although the latter was less militant and possible satisfied to control only a narrow segment of society. Nevertheless, Israel's past offered enough fuel for political zeal. The word cnn, admittedly omitted in the Greek translation, shows that this fuel is by no means absent in Sir, although the target of the aggression is not yet clear. Even so, or possibly for that reason, later inter­ pretations of Joshua as a hero were controversial and he caused a moderate writer such as Josephus many problems. This kind of leader could be and indeed was used for political purposes during turning points in Israel's history. Some scholars (especially Stadelmann and Hengel) have seen a line leading from Ben Sira to the later Jewish movements such as the later apocalyptic prophets and even John the Baptist. Ben Sira's description of the great conqueror certainly gave enough evidence to those who desired a politically-minded Joshua. His miracles were emphasized and adapted to new situations. The German slogan, Die Endzeit entspricht der Urzeit, re­ veals a specific Jewish trait, which did not belong to Greek concepts of miracles. It is easy to quote Ben Sira and label Joshua as a PNP ("He called upon the Most High God ... and God Most High gave answer to him with the 73

74

75

76

77

78

7 3

Middendorp (1972, 163-164), as well as Hengel, underlines the writer's caution, but Hengel also attributes a clear political view to him (1991, 134). According to Midden­ dorp and Mack (1985, 58-59) he followed the politics of Simon the High Priest. Ben Sira does not forget David but, interestingly enough, mentions him in a strange place in the hymn, which otherwise follows a chronological order. He is mentioned in connection with Phinehas, after Aaron and before Joshua. Priest suggests that Ben Sira represented a belief in two Messiahs attested already in Zech 6 and common in Qumran (Priest 1964-66, 111-118). Also, the passage on Elijah shows that a sort of "Messianism" cannot be ruled out in Sir (see Martin 1986, 107-123). See Stadelmann 1980, 157. Mack, too, considers Simon's ministry to be the climax of the sacred history in Sir (1985, 49-52). According to Mack (1985, 84-85), Ben Sira was, as were the High Priests, happy with the Temple and cult and did not try to expand the power of the priests to the eco­ nomic or political world. See below p. 251-254. Stadelmann 1980, 179-184; Hengel 1991, 135-136. 7 4

75

7 6

7 7

7 8

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

31

driving force of glistening hail"), and indeed he can serve as a good exam­ ple of this label. Joshua's role is, however, not merely that of a man in prayer. He also acts as a leader sent by God. In fact, the comments on the sun in Sir could be interpreted to mean that none other than Joshua himself is the BNP, and that he alone makes the miracle ("Was it not at his same hand the sun stopped"). This tension between two passages so close to each other demonstrates that Kahl's terminology cannot be used without a framework within which to interpret the text. Jewish texts at times may depict someone as an independent miracle-worker without any mention of God. The question is how much interpretation between the lines there was. The audience is a crucial factor influencing the interpretation. Artapanus' text was obviously intended for both Jews and Gentiles, and different read­ ers undoubtedly understood Moses' role in different ways. This is not a problem in Ben Sira, and there is not even the need to be concerned about "a certain amount of poetical licence", because the passage on the glis­ tening hail already provides a more conventional view of Joshua's role: God is obviously the BNP initiating the miracles, but Joshua is clearly his tool, the mediator of God's help (MNP). Miracles play an interesting role in this passage. They do more than merely legitimate Joshua. The writer goes one step further to show how a legitimated leader takes his people to war without any hesitation or fear. His prophetical leadership (rwoaa n$ft rrwti) proves that God watched over his people. In the view of Ben Sira, this obviously did not only refer to the distant past. 79

80

d. Elijah The words about Elijah, again in Laus patrum, form a passage important in many ways (Sir 47:25-48:11): 81

"Their sinfulness grew more and more, and they lent themselves to every evil till a like there appeared a prophet whose words were as a flaming furnace. Their staff of bread he shattered, in his zeal he reduced them to straits; By God's word he shut up the heavens and three times brought down fire.

7 9

See below p. 105. Eve 2002, 111. On Elijah in Sir see Snaith 1974, 238-240; Stadelmann 1980, 197-200; di Leila Skehan 1987, 532-534; 1992, 931-945; Ohler 1997, 6-12; Sauer 2000, 325-327 and Eve 2002, 109-110. 8 0

81

32

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

How awesome are you, Elijah! Whose glory is equal to yours? You brought a dead child back to life from netherworld, by the will of the Lord. You sent kings down to destruction, and nobles, from their beds of sickness. You heard threats at Sinai; at Horeb avenging judgements. You anointed the bearer of these punishments, the prophet to succeed to your place. You were taken aloft in a whirlwind, by fiery captors, heavenward. You are destined, it is written, in time to come to put an end to wrath before the day of the Lord, to turn back the hearts of parents toward their children, and to re-establish the tribes of Israel. Blessed is he who have seen you before he dies! .—« (Sir 48:1-11). 82

The wide biblical material on Elijah offered many aspects to be summa­ rised. Early on, von Rad wondered why Ben Sira had selected the miracles of the prophet. As in Joshua's case they are strongly underlined and form the essence of Elijah's character. This is emphasized by the context: David's rule is an ideal period followed by an age of decadence and sin. Elijah, the prophet of fire, the bearer of punishment and the miracleworker appears in this situation. The biblical Elijah makes and witnesses many miracles. He closes the heavens with his prayer and is fed by ravens (1 Kgs 17:1-6). The widow who gave him a room and bread miraculously receives food every day (1 Kgs 17:7-16) and gets her son back from death (1 Kgs 17:17-24). The Spirit of the Lord takes Elijah and carries him long distances (1 Kgs 17:12. 49). God answers his prayer with fire on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 17:16-39) and delivers the long expected rain (1 Kgs 18:41-45). Elijah prophesies the death of King Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1:1-8). The fire from heaven twice con­ sumes the men sent for him (2 Kgs 1:9-15). He is taken to heaven miracu­ lously (2 Kgs 2:1-18). 83

84

Ben Sira again strongly abridges long biblical passages, and a comparison between the Hebrew and the very faithful translation does not facilitate an understanding of his text. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see below p. 265.

8 2

The Hebrew text is corrupt in l i b , the Greek reads Kai oi ev ayocTrrjoei KEKoaurmevoi (ms. KEKOiurjuEvoi) / Kai y a p f|us?s £corj £na6ue0a. Sauer considers the verse an interpolation (2000, 325-327). On the reading and the verse, see also di Leila Skehan 1987, 531-532. "Er sieht die Propheten fast nur noch als Wundermanner", von Rad 1970, 331. Stadelmann 1980, 197-198. 8 3

8 4

33

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

Although briefly, Ben Sira chooses a great deal from the biblical material: Elijah closes the heavens, calls for the fire from heaven three times, raises the son from the dead, prophesies Ahaziah's death and is taken to heaven. In the short summary, of course, most of the details are omitted, opening the door to speculations. In any case I do not believe that Jezebel and Baal were left out because the writer was afraid of the pagan rulers. Because the whole biblical story is condensed (as Snaith notes, "three times brought down fire" includes the events at Mount Carmel), there is no reason for guesswork. Elisha is very militant against the pagans in Sir. Ben Sira's short passage does not reveal any clear changes compared with the biblical stories. He neither retells Elijah's miracles nor even lists them, but only alludes to the material he clearly supposes to be known to everybody. The implied audience consists of Jews who had learned their lessons well. Yet, something is left out. Neither the food brought by the ravens nor the widow are mentioned, nor the long distance the Spirit car­ ried Elijah. The stories alluded to help us to understand why these parts of the tradition are omitted: The miracles of the past were also important when Ben Sira wrote his work. The miracles that he chose to retell did not concern the daily lives of individuals, but the nation as a whole. The miracles Ben Sira selected were of political importance. Elijah sent kings to destruction (cf. 2 Kgs 1:1-8) and "anointed the bearer of these punishments" (cf. 1 Kgs 19:16). The second part of the verse suggests that it is not Jehu, who killed Baal's prophets, who is referred to, but Elisha. The kings of the Northern Kingdom play no role in the glorious past of Israel. The real leadership belongs to a few figures who preserved the continuity of the covenant between God and Israel. One of them is Elijah, whose mighty deeds are not just isolated phenomena, but an essential part of his prophetical mission. This idea of mission would answer von Rad's apt question as to why Ben Sira makes the prophets "almost exclusively miracle-workers." Joshua is Moses' successor nwnn and Elijah the suc­ cessor of Joshua as leader of the nation. The covenant and continuity is a central theme in Laus patrum and it is here that Elijah's miracles find their place. Other material - the widow, the son and the ravens - is omit­ ted. For Elijah as well as for Joshua the hero's miracles are emphasized. 85

86

87

88

89

90

8 5

Middendorp 1972, 65; followed by Stadelmann 1980, 198 Snaith 1974,239. The Greek text has 6 X P (3aoiAs7s e'»S avTaTroSouo: (v. 8), which indicates •obo. However, the Hebrew text has moi^n tfro rrenian. Snaith (1974, 239-240) and Sauer (2000, 325) follow the Greek text, but see di Leila - Skehan 1987, 531. See Stadelmann 1980, 199-200. See above p. 31. Stadelmann 1980, 158. 8 6

8 7

8 8

8 9

9 0

, C 0 V

34

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

The miracles are essential parts of the holy history at decisive moments. This history shaped the identity of the nation. The biblical Elijah, the man without compromises, offers many opportu­ nities to show how miracles could change the world. The militant prayer in chapter 36 has sometimes been considered an interpolation, but it per­ fectly matches the bias described above: 91

92

93

"Come to our aid, God of the universe, and put all the nations in the dread of you! Raise your hand against the foreign folk, that they may see your mighty deeds. As you have used us to show them your holiness, so now use them to show us your glory. Thus they will know, as we know, that there is no God but you. Give new signs and work new wonders; show forth the splendour of your right hand and arm; rouse your anger, pour out wrath, humble the enemy, scatter the foe. Hasten the ending, appoint the time when your mighty deeds are to be proclaimed: Let raging fire consume the fugitive, and your people's oppressors meet destruction; smash the heads of the hostile rulers, who say: 'There is no one besides me!'" (Sir 36:1-12). 94

95

The age in which Ben Sira lived was not a peaceful one, but a time of con­ tinuous struggle between the Ptolemaic and Seleucidic rulers over the rule 91

It is difficult to share Whybray's view that Ben Sira's work lacks a view on history: "There is no continuity here, no sense of cause and effect, no feeling of a history moving towards a recognisable goal" (1999, 139). The continuity is formed from covenant and the goal of the history described is that the High Priests take over the role of the great kings. See Schurer 2 (1979), 498: "It is clear, that the author not only pleads, but really hopes, for the destruction of Israel's enemies and a glorious future for the nation corre­ sponding to God's promises." On the prayer see di Leila - Skehan 1987, 420-423, Hengel 1991, 152-153 and Sauer 2000, 247-251. See Middendorp 1972, 125-132; Mack - Murphy 1986, 374-377; Eve 2002, 113-114. However, even these scholars consider the interpolation very old, from the Maccabean period. The theory about an interpolation is not accepted in the commentaries; see Snaith 1974, 174; di Leila - Skehan 1987, 420-423; Sauer 2000, 251. Snaith (1974, 174-175), di Leila - Skehan (1987, 421-422) and Sauer (2000, 250) connect these works with the miracles of the exodus. This is probable but by no means certain. The Hebrew text reads -n^ir y* "iDiKn naiD T I K D mi roan. The verse has led scholars to various speculations. Middendorp (1972, 129) interprets this to mean Antiochus' bust in the temple. Di Leila - Skehan (1987, 422) and Sauer (2000, 250) understand it to refer to the Seleucids. 9 2

9 3

9 4

9 5

35

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

of Palestine. He himself knows that "dominion is transferred from one people to another because of the violence of the arrogant" (Sir 10:8), and the prayer cited above reflects the harsh reality of his own age. The words enn imt pom T Tmn nsia ran ma / eyKcuvioov armeia Kai aAAoicoaov 6au|jaaia, So^aaov x ^ P

a

*ai Ppaxiova 5e£iov (Sir 36:6) link

miracles with the help of God. It is no coincidence that Ben Sira, treating Elijah in Sir 48:10, adds a new feature to Maleachi's verses (Mai 4:5-6), the restoration of the tribes of Israel (cf. Isa 49:6). The restoration, men­ tioned also in Sir 48:10, is the goal and the task of the returning prophet. Elijah not only belongs to the past; he is also a future prophet. The miracles of the past were part of the present in Israel, and they formed an important part of the Jewish eschatology. The concept of Elia redivivus is attested to in Mai 3:23-24, in the New Testament (Luke 1:17 and Matt 11:10; 11:14; 17:10-13), apparently in a text from Qumran (4Q558), and it is commonplace in Mishna. Even if these few words do not allow a study of the eschatology of the work here, Sir 48:1-11 is an early passage indicating this expectation. Subsequent to Middendorp's book cited above there have been two alter­ natives to choose from: Middendorp also considers the verse Sir 48:10 an early interpolation, and regards the whole association between the miracles and politics as post-Maccabean enthusiasm. However, it is easy to rec97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

9 6

Middendorp characterises the period: "Die Zeit der Makkabaer unterschied sich tatsachlich grundlegend von den ruhigen Jahren ptolemaischer Herrschaft" (1972, 113). He is by no means alone in considering the age peaceful, but the view is challenged by some, such as Martin (1986, 118-119). In 198-180, when the work was written, the "dominion" had recently been "transferred from one people to another", i. e. from the Egyptians to the Seleucids. Hengel's summary of the period after the death of Alexander is totally different from Middendorp's: "The struggle for Phoenicia and Palestine was for the next 150 years a decisive factor in the policies of both kingdoms" (Hengel 1989a, 49). According to Stadelmann (1980, 165) Ben Sira has identified Elijah with the suffer­ ing servant in Isaiah, but the few words we have do not allow such a judgement. See di Leila - Skehan 1987, 534. See Stadelmann 1980, 200. Middendorp (1972, 134-135) attributes the words to a glossator. Martin (1986, 111-113) correctly connects Sir 36 with the passage dealing with Elijah and sees in him some kind of Messianic light. The view is also implied in 4Q521. See Zimmermann 1998, 314-316; Schreiber 2002, 529-534 and below p. 224. The view is also confirmed in Sib. Or. 2:187-202. On the Lives of the Prophets, see below p. 184. Cf. Lee 1986, 211-212: "Restoration of the tribes by Elijah may be Sirach's attempt to attribute a future 'political' deed to the prophet to go along with those he has already accomplished." Middendorp 1972, 134-135. He recognises the miracles and writes: "Die Erneuerung von Zeichen und Wundern durch ein neuerliches Eingreifen Gottes in die Geschichte 97

9 8

9 9

100

101

102

103

104

36

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

ognise a link between the miracle-working and politically active prophet and the other nationalistic passages in the work, and it leads one to con­ clude that the writer had a consistent view of the past and present of his people. The biblical Elijah, a strong, zealous and powerful politician, would be problematic for some Jewish writers trying to tone down his political activ­ ity. Ben Sira was still free to go in the opposite direction and identify God's power with the political miracles of the prophet. Elijah's most re­ markable miracles are reported briefly but clearly with pride and joy. Elijah may not have been an independent miracle-worker who could be termed a BNP, but he certainly mediated God's power among his people. 105

106

Some scholars have claimed that Ben Sira erred here, as in Joshua. The Old Testament does not say that Elisha was anointed, and if Sir 48:8 originally contained the kings, it is another inaccuracy: Elijah did not anoint Jehu but Elisha's pupil, and Hazazel is not anointed in the Old Tes­ tament at all. The words in Sir 48:6 (nra D O ^ O imon / o KOCTO:yaycov PaaiXeTs e'is arrcoAeiav apparently point to Ahaziah, but the plu­ ral C P D ^ D / (3ocaiAe7s is difficult in any case, if the harsh sentence against Ahab is not meant (1 Kgs 21:21-29). These details may be called mistakes, yet since God tells Elijah to anoint Elisha and the kings (1 Kgs 19:15-16) Ben Sira may have deemed this as sufficient. As in the passage dealing with Joshua, all inaccuracies are small and they can quite easily be ex­ plained. They also show how eager Ben Sira is to relate miracles dealing with rulers. The miracles are at the heart of Elijah's mission and their role is clear. They are part of his mission and manifest the presence of God's power. The eschatological hope of Israel was intimately connected with the glorious past. 107

108

seines Volkes (Verse 6, 7), gar noch im Sinne von Zorngerichten, entspricht in keiner Weise dem an der Stoa geschulten Gottesbild Ben Siras" (1972, 131; see also 1972, 127). In any case, the miracles play an important role in Laus patrum and are in agreement with the view in the prayer. See below p. 269. See above p. 27. Sauer 2000, 326. As Sauer (2000, 326) notes, it was not Elijah but Elisha who anointed the kings, Hazael, king of Aram and Jehu, king of Israel. Ben Sira may be inaccurate, but Sauer is equally "inaccurate", because it was not Elisha but his anonymous pupil who anointed Jehu (2 Kgs 9:6), and Hazael is not anointed at all in the Old Testament (however, see 2 Kgs 8:13). 105

106

107

108

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

37

e. Elisha Elisha is also one of the chosen fathers in Laus patrum, immediately after his master: 109

"When Elijah was enveloped in the whirlwind, Elisha was filled with his spirit. Twice as many signs he wrought, and marvels with every utterance of his mouth. His life long he feared no one, nor was any able to intimidate his will. Nothing was beyond his power; from where he laid buried, his dead body prophesied. In life he performed wonders, and after death, marvellous deeds. Despite all this the people did not repent, nor did they cease their sinning until they were rooted out of their land and scattered all over the earth But Judah remained, a tiny people, with its ruler from the house of David. Some of them did what was right but others were extremely wicked" (Sir 48:12-16). 110

Among the Old Testament figures, Elisha most certainly can be called a miracle-worker. His mighty deeds are reported in 2 Kgs 2-13. The great number and nature of his biblical miracles have led some scholars to re­ gard this part of 2 Kgs as a model of collections that allegedly preceded the Gospels. Elisha's miracles in the Bible differ slightly from Elijah's: A great part of them happened in the daily life of his kinsmen. The biblical Elisha hits the water of the Jordan with Elijah's cloak and crosses the Jor­ dan (2 Kgs 2:1-18), heals the water in Jericho (2 Kgs 2:19-22) and curses the children, who were soon eaten by bears (2 Kgs 2:23-25). He saves the troops of the kings (2 Kgs 3:1-27), fills the jars of a widow with oil (2 Kgs 4:1-7), foretells the birth of a son to a woman who gives him a room and bread (2 Kgs 4:8-17) and raises him from the dead (2 Kgs 4:18-37). Elisha makes a poisonous food edible (2 Kgs 4:38-41), feeds hundred of men with twenty loaves (2 Kgs 4:42-44) and heals Naaman the Syrian (2 Kgs 5:1111

109

On Elisha in Sir see Snaith 1974, 241-242; Stadelmann 1980, 200-204; di Leila Skehan 1987, 534-535; Sauer 2000, 327-328; Eve 2002, 109-110. Actually the Old Testament tells of only one miracle after Elisha's death, namely the story mentioned by Ben Sira. This may be considered another small error. Achtemaier (1972a, 175-179) supposed the existence of "miracle-catenae", which were modelled on the stories about Moses, Elijah and Elisha. This view has become more common recently; see Moore 1990, 151-152. Goulder already observed the stories care­ fully in 1978, 266-281. 1 1 0

111

38

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

18). He severely punishes Gehazi (2 Kgs 5:19-27), takes an axhead from the Jordan (2 Kgs 6:1-7) and helps kings and mighty men in various ways (2 Kgs 6:8-23; 6:24-7:20; 8:7-15; 13:14-19). Even after his death his bones bring a murdered man back to life (2 Kgs 13:20-21). Clearly, most of the biblical material consists of miracles. Ben Sira gives a brief summary of Elisha's miracles. The Septuagint follows the Hebrew original very faithfully and does not help to clarify Ben Sira's passage. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX see below p. 272.

Ben Sira's summary of Elisha's life is interesting. As in 2 Kgs the mira­ cles form the main part of his depiction. The words in 2 Kgs 2:9 are inter­ preted to mean that Elisha doubled the miracles his forerunner made ( w r n ^ "jrrna o^bmb / Yevvrj0r)Tco 5rj SiirAd ev m/euijcm oou ett' e|je). Elisha's role is by no means diminished here. He can justly be called an MNP; it is only the contexts that preclude him from being considered an independent BNP. Although the short passage identifies only one story, namely the dead man returning to life in 2 Kgs 13:20-21, Ben Sira makes it clear that the miraculously found axhead was not the essence of Elisha's mission. Mundane miracles seem to have been rather uninteresting to Ben Sira. They are included in the summary, but another type of miracle clearly interests him more. Similarly to Elijah and others, Elisha formed a link between the good kings and the high priests who inherited the covenant God made with David. Elisha's mighty deeds were an essential part of his mission to convert Israel. Nonetheless, in spite of his miracles the peo­ ple did not return to the Lord, leading to the exile of the Israelis, with only a small number remaining in Judah. Ben Sira deals rather light-heartedly with the centuries. The political role of the prophet at this decisive mo­ ment of Israel's history is now clearly emphasized; as a matter of fact it is his only role. Ben Sira hardly wrote this passage because of an antiquarian interest; the passage on Elijah and chapter 36 reveal the adaptation of the biblical stories, the hope of new miracles. Joshua's and Elijah's miracles were a decisive part of their mission, a manifestation of God's power and presence. Moses did not need a legitimi­ sation in The Wisdom of Ben Sira, but the function of his miracles is simi­ lar to that of the mighty deeds of Joshua and Elijah. The miracles and the prophecy build a unity: VWOL K : U vnnnoi "ODD K^D] vb 121 (Sir 48:13). 112

113

114

1 1 5

112

Stadelmann 1980, 200-201. Stadelmann 1980, 203-204.215. Snaith observes that Ben Sira ignores Amos and Hosea, apparently because he used the books of Kings (Snaith 1974, 242). Snaith (1974, 241) and di Leila - Skehan (1987, 532) correct the Hebrew text (iroa to K33) and follow the Greek (Kai sv Koiurjaei eTrpo<J>rJTeuaev TO acouo: auxou). Sauer's translation shows that he seems to retain the reading ("... und noch nach seinem Tode 113

114

115

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

39

The miracles are not isolated phenomena in the passages on Elijah and Elisha; they are intimately linked to the mission to convert Israel. How­ ever, Elisha's mission failed. The people did not repent, and were scattered all over the earth, a rare example of a legitimisation rejected by God's peo­ ple. It is interesting that Ben Sira, waiting for the restoration of Israel (Sir 36:13; Sir 48:10), mentions the "scattered" tribes. Elijah's and Elisha's miracles should have been enough to convert the people, but they were not. This is not the only occurrence of the hymn giving to a father a place on the dark side of Israel's history, but rather seems to belong to the general pattern of the characterisation. In Sir 36:1-12 the writer prays for new miracles and waits for Elijah's return in Sir 48:10. We cannot say with certainty whether he linked these two hopes, but it seems probable. 116

117

/ Isaiah Ben Sira attributes a remarkable passage to Hezekiah and the dramatic events during his reign, and the king is treated positively. Nevertheless, the most important person in the passage is not Hezekiah but Isaiah the prophet: 118

"But they called upon the Most High God and lifted up their hands to him. He heard the prayer they uttered, and saved them through Isaiah. God struck the camp of the Assyrians and routed them with a plague. For Hezekiah did what is right and held fast to the paths of David, as ordered by the illustrious prophet Isaiah, who saw the truth in visions. In his lifetime he turned back the sun and prolonged the life of the king. By his dauntless spirit he looked into the future and consoled the mourners of Zion. He foretold what should be till the end of time, hidden things that were yet to be fulfilled" (Sir 48:20-25).

wurde Leben erschaffen durch sein Fleisch", 2000, 327). Stadelmann 1980, 202-203. See Mack 1985,23. On Isaiah in Ben Sira see Snaith 1974, 242-244; Stadelmann 1980, 204-208; di Leila - Skehan 1987, 536-539; Beentjes 1989, 77-88; Sauer 2000, 328-330; Eve 2002, 109-110 and especially Hoffken's detailed analysis (2000, 162-175). 116

1 , 7

118

40

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

Isaiah's miraculous deeds are reported in a very similar way in 2 Kgs 18:13-20:11 and Isa 36:1-38:22. In the passages treated here (Isa 37:1420; 36-37 / 2 Kgs 19:14-20; 35-37 and Isa 38:1-8; 21-22 / 2 Kgs 20:1-11) the major difference between the texts is the different location of the words on the poultice of figs (Isa 38:21-22 / 2 Kgs 19:7-8). It is not certain which of the texts is the original or whether both texts are from a common source, and the divergence of the texts reveals its complex history. We cannot determine whether Ben Sira followed 2 Kgs or Isaiah or both, but his view is definitely different from 2 Chr 32, where the prophet's role has been almost totally forgotten. The Greek version of Sir seems slightly more faithful to the biblical originals than the Hebrew. 119

120

121

122

It is certainly useful to ask again whether LXX reveals any significant alterations in translating the biblical stories of Isaiah. LXX follows the Hebrew text in Isa 37:14-20; 36-38 very accurately. In 37:14 it omits mm rra ironpn. In v. 38 LXX has n a x a x p o v

(sic; MT viTro, cf. 2 Kgs 19:37 0sou auxou) and in e'.s ' Apurjviav (MT em» p « ; cf. 2 Kgs 19:37 s\s yr\v Apapccr). In 2 Kgs 19:14-20; 35-37 LXX omits impm ^ s r n mm in v. 15. In Isa 38:1-9; 21-22 LXX replaces m« with TOU naxpds oou in v. 8 and adds b fjAios in the same verse. Isaiah's advice after Hezekiah's hymn (21-22) differs rom the Hebrew text: :mm ma nbim o rm no impm -ram :'rm ymn'bv vnD-i D^DWI rbyi iwzr imi>er nam / Kai EITTEV Hoaias rrpos E^EKiav Aa(3E TTaXd0r)V 'EK CUKCOV Kai xpTv|/ov Kai KaxcJ-rrXaaai Kai uyiris Eorj. Kai STTTEV E^EKias Touxo TO OTJUETOV oxi avaprjoouai sis xov OTKOV Kupiou xou 0EOU. In 2 Kgs 20:1-11 m» is rendered with cjtimeTOV in v. 9-10 (as in Isa 38:7; 22). In v. 11 LXX omits rm rnuoa mm im. All in all, it is very difficult to find any traces of conscious redactional biases of the translators concerning the miraculous, although the translators have slightly diminished the difficulties the location of Isa 38:21-22 causes. 123

124

Stadelmann already noted that Ben Sira diminished Hezekiah's role: It is not he (as in Isa 37:4-19 / 2 Kgs 19:14-20) but the people who pray to the Lord for help (Sir 48:20). Isa 38:1-6 / 2 Kgs 20:1-6 tells how the sick king's prayer resulted in help from the Lord, but this is omitted in The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Although the king is also presented in a positive light, Isaiah has a more prominent role. As in Isa 36-39 and 2 Kgs 18-20, the prophet is Hezekiah's teacher, and it is now the prophet who prolongs the

119

See Laato 1988, 271-296. See Laato 1988, 277-278. Isa 61:1-3 was certainly in Ben Sira's mind. On the reminiscences from Isaiah see Hoffken 2000, 170. See Hoffken 2000, 163-171. The Septuagint often modernizes names of biblical places and peoples; see Siegert 2000,214. Stadelmann 1980, 204-205. 120

121

122

123

124

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

41

king's life, and God redeems his people "by his hand" (Tn ojr&m Truer / eAuTpcoaaxo C C U T O U S ev x* P Haaiou, Sir 48:20). Moreover, his person is underlined in the miracle. While in 2 Kgs 20:811 Isaiah prays and God makes the miracle, it is now Isaiah who "turns back the sun." The role of the prophet has grown: he certainly can be called an MNP, and since God is not mentioned at all it is only the wider context that prevents the miracle from being solely attributed to the prophet. Similarly to Elijah and Elisha, Isaiah is also presented as a man of politi­ cal significance. Although he is already a politically powerful man in the Old Testament it is interesting that the miracles are now the device under­ lining his significance. If the writer saw God's covenant with David broken, it is understandable that he did not emphasize the role of the Davidic king. It was Isaiah the prophet and not the king who represented the continuity of the covenant between God and Israel, and the miracles manifested which line in history was the correct one. {

{

126

127

128

g. Conclusion The biblical miracles play a major role in Laus patrum. Ben Sira uses the biblical material to reveal his strong pride in the history of Israel. The glo­ rious past formed the identity of the nation, and the biblical miracles were an essential part of it. There is no need to repeat the miracles; the audience consisted of Jews and short allusions were enough to remind them of the stories. Moreover, the manner of alluding to miracles is already very so­ phisticated in Sir. He may combine the wood cast into the water by Moses with the work of a physician, because the following verse in Exodus speaks about God as healer, or refers briefly to a psalm alluding to a story told in Pentateuch. Ben Sira was the first known writer to retell the biblical miracles and it is difficult to distinguish tradition from something of his own invention. There is no clear evidence of Greek influence in the stories except for the form, but some details may already have belonged to the Jewish heritage in Ben Sira's time. At least Philo followed him in specula-

125

TrpooE0r|Kev £cor|v PccoiAe? (Sir 48:23). The mutilated Hebrew text cannot be read. See Hoffken 2000, 171-172. Hoffken plausibly points to the similar miracle made by Joshua, Sir 46:4 as a back­ ground. A certain caution is necessary: David's position in Laus patrum does not fit the chronological order, but underlines his significance; see above p. 30. 126

127

128

42

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

tions concerning the twig cast into the water and Josephus calling Joshua a prophet. The short passages do not allow a detailed study of the roles of God and man. Moses' casting of the twig into the water has a smaller role than in Exod 15:22-27, but apparently the Hebrew text of Sir rendered the thought in Exod 7:1 faithfully, while the Greek text is different. Joshua seems to be more than a PNP, and it is only the larger context that prevents him as well as Elijah, Elisha and Isaiah from being called independent miracle-wor­ kers, some kind of BNPs. However, although God is not necessarily even mentioned, as in the passage dealing with Elisha, the verses cannot be iso­ lated. The miracles of these men were not absorbed by wisdom, as in Wis­ dom, and they did not become mere messengers as in Chronicles, but their great deeds were retold with pride. The central question concerns the interesting mixture between miracles and politics. Did Ben Sira draw attention to the miracles, because he thought they were actually important? As seen, some scholars have underlined Ben Sira's political activity in this context, while others have been rather scep­ tical. There are very few passages in the work that can be interpreted from a political point of view, and it is generally lacking in material that could be used for a political programme. The conclusion, however, that the writer has little or no interest in political life is only partially true. Laus patrum, but also Sir 36, which is an original part of the work and not an interpola­ tion, contain material worth noting. Moreover, Ben Sira's method of using the biblical miracle stories shows that they were not merely Trapd5o£a, but that the mighty deeds had a political and prophetic significance. He clearly chose miracles that were significant for the history of Israel, while others were of no interest to him. It is strange that the crossing of the Jor­ dan did not interest him, either in the age of Joshua or in the times of El­ isha. Did Ben Sira have a political programme? Did he think that the mighty deeds told in the Scripture belonged solely to the past of the nation? The writer certainly had a view of the past and present of Israel, but there is not enough evidence that he had a political programme. Perhaps he was satis­ fied as long as the Temple stood and the Law was taught. Von Rad doubted whether Ben Sira himself understood how much he had developed the heritage, which he believed he was mediating. Here we may have the 129

129

"Als deren (Vater) Treuhander betrachtet er sich; man kann sogar fragen, ob er sich der Tatsache iiberhaupt bewuBt was, daB und wie er selbst diese uberkommende Traditi­ on nicht unerheblich weiter gebildet hat" (von Rad 1970, 307).

2. Miracles and the Glorious Past: The Wisdom of Ben Sira

43

answer to the question of how Ben Sira treated the biblical miracles. He was eager to retell them and emphasize their political significance. They were part of the great past shaping the identity of the nation, but they did belong solely to the past, and the writer hoped that they could be repeated, moreover, in a militant context (Sir 36:6). Elia redivivus is expected to restore the nation, and the biblical miracles certainly influenced the view of contemporary times. Ben Sira obviously linked the eschatological future of Israel with its glorious past. Even so, the miracles were not part of a consistent political programme. Ben Sira considers himself to be rather the last of the wise men, not the first with a new political view. However, the militant Joshua and Elijah described by Ben Sira were especially open to an interpretation that called for revolts. This possibility was realised later. Although it was not Ben Sira's intention, he was, also here, an important link to the later prophets and movements.

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees a. Introduction Many Jewish texts studied in this work have been found in modern times. One very central early Jewish text was already well known in the early Church, but modern scholars first became aware of it in the mid-nineteenth century. In the text, The Book of Jubilees, God speaks to Moses and lets the "Angel of Presence" tell him about the creation and the history of the world up until Moses' own time. Some parts of the story follow quite accu­ rately the biblical original, but the anonymous writer also allows himself a great deal of freedom. R.H. Charles once dated the work between 135 and 105 BC and consid­ ered the writer a Pharisee, but the work is now generally considered to antedate this period today. According to VanderKam the latest historical event alluded to in the work is Judas Maccabeus' battle in 161 BC, and it is written before the break between the Essenes and Jerusalem. Since VanderKam's study the work has generally been dated to about between 161 and 140, with smaller variations. The provenance of the work is usually supposed to be in the antiHellenistic, religious circles opposing the new spirit of the times in Seleucidic Jerusalem, and more precisely the writer saw himself as belonging to 1

2

3

4

5

6

1

Charles (1902, Ixxiii-lxxxiii) gives a list in Jewish, Samaritan and Christian writers quoting or referring to the work. The Ethiopian version was edited in 1859 and translated into English by Charles in 1902 (VanderKam 1977, v; van Ruiten 2000, 1-2). "The Book of Jubilees was written in Hebrew by a Pharisee between the year of the accession of Hyrcanus to the high-priesthood in 135 and his breach with the Pharisees some years before his death in 105 BC" (Charles 1902, 1). A still later date was com­ monly supposed in the 19 century (see VanderKam 1977, 208-211). VanderKam 1977, 283. See Frey 1997, 324-325. Wintermute (1985, 44) gives precisely these years, Berger (1981, 300) the years 145140; Nickelsburg (1984b, 101-103); Halpern-Amaru (1999, 2) 160-150 and VanderKam 161-152 (1989, v; 2000, 448). Charles considered that the writer's objective was to defend Judaism against the at­ tacks of the Hellenistic spirit (1902, xiii). See also Berger 1981, 298 and Endres 1987, 237-238; Knibb 1989, 17; VanderKam 1997, 19-22. 2

th

3

4

5

6

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

45

7

the line of priestly writers going back to Levi. I Mace 1:11 tells about the Jewish renegades ending the separation between the Jews and the Gentiles. These people were obviously the opponents of the writer and his circles. The nation was divided, and while the reformers tried to establish contact with the Gentiles, the writer and his circles argued for the separation, and found hope in the nation's past. The work was very popular in Qumran. 8

9

10

The work is written in Palestine, and since Charles (1913), Hebrew is gen­ erally supposed to be its original language. Although some doubts have been raised the fragments found in Qumran confirm this opinion. The work was translated into Greek and from Greek into Ethiopic, which forms the basis for the scholarship. 11

Endres noted the great liberties the writer allowed himself with the text. The text was holy, but it did not prevent a free rendering of the stories. On the other hand, the writer only rarely adds a passage freely, and even then it is usually linked in some way to tradition. The subject of the work is biblical history up until Moses, which led the Church fathers to give the work the name Little Genesis (x\ AsTrrrj yeveots). It means that there are not many human miracle-workers in 12

13

7

See Frey 1997, 324; VanderKam 1997, 19. VanderKam 1997, 19-22. See Berger 1981, 298-299; Wintermute 1985, 45-46. Van Ruiten notes that the work speaks negatively of the actual Temple, but positively about the former sanctuaries (e.g. Eden) and about the future Temple. The reason is that the actual Temple was deficient and had to be restored (van Ruiten 1999, 215-227). The numerous fragments and the theological character led Delcor in the Cambridge History of Judaism II to suppose that the work was not only copied but also written by the Essenes, perhaps by several hands and not before 153 (Delcor 1989, 435-436). This view is by no means a new one but was represented, for example, by Jellinek (1855). Schiirer (German ed. 3 [1909], 375) rejected it with arguments that are still valid: There is no doubt that Jub. and the Essenes had much in common, but the work lacks some features, such as ritual washings, which were important in Qumran. The opposite view, that Jub. is written outside the society and before its origins, is held by scholars as Noack (1957-58, 191-207) and Wintermute 1985, 44. VanderKam correctly concludes: "Theo­ logically, Jub. and the Qumran texts are intimately related and are the product of a com­ mon and distinctive tradition; and the author of Jub. was not a member of the exiled Qumran society" (VanderKam 1977, 280-282). About one fourth of the Latin text, also translated from Greek, is preserved, and we also have Syriac fragments (Wintermute 1985, 42). On the history of the text see Berger 1981, 285-294; Wintermute 1985, 41-43 and VanderKam 1989, vi-xxxi. VanderKam edited the critical text (1989a), and his translation is used in the present work. Endres 1987, 249-259. Charles (1902, xv-xvi) supposed that the name goes back to the Hebrew title, be­ cause the form fj MiKpoyeveots also occurs. According to him the epithet "little" points 8

9

10

11

12

13

46

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

the Old Testament either to be studied or excluded. Nevertheless, the work tells about the miracles of two Old Testament heroes, Abraham and Moses, in both cases with new, interesting details. As far as I know, only Eve has studied thoroughly the role of miracles in the work, and his general con­ clusion is that they are not given much attention. However, there is still scope for further study, especially because he overlooks essential features in the passages concerning Abraham. 14

b. Abraham The angel tells Moses about Abraham's conversion and youth. Abraham was only a boy of 14 when he saved the fields in Chaldea. His opponent was no human being, but Mastema, the prince of the demons. In Jub. 11:11-24 Mastema sends ravens and other birds to eat the seed: "Then Prince Mastema sent ravens and birds to eat the seed which would be planted in the ground and to destroy the land in order to rob mankind of their labors. Before they plowed in the seed, the ravens would pick (it) from the surface of the ground. For this reason he named him Terah: because the ravens and bird reduced them to poverty and ate their seed. The years began to be unfruited due to the birds. They would eat all the fruit of the trees from the orchards. During this time, if they were able to save little of all the fruit of the earth, it was a great effort" (Jub. 11:11-13).

The young Abraham realised that the idols and impurity led people astray and began to pray to the Creator. His prayer brought results: "When the time for planting seed in the ground arrived, all of them went out together to guard the seed from the ravens. Abram - a child of 14 years - went out with those who were going out. As a cloud of ravens came to eat the seed, Abram would run at them before they could settle on the ground. He would shout at them before they could settle on the ground to eat the seed and would say: 'Do not come down; return to the place from which you came'! And they returned. That day he did (this) to the cloud of ravens 70 times. Not a single raven remained in any of the fields where Abram was. All who were with him in any of the fields would see him shouting: then all of the ravens returned (to their place). His reputation grew large throughout the entire land of the Chaldeans. All who were planting seed came to him in this year, and he kept going with them until the seedtime came to an end. They planted their land and that year brought in enough food. So they ate and were filled" (Jub. 11:18-22).

Compared with Genesis, with the Hebrew text and LXX, everything is ei­ ther taken from tradition or freely invented. Because the writer only sel­ dom adds anything not based on tradition (although he often allows himto the many details in the book. Also, Schiirer (German edition, 3 [1909], 375) notes that Jub. is more extensive than Genesis, but is of the opinion that the words emphasize the canonical value of the biblical book. Eve 2002, 155-172. 14

47

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

self a great deal of freedom), there is cause to look for biblical passages that may have influenced the text. Gen 15:11 may have served as a back­ ground, as it tells about Abraham and the birds disturbing his sacrifice. LXX does not give any direct evidence of the view that the birds were demons, translating Gen 15:11: Keener) 5 ' opvecc S T T I TOC ocopaTo; T C C 5ixoTO|JT]MC6(3OS O K O T S I V O S payees psyaq (cf. Ps 92:5). It is thus understandable that the ravens and birds in Jub. are reinterpreted as demons and the young Abraham knows how to expel them. The story can be called an exorcism, although the sober words of the lad hardly meet the definition of opKOs. The demonology of the work offers the framework in which the miracle-story is placed. Abra­ ham has to fight against the evil powers. This is the most interesting fea­ ture of the miracle stories in Jub. The Book of Jubilees follows a strong tradition of presenting Abraham's life very freely. Legendary material on him was common in early Judaism and it is also present in Philo and Josephus, for example, in L.A.B. 6-8 and Apoc. Ab. 1-12. But how strong was the tradition of Abraham as a man making miracles? The texts presented by S.T. Brock are a special case: the late Syrian tradition may reveal a very close parallel to the story quoted and it is hard to exclude the possibility that it even antedates Jub. Brock cites two Syrian texts, the writing of Jacob of Edessa (died 708) and Ca­ tena Severi (compiled by a monk named Severus in 861). It is unclear whether Severus used Jacob's text or whether they used a common source, but Brock supposes that the tradition followed by these writers was very old and even older than the tradition cited in Jubilees. The story presented and translated by Brock relates the history of the young Abraham. Because of its broad concordance with The Book of Jubi­ lees it is easy to consider it only a secondary version. It contains, however, some very interesting details, especially in the story about the ravens. Ac­ cording to the Syrian texts, it is not Mastema but God who sends the ra16

17

18

19

20

11

15

Endres 1987, 249-259. Wintermute 1985,40. Eve does not deal with this story, although he studies the stories about Abraham (2002, 160-163). Kollmann 1996, 60 correctly differentiates between exorcism and other apotropaic techniques. Charles quotes other Christian writers who were aware of the story; see Charles 1902, 88; however, they clearly depend on Jub. See Brock 1978, 135-152. Brock 1978, 142. 16

17

18

19

2 0

21

48

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

vens as punishment for idolatry. In Jub. Abraham is fourteen years old, works with his family and drives off the ravens easily. In the Syrian tradi­ tion he is fifteen years old, is sent by his father and exhausted in the long encounter with the birds before God helps him. The Syrian tradition does not use the story to show how Abraham invented the plough. Whether or not the Syrian tradition is an independent variant of the story told in Jub. is difficult to determine. Jacob of Edessa mentions "the Jewish histories", and we cannot exclude the possibility that both texts used a common source. It would be tempting to assume that Jub. has resolved the problem by making Mastema the source of evil. If that is correct, and the texts have a common tradition, we have proof that Abraham had to fight against demons more often in the early midrashic tradition. Also, other texts written after Jub. certainly depict Abraham as a mira­ cle-worker. The most important texts are Genesis Apocryphon and, in some sense, The Apocalypse of Abraham. It is significant that both texts deal with demons, revealing a common tradition with Jubilees. Genesis Apocryphon, an Aramaic text from Qumran, was written at the turn of the era. The whole work, which shows no specific Essene traits, and was perhaps written outside of the community, is a paraphrase of Genesis. Theologically, the text is considered to be the closest work to Jub. and possibly even dependent on it. It paraphrases Gen 12, supple­ menting it with Gen 2 0 and adding new elements: The Pharaoh takes Sarah from Abraham, who prays for the ruler to be punished so that every­ body will see who the Lord on earth is. God sends a spirit (EHDD mi) that torments the ruler for two years and that no Egyptian physician or magi­ cian can exorcize. Abraham is asked to pray for the Pharaoh and to lay his healing hands on him. He refuses to do it before the king gives Sarah back. Only then is Abraham willing to help: 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

"I prayed for [...] and laid my hands upon his head. The plague was removed from him; [the evil spirit] was banished [from him] and he lived" (IQAp Gen" 20,28-29). The background of the story is in Gen 12:10-20, but Gen 20:1-18 also has to be studied to determine whether LXX includes significant alterations, and possibly attests a tradition of interpretation. In Gen 12:10-20 LXX gives in 12:15 the responsibility to the officials

2 2

See Brock 1978, 140-141. See Brock 1978, 137. For a similar version of a story, see below p. 58. On Genesis Apocryphon see Nickelsburg 1984b, 104-107; Maier 1995, 1, 211-212; Eve 2002, 177-182. Wintermute 1985, 43-44. Abraham's prayer (Osswald 1960, 20-23), as well as the illness, are taken from Gen 2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

20. 2 8

Eve (2002, 160) justly notes that Jub. shows no interest in developing the story (Jub. 13:13).

49

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

of the Pharaoh (npm / e'larjyayov). In 12:17 the Hebrew text has cr'na o^aa and LXX eTaouoTs ueyaAois, but it adds Kai novripoTs as in 12:19 EVCCVTIOV oou. In Gen 20:1-18 LXX adds in 20:2 ec|>opri0r| y a p s'lireiv O T I Tuvrj uou e a x i v , urjiroTE aTTOKTEivcoatv auTOV o'l avSpss TTJS TTOAECOS 5t' auxriv and in 20:4 e'Svos ayvouv Kai. In 20:5 the Hebrew text has romaa-trm, but LXX Kai auxr|v. In 20:11 crrr™ n«T is translated with Seooepeia and in 20:16 WYV moD with S'IS xiurjv x o u npoocoirou aou. Although some details are interesting, LXX shows no clear bias in the translation of the passages.

It is problematic to use the younger text to shed light on The Book of Jubi­ lees, especially because the writer of Genesis Apocryphon may have known The Book of Jubilees. In any case, the text is influenced not only by Jubilees, but is part of a broader midrashic tradition. Gen 12, comple­ mented by Gen 20, is reinterpreted as an exorcism, and the way to the exorcism was not far to go. However, clear changes were necessary be­ fore Abraham could, as in Jubilees, fight against evil spirits. Abraham prays to God for punishment, but when the Pharaoh is helped, God is no longer mentioned. It is Abraham who is sought after to help and he helps. It is true that he prays to God and acts, in Kahl's words, as a PNP, but his role is now different from what it was in the beginning of the story. The apotropaic technique is clear and interesting. That the healer or exorcist lays his hands on the tormented is said to be unique in early Judaism, but Eve plausibly points out 2 Kgs 5:11 LXX (67n0rjoei xrjv X P c
30

31

32

By

a

33

34

The word 'exorcism' is used here very cautiously. There is no clear opKOs expelling the demon. However, the father prays in Gen 20:12-16 for the punishment - the man acts as an "eisorcist." Some scholars have supposed that Gen 12 has lost the element (a dream or a sooth­ sayer) making Pharaoh aware that Abraham had not told the whole truth; see Osswald 1960, 9. Also, Philo (Abr. 96-98) describes the punishment of the king and his household vividly, but mentions no spirit. Eve 2002, 177. Beyer 1984, 176. It does not occur in the early rabbinic sources, but has parallels in Mesopotamian texts (see Becker 2002, 147). Eve 2002, 179. See Philonenko-Sayar - Philonenko 1982, 417-419. Rubinkiewicz also considers a later date possible, up until the middle of the second century AD (1983, 682-683). 2 9

3 0

31

3 2

3 3

3 4

50

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees 4

"And it came to pass when I saw the bird speaking I said this to the angel. What is this, my lord?' And he said, this is disgrace, this is Azazel!' And he said to him: 'Shame on you, Azazel! For Abraham's portion is in heaven, and yours is on earth, for you have selected here, (and) become enamoured of the dwelling place of your blemish. Therefore the Eternal Ruler, the Mighty One, has given you a dwelling on earth. Through you the all-evil spirit (is) a liar, and through you (are) wrath and trials on the generations of men who lived impiously. For the Eternal, Mighty One did not allow the bodies of the right­ eous to be in your hand, so through them the righteous life is affirmed and the destruction of ungodliness. Hear, counsellor, be shamed by me! You have no permission to tempt all the righteous. Depart from this man! You cannot deceive him, because he is the enemy of you and of those who follow you and who love what you wish. For behold, the garment which in heaven was formerly yours has been set aside for him, and the corruption which was on him has gone over to you" (Apoc. Ab. 13:4-14).

In this text Abraham also has to fight against an evil spirit and again the demon takes the form of a bird. Although it is the angel and not the father who expels the spirit, Abraham is honoured and elevated to a higher posi­ tion than in Jubilees. In Apoc. Ab. Abraham is not yet, but is becoming the master of spirits, even of Azazel, the prince of demons, whose former garment has been set aside for him. Abraham is thus reinterpreted as the lord over demons in the early Jew­ ish texts at least three times. Although the two texts cited are markedly younger than Jubilees they certainly help us to understand it. Apparently a broad tradition had given Abraham control over the demons; in fact Jub. 12:19-20 is part of this tradition: Abraham burns the house of idols and, as Lange correctly observes, rejects astrology, immediately seeking God's help against evil spirits in his hymn. It is noteworthy that even the com­ munity in Qumran used hymns to expel demons. When the attention is focused on a new figure introduced in Jubilees, Abraham's new role becomes clear. Abraham's real opponent is not a hu­ man being but Mastema, the prince of demons. According to Alexander, he seems identical to Belial, Satan, Melciresha, and possibly also to Beelze­ bub and Abaddon. He appears in Jubilees, first in the stories about Noah's time {Jub. 10:8; 11:5.11; 17:16; 18:9.12; 19:28; 48:2. 9; 12:15; 49:2). When the demons have led astray, blinded and killed his grandchil35

36

37

38

3 5

The biblical story is extensively retold and reinterpreted also in L.A.B. 33:5-7, but the demon is absent. Lange 1997, 383-384. Abraham prays: "Save me from the hands of evil spirits which rule over the thought of the heart of man, and do not let them lead me astray from follow­ ing you, O my God; but establish me and my seed forever, and let us not go astray hence­ forth and forever." See below p. 220-222. nnotOD occurs in Hos 9:7. Belial is called "the Angel of Enmity" (HOBBD ybti) in 1QM 13,10-12. On Mastema see Endres 1987, 27-28, Olyan 1993, 66-67 and Alexander 1999, 334. 341-344. On his mission given by God see below p. 58. 3 6

3 7

3 8

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

51

dren, Noah prays for help before God, who tells his angels to bind all of the demons. Mastema, however, prays that they should not all be bound: "Lord creator, leave some of them before me; let them listen to me and do everything that I tell them, because if none of them is left for me I shall not be able to exercise the au­ thority of my will among mankind. For they are meant for (the purpose of) destroying and misleading before my punishment because the evil of mankind is great" (Jub. l O ^ ) . 40

God instructs the angels to leave a tenth of the demons for Mastema / Sa­ tan (both names occur in the story), but also tells an angel to teach Noah the method of how to control the deeds of Mastema (Jub. 10:10). The methods taught by the angel show that common Mediterranean magic had become a part of the Jewish belief. As in Tob 11:7-8 the good powers tell how to control the evil. The name and role of the angel Raphael demon­ strate the common tradition: The angel heals and teaches to heal, because the Lord is the healer of Israel ("]Ksn mrr ^ Exod 15:26). The view is contrary to the texts (as in 2 En. 7:1; 8:3) in which the use of these meth­ ods means that the man follows the fallen angels. The origin of evil is a theme discussed vividly in apocalyptic literature. Some writers consider evil primordial, some as part of the original crea­ tion. The texts may even suppose a revolt in Heaven or that God's angels originally had a positive mission, but rebelled on the Earth. Sometimes mankind is the origin of evil. Jub. 4:15 tells that the angels mentioned in 41

42

43

44

3 9

Lange considers this prayer a hymnic exorcism (Lange 1997, 383), and Abraham certainly fights the evil spirits, but there is no opKos (see above p. 47). On the story see Alexander 1999, 347 and van Ruiten 2000, 338-340. Van Ruiten considers 1 En. 15-16 a possible background for this passage, although the view on de­ mons and their power is different in the two texts. The note apparently is correct, because Jub. only rarely adds a passage without any basis in the biblical text (see van Ruiten 2000, 370). See Kottek 2000, 87-88. See above p. 20. Lange (1997, 384-385) considers the text an attempt to integrate Greek medicine into Jewish monotheistic thought, and he compares the text with Tob 11 and Sir 38:1-15 quoting Snaith's words on Greek medicine. However, as seen above (p. 20-22), neither the Jewish nor the Greek view was monolithic. Kollmann 1994, 297-299. See Collins 1995. On the explanation that evil is primordial and not created, see Collins 1995, 34-35. 1 En. 6-13 tells that the angels rebelled and that their descent to Earth was already a part of their sin (1 En. 15:11-16:1). Jub, possibly aware of the Enochic version (see VanderKam 1999, 169-170), presents another version: The angels had a mission from God and they were not yet evil in heaven. Man is the origin of evil, esp. in 4 Ezr. 7:1; 2. Bar. 48:42; 2 En. 18:3 (see Collins 1995, 35-37). The origin of the demons is also explained in different ways. In 1 En. they emerged from the slain bodies of the rebelling Giants (1. En. 15:9-16:1). 1QS 3,17-4,1 regards the demons as part of the original creation and likens them to figures in Persian mythology, (see Collins 1995, 3133). The texts in Qumran may call mi angels as well as demons, but differentiate be­ tween them (Alexander 1999, 331). 4 0

4 1

4 2

4 3

4 4

52

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

Gen 6 had been sent on a mission by God but sinned (Jub. 5:1-11). Jub. 7:21-27 describes how evil they were and also mentions the demons. The most important passage in the work is undoubtedly the one quoted above (Jub. 10), showing that the demons were on God's mission. The story about Mastema and his demons is crucial to the interpretation of Abraham's new features in Jub. His work in the fields does not form a separate detail of his life but shows his place in the war against Mastema and his troops. As in the two latter texts cited above, he is compelled to fight against demons. Jubilees also ascribes his temptation in Gen 22 to Mastema (Jub. 17:5-17). The lad expelling the demons acts as an exor­ cist, or more exactly, uses an apotropaic technique. But why did the writer reshape Abraham's image and make him a master over the demons? If we ask for the Sitz im Leben for this story, two an­ swers are possible, and both may be correct. Firstly, it is conceivable that the father of the nation acted as a model and shield for the later exorcists: The controversial art of wisdom needed to be defended, and what Abraham himself did could not be wrong. The second possibility may be the more plausible: The war between the good and evil powers is a central theme in the belief represented by the writer and his movement. Although it is not present in as many of the retold stories as might be expected (as in Gen 3) and the dualism is not as developed as later in Qumran, the story about Abraham serves as a model for a good Jew of how to obey God and be protected by the good powers; the view can thus be classified as ethical dualism. This tradition is attested in the apotropaic hymns in Qumran (esp. 11Q11) and occurs in the New Testament (Matt 4; Luke 4). It is ap­ parent in Jub. 12:19-20 and consequently in the whole work. The miracles are thus connected with the war between good and evil powers in Jub. There is no reason to believe that this was his own innova­ tion; he certainly formulated the belief of his circles. As seen, he also had several followers. This feature was not and could not be common in the Graeco-Roman world. Admittedly, the Greek world knew bad spirits also before Xenocrates, Plato's follower in the Academy, formulated his three categories and attributed rrdOrj to Saijjoves, and the contacts between the Greeks and the East increased soon. However, the fight between God and 45

46

47

48

49

4 5

See below p. 58-59. The jealousy of angels / Saltan is also attested e.g. in 2 En. 31 and the Life of Adam and Eve 14, L.A.B. 32:1-3 and Gen. R. 55:4. On Mastema's God-given mission, see be­ low p. 58-59. See e.g. VanderKam 1977, 264-267; Berger 1981, 282; Wintermute 1985, 47-48; Hengel 1991, 221. On the different patterns of dualistic thought, see Frey 1997, 275-335. See Frey 1997, 284. See below, p. 180. 4 6

4 7

4 8

4 9

53

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

Satan is not a Western, but an Eastern tradition. Consequently, the inter­ pretation of miracles like that in Jub. was strange in the Graeco-Roman world. The Book of Jubilees was written in Palestine in Hebrew, and, moreover, apparently in anti-Hellenistic circles. It is thus interesting that the story about the young Abraham reveals a typical Greek topos. As the miracleworking Abraham teaches the people to handle a plough and to hide the seed in the earth, he is presented as irpcoTOs EuprjTrjs of a useful tech­ nique. The inventor of a new knowledge or technique was never forgot­ ten in classical antiquity. It is a topos that was common in Greek literature, and it is easy to find, especially in the writings of the Egyptian Jews. It was a part of the interpretatio Graeca in the Jewish belief, helping the Jews to find their place in the Graeco-Roman society as a learned and wise nation. The Jews could not accept the claim that they had never produced wise men such as Socrates, Zeno and Cleanthes or the fact that they were not even mentioned by the masters of classical Greek literature. Their response was that all wisdom was derived from the Jews. In Artapanus's fragments Abraham and Moses are praised for teaching the Egyptians not only astrology but also the letters and agriculture, and Aristobulus and Philo derived the wisdom of the Greek philosophers from Moses. Even The Book of Jubilees adopted a traditional Greek element and presented Abraham as i r p c o T o s euprjTrjs of how to plant seed so that the ravens could not eat it. In Jub., agricultural knowledge is combined unhesitatingly with the wisdom Noah learned from the good angels in order to control Mastema and his demons. A distinction between the different types of wis­ dom is not made. It is enough to know that Abraham, as Solomon in the later texts, mastered them all. A Greek topos had found its place in the anti-Hellenistic text. 50

51

52

53

54

55

A traditional Greek topos is thus accepted, but a common Mediterranean and Jewish element is interestingly enough disregarded. Abraham is re­ garded in many texts as an expert in astrology. The only passage in Gene­ sis that could be the starting point of this tradition is that in which he is told to look at the stars (Gen 15:5). Siker's collection of evidence on

5 0

On TrpcoTOS eupnTrjs see Kleingunther 1933, 1-55, Vhraede 1962, 1191-1278 and Holladay 1977, 220-229. See Josephus c. Ap. 2,135. See Chapter 5. See/r. 3-4 (= Euseb. hist. eccl. 13,12,1-8). E.g. Heracleitus (Alleg. Interp 1,108); Socrates (QG 2,6); Zeno (Prob. 53-57). See below p. 259-264. 51

5 2

5 3

5 4

5 5

54

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

Abraham in Graeco-Roman writings shows that the father of the nation was often presented as a master of astrology, at least since the time of Berossus. This view divided the Jews. Some accepted it with pride, while others rejected it. In the writings of Pseudo-Eupolemus (FGrHist 3,724, Fr. 1) and Artapanus (Artap. 1) Abraham taught astrology to the Egyp­ tians, but there is nothing in Jubilees about this. Astrology is rejected in Deut 18:10-11 and also in Isa 44:24-25, and even more radically in 1 En. 8:3, although it does not mean a rejection of all kinds of divination. Jubi­ lees implicitly condemns astrology, when Cainan discovers astrological lore engraved in stone: 56

57

58

"He read what was in it, copied it, and sinned on the basis of what was in it, since it was the Watcher's teaching by which they used to observe the omens of the sun, moon, and stars and every heavenly sign" {Jub. 8:3).

It is thus not surprising that Abraham watches the stars from evening until daybreak, but understands that they did not help him achieve real wisdom: "All the signs of the stars and signs of the moon and the sun - all are under Lord's con­ trol. Why should I be investigating (them)? If he wishes he will make it rain in the morn­ ing and evening; and if he wishes, he will not make it fall. Everything is under his con­ trol" (Jub. 12:17-18).

Astrology, magic and divination are strongly rejected in many early Jewish texts, but as Lange notes, the same texts also show that the writers were well aware of the practices rejected and sought ways to block the evil spir­ its. Jub. rejects astrology but even though the writer has abridged them, it does not omit biblical dreams altogether. Astrology is not rejected be­ cause it is useless but because it means contact with evil spirits. 59

c. Moses A second passage in which the Old Testament miracles are retold by the angel deals with Moses and his times. The writer briefly retells the sto­ ries of Moses' birth and youth, making some understandable additions and alterations (Jub. 47:1-12). The miracles first gain importance when Moses returns to Egypt. 60

61

56

Siker 1987, 193-197. On astrology in early Judaism, see Lange 1997, 397-408. See Lange 1997, 401-403. See Lange 1997, 394. On Moses in Jub. see Charles 1902, 248-253; Tiede 1972, 188-190; Wintermute 1985, 139-140 and VanderKam 1989b, 309-315. The calendar is, of course, important to the writer, but he also adds the sentence "Amram, your father taught you writing" (Jub. 47:9). Egyptian or Graeco-Roman educa5 7

5 8

5 9

6 0

61

55

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

The plagues are recounted briefly, but it is possible to examine the redac­ tion and details: "You performed the signs and miracles which you were sent to perform in Egypt against the pharaoh, all his house, his servants and his nation. The Lord effected a great revenge against them on account of Israel. He struck them and killed them with blood, frogs, gnats, dog flies, bad sores which break out in blisters; (and he struck) their cattle with death; and with hailstones, with these he annihilated everything that was growing for them; with locusts which ate whatever was left for them from the hail; with darkness; (and with the death of) their firstborn of men and cattle. The Lord took revenge on all their gods and burned them up. Everything was sent through you, before it was done, so that you should do (it). You were speaking with the king of Egypt and in front of all his servants and his people. Everything happened by your word. Ten great and severe pun­ ishments came to the land of Egypt so that you could take revenge on it for Israel. The Lord did everything for the sake of Israel and in accord with his covenant which he made with Abraham to take revenge on them just as they were enslaving them with force" (Jub. 48:4-8). Jub. retells briefly Exod 7:14-12:36. If some early Jewish traditions influenced the trans­ lation in LXX, it is very difficult to link them with Jub. On a detailed comparison be­ tween the Hebrew text and LXX, see below p. 70 and 99.

The events in Egypt are retold in an interesting way. The preceding mira­ cles are omitted in the heavily abridged account (but see Jub. 48:9-12). He fixes the number of plagues at ten, unlike, for example, in Artapanus and the order is only slightly changed (boils and hail are listed in reverse order, cf. Exod 9:14-35). The writer returns to the death of the firstborn in telling about Passover (Jub. 49:1-16). The dialogues between Pharaoh and Moses are only briefly summarised, but the words attest the character of a mani­ festation: Moses speaks in public and everything happens by his word (cf. m m in Sir 45:3). The dialogues between God and Moses are omitted, which is not a coin­ cidence in Jub. God is sovereign while the angels act as his agents: It is the Angel of Presence who talks with Moses in Jub. and retells everything to a man who was present all the time and an important part of the events. God does not speak with Moses, and Aaron is not even mentioned. The roots of the development can be traced to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, where the roles of God and his angels are unclear enough to open the door to different interpretations. Exodus tells how God revealed himself to Moses at Horeb: while Exod 3:4 tells expressis verbis about God speaking to Moses; Exod 33:11 has D^Erta era, but Exod 3:2 has yba 62

63

tion or competition with the teachers was not necessary in an anti-Hellenistic work! On Moses' early years in LXX, see below p. 92. See below p. 99. The dialogues between God and Moses are often removed in the retold versions; see Artapanus below p. 105, Philo p. 112, Josephus p. 234. 6 2

6 3

56

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

In Exod 14 God is active, but Dvr^Kn ybn also occurs in Exod 14:19. LXX replaces God with ayyeAos Kupi'ou in Exod 4:23, which is not un­ usual (see Job 20:15). mm.

65

The substitution o f angels for God in LXX provided a context for Jub's version of the stories. The main school of thought in Jewish theology, al­ ready attested in the fragments of Aristobulus, considered God's anthro­ pomorphic features increasingly difficult and distanced him from the hu­ man world, letting angels take the role as communicators with men. Various functions were attributed to different angels - such as Iaoel, Raphael or Zervihel. It is thus understandable that all of God's dialogues with Moses are removed in Jub. as most Jewish writers - but not all! either diminished or removed the dialogues between God and men in the miracle stories. The "Angel of Presence" is a good example of early Jew­ ish angelology as a device to reduce God's anthropomorphic features and to distance him from the human spheres, which, in addition to the drastic reshaping of the roles of God and man, necessitated extensive changes in the retold stories. 67

68

69

70

Mastema, who attacked Abraham, could not, of course, leave Moses alone: "The prince of Mastema would stand up against you and wish to make you fall into the pharaoh's power. He would help the Egyptian magicians and they would oppose (you) and perform in front of you. We permitted them to do evil things, but we would not allow healings to be performed by them. When the Lord struck them with bad sores, they were unable to oppose (you) because we deprived them of (their) ability to perform a single sign" (Jub. 48:9-10).

Mastema was also active in the last events of the exodus: "On the fourteenth day, the fifteenth, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth the prince Mastema was bound and locked up behind the Israelites so that he could not accuse them. On the nineteenth day we released them so that they could help the Egyp­ tians and pursue the Israelites. He stiffened their resolve and made them stubborn. They were made stubborn by the Lord our God so that he could strike the Egyptians and throw them into the sea. On the fourteenth day we bound him so that he could not accuse the Israelites on the day when they were requesting utensils and clothing from the Egyptians - utensils of silver, utensils of gold, and utensils of bronze; and so that they could plun-

6 4

On m,T -jtfra. see Michl 1962, 61-68. See below p. 57. See Birnbaum 2003, 315-317. See Hengel 1991,231-233. On the different angels, see Michl 1962, 65-68. L.A.B. interestingly enough adds such dialogues; see below p. 196. On Ezekiel, see p. 66, on Artapanus, see p. 105, on Philo, see p.l 12, on Josephus, see p. 234. 6 5

6 6

6 7

6 8

69

7 0

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

57

der the Egyptians in return for the fact that they were made to work when they enslaved them by force. We did not bring the Israelites out of Egypt empty-handed" (Jub. 48:1519).

It was thus Mastema who was Moses' real opponent in Egypt and the mov­ ing power behind the Egyptian sorcerers. Moses and the sorcerers were only servants who were supported by their masters. The war between pow­ ers is thus present again. Although Moses did not act as a BNP in Exodus, his role is now reduced. He is no longer an MNP and hardly even a PNP. The angels ("we") have absorbed his role almost completely. 71

72

Mastema takes on an interesting role in the stories about Moses and Is­ rael. He has to be bound while the Israelites take the booty; otherwise his accusations would apparently prevent the plunder. When he is bound, Is­ rael can leave Egypt; on the other hand, he and his demons have to be freed so the Egyptians can be punished. God is almighty, but Mastema is necessary; yet, his accusations are dangerous and the good angels must both bind and free him. Mastema already has a similar role in the stories about Abraham: When Gen 22 tells how God tested Abraham, Jub. makes it Mastema's plot. What Abraham does he does before an angel and Mastema, who feel shame at seeing Abraham's faith (Jub. 17:15-18:19). His role is still more irrational in the stories about Moses: It was not rrnra who was sent by God (as in Exod 12:23), to kill the firstborn in Egypt, but Mastema (Jub. 49:2). On the other hand, Mastema calls the Egyptians to pursue Israel (Jub. 48:12). According to Exod 4:24-26 God was about to kill Moses, who was saved by Zipporah. LXX replaces God with dc'yyeAos xupiou in Exod 4:24 mm vnwsn / auvrjvTrjaev auxco ayyeAos Kupiou The Book of Jubilees attributes this attempt to Mastema: 73

74

75

76

71

77

Moses' opponents are mentioned only briefly. On their role in Philo, see above p. 113 and 134; in Artapanus p. 100, and in Josephus p. 236. It is understandable that the stories about Jannes and Jambres serving evil powers were told according to traditions similar to Jub., where the real opponent was Mastema. See Eve 2002, 157-159. See also Bonneau - Duhaine 1996, 346-348. "Them" in Jub. 48:16 points to demons (Berger 1981, 545; VanderKam 1989b, 314). JTITOD is mentioned in 2 Sam 24:15-17 and 1 Chr 21:14-17 and also in 4Q511. A list shedding light on the demonic world in Qumran is in 11Q11,2, 3-4 (see Alexander 1999, 332). On notDOD see above p. 50. E.g. Ezekiel the Tragedian follows the biblical presentation faithfully and sees here God's angel (Ezek. Trag. 159). "You were eating the Passover in Egypt when all the forces of Mastema were sent to kill every firstborn in the land of Egypt - from the pharaoh's firstborn to the firstborn of the captive slave-girl at the millstone and to the cattle as well" (Jub. 49:2). 7 2

7 3

7 4

7 5

7 6

7 7

58

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

"You know who spoke to you at Mount Sinai and what the prince of Mastema wanted to do to you while you were returning to Egypt - on the way at the shady fir tree. Did he not wish with all his strength to kill you and to save the Egyptians from your power because he saw that you were sent to carry his power" (Jub. 48:2-3).

Although Jub. was originally written in Hebrew, it is tempting to see a historical development: the Hebrew Scripture could already occasionally use God and God's angel interchangeably. LXX takes the next step by re­ placing God with God's angel in order to reduce God's anthropomorphic features: Aristobulus' fragments show that this kind of theology existed in the early second century. It also opened the way for Jub.'s interpretation that it was neither God nor his good angel but Mastema, a bad spirit. An interesting parallel attesting the theological wrestling with evil even earlier is that the Chronicler reinterpreted 2 Sam 24:1 in an analogous way and replaced God with Satan in 1 Chr 21:1. Mastema / Satan is thus clearly a factor used to explain the difficulties in the text of the Old Testament or to remove the elements that could be in­ terpreted as the dark parts of God. Mastema is a controversial and irra­ tional figure, but Israel's God is not. It is typical of Jewish demonology that the war between good and evil may be severe, but it does not detract from God's sovereignty. In the old­ est texts of the Old Testament Satan plays the role of the heavenly accuser. The Booh of Jubilees has preserved the thought that Mastema / Satan serves God the Almighty and is on a mission from him. Some early Jewish texts have made things easier by denying this mission, a feature distin­ guishing Jub. from the developed cosmic dualism present in Qumran. It is also the answer to the question of why the fallen angels and demons are mentioned so rarely in Jub. VanderKam justly notes that the fallen angels are absent, for instance, in Gen 3, retold in Jub. 3, and considers the theme much less dominant in Jub. than in 1 En} Yet, Mastema and his troops do exist to lead the people astray according to God's plan, and this is why they cannot be totally rooted out (Jub. 10:7-9; 15:31-32). They have, how­ ever, no right to torment the righteous, only the "sons of Beliar" (Jub. 15:33). The miracles are now part of this strange type of war. God has allowed Mastema / Beliar to rule the Gentiles, who have no pro­ tection against being misled to idolatry and sinfulness by the demons (see 78

79

80

81

1

7 8

Berger 1981, 282; Wintermute 1985, 47-48; Steudel 2000, 339-340; VanderKam 2001,99-100. The early rabbinic tradition gives Satan a less prominent role; see Becker 2002, 172175. On this topic, see Alexander 1999, 341-344; Steudel 2000, 336-339. See above p. 51. VanderKam 1999, 153-154. 7 9

8 0

81

8 2

59

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

Jub. 7:27; 11:4-5). Mastema's mission is to lead astray the Egyptians at the Red Sea (Jub. 15:31; 48:12). Israel, on the contrary, is ruled by God and his angels and is protected from the evil spirits (Jub. 15:32). Abraham gives up idolatry and is saved from evil spirits (Jub. 12:19-20). Joseph's rule means that there was no Satan or evil in Egypt (Jub. 40:10; 46:2), and that will also be the destiny of the purified Israel (Jub. 50:5). The holy spirit will once purify Israel (Jub. 1:23). In the present, however, Beliar is a constant threat in his attempts to seduce Israel (see Jub. 1:20; 1:19; 1:28). The Israelites are thus in continual danger and need protection. The Book of Jubilees' reinterpretation of the biblical miracles is clear and interesting. What the work tells us about Abraham and his battle is not totally new, but it is a reinterpretation. The entire story of Moses and his work in Egypt is heavily revised and put into a new framework. Pharaoh and his troops are no longer Moses' real opponents; now it is Mastema. Moses' role is now changed, although already in Exod he was only God's servant and not an independent actor. Some Jewish texts (Artapanus, Pseudo-Philo and Josephus) give Moses a more independent role, but not The Book of Jubilees. In the reinterpretation in Jub. both struggling sides have a powerful master behind them. God supports Moses and Israel while Mastema supports the Egyptians, resulting in a war between the good and evil powers. This war is the theological framework for the biblical mira­ cles. The theology we meet in The Book of Jubilees is also well known else­ where, especially in the early Dead Sea scrolls, which go further. Frey in particular emphasizes that it is "crude oversimplification to conflate the dualisms of the War Rule and of the instruction on the two spirits into a single type of 'Qumran dualism'." A further definition is needed, and he differentiates between ten different kinds of dualism. According to Frey the early Jewish form was a multidimensional pattern consisting of cosmic, ethical and psychological elements; however, the later texts in Qumran attest that the ethical and especially psychological elements were weak­ ened or totally removed and all that was important was to belong to the correct group, i.e. to the Community. But how does this pattern fit Jub., especially its miracle stories? 83

84

85

8 3

See Hengel 1991,218-224. Frey 1997, 280-284. The main kinds occurring here are 1) cosmological dualism supposing the cosmic division of the world and of humanity into two opposing forces of good and evil, darkness and light 2) ethical dualism supposing two mutually exclusive groups according to virtues and vices and 3) psychological dualism internalising the contrast between good and evil. Frey 1997, 275-335. 8 4

8 5

60

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

It is difficult to find traces of psychological dualism in the miracle sto­ ries elsewhere in Jub. Admittedly, Abraham faces a hard struggle in the crucial moment he leaves the false gods (Jub. 12:16-21), but the miracleworking Abraham and Moses do not fight the evil or weakness in their hearts, although the biblical version of the reluctant Moses would have offered support for this interpretation. The ethical side is present in Jub. 10, where spirits under Mastema's rule lead foreign peoples astray and Noah learns how to block them, or even when Abraham is tested. The miracle stories, however, attest only cosmic dualism: Mastema uses his angels, but expands his rule also to the Pharaoh, Egyptian sorcerers and soldiers. It is not difficult to draw the line between the good and bad sides, be they spirits or men. Although the idea of a multidimensional pattern of dualistic views works well in Jub., the cosmic side is strongly emphasized in the miracle stories. The war between good and evil powers is present, although not as force­ fully as in the later texts of Qumran, which also occasionally deal with the biblical miracle stories. CD, quoting and approving Jub.} shows that the war was applied to Moses: 6

"For in ancient times there arose Moses and Aaron, by the hand of the prince of lights and Belial, with his cunning, raised up Jannes and his brother during the first deliverance of Israel" (CD 5,17-19). 87

We do not have numerous examples of the way that the community in Qumran used the biblical miracle stories, but what we have shows that Jub. 's reinterpretation of the stories about Abraham and Moses was, of course, not alien to the community. It is understandable, that i) many looked to the past, beyond the present evil leaders of their people to the glorious history which defined the nation and ii) they looked upon the he­ roes of the nation anew as forerunners of the war between the powers. Some smaller details were certainly already traditional in the times of Jub. An interesting nonbiblical detail is that God took revenge on all Egyptian gods and burned them (apparently their statues). Artapanus relates a similar fact, namely that because of the plague of hail and earthquakes most of the temples collapsed (Artap. 3,33). It is a common feature in early Judaism that the disasters in Egypt were God's justified punishment for all that the Egyptians had done to his people and it occurs repeatedly in Jub} 88

9

8 6

See VanderKam 1977, 255-258. On the dualism in CD, see Frey 1997, 303-306. Wintermute 1985, 139. Charles translates "all their idols the Lord took vengeance and burned them with fire" (1902, 251). The idea occurs again in Jub. 48:14 and Jub. 48:15-18. Ius talionis is very common in L.A.B. (see below p. 194). 8 7

8 8

8 9

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

61

This time God's promise to Abraham in Gen 15:14 offers a solid biblical background. The angels permitted Moses' opponents to do "evil things", i.e. repeat some of the plagues, but prevented their attempt to heal the bad sores Exod 9:11 only says that "they could not stand before Moses". The heavily abridged story suggests that the Egyptian magicians not only tried to emu­ late the plagues, as in Exod, but also to stop them. Actually, Jannes was sought to help the Egyptians resist Moses in Jan. Jam. 26 and T. Sol. 25, and the Neoplatonist Numenius wrote that Jannes and Jambres could ob­ struct all of Moses' miracles in Egypt (Eus. praep. ev. 9,8). Thus the men were also well known among the Gentiles (see Plin. nat. 30,11 and Apul. apol. 90,5). The tradition behind Jub. is obviously broader than the few references in the story would lead one to believe, and the midrashic fea­ tures attested in the texts quoted were clearly known to the writer. 90

The events at the Red Sea are retold briefly, but the story contains some important details. "Despite all the signs and miracles, the prince of Mastema was not put to shame until he gained strength and cried out to the Egyptians to pursue you with all the Egyptian army with their chariots, their horses - and with all the throng of the Egyptian people. I stood between you, the Egyptians, and the Israelites. We rescued the Israelites from his power and from the power of the people. The Lord brought them out through the middle of the sea as if on dry ground. All of the people whom he brought out to pursue the Israelites the Lord our God threw into the sea - to the depths of the abyss - in place of the Israel­ ites, just as the Egyptians had thrown their sons into the river. He took revenge on 1,000,000 of them. 1,000 men (who were) strong and also very brave perished for one infant of your people whom they had thrown into the river" (Jub. 48:12-14). Jub. summarises Exod 13:17-14:31. On a detailed comparison of the biblical story in the Hebrew text and in LXX, see below p. 74.

Mastema, of course, is again scheming and calls the Egyptians to war. God's angel mentioned in Exod 14:19-20 is now identified as the Angel of Presence, who is talking with Moses ("I stood"). The roles are not easy to distinguish: The angel says "we rescued the Israelites", but implied that it was the Lord who brought them out of Egypt and threw the Egyptians into the sea. While it is unclear what God had done directly, and what he had done indirectly through his angels, it is clear that Moses' role is heavily reduced: he now listens to the angel's report on what really happened at the Red Sea. There are no desperate people crying to Moses, no Moses dividing the sea and no reaction of the Egyptians. It is God and his angels who are fighting against evil powers; human beings are the less important 9 0

In L.A.B. 47,1 some manuscripts read Jambres, but apparently Zambri in manuscript M is correct, see Dietzfelbinger 1979, 227; Jacobson 1996, 1045.

62

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

actors. The numbers of Egyptians are a nonbiblical detail common with Ezekiel the Tragedian (Ezek. Trag. 203).

d. Conclusion The Book of Jubilees tells about the miracles of Abraham and Moses, the two most important figures of Israel. Although the stories are not extensive compared with the entire work, the miracles are by no means unimportant in Jub. The biblical stories are reinterpreted and put into the new frame­ work of a battle between good and evil powers. This is worth a closer look, and other Jewish texts also connect miracles and this war in a similar man­ ner. It is a typical Jewish feature, which did not originate from Greek thought, in which the necessary elements did not exist. There was no God and Satan, as in the Jewish religion in its many variants. This is a crucial difference with regard to Greek thought, and its background should be sought from the East, not from the West. The war between good and evil powers is an important element in Jub., but the writer has not followed the characteristic course for the developed forms of dualism in the Qumran. Mastema and the fallen angels are absent in the retold Gen 3, and, above all, Mastema is on a mission from God, which was often denied in the Qumran. However, Jub. is an important step towards a theology in which a man is a target of attacks by the evil powers. Mastema's accusations are a constant threat to Abraham, Moses and the people they lead, and the war goes on: Healing is permitted or prohibited, the vessels are given or not given, the Egyptians are led to war against Is­ rael but blocked by the good powers. The function of the miracle is thus multifaceted in the story in the Jubilees. Apparently the contemporization of the miracle stories concerns the in­ dividual as well as the entire people. Moses even more than Abraham is the model of a good Jew who obeys God's voice when in difficulty and is consequently attacked by evil but protected by good powers. The way of Abraham and Moses should also be the way of the readers of Jub. The test may be hard, but the righteous is not left alone, not even in the turbulent times of the second century BC. The traditional thought of legitimisation through miracles can also be discerned clearly: Moses' miracles are a manifestation of God's power, but the idea of legitimisation is even more emphatic with Abraham. Through his rejection of idols and his prayers to the Creator, the new religion is legitimised by his marvellous power to control the demons and to help mankind. The location of the story of Abraham's conversion is not fortui-

3. Miracles and the War between Powers: The Book of Jubilees

63

tous. When Terah, Abraham's father, was born, Mastema sent ravens to devastate the country (Jub. 11:9-13). Then Abraham is born and he begins to pray to the Creator, soon after which he expels the ravens sent by Mastema (Jub. 11:18-24). The miracle manifests the truth of the new relig­ ion. The story, however, may also have another function. Abraham, the fa­ ther, was not the only man who was willing to control the demons. He was one link in the long chain of history. The legend was told not simply be­ cause of an antiquarian interest, or for entertainment, but because the chain was still in effect during the times in which Jub. was written. There were clearly Jews in the early second century who were thought to be able to control demons. It is conceivable, even probable, that the reinterpreted father of the nation served as their patron. Our only regret is that because of their brevity, the short stories in Jub. do not tell more. Yet they contain many details later common in Jewish texts. Firstly, the Angel of Presence indicates that God is now at a distance and the angels have taken the role of communicators between God and men. Secondly, this figure is early evidence of different angels being given dif­ ferent tasks in God's kingdom. Thirdly, Abraham acts as an exorcist in Jub., but also in IQAp Gen™ and in The Apocalypse of Abraham. An inter­ esting feature is that Jub., a text critical of the Hellenistic reforms, makes use of the classical rrpcoTOS 6upr|Trjs-motif.

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian a. Introduction 1

The miraculous departure from Egypt was treated by Ezekiel in the form of a drama named Exagoge. The exact date of the work cannot be deter­ mined with certainty. Ezekiel uses the Septuagint, which roughly sets the terminus post quern. His 269 verses known to us are quoted by Eusebius (praep. ev. 9,28-29) and partly (verses 7-40) also by Clement of Alexan­ dria (strom. 1,23,155-156) and Pseudo-Eustathius (v. 256-269 in Commentarius in Hexaemeron PG 18,729), who used the lost work of Alexander Polyhistor (about 50 BC). Scholars have proposed several dates for vari­ ous reasons, but no general agreement has been found. Irina Wandrey and John J. Collins, for example, see no possibility for a more exact dating than those presented above. The work does not only interest theologians. No other Hellenistic trag­ edy is preserved so extensively, which means that Ezekiel also is an aid 2

3

4

5

6

7

1

The play apparently was not the only one written by Ezekiel, because Clement o f Alexandria calls him ' E£rjKif]Aos o TCOV ' IOUSOUKCOV TpaycoSicSv Troir)Trjs (Clem. Alex, strom. 1,23,153). On Ezekiel and his work see Snell 1971, 170-193; Jacobson 1983, 5-13; Vogt 1983, 115-118; Nickelsburg 1984b, 125-130, Holladay 1989, 329; Gauly et al. 1991, 217-218; Barclay 1992, 34-37; Barclay 1996, 132-138; Collins 2000a, 224-230. Many Jewish texts treated in the present study were long forgotten by scholars, but not many were as sorely neglected as Exagoge. His verses were edited and commented on by L.M. Philippson in 1830 and by Joseph Wieneke in 1931. However, the play never played a great role in scholarship. August Nauck (1889) excluded Ezekiel in his famous edition of Greek tragic fragments; see Vogt 1983, 118-120 and Jacobson 1983, 1-2. The evidence is clear and it was well known already in the first half of 19 century; see Jacobson 1983, 40-41. On Alexander Polyhistor see Montanari 1996, 478-479. Wandrey 1998, 354; Collins 2000a, 225. Fraser argues for the latter part of the third century in his famous Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972, 707). Vogt mentions the alleged visi­ tation of the phoenix during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes and considers it a possible help for dating the tragedy (1983, 117). Robertson dates it to the first half of the second century (1985, 803-804) and Jacobson to the second (1983, 5-13). Holladay leaves the problem open within the period mentioned (1989, 308-312). Vogt, strangely enough, doubts whether the drama can be called a tragedy ("... kann freilich kaum als eine Tragodie im engeren Sinne des Wortes gelten, auch wenn es bei Eusebios einmal als solche bezeichnet wird", Vogt 1983, 115). Nevertheless, very few have doubted that Aeschylus' Persians, clearly a model for Ezekiel (see below p. 79-80) 2

3

4

5

6

th

65

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

to understanding the tradition of Greek tragedy. That the work happens to be written by a Jew apparently living in Alexandria makes the situation very complicated and challenging. No one has found a convincing answer to the questions of the intended audience of this play, or whether it was ever performed. Some passages led Collins to suppose that Ezekiel repre­ sented a less exclusive form of the Jewish religion. According to him, Eze­ kiel dropped the obligation of circumcision when speaking about the Pass­ over (v. 175-192), and he also mentions that Zipporah was given to a "stranger", i.e. Moses (v. 67). The present study may provide material for a further discussion. Traditionally Exagoge is considered a rather clumsy work, but recent scholarship has revised this judgement. Bruno Snell, an expert in Greek poetry and metrics, investigated the play and considered it to be much bet­ ter than its reputation. The most important studies are the commentaries written by Howard Jacobson (1983), and Holladay (1989), comple­ mented by a review of Jacobson's study by Pieter W. van der Horst. The main disagreement between Jacobson and van der Horst concerns the in9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

is a tragedy, although it, like Exogoge, describes the triumph over a hostile army. Van der Horst does not totally rule out the possibility that the work is a pseudonym, because he considers vv. 68-69 evidently based upon the first chapter of the Book of Ezekiel (1984b, 355-356). Ezekiel is often studied by scholars with a strong Judaistic background, although often even by those with a solid classical education, such as Jacobson. However, e.g. the studies of Snell (1971, 170-193) and Gauly et al. (1991, 216-219) give a fresh view of people usually dealing with classical drama. Neither Vogt (1983, 117) nor van der Horst (1984b, 357) will exclude Kuiper's old suggestion from 1900 that the writer was a Samaritan. There may be some similarities between Exagoge and Memar Marqa, but why should a Samaritan have chosen the name of the famous prophet from Judah? Although the view is mostly accepted, it is not unproblematic, because we have no direct evidence for it and Ezekiel seems to make some mistakes in Egyptian geography. See Jacobson 1983, 13-17; Holladay 1989, 312-313; van der Horst 1984, 357; Robertson 1985, 804. Collins 2000a, 225-226; see also Gruen 1998, 129. Schiirer was not as merciless as some others: "Sprache und Verse (jambische Trime­ ter) sind leidlich flieBend" (3 [1909], 502). Ezekiel's tragedy was at one time almost ridiculed in the research, and echoes of this are still audible in e.g. Fraser 1972, 708, but in more recent times his skill has received recognition; see Jacobson 1983, 2-3. Snell sees another difficulty in almost all verses with a metrical problem, and doubts if the text is correct. "Also ist die Metrik Ezechiels besser als ihr Ruf und wir konnen getrost manche Anomalien wegkonjizieren" (Snell 1967, 31-32). A similar judgement in Strugnell 1967, 449-457. The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 1983. Jacobson's translation is used in the present study. Pages 301-529 in Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors 2 (1989). "Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel", 1984. 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

66

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

terpretation of Moses' vision, now very current among the scholarship investigating early Christology. The drama is named' E^aycoyrj, not "E£o5os, and although it is obvious that Ezekiel made use of the Septuagint, it is not clear whether the title was intentionally changed or not. If it was intentional, the idea of people at­ taining freedom would be replaced with the idea of God or Moses, or both, giving them freedom. It is thus not surprising that the miracles have a sig­ nificant role in the extant verses. 18

b. The dialogue at the burning bush Ezekiel lets Moses briefly tell about his childhood and early years (Exod 1:1-2:25 / Ezek. Trag. 1-58). The first passage dealing with miracles shows Moses in a dialogue with God, who reveals himself in the burning bush (Exod 3:1-4:17). The passage also contains the biblical miracles of the rod as snake and the leprous hand. 19

0

21

"God: What is that in your hands? Speak quickly. Moses: A rod wherewith to chastise beasts and men. God: Throw it on the ground and withdraw quickly. For it shall turn into a fearsome snake and you will marvel at it. Moses: There, I have thrown it. Oh, Master, be merciful. How dreadful, how monstrous. Have pity on me. I shudder at the sight, my limbs tremble. God: Have no fear. Reach out your hand and seize its tail. It shall turn back into a rod. Now put your hand into your bosom and withdraw it. Moses: There, I've done it. It's become like snow. God: Put it back into your bosom and it shall be as it was before" (Ezek. Trag. 120-131). The Septuagint renders the text in Exod 3:1-4:17 quite faithfully, however, with several interesting details and even with some important deviations. Some smaller deviations may reveal the complicated history of the Hebrew text, but they are of no importance to the present theme. LXX omits •'n'wn "in in 3:1 and renders 17

See below p. 81-86. Both'E£ayeoyrj, and"E£o6os occur as titles of the biblical book. Philo uses E£aycoyrj in Migr. 14, Her. 14 and Somn. 1,117. The divine voice of Dionysos appears in Euripides' Bacchae 576 sqq, and the early comedies, such as Aristophanes' Frogs, put him on the stage, (on gods in classical plays, see Snell 1971, 179). Some scholars have considered it impossible for a Jew to insert the voice of Israel's God into a drama. On this discussion, see Jacobson 1983, 19-20 and below, p. 77-79. On the theophany at the burning bush, see Jacobson 1983, 97-112; Holladay 1989, 451-478. On the leprous hand, see below p. 72. 18

19

2 0

21

67

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian 22

-En in 3:4 with T! EOXIV, and the names of the peoples are changed (3:8). It is certainly a contextualization that 'wier "op? is consistently rendered with yepouoia (3:16; 3:18; even 4:30). LXX does not use oPeTv but has EuAa(3E?xo in 3:6. Some details common to both versions must also be noted. LXX has preserved some anthropomorphic traits of God, which were later problematic for Philo: God utters the word TIK / KccTePnv to help the oppressed people (3:8) and his wrath is mentioned (4:14). The rather strange 4:8 nan b^-> is rendered with xfjs (t>covf]s xou a n u s i o u : Rengstorf thought that the words might point to the wider range of Moses' miracles, but also Exod 20:18 has rftpn n« D'tn nvn (LXX ecopa xrjv ^covrjv), and these odd wordings were noted in early Judaism. The words the Hebrew text uses for miracles are translated quite consistently here, as well as in the other parts of Exodus analysed in the present study. arjueTov (3:12; 4:30), common already in profane Greek, is the standard translation of nu* in LXX. rm I arjUEiov is not only an extraordinary event, but it points in the correct direction. mtfjsa (from tfra) is translated into S a u u d a i a (Exod 3:20). The Hebrew word refers mainly to God's saving deeds in the past (also in Job 37:14). It does not necessarily mean a break­ ing of what we term the laws of nature; it indicates that God helps in a hopeless situation, in a very "natural" way. nsiD does not occur in this passage, but in Exod 4:21, where it is translated as x s p a s . It is common in profane Greek as the adjective X E p d c x i o v . In 23

24

25

26

27

28

LXX, Tepas is a translation of nsiQ in 34 of 38 occurrences in LXX a translation of nsia, 29

but a derivation offc^alies behind it on t w o occasions (Exod 15:11; Jos 28:29). In ex­ tra-biblical Greek x l p a s means 'sign', 'wonder', 'marvel' or 'portent', something which is TTcepd <|>uoiv. LXX uses the word in peculiar way: XEpas, as the original Hebrew nsia, is given by God. The words orjueTa Kai XEpaxa may also occur in extra-biblical Greek (Polyb. 3,112,18; Plut. Alex. 75,1 706 a-b), but are used in an interesting way in LXX. D^riDiDi mrm appears in Israel's credo in Deut 26:5-11: "So the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miracu­ lous signs and wonders" (LXX: ev orjueiots Kai EV XEpaaiv, Deut 26:8). In LXX the phrase onus? a Kai x l p a x a is reserved for Moses and his miracles. 30

31

32

A detail worth noting is the translation in 4:6 and 4:7. In the first verse LXX has omit­ ted the word runxo and has only EyEvrjBn f| xsip auxoG cooei xicov. Consequently 4:7 has i\s xrjv xpocxv xf]s aapKos auxou. Jacobson noted the deviation and regarded it as

a well-considered alteration: Many pagan authors attested the anti-Jewish version of exodus, according to which the Hebrews were expelled from the country because of the pestilence in Egypt. It is no wonder that the translators avoided the words AETrpa and

2 2

The Septuagint often modernizes names of biblical places and peoples; see Siegert 2000,21. Rengstorf 1964, 210. See also Deut 5:24. See Jacobson 1983, 99-100. See Liddell - Scott s.v. arjUETov. See Rengstorf 1964, 199-268. mK is almost always translated into oriUE?ov. On the other hand, in about 80% of the occurrences, ma lies behind criUE?ov. See Albertz 1984, 416-420. 2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8

See Liddell - Scott s.v. X E p a s , XEpdoxtov.

2 9

Rengstorf 1969, 117-118. Aristot. gen. an 770b; Rengstorf 1969, 115. See Rengstorf 1969, 113-127. Rengstorf 1964,219-220.

3 0

31

3 2

68

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian 33

34

Aoiuos. In the same manner ~a~i ("bubonic plague") is in 9:3 rendered as 8dvaTos. Jacobson is apparently right, because the distorted version of the exodus is well attested among the Jews as well as the Gentiles. However, the Jews who retold the Scripture did not necessarily avoid the word Aoiuos, although one would except them to have done 35

In retelling the miracles, Ezekiel follows LXX: However, he has SpccKcov instead of 6$\s used in Exod 4:3: Both words fit the iambic trimetre, but the writer has preferred the word used in Exod 7:9-12. Instead of a leprous hand, Ezekiel has the hand coorrEpei x»cov. Whether Ezekiel intentionally avoided Aeirpa and A O I M O S or only followed LXX (cooei X ^ ) chose eooTrepsi because of the metre is another question. The fragment breaks off and there is no evidence of the third miracle, namely, when God tells Moses to take water from the Nile and throw it on the ground (Exod 4:9). This miracle may have been included in the origi­ nal play, but we cannot be sure. In his introductory comment on 120-131 Polyhistor said: "And concerning the rod and other wonders, he speaks thus in dialogue." Jacobson takes the word Kai TCOV a'AAeov TepaTcov as evidence of a third miracle, presuming that the water Moses threw on the ground turned to blood. This is possible, and Josephus includes this de­ tail (Ant 2,273), but it is speculative, because Polyhistor may also have in mind the list of miracles later referred to by God. Although precisely these verses do not tell about the reluctant, biblical Moses willing to reject the call, and about Aaron being needed as his helper, both elements are included in the previous verses (Ezek. Trag. 114119); Moses even says that he is not eloquent (v. 113-115). Aaron is often omitted from the retold stories, but Ezekiel is remarkably faithful to the biblical original, although neither Aaron's miracles nor his rod are men­ tioned in the verses we have. In Ezekiel, Moses is not concerned with how to make the Hebrews be­ lieve, but with how to convince the Pharaoh (cf. Exod 4:29-5 A). Jacobson sees here as well as in Exod. R. 3,16 a bias to exonerate Israel, but al­ though this possibility cannot be excluded, there is also another and per­ haps more plausible explanation. In Exodus the miracles serve to legiti,c

v

a n a <

37

38

39

40

3 3

See Jacobson 1983, 106-107; Holladay 1989, 468-469, and below p. 231. On the word "n~i see below p. 71. See below p. 231. See below pp. I l l and 239. See below p. 72. Jacobson 1983, 102-104. See p. 55, 128 and 235. Jacobson 1983, 101. However, he offers a reconstruction of the tragedy and supposes that Moses has met with the elders of the people (1983, 35). I do not see how it is thus possible to exclude the difficulties with the Hebrews. 3 4

35

3 6

3 7

3 8

3 9

4 0

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

69

mate Moses to his own people. Such a legitimisation was generally no longer needed in the Jewish texts studied in the present work, and espe­ cially not before Moses' own people. His position was strong and needed no justification. Simultaneously it means that the miracles have lost their original function and perhaps have found new ones, or are simply omitted as here. This is an argument, although perhaps a weak one, for the view that the play was not intended for a Gentile audience. It is interesting that Moses is not presented as in Artapanus: a calm man untouched by the events; instead, as in Exodus, he is described as being afraid of the snake and trembling. Apparently one reason is that Ezekiel wants to enhance the dramatic quality of the scene; yet he has also pre­ served Moses' words about not being a good speaker. The human traits of the leader are significant. Here he is by no means a BNP, or even an MNP or PNP; he is only a terrified man - as in Exod 4. Thus, although many Jewish writers avoided it, Ezekiel, following the biblical Exodus, presents God in a dialogue with Moses. Jub. introduces the "Angel of Presence" to tell Moses of the events, Artapanus reduces God to a "divine voice", Philo rejects God's anthropomorphic features and sees an angel in the burning bush, and even Josephus is rather restricted. Ezekiel is different, but not the only one following the biblical original. L.A.B., a Palestinian text written in Hebrew, also does not hesitate to add this kind of material. There are two explanations for the path Ezekiel took. Philo acted from deep theological convictions as did apparently L.A.B. in the opposite direction. Can such reasons be Ezekiel's as well? The second possibility is obviously the more probable: Ezekiel merely faithfully followed the biblical original. 41

42

43

44

c. The plagues told in advance Unhappily we do not know how many verses there were before the frag­ ment containing verses 132-174 in the original play. In any case, God is speaking again to Moses and foretelling everything that shall happen be­ fore the freedom: 45

"With this rod you shall work all kinds of plagues.

41

On Ben Sira, see p. 26, on Artapanus, see p. 95, on L.A.B. p. 199. In Philo the theme is more complicated; see p. 155-156. Jacobson 1983,98. On Jub. see above p. 61, on Artapanus below p. 105, on Philo p. 112 and Josephus p. 234. See below p. 196. On the plagues, see Jacobson 1983, 112-121; Holladay 1989, 471-478. 4 2

4 3

4 4

4 5

70

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

First, the river, all the springs and pools will flow blood. I shall bring a multitude of frogs and lice upon the land Thereafter, I will sprinkle on them ashes from a furnace and fierce sores will erupt on their bodies. Flies will come and torment many of the Egyptians. Afterwards there will come in its turn a pestilence and all who possess hard hearts will die. Then I will make the heavens violent: hail mixed with fire will descend and lay men dead. Crops and animals will be destroyed. I will bring darkness for three whole days and will send locusts which will destroy all the remaining crops and the young shoots. And after all this I shall slay the firstborn children. Thus, I shall bring to an end the arrogance of this evil people. And king Pharaoh will not be persuaded by anything I say until he sees his firstborn son a corpse. Then in fear he will quickly send forth the people" (Ezek. Trag. 132-151). 46

Ezekiel summarises the plagues very briefly, but it is possible to follow up on the word­ ing in LXX in Exod 7:14-12:36. In the first plague (pi I cnua, Exod 7:14-24) the oppo­ nents (CTDtnn / ettcxoiSoi, 7:22) are mentioned as well as their means (•n D ?3 / <|)apuccKEiais), similarly in 8:3; 8:14; 9:12. Both the Masoretic text and LXX (7:15) refer to the rod which had once changed into a snake (c?m / 6c|>iv, not pn / 5pc(Kcov as in 7:10). LXX adds in 7:19 too ocSeX^co oou. In the plague of o-jmas / (BaTpocxoi (Exod 7:268:11). LXX has omitted o n s o fixrhv in v. 8:1, and a further alteration is rendering of WTfon mrro as ouk eotiv d'AAos TrAr|V Kupi'ou (8:6). The development is from monolatry to monotheism (cf. 9:14, where the translation follows the Hebrew text). The third plague (•» / okv?<|>es, Exod 8:12-15) is a faithful translation of the text we have. In the plague of 3iv I kuvouuioc (Exod 8:16-28) the Masoretic text is uncertain in 8:19 (ma or rfra / StaoToArjv); in 8:24 LXX adds irpos tov Kiipiov. In the fifth plague, in regard to live­ stock (Exod 9:1-11), ill is translated 0dvccTOs UEyas ac|>65pa (9:3). In the sixth plague (pro /eAiai, Exod 9:8-12) LXX adds the servants in v. 9:8. In the plague of nVTip /covai, ill I xdAa£a and m I nup (|>Aoy(£ov (Exod 9:13-35) LXX is concordant with MT. In the eighth plague (nma / ccKpi's, Exod 10:1-20) v. 10 is as unclear in LXX as in the He­ brew text, crip rrn is translated ofvsuos votos in 10:13. In the ninth plague (Exod 10:2129) the kind of darkness ("jon mi I vpTiAa(|)TiT6s okotos) is interesting. In the final plague (Exod 11:1-12:36) the most interesting detail is the subject of the plague, which is definitely God himself (11:4 / syco; 12:13 wrmtb *p - TTAriyr) tou EKTpipfivai). 47

,

l

48

49

The translation of Ezek. Trag. 149 given by Jacobson is apparently incorrect and I have replaced it with the line rendered by Holladay (1989, 379). ttei'oetou can be derived either from irdoxco, as Jacobson takes it, or from tte(0co, as he is well aware of (1983, 119-121). Exod relates that Pharaoh was personally struck by several plagues (8:4; 8:21; 9:14). Nevertheless, Jacobson chooses the first alternative, because it is supported by the later Jewish texts. On this question, see also Holladay 1989, 477. See also Propp 1998, 292-310. On the darkness, see Durham 1987, 141-143. Jub. attributes the deed to Mastema (see above p. 57). 4 7

4 8

49

71

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

All in all, the plagues are rendered very faithfully but with some interesting details, the most important being the word ion / 0dvaTos [liycxs o(|)65pa in 9:3. LXX consequently translates the Hebrew word 0dvccTos, and apparently Jer 15:2 already attests this inter­ pretation, non denotes a fatal pestilence, which comes upon men and domestic animals, but it is not possible to identify the precise disease. 50

Ezekiel summarises the plagues very briefly, but it is possible to follow up on the wording in LXX. di|ja, Exod 7:14-24, occurs in v. 133, p d r p a XOi in LXX Exod 7:26-8:11 is PaTpdxcov T E TTAf}0os (v. 135) and O K V T CJ>BS, Exod 8:12-15 OKVITTCXS EMPCXACO x 9 O V ( ( V . 135). Kuvofjuia is used as in LXX (Exod 8:16-28 / v. 138); the word A O I J J O S is used for the plague on livestock (Exod 9:1-11 LXX: 0dvccros uiycxs ac|>6Spa, v. 139-140). EAKTI, a w i t h LXX Exod 9:8-12 / v. 137 is EAKTJ TTiKpd. LXX x«^«C ™p ^Aoyi^ov (Exod 9:13-35) is in Ezekiel x « ^ a ^ a ... G U V Ttupt in v. 141142. aKp(5a TTOAATIV (Exod 10:1-20) is rendered ccKpi'Sas T E TTEJJ^CO (145-146), and ^TlAa^rjTos O K O T O S (Exod 10:21-29) is now only O K O T O S (v. 144). In the last plague (Exod 11:1-12:36) TrpcoxoxoKOs is changed to diroKTEvco ... TTpcoToyova (v. 147-148). Ezekiel thus adheres to the words of LXX very closely. The order of the plagues is slightly changed, but their number (ten) is preserved, although Fraser strangely refers to "the seven plagues". The order is changed: the boils plague, the sixth plague in Exodus, is fourth in Ezekiel and consequently KUVOJJUICX is the fifth and pestilence the sixth. The locusts and darkness have changed position. Unlike Philo, Ezekiel does not explain his new order. Jacobson tries to explain the changed order by referring to Philo, and indeed TTiKpdvco 5' oupccvov may indicate the intention to divide different plagues into different elements as Philo did. Yet, another and perhaps better explanation is also available: it was not easy to briefly render the plagues in metre. A good parallel example is Prudence, the Christian poet, who attempted to write the story of 18 Chris­ tian martyrs in verse, and realized that the names would not fit the metre. He elegantly apologised for his action (carminis leges amor aureorum / 51

52

53

54

nominum

parvi

facit,

et loquendi

/ cura

de Sanctis

vitiosa

non

est /

nec

4,165-168) and broke the metric rules. Similarly, Eze­ kiel had to change some words and their order if he was to retain the iam­ bic trimetre. Nevertheless, he followed the biblical original very closely, far more closely than many other Jewish writers included in the present study. However, some deviations may be important. rudis

5 0

51

5 2

53

5 4

umquam,

per.

Mayer 1978, 125-127. See also Holladay 1989, 471-480. Fraser 1972, 707. See below p. 114. Jacobson 1983, 115-117; see also Holladay 1989, 473-474.

72

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

The first plague is retold very briefly, and it is unnecessary to ask (as Jacobson does) why the fish do not die in Ezekiel. The entire story of Exo­ dus (Exod 7:14-24) is given only two lines and the frogs aiou^es and boils together only three: B A K T ] TTiKpcx is now limited only to men. K U V O M U I O C does not awaken interest, but when describing x^Aa£a ... auv n u p i Eze­ kiel adds the words TriKpdvco 5' oupavov. The phrase might possibly be connected with Philo's speculations on the different roles of the ele­ ments. Several Jewish writers, but not Ezekiel, describe the darkness as unconventional, being full of demonic beings. The final plague is limited only to men. The only really significant deviations are in the fifth biblical plague (Exod 9:1-11). Firstly, this plague, as well as two others, is limited to men. But secondly, it is strange that 0dvocTos a(|)65pa is rendered with A O I J J O S . Many scholars have observed that LXX has removed n i n ^ D in Exod 4:7 and periphrased pestilence with EyevTi0T) f] x^P C X U T O U coaei Xicov because of the anti-Jewish version of the exodus. It may be true, but it apparently does not mean that all early Jews considered the topic difficult. Although Ezekiel follows the words in Exod 4:7, he now goes in the opposite direction and freely adds A O I J J O S to his text. Why did Ezekiel choose this word? Gruen claims that the supposed negative version of Exodus is the result of the distorting lens of Josephus, and although this view is more than problematic, it seems that scholars have exaggerated the impact of anti-Jewish propaganda on the Jewish writers. Ezekiel does not avoid the key word that is supposed to have been problematic to the Jews, but Ezekiel has limited the plague to human victims (SavouvTon 5' ols evecrn KapSta O K A T I P C X ) . Jacobson cites Ps 78:50 LXX and some later Rabbinic texts allegedly harmonising two traditions, that the plague struck only humans or possibly animals, and suggests that Ezekiel was following a tradition. However, one cannot go beyond speculations. 55

56

57

58

59

60

Miracles are generally not easy to put into a drama, especially not the miracles described in Exodus, and Ezekiel understandably chose simple technical methods. That God enumerates the plagues in advance is a way to avoid the problems connected with dramatizing them. The transforma­ tion of events into speech is understandable and necessary. This transfor­ mation and the heavy abridgement necessarily lead to substantial changes, 61

Jacobson 1983, 114. See below p. 114. See below p. 238. See above p. 231-232. See below p. 231-232. Jacobson 1983, 117; see also Holladay 1989, 474. Jacobson 1983, 112-113; van der Horst 1984, 359.

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

73

especially in the roles of God, Moses and Aaron. It is no wonder that Aaron is absent (as in many Jewish texts), although he is mentioned ear­ lier, but the role of Moses is also greatly diminished. It is God who tells in advance what he is going to do. However, it is unnecessary to ask what Moses is in Kahl's terminology: The reduction of Moses' role is a literary device, which has resulted in a slight lack of consistency. Although God speaks to Moses of the plagues as his own deeds, the passage opens with God's words to him: sv TTJ5E pdpSco TrdvTa Troirjcreis KCXKCX ( V . 132). We do not have enough material at our disposal to be certain whether the supposed Jewish traditions already existed in Ezekiel's times, or whether they ever existed at all. One thing is certain: Ezekiel follows the Bible as faithfully as is possible for a tragedian, and with greater exactness than many others who retold the biblical events. The writer of Jub.,for example, takes more liberties with the text, as does Artapanus (see chapters 3 and 5). Jacobson rightly points out that there was no tradition preventing one from freely retelling Old Testament events, and that the beginnings of the midrashic tradition are already attested in LXX. 62

d. The miracle at the Red Sea In the two fragments mentioned above, God thus tells about the miracles in advance. However, an Egyptian messenger relates the great miracle at the Red Sea (cf. Exod 13:17-14:31) afterwards in the fragment containing verses 193-242. The messenger tells how the Egyptians pitched camp and awaited the coming battle eagerly: 63

"Then, divine wonders and portents began to occur. A large pillar, looking like a cloud, suddenly appeared and took up a position between our camp and that of the Hebrews. Then their leader Moses took the staff of God with which he had previously wrought the prodigies and plagues against Egypt and striking the surface of the Red Sea he split it in two. All of them rushed energetically and swiftly through the sea's pathway. We entered the path quickly, on their track. We hastened forward, but encountered night. Suddenly, the wheels of the chariots would not turn, as if they were bound fast. From the heavens came a great flash, as if of a fire. It seemed that God was helping them. When they had reached 6 2

6 3

Jacobson 1983, 18. See Jacobson 1983, 136-152.

74

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

the other side, a large wave surged around us. One man, on seeing this, cried out: 'Let us run back home and flee the power of the Supreme One. For He is helping them, but is wreaking our destruction.' Then the path was washed away and the army perished" (Ezek. Trag. 204-219). LXX has preserved in Exod 13:17-14:31 the very anthropomorphic view of God in v. 13:17. In v. 13:18 the Hebrew text has moom, but LXX nspnTrj 5e yeved. The literal translation of rrcn T D in 14:8 has led to the strange ev xeipi uv|;r)Arj. In 14:19 both texts have the angel ("ja^D / d'yyeAos). The Hebrew text in 14:20 is apparently corrupt (rr^rrriK -je?nm / Kai eyevexo OKOTOS Kai yvoc|>os, Kai SifjA0ev fj vu£ ). unp rrra nTtf is rendered ev dveuco VOTCO Piai'co in v. 21.

The words Ezekiel lets the messenger use for the miracles occur in 220221. eneiTa 0ei'eov dpxexai x e p a a x t c o v 0auudaT 'i5ea0ai

A short while later (224-226) Ezekiel tells about the rod of Moses XaPcov pdpSov 0eou TTJ 5rj irpiv A'lyuTrrcp KOKO ar|ue?a Kai x e p a T a e^eMrjoaTo. 64

The words used are not surprising at all. As seen above, the word orjijeTov is the standard translation of m» in LXX and T e p a s that of nsia. LXX translates DTiaiQi mniK as ar\[is\a Kai x e p a r a (Deut 26:8) and with these words refers to Moses' miracles. This is the language Ezekiel fol­ lows in his drama, both here and in the description of the burning bush, which is O T U J E T O V , xspaoTtov and a m o T i a (v. 90-93). 65

66

Although it may not be obvious at first, a closer study reveals that almost everything in Ezekiel has been told in Exod. The Egyptian troops could not pursue the Israelites because the cloud brought darkness (Exod 14:20), the Lord made their wheels stop, he looked down from the pillar of fire at the Egyptian army and the Egyptians cried out in fear (Exod 14:25-26). All is admittedly expressed now in a dramatic fashion, but only some details are additions or alterations. The question is, which of them are traditional and which are new. The speaker and the whole situation are already additions to the biblical narrative. Ezekiel, of course, again uses a device to dramatize the miracle, but does he represent a tradition? Philo and Josephus emphasize that there

6 4

6 5

6 6

See above p. 67. See Rengstorf 1969, 113-127. Rengstorf 1964,219-220.

75

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian 67

was not a single survivor, as if to rebuke a contradictory tradition. Jacobson supposes that both of them are critical of Ezekiel's play, but they apparently only repeat Exod 14:28, saying that there was no survivor (ou K(XTeAsi(|>0r| e£ C C U T C O V O U 5 E els). The number of Egyptians (a million in Ezekiel, v. 203) is a common, nonbiblical detail, but the Jewish writers disagree on the number. Josephus has a detailed account of the troops, but Jub. agrees with Ezekiel (Jub. 48:14). It is understandable that a number was given in the midrashic tradi­ tion, but the number reveals here a tradition common to the two texts, the other of which was written in Palestine and the other in Egypt. Ezekiel adds a detail that the Israelites were unarmed (v. 210). This de­ tail is common in early Judaism and shared by Philo and Josephus, al­ though L.A.B. has a different view. The reason is obvious: Although the Hebrew text has moom in Exod 13:18, LXX has T T E M T T T T I 5 E ysved. Eze­ kiel, Philo and Josephus obviously follow a midrashic tradition exaggerat­ ing the miraculous event, but L.A.B. adheres to the line giving crtDom pre­ dominance over the view that the people had no weapons. Demetrius the Chronographer shows that the problem was discussed among Egyptian Jews: The nation was certainly armed in the battle against Amalek. It is interesting that Josephus here complies with LXX, and apparently the Septuagint again reveals the problematic history of the Hebrew text. A more significant difference between Exodus and Exagoge seems to be that in Ezekiel the water is split immediately after it is struck by Moses (laxioev) and not during the following night (Exod 14:21). However, it is not only an understandable dramatic effect in the tragedy but also a widely known tradition in the Jewish texts (Philo, L.A.B., Josephus). Actually, Exodus allows for both inter pretations, although neither the Hebrew nor the Greek text says expressis verbis that Moses strikes the sea with his rod. The Hebrew text has inapm urr^v jv rm rrem "|tDD"n« cnn nrwi in Exod 14:16; LXX K C U ou Eirapov *rrj pdpSco aou K C U E K T E I V O V TrjV x ^ p a ° u 'sin xr|v 0dAaaoav K C U pfj£ov auxrjv. On the other hand, rro crnp n r a is 68

69

70

71

72

a

73

6 7

See below p. 121 and 241. Jacobson 1983, 151-152. See below p. 240. See Philo (p. 119), Josephus (p. 240), L.A.B. (p. 194) and Holladay 1989, 499-500. "Some asked how the Israelites had weapons, since they came out unarmed. For they said that after they had gone out on a three-day journey, and offered a sacrifice, they would return again. It appears, therefore, that those who had not been drowned made use of the other arms" (Dcm.fr. 5). Philo uses the word (paysTaa) for the sea (see below p. 119). On L.A.B. see below p. 194, on Josephus see p. 241. The Vulgate reads tu autem eleva virgam tuam et extende manum super mare et di­ vide ilium. 6 8

6 9

7 0

71

7 2

73

76

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

translated ev CCVSJJCO VOTCO (3iaico in Exod 14:21, suggesting a slow divi­ sion of the sea. It is no surprise that the story was developed in the later tradition and that the rod of Moses became an important element. Exod 4:17 mentions the powerful rod (nnarrna rrncwn im "]T3 npn ntn ntDDrrmi) and Exod 4:20 tells that Moses took the rod (D'rfwn nm'm I xr)V pd(35ov xrjv i r a p a T O U 0EOU) with him when he left Midian. Moses and Aaron both use their rods, Moses to hit the earth (Exod 7:20) and Aaron the Nile (Exod 8:17). Moses' rod is mentioned again when he hits the rock with it (Exod 16:5). When he lifts his hand to help Israel's fight against Amalek, he does not raise his rod; Exod 16:9 says, however, that it was in his hand. The rod had a special role in early Judaism: Ezekiel mentions the rod al­ ready in v. 132 (EV TTJ5E pccBSco TrdvTcc TROIRJAEIS KCCKCX) and Artapanus gives it a prominent position. Deut.R. 3,8 connects God's holy name with the power of the rod: "It (the sea) saw the Tetragrammaton engraved upon the staff and parted." Jacobson even considers the possibility that Ezekiel in v. 121 knew and criticised the tradition according to which Moses' rod was not an ordinary one but a magical rod given by God to Adam. How­ ever, the texts Jacobson cites as parallels are late, and there is no reason to believe that Ezekiel knew the tradition. Early on, the Old Testament ex­ plains the origin of the rich tradition. Many Jewish writers included the event of Moses' striking the sea, tak­ ing for granted that he divided the sea with his rod. Jacobson's close stud­ ies of the Jewish texts show that some texts underline the role of Moses' rod while others minimize it. In addition to Ezekiel, the hitting of the sea is mentioned in Artapanus, Philo, L.A.B. and Josephus. Jacobson correctly notes that Isa 11:15 and Zech 10:11 also suppose that the sea was hit, al­ though in these cases it was God who did it. Jacobson considers the detail important. His answer to why Ezekiel pre­ ferred one tradition to another is that, contrary to the Hebrew tradition and similarly to most Jewish Hellenists, Ezekiel wanted to emphasize Moses' role in the miracle. This is undoubtedly partly true: Moses at the Red Sea is clearly an important MNP in Ezekiel's text.Nevertheless, the view should not be accepted without reservations. Early on, Exodus describes the event of Moses dividing the sea with his rod. When Moses raises his hands to support Israel's fight against Amalek in Exod 17:8-16 the rod is not raised, but clearly mentioned. Moreover, Jewish writers, cited by Ja­ cobson himself, might at times stress God's role more, at times Moses' 75

76

77

78

7 4

7 5

7 6

7 7

7 8

See below p. 105. Jacobson 1983, 105-106. See pp. 105, 119, 194 and 241. Jacobson 1983, 141-144. Holladay correctly traces Ezekiel's verse to LXX (1989, 504-505).

11

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

role, but Moses was never forgotten. We have texts in which Moses disap­ pears almost totally, but also texts in which God's role seems to be greatly reduced. While this is especially true of Artapanus, some Jewish texts written originally in Hebrew also attribute a considerable role to Moses; particularly the writer of L.A.B. cannot be labelled a "Jewish Hel­ lenist." Ezekiel's passage is more well-balanced than the biblical origi­ nal: On the one hand, Moses' action is important, but on the other hand, in v. 230-242 it is God's power that destroys the hostile army. Obviously, the tragedian was fond of dramatic effects and he emphasized Moses' role. However, he was following a rich tradition, and can well be described as taking the middle course. 79

81

The detailed presentation of the Egyptian troops and strategy leads us to a more important theme: knowledge of the Greek culture. It was not unproblematic for a Jew to present the events of Exodus on stage. Josephus (as the Letter of Aristeas* ) criticises Greek tragedians who tried to use biblical material in their dramas. Philo cites all the masters of tragedy. He also enjoyed the theatre, which some scholars take as a sign of his "unorthodoxy", but we do not know enough about Judaism in this period to determine whether he broke the rules or whether they even existed. We do not know how many Jews wrote tragedies: Nicolaus of Damascus, who 2

83

84

7 9

Jacobson (1983, 142-143) justly points e.g. to Ps 114 and Wis 19:7-9. However, Ps 77:17-21, which he mentions, is not the only text that does not diminish Moses' role. See p. 192-202. The strategic order described in the verses was first used in 217 BC; see Jacobson 1983, 149-150; 215-216; Gauly et al. 219. Josephus also gives a detailed account of the troops; see below p. 240. See Arist. 312-316. According to Robertson (1985, 804) Arist. criticizes writers such as Ezekiel. Theodectes had tried to use parts of the holy writings in his tragedy, but gave up the task after becoming blind, and Theopompus lost his mind for 30 days for similar reasons (Ant. 12,113). Josephus' aim was not to criticize Ezekiel or other Jews who followed him, but to respond to the question of why the Jews were so rarely mentioned in the mas­ terpieces of Greek literature. However, Josephus never names Aeschylus, Sophocles or Euripides. On the view that Philo and Josephus criticized Ezekiel, see above p. 75. In his article (1960) Feldman investigates how the Jews in Hellenistic Egypt main­ tained "their orthodoxy while assimilating the secular knowledge of their day" and "the degree to which Egyptian Hellenistic Jewry deviated from orthodoxy" (1961, 215). A deviation is that Philo often went to the theatre. Ezekiel's play is "still further evidence of deviation from orthodoxy", because God or his voice was on stage (1961, 226-227). Feldman thus presupposes that i) a kind of orthodoxy existed in the beginning and ii) that the theatre was a deviation from it. Both points are difficult to defend, although it admit­ tedly was not unproblematic to use tragedy and dramatic effects to retell the sacred his­ tory. Jacobson (1983, 19-20) correctly observes that we cannot draw conclusions on the rules for the Second Temple Jews from the Rabbinic evidence. 8 0

81

8 2

83

8 4

78

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

at least had connections to Judaism, may have, and those who forged the verses of the great masters certainly had some knowledge of the art of tragedy, but we do not know the names of Ezekiel's predecessors, and we do not know how extensive this knowledge was. Nevertheless, Greek trag­ edy was based on pagan mythology and could not be understood without a deeper knowledge of it. There are signs of a hostile attitude towards Greek tragedy among the Jews, but others were fond of it. Not only did they go to the theatre but they also forged verses in which Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides were made spokesmen for the Jewish religion. But what was Ezekiel's attitude towards the Hellenistic culture? Ezekiel uses the form of Greek drama very skilfully. His language is influenced by Euripides, and his themes, above all, by Aeschylus. The vivid interest in the best preserved Hellenistic tragedy has prompted many difficult questions concerning the possible chorus and technical de­ vices. A question by far more important to our theme is whether the work was ever intended to be performed on the stage at all, or whether it was simply meant to be publicly recited: Many scholars have doubted that Eze­ kiel would have put God and his miracles on the stage. It is also not easy to define the audience. Jacobson supposes that it consisted of Jews as well 86

87

88

89

90

91

85

A drama written by AapocaKrivos is mentioned by Eustathius, but it is not clear whether he is Nicolaus of Damascus or not; see Jacobson 1983, 4. On Nicolaus of Da­ mascus, see Spoerri 1979, 109-111. See Attridge in OTP 2 (1985, 824-829). On the question, see Jacobson 1983, 19-20. See above p. 65 sq. Jacobson 1983, 23-31; van der Horst 1984, 358. On the question about the chorus and proposed alternatives, see Jacobson 1983, 3133. 88. He can find no convincing evidence that there was a chorus in the play, but does not exclude the possibility. In his opinion the obvious choice is Raguel's daughters (1983, 32). V. 65 (TOUTCOV TrocTfjp) seems to attest that they were present, and hardly for any other role than to form a chorus. On the other hand, Raguel's daughters could hardly be present in the dialogue between God and Moses in the desert and even less in Egypt or in the desert on the way to Canaan. It is tempting to speculate that the Egyptian messen­ ger talked to a chorus, which consisted of Egyptian women or sorcerers, as the chorus in Aeschylus' Persians consisted of Persian wise men. The Roman tragedies had a chorus, and it is conceivable that Ezekiel's play had several choruses. This would solve the prob­ lem that the place and audience change between acts, but the fact is that we do not have any evidence of lyrical parts of the tragedy. Jacobson cites Euripides' Bacchae 576 sqq as a model: Dionysus is heard but not seen and the actor speaks offstage (1983, 99). Technically it was not difficult, but it may have been problematic theologically. The question is an old one: Schiirer rejected these doubts, which were known to him (3 [1909], 502). On the question, see Vogt 1983, 117-118, Robertson 1983, 804-806 and Holladay 1989, 315. It is interesting that classical scholars remain uncertain (Snell 1971, 175-176; Gauly et al. 1991, 219). 8 6

8 7

88

8 9

9 0

91

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

79

as Gentiles. But is Jacobson's supposition true, and where and in what situation would the tragedy have been performed? Furthermore, what was its function? Hengel presumes that Exagoge was performed in Jerusalem, but if that is true it was apparently not the original location Ezekiel had intended. It is very difficult to find a Sitz im Leben for the play. Moreover, Ezekiel also broke two important rules of a tragedy when he changed the location between scenes and allowed for a long intermission between them. These problems have led some scholars to assume that the tragedy was never performed on stage. Yet, according to many scholars, Ezekiel re­ vised his material enough to perform it on stage. We do not know enough about Hellenistic tragedy or early Judaism to give the final answer to the question, but a tentative proposal may not be too audacious. But first, it is important to yet take a closer look at the function of Aeschlylus' Persians. Technically, Exodus was not easy to put on stage, but neither was the defeat of the Persians in Salamis. Aeschylus lets a Persian messenger tell about the catastrophe in Susa before the old Persian wise men, who form the chorus. He lets the man give a detailed account of how "the enemy", i.e. the Athenian audience of the tragedy, destroyed the unbeaten navy in Salamis. Aeschylus' Persians had ingeniously shown how a decisive mili­ tary victory could not only be treated on stage but also transformed into a tragedy. The chorus mourns the loss of the army, which, as the audience knew very well, has recently burned Acropolis. As mentioned above, we know little about other Jewish tragedians, but it is clear that no one writing a tragedy like Exagoge could have conformed to Aeschylus' style by chance. The messenger, the detailed description of the overwhelming troops and the catastrophic end of the speaker's own side are not a coincidence. The greatest of the Old Testament miracles has found a new form resembling a masterpiece of the Athenian tragedy. Aeschylus' intention was to praise Athens, namely, the people who formed his audience. Besides the form and content, did Ezekiel also borrow the function and Sitz im Leben of his model? In Ezekiel's play it is not Israel but God who is praised, and with him, of course, Moses, the Jewish relig­ ion and the sacred history of the people. The ideal time to perform this tragedy would have been during the Passover in Egypt. Philo tells about the choirs singing in praise of the events {Spec. 2,217-219). Admittedly we 93

94

95

96

9 2

Jacobson 1983, 17-18. Hengel 1996, 296-297. See Jacobson 1983, 98-99. On other historical tragedies, see Jacobson 1983, 3-4. The parallels have been collected by Jacobson, who considers Ezekiel to have been influenced also by Herodotus. See Jacobson 1983, 136-140. 9 3

9 4

9 5

9 6

80

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

do not know anything about Jewish tragedies performed in Egypt, but if Exagoge was ever performed on stage, I would suggest that it was to an intellectual Jewish audience celebrating the Passover in Alexandria. Exagoge means an original kind of interpretatio Graeca: Jewish history and the Jewish religion proudly take the form once used in the cult of Dio­ nysus. Although the form of the miracle stories is completely new, the con­ tent is mainly left untouched. Ezekiel allows himself some liberties, as noted above, but fewer than many Jewish writers treated in the present study, such as the writer of Jub. Ezekiel's work, written and perhaps also performed on the stage, reveals his dual heritage. He knows Greek drama well enough to be able to compose his own, and he is sufficiently bound by his Jewish heritage to faithfully follow the presentation in Exodus. As noted above, particularly Collins supposes that Ezekiel represents a less exclusive form of Judaism. The present study, however, has shown that Ezekiel follows the biblical original very closely and that he is more faithful than most of the Jewish writers treated in this study. Collins' view is thus based on two passages cited above. That Zipporah was given to a "stranger" (v. 67) means that mixed marriages are tolerated, and that Eze­ kiel does not mention circumcision when speaking about the Passover (v. 175-192) means that he avoids the most well known feature of Judaism. However, both arguments have their weaknesses. The "stranger", Moses, is a figure sui generis and it is not surprising that Zipporah is given to him. Many figures of the Old Testament took wives from foreign peoples, as Moses did in Exodus. Some texts, such as Joseph and Aseneth, deal with the problem, but the fact that Ezekiel does not is by no means a strong ar­ gument for Collins' view. Also, although the subject of circumcision is dropped in the 18 trimetres of the summarised Exod 12, it does not neces­ sarily mean that he intentionally avoided it and wanted to present a more open religion to the Gentiles. Such an attitude can justly be associated with a man who writes a tragedy according to the Greek model, but such con­ clusions should be made with caution. Jub. for example, does not mention circumcision in connection with the Passover (Jub. 49), although the theme is crucial in the work (see Jub. 15:25-32). Ezekiel, although a dramatist, is more like "faithful chroniclers" than Jub. or Pseudo-Philo. 97

98

99

t

Ezekiel did not end his drama with the death of the Egyptians. Some verses (243-269) apparently contain only a part of the speech a messenger, per­ haps a scout, held before Moses. He describes with enthusiasm the wonEzekiel's Moses does not, as Artapanus', teach writing to the Egyptians, but he re­ ceives a royal education (Ezek. Trag. 36-38; see Jacobson 1983, 78). Barclay 1992, 35; 1996, 134-135. Collins 2000a, 225-226, see also Gruen 1998, 129. 9 8

9 9

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

81

derful nature of Elim, which is briefly mentioned in Exod 1 5 : 2 7 . Ezekiel was not the only one, but perhaps the first to praise Elim, and thus he seems to follow the model of Greek Utopias. It is interesting that he mentions a rock from which the twelve springs flow: 100

r r r i y a s a < | ) u a a c o v SCOSEK

SK

yias

TTETpas

(v.

250).

Obviously, Ezekiel has combined the wonders of nature with the rock giv­ ing water in the desert. Although these few words do not allow for a de­ tailed study, he seems to have known the tradition attested in Pseudo-Philo and Rabbinic sources, according to which the rock giving water followed Israel in the desert. This is more evidence showing that although Ezekiel knew the Greek culture well, he was also well aware of his Jewish roots. 101

e. A miracle-worker - but how much more? Ezekiel's only intention in the cited passages is to present the great events of the past. One passage, however, must be noted, because it reveals the function of Moses' mission and also of his miracles. The passage concerns Moses' dream of a great throne touching the clouds of heaven: "I [i.e. Moses] had a vision of a great throne on the top of mount Sinai and it reached till the folds of heaven A noble man was sitting on it, with a crown and a large sceptre in his left hand. He beckoned to me with his right hand, so I approached and stood before the throne. He gave me the sceptre and instructed me to sit on the great throne. Then he gave me the royal crown and got up from the throne. I beheld the whole earth all around and saw beneath the earth and above the heavens. A multitude of stars befell before my knees and I counted them all. They paraded past me like a battalion of men. Then I awoke my sleep in fear" (Ezek. Trag. 68-82).

Moses' father-in-law interprets the dream: God has given a good sign to Moses, who will get a great throne, become a judge and leader of men and know "what is, what has been and what shall be" (v. 8 3 - 8 9 ) . 1 0 2

1 0 0

See Jacobson 1983, 152-166. Jacobson 1983, 154. On Pseudo-Philo, see below p. 197. On Moses' dream, see Jacobson 1983, 89-97; Holladay 1976, 89-97; Runia 1988, 48-75; Holladay 1989, 438-451; Hengel 1995, 190.191; Collins 2000a, 226-228; Eskola 2001, 86-90; Lierman 2004, 95-102. 101

1 0 2

82

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

The dream seems to be an addition to Exodus. However, Ezekiel, as the writer of Jub., was apparently rather reluctant to add to the text something without any background in the Scripture. Scholars have pointed out several theophanies in the Old Testament, and Jacobson and recently Eskola plau­ sibly suggest Exod 24:9-10 as a possible starting point for the tradition: 103

"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself."

It is impossible to separate Moses' miracles from the rest of his mission and from this passage in Ezekiel. It is clear that Moses is honoured in a very special way, but what does this dream mean? Who is the one who gives him the throne, and what is the position Moses is given in the dream? Is there a discrepancy between the dream and Raguel's interpretation? Ezekiel tells that Moses awakes from sleep (e£ U T T V O U ) , and Polyhistor definitely treats the passage as a dream ( T O V oveipov occurs twice, Euseb. praep. ev. 9,29,6-7); should it be regarded as exclusively a dream, or as a vision as well? This important passage has many interpretations. Jacobson studies it as Moses' dream and excludes any mystical interpretation. It is interpreted as only a dream, an imaginary event, even an attack against mystical interpretations. On the other hand, van der Horst characterises Jacobson's interpretation as "diametrically opposite" to his own. He connects the vision with merkabah-mysticism. Moreover, the passage is a key point in the current scholarship investigating early Christology. Some scholars have already had the courage to speak about a new Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, and the passage in Ezekiel is often mentioned. A correct reading of this passage is thus of great importance. 104

105

106

103

Jacobson 1981, 276-277; Eskola 2001, 87. In his paper in 1976, Holladay tried to show that Moses was presented as a Greek pocvxis and thus competes at Sinai with Apollo of Delphi for the position of God's spokesman (1976, 447-452). However, the Jewish background is much closer to Eze­ kiel's passage than the Greek. Holladay seems to have rejected his own proposal in his commentary (1989, 438-451), and it is also rejected by Collins (2000, 226). Jacobson has dealt with the passage in his commentary, as well as in the article "Mysticism and Apocalyptic in Ezekiel the Tragedian" (1981); in addition to his review, van der Horst has written on Jacobson's book in "Moses' Throne-Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist" (1984a). On the phrase, see above p. 6. The crucial difference is that the "new" school, repre­ sented, for instance, by Fossum and Hengel, traces the roots of early Christology to Jew­ ish sources and to the exaltation of several figures (see Fossum 1991, 645-666, and also Zeller 2001, 312-313). Fossum does not cite sources in his article, but Ezek. Trag. is certainly among them. Hengel (1995, 190-191) and Eskola (2001, 86-90) use Ezekiel's passage in their studies. The lively investigation of Christology has led to several vigor­ ous attempts to accurately define divinization; see Lierman 2004, 97-100. 104

105

106

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

83

The man on the throne is described with archaic words (<|>eoTa yEVVcaov Tiva). <J>cos is the archaic word for man, either in the general sense, in­ stead of avrjp (//. 17,377), or as the opposite of woman (Od. 6,129; Soph. Ant. 910) or the gods (upos Saipova (|>COTI jjdxeoSai, //. 17,98). But who is this c|>cos? Is he a human figure or God? Both explanations occur, and both include difficulties. If <|>cos, as is generally the case, refers to a man and not to God, it is not easy to decide who this human figure might be. Ezekiel is obviously not speaking about the Pharaoh. The Egyptian ruler never had a position such as the one now given to Moses. Moreover, Moses definitely does not take his new position by force (5E£I<5 5E \xo\ EVEUOE), either in the vision or in Raguel's interpretation. Moses himself is Ejj(t>o(3r|8£is when he has the vision, as well as when the miracles fill him with fear (v. 124-125). Could <))cos be an angelic or human figure, such as Abraham, Enoch or the Son of Man, who gives the throne to Moses of his own free will and in response to God's commandment? In this case, competition with other figures is not ruled out. Most scholars have taken c|>cos to mean God, which is not unproblematic, because this means that Israel's God is described as a man. Robertson chooses this alternative, and sees precisely here the significance of the pas­ sage. The most recent commentary by Holladay suggests a human figure, but Holladay, like Collins, is uncertain. However, Ezekiel uses a 107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

107

Against Holladay 1989, 442; however, he is very uncertain. Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 355) deals with the passage in her TRE-article and sees in the dream an underlined deification of Moses, but not in Raguel's interpretation of the dream, an underlined deification of Moses. Vogts translates v. 85 dpd ye [liyav xiv e^avaoTrjoeis Spdvov "Wahrlich, einen GroBen wirst du vom Thron vertreiben" (1983, 125) and takes e£avioTr||Ji to mean "expel" and not "raise up" or "erect". The text should be corrected (Spovou / Spdvov). On the history of the research see Holladay 1983, 447-448. Oberhansli-Widmer follows Vogt's translation and interprets Moses in the vi­ sion as God, but he interprets Raguel's words as referring to the Pharaoh and as a con­ cession to Ezekiel's Jewish audience (1994, 355). Even Holladay saw in his earlier arti­ cle a discrepancy between the dream and its interpretation by Raguel: Moses is presented in the vision as a king, but in the interpretation as a prophet (1976, 447-449). Jacobson (1981, 278-279) rejects Gutman's old view that <|>cds refers to Enoch. "What Ezekiel describes is simply a 4>cos, yet this <()cds is in some sense divine, most probably a surrogate for the Deity himself." In his commentary he is very careful and speaks only about the figure" (1983, 89-97). Hengel emphasizes that a competition between different figures cannot be demon­ strated (1995, 190-191). Meeks 1967, 148; van der Horst 1984, 363-365; Hengel 1995, 190-191; Borgen 1997, 39; Gruen 1998, 131; Eskola 2001, 87. Robertson 1985,812. Holladay 1989, 442. On Jacobson's view, see above n. 109. Collins 2002, 226. 108

109

110

111

112

113

114

84

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

very archaic formulation, and it may be related to the "The Ancient of Days", (ya* p™, Dan 7:9). This leads to the conclusion that the figure is indeed God himself giving Moses a new position. It is equal to the position God himself has in Aristobulus' Fr. 4,5. Scholars have collected abundant material paralleling this passage, both from Jewish and Greek sources, from dreams and visions. As noted above, Jacobson mainly deals with dreams and suggests that Ezekiel deliberately chose to present the passage as a dream, in refutation of the stories about Moses' deification, cosmic kingship and throne-mysticism. Van der Horst, on the contrary, concentrates precisely on the parallels in merkabah mysticism and on the biblical Ezekiel, and expands his study even to vi­ sions. A parallel is drawn between the dreams and the passage, especially as it is interpreted by Jacobson. Both the Jewish and the Greek traditions contain many important dreams, which may form the background to the play. On the other hand, many Jewish visions also offer close parallels to Ezekiel's passage. Ezek 1:1-28 is certainly a vision, and it has undoubtedly influenced Ezekiel's text. Jacobson's commentary, though, has juxtaposed the wrong alternatives. There is no need to separate dreams and visions as sharply as Jacobson does: The main point is the position of the figure before God, not the way in which the information is given to the narrator. Ps 110 is neither a dream nor a vision, but Jacobson also justifiably ob115

116

117

118

119

115

The first target of Jacobson's article (1981) is Goodenough's view that Ezekiel owes much to Orphic sources. However, he expands his criticism and also tries to separate Ezekiel's text from the "mysticism" presented in e.g. Philo and 1 En. (1981, 272-277). See van der Horst 1984, 363-369. Moreover, van der Horst does not rule out that the work is a pseudonym, used to conceal Ezekiel's interest in mysticism: "The fact that vv. 68-89 are so evidently based upon the first chapter of the biblical Ezekiel ... might raise the suspicion that the author has assumed this name as a pseudonym" (1984, 355-356). Lierman (2004, 91) pays rather much attention to the question of whether Moses should be considered divine or royal, but this distinction may miss the point; on the enthroned figures, who were neither royal nor divine, see below p. 85. Above all, Joseph's dream (Gen 36:7-11) is to be mentioned. Daniel sees in his dream / vision how "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat", and how e?3K "H approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every lan­ guage worshiped him" (Dan 7:9; 13-14). Dreams in early Judaism are collected in Lange (1997, 30-35). Dreams were not only common in Greek drama; precisely in Persians Queen Atossa is informed of the catastrophic defeat (Pers. 184). The interpretation given by Raguel resembles, as Jacobson notes, the Greek tradition more than the Jewish point-by-point interpretations. Jacobson also cites some dreams in Herodotus (1,107-108; 1,209; 5,56; 7,12; 7,19; Jacobson 1983, 92-96). This seems to have too great an influence on Gruen; see Gruen 1998, 128-135. 1 1 6

117

118

119

85

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

serves it. The main question is the position given to Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian, not the device Ezekiel used to tell the story to his audience. What is thus the role of Moses in Ezekiel's passage? In Jacobson's inter­ pretation it seems to be purely immanent: The passage is a dream since the Old Testament and the Greek models included dreams to announce asuccession. The view is hardly correct. Since Jacobson's commentary, religiohistorical study has advanced considerably regarding all the angelic and human beings with a special status before God and his throne in early Ju­ daism. Ezekiel is not the only source in which a man is allowed to see God's throne. The Old Testament provides a strong basis for the later tra­ dition (Exod 19:16-18; Isa 6; Ezek 1, ZXTDan 3:54-55). The theme was topical in early Jewish literature: God's throne was often seen in visions and several figures were connected with it. Enoch saw God enthroned in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 4:18-20) and he lived with God's angels dur­ ing six jubilees (Jub. 4:19). Many Old Testament heroes have their own thrones in heaven. The Messiah or messianic figures exalted are pre­ sented in the Dead Sea scrolls as well as in other texts. Moses, of course, is one of the exalted figures in early Judaism. Moses' role is thus purely immanent according to Jacobson's position, but other scholars have seen here a divine kingship or even divinization. Moses admittedly becomes a ruler with all the power given by God, but does Ezekiel present him as a godly figure? It was once common to suppose that the Greeks had taught the Jews to reinterpret their heroes as divine men, a blend of God and men. However, as Holladay in particular 121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

120

Jacobson 1983, 90-91. On recent developments, see Eskola 2001, 1-15. See Eskola 2001,65-71. Not only human beings, but also angels such as Jaoel in Apoc. Ab. 10:8 may have a special status. Enoch sits in 2 En. closer to God than Gabriel (J 24, 1) and is called the "lesser JHWH" later in 3 En., where he is transformed into "Metatron" (on Metatron, see Hengel 1995, 191-194). Adam and Abel have a throne (T. Abr. 11:9; 12:4; 13:2) as well as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (T Isaac 2:7) and Job (T. Job 33). On David's position, see Hengel 1995, 194196. The enigmatic "Elected One" in 1 En. 45:3; 51:1-3 is apparently a figure likened to the exalted patriarchs; see Eskola 2001, 91-96. The Scrolls often present God's throne and may give an extraordinary position to other figures; see 4Q491 fr. 11, col. I, 12-13 or lQSb 4, 25sqq (see Hengel 1995, 201203; Eskola 2001, 79-86). A Davidic Messiah sits on the throne in 4 Ezr. 12:32-33. See, for example, below on Philo p. 151-155 and on L.A.B p. 199-202. Moses has a throne only in Ezek. Trag. (see Hengel 1995, 196-201), but has perhaps a similar position in L.A.B. (see below p. 199-202). Borgen 1997, 38-39, Collins 2000a, 227. Van Horst 1984a, 27. 121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

86

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

has pointed out, the Jewish texts are extremely cautious and do not deify any man. It was assumed by scholars that Pentateuch opens the door for a reinterpretation, but this door, as far as we know, has never been used. Moses is called God in Exod 7 : 1 , but this idea is never developed in the Jewish literature. The Septuagint still translates literally ( 5 E 5 C G K C X O E 0 E 6 V Oapccco), but the Greek version of Ben Sira has changed the sense, and Philo has to explain the verse. Caution can also be discerned in Exagoge. The exalted figures, such as the Son of Man in Dan 7 , have a special status and "his dominion [becomes] identical to God's domin­ ion." Ezekiel's Moses has a high status, but there is no reason to speak about divinization. Moses' miracles, as retold in the play, do not empha­ size the role of the hero. It is Israel's God who is active and Moses is his agent. Admittedly, God gives his throne to Moses in Exagoge, but there is no sign of God withdrawing, and God's miracles and the dream fill Moses with the terror of God. Moreover, as Holladay notes, Moses is expressis verbis called B V T J T O S ( V . 1 0 2 ) . God is and remains the Lord in the world. Although it is not enough to characterize the Moses in Ezekiel's passage a king, an enthronization does not mean divinization. The later writers could describe several heavenly figures and still remain monotheists. The human features of the leader are apparent in the tragedy and they should not be overlooked. Ezekiel goes far but not as far as 3 En. calling Enoch "the lesser YHWH". 130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

/

Conclusion

Miracles play a notable role in Ezekiel's drama. The most surprising fea­ ture in Exagoge is that the drama very closely follows the biblical original. There was no tradition of quoting the holy texts exactly, as the rabbis did, and many devoted Jews allowed themselves a great deal of freedom. Eze­ kiel remains faithful to Exodus, although he has to write in iambic trimetres and not in prose. He is one of the few Jewish writers to put God in a dialogue with Moses as Exodus does. Many miracles were not suitable for dramatization, whether on the stage or only read. Ezekiel had to find a new 1 3 0

Holladay 1977,235-236. See above p. 25. See below p. 151-155. Hengel 1995, 185. Contrary to van der Horst 1984, 26-29. See Hengel's reservations, 1995, 191. Lierman (2004, 97-100) presents the recent attempts to define divinization in early Judaism. The terror after the dream is a common feature; see Holladay 1989, 446. Holladay 1989, 438. See Hengel 1995, 190-191; Eskola 2001, 89. 131

132

1 3 3

1 3 4

135

1 3 6

137

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

87

way of presenting the plagues and the miracle at the Red Sea. He tells of each one of the plagues through God's speech, and when he imitates Aes­ chylus and lets an Egyptian describe the catastrophe, he adds very few to­ tally new traits to the story. That a Hellenistic Jew followed so faithfully the original was perhaps a way to anticipate criticism against the holy his­ tory being put on the stage. Some details attest Ezekiel's acquaintance with the tradition. The Graeco-Roman world must have been well-known to him, and the descrip­ tion of Elim seems to be influenced by Greek Utopias. The Jewish tradi­ tion is strongly present. Although the details of Moses hitting the Red Sea and the importance of his rod have their roots in Exodus, Ezekiel owes to his predecessors the number of Egyptians (one million) and says that the Jews were unarmed. LXX allows such an interpretation, but the Hebrew text does not. It is interesting that although he follows LXX, avoiding the word nmsD in the theophany at Horeb, he freely chooses this word to de­ scribe the plagues. The pestilence does not seem to have been a sensitive theme for Ezekiel. Moses' role in the miracles is different from that of Exodus, and actually it varies in different fragments of the tragedy. As a whole, it is difficult to use Kahl's terminology, because the transformation from verse to tragedy has strongly influenced Ezekiel: Moses' role is reduced in the plagues told about in advance by God, but his role becomes more significant at the Red Sea. If we look over the technical devices that a tragedy required, we rec­ ognize an interesting duality. On the one hand, in his dream, Moses attains a position in heaven similar to what he and, for instance, Enoch, Abraham, Melchisedek and the Son of Man are given in some other texts; on the other hand, his human qualities are strongly underlined: Moses, for exam­ ple, is afraid of the snake at the burning bush and he is called S V T J T O S . God's role is generally emphasized slightly more than in the biblical origi­ nal, although Moses and God are both mentioned at the Red Sea and Moses hits the water with his rod. Ezekiel borrowed Aeschylus' device for turning a glorious siege into a tragedy. As the Athenians watched a Persian messenger tell about the ca­ tastrophe at Salamis, the Jews could watch an Egyptian messenger tell about the Pharaoh and his troops. Aeschylus glorified Athens, Ezekiel the Jews and their sacred history. It is an original form of interpretatio Graeca: Ezekiel knew the Gentile tradition well enough to be capable of using the form and language originally belonging to the cult of Dionysus. However, his main intention, which is also the function of the miracles told, is to retell the sacred history and glorify God's own people - possibly to a Jewish audience during the Passover in Alexandria. Unlike Ben Sira, Ezekiel does not directly connect miracles with an eschatological hope. There is no trace of a political adaptation of biblical

88

4. Dramatic Miracles: Ezekiel the Tragedian

miracles. However, the greatest miracles of the glorious past and Moses on the godly throne imply that also in his view God's miracles and protective power did not only belong to the past.

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography: Artapanus a. Introduction Many Jewish writers have been overlooked in the biblical exegesis Artapanus has won a special position in the studies of the History of the religions school. As an example of a "Hellenistic" or even "polytheistic" Jew, scholars have vividly discussed him and his texts. From the very be­ ginning, his Moses served as one of the best examples of a 0e7os avrjp in Hellenistic Jewish texts. Artapanus lived in Egypt, and according to some scholars, in the coun­ tryside rather than in Alexandria; but the arguments are not strong enough to exclude the capital. It is not easy to accurately define the time in which he wrote his work TTepi' louScucov or' louSa.Kc! , although the limits are easily drawn. In the same way as Ezekiel the Tragedian he uses the Septuagint and antedates Alexander Polyhistor, whose work is summarized by Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria. 1

2

3

4

1

5

The first to use Artapanus' fragments to this end was Otto Weinreich, a very influen­ tial early advocate of the theory. Weinreich labels Moses in Artapanus a 0eTos avrjp ("sein Moses is dem hellenistischen Ideal des 0eTos avrip, des philosophischen Kulturbringers und Thaumaturgen, weitgehend angenahert", 1929, 299). Moreover, the typical evolutionistic features of the early form of the theory, such as mana, are clearly present in Weinreich's study ("... paBt aber ebensowohl zu judischen wie gemein-antiken Vorstellungen von der Macht des Namens bzw. der Manabegabten 0e?oi avSpcoiroi und Propheten", 1929, 304). On the 0s?os avrjp-theory and mana see Koskenniemi (1998, 458-459). Georgi (1964, 148-151) and Walter (1980, 122) also use the concept. A critical survey of the studies using the 0e?os avrjp concept for Artapanus' text is found in Holla­ day 1977, 199-232. See Fraser 1972, 1.704; Holladay 1983, 189; Collins 2000a, 39. The main argument is that Artapanus' text does not look like other Jewish texts that we know from Alexandria. However, we have only a small selection of the rich literature produced by the Alexan­ drian Jews and it is not easy to determine what kind of text the diverse community could or could not produce. Eusebius mentions once the title' louSaiKoi (praep. ev. 9,18,1) and twice (praep. ev. 9,23; 9,27), as Clement (strom. 1,154,2), the title TTepi' louSaicov. There is no reason to suppose that there are two separate works; see Collins 1985, 889. See Collins 1985, 890. On Alexander Polyhistor see Montanari 1996, 478-479. 2

3

4

5

90

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

While some scholars have abandoned any attempts to date him more ac­ curately, others have proposed different decades. It is generally supposed that Artapanus wrote after the Maccabean revolt had provoked a propagandistic counter-attack by the Seleucids, and the growing anti-Judaism had allegedly led Artapanus to use his Moses as a shield to protect his people. It seems obvious that the anti-Jewish propaganda was generally known among the cultured Greeks soon after the Maccabean revolt, although Gruen recently questioned it, but it is not certain whether this struggle played a role in Artapanus' fragments or not. The role of Manetho, an Egyptian priest who wrote his work in the 3 century, has been confusing in modern research. The question of genre is exceptionally important, and it is not enough to merely use the phrase "rewritten Bible." The most extensive fragment deals with Moses, and has led some scholars to speak about a "Mosesromance". Moses, however, is not the only biblical hero in Artapanus. The work can hardly be labelled as a romance at all, since the first two 6

7

8

9

r d

10

11

12

6

Barclay (1992, 31) sees no possibility for a more accurate dating, nor does Schurer 3.1. (1973), 521-525. Holladay suggests the period about 180-145 (1983, 189-193) and Walter (1976, 124-125; 1989, 401-402) and Weber (2000, 60) about 100 BC. See, for example, Holladay 1977, 215-217; Charlesworth 1981, 283; Collins 1985, 892; Oberhansli-Widmer 1994, 353. See below p. 231. In his thorough analysis Tiede sees no signs of an attack against anti-Judaism in Ar­ tapanus' work. He is a rare exception among the scholars (Tiede 1972, 174-176), but his view is based on a solid study; see Koskenniemi 2002, 23. Manetho is mostly considered the first anti-Jewish writer to write a distorted version of the Exodus. According to Jacoby his criticism was not directed to the Jews, but the later anti-Jewish writers made use of his text in their propaganda. This view is rejected by Kasher (1985, 6.327-332), but Gruen justly says that applying the concept of antiJudaism to Manetho, whose story we only know through Josephus, grossly oversimplifies the matter (1998, 55-64). Although Manetho possibly identified Hyksos with Jews, he perhaps did not know the biblical story nor distort it (Collins 2000b, 61-62). According to Collins (2000b, 52-62), Artapanus refuted Manetho's account, but simultaneously used Manetho's story and Gentile legends, sometimes to invert and refute them. Among them, Walter 1980, 121; Schottroff 1983, 232. Fraser, strangely enough, calls it a "Life of Moses" (1972, 704), perhaps following Weinreich ("Artapanos gibt nicht so sehr einen 'Roman', obwohl er auch eine Liebesgeschichte hat, als vielmehr den erbaulichen (Bios eines 8e?os avrjp ..." 1929, 307). All the same Fraser concludes later: ".. it seems probable that the complete text contained a fairly full account of the story of the residence of the Children of Israel in Egypt with a few embellishments" (1972, 706). A romantic aretalogy is suggested by Hengel (1991,2.62), but the existence of the whole genre "aretalogy" is questionable today (Berger 1984b, esp. 1218-1231; on the discus­ sion, see Koskenniemi 1994, 103-114). The work is classified as a romance by Schwartz in his article in PRE (1895, 1306); Walter 1980, 120-123; and Holladay 1983, 190-191 (Holladay preferred 1977, 215 the characterisation "national romantic history"). 7

8

9

10

11

12

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

91

fragments deal with Abraham and Joseph, and it is difficult to find a model for a romance dealing with several heroes living in different centuries. The theme of the work apparently was "Jews in Egypt", because Abra­ ham's and Joseph's lives are studied from the Egyptian perspective, and that is precisely what the title ( louSatKcc) known to us implies. Given the romantic colouring the genre is thus historiography. We do not know how much the most extant third fragment dealing with Moses has been abridged by Polyhistor and Eusebius, but in oratio obliqua it gives a con­ tinuous description of Moses' life from his birth up until his being in the desert with the people, telling nothing about his death. Apparently it was one part of the nation's history and the first two fragments belonged to the earlier phase. Holladay is right in saying that the work is not the serious history of Herodotus or Thucydides, and Collins' words characterise the work well: 13

14

15

16

"... Artapanus is engaged in what might be called competitive historiography (with the understanding that historiography here can include a liberal component of legend and romance)." 17

No scholar denies nor can deny the syncretistic elements in Artapanus. Nevertheless the views of scholars differ essentially. Consequently, also the miracle-making Moses is understood in different ways. I have tried to deal with the theme in an article, which is also an attempt to study the so­ cial setting of Artapanus. The fragments are commented on by Holladay (1983), who already treated them extensively in 1977. Eve's remarks, 18

19

20

13

Walter supposes that the passages on Abraham and Josephus were rather a preface to Moses' life, which was told extensively (1980, 121-122). However, all we have of Ar­ tapanus is the six pages in Jacoby's edition. The work undoubtedly was larger, the pas­ sage on Moses as well as these on Abraham and Josephus. Artapanus' text is traditionally classified as history, as, for instance, in Schurer (German ed. 3 [1909], 477-480), and his fragments are edited in FrGrHist. Walter speculates on the possibility that Artapanus has given a report on Moses' death and assumption (1980, 136). Holladay 1983, 190. Collins 2000a, 39-40. Schurer 3.1.(1971), 521-525, Walter (1976, 123) and Holladay do not emphasize the syncretistic elements in Artapanus' fragments. Barclay (1992, 31), on the contrary, con­ siders him "a polytheistic Jew", and repeats this view still more strongly in 1996 ("Even as a Jew his is both a monotheist and a polytheist"). A good overview of the question and the older scholarship is in Holladay 1977, 199-205. "Greeks, Egyptians and Jews in the fragments of Artapanus." Theios aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: a Critique of the Use of this Category in New Testament Christology (1977); Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors vol 1 (1983). Holladay's translation is used in the present study. Other important studies are Tiede 1972, 146-177; Collins 1985, 889-903; Barclay 1992, 28-46; Mittmann-Richert 2001, 156-171; van Uytfanghe 2001, 144-145. See also my article mentioned above. 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

92

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

especially on the agent of the miracles, mean that many important ques­ tions have been asked recently, but the details and flow of the tradition have not been thoroughly investigated. 21

The first two fragments are short and do not ascribe miracles to Abraham or Joseph. Yet it is interesting that Abraham taught astrology to the Egyp­ tian king (Artap. 1,1). As mentioned above, even among the Gentiles Jews had a reputation for being great astrologers. The Jewish writers, however, had different opinions about these skills: Some of them excluded astrology from their portrayal of Abraham, but others proudly emphasized the fa­ ther's knowledge in this area. Artapanus saw no reason to exclude astrol­ ogy as one of Abraham's skills. Both Abraham and Joseph are presented as TTpcoxoi euprjTai of different things. This is a major tendency in Artapanus and will be treated in con­ nection with the third fragment. The passage dealing with Moses is of crucial importance regarding the miracles. 22

23

24

b. The leader is called Moses' early years (Exod 1:1-2:25) were often retold in early Judaism, and like many other writers, Artapanus adds an abundance of extra-biblical material presenting Moses' early years. Although he adds no miracles, some features essentially belong to the picture of the Lawgiver. In the Hebrew text God makes the houses for the midwives, while LXX has 'eTTOirjoav (Exod 1:21). £cooyove?T6 a u T o in Exod 1:22 is perhaps slightly more active than the Hebrew )vnn mrr^Di and allows the interpretation that the girls were intentionally raised to serve as concubines of the Egyptians (see p. 192-193). LXX thus does not seem to open new doors for new interpretations, when it renders Moses' early years up until he meets God at Horeb, but translates the passage quite literally.

Exodus treats Moses' early years with silence, but Artapanus has filled the gap with new material, elaborating the story with many new details. He partly follows a broad midrashic tradition, which is also present in Jub., Philo and L.A.B. Artapanus gives names to the persons in the biblical story: Merris, the Pharaoh's barren daughter, was betrothed to Chenephres. 25

2 1

2 2

2 3

See Eve 2002, 232-241. On Jub., see above p. 53. Ps. Eup. Fr. 1 and 2 (Euseb. praep.ev.

9,17,3-4 and 8; 9,18,2) and Siker 1987, 193197. Artap. 1-2. See below p. 93-94. On Jubilees, see Jub. 47, on Philo, below p. 110-111, on L.A.B., p. 192-193, and on Josephus, below p. 232-234. 2 4

2 5

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

93

Artapanus

The Greeks called Moses Musaeus, the teacher of Orpheus. The priests called him Hermes, because he interpreted (5ia T T I V . . . sppTiveiav, Artap. 3,6) their holy writings. He taught the Egyptians many useful skills, in­ cluding the making of ships and weapons and the study of philosophy. He divided the country into 36 nomes and apparently even founded pagan cults (Artap. 3,4). Artapanus even makes Moses a good Egyptian general and leader of the people. Chenephres envies Moses and sends a man named Chanethothes to kill him; however, warned by Aaron, Moses kills him in self-defence and flees to Arabia (Artap. 3,5-19). In Artapanus, the life of Moses is Hellenized from the very beginning. Sesostris, an Egyptian hero traditionally mentioned in the studies on Ar­ tapanus, is said to have divided the country into 36 nomes (Diod. 1,54,3), and even to have been a military genius. As in the short fragments deal­ ing with Abraham and Joseph, the entire civilisation is based on Jewish wisdom. The topos of irpcoxos euprjTrjs already present in Jub., is rarely as clear as here: Moses, like Abraham and Joseph, is the great wise one, the source of a very different kind of wisdom. Many Jewish texts claim that the wisdom of the great Greek philosophers was derived from Moses, and Philo proudly sets the Torah above all the wisdom in the world. According to him, God created the world and gave the Torah: that is the reason why the world is in harmony with the Torah and the Torah is in harmony with the world (Op. 1-3); consequently, he could respect all good philosophers. Artapanus, who wrote some time before Philo, clearly emphasizes Moses' person, but the attitude is the same. All real wisdom in the world springs from Judaism. Orpheus, Musaios and Hermes may all serve to this end. Eve considers the topos to be Artapanus' answer to the anti-Jewish propaganda, and that he was willing to show that the Jews were a blessing rather than a burden to Egypt. This is possible and even probable, but the common topos and the competitive character of Ar­ tapanus' work are sufficient explanations for his text. It is obvious that Artapanus generally tried to contemporize the biblical stories. As the Egyptian Jews were generally anxious to identify with the Greeks rather than the native Egyptians, Artapanus did not find fault with 26

27

28

19

30

31

32

2 6

See below p. 98. On Sesostris and Artapanus, see Tiede 1972, 153-155.167. Artapanus certainly was familiar with this kind of legendary material. However, Holladay points out that many features were commonplace and that only two of them are known to us solely through the Sesostris-legend and Artapanus (Holladay 1977, 210). See Diod. 1,53-56; Herodot 2,102-106 and Tiede 1972, 153 See above p. 53. On the topos in Artapanus, see Holladay 1977, 220-229. See e.g. Aristobulus,/r. 3-4; Jos. c. Ap 1,162-165; c. Ap. 2,257. Eve 2002, 233. 2 7

2 8

2 9

3 0

31

3 2

94

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

the Greeks. He did, however, criticize the Egyptians, especially their lead­ ers. The ordinary Egyptian people might be characterised as friendly, also in the miracle stories, but their leaders, who had Egyptian names, were not. Artapanus' version also reveals contacts with the Jewish midrashic tradi­ tions, which hardly started with him. Philo also knew the extra-biblical detail that the Pharaoh's daughter had been married for a long time and that the lack of an heir was a threat to the Pharaoh. Also, according to Josephus, Thermuthis (as he calls the Pharaoh's daughter) had no children of her own and was worried about the succession. These texts imply a strong tradition, in Egypt as well as in Palestine, although Artapanus calls the daughter Merris not Tharmuth / Thermuthis as the two Palestinian texts do (Jub. 47:5 and J o s e p h u s ^ . 2,219-213). Both Artapanus and Josephus make Moses an Egyptian general before his escape from Egypt (Ant. 2,238-253), and emphasize his military gen­ ius. It is understandable that Moses' military skills were generally high­ lighted, following the model of Hellenistic historiography, but the tradition of Moses as an Egyptian general is worth noting, especially because this detail also occurs in texts written in the Palestinian and Egyptian context. Everything shows that the Jewish tradition - Palestinian and Egyptian regarding the early years of Moses was merged with the Greco-Roman. 33

34

35

The theophany in Exod 3:1-4:17 is retold very briefly in the fragment we have from Artapanus. In Artapanus' account God does not call to Moses in the burning bush, but Moses prays to God for his oppressed people: "While he was making his appeal to God, suddenly, he says, fire appeared out of the earth, and it blazed even though there was neither wood nor any other kindling in the vicinity. Frightened at what happened, Moses fled but a divine voice spoke to him and told him to wage war against Egypt, and as soon as he had rescued the Jews, to return them to their ancient fatherland. Taking courage from this, he resolved to lead a fighting force against the Egyptians, but first he went to Aaron his brother" (Artap. 3,21-22). On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 3:1-4:17, see p. 66.

We have Artapanus' text in oratio obliqua, summarised by Alexander Polyhistor and after him Eusebius, which means that caution is necessary. Nevertheless, some comments are possible. In its present form the fragment does not tell about the dialogue between God and Moses. The burning bush and even the angel are absent, and God's answer to his prayer is only a "fire from the earth" (at<|)Vi5tcos 3 3

3 4

3 5

See Koskenniemi 2002. See below p. 111. On Josephus, see below p. 233.

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

4>rjaiv

Artapanus

95

yfjs nup ava^efjvcn, Kai T O U T O KaeoBai, {iXris \IT[TS ^uAetas ouarjs B V T C O T O T T C O , Artap. 3,21). The fragment tells nothing about the miracles, only about a divine voice. However, Moses throws his rod and it becomes a snake, as in the biblical original, but this happens only later in Egypt. It is virtually certain that Artapanus himself omitted the dialogues and the miracles, because God generally does not take part in the dialogues in Artapanus' fragments. God is also reduced to a divine voice in Artap. 3,36. The miracle is not rationalised; on the contrary, it is possibly greater than in Exod} and the tenor of the story, especially, must be observed. God does not try to persuade Moses, but he is the Lord, and Moses is frightened and flees. Artapanus offers only one variant of the bias to reduce God's anthropomorphic features and avoid putting him in a dialogue with men. The story has lost several important features because of the missing dia­ logues. There is no reluctant leader and there are no miracles persuading him to go to Egypt. Moses does not mention his lack of eloquence, he does not fear the mission and does not need miracles to legitimate himself in the presence of his own people. All these features are understandable, because Artapanus is keen to reduce Moses' human weaknesses, and his Moses needed no legitimation. However, Artapanus does not completely remove these weaknesses; he has preserved the central element of the theophany, namely that Moses was frightened and he describes how Moses flees the strange phenomenon. The journey to Egypt is changed into a military campaign (aTpocTeueiv E T T ' ATyuTTTov ... S U V C C J J I V T T O A E M I C C V ETrayEiv). Gruen takes Artapanus' text as a "direct testimony" of a Jewish tradition on mobilisation against Egypt, and even Holladay considers such a tradition possible. However, Artapanus lacks consistency, and instead of leading an army, Moses goes to the Pharaoh alone. It is true that Josephus also presents the military side of Moses' character, but his account is logical and consistent, while Ar­ tapanus has totally reshaped this sacred history. The journey to Egypt is a military campaign here but not later in the fragments. Artapanus allows himself great liberties, not only in the biblical text but also in terms of a logical plot. He apparently knew the tradition of Moses as an Egyptian general, but the campaign against Egypt is his own invention. EK TTJS

aXKr\s

Ttvos

36

1

38

39

40

3 6

3 7

3 8

3 9

4 0

See below p. 99. Walter 1980, 133. On Jub., see p. 61; on Philo, see p 112. Holladay 1977, 69-71; Gruen 1998, 65. On Josephus, see below p. 233.

96

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography: Artapanus

Some early Jewish texts clearly reduce Aaron's role and may not even mention him. He appears in Artapanus' text, and is given a new role in warning his brother; Moses is also sent to him as in the biblical original. Still Aaron and his miracles are left out in the latter parts of the story. Ar­ tapanus' Moses needs no help. 41

c. The return, plagues and freedom Moses thus is on a mission to aTpccxeueiv sir At'yuirTOV, but he goes to the ruler alone. When the Pharaoh hears Moses' claim he immediately im­ prisons the hero, but at night the doors of the prison open of their own ac­ cord, some of the guards die and others are overcome with sleep. Moses goes to the palace and wakens the Pharaoh: 42

"Startled at what happened, the king ordered Moses to declare the name of the god who had sent him. He did this scofmgly. Moses bent over and spoke into the king's ear, but when the king heard it, he fell over speechless. But Moses picked him up and he came back to life again. He wrote the name on a tablet and sealed it securely, but one of the priests who showed contempt for what was written on the tablet died in a convulsion" (Artap. 3,24-26).

The imprisonment of Moses is a nonbiblical but also an understandable addition: According to Exodus he had killed a man and escaped. This might be the reason Artapanus adds the story and consequently also the passage about the miraculous escape from prison. Josephus also says that the Pharaoh called Moses a criminal, which is apparently only an under­ standable midrashic feature giving no reason to suppose dependence on a written source. The escape from prison was once taken as a common motif in GraecoRoman literature. In Weinreich's view there are no parallels to the story in early Judaism, but there are in Greek literature, and he cites Euripides' Bacchae and Philostratus' VA 7,38; 8,30. However, Philostratus' work is late and when Holladay examines Weinreich's evidence for the view that Artapanus used Euripides' play he finds differences as well as similarities, and, justly, is not convinced. The passage is hardly borrowed from Eurip43

44

45

41

Jub. (see p. 55) and Philo (see below p. 128) reduce Aaron's role. On Josephus, see p. 235. As Collins noted (1985, 889), Clement's text seems to be a little less miraculous. However his summary is much shorter than that of Eusebius and there is no possibility for conclusions. See below p. 236. On the story, see Tiede 1972, 165-170. Weinreich 1929, 298-309. 4 2

4 3

4 4

4 5

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

97

Artapanus

ides. A closer parallel is Sesostris, who is saved; however, not from prison but from fire (Herod. 2,107, Diod. 1,57,7-8). Given Artapanus' fa­ miliarity with the Greek spirit, the Jewish tradition also offered parallels to the story. Isa 45:2 and Ps 107:10-14 should be noted as possible starting points of the tradition, although Weinreich did not observe them. Abra­ ham and his friends are freed in an extrabiblical addition effracto ostio carceris in L.A.B. 6,9. The History of the Rechabites, too, tells how the angel led the Rechabites out of prison: 47

48

"On the first night, a brilliant light shone upon us; and angels of God in glorious form appeared to us. And they led all of us out from prison and placed us in the air that is above the land" (Hist. Rech. 10:5).

Joseph and Aseneth explain that the Lord heard Aseneth's prayer when she was threatened by Dan, Gad, Naphtali and Asher, and "at once their swords fell from their hands on the ground and were reduced to ashes" (Jos. Asen. 27:11). A dislike of the native Egyptians is present here as it often is in Ar­ tapanus' fragments. The Pharaoh falling over speechless and the mocking priest punished severely are good examples of wicked men leading the simple people. The Egyptian names of the leaders generally helped Ar­ tapanus' readers to identify the opponents with the lower layers of the population in Ptolemaic Egypt, and when Artapanus mentions a priest showing contempt for Israel's religion he is able to attack the Egyptian religion with the help of the miracle stories. The two extra-biblical miracles in the Pharaoh's house, the death and re­ suscitation of the Pharaoh and the punishment of the priest (Artap. 3,2426) are interesting in many ways. We do not have many stories about the resuscitation of dead people in Graeco-Roman sources before 200 AD. Diogenes Laertius attributes such a miracle to Empedocles, quoting Heraclides Ponticus from the 4 century as his source (Diog. Laert. 8,67). Pliny (nat. 7,124; 26,12-15;, Aulus Cor­ nelius Celsus (2,6) and Apuleius (flor. 19) relate a miracle performed by the physician Asclepiades, but the man revived was apparently not dead. Apuleius tells another story about the prophet Zatchlas (metam. 2,28-29) and Lucian tells two (Alex. 24; Philops. 26). With the exception of the story about Empedocles all are from a markedly later period than those told by Artapanus. The Jewish texts, on the other hand, contain many, 49

th

50

4 6

4 7

4 8

4 9

5 0

See Holladay 1977, 205-209 and 1983, 240. See also Walter 1976, 122. See also the Christian stories in Acts 5:17-26; 12:6-17; 16:23-30. Weinreich 1929, 303; Holladay 1977, 205. See Koskenniemi 1994, 195-196. On Asclepiades, see Koskenniemi 1994, 210-215.

98

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

clearly older parallels. The stories about Elijah and Elisha, with all the later versions studied in the present work, offer material clearly closer to Artapanus than to the pagan literature. It is not surprising that precisely the name of Israel's God produces the great miracles. The holy name was perhaps the most important contribu­ tion of the Jews to the Mediterranean world and it was widely used in magic. Moses' magical skills were known to Pompeius Trogus (32,2,11), Pliny the Elder (nat. 30,2,11) and Numenius {fir. 18). Jews in general had a reputation for such skills in the view of Juvenalis (sat. 6,546-547) and Lucian (Alex. 32,13) and often in PGM. Josephus also connects the holy name with Moses' miracles in Egypt (Ant. 2,275-276). It obviously has magical power in Artapanus' extra-biblical additions. It is also worth noting that Israel's God is proudly placed above all other gods. Artapanus was not a strict monotheist, but his Moses serves "the Lord of the universe." Other peoples may serve other gods, and Artapanus may follow a tradition originating from Deut 4:19-20 and Deut 32:8, in which Moses seems to say that God has given to the Gentiles gods to serve. Israel, however, must serve only God and this religion is supreme. Artapanus' Judaism is by no means "fully compatible" with pagan relig­ ions, but the correct word to characterise his view is monolatry. It is important to note Moses' role in the miracles. A man is rarely an independent miracle-worker in the Jewish texts we have, but Artapanus' Moses is not merely a PNP, but an MNP - or should he be called a BNP? He neither prays to God nor uses a gesture, but acts alone. It means that the difficult question of context is raised again: Ben Sira could say that Joshua stopped the sun with his hand, but the immediate context as well as the entire book directed to a Jewish audience precludes any interpretation that Joshua acted alone. However, now the situation was drastically different, especially if Artapanus could find non-Jewish readers, as he clearly in­ tended, and also reach his goal. There was thus no Jewish analogia fidei to prevent interpretations not compatible with the Old Testament belief. Eve correctly notes that Artapanus does not say that God opens the doors or kills the mocking priest, but that the doors open auxopdxcos and the 51

52

53

54

5

56

57

58

51

On Elijah and Elisha in Ben Sira, see above p. 31-39; in the Lives of the Prophets, see p. 184-186; in Josephus, see p. 264-278. Tiede 1972, 169-170. The pivotal study is Gager's Moses in Graeco-Roman Paganism (\972) 134-161. See Holladay 1983, 240. On other magical features, see below p. 102. Barclay 1992, 31. See Koskenniemi 2002, 30-31. On this question, see Tiede 1972, 165; Eve 2002, 234-235. See above p. 30. See below p. 105. 5 2

9

53

5 4

55

5 6

5 7

5 8

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

99

Artapanus

holy name kills the priest. Different readers certainly interpreted the events in different ways, but what was Artapanus' own intention? Appar­ ently he, contrary to the translator of Ben Sira or even Philo, was not afraid that Moses would attain too high a position through his miracles. Eve is certainly right in calling it a hopeless task to try to extract from his frag­ ments a clearly defined theology of miracles or a reflected division of the roles of God and human agents. In any case, Artapanus does not com­ pletely remove Moses' human traits, as seen above: God is distant, but present with his power. 60

61

Artapanus returns to the biblical original after the story. Although the legitimisation before Israel's elders is left out (see Exod 4:27-4:31), Moses makes miracles at the Pharaoh's court. Artapanus omits the first failed visit (Exod. 5:1-23) or possibly replaces it with the story about imprisonement. Although this story immediately continues, it is obviously Artapanus' ver­ sion of the second visit (Exod. 6:28-7:13): "The king then told Moses to perform some sign for him. So Moses threw out the rod, which he held and made it a snake (pdpSov EKpaAovxcc 6<J>iv iroifjsai). Since everyone was terrified, he seized it by the tail, picked it up, and made it a rod again" (Artap. 3,27). Artapanus thus retells Exod 6:28-7:13. LXX translates O'na© Wxvctycovos in v. 6:30. The important words in v. 7:1 are translated literally runs ? crrfra ynru mo / ' l6ou Ss'ScoKCX oe 0E6V Oapaco). In v. 7:3 the words TinirnK are translated with TOC GX]\IB\(X \IOM and n3iD"n«'i with rd T S p a T a . In v. 7:9 the Hebrew text does not use the word on: as in 4:3, but has prfr, and even LXX has changed the word (not 6<(>is, but SpccKcov). Moses' op­ ponents are • DDn, D'DCDD and nacnn, and in LXX oo^iOTai and <|>ap|jaKoi and ETTOCOISOI (7:11). 1

,,

,

As seen above, LXX uses two different words for the snake: it is 6<|>is at Horeb and again on the river (Exod 7:15), but Spccxcov at the Pharaoh's court (Exod 7:9-10). Artapanus chooses the word oc|>is, although he omits all miracles in the theophany at Horeb. Another interesting feature is that the opponents are absent, although they soon appear. Artapanus does not differentiate between the second visit and the plagues (Exod 7:14- 2:36), but goes directly to the set of catastrophes: "He then stepped forward a few steps, struck the Nile with his rod, and the river flooded, inundating all of Egypt. It was from that time that the flooding of the Nile began. When the stagnant water began to smell, the animals in the river perished and the peoples as well began to die of thirst. Once these mighty wonders were accomplished, the king said

Eve 2002, 236. On Ben Sira see above p.23-26, on Philo see below p. 151-155. Eve 2002, 240.

100

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

that he would release the people after a month if Moses would restore the river to its banks. So Moses again struck the water with his rod and the waters subsided. When this had been done, the king summoned the priests who were over Memphis and threatened to kill them and destroy their temple unless they too performed some marvel­ lous act. Then, using charms and incantations, they made a serpent and changed the col­ our of the river. The king became arrogant as a result of such performances as this and consequently mistreated the Jews with every kind of vindictive chastisement" (Artap. 3,28-31). On a detailed comparison of plagues (Exod 7:14-12:36) in the Hebrew text and LXX, see p. 70. 62

The plague on the river is drastically changed in several ways. When Moses (not Aaron as in Exod 7 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) struck the Nile, the river flooded the first time and from that moment yearly. The stagnant water began to smell and the fish died, but the water did not become blood. That it changed col­ our when the Egyptians imitated Moses seems to be only a sign of Ar­ tapanus' inconsistency. When Artapanus says that this was the first time the river flooded, it is not "a rationalising touch", but a form of the topos mentioned above. Artapanus is eager to make all his heroes TrpcoTOi EuprjTCCt of various things. Now he also interprets the biblical miraclestory to serve the same end: Moses was the greatest of all and his ministry was a blessing to everyone who lived in Egypt. Artapanus may exaggerate the miraculous, but, when needed, he can also give a natural explanation if it shows Moses in a good light. The Pharaoh (unlike in Exodus) asks Moses to restore the river, which causes Moses to hit the river again. Artapanus thus freely elaborates on the biblical original, which tells nothing about the end of the plague. The opponents, previously absent, now appear, but it is not easy to de­ fine what kind of people they are. It is impossible to define the precise original sense of the Hebrew words, and although LXX translates faith­ fully the Hebrew text in Exod 7 : 1 1 , both of these versions may have dif­ ferent connotations and open to door for different interpretations, crcon is neutral and used in a positive sense, for example, in Gen 4 4 : 3 3 . ^ E D and its derivations are always pejorative and point to sorcery (for example, Exod 2 2 : 1 7 ) . Dftcnn is a loan word and used when speaking of Egyptian (also in Gen 4 1 : 8 ; 2 4 ) or Babylonian (Dan 1 : 2 0 ) soothsayer-priests and also of Daniel (Dan 4 : 6 ) . The words used in LXX are OO$\OT<X'\ and (|>ccp|JC(Kot and E T T C X O I S O I ; the first impression is a negative one, although Dan 4 : 9 63

64

65

66

6 2

See Holladay 1983,241. Collins notes the problem and suggests that Alexander Polyhistor has omitted the blood (1985, 902); however, Artapanus gives a totally new explanation for the plague. Eve 2002, 238. See above p. 93. See Houtman 1995, 372-373. 6 3

6 4

6 5

6 6

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

101

LXX uses the latter for Daniel. Dcnn, as used in the Hebrew text, can be understood to mean "priest", as Artapanus does, and Josephus agrees with him. Still, the "priests" were able to repeat Moses' miracles only by "us­ ing charms and incantations" - even that a nonbiblical addition. Appar­ ently, Artapanus had no clear idea of the opponents. He soon calls them physicians (Taxpoi), and he only uses the story to revile the Egyptian re­ ligion. A major difference in Artapanus - at least in our fragment - is that Aaron is absent and does not throw his rod before the Pharaoh. Moses alone performs the miracles, as he does in Ezekiel's verses. Although Aaron is mentioned earlier, as noted above, he no longer plays a role. Moses needs no helping hand and does not engage in dialogue with God, who is not even mentioned. The problem regarding the different interpreta­ tions is present again. A reader who is not aware of the biblical original undoubtedly considers Moses a powerful miracle-worker acting alone, in Kahl's terminology a BNP, but a Jew, knowing the biblical original in Exodus, had a more comprehensive view. 67

68

69

The success of the Egyptian priests leads the Pharaoh to use brutal vio­ lence against the Hebrews, and Artapanus goes on retelling the plagues: "When Moses saw this, he performed more signs and struck the ground with his rod and raised up a certain species of winged creatures to scourge the Egyptians. As a result of his actions, they all broke out in body sores. Even the physicians were unable to cure those who were suffering with the sores. Thus once again relief came to the Jews. Once again, Moses used his rod to raise up frogs as well as locusts and fleas. It was for this reason that the Egyptians set up a rod in every temple. They do the same with Isis be­ cause the earth is Isis and it produced these wonders when it was struck with the rod. Since the king persisted in playing the fool, Moses produced hail and earthquakes throughout the night so that those who fled the earthquakes perished in the hail and those who tried to avoid the hail were destroyed by the earthquakes. Also at that time all the houses and most of the temples collapsed. Finally, after enduring such calamities, the king released the Jews. After they had procured from the Egyptians many drinking ves­ sels as well as not a little clothing and numerous other treasures, they crossed the river towards Arabia. They covered a considerable distance and then came to the Red Sea in three days" (Artap. 3,28-33).

The extraordinarily interesting report shows several omissions, alterations and additions when compared with the text of Exodus. The order of the plagues is changed. The darkness and the death of the firstborn are totally omitted and replaced with new catastrophes. Artapanus 6 7

On Moses' opponents in Jub., see above p. 57; in Philo, below p. 113 and 134; in Josephus, below p. 236. On Artapanus and the Egyptian religion, see Koskenniemi 2002, 26-31. See above p. 96. 6 8

6 9

102

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography: Artapanus

obviously did not consider the plagues a fixed set of ten calamities. In any case, he links the plague of the river closely with the meeting in which Moses' rod is changed into a snake and calls both TspaTcx. Unlike in Exodus, there is no opportunity for the Pharaoh to free the people between the plagues, for which Artapanus uses the usual term oripeTa (Artap. 3,31). The next plague, "a certain species of winged crea­ tures" (£codv T I TTTrjvov), seems to be part of a broader tradition. Although Holladay is uncertain, this certainly is the fourth biblical plague, flies ( K U V O M U I C X , Exod 8:16-28). Philo also describes the flies in a manner that may help to understand Artapanus' words: They were not ordinary flies, and Artapanus tries to describe them. Moses' rod, carefully mentioned here as well, then calls forth the frogs (pccTpccxoi, as in Exod 7:27), locusts ( a K p i 5 a s , as in Exod 10:12) and fleas ( G K V ( ( | > E S , as in Exod 8:13). They seem to form a unity, but we do not know whether this is a result of epitomization. The hardened attitude of the Pharaoh is mentioned again before the following catastrophes, of hail (xcxAa^a, as in Exod 9:22) and earth­ quakes ( O E I O I J O U S ) . The earthquakes destroy "all the houses and most of the temples" and replace the firstborn's death as the final and decisive plague that ends the slavery (cf. Exod 11:1-2:36). The earthquakes might not be totally nonbiblical: they may be only an exaggeration of hail; or possibly Isa 25:2 and especially Ps 77:17-19 and Num 33:4 LXX form the background. Also, according to Jub., God took revenge on the Egyptian gods by burning them. Nonetheless, it is obvious that omitting the death of the firstborn (which according to speculation, is due to the redaction of Polyhistor) has not made the story much friendlier. That the physicians were unable to cure the people struck with the sores might be commonplace in the miracle stories, but it is evidence of what Jub. seemed to presume: the Egyptians tried to heal the people but they could not, and now Artapanus calls the opponents IccTpoi.The LXX <|>dp|jaKOi (Exod 7:11) may have been a bridge leading from the Hebrew D'SBDD to the common physicians. Although $dpMCCKOs in our sources is always a pejorative word, (|)dp(jaKov is ambiguous and means a 'poison' as well as a 'medicine'. It is still more interesting that several passages again show the influence of magic. Moses uses his rod to call forth and to end the flood (Artap. 70

71

72

73

74

75

7 0

TepccTcc occurs earlier, in Artap. 3,29. On the words, see above p. 74. Holladay 1983, 242. On Philo's interpretation, see below p. 117. See Walter 1980, 135; Holladay 1983, 242. Freudental (1875, 216) and Holladay (1983, 242) consider that Polyhistor has omit­ ted the death of the firstborn; however, it is by no means certain. See Holladay 1983,242. 71

72

73

7 4

75

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

103

3,28-30), to call "the winged creatures" (Artap. 3,31), frogs, locusts and fleas (Artap. 3,32), as well as to later open the way through the sea and to close it (Artap. 3,36-37). Much of the story is based on Exodus, but Ar­ tapanus has added magical elements. Moses' rod is not an ordinary rod in Exod either (Exod 4:17), and it already plays a role in Ezekiel's Exagoge. It is interesting to note that one of the features of the Egyptian religion that Artapanus disparaged was that they worshipped the rod in every temple, including the temple of Isis (Artap. 3,32). Yet, the instrument that struck Israel's enemies has even more magical power in Artapanus than in Eze­ kiel and gives the whole story a new tone. Magic is also present in other additions, i.e. that God's name whispered into the king's ear kills him immediately and that the priest who showed contempt for the name written on a tablet meets a painful death. On the other hand, Artapanus reveals his dual attitude to the power of magic: The priests, under Pharaoh's threat, had no other choice than to repeat Moses' miracles with their charms and incantations. Although it is true that Artapanus does not distinguish the arts of the priests from Moses' skills, it is obvious from Artapanus that Moses did not use the same methods - "my miracles and your magic" is Artapanus' maxim. It was not only the lower echelons of the population that were unable to draw the line between magic that was acceptable and that which was not; the same difficulty could be found at the top of Graeco-Roman society, and it was by no means a strange feature in early Judaism. 76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

d. The Red Sea and the desert We have only a few lines summarising the rest of Artapanus' work. There is a short narrative of the miracle at the Red Sea and a still shorter one on the journey in the desert. See above p. 75. See Koskenniemi 2002, 26-31. It is not obvious how Artapanus' passage should be understood: Does he attribute a role to Isis, i.e. the earth, which produces the marvels (see Eve 2002, 239-240)? Appar­ ently this is only one of several comical misinterpretations of the Egyptians. The sacred animals, which occur also in Artap. 3,35 and which are ridiculed by the Jews as well as by the Romans, belong to this context; see Koskenniemi 2002, 28. On Moses' rod in Artapanus, see Tiede 1972, 170-174. Tiede 1972, 172; Eve 2002, 238. It is possible that Artapanus here makes a counter-attack on people who considered Moses a sorcerer (see Holladay 1983, 241). See Koskenniemi 1994, 224-226. Josephus proudly presents Solomon as a master of these arts and reveals a broader tradition; see below p. 259. 7 7

7 8

7 9

8 0

81

8 2

8 3

104

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see above p. 74.

Artapanus presents two different traditions regarding the miraculous es­ cape: "Now the Memphians claim that Moses, being familiar with the countryside, watched for the ebb tide, then led the multitudes through the dry part of the sea. The Heliopolitans, on the other hand, claim that the king rushed down on them with full force, carrying with them all the sacred animals because the Jews were crossing the sea, having taken the possessions of the Egyptians" (Artap. 3,35).

A superficial reading could give reason to think that Artapanus wanted to rationalise the biblical miracle-story and was trying to remove an obstacle. Many scholars have explained the stories of several Jewish writers in this way, but, to my knowledge, this explanation has been used very rarely for Artapanus, who served as an example of a Jew who loved "Hellenistic" miracles. Nevertheless, the passage in Artapanus is a good example of how inadequate such an explanation can be. As most of the Jewish writers, he retold many biblical miracles and even exaggerated them, and there is no reason to think that he would want to make the miracle at the Red Sea more credible through rationalisation. He hardly uses the literary technique of distancing himself from the miraculous story, but rather makes a su­ perficial attempt to transform Exodus into a sort of romantic history. One example of this is that the booty taken from Egypt is now the reason why the Pharaoh pursued the Hebrews. It also explains why the way to Egypt is changed in Artap. 3,22 into a military campaign, although the reinterpre­ tation contradicts itself later in the fragment. Artapanus allows himself plenty of freedom and is not always consistent. Artapanus goes on with the "Heliopolitan" tradition: 84

85

86

87

"The divine voice came to Moses instructing him to strike the sea with his rod and divide it. When Moses heard this, he touched the water lightly with his rod and the stream di­ vided, and the multitude passed through the dry channel. When the Egyptians went in together in hot pursuit, he says that a fire blazed in front of them, and the sea again flooded their path. All the Egyptians were consumed by fire and the flood" (Artap. 3,3637).

Georgi (1964, 155) however, considers the passage a rationalisation. According to him, Hellenistic Jewish writers connected the miracle and its rationalisation "in gleichem Atemzug." The view is hardly correct concerning Artapanus. On Philo, see below p. 110; on Josephus p. 228. The technique was admittedly common as of Herodotus (hist. 2,3-4); see Tiede 1972, 135, Walter 1976, 135 and Holladay 1983, 243. There might be echoes of several traditions here. On the one hand, the booty taken from Egypt (Exod 11:2-3) was very important for the writer of Jub. (see Jub. 48:19). On the other hand, the anti-Jewish tradition that labelled the Jews as thieves may have influ­ enced the story (Fraser 1972, 705; see also below p. 231-232). 8 5

8 6

8 7

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

105

The passage epitomises quite faithfully the biblical original. In any case, some features are hardly fortuitous. It is not surprising that the rod is men­ tioned again. Unlike the story in Exod 14, Moses hits the sea with the rod and the water is divided immediately. Yet, Artapanus does not stray far from the biblical story and the changes are traditional. The flood com­ bined with fire is a further step away from Exod 14:24. It is understandable that there is no desperation of the people as in Exod. 14:10-14, no quarrel against the leader and no dialogue between God and Moses. God is re­ duced to a "divine voice", as already in the theophany in Artap. 3,21. Ar­ tapanus cannot be characterised as a strict monotheist. He could retell freely the sacred history, but he was deeply rooted in the early Jewish tra­ dition of honourably reducing the anthropomorphic features of Israel's 88

The way in the desert is described in only a few words in our fragments. 90

"After the Jews had escaped the danger, they spent forty years in the desert. Mean­ while, God showered upon them meal similar in texture to rolled millet resembling the colour of snow" (Artap. 3,38).

There are few words, allowing only a few conclusions; nevertheless the key passage reveals Artapanus' intended audience. He did not assume that his readers knew the miracle of manna (Exod 16:1-36; Num 11:4-36) but tried to describe it in his own words ((SpEXOvros C C U T O ? S T O U 0 E O U Kpipvov opoiov E X U J J C O X ° TrccpociTArjcHov Tr]v x p o a v ) . It is evidently an attempt to find a broad audience in addition to those who had learned their lessons well. He also reached his goal, because his fragments are summarised by Alexander Polyhistor, a pagan author. I

v

i

e. Conclusion Artapanus took great liberties in his retelling of the biblical stories. He (as well as many later Jewish writers) did not hesitate to give a new shape to the stories of exodus and Moses. This gives us an opportunity to study Ar­ tapanus' own views on miracles and to inquire the function of the miracles.

8 8

8 9

On Ezekiel, see above p. 75, on Philo, see below p. 119, on Josephus, see p. 241 On Jub., see above p. 61, on Philo, see p. 112, on L.A.B., see p. 194, on Josephus, p.

234. 9 0

A manuscript reads TpiaKOVxa and was preferred by Freudenthal as lectio difficilior; see Holladay 1983, 243. If the reading is correct it would be evidence that Artapanus could make mistakes in retelling the biblical story.

106

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

A feature which should not be overlooked is Moses' role in the miracles, and, moreover, on two levels. Aaron's role is almost omitted, and even God is only rarely mentioned. In the biblical Exodus it is God who is in control. Moses and Aaron are only his servants, and sometimes totally bewildered. Artapanus has re­ duced God to a "divine voice" (Artap. 3 , 2 1 ; 3 , 3 6 ) . But although Artapa­ nus' Moses is more assured as to what to do than the occasionally helpless leader in Exodus, the fact that God's role as a speaking and guiding agent has been reduced to a minimum has not reduced his power and sover­ eignty, but rather increased it. God does not discuss things with men, but wields authority through his sovereign power. He is 6 rfjs o'lKouMewis S E O T T O T T I S ( 3 , 2 2 ) , who (apparently) opens the doors of the prison ( 3 , 2 3 ) and whose name, whispered into an ear, is enough to kill the Pharaoh ( 3 , 2 5 ) . Artapanus, thus, added magical features to the stories, hardly re­ flecting on the line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of magic. God is now at distance and, as noted in the previous chapter, it has neces­ sarily led to a redistribution of the roles in the stories. The question is, who was Artapanus' intended audience, and how did it understand his work? A reader well aware of the biblical stories certainly saw the new version in the perspective of the biblical original, but Artapanus obviously wrote his work for people not knowing the original stories. These readers undoubt­ edly interpreted Moses as a powerful, independent miracle-worker, in Kahl's terminology a BNP, occasionally led by a divine voice. It is not easy to evaluate the impact Artapanus had on the Gentile audience, but the fact that the stories about Moses were well-known among the cultivated pagans implies that he and the writers of his art did have readers, and we owe the fragments of his work to Alexander Polyhistor. Some details attest that Artapanus was also aware of both the GraecoRoman and the Jewish traditions. At times he seems to follow the stories of Sesostris, the Egyptian hero, but the most important feature is that the topos of Trpcoros euprjTrjs has a marked role in Artapanus' texts. What his work shows is an attempt to pre­ sent men who were wiser, greater and mightier than the Greek heroes. Unlike Philo, the field on which he tried to compete with the pagans was not that of deep philosophy. He was familiar with popular belief and daily Egyptian life. It is understandable that the yearly flood in his view is a miracle made by Moses. Some details attest that Artapanus was also familiar with the Jewish tra­ dition. The name of Tharmuth is traditional, and Moses' rod has a special position in his work as elsewhere in early Judaism. The opponents are characterised as Egyptian priests, as in Josephus, and because they are

5. Miracles in Popular Historiography:

Artapanus

107

called physicians, Artapanus apparently shared with Jub. the view that they tried to heal the victims of the plagues. It is not easy to find specific contemporizations in the miracle stories, but a general view presents itself. As most of the Jewish writers in Egypt, Ar­ tapanus did not appreciate native Egyptians and their culture and religion, but sought rather the favour of the Greeks. The way in which Artapanus writes about the Egyptians struck by plagues and killed at the Red Sea is compatible with this view. As mentioned, many scholars have assumed that Artapanus tried to use Moses as a shield against anti-Jewish attacks. Some degree of scepticism towards this view is only reasonable. Certainly the work attests the Jewish tendency to identify more with the Greeks than the Egyptians, and this can be regarded as an apology. However, the main function accorded to the miracles in this work of "competitive historiography" is simple to discern. A free and proud retelling of Israel's history, in which one's hero beats every opponent, can be entertaining.

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo a. Introduction We know Ezekiel and Artapanus only from scarce fragments of their works, but happily we need not study every Jew from some few scant pages nor has every Jewish writer been forgotten. Philo's works give us the opportunity to study his thoughts on the role of the biblical miracleworkers, the problem being the wide scope of his production. No Jewish writer knew the Greek culture as Philo did. Born about 20-10 BC he received an excellent education in Alexandria, the centre of the learned world. He saw the pogroms in the Egyptian city and took part in a delegation to Caligula in 40 AD. The latest date of his life, mentioned in his works, seems to be the year 47. 1

Philo's way of dealing with the biblical texts both literally and allegorically has often been investigated. Dawson formulates well the function of Philo's work: 2

"In contrast to modern historical-critical exegesis of scripture, which begins with the assumption that the ancient communities that produced the text were radically different from our own, for Philo exegesis of the Pentateuch was first of all commentary on the actual history of the community to which he belonged." 3

Similarly, Peder Borgen named his important book Philo of Alexandria. An exegete for his time, expressing the growing interest in the way Philo adapts the biblical stories for his contemporary readers. This question is asked concerning the literal as well as the allegorical interpretation. Although Philo's exegetical method is well researched, his method of retelling the biblical miracles is usually only discussed in passing by scholars. Some details, however, have been investigated thoroughly, as Borgen has done in his study of manna, and some individual miracle sto4

1

He may be pointing to the horse race mentioned by Pliny (nat. 8,160) in the year 47 (Borgen 1997, 14-26; Mondesert 1999, 878-879). On Philo's exegetical tradition, see esp. Alexandre 1986, 13-17 and Borgen 1997. On the allegorical method, see below p. 129-131. Dawson 1992, 116. Borgen, Bread from Heaven, 1965. 2

3

4

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

109

ries, but not necessarily Moses' miracles, are included in studies concern­ ing other themes that have been the subject of intensive investigation. Since Meeks (1976), some scholars have suggested that Philo may have also used these stories to illuminate his own times. In his chapter dealing with Philo, Eve does not present a detailed study of the stories about Moses, nor does he inquire whether Philo tried to adapt the stories. He also does not investigate the tradition and the details known to Philo, and chooses to almost completely leave out the allegorical interpretation. Philo's production nearly totally lacks the biblical miracle-workers, the main reason being that the production known to us is basically a commen­ tary on the Pentateuch, and there were not many biblical miracle-workers to leave out. He deals almost exclusively with the stories about Moses, as well as those about Aaron, but Joshua's role is markedly diminished, and includes no miracles. Is the Pentateuch, however, the sole reason for the lack of miracle stories in Philo's works? He does not, as does Pseudo-Philo in L.A.B., select new stories from the tradition about completely new mira­ cle-workers. He may retell the life of Abraham quite freely and in new details, but in retelling Gen 12, the role he gives to Abraham is not the same as in Genesis Apocryphon. He tells no new stories about miracles, either Abraham's or the prophets'. Rare exceptions may occur. A story about Elijah is interpreted allegorically: The woman was a widow, which means that she was free from "passions which corrupt and maltreat the mind" and she remembers her sins (cf. 1 Kgs 17:8) as every mind that is on the way to be widowed and empty of evil (1 Kgs 17, Deus 136-138). The prophet had a higher revelation and was taken to Heaven as Enoch (QG 1,86). Otherwise the miracles of the biblical heroes are not retold or rein­ terpreted, only left out. Did he find the miracles problematic? Actually, with only a few exceptions, the early rabbis were also reluctant to tell about man-made miracles, or even the biblical miracles. According to many scholars, the Jews were not keen to retell miracles, because they feared the pagans would mock them for being too credulous. This is a 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

5

On Moses as "divine man", see below p. 151-155. Eve 2002, 53-85. On Moses in Philo, see Meeks 1967, 100-131; Tiede 1972, 101-137; Holladay 1977, 103-198; Schottroff 1983, 229-231; Beegle 1992, 916; Barclay 1992, 37-40; OberhansliWidmer 1994, 350. See Feldman 2003, 165-178. See e.g. Abr. 70-71; 95-96. On astrology in Philo, see below p. 111. Cf. QE 2,3, where Philo interprets Exod 22:22 in this way. A special case for Philo, as for some other Jewish writers, is Balaam and his proph­ ecy; see p. 146 sq. See Becker 2002, 271-289. 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

110

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

common way to interpret Josephus, but it also occurs in the studies con­ cerning Philo. Nevertheless, Philo retells the biblical stories about Moses so often and extensively, interpreting them sometimes literally, sometimes allegorically, that they offer the opportunity to study the role of miracles in Philo's thought. 15

b. The literal interpretation of the miracle stories Philo is famous for his allegorical interpretation, but it is interesting to see that he also can treat the biblical miracle stories very literally, especially, but not exclusively, in Vita Mosis, where he retells the life of the hero. Vita Mosis belongs to the wide category of "rewritten Bible", and can be likened to Hellenistic biographies. Who its supposed readers were has long been debated, but it seems to be addressed partly to sympathetic Gentiles, and the work is conceived by the author as a sort of introduction to Juda­ ism. Borgen points to Mos. 2,43-44, and supposes that the work was writ­ ten before the pogroms and that Philo expected the Gentiles to accept the Torah as their Law. It does not mean that the work was not directed to the Jews; on the contrary, his own nation was meant to be the main audi­ ence, but Philo apparently used a doubled strategy. Philo is keen to pre­ sent Egypt to his readers as though the country and its climate were unfa­ miliar (for example, Mos. 1,5-7). It may demonstrate that he also intended this work to be read outside of Egypt. 16

17

18

19

20

21

The events of Moses' birth (Exod 1:1-2:25) are embellished with some new details: Philo clearly knows more than he tells. 22

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see above p. 92.

14

See p. 228. Georgi applies the interpretation to Artapanus' fragments; see above p. 104. See below p. 110. The way out of Egypt is briefly summarised in Hypoth. 6,2-4. The details of the bib­ lical original often occur and they are mentioned below. See Tiede 1972, 106. Mondesert 1999, 880. Borgen 1987, 19. "Moses may be praised by Philo as much to encourage the cultured Jew who tends to be embarrassed of his tradition as to win respect from the non-Jew" (Tiede 1972, 107); see also Dawson 1992, 122. David M. Hay (1991, 52) plausibly supposes that Philo, knowing that Plato, among others, had been read for centuries, expected or at least hoped for a wide and continuing audience. Philo characterises only briefly Moses' parents and family (Mos. 1,7-12). 15

16

17

18

19

2 0

21

2 2

111

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

An extra-biblical miraculous detail in Philo is that the girl is Pharaoh's "only, cherished daughter", who had been married for a considerable time but had never borne a child, and her father's kingdom was under threat of falling into the hands of strangers (Mos. 1,13). Also, Artapanus and Josephus say that the princess was barren. She had artificially enlarged the shape of her womb to make Moses pass as her real child and not a foundling (Mos. 1,19). Moses is, of course, a gifted child and soon exceeds his teachers from Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea and Greece (Mos. l,19-33). It is interesting that Moses is a master in Chaldean as well as in Egyptian astrology (Mos. l,23-24). When he kills the cruel Egyptian he is not a vile criminal, but a ruler-to-be and a political threat allegedly seeking the kingship (Mos. 1,45-46). Moses is a master in everything, also in manag­ ing flocks, which, under him, increase even in difficult regions (Mos. 1,6364). All this is told to glorify the legislator, sometimes straining the lim­ its of human power. 23

24

25

26

27

The meeting with God at Horeb (Exod 3:1-4:17) is presented extensively Mos. 1,65-84). On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 3:1-4:17, see above p. 66.

Philo describes the theophany in the bush, which is called T O TepdoTiov and TE0au|jaToupyr|(j8Vov (Mos. 1,71) and interprets it allegorically. He paraphrases the miracles God showed to Moses (arj|je?a, Mos. 1,77; 6au|jaTOUpyrj|jaTa, Mos. 1,71; 1,82), telling all three slightly more ex­ tensively than in Exodus, but without any significant alterations other than dramatisation (Mos. 1,77-81). Unlike Josephus, Philo does not tell about 28

23

29

See above p. 92 and below p. 233. Artapanus gives Moses teachers from different nations and lets him be a master of all of them; see p. 93. Philo does not completely reject astrology, but has strong reservations; see esp. Op. 58-60, Mig. 178-179; Abr. 82-83. According to Philo, Abraham could only see the stars and the rest of the visible world, but he realised the error: things created have no capacity to control the future. It is the invisible world that is real; the visible is not (see Sandmel 1984, 18). On CnXos in Philo, see Seland 2002, 460. Meeks (1976, 50) notes the topos that the king is shepherd of his people (esp. in Mos. 1,62). "In the midst of the flame was a form of the fairest beauty, unlike any visible object, an image supremely divine in appearance, refulgent with a light brighter than the light of fire. It might be supposed that this was the image of him that is; but let us rather call it an angel or herald, since, with a silence that spoke more clearly than speech, it employed as it were the miracle of sight to herald future events" (Mos. 1,66). See below p. 133. 24

25

26

27

28

29

112

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

the water-miracle at the theophany, but that God only promises the mira­ cle. Moses' hand is not leprous but AeuKOTepcc x»ovos (Mos 1,79): Philo either avoids the word Aoipos, or more probably only follows LXX. The snake-miracle (Philo uses the word SpbcKcov, Mos. 1,77) is repeated a little later when Moses starts his mission, but now God and Moses are alone together "like pupil and master", and during the lesson Moses learns to make the miracle by putting his hand to his bosom not once but twice to learn how to make the miracle. It is important to note that Philo does not say that Moses saw God, but a light, r\v av T I S uTTETOTTrioev e'iKova T O U O V T O S el veer KaAs(a0co 5e ayyeAos, and God speaks to Moses 5ia XP^l^M^Sv. In Exod 33:11 God speaks with Moses D'ErtK cms, and in Exod 3:4 it is God himself in both the Hebrew text and the LXX. Philo's version, however, is different. In Exod 3:2 it is, admittedly, God's angel and not God himself that calls Moses, but Philo has chosen the angel and removed God. Jub. introduces the Angel of Presence and Artapanus reduces God to a "divine voice." In Philo's theology God is not anthropomorphic and he is not susceptible to passion in any form. He denies categorically in QG 2,62 that man was created in the image of the Father of Universe, but of his logos. Since it is impossible for a man to see God, he sends the powers which are indica­ tive of his essence (QE 2,37; 2,47). The device is different, but the theol­ ogy is the same as in Jub. and Artapanus. The first known representative of the idea is Aristobulus: The anthropomorphic features of the Old Testa­ ment God are honourably reduced. Moses is reluctant, as in Exodus, but the reasons for the missing elo­ quence are new and Philo relates many of them: Firstly, the reason is given in Mos. 1,83-84: all human eloquence is, of course, dumbness compared with God's, and "the brother" (Aaron is not named, either here or in the rest of stories) is thus not more eloquent than Moses but his interpreter, ep|jr|V6\JS (Mos. 1,83-84). Secondly, Philo identifies eloquence with skills not suitable for a righteous man, which is clear when he deals with Moses' opponents. The third reason stems from Philo's way to deal with the 30

31

32

33

34

35

36

30

See above p. 235. On Ezek. Trag., see p. 72; on Josephus, see p. 235. On Philo and the pestilence in Egypt, see below p. 117. Philo briefly mentions the three miracles also in Det. 177, when speaking about the orjiJeTov God set to Cain. Usually God shows the nature of each object by means of signs (5id OTjpeiou) as in the case of Egypt. Philo thus plays with two different senses of 31

32

cmjjetov. 33

34

35

36

See especially Deus 51-68 and the comments of Williamson 1989, 74-85. See Helleman 1990, 60. On Aristobulus and the tradition preceding Philo, see Borgen 1987, 13-14. See below p. 134.

113

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

story allegorically. Whatever the explanation, it is obvious that the liter­ ate Philo could not consider Moses' lack of eloquence as comparable to human beings, especially when presenting him to a Gentile audience. 38

Philo omits the problematic story about Sippora and God willing to kill Moses (Exod 4:24-26). The miracles in the presence of the elders of Israel (Exod 4:30) are retold, but transferred to the phase after the growing op­ pression (Mos. 1,90). Philo obviously does not exonerate his people, be­ cause the elders' disbelief is told in Mos. 1,74. The snake-miracle is retold in Moses' encounter with the Egyptians (Exod 6:28-7:13; Mos. 1,91-94). On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 6:28-7:13, see above p. 99.

In Philo's text the short notes in Exodus have grown into stories: The event of "Moses' brother" waving his staff conspicuously ( K C C T a a e i o a s [id\a ETTiSeiKTiKcos) and flinging it on the ground is described dramatically. The most interesting detail, however, is not the dramatisation but the way Philo uses the story to berate his philosophical opponents. Philo calls the sorcer­ ers oofyiOTCXi and M^yoi, simultaneously attacking both the "sophists" and magicians: Aaron's miracle illustrates that it was not an effect of a v 8 p c o T r c o v ao<|>ia|jaTa KCCI Te'xvas (Mos. 1,94), as the tricks of the sor­ cerers were. Philo often equates the magicians with his philosophical op­ ponents (as in Migr. 82-85), using the biblical story either literally or alle­ gorically to do so. He also equates "the sins of the Amorites" with sophis­ tical arguments (Her. 304). The "ways of the Amorites" referred later to magic and Philo already seems to make the connection here. As seen above, Moses' Egyptian opponents played very different roles in early Judaism, and Exod 7:11 is open to several interpretations: craDn / ao(]>iaTai, C P S E D D / 4>ap|jaKo{ and crDcnn / 6 T T C C O I 5 O I can evoke various connotations. Philo does not consider the men priests, but chooses the worst alternative he knows, and likens them to his philosophical oppo­ nents, aoiaTai, and the magicians he despised. The philosophical oppo­ nents are often attacked in the allegorical interpretation. Philo's view on magic is ambiguous, as so often in classical antiquity, and he differentiates 39

40

41

42

See above p. 133. On Philo's view on rhetorics, see Alexandre 1986, 13-27. See below p. 134. On "the ways of the Amorites", see below p. 214. On Moses' opponents in Jub., see above p. 57; in Artapanus, below p. 100; in Josephus, below p. 236. On the allegorical interpretation of the opponents, see above p. 134. 3 8

3 9

4 0

41

4 2

114

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

between two forms of magic: The "true magic" (x\ ocATi0r|s ijayiKrj), which is acceptable, studies nature scientifically and is practised by the kings of Persia. Another art of magic, KCCKOTEXVICC, the way of charlatans and lower people, deals with charms and incantations. This is rejected by Philo (Spec. 3,100-103; Prob. 74), who actually considers it a religious duty to kill those who practice it. 43

Philo retells the ten plagues (Exod 7:14-12:36) with many new details.

44

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 7:14-12:36, see above p. 70.

Philo gives two different principles so important to him that they change the biblical order of the plagues. These are the idea of the four elements and different agents performing the miracles. Firstly, the Greek theory of the elements is readily adopted to interpret the holy writings. Philo sees the four elements in the war against the Egyptians and divides the plagues to correspond to each of them. The second reason for changing the order is the division between the different agents and their interaction with the dif­ ferent elements. The first three plagues belonged to the denser elements, earth and water, and were committed to "the brother of Moses"; the second set of three belonged to air and fire, and were given to Moses alone; the seventh belonged to both Moses and Aaron, and the last three God re­ served for himself. All the plagues have new features. According to Philo, water (Exod 7:14-24; Mos. 1,98-101) is the first tar­ get, because the Egyptians believe it to be the original source of All. The Pharaoh and the Egyptian magicians are removed from the exaggerated story. The river is afflicted immediately "from Ethiopia to the sea". Not only the fishes but also a great multitude of men die, and the new wells dug by the Egyptians along the Nile (Exod 7:24), are filled with blood (CUMCC, as in LXX). Like Artapanus, Philo completes the story by ending the plague. The Egyptians (not the Pharaoh as in Artapanus) ask Moses 45

46

4 3

See Seland 2002, 460 On the plagues, see Tiede 1972, 134-135. They are mentioned briefly in Mut. 125. Philo gives the division in Mos. 1,96-97 and repeats it often in Mos. 1,96-146. The theory of the elements (OTOIXETCX) was originally created by the Jonian monists. a x o i x s T a was "That out which everything is made, that from which the things first came" (Arist. metaph. 983b,7). Thales gave this status to water, Anaximenes to air, Anaximander to TO aireipov. The theory of four elements (pi^couaTa) comes from Empedocles. It had become the standard view, accepted by monistic, as well as dualistic, philosophers prior to Philo (on the theory see Kraft 1997, 978-980). The theory was commonplace in early Judaism and occurs, for example, in Wis 16:16-17, in which the plagues in Egypt are described. Philo uses the theory often (e.g. Op. 52; 131, Her. 152153), but is also critical and warns of deifying the elements (see Decal. 52-55; Cont. 3-6; Det. 8; Plant. 10). 4 4

4 5

4 6

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

115

and "his brother" to end the disaster. Philo does not say here that the water was good to the Hebrews, but he mentions it a little later (Mos. 1,144), and the same idea also occurs in Josephus andDeut. R. 3:8. The plague of frogs (PccTpocxoi, as in Exod 7:26-8:11; Mos. 1,103-105) has been rewritten. There is no dialogue between Moses and Pharaoh, but Pharaoh promises that they can "leave the land" (the biblical original says that they wanted to sacrifice for God). The plague is dramatized, but it is mainly paraphrased faithfully according to the biblical original. However, the Egyptian magicians are absent again and it is not Pharaoh but the Egyptian people who ask Moses to free them from the frogs. Moreover, the war against the elements is present when the aquatic animals colonise the opposite region. The biblical story about gnats (OKV?(|>SS, Exod 8:12-15; aKvTrres Mos. 1,107-112) especially interested Philo, and not only because it was the first in which God used the earth to afflict the Egyptians. He asks why God chose gnats to punish the Egyptians and gives the answer himself:God does not want to destroy the Egyptians; he wants to teach them a lesson: God does not choose the strongest and greatest, but the smallest to carry out his punishment. Philo then makes a smooth transition to the allegorical interpretation. It is worth noting that "God's finger" is mentioned (Mos. 1,112), not by the Egyptian magicians, who are absent again (Exod 8:19), but by "all Egypt." The mention about the offending practice of sacrifice (Exod 8:21-25) is omitted here, like the whole dialogue between Moses and Pharaoh, but mentioned in Mos. 1,87. The plague of hail (x«Aa^a as in Exod 9:22-35, Mos. 1,118-119) leads to the three punishments mediated by Moses and dealing with the higher elements, air and fire. The rage of the elements is present again. The natural antagonists, thunderbolts and hail, offer a strange scene, and some animals (slaves are not mentioned) survive half-burnt, serving as a warning to the beholders. The plague is preceded by a learned introduction to the Egyptian climate, but as usual not through God's dialogue with Moses (Mos. 1,113-117). In Philo, Moses neither meets Pharaoh nor warns him; consequently Philo does not say that God intentionally raised the Pharaoh to show his power (Exod 9:13-16). 47

48

49

50

4 7

See below p. 237. In Mig. 85 God's finger points to the holy writings. In Sacr. 51 Philo interprets the passage allegorically: Exodus points to virtues, which were abominations in Egypt. The story is the subject of pride in Wis 16:15-23, where the miracle is attributed solely to God. Like Philo, the writer seems to allude to the roles of the different ele­ ments. 4 8

4 9

5 0

116

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

The fifth plague in Philo (ccKp(5es, eighth in Exodus, Exod 10:1-20; Mos. 1,120-122) has been remodelled. Again, Moses does not meet Phar­ aoh as in Exodus, and Philo does not include the statement that the He­ brews wanted to feast e o p T r j in honour of the Lord. Moreover, the wind ( V O T O S PtcnoTccTos, LXX ave|jos V O T O S , Hebrew text nnp rrn) causes many problems, and in addition to the locusts, plays a big part in the disas­ ter. Philo himself lived in Egypt, and was keen to describe the climate in the country, as if writing to people not aware of it. The Pharaoh is men­ tioned, but only in dialogue with the Egyptian authorities, and the long discussion between Pharaoh and Moses is omitted, as are God's words pre­ ceding the plague. The sixth plague in Philo ( G K O T O S , ninth in Exodus, Exod 10:21-29; Mos. 1,123-125) is heavily dramatized. The dialogues with the Pharaoh are again omitted, and in fact it is only Moses who feels pity and prays to God for help without any contact from the Egyptians. The will to sacrifice is omitted, as is the entire dialogue, and so are Moses' words that not even the Hebrews yet knew what they were going to sacrifice. The darkness is partly described "rationalistically", but some exaggeration is involved. Philo considers the possibility of an extraordinary eclipse of the sun and the presence of unusual clouds. However, the darkness was unnatural (Mos. 1,126 o Trccaocv 'i5eav <|)COT6S O U Trapa5ex£To): Even the light of fire could not dispel it and it not only hampered the sight but the other senses as well. Philo, as later L.A.B., Josephus and Melito of Sardes, thus adds the detail that the darkness was not of a conventional kind. This is based on LXX (vpr|Aa(j)rjT6s O K O T O S ) , and it has a significant parallel in Wis 17, where the plagues are generally attributed to God, and the role of human agents is drastically reduced. The darkness is described vividly and extensively. The large number of ghosts cannot be expelled by the light of stars or candles. Philo is aware of the tradition and also interprets the darkness allegorically. The seventh plague in Philo is the sixth in Exodus (LXX BXKT\ in Exod 9:8-12, Philo EAKT) and E'AKCOOIS in Mos. 1,127-129). It is now obvious that the war between the elements and the Egyptians defines the order. Aaron and Moses now govern the earth and air, and work together: Together they take the ashes from the furnace, but only Moses scatters them in the air. Thus the lower elements governed by Aaron and the higher governed by 51

52

53

54

51

Also Wis 17:1-21 retells the story extensively and with new details. See below p. 110. See below p. 193 and p. 238. According to T. Simeon 8 the Egyptians had predicted that an unnatural darkness would follow, when Joseph's bones would be exported from the country (see also T. Joseph 20). See below p. 135. 5 2

5 3

5 4

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

117

Moses strike Egypt together. The sores are exaggerated, but the sorcerers are absent again, and Philo says nothing about the presence of the Pharaoh. The plague of flies, the fourth in Exodus, is the eighth plague in Philo's version, and leads to punishments without a human agent (Exod 8:16-28; Mos. 1,130-132). Exodus uses the word ma, but Philo, like LXX, calls them KUVOMUICC ("dog-fly"), considering them a combination of the two most shameless animals of land and air, the dog and the fly. Artapanus called them £coov T I irrrivov (Artap. 3,31) and seems to agree with Philo that they were not flies of an ordinary kind. L.A.B. (L.A.B. 10,1) and Josephus (Ant. 2,303) share this view. Again, all dialogue with Pharaoh is omitted from the story, but even more interesting, the offending manner of sacrifice (Exod 8:22) has again disappeared along with the dialogue. The ninth plague in Philo, the death of livestock, is the fifth in Exodus (LXX 0avccTOs M^yas ad>65pa in Exod 9:1-11; POTTOKTIMCXTCOV 0dvaTos in Mos. 1,133). It is mentioned very briefly, and the lack of a dialogue with Pharaoh is no longer surprising. What is interesting is that Philo does not avoid the word, which is considered to be difficult for the Jews; on the contrary, he mentions that the death of lower animals often precedes XoijjiKa appcoaTT]|jaTa. As seen above, Jacobson explains the LXX trans­ lation of n m s D as a result of anti-Jewish propaganda current at the time, which led the translators to avoid words with negative connotations, such as XeiTpa or Xoi|j6s. Philo's word offers contrary evidence. He seems to have no problem with the disease bad enough in the same context, and he speaks of it, although the original did not have the pestilence. The final punishment, the death of the firstborn (TrpcoxoTOKos as in Exod 11:1-12:36; Mos. 1,134-139), is not interwoven with the Passover in Vita Mosis. Consequently, there is no blood on doorframes and no punishing angel. The mourning and fear of the Egyptians is presented dra­ matically, with the help of an allusion to Euripides. The first to call par­ ents father and mother had died. There is no preceding or succeeding dis­ cussion between Moses and Pharaoh, but it is the Egyptian people who now consider the king to be the reason for the plagues and drive the He­ brews out of the country. The Hebrews collect their booty and start their journey unarmed. 55

56

57

5S

59

5 5

See above p. 72 and p. 235. On the question, see below p. 66. The Book of Wisdom also retells this plague, attributing the miracle to God's wisdom (Wis 18:10-19). Passover often occurs, as in Alleg. Interp. 2,34; 3,165, but it is interpreted allegorically. As Colson notes (1934, 346) the words are very close to TrpcoTrj 6 EKCcAeacc Traxepa Kai au TraTS EME (Iph. Aul. 122). Philo was very fond of Euripides and quotes him often, e.g. Alleg. Interp. 3,202; Prob. 99-103; Spec. 4,47. 5 6

57

5 8

5 9

118

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

In a concluding passage (Mos. 1,143-146) Philo expands the biblical statement in Exod 9:4; 9:26, saying that all the chastisements applied to the Egyptians, none of them to the Hebrews. The Hebrews - and this is obvi­ ously Philo's fabula docet - were not only spectators, "but learn thereby of the finest and most profitable of lessons - piety. For never was judgement so clearly passed on good and bad, a judgement which brought perdition to the latter and salvation to the former" (Mos. 1,146).

Philo is thus clearly fond of the miracles preceding Israel's freedom. He retells them extensively and vividly and often exaggerates the plagues in a work that was obviously also intended for a Gentile audience. A strong oral and written tradition stands behind his text, which shares many details in common with other writings. Although generally faithful to the biblical original, Philo has made some alterations. It is interesting that he has con­ sistently removed some elements occurring repeatedly in the biblical origi­ nal. Firstly, although he briefly mentions the sacrifice of the Hebrews in Mos. 1,87, he does not say anything about the will to offer a sacrifice when de­ scribing the plagues and even omits the Passover. The reason is unclear. Did Philo only smooth over the difficulties in the story, because it was not the true intention of the Hebrews to offer a sacrifice in the desert? Or did he think about his non-Jewish readers, who could not take part in sacri­ fices? The description of Egypt's climate shows that he sought readers other than Alexandrine Jews. According to Borgen, Philo wrote Vita Mosis for Gentile readers who were expected to accept the Law (Mos. 2,43-44), and for the Jews to prepare them for their universal role; this is in accord with the situation in Alexandria before Gaius. This may explain why Philo omitted the references to a strange type of sacrifice. Or did the sacri­ fices simply not play a role in his thought? The most plausible reason, however, is that anti-Jewish propaganda claimed that the Jews practised human sacrifices. The strange type of sacrifice was dangerous enough to be omitted. Secondly, even the sorcerers are consistently omitted. Whatever the rea­ son - perhaps he was careful not to equate Moses with the sorcerers - it is clear that Philo was not willing to develop the theme of competition. Philo disliked magicians and sorcerers and considered it a religious duty to kill them. Admittedly, Philo's style of writing did not favour dialogues. He has also remodelled or removed the dialogues between human figures, as well as all 60

61

62

Borgen 1987, 18-19. See Jos. c. Ap. 2,89-102 and Rokeah 1995, 286-287. See above p. 114.

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

119

dialogues between God and men in the plagues. The reason is the same that led him to reshape the theophany at Horeb: Philo avoided anthropo­ morphism and anthropopathism. Thus he is not keen to describe the dia­ logues between God and Moses as they are written in Exodus. A feature very strongly present is the Greek theory of the four elements. It is so important to Philo that he changes the order of the plagues to clar­ ify the reason for the events: God has created the world and given the Law, which is the reason why God's commandments are in harmony with the universe (Op. 3). Since Pharaoh broke this harmony it meant a war of the elements (Mos. 2,52-53). Moses, on the other hand, was sent by God, the reason why "each element obeyed him as its master" (Mos. 1,156). The theory of the elements was common property in Philo's times, and a Jew­ ish Platonist could very well cite them when retelling the holy writings, especially when he could join a broad midrashic tradition admiring the miracles of manna and water in the desert, which interchanged the usual roles of heaven and earth. In the first book of De vita Mosis Philo also paraphrases the miracle at the Red Sea (Exod 13:17-14:31; Mos. 1,167-180) and returns to it in the sec­ ond book, adding important material. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and Septuagint in Exod 13:17-14:31, see above p. 74.

Philo has removed God's words to Moses (Exod 13:1-3) and, of course, even his soliloquy in Exod 13:17, and generally emphasizes Moses' role as the leader of the people; however, he does not forget T E p d a x i o v , the cloud that was like a tall pillar (Mos. 1,163-166). Pharaoh's army has the look of an army of Philo's own time (Mos. 1,168), and the whole story is told dramatically. Unlike in some Jewish texts, the entire unarmed nation is in a state of panic. Moses uses his mind and speech simultaneously, his mind to pray to God and his speech to speak calmly to the people. Then, in an interesting new detail, he becomes IvGous and prophesies that the enemy will disappear into the depths (Mos. 1,173-174). There is again no dialogue between God and Moses in Philo, and the pillar and angel are transferred to the moment the Egyptians try to catch the Hebrews crossing the sea. A tremendous south wind ( V O T O S , as in LXX; cf. Hebrew nri? wip n n , east wind) drives the sea back; the tide is partly but not the real reason for the event (Mos. 1,176). Moses is then commanded (rrpoaTaxBeis) to strike 63

64

6 3

On Ezek. Trag. also describing the army, see above p. 77-78. This is actually a result of a very exact reading of Exod 14:13-15: Moses is very calm when speaking to his people, but God asks "Why are you crying out to me?" Philo's answer is that Moses simultaneously spoke silently to God and aloud to the peo­ ple. 6 4

120

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

the sea with his rod and the sea is suddenly divided (payE?oa). The sea rolls down upon the Egyptians, leaving no survivors. Philo follows Exod 15 and mentions the songs of victory. Although Philo is anxious to use the story allegorically he does not reject its literal sense, but many alterations must be noted. Philo has under­ stood the narrative problems of the story and he has tried to resolve them. The Egyptian troops appear early in the morning, but do not attack, and the only activity during the daytime is Moses' speech. The wind comes at sun­ set, then Moses' striking of the sea - a very traditional element - and the sudden division of the sea. Unlike in Exodus the pillar now stands between the Hebrews and Egyptians, preventing the attack. Exodus has both inupT / pf]£ov and the wind. Apparently Philo understands pfj£ov to mean 'strike', because here he has paysTacc and in Mos 2,253 pocysv when retelling the events. Philo has thus inverted the order and apparently tried to retain both elements. In Philo's texts God does not stand in dialogue with men, and as we have seen, this view has led him to edit the miracle stories. The words on the pillar are interesting. Philo considers the pillar to be "one of the lieutenants ( T C O V U T r d p x c o v T I S ) of the great King, an unseen angel, a forerunner on whom the eyes of the body were not permitted to look". Exod 14:19-20 mentions God's angel, and Jub. identifies him with the Angel of Pres­ ence. Philo is also very careful and retains the gap between the visible and invisible worlds. It is significant that Philo not only considers Moses' words to Israel a prophesy, but also writes that he was £ V 0 o u s . This feature was so impor­ tant to Philo that he returned to it in the second book and wrote extensively on it. It also leads to important questions, which are treated later. The rejoicing choruses after the defeat of the enemy play an important role. They not only occur repeatedly in Vita Mosis {Mos 1,180; 2,256), but according to Philo, the song of the choruses was always on the lips of the Jews. Spec. 2,216-219 and Cont. 83-85 especially attest how the great exodus was an important part of the glorious past. It is a source of strength for Ben Sira and the writer of Jub., and Ezekiel may have written his play to glorify it during the Passover. The past was obviously used to interpret the presence, and apparently also the future. In Spec. 2,217-219, 65

66

67

68

69

70

6 5

See below p. 136. On Ezek. Trag., see above p. 75, on Artapanus 105, and on Josephus below p. 241. See above p. 61. See p. 148-151. See below p. 148-151. Mishna presupposes that the miracle at the Red Sea is remembered daily (m. Ber 1:5; cf. /. Ber 1:10; 2:1). 6 6

6 7

6 8

6 9

7 0

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

121

Philo describes extensively the Jewish way to remember the Passover, and gives the content of the canticles sung in the feast. In Cont. 83-87 he tells how the Essenes in Egypt (apparently in their daily prayers) form choirs of men and woman, and after both have made their own contribution, they form a single choir as a copy of the choir set up at the Red Sea. But the passages on the Passover are not the only biblical passage, which attest the role of the past for Philo. Although he understandably often writes obliquely as a result of living in a society controlled by the Romans, his writings clearly attest his eschatological hopes. This is obvious, above all, in the blessing of Balaam (Praem. 93-97; Mos. 1,288-291). Philo shared the hope for the central role of the Jewish nation and for a Hebrew emperor ruling all nations. Some details reveal a Hebrew tradition, which is either accepted or re­ jected, and now we must expand our study to cover the entire production of Philo. That Moses strikes the sea is commonplace, and Philo on several occasions emphasizes that the Hebrews were unarmed (Mos 1,170; 172; 174). The same is related in Ezekiel and Josephus, but not in L.A.B.; the disagreement seems to be based on the difference between the Hebrew text and LXX. A new feature is the drying of the sea to such an extent that the sand was completely dry. This is emphasized in Mos. 2,254 (sKpaupeoffr] y a p f) vpaMMOS), although it apparently is implied in Mos (ava£r)pccv0EV 656s eupeTa KCCI AecocjxDpos): The detail occurs perhaps in Jub. 48:8-12, and apparently even in L.A.B. Some Jewish writers maintained that not all the Hebrews panicked, and that some wanted to fight. Philo does not have this detail, but he also states that the nation was divided. According to the second book, some were ready to suffer the most miserable death while others wanted to throw themselves into the sea (Mos. 2,249-255). In Ezekiel's drama an Egyptian soldier survives to tell about the catas­ trophe, but Philo considers otherwise, and he seems to emphasize the fact. Was it his intention to criticise Ezekiel, or a common tradition, or did he simply repeat the biblical detail? According to Jacobson he re­ buked a competing tradition, as did Josephus, but this is only guesswork. 71

72

74

75

71

See Borgen 1997, 261-281, esp. 265-268; Mondesert 1999, 898-901. See above p. 74. On the same view in Ezek. Trag., see p. 75, in Josephus p. 240, on L.A.B. p. 194. On these details, see below p. 194. "The two sections of the sea rolled upon them from either side, united and sub­ merged them, horses, chariots and all, with not even a torchbearer (TTUp<|>6pov) left to announce to the people of Egypt the sudden disaster" (Mos. 1,179). See Jacobson 1983, 152. On Ezekiel, see above p. 77. 7 2

73

7 4

7 5

122

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

In Vita Mosis Philo retells the miracles in desert. The people find water as in Exod 15:22-27 (Mos. 1,181-187), but before and not after Elim. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 15:22-27, see above p. 20.

The story is greatly expanded and dramatized. "Knowing the weakness of his creatures, and particularly of mankind" Moses prayed and God helped him. He sent in advance the power of his grace (TTJV '(AECOV CCUTOU 5UVCX|JIV) and "opening the vigilant eye of the suppliant's soul, bade him lift and throw into the spring a tree which he showed him, possibly formed by nature to exercise a virtue which had hitherto remained unknown, or possibly created on this occasion for the service which it was destined to perform. Moses did as he was bid, whereupon the springs became sweet, and were converted into drinkable water, so that no one could even guess that they had originally been bitter, since no trace of tang remained to remind one of its former bad­ ness" (Mos. 1,185-187).

Philo exaggerates the effect of the miraculous event. The Hebrews felt as though they had risen from a banquet: cooTrep euro Soivrjs KCU 'lAapas e u c o o x i a s 6 O T i a 0 e v T e s KCU MEQUOVTES O U TT]V EV OTVCO \JSQT\V aAAa TTJV vrj(|>dAiov f ] V f j K p c c T i a a v x o TCXS TTPOTTOCJEIS A a p d v T E s n a p d TT\S EUOEPETCCS T O U TrpoEOTcoTOs d p x o v T O s ("feeling as though they had risen from a banquet and merry-making, and elated, with the intoxication not of wine, but of a sober carousal which the piety of the ruler who led them had invited them to enjoy"). The wonderful water is reminiscent of the Utopia of Elim in Artapanus' fragment, and there is an obvious con­ nection with Ben Sira's interpretation in which the twig is linked with the work of the physician. The story raises two questions: 1) Is it adequate to say that Philo has tried to rationalise the biblical original when he says that the tree was possibly unknown until Moses needed it? 2) What is meant by God sending "the power of his grace to Moses"? Both questions are important and are treated later in this study. 77

78

79

7

The wasps sent by God are mentioned in QE 2, 24 and treated briefly both literally and allegorically. On the hornets (cf. Exod 23:28; Deut 7:20; Jos 24:12), see Bietenhard 1986, 190-191. See above p. 50. On the interpretation of the water-miracle in Ben Sira, see p. 20. Philo had no prob­ lem with the work of the physicians, but mentions them often (see e.g. Prov. 2,60; Cher 15; Sacr. 121; QE 2, 25) and names also Hippocrates several times (Op. 105; 124; Mut 10). See below p. 146-148 and p. 148-151. 7 7

7 8

7 9

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

123

The Pentateuch contains two versions of the story about manna, in Exod 16:1-36 and inNum 11:4-35. In Exod 16:1-36 some minor details only again prove that the Hebrew original the trans­ lators used differed from the Masoretic text: In 16:6 the Masoretic text has ^tner'-'n, but LXX ouvccycoyrjv uicov lapar|X; in 16:8 MT v^v, but LXX Ka0' f|Ucov, and in 16:8-9 mrr is twice rendered 0eou (also in 16:33). In v. 16:23 the Hebrew text has only Kin, but LXX TOUTO TO pfj|ja ecrnv, and in 16:29 LXX adds Tr|V f||jepcxv TCXUTTIV. In v. 16:31 the Hebrew text is 'PiOcrTPn, but LXX utoi lopanA. In 16:33 nna rasas is rendered axdJJVOV xpvjoouv. Only a few details are of some significance to the content: In 16:13 LXX does not have opxu£, which would be equal to "frtD (Coturnix coturnix), but 6pTuyourJTpa. Liddell - Scott - Jones suppose (s.v.) it to be Rallus grex, 'a bird which migrates with quails', but the erroneous identification is based only loosely on Aristoteles' ornithological wis­ dom (!). Moreover, the end of the verse in LXX does not yet mention manna at all. In v. 16:14 p i o s o n o is rendered cooet KOpiov AEUKOV. In v. 16:32 the agent has changed: ... DDriK w j n r a ... DDna TfoKn but ov 'e^dyeTe upeTs ... cos e£riycxyev u p a s Kupios. 80

The second version of the story (Num 11:4-36) tells more extensively about quails, and about the spirit which rested on the seventy elders and Eldad and Medad. Some details lead us back to the Hebrew original the translators used: In v. 11:4 is translated KCCI KcxSiocxvTes, in 11:5 LXX adds Scopedv, in 11:14 LXX adds TO pfj|Jo: TOUTO, and in 11:28 the Hebrew text has virnQ, but LXX 6 EKXEKTOS. Moreover, in v. 11:28 "aner ^pi is not rendered yepouoicx, but Trpea|3uTEpoi TOU Aaou A a o u (11:30), unlike, for exam­ ple, in Exod 3:16; 3:18 and 4:30, and why is again translated opTuyoprJTpcx (11:32).

Philo retells the story about manna in extenso, but not twice, and follows mainly the version of Exodus; the short mention of quails in Exodus, how­ ever, is expanded in Mos. 1,209. Philo takes the story from Numbers, nevertheless omitting almost all the essential features of the version, including God's dialogue with Moses, the epiphany, the spirit resting on the elders and the severe punishment follow­ ing the quails. These omissions generally relate to his bias to eliminate God's anthropomorphic features. Philo returns to the story in Spec. 4,126130, dealing now with the punishment: Moses censures those who suppose that luxurious living is the greatest happiness. The story is thus used as a tool for ethical and philosophical teaching. Philo tells about manna more extensively than about the quails, although not as extensively as in Exodus (Mos. 1,191-209). That Moses is possessed of divine inspiration ( 6 5E K a T a T T v e u a 0 e i s I v S e o u s yiveTai KCCI BeaTri^ei 81

8 0

Liddell - Scott - Jones call the bird Rallus grex, apparently denoting Rallus aquaticus, 'water rail'. The bird is not common in Palestine, even less in the desert, because it dwells in humid districts. It does not migrate long ways as quails (Coturnix coturnix), and does not associate with them. Aristotle (Arist. hist. anim. 7,16 597b) apparently means that the birds appear and disappear simultaneously with the quails. On the allegorical interpretation, see below p. 141. 81

124

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

82

Mos. 1,200) may be an echo of the spirit in Numbers. Philo's ex­ planation is that mortals provide the yearly fruits from the earth, but God can allow the air to produce food instead of water, as the earth produces water, i.e. the river of Egypt waters the fields (Mos. l,201-202). The story about manna shows close familiarity with both the Jewish and the Greek traditions. The bread from heaven is a miracle praised in several early rabbinic sources (Exod. R. 25:2; 6; Mek. 16:4), as well as in the New Testament. Although it is difficult to date the midrashic features, the simi­ larities are so obvious that they certainly are based on the same traditions as Philo. God allows both heaven and earth to be the source of bread and water, and the people admire the interchange of heaven's and earth's func­ tions. There is no reason to think that the latter texts are directly dependent on Philo; they are part of a common tradition. On the other hand, also the Greek theory of the four elements serves again as a device for inter­ preting the biblical story, although the word OTOixeTa or the elder pi^cojjaTa is not used. Philo apparently saw no problem in combining these two traditions and does not hesitate to present the latter in Moses' speech, possessed by the divine rrveuMCc. Here as well as in Mos. 2,258-267 Philo uses the story about manna to emphasize the importance of the Sabbath: that manna had not decayed on the seventh day was an irrefutable answer to the unresolved question passed down from generation to generation; namely, the question of when the world was born (Mos. 1,207). This or)|je?ov led Moses to announce the Sabbath. Philo directs the words to his Gentile audience. The Sabbath is not only a Jewish custom, but a universal festival, and Gentiles observing it attest the superiority of the Torah. Tcc5e,

83

84

86

87

The people get water from a rock as in the biblical original (Exod 17:1-7; Num 20:1-13 I Mos. 1,210-213). Septuagint follows the Hebrew original faithfully in Exod 17:1-7. In v. 17:6 the Hebrew text has nun, but LXX 6 Accds uou. The names are translated in v. 17:7 ( n m o and HOD,

TTeipaouos and AoiSopnois). The deviations are small, also in the second version of the story (Num 20:1-13). In v. 20:4 the Hebrew text has "orttR DO? ma ?, but LXX airoKTeTvai f|uas. In v. 20:5 LXX adds 4

82

Philo repeats the event in Mos. 2,258, where Moses speaks eTnGsiccaas to the peo­

ple. 83

On the allegorical interpretation of manna, see below p. 124. See Borgen 1965, 9-20. See below p. 148-151. See Weiss 1991, 99-100. Aristobulus had already connected the holy number seven with the Sabbath, and Philo follows his example to make the Jewish feast universal (see Borgen 1997, 68). The well which "the princes dug" (Num 21:16-18) is presented in Mos. 1,255-257). 8 4

85

8 6

87

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

125

xouxo. In 20:8, LXX uses the plural, indicating that Aaron is included (nKsm and rrpcam, but E£OIOETE and TroxieTxe).

Philo's version is definitely the first of the two biblical versions, although he has, of course, removed the dialogue between God and Moses. He says nothing about the theophany or God's words to the effect that Moses and Aaron will not lead the people to their heritage. Other features are also of interest. The rod, so important in Ezekiel and Artapanus, is also here f] *iepd (3aKTr]pia, and the miracle happens when Moses is 0EO(|>opr)0eis. 88

"... whereupon Moses, taking that sacred staff with which he accomplished the signs in Egypt, under inspiration smote the steep rock with it. It may be that the rock contained originally a spring and now had its artery clean severed, or perhaps that then for the first time a body of water collected in it through hidden channels was forced out by the im­ pact" (Mos. 1,211).

Philo seems to give a rationalistic explanation for the event, but continues with the theme in a crucial passage, which illustrates that the term "ration­ alistic" is not easy to use. Nevertheless, the problem has to be noted and it is treated below. 89

Philo also tells about the miraculous battle against Amalek (according to Philo, Phoenicians) and about Moses' prayer and hands, which were deci­ sive in the battle (Exod 17:8-16; Mos. 1,214-219). LXX renders CTGMK with avSpas Suvaaxous in 17:9 and adds Kai i5ou in the same verse. In 17:10 the Hebrew text has orftn'?, but LXX KOU e£eA0cov Trapexd£axo. In 17:15 LXX adds Kupi'co, and in 17:16 rr od- ?!) T D is translated ev xeipi Kpuc|>a(a. 1

_ ,

The whole story in Philo emphasizes the tactical situation more than the biblical original. Moreover, Philo contemporizes the story by changing the enemy from Amalekites to Phoenicians and embellishes it with new de­ tails. He writes about Moses' hands and prayer as follows: "But, when they were about to engage the fight, his hands were affected in the most mar­ vellous way (xepccxcoSeaxccxov TI aunPafvei TTCC0OS nepi x d s X^? S auxou). They became very light and very heavy in turns, and, whenever they were in the former condi­ tion and rose aloft, his side of the combatants was strong and distinguished itself the more by its valour, but whenever his hands were weighed down the enemy prevailed. Thus, by symbols, God showed that earth and the lowest regions of the universe were the portion assigned as their own to the one party, and the ethereal, the holiest region, to the other; and that, just as heaven holds kingship in the universe and is superior to earth, so this nation should be victorious over its opponents in war. While, then, his hands became successively lighter and weightier, like scales in the balance, the fight, too, continued to be doubtful; but, when they suddenly lost all weight, the fingers serving them as pinions, a

See above p. 75 and 102. See below p. 146-148.

126

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

they were lifted on high like the tribe that wings its ways through the air, and remained thus soaring until the Hebrews won and undisputed victory ..." (Mos. 1,217-218).

The Greek theory of four elements is again part of Philo's biblical exege­ sis, although the word OTOixeTa does not occur. The higher part of the universe belongs to God's people, the lower, the earth, to their enemies. The Greek theory did not remain unchanged during the centuries between Thales and the first century AD, but was represented in different forms. The passage shows a close relationship with the Aristotelian view, which formed the basis for the philosophical tradition in the Hellenistic period. Philo has omitted the rod of Moses (Exod 17:8), but added that Moses pu­ rifies himself T O ? S e'lcoBoai KaOappoTs (Mos. 1,216), obviously reducing the magical character of the story. A parallel in Mishna is to be noted.

90

91

All Jewish writers who retold the revolt of Korah and his supporters also remodelled it; Philo does the same (Num 16:1-17:31; Mos. 2,278-287). 92

93

In v. 16:1 the Hebrew text has npn, but LXX Kai EAa'AnaEV, and in v. 16:8 K] ij?OIO is ren­ dered eWaKouaocTE uou, which indicates W Q E . In 16:5 and 16:11 the Septuagint has 6 Beds and rrpos TOV 0E6V (mrr, m r r " ^ ) . In 16:14 the Hebrew text has *b but the Sep­ tuagint e'i Kai In v. 16:15 ETTtSuiinua shows that the translators had man and not -nan in their original. In 16:16 *]rnir ?pi nriK is translated' Ayiaaov Trjv auvaycoyrjv aou, and in l

16:24 and 16:27 LXX omits DTQR nro ]m. In v. 16:29 m p a is translated kcct 'ETTIGKE^IV

and in v. 16:30 mrr k i t rmniraKi ccAX fj ev <(>dauaTi 5ei£ei Kupios. A clear deviation is in v. 17:2-3, where the Hebrew text is wwsnn mnna n« nanp *o nK^rrmT 0«rrmi nsnian p o Dntos]n n ^ n , but the Greek Kai TO irup TO aAAoTpiov TOUTO cnrsTpov 'EKE?, OTI

fryiaaav TCX TrupeTa TCOV auapTcoAcov TOUTCOV 'EV TOIS vpuxaTs auTcov. In verses 17:23 and 17:26 LXX adds K a i ' Aapcov, and has in the latter plural ETroinaav instead of the Hebrew singular. In spite of some deviations there is no trace of a theological redac­ tion of the miracle-story.

In Num the claim of the rebels is that the whole community is holy and, thus, the priesthood should be accessible to them (Num 16:3; 10). Philo, too, speaks about the sacrifice, but emphasizes other points. First of all, it is the statesman Moses who is challenged, as rulers often are ("This is what happens when subjects attack their rulers to confound that most ex­ cellent promoter of the common weal, order", Mos. 2,277). But secondly, the main target of Korah and his allies is Moses' prophecy. The rebels 94

9 0

See Kraft 1997, 980. According to Mishna, Moses' hands did not decide the battle; the decisive factor was that the thoughts of the Hebrews were either good or bad (m. Rosh HaSh. 3:8a-b). See Becker 2002,133-134. On L.A.B., see below p. 198-199, on Josephus see p. 244-246. On Korah in early Judaism, see also Derrett 1993, 59-78; Feldman 1998b, 91-109. Philo mentions the event briefly in Fug. 145 and retells it extensively in Praem. 7578; however, the story breaks off and there is an obvious lacuna in the text. All dialogue between God and Moses is removed again. 91

9 2

9 3

9 4

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

127

claim that the priesthood was not ordered under divine direction but by a false account (Mos. 2,278). This charge results in a new prophesy. Philo uses the words pETafiaAcov E I S irpocj>TiTr|v, "transformed into a prophet", as Colson translates (Mos. 2,280). Moses prophesies the earth opening and "living men descending into Hades." The prophecy replaces the theophany: mm--QD and God's dialogues with Moses are totally omitted. And, of course, the elements are again involved in the punishment: The earth swallowed them up and the ether added the rainstorm (an extrabiblical de­ tail unless the plague given by God in the cloud is not meant, Num 16:3250). Philo cuts out the story and does not mention the quarrels following Korah's death. The connection between prophecy and miracle is interesting and it will be studied more closely below. 95

Philo treats the biblical account (Deut 34:1-8) of Moses' death in two pas­ sages. LXX translates the report on Moses' death very literally. The only point in which the texts differ is v. 34:4: the Hebrew text has rbv, but the Septuagint n p o s MCOUOT|V. Thus, the Septuagint gives no evidence of any speculations on Moses' death.

Mos 2,288-291 tells that Moses' twofold nature of soul and body was re­ solved by God into a single unity, v o u s . When he was being exalted the divine spirit fell upon him and he prophesied his own end ( c o s 'ETEAEUTTIGE urjuco TEAEUTTJOCXS* MOS. 2,291). This is only an explanation of why the Pentateuch, attributed to Moses, contains an account of Moses' death. The parallel story in Virt. 72-79 does not add much to the material, but QG 1,86 gives a more detailed account of Moses' destiny. Generally death is not the end for worthy and holy men; it is a translation and approach to another place. Moses, however, was a special case: "For he seemed to be rapt away and become invisible. For then he was not found. And this is shown by the fact that when he was sought, he was invisible, not merely rapt from their eyes. For the translation to another place is nothing else than another position; but he is said (to have moved) from a sensible and visible place to an incorporeal and intelli­ gible form. This gift the protoprophet also obtained, for no one knew his burial-place. And still another, Elijah, followed him on high from earth to heaven at the appearance of the divine countenance, or, it would be more proper and correct to say, he ascended" (QG 1,86).

We have several versions of Moses' death, some of them included in this study. The story in the Pentateuch presented, above all, two points, which offered an opportunity for speculations, which could be closely related with Gentile views. First of all, "Moses" tells about his own death, and 96

On prophecy, see below p. 148 On L.A.B., see below p. 199; on Josephus and the possible Greek models, see p. 245.

128

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

secondly, Deut 34:1-8 first tells about the death and burial of Moses and then says that he was "a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone". These two details allowed different speculations about the end of his earthly life, namely that he pre­ served his appearance after his death. In Philo's version Moses does not die, but his end is paralleled by Elijah's ascension. What Philo says about Moses' end must be viewed against his ideas about anthropology and the destiny of man generally. The soul is pre-existent, a visitor in this world, residing in the body (Deus 1-2), while death is the soul's separation from the body (Alleg. Interp. 1,105-108). However, although death generally means the freeing of the soul, a holy man's death is always something spe­ cial, as was Abraham's: 97

98

"So too, when Abraham left this mortal life, 'he is added to the people of God' (Gen 25:8), in that he inherited incorruption and became equal to the angels" (Sacr. 5).

The texts quoted attest that Philo had no problem in reconciling Moses' death with his philosophy. Moses, although the best and wisest of all, went the way every man, especially the wise man, goes. To summarise, we can recognise some clear lines of direction in Philo's paraphrase of the miracles in Egypt. Philo is generally very exact in retelling the biblical stories. He stands, of course, in the midrashic tradition and consequently can add and empha­ size what he deems important. He often exaggerates the miracles, al­ though he sometimes even diminishes the miraculous. Still, he is quite faithful in rendering the biblical original. He gives Aaron a role almost equal to that given in the Pentateuch, although he seems to be unwilling to call him by name. He omits very few biblical miracles and treats most of them literally. The punishment of Miriam (Num 12:1-16), however, and the story about the bronze snake (Num 21:4-9) are interpreted only allegorically. In any case, a literal interpretation of the biblical miracle sto­ ries was by no means strange to Philo. 99

100

9 7

For this observation I thank Prof. Ruairidh Boid (Melbourne), who was kind enough to send me his unpublished manuscript (A Pair of Ancient Samaritan Eschatologies). He investigates the rich traditions of Moses' death among the Samaritans. Borgen (1984, 125) cites also Mark 9:2-8 par attesting the thought that Moses did not die. Philo himself tells about this tradition in Mos. 1,4: "(I will) tell the story of Moses as I have learned it, both from the sacred books, the wonderful moments of his wisdom which he has left behind him, and from some of the elders of the nation; for I always interwove what I was told with what I read, and thus believed myself to have a closer knowledge than others of his life's history" (see Borgen 1984, 124). See below p.l42and 141. 9 8

9 9

1 0 0

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

129

Philo

Philo tends to remove all human weakness from Moses' image. Exodus presents him as a reluctant leader, not eloquent enough, and occasionally anxious about his own rebellious people. In one way or another Philo has reduced or removed these features, and it is important to observe the passages exalting Moses above other human beings (see below p.151-155). Whether a Palestinian midrashic tradition can be separated from the Al­ exandrian is an old problem, and Philo's large production is perhaps the best source for an answer to the question. However, it does not seem possible to trace separate traditions in the details of Exodus. What we have in Philo we may have also in Sir, Jub. or in Ezekiel / Artapanus, or in both. But did Philo adapt the biblical stories to shed light on his own times? Some stories denote that he did, but we also need to study the allegorical stories before coming to a conclusion. Two interesting features give reason for a closer examination. On the one hand, Philo combines Moses' miracles with prophecy. On the other hand, he seems to treat some miracles "rationalistically." Both problems are treated in more detail below. 101

102

103

c. The allegorical interpretation of the miracle stories Philo is famous for his allegorical interpretation of the Bible, so it is not surprising that he also interprets the miracle stories in this way. It is impor­ tant, firstly, to understand his exegetical method and, secondly, to study whether he used the method to adapt the stories to his own world: Some scholars have questioned whether Philo used the allegorical interpretation as a commentary on life in his contemporary Alexandria. Borgen has stud­ ied Philo's words on Hagar and Sarah, i.e. on the Greek and Jewish educa­ tion, observing that Philo was worried about the possibility of Jewish youth being led astray from the Jewish belief. Whether Philo contempo­ rized the miracle stories to teach his fellow Jews (as especially Meeks and Birnbaum have assumed concerning some details) is worth asking. The pivotal study of Irmgard Christiansen (Die Technik der allegorischen Auslegunswissenschaft bei Philon von Alexandrien, 1969) on the method Philo used is still an important tool for an analysis of the pas­ sages, although it can justifiably be called too schematic. She showed 104

105

106

107

See also Holladay 1977, 174-177. On the history of the question see Borgen 1984, 124-125. See below p. 148-151. Borgen 1997, 163-164; Birnbaum 2003, 322-323. See below p. 132. On Philo's allegorical method and its roots in general, see also Sandmel 1984, 13-

130

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

that Philo did not merely borrow the method from Homeric interpretation, applying it arbitrarily to the Scriptures, but that he used a well-reflected tool filling all scientific requirements of his own time. The method fol­ lowed the Platonic doctrine of ideas: Plato considered the world of ideas real and tried to find it behind individual beings. His followers tried to sys­ tematise the world with the dialectic, diaeretic technique of disposing real­ ity, often with the help of the ten Aristotelian categories. A good exam­ ple is Speusippus' use of the method to define animals and plants. In the dialectic, diaeretic technique, an individual plant was defined by contrast­ ing it with other plants to find its 6 v with help of its |jr| 6 v , but the func­ tion of the system was to find the One including everything (TrdvTa Trepiex )Philo shared the concept, but in his view the world of ideas was hidden in the words of the Scripture, and the diaeretic technique was used to carefully define the individual truths in the Scripture, the result being to find their relationship with other phenomena or concepts ( T O 6Tepov), mostly outside the Scripture, but defined in the same way and presented as symbolic of the biblical word. This relationship between two concepts defined similarly and diaretically is the core of the allegori­ cal method, and the intention was to find the general truth behind individ­ ual truths. Christiansen's book is complemented by Dawson's chapter on Philo in his Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexan­ dria (1992). Philo never defines his allegorical method and often only briefly justifies his interpretation. In fact, he may not always have a systematic analysis in mind: Yet, Philo is often treated too systematically. Nevertheless, he some­ times gives a full argumentation for his view. The pattern is then as fol108

109

o v

1 1 0

111

112

113

114

22; Borgen 1984, 128-132 and especially Dawson 1992, 23 (non-Jews) and 74-82 (Jew­ ish writers). On Philo's allegory of the miracle stories, see also Tiede 1972, 132, Schottroff 1983, 229-231. Eve almost totally excludes the allegorical interpretation (2002, 53; but see 2002, 81-82). Borgen 1997, 149. The Stoics are usually considered eager allegorists, but the evidence for this tradi­ tional view is surprisingly meagre; see Long 1997, 198-210. Booth (1994, 160-161) quotes several interesting passages showing how important the dialectic between the opposite concepts was to Philo. Christiansen 1969,30-35. A reason why the truth was hidden in Philo's view was that Moses had to use human language in spite of its limitations; he used many words referring to the same objects and Philo is eager to find the synonyms (Dawson 1992, 91-97). Christiansen 1969, 29-46. On the way the eternal truths ended up in the Septuagint; see Dawson 1992, 85-90. Christiansen 1969, 47-98. Christiansen 1969, 53-74 studies the passages in Somn 1,102-104 / Exod 22:25; Somn. 1,33-156/Gen 3:1; Alleg. Interp. 2,72-76 /Gen 48:19 and Alleg. Interp. 3,90-93. 107

108

1 0 9

1 1 0

111

m

1 1 3

1 1 4

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

131

Philo

lows: 1) Philo quotes a biblical verse 2) he claims that a concept is T O ETepov, a symbol of another concept, 3) he shows the similarity between the definitions of the two concepts using either diaeresis or the etymology of the biblical name. Concerning the miracle stories interpreted allegorically, Philo sometimes gives an extensive argumentation, but often we only have to guess his line of thinking. The stories are very often interpreted with the help of a single, important pattern: Egypt represents everything bad and the escape from there is a spiritual emigration. Philo lived in Egypt, but he tried to find points of contact with Greeks, and did not hide his general dislike of the Egyptians (see e.g. Legat. 162173) and especially of their religion (Post. 165, Contempt. 7-8). Allegorically "Egypt" means TTCX0OS (Congr. 85-88) or land of the passions (Alleg. Interp. 3,38; 3,81; 3,94). This allegory is obvious outside and in­ side the retold miracle stories. The golden bull represents Egyptian vanity (Mos. 2, 270), Egypt is the land of sophists (for example, Migr. 83-85), and even the offensive Hebrew way to sacrifice (Exod 8:26) refers to vir­ tues, which were abomination in Egypt (Sacr. 51). The king of Egypt, "that is of the body", is 6 a v T i 0 E O s vous (Conf. 88) or "the mind which usurps the place of God" (Somn. 2,182-183). Since Egypt is the land representing everything bad, the way out repre­ sents the righteous man's own development. The whole Book of Exodus derives its name from the fact that the holy law means E^aycoyr] of the soul from the body. Philo formulates it very clearly in Migr. 14 (cf. even Migr. 151-155): 115

116

117

"Right well, then, did the Sacred Guide inscribe one entire sacred book of the Law­ giving 'Exagoge' or 'Leading out', for the name thus found was appropriate to the ora­ cles contained in it. For being well qualified to train men and fully furnished for the ad­ monition and correction, he contemplates the task of taking out all the population of the soul right away from Egypt, the body, and away from its inhabitants."

This thought is repeated again and again in Philo. Post. 155-156 uses the same theme: The whole way from "Egypt" means a battle against the bod­ ily passions and sexual lust, whose appeals to turn back are constantly heard. In the same way as Moses withdrew from Egypt, the soul flees the passions (Alleg. Interp. 3,12-13). These passages show that Philo 118

119

1 1 5

1 1 6

1 1 7

1 1 8

1 1 9

This was a common attitude among the Jews; see Koskenniemi 2002, 20-23. On sophists, see below p. 134. Philo, as Ezekiel (see p. 66), calls the biblical book' E^aycoyrJ. See also Agr. 88-89. See also Alleg. Interp. 3,37-39; 3,81; 3,175; Cher. 74-77; Sacr. 135.

132

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

considers the way from Egypt a spiritual emigration, and Philo uses the whole of the exodus as a lesson in ethics, i.e., the soul must be free from bodily passions. Abraham's departure from Chaldea was a similar spiritual 121

emigration. The pattern of spiritual emigration is a good example of Philo's use of the allegorical method. He tries to advance from details in the Scripture to universalities and to find the similarities between two concepts. In this pattern Egypt easily finds its STEpov namely rrdSos, and all the details, repeated again and again, find their correct place in his interpretation. On the other hand, Philo is, as shown by Helleman, heavily and openly dependent on Plato's Theaetetus. In Fug. 60-64 he quotes this text, and considers it man's mission to flee this earthly sphere and return home in ouoicoais 0ec3 (cj>uyr| 5e O M O I C O O I S 8eco KaTa S U V C C T O V ) . According to the Platonists and Stoics, the invisible world, Koajjos vorjxds, is real, but the visible, K O O I J O S cnaSrjTtKOs, is unreal, and Philo shares this basic view. This is undoubtedly the sense of the entire spiritual exodus in Philo. Moses' miracles are often interpreted similarly. Philo uses the sto­ ries on exodus to universalise the Jewish religion and to link it with Greek wisdom. Exodus was not, as Dawson notes, celebrated once a year; it now became ever-present. An important - and difficult - question is whether Philo used the pattern to contemporize the stories, using the past to elucidate life in contemporary Alexandria, as especially Meeks and Birnbaum have generally sug­ gested. As seen above, Philo generally disliked the native Egyptians, but the Greek population was also active in the pogroms in the years of Ca­ ligula. But although Philo does not hide his views in Legatio, he never un­ ambiguously uses the pattern to support his fellow Jews, who were under political pressure. If this was his intention, he writes with extreme caution. Moreover, as seen above, we cannot date Philo's treatises exactly. Borgen supposes that Vita Mosis was written before the pogroms and that Philo still had hope that the Gentiles would accept the Law, but Meeks considers this text to be a part of Philo's defence against attacks. The most obvi122

123

124

125

126

127

Symbolically, the entry into the country was an entry into the right philosophy; see 0*2,13. SeeAbr. 66-69; Migr. 9-10; 195 and Sandmel 1984, 17-18. Cf. also the way through Edom, Deus 148-161; Agr. 65. Helleman 1990, 51-71; see also the parallel work of Runia 1988, 48-75. See Helleman 1990, 51-54. See also Deus 31-32 and Migr. 9-10. Dawson 1992, 98-99. Meeks 1976, 45-54; Birnbaum 2003, 323-324. Borgen 1986, 19; Meeks 1976, 45-54. 121

122

123

124

125

126

127

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

133

Philo

ous adaptation seems to be the words o C C V T O E O S vous in Conf. 88, which Birnbaum plausibly connects with Gaius. 128

The story about the burning bush could be interpreted allegorically (Mos. 1,67-70) as a symbol of people suffering wrongs: "Yet that which burned was not burnt up, and this was a sign that the sufferers would not be destroyed by their aggressors, who would find that the aggression was vain and prof­ itless while the victims of malice escaped unharmed" (Mos. 1,67).

Some scholars have plausibly seen here an adaptation of the story. The Jews were oppressed in Alexandria, but they would never be defeated. The problem is again the date of the work. The question is asked again, when all evidence is collected. The rod of Moses, so important to Artapanus and possibly to Ezekiel, also awakens Philo's interest in the theophany (Exod 4:1-4:17). However, Philo's interpretation is totally different, although he also calls it f) 'lepa (3aKTr]pia (Mos 1,211). This is a part of a wide and important treatise dealing with Gen 2:18-3:1, according to which the creation of Eve must not be taken literally. God created first the mind, and then the senses and passions to be its servants (Alleg. Interp. 2,1-11). The treatise tells how the mind must be able to control pleasure. Passions and senses are thus T O ETEpov for Eve. Biblical miracle stories are often used to clarify this pat­ tern. Philo finds here a |JE0££IS between the rod and education. The rod is a symbol of T r a i S E i a , and a good education, like a rod, supports a virtu­ ous man. If the soul throws it away, it seeks more lust than virtue (just as Moses' rod became a snake) until the man again takes control over the passions (Alleg. Interp. 2,90-93). A good education was an important theme for Philo, and here, too, he adapts the biblical story to elucidate its significance. Exodus tells us that Moses lacked eloquence (Exod 4:10), and the literal, but especially the allegorical, interpretation gave Philo the opportunity to explain the Lawgiver's words. In Det. 38-40 he briefly deals with the theme, which he treats more extensively in Mig. 78-85, describing how God promised Abraham Aoyos - Philo's interpretation of the word EuAoyrjaco (Mig. 70-117). He uses Moses' lacking eloquence as part of his argumentation. The pairs of concepts are now Moses / Aaron and vous / Aoyos. Moses is vous and Aaron Aoyos. vous does not need help in deal129

130

131

132

133

Birnbaum 2003, 324-325. Meeks 1976, 48-49; Birnbaum 2003, 323-324. See below p. 157. On Moses' rod in Artapanus, see p. 102, on Ezekiel, see p. 102. See Christiansen 1969, 47. See Goulet 1994,357.

134

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

ing with God, but only dealing with alaSrjais, TTCCOOS and oco(ja, which are represented by Egypt and the "sophists." Aaron, i. e. speech, is needed to defeat the Egyptian magicians, i.e. wrong philosophers ridiculing God's miracles. The opponents are connected with the rod and snakes in the allegorical interpretation. When Aaron's rod becomes a snake and eats the snakes of the Egyptian magicians, it has a deeper sense: 134

"For all the arguments of sophists are devoured and done away with by Natures manysided skill, and the acknowledgement is made that these events are the 'Finger of God', and the word 'finger' is equivalent to a divine rescript, declaring that sophistry is ever defeated by wisdom, for Holy writ, speaking of the tables on which the oracles were engraved, says that they were written by the 'finger of God' wherefore the sorcerers can no longer stand before Moses but fall as in a wrestling-bout vanquished by the sturdy strength of the opponent" (Migr. 83-85).

The pairs of concepts are now Moses / ydyos and true philosophers / It is by no means the only passage in which Philo regards the sorcerers as both sophists and sorcerers. Philo calls the sorcerers ooc|)iG T O U (as LXX, Exod 7:11; Exod 7:26 oi enaoiSoi) and [idyox in Mos. 1,92-94 and equalises them also in Det. 38-40 and Migr. 76-85. "Sophist" is generally one of the worst words Philo can use to characterise a man. He not only means Protagoras (Post. 35), but generally his followers, too (e.g. Det. 1; 72). Philo thus uses the words in LXX to interpret the sorcerers as false philosophers. After Socrates, it was common to criticise the rhetori­ cians and sophists for using speech and words for the purpose of seduc­ tion, and for Philo this was one, although not the only reason, why Moses lacked eloquence. Philo uses the biblical miracle-story to fight his contemporary philosophical opponents, partly supported by Platonic criticism. ao<|>iOTai.

135

136

137

138

The plagues are sometimes interpreted allegorically and the symbols are usually easily found. The plague which turns the Nile into blood is part of a larger context (Somn. 2,237-260). In Joseph's dream of standing on the edge of the river (Gen 41:17), Philo considers the river a symbol of speech. Both river and speech flow outward and both can be either beneficial or harmful. Philo does not deal with earthly rivers, but connects the passage with ethical in-

Also in QE 2,27, Moses is the most pure and God-loving mind and Aaron his word and the unlying interpreter of the truth (see QE 2,44). On the literal interpretation of the opponents, see above p. 113-114. See de Romilly 1975, 91; 69-88. See Winter 1997, 92; 104-105, and above p. 134. See Winter 1994,91-94. 1 3 5

1 3 6

1 3 7

1 3 8

135

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

struction. The two rivers, Euphrat and the river of Egypt (Gen 15:18), mean soul and body (Somn. 2,255-258). The river of Egypt changed into blood represents speech that calls for censure: it is ill-trained, ignorant and practically soulless, and cannot provide nourishment, for none can drink the speech of indiscipline. A good river produces fish (=thoughts), but a bad one kills the thoughts as the Nile kills the fish; moreover, it produces only frogs. Christiansen's pattern works perfectly: Philo 1) quotes a bibli­ cal verse, 2) says that speech is T O eTepov to the river, and 3) defines both concepts to show the similarity. The frogs mean "soulless opinions and conjectures, which produce noise and sound destitute and devoid of all reality." Pharaoh wanted to put off being free of them until "tomorrow", just as evil people want to main­ tain the unchanging level of their godlessness (Sacr. 69-71). The plague is only one link in a long chain of evidence against Cain's offering. The evidence consists of two parts: he offered "after some days" instead of at once, and he did not offer the first-fruits (Sacr. 52). The frogs belong to the former part. Good deeds should be done eagerly and without delay; Pharaoh is presented as a typical man acting as Cain and not seeking help from God, as 8Trajj(|>opiaTai generally do, seeking help from every other direction but only reluctantly from God. The uncommon darkness (vpTiAa^rjTOs . . . O K O T O S ) is understandably contrasted with God's light: The children of Israel had light in all their dwellings, which means that the darkness did not touch the body but the soul (Somn. 1,114; 117). This is a detail in a long passage (Somn. 1,72119), in which Philo interprets the words "for the sun was set" (Gen 28:11) as meaning several things, including human beings, sense-perception, God's word or God himself. The darkness in Egypt is part of the argumen­ tation for the last alternative (Somn. 1,87-119). Exod 22:25-27 tells man to give back the garment to the poor before the sunset. Philo takes the gar­ ment for reason (Aoyos), which is the only thing man really needs before the sun sets, i.e. before God leaves men in terrible darkness, as once hap­ pened to the Egyptians. The darkness, interpreted metaphorically as in Wis 17-18, is here only a small detail in the argumentation in which God is T O 139

140

ETepov to the sun.

t

The firstborn of the Egyptians are interpreted as lust, desire and other vices in Somn. 2,266. The context is the passage mentioned above about speech as a good or bad river, but now Philo gives human lips (xeTAos) two possibilities, citing the words about the bank (yjf\\os) of the river (Gen 41:17): either be silent or talk wisely. An argument encouraging si139

The frogs and the hail are briefly mentioned in Mut. 20-21. The passage is closely related to the interpretation of Gen 37, where "all the sophists of Egypt, augurs, ventriloquists, soothsayers" etc. sprang up from the Nile (Somn. 1,220). 140

136

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

lence is Moses' message to the Israelites: "The Lord will fight for you; you need only to be still" (Exod 14:14). As God's power once subdued the Egyptians, so his aid destroys "lust, pleasure, grief and fear, and injustice, folly, licentiousness with all their brethren and kin" and helps a man learn­ ing to be quiet and waiting for God's help. The pairs of concepts is thus river / speech and x^Aos = bank / x^os = human lips. The Passover and the destroyer, omitted in Mos. 1, occur in Alleg. Interp. 2,34, in the treatise dealing with the mind's mission to control the senses and passions. In this passage the context is Adam's sleep, sent by God, which means the mind's trance when it ceases to be engaged with the ob­ jects appropriate to it. Every soul meets this change, but God's people, unlike those who do not know him, do not sleep until they die. The de­ stroyer blocked from Israel's houses is destruction threatening the soul. Sacr. 62-63 also interprets the Passover as a fight against the passions. 141

142

143

144

The details in the final struggle between the Egyptians and the Hebrews (Exod 13:17-14:31) are often interpreted allegorically, as seen from the examples above. In Conf. 60-82 Philo explains Gen 11:2. Philo tells about a people who moved eastward and found a plain in Shinar, which he interprets "shaking out." According to Philo they actually moved away from virtues and shook them out. This is again applied to individuals, and the Egyptians, shaken and disordered in Exod 14:25, represent those who love the body, "who are shewn to us as flying not from the water but under the water, that is under the stream of passions" (Conf. 70). The events at the Red Sea thus serve as a small detail in the argumentation that moving to Shinar allegorically means moving away from virtues. In Philo, the king of Egypt was not an ordinary king, but "the boastful mind with his six hundred chariots, that is the six movements of the or­ ganic body" and the soldier did not ride a horse against Israel, but a soul with passion (Ebr. 111). This is only a part of a larger context and is of minor importance. Philo deals with several views on wine in Moses and sees it, among other things, as a symbol of foolishness or foolish talking (11-153). An example is a disobedient son, who is compared to the Israel­ ites' noisiness and worshipping of the golden calf; the opposite of this

See also Sacr. 134, where Philo deals with Num 3:13, comparing the firstborn of Egypt to "the most dominant elements of blind passion" and the firstborn of Israel to virtue. See also Alleg. Interp. 3, 165, Migr. 25 and Her. 255 See above p. 133. The context is presented above; see p. 135. 142

143

144

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

137

noise is the victorious song after the events at the Red Sea. Also here the smaller detail is used in ethical instruction. The cloud between the two peoples was A o y o s , which separates the good people from the evil. 145

"For on minds of rich soil that could send in gentle showers the drops of wisdom, whose very nature exempts it from all harm, but on the sour of soil, that are barren of knowl­ edge, it pours the blizzards of vengeance, flooding them with a deluge of destruction most miserable" (Her. 203-204).

Logos or wisdom is also identified with the cloud in Wis 10:17-19 and Philo obviously borrows from the same tradition, in which wisdom is pre­ sented as a widely independent being. Philo also deals with Moses' prayer at the Red Sea in Her. 14-19, eluci­ dating Abraham's bold way of speaking to the Lord (Gen 15:2-3). Exodus does not tell about Moses' prayer, but God asks why Moses is shouting at him, showing, according to Philo, that man is not in contact with God with his body but with his soul. In Conf. 36 the death of the Egyptians did not mean the separation of the soul from the body, but the end of godless teaching and thoughts. In this treatise Philo again plays with the word x ^ o s , now in Gen 11:1, and takes it to mean both human lips and a river bank: It allows him to link the events on the bank of the river with his moral instruction. A "symphony of evil" not only lives in multitudes, but also inside an individual. As Moses met Pharaoh on the "lip" of the river, so too were the Egyptians destroyed on the "lip" of the sea. Somn. 2,279-282 has mainly the same content. It is not only the Egyptian army but also, and especially, the wrong phi­ losophy that wars against virtue and is beaten. The context here is also XeTAos, although the aspect is different. 146

147

148

149

150

145

The horse is a symbol for passion, and the Egyptian rider is a mind in control of the passions - both are four-legged, because Philo adopts the view of four passions. The wider context is the main instruction in the treatise described above (see p. 133). The same interpretation occurs in Agr. 82-83. See Sandelin 1986, 106-107. "For Israel, it says, saw the Egyptians dead on the edge of the sea - not elsewhere. And when he says 'dead' he does not mean the death which is the separation of soul and body, but the destruction of unholy doctrines and of the words which their mouth and tongue and the other vocal organs gave them to use" (Conf. 36). Somn. 2,269-270 identifies briefly the rider cast into the sea with passion. On the one hand, the event meant a requital of all evil done by Pharaoh, but the story had a deeper sense: "Three messages, the best of tidings, does this text proclaim to the soul, one that the passions of Egypt have perished, a second that the scene of their death is none other than the lips of that fountain bitter and briny as the sea, those very lips through which poured forth the sophist-talk which wars against virtue, and finally that their ruin was seen" (Somn. 2,279-280). See above p. 134. 146

147

148

149

150

138

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

The praise after God's miracle is reinterpreted. Miriam (aTa0r)ais) led women, Moses ( v o u s ) men, "for it is right with both mind and sense to render hymns and sing blessings to the Godhead without delay" (Agr. 7983). Although briefly, cuo0r)ois is thus established as T O ETEpov for Miriam and v o u s for Moses. The events in Egypt were not the only subject that could be interpreted allegorically. The way in the desert was another. The entire journey was, of course, the way out of Egypt, the country of the body, and it took more than three days because of the "mixed and roughed multitudes" (Migr. 154). Spiritual emigration is a crucial theme in Philo's works. The water miracle at Marah (Exod 15:22-27) offers a possibility for sev­ eral interpretations, although the main pattern remains the same: That the water at Marah was bitter denotes that pleasure still harasses the wise man and tries to tempt him back to Egypt, i. e., to his earlier manner of life, but God produces the love of labour instead of the hatred of labour. In the passage in Post. 155-157 quoted above it is easy to define Philo's train of thought. In the wider context (Post. 124-157) the key word is water. Philo uses etymology as his tool, claiming that Seth means TroTiajJos, and the way is open for establishing water as T O ETEpov for wisdom: As water gives life to seeds and plants, so wisdom shoots up and improves (Post. 125). In this context the water at Marah is applied to an individual willing to return to "Egypt", but God prevents it with his food for the soul. Philo makes use of a broad tradition originating in the Old Testament (Prov 16:22 LXX). The interpretation in Congr. 163-167 is similar, but now the context is a proper education, which is an obvious contemporization. Philo was afraid that his fellow Jews would seek a Greek education only to get a good posi­ tion. He points to the right path: Although Hagar, the Greek education, 151

153

154

151

Cf. Mos. 1,147. Philo clearly uses the topic as an exhortation against intermarriage in his times: He uses hard words about the mixed people. They were accompanied by a "promiscuous, nondescript and menial crowd, a bastard host, so to speak, associated with the true-born. These were children of Egyptian women by Hebrew fathers, into whose families they had been adopted." On intermarriage in early Judaism, see Sanders 1994, 266. See above p. 131. See Sandelin 1986, 94-95. The question was a burning one in Alexandria. Philo, worried about the motives of his fellow Jews, applied a well-known Hellenistic allegory to the suitors of Penelope: a man may seek education because of bad motives (Alleg. Interp. 3,167). Philo applies this view to sacred history and to the relation between Abraham and Sarah / Hagar; see Borgen 1984, 116-117; Borgen 1997, 125; 162-165. 152

153

1 5 4

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

139 155

is needed, it is definitely subordinated to Sarah, the real philosophy. It means that a student is tested as Israel was in the desert, with the bitter water at Marah. Some people fail, but others let neither hunger nor thirst enslave them, and they will finally find their way. Also, in Migr. 36-38 the bitter water is combined with an exodus, but it is the spiritual wandering of Abraham that is used as model for everyone. This context contains Philo's famous words on inspiration given by God (Migr. 34-35) and immediately afterwards the passage telling how God makes everything sweet: 156

"Now the thing shewn is the thing worthy to be seen, contemplated, loved, the perfect good, whose nature it is to change all that is bitter in the soul and make it sweet, fairest seasoning of all spices, turning into salutary nourishment even foods that do not nourish. So we read: 'The Lord showed him a tree and he cast it into the water', that is, into the flabby, flaccid mind teeming with bitterness, that its savagery might be sweetened away. This tree offers not nourishment only but immortality also, for we are told that the Tree of Life has been planted in the midst of the Garden, even Goodness with the particular virtues, which accord with them to be its bodyguard. For it is Virtue that has obtained as it own the central and most honourable place in the soul. Such is that which is shown, and he that sees it is the wise man, for fools are blind or dim-sighted."

It is not surprising that Philo uses the story to teach ethical discipline and spiritual emigration out of the visible world. However, it is interesting that the tree is not an ordinary piece of wood, but a part of the Tree of Life. The same interpretation occurs in L.A.B 11,15. This interpretation leads Philo to the speculations quoted above. 157

158

159

The water from the rock (Exod 17:1-7 / Num 20:1-13) can also be inter­ preted allegorically (Alleg. Interp. 2,86), and the context in the treatise is

155

The water in Elim meant an entrance to virtue "for just as gateways are the begin­ nings of a house, so are the preliminary exercises of the schools the beginning of virtue" (Fug. 183). "But this result is brought about not by toil unaided, but by toil with sweetening. He says 'the water was sweetened', and another name for the toil that is sweet and pleasant is love of labour. For what is sweet in toil is the yearning, the desire, the fervour, in fact the love of good", Congr. 166. See Sandelin 1986,91-92. See below p. 242. Philo had no problem accepting the physicians. He mentions ap­ proving of Hippocrates (e.g. Op. 105; 124) and physicians generally (e.g. Alleg. Interp. 2,6; Cher. 15). The well dug by princes, mentioned in Num 21:16-18, occurs in Ebr. 112-113, and is interpreted similarly to the water of Marah. The well is wisdom, which lies deep below the surface and gives forth a sweet stream of true nobility for thirsty souls. In Fug. 183 the water in Elim means a gateway to virtue (see Sandelin 1986, 94-96). 156

157

158

159

140

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

described above: mind must have control over the senses and pleasures. The Hebrews tortured by the drought of passions are helped by God, "for the flinty rock is the wisdom of God, which he marked of highest and chiefest from his powers, and from which he satisfies the thirsty souls that love God".

Although Philo expresses this only in a few words, he seems to be aware of both the Jewish and non-Jewish traditions concerning the wisdom as a spring or well, which he now (and in Somn. 2,221-222) applies to bibli­ cal events. The passages on water from the rock are always connected with those on the food given by God. The following three passages illustrate Philo's fondness for this theme: 161

"And when they have been given water to drink, they are filled also with the manna, the most generic of substances, for the manna is called 'somewhat', and that suggests the summum genus. But the primal existence is God, and next to him is the word of God, but all other things subsist in word only, but in their active effects they are in some cases as good as non-subsisting" (Alleg. Interp. 2,86). "And indeed it says 'Behold I rain upon you bread from heaven'. Of what food he can rightly say that it is rained from heaven, save of heavenly wisdom which is sent from above on souls which yearn for virtue by him who sheds the gift of prudence in rich abundance, whose grace waters the universe, and chiefly so in the holy seventh (year), which he calls Sabbath (Mut. 259-260). "You see of what sort the soul's food is. It is a word of God, continuous, resembling dew, embracing all the soul and leaving no portion without part in itself* (Alleg. Interp. 3,169, see even 162-172). 162

The same thought appears with small variations: Manna is the heavenly food God gives to the soul (Fug. 138; Mut. 259-260; Deus 155), and the erring people, of course, prefer "the onions and the garlic, which give great pain and trouble to their eyes and make them close, or the other illsmelling things" of Egypt to it (Her. 79-80). Manna means the heavenly wisdom that God gives to people who seek virtue, and as seen above, Philo is clearly aware of a broad tradition interpreting the biblical story about manna. As Sandelin notes, Deut 8:3 LXX links manna with God's 163

164

160

165

See above p. 133. See Sandelin 1986, 94-96. Philo uses manna to show that God does not let those who feed on the divine words live in misery and suffering; the common people believe that God lets them suffer, be­ cause they have never tasted wisdom (Congr. 173-174). Det. 118 uses manna to teach the nature of the proper education. Philo contrasts manna / wisdom with encyclical studies in Mut. 259-260 (see Borgen 1997, 164). See above p. 123 and Borgen 1965, 9-20. Sandelin 1986, 104. 161

162

163

164

165

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

141

Philo 166

also Wis 16:20 says that manna was the food of angels. Thus al­ though this interpretation is not Philo's own, he eagerly adopts it. pfjua;

Philo also gives a slightly allegorical interpretation to the story of quails (Exod 16:1-36; Num 11:4-36): Desire was victorious over the Hebrews, who could not fight against it (Spec. 4,128-130). The literal and allegorical interpretations overlap here, and it is easy to understand: The biblical story not only deals with lack of food, but also with lack of spiritual strength, and it opens the door for Philo to interpret the punishment in Num 11:4-36 as punishment for gluttony and an uncontrolled life. 167

Exod 17:8-16 tells how Moses prayed for Israel when watching the battle between Israel and Amalek and how Aaron and Hur had to hold his hands up. Philo deals with the story twice in the third book of Legum allegoriae. In Alleg. Interp. 3,45 the context is that a soul finds in God the spring and aim of its own doings. Moses did find it, and consequently his hands were heavy unlike those of evil men, and he was steadied by "Aaron, the Word, and Hur, which is 'Light.'" Another view is offered later in the same book (Alleg. Interp. 3,186). Now he pays attention to the fighting nations and compares the battle to ethical life. Philo explains Gen 3:15, interpret­ ing the war between the snake's seed and the woman's seed as the war be­ tween passion's seed (pleasure) and the mind's seed (sense). The story about Amalek follows this pattern; the combatants are no longer two peo­ ples, but mind and passion. The diaeresis in Alleg. Interp. 3,185 follows the pattern described by Christiansen, and the war between the two peoples is only a detail in Philo's interpretations, although this time he also defines Amalek etymologically. 168

"...'Whenever Moses lifted up his hands, Israel prevailed, but when he dropped them, Amalek prevailed', showing that when the mind lifts itself up away from mortal things and is borne aloft, that which sees God, which is Israel, gains strength, but when it has lowered its special powers and grown weak, immediately passion, named 'Amalek', which means 'a people licking out', will become strong: for in very deed it eats up the whole soul and licks it out, leaving behind in it no seed or spark or virtue."

Philo does not use the story about Miriam's punishment (Num 12:1-16) in a literal sense in Vita Mosis, and the story is seldom mentioned in early Judaism. 166

See Sandelin 1986, 73-81. On Philo's way to use the material and parallels to the Christian writers and midrashic tradition, see the detailed exegesis in Borgen 1965, 2858. See above p. 123. 168 On the interpretation in Mishna, see above p. 126. 1 6 7

142

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

LXX calls the women A'iSioTnaaa (cf. rrBDrr) thus placing ©ID on the m a p . In v. 1 2 : 4 LXX inverts the order of Aaron and Miriam, and in v. 1 2 : 6 Kuptco would imply mrr ? in the translator's original, although our Hebrew text has mrr. In v. 1 2 : 8 mrr nJDn is ren­ dered TT)V 5 6 £ a v Kupiou, which may be a slight theological reworking of the original. In 1 2 : 1 0 frwD runxD is translated Xenpcoaa eoaei showing no traces of finding nmxD difficult. In v. 1 2 : 1 2 LXX adds coosi eKxpcoucc; in v. 1 2 : 1 5 the Hebrew text has *pRmi?, but the Septuagint has scos EKaOapioBn. 1 6 9

1

Philo, however, uses this story, but only allegorically (Alleg. Interp. 2,6567), and the wider context is the mind's control over the senses and pleas­ ures described above. The mind has three alternatives, a v c u o x u v T i a , aiScos and the lack of both (=bad, good and indifferent). Miriam repre­ sents vous under the power of a v c c i o x u v T i a , attacking Moses when he deserved praise. Philo does not, of course, interpret the Ethiopian woman literally, because he rejects intermarriage, but takes her to mean the unal­ terable steadiness of his soul. Philo does not seem to find the story prob­ lematic, since he mentions it only briefly, and it does not trigger, as of­ ten, an allegorical interpretation showing how impossible a literal read­ ing of the biblical passage would be. 170

171

172

Num 21:4-9 tells how the Israelites were punished with the venomous snakes and healed with a bronze snake. Philo deals with the story twice, in both passages with a widely similar view. The story teaches the control of pleasure. 173

LXX translates in v. 2 1 : 4 DtfrrosD sprn as Kai coXiyovpiixriaev b Xaos. In v. 2 1 : 5 the Hebrew text has w r ^ n , but LXX e^rjyayes, and the difficult bpbpn nn^n is rendered ev TCO dfpTco TOO SictKevco. In v. 2 1 : 6 the snakes, crsitDn O'rcmn, are rendered TOUS 6<J>EIS TOUS SavocTOiivTas. In v. 2 1 : 6 the words TCOV uieov laparjA implies that the translators had 'ptner ^nn in their original and not ^tnETQ, as in our Hebrew text. The translation is thus very literal.

Alleg. Interp. 2,76-84; 87, a treatise which generally deals with the mind's control over the senses and pleasures, naturally considers snakes to be symbols of various pleasures, and Philo happens to give an excep­ tionally thorough argumentation for the view a little earlier (Alleg. Interp. 2,74-75). Pleasure brings death - not separation of the soul from the 174

175

1 7 0

171

1 7 2

1 7 3

1 7 4

1 7 5

On the geographical names in the Septuagint, see Siegert 2 0 0 0 , 2 1 4 - 2 1 5 . See above p. 1 3 3 . On Philo and intermarriage, see Spec. 3 , 2 9 ; Virt. 3 5 - 3 6 . See Dawson 1 9 9 2 , 1 0 4 . The story is also alluded to in Wis 1 6 : 5 - 1 4 . See above p. 1 3 3 . Christiansen uses the passage to illuminate Philo's method; see Christiansen 1 9 6 9 ,

67-71.

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

143

body, but ruination of the soul through vice. The situation, however, is not hopeless: "Everyone, then, 'whom a serpent shall have bitten, when he looks on it shall live.' This is quite true. For if the mind, when bitten by pleasure, the serpent of Eve shall have suc­ ceeded in beholding in soul the beauty of self-mastery (O0)(|)poauvn), the serpent of Moses, and through beholding this, beholds God himself, he shall live; only let him look and mark well (povov 'ISETCO KCCI KaTavonaccTco)" (Alleg. Interp. 2 , 8 1 ) .

The pairs of terms are thus poisonous serpent / pleasure and Moses' ser­ pent / aco(|>pocnjvri. Here, as in Agr. 95-98, Philo sees a deeper meaning in the material of the healing snake: The firm metal shows that a man, al­ though once bitten by pleasure, can with self-mastery resist temptation and be saved. Philo shows in Agr. 95-98 his way to connect the literal interpretation with the allegorical. He first retells the biblical story literally, and the tran­ sition to the allegorical is interesting: "Told in this way these things are like prodigies and marvels (<|>o:a|jo:cnv E'OIKE KCCI TEpccai), the serpent emitting a human voice and using quibbling arguments to an utterly guileless character, and cheating a woman with seductive plausibilities; and another proving the author of complete deliverance to those who beheld it. But when we interpret words by the meanings that lie beneath the surface, all that mythical is removed out of our way, and the real sense becomes as clear as daylight" (Agr. 9 6 - 9 7 ) .

The "real sense", which is "as clear as daylight" is that the story attacks the wrong philosophy: In both passages the snake undoubtedly has the voice of the Epicureans; in addition, the phrases "pleasure" and "selfmastery" let us conclude that the snake, which has bitten the mind with pleasure, then uses the arguments of philosophers airo TCOV KrjiTcov to charm its victims. Philo teaches that a man can return to the right path and stop listening to the beguiling voices. The literal sense is never re­ jected in the miracle stories, but the allegorical sense is the real and higher interpretation of the holy text. 176

It is a communis opinio that for Philo the allegorical method was not a de­ vice to destroy the literal. This view is also confirmed in this study of the miracle stories. There are very few passages in which Philo tries to avoid the literal sense with the help of the allegorical method. 177

176

On Epicurus in Philo, see Aet. 8 and on Epicureans Post. 2 . Although Philo men­ tions the Epicureans only twice, it is clear that their views are often his target; see Booth 1 9 9 4 , 1 5 9 - 1 7 2 . Frey ( 1 9 9 4 , 1 6 4 ) correctly identifies the snakes in Alleg. Interp. 2 , 8 1 with the snake in Paradise; however, he does not see the obvious link to the Epicureans. Wolfson: 1 9 4 7 , 1 . 1 2 2 - 1 2 6 ; Mondesert 1 9 9 9 , 8 8 7 - 8 8 8 . See however, e.g. Alleg. In­ terp. 2 , 1 9 , where Philo rejects the literal sense of woman's creation. 177

144

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

As seen above, some scholars have taken some features of the miracle stories as clear adaptations. Meeks tried to link the Egyptians with the opponents of the Jews in Philo's own time, more specifically with Gaius. Meeks undoubtedly asked an important question, but direct evi­ dence is scarce. If Philo wanted to covertly attack Gaius or Roman rule, he has hidden his message very skillfully. On the other hand, Philo had a well-thought-out view on statesmen, rulers and kings, which he could not help expressing when retelling the biblical events. The Alexandrian offi­ cials and Roman rulers of his own times formed the context in which Philo presents a Furstenspiegel to his reader, although Gaius is not directly men­ tioned and may not even be meant. As seen, the glorious past of Israel meant more to Philo than is often understood, and he had a developed, eschatological view. That we are not able to date precisely Philo's treatises makes investigating the details very difficult. Borgen's opinion that Vita Mosis was written before the pogroms fits the analysis presented above. Hay inquires about the implied readers of Philo and finds good answers; but unhappily, he does not focus his study on Vita Mosis, and the general answers are undoubtedly different from those concerning this work. The miracle stories imply that he indeed included Gentiles in his audience. It is easier to find other features in the stories that were relevant to the Gentile audience in Philo's time. It is interesting to compare Philo's literal interpretation with the anti-Jewish propaganda known to him. He almost consistently omitted all biblical verses pointing to the strange or offending manner of sacrifice, and he even dropped the whole story about Passover. Apparently he definitely wanted to present Moses to Gentile sympathisers, knowing that the Israelite manner of sacrifice was heavily attacked in antiJewish propaganda. On the other hand, although he does not mention pestilence at the burning bush, and says that Moses' hand was AeuKOTepa Xiovos, he adds of his own will the words AOIJJIKCX ccppcooTripaTa, when retelling the biblical plague. He also tells that the Egyptians expelled the Israelites from their country. Apparently Philo did not consistently remove everything, which was criticised by anti-Jewish writers. Generally, Philo pays very little attention to anti-Jewish writers. He seldom mentions them (but see Conf. 2 and of course Hypoth.), and when introducing Moses he does not, as Josephus, attack anti-Jewish writers, but regrets that the Greeks do not mention him (Mos. 1,1-3). 178

179

180

181

182

Meeks 1976, 48-49. On the literal interpretation and possible adaptations, see below p. 132. See above, p. 121. See Hay 1991,20-52. See below p. 231-232.

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

145

What Philo wrote on the Sabbath was an attempt to universalise the Jew­ ish feast, and he seems really to have believed that the Gentiles could adopt one of the most eminent features of Judaism. He was not writing to an imaginary audience: the annual celebration of the LXX translation had attracted a number of non-Jewish sympathisers, and it is conceivable that eschatological hope was especially alive before the pogroms. But Philo also uses the miracle stories - both literally and allegorically to attack his philosophical opponents or to adopt a view taken from the Greek tradition. Few can hear the voice of the Epicureans in the snake's voice, but it was not a problem for Philo. He also attacked people who used their education for selfish ends. The warning not to follow the way of the Egyptian sorcerers, i.e. "sophists", was also meant for those among his own people needing a good Greek education. Understandably, the dan­ gers of the non-Jewish culture were always present in Alexandria. The allegorical method is generally considered to be a way to make the biblical figures and God's commandments universal and to link Jewish belief with Greek philosophy. This bias is very clear in the miracle sto­ ries, when interpreted allegorically. Exodus not only means freedom for a single nation; it was a universal spiritual emigration, and Philo uses its details to include and exclude Greek philosophy in and from his teaching. More precisely, the method is used to serve as the main function of the allegorical interpretation. The author of Jub. wrote about the fathers of the nation, and adapted the stories to the entire nation. Philo's exegetical method was different: he wrote about peoples and great events, and adapted the stories to the life of an individual. The way from Egypt with all its details was a treasure for the Jewish philosopher, who could adapt the Platonic model to his own religion. The great Alexandrian scholar and moralist, semper talis, repeatedly attacked human desire and pleasure through his reinterpreted stories. Their main role is to integrate Jewish ethical teaching with contemporary Greek philosophy. 183

184

185

183

See Borgen 1997, 140-144. Dawson presents the situation in Alexandria well (1992, 126), but his description of the internal-Jewish divisions is not convincing (1992, 114-115). We have very little evi­ dence of these divisions and are consequently easily led to speculations. See e.g. Sandmel 1984, 14. 184

185

146

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

d. Miracles explained

Philo

rationally?

Some modern scholars claim that Jews were strongly criticised by the Greeks and Romans because of their belief in miracles. This is an impor­ tant issue in the study of Josephus' works, and it emerges briefly in the study of Artapanus' fragments as well. However, the religio-historical background is widely similar for Josephus and Philo at this point, espe­ cially because both hoped to reach Gentile audiences. Both supposedly were well aware of anti-Jewish propaganda, and both certainly felt the pressure if it existed. Moreover, the view common in the studies concern­ ing Josephus is by no means unknown in Philonic studies. We have en­ countered several stories in which such an explanation seems to be reason­ able. Now it is time to investigate them more closely. Philo is aware of potentially difficult objections that could be raised: for example, the Jews laughed at myths, yet told biblical stories that resembled them (Conf. 2-3). Sometimes one cannot help asking if Philo really did rationalise the biblical stories. He may have interpreted the story of Ba­ laam allegorically (Cher. 32-36) and may even have said that the literal meaning was merely "prodigies and marvels" (Agr. 96-97) or omitted the feature of the ass speaking (Mos. 1,269-275). Sometimes he revised a bib­ lical story: The darkness may have been caused by an unordinary eclipse of the sun or by unusual clouds (Mos. 1,123-125), and the tide was a par­ tial reason for the way opened to the Hebrews (Mos. 1,176). The tree cast in the water was "possibly formed by nature to exercise a virtue which had hitherto remained unknown" (Mos. 1,185-187), and a possible explanation for the water from the rock was that "the rock contained originally a spring and now had its artery clean severed, or perhaps that then for the first time a body of water collected in it through hidden channels was forced out by the impact" (Mos. 1,211). Thus, much of what he says supports the view that the Jews tried to give a natural explanation for the miracles. However, in his production, Philo sometimes deals with the question of whether a miracle is possible. In QE 1,32 he considers the question of how it was possible that the snake spoke in paradise, and finds an answer: 186

187

188

"Second, when some miraculous deed is prepared, God changes the inner nature (secundo, quando mira quaedam patranda sunt, subiectas naturas commutat Deus)".

On Artapanus, see above p. 104, on Josephus, see below p. 228-229. Wolfson presents a detailed view. On the one hand, he recognises a rationalising element; on the other hand, he is of the opinion that Philo really took all biblical miracles as historical events (1947,1.122-126; 1.350-356). According to Georgi, Philo connected the miracles and their rationalisation "in gleichem Atemzug" (1964, 155); see also Moehring 1973, 377-381 and Feldman 2000, 231. On the question, see Eve 2002, 54-55; 83-84. 187

188

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

147

In Mos. 1,201-202 he deals with the same theme. Moses speaks to his peo­ ple: "But God has subject to him not one portion of the universe, but the whole world and its part to minister as slaves to their master for every that he wills. So now it has seemed good to him that the air should bring food instead of water ..."

The talking snake or the bread from heaven were thus not overwhelming obstacles to Philo's faith. There is little or no evidence for the view that the stories about Moses' miracles would have been problematic for Philo, even though he may give a natural explanation for them. On the contrary, he clearly states his belief that God makes miracles: "If anyone disbelieves these things, he neither knows God nor has ever sought to know him; for if he did he would at once have perceived - aye, perceived with an firm appre­ hension - that these extraordinary and seemingly incredible events are but child's-play to God ( c m TCC TrapcfSo^a 5r| TOCUTO: KCCI TrapdXoya 0sou Traiyvicc ecrnv). He has but to turn his eyes to things which are really great and worthy of his earnest contemplation, the creation of heaven and the rhythmic movements of the planets and fixed stars, the light that shines upon us from the sun by day and from the moon by night... But these things, though truly marvellous, are held in little account, because they are familiar. Not so with the unfamiliar; though they be but small matters, we give way before what happens so strange, and drawn by their novelty, regard them with amazement" (Mos. 1, 212-213).

Philo clearly combines the miracles with the omnipotence of God, the Creator. He does not play down the miracles, but argues a fortiori that a God capable of creation is also capable of working any other miracle. An ancient writer may present a less miraculous version of a story, but it does not necessarily mean that he is trying to rationalise it. As long as Philo tells similar stories in his production and treats the possibility of miracles positively, there is no reason to consider the miracle stories diffi­ cult for him. Philo uses these stories as simple illustrations, both literally and allegorically, and the latter is not a mean to exclude the former. There is no bias to consistently tone down miraculous elements. There seems to be no evidence that he uncritically linked the miracles with their rationali­ sation "in gleichem Atemzug", as Georgi claimed. On the contrary, Philo obviously had a well-thought view of the miracles. On the other hand, while this is true concerning the biblical miracles, we can only guess what he thought about contemporary miracle-workers, if he was aware of them. If he ever felt pressure from the Greeks and Romans concerning the biblical miracles, his answer was that miracles were easy for God, the 189

190

191

189

Tiede formulates it correctly: "Philo's starting point is that everything is possible for God, including those things that are impossible and insuperable for men" (Tiede 1972, 133-134); similarly also Sandmel 1984, 27. Eve 2002, 53. Georgi 1964, 155. 1 9 0

191

148

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

Creator. It is not due to inconsistency that he explains his texts. The Jewish heritage and the modern world have different concepts of a "miracle." A "miracle" meant something different to Philo than to David Hume. The biblical miracles were not a violation of the laws of nature; nfrra impos­ sible for men were possible for God. That he apparently found the biblical miracles unproblematic to deal with has direct consequences on the study of Josephus. 192

e. Miracles of the prophet Philo is by no means the only Jewish writer who considers Moses a prophet. Deut 18:18 led to the expectation of a "prophet like Moses", and Ben Sira takes it for granted that Moses was a prophet. Yet it is very interesting to see how Philo combines prophecy and miracles. Moses speaks with the people at the Red Sea in a very interesting pas­ sage (Mos. 1,173-175). According to Philo, he uses his mind and speech simultaneously for different purposes. He silently intercedes with God with his mind, but with his body he acts as a good, calm leader. Then every­ thing changes: 193

194

"But, after a little, he came possessed, and filled with the spirit which was wont to visit him, uttered these oracular words of prophecy ..."

Philo thus clearly differentiates between Moses' usual speech and proph­ ecy. In this passage the prophecy precedes the death of the Egyptians. Interestingly enough, the prophecy is one of the four adjuncts to the truly perfect ruler, and of course, Moses was a prophet of the highest quality (Mos. 2,187-188). Philo writes a long passage about the theme and differ­ entiates between three kinds of prophecy. In the first, God speaks in his own person with his prophet as interpreter; in the second, the revelation comes through questions and answers. The most interesting is the third kind of prophecy, which is "spoken by Moses in his own person, when possessed by God and carried away out of himself' (xal e£ auTOu 195

196

KccTaaxeBevTOs).

Philo does not discuss the first kind of prophecy ("They are too great to be lauded by human lips", Mos. 2,191). Four examples are given of the 197

192

See above p. 1-2. See above p. 27. On Moses as a prophet, see Meeks 1967, 125-131; Tiede 1972, 113-119. This is the kind supposed in Spec. 1,64-65. On ecstasy, see also Her. 249-259. Meeks noted (1967, 127) that elsewhere Philo uses ep|jr|veus and Trpo<|>rJTT}s almost interchangeably (see e.g. Praem. 55; Her. 260; Spec. 3,6). However, he overlooks the 193

1 9 4

195

196

197

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

149

second; two contain a punishment prophecy (the case of a blasphemer, Lev 24:10-16; Mos. 2,192-212; the punishment of a Sabbath-breaker, Num 15:32-36; Mos. 2,213-220). In the third types of prophecy the prophet him­ self speaks under divine inspiration (Mos. 2,246), and it is precisely the third type that Philo seems to combine with miracles. Philo returns to the events at the Red Sea, already told in the first book. Now he retells how Moses "was taken out of himself by divine possession ( O U K E T ' COV EV ECXUTCO 0eo<|>opE?TCu) and uttered these inspired words" (Mos. 2,250), and then describes the miracle (Mos. 2,253-257). This was the way Moses "be­ gan and opened his work as a prophet possessed by God's spirit" (Mos. 2,258). The next example, too, combines prophecy and miracle, namely manna (Mos. 2,258-263). The third concerns manna on the Sabbath (Mos. 2,263-269), and also here Philo uses the word or)|JE?ov (MOS. 2,264). The fourth example is the only one without a miracle. It is the story of the golden calf, in which Moses acts as prophet (Mos. 2,270-274): "He therefore became another man (OUKETI [ISVCAV b CCUTOS), changed both in outward appearance and mind, and filled with the spirit, he cried (Mos. 2,272).

Philo tells how the prophet kills three thousand of his own people. The last example, the story about Korah, deals again with a miracle (Mos. 2,275287), in which Moses is "transformed into a prophet" (|JETa|3aAcov E'IS 198

TTpoc|>rJTr]v).

Philo presents many interesting details concerning prophecy, such as linking a clean life and freedom from passion with the life of a prophet (Mos. 2,68-69). This is not unique in Philo. He considers every good man a prophet. This may again be a device to universalise Jewish wisdom and integrate it with the Greek world. The most interesting features here are 1) the ecstasy of the prophet, 2) the connection between prophecy and other miracles and 3) the brutal violence of the prophet. 1) Religious ecstasy was a well known phenomenon in classical antiq­ uity, as Plato, Aelius Aristeides and Vergil (to mention only few) clearly attest. Levison's comparison of Philo's view on inspiration with Plu­ tarch's writings show that their views are widely compatible. However, Philo's concept can easily be traced to his Jewish heritage. Saul was "changed into a different person" and prophesied (1 Sam 10:6). Another 199

200

201

importance of the miracles for the third kind of prophecy. "While his heart was still hot within him, burning with lawful indignation, inspira­ tion came upon him, and, transformed into a prophet, he pronounced these words (Mos. 2,280). See Her. 259-260. See below p. 209. Levison 1995, 189-207. 198

199

2 0 0

2 0 1

150

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

very close parallel is Samson and his spirit-filled and violent leadership. This is a major theme in L.A.B., which owes much to this tradition. 2) Philo closely connects the miracles with Moses' prophecy. Almost all examples of the third art of prophecy contain a miracle. Prophecy is a many-sided phenomenon in Philo's works, a prophet being a righteous man and a righteous man a prophet. Miracles are not necessarily part of the picture of a prophet, but the analysis shows clearly that they can be. Moses is thus also a model for a miracle-working prophet. It means that the miracle-working "sign-prophets" are closer to Philo's view than is usu­ ally understood, especially if his eschatological hope is not overlooked. 3) Philo chooses very violent examples of the deeds of the prophet. No less than three out of five examples are very aggressive (the miracle at the Red Sea, the stories about the golden calf and the story about Korah). Philo could have presented many biblical prophets who performed miracles with vehemence. Several of the prophets used violence. The first of them is, of course, Elijah, who killed the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18). Elisha cursed the boys mocking him (2 Kgs 2:22-24) as well as Gehazi (2 Kgs 5:24-27). Even if the biblical prophets did not make mira­ cles other than prophecy, most of them were critical of their audience, even furious at them. In any case, many biblical prophets could serve as models of the new traits of the miracle-working Moses. The link between violence and miracles is seen in the stories about Elijah and Elisha already mentioned. An interesting parallel is again L.A.B., written a little after Philo, with several violent and miracle-working figures. It is no wonder that such persons occur in a text roughly contemporary with the fall of Je­ rusalem. Torrey Seland has studied Philo's view on CfjAos and found ma­ terial rich in information. In his view, ^nXcoTrjs is in Philo an individual religious man and does not represent a movement. At any rate, the fact 202

203

204

205

206

2 0 2

See chapter 8. Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Abraham were true prophets, even if they did not make miracles {Her. 260-266); see Tiede 1972, 113-115). Tiede supposes that Philo pur­ posely omitted Abraham's prayer in Gen 20 (Her. 258), because the prophet had no need to prove himself divine through miracles (Tiede 1972, 115-116). However, although it is true that the story is not told in extenso, Philo quotes Gen 20:7: "restore the woman to the man, because he is a prophet and shall pray for you, and you shall live" (Her. 258). On the biblical story, see also Abr. 92-98, where the prayer is presumed (Her. 95), but not highlighted. See above p. 121. According to Barraclough (1984, 480) Philo "dehistorizes the coming event to the level of the individual soul", and Mondesert (1999, 898-900) also emphasizes the non-violent character of Philo's eschatology. However, this is only one side of the truth. Precisely the spiritual side of the eschatology also could include hopes, which were not necessarily non-violent, as the violent miracles attest. See below chapter 8. Seland 2002, esp. 459-461. 2 0 3

2 0 4

2 0 5

2 0 6

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

151

that Philo could add violent traits to his prophet Moses means that the roots of the movements, which were violent and religious, can be traced back to a broader tradition of interpretation. Ben Sira and his violent pas­ sages attest this tradition in the early second century BC. Josephus tried his all to show that the "zealotic" prophets had nothing to do with real Juda­ ism, but they resembled Philo's Moses more than is usually recognised.

/ God or Moses? Thus for Philo, Moses was a great miracle-worker. But was it God or Moses who made these miracles? Moreover, is the Moses in Philo's text a divine being or a human being? The early advocates of the divine man the­ ory considered Philo's Moses a 9eTos avrjp - actually Philo is one of the few writers who used the phrase (Virt. 177) - and he has always been a part of the puzzling question. Tiede's book was an important cri­ tique of the divine man hypothesis. He argued that Philo's Moses is 0 e 7 o s because he is an ideal oo<J>6s and has got ocpnTrj, not because of his mira­ cles. However, the decisive turn came with Holladay's book (1977), al­ though it has taken a long time for his results to gain the appreciation they deserve. Runia's (1988) and Hellemans's (1990) studies recently con­ firmed Holladay's main results, but it is certainly useful to treat the theme briefly, especially because Borgen disagrees with Runia. 207

208

209

210

211

The easier of the two questions above is Moses' role in the miracles. Ac­ cording to Tiede, Moses' prophecies do not produce miracles but merely anticipate God's action. Philo seems to avoid describing Moses as a 212

2 0 7

Philo's Moses was already 0e?os avrjp in e.g. Reitzenstein, Windisch and Bieler. On a history of the research, see Holladay 1977, 101-106 and du Toit 1998, 349-361. The use of this and related phrases has been studied by Du Toit (1997). A short list can be found in Koskenniemi 1994, 99-100. See Meeks 1967, 103-106; Georgi 1964, 152-167. According to Koster 1971 (1970), 201-204 Philo made his Moses a Hellenistic divine man for propagandistic reasons; see also 173-179. Apparently Tiede's book led Schweizer to doubt the presence of the pattern in Philo (Schweizer 1973, 534). According to Schottroff "ist Wundertun gerade kein charakteristisches Merkmal" in Moses' picture (however, he considers him GeTos avrjp in Philo, 1983,229-230). Cf. Beegle 1992, 916 "As a 'divine man' Moses is superhuman." According to Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 354-355) Philo makes Moses divine. Holladay's work means a fundamental turn in the research according to Helleman (1990, 51-52) and du Toit (1997, 361-363); see also the short summary in Koskenniemi 1994, 88-90. Borgen (1997, 197-205) does not refer to Helleman. Tiede 1972, 129. 2 0 8

2 0 9

2 1 0

2 1 1

2 1 2

152

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

miracle-working hero, and it is true that Moses is generally not the inde­ pendent miracle-worker as presented, for example, in Artapanus. However, Philo is one of the few Jewish writers who scrupulously tries to distinguish the roles of God and Moses. According to Philo, some of the plagues were caused by Moses (and Aaron), but some had no human agent. Some texts reduced Moses' role in the stories or mentioned only God or his wis­ dom. Philo, however, gives Moses a significant role. It should not be overlooked that Philo, like, for example, Jub., distances God from men and does not put him in dialogues with men. It necessarily means a change of roles and it gave more room for Moses to act as God's agent. In Kahl's terminology, the oscillation is marked: Although Philo expressis verbis attributes some miracles to Moses (or Aaron), he hardly presents Moses as a BNP. At times he is certainly an MNP, as at the burning bush, or when mediating the plagues attributed to him in Egypt. Sometimes he is a PNP, at the Red Sea or in making the water sweet, but it is very difficult to find any consistent line of thought. Although Moses' human weakness is re­ duced and he is no longer the reluctant leader, Philo's rewriting of Exodus is more motivated by his desire to reduce God's anthropomorphic features and to remove dialogues between him and Moses than by reflection on the roles of God and Moses. 214

215

216

But do the miracles raise Moses above other human beings? Philo can say very surprising things about Moses. As seen above, Philo tends to dissoci­ ate all human weakness from Moses. He is not only called 0e?os avrjp (Virt. 1,777), but Philo clearly says that he is neither a man nor a god but something between these two: "on the border." The legislator of the Jews seems to have passed from a man into a god. His partnership with 217

218

2 1 3

Tiede's (1972, 115-117) view is that Philo ignores the possibility of attributing the miracle to Abraham in Gen 20 when retelling the story in Abr. 93-106. Tiede notes that the Old Testament passages, in which Moses' role culminates, do not link him with mira­ cles and gave no model for Philo to do it (Deut 33:1; Jos 14:6; Ezra 3:2; Ps 90:1; see Tiede 1972, 102. See above p. 77. So also Eve 2002, 66-74, who considers Moses and Aaron as PNPs. Eve deals thoroughly with some passages in which Philo's words seem to contradict his basic view that God is the real subject of the miracle; Eve analyses what he said and what he must have meant (2002, 71-74). It is easier to say that Philo did not have a con­ sistent line of thought. ueBopiov Trjs ccyevrixou Kai <|>0apTf]s <j>uaecos (Somn. 2,234). Philo links the words with Deut 5:5 ("I stood between the Lord and you"). Cf. the words on the High Priest, Spec. 1,116 and on parents Spec. 2,225. "The legislator of the Jews in a bolder spirit went to a further extreme and in the practice of his 'naked' philosophy, as they call it, ventured to speak of him who was possessed by love of the divine and worshipped the Self-existent only, as having passed 2 1 4

2 1 5

2 1 6

2 1 7

2 1 8

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

153

God was of a very special kind. He was deemed worthy to bear the same title; he was named god and king of the whole nation, and entered into darkness where God was (Mos. 1,158). Philo seems to believe that Moses was pre-existent: 219

"And even when God sent him as a loan to the earthly sphere and suffered him to dwell herein, he gifted him with no ordinary excellence, such that which kings and rulers have..." 220

Moses' death means that God "resolved his twofold unity, transforming his whole being into mind, pure as the sunlight" (Mos. 2,288). It is un­ derstandable that the passages referred to fuelled the modern discussion about divine men. As a matter of fact, they were observed surprisingly sel­ dom, and Borgen justly emphasizes them. However, the idea of calling Moses a god did not originate with Philo, but in Exod 4:16 and 7 : 1 , verses which offered an opportunity to ap­ ply the Hellenistic model - if it ever existed. Philo clearly qualifies Moses' person and status. He is a mortal man (Mos. 2,5), and he is not god for all parts of the world but only for men (Prob. 42). Actually, he is not a real god, but only a god for foolish people, and \xi\ irpos aArjBeiccv, 5o£fj Se J J O V O V . Philo also writes that it is impossible for a man to change into a god, and he considers this claim aor]PTi|jdTcov ... x a t a ^ T a T o v ; a god could sooner become a man (Legat. 118). Moreover, it is worth noting that Philo never supports Moses' extraordinary position with miracles. Prob. 221

222

223

224

225

from a man into a god, though, indeed, a god to men, not to the different parts of the nature, thus leaving to the Father of all the place of King and God of gods" (Prob. 42). The passages in which Moses is called a god are Alleg. Interp. 1,40; Det. 161-162; Mos. 1,158; Mut. 19; 125-129; Prob. 42 and Sacr. 8-10. Sacr. 9, see Tiede 1972, 125. On Moses' death, see above p. 127-128. As noted by Runia the Hebrew text and LXX differ (1988, 53): LXX reads ou Se auTco lot) TOC Trpos TOV 0s6v. However, Exod 7:1 is translated literally (5e5coKa oe 0e6v Occpaco; see above p. 99. See Tiede 1972, 123-126; Helleman 1990, 67-70; Goulet 1987, 361-362. "It follows as a consequence of this that, when Moses is appointed a god unto Phar­ aoh', he did not become such in reality, but only by a convention is supposed to be such; for I do indeed know God as granting favours and giving, but I am unable to conceive of him as being given; yet it is said in the sacred books, 'I give you as a god to Pharaoh', that which is given being passive not active; but he that really is must needs be active not passive. What then do we gather from these words? That the wise man is said to be a god to the foolish man, but that in reality he is not God, just as the counterfeit four-drachma piece is not a tetradrachm. But when the wise man is compared with him that is, he will be found to be a man of God; but when with a foolish man, he will turn out to be one conceived of as a god, in men's ideas and imagination, not in view of truth and actuality" (Det. 161-162). See Tiede 1972, 111-117. 2 1 9

220

221

2 2 2

2 2 3

2 2 4

2 2 5

4

154

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

42 does not mention Pharaoh or the plagues at all. Consequently, it is clear that it is not the miracle-working Moses who is divine. Moses is 0 e 7 o s be­ cause he is c r o w d s , and every ao<|>ds is holy. Philo universalises the Jewish religion and links it with Greek wisdom and with famous philoso­ phers. Of course none o f the pagan philosophers was ao<|)os or 6 e 7 o s as Moses was. Plato's idea, as expressed in Theaetetus 176a-b, significantly influenced Philo's way of dealing with Moses. Philo not only mentions and hon­ ours Plato several times, but even refers to Theaetetus, and precisely to the passage mentioned above (Fug. 60-64). Philo quotes Plato's words to the effect that man's task is to "flee this world and become a god as much as one can" ((JHjyrj 5E O J J O I C O O I S 0eco K a r a T O SuvctTov); this is the model for the spiritual emigration of Abraham and the Hebrews. Philo uses the word e£o|joicoais (Spec. 4,188, Op. 144). This transformation means a process of following the godly idea, although Philo does not use the Pla­ tonic word METExeiv to illustrate the relationship. In Alleg. Interp. 2,4-5 he uses Gen 2:18 to support this concept: Man made after God's image does not want to be alone, but seeks God. Moses saw God, who is TTapa5eiy|jaTiKrj ouaia, which is the reason Moses was T r c c p d 5 e i y | j a T O T S sBeXouoi ptneToSai and called a god (Mos. 1,158). A human mind is divine, but as noted by Holladay, Philo makes a sharp distinction between God and his followers. The transformation has limited possibilities. To apprehend God a man should become God, but this is impossible (QE Fr. 1 Marcus p. 258). It was not Philo's innovation that Moses was a god, but because Exod 7:1 called him a god it had to be defined. Instead o f empha­ sizing Moses' divinity he reduces it. 227

2 2 6

228

229

230

231

232

233

Philo thus calls Moses a g o d , but there is no reason to apply the problem­ atic modern device of divine men to interpret his picture o f Moses. Philo's 2 2 6

0e?os is a word often used of philosophers; see Tiede 1972, 120-124. The concept is also used in QE 2,40 and although the context is Moses' ascension to the mountain, it is obviously universalised. Philo appreciates above all Pythagoreans (TCOV TTuBayopsicov 'lepcoTCCTOv Ofaaov, Prob. 2-3; see also Moehring 1979, 205-208) and Plato (KCCTOC TOV 'lepeoTOCTOV TTAccxcova, Prob. 13; see also Aet. 52). Helleman 1990, 52-55. See also Runia 1988, 64-73 highlighting Timaeus 90c, which calls man's divine part his 5a(|Jcov, and Arist. Protr.fr. 10c. Philo mentions and praises Plato several times (Prob. 13, see also Aet. 52; Op. 119 and QG 3,3). Timaeus is cited remarkably often (Aet. 13 Timaeus 4\;Aet. 27 Timaeus 32; Aet. 38 Timaeus 33; 141 Timaeus 24-25). Philo is aware of several views of Plato (Aet 14-16). Theaetetus 176 is also quoted in Fug 82. See above p. 131-133. See Helleman 1990, 62-63. Holladay 1977, 235-236; see also Helleman 1990, 66-67. 2 2 7

2 2 8

2 2 9

2 3 0

2 3 1

2 3 2

2 3 3

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

155

Philo 235

236

Moses is above all an ideal philosopher, lawgiver, prophet and ruler, and his main goal is to glorify the Jewish religion by glorifying its Law-giver. Yet, Philo ascribes to his Moses traits that other human be­ ings do not possess. Thus, if consistency was his goal, the task was over­ whelming. In the Platonic model he followed, man's mind was divine and Moses was an excellent Trapd5Eiy|ja, but Philo clearly separated God from man. This resulted in a dilemma. While Philo attributed excep­ tional features to Moses, several Hellenist and Palestinian Jewish writers treated in the present work emphasized his uniqueness even more than Philo. The miracles are only one, and not a decisive side, of Moses' multifaceted picture. They are not denied; on the contrary, they are retold and used in teaching, but it is hard to isolate the role of miracles in this picture, because Moses' wisdom and role as God's messenger and prophet also give him a special status. However, he is 0e?os rather as a philosopher than as a miracle-worker. 237

238

239

g. Miracles and legitimisation In Exodus Moses is repeatedly legitimated by the miracles (Exod 4:8-9). God himself shows that he supports the oppressed when Moses meets his opponents (Exod 6:12; 6:30). Even the Egyptian sorcerers must recognise "God's finger" (Exod 8:15). The miracles also legitimate God himself as Lord of all (Exod 14:17-18). Philo sometimes maintains this function of the miracles, but in an original way. His paraphrase of Exod 4 especially reveals Philo's stand on miracles. Moses knows that his own nation will not believe him and God replies to him: 240

"First tell them that I am He Who Is, that they may learn the difference between what is and what is not, and also the further lesson that no name at all can properly be used of me, to whom alone existence belongs. And, if in their natural weakness, they seek some title to use, tell them not only that I am God, but also the God of the three men whose

2 3 4

Like many Jewish writers, Philo presents Moses as the great teacher of the world. The young Moses had teachers from Greece, Egypt and Syria, but quickly became wiser than they (Mos. 1,21-24). Zeno learned his wisdom (Prob. 53-57), possibly Socrates, too (QG 2,6). Barclay 1992, 39: "In Philo's hands, Moses is the ultimate philosopher in the Cynic-Stoic tradition." Moses is presented as a lawgiver also when Philo writes about the creation (Op. 1-2) and he is proudly paralleled with Lycurgus and Solon (Spec. 3,22-23). See above p. 148-151. Eve 2002, 65. See Runia 1988, 73-74. On Ezek. Trag. see p.81-86 on L.A.B. see 199-205. See Eve 2002, 59-61.75-84. 2 3 5

2 3 6

2 3 7

2 3 8

2 3 9

2 4 0

156

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

names express their virtue, each of them the exemplar of the wisdom they have gained Abraham by teaching, Isaac by nature, Jacob by practice. And, if they still disbelieve, three signs which no man has ever before seen or heard of will be sufficient lesson to convert them" (Mos. 1,75-76).

The miracles thus legitimate Moses, but they are not the most significant means of showing that God has sent Moses. The main means is God him­ self and the second that he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Philo follows the order of Exodus - chronologically the miracles follow God's speech - but the emphasis is new. Moses, however, makes miracles before his own people "thinking that the sight would convert them from the pre­ vailing unbelief to belief in his words" (Mos. 1,90). The miracles manifest the truth of the Decalogue (Decal. 15-18) and Moses' mission is confirmed by God's mighty deeds (Mos. 1,95; 2,262). It is not Philo's own invention that a man should not need miracles to be­ lieve God's message; this view is present in several biblical passages. Philo has preserved the view and even put it in God's words to Moses quoted above. Because of the "natural weakness" of the Israelites they need a name for God and miracles to see (Mos. 1,76). Philo does not doubt that they were effective: the marvellous spectacle "refuted the scepticism in every ill-disposed person's soul" (Mos. 1,94). The miracles thus should not be a decisive argument to convince men, but sometimes they were needed. 241

A legitimisation is thus not a strong function of the miracle stories, al­ though it is sometimes preserved. It is clear that Philo's Jewish audience needed legitimisation for Moses less than the Gentiles, and generally in Philo this function is only an echo of the biblical texts. 242

243

h. Conclusion Philo uses the biblical miracle stories in many ways. Although Moses is almost the only biblical miracle-worker mentioned, his miracles are treated extensively and vividly. Philo simply retells them freely and even with enthusiasm, as he generally retells Moses' life including legendary 244

According to Tiede the less prominent role of Aaron shows that the miracles do not legitimate the divinity of a man (Tiede 1972, 134). On Philo's audience, see above p. 110. 243 « j j j j phenomena verify God's power, but are only secondary documentation of Moses' peculiar status" (Tiede 1972, 137). On the few exceptions concerning Elijah, see above p. 109. 2 4 2

US

2 4 4

s u c

1

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation:

Philo

157

material. Philo is aware of several common details and mentions their source, the oral Jewish tradition in Alexandria. His general views have influenced the stories. He has omitted everything that could be interpreted as God's anthropomorphic or anthropopathic features and consequently generally reduced Moses' dialogues with God. But above all, the stories are retold from the perspective of a learned man. Philo is well aware of the Jewish tradition as, for instance, the story about manna attests, but he openly applies the Greek theory of the four elements when retelling the plagues in Egypt. Although Philo may offer a natural explanation for a biblical story, there are very few signs of "rationalisation". Such an interpretation was inap­ propriate for an ancient Jew. Philo himself says that everything is possible for God, including the marvellous stories told in the Scripture. He often exaggerates the miraculous features, as in the plague on the river, the parched sand under the feet of the Hebrews, or the effects of the bitter wa­ ter becoming sweet. If he ever felt the same pressure that allegedly influ­ enced Josephus, it did not prevent him retelling the biblical stories. For Philo, God's great deeds formed a unity, and the biblical miracles were no problem to him. Nonetheless, it is obvious that man should not need mira­ cles to be convinced that he must obey God. Only human weakness, which is unable to understand God's wisdom, needs miracles. Moses is often legitimated by miracles in the Scripture. Philo, however, does not mention this function often. Another function is by far of greater importance for him. The miracle stories are used for ethical instruction, which is why they play an important part in Philo's texts. He is particularly fond of allegorical interpretations of the miracle stories and redacts his material strongly to bring out his favourite themes: Men must have control over desire, pleasure and sin, and seek virtue, wisdom and purity. The bib­ lical exodus meant above all a spiritual emigration, the path to freedom from desire and pleasure. The rod of Moses/Aaron, the Egyptian firstborn, the manna and the quails, and the bronze snake are used to help the audi­ ence fight against desire, and to seek virtue, and in so doing avoid the dan­ ger of losing self-control and the "return to Egypt", i.e. the power of desire and pleasures. Philo generally used his exegetical methods to adapt the biblical material on nations and great events to the life of an individual; this is also obvious in the miracle stories. Many passages show that Philo was able to adapt and contemporize the miracle stories. Although it is difficult to find convincing evidence for the view that Philo covertly attacked Gaius, his reflections on good and bad rulers are present in his production. He did not like native Egyptians, which undoubtedly made it easier to use Egypt as the representative of everything bad in the stories in Exodus. But he also used the stories to em-

158

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

phasize the importance and the role o f a good education or the significance of the Sabbath. Surprisingly, however, the anti-Jewish propaganda cer­ tainly known to him influenced his rewriting very little. His mission was to universalise the Jewish religion, and he sought Gentile readers, especially in Vita Mosis, which led him to omit the biblical words on the strange manner of sacrifice in the desert. In his view, God created the world and gave the Law. Consequently, all real wisdom is compatible with the bibli­ cal stories and the biblical stories with all real wisdom, and Philo does not hesitate to use the stories to reject and to accept the Greek philosophical traditions. The Egyptian sorcerers were a o ^ i o x a i , i.e. false and seductive philosophers. That Moses lacked eloquence meant that he did not use his skills as they did. Although the Epicureans are seldom mentioned, their views are constantly attacked. On the other hand, the entire spiritual emi­ gration described above is compatible with the Platonic model, and Philo himself quotes Theaetetus and its key passages. Early Judaism described Moses as both a prophet and a miracle-worker. Philo does too. However, the combination of these two elements is ex­ tremely interesting in his works. Although the background for his works is not fervent Palestine, life in Alexandria was not always peaceful in the Jewish TToXiTEU|ja. As a new element, Philo introduces religious ecstasy to several biblical stories. Moreover, on several occasions he highlights the violent miracles of the prophet Moses. This means that he stood closer to the later, violent charismatic figures than is usually understood. Philo, who had a developed eschatological hope of the future of Israel, himself witnesses an important function of the biblical miracles, especially the miracles of Moses. These miracles played an important role in Judaism and were part of the history shaping the identity of the nation. The ten­ dency to define the nation on the basis of the past is strongly attested in Psalms and in the later literature. Ben Sira is a link in a long chain. Philo attests that the tradition continued, and was very strong in Hellenistic Egypt. The great miracles of Exodus were the reason why the Jewish choirs continually praised God in their hymns (Spec. 2,217-219; Cont. 8587). Exodus was part of the glorious past always present in Judaism. Philo had no need to highlight the tendency, which was current in his time. Moses and his miracles were a cornerstone of the Jewish national identity. No wonder that the Jewish war had an epilogue in Cyrene, when Jonathan led people to the desert to show them orjiJeTa Kai (|>da|jaTa (B.J. 7,437450; Vita 432-435). Although Philo's Moses was once an important piece of evidence for the BeTos dvrjp theory, he cannot be used for this purpose. Philo admittedly

6. Miracles in Literal and Allegorical Interpretation: Philo

159

honours Moses in an exceptional manner, but he is not responsible for Moses being called a god. He quotes Exod 7:1 and defines the context in which a wise man can be called divine, using the Platonic model as the basis of his interpretation. Moses, of course, is the best example of a wise man and bpoicoais 8EC3, but Philo her uses the biblical miracle stories sparingly and favours other ways to emphasize Moses' special status. Philo generally distances God honourably from dialogues with men, which led him to edit the stories. Consequently, it is difficult to find a consistent role for Moses in the stories. Sometimes he appears as an MNP, sometimes as a PNP, but this is the consequence of avoiding anthropomorphism and not a result of a consistent reflection on the roles.

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets a. Introduction The intention of early criticism was to survey all miracle stories relevant to the interpretation of the New Testament. Masters, such as Bultmann, ob­ served not only Christian stories about saints but also traditions from the Middle Ages in Lithuania, and among the American Indians or African peoples. A collection of lives of the Old Testament prophets, Vitae Prophetarum, falsely attributed to Epiphanius, was seldom even mentioned and studied even less. The Lives of the Prophets is a collection of texts which has divided the views of scholars and still does. It has been dated from the early first cen­ tury or markedly later; it is considered to be a Jewish or a Christian text written originally either in Hebrew or Greek. That it is of Palestinian provenance seems to be unquestionable. The careful commentary of Anna Maria Schwemer now seems to have solved the problems. The collection was redacted in the first Christian century; it is a Jewish, not a Christian work, although it contains some Christian interpolations, and was written in bilingual Palestine. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1

The Lives is copied in several Greek versions, and moreover, in Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, Ethiopic, Latin and Hebrew (see Schwemer 1995, 12-22; Satran 1995, 9-16). The text has been known since 1622 and is included in Migne, PG 43, 393-413 (see Goodman and Vermes 1987, 783-784). However, it was hardly observed in scholarship; see Nestle 1893, 1-6; Satran 1995, 16-29. Even the German edition of Schurer (1909) does not contain a chapter on it. Scholars who consider the collection written by Christians (de Jonge 1961-1962, 161178, Satran 1995) dare not date it exactly. The Christian elements are obvious in all manuscripts; see Torrey 1946, 9; Jeremias 1958, 11-13; Hare 1992, 502-503; Schwemer 1995, 11.3-34. Torrey considered the original language Hebrew (1946,1.7) and was followed by Jeremias (1958, 12). Schermann (1907b, 119-121.131-132) opposed the view that the collection is only a translation from a Hebrew original, and assumed a "hebraische Grundschrift" (followed by Wolff 1976, 42). Greek is supposed, among others, by Stone (1972, 1150) and Hare (1985, 380; 1992, 502-503). On the history of research, see Schwemer 1995, 56-58. Only the Life of Jeremiah points to Egypt. Torrey supposed that the story was told or written by an Egyptian (1946, 10-11); see also Schwemer 1995, 65-66. Studien zu den fruhjiidischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae prophetarum, 1995-1996. Hare agrees in his introduction with Schwemer on all essential points (1985, 3802

3

4

5

6

7

8

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

161

None of these judgements was new, but all were represented in the his­ tory of research. They were challenged in a book by David Satran, which he published in 1995, the same year that Schwemer published the first part of her own commentary. According to Satran the work is late and mainly a Christian product, but his view is not generally accepted and he admitted himself recently that he represents a minority. Today we have no reason to doubt that the Lives of the Prophets is a Jewish work, given its obvious Christian interpolations, and that the work was copied in the Christian tra­ dition alone, without any evidence of its use in Qumran. The youngest tra­ ditions in the original collection date to the first Christian century. The work was collected and redacted soon after this period, probably around the fall of the Second Temple. The collection thus mirrors the life of the Palestinian Jews under the sometimes harsh Roman rule, and MittmannRichert justly notes that this point of view is seldom observed well enough. Schwemer seems to have defined well the literary form of the Lives actually the early editors freely added the titles 6 T O U ( J I O S . . . Trpo<j)r]TOu or similar phrases. They follow a clear pattern and tell the name, place of birth, deeds, death and the grave of each prophet. The Lives were neither meant to be a Reisefuhrer for the pilgrims nor can they be labelled as encomia. As in Ben Sira's Laus patrum, the Lives have been influenced by Greek short biographies, which we know, for example, from the work 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

382), and so does Mittmann-Richert (2000, 156-158). The "English Schurer", i.e. Vermes and Goodman, is surprisingly uncertain both concerning the original language and date (1987, 783-786). Satran 1984, 56-60 is very cautious and does not oppose the communis opinio; he only observes the open questions. However, in 1980 he already expressed his view that the Lives was not a first century Jewish composition (1980, 47). Before Satran, this view was held especially by de Jonge (1961-1962, 161-178). Satran underlines that the geo­ graphical names in the Lives have no parallels in the Rabbinic literature and there is no other evidence for venerating the prophets' tombs than Jesus' words in Matt 23:29-30 and Luke 11:48-49 (Satran 1995, 34-50), the role of the miracles (1995, 46-58) and the affinity with the ideals and practices of the Christian monks (1995, 79-96). Satran 2000, 69. There seem to be two points which offer a terminus ante quern. The wall of Herod Agrippa was not built (Liv. Pro. 1:4) and Elijah's birthplace was under Nabatean control, which ended in A.D.106 (Liv. Pro. 21:1); see Torrey 1946, 11-12; Hare 1985, 380-381 and Schwemer 1995, 68-69. Mittmann-Richert 2000, 159-162. See Schwemer 1995, 34-35. This was the opinion of Jeremias, although he considered Fischel's formulation ("strongly resemble guides to the graves of the prophets", 1946-47, 375) "eine iiberspitzte Formulation", because the collection includes no route (1958, 11). See Schwemer 1995, 36-38. Schwemer 1995, 39. 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

162

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

of Diogenes Laertius. The Greek short lives could be used as reference in private and public libraries to give the biographical information on a writer in an easy form. Such a need was obvious to every student of the books of the prophets, and Schwemer's view that the lives were Beihefte for these books is plausible. It means that although written in Greek, the Lives were mainly intended for a Jewish audience, and their content confirms this view. 17

An obvious feature of the Lives are the numerous miracle stories. Satran took them as a clear sign that the Lives were not of Jewish but of Christian origin, because, according to him, only Ben Sira had connected the proph­ ets with miracles; several problems, however, are involved with that view. Firstly, precisely Ben Sira witnesses that the prophet could be linked with miracles in early Judaism. Secondly, the men described in Liv. Pro. were not the only ones considered prophets. Moses could also be inter­ preted as a prophet - "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers" (Deut 18:18) - and his miracles were commonplace in early Judaism. Philo writes about the miracles of the prophet Moses. Joshua is called a prophet in Ben Sira (Sir 46:1) and Josephus (Ant. 4,165). Thirdly, as the present study, along with many others, shows, Liv. Pro. is not the only work retelling the miracles of the prophets. Josephus retells the deeds of the biblical prophets and Pseudo-Philo introduces new pro­ phetical and miracle-working figures. The Lives of the Prophets is thus a text among several dealing with the miracles of the biblical prophets and is not a valid argument for consider­ ing the text Christian and not Jewish. In spite of Schwemer's work, the role of the miracles is a subject for further study. Eve only offers some superficial observations on the Lives, and except for Satran's view that the stories are written by a Christian hand we have only a few, and very different, views on the role of the miracles in the collection. Whereas Christian Wolff strongly emphasised the miracles ("ganz massiver Wunderglaube"), Schwemer considers them clearly less important in the work. A closer study would clearly be useful. 18

19

20

11

22

23

16

24

Schwemer 1995, 43-50; 1997, 544-545. On the genre, see also p. 18-19. Schwemer 1995,50-52. Satran 1995, 56-58. See above p. 148-151. See below chapters 8 and 9. Eve 2002, 249-250. 254.263. Wolff 1976, 83-89. See Schwemer's comment, 1995, 174. Hare's translation is used in the present study. However, the numbers are taken from Schwemer's Greek text compatible with Torrey. On the use of the Septuagint in the Lives, see Schwemer 1994, 62-91. 17

18

19

2 0

21

2 2

2 3

2 4

163

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

b. Isaiah The Life of Isaiah does not retell the Old Testament stories characterising the prophet as an independent miracle-worker. Isa 38:1-22 / 2 Kgs 20:1-11 contains the story about Hezekiah's healing, in which the shadow goes back ten steps; and Isa 37:14-37 / 2 Kgs 19:14-37 tells how God saved Jerusalem. Even here Isaiah plays a role, although a minor one, which can aptly be characterised as MNP. On the differences between the Hebrew text and the LXX in these stories, see p. 40. 25

Although there are no traces of the biblical traditions treated by Ben Sira and Josephus (who definitely attributes the miracle to God, Ant. 10,26-29), other miracles take their place. The Life of Isaiah tells that the prophet was killed by being sawn in two, and a miracle occurs at the moment of his death:

26

"And God worked the miracle of Siloam for the prophet's sake, for being faint before he died, he prayed for water to drink, and immediately it was sent to him from it; therefore it is called Siloam, which means 'sent'. And in the time of Hezekiah, before he made the cisterns and the pools, in response to the prayer of Isaiah, a little water came out, for the nation was besieged by foreigners and (this happened) in order that the city might not perish for lack of water. For the enemies were asking: 'From where are they drinking?' If, then, the Jews were coming, water would come out but if foreigners (approached), (it would) not. Wherefore to this day it comes out intermittently, in order that the mystery may be manifested" (Liv. Pro. 1:2-4). 27

The miracle (or||je?ov) is attributed to God rather than to the prophet, who only acts as a PNP, but it is undoubtedly worth mentioning in the pre­ sent work. The story shows how a prophet should be remembered. The water of Siloam was a well-known mystery in the first century A.D. It is mentioned in John 9 and understandably taken as evidence of Christian influence on Liv. Pro. by the scholars generally arguing for that view. 28

29

2 5

See p. 3 9 - 4 1 .

2 6

See Jeremias 1 9 5 8 , 6 1 - 6 7 and Schwemer's commentary, 1 9 9 5 , 1 2 2 - 1 4 6 . See above p. 7 4 - 7 5 . The use of the words or|ue?ov and Tepees is notable in the Lives. Tepees almost always points to eschatological events. ormsTov is used rarely and it be­ longs often, although not exclusively, to the later stage of the tradition; see Schwemer 2 7

1 9 9 5 , 8 2 - 8 7 , 1 2 3 - 1 2 5 ; for the use of the words, see also Satran 1 9 9 5 , 6 3 - 6 8 ; 2 0 0 0 , 7 3 . 28

The reason for the phenomenon was a subterranean siphon caused by a geological formation (Hare 1 9 8 5 , 3 8 6 ) . It is not clear whether the spring was inside or outside the wall. If it was outside it implies the setting before the new south wall was built by Herod Agrippa in A.D. 4 1 - 4 4 , as supposed by Hare 1 9 8 5 , 3 8 1 . However, I'xovTes TT^V TTOAIV is very difficult and it is may not be adequate to identify the enemies in v. 4 (on the ques­ tion see Schwemer 1 9 9 5 , 1 3 0 - 1 3 6 ) . 2 9

Satran 1 9 9 5 , 5 3 - 5 4 .

164

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

However, the etymology of the phenomenon is different in the two texts, and the water in Siloam is also an important theme in Josephus, who, in his speech included in B.J. 5,411, tries to stop the rebellion by pointing to the waters of Siloam. There is no need to see a Christian influence here. But what were the inmost thoughts of those telling and writing the story of Isaiah and the miraculous well? Although the Lives was not a Reisefuhrer for pilgrims, the Life of Isaiah links a well-known, local mysterious phenomenon with the holy man of the past, and shows that sacred history was also a part of the present. Simultaneously, mention of the enemy re­ minded one of danger, although the events described by Josephus had not yet occurred. The passage in Ben Sira represents the peak of Isaiah's reputation as a miracle-worker in early Judaism. Josephus attributes the miracle to God, and the story in the Life of Isaiah does not present Isaiah as an independent miracle-worker, but as a man closely associated with God's miracles. This is the view in the Old Testament. Isaiah was never accorded the role of an independent miracle-worker like Elijah or Elisha, either in Liv. Pro. or elsewhere in the Jewish tradition before the end of the Tannaitic era. Many other Lives offer much more material for the present study than the Life of Isaiah, but the story about Siloam is certainly worth noting. An im­ portant feature, or rather lack of it, must be observed. In one part of the tradition the death of the prophet is presented as the work of Beliar and the false prophets; and the Book of Jubilees connected the miracles with the war between good and evil spirits. It is difficult to separate the parts be­ longing to the Jewish original from the Christian redaction in Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, but even the Jewish original appears to have con­ sidered the death of the prophet as an episode in the war between the good and evil powers (Mart. Ascen. Isa. 1-5). This interpretation does not oc­ cur in the Life of Isaiah, although Beliar is mentioned in the Life of Daniel (4:6; 22) and the Life of Nathan (17,2). It is easy to agree with Hare: The dualism is present but it is not emphasised. 31

32

33

3 0

Hare 1983, 384. On the question see also Schwemer 1995, 127-128. See Becker 2002, 261-289. Nickelsburg (1984a, 52) attributes l,l-2a; 1,7-3 and 12; and 5,1-14 to the Jewish legend. Beliar dwells in Manasseh's heart, uses a false prophet as his agent and martyrs Isaiah. It is difficult to date the legend, which has a very dualistic view, but it may be­ long to the Maccabean period (Nickelsburg 1984a, 54-55; Knibb 1985, 149). Hare 1985, 382. Schwemer, too, notes the feature: "Manasse wird nicht damonisiert" (1995, 104). 31

3 2

3 3

165

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

c. Jeremiah Jeremiah's only miracles in the Old Testament are his prophecies. The Life proudly presents this prophetic office and even expands it, and new fea­ tures are added to the prophet's life. Jeremiah, similar to Isaiah, is mainly treated not as an independent miracle-worker, but the miraculous deeds God does using his person cannot be excluded from the present study. Some texts imply that he was linked with miracles elsewhere and that we actually know only a part of a rich tradition. Matthew 16:14 says that one guess of the people was that the miracle-working Jesus was Jeremia redivivus. Moreover, in Judah's vision, Jeremiah gives a sword from heaven to the Jews (2 Mace 15:13-16). The Life also tells that the buried prophet is famous for his miracles. 34

"He was buried in the environs of Pharaoh's palace, because the Egyptians held him in high esteem, having benefited through him. For he prayed, and the asps left him, and the monsters of the waters, which the Egyptians call Nephoth and the Greeks crocodiles. And those who are God's faithful pray at the place to this very day, and taking the dust of the place they heal asp's bites. And we have heard from the children of Antigonus and Ptolemy, old men, that Alexan­ der the Macedonian, after standing at the prophet's grave and witnessing his mysteries (MUOTrjpicc), transferred his remains to Alexandria and placed them in a circle around (the city) with due honour; and the whole race of asps was kept from the land, and from the river likewise the crocodiles. And to the same end he introduced the snakes which are called Argolai, which means 'snake-fighters', which he brought from Argos of the Pelo­ ponnesus, whence they are also called Argolai, that is, 'fortunate ones from Argos'; for everything fortunate they call laia" (Liv. Pro. 2:2-7). 35

36

The protection against snakes occurs in Graeco-Roman as well as in Jew­ ish culture. It is presented in the Life in two stories related to each other. The Egyptian practice is described in 2-4 and Alexander's veneration of Jeremiah in 5-7. Snakes were a terrible threat to be blocked in the Greek world. Every Greek with an elementary education had heard about Laocoon's death (for example, in Vergile Aen. 2,40-46; 199-231; Apollod. Epit. 5,17-18). The Egyptians were traditionally protected from snakes and crocodiles by Ho3 4

EuAov in Liv. Pro. 2:10 is either a negative allusion to gentile veneration of the cross or an expression of the Christian creed (Hare 1985, 388). The latter alternative is the more plausible; see Wolff 1976, 37; Schwemer 1995, 215-217. Torrey (1946, 49-52) took the reading' E<|>co0 from manuscripts Ep 2 and Dor and considered that the alleged Hebrew original did not speak about crocodiles, but about snakes (followed by Jeremias 1958, 108-109; see also Wolff 1976, 42). However, the Life is correct in saying that the Egyptians called the crocodile efot or later nefot; see Schwemer 1995, 176-177. Schwemer deals extensively with the passage in her commentary (1995, 173-193). See also Jeremias 1958, 108-111; Wolff 1976,40-43. 3 5

3 6

166

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

rus. The numerous stelaes and amulets of Horus support the view that the Life of Jeremiah, unlike the other lives, is obviously rooted in the Egyptian Jewish tradition. According to Jer 43, Jeremiah was, indeed, brought to Egypt, and this passage certainly gives a background to the Life? The motif of snakes was, however, also commonplace in Judaism. The well-known story in Num 21:4-9 shows that they were part of the common heritage. Job 20:19 tells about the final punishment of a godless man: 37

%

"He will suck the poison of serpents; the fangs of an adder will kill him."

Also, Jeremiah speaks about snakes: "'See, I will send venomous snakes among you, vipers that cannot be charmed, and they will bite you', declares the Lord" (Jer 8:17).

Jeremiah speaks about "charming" the snakes, which is closely connected with magic. Actually, also demons could take the form of snakes, and the threat of and protection against snakes could be very close to magic. Hanina ben Dosa was bitten by a snake but did not stop his prayer and his dis­ ciples found the snake dead (t. Ber. 3:20); the traditions concerning him reveal that some teachers regarded his skill as magic. Wisdom, riDDn, could include this type of activity, and this is clearly stated in the gnostic Acts of Thomas (111). The writer of the Life of Jeremiah, or the tradition behind him, had a popular dual heritage showing common traits. Snakes were a danger that could be averted by magical practices both in Greek and Jewish thought. However, it is the Graeco-Egyptian tradition that dominates here, and it is interesting that the Life shows a positive attitude towards native Egyptians (Liv. Pro. 2:2). Nevertheless, the Greek population in Egypt and Alexan39

40

41

42

3 7

See Torrey 1946, 10-11; Schwemer 1995, 65. See Schwemer 1995, 173-177. The crucial passages are Jer 8:17 cited above, Isa 13:22 LXX; Ps 58:6; Eccl 10:11 and 2 Kgs 18:4. See Colpe 1976c, 568-569; Maier 1976, 581; Bocher 1981, 276. See Becker 2002, 337-378. On the mantic and magical side of the wisdom in Israel, see especially Muller 1980, 376-378. Schwemer observes that the Egyptians esteemed the prophet. This is exceptional in the Jewish texts, which generally do not highlight the good relations between the Jews and native Egyptians. According to her, a similar attitude is attested in T. Jos. and in Artapanus (1995, 172). However, a closer study of Artapanus' fragments shows that he, as well as Philo and Josephus, rather felt contempt for the native Egyptians. He has noth­ ing negative to say about the Greeks, but the Egyptians are presented as the friendly, simple and stupid masses, who are led by evil people (see Koskenniemi 2002). This means that the amiable remarks in Liv. Pro. are even more significant and the reasons should be investigated. The pride in the prophet may be enough to explain it. 3 8

3 9

4 0

41

4 2

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

167

der the Great is more important: Jeremiah and his prayer took over the pro­ tective function among the Jews. This power is allegedly honoured by the pagans as well. Alexander had acknowledged the miraculous power (puaTrjpia) of the prophet in the leg­ end and transferred his remains from Taphnai to Alexandria. Jeremias saw the similarity between the Life and Historia Alexandri Magni, in which Alexander let the boundary of the new city be marked with flour. In the Jewish version, either the bones of the prophet or possibly the dust in the place he was buried took the place of the flour, showing that the tradition sets the Jewish prophet above the pagan helper. The Jewish story is influ­ enced by the pagan tradition, but the national enthusiasm allowed it. The detail of people taking dust from Jeremiah's place of burial to heal the asp's bites is also interesting because of the therapeutic technique. Schwemer mentions a very close, but late parallel from Acts of Thomas 170, where dust was taken from the place at which the apostle was mar­ tyred in order to expel a demon. We do not have other and earlier paral­ lels to the alleged practice, but undoubtedly such healings occurred in Egypt. The handkerchiefs and aprons of Paul mentioned in the New Tes­ tament (Acts 19:12) can also serve as analogies. 43

44

Jeremiah thus protects people from snakes and crocodiles. Moreover, he acts miraculously in taking and hiding the ark. "This prophet, before the capture of the temple, seized the ark of the Law and the things in it, and made them to be swallowed up in a rock. And to those standing by him he said: 'The Lord has gone away from Zion into heaven and will come again in power. And this will be for you a sign of his coming, when all the gentiles worship a piece of wood.' And he said: 'This ark no one is going to bring out except Aaron, and none of the priests or prophets will any longer open the tablets in it except Moses, God's chosen one.' And in the resurrection the ark will be the first to be resurrected and will come out of the rock and be placed on Mount Sinai, and all the saints will be gathered to it there as they await the Lord and flee from the enemy who wishes to destroy them.' In the rock with his fin­ ger he set as a seal the name of God, and the impression was like a carving made with iron, and a cloud covered the name, and no one knows the place nor is able to read the name to this day and to the consummations. And the rock is in the wilderness, where the ark was at first, between the two mountains on which Moses and Aaron lie. And at night there is a cloud like fire, just like the ancient one, for the glory of God will never cease from his law. And God bestowed this favour upon Jeremiah, that he might himself per­ form the completion of his mystery, so that he might become a partner of Moses, and they are together to this day" (Liv. Pro. 2:9-15).

It is understandable that the destiny of the ark after the fall of Jerusalem interested the Jews. We know several variations of the story, in which it 4 3

Jeremias 1958, 108-110. Hist. Alex. Magn. made use of an earlier source from the first century B.C.; see Pfister 1914 and Schwemer 1995, 180-183. "Schwemer 1995, 178.

168

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

was saved and hidden. The Jewish tradition concerning the saved ark names different agents. Eupolemus (c. 150 B.C.) attributes it to Jeremiah (Euseb. Praep. ev. 9,39,2-5), which is also attested in 2 Mace 2:4, 4 Bar. 3 and 4QApcrJer. Pseudo-Philo lets God himself say that he will take the precious stones and tablets from the temple and store them "in the place from which they were taken in the beginning" (L.A.B. 26,13). Baruch sees (2 Bar. 6:3-9) an angel saving the holy things of the Temple, and in several rabbinic texts it is Elijah. The writer of the Life of Jeremiah thus takes material from a strong Jewish tradition. I doubt whether Kahl's categories can be used here, but Jeremiah is remarkably active in the Life: He seizes the ark of the law and causes it to be swallowed up by a rock. According to the Life, the ark will be resurrected again at the end of the world. It waits for Moses and Aaron. The cloud-like fire, the ancient sign of God's pres­ ence in the desert, defends the place where Jeremiah wrote the holy name with his finger. The passage is extraordinarily interesting and important, especially for two reasons. That the prophet resembled Moses and became his "partner" (auyKoi— vcovos) should be a warning not to draw a sharp line between a miracleworking prophet and the miracle-working Moses. Philo was, as seen, very fond of the miracle-working prophet Moses. As a matter of fact, in Liv. Pro. Ezekiel also has some traits of Moses. The leader of the people was easily regarded as a prophet and a prophet as a leader of the people. The second feature of the passage, the strong eschatological colouring common in the texts dealing with the hiding or resurrection of the ark, also occurs in many other Lives. Jeremiah knew that the temple was de­ stroyed, but was waiting for the end of the world. The prophet and escha­ tology generally go hand in hand in the Lives of the Prophets. The function of the story and the intended audience are closely connected with its escha­ tology: The story is not contemporized here, but it offered an opportunity to use the traditions of the past to illuminate the present. MittmannRichert's observation that the collection mirrors the situation of the Jewish people living under Roman rule is important here. The prophets could be remodelled to resemble Moses and thus be given a new eschatological mis46

47

48

49

50

51

52

4 5

See Schwemer 1995, 203-210.

4 6

TauTrjv (sc. KI(3COTOV) 5E T C V lepeuiav KCCTCXOXSTV.

4 7

See Schwemer 1995, 206. On this passage, see Schwemer 1995, 217-220. See Schwemer 1995, 233-235. See below p. 169-177. The eschatological colouring is present, for example, in the Lives of Ezekiel, Elijah, Daniel and Jonah. Mittmann-Richert 2000, 159-162. 4 8

4 9

5 0

51

52

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

169

sion. These two features help us to understand people like Theudas, the Egyptian and Jonathan. Unhappily, we only have fragments from the later tradition of Jeremiah. The Life and the short mentions quoted above, however, attest that he had the reputation of a miracle-worker and that he was never forgotten. 53

d. Ezekiel The Old Testament does not tell about the miracles of the prophet Ezekiel, only about his prophecies. The Life of Ezekiel, on the contrary, relates many mighty deeds by him. It is short, although one of the longest in the collection, and consists mainly of miracles. The Life of Ezekiel and the Life of Daniel were arguments used by Satran to show that the whole collection was mainly Christian and not Jewish, because, according to him, no Jewish writer was so fond of miracles. The Z//e contains the following passages which must be observed: Crossing of Chebar, an abundant supply of fish, helping the men at the moment of death, the wonder of dead bones and the punishing wonder of the reptiles. 54

Crossing of Chebar (6-10) 55

"This prophet gave a portent (repots eScoKe) to the people, so that they should pay attention to the river Chebar: When it failed they should set their hope in the scythe which desolates to the end of the earth, and when it flooded, in the return to Jerusalem. For the saint also lived there, and many used to congregate to him. And once when there was a multitude with him, the Chaldeans were afraid that they would rebel, and came up against them to destroy them. And he made the water stop (oxfjvai) so that they might escape by getting to the other side. And those of the enemies who dared to pursue were drowned." 56

When compared to the Old Testament, the passage is simply an addendum. The advice to pay attention to water as an eschatological sign often occurs in Jewish literature. The story about the people finding a safe way through waters is much more interesting, and it has both Greek and Jewish parallels. 57

58

5 3

See below p. 171. On the Life, see Schwemer 1995, 238-295 and Satran 2000, 69-75. On the word xepas in the Lives, see above p. 163. On the story, see Schwemer 1995, 276-278 and Satran 2000, 73-74. Listed by Schwemer 1995, 271. There is no reason to follow Jeremias' view (1958, 112) based on ms. Ep. 1, accord­ ing to which the event is said to have happened on the tomb of the prophet and that the people consisted of pilgrims (see Hare 1985, 389). 5 4

55

5 6

5 7

5 8

170

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

Opening the sea for a multitude was not unknown to the Greeks. Alexan­ der's marvellous conquest was embellished with a miraculous event told by Arrian, Anabasis 1,26,1 and Strabo 14,3,9. Josephus rarely cites the Greek poets and perhaps knew them poorly, but he was an expert in the Greek historians. He was, of course, aware of the stories told about Alex­ ander and cites them (Ant. 2,347). They were certainly well-known in early Judaism. Although the Greeks knew similar stories, the Jewish heritage offers more material to compare with the story told in the Life. Moses is clearly a model for Ezekiel, who is reinterpreted throughout the Life. Ezekiel not only sees the heavenly original of the temple, as Moses did, but also re­ peats the miracle at the Red Sea (Exod 14). The story is closely connected with the preceding eschatological words (yap). The motif was vividly alive in early Judaism. The story of Elijah and Elisha has possibly been influenced by the stories about Moses (2 Kgs 2:7-8). The Fourth Book of Ezra (c. A.D. 100) gives an important parallel. Ben Sira quoted Mai 4:5-6 with a crucial emendation, namely, that Elijah would collect the ten tribes once lost in Assyria (Sir 48:10). Even Josephus says that an immense number of these people lived beyond the Euphrates (Ant. 11,133). Now 4 Ezr. 13:39-50 deals with them, and shows that they were never forgotten; God stopped the waters for them, and will do it again in the last times to let them return to their country. Liv. Pro. admittedly speaks about the cap­ tives taken from Judah, not from Israel, but the similarities between the stories are too great to be overlooked. They reveal a common tradition. The miracle at the Red Sea was never forgotten in Jewish literature, but lived on in the Psalms and in the hymns of choirs, and was always present in early Judaism. Although the link to Moses and the Red Sea is obvious, there is no rea­ son to exclude Joshua and the crossing of the Jordan from the background of the Life. Ben Sira, admittedly, does not mention this miracle and Josephus seems to make it more "rational", but this event was retold in several variants. Texts containing this tradition have been recovered in both Qumran and Masada. Moreover, although the Tosefta contains very few miracle stories, the crossing of the Jordan is retold and strongly exag­ gerated (t. Sotah S-A-6). 59

60

61

62

63

64

5 9

Satran 2000, 74. Schwemer, who is well aware of the pagan parallels, presumes a Jewish tradition behind Liv. Pro. (1995, 278). See p. 26 and 249-250. See p. 251-254. See below p. 252. See Becker 2002,211-212. 6 0

61

6 2

6 3

6 4

171

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

Ezekiel's manner of acting and the target audience are interesting ques­ tions. The prophet does not pray to God, who is not even mentioned. Eze­ kiel is remarkably independent, and if only this passage were studied, he would undoubtedly be seen as a BNP making the miracle alone. Although this feature is played down because of the context, it is interesting, and tells much about the role of the prophet. The intended audience consisted of Jews, and more precisely of Jews well aware of their historical situation and hoping for better times. The literary stories, but also historical persons, attest the strong afterlife of the miracle at the Red Sea in early Judaism. The Life tells about the Jewish multitude gathered peacefully, and about the Chaldeans, who were afraid that the Jews would rebel. This was all too well known in the first century AD to receive mention coincidentally. The Chaldeans had not been a threat for centuries. Roman soldiers, however, acted exactly as the Chaldeans had in the Life. Many reports show that they did not hesitate to first attack a multitude gathered without permission, and ask questions afterwards. In this manner they slaughtered the militant or non-militant Jewish people brought together by the Egyptian, Theudas and Jonathan, as well as the Samaritans at their holy mountain. Josephus is naturally un­ derstanding towards this kind of behaviour, especially if the attack was initiated by Vespasian and if the Samaritans were the target. He also re­ veals the Roman point of view (B.J. 2,258-260; 3,307-315):A crowd of people meant the first step towards a rebellion. The Law of the Twelve Tablets forbade unauthorised gatherings. If that was true in Rome con­ cerning its own citizens, it was clear that such spontaneous meetings were not allowed in Palestine. In addition to the fear of the "Chaldeans", some historical events were topical. Many men tried to imitate the great miracles of the Exodus and the conquest of the Holy Land. It is useless to discuss whether Theudas, who wanted to stop the flow of the Jordan, saw himself as Moses redivivus or Josua redivivus. He was a combination of the two, at least in the thoughts 65

66

67

68

69

6 5

See Hengel 1989b, 230. See Josephus B.J. 2,261-263; 7,437-450; Ant. 20,97-98; 20,167-172; Vita 423-425. There is no need to take these events as arguments for a late date of the Lives. They rather reflect the reality of the first century BC. Noted by Smith (1999, 566), who apparently points to Latro, decl. in Cat. 19. On Theudas, see Acts 5:36 and Jos. Ant. 20,97-98; and Barnett 1981, 680-681; Hengel 1989b, 229-230; Horsley and Hanson 1985, 164-167; Hemer 1989, 162-163.224225; Gray 1993, 114-116; Schwemer 1995, 277; Lichtenberger 1998, 18; Jervell 1998, 210; Gabba 1999, 143; Schreiber 2000, 293-294. Barnett (1981, 681) sees Moses and possibly even Joshua in Theudas; Lichtenberger (1998, 18) mentions both; Horsley and Hanson (1985, 166) and Aune (1983, 127) men­ tion also Elijah and Elisha. 6 6

6 7

6 8

6 9

172

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

of the people following him. The miracle of stopping the Jordan had, of course, lost its original function. The way through the waters would not help his troops flee from Egypt or conquer the Holy Land. Nevertheless, it should legitimate the man repeating the Old Testament miracles as a leader sent by God. The Life of Ezekiel thus significantly combines the multitude, miracles and attack of the enemies. Also, the eschatological colouring of the pas­ sage has to be carefully observed, especially because it also occurs in 4 Ezr. and in the historical figure of Theudas. Schwemer correctly notes the power of such thoughts: Without them, it would have been impossible for Theudas to amass the crowd. 70

71

The abundant supply of fish (v. 11a):

"Through prayer he furnished them of his own accord with an abundant supply of fish."

The Life reports very briefly, in only a few words, the miraculous feeding, which is again an addition to the Old Testament. However, it is possible, as both Schwemer and Satran suppose, that Ezek 47:10 formed the start­ ing-point for the tradition as Ezek 37:1-14 produced a miracle-story. Now only a prayer was needed and an abundant meal to appear - the prophet acts as a typical PNP. 72

73

LXX gives no support for any speculations on this verse.

Miracles in which a people were fed with fish or other food were not very common in the Graeco-Roman culture. Stories about human miracleworkers were generally uncommon in classical antiquity before 150 AD, and as far as I know they do not include a parallel to this. Schwemer quotes the story about Pythagoras, but although the tradition may be early, the text by Iamblichus is late (v.P. 36); Dillon actually takes the passage as evidence that Iamblichus intended to imitate the Gospels. While the Graeco-Roman parallels are rare, the Jewish tradition contains considerably more. Fish, as far as I know, is never mentioned in the stories 74

75

76

7 0

See Schwemer 1995, 277 On the story, see Schwemer 1995, 279-280 and Satran 2000, 74. "Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets. The fish will be of many kinds - like the fish of the Great Sea." See Satran 1995, 58 and Schwemer 1995, 279. See below p. 174-176. See Koskenniemi 1994, 207-219. Kahl gives a list parallel to my version, but no relevant new material to be compared with the story is included (1994, 58-61). Schwemer 1995, 279 n.195 supposes that the miracles were common and points to Pesch 1984, 346-357. However, also Pesch cites only Jewish parallels. Dillon 2002, 297. 71

7 2

7 3

7 4

7 5

7 6

173

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

before the New Testament; of course, the miraculous feeding with manna and quails in the desert (Exod 16:1-36; Num 11:4-36) are especially im­ portant in the Life, in which Ezekiel possesses many of Moses' traits. Al­ though Elijah was also fed and feeds others miraculously (1 Kgs 17:1-16), it is Elisha in particular whose deeds form a very close parallel to the story. The prophet feeds a widow (2 Kgs 4:1-7), a hundred men with a few loaves of bread (2 Kgs 4:42-44) and makes a poisonous food edible (2 Kgs 4:38-41). The closest parallels are in the New Testament (Mark 6:3144; 8:1-10; John 6). The miracle is related very briefly, as though everybody should be aware of it. This again implies that the Life along with its several stories is part of a strong tradition. 77

Helping those at the point of dying (V.

78

lib):

" ... and for many who were at the point of dying he entreated that life should come from God." 79

Again the Life is brief, although we would gladly read much more. The passage is interpreted in various ways. 1) Torrey interpreted the Greek text as meaning the everlasting life given by God after death: 80

"Many who were at the point of death he cheered with the news of life coming to them from God."

The translation is free but the Greek words (KCU T T O A A O T S E K A E I TTOUOI £cor|V EA0E?V EK 0EOG TrapEKcxAECJEv) seem to leave the door open for inter­ preting it to mean life after death. There are, however, reasons to reject the interpretation. As Schwemer says, TrapccKaAE?v usually goes with the accusative. The direct object is the accusativus cum infinitivo (£cor)V EA0E7V) and the dative E K A E I T T O U O I is dativus commodi. TTapaKaAETv thus does not mean here 'to cheer' but 'to ask', or even 'to order'. 2) The second possibility is that Ezekiel not only cheered the dying peo­ ple with the life to come, but even raised them from the dead. Schwemer and apparently also Hare choose this alternative. An argument for this 81

82

77

Noted by Satran 2000, 74. See Schwemer 1995, 280-281. The late Ethiopic version of the Life tells more, namely, that Ezekiel had with his prayer raised from the dead those "who had died by the sword of their enemies" (see Mueller 1994, 18-19). The Babylonian Talmud attributes many different resuscitations to Ezekiel (b. Sanh. 92b). Moreover, see below the material combined with Ezek 37 (p. 175), which in 4 Mace 18:17 points to a coming resurrection. Torrey 1946, 37. See the analysis in Schwemer 1995, 280. Hare interprets the words as "a restoration to earthly life" (1985, 389): It is unclear 7 8

7 9

80

81

82

174

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

view is that the rabbinic tradition tells about such miracles o f Ezekiel, and the evidence seems to grow stronger. While the Graeco-Roman mate­ rial does not offer a single close parallel it is not difficult to find them in the Old Testament, even in the stories told about prophets. Both Elijah and Elisha raised people from the dead and the stories were retold in many variants. However, the present tense eKAeiTrouai points to dying rather than to dead people. A man raising people from the dead is thus not at­ tested in these words. 3) If the word EKAeiTrouai means dying and not dead people and life after death is not indicated, only one interpretation is left: Ezekiel acted as a healer and has the role of a PNP here, too. His closest parallel is neither Elijah nor Elisha, but Hanina ben Dosa, the Jewish miracle-worker from the first century AD. His activity is described only briefly; he prayed for the dying and knew who was going to survive. The short passage in Life should possibly be interpreted in a similar way. The figure of Hanina was not easy for the early rabbis to accept. It was possible that he, contrary to the usual manner of Jews, did not pray aloud, and his activity was thus dangerously close to magical practices. It took time before he could be rabbinised. It is possible - more cannot be said - that a similar activity is attested in the words of Life: Also TrapEKdAEOEV is strange and may in­ clude an exorcism. 84

85

86

87

88

9

The miracles save the people (V. 12-13):*

"When the people was being destroyed by its enemies, he went to the (enemy) leaders and, terrified by the prodigies (5ta xepaoxicov) they ceased. He used to say this to them: 'Are we lost? Has our hope perished?" and in the wonder of the dead bones (ev repcm TCOV ooTEcov TCOV veKpcov) he persuaded them that there is hope for Israel both here and in the coming (age)."

Ezekiel is, once again in Life, presented as Moses redivivus. Just as Moses visits the Pharaoh, the prophet visits the leaders of the enemies to terrify them with miracles. This time it is obvious that the Old Testament offers the starting point for the story. The vision in Ezek 37 is reinterpreted so whether he considers the people dead or ill. See Schwemer 1995, 280. See below p. 175. See Koskenniemi 1994, 193-198. According to Schwemer many Jewish people raised from the dead were still between life and death, but this is not the case in Life (Schwemer 1995, 280-281). This is true about 1 Kgs 17:17.22 and almost all pagan stories, but not, for instance, about 2 Kgs 13:20-21. Becker 2002, 337-378. Becker 2002, 348-355. See Schwemer 1995, 281-285. 83

8 4

8 5

8 6

87

8 8

8 9

7. Many Miracles:

175

The Lives of the Prophets

that the miracle of dry bones happens before the eyes of the enemies and ends the persecution. Liv. Pro. thus uses Ezek 37, and it is important to study the way LXX translates the He­ brew text. LXX has in v. 37:1 KCCI e y s v e T O , although the Hebrew text has nrrn, and adds avBpcoinvcov to the bones. Although the Hebrew text has mrr T i n , LXX has only KUPIOS in the passage (v. 37:3; 37:9; 37:12). orr-m rrn is translated TTveGpa Ccofjs in v. 37:5 and • r r m m i coa *nm with Scoaco m / s u p d p o u i\s u p a s , KCCI CrjaeoOe in v. 37:6. In 37:7 *7ip is interestingly translated a e i o p o s . In 37:7 i D S i r ' w una mosi? "impm is translated K a i T T p o o r i y a y e r a OOTCC EKCcrepov Trpos Trjv apjjcoviav CCUTOU. In v. 37:10 'TTJ is trans­ lated o u v a y c o y r j . The translation is accurate, but not slavishly literal.

The interpretation is not unique but it is attested by both the rabbis and the Christian fathers, which shows, according to Schwemer, that there were contacts between these groups in the Byzantine period. Moreover, the recent texts provide the opportunity to combine the different pieces of evi­ dence and help us understand Life as well as the whole tradition. Scholars have been well aware that the Church fathers knew two works of Ezekiel. This is mentioned in Josephus Ant. 10,79, in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, and in Epiphanius' Panarion 64,70,5 (GCS 15,515). Today we have several fragments that are either all part of one work or parts of a larger tradition. The question may be left open here, but the interesting point is that several fragments point to the bone vision and may be inter­ preted to mean that people were raised from the dead. Epiphanius says in Panarion 64,70,5 (GCS 15,515) \va 5e Kai TCX UTTO T O G ' le^eKirjA T O U 90

91

Trpo(|)rJTou ev TCO 'I5(CO aiTOKpv^co p r ) 0 e v T a

nepi

a v a a T a a e e o s Mil

TrapaaiOTrrjaeo. This is how Irenaeus understands the canonical Ezek 37 (haer. 5,34,1), but now at least two fragments of 4Q385 point to Ezek 37 and connect the text with being raised from the dead. 4Q385 2 contains the following words: 4

"And he said again: Prophesy about the four winds of heaven and let the wind blow on them and they will live. And it was so. And a great crowd of people stood and they blessed YHWH Sabaoth who made them live.' And I said: *0, YHWH, when will these things happen?' And YHWH said to me ,..." 92

Also, another fragment 4Q385,12 alludes to Ezek 37 (nvn l Q i p ^ ) and apparently to tombs, but the short fragment does not allow any conclusions and certainly not on the roles of God and Ezekiel. However, it seems clear that the later rabbinic tradition about Ezekiel raising people from death had a broader base in early Judaism, and apparently Life is only a part of it. 9 0

See Dassmann 1988, 1773-1776 and Schwemer 1995, 284. The texts with translations and comments in Stone and Wright 2000, 7-60. On the question about the number of the works, see Wright in Stone and Wright 2000, 54-57. Text and translation by Wright in Stone and Wright 2000, 440-441. 91

9 2

176

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

Ezek 37 seems to have been a widely used text, which was associated with the "Messiah of Ephraim." Pearson plausibly supposes that a concrete interpretation of Ezek 37 was used among the survivors of Bar Kochba's revolt to explain the fate of the dead warriors. If that is correct, religion and revolt are intimately connected, and it is more evidence that Ezek 37 was widely interpreted in the same way as in Liv. Pro. The political di­ mension is present again in Liv. Pro., and in a way typical of the collec­ tion: The work does not call for a rebellion, either openly or covertly, but reminds the reader of God's mighty deeds in the past. There are some indications that Life does not point to a single but to sev­ eral miracles of the prophet. Firstly, Hare interprets the imperfect tense eAeyev iterative ("he used to say this to them"), which seems to be correct, although Schwemer rejects it. Secondly, Life has a plural in Side T E paaTi'cov, but ev xepaxi to describe the miracle of the dead bones. These two may not be enough to assure certainty, but it seems that Ezekiel is thought to have performed several miracles to save his people. 93

94

95

96

The reptiles (v. 18):

"He pronounced judgement in Babylon on the tribe of Dan and that of Gad, because they were committing sacrilege against the Lord by persecuting those who were keeping the Law. And respecting them he worked this great wonder (KCCI eiroi'noev auToTs Tepas ueya,), that snakes devoured their infants and all their flocks" (Liv. Pro. 3:18). 97

In his translation, Hare takes the words O T I OI 6<j)6ts OCVTJAICTKOV TOC (3pe'(|>T] auTcov for a prophecy, but they should, as in Schwemer, be interpreted as a punishing miracle. There are several models in the Old Testament. The closest is in 2 Kgs 2:23-25, where Elisha curses the children in Betel. As summarised above, death by snakes was regarded as a terrible death by both pagans and Jews. The Life of Jeremiah, as well as the Life of Ezekiel, makes use of this motif. The tribes of Dan and Gad had, according to Life, not only rejected the Holy Law but also persecuted the righteous people, and the prophet pun­ ished them with a harsh miracle. Life tells that a man belonging to these tribes killed Ezekiel, so it is not surprising that these two tribes are ac­ cused. In L.A.B., they belong to the four tribes, which were ready to return 98

9 3

See Pearson 1998, 193-196. Pearson 1998, 196-201. Schwemer (1995, 282), who rejects Hare's interpretation, interprets "das auffallige Imperfektum" or as "Schilderung einer gehaltenen Rede" (BDR 329), which is possible; however, she overlooks the change from plural to singular (5ia TEpaoTi'cov but EV 9 4

9 5

Tepcm TCOV OOTECOV TCOV VEKpcov). 9 6

9 7

9 8

See Schwemer 1995, 290-294. Hare (1985, 389) translates this as "that snakes would devour". Seep. 165.

111

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

to Egypt and serve the enemies. Moreover, Dan and Gad try to kill Aseneth, Joseph's wife, in Joseph and Aseneth (Jos. Asen. 27,11), but Aseneth's prayer causes their swords to fall down and burn to ash. It is worth noting the view that the enemies of the Jewish people were not only from the outside but also from within the Jewish community. In Life and Joseph and Aseneth this view is incorporated into the miracles as well as into the tribes of Dan and Gad. 100

In their present form some of the Lives included in the collection are only summaries of the biblical stories. Whoever added the lists of the miracles of Elijah and Elisha followed the tradition closely. The Life of Ezekiel is different, and it mainly contains a tradition unknown from the Old Testa­ ment. Yet the miracles of the prophet again assume the major role in Life, Some of the miracles are ^interpretations of the biblical passages; others are not alterations but additions. Although we cannot date the traditions exactly, almost all of them are closely similar to other Jewish stories. Nev­ ertheless, the miracles are the core element of Life, and the biblical stories about Moses, Elijah and Elisha live again in a new hero, the prophet Eze­ kiel. It is obvious that the audience consisted of Jews and that we only know fragments of a broader tradition. Ezekiel plays a remarkably independent role in these stories. He is not limited (except in his healing activity) to the role of a PNP, as Isaiah is in his Life. Ezekiel's actions are those of an MNP, but although God is not necessarily mentioned, the implied audience was undoubtedly aware of the source of his power.

e. Daniel It is unusual for the Lives of the Prophets to deal with a single miraclestory and not to summarise the biblical events. However, although the Life of Daniel points to others, the only story retold is the sickness and healing of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan 4), and it forms the main part of the 101

102

" S e e p . 194. The work is often considered either Christian or very late, but see Collins 2000a, 103-110, who considers the proposed dates between the second century BC and the sec­ ond century AD. It is possible that the story is taken from a source without vigorous editing (Schwe­ mer 1995, 301). "And for other kings of the Persians he wrought many prodigies, which I did not write down" (4,17). Hare translates "which they did not write down", but An 1 has oacx OUK !ypav|/a, although Epl and Ep 2 have eypcxvpaijev / sypccvpa. The versions of this Life vary considerably (see Schwemer's synopsis, 1996, 22*-31*). 100

101

102

178

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

Life. The story is preceded by a short biographical survey (1-3) and suc­ ceeded by the short summary (17) mentioned above: information about his burial and his eschatological prophecy (20-23). 103

The Life offers a version of a tradition known from Dan 4:1-34. The Greek translations of the late biblical book cannot, of course, be considered a part of the Septuagint translated in the third century BC, but they are part of a complicated history of transmission, and it took time before both the Aramaic and the Greek text found their final forms. It means that the study of the translations is an especially interesting subject. The two Greek ver­ sions of Dan 4 ( L X X and 0 ) differ clearly from each other. 0 , attributed erroneously to Theodotion, generally stands closer to the Aramaic text, although it also contains large additions, such as in 4:1-3. The L X X version contains and omits large portions compared with the Masoretic version text and it is considered to represent a form, which is inde­ pendent of the Masoretic text and apparently even older than our Aramaic version. The very complicated history of the text cannot be studied here in detail, but what fol­ lows focuses on the possible redaction concerning the miraculous elements in the story. In particular, 0 offers an interesting look at the early Jews retelling the miraculous sto­ ries about Daniel. 104

105

MT uses five words (K'DDin, WSIOK, K'TBD, «nta and «D*?n) for the king's wise men in v.

4:4, but L X X omits all of them and 0 only has four (ETTCXOISOI, payoi, ya^apnvot, XaXSaToi and translates K'DQ-in m with 6 d'pxcov TCOV ETTOCOISCOV in 0 (in v. 4:6). Al­

though L X X omits these words here, it adds in v. 4:15 TOV AavirjA TOV apxovTcc TCOV ao<|)iaTcov KCCI TOV f)you|jEVOv TCOV Kpivovrcov TCX 'EVUTTVIOC. In v. 4:9 L X X strongly exaggerates the size of the tree (oi KACXSOI CCUTOU TCO MrJKei cos OTCXSICOV TpiocKOVTCc).

Both Greek versions have preserved Daniel's fear of the dream (4:16). Unlike the Masoretic text the L X X names the angels as the agents in no less than three verses: Kcci 6 livpioros KCCI oi

dyyeAoi

OCUTOU ETTI OE KOCTCXTPEXOUOIV (4:21); KCCI OI d'yysAoi

5ico£ovTa( OE ETTI ETTI ETTTCC (4:29) and KCCI 'I5OU dfyyEAos ETS EKOCXEOE \IB (4:30c).

Moreover L X X adds that the king accepted the interpretation (4:25). In a large section not included in the Masoretic text (4:34a-c) L X X especially contains parts of the tradi­ tion. The king praises God for his miracles (OTI CXUTOS TTOIET o r ^ a Kai TEpocTa, 4:34, cf. even 4:2 in the 0 ) , but also his agents (Kai TTCCVTCXS TOUS d y i o u s aurou cc'ivco, 4:34a). Although Daniel may not be totally ruled out, the words apparently refer to the angels active in the passage. Of the Greek versions of Daniel, the L X X is especially interesting in many ways. It is not a translation of the Aramaic text known to us, but an independent and earlier piece of material, which provides an opportunity to study early Judaism's view on miracles. It shows that the tradition lived on in different forms and in different variants. It is not possible to determine what the translator omitted from or added to his Aramaic original, but the final result is open to some remarks: a) Whoever formulated this tradition was fond of miracles and shows no tendency to play them down; on the contrary, he empha­ sized them, b) Although Daniel is not a strong, independent miracle-worker in the He­ brew version, his role is not emphasized here either, but rather reduced, c) The redactor has attributed the mighty deeds to God's angels. The Aramaic text admittedly does not The Life of Daniel is Satran's main argument for the view that the Lives are late. He underlines the similarity between the cure commanded for the king and the ascetic diet of the penitent Christian monks (1980, 39-43; 1995, 76-96). See Siegert 2001,334-338. See Albertz 1988, 156; Schwemer 1995, 322-324. 104

105

179

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

exclude the activity of the angels, but LXX emphasizes their deeds. Scholars have as­ sumed that they are God's punishing angels or fallen angels, demons, and it is not easy to define which are meant. Mastema, the bad spirit, serves on the side of the good angels as punisher in Jub. roughly contemporary with the text. However, because 4:10 describes how God's angel tells about the punishment, and the king apparently praises God's an­ gels in 4,34a, the tradition supposes that they are angels from the bright side. 106

Nebuchadnezzar did not only lose his mind but became like an animal ("his fore parts with the head were like an ox, and the feet with the hind parts like a lion"). The motif of zoomorphy is stronger in LXX than in MT (Kai a i x p i x e s y o u e y s v e x o c o s Trxspuyss a e x o u , o i o v u x e s Mou coast A e o v x o s , Dan 4:30b) and the motif attests that Life makes use of the 107

LXX. The reason for the punishment was that "he was fond of pleasure ... and because those who belong to Beliar become like an ox under yoke." Thus the king is made a model of the tyrant: 108

"Tyrants (O'I Suvdoxai) have these (vices) in their youth, and in the end they become monsters, seizing, destroying, killing, and smiting" (4,7).

The king was in a hopeless situation. He understood his situation and prayed to God, but was unable to help himself until Daniel helped him: "Behemoth used to come upon him, and he would forget that he had been a man" (4,10). "For many were going out of the city and gazing at him. Daniel alone did not wish to see him, because he was in prayer for him the whole time of his changed condition; and he kept saying: 'He will become a man again', and they did not believe him. Daniel made the seven years, which he called seven seasons, become seven months, the mystery of the seven seasons, was accomplished in his case, for he was restored in seven months; during the six years and six months (remaining) he prostrated himself to the Lord and confessed his impiety, and after the forgiveness of his wickedness he restored to him the kingdom. He neither ate bread or meat nor drank wine as he made his confession, for Daniel had ordered him to appease the Lord with (a diet of) soaked pulse and greens" (4,12-17).

The Life of Daniel is, of course, part of the broader tradition concerning Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar; it does not belong to the early, but rather to the later stage of the tradition. The text contains many new and interest­ ing features in comparison with the biblical version: 1) Daniel's role in the healing of the king and his intercession are exciting new details. 2) A de­ mon causing sickness takes on an important role in the events. 3) An im­ portant feature, closely combined with the second is that the healing is 109

106

Kuhn believes them to be punishing angels, but Schwemer does not exclude de­ mons; see Schwemer 1995, 324. Schwemer 1995,324. The Life makes use of a topos with strong Greek and Jewish roots; see Schwemer 1995, 333-336. On variants of Dan 4 and the history of the tradition, see the presentation of Schwemer (1995, 322-329). 107

108

109

180

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

connected with the forgiveness of the sin. 4) Daniel's relation to the ruler is important. 1) In the Life, Daniel heals - if in such cases a man can be called a healer through prayer on behalf of the king and is thus a typical PNP. Healing through intercession is well known in the Jewish texts. Jacob heals Reu­ ben in T. Reu. 1:7, Abraham the Pharaoh in IQAp Gen™ 20 and apparently Ezekiel in Liv. Pro (see above). The best-known historical person who healed by prayer is Hanina ben Dosa, whose manner of praying and heal­ ing was apparently considered problematic by some teachers. 110

111

2) The king is an example of people belonging to Beliar, and he is tortured by Behemoth, a famous demon. Torrey and Hare consider the text corrupt, because Behemoth usually is a primeval monster and not a demon. How­ ever, also in 1 En. 60:25, Behemoth is going to be punished by "the Lord of the Spirits." The demon is cast out, not by a psalm sung by the exor­ cist, but by Daniel's prayer, which lasts seven years. We have here a com­ bination of demon, sickness and healing. Demons causing several difficulties are commonplace in the Mediterra­ nean world in different ages. Death or other calamities are assumed to be their work in classical antiquity, too. All this is well known, but the his­ torical development of demonology in the Graeco-Roman world should be given more attention. The main source influencing early Judaism was 112

113

114

On healing by intercession, see Schwemer 1995, 320-321. See Becker 2002, 348-355. The name Behemoth was an important argument for Torrey, who claimed that the original language of the collection was Hebrew. According to him, the Hebrew original read nam -±> and not "the ridiculous Behemoth" (1946, 6; 24-25); see also Hare 1985, 390. Schwemer preserves Behemoth (1995, 340-343). The monster, who attacks the king, occurs also in 1 En. 60:8: It is the male monster, which dwells in the desert, while a fe­ male named Leviathan lives in the abyss of the ocean. It is not very easy to attest the thought in the classical texts, but the archaeological evidence is strong. Many pivotal studies overlook the historical development in the Graeco-Roman culture. In BGcher's books (1970, 1972) the reason obviously is the formcritical method, which lacks the historical dimension. On the other hand, in his important RAC-article, Thraede, for example, can deal with Homer and Lucian simultaneously (e.g. 1969, 49). He seems himself to give the reason for that: "Als Zweig magischer Weltansicht u. primitiver Volksmedizin reicht der E(xorzismus) so weit in die Geschichte aller VoTker, Kulturen u. Religionen zuriick, daB sich, bei der Konstanz von Typen u. Mitteln, in der dem E(xorzismus) eigenen Spanne zwischen Weltbild u. Heilungszweck kaum mehr als Akzentverschiebungen nachweisen lassen" (1969, 45). However, Colpe already sharply warns of evolutionism (1976a, 548-550). The way from Socrates' 5ai|Jcov to Philostratus' demon (e.g. VA 4,20) is longer than usually understood, although the Greeks already knew of dangerous divine beings in early times (on the pre-hellenistic Greece see ter Vrugt-Lentz 1976, 598-615 [RAC]). Xenocrates, Plato's successor in the 111

112

113

181

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets 115

not the West but the East and Egypt. The demons often occur in the sources, but if the focus is on demons causing sickness and a healer heal­ ing through expelling demons the material is clearly more limited. The connection between demon and sickness is attested in some Jewish texts. The passage of Jub. quoted above does not exactly combine the demons with sickness or healing with an exorcism: The demons are "lead­ ing astray and blinding and killing" Noah's grandchildren (Jub. 10:2). However, the methods Noah learned were given to him "so that he might heal by means of herbs of the earth" (Jub. 10:12-13). Moreover, the gen­ eral decline in longevity is the result of sin and evil in the world (Jub. 23:8-15). This will finally lead to a point in which children will be white with grey hairs until they begin to search the law and the days begin to increase until their days approach again a thousand years. It is crucial to see that there is no Satan or evil in these days (Jub. 23:22-31). The root of evil is removed and with it disappears sickness. The combination is in­ teresting and helps us to understand not only the Lives, but also the New Testament. A good example of the combination now sought is Genesis Apocryphon 20, mentioned above: When Pharaoh takes Sarah, Abraham prays to God, who sends a demon to torture Pharaoh's house until he gives Sarah back to Abraham. Abraham expels the demon and heals the Pharaoh: 116

117

118

119

"I prayed for [...] and laid my hands upon his head. The plague was removed from him; [the evil spirit] was banished [from him] and he lived" (IQAp Gen" 20,28-29). 120

Josephus clearly combines sickness, demons and healing, when telling stories about Solomon and his wisdom, still alive among the Jews (Ant. 8,44-46). Josephus presents Baaras, the healing herb, and reveals a 121

Academy, took an important step on this path by supposing three classes (God, men and Scupoves) and supposed that 5oct|joves could have TrccSr). On the Greek demonology in Greece in the Hellenistic and later period see Colpe 1976, 640-668 (RAC). Spirits causing problems already occur in the Old Testament 1 Sam. 16:14-23 and later in a rich and diverse Jewish tradition, which is influenced by the East; see, for ex­ ample, Tob 3:7-10. On the demonology in Iran see Colpe 1976d, 585-598 (RAC); on Egypt see Colpe 1976b, 553-562 (RAC). E.g. Alexander (1999, 35-352) now notes that the demonology in Qumran is old and seeks its roots from the East rather than from the West. The rich material in the New Testament offers the closest parallels, e.g. Mark 1:34; Matt 12:22; Acts 19:13. See above p. 51. On the passage, see VanderKam 1977, 269-270. See above p. 47. Josephus may be thinking about the tradition in the Life of Daniel when he relates Herodes' struggles after the murder of Mariamne; see Jos. Ant. 15,240-246. See below p. 259-264. 114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

182

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

broad tradition in which medical treatment and blocking of the demons cannot be separated. 122

3) The Life clearly combines sin, sickness and forgiveness of sin with heal­ ing. Sickness and death as punishment of the gods is possibly one of the most common features in the religions of the world throughout history. However, early Judaism developed a very interesting and complex form of this idea. Sickness and sin were often combined, and moreover, removing sin not only led to healing, but even to a new type of world. 4QPrNab once was considered to give excellent parallels to the sec­ ond and third features noted above, because it contains both a demon and a man who forgave sins. It also deals with a king (Nabonid) and his sickness, which lasted seven years. As Dupont-Sommer interpreted it, a "in, as he said, a typical Essene healer and exorcist, forgave the sin of the king. The text thus would not only contain the same noteworthy elements as the Life but also help to clarify Mark 2:5 ("un parfait parallele"). The remnants of this interpretation still live on in the scholarship. However, it is not clear whether the king is tormented by a demon or not. Moreover, recent scholars read not "in but TH, and regard God and not the man as the subject of the forgiveness. Thus the text gives no parallel at these points. If the man does not forgive the king's sins, he does not play the role of an exorcist but only gives good advice to the king. The fragmentary text of 4QPrNab* by no means excludes the influence of demons, which is clear in the Life. The combination of sin, sickness, forgiveness of the sin and health is important even without the demon and a human agent. 4QPrNab shows the close connection between sin and arm

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

T

aT

On Baaras, see below p. 262. The text was once dated quite late, about 159 BC, but it is now widely regarded to be older; see Dupont-Sommer and Muller 1959, 350; Milik 1956, 411; Grelot 1978, 495. Lange and Sieker set terminus post quern on linguistical reasons in the late fourth or early third century BC, the terminus ante quern on paleographical reasons in the first century BC (1996, 6). According to Schwemer it is written in the Persian period; see 1995, 322323. On the history of research, see Lange and Sieker 1996, 14-31. Dupont-Sommer 1960, 259-260; followed by e.g. Vermes 1973, 67-69. But see Lange and Sieker 1996, 17-19. Satran reads "in (1995, 81). Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar translate "and an exor­ cist forgave my sin" (1997, 487). Twelftree still reads ira, but sees no exorcism in the text (1994, 17-18). On the reading and meaning of the word, see Lange and Sieker 1996, 9-10.13-14. 17-20. Schwemer (1995, 323) and Lange and Sieker 1996, 13 (with more literature on the question) consider God the subject of the forgiveness of the sins. Lange and Sieker 1996, 18. 123

1 2 4

125

1 2 6

127

128

129

130

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

183

sickness, which is clear also in the Life. The same thought is strongly pre­ sent in early Judaism, for instance in Sir 38:4-8 (which also connects the physician with the healing) and in T. Reu. 1. Jub. 50 (cf. also T. Judah 25:3) gives the basis for everlasting health: Removing sin means removing the root of the evil, and with it disappears disease and death. An age with­ out Satan, which sometimes occurs in the texts, is closely combined with this thought in eschatological hopes. 131

4) Because the relation between miracles and politics has been an impor­ tant theme in the present study, one feature is worth noting. It is obvious that the tradition of Daniel presented the prophet from the very beginning as being associated with rulers, either as their friend or as their opponent. In the miracle-story this relationship is underlined, interestingly as both friend and foe. On the one hand, Daniel seems to be a close friend of the ruler and his only helper. On the other hand, Life contains sharp words about tyrants generally and reveals a clearly hostile attitude. The tyrants become a "monster, seizing, destroying, killing, and smiting" (Liv. Pro. 4:7). The prophet wrought "many prodigies" for the other kings of the Persians (Liv. Pro. 4:17). As in the stories told in Dan the tribune of the prophet is the court of the kings, but the attitude towards the rulers in Life resembles that at the end of the biblical book. The rulers are tyrants under the yoke of Beliar, whom a reader apparently could identify with the Ro­ man emperors. Hare recognises the dualism in Lives, but does not consider it empha­ sized. While this is true about most of the Lives, the Life of Daniel is different and follows the rest of the traditions about Daniel. LXX espe­ cially attests how the angels were active as agents. Moreover, not only do two worlds exist, but a demon also attacks people under the yoke of Belial. The ideas in the Life are by no means exclusively Jewish. Also, pagans in the West, but especially in the East and Egypt identified sickness with sin and disease with demons. The connection in some Jewish texts, how­ ever, is very strong and original. Sin, sickness, death and demons, healing, a long or everlasting life, exorcisms and an age without Satan form a unity for which cosmology and demonology are essential prerequisites. God's aid to man is thus essentially an enormous exorcism. 132

133

131

See, for example Jub. 40:2, 50. As. Mos. 10:1; Hist. Rech. 14 (considered by Charlesworth 1986, 227 to belong to the Jewish part of the work). Tyrants as beasts is a well-known metaphor in classical antiquity, as in Plat. rep. 587b-589b and Philostr. VA 4,38. The metaphor was widely used in early Judaism (see Satran 1995, 85; Schwemer 1995, 333-336). Hare 1985,382. 132

133

184

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

f. Elijah 134

The text of the Life of Elijah, which is certainly a part of the original, is very short. It merely consists of a sentence calling him a Thesbite from Aaron's tribe - meaning that he was a priest - and of a legend in which his father is informed about the birth of the prophet. Elijah is mentioned also in the Life of Jonah, in which the father of the son raised from the dead by Elijah is identified with Jonah. Elijah's miracles are summarised very briefly in a passage generally con­ sidered a later interpolation. The word used for miracles ( O T H J E T O : ) would seem to support this assumption. Torrey left the summary out of his translation with a very brief justification. Only one but the oldest of the 135

136

137

138

139

140

141

1 3 4

On the Life, see Schwemer 1996, 224-260, Ohler 1997, 12-13; Schreiber 2000, 530. The words EK y % ' Apdpcov may point to ravens that fed him: The Arabs were con­ sidered a nation which understood the language of the birds (see Appian fr. 19; Philostra­ tus VA 1,20 and Schwemer 1994, 136-138). See below p. 224. "When he was to be born, his father Sobacha saw that men of shining white appear­ ance were greeting him and wrapping him in fire, and they gave him flames of fire to eat. And he went and reported (this) in Jerusalem, and the oracle told him: 'Do not be afraid, for his dwelling will be light and his words judgement, and he will judge Israel" (Liv. Pro. 21:2-3). On the early Jewish legend about the birth of Jewish heroes see Schwemer 1996, 237-238. "And when his son died, God raised him again from the dead by Elijah, for he wanted to show him that it is not possible to run away from God" (Liv. Pro. 10:6). "The signs which he did are these: Elijah prayed, and it did not rain for three years, and after three years he prayed again, and abundant rain came. In Zareptah of Sidon through the word of the Lord he made the jar of the widow not to fail and the flask of oil not to diminish. Her son who had died God raised from the dead after (Elijah) prayed. When the question was posed by him and the prophets of Baal concerning who is the true and real God, he proposed that a sacrifice be offered by him and by them, and that fire not be placed under (it), but that each should pray, and the one answering him would be God. Accordingly, the (prophets) of Baal prayed and cut themselves until the ninth hour, and no one answered them; and Elijah, when he had filled the place where the sacrifice was with much water, also prayed, and immediately fire came down and consumed the sacrifice, and the water was gone. And all blessed God, and killed the four hundred and fifty (prophets) of Baal. When king Ahaziah sent to obtain and oracle from idols, (Elijah) prophesied death, and he died. When two captains of fifty were sent to him from Ahaziah, the king of Israel, he invoked the Lord and fire came down from heaven, and the fire consumed them at Lord's command. Ravens brought him bread in the morning and meat in the afternoon. With a sheepskin he struck the Jordan and it was divided, and they crossed over with dry feet, both he and Elisha. Finally he was taken up in a chariot offire"(£/v. Pro. 21:4-15). See Schwemer 1995,216. See the introduction to the work, Torrey 1946, 3-4. Hare (1985, 396) is surprisingly uncertain ("Torrey is probably correct, therefore, in regarding this material as secon­ dary"). 135

1 3 6

1 3 7

1 3 8

1 3 9

1 4 0

141

185

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

manuscripts (An 1) contains this passage, which did not belong to the original. It is, however, included in the Latin version using the phrases of the Old Latin Bible translation and not the Vulgate. This indicates that the addition must be quite old and cannot be totally overlooked in the present study. The other variants (An 2 and Ep 2) obviously better reflect the lost original. The sentences in Ep 2 do not offer much other than the thought about Elia redivivus (6s TTCCXIV eXeuaeTai upo Trjs auvTeXeias), and that Elijah was £qXeoTTJs Kai d>uXa^ T C S V T O U 0EOU EVTOXCOV aKpiPrjs. The other variant, however, is very interesting. An 2 briefly tells that Elijah's £f]Xos was favoured by God and that he lived with birds (METCX TCOV TTBTTIVCOV). This may not refer only to 1 Kgs 17, but to the tradition, which is attested later in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum and which identifies Elijah with Phinehas (L.A.B. 48). This appears to be corroborated in Life v. 1, in which Elijah is an Aaronite, i.e. a priest. The identification is here not certain but can by no means be excluded. In any case, Elijah's £fjXos is mentioned in both versions. The oldest manuscripts thus contain a longer or shorter summary of Elijah's miracles, all of which treat Elijah's miracles traditionally. All the biblical miracles are listed, with only one exception, in the order of 1-2 Kgs (ravens first in v. 21). The short summary reveals no biases: The prophet is neither politically active nor legitimated by the miracles. What we have is merely a list of the well-known miracles. We cannot be sure if the author was a Jew or Christian. Nevertheless, the miracles of the prophet were for him a part of the prophet's life, which could not be over­ looked, even if it meant only a list including the miraculous deeds. The list of miracles in its present form is late, but it apparently contains features of the original. The most important of these for the present study is Elijah's role, which is told briefly in An 1 Kai KpiveT TOV ' laparjX (Liv. Pro. 21:3); the other manuscripts add EV poM<|>aig Kai mjpi. Elijah is de­ scribed as a future judge, similarly to Mai 3 and Ben Sira. The back­ ground for this mission is undoubtedly his biblical role with all the mira­ cles. 143

144

145

146

147

See Schwemer 1995, 17. On the versions, see Schwemer 1996, 64*-67*. See Schwemer 1996, 225-226. On these versions, see Schwemer 1996, 247-250. See Schwemer 1996, 247-248. On the identification, see below p. 224. See above p. 35.

186

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

g. Elisha 14

The Life of Elisha * also includes a legend about his birth. Then his mira­ cles - again ar]METa and not TEpccTCC, which points to a later stage - are summarised. The problems in the summary are the same as in the Life of Elijah. The manuscripts differ considerably. An 1 gives a very brief list of almost all the biblical miracles. Ep 1 contains a much shorter list, Ep 2 only a few words, the rest nothing. The summary in An 1 may have been written by the writer of the summary in Elijah's Life. None of the epitomes can offer much to the present study. However, the inclination to relate the miracles of the prophet is again obvious. 149

150

151

148

On the Life of Elisha, see Schwemer 1996, 261-282. See above p. 163. 150 «y/he signs which he did are these: He too struck the Jordan with Elijah's sheepskin, and the water was divided, and he too passed over with dry feet. The water in Jericho was foul and sterile; and hearing (this) from the city's residents, he invoked God, and he said: 'I am healing this water, and no longer will death and sterility issue from it', and the water has remained healed to this day. When children treated him disrespectfully, he cursed them, and two bears came out and tore to pieces forty-two of them. The wife of a prophet who had died was being pestered by creditors, and was unable to pay; she came to Elisha, and he commanded her to gather new vessels, as many as she could, and to pour the (jar) containing very little oil into them until the vessels were full; and she did this and filled the vessels and repaid her creditors, and she had the surplus for the suste­ nance of her children. He went to Shunem and stayed with a certain woman; she was not able to bear a child, but earnestly desired to have one; he prayed and made her able to conceive and give birth; then, when the child died, he prayed again and raised it from the dead. He went to Gilgal and was brought before the sons or the prophets; and when the food was boiled, and a deadly herb was boiled with the food, and they were all on the brink of danger, he bade the food harmless and sweet. When the sons of the prophets were felling trees by the Jordan, the axhead fell off and sank; and Elisha, praying, made the axhead float to the surface. Through him Naaman the Syrian was cleansed from of leprosy. When his servant, named Gehazi, went to Naaman secretly, against his wishes, and asked for silver, and later upon returning denied it, Elisha rebuked and cursed him, and he became a leper. When the king of Syria was making war against Israel, he pro­ tected the king of Israel by announcing to him the plans of the enemy. When the king of Syria learned this he sent a force to bring the prophet, but he prayed and make them to be struck with blindness, and he led them to Samaria, to their enemies, but keeping them unharmed he preserved and fed them. When the king of Syria learned this he stopped making war. After Elisha's death a man died, and as he was being buried he was thrown onto his bones, and just as he touched Elisha's bones the dead man revived immediately" {Liv. Pro. 22:4-17). 1 4 9

151

See Schwemer 1996, 263. 276-281. 67*-72*.

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

187

h. Conclusion The collection called Lives of the Prophets consists of very short biogra­ phies of the prophets. Many of them also contain stories about their mira­ cles. In the present form the Lives of Elijah and Elisha are almost entirely lists of the biblical miracles of the prophets, and although the original texts are lost they apparently treated their mighty deeds. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Eze­ kiel and Daniel are certainly treated as miracle-workers. Although the short Lives do not always allow for a study of the biases in the collection, the inclination to tell miracles is obvious. On the other hand, it means that the biblical miracles are retold (Isaiah) or briefly listed (Elijah, Elisha), but new deeds are added as well. It is obvious that several stories of Jere­ miah's mighty deeds circulated, although we only know some of them, and Ezekiel especially has now become a mighty miracle-worker. The Life shows that we obviously know only some of the stories about Ezekiel's miracles. Many of the deeds are not presented extensively, but only sum­ marised in very short sentences. The audience obviously knew the stories better than a modern scholar. Liv. Pro. attests that the stories about Moses could be adapted to other figures, such as Ezekiel. The Lives is a collection of traditions. It cannot be presumed that it offers a unified view on miracles. It is important to note that this tradition con­ tained many miracles, both biblical and nonbiblical. Some general re­ marks, however, are possible. Because it is a collection, it is natural that the roles attributed to God and men vary in the Lives. Isaiah and Daniel can be characterised as PNPs, but this characterization is not sufficient to cover the activity of Jeremiah and even less of Ezekiel. The Jewish popular tradition behind the collection could thus attribute a considerable role to God's human agents. Some of the stories were definitely topical in the stormy first century AD, making such prophetical figures as Theudas and the Egyptian under­ standable. The collection does not call for a rebellion, but its implied audi­ ence is hoping for better times, and not without God's help. In other texts dealing with similar material, the connection of politics and rebellion is obvious. Several Lives allude to the end of the world. The stories about Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Elijah clearly link the eschatological element with the mira­ cles. Interestingly, it is mostly Gentiles, not Israelites, who persecute the prophets. Israel is only seldom divided, although it certainly is in the Life of Ezekiel. However, the miracle-working prophets belong mostly to the common heritage of the nation, while the enemy comes from outside. The opponents are generally not demonised as in Jub., although Isaiah's fate could open the door to this interpretation. However, understandably, the

188

7. Many Miracles: The Lives of the Prophets

Life of Daniel is different and Daniel has to fight against wicked spirits. The connection between sin, sickness and demons is interesting. The collection of short Lives thus reveals that the miracles were an integral part of the picture of the prophets. The stories belong to a wide tradition only partly known to us, and help us to better understand the Jewish, as well as the Christian tradition.

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum a. Introduction Many early Jewish texts studied in the present text have not received the attention they deserve, but perhaps no one has been so badly overlooked as Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiquitatum biblicarum} The critical edition in Sources Chretiennes (1976) and of course the translations in OTP and JSHRZ soon led to a vigorous study producing a long line of important articles and monographs. L.A.B. starts with Adam and continues with a history of Israel until Saul's death. It belongs thus to the wide category of the "rewritten Bible" always needing closer precision. This time it is not easy: The passages on Moses and Kenaz in particular include biographical features. The closest parallels are Jubilees, Genesis Apocryphon, Josephus' Antiquitates Judaicae and also several post-70 AD writings dealing with the history of Israel, such as 2 Bar. and 4 Ezr? Scholars disagree on whether or not the work originally covered Israel's history after Saul's death. Many scholars believe that the ending of L.A.B. has been lost, but Bogaert and Jacobson, among others, consider it intact. Although there are no decisive arguments for either of these views, the rather abrupt end would indicate that the work is not complete. We have the text only in Latin, but there is no doubt about the original language: L.A.B. was written in Hebrew, translated first into Greek and later into quite clumsy Latin. 2

4

5

6

7

1

The Latin text was printed in 1527, but overlooked, e.g. by Kautsch, Charles and Billerbeck, although used by Ginzberg. The first modern translation was by James (1917) followed by Riessler (1928). See Harrington 1985, 302 and Feldman 1989, 59. The text in Sources Chretiennes (cited as Perrot and Bogaert 1976, 1-2) was preceded by Kish's critical edition from 1949, but Bogaert, Cazeaux, Harrington and Perrot could work as a team and combine their resources (see Harrington 1988, 3-4). The project not only produced a critical text but also a commentary and translations into French and later into English (OTP 2 [1985], 297-377). On the genre, see Perrot and Bogaert 1976, 2, 22-28; Jacobson 1996, 211-213. E.g. Dietzfelbinger 1979, 96-97; Harrington 1985, 298. Perrot - Bogaert 1976, 2, 21-22; Jacobson 1996, 253-254. For a discussion, see the English Schurer 3.2. (1986), 326-327 and Jacobson 1996, 253-254. The view was presented by Cohn (1898) and is commonly accepted; see also Schurer 2

3

4

5

6

7

190

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

Scholars knew very early on that Philo of Alexandria did not write L.A.B., although the work has been preserved in his production. Doubts were already uttered in the 16 century, and today Philo's authorship has been ruled out: It is a learned work, but its strong, theological profile dif­ fers from Philo's theology. The anonymous writer who created it owed much to the theological tradition before him, which greatly coloured his treatment of the biblical miracle-workers. Whoever wrote Liber antiquitatum biblicarum did it around 70 BC and rather soon after the Temple was destroyed, although the evidence is not clear enough to remove all doubts. While some scholars, including the original Schurer, Dietzfelbinger, Bauckham and Jacobson, suppose that the work was written after the fall of the Second Temple, some scholars date LA.B. to before it. We do not have a clear terminus ante quern. According to Harrington, Pseudo-Philo uses the "Palestinian" biblical text, which should make the latest possible date around 100 AD, but this text hardly replaced other texts as quickly as supposed here. Jacobson sees traces of Bar-Cochba's revolt in the work, but the evidence is not convincing. The most plausible date is thus between the two revolts. th

8

9

10

11

12

1909, 384-385; Harrington 1985, 298-299; Reinmuth 1994, 18 and Jacobson 1996, 215224. See Jacobson 1996, 195-199. Schurer 1909, 384-385; Bauckham 1983, 33; Dietzfelbinger 1979, 95-96; Jacobson 1996, 199-210. Reinmuth (1994, 24-26) remains uncertain after a thorough study. Zeron sets the origin of the work not only after Bar-Cochba, but in the 3 or 4 century (1980, 38-52). L.A.B. 22,8 and L.A.B. 26,15 seem to attest that the temple still stood. However, L.A.B. 19,7 says that Israel will serve God 740 years in a place given by him and names the seventeenth day of the fourth month, i.e. Tammuz, as the moment of the catastrophe. The team which produced the important edition in Sources Chretiennes (Harrington, Cazeaux, Perrot and Bogaert) argues for the view that this cannot be taken as proof that the work was written after 70 AD, because the second temple was not destroyed on Tammuz 17 , as the first, but on Av 9 (Perrot - Bogaert 1976, 2, 66-74; Harrington 1985, 299). Nonetheless, as noted already in the original Schurer, Tammuz 17 is given as the date of the catastrophe in 70 in some Rabbinic texts, because the daily sacrifice was stopped on this day (Schurer 3 [1909], 386; Jacobson 1996, 203-204). Moreover, in L.A.B. 26,13 God tells that when the (Second) Temple will fall, both the miraculous new stones and the old ones will be removed by him and not restored till eschatological times. Feldman (1989, 60) dates the work to the first century AD, and also Murphy supposes a pre 70 date (1993, 223). A date briefly after 70 AD is the most common; see Nickelsburg 1984b, 109-110; Jacobson 1996, 195.210; Vogel 1999, 258-261; Eve 2002, 117-118. Jacobson's (1996, 199-210) and Reinmuth's (1994, 17-26) detailed studies will form the basis for further discussion. Harrington 1985, 299. See the contrary arguments in Dietzfelbinger (1979, 95-96) and Jacobson (1996, 201). Jacobson 1996, 200-210. For instance, Dietzfelbinger saw no traces of the revolt in the work (1979, 95). 8

9

rd

th

10

th

th

th

11

12

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

191

We will never know the name of the author, but the work itself should offer enough material to inquire into the tradition before him and in his time. Scholars have not yet, however, been able to agree on the theological direction. There was a period, in which the newly found material in Qum­ ran led scholars to link the work with the Essenes. Feldman sees in it a pharisaic character. Jacobson, on the other hand, connects the author with the mystic, Jewish circles. Very few works known to us are as strongly connected with the rabbinic traditions as L.A.B. Many long known parallels have now been collected and emendated by Jacobson, whose commentary means a decisive step for scholarship. New Testament scholars have been reminded of the timegap of decades and centuries between Jesus and the early rabbinic works known to us. Yet the gap between L.A.B. and, for instance, R. Judah is not necessarily very large. L.A.B. is considered to be "our oldest substantive midrashic work." It is an important source for everybody studying the formation of the rabbinic tradition. It is certain that L.A.B. was written in Palestine and in Hebrew, and that it was directed to the Jews and not the Gentiles. Jacobson himself tries to define the location further and suggests Galilee, because magic and de­ mons played a prominent role there, but the material hardly allows such a conclusion. Liber antiquitatum biblicarum offers thus a very interesting subject for this study. It contains a short history of Israel and deals with many biblical miracle-workers. The way the Scripture is used in the work has been stud­ ied, but this task is far from complete. Like the production of Josephus it is written by a Palestinian Jew, but unlike Josephus' works, L.A.B. was written in a Semitic language and directed to the Jews. It was written shortly after the catastrophic Jewish war by a person who knew the Jewish tradition extremely well. In addition to Jacobson's commentary the most important contribution to the study of the miracles in L.A.B., especially 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

13

Harrington lists different proposals: "Pharisees, Essenes, Qumran coventanters, Sa­ maritans, anti-Samaritans, Hellenists, Gnostics" (1985, 300). Perrot and Bogaert link the work with synagogal piety (1976,2, 28-39). See below p. 220. Feldman 1989, 73.76, Jacobson 1996, 251-252. Schiirer (3 [1909], 385) was already aware of numerous contacts between L.A.B. and rabbinic midrashim. Feldman 1989, 59. See Harrington 1985, 300; Jacobson 1996, 210-211. Jacobson 1996,210-211. See Nickelsburg 1980, 49-65 and Murphy (1993). Feldman gives a survey of the biblical material included in his Prolegomenon (1971), and also lists the parallels with Josephus (1989). 14

15

16

17

18

19

2 0

21

192

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

concerning the distribution of the roles and the function of the miracles, is the chapter in Eve's book. We have good reason to study the way Pseudo-Philo uses the Old Testament material on miracle-workers. 22

b. Moses Even a short summary of Moses' life takes up almost a fifth of L.A.B. (919). The writer also treats his miracles. The hopeless situation before Moses' birth is described vividly (L.A.B. 9,1-16; cf. Exod 1:1-2:25): the Israelites will stop producing children, be­ cause the boys are killed and the girls are raised to serve as slaves of the Egyptians: LXX £cooyove?Te CCUTO can be interpreted that the enemies intended to take the girls to serve them. Amram faces a hopeless situation and L.A.B. adds God's word promising to help him: the promise includes an interesting phrase et ide ecce nunc quod genitum fuerit ex eo mihi serviet in eternum et per eum faciam mirabilia in domo Iacob, et faciam per eum signa et prodigia populo meo que non feci ulli. Amram may be one of the several figures used by the writer to encourage his readers in a hopeless situation. Although he realised the overwhelming power of the enemy, Amram refused to give up (see also L.A.B. 27,7). The spirit of God comes upon Miriam, who sees in a dream a man in a linen garment. He foretells the birth of a son: 23

24

25

26

"Go and say to your parents: 'Behold he who will be born from you will be cast forth into the water; likewise through him the water will be dried up. And I will work signs through him and save my people, and he will exercise leadership always.'" (L.A.B. 9,10). 27

2 2

Eve 2002, 117-143. On Moses in L.A.B., see Tiede 1972, 182-184; Perrot and Bogaert 1976, 102-136; Nickelsburg 1980, 53-54; Feldman 1989, 64-67; Murphy 1993, 59-61; Reinmuth 1994, 45-62 and Jacobson's commentary, 1996, 400-658. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint concerning Moses' early years, see above p. 92. We know many stories about how Moses' birth was foretold, both in prophecy and in dreams. Although some of them connect Miriam with the prophecy, this is the only source attributing the prophetic dream to Miriam (Jacobson 1996, 419). The translation by Harrington (1985) is used in the present study. Pharaoh's daughter goes to the river "as she had seen in dreams" (L.A.B. 9,15). Re­ inmuth observes the detail, but it is hard to share his view "Es handelt sich sachlich um eine Rationalisierung" (1994, 96). Pseudo-Philo admittedly makes the story flow more smoothly, but the word "Rationalisierung" is not correct. 2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

193

Moses is, as Jacobson and Levison note, born circumcised (Ipse autem puer natus est in testamento Dei et in testamento carnis eius, L.A.B. 9,13). Moses' birth is described in many early Jewish texts and L.A.B. is part of a large tradition. It is of special interest for this study that Moses' miracles are present from the very beginning. Signa et prodigia undoubtedly were D T E I Q I mmK / ar)|je7a Kai xepaTa in the Hebrew original and the Greek translation (cf. Deut 26:8). 29

The writer says nothing about Moses' life between his childhood and the return to Egypt (et misit Moysen et liberavit eos de terra Egiptiorum). The plagues are rendered with only two sentences in L.A.B. "God also sent upon them ten plagues and struck them down. Now these were the plagues: that is, blood and frogs and all manner of beasts and hail and the death of cattle and locusts and gnats and darkness that could be felt and the death of the firstborn" (L.A.B. 10,1). On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 7:14-12:36, see above p. 70.

Although the number of ten is mentioned (misit quoque Deus super eos decern plagas), only nine are listed (the plague of boils is absent), which undoubtedly is only a lapse, and because the mistake was not corrected by the translator, perhaps it was not in the original and there is no reason for further speculations. The plagues are enumerated in a slightly changed order compared with Exodus (1,2,4,7,5,8,3,9,10). The short list allows only some observations. Harrington translates pammixia "all manner of beasts", but Jacobson ("mixed creatures") has understood the text better, pointing to Aquila's use of the word TrdpiKTOs. However, the present study has revealed that also Artapanus, Philo and Josephus considered the flies somehow special crea­ tures. The second notable feature is the darkness tractabiles tenebre, which is a translation of v|;r)Aa<|>T]T6s CJKOTOS. The detail also occurs in Philo, Wis and Josephus, and in Melito's early Christian sermon in another variant. 30

31

32

33

2 8

Jacobson 1996, 425; Levison 1996, 113. See above p. 74. See Harrington 1985, 317; Jacobson 1996, 432. Strangely enough, also Josephus mentions only nine but omits another plague, i.e. the plague on the livestock (Feldman 1989, 65). Jacobson 1996, 432-433. On Artapanus, see above p. 102, on Philo, see p. 117, on Josephus, see p. 238. On Philo, see above p. 116, on Josephus below p. 238. Melito deals with the darkness in his sermon (22-24) in a similar way, although when retelling the death of the firstborn. On T. Sim., see below p. 238. 2 9

3 0

31

3 2

33

194

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

The most interesting feature of the passage is its extreme shortness. The writer was obviously not using this phase of sacred history to teach any­ thing. Did he intentionally avoid some features because of the situation in his own times? Or did he simply suppose that the stories were known well enough? Before suggesting an answer, the rest of the work has to be stud­ ied. The miracle at the Red Sea (Exod 13:17-14:31) is retold briefly, but with a major emendation and several interesting details. 34

On the differences between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 13:17-14:31, see p. 74.

In the L.A.B. the tribes of Reuben, Issachar, Zebulun and Simeon would rather cast themselves into the sea than be killed by the enemies; the tribes of Gad, Asher, Dan and Naphthali want to serve the Egyptians and the tribes of Levi, Judah, Joseph' and Benjamin are ready to fight against the enemy (L.A.B. 10,3). God tells Moses to strike the sea with his rod (tolle virgam tuam et per cute mari). When Moses does all this, "God rebukes the sea and the sea is dried up" (comminatus est Deus mari) and the way opens up. God hardens the perception of the Egyptians, who did not know that they were entering the sea. He tells Moses to strike the sea yet again and thereby he destroyed the Egyptians. At Moses' birth, the angel prophesied that the baby thrown to the water would dry up the sea (ecce quod nascetur de vobis in aquam proicietur, quomodo per eum aqua siccabitur, L.A.B. 9,9). The use of the biblical story is again very interesting: The writer has omitted most of the details of the original. There is no God's angel, no desperate Egyptians and no cloud separating the two peoples. On the other hand, the writer has freely added extra-biblical details, some of which may be traditional. The detail that the Israelites were divided in the discussion of what to with Pharaoh's troops were coming in many ways. It seems to be tradi­ tional and older than L.A.B. Philo knew that the people were divided, al35

36

3 4

Some details play no role in the present study. Reinmuth observes that the people doubt the promises given to Abraham (Gen 12:7) and underlines the theological character of the despair (1994, 49-50). Bauckham notes (1983, 37) that the writer has removed the difficulty in God's words ("Why are you crying to me", Exod 14:15) and added exclamavit. Philo solved the problem in a way typical for him; see p. 119. It is typical for L.A.B. that the miracle at the Red Sea finds its predecessor in the miracle of the Creator telling the water to flow to one place (Vogel 1998, 189). Jacobson (1996, 420) underlines that the detail is not unique (as Feldman claimed, 1970, lxxii; see also Harrington 1985, 316; Feldman 1989, 65). Moreover, the miracle at the Red Sea was often seen as punishment for the murder of Hebrew children (Jub. 48,14; Wis. 11,5-8). Reinmuth (1994, 118-127) collects the vast evidence of what he calls "Talio- und Korrelationsprinzip" in L.A.B. 3 5

3 6

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

195

though he did not name the tribes, and the roots of the division are in the Old Testament. The tribes of Gad and Asher from the middle group are presented as villains also in Jos. Asen. 27:11, where they try to kill Aseneth, and in Liv. Pro. 3:18, where they have persecuted the righteous in exile. Moreover, the entire version of the story is similar to several Rab­ binic and Samaritan texts. However, the version in L.A.B. is more militant. Now the Israelites are not unarmed, as in many early Jewish texts follow­ ing the tradition attested in LXX. The feature is easy to explain by allud­ ing to the many other militant passages of L.A.B., and has led some scholars to ask whether the writer intentionally contemporized the biblical story. The writer certainly realised that the options in Palestine in the first century AD were analogous: to surrender, to commit suicide or to go on with resistance. L.A.B. favours resistance at the Red Sea and condemns the slavery there, similarly to L.A.B. 9: It is possible that the writer sup­ ported this option as cowardice also in the time the work was written. Several Jewish writers exaggerated the miracle, emphasizing that the way was completely dry; Philo uses the words EKpccupcoBr) y a p q v|/d|JMOs (Mos. 2,254) under the feet of the people. We do not know which Hebrew words the writer used, but the Latin et siccatum est mare may reveal an acquaintance with this tradition. Moses' rod plays a prominent role here as in many texts cited above. That he strikes the sea - now twice to open and to close the way - is an unscriptural but common detail. The manner in which the way opens is still more interesting. When God threatens the sea (comminatus est Deus mari), the hymn in Exod 15 is, of course, involved in the event (Et steterunt maria aquarum et apparuerunt profunda terre, cf. Exod 15:8 "The surging waters stood firm like a wall"). Apparently also several Psalms are alluded to: Ps 106:9, as noted by Jacobson, but also Ps 114: 38

39

40

41

42

43

3 7

See above p. 121. The first group consists of Leah's sons, the second of the sons of concubines and the last of two of Rachel's and two of Leah's sons. On the roots in the Old Testament, see Jacobson 1996, 437. On Ezek. Trag., see above p. 75, on Philo p.l 19, on Josephus, see below p. 240. See Bauckham 1983, 44-46 and Olyan 1991, 75-87. Olyan (1991, 87-91) considers that the writer has made the version more militant and favoured resistance. Mendels also tries in his article to show that Pseudo-Philo has tried to contemporize the biblical story. However, his emphasis is different: None of the views proposed prevailed but God himself helped his people. Mendels thinks that the writer, a pre-70 Pharisee or a moderate Zealot (1992, 266), tried to tone down the war, but had no success (1992, 270-273). Jacobson does not note these possible contemporizations in his commentary. See Jacobson 1996, 440 and on Ezekiel above p. 75, on Artapanus p. 105, on Philo p. 119 and on Josephus p. 241. Jacobson 1996, 441. See also Ps 18:16 as Bauckham 1983, 43 notes. 3 8

3 9

4 0

41

4 2

4 3

196

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

"He rebuked the Red Sea, and it dried up, he led them through the depths as through the desert" (Ps 106:9). "Why was it, O sea, that you fled O Jordan, that you turned back, you mountains, that you skipped like rams, you hills, like lambs? Tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob, who turned the rock into a pool, the hard rock into springs of water" (Ps 114:5-8).

Also here the unknown writer combines material (this time biblical) from many sources to retell the story of Exodus. His redaction means that God clearly takes a more prominent role than in the biblical original and Moses' role is reduced. It is interesting that, unlike, for example, in Jub., Artapanus and Philo, God stands again in dialogue with Moses. Murphy notes that the writer often presents God in dialogues with the people and more often with their leaders. Moreover, he may interpret the Scriptures with God's soliloquy (for example, cogitavit primo dicens, L.A.B. 53,2), which was not the way Philo retold the Scriptures. 44

45

46

47

Moses' miracles in the desert generally play no prominent role, and are only mentioned in a few words: "Now he led his people out into the wilderness; for forty years he rained down for them bread from heaven and brought quail (ortigometram) to them from the sea and brought a well of water to follow them. Now with a pillar of cloud he led them by day, and with a pillar of fire he gave them light by day night" (L.A.B. 10,7).

The water of Marah (Exod 15:22-27) is mentioned only briefly (L.A.B. 11,15), and it is placed after Moses received the Law. However, it seems to be part of a larger and multifaceted tradition: "And there God commanded Moses many things and showed him the tree of life, from which he cut off and took and threw into Marah, and the water of Marah became sweet. And it followed them in the wilderness forty years and went up to the mountain with them and went down into the plains" (L.A.B. 11,15).

It is grammatically possible that the subject of sequebatur is God, and some of the manuscripts add the word, but Harrington translates the sen­ tence correctly: As seen above, not only God but also the well followed the "Jacobson 1996, 442. Murphy 1988, 7-8. See chapter 6. The way from Egypt is also described briefly in God's speech to Joshua in L.A.B. 23,9-10 and in Deborah's hymn L.A.B. 32,7-8 and 17. 4 5

4 6

4 7

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

197

Biblicarum

people. Moreover, it is interesting to see the method that made the water sweet. Jacobson justly corrects the translations "Holz des Lebens" and "fe bois de la vie". Moses saw the tree of life, which made the water sweet. The anonymous writer undoubtedly wrote ys> which was £uAov in Greek and then lignum in Latin. He followed a broad tradition of interpretation. It was supposed early on that Moses did not throw an ordinary piece of wood into the well. Ben Sira used the passage to defend the skills of the physicians and Philo used it in his own way. Pseudo-Philo thus mentions briefly the water-miracle (Exod 17:1-7; Num 20:1-13) also in 10,7 (et puteum aquae consequentis eduxit eis) also in L.A.B. 11,15 (er sequebatur eos). This is an early occurrence of a version which also figures in 1 Cor 10. It is based on Num 21:16-20: The Israel­ ites were given water in Beer and praised the well, which the princes dug "with sceptres and staffs." It gave reason to believe that it was the same as that which followed the people from Horeb (Exod 17,1-7) to Meribah (Num 20:1-13) and to Beer (Num 21:16-20). The events are thus again retold in the striking brevity with which the events in the desert are described, and the question asked above must be asked again: Why did he summarise so briefly an important period of Is­ rael's history? Possibly the only reason is that the miracles did not need to be retold, but were clearly assumed to be known to everybody. They could be summarised or also alluded to very briefly, because the audience con­ sisted of Jews. However, there might be a more serious reason, as sug­ gested by Mendels: The writer may have wanted to hurriedly pass over the events, because the Zealots linked their ideas with the desert. The sug­ gestion may be a bold one, but makes sense: The writer shows no interest in this very important topic in early Judaism. On the other hand, the work 9

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

4 8

See Dietzfelbinger 1979, 132; (Perrot and Bogaert 1976, 1, 125; see however 1976, 2, 113); Jacobson 1996,479. On the detail in Ben Sira, see p. 20, on Philo, see 122; on Josephus, see p. 242. The rabbinic sources usually identify the well mentioned in Num 21, and not the one mentioned in Exod 15:25, as the water which followed the Israelites. Jacobson (1996, 479), however, justly rejects the doubts that the text of LA.B. is confused (see also L.A.B. 20,8). See Wolff 1982, 42-43. On Ezek. Trag., see above p. 80. See Jacobson 1983, 154, Harrington 1985, 317; Jacobson 1996, 444. Three miracles are closely linked with three persons later in the work (LA.B. 20,8): "And these are the three things that God gave to his people on account of three persons; that is, the well of the water of Marah for Miriam and the pillar of cloud for Aaron and the manna for Moses. And when these came to their end, these three things were taken away from them." The tradition is attested in several rabbinic sources; see Jacobson 1996, 671-672. Manna is later called by Moses "the bread of angels" (L.A.B. 19,5). Mendels 1992, 273. On the significance of the desert in early Judaism, see Hengel 1989b, 249-257; 4 9

5 0

51

5 2

5 3

5 4

5 5

198

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

is generally rather militant. Nevertheless, even the short account may re­ veal a larger tradition, as the two water-miracles attest. A miracle-story, which clearly has been reinterpreted in L.A.B., as well as in Philo and Josephus, deals with Korah (Num 16:1-17:31). 56

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Num 16:1-17:31, see above p. 126.

In Num 16 his rebellion (200 and not 250 as in Num 16:2) is directed against Moses and Aaron: "The whole community is holy, every of them, and the Lord is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the Lord's assembly?" (Num 16:3).

Pseudo-Philo radically changes the reason for the rebellion. As in Num 15:37-41) God gives the law of tassels on garments, but it is followed by an unscriptural question: "Why is an unbearable law imposed upon us (quid si ponitur nobis lex insufferibilis)" (L.A.B. 16,1). 57

Consequently, the whole story is changed. It no longer deals with the legitimisation of Moses, but with the legitimisation of the Law. It may seem strange that it is precisely the easy law of tassels, which is called unbear­ able, but both the writer and the rabbinic exegesis followed the order of Num and saw here the reason for the rebellion. Yet, it is clear that the problem is not merely an individual commandment, but the entire Law, which cannot be divided. Generally, the central virtue in L.A.B. is to obey the Law, and this has reshaped the biblical story. Questioning the divine character of the Law is one the sins confessed to Kenaz by his fellow Isra­ elites and punished severely (L.A.B. 25,9-13). The story is dramatized and embellished with new details, especially with the passage on the seven of 58

59

60

Horsley and Hanson 1985, 162-163; Gray 1993, 114; Schwemer 1995, 214-232; 1996, 131-136. On Philo, see above p. 126-127; on Josephus, see below p. 244-246. Moreover see Reinmuth 1989, 165-166; Murphy 1993, 79-89; Jacobson 1996, 553-570, Levison 1996, 123-124 and Feldman 1998b, 91-109. The Latin phrase is difficult, quid si is mostly taken for "why" (Harrington 1985, 323). The literal "what i f makes no sense. Jacobson proposes quid sic and translates it "why is an intolerable law ordained for us in this way" (1996, 544). The language in the Latin translation is bad enough to cause several such problems. See Jacobson 1996, 553. A common midrashic principle was that there was a real historical connection between events recounted consecutively in the biblical text (Bauckham 1983, 38). Reinmuth 1989, 165-166. See Jacobson 1996, 245. A typical feature in the redaction is that Korah and his fol­ lowers are compared to the generation of the flood (Vogel 1998, 189). 5 6

5 7

5 8

5 9

6 0

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

199

Biblicarum

Korah's sons who did not follow their father but strongly confessed their commitment to the Law (L.A.B. 16,5). Moses is almost completely passed over in the story and it is God who defends his Law in an extra-biblical speech apparently mediated by Moses (loquente Moyse omnia verba hec populo). The opponents of the Law were destroyed - also a new detail like "the camp of the Egyptians and the race that I destroyed with the wa­ ter of the flood" (L.A.B. 16,3). Unlike Philo, Pseudo-Philo retells the story about the budding of Aaron's rod, but not about the continuing rebellion (L.A.B. 17). The story is thus retold in a very learned way. Understandably, its func­ tion has changed: Moses' person no longer needs legitimisation, but the Holy Law is always a subject to defend. Pseudo-Philo solves the problem in Pentateuch, certainly known to him, that Korah "with his households and men and all his possession" died (Num 16:32), but that his sons are mentioned later (Num 26:11). He also reveals a list of the greatest sinners of history, which has many parallels. Here they are the people before the flood, the Egyptians and Korah, who wanted to reject the Law. Everything indicates that the writer was part of a long, learned tradition, and that he contemporized a miracle-story to teach his audience. 61

62

63

Also, Moses' last day is retold by Pseudo-Philo extensively and with new details (Deut 34:1-8 I L.A.B. 19). 64

On a comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Deut 34,1-8, see above p. 127.

Unlike Philo and several other authors investigated in the present study the writer did not avoid presenting God in dialogue with Moses. God's speech (Deut 31:16-21) conflates with Moses' words (Deut 31:25-29). Moses himself says that the Israelites will cry for a "judge for the sons of Israel to pray always for our sins" (oret pro peccatis nostris, L.A.B. 19,3). Moses has a role as mediator and intercessor in the Scripture (Exod 32:30; Exod 34:9), but it is now underlined. A dialogue between God and Moses is added, in which God tells about the fall of a "place where they will serve 65

66

61

See Levison 1996, 123-124. The rabbinic tradition observes that Korah's sons did not take part in his rebellion; see Jacobson 1996, 563. A minor detail is that Balaam's she-ass did not speak (L.A.B. 18,9). A rationalistic interpretation could be assumed, but is hardly correct, because the work otherwise shows no such tendencies. On Moses' death in L.A.B., see Delling 1971, 16; Murphy 1993, 89-95, Jacobson 1996, 611-658; in Philo above p. 127-128, in Josephus below p. 245. See also Deut. R. 11:10. Jacobson 1996,612-613. Jacobson 1996,617. 6 2

6 3

6 4

6 5

6 6

200

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

me" and about a horrible day similar to the one in which God smashed the tablets of the covenant (L.A.B. 19,7). In this dialogue Moses again men­ tions the miracles of the burning bush and the Red Sea. God shows him the Promised Land, Egypt and the places from which water and clouds come upon the Holy Land, and, moreover the storerooms of manna and the paths to paradise. Moses' rod, which is often treated in interesting ways, is now accorded a more significant function than earlier: 67

68

69

"And now your staff with which these signs were performed will be a witness between me and my people (erit testimonium inter me et populum meum). And when they sin, I will be angry with them but I will recall your staff and spare them in accord with my mercy. And your staff will be before me as reminder all the days (et erit virga tua in conspectu meo in commemorationem omnium dierum), and it will be like the bow with which I established my covenant with Noah when he went from the ark" (L.A.B. 19,11).

Aaron's rod was placed in the Tabernacle and preserved during centuries (Num 17:25), but now Moses' rod is given yet another role: It will not stand in the temple in Jerusalem, but in the heavenly Temple - at least Moses sees mensuras sanctuarii. Moses' death - if it can be called a death - is described in an intriguingly way. He asks God how much time is left (L.A.B. 19,14) and gets the an­ swer that four and a half have passed and two and a half remain. 10

"And when Moses heard this, he was filled with understanding and his appearance be­ came glorious; and he died in glory according to the word of the Lord, and he buried him" (L.A.B. 19,16).

Moses' death means mourning in heaven: "And the angels mourned at his death, and the lightnings and the torches and the arrows went all together before him. And in that day the hymn of the heavenly hosts was not sung because of the passing of Moses, nor was there such a day from the one on which the Lord made man upon the earth, nor shall there be such forever, that the hymn of the angels should stop on account of men; because he loved him very much" (L.A.B. 19,16). Jacobson doubts the integrity of the text, because there is, according to him, no rea­ son to show Moses Egypt among the mysterious things (Jacobson 1996, 635). Perhaps the original text has indeed alluded to Gen "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river", i.e.fluvium Egypti and not terram Egypti. Unde bibet sola terra sancta. The tradition that the land of Israel had special sources of rain is attested later in Sifr. Deut. 42 and b.Taan. 10a ("Palestine is watered by the Holy One, blessed be he, and the rest of the world is watered by a messenger"). Artapanus tells that the Egyptians worshipped Moses' rod in their temples (Artap. 3,32). To Philo it was fj 'lepd ftaKTnpi'a (see 133). "And he showed him the measurements of the sanctuary and the number of sacrifices and the signs by which they are to interpret the heaven", L.A.B. 19,10; see Jacobson 1996, 638-639. James saw an analogy with Noah's covenant and the rainbow and sup­ posed that the Milky Way is meant (1917, 130). There is an analogy, but although Noah is mentioned, it is not between Noah and Moses but between the earthly and heavenly Temple. 68

6 9

7 0

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

201

The death of the hero presents us with a puzzling problem. On the one hand, hand he clearly dies, is buried and the angels mourn him. On the other hand, Pseudo-Philo writes "mutata est effigies eius in gloria" and soon after that adds to Deut 34:5 again the words that Moses died "in glo­ ria" Moreover, later in the work, Deborah's way of speaking about Moses in heaven is not easy to interpret: 71

"And when Moses was dying, God established for him a platform and showed him then what we now have as witnesses, saying: 'Let there be as witness between me and you and my people the heaven that you are to enter and the earth on which you walk until now. For the sun and the moon and the stars are servants to you"' (L.A.B. 32,9).

As told above, in L.A.B. 19 God shows Moses the secrets of the world be­ fore Moses' death. The words et cum moreretur disposuit ei firmamentum may point to this brief look. However, the death in gloria and his trans­ formation allow another interpretation. It is possible that Moses is given a similar role as in his dream in Ezekiel's Exagoge and as Abraham is given in Apoc. Ab. 13:4-14: A place in heaven, from which he can look at the whole world. It may be connected with his enthronement, although the word is not used. Moses thus did and did not die. Jacobson supposes some kind of body/soul split: The body is buried, but his soul is led to some other world. This may be true, but because of the scarce material, one cannot be certain. Philo offers a very close parallel by combining Moses' death with the Platonic doctrine about body and soul. However, it is obvious that Moses was sui generis in life as well as in death. The words referring to a day similar to the one on which God smashed the tablets of the covenant (L.A.B. 19,7) is generally taken as a sign for a post-70 date of the work. This seems to be true, and although the evidence is not absolute, the passage should be studied in the light of the stormy first century AD. It is likely that the writer is contemporizing the holy his­ tory again. The nation will not obey the Law and it will suffer, but the na­ tion will never be forgotten. Moses acts as intercessor and his holy rod 72

73

74

75

76

77

71

See below p. 204. See above p. 81-86 and 50. God promises Moses to shorten the days so that his resurrection should happen sooner (L.A.B. 19,13). According to Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 354) the key to an inter­ pretation is that Moses is going to return ("endzeitliche Wiederkehr") and that he is "Paradigma und Vorlaufer des Messias". The interpretation is rather bold: the eschatological resurrection does not necessarily contain the idea about the returning Moses. On the enthronement of the men in early Judaism, see above p. 85-86. Jacobson 1996, 249; see also Lierman 2004, 190-191. On the death of Moses, see also pp. 127 and 245. See above p. 127-128. See above p 190-191. 7 2

7 3

7 4

7 5

7 6

7 7

202

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

reminds God of his great miracle of the exodus. The hope of the despaired nation lies in its sacred history. The most striking feature of the stories about Moses is that, unlike in Jub., Artapanus and Philo, he now again stands in dialogue with God. The tradi­ tion had reduced God's anthropological features, which had led to various redactions of the miracle stories. Now the direction is diametrically op­ posed to this: Pseudo-Philo freely adds passages in which God speaks with Moses before his death. It is not nonbiblical, because God spoke with Moses D D D " ^ D^DS, but why did the writer choose this approach? Several Jewish writers distanced God from men, which necessarily led to a redistribution of the roles in the stories. Yet the opposite approach of Pseudo-Philo led to similar consequences, and also here it is difficult to find a consistent line. God's role in the events has certainly reduced Moses' role, but, on the other hand, his special status is strongly empha­ sized, especially in the stories about his death. Once again it is difficult to use Kahl's good terminology. According to Eve, the main function of the miracles is to show that God is in charge of the world, punishing the wicked and rewarding and protect­ ing his own people; it is easy to agree with him. This idea, of course, has strong biblical roots, but L.A.B. has preserved and expanded it. God pun­ ishes the Egyptians and Korah, rewards Amram and protects the Israelites at the Red Sea. The writer does not seem to have found a function, how­ ever, for some of the miracles mentioned very briefly, which include the plagues and the miracles in the desert. If the reason is not that he inten­ tionally avoided some stories, then it is that he supposed them to be known to every reader. N

78

79

Eve studies the miracles in L.A.B. and considers them generally the miracles of God or his angelic agents; however he notes the ambivalence in the stories of Moses as some­ thing puzzling (2002, 129-132). Eve 2002, 134-142. 7 9

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

203

c. Joshua Joshua, a miracle-worker in the Old Testament and in The Wisdom of Ben Sira* also gets a role in L.A.B.* but Pseudo-Philo has been very selec­ tive. Some things are left out, some things are added and some things un­ derlined. 0

1

On the differences between the Hebrew texts and LXX concerning Joshua, see above p. 249.

Jericho's conquest (Jos 5:13-6,27) is rendered only briefly and without any miraculous features ("And when they brought back word, the people went up and attacked the city and burned it with fire", L.A.B. 20,7), and the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 31-5,1) is totally omitted. The omissions con­ cern the most prominent deeds told in Joshua: No miraculous features are preserved in this passage. The stones from heaven (Jos 10:8-14) are men­ tioned only after the life of Joshua and also then very briefly (L.A.B. 30,5): "And when your enemies came against you, he rained down hailstones on them and destroyed them (lapides grandinis pluit super eos)."* 2

The miracles of the new leader, however, could not be ignored. When Joshua is called, Pseudo-Philo adds events to the biblical story: "Then God said to Joshua the son of Nun: 'Why do you mourn and why do you hope in vain that Moses yet lives? And now you wait to no purpose, because Moses is dead. Take his garments of wisdom and clothe yourself, and with his belt of knowledge gird your loins, and you will be changed and become another man. Did I not speak on your behalf to Moses my servant, saying: 'This one will lead my people after you, and into his hand I will deliver the kings of the Amorites?' And Joshua took the garments of wisdom and clothed himself and girded his loins with the belt of understanding. And when he clothed himself with it, his mind was afire and his spirit was moved, and he said to the people: ..." (L.A.B. 20,2-3).

The miraculous legitimisation of the leadership is very interesting. Deut 34:9 says only that Joshua "was filled with the Spirit", and LXX renders the phrase literally, but here we have a more detailed description. Jacobson plausibly points to Num 20:22-29, where Aaron's garments are put on his son Eleazar. However, the succession of the prophet forms a closer paral­ lel: As Elisha took the mantle of Elijah, Joshua takes Moses' garment. This 83

8 0

On Ben Sira, see above p. 26-31, on Josephus, see below p. 249-255. On Joshua in L.A.B., see Nickelsburg 1980, 54; Murphy 1993, 96-101; Reinmuth 1994, 63-65 and Jacobson 1996, 658-735. According to Harrington L.A.B. follows LXX, which has X(0ous x^dCns, choosing "hailstones" instead of "great stones" (1985, 343; similarly Perrot and Bogaert 1976,2, 166), but actually MT has both (nVna wn* and n a n ^aaa, Jacobson 1996, 837). Jacobson 1996, 660. 81

8 2

8 3

204

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

no longer refers to his clothes; the idea has been developed further, pos­ sibly on the grounds of the succession between Elijah and Elisha: The garments symbolise a leadership in Spirit. This kind of leadership is one of the most notable features in the miracle stories of L.A.B., and it means an obvious connection between religion and politics. The puzzling words "you will be changed and become another man" (et immutaberis et eris in virum alium) are not unique, in L.A.B. or elsewhere. They are taken di­ rectly from 1 Sam 10:6 (ina wvb roami) and they point to the ancient, spirit-filled leadership in Israel. Saul hears the news of the terrible situa­ tion in Jabesh Gilead and "the Spirit of God came upon him in power and he burned with anger". The newly elected king took Israel to war against the Ammonites and triumphed over them (1 Sam 11:6-11). A similar lead­ ership is also attested in the biblical Samson (esp. Judg 13,25). It is a sign that leadership and miracles were closely integrated in Joshua's fig­ ure, just as Philo combined them in Moses' figure. Joshua takes "Moses' garments of wisdom" and leads the people to battle. The writer seems to contemporize the biblical story again, since it should not be forgotten that the work was written in a period of battles, blood and slaughter. Was the author waiting for a man who would take the "garments of wisdom" and lead his people to the fight against the Romans as Saul once did against the Ammonites? If that is true, the passage should not be overlooked when the question of the religious background of the revolts is raised. That Joshua is called to lead the people in Spirit and that he also fulfils his mission and the place given to him shows that he is one of the main figures in the work. The most interesting passage concerning Joshua is, however, not a part of his life, but comes much later in the song of Deb­ orah: 85

"And when Moses was dying, God established for him a platform and showed him then what we now have as witnesses (Et cum moreretur, disposuit ei firmamentum, et ostendit ei tunc quos nunc habemus testes), saying: 'Let there be as witness between me and you and my people the heaven that you are to enter and the earth on which you walk until now. For the sun and the moon and the stars are servants to you.' And when Joshua arose to rule the people, on the day when he was fighting the enemies, the evening ap­ proached while the battle is still going on. Joshua said to the sun and moon: 'You who have been made servants between the Most Powerful and his sons, behold now the battle is still going on, and do you abandon your duties? Therefore stand still today and give light to his sons and darkness to his enemies.' And they did so" (LA.B. 32,9-10). 87

See See See See

also Wis 10:15-16 and on Kenaz below p. 206-255. below p. 216-217. above p. 148-155. Jacobson 1996, 876-883.

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

205

Biblicarum

The miracle at the battle of Gibeon, briefly told in Jos 10:12-13, is now given a place in the theology of the work. The miracle in itself, unlike in Sir 46, is not enough. The difficult Latin phrase disposuit ei firmamentum is understandably interpreted in different ways and because of the often poor Latin in L.A.B. many translators have allowed themselves plenty of freedom. Jacobson, in his analysis of the proposed interpretations, takes disponere for 'arrange', i.e. that God opened the heaven to Moses. How­ ever, the word also means 'to distribute', 'allot', 'assign'. The Oxford Latin Dictionary quotes (s.v.) Q. Cic. Pet. 20: ut dispositum suum cuique munus sit. As mentioned above, prior to his death, Moses was allowed to look at all the secrets of the universe (L.A.B. 19). Now, however, it seems that it was not a temporary but a permanent situation: God gave Moses a seat similar to Abraham's in Apoc. Ab? If this interpretation is correct, this hymn gives a cosmic dimension to the battle at Gibeon and Joshua's leadership. The angels followed the battle between David and Goliath, but now the sun and the moon have to wait until the man fulfils his task in Spirit. It is difficult to use Kahl's terminology. Eve notes that Joshua is pre­ sented as a BNP, if the passage about the stopped sun is taken in isolation and no satisfactory explanation is found. Firstly, however, the framework of interpreting a passage should always be noted. Some verses in Ben Sira may raise similar questions. Secondly, it seems useless to seek consis­ tency, because the writer has not reflected thoroughly on the roles given to God and men, and the result is sometimes slightly confused. Kahl's termi­ nology offers no alternative for a spirit-filled leader such as Joshua: Such a man is not merely a PNP, and also an MNP is not exact. Thus instead of suggesting a new terminology it may be enough to state that the terminol­ ogy does not cover people like Joshua in L.A.B. 88

89

90

x

92

93

94

8 8

See above p. 27f. See Jacobson 1996, 880. James (1917, 176) translated it as "appointed unto him the firmament", Harrington "God established for him a platform" and adds in a note "Moses is given a platform or balcony from which he can see all" (1985, 346). Both scholars, as well as Dietzfelbinger ("bestimmte er ihm das Firmament", 1979, 196), seem to try to formulate that God gave a special status to Moses and let him watch the world below him. It seems that Jacobson, who was unwilling to accept Moses' exaltation in Ezek. Trag. (see 81-85) is unwilling to accept it also here. See p. 50. See below p. 222-223. Eve 2002, 133-134. See above p. 30. 8 9

9 0

91

9 2

9 3

9 4

206

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

d. Kenaz Early Judaism knew much about people hardly mentioned in the Old Tes­ tament. Sometimes different figures could be combined, for instance Ke­ naz (up), who is mentioned in very different connections in the Old Testa­ ment. He is "Caleb's younger brother" (Judg 1:13) or his grandson (1 Chr 4:15) and Othniel's father (Judg 1:13; 1 Chr 4:13; Jos. Ant. 5,182-184), but he also has traits of the Edomite mentioned in Gen 36:11; 42. Appar­ ently, as Schwemer says, the Israelite conquest of Edom in 128 BC has made the Edomite and his monument a part of the Hebrew heritage in Jew­ ish patriotic propaganda and later texts. We have only dim echoes of Kenaz' role in early Judaism. Kenaz is men­ tioned briefly in Liv. Pro. 10:9: 95

96

"He (Jonah) died and was buried in the cave of Kenaz, who became judge of one tribe in the days of anarchy." 97

Josephus speaks of a very militant Kenaz (Kevia£os), but Kenaz' role is especially emphasized in Pseudo-Philo's work. The space given to him attests the writer's interest. He writes more extensively about a man hardly mentioned in the Old Testament than on any one else except for Moses. Kenaz is not a marginal figure; on the contrary, he is of help in studying 5

Bauckham notes that Kenaz can be considered a substitute for Othniel and points to Judg 3:10: "The Spirit of Lord came upon him, so that he become Israel's judge and went to war" (Bauckham 1983, 48-50). There is no evident reason why both L.A.B. and Josephus (Ant. 5,182-184) have replaced Othniel with Kenaz. "Alle Wahrscheinlichkeit spricht dafur, daB die Entstehung dieser Tradition mit der Eroberung des idumaeischen Gebiets um 128 v. Chr. zusammenhangt und den Anschluss der Idumaer an den hasmonaischen Staat verklart" (Schwemer 1996, 77). His monument was originally an Idumean tomb but was taken as evidence that the great leader was an Israelite (Schwemer 1997, 620-621). Jacobson (1996, 738-741) sees "nothing in L.A.B's account that suggests Idumean provenance, background or influence" (1996, 739). His note is correct but does not, of course, contradict Schwemer's view: Pseudo-Philo does not present Kenaz as an Edomite but as an Israelite, because the Israelites wanted to jus­ tify the conquest of Idumea. We know little about the traditions of Kenaz, but it is certain that they existed and were militant, and that he had a monument in the Idumean regions (cf. Liv. Pro. 10:9). There is no reason to reject Schwemer's proposal. "A man of the tribe of Judah, Kenaz by name, vigorous and noble-hearted, being warned by an oracle not to leave the Israelites to lie in such deep distress, but to essay to vindicate their liberty, after exhorting some others to share his hazards - and few were they who were filled with shame at their present state and longed to alter it - began by massacring the garrison of Chusarsathus that was quartered upon them. Then, when lar­ ger numbers rallied to his arms, seeing that he had not miscarried at this opening of his enterprise, they joined battle with the Assyrians and, having utterly repulsed them, forced them to recross Euphrates. Kenaz, having thus given practical proof of his prowess, re­ ceived as his reward from the people rulership, to act as judge of the nation. And after ruling for forty years he ended his days" (Ant. 5,182-184). 9 6

9 7

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

207

Biblicarum

the theology of the whole work. The analysis of Kenaz is interesting es­ pecially because the material on him is not taken from the Old Testament; it is either taken from a much younger tradition or created freely. Miracles do not play a role in his figure." The heavy-handed judge was sent as a spy to Jericho (L.A.B. 20,6), and elected by lot as leader after Joshua's death (L.A.B. 25,1-3). He started his mission by burning more than 6,000 men of his own people, who con­ fessed their different sins in a story similar to Achan's trial and death (L.A.B. 25,4-26,5). In the trial, Kenaz expressis verbis points to the miracles of God. God not only directly speaks with the new leader, but also makes many miracles and shows him the right way (L.A.B. 25-26). His physical strength is no longer ordinary, and he is led by the Spirit, filling him with power and courage. He fights alone against the Amorites and prays - as also some other Jews - that God will make a miracle (Et nunc unum de mirabilibus tuis mitte servo tuo). He knows that if he fails he fails because of his sins, but if he wins his prayer was heard (L.A.B. 27,7). The same thought also occurs elsewhere in L.A.B. The events show the latter alternative to be true: 100

101

102

103

104

"And when Kenaz heard their words, he was clothed with the spirit of power and was changed into another man (indutus est spiritu virtutis et transmutatus in virum alium), and he went down to the Amorite camp and began to strike them down. But the Lord sent before him the angel Ingethel, who is in charge of hidden things and works invisibly, and another powerful angel was helping him. And Ingethel struck the Amorites with blind­ ness so that, when each saw his neighbour, they thought they were their adversaries and they killed one another. And Zeruel, the angel who is pre-eminent in military might, bore up the arms of Kenaz lest they should sink down. And Kenaz killed forty-five thousand men of the Amorites. Now they killed one another, and forty-five thousand men fell" (L.A.B. 27,10). 9 8

Feldman 1989, 60. On passages in the Old Testament, which may have formed the tradition, see Bauckham 1983, 48-50. On Kenaz in L.A.B., see Perrot and Bogaert 1976,2, 150-164; Nickelsburg 1980, 5455; Murphy 1993, 116-133; Reinmuth 1994, 65-68 and Jacobson 1996, 735-945. Unlike L.A.B., in Josephus the Israelites are pressed by the Assyrians and not the Philistines. Moreover, Kenaz starts his mission with a battle against the enemy and not with a massacre against his own people (Ant. 5,182-184). The tradition about Kenaz does not seem to have been very fixed. See Jacobson 1996, 743-765. "Lord God of our fathers, reveal to your servants the truth, for we have found those who do not believe the wonders that you did for our fathers from the time you brought them out of the land of Egypt until this day" (quoniam invenimur non credentes prodigiis que fecisti patribus nostris ex quo eiecisti eos de terra Egypti usque ad hodiernam diem), L.A.B. 25,6. See e.g. 3 Mace 6:4. See L.A.B. 47,1 and 47,9. 9 9

100

101

102

103

104

208

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

Like Joshua {L.A.B. 20,2), Kenaz is also "changed into another man" by the spirit. The spirit not only means that he was filled with courage; the words are again taken from 1 Sam 10:6. mi means that he acts as Saul once did against the Ammonites unanimously uniting the people to wage war (1 Sam 11:6-11). Nevertheless, the nearest Old Testament parallel may not be Saul, but Samson, who acts acting similarly in Judges: 105

"And the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him while he was in Mahaneh Dan, between Zorah and Esthaol" (Judg 13:25). "Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power. He went down to Ashkelon, struck down thirty of their men, stripped them of their belongings and gave their clothes to those who had explained the riddle" (Judg 14:19). "The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power. The ropes on his arms became like charred flax, and the bindings dropped from his hands. Finding a fresh jawbone of a don­ key, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men" (Judg 15:14).

The passage in L.A.B. also contains a great deal of the story about Gideon's victory, when the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, too (Judg 6:34). It is easy to follow a historical line in the miracle stories. Exodus may vary between God and his angels, while LXX goes a step further. Jub. introduces the Angel of Presence and divides divine action between God's angels and Mastema. Now L.A.B. continues and specifies God's saving action, giving the names of the angels. The next step is seen, for example, in a Nag Hammadi text telling how the different (bad) angels took part in the creation (Apocryphon Johannis 15-17). Jewish angelology developed and was introduced into the miracle stories; this changed the roles of God and the human agents. Ingethel (superpositum occultis et operantem invisibliter) and Zeruel (angelus qui preerat virtuti) are mentioned only in L.A.B. (Zervel is probably Zervihel, mentioned in L.A.B. 61,5,), but appar­ ently their names reveal their mission. Their help in the passage makes it clear that Kenaz is not an ordinary leader, but a man in the Spirit of God and a prophet. The way the angels support Moses' hands resembles the story about Moses' hands in the battle against Amalek. It is also interesting to see how Kenaz prophecies. The important pas­ sage is worth citing extensively: 106

107

108

109

Jacobson cites, as others before him, Luke 24:49 and Isa 11:2, and considers the words indutus est spiritu virtutis to mean only that when Kenaz heard the words of the enemies his courage grew (1996, 790). However, the spirit plays a marked role in Kenaz' leadership. For details, see Jacobson 1996, 787-788. See Perrot and Bogaert (1976, 2, 160) and Harrington (1985, 340), who consider the names only two variants, and trace the name to tfnr ('arm', 'strength'). Pseudo-Philo mentions in the same chapter two other prophets, Jabis and Phinehas (L.A.B. 28,1). A commentary in Jacobson 1996, 811-822. 1 0 6

107

108

109

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

209

Biblicarum

"And when they had sat down, a holy spirit came upon Kenaz and dwelled in him and put him in ecstasy (insiluit spiritus sanctus habitans in Cenez, et extulit sensum eius), and he began to prophesy, saying: 'Behold now I see what I had not hoped for, and I perceive that I did not understand. Hear now, you who dwell on the earth, just as those staying a while on it prophesied before me and saw this hour even before the earth was corrupted, so all of you who dwell in it may know the prophecies that have been fixed in advance. Behold now I see flame that do not burn, and I hear springs raised up out of a sleep for which there is no foundation, and I perceive neither the tops of the mountains nor the roof of the firmament, but everything has no appearance and is invisible and has no place whatsoever. And although my eye does not know what it sees, my heart will find what to say. Now from the flame that I saw not burning, I saw and behold a spark came up and, as it were, laid for itself a platform. And the floor was like what a spider spins, in the pattern of a shield. And when this foundation had been set, behold there was stirred up from that spring, as it were, boiling foam; and behold it changed itself into another foun­ dation, as it were. Now between the upper foundation and the lower there came forth from the light of that invisible place, as it were the images of men; and they were walk­ ing around. And behold a voice was saying: "These will be a foundation for men, and they will dwell in between them for 7,000 years. And the lower foundation was solid material, but the upper was of foam. And those who went forth from the light of the in­ visible place, they will be those who will have the name 'man.'" And when he will sin against me and the time will be fulfilled, the spark will be put out and the spring will stop, and so they will be transformed.' And when Kenaz had spoken these words, he was awakened, and his senses came back to him. But he did not know what he had said or what he had seen." (L.A.B. 28,6-9).

It is not easy to explain how the spirit dwelling in Kenaz came upon him, and some translators have tried to correct the sentence. Apparently a strict logic cannot be assumed. The words extulit sensus eius correspond with the words reversus est sensus eius. Jacobson cites Plato (Ion 534bc, Meno 99c; apol. 22c) and Ael. Arist. 2,43 as Greek parallels for the mantic inspiration; and the vivid description in Vergil's Aen. 6,42-54 could be added to the material. Levison compares Philo with Plutarch's De defectu oraculorum and finds important parallels useful also here. The ec­ stasy of the prophet was not very common in early Judaism (cf. L.A.B. 18,10), but it is strongly present in the picture Philo gives of Moses. Philo offers a very close parallel in Mos. 1,274, where Moses prophesied God's help at the Red Sea (Mos. 2,250). Both Jewish writers thus com­ bine leadership with ecstasy. Perhaps of greater importance is that Pseudo-Philo closely links his vivid cosmological interest with Kenaz' prophecy and miracles. Kenaz receives the prophecy immediately before his death. The great leader sees the long 110

111

112

113

114

110

111

112

113

114

See Jacobson 1996, 810-811. Jacobson 1996, 811.821 Levison 1995, 190-206. On Philo, see above p. 148-155. See Levison 1995, 191.

210

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

chain of events: Man, created by God, will sin against him and extinguetur scintilla et pausabit vena, et sic mutabuntur - this is an obvious reference to the eschatological passing away of heaven and earth. Then L.A.B. gives his last words: 115

"If the repose of the just after they have died is like this, we must die to the corruptile world (mori corruptili seculo) so as not to see the sins" (L.A.B. 28,10).

The words are, again, not easy to interpret: corruptili seculo is hardly an ablativus causae or temporis as Jacobson seems to take it, but presuma­ bly a dativus incommodi as translated above by Harrington. Nonetheless, this is the framework of Kenaz' spirit-filled leadership: He sees the heav­ enly order, which determines the place of man, as well as the battles fought, in the world. Understandably elsewhere (L.A.B. 32,1) God decides a battle between men by changing the movements of the stars and shocks so Sisera (L.A.B. 31,4; see also L.A.B. 32,11; 17). The hymn in Judg 5:20 is involved in the story, and the whole passage in L.A.B. clarifies how the heavenly order influences human beings. 116

117

Josephus carefully observes the reactions of his Greek audience in Antiquitates, but L.A.B. is supposed to be directed to the Jews. It is a popular his­ tory and an important parallel to the Antiquitates. As theologian and moralist Pseudo-Philo shows according to Feldman an original profile, which differs from Josephus and early rabbinic tradition and is closer to Pharisaism. However, it is very difficult to define the group behind the theology L.A.B, although the writer certainly came from very religious circles. He wants to teach a wide, Jewish audience and uses the main fig­ ures of his work for that purpose. What is thus the role of Kenaz and his miracles? Some features lead us to understand that the miracles in the work, and especially Kenaz' miracles, were indeed written for a Jewish audience. We cannot be sure whether Kenaz' miracles were widely known or not, but Pseudo-Philo clearly supposes that the biblical stories are generally known to all. Violence against the enemies is not toned down at all; on the con­ trary, it is generally increased also in the redaction of the biblical stories m

119

120

121

115

Jacobson 1996,820. Jacobson 1996, 821-822. See Jacobson 1996, 842. Feldman has shown many similarities and dissimilarities in his article (Feldman 1989, esp. 76); see also Nickelsburg 1984b, 107-110. Feldman 1989, 76. See above p. 191. He does not have a need to introduce Moses' father Amram at all (L.A.B. 9,3) and the plagues are only listed briefly (se above p. 193). 1 1 6

1 1 7

1 1 8

1 1 9

1 2 0

121

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

211

and it is brutal in the extra-biblical stories about Kenaz. Moreover, the miracles are combined with theological material. In addition to the cosmological interest the old Hebrew view on the leadership in Spirit is an important factor. Just as Saul (1 Sam 10:6) is changed into another man in ancient times, Kenaz prophesies and does not know afterwards what he has seen or said. Kenaz sees the creation of the world and prophesies its end, and it is the cosmological knowledge which provides the framework for his leadership. German scholarship traditionally calls the judges "charismatische Heerfiihrer." No words could better characterise Kenaz, the alleged first judge. He is not a king, nor does the work show any signs of "messianology". However, the man is at the same time more than a king. Before Samuel's birth the Hebrews sought a man who could "rule us as Kenaz did". Once again Samuel's leadership fulfilled this hope; but after his death the people had no other choice but to elect a king. They were, however, not satis­ fied with the decision they were forced to make: 122

123

"And the people answered (to Samuel): 'We are your servants; but we have a king, be­ cause we are not worthy to be governed by a prophet. Now appoint us a king who will govern us.' And all the people and the king wept with a great lamentation and said: 'Long live Samuel the prophet!"' (L.A.B. 57,4).

The period Kenaz allegedly lived in, but also the idea of the leadership in the Spirit of God and the close similarity to Samson and Gideon link him with the time of the great judges. The extraordinary knowledge of the Jew­ ish tradition allowed the writer to easily immerse himself in the world of the oldest texts and adopt the view of the traditional Hebrew leadership as his own. A salvation through a divinely appointed leader is a common topic in L.A.B. It attests the close, and, in the first century AD, very dan­ gerous combination of miracles and politics. No wonder that before a battle Kenaz prays to God to show his miracles: 124

"And now send one of your wonders to your servant, and I will fight your enemies in order that they and all the nations and your people may know that the Lord saves not by means of a huge army or by the power of horsemen. If they but knew the sign of deliver­ ance that you will work with me today!" (L.A.B. 27,7).

122

Also Saul prophesies in L.A.B. 62,2 the end of his rule, but does not know what he has said afterwards. Samuel is angry, because the people ask for a king, because "it is not yet the time for us to have an everlasting kingdom and to build the house of the Lord our God, for these people are seeking a king before the proper time." God's answer to him that they would get a king nevertheless is interpreted in L.A.B: the king is a punishment to the people and he will destroy them (L.A.B. 56,2-3). Nickelsburg 1980, 49-50. 123

124

212

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

Scholars have until recently been rather cautious about the political as­ pects of L.A.B. The articles by Olyan (1991) and Mendels (1992) have now raised the question of how much the writer wanted to contemporize the biblical stories. Why did the writer create a man like Kenaz? The writer did not attribute this leadership to any of the biblical miracleworkers, but created a new figure or took him from the extra-biblical tradi­ tion only partly known to us. It is perhaps one of the first signs that the "rewritten Bible" was to lose its freedom and role in Judaism. Although both Moses and Joshua are treated freely in L.A.B, the writer preferred to choose a person hardly mentioned in the Scriptures as a vehicle for his message. If the stories about Kenaz are studied in the context in which they were written, they tell much about the situation in Palestine. In Pseudo-Philo's work a man, who is a judge, prophet and miracleworker, stands clearly above a king, obviously because the writer did not have any expectations in terms of a kingdom. A king was not a solution to the problems: Saul was anointed only because there was no person like Kenaz or Samuel, and the correct moment for anointing a king had not yet come. It may be left open whether Pseudo-Philo judged a Davidic ruler otherwise. He has nothing negative to say about David, and he has Samuel say that it was not yet the moment for an everlasting kingdom, or to build the house of the Lord: People were mistaken in seeking a king before the proper time (L.A.B. 56,2-3). The targets of his criticism certainly were - if not the Hasmoneans - those seeking the kingdom in his own time. The lack of leadership and strong leaders is a central theme in L.A.B. The writer looked over the kings of his own time to the age of the Judges. Ke­ naz is a hard, even a cruel leader of the people in the chaotic time after Joshua's death. One cannot help thinking that some circles were waiting 125

126

127

125

128

According to Feldman 1989, 75: "Pseudo-Philo avoids political and favours moral issues," but to Pseudo-Philo the moral issues were political issues. However, Feldman briefly puts the literary figure of Kenaz into the context of the first century AD, although he does not develop the idea (1989, 76). According to Harrington (1985, 301) PseudoPhilo "does not cast his eschatology in political terms, nor does he show interest in the future Messiah" (see also Jacobson 1996, 250). It is true that the Messiah seems to have no place in his theology, but the political dimension of his thought should not be over­ looked. Jacobson hardly observes the possibility that the writer has intended to contem­ porize a biblical story (however, see Jacobson 1996, 740). Nickelsburg (1980, 54) already considered that Pseudo-Philo had created a character to serve his own purposes. He asked in his short article whether the good and bad leaders belonged to the chaotic years immediately before or after AD 70, and believed that the writer was waiting for a leader like Kenaz (1980, 63). Also Bauckham noted the interest in the period of the judges and assumes contemporization supposes actualisation (1983, 40.48-50). Hadot 1983, 165-167. Noted e.g. by Mendels 1992, 266-267. 1 2 6

127

128

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

213

Biblicarum

for a strong, miracle-working man like Kenaz in the chaotic times around and after the destruction of the Second Temple. This kind of figure was not a Messiah / king, but L.A.B. shows that it was also possible - as Josephus showed from a totally different point of view - to project the ideals to the pre-royal, golden age. No less than 40% of the work as we have it deals with the age of the judges. This helps to understand why several "zealotic" prophets appeared in the times in which L.A.B. was written. Kenaz was not alone in praying for miracles manifesting God's activity. Whether the work is characterised Pharisaic or mystic, it clearly comes from very religious circles and com­ bines miracles with politics. This political significance of the miracles should never be forgotten when the miracle stories of the New Testament are studied. The distribution of the miracles between God and Kenaz is widely simi­ lar to the passages on Joshua; however, with one exception. The angels are now expressis verbis introduced into the story, mixing the roles of God and man. Nevertheless, Kenaz remains an MNP. 129

130

We do not have specific knowledge about the tradition of Kenaz before L.A.B., but the few clues indicate that it was not creatio ex nihilo: He had a monument in Idumea and his reputation had apparently been used in the judaizing propaganda certainly connected with the conquest. When Liv. Pro. 10:9 says that Kenaz became judge in the days of anarchy, he had obviously earned his reputation. Josephus knows him as a heavy-handed leader, and his militant reputation was highly probable before L.A.B. Ke­ naz in Pseudo-Philo's L.A.B. is not a historical but purely a literary figure. In this context, however, a literary figure can be as real as the Old Testa­ ment heroes, who could also be treated freely, but who were always pre­ sent in Judaism. Such a figure also illustrates the ideas the Jewish belief identified with leadership. Kenaz happens to be a literary figure. Had the hopes of the writer become reality, a historical person would have led the Jews to war against the enemy. 131

129

In Judg, as generally in the Deuteronomistic work, the age of Judges is all but a golden age. It is a period of anarchy which necessarily led to the kingdom. This view was common also later; Liv. Pro. 10:9 tells that Kenaz became judge "in the days of anar­ chy". In Josephus, however, old Samuel represents the old, ideal aristocratic rule (Ant. 6,37). Feldman 1989, 59-60. See above p. 206. 130

131

214

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

Excursus: Magical practices in L.A.B. A feature which occurs especially in the part dealing with Kenaz, but also elsewhere, is the fight against magical techniques. The sinners from Dan's, Naphtali's, and Asher's tribe had each sinned in different ways, but all like the Amorites (L.A.B. 25,9). "The ways of the Amorites" is a common phrase for magic in early rabbinic literature, and the Amorites were regarded as famous sorcerers (2 Bar. 60:1). The con­ demned had all used some kind of objects, and it is not easy to determine whether they were idols or magical articles. The sinners from Asher's tribe had found the golden idols of the Amoritan sacred nymphs and their stones, which had magical powers, and stored them beneath the summit of Mount Shechem (L.A.B. 25,10-12). God's angel throws the stones into the sea to be swallowed by the deep, "because they have been defiled by the idols of the Amorites". Another angel takes twelve stones from the same place that these seven were taken from and gives them to Kenaz (L.A.B. 26,4; 6-13). A war against sorcery is an important theme in L.A.B., and the passage is obviously written as a warning to its readers. In the view of the writer, magic is by no means nonsense, but a treacherous and powerful danger. Stones are not powerless: some of them were only defiled by idolatry. A stone faces a stone and counters it power. The writer is thus well informed about a form of magic, common in different parts of the Mediterranean world. As often, the attitude is ambivalent. The power of stones is ad­ mitted, but hate against sorcery is as strong as in 2 Bar. 66:2, and in the story alluded to in m. Sank. 6:4, in which Simon ben Shetah hanged 80 sor­ cerers in a single day. L.A.B. is chronologically close to, for example, R. Judah, and also the theology is similar to the early stages of the rabbinic tradition. Another passage deals with the magic of the Amorites. When Kenaz had killed 45,000 of them he was unable to loosen his grip on his sword. An Amorite tells him to kill a Hebrew soldier and put his hand in his warm blood. Kenaz kills the Amorite and loosens his hand from the sword with his blood (L.A.B. 27,11). 132

133

134

135

136

137

132

See Eve 2002, 139-141. Perrot and Bogaert (1976,2, 154) and Jacobson (1996, 749) quote t. Shab. 6-7. Jacobson 1996, 749-750. It is impossible to identify the stones with others mentioned in the literature (for details and for reasonable scepsis, see Jacobson 1996, 754). The magical stones were a common theme, and also treated in the literature. We have only fragments from Damigeron's book De lapidibus (see Koskenniemi 1994, 208-209). On this event, see O. Betz 1980-1981, 70; Hengel 1989b, 186-187. See Becker 2002, 87-140. 133

1 3 4

135

136

137

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

215

Some passages outside the stories about Kenaz also deal with magic. Aod, a Midianite, who for a long time had sacrificed to the angels in charge of magicians (qui praeerant maleficiis), led the Israelites astray after Deborah's death (L.A.B. 34). He made a direct attack against the Law ("I will show you something other than your Law"). With the help of the fallen angels he could show the sun at night to the Israelites, who fol­ lowed the man and were delivered to the Midianites by God. Aod thus plays the role of a false prophet as described in Deut 13:1-6, and it is evi­ dent that he is added to this story to explain the Israelites' misery under the Midianites (Judg 6:1). Because they listened to a Midianite magician, they had to suffer under the Midianites. Another novum compared with the biblical story is that he is supported by the angels. The war between the good and fallen angels, like in Jub. and several texts found in Qumran, is the background for the episode. Moreover, Pseudo-Philo once again em­ phasizes how important it is to observe the Law in all situations. The biblical story about Saul and the witch of Endor (1 Sam 28) could be considered problematic, because the witch could raise Samuel's spirit with her magical practices. Pseudo-Philo carefully removes the difficulty. Samuel is not only Lord of the situation, but he also makes it clear that the magical practices had not brought him up: 139

140

141

142

"And so do not boast, King, nor you, woman: for you have not brought me forth, but that order that God spoke to me while I was still alive, that I should come and tell you that you have sinned now a second time in neglecting God" (L.A.B. 64,7).

The biblical original rejected magical practices but the condemnation is even stronger in L.A.B. 143

Pseudo-Philo thus considers magical practices a reality that should be care­ fully observed. The evil angels support specialists practicing these meth­ ods, but they are severely punished. He does not use a figure like Mastema in Jub. to oppose the biblical miracle-workers. Yet, the evil angels support the magicians and that means that they are involved in the war between the good and evil powers.

On David and his stones, see below p. 222. On this passage, see Jacobson 1996, 906-911. Nickelsburg 1980, 56. See above p. 57. See Jacobson 1996, 1201-1212. Josephus writes in a surprisingly positive manner on the witch, see Ant. 6,236.

216

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

e. Samson The Old Testament tells about many mighty warriors and sometimes it is not easy to draw the line between their miraculous and non-miraculous power. It is obvious, however, that Samson's physical power was not con­ ventional, but a special gift given by God to help his people. The miracles of Samson (Judg 13:1-16:31) are treated only rarely in the early Jewish text we have, although Josephus' rewritten Bible contains a passage on h i m and we happen to have an early Jewish sermon on him, which deals extensively with his miracles and shows that they were ea­ gerly discussed. In addition to this sermon L.A.B. gives us an opportu­ nity to study how Samson's miracles were treated. No other text is as en­ thusiastic about Samson as Pseudo-Philo's. 144

145

146

The textual criticism of the biblical Judges in the Septuagint is notoriously very difficult: Rahlfs offers in his edition two versions (A and B). The Philistines are consistently named ccAA6<|>uAoi throughout version A, but version B has occasionally preserved OuAioTiip (e.g. 13:1; 14:2). The drink Samson must avoid is translated OIKEPOC (version B: \xi§\)0\io) in v. 13:4 (cf. also 13:14). A major disagree­ ment between the two Greek versions is the rendering o f the words o f Samson's mother vrrfaw vby. Kai fjpcoxcov / OUK F)PCOTRJOA (v. 13:6). " w r - D E W D is translated very literally in both versions in v. 13:12 (TO Kpi'pa / Kpiois). In v. 13:15 n r m s w is rendered p i ccaco|je8a / KaTaoxcopev, and in v. 13:17 - p a i KT O is translated STOCV eA0rj TO px\\\d o o u / OTI eA0oi TO PFJJJCX o o u . In v. 13:19 the difficult rmvb tfpam mn ? is rendered with 147

,J

TOO Kupi'co, TOO BauMccaTa TTOIOUVTI Kupi'co / Kai Siexcopiaev Troirjaat. The crucial 4

verb iQtfD ? ('impel', 'push') is now translated ouuTropsuEoSai / auveKiropeueoSai in v. 13:25. In v. 14:5 the words nraon ' D - D iv IKTI are translated E^BKAIVSV bis apTreAcova 0 a p v a 0 a / f)A0ev ecos TOU apTreAcovos 0 a p v a 0 a . In v. 14:6 (and in 14:19 as well as in 15:14) mrr i m v^v n*?sm is rendered Kai KaTrju0uv6V eir auTov TTVEGpa Kupiou / Kai rjAaTO 6TT AUTOV TrveuMa Kupiou. In v. 14:7 the Hebrew has the singular (-QTI TVI), but

the Greek versions the plural (KaTePrjoav Kai sActArjoav). In v. 14:8 the Hebrew text has man, but the Greek versions 'ev TCO OTopaTi. In v. 14:10 the Greek versions add fjnepas 6TTT<x / eiTTa f)M6pas. In v. 14:11 the Hebrew text has ina om«"iD, but version A 'ev TCO

<|>ope?a0ai a u T O u s , which implies nnRT3 in the original (version B has OTE eTSov auTov). In 14:15 the verb wv'pn is translated TTTcoxsuoai / SKpidoai. In v. 15:6 version A adds TT^V o'lKiav TOU TraTpos. In v. 15:7 the Hebrew words 'nnR in«T DD3 TiQp3"DR o are translated aAAa Tr|v EKSIKTIOIV [iov ec; evos Kai EKOCOTOU upcov TToirjoo|jai / OTI e'l prjv 6K5iKrioco 'ev u^Tv Kai eoxaTov KOTTCCOCO. In v. 15:8 the prover­

bial f T ~ ^ pie? oniR y\ is translated very literally (Kai STrc(Tac;ev auTOus siri prjpov/

1 4 4

See below p. 255-258. De Sampsone is falsely attributed to Philo. The sermon vividly describes the deeds of Samson and reveals a broad discussion of which the sermon itself is a part (see esp. De Sampsone 23-24 and Siegert 1992, 212-214). On Samson in L.A.B., see Perrot and Bogaert 1976.2, 194-198; Feldman 1989, 6871; Murphy 1969, 173; Jacobson 1996, 979-1002; Feldman 1998a, 470. This contemporization is common in LXX; see Siegert 200, 214. 145

1 4 6

1 4 7

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

111

Biblicarum

K a i ETrotTcc^ev OCUTOUS Kvrjpriv ETTI urjpov). In v. 15:12 Dm *a pwan~]S ? imc&n is ren­ dered o u o o a T e u o i aTTOKTeTvai ue uue?s K a i Trapa'SoTe \is a u T o ? s , MrjTTOTe aTravTrjoTiTe uue?s EV euoi / b u d a a T e u o i urJTTOTe a u v a v T r j a r j T e ev euoi uue?s. In v. 15:16 o'mon ~nan -norm T^a is translated ev oiayovi d v o u e£aAe(<|>cov e^rjAeivpa. A major change is presentin v. 15:19, where the translators have taken the word play liter­ ally: T ^ a new BroDrrnK cif?** i>pa i, but K a i rjvoi£ev 6 0ebs TO T p a G u a TT\S a i a y b v o s / K a i eppr|£ev b 0 e b s TOV XCCKKOV TOV ev Trj o i a y o v i . In v. 16:2 LXX adds K a i dmiyye'Ari / K a i dvrjyyeAr] In v. 16:5 'no is translated inter­ estingly o a T p a i T a f / a p x o v T e s In v. 16:12 cnro is rendered cos pauMcx / c o s OTrapTiov. In 16:13 LXX adds e y K p o u o r j s ev TCO TraoadAco e'is TOV TO?XOV (B omits ev), K a i eao|jai ao8evris c o s e^s TCOV avOpcoTrcov (B K a i eooMai cos e l s TCOV dv8pco7Tcov ao0evr|s). In v. 16:14 LXX (A) adds K a i OUK eyvcooSr) f) 'IOXUS auTOU. In v. 16:16 the Hebrew text is o ^ r r ^ a ; version B also has i r c f o a s T a s f)Mepas, but A has 6Ar|v TI^V VUKTO. In v. 16:17 TT3 is translated v a £ i p a ? o s in version A, but d y i o s 0eoG in version B (however, also B has v a £ i p in v. 13:5). In v. 16:19 the Hebrew rrona" ^ is rendered a v d Msoov TCOV y o v c t T c o v auTr]s / e n i T
,

1

Both versions tend to translate the text very literally and version A especially is written partly in very poor Greek. There are no traces o f a biased theological redaction o f the stories.

Judg 13 contains a story about Samson's miraculous birth. Pseudo-Philo embellishes it with many new details and gives as much room to it as to the rest of the stories combined. He lets (as Num. R. 10:5) the couple quarrel daily about which of them was guilty of sterility (L.A.B. 42,1). The angel appears, and as in Judges, Manoah does not meet him. Pseudo-Philo lets him groan: 148

"Behold, I am not worthy to hear the signs and wonders that God has done among us or to see the face o f his messenger (Ecce non sum dignus audire signa et prodigia que facit in nobis Deus aut videre faciem missi)" (L.A.B. 42,5).

The extra-biblical phrase audire signa is strange and it is not easy to de­ cide what phrase would have been used in the Hebrew original. The only verse in which m& and raz? occur together in the Scripture is Exod 4:8, and there the verb apparently refers to the wider range of miracles, as well as to Moses' words. At any rate, it is clear that the words reveal a love of miracles. Samson's life is described very freely. Many of his miraculous deeds are left out or mentioned briefly with words pointing to the Judges (" ... are not these written in the Book of Judges?" (L.A.B. 43,4). However, some­ thing important is added. Rendering Judg 16:1-3, Pseudo-Philo tells about a totally new battle. Samson explicitly alludes to the presence of the Lord (".. and now the Lord will be with me, and I will go out through their gates 149

Cf. the story in Josephus; see below p. 255-255. Rengstorf 1964, 210. See also Deut 5:24.

218

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

and attack them"), and subsequently kills 25,000 of his enemies without a sword, only with the gate of the city (L.A.B. 43,2). It is said clearly that Samson's love for Delilah leads to his rejection ("Behold now Samson has been led astray through his eyes"). The punish­ ment is foretold in God's words, which are added to the biblical story. Samson had not followed the way of Joseph in Egypt but had taken a pagan wife (L.A.B. 43,5). The description of his death is more faithful to Judg 16, but the number of dead enemies is clearly exaggerated (Judg 16:27: 3,000; L.A.B. 43,5-8: 40,000). Pseudo-Philo thus retells the stories about Samson very freely, but shows a clear interest in his militant miracles. He is, as Feldman says, "almost a kind of superman." The courage of the hero and his extreme contempt of the enemy are features suggesting the stories were contemporized to be of more relevance to the times in which the work was written. Samson's violence is not toned down but exaggerated. The writer apparently consid­ ered it by no means contradictory for a biblical hero to kill thousands of the people's enemies. Samson is, as Kenaz, an example of a leader and warrior who was expected to reappear in the difficult times in which the writer lived. It should also be observed that the hero is morally criticised, also with the words of God himself added to the story. This is not unique in early Judaism. Also, Josephus and the sermon De Sampsone criticise the hero and reveal a tradition of ethical teaching combining moral issues with miracle stories. L.A.B. is clearly a part of this tradition, but in PseudoPhilo's work the subject of the criticism is neither hybris nor sexual mis­ conduct, but relationships with pagan women, which is a theme far too important to Pseudo-Philo to be overlooked. The writer thus again inter­ prets a miracle-story with the help of the holy Law and does not hesitate to add God's soliloquy for that purpose. 150

151

152

153

154

155

156

Jacobson (1996, 996), considers it difficult that Samson first used a gate as a shield and then as a weapon with which to kill the enemy and doubts that the text is corrupt. However, it is the writer's prerogative. On the unclear phrase noluerit contristare semen suum, see Jacobson 1996, 999. Feldman 1989, 70. Correctly observed by Feldman, 1971, lxiii and F.J. Murphy (1993, 172). Samson had got, according to De Sampsone, only the spirit of power and not the spirit of righteousness, and that was the reason why Satan could defeat him (see De Sampsone 1; 20; 24). On intermarriage in early Judaism, see Sanders 1994, 266. See Feldman 1989, 171; F.J. Murphy 1993, 171; Reinmuth 1994, 104-105. 151

152

153

1 5 4

155

1 5 6

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

219

/ David 1 Sam 16:14-23 tells how an evil spirit sent by God tormented Saul and how David played his harp and caused the spirit to leave the king. The short story is expanded by Pseudo-Philo with the hymn, which forced the evil spirit to leave the king: 157

"And in that time the spirit of the Lord was taken away from Saul, and an evil spirit was choking him. And Saul sent and brought David, and he played a song on his lyre by night. And this was the song he played for Saul in order that the evil spirit might depart from him: 'Darkness and silence were before the world was made, and silence spoke a word and the darkness became light. Then your name was pronounced in the drawing together of what had been spread out, the upper of which was called heaven and the lower was called earth. And the upper part was commanded to bring down rain according to its season, and the lower part was commanded to produce food for all things that had been made. And after these was the tribe of your spirits made. And now do not be troublesome as one created on the second day (et nunc molesta esse noli tamquam secunda creatura). But if not, remember Tartarus where you walk. Or it is not enough for you to hear that, through what resounds before you, I sing to many? Or do you not remember that you were created from a resounding echo in the chaos? But let the new womb from which I was born re­ buke you, from which after a time one born from my loins will rule over you.' And as long as David sang, the spirit spared Saul" (L.A.B. 60,1-3). LXX translates in 1 Sam 16:14-23 innim ETrviyev CCUTOV in v. 16:14 and adds in 16:16

ccvaTTauoei oe. 13D is not identified with any Greek instrument in 16:16 (i3Dn and ev Kuvupcc, see also 16:23). In 16:17 \nb TD'Q is translated 6p0c3s V|KXAAOVTOC, and in 16:18 ]aa VT EISOTCC vpaAuov. In v. 16:18 the Hebrew text has "oa and i«n era, but Septua­ gint avrip ouvsTOs and ccvrip ayaOos TCO EI'SEI. In v. 16:21 D^D woa is rendered very literally aTpcov Ta OKeurj auxoG. In v. 16:23 the Hebrew text has wrfr* rrn, but LXX TTVEGUO: TTOvripov. The translation is thus partly very literal, but with some deviations affecting the heart of the story. However, TTVEUUCC TTOvrjpdv in v. 16:23 seems rather to be only a clarification of the original meaning taken from 16:14 (narnn). 15

L.A.B. * does not say that the spirit was sent by God, but only that it was spiritus pessimus (cf. 16,14). Praefocabat certainly is a translation of srrviyEV. The Old Testament original is thus reinterpreted as an exorcism. The interpretation is not far-fetched, and as a matter of fact also Josephus uses it, although much more cautiously. However, the emendation is a very interesting alteration, because it helps to understand early Jewish demonology. 159

157

On David in L.A.B., see Perrot and Bogaert 1976,2, 232-236; Murphy 1993, 205229; Reinmuth 1994, 90-93; Jacobson 1996, 6-14. 1173-1186. On Josephus dealing with the text, see below p. 259. See Ant. 8,166-168 and Maier 1976b, 636. 158

159

220

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

As early as 1961, Philonenko regarded the passage as an Essene hymn. It was a period in which the Essenes were seen everywhere in the litera­ ture, and we know today that the traits Philonenko referred to are too com­ mon in Judaism to be characterised solely as Essene. The Graeco-Roman exorcisms known to us are surprisingly late although the apotropaic technique is archeologically attested in different parts of the Mediterranean world very early. The Jewish parallels are not few and they are earlier than the Graeco-Roman ones. As with many miracles they were apparently more common in the East than in the West and the Jews had traditionally strong contacts with the Mesopotamian, as well as with Egyptian wisdom, in which magic was institutionalised. It is thus not correct to consider David's hymn in L.A.B. as specifically Essene. Jub. presents Abraham singing a rather apotropaic hymn, but a text from the Qumran helps to interpret L.A.B. 60 from a new point of view. 11Q11 freely uses the tetragrammaton and is written at least in the 3 or early 2 century, before the origin of the Qumran community. The text is a modified version of Ps 91 and is clearly exorcistic. The text is badly corrupted but clear enough. In the translation of Garcia Martinez and Tigchelaar some crucial passages for the present study are rendered as follows: 161

162

163

rd

n d

164

165

"[...] Solomon, and he will invofke...] [... the spirits and the demons" (col. 2,2-3). "Who ma[de these portents] and wond[ders upon the] earth? It is he, YHWH, [who] made tfhese through] his [strength], who summons all [his] a[ngels] and all [the holy] se[ed] to st[a]nd before [him, and calls as witness] [all the hea]vens and [all] the earth [against them] who committed against [all me]n sin, and against every m[an evil. But] they know his [wonder] ful [secrets,] which they do not [...] If they do not [refrain ] out of fear of YHWH from killing the soul..." (col. 3,2-9). "Of David. A[gainst ... An incanta]tion in the name of YHW[H. Invoke at any tim]e. the heave[ns. When he] comes upon you in the nig[ht,] you shall [s]ay to him: Who are you, oh [offspring of] man and of the seed of the hol[y] ones? Your face is darkness and not light and not light, [injustice and not justice. [...] the chief of the army. YHWH [will bring] you [down] [to the] deepest [Sheo]l, [he will shut] the two bronze [ga]tes through [which n]o light [penetrates]" (col. 5,4-10).

1 6 0

Philonenko 1961, 43-54, rejected e.g. by Perrot and Bogaert 1976, 232 and Jacobson 1996,1173-1174. Most of the Gentile miracle-workers known to us before 200 AD come from the eastern parts of the empire; see Koskenniemi 1994, 218-219. See Becker 2002, 87-93. See above p. 47. On the text considered sectarian by Alexander (1999, 345), see Lange 1997, 379383. Lange also presents the evidence on David's role as exorcist in the Qumran. See also Kister 1999, 167-184. Garcia Martinez - Tigchelaar 1998, 1201-1205. 161

162

163

164

165

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

221

Biblicarum

The text clearly helps to interpret the hymn in L.A.B. All important ele­ ments are present: It is a hymn written by David in which Solomon is men­ tioned, but it is by far more important to observe the method of the exor­ cist, common in both texts. Unhappily we do not know much about apotropaic music, but cosmological knowledge is crucial here. David can tell the origins of the universe and the demons, and so he gets the up­ per hand over the evil spirit. The words tamquam secunda creatura have been difficult for commenta­ tors. It is generally understood to mean that the demons were created on the second day of creation. It would mean that the demons were created before man, and several Jewish texts seem to say precisely that. Jacobson deals with the problem in an extant footnote and suggests that secunda should be taken for 'inferior', 'subordinate'. However, 11Q11 seems to control the demon by giving another version of its origin: The threatening demon is only a result of the sinful relations between human beings and the fallen angels (Gen 6). The text is corrupted, but it allows an interpreta­ tion compatible with 1 En. 15:8-9: Evil spirits came out of the bodies of the slain Giants. This interpretation also makes sense in regard to L.A.B.: The demons should remember that they came after man; they should know their place in the cosmic order and understand that forgetting it means severe punishment. Also, David's final argument is interpreted controversially. Who is the one who is going to rule over the demon? The Messiah is apparently not meant, because L.A.B. is generally opposed to kingship. Most of the schol­ ars do not think that the Latin text is correct, because the same womb could not produce David and the one who is coming to rebuke the demon (Arguet autem te metra nova unde natus sum, de qua nascetur post tempus de lateribus meis qui vos domabit)} But if the Greek loanword metra, used in Latin, is taken metonymically ('source', 'origin') the words clearly point 166

167

168

169

170

11

172

166

Bocher (1970, 176) has collected the scarce evidence. Also Jub. (10:1-11) and 1QS 3,20-25 contain a story about the origins of the de­ mons. On different traditions, see Alexander 1999, 337-341 and Becker 2002, 152-159. See Perrot and Bogaert 1976,2,232-234 and Harrington 1985, 373, who point to 2 En. 29 und 4 Ezr. 6:41 and Gen. R. 1:3. However, it is not clear whether the "spirits" here mean demons; see Jacobson 1996, 1177. Jacobson 1996, 7-8. Dietzfelbinger (1979, 254) and Jacobson (1996, 1177) take the words for the view that the demons are created chronologically after man. Jacobson also tries unnecessarily to polish the text (1996, 1179-1180). Liddell, Scott and Jones s.v. uriTpa "source", "origin" as e.g. Diog. Laert. 7,46. Harrington translates OTP literally: "But let the new womb from which I was born re­ buke you" and interprets the words referring to Solomon (1985, 373). Perrot and Bogaert seem to have no problem with the text and the correctly translated "mais la famille nouvelle", and refer to Solomon (1976, 235-236). 167

168

1 6 9

1 7 0

171

172

222

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

to Solomon, who is also mentioned in 11Q11, quoted above. Even scholars doubting the integrity of the text conclude that text refers to Solomon. The hymn belongs to the tradition which considers Solomon to be the master of exorcising techniques. This tradition often combines cosmological knowledge with power over the demons, and it was easier to identify this order because the writer neglected to mention that the spirit was sent by God. David thus has a new role as exorcist. Although he is the only exorcist in L.A.B. it is easy to connect him with the theology of the work. David casts the demon out with the same cosmological knowledge that serves as the basis for Joshua's and Kenaz' leadership. The cosmological order re­ serves the right place for everybody, for the Israelites as well as for their human enemies and for demons. Why is David presented as an exorcist? Apparently David and his psalms provided a device for opening the door to exorcists in early Juda­ ism. The war between good and bad spirits was a hard one, and a man needed apotropaic techniques to be safe. This tradition, which 11Q11 helps to date to at least the late second century B.C., was strong also before L.A.B. As noted, there is a dual attitude towards magical practices: They are strictly condemned in the work, but their power is not denied. The writer obviously does not condemn the apotropaic technique presented here but accepts and even recommends it. This means that David in L.A.B., like Solomon in some texts, appears as a patron of the later exorcists. The exorcists in the times of the writer are not alone but in the good company of David, Solomon and also of Abraham and Moses. 173

174

175

176

David not only casts out demons. His fight against Goliath also shows interesting features. The battle is preceded by David's words to Goliath, in which he describes Ruth and Orpah as the mothers of the two warriors: While Ruth seeks Israel's God, Orpah chooses the idols. L.A.B. also ex­ plains why Saul did not recognize David: An angel changed his face. The most important change, however, happens after Goliath is hit. God also helped him in 1 Sam 17:41-51, but L.A.B. adds several new elements to the story: 177

173

See p. 259-264. See above p. 214-216. On Abraham, see p. 47, on Moses see p. 57. In L.A.B. Goliath appears earlier than in the Old Testament: The Philistean warrior kills Eli's sons and takes the Ark of the Covenant. Saul saves himself through a rapid escape (L.A.B. 54,3-4). Pseudo-Philo may be alluding to the stories about Samson (and of course to 1 Sam 17:34-36) when he tells how David killed a bear and a lion (L.A.B. 59,5). 1 7 4

175

1 7 6

177

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

223

"And David set out, and he took seven stones and wrote on them the names of his fathers (those of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and Aaron) and his own and the Most Pow­ erful. And God sent Zervihel, the angel in charge of might in warfare." "And David put a stone in the sling and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And he ran up to him and drew his sword. And Goliath, while he still had life in him, said to him: 'Hurry and kill me, and then rejoice.' And David said to him: 'Before you die, open your eyes and see your slayer, the one who has killed you.' And the Philistine looked and saw an angel and said: 'Not you alone have killed me, but also the one who is present with you, he whose appearance is not like the appearance of a man.' And then David cut off his head" (L.A.B. 6 1 , 5 ; 7 - 8 ) . 178

L X X omits totally verses 1 7 : 4 1 and 1 7 : 5 0 and the end of verse 5 0 . is consistently changed to 6 dXXduXos. In verse 1 7 : 4 3 LXX adds Kai X(0ois. In v. 1 7 : 4 5 m n a i anna ]iTaai is translated ev pouafg Kai ev S o p a n Kai OCOTTISI. In v. 1 7 : 4 6 uvafra nano nas is rendered T a KcoXd aou Kai KcoXa TTapeu|3oXfjs dXXo<|>\jXcov. In v. 1 7 : 4 9 in^oa is

translated 5id TT\S TrepiK6(|>aXaias HIS TO ueTcoTTOv OUTOU. The deviations attest, above all, that the Hebrew original of the translators differed from ours, but there is no intention to exaggerate or reduce the miraculous.

The line between great but conventional power and the miraculous is often blurred in L.A.B., but this time the war between Israel and the Philistines clearly has a new feature. It is not surprising after Joshua and Kenaz: The entire battle between the human beings is reinterpreted as a war between good and evil powers, and the name and specified function of the angel is mentioned again. The interpretation thus clearly resembles the one studied above in the Book of Jubilees, as well as many texts from the Qumran, but it is now applied to the military field. David himself is well aware of his role in this war, against both evil men and evil angels, and he is filled with courage to fulfil his task. Zervihel helps him as he helped Kenaz. This feature, which occurs so often in the work, is very important when studied against the background of the times in which L.A.B. was written. David strikes the enemy without fear, without mercy and with the help of the angel. Undoubtedly this was also the way the writer hoped the leaders of his own times would act. The political dimension of the miracles, un­ doubtedly urgent in the first century AD, should not be overlooked. 179

180

181

1 7 8

LXX generally agrees on many points with the Hebrew text of 4Q and represents an older form of the text; see Hengel 2002, 84. See DeboraL.yO. 31, Joshua L.A.B. 32,10 and Gideon L.A.B. 34-35. See above p. 57-58. The Latin text has the form Zervihel in L.A.B. 60,5 but Zeruel in 27,10. See above p. 208. 1 7 9

1 8 0

181

224

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

g. Elijah / Phinehas The political significance of the miracle culminates in a passage which does not contain a single miracle-story. We do not know who first identi­ fied Elijah, the zealotic prophet, with another zealot of the Old Testament, Phinehas, who drove a spear through an Israelite and a Midianite woman (Num 25:6-15). "Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron" is men­ tioned not only in Jos 22 but also in Judg 20:28, and his life apparently covers a very long and difficult period from the desert to the times of the later judges. This understandably led to speculations and to the identifica­ tion of Phinehas and Elijah. It is attested in many rabbinic sources, which may have been critical of Elijah. The identification occurs at least in some versions of the Lives of the Prophets and apparently also in the original. Consequently, the occurrence in the Lives cannot be an argument for the supposed later date of L.A.B. * Pseudo-Philo's work ends with Saul; although nothing is said about Elijah, one passage is too similar to stories about him to be a coinci­ dence. It tells about Phinehas as and old man: 182

183

184

1

5

186

187

"And in that time Phinehas laid himself down to die, and the Lord said to him: 'Behold you have passed the 120 years that have been established for every man. And now rise up and go from here and dwell in Danaben on the mountain and dwell there many years. And I will command my eagle, and he will nourish you there, and you will not come

Philo adds the detail that Phinehas ripped up "also her parts of generation because they had served to receive the illicit seed" (Mos. 1,302). The rabbinic texts identifying the two figures have been collected by Hayward (1978, 22-24). The date of the identification is quaestio vexata. The eldest written source is L.A.B., but it is unclear how long the tradition had been alive before this text. Aptowitzer and after him Hayward date it to the Hasmonean period (see Hayward 1978, 22-34). Hengel supposes that the idea was born in zealotic circles in the first century AD. The tradition is eliminated in the rabbinic texts by criticising Elijah, which implies that it had evolved late and died with the rebels; see Hengel 1989b, 162-168. However, Phinehas (a priest in the Hebrew but not in the Greek version of Sir 45:24) was a very important fig­ ure, whom the Hasmoneans referred to to justify their priesthood. Ps.-Jon. to Deut 33,11 seems to identify John Hyrcanus with "Elijah the priest", and it is conceivable, although not certain, that this identification already included traits of Phinehas (see Hayward 1978, 31-33). Jacobson considers Hayward's view "interesting, if speculative" (1996, 1060), but Ohler accepts it (1997, 24-25). See also Perrot - Bogaert 1976,2,208-211 and Dietzfelbinger 1979, 230-231. On the identification and tradition, see also Jacobson 1996, 1060-1061; Feldman 1998b, 293-294. See above p. 190. Jacobson (1996, 207) rejects Hayward's view and takes the identification as an ar­ gument for his view that the work was written in the second century. See above p. 189 sq. Pseudo-Philo tells about a conflict between the faithful Israelites and Jair, the ser­ vant of Baal, who is burned by Nathaniel, the angel in charge of fire (L.A.B. 38). 183

1 8 4

185

186

187

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

225

Biblicarum

down to mankind until the time arrives and you be tested in that time; and you will shut up the heaven then, and by your mouth it will be opened up. And afterward you will be lifted up into the place where those who were before you were lifted up, and you will be there until I remember the world. Then I will make you all come, and you will taste what is death'" (L.A.B. 48,1). 188

Pseudo-Philo follows here a broader tradition: Elijah and Phinehas are one and the same person. Phinehas, the famous zealot, returned to earth at a time of despair, closed heaven, and was known as Elijah. After his sec­ ond mission he was taken back to heaven to wait for his third: the words quousque rememorabor saeculi attest the idea of Elia redivivus} Although L.A.B. does not deal with Elijah's life, the short passages re­ veal Pseudo-Philo's view on the miracle-working prophet. While Josephus treated Elijah's political activities with caution, Pseudo-Philo, on the contrary, has no reservations about adapting the biblical story to his times. He follows the line attested in Ben Sira's work and apparently commonly adhered to at the time. Elijah's political activities are not toned down but emphasized. Miracles and politics are intimately connected in his person. m

90

191

h. Conclusion Liber antiquitatum biblicarum has an original approach when dealing with the biblical miracle stories. They are richly retold. The anonymous writer is very learned, and knowledgeable about both biblical and the later tradi­ tions. The anonymous Palestinian scholar was chronologically close to R. Judah. He certainly assumed that his audience knew the stories, and that he could very briefly summarise, for instance, the plagues in Egypt, or briefly point to the stories about Samson in Judges. The writer may retell the sto­ ries quite freely and occasionally combine the stories with other biblical material, either from the Psalms or from the Law. This gives a good oppor­ tunity to study his biases in terms of the miracle stories. For thousands of years, the Jewish religion has wrestled with two alter­ natives: God may be understood either as a distant, uncontroversial being with no anthropomorphic features, or he may be seen as a personal, feeling God, close to the human spheres. Most of the writers studied above have distanced him in the miracle stories, reducing his dialogues with men. 188

Philo does not attest the identification of Elijah and Phinehas, but he praises Phine­ has, of course, interpreting the story allegorically (Alleg. Interp. 3,242; Post. 182). The phrase also occurs in L.A.B. 16,3: et non morientur sed tabescent, quo usque rememorabor saeculi et ero innovans terram. Et tunc morientur et non vivent, et aufertur vita eorum de numero omnium hominum. See above p. 35-36. See below p. 269-271. 189

190

191

226

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

Pseudo-Philo did not reduce God to a divine voice as did Artapanus, and was not anxious to oppose anthropopathic theology, as was Philo. He went in the opposite direction, freely adding passages in which God speaks, alone or with men. The writers distancing God from men necessarily redis­ tributed the roles of God and men in the stories, seldom following a con­ sistent, reflective line of thought. Although L.A.B. increases God's pres­ ence in the stories instead of reducing his role, the problems are similar: Moses' role in the stories is clearly reduced, but on the other hand, he is given a totally new status. The text is not clear and the short allusions are not sufficient to remove all problems, but apparently Moses achieves a position comparable to the one supposed in Ezek. Trag. His death was cer­ tainly mourned in heaven, but it was hardly the end of his mission. We are led to assume that he had a position in heaven, possibly even a throne, as he and other figures had in early Jewish texts. The changed role of God also influences the roles attributed to human figures other than Moses. The emphasis laid on the spirit-filled leadership makes it especially difficult to apply Kahl's terminology. Joshua and Ke­ naz hardly fit any of his categories. Early on, Jub. attested the tendency to combine the miracle stories with the war between good and evil powers. This feature is obvious in L.A.B. The cosmological order determines the lives of human beings and nations in this world. When David throws out the demon torturing Saul he does it by appealing to this cosmological order. The magical skills used by sinners violate this order and they must be blocked by stronger skills and powers. The most important question is how much the writer has intended to re­ shape the biblical persons in order to tell his audience something about their own times. It is obviously impossible to separate the figures pre­ sented in the work from the context of the stormy late first century AD. We do not have exact knowledge of the spiritual background of the writer, but he certainly belonged to very religious circles. He was waiting for a leader sent by God, a man filled with Spirit. This trait is present in almost all the men studied above (Moses, Joshua, Samson), but above all in Ke­ naz, a figure created freely or taken from a militant tradition representing the ideal. He is not a king, but more. He is a man sent by God. The ancient, spirit-filled leadership of the Judges takes a new form in him, but not only in him. The Israelites had always had good leaders, who did not give up and were not ready to accept slavery. God had sent them, and their success was a direct consequence of the cosmic order described above. It meant a strong, and even dangerous, link between religion and politics, which should be observed in the discussion about religious and militant opposi­ tion against the Romans. This link is obvious in L.A.B., when the two zeal­ ots, Phinehas and Elijah, are identified as the same figure.

8. Militant Miracles: Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

227

The anonymous writer could not create the picture of militant leaders making miracles from nothing. Several of the Jewish writers studied above showed that there were many ways to present the ancient leaders and mira­ cle-workers. The Old Testament gives an especially forceful description of Saul and Samson as spirit-filled and violent leaders. Ben Sira recalled the glorious past of the nation and repeated the great deeds done by its heroes. The Book of Jubilees revealed a bias to link the miracles with the war be­ tween good and evil leaders. Also, Philo's view on the strong, miraclemaking prophet Moses is an important analogy to Pseudo-Philo's work. This whole tradition is expressed more strongly in Pseudo-Philo's work than in any other. L.A.B. shows how close the past was to the present in the first century AD. The writer was perhaps not expecting a miracle-making Messiah, because the kings of his own times did not encourage these hopes, but he looked over the long, dark ages and waited for a miraclemaking righteous man similar to the biblical (and nonbiblical) judges. The implied audience and their situation thus shape the function of the re­ told stories in L.A.B. There was no longer a need to legitimate Moses, so these parts of the stories could be omitted. On the other hand, the militant Kenaz received legitimisation by miracles. This line of thinking, so impor­ tant for the first century militant "sign-prophets", plays a significant role in Pseudo-Philo's work. Israel's God protected, rewarded or punished with his miracles, and Pseudo-Philo was waiting for him to demonstrate his power again.

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus a. Introduction 1

Scholars still cannot agree whether Flavius Josephus betrayed his people or not when he gave himself to the Romans, prophesied that Vespasian would become emperor and finally became the writer of royal history at his court. However, the contribution of his work to scholars cannot be overestimated. His production also offers a good possibility for studying the interpretations of the Old Testament miracle workers. Research on Josephus has noted three important intentions influencing his way of deal­ ing with the miracles. 1) Josephus has often been said to rationalise the miracle stories. Thack­ eray and Marcus thus comment on the way Joshua crosses the Jordan with the Israelites: "Josephus, more suo, lessens the supernatural character of the miracle: the waters are not 'wholly cut off as in Joshua (3:14,16)." 2

The same view is often presented more subtly. MacRae underlined Jose­ phus' dual heritage: As a Jew he does not balk at accepting the miraculous whenever he encounters it because it is a sign of God's Trpovoia and S u v a u i s , but as a Hellenist "he does not hesitate to offer a pseudoscientific or pseudo-philosophical explanation as well whenever one comes to mind." Delling also represented a similar view in his article (1970) and Moehring in 1973. Today the most important advocate of this view is Louis Feldman, a prominent Josephus scholar since the sixties. He studied the portrait of Solomon in Josephus (1976) and continued with several Old Testament figures. In 1998 he published two works, Josephus's Interpreta3

4

1

Josephus was born in 37-38. Bellum Judaicum was published between 75-79; Antiquitates Judaicae 93-95; Vita may be an appendix to it, and Contra Apionem was published subsequently (Bilde 1988, 79; 104-106.113). Thackeray - Marcus 1934, 168-169. MacRae 1965, 142. Delling, "Josephus und das Wunderbare", (1970); Moehring, "Rationalisation of Mi­ racles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus" (1973), and Betz, "Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich zum Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium" (1987). 2

3

4

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

229

tion of the Bible (=1998a) and Studies in Josephus' Rewritten Bible (=1998b). In these extant monographs Feldman studies the portraits of vir­ tually all important Old Testament figures in Josephus' production, includ­ ing all the miracle-workers. In Feldman's view Josephus' general bias is very clear: He tried consistently to tone down the miraculous traits of the Old Testament heroes: "One of the stock charges against the Jews is credulity, as we can see from Horace, who has a proverb, "credat Iudaeus Apella", referring to the fact that only the credulous Jew Apella would believe that frankincense can melt without fire (Satires 1,5,97-103). To the Greeks, as we can see from Herodotus's criticism (1,60) of the ease with which the Athe­ nians allowed themselves to be deceived by Peisistratus's ruse in returning to power, such credulity was hardly admirable. Indeed, it was a standard tenet of the Epicureans that the gods do not intervene in human affairs, and thus do not perform miracles. In dealing with miracles, Josephus was clearly in a dilemma. On the one hand, as a believing Jew, he could hardly deny the centrality of such miracles as the plagues in Egypt, the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, and the revelation at Sinai. On the other hand, he hardly wished to expose himself to ridicule for being so credulous and insisted that Moses wrote nothing that was unreasonable, and that everything in Scripture was in keeping with the nature of the universe (Ant. 1,24)." 5

Feldman is well aware that some philosophical schools, such as the Stoics, did allow for divine intervention in the world. Nevertheless, Josephus fre­ quently uses a formula used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Lucian, Pliny, Herodotus and Thucydides, allowing the reader to make up his own mind. Feldman's general view is clear: 6

"On the whole, Josephus tends to downgrade miracles, as we see especially when we compare, for example, his depiction of Abraham and Moses as talented generals with the rabbinic portraits of these leaders as prevailing because of G-d's miraculous assistance." 7

The general view is thus that Josephus had to observe his sceptical, pagan audience. As seen above, Feldman is by no means the first to consider this an important bias in Josephus, and today, for example, Collins shares the 5

Feldman 1998a, 209; see also 1999, 907. The significance of the formula was often noted before Feldman. According to Thackeray (1930, 52-53; see also 1929, 56-57) it recurs "repeatedly where anything of a miraculous nature is in question (2,348; 3,81, etc)." He compares Josephus with Diony­ sius of Halicarnassus (48,1) and Lucian (Quomodo historia sit scribenda 60): "And should any myth come into question, it should be related but not wholly credited: rather it should be left open for readers to conjecture about it as they will, but do you take no risks and incline neither to one opinion nor to other." On the views on the formula see also Moehring 1973, 376-377; Feldman 2000, 39; Eve 2002, 26. Delling studies the use of the formula in Josephus and notes that it cannot be taken merely as noncommittal, because Josephus uses it also after describing the theophany in Ant. 3,322 (Delling 1971, 141-142). Also according to Ladouceur (1983, 25-29) Josephus does not always remain neutral in using the formula. Feldman 1998a, 209-210. 6

7

230

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

view that the Jews had to defend themselves against the charges of credu­ lity. Feldman's view, however, must be thoroughly investigated, espe­ cially because of its relevance in the articles he has written on several bib­ lical figures and now in many chapters in his two books. If a further moti­ vation for this scrutiny is needed, it is that Feldman's view, though now very common, is not the only one on the miracles in Josephus' production. Most scholars share the view that Josephus was more or less reserved about the miracles, but such scholars as Delling, Tiede, Betz and Eve pre­ sent their opinions with clearly greater emphasis on Josephus' ambivalence towards miracles. Moreover, Begg has rejected the view in connection with the passage on Elisha, although he accepts it elsewhere. The present study does not deal with all miracles included in Josephus' production, only with the miracles of figures in the Old Testament. The point of view is thus narrower than in Delling's, Moehring's and Betz's articles, or in Eve's book mentioned above, because they deal with "das Wunderbare", "Rationalisation of Miracles" and "das Problem des Wunders." 8

9

10

2) Josephus has usually been observed to allow the miracles to be influ­ enced by his political convictions, especially in Bellum Judaicum. Jose­ phus had good reason to separate religion and politics. Scholars may have different views on the historical motives for the rebellion, but it is clear that Josephus did not want to emphasize the religious reasons for the re­ volt, but rather to minimise them. He tells about the many Jews using miracles to legitimate themselves as leaders in a revolt against the Ro­ mans. They were, of course, men of his own time and not Old Testament figures, and such men as Theudas and the Egyptian do not directly belong to the present study. However, he certainly did not forget these men when retelling the miracles told in the Old Testament. He had a selective attitude toward the prophets of his own time: He did not reject the prophecies of Jesus ben Ananja (B. J. 6,300-309) or any paradoxical phenomenon refer­ ring to Jerusalem's fall, but considered all failed prophets leading political 11

8

Collins 2000a, 8. Delling 1970, 132-134; Tiede 1972, 215-217; Betz 1987, 212-235; Eve 2002, 26; Begg 1996, 69-109. The chapter in Eve's book covers all the miracles in Josephus regardless of whether a human agent occurs or not. The wide scope has produced many important points of view, but also prohibited a detailed study thoroughly investigating the stories and the secon­ dary literature. Eve, for example, cites only one work of Feldman (1998b), overlooks Begg's important article and is thus not aware of the suggestion that there is a lacuna in Josephus' work in the passage on Elisha (see below p. 277). Bilde 1988, 186-187; Gabba 1999, 148-156; Schreiber 2000, 284. 9

10

11

231

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

movements as pseudoprophets. Whether he let them influence the way he presented the ancient heroes of the people is an interesting question. 3) The discussion on divine men has, of course, influenced research on miracles in Josephus' production. Windisch (1934) included Josephus in this discussion, and he was followed by Georgi (1964) and Schottroff (1983) in their important studies. The problem has also been thoroughly studied by Tiede (1972) and Holladay (1977), and recently by du Toit (1998). Although simplified formulations occur sometimes, Josephus has never been a central writer in this discussion and the question is not crucial today. However, it cannot be overlooked in the present study. 13

14

15

We know many Jewish writers from only a few pages. Josephus is differ­ ent. His wide production allows a study in which his various intentions should be possible to define. 16

b. Moses Moses was famous in the Greek and Latin world, but his depiction at times was anything but positive. Hata quotes 24 Graeco-Roman writers who mentioned the Jewish lawgiver, partly in a positive, partly in a negative light. Many pagan writers knew a distorted version of the Exodus, ac­ cording to which the Israelites were not freed by God but expelled by the Egyptians. The reason for this was a disease which had spread among the Egyptians. They sought help from their gods and then were told to force the people who had caused the disease to leave. Moreover, Moses was con­ sidered a great sorcerer, both in a positive and in a negative sense. The origin and the details of this view are still under debate, especially the in­ tentions of the different Graeco-Roman writers, and Gruen attributes 17

18

12

See Rajakl983, 89-91. See Windisch 1934, 113-114; Georgi 1964, 152; Schottroff 1983, 232. Tiede 1972, 207-242; Holladay 1977, 47-102; du Toit 1998, 349-399. For example, Beegle writes (1992, 916): "Josephus ... portrays Moses as the divine man of Greek culture as well as the Israelite 'man of God.'" Josephus also tells the story about Isaiah and the sun, but strongly reduces the prophet's role and attributes the miracle to God; see Hoffken 1998, 37-48. Hata 1987, 180-181. See also Tiede 1972, 208-212 and Feldman 1998a, 374-375. The fundamental study was written by Gager (1972). A traditional disagreement among scholars is whether Manetho, an Egyptian priest in the early 3 century BC, al­ ready identified the people expelled (Kasher 1985, 6; 327-332) or whether this identifica­ tion happened later, after the Maccabean revolt had sparked an anti-Jewish attack (for example, Gabba 1989, 631). Gruen attributes the identification to Josephus (1998, 4172). See also Pucci ben Zev 1993, 215-234. 13

14

15

16

17

18

rd

232

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

much of it to the "distorting lens of Josephus." However, there is no doubt that these traditions were common in Josephus' times. Pompeius Trogus was well aware of them in Augustus' time: According to him, Jo­ seph had learned magic in Egypt and taught it to "his son Moses" (Historiae Philippicae libri 36 epitoma 2,5-15). Writing in Rome at Vespa­ sian's court, Josephus may personally have met his contemporary Tacitus, who, untouched by the attempts Josephus and other Jews made to invert the tradition, still wrote a negative version of the Exodus, including some versions of Moses' miracles (hist. 5,3,2). It was evidently not unproblematic to write about the great hero of the nation. Josephus himself reveals the pressure under which he wrote about Moses. "Seeing, however, that Apollonius Molon, Lysimachus, and others, partly from igno­ rance, mainly from ill will, have made reflections, which are neither just nor true, upon our lawgiver Moses and his code, maligning the one as a charlatan and impostor (ydr|Ta Kai aTraTscova)... " (c. Ap. 2,145). 20

It is important to observe that Josephus tells nothing about Moses' mira­ cles in Contra Apionem. This silence is a matter that needs to be explained, however, after a thorough study of the wide material included in Antiquitates Iudaicae. 21

Although Josephus has slightly abridged the biblical narration about Mo­ ses in Antiquitates Iudaicae, he devotes two and a half books to him (Ant. 2,205-4,331), giving the lawgiver a unique position in Antiquitates. The biblical miracles are mostly retold extensively, with some additions, altera­ tions and omissions. Moses' birth is told extensively and with new details (cf. Exod 1:1-2:25). 22

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX in Exod 1:1-2:25 see above p. 92.

19

According to Gruen the Graeco-Roman writers did not distort the Jewish story, but the other way around: Josephus mixed Egyptian stories with the Jewish tradition to show that the Jews were an ancient people (Gruen 1998, 41-72). Gruen's chapter presents a fresh challenge to the traditional view, but does not change the fact that Moses was fa­ mous, and not always in a benign way. See also c. Ap. 1,229 mdAnt. 3,265-268. Compared with the Septuagint, Josephus' description of Moses is 83% (Feldman 1998a, 80). See the summary of the biblical material used and omitted in Hata 1987, 180197. On Moses in Josephus, see Tiede 1972, 206-238; Holladay 1977, 67-73; Beegle 1992, 916; Oberhansli-Widmer 1994, 350-351; Feldman 1998a, 374-442 (lit. 376), esp. 425-433. 2 0

21

2 2

233

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

Moses' birth is foretold by one of the sacred scribes (tepoypamjaTeusA who knew that a Hebrew child, if reared, would bring the Egyptian rule down (Ant. 2,205); that was the reason for the genocide. Amram, Moses' father, according to Josephus a noble man, prays to God, who foretells Moses' birth (Ant. 2,211-216). God's speech interestingly resembles the prophecy of Nathan in 2 Sam 7: The nightly vision promises the father a kind of eternal position. The child is born without Jochebed's labour (cf. Apollo's birth in Theogn. 1,5-10; Callimachus 4,249-259) so that he can be concealed (Ant. 2,218). Amram decides to trust the safety of the child to God, and puts him in the river, to be found by Thermuthis, the king's barren daughter. The child himself does not accept the breast of other women until Miriam seeks out his mother to feed him (Ant. 2,219-227). When brought to the Pharaoh, the admired child takes off the diadem put upon his head and tramples it underfoot. The scribe realises that he is the child whose birth has been foretold and tries to kill him, but his life is saved by Thermuthis (Ant. 2,232-237). Moses becomes, as in Artapanus, an Egyptian general in the war against the Ethiopians (Ant. 2,238-253) and marries an Ethiopian princess (Ant. 2,253). Josephus omits Moses' mur­ der of the Egyptian taskmaster and cites the envy and plots of the Pharaoh as the reasons for the escape. 23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

2 3

There is a Rabbinic tradition similar to this detail (Tg. Ps.-J. 1:15), which names Jannes and Jambres as Moses' opponents, but it is late; see Feldman 1998a, 380 and 2000, 188-189. A noble birth is a feature often added by Josephus to the biblical stories; see, for example, Ant. 5,276 (Samson) and Feldman 1998a, 378. It is commonplace in GraecoRoman literature, for example, Diog. Laert. 3,1 (Plato). The story that the birth of the child is told to his father is unique in Josephus (Feldman 1998a, 379). Moses' birth is prophesied by Miriam in L.A.B. (see p. 192). Ac­ cording to some scholars such as Feldman, Josephus has changed, for misogynic reasons, Miriam to Amram (1998b, 379). The view is justly rejected as speculation by Rajak (1974, 276). "He shall deliver the Hebrew race from their bondage in Egypt, and be remembered, so long as the universe shall endure, not only by Hebrews alone but each by the alien nations; that favour do I bestow upon you and upon your posterity", Ant 2,216. Jub. 47:5 calls her Tharmuth and Artap. 3,3 Merris. Josephus tells later (Ant. 2,232) that Thermuthis had no children of her own and had been worried about the succession. On the same topic in Artapanus, see above p. 92, in Philo p. 111. Also here the later Rabbinic literature knows the same story; see Exod. R. 1:26; Deut. R. 11:10 and Feldman 1998a, 382-383; 2000, 198-199. See above p. 93. Josephus does not retell the story about Miriam's punishment after the quarrel about Moses' non-Jewish wife in Num 12:1-16. The Hebrew text calls her rPBDn, but LXX 2 4

2 5

2 6

27

2 8

2 9

3 0

31

A'lSioTTtaoa. 32

Cf. above on Artapanus, p. 93.

234

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

The birth of the child is full of details known from both the earlier and later Jewish texts, but also from Greek literature. Prophecies announcing the birth of a famous man were, of course, very common in Graeco-Roman antiquity. According to Diogenes Laertius (3,2), Speusippus (died 339), told that Plato's father had a vision of Apollo. According to tradition, Alexander's birth was announced to his mother in a vision (Hist. Alex. Magni 1,4,8) and a little later Philostratus tells several such stories (VA 1,4-6; her. 45). Although no Jewish writer retold the events as broadly, several extrabiblical details are traditional: The vision occurs in L.A.B., although it is Miriam's; the daughter of Pharaoh is barren in Artapanus and Philo; she is named Tharmuth in Jub., and Moses is also an Egyptian gen­ eral in Artapanus. A broad Jewish tradition is inseparably combined with Graeco-Roman folklore. It is an interesting detail that Josephus, unlike Artapanus and Philo, does not mention Moses' education. The only words Josephus gives for Moses' education are that "he was educated (6Tpe<j>eTo) with the utmost care" (Ant. 2,236). 33

34

35

God called Moses to the mountain not invaded by the shepherds, because it was believed that God sojourned there. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX see above p. 66.

The theophany (Tepas) in the burning bush is retold in a interesting way. Similarly to some other Jewish writers, Josephus reduced Israel's God to a divine voice, although the dialogue between God and Moses is only con­ densed and not completely omitted. The biblical miracles are briefly re­ told: 36

"He bade him cast his staff to the ground and to have faith in his promises. Moses did so, and lo, there was a serpent crawling and coiling itself in spiral fashion and rearing its head as in defence against assailants; then once more it became a stick. Next he bade him put his right hand into his bosom: he obeyed and drew it fourth white, of a colour resem­ bling chalk; then it resumed its ordinary aspect. Receiving a further command to take of the water of a neighbouring brook and pour it on the ground, he beheld it turned to the colour of blood. And while he marvelled at these wonders, God exhorted him to be of good courage, to be assured that his mighty aid would be ever with him, and to use mira­ cles to convince all men" (Ant. 2,272-274).

3 3

See Koskenniemi 1994, 192. According to Oberhansli-Widmer (1994, 351) the succession is "sicher griechisch inspiriert", but it is hopeless to try to separate the two traditions from each other. On Moses' good Greek education in Artapanus, see above p. 93, in Philo see p. 111. On the "divine voice" in Artapanus, see above p. 94, on the way in which Philo avoids God's anthropomorphism, see p. 112. According to Feldman (2000, 209) Josephus has removed the angel in Exod 3:2 in order to reduce the miraculous, but this is hardly true. 3 4

3 5

3 6

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

235

Josephus

All three miracles are slightly edited. Moses' rod becomes a serpent, but he is not afraid of it. His hand becomes white, but not expressis verbis lep­ rous: The detail is often taken as a deliberate alteration of Exod 4:6, and we cannot ignore the possibility of an intentional modification, especially because Josephus omits the miracle punishing Miriam (Num 12:1-16). However, because LXX also only has coast x ^ and Josephus does not avoid the disease later, he does not necessarily avoid the word here. In contrast to Exod 4 Moses not only listens to the description of the third miracle but also takes water and turns it to "the colour of blood." Ac­ tually, this is a detail that Jacobson supposed Ezekiel the Tragedian had included in the lost verses of his tragedy. Josephus has complemented the original with a miracle, which is mentioned but not performed in Exodus. The miracles (armeTa) were accessible to Moses whenever there was a need for them (Ant. 2,276). Also Philo compared Moses with a pupil who had learned at Horeb how to make miracles and repeated them to be sure. Moses is terrified (Ant. 2,267; 270) and partly also reluctant (Ant. 2,271), but less so than in Exodus. Josephus has reduced the arguments Moses expressed to avoid the mission: He is still 'ISICOTTJS and does not find the words to persuade his people. However, he is no longer the helpless man who needs Aaron to be his speaker, and his lack of eloquence is not explic­ itly mentioned. To be sure, Aaron is mentioned later, but his role is clearly reduced (Ant. 2,279). 37

ic

v

5

38

39

40

41

The brief reference in Exod 4:30 to Moses making the miracles in the presence of the Israelites is included in the work. Josephus emphasizes that Moses could not convince his people with a mere description of the mira­ cles but had to perform them before their eyes (Ant. 2,279-280). The legitimisation by miracles is present here as in God's words to Moses (Ant. 2,274). Josephus thus renders the biblical original very faithfully. 42

43

Exodus tells about the first failed visit to Pharaoh, when no miracles oc­ curred (Exod 5:1-5), the growing oppression and the second visit accom­ panied by miracles (Exod 6:28-7:13). Josephus has included miracles in 37

Hata 1987, 186-187; Feldman 1998a, 385-386; 2000, 210-211. See above on Ezek. Trag. p. 72 and on Philo 111. On Josephus see below p. 239. See above p. 68. See above p. 111-112. The episode in Exod 4:24-26 is omitted and God tries not to kill Moses. Moehring 1973,377. According to Feldman (2000, 313) Josephus contemporizes the story. He was well aware that people are generally not convinced by miracles and notes that the leaders were amazed at this astonishing spectacle. However, Exod 4:31 already noted that "they bowed down and worshipped." 3 8

3 9

4 0

4 1

42

4 3

236

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

the first visit (Ant 2,281-287). Moses informs Pharaoh about his previous merits and the signs (ar]|je?a) God showed him. The Pharaoh mocks him (but does not imprison him as Artapanus claims) and Moses repeats the miracles, which do not have a positive impact: Pharaoh dubs him a crimi­ nal, who used "juggleries and magic" (TepccToupyicus Kai jjayeiais, Ant 2,284) to impress people. He orders "the priests" (as in Artapanus, Artap. 3,30) to make the same miracles and to prove that Moses is not the only one with this ability. They drop their rods, which become snakes, leading Moses to comment politely: 44

45

"Indeed, O king, I too disdain to the cunning of the Egyptians, but I assert that the deeds wrought by me so far surpass their magic and their art ( T % TOUTCOV uccyei'as J Tsxvrjs) as things divine are remote from what is human" (Ant. 2,286). K a

It is not Aaron, as in Exod 7:8-13, but Moses who throws the rod to the ground before Pharaoh (Ant 2,287), and Josephus retells dramatically how Moses' snake ate the Egyptians'. Moses' role is thus emphasized and he certainly is an MNP. It is interesting that Josephus does not nullify the Egyptians' capacity to make miracles. On the contrary, he lets Moses politely respect it, but at the same time reject it with his greater skill. Josephus omits the rest of the miracles made by the Egyptian wise men and seems thus not to be willing to create a contest between them and Moses. It is not said that they were unable to make miracles, only that they, unlike Moses, used methods that were not allowed. What that precisely meant is not said and it is hard to believe that Josephus himself knew the answer. A well-known feature in classical antiquity is that one side of what we call "magic" was strictly forbidden, even punished by death, but another was commonly used, also in the cultured circles. 46

47

48

4 4

Artapanus lets the Pharaoh imprison Moses; see above p. 96. Josephus may reveal a tradition in common with Artapanus, both in making Moses an Egyptian general, and in letting the Pharaoh call Moses a criminal (Ant. 2,284). However, this is a very under­ standable midrashic trait and the texts may also agree occasionally, because Exodus tells that Moses had killed an Egyptian. On Moses' opponents in Jub., see above p. 57; in Artapanus, p. 100, in Philo, p. 113 and 134. The competing miracle-workers belonged to the nucleus of the divine man-hypo­ thesis. However, the present study has found very few texts in which a contest would be of importance. There is a fully dramatized story about a contest between men concerning miracles, but it is the contest between Moses and Korah and, thus, a Jew against a Jew; see below p. 244-246. See Delling 1970, 135; Duling 1985, 10-12; Feldman 1998a, 428-429. The view is thus similar to L.A.B.: Magical skills are by no means nonsense, but they are not allowed; see above p. 214 pp. See Koskenniemi 1994, 224. 4 5

4 6

4 7

4 8

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

237

The second visit includes no miracles, but interestingly, Moses threatens Pharaoh, saying that "neither earth nor air" will be friendly to the people opposing God (Ant. 2,292). Philo wrote that the four elements were at war against the Egyptians. However, the speculation about the different roles of heaven and earth in the punishment has also been traced elsewhere, and it is not necessarily linked with the Greek theory. However, Josephus and Philo, as well as Wis, seem here to be using a common tradition. 49

The plagues are retold in many new variants. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and Septuagint in Exod 7:14-12:36, see above p. 70. 50

The river is changed into blood (Ant. 2,294-295) as in Exod 7:14-24, but there is no God to tell Moses what to do and no Aaron to help him. Moses does not meet Pharaoh and nobody uses his rod: The water becomes atpaxco5r]s at God's command. Unlike Exodus, the water tortured and caused excruciating pain to those who sought to drink of it. A new detail is that it was sweet to the Hebrews. The detail also occurs in Philo, Mos. 1,26; 144 and in Deut. R. 3:8. This can be traced to Exod 7:21 and 7:24, in which the Egyptians were not able to drink the water, but in which there is no mention of the Hebrews. Josephus has, however, removed the Egyptian magicians and had Pharaoh permit the Hebrews to depart. The frogs (Ant. 2,296-299) come and disappear as in Exod 7:26-8:11, God does not speak to Moses, Aaron is absent and no human agent is con­ nected to the plagues. The magicians are removed again. Pharaoh tells Moses and the Hebrews to go, but repents and seems to hope for new ca­ lamities. The next punishment is called OKV?(|>es in LXX (Exod 8:12-15), while Josephus uses the words (|>0eipcov ... aTreipdv TI TrXfjSos (Ant. 2,300302). Exodus has Moses and Aaron produce the plague with their rods, but Josephus has removed both, and the sorcerers are again omitted. The episode before the following plague shows that Josephus has inten­ tionally reduced the role of Moses and Aaron. Pharaoh opens the way, but only for men and not for the wives and children (a detail taken from the plague of locusts, Exod 10:10-11). This leads Josephus to comment: 51

"Thus he did but exasperate God the more, in thinking to impose upon his providence, as though it were Moses and not he who was punishing Egypt on the Hebrews' behalf (Ant. 2,302). 4 9

See above p. 114 and 124. Moses remembers the event in Ant. 3,17-18 in conjunction with the miracle at the Red Sea and again in Ant. 3,86. According to Tiede 1972, 221-22 and Feldman 2000, 217 this is a device used so as not to make Moses appear to be a mere magician. 5 0

51

238

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

The plague clearly differs from that in Exodus (Exod 8:16-28; Ant. 2,303). LXX reads KUVOJJUICC, "dog-fly", as does Philo, but in Josephus' very short presentation it is Brjpicov y a p TTCCVTOICOV KCCI iroAuTpoTrcov. Artapanus, Philo, Pseudo-Philo and now Josephus thus all seem to assume that they were not ordinary insects. The offending Hebrew manner of sacrifice is removed, as in Philo, and so is the entire dialogue between Moses and Pharaoh. The plague on livestock (Exod 9:1-11) is completely omitted and the following biblical plagues are summarised only briefly. The LXX sAxr) (Exod 9:8-12), is retold very briefly (Ant 2,304) but more catastrophically ("and the greater part of the Egyptians perished thus"). Not only the Egyp­ tian magicians, but also Moses and Aaron, with dust in their hands, are absent. Also the plague of hail (xccAa£a) is presented very briefly (Exod 9:13-35; Ant. 2,305), and the dialogues are omitted. The locusts are men­ tioned in only one sentence (Exod 10:1-20; Ant. 2,306). Josephus renders the plague of darkness (Exod 10:21-29) markedly longer (Ant. 2,307-310). The dialogue between Moses and Pharaoh pre­ cedes and follows the plague, although Exodus puts it before the calamity. The darkness is described in a new way: 52

53

54

55

"... and when time in consequence dragged on, dense darkness, without a particle of light, enveloped the Egyptians - darkness so thick that their eyes were blinded by it and their breath choked, and they either met with a miserable end or lived in terror of being swallowed up by the fog."

Josephus follows the broad tradition in retelling the biblical plague. LXX mentioned v|;r|Aa<}>r)T6s" O K O T O S , and Philo described the darkness as not only unnatural but also dangerous, while L.A.B. mentions tractabiles tenebre. As noted, the tradition also seems to be known to the writer of the Book of Wisdom and Melito of Sardes. Pharaoh is prepared to allow the people to go, but without cattle. Josephus has Moses resist, saying that they needed cattle as sacrifice. He does not mention that they were going 56

5 2

"For now he sent wild beasts of every species and kind, the like of which no man had ever encountered before, to infest their country, whereby the people perished and the land was deprived of the care of its labourers." On Artapanus, see above p. 102, on Philo, p. 117, on Pseudo-Philo, see p. 195. See above p. 144. Josephus does not use the words o f LXX (sAxr), ^AuKTiSes ava£e'ouaai), but drama­ tizes the event with stronger words (Setvcos cxuxoTs e£r)AKouTO TCX acojjaTa TCOV E V T O S 5ia0eipo|j6vcov). See above p. 116 and 193. Also T Sim. 8 tells about the darkness, although in a dif­ ferent way: The Egyptian sages knew that a special darkness would cover Egypt when Joseph's bones were carried out. 53

5 4

55

5 6

239

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

to offer the sacrifice in way that was offensive to the Egyptians (Exod 8:22; 10:26). The death of the firstborn (Exod 11:1- 12:36) is retold briefly, but unlike Philo, Josephus includes the Passover: "Hence comes it that to this day we keep this sacrifice in the same customary manner, calling the feast Pascha, which signifies 'passing over', because on that day God passed over our people when he smote the Egyptians with plague. For on that selfsame night destruction visited the firstborn of Egypt, insomuch that multitudes of those whose dwellings surrounded the palace trooped to Pharaotes to urge him to let the Hebrews go" (Ant. 2,313).

One word is especially worth noting. Josephus says that God A'tyuTrriois ETrav8aKr]v|/s xrjv voaov. Although he does not use the word Aoipos, vdaos is not a benign word either, and may be used for disastrous dis­ eases. It thus seems that Josephus has not intentionally avoided it, either here or in Ant. 2,273. Philo also used the words quite freely when pointing to the pestilence. The friendly relations between the Hebrews and most of the Egyptians are underlined (Ant. 2,311-315). Several smaller alterations apparently once again attest the tradition of retelling the biblical original freely. Josephus is the only author investi­ gated in the present study who follows almost exactly the biblical order of the plagues, leaving only one of them out. There is no obvious reason why the plague among livestock is omitted, but some features occur often and reveal a reflective, redactional work. Josephus has generally reduced dialogues, especially dialogues between God and Moses. Israel's God does not talk with men. Josephus here can be likened to Artapanus and Philo, but not to Ezekiel and Pseudo-Philo. It is clear that Josephus has reduced the role of human agents in the plagues. Aaron is totally absent as in many texts studied above and God is clearly more active than Moses. Consequently, Moses' rod plays no role and Moses is not as helpless as in Exodus. Moses does not take the role of an independent BNP, and Josephus unequivocally says that God made the miracles. It is not easy to classify Moses as an MNP or a PNP. The main reason why his role is changed is that Josephus does not include God in the dialogue as Exodus does, and this has necessarily led to a new distribution of roles, with Josephus reducing rather than expanding Moses' role. Josephus has - as Philo - omitted everything referring to the Hebrew's manner of the sacrifice, and the reason is obvious. He himself mentions the 57

58

59

57

Nooos means generally 'sickness', but vooos / vouoos is traditionally used also for diseases in the army, for example, 77. 1,10. See above p. 117. The reason seems to be that Josephus highlights the importance of Moses, Feldman 1998a, 387. The budding of Aaron's rod is told in Num 17:16-28 (Ant. 4,63-66). 5 8

5 9

240

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

rumours about Jewish ways of sacrificing human beings, and there is no need to quote the Scripture, according to which the Egyptians would kill the Hebrews if they saw what they sacrificed (Exod 8:22). However, regardless of these changes, Josephus retells almost every mi­ raculous feature, and there is no sign of a general intention to play down the supernatural features of the biblical stories. Such an intention is con­ ceivable when Josephus omits the stories about the rod of Moses (and Aaron) and the magicians in the plagues. On the other hand, darkness is described in more miraculous terms than in Exodus. After the final plague, the Hebrews are free to go (Exod 13:17- 14:31), and Josephus adds that the Egyptians honour the Hebrews with gifts and lament their hard treatment - to be sure, partly to speed their departure (Ant. 2,314-315). Still, it was apparently easier for Josephus, who was out­ side Egypt, to be friendlier toward the Egyptians than it was for Philo, in­ side the country. The miracle at the Red Sea (Ant. 2,320-348) is told much more extensively than in Exodus. Moses' wise leadership is empha­ sized. He chooses a good route to the land of Canaan, and God's thought in Exod 13:17-18 is now Moses' plan (Ant. 2,322-323). 60

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and Septuagint in Exod 13:17-14:31 see above p. 74.

The Egyptian forces are described in detail: alongside the biblical 600 chariots stood fifty thousand horsemen and two hundred thousand heavy infantry (Ant. 2,324). The numbers of the enemy vary in early Jewish lit­ erature. The Hebrew multitude, following LXX as in Ezekiel and Philo (Ant. 2,321; cf. Exod 13:18,), is overtaken unarmed by the Egyptians. The blame is laid on Moses, as in Exodus, but the controversy is dramatized: they were ready to stone Moses (cf. Exod 17:4) and decided to deliver themselves to the Egyptians. Moses, for his part, gives a beautiful speech to the people and offers a beautiful prayer to God (Ant. 2,329-337): 61

62

63

64

6 0

65

The miracle is mentioned briefly in connection with the plagues also in Ant. 3,86. Jub. 48:14 and Ezek. Trag. 203 say that a million Egyptians attacked the Hebrews. On Ezekiel, see above p. 75 on Philo, see p. 119. According to Josephus a good number of the Hebrews were armed after the victory over the Amalekites (Ant. 3,62). L.A.B. supposes that the nation was armed at the Red Sea and could choose between several options; see above p. 194. Cf. the presentation of the story in L.A.B, p. 194. However, Josephus does not differ­ entiate between different tribes and his words may be derived from Exod 14:12. In Josephus, Moses is not reluctant to go to Egypt because he is aware that he lacks eloquence: He is a good rhetorician, not only here but often, for example, Ant. 4,13-21. Like Philo (see above p. 119) Josephus has also read Exod 13:13-15 closely: Moses speaks to the people, but God asks why he is crying out to him. Josephus lets Moses first speak to the people and then pray to God. 61

6 2

6 3

6 4

6 5

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

241

Also here, Josephus seems to allude to the theory of elements or its Jewish variant mentioned above. He certainly attributes the miracle to God's al­ mighty power. There is no God's angel between the Hebrews and Egyp­ tians. Moses hits the sea with his rod, which is now also mentioned, and the way is immediately opened (Ant. 3,38). It is not only the sea that flows over the Egyptians, but showers of rain, with thunder, lightning and fire (Ant. 2,343). Josephus omits Moses raising his hand again and clos­ ing the way (Exod 14:26-27). In contrast to Ezek. Trag. Josephus tells that no one survived the catastrophe (Ant. 2,344). Moses composes a song to God "in hexameter verse" (Ant. 2,346). Josephus adds an important passage to the story: 66

67

68

69

70

71

"For my part, I have recounted each detail here told just as I found it in the sacred books. Nor let anyone marvel at the astonishing nature of the narrative or doubt that it was given to men of old, innocent of crime, to find a road of salvation through the sea itself, whether by the will of God or maybe by accident, seeing that the hosts of Alexander king of Macedon, men born but the other day, beheld the Pamphylian Sea retire before them and, when other road there was none, offer a passage through itself, what time it pleased God to overthrow the Persian empire; and on that all are agreed who have recorded Alex­ ander's exploits. However on these matters everyone is welcome to his own opinion" (Ant. 2,347-348).

Josephus knew the tradition, either from Arrian 1,26 or from some other source. He had learned his historians extremely well and was able to quote an impressive list of their works; see, for example, Ant. 1,107-108 and c. Ap.l, 6-18. He does not rationalise the story but supports it with a second, Gentile story. 72

6 6

"Nay, thine is the sea, thine the mountain that encompasseth us: this then can open at thy command, or the deep become dry land, or we might even find escape through the air, should it please thine almighty power that after this manner we should be saved" (Ant. 2,337). In Exod 13:26-27 Moses does not hit the sea and the way opens during the night. On these details in Ezekiel, Artapanus, Philo and L.A.B., see above p. 75, 105, 119 and 194. Feldman is surprised that Josephus does not rationalise the miracle and explain it in natu­ ralistic terms, but unlike Exodus tells that the miracle was instantaneous and that Moses divided the sea with his rod (2000, 228). However, Josephus follows a strong tradition and it is not clear whether he has generally toned down the miracles or not. Feldman sees a rationalisation in the thunder, lightning and fire (Feldman 1998a, 430), but Josephus apparently only quotes Ps 77:16-20, as noted already by Thackeray (1930, 315). To Josephus all the events show that the Creator of the universe was angry with the Egyptians. On Ezekiel, see above p. 77, on Philo, see p. 121. Thackeray (1929, 91) and Feldman (2000, 230) suggest that Josephus was acquainted with a collection of chants possibly adapted for a Temple choir (see Ant. 4,303). The event is mentioned in Ant. 3,18 and Ant. 4,44; in both cases it is clearly a mira­ cle. Delling 1970, 138-139. 6 7

6 8

6 9

7 0

71

7 2

242

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

The miracles in the desert are also included in Josephus' work. The short story about the water in Marah (Exod 15:22-27) is retold dramatically and clearly emended (Ant. 3,1-8). The well was considered insufficient from the very beginning. The distress of the people and chil­ dren is underlined and the way in which Moses healed the water is given in a new variant: 73

"And, God having consented to grant that favour, he picked up the end of a stick that lay at his feet, cleft it in twain, lengthwise, and then, flinging it into the well, impressed upon the Hebrews that God had lent an ear to his prayers and had promised to render the water such as they desired, provided that they executed his order with no remissness, but with alacrity. On their asking what they must do to procure the amelioration of the water, he bade those in the prime of life stand in a ring and draw, declaring that what remained, after they had drained off the larger part, would be drinkable. So they set to work, and the water, belaboured and purified by these incessant blows, at length became good to drink" (Ant. 3,7-8).

Josephus seems to have combined the story with the passage in Numbers (Num 21:10-18) and he does not tell the story twice. There seem to be traits of rationalisation in the story: A larger part of the water is drained off. Yet the event is still clearly a miracle. The piece of wood thrown into the water was treated in very different ways in early Judaism. Israel does not accuse Moses at Marah, but he is heavily attacked in the desert. Moses answers with a long speech also reminding his listeners of the preceding miracles (Exod 16:1-36; Ant. 3,13-22). After the speech, the quails come. The story about the quails is told very briefly in Ant. 3,25, as in Exodus, and there is not much to rationalise. It is interesting that the birds were opTiiycov Trf]0os and he does not use the word in LXX (opTuyoMrJTpcc). In retelling the feeding with manna (Ant. 3,26-32) Josephus has added new traits to the story: 74

75

76

77

78

"Immediately after this first supply of food God sent down to them a second. For, while Moses raised his hands in prayer, a dew descended, and as this congealed about his hands, Moses, surmising that this too was a nutriment come to them from God, tasted it and was delighted; and, whereas the multitude in their ignorance took this for snow and attributed the phenomenon to the season of the year, he instructed them that this heavendescending dew was not as they supposed, but was sent for their salvation and suste­ nance, and tasting it, he bade them thus too to convince themselves. They then, imitating their leader, were delighted with what they ate, for it had the sweet and delicious taste of 7 3

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see above p. 20. Noted already by Thackeray 1978, 325 and Feldman 2000, 234. On the story in Sir, see above p. 20; in Philo p. 122 and in L.A.B. p. 242. According to Moehring (1973, 380-381), also this story is rationalised. The food from heaven, i.e. quails and manna, are mentioned with the water from the rock also in Ant. 3,88 and Ant. 4,45. On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and LXX, see above p. 123. 7 4

7 5

7 6

7 7

7 8

243

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

honey and resembled the spicy herb called bdellium, its size being that of a coriander seed; and they fell to collecting it with the keenest ardour" {Ant. 3,26-28).

It is not obvious whether manna means a miracle or not. It was still be­ lieved to fall from the skies in Josephus time: "and to this very day all that region is watered by a rain like to that which then, as a favour to Moses, the Deity sent down for men's sustenance" (Ant. 3,31). However, manna is God's answer to Moses' prayer. The story about the water from the rock (Exod 17:1-7; cf. Num 20:1-13) is told in somewhat dramatized form but without any greater alterations in content (Ant. 3,33-38). The rod of Moses, which plays a minor role in the plagues, is now present as in Exodus and the event is clearly a miracle (TTCcpdSo£ov, Ant. 3,38) without any "rationalisation." One interesting detail is that Josephus again refers to a writing deposited in the temple. Also, this underlines the importance of the miracles in Exodus for early Judaism. The obvious reason why Josephus is satisfied with one story about the water from the rock and does not retell the other version in Num 20:1-13 is that in so doing he can omit the reason why God did not allow Moses to go to the Promised Land. 79

The battle against the Amalekites (Exod 17:8-16) is heavily expanded in Josephus (Ant. 3,39-62). It is preceded, of course, by a marvellous speech of Moses, the model being taken from the Greek historians: A speech by the general before a battle is commonplace in classical antiquity. Although Moses' military genius is underlined, there is hardly any trace of a ration­ alisation of the story, despite Tiede's and Feldman's observance of such a bias: Moses' hands stretched out are still the decisive factor, and Jose­ phus has carefully preserved the core of the biblical story. Unlike other early Jewish writers, Josephus tells the story about the quails twice, although the second feeding is rendered much shorter than in the biblical original. The punishment of the people is preserved. Josephus clarifies that the reason for the following punishment was the people's mu81

82

79

Ant. 3,31: Josephus apparently identifies manna with the exudation of a species of the tamarisk-tree; see Thackeray 1930, 335 and Feldman 2000, 239. Feldman sees here a clear rationalisation of the story as in the passage dealing with quails (2000, 237. 239). Thackeray (1928, 336-337) takes the writing for a collection of chants made for the use of the temple singers. Tiede 1972, 227-228; Feldman 1998a, 432; 2000, 243. "So long as Moses held his hands erect, the Amalekites were discomfited by the Hebrews. Moses, therefore, unequal to the strain of this extension of his arms, and seeing that as often as he dropped them so often were his men worsted, bade his brother Aaron and his sister Mariamme's husband, by name Ur, stand on either side of him to support his hands and by their aid not suffer them to flag. That done, the Hebrews inflicted a crushing defeat on the Amalekites" (Ant. 3,53-54). 8 0

81

82

244

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

tiny (Num 11:4-36; Ant. 3,299). Moses is clearly a more active agent than in the biblical original. 83

The mutiny led by Korah (Num 16:1-17:31) awakened special interest in Josephus. 84

On a detailed comparison between the Hebrew text and Septuagint in Num 16:1-17:31, see above p. 126.

The revolt is described extensively (Ant. 4,11-66), and the short biblical original has been made into a story about a "sedition for which we know of no parallel whether among Greeks or barbarians" (Ant. 4,12), and the rhe­ torical skill of both Korah and Moses. Philo and Pseudo-Philo have given new accents of the story, and so has Josephus; however, Josephus has preserved the original core of the story clearly better than Philo, who has Korah doubt Moses' prophecy, and Pseudo-Philo, who has redirected the mutiny against the holy Law (this point of view also occurs in Josephus, Ant. 4,13). However, a closer look shows that Josephus has also changed the focus. In Num Korah says that Moses and Aaron had set themselves above the rest of the people, and overlooked the fact that the whole com­ munity is holy (Num 16:3; 17:1-5). Josephus, in turn, has removed the thought that the priesthood should not be restricted to certain persons but should be given to everyone. To him it is clear that the priesthood is re­ stricted, but he lets the aristocratic circles of the Hebrews quarrel about the question of who should attain it (Ant. 4,18). The change may be uninten­ tional and may only show that Josephus could no longer imagine Israel without a priesthood. Yet the bitter clashes over the priesthood in the Hasmonean period have certainly influenced his view on the story. God does not want to kill the whole crowd and does not stand in dia­ logue with Moses and Aaron as in Num 16:20-21. In the prayer added by Josephus, Moses remembers the miracles God made in Egypt (Ant. 4,4347) and asks for the punishment of his opponents. In contrast to Numbers, Korah survives the earthquake (Ant. 4,51), but is killed along with 250 men by fire (Ant. 4,54-58). The budding of Aaron's rod ends the sedition and legitimates Aaron as the right priest (Num 17:1-13; Ant. 4,63-66). It would be tempting to see some elements of the Jewish war in the great OTaois. Josephus has heavily expanded the story, obviously meaning it as a lesson on the political consequences of a revolt. However, he seems to 85

86

87

8 3

Feldman 1998a, 426. See Feldman 1998b, 91-109. On Philo, see above p. 126, on L.A.B., see above p. 198. The priesthood was clearly a theme which influenced Josephus' way to retell the Scriptures; see Schwartz 1990, 88-90; Feldman 1998b, 100-101. Feldman 2000, 333-343 recognises the political tone of the remodelled story. 8 4

85

8 6

8 7

245

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

be more concerned about Moses' role as an excellent statesman than about the events of the Jewish war. Simultaneously he, of course, expresses his view of how a good leader leads his people and avoids all the dangers, which were not avoided some decades before Josephus' work was written. Josephus tells about the death of Moses in an interesting way: "And, while he bade farewell to Eleazar and Joshua and was yet communicating with them, a cloud of a sudden descended upon him and he disappeared in a ravine. But he has written on himself in the sacred books that he died, for fear least they should venture to say that by reason of his surpassing virtue he had gone back to the Deity" (Ant 4,326). 88

Philo and L.A.B. also give a version of Moses' death. Josephus' version has parallels in the Graeco-Roman world: Moses disappears, like Aeneas and Romulus (Dion. Hal. ant. 1,64,4; 2,56,2). However, the biblical stories about Enoch and Elijah and their later formulations are still closer paral­ lels. Josephus' version is an old puzzling question in the scholarship. The main point of the present study is that neither here nor elsewhere does Josephus attribute to Moses a position such as he has in Ezek. Trag. or L.A.B., although the passage has its mysterious elements. Moses may be the best of generals and lawgivers, but he is not a "divine man of Greek culture." 89

90

91

A few miracles are totally omitted. Josephus retells two water-miracles but leaves a doublet out (Num 20:113). In so doing, Josephus also passes over the reason why Moses did not enter the Promised Land, and it is hardly an accident. There are several reasons why Josephus omitted Miriam's punishment (Num 12:1-16), but it is difficult to choose between them: Josephus may have been unwilling to tell that Moses was challenged again, or he may have wanted to exonerate his own people; most probably he wanted to avoid the disease mentioned in the anti-Jewish propaganda.

8 8

See above p. 127 and 199 and Deut. #.11:10. See Oberhansli-Widmer 1994, 351-352; Sievers 1998, 24-25; Feldman 1998a, 396397; Feldman 2000, 472-473. Especially Jacobson (1983b), Tabor (1989) and Feldman 1998a, 173 see a connection with Sophocles' Oedipus Coloneus. Josephus uses the words 06?os avrjp about Moses once, in Ant. 3,180. However, this passage has nothing to do with the miracles. Moses is 0e?os because he was a "man of God" and because he had correct knowledge about God, and the Law and cult were di­ vine. Tiede considered that Moses was according to Josephus divine, because he was regarded as an ideal wise man (1972, 237), but Holladay (1977, 47-100) and finally du Toit (1998, 349-399) have put the question ad acta. See also Feldman 2000, 279-280. Beegle 1992, 916. 8 9

9 0

91

246

P. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

Also, the snakes in Num 21:4-9 are omitted. Some scholars presume that Josephus was unwilling to criticise Israel. This seems to be a logical ex­ planation - Josephus also excluded the story about the golden calf - but why is he so inconsistent in this bias? He also tells, for example, that the Hebrews did not believe Moses (Ant. 2,279-280) and that they mutinied against him several times. He even expands and dramatizes Korah's sedi­ tion. Apparently some details in the sacred history were too much for Josephus, but he by no means consistently excluded the errors of his own people, either in the miracle stories or elsewhere in his work. The view that Josephus was reluctant to relate the miracle stories is not supported by the text. In fact, Josephus omitted very few of Moses' mira­ cles. We are then led to ask how much Josephus rationalised other stories: The analysis shows that indeed some stories seem to have been rational­ ised. Josephus tells the miracle at the Red Sea, remaining faithful to the biblical original, but he adds the story about Alexander and the well known formula (Ant. 2,347-348). The water-miracle at Marah also contains a ra­ tionalistic explanation of the events (Ant. 3,7-8), and even in Josephus' time, manna was believed to fall from the skies (Ant. 3,31). The evidence of rationalisation is thus not very strong. Josephus is not saying that there was no miracle in the story about Alexander. In his view Israel's God had chosen Alexander to serve him, as Moses had done before him. In some stories the "rationalisation" proposed seems rather far-fetched. There is hardly any rationalisation in lightning and fire Ant. 2,343, or in the stories about the quails Ant. 3,25 or the battle against Amalek Ant. 3,39-62. Josephus might certainly have added a more natural explanation to the events. However, it is obvious that he himself believed that the biblical miracles really happened and was not at all unwilling to retell Moses' miracles. On the contrary, Josephus often exaggerated the miraculous, and considered them as God's saving deeds. Even the Egyptian 'lepoypccjjU C C T E U S , although he hated Israel and tried to kill Moses, was correct in his prophecy about Moses' birth and mission, and he was not the only Egyp­ tian who did not err in such matters: Kai y a p eWi S e i v o i Trepi T C O V J J E A A O V T C O V T I I V aArjSeiav eiiTeTv (Ant. 2,205). This is not unique in Josephus. It was not only the biblical Balaam who could prophesy cor­ rectly (Ant. 4,104-130), but a German soldier as well (Ant. 18,195-202). Josephus sometimes reduces magical traits in the stories about Moses and, for example, does not emphasize the importance of his rod as Artapanus 92

93

94

95

9 2

Oberhansli-Widmer 1994, 351-352. Thackeray noted that Josephus has "unlike the Biblical Chronicler ... not hesitated to tell the story of David's sin and the disastrous sequel" (1929, 58). Ant. 2,223 oco^ouevous S BK irapaSd^ou. Noted correctly by Delling 1970, 132-133. 9 3

94

9 5

247

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

does. Yet he retells almost all of Moses' miracles with very few altera­ tions. If he had reflected on leaving out those miraculous events which could provoke ridicule among the Epicureans, then the first story to be omitted might have been the one concerning Balaam's ass. However, it is included in his work with all the miraculous elements. 96

Even if it is hard to attest a strict rationalistic bias in the stories about Moses, other features of the redaction can be traced. Josephus has changed the roles of God and Moses in several stories in different ways. Feldman notes correctly that Josephus seems to develop the stories in two opposite directions: Sometimes he underlines God's and sometimes Moses' role. God is active especially in the plagues. To be sure, Josephus lets Moses prophesy to the people: 97

"For it is not Moses, son of Amram and Jochama, but he who constrained the Nile to flow for your sake a blood-red stream and tamed with diverse plagues the pride of the Egyptians, he who opened for you a path through the sea, he who caused meat to descend from heaven when you were destitute, water to gush from the rock when you lacked it" (Ant. 3,86).

The main reason to change the roles of God and Moses is the fact that Josephus was, as many Jewish writers, unwilling to retell the biblical dia­ logues between God and men. Consequently, a large number of these dia­ logues are omitted, also in the miracle stories. It necessarily leads to a new division of roles, which is not consistent. Sometimes Moses can be charac­ terised as an MNP, but often he loses his role, and can hardly even be called a PNP. In Josephus, Moses is not merely a miracle-worker, but also a good gen­ eral, statesman and rhetorician. This is apparently why Josephus can to­ tally omit Moses' miracles in Against Apion. He is a great leader, but not only because of his miracles. There is no intention to develop the idea that Moses was a godlike figure (Exod 7:1). The factors mentioned above are also featured in the miracle stories. The way to the Red Sea, as well as 98

9 6

See Num 22:28; Ant. 4, 09. Thackeray and Marcus note the formula used in 4,158 and consider it to "refer to the story of Balaam as a whole and in particular to the miracu­ lous element in it, such as the speaking of the ass" (1934, 79). However, the formula does not follow immediately after the detail, and it is not probable that Josephus meant pre­ cisely this detail. Moreover, the formula is not always used as a non-committal sentence; see Delling 1970, 138.141-142. See Feldman 1998a, 425-427. According to Eve (2002, 27-28) the miracles are defi­ nitely deeds of God. However, Moses' role as his agent can be bigger than in the biblical original. Tiede formulated it correctly: "Moses' elevated status does not rest on his miracles" (1972, 229). 9 7

9 8

248

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

the battle against the Amalekites, are led by a skilful general. The great statesman leads the people to freedom and to the desert. The man who could not rely on his rhetorical skill now controls people with his marvel­ lous speeches. All these are well-known general features of Moses' pic­ ture, also in the miracle stories. They may justly be called "Hellenizations." The stories about Moses' birth, childhood and death are undoubt­ edly influenced by the Greek, as well as by the Jewish culture. As noted above, Josephus was well aware of the distorted version of Exodus circulating among the literate Gentiles. It did not lead to his mak­ ing many alterations, although some are obvious: The offensive manner of sacrifice is omitted because of pagan criticism against the Jewish cult, and the story about Miriam's punishment is omitted because of the Gentile story about the leprous being expelled from Egypt. However, Josephus was not as concerned as many scholars have assumed. He admittedly does not use the word A o i p o s when retelling the story about the plague in Egypt; he uses the word v o o o s , however, which has similar connotations. Perhaps Josephus thought that the best way to oppose the distorted version was to faithfully retell the original? Some Jewish writers have almost totally dropped legitimisation through miracles, but Josephus has preserved it in several passages. Moses is legitimated by miracles (esp. Ant. 2,274.279-280), and so is Aaron (Ant. 4,63-66). One reason, of course, is that Josephus is markedly faithful to the biblical original. However, the second reason may be more important: Moses had always been the great authority for the Jews and did not need any legitimisation, but since Josephus was also writing for a Gentile audi­ ence, he needed the original function of the miracles. Because of the mira­ cles Moses himself believes that God has sent him (Ant. 2,275), as do the Hebrews, his opponents and, as Josephus hopes, his readers. Moses has to compete with the Egyptian magicians, and with Korah and his allies. According to Feldman, Josephus toned down the cruelty of his heroes. This feature can hardly be noted in Moses' miracles, although the friend­ ship between the Hebrews and Egyptians is emphasized (Ant. 2,311-315). The plagues are as disastrous as in Exodus, and Josephus adds details to the miracle at the Red Sea, which by no means lessen the punishment (Ant. 2,343). Also, Korah's punishment is retold without any mitigation (Ant. 4,51; 54-58), and Josephus' heroes occasionally followed God's words: 100

101

102

103

104

9 9

See Betz 1987, 402-405; Feldman 1998a, 401-411. Feldman lists the Hellenizations in 1998a, 437-441. See Feldman 1998a, 428. It is a novum that Moses lists the miracles of God in Elim and assures the continuous help of God, Ant. 3,925. The competition is by no means polemical (Ant. 2,286, see above p. 236). Feldman 1998a, 418. 1 0 0

101

102

103

1 0 4

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

249

"You will leave not one of your enemies alive after defeating them" (Ant. 4,191). Generally, however, the study of additions and omissions shows that Josephus is surprisingly faithful to the biblical original. He adds nonbiblical stories mainly in connection with Moses' birth, childhood and death, but otherwise he follows the original closely. He tells almost all the sto­ ries, even those that might have been difficult for him. It is worth noting that he also retells the crossing of the Red Sea and that Moses stroked the water with his rod, although these miracles could have negative connota­ tions in his own time.

c. Joshua Josephus has generally abridged heavily the biblical stories about Jo­ shua. According to Feldman he gives him only 47% of the space given to Joshua in LXX, although the corresponding amount for Moses is 87% and for Elijah 96%. These numbers make it clear that Joshua was not his favourite figure in the Old Testament. 105

In translating the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 3:1-5:1) LXX omits •pmar ^a'^ai Kin in 3:1. In 3:5 rviK^sa is rendered GCCUUCCOTO: and "piy in 3:7 uvpcooai O E (but mj£noEV in 4:14). Instead of the plural nan the singular pfjua is used in 3:9. The words vnmrv "iom are omit­ ted in 3:10 and a n o TCOV UICOV in 3:12 seems to indicate that the translator had "oao in­ stead of 'Daioo in his original, irm 13 n a m n*?»D*?o am-n D^DH p m ^ is translated T O uScop TOG ' lopSdvou E K X E ( \ | / E I , T O 5E (iScop T O KCCTCCPCUVOV OTrjOETcn in v. 3:13 (but ~u / Trqyua in 3:16). In 3:16 jrra i s a m T i n oiaa I K D is rendered uaKpdv o65pa ao5pcos EGOS UEpous KapiaSiapiu and reveals a Hebrew original different from ours, naiim in the same verse is rendered Trjv 0dXaaoav ' Apa(3a. LXX omits in 4:2 the words ids who and in 4:3 o^nan ?n asao. In v, 4:6 m is rendered or|UE?ov. In v. 4:7 LXX does not repeat )Tvn ' 0 lrnaa and in 4:10 omits ircnrr-riK n©D rranejK *?aa. In 4:13 the Hebrew original apparently did not include a in D ^ a i t o . In 4:14 LXX adds yEVOUS. In 4:21 DrnatcnK is rendered uuds and in 4:24 T 5uvau»s. In 5:1 contemporization has changed the nation ("Oittan, but T T J S OotviKrjs). The deviations from the Hebrew text are numerous, but d o not attest a reflected redaction of the miraculous. In the conquest of Jericho (Jos 5:13-6:27) the text of the Septuagint now differs con­ siderably from the Masoretic text after the prelude (Jos 5:13-15), showing verse after verse of several omissions and additions. A good example is v. 6:15: TurrnK iaon -iron rrfrio loaizH 'vyon ava CDtfs V2V T»n*n« n a o twin ova pn CTQDS J O D run DODOD which is rendered Kai Trj fiUEpa Trj E(35durj dvEOTrjoav 6p0pou Kai TTEpiriXSoaav Trjv TTOXIV E^riKts. However, it is very difficult to find any difference in the framework or new intentions in the miraculous story. In spite of the deviations, LXX tells the same story of the people marching around the city with the Holy Ark, and trumpets and falling walls. The only notable detail is that in v. 6:20 the Septuagint renders "lawn as m

,4

On Joshua in Josephus, see Delling 1970, 139-140; Feldman 1998a, 443-460.

250

P. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

ocxATn yyeov, and does not distinguish between the instrument mentioned in the previous verses. Otherwise, the deviations only reveal that the translators had a Hebrew original that was different from ours. LXX shows some smaller deviations from the Hebrew text of Jos 10:8-14. In v. 10:8 the Hebrew text has "pasn, but LXX EVCOTTIOV UUCOV. In v. 10:10 ODm is rendered a e^eoTrjoev and in 10:11 is translated nVna wn* \(0ous x Aa£ris. In v. 10:12 LXX adds fjViKa auvsTpivpev a u x o u s ev ra(3acov Kai auvsTpi'Prioav OTTO TTpoacoirou uicov l o panA, but in v. 10:13 omits "lern izo'bv rains K'm^n. In v. 10:13 the subject of the re­ venge is changed: The Hebrew text has ^a, but LXX o 0e6s. Most of the details only attest that the Hebrew original the translators used was different from the one we have. The only important difference is the variant na / 6 0e6s in v. 10:13 introducing a new agent of the deed.

It is not unique in Josephus that the role of man is smaller and of God greater than in the biblical original, but the bias is very clear in the miracle stories concerning Joshua. God's speech (Jos 3:7-8) is left out, and with it also the thought of legitimisation by miracles. The crossing of the Jor­ dan is retold, but the flow of the river is not stopped, only minimised. Given that it is still a miracle, the text is rather reserved: 106

107

"Now since the army was afraid to cross the river, which had a strong current and could not be crossed by bridges .... God promised to render the stream passable for them by diminishing its volume" (Ant. 5,16). "When the priests, who were the first to enter, found the river fordable — the depth having diminished and the shingle, which the current was neither full nor rapid enough to force from under their feet, lying as a solid floor — all thereupon confidently traversed the stream, perceiving it to be even as God has foretold that he would make it. But the priests stood still in the midst until the multitude had crossed and reached the firm ground. Then, when all had crossed, the priests emerged, leaving the stream free to re­ sume its accustomed course. And the river, so soon as the Hebrews had quitted it, swelled and recorded its natural magnitude" (Ant. 5,17-19). "And Joshua, with the stones which each of the tribal leader had, by the prophet's or­ ders, taken up from the river-bed, erected that alter that was to serve as a token of the stoppage of the stream, and sacrificed there to God" (Ant. 5,20).

Also, the miraculous conquest of Jericho is told,

108

but very briefly:

"For six days this was repeated, and on the seventh Joshua, having assembled the troops and all the people, announced to them the good news of the impending capture of the city to wit that on that day God would deliver it to them and that, spontaneously and without effort on their part, the walls would collapse" (Ant. 5,24).

1 0 6 « j j y j J U b g i to exalt you in the eyes of all Israel, so they may know that I am with you as I was with Moses", Jos 3:7. This passage has always been an example of Josephus' alleged intention to rational­ ise a biblical story. Thackeray and Marcus (1934, 168-169) comment on it briefly: "Josephus more suo, lessens the supernatural character of the miracle." On the crossing of the Jordan, see Feldman 1998a, 455. Josephus combines the conquest with the Passover (Ant. 5,22, see Thackeray - Mar­ cus 1934, 172-173). 0(

107

108

a

w

e

n

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

251

"And when they had compassed it seven times and had halted for a while, the wall fell down, without either engine or force of any other kind having been applied to it by the Hebrews" (Ant 5,27).

Nor is the battle at Gibeon an exception. The battle is described quite ex­ tensively (Ant. 5,58-61), but not the miracles, which are rendered very briefly: "Joshua, with his whole army, sped to their assistance and, marching all day and night, at early dawn fell upon the foe, routed them and followed in pursuit down to the slopes of the region called Bethora. There too he was given to know of God's co-operation, mani­ fested by thunder-claps, the discharge of thunderbolts and the descent of hail of more than ordinary magnitude" (Ant 5,60-61). "That the length of the day was increased on that occasion and surpassed the customary measure is attested by Scriptures that laid up in the temple" (Ant. 5,61).

Joshua's prayer is omitted and if the reader does not know the original, he attributes the miracle to God and not to Joshua, who is no longer the MNP described in the biblical Joshua. However, Josephus' intention was hardly to increase Joshua's role in the miracles, and a better explanation must be found. All the stories quoted are still miracles, but Josephus tells them very briefly and does not at all emphasize the miraculous. It is thus obvious that Josephus has heavily abridged both the biblical stories of Joshua and espe­ cially his miracles. Joshua was not Josephus' favourite figure, and al­ though he retells all the biblical miracles, he writes very briefly and with­ out any bias to underline Joshua's importance. Feldman considers that Josephus was careful not to arouse ridicule among his cultivated audi­ ence. But why does he tell almost all the miracles made by Moses with­ out any rationalisation, yet tones down the miracles made by Joshua? Joshua is Moses' S i d S o x o s . . . ETTI . . . TCCTS Trpoc|>r|Teiais (Ant. 4,165), which seems to be an echo of Ben Sira calling Joshua 5 i d 5 o x o s Mcouorj ev TTpo^rjTsiais. Nevertheless, he is treated with reservation. The answer is not found in the production of Josephus but by comparing the different depictions of Joshua. Josephus perhaps did not like Joshua and his mira­ cles, but other Jewish writers did, and the tradition was problematic to Josephus. As noted, Ben Sira revealed a notable interest in Joshua and especially in his miracles. As he enthusiastically put it, Joshua was the great hero awak109

110

109

According to Feldman (1998a, 445) Josephus has diminished Joshua's harshness, because utmost cruelty was one of the charges against the Jews. This is perhaps true in some cases, but not, for example, in Jos 11:11 / Ant. 5,67, and it is by no means a consis­ tent bias. Delling (1970, 139-140) sees here a rationalisation, as also Feldman 1998a, 455. 110

252

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

ening fear among his enemies (nnn *na, Sir 46:6) and hope among his people with his militant miracles. Ben Sira's work is not the only Jewish work in which Joshua and his miracles are praised. Jub. 1:7-15 also describes the situation before the conquest of the Holy Land and Berger rightly sees that the writer considered the situation analogous to his own. Liber antiquitatum biblicarum was written by an anonymous writer in the same decades as Antiquitates, and it gives a very militant picture of Joshua. That is not all, but we now have some fragments of a work or works be­ longing to writings concerning Joshua. The fragmentary Apocryphon of Joshua (4Q378-4Q379), a text written in the late second or early first century BC and perhaps outside the commu­ nity of Qumran, contains a version of the crossing of the Jordan. Unfor­ tunately the lines in 4Q379,4-13 cannot be read any more. Talmon has now published a fragment from the same or a similar text, and it is strik­ ing that the text was found precisely in Masada. According to Talmon it attests that the last Jewish rebels expected a repetition of the conquest. Also, Sib. Or. 5:256-259, the work apparently written in Egypt between 70-115 A D , tells that a man is coming, "the best of the Hebrews, who will one day cause the sun to stand, speaking with fair speech and holy lips." There is no agreement among the scholars as to whether these words are entirely a Christian interpolation or not. If they are not, they are clear evidence for the thought about an eschatological sign combined with the ancient miracle of Joshua. We can conclude that such expectations were certainly alive in Qumran as well as in Masada, possibly also in Egypt, where Jonathan was able to collect the crowd in the desert after the fall of Jerusalem. Mishna and Tosefta deal very rarely with miracles made by people who lived after biblical times. Moreover, this tradition was also generally re­ served regarding miracles made by biblical heroes. The mighty deeds of a man were not a favourite theme of the early rabbis. Elijah's or Elisha's miracles first gain importance in the later stage of the tradition. However, 111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

111

See above p. 26-30. Berger 1981,282. See above p. 203-206. N e w s o m 1996, 36-37. S e e N e w s o m 1996,61-66. The text in Talmon 1996, 128-139. Talmon 1996, 137-139. On the contacts between Qumran and the sicarii, see also Hengel 1989b, 401-402. Collins 2000,142-143. See Merkel 1998, 1126 and Schreiber 2000, 266-267. Seep, above p. 158. 112

113

114

115

116

1 1 7

118

119

120

253

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

there are some important exceptions. The miracles of Moses were some­ times retold without any reservation, and although Mishna does not refer to the miracles of Joshua, Tosefta contains an enthusiastic presentation of the crossing of the Jordan: The flow of the river was not really reduced, but the water stopped by God rose so high that the enemies of the people lost their courage (t. Sot. 3). The stones carried by the elders of the tribes weighed 40 seahs (about 400 kg) each. After the people had crossed the Jordan, the Holy Ark carried itself and the people carrying it over the river it. Sot. 8:6). It is an interesting feature of the story that the hornets looked at the events from a distance, and although they did not follow the people they spat poison after them. According to Becker the few miracles told by the early rabbis are the result of a well considered selection: They be­ long to the glorious past shaping the identity of the nation. Joshua be­ longed to this "identitatsstiftende Vergangenheit". The tradition traced above highlights Josephus' own stories about the men who wanted to repeat the miracles made by Joshua. Theudas, men­ tioned also in Acts 5:36, was the first of them: 122

123

124

"During the period when Fadus was procurator of Judaea, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded the majority of the masses to take up their possessions and to follow him to the Jordan River. He stated that he was a prophet and that at his command the river would be parted and would provide them an easy passage. With this talk he de­ ceived many. Fadus, however, did not permit them to reap the fruit of their folly, but sent against them a squadron of cavalry. These fell upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took many prisoners. Theudas himself was captured, whereupon they cut off his head and brought it to Jerusalem" (Ant. 20,98).

An Egyptian Jew

125

also combined the miracles with revolt:

"For he asserted that he wished to demonstrate from there that at his command Jerusa­ lem's walls would fall down, through which he promised to provide them an entrance into the city. When Felix heard of this he ordered his soldier to take up their arms. Set­ ting out from Jerusalem with a large force of cavalry and infantry, he fell upon the Egyp­ tian and his followers, slaying four hundred of them and taking two hundred prisoners" (Ant. 20,170-171).

121

Becker 2002, 271-289. On the hornets (cf. Exod 23:28; Deut 7:20; Jos 24:12), see Bietenhard 1986, 190191. Philo also points to them; see QE 2, 24. Becker 2002, 211. On Theudas, see Horsley and Hanson 1985, 164-167; Pesch 1986,1,218-219; Hemer 1989, 162-163.224-225; Hengel 1989b, 229-230; Gray 1993, 114-116; Schwemer 1995, 277; Lichtenberger 1998, 18; Jervell 1998, 210; Gabba 1999, 143; Schreiber 2000, 293294. On the Egyptian, see Horsley and Hanson 1985, 167-170; Pesch 1986,2,231-232; Hengel 1989b, 231-232; Gray 1993, 116-118; Kollmann 1996, 145-146; Lichtenberger 1998, 19; Gabba 1999, 145; Schreiber 2000, 291-292. 122

123

124

125

P. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

254

It is obvious that these men really wanted to legitimate their political mis­ sion with a miracle similar to Joshua's in the Scriptures. It is unnecessary to quarrel about whether they wanted to be Moses redivivus or Josua redivivus, because the traditions about several biblical miracle-workers had grown together. Nevertheless, according to Josephus himself, they wanted to repeat the biblical miracles and thus legitimate themselves as leaders of Israel. Joshua belonged to the glorious past of the people and he was always present. 126

The political Joshua is thus well attested in early Jewish tradition. A study of the ancient texts often leads one to ask whether an idea or a tradition was strong enough to influence a writer or not. It does not matter whether or not these men wanted to imitate the biblical Joshua and to repeat his miracles. It is enough to see that Josephus himself claims it and that he tells about the expectations that Jordan would part before Theudas and that the walls would fall before the Egyptian. We undoubtedly have here the key to understanding Josephus' depiction of Joshua. There is no reason to believe that Josephus, out of respect for his culti­ vated audience, diminished Joshua's miracles, since he also included mira­ cles made by Moses and other biblical figures. He had other reasons not to glorify the militant and miracle-working Joshua. A bias generally assumed is that he tried to distinguish between religion and revolt. In some circles the bias was the opposite, as seen above: to repeat the miracles of the an­ cient heroes, which once had manifested that they were sent by God the Almighty. Josephus' desire to separate religion from rebellion seems to be the reason why Josephus mentions Joshua's miracles only briefly. He still retells the miracles, however, and says that Joshua was S i d S o x o s Mcouarj ev Trpo(|>r)Teiais. He has by no means consistently removed everything miraculous, but it is understandable that his passages on Joshua do not show the enthusiasm seen in Ben Sira, and especially in L.A.B. and the fragmentary texts quoted above. 127

126

Barnett (1981, 681) sees in Theudas Moses and possibly also Joshua; Lichtenberger (1998, 18) mentions both; Horsley and Hanson (1985, 166) consider the influence of the biblical Elijah and Elisha and so does Aune (1983, 127). The Egyptian is more like Joshua (Hengel 1989b, 231; Horsley and Hanson 1985, 169), but because he came from the desert it is unnecessary to exclude Moses, especially when Deut 18:18 led people to expect "a prophet like Moses". See above p. 230-231. 127

255

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

d. Samson Josephus is one of the few early Jewish writers who has left us a passage dealing with the miracles of Samson. Although there are not many of these writers, we have reason to believe that his memory was preserved in a strong tradition. This makes Josephus' depiction very interesting. He has written on Samson extensively. In his text, the space given to Sam­ son is 88% or 89% of the space given to him in the two Septuagint ver­ sions, while Moses has 83% and Joshua only 4 7 % . It shows that Josephus found Samson very interesting. Yet, it should be noted that the short presentation of Samson in the Scripture is not expanded and his role in Josephus should not be exaggerated. 128

129

130

131

On a comparison between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint concerning the stories about Samson, see above p. 216.

The story about the miraculous birth is retold vividly and with new details (Ant. 5,276-285). Unlike LXX, where the enemies are called aAA6(|>uAoi (version A ) , Josephus calls them TTaXaiaxivoi (Ant. 5,278). Samson's father Manoah is now "among the most notable of the Danites" and his mother "pre-eminent among the women of her time" (Ant. 5,276). Manoah's love for his wife is underlined strongly (jjavicoSris UTT e p c o T O S , Ant. 5,277) and jealousy towards the "comely and tall youth" awak­ ens a quarrel before Manoah understands that the man is God's angel. The angel touches the meat with his rod as in L.A.B. (L.A.B. 42,9) and smoke carries him to heaven as a chariot (Ant. 5,284). The entire story is told very freely, not in comparison with, for example, Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiqui­ tatum biblicarum, which contains a parallel and dramatized version of the biblical original (L.A.B. 42), but with, for example, the stories about Elijah in Josephus. Josephus adds several new features to the meeting be­ tween the angel and Manoah (Ant. 5,280-284). Samson grows up, and his food as well as his hair prove him to be a prophet (5f]Aos ify Trpo<J>r|Teuacov, Ant. 5,287). Josephus apparently only replaces the word va£ipoc?ov in Judg 13:7. He kills the lion as in Judg 132

133

134

135

128

See above p. 216-218. On L.A.B., see above p. 216-218. On Samson in Josephus, see Feldman 1998b, 461-489. See Feldman 1998a, 80. 461. On the Philistines in the Septuagint, see Siegert 2000, 214. See above p. 216. An interesting and nonbiblical detail is that the angel touches the meat with his rod and a fire blazes out (Ant. 5,284). The same detail is in L.A.B. 42,9. Feldman (1998a, 483) gives a deeper interpretation to the word, noting that Josephus may be ascribing to him the four traditional characteristics of a prophet as stated in the Talmud, namely physical strength, wealth, wisdom and humility. 129

130

131

1 3 2

133

1 3 4

135

256

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

14,5-6 (Ant. 5,287), but does not give the honey to his parents but to the girl (Ant. 5,287). He takes the garments of the Ascalonites, although Josephus does not say that Samson killed them (Judg 14:19; Ant. 5,294), and slays many of the Philistines (Judg 15:8; Ant. 5,297). He bursts his bonds asunder and kills a thousand Philistines in the fight (Judg 15:14-15; Ant. 5,300). Persecuted by the Philistines in Gaza, he takes the gates and carries them to the mountain above Hebron (Judg 16:1-3; Ant. 5,304305). Delilah binds him with seven vine-shoots still flexible - not with thongs as in Judg 16:8 (LXX ETTTCX veupas u y p a s ) - and seven cords weaving his locks into a web (Ant. 5,309-312). Samson loses his power, but retrieves it, and kills as many as 3,000 when he dies. Dagon is not mentioned in the story (Judg 16:26-30; Ant. 5,316). Almost everything is thus retold very faithfully according to the biblical original. However, a detailed study makes it clear that something very im­ portant has been removed. A crucial feature of Samson's depiction in Judges is that the man was filled with the Spirit, which gave him the su­ perhuman power to make him invincible. In Josephus' redaction this fea­ ture is totally removed. According to Judg 13:25 "the Spirit of the Lord began to stir him", but Josephus has omitted the verse. Spirit is not men­ tioned when Samson kills the lion (Judg 14:6: "The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power so that he tore the lion apart", cf. Ant. 5,287). Judg 14:19 and 15:14 tell about the battles against the Philistines: "The Spirit of the Lord came upon him in power", but again Josephus has omit­ ted this, although he retells the fights (Ant. 5,300). Samson is as strong as Hercules, but he is by no means a leader filled with the Spirit. Actually, according to Levison, in retelling the Book of Judges, Josephus omits all references to the divine spirit. If something has been omitted, something new has been added. Josephus tells that Samson was filled with pride after his fantastic victory and forgot that he had done everything with God's help. That was the reason that God punished him with thirst, until he prayed to God, who gave him water from a rock (Ant. 5,301-303). The pride of the hero does not occur in Judges, but had to be added to it. Samson's life, however, displayed offered other traits, which could be morally criticised. Delilah binds the drunken man, who had forgotten the rules given to him (Ant. 5,309). In Josephus, Samson does not sleep in the house of a prostitute in Gaza but in "one of 137

138

139

136

The story is told very briefly, in a reserved rather than a proud way; cf. De Sampsone 27-28. Josephus has preserved Hebron and the distance of 40 miles. Cf. L.A.B. 43,2-3. Levison 1996, 253. MEQUOVTCC; some manuscripts read Ka0eu5ovTa and the Latin text has dormientem: They apparently follow the biblical original. 137

138

1 3 9

257

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

the inns" ( K a x a y c o y i o v , Ant. 5,304). Yet even after this revision Samson's morals could not serve as a model (Delilah is called £Taipi£ojj£vr|). He had learned to "transgress the laws of his forefathers and debase his own rule of life by the imitation of foreign usages" (Ant. 5,306). Josephus thus summarises his life, noting his virtues and vices: 14()

"And it is but right to admire the man for his valour, his strength, and the grandeur of his end, and also for the wrath which he cherished to the last against his enemies. That he let himself be ensnared by a woman must be imputed to human nature which succumbs to sins: but testimony is due to him for his surpassing excellence in all the rest" (Ant. 5,317). 141

In addition to Liber antiquitatum biblicarum and the rabbinic sources the closest parallel is the sermon De Sampsone mentioned and quoted above. The text, which is roughly contemporary with Josephus' works and written apparently in Egypt, deals vividly with Samson's virtues and vices. Some sentences reveal that the preacher was not the only one trying to explain why the man of God could fall, and consequently be taken by the Philistines. They found several reasons for Samson's destiny. Interest­ ingly enough, the problem is how the man, filled with the Spirit of the Lord as he was, could fall to sin ("Some of the wise men say ... but the others say", De Sampsone 23-24). The answer in the sermon is that Sam­ son had got one sort of spirit, but not another: He had got the spirit of physical power, but not the spirit of righteousness, and that was the reason why his soul lacked power and fell to sin (esp. De Sampsone 20 and 24). He sinned and lost his physical power. Satan, the invisible barber, could cut his hair and take his power (De Sampsone 1). The point of the sermon is that a man has to keep his task clearly in mind and fight against sin; oth­ erwise God abandons him, although not totally as he did not leave Samson but helped him. 142

143

It is now easy to understand the redaction of the stories. Two main lines should be noted. Josephus has consequently removed all passages telling about the Spirit of the Lord, and the reason is obvious. His depiction of Joshua implies that 140

Feldman sees here an attempt to protect Samson from criticism: Delilah is not TTopvri as in LXX, but a courtesan, ETCUpiCoue'vri; Feldman 1998a, 480. This is perhaps true, because in Josephus' version Rahab is not a prostitute (Ant. 5,7; see Thackeray and Marcus 1934, 165). Nevertheless, Samson is not exempted from moral criticism. Mishna and Tosefta do not mention Samson. In the later rabbinic tradition he was often strongly criticised (see Feldman 1998a, 467-472). See above p. 216. The content alone can help date the sermon. Siegert plausibly argues that it is writ­ ten in Alexandria between the first century BC and second century AD, presumably in the middle of this period; see Siegert 1992, 40-52. 141

142

143

258

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

the political side of the man was unpleasant to him, and the same is obvi­ ous in Samson's life. He might be a strong man and a hero, but the Spirit of the Lord plays no role in his life. Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiquitatum biblicarum shows how the thought about spirit-filled leadership was pre­ sent in early Judaism during these decades. Precisely that is the profile of Samson in Judges. In Josephus' view it was something to be consistently removed. The biblical Samson could be a dangerous model for people ea­ ger to fight against the enemies. The man at Vespasian's court had learned his lesson. The biblical heroes were not far enough removed from the life of Jews in Josephus' time. They could not be left untouched, but they had to be refigured. Their presence in early Judaism resulted in a quarrel about the heritage, and Josephus' reduction of the spirit-filled leadership is a part of this quarrel. Another side of the redaction is ethical teaching. As in De Sampsone and in the rabbinic texts, Samson is partly a negative exemplum. The sermon shows clearly that the miracle stories were used in ethical instruction. The best example of such a writer is Philo (although his works do not mention Samson) and the anonymous writer of De Sampsone, but also Josephus is aware of this tradition and is a part of it. A third bias proposed should be dealt with much more cautiously. Ac­ cording to Feldman, Josephus presents Samson as an Israelite Achill and Hercules. Achill's [sf\v\s is the subject of Ilias and Josephus has allegedly added opyrj to Samson's behaviour (Judg 15:15; Ant. 5,300). As tempt­ ing as it is to think that Samson, like Achill, allowed the wrath caused by a woman to determine his behaviour, there is not enough evidence in Josephus to support this view. Josephus does not himself compare Samson with Achill explicitly and the passages emphasized by Feldman are not sufficient evidence. Samson's wrath against the enemies is not rebuked but praised in the encomium (Ant. 5,317), but Achill's \IT\V\S leads him and his friend to a bitter end, and is strongly rebuked in Iliad 9. However, the ser­ mon mentioned above contains some new elements, presumably originat­ ing from the stories about Achill and Hercules: Samson is as invulnerable as Achill (De Sampsone 19), and his fight with the lion is retold with new details (De Sampsone 27-28), which can be traced to stories about Hercu­ les. The exceptional freedom Josephus takes when describing Samson's birth shows that he is well aware of the Jewish tradition, which mixed the Jewish and Greek elements. 144

145

146

147

See above chapter 6. See Feldman 1998a, 486-488. Feldman 1998b, 471-472. On the reputation of Hercules among the pagan philosophers, see Tiede 1972, 71100. On the similarities with the stories about Hercules, see Siegert 1992, 269-272. 145

146

147

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

259

e. Solomon 148

Solomon and his wisdom take a prominent position in Against Apion, in which Josephus refers more to Solomon and his wisdom than to any other biblical figure except Moses. In this work he appears as Josephus' star witness to disprove the view that the Jews had produced no wise men. Also, in Antiquitates Iudaicae Solomon is given notably more space than the LXX original would give reason to assume: 160% in comparison to 1 Kgs and 138% in comparison to 2 Kgs - 1 Chr. He has thus a clearly greater role than Moses (87%) and Joshua (47%), presented above. Josephus tells no miracles made by Solomon himself. However, he praises his wisdom and combines it with exorcisms: 149

150

151

152

"Now so great was the prudence and wisdom which God created Solomon that he sur­ passed the ancients, and even the Egyptians, who are said to excel all men in understand­ ing, were not only, when compared with him, a little inferior but proved to fall far short of the king in sagacity. He also surpassed and excelled in wisdom those who in his own time had a reputation for cleverness among the Hebrews, and whose names I shall not omit; they were Athanos and Haimanos and Chalkeos and Dardanos, sons of Hemaon. He also composed a thousand and five books of odes and songs, and three thousand books of parables and similitudes, for he spoke a parable about every kind of tree from the hyssop to the cedar, and in like manner about domesticated animals and all other kinds of living creatures and those that swim and those that fly. There was no form of nature with which he was not acquainted or which he passed over without examining, but he studied them all philosophically and revealed the most complete knowledge of their several properties. And God granted him knowledge of the art used against demons for the bene­ fit and healing of men. He also composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by demons drive them out, never to return" (Ant. 8,42-45). 153

The exorcisms, incantations and healings are thus combined expressis ver­ bis with Solomon. Josephus goes on telling about an exorcism made in the presence of Vespasian, his sons, tribunes and a number of other soldiers. A 148

Solomon in Josephus is studied by Feldman (1976, 69-98; 1998a, 570-628) and byDuling in a very good article (1985, 1-25). Feldman 1998a, 575. Feldman 1998a, 579. See Feldman 1998a, 80. Josephus retells very briefly the story about David helping Saul with his music: "When he came, Saul was delighted with him, made him his armour-bearer and held him in the highest honour, for his illness was charmed away spirits, whensoever they assailed him (Kai Ttpos Trjv CCTTO TCOV Saipovicov Tccpaxriv, OTTOTE CCUTG? TCXUTO: TrpoosA0oi, he had no other physician (ictTpos) than David, who, by singing his songs and playing upon the harp, restored Saul to himself (Ant. 6,168, cf. 1 Sam 16:14-23). The translation of Thackeray and Marcus (1934, 595), corrected by Duling (1985, 18-19): The text does not read "birds" but Trepi KTnvcov; however, Solomon also wrote (TTgpi) aepicov (Ant. 8,44). 149

1 5 0

151

152

153

260

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

certain Eleazar had thrown out a demon with the methods taught by Solo­ mon: "He put to the nose of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one of the roots prescribed by Solomon, and then, as the man smelled it, drew out the demon through his nostrils, and, when the man at once fell down, adjured the demon never to come back into him, speaking Solomon's name and reciting the incantations which he had com­ posed. Then wishing to convince the bystanders and prove to them that he had this power, Eleazar placed a cup or footbasin full of water a little way off and commanded the demon, as it went out of the man, to overturn it and make known to the spectators that he had left the man. And when this was done, the understanding and wisdom of Solomon were clearly revealed, on account of which we have been induced to speak of these things, in order that all men may know the greatness of his nature and how God favoured him, and that no one under the sun may be ignorant of the king's surpassing virtue of every kind" (Ant. 8,47-49).

Josephus is no longer the first writer known to us connecting Solomon di­ rectly with exorcisms. He follows a strong tradition, which can be traced to before and, especially, soon after him, and the new sources help us to trace the history of the tradition. Solomon was considered a great magician in later Jewish, Christian and Moslem magic. He does not have this reputation in the Old Testament, but 1 Kgs 4:29-34 opens a door for this reprojection. Moreover, 1 Kgs 5:9-14 underlines his encyclopaedic wisdom as typical for the later magicians, and his psalms (LXX coSccf) were appar­ ently sometimes regarded as magical ETTCOSOCI. In any case, Solomon soon had a new reputation, which is attested in the archaeological evi­ dence, as well as in Wis 7:16-21. The text, written perhaps in the first century BC and perhaps in Egypt, praises the wisdom of the king. Al­ though no miracles are mentioned, the meaning is clearly implied. Solo­ mon not only knows the "structure of the world and the activity of the ele­ ments" and "constellations of the stars", but also "the natures of animals and the tempers of wild animals, the powers of spirits and the thoughts of human beings, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots." This means that the main parts of the later picture are present. The later depictions combine great knowledge with encyclopaedic wisdom. Early on, noDn included several kinds of abilities. Moreover, the cosmological knowl­ edge gives him the power over the demons and, consequently, also over 154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

154

On H Q l l , s e e a b o v e p . 220. See esp. Preisendanz 1956; also Schurer 3.1. (1986), 377. See Duling 1992, 118. See Preisendanz 1956, Stemberger 1998, 727-729 and Alexander 1999, 1076-1078. Collins 2000a, 195. According to Georgi (1980, 426) the work was already written in the late second century and cannot be localised. See Georgi 1980, 426. See Muller 1980, 376-378. On demonology in early Israel, see Maier 1976a, 579-585; in Hellenistic Judaism, 155

1 5 6

157

158

159

1 6 0

161

261

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

various diseases. "Solomon" is the great expert of this kind of wisdom and the tradition also passes it on to his followers. The esoteric wisdom of the king is well attested, but 11Q11, cited above, shows that it led to exorcisms long before Josephus. Four texts, all roughly contemporary with him, attest the tradition. In L.A.B. 60 and 11Q11 Solo­ mon is undoubtedly alluded to as the coming master of demons. 2 Bar. 77:25 does not mention the demons, but it mentions wisdom, and the work lists several events in which God sent birds to help man. It also includes a story not occurring in the Old Testament: 162

"Also Solomon, in the time of his kingship, commanded a bird whither he wanted to send a letter and in whatever he was in need of and it obeyed him as he commanded i f (2 Bar. 77:25). 163

The Apocalypse of Adam demons:

reveals that Solomon could also make use of

"Solomon also sent his army of demons to seek the virgin" (Apoc. Adam 7:13).

164

All these texts clearly show the course of history: The wise man, the expert in nature, also became lord over the demons. This is also obvious in an­ other work, The Testament of Solomon, which is problematic in many ways. It may have been written in the early third century AD or even later, and it is not clear whether it was written by a Jew or a Christian. However, it contains older material, possibly from the first century A D . The text is explicit about Solomon's apotropaic technique. He rules the demons (T Sol. 1:1-13), even Beelzeboul (T. Sol. 3:1-5) with his ring. The text names the most important demons and describe their character, and gives the names of the angels controlling them, as well as the suitable apotropaic technique to be used against them. The text is late, but it contains much material compatible with Josephus' text. 165

It is easy to understand the side of Solomon portrayed by Josephus. In leg­ endary wisdom, Solomon does not compete with Greeks such as Socrates or Plato, but his wisdom surpasses "even the Egyptians." The words may not be a glimpse from Herodotus (2,121), but they reveal an important 166

Maier 1976b, 626-640; in the rabbinic writings, see Maier 1976c, 668-688. See above p. 219-220. The text from Nag Hammadi is difficult to date, but it may be from the first or sec­ ond century AD. It is not necessarily influenced by the New Testament and may contain older material (MacRae 1983, 708). Solomon is mentioned twice in conjunction with demons in the rest of the texts from Nag Hammadi {Orig. World 2,5 106-107; Gos. Truth 9,3 70). The manuscripts are writ­ ten in the early fourth century, but the works are older. Duling 1992, 117-119. Cf. Feldman 1998a, 584. 162

163

164

165

1 6 6

262

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

component in the history of religion. The Egyptian religion was ridiculed by the Greeks and Romans and, as other Jews, Josephus laughed with them. Now, however, Josephus does not speak about the worship of animals among the Egyptians, but about the wisdom he wants the Jews to compete with and excel in. It is the esoteric wisdom covering the knowl­ edge of herbs, as well as the power over demons. The Egyptians were ex­ perts in this kind of wisdom, as Josephus himself attests when telling that an Egyptian scribe prophesied Moses' birth. For certain reasons, and especially because of his universal wisdom praised in the Old Testament, Solomon became the hero through whom Mediterranean magic became part of the Hebrew heritage. A closer look at the passage on Solomon emphasizes the role of herbs and roots. The root mentioned in the exorcism performed by Eleazar was cer­ tainly Baaras, described accurately elsewhere in Josephus' production. Baaras was grown in hidden places, and picking it could be fatal, but if taken it was very effective. We have studied several Jewish texts showing a great interest in demonology. The Book of Jubilees closely links demonology with cosmology and the same bias is well known from Qumran. L.A.B. shows what an impor­ tant factor the war between the good and evil powers was. The depiction of Solomon and his wisdom undoubtedly shows that Josephus belongs to this tradition of the world of demons, apotropaic incantations and healings. In his writings medicine is not isolated from magic, but God is also the great healer. This view of Solomon and his wisdom is clearly the subject of pride for Josephus. It is thus hard to accept or even understand Feldman's view presented in his article in 1976 and mainly repeated in 1998, in which he notes that Josephus' main bias was to minimise the miraculous traits, both generally and in terms of Solomon: 167

168

169

170

171

172

173

1 7

"Quis nescit, Volusi Bithynice, qualia demens/ Aegyptos portenta colat? crocodila adorat /pars haec, ilia pavet saturam serpentibus ibin" Iuv. 15,1-2; see also 3-8. Weber (2000, 69) quotes several classical texts, namely Herodot. 2,46; Diod. 1,83-86; Strab. 16,2,35-39; Plut. Isis and Osiris 71; Lucian, Im. 11; Philostr. VA 6,19; Cic. nat. 1,36. Augustine (civ. 2,22) shows that the critique was commonplace in the ancient world. Josephus c. Ap. 1,225; 2,66. 81- 86.139. See above p. 233. Josephus describes Baaras extensively in B.J. 7,180-185 and tells in B.J. 2,136 that the Essenes used not only powerful roots but also stones. The roots and / or plants are also mentioned in Jub. 10:11-14 and 2 En. 7:1. Lange (1997, 348), unlike Alexander (1999, 347-348), rejects Josephus' testimony that herbal medicine was used in Qumran. See above p. 57. On Ben Sira, see above p. 20, on Jub. see p. 51; on Liv. Pro. see p. 180. Josephus had no problems using the help of physicians; see Vita 404. "In general Josephus attempts to tone down the miraculous and supernatural element of his narrative, since he apparently thought that such details might appear incredible to 168

1 6 9

1 7 0

171

172

173

263

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

"As in other portions of the Solomon pericope, Josephus avoids details that would seem incredible to the sophisticated reader here." 174

Feldman combines Solomon's universal wisdom in Josephus with the love of philosophy among the audience of the author. This is true if the word 'philosophy' points in a direction totally different from that of, for exam­ ple, in Philo's texts. Philo shows little interest in esoteric wisdom, but knows the tradition of classical Greek philosophy extremely well. Jose­ phus, on the contrary, as observed very clearly by Duling, makes Solo­ mon an expert in syncretistic wisdom and magical practices, and places Solomon among the best of the experts, even superior to the famous Egyp­ tians. Feldman overlooks the role of the roots and actually speaks very little about magic in Solomon's description. It is very problematic to claim, as Feldman does, that Josephus consequently tries to tone down the miraculous traits of his heroes, including Solomon, because he chooses to tell about an exorcism done by Solomon's followers. It would have been easy for Josephus to overlook all of Solomon's magical skills, because the Old Testament gives little or no evidence for that kind of interpretation, yet Josephus did not want to do this. The great encyclopaedic wisdom also included the power over demons, and magical practices. Josephus did not write for a sceptical audience. All levels of the Greek and Roman societies had a vivid interest in one type of magic and deeply hated another - how­ ever, it generally seems to have been very difficult to distinguish between 175

176

177

178

i

179

these two. One detail seems to be worth noting. The Old Testament tells that the king ended his life in idolatry (1 Kgs 11:4-10), and Josephus does not omit the Greek reader" (1976, 91). Feldman 1998a, 585. Feldman 1976, 87 Duling 1985, 18-23. Feldman sees in Solomon the traits of Oedipus as shown in Sophocles' two plays, Oedipus the King and Oedipus at Colonus (1998a, 579-586; 593-594). However, the evidence for this is scarce and very general. Feldman finds the details Josephus avoids in the later rabbinic tradition (1998, 585586). However, to say that Josephus has avoided some details one must prove that he knew them; Feldman does not date his sources. There is no evidence that Josephus has excluded here some part of the tradition. On the contrary, he has freely chosen to add an exorcism to the biblical presentation. Duling correctly notes the fact and supposes that the difficulty already existed in the first century BC (1985, 23-25). However, the magical love rite used by Theocritus in his second idyll (reworked in Vergil eel 8,64-109) attests that it was not impossible for a cultivated Greek poet to write about magic. It certainly influenced the Hellenized circles in Rome before the first century. The attitude was ambivalent: One type of magic is criminal, while another is interesting, and it was difficult to draw the line. On such views in Philo, see above p. 114. 174

175

176

177

178

179

264

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

this, the reason being that he perhaps only followed the Old Testament presentation, or that he rejected intermarriage (Ant. 8,211). However, The Testament of Solomon, which generally does not follow the Old Tes­ tament original at all, also tells that Solomon fell to idolatry and that the spirit of God departed from him. 180

"As a result I, wretched man that I am, carried out her advice and the glory of God com­ pletely departed from me: my spirit was darkened and I became a laughingstock to the idols and demons" (T Sol. 26).

Actually, the warning in the last chapter of the Testament is given as a rea­ son why "Solomon" wrote his book. Both Josephus and the Testament of Solomon have thus preserved the unfortunate demise of the king, and the reason is hardly of historical interest any longer. Does this perhaps reveal a broader tradition in early Judaism? Solomon is presented as a great man with universal wisdom and supreme power over demons. At the same time, every follower of his wisdom was warned of the danger of idolatry in­ volved in this kind of knowledge.

/ Elijah Also, Josephus' redaction of the biblical material relating to Elijah has recently been studied by Feldman, first in an article (1994) and then in his book, essentially repeating the view presented in the article. The main line here is also that Josephus has observed his audience and toned down all miraculous events, especially the violent fervour of the prophet. Thus the miracles of the prophet have been one of the main themes of the dis181

182

cussion. It is not possible to treat here the vast material on Elijah's miracles in LXX in as much detail as the shorter passages above, but every significant feature is observed. In 1 Kgs 17:1-6 the Hebrew text has zrun -iem on ?! -ipD3 iizm on ? in v. 17:6, but Septuagint only d'pTous* T O TTpcoi Kai Kpea T O SeiArjs. In 1 Kgs 17:7-16 the widow has only one child in the Hebrew text (v. 17:12 ^ i ) , but in the Septuagint several (Kai T O T S T B K V O I S Mou). In 1 Kgs 17:17-24 the Hebrew text has n o m ("stretched himself out on" in v. 17:21, but LXX has 6V6uarja6v, "breathed upon". In 1 Kgs 18:1-15 the Hebrew text has irra'n in v. 18:7, but LXX IOTTSUOEV. In v. 18:10 the Hebrew text has iT3e?m, but LXX eveirprjoev 1

1 8 0

1

Feldman (1998a, 570) notes that Josephus himself was descended from the Hasmonean kings, that the line of David was a rival to them and that David was identified as the ancestor of the anticipated militant messiah. This is perhaps one of the reasons why Josephus does not omit the criticism. On intermarriage in early Judaism, see Sanders 1994, 266. Feldman 1998b, 291-306. On Elijah in Josephus, see O. Betz 1987, 219-220; Feldman 1994, 61-86 and 1998b, 291-306. 181

1 8 2

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

265

("set fire"). In v. 18:12 LXX omits the words "[rcar *HR\. In 1 Kgs 18:16-45 Baal's name is sometimes removed 0?ion nrm, but T O U S Trpo^rJTas T T J S aioxuvrjS in v. 18:19 cf. 18:25), but, for example, not in 18:18 and 18:21. The unclear D'sron is translated 'lyvuais in v. 18:21. In v. 18:22 LXX repeats the prophets of Asherah. LXX adds in v. 18:24 B B\(XXT]0(XS and in 18:26 STTCCKOUCJOV fjucov. In verse 18:27 the Hebrew text is 1TB T> " p r n D T V? reroi, but the Greek cxSoAeoxia OUTCO e a n v Kai a p a prJTTOTe xpriMaTi'£ei a u T o s . LXX adds Kai eAdAnaev HAiou 6 ©eoPiTrjs T r p o s T O U S TTpo<j>TiTas TCOV TrpoaoxBiaMccTcov Aeycov MeTaoTriTe OTTO T O U V U V Kai 'eyco Troirjaco T O oAoKauTcopa' p o u in 18:29, and omits nmon m^m in v. 18:36. In v. 18:36 the Hebrew text has "["•"•im, but LXX Kai 5ia oe. Ahab's reaction is different in the two versions: ns-n, but Kai EKACUEV (18:45). In 1 Kgs 19:1-21 the formula of oath is markedly different in v. 19:2 :]W HDI D'rfrK ptDir-ra, but E'I o u e! HAiou Kai eyco le£a(3eA, TccSe iroirjaai p o i 6 0e6s Kai Ta'Se TTpooSeir]. A major alteration is that "jtfpo is replaced with T I S in v. 19:5, but mn ""|«'?D is translated ayyeAos Kupiou in v. 19:7: All in all, the result o f the altera­ tion is that the angel does not touch Elijah. LXX adds KOKST Kiipios in verse 19:12. mrr ? m»ax THIK is translated TCO K u p i c o TtavTOKpcfTopi in v. 19:14. The agent is changed in v. 19:18 (-rntram, but Kai KaTaAeivpeis). LXX omits n« 7i in v. 19:20. inrnen in v. 19:21 is translated eAeiToupyei. It does not seem t o be possible to trace any significant bias in Elijah's miracles in 1 Kings, and the stories with Elijah and Elisha together in 2 Kings (see below p. 272), are translated even more literally 183

,

1

,

l

Josephus has given Elijah a large role in his work. Feldman again com­ pares the text of Josephus to the one in LXX, the result being that Elijah is given 96% of the space LXX gives him, while Moses is given 83%, Joshua 47% and Elisha 72%. Elijah thus gets a prominent position among the miracle-working biblical heroes. As 1 Kgs 17:1-6 Josephus also tells how Elijah prophecies the drought, withdraws to the desert and is fed by ravens. The biblical original specifies the bread and meat, but Josephus writes only Tpoc|>r|V auTco KA0' fipepcxv KopaKes Trpoo6(|)6pov (Ant. 8,319). The widow gives him a room and bread, and miraculously gets food every day (1 Kgs 17:7-16, Ant. 8,320323). A new feature is Josephus' citation o f the historian Menander o f Ephesus, who mentions the drought (Ant. 8,324). The story o f the widow's son falling ill is told as in 1 Kgs 17:17-24 with small alterations: the mourning o f the widow is dramatized, and the death o f the son is not obvious at the beginning of the story (KaTaTreaovTOs e'is vdaov, cos Kai xrjv V|AJXI]V a ^ e T v a i Kai 5o£;ai VEKpov); however, it is clear later that the son is dead (Ant. 8,325-327). The story deviates from 184

185

186

187

183

184

185

186

On these changes generally in LXX, see Siegert 2000, 211-212. Feldman 1998a, 80-81. Noted as a rationalisation by Feldman 1998b, 298. Josephus interestingly has a singular T S K V C O , as in the Hebrew text, not the plural as

in LXX 187

TSKVOIS.

That the child "seemed" to be dead is noted as a rationalisation by Feldman; how­ ever, he seems to be selective in his argumentation, because he overlooks the words

266

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

the biblical original, because the prophet knows in advance that the son will live again (Ant. 8,326). The technique of resuscitation is not given in all details, but the subject of the story is obviously God (avs(3(coas). We might say that an MNP is thus interpreted as a PNP. Finally, Elijah meets Ahab. Josephus underlines that the prophet is not at all afraid of the king's anger (b 5' ou5ev UTroBcoTreuaas C C U T O V , Ant. 8,335). This is faithful to the biblical original, but the courage of a phi­ losopher facing tyrants was also commonplace in the Graeco-Roman tradi­ tion. Elijah calls the prophets of foreign gods (not of Baal as in the original, although in Ant. 8,318) to Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18:1-19; Ant. 8,328-337). The events follow the biblical original faithfully. However, the crowd steps near to the altar to make sure that he does not secretly set the wood on fire, the jars are filled only once and not three times, and it is not Elijah but the crowd who kills the prophets (1 Kgs 18:16-45; Ant. 8,338-346). Josephus adds that the people understood that there was only one God and that the "others were mere names invented by unworthy and senseless opinion" (Ant. 8,343). Baal's name is consistently removed and replaced, for example, with £ e V I K O I 0eo( in Ant. 8,335; 338. The story is thus stripped of the ancient controversy between Baal and the Lord, updated for Josephus' own time and translated into a language understandable to everybody. It is not Jose­ phus' own innovation; he follows the Septuagint. The story is thus not only contemporized but also adapted. Another interesting point is that in Jose­ phus' version Elijah tells the people to kill the prophets, although he does not kill them himself (1 Kgs 18:40; Ant. 8,343). Josephus thus obviously sees no problem in punishing the Israelites serving foreign gods. He of­ fers an interesting parallel, when Jehu also kills Baal's prophets: In an ex­ tra-biblical addition all non-Israelites are removed from the crowd before Jehu reveals his real intention and kills the crowd (Ant. 9,136). Josephus 188

189

190

191

192

193

rrjv vpuxrjv EioTTS|jv|/ai TTCXAIV TOO Trai5i Kai trapaoxeTv auxco T O V P i d v iraoav TrpoaSoKiav ave(3icGae. The words of Obedias are worth noting: 1 Kgs 18:12 speaks about the Spirit of the Lord carrying Elijah away, but Josephus has replaced this with theophany: prj T O U 0eou <|)av8VTOs OUTGO TTCXAIV E ' I S a'AAov aTTeASrj TOTTOV. The Spirit of the Lord, consistently removed in the stories about Samson, is removed again. However, Josephus tells that Elijah was I'vOeos running beside the king's chariot (Ant. 9,346; cf. 1 Kgs 18:46). See Koskenniemi 1991, 33-34. Noted as a rationalisation by Feldman 1998b, 303, as also the detail that the water went up in steam and was not licked up by the fire (1998b, 298). In Ant. 8,350, however, Elijah says, as in the original, that he had killed the proph­ ets. Josephus has preserved BariA elsewhere, as in the controversy between Baal's prophets and Jehu (Ant. 9,135-139). Cf. Philo, QE 2,5 containing a similar regulation based on Exod 22:28. eSeTTo

...Trapa 188

189

190

191

192

193

TH

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

267

thus does not avoid violence when the Israelites fall into idolatry, but he excludes the pagans. This fits his view, presented in an extra-biblical addi­ tion to the summary of the Mosaic code (Ant 4,207): "Let none blaspheme the gods which other cities reveres, nor rob foreign temples." Goldenberger plausibly points to Exod 22:27 LXX, where WTtm is rendered 8eous. On the other hand, Josephus makes Zimri a programmatic Jewish polytheist punished by Phinehas (Ant 4,145-155). Zimri confesses his belief: 194

"I sacrifice to gods to whom I hold sacrifice to be due, deeming it right to get at the truth for myself from many persons, and not to live as under a tyranny, hanging all my hopes for my whole life upon one. And woe be to any man who declares himself to have more mastery over my actions than my own will!" (Ant. 4,149).

The man is punished by Phinehas (Ant 4,152-155; cf. Num 25). The redac­ tion of the miracle-story shows no signs that Josephus found the biblical violence offensive. Judaism was to him a national religion, and the meas­ ure for Jews was other than the measure for Gentiles. The escape of the prophet and his meeting with God at Sinai / Horeb are told as in 1 Kgs 19 (Ant 8,347-352), but some alterations must be noted. Similarly to L X X Josephus also omits the angel (SieyEipavros 5' auTov xtvos a v a a x a s eupiaKet TrapaKeiuevrjv C C U T C O xpo<J>r|v Kai ii5cop, Ant 8,349). Moreover, he does not tell that Elijah could travel forty days and forty nights strengthened by that food. Elijah does not tell God that he is the only one left of Israel but that he was being sought by the wife of the king. God's manifestation is reduced to a very short presentation. 195

196

"The next day, therefore, he came out of the cave and heard the earth rumble and saw a brilliant fiery light. And, when all became quiet, a divine voice exhorted him not to be alarmed by what was happening, for none of his enemies should have him in their power ..." (Ant. 8,352).

An interesting detail is that Hazael and Jehu are said to kill people, as in 1 Kgs 19:17, but Elisha is not, as Elijah does not in his own person kill the prophets. Elisha is sought to be Elijah's follower and he prophecies, unlike in 1 Kgs 19:19-21, soon after his call, and Josephus has omitted that he sacrificed the oxen (Ant 8,353-354). Marcus and recently Feldman consider the redaction of the theophany a rationalisation of the story. This is hardly true. In common with several Jewish writers, Josephus apparently was only reluctant to describe the theophany in detail. God's theophany was reduced to a divine voice in Ar197

194

Goldenberger 1997, 386. LXX: Kai i6ou T I S rjvpaxo airrou; in 1 Kgs 19:7 the angel is mentioned: Kai EiTETpsvpsv 6 ayyeAos Kupi'ou SK SeuTepou. Noted as a rationalisation by Feldman 1998b, 299. Marcus 1934, 404; Feldman 1998b, 299. 195

196

197

268

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

tapanus and Philo is also very reserved. Josephus' version of the theophany at the burning bush is less reserved than Artapanus' and Philo's, but like them, he does not usually put God in dialogue with men. 198

Again following the biblical original (1 Kgs 21:19), Josephus lets Elijah prophecy Ahab's death after Naboth's murder and tells about Ahab's re­ pentance and about the delay of the punishment (Ant. 8,360-362). Elijah also prophesies the death of Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1:1-8; Ant 9,20-21). When the king sends fifty men to catch him he prays twice for a fire from heaven to show whether he is a true prophet or not. When the third officer tries to persuade him to save himself and his men, Elijah follows him to the king and prophecies his death again (2 Kgs 1:5-2:17; Ant 9,22-26). The account is faithful to the biblical original with the exception that God's angel is omitted twice (2 Kgs 1:3; 15), which is not unusual in Josephus, while the first two officers behave in a more unfriendly way and the third in a more friendly way than in the original. 199

A major alteration is that Elijah's ascension (2 Kgs 2:1-18) is retold very briefly: "Now about that time Elijah disappeared from among men (e£ av8pconcov f|<|>o:vio0r]), and to this day no one knows his end. He left behind him a disciple Elisha, as we have related. However, concerning Elijah and Enoch, who lived before the Flood, it is written in the sacred books that they became invisible (yeydvaotv ac^aveTs), and no one knows of their death" (Ant. 9,28).

The heavily redacted story about Elijah's end seems to be more similar to some of the pagan stories. Feldman plausibly points to the similar disap­ pearances of Aeneas (Dion. Hal. ant. 1,64) and Romulus (Ovid, metam. 14,805-885; fast. 2,481-509; Liv. 1,16), but the parallels with Sopho­ cles' Oedipus at Colonus are far-fetched. Josephus' version also resembles the story about Enoch, which Josephus himself refers to. However, the closest parallel is, of course, the death of Moses in Josephus. Moses also disappears and the problems are similar to Elijah's story. According to Feldman the story about Elijah's end is rationalised, and Josephus avoids setting Elijah over Moses, "who definitely did die, accord­ ing to both the biblical text (Deut 34:5) and Josephus himself (Ant 4,326). However, rationalisation is apparently not the reason for the 200

2

1

202

198

On Artapanus, see above p. 94-96, on Philo p. 112, and on the version in Josephus, see p. 234-235. See Marcus 1937, 13. Feldman 1998b, 301-302. See above p. 245-246. Feldman 1998b, 301. 199

2 0 0

201

2 0 2

269

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

heavy redaction of the story, the reason being Elijah's political fervour: The theme of the returning prophet was not a pleasant one for Josephus. Moreover, in Josephus, Moses and Elijah disappear in a similar way. 203

As 2 Chr 21, Josephus tells that Elijah sent a letter to Jehoram prophesying his punishment (Ant 9,99). Josephus follows the history of the people and not the life of Elijah. Consequently, he tells the story much later, and some manuscripts add the explanation e n y a p STTI yfjs i^v. A detailed study of the miracles thus shows that Josephus retells all the biblical miracle stories about Elijah, and that only the ascension of the prophet is rendered markedly shorter than in 2 Kgs 2. Josephus follows mainly the order of 1-2 Kings, but sometimes he improves on the flu­ ency or complements his presentation with 2 Chr. None of the miracles has thus been completely excluded, but most of them have been changed in some way. The most obvious alteration is clearly the heavy abridgement of the as­ cension of the prophet. Josephus does not complete the biblical account with the idea of Elia redivivus, found in Mai 4:22-24 and certainly known to him. It is obvious that the coming Elijah was not Josephus' favourite figure, especially if he was identified with Phinehas. His reasons are clear: these traits of Elijah were politically relevant and could be extremely dangerous. Josephus relates that Theudas wanted to part the Jordan and so be legitimated as the leader of Israel. Others were willing to repeat other biblical miracles to legitimate their revolt against the Romans. After the catastrophe Josephus had reason to avoid the story of Elisha striking the Jordan with his mantle and being legitimated as God's prophet. The com­ bination of religion and politics had led to the revolt, and Josephus was eager to separate the two. The fact that this is the only story about Elijah so heavily revised only underlines Josephus' bias. Nevertheless, Josephus is surprisingly faithful to the biblical original describing Elijah and his work. The view that Josephus has totally stripped his Elijah of political zealousness is common, but should be reconsid204

205

206

207

208

2 0 3

2 0 4

See above p. 35 1 Kgs 20 is understandably first paraphrased after 1 Kgs 21, as in LXX (Ant 8,355-

392). 2 0 5

In Josephus, the false prophet Zedekiah quotes Elijah's words written in 2 Kgs 21:19, which a nonbiblical detail in Ant. 8,408. As, for example, in 2 Chr 17 / Ant. 8,393-397 and 2 Chr 19 / Ant 9,1-17. The identification occurs in L.A.B., written in the same decades as the Antiquitates. Feldman supposes that Josephus was aware of it (1994, 85). See above p. 251-254. 2 0 6

2 0 7

2 0 8

270

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

ered. He still is the man who kills the false prophets and who calls on the fire to kill 50 soldiers twice. Although it is clear that Josephus does not share the unlimited delight in Elijah's zealousness shown in Sir, some of Elijah's fervour is still present. There are some definite Hellenizations in the stories about Elijah. It is important to Josephus to quote Menander on the rainless time (Ant. 8,324). Josephus had studied the Greek historians well. In Against Apion he de­ fends his people against several accusations. According to one of them, the Jews were never mentioned in ancient Greek literature. Josephus tries to find reasons for the scarce evidence and is always happy when he can see Jews mentioned in the literature. Baal's name is no longer needed to illustrate the controversy between the worshippers of Israel's God and of foreign gods. Following the example of the Septuagint, this polemic is up­ dated to correspond more to the way of life in Josephus' own time. Also, Elijah's end is similar to some Graeco-Roman stories. But what can be given as an argument for the view that Josephus has clearly toned down the miraculous traits in the life of the prophet? Feldman cites here the words of Horace (credat Iudaeus Apella, sat. 1,5,97-103). In retelling Elijah's miraculous feeding, Josephus leaves aside several traits, which according to Feldman would astonish a sceptical pagan. He omits God's commands to the birds, mentions the food brought by the ravens but does not specify exactly what they brought, namely bread and meat. The fire of the Lord does not lick up the water; the water goes up as steam and the ground becomes completely dry (Ant. 8,342). In the biblical version, Elijah hears the sound of the rushing rain, but the Josephan Elijah says that the rain will come in a little while (2 Kgs 18:41-45; Ant. 8,343). Josephus omits the angel who gives him the food that helped him to go forty days and forty nights (19:8; Ant. 8,349). The angel is omitted also in Ant. 9,20, and the 1 Kgs theophany in 1 Kgs 19 is strongly reduced. Also, Elijah's end is allegedly rationalised. 210

211

212

213

214

2 0 9

According to O. Betz 1987, 219-220, Josephus tones down Elijah's political fervour, and renders him "free from any zealot features" (1987, 219). According to Feldman (1998b, 302-303) "the key characteristic of Josephus' remolding of the biblical portrait of Elijah is his elimination of its Zealot features." Josephus' intention to separate be­ tween religion and politics is clear, but should here not be exaggerated: The only argu­ ments Feldman can present are that Josephus has twice omitted the biblical mentions of his zealotry (1 Kgs 19:10; 14) and that the Israelites, and not Elijah, killed the prophets (1 Kgs 18:40; Ant. 8,343). See p. 31-37. See, for example, c. ^4/7. 1,168-171. Feldman 1994, 74. Feldman 1998b, 298-302. Feldman supposes that Josephus has already observed the Christian interest in Elijah; this, however, is questionable (1994, 79-80). 2 1 0

2 1 1

2 1 2

2 1 3

2 1 4

9. Toning Down the Miracles?

Josephus

271

Most of Feldman's arguments are weak and some far-fetched. No Jewish writer retelling the biblical stories repeated all details. As seen above, the details are more naturally explained in alternative ways. There are minor disagreements with the biblical original, but they should be seen in the light of the fact that Josephus retells almost all of Elijah's miracles and by far more faithfully than most of the Jews retelling the biblical stories. It seems that Feldman clearly exaggerates Josephus' intention to tone down the miraculous, and it is easy to agree with Roncace's criticism of other passages of Feldman's book. According to Roncace, Feldman's general view on Josephus' work leads him too strongly, and the evidence to the contrary is not observed. Josephus may give a more natural explanation or remove some miraculous elements from the story, but generally he summa­ rises Elijah's life surprisingly faithfully. He includes all the stories and makes only minor alterations, which do not warrant Feldman's critical in­ terpretation. 215

g. Elisha The great deeds of Elisha are presented by Josephus in his ninth book of Antiquitates Iudaicae in a very interesting way. We happen to have two recent and parallel studies on this passage. In addition to Feldman, Chris­ topher Begg (1996) has also investigated it. These parallel studies offer a possibility for comparing their respective results. 216

217

The translation of 2 K g s in LXX is, as in the last stories of Elijah, very literal and con­ tains only a few interesting details. In v. 3:13 LXX omits -JDK n r a In v. 3:15 the Hebrew text has the plural i n p , but the Greek the singular Ad(3E. In v. 3:18 bp: is rendered with Kouc|>r|. In v. 3:19 LXX omits T i m o T J T ^ D I . In v. 4:9 amp O T f r u art* is very literally translated d'v8pcoTTOs T O U 0EOG a y i o s . In v. 4:20 the Hebrew text has s e n , but the Greek Kai 6Koiuri8n. Sometimes, as in 4:25 and 4:27, the Hebrew has trrr^n BPK, but LXX EAioaie. In v. 4:35 the Hebrew text has TTITV rbss " i n n , but LXX ouvEKauvpEV ETT! T O naiSaptov. LXX adds Gehazi in v. 4:41. In v. 4:42 the Hebrew text has rrcr'TO • J M D , but the Greek 'EK BaiSaptoa. In v. 4:42 the Hebrew text has lftpsn baiD\ but the Greek TTaAd8as. An interesting change is in v. 5:11, where the translator seems to have up­ a dated the healing technique: D i p o n " ^ I T «pm, but Kai ETn0rjoEi Trjv x ^ P airrou eiri T O V T O T T O V . LXX adds in v. 5:17 Kai ou \io\ ocooets E K T % yfjs nuppds. In v. 218

2 1 5

See above p. 10. Begg's article in Henoch ("Elisha's Great Deeds according to Josephus", 1996, 69109) is an extensive study on the theme. Feldman deals with Elisha in 1998, 334-351. Moreover, see O. Betz 1987, 221. The passages disputed in the present work are 1 Kgs 19; 2 Kgs 2:19-22; 2:23-25; 3:1-27; 4:1-7; 4:8-37; 4:38-41; 4:42-44; 5:1-27; 6:1-7; 6:8-23; 8:1-6, 8:7-15, 9:1-13; 13:14-19; 13:20-21. Noted by Eve, 2002, 179. 2 1 6

2 1 7

2 1 8

272

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

5:19 p t r r r o D is rendered e'is 5ef3pcx8a T T J S y % . LXX omits • n'?Krn0 K in 5:20. In v. 6:8 the Hebrew text has but LXX EAMCOVI. In 6:11 xbm is rendered TTpo5i5coo(v MS. In v. 6:18 nmaoa ("dazzling light") is translated aopaoioc. LXX omits wo+m-'yn in v. 6:21 and Dserp in 6:31. In v. 6:30 the Hebrew text is liv, but the Greek e'lOTrJKei, and the translator apparently had mv in his original, er^to ("shield-bearer") is translated TpioTCXTrjs in v. 7:2. LXX adds T O U PaaiAs'cos in v. 7:14. In v. 7:17 our Hebrew text has f^nn, but the Greek T O V cxyysAov, attesting that the translator had -[vfyan in his origi­ nal. nruQ in v. 8:8 is rendered pcxvaa. OUTGO in v. 8:10 attests that the original had t> and not a ?. LXX omits *rwn, but adds o TEOVTIKCOS in v. 8:13. -QDQrr is rendered T O M<*XMa in v. 8:15. LXX omits the second -iwn in 9:4. nrrom in v. 9:7 is rendered Kai E £ O A E S p E U O E i s , and the translator thus had n r r D m in his original. LXX adds Kai 'EK T O U X p o s 6Aou T O U O'IKOU A x a a p in v. 9:8 and changes the agent ( T r o n / E £ O A E 0 P E U O E I S ) . irrarrwi is rendered TT\V aSoAEOXiav in v. 9:11 and ma is translated as y a p E p in v. 9:13. The numerous words only borrowed from the Hebrew (EAMCOVI, p a v a a , paXMa, yapEp) reveal the slavishly literal character of the translation. The only passage relevant for the present theme is the updated technique of healing in v. 5:11. ,

,

1

£l

Feldman notes that Josephus devotes notably little space to Elisha. The ratio compared with the Septuagint is only 72%, which means that the sto­ ries about Elisha have been strongly reduced. His calling is retold (1 Kgs 19:19-21; Ant. 8,353-354), but, as mentioned above, Elijah's ascen­ sion and the accompanying legitimisation of Elisha are described only very briefly. While this is Elijah's only miracle omitted, Elisha is treated dif­ ferently. Josephus omits in Antiquitates Iudaicae the healing of the water in Jeri­ cho (2 Kgs 2:19-22), but expands on it in B.J.: 219

220

"For he went out to this spring and cast into the stream an earthenware vessel full of salt, and then raising his righteous right hand to heaven, and pouring propitiatory libations upon the ground, he besought the earth to mollify the stream and to open sweeter chan­ nels, and heaven to temper its waters with more genial airs and to grant to the inhabitants alike an abundance of fruits, a succession of children, and an unfailing supply of water conducive to their production, so long as they remained a righteous people. By these prayers, supplemented by various ritual ceremonies, he changed the nature of the spring, and the water which had before been to them a cause of childlessness and famine thence­ forth became a source of fecundity and plenty" (B.J. 4,462-464).

A l o o k at the short biblical original shows that Josephus has not omitted anything, but changed, and above all, added abundantly to the story. The technique used by the prophet is especially detailed: It is no longer simply God's brief words combined with the salt thrown to the water; the prophet conjures heaven and earth to reach his goal. He can heal the water with prayers and T T p o a x E i p o u p y r j a a s , as Josephus says. The magical technique is explained here in interesting detail and Josephus exaggerates the mira­ cle, showing that he was not always concerned with distinguishing the See Feldman 1998b, 335. See p. 268-269.

273

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

miracles from magic. It is far-fetched to consider them as "invoking natural causality." In Ant. Josephus also leaves out the miracle in which the 42 boys were cursed by the prophet and are severely punished by being killed by bears (2 Kgs 2:23-25). Elisha's activity on the camp of the three kings suffering from lack of the water is retold extensively (2 Kgs 3:1-27; Ant. 9,29-43), including the technique of the prophecy (a man playing the harp was needed to divinely inspire the prophet (evSeos, Ant. 9,35). The biblical original does not explain why the stream flowed with much water, but Josephus tells that God had sent a heavy rain to Idumea. This is either a rationalisation or merely a simple explanation of the event told very briefly in 2 Kgs. The story about the heavily indebted widow (2 Kgs 4:1-7 / Ant. 9,47-50) is retold with new details. She is now considered to be the widow of Obadiah, the man who had saved the prophets of the Lord and fed them (1 Kgs 18:12). The man's actions were also the reason why the family was in economic difficulty, because the man had had to borrow money and had left the debts to his wife. The miracle itself is told as in the Scripture, but it is followed by a series of omissions: The entire story about the Shunammite wife and her husband is omitted, as well as the miraculous birth of their son, his death and resurrection (2 Kgs 4:8-37). Josephus has also left out the story in which the prophet makes the poisoned food safe (2 Kgs 4:38-41). Also, the miraculous feeding of a hundred men is omitted (2 Kgs 222

223

224

225

226

227

228

2 2 1

O. Betz 1987, 400. Feldman also sees here a rationalisation (1998b, 344-345). It is difficult to under­ stand how, just a few pages later, he can say that Josephus has improved the story by "greatly elaborating the picture of a Palestinian example of a Graeco-Roman 'divine man' in action" (1998b, 348). Cf. Moses in Philo, p. 148. Music could be used in exorcisms; see Bocher 1970, 176. Josephus adds an extra-biblical detail with Elisha ordering the kings to dig many pits in the bed of the stream (Ant. 9,35). This can hardly be taken as a rationalisation, as Feldman (1998b, 345) says, because the pits seem to have nothing to do with the flow of water. Feldman 1998b, 345. The Moabite king consecrated his eldest son as a holocaust, as is told also in 2 Kgs 3:27. The biblical original says that the Israelites leave his country in terror, but Josephus has reinterpreted the event: They were not filled with terror but with pity and compassion (cf. LXX MeTaMeAos peyas). Moreover, the son was apparently not consecrated to "his god" (so Marcus 1937, 25), but xco 0eco, to the God of Israel. On the story, see Begg 1996, 71-74. The detail is well attested in the later midrashic tradition; see Begg 1996, 71. Feldman (1998b, 345) sees rationalising traits in Josephus* version (<(>aoiv, the role of God is underlined), but is not convincing. On the contrary, the Hebrew original and LXX both tell about the interest ('D'lornK / T O U S T O K O U S OOU) but Josephus exaggerates the story, saying that the widows paid the loan (TCC 6<j>eiA6|JEva). 2 2 2

2 2 3

2 2 4

2 2 5

2 2 6

2 2 7

2 2 8

274

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

4:42-44). The healing of Naaman and the punishment of Gehazi are left out (2 Kgs 5:1-27) as well as the story about the axe-head falling into river (2 Kgs 6:1-7). The long series of omissions is broken in Ant. 9,51-59, in which Josephus tells how Elisha warned Joram the king (cf. 2 Kgs 6:8-23). The troops surrounding the enemies and the blinding of the Syrians are faithful to the biblical original, but Josephus adds a note underlining the role of the miracle and the prophet: 229

"But, when they came and informed him of what had happened, Benhadad was amazed at the marvel and at the manifestation of the God of the Israelites and his power, and also at the prophet, with whom, the Deity was so evidently present; and so, because of his fear of Elisha, he determined to make no more secret attempts of the life of the Israelite king, but decided to fight openly" (Ant. 9,60). 230

Josephus tells the story about Joram closed in Samaria and famine in the city (2 Kgs 6:24-7:20; Ant. 9,61-86). He has carefully revised the biblical account and tried to remove the problems, but the story about Elisha prophesying sudden help for the city has remained the same. Josephus seemed to like the story, which he now tells extensively, vividly and with some new details. One of the additions is the close connection of the story with the explanation of how the Syrian king fell ill in 2 Kgs 8:7. The story about the Shunammite wife who got back her house and land (2 Kgs 8:1-6) is omitted and the divine victory is the immediate reason for the king's illness. As in 2 Kgs, Elisha prophesies that Hazael will be the king 231

232

On the story, see Begg 1996, 74-80. Josephus does not mention that the horses and chariots were fiery (2 Kgs 6:14). It does not seem, however, to be a rationalisation (as Begg 1996, 78 and Feldman 1998b, 346 take it), because the troops nevertheless appear and disappear miraculously. According to Josephus, Elisha asked God "to blind the eyes of the enemy and throw a mist about them through which they would be unable to see him" (Ant. 9,56). Marcus takes this for a rationalistic detail (Marcus 1937, 31), but it is not easy to see how God's immediate action could be considered "a rationalistic detail". Retelling the biblical original was problematic: God sends omaoa / ocopaoig, but the men were apparently not blind. Josephus makes an attempt to refine the story. According to Feldman, "the miracle is rendered more credible because the Syrian king, Benhadad, himself, in an extra-biblical addition expresses amazement at the unex­ pected (TTapd5o£ov) deed" (Feldman 1998b, 346). In my opinion, Feldman forces the evidence to show Josephus' alleged rationalistic bias. The Syrians attack the Israelites too soon after their defeat. Josephus gives the de­ feat as the direct reason for the attack (Ant. 9,60). Joram wants to kill Elisha, his helper, but Josephus makes him repent even before he meets him (Ant. 9,70). It is perhaps worth observing that Josephus adds a note explaining that those who had leprosy had to stay outside the city (Ant. 9,1 A). The alleged leprosy of the Israelites in Egypt was a common­ place in anti-Jewish propaganda (see above p. 231-232). For example, Josephus tells that the Syrian king could hear the voices of the alleged army (Ant. 9,78). 2 3 0

2 3 1

2 3 2

275

P. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

(2 Kgs 8:7-15; Ant 9,87-92), and he lets his disciple anoint Jehu as king the of Israel (2 Kgs 9:1-13; Ant 9,105-111). The story of the dying prophet and king Jehoash seems to have awakened Josephus' special interest (2 Kgs 13:14-19; Ant 9,177-181). Elisha's last prophecy is retold, but in Josephus' extra-biblical addition the king la­ ments the dying prophet and offers humble words of praise to him: 233

"Because of him, he said, they had never had to use arms against the foe, but through his prophecies they had overcome the enemy without a battle. But now he was departing this life and leaving him unarmed before the Syrians and the enemies under them. It was, therefore, no longer safe for him to live, but he would do best to join him in death and depart this life together with him" (Ant. 9,179-180).

The miraculous revival of the dead man thrown into the grave of the prophet is retold (2 Kgs 13:20-21; Ant 9,183). Josephus adds a summary about his life and death: 234

"But not long afterward the prophet died; he was a man renowned for righteousness and one manifestly held in honour by God; for through his prophetic power he performed astounding and marvellous deeds, which were held as a glorious memory by the He­ brews. He was then given a magnificent burial, such as it was fitting for one so dear to God to receive" (Ant. 9,182).

It is thus clear that Josephus deals with Elisha and Elijah in totally differ­ ent ways. Now he does not merely retell the Bible but redacts it heavily. Yet, this should not be exaggerated, because it still is possible for Marcus to note the "nonbiblical details", which would be far more difficult for someone translating, for example, Artapanus' fragments or Pseudo-Philo's text. Josephus adds magical elements to the healing of the water in Jericho and may add midrashic details to the stories. One such addition is that the woman helped is Obadiah's widow. He also gives his prophet additional political importance. Nevertheless, the main body of the text is faithful to the biblical original. Clearly the most important problem consists of several omissions. Some of them have been the source of major conclusions. It is not a coincidence that Elisha's legitimisation is omitted. It is con­ nected with Elijah's ascension, and the problems were treated above. However, the problematic figure here is Elijah, not Elisha. Feldman con235

2 3 3

See Begg 1996, 81-98; Feldman 1996b, 335-336. According to Feldman (1998b, 347), who sees a rationalistic bias in Josephus' pres­ entation of Elisha, Josephus included this miraculous incident to show his dislike of the robbers then and in his own times. This, however, is too fantastic. See p. 268. Feldman (1998b, 345-346) suggests another reason for the omission: that Josephus has removed a difficulty in the biblical original. Elisha could raise people from the dead, but why did he not, then, raise his master? This guess is questionable. It is the problematic figure of Elijah which caused the omission. 2 3 4

2 3 5

276

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

siders that the omission of the water-miracle reveals a well thought out bias: Josephus has omitted the story in Antiquitates but included it in Bellum, because the former was intended rather for a pagan and the latter for a Jewish audience. The intention would thus be to avoid miraculous events in a work directed to the pagans, but it is hardly credible that Josephus would have planned his works so rigorously. Moreover, the pas­ sage in B.J. 4,462-464 shows no rationalisation, yet Josephus freely chose to include the story in his work. A more puzzling problem consists of a series of other omissions. The entire story about the Shunammite wife and her family is left out, as well as the stories about the cursed boys, the poisoned food, miraculous feed­ ing, the healing of Naaman, the punishment of Gehazi and the axe-head which had fallen into the river. In 2 Kgs most of these stories form a unity, which is now entirely omitted. Did Josephus really "tone down the mira­ cles performed at his behest", as Feldman suggests? Since he retells most of the biblical miracle stories, why did he omit just these stories? One of the stories - the cursed boys - was, according to Feldman, too cruel to tell to the pagan audience. This is perhaps true, yet Josephus tells how Elijah and Jehu let the prophets of Baal be killed. He adds the detail that Jehu excluded the strangers from the slaughter, but Josephus apparently does not treat the Jewish people mercifully. Feldman looks at Josephus from too modern a perspective: Josephus was a man who could cut off the hand of a man, hang it around his neck and send him out to speak to his enemies, and finally proudly tell the story himself in his Life (Vita 147). A better reason for the omissions is needed. There are two alternatives, both of which have existed in the scholarship for decades: Either Elisha is un­ important to Josephus or a part of the text is lost. 1) Feldman considers Elisha very important to Josephus. According to him, Elisha, contrary to Elijah, was not a controversial figure and he could be praised in a eulogy. However, Feldman is aware that Josephus de­ votes remarkably little space to Elisha. In spite of some features noted by Feldman, Josephus apparently did not consider him a very important person, presuming that we have all of his text. His view was not unique. Elisha's miracles do not often occur in the later literature. He is not men236

237

238

239

240

241

2 3 6

Feldman 1998b, 344-345. Feldman 1998b, 345. Feldman 1998b, 339. Feldman also thinks that Gehazi's punishment is omitted for the same reason, namely that Elisha loses his temper (Feldman 1998b 340). He quotes some later rabbinic parallels for both stories, but his argument is not convincing. See above p. 267. Feldman 1998b, 350-351. Feldman notes that Elisha is often called a prophet and that Josephus added an en­ comium to the biblical text (Feldman 1998b, 335). 2 3 7

2 3 8

2 3 9

2 4 0

2 4 1

P. Toning Down the Miracles?

277

Josephus 242

tioned at all in Mishna and only seldom in Tosefta. He appears in the New Testament only once (Luke 4:27). Elisha never achieved the status of his master. He was never a central figure like Elijah, but also never as con­ troversial as his predecessor. This is certainly one reason for the omis­ sions, although not the only one. A closer look at the stories omitted shows that they share something in common. They are miracles occurring in the daily lives of private persons. Only the healing of Naaman has a wider reach. The Shunammite wife and her family, also the cursed boys, and especially the healing of the water, the poisoned food, the feeding of the multitude, the punishment of Gehazi and the axe-head are all part of the smaller circles of daily life. On the other hand, Josephus has not omitted a single story in which Elisha meets kings and consults with them. Josephus clearly preferred miracles that were politically significant. History was the field in which God worked. This is underlined in the speech of Jehoash and in the encomium. The magnificent burial, which is an unscriptural detail, makes it clear that an important prophet necessarily moved in greater circles. 2) Finally, some puzzling questions remain. Elisha seems to be important to Josephus and he is praised in a eulogy, but he is given very little space. Josephus generally retells almost every miracle made by men in the Old Testament, but Elisha is treated differently. This leads to the question of whether we have all the texts written by Josephus. Actually, many scholars have assumed that some of the stories about Elisha have been lost. The stories in 2 Kgs 4:8-6,8 are not included in Antiquitates and in the 18 cen­ tury a lacuna was presumed to exist. Moreover, Ant. 9,51 says 243

th

244

' EAioocuos 5E raxecos rrpos ' Icopauov

E^CCTTEOTEIAE

uAa'TTEo0cu TOV TOTTOV

EKETVOV.

However, the place Josephus refers to is not mentioned above, but the words are preceded by the story about the widow's oil. As Begg recently pointed out, something is obviously missing, and although Feldman con­ siders this alternative worth only a footnote, it seems indeed that we 245

246

2 4 2

See t.Yoma 1:6; t. Sank 2:9; 14:10; t. Sot 4:7; 12:5-6. Feldman (1998b, 336-337) considers this a feature emphasizing that Elisha was in Josephus' view a prophet, which is statistically clear. This, however, is not enough. We need to ask what kind of prophet he was. The answer is that his political significance is clearly underlined. See Marcus 1937, 28-29 and Begg 1996, 74-75. Begg 1996, 74-75. Feldman is aware of Marcus' suggestion, but rejects it only in a footnote. According to him, Josephus has omitted the stories, because he wanted to avoid or to downgrade miracles (1998b, 340). However, as Begg notes, something is clearly missing in the text. Eve overlooks the possibility and tends towards the first alternative after wrestling with the problem (2002, 35-37). 2 4 3

2 4 4

2 4 5

2 4 6

278

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

have lost part of Josephus' text. It is impossible to analyse what we do not have, but it is clear that we should not jump to conclusions because Josephus has omitted 2 Kgs 4:8-6:8. At the same time it means that the ratio given by Feldman is questionable. Josephus has given more space to Elisha than is recognized by Feldman, and, as the words of the eulogy also indicate, Elisha can well be considered a more significant figure.

h. Conclusion It is well known that Josephus himself claimed that he had neither added nor omitted anything contained in the holy writings (Ant. 1,17). These words are understandable only in light of the previous texts. Josephus cer­ tainly felt that he was very faithful to the biblical original. No Jewish writer studied in the present book felt bound to the holy words when retell­ ing the Old Testament miracle stories. The holy history was a part of the living reality. Josephus is remarkably close to the Scriptures, but also he adds, omits and reinterprets, apparently both consciously and uncon­ sciously. Josephus was well aware of the distorted version of the Exodus circulat­ ing among the Gentiles, but this only slightly influenced his redaction. However, the offensive manner of sacrifice and Miriam's punishment are obviously removed for this reason. The number of miracle stories totally omitted is very small and most of them are part of the passage on Elisha, part of which is apparently lost. Josephus adds midrashic elements, espe­ cially in retelling Moses' and Samson's childhood; these elements are one of the main sources for the extra-biblical details. The stories about the birth of Moses and Samson and about the end of Moses and Elijah are par­ ticularly influenced by Graeco-Roman stories. Similarly to several Jewish writers, Josephus also tends to refigure pas­ sages in which Israel's God stands in dialogue with men. Thus the roles of God and man are in a state of change, either growing or decreasing, but this is apparently only a consequence of, and not a reflected bias in the redaction. Some of the major biases presented in the scholarship should be re­ evaluated. Josephus certainly can retell a biblical story and give a more reasonable version of it. However, he retells almost every biblical miraclestory, even adding new stories, about Solomon for example, or new details, such as in the stories about the water in Jericho. There is no reason to be­ lieve that he consistently tried to remove the miraculous to please his Gen­ tile readers. A miracle did not signify to Josephus a regrettable violation of the laws of nature. Moreover, the entire concept is more than questionable. It is simply not enough to refer to "Gentile readers". A strict rationalism as

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

279

we understand it could be the view of the Epicureans but it was by no means common. There is no reason to cite the sceptical Horace (credat Iudaeus Apella), as Feldman and Collins do. A majority of the GraecoRoman people had an interest in Eastern, esoteric wisdom, which also in­ cluded miraculous traits. Tacitus attests that the Roman Caesars had east­ ern astrologers at their courts (for example, ann. 6,20-21) and Josephus tells about Atomos (Ant. 20,141-144) and Eleazar (Ant. 8,46-48) awakening interest among the Roman military leaders. These were the Gentiles Jose­ phus could please with his stories. A sceptical pagan audience, which Josephus was allegedly concerned about, is the fantasy of some scholars. He did not write for the sceptics; otherwise he certainly would have omit­ ted more stories, and certainly he had not added or exaggerated miracles, as he sometimes does. In contrast, the second intention proposed applies well to the miracle stories. Josephus indeed tried to separate religion and politics. Also, the small space attributed to Joshua shows that he was certainly not Josephus' favourite figure. Although he liked prophets with political influence, such as Elisha, a person like Kenaz in L.A.B. does not and cannot occur in Josephus. The spirit-filled leadership, which is so central in some texts, is consistently removed, for example, in the picture of Samson. This type of biblical figure had encouraged revolts and Josephus had learned his lesson. Josephus was aware of the religious motivation of the armed resistance against Rome. Theudas, the Egyptian and Jonathan had imitated the spiritfilled leadership of biblical figures. Now the holy history had to be consis­ tently rewritten. Josephus glorifies the biblical heroes and, of course, especially Moses. However, Moses does not reach the same position as, for example, in Ezek. Trag. His death is a mystery, as in many Jewish texts, but Moses is not a half-god and there is no evidence that Josephus would have devel­ oped the idea in Exod 7:1. Moses' miracles are retold, but he is, above all, an excellent ruler, law-giver and rhetorician. Josephus totally omits the miracles when defending Moses in Against Apion. His texts are weak evi­ dence for supporting the 0eTos avrjp - hypothesis, although they have been used in the past. Most of the Jewish writers show an ambivalent attitude towards magic; so does Josephus. Against Apion attests that Moses was often presented as a sorcerer among the Gentiles. Josephus apparently considered that the best way to contradict these charges was to retell Moses' miracles, and he lets Moses reject the way the Egyptian sorcerers tried to repeat his mira­ cles. Yet magic was by no means nonsense in his view. The Egyptians and even a German soldier could skilfully prophesy. Elisha uses a magical technique to heal the water in Jericho. And above all, Solomon is the mas­ ter of all kinds of knowledge, also of herbs and demons. Such esoteric

280

9. Toning Down the Miracles? Josephus

wisdom, according to Josephus, was still common among the Jews, and he was proud of it. The line between what was allowed and what was not was as fuzzy to him as to most of the men in the Mediterranean world of his times. Demons and apotropaic techniques belonged to the world of Josephus. However, the war between good and evil spirits was not a major theme for him, at least not at Vespasian's court. Feldman in particular has attributed to Josephus the strong tendency to contradict charges that Jews acted with utmost cruelty. There are admit­ tedly some important omissions, especially in the story about Elisha cur­ sing the mocking boys. But generally, Josephus, who could proudly tell about his own utmost cruelty, freely and without any mitigation retold how the Old Testament figures killed people in great numbers. However, he might add that the punishment for idolatry did not apply to Gentiles, but only to the Israelites. The miracles certainly served to legitimate people, and this function is emphasized more in Josephus than in L.A.B. or other texts written for a mainly Jewish audience. Josephus considered it useful to occasionally use this biblical function, especially to prove the importance of Moses. He is also well aware that some figures of his own time (Theudas, the Egyptian) tried to legitimate their mission by miracles. Nevertheless, Josephus retells the biblical stories so faithfully that legitimisation seems to be an echo of the biblical texts rather than a theme he particularly wished to emphasize.

10. Conclusion The present study has shown that the Jewish writers used the material on the Old Testament miracle-workers in a variety of ways. The stories were retold again and again, either as short summaries or with the addition of colourful, midrashic details. The figures of holy history were often modi­ fied, even transformed, and the roles of God and man were presented in many variations.

a. LXX A comparison of the Hebrew text with the Septuagint confirms the wellknown fact that the various books are translated differently. The translation of 2 Kgs is a slavish translation of the Hebrew original, which did not dif­ fer much from the Masoretic text. On the other hand, some passages in Joshua have a completely different character, and the Hebrew original used by the translator was also very different from the Masoretic text. This is also obvious in the miracle stories included in these books. An intentional, consistent redaction of the miracle stories, however, cannot be found in any of the passages studied above. An exception is the passage in Dan 4, but here all the early versions we have are a part of an unfixed textual tra­ dition. The miracles are not omitted and new stories are not added; the great deeds are generally neither exaggerated nor explained rationally. The only bias discovered above was that God or his angels are sometimes dis­ tanced from men. For example, God does not try to kill Moses in Exod 4 his angel does. Also, the angel does not touch Elijah in the desert (1 Kgs 19:5). This bias is compatible with the tendency in the Septuagint to gen­ erally distance God from men. Although a consistent redaction is not present in any passages studied, many details are interesting and some important deviations from the He­ brew text explain the later tradition: Moses' hand is not leprous in the LXX, but cooe! x ^ (Exod 4:6), the darkness in Egypt is i|/r)Ac«|>r]T6s O K O T O S (Exod 10:21-29), and the Hebrews leave Egypt unarmed (cf. Exod 13:18 nrtDom but ITSjJTnTj S E yeved). Writers using the LXX repeated all these details. Sometimes, as in the healing of Naaman, the translator has 1

v

'See Siegert 2001,243-244.

282

10. Conclusion

updated the healing technique the man expected from the prophet (2 Kgs 5:11). All in all, the faithfulness with which the translators rendered the miracle stories is astonishing. They did not follow any Graeco-Roman or early Jewish model of miracle-workers, but - with the few exceptions mentioned in this study - translated the texts so faithfully that the core of the original was preserved. Although prominent scholars once claimed that the Septuagint is strongly influenced by Greek thought, the results of this study are in concordance with the recent view that these scholars relied more on their presupposition than on their eyes. 2

b. The texts retold The Old Testament miracle-working figures are used widely in early Juda­ ism. The rich legendary tradition of Abraham contained many traits that made the father of the nation invincible, and sometimes also a miracle-worker. The Old Testament gives very little support for this interpretation, but whatever support existed was used. The Jews were known as great astrolo­ gers, and while part of the Jewish tradition (for example, Artapanus) ac­ cepted this, another (e.g., Jub.) rejected it. Gen 15:5 is the only possible startingpoint in the Old Testament for this interpretation. The interpreta­ tion of Abraham as an exorcist is a little closer to the Scripture. The story about the father in Egypt and God helping him and Sarah against Pharaoh (Gen 12:10-20, cf. Gen 20:1-18) is retold in lQAp Gen" 20,28-29, and may form the background for the new interpretation, according to which Abraham fights against evil spirits and is able to control them: The birds disturbing Abraham's sacrifice (Gen 15:11) are interpreted as demons in Jub., in the Apocalypse of Abraham and in some later Christian texts which indicate a tradition independent of Jub. The reason may be the (|>o(3os O K O T E I V O S [liyois that Abraham felt in Gen 15:12. Jub. lets him expel the birds / demons in the field, making him simultaneously a irpcoTOs euprjTrjs of the agricultural technique - a topos widely used in Artapanus' frag­ ments. Moses' miracles were widely retold in different variants and different theological frameworks. Moses' childhood (cf. Exod 1:1-2:25) was often embellished with legen­ dary material common to several Jewish writers. Ezekiel the Tragedian tells about it briefly without miracles, but the miraculous traits of Moses' birth are often exaggerated and some of them occur often: Pharaoh had 2

See Siegert 2001,250.

283

10. Conclusion

only one daughter (called Merris in Artapanus, Tharmuth in Jub. and Thermuthis in Josephus); she was barren and had long hoped for a son who would save the reign of his father (Artapanus, Philo, Josephus). The birth is foretold to Moses' father (Josephus) or to Miriam (L.A.B.). The Jewish folklore here clearly follows the gentile. Moses is born circumcised (L.A.B.), and his admirable education and capacity to learn are especially emphasised in Artapanus and Philo. Artapanus and Josephus both make Moses a successful Egyptian general. The theophany at Horeb (Exod 3:1-4:17) reveals the diversity of early Judaism. Some writers - interestingly enough, especially the dramatist Ezekiel - follow the story of Exodus faithfully, but many writers greatly reduce the dialogues between God and Moses. Josephus does so; Artapa­ nus reduces God to a divine voice and omits all dialogues, as well as the miracles; Philo denies that a man can ever see God. Admittedly, the He­ brew text is open to different interpretations; in some verses it refers to God, but in others to God's angel. The writer of the L.A.B. generally takes the opposite view, adding God's speeches and conversations with men, although he here omits the theophany. Moses' human weaknesses are often improved with minor changes: Moses' reluctance was either omitted (Ar­ tapanus) or reduced (Josephus), and his lack of eloquence was either ex­ plained (Philo) or simply omitted (Artapanus). Aaron's role as Moses' helping hand has generally been diminished: he may be totally omitted (Jub., L.A.B.), or, as in Philo and Josephus, his role is notably smaller than in the original. Both Philo and Josephus suppose that God taught Moses to make miracles, and that this was the reason he could repeat them at any­ time. Philo compares Moses' wonderful rod with a good education, which can be used either positively or negatively. The Jewish writers who used the Greek translation (Ezekiel, Philo, Josephus) have followed the LXX by saying that Moses' hand is not leprous, but cooei X *^ ? although the word­ ing varies. It was no longer necessarily an intentional alteration and a re­ sponse to the anti-Jewish propaganda, but a fixed tradition. Moses' opponents in Egypt appear in Exodus during his second visit to Pharaoh and then during the first plagues (Exod 6:28-7:13). A rich and multifaceted tradition is present here. Artapanus and Josephus tell how Moses was treated as a criminal. The reason is hardly a common tradition, but the detail is a midrashic trait, which is easy to understand because Moses had killed a man. Artapanus adds that Moses was jailed and inserts several miracles in the biblical story. Artapanus, Philo and Josephus viv­ idly retell the struggle with the opponents. On the one hand, the opponents are interpreted in different ways, and the Hebrew and Greek originals leave several doors open. The opponents can be interpreted as priests (Ar­ tapanus, Josephus), or sorcerers (Jub., Philo), or physicians (Artapanus), but also as sophists and "wrong philosophers", as Philo says. On the other lc

v

284

10. Conclusion

hand, these figures may have names, and Jannes and Jambres were famous in both Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature. In Jub. they are only puppets supported by Mastema and his angels, just as Moses was supported by God's angels: The short mentions in Jub. and Jannes and Jambres imply that the men not only tried to imitate, but also to block the plagues through healing. Perhaps this is the reason why Artapanus calls them i'ccTpoi. The problematic relation to magic is obvious: God's name, so important in Mediterranean magic, plays a role in Artapanus and Josephus, and several writers (like Philo and Josephus) try to draw a line between miracles that are allowed and those that are not. Philo interpreted the biblical plagues (Exod 7:14-12:36) allegorically, but also, as many Jewish writers, literally. The biblical order is preserved only in Josephus (who, however, omits the plague on livestock): Philo ex­ plains his new order in terms of attributing the different plagues to differ­ ent agents and elements, and this explanation may be the reason for the changed order in Artapanus, too. Ezekiel apparently could not retain the sequence when writing in iambic trimetre. The number of plagues (ten) is not necessarily fixed: Artapanus, for example, has left out several plagues and replaced them with new ones. The translator has obviously uninten­ tionally omitted the plague of boils in the Latin version of the L.A.B. When retelling the plague of ui I aTjja, Exod 7:14-24, Philo and Josephus (as Deut. R. 3:8) say that the water was good for the Hebrews. They generally expand the word in Exod 7:21 and 7:24 and assume that none of the plagues touched the Hebrews. Josephus says that the water seized with pains Egyptians drinking it. Several Jewish writers ended the biblical story with an end to the plague. Philo and Josephus omit the offensive manner of sacrifice in the plague of c n r n a s / p d r p a x o i (Exod 7:26-8:11), as also in the rest of the plagues, the obvious reason being the anti-Jewish propa­ ganda claiming that the Jews practiced terrible sacrifices. Philo claims in his allegorical interpretation that the words point to virtues that offended people living in Egypt, and he compares the river producing frogs and blood to bad speech. Philo uses the third plague (CtfD / OKV?CJ>ES, Exod 8:1215) to teach how God uses small beings to beat mighty men. Philo and Josephus have removed the sorcerers, possibly because they were cautious not to equate Moses with them. Several Jewish writers have interpreted the fourth biblical plague mi> / Kuvdjjuta, Exod 8:16-28, as beings of a special kind: Artapanus says that they were £coov T I TTTTIVOV, and Philo also con­ siders them combinations of the two most shameless animals of the land and air, the dog and the fly. The L.A.B. calls thempammixia, and Josephus has 9r)picov y a p TTCCVTOICOV Kai iroAuTpoTrcov. It may be surprising that several Jewish writers used Aoinos or AOIMIKCC appcooTrjiiaxa when re­ telling the fifth plague on livestock (Exod 9:1-11), although, according to many scholars, the pestilence in Egypt was a common topos in anti-Jewish

10. Conclusion

285

propaganda. However, this is the only plague omitted by Josephus. Philo exaggerates the sixth plague (yrw / E A K T I , Exod 9:8-12), but cannot compete with Josephus, who tells about the plague briefly, but has "the greater part of Egyptians" die from it. Jub. assumes that the opponents of Moses tried to heal the Egyptians, but were not allowed to do so, and Artapanus fol­ lows the tradition by occasionally calling them physicians. Philo gives a brief but impressive picture of the biblical plague of m^ip / <|>covai, T O / Xa'Aa£a and m I Trup <J>Aoyi£ov (Exod 9:13-35), strongly exaggerating the original. Josephus is very brief about the plague. The wind bringing the locusts (rm» / aKpiSa TroAArjv, Exod 10:1-20) dominates the eighth plague in Philo. Josephus renders it with only a few sentences, and Ar­ tapanus may have combined several of the plagues into one. The type of darkness in the ninth plague has awakened great interest (Exod 10:21-29), the reason being the Greek translation. "je?n Ban was translated vpr]Aa<j)r)T6s O K O T O S in the LXX, and the extraordinary darkness was described by Philo and Josephus, but also in the L.A.B. and the book of Wisdom. In Philo's allegorical interpretation the darkness is contrasted with God's presence. In the final plague (Exod 11:1-12:36), the offensive manner of sacrifice is removed from Philo and Josephus. In Philo's allegorical inter­ pretation the firstborn are lust, desire and other vices. God's dialogues are again reduced or removed (Philo, Artapanus, Josephus). Jub. and Artapanus presume that the Egyptian gods were destroyed in one way or other: Jub. says that they drowned with the Egyptians; Ar­ tapanus claims an earthquake destroyed the temples. The events at the Red Sea (Exod 13:17-14:31) are often retold with dif­ ferent details (Ezekiel, Artapanus, Philo, L.A.B., Josephus). A special case is Ezekiel the Tragedian, who puts everything in the form of a classical tragedy, letting an Egyptian messenger give a description of the defeat of his own nation. Philo and Josephus, when emphasising that there were no survivors, hardly criticize Ezekiel or any tradition represented by him, but only repeat Exod 14:28. Some details are traditional: Owing to the differ­ ence between the Hebrew text and the LXX in Exod 13:18, the Israelites were unarmed (Ezekiel, Philo, Josephus) or armed (L.A.B.), and although Philo also knows that the people were divided, Pseudo-Philo is the first who names and distinguishes between the tribes ready to surrender, to commit suicide or to fight. The number of the drowned Egyptians is given in different versions: Jub. and Ezekiel speak of a million, Josephus gives detailed information on different parts of the army (600 chariots, 50,000 horsemen and 200,000 heavy infantry). Moses' rod is given a more or less important role: Although Exodus does not directly say that Moses hit the sea with his rod, the words (inpn / pfj£ov) are close enough to assume that he really did (either once or twice). Ezekiel, Artapanus, Philo, L.A.B. and Josephus say the same. The role of the angels is emphasized in Jub. and in

286

10. Conclusion

Philo. Possibly Jub., but certainly Philo and apparently also L.A.B. know the exaggerated detail that the sand was dry enough to crackle under the feet of the Hebrews. The biblical original supports the view that Moses' rod had a special power, and several Jewish writers developed the theme further (Ezekiel, Artapanus, L.A.B.). The way from Egypt and through the desert is a model for a spiritual emigration in Philo's allegorical interpretation, which depends heavily on Plato, and the details are interpreted consistently. But a literal interpreta­ tion was common, too. The water-miracle at Marah (Exod 15:22-27) is retold or alluded to in Ben Sira, Ezekiel, Artapanus, Philo, L.A.B. and Josephus. Ben Sira connects the story with the help given by the physician. Philo exaggerates the effect of the water, and his description of Elim, as well as that of Ezekiel and Artapanus, resembles Hellenistic Utopias. In Philo's allegorical interpretation the water is God's wisdom. The stories of the manna and the quail (Exod 16:1-36 / Num 11:4-36) are retold often. Compared with several later Jewish texts, Philo's texts attest a broad and early tradition of the manna. Philo uses the stories for his own purposes, for instance, to emphasize the universal importance of the Sabbath. Ar­ tapanus tries to explain the phenomenon to his Gentile readers in his own words. Josephus assumes that manna was still a phenomenon in his own times. In retelling the story of the quails Philo eliminates almost every fea­ ture of the original in Numbers. Josephus tells the story twice, but very briefly. The story of the water from the rock (Exod 17:1-7 / Num 20:1-13) is retold often, and apparently Ezekiel, but certainly L.A.B., attest the detail known to Paul (1 Cor 10): that the rock followed the people. Philo has again omitted the epiphany and God's speech, but also the crucial element of Moses not being allowed to lead the people to the Promised Land. Josephus also omits the version in Numbers, but retells the one in Exod without any "rationalisation". In Philo's allegorical interpretation the rock is God's wisdom. The fight against Amalek (Exod 17:8-16) is retold in Philo and Josephus. Philo uses the story literally, connecting the event with the elements, which now supported Israel. He also uses it allegorically, with the battling parties symbolizing mind and pleasure instead of the two people. Later, also Mishna interprets the text from an ethical point of view. Josephus has carefully preserved the core of the story, although he emphasizes Moses' military skill. The problematic story about Miriam's leper and Moses' Gentile wife and Miriam and Aaron attacking him (Num 12:1-15) is mostly omitted. Philo uses the story, but only allegorically. All Jewish writers retelling Korah's revolt (Num 16:1-17:31) drastically change the aim of the biblical story. What once was an attack against the priesthood is to Philo - and to Josephus - an exemplary revolt against a good ruler. In Philo's view, however, it is especially directed against

10. Conclusion

287

Moses' prophecies. In L.A.B. the target is the holy Law, and Josephus, the Palestinian oligarch, allows the people to quarrel about the question of which of the leaders should get the priesthood. The story about the bronze snake (Num 21:4-9) is mostly omitted. Only Philo uses it in his allegorical interpretation, explaining that the story tells about the mind's control over pleasure. The treatment of the death of Moses (Deut 34:1-8) is interesting in the texts, and it probably rests on a broad Jewish tradition based on Deut 34:7. In Philo's view it was not a death but an assumption, and he cleverly ex­ plains how Moses could write about his own death. The anonymous writer of L.A.B. expands the short story and freely adds God's dialogues with Moses. Josephus lets Moses disappear, like Aeneas and Romulus, but also Enoch and Elijah in the Old Testament tradition. The mighty deeds of Joshua divided views in the later Jewish literature. On the one hand, Ben Sira liked the idea of a militant Joshua stopping the sun and moon, and L.A.B. expands the spirit-filled leadership of the biblical original, although it omits some of the most miraculous deeds of Joshua. The works we know from only a few fragments found in Masada and Qumran attest in particular that Joshua, the conqueror the conqueror le­ gitimated by miracles, could be and indeed was dangerously popular and could incite revolts. Although also the Greek world told about miracles of rulers and would-be rulers, we undoubtedly have here a characteristic Jewish feature of miracles, the eschatological hope, which greatly differs from the Greek heritage. On the other hand, Josephus retells all the stories of Joshua - especially his miracles (the crossing of Jordan, Jos 3:1-5:1; the conquest of Jericho, Jos 5:13-6:27; stopping the sun, Jos 10:8-14) - very briefly; the reason is obvious, especially after the catastrophe. 3

The stories of Samson (Judg 13:1-16:31) open many doors for early Jew­ ish exegesis, and a sermon preserved by coincidence attests that his life was discussed vigorously. The story of his miraculous birth was retold and expanded with new details (L.A.B., Josephus). In L.A.B. the brutal Samson is an exemplary leader, although he is morally criticized. De Sampsone and Josephus, too, add moral criticism, but, above all, Josephus removes the crucial trait of the stories, the spirit-filled leadership: Josephus had learned his lesson, and was not interested in spirit-filled leaders after Theudas, the Egyptian and Jonathan. The biblical stories about David offered little to be interpreted as miracles, but the anonymous writer of L.A.B. used everything there was. The story 3

See Koskenniemi 1994, 222-223.

288

10. Conclusion

about David helping Saul with his music (1 Sam 16:14-23) is reinterpreted as an exorcism, and the writer even quotes the hymn sung by David. Some of David's psalms were used similarly in Qumran, indicating a strong tra­ dition. Also, the fight between David and Goliath (1 Sam 17:41-51) is de­ veloped in L.A.B., and takes on miraculous traits: David, the offspring of Ruth, is supported by good angels, and he beats Goliath, the offspring of Orpah. The stories about Elijah had a strong afterlife in early Judaism. His role as a zealous and eschatological prophet was strongly developed. Mai 3 attests his role as a future judge, and later Ben Sira emphasizes the political side of his miracles, expecting him to reunite the lost tribes with Israel. Elijah was later (at least in L.A.B.) identified with Pinehas, the other zealot. In his person, miracles, politics and eschatological hope were combined in a way typical for early Judaism. Unhappily the original of the Life of Elijah is lost and the manuscripts give only a short list of the biblical stories. Philo briefly refers to the story of the widow. Nevertheless, Josephus' way of dealing with the biblical material attests both Elijah's special position and the problems he caused for a moderate writer. However, even Josephus did not completely remove his political fervour. Elisha never attained the role of a returning judge or a reputation like Elijah's. The biblical material admittedly allowed Ben Sira to emphasize Elisha's political mission, and the manuscripts we have of the Life in Vitae prophetarum list the biblical material as a later addition. Yet, although the material on Elisha was easier for Josephus, who was clearly fond of him, Elisha never attained the same status as his master. Apparently part of Josephus' text on Elisha is lost. The only Jewish writer emphasizing Isaiah's biblical miracles (Isa 37:143 7 / 2 Kgs 19:14-37 and Isa 38:1-22/ 2 Kgs 20:1-11) is Ben Sira. Josephus also mentions the miracles, but he attributes them clearly to God and not to the prophet. Ben Sira, on the contrary, emphasizes Isaiah's significance, clearly at the cost of King Hezekiah's role. The Life of Isaiah tells about the death of the prophet and connects it with the miraculous water at Siloam, well known in early Judaism. The traditions of Daniel form in many ways a special case in early Juda­ ism. The Book of Daniel is written at about the same time as several retold versions of the miracle stories studied in the present study, and the study of the LXX attests that the tradition was not yet fixed. The different versions of Dan 4 - the later canonical Aramaic version, the Greek versions and the

10. Conclusion

289

Life of Daniel - show how also this piece of tradition could vividly reflect the early Jewish view on miracles. Several features presented above are expansions of the miracles made by the Old Testament figures, but early Judaism also produced totally new miracle-workers. Although the only miracle of many prophets was their prophecy, extra-biblical miracles of Jeremiah were apparently commonly known, and it is unfortunate that we only have fragments of the tradition. The only text describing them in more than a few words is the Life of Jeremiah, which tells how the prophet protected the people in Alexandria from snakes after his death, and how he had the ark of the Law swallowed up in a rock. Several fragmentary hints (2 Mace 15:13-16; Matth 16:14) attest that the prophet had a reputation, but unfortunately we do not know the details. Strong eschatological hope is connected with his person. It is also a pity that we have only fragments of the traditions of the many miracles attributed to Ezekiel. The Life of Ezekiel briefly mentions the mighty deeds, apparently assuming them to be well known to the audience. Ezekiel saved his people by stopping the river (the repetition of which was attempted by several Jews in the first century); he offered them an abun­ dant meal of fish (cf. Ezek 47:10) and apparently acted as a healer. Both in this work and elsewhere in early Judaism, the vision of dry bones (Ezek 37:1-14) is interpreted literally, as referring to Israelites who would rise from the dead, and Irenaeus attests that the Christians adopted and devel­ oped the view. An important novum compared with the Old Testament is that Solomon is made a master in esoteric wisdom concerning medical cures and exor­ cisms. Solomon the wise became thus the door through which the Mediter­ ranean magical techniques invaded early Judaism. The view is attested in different manners in Wis, 11Q11, L.A.B., Josephus, 2 Bar., Apocalypse of Adam and Testament of Solomon. As seen, early Jewish tradition could strongly expand and develop the miracles told in the Old Testament, and also produce new ones. The most striking example is the way L.A.B. deals with Kenaz, a man mentioned only briefly in the Old Testament. The writer makes him the first of the judges, a spirit-filled and brutal leader. Although Kenaz had a reputation in the extra-biblical tradition as a militant leader earlier, Pseudo-Philo has clearly used him as an example for his readers in the difficult situation af­ ter the fall of Jerusalem. Kenaz was a spirit-filled, religious and militant leader, who, although he was a litarary figure, clearly attests the religious motivation of the armed resistance.

290

10. Conclusion

c. The themes It is certainly useful to briefly summarize the kind of stories encountered during this study, although there is no agreement on a classification of the "themes." The following list basically uses Theissen's catalogue of the themes, but some further distinctions are needed. Moreover, not all the texts referred to are "stories"; nevertheless they represent "themes", even though a brief mention or allusion may not be developed into a story. The references on non-biblical persons, although quoted above, are now ex­ cluded. Exorcisms, which are justly distinguished from the healings, are numer­ ous. To be sure, they do not all contain the characteristics which, according to Theissen, were specific to the category (a person in the power of the demon; a battle between the demon and the exorcist; the destructive activ­ ity of the demon in nature), and because they do not contain a opKOs, they cannot be properly called e£opKio|joi. However, a kind of opKOs is in­ cluded in traditions about David (L.A.B. 60,1-3; 11Q11) and Solomon (11Q11; Jos. Ant. 8,42-45), and such stories seem to have been common. Moreover, a struggle with demonic power without opoKOs occurs in the stories about Abraham (Jub. 11:18-22; lQAp Geri" 20,28-29; Apoc. Ab. 13:4-14) and Daniel (Liv. Pro. 4:10; apparently not in 4QPrNab ). The Old Testament stories about healings were retold differently and expanded. Jacob heals his son Reuben through prayer (T Reu. 1:7). Moses acts as a healer (Exod 15:22-27; Num 21:4-9: Sir 38:4-8; Philo Agr. 9598), but his opponents also act or attempt to act as healers (Jub. 48:9-10; Artap. 3,31). The encyclopaedic wisdom of Solomon also covered magical medicine, and the tradition was strong in early Judaism (Jos. Ant. 8,42-44). The stories about Isaiah and Hezekiah (Isa 38:1-22 / 2 Kgs 20:1-11) are referred to in Ben Sira (Sir 48). Healings are also attributed to Jeremiah (Liv. Pro. 2:2-7), Ezekiel (Liv. Pro. 3:11b), and to Daniel (4QPrNab ). Resuscitations of the dead, considered only a category of healings by Theissen, because there are only a few, are surprisingly common in early Judaism. The stories about Elijah (1 Kgs 17:17-24: Sir 48:5; Liv. Pro. 21:5; Sir 48:12-16; Jos. Ant. 8,325-327) and Elisha (2 Kgs 4:18-37; 2 Kgs 13:20-21: Sir 48:13-14; Liv. Pro. 21:12 and 20; Jos. Ant. 9,183) were re­ told often. But extra-biblical revivals are told about both Moses (Artap. 3,24-26) and Ezekiel (Liv. Pro. 3:12-13, cf. Ezek. 37 and 4Q385). The category of epiphany is problematic concerning our material, be­ cause, according to Theissen, epiphanies occur "when the divinity of a per4

5

M

m

6

4

5

6

Theissen 1983, 85-114. See Theissen 1983, 85-90. Theissen 1983, 90.

291

10. Conclusion

son becomes apparent not merely in the effects of his actions or in atten­ dant phenomena, but in the person himself." In this sense, only a few of the passages quoted (perhaps the story about Moses in Pharaoh's house in Artapanus) can be characterised as epiphanies, because men only seldom, if ever, are divine. However, it may be useful to mention the theophanies with (Exod 3:1-4:17: Ezek. Trag. 120-141; Philo Mos. 1,65-84; Jos. Ant. 2,271-272) or without miracles (Exod 3:1-4:17: Artap. 3,21-22; Elijah: Jos. Ant. 8,32). That Abraham (Apoc. Abr. 13:4-14) and Moses (Ezek. Trag. 6882) receive a throne, as do several figures in early Judaism, is worth men­ tioning. Being freed from prison is considered a typical rescue miracle, and such a story is told about Moses in Artap. 3,23-24 (and of Rechabites in Hist. Rech. 10:5). The swords of the enemies turn into ashes in Jos. Asen. 27,11. Ezek 37 has found an interesting afterlife, as shown in Liv. Pro. 3:12-13. Possibly also the miracle at the Red Sea (Exod 13:17-14:31: Jub. 48:1219; Ezek. Trag. 204-217; Artap. 3,36-37; Philo Mos. 1,167-180; L.A.B. 10; Jos. Ant. 2,320-348) and at the Jordan (Jos 3:1-5:1: Jos. Ant. 5,16-20; 4Q378-379) must be included in this category, and the same is certainly true of the other miracles performed to save the Hebrew crowd from a hos­ tile army (Liv. Pro. 3:6-10; 4 Ezr. 13:39-40). However, it is difficult to distinguish them from the battle against Amalek (Exod 17:8-16: Philo, Mos. 1,214-219), the conquest of Jericho (Jos 5:13-6:27: Sir 46:2-3; Jos. Ant. 5,22-27), the stopped sun at Gibeon (Jos 10:12-13: Sir 46:4; Jos. Ant. 5,58-61), the hailstones from heaven (Jos 10:8-14: L.A.B. 30,5), the return­ ing shadow at Hezekiah's palace (Sir 48:23), the help given to David in his fight against Goliath (1 Sam 17:41-51: L.A.B. 61) and Samson against the Philistines (Judg 13:1-16:31: L.A.B. 43,2; 43,5-8; Jos. Ant. 5,297; 5,300; 5,304-305; 5,316), or even protection from the plagues (Jub. 48:4-8; Ezek. Trag. 132-151; Artap. 3,27-33; Philo Mos. 1,98-139; L.A.B. 10,1; Jos. Ant. 2,294-315). Not only were the biblical stories retold in new variants, but also new ones were added: The help Kenaz got in the fight against the Amorites (L.A.B. 27,10) and Aseneth in Jos. Asen. 27,11 belong to this category. Gift miracles tell about manna (Exod 16:1-36; Num 11:4-36: Artap. 3.38; Philo, esp. Mos. 1,200-207; Mos. 2,258-267; Jos. Ant. 3,26-28), or quails (Exod 16:13 / Num 11:4-36: Philo, Mos. 1,209; L.A.B. 10,7; Jose­ phus Ant. 3,25), or water becoming sweet (Exod 15:22-27: Philo, Mos. 1,181-187; L.A.B. 11,15; Jos. Ant. 3,1-8) or water from the rock (Exod 17:1-7 / Num 20:1-13: Ezek. Trag. 250; Philo, Mos. 1,210-213; L.A.B. 10,7), but also about a meal Ezekiel gave to his people (Liv. Pro. 3:11), 7

8

7

8

Theissen 1983,94. Theissen 1983, 99.

292

10. Conclusion

and the water at Siloam (Liv. Pro. 1:2-4). The widow who helped Elijah was miraculously fed (1 Kgs 17:7-16: Jos. Ant. 8,320-323). Elisha fed the widow and her sons (2 Kgs 4:1-7: Jos. Ant. 9,47-50), and restored the wa­ ter in Jericho (2 Kgs 2:19-21; Jos. B.J. 4,462-464). Rule miracles, which confirm a rule, are often but not always "rule miracles of punishment" sent as punishment for misdeeds, and in our mate­ rial it is not always easy to distinguish them from the rescue miracles. The material contains many of them, even if the plagues, for instance, are con­ sidered rescue miracles. However, the preludes before the elders (Exod 4:27-31: Jo's. Ant. 2,279-280) and at Pharaoh's court (Exod 6:28-7:13: Ar­ tap. 3,27; Philo, Mos. 1,91-94; Jos. Ant. 2,281-287) belong to this cate­ gory. A typical one is the punishment of Korah (Num 16,1-17:31: Philo, Mos. 2,278-287; L.A.B. 16; Jos. Ant. 4,11-66), which confirms either Moses' prophecy, the entire Law, or Moses' priesthood. Elijah closed heaven (1 Kgs 17:1-6: Sir 48:2-3 Jos. Ant. 8,319-323), and opened it at Carmel (1 Kgs 18:41-45; Jos. Ant. 8,343), and sends fire from heaven (2 Kgs 1:9-15; Jos. Ant. 9,20-21 and Ant. 8,328-346). The scoffing words of the Egyptian priest led to his painful death (Artap. 3,24-26). Some miracles hardly fit any of Theissen's categories. Yet, the stories about the birth of Moses (Exod 1:1-2:25: Philo, Mos. 1,65-84; L.A.B. 9; Jos. Ant. 2,205-237) or of Samson (Judg 13:1-25; L.A.B. 42; Jos. Ant. 5,276-285), or the end of Moses (Philo, Mos. 2,288-291; L.A.B. 19; Jos. Ant. 4,326) or of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:9-18: Sir 48:9; Jos. Ant. 9,28) can easily be categorized. However, it is more difficult to classify the stories about the seizing of the ark with their different agents, Jeremiah (Liv. Pro. 2:915; Eupolemus in Euseb. praep. ev. 9,39,2-5; in 2 Mace 2:4, 4 Bar. 3; 4QapcrJer\ God (L.A.B. 26,13) or an angel (2 Bar. 6:3-9).

d. The Greek influence The Graeco-Roman spirit influenced the manner of retelling the Old Tes­ tament miracles, in both form and content. Hellenistic short biographies together with the Jewish heritage formed the passages in Ben Sira's Laus patrum and the Lives of the Prophets. Artapanus and Josephus chose the form of Greek historiography, offering more and less serious models. Eze­ kiel put the great exodus in the form of a tragedy and followed Aeschylus' path in his Exagoge. However, although Ezekiel thus took the form origi­ nally belonging to the cult of Dionysus, the content of his work is astonish­ ingly faithful to the biblical original and the Jewish heritage. Many other writers were not as faithful. Artapanus made Moses Mousaios, Orpheus' teacher, and based the entire Greek culture on Moses' wisdom. Moses is, as Abraham, Trpcoxos eupriTrjs of various things, and the plague on the

10. Conclusion

293

river was the first time the Nile flooded the fields. Artapanus is a good example of how the biblical stories were quasi-historically put into a Graeco-Roman historical framework. Philo and Josephus also took the same path. Both of them emphasized Moses' role as a general, ruler and law-giver more than as a miracle-worker, although they retold most of his miracles. Josephus especially showed how the Jewish tradition was merged with Graeco-Roman folklore. This is particularly obvious in the stories concerning the birth and also the death of some biblical heroes. Greek thought certainly influenced people such as Philo and Josephus, who ap­ preciated Greek writers. However, even the radical Book of Jubilees used the Greek topos of T r p c o T o s EUprjTrjs to emphasize Abraham's signifi­ cance. It was impossible to avoid the Graeco-Roman influence. The Graeco-Roman influence was not, on the other hand, as significant as sometimes supposed. The Jews were aware of the anti-Jewish version of the exodus, which made Moses a sorcerer and the Hebrews evil people expelled from Egypt because of the pestilence. Nonetheless, Josephus, who quotes the anti-Jewish writers, apparently considered that the best way to defend Moses was simply to retell his miracles. This is also Philo's way. Although LXX avoids the word Aoipos, Ezekiel freely uses it. Philo tells about AOIJJIKCX appcoaTr||jaTa of the animals and Josephus uses the word v6oos, also used for bad diseases. But above all, the Jewish tradition formed and preserved a particular way way to deal with the biblical miracles, and it clearly differs from the Greek view. The biblical miracles belonged to the glorious past, which formed the identity of the nation. But the miracles not only belonged to the past; they were expected to be repeated in the future: Die Urzeit entspricht der Endzeit. This is the typical Jewish feature, often spiced with war between good and evil powers, that explains much of the Jewish miracle tradition.

e. Biases and functions of the miracle stories A study of the texts has revealed some important biases and functions common to many Jewish texts. Some biases suggested in the previous re­ search, however, could not be confirmed. 1) An early and important function of the retold miracle stories was to praise God and simultaneously the glorious past of the nation. This func­ tion is strongly present in Laus patrum in Ben Sira, and it is an important factor especially in Ezekiel the Tragedian and Philo. This function of the biblical stories was not only limited to literature. The plagues in Egypt and the miracle at the Red Sea were never forgotten in early Judaism. Philo tells about the choirs singing the praises of God's victory, and Mishna

294

10. Conclusion

supposes that it was remembered daily. It also meant that the holy past was always present among the Jews. 2) The men making miracles were involved in the war between the pow­ ers. LXX and 1 Chr 21:1 attest that some strange deeds of God were at­ tributed either to his angel or even to Satan. This view of the good powers poised against evil is strongly developed in the retold biblical miracle sto­ ries of early Judaism. Jub. presents Moses and his Egyptian opponents as mere puppets led by the good or bad angels. A similar view also appears in L.A.B., when David fights Goliath and is supported by God's angels. As seen above, the figures of Abraham and Solomon were altered so that they were able to control the demons. 3) A bias resulting in considerable alterations to the miracle stories is that many early Jewish writers were unwilling to present God in dialogue with men. Admittedly, Ezekiel the Tragedian retains the dialogues between God and Moses and L.A.B. even adds them, but particularly Jub., Artapanus, Philo and Josephus remove, reduce or reshape the dialogues. The reason is the theology present in Aristobulus' fragments: God's anthropomorphic traits were honourably reduced. That God was distanced from the human spheres and no longer spoke D ' E T ^ K D ^ S with men had several conse­ quences. The roles of God and men were redistributed (see below), and angels occasionally filled the gap between God and men. 4) The war between the good and evil powers is thus present in the retold biblical stories. Including Mediterranean magic in the Jewish miracle tradi­ tion was only one step away. Moses' rod plays an interesting role in Ar­ tapanus and Ezekiel. This holy rod punishes the Egyptians in different ways, and L.A.B. finally puts it into the heavenly Temple. The holy name, later so important in Mediterranean magic, was occasionally introduced in the stories. Jub. shows how Mastema and his demons attack people need­ ing protection. This protection was offered to Abraham and Moses by good angels in Jub., by Solomon's skills in Josephus, and David's hymns in L.A.B. and in the Qumran texts. Magic was by no means nonsense; it was a danger to be averted with God's help. The line between the protection allowed and "the ways of the Amorites" was blurred, as in most parts of the Mediterranean world. 5) It has been commonly claimed that the Jews were keen to rationalise and reduce the miraculous, and that the obvious tendency to exaggerate the miraculous is seldom observed. However, many early Jewish writers were happy to retell the biblical stories, and to make events even more miracu­ lous. Artapanus, for instance, exaggerates the biblical plagues, but so do Philo and Josephus, and L.A.B. makes Samson stronger than the biblical original. LXX exaggerates instead of reduces the miraculous in Dan 4. 6) The topos to seek and laud the first inventor of a technique was com­ mon in the Greek culture, and it is widely used in Artapanus, who makes

10. Conclusion

295

all Jewish fathers he deals with innovators in important fields such as as­ trology, letters or administration. It is notable that even Jub., although written in Palestine and considered anti-Hellenistic, uses this topos by hav­ ing Abraham discover the use of the plough. 7) Early Jewish writers seldom retold miracle stories that could put Israel or its leaders in a negative light. The stories about the bronze snake, the punishment of Miriam and, especially, the water from the rock, leading to the punishment of Moses not being allowed to go the Promised Land, were retold seldom, if ever. Of course, some traits in many stories were sup­ pressed because the writer wanted to exonerate the biblical figures. 8) Several scholars have assumed that Jewish writers tried to rationalise the miracle stories, because Gentiles mocked their credulity. The view is most common in the studies on Josephus, but occurs also in research on Ben Sira, Artapanus and Philo. Its most prominent advocate is Feldman. However, the entire concept of "rationalisation" is questionable: What we call miracles were in the Old Testament and in texts such as Philo thought to be only a part of God's mighty deeds. Philo expressis verbis confesses his belief that God is able to do everything, also the most marvellous mira­ cles told of in the Scripture. Although he may give a more natural version of, for example, the story about the water that became sweet, it can hardly be called a "rationalisation". Josephus also retells almost every biblical miracle-story without omitting their most miraculous traits; he freely em­ phasizes Solomon's miraculous wisdom and is obviously proud of the tra­ dition alive in his own times. Like Artapanus and Philo, Josephus may even exaggerate the miraculous. The Jewish writers could diminish the miraculous for several reasons: to imitate the Greek historians (Artapanus, Josephus) or to play down the political fervour, as in Josephus retelling the life of Joshua and Elijah. They also could freely link God's saving deeds with his other activities, just as Ben Sira connected the sweet water with God's help given through the physicians. There is very little evidence, however, that the miracles as such would have been problematic to Jews, and the scarce evidence on the alleged Gentile reaction is collected from the writings of a few sceptical authors. 9) An ancient Jewish writer seldom if ever distinguished between the biblical and his own times, which means that the biblical stories were eas­ ily adapted and contemporized in very different ways. They could relate to the life of an individual and act as a guide. Jub. presented Abraham and Moses as exemplary men remaining faithful under Mastema's attacks, and the ethical exemplary function is also occasionally present in a negative way (Samson). Another kind of adaptation uses a biblical hero as a vehicle for new arts new concepts: Abraham, David and Solomon were able to control the demons, and their skills certainly protected exorcists from criti­ cism. But an adaptation of the biblical miracle stories had a much wider

296

10. Conclusion

dimension when the entire glorious past was used to strengthen the people: Ben Sira could use the biblical miracles in praise of the fathers; Jub., Philo and Ezekiel the Tragedian could use them, but, above all, L.A.B. and the fragmentary works on Joshua attest the power of the holy past. Conse­ quently, it is no wonder that Josephus was not keen to emphasize the zealousness of Joshua and Elijah. 10) A strong biblical function of the miracle stories is that they legitimate a man as a leader sent by God. This function, so significant in the stories about the exodus and conquest, exists in early Judaism in different tones. The Book of Jubilees has preserved it, particularly when describing Abra­ ham. However, because Moses' position was very strong in early Judaism, legitimisation through miracles has often (as in Ben Sira) lost its function, and can either be left out or remain as only an echo of the biblical texts (Philo, L.A.B.). The function is sometimes needed again when a text is di­ rected to a Gentile audience (Josephus). A very interesting feature is that a military leader is legitimated through the Spirit in L.A.B., which also helps to understand people such as Theudas and the Egyptian. 11) Several of the Jewish authors studied above reveal a notable function of the miracle stories present especially in the stories on Samson (De Sampsone, L.A.B., Josephus). The synagogal tradition used the biblical stories in ethical instruction, adding and removing what was needed. This was the main goal of Philo in using the miracle stories, as well as the rest of the biblical tradition. The stories about individuals and about entire peoples (the Israelites and the Egyptians or Amalekites) were used to teach the audience to control pleasure. God was present, punishing the sinners, but rewarding and helping his own people. 12) The miracles were not always retold seriously; the function of enter­ tainment is sometimes obvious. Many of the details presented above reveal a delight in retelling and developing the biblical miracles. Although it was certainly a part of the oral tradition - Samson's fight against the lion is proudly retold in De Sampsone - Artapanus' fragments attest that rewriting the great past could also be very entertaining. 13) Competition between the miracle-workers sometimes appears in the texts. Artapanus is especially happy in presenting the Egyptian opponents of Moses, and their competition results in the names of Jannes and Jam­ bres, the famous sorcerers. Philo and Josephus, too, enjoy telling about the meeting at Pharaoh's court, but remove the sorcerers when retelling the plagues. A competition between the miracle-workers thus exists in the Jewish texts, but it is by no means a decisive function of the retold stories. A missionary function occurs very seldom if ever. Although writers such as Artapanus and Josephus like to show the superiority of Moses, a link to a mission is difficult to specify. When Philo and Josephus write to Gentiles

297

10. Conclusion

they emphasize traits of the biblical Moses which are not connected to miracles.

/ The audience The question about the intended audience of the retold miracle stories is generally very complicated, and should be observed better than has been done up to now. Several Jewish writers obviously tried to attract Gentile readers, and it certainly influences the way they dealt with the biblical material, including the miracle stories. However, it is not enough to refer to the "Gentile rea­ ders" and quote a few sceptical writers who were critical of the miracu­ lous. Although some of the Gentiles were sceptical, a large part of the peo­ ple, consisting of all social classes, loved anything miraculous. This was the audience Artapanus successfully tried to reach, and it is simply non­ sense to say that Josephus' targeted audience was made up of sceptics. His main Gentile audience consisted of people interested in the Jewish heri­ tage, also in its miraculous elements. The authors seeking mainly Jewish readers could generally expect eve­ ryone to know the biblical stories. Only a few words were needed to refer to them in Ben Sira, for instance. But the Jewish audience also had to be specified: L.A.B., for example, is written for a people well aware of the biblical material and in a very difficult situation, and it certainly had a strong political message. Apparently Philo - and he was not alone - used a double-edged strategy: He wrote for the Jews in Alexandria and was will­ ing to teach them, but on the other hand, he obviously expected Gentiles to read his works, too.

9

g. The roles of God and man and Moses extraordinary

position

The roles of God and man are often drastically changed in the retold sto­ ries. Sometimes man's role is emphasized (Artapanus), sometimes reduced (Jub.), but the most interesting feature is that in several texts the river flows in opposite directions inside a text. Josephus strongly emphasizes God's role in the plagues, but Moses' role at Pharaoh's court. He is not the only early Jewish author inconsistent on this point: Neither Philo nor L.A.B. show a unified line either. The main redactional line has thus not been to emphasize or to reduce man's role in the miracles; the reason is that almost all writers were unwilling to present God in dialogue with man as the Old Testament does. The primary bias, the removal of the dialogues

298

10. Conclusion

(or adding them as in L.A.B.!), has led to secondary consequences not al­ ways considered. In any case, the role of men is an important theme for study in the texts, but it should be observed that different readers interpreted the roles differ­ ently. The audience of Ben Sira hardly interpreted Joshua, Elijah, Elisha and Isaiah as "Bearers of Numinous Power" (BNP's), although some words could be interpreted to imply this if taken isolated, without the Jew­ ish horizon and analogia fidei. On the other hand, Artapanus also success­ fully sought Gentile readers, and they hardly could interpret Moses as other than an independent miracle-worker. Some Jewish texts, such as The Book of Wisdom, greatly reduced the roles of the human agents in the miracle stories. Although The Book of Jubilees inserts the war between the powers into the biblical stories and makes men only puppets of the good or bad angels, the texts studied in the present book mainly take another course. The short passages in Ben Sira's Laus patrum show how proud the writer was of the famous miracle-making Israelites. Ezekiel the Tragedian expands Moses' role only in Moses' dream, but Artapanus lets him act almost alone, and makes him a BNP for his Gentile readers. Philo is inconsistent, his view affected by the tendency to distance God from human spheres, and Josephus offers no consistent line either. The Lives of the Prophets contains several different views, as can be expected in a collection. The advocates of the 0s?os avrjp-hypothesis once supposed that miracles were told about persons to make them divine or half-gods. Previous studies have criticised the fundamentals of the hypothesis and the present book gives further support to the criticism. The miracles are only one and not a decisive side of Moses' picture in Philo and Josephus. He is above all a lawgiver, a general and a philosopher. Exod 7:1, in saying that God will make Moses god to Pharaoh, offered an opportunity to alter Moses so that he would fit the alleged B E T O S avrjp - pattern. However, the Greek version of Ben Sira changed the sense and Philo tries to explain the very limited way in which Moses was a god. The miracle-making Moses does not reach the pinnacle of his position in Philo's or Josephus' texts, but in Ezekiel the Tragedian and in L.A.B. Moses' dream in Exagoge is a very important text, in which a man is given an extraordinary position on a throne God gives him, and the writer of L.A.B. lets Moses die in gloria, saying mutata est effigies eius. However, the background here is obviously Jewish and not Greek.

10. Conclusion

299

h. Geography and chronology It is useful to look at the entire material studied here from a geographical and chronological point of view. Whether or not a Palestinian midrashic tradition can be separated from the Egyptian one is an old question. It should be answered negatively concern­ ing details: Artapanus, Philo, L.A.B. and Josephus all share the detail that the insects in the plagues were not of a conventional kind. Philo includes the theory of elements when presenting the plagues, but the Palestinian tradition also shows interest in the unusual roles of heaven and earth. Moses' birth and death awaken a similar interest in both traditions. It seems impossible to separate the details of the tradition. Artapanus and Ezekiel are keen to retell the biblical and new miracles. The same is true for the Lives of the Prophets. However, there are marked differences, if the entire theology of miracles of the texts is investigated. The glorious past is as important to Philo as it is to Ben Sira or to the writer of Jub., but the ancient miracles gained special roles in Palestine, where people tried to repeat them and so legitimate themselves as leaders of Israel. The historical persons are subject to another study, but L.A.B. and Liv. Pro. show that expectations were a part of the religious reality in Palestine. They understandably had less importance for people living in an Alexandrine T T O A I T E U I J O : , although the tensions there should not be onesidedly excluded. Nonetheless, the literary figure of Kenaz shows the power of the religious tradition in Palestine. Josephus, on the other hand, had to carefully observe this side, especially when presenting Joshua: He attributes little space to the conquest, and he is not at all keen to retell Joshua's miracles. Artapanus, Ezekiel and Philo show little or no interest in the war be­ tween the good and evil powers, although this is a crucial theme in the miracle stories of Jub., and L.A.B., as well as Josephus, shows traces of it. We may conclude that the belief in Qumran was compatible with this view, also in regard to miracles, and the demonic world influenced how the miracle stories were interpreted. In Jub. Abraham and Moses have a new opponent, Mastema, attacking them as the demons attacked people in Qumran. They are also obstructed by Davidic psalms. Josephus, too, tells how Solomon's wisdom helped the Jews to expel the demons. L.A.B. shows the dangerous link between the political adaptation of the miracle stories and the view that the cosmological order decides human battles. But the connection between the Old Testament miracle stories and the war be­ tween the spirits not only had political consequences. It also formed a multifaceted complex, in which sin, forgiveness and immanent health were combined in an original way. This is obviously a subject for further study,

300

10. Conclusion

which can contribute to a deeper understanding of the New Testament miracle stories. It is easy to conclude that a very early practice to use was the praise of the glorious past. It is well attested in the Old Testament and strongly present from Ben Sira to Josephus in the texts studied here. The political signifi­ cance of the biblical stories is a natural consequence of this, and as seen, is stronger in Palestine than in Egypt. It is impossible to trace the history of this bias: Its roots were so strong that an adaptation of the stories could appear whenever it was needed. The war between the powers is a novum in the Jewish miracle stories, although Jewish demonology also had roots in the Old Testament. The few sources preserved do not allow us to draw a historical line. Although Ben Sira does not show interest in it, Jub. does, and it is certainly not the first text of its kind. L.A.B. and Josephus attest that this view cannot be limited to the Qumran community and related groups. The Hellenizations are present in the anti-Hellenistic Jub. and, afterwards, especially in the altered stories, about the birth and death of the heroes. It is interesting that all the writers studied retold the stories freely. There is no trace of quoting the original word for word, and then interpreting the passage. Josephus may say that he follows the original without adding or omitting anything to the Scripture and it certainly was his own view of his work. However, he added, omitted and redacted miracle stories, uncon­ sciously and even consciously. Also, the most devoted and conservative Jews, including the writers of Jub. and L.A.B., could deal very freely with the stories. Philo considers the stories of the old men a source alongside the Scriptures (Mos. 1,4). Like his colleagues, he still lived in a world in which the biblical exegete was not primarily interested in the world the biblical persons lived in, but in the world of his audience. This strong and living tradition of the biblical miracles should be better observed in New Testament exegesis than has been done in recent years.

Bibliography

A. Sources, Texts and Translations The Old Testament: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, emendata. Stuttgart 1990.

ed. K. ELLIGER and W. RUDOLPH et al., editio quarta

Septuaginta: RAHLFS, Alfred, Septuaginta id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretum 12. Stuttgart 1935. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. J.W. WEVERS et al. G6ttingen 1974-.

Ben Sira: BEENTJES, Pancratius C, 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 New York - K5ln 1997. Vetus Testamentum Suppl. 68. Dl LELLA, Alexander A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Transl. with notes by Patrick W. SKEHAN, introduction and commentary by Alexander Dl LELLA. New York 1987. The Anchor Bible 39.

The Book of Jubilees: The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, ed. by James C. VANDERKAM (1989a). Leuven 1989. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Scriptores Aethiopici 87. -, The Book of Jubilees, translated by James C. VANDERKAM (1989b). Leuven 1989. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Scriptores Aethiopici 88.

Ezekiel: JACOBSON, Howard, The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge - London - New York - New Rochelle- Melbourne- Sydney 1983.

Artapanus: HOLLADAY, Carl R., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume 1: Historians. Chico, California 1983. SBL Texts and Translations Pseudepigrapha Series 10-20.

Philo: Philo. With an English translation ed. by F.H. COLSON, G.H. WHITAKER et al. London 1949-1953. Loeb Classical Library.

Bibliography

302 The Lives of the Prophets:

SCHWEMER, Anna Maria, Studien zu den fruhjiidischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum 1-11. Tubingen 1995-1996. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 49. - , HARE, Douglas A., "The Lives of the Prophets", OTP 2 (1985), 379-399.

Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum:

JACOBSON, Howard, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation 1-2. Leiden - New York - K6ln 1996. AGJU 31. - , HARRINGTON, Daniel J., "Pseudo-Philo", OTP 2 (1985), 397-377.

Josephus: Josephus. With an English translation ed. by H. St. J. THACKERAY et al. London 19261965. Loeb Classical Library.

Other sources and texts (see also sction B.): The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1-2, ed. by James H. Charlesworth. New York London - Toronto - Sydney - Auckland 1983-1985. GARCiA MARTINEZ, Florentino - TlGCHELAAR, Eibert J.C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition I-II. Leiden - New York -Koln 1997-1998.

B. Subsidia ALBANI, Matthias, FREY, J6rg and LANGE, Armin, Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Tubingen 1997. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 65. ALBERTZ, R., " ^ D " , THWAT2 (1984), 414-420. ALEXANDER, Philip S., "Incantations and Books of Magic", Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135) 3.1., rev. ed. by Geza VERMES, Fergus MILLAR and Martin GOODMAN, 342-379. Edinburgh 1986. - , "The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls", The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment,, ed. by Peter W. FLINT and James C. VANDERKAM with the assistance of Andrea E. ALVAREZ, 2, 331-353. Leiden - Boston - Koln 1999. - , "Jewish Elements in Gnosticism an Magic c. CE 70- c. 270", The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early Judaism, ed. by William HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY, 1052-1078. Cambridge 1999. ALEXANDRE, Manuel, "Rhetorical Argumentation as an Exegetical Technique in Philo of Alexandria", Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage a Valentin Nikiprowetzky edite par A. CAQUOT, M. HADAS-LEBEL et J. RlAUD, 13-41. Leuven -

Paris 1986.

ATTRIDGE, H.W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the "Antiquitates Judaicae" of Flavius Josephus, Missoula 1976. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7. - , "Fragments of Pseudo-Greek Poets", OTP 2 (1985), 821-830. AUNE, David E., Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids 1983. BARCLAY, John M.G., "Manipulating Moses: Exodus 2.10-15 in Egyptian Judaism and the New Testament", Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson, ed. by Robert P. CARROLL, 28-46. Sheffield 1992. JSOT.S 138.

Bibliography

303

-, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE -117 CE). Edinburgh 1996. BARNETT, P.W., The Jewish Eschatological Prophets A.D. 40-70 in their Theological and Political Setting (not printed). London 1977. - "The Jewish Sign Prophets - A.D. 40-70: Their Intentions and Origin", NTS 27 (1981), 679-697. BARRACLOUGH, Ray, "Philo's Politics: Roman Rule and Hellenistic Judaism", ANRW 2.21.1. (1984), 417-553. BASSER, H.W., "Josephus as Exegete", JAOS 107 (1987), 21-30. BAUCKHAM, R., "The Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo and the Gospel as 'Midrash'", Gospel Perspectives 3 (1983), 33-76. BECKER, Michael, "4Q521 und die Gesalbten", Revue de Qumran 18 (1997), 73-96. -, Wunder und Wundertdter im friihrabbinischen Judentum. Studien zum Phanomen und seiner Uberlieferung im Horizont von Magie und Ddmonismus. Tubingen 2002. WUNT 2,144. BEEGLE, Dewey M., "Moses", ABD 4 (1992), 909-920. BEENTJES, Pancratius C , "Hezekiah and Isaiah. A Study on Ben Sira XLVII: 15-27", OTS 25 (1989), 77-88. -, 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 - New York - Koln 1997. Vetus Testamentum Suppl. 68. BEGG, Christopher, "'Josephus's Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses': Some Observations", JBL 109 (1990), 691-693. - , "Joash and Elisha in Josephus Ant 9,177-185", ^ 3 2 (1994), 28-46. - , "Elisha's Great Deeds according to Josephus", Henoch 18 (1996), 69-110. BEN ZEEV, Miriam Pucci, "The Reliability of Josephus Flavius: The Case of Hecataeus' and Manetho's Accounts of Jews and Judaism: Fifteen Years of Contemporary Research (1974-1990)", JSJ2A (1993), 215-234. BERGER, Klaus 1981, = „Das Buch der Jubilaen", JSHRZ 2,3 (1981). - , (= 1984a) Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments. Heidelberg 1984. - , (=1984b) "Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament", ANRW 2.25.2 (1984), 1031-1432.1831-1885. BERNHEIMER, R., Vitae Prophetarum., JAOS 55 (1935), 200-203. BETZ, Otto, "Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich zum Wunderproblem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium", Jesus der Messias Israels. Aufsdtze zur biblischen Theologie, 398-419. Tubingen 1987. WUNT 42. - , "Der Tod des Choni-Onias im Licht der Tempelrolle von Qumran. Bemerkungen zu Josephus' antiquitates 14,22-24", ibid. 59-74. - , "The Essenes", The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early Judaism, ed. by William HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY, 444-470. Cambridge 1999.

BlELER, Ludvig, 0 E I O I A N H P . Das Bild des "Gottlichen Menschen" in Spdtantike und Friihchristentum 1-2. Wien 1935-36. BIRNBAUM, Ellen, "Allegorical Interpretation and Jewish Identity among Alexandrian Jewish Writers", Neotestamentica et Philonica. Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen, ed. by David E. AUNE, Torrey Seland and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen, 309-329. Leiden Boston 2003. BlETENHARD, Hans, Der Tosefta-Traktat Sota. Hebraischer Text und kritischer Apparat, Ubersetzung, Kommentar. Bern 1986. Judaica et Christiana. BlLDE, Per, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, His Works, and their Importance. Sheffield 1988. JSPSup 2.

Bibliography

304

BLACKBURN, Barry L., Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tubingen 1991. WUNT 2.40. BOCHER, Otto, Ddmonenfurcht und Ddmonenabwehr. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe. Stuttgart- Berlin - K o l n - Mainz 1970. BWANT 10. -, Christus Exorcista. Ddmonismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament. Stuttgart - Berlin K 5 l n - Mainz 1972. BWANT 16. - , "Damonen ('bdse Geister')", TRE 8 (1981), 270-286. - , "Exorzismus. I Neues Testament", TRE 10 (1982), 746-750. BOGAERT, P.M., "Les A n t i q u e s Bibliques du Pseudo-Philon a la lumiere des dScouvertes de Qumran. Observations sur 1' hymnologie et particulierement sur le chapitre 60", Qumran. A sa piete, sa theologie et son milieu, ed. by M. DELCOR, 313331. Paris - Leuven 1978. BETL 46. BOHL, F., "Die Legende vom Verbergen der Lade", FJB 4 (1976), 63-80. BONNEAU, G., - J. DUHAIME, "AngeTologie et legitimation socio-religieuse dans le livre des Jubil6s", Eglise et Teologie 27 (1996), 333-349. BOOTH, A. Peter, "The Voice of the Serpent: Philo's Epicureanism", Hellenization Revised. Shaping a Christian Response within the Graeco-Roman World, ed. by Wendy E. HELLEMAN, 159-172. Lanham- New Y o r k - London 1994. BORGEN, Peder, Bread from Heaven. An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. Leiden 1965. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 10. - , "Philo of Alexandria: A Critical and Synthetical Survey of Research since World War II", ANRW 2,21 (1984), 98-154. -, Philo, John and Paul. New Perspectives on Judaism and Early Christianity. Atlanta 1987. Brown Judaic Studies 131. - , "Philo of Alexandria", ABD 5 (1992), 333-342. -, Philo of Alexandria. An Exegete for his Time. Leiden - New York - K6ln 1997. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 86. BOWIE, Ewelyn Lyall, "Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic", PaP 46 (1970), 3-41. - , "Apollonius of Tyana: Tradition and Reality", ANRW2A6.2 (1978), 1652-1699. BROCK, S.P., "Abraham and the Ravens: A Syriac Counterpart to Jubilees 11-12 and its Implications", JSJ9 (1978), 135-162. BOWLEY, J.E., "Josephus' Use of Greek Sources for Biblical History", Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. by J.C. REEVES and J. KAMPEN, 202-215. Sheffield 1994.

BULTMANN, Rudolf, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. GSttingen 1921. FRLANT 29. CHARLES, R.H., The Book of Jubilees Translated from the Editor's Ethiopic Text. London 1902. CHARLESWORTH, James H., The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, with a Supplement. 2 ed. 1981. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7. - , "Greek, Persian, Roman, Syrian and Egyptian Influences in Early Jewish Theology: a Study of the History of the Rechabites", Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage a Valentin Nikiprowetzky £dite" par A. CAQUOT, M. HADAS-LEBEL et J. RlAUD, 219-243. Leuven Paris 1986. - , "The Son of David: Solomon and Jesus (Mark 10.47)", The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, ed. by Peder BORGEN - S6ren GlVERSEN, 72-87. Aarhus 1995. CHRISTIANSEN, Irmgard, Die Technik der allegorischen Auslegungswissenschaft bei Philon von Alexandrien. Tubingen 1969. n d

Bibliography

305

COGGINS, Richard J., Sirach. Sheffield 1998. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. COHN, L., "An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria", JQR 10 (1898), 277332). COLLINS, John J., "Artapanus", OTP 2 (1985), 889-903 - , "The Origin of Evil in Apocalyptic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls", Congress Volume, Paris 1992, 25-38. Leiden 1992. NT.S 61. -, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient literature. New York 1995. Anchor Bible Reference Library. - , "Jesus and the Messiahs of Israel", Geschichte - Tradition - Reflexion : Festschrift fur Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, hg. von Hubert CANCIK, Hermann LlCHTENBERGER und Peter SCHAFER, 3, 287-302. Tubingen 1996. - , (2000a) Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2 ed. Michigan 2000. The Biblical Resource Series. - , (200b) "Reinventing Exodus: Exegesis and Legend in Hellenistic Egypt", For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, ed. by Randal A. ARGAL, Bewerly A. Bow and Rodney A. WERLINE, 5262. Harrisburg 2000. COLPE, Carsten, "Samaria 3", RGG 5 (1961), 1353-1355. - , "Geister (DSmonen). A. Grundsatzliches zur Theorie des Animismus u. zur Bewertung antiker Geistervorstellungen" (= Colpe 1976a), RAC 9 (1976), 546-553. - , "Geister (DSmonen). B. Nichtchristlich. I. Alter Orient, a. Agypten" (=Colpe 1976b), RAC 9 (1976), 553-562. - , "Geister (Damonen). B. Nichtchristlich. I. Alter Orient, b. Mesopotamien, Syrien, Kleinasien" (=Colpe 1976c), RAC 9 (1976), 562-578. - , "Geister (Damonen). B. Nichtchristlich. I. Alter Orient, d. Iran" (=Colpe 1976d), RAC 9 (1976), 585-598. - , "Geister (DSmonen) B. Nichtchristlich. III. Ostliche Mittelmeerwelt seit dem 4./3. vC. a. Synkretismus in Agypten" (=Colpe 1976e), RAC 9 (1976), 615-625. COLSON, F.F., "Philo on Education", JTS 18 (1917), 151-162. - , (=COLSON 1934) = Philo VI. With an English translation by F.H. COLSON. London 1935 (1994). Loeb Classical Library 289. CORRINGTON, Gail Paterson, The "Divine Man ". His Origin and Function in Hellenistic Popular Religion. New York - Bern - Frankfurt a.M. 1986. American University Studies 7,17. DASSMANN, Ernst, "Hesekiel", RAC 14 (1988), 1132-1191. DAWSON, David, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley - Los Angeles - Oxford 1992. DELCOR, Mathias, "Jewish Literature in Hebrew and Aramaic in the Greek Era", The Cambridge History of Judaism. II The Hellenistic Age, ed by. W.D. DAVIES and Louis FlNKELSTElN, 352-384. Cambridge - London - New York - Port Chester Melbourne- Sydney 1989. DELLING, Gerhard, "Josephus und das Wunderbare", cited according to: Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen Judentum. Gesammelte Aufsdtze 1950-1968, hg. von Ferdinand HAHN, Traugott HOLTZ and Nikolaus WALTER, 130-145. Gottingen 1970. - , "Die biblische Prophetie bei Josephus", Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament (FS Otto MICHEL), hg. von n d

3

Otto BETZ, Klaus HAACKER und Martin HENGEL, 109-121. GOttingen 1974.

306

Bibliography

Dl LELLA, Alexander A . , The Wisdom of Ben Sira. Transl. with Notes by Patrick W. SKEHAN, Introduction and Commentary by Alexander Dl LELLA. New York 1987. The Anchor Bible 39. - , "Wisdom of Ben-Sira", ABD 6 (1992), 931-945. DlETZFELBINGER, Christian, "Pseudo-Philo: Antiquitates Biblicae (Liber antiquitatum BiblicarumT JSHRZ 2,2 (1979). DILLON, John, "Die Vita Pythagorica - ein Evangelium?", Jamblich flEPI TOY nVSArOPE/OY BIOY. Pythagoras: Legende - Lehre - Lebensgestaltung, hg. Michael von ALBRECHT, John DILLON, Martin GEORGE and Michael LURJE, David S.

DU TOIT, 295-301. Darmstadt 2002. SAPERE 4. DU TOIT, David S . Theios anthropos: zur Verwendung von theios anthropos und sinnverwandten Ausdriicken in der Literatur der Kaiserzeit. Tubingen 1997. WUNT 2.91. DULING, Dennis C , "Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David", HThR 68 (1975), 235252. - , "The Eleazar Miracle and Salomon's Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus's Antiquitates Judaicae 8,42-49", HThR 78 (1985), 1-25. - , "Solomon, Testament o f , ABD 6 (1992), 117-119. DUPONT-SOMMER, Andre, "Exorcismes et guensons dans les ecrits de Qoumran", Congress Volume, Oxford 1959.246-261. Leiden 1960. NT.S 7. - , /MOLLER, Walter W., Die essenischen Schriften vom Toten Meer. Tubingen 1959. DURHAM, John I., Exodus. Waco 1987. Word Biblical Commentary 3. ENDRES, John C , Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees. Washington DC 1987. CBQMS 18. ESKOLA, Timo, Messiah and the Throne. Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse. Tubingen 2001. WUNT 2.142. EVANS, Craig, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies. Leiden - New York - Koln 1995. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 25. EVE, Eric, The Jewish Context of Jesus' Miracles. Sheffield 2002. JSNT. S. 231. FELDMAN, Louis H . , "The Orthdoxy of the Jews in Hellenistic Egypt", JSSt 22 (1960), 215-237. - , "Prolegomenon", The Biblical Antiquities of Philo transl. by M.R. James, ix-clxviii. New York 1971. The Library of Biblical Studies. - , "Epilegomenon to Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB)", JJS 24 (1974), 305-312. - , "Josephus as an Apologist to the Greco-Roman World: His Portrait of Solomon", Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity ed. by Elisabeth Schiisser FlORENZA, 69-98. Notre Dame, Indiana 1976. - , FELDMAN 1981 = Josephus in Ten Volumes 10. London 1981. Loeb Classical Library. - , "Josephus' Jewish Antiquities and Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities", Josephus, the Bible and History, ed. by Louis H. FELDMAN und Gohei HATA, 59-80. Detroit 1989. - , "Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus", JTS41 (1990), 386-422. - , "Josephus' Portrait of Moses", JQR 82 (1991-1992), 285-328. - , "Josephus, Portrait of Korah", OTE 6 (1993), 399-426. - , "Josephus' Portrait of Elijah", SJOTS (1994), 62-86. -, Josephus' Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portions Missing in Greek. Leiden 1996. - , (= 1998a) Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley - Los Angeles - London 1998. Hellenistic culture and society 27.

Bibliography

307

- , ( = 1998b) Studies in Josephus's Rewritten Bible. Leiden - Boston - Koln 1998. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 58. - , "Josephus", The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early Judaism, ed. by William HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY, 901-921. Cambridge 1999. - , "On Proferssor Mark Roncace's Portraits of Deborah and Gideon in Josephus", JSJ 32 (2001), 193-220. - , "Philo's Interpretation of Joshua", JSP 12 (2001), 165-178. FLINTERMAN, Jaap-Jan, "The Ubiquitous 'Divine Man'", Numen 43 (1996), 82-98. FLUSSER, David, "Das judische Martyrium im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels und die Christologie", FrRu 25 (1973), 187-194. FOSSUM, Jarl, "The New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule: The Quest for Jewish Christology", SBL Seminar Papers 1991, 638-646. FRASER, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria 1-3. Oxford 1972. FREY, J6rg, "'Wie Mose die Schlange in der Wtiste erhoht hat ...' Zur fruhjudischen Deutung der 'ehernen Schlange' und ihrer christologischen Rezeption in Johannes 3,14f", Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum, hg. von. Martin HENGEL and Hermut LOHR, 153-205. Tubingen 1994. WUNT 73. - , "Different Patterns on Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library", Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies. Published in Honour of Joseph M. BAUMGARTEN, ed. by M. BERNSTEIN, F. Garcia MARTINEZ, J. KAMPEN, 276-335. Leiden 1997. STDJ 23. FREYHAN, M., "Ezechiel der Tragiker", Jahrbuch fur judische Gesichichte und Literatur 31 (1938), 46-83. GABBA, Emilio, "The Growth of Anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude towards the Jews", The Cambridge History of Judaism. II The Hellenistic Age, ed. by. W.D. DAVIES and Louis FINKELSTEIN, 614-656. Cambridge - London - New York - Port Chester Melbourne - Sydney 1989. - , "The Social, Economic and Political History of Palestine 63 BCE-CE 70", The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early Judaism, ed. by William HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY, 94-167. Cambridge 1999. GAGER, John G., Moses in Graeco-Roman Paganism. Nashville 1972. GARCIA MARTINEZ, Florentino - Tigchelaar, Eibert J.C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition I-II. L e i d e n - New Y o r k - K6ln 1997-1998 B. GAULY - L. KAEPPEL - R. KLIMEK-WINTER - H. KRASSER - K.-H.

STANZEL -

V.

UHRMEISTER (eds with R. KANNICHT), Musa Tragica. Die griechische Tragoedie von Thespis bis Ezechiel. Ausgewdhlte Zeugnisse und Fragmente griechisch und deutsch, Gottingen 1991. GEORGI, Dieter, Die Gegner des Paulus von 2. Korintherbrief. Studien zur religioser Propaganda in der Spdtantike. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1964. WMANT 11. -, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Edinburgh 1986. -, WeisheitSalomos. JSHRZ 3.4. (1980). GOLDENBERGER, Robert, "The Septuagint Ban on Cursing the Gods", JSJ2% (1997), 381389. GOODMAN, Martin - VERMES, Geza, "Jewish Literature of which the Original Language is Uncertain", Emil Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C - A.D. 135). New English Version ed. by Geza VERMES, Fergus MILLAR, Martin GOODMAN, 3.1., 705-889. Edinburgh 1987. GOULDER, Michael D., The Evangelist's Calendar. A Lectionary Explanation of the Development of Scripture. London 1978. The Speaker's Lectures in Biblical Studies.

308

Bibliography

Richard, La philosophie de Moi'se. Essai de reconstitution d' un commentaire philosophique prephilonien du pentateuque. Paris 1987. Histoire des doctrines de 1' antiquity classique 11. G R A Y , Rebecca, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine. The Evidence from Josephus. New York - Oxford 1993. GRELOT, Pierre, "La priere de Nabonide (4QOrNab). Nouvel essai de rSstauration", Revue de Qumran 9 (1978), 483-495. - , "Nabuchodonosor change* en bete", Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994), 10-17. G R U E N , Erich S., Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley - Los Angeles 1998. Hellenistic Culture and Society 30. HAACKER, Klaus - SCHAFER, Peter, "Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod Mose", Josephus-Studien. Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem Antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament, Otto Michel zum lO.Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. by Otto B E T Z , Klaus HAACKER and Martin HENGEL, 147-174. Gottingen 1974. HADAS, Moses, Hellenistic Culture. New York 1959 . HADOT, Jean, "Le milieu d' origine du 'Liber antiquitatum biblicarum', La litterature intertestamentaire. Colloque de Strasbourg (17-19 octobre 1983), 153-171. Paris 1985. H A H N , Ferdinand, Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im friihen Christentum. Gottingen 1963. FRLANT 83. HALPERN- AMARU, Betsy, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees. Leiden Boston - K6ln 1999. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 60. HARE, Douglas A., "The Lives of the Prophets", OTP 2 (1985), 379-399. - , "Prophets, Lives of the", ABD 5 (1992), 503-504. HARRINGTON, Daniel J. "A Decade of Research on Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities," JSPE2(\9U), 3-12. - , "Pseudo-Philo", OTP 2 (1985), 397-377. - , "Birth Narratives in LAB", To touch the Text: Biblical and related studies in honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ed. by M.P.HORGAN, P. KOBELSKI, 316-324. New York 1988. - , "Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and Prophecies. I The Bible Rewritten", Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, ed. by R.A. K R A F T - G.W.E. NlCKELSBURG, 239-247. 253-258. Atlanta- Philadelphia 1986. HATA, Gohei, "The Story of Moses Interpreted within the Context of Antisemitism". Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, 180190. Leiden 1987. HAY, David M., "Philo's View of Himself as an Exegete: Inspired, but not Authoritative", The Studia Philonica Annual 3 (1991), 40-52. HAYWARD, Robert, "Phinehas - the Same is Elijah: The Origins of a Rabbinic Tradi­ tion", ^ 2 9 (1978), 22-32. HAYES, Christine, "Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources", HTR 92 (1999), 3-36. HELLEMAN, Wendy E., "Philo of Alexandria on Deification and Assimilation to God", The Studia Philonica Annual 2 (1990), 51-71. HENGEL, Martin, "Ben Sira und Hellenismus", JSJ5 (1974), 83-87. - , (1989a) "The Political and Social History of Palestine from Alexander to Antiochus II (222-187 B. C. E)", The Cambridge History of Judaism. II The Hellenistic Age, ed by. W.D DAVIES and Louis FINKELSTEIN, 3-78. Cambridge - London - New York - Port Chester- Melbourne- Sydney 1989. - , (1989b) The Zealots. Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod I until 70 A.D. Edinburgh 1989. GOULET,

Bibliography

309

-, Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Second one-volume Edition Minneapolis 1991. - , "'Sit at My Right Hand!' The Enthronement of Christ at the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110:1", Studies in Early Christology, 119-225. Edinburgh 1995. - , "Jerusalem als judische und hellenistische Stadt", Hellenismus: Beitrdge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalters, ed. Bernd FUNCK, 269-317. Tubingen 1996. -, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (with the assistance of Roland DEINES). Edingburgh - New York 2002. HOFFKEN, Peter, "Hiskija und Jesaja bei Josephus", JSJ29 (1998), 37-48. - , "Jesus Sirachs Darstellung der Interaktion des K6nigs Hiskija und des Propheten Jesaja (Sir 48,17-25)", JSJ 31 (2000), 162-175. HOLLADAY, Carl R., "The Portrait of Moses in Ezekiel the Tragedian", SBL 1976 Seminar Papers, 447-452. Missoula 1976. -, Theios aner in Hellenistic-Judaism: a Critique of the Use of this Category in New Testament Christology. Missoula 1977. SBLDS 40. -, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume 1: Historians. Chico, California 1983. SBL Texts and Translations Pseudepigrapha Series 1 0 - 2 0 . HORBURY, William, "Ezekiel Tragicus 106: ScopriuaTa", VT36 (1986), 37-51. -, Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London - New York 2003. HORSLEY, Richard A. - , /HANSON, John S., Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus. Minneapolis 1985. - , "Social Relations and Social Conflict in the Epistle of Enoch " For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, ed. by Randal A. ARGAL, Bewerly A. Bow and Rodney A. WERLINE, 100-115. Harrisburg 2000. van der HORST, Pieter, "Moses' Throne-Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist", JJS 34 (1983), 21-28. - , "Some Notes on the Exagoge of Ezekiel", Mnemosyne 37 (1984), 354-375. HOUTMAN, Cornelis, Exodus. Kampen 1993. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. JACOBSON, Howard, "Ezekielos 12-13 (TrGF 128), AJP 98 (1977), 415-416. - , Ezekiel the Tragedian and the Primeval Serpent" AJP 102 (1981), 316-320. - , "The Identity and Role of Chum in Ezekiel's Exagoge", HSL 9 (1981), 272-293 - , "Mysticism and Apocalyptic in Ezekiel's Exagoge" ICS 6 (1981), 272-293. - , "Two Studies on Ezekiel the Tragedian" GRBS22 (1981),167-78. -, The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge - London - New York - New Rochelle Melbourne- Sydney 1983. - , (= 1983b) "Josephus on the Death of Moses" Tria Lustra: Essays and Notes Presented to John Pinsent, ed. by H.D. Jocelyn and H. Hurt. Liverpool Classical Papers 3 (1983). Liverpool Classical Monthly. - , "Biblical Quotation and Editorial Function in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum", JSP 5 (1989), 47-64. -, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation 1-2. Leiden - New York - K6ln 1996. AGJU 31. JAMES, M. R. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo: Prolegomenon by Louis H. Feldman. New York, 1917(1971). Jenni, Erst, '"m", ThWAT 1 (1984), 401-409.

310

Bibliography

JEREMIAS, JOACHIM, Die Heiligengrdber in Jesu Umwelt (Mt. 23,29; Lk. 11,47). Eine Untersuchung zur Volksreligion der Zeit Jesu. Gflttingen 1958. JERVELL, Jacob, Die Apostelgeschichte. Gottingen 1998. KEK 17. DE JONGE, Marinus, "Christelijke Elementen in de Vitae Prophetarum", Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 16 (1961-62), 161-178. KAHL, Werner, New Testament Miracle Stories in their Religious-Historical Setting. A Religionsgeschichtliche Comparison from a Structural Perspective. Gdttingen 1994. FRALANT 163. KAISER, Otto, "Krankheit und Heilung nach dem Alten Testament", MedGG 20 (2001), 9-43. KASHER, Aryeh, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Tubingen 1985. KlEWELER, H.W., Ben Sira zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Th. Middendorp. Wien 1992. BEAT 30. KiSTER, Menahem, "Demons, Theology and Abraham's Covenant (CD 14:4-6 and Related Texts)", The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty. Proceedings of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature Qumran Section Meetings, ed. by Robert A. KUGLER and Eileen M. SCHULLER. Atlanta 1999, 167-184. Society of Biblical Literature. Early Judaism and its Literature 15. KLAUCK, Hans-Josef, The Religious Context of Early Christianity. A Guide to GraecoRoman Religions. Edinburgh 2000. KLEINGONTHER, Adolf, " T T P n T O I EYPHTHI. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte einer Fragestellung", Philologus Suppl. 26.1. (1933), 1-55. KNIBB, M. A., "Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah", OTP 2 (1985), 143-176. - Jubilees and the Origins of the Qumran Community. London 1989. KOSTER, Helmut, History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age 1-2. Philadelphia - B e r l i n - N e w York 1982. - , /ROBINSON James M., Trajectories through Early Christianity. 1970. Cited according to: Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des fruhen Christentums. Tubingen 1971. KOLLMANN, Bernd, "Gfittliche Offenbarung magisch-pharmalogischer Heilkunst im Buch Tobit", ZAW 106 (1994), 289-299. -, Jesus und die Christen als Wundertdter. Studien zu Magie, Medizin und Schamanismus inAntike und Christentum. Gmtingen 1996. FRALANT 170. KOSKENNIEMI, Erkki, Der philostrateische Apollonios. Helsinki 1991. CHL 94. -, Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. Forschungsbericht und Weiterfuhrung der Diskussion. Tubingen 1994. WUNT 2.61. - "Apollonius of Tyana - a typical 6e?os avrjp ?" JBL 117 (1998), 455-467. - , "Greeks, Egyptians and Jews in the Fragments of Artapanus", JSP 13 (2002), 17-31. KOTTEK, S.S., "Magic and Healing in Hellenistic Jewish Writings", Frankfurter Judaistische Beitrdge 27 (2000), 1-16. KRAFT, Fritz, "Elementenlehre", Der Neue Pauly 3 (1997), 978-980. KUIPER, K., "De Ezechiele Poeta Judaeo", Menomosyne 28 (1900), 237-280. LANGE, Armin, "lQGenAp XIX, 10 - XX,32 as Paradigm of the Wisdom Didactive narrative", Qumranstudien. Vortrage und Beitrdge der Teilnehmer des Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen Treffen der Society of Biblical Literature, Miinster, 25.-26. Juli 1993, ed. by Heinz-Josef FABRY - Armin LANGE - Hermann LICHTENBERGER, 191-204. Gottingen 1996. Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitschianum. - , LANGE, Armin - SlEKER, Marion, "Handschrift und Werk". Qumranstudien. Vortrage und Beitrdge der Teilnehmer des Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen Treffen der Society of Biblical Literature, Miinster, 25.-26. Juli 1993, ed. by Heinz-Josef FABRY,

Bibliography

311

Armin LANGE and Hermann LICHTENBERGER, 4-34. Gottingen 1996. Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitschianum. - , "The Essene Position on Magic and Divination", Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies. Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. by M. BERNSTEIN, F. GARCIA MARTINEZ, J. KAMPEN, 377-435. Leiden 1997. STDJ 23.

LEE, Thomas R., Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50. Atlanta, Georgia 1986. SBL Dissertation Series 75. LEVISON, J.R., "Torah and Covenant in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum", Bund und Tora. Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, friihjudischer und urchristlicher Tradition, ed. by F. AVEMARIE and H. LICHTENBERGER, 111-127. Tubingen 1996. WUNT 92. - , "Josephus' Interpretation of the Divine Spirit", JJS 41 (1996), 234-255. LEVY, Carlos, "Le 'scepticisme' de Philon d' Alexandria une influence de la nouvelle Academie?", Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage a Valentin Nikiprowetzky 6dite par A. CAQUOT, M. HADAS-LEBEL et J. RlAUD, 29-41. Leuven - Paris 1986. LICHTENBERGER, Hermann, "Messianic expectation and messianic figures in the Second Temple Period", Qumran-Messianism, ed. by James H. CHARLESWORTH, Hermann LICHTENBERGER and Gerbera S. OEGEMA, 9-20. Tubingen 1998.

LlDONNlCI, Lynn R., The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions. Text, Translation and Commentary. Atlanta 1995. JBL Texts and Translations 36, Graeco-Roman Religion eries 11. LlERMAN, John, The New Testament Moses: Christian Perceptions of Moses and Israel in the Setting of Jewish Religion. Tubingen 2004. MACH, Michael: Entwicklungsstadien des jiidischen Engelglaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit, Tubingen 1992. TSAJ 34. MACDONALD, J., "The Samaritan Doctrine of Moses", SJT 13 (1960), 149-162. MACK, Burton L., Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic. Ben Sira's Hymn in Praise of Fathers. Chicago 1985. MACK - MURPHY 1986 = MACK, Burton - MURPHY, Roland, "Wisdom Literature", Early

Judaism and its Modern Interpreters, ed. by Robert A. KRAFT and George W.E. NICKELSBURG, 371-410. Philadelphia - Atlanta 1986. The Bible and its Modern Interpreters 2. MACRAE, George, "Miracles in the Antiquities of Josephus", Miracles. Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History, ed Charles F.D. MOULE, 127-147. London 1965. MAIER, Gerhard, "Zur neutestamentlichen Wunderexegese im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert", Gospel Perspectives 6 (1986), ed. by D. WENHAM - C. BLOMBERG, 49-87 MAIER, Johannes, "Geister (Damonen). B. Nichtchristlich. I. Alter Orient, c. Israel" (=Maier 1976a), RAC 9 (1976), 579-585. - , "Geister (Damonen) B. Nichtchristlich. III. Ostliche Mittelmeerwelt seit dem 4./3. vC. b. Frtihes und hellenistisches Judentum" (=Maier 1976b), RAC 9 (1976), 626-640. - , "Geister (Damonen) B. Nichtchristlich. III. Ostliche Mittelmeerwelt seit dem 4./3. vC. d. Talmudisches Judentum" (= Maier 1976c), RAC 9 (1976), 668-688. -,Die Qumran-Essener. Die Texte vom Toten Meer 1-3. Mtinchen - Basel 1995-1996. UTB 1862, 1863, 1916. MARBOCK, Johannes, "Structure and Redaction History of the Book of Ben Sira. Review and Prospects", The Book of Ben Sira in Modern research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July Soesterberg, Afemerlands, ed. by Pancratius C. BEENTJES, 61-79. Berlin - New York 1997. BZAW 1997.

312

Bibliography

MARCUS 1937 = Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books IX-XIWvth. an English translation by Ralph MARCUS. London 1937 (2001). Loeb Classical Library 326. MARTIN, James D., "Ben Sira's Hymn to the Fathers: A Messianic Perspective", OTS 24 (1986), 107-123. MAYER, G., " " D i , debher", Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 3 (1978), 125127. MASON, Steven, "Should any Wish to Enquire Further' (Ant. 1,25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus' Judean Antiquities / Life", Understanding Josephus. Seven Perspectives, ed. by Steve MASON, 64-103. Sheffield 1998. JSOT Suppl 32. MEEKS, Wayne, The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden 1967. NT.S 14. - , "The Divine Agent and his Counterfeit in Philo and the Fourth Gospel", Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity ed. by Elisabeth SCHOSSER FlORENZA, 43-67, Notre Dame, Indiana 1976. MEIER, John P., A Marginal Jew 1-3: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 v,. New York 1991. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. MENDELS, D., "Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, the Fourth Philosophy' and the Political Messianism of the First Century C.E.," The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity ed. by J. CHARLESWORTH, 261-275. Minneapolis 1992. MENDELSON, Alan, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati 1982. MERKEL, Helmut, "Sibyllinen", JSHRZ5 (1998), 1041-1148 MERKELBACH, Reinhold, Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderromans. Miinchen 1954. Zetemata 9. van der MEULEN, H.E.F., Das Salomo-Bild im hellenistisch-judischen Schrifttum, Kampen 1978. MIDDENDORP, Theophil, Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Leiden 1972. MlTTMANN-RlCHERT, Ulrike, "Einfiihrung zu den Jtidischen Schriften aus hellenistischrdmischer Zeit. Historische und legendarische Erzahlungen", JSHRZ Supplementa 6 (2000), 2001, 156-171 MOEHRING, H., "Rationalization of Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus", TU 112(1973), 376-383. - , Moses and Pythagoras: Arithmology as an Exegetical Tool in Philo", Studia Biblica I: Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, ed. by E.A. LIVINGSTONE. JSOTS 11 (1979), 205-208. - , "Joseph ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: the Jewish Prophet and Roman Historian", ANRW 2.21.2, 864-944. MONDESERT, C , "Philo of Alexandria", The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early Judaism, ed. by William HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY, 877-900. Cambridge 1999. MONTANARI, Franco, "Alexander [23, Polyhistor]", Der Neue Pauly 1 (1996), 478-479. MOORE, Rick Dale, God Saves. Lessons from the Elisha Stories. Sheffield 1990. JSOT.S. 95 MURPHY, F.J., "Divine Plan, Human Plan: A Structuring Theme in Pseudo-Philo", JQR 77(1986), 5-14. - , "God in Pseudo-Philo", JSJ 18 (1988), 1-18. - , "Retelling the Bible: Idolatry in Pseudo-Philo", JBL 107 (1988), 275-287. - , "The Eternal Covenant in Pseudo-Philo", JSP 3 (1988), 43-57. -, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible. New York 1993.

Bibliography

313

NESTLE, E., "Die dem Epiphanius zugeschriebenen Vitae Prophetarum in doppelter griechischer Rezension", Marginalien und Materialien, 1-64. Tubingen 1893. NEWSOM, Carol A., "4Q378 and 4Q379: An Apocryphon of Joshua", Qumranstudien. Vortrdge und Beitrdge der Teilnehmer des Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen Treffen der Society of Biblical Literature, Munster, 25.-26. Mi 1993. Ed. by HeinzJosef FABRY, Armin LANGE and Hermann LICHTENBERGER, 35-85. Gflttingen 1996. Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitschianum. NICKELSBURG, G.W.E., "Good and Bad Leaders in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum", Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms, ed. by J.J. COLLINS and G.W.E. NICKELSBURG, 49-65. Chico 1980. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12. -, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. Philadelphia 1981. - , (1984a) "Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical times", Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. by Michael E. STONE, 33-87. Philadelphia 1984. - , (1984b) "The Bible Rewritten and Expanded", Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. by Michael STONE, 89-156. Philadelphia 1984. NIKIPROWETZKY, Valentin, "Sur une lecture demonlogique de Philon d' Alexandrie. De Gigantibus, 6-18", Etudes philoniennes, 217-242. Paris 1996. NOACK, B., "Qumran and the Book of Jubilees", SEA 22-23 (1957-58), 191-207. NUTTON, Vivian, "Medizin". Der Neue Pauly 1 (1999), 1103-1117. OBERHANSLI-WIDMER, Gabriele, "Mose / Moselied / Mosesegen / Moseschriften. Ill Apokalyptische und judisch-hellenistische Literatur", 7ftE23 (1994), 347-357. QHLER, Markus, Elia im Neuen Testament. Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des alttestamentlichen Propheten im friihen Christentum. Berlin - New York 1997. BZNW 88. OLYAN, Saul M., "The Israelites Debate their Options at the Sea of Reeds": LAB 10:3, its Parallels and Pseudo-Philo's Ideology and Background", JBL 110 (1991), 75-91. -, A Thousand Thousands Served Him. Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism. Tubingen 1993 (TSAJ 36). OSSWALD, Eva, "Erzahlung von Abrahams Aufenthalt in Agypten", ZAW 72 (1960), 725. PAUTREL, Raymond, "Ben Sira et le stoicisme", RSR 51 (1963), 535-549. PEARSON, Brook W.R., "Dry Bones in the Judean Desert: The Messiah of Ephraim, Ezekiel 37, and the Post-Revolutionary Followers of Bar Kokhba", JSJ 29 (1998), 192201. PERES, Jacques-Noel, "Erkki Koskenniemi, Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese (rec.)", Etudes Theologiques et Religieuses 3 (1995), 447-448. PERROT - BOGAERT 1976 = Pseudo-Philon, Les antiquites bibliques 2. Introduction litteraire, introduction, texte critiques et commentaire par Daniel J. HARRINGTON, Jacques CAZEAUX Charles PERROT et Pierre-Maurixe BOGAERT. Paris 1976. Sources chretiennes 229-230. PESCH, Rudolf, Das Markusevangelium, Freiburg im Breisgau 1976-77. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2. PETIT, M., "La cachette de 1' arche d' alliance: A partir de la 'Vie de J6r6mie' 9-15 dans les 'Vitae Prophetarum', La litterature intertestamentaire (Colloque de Strasbourg 1719 octobre 1983, 119-113/ Paris 1985. PHILONENKO, M., "Remarques sur un hymn ess^nien de caractere gnostique", Semitica 11 (1961), 43-54.

314

Bibliography

PHILONENKO-SAYAR, Belkis and PHILONENKO, Mark, "Die Apokalypse Abrahams" JSHRZ 5,5 (1980). PlLGAARD, Aage, "The Hellenistic Theios Aner - a Model for Early Christian Christology?", The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, ed. by Peder Borgen and Sdren Giversen, 101-122. Aarhus 1995. PREISENDANZ, Karl, "Salomo", PRE Suppl. 8 (1956), 660-704. RIEST, J., "Ben Sira 45,25 in the Light of the Qumran Literature", RQ 5 (1964-66), 111118. PROPP, William H. C , Exodus 1-18. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York 1999. The Anchor Bible 2. RAD, Gerhard von, Weisheit in Israel. Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970. RAJAK, Tessa, Josephus. The Historian and His Society. London 1983. REINMUTH, Eckart, "Beobachtungen zum VerstSndnis des Gesetzes im Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo)", JSJ 20 (1989), 151-170. -, Pseudo-Philo und Lukas.Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und seiner Bedeutung fur die Interpretation des lukanischen Doppelwerkes. Tubingen 1994. WUNT 74. REITERER, Friedrich Vinzenz, "Review of Recent Research on the Book of Ben Sira. Review and prospects", The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research. Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28-31 July Soesterberg, Netherlands, ed. by Pancratius C. Beentjes, 23-60. B e r l i n - N e w York 1997. BZAW 1997. REITZENSTEIN, Richard, Hellenistische Wundererzahlungen. Leipzig 1906. -, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen. Leipzig 1910. RENGSTORF, Karl Heinrich, "onueTov, ThWNTl (1964), 199-261. - , "Tepas", ThWNTS (1969), 113-127. ROBERTSON, R.G., "Ezekiel the Tragedian", OTP 2 (1985), 803-819. ROCHETTE, Bruno, "Juifs et Romains. Y a-t-il eu un antijudaism romain?", Revue des Etudes Juives 160 (2001), 1-31. ROKEAH, David, "Tacitus and the Ancient Antisemitism", Revue des Etudes juives 154 (1995), 281-294. DE ROMILLY, J., Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Cambridge 1975. RONCACE, Mark, "Josephus' (Real) Portraits of Deborah and Gideon: A Reading of Antiquities 5.198-232", JSJ31 (2000), 247-274. RUBINKIEWICZ, R., "Apocalypse of Abraham" OTP 1 (1983), 681-719. VAN RuiTEN, Jacques T.A.G.M., "The Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-12 in Jubilees 5:119", Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. by Mattias ALBANI, J5rg FREY, Armin LANGE, 59-75. Tubingen 1997. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 65. - , "Visions of the Temple in the Book of Jubilees", Gemeinde ohne Tempel, ed. by Beate EGO, Armin LANGE and Peter PlLHOFER, 215-227. Tubingen 1999. WUNT 118. -, Primaeval History Interpreted. The Rewriting of Genesis I-II in the Book of Jubilees. Leiden - Boston - KOln 2000. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 66. RUNIA, D.T., "God and Man in Philo of Alexandria", Journal for Theological Studies 39 (1988), 48-75. - , /RADICE, R., Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography 1937-1986. Leiden 1988. - , "Was Philo a Middle Platonist", Stadia Philonica Annual 5 (1993), 112-140. SANDERS, E.P., Judaism. Practice and Belief 63 BCE - 66 CE. 2 ed. London Piladelphia 1994 (repr. 1998). n d

Bibliography

315

SANDMEL, Samuel, "Philo Judaeus: An Introduction of the Man, his Writings, and his Significance", ANRW2,2l,\ (1984), 3-46. SATRAN, David, "Daniel: Seer, Philosopher, Holy Man", Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism. Profiles and Paradigms, ed. by John J. COLLINS - George W.E. NlCKELSBURG, 33-48. Ann Arbor 1980. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12. - , "The Lives of the Prophets", Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. by Michael Edward STONE, 56-85. Assen - Philadelphia 1984 (CRI2/2). -, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine. Reassesing the Lives of the Prophets. Leiden - New Y o r k - K8ln 1995. Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 11. - , "The 'Life of Ezekiel' (Vitae Prophetarum)", The Apocryphal Ezekiel, ed by Michael E. STONE, Benjamin G. WRIGHT and David SATRAN, 69-75. Atlanta 2000. SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 18. SAUER, Georg 2000 = Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira. Ubersetzt und erklart von Georg Sauer. GSttingen 2000. Das Alte Testament Deutsch Apokryphen 1. SCHAPER, Joachim, "The Pharisees" The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early Judaism,

ed. by

William

HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY,

402-42.

Cambridge 1999. SCHERMANN, T., (1907a) Prophetarum vitae fabulosae indices Apostolorum discipulorumque Domini Dorotheo Epihpanio Hippolyto aliisque vindicatae. Leipzig 1907. - , (1907b) Propheten und Apostellegenden nebst Jungerkatalogen des Dorotheus und verwandter Texte. Leipzig 1907. TU 31.3. SCHMIDT, Karl Ludwig, "Paulus und die antike Welt", Vorrtage der Bibliothek Warburg, Vortrage 1924-1925, Leipzig, Teubner 1927, 38-64, repr. in Das Paulusbild in der neueren Deutschen Forschung, ed. by Ulrich LUCK and Karl Heinrich RENGSTORF, 214-245. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1969. Wege der Forschung 24. SCHMIDT, Werner H., Exodus. Neukirchen - Vluyn 1995. Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament II/2.1. SCHOTTROFF, Willy, "Gottmensch I", RAC 12 (1983), 155-234. SCHREIBER, Stefan, Gesalbter und Konig. Titel und Konzeptionen der koniglichen Gesalbtenerwartung in fruhjudischen und urchristlichen Schriften. Berlin - New York 2000. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Alteren Kirche 2000. SCHORER, Emil, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi 1-3. 3. und 4. Aufl., Leipzig 1901-1909. -, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D. 135) 1-3. ed by Geza VERMES, Fergus MILLAR et al. Edinburgh 1973-1986. SCHWARTZ, "Artapanus", PRE 2.1. (1895), 1306. SCHWARTZ, D., "Josephus on Jewish Constitutions and Community", SCI 7 (1983-84), 30-52. SCHWEMER, Anna Maria, "Elija als Araber. Die haggadischen Motive in der Legende vom Messias Menahem ben Hiskija (yBer 2,4 5a; EkhaR 1,16 § 51) im Vergleich mit den Elija- und Elischa-Legenden der Vitae Prophetarum", Die Heiden ed. by Reinhard FELDMAIER und Ulrich HECKEL, 108-157. Tubingen 1994. WUNT 70. -, Studien zu den fruhjudischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum /-//. Tubingen 1995-1996. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 49. - , "Vitae Prophetarum" JSHRZ 1,7 (1997).

316

Bibliography

- , "Die Verwendung der Septuaginta in den Vitae Prophetarum", Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, ed. by Martin HENGEL and Anna Maria SCHWEMER, 62-91. Tubingen 1994. WUNT 72. SELAND, Torrey, "Saul of Tarsus and Early Zealotism: Reading Gal 1,13-14 in Light of Philo's Writings", Biblica 83 (2002), 449-471 SlEGERT, Folker, Drei hellenistisch-jiidische Predigten Ps.-Philon, "Uber Jona", Uber Jona" (Fragment) und "Uber Simson". I. Ubersetzung aus dem Armenischen und sprachliche Erlduterungen. Tubingen 1980. II. Kommentar nebst Beobachtungen zur hellenistischen Vorgeschichte der Bibelhermeneutik. Tubingen 1992. WUNT 60-61. -, Zwischen Hebrdischer Bibel und Altem Testament. Eine Einfuhrung in die Septuaginta. Munster - Hamburg - Berlin - London 2001. Munsteraner Judaistische Studien 9. SlEVERS, Joseph, "Josephus and the Afterlife", Understanding Josephus. Seven Per­ spectives, ed. by Steve MASON, 20-34. Sheffield 1998. JSOT Suppl 32. SlPlLA, Seppo, Between Literalness and Freedom. Translation Technique in the Septua­ gint of Joshua and Judges regarding the clause connections introduced by J and D. Helsinki - GSttingen 1999. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 75. SKA, Jean Louis, "L' eToge des Peres dans le Siracide (Si 44-50) et le canon de 1' Ancient Testament", Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. GILBERT, ed. by N. CALDUCH-BENAGES and J. VERMEYLEN, 181-193. Leuven 1999. SMEND, Rudolf, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebrdisch und Deutsch. Berlin 1906. -, Griechisch-Syrisch-Hebrdischer Index zur Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Berlin 1907. SMITH, Morton, "Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Men, the Gospels and Jesus", JBL 90 (1971), 174-199. - , "The Occult in Josephus", Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, ed. by Louis H. FELDMAN und Gohei HATA, 236-256. Leiden 1987. - , "The Troublemakers", The Cambridge History of Judaism. III. The Early Judaism, ed. by William HORBURY, W.D. DAVIES and John STURDY, 501-568. Cambridge 1999. SNAITH, John G., Ecclesiasticus of the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach. Cambridge 1974. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. SNELL, Bruno, "Die Jamben in Ezechiels Moses-Drama", Glotta 44 (1966), 25-32. - , Szenen aus griechischen Dramen. Berlin 1971. - , "Ezechiel's Moses-Drama", Antike undAbendland 13 (1967), 150-164. SPOERRI, W., "Nikolaos (2) von Damaskos", Der Kleine Pauly 4 (1979), 109-111. STADELMANN, Helge, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. Eine Untersuchung zum Berufsbild des vormakkabdischen Sofer unter Beriicksichtigung seines Verhdltnisses zu Priester-, Propheten und Weisheitslehrertum. Tubingen 1980. WUNT 2.6. STEMBERGER, Giinter, "Salomo. II Judentum", TRE 29 (1998), 727-730. STEUDEL, Annette, "God and Belial", The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jeusalem Congress, July 20-25, 1997, ed. by Lawrence H. SCHIFFMAN, Emanuel Tov and James C. VANDERKAM, 332-340. Jerusalem 2000. STOLZ, F., "mm", ThWANT 1 (1984), 91-95. STONE, Michael E., "Prophets, Lives of the", Encyclopaedia Judaica 3 (1972), 11491150. TABOR, J.D., "'Returning to the Divinity': Josephus's Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses", JBL 108 (1989), 225-238. TALMON, Shemaryahu, "Fragments of a Joshua Apocryphon - Masada 1039-211 (Final Photo 5254)", JJS 47 (1996), 128-139. TESTUZ, Michel, Les idees religieuses du livre de Jubiles. Geneva 1960. y

Bibliography

317

THACKERAY, H. St. J., Josephus, the Man and the Historian. The Hilda Stich Stroock Lectures at the Jewish Institute of Religion, New York 1929. Repr. New York 1967 THACKERAY - MARCUS 1934 = Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Books IV-VI with an English translation by H. St. J. THACKERAY and Ralph MARCUS. London 1930. Loeb Classical Library 490. THEISSEN, Gerd, Urchristliche Wundergeschichten. Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien. Gutersloh 1974. StNT 8; transl. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Philadelphia, 1983. THRAEDE, K., "Erfinder II (geistesgeschichtlich)", RAC 5 (1962), 1191-1278. - , "Exorzismus", RAC 7 (1969), 44-117. THUMMEL, Hans Georg, "Koskenniemi, Erkki: Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. Forschungsbericht und Weiterfiihrung der Diskussion" (rec.) Theologische Literaturzeitung 120 (1995), 801-802. TIEDE, David Lenz, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle-worker. SBLDS 1. TORREY, Charles Cutler, The Lives of the Prophets. Greek Text and Translation. Philadelphia 1946. JBL Monograph Series 1. Tov, Emmanuel, "The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada", Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Deas Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 May, 1996, ed. by Michael E. STONE and Esther G. CHAZON, 233-256. Leiden - Boston - K6ln 1998. TWELFTREE, Graham H., Jesus the Exorcist. Tubingen 1993. WUNT 2.54. UHLIG, Siegbert, "Das Sthiopische Henochbuch", JSHRZ 5 (1984), 461-780. VAN UYTFANGHE, Marc, "Biographie II (spirituelle), RAC Suppl. 1 (2001), 1088-1364). VANDERKAM, James C , Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Missoula 1977. HSM 14. - , (1989a) The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, ed. by James C. VANDERKAM. Leuven 1989. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Scriptores Aethiopici 87. - , (1989b) The Book of Jubilees, translated by James C. VANDERKAM. Leuven 1989. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Scriptores Aethiopici 88. - , "The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees," Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. by Matthias ALBANI, Jorg FREY and Armin LANGE, 3-24. Ttibingen 1997. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 65. - , "The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees", Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 January, 1997, ed. by Esther G CHAZON. and Michael Edward STONE,. 151-170. L e i d e n - New York-Koin 1999. - , "Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees," The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Intepretation, ed. by James C. CHARLESWORTH and Craig A. EVANS, 96-125. Sheffield 1993. JSP.S. - , "The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees", Pseudepigraphic Perspectives. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by Esther G. CHAZON and Michael STONE with the collaboration of Avital PINNICK. Leiden Boston - Koln 1999. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 31. -, An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids 2001. VOGEL, Manuel, "Geschichtstheologie bei Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum", Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium, Munster 1997. Vortrage aus dem Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, ed. by Folker SIEGERT - Jurgen U. KALMS. Munsteraner Judaistische Studien 2 (1998), 175-195.

318

Bibliography

- , "Tempel und Tempelkult in Pseudo-Philos Liber antiquitatum Biblicarum", Gemeinde ohne Tempel. Community without Temple, 251-263, ed. by Beate EGO, Armin LANGE und Peter PiLHOFER. Tubingen 1999. WUNT 118. VOGT, Ernst, "Tragiker Ezechiel", JSHRZ 4.3 (1983). TER VRUGT-LENTZ, J., "Geister (Damonen). B. Nichtchristlich. II Vorhellenistisches Griechenland", RAC 9 (1976), 598-615. WAGNER, W.H., "Philo and Paideia", Cithera 10 (1971), 53-54. WALTER, Nikolaus, "Fragmente judisch-hellenistischer Historiker". JSHRZ 1,2 (1976). - , "Jewish-Greek Literature of the Greek Period, The Cambridge History of Judaism. II The Hellenistic Age, ed by. W.D. DAVIES and Louis FINKELSTEIN, 385-408. Cambridge - London - New York - Port Chester - Melbourne - Sydney 1989. WANDREY, Irina, "Ezechiel", Der Neue Pauly 4 (1998), 353-354. WEBER, Reinhard, Das Gesetz im hellenistischen Judentum. Studium zum Verstandnis und zur Funktion der Thora von Demetrios bis Pseudo-Phokylides. Frankfurt a.M. Berlin - Bern - Bruxelles - New York - Oxford - Wien 2000. Arbeiten zur Religion und Geschichte des Urchristentums 10. -, Das "Gesetz" bei Philon von Alexandrien und Flavius Josephus: Studien zum Verstandnis und zur Funktion der Thora bei den beiden Hauptzeugen des hellenistischen Judentums. Frankfurt a.M. - Berlin - Bern - Bruxelles - New York Oxford - Wien 2001. Arbeiten zur Religion und Geschichte des Urchristentums 11. WEINREICH, Otto, "Gebet und Wunder, II: TttrQffhung im Wunder-, Prodigien- und Zauberglauben der Antike, des Judentums", Genethliakon W. Schmid, 200-452. Stuttgart 1929. TUbinger BeitrSge zur Altertumswissenschaft 5. WETTER, Oillis Prson, "Der Sohn Gottes". Eine Untersuchung tiber den Charakter und die Tendenz des Johannes-Evangeliums. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Heilandsgestalten der Antike. GGttingen 1916. WHYBRAY, R.N., "Ben Sira and History", Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom: Festschrift M. Gilbert, ed. by N. CALDUCH-BENAGES and J. VERMEYLEN, 137-145. Leuven 1999. WlENEKE, J., Ezechielis Judaei Poetae Alexandrini Fabulae Quae Inscribitur Exagoge Fragmenta. Diss. Minister 1931. WILLIAMSON, Ronald, Jews in the Hellenistic World: Philo. Cambridge 1989. Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200 1,2. WlNDISCH, Hans, Paulus und Christus. Ein biblisch-religionsgeschichtlicher Vergleich. Leipzig 1934. WINTER, Bruce, Philo and Paul among the Sophists. Cambridge 1997. NT.S 96. WINTERMUTE, O.S., "Jubilees" OTP 2 (1985), 35-142. WOLFF, Christian, Jeremia im Fruhjudentum und im Christentum. Berlin 1976. TU 118. -, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Zweiter Teil: Auslegung der Kapitel 8-16. Berlin 1982. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 7/2. WOLFSON, Harry Austryn, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Cambridge 1947. 1,121-126.347-356. WRIGHT, Benjamin G., "The Apocryphal Ezekiel Fragments", The Apocryphal Ezekiel, ed. by Michael E. STONE and Benjamin WRIGHT, 8-60. Atlanta 2000. Society of Biblical Literature 18. ZELLER, Dieter, "New Testament Christology in its Hellenistic Reception", NTS 47 (2001), 312-333. ZERON, A., "Erwagungen zu Pseudo-Philos Queilen und Zeit", JSJ 11 (1980), 38-52. ZlEGENAUS, Anton, "Erkki Koskenniemi, Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese (rec.)", Forum Katholische Theologie 11 (1995), 154-155.

Bibliography

319

ZlMMERMANN, Johannes, Messianische Texte aus Qumran. Konigliche, priesterliche und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran. Tubingen 1998. WUNT 2.104.

Index of References

Old Testament Gen

46,53

2:18 2:18-3:1 3 3:1 3:15 6 11:1 11:2 12 12:7 12:10-20 12:15 12:17 15:2-3 15:5 15:11 15:12 15:14 15:18 20 20:1-18 20:12-16 20:2 20:4 20:5 20:7 20:16 20:17 22 36:7-11 36:11 37 41:7 41:8 44:33 48:19

154 133 52,58,62 130 141 52,221 137 136 48, 49, 109 194 48,282 48 49 137 53,282 47,49,282 47,282 61 135 48, 49, 150, 152 49,282 49 49 49 49 150 49 20 52,57 84 206 135 134, 135 100 100 128

Exod

106, 157, 158,278

1:1-2:25 1:21 1:22 3:1 3:1-4:17 3:2 3:4 3:6 3:8 3:12 3:16 3:18 3:20 4 4:1-4:17 4:3 4:6 4:7 4:8 4:8-9 4:9 4:10 4:16 4:17 4:20 4:21 4:28 4:30 4:23 4:24 4:24-26 4:27-31 4:29-5:4 4:30 4:31 5:1-5 5:1-23 6:12 6:30

66, 92, 110, 192, 232, 282, 292 92 92 66 6 6 , 9 4 , 111,283,290 55,112,234 55,67,112 67 67 67 67, 123 67, 123 1,67 69,155,235,281 133 68,99 67,235,281 67,72 67 155 68 133 23,26,154 103 76 67 217 67,235 56 57 57, 113,235 99,292 68 113,123 235 235 99 155 155

322 6:28-7:13 7:1

7:3 7:9 7:9-12 7:8-13 7:10 7:11 7:14-24 7:14-12:36 7:15 7:19 7:19-20 7:20 7:21 7:24 7:26-8:11 7:27 8:1 8:3 8:4 8:6 8:11 8:12-15 8:13 8:16-28 8:14 8:15 8:16-28 8:17 8:19 8:21 8:22 8:26 9:1-11 9:3 9:4 9:28 9:8 9:8-12 9:11 9:12 9:13-16 9:13-35 9:14 9:14-35 10:1-20 10:10-11 10:12

Index of References 99,235,283,292 23, 25, 26, 42, 86, 99, 153, 154, 159, 247, 271, 298 99 99 68 236 70 100,113,134 7 0 , 7 1 , 7 2 , 114,237,284 55, 70, 99, 100, 114, 193, 237, 284 70 70 100 76 237,284 114,237,284 70, 71, 115,237,284 102 70 70 70 70 70 7 0 , 7 1 , 115,237,284 102 71,238 70 155 70, 102, 117 76 70 70 238,240 131 70,71,72,238,284 68, 70, 71 114 118 70 238,285 61 70 115 70,71,238,285 70 55 7 0 , 7 1 , 116,238,285 237 102

10:13 10:21-29 10:26 11:1-12:36 11:2-3 11:4 12 12:13 12:23 13:1-3 13:13-15 13:17 13:17-18 13:18 13:17-14:31 13:26-27 14 14:10-14 14:12 14:13-15 14:14 14:16 14:17 14:17-18 14:18 14:19 14:19-20 14:20 14:21 14:24 14:25 14:25-26 14:26-27 14:28 15 15:8 15:11 15:22 15:22-27 15:25 15:26 16:1-36 16:6 16:8 16:9 16:13 16:23 16:33 17:1-7

70 70, 1 1 6 , 2 3 8 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 5 238 70, 71, 102, 117, 239, 285 104 70 80 70 57 119 240 74,119, 240 74,75,240,281,282 61, 73, 74, 119, 136, 194, 240, 282, 291 241 56, 105, 170 136 240 119 136 75 76 155 74 56,74 120 74 25,74,75,76 105 136 74 241 75,282 195 195 67 20 42, 122, 138,196, 242, 286, 290, 291 22, 197 20,51 105, 123, 141, 173, 242, 286, 291 123 123 76 123,291 123 123 124, 139, 197,243,291

Index of References 17:4 17:6 17:7 17:8 17:8-16 17:9 17:10 17:15 17:15 19:16-18 20:18 21:18-19 22:17 22:22 22:25 22:25-27 22:27 22:28 23:28 24:9-10 33:11

240 124 124 126 76, 125, 141, 243, 286, 291 125 125 125 125 85 67 21,22 100 109 130 135 267 266 122,253 82 55,112

Lev 24:10-16

149

Num

198

3:13 11:4 11:4-36

136 123 105, 123, 141, 173, 244, 291 123 123 27,123 123 123 238, 141, 233, 235, 245, 286 142 142 142 142 142 142 149 198 198 126 24, 126, 198, 244, 286, 292 198

11:5 11:14 11:28 11:30 11:32 12:1-16 12:4 12:6 12:8 12:10 12:12 12:15 15:32-36 15:37-41 16 16:1 16:1-17:31 16:2

323

16:3 126, 244 16:5 126 16:10 126 16:11 126 16:14 126 16:15 126 16:16 126 16:20-21 244 16:24 126 16:27 126 16:29 126 16:30 126 16:32-50 127 17:1-5 244 17:1-13 244 17:2-3 126 17:16-28 239 17:23 126 17:26 126 20:1-13 124, 139, 197, 243, 245, 282,291 20:4 124 20:5 124 20:8 125 20:22-29 203 21 197 21:4 142 21:4-9 128, 142, 166, 246, 287, 290 21:5 142 21:6 142 21:10-18 242 21:16-18 124, 139, 197 33:4 102 Deut 4:19-20 5:5 5:24 7:20 8:3 10:21 13:1-6 18:9-12 18:10-11 18:18 25:6-15 26:5-11 26:8 32:8 32:39

98 152 217 122,253 140 1 215 21 54 26,29, 148, 162 224 18,67 67, 74, 193 98 20

Index of References

324

Jos

28,281

1:1 3:1 3:1-5:1 3:5 3:7 3:7 3:7-8 3:9 3:10 3:13 3:14; 16 4:2 4:3 4:6 4:7 4:10 4:13 4:14 4:21 4:24 5:1 5:13-6:27 5:13-15 6:15 6:20 10:8 10:8-14 10:10 10:11 10:12 10:12-13 10:13 10:14 11:11 14:6 22 24:2 24:12 28:29

27 249 27,203,249,287,291 249 249 250 250 249 249 249 228 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 12, 27, 203, 249, 287, 291 249 249 249 27,250 27,203,250,287 250 250 250 27,205,291 250 27 251 152 224 18 122,253 67

5:20 6:1 6:34 13 13:1-16:31 13:1 13:4 13:5 13:6 13:7 132:12 13:14 13:15 13:19 13:25 14:2 14:5 14:5-6 14:6 14:7 14:8 14:19 14:10 14:11 14:19 15:6 15:7 15:8 15:12 15:14 15:14-15 15:15 15:16 15:19 16 16:1-3 16:2 16:5 16:13 16:14 16:16 16:17 16:19 16:26 16:26-30 16:27 20:28

Judg

2,225

Ruth

1:13 3:10

206 206

1 Sam

33:1 34:1-8 34:4 34:5 34:7 34:9

152 127, 128,282 127 201,268 287 203

210 215 208 217 216,287,291 216 216 217 216 255 216 216 216 216 204,208,216,256 216 216 255 216,256 216 216 256 216 216 208,216,256 216 216 216,256 216 208,256 256 258 217 217 218 217,256 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 256 217,218 224 227,295

Index of References 10:6 11:6-11 16:14 16:14-23 16:16 16:17 16:18 16:21 16:23 17:34-36 17:41 17:41-51 17:43 17:45 17:46 17:49 17:50 28

325

149,204,208 204,208 219 181,219,259,288 219 219 219 219 219 222 223 222,288,291 223 223 223 223 223 215

18:36 18:40 18:41-45 18:46 19 19:1-21 19:5 19:7 19:12 19:14 19:15-16 19:16 19:17 19:18 19:19-21 19:20 19:21 21:19 21:21-29

265 266 32 266 267 265 265,281 265,267 265 265 36 33 267 265 267,272 265 265 268 36

7 24:1 24:15-17

233 58 57

2 Kgs

37, 38, 40, 259, 265, 271, 276, 281

/ Kgs

259, 265

4:29-34 5:9-14 11:4-10 17 17:1-6 17:1-16 17:6 17:7-16 17:8 17:12 17:16-39 17:17; 22 17:17-24 18 18:1-19 18:10 18:12 18:16-45 18:18 18:19 18:21 18:22 18:24 18:25 18:26 18:29

260 260 263 109, 185 32,264 173,265 264 32,264,292 109 32,264 32 174 32,264,265,290 150 266 264 265,266,273 265,266 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265

1:1-8 1:3;15 1:5-2:17 1:9-15 2 2:1-18 2:7-8 2:9 2:9-18 2:19-22 2:23-25 22:24 2-13 3:1-27 3:13 13:15 3:18 3:19 3:27 4:1-7 4:8-17 4:8-37 4:8-6:8 4:18-37 4:20 4:25 4:27 4:35 4:38-41

32,33,268 268 268 32,292 269 32, 37,268 170 38 292 37,271,272,292 37, 176,271,273 150 37 37,271,273 271 271 271 271 273 37, 1 7 3 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 3 , 2 9 2 37,271 271,273 277,278 37,290 271 271 271 271 37, 173,271,273

2 Sam

326 4:41 4:42 4:42-44 5:1-18 5:1-27 5:11 5:17 5:19-27 5:20 5:24-27 6:1-7 6:8 6:8-23 6:11 6:14 6:18 6:24-7:20 6:30 6:31 7:2 7:14 7:17 8:1-6 8:4 8:7-15 8:8 8:10 8:13 8:15 9:1-13 9:4 9:6 9:7 9:8 9:11 9:13 13:14-19 13:20-21 17:1-6 18:13-20 18:40 18:41-45 19 19:8 19:10; 14 19:14-20 19:14-37 19:35-37 19:37 19:38 20 20:1-6

Index of References 271 271 37, 173,271,274 37 271,274 49,271,272,282 271 38 272 150 38,271,274 272 38,271,274 272 274 272 38,274 272 272 272 272 272 271 1 38,271,275 272 272 36,272 272 271,275 272 36 272 272 272 272 271,275 38, 174, 270, 275, 290 292 39 270 270,292 270,271 270 270 40 163,288 40 40 40 269 40

20:1-11 21

40, 163,288,290 269

/ Chr

259

4:13 4:15 21:1 21:14-17

206 206 58,294 57

2 Chr 16:12 17 19 21 32

20,21 269 269 269 40

Ezra 3:2

152

Neh 9

18

Job 5:9 9:10 20:15 20:19 37:5 37:14

1 1 56 166 1 1,67

Ps

13,225

8:6 71:19 77:16-20 77:17-19 77:17-21 78:50 78:105-106; 135-136 90:1 91 92:5 106:9 106:21 107:10-14 110 114 114:4 114:5-8

26 1 241 102 77 72 18 18 152 220 47 195, 196 1 97 84 77,195 25 196

Index of References

Prov 16:22

Dan 138

Isa

40

1:4-9 11:2 11:15 25:2 36:39 36:1-38:22 37:4-19 37:14 37:14-20 37:14-37 37:38 38:1-6 38:1-8; 21-22 38:1-22 38:8 44:24-25 45:2 49:6 61:1-3

21 208 76 102 40 39 40 40 39,40 163,288 40 40 40,288 290 40 54 97 35 40

Jer 8:19 15:2 33:3 45:5 43

166 71 1 1 166

1:20 3:54-55 4 4:1-34 4:1-3 4:2 4:4 4:6 4:9 4:10 4:15 4:15 4:21 4:25 4:29 4:30 b 4:30c 4:34 4:34 4:34a-c 7 7:9; 13-14

100 85 177, 178. 179, 281, 288, 294 178 178 178 178 100, 178 100, 178 179 178 178 178 178 178 179 178 178 178 178 86 84

Hos

38

9:7

50

Joel 3:3

1

Amos

Ezek 1 1:1-28 20 37 37:1 37:1-14 37:3 37:5: 37:6 37:7 37:9 37:10 37:12 47:10

327

85 84 18 173, 175, 176,291 173 172,289 173 173 173 173 175 175 175 172,289

38 Zech 6 10:11

30 76

Mai 3 3:23-24 4:5-6

185,288 35 35, 170

Index of References

328

Apocrypha and Apoc. Ab.

48, 49, 63, 205, 282

1-12 7:13

47 261

10:8 13:4-14

85 50,201,290,291

Pseudepigrapha 3,33 3.35 3.36

60 103, 104 95

3,36-37 3,28

103, 104,291 105

As. Mos. Apoc. Adam

289

10:1

7:13

261

2 Bar.

312-316

77

48:42 6:3-9 60:1

51, 189,289 168,291 214

Aristobulus

56, 58

2,8 3-4 4.5

20 53,93 84

66:2 77:25

214 261

4 Bar.

Artap.

89-107

3

168,291

1 1,1 1-2 3.3 3.4 3,5-19 3.6 3.21 3,21-22 3.22 3.23 3,25 3,24-26 3,27 3,27-33 3,28-30 3,28-31 3,28-33 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32

54 92 92 233 93 93 93 95, 105, 106 94,291 104, 106 106 106 96, 97, 292 99,292 291 103 100 101 102 236 102,117 103,200

De Sampsone (Pseudo-Philo) 1 19 20 23-24 24 27-28

218, 257, 286 218,257 258 218,257 216,257 218,257 256,258

Arist.

183

Dem. Fr. 3 Fr.4 Fr. 5

19 19 75

1 En.

58, 84

4:18-20 7:1 6-13 15:8-9 15:11-16:1

85 21 51 221 51

Index of References

329

45:3 51:1-3 2 En.

85 85

7:1 8:3 18:3 24:1 29 31

51,262 51 51 85 221 52

203 204-219 210 220-221 224-226 230 243-269 250 294-315

3 En.

85

4Ezr.

170,172,189

(Euseb. praep. ev. 9,39,2-5) 168

6:4 7:1 12:32-33 13:39-50

221 51 85 170,291

Ezek Trag.

64-88, 298

Hist. Rech

1-58 36-38 65 67 68-69 68-72 68-89 83-89 85 90-93 102 113-115 114-119 120-131 121 124-125 132 132-151 132-174 133 135 137 138 139-140 141-142 144 145-146 147-148 149 159 175-192 193-242

66 80 78 80 65 81,291 84 81 83 74 86 68 68 66,68 76 83 73,76 70 69 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 70 57 80 73

10:5 14

Eup.

62,75 74,291 75 74 74 77 80 81,291 291

97,291 183

Jan. Jam.

284

26

61

Jos. Asen.

80, 97

27:11

177,195,291

Jub.

11, 12, 1 4 , 2 2 , 4 4 - 6 3 , 7 3 , 80, 82, 93, 102, 112, 145, 152, 164, 189, 202, 227, 234, 262, 282-286, 293300

1:7-15 1:20 1:23 3 4:15 4:19 5:1-11 7:21-27 7:27 8:3 10 10:2 10:7-9 10:8 10:10 10:11-14 10:12-13

252 59 59 58 51 85 52 52 59 54 52,60 181 58 51 51 262 181

Index of References 11:4-5 11:5;11 11:9-13 11:11-13 11:11-24 11:18-22 11:18-24 12:16-21 12:17-18 12:19-20 15:25-32 15:31-32 15:32 15:33 16:12-14 17:5-17 17:15-18,19 17:16 18:9; 12 19:28 23,22-31 40:2 40:10 46:2 47 47:1-2 47:5 47:9 48:2-3 48:2.9.12.15 48:4-8 48:8-12 48:9-11 48:9-10 48:12 48:12-19 48:14 48:15-19 48:16 48:19

59 50 63 46 46 46,290 63 60 54 52,59 181 58,59 59 58 61 52 57 50 50 50,59 181 183 59 59 92 54 94,233 54 58 50 291 121 12,55 56,290 57,59 291 75,194,240 57 57 104

49 49:1-16 49:2 50

80 55 57 183

L.A.B.

3 , 9 , 10, 11, 13, 14,75,77, 109, 150, 189-227, 234, 238, 240, 245, 252, 254, 257, 258, 262, 279, 280, 283-288, 294, 296-300

6,9 6-8 9 9-19 9,1-16 9,3 9.9 9.10 9,13 9,15 10,1 10,3 10,7 11.15 16 16.1 16.3 16,5 16,14 17 18.9 18.10 19 19.5 19.7 19.13 19.14 19.16 20.2 20,2-3 20.6 20.7 20.8 22.8 23.9 23,9-10 25-26 25,1-3 25,4-26,5 25.6 25.9 25,9-13 25,10-13 26.4 26,13; 6-13 26.15 27.7 27.10 27.11 28,6-9

97 47 195,292 192 192 210 194 192 193 192 117,193,291 194 196,291 139, 196, 197,291 292 198 199,225 199 219 199 199 209,210 199,201,205,292 197 190,200,201 201 200 200 208 203 207 203 197 190 201 196 207 207 207 207 214 198 214 214 168, 190 190 192,207,211 207,223,291 214 209

Index of References 30,5 30,9-10 31.4 32,1 32,1-3 32,7-8; 17 32,10 32,11; 17 33,5-7 34 34-35 38 38,4-8 42 42.1 42.5 42,9 43.2 43,2-3 43.4 43.5 43,5-8 46,1 47,1 47.9 48 48.1 48.10 53.2 54,3-4 56,2-3 57.4 59.5 60 60,1-3 60,5 61 61,5 6 1 , 5 ; 7-8 62,2 64,7

203,291 204 210 210 52 196 223 210 50 215 223 224 183 255,292 217 217 255 218,291 256 217 218 218,291 162 61,207 207 185 225 170 196 222 212,211 211 222 220,261 219,290 223 2,291 208 223 211 215

The Life of Adam and Eve 14

52

Liv. Pro.

10,11,189-227, 292, 298, 299

1 1:4

163-164,288 161

331

1:2-4 2 2:2 2:2-4 2:2-7 2:5-7 2:10 2:9-15 3 3:6-10 3:11a 3:11b 3:12-13 3:18 4 4:1-3 4,7 4:10 4:12-17 4:17 4:20-23 4:6; 22 4:17 10:9 17:2 21 21:1 21:2-3 21:3 21:4-15 21:5 21:12 21:20 22 22:4-17

163,292 165-169, 176, 289 166 165 165,291 165 165 167,292 169-177,180,289 169 172 173,290 174,290 176, 195 177-183,289 178 179, 183 179,290 179 178, 183 178 164 177 213 164 184-185,288 161,185 184 185 184 290 290 290 186,288 186

LXX

12, 1 8 , 2 0 , 2 3 , 2 5 , 2 7 , 3 2 , 38, 40, 46-49,55-58,61, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70-76, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 94, 99, 100, 102, 104, 110-117, 119, 121-127, 130, 134, 138, 140, 142, 145, 153, 162, 163, 166, 172,175, 178, 179,183,192-195, 198-199, 203,208,216, 217,219, 223,232-235, 237, 238, 240, 242, 244, 249, 250,255-257, 264-

332

Index of References 273,281-283,285- 288, 293, 294

1 Mace 1:1

45

2 Mace 2:4 15:13-16

168,292 165,289

3 Mace 6:4

207

Mart. Ascens. Isa. l:l-2a 1:7-13 1-5 5:1-14

164 164 164 164

Pseudo-Eupolemus

45:2 45:3 45:18 45:24 46 46:1 46:1-8 46:2-3 46:4 46:6 46:8 47:25-48:11 48 48:1-11 48:2-3 48:5 48:6 48:6-7 48:9 48:10 48:11b 48:12-16 48:13 48:13-14 49:14 48:20-25 48:23

25 25,55 24 224 205 26 27,29 291 27,41,291 29,251,252 27 31 290 32 292 290 36 36 292 35,36,39 32 37,290 38 290 18 39 291

FGrHist Fr. 1

3,724 54

Sib. Or. 2:187-202 5:256-259

35 252

Sir.

12, 17-43,203,270

Tob.

22

16:10 34:5 36 36:1-12 36:5 36:6 36:14 38:1-15 38:4-8 38:5 41:8 43:1-16 43:15 43:16 43:17a 44:23b 44:23-45:5 44-50 45:1-5 45:1-2 45:2-3

18,20 18 38,42 34 18 43 39 21,22,51 183,290 18 29 18 27 25, 25 25 23 18 24 26 24,25

3:1-7 3:16-17 11:7-8

181 21 22,51

T. Abr. 11:9 12:4 13:2

85 85 85

T. Isaac 2:7

85

T. Job 33 T. Jos. 20

85 166 116

Index of References T. Judah 25:3

1 1,7

183 180,

T. Sim. 8 8 T. Sol. 25 26 1:1-13 3:1-5

Wis

15, 193,237,238,285, 298

7:16-21 10:15-16 10:17-19 11:5-8 16:20 16:5-14 16:15-23 17:1-21 17-18 18:10-19 19:7-9

260 204 137 194 141 142 115 116 135 117 77

183

T. Reu.

116 238 264, 289

333

61 264 261 261

Qumran

1QM

59

13,10-12

50

4Q504

20

4Q434

20

4Q511

57

4Q558

35

4QApcrJer

168,292

4QPrNab

182,290

1QS 3,17-4,1

51

lQSb 4,25 sqq

85

4Q226

20

4Q365

J1Q11

51,222,261,290

20

2,3-4 3,2-9 5,4-10

57,220 220 220

4Q377

20

CD

4Q378

252,291

5,17-19

4Q379

Genesis Apocryphon 48, 49, 63, 109, 189

4-13 4Q385 2 12

252,291 175,290 175 175

20 20,28-29

60

180,181 48, 181,282,290

Index of References

334

Philo and Josephus Philo Abr. 66-69 70-71 82-83 92-98 93-106 95-96 96-98

132 109 111 150 152 109 49

Aet 8 13 14-16 27 38 52

144 154 154 154 154 154

3,38 3,45 3,81 3,94 3,90-93 3,162-172 3,165 3,167 3,169 3,175 3.185 3.186 3,202 Cher. 15 32-36 74-77

Agr.

Conf.

65 79-83 82-83 88-89 95-98 96-97

2 2-3 30 36 60-82 70 88

132 138 137 131 143,290 146

Alleg. Inter p. 1,6 1,40 1,105-108 1,108 2,1-11 2,4-5 2,6 2,19 2,34 2,242 2,65-67 2,74-75 2,76-84; 87 2,81 2,86 2,90-93 3,12-13 3,37-39

21 153 128 53 133 154 139 143 117,136 225 142 142 142 143 139, 140 133 131 131

131 141 131, 131 130 140 117,136 138 140 131 141 141 117

139 146 131

144 146 137 137 136 136 131,133

Congr. 85-88 163-167 173-174

131 138 140

Contempl. 3-6 7-8 83-85 83-87 Decal. 15-18 52-55

114 131 120 121, 158 156 114

Det. 1; 72 8 38-40

134 114 133,134

335

Index of References 118 161-162 177

140 153 112

Deus 1-2 31-32 51-68 136-139 148-161 155

128 132 112 109 132 140

Ebr. 11-153 111 112-113

136 136 139

Fug. 60-64 82 138 145 183

132 154 140 126 139

Her. 14 14-19 95 152-153 173-174 203-204 249-259 255 258 259-260 260-266 304

66 137 150 114 140 137 148 136 150 149 150 113

Hypoth.

144

110

6,2-7

los. 11,63 Legat. 118

21

153 132

162-173

131

Migr. 9-10 14 26 34-35 36-38 70-117 76-85 78-85 82-85 83-85 85 151-155 154 178-179 195

132 66, 131 136 139 139 133 134 133 113 134 115 131 138 111 132

Mos.

136, 144, 158

1,1-3 1,4 1,5-7 1,13 1,19 1,19-33 1,21-24 1,23-24 1,26 1,45-46 1,62 1,63-64 1,65-64 1,66 1,67-70 1,71 1,74 1.76 1.77 1,77-81 1,79 1,82 1,83-84 1,87 1,90 1,91-94 1,92-94 1.94 1.95

144 13,128,300 110 111 111 111 155 111 237 111 111 111 291 111 133 115111 113 156 112 111 112 111 112 118 113,156 292 134 113,156 156

Index of References

336 1,96-98 1,98-101 1,98-139 1,103-105 1,107-112 1,112 1,113-117 1,144 1,120-122 1,123-125 1,126 1,127-129 1,130-132 1,133 1,134-139 1,143-146 1,44 1.146 1.147 1,156 1,158 1,167-180 1,173-174 1,173-175 1.176 1.177 1,180 1,181-187 1,185-187 1,191-209 1,200 1,200-207 1,201-202 1,207 1,209 1,210-213 1,211 1,212-213 1,214-219 1,217-218 1,258-267 1,169-275 1,288-291 1,302

114 114 291 115 115 115 115 115 116 116,146 116 116 117 117 117 118 237 118 138 119 153, 154 119,291 119 175 119,146 121 120 122,291 122, 146 123 124 291 147 124 123,291 124,291 125,146 147 125,291 126 291 146 121 224

2,5 2,43-44 2,52-53 2,187-188 2,192-212 2,213-220

153 110,118 119 148 149 149

2,288 2,246 2,249-255 2,250 2.253 2,253-257 2.254 2,258 2,258-263 2,258-267 2,262 2,263-269 2,263-269 2,264 2,270 2,270-274 2,272 2.274 2.275 2,275-287 2.277 2.278 2,278-287 2,280 2,288-291 2,291

153 149 121 209 120 149 195 149 149 124 156 149 149 149 131 149 149 209 149 149 126 127 126 127, 149 127,292 127, 148

Mut. 19 20-21 125 125-129 124 259-260

153 135 114 153 122 140

Op. 1-3 3 52 58-60 105 119 124 131 144

93 119 114 111 122,139 154 122,139 114 154

Plant. 10

114

Index of References Post. 35 124-157 155-156 155-157 165 182

134 138 131 138 131 225

Praem. 55 75-78 93-97

148 126 121

Prob. 2-3 13 42 53-57 74 99-103

154 154 153, 154 53, 155 114 117

Prov. 2 2,60

122

QE 1,32 146 QE 1 Fr. 1 Marcus p. 258 154 2,3 109 2.5 266 2,13 132 2,24 122,253 2,27 134 2,37 112 2,40 154 2,44 134 2,47 112 2,40 154 QO 1,86 2.6 2,62 3,3 Sacr.

109, 127 53, 155 112 154

5 8-10

128 153

337

9 51 62-63 134 135

153 115,131 136 136 131

Somn. 1,33-156 1,72 1,72-119 1,87-135 1,102-104 1,114 1,117 1,220 2,255-258 2,182-183 2,221-222 2,234 2,266 2,269-270 2,279-280 2,279-282

130 135 135 135 130 135 66,135 135 135 131 140 152 135 137 137 137

Spec. 1,64-65 1,116 2,217-219 2,225 3,22-23 3,29 3,100-103 4,47 4,126-130 4,128-130 4,188

148 152 79, 120, 158 152 1553,64-65 142 114 117 123 141 154

Virt. 35-36 72-79 177 128, 143, 152,

142 127 151,152 154

148

Josephus Ant.

189, 228, 232, 276

1,17 1,24

278 229

Index of References

338 2,205 2,205-237 2,205-4,331 2,11-216 2,216 2,218 2,219-213 2,219-227 2,223 2,232 2,232-237 2,236 2,238-253 2,253 2,267 2.270 2.271 2,271-272 2,272-274 2.273 2.274 2.275 2,275-276 2.276 2,279 2,279-280 2,281-287 2,284 2.286 2.287 2,292 2,294-295 2,294-315 2,296-299 2,300-302 2.302 2.303 2.304 2.305 2.305 2.306 2,307-310 2,311-315 2,313 2,314-315 2,320-348 2,321 2,322-323 2,324 2,329-337

233,246 292 232 233 233 233 94 233 246 233 233 234 233 233 235 235 235 291 274 68,239 235,248 248 98 235 235 235, 246, 248 236,292 236 236,248 236 237 237 291 237 237 237 117,238 238 238 238 238 238 239,248 239 240 240,291 240 240 240 240

2,337 2.343 2.344 2.346 2.347 2,347-348 2.348 3,1-8 3,7-8 3,13-22 3,14; 16 3,17-18 3,18 3,25 3,26-28 3,26-32 3,31 3,33-38 3,38 3,39-62 3,53-54 3,62 3,81 3,86 3,88 3,180 3,265-268 3,299 3,322 3,925 4,11-66 4.12 4.13 4,13-21 4,18 4,43-47 4.44 4.45 4,51 4,54-58 4,63-66 4,104-130 4,109 4,145-155 4,149 4,152-155 4,158 4,165 4,191 4,207

241 241,246,248 241 241 170 241,246 229 242,291 242,246 242 228 237 241 242,246,291 243,291 242 243,246 243 241,243 243,246 243 240 229 237, 240, 247 242 245 232 244 229 248 244,292 244 244 241 244 244 241 242 244,248 244,248 244,248 246 247 267 267 267 247 28,251 249 267

Index of References 4,326 5,7 5,16 5,16-20 5,17-19 5,20 5,22 5,22-27 5,24 5,27 5,58-61 5,60-61 5,61 5,67 5,182-184 5,276 5,276-285 5,278 5.276 5.277 5,280-284 5,284 5,287 5,294 5,297 5,300 5,301-303 5,304 5,304-305 5,306 5.316 5.317 5,309-312 5,316 6,168 6,37 8,32 8,42-45 8,44 8,44-46 8,46-48 8,47-49 8,166-168 8,211 8.318 8.319 8,319-323 8.320 8,320-323 8,324

245, 268, 292 257 250 291 250 250 250 291 250 251 251,291 251 251 251 206,207 233 255,292 255 255 255 255 255 255,256, 256 291 256,258,291 256 257 291 257 256, 291 257,258 256 255 259 213 291 259,290 259 181 279 260 219 264 266 265 292 265 292 270

8,325-327 8,326 8,328-337 8,328-346 8,335 8,338 8,338-348 8.342 8.343 8,347-352 8,349 8,352 8,353-354 8,355-392 8,360-362 8,393-397 8,408 9,1-17 9,20 9,20-21 9,22-26 9,28 9,29-43 9,35 9,47-50 9,51 9,51-59 9,56 9,60 9,61-86 9,70 9,74 9,78 9,87-92 9,99 9,105-111 9,135-139 9,179-180 9.182 9.183 9,346 10,79 11,133 12,113 15,240-246 18,195-202 20,97-98 20,98 20,141-143 20,170-171

339 265 266 266 292 266 266 266 270 266, 270, 292 267 267,270 267 267,272 269 268 269 269 269 270 268,292 268 268,292 273 273 273,929 277 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 275 269 275 266 275 275 275,290 266 175 170 77 181 246 171 253 7,279 253

Index of References

340 B.J.

228, 230, 276

2,136 2,258-260 2,261-263 3,307-315 4,462-464 5,411 6,300-309 7,180-185 7,437-450

262 171 171 171 272, 276, 292 164 230 262 158, 171

c. Ap

228, 232, 247, 279

1,162-165 1,168-171

93 270

1,229 2,89-102 2,135 2,145 2,257

232 118 53 232 93

Vita

228

147 404 421 423-425 432-435

276 21,262 21 171 158

Targums and Rabbinica Gen. R. 1:3 55:4

Ber. 221 52

233 68 124

Deut. R. 3:8 11:10

166

t. Sank

Exod. R. 1:26 3:16 25:2

3:20

76, 115,237,284 199,233,245

2:9 14:10

277 277

/. Sot. 3 4:7 8:1-6 8:6 12:5-6

253 277 170 253 277

Mek. t. Yoma 16:4

124 1:6

277

Num.R. 10:5

217

Sifr. Deut. 42

b. Sank 92b

173

200 b. Taan.

m. Rosh HaSh 3:8a-b

126

m. Sank 6:4

214

10a Tg. Ps.-J.

200

1:15

233

Index of References

Greek and Latin Literature Greek Authors

Diogenes Laertius

Aeschylus

3,1 7,46 8,67

233 221 97

Dionysius of

Halicarnassus

1,64,4 2,56,2

245 245

Pers.

64, 78, 79

184

84

Aeius Aristides 2,43

209

Apollodorus epit. 5,17-18

165

Appian fr. 19 Aristophanes Frogs Aristotle

184

66

67

hist. anim. 7,16 597b

123

metaph. 114

Protr. fr.

10 c

Bacchae 567 sqq Iph. Aul. 122 117

154

1,60 1,107-108 1,209 2,3-4

229 241 84 104

2,102-106 2,107 2,121 5,56 7,12 7,19

93 97 261 84 84 84

Hist. Alex. Magni 167 1,4,8

170,241

Callimachus 4,249-259

233

Z)/o Cassius 71,8-9

234

Homer

Anabasis 1,26,1

96 66,78

Herodotus

gen. an. 770b

983b,7

Euripides

9

II. 17,377 17,98 9

83 83 258

Od. 6,129

83

Diodorus Siculus

Iamblichus

1,53-56 1,54,3 1,57,7-8 34

v.P. 36

93 93 97 9

172

Index of References

342 Julianus epist. 12

9

Lucian

Timaeus 24-25 32 33 41 90c 141

154 154 154 154 154 154 154

Alex. 24 32,13

97 98

Plutarch

Peregr.

9

mor. 421a-b

9

Philops. 26

97

Plut. Alex. 75,1 706a-b

67

Quomodo historia sit scribenda 60 229

De defectu oraculorum

209

Numenius fr. 18

98

Polybius

PGM

98

3,112,18

Pompeius Trogus

Philostratus her. 45

234

VA 1,4-6 1,20 4,20 4,38

234 184 180 183

7,38 8,30

96 96

Historiae libri

Philippicae 36

epitoma 2,5

15

Proclos Krat. 72,10

9

rep. 2,123,12

9,232

Plato

Sophocles

apol.

Ant.

22c

209 910

Ion 534b-c

67

209

Strabo 14,3,9

Meno 99c

209

rep. 587b 589b Theaetetus 176a-b

183 157 154

83

170

Theognis

1,5-10

233

Zctfw Authors

Index of References Apuleius apol 90 90,5

9 61

flor. 19

97

metam. 2,28-29 97 Arnobius nat.

15,1-2 15,3-8 Latro decl. in Cat. 19

262 262

171

Livy 1,16

268

perioch 56 Ovid

9

fast. 1,52

9

Celsus 2.6

97

2,481-509

268

metam. 14,805-885

268

Pliny 1,36

262

Quintus Cicero Pet. 20

205

nat. 7,124 8,160 26,12-15 30, 30,2,11

97 108 97 61 98

Damigeron

Tacitus

De lapidibus F/or.

9, 214

ann. 6,20-21

279

2.7

9

hist. 5,3,2

232

>4w/tt.y Gellius 8,3 9 12,11 9 //wf. Aug.M. Aur. 24,4

9

Vergil

229,270

A en. 2,40-46 2,199-231 6,42-54

165 165 165

eel. 8,64-109

263

Horace sat. 1,5,97-103 Juvenalis 6,544-547

The Law of the Twelwe Tablets 111

98

New Testament

344

Index of References

Matt 4 11:10 11:14 12:22 17:10-13 23:29-30

John 52 35 35 181 35 161

Mark 1:34 2:5 6:31-44 8:1-10 9:2-8 par

181 182 173 173 128

6 9

173 163

Acts 5:17-26 5:36 12:6-17 16:23-30

3 97 171,253 97 97

19:12 19:13

167 181

1 Cor Luke 1:17 4 52 4:27 11:48-49 24:49

35 52 277 161 208

10

197,286

2 Cor

3

1 Thess

3

Phil

3

Early Christian Authors Acts of Thomas 166 170

167

Apocryphon Johannis 15-17

208

Athenagoras suppl 26,3-5

9

Augustine civ. 2,22

262

Catena Severi 47 Clement of Alexandria strom. 1,23,153 1,23,155-156 1,154,2

64 64 89

Epiphanius Panarion 64,70,5 (CGS 15,515) 175 Eusebius hist. eccl. 13,12,1-8

53

praep. ev. 9,17 9,17,3-4; 8 9.18.1 9.18.2 9,23 9,28-29 9,29,6-7 9,39,2-5 9,39,2-5 9,8

89 92 89 92 89 64 82 168 292 61

345

Index of References

Hippolytus

Prudentius

haer. 6,7-8

per. 4,165-168

9

Ireneus

Pseudo-Eustathius

haer.

PG 18,729 Vulgate

5,34,1

175

Meliton 22-24

193

Afag Hammad

Nicephorus Stichometry

64 75

Orig. World 2,5 105-106

261

Gos. Truth 9,3 70

261

175

Index of Subjects and Scholars Subjects Aaron 24, 26, 30, 55, 60, 68, 73, 76, 82, 93, 94, 96, 100, 101, 106, 109, 112, 113, 114, 116, 125, 128, 133, 134, 141, 142, 152, 156, 157, 167, 168, 184, 197, 198, 199, 200, 203, 223, 224, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 243, 244, 248, 283, 286 Abaddon 50 Abihu 82 Abiram 24 Abraham 11, 26, 46-63, 83, 85, 87, 91, 92, 93,97, 109, 111, 128, 132, 133, 137, 138, 139, 150, 152, 154, 156, 180, 181, 194, 201, 205, 220, 222, 223, 229, 282, 290-296, 299 - his extraordinary position 49-50, 201,291 - his early years 46, 282-283 - as exorcist 46-53, 282 - asprotos heuretes 53, 63, 282, 292, 293, Achan 207 Achill 258 Acropolis 79 Aelius Aristeides 149 Aeneas 2 4 5 , 2 6 8 , 2 8 7 Aeschylus 64, 77, 78, 79, 87, 292 Ahab 3 6 , 2 6 5 , 2 6 6 , 2 6 8 Ahaziah 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 6 , 184,268 Alexander - the Great 35, 165, 167, 170, 234,246 - Polyhistor 19, 64, 89, 94, 100, 105, 106 Alexandria 64, 65, 80, 87, 89, 108, 118, 129, 130, 132, 133, 138, 145, 157, 158, 165, 167, 190, 257, 289, 297 allegorical method 129-131 Amalek 24, 75, 76, 125, 141, 208, 246, 286, 291 Amalekites 125, 240, 243, 248, 296

Ammonites 204,208 Amorite 207,214 Amram 54, 192, 202, 210, 233, 247 Ancient of Days 84 angels 21, 23, 25, 26, 50-63, 69, 74,85, 94, 97 111, 112, 117, 119, 120, 128, 141, 178, 179, 183, 194, 197, 200, 201, 205, 207, 208, 213-215, 217, 221-224, 281, 284, 285, 288, 292, 294,298 Angel of Presence 44, 55, 56, 61, 63, 69, 112, 120, 208 anthropomorphism 112, 118, 157, 225226, 294 anti-Jewish propaganda 72,90, 107, 144, 157-158, 231-232, 278 Apella 229, 270, 279 Apollo 82, 233, 234 Apollonius V, VI, 4, 232 Apollonius Molon 232 Apsethus 9 Apuleius 97 Arabic 160 Arabs 184 Aramaic 48, 178, 288 Aristobulus 20, 53, 56, 58, 84, 93, 112, 124, 294 Aristotle 1, 123 - hiding of the ark through different agents 167-168 Armenian 160 Arnuphis 9 Arrian 170,241 Artapanus 3, 5, 9, 14, 15, 20, 31, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 69, 73, 76, 77, 80, 89-107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 120, 122, 125, 129, 133, 146, 152, 166, 193, 195, 196, 200, 202, 226, 233, 234, 236, 238, 239, 241, 246, 268, 275, 282, 283, 284,

Index of Subjects and Scholars 285, 286, 291, 292, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299 Asa 20, 21 Ascalonites 256 Asclepiades 97 Asclepius 21 Aseneth 80,97, 177, 195,291 Asher 97, 194, 195,214 ass 146,247 Assyria 111, 170 astrology 50, 53, 54, 92, 109, 111, 295 Athanos 259 Athenian 79, 87, 229 Athens 79, 87 Atossa 84 audience 14, 18, 25, 26, 29, 31, 33, 41, 65, 69, 78, 79, 83, 85, 87, 98, 105, 106, 110, 113, 118, 124, 144, 145, 150, 156, 157, 162, 168, 171, 177, 187, 197, 199, 210, 225, 226, 227, 229,248, 251, 254, 263, 264, 276, 279, 280, 289, 296, 297, 298, 300 Aulus Cornelius Celsus 97 Azazel 49, 50 Baal 33, 150, 184, 224, 265, 266, 270, 276 Baaras 181, 182,262 Babylon 176 Babylonian 100, 173 Balaam 16, 109, 121, 146, 199, 246, 247 BarKochba 176 Baruch 168 Beelzeboul (Beelzabub) 50,261 Beer 197 Behemoth 179, 180 Belial 50, 60, 183 Beliar 58, 164, 179, 180, 183 Ben Sira 10, 12, 16, 17-43, 69, 86, 87, 98, 99, 120, 122, 148, 151, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 170, 185, 197, 203, 205, 225, 227, 251, 254, 262, 286, 287, 288, 290, 292, 293,295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 Benjamin 194 Betel 176 Biographies 18, 19, 110, 161, 187,292 BNP see roles in miracles Cain 112, 135

347

Cainan 54 Caleb 27, 206 Caligula 108, 132 Callimachus 233 Canaan 78,240 Catena Severi 47 Chaldea 46, 111, 132 Chaldean 111 Chaldeans 46, 169, 171 Chalkeos 259 Chanethothes 93 Chebar 169 Chenephres 92 Cleanthes 53 Clement 64, 89, 96 Cornelius Nepos 18 contemporization - of miracles 132-133, 144, 157-158, 195,204, 212, 223, 226, 244-245, 266, 295-296, 300 Dagon 256 Damigeron 9,214 Daniel - the healing of Nebuchadnezzar 177183 Dardanos 259 Dathan 24 David 219 -hishymn 219-222,288 - his fight against Goliath 222-223, 288 Davidic 4 1 , 8 5 , 2 1 2 , 2 9 9 Deborah 10, 196, 201, 204,215 Delilah 218,256,257 Delphi 82 Demetrius 19,75 demons see spirits desert 14, 18, 78, 81, 91, 103, 105, 118, 119,122, 123, 138, 139, 158, 168, 173, 180, 196, 197, 202, 224, 242, 248, 252,254, 265, 281,286 divine man 3-6, 151-155,231,241,298 divine voice 66, 69, 94, 95, 104, 105, 106, 112, 226, 234, 267,283 dualism 52, 58, 59, 60, 62, 164, 183 ecstasy 119, 120, 123-125, 149 127, 203-204, 209 Edom 132,206

348

Index of Subjects and Scholars

Edomite 206 education 65, 80, 108, 129, 133, 138, 140, 145, 158, 165, 234, 283 Egypt, Egyptian passim Egyptian gods destroyed 60-61, 102,285 Eleazar 203, 224, 245, 260, 262, 279 elements (stoicheia, rizomata) 114, 119, 124, 126, 157, 237, 299 Eli 222 Elijah 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 98, 109, 127, 128, 150, 156, 161, 164, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174, 177, 184, 185, 186, 187, 203, 224, 225, 226, 245, 249, 252, 254, 255, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 275, 276, 278, 281, 287, 288, 290, 291,292, 295, 296, 298 - miracles of 31-36, 173, 184-185, 264-271,288 - identification with Phinehas 185, 223-225 - Elia redivivus 35, 43, 185, 225, 269 - for details see the biblical index Elijahu 21 Elim 81, 87, 122, 139,248,286 Elisha 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 33, 36, 37, 38, 3 9 , 4 1 , 4 2 , 98, 150, 164, 170, 171, 173, 174, 176, 177, 184, 186, 187, 203, 230, 252, 254, 265, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 288, 290, 292, 298 - miracles of 37-38, 186, 271-278, 288 - for details see the biblical index eloquence 68, 95, 112-113, 129, 133, 134, 158, 235, 240, 248,283 emigration 131, 132, 138, 139, 145, 154, 157, 158,286 Empedocles 97, 114 EnEglaim 172 EnGedi 172 Endor 215 Enoch 18, 83, 85, 86, 87, 109, 245, 268, 287 Epicurus, Epicureans 143, 145, 158, 229, 247, 279 Epiphanius 160, 175 Essenes 44, 45, 121, 191, 220, 262

Esthaol 208 ethical use of Ethiopia, Ethiopian 44, 114, 142, 233 Eunus 9 Eupolemus 5, 168, 292 Eusebius 64, 89, 91, 94, 96 exaggeration of miracles 75, 100, 104, 114, 116, 118, 122, 157, 170, 178, 195, 246, 272-273,286, 294 exaltation 82,205 exorcisms 46-53,63,180-183,219222, 259-264, 273, 288- 290 Ezekiel (prophet) 11,168-174,187, 289 - the Crossing of Chebar 169-172,289 - the abundant supply of fish 172-173, 289 - healings 173-174, 177-183,289,290 - the miracle of dry bones 174-176, 289 - the cursing of Dan and Gad 176-177 Ezekiel the Tragedian 13, 62, 64-88, 103, 121, 207, 235, 240, 282-286, 292-296. 298

Fadus 253 feedings 172-173, 273-274, 291-291 - see also manna and quails firstborn 55, 57, 70, 101, 102, 117, 135, 136, 157, 193,239, 285 fish 72, 100, 114, 135, 169, 172,289 flies 55, 102, 117, 193 frogs 55, 70, 72, 101, 102, 103, 115, 135, 193,237, 284 Gad 97, 176, 194, 195 Gaius 118, 133, 144, 157 garment 50, 135, 192,203 Gaza 256 Gehazi 38, 150, 186, 271, 274, 276, 277 Gibeon 2 7 , 2 0 5 , 2 5 1 , 2 9 1 Gideon 1 0 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 1 , 2 2 3 gnats 55, 115, 193 Gnostic 166 golden calf 136, 149, 150,246 Goliath 2, 205, 222, 223, 288, 291, 294 Gomorrah 14 Greece 111, 155, 180

Index of Subjects and Scholars Greek passim

349

Iamblichus 172 Iaoel 49, 56 idols, idolatry 46, 50, 54, 60, 62, 64, 65, 184, 214, 222, 264, 269, 272, 280 Idumean 206 Ingethel 207,208 Intermarriage 138, 142, 218, 264 Isaac 85, 150, 156,223 Isaiah 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 163, 164, 165, 177, 187, 231,288, 290, 298 - the healing of Hezekiah 39-41, 163164 - turning the sun back 41, 288 - his death 163-164,288 Isis 101, 103,262 Issachar 194 JabeshGilead 204

Jeremiah 160, 165-169, 176, 187,289, 290,292 - protection against animals 165,289 - miracles at his grave 165 - hiding of the ark 167-168,289 Jericho 12, 27, 37, 186,203, 207, 249, 250, 272, 275, 278, 279, 287, 291, 292 Jerusalem 17, 44, 79, 150, 163, 167, 169, 184, 200, 230, 252, 253, 289 Jesus ben Ananja 230 Jezebel 33 John the Baptist 30 Jonah 168, 184,206 Jonathan 158, 1 6 9 , 1 7 1 , 2 5 2 , 2 7 9 , 2 8 7 Jordan 27, 37, 42, 170, 171, 184, 186, 196, 203, 228, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 269,287, 291 Joseph 59, 64, 80, 84, 91, 92, 93, 97, 116, 134, 177, 194,218, 232, 238 Josephus 5, 7, 10-16,21, 28, 30, 42, 47, 53, 55-59, 68, 69, 72, 74-77, 90-96, 98, 101, 103-106, 110-117, 120, 121, 126, 127, 144, 146, 148, 151, 157, 162, 163, 164, 166, 170, 171, 175, 181, 189, 191, 193, 195, 197, 198, 199, 203, 206, 207, 210, 213, 215219, 225, 228-280, 283-289, 291-300 Joshua 11, 26-34, 36, 38, 42, 98, 109, 203-208, 212, 213, 222, 245, 249255, 257,279, 287, 295, 296, 298, 299 - the crossing of Jordan 203, 250-251, 287 - the conquest of Jericho 203, 250251,287 - the battle of Gibeon 2 0 3 , 2 5 1 , 2 8 7 - filled with spirit 203-204, 287, 299 - Joshua redivivus 171, 254 Judah 37, 38, 65, 165, 170, 183, 194, 206 Judges 29,211-212 Juvenalis 98

Jabis 208 Jacob 85, 156, 180, 196,223,290 Jacob of Edessa 4 7 , 4 8 Jambres 5 7 , 6 1 , 2 3 3 , 2 8 4 , 2 9 6 Jannes 57, 60, 61, 233, 284, 296 Jehu 33, 36, 266, 267, 275, 276

Kenaz 11, 189, 198, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 218, 222, 223, 226, 227, 279, 289, 291,299 - the tradition 206-207, 289 - his ecstasy 208-210

Hagar 129, 138 hail 2 7 , 3 1 , 5 5 , 6 0 , 7 0 , 101, 102, 115, 135, 193,238,251 Haimanos 259 Haninaben Dosa 166, 174, 180 Hasmonean 2 2 4 , 2 4 4 , 2 6 4 Hazael 3 6 , 2 6 7 , 2 7 4 healings 39-41, 173-174, 177-183 Heliopolitans 104 Hemaon 259 Heracleitus 53 Hercules 4 , 2 5 6 , 2 5 8 Hermes 93 Herodes 181 Herodotus 79, 84, 91, 104, 229, 261 Hezekiah 21, 39, 40, 163, 288, 290, 291 Hippocrates 122, 139 Homer 19, 180 Horace 229, 270, 279 Horeb 32, 55, 87, 92, 99, 111, 119, 197, 235, 267, 283 hornets 122,253

350

Index of Subjects and Scholars

Korah 24, 126, 149, 150, 198, 199, 202, 2 3 6 , 2 4 4 , 2 4 6 , 248, 286,292 Latin 45, 160, 185, 189, 195, 197, 198, 2 0 5 , 2 2 1 , 2 2 3 , 2 3 1 , 2 5 6 , 284 Laus patrum 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 161, 292, 293, 298 Law 2 4 , 4 2 , 110, 118, 119, 131, 132, 155, 158, 167, 168, 171, 176, 196, 198, 199, 201,215, 218, 225, 244, 245,287, 289,292 legitimisation 38-39,95, 155-156, 157, 172, 203-204, 248, 254, 280, 296 Levi 45, 194 Lion 122, 179, 222, 255, 256, 258, 296 Livestock 70, 71, 117, 193, 238, 239, 284 Locusts 55, 70, 71, 101, 102, 103, 116, 193,237, 238, 285 Lucian 97,98, 180,229,262 Lysimachus 232 Maccabean 28, 34, 35, 90, 164,231 magic 102, 113-114, 118, 134,214215, 236, 260-261, 272, 279, 284, 289, 294 magician 3 , 4 , 4 8 , 5 6 , 6 1 , 113-115, 118, 134, 215, 237, 238, 240, 248, 260 Manasseh 164 Manetho 90,231 manna 105, 108, 119, 123, 124, 140, 149, 157, 173, 197, 200, 242, 243, 246, 286, 291 Manoah 217,255 Marah 24, 138, 139, 196, 197, 242, 246, 286 Mariamne 181 Masada 170,252,287 Masoretic 12, 70, 123, 178,249,281 Mastema 11, 46,47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 179, 208, 215, 284,294, 295, 299 Melitoof Sardes 116,238 Memphians 104 Menander 265, 270 Meribah 197 merkabah 82, 84 Merris 92, 94, 233, 283 Messiah 85, 176, 211-213, 221, 227 Messiah of Ephraim 176

miracle - definition and concept of 1-3, 22 - words used 1, 67 - militant miracles 28-30, 33-36, 42, 203-212, 222-223, 226, 230-231, 250-251, 269-270, 279, 288 - punishing miracles (see also plagues) 32, 33, 38, 48-49, 55, 60, 96-97, 123, 128, 141-142, 149, 176-177, 268, 292 - see also healings, exorcisms, - on different themes, see 290-292 Miriam 128, 138, 141, 142, 192, 197, 233, 234, 235, 245, 248, 278, 283, 286, 295 Mishna 22, 35, 120, 126, 141, 252, 257, 277, 286, 293 MNP, see roles Moses, passim - his extraordinary position 25-26, 151-155, 199, 204-205, 245, 279, 291,298 - his early years 92-94, 110-111, 192193,232-234 - his Egyptian opponents 56-57, 100101,113-114, 134, 158, 236,283285, 296 - his rod 76-77, 105, 194, 200, 285 - the dialogue at the burning bush 6669, 74, 94-96, 111-112, 133-134, 144, 152, 200, 234-235, 268,283 - plagues 55-56,69,99-103, 114-119, 134-136, 193, 237-240, 284 - the Passover 136 - Red Sea 61-62,73-80, 103-105, 119121, 136-138, 149, 194-196,240-241 - t h e sweet water 122,138-139,196197,242,286, 291 - the water from the rock 124-125, 139140,243, 291 - manna 105, 123, 140-141, 149,242243,286, 291 - quails 123-124; 141, 196, 242-244, 286,291 - the battle against Amalek 125-126, 141,243 - the punishment of Miriam 141 -142, 286 - the venomous snakes 142-143, 246, 287

Index of Subjects and Scholars - the revolt of Korah 126-127, 149, 198-199, 244-246, 286-287 - his death 127-128, 153, 199,245, 287 - his birth foretold 192-193, 233-234, 283 - as Egyptian general 94,233-234 - his dream 81-86 - freed from prison 96 - Moses redivivus 171, 174,254 Mount Carmel 32, 33, 266 Musaios 93 music 221,259,288 Naaman 37, 186, 274, 276, 277, 281 Nabatean 161 Naboth 268 NagHammadi 208,261 name of God 98 Naphtali 97,214 Nathan 164,233 Nathaniel 224 Nebuchadnezzar 177, 179 Neryllinus 9 Nicephorus 175 Nigidius Figulus 9 Nile 68, 76, 99, 100, 114, 134, 135, 247,293 Noah 50, 51, 53, 60, 150, 181, 200 Numenius 61, 98 Obadiah 273, 275 Obedias 266 Oedipus 245, 263, 268 the origin of evil 51-52 Orpheus 93,292 Orphic 84 Palestine 7, 14, 35, 45, 49, 53, 75, 94, 123, 158, 160, 171, 191, 195, 200, 212, 2 9 5 , 2 9 9 , 3 0 0 Pamphylian Sea 241 Paradise 146,200 Passover 55, 57, 65, 79, 80, 87, 117, 118, 120, 136, 144, 239, 250 Peisistratus 229 Peregrinus Proteus 9 Persian 51, 7 8 , 7 9 , 8 7 , 1 8 2 , 2 4 1 pestilence 67, 70, 71, 72, 87, 112, 117, 144, 239, 284, 293

351

Pharisee 44, 195 Philistines 207, 216, 223, 255, 256, 257,291 Philo passim Philosopher 14, 145, 155, 266, 298 philosophy 1, 93, 106, 128, 132, 139, 143, 145, 152, 263 Physicians 3, 20-23, 41, 48, 97, 101, 102, 107, 122, 139, 183, 197, 259, 262, 283, 285, 295 plagues, see Moses Plato 52, 110, 119, 130, 132, 149, 154, 180, 209, 233,234, 261,286 Platonic 130, 134, 145, 154, 155, 158, 159, 201 Pliny 97, 98, 108, 229 Plutarch 9,209 PNP, see roles Polyhistor 20,68, 82, 91, 102 Pompeius Trogus 98,232 Priest 17, 90, 97, 98, 101, 103, 184, 185,224, 231,244, 292 Priesthood 24, 44, 126, 224, 244, 286, 292 prison 96,97, 106,291 prophet 7, 10, 11, 24, 267-43, 65, 83, 97, 109, 127, 148-150, 150, 155, 158, 161-177, 183-188, 203, 208-213, 215, 224, 225, 227, 231, 250, 253-255, 264-277, 282, 288, 289 Protagoras 134 protos heuretes 53, 92, 93, 100, 292295 Prudence 71 Pseudo-Eupolemus 54 Ptolemaic 21, 34, 64, 97 Ptolemy 64, 165 Pythagoras 4, 9, 172 quails 123, 141, 157, 173, 196, 242, 243,246, 286, 291 Qumran 21, 30, 35, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 161, 170, 181, 191, 215, 220, 223, 252, 262, 287, 288, 294, 299, 300 rabbinical miracle-workers 8 Rahab 257 Raphael 2 1 , 5 1 , 5 6

352

Index of Subjects and Scholars

rationalisation 22, 104, 146-148, 157, 228-231, 242, 246, 262-263, 267-271, 275-279, 295 ravens 32, 33, 46, 47, 53, 63, 184, 185, 265, 270 resurrection 1 6 7 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 3 , 2 0 1 , 2 7 3 resuscitation 97, 265-266, 273, 290 rewritten Bible 90, 110, 189, 212, 216 rod 24, 66, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 87, 95, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 120, 125, 126, 133, 134, 157, 194, 195, 199, 200, 201, 235, 236, 237, 239, 240, 241, 243, 244, 246, 249, 255, 283, 285, 294 roles of God and his agents - BNP 15, 16, 23, 31, 36, 38, 57, 69, 98, 101, 106, 152, 171, 205, 239, 298 - MNP 15, 23, 31, 38, 41, 57, 69, 76, 98, 152, 159, 163, 177, 205,213,236, 239, 247, 251,266 - PNP 15, 23, 30, 42, 49, 57, 69, 98, 152, 159, 163, 172, 174, 177, 180, 205, 239, 247, 266 Romulus 245, 268, 287 Ruth 222, 288 Sabbath 124, 140, 145, 149, 158, 286 sacrifice 47, 75, 115, 116, 117, 118, 126, 131, 144, 158, 184, 190, 238, 239, 248, 267, 278, 282, 284 Salamis 79, 87 Samaritan 25, 44, 65, 128, 195 Samson 2 , 1 1 , 1 5 0 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 , 217, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 233, 255, 256, 257, 258, 266, 278, 279, 287, 291,292, 294, 295,296 - birth 217,255 - deeds 217-218, 255-258 - Samson and spirit 149-150,208, 256-258 - ethical criticism of 217-218, 256258, 296 Samuel 2 9 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 3 , 2 1 5 Sarah 48, 129, 138, 139, 181, 282 Satan 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 62, 181, 183,218, 257, 294 Saul 149, 1 8 9 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 5 , 219, 222, 224, 226, 227, 259, 288 Seleucidic 34, 44 serpent 100, 143, 234, 235

Sesostris 93, 97, 106 she-ass 199 shinar 136 sickness 32, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 188, 239 Simeon 116, 194 sin and sickness 182-183 Sinai 32, 58, 81, 82, 167, 229, 267 Sisera 210 snake 66, 69, 70, 87, 95, 99, 102, 112, 113, 128, 133, 134, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 157, 165, 166, 236, 287, 295 Socrates 53, 134, 155, 180,261 Sodom 14 Solomon 9, 10, 53, 181, 221-222, 228, 259-264, 278, 279, 289, 290, 294, 295, 299 - as exorcist 221-222,259-264,289 Son of Man 83, 86, 87 sophists 113, 131, 134, 135, 137,145, 283 Sophocles 77, 78, 245, 263, 268 sorcerer 57, 60, 103, 113, 117, 118, 134, 145, 155, 158,214, 231,237,279, 284, 293, 296 Speusippus 130,234 Spinoza 1 spirits 43-53, 56-59, 62, 180-182, 214215, 219-223, 226, 259-264, 287-288, 294 staff 31, 73, 76, 113, 125, 200, 234 Stoic 155 Syria 155, 186 Syriac 45, 160 Syrian 3 7 , 4 7 , 4 8 , 186,274 Tabernacle 200 Tacitus 232,279 Talmud 173,255 Taphnai 167 Terah 46, 63 Tetragrammaton 76 Tharmuth 94, 106, 233, 234, 283 - themes 16, 17, 290-292 Theodectes 77 Theognis 28 theophany 66, 87, 94, 95, 99, 105, 111, 119, 125, 127, 133, 229, 234, 266, 267, 270, 283

Index of Subjects and Scholars Theopompus 77 Thermuthis 9 4 , 2 3 3 , 2 8 3 Theudas 9, 169, 171, 172, 187,230, 253, 254, 269, 279, 280, 287, 296 throne 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 226, 291,298 Thucydides 91,229 Torah 93, 110, 124 Tosefta 22, 170, 252, 257, 277 Tree of Life 139, 196, 197

353

wasps 122 Watchers 21, 85 widow 32, 33, 37, 109, 173, 184, 264, 265, 273, 275, 277, 288, 292 witch 215 Xenocrates 52, 180

Ur 243 Utopias 81, 87 Vergil 149,209,263 Vespasian 1 7 1 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 2 , 2 5 8 , 2 5 9 , 2 8 0 visions 39, 84, 85

Zambri 61 Zatchlas 97 zealots 6, 7, 224-226, 225, 270, 288 Zebulun 194 Zeno 53, 155 Zeruel 207, 208, 223 Zervihel 5 6 , 2 0 8 , 2 2 3 Zion 29, 39, 167 Zorah 208

Scholars Achtemaier 37 Albertz 1, 67, 178 Alexander 50, 51, 57, 58, 64, 89, 181, 220, 221,260, 262 Attridge 78 Aune 171,254 Barclay 64, 80, 90, 91, 98, 109, 155 Barnett 7 , 1 7 1 , 2 5 4 Bauckham 190, 194, 195, 198,206, 207,212 Becker 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 22, 29, 49, 58, 109, 126, 164, 166, 170, 174, 180, 214, 220, 221,253 Beegle 109, 151,231,232,245 Beentjes 17, 18, 1 9 , 2 5 , 3 9 Begg 1 0 , 2 3 0 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 3 , 2 7 4 , 2 7 5 , 2 7 7 Berger 4, 6, 9, 15, 16, 44, 45, 52, 57, 58, 90, 252 Betz, H.D. 5 Betz,0. 9,214,264,270,271,273 Beyer 49 Bieler 4, 151 Bilde 228, 230 Billerbeck 189 Birnbaum 56, 129, 132, 133 Blackburn 2 , 4

Bogaert 189, 190, 191, 192, 197,203, 207, 208, 214, 216, 219, 220, 221, 224 B6id 128 Bonneau 57 Booth 130, 143 Borgen 83, 85, 108, 110, 112, 118, 121, 124, 128, 129, 130, 132, 138, 140, 141, 144, 145, 151, 153 Bowie 4 Brock 47,48 Bultmann 5, 8, 15, 160 B6cher 8, 166, 180,221,273 van Cangh 21 Cazeaux 189, 190 Charles 44, 45, 47, 54, 60, 189 Charlesworth 6, 90, 183 Christiansen 129, 130, 133, 135, 141, 142 Cohn 189 Collins 19, 51, 64, 65, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 89, 90, 91, 96, 100, 177,229, 230, 252, 260, 279 Colpe 166, 180, 181 Colson 117, 127

354

Index of Subjects and Scholars

Corrington 5 Crossan 8 Danker 4 Dassmann 175 Dawson 108, 110, 130, 132, 142, 145 deJonge 160, 161 deRomilly 134 Delcor 45 Delling 1 9 9 , 2 2 8 , 2 2 9 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 , 246, 247, 249, 251 di Leila 1 7 , 2 0 , 2 4 , 2 5 , 2 6 , 2 7 , 3 1 , 3 2 , 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39 Dibelius 8, 15 Dietzfelbinger 61, 189, 190, 197, 205, 221,224 Dillon 172 duToit 4 , 1 5 1 , 2 3 1 , 2 4 5 Duhaine 57 Duling 2 3 6 , 2 5 9 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 1 , 2 6 3 Dupont-Sommer 182 Durham 70 Dzielska 4 Endres 44, 45, 47, 50 Eskola 81, 82, 83, 85, 86 Evans 9 Eve 2, 10, 15, 19, 22, 24, 31, 34, 37, 39, 46, 48, 49, 57, 92, 93, 98, 99, 100, 103, 109, 146, 147, 152, 155, 162, 190, 192, 202, 205, 214, 229, 230 Feldman 5, 10, 13, 77, 109, 126, 146, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 198, 207, 210, 212, 213, 216, 218, 224, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 255, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 279, 280, 295 Flinterman 4 Fossum 6, 82 Fraser 6 4 , 6 5 , 7 1 , 89,90, 104 Freudental 102 Frey 44, 45, 52, 59, 60, 143 Gabba 7, 171,230,231,253

Gager 98,231 Gauly 6 4 , 6 5 , 7 7 , 7 8 Georgi 89, 104, 110, 146, 147, 151, 231,260 GlSckner 8, 9, 15 Goldenberger 267 Goodenough 84 Goodman 7, 160, 161 Goulder 8, 37 Goulet 133, 153 Green 8 Grelot 182 Gruen 65, 72, 80, 83, 84, 90, 95, 231, 232 Gutman 83 Hadot 212 Hahn 5,23 Halpern-Amaru 44 Hare 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 169, 173, 176, 177, 180, 183, 184 Hata 2 3 1 , 2 3 2 , 2 3 5 Hay 110, 144 Hayward 224 Helleman 112, 132, 151, 153, 154 Hemer 171,253 Hengel 4, 6, 7, 12, 17, 19, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 52, 56, 59, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 90, 171, 197, 214, 223, 224, 252, 253, 254 Holladay 5, 10, 19, 26, 53, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 109, 129, 151, 154, 231,232, 245 van der Horst 65, 72, 78, 82, 83, 84, 86 Houtman 100 Hfiffken 1 9 , 3 9 , 4 0 , 4 1 , 2 3 1 Jackson 221 Jacobson 10, 13, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 117, 121, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 224, 235, 245 James 189,200,205 Jellinek 45

Index of Subjects and Scholars Jenni 1 Jeremias 160, 161, 163, 165, 167, 169 Jervell 171,253 Kahl 2 , 4 , 9, 15, 16, 23, 31, 49, 73, 87, 101, 106, 152, 168, 172, 202, 205, 226 Kaiser 21 Kasher 90,231 Kautsch 189 Kieweler 17, 18,28 Kister 220 Klauck 4 Kleingunther 53 Knibb 44, 164 Koskenniemi 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 21, 89, 90, 94, 97, 98, 101, 103, 131, 151, 166, 172, 174, 214, 220, 234, 236, 266, 287 Kottek 22,51 Kraft 114,126 Kuhn 179 Kuiper 65 K5ster 3, 151 Laato 40 Ladouceur 229 Lange 50, 51, 54, 84, 182, 220, 262 Lee 18,35 Levison 149, 193, 198, 199, 209, 256 Lichtenberger 171,253,254 Liddell - Scott 123 Lierman 81, 82, 84, 86, 201 Long 130,211 Mack 18, 19, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 34, 39 MacRae 228,261 Maier 2,48, 166,219,260 Marcus 1 5 4 , 2 2 8 , 2 4 7 , 2 5 0 , 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 , 267, 268, 273, 274, 275, 277 Martin 30, 35 Mayer 71 Meeks 83, 109, 111, 129, 132, 133, 144, 148, 151 Meier 2, 8 Merkel 252 Michl 56 Middendorp 19, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35 Milik 182 Mittmann-Richert 161, 168

355

Moehring 146, 154, 228, 229, 230, 235, 242 Mondesert 108, 110, 121, 143, 150 Montanari 64, 89 Murphy 19, 29, 34, 190, 191, 192, 196, 198, 199,203, 207, 216, 218, 219 MUller 166, 182,260 Nauck 64 Nestle 160 Nutton 21 Oberhansli-Widmer 11, 26, 83, 90, 109, 151,201,232, 234, 245,246 Ohler 12,31, 184,224 Olyan 50, 195, 212 Osswald 4 8 , 4 9 Pautrel 28, 29 Pearson 176 Pfres 4 Perrot 189, 190, 191, 192, 197,203, 207, 208, 214, 216, 219, 220, 221, 224 Pesch 172,253 Pfister 167 Philippson 64 Philonenko 49,220 Pilgaard 4 Preisendanz 260 Propp 70 vonRad 18, 1 9 , 3 2 , 3 3 , 4 2 Reinmuth 190, 192, 194, 198, 203, 207, 218,219 Reiterer 17, 18,28 Reitzenstein 3 , 4 , 151 Rengstorf 67, 74,217 Riessler 189 Robertson 64, 65, 77, 78, 83 Roncace 10,271 Rubinkiewicz 49 van Ruiten 44, 45, 51 Runia 81, 132, 151, 153, 154, 155 Sandelin 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 Sanders 138,218,264 Satran 160, 161, 162, 163, 169, 170, 172, 173, 178, 182, 183

356

Index of Subjects and Scholars

Sauer 17, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 Sayar 49 Schaper 7 Schermann 160 Schottroff 5, 9, 10, 11, 90, 109, 130, 151,231 Schreiber 35, 171, 184, 230, 252, 253 Schwartz 90,244 Schweizer 151 Schwemer 10, 19, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 198, 206, 253 Schurer 29, 34, 45, 46, 65, 78, 90, 91, 160, 161, 189, 190, 191,260 Siegert 40, 67, 142, 178, 216, 255, 257, 258, 2 6 5 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 2 Sieker 182 Sievers 245 Siker 53, 54, 92 Ska 24, 28 Smend 17,29 Smith 3 , 7 , 171 Snaith 17, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33, 3 4 , 3 7 , 3 8 , 39,51 Snell 64, 65, 66, 78 Spoerri 78 Stadelmann 17, 19, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 Stemberger 260 Steudel 58 Stone 160, 175 Strugnell 65 Tabor 245 Talmon 252

Thackeray 2 2 8 , 2 2 9 , 2 4 1 , 2 4 2 , 2 4 3 , 246, 247, 250, 257, 259 Thraede 53, 180 Thummel 4 Tiede 10, 19, 20, 25, 26, 54, 90, 91, 93, 96, 98, 103, 104, 109, 110, 114, 130, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 192, 230, 231, 232, 237, 243, 245, 247, 258 Torrey 150, 160, 161, 162, 165, 166, 173, 180, 184 Twelftree 182 vanUytfanghe 91 VanderKam 29, 44, 45, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 60, 181 Vermes 7, 160, 161, 182 Vogel 190, 194, 198 Vogt 64, 65, 78, 83 Walter 19, 89, 90, 91, 95, 97, 102, 104 Weber 90,262 Weinreich 4, 89, 90, 96, 97 Weiss 124 Wetter 3 , 4 Whybray 1 8 , 2 9 , 3 4 Windisch 151,231 Winter 134 Wintermute 44, 45, 47, 48, 52, 54, 58, 60 Wolff 160, 162, 165, 197 Wolfson 143, 146 Wright 17, 175 Zeller 82 Ziegenaus 4 Zimmermann 20, 35

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Alphabetical Index of the First and Second Series

Adna, Jostein: Jesu Stellung zum Tempel. 2000. Volume 11/119. - (Ed.): The Formation of the Early Church. 2005. Volume 183. - and Kvalbein, Hans (Ed.): The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. 2000. Volume 127. Alkier, Stefan: Wunder und Wirklichkeit in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus. 2001. Volume 134. Anderson, Paul N.: The Christology of the Fourth Gospel. 1996. Volume 11/78. Appold, MarkL.: The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel. 1976. Volume II/1. Arnold, Clinton E.: The Colossian Syncretism. 1995. Volume 11/77. Ascough, RichardS.: Paul's Macedonian Associations. 2003. Volume 11/161. Asiedu-Peprah, Martin: Johannine Sabbath Conflicts As Juridical Controversy. 2001. Volume 11/132. Avemarie, Friedrich: Die Tauferzahlungen der Apostelgeschichte. 2002. Volume 139. Avemarie, Friedrich and Hermann Lichtenberger (Ed.): Auferstehung - Ressurection. 2001. Volume 135. Avemarie, Friedrich and Hermann Lichtenberger (Ed.): Bund und Tora. 1996. Volume 92. Baarlink, Heinrich: Verkiindigtes Heil. 2004. Volume 168. Bachmann, Michael: Sunder oder Ubertreter. 1992. Volume 59. Bachmann, Michael (Ed.): Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive. 2005. Volume 182. Back, Frances: Verwandlung durch Offenbarung bei Paulus. 2002. Volume 11/153. Baker, William R.: Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle of James. 1995. Volume 11/68. Bakke, OddMagne: 'Concord and Peace'. 2001. Volume 11/143. Baldwin, Matthew C: Whose Acts of Peter] 2005. Volume 11/196. Balla, Peter: Challenges to New Testament Theology. 1997. Volume 11/95.

-

The Child-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and its Environment. 2003. Volume 155. Bammel, Ernst: Judaica. Volume 1 1986. Volume 37. - Volume II 1997. Volume 91. Bash, Anthony: Ambassadors for Christ. 1997. Volume 11/92. Bauernfeind, Otto: Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte. 1980. Volume 22. Baum, Armin Daniel: Pseudepigraphie und literarische Falschung imfruhenChristentum.2001. Volume 11/138. Bayer, Hans Friedrich: Jesus' Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection. 1986. Volume 11/20. Becker, Michael: Wunder und Wundertater im fruh-rabbinischen Judentum. 2002. Volume 11/144. Bell, Richard H: The Irrevocable Call of God. 2005. Volume 184. - No One Seeks for God. 1998. Volume 106. - Provoked to Jealousy. 1994. Volume 11/63. Bennema, Cornelis: The Power of Saving Wisdom. 2002. Volume 11/148. Bergman, Jan: see Kieffer, Rene Bergmeier, Roland: Das Gesetz im Romerbrief und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament. 2000. Volume 121. Betz, Otto: Jesus, der Messias Israels. 1987. Volume 42. - Jesus, der Herr der Kirche. 1990. Volume 52. Beyschlag, Karlmann: Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis. 1974. Volume 16. Bittner, Wolfgang J: Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium. 1987. Volume 11/26. Bjerkelund, Carl J: Tauta Egeneto. 1987. Volume 40. Blackburn, Barry Lee: Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. 1991. Volume 11/40. Bock, Darrell L.: Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus. 1998. Volume 11/106. Bockmuehl, Markus N.A.: Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 1990. Volume 11/36.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Bee, Sverre: Gog and Magog. 2001. Volume II/l 35. Bohlig, Alexander: Gnosis und Synkretismus. Teil 1 1989. Volume 47-Teil 2 1989. Volume 48. Bohm, Martina: Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas. 1999. Volume 11/111. Bottrich, Christfried: Weltweisheit - Menschheitsethik-Urkult. 1992. Volume 11/50. Bolyki, Jdnos: Jesu Tischgemeinschaften. 1997. Volume 11/96. Bosman, Philip: Conscience in Philo and Paul. 2003. Volume 11/166. Bovon, Francois: Studies in Early Christianity. 2003. Volume 161. Brocke, Christoph vom: Thessaloniki - Stadt des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus. 2001. Volume 11/125. Branson, Andrew: Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John. 2003. Volume 11/158. Biichli, Jorg: Der Poimandres - ein paganisiertes Evangelium. 1987. Volume 11/27. Buhner, Jan A.: Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium. 1977. Volume II/2. Burchard, Christoph: Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth. 1965. Volume 8. - Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. Ed. von D. Sanger. 1998. Volume 107. Burnett, Richard: Karl Barth's Theological Exegesis. 2001. Volume 11/145. Byron, John: Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 2003. Volume 11/162. Byrskog, Samuel: Story as History - History as Story. 2000. Volume 123. Cancik, Hubert (Ed.): Markus-Philologie. 1984. Volume 33. Capes, David B.: Old Testament Yaweh Texts in Paul's Christology. 1992. Volume 11/47. Caragounis, Chrys C: The Development of Greek and the New Testament. 2004. Volume 167. - The Son of Man. 1986. Volume 38. - see Fridrichsen, Anton. Carleton Paget, James: The Epistle of Barnabas. 1994. Volume 11/64. Carson, D.A., O'Brien, Peter T. and Mark Seifrid (Ed.): Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. 2001. Volume 11/140. Volume 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. 2004. Volume 11/181.

Ciampa, RoyE.: The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. 1998. Volume 11/102. Classen, Carl Joachim: Rhetorical Criticsm of the New Testament. 2000. Volume 128. Colpe, Cars ten: Iranier - Aramaer - Hebraer Hellenen. 2003. Volume 154. Crump, David: Jesus the Intercessor. 1992. Volume 11/49. Dahl, Nils Alstrup: Studies in Ephesians. 2000. Volume 131. Deines, Roland: Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias. 2004. Volume 177. - Judische SteingefaBe und pharisaische Frommigkeit. 1993. Volume 11/52. - Die Pharisaer. 1997. Volume 101. - and Karl- Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Philo und das Neue Testament. 2004. Volume 172. Dettwiler, Andreas and Jean Zumstein (Ed.): Kreuzestheologie im Neuen Testament. 2002. Volume 151. Dickson, John P.: Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities. 2003. Volume 11/159. Dietzfelbinger, Christian: Der Abschied des Kommenden. 1997. Volume 95. Dimitrov, Ivan Z., James D.G. Dunn, Ulrich Luz and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht. 2004. Volume 174. Dobbeler, Axel von: Glaube als Teilhabe. 1987. Volume 11/22. Du Toit, DavidS.: Theios Anthropos. 1997. Volume 11/91 Dubbers, Michael: Christologie und Existenz im Kolosserbrief. 2005. Volume II/191. Dunn, James D. G.: The New Perspective on Paul. 2005. Volume 185. Dunn, James D.G. (Ed.): Jews and Christians. 1992. Volume 66. - Paul and the Mosaic Law. 1996. Volume 89. - see Dimitrov, Ivan Z. Dunn, James D.G., Hans Klein, Ulrich Luz and Vasile Mihoc (Ed.): Auslegung der Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Perspektive. 2000. Volume 130. Ebel, Eva: Die Attraktivitat friiher christlicher Gemeinden. 2004. Volume 11/178. Ebertz, Michael N: Das Charisma des Gekreuzigten. 1987. Volume 45. Eckstein, Hans-Joachim: Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus. 1983. Volume 11/10. - VerheiBung und Gesetz. 1996. Volume 86. Ego, Beate: Im Himmel wie auf Erden. 1989. Volume 11/34

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Ego, Beate, Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer (Ed.): Gemeinde ohne Tempel - Community without Temple. 1999. Volume 118. - und Helmut Merkel (Ed.): Religidses Lernen in der biblischen, fruhjudischen und fruhchristlichenUberlieferung. 2005. Volume 180. Eisen, UteE.: see Paulsen, Henning. Ellis, E. Earle: Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. 1978. Volume 18. - The Old Testament in Early Christianity. 1991. Volume 54. Endo, Masanobu: Creation and Christology. 2002. Volume 149. Ennulat, Andreas: Die 'Minor Agreements'. 1994. Volume 11/62. Ensor, Peter W.: Jesus and His 'Works'. 1996. Volume 11/85. Eskola, Timo: Messiah and the Throne. 2001. Volume 11/142. - Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology. 1998. Volume 11/100. Fatehi, Mehrdad: The Spirit's Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul. 2000. Volume 11/128. Feldmeier, Reinhard: Die Krisis des Gottessohnes. 1987. Volume 11/21. - Die Christen als Fremde. 1992. Volume 64. Feldmeier, Reinhard and Ulrich Heckel (Ed.): Die Heiden. 1994. Volume 70. Fletcher-Louis, CrispinH.T.: Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. 1997. Volume 11/94. Forster, Niclas: Marcus Magus. 1999. Volume 114. Forbes, Christopher Brian: Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment. 1995. Volume 11/75. Fornberg, Tord: see Fridrichsen, Anton. Fossum, Jarl E.: The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord. 1985. Volume 36. Foster, Paul: Community, Law and Mission in Matthew's Gospel. Volume II/177. Fotopoulos, John: Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth. 2003. Volume 11/151. Frenschkowski, Marco: Offenbarung und Epiphanie. Volume 1 1995. Volume 11/79Volume2 1997. Volume 11/80. Frey, J org: Eugen Drewermann und die biblische Exegese. 1995. Volume 11/71. - Die johanneische Eschatologie. Volume I. 1997. Volume 96. - Volume II. 1998. Volume 110. - Volume III. 2000. Volume 117. Frey, J org and Udo Schnelle (Ed.): Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums. 2004. Volume 175.

-

and Jens Schrdter (Ed.): Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. 2005. Volume 181. Freyne, Sean: Galilee and Gospel. 2000. Volume 125. Fridrichsen, Anton: Exegetical Writings. Edited by C.C. Caragounis and T. Fornberg. 1994. Volume 76. Gdckle, Volker: Die Starken und die Schwachen in Korinth und in Rom. 2005. Volume 200. Garlington, Don B.: 'The Obedience of Faith'. 1991. Volume 11/38 - Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance. 1994. Volume 79. Garnet, Paul: Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls. 1977. Volume II/3. Gemunden, Petra von (Ed.): see Weissenrieder, Annette. Gese, Michael: Das Vermachtnis des Apostels. 1997. Volume 11/99. Gheorghita, Radu: The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews. 2003. Volume 11/160. Grdbe, Petrus J.: The Power of God in Paul's Letters. 2000. Volume 11/123. Grdfier, Erich: Der Alte Bund im Neuen. 1985. Volume 35. - Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte. 2001. Volume 137. Green, JoelB.: The Death of Jesus. 1988. Volume 11/33. Gregory, Andrew: The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus. 2003. Volume 11/169. Grindheim, Sigurd: The Crux of Election. 2005. Volume 11/202. Gundry, RobertH: The Old is Better. 2005. Volume 178. Gundry Volf, Judith M.: Paul and Perseverance. 1990. Volume 11/37. Hafemann, Scott J.: Suffering and the Spirit. 1986. Volume 11/19. - Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel. 1995. Volume 81. Hahn, Johannes (Ed.): Zerstorungen des Jerusalemer Tempels. 2002. Volume 147. Hannah, DarrelD.: Michael and Christ. 1999. Volume 11/109. Hamid-Khani, Saeed: Relevation and Con­ cealment of Christ. 2000. Volume 11/120. Harrison; James R.: Paul's Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. 2003. Volume 11/172. Hartman, Lars: Text-Centered New Testament Studies. Ed. vonD. Hellholm. 1997. Volume 102.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Hartog, Paul: Polycarp and the New Testament. 2001. Volume 11/134. Heckel, r^o^.DerlnnereMensch. 1993. Volume 11/53. - Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium. 1999. Volume 120. Heckel, Ulrich: Kraft in Schwachheit. 1993. Volume 11/56. - Der Segen im Neuen Testament. 2002. Volume 150. - see Feldmeier, Reinhard. - see Hengel, Martin. Heiligenthal, Roman: Werke als Zeichen. 1983. Volume 11/9. Hellholm, D.: seeHartman, Lars. Hemer, Colin J.: The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. 1989. Volume 49. Hengel, Martin: Judentum und Hellenismus. 1969, 1988. Volume 10. - DiejohanneischeFrage. 1993. Volume 67. - Judaica et Hellenistica. KleineSchriftenl. 1996. Volume 90. - Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana. KleineSchriftenll. 1999. Volume 109. - Paulus und Jakobus. Kleine Schriften III. 2002. Volume 141. Hengel, Martin and Ulrich Heckel (Ed.): Paulus und das antike Judentum. 1991. Volume 58. Hengel, Martin and Hermut Lohr (Ed.): Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum. 1994. Volume 73. Hengel, Martin and Anna Maria Schwemer: Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien. 1998. Volume 108. - Dermessianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfange der Christologie. 2001. Volume 138. Hengel, Martin and Anna Maria Schwemer (Ed.): Konigsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischerKult. 1991. Volume 55. - Die Septuaginta. 1994. Volume 72. Hengel, Martin; Siegfried Mittmann and Anna Maria Schwemer (Ed.): La Cite de Dieu / Die Stadt Gottes. 2000. Volume 129. Herrenbriick, Fritz: Jesus und die Zollner. 1990. Volume 11/41. Herzer, Jens: Paulus oder Petrus? 1998. Volume 103. Hoegen-Rohls, Christina: Der nachosterliche Johannes. 1996. Volume 11/84. Hoffmann, Matthias Reinhard: The Destroyer and the Lamb. 2005. Volume 11/203. Hofius, Otfried: Katapausis. 1970. Volume 11. - Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes. 1972. Volume 14. - Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6-11.1976, 1991. Volume 17. 3

2

2

- Paulusstudien. 1989, 1994. Volume 51. - Neutestamentliche Studien. 2000. Volume 132. - Paulusstudien II. 2002. Volume 143. Hofius, Otfried and Hans-Christian Kammler: Johannesstudien. 1996. Volume 88. Holtz, Traugott: Geschichte und Theologie des Urchristentums. 1991. Volume 57. Hommel, Hildebrecht: Sebasmata. Volume 1 1983. Volume 31 - Volume 2 1984. Volume 32. Hvalvik, Reidar: The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant. 1996. Volume 11/82. Jauhiainen, Marko: The Use of Zechariah in Revelation. 2005. Volume 11/199. Johns, Loren L.: The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John. 2003. Volume 11/167. Joubert, Stephan: Paul as Benefactor. 2000. Volume II/l 24. Jungbauer, Harry: „Ehre Vater und Mutter". 2002. Volume 11/146. Kdhler, Christoph: Jesu Gleichnisse als Poesie undTherapie. 1995. Volume 78. Kamlah, Ehrhard: Die Form der katalogischen Paraneseim Neuen Testament. 1964. Volume 7. Kammler, Hans-Christian: Christologie und Eschatologie. 2000. Volume 126. - Kreuz und Weisheit. 2003. Volume 159. - see Hofius, Otfried. Kelhoffer, James A.: The Diet of John the Baptist. 2005. Volume 176. - Miracle and Mission. 1999. Volume 11/112. Kieffer, Rene and Jan Bergman (Ed.): La Main de Dieu/Die Hand Gottes. 1997. Volume 94. Kim, Seyoon: The Origin of Paul's Gospel. 1981, 1984. Volume 11/4. - Paul and the New Perspective. 2002. Volume 140. - "The ' Son of Man '"as the Son of God. 1983. Volume 30. Klauck, Hans-Josef: Religion und Gesellschaft im fruhen Christentum. 2003. Volume 152. Klein, Hans: see Dunn, James D. G.. Kleinknecht, Karl Th.: Der leidende Gerechtfertigte. 1984, 1988. Volume 11/13. Klinghardt, Matthias: Gesetz und Volk Gottes. 1988. Volume 11/32. Koch, Michael: Drachenkampf und Sonnenfrau. 2004. Volume 11/184. Koch, Stefan: Rechtliche Regelung von Konflikten im fruhen Christentum. 2004. Volume 11/174. Kdhler, Wolf-Dietrich: Rezeption des Matthausevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus. 1987. Volume 11/24. Kohn, Andreas: Der Neutestamentler Ernst Lohmeyer. 2004. Volume 11/180. 2

2

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Kooten, George H. van: Cosmic Christology in Paul and the Pauline School. 2003. Volume 11/171. Korn, Manfred: Die Geschichte Jesu in veranderterZeit. 1993. Volume 11/51. Koskenniemi, Erkki: Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. 1994. Volume 11/61. -: The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism. 2005. Volume 11/206. Kraus, Thomas J.: Sprache, Stil und historischer Ort des zweiten Petrusbriefes. 2001. Volume 11/136. Kraus, Wolfgang: Das Volk Gottes. 1996. Volume 85. - and Karl- Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Fruhjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie. 2003. Volume 162. - see Walter, Nikolaus. Kreplin, Matthias: Das Selbstverstandnis Jesu. 2001. Volume 11/141. Kuhn, Karl G.: Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser undderReim. 1950. Volume 1. Kvalbein, Hans: see Adna, Jostein. Kwon, Yon-Gyong: Eschatology in Galatians. 2004. Volume 11/183. Laansma, Jon: I Will Give You Rest. 1997. Volume 11/98. Labahn, Michael: Offenbarung in Zeichen und Wort. 2000. Volume 11/117. Lambers-Petry, Doris: see Tomson, Peter J. Lange, Armin: see Ego, Beate. Lampe, Peter: Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. 1987, 1989. Volume 11/18. Landmesser, Christof: Wahrheit als Grundbegriff neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft. 1999. Volume 113. - Jungerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott. 2000. Volume 133. Lau, Andrew: Manifest in Flesh. 1996. Volume 11/86 Lawrence, Louise: An Ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew. 2003. Volume 11/165. Lee, Aquila H.I.: From Messiah to Preexistent Son. 2005. Volume 11/192. Lee, Pilchan: The New Jerusalem in the Book of Relevation. 2000. Volume 11/129. Lichtenberger, Hermann: see Avemarie, Friedrich. Lichtenberger, Hermann: Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menschheit. 2004. Volume 164. Herman, John: The New Testament Moses. 2004. Volume 11/173. 2

Lieu, Samuel N.C.: Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. 1992. Volume 63. Lindgdrd, Fredrik: Paul's Line of Thought in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10.2004. Volume 11/189. Loader, William R. G.: Jesus' Attitude Towards the Law. 1997. Volume 11/97. Lohr, Gebhard: Verherrlichung Gottes durch Philosophic 1997. Volume 97. Lohr, Hermut: Studien zumfruhchristlichenund fruhjudischen Gebet. 2003. Volume 160. - see Hengel, Martin. Lohr, Winrich Alfried: Basilides und seine Schule. 1995. Volume 83. Luomanen, Petri: Entering the Kingdom of Heaven. 1998. Volume 11/101. Luz, Ulrich: see Dunn, James D.G. Mackay, Ian D.: John's Raltionship with Mark. 2004. Volume 11/182. Maier, Gerhard: Mensch undfreierWille. 1971. Volume 12. - Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirche. 1981. Volume 25. Markschies, Christoph: Valentinus Gnosticus? 1992. Volume 65. Marshall, Peter: Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians. 1987. Volume 11/23. Mayer, Annemarie: Sprache der Einheit im Epheserbrief und in der Okumene. 2002. Volume 11/150. Mayordomo, Moises: Argumentiert Paulus logisch? 2005. Volume 188. McDonough, Sean M.: YHWH at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting. 1999. Volume 11/107. McGlynn, Moyna: Divine Judgement and Divine Benevolence in the Book of Wisdom. 2001. Volume 11/139. Meade, David G.: Pseudonymity and Canon. 1986. Volume 39. Meadors, Edward P.: Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation. 1995. Volume 11/72. Meifiner, Stefan: Die Heimholung des Ketzers. 1996. Volume 11/87. Mell, Ulrich: Die „anderen" Winzer. 1994. Volume 77. Mengel, Berthold: Studien zum Philipperbrief. 1982. Volume II/8. Merkel, Helmut: Die Widerspriiche zwischen den Evangelien. 1971. Volume 13. - see Ego, Beate. Merklein, Helmut: Studien zu Jesus und Paulus. Volume 1 1987. Volume 43. - Volume 2 1998. Volume 105 2

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Metzdorf, Christina: Die Tempelaktion Jesu. 2003. Volume 11/168. Metzler, Karin: Der griechische Begriff des Verzeihens. 1991. Volume 11/44. Metzner, Rainer: Die Rezeption des Matthausevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief. 1995. Volume 11/74. - Das Verstandnis der Sunde im Johannesevangelium. 2000. Volume 122. Mihoc, Vasile: see Dunn, James D.G.. Mineshige, Kiyoshi: Besitzverzichtund Almosen bei Lukas. 2003. Volume 11/163. Mittmann, Siegfried: see Hengel, Martin. Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike: Magnifikat und Benediktus. 1996. Volume 11/90. Mournet, Terence C: Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency. 2005. Volume 11/195. Mufiner, Franz: Jesus von Nazareth im Umfeld Israels und der Urkirche. Ed. von M. Theobald. 1998. Volume 111. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm: Gesetz und Paranese. 1987. Volume 11/28. - Heidenapostel aus Israel. 1992. Volume 62. - see Deines, Roland - see Dimitrov, Ivan Z. - seeKraus, Wolfgang Nielsen, Anders E.: "Until it is Fullfilled". 2000. Volume 11/126. Nissen, Andreas: Gott und der Nachste im antiken Judentum. 1974. Volume 15. Noack, Christian: Gottesbewufitsein. 2000. Volume 11/116. Noormann, Rolf: Irenaus als Paulusinterpret. 1994. Volume 11/66. Novakovic, Lidija: Messiah, the Healer of the Sick. 2003. Volume 11/170. Obermann, Andreas: Die christologische Erfullung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium. 1996. Volume 11/83. Ohler, Markus: Barnabas. 2003. Volume 156. Okure, Teresa: The Johannine Approach to Mission. 1988. Volume 11/31. Onuki, Takashi: Heil und Erlosung. 2004. Volume 165. Oropeza, B. J.: Paul and Apostasy. 2000. Volume 11/115. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich: Taufe und Typos. 2000. Volume 11/118 Paulsen, Henning: Studien zur Literatur und Geschichte des fruhen Christentums. Ed. von Ute E. Eisen. 1997. Volume 99. Pao, David W.: Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. 2000. Volume 11/130. Park, Eung Chun: The Mission Discourse in Matthew's Interpretation. 1995. Volume 11/81.

Park, Joseph S.: Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Insriptions. 2000. Volume 11/121. Pate, C. Marvin: The Reverse of the Curse. 2000. Volume 11/114. Peres, Imre: Griechische Grabinschriften und neutestamentliche Eschatologie. 2003. Volume 157. Philip, Finny: The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology. 2005. Volume 11/194. Philonenko, Marc (Ed.): Le Trone de Dieu. 1993. Volume 69. Pilhofer, Peter: Presbyteron Kreitton. 1990. Volume 11/39. - Philippi. Volume 1 1995. Volume 87. Volume 2 2000. Volume 119. - Die fruhen Christen und ihre Welt. 2002. Volume 145. - see Ego, Beate. Pitre, Brant: Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile. 2005. Volume 11/204. Pliimacher, Eckhard: Geschichte und Geschichten. Aufsatze zur Apostelgeschichte und zu den Johannesakten. Herausgegeben von Jens Schrdter und Ralph Brucker. 2004. Volume 170. Pdhlmann, Wolfgang: Der Verlorene Sohnund dasHaus. 1993. Volume 68. Pokorny, Petrmd JosefB. Soucek: Bibelauslegung als Theologie. 1997. Volume 100. Pokorny, Petr and Jan Roskovec (Ed.): Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis. 2002. Volume 153. Popkes, Enno Edzard: Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften. 2005. Volume 11/197. Porter, Stanley E.: The Paul of Acts. 1999. Volume 115. Prieur, Alexander: Die Verkiindigung der Gottesherrschaft. 1996. Volume 11/89. Probst, Hermann: Paulus und der Brief. 1991. Volume 11/45. Rdisdnen, Heikki: Paul and the Law. 1983, 1987. Volume 29. Rehkopf, Friedrich: Die lukanische Sonderquelle. 1959. Volume 5. Rein, Matthias: Die Heilung des Blindgeborenen (Joh 9). 1995. Volume 11/73. Reinmuth, Eckart: Pseudo-Philo und Lukas. 1994. Volume 74. Reiser, Marius: Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums. 1984. Volume 11/11. Rhodes, James N: The Epistle of Barnabas and the Deuteronomic Tradition. 2004. Volume 11/188. Richards, E. Randolph: The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. 1991. Volume 11/42. 2

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 3

Riesner, Rainer: Jesus als Lehrer. 1981, 1988. Volume II/7. - Die FrUhzeit des Apostels Paulus. 1994. Volume 71. Rissi, Mathias: Die Theologie des Hebraerbriefs. 1987. Volume 41. Roskovec, Jan: see Pokorny, Petr. Rohser, Giinter: MetaphorikundPersonifikation derSunde. 1987. Volume 11/25. Rose, Christian: Die Wolke derZeugen. 1994. Volume 11/60. Rothschild, Clare K.: Baptist Traditions and Q. 2005. Volume 190. -: Luke Acts and the Rhetoric of History. 2004. Volume 11/175. Riiegger, Hans-Ulrich: Verstehen, was Markus erzahlt. 2002. Volume 11/155. Ruger, Hans Peter: Die Weisheitsschrift aus der Kairoer Geniza. 1991. Volume 53. Sanger, Dieter: Antikes Judentum und die Mysterien. 1980. Volume 11/5. - Die Verkundigung des Gekreuzigten und Israel. 1994. Volume 75. - see Burchard, Christoph Salier, Willis Hedley: The Rhetorical Impact of the Semeia in the Gospel of John. 2004. Volume 11/186. Salzmann, J org Christian: Lehren und Ermahnen. 1994. Volume 11/59. Sandnes, Karl Olav: Paul - One of the Prophets? 1991. Volume 11/43. Sato, Migaku: Q und Prophetic 1988. Volume 11/29. Schdfer, Ruth: Paulus bis zum Apostelkonzil. 2004. Volume 11/179. Schaper, Joachim: Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. 1995. Volume 11/76 Schimanowski, Gottfried: Die himmlische Liturgie in der Apokalypse des Johannes. 2002. Volume 11/154. - Weisheit und Messias. 1985. Volume 11/17. Schlichting, Giinter: EinjudischesLeben Jesu. 1982. Volume 24. Schnabel, Eckhard J.: Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. 1985. Volume 11/16. Schnelle, Udo: see Frey, Jorg. Schroter, Jens: see Frey, Jorg. Schutter, William L.: Hermeneutic and Composition in I Peter. 1989. Volume 11/30. Schwartz, Daniel R.: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. 1992. Volume 60. Schwemer, Anna Maria: see Hengel, Martin Scott, James M.: Adoption as Sons of God. 1992. Volume 11/48.

- Paul and the Nations. 1995. Volume 84. Shum, Shiu-Lun: Paul's Use of Isaiah in Romans. 2002. Volume 11/156. Siegert, Folker: Drei hellenistisch-judische Predigten. Teil 1 1980. Volume 20 - Teil II 1992. Volume 61. - Nag-Hammadi-Register. 1982. Volume 26. - Argumentation bei Paulus. 1985. Volume 34. - Philon von Alexandrien. 1988. Volume 46. Simon, Marcel: Le christianisme antique et son contexte religieux I/II. 1981. Volume 23. Snodgrass, Klyne: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants. 1983. Volume 27. Soding, Thomas: Das Wort vom Kreuz. 1997. Volume 93. - see Thiising, Wilhelm. Sommer, Urs: Die Passionsgeschichte des Markusevangeliums. 1993. Volume 11/58. Soucek, JosefB.: see Pokorny, Petr. Spangenberg, Volker: Herrlichkeit des Neuen Bundes. 1993. Volume 11/55. Spanje, T.E. van: Inconsistency in Paul? 1999. Volume 11/110. Speyer, Wolfgang: Frtihes Christentum im antiken Strahlungsfeld. Volume 1:1989. Volume 50. - Volume II: 1999. Volume 116. Stadelmann, Helge: Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. 1980. Volume II/6 Stenschke, Christoph W.: Luke's Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith. Volume 11/108. Sterck-Degueldre, Jean-Pierre: Eine Frau namens Lydia. 2004. Volume 11/176. Stettler, Christian: Der Kolosserhymnus. 2000. Volume 11/131. Stettler, Hanna: Die Christologie der Pastoralbriefc 1998. Volume 11/105. Stokl Ben Ezra, Daniel: The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity. 2003. Volume 163. Strobel, August: Die Stunde der Wahrheit. 1980. Volume 21. Stroumsa, Guy G.: Barbarian Philosophy. 1999. Volume 112. Stuckenbruck, Loren T.: Angel Veneration and Christology. 1995. Volume 11/70. Stuhlmacher, Peter (Ed.): Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. 1983. Volume 28. - Biblische Theologie und Evangelium. 2002. Volume 146. Sung, Chong-Hyon: Vergebung der Sunden. 1993. Volume 11/57. Tajra, Harry W: The Trial of St. Paul. 1989. Volume 11/35.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament -

The Martyrdom of St.Paul. 1994. Volume 11/67. Theifien, Gerd: Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. 1979, 1989. Volume 19. Theobald, Michael: Studien zum Romerbrief. 2001. Volume 136. Theobald, Michael: see Mufiner, Franz. Thornton, Claus-Jiirgen: Der Zeuge des Zeugen. 1991. Volume 56. Thiising, Wilhelm: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie. Ed. von Thomas Soding. 1995. Volume 82. Thuren, Lauri: Derhethorizing Paul. 2000. Volume 124. Tolmie, D. Francois: Persuading the Galatians. 2005. Volume 11/190. Tomson, Peter J. and Doris Lambers-Petry (Ed.): The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature. 2003. Volume 158. Trebilco, Paul: The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. 2004. Volume 166. Treloar, Geoffrey R.: Lightfootthe Historian. 1998. Volume 11/103. Tsuji, Manabu: Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung. 1997. Volume 11/93 Twelftree, Graham H.: Jesus the Exorcist. 1993. Volume 11/54. Urban, Christina: Das Menschenbild nach dem Johannesevangelium. 2001. Volume II/13 7. Visotzky, Burton L.: Fathers of the World. 1995. Volume 80. Vollenweider, Samuel: Horizonte neutestamentlicher Christologie. 2002. Volume 144. Vos, Johan S.: Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus. 2002. Volume 149. Wagener, Ulrike: Die Ordnung des „Hauses Gottes". 1994. Volume 11/65. Wahlen, Clinton: Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. 2004. Volume 11/185. Walker, Donald D.: Paul's Offer of Leniency (2 Cor 10:1). 2002. Volume 11/152. Walter, Nikolaus: Praeparatio Evangelica. Ed. von Wolfgang Kraus und Florian Wilk. 1997. Volume 98. Wander, Bernd: Gottesfurchtige und Sympathisanten. 1998. Volume 104. 3

Watts, Rikki: Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark. 1997. Volume 11/88. Wedderburn, A.J.M.: Baptism and Resurrection. 1987. Volume 44. Wegner, Uwe: Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum. 1985. Volume 11/14. Weissenrieder, Annette: Images of Illness in the Gospel of Luke. 2003. Volume 11/164. - Friederike Wendt and Petra von Gemiinden (Ed.): Picturing the New Testament. 2005. Volume 11/193. Welck, Christian: Erzahlte ,Zeichen'. 1994. Volume 11/69. Wendt, Friederike (Ed.): see Weissenrieder, Annette. Wiarda, Timothy: Peter in the Gospels. 2000. Volume 11/127. Wifstrand, Albert: Epochs and Styles. 2005. Band 179. Wilk, Florian: see Walter, Nikolaus. Williams, Catrin H.: I am He. 2000. Volume 11/113. Wilson, Walter T: Love without Pretense. 1991. Volume 11/46. Wischmeyer, Oda: Von Ben Sira zu Paulus. 2004. Volume 173. Wisdom, Jeffrey: Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law. 2001. Volume 11/133. Wold, Benjamin G.: Women, Men, and Angels. 2005. Volume 11/2001. Wright, Archie T: The Origin of Evil Spirits. 2005. Volume 11/198. Wucherpfennig, Ansgar: Heracleon Philologus. 2002. Volume 142. Yeung, Maureen: Faith in Jesus and Paul. 2002. Volume 11/147. Zimmermann, Alfred E.: Die urchristlichen Lehrer. 1984, 1988. Volume 11/12. Zimmermann, Johannes: Messianische Texte aus Qumran. 1998. Volume 11/104. Zimmermann, Ruben: Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium. 2004. Volume 171. - GeschlechtermetaphorikundGottesverhaltnis. 2001. Volume 11/122. Zumstein, Jean: see Dettwiler, Andreas Zwiep, Arie W: Judas and the Choice of Matthias. 2004. Volume 11/187. 2

For a complete catalogue please write to the publisher Mohr Siebeck • P.O. Box 2030 • D-72010 Tubingen/Germany Up-to-date information on the internet at www.mohr.de

Erkki Koskenniemi analyzes the most important early Jewish texts, which attribute miracles to people mentioned in the Old Testament. His study is relevant for everyone investigating the miracles in early Judaism or early Christianity.

ISBN 3-16-148604-8

Mohr Siebeck