Construction, Coherence and Connotations: Studies on the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature 3110464268, 9783110464269

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Relationship Between the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira and the Septuagint Version of Proverbs
Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom
Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira
A Text-Critical Examination of Different Readings in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19)
Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira: The Headings of the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1611)
Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?
Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit
Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology
Reading Judith as a Guide to Jewish Worship in Second Temple Judaism: A Greimassian Perspective
A Study of Connection and Disjunction in the Book of Baruch
Susanna – Framing the Minds and Views of People in Daniel
A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art
Coincidence or Coherence? Rhetorical Considerations for Unnatural Elements in 2 Maccabees 5:1–20
Josephus and the Pharisees
Index

Citation preview

Construction, Coherence and Connotations

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego and Tobias Nicklas

Volume 34

Construction, Coherence and Connotations Studies on the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature Papers presented at the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa International Conference at the Faculty of Theology, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa (28 – 30 August 2015)

Edited by Pierre Johan Jordaan and Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

ISBN 978-3-11-046426-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-046694-2 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-046567-9 ISSN 1865-1666 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

This book is dedicated to Prof. Dr Johann Cook, in grateful appreciation for his outstanding contributions towards the advancement of LXX research in South Africa.

Table of Contents Pierre Johan Jordaan & Nicholas Peter Legh Allen Introduction 1 Johann Cook The Relationship Between the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira and the Septuagint Version of Proverbs 11 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom 27 Ibolya Balla Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira

51

Gideon R. Kotzé A Text-Critical Examination of Different Readings in the Hebrew and Greek 69 Texts of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19) Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira: The Headings of the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1611) 87 Annette H. M. Evans Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm? 133 Helen Efthimiadis-Keith Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit

149

Steve Modugno Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology Risimati S. Hobyane Reading Judith as a Guide to Jewish Worship in Second Temple Judaism: A Greimassian Perspective 193

165

VIII

Table of Contents

Gerhardus J. Swart A Study of Connection and Disjunction in the Book of Baruch

207

Joseph Jacobus de Bruyn Susanna – Framing the Minds and Views of People in Daniel

221

Géza G. Xeravits A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art

233

Eugene Coetzer Coincidence or Coherence? Rhetorical Considerations for Unnatural Elements in 2 Maccabees 5:1 – 20 249 Nicholas Peter Legh Allen Josephus and the Pharisees Index

307

261

Abbreviations The following abbreviations will be employed for all cited scriptural and classical works. For the purposes of consistency and standardisation, all abbreviations of periodicals, series and lexicons will follow, as closely as possible, a system originally proposed by the SBL Handbook of Style and IATG (Siegfried Schwertner, Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete, Berlin/New York, 1992). Single references to biblical books are abbreviated according to the SBL Handbook of Style, e. g., Gen 1:7. Verse numbers within a chapter are separated by a comma without a space (e. g., Judg 7:13 – 17, 20 – 25). General B.C.E. C.E. HB MS(S) NT OT

Before the Common Era Common Era Hebrew Bible Manuscript New Testament Old Testament

Languages, Versions, and Editions of the Biblical Text Akk Aram GI GII Gk Heb Lat LXX MT OG Q T Theo Vulg. NIV

Akkadian Aramaic Greek (Vaticanus) Greek (Sinaiticus) Greek Hebrew Latin Septuagint Masoretic Text Old Greek Qumran Targum Theodotion Vulgate New International Version

Biblical Books Gen Exod Lev Deut Josh Judg

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Deuteronomy Joshua Judges

X

 –  Sam  –  Kgs  –  Chr Neh Esth Job Ps(s) Prov Isa Jer Lam Ezek Dan Hos Joel Amos Mic Hab Hag Zech Mal Matt Luke John Heb Rev

Abbreviations

 –  Samuel  –  Kings  –  Chronicles Nehemiah Esther Job Psalm Proverbs Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Micah Habakkuk Haggai Zechariah Malachi Matthew Luke John Epistle to the Hebrews Revelation

Deuterocanonical Books Bar Jdt  –  Macc Sus Sir Tob Wis

Baruch Judith  –  Maccabees Susanna Sirach/Ecclesiasticus Tobit Wisdom of Solomon

Books of the Pseudepigrapha  Enoch  Macc

Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch  Maccabees

Abbreviations

XI

Dead Sea Scrolls Dead Sea Scrolls are cited by cave number attached to the letter “Q”, manuscript number or abbreviated name, fragment number (if there is one it is given in Arabic numerals), column number (in Roman numerals, either capitalized or lowercase) and line number (in Arabic numerals). Thus (reading from the end to the reference to the front) Q  ii  would refer to line  of the first column of the first fragment of manuscript  from cave . QpHab I  refers to the second line of the first column of Pesher Habakkuk from cave . Ancient Authors Plato (? – c.  B.C.E.) Symp. Symposium (Συμπόσιον) Aristotle ( –  B.C.E.) Rhet. Ars Rhetorica (Ῥητορική) Polybius (c.  – c.  B.C.E.) The Histories Plb. Titus Livius (/ B.C.E. –  C.E.) Ab Urbe Condita Libri Liv. Diodorus Siculus (fl.  –  B.C.E.) Bibliotecha historia D.S. Titus Josephus Flavius ( – c.  C.E.) B.J. Bellum judaicum (Φλαυίου Ἰωσήπου ἱστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους βιβλία) A.J. Antiquitates judaicae (Ἰουδαϊκh A ᾿ ρχαιολογία) C.Ap. Contra Apionem (Φλαΐου Ἰωσήπου περὶ ἀρχαιότητος Ἰουδαίων λόγος α and Φλαΐου Ἰωσήπου περὶ ἀρχαιότητος ἀντιρρητικὸς λόγος β) Vita Vita Iosephi (Ἰωσήπου βίος) Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus (c.  –  C.E.) Mor. Moralia (Ἠθικά) Modern Bible Translations CEB KJV NAB NEB NIV

Common English Bible King James Version New American Bible New English Bible New International Version

XII

Abbreviations

Babylonian Talmud b. Tractate of the Babylonian Talmud Sanh. Sanhedrin (The Sanhedrin) Sot. Sotah (The Suspected Adulteress) Passages of the Talmud are cited by folio (two-page layout) and side (a or b), e. g., b. Sanh. a Journals, Book Series, and Reference Works ABS AJA AJP AncB ANF AOT APOT AYB BBB BETL BN BWANT BZAW BZNW CBET CBQ CQ DCLS EHAT EncJud GKC HThK AT HTR HTS HUCA IATG ICS ITSR JBL JBTh JCS JESHO JESHO JJS JNES JNSL JQR

American Bible Society American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Philology Anchor Bible Ante-Nicene Fathers The Apocryphal Old Testament () The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament () Anchor Yale Bible Bonner Biblische Beiträge Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblische Notizen Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Classical Quarterly Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Encyclopedia Judaica Kautzsch, E., ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, . Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hervormde Theological Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete Illinois Classical Studies Intercultural Theology and Study of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review

Abbreviations

JSem JSHRZ JSJ JSJSup JTS KStTh KTU LCL LSJ LUÅ NF NCBC NETS NOAB OBO ÖBS OTE OTL OTL SAPERE SBAB SBL SCM SPB SR StOr TB ThWNT TDNT VTS VTSup WUNT ZAW NF

XIII

Journal for Semitics Jüdische Schriften aus Hellenistisch-Römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods Study of Judaism Supplement Journal of Theological Studies Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit Loeb Classical Library A Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell, Scott & Jones) Lunds Universitets Årsskrift Ny Följd New Century Bible Commentary New English Translation of the Septuagint New Oxford Annotated Bible Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Österreichische Biblische Studien Old Testament Essays Old Testament Literature Old Testament Library Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam Religionemque Pertinentia Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände Society of Biblical Literature Student Christian Movement Studia Post-Biblica Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses Studia Orientalia Tyndale Bulletin Theologisches Wörtenbuch zum Neuen Testament Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Virginia Theological Seminary Vetus Testamentum Supplements Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Neue Folge

Organisations IOSCS IOSOT ISDCL LXXSA NRF RISA

International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies International Organisation for the Study of the Old Testament International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa National Research Foundation (South Africa) Research and Innovation Support and Advancement (NRF)

Pierre Johan Jordaan & Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

Introduction

1 The Founding of the LXXSA This publication is the most recent fruit of the LXXSA (Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa) – an organisation that was formally established in Potchefstroom in November 2007. Since that time, the organisation has grown and today its members manage to cover both a wide and varied terrain, inter alia, the relationship between the Masoretic text and the LXX; the LXX and the Peshitta, Targums and Vetus Latina; the LXX and the NT, the OG and the Theodotian; and naturally the LXX in itself. There were different reasons for the establishment of the LXXSA. Indeed, it has much earlier roots. Here, a number of events and/or individuals could claim to be catalysts for the founding of this organisation: Firstly, Prof. Johann Cook, who had already been busy with LXX research for most of his life. Indeed, his Doktorvater, Prof. Charles Fensham, had undertaken his own doctoral research on the term ἄβυσσος in Gen 1:2. This enthusiasm and passion for the LXX and other ancient texts was passed on to the then young Johann Cook. Cook subsequently became his successor and also took over Fensham’s philosophy: “Give your students wings and let them fly”. Today, Cook’s broad field of expertise includes all the different biblical manuscripts and their relationship to the LXX. These manuscripts include, inter alia, the Peshitta, the Targums and the various Masoretic texts. Cook, who is currently the president of IOSOT, is recognized worldwide as a prolific scholar. For example, he has delivered 16 doctorates, with no less than five of his students presently teaching at universities. These include Prof. Gert Steyn, Dr Helen Keith van Wyk¹ and Dr Gideon Kotzé. The latter two are also represented in this publication. Cook has his own legacy when it comes to LXX and Cognate research. As the chairperson of the LXXSA, he continues to bring his unique expertise and attract leading worldwide contacts for the benefit of our membership. He tolerates and welcomes distinctive scholarly approaches to the LXX. For example, Helen Keith van Wyk’s doctoral thesis on Judith (The Enemy is Within: a Jungian Psychoanalytic Approach to the Book of Judith) bears witness to this.

 Previously known as Helen Efthimiadis-Keith.

2

Pierre Johan Jordaan & Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

Secondly, Prof. Gert Steyn, who is presently the second member of the executive committee. He is currently professor of New Testament at the University of Pretoria. He is an accomplished scholar who as far back as 1988 pleaded for the establishment of an LXX association in a paper titled “The State of LXX Research in South Africa”. He repeated his request to the academic environment again in 1989 in an article titled “The Creation and Development History of the LXX” [my translation PJJ]. Steyn’s field of expertise is the use of the LXX in the NT; more specifically Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews. His first doctorate also centered on this topic. He diligently tried to find some Septuagintal Vorlage for the NT, and then comes to the conclusion: There is not only one, but there are many. Steyn completed his second doctorate under Cook with the title: A Quest for the Vorlage of the Explicit Quotations in Ad Hebraeos. He is currently busy with his third doctorate and is an inspiring educationalist who has thus far delivered eleven doctorates. Five of these doctorates were specifically LXX-connected. Two of his doctoral students, Dr Peter Nagel and Dr Ronald van den Berg are themselves regular contributors to the LXXSA. Steyn’s unique contribution to the LXXSA is his understanding of the LXX Vorlage in relationship to the NT. Steyn has various contacts in Europe like Münster, Leuven and Helsinki and is a world-renowned scholar in his field. Thirdly, Prof. Pierre Jordaan, who is currently professor of Greek in the School of Ancient Languages and Text Studies at the NWU. Originally a minister, he considers himself a latecomer to the academy and LXX research. His doctorate was in New Testament Greek: A Rhetorical Analysis of Colossians. In 2004, he joined the NWU as a lecturer in Greek. In 2006, he was approached by the Bible Society of South Africa to translate certain Deuterocanonical Books for the New Afrikaans Bible Translation. His particular field of interest was the literary interpretation of the mainly Theodotian LXX edition of the text. Thus far he has delivered four doctoral students on apocryphal and cognate studies: Dr Dichk Mwambe (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Dr Risimati Hobyane, Dr Eugene Coetzer and Prof. Nicholas P.L. Allen. All four of them are contributors to the LXXSA and the latter three are also represented in this publication. In 2006, Jordaan and Steyn made contact with Cook about the possibility of formerly launching the LXXSA. The next year it was a reality. The LXXSA has grown substantially from the time of its formation. It is a vibrant organisation, despite being relatively small in actual numbers. Two of its previous international conferences (2009 and 2011) resulted in Brill publications and three of its national conferences resulted in subsequent national publications. This particular Walter de Gruyter publication is based on the LXXSA’s fourth international conference, held in Potchefstroom (28 – 30 August 2015).

Introduction

3

The LXXSA is now at a cross roads in its development, faced as it is by a number of challenges as well as potential opportunities for further expansion. In this context, its members need to be critically aware of what lies ahead in its desire to both maintain its important role as a catalyst for LXXSA-based research as well as identify and clarify future possibilities.

2 LXXSA – A SWOT Analysis SWOT, as is well known, is an abbreviation for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. It is a well-known tool that businesses use to take their enterprises forward and likewise address problem areas. This SWOT analysis is not only constructed on the findings from executive members’ interviews, but was also an opportunity for members to participate in the analysis.

2.1 Strengths 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

The chairperson has empowered the LXXSA members and executive in terms of promoting tolerance and anti-dogmatism. He has no problem with a diversity of approaches and methodologies. His approach is not “Top to bottom”, but rather, “bottom up”. The executive has a KISS (“keep it short and simple”) approach, with the minimum of red tape to get things done. The executive has organising independence, with each member being able to arrange conferences without censure. The executive, especially, Gert Steyn and Johann Cook are able, internationally recognised scholars, bringing with them their international contacts. All members of the executive are NRF rated, In the area of text criticism of the LXX, South Africa (especially Stellenbosch and Pretoria) is fast becoming a scholarly hub, like Helsinki, Münster, Leuven and Toronto. There is a healthy mixture of older and younger members in the LXXSA. Younger members are still joining the organisation.

2.2 Weaknesses 1.

Africa, our continent, is largely under-represented in our organisation. The LXX has not really become part of the African hermeneutic. As such, the

4

2. 3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Pierre Johan Jordaan & Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

LXXSA is seen as mainly South African, predominantly Eurocentric and possibly even elitist. Women are under-represented, not even one tenth of the members are women. The executive is all-male. Unlike Mission studies, LXX studies are not presently in vogue. There is immense pressure by the South African government on disciplines like Theology to become more pragmatic. Theology is viewed as being primarily an agent of praxis. In short, physical assistance is considered to be the main focus of the discipline; help the poor; help the destitute; help to the aidsstricken etc. Thus Theology and its more practice-driven kindred disciplines seem to have preference. LXX studies (in contrast), are perceived to be more focused on theory and consequently are deemed to be unimportant. Admittance to postgraduate studies (especially at a doctoral level) is appropriately strict and demands exacting language requirements. In South Africa, many prospective candidates lack the requisite language skills for admission to higher degrees in LXX research. There are dogmatic prejudices against the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha by mostly theologians who slavishly and strictly adhere to their respective confessions of faith. As an example, Jordaan and his post-doctoral fellow were severely assailed during a recent NRF workshop (2015) when they correctly cited the overwhelming acceptance (90 %) of the Apocrypha in Protestant Churches in South Africa. The prohibition of proclamation from these books (article 6 of the Belgic Confession) was often quoted in these confrontations. Jordaan and his colleague were assertively informed that because the Holy Spirit established the Protestant Canon they were, in effect, going against God by promoting, inter alia, the Apocrypha. There is a lack of the so called primary resources “original texts” for LXX studies in Africa/South Africa. In order to get to them one has to travel to Europe or the USA. Our resources, for disciplines such as text criticism are still insufficient even though they are amongst the best in Africa. Perhaps we should invest more in electronic access to manuscripts?

2.3 Opportunities 1.

International students come to study with members of the LXXSA. Cook had students from the USA and Steyn has quite a number of students from South Korea. Jordaan had a student from the DRC, and Keith van Wyk currently has a student from Nigeria. These students often become lecturers in their home

Introduction

2. 3.

4.

5

countries. In this sense, the LXXSA serves as an export agency into Africa thereby increasing the representation of especially ethnic African people in LXX studies. We have access to NRF funding. While it may become more difficult to access in the future, it is presently still available to the association and its members. We have younger people and people from previously disadvantaged backgrounds who are joining our ranks. This must be dramatically increased in future. We have access to post-doctoral programmes that have added to our research in the field. This is especially prevalent at the NWU.

2.4 Threats All South African Higher Education Institutions face certain threats: 1. The South African government is decreasing its subsidies. This places what is perceived to be “elitist research” in an unfavorable position. 2. Schools and facilities are being “rationalised” or even closed down. For example, Ancient Languages at the University of Johannesburg (Department of Greek) was once home to productive staff members. Now it is administered by a small skeleton staff. Thus, from abundance to merely survival; from research excellence to almost nothing. 3. There is obviously a huge focus on and urgent need to empower the previously disadvantaged members of our community. Thus, many of our more promising ethnic African doctoral candidates are often usurped by other disciplines intent on raising their own numbers of postgraduate students in what the SA government deems to be the “designated group”. Thus, even after successfully completing their studies, our previously disadvantaged doctoral graduates are mostly enticed away from LXX studies and taken up by, inter alia, the higher-salaried private and government sectors. This poses the problem of continuation and sustainable succession planning. It seems that a doctoral student is head-hunted the moment that we deliver her/him. Thus, we find it extremely difficult to retain talented ethnic African scholars who could themselves become erstwhile role-models for other previously disadvantaged groups. Certainly, such hijacked appointments severely impact negatively on any possibility of encouraging larger numbers of especially ethnic Africans into the LXX arena.

6

Pierre Johan Jordaan & Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

2.5 Summary The LXXSA is a dynamic, albeit young, organisation that has achieved much in its short history. It boasts many strengths that certainly assisted in its rapid growth and success. As a group of academics, we were largely tolerant and accommodating of each other in terms of methodologies and approaches. Able and passionate people are our biggest asset. These individuals are not only highly motivated but truly passionate about the LXX. Such people bring students from all around the world to South Africa to study with them. However, we must not be oblivious to many challenges that face the organisation. In order to ensure our survival we will have to address the above-mentioned weaknesses and threats. The LXXSA still has to make broader inroads into the rest of Africa. For both our survival and continued relevance, we need to explore ways in which we can bring into our fold, inter alia, both women and ethnic African scholars. The accessibility to ancient texts electronically also needs to be addressed. Our subjects need to be seen for what they are worth; as imperative for understanding, history, the world and diverse cultures. There must be continued dialogue with the government to help them fully understand and appreciate the value of intellectual endeavours as much as say, pragmatism.

3 This Publication This book contains fourteen essays. In actuality, these essays are the edited transcripts of selected papers which were read by their respective authors at a LXXSA international conference titled: Construction, Coherence and Connotation in Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature. This event took place between 28 – 30 August 2015 at the NWU in Potchefstroom, South Africa. The original intention of the conference was to apply new critical theory and approaches to the fields of Old Testament Scripture as well as associated Apocryphal and Cognate literature, with a specific focus on the interrelated recurring theme of the Wisdom of the deity and its decryption and reception at various times in history. In this regard, it was felt that this theme and associated source texts had been largely overlooked in recent scholarship. Here the desire was to attract recent research which not only shed new light on Old Testament Apocrypha and so-called Pseudepigraphical literature but will also critically review certain bib-

Introduction

7

lical wisdom texts which are foundational for both the Christian as well as Jewish communities. The conference not only attracted prominent academics from many of the leading South African universities, it was also honoured by the attendance and contributions of three celebrated international scholars: Prof. Friedrich V. Reiterer (formerly professor of Old Testament at the University of Salzburg, Austria); Ibolya Balla (associate professor at the Biblical Institute, Papa Reformed Theological Academy, Hungary); and Prof. Géza G. Xeravits (professor of Old Testament at the Selye János University, Komarno). Of the published papers it will be seen that by far the majority were concerned with the apocryphal Wisdom of Sirach. In this context, Prof. Johann Cook’s paper titled “The Relationship Between the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira and the Septuagint Version of Proverbs” focuses on the relationship between the Greek versions of Proverbs and Jesus Sirach. Cook reveals that Ben Sirach’s grandson most likely had access to LXX-Proverbs. Prof. Friedrich Reiterer’s contribution titled “The Three Pillars of the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom” focuses on Sir 1; 24; 51. Here, Reiterer reveals that chapter 24:1– 22, together with chapter 1:1– 10 and 51:13 – 20, are guiding, golden threads running through Ben Sira’s work, which conveys a very distinctive message: The distinctive qualities of Wisdom and her true origins (Sir1:1– 10); The pivotal importance of Wisdom as the agency of God (Sir 24:1– 22); and how and where to acquire Wisdom (Sir 51:13 – 30). Prof. Ibolya Balla’s paper titled “Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira” examines the activity of Ben Sira in terms of time. Here, she demonstrates that Ben Sira’s sagely activity has an effect on future generations. In his past, he dedicates himself to studying the Torah and growing in wisdom. In his present, he is concerned with imparting what he has learned to others in order that they avoid iniquity in the future. Dr Gideon Kotzé’s contribution titled “A Text-Critical Examination of Different Readings in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19)” provides a text-critical analysis of the variant readings of ‫ מרודיה‬and τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά in the Hebrew and Greek texts of Sir 35 (32):19. Here, Kotzé attempts to determine how the two alternate interpretations came about and how they affect the content of the passage. He concludes that neither reading likely resulted from a scribal error, although the Hebrew reading might be more original than its Greek equivalent. Prof. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Prof. Jacobus A. Naudé present a very technical paper titled “Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira: The Headings of the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1611)”. In this regard, they examine the metatexts of early European translations

8

Pierre Johan Jordaan & Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

of Ben Sira as providing indications concerning its interpretation and ideology. For this task they primarily employ the English translations of the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1610) with comparison to Martin Luther’s German translation (1534), the Dutch Authoritative Translation (1639) and the English translations of the Matthew’s Bible (1537), the Tavener’s Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Bishop’s Bible (1568), and the Douay-Rheims Bible (1582– 1610). They confirm that, inter alia, the chapter headings, which at first glance appear to be uncontentious, were in fact shaped by translators to promote their own ideological and theological views. As a consequence, chapter headings reveal much about the history of interpretation among two important English exegetical traditions as well as the history of reception of Ben Sira. Another more popular topic which featured predominantly at the conference concerned the apocryphal Book of Tobit. As a consequence two of the published papers feature this topic: Dr Annette Evans’ paper titled “Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?” considers the possibility that in spite of the deuteronomistic setting of the beginning of Tobit the angelology reveals a post-exilic setting with traces of nascent apocalypticism. Furthermore, the book’s suggestion of merkebah mysticism, hints at later Christian redaction. Thus Evans argues that Tobit exhibits Jewish belief in divine intervention which expedited the subsequent reception of Christianity. Dr Helen Keith Van Wyk explores the possibility that Tobit and Tobias may be interpreted as aspects of the same character in her paper titled “Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit”. Here, in terms of Tobit’s production context and Jungian dream analysis, Keith Van Wyk demonstrates that Tobit’s individuation cycle may well reflect a particular community’s current individuation state, whereas Tobias’ successfully completed individuation cycle speaks to the same community’s desired future individuation state. Dr Steve Modugno is concerned with the recent interest expressed apropos the possibility of composing a valid theology of the Septuagint. His paper titled “Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theological and Ideological Positions” affirms the value of describing the theology and ideology revealed by the differences between the Masoretic text and the OG translation. Here, Modugno sets out to elucidate various ideological and theological viewpoints which have been disclosed by virtue of the translation shifts in OG-Micah. Prof. Risimati Hobyane’s paper titled “Reading Judith as a Guide to Jewish Worship in Second Temple Judaism: A Greimassian Perspective” contends that the Book of Judith may well serve as a guide to the specifics of Jewish religious worship in the Second Temple period. In this regard, Hobyane, by means of the actantial model of the Greimassian approach, proffers an alternate reading

Introduction

9

which suggest that this book was intentionally designed to clarify the details of orthodox worship in the Second Temple Judaism. Prof. Gerhardus Swart’s paper titled “Torn Between Forces – A Study of Connection and Disjunction in the Book of Baruch” addresses the problem of the dissimilar way that the Book of Baruch is viewed by scholars. For example, some claim to see clear links between the different sections of the work, thus emphasising its conceptual unity. However, others dispute this finding and tend to view the book as a largely incongruent accumulation of disparate sections albeit with some textconnections to other literary works. As a consequence, Swart investigates the various terms used to denote this book’s characteristics as well as the specific meaning(s) that scholars assign to these terms. Finally, he determines to what extent such a focus advances our understanding of the work’s actual literary character. Dr Jacobus de Bruyn’s paper titled “Susanna – Framing the Minds and Views of People as Part of a Larger Daniel Narrative” analyses the story of Susanna by combining features of editorial and narrative critique as well as new insights on body and space in the field of linguistics. In addition, de Bruyn determines that the Book of Susanna must be read in a reciprocal relationship to the entire Greek Daniel. Subsequently, he demonstrates that within a larger Greek Daniel narrative, a new worldview is created wherein the God of Israel is not bound to Ancient Near-Eastern religious or cultural perceptions. Prof. Géza Xeravits’ paper titled “A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art” proffers some intriguing alternate sources for the stylised representations of Daniel in the lion’s den, as found in certain ancient synagogues. Xeravits questions conventional wisdom that chapter 6 of the Book of Daniel provides the primary inspiration for much of these image’s iconography. With the aid of a survey of various Biblical versions of this story, he proposes a far more comprehensive explanation. Dr Eugene Coetzer’s contribution titled “Coincidence or Coherence? Rhetorical Considerations for Unnatural Elements in 2 Maccabees 5:1– 20” deals with the series of mysterious events that are incorporated into the account of the Temple’s profanation in 2 Macc. 5:1– 20. In this context, Coetzer explores the possibility of a more unified purpose for these unnatural elements. He concludes that the Temple’s desecration is intended to be interpreted by a reader as divinely orchestrated; not merely coincidental, but contrived by God. Lastly, Prof. Nicholas Allen’s contribution titled “Josephus and the Pharisees” was the only paper concerned with Cognate literature. Allen looks critically at the eminent scholar Steve Mason’s verdict that Josephus was most likely not a Pharisee and in addition was consistently negative towards the entire Pharisaic movement. By employing an interpretivist/constructivist approach, Allen at-

10

Pierre Johan Jordaan & Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

tempts to moderate Mason’s somewhat unequivocal conclusion by addressing what might be considered to be weaknesses in Mason’s mostly sound methodology. In addition, Allen, although aware of the many pitfalls, attempts to recover Josephus’s most likely philosophical and religious affinities. The editors would like to take this golden opportunity to sincerely thank Univ.-Prof. Dr Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer for his astute facilitation and support in this project. Finally, the editors would also like to publicly thank the NRF RISA (National Research Foundation: Research and Innovation Support and Advancement) for their generous grant that made this international conference possible – without this event this book would not have been realised. Pierre J. Jordaan Nicholas P.L. Allen 2016 North-West University Potchefstroom

Johann Cook

The Relationship Between the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira and the Septuagint Version of Proverbs Abstract: This article focuses on the relationship between the Greek versions of Proverbs and Jesus Sirach. It demonstrates that the grandson of Ben Sirach had access to LXX-Proverbs. This applies especially to passages that appear as plusses in Chapter 9 compared to MT and other textual witnesses. This intricate relationship is described on a lexical and thematic level. Keywords: Hellenism, Judaism, Proverbs, Wisdom of Ben Sira.

1 Introduction The relationship between Sirach and the books of Proverbs is an intricate one. This applies especially to the LXX-Prov (LXX-Proverbs). As far as the Semitic versions are concerned, Tova (HB 12.3.1) has referred to the view by some scholars that Proverbs is not quoted in the Hebrew text of Ben Sira. One has to be specific when referring to this whole corpus, since it entails a number of problems. Firstly, as is well known, the Wisdom of Ben Sira is available in two traditions: an original Hebrew version by the author (grandfather) in Jerusalem, circa 180 B.C.E., and a subsequent Greek rendering by his grandson in Alexandria, circa 117 B.C.E. (Skehan and Di Lella 1987, 55). These corpora, moreover, have extremely complicated histories of inception and transmission. The original Hebrew text is only partially available and there are two versions of the Greek equivalent (Gr I and II). Other ancient versions, like the Syriac and Latin translations, are more than useful for the purposes of retroverting the original Greek text (Skehan and Di Lella 1987, 56 – 57). Secondly, the OG (Old Greek) of the LXX-Prov has not yet been determined systematically.

This article is based on previous primary research executed and published over the past decade or so. I am working on an exegetical commentary of LXX-Prov in the SBL series; hence I quote from this research. Another example is the book completed in conjunction with Arie van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators and their Books in the Septuagint Version – CBET  (Leuven: Peeters, ).

12

Johann Cook

For the purpose of this paper the focus will be on the Greek texts of Sirach. There are many reasons for this. As stated, the Hebrew text is only partially extant; for example, the important poem in Chapter 24 is not available in the Semitic format. The introduction is also not available in Hebrew. It stands to reason that these issues should be accounted for. In order to determine the mentioned relationship between Sirach and the books of Proverbs, the paper will firstly deal with pertinent lexical items, as they are related to the second aspect, issues of content. As far as the latter is concerned, two aspects will be dealt with: firstly, the attitude of LXX-Prov and Ben Sira towards Hellenistic culture, and secondly, the role of Lady Wisdom in creation.

2 Methodological Issues 2.1 Textual Basis The textual basis of this paper is the Rahlfs’ edition. The OG for LXX-Prov has not yet been determined systematically and for the Göttingen edition it has been allocated to Peter Gentry. The Logos database also has Rahlfs’ text as basis. I consistently quote from the NETS translations.

3 LXX-Proverbs and Sirach 3.1 Lexical Items I decided to choose lexemes that appear in both Greek corpora related to the two issues of content mentioned above. Again I deliberately selected lexemes that can express the relationship best. In this regard seeming correspondences with prominent additions in LXX-Prov Chapter 9 are significant, since they appear only in LXX-Prov and the Greek of Sirach.

3.1.1 The First Lexeme (Κτίζω): Prov 8 verse 22: ‫ְיה ָוה ָק ָנ ִני ֵרא ִ ׁשית ַּד ְרכּוֹ ֶק ֶדם ִמְפָעָליו ֵמָאז‬ [The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.]

The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira and the Septuagint Version of Proverbs

13

κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ [The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for the sake of his works.]

There are a few exegetical renderings in the Greek. The translator has opted for a specific meaning as far as the polyvalent Hebrew lexeme ‫ קנה‬is concerned (“to acquire”/“to create”). This Hebrew verb is used 11 times in Proverbs. The verb κτίζω occurs 63 times in the LXX but only this once in Proverbs. Seemingly the translator is interpreting. From the context it is clear that this verb is used in order to underscore the meaning of creation and not that of “to acquire”. The deliberate omission of the combination ‫ מאז‬is conspicuous. The preposition ‫( ֶק ֶדם‬before) is never used with the connotation of εἰς (for the sake of) and is an exegetical rendering. I think the interpretation of wisdom being created “for the sake of” the works is a deliberate endeavour by the translator to play down the “independent” role of the wisdom. Hence she was created “for the sake of …” (Cook, 2015). It is nevertheless difficult to determine whether Sira actually used the verb κτίζω on account of LXX-Prov. There is a relationship between Sirach, LXXProv and Genesis. However, the text of Gen 1:1 (ποιεῖν) is not used. The verb κτίζω corresponds with the equivalent of Gen 14:19 and 22 (ὃς ἔκτισεν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν). The lexical connection between Sirach 1:4 (προτέρα πάντων ἔκτισται σοφία καὶ σύνεσις φρονήσεως ἐξ αἰῶνος.) and LXX-Prov 8:22 seems possible since, according to this text, wisdom (and understanding) were created before eternity. I think Sirach utilised this verb after consulting LXX-Prov 8:22.

3.1.2 The Second Lexeme (ἀρχή): The lexeme ἀρχή appears abundantly in the LXX, 11 times in LXX-Prov (inter alia, in LXX-Prov 8:22) and 17 times in Sirach 1:14; 10:12.13; and 11:3. Two passages seem to testify to the fact that the grandson used LXX-Prov. Firstly: Prov 1:7: ᾿Aρχὴ σοφίας φόβος θεοῦ, σύνεσις δὲ ἀγαθὴ πᾶσι τοῖς ποιοῦσιν αὐτήν· εὐσέβεια δὲ εἰς θεὸν ἀρχὴ αἰσθήσεως, σοφίαν δὲ καὶ παιδείαν ἀσεβεῖς ἐξουθενήσουσιν.

14

Johann Cook

Beginning of wisdom is fear of God, And understanding is good for all those who practise it, And piety unto God is the beginning of perception, The impious, however, will despise wisdom and discipline.

Sirach 1:14 ᾿Aρχὴ σοφίας φοβεῖσθαι τὸν κύριον, καὶ μετὰ πιστῶν ἐν μήτρᾳ συνεκτίσθη αὐτοῖς. Wisdom’s beginning is to fear the Lord And with the faithful in the womb – she was created with them.

Secondly: Prov 8:22 κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ, The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for the sake of his works.

Sirach 24:9 πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἔκτισέν με, καὶ ἕως αἰῶνος οὐ μὴ ἐκλίπω. Before the age, from the beginning, he created me, and until the age I will never fail.

In both cases the first stich in Sirach is nearer to LXX-Prov, whereas the second stich is a loose interpretation. The relationship between these passages is clear to me. It seems as if the grandson used LXX-Prov as a basis and then added some interpretations based on the rest of the creation passage.

3.1.3 The Lemma ἄνεμος: This lexeme occurs seven times in LXX-Prov and four times in Sirach. It should be evaluated together with the next lexeme.

The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira and the Septuagint Version of Proverbs

15

3.1.4 The Lemma λικμάω: The lemma λικμάω is used only once in Sirach 5:9 and not at all in LXX-Prov.

3.2 Issues of Content A striking aspect of this category is that there is a seeming reference to passages that are major additions to LXX-Prov Chapter 9 is a case in point:

3.2.1 Prov 9¹ This chapter contains the major passages about the strange woman and has three clearly distinguishable parts: wisdom’s invitation (verses 1– 6); the mocker and the wise (verses 7– 12); and finally folly’s invitation (verses 13 – 18) (McKane, 1973, 76). The Hebrew text has a complex structure. It would seem as if the second part was added later as has been argued by Scott (1965, 76). Fox (1996, 31) thinks that the MT is already an expanded text. He has a distinctive view on the various texts (MT and LXX). He finds three strata of development, namely: 1. an earlier, leaner text found in the MT; 2. the addition from a Hebrew source (12a–12b); and 3. further augmentations in Greek (12c? and 18a-d). From a methodological perspective, I am sceptical of attempts to retrovert this translator’s Vorlage – I do, however, as a general point of departure, think that his parent text was not much different from that of the MT (Cook, 1997a, 334). LXX-Prov 9: 7– 12 (The mocker and the wise) 7 ὁ παιδεύων κακοὺς λήμψεται ἑαυτῷ ἀτιμίαν ἐλέγχων δὲ τὸν ἀσεβῆ μωμήσεται ἑαυτόν 8 μὴ ἔλεγχε κακούς ἵνα μὴ μισῶσίν σε ἔλεγχε σοφόν καὶ ἀγαπήσει σε 9 δίδου σοφῷ ἀφορμήν καὶ σοφώτερος ἔσται γνώριζε δικαίῳ καὶ προσθήσει τοῦ δέχεσθαι 10 ἀρχὴ σοφίας φόβος κυρίου

 Cf. Cook and van der Kooij, Law, Prophets, and Wisdom (),  – .

16

Johann Cook

καὶ βουλὴ ἁγίων σύνεσις 10a τὸ γὰρ γνῶναι ὄμον διανοίας ἐστὶν ἀγαθῆς 11 τούτῳ γὰρ τῷ τρόπῳ πολὺν ζήσεις χρόνον καὶ προστεθήσεταί σοι ἔτη ζωῆς σου 12 υἱέ ἐὰν σοφὸς γένῃ σεαυτῷ σοφὸς ἔσῃ καὶ τοῖς πλησίον ἐὰν δὲ κακὸς ἀποβῇς μόνος ἀναντλήσεις κακά 12a ὅς ἐρείδεται ἐπὶ ψεύδεσιν οὗτος ποιμνεῖ ἀνέμους ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς διώξεται ὄρνεα πετόμενα 12b ἀπέλιπεν γὰρ ὁδοὺς τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ ἀμπελῶνος τοὺς δὲ ἄξονας τοῦ ἰδίου γεωργίου πεπλάνηται 12c διαπορεύεται δὲ δι᾽ ἀνύδρου ἐρήμου καὶ γῆν διατεταγμένην ἐν διψώδεσιν συνάγει δὲ χερσὶν ἀκαρπίαν 7 “He who instructs evil people will gather disgrace unto himself, and he who rebukes an impious person will find fault with himself. 8 Do not rebuke evil people, lest they should hate you; rebuke a wise person and he will love you. 9 Give a wise person an opportunity, and he will become wiser; inform a just person, and he will continue to receive.” 10 The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord, and counsel of the saints is understanding, 10a for to know the law is the sign of a sound mind; 11 For in this way you will live a long time, and years of your life will be added to you. 12 My son, if you become wise for yourself, you will/must be wise for your neighbours as well, however, if you turn out evil, you will bear the evil alone. 12a He who supports himself with lies will as well herd winds, and the same person will pursue flying birds, 12b For he has forsaken the ways of his vineyard and has caused the axles on his own farm to go astray. 12c Yes, he travels through an arid wilderness and a land destined to drought and gathers barrenness with his hands.

LXX-Prov 9: 13 – 18 (Dame Folly) 13 γυνὴ ἄφρων καὶ θρασεῖα ἐνδεὴς ψωμοῦ γίνεται ἣ οὐκ ἐπίσταται αἰσχύνην 14 ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ θύραις τοῦ ἑαυτῆς οἴκου ἐπὶ δίφρου ἐμφανῶς ἐν πλατείαις 15 προσκαλουμένη τοὺς παριόντας καὶ κατευθύνοντας ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν 16 ὅς ἐστιν ὑμῶν ἀφρονέστατος ἐκκλινάτω πρός με ἐνδεέσι δὲ φρονήσεως παρακελεύομαι λέγουσα 17 ἄρτων κρυφίων ἡδέως ἅψασθε

The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira and the Septuagint Version of Proverbs

17

καὶ ὕδατος κλοπῆς γλυκεροῦ 18 ὁ δὲ οὐκ οἶδεν ὅτι γηγενεῖς παρ᾿ αὐτῇ ὄλλυνται καὶ ἐπὶ πέτευρον ᾅδου συναντᾷ 18a ἀλλὰ ἀποπήδησον μὴ ἀγχρονίσῃς ἐν τῷ τόπῳ μηδὲ ἐπιστήσῃς τὸ σὸν ἔμμα πρὸς αὐτήν 18b οὕτως γὰρ διαβησῃς ὕδωρ ἀλλότριον καὶ ὑπερβήσῃ ποταμὸν ἀλλότριον 18c ἀπὸ δὲ ὕδατος ἀλλότρίου ἀπόσχου καὶ ἀπὸ πηγῆς μὴ πίῃς 18d ἵνα πολὺν ζήσῃς ξρόνον προστεθῇ δέ σοι ἔτη ζωῆς 13 A foolish and audacious woman who knows no shame comes in need of a morsel of food. 14 She sat at the doors of her own house, on a seat, openly in the streets 15 inviting those who are passing by and who are keeping straight in their ways. 16 “He who of you is most foolish, let him turn aside to me, and to those that are in need of understanding I urge, saying: 17 ‘Take secret bread gladly, and sweet water of theft.”’ 18 But he does not know that the shades perish with her, and he meets up with a springboard of Hades. 18a ‘On the contrary, run away; do not linger in the place; neither fix your eye upon her, 18b for so you will cross strange water and pass through a strange river. 18c However, abstain from strange water and do not drink from a strange well, 18d that you may live for a long time and years of life may be added to you.

The Greek text contains a total of 17 strophes and several scattered additions compared to the other textual witnesses. On the face of it, it would seem difficult to readily accept that any translator would have taken such liberties. However, I have demonstrated that the person responsible for this unit indeed paraphrased in many instances (Cook and van der Kooij 2012, 116). A crucial issue is to what extent these additions/interpretations are indeed the work of the translator or the result of later scribal activity, such as hexaplaric additions. I have dealt with this issue (Cook 1997a, 268) and, as I said, these additions come from the hand of the translator (this is also the position of McKane, 1973, 188). In addition to the translation technical argument that I outlined above, it has struck me that most of the words that are used in the pluses, excluding the hapaxes, occur in the rest of LXX-Prov, indicating that these additions could come from the

18

Johann Cook

hand of the translator. Stylistic diversity is here, as in the rest of LXX-Prov, the order of the day. A contextual argument can also be added, namely that the pluses are aimed at contrasting the wise and the foolish. The first set of additions occurs in Chapter 9 (verses 12a-c) and is aimed at describing the foolish man; the second set (verses 13 – 18) describes the foolish woman. I have indicated that the extra stichs seem to have been added in a less elegant way (Cook 1997a, 268). Whereas verse 12 addresses the son directly, the additions are aimed at the third person singular. This need not be a problem, since the pluses are added paratactically in order to make a specific theological point about the futility of foolishness. There are striking parallels between this passage and Ben Sira. Firstly, Sir 37:19 – 26 reads as follows: 19 ἔστιν ἀνὴρ πανοῦργος πολλῶν παιδευτής καὶ τῇ ἰδίᾳ ψυχῇ ἐστιν ἄχρηστος 20 ἔστιν σοφιζόμενος ἐν λόγοις μισητός οὗτος πάσης τροφῆς καθυστερήσει 21 οὐ γὰρ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ παρὰ κυρίου χάρις ὅτι πάσης σοφίας ἐστερήθη 22 ἔστιν σοφὸς τῇ ἰδίᾳ ψυχῇ καὶ οἱ καρποὶ τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ στόματος πιστοί 23 ἀνὴρ σοφὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λαὸν παιδεύσει καὶ οἱ καρποὶ τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ πιστοί 24 ἀνὴρ σοφὸς πλησθήσεται εὐλογίας καὶ μακαριοῦσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ ὁρῶντες 25 ζωὴ ἀνδρὸς ἐν ἀριθμῷ ἡμερῶν καὶ αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ Ισραηλ ἀναρίθμητοι 26 ὁ σοφὸς ἐν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ κληρονομήσει πίστιν καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 19. A person may be wise and benefit many, yet appear to himself to be foolish. 20. Though one may be wise, if his speech is rejected, he will be deprived of all enjoyment. 22. When one is wise to his own advantage, the fruits of his knowledge are seen in his own person. 23. When one is wise to his people’s advantage, the fruits of his knowledge are lasting. 25. (Limited are the days of one’s life, but the life of Israel is days without number). 24 One wise for himself has full enjoyment and all who see him praise him; 26 One wise for his people wins a heritage of glory, and his name lives on and on.

The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira and the Septuagint Version of Proverbs

19

The similarity between what Ben Sira says in this passage and Prov 9:12 is so striking that I wonder whether the author did not have access to the Septuagint text. υἱέ ἐὰν σοφὸς γένῃ σεαυτῷ σοφὸς ἔσῃ καὶ τοῖς πλησίον ἐὰν δὲ κακὸς ἀποβῇς μόνος ἀναντλήσεις κακά My son, if you become wise for yourself, you must be wise for your neighbours as well,

The son is seemingly warned not to be too individualistically minded in these passages. The implication of this verse is that one has the responsibility to be wise for the sake of one’s neighbours and not for the sake of oneself only. The future indicative of the verb εἰμί can be interpreted in this way. Verses 22 and 23 in Sir 37 are especially relevant to the discussion: 22 ἔστιν σοφὸς τῇ ἰδίᾳ ψυχῇ καὶ οἱ καρποὶ τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ στόματος πιστοί 23 ἀνὴρ σοφὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λαὸν παιδεύσει καὶ οἱ καρποὶ τῆς συνέσεως αὐτοῦ πιστοί 22 When one is wise to his own advantage, the fruits of his knowledge are seen in his own person. 23 When one is wise to his people’s advantage, the fruits of his knowledge are lasting.

The Jewish community of the time was confronted with a number of foreign cultural perspectives which threatened their unique way of life (Cook 2008, 1– 19). One prominent example is the stress placed on the individual in Greek culture. This issue is also addressed in the poem by Ben Sira on honour and shame, where the corporate personality of the Jews clearly acts as background point of reference (Botha 1996, 353 – 371). To me it seems as if both Ben Sira and the translator of Proverbs address this threat. Another appropriate example as far as these additions in Proverbs are concerned is found in Sir 5:9 – 13: 9 μὴ λίκμα ἐν παντὶ ἀνέμῳ καὶ μὴ πορεύου ἐν πάσῃ ἀτραπῷ οὕτως ὁ ἁμαρτωλὸς ὁ δίγλωσσος 10 ἴσθι ἐστηριγμένος ἐν συνέσει σου καὶ εἷς ἔστω σου ὁ λόγος 11 γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει σου καὶ ἐν μακροθυμίᾳ φθέγγου ἀπόκρισιν 12 εἰ ἔστιν σοι σύνεσις ἀποκρίθητι τῷ πλησίον εἰ δὲ μὴ ἡ χείρ σου ἔστω ἐπὶ τῷ στόματί σου

20

Johann Cook

9 Winnow not in every wind, and start not off in every direction. 10 Be steadfast in your thoughts; consistent be your words. 11 Be swift to hear; but slow to answer. 12 If you have knowledge, answer your neighbour; if not, put your hand over your mouth.

Again the similarity of thinking is striking. The application of terminology used in husbandry is one example. This is the only occurrence of the verb λικμάω (“to winnow”) in Sir (5:9) and it is not used in LXX-Prov. However, the idea corresponds topically to Prov 9:12b. As a matter of fact, the noun ἄνεμος occurs in both Prov 9:12a and Sir 5:9, indicating a possible lexical link. There are also other examples of possible contact between LXX Proverbs and Ben Sira. The passage in Proverbs under discussion (ch. 9:12 – 18) seems to me to be a reaction towards people who are degrading the value of the Law (cf. the addition in Prov 9:10a: “for to know the law is the sign of a sound mind”) and forsaking their religious traditions. The translator compares them to people who have lost all sense of direction, for now they attempt to govern the wind in a deserted and barren country. As a theme, the Law of Moses being degraded by the “unwise”, or rather the intelligent, occurs also in Ben Sira. In Sir 19:24, the following statement is made: 24 κρείττων ἡττώμενος ἐν συνέσει ἔμφοβος ἢ περισσεύων ἐν φρονήσει καὶ παραβαίνων νόμον. 24 Better those with little understanding who fear God; than those of abounding intelligence who violate the law.

Here the contrast is between the “intelligent”, who fear God, and the “unintelligent”, who actually breach the Law (νόμος). Even though there is a difference between these passages in that in the passage in Proverbs the issue at stake is the intelligibility of the Law of Moses, in both contexts this Law is clearly being devalued. This is not unmistakable evidence that Ben Sira did indeed made use of the LXX. However, thematically there is a clear correspondence which should not be deemed coincidence. I would argue that the differences between these authors are to be deemed the result of contextual differences. This issue is related to the attitude of the different authors towards Hellenism. The Greek version of Proverbs is an intriguing and unique translation (Cook and van der Kooij 2012, 162). The person who was responsible for this unit was a creative interpreter. This is observed on various levels. As far as lexical issues are

The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira and the Septuagint Version of Proverbs

21

concerned, he introduces variations in many instances and chooses to be consistent in fewer instances. Therefore, I have defined his lexical approach as one of diversity and unity. (Cook and van der Kooij 2012, 162). He made abundant use of hapax legomena and neologisms, a clear sign of his proficiency in Greek culture, at least as far as the external form is concerned. He was clearly steeped in Greek (and Jewish) culture! I do argue, however, that he directly applied the knowledge he obtained primarily as far as the external form goes. He seems to explicitly shy away from applying Hellenistic ideas. The prominent role of the Mosaic Law in this unit attests to its Jewishness. In this regard, Baumgartner (1890, 253) has argued that the translator of Proverbs was deeply influenced by the Jewish midrash. Bertram (1936, 153 – 167) also held the view that this unit represents Jewish legalism. This position is contrary to that of Gerleman (1956, 53), who thought that a Greek philosophical, rather than a Jewish, way of thinking is to be taken as the background to issues of religion and ethics in LXX-Prov. The most convincing example of this is the view of the Law of Moses as a surrounding wall in LXX Prov 28:4 (Cook and van der Kooij 2012, 116). This tradition appears in Judaism in earlier contexts (LXX-Prov and the Letter of Aristeas – surrounding the righteous) and a related, but different form in later contexts (CD and the Mishna – surrounding the Torah) (Cook 2003, 339). It is the application of this tradition in LXX Prov that makes it especially significant. The role of the Law of Moses is actually underlined more explicitly than is the case in the Hebrew version of Proverbs. There is a reason for this. I have argued that this Law was actually devalued in the Hellenistic environment in which the version of these Proverbs came into being. Another decisive example of this anti-Hellenistic inclination of the translator(s) is found in the addition in LXX-Prov 9 and 13 of the equivalent of the phrase “For to know the law is the sign of a good mind”. I argued that the translator actually used the equivalent of this phrase twice, in two different contexts, in order to underline the relevance of the Law for its readers (Cook and van der Kooij 2012, 124). Scholars have divergent views on this issue in Ben Sira. Smend and Hengel are the champions of the view that Ben Sira was fundamentally anti-Hellenistically inclined. That they feel strongly about this issue is clear from the following quotation from Smend by Hengel: Sirach steigert den Satz von Prv. 1,7.9, 10 das die Furcht des Herrn der Anfang … der Weisheit sei, … dahin, dass alle Weisheit von dem Herrn kommt und dass sie von Ewigkeit her bei ihm gewesen ist. In diesen Worten, die er an die Spitze seines Werkes stellt, formuliert er die Kriegserklärung des Judentums gegen den Hellenismus [my italics – JC].’ (Smend 1906, xxiii).

22

Johann Cook

Maier² clearly agrees with Hengel and Smend on the anti-Hellenistic intentions of Ben Sira. However, not everybody agrees with this strong statement. Rogers (1999, 135), for one, is sceptical of this overtly anti-Hellenistic interpretation by Hengel. Skehan and Di Lella (1987, 16) hold the following view: To bolster the faith and confidence of his fellow Jews, Ben Sira published his book. His purpose was not to engage in a systematic polemic against Hellenism but rather to convince Jews and even well-disposed Gentiles that true wisdom is to be found primarily in Jerusalem and not in Athens, more in the inspired books of Israel than in the clever writings of Hellenistic humanism.

Collins (1997, 30) holds a comparable view: Ben Sira was deeply imbued with a traditional “ethic of caution.” Insofar as Hellenism is associated with the brash entrepreneurial ethos of the Tobiads, Ben Sira was indeed opposed to it. But this does not mean that he was opposed to Hellenistic culture, or even Hellenistic commerce, if it could be combined with the traditional, reverential fear of the Lord.

I do not find the same “apologetic-polemical” stance in Ben Sira as advocated by Hengel (1974, 138), although there are clear signs that this Jewish-Hellenistic author was not as pro-Hellenistic as some would like to argue (Wacholder 1974, 13). By this I am not denying the impact that Hellenism had on Sirach. An appropriate example is found in Sirach 33:7– 15, where the possible background is the Stoic philosopher Chryssipus’ (287– 207) treatise on providence, including the doctrine of opposites. Verse 14 reads as follows: 14 ἀπέναντι τοῦ κακοῦ τὸ ἀγαθόν, καὶ ἀπέναντι τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ζωή, οὕτως ἀπέναντι εὐσεβοῦς ἁμαρτωλός·† 15 καὶ οὕτως ἔμβλεψον εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔργα τοῦ ὑψίστου, δύο δύο, ἓν κατέναντι τοῦ ἑνός. 14 Good is opposite evil And life is opposite death; So a sinner is opposite a pious person. 15 And so look at the works of the Most High, Two by two, one opposite the other.

 Maier states: “das toratreue Judentum sich vom hellenistischen Kreisen trennte.” Cf. R. Maier, Mensch und Freier Wille nach den jüdischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus – WUNT  (Tübingen: Mohr, ), .

The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira and the Septuagint Version of Proverbs

23

According to Sirach there is nothing more foolish than people thinking that good can exist if there were no evil at the same time. There are various correspondences between LXX-Prov and Ben Sira on a lexical and thematical level, but differences too. The conclusion that I draw from this discussion is that Ben Sira has a much more relaxed attitude towards the Law of Moses than is the case with the translator of the Septuagint of Proverbs. The same applies to his attitude to Greek philosophy. I argue that this is the case because the original Wisdom of Ben Sira was written in a less Hellenised context in Palestine, before the Antiochian crisis. The later translation by the grandson should naturally be viewed differently, since it came about in Egypt. However, it remains problematic to differentiate between the Hebrew and the Greek versions. As I have stated already, the translator of Proverbs was anti-Hellenistic and inclined against Greek philosophical perspectives, since he operated in the period after the advent of Antiochus Epiphanes (Cook and van der Kooij 2012, 131).

3.3 Literary Issues Finally, I deal briefly with the relationship between LXX-Prov 8 and Sir 24. This relationship can be observed on a literary, a structural and a thematic level. On the structural level it is clear that the grandson utilised chapter 8 in his construing of chapter 24. According to Skehan and Di Lella (1987, 331), the poem has 7 stanzas (2+5+6+5+6+6+5 poetic lines). After a short introduction (verses 1– 2) there follows a speech of 22 lines (verses 3 – 17 and 19 – 22), which has 4 stanzas (5+6+5+6 lines). Then follows a six-line stanza (verses 23, 25 – 29) where Wisdom is identified with the law. Finally there is a stanza of 5 lines (verses 30 – 33), where Ben Sira describes himself as a Wisdom teacher. There is a parallel with the five-line stanzas with which the author of Prov 8 developed his theme. Ben Sira’s poem has 35 lines, the number used in Prov 8. Ben Sira, moreover, makes use of alphabetic acrostic considerations (see Prov 2 and 31:10 – 31). As a matter of fact, the translator applied the acrostic principle more stringently than the author of the Hebrew. This chapter has been composed beautifully and has a structure of 4 sections in the Hebrew, 1– 11; 12– 21; 22– 31 and a peroration 32– 36. It has apparently been structured acrostically. The first and third sections are made up of 22 lines, but the middle section has only 21 lines. However, this is the result of the transmission history of this chapter. Hence the translator added two stichoi to verse 21 in order to balance the material. Unfortunately I could not determine whether the grandson in fact used this text as Vorlage (Cook 1997, 211). So on the thematic level there are major differences and correspondences between Sirach 24 and LXX-Prov chapter 8. In the Festschrift for Prof. Pieter de Vil-

24

Johann Cook

liers that was recently published in HTS (Cook 2015) ³ I demonstrated that LXXProv chapter 8 contains many differences compared to MT and other textual witnesses. This chapter contains the classical pericope on creation and I argued that in the LXX the differences should not be interpreted in line with Platonic and/or Stoic perspectives, as suggested by Gerleman (1956) et al. Rather the translator consistently emphasised the fact that the Lord is the independent creator and that Lady Wisdom has only a secondary role to play in the creation process. Although there are signs of independence in Sirach 24 – verse 1 “Wisdom sings her own praises”, verse 5 “The vault of heaven I compassed alone” – a similar subordinate role by wisdom is observed in Sirach, as is expressed in chapter 24:9. A pertinent difference between these two texts is that the cultic issues found in Sirach 24:10 “In the holy tent I ministered before him, and then in Zion I took up my post” are lacking in LXX-Prov 8.

4 Conclusion There can be little doubt that the grandson of Ben Sira had access to the Septuagint version of Proverbs. This paper demonstrated this relationship on a lexical, thematical and literary level. Two aspects seem especially significant: the fact that the grandson seemingly utilised passages that appear only in LXX-Prov (Pluses) and the structural relationship between LXX-Prov 8 and Sirach chapter 24. There are also signs that the author of Sirach linked up thematically with LXX-Prov.

Source List Barucq, A. 1964. Le livre des Proverbes. Sources bibliques 2. Paris: Gabalda. Baumgartner, A.J. 1890. Étude critique sur l’etat du texte du Livre des Proverbes les principales traductiones anciennes. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Bertram, G. 1936. “Die religiöse Umdeutung altorientalischer Lebensweisheit in der griechischen Übersetzung des AT.” ZAW NF 13, 153 – 167. Botha, Phil J. 1996. “The Ideology of Shame in the Wisdom of Ben Sira: Ecclesiasticus 41:14 – 42:8.” OTE 9/3, 353 – 371. Collins, John J. 1997. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic age. OTL: Louisvale.

 I.e. “A Theology of the Septuagint Version of Proverbs”. As to the issue of the formulation of a theology of the Septuagint, see Johann Cook, “Towards the Formulation of a Theology of the Septuagint.” In Congress Volume Ljubljana , ed. André Lemaire, VTS . (Leiden: Brill, ),  – .

The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira and the Septuagint Version of Proverbs

25

Cook, Johann. 1994. “‫( ִא ָּ ׁשה ָז ָרה‬Prov 1 – 9 in the Septuagint): a Metaphor for Foreign Wisdom?” ZAW 106, 458 – 476. Cook, Johann. 1997a. “Contrasting as a Translation Technique in the LXX of Proverbs.” In The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, edited by C.A. Evans and S. Talmon. 403 – 414. Leiden: Brill. Cook, Johann. 1997b. The Septuagint of Proverbs Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs. VTS 69. Leiden: Brill. Cook, Johann. 2000. “Textual problems in the Septuagint of Proverbs.” JNSL 26/1:163 – 173. Cook, Johann. 2001. “Ideology and Translation Technique: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” In Helsinki Perspectives on the Translation Technique of the Septuagint, edited by R. Sollamo and S. Sipilä. 195 – 210. Finnish Exegetical Society: Helsinki: Göttingen. Cook, Johann. 2003. “Law and wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls with reference to Hellenistic Judaism.” In Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Tradition, edited by F. García Martínez. 323 – 342. BETL CLXVIII. Leuven: Peeters. Cook, Johann. 2006. “Intertextual readings in the Septuagint.” In The New Testament Interpreted: Essays in Honour of Bernard C. Lategan, edited by C. Breytenbach, J.C. Thom and J. Punt. 117 – 134. Leiden: Brill. Cook, Johann. 2007. “Proverbs”. In A New English Translation of the Septuagint. A New Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title. 556 – 591, edited by A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook, Johann. 2008. “Ben Sira’s perspective on women: Jewish and/or Hellenistic?” JSem 17/1, 1 – 19. Cook, Johann. 2010. “Towards the Formulation of a Theology of the Septuagint.” In Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, edited by André Lemaire, 621 – 640. VTS 133. Leiden: Brill. Cook, Johann. 2014. “Towards a Theology of the Old Greek Text of Job.” In A Pillar of Cloud to Guide. Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne, edited by H. Ausloos and B. Lemmelijn. 353 – 362. BETL 269. Leuven: Peeters. Cook, Johann. 2015. “A Theology of the Septuagint Version of Proverbs”. HTS 71/1, 1 – 11. Cook, Johann and Arie van der Kooij. 2012. Law, Prophets, and Wisdom. On the Provenance of Translators and Their Books in the Septuagint Version. CBET 68. Leuven: Peeters. De Lagarde, Paul A. 1863. Anmerkungen zur griechischen Übersetzung der Proverbien. Leipzig: F A Brockhaus. D’Hamonville, D.-M. 2000. La Bible D’Alexandrie. Les Proverbes. Traduction du Texte Grec de la Septante. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Fox, M.V. 2000. Proverbs 1 – 9 A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday. Fox, M.V. 1996. “The Strange Woman in Septuagint Proverbs.” JNSL 22/2: 31 – 44. Fox, M.V. 2013. “How the Peshitta of Proverbs Use the Septuagint.” JNSL 37: 37 – 56. Fox, M.V. 2015. ‫ משלי‬Proverbs An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary. Atlanta: SBL Press. Gerleman, Gilles. 1950 “The Septuagint Proverbs as a Hellenistic Document.” OTS 8: 15 – 27. Gerleman, Gilles. 1956. Studies in the Septuagint III, Book of Proverbs. LUA. N.F. Avd. 1. Bd 52. No. 3, Lund.

26

Johann Cook

Hengel, Martin. 1974. Judaism und Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. London: SCM Press. Liddel, H.G. and R. Scott, eds. (revised by H.S. Jones). 1968. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Maier, R. 1971. Mensch und Freier Wille Nach den Jüdischen Religionsparteien Zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus. WUNT 12. Tübingen: Mohr. McKane, W. 1970. Proverbs-a new approach. London: SCM Press. Rahlfs, A. 1979. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum Graeca Iuxta LXX Interpretes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Rogers, Jessie, F. 1999. Is Wisdom a Mediatrix in Sirach? A Study of the Wisdom Poems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Stellenbosch. Skehan, Patrick. W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. 1987. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introdcution and Commentary (AncB 39). New York: Doubleday. Scott, R.B.Y. 1965. Proverbs (AncB). New York: Doubleday. Smend, Rudolph. 1906. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach. Berlin: Reimer. Tova, L. Forti. “12.3.1 Septuagint [Proverbs> Primary Translations] BTH”, Leiden: Brill (forthcoming). Wacholder, B.Z. 1974. Eupolemus. A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature. Cincinnati, New York, Los Angeles, Jerusalem.

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom Abstract: On the basis of Sir 1; 24; 51, my paper will propose the following: From the beginning Wisdom was with God, albeit, She was intended for man. Sophia/ hokhma existed before creation and then found a place in the world, starting at Jerusalem. Thus, the one who strives for Wisdom, is able to find Her. The best place to seek Her is in the house of study (bet midraš) of Ben Sira. Keywords: Ben Sira, Wisdom, Education, Hellenism.

1 Preliminary Remarks Many authors have already recognized the significance of the sections, which deal with wisdom: e. g. the first systematic study of the wisdom texts by Rickenbacher¹ (1973) confirmed this significance more than forty years ago. Much earlier Eichhorn and Smend – albeit in a more general matter – pointed out that wisdom texts² in the Book of Ben Sira are followed by significant passages.³ Peters (1913, lx) was the first to suggest that there is a sapiential frame for the entire book leading through chapter 1 and 51:13 – 30. Rightly so, Marböck (2006, 36) assumes this position and hints to a further unity: “The Praise of Wisdom in chapter 24 is undoubtedly central in the book”. Marböck (2006, 36) continues: “It functions as a new introduction and reminds of the origin of wisdom in God and its relation to creation, paralleling 1:1– 10.” But he also reveals the close ties of those passages that are before and after Chapter 24. Therefore, I doubt the thesis that chapter 24 is considered a “fresh start”. This position is confirmed by Marböck (2006, 36) himself: “But it is not conceivable to derive a large two-part division (1– 23; 24– 50) from the centrality of Sir 24.”

 O. Rickenbacher, Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira (OBO ), (Göttingen: Freiburg University Printers/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ).  Cf. the main sapiential units: : – ; : – ; : – ; : – :; : – ; (),  – (); : – :; : – .  Eichhorn, Einleitung, ; Smend, xxxiv: “In c.  –  finden sich … in einigermaßen gleichen Abständen längere oder kürzere Stücke, in denen die Weisheit oder ihre Lehrer gepriesen, oder die Pflicht die Weisheit zu lehren ausgesprochen wird. Diese Stücke sind in sich abgeschlossene Ganze, aber sie sollen zugleich als Einleitungen zu den nachfolgenden Abschnitten dienen.”

28

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

The result of my investigations was the observation that chapter 24:1– 22, together with chapter 1:1– 10 and 51:13 – 20, are like golden threads running through Ben Sira’s work, as if it were a guide designed by the author himself.⁴ While previous studies focused on the formal position, I want to ask, what message Ben Sira wants to convey with his three basic literary pillars of his book. Sira 1:1– 10 deals with the fundamental question of what wisdom is and where she comes from. The author notes in the very first verse that wisdom is with the Lord. Next it is emphasized that she was created by God. Furthermore, we read that God assigns wisdom to all who love Him. The tension between the universalism and the connection with the love of God is obvious. Sir 24:1– 22 describes the self-awareness of wisdom when emerging from the mouth of God. She is to be placed before all other creation. It is apparent that wisdom is one of those intangible realities with which God works in the world and into the world. – Wisdom was looking for a place where she can find peace. So she comes to Jerusalem. There she is implanted by God. She is described at the same time as powerful, influential and attractive. The pleasantness of dealing with wisdom is also pointed out. In contrast, the Greek ideal of honour is described in a negative form and wisdom (Sir 24:22a) declares: “Whoever obeys me will not be put to shame”. In 51:13 – 30 the author describes his own experiences with wisdom. Emphatically he sought wisdom since his youth. Sira learned that the Lord gives success to everyone who follows wisdom. His experience encouraged Sira to establish a Beit Midrash. The aim of the acquisition of wisdom is a felicitous life that God blesses with success (“and in his own time God will give you your reward;” Sir 51:30). A phased plan is apparent: beginning with God and the universalism, heading toward Jerusalem and then to the interested individual. The grandson will summarize this development with the Hellenistic ideal: παιδεία καὶ σοφία (Sir 0:3).

2 Methodological Principles Following my teacher Wolfgang Richter, who placed great, indeed, greatest importance on putting the text at the heart, I would like to gather observations

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer, “Jesus Sirach / Jesus Sirachbuch / Ben Sira / Ecclesiasticus,” in Die Vollendung der Gottesfurcht ist Weisheit (Sir ,). Studien zum Buch Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach), SBAB  (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, ),  – .

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom

29

from the text and try to understand what is predicated. Thus, I am trying to understand what Ben Sira meant. The central implication of this approach is that I observe one text in itself after another. Thereby, I expect the interpretation to receive its key points (from there).

3 The Three Key Texts The first step of this investigation is based on the poetic units of 1:1– 10; 24:1– 22, and 51:13 – 30, its poetic forms and its poetic elements. In these literary elements the author’s intention is declared most convincing.

3.1 Sir 1:1 – 10 Poetic unit: There is an argumentative mental leap from verses 1:9 – 10 (“It is he who created her; he saw her and took her measure; he poured her out upon all his works, upon all the living according to his gift; he lavished her upon those who love him”) to 1:11 (“The fear of the Lord is glory and exultation, and gladness and a crown of rejoicing”). 1:11 and the following passage change the theme and put the “fear/respect for the Lord” (φόβος κυρίου) at the heart of the text. Thus a striking change of perspective is given: Sir 1:1– 10 reflects on wisdom and her relationship to the Lord/God.⁵ From 1:11 onwards the attitude towards the Lord is the focus. All wisdom (πᾶσα σοφία) [is]⁶ from the Lord (παρὰ κυρίου), / and with him (μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ) she remains forever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). 2 The sand of the sea, and the drops of rain, / and the days of eternity – who (τίς) counts [them]? 3 The height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, / and the abyss, and wisdom (σοφίαν) – who (τίς) searches [them] out? 6 The root of wisdom (σοφίας) – to whom (τίνι) has it been revealed, / and her (αὐτῆς) subtleties – who (τίς) knows [them]? 1

8

There is but one (εἷς), wise (σοφός), truly awe-inspiring, / seated upon his (αὐτοῦ) throne. Before all [things else] wisdom (σοφία) was created (ἔκτισται); / and prudent understanding (σύνεσις φρονήσεως) from eternity.⁷ 9 The Lord (κύριος) himself (αὐτός) he created (ἔκτισεν) her (αὐτήν), / saw [her] and took 4

 Beentjes, Full Wisdom,  – ; Corley, Wisdom,  – ; Di Lella, God,  – .  The brackets [] indicate in the translation that the word is not in the Greek text.  Verse  is placed according to what I argue was the original position.

30

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

measure of her (αὐτήν), / and he poured her (αὐτήν) out upon all his (αὐτοῦ) works, upon all the living according to his (αὐτοῦ) bounty; / and he lavished her (αὐτήν) upon those who love (τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν) him (αὐτόν).

10

The trouble is that there are serious textual problems in this relatively small but significant section at the beginning of the book. This is evidenced in the fact that after verse four and verse six, extensions in GII (verses 5 and 7)⁸ are documented; but they will not be further considered here. These additions, however, indicate that this section was of such importance that it had been modified earlier. The aforementioned problems had an effect on the textual tradition and, in consequence, the theological reinterpretation influenced the order of the verses. Without further justification I present above the verses in the order in which they presumably originally stood. This section is made up of seven parallelisms. Only verse 9 is a tricolon. Formally two propositions divide the section into two parts. 1. The first assertion declares that the wisdom is εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, i. e. “forever” with the Lord (verse 1:1a.b). 2. The second assertion affirms encrypted the uniqueness of the Lord (εἷς ἐστιν), his respectability and his power (verse 1:8a,b). Each of the two propositions of verse 1 and verse 8 are followed by three cola. Verses 1:2, 3, 6 consist of structurally, strikingly, similarly shaped rhetorical questions “who / τίς?” Concerning these questions the reader would have to say: “I cannot answer the question!” The questions themselves are formulated in a pedagogical skilful way. Thus, at the beginning of the verse, the reader does not suspect that the enumeration of weighty circumstances will soon be transmuted into a question. Verses 1:4,9,10⁹ deal with the origin of wisdom: She was created by the Lord and is inferior to him and he poured her out on his works (verse 4,9). Separately, reference is made to all people. They are given wisdom as a gift in a special way.

 Cf. from GII :: πηγὴ σοφίας λόγος θεοῦ ἐν ὑψίστοις καὶ αἱ πορεῖαι αὐτῆς ἐντολαὶ αἰώνιοι (Wisdom’s spring is God’s word in the highest, and her journeys are everlasting commandments); :: ἐπιστήμη σοφίας τίνι ἐφανερώθη καὶ τὴν πολυπειρίαν αυτῆς τίς συνῆκεν (Wisdom’s skill – to whom was it manifested? And her great experience – who has understood it?). You can complicate the situation, if you are using a different numbering as in the text edition of Rahlfs or of Ziegler, or you separate the verses differently than in the text of the editions, cf. e. g. in NAB.  After :b two cola were inserted: ἀγάπησις κυρίου ἔνδοξος σοφία /οἷς δ᾽ ἂν ὀπτάνηται μερίζει αὐτὴν εἰς ὄρασιν αὐτοῦ (Love of the Lord is esteemed wisdom, but to whomever he appears, he apportions her as a vision of himself) (:c.d).

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom

31

Thereby it is peculiarly and restrictively noted that only those receive wisdom, who cherish the Lord (1:9a: τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν). The cola 1:1a and 1:10b offer an interesting inclusion: 1:1a: σοφία and κύριος respectively 1:10b: αὐτήν (her = wisdom) and αὐτόν (him = the Lord). This arrangement of the text should be further noted: The parallel naming makes the poem beginning with wisdom ([πᾶσα] σοφία) and ending with the Lord (αὐτόν). The poetic and stylistic realities, just observed, accentuate the two major values of Sira in this unit: (a) wisdom and (b) the Lord. This is also proven by the frequency of their occurrence. Hereby – in addition to their concrete citation – the pronoun is also to be added. In cola Sir 1:1a.3b.4a.6a σοφία is quoted directly. The pronoun αὐτή in 1:6b, 9a, 9b.9c.10b has to be added. Therefore σοφία is enumerated 9 times. As in 1:1– 10, there are already several groups of three – in the rest of this poem many more examples for “three” can be found – it can be assumed that Sira, like other authors, uses the number three for the purpose of accentuation. If this assumption is correct that the number nine, composed by three times three, represents an additional stylistic emphasis, then one recognizes that Sira wants to place σοφία in the centre. Besides, Sira identifies σύνεσις φρονήσεως (1:4b) with σοφία (cf. Bar 3). Κύριος is quoted in verse 1a, in a prominent position; then in 1:9a. Again, the related pronoun for God αὐτός is to be added (1:1b,8b,9c,10a.b). Thus κύριος is quoted seven times. Both, the number seven as well as the fact that the whole poem ends with αὐτός, show the immense importance of the Lord. The theme “creation” is explicitly addressed in Sir 1:4b, 9a. In Gen 1:1– 2:4a respectively 2:2– 3 the number seven is prominently used. This is proof enough to show that Sira allocates a greater weight to number seven than to number three. Seen from a poetic point view the order of importance is: (a) Lord and (b) Wisdom. – God (θεός) who is already mentioned in Gen 1:1, the first verse of the Bible, surprisingly does not appear in Sir 1:1– 10.

3.2 Sir 24:1 – 22 Poetic unit: The previous chapter 23 ends with the following words: Thus all who dwell on the earth shall know, and all who inhabit the world shall understand, that nothing is better than the fear of the LORD (φόβου κυρίου), and nothing sweeter than to heed the commandments of the Lord (ἐντολαῖς κυρίου) (Sir 23:27c,d).

32

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

In 24:23 you read: “All this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God, / the law (νόμον) that Moses commanded (ἐνετείλατο) us / as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob.” Tricola serve Ben Sira in order to highlight content, which are particularly important to him; cf. above Sir 1:9. In 24:23 there is another tricolon with the key words: ταῦτα πάντα – βίβλος – διαθήκη θεοῦ ὑψίστου – / νόμος – Μωυσῆς – / κληρονομία – συναγωγαὶ Ιακωβ.¹⁰ The result is a fluid junction between the Commandments of God (23,27) and the Book of the Covenant of the Most High God (24,23). In section 24:1– 22, which stands between 23,27 and 24,23 there is not a single word from the legal sphere. The change of κύριος to θεὸς ὕψιστος is surprising. A new theological aspect is set. Sira uses κύριος frequently as the name of God¹¹, 46 times. It is worth noting that Sira seems to avoid θεός (only 15 times,)¹² four times used a word pair with ὑψίστου, cf. 7:9; 24:23; 41:8; 50:17; thus a new perspective of θεός is formed. Wisdom as an independent entity is not mentioned in the two frame units from 23:16 – 27 and from 24:23 – 34.¹³ The conjunction between 23:27 and 24:23 is obvious. But in contrast there is a fracture between the content of 23:27 and 24:1. This is proof enough to highlight the intervening part as a poetic unit (24:1– 22). In the following analysis we will see how this section is structured: 1

Wisdom (ἡ σοφία) praises herself, / before her own people she will boast (καυχήσεται); in the assembly of the Most High she opens her mouth, / and in the presence of his hosts she will boast (καυχήσεται): 3 I (ἐγώ) came forth from the mouth of the Most High, / and covered the earth like a mist. 4 I (ἐγώ) dwelt in the highest heavens, / and my throne (ὁ θρόνος μου) was in a pillar of cloud. 5 The vault of heaven (γῦρον οὐρανοῦ) I compassed alone, / and through the deep abyss (ἐν βάθει ἀβύσσων) I wandered. 6 Over waves of the sea (θαλάσσης), over all the earth (ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ), / and over every people (ἐν παντὶ λαῷ) and nation (ἔθνει) I have held sway. 7 Among all these I sought tranquillity (ἀνάπαυσιν); / and in whose inheritance (ἐν κληρονομίᾳ) should I abide? 2

 Συναγωγαὶ ἐθνῶν – a comparable phrase – is used in the LXX just a single time for “the assemblies of the peoples” (εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ θεός ᾽Εγὼ ὁ θεός σου αὐξάνου καὶ πληθύνου ἔθνη καὶ συναγωγαὶ ἐθνῶν [‫ ]וְּקַהל גּוֹיִם‬ἔσονται ἐκ σοῦ καὶ βασιλεῖς ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος σου ἐξελεύσονται / And God said to him, “I am your God: increase, and multiply; nations and gatherings of nations shall be from you, and kings shall come from your loins;” Gen :).  Cf. Sir :; :,; :; :,; : f; :; :,; : – ,; :; :; :; :; :,; :,,; :; :; :,; :,; :,; :,,; :; :; :,; :; :; :, – ,,.  Cf. Sir :; :; :; :; :,,; :,; :; :,; :,; :.  In : wisdom only serves to qualify the book of the covenant: “It overflows with wisdom … / ὁ πιμπλῶν …σοφίαν”.

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom

33

8

Then the Creator of all things (ὁ κτίστης ἁπάντων) gave me a command, / and who created (ὁ κτίσας) me chose the place for my tent. He said, ‘In Jacob make your dwelling (κατασκήνωσον), / and in Israel receive your inheritance (κατακληρονομήθητι).’ 9 Before the ages (πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος), in the beginning (ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς), he created (ἔκτισεν) me, / and for all the ages (ἕως αἰῶνος) I shall not cease to be. 10 In the holy tent (ἐν σκηνῇ ἁγίᾳ) I ministered (ἐλειτούργησα) before him, / and so in Zion (ἐν Σιων) I was established. 11 Thus in the beloved city he tranquillized (κατέπαυσεν) me, / and in Jerusalem (ἐν Ιερουσαλημ) was my domain (ἡ ἐξουσία). 12 I took root in an honoured people (ἐν λαῷ δεδοξασμένῳ), / in the portion (ἐν μερίδι) of the Lord, his inheritance (κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ). 13

Like (ὡς) a cedar on Lebanon I am raised aloft, and like (ὡς) a cypress on Mount Hermon, Like (ὡς) a palm tree in Engedi, / and like (ὡς) a rosebush in Jericho, like (ὡς) a fair olive tree in the field, / and like (ὡς) a plane tree growing beside the water. 15 Like (ὡς) cassia and camel’s thorn I gave forth perfume, / and like (ὡς) choice myrrh I spread my fragrance, like (ὡς) galbanum, onycha, and stacte, / and like (ὡς) the odour of incense in the tent. 16 I, like (ἐγὼ ὡς) a terebinth spread out my branches, / and my branches are glorious and graceful. 17 I, like (ἐγὼ ὡς) the vine bud forth delights, / and my blossoms become glorious and abundant fruit.

14

19

Come to me, all you that yearn for me, / and be filled with my fruits. For the memory (μνημόσυνον) of me is sweeter than honey, / and the inheritance (ἡ κληρονομία) of me sweeter than the honeycomb. 21 Those who eat of me will hunger for more, / and those who drink of me will thirst for more. 22 Whoever obeys me will not be ashamed (αἰσχυνθήσεται), / and those who work with me will never fail (ἁμαρτήσουσιν). 20

Sir 24:1– 22 consists of 24 parallelisms whose subdivisions are determined by the grammatical person. The verses 1– 2 are formulated in the third person singular. It is stated pathetically that wisdom praises herself. One is reminded of a rhapsodist who recites a great work. However, the utterance is not composed as a sapiential laudatory description. On the contrary, it is written in a sapiential two-part monologue. Ἐγώ is emphasized at the beginning of verse 3 and verse 4. This distinctive positioning of ἐγώ corresponds with ἐγὼ ὡς of verses 16 and 17. The cohesiveness of verse 3 – 17 is obvious. 24:3 – 12 is divided by content. In 24:3 – 6 wisdom describes her pre-creational origin, her relation to the Most High, and her relationship to the cosmos. Verse 7 is a transition, preparing the next section. In this section it is said that wisdom is seeking a place of rest and a place to live.

34

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

From verse 8 onwards wisdom tells how she receives the order from her creator in order to find calmness. As determined by the Creator, wisdom will find her place with the people of Jacob / Israel (24:8c.d) and her location at Zion / Jerusalem. Wisdom comes into inheritance (κατακληρονομέω verse 8d; κληρονομία 12b): Thereby she assumes traditional cultic traces (sacred tent; verse 10) and royal allusions (tranquillity; verse 7, 8, 11). The term ὡς is predominant in 24:13a–17b and appears twelve times. In manifold and attractive examples, the beauty, the attraction, the fragrant aura and the fullness of life is described in seven parallelisms. Wisdom’s advertising call “Come to me, you who desire me” is described in 24:19. And the following verses (up to 22) invoke to enjoy wisdom to its fullest. Anyone who surrenders to her is captivated and can never be separated from her. He – the admirer of wisdom – achieves a very desirable goal – namely everlasting honour. Everlasting honour was one of the highest values in the public opinion, which was dominated by Hellenism. Already Achill swapped his career in his father’s kingdom to an early but honourable death in the war. The Greeks lived for this value, Greeks died for it. The wise Diotima confirmed the importance of honour in Plato’s dialogue Symposium.¹⁴ At the same time the ethical stability, which is attained through wisdom, is highlighted: “Those who work with me will not fail/sin” (Sir 24:22). Striking is the multiple mention of tranquillity; cf. verse 24:7 (ἀνάπαυσις),8,11 (καταπαύω).

3.3 Sir 51:13 – 30 Poetic unit: We are dealing with the last unit in the Book Ben Sira. Thus there is no need for a specific demarcation at the end. 51:13 – 30 is preceded by a prayer (51:1– 12). Then follows the final wisdom propaganda that is stylized in the way of an autobiographical poem and eo ipso forms a unit of itself. Within the 20 parallelisms from 51:13 – 30 there are three tricola, namely verses 51:16, 18, 26. The whole unit is subdivided by a change of the person: verse 13 – 22 and 25 – 26 are in the first person, and verses 23 – 24 and 27– 28,29 – 30 in the second person plural. The argumentation in this poem is not illogical, but also not systematic. But Sira rather tries to describe his efforts towards wisdom. This he already began in his early youth. He suggest to follow him because he is willing and ready to act as a teacher. The Beit Midrash (οἶκος παιδείας / ‫ בית מדרשי‬/ ¾æòßÍØ ÿÙÁ ) is his place of teaching.

 Cf. Sym. b–d.

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom

35

13

While I was still young, before I was deceived, / I sought (ἐζήτησα) openly in my prayer (ἐν προσευχῇ). 14 Before the temple I asked for her (περὶ αὐτῆς), / and until the end I will search for (ἐκζητήσω) her (αὐτήν). 15 From the [first] blossom to the ripening grape / my heart delighted in her (ἐν αὐτῇ); my foot (ὁ πούς μου) walked on the straight path; / from my youth I would track her (αὐτήν). 16 I inclined my ear a little and received [her], / and I found for myself much education (πολλὴν … παιδείαν). 17 I made progress in her (ἐν αὐτῇ); / to him who gives wisdom (σοφίαν) I will give glory. 18 For I intended to practice (τοῦ ποιῆσαι) her (αὐτήν), / and I was zealous for the good, and I shall never be ashamed (αἰσχυνθῶ). 19 My soul (ἡ ψυχή μου) grappled with her (ἐν αὐτῇ), / and in the practice of the law (ἐν ποιήσει νόμου) I was strict; I spread out my hands (τὰς χεῖράς μου) on high, / and lamented my ignorance (τὰ ἀγνοήματα) of her (αὐτῆς). 20 I directed my soul (τὴν ψυχήν μου) to her (εἰς αὐτήν), / and in purity I found her (αὐτήν). I acquired a heart (καρδίαν) with her (μετ᾿ αὐτῆς) from the beginning (ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς); / therefore I will never be forsaken. 21 And my belly (ἡ κοιλία μου) was stirred to seek (τοῦ ἐκζητῆσαι) her (αὐτήν); / therefore I gained a good possession (ἀγαθὸν κτῆμα). 22 The Lord (κύριος) gave a tongue (γλῶσσαν) to me as my reward (μισθόν μου), / and with her (ἐν αὐτῇ) I will praise him (αὐτόν). 23

Draw near to me, you who are uneducated (ἀπαίδευτοι), / and lodge in the house (ἐν οἴκῳ) of education (παιδείας). 24 Why are you lacking in these things, / and your souls (αἱ ψυχαὶ ὑμῶν) thirst greatly? 25

I opened my mouth (τὸ στόμα μου) and I said: / “Acquire for yourselves without money. Put your neck (τὸν τράχηλον ὑμῶν) under a yoke (ὑπὸ ζυγόν), / and let your soul (ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν) receive education (παιδείαν); / it is near to find her (αὐτήν).”

26

27

See with your eyes (ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ὑμῶν) that I have laboured little / and found for myself much tranquillity (πολλὴν ἀνάπαυσιν). 28 Partake of education (παιδείας) with a great sum of silver, / and you will acquire much gold by her (ἐν αὐτῇ).

29

May your soul (ἡ ψυχὴ ὑμῶν) rejoice in his mercy (ἐν τῷ ἐλέει αὐτοῦ), / and may you never be ashamed in his praise (ἐν αἰνέσει αὐτοῦ). 30 Do your work (τὸ ἔργον ὑμῶν) in good time (πρὸ καιροῦ), / and he will give your reward in his time (ἐν καιρῷ αὐτοῦ).

Since his early youth Sira was looking for something very special, he looked restless. Then he realized what he was looking for: he sought education, which can be equated with wisdom. Sira was a pious and religious man. In those days it was not unusual – perhaps it was even fancy in the eyes of the Hellenists –

36

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

that one committed in public, being religious. It is reported (Demandt 2009, 374) that, for example, Alexander the Great started his day with a sacrifice. On the surface it seems that the Lord plays only a subordinate role. But that is not correct. The tongue, the speeches and the word are the true key-tools in conveying wisdom. Therefore, one would assume that the wisdom teacher insists on being successful by mean of these. That could be the case, but goes Sira a step back: Where does the tongue come from; the instrument of instruments? It is a gift from God. “The Lord gave me my tongue as a reward, and I will praise him with it” (Sir 51,22). As in 1:1 and 24:1 σοφία is mentioned in the first verse of the unit (51:13b). In addition to this direct quotation, pronouns refer to her in 51:17,2. The position and the number of quotations confirm her significance. Parallel to σοφία the term παιδεία appears four times (51:16,23,26,28 + 2 Pronomina [51:17a,26b]). This term is the key value that coined the Hellenistic period and the Hellenistic way of life, but also the education, as already shown above. Those who did not enjoy sapiential education, are subsumed as ἀπαίδευτοι by Sira. It is further striking that Sira involves physical and the spiritual competences when speaking of education: cf. neck (τράχηλον; 51:26a), ear (οὖς; 51:16a), eyes (ὀφθαλμοί; 51:27a), hands (χεῖρες; 51:19c), mouth (στόμα; 51:25a), tongue (γλῶσσα; 51:22a), foot (πούς; 51:15c), abdominal (κοιλία; 51:21a), soul (ψυχή; 51:19a,20a,24b,26b,29a), heart (καρδία; 51:15a,20c). Thus anyone acquiring education (παιδεία) gains quietness (ἀνάπαυσις; 51:27a), but also silver and gold (ἀργύριον, χρυσός; 51:28b). Thus the benefit is personal and comprehensive.

4 Notes on Significant Topics It is not possible to provide a comprehensive interpretation of the three sections in a limited space. Therefore, we will make a selection. As the presentation of the literary units has shown, a few words are keywords (σοφία, παιδεία, κύριος). They are of particular importance. But even some poetic means and the literary formulation play a central role. These are discussed in the following section.

4.1 Σοφία and Παιδεία The beginning of the book (πᾶσα σοφία παρὰ κυρίου καὶ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) explicitly deals with the entire (πᾶσα) wisdom. Looking at the translating

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom

37

grandson wisdom and education is so fundamental that when referring to the law, the prophets and the other scriptures, he writes: “for these we should praise Israel for education and wisdom / ὑπὲρ ὧν δέον ἐστὶν ἐπαινεῖν τὸν Ισραηλ παιδείας καὶ σοφίας” (Sir 0,3). The last words παιδεία καὶ σοφία are explicitly formulated with the environment in mind. So we are urged to take a look at humanity’s environment. In 1906 Smend (1906, xxiii) already noted on Sir 1:1 that Sira “provoked by these words, which he placed at the beginning of his book, … the declaration of war of Judaism against the Hellenism.” Smend unfolds his thesis not by written evidence of Greek authors and I am uncertain if I would speak of “declaration of war”. But it is true that in this basic thesis there is a confrontation between the worldview of the Old Testament and of the Greek worldview: especially with one of its core element, namely education. There is the question, why education and wisdom received such an extraordinarily important role in the Hellenistic period. Christes (1975, 112) writes about that: The Polis lost its normative power, education received the task … to convey paideía to the Greeks wherever they settled. This paideía made the Greeks consider themselves as ‘Hellenes.’ Education was considered to transform the immature child to a socially acceptable person. The dominance of the literary educational competence is characteristic. The ability to read and write is now mandatory … (and) consisted of … the pursuit of literary texts … targeting both spiritual and ethical education: cf. Homer (esp. the Iliad) and many more.

For our discussion the effect of education is of particular importance. Education becomes the material and spiritual centre of identity and, thus, by far exceeds an ordinary knowledge transfer. Thus, “learned education becomes some sort of education as religion”. Christes has repeatedly stressed the superior importance of Homer. Therefore, it is understandable that Poliakoff (2004, 155 – 156) sums up: “To call Homer, the Bible of the Greeks is hardly an exaggeration. His epics became the educational standard work, the Knigge of correct behaviour during the entire Greek history.” The coinage of the young Greeks in terms of attitude to wisdom respectively to education begins with elementary school. There the students wrote down mnemonics – regularly and frequently in order to acquire writing skills. Thereby they also incorporated its contents while writing. Two sentences of exercises should be pointed out: A phrase that was used as an exercise, and with which children learned to write at school. It is in itself formative because of its frequent repetition: “γνώσις Ὁμήρου παιδεία ἐστίν / knowledge of Homer is education.” The Hellenistic values and the norms of its outlook on the world are taught through reading and interpreting Homer. There is a remarkable nexus through Homer between παιδεία (education) and σοφία (knowl-

38

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

edge / wisdom). The following mnemonic, which belonged to the basic components of exercise texts, is characteristic: “Ὦ φίλε παῖ, θεοδώρηον μάθε τάξιν Ὁμήρου, ὄφρα δαεὶς πάσης μέτρον ἔχης σοφίας”¹⁵ / O dear child learn, as God’s gift, the order of Homer, so you have the measure of all the wisdom.” Those who learn the Homeric order, receive “the measure of the comprehensive wisdom (πάσης μέτρον … σοφίας).” A person learning the Homeric τάξις (= order) comes into the possession of “the non plus ultra of comprehensive wisdom (πάσης μέτρον … σοφίας)”. Order / τάξις is hereby deliberately formulated ambiguously: on the one hand, it is based on μέτρον for reciting poetic-Homeric texts; on the other hand, is has the meaning of the Homeric life design. The knowledge about Homer is exceedingly valuable and is connected to σοφία (knowledge / wisdom). It should be noted that σοφία is found frequently among the (four) cardinal virtues; cf. e. g. Symp. 196 c.d. How to define wisdom more clearly? In connection with the considerations of the antonyms σοφία (knowledge) versus ἀμαθία (ignorance; Symp. 203e) one can read that “no god ensues wisdom or desires to be made wise (σοφὸς γενέσθαι) because he already is (ἔστι γάρ).” Wisdom, therefore, eo ipso is immanently in (a) God. Moreover, Plato (Sym 204a) writes that: nor does anyone else that is wise ensue it. Neither do the ignorant (ἀμαθεῖς) ensue wisdom, nor desire to be made wise (σοφοὶ γενέσθαι): in this very point ignorance (ἀμαθία) is distressing, when a person who is not comely, or worthy, or intelligent is satisfied with himself.

What is the cause to strive for wisdom? One reason is that “wisdom has to do with the fairest things” (Symp. 204b). Plato uses σοφία ambiguously, on the one hand he refers to her as knowledge and on the other as wisdom of life. Moreover wisdom can serve as a collective term for other virtues, “she is called sobriety (σωφροσύνη)¹⁶ and justice (δικαιοσύνη)” (Symp. 209a). The wisdom is the key to spiritual immortality, which exceeds by far the physical immortality (ἀθανασία; Symp. 208d-e). In addition, it leads to a magnificent posthumous fame (τοιαύτης δόξης εὐκλεοῦς; Symp. 208d). It’s worth even to die premature for the glory, as has been said above. This short outline shows strongly from the Hellenistic standpoint the unsurpassable importance of σοφία and παιδεία. Σοφία and παιδεία are positively con-

 Erich Ziebarth, Aus der antiken Schule. Sammlung griechischer Texte auf Papyrus, Holztafeln, Ostraka (Bonn: A. Marcus & E. Weber, ), .  The noun σωφροσύνη is very significant in the Greek environment, but is attested very late in the Old Testament: in  Macc :, in the LXX addition to Esth : (:[c]), in Wisd : and  Macc (:, , ,  f; :).

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom

39

notated without limitation. They apply equally to the world of God and to world of men. The difference is that a god is automatically a wise god (σοφός). In contrast, people must follow the course of education (παιδεία) in order to acquire wisdom. And indeed those that are ready to follow education, must acquire it in order to find recognition in the contemporary society and make a career. Things are going badly for those who do not seek education. As can be read a few decades after Ben Sira in the Book of Maccabees: In those days certain renegades came out from Israel and misled many, saying, “Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles around us, for since we separated from them many disasters have come upon us” (1Macc 1:11).

It was necessary to master the Hellenistic basics to be relatively independent and to achieve independent development. Whoever was one of the guiding class, could enter into transactions: contracts were valid only when written in Greek. Of course, in legal disputes only the Hellenistic language was recognized. The language and the adoption of the rules of the Hellenes were the key to social advancement and influence. The Greeks did not need to enforce the Hellenization. There were plenty of people who voluntarily joined the new social development. At the time of Sira’s grandson, Hellenism had already long flourished and dominated all sectors of society. The influence that emanated from the Hellenistic period was inevitable. But now, the antithesis should be pointed out: In the Hellenistic world wisdom – often equated with “knowledge, skills” – is acquired by studying and teaching within the various levels of school. In contrast Sira states that the wisdom is located by God. There is no indication that it is possible for human beings to attain wisdom as a human being. Sira rather suggests that wisdom in its simple form, all the more the plenitude of wisdom is inaccessible to human being. It rather is in the Lord’s disposal. If one listens closely, the implication is to be heard that human being does not know the way to wisdom nor can follow it. Wisdom is only attained through the mediation of God.

4.2 Κύριος Κύριος is a universal word and refers to an owner, a husband, a person in a leading position, etc. In the political sphere, it has become prevalent that κύριος very often refers to the regent.

40

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

In the Hellenistic period during Alexander the Great the imagination of a “spear-acquired” land has coined a special meaning of κύριος and gained acceptance. A lord has unlimited power over the area upon which the king lays claim. The same is true for the residents and their property. In Judith, Antiochus IV is metaphorically called Nabouchodonosor (Ναβουχοδονοσορ). He sees himself as βασιλεὺς [ὁ μέγας, Jdt 2:5] ὁ κύριος πάσης τῆς γῆς (Jdt 2:5; 6:4). Whoever contradicts his words or who does not comply with one of the words of the Lord (ἕν τι τῶν ῥημάτων τοῦ κυρίου σου; Jdt 2:13) has to envisage draconian punishment and will lose his life. This self-assessment of the Hellenistic king is typical. As this type of a lord sees himself as a God (cf. Jdt 3:8), religious implications are given. Quite different is the meaning of κύριος in the context of the LXX. Here it is a classical technical term for the translation of YHWH. Even in Ben Sira κύριος is found 182¹⁷ times and usually refers to the Lord as the God of Israel. – It is striking that in the treated units κύριος occurs relatively rarely; Sir 1:1,9; 24:12; 51:22: that seems to stand in contrast to the frequent occurrence of κύριος in Ben Sira. This is all the more surprising because κύριος, for example, can be found ten times in 1:11– 30. This rare use appears as an educational fineness: If you mention something rare, then this reference is striking. This sapiential poetic trick draws particular attention to the reader.

4.3 Rhetorical Questions in Sir 1:2,3 and 6 2 3 6

ἄμμον θαλασσῶν καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος τίς ἐξαριθμήσει ὕψος οὐρανοῦ καὶ πλάτος γῆς καὶ ἄβυσσον καὶ σοφίαν τίς ἐξιχνιάσει ῥίζα σοφίας τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη καὶ τὰ πανουργεύματα αὐτῆς τίς ἔγνω

In Sir 1:2a,b,3a Sira asks for natural resources: the immeasurableness of sand on the seashore and raindrops; the eternity of days or the height of heaven; the breadth of the sea and the depth of the abyss. Especially in Egypt intensive scientific studies have been made in Hellenistic times, especially in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and mechanics. Questions like this come as no surprise. But provocative questions are those where the human being will be immediately confronted with the limits of his ability. – Whoever thinks like a profane scientist, feels either annoyed or starts thinking about what natural science is able to

 It is striking that in the treated units κύριος occurs relatively rarely; Sir :,; :; :. This is all the more surprising because κύριος, for example, can be found ten times in : – .

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom

41

answer concerning the basic questions of life. Incidentally, this is the same serious question as today: the relation between science and theology.

4.4 Uniqueness – εἷς ἐστιν σοφός φοβερός (Sir 1:8a) When crossing the Hellespont, Alexander received Asia as a spear-acquired gift of the gods. In former thinking Asia was considered to be the whole world, except for Greece.¹⁸ As the Hellenistic kings understood themselves as direct successors of Alexander, they of course claimed this authority and power for themselves. No Hellenistic regent would have shared his power with someone else in his sphere of influence.

4.5 The Creation of Wisdom Both in 1:4,9 (κτίζω) and in 24:8 (κτίστης, κτίζω),9 (κτίζω) the statement is central that wisdom was created (by the Lord). Foerster (1990, 1022) describes the meaning of κτίζω in the Greek-Hellenistic usage as follows: κτίζω means in the Homeric poems: to make a country habitable, to cultivate and populate it … then to establish and build a town. …. κτίζω means also: to establish and found groves, temples, theaters, baths, tombs and further to found festivals and games. Thereby the verb signifies …. the decisive, fundamental act of will for the establishment, foundation and erection. κτίζω is also used for inventions, i. e. a basic mental act; another meaning is the foundation of e. g. gymnasiums and philosophical academies.¹⁹

In the Septuagint this term is reinterpreted in some aspect and in some other aspect transformed by filling it with a hitherto unknown content: The creation by God. This biblical elitist usage shows that the Greek version of Sira very strongly remains – with all due respect for the Greek categories of thinking – within the Jewish paradigm. It is obvious that Sira also received a Greek education and he was able to use the Greek Hellenistic language and thinking like a native speaker.

 Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer, “‘Wir wollen den armen Gerechten unterdrücken!’ Zwei Gesellschaftsgruppen im Spannungsfeld von Macht und Religion nach dem Buch der Weisheit,” in Gesellschaft und Religion in der Deuterokanonischen und Spätbiblischen Literatur (DCLS ), ed. Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Thomas R. Elßner, (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, b),  – .  Cf. Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster, “κτίζω u. a.” ThWNT III θ–Κ (), .

42

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

4.6 The Implications of Wisdom in Sir 24:1 – 22 The wisdom of the wise man is rooted and grounded in wisdom that originates in God. God himself is in fact the only wise. As Sira declares in 1:1: Wisdom now assumes the role of the bearer of hope for the future. Schreiber (2000, 196 f) has indicated in his study that Sira assigns predicates to wisdom, which normally occurs within the context of kings. This thesis supports the following observations:²⁰

4.6.1 Wisdom has a throne, thus conducts governmental affairs One can read in Sir 24:4b: “My throne (θρόνος μου) on a pillar of cloud.” The phrase “to sit on the throne” (‫ ישׁב ַעל ]ַה[ִכֵסא‬/ καθίζω ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου) is – with few exceptions – relatively often the paraphrasing of the active reign of a king, mostly of a Davidic king. Among these kings, Solomon has a prominent position. In 1:8b this statement is made about God. Thus wisdom is moved closely to the reign of God. According to Wisd 9:4 wisdom is placed next to God and Solomon asks, “give me the wisdom that sits by your throne.” Wisdom appears as co-regent and is co-seating with the reigning God.²¹

4.6.2 Wisdom is in the rounding of the sky, thus has universal presence “Alone I compassed the vault of heaven and traversed the depths of the abyss / γῦρον οὐρανοῦ ἐκύκλωσα μόνη καὶ ἐν βάθει ἀβύσσων περιεπάτησα” (Sir 24:5). It is even said about the king in Ps 72:8: “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth / ‫ ְו ֵי ְר ְד ִמ ָיּם ַעד ָים וִּמ ָנָּהר ַעד ַאְפֵסי ָא ֶרץ‬/ καὶ κατακυριεύσει ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἕως θαλάσσης καὶ ἀπὸ ποταμοῦ ἕως περάτων τῆς οἰκουμένης.” However, universality goes beyond the geographic-political-militarily spheres of influence of a king. It is obvious that the real master in a universal

 Cf. Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer, “Aspekte der Messianologie der Septuaginta. Die Rolle der Weisheit bei der Entwicklung messianischer Vorstellungen,” in Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta III. Studien zur Theologie, Anthropologie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der Griechischen Bibel (BWANT ) eds H.-J. Fabry and D. Böhler (Stuttgart: Kholhammer, ),  – .  Cf. Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer,”Die Sapientia Salomonis im Kontext der frühjüdischen Weisheitsliteratur.” In Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos) (SAPERE ), ed. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, ), .

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom

43

sense is and remains YHWH himself: “It is he who sits above (‫ ַה ֹיּ ֵשׁב‬/ ὁ κατέχων) the circle of the earth (τὸν γῦρον τῆς γῆς), and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in” (Isa 40:22).

4.6.3 The nations are the property of wisdom, over which she exercises power One reads in Sir 24:6b: “Over every people and nation (ἐν παντὶ λαῷ καὶ ἔθνει) I have held sway (ἐκτησάμην).” While, according to Sira, this universal power belongs directly to wisdom, the sphere of influence is, however, in royal context encountered as a gift of God: “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession / ‫ְוֶא ְתּ ָנה גוֹיִם ַנֲחָלֶתָך ַוֲאֻח ָזְּתָך ַאְפֵסי‬ ‫ ָא ֶרץ ְשַׁאל ִמ ֶמּ ִנּי‬/ αἴτησαι παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ καὶ δώσω σοι ἔθνη τὴν κληρονομίαν σου καὶ τὴν κατάσχεσίν σου τὰ πέρατα τῆς γῆς” (Ps 2:8). Furthermore, I want to refer to Ps 72:8 ̶ 10.

4.6.4 The wisdom is ordained by God on Zion and she rules from there This installation is registered in Sir 24:10b: “… and so I was established in Zion (ἐν Σιων ἐστηρίχθην).” One can even read about king David something like this: “There [v 13: at Zion] I will cause a horn to sprout up for David; I have prepared a lamp for my anointed one / ‫ ָשׁם ַאְצִמי ַח ֶק ֶרן ְל ָד ִוד ָע ַרְכ ִתּי ֵנר ִלְמ ִשׁיִחי‬/ ἐκεῖ ἐξανατελῶ κέρας τῷ Δαυιδ ἡτοίμασα λύχνον τῷ χριστῷ μου” (Ps 132/131LXX:17).

4.6.5 Jerusalem is the sphere of influence Wisdom is given the instruction to settle in Jacob / Israel (Sir 24:8) and to form the centre of power in Jerusalem: “In Jerusalem was my domain (ἡ ἐξουσία μου)” (Sir 24:11b). It is several times noted that David was living in Jerusalem and then reigned from there; cf. “and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah … (2 Sam 5:5). Even later, Jerusalem stayed the natural centre of power. Jerusalem is mentioned in passing without citing it directly: “… there was nothing in his house or in all his realm (‫ וְּבָכל ֶמְמ ַשְׁלתּוֹ‬/ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ) that Hezekiah did not show them” (2 Kgs 20:13). From the context it follows that in Jerusalem the king showed his treasures a foreign delegation.

44

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

4.6.6 The wisdom finds rest in Jerusalem Wars could be expected in an area like Canaan. The country played strategically and economically an extraordinarily important role in maintaining power for the Great Powers. For this reason, the (simple) hope of tranquillity becomes a high ideal. The quotations are often explicitly linked to the end of military hostilities (cf. the context of David 2 Sam 7:11; 1 Chr 23:25). The reason, why the hostile powers could be victorious, is seen in the apostasy of Israel from YHWH; cf. Deut 28:58 – 65. However, there is tranquillity for Israel if Israel leaves the strange gods and turns to the Lord; some references can be found in the Book of Judges (e. g. Judg 3:10 f) and, inter alia, in Hos 2:19 f; 2 Chr 15:8 – 15. Tranquillity is a gift from God. In this sense Sira notes in the text about Solomon: “Solomon reigned (ἐβασίλευσεν) in days of peace, to whom God gave rest (κατέπαυσεν) all around” (Sir 47:13). ᾿Aνάπαυσις occurs rarely in the LXX. The references from the political context are particularly interesting for the comparison. David does not want some rest or sleep or repose (ἀνάπαυσιν), “until I find a place for the Lord, a covert for the God of Iakob!” (Ps 131/132:5). And then he says: “Rise up, O Lord, into your rest (εἰς τὴν ἀνάπαυσίν σου)” (Ps 131/132:8a). The search and the invitation of taking a place of rest is formulated very parallel, so the concern – unless there is a direct takeover – is the same: relax! Anyway, like God, wisdom wants to acquire tranquillity. Tranquillity (ἀνάπαυσις) is cited 17 times²² in Sira and plays an exceptionally important role in his book. This exceptional value is not missing in the description of wisdom: “Thus in the beloved city he gave me a resting place (κατέπαυσεν)” (Sir 24:11a). Here wisdom can find what she has been looking for in a long time. This is also referred to by Sira in 51:27b. – The emphasis on tranquillity has a serious political background. It indicates in a typical sapiential style – in indirect speech and veiling hint – that Sira has the impression that tranquillity is in danger: Soon, there will be no more peace. The call for tranquillity is an indication of incipient hostilities in everyday political life, therefore Sira insists strongly on tranquillity – including at least also peace.

 Cf. ἀνάπαυσις Sir :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; : f; :; :; :, ; : f; :; in addition, still some references can be found with the verb.

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom

45

4.6.7 The Pre-Existence of Wisdom Pre-existence can be defined only in relation to something existing. The pre-existence is not to be equated with the look into the past (cf. Jer 6:16; Ps. 78:2 f), even if the past is far away. Explicitly Sira emphasizes on the fact that wisdom is before creation and after creation; cf. the quotation of Sir 1:4,8 above: “Before the ages, in the beginning, he created me, and for all the ages I shall not cease to be / πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἔκτισέν με καὶ ἕως αἰῶνος οὐ μὴ ἐκλίπω” (Sir 24:9). Wisdom is an immaterial given of creation.²³ The immateriality detaches wisdom, on the one hand, from the “ordinary” creation, but it also integrates, on the other hand, wisdom as a concrete realization into creation. This dimension of wisdom is parallel to the author of Prov 8:22– 31: The LORD created me (‫ ָק ָנ ִני‬/ ἔκτισέν με) at the beginning of his work (‫) ַדּ ְרכּוֹ ֵרא ִשׁית‬, the first of his acts of long ago (‫)ֶק ֶדם ִמְפָעָליו ֵמָאז‬. Ages ago (‫ ֵמעוָֹלם‬/ πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος) I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth (‫ ֵמר ֹאשׁ ִמ ַקּ ְדֵמי ָא ֶרץ‬/ ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν). When there were no depths (‫ ְבֵּאין ְתּהֹמוֹת‬/ πρὸ τοῦ τὰς ἀβύσσους) I was brought forth, when there were no springs (‫ ְבֵּאין ַמְע ָינוֹת‬/ πρὸ τοῦ προελθεῖν τὰς πηγάς) abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth – when he had not yet made earth (‫ )ַעד ׂלא ָע ָשׂה ֶא ֶרץ‬and fields, or the world’s first bits of soil. … (Prov 8:22– 26).

Messianic interpreted verses from older documents do not provide comparable statements about the pre-existence, although a flashback into early times has been a well-known motive, as Ps 72:17 demonstrates.²⁴

 Cf. Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer “Die Immateriellen Ebenen der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira,” in Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, Festschrift M. Gilbert (BETL ), ed. N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen (Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, ),  – .  The duration of existence of the king is probably formulated in accordance with Egyptian ideas: “May his name endure forever (‫)ְלעוָֹלם‬, his fame continue as long as the sun (‫)ִלְפ ֵני ֶשֶׁמשׁ‬ (Ps :). The Greek translation has not maintained the syntax which is given in Hebrew, rather it highlights the (temporal) preorder to the sun: ἔστω τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ εὐλογημένον εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας πρὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. The dimension of the pre-existence is only given in the LXX version. Zenger (So betete, 62) points out that here is the basis that the psalm is used to describe the eschatological king, the Messiah: “So verwundert es nicht, dass der Psalm bzw. einzelne Verse daraus im rabbinischen und mittelalterlichen Judentum immer wieder in messianischem Sinn verwendet wurden.”

46

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

5 Summary Wisdom is a pre-existent and intangible condition. Her “place” is with God. Only he can dispose of her. It is strongly and repeatedly emphasized that he has created wisdom. Sira speaks in 1:1– 10 in a way, so that a biblically oriented reader as well as a Hellenist understands his words readily from his point of view. It could be difficult for a Hellenistic educated person that he should evaluate the wisdom as a gift of God or the Lord and not as a result from studies and education. Similarly, a Greek-speaking person must master the language of the faithful, as the statements about the Creator demonstrate. Furthermore: the universalism is striking. You cannot find an argument in 1:1– 10, which is applicable only for an Israelite. Wisdom is offered to “all flesh”, i. e. to every human being. This offer is limited only by the fact that love is a prerequisite. However, this argument is pleasant to a listener, for whom the word φιλοσοφία is familiar. It is only hinted subtly that θεοφίλεια (a very rare word in Greek; more frequently θεοφιλής) or θεοφιλία is meant in the sense of “love to the God of Israel.” Within 24:1– 22 several aspects are emphasized: Wisdom is previous compared with the rest of the material creation and so she is pre-existent. She is also a member of the heavenly court society, in which she is present praising herself. Looking for tranquillity – just as God enjoys tranquillity according to Ps 132/ 131:8, – wisdom is bound by God to the people of Israel and to Jerusalem. There she is an offer that strives for deepening and duration: Whoever gets involved with her, never lets loose of her! The fruit will be honour in plenitude. The human being can strive for wisdom – she was recently started by the Lord – , provided the human being subordinates himself in prayer to the Lord. Then she is perceived holistically with all – physical and spiritual – dimensions of humans. Wisdom realizes herself in education and leads to rest for body and soul, as well as to wealth. Therefore, the Book Ben Sira represents the message about one of God’s intangible creatures, wisdom. Wisdom is His offer. Sira clarifies her origin. He justifies her presence among the human beings, especially among the people of God. Wisdom is acquired – albeit with effort – by lovers of God as a biblical-sapiential education, which is passed on by the faithful teacher. That is the basic message of Sira, which he presents in Sir 1:1– 10; 24:1– 22 and 51:13 – 30. The rest of the long book is rather detailed additional information and concrete applications in key areas of (everyday) life. Sira always involves the social atmosphere of

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom

47

the Hellenistic environment – sometimes mischievously criticizing, sometimes negative refusing, sometimes positive agreeing. Overall, however, he remains an autonomous, independent and original teacher of wisdom. This is confirmed by Marböck (2012, 78) who states: Jesus Sirach ist ein Weisheitslehrer, dem es gelingt, die Traditionen Israels nochmals zeitgemäß zusammen zu fassen und schöpferisch zu reflektieren; ein Schriftgelehrter, der um die tragenden Fundamente seines Ethos weiß, das sich nicht in vordergründiger Pragmatik erschöpft. Vor allem: er ist ein Lehrer, der in seinem eigenen Beispiel … immer wieder zum Ursprung und zur letzten Wirklichkeit der Weisheit zurückkehrt, die vom Herrn kommt (Sir 1,1).

The three key texts of the book are not accidental at the place where they are. Of course it is not sure whether the author has made the arrangement in the book, as it is given today. The order of the units could be the result of a collection of sayings of Ben Sira, which editors have made. I think this thesis is unlikely because of internal unity, the structure of the arguments and the treatment of the issues. The Book Ben Sira is much more likely ordered by the author as it exists today. The order corresponds to the intention of the sapiential teacher, as the sapiential and educational (cf. the address of the student “[my] son”) intention shows. Whoever reads and studies the Book Ben Sira, is conducted wisely and discreetly from the master. At the crucial point, there is in each case a subtle summation that points to the next step of the teaching. Ben Sira presents a concept of wisdom and education, which is different from the other models of his time and he outlines the basic lines in his poetic pillars of his work, which we have investigated. Ben Sira’s own development was demanded, because the intellectual, cultural, economic and social situation had changed by Hellenism in an unprecedented form. Ben Sira is developing his solution on the one hand on the ground of his biblical and religious traditions, on the other hand, he knows full well, as a highly educated sage, the philosophical and theological offers of his environment. He has partially and cautiously added ideas and themes from the side of the Hellenists and he has dealt intensively with contemporary phenomena. From here he developed his idea of wisdom which he offers in his book. The topic stimulated and encourages researchers repeatedly to intensive investigations on wisdom in the Book of Ben Sira. In summary, with reference to Ueberschaer 2007: 398, one can read, for example: Ben Sira geht … nicht von einem quantitativen Bildungsbegriff aus, sondern von einem qualitativen. Weise ist nicht derjenige, der ‚nur‘ gelehrt ist, der viel Wissen und Kenntnisse hat; weise ist derjenige, dem sich im Laufe des Bildungsprozesses die Weisheit zuwendet, dem sie begegnet und der aus ihr heraus und mit ihr lebt. … Damit bestimmt Ben Sira

48

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

Weisheit und Bildung in einem neuen Sinne: Die Weisheit wird zu einer Lebenshaltung und Bildung zu einem Erziehungsbegriff.

With the significant restriction that the author of this citation has forgotten to mention in his basic sum the all-illuminating role of the Lord²⁵, he says the right content. The investigation of Ueberschaer shows in the many good results that Sira is able to conduct well those who study and explore his book scientifically. This is true even when the researcher does not comprehend²⁶ his teaching with the form of the configuration of his book, which Sira applies in his typical type: subtle, open and at the same time hidden. Even the structure of the book is pedagogy. He represents those important units at those central positions where they are today. He directs and guides the reader in this way, without the reader noticing it. We meet the art of an educational master. He shows in his work with his poetic pillars the importance of construction, coherence, and connotation, through which many different topics are merged into one unit.

Source List Beentjes, Pancratius, C. 2006. “Full Wisdom is from the Lord”. Sir 1,1 – 10 and its Place in Israel’s Wisdom Literature, in: Beentjes, P.C., “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14, 20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira (Contributions to biblical exegesis and theology 43), Leuven 2006, 19 – 34. Christes, Johannes. 1975. Bildung und Gesellschaft. die Einschätzung der Bildung und Ihrer Vermittler in der Griechisch-Römischen Antike, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Corley, J. 2003. “Wisdom Versus Apocalyptic and Science in Sirach 1,10.”.In Wisdom and Apocalyticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (BETL 168), edited by F. García Martinez, 269 – 285. Leuven: Peeters. Demandt, Alexander. 2009. Alexander der Große. Leben und Legende, München: C.H. Beck.

 God / the Lord does not appear in the final summary of the study; cf. “Weisheit aus der Begegnung und als Beziehung: Ben Siras occurrierendes Bildungsverständnis;” Ueberschaer, Weisheit,  f.  It is significant that the central unit (: – ) at the beginning of the book becomes a subordinate topic in the investigation; see Ueberschaer, Weisheit,  – ; unfortunately, this applies also to an investigation, which is dedicated specifically to the pedagogy of the Book Ben Sira: Tesch, Weisheitsunterricht,  ff, who cites Sir : –  and : –  and puts these passages under the title “Eine Erweiterung der vorgestellten Ansätze: Förderung ethischer Kompetenzen durch weisheitliches Spruchgut.” As you can see, she finds no pedagogical relevance in these units.

Three Poetic Pillars in the Book of Ben Sira: From the Divine to Human Wisdom

49

Di Lella, Alexander A. 2001. “God and Wisdom in the Theology of Ben Sira”. In Ben Sira’s God. Proceeding of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham-Ushaw College, 2001 (BZAW 321), edited by R. Egger-Wenzel, 3 – 17. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried. 1795. Einleitung in die Apokryphischen Schriften des Alten Testaments, Leipzig: Weidmann. Foerster, Friedrich Wilhelm. 1990. “κτίζω et al.” ThWNT III θ–Κ: 999 – 1034. Janowski, B. 2009. “Gottes Weisheit in Jerusalem. Sirach 24 und die biblische Schekina-Theologie.” In Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (DCLY 2008), edited by Herrmann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert, 1 – 29. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Marböck, Johannes. 1995. “Das Buch Jesus Sirach.” In Einleitung in das Alte Testament (KStTh 1,1), edited by in: E. Zenger, G. Braulik and H. Niehr et al, 285 – 292. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Marböck, Johannes. 2006. “Structure and Redaction History of the Book of Ben Sira. Review and Prospects.” In Weisheit und Frömmigkeit: Studien zur Alttestamentlichen Literaur der Spätzeit (ÖBS 29), edited by Johannes Marböck, 31 – 45. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Marböck, Johannes. 2010. Jesus Sirach 1 – 23 (HThK.AT), Freiburg: Herder. Marböck, Johannes. 2012. “Einwohnung der Weisheit und das Hauptgebot. Schöpferischer Umgang mit Traditionen im Sirachbuch.” In BN 154 (2012) 69 – 81. Nissinen, M. 2009. “Wisdom as Mediatrix in Sir 24. Ben Sira, Love Lyrics and Prophecy”. In Of God(s), Trees, Kings and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola (StOr 106), edited by M. Luukko, S. Svärd, and R. Mattila. Parpola, 377 – 390. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society. Peters, N. 1913. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus (EHAT 25), Münster: Aschendorff. Poliakoff, Michael B. 2004. Kampfsport in der Antike. Das Spiel um Leben und Tod, Düsseldorf: Patmos. Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. 1979. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes Vol II. Stuttgart: Antiquariat Stefan Krüger. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. 1994. “Sir 24,1 – 2,8 – 12 (1 – 4.12 – 16).” In Unsere Hoffnung – Gottes Wort. Die Alttestamentlichen Lesungen der Sonn- und Festtage. Auslegung und Verkündigung, Lesejahr C. edited by Ehrenfried Schulz and Otto Wahl, 112 – 116. Frankfurt am Main: Knecht. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. 1999. “Die immateriellen Ebenen der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira.” In Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, Festschrift M. Gilbert (BETL 143), edited by N. Calduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen, 91 – 127. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. 2007. “Aspekte der Messianologie der Septuaginta. Die Rolle der Weisheit bei der Entwicklung Messianischer Vorstellungen.” In Im Brennpunkt: Die Septuaginta III. Studien zur Theologie, Anthropologie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der Griechischen Bibel (BWANT 174), edited by H.-J. Fabry and D. Böhler, 226 – 244. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. = Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. 2011. “Aspekte der Messianologie der Septuaginta. Die Rolle der Weisheit bei der Entwicklung Messianischer Vorstellungen.” In F. V. Reiterer. Die Vollendung der Gottesfurcht ist Weisheit (Sir 21,11). Studien zum Buch Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach) (SBAB 50), 265 – 283. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.

50

Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer

Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. 2011. “Jesus Sirach / Jesus Sirchbuch / Ben Sira / Ecclesiasticus.” In Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. 2011. “Aspekte der Messianologie der Septuaginta. Die Rolle der Weisheit bei der Entwicklung Messianischer Vorstellungen.” In F. V. Reiterer. Die Vollendung der Gottesfurcht ist Weisheit (Sir 21,11). Studien zum Buch Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach) (SBAB 50), 11 – 41. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. 2014a. “Gesellschaft und Religion – Eine ‘historische’ Darlegung des Alttestamentlichen Glaubens im hellenistischen Ambiente.” In Religion und Gesellschaft – Zur Religiösen Situation der Gegenwart (ITSR 5), edited by Chibueze C. Udeani, Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer and Klaus Zapotoczky, 17 – 52. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. 2014b. “‘Wir Wollen den armen Gerechten Unterdrücken!’ Zwei Gesellschaftsgruppen im Spannungsfeld von Macht und Religion nach dem Buch der Weisheit.” In Gesellschaft und Religion in der | deuterokanonischen und spätbiblischen Literatur (DCLS 20), edited by Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer, Renate Egger-Wenzel and Thomas R. Elßner, 161 – 189. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. 2015. “Die Sapientia Salomonis im Kontext der frühjüdischen Weisheitsliteratur.” In Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos) (SAPERE 27), edited by Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, 175 – 189. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Rickenbacher, O. 1973. Weisheitsperikopen bei Ben Sira (OBO 1), Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Schreiber, Stefan, 2000. Gesalbter und König: Titel und Konzeption der Königlichen Gesalbtenerwartung in Frühjüdischen und Urchristlichen Schriften (BZNW 105), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Skehan, P. W. and Alexander A. Di Lella. 1987. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation With Notes, Introduction and Commentary (AncB 39), New York: Doubleday. Smend, R. 1906. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt, Berlin: Georg Reimer. Tesch, K. 2013. Weisheitsunterricht bei Ben Sira. Lehrkonzepte im Sirachbuch und ihre Relevanz für heutiges Lernen im Religionsunterricht (BBB 169), Bonn: Bonn University Press. Ueberschaer, F. 2007. Weisheit aus der Begegnung. Bildung nach dem Buch Ben Sira (BZAW 379), Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Witte, M. 2012. “Der ‘Kanon’ Heiliger Schriften des Antiken Judentums im Spiegel des Buches Ben Sira/Jesus Sirach.” In Kanon in Konstruktion und Dekonstruktion. Konanonisierungsprozesse Religiöser Texte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Ein Handbuch, edited by Eve Marie Becker and Stefan Scholz, 229 – 255. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Zenger, E. 1993. “So betete David für seinen Sohn Salomo und für den König Messias. Überlegungen zur holistischen und kanonischen Lektüre des 72. Psalms.” In Der Messias (JBTh 8), edited by I. Baldermann, 57 – 72. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Ziebarth, Erich. ed. 1913. Aus der antiken Schule. Sammlung griechischer Texte auf Papyrus, Holztafeln, Ostraka (Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 65), Bonn: A. Marcus & E. Weber. Ziegler, J. 1980. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis Editum XII,2), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Ibolya Balla

Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira Abstract: This paper examines the activity of the sage in terms of time. From the point of view of the sage the past is characterized by the process of searching, learning, toiling, gathering knowledge and instructions, which in the present he pours forth and imparts to others who are willing to take up the yoke of searching for wisdom. This will prevent them from sinning in the future, if they remember the instructions and keep the Law of the Most High. Keywords: Ben Sira, Wisdom, Torah, Law of God.

1 First Person References “I have not laboured for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction”; some characteristics of Ben Sira’s first person references: The Book of Ben Sira has a relatively large number of first person sayings which refer to the sage himself. These have been examined by many scholars such as Liesen (1999, 64) who argues that in the “autobiographically coloured notes… Ben Sira breaks away from his usual didactic patterns and adopts a personal tone … There is a notable increase of emphasis on the person of the author towards the end of the book”. Many first person references – along with others – demonstrate that the author considers his own learning and teaching activity important. In another paper I have argued that Ben Sira appears as an authority in interpreting the Torah and imparting knowledge and wisdom. He even seems to be an “inspired mediator” (Beentjes 2006, 224– 227, especially 225) on the basis of the expression “I will again pour out (ἐκχέω) teaching like prophecy and leave it behind for generations of eternity” (Sir 24:33). Even if Ben Sira speaks about the life and work of the sage in general without using the first person, he obviously thinks of himself as the model for such people. The language of these first person sayings is colourful and dynamic and exhibits a diverse vocabulary, especially when referring to the sage’s past activity of learning and to his present and future teaching. The selected relevant passages of various length – examined in their respective contexts – demonstrate that a) for Ben Sira wisdom and authority in teaching comes from the Lord; b) there is a special emphasis on his own training and experiences comprised of studying, travelling and ob-

52

Ibolya Balla

serving the natural world; c) his own role in imparting wisdom/knowledge to others is especially significant; d) Ben Sira’s activity as a sage will enable the students to lead a successful life.

2 Sir 6:23 in the context of 6:18 – 37 Sir 6:23 is found within Sir 6:18 – 37 that consists of the poem about personified wisdom (Sir 6:18 – 31) and practical advice on becoming wise (Sir 6:32– 37), by way of listening to the conversation of the elderly and the prudent (Sir 6:34 – 36).¹ The structuring of the passage is noteworthy. The address “(my) son” (τέκνον) is found in Sir 6:18a.23a (and in 6:32a where MS A has ‫)בני‬. These lines all represent the beginning of a new strophe. In either the first or the second verse of the three strophes (6:18 – 22, 23 – 31, 32– 37) we also find the verb ἐπί/ ἐκδέχομαι (“to accept”, “to wait for”: verse 18, 23, 33).² Sir 6:23 is not extant in Hebrew. Its Greek text reads: ἄκουσον τέκνον καὶ ἔκδεξαι γνώμην μου καὶ μὴ ἀπαναίνου τὴν συμβουλίαν μου Listen, child, and accept my opinion and do not refuse my advice/counsel (6:23, GI)

It seems that Sir 6:23 interrupts the personification of wisdom by the call to listen to Ben Sira’s opinion and advice. Sir 6:23 as compared with the opening verse – (verse 18: “My son, from your youth accept discipline/instruction (παιδείαν), and until grey hair you will find wisdom”), where the possessive pronoun is missing and only discipline/instruction appears – has my opinion, my advice. This is part of a larger development concerning the person to whom the disciple should listen: in the first strophe it is Wisdom (Sir 6:20), in the middle strophe starting with verse 23 it is the author, and in the third and last strophe it is the wise and intelligent person (Sir 6:34– 36) and ultimately the divine law (Sir 6:37) (Liesen 1999, 70). The last strophe especially exhorts the student to study from those who are wise and also demonstrates that the main curriculum is the Law of God: If you are willing, my child, you can be disciplined, and … apply yourself … listen … pay attention … Stand in the company of the elders. … Be ready to listen … let no wise proverbs

 Cf. also Sir : – .  Three strophes consist of five stanzas which have the following number of distichs: +++ + (+++ of : – ). The whole section has a total of  distichs, as do Ben Sira’s two other poems: Sir : –  and the speech of wisdom in Sir : – .

Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira

53

escape you… rise early to visit him; let your foot wear out his doorstep. Reflect on the statutes of the Lord, and meditate at all times on his commandments (Sir 6:32– 37a).

The following notions are combined here: the ultimate authority is God’s law; the wise play an important role in teaching; finding and holding on to wisdom transforms the life of the student in a positive way. The personification and the first person insertion serve the same purpose: to instruct students in a certain way of life. Ben Sira can refer to himself and his life as a point of reference for the students, since it is implied that he is one of the intelligent and wise (Liesen 1999, 70 – 71).³

3 Selected Verses of Sir 14:20 – 15:10 ‫ תשקנו‬⁵‫ לחם שכל ומי תבויה‬⁴‫והאכלתהו‬ ‫ונשען עליה ולא ימוט ובה יבטח ולא יבוש‬ ‫ורוממתהו מרעהו ובתוך קהל תפתח פיו‬ ‫ששון ושמחה ימצא ושם עולם תורישנו‬ (She will) feed him with the bread of knowledge (lit. insight, prudence) and give him the water of [understanding]⁶ to drink. He will lean upon her and will make no missteps (lit. will not totter), he will trust in her and will not be put to shame. She will exalt him above his fellows and in the midst of an assembly she will open his mouth. He will find joy and gladness and she will endow him with an everlasting name. (15:3 – 6, MS A)

The Greek text does not differ significantly: ψωμιεῖ αὐτὸν ἄρτον συνέσεως καὶ ὕδωρ σοφίας ποτίσει αὐτόν στηριχθήσεται ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν καὶ οὐ μὴ κλιθῇ καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐφέξει καὶ οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ

 Murphy assumes on the basis of Ben Sira’s claim in : –  that he understood his book as an “extension” of the Torah (Murphy ,  – ). Wright notes regarding Sir : –  that Ben Sira “sees himself as the custodian and transmitter not only of the wisdom embodied in Torah, but also of an inherited tradition of scribal wisdom. Additionally, Ben Sira has acquired wisdom on his own by observation of human behaviour and the workings of the natural world” (Wright ,  – ).  This word is taken from Lévi , .  Read ‫ תבונה‬with MS B.  This word is taken from Lévi , . instead of ‫( תבואה‬MS A).

54

Ibolya Balla

καὶ ὑψώσει αὐτὸν παρὰ τοὺς πλησίον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν μέσῳ ἐκκλησίας ἀνοίξει τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ εὐφροσύνην καὶ στέφανον ἀγαλλιάματος εὑρήσει καὶ ὄνομα αἰῶνος κατακληρονομήσει She will feed him with the bread of understanding and give him the water of wisdom to drink. He will lean upon her and will not fall, and he will rely upon her and is not put to shame. She will exalt him above his neighbours and in an assembly she will open his mouth. He will find gladness and a crown of rejoicing, and will inherit an everlasting name. (15:3 – 6, GI)

The first half of the poem (Sir 14:20 – 27) focuses on the tireless pursuit of wisdom who will give shelter and protection to those who find her. The second half (Sir 15:1– 10) a) connects the notions of the fear of God, keeping the law and obtaining wisdom, prudence and understanding; b) depicts the blessings of being wise; c) makes a distinction between the wise/godly and the fool/sinner. Sir 15:3 – 6 details more than the previous wisdom poems the gifts of Wisdom which concern both the wise’ earthly life and their memory. They will not have reason to be ashamed and will not succumb to temptations which could lead to an ignoble name and memory. On the contrary, they will be esteemed as speakers of wise things in the assembly,⁷ and will have a lasting good name.⁸

4 Sir 16:5 and 16:24 – 25 The wider context is Sir 16:1– 18:14. Sir 16:5 is found in Sir 16:1– 23 among sayings on the inevitable punishment of sinners and the futility of hoping to avoid the Lord’s visitation. Concerning these the sage is convinced and considers himself able to teach about such truths: ‫רבות כאלה ראתה עיני ועצמות כאלה שמעה אזני‬ Many such things my eye has seen, and my ear has heard great things such as these (16:5, MS A)

The Greek is very similar except it has the comparative degree: πολλὰ τοιαῦτα ἑόρακεν ὁ ὀφθαλμός μου καὶ ἰσχυρότερα τούτων ἀκήκοεν τὸ οὖς μου Many such things my eye has seen, and my ear has heard things greater/more striking than these (Sir 16:5, GI)

 Cf. Sir :.  For the idea of “everlasting name” see Isa :.

Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira

55

The final verse (Sir 16:23) of the narrow context (Sir 16:1– 23) stands in contrast with what follows in the next extensive section (Sir 16:24– 18:14) praising creation: “Such are the thoughts of one devoid of understanding; a senseless and misguided person thinks foolishly” (Sir 16:23, GI). In the first half of 16:24 we find the triple imperative that lends emphasis to the message of the sage: listen to me, take my advice, apply your mind. We find here the following verbs: ‫שׁמע‬ for listening/obeying, ‫ לקח‬in relation to advice, and ‫( שׂים‬to place), with the meaning to consider something seriously, in order to make sound decisions when it is employed together with the word “heart” (the seat of intelligence and will; cf. Hag 1:5). Sir 16:25 is especially noteworthy: ‫אביעה במשקל רוחי ובהצנע אחוה דעי‬ I will pour out by measure my spirit, and in humbleness declare/make known my knowledge (16:25, MS A) ἐκφανῶ ἐν σταθμῷ παιδείαν καὶ ἐν ἀκριβείᾳ ἀπαγγελῶ ἐπιστήμην I will impart (lit. shine forth, bring to light) discipline precisely and declare knowledge accurately (16:25, GI)⁹

Sir 16:24– 18:14 ends with the following sentence in Hebrew: “Merciful to those who accept his guidance, who are diligent in his precepts” (Sir 18:14, MS A).¹⁰ Several conclusions can be drawn here. Ben Sira and sages like him are in contrast with the fools who think can escape divine punishment. The author is able to pour out his spirit and impart knowledge because as a student of wisdom he listened to and obeyed the elders, took advice and applied his heart to discipline/instruction. His claim as a sage who is able to impart knowledge to the students and praise creation is supported in the wider context of Sir 16:24– 25, which implies that he is granted the mercy of God, since he accepted discipline, and diligently studied the commandments. Sir 16:25 employs the verb ‫ נבע‬favoured by Ben Sira for “pouring out” (see Sir 50:27; the verb may have been used in the Hebrew text of Sir 18:29 and 39:6).¹¹ The term in its context suggests that he is the fountain or source of wisdom.¹²  While the Hebrew reads “in humbleness” from ‫“( צנע‬to be modest/humble”), the Greek translates ἀκρίβεια which refers to strict conformity to a standard, involving accuracy.  Its Greek translation is not significantly different.  ‫ נבע‬appears in Prov :, and :. All these comments deal with the power and effect of a person’s speech, two of them distinguish between the speech of the wise and fool (Prov :) and the righteous and wicked (Prov .) (In Prov : it appears in the speech of personified wisdom.) See also Pss :; :; :; :; : and : for the use of ‫נבע‬.  Note, that in other passages (Sir :, :) God is praised as the source of wisdom.

56

Ibolya Balla

As in other places, Ben Sira employs a variety of images for teaching, some of them are metaphors. The words “shine forth” suggest that his legacy will shine for later generations like a guiding star which will show them the path to follow, which is the path of life. He does not simply pass on “instruction” but pours out all he has, his spirit. The characteristics of such teachings are both humbleness and accuracy.

5 Sir 18:27 – 29 ἄνθρωπος σοφὸς ἐν παντὶ εὐλαβηθήσεται καὶ ἐν ἡμέραις ἁμαρτιῶν προσέξει ἀπὸ πλημμελείας πᾶς συνετὸς ἔγνω σοφίαν καὶ τῷ εὑρόντι αὐτὴν δώσει ἐξομολόγησιν συνετοὶ ἐν λόγοις καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐσοφίσαντο καὶ ἀνώμβρησαν παροιμίας ἀκριβεῖς One who is wise is cautious in everything; when sin is around, one guards against wrongdoing. Every intelligent person knows wisdom, and praises the one who finds her. Those who are skilled in words become wise themselves, and pour forth apt proverbs. (18:27– 29, GI)

In this short passage being circumspect in all things suggests that being wise is more than possessing material knowledge; it is a way of life, which is the way of the Lord. The passage immediately precedes the comment concerning self-control in Sir 18:30 – 19:3. The wider context (Sir 18:27– 19:3) then suggests that wisdom may keep the wise from wrongdoings of various kinds. It also demonstrates that he is not immune to temptation but wisdom will shield and protect him. His duty is to pass it on (28 – 29), since hidden wisdom is no treasure (Sir 20:30 – 31). Again, the word ἀκριβής is used here to describe proverbs as apt, accurate, as in Sir 16:25.¹³

6 Sir 23:7 παιδείαν στόματος ἀκούσατε τέκνα καὶ ὁ φυλάσσων οὐ μὴ ἁλῷ Listen, children, to instruction concerning the mouth; the one who observes it will never be caught (Sir 23:7, GI).

 GII inserts a sentence after Sir :: “Better is confidence in the one Lord than clinging with dead heart to a dead idol”.

Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira

57

In close proximity to this sentence is the first person prayer, concerning the sins of tongue and lust (Sir 22:27– 23:6), while in the wider context we find key passages on the adulterer (Sir 23:16 – 21) and the adulteress (Sir 23:22 – 27). The latter two demonstrate that sin will entail punishment and imply that those who know and also keep the commandments will avoid such traps (Sir 23:27: “Those who survive her will recognize that nothing is better than the fear of the Lord, and nothing sweeter than to heed the commandments of the Lord.”)

7 Sir 24:32 – 34 in the context of 24:23 – 34 Sir 24:32– 34 are not extant in Hebrew, their Greek translation reads as follows: ἔτι παιδείαν ὡς ὄρθρον φωτιῶ καὶ ἐκφανῶ αὐτὰ ἕως εἰς μακράν ἔτι διδασκαλίαν ὡς προφητείαν ἐκχεῶ καὶ καταλείψω αὐτὴν εἰς γενεὰς αἰώνων ἴδετε ὅτι οὐκ ἐμοὶ μόνῳ ἐκοπίασα ἀλλ᾽ ἅπασιν τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσιν αὐτήν. I will again illuminate instruction like the dawn, and I will shine them forth far off. I will again pour out teaching like prophecy and leave it behind for generations of eternity Observe that I have not laboured for myself alone, but for all who seek her (i. e. wisdom) (Sir 24:32– 34, GI).

The context of Sir 24:34 is significant. It follows the wisdom poem (Sir 24:1– 22) – considered by many the climax of the book – and precedes chapter 25 which has a number of key passages. In its narrower context Ben Sira likens the law of God to great rivers. The Torah overflows with wisdom as the life-giving rivers, Pishon or the Tigris, it runs over with understanding as the Euphrates and Jordan, and floods like the Nile and the Gihon, until it ends in a boundless ocean (verses 23 – 29) (Skehan and Di Lella 1987, 336 – 337). Verses 30 – 33 describe another stage in the mediation of wisdom: Ben Sira through his diligent study of the Torah, wisdom and prophecy benefitted from wisdom’s abundant river. He compares himself to a channel, whose task is to enlighten not only his contemporaries in Israel through his school of learning, but later generations in the Diaspora through his writing. As an additional metaphor, the metaphor of light also appears here in verse 32.¹⁴ Through his teaching “the sage converts verbal instruction into a luminous substance” (Goering 2015, 1). The combination of such metaphors emphasizes

 Van Peursen considers chapter  to be one of the eight poems that structure the book (Van Peursen , ). In Sir : the sage is blending the verbal and the visual (Goering ,  – ).

58

Ibolya Balla

that what Ben Sira transmits will be on the one hand life-giving water and, on the other, guidance which shines in the darkness. As opposed to drought and darkness considered so threatening in ancient Near-Eastern – including Israelite – thought, water and light are the utmost blessings and benefits one can receive. It is also noteworthy that following Sir 24:34 starts chapter 25 with many first person comments. In the numerical sayings the sage sums up the most important values of ones life – including relationships – that can be pleasing for humans and in the eyes of God. He states what he delights in (Sir 25:1), what he hates (Sir 25:2) and whom he call blessed. The concluding comment in Sir 25:11 on the fear of the Lord is relevant to the last line of the third numerical proverb (Sir 25:10b).¹⁵ In summary, while Sir 24 chapter starts with the self-praise of wisdom, it ends with the author’s confessions abounding in images that underline the significance of his activity, compared to prophecy. He acquired wisdom which he resolved to mediate in the present which will shine in the future.

8 Sir 33:16 – 18 These verses are found within Sir 33:7– 18 and their wider context (32:14– 33:18) is also worthy of note. Sir 33:7– 18 is completed with a strategical self-reference in verses 16 – 18: Nach meinen Unterlagen weicht der Text deutlich ab; Nach Balla Text richtig stellen bei Folgendem: ‫( ֲ ְע‬ein Mal), ‫( ֲ ֤ע‬drei Mal). […]‫ אח‬¹⁶‫]…[ני אחריו שקדתי וכמו עולל‬ […]‫ב]…[ת אל גם אני קדמתי וכבוצר מלאתי‬ […]‫]…[או כי לא לבדי עמלתי כי לכל מבקשי‬

The reconstructed Hebrew text reads on the basis of GI: [I am] the last to keep vigil (lit. I kept watch), as one gleaning [after] the grape-pickers; [By the blessing of] the Lord I made progress, and like a grape-gatherer I have filled a wine-press; [Take notice] that I have not toiled for myself alone, but for all who seek [instruction]. (33:16 – 18, MS E)

 Reiterer argues that through the reference to the fear of God in : –  the author has brought together the horizontal and vertical relationships (Reiterer , ).  The word ‫ עולל‬is from ‫( עלל‬to glean).

Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira

59

κἀγὼ ἔσχατος ἠγρύπνησα ὡς καλαμώμενος ὀπίσω τρυγητῶν ἐν εὐλογίᾳ κυρίου ἔφθασα καὶ ὡς τρυγῶν ἐπλήρωσα ληνόν κατανοήσατε ὅτι οὐκ ἐμοὶ μόνῳ ἐκοπίασα ἀλλὰ πᾶσιν τοῖς ζητοῦσιν παιδείαν I was the last to keep vigil (lit. I kept watch); I was like a gleaner following the grape-pickers; by the blessing of the Lord I arrived first, and like a grape-picker I filled a wine press. Consider that I have not laboured for myself alone, but for all who seek instruction. (33:16 – 18), GI)

In Sir 33:7– 18 the author begins with a series of distinctions within creation where everything comes in pairs (verse 15): by divine ordering some days are more important than others (7– 9), according to God’s will people walk different paths even though they are formed from the same clay (10 – 11), some God blesses and exults, others he curses and brings low (12). Verse 14 categorizes them as sinner and just/godly. Immediately following the statement that all the works of God come in pairs appears Ben Sira’s first person claim to be watchful, alert, as a watchman (Ps 127:1), like those, who glean in order not to miss anything. This reference introduces another aspect of his past activities for learning with the term ‫שקדתי‬. The result of the hard work is – as Sir 33:17 shows – that the author has made progress (‫)קדמתי‬. Since he frequented the company of elders and listened to the wise of past generations he filled his winepress in order to be able to impart wisdom to others. One of Ben Sira’s main objectives appears here again in the notion that his knowledge serves not only him but the benefit of others. His claim to have toiled is expressed in MS E with the verb ‫עמל‬, while the Greek employs κοπιάω, appearing also in Sir 24:34. The fact that God has blessed his efforts confirms in the context of Sir 33:16 – 18 that he is not simply claiming to be wise, to have toiled, but brackets himself with the righteous. The section following Sir 33:18 describes the sage as one who is worthy of the attention of others, including the mighty and influential (“Listen to me, leaders of the people, rulers of the assembly, give ear!” Skehan and Di Lella 1987, 402– 403). The verse preceding the wider context (Sir 32:14– 33:18) also attests to the importance of praising God for his abundant gifts among which wisdom and insight maybe supposed (Sir 32:13).

9 Sir 34:12 πολλὰ ἑώρακα ἐν τῇ ἀποπλανήσει μου καὶ πλείονα τῶν λόγων μου σύνεσίς μου I have seen many things in my travels, and I understand more than I can express (Sir 34:12, GI, Heb is not extant)

60

Ibolya Balla

In the context of Sir 34:1– 12 we find a contrast between the futility of following dreams or false hopes and education/experience, and the unit is followed by sayings on the fear of God (Sir 34:13 – 20). Verse 8 draws a parallel between the fulfillment of the law, faithfulness and complete wisdom. Verses 9 – 11 attest that learning from travelling is important. As a result, the following notions are in close proximity here: the authority of the law, fear of God, education, experience and wisdom.

10 Selected verses of Sir 38:24 – 39:11 The importance of the long section that compares the skilled worker and the scribe in Sir 38:24– 39:11 has been emphasized by many scholars. However, its context is also important. First let us turn to the final verses (Sir 39:5 – 11) of the unit before addressing what follows. Here the sage states that the Lord is the source of wisdom which he may impart to whom he pleases (Sir 39:6); if the sage is purified by prayer and by the pardoning of his sins (Sir 39:5) he will be filled with the spirit of understanding (πνεύματι συνέσεως ἐμπλησθήσεται, GI), which enables him to pour forth (ἀνομβρέω, GI) words of wisdom and praise the Lord, to direct (κατευθύνω) his counsel and knowledge, to meditate (διανοέομαι) and illuminate (ἐκφαίνω) instruction (Sir 39:6 – 8). His memory will be unfading, he will be spoken of by the congregation, and leaves a good name (Sir 39:9 – 11, GI). Even though the sage is not the subject here, the language describing his work is very similar to that of the first person sayings: wisdom as the gift of God has an effect on his earthly life and his memory. The following section in Sir 39:12– 35 is the praise of God and the creation. It starts and ends with first person references (verse 12 and verses 32– 35, respectively). ἔτι διανοηθεὶς ἐκδιηγήσομαι καὶ ὡς διχομηνία ἐπληρώθην Still, what I considered/thought over, I will tell in detail; I was filled like the full moon. (Sir 39:12, only in GI) ‫ והתבוננתי ובכתב הנחתי‬¹⁷‫על כן מראש התי]…[בתי‬ So from the beginning I [took my stand] and gave attention and layed (it) down in writing (39:32, MS B) διὰ τοῦτο ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐστηρίχθην καὶ διενοήθην καὶ ἐν γραφῇ ἀφῆκα

 The probable reading is “I took my stand” (Skehan and Di Lella , , ).

Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira

61

So from the beginning I have been convinced of all this and have thought it out and left it in writing (Sir 39:32, GI)

Between these verses we find the exhortation to praise the Creator and his works (Sir 39:13 – 31). The significance of Sir 39:12– 35 can be summed up as follows: metaphors of water and plants (Sir 39:13 – 14) and references to the Nile and the Euphrates (Sir 39:22) have already appeared in Sirach 24 to combine the praise of Torah and the activity of the author. In chapter 39, however the “faithful children”, the recipients of such blessings are depicted as growing like roses planted near running waters. Ben Sira introduces another metaphor to emphasize the ability and eagerness of the wise to recount the wonders of creation by using the image of the full moon (Sir 39:12). In chapter 24 the shining of his teachings is only compared to dawn, while here the language reminds one to that used about Simeon the high priest (Sir 50:6).¹⁸ The rich vocabulary of past learning and experiencing includes here the verbs ‫יצב‬, ‫ נין‬and ‫ נוח‬in the Hebrew, and στηρίζω in Greek apart from those generally used by Ben Sira in other passages. Those, who are willing to pray, learn and impart knowledge to others have the greatest task and privilege to “sing praise with all […their heart] and voice, and bless the name of the Lord”. (Sir 39:35, GI)

11 Sir 42:15 in the context of Sir 42:15 – 43:33 ¹⁹‫אזכר נא מעשי אל וזה חזיתי ואספרה‬ Now I will recall the works of God, and what I have seen, I will recount (Sir 42:15ab, MS B) μνησθήσομαι δὴ τὰ ἔργα κυρίου καὶ ἃ ἑόρακα ἐκδιηγήσομαι I will bring into memory the works of the Lord, what I have seen, I will tell (Sir 42:15, GI) Sir 43:32– 33: ‫רוב]…[לה מע]…[ ראתי ממעשיו‬ [Beyond] these many things [lie hid], a [few] of his works have I seen (Sir 43:32– 33, reconstructed MS B)²⁰ πολλὰ ἀπόκρυφά ἐστιν μείζονα τούτων ὀλίγα γὰρ ἑωράκαμεν τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ πάντα γὰρ ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος καὶ τοῖς εὐσεβέσιν ἔδωκεν σοφίαν

 The terms are different in Sir :.  MS M reads for this word “I will repeat” from the verb ‫שׁנה‬.  The Hebrew text of verse  only contains a corrupted text: […] […]‫את הכל‬.

62

Ibolya Balla

Many things greater than these lie hidden, for I have seen but few of his works. For the Lord has made all things, and to the godly he has given wisdom. (Sir 43:32– 33, GI)

In detailing the greatness of creation in Sir 42:15 – 43:33, 42:15 and 43:32– 33 are especially noteworthy. An inclusio is formed by the first (Sir 42:15) and the second final sentence (Sir 43:32), which also contain self-references. The declaration that the sage has seen some of the wonders of creation is followed by the assertion that God has granted wisdom to the godly (Sir 43:33, G). These godly appear in the following verse (Sir 44:1) that starts the praise of Israel’s ancestors (Sir 44– 50). Along with Sir 15:9 – 10, which implies that the wise is able to praise the Lord – in contrast with the wicked who is excluded from it (Marböck 1983, 271– 276) – the overall message of Sir 42:15 – 43:33 includes the claim underlined elsewhere that Ben Sira has counted himself among the godly. Even though Sir 43:27– 31 clearly says that human words cannot express the greatness of God’s power and creation (verse 27: “…He is the all”), the sage through his extensive life experiences was – as his students may also be – able to look into some aspects of it.²¹

12 Sir 50:27 in the context of Sir 50:27 – 29 Following the Laus Patrum the postscript of the book also deserves attention. Within it is found Sir 50:27 which refers to the author in the third person. Its Hebrew text in MS B needs reconstruction, since especially verse 27d almost repeats verse 27c. ‫מוסר שכל ומושל אופנים … ואשר הביע בתבונות‬ Prudent instruction and smooth-running (from “wheels”) [proverbs]²²… who poured (them) out from his understanding […]²³ (Sir 50:27ad, MS B)²⁴ παιδείαν συνέσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης ἐχάραξεν²⁵ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ… ὃς ἀνώμβρησεν σοφίαν ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτοῦ

 We may also note that Ben Sira’s assertion to have seen some of God’s works follows the very question of “who has seen him and describe him”, which uses the verbs generally referring to the sage himself: “ὁράω and ἐκδιηγέομαι”.  The text requires the plur. cstr. form of ‫“( משׁל‬proverb”) here.  It is probable that the word ‫“( לבו‬his heart”) stood here.  The Hebrew text of Sir :c is corrupt.  Some Greek manuscripts contain the verb in the first person singular (Ziegler , ).

Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira

63

Instruction of understanding and knowledge are inscribed in this book… who poured forth wisdom from his heart (Sir 50:27abd, GI)

Despite the corruption of the Hebrew text the sentence can be reconstructed on the basis of the Greek as follows: “Instruction in wise conduct and smooth-running proverbs of … (name of sage) who poured (them) out from his understanding heart” (Skehan and Di Lella 1987, 556 – 557). The line contains the verb ‫ נבע‬for pouring out as in Sir 16:25. The Greek term translating it is ἀνομβρέω which is employed in Sir 18:29 and Sir 39:6. Even though the latter two are only extant in Greek, ‫ נבע‬may have appeared in their respective original texts. If we consider Sir 10:13 where ‫ נבע‬is rendered with ἐξομβρέω, having the meaning “to pour out” we may see a tendency to translate ‫ נבע‬with ἀνομβρέω or ἐξομβρέω. In the Greek version of Sir 50:27 the sage states that the teachings that are collected in his book for later generations include: instruction of understanding and knowledge (παιδείαν συνέσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης). The weight of such instructions is underlined by the verses that follow in verses 28 – 29 which include the following ideas: those who consider and take the author’s teachings to heart will find life (“the fear of the Lord is life”, verse 29, MS B), and will have strength for everything/anything (verse 29, GI). The latter may imply that the wise of God may have to face the challenges of Hellenism and decide whether to remain faithful to Israel’s religion and values.

13 Sir 51:16.27 in the context of Sir 51:13 – 30 Sir 51:13 – 30 is an autobiographical poem describing – in sometimes erotic confessions – the personal journey of the sage who searches for wisdom and attains to her. Only two comments are highlighted here containing the ideas of listening and learning. ²⁶‫הטיתי כמעט אוזני והרבה מצאתי לקח‬ I paid heed (lit. I turned/inclined my ear) (for) a little (time), and I found much learning/ instruction (Sir 51:16, 11Q5/11QPsa) ἔκλινα ὀλίγον τὸ οὖς μου καὶ ἐδεξάμην καὶ πολλὴν εὗρον ἐμαυτῷ παιδείαν

 This verse differs in MS B: “And I said a prayer (lit. prayed a prayer) in my youth and found much knowledge” (‫)ואתפלל תפלה בנערותי והרבה מחאתי דעה‬. The word ‫ לקט‬in Prov : may be understood as “persuasive words”. Cf. Prov :.

64

Ibolya Balla

I inclined my ear a little, and I received, and I found for myself much instruction (Sir 51:16, GI). ‫ראו בעיניכם כי קטן הייתי ועמדתי בה ומצאתיה‬ See for yourselves, that I have accomplished (lit. became, from the verb “to be/become”) little, and I served her/waited on her and found her (Sir 51:27, MS B).²⁷ ἴδετε ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ὑμῶν ὅτι ὀλίγον ἐκοπίασα καὶ εὗρον ἐμαυτῷ πολλὴν ἀνάπαυσιν See with your eyes that I have toiled little and I found for myself great rest (Sir 51:27, GI)

Following the first half of the poem relating the past in which Ben Sira has sought wisdom (Sir 51:13 – 22) in Sir 51:23 – 30 he appears as a wisdom teacher who invites the “foolish” ‫ )סכלים‬or “unlearned” to attend to him “in my house of instruction” (‫בבית מדרשי‬, Sir 51:23).²⁸ The author, similarly to wisdom, who exalted the wise above his fellows in Sir 15:5a, exalts himself above those who do not know her. Through his diligent studies he is now in the position to offer priceless gifts to those who are willing to take up wisdom’s yoke. The Greek word in Sir 50:27 to refer to past experiences is again ἐκοπίασα (“I have toiled/laboured”). Even though the Hebrew text of Sir 50:27 does not contain the word ‫“( עמל‬to toil”), some suggests it may have been the original word behind ‫“(עמד‬to stand”, “to serve”). This way the vocabulary for toiling in Hebrew would be the same in Sir 33:18 and 51:27, and in the Greek text of Sir 24:34, 33:18 and 51:27. The placement of Sir 51:13 – 30 is also interesting since it represents a development: in Sir 1:1– 10 wisdom’s greatness is praised in the third person, in Sirach 24 wisdom praises herself in the first person, in Sir 51:13 – 30 the first person finally belongs to the author of the acrostic poem (Sauer 1999, 51– 61, especially 53). Here, while wisdom and seeking her is the main theme, one has the impression that – compared with other poems in the book – the author is also at the centre of attention. His life, his search, his toiling, his learning are emphasised in this, the most personal wisdom poem which is the only one to refer to the school of learning.

 Skehan and Di Lella translates Sir :b as: “but have found much” (Skehan and Di Lella , , ). Deutsch suggests the following reading: “See with your eyes, I was young, yet I laboured in her and found her”, correcting the verb ‫ עמד‬to ‫“( עמל‬to labour”) (Deutsch , ).  The text of GI is almost the same: “in the house of instruction”.

Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira

65

14 Conclusions In all the passages that deal with scribes/sages in general or have autobiographical references it is apparent that Ben Sira places great emphasis on his own role as a wise teacher, on the authority of his instruction and on his work being inspired and comparable with prophecy. While wisdom ultimately comes from God, the sage also appears as a source or fountain of wisdom/knowledge. His sagely activity has an effect on future generations, both through his verbal training in his school and his writing, since it will enable them above all to praise God, speak wisely and face temptations and challenges of various kinds (Crenshaw 1981, 159). As one of the godly, Ben Sira leads people to gain life by learning and keeping God’s commandments. While the wisdom poems have their own particular character, towards the end of the book they become more and more personal until the sage is in centre stage in Sir 51:13 – 30 where his personal journey appears as a point of reference and encouragement, assuring the students of the rewards God will give them in his own time. The vocabulary used about gaining wisdom/knowledge and passing it on is also noteworthy. The nouns representing what is imparted by Ben Sira are varied. Apart from wisdom (‫)חכמה‬, (σοφία), instruction/discipline (‫)מוסר‬, (παιδεία), knowledge (‫)דע‬, (ἐπιστήμη), teaching (διδασκαλία), understanding/comprehension (‫)תבונה‬, (σύνεσις), proverb (‫)משׁל‬, the following terms also appear: learning/instruction (‫)לקח‬, opinion/decision/intent (γνώμη), advice/counsel (συμβούλιον), spirit (‫)רוח‬. The verbs describing Ben Sira’s past sagely activity and experiences are also diverse: to see (‫)ראה‬, (‫)חזה‬, (ὁράω), to hear (‫)שמע‬, (ἀκούω), to toil /labour (‫)עמל‬, (κοπιάω), to keep vigil/watch, to be alert (‫)שקד‬, (ἀγρυπνέω), to make progress (‫)קדמ‬, to arrive/come first (φθάνω), to fill (‫)מלא‬, (πληρόω), to be convinced (στηρίζω), to think over (διανοέομαι), to leave (ἀφίημι), to inscribe (χαράσσω), to incline/turn (ear) (‫)נטה‬, (κλίνω), to find (‫)מצא‬, (εὑρίσκω), to receive (δέχομαι), to consider/think over (διανοέομαι), to take one’s stand (‫)יצב‬, to give attention (‫)בין‬, to lay/set down (‫)נוח‬. Present and future teaching is also expressed with a number of different terms: to pour out (‫)נבע‬, (ἀνομβρέω), (ἐκχέω), to bring to light/shine forth or illuminate (ἐκφαίνω), (φωτίζω), to proclaim/declare (‫)חוה‬, (ἀπαγγέλλω), to leave behind (καταλείπω), to be full (πληρόω), to tell (ἐκδιηγέομαι), to call to mind/ bring into memory (‫( )זכר‬μνησθήσομαι), to recount (‫)ספר‬, to repeat (‫)שׁנה‬, to lead/direct (e. g. counsel) (κατευθύνω). Such a wide range of vocabulary and the use of various metaphors suggest that Ben Sira has employed all he could at his disposal to disclose all he learnt about God, his creation, the characteris-

66

Ibolya Balla

tics of human nature in order to equip his students so that they may have strength for everything, for all the challenges they may face.

Source List Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1997. 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. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 68. Leiden: Brill. Beentjes, Pancratius C. 2006. “Prophets and Prophecy in the Book of Ben Sira.” In“Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20). Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira, edited by Pancratius C. Beentjes, 207 – 229. Leuven: Peeters. Crenshaw, James L. 1981. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. London: SCM Press. Deutsch, Celia. 1982. “The Sirach 51 Acrostic. Confession and Exhortation.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94:400 – 409. Goering, Greg Schmidt. 2015. Sapiential Synesthesia: The Confluence of Light and Word in Ben Sira’s Wisdom Instruction, Lévi, Israel. 1904. The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Semitic Study Series 3. Leiden: Brill. Liesen, J. 1999. “Strategical Self-References in Ben Sira,” In Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom: Festschrift M. Gilbert, edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and JacquesVermeylen, 63 – 74. Leuven: Peeters. Marböck, Johannes. 1983. “Sir 15,9 f. – Ansätze zu einer Theologie des Gotteslobes bei Jesus Sirach.” In Meqor Hajjim. Festschrift für Georg Molin zu seinem 75. Geburtstag, edited by Irmtraut Seybold, 267 – 276. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. Murphy, Roland E. 2002. The Tree of Life. An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Perdue, Leo, G. 2007. Wisdom Literature. A Theological History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Peursen, Wido Th. van. 2006. “Clause Hierarchy and Discourse Structure in the Syriac Text of Sirach 14:20 – 27.” In Text, Translation, and Tradition. Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his Sixty Fifth Birthday, edited by W. Th. van Peursen and R. B. Ter Haar Romenyi, 135 – 148. Leiden: Brill. Rabinowitz, Isaac. 1971. “The Qumran Hebrew Original of Ben Sira’s Concluding Acrostic on Wisdom.” Hebrew Union College Annual 42:173 – 184. Reiterer, Friedrich V. 1996. “Gelungene Freundschaft als tragende Säule einer Gesellschaft. Exegetische Untersuchung von Sir 25,1 – 11.” In Freundschaft bei Ben Sira. Beiträge des Symposions zu Ben Sira, Salzburg 1995, edited by Friedrich Vinzenz Reiterer, 133 – 169. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Rüger, Hans Peter. 1970. Text und Textform im hebräischen Sirach. Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Textkritik der hebräischen Sirachfragmente aus der Kairoer Geniza. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Sanders, J. A. 1965. “Sirach 51:13 ff.” In The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (11QPSa), edited by J. A. Sanders, 79 – 85, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Past, Present and Future in the Book of Ben Sira

67

Sauer, Georg. 1999. “Gedanken über den Thematischen Aufbau des Buches Ben Sira.” In Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom: Festschrift M. Gilbert, edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen, 51 – 61. Leuven: Peeters. Skehan, Patrick W. 1971. “The Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51:13 – 30.” Harvard Theological Review 64:387 – 400. Skehan, Patrick W. 1987. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary by Alexander A. Di Lella. AncB 39. New York: Doubleday. Wright, Benjamin G. 2004. “Wisdom, Instruction, and Social Location in Sirach and 1 Enoch.” In Things Revealed. Studies in Early Jewish and Christian Literature in Honor of Michael E. Stone, edited by Esther G. Chazon, David Satran and Ruth A. Clements, 105 – 121. Leiden: Brill. Wright, Benjamin G. 2007. “Sirach: Introduction and Translation.” In A New English Translation of the Septuagint, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, 715 – 762. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ziegler, Joseph. 1965. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta 12. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Gideon R. Kotzé

A Text-Critical Examination of Different Readings in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19) Abstract: This study provides a text-critical analysis of the variant readings ‫ מרודיה‬and τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά in the Hebrew and Greek texts of Sir 35:18 (32:19). The following three assumptions form the analysis’s point of departure: 1. More than one reading in textual representatives can be meaningful in the communication of a passage. 2. The historical contexts in which the writings were committed to writing and were transmitted in written versions (copies and translations), the processes of transmission and literary features influenced the shape of the wordings (and therefore what and how the writing communicated). 3. Language and literature are part and parcel of the cultures of the people who were responsible for the development of the literary writings. With these assumptions in mind, the study’s text-critical analysis attempts to determine how the two variant readings came into being and how they affect the content of the passage. It focuses primarily on the features of the Greek translation’s wording, in comparison with the available Hebrew text (Cairo Geniza MS B), and cultural information that can shed light on the reading ‫ מרודיה‬in the Hebrew wording of the passage. The analysis concludes that neither reading probably resulted from a scribal error. Although the Hebrew reading might be more original than its Greek equivalent, both readings make sense in the literary context of the passage. Keywords: Ben Sira, Textual Criticism, Text-Critical Examination, Philology.

1 Introduction The discipline of textual criticism forms part of the philological study of the meaning of literary writings. Text-critical analyses of an early Jewish literary writing do not only examine, explain and evaluate the differences and difficulties in the wordings of the available textual representatives, but also establish the effects of these wordings on the content of the writing in question. Determining the most plausible explanations for the creation of readings and how they impact on the content of a passage involves the investigation of ancient scribal practices in copying and translating literary writings, as well as the general

70

Gideon R. Kotzé

sense(s) of words, their use in literary contexts, the connotations of words and the referents in the world (as culturally construed) that they can denote.¹ Three assumptions guide such investigations. The first assumption is that more than one of the variant readings in the textual representatives can potentially fulfil a meaningful function in the communication of a passage.² The exceptions would be readings that arose as a result of certain scribal errors. From such a perspective, the putative “original” version of an early Jewish writing’s wording is an important object of philological study, but certainly not the only one worthy of the philologist’s attention.³ Secondly, it is assumed that the historical contexts in which the contents of a composition came into being, were committed to writing and were transmitted in written versions (copies and translations), the processes that were employed in transmitting the written versions, as well as the literary features of the composition (for example, its language[s], genre[s], poetic and prose characteristics, translation technique, etc.) influenced the shape of its wording(s). Accordingly, these contexts, processes and features contribute to what and how an early Jewish literary writing communicated.

 According to Würthwein and Fischer (, ), contextual factors such as “position, vocabulary, grammar, style, and, for poetical texts, colometry, as well as (theological and) historical background” are important internal criteria by which variant readings are assessed. Tov (, ; ,  – ) argues that “[t]he quintessence of textual evaluation is the selection from the different transmitted readings of the one that is the most appropriate to its context. Within this selection process, the concept of the “context” is taken in a broad sense, as referring to the language, style, and content of both the immediate context and of the literary unit in which the reading is found … Since the context is taken in a wide sense, scholars have to refer to data and arguments bearing on different aspects of the text, and hence to different disciplines: the language and vocabulary of literary units and of Scripture as a whole, the exegesis of verses, chapters, and books, and the general content and ideas of a given unit or book. In addition to these, the scholar must be aware of the intricacies of textual transmission, and in particular, of the types of errors made in the course of that process”.  Text-critics can treat the versions of early Jewish writings in their languages of composition, as well as the ancient translations of these writings as written forms of communication. In this regard, see, for example, the discussion on the Septuagint translations as acts of communicating the wording and content of their Semitic Vorlage by Gauthier (,  – ). For this discussion, Gauthier draws on insights of Relevance Theory.  For the purposes of this study, the “original text” of an early Jewish writing refers to the earliest wording of its passages that can be attained by scholars based on their evaluations of readings in the extant textual representatives and conjectural emendations. In other words, the “original text” is “the wording of a text which lay at the basis of attested differences between the witnesses, including different ‘editions’ of a given passage, or of the book concerned” (van der Kooij , ).

A Text-Critical Examination of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19)

71

The third assumption is related to the second one; language and literature are part and parcel of the cultures of the people who were responsible for the development of the literary writings. Language and literature are intricately connected in mutually influential relationships with other cultural aspects such as art, economy, environment, laws, political and social organisation, religion, technology and worldview. This implies, for example, that the analysis of the texts of an early Jewish writing should not be conducted in isolation from the study of other sources of knowledge on the culture that produced the literary writing in question. Examples of such sources include the various artefacts that have come to light through archaeological endeavours, the visual material investigated and elucidated by specialists in iconography, ancient literary writings of neighbouring cultures, inscriptions and non-literary documents. With these three assumptions as its point of departure, this study singles out interesting variant readings in the Hebrew and Greek texts of Sir 35:18 (32:19) for a text-critical examination.⁴ The goal of the study is to gain a better understanding of the different wordings exhibited by the verse’s Hebrew and Greek textual representatives. In keeping with the philological concerns of textual criticism, such a better understanding pertains not only to the creation of variant readings (which one of the readings developed from the other one), but also to their impact on the content of the verse in the context of the passage.

 The wordings of the passage in the Peshitta and the Vulgate versions are also interesting. These textual representatives are not considered in this study, seeing as they do not have equivalents for the readings ‫מרודיה‬/ τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά, which are the focus of the study. The Syriac text in Codex Ambrosianus (Ceriani  – , ) shows a minus compared with the wordJ Ā , “He ings of MS B and the Greek translation: ðã«ü ¿ÿàâĂ~ƒ ¿šÍߖ† ¾âÿ؃ ¿ÿùå~ úÂü does not dismiss the groan of the orphan and he hears the prayer of widows”. The wording of the Vulgate in the edition of Weber (, ) exhibits both a plus and a minus: non despiciet preces pupilli nec viduam si effundat loquellam gemitus nonne lacrima ad maxillam descendit et exclamatio a maxilla ascendit et Dominus exauditor delectans in illis, “He will not despise the prayers of the orphan, nor the widow, if she pours out a groan. Does a tear not run down the cheek and a cry rise up from the cheek, while the Lord who hears delights in them?” Some manuscripts of the Latin text, however, have the words eius super deducentem eas after exclamatio in accordance with the reading in LXX-Sir  (): .

72

Gideon R. Kotzé

2 The Hebrew and Greek textual representatives of Sir 35:17 – 18 (32:17 – 19) Sir 35:17– 18 (Cairo Geniza MS B)⁵ ‫לא יטש צעקת יתום ואלמנה כי תרבה שיח‬ ‫הלא דמעה על לחי תרד ואנחה על מרודיה‬ He will not disregard an orphan’s cry, nor a widow, if she multiplies speech. Does a tear not run down upon a cheek, with groaning over her homelessness?

LXX-Sir 32 (35):17– 19⁶ οὐ μὴ ὑπερίδῃ ἱκετείαν ὀρφανοῦ καὶ χήραν, ἐὰν ἐκχέῃ λαλιάν· οὐχὶ δάκρυα χήρας ἐπὶ σιαγόνα καταβαίνει καὶ ἡ καταβόησις ἐπὶ τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά; He will never ignore an orphan’s supplication, nor a widow, if she pours out speech. Do not a widow’s tears run down upon her cheek, and is not her cry against the one who drew them down? (Wright 2007, 748)

The focus of this study is an examination of only the variants τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά (“the one who drew them down”) and ‫“( מרודיה‬her homelessness”). The Greek reading seems to be based on a form such as ‫( מורדיה‬a Hiphil participle of ‫ ירד‬with a third-person feminine singular suffix).⁷ Either ‫ מרודיה‬was found in the Vorlage and misread or interpreted as ‫ מורדיה‬during the translation process, or this reading was already in the Hebrew parent text of the Greek transla For the Hebrew text of the passage, see Beentjes (, ); Levi (, ); Schechter and Taylor (, ); and the text in the commentary of Segal (, ). The verse numbers of the Hebrew text in this study refer to Beentjes’ edition. For the final word of the quoted passage, Beentjes’ edition has ‫מרודית‬, but the other editions have the correct reading: ‫מרודיה‬. The edition of Ben Sira’s Hebrew text edited by Smend (a, ) includes two differences when compared to the wording of MS B. Instead of ‫תרבה‬, Smend favours the reading in the margin of the manuscript: ‫תחבט‬. He also emends ‫ מרודיה‬to read ‫ מורדיה‬in accordance with the Greek reading τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά (Smend b,  – ).  See Ziegler (, ); and Rahlfs (, ). The chapter and verse numbers of the Greek wording are quoted from the edition of Ziegler. Reiterer (,  – ) notes that a Blattvertauschung is the probable cause for the displacement of chapters in the Greek textual representatives.  See Smend (b, ). Other scholars suggest that the Greek reading presupposes the form ‫( מורידה‬Skehan and Di Lella , ; Segal , ; Lévi , ).

A Text-Critical Examination of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19)

73

tion. In the first scenario, τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά would be a secondary reading. In the second scenario, however, the readings ‫ מרודיה‬in MS B and ‫ מורדיה‬in the Hebrew Vorlage of the Greek translation would have equal claim to being the more original form, seeing as the only difference between them is the position of the vowel indicator waw. A simple metathesis can easily explain both readings. In order to determine which one of these scenarios presents the most plausible explanation for the creation of the variant readings in the Hebrew and Greek textual representatives and how the different wordings of the verse affect the content of the passage, the study examines, first, the outstanding literary features of the Greek text of Sir 32 (35):17– 19, when compared with the available Hebrew wording in MS B.⁸ Secondly, after commenting on the contribution of τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά to the content of the passage’s Greek wording, the study proceeds to examine ‫ מרודיה‬by drawing on cultural information that can shed light on the meaningfulness of this word in the context of the Hebrew wording.

2.1 The Translation Features of LXX-Sir 32 (35):17 – 19 A comparison between the Greek text and Hebrew wording of MS B reveals some noteworthy features of the translation. In all three verses, the clauses of the Greek translation exhibit the same word order as their counterparts in the Hebrew text and all the clause constituents of the Hebrew cola are represented in the Greek wording. In verse 17, the translator accurately rendered ‫ לא יטש‬and the conditional clause introduced by the conjunction ‫ כי‬with subjunctive clauses. In the first colon of the verse, the speaker characterises the Lord in terms of his treatment of an orphan. The negative particle plus yiqtol verb contribute to this characterisation by denying the possibility that the deity will disregard a parentless

 The literary features of LXX-Sir  ():  –  refer to the way in which the task of translation was executed in this particular passage (how the wording of the Hebrew parent text was interpreted during the translation process, the faithfulness of the translator’s renderings, the degree to which he reproduced formal features of his Hebrew Vorlage and the liberties he allowed himself in creating the translation). Regarding the translation profile of LXX-Sir in general, see Wright (,  – ; ,  – ). See also Wright (,  – ) on how the translation treats the word order of the Hebrew parent text, the extent to which it reproduces every constituent part of Hebrew words (segmentation), its quantitative representation of clause constituents, and its consistency of lexical choices. According to Wright (, ), LXX-Sir exhibits a wordfor-word translation approach without necessarily being mechanical. Regarding the dating, historical and cultural contexts of LXX-Sir, as well as the inner-Greek developments exhibited by the textual representatives, see Reiterer (,  – ).

74

Gideon R. Kotzé

child’s cry for help. Similarly, in the Greek text, the combination of οὐ μή and the aorist subjunctive verb ὑπερίδῃ expresses emphatic negation and rules out the possibility that the Lord will ignore the supplication of an orphan. The subordinate clause ἐὰν ἐκχέῃ λαλιάν indicates a likely future action and is an appropriate translation for the protasis of a real conditional clause (‫ כי‬followed by a yiqtol verb expresses a condition in which an event has the possibility of taking place). If the translation’s Hebrew Vorlage contained the reading ‫ תרבה‬as in MS B, ἐκχέῃ would not be a literal rendering. Besides the possibility that the translator decided upon a free translation equivalent, there are also other explanations that could account for the Greek reading.⁹ With regard to verse 18, the negative particle οὐχί is used here in a rhetorical question that implies an affirmative answer. It is a faithful translation of the Hebrew interrogative ‫הלא‬. The translator rendered ‫ דמעה‬with a plural equivalent, δάκρυα, and understood it as the referent of the third-person feminine singular suffix of his Vorlage’s counterpart of ‫ מרודיה‬in verse 19.¹⁰ Accordingly, the suffix was translated with a plural personal pronoun, αὐτά. These number adjustments do not presuppose different readings in the translator’s Hebrew Vorlage. There is also an explicating plus in verse 18: χήρας. By including this genitive, the wording of the translation makes explicit that the tears belong to a widow. This information is implicit in the Hebrew text.¹¹ The translator rendered the colon of verse 19 as a verbless clause in Greek, joined to the previous clause by the coordinating conjunction καί. Conversely, the waw of ‫ואנחה‬, in the Hebrew wording of MS B, can be interpreted as a subordinating conjunction that introduces a circumstantial clause. Furthermore, the choice of ἡ καταβόησις as the translation equivalent of ‫ אנחה‬is noteworthy, be-

 Smend, (b, ) notes that ἐκχέῃ is not a rendering of ‫תרבה‬. Seeing as the Syriac verbal root ÔÂÏ , “to beat down” is sometimes used to describe hail and rain, Smend argues that ‫תחבט‬, written in the margin of MS B, might be the original reading. It is possible that the Hebrew parent text of the Greek translation also contained this reading and that the translator understood the Hebrew verb in a similar manner as its Syriac counterpart. Another possibility would be that the translator rendered the clause with ‫ שיח‬in his Vorlage of Sir : in the same way or under the influence of a phrase such as ‫ אל תשפך שיח‬in Sir : (cf. the different Hebrew wordings of this verse in MSS B and F in Beentjes , ) However, in view of the different literary contexts of these two passages, this seems to be a very remote possibility.  In the Hebrew text of MS B, the suffix of ‫ מרודיה‬refers to ‫אלמנה‬.  For a different interpretation of the Hebrew wording of the colon, see Smend (b, ).

A Text-Critical Examination of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19)

75

cause this noun is not used elsewhere in the Greek translations of Hebrew Bible writings or other Greek Jewish writings included in the Septuagint.¹² Judging from this comparison, the Hebrew Vorlage of LXX-Sir 32 (35):17– 19 was probably not very different from the wording preserved in MS B and the translator appears to have put some thought into the rendering of it into Greek. The Greek wording of the passage is intelligible and the readings do not seem to have been chosen mechanically. The reading τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά is not an exception. The nature of the Greek translation of the passage makes it unlikely that the Vorlage’s text was misinterpreted during the translation process. Therefore, the reading in the Hebrew parent text was, in all probability, ‫מורדיה‬. Τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά can be regarded as the translator’s attempt to find a meaningful interpretation for this reading in the context of the passage. It makes sense to say that a widow cries out for help against someone who causes tears to run down her cheek.¹³ Although τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά contributes to the intelligibility of the passage’s content, the referent of the phrase is left unspecified and, as a result, the reading is quite vague.

2.2 The Reading ‫ מרודיה‬in View of Cultural Information The word ‫מרוד‬, “homelessness, wandering”, is probably derived from the root ‫רוד‬ and appears not only in Sir 35:18, but also in three passages in Hebrew Bible writings: Isa 58:7; Lam 1:7; 3:19 (Koehler and Baumgartner 2001, 633; Brown, Driver, and Briggs 1906, 924). The texts of the two Lamentations passages in which ‫ מרוד‬features, present difficulties to interpreters. There are stark differences between the Hebrew textual representatives of Lam 1:7, 4QLam and the MT, and text-critics differ in opinion on how to explain the variations in wording.¹⁴ Schol-

 See Muraoka (, ); and Lust, Eynikel, and Hauspie (, ). The word is, however, used, inter alia, by Philo and Josephus. See Philo, Flacc. , ; Josephus, Vita , ; , ; , ; , .  The clauses about the widow in LXX-Sir  (): –  form part of a passage (LXX-Sir  []: – ) that deals with the relationship between sacrifices and righteous behaviour, the attitude with which sacrifices are made and the warning not to bribe the Lord or to count on unrighteous sacrifices. Ben Sira motivates this warning by characterising the deity as a judge who does not show favouritism. The implication might be that the Lord will not be party to pursuits that are at the expense of people. His favourable treatment of, inter alia, the orphan’s supplication and widow’s cry exemplifies this. On the passage, see the comments of Reiterer (, ).  The Hebrew wordings in the two textual representatives are as follows: QLam (Col. II Frg. ): ‫זכ ֯ורה יהוה ]כו[ל מכאובנו אשר היו מימי קדם בנפל ]עמ[ה ביד צר ואין עוזר צריה שחקו על ]כו[ל‬ ‫ ;משבריה‬MT: ‫פל ַעָּמּה ְבּ ַיד־ָצר ְוֵאין עֹו ֵזר ָלּה‬ ֹ ‫ָזְכ ָרה ְירוּ ָ ׁשִלם ְיֵמי ָע ְנ ָיּה וְּמרוּ ֶדיָה ֹכּל ַמֲחֻמ ֶדיָה ֲא ֶ ׁשר ָהיוּ ִמיֵמי ֶק ֶדם ִּב ְנ‬

76

Gideon R. Kotzé

ars also do not agree on how to interpret the ambiguous wording of MT Lam 3:19.¹⁵ The Greek renderings of ‫ מרודיה‬in these verses, ἀπωσμῶν αὐτῆς in LXXLam 1:7, and ἐκ διωγμοῦ μου, in LXX-Lam 3:19, are unique and it is not surprising that they have elicited different explanations from scholars.¹⁶ The bicolon from Isa 58:7 is preserved in more than one Hebrew textual representative (1QIsaa; 1QIsab and MT manuscripts).¹⁷ The bicolon in which ‫ מרוד‬is used, forms part ‫( ָראוָּה ָצ ִרים ָׂשֲחקוּ ַעל ִמ ְ ׁש ַּב ֶּתָה‬Schäfer , ; Cross , ). Regarding the differences between the Hebrew versions of Lam :, see Kotzé (,  – ).  The MT version of the verse’s Hebrew text is ‫( ְזָכר־ָע ְניִי וְּמרוּ ִדי ַלֲע ָנה ָור ֹאשׁ‬Schäfer , ). The opening word is usually interpreted as either an infinitive construct or an imperative. In the case of the former, the infinitive construct and its two complements, ‫ ָע ְניִי‬and ‫ְמרוּ ִדי‬, form the subject of a nominal clause, while ‫ ַלֲע ָנה ָור ֹאשׁ‬would be the predicate: “To remember my misery and homelessness is wormwood and gall” (cf. Salters , ; Schäfer , *; Berges , ; Kraus , ; Gottlieb ,  – ). If ‫ ְזָכר‬is understood as an imperative, this verb would have two pairs of objects: “Remember my misery and homelessness, wormwood and gall” (cf. House , ; Berlin , ; Renkema , ; Albrektson ,  – ). In order to remove the doubt regarding the interpretation of the word, Rudolph (, ) suggests that it is best vocalised as a noun, ‫ ֵזֶכר‬.  With regard to the reading in LXX Lam :, see Kotzé (,  n. ). LXX Lam : presents an interesting rendering of the Hebrew wording of the verse: ἐμνήσθην ἀπὸ πτωχείας μου καὶ ἐκ διωγμοῦ μου πικρίας καὶ χολῆς μου. According to one interpretation of the translation, the words ἐμνήσθην ἀπὸ πτωχείας μου καὶ ἐκ διωγμοῦ μου constitute one clause and the genitives πικρίας and χολῆς serve as the direct objects of the verb μνησθήσεται, the translation equivalent of the infinitive absolute phrase ‫ זכור תזכור‬in v.  (Hirsch-Luipold and Maier , ; Gentry , ; Ziegler , ): “I remembered from my poverty and out of my persecution; bitterness and gall it [my soul] will remember”. Another interpretation takes πικρίας and χολῆς as the objects of ἐμνήσθην (Assan-Dhôte and Moatti-Fine , ; Rahlfs , ): “I remembered, from my poverty and out of my persecution, bitterness and gall”. Some scholars suggest that the Greek translation was based on a Hebrew source text that was different from the wording of the MT. C.f., for example, Hillers (, ); Robinson (, ). It is also possible, however, that the readings in LXX-Lam :, which differ from those in the available Hebrew textual representatives, were created as part of the translator’s unique interpretation of the difficult Hebrew clauses (cf. Rudolph , ). With regard to καὶ ἐκ διωγμοῦ μου, the translation equivalent of ‫ומרודי‬, it appears as though the translator understood the mem of the Hebrew reading as an assimilated preposition ‫ מן‬and derived the rest of the form from the root ‫רדה‬, “to tread, rule, drive, chase” (cf. Barthélemy , ; Albrektson , ). Another possibility is that the Greek translator connected ‫ ומרודי‬in the Vorlage (perhaps written defectively as ‫)ומרדי‬ to the root ‫רדד‬. This possibility would be likely, if it can be shown that the semantic potential of the Hebrew word ‫ רדד‬included senses that are similar to the range of meanings exhibited by the cognate Akkadian verb radādu, “to pursue, to persecute, to afflict, to drive away” (CAD R ,  – ).  QIsaa (Col. XLVIII l. ): ‫ ;הלוא פרוס לרעב לחמכה וענויים מרודים תביא בית‬QIsab (Col. XXV ll.  – ): ‫ ;הלוא פרוס לרעב לחמך עניים מרדים תביא בית‬MT: ‫( ֲהלוֹ א ָפר ֹס ָֽל ָרֵעב ַלְחֶמָך ַוֲע ִנ ּיִים ְמרוּ ִדים ָּתִביא ָביִת‬Ul-

A Text-Critical Examination of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19)

77

of a string of rhetorical questions (verses 6 – 7) whereby YHWH expounds the type of fast he favours. The deity, inter alia, equates fasting with sharing bread with the hungry and bringing the homeless poor into the economic ambit of the house; that is, sheltering them in the physical structure and sustaining them with the food that the members of the household produce.¹⁸ In the context of the bicolon, ‫ מרודים‬refer to poor people who do not have connections to a household, its landholding or its livelihood and are, therefore, dependent on the charity of others.¹⁹ The word is adequately translated as ἀστέγους (“without roof, unsheltered, houseless”) in the Old Greek text of Isa 58:7.²⁰ This meaning of ‫ מרוד‬as a reference to the lack of a connection to a household and the economic help it provides by means of its land is applicable to the passage in the Hebrew text of Sir 35:17– 18 in MS B, where ‫ מרודיה‬describes the plight of a widow. Evidence from literary writings and other documentary texts suggest that securing a place to live and resources to sustain themselves were primary concerns

rich and Flint , , ; Elliger and Rudolph , ). Only a part of the first colon is preserved in QIsad (Col. XII Frg.  col. ii l. ): [ ‫( פרס ל]רעב‬Skehan and Ulrich , ).  The household formed the backbone of the economies of ancient Israel and Judah. According to Deist (, ), the writings of the Hebrew Bible reflect reciprocal and redistributive systems of economy. (These systems have to do with the production, distribution and consumption of goods.) In a reciprocal economy, goods are not produced in surplus, products serve the needs of households and are mutually exchanged (for example, through gift-giving and bartering). In a redistributive economy, the authorities (for example, kings, chiefs, priests) have the power to “collect produce or demand services from the members of the group and distribute the collection according to a customary pattern” (Deist , ). For a discussion of household economies in the Iron Age II period from an archaeological point of view, see Faust (,  – ). Based on evidence from the Hebrew Bible writings, inscriptions, other documents and archaeology, Adams (,  – ) argues that the household continued to play a major role in the social and economic structures during the Second Temple period. The implication is that those people who found themselves without kinship or household ties, experienced financial hardships.  Blenkinsopp (, ) regards ‫ עניים‬in the MT as an explanatory gloss on ‫מרודים‬. He refers to the Peshitta text of Isa :, which does not have a translation equivalent for ‫עניים‬: ÿÙÂß áîš ¾ÙæéÜĀ† ¾æòÝß ÞãÐß ¿÷øš† (Brock , ). From this perspective, the word ‫ מרוד‬in the Hebrew wording carries the negative connotations of poverty that is made explicit with the addition of ‫עניים‬.  See Muraoka (, ); and Lust, Eynikel, and Hauspie (, ). The wording of the two clauses in LXX-Isa : read as follows in the edition of Ziegler (, ): διάθρυπτε πεινῶντι τὸν ἄρτον σου καὶ πτωχοὺς ἀστέγους εἴσαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου; “Break your bread with the one who is hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house” (Silva , ).

78

Gideon R. Kotzé

for widows in the ancient Near East.²¹ Women who were predeceased by their husbands could find themselves in a precarious position in relation to their biological and conjugal kin groups, especially with regard to inheritable land or allocated property. Some widows seem to have been impoverished and needed help from the community. In ancient Near Eastern literature, it is the virtue of deities and kings to protect vulnerable people in society such as widows. Certain texts also burden the public with the responsibility of caring for the welfare of women without the material support from male members of their families (Fensham 1962, 129 – 39). Three examples from ancient Near Eastern sapiential literature that mention widows specifically in connection with landed property, one from the wisdom texts amongst the Hebrew Bible writings (Prov 15:25), and two from Egyptian didactic literature (The Instructions of Amenemope 6 and 28), will suffice to illustrate these points.²²

 See, for example, the evidence for Mesopotamia discussed by Stol (,  – ; ,  – ); Roth ( – ,  – ); and Owen (,  – ).  Important passages concerning the divine and royal concern for widows in non-sapiential literature from Mesopotamia and Syria can also be briefly mentioned here. The Sumerian Nanshe Hymn claims that the goddess knows the orphan and the widow and that she takes care of the widow: nu-síki mu-un-zu nu-mu-un-su mu-un-zu; dnanše nu-mu-un-su-a sag-èntar-ra-a-ni (lines , ; Heimpel , ). According to the same hymn, Nanshe’s herald, the god, Hendursaĝa, decides the right of the orphan and enforces the right of the widow: dinu-sikí-ka i-ni-in-ku-dè di-nu-mu-un-su-ka ba-da-ab-ús-e (lines  – ; Heimpel , ). The Sumerian sun god, Utu, is sometimes called the mother of widows, or compared to a mother in relation to widows (see, for example, Cavigneaux , ; Kramer , ). Rulers, such as Uruinimgina (c.  B.C.E.) and Gudea ( –  B.C.E.) of Lagash, and Ur-Namma of Ur ( –  B.C.E.), declare that they do not deliver orphans and widows to rich or mighty people: nu-siki nu-ma-nu-su lú-á-tuku nu-na-gá-gá-a (Ukg , : – ; Selz , ; Sollberger , ); nu-siki lú-niĝ-tuku nu-mu-na-ĝar na-ma-su lú-á-tuku nu-na-ĝar (Gudea Statue B : –  [see also Cylinder B : – ]; Edzard , , ); nu-síg lú níg-tuku-ra ba-ra-naan-gar nu-mu-un-su lú á tuku-ra ba-ra-na-an-gar (Laws of Ur-Namma, Nippur tablet, iv,  – ; Roth , ). In the epilogue to the laws of Hammurabi ( –  B.C.E.), the king of Babylon claims that he erected the stele with his pronouncements in order that the mighty do not wrong the weak and to provide justice for the orphan and the widow (dannum enšam ana la ḫabālim ekūtam almattam šutēšurim; Roth , ). From the Ugaritic epics, there are the examples of Daniel, Aqhat’s father, who tried the case of the widow and judged the cause of the orphan (KTU ., v,  – : ydn dn . almnt . yṯpṭ . ṯpṭ . ytm) and Yaṣṣib, the older son of king Kirta, who accuses his father of not trying the case of the widow (KTU ., vi, ,  – : l tdn . dn . almnt).

A Text-Critical Examination of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19)

79

MT Prov 15:25:²³ ‫ֵּבית ֵּגִאים יִַּסח ְיה ָוה ְו ַי ֵּצב ְּגבוּל ַאְלָמ ָנה‬

4QProvb (Frg. 7 Col. ii, 12 line 7):²⁴ [‫בית גאים יסח י[֯ה ֗וה ויצב גבול] אלמנה‬ YHWH will rip away the house of the arrogant, but he will secure a widow’s boundary.²⁵

The verbs and objects in the two cola of this proverb form a chiastic pattern around the “pivotal” word ‫( יהוה‬the subject of both verbs).²⁶ The bicolon exhibits antithetical parallelism and characterises YHWH in terms of the opposing ways in which he treats the landed property of arrogant people and a widow. It is interesting that the proverb mentions ‫ אלמנה‬as an example of a vulnerable and lowly person in opposition to ‫גאים‬, “the proud/arrogant” (Fox 2009, 601; Plöger 1984, 184). In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ אלמנה‬refers to a widow who is in financial dire straits after the death of her husband, because she is left with limited economic resources and no one who could or would care for her.²⁷ A widow faced destitution, unless she was supported by her adult sons who inherited their father’s real estate, or by her deceased husband’s family and their property (Adams 2014, 52– 3; Balla 2011, 28; Hiebert 1989, 137). Land provided a good means of security for a vulnerable widow, if she had access to it. Therefore, when Prov 15:25 characterises YHWH by contrasting his unconcern for the ‫ גאים‬with his care for a ‫אלמנה‬, it is fitting that the text claims that the deity will violently remove arrogant people’s house, a symbol of their livelihood, but he will ensure that a widow’s landholding, the source of her subsistence, is stable. Whereas women in ancient Israel and Judah did not ordinarily hold property (Fox 2009, 601), ancient Egyptian widows were entitled to property she and her husband accumulated during their marriage, as well as her dowry and any prop-

 See de Waard (, ). Fox (, ) has the same wording as the MT for his eclectic edition of Proverbs’ Hebrew text.  See Skehan and Ulrich (, ).  ‫ גבול‬here denotes territory or landed property (Fox , ; Clifford , ; Murphy , ).  On “pivot pattern” chiasms (a b c b′ a′), see Watson (,  – ; ,  – ).  On the meaning of ‫ אלמנה‬in relation to other designations for widows in the Hebrew Bible writings, see the discussion of Steinberg (,  – ).

80

Gideon R. Kotzé

erty her husband bequeathed to her (Galpaz-Feller 2008, 243 – 4).²⁸ A widow (ẖꜢrt/ḫꜢrt) who did not own land or have a male patron was dependant on the goodwill of other people (Galpaz-Feller 2008, 246).²⁹ The vulnerable position of widows with respect to their own property and their dependence on the kindness of others in New Kingdom Egyptian society are illustrated well by the two passages from The Instructions of Amenemope in which the term ẖꜢrt appears. Chapter 6³⁰ VII, 12 – 15 m-ı ͗r-rmn-wḏ ḥr-tꜢš.w n-Ꜣḫ.wt mtw⸗k-tfı ͗-hꜢw n-nwḥ m-ı ͗r-snk.ty r-mḥ-Ꜥ n-Ꜣḥ.t mtw⸗k-hd-tꜢš.w n-ẖꜢr.t Do not move the markers on the borders of fields, Nor shift the position of the measuring-cord. Do not be greedy for a cubit of land, Nor encroach on the boundaries of a widow (Lichtheim 2006, 151).

Chapter 28 XXVI, 9 – 10 m-ı ͗r-gm-ẖꜢr.t ı ͗w-ḥꜢm⸗k-sw m-sḫ.wt mtw⸗k tm-wꜢḥ-n⸗k r-wšb⸗s

 Watterson (,  – ), points out that the marriage settlement, which dealt, inter alia, with the property rights of spouses and maintenance of wives, was an important part of an ancient Egyptian marriage. See also Meskell (, ) on the legal position of wives concerning the property she brought into the marriage and acquired with her husband. Later, fifth century B.C.E., documents amongst the Elephantine papyri show that Jewish ladies in this Egyptian context could receive landed property from their fathers and husbands with the assurance that they had the right to dispose of it as they wished and that no one else had legal claim to it. See, for example, the property given to Miptaḥiah by her father, Maḥseiah, and the marriage contract between Miptaḥiah and Esḥor (Porten and Yardeni ,  – ,  – ,  – ). The latter has a clause stating that if Esḥor should die without children by Miptaḥiah, she “has right to the house of Esḥor and [hi]s goods and his property and all that he has on the face of the whole earth” (‫ ;הי שליטה בבית זי אסחור ונכסו֗הי וקנינה וכל זי איתי לה על אנפי ארעא כלה‬Porten and Yardeni ,  – , ).  Graves-Brown (, ) suggests that the word ḫꜢrt “refers to a disadvantaged widow rather than to the average woman whose husband had died”.  The transliterations of the two passages are quoted from the study of Laisney (, , ).

A Text-Critical Examination of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19)

81

Do not pounce on a widow when you find her in the fields And then fail to be patient with her reply (Lichtheim 2006, 161).

The first passage forms part of a chapter in which Amenemope warns against the vice of greed and teaches that one should be content with one’s own fields. Even if the fields yield only a little, what they produce will satisfy one’s needs (VIII, 17– 18). It is imperative not to be greedy by displacing the boundaries of fields or trampling on someone else’s furrow in order to increase one’s arable land (cf. VII, 12– 15; VIII, 9, 15). Amenemope brands a person who does this an enemy of the listener and warns that such a person will receive his comeuppance (cf., for example, VIII, 6 – 8). The three “better … than” sayings at the end of the chapter (VIII, 19–IX, 8) make a similar point; wealth brings vexation and the fortune one amasses through wrongdoing will soon be lost. It is therefore better to be happy with the little god provides.³¹ The passage exemplifies the idea that bad deeds will be punished, while behaviour that is promoted by the instruction will be rewarded. Although the text suggests that wrongfully acquiring a widow’s property was a real and tempting possibility, it argues that such a deed would have negative consequences and therefore admonishes the listener not to commit this sort of crime. In the second passage, Amenemope counsels the listener to behave benevolently towards a widow when she is caught gleaning in fields that do not belong to her (Lichtheim 2006, 163 n. 29). Chapter 28 of Amenemope’s instruction, which includes this advice regarding the gleaning widow and the command not to refuse one’s oil jar to a stranger, ends with the claim that god loves him who honours the poor more than him who shows respect to a notable person (XXVI, 13 – 14). The examples from Prov 15:25 and The Instructions of Amenemope demonstrate that it was important for widows to have access to the economic resources provided by land. If widows were deprived of these means of subsistence, their plight would be great. It is this plight of being without a residence and the livelihood a plot of land can provide that ‫ מרוד‬in Sir 35:18 communicates. On this interpretation of its meaning, ‫ מרודיה‬makes good sense in the context of the passage as the cause of a widow’s groan. As indicated above, it is possible that

 “Better is a bushel given you by the god, Than five thousand through wrongdoing [Ꜣḫ-ı ͗p.t ı ͗wdı ͗-sw-n⸗k pꜢ-nṯr r– m-gns]. They stay not a day in bin and barn, They make no good for the beer jar; A moment is their stay in the granary, Comes morning they have vanished. Better is poverty in the hand of the god, Than wealth in the storehouse [Ꜣḫ-pꜢ-nmḥ m-ḏr.t-pꜢ-nṯr r-wsr.w m-wḏꜢ]; Better is bread with a happy heart Than wealth with vexation [Ꜣḫ-pꜢty ỉw-ḥꜢty-nḏm rwsr.w ẖr-šnn]” (Lichtheim , ). The transliterations are quoted from Laisney (, ).

82

Gideon R. Kotzé

‫ מרודיה‬could have developed accidently from an earlier reading through metathesis, but the fact that cultural information on widows show how appropriate this reading is in Sir 35:18 counts in favour of evaluating it not as a scribal error, but rather as a deliberately chosen reading.

3 Conclusions According to the rhetorical question in LXX-Sir 32 (35):19, a widow’s cry is against the person who makes her weep, while in the Hebrew version of the verse, a widow’s tears are accompanied by her groaning over her homelessness. The referent of τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά in the Greek text is not specified and, therefore, it is not clear who causes the widow’s tears to run down her cheek. Whereas the Greek reading is quite vague, information regarding the economic concerns of widows in antiquity makes the meaning of its counterpart in the Hebrew text of Sir 35:18, ‫מרודיה‬, clearer. On the grounds of the foregoing analyses of the variants, this study suggests (1) that both readings make sense in the contexts of the Greek and Hebrew wordings of the verse and (2) that ‫ מרודיה‬in MS B is more original than ‫מורדיה‬, the reading on which the phrase τῷ καταγαγόντι αὐτά was probably based. The study also shows that, at least in the case of ‫מרודיה‬, cultural information was helpful in understanding the meaningfulness of this variant reading in its literary context, as well as its text-critical evaluation. It is an exciting prospect for further research to establish to what extent the various sources of knowledge about ancient cultures can shed light on more variant readings in the textual representatives of Ben Sira and other early Jewish writings.

Source List Albrektson, Bertil. 1963. Studies in the Text and Theology of the Book of Lamentations: With a Critical Edition of the Peshitta Text. Lund: Christian Wilhelm Kyhl Gleerup. Adams, Samuel L. 2014. Social and Economic Life in Second Temple Judea. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Assan-Dhôte, Isabelle, and Jacqueline Moatti-Fine. 2008. Baruch, Lamentations, Lettre de Jérémie. La Bible d’Alexandrie 25.2. Paris: Cerf. Balla, Ibolya. 2011. Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature 8. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Barthélemy, Dominique. 1986. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Isaïe, Jérémie, Lamentations. OBO 50/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

A Text-Critical Examination of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19)

83

Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1997. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew MSS and a Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 68. Leiden: Brill. Berges, Ulrich. 2002. Klagelieder. HThK AT. Freiburg: Herder. Berlin, Adele. 2002. Lamentations: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 2003. Isaiah 56 – 66: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible 19B. New York: Doubleday. Brock, Sebastian P. 1987. The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshiṭta Version, III, 1: Isaiah. Leiden: Brill. Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. 1906. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CAD R = Reiner, Erica, and Martha T. Roth, eds. 1999. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Vol. 14. Chicago: Oriental Institute. Cavigneaux, Antoine. 2009. “Deux hymnes sumériens à Utu.” In Et il y eut un esprit dans l’Homme: Jean Bottéro et la Mésopotamie, edited by Xavier Faivre, Brigitte Lion, and Cécile Michel, 3 – 18. Paris: De Boccard. Ceriani, Antonio M. 1876 – 1883. Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex Codice Ambrosiano. Milan: Angeli della Croce. Clifford, Richard J. Proverbs: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Cross, Frank Moore. 2000. “4QLam.” In Qumran Cave 4 XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 16, edited by Eugene Ulrich et al., 229 – 37. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Deist, Ferdinand E. 2000. The Material Culture of the Bible: An Introduction. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. De Waard, Jan. 2008. Proverbs. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 17. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Edzard, Dietz Otto. 1997. Gudea and His Dynasty. Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 3/1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. 1997. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Editio Quinta Emendata Opera A. Schenker. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Faust, Avraham. 2011. “Household Economies in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.” In Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond, edited by Assaf Yasur-Landau, Jennie R. Ebeling, and Laura B. Mazow, 255 – 73. Leiden: Brill. Fensham, F. Charles. 1962. “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature.” JNES 21/2, 129 – 39. Fox, Michael V. 2009. Proverbs 10 – 31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB 18B. New Haven: Yale University Press. Fox, Michael V. 2015. Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary. The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1. Atlanta: SBL Press. Galpaz-Feller, Pnina. 2008. “The Widow in the Bible and in Ancient Egypt.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 120, 231 – 53. Gauthier, Randall X. 2009. “Toward an LXX Hermeneutic.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 35/1, 45 – 74.

84

Gideon R. Kotzé

Gentry, Peter J. 2007. “Lamentations.” In A New English Translation of the Septuagint, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, 932 – 41. New York: Oxford University Press. Gottlieb, Hans. 1978. A Study on the Text of Lamentations. Acta Jutlandica 48. Århus: Det Laerde Selskab. Graves-Brown, Carolyn. 2010. Dancing for Hathor: Women in Ancient Egypt. London: Continuum. Heimpel, Wolfgang. 1981. “The Nanshe Hymn.” JCS 33/2, 65 – 139. Hiebert, Paula S. 1989. “‘Whence Shall Help Come to Me?’ The Biblical Widow.” In Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, edited by Peggy L. Day, 125 – 41. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Hillers, Delbert R. 1992. Lamentations. AncB 7 A. New York: Doubleday. Hirsch-Luipold, Rainer, and Christl M. Maier. 2009. “Threnoi/Die Klagelieder.” In Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer, 1349 – 58. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. House, Paul R. 2004. Lamentations. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. 2001. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 2 Vols. Translated by Mervyn E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill. Kotzé, Gideon R. 2013. The Qumran Manuscripts of Lamentations: A Text-Critical Study. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 61. Leiden: Brill. Kramer, Samuel N. 1985. “BM 23631: Bread for Enlil, Sex for Inanna.” Orientalia 54/1, 2:117 – 32. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. 1983. Klagelieder (Threni). Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 20. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. KTU3 = Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. 2013. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places. Third, Enlarged Edition. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Laisney, Vincent Pierre-Michel. 2007. L’Enseignement d’Aménémopé. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Lévi, Israel. 1904. The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. Leiden: Brill. Lichtheim, Miriam. 2006. Ancient Egyptian Literature: Vol. 2: The New Kingdom. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. 1992, 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2 Vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Meskell, Lynn. 2002. Private Life in New Kingdom Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Muraoka, Takamitsu. 2009. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters. Murphy, Roland E. 1998. Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary 22. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Owen, David I. 1980. “Widow’s Rights in Ur III Sumer.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 70, 170 – 84. Plöger, Otto. 1984. Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia). Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Porten, Bezalel, and Ada Yardeni. 1989. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt: Newly Copied, Edited and Translated into Hebrew and English. Vol. 2: Contracts. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

A Text-Critical Examination of Ben Sira 35:18 (32:19)

85

Rahlfs, Alfred. 2006. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes: Editio altera quam recognovit et emendavit Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Reiterer, Friedrich V. 2011. “Die Vollendung der Gottesfurcht ist Weisheit” (Sir 21, 11): Studien zum Buch Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach). Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 50. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. Renkema, Johan. 1998. Lamentations. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters. Robinson, Theodore H. 1933. “Notes on the Text of Lamentations.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 51, 255 – 9. Roth, Martha T. 1991 – 1993. “The Neo-Babylonian Widow.” JCS 43/45:1 – 26. Roth, Martha T. 1997. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Second Edition. Writings from the Ancient World 6. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Rudolph, Wilhelm. 1938. “Der Text der Klagelieder.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 56, 101 – 22. Salters, Robin B. 2010. Lamentations. International Critical Commentary. London: T & T Clark. Schäfer, Rolf. 2004. “Lamentations.” In General Introduction and Megilloth. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 18, edited by Adrian Schenker et al., 54 – 72, 113*–36*. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Schechter, Solomon, and Charles Taylor. 1899. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection Presented to the University of Cambridge by the Editors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Segal, Moshe Z. 1972. Sefer Ben Sira ha-Shalem. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. Selz, Gebhard. 1995. Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadstaates von Lagaš. Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund. Silva, Moisés. 2007. “Esaias.” In A New English Translation of the Septuagint, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, 823 – 75. New York: Oxford University Press. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. 1987. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AncB 39. New York: Doubleday. Skehan, Patrick W., and Eugene Ulrich. 1997. “4QIsad.” In Qumran Cave 4 X: The Prophets. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 15, edited by Eugene Ulrich et al., 75 – 88. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Skehan, Patrick W., and Eugene Ulrich. 2000. “4QProvb.” In Qumran Cave 4 XI: Psalms to Chronicles. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 16, edited by Eugene Ulrich et al., 183 – 86. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Smend, Rudolf. 1906a. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach: Hebräisch und Deutsch. Berlin: Georg Reimer. Smend, Rudolf. 1906b. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Georg Reimer. Sollberger, Edmond. 1956. Corpus des Inscriptions “Royales” Présargoniques de Lagaš. Genève: E. Droz. Steinberg, Naomi. 2004. “Romancing the Widow: The Economic Distinctions between the ’almānâ, the ’iššâ-’almānâ, and the ’ēšet-hammēt.” In God’s Word for Our World. Vol. 1. Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries, edited by J. Harold Ellens, Deborah L. Ellens, Rolf P. Knierim, and Isaac Kalimi, 327 – 43. London: T & T Clark. Stol, Marten. 1995. “Women in Mesopotamia.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 38/2, 123 – 44.

86

Gideon R. Kotzé

Stol, Marten. 2012. Vrouwen van Babylon: Prinsessen, Priesteressen, Prostituees in de Bakermat van de Cultuur. Utrecht: Kok. Tov, Emanuel. 2012. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Third Edition, Revised and Expanded. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Tov, Emanuel. 2015. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research: Completely Revised and Expanded Third Edition. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Ulrich, Eugene, and Flint, Peter W. 2010. Qumran Cave 1 II: The Isaiah Scrolls: Part 1: Plates and Transcriptions. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 32. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Van der Kooij, Arie. 2008. “Textual Criticism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, edited by John W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu, 579 – 90. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watson, Wilfred G. E. 1994. Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 170. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Watson, Wilfred G. E. 2001. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. London: T & T Clark. Watterson, Barbara. 2013. Women in Ancient Egypt. Stroud: Amberley. Weber, Robert. 2007. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem: Editionem quintam emendatam retractatam praeparavit Roger Gryson. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Wright, Benjamin G. 1989. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Wright, Benjamin G. 2007. “Sirach.” In A New English Translation of the Septuagint, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, 715 – 62. New York: Oxford University Press. Wright, Benjamin G. 2015. “Sirach (Ecclesiasticus).” In The T & T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, edited by James K. Aitken, 410 – 24. London: Bloomsbury. Würthwein, Ernst, and Fischer, Alexander A. 2014. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. Third Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ziegler, Joseph. 1967. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, XIV: Isaias. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ziegler, Joseph. 1980. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, XII, 2: Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Ziegler, Joseph. 2006. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, XV: Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira: The Headings of the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1611) Abstract: Metatexts create a frame to guide the reader in interpreting the translation and therefore provide an important overview of the theological and ideological context of the translation as understood by the translators (Naudé 2009, 2012). A metatext also has the function of calling attention to the translator as co-signer of the work and to his/her intervention in the work (Naudé 2013). In this chapter we examine one kind of metatextual information, namely, headings, in two early European translations of Ben Sira – the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1610). The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Puritans, produced while they were in exile in Geneva. The King James Version in many respects was the response of the Church of England to the Geneva Bible. The translators of the King James Version thus had access to both the Geneva translation and its metatexts and shaped their translation and its metatexts in light of the Geneva. The headings of these two translations are analysed and compared with respect to their formulation (that is, their macrostructure, syntactic structure and communicative functions) and with respect to their content. We also consider headings that are unique to one version. Although at first glance the headings appear to be strictly referential with respect to the translations, we demonstrate that in fact they often reflect the differing theological stances of the two translations. More importantly, the headings reveal the differing ideological viewpoints of the translators of the two versions. The translators of the Geneva Bible view the headings as distinct from the translation and often uses a lexical inventory in the headings that is different from the translation. The Geneva translators and their readers are viewed as equally part of the community of faith and as having the same perspective or vantage point; the translators thus often address their readers through the headings (e. g. “we

This work is based on research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé UID  and Jacobus A. Naudé UID ). The grantholders acknowledge that opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in any publication generated by the NRF supported research are those of the authors, and that the NRF accepts no liability whatsoever in this regard.

88

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

ought” to do something). By contrast, the translators of the King James Version view the headings are part of the translation by using the same lexical inventory in the headings as found in the translation, thus reducing the “distance” between the metatextual headings and the translation. The King James translators also prefer commands in the headings so that the headings function as if the translation itself is directly exhorting the reader, thus bringing the reader in direct contact with the translation and promoting the invisibility of the translators. Keywords: Ben Sira, King James Version, Geneva Bible, Bible Translation, Metatexts.

1 Introduction Metatexts create frames for guiding the reader in how to read and interpret a text in translation (Naudé 2009). A variety of metatexts are available for use by translators, including the following: prefaces, headings, marginal notes, footnotes and supplementary materials such as illustrations, maps or charts. The prefaces to Ben Sira, which were added by the first translator, Ben Sira’s grandson, and an unknown person, are metatexts which were added in ancient times.¹ Other metatexts, such as headings, marginal notes, footnotes and supplementary materials (e. g. illustrations, maps, glossaries) have been added by translators in modern times. Regardless of their origin, metatexts guide the expectations of the reader concerning the text. They are added by translators to provide a window into the ideological context of the translation and also to call attention to the participation of translators in the work and to their intervention in its final shape and interpretation (Naudé 2012, 2013). As a frame to read and interpret a translation, metatextual research has the potential to provide important information on the history of reception of a translation and thereby contribute to our knowledge on the history of a translation within translation studies. The research in this paper forms one part of a body of research on the metatexts of Bible translations. This research began by exploring the role of metatexts in various translations, in general, and the Aristeas Letter as a metatext of the Septuagint, in particular (Naudé 2009, 2012). Then the various metatexts of the King James Version of 1611 were analysed, especially the two prefaces, the dedication and the marginal notes (Naudé 2013). This research was expanded to consider the metatextual marginal notes of KJV Lamentations and the ways

 On these prefaces, see Wright  and Voitila .

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

89

in which they served to distance the KJV from the theology and ideology of its predecessor, the Geneva Bible (Naudé and Miller-Naudé 2012). In our most recent articles, the metatextual marginal notes of Maccabees (Miller-Naudé and Naudé 2014) and of Ben Sira (Miller-Naudé and Naudé forthcoming) were examined to see how the metatextual ideology of these apocryphal books differed among the various early European translations. In this paper, we further this research by exploring the chapter headings as metatexts of Ben Sira that are in the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the King James Version of 1611. Except for research by Van Klinken-Rijneveld (2007) and Nord (2012) on pericope headings of Bible translations in general, the headings at the beginning of each chapter, unlike the marginal notes, have gone largely unnoticed by scholars. Yet, as we will demonstrate below, and in line with the research on the cultural-specific nature of headings as described in Du Preez (2006, 2009) and Du Preez and Naudé (2008), the pericope headings of the Geneva Bible and KJV also convey the ideology of the translators by highlighting those aspects or topics of the chapter which they consider to be important while remaining silent on those aspects which they consider unimportant, by the ways in which they formulate the headings, and by the relationship of the heading to the biblical text. The socio-cultural frames of the origins of the Geneva Bible and the KJV already reflect the ideological contexts. During the reign of the Catholic Mary Tudor (1553 – 1558), when the English Bible itself was forbidden to be used in church services, as many as 800 Protestant leaders migrated to Geneva and surroundings. There William Whittingham, brother-in-law of John Calvin, translated the New Testament and served as editor of the Old Testament translation. This Bible, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth who began to reign in 1558, was published in 1560 as the Geneva Bible and was the favorite of the people. It ran through 140 printings, the last edition being published in 1644. The Geneva Bible’s Protestant metatexts were offensive to the Roman Catholic authorities. For this reason the Bishops’ Bible was published in 1568 and reprinted twenty times before 1606. It was a revision by a great number of bishops of the Great Bible which was Coverdale’s revision of the Matthew’s Bible (1537, edited by John Rogers) (Daniell 2003, 198 – 220). The Matthew’s Bible was the first authorized Bible in English (Daniell 2003, 190 – 197). In 1570 the Bishops’ Bible became the second authorized Bible in English when the Convocation of Canterbury ordered it to be placed in all cathedrals and churches (Daniell 2003, 338 – 47). However, it never displaced the popular Geneva Bible. ² In 1603 when James VI of Scotland came to the throne of England as James I, two Bibles were in competition: the Bishops’

 See Harden (), Danner (), Furniss () and Jensen ().

90

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

Bible, preferred by the church hierarchy, and the Geneva Bible, the favourite of the people. A proposal for a new translation which would replace the two Bibles was made by Dr John Reynolds, a Puritan leader and President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, at an assembly of theologians and churchmen at Hampton Court in 1604 (Daniell 2003, 427– 60). The king ordered that a translation be made that would be as consonant as possible to the original Hebrew and Greek, without any marginal notes and for use in all churches in England. There were fiftyfour translators divided into six panels of which one did the Apocrypha. The King James Bible was published in 1611. It took some 40 years for it to replace the Geneva Bible (Burke, Kutsko and Towner 2013). With the exception of the so-called titles in the Psalms (which in any case have additional functions in addition to serving as titles), the earliest copies of the biblical books do not have chapter or section headings. They were added later by translators in order to help organise and divide the Bible into easier to digest pieces, that is, for liturgical reading and reference.³ Chapter divisions and the assignment of the standard chapter numbers throughout the Bible were introduced during the early thirteenth century and are ascribed to Stephen Langton, the archbishop of Canterbury (De Hamel 2001, 124). Running-titles in red and blue letters appeared across the upper margins of thirteenth-century Bibles. They give the name of the book of the Bible across the two pages of the opened book – half of the word on the left-hand page and half on the right. Anyone randomly opening a mid-thirteenth one volume portable Bible with supplementary texts could recognise immediately, from the headings, which book they were in and at which chapter number. For printed Bibles, which were made to resemble a medieval manuscript, the Gutenberg typographers left spaces for headings to be completed by hand, because it was technically very difficult or unrealistically time-consuming to print headings in red and blue ink. Later most printed Bibles were only in black (De Hamel 2001, 205). This is demonstrated in the New Testament translated by William Tyndale in 1526, which has running-heads with numbered chapter breaks and cross references in black, but not yet additional matter such as prologue, headings or marginal notes. The running titles in black are also evident in the Lutherbibel von 1545. For certain books additional information about a chapter topic is added in the running title, but not in the Apocrypha. Pericope titles still form part of marginal notes – some are in capital letters – probably to find a specific reference.

 For the division of the Syriac text of Ben Sira into sections (without headings) in a number of manuscripts, see the analysis by Jenner and van Peursen .

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

91

The first printed Bible with its text divided into numbered verses for reference was the edition published by Robert Estienne in Geneva in 1553 (De Hamel 2001, 240). The practice that additional information about a chapter topic is added to the running title is also evident in the Geneva Bible and the KJV. The apocrypha is marked as such in the running title of the Geneva Bible and KJV. However, the pericope headings form part of the main text under the chapter number, but in a different font from the text of the verses. The structure of the chapter is as follows. In section 2, we examine the general features of the formulation of headings in the Geneva Bible and the KJV. In section 3, we compare the content of the headings in the two translations. In section 4, we look at headings that are unique to one of the translations. In section 5, we present our conclusions.

2 Formulation of Headings 2.1 Theoretical Foundation Headings are metatextual signposts added by translators to guide the reader’s expectations concerning the text. However, the heading as a metatextual, communicative act involves a complex web of relationships between the heading, the text, the translator and the reader. Elucidating the communicative functions of the heading requires attention to the constitutive factors of language and its functions as well as to the linguistic shapes and functions of headings. As background to the discussion, we summarise first Jakobson’s exploration of the constitutive factors involved in any act of communication and the function of those factors in communication (Jakobson 1960/1987). Jakobson viewed language as having the following components as illustrated in Fig. 1a – addresser and addressee in contact using a specific code in a specific context to convey a message: context addresser

message contact code

Fig. 1a

addressee

92

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

These components correspond to the following functions of language table (cf. Fig 1b) – the emotive, conative, phatic, metalingual, referential and poetic: referential emotive

poetic

conative

phatic metalingual Fig. 1b

The emotive function of language expresses the speaker’s attitude to what s/he is speaking about. The phatic function of language relates to the establishment, prolonging or discontinuing of communication. The conative function of language focuses on the addressee, for example, as supplication or exhortation. Bühler (1934) earlier described the conative function of language as “appellative.” The referential function of language relates to the denotative or cognitive function of language. The translator who adds headings to a translation plays the role of the addressor, the reader is the addressee, the heading is the message which is conveyed in a context by means of a shared code in contact between addressor and addressee. The translator may shape the heading so that has communicative functions beyond the referential and metatextual. For example, the translator may formulate the heading to focus on the conative (or, appellative) function with a heading that urges the reader to respond in a particular way; the translator may formulate the heading to focus on the emotive function of language by expressing his/her attitude to the text through the heading; or the translator may use the heading to establish or maintain a communicative relationship with the reader. Furthermore, like any communicative linguistic act, a heading may be shaped in order to simultaneously accomplish more than one communicative function, and it may or may not be received by the reader as accomplishing those functions. Nord (2012; see also 1993, 1995) draws upon the work of Jakobson and Bühler to present a means for describing the functions of headings as metatext.⁴ Nord suggests that headings (or titles) should be described on three levels. First, heading types should be identified according to their macrostructures. Sec-

 For an adaptation of Nord’s theoretical approach to headings to analyse the translation of headings in English and Afrikaans, see Du Preez  and Du Preez and Naudé .

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

93

ond, heading forms can be identified according to their syntactic structures. Third, headings can be described according to their microstructural patterns, that is, their communicative functions with respect to the text. Nord (2012, 69 – 74) identifies the following communicative functions. First, headings must be distinctive; a heading must differentiate one section of text from another. A heading must not be repeated and a heading must not be so general that it does not point clearly to the pericope it is meant to describe. Second, headings must be phatic in that they keep the channel of communication open from one heading to the next. Third, headings are referential to the extent that they inform about the contents of the pericope. Fourth, some headings have a metacommunicative function, in that they point to genre considerations or they comment upon or communicate about the communication process. Fifth, some headings have expressive elements in which they convey the attitude or emotions of the translator to the text. Sixth, some headings serve an appellative (or, in Jakobson’s terminology, a conative) function in guiding the reader’s response to the text, especially in a persuasive way. These functions are not mutually exclusive and a single heading may exhibit more than one communicative function.

2.2 Macrostructure of Headings The macrostructure of the headings of the Geneva Bible and the KJV differ in two fundamental ways. First, the relationship of the content of the heading to the text differs. One of the general features of the headings in the Geneva Bible is the fact that the wording of the heading often does not relate directly to the text. As an example, consider the heading of 4:1: (1) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 4:1⁵ 1 Almes must be done with gentleness.

The key word “alms” does not occur anywhere in the section, although it does convey the overall topic of the section. By contrast, the KJV headings usually relate directly and precisely to the wording of the text. This has the effect of giving the illusion that the headings form an integral part of the chapter.

 The versification of the Geneva Bible and KJV are not always identical. Differences in verse numbering are indicated in the Appendix.

94

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

Second, the Geneva and KJV headings have different macrostructural formulations. The Geneva headings are typically discrete and relate to a single pericope; the headings within a chapter do not necessarily bear any special relationship to one another.⁶ By contrast, one of the most distinctive features of the KJV is the fact that ordinarily all headings for a chapter are related. In many cases, multiple headings within a chapter must be read together as a single sentence, as illustrated by the headings in chapter 2: (2) KJV headings – Ben Sira 2 1 Gods seruants must looke for trouble 7 and be patient, and trust in him 12 For woe to them that doe not so 15 But they that feare the Lord, will doe so.

This feature of continuous (or interrelated headings) has three effects. First, it results in many more headings in the KJV than in the Geneva Bible; specifically the 51 chapters of Ben Sira in the KJV have 220 headings, whereas the Geneva Bible has only 138. Second, the KJV headings usually form a coherent whole within a chapter; a single heading cannot be examined in isolation. Third, the KJV headings explicitly identify what the translators believe to be the focal points or pericopes of the chapter, the essential arguments of the chapter, and the relation of the pericopes to one another. One prominent macrostructural feature that occurs in both the Geneva Bible and the KJV involves a contrastive structure within the headings. Often the contrast is conveyed with a postive-negative (or negative-positive) arrangement: (3a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 5:7 7 The vengeance of God oght to be feared, and repentance may not be differred.

(3b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 22:11 11 Weepe rather for fooles, then for the dead.

The contrastive structure can also be found in prepositional phrases, as in the Geneva in 3a, and in noun phrases, as in the KJV of the same verse in 3b:  See below the discussion of example () for an exception to this general characterisation of the Geneva Bible.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

95

(3c) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 25:1 1 Of thre things which pleaſe God, and of thre which he hateth.

(3d) KJV heading – Ben Sira 25:1 1 What things are beautiful, and what hatefull.

In the KJV, the contrast may be found between successive headings: (4) KJV headings – Ben Sira 43 1 The workes of God in heaven, and in earth, and in the sea, are exceeding glorious and wonderfull. 29 Yet God himselfe in his power and wisedome is aboue all.

The contrast between adjacent headings is not found in the Geneva.

2.3 Syntactic Structures of Headings In this section we examine the syntactic structures that shape the headings in the two translations, beginning with the Geneva Bible.

2.3.1 Geneva Bible In the Geneva Bible, a noun phrase is the simplest heading: (5) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 4:12 12 The ſtudie of wiſdome and her frute.

Noun phrases of this sort occur in 4:12; 7:23; 13:11; 14:1; 15:1; 17:1; 18:1; 18:6 – 7; 18:21; 19:22; 21:5; 21:17; 21:26; 23:1; 27:5; 27:13; 29:24; 33:1; 33:4; 34:18; 34:22; 35:14; 36:1; 38:24; 39:1; 39:16; 40:1; 41:12; 42:1; 43:1; 50:27; 51:1. One of the common noun phrases in the Geneva begins with “the praise of”: (6) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 11:1

96

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

1 The praiſe of humilitie.

Phrases beginning with “the praise of” also occur in: 1:10; 11:1; 24:1; 26:1; 31:8; 34:13; 36:22; 44:1; 45:1; 46:1; 47:1; 48:1. In some instances, noun phrases convey exhortations, as in 7a⁷ or curses, as in 7b: (7a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 16:24 24 An exhortacion to the receiuing of inſtruction.

(7b) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 2:13 (see also 41:8) 13 A curſſe upon them that are fainte hearted and impacient

It is important to note that the word “curse” does not appear in the text of the Geneva Bible in 2:13, but is interpretative on the part of the translators (the KJV heading at that verse uses “woe to them,” which follows the text of the translation). In two instances, the noun phrase begins with a so-called “Wh-word,”⁸ namely, whereby and how: (8a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 19:27 27 Whereby thou maiſt knowe what is in man.

(8b) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 37:1 1 How a man ſhulde knowe friends & counſelers.

A second kind of heading is a prepositional phrase beginning with “of” to indicate the topic of the section: (9) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 16:1

 For additional examples of noun phrases beginning with “An exhortation,” see :; :; :; :; :.  Linguists use the phrase “Wh-word” to refer to the set of interrogative pronouns such as who, what, where, when and how.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

97

1 Of vnhappie and wicked children.

This is a prevalent kind of heading in the Geneva Bible and occurs at 3:10; 6:6; 9:1; 10:1; 11:7; 16:1; 17:20; (17:26);⁹ 22:1; 23:13; 23:16; 23:27; 24:6; 25:1; 25:7; 25:15; 26:5; 26:6; 26:28; 27:3; 28:12; 29:11; 31:1; 31:2; 32:15; 33:25; 34:1; 35:1; 40:14; 41:1; 41:17; 49:1; 50:1.¹⁰ A third kind of sentence fragment involves infinitival phrases, which may be phrased positively, as in 10a, or negatively, as in 10b: (10a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 20:6 6 To speake & kepe ſilence in time.

(10b) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 21:1 1 Not to continue in ſinne.

The positive infinitival clause is twice as common as the negative infinitival clause.¹¹ A fourth syntactic structure of headings in the Geneva Bible involves complete sentences. These sentence headings may contain simple statements, which are usually gnomic in nature, expressing a timeless truth:¹² (11) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 1:1 1 Wisdome cometh of God

In a few cases, the statements are negatively rather than positively shaped:¹³

 References in parenthesis indicate a heading whose formulation depends upon a preceding heading. In :, for example, the heading itself is “And repentance” but its structure should be understood as “Of repentance” since it conjoined to the preceding heading in verse  “Of almes.” Together the two headings read “Of almes and repentance.”  In one verse, the Geneva Bible uses a prepositional phrase beginning with “unto whom”: “Unto whom we ought to do good” (:).  Positive infinitival clauses occur in :; :; :; :; :. Negative infinitival clauses occur only in :; :.  See also :; (:); :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :.  See also :; :.

98

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

(12) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 15:11 11 God is not the author of euil.

Many of the sentence headings are exhortations using the modal verbs “ought,” “must” and “should.” Some of these addressed to the Christian community, framed as the translator(s) and reader(s), with “we” as the subject, as in 13a and 13b: (13a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 3:1¹⁴ 1 To our father and mother oght we to giue double honor

(13b) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 8:1¹⁵ We muſt take hede with whome we have to do.

Other exhortations use an impersonal passive with a modal verbs, as in 13c or an impersonal passive construction with “is/are to be” as in 13d: (13c) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 9:18 18 Righteous men ſhulde be bidden to thy table.

(13d) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 10:7¹⁶ 7 Pride and couetouſnes are to be abhorred.

Negative exhortations occur less frequently; they are formulated using “may not” (5:1; 5:7); “ought not” (3:12; 11:2; 12:10; 18:9; 28:1) and “is/are not to be” (11:29; 27:16; 41:3). Less frequently the sentence headings are positive commands, addressed directly to “you,” namely the reader(s): (14) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 19:6¹⁷

   

Additional Additional Additional Additional

examples examples examples examples

with “ought” occur in :; :. with “must” occur in :; :. with “is/are to be” occur in :; :. with commands occur in :; :; :.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

99

6 In thy wordes vſe diſcretion.

The Geneva Bible does not use negative commands at all.¹⁸

2.3.2 KJV Headings We turn now to the KJV headings, which use many of the same types of formulations, as well as some that are not found in the Geneva. Like the Geneva, the KJV uses noun phrases, as in 41:1–“The remembrance of death.”¹⁹ (15) KJV heading – Ben Sira 41:1 1 The remembrance of Death.

However, unlike the Geneva Bible, the KJV never uses a noun phrase with “a curse upon”²⁰ and only once (in 39:12) uses a noun phrase with “an exhortation”: (16) KJV heading – Ben Sira 39:12 12 An exhortation to prasie God for his workes, which are good to the good, and euill to them that are euill.

While it is quite likely that the KJV does not use headings with the phrase “a curse upon” for ideological reasons, the reticence to use “an exhortation to” in the headings relates more generally to the fact that the KJV prefers to draw the headings from the precise wording of the text itself. If the text does not use the wording of an exhortation within it; the KJV will not normally do so either. Similarly, with one exception (34:15), the KJV uses headings beginning with “the praise of” only in chapters 44– 49, which begin in 44:1 with the sentence

 Note, however, that in : the Geneva uses a negative phrase with an explicit exhortation (“Of nine things that be not to be ſuſpect”), whereas the KJV uses a positive phrase (“What things make men happy”).  Additional examples of noun phrases occur in :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :.  The KJV does, however, use “The ungodly shall be accursed” in :, which follows the wording of the text. The comparable Geneva heading in : uses “A curse upon them that forsake the Law of God.”

100

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

“Let us now praise famous men.”²¹ In other words, the KJV uses the heading “The praise of” only when it reflects directly the text of Ben Sira. In chapter 45, for example, the headings for the chapter are as follows: (17) KJV headings – Ben Sira 45 1 The praise of Moses, 6 Of Aaron, 23 and of Phinees.

The headings thus serve to highlight the important persons throughout the chapter who should be praised. This use of headings beginning with “the praise of” is in stark contrast to the Geneva, which often uses the phrase throughout the book as a characterisation of the pericope described by the heading and as a covert exhortation to the reader to “praise” the topic that is described (see 6 above). Like the Geneva, the KJV uses headings beginning with “what,” “who” or “how,” but the KJV does so much more prevalently.²² Examples with what, who, and how are given in 18a, 18b and 18c, respectively: (18a) KJV heading – Ben Sira 25:1 1 What things are beautiful, and what hatefull.

(18b) KJV headings – Ben Sira 10 19 Who shall be honored, 29 And who not.

(18c) KJV heading – Ben Sira 17:1

 Additional examples occur in (:); (:); (:); (:); (:); :; (:); (:); :; (:); (:); :; (:); (:); (:); :; (:); (:); :; (:); (:); (:); (:); (:); (:). Parentheses around a reference indicate that it is continues a preceding heading and is related to a preceding heading in its formulation. For example, the heading in : explicitly states “The praise of Moses.” The heading in : (“Of Aaron”) continues the preceding heading; it is thus an elliptical expression for “The praise of Aaron.”  As noted above, the Geneva has only two examples; the KJV has  examples: :; (:); (:); (:); :; :; :; (:); :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

101

1 How God created and furnished man.

Like the Geneva Bible, the KJV uses prepositional phrases beginning with “of” to describe the topic of the section:²³ (19) KJV heading – Ben Sira 23:16 16 Of three sorts of sinne.

In one instance (chapter 28) the KJV uses a unique formulation of a prepositional phrase with “against”: (20) KJV headings – Ben Sira 28 1 Against reuenge. 8 Quarrelling, 10 Anger, 15 And backbiting.

Like the Geneva Bible, the KJV uses infinitival phrases, as illustrated from chapter 9:²⁴ (21) KJV headings – Ben Sira 9 13 Not to be familiar with men in authority. 14 But to knowe our neighbours, 15 And to conuerse with wise men.

However, the KJV uses infinitival phrases much less frequently than the Geneva Bible and none of the examples in the KJV involves negative infinitival clauses. We turn now to complete sentences as headings in the KJV, which is by far the most prevalent strategy for formulating headings in the KJV. A variety of sentence types are used. As in the Geneva, some sentence headings in the KJV are simple statements:²⁵

 Additional examples occur in :; :; :; :; :; :; (:); :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :. Note that in some cases one version uses a noun phrase whereas the other version uses an equivalent prepositional phrase (e. g. Geneva : “Of the remembrance of death” and KJV : “The remembrance of death”).  See also :.  Additional examples occur in :; :; :; :; :; (:); :; (:); (:); (:); (:); (:); (:); (:); (:); (:); (:); (:); :; :; :; :; :; :; : (sic should be :); :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :;

102

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

(22) KJV heading – Ben Sira 43:1 1 The workes of God in heaven, and in earth, and in the sea, are exceeding glorious and wonderfull.

Also, like the Geneva, some sentence headings in the KJV are exhortations with “must”: (23) KJV headings – Ben Sira 29: 2, 4²⁶ 2 Wee must show mercy and lend: 4 but the borower must not defraud the lender.

Unlike the Geneva Bible, however, the KJV does not use the formulations “we ought” to do something, something “is to be” done, “we may” do something, or “we should” do something. The KJV, however, does use “must not” for negative exhortations, which does not occur in the Geneva: (24) KJV headings – Ben Sira 5:1, (6)²⁷ 1Wee must not presume of our wealth and strength, 6 Nor of the mercie of God to sinne.

By far the greatest number of sentence headings in the KJV are direct commands to the reader, as illustrated in 25a and 25b: (25a) KJV heading – Ben Sira 6:35 35 Be ready to heare wise men.

(25b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 6:2 2 Do not extoll thy owne conceit,

:; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; (:); (:); (:); (:); :; (:); :; :; : (sic should be :); :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :. Examples of negative statements occur in :; :; :; :; (:); :.  Additional examples with “must” occur in :; (:); :; :.  Additional examples with “must not” occur in :; (:); :.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

103

By contrast, only four headings in the Geneva Bible’s translation of Ben Sira are formulated as commands. A final distinctive feature of the KJV is the use of exclamations with “woe” in a few instances: (26) KJV heading – Ben Sira 2:12 12 For woe to them that doe not so.

2.3.3 Summary A comparison of the Geneva Bible and the KJV with respect to the syntactic shapes of the headings is given in Table 1.

104

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

Table 1 Syntactic Structures of Geneva and KJV Headings Geneva #

Subtotal

KJV %

#

 %



Statements



positive





negative





Infinitival clause



%



positive





negative



—

—



Exclamation “woe to” Exhortations



positive





“is/are to be”





“must”





“ought”



—

“should”



—









“must not”

—



“may not”





“ought not”



—

negative “is/are NOT to be”

 %

%



Commands



positive





negative

—

  %



Noun Phrases





general





“praise of”





“curse”



—

“exhortation”





“WH phrase” (what, who, how)





Subtotal

%  %

%

 %

 %

 %

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

105

Table  Syntactic Structures of Geneva and KJV Headings (Continued) Geneva #

Subtotal

KJV %

#

 %



Prepositional Phrases



“Of”





“Unto whom”



—

“Against”

—







TOTAL

Subtotal

%  %

Note: Due to rounding, percentages do not total  %.

The statistics indicate several important findings. First, the Geneva shapes more sentences as exhortations; whereas the KJV prefers commands. Second, the KJV prefers sentences as headings, whereas the Geneva prefers phrases, whether noun phrases or prepositional phrases. The overall differences between the Geneva and KJV in this regard are summarised in Table 2. Table 2 Sentences and Phrases as Headings Geneva #

Subtotal

KJV %

#

 %



Sentences



Statements





Exclamations

—



Exhortations









Commands Phrases and Sentence Fragments Infinitival clauses



 %







Noun Phrases





Prepositional Phrases









TOTAL

Note: Due to rounding, percentages do not total  %

Subtotal

%  %

 %

106

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

2.4 Communicative Functions of the Headings The communicative functions of the headings describe the ways in which the headings convey information to the reader. The distinctive function of the headings serves to distinguish one pericope of the text from another. In the Geneva, the distinctive function of headings is violated in one instance in which the same heading is used for two chapters: (27a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 42:1 The ſumme of the creation of the workes of God.

(27b) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 43:1 The ſumme of the creation of the workes of God.

The phatic function of headings in keeping the channel of communication open to the reader from one heading to the next is best served by the KJV practice of continuous headings throughout the chapter (see the discussion above in connection with example 2). However, the Geneva occasionally also connects headings, as subtly shown through the use of anaphoric pronouns in the headings of chapter 24: (28) Geneva headings – Ben Sira 24 1 A praiſe of wiſome proceding forthe of the mouth of God. 6 Of her workes and place where she reſteth. 30 She is giuen to the children of God.

The first heading in the chapter (verse 1) describes “wisdom” as “proceeding forth of the mouth of God.” The following headings in verses 6 and 30 refer back to wisdom using the anaphoric pronouns “her” and “she” (twice). The three headings of the chapter are thus linked and the second and third headings are not intelligible without knowing that the referent of the pronoun is wisdom personified as a woman from verse 1. Another phatic aspect of the KJV is its more frequent use of noun phrases that begin with “what,” “who” or “how” (see 18a – 18c above). With this type of heading, the KJV translators pique the curiosity of the reader concerning a topic without specifying precisely what items or individuals will be discussed

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

107

within the section, thus keeping the channel of communication open to the reader. The referential, or informative, function of the headings is found in nearly every heading. The degree of informativeness, however, is greater when the heading has an iconic relationship to the text. In this respect, the KJV headings are generally more referential than those of the Geneva in that they mirror precisely the wording of the text (see above in 1– 2). The metacommunicative function of the headings can be seen in two respects. First, some of the headings are metacommunicative in that they comment upon the communicative process. In 23:1, for example, the the heading of the Geneva Bible in 29a points the reader to the communicative function of the text, whereas the heading in the KJV in 29b is referential: (29a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 23:1 1 A prayer of the autor.

(29b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 23:1 1 A prayer for grace to flee sinne.

Another way to consider the relationship between these two headings, however, is that the Geneva takes a historical approach to the prayer at the beginning of chapter 23 by calling it “a prayer of the author.” The KJV summarises the content of the prayer and implicitly guides the reader to consider the prayer an appropriate one to use “for grace to flee sin.” Furthermore, the headings which are noun phrases beginning with “An exhortation to,” “The praise of” are metacommunicational (see above in 7a and 16) in that they describe or comment upon the communicative function of the pericope. As noted in Table 2 above, the Geneva Bible uses these kinds of metacommunicative headings much more frequently than the KJV. Headings are expressive when they convey the emotion or attitude of the translator. Expressive elements in the headings often involve the subtle addition of evaluative or value-laden terms. For example, in 43:1, the KJV is expressive as compared to the Geneva: (30a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 43:1 The ſumme of the creacion of the workes of God.

108

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

(30b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 43:1 1 The workes of God in heaven, and in earth, and in the sea, are exceeding glorious and wonderfull.

Similarly, in 39:1, the Geneva is more strictly referential (“wise”), whereas the KJV is expressive (“truly wise”). Note in addition that the KJV is metacommunicational through the use of “a description of”: (31a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 39:1 1 A wiſe man.

(31b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 39:1 1 A description of him that is truely wise.

As a final example, compare the choice of headings concerning servants in chapter 33: (31c) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 33:25 (= KJV verse 26) 25 Of euil ſeruants

(31d) KJV heading – Ben Sira 33:24 (= Geneva verse 23) 24 Of seruants

The Geneva places a heading at verse 25 to describe “evil servants,” whereas the KJV places a heading at verse 24 to point only to the discussion of “servants” in the chapter. The Geneva translators are more expressive than the KJV translators in this instance. The appellative function of the headings as persuasive are prominent in both translations, although the means of achieving the appellative function are not identical. As noted above (see Table 1), the Geneva uses infinitival phrases twice as often as the KJV (see the examples in 10a, 10b and 21). Infinitival phrases are sentence fragments but they contain a covert exhortation – “To speak and keep silence in time” is functionally equivalent to “We ought to speak and keep silence in time” or even a command “Speak and keep silence in time.” By shap-

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

109

ing the exhortation as an infinitival phrase, the translators do not choose between these two options. The Geneva Bible and the KJV thus use headings to exhort the reader is different ways. In the Geneva, the translators and readers are together exhorted that “we must” or “we ought” or “we should” – the reader is viewed as part of the same community of faith as the translators. In the KJV, the translators rather tend to step aside and address the reader directly with a command, as if to highlight that it is the text itself that addresses the reader.²⁸ In some instances, the KJV uses only a prepositional phrase to describe the content of the pericope (32b), whereas the Geneva uses a direct exhortation to the community of faith (32a). The KJV heading thus highlights the prohibition against revenge, without specifying that it is a prohibition for the Christian community: (32a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 28:1 1 We oght not to deſire vengeance, but to forgiue the offence.

(32b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 28:1 1 Against reuenge.

The overall effect of the differing formulations of headings in the Geneva Bible and the KJV is that the Geneva translators view the headings as distinct from the text itself – the headings may differ from the text both in lexical choice and in formulation. They view the readers and the translators as together having a similar vantage point and perspective on the text. By contrast, the KJV translators use the same lexical items in the headings that are found in the text, thus reducing the distance between heading and text. While both translations want the reader to actively engage with the content of the text, the KJV employs strategies of formulation, especially direct commands, which bring the text into

 There are infrequent exceptions to this generalisation. For example, the Geneva rarely uses a command where the KJV uses an exhortation with “we must” (see examples a and b below). As in : the Geneva uses a statement (“God is not the author of evil”) as opposed to the KJV exhortation (“We may not charge God with our faults”). In :, the Geneva uses a prepositional phrase (“Of wicked and unhappy children”) whereas the KJV uses an exhortation (“It is better to have none than many lewd children”). In : the Geneva uses a noun phrase (“The marvelous works of God”) whereas the KJV uses an exhortation (“God’s works are to be wondered at”) (see also :).

110

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

direct contact with the reader, thus further reducing the distance between the text and the reader and decreasing the visibility of the translators.

3 A Comparison of the Content of the Headings We will now compare the content of the headings to determine what they can tell us about the theology of ideology of the respective translators and their translations. In 37 cases, the KJV is identical or nearly identical to the Geneva Bible, as in 1:1.²⁹ The Geneva reads “Wisdom cometh of God”; the KJV reads “All wisdom is from God.”: (33a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 1:1 1 Wisdome cometh of God

(33b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 1:1 1 All wisdom is from God.

It is important to bear in mind that the KJV translators had full access to the Geneva headings and therefore they had the option to copy, adapt or reject the Geneva headings. In ten cases, the KJV is very similar to the Geneva headings, but the translators have located the headings at different verses:³⁰

 See also :; :; : Geneva = : KJV; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; : [Geneva frames the heading negatively; KJV frames the heading positively]; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; : Geneva = : KJV; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; :; : Geneva = :, ,  KJV; : Geneva = KJV :, , ; : Geneva = KJV :, , , ; : Geneva = KJV :, , ; :; :.  The difference in verse number does not relate in these cases to differences in versification between the Geneva and the KJV. Additional examples of comparable headings relating to different verses are found in Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; : Geneva = : KJV; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :; Geneva : = KJV :.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

111

(34a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 29:1 1 Do lend money, and do almes.

(34b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 29:2 1 Wee must show mercy and lend:

In 16:17, the two translations have nearly identical headings, but they guide the reader to different interpretations of the passage: (35a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 16:17 17 No man can hide him ſelf from God.

(35b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 16:17 17 The wicked cannot be hid.

The KJV understands the section as relating to the wicked; it is then the wicked who are addressed in verse 17: “Say not thou, I will hide my selfe from the Lord: shall any remember me from aboue? I shall not be remembred among so many people: for what is my soule among such an infinite number of creatures?” The Geneva, by contrast takes the verse to generally refer to any person who might try to hide from God, including those within the community of faith. In 19:2, the Geneva and KJV are similar, but bear different relationships to their respective pericopes and guide the reader in recognising different emphases in the text: (36a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 19:2 1 Wine & whoredome bring men to pouertie.

(36b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 19:2 2 Wine and women seduce wise men.

The KJV uses the phrase “wine and women” from the text of the translation of verse 2. The Geneva uses the expressive word “whoredome” even though “whoredome” is not used in the translation of verse 2 or in any of the verses of the sub-

112

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

section. Geneva says that wine and whoredom “bring men to poverty” whereas the KJV says that wine and women “seduce wise men.” In some instances, the Geneva is more interpretive than the KJV: (37a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 19:22 22 The difference of the wiſdome of God and man.

(37b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 19:22 22 There is no wisdome in wickednesse.

The Geneva is interpretive in that the verses in the subsection do not explicitly contrast the wisdom of God and man, but rather contrast the man who fears God and the man who is a wicked fool. The KJV reflects more closely the rendering of the text. In 25:1, the Geneva is interpretive by explicitising that the things “please God” or are things which “he hateth.” The KJV reflects the wording of the section: (38a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 25:1 1 Of thre things which pleaſe God, and of thre which he hateth.

(38b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 25:1 1 What things are beautiful, and what hatefull.

In two instances, the headings of the Geneva and the KJV are similar, but the KJV subtly guides the reader in a metaphorical reading of the text in a way that the Geneva Bible does it. The first examples is in 15:1– 2, the Geneva heading is “The goodness that followeth him which feareth God” and the KJV heading is “Wisdom embraceth those that fear God.” (39a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 15:1 1 The goodnes that followeth him which feareth God.

(39b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 15:2 2 Wisdome embraceth those that fear God.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

113

Both the Geneva (verse 1) and KJV (verse 2) highlight the concept of those who fear God in the opening section of the chapter. However, they differ in how they guide the reader in interpreting the section. The Geneva takes the heading from verse 1 and focuses on “the goodness that follows him who fears God.” The KJV, however, guides the reader in an explicitly metaphorical understanding of the following verses – it is wisdom who embraces and cares for the wise man (not his mother or wife). The text of the section in the Geneva Bible could be read literally until verses 7– 8. A similar approach in each version can be observed in the headings in 24:1. The Geneva heading is “A praise of wisdom proceding forth of the mouth of God.” The KJV heading is “Wisdom doth praise herself, show her beginning.” (40a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 24:1 1 A praiſe of wiſome proceding forthe of the mouth of God.

(40b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 24:2 2 Wisdome doeth praise herselfe, shew her beginning.

The Geneva and KJV headings are nearly identical, but relate to different verses. The Geneva does not mention the metaphor of wisdom as a woman; but the KJV guides the reader in interpreting wisdom as metaphorically a woman (see also the headings at verses 4, 13, 17, 26). The Geneva Bible does not inform the reader that the section is metaphorical until the later headings in verses 6 and 30, which explicitly use the metaphor. In a number of cases, the same verse is chosen for a heading in both Geneva and KJV, but the differences in wording point to theological or ideological differences. In the first part of chapter 10, the headings of the two versions differ for ideological reasons. The Geneva heading reads as follows: “Of kings and judges.” (41a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 10:1 2 Of Kings and iudges.

The KJV version, however, has two headings which read – “1 The commodities of a wise ruler. 4 God setteth him up.”

114

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

(41b) KJV headings – Ben Sira 10:1, 4 1 The commodities of a wise ruler. 4 God setteth him vp.

The Geneva translators emphasise two kinds of political leadership: kings and judges. In this regard, they are following the text of Ben Sira, which mentions judges several times in this section. The KJV, however, mentions only “a wise ruler” in the heading in order to emphasise the rule of the king and to downplay other civil authorities such as judges. Furthermore, in verse 4 the KJV adds a heading which is not found in the Geneva. The pronoun “him” in the heading must refer to the wise ruler, but the text of Ben Sira in the KJV only says “The power of the earth is in the hand of the Lord, and in due time he will set over it one that is profitable” (emphasis added). By interpreting the “one that is profitable” in the text as the “wise ruler” of the heading, the KJV is guiding the reader to understand the ideology of the divine right of kings in the text of Ben Sira. This is an exceptional case in which the KJV heading does not precisely reflect the text. By contrast, the Geneva heading in verse 1 mentions judges alongside kinds and does not have a heading of any kind at verse 4. We have previously observed the concern of the KJV translators to protect the reputation and right of the king in the marginal notes of Lamentations and the concomitant concern of the Geneva translators to criticise the king or reduce his role (Naudé and Miller-Naudé 2013; and Miller-Naudé and Naudé forthcoming). The same concerns are at work in these chapter headings of Ben Sira. In one instance, however, the KJV translators highlight the failings of Solomon, who is represented in the Old Testament as the most powerful and yet hedonistic kings of Israel. In chapter 47, the Geneva Bible follows its usual practice of mentioning only the names of the individuals who will be discussed in the chapter, whereas the KJV is expressive in highlighting both the “glory and infirmities” (verse 12) as well as the “end and punishment” (verse 23) of Solomon: (42a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 47:1 1 The praiſse of Nathan, David and Solomon.

(42b) KJV headings – Ben Sira 47 1 The praise of Nathan, 2 Of David, 12 Of Solomon his glory, and infirmities. 23 Of his end and punishment.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

115

In 36:1– 2, the Geneva and KJV headings diverge slightly, perhaps for political reasons. The Geneva heading characterises the prayer as “A prayer to God in the person of all faithful men, against those that persecute his Church.” The KJV heading, however, characterises the prayer as “A prayer for the Church against the enemies thereof.” (43a) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 36:1 1 A prayer to God in the perſone of all faithful men, againſt thoſe that perſecute his Church.

(43b) KJV heading – Ben Sira 36:1 1 A prayer for the Church against the enemies thereof.

By explicitly mentioning “those that persecute his Church” and using the expressive phrase “all faithful men,” it seems as if perhaps the Geneva Bible wants the reader to think of the persecution of the Puritans under the Catholic rule of Queen Mary. By contrast, the KJV heading seems much more general and less amenable to imply a specific historical situation.

4 Headings Unique to One Version We turn now to headings that are unique in one version – that is headings that occur in a verse in one version but are absent in the other version. It is often difficult to know what prompted one version to insert a heading in places where the other one did not. However, in some cases the ideology behind the insertion of the heading can be discerned. In 7:31, the Geneva Bible and the KJV have almost identical translations. The Geneva translates “Fear the Lord with all thy soul, and honour the priests”, while the KJV translates “Fear the Lord, and honour the priest.” (44a) Geneva translation – Ben Sira 7:31 Feare the Lord with all thy ſoule, and honor the Prieſts….

(44b) KJV translation – Ben Sira 7:31 Feare the Lord, and honour the priest….

116

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

The KJV inserts a heading that is lacking in the Geneva Bible at verse 31: “the Lord and his Priests.” (44c) KJV heading – Ben Sira 7:31 31 the Lord and his Priests:

The context of the heading requires looking at all of the headings in chapter 7 of the KJV – “1 We are exhorted from sin, 4 from ambition, 8 from presumption, 10 and fainting in prayer; 12 from lying and backbiting, 18 and how to esteem a friend; 19 a good wife; 20 a servant; 22 our cattle; 23 our children and parents; 31 the Lord and his Priests.” The KJV heading “the Lord and his Priests” is mentioned in a list of individuals whom “we must esteem.” What is significant is that the priesthood was an ecclesiastical office in the Church of England but not among the Puritans. By providing a heading that the reader should esteem “the Lord and his Priests,” the translators are providing support to the Church of England but not to the Puritans. The Geneva Bible avoids a heading which would draw attention to the office of priests. In 15:14, the Geneva and KJV translate in nearly identical ways. The Geneva has “He made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his counsel and gave him his commandments and precepts.” The KJV translates without the addition from the Latin (indicated by square brackets in the Geneva] “He himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his counsel.” (45a) Geneva translation – Ben Sira 15:14 He made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his counſel, [and gave him his commandements and precepts.]

(45b) KJV translation – Ben Sira 15:14 He himselfe made man from th beginning, and left him in the hand of his counsell,

The KJV translators added a heading to guide the reader away from a Calvinist interpretation of 15:14: (45c) KJV headings – Ben Sira 15:11, 14 11 We may not charge God with our faults. 14 For he made, and left vs to our selues.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

117

The Geneva and KJV translate similarly in 29:24/22: (46a) Geneva translation – Ben Sira 29:24 (= KJV verse 22) The poore mans life in his owne lodge is better than delicate fare in another mans.

(46b) KJV translation – Ben Sira 29:22 (= Geneva verse 24) Better is the life of a poore man in a meane cottage, than delicate fare in another mans house.

The verse does not explicitly mention sojourning, but the KJV translators add a heading to that effect: (46c) KJV heading – Ben Sira 29:22 22 It is better to liue at home, then to soiourne.

One has to wonder whether the note takes a subtle jab at those Puritans who went to Europe during Queen Mary’s rule, especially those who settled in Geneva and translated the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible also has a few headings that are not paralleled in the KJV, which seem to be ideologically motivated. In 32:14/ 13, the Geneva and KJV translate similarly: (47a) Geneva translation – Ben Sira 32:14 (= KJV 32:14) 14 But aboue all things, giue thankes vnto him that hathe made thee, and repleniſhed thee with his goods.

(47b) KJV translation – Ben Sira 32:13 (= Geneva 32:14) 13 And for these things blesse him that made thee, and hath replenished thee with his good things. The Geneva Bible adds a heading:

(47c) Geneva heading – Ben Sira 32:14 14 To give thankes after the repaſt.

This heading guides the reader in interpreting the verse as referring to the saying grace after meals. By using an infinitival phrase, the translators covertly give a

118

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

command to their readers. The heading therefore subtly promotes a Puritan practice. The KJV omits the heading to avoid promoting a distinctively Puritan interpretation of the verse.

5 Conclusions We have seen that the chapter headings, which at first glance appear to be unremarkable and uncontroversial, in fact were shaped by translators to promote their ideological and theological views. The headings provided a summary of the main concepts involved in the chapter as well as an interpretation of those topics. The headings furthermore indicate how the translators wanted readers to respond to the text of the chapter – how should readers’ thinking or behaviour change as a result of the concepts found in the chapter. Yet even in the formulation of the headings, the two translations betray differences. The Geneva Bible viewed the reader as one of the community of faith along with the translators and frequently exhorted the reader concerning what “we” ought or should or must do or not do. The KJV, by contrast, promoted the invisibility of the translator by using chapter headings that directly addressed the reader with their responsibilities using a command. In this way, the translators receded into the background and the text of Ben Sira directly commanded its readers to follow a path of wisdom on the basis of their individual reading of the text. The chapter headings of these two translations, then, reveal much about the history of interpretation among two important English exegetical traditions as well as the history of reception of Ben Sira. Even when headings appear to bear a purely referential relationship to the pericope, their macrostructural shape, syntactic form and communicative functions serve the ideological and theological purposes of the translators in their quest to guide readers in their interpretation and appropriation of the translated text.

Source List Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Jena: Fischer. Burke, David G., John F. Kutsko and Philip H. Towner. 2013. The King James Version at 400: Assessing its Genius as Bible Translation and Its Literary Influence. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Craig, Harden, Jr. 1938. “The Geneva Bible as a Political Document.” Pacific Historical Review 7, 40 – 49. Daniell, David. 2003. The Bible in English. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

119

Danner, Dan G. 1981. “The Contribution of the Geneva Bible of 1560 to the English Protestant Tradition.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 12, 5 – 18. De Hamel, Christopher. 2001. The Book: A History of the Bible. London: Phaidon. Du Preez, Erica. 2006. Die kultuurspesifieke aard van opskrifte in Finansies & Tegniek en Finance Week.MA Universiteit van die Vrystaat, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Du Preez, Erica. 2009. “Metafoor in die Vertaalde Mediadiskoers oor Aandele en Markte in Finweek”. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Universiteit van die Vrystaat, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Du Preez, Erica and Jacobus A. Naudé. 2008. “The culture-specific nature of headlines in Finansies & Tegniek and Finance Week.” Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 26, 513 – 523. Furniss, Tom. 2009. “Reading the Geneva Bible: Notes Toward an English Revolution?” Prose Studies 31, 1 – 21. Jakobson, Roman. 1960/1987. “Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language, 351 – 77. Edited by Thomas A. Sebeok. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1960. Repr. in Roman Jakobson, Language in Literature, 62 – 93. Edited Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jenner, Konrad and Wido van Peursen. 2002. “Unit Delimitation and the Text of Ben Sira.” In Studies in Scriptural Unit Division, edited by Marjo Korpel and Josef Oesch, 144 – 201. Pericope 3. Assen: Van Gorcum. Jensen, Michael. 1995. “‘Simply’ Reading the Geneva Bible: The Geneva Bible and Its Readers.” Literature and Theology 9, 30 – 45. Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L. and Jacobus A. Naudé. 2014. “The Metatexts of 1 and 2 Maccabees.” Journal for Semitics 24, 237 – 70. Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L. and Jacobus A. Naudé. forthcoming. “The Metatextual Marginal Notes of Ben Sira: Ideology and Theology in the Geneva Bible (1560) and the King James Version (1611).” In Septuagint, Sages and Scripture: Studies in Honour of Johann Cook, edited by Randall X. Gauthier, Gideon R. Kotzé and Gert J. Steyn. Leiden: Brill. Naudé, Jacobus A. 2009. “The Role of Metatexts in the Translations of Sacred Texts: The Case of the Aristeas Book and the Septuagint.” Vetus Testamentum Supplementum 261, 281 – 298. Naudé, Jacobus A. 2012. “Metatexts and the Regulation of Reader Responses in the Translation of Sacred Texts.” In Festschrift for Andrzej Zaborski, 339 – 55. Folia Orientalia 49. Cracow, Poland: Polish Academy of Science. Naudé, Jacobus A. 2013. “The Role of the Metatexts in the King James Version as a Means of Mediating Conflicting Theological Views.” In The King James Version at 400: Assessing its Genius as Bible Translation and Its Literary Influence, edited by David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko and Philip H. Towner, 157 – 94. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Naudé, Jacobus A. and Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé. 2012. “Lamentations in the English Bible Translation Tradition of the King James Bible (1611).” Scriptura 110(2), 208 – 226. Nord, Christiane. 1993. Einführung in das funktionale Übersetzen. Am Beispiel von Titeln und Überschriften. Tübingen: Francke. Nord, Christiane. 1995. “Text-Functions in Translation: Titles and Headings as a Case in Point.” Target 7, 261 – 84. Nord, Christiane. 2012. “Guiding the Reader’s Reception: Pericope Titles in the New Testament.” In Translation – Interpretation – Meaning, edited by Anneli Aejmelaeus and

120

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

Päivi Pahta, 63 – 76. Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences 7. Helsinki: Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Van Klinken-Rijneveld E. 2007. “Perikoopopschriften.” Met Andere Woorden 26 (4), 19. Voitila, Anssi. 2008. “For Those Who Love Learning: How the Reader is Persuaded to Study the Book of Ben Sira as a Translation.” In Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola, edited by Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen, 451 – 60. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wright, Benjamin G., III. 2003. “Why a Prologue? Ben Sira’s Grandson and His Translation.” In Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, edited by Shalom Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman, Weston Fields, 633 – 44. VTSup 72. Leiden: Brill.

Biblical Versions Lutherbibel von 1545. 1983. Afterword by Wilhelm Hoffmann. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Matthew’s Bible: A Facsimile of the 1537 Edition Combining the Translations of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale, Edited by John Rogers. 2009. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. The CEB Study Bible with Apocrypha. 2013. Edited by Joel B. Green. E.T. Lowe Publishing. The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. 1993. New York: Harper Collins. The Holy Bible: 1611 Edition, King James Version. 2010. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. The Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of the 1560 Edition. 2007. Introduction by Lloyd E. Berry. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version. 1991. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy. New York: Oxford University Press. The New Testament. A Facsimile of the 1526 Edition. 2008. Translated by William Tyndale. Introduction by David Daniell. London: The British Library. / Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

121

Appendix. The Headings of the Geneva Bible and the KJV Reference Geneva

KJV

chap 

 Wisdome cometh of God  A praiſe of the fears of God

 All wisdom is from God.  He giueth it to them that loue him  The feare of God is full of many blessings  To feare God without hypocrisie.

chap 

 He exhorteth the ſeruants of God to  Gods seruants must looke for trouble righteouſness, loue, underſtanding, and pacience,  and be patient, and trust in him (= Geneva verse )  To truſt in the Lord (= KJV verse )  A curſſe upon them that are fainte  For woe to them that doe not so (= hearted and impacient (= KJV verse ) Geneva verse )  But they that feare the Lord, will doe so.

chap 

 To our father and mother oght we to giue double honor  Of the bleſsing and curſe of the father and mother.  No man oght ouer curiouſty to ſearche out the ſecrets of God.

 Children must honour, and helpe both their parents.

 We may not desire to know all things.  The incorrigible must needs perish.  Almes are rewarded. chap 

 Almes must be done with gentleness.  We may not despire the poor or fatherlesse,  but seeke for Wisdome,  The ſtudie of wiſdome and her frute.  An exhortation to eſchewe euil, and  and not be ashamed of some thing, to do good. nor gainsay the trueth,  nor be as lyons in our hosues.

chap 

 In riches may we not put any confidence.

 Wee must not presume of our wealth and strength,  Nor of the mercie of God to sinne.

 The vengeance of God oght to be feared, and repentance may not be differred.  We must not be double tongued,  Nor answere without knowledge.

122

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

Continued Reference Geneva chap 

KJV

 It is the propertie of a ſinner to be euil tongued.  Do not extoll thy owne conceit,  Of friendſhip.  But make choise of a friend.  Seeke wisdome betimes:  It is grieuous to some,  yet the fruits thereof are pleasant.  Deſire to be taught.  Be ready to heare wise men.

chap 

 Wee are exhorted from sinne,  We muſt forſsake euil, and yet not inſliſie our ſelues.

 The hahauiour of the wiſe towards his wife, his friend, his children, his ſeruants, his father and mother.

 from ambition,  from presumption,  and fainting in prayer;  from lying and backebiting,  and how to esteeme a friend;  A good wife:  a servant:  our cattell:  our children and parents:

 the Lord and his Priests:  the poore and those that mourne. chap 

We muſt take hede with whome we have  Whom we may not striue with to do.  nor despise,  nor prouoke,  nor haue to doe with.

chap 

Of ielouſie.

 We are advised how to vse our wiues.  What women to auoide.  An olde friend is to be preferred be-  And not to change an old friend. fore a newe.  Not to be familiar with men in authority.  But to knowe our neighbours,  And to conuerse with wise men.  Righteous men ſhulde be bidden to thy table.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

123

Continued Reference Geneva

KJV

chap 

 The commodities of a wise ruler.  God setteth him vp.  The inconueniences of pride, inuistice, and couetousnesse.  What God hath done to the proud.  Who shall be honored,

 Of Kings and iudges.  Pride and couetouſnes are to be abhorred.

 Labour is praiſed.  And who not. chap 

 The praiſe of humilitie.  After the outward appearance oght we not to iudge.  Wee may not vaunt or set foorth our selues,  Of raſh iudgement.

 All things come of God.

 All men are not to be broght into thine houſe. chap 

 Nor answere rashly,  Nor meddle with many matters.  Wealth and all things else, are from God. ³¹ Bragge not of thy wealth.  Nor bring euery man into thy house.

 Unto whome we oght to do good.  Enemies oght not to be truſted.

 Be not liberall to the vngodly.  Trust not thine enemie, nor the wicked.

chap 

 The companies of the proude & of the  Keepe not companie with the proude, riche are to be eſchewed. or a mightier then thy selfe.  The loue of God.  Like will to like.  Like do companie with their like.  The difference betweene the rich and the poore.  A mans heart will change his countenance.

chap 

 The offence of the tongue.

 KJV has two notations of verse .

 A good conscience maketh men happie.  The niggard doth good to none.  But doe thou good.

124

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

Continued Reference Geneva  Man is but a vaine thing.

KJV ³² Men are happy that draw neare to wisdom.

 Happie is he that continueth in wiſdome. chap 

 The goodnes that followeth him which feareth God.  Wisdome embraceth those that fear God.  The wicked shall not get her.  God reiecteth and casteth of the ſinner.  God is not the author of euil.

 We may not charge God with our faults.  For he made, and left vs to our selues.

chap 

 Of vnhappie and wicked children.

 It is better to haue none then many lewd children.  The wicked are not spared for their number.  Both the wrath and the mercy of the Lord are great.  No man can hide him ſelf from God.  The wicked cannot be hid.  Gods workes are vnsearchable.  An exhortacion to the receiuing of inſtruction.

chap 

 The creacion of man, and the goodnes  How God created and furnished man. that God hathe done unto him.  Auoid all sinne;  For God seeth all things.  Of almes,  Turn to him while thou liuest.  And repentance.

chap 

 The marvelous works of God.  Gods workes are to be wondred at. . The miſerie & wretchednes of man.  Mans life is short. (= Geneva verse )  Againſt God oght we not to complaine. (= KJV verse )

 This is presumably an error for “.”

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

125

Continued Reference Geneva

 The performing of Vowes. chap 

 Wine & whoredome bring men to pouertie.  In thy wordes vſe diſcretion.

KJV  God is mercifull.  Doe not blemish thy good deeds with ill wordes.  Deferre not to bee justified.  Followe not thy lustes.  Wine and women seduce wise men.

 Say not all thou hearest.  Reproue thy friend without anger.  The difference of the wiſdome of God  There is no wisdome in wickednesse. and man.  Whereby thou maiſt knowe what is in man. chap 

Of correction & repentance  To speake & kepe ſilence in time.  The falle of the wicked (= KJV verse )  Of lying.  The thief & the murtherer.

 Of silence and speaking.  Of gifts, and gaine.  Of slipping by the tongue (= Geneva verse )  Of lying.  Of diuers aduertisements.

 Giftes blinde the eyes of the wiſe. chap 

 Not to continue in ſinne.  Flee from sinnes as from a serpent.  His oppression will vndoe the rich.  The prayer of the afflicted.  To hate to be reproued.  The ende of the vniust shall be naught.  The differences betweene the foole and the wise.  The mouths of the wiſe man.  The thoght of the foole.

chap 

 Of the ſluggard.

 Of the slouthfull man,  and a foolish daughter.  Weepe rather for fooles, then for the dead.

 Not to ſpeake muche to a foole.  A good conſcience feareth not.

 Meddle not with them.  The wise mans heart will not shrinke.

126

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

Continued Reference Geneva

KJV  What will lose a friend.

chap 

 A prayer of the autor.

 A prayer for grace to flee sinne.  We may not vse swearing:

 Of othes, blaſphemie, and unwiſe communication.  Of the kindes of ſinnes.  Manie ſinnes procede of adulterie.

 But remember our parents.  Of three sorts of sinne.  The adultresse wife sinneth many waies.

 Of the feare of God. chap 

 A praiſe of wiſome proceding forthe of the mouth of God.  Wisdome doeth praise herselfe, shew her beginning.  Her dwelling,  Of her workes and place where she reſteth  Her glory,  Her fruit,  Her increase, and perfection.  She is giuen to the children of God.

chap 

 Of thre things which pleaſe God, and  What things are beautiful, and what of thre which he hateth. hatefull.  What is the crowne of age.  Of nine things that be not to be  What things make men happy. ſuſpect.  Nothing worse than a wicked woman.  Of the malice of a woman.

chap 

 The praiſe of a good woman.

 A good wife,  and a good conscience doe glad men.

 Of the feare of thre things, and of the fourth.  Of the ielous and drunken woman.  A wicked wife is a fearful thing.  Of good and bad wiues. ³³ Of two things that cauſe ſurow, and  Of three things that are grieuous. of the third which moueth wrath.

 The reference “” should be “.”

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

127

Continued Reference Geneva

KJV ³⁴ Merchants and hucksters are not without sinne.

chap 

 Of sinnes in selling and buying.  Of the poore that wolde be riche.  The probacion of the man that feareth God.  Our speech will tell what is in vs.  The unconſtantnes of a foole.  The ſecrets of friends are not to be uttered.

 A friend is lost by discouering his secrets.  Hee that diggeth a pit shall fall into it.

 The wicked imagineth euil which turneth upon him ſelft. chap 

 We oght not to deſire vengeance, but  Against reuenge. to forgiue the offence.  Quarrelling,  Anger,  Of the vices of the tongue, and of the dangers thereof.  And backbiting.

chap 

 Do lend money, and do almes.  Wee must show mercy and lend:  but the borower must not defraud the lender.  Giue almes.  Of a faithful man anſwering for his friend.  A good man will not vndoe his suretie.  To be suretie and vndertake for others is dangerous.  It is better to liue at home, then to soiourne.  The poore mans life.

chap 

 Of the correction of children.  Of the commoditie of health.

 The reference “” should be “.”

 It is good to correct our children,  and not to cocker them.  Health is better than wealth.

128

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

Continued Reference Geneva

KJV

 Death is better than a ſorrowful life.  Of the ioye and ſorow of the hearth.  Health and life are shortened by griefe. chap 

chap 

Of couetouſness.  Of them that take paine to gather riches.  The praiſe of a riche man without a faute.  We oght to flee drunkennes and folowe ſobernes.  An exhortation to modeſtie.

 Of the desire of riches.

 Of moderation and excesse in eating, or drinking wine.  Of his duty that is cheefe or master in a feast.

 Let the ancient ſpeake.  To give thankes after the repaſt (= KJV verse )  Of the feare, faith and confidence in  Of the feare of God. (= Geneva verse God. )  Of counsell.  Of a ragged and a smooth way.  Trust not to any but to thy selfe and to God. chap 

The deliverance of him that feareth God.  The safety of him that feareth the Lord.  The wise and the foolish.  The anſwere of the wiſe.  Times and seasons are of God.  Men are in his hands, as clay in the hands of the potter (= Geneva verse a)  Man is in the hand of God, as the clay is in the hand of the potter (= KJV verse )  Cheefely regard thy selfe.  Of seruants (= Geneva verse )  Of euil ſeruants (= KJV verse )

chap 

Of dreames.  The praiſe of them that feare God.

 The offrings of the wicked.

 Of dreames.  The praise and blessing of them that feare the Lord.  The offering of the ancient, and praier of the poore innocent.

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

129

Continued Reference Geneva

KJV

 The bread of the nedie.  God doeth not alowe the workes of an vnfaithful man. chap 

 Of true sacrifices.  The prayer of the fatherles, and of the widdowe, and him that humbleth him ſelf.

 Sacrifices pleasing to God.  The prayer of the fatherlesse, of the widow, and of the humble in spirit.  Acceptable mercy.

chap 

 A prayer to God in the perſone of all faithful men, againſt thoſe that perſecute his Church.

 A prayer for the Church against the enemies thereof.  A good heart and a froward.  Of a good wife.

 The praiſe of a good woman. chap 

 How a man ſhulde knowe friends & counſelers.  To kepe his companie that feareth God.

chap 

 A phyſicion is commendable.  To burye the dead.

chap 

 A wiſe man.

 How to know friends and counsellors.  The descretion and wisdome of a godly man blesseth him.  Learne to refraine thine appetite.

 Honour due to the Phisitian, and why  How to weepe and mourne for the dead.  The wiſdome of him that is learned.  The wisedome of the learned man, and of the Labourer and Artificer: with the vse of them both  A description of him that is truely wise.  An exhortation to prasie God for his workes, which are good to the good, and euill to them that are euill.

 The workes of God.  Unto the good, good things profite, but vnto the evil, euen the good things are euil. chap 

 Many miſeries in mans life.

 O fthe bleſsing of the righteous and prerogatiue of the feare of God.

 Many miseries in a mans life.  The reward of vnrighteousnesse, and the fruit of true dealing.

130

Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé

Continued Reference Geneva

KJV  A vertuous wife, & an an honest friend reioyce the heart, but the feare of the Lord is aboue all.  A beggers life is hatefull.

chap 

 Of the remembrance of death.  Death is not to be feared

 The remembrance of Death.  Death is not to be feared.  The vngodly shall be accursed.

 A curſe upon them that forſake the Law of God.  Of an euill and a good name.  Good name & fame.  An exhortacion to giue hede vnto wiſdome.

 Wisdome is to be vttered.  Of what things we should be ashamed.

 Of what things a man oght to be aſhamed. chap 

The ſumme of the creation of the workes  Whereof we should not be ashamed. of God.  Be carefull of thy daughter.  Beware of a woman.  The workes and greatnes of God.

chap 

The ſumme of the creacion of the workes  The workes of God in heaven, and in of God. earth, and in the sea, are exceeding glorious and wonderfull.  Yet God himselfe in his power and wisedome is aboue all.

chap 

The praiſe of certain holie men, Enoch,  The praise of certaine holy men: Noa, Abraham, Iſaac and Iacob.  Of Enoch,  Of Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and Iacob.

chap 

The praiſe of Moyſes, Aaron, and Phin-  The praise of Moses, ees.  Of Aaron,  and of Phinees.

chap 

The praiſe of Ioſue, Caleb, and Samuel

 The praise of Ioshua,  Of Caleb,

Interpretation and Ideology in the Metatexts of Ben Sira

131

Continued Reference Geneva

KJV  Of Samuel.

chap 

The praiſse of Nathan, David and Solo-  The praise of Nathan, mon.  Of David,  Of Solomon his glory, and infirmities.  Of his end and punishment.

chap 

The praiſe of Elias, Eliſeus, Ezekias and  The praise of Elias, Iſaias.  of Elizeus,  and of Ezekias.

chap 

Of Iosias, Hezekiah, David, Ieremi, Eze- The praise of Iosias, chiel, Zorobabel, Ieſus, Nehemias, Enoch, Ieſeph, Sem & Seth.  Of Dauid and Ezekias,  Of Ieremie,  Of Ezechiel,  Zorobabel,  Iesus the sonne of Iosedec.  Of Nehemiah, Enoch, Seth, Sem, and Adam.

chap 

Of Simon the ſonne of Onias.  An exhortacion to praiſe the Lord.

chap 

 The autor of this boke. A prayer of Ieſus the ſonne of Sirach.

 Of Simon the sonne of Onias.  How the people were taught to praise God, and pray.  The conclusion. A prayer of Iesus the sonne of Sirach.

Annette H. M. Evans

Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm? Abstract: This paper considers the possibility that in spite of the deuteronomistic setting of the beginning of Tobit ¹ the angelology betrays a post-exilic setting with an incipient apocalyptic flavour. The development of the Jewish angelology to what amounts at the end to a hint of merkebah mysticism, suggests the possibility of Christian redaction. In the end, healing of Tobit’s blindness is effected through the expediency of God’s mediator Raphael travelling with the sufferers on earth, so that the annual visit to the centralized Temple is no longer a prerequisite. The Book of Tobit displays an aspect of Jewish belief in divine intervention which facilitated the eventual reception of Christianity. Keywords: Tobit, Tobias, Deuteronomistic, Theodicy, Jewish angelology.

1 Introduction The narrative of Tobit is set in the days of Shalmanezer the king of Assyria who conquered Samaria, as a result of which exiles were taken to Nineveh in Assyria in 727– 722 B.C.E. Tobit’s ancestry is from the Northern tribe of Naphtali, but right in the beginning of the narrative (Tob 1:4) he describes himself as an exceptionally righteous Israelite who unlike all his compatriots, faithfully goes up to the Temple for the festivals. Tobit states that the Temple, God’s habitation, was hallowed forever. An indication that the author of Tobit probably derived the historical setting of his narrative from the Deuteronomic writings (Deut to 2 Kings) is that the same historical inaccuracy in Tob 1:15, 18 regarding the successor of Shalmanezer, is present in the Deuteronomic writings of 2 Kings 17:1– 6, 18:9 – 13.² This clue tends to confirm that at least at the beginning of the narrative, Tobit is anchored firmly to the Deuteronomic history and theodicy.³ In his

 In this article, Tobit (italicized) will refer to the Book of Tobit, while Tobit (normal script) will refer to the character by the same name.  Sennacherib was not Shalmanezer’s son, but Sargon’s. The end of the Deuteronomic writings is dated to  B.C.E. according to the last historical incident recorded in  Kgs . Cf. A. Wikgren, Tobit. In The Interpreter’s Bible, eds G.A. Buttrick et al, (Nashville: Abingdon, ), .  For characteristics of Deuteronomic theodicy see A. Laato, “Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History.” In Theodicy in the World of the Bible, eds. A. Laato and J.C. de Moor, (Leiden: Brill,

134

Annette H. M. Evans

study of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3 – 11 Di Lella (1979, 380) found that the author “shared many of the same intentions of the final redactors of Deuteronomy,” and proposed that much of the Tobit narrative had a Deuteronomistic background.⁴ However, Kiel (2012, 269) subsequently noted that Tobit’s blindness (accidental and apparently undeserved) “is coordinated with a specific theological viewpoint,” and he argued that the narrative “resists such a simple conclusion” as that which Di Lella (1979, 380) proposed.⁵ Although Tobit certainly identifies himself with Deuteronomistic characteristics in the beginning of the narrative, as the story unfolds it seems that the narrative may have been conceived of as a critique of such a view. Thus this article considers the possibility that in the course of the narrative a shift takes place from the Deuteronomic paradigm towards a theology that is more like the less rigid and more compassionate theology of the New Testament. From the outset the question of theodicy lies below the surface of the narrative: is suffering an inevitable part of living according to Deuteronomistic precepts, or is Tobit’s blindness a metaphoric statement of the limitations of upholding the Deuteronomistic paradigm?⁶

), . Although the fall of Nineveh is mentioned at the end of the narrative, the historical inaccuracy in Tob :,  indicates a lack of direct knowledge of the actual historical and geographical circumstances of the setting. Cf. J.A. Fitzmyer, Tobit (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, ),  –  and Cary A. Moore, Tobit: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary – AncB Series,  A (New York: Doubleday, ), . Paterson suggested that Tobit was written by an Egyptian Jew as late as the early part of the second century. The possibility that the author lived very far away from Jerusalem, for example Alexandria or even Elephantine, would also explain the inaccurate geographical details and apparent vagueness about the second Temple in Jerusalem. Cf. C.H. Paterson, The Philosophy of the Old Testament (New York: The Ronald Peers Company, ), .  Di Lella used the Tobit G version of which he had made an English translation for the NAB in , and notes that he made corrections from various MSS when he found the text questionable f. Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob : – .” CBQ (), .  Cf. Micah D. Kiel, “Tobit’s Theological Blindness.” CBQ  (), .  Cf. Gericke. . Why-questions, , . Keith van Wyk, in her paper on structural and psychological coherence with reference to the Jungian psychological concept of “individuation” assesses the character of Tobit negatively. She suggests that Tobias, on the other hand, achieves such an ideal state, and that if both are analysed as one character, the narrative expresses the process of development of individuation. Cf. Helen Keith van Wyk, “Structural and Psychological coherence in the book of Tobit.” Paper delivered at LXXSA International Conference (), Potchefstroom. Rautenberg (2015), in her paper on the meaning of Exile in Tobit, perceives Tobit’s exile not as geographical, but in essence, social.

Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?

135

2 Methodology To consider the possibility that the angelic mediation in Tobit reflects a shift in the Deuteronomic theology, relevant sections of the Greek versions of Tobit (Sinaiticus) GII and GI (Vaticanus) are compared. Although G2 is considered to be the more original text, both have a very early character and are presented by Weeks, Gathercole and Stuckenbruck (2004, 5) in a raw and unreconstructed form, in a synopsis with other main versions.⁷ Intertextual evidence, especially from 1 Enoch, is taken into account. The holistic cultural-contextual approach described by Cook (2000, 41), which aims to achieve the broadest and most representative analysis while making sense of the text as an independent entity, is applied as far as possible. In the case of Tobit the difficulty of establishing the actual date and place of writing, the original language, and the reason for the chosen historical setting is exacerbated by the extensive oral tradition evident in the manuscript transmission. The narrative contains many syncretistic folkloristic strands, for instance the Aramaic story of Ahikar, which is dated to the fifth century B.C.E.⁸ The Aramaic connection to Tobit is interesting in that sixty fragments of four Aramaic texts were found at Qumran, 4Q196 – 199.⁹ Since this discovery, the scholarly consensus is that Tobit was originally written in Aramaic.¹⁰ The Qumran Aramaic fragments have been dated from about 100 B.C.E. to the early part of the first century.¹¹ They are referred to where they can provide additional evidence.

 Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in , the story of Tobit was only known from various ancient translations of different Greek versions. Cf. Weeks, Gathercole and Stuckenbruck. . Texts, .  The text of Ahikar was discovered in Elephantine in Middle Egypt where there was a Jewish settlement during the fifth century B.C.E. The story of Ahikar is reminiscent of the ancient Egyptian story of Sinhue.  Nine Hebrew fragments (Q) were also found. Five other textual traditions in Hebrew and one in Aramaic are known, which can be traced back to the twelfth century, but may be considerably older (Stuckenbruck and Weeks, Medieval, ).  J.A. Fitzmyer, Tobit (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, ), ; Flint, Noncanonical Writings, ; Milik, Enoch, .  Weeks, Gathercombe and Stuckenbruck, Texts, .

136

Annette H. M. Evans

3 The Date of the Narrative There are certain clues that indicate that the date of the writing of the narrative is not only (at the least) after Josiah’s reforms (640 – 609 B.C.E.) and the centralisation of worship at the Temple in Jerusalem, but even after the building of the wall of Jerusalem by Nehemiah, which started in 445 B.C.E.. For instance, the angel Raphael (in disguise) introduces himself as ἐγὼ ᾿Aζαρίας Ἁνανίου τοῦ μεγάλου τῶν ἀδελϕῶν σου – ‘I am Azarias son of Hananias the great, one of your relatives’ (NETS, Tob 5:13).¹² This choice of name and genealogy is almost identical to LXX-Neh 3:23b (2 Esd 13:23b) where an incident is recorded that happened long after the historical setting of the Tobit narrative: ᾿Aζαρια υἱὸς Ϻαασηα υἱοῦ ᾿Aνανία ἐχόμενα οἴϰου αῦτοῦ – “Azariah son of Maaseiah, the son of Ananiah, worked near his house” (NETS). Charlesworth (2003, 56) notes that there is no mention in the earliest Qumran fragments of Tobit about the crises of the second century B.C.E., thus he suggests that Tobit was probably written before the Maccabean Revolt which started in 175 B.C.E.

4 Deuteronomic Theology Mayes defines the central theme of Deuteronomy as a call to the service of one God by an elect people centered around one sanctuary, through obedience to the law, in the land which God has given. In the Deuteronomic view it was believed that God is present in the holy of holies – one fixed place, according to the centralization of worship (cf. Deut 12:11– 18).¹³ The impression of a Deuteronomistic setting in the beginning of the narrative is reinforced by Tobit’s prayer (Tob 3:5, present in both G1 and G2). After having been vilified by his wife for his upholding of the value of righteous deeds in spite of having been blinded, he expresses his own sense of guilt for the communal sin of Israel: “because we have not kept your commandments and have not walked faithfully before you.”¹⁴ This concept

 Q contains remnants of this is phrase: ‫ אנח עזר‬reconstructed by Fitzmyer, DJD XIX, , as ‫ …אנח עזריח בר‬The pseudonymous name Azariah has possible links to Daniel where Azariah is one of Daniel’s three friends (renamed Abednego by Nebuchadnezzar’s prince of eunuchs), who all survived the fiery furnace ostensibly by the presence of an angel (Dan :).  Mayes, Deuteronomy,  – .  A minute fragment of this verse is extant in Q: ] ‫ ל[מעבד בי‬which Fitzmyer translates as “[ to] deal with me [ ]”. Cf. J.A. Fitzmyer, Tobit (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, ), .

Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?

137

of theodicy is in line with the Deuteronomic recognition and acceptance of punishment by God because of communal guilt.¹⁵

5 Post-Exilic Angelology One of the aims of my recent D.Phil. dissertation (Evans, 2007, 71, 97, 164– 165 and 282– 285) was to identify angelological motifs in the Bible because references to angels in the Hebrew Bible are often ambiguously stated. Motifs that were found to be almost always present in texts connected to angelic appearances are firstly, light (sometimes in the form of the sun or fire), God’s throne in heaven, and the Divine Council. Only the latter two of these major angelic motifs are directly present in Tobit; the Divine Council is alluded to at Tob 3:16 and 12:12, and the throne of God in heaven at 3:16 and 12:15. The major angelological motif of light/sun/fire is not present, except in the metaphoric theme of light as opposed to darkness, in reference to Tobit’s recovery of sight. However, the reader is soon informed that the angel Raphael is in disguise as Azariah, and his presence pervades the entire narrative. In postexilic Jewish writings Raphael was considered a member of the Divine Council.¹⁶ This is confirmed at 12:12 where Raphael reveals to both Tobit and Tobiah that he brought the prayers of Sarah and Tobit to God’s throne in heaven. In 12:15 Raphael again alludes to the Divine Council motif when he reveals that he is “one of the seven angels who stand in attendance and enter the glorious presence of the Lord.”¹⁷ That an angel is actually named (Tob 5:4) is a postexilic feature of Jewish angelology. The identities of individual angels were only beginning to emerge at this time. Other postexilic features present are that an angel is specifically sent to heal Tobit and Sarah (Tob 5:22), and that Tobit writes his story at the command of the angel (Tob 12:20b). Yet another postexilic feature, the angelic function of being “sent to test you” at G2 Tob 12:14a (τότε ἀπέσταλμαι ἐπι σὲ πειρáσαι) appears in postexilic writings such as Job 1.¹⁸ That Tob 12:14a does not appear in any Hebrew or Aramaic texts, or in G1, is significant. It does not appear in Codex Alexandrinus either. The possibility has to be considered that GI, the Qumran texts of Tobit, and

 Cf. Laato, “Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History” (), , .  Cf. J.A. Fitzmyer, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XIX. Qumran Cave XIV. Tobit,  –  (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), .  These passages are present in both G and G with insignificant differences.  Cf. Portier-Young. . Eyes to the Blind,  – ; Metzger and Murphy. . New Oxford Annotated Bible, .

138

Annette H. M. Evans

Codex Alexandrinus, preserve the earlier version here, and that this particular phrase was inserted later into G2. The phrase is also present in the medieval text G3 and the main Latin texts L1, L2, and L4, which date from the eighth to ninth centuries CE.¹⁹

6 Intertextuality in Tobit In contrast to the Deuteronomic version of theodicy, aspects of similarity between some versions of the Book of Tobit and that of the New Testament have been noted in other passages. The Deuteronomic theodicy so strongly challenged in John 9:2 comes to mind: “who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?”²⁰ The possibility of later Christian redaction cannot be disregarded. According to Davis’ categories of divine agents as God’s “pre-eminent heavenly servants”, Raphael falls into the “Intervention” pattern.²¹ Davis (1994, 490) proposes that a combination of all three time patterns of mediation (past, present and future) may be characteristic of New Testament Christology generally. He then considers whether in Jewish literature a triple pattern of mediation appears in connection with any of the divine agent figures, and certainly finds this in Michael, but does not include Raphael.²² Skemp (2005, 43 – 70) lists eight “avenues of intertextuality” between Tobit and the New Testament, and examines the possibility that the parallels between Tobit and certain New Testament texts are the result of “direct dependence on a form of the Tobit story, or, coincidence born of a common culture.” He concludes that the strongest case for direct oral-scribal dependence on Tobit occurs in the use of the New Jerusalem motif in Rev 21:18 – 21. In G2 Tob 13:16 – 17 Tobit predicts that Jerusalem will be built as “his house for all ages” but this phrase is not present in G1. Both versions state that God’s house will be rebuilt, but in the main Tobit leaves the rebuilt Temple undescribed, except that in both G1 and G2 at Tob 14:5b it will be “just as the prophets of Israel have said of it.” Tobit’s description of the jewelled paved

 L is said to be one of the most important witnesses to Jerome’s work and has been dated to between  –  C.E. (Weeks, Gathercole and Stuckenbruck. . Texts, ,  and ).  John : reports that Jesus answers that neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.  Cf. P.C. Davis, “Divine Agents, Mediators, and New Testament Christology.” JThS  (): .  The figure of Raphael is fascinating in terms of these associations with Israel’s legacy, but because one cannot identify a definite “consummation” pattern in terms of New Testament Christology, Raphael’s divinity cannot be considered to be anything more than that of an angel.

Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?

139

streets in the rebuilt Jerusalem in Tob 13:16b, 17 in G2 is longer than in G1, and is reminiscent of the eschatological Jerusalem in Rev 21:10 – 21. On the other hand, a jewelled pavement (of σαπφεΐρου) is mentioned in Exod 24:10; Ez 1:26 and Ez 10:1, and this could also be the source of his description. Other interesting evidence of possible intertextuality is reflected in one of the earliest sections of 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch)²³, the Book of Watchers (chapters 1– 36). Early in the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 9:1) Raphael is listed among the four special angels who belong around the throne of God, but then at 1 Enoch 20:1– 8, the number of special angels who are named with their functions has three added to make seven.²⁴ It seems therefore that the seven archangels in Tob 12:15 could have been derived from 1 Enoch.²⁵ An intertextual connection with the latest section of 1 Enoch, the Epistle of Enoch (chapters 91– 108), which could be as late as the first century C.E. is suggested in Raphael’s self-revelation (present in both G1 and G2 Tob 12:12– 15) where he depicts himself as an intermediary who carries a record of good works before God.²⁶ Compare 1 Enoch 9:1– 4: And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the earth … and now to you these holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying “bring our cause before the Most High.” And they said to the Lord of the ages …

 Knibb (: ) points out that the problem with the Ethiopic version is that “a period of nearly a thousand years separates the presumed date of the translation of Enoch into Ethiopic (fourth to sixth centuries C.E.) and the date of our oldest Ethiopic copies of Enoch (the fiteenth century C.E.).” The most recent English translation is by Nickelsburg (). His translation is based on a synopsis of all the relevant original texts and translations. He notes (:) that the Ethiopic tradition has undergone a long process of corruption, correction and recenscion, so there is frequently a choice between MS variants. In this latter regard, Nickelsburg weighed all relevant readings of all available versions, Ethiopic, Greek and Aramaic (found at Qumran), and selected accordingly to form the synopsis which is the source referred to in this article. Cf. George W.E. Nickelsburg,  Enoch. A Commentary on the Book of  Enoch, Chapters  – ,  –  (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, .  Cf. Nickelsburg : , .  George W.E. Nickelsburg, Judaism and Christian Origins. Diversity, Continuity and Transformation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ), .  VanderKam. . Early Christian Literature, . See also Xeravits. . Angel’s Self-Revelation, the section on the characteristics of the angel.

140

Annette H. M. Evans

See also Rev 8:3 – 4: Another angel with a golden censer came and stood at the altar; he was given a great quantity of incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar that is before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel.

7 Discussion 7.1 Is the Orientation Deuteronomic or Simply Mosaic? In Di Lella’s (1979, 387) comparison of Tobit’s farewell discourse in Tob 14:3 – 11 with speeches ascribed to Moses in Deuteronomy, he found that both have the following characteristics: 1. Long life in the good land and prosperity dependent on fidelity; 2. the offer of mercy after sin and judgment; 3. Rest and security in the land; 4. The blessing of joy; 5. Fear and love of God; 6. The command to bless and praise God; 7. Theology of remembering; 8. Centralization of cult; and 9. Final exortation.

However, most of the above-mentioned characteristics are not exclusively Deuteronomic. Kiel (2011, 281) recognizes that Di Lella’s conclusion of a Deuteronomic theology in the narrative as overly simplistic. Notably, Gericke (2015, 9) refers to the “so-called” Deuteronomic History. Although Tobit himself, at the beginning of the narrative, upholds what has been characterized as Deuteronomic theodicy (as expressed in his prayer when he claims to bear part of the communal guilt for the sin of the people),²⁷ the unfolding of the narrative events develops a different theodicy. For instance, healing is achieved by the continuing presence of Raphael travelling with Tobias. An interesting implication of the narrative is that Tobit is prevented from performing his pious Deuteronomic “works” because of his blindness. Nowell (2005, 188) recognises that Tobit is modeled on the stories in Genesis, for instance that Tobit’s righteousness is stressed, as is that of Abraham. Another

 Cf. Laato, “Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History.” (), .

Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?

141

example is the way the characters of Tobiah and Sarah echo those of Isaac and Rebecca in Gen 24. Nowell (2005, 13) also notes the similarity of the theology of the creation narrative in the understanding of marriage. When one analyses Di Lella’s (1979, 381– 386) factors, one can certainly see that the Mosaic precepts are upheld throughout, but Nowell points out that these are derived from Genesis and Exodus rather than Deuteronomy, and that in Tobit the creation story is retold in the context solely of blessing.²⁸ Di Lella seems to have ignored the prominence of the role that angelic mediation plays in the narrative. Xeravits (2016,) makes the important observation that, as possibly the most important character in the narrative, Raphael reveals the χωρις of God. Von Rad (1968, 261) observes that when Deutero-Isaiah mentions Moses as being a mediator, his reference is to an existing tradition about Moses, not derived from Deuteronomy.²⁹ Von Rad (1968, 110) makes the very interesting observation that “The clarity with which [the Deuteronomic history] … recognized that a thoroughgoing historical understanding of the saving events could create definite problems for faith is simply amazing.”³⁰ It is only in G2 Tob 14:7b that a clearly Deuteronomic value is upheld in terms of centralization of the Temple and the “strongly retributive” Deuteronomic theodicy. However, Tob 14:7b is not extant in G1 or any of the Qumran fragments, nor in Codex Alexandrinus.³¹ In his article on the angel Raphael’s self-revelation Reiterer (2007, 400) goes as to far as to depict Raphael as “the personified message of salvation.” Macatangay (2015, 84) points out that in the end, through Raphael’s intervention and mediation, Tobit gains insight “into the complex of the role of God in his life and the hidden divine designs that underlie his world. He has indeed seen the light of God and the light of heaven. For that, Tobit was able to burst into a lavish praise of God (Tob 13:1– 8), something that he was unable to do earlier in his prayer (Tob 3:1– 6).”³²

 Di Lella identifies this tendency to be similar to the Priestly tradition in the Pentateuch, edited during the exilic/postexilic period, which surrounds the story of sin and curse with blessing. Cf. Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob : – .” CBQ (),  – .  Von Rad, Old Testament Theology II, .  What is eliminated is Josh  to Judg :–the disobedience of the people and the death of Joshua.  Q has the only word of : that can be distinguished: ‫“ רחמי‬mercy” cf. Weeks, Gathercole and Stuckenbruck. . Texts, .  Kiel shows that the interpretation of the Book of Tobit, in view of the complexity of the problem of good and evil in Second Temple Judaism, should be more nuanced than in terms of Deu-

142

Annette H. M. Evans

Incipient Apocalypticism? Stone (1996, 45 and 46) has noted the incorporation in the book of Tobit of motifs, forms, and formulae which occur with some frequency in apocalyptic literature, for instance reference to a divine throne-room, with seven archangels, the binding of a demon by an angel, and an angelophany culminating in a commission to write a book. Charlesworth (2003, 508) defines apocalypticism as a development in which God cannot be found in present historical events, but he or his messenger is coming from above or from the future. In the Tobit narrative these motifs are introduced by the figure of Raphael. For instance, at Tob 3:16 G2 has “At that very moment the prayer of both of them was heard in the glorious presence of God.” Notably, at this point the G1 version substitutes Raphael for God: “The prayer of both of them was heard in the presence of the glory of the great Raphael.” Raphael is still in disguise at this point, one wonders whether this is a touch of humor shared with the reader.³³ Rowland (1982, 504 and 505) understands the function of ancient apocalypticism to be that of unveiling secrets about God and the universe, some of which relate to the future, offering a higher perspective on reality. He points out that an apocalypse must necessarily speak about the future viewed in the light of the God who now reigns and will be seen to reign on earth, and Rowland (1982, 86) noted the gradual separation of divine functions which appears to be taking place in the book of Ezekiel. For instance, on the movement of the glory of the Lord from the “Lord’s house” Ezekiel himself knows of the independence of God’s kabod from the throne chariot. In the second appearance of the chariot, in 10:18 the prophet sees the kabod moving from above the cherubim to take up a position in another part of the Temple.” Similarly in Tobit, angelic intervention takes place on earth in a context where the mediated presence of God journeys with the main character. However, an apocalyptic orientation is still fairly tentative in the narrative of Tobit. It is still clearly anchored to this world in that it describes the rewards that Tobit receives through healing while still on earth, as well as for example, G1 and G2 Tob 13:13 and 14: Rejoice and exult over the children of the righteous, because they will all be gathered together and will praise the Lord of the righteous. How blessed are those who love you; they

teronomic theodicy. Cf. Micah D. Kiel, The Whole Truth: Rethinking Retribution in the Book of Tobit – Library of Second Temple Studies,  (London: T & BT Clark, ).  However, the complexity of the development of Jewish angelology over nearly a millennium could also explain this anomaly. See Evans, Jewish angelology,  – .

Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?

143

will rejoice in your peace. Blessed are those who have grieved over all your afflictions, for they will rejoice over you when they see all your glory and will be cheered forever.

7.3 Raphael and Early Merkebah Mysticism Wikgren (1962, 661) perceives an early merkabah mysticism in Tobit. Teachings of early Jewish merkabah mysticism have been identified by Eskola (2001, 203) as involving God’s majesty and holiness, the heavenly Temple, heavenly worship, and ascension to God’s heavenly throne. For instance, in the latter part of chapter 12 pains are taken to assert that Raphael was a divine being, in that he did not eat or drink anything, and that he ascended to heaven when his task was completed (G1 and G2 Tob 12:19, 20). The announcement that he is ascending is also present in the Hebrew text from Qumran. This is a fascinating detail which may be an early transitional stage in merkabah mysticism, in that he must be a divine being in order to ascend to heaven. Eskola (2001, 208) noted the Jewish nature of the exaltation Christology in the Letter to the Hebrews, and this early instance of heavenly ascent in Tobit, with its strongly flavoured Jewish cultural context confirms the connection of the ascent structure with a Jewish angelological tradition.³⁴ Details such as these suggest the possibility that angelological ideas in relation to merkabah mysticism helped to pave the way for the reception of New Testament Christology.

8 Conclusion In terms of Raphael’s function in Tobit, he provides Tobit with sight (light) (present time), and with a descendant (future). In addition he makes the promise that the Temple (past) will be restored. These functions represent Second Temple Judaism ideals. In the beginning the narrative stresses that Tobit is faithful to the

 Eskola (, ) notes that under the influence of the History of Religions School, this ascent structure which is also clearly perceptible in the Epistle to the Hebrews, was at first attributed to Gnosticism on the basis of the gnostic myth of the heavenly man. Eskola (, ) examines the problem of deification in Jewish mysticism in terms of the divergent views of a divine angelic intermediary in pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic. The function of the divine angelic intermediary in  Enoch : –  is to imprison the leader of the fallen angels, but in Tobit he has various functions (see Xeravits, Angels’s Self-Revelation). Ultimately his effective action in Tobit is the healing of Tobit and Sarah, in a present time, interventive capacity, according to Davis’s categories.

144

Annette H. M. Evans

Mosaic Law, tithes and gives alms, but in his prayer (Tob 3) Tobit expresses the specifically Deuteronomic theology that if human beings fail to fulfil the will of God, they will receive punishment.³⁵ In contrast to this Deuteronomic view in which retribution instigated by God is the key explanation for the catastrophe of the exile, towards the end of the narrative (Tob 12:10) Tobiah states that the good “will have fullness of life,” and the wicked “are the enemies of their own lives.” There is no hint of Deuteronomistic law of punishment for the unrighteous here. Rather, there seems to be a remarkably modern encouragement to take responsibility for one’s actions in life, and not to be one’s own worst enemy.³⁶ That it is Tobiah who makes this statement tends to confirm the insight of Keith van Wyk (2015) that Tobit and Tobiah are meant to be read as one character who achieves individuation in terms of Jungian psychology. The way the narrative of the Book of Tobit develops, and the difference between the setting of the narrative and the actual time of writing, raises the suspicion that the motive for writing may have been to overcome the cognitive dissonance, not only of the exile, but subsequently in whatever adverse situations. The theology shifts to an emerging concept of an ever present, healing God mediated through angelic activity, in contrast to the Deuteronomic concept of a vengeful God present in the Holy of Holies in the centralized Jerusalem Temple. Levey (1987, vi) recognized that the book of Ezekiel with its concept of a mobile God offered hope to the Babylonian exiles during a time of extreme political and religious devastation. I would suggest that, as in Ezekiel where the form of God was separated from the divine throne-chariot to act as quasi-angelic mediator, so in Tobit the narrative was written in the context of the seminal apocalyptic concept that the Temple could be replaced by a new concept of the presence of a caring God.³⁷ Collins (2011, 41) observes that “revelation was a contentious matter, even in antiquity. Indeed, if it had not been there would have been little incentive to rewrite scripture to begin with.” I would suggest that the author of Tobit took a decision to abandon the retributive Deuteronomic answer to the “Why questions” and decided to narrate a new version of faith in God’s providence.³⁸ The curing of Tobit’s blindness and of Sarah’s malady conveys

 Cf. A. Laato, “Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History.” (), .  G: :b Those who practice almsgiving and righteousness will have fullness of life,  but those who sin are enemies of their own life ζωῆς (NETS). G: :b Those who give alms will enjoy life to the full.  Those who commit sin and injustice are enemies of their own self ψυχῆς (NETS).  Cf. C. Rowland. The Open Heaven. A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, ),  – .  Cf. Gericke. . Why-Questions,  and .

Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?

145

the message that faith in God results in some form of intermediary between God and humankind travelling along with the sufferer on earth – the pious visit to the Temple is no longer necessary. In the end, the story of Tobit reflects that God is now understood to be with his faithful believers wherever they go, not because they carry the ark with them, but through angelic intervention and mediation originating with prayer which communicates directly with the throne of God in heaven (Tob 3:16; 12:12– 15). If one compares the Books of 1 Enoch with the Tobit narrative, interesting parallels appear. Whereas in the beginning Tobit represents Deuteronomistic theology with its retributive theodicy, but in the ending the mediating and healing angel Raphael proves to have provided protection from harm and healing, so the crucial turning point in angelological thinking is apparent between the earliest and the latest Books of 1 Enoch. The explanation for evil in the Book of Watchers (chapters 1– 36), is reversed in the latest book of I Enoch (Epistle of Enoch, chapters 91– 108, first century CE), which states that the righteous will experience goodness eternally after death, and angelic participation is situated in heaven with full blown apocalyptic content.³⁹ This change in the conception of Jewish angelology lies at the start of what may be a new vector of thought which may have facilitated the reception of Christianity. As in I Enoch the historical fulcrum upon which this change in conception of theodicy lies at a point in time between the writing of the Book of Watchers and the Epistle of Enoch, so in Tobit the same fulcrum is expressed in the change in theological orientation between the beginning and ending of the narrative, although in Tobit that concept had not yet become fully focused on God’s throne in heaven.⁴⁰

 VanderKam. .  Enoch, ; Garcia Martínez. . Iranian Influences,  – .  In Ez : the throne of the cherubim had no Ark and moved about with the celestial chariot, the merkabah. Rowland interprets this as enabling the figure to act as an agent of the divine purpose. The ark had been a seat for the journeying king-god from very early days, and when this was placed in the tabernacle, God was believed to be seated on his cherubim throne in the holy of holies. In Ezekiel’s Merkabah imagery, the concept of the enthroned God is central, but at the end of his vision of the divine throne-chariot, in :, Ezekiel sees the kabod moving from above the cherubim to another part of the Temple. What has happened is that the form of God has been separated from the divine throne-chariot to act as quasi-angelic mediator (cf. Rowland. The Open Heaven (),  – .

146

Annette H. M. Evans

Source List Charlesworth, J. H. 2003. “The Apocalypse of John and its Millennial Themes.” In Apocalyptic and Eschatological Heritage. The Middle East and Celtic Realms, edited by Martin McNamara, Dublin: Four Courts Press: 50 – 60. Collins, John J. 2003. “Journeys to the World Beyond in Ancient Judaism.” In Apocalyptic and Eschatological Heritage. The Middle East and Celtic Realms, edited by Martin McNamara, Dublin: Four Courts Press: 20 – 36. Collins, John J. 2011. “Changing Scripture.” In Changes in Scripture, Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Julia Pakkala, and Marko Martilla, 41. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH and Co., 20 – 36. Cook, Johann. 2000. The Septuagint of Proverbs – Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs. Leiden: Brill. Davis, P. C. 1994. “Divine Agents, Mediators, and New Testament Christology.” JThS 45v 479 – 503. Di Lella, Alexander A. 1979. “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3 – 11.” CBQ 41v 380 – 389. Eskola, T. 2001. Messiah and the Throne. Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse. Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen. Evans, A. H. M. 2007. The Development of Jewish Ideas of Angels: Egyptian and Hellenistic Connections. c. 600 B.C.E. to c. 200 B.C.E.. Unpublished D.Phil. Thesis, University of Stellenbosch, 2007. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1995. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XIX. Qumran Cave 4XIV. Tobit, 1 – 76. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fitzmyer, J. A. 2003. Tobit. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Flint, Peter. 2001. “Noncanonical Writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Apocrypha, Other previously known Writings, Pseudepigrapha.” In The Bible at Qumran. Text, Shape and Interpretation, edited by Peter Flint, 80 – 122. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans. García Martínez, Florentino. 2003. “Iranian Influences in Qumran?” In Apocalyptic and Eschatological Heritage. The Middle East and Celtic Realms, edited by Martin McNamara, 37 – 49. Dublin: Four Courts Press. Gericke, Jaco. 2015. “Philosophical Perspectives on Theological Why – Questions in the Hebrew Bible.”JSem 24/1, 1 – 19. Keith van Wyk, Helen. 2015. “Structural and Psychological coherence in the book of Tobit.” Paper delivered at LXXSA Inernational Conference (2015), Potchefstroom. Kiel, Micah D. 2011. “Tobit’s Theological Blindness.” In CBQ 73, 281 – 298. Kiel, Micah D. 2012. The Whole Truth: Rethinking Retribution in the Book of Tobit (Library of Second Temple Studies, 82). London: T and T Clark. Laato, A. 2003. “Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History.” In Theodicy in the World of the Bible, edited by A Laato and J. C. de Moor, 183 – 235. Leiden: Brill. Levey, S H. 1987. The Targum of Ezekiel. Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Ltd. Macatangay, Francis. 2015. “Metaphors and the Character Construction of Tobias in the Book of Tobit.” In The Metaphorical Use of Language in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, edited by Markus Witte and Sven Behnke, 75 – 86. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?

147

Mayes, D.H. 1979. Deuteronomy. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Metzger, Bruce M. and Roland E. Murphy. Eds. 1994. The New Oxford Annotated Bible. New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press. Milik, J. T. 1976. The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Moore, Carey A. 1996. Tobit: A new translation with introduction and commentary. AncB Series, 40 A. New York: Doubleday. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 2001. 1 Enoch. A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1 – 36, 81 – 108. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 2003. Judaism and Christian Origins. Diversity, Continuity and Transformation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Nowell, Irene, OSB. 2005. The Book of Tobit: An Ancestral Story. In Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M., edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, 3 – 13. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America. Patterson, C. H. 1953. The Philosophy of the Old Testament. New York: The Ronald Peers Company. Portier-Young, Anathea. 2005. “Eyes to the Blind: A Dialogue between Tobit and Job.” In Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M., edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, 14 – 27. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America. Rautenberg, Johanna. 2015. “The meaning of ‘Exile’ in the book of Tobit.” Paper delivered at the EABS conference in Cordoba. Reiterer, Friedrich V. 2007. “An Archangel’s Theology.” In Angels: the Concept of Celestial Beings – Origins, Development and Reception. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2007, eds. Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas and Karin Schöpflin. Berlin: de Gruyter. Rowland, C. 1982. The Open Heaven. A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity, London: SPCK. Rowland, C. 1994. “Apocalyptic, the Poor, and the Gospel of Matthew.” JThS. 45, 504 – 518. Skemp, V. 2005. Avenues of Intertextuality between Tobit and the New Testament. In Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M., edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 43 – 70. Stone, M E. 1984. Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Assen: Van Gorcum. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. and Stuart D. E. Weeks. 2005. “The Medieval Hebrew and Aramaic Texts of Tobit.” In Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit. Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M., edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 71 – 86. VanderKam, J. C. 1996. “Chapter Two: I Enoch, Enochic motifs, and Enoch in Early Christian Literature.” In The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, edited by J. C. VanderKam and William Adler, Assen: Van Gorcum, 33 – 101. Weeks, S, Gathercombe, S, and Stuckenbruck, L. eds. 2004. The Book of Tobit. Texts From the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Wikgren, A. 1962. Tobit. In The Interpreter’s Bible, edited by Buttrick, G. A. et al, Nashville: Abingdon, 658 – 662.

148

Annette H. M. Evans

Xeravits, G. G. 2016. The Angel’s Self-Revelation in Tobit 12. In Studies in Honour of John J. Collins, edited by E. J. C. Tigchelaar et al. Leiden: Brill (forthcoming 2016).

Helen Efthimiadis-Keith¹

Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit Abstract: In this paper I read the book of Tobit (Tobit)² as a dream depicting the individuation state of the author/community from which the book stems. I argue that Tobit and Tobias may be read as two separate characters or two aspects of the same “character” and show that the book displays a structural and psychological coherence which undergirds this reading. For me, Tobit’s individuation cycle reflects the community’s current individuation state, while Tobias’ cycle reflects the projected/desired state of the same. I then offer a possible interpretation of my findings in terms of Tobit’s production context and Jungian dream analysis. Keywords: Tobit, Structural and Psychological Coherence, Jungian Dream Analysis, Individuation.

1 Introduction There are a number of correspondences between the structural components of the heroic fairytale that Propp (1968) analysed and the structure of the hero’s quest/hero myth as documented by Frye, Jung and others. This is not surprising as both the fairytale and the myth begin with a villainy or lack and end in the hero’s marriage (Frye 1992, 26 – 27; Atkinson 1992, 90). Furthermore, both literary forms may be regarded as conscious expressions of the unconscious individuation/maturation process proposed by Jung (1956, 109 – 110; 1959a; 1975, 5 and 7); Frye (1992, 26); and Dawson (1997, 267– 268). Indeed, as will be seen below (2.), the five-fold structure of the hero myth (Frye 1992, 26 – 27) corresponds roughly to the five stages of individuation that Jung outlines. Given that Jung regards fairytales, myths and legends as conscious expressions of unconscious elements, I would not be amiss in regarding them as dreams, the deeply personal and irrational conscious expressions of a person’s

 Also known as Helen Keith van Wyk.  Henceforth, Tobit (italicized) will refer to the Book of Tobit, while Tobit (normal script) will refer to the character by the same name.

150

Helen Efthimiadis-Keith

unconscious psyche (Efthimiadis-Keith 2004, 66 and Jung 1956, 34)³. In fact, Jung emphasised that myths, fables, and legends have much in common with the dream world (Jung [1940] 1956, 54– 56 and 1959a, 5). In this article, I would like to analyse the heroic legend of Tobit ⁴ along Jungian individuation categories. Rather than identifying the number of moves in the story a la Propp and analyzing it accordingly,⁵ I will view the book as a whole, i. e. as a dream depicting the actual and/or projected individuation state of its unnamed author/community from which it stems. As with dream analysis, Tobit and Tobias may be read as conscious reflections of the same “dreamer’s” psyche, i. e. as a single “character” that reflects the individuation state of the author/community. This possibility is supported by the similarity of their names, Tobias being Tobit’s

 Jung regarded dreams as the via regia to the unconscious psyche. While a person’s dreams are conscious expressions stemming from her/his personal unconscious psyche – albeit infused with archetypal expressions from the collective unconscious, myths, legends and the like are conscious elaborations stemming largely from the archetypes found in the collective unconscious. Both may reflect the process of individuation/psychological maturation of the ego – alias the hero off myth and legend. Dreams and myths are, therefore, kindred spirits, as it were, because both are conscious manifestations of unconscious psychic processes. Cf. Carl Gustav Jung, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R. F. C. Hull (New York: Meridian Books, ), .  There seems to be little consensus about Tobit’s genre: “a religious novel whose aim is to teach and edify” (Craghan , ); a “romance [that] takes the form of the successful quest” (Moore , ; similarly deSilva , , a “romance”); and a “legend” (Otzen , ). Otzen (, ) also refers to other works that regard the book, amongst others, as a “didactic tale in the shape of a novel”, “a short Jewish romance” and a “sapiental-didactic tale.” I prefer to call it a heroic legend because it contains the elements of a successful hero’s quest (see ) and is “a short story with a rather loose relation to history and reality but at the same time with its centre of gravity in religious edification” – Otzen’s (, ) definition of a legend.  “Each new villainy, each new lack creates a new move. One tale may have several moves, and when analysing a text, one must first determine the number of moves of which it consists. One move may directly follow another but they may also interweave; a development which has begun pauses, and a new move is inserted” Vladimir Propp, Morphology of the Folktale (Austin: University of Texas Press, ), ; see also Blenkinsopp , , note : “A ‘move’… is a complete series of functions from the beginning of the complication to its resolution; a new move begins with a new villainy[/lack]”). While it has “become common to speak of Tobit as a narrative with two strands, one arising out of Tobit’s misfortune, the other out of Sarah’s… in terms of Propp’s definition, Tobit has two problems which create two moves: one connected with his blindness, the other with his poverty. Thus, there are a total of three ‘moves’ in Tobit: two pertaining to Tobit, one to Sarah [i. e. her demon problem]” (Soll, ). For Soll’s analysis of Tobit according to these moves, see Soll ,  and , . (For an interesting critique of Soll’s [ and ] Proppian analyses and that of Blenkinsopp [], see Milne []).

Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit

151

son, and Tobias’ completion of Tobit’s individuation cycle (Section 5).⁶ As with dream analysis, Tobit and Tobias may also be read as separate characters whose individuation cycles may be separately assessed. Accordingly, I shall argue that the character of Tobit represents the actual individuation state of the author/community, whereas Tobias represents the projected individuation state of the same. I begin with a brief discussion of Tobit’s date, fairytale background and structure (Section 2). I then outline the individuation process as per the hero myth in relation to Tobias’ individuation pattern (Section 3). In the next two sections, I consider the individuation state of Tobit (Section 4) and Tobias’ completion of Tobit’s individuation cycle (Section 5). After that, I discuss Tobit’s structural and psychological coherence (Section 6), offer an interpretation of my findings as per the book’s possible context (Section 7) and conclude (Section 8).

2 Tobit’s Date, Fairytale Background and Structure While Tobit cannot be dated exactly, scholarly consensus has it that the book was written c. 200 B.C.E.⁷, i. e. during the Hellenistic period – despite the book’s setting in the Assyrian diaspora (Tob 1:1– 2 and 10).⁸ It also seems evident that Tobit has a fairytale background/source, and one that has been modified according to the Jewish author’s wishes and purposes (Otzen 2002, 16 – 20; Moore 1996, 22). Various fairytales and folkloristic tales have been proposed, such as the Grateful Dead, Der rote Fisch, the Serpent Girl, the Bride of the Monster, the Ahiqar Tale and the Tractate of Kohns (Otzen 2002, 8 – 26; Moore 1996, 11– 14; and Charles 1913, 1, 187– 192). The many similarities and differences between

 One may also adduce the following: “the experiences of the hero in ‘The Grateful Dead’ [see ] … have been divided between Tobit and his son… [and] in both the Old Latin and the Vulgate, father and son have the same name, Tobias (Moore ,  – ).  Most scholars are emphatic that the book is pre-Maccabean, with a date ranging from /  – / B.C.E., see e. g. deSilva (, ), Otzen (, ), Craghan (, ), and Oesterley (, ). For Charles (, , , his italics), “Tobit was written at the very earliest, c.  B.C.; at the latest, c.  B.C., probably much nearer to the latter than the former date.”  I will use Di Lella’s () verse numbering and translation of the GII manuscript throughout unless otherwise indicated. However, I will retain the more conventional rendition of characters’ names, except when quoting directly from Di Lella’s text. Cf. Alexander A. Di Lella, “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob : – .” CBQ (),  – .

152

Helen Efthimiadis-Keith

these tales and Tobit have led scholars to believe that Tobit was produced by the combination of multiple fairytale motifs along with various religious motifs and given a Jewish wisdom flavor (Otzen 2002, 15 – 20; Moore 1996, 11– 14; Zimmermann⁹ in Soll 1989, 211; see also Soll 1988, 48 – 50). Moreover, various scholars have proposed that Tobit is composed of two or three Proppian moves,¹⁰ whereas others have attempted to show that it has undergone a number of redactions.¹¹ While these insights are valuable, I propose to analyse Tobit as an integral whole. Viewing the book in this way is: 1. germane to my Jungian individuation approach; 2. consonant with most modern scholarship (Otzen 2002, 52; Moore 1996, 22); and 3. substantiated by the book’s symmetrical, palindrome structure that Engel (in Otzen 2002, 4)¹² proposed: Exposition: Tobit’s and Sarah’s problems (Tob 1:1– 3:17) A: Tobit’s speech (Tob 4:1– 21) B: Quest for Tobiah’s companion (Tob 5:1– 6:1) C: Travel to Ecbatana (Tob 6:2– 7:9a) D: The wedding in Ecbatana (Tob 7:9b–10:13) C′: Travel back to Nineveh (Tob 11:1– 18) B′: Parting from Tobias’ companion (Tob 12:1– 22) A′: Tobit’s praise (Tob 13:1– 14:1a) Epilogue: Tobit’s valedictory speech, deaths (Tob 14:1b–15)

3 The Individuation Process, Hero Myth, and Tobias Engel’s structure, above, clearly illustrates that Tobias’ and Sarah’s wedding in Ecbatana is the fulcrum around which Tobit turns. This is not surprising as this wedding also symbolizes the integration of the anima into the conscious

 Regrettably I have not been able to access Zimmerman’s original work and must rely on Soll here.  See footnote .  See Otzen (,  – ,  – ) and Moore (,  – ) for a discussion of Deselaers’ and Rabenau’s positions in this regard.  I have been unable to access Engel’s  and  works. Accordingly, I rely on Otzen () for Engel’s structure.

Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit

153

psyche – the acme of the male individuation process¹³ that Jung ([1940] 1956, 28) termed the hieros gamos or holy (whole-y) marriage. Jung identified five stages of individuation (Dawson 1997, 267– 268): Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Complete identification (with one’s group) Separation from the other Differentiation of (one’s own) moral properties Realisation of social reality (the world as it is) and individual consciousness Individual identity and self-realisation

He emphasized that the individuation process is cyclical rather than linear – one simply does not begin at Stage 1 and arrive at Stage 5, and that one may find oneself simultaneously at different levels of individuation in various areas of life (Dawson 1997, 267– 268).¹⁴ Furthermore, the first three stages entail greater conscious differentiation, whereas greater conscious integration takes place from Stage 3. Thus, successfully negotiating Stage 3, i. e. integrating the shadow and arriving at one’s own moral properties is critical to the individuation process. For a successful individuation cycle, it is also crucial that projections are withdrawn and that one consciously integrates one’s opposites (Dawson 1997, 267). For a man, these would entail the shadow and anima, the two most important archetypes for the individuation process (Jung 1959b, 8).¹⁵

 According to Jung, the anima is a man’s contrasexual soul image, while the animus is that of a woman (see Monick , ). Jung surmised that the contrasexual soul image in women is male (Goldenberg ,  – ) and that the animus plays the same role in a woman’s individuation cycle as the anima in a man’s. However, his assumption has been questioned by various writers. Cf. e. g. Annis V. Pratt, “Spinning among Fields: Jung, Frye, Levi-Strauss, and Feminist Archetypal Theory.” In Jungian Literary Criticism, ed. Richard P. Sugg (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press ),  – ), including myself i. e. Helen, Efthimiadis-Keith, The enemy is within: A Jungian psychoanalytic approach to the book of Judith – Biblical interpretation series,  (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers , ),  – . This is because literary works show that the animus is a dark figure for women, and that encountering him results in madness or social isolation, or antisocial, antimarital experiences. Cf. Pratt ,  – . By contrast, it seems necessary for women to encounter “a powerful integrative mother-figure” (Pratt , ) who “[assists] women to overcome their ‘horrible husband’ shadows and achieve ‘a deeper and more holistic sense of the feminine’” (Pratt ,  – ). Even so, the integration of such figures typically estranges women from society, contrary to the male quest in which he is re-integrated into society, effects transformation and is hailed as a hero.  For example, one may be at Stage  spiritually while being at Stage  in terms of one’s career.  The shadow must be integrated at Stage  and the anima at Stage  for successful individuation to occur.

154

Helen Efthimiadis-Keith

In terms of hero quests/myths, the integration of these archetypes is represented by the hero’s defeat of various monsters (shadows) and his marriage to the fair maiden (anima) whom he has had to rescue. The basic structure of the hero myth may be outlined as follows (Frye 1992, 26 – 27) – a far simpler scheme than Propp’s 31 functions:¹⁶ 1. a) A lack or imbalance b) sets the hero¹⁷ on his quest to a foreign country or up a difficult mountain to find assistance or gain power to solve the initial problem. 2. a) The hero arrives at his destination after b) passing many tests and/or overcoming numerous monsters. c) He is often accompanied by a shadowy companion who seems to be his double and offered advice by various deities and/or other magical creatures/people with magical powers (e. g. a magician, patron deity, old woman, or faithful animal). 3. When he arrives at his destination, he usually has to liberate a maiden and/ or untold treasure from a dragon or other monster. 4. a) He liberates the maiden and/or treasure with a little help from his magical friends and b) returns to a hero’s welcome in the maiden’s land and/or his own. 5. a) He marries the maiden – usually as a reward for his bravery – and b) becomes a powerful leader who transforms his world and/or his vision of it. The story of Tobias is immediately recognizable within the structural elements noted above: 1. Tobit becomes poor and blind (Tob 1a–1:20; 2:10). He sends Tobias to collect the money that he left in trust with Gabael in Rages (Tob 1b–1:14; 4:1– 2; 4:20 – 5:3; 6:2). (At the same time, Sarah lacks a husband because the demon Asmodeus kills her husbands before the marriage can be consummated (Tob 2:8). God also dispatches the archangel Raphael to solve Tobit and Sarah’s problems, unbeknownst to all the human characters in the story [Tob 2:16 – 17]). 2. Tobias secures a travelling companion, Raphael/Azarias, and leaves Nineveh for Rages (Tob 1b–5:4– 17; 6:2). He travels a dangerous road and is threat-

 For Propp (, ), a function is a tale role “defined from the point of view of its significance for the course of the action.” Seven tale roles carry out the  functions that Propp identified: villain, donor, helper, sought-for person and its father (seen as essentially one role), dispatcher, hero (seeker or victim), and false hero. Tale roles are essentially abstract concepts, whereas characters are the particular personages filling these roles (Soll , ).  I deliberately refer to the male hero. Female quests are different. Cf. Efthimiadis-Keith  and footnote .

Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit

3.

4.

5.

155

ened by a fish (Tob 2b–6:3, see 1:15). Nevertheless, he prevails with Raphael’s help (Tob 6:4– 6) and the two proceed to Ecbatana, Sarah’s hometown, on the way to Rages (Tob 2a–6:6 – 10 – 11; 7:1). Additionally, Raphael introduces Tobias to his predetermined right to marry Sarah (Tob 6:11– 13) and advises him on what to do with the fish’s gall, heart and liver to solve Tobit’s and Sarah’s problems (Tob 6:6 – 9, 16 – 18; see 11:7). Having arrived in Ecbatana, Tobias must deliver Sarah from Asmodeus (3) before he can marry her. (Asmodeus is in love with Sarah and has prevented her from “taking the name” of any of the seven men to whom she has been married. This constitutes a crisis not only for Sarah and her immediate family, but also for her extended family through the loss of marriageable sons and the lack of family continuation through childbearing). Tobias drives Asmodeus away (4a) by following Raphael’s advice, i. e. burning the fish’s liver and heart before entering the bridal chamber (Tob 8:2– 3), thus liberating Sarah. (Asmodeus flees to Egypt where Raphael binds him [Tob 8:3]). Raguel, Edna and the community rejoice over Tobias and Sarah (4b) and praise God (Tob 8:15 – 19; see 9:5 – 6). Tobias then marries Sarah (Tob 5a–8:19 – 21) and eventually returns to Nineveh (Tob 10:7– 13). Here, he is received joyfully by his parents (Tob 4b– 11:5 – 6,9 – 15), with the wedding being celebrated once again (Tob 5a–12:1). Tobias restores Tobit’s sight through the fish’s gall (Tob 11:10 – 13) and reverses his financial woes through Sarah’s dowry (half of Raguel’s estate) and the money from Gabael (Tob 10:10; see 9:5; 12:1– 54:1– 2; 4:20 – 5:3; 6:2). In other words, Tobias effects significant transformation (Tob 5b) in his own immediate family. Not only that, but he transforms Sarah’s life (as well as that of her family) by freeing her, marrying her and giving her children. In this way, he also ensures the continuation of his kinship group, which was under threat because of the loss of seven marriageable and potentially child-siring men – Sarah’s first husbands. Furthermore, Tobias and Sarah become the father and mother, the prototypes (Miller 2009: 130), of the eschatological community that is to return to and flourish in Jerusalem. Tobias has, therefore, effected transformation at every possible level of his society: personal, family, kinship group and the faithful Jewish society as a whole.

Given the above, it is clear that Tobias’ story represents a successfully completed individuation cycle: Tobias has broken away from his original group (left his parents and Nineveh – Stage 2), battled with the shadow (the fish – Stage 3), and integrated the anima (married Sarah – Stage 5). Moreover, he exhibits differentiation of moral properties (Stage 3) in his choice to marry Sarah and in his dealings with Raguel. First, he chooses to marry Sarah once he has heard that she is

156

Helen Efthimiadis-Keith

his and that the demon can be vanquished (Tob 6:16 – 7:1). Second, he becomes much more assertive after his encounter with the fish: he insists on concluding the matter of marrying Sarah before they eat at Raguel’s welcoming feast (Tob 7:9 – 11). Third, he does not succumb to Raguel’s pressure to keep him in Ecbatana longer than the two weeks of the wedding feast because he knows that his father and mother fear him dead by this time (Tob 10:7– 9; see 8:20). Fourth, he instructs Raphael, rather than merely obeying his commands as before (Tob 7:1,9 versus 6:4– 6). Tobias’ greater assertiveness shows that he has integrated the shadow (Stage 3), matured and achieved individual consciousness (Stage 4). In terms of the third instance mentioned above, Tobias also sees the world as it is (Stage 4): he sees that Raguel is not as concerned about Tobit as he seemed at first and takes on the responsibility of caring for his parents himself (Tob 10:7– 9 versus 7:4– 9; see 9:1– 4).¹⁸ In the scene in which the angel reveals himself (Tob 12:5 – 22), Tobias also sees another side of the world, probably the “true” side as per the book’s point of view. Here, he sees that prayers are answered from the start even though it may not seem so and that the mundane is filled with the glory of God. He sees that he can trust God and need not rely on human strength alone. But what of Tobit?

4 Tobit’s Individuation Cycle Tobit seems to have broken away from his own tribe, Naphtali, their errant behaviour towards “the house of Jerusalem” and their unorthodox worship practices (Stage 2 – Tob 1:4– 6). However, he identifies wholly with Jerusalem, simply stating that it is God’s decree for him (and other Jews) to do so (Tob 1:4,6). In other words, he exchanges one group for another without any visible conscious deliberation. Similarly, he becomes enmeshed in keeping laws and customs pertinent to “correct” worship (Tob 1:6 – 12) without consideration for how it affects him and his family (see below). This shows that Tobit has partially regressed from Stage 2 to Stage 1. His regression is also evident in his suicidal prayer (Tob 3:1– 6), in which he interprets his dilemma solely in light of retributional theology: he is suffering because he and his people have sinned. There is no conscious deliberation on the exact nature of his sins; their existence is simply assumed.

 Previously, his family had been cared for by Achiqar (Tob :) and then Hannah had taken care of the family through “women’s works” (Tob : – ).

Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit

157

Tobit’s partial regression to Stage 1 prevents him from stabilizing at Stage 2 and progressing to Stage 3, the differentiation of moral properties. As such, he is unable to integrate the shadow and progress to Stage 4, the realization of the world as it is and individual consciousness. His failure to reach Stage 4 is evident in his inability to see any good or hope in his situation (Tob 1:10): he brushes aside the angel’s good words, lamenting his blindness. He does not rejoice in the fact that he has a family which loves and cares for him and that he can hear even though he cannot see. In other words, he cannot see past his misfortune to the greater reality, nor does he realize what the reader knows, namely that God is already working on his behalf. Furthermore, he is so enmeshed in and focused on his kinship group and the community of the faithful that he hardly seems to see his family and their needs (Efthimiadis-Keith 2015, 107). “He seem[s] so obsessed with his doing good that he [can] see little else … I [have often] wondered what Anna and Tobias were doing while Tobit was feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and burying the dead. Did they live in terror while he was out stealing the bodies of the slain and burying them (Tob 1.17– 18)? How did they experience his fleeing for his life and their subsequent loss of all worldly goods (Tob 1:19 – 20)? Did they panic when Tobit left during his Shavuot meal to tend to the dead yet again (Tob 2:1– 4)? Was Tobit even aware of their plight? For me, he [is] not.”

By the same token, Tobit seems so concerned about money that he is not careful regarding the safety of his son (Tob 5:10 – 14): he is far more interested in ascertaining Raphael’s/Azariah’s pedigree than he is in ascertaining his knowledge of the road ahead (Miller 2012, 505). In addition, as I have pointed out before (Efthimiadis-Keith 2013, 565 – 567), Tobit seems completely self-absorbed: the whole tale up to Tobias’ departure is about him: his obedience, his good deeds, his wife, his son, his exile, his suffering and his opinions. He seems so self-absorbed that he “forgets” that he is not alone, that his wife and son are with him, that he was not alone in following the law and worshipping in Jerusalem, and that he can hear. He is physically and spiritually blind. Given that he has not accessed Stage 4, it is clear that Tobit has not yet integrated the anima (Stage 5). This is intimated by his altercation with Anna, his wife (Tob 2:11– 14). Tobit’s psychological state therefore seems to be located between Stages 1 and 2. In other words, up to the time of Tobias’ departure, Tobit’s individuation has been incomplete and, therefore, unsuccessful. Enter Tobias…

158

Helen Efthimiadis-Keith

5 Tobias Completes Tobit’s Individuation Cycle The sequence of events from the time that Tobias accepts Tobit’s quest to the end of the book (Engel’s C-Epilogue) shows that Tobias’ individuation picks up where Tobit’s has left off (see the table below), i. e. at the point of separation from the other (Stage 2), and reaches the point of integration with the anima (Stage 5). As such, Tobias continues and completes Tobit’s individuation cycle just as he continues Tobit’s bloodline. This viewpoint is corroborated by the changes that occur in Tobit and in his relationship with his family and God after Tobias returns: 1. Tobit no longer identifies unconsciously with good deeds. He continues to do them (as the narrator tells us; Tob 14:2; see 14:8 – 9), but at a more conscious level, without any seeming obsession. In other words, he has integrated the shadow and differentiated his own moral properties (Stage 3). 2. He shows greater interest in Tobias and in Sarah than money (see Tob 11:10 – 17; Miller 2012, 506 – 507; Efthimiadis-Keith 2013, 568; 2015, 111), i. e. he sees the world as it is (Stage 4). The same applies to his recognition of the angel as well as his subsequent praise and testimony regarding God’s great deeds towards him and his family (Tob 12:16 – 3:18). His spiritual eyes are opened – he sees his son, his family, his God and his God’s involvement in the world as it is. He is no longer spiritually blind. 3. He regains his physical sight (Tob 11:11– 15) – comes out of the darkness of unconsciousness into the light of consciousness. It is no wonder that he loses his preoccupation with the dead and is now focused on the living (Efthimiadis-Keith 2013, 568; Miller 2012, 507)! 4. He speaks more kindly with Anna, receives Sarah with open arms and celebrates Tobias’ and Sarah’s union (Tob 10:4– 6; 11:16 – 17; 12:1). This shows that he has embraced the anima. Having shown how Tobias completes Tobit’s individuation cycle, I will now examine the structural and psychological coherence of the book before interpreting my findings. I will then conclude the paper.

Structural and Psychological Coherence As we have seen in section 3, there is a direct correspondence between the story of Tobias and the basic structure of the hero myth. Returning to Engel’s structure, we see that there is also a high level of correspondence between Tobit’s

Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit

159

and Tobias’ individuation cycles – both severally and as a single character – and the structure of the book: Structural and Psychological Coherence in Tobit. Engel

Hero myth

Tobias

Tobit

Exposition Tobit and Tob Sarah’s : – : troubles;

a) lack

In the background: Stage - Poor, blind, reproached:  lack - Separation: Naphtali, Exile (Stage ) - Unconscious Identification: Jerusalem and good works (Stage )

A Tob : – 

Tobit’s speech

Accepts quest

Issues quest

B (Tob : – :)

Quest for companion

Prepares for quest

- Questions Azariah/Raphael - depression as result of failure to progress to and past Stage 

C Travel to (Tob Ecbatana : – :a) from Nineveh

b) Travels to destination a) Arrives at destination b) Passes tests c) accompanied by companion

a) Separation: travels to Rages (Stage ) a) Arrives at Ecbatana (the angel’s main destination) b) Defeats fish (Stage ) c) Accompanied by Raphael and his faithful dog Is more assertive (Stage ) His eyes open re Raguel (Stage )

D (Tob :b– :)

) Must liberate maiden from monster a) Liberates maiden b) Hero’s welcome In maiden’s land a)Marries maiden

) Must liberate Sarah from demon a) Liberates Sarah b) Hailed as hero by Sarah’s family a) Marries Sarah (Stage )

Wedding

160

Helen Efthimiadis-Keith

Continued Engel

Hero myth

Tobias

Tobit

C′ Back to (Tob Nineveh : – )

b) Returns to hero’s welcome a) Marries maiden

b) Returns home to praise of Tobit + effects transformation ) Wedding celebration in Nineveh

- Rejoices over son+ Sarah - Loses preoccu-pation with good deeds, self, kinship group, money (Stages and ) - Speaks more kindly to Anna, embraces Sarah and hosts wedding feast (Stage )

- Sees world as it is and becomes conscious of Raphael as archangel + help received from God (Stage )

- Sees world as it is and becomes conscious of Raphael as archangel + help received from God (Stage )

B′ Part from (Tob companion : – )

A′ (Tob : – :b)

Tobit’s praise

- Acknowledges help received from God; praises God etc. (Stage ) + depicts Tobit’s transformation.

Epilogue (Tob :b– )

Tobit’s valedictory speech

Sees world as it will be in future

The table above shows that Tobit’s individuation cycle partially regresses from Stage 2 to Stage 1 at the level of Exposition and lack. His regression is evident in that he shows no growth in levels A and B, thus remaining on the outskirts of Engel’s structure in a state of lack. Tobit’s individuation cycle only picks up once Tobias returns from Rages, at which time he advances through Stages 3 – 5 of the individuation during three consecutive levels, C′–A′. With regard to Tobias: Prior to level A Tobias is present in the story only by name. In levels A and B, however, he accepts Tobit’s quest and departs from home. He completes Stage 2. Once he has done so, he progresses through Stages 3 – 5 in levels A–C¹⁹ and accesses Stage 5 in his marriage to Sarah, level D. In  Note that Tobit and Tobias go through Stages  –  in corresponding elements of Engel’s structure, namely C′–A′ (Tobit) and A–C. This too shows how their individuation cycles are intertwined into one and how they may represent different aspects of the same psychological “character.”

Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit

161

other words, his individuation cycle is not aborted as Tobit’s is, but continues to its highest point. To summarise, Tobit’s individuation cycle initially stops at the level of exposition, even though he continues to play a role until level B. Tobias appears at level A, and begins his individuation journey at level C, just after Tobit bows out of the story as it were Tobias’ individuation proceeds to the integration of the anima, level D which then provides the psychic energy for the continuation and completion of Tobit’s individuation cycle, levels C′–A′. The way that the individuation cycles of Tobit and Tobias intertwine shows the high degree of structural and psychological coherence in the story. It also shows that Tobit and Tobias may be read as a single psychological “character” or as two separate characters.

7 Interpretation What are we to make of all the above? I believe that we may interpret the data as follows: The situation of the imagined Assyrian exile depicts, for me, the shortages that were experienced in the Judaeans’ lives as a result of the actual Babylonian exile as well as their struggles under oppressive Greek rule. The image of Tobit as a faithful Jew fits in well with this scenario: depressed, holding fast to old traditions tenaciously, impoverished and blinded by what has happened. His initially aborted individuation cycle depicts the upheaval and alienation (exile) in the faithful community: they have been separated from their land through the exile and from their own people because of religious differences. They are, however, unsure as to how to progress and so hold on unconsciously and tenaciously to old patterns of behaviour. They focus on doing good deeds, cry out to God for deliverance, but cannot see that God will heal them, i. e. that God is already involved with them and has answered their prayers. True to post-exilic narratives, they rely on their own actions but encounter death and persecution as a result rather than deliverance and prosperity. The figure of Tobias is there to remind them that all is not lost, that there is life, that God is active on their behalf even if it does not seem so, and that life can still reach its highest potential. This is a future projection of wholeness, the dream’s communication of the author’s/community’s desired state of individuation that is also taken up in the eschatological expectation of the book. At the same time, reading the two characters as one indicates that true separation from the other must occur, that moral properties need to be differentiated and that they must wake up to the world as it is. At the same time, the Tobit dream tells the community that they need to integrate the anima if they are to

162

Helen Efthimiadis-Keith

enter the future at all, and if they are to form the eschatological faithful community of YHWH. The latter signifies, to me, that women should be integrated into all aspects of religion and society, that their gifts and talents be recognized, and that the rewards stemming from their gift usage and integration should neither be disparaged nor disputed (see Tob 2:11– 14).

Conclusion The paper has shown that there is a structural and psychological coherence in Tobit that allows the reader to analyse the individuation cycles of Tobit and Tobias as one or two separate characters. Read as one, their individuation cycles show that the dream is indicating that separation from the other (Stage 2) is crucial for a successful individuation cycle. Read apart, the dream shows, through Tobit, the author’s/community’s actual individuation cycle, how they are stuck in traditions and human action without seeing the involvement of God on their behalf. Tobias then provides them with hope of completing their individuation cycle and extending the life of their community into God’s restorative eschaton.

Source List Atkinson, Michael. 1992. “Robert Bly’s Sleepers Joining Hands: Shadow and Self.” In Jungian Literary Criticism, edited by Richard P. Sugg, 83 – 102. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. 1981. “Biographical patterns in Biblical narrative.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6:27 – 46. Charles, R.H. ed. 1913 The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English with Introduction and Critical and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books. Vol. 1 Apocrypha. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913. Craghan, John, F. 1982. Esther, Judith, Tobit, Jonah, Ruth. Old Testament Message, A Biblical-Theological Commentary, 16. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc. deSilva, David A. 2002. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Dawson, Terence. 1997. “Jung, Literature, and Literary Criticism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Jung, edited by Polly Young-Eisendrath and Terence Dawson, 255 – 280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Di Lella, Alexander A. 2007. “Tobit.” In A New English Translation of the Septuagint, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, 456 – 477. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Efthimiadis-Keith, Helen. 2004. The enemy is within: A Jungian psychoanalytic approach to the book of Judith. Biblical interpretation series, 67. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.

Structural and Psychological Coherence in the Book of Tobit

163

Efthimiadis-Keith, Helen. 2012. “What makes men and women identify with Judith? A Jungian mythological perspective on the feminist value of Judith today.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 68(1), Art. #1267, 9 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v68i1.1267. Efthimiadis-Keith, Helen. 2013. “The Significance of Food, Eating, Death and Burial in the Book of Tobit.” Journal for Semitics 22(2): 553 – 578. Efthimiadis-Keith, Helen. H 2015. “Food and Death: An Autobiographic Perspective on Tobit according to one Woman’s Binge-Eating Disorder.” In A Feminist Companion to Tobit and Judith, edited by Athalya Brenner-Idan with Helen Efthimiadis-Keith, 98 – 113. A Feminist companion to the Bible, second series, 20. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark. Frye, Northrop. 1992. The Archetypes of Literature. “‘Forming Fours,’ Expanding Eyes.’” In Jungian Literary Criticism, edited by Richard P. Sugg, 21 – 37. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. Goldenberg, Naomi R. 1977. “Jung after Feminism.” In Beyond Androcentrism. New essays on women and religion, edited by Rita M. Gross, 23 – 66. AAR Aids for the Study of Religion, 6. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press. Jung, Carl Gustav. [1940] 1956.The Integration of the Personality, trans. S. Dell. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Jung, Carl Gustav. 1956. Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. Meridian edition, trans. R. F. C. Hull. New York: Meridian Books. Jung, Carl Gustav. [1959a] 1975. The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, 9:1, trans. R. F. C. Hull. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Jung, Carl Gustav. 1959b. Aion. Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, 9:2, trans. R. F. C. Hull. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Miller, Geoffrey D. 2009. “A match made in heaven? God’s role in marriage according to the book of Tobit.” Rivista Biblica 57, 129 – 153. Miller, Geoffrey D. 2012. “Raphael the Liar: Angelic Deceit and Testing in the Book of Tobit.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 74(3), 492 – 508. Milne, Pamela J. 1986. “Folktales and fairy tales: An evaluation of two Proppian Analyses of Biblical narratives.” Journal for the Study of the OT 34, 35 – 60. Monick, Eugene. 1991. Castration and Male Rage: The Phallic Wound. Toronto, Canada: Inner City Books. Moore, Carey A. 1996. Tobit: A new translation with introduction and commentary. AncB Series, 40 A. New York: Doubleday. Oesterley, William O. E. 1935. An Introduction to the Books of the Apocrypha. London: SPCK. Otzen, Benedikt. 2002. Tobit and Judith. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. London: Sheffield Academic Press. Pratt, Annis V. 1992. “Spinning among Fields: Jung, Frye, Levi-Strauss, and Feminist Archetypal Theory.” In Jungian Literary Criticism, edited by Richard P. Sugg, 153 – 166. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press. Propp, Vladimir. 1968. Morphology of the Folktale. Austin and London: University of Texas Press. Soll, William M. 1988. “Tobit and folklore studies, with emphasis on Propp’s morphology.” SBL seminar papers, 27, 39 – 53. Soll, William M. 1989. “Misfortune and exile in Tobit: The Juncture of a Fairy Tale Source and Deuteronomic theology.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51, 209 – 231.

Steve Modugno

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology Abstract: In recent years there has been much discussion about the value and viability of writing a theology of the Septuagint. The questions often involve the definition of theology, the scope of the Septuagint, the appropriate methodology to interpret the Septuagint and whether or not translation shifts accurately reveal the theology of the translator or his cultural context. This paper affirms the value of describing the theology and ideology revealed by the differences between the Masoretic text and the OG translation. While the theological and ideological system may not be complete or even consistent, it nevertheless provides a window into the translator’s cultural milieu. The purpose of this paper is to illuminate some theological and ideological perspectives revealed through translation shifts in OG Micah ¹. This paper will also propose a methodology for discerning the translation shifts that reveal underlying theological or ideological motivations. Keywords: LXX-Micah, Septuagint Theology, Masoretic Text, Old Greek Translation.

1 Introduction Septuagint theology is a debated topic within Translation Studies and Septuagint Studies. Cook and Rösel argue that a theology of the Septuagint can and should be written as long as one avoids homogenising the theological nuances of individual books. Cook (2010, 605) says one should expect “many theologies, or exegetical perspectives” to emerge from the various LXX books. Similarly, Rösel (2006, 240) provides the following premise: “a ‘Theology of the Septuagint’ cannot be based on the leveling of differences among the individual books or the specific profiles of the translators for the sake of a common edifice of ideas.” However, he procedes to explain the value in identifying unifying themes among the individual books.

 For clarity, in this article, Micah (italicized) will be employed for general references to the Book of Micah, whereas Micah (normal script) will refer to the purported author: Micah of Moresheth.

166

Steve Modugno

Douglas (2012) and McLay (2010) are more skeptical about the feasability of writing a theology of the Septuagint. Douglas’ main concerns involve our ability to determine which books make up the LXX and our ability to discern the original intent of the translators (2012, 104). Connected to his second concern is the challenge of parsing out translator initiated differences from those that arose because of a divergent Hebrew Vorlage (Douglas 2012, 112). I agree with Rösel (2006, 251) who argues, “Even if we cannot be sure in every instance whether the translator, the Vorlage used, or a later redactor is responsible for these theological characteristics, it has to be stated that they are in the Greek text and therefore belong to the history of reception of the Septuagint.” McLay (2010) exhibits reluctance about writing a theology of the Septuagint because of the traditionally narrow scope of the pursuit along with an insufficient definition of the field of theology. Regarding the former concern, he argues, “theology of/in the Septuagint is not limited to or controlled by the intentions of the translator” (2010, 608). He believes the theology must also be informed by the translator’s religious and cultural context. Our goal, however, is explicitly limited to the (perhaps incomplete) theology reflected by the patterned shifts in the translated text. While there are questions about the scope, methodology and definition of Septuagint theology, most agree it would be beneficial to attempt to describe the theologies of individual books within the Septuagint. It seems to me that there are three levels of investigation into Septuagint theology: 1) the individual books, which represent unique themes and historical contexts; 2) the individual translator or group of translators, who may possess unique linguistic capacities, translation techniques and theological perspectives; 3) the entire Septuagint collection which may exhibit common themes already present in its Vorlage or resulting from translational interdependence. The third level of investigation lies outside the scope of this thesis. However, if LXX-Micah is in fact part of the larger LXX-Twelve Prophets corpus, the present conclusions could be improved with research in other books of the Twelve Prophets. It is important to note that the theological shifts in LXX-Mic do not reflect a polished, or sometimes even consistent, system.² Yet, through patterned theological shifts, the translator of Micah reveals his idiosyncratic perspective (though likely not much different than that of his historical milieu). Joosten (2000, 46) offers an appropriate caution: “les auteurs de la Septante visent le plus souvent à transmettre le sens de l’hébreu tel qu’ils le perçoivent, et non à corriger la teneur théologique de leur textesource d’après leur propre agenda.” While this is

 Cf. Tov (,  – ); Sysling (, ).

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

167

true of LXX-Mic, where the translator does adjust the content of his source text, he usually does so where the syntax is difficult, where the vocabulary is rare, or where letters can be interchanged with orthographically similar consonants. In other words, the translator often capitalised on ambiguous contexts to infuse his ideas.³ Whether or not the translator actually understood the Hebrew text, we should, nevertheless, classify these as free renderings. And free renderings, as Aejmelaeus (1993b, 50) says, “are like fingerprints that the translators have left behind them.”

2 Methodology Aejmelaeus (1993a, 1) claims, “In the case of the Septuagint, we actually know nothing about the external conditions in which the work was done… The only sure source of information is the translation itself.” While it is true that the translated text is the only sure source of information, the causal conditions, like those reflected in the Letter of Aristeas, and translation effects, as indicated by Jewish and Christian acceptance of the translation, contribute valuable data to the overall description of the translation. These data are analysed in my thesis. For the purpose of this paper, I will focus on my analysis of the translated text. Analysis of the translated text is a critical step in the description of a translation. If done properly, this analysis will provide information about the translator’s competency, compliance (to norms), ideology, and style. This step involves a careful comparison of the MT and the LXX for morphological, lexical and syntactical differences. The differences are determined through comparing “coupledpairs” of target and source text segments. Toury (1995, 89) acknowledges that though the establishment of these coupled pairs is ad hoc, the pairs should be reassessed as the study proceeds in order to determine the legitimacy of their establishment. Naudé (1999, 78) provides additional guidance in discerning coupled pairs: “Entities to be compared, while differing in some respect, must share certain attributes. This requirement is especially strong in the process of contrasting, that is, looking for differences, since it is only against a background of sameness that the differences are significant.” These differences are called “translation shifts” and they relate to linguistic performance as the translator negotiates “the transfer of certain values of expression or content across a semiotic border” (Bakker et al. 1998, 226). Catford (1965, 73) defines them as “departures from formal correspondence.” They include differences in verbal conjugation,

 Palmer (, ) noticed the same pattern in LXX-Zech.

168

Steve Modugno

word class, person, number, voice, meaning, and order, as well as pluses and minuses. The determination of translation shifts is sometimes subjective because it is based on expected differences. For instance, lexical shifts are identified by judging that the Greek word lies outside the semantic range of the translated Hebrew word (or falls within the semantic range but is, nevertheless, judged by its nuanced effect to be a translator intervention).⁴ Semantic ranges are established primarily by cognates and the context of usages so there is always the possibility that the translator renders a word according to a non-extant usage. Further, a meaning that we judge to fall outside the semantic range of the source text word may have been judged by the translator to fall within that range. Classifying presumed differences between the Hebrew and Greek of Micah often reveals translation patterns. Translation patterns (operational norms) are extremely valuable for explaining the less obvious translation shifts. In the words of Baker (1998, 164), “One identifies norms of translational behavior by studying a corpus of authentic translations and identifying regular patterns of translation, including types of strategies that are typically opted for by the translators represented in that corpus.” Translation technique is often a complicated mixture of conscious and subconscious translation decisions based on linguistic constraints of the target language, the translator’s style and desire to clarify, and the translator’s idiosyncratic ideology and theology. In order to describe the translation technique it is important to parse out the various conditions that give rise to translation differences. Following are the four primary conditions. First, translators made errors. Errors resulted from visual mistakes, phonological mistakes and linguistic incompetency in the source and/or target language. Second, our MT may not have the same consonants as the Hebrew text from which the translator translated. Third, obligatory shifts, which are differences that resulted from the linguistic constraints of the target language. Finally, non-obligatory shifts, which are adjustments decided upon by the translator based on factors of culture, ideology or style (Bakker et al. 1998, 228). “The original translators had – to a varying degree – an intuitive sense of the need for idiomatic rendering” (Aejmelaeus 1993a, 2). In this paper I will focus on this last category. I will begin with non-obligatory shifts motivated by the translator’s desire to clarify the text. Then I will describe the non-obligatory shifts introduced by the translator to infuse his own ideology or theology.

 Cf. Munday (,  ff) regarding attitude, graduation and engagement as it pertains to semantics in appraisal theory.

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

169

3 Non-Obligatory Shifts 3.1 Clarity A high priority for the translator was to make the message of Micah clear for his target audience. This was especially true in instances where the text is ambiguous (explicitation – e. g. Mic 2:4, 9; 4.10; 6.1) or metaphorical (concretisation – e. g. Mic 1:5; 2:13; 5.11 [Gk 5:12]; 7:15). It was also true when the Hebrew text was clear but the translator wanted to harmonise his present context with something similar in that verse or elsewhere in Micah (e. g. Mic 1:7; 4.6). When the message of the Hebrew text differed from the translator’s understanding, he often made adjustments. When these adjustments were not motivated by a theological or ideological agenda, they are interpretive shifts (e. g. Mic 4:8, 11, 13).

3.1.1 Explicitising Shifts Explicitation is a common operational norm in LXX-Mic and throughout the LXX.⁵ Vinay and Darbelnet (1995, 342) define this norm as “a stylistic translation technique which consists of making explicit in the target language what remains implicit in the source text because it is apparent from either the context or the situation.” It is, therefore, distinct from a theological or ideological shift that is not necessarily motivated by the context or situation but by the translator’s / target culture’s ideological/theological agenda. Anthony Pym (2008, 325) suggests that translators tend to reduce the risk of a translation or the translator being rejected by reducing the opportunity for misinterpretation. I will begin with some of the less intrusive shifts such as the supplying of a pronoun or prepositional phrase and end with the more intrusive shifts involving explicitising time reference or clause connection.⁶ In (1), we have an example of the translator explicitising through supplying the unspecified subject.

 The non-obligatory shifts (when the text was understood) due to explicitation in Micah are :, , , , , , ; :, , , ; :, , ; :, ,  (x), ; : [Gk :], : [Gk :], : [Gk :]; :, , ; :, , ,  (x), .  Note that the intrusiveness of a particular shift is ultimately context specific; the supplying of a pronoun (e. g., :) can sometimes be more intrusive than explicitising a time reference (e. g., :).

170

Steve Modugno

(1) Mic 4:10 MT

‫חוִּלי ָוֹגִחי ַבּת־ִציּוֹן ַכּיּוֵֹל ָדה ִכּי־ַע ָתּה ֵתְצִאי ִמ ִקּ ְר ָיה ְו ָשַׁכ ְנ ְתּ ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶדה‬ ‫א ְיָביְִך‬ ֹ ‫וָּבאת ַעד־ ָבֶּבל ָשׁם ִתּ ָנֵּצִלי ָשׁם יִ ְגָאֵלְך ְיה ָוה ִמ ַכּף‬

Writhe and burst forth,⁷ O daughter of Zion, like a woman in labour For now you will go forth from the city and dwell in the open country. You will go to Babylon, there you will be rescued; There the Lord will redeem you from the hand of your enemies. LXX ὤδινε καὶ ἀνδρίζου καὶ ἔγγιζε θύγατερ Σιων ὡς τίκτουσα διότι νῦν ἐξελεύσῃ ἐκ πόλεως καὶ κατασκηνώσεις ἐν πεδίῳ καὶ ἥξεις ἕως Βαβυλῶνος ἐκεῖθεν ῥύσεταί σε καὶ ἐκεῖθεν λυτρώσεταί σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν σου Suffer birth pangs and be courageous and come near, O daughter of Zion, like one in labour For now you will go forth from a city and dwell in the open country And you shall come as far as Babylon. From there he will rescue you And from there the Lord your God will redeem you from the hand of your enemies.

The shift from ‫“ ִתּ ָנֵּצִל‬you will be rescued” to ῥύσεταί σε “he will rescue you” exhibits a shift from Niphal yiqtol 2fs to future 3 s with 2 s direct object plus. The translator supplied the implicit subject (in congruence with the 3ms yiqtol + 2ms suffix in last stich ‫“ יִ ְגָאֵלְך ְיה ָוה‬the Lord will redeem you”) to explicitise the rescuer as the Lord. The following two shifts explicitise the relationship between clauses. In (2), the translator supplies διὰ τοῦτο “therefore” to clarify (explicitise) the relationship between Mic 2:8 and 2:9 as cause and effect. (2) Mic 2:9 MT

‫ְנ ֵשׁי ַע ִמּי ְתּ ָג ְרשׁוּן ִמ ֵבּית ַתֲּע ֻנ ֶגיָה ֵמַעל עָֹלֶליָה ִתְּקחוּ ֲה ָד ִרי ְלעוָֹלם‬

You drive out the women of my people from her delightful house; From her children you take my splendor forever. LXX διὰ τοῦτο ἡγούμενοι λαοῦ μου ἀπορριφήσονται ἐκ τῶν οἰκιῶν τρυφῆς αὐτῶν διὰ τὰ πονηρὰ ἐπιτηδεύματα αὐτῶν ἐξώσθησαν ἐγγίσατε ὄρεσιν αἰωνίοις Therefore, leaders of my people shall be cast out of their luxurious houses Because of their evil practices they have been expelled; Draw near the everlasting mountains.

 ‫ ]ֹגִחי‬This could be an imperative from ‫“ ִגּי ַח‬burst forth” or ‫“ ָנ ַגח‬push.” The versions do not help with the decision.

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

171

As a result of God’s people resisting in hostility, the leaders will be cast out of their luxurious houses. Mic 2:9b provides an additional reason for the judgment: the plus ἐγγίσατε “draw near” informs the audience of their expected action in response to the promised judgment. Similarly, the plus in Mic 7:2 (ὅτι “because”) was inserted to explain the prophet’s feelings in Mic 7:1 and explicitise the causes (Mic 7:2– 7:4b) for the judgment (Mic 7:4c). In Mic 2:4 and 4:8 we see examples of the translator explicitising through supplying prepositional phrases. (3) Mic 2:4 ‫ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא יִ ָשּׂא ֲעֵליֶכם ָמ ָשׁל ְו ָנָהה ְנִהי ִנְה ָיה ָאַמר ָשׁדוֹד ְנ ַשׁ ֻדּנוּ ֵחֶלק ַע ִמּי ָיִמיר ֵאיְך ָיִמישׁ ִלי ְלשׁוֵֹבב ָשׂ ֵדינוּ‬ MT ‫ְיַח ֵלּק‬ On that day, he will lift up a taunt song against you And sing a lament and say,⁸ “We are utterly ruined, He changes the portion of my people. How can he remove (it) from me. To an apostate he alots our fields.” LXX ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ λημφθήσεται ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς παραβολή καὶ θρηνηθήσεται θρῆνος ἐν μέλει λέγων ταλαιπωρίᾳ ἐταλαιπωρήσαμεν μερὶς λαοῦ μου κατεμετρήθη ἐν σχοινίῳ καὶ οὐκ ἦν ὁ κωλύσων αὐτὸν τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι οἱ ἀγροὶ ἡμῶν διεμερίσθησαν On that day, a parable will be taken up against you, And a dirge will be sung with mourning⁹ Saying, “We suffered intense misery, A portion of my people was measured out with a line And there was no one preventing him, to turn (him) away; Our fields have been divided.”

In 2:4, the plus is ἐν σχοινίῳ “with a line.” This plus was influenced either by the idea of casting the line by lot in Mic 2:5 or by the appearance of καταμετρέω “to measure out” and ἐν σχοινίῳ “with a line” together in Amos 7:17 (the latter is especially likely if there was indeed a single person or single group responsible for translating the Twelve Prophets). Mic 4:8 also contains an explicitising plus. (4) Mic 4:8 MT

‫שׁ ָנה ַמְמֶלֶכת‬ ֹ ‫ְוַא ָתּה ִמ ְג ַדּל־ֵע ֶדר עֶֹפל ַבּת־ִציּוֹן ָע ֶדיָך ֵתּאֶתה וָּבָאה ַה ֶמְּמ ָשָׁלה ָה ִרא‬ ‫ְלַבת־ ְירוּ ָשׁ ִָלם‬

 ‫ ִנְה ָיה ] ִנְה ָיה ָאַמר‬may have been introduced through dittography with the previous ‫ ְו ָנָהה ְנִהי‬.  Muraoka , ; cf. Ezek : (‫“ ֶה ֶגה‬moaning” > μέλος “mourning”).

172

Steve Modugno

And you, O tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, To you it will come; And it will come, the former dominion, Kingship for the daughter of Jerusalem. LXX καὶ σύ πύργος ποιμνίου αὐχμώδης θύγατερ Σιων ἐπὶ σὲ ἥξει καὶ εἰσελεύσεται ἡ ἀρχὴ ἡ πρώτη βασιλεία ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος τῇ θυγατρὶ Ιερουσαλημ And you, O dusty tower of the flock, daughter of Zion, Upon you it will come and enter in, The former dominion, A kingdom from Babylon to the daughter of Jerusalem.

The phrase ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος “from Babylon” was added to identify the attacker unveiled in Mic 4.10. Instead of understanding the verse as part of the future restoration of the exiles, the translator read it in connection with the verses of judgment to follow (Mic 4:9 ff). Another type of explicitation occurs when the translator shifts from an apparent collective singular to a plural. One common example in Micah is the repeated shift from ‫“ ָרע‬bad thing” to κακά “evil things/calamities” (Mic 1:12, 2:1, 2:3 and 4:9). Another example occurs in Mic 1:12 where we see a shift from singular ‫“ ַשַׁער‬gate” to plural πύλας “gates.” Singular ‫“ ַשַׁער ַע ִמּי‬gate of my people” in Mic 1:9 was rendered with singular πύλης λαοῦ μου “gate of my people” but Mic 1:12 is the only occurrence in the MT of singular ‫“ ַשַׁער‬gate” in construct with ‫“ ְירוּ ָשׁ ִָלם‬Jerusalem” (the phrase ‫“ ַשֲׁע ֵרי ְירוּ ָשִַׁלם‬gates of Jerusalem” occurs eight times in MT-Jer 1:15; 17:19, 21, 27; 22:19; Lam 4:12; Neh 7:3; 13:19). The rendering in the LXX may have been motivated by the unexpected singular form. This type of shift also occurs with pronouns as in Mic 1:5 (‫“ ֹזאת‬this” > ταῦτα “these”). The plural pronoun likely refers to the multiple punishments to follow in Mic 1:6 – 7. However, in 1.8 the translator maintains the singular (‫ַעל־ֹזאת ֶאְס ְפּ ָדה‬ ‫“ ְוֵאיִליָלה‬because of this I will wail and howl” > ἕνεκεν τούτου κόψεται καὶ θρηνήσει “on account of this she will lament and wail”) apparently referring to the punishment to come upon Israel. It is possible that the neuter singular τούτου “this” in 1.8 points to neuter singular κρίμα “judgment” (despite not being explicit in the context). Explicitation sometimes involves shifts which utilise more specific lexemes. In (5), the translator rendered ‫“ ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר‬that which” as λόγον κυρίου “a word of the Lord.” (5) Mic 6:1 MT

‫אֵמר קוּם ִריב ֶאת־ֶהָה ִרים ְוִת ְשַׁמְע ָנה ַה ְגָּבעוֹת קוֶֹלָך‬ ֹ ‫ִשְׁמעוּ־ ָנא ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר־ ְיה ָוה‬

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

173

Hear what the Lord says, Arise, plead your case with the mountains And let the hills hear your voice. LXX ἀκούσατε δὴ λόγον κυρίου κύριος εἶπεν ἀνάστηθι κρίθητι πρὸς τὰ ὄρη καὶ ἀκουσάτωσαν βουνοὶ φωνήν σου Hear now a word of the Lord, The Lord has said, Arise, render judgment before the mountains, And let hills hear your voice.

Most commentators suggest inserting ‫“ ַה ָדָּבר‬the word” or ‫“ ְדַבר־ ְיה ָוה‬the word of the Lord” to reconstruct the Hebrew Vorlage. While it is certainly possible that a word or phrase was lost from the Hebrew text, this more likely reflects the translator’s expectation for a form of ‫“ ָדָּבר‬word” to follow the command to listen (cf. similar circumstances in the Twelve Prophets: Hos 4:1; Amos 3:1; 4:1; 5:1; 7:16; 8:11; Zech 7:12; and 8:9). In line with his expectation, he explicitised the direct object for his target audience. In (6), the translator renders the ambiguous ‫שֶּׁכֶבת ֵחיֶקָך‬ ֹ ‫“ ִמ‬from her who lies (in) your bosom” more specifically with ἀπὸ τῆς συγκοίτου σου “from your bedmate.” (6) Mic 7:5 MT

‫שֶּׁכֶבת ֵחיֶקָך ְשׁמֹר ִפְּתֵחי־ִפיָך‬ ֹ ‫ַאל־ ַתֲּאִמינוּ ְב ֵר ַע ַאל־ ִתְּבְטחוּ ְבַּאלּוּף ִמ‬

Put no trust in a neighbor; Do not be confident in a friend; From her who lies (in) your bosom, Guard the openings of your mouth. LXX μὴ καταπιστεύετε ἐν φίλοις καὶ μὴ ἐλπίζετε ἐπὶ ἡγουμένοις ἀπὸ τῆς συγκοίτου σου φύλαξαι τοῦ ἀναθέσθαι τι αὐτῇ Put no trust in friends, And do not hope in leaders; From your bedmate, Guard against declaring anything to her.

Σύγκοιτος “bedmate” is a hapax legomenon in the LXX so we are not aided by other occurrences. The translator maintains the same feminine gender but renders it directly rather than with a circumlocution as in the Hebrew. A final set of explicitising shifts occur in LXX-Mic 1:10 – 15. Here we see several instances where the translator chose not to transliterate place names exhib-

174

Steve Modugno

iting wordplay in the Hebrew text.¹⁰ Rather, he rendered them according to their semantic significance. If the target audience was not fluent in Hebrew, then the significance of these placenames would be lost. These shifts represent the translator’s priority to retain the sense of his Vorlage for his target audience.¹¹

3.1.2 Concretising Shifts Concretisation involves shifting a metaphorical image into a concrete idea. This translation technique serves to clarify for the target reader the meaning behind the metaphor.¹² The transfer of meaning through metaphor and imagery is especially difficult when crossing cultural boundaries. Antje Labahn’s explanation of metaphors being bound to a particular language elucidates the challenge of translating metaphors. Language denotes a metaphor in a certain way; however, language is bound to a specific sociological and cultural framework. Hence, the language of a particular metaphor has to be common to the sociological framework of its hearers and readers. Their environment enables them to decode a possible meaning of a metaphor and to adapt it to their specific situation. The language of a metaphor therefore has to fit the sociological code of an individual or that of the group, to which the individual belongs. The mode whereby a metaphor establishes an extension of meaning is due to the communicative process provided by a coherent social group sharing the same cultural framework (Labahn 2005, 70). The following examples illustrate the concretising operational norm. In 1:5, there is a shift from the use of ‫“ ָבּמוֹת‬high places” as a metonym for many types of sins to the concrete and literal ἁμαρτία “sin.” In 2:13, the metaphor of being at the head (‫“ ְבּר ֹא ָשׁם‬at their head”) is concretised to leading (ἡγήσεται αὐτῶν “he will lead them”). In 5:11 [Gk 5:12], the Hebrew uses “hand” metaphorically to refer to possession. However, the Greek rendering concretises “hand” to the literal

 Ausloos et al. (, ) claim, “Indeed, although the LXX Song of Songs was in the past characterised as slavish – though without a thorough analysis of the translation technique – this research has clearly shown that the Greek translator couches the majority of the Greek equivalents for the fifteen hapax legomena in the Song of Songs in a way that is indeed faithful with respect to the content and meaning of the Hebrew Vorlage, but that, at the same time, appears to be a ‘free’ Greek rendering.”  Similarly, Ausloos (,  – ) examines the possibility of the LXX translator of Judges attempting to replicate the intended double entendre of his Hebrew Vorlage.  The non-obligatory shifts (when the text was understood) due to concretisation in Micah are :, ; :; :, , ; : [Gk :]; : [Gk :]; :; :, .

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

175

hands that hold the implements of sorcery (‫“ ִמ ָיּ ֶדָך‬from your hand” > ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν σου “from your hands”). One more example will suffice to illustrate the norm of concretisation. In Mic 7:5, we see the shift from ‫מר ִפְּתֵחי־ִפיָך‬ ֹ ‫“ ְשׁ‬guard the openings of your mouth” to φύλαξαι τοῦ ἀναθέσθαι “guard against declaring.” In rendering it this way, the translator shifts the metaphor to the concrete idea of being careful with what one says.

3.1.3 Harmonising Shifts The harmonisation we see in LXX-Mic involves connecting referents in ambiguous contexts with referents in explicit contexts.¹³ In (7), several shifts occur, none of which demonstrate a definciency in grammatical, lexical or syntactic understanding on the part of the translator. (7) Mic 1:7 MT

‫ְוָכל־ ְפִּסיֶליָה ֻי ַכּתּוּ ְוָכל־ֶאְת ַנ ֶנּיָה יִ ָשּׂ ְרפוּ ָבֵאשׁ ְוָכל־ֲעַצ ֶבּיָה ָא ִשׂים ְשָׁמָמה ִכּי‬ ‫ֵמֶאְת ַנן זוֹ ָנה ִק ָבָּצה ְוַעד־ֶאְת ַנן זוֹ ָנה ָישׁוּבוּ‬

And all her carved images will be crushed And all her wages will be burned in the fire, And all her idols I will lay waste For from the wage of a whore she collected, And unto the wage of a whore they will return. LXX καὶ πάντα τὰ γλυπτὰ αὐτῆς κατακόψουσιν καὶ πάντα τὰ μισθώματα αὐτῆς ἐμπρήσουσιν ἐν πυρί καὶ πάντα τὰ εἴδωλα αὐτῆς θήσομαι εἰς ἀφανισμόν διότι ἐκ μισθωμάτων πορνείας συνήγαγε καὶ ἐκ μισθωμάτων πορνείας συνέστρεψεν And all her carved images they will cut And they will burn with fire all her wages, And all her idols I will make destruction Because from the wages of whoredom she gathered, And from the wages of whoredom she brought together.

The first two stichoi exhibit shifts in agent from the Lord as the passive subject to the strong nations (from Mic 4:3) as the active subject (carved images passively

 The non-obligatory shifts (when the text was understood) due to harmonisation in Micah are :, , ; :, ,  (x); : (x), ; :, , , , , , ; : [Gk :], : [Gk :], : [Gk :], : [Gk :]; :, , ; :, ,  (x), .

176

Steve Modugno

crushed > they will cut the carved images; her wages passively burned > they will burn her wages). In the last stich there are shifts in meaning and tense of the verb as well as a shift in subject (‫“ ָישׁוּבוּ‬they will return” > συνέστρεψεν “she brought together”). The MT claims that by the wage of a prostitute she gathered (Mic 1:7bα), and unto the wage of a prostitute they will return (Mic 1:7bβ). The LXX renders the Hebrew in a parallel sense – from the wages of whoredom she gathered and she brought together. Wolff (1990, 58) is correct in understanding Micah’s message as addressing the “commercial goods and tribute” Samaria gave to Assyria in return for the “wages” used to build the royal residences that will be returned (“stones hurled down” and “foundations uncovered” in verse 6). The LXX renders ‫“ זוֹ ָנה‬whore” as an abstract noun πορνεία “whoredom” and likely understands Samaria to be the subject of συνήγαγεν “she gathered” and συνέστρεψεν “she brought together” while her idols are the objects. The translator’s understanding of the last two stichoi as parallel lines motivated the present shifts. The translator did not read a Hiphil 3fs ‫“ ֵה ִשׁיָבה‬she brought back” for ‫“ ָישׁוּבוּ‬they will return”; rather, he shifted the meaning to fit the understood context. Translators are often faced with having to render words whose meanings they do not know and the context helps them with the translation. Two different Hebrew words in Mic 4:6 (‫“ רעע‬to injure”) and Mic 4:7 (‫“ הלא‬to remove”) are rendered with the same Greek word ἀπωθέω “to reject.” (8) Mic 4:6 – 7 MT

‫ְו ַשְׂמ ִתּי‬

7

‫אְסָפה ַה ֹצֵּלָעה ְוַה ִנּ ָדָּחה ֲאַק ֵבָּצה ַוֲא ֶשׁר ֲה ֵרעִֹתי׃‬ ֹ ‫ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא ְנֻאם־ ְיה ָוה‬ ‫ֶאת־ַה ֹצֵּלָעה ִל ְשֵׁא ִרית ְוַה ַנֲּהָלָאה ְלגוֹי ָעצוּם וָּמַלְך ְיה ָוה ֲעֵליֶהם ְבַּהר ִציּוֹן‬ ‫ֵמַע ָתּה ְוַעד־עוָֹלם׃‬

On that day, declares the Lord I will assemble the lame female And the female who is driven away I will gather Even her whom I injured. 7 And I will make the lame female a remnant And her who is removed a strong nation And the Lord will reign over them on mount Zion From that day until eternity. LXX ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ λέγει κύριος συνάξω τὴν συντετριμμένην καὶ τὴν ἐξωσμένην εἰσδέξομαι καὶ οὓς ἀπωσάμην 7 καὶ θήσομαι τὴν συντετριμμένην εἰς ὑπόλειμμα καὶ τὴν ἀπωσμένην εἰς ἔθνος ἰσχυρόν καὶ βασιλεύσει κύριος ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἐν ὄρει Σιων ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν καὶ ἕως εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα In that day says the Lord, I will assemble her who is crushed

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

177

And her who is driven out I will welcome¹⁴ And those whom I rejected. 7 And I will make her who is crushed a remnant And her who is rejected into a strong nation And the Lord will reign over them in mount Zion From now until eternity.

‫“ הלא‬to remove” in Mic 4:7 is a hapax legomenon in the MT but ἀπωθέω “to reject” typically renders ‫“ ָמַאס‬to reject,” ‫“ ָז ַנח‬to reject” or ‫“ ָנַטשׁ‬to forsake.” This is a slot translation based upon its usage in Mic 4:6 to render ‫“ רעע‬to do harm.” It harmonises the reference to οὓς ἀπωσάμην “those whom the Lord rejected” in Mic 4:6 with τὴν ἀπωσμένην “her who is rejected” in Mic 4:7.

3.1.4 Interpretive Shifts Johann Cook (2009, 18) posits the following: “Since all translation is in essence interpretation, one should accept that each translator is at pains to make evident what he perceives to be the intention of his parent text.” Interpretive shifts occur when the translator possesses a certain understanding of a passage and adjusts elements in the passage to reflect his interpretation.¹⁵ This operational norm is distinct from explicitising shifts in that it does not involve the supplying of lexemes in order to clarify ideas in the passage. It is also distinct from ideological/ theological shifts in that the translator is not adjusting the message to fit his idiosyncratic ideology or theology. Mic 4:9 is a good example of a chain reaction of translation decisions.¹⁶ (9) Mic 4:9 MT

‫ַע ָתּה ָל ָמּה ָת ִריִעי ֵר ַע ֲהֶמֶלְך ֵאין־ ָבְּך ִאם־יוֲֹעֵצְך ָאָבד ִכּי־ֶהֱח ִזיֵקְך ִחיל ַכּיּוֵֹל ָדה‬

Now why do you raise aloud a shout? Is there no king among you? Has your counselor perished that pain has seized you like a woman in labour?

 Cf. Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets (Louvain: Peeters Publishers, ), .  The non-obligatory shifts (when the text was understood) due to interpretation in Micah are :; .; :; :, , , ; : [Gk :], : [Gk :]; :, , :, ,  (x); :, , .  C.f. Tov (,  – ).

178

Steve Modugno

LXX καὶ νῦν ἵνα τί ἔγνως κακά μὴ βασιλεὺς οὐκ ἦν σοι ἢ ἡ βουλή σου ἀπώλετο ὅτι κατεκράτησάν σου ὠδῖνες ὡς τικτούσης And now, why did you know calamities? Was there no king for you? Or did your counsel perish Because birth pains prevailed over you like one giving birth?

The translator read ‫“ ֵּת ְדִעי‬you will know” or ‫“תּוֹ ִדיִעי‬you will make known” for ‫“ ָת ִריִעי‬raise a shout” (common resh/dalet confusion in the Assyrian square script or paleo-Hebrew script and missed yod or added waw). This mistake was likely influenced by reading ‫“ ַרע‬evil, bad” for ‫“ ֵר ַע‬a shout.” The two qatals ‫“ ָאָבד‬he perished” and ‫“ ֶהֱח ִזיֵקְך‬it has seized you” influenced how the translator rendered tense in ἔγνως “you knew” and μὴ βασιλεὺς οὐκ ἦν σοι “was there no king for you?” Though the adverb of negation ‫“ ֵאין‬there is/was not” can be used for past time, in the context the Hebrew would be most naturally understood in present time. However, the translator took advantage of the grammatical ambiguity to clarify the time reference for the target audience. Later in the same chapter (Mic 4:13), the translator renders ‫“ ְוַהֲח ַרְמ ִתּי‬and I will devote” as καὶ ἀναθήσεις “and you will devote.” (10) Mic 4:13 MT

‫קוִּמי ָודוֹ ִשׁי ַבת־ִציּוֹן ִכּי־ַק ְר ֵנְך ָא ִשׂים ַבּ ְר ֶזל וַּפ ְרסַֹתיְִך ָא ִשׂים ְנחוּ ָשׁה ַוֲה ִדקּוֹת‬ ‫ ַליה ָוה ִבְּצָעם ְוֵחיָלם ַלֲאדוֹן ָכּל־ָהָא ֶרץ‬¹⁷‫ַע ִמּים ַר ִבּים ְוַהֲח ַרְמ ִתּי‬

Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion For I will make your horn iron And I will make your hoofs bronze And you will beat to pieces many peoples And I will devote their gain to the Lord And their wealth to the lord of all the earth. LXX ἀνάστηθι καὶ ἀλόα αὐτούς θύγατερ Σιων ὅτι τὰ κέρατά σου θήσομαι σιδηρᾶ καὶ τὰς ὁπλάς σου θήσομαι χαλκᾶς καὶ κατατήξεις¹⁸ λαοὺς πολλοὺς καὶ ἀναθήσεις τῷ κυρίῳ τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἰσχὺν αὐτῶν τῷ κυρίῳ πάσης τῆς γῆς Arise and thresh them, O daughter of Zion, For I will make your horns iron And your hoofs I will make bronze And you will liquidate many peoples,

 Perhaps this is an archaic form of the fs (GKC, § h) that was not corrected by the Masoretes nor marked by the Qere reading (cf. Jer :; :, ; :; :).  Followed by ἐν αὐτοῖς ἔθνη καὶ λεπτυνεῖς in Rahlfs-Hanhart.

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

179

And you will devote their multitude to the Lord And their strength to the Lord of the whole earth.

This is an example of the translator intervening to reflect his interpretation of the context. The Lord has commanded daughter Zion to arise and thresh that he might strengthen her and that she might defeat her enemies and devote their wealth to the Lord. The switch to the prophet speaking in the last two stichoi did not make sense to the translator so he rendered the main verb in the fifth stich as second person singular (which dictated the gapped verb in the last stich). And given the translator’s tendency to clarify the text for his target audience (e. g., supplying the object αὐτούς “them” earlier in the same verse), we should resist the temptation to explain these sorts of translation shifts as reflecting a different Hebrew Vorlage (unless, of course, something in the context suggests that a different Hebrew Vorlage lies behind the translation [cf. Mic 2:1 and 5:6 (Gk 5:7)]). Perhaps this is not a shift; rather the translator recognised ‫ְוַהֲח ַרְמ ִתּי‬ “and I will devote” as an archaic form of the 2fs. Another type of interpretive shift is reflected by double renderings. These occur when the translator is either unsure of the precise meaning of the Hebrew term or concludes that more than one Greek word is necessary to communicate the source text. An example of this solution to a difficult reading occurs in (11). (11) Mic 4:10 MT

‫חוִּלי ָוֹגִחי ַבּת־ִציּוֹן ַכּיּוֵֹל ָדה ִכּי־ַע ָתּה ֵתְצִאי ִמ ִקּ ְר ָיה ְו ָשַׁכ ְנ ְתּ ַבּ ָשּׂ ֶדה‬ ‫א ְיָביְִך‬ ֹ ‫וָּבאת ַעד־ ָבֶּבל ָשׁם ִתּ ָנֵּצִלי ָשׁם יִ ְגָאֵלְך ְיה ָוה ִמ ַכּף‬

Writhe and burst forth,¹⁹ O daughter of Zion, like a woman in labour For now you will go forth from the city and dwell in the open country. You will go to Babylon, there you will be rescued; There the Lord will redeem you from the hand of your enemies. LXX ὤδινε καὶ ἀνδρίζου καὶ ἔγγιζε θύγατερ Σιων ὡς τίκτουσα διότι νῦν ἐξελεύσῃ ἐκ πόλεως καὶ κατασκηνώσεις ἐν πεδίῳ καὶ ἥξεις ἕως Βαβυλῶνος ἐκεῖθεν ῥύσεταί σε καὶ ἐκεῖθεν λυτρώσεταί σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν σου Suffer birth pangs and be courageous and come near, O daughter of Zion, like one in labour For now you will go forth from a city and dwell in the open country And you shall come as far as Babylon. From there he will rescue you And from there the Lord your God will redeem you from the hand of your enemies.

 ‫ ]ֹגִחי‬This could be an imperative from ‫“ ִגּי ַח‬burst forth” or ‫“ ָנ ַגח‬push.” The versions do not help with the decision.

180

Steve Modugno

There the translator renders ‫“ חוִּלי‬writhe” as ὤδινε καὶ ἀνδρίζουs “suffer birth pangs and be courageous.” The verb ὤδινε “suffer birth pangs” is a common rendering for ‫“ ִחיל‬to writhe,” while ἀνδρίζομαι “to be courageous” usually renders ‫“ ָח ַזק‬to be strong.” The double rendering may have come about through a confusion of ‫“ חוִּלי‬writhe” with some form of ‫“ ִחיל‬to be strong.” The Syrohexapla reflects διατειίνου “exert yourself” instead of ἀνδρίζου “be courageous,” which may represent another attempt to translate ‫“ חוִּלי‬writhe.”

3.2 Ideological and Theological Shifts 3.2.1 Ideological The primary means by which the translator infused his ideology was adjusting the historical perspective of the text-historicising.²⁰ These shifts became apparent through classifying the verbal correspondences in Micah. Because the translator typically rendered Hebrew verbal constructions in expected ways, his deviations often reveal historicising motivations.²¹ These shifts provide a separation or distance between Micah’s original audience and the translator’s target audience.²² There are two instances where the historicising shifts occur through lexical changes (3:1, 9).

 The non-obligatory shifts (when the text was understood) due to differences in ideology in Micah are :,  (x),  (x), ,  (x), , ; : (x),  (x),  (x),  (x); :,  (x), ; :, ; :, , .  The correlation between Hebrew conjugations and Greek moods and tenses demonstrates certain important translation tendencies. First, in the vast majority of instances, the translator renders the Hebrew verbs in the expected way. For instance, qatals and wayyiqtols are usually rendered with aorists; yiqtols and weqatals are usually rendered with futures; and infinitives construct are usually rendered with Greek infinitives. We can conclude, therefore, that the translator had a good grasp of Hebrew and Greek grammar and he sought fidelity to his Hebrew Vorlage. Where he encountered a Hebrew form that has no exact equivalent in Greek (i. e., infinitive absolute), he chose a Greek verbal or nominative form that would convey a similar meaning. There are, however, instances where the translator deviates from a direct verbal correspondence. In those instances, a historicising pattern emerges which reflects intentional changes to the time reference of the verbs. There are shifts from weqatal to imperfect indicative (2:2 [4x]) or aorist indicative (3.5), and yiqtol to imperfect indicative (2:1; 3:11 [4x]) or aorist indicative (2:4 [2x]; 2:8 [2x]; 2:10; 3:5; 4:9). Intentionality is more conspicuous in rare conjugation shifts. Following are the percentages represented by these rare shifts: weqatal to imperfect indicative (7.3 %) or aorist indicative (1.8 %), and yiqtol to imperfect indicative (4.6 %) or aorist indicative (8 %).  Dines (, ) notes similar historicising shifts in Amos : f and :; Ausloos (,  – ) notes shifts in Mal (: [Gk :]) and Joel (: and :) regarding the Day of the

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

181

Mic 2:1– 4 illustrate well this type of shift. (12) Mic 2:1 MT

‫בֶּקר ַיֲעשׂוָּה ִכּי ֶישׁ־ְלֵאל ָי ָדם‬ ֹ ‫פֲעֵלי ָרע ַעל־ִמ ְשׁ ְכּבוָֹתם ְבּאוֹר ַה‬ ֹ ‫הוֹי חֹ ְשֵׁבי־ָא ֶון וּ‬

Woe to those who devise wickedness who plot evil on their beds; In the light of the morning they do it for it is in the power of their hands. LXX ἐγένοντο λογιζόμενοι κόπους καὶ ἐργαζόμενοι κακὰ ἐν ταῖς κοίταις αὐτῶν καὶ ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ συνετέλουν αὐτά διότι οὐκ ἦραν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν They came devising troubles and working evil deeds on their beds, And when it was day they accomplished these things for they did not lift their hands to God.

In Mic 2:1, the MT employs two participles and a yiqtol to describe the current actions of the wicked. However, the LXX shifts the timing of these actions to the past by rendering ‫“ הוֹי‬woe” with γίνομαι “to be” before the two participles. Additionally, he renders the yiqtol with a Greek imperfect, effectively shifting the timing to the past and emphasising the ongoing nature of the wicked actions. In Mic 2:2, there are four Hebrew verbs in the consecutive perfect conjugation (‫ ְוָחְמדוּ‬, ‫ ְו ָג ָזלוּ‬, ‫ ְו ָנ ָשׂאוּ‬, ‫ ) ְוָע ְשׁקוּ‬that are rendered as Greek imperfects (ἐπεθύμουν, διήρπαζον, κατεδυνάστευον, διήρπαζον). (13) Mic 2:2 MT And And And And

‫ְוָחְמדוּ ָשׂדוֹת ְו ָג ָזלוּ וָּב ִתּים ְו ָנ ָשׂאוּ ְוָע ְשׁקוּ ֶגֶּבר וֵּביתוֹ ְוִאישׁ ְו ַנֲחָלתוֹ‬

they covet fields and steal (them) (they covet) houses, so they take (them); they oppress a strong man and his household, (they oppress) a man and his inheritance.

LXX καὶ ἐπεθύμουν ἀγροὺς καὶ διήρπαζον ὀρφανοὺς καὶ οἴκους κατεδυνάστευον καὶ διήρπαζον ἄνδρα καὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἄνδρα καὶ τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ And they desired fields and were plundering orphans And were oppressing households; And they would plunder a man and his house (And they would plunder) a man and his inheritance.

Lord which may reflect historicising or may have been the result of a different Hebrew Vorlage or a translation mistake.

182

Steve Modugno

The intentionality of these shifts is further substantiated by the fact that there are 55 occurrences of consecutive perfect in MT-Mic and only five are rendered other than future (four are rendered as imperfects in Mic 2:2; one is rendered as an aorist in Mic 3:5). Clearly the translator understood that these verbs did not point to a future time. However, the two participles in Mic 2:1 establish a present time setting of the first two verses. The translator took advantage of the unusual use of consecutive perfect to emphasise the distance between the pre and post-exilic audiences. What follows in Mic 2:3 in the MT and LXX is a declaration by the Lord about the future judgment that will result from the wickedness. Mic 2.4 then describes a taunt song and lament that will be sung on that judgment day (parable and dirge in LXX). Though the content of the lament is clearly present time in the MT, the LXX reflects several shifts that set the timing of the dirge in the past. The accumulation of shifts in Mic 2:1– 4 suggests that the translator intended to update the message to reflect his post-exilic context rather than the pre-exilic context of his Vorlage. Similarly, in (14), there are four Hebrew imperfects that are translated with Greek imperfects. (14) Mic 3:11 MT

‫פּטוּ ְוֹכֲה ֶניָה ִבְּמִחיר יוֹרוּ וּ ְנִביֶאיָה ְבֶּכֶסף יְִקסֹמוּ ְוַעל־ ְיה ָוה‬ ֹ ‫שַׁחד יִ ְשׁ‬ ֹ ‫ָרא ֶשׁיָה ְבּ‬ ‫יִ ָשֵּׁענוּ ֵלאמֹר ֲהלוֹא ְיה ָוה ְבִּק ְר ֵבּנוּ ל ֹא־ָתבוֹא ָעֵלינוּ ָרָעה‬

Its heads judge for a bribe, And its priests teach for a price, And its prophets divine for money, And upon the Lord they lean saying, “Is not the Lord in our midst? No calamity will come upon us.” LXX οἱ ἡγούμενοι αὐτῆς μετὰ δώρων ἔκρινον καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς αὐτῆς μετὰ μισθοῦ ἀπεκρίνοντο καὶ οἱ προφῆται αὐτῆς μετὰ ἀργυρίου ἐμαντεύοντο καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον ἐπανεπαύοντο λέγοντες οὐχὶ κύριος ἐν ἡμῖν ἐστιν οὐ μὴ ἐπέλθῃ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς κακά Her leaders were judging for gifts, And her priests were giving answer for a wage, And her prophets were divining for money, And upon the Lord they were resting saying, “Is the Lord not among us? Evil will not come upon us.”

Typically, Hebrew imperfects have a future or present time reference and Greek imperfects have a past time reference. The translator has clarified for the target audience that these negative actions already occurred and judgment will follow.

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

183

Mic 3:1 and 3:9 reflect historicising shifts via lexical changes.²³ There the translator rendered ‫“ וְּקִצי ֵני ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָרֵאל‬and rulers of the house of Israel” as καὶ οἱ κατάλοιποι οἴκου Ισραηλ “and you who are left of the house of Israel.” (15) Mic 3:1 MT

ֹ ‫ָו‬ ‫אַמר ִשְׁמעוּ־ ָנא ָרא ֵשׁי ַיֲעקֹב וְּקִצי ֵני ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָרֵאל ֲהלוֹא ָלֶכם ָל ַדַעת ֶאת־ַה ִמּ ְשׁ ָפּט‬

And I said, “Listen, you heads of Jacob And rulers of the house of Israel, Is it not for you to know justice? LXX καὶ ἐρεῖ ἀκούσατε δὴ ταῦτα αἱ ἀρχαὶ οἴκου Ιακωβ καὶ οἱ κατάλοιποι οἴκου Ισραηλ οὐχ ὑμῖν ἐστι²⁴ τοῦ γνῶναι τὸ κρίμα And he will say, “Hear now these things, you heads of the house of Jacob, And you who are left of the house of Israel, Is it not for you to know judgment?

The context in both the MT and LXX is the prophet condemning the wicked Israelite leadership. However, in the second stich the translator rendered ‫וְּקִצי ֵני ֵבּית‬ ‫“ יִ ְשׂ ָרֵאל‬and rulers of the house of Israel” as καὶ οἱ κατάλοιποι οἴκου Ισραηλ “and you who are left of the house of Israel.” Many commentators suggest that the shifts reflect a mistaken reading of ‫“ ָקִצין‬chief, ruler” as some form of ‫“ ָקַצץ‬to cut off,” ‫“ ֵקץ‬end,” ‫“ ָקָצה‬to cut off,” or ‫“ ָקֶצה‬end.”²⁵ However, the plain sense of ‫“ ָקִצין‬chief, ruler” elsewhere in the MT is maintained by the LXX (ἀρχηγός “leader” [Judg 11:6, 11; Isa 3:6, 7]; ἄρχων “ruler” [Isa 1:10; 22:3]; ἐνάρχομαι “to begin” [Josh 10:24]; βασιλεύς “king” [Pro 25:15]). Furthermore, if the translator had struggled with the meaning of ‫“ ָקִצין‬chief, ruler,” the parallel ‫“ ר ֹאשׁ‬head” should have provided him the assistance he needed. In my opinion, the strongest explanation for the shifts in 3:1 and 3:9 comes from Aaron Schart (2011, 2285)

 Dines () recognises a similar type of historicising in LXX-Amos. She claims with regard to the prophetic utterances that the translator of Amos understands them to be “speaking to and about contemporary (or at least recent) events.” With regard to salvation prophecies, though he believed they were not yet fully realised, they would soon be completely fulfilled (Dines , ). Similarly, the historicising approach of fourth-fifth century c.e. commentators Dines studied – Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Cyril of Alexandria and Jerome – emphasises the major conquests (Assyrian and Babylonian), Babylonian exile and the return of the Judean remnant as it affects the parousia of Christ.  ἐστιν in Rahlfs-Hanhart.  See Gelston (, ); Magary (, ); Taylor (, ); Wolff (, n.d); Schwantes (, ). Hillers (, n.d) suggests that this explanation is ad hoc but does not offer any other explanation.

184

Steve Modugno

who argues that these shifts reflect the translator’s intention to include the diaspora in the threats to follow. The diaspora has already been mentioned in 2:12 in the context of future gathering and restoration. In LXX-Mic 3:1 and 3:9, the diaspora Israelites are chastened along with the rulers in Jacob. This argument is strengthened by the shift in 3:1 from a 1cs wayyiqtol to a third person future indicative (‫אַמר‬ ֹ ‫“ ָו‬and I said” > καὶ ἐρεῖ “and he will say”). It was necessary for there to be a future command if the translator’s contemporary audience were to also receive the warning. These shifts expand the warnings from only the pre-exilic Israelite rulers to the post-exilic diaspora living in Alexandria in the third or second century b.c.e.²⁶ Other historicising shifts are reflected through shifts from vocatives to subjects of main verbs. According to Miller (2010, 48), the definite article is not usually present with vocative common nouns. We should not assume, then, that the LXX translator would have looked for a definite article to mark the vocative noun. Therefore, the shifts in LXX-Mic from vocative to the subject of the main verb cannot be explained by means of the absence of the definite article. Instead, we must posit other explanations for these shifts. In Mic 2:7 and 2:12, the shifts likely represent historicising shifts (in congruence with other historicising shifts in this chapter [esp. in Mic 2:1– 4]). The translator viewed the addresses to the house of Jacob in Mic 2:7 and 2:12 to be contemporary with the original prophecies, not with his own historical context. The latter shift (Mic 2:12) may have also been motivated by a desire to harmonise with the parallel second stich in which “remnant of Israel” is not a vocative.

3.2.2 Theological Shifts The theological shifts exhibited in LXX-Mic involve the translator’s view of God or the cult. Among the more visible translator intrusions involve words for sin and punishment.²⁷ In Mic 1:12, 2:1, 2:3 and 4:9, the translator renders ‫“ ָרע‬evil” as κακά “evil deeds” (singular to plural). Similarly, in Mic 2:1 the ‫“ ָא ֶון‬wickedness” is rendered κόπους “troubles.”²⁸ In Mic 3:8, we see shifts from ‫“ ִפּ ְשׁעוֹ‬his

 A similar translation technique is noted by Wagner (, ) with regard to OG Isa : – . He claims, “By adhering closely to his Vorlage at pivotal points (verses , , , ), the Greek translator faithfully preserves the overall shape of the source text. At the same time, the translator consistently modifies Isaiah’s judgment oracles so that they more specifically target the leaders of Jerusalem.”  Cook (, ) detects a similar emphasis on evil in LXX-Prov.  The same shifts occur in Hab :; :; Zech :.

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

185

transgression” to ἀσεβείας αὐτοῦ “his impious acts” and ‫“ ַח ָּטאתוֹ‬his sin” to ἁμαρτίας αὐτοῦ “his sins.”²⁹ In Mic 1:5, the shift from ‫“ ֹזאת‬this” to ταῦτα “these” probably serves to illuminate the extensive future judgment described in Mic 1:6 ff.³⁰ These shifts were made because the translator understood that the sins of Jacob must have been numerous and great to warrant the punishment they endured. Further, it seems that the translator may be harmonising with the plural iniquities and sins of Jacob in Mic 7:19, where God’s lovingkindness, faithfulness and compassion to forgive are described. The four shifts in (16) from first person to third person are also theologically motivated. (16) Mic 1:8 MT

‫ַעל־ֹזאת ֶאְס ְפּ ָדה ְוֵאיִליָלה ֵאיְלָכה שׁי ָֹלל שׁוָֹלל ְוָערוֹם ֶאֱע ֶשׂה ִמְס ֵפּד ַכּ ַתּ ִנּים‬ ‫ְוֵאֶבל ִכְּבנוֹת ַיֲע ָנה‬

Because of this I will wail and howl I will go barefoot and naked I will let out a wailing like the jackals And a mourning like ostriches. LXX ἕνεκεν τούτου κόψεται καὶ θρηνήσει πορεύσεται ἀνυπόδετος καὶ γυμνή ποιήσεται κοπετὸν ὡς δρακόντων καὶ πένθος ὡς θυγατέρων σειρήνων On account of this she will lament and wail; She will go barefoot and naked, She will let out lamentation like dragons And mourning like daughters of sirens.

The previous and following context describes the punishment the Lord will bring upon Samaria for her misdeeds. In 1.8, the prophet describes his own mourning as a result of the punishment Samaria will endure. The translator either himself read the mourning as a description of how the Lord would lament or worried that his target audience would read it this way. The Lord lamenting in nakedness was likely too scandalous for the translator. Therefore, he rendered the verse in such a way (four shifts in person) that the audience would under See ‫“ ְלַמֲע ֵשׂה ָי ֶדיָך‬to the work of your hand” > τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν χειρῶν σου “to the works of your hands” (: [Gk :]) referring to the idols and sacred pillars they constructed, and ‫“ ָעוֹן‬iniquity” > ἀδικίας “unrighteousness” / ‫“ ֶפּ ַשׁע‬transgression” > ἀσεβείας “ungodliness” (:).  This pluralising shift does not occur, however, in Mic : because it is the sin of the female speaker that is described. There is also a shift in the opposite direction (from plural to singular) in Mic : but this can be explained by the singular entities equated with impiety and sin – Samaria and Jerusalem.

186

Steve Modugno

stand the acts of mourning as those that Samaria would carry out.³¹ Gelston (2010, 96*) suggests that the shifts were “perhaps caused by doubt as to the identity of the subj.” It seems more likely that the translator understood the subject to be the prophet but did not want to risk his audience reading the Lord as the subject of the present context.³² Perhaps Isa 20:2– 4 influenced the translator’s shifts. There the Lord commands Isaiah to walk naked and barefoot for three years as a sign that the king of Assyria will take away the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles naked and barefoot. Naked and barefoot in that context was not a sign of mourning but a way to shame those enduring judgment (cf. Hos 2:5 and Amos 2:16). In (17), we see the following shift: ‫“ ֶישׁ־ְלֵאל ָי ָדם‬it is in their power” > οὐκ ἦραν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν “they did not lift their hands to God.” (17) Mic 2:1 MT ‫בֶּקר ַיֲעשׂוָּה ִכּי ֶישׁ־ְלֵאל ָי ָדם‬ ֹ ‫פֲעֵלי ָרע ַעל־ִמ ְשׁ ְכּבוָֹתם ְבּאוֹר ַה‬ ֹ ‫הוֹי חֹ ְשֵׁבי־ָא ֶון וּ‬ Woe to those who devise wickedness who plot evil on their beds; In the light of the morning they do it for it is in the power of their hands. LXX ἐγένοντο λογιζόμενοι κόπους καὶ ἐργαζόμενοι κακὰ ἐν ταῖς κοίταις αὐτῶν καὶ ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ συνετέλουν αὐτά διότι οὐκ ἦραν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν They came devising troubles and working evil deeds on their beds, And when it was day they accomplished these things for they did not lift their hands to God.

The context here was noted earlier – it is the prophet specifying the sins of the Israelites. In the MT, the phrase “it is in their power” explains that whenever the Israelites had the ability to sin, they did. In the LXX, however, the phrase “they did not lift their hands to God” seems to connote prayer and it reflects an intentional theological shift. He changed the sense of this verse in order to attribute the cause of their misdeeds to their failure to pray to God (i. e., not aligning themselves with God in order to do what is right in his eyes). Though it is possible that the LXX translator was reading a different Hebrew Vorlage, other translations (α΄, σ΄, θ΄ and T) reflect the MT. It is also possible that the translator did not understand the Hebrew idiom and was doing the best he could to render it ade-

 S shifted to fs imperatives and T shifted to p yiqtols presumably for the same reason.  Palmer (, ) finds in LXX-Zech an emerging “exegetical tradition which softened down anthropomorphisms and other ‘inappropriate’ expressions.”

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

187

quately. Evidence against this explanation involves the other occurrences of this idiom in the LXX which are rendered in the same sense.³³ The shifts in (18) seem to imply that they could have been rescued if they had feared God. (18) Mic 6:9 MT

³⁴‫קוֹל ְיה ָוה ָלִעיר יְִק ָרא ְותוּ ִשׁ ָיּה יִ ְרֶאה ְשֶׁמָך ִשְׁמעוּ ַמֶּטה וּמוֵֹעד ָהִעיר‬

The voice of the Lord cries out to the city And it is sound wisdom to acknowledge your name. Hear, O tribe, and assembly of the city. LXX φωνὴ κυρίου τῇ πόλει ἐπικληθήσεται καὶ σώσει φοβουμένους τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἄκουε φυλή καὶ τίς κοσμήσει πόλιν The voice of the Lord will be proclaimed in the city And he will save those who fear his name. Hear, O tribe, and who will adorn a city?

There are three shifts in a single clause (‫“ ְותוּ ִשׁ ָיּה יִ ְרֶאה ְשֶׁמָך‬and it is sound wisdom to acknowledge your name” > καὶ σώσει φοβουμένους τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ “and he will save those who fear his name”).³⁵ The first two shifts may have resulted from orthographic/phonological errors. Yet, it is likely that the translator took the opportunity to infuse his salvation theology into the context of judgment (Mic 6:9c– 16).

4 Conclusions The conclusions reached in this study are based on careful comparison of the coupled pairs of the source and target text of Micah. Through separating differences due to error, different Hebrew Vorlage, or linguistic constraints from differences purposely introduced, certain translation patterns emerged. From these patterns we can begin to see a picture (albeit incomplete) of the unique ideological and theological perspective of the translator.

 The other occurrences of the idiom ‫“ ֶישׁ־ְלֵאל ָיד‬there is power in the hand” are Gen :, Prov : (with ‫“ ִבְּהיוֹת‬when there is” rather than ‫“ ֵישׁ‬there is”), and Deut : and Neh : (with negative particle ‫“ ֵאין‬there is not” rather than ‫“ ֵישׁ‬there is”).  MT ‫ וִּמי ְיָע ָדּה‬+ ‫ עוֹד‬of :; emendation following Wellhausen (, ).  Hillers (,  n. a) understands these shifts as interpretive.

188

Steve Modugno

Ideologically, shifts occurred primarily through the technique of historicising. The translator demonstrated a clear desire to update the text to reflect his contemporary historical setting of Ptolemaic Alexandria. He intended to place a separaton between the sins of Micah’s original audience that led to their exile and the historical context of the post-exilic diaspora Jews of the 3rd to 2nd century b.c.e. (e. g., Mic 2:1, 2, 4, 7, 8; 3:5, 11; 4:9). He also wanted to make it clear that the judgment incurred by the pre-exilic Israelites had already taken place (e. g., Mic 2:1, 2, 4, 10; 4:9). Yet, he made sure to warn his target audience that they should heed their own actions lest they receive the same judgment (Mic 3:1, 9). A picture of the translator’s idiosyncratic theology (though not completely developed or consistent) emerges from the shifts he introduced in the translated text. These are instances where he intervenes to infuse a theology that is unique but that likely reflects his historical milieu. His theology reflects a high view of God and a critical perspective toward those Israelites who caused the exile. His high view of God can be seen in how he protected his target audience from misinterpreting certain aspects of God. For instance, in Mic 1:8, he made sure they would not think God goes about naked and barefoot mourning. In Mic 6:14, he also attempted to shield them from viewing God as one who inflicts harsh punishment on his people like handing them over to the sword. In Mic 4:6, it seems that the translator wanted his audience to believe that God did not directly injure his people; he merely rejected them. In Mic 4:10, the translator sought to build up his audience’s view of God by making it clear that it was the Lord who rescued his people from exile and that that Lord was their God. The translator also infused the translation with his critique of the Israelites whose sin resulted in exile. Through shifting words about sin from singular to plural (e. g., Mic 1:12; 2:1; 4:9), he highlighted the grievous nature and abundance of their sins, making it clear that they alone were culpable and God was justified in punishing them. Similarly, he shifted words of judgment from singular to plural to illuminate the extent of their punishment (e. g., Mic 6:16; 7:4). Other shifts seem to indicate that God did not save them because of their failure to turn to him in prayer (2:1) or fear him (6:9). The intent of this study was to contribute to our understanding of the tendencies of LXX-Micah’s translator. However, it was a study in only a portion of LXX-Twelve Prophets, which is only a portion of the entire LXX corpus. Research on Greek Hosea, Habakkuk and Haggai, for instance, will likely produce valuable data. Behind each of these books stands a different historical milieu for the original prophecies in the Hebrew text. Perhaps the different historical settings in the Hebrew motivated different translation approaches. Hopefully Translation Studies scholars will analyse other books in the LXX with respect to their trans-

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

189

lational patterns in order to add to the overall picture of this rich and diverse work of translation.

Source List Aejmelaeus, Anneli. 1993a. “On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators.” In On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators, edited by Anneli Aejmelaeus, 1 – 6. Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publising House. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. 1993b. “The Significance of Clause Connectors in the Syntactical and Translation-technical Study of the Septuagint.” In On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators, edited by Anneli Aejmelaeus, 49 – 64. Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publising House. Ausloos, Hans. 2012. “Judges 3:12 ̶ 30: An analysis of the Greek Rendering of Hebrew Wordplay.” In Text-critical and Hermeneutical Studies in the Septuagint, edited by Johann Cook and Hermann-Josef Stipp, 53 – 68. Leiden: Brill. Ausloos, Hans. 2014. “Mal 3:22 – 24 (4:1 – 6) in the Hebrew and Greek: Some Remarks Concerning its Function in the Canon.” In In the Footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: Studies in the Biblical Text in Honour of Anneli Aejmelaeus edited by Kristin de Troyer, T. Michael Law and Marketta Liljeström, 479 – 491. Leuven: Peeters. Ausloos, Hans and Benedicte Lemmelijn. 2010. “Content-related Criteria in Characterising the LXX Translation Technique.” In Die Septuaginta-Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse, edited by Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer and Martin Meiser, 357 – 376. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Baker, Mona. 1998. “Norms.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, 163 – 70. London: Routledge. Bakker, Matthijs, Cees Koster, and Kitty van Leuven-Zwart. 1998. “Shifts of Translation.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, 231 – 38. London: Routledge. Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University. Cook, Johann. 2005. “‘Theological/ideological’ Tendenz in the Septuagint-LXX Proverbs: A Case Study.” In Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, edited by F. García Martínez and M. Vervenne, 65 – 79. Leuven: Peeters. Cook, Johann. 2009. “On the Role of External Traditions in the Septuagint.” In Septuagint and reception: Essays prepared for the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in South Africa, edited by Johann Cook, 17 – 36. Leiden: Brill. Cook, Johann. 2010. “Interpreting the Septuagint – Exegesis, Theology and/or Religionsgeschichte?” In Die Septuaginta-Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse, edited by Wolfgang Kraus, Martin Karrer and Martin Meiser, 590 – 606. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Dines, Jennifer M. 1991. The Septuagint of Amos: A Study in Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of London – Heythrop College. Douglas, Alex. 2012. “Limitations to writing a theology of the Septuagint.” The Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 45, 104 – 117. Gelston, Anthony, ed. 2010. The Twelve Minor Prophets. Biblia Hebraica Quinta 13. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Hillers, Delbert R. 1984. Micah: A commentary on the book of the prophet Micah.

190

Steve Modugno

Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Joosten, Jan. 2000. “Une théologie de la Septante? Réflexions méthodologiques sur l’interprétation de la version grecque.” Revue de théologie et de philosophie 132, 31 – 46. Labahn, Antje. 2005. “Wild animals and chasing shadows: Animal metaphors in lamentations as indications for individual threat.” In Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, edited by P. van Hecke, 67 – 97. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Magary, Dennis R. 1995. Translation technique in the Peshitta of the book of Micah. Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin – Madison. McLay, R. Timothy. 2003. The use of the Septuagint in New Testament research. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Miller, Cynthia. 2005. “Ellipsis involving negation in biblical poetry.” In Seeking out the wisdom of the ancients: Essays offered to honor Michael V. Fox on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, edited by Ronald Troxel, Kevin Friebel and Dennis Magary, 37 ̶ 52. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Miller, Cynthia. 2010. “Definiteness and the vocative in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of North-West Semitic Languages 36/1, 43 ̶ 64. Munday, Jeremy. 2012. Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision-making. London: Routledge. Muraoka, Takamitsu. 2009. A Greek-English lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets. Louvain: Peeters Publishers. Naudé, J. A. 1999. “A descriptive translation analysis of the Schocken Bible.” Old Testament Essays 12/1, 73 ̶ 93. Palmer, James K. 2006. “‘Not made with tracing paper’: Studies in the Septuagint of Zechariah.” Abstract of Ph.D. dissertation, Tyndale Bulletin. 57.2, 317 ̶ 320. Pym, Anthony. 2008. “On Toury’s laws of how translators translate.” In Beyond descriptive translation studies: Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury, edited by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 311 – 28. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rahlfs, Alfred. 2006. Septuaginta. Revised by Robert Hanhart. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Rösel, Martin. 2006. “Towards a ‘Theology of the Septuagint’.” In Septuagint research: Issues and challenges in the study of the Greek Jewish scriptures, edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, 239 ̶ 252. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Schart, Aaron. 2011. “Dodekapropheton – das Zwölfprophetenbuch.” In Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament. edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Schwantes, Siegfried J. 1962. A critical study of the text of Micah. Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, Boston. Sysling, Harry. 2007. “Translation techniques in the ancient Bible translations: Septuagint and Targum.” In A history of Bible translation, edited by Philip Noss, 279 – 305. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Taylor, John. 1890. The Massoretic text and the ancient versions of the book of Micah. London: Williams and Norgate. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Benjamins translation library. 4. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.

Translation Shifts in LXX-Micah as Clues to its Theology and Ideology

191

Tov, Emanuel. 1984. “Did the Septuagint translators always understand their Hebrew text?” In De Septuaginta: Studies in honour of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday, edited by Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox, 53 – 70. Ontario: Benben Publications. Tov, Emanuel. 2012. Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. 1995. Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation. Translated by Juan C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wagner, J. Ross. 2014. Reading the sealed book: Old Greek Isaiah and the problem of Septuagint hermeneutics. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wellhausen, J. 1963 (reprint). Die kleinen Propheten. Übersetzt und erklärt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Wolff, Hans Walter. 1990. Micah: A commentary. Translated by Gary Stansell. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Augsburg.

Risimati S. Hobyane

Reading Judith as a Guide to Jewish Worship in Second Temple Judaism: A Greimassian Perspective Abstract: Worship is usually not a popular theme to be researched by scholars in the book of Judith ¹. While Scholars have contributed significantly on historical, ethical and war matters around the Judith narrative, this article asserts that a perspective of reading Judith as a guide to Jewish religious worship in the Second Temple period has not yet been comprehensively addressed. This study attempts to present an alternate reading of Judith. In this regard, this article employs the narrative level of analysis; in particular, the actantial model of the Greimassian approach² to narratives. The study of the actantial model as informed by the level of analysis, mentioned above, seems to holistically uncover questions like: who³, how, when, where must be (not be) worshipped, in Judith. Subsequently, the article concludes by suggesting that Judith was intentionally designed to address issues pertaining to true worship in the Second Temple Judaism. Keywords: Judith; Worship; Greimassian Approach; Second Temple Judaism.

1 Introduction and Problem Statement Judith is a story of how an Israelite woman (also considerd a Jewish heroine) paves the way for her people’s victory over an invading Assyrian army (Moore, 1992, 61– 71). She does this by first deceiving and then decapitating the leader of the enemy host, whom she seductively reduced to drunken unconsciousness (Esler, 2002, 107; see also White, 1992, 5 – 16). The story consists of two parts; these two parts are traditionally called Part I (1– 7) and Part II (8 – 16). Nickelsburg (2005, 97) states that Part I narrates the story of the developing crisis facing

 In this study, Judith (italicised) refers to the book of Judith, whilst Judith (non-italicised) refers to its female protagonist or character.  The paper was presented at an international Conference of the study of the Septuagint in South Africa at the Northwest University on  –  August . All the comments and inputs from various scholars present were taken into consideration in the finalisation of this article.  The question of “who” is two-fold; i. e. who must be worshipped and who is eligible to worship?

194

Risimati S. Hobyane

Israel, while Harrington (1999, 27) indicates that Part II narrates the story of how God saves Israel by the hand of Judith. Scholars have brought forward various opinions concerning the date of authorship of Judith. For the purpose of contextualizing the worship theme in this article, this aspect is briefly discussed. Efthimiadis-Keith (2004, 8) argues that the overall ambience of the book reflects the post-exilic era and setting, which is the Persian Era (sixth-fourth century), Early Maccabean Era (168 – 135), and the Hasmonean Era (135 – 63). Brown (1968, 624) writes “an unknown Jewish author composed this work about 150 B.C.E., probably in Palestine. The author’s knowledge of Gk customs (3:7; 15:13) and the strong emphasis on legal prescriptions suggest this late date of composition.” While acknowledging the difficulty around determining the exact date of the setting in Judith, this article, agreeing with Efthimiadis-Keith (2004, 8) takes into serious consideration the fact that Judith reflects a political-religious crisis in which Jews/Judaism are threatened by the onslaught of a foreign nation. The Apocryphal book of Judith has been studied in various ways in the past century. Insightful contributions through major commentaries and books on Judith have shown a remarkable development in interpretation over the past century. It must be indicated also that Judith studies have been dominated primarily by historical critical approaches until fairly recently Efthimiadis-Keith (2004, 25). Moore (1985, 76 – 77) provides an intuitive outline of various scholarly views on Judith dating from as early as 1888. This study observes that many of these contributions followed the historical critical approach, focusing heavily on the questions on authorship, structural criticism of the story, historical and geographical inconsistencies etc. in their analysis of the story. For the purpose of this article I wish to highlight recent significant moments in Judith research that, no doubt, have also inspired the birth of this article. The year 2004 saw a significant development in Judith research with two major contributions that revolutionized the study of the book. The first one is that of Bal (2004) with Athalya Brenner as editor. This book titled “Head Hunting: Judith on the Cutting Edge of Knowledge,” in A Feminist Companion to Ester, Judith and Susanna” comes from a feministic angle – a first in the history of Judith research. The book transformed Judith interpretation; penetrating previously unmapped territories. For instance, the beheading of Holofernes is claimed to be a form of castration. In the same year, 2004, Helen Efthimiadis-Keith also published her epoch-making dissertation on Judith. Her focus was not so much the historical circumstances for writing this book rather the employment of a Jungian psychoanalytical approach, working with binary oppositions within the text. For instance, Efthimiadis-Keith asserts that Judith, Holofernes, Achior and Bagoas are all personality types found within this text.

Reading Judith as a Guide to Jewish Worship in Second Temple Judaism

195

The contribution of Brenner and Efthimiadis-Keith broke radically with the stereotypical ways of scrutinizing Judith, thereby paving the way for other types of interpretation. The impetus for investigating the worship aspect on Judith came from my doctoral thesis on Judith (Hobyane, 2012). This research presented a new way of looking at Judith employing the Greimassian semiotic approach to narratives. In this context, I came to the conclusion that Judith mainly concerns the rejuvenation of Judaism during the Second Temple period. Whilst this research could claim to have brought some new perspective to the study of Judith, it is acknowledged that it could have gone further. Here, I refer specifically to the aspect of worship – particularly on the discussion of the actantial model under the narrative analysis, following the Greimassian approach. The central hypothesis here is that Judith can also be read (adding to various insightful findings already made on Judith) as a guide to acceptable Jewish religious worship, in the challenging times of the Second Temple period. The story of Judith seems to guide the reader to answer questions, like who must/ must not be worshipped, where, how, when and why? Therefore, this article contends that even though previous scholars have contributed significantly to Judith research, the viewpoint of reading Judith as a Jewish worship journal/guide in the Second Temple period has not yet been comprehensively addressed.

2 Methodological Orientation For the purpose of clarity, the terminology, concepts and brief overview of the Greimassian approach to narrative texts are summarised below. The Greimassian semiotic approach is an approach that focuses on exploring semiotic objects, including narratives, at three different levels of analysis; namely: the figurative, the narrative and the thematic (Kanonge 2009, 27– 31). Taylor and Van Every (1999, 52) go so far as to suggest that Greimas’ approach to narrative analysis is “the most fully elaborated and subtle of any we have encountered”. This article focuses on the second of the three levels of analysis of the Greimassian approach, namely the narrative analysis; the actantial model in particular. Czamiauska-Joerges (2003, 41) asserts that the actantial model is the best known and the most quoted element of Greimas’ theory. Neemann (1999, 26) asserts that the main role of the actantial model is to reveal different functions of actants in a narrative. It consists of six functions called actants, that is, addresser and addressee; subject and object; helper and opponent. Behind the actantial model lies Greimas’ contention that, like sentences, narratives have their own grammar and syntax. A story always provides an ac-

196

Risimati S. Hobyane

count of the quest of a subject for an object (axis of desire). The addresser communicates the longing for the object to an addressee (axis of communication); the helper assists the subject in his/her pursuit, while the opponent raises obstacles to his mission (axis of power). The main relation between actants in a narrative can thus be structured as seen in Fig. 1; the discussion of the relation between actants in a narrative. For the purpose of this article, only the axis of communication will be briefly discussed.

Fig. 1 An Actantial Model illustrating Different Relationships

3 The Axis of Communication: The Relation Between the Addresser and Addressee The addresser imparts the object to the addressee. His/her mission includes three roles: – (S)He is called subject of state: The addresser longs for the object. – (S)He is said to be a subject manipulator: The addresser makes the subject act by transmitting to him/her modalities for the acquisition of the object (knowledge and/or duty). – (S)He is called subject adjudicator: The addresser represents desired core values in a narrative.

Reading Judith as a Guide to Jewish Worship in Second Temple Judaism

197

This paper asserts that acceptable Jewish worship is at the heart of the axis of communication and is the core value desired by the addresser him/herself and is the essence of the addresser and addressee relationship. The three roles mentioned above will be investigated in the light of the theme of this paper.

4 An Analysis of Judith 4.1 The God of Israel as Subject of State, Subject Manipulator and Subject Adjudicator The story of Judith starts with a representation of the destruction of certain Middle Eastern nations, including Israel, due to the ambitious plan of Nebuchadnezzar to control much of the then known world (Jordaan, 2009, 180). The narrative of this crisis facing Israel is well-covered in 1:1– 4:3. According to the text, Holofernes is determined to destroy all the gods of the land, so that all tongues and tribes should worship/serve (λατρεύσωσι) Nebuchadnezzar only as god (see also Kaiser, 2004, 40). This article observes that Holofernes’ religious claims regarding Nebuchadnezzar contrast sharply with the fundamental tenets of Judaism according to Exodus 20:3; hence the conflict of worship in the narrative. In the midst of this crisis, the central concern of the Israelites is the safety of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. In the process of defending their city and the Temple, the Israelites call apon God (addresser) for help. God’s involvement in Judith is evident, first and in general, apropos how He helped Judith to conquer the Assyrians (15:6) and secondly in the prayers of Judith (8:1– 14), the Israelites (13:17) and from celebration in 16:1– 17. Raja (1998, 696) also asserts that the book of Judith portrays in a nutshell the common belief that the God of Israel is the one who cares for God’s own people, especially in times of distress (see also Exod. 3:7– 14). Following Greimas’ actantial model, particularly the axis of communication, this manner of involvement and care implies that the God of Israel assumes all three traditional functions of the addresser (see also Fig. 1 above). He appears in the story as a subject adjudicator (the addresser himself longs for the object), a subject manipulator (the addresser makes the subject (Judith) to act in the process of preserving acceptable Jewish worship) and a subject of state (the addresser represents desired core values in a narrative). As already hypothesized in this article, the central concern of both the addresser and addressee in the story revolves around what constitutes acceptable (Jewish) worship.

198

Risimati S. Hobyane

4.2 Subject and Object of Worship in Judith The clash of two competeing deities is very notable in Judith, viz.: Nebuchadnezzar and the God of Israel (Harrington 1999, 28). Nebuchadnezzar wants to have all people worship him as god (6:2; 3:8); the same is the case with the God of Israel, particularly by His own covenantal people (5:8 – 9) and all who will submit to the Law of Moses e. g. Achior (14:10) and the maidservant of Judith (10:5). God, as the addresser who imparts the object to the addressee, is himself interested in preserving appropriate Jewish worship. Regarding the aspect of worship, Kaiser (2004, 38) suggests that Judith is intended to strengthen the self-understanding of Jews of the second half of the second century as the people of the sole God, YHVH. The story of Judith is modelled in such a way that its message is clear to the reader. Israel will worship/serve (προσεκύνησαν) no other god but their covenantal God, namely: the God of Israel (5:8 – 9). In fact Judith views Holofernes’ ambition as a violation of the covenant (9:13). The text, therefore, makes it clear that the Jews are required to worship the God of Israel as their one and only God not Nebuchadnezzar, as Holofernes claims. Textually, the Israelites’ (embodied in the character – Judith) resistance and the subsequent beheading of Holofernes and his army confirms this fact. After the victory song in 16:1– 17, the text reports that “Ὡς δὲ ἤλθοσαν εἰς Ιερουσαλημ, προσεκύνησαν τῷ θεῷ – as soon as they entered into Jerusalem they worshipped the Lord”. In fact the text indicates in 9:12 that Israel and Judaism are God’s own inheritance. He is the protector of Israel. Contrary to Holofernes’ ambition, in 9:14 it is mentioned that Judith’s ambition is to let all the nations to acknowledge that the God of is Israel is the God of all power and might, and that there is none other that protects the people of Israel but him.

5.3 Where is Worship Supposed to Take Place? The Greimassian approach of analysis gives a due attention to the significance of spaces in the narrative. This is called spatialization. Spatialization constitutes the environment or space in which the actors are placed in the narrative and this placing of characters contributes to the meaning of the story (Martin and Ringham 2000, 124– 125). Judith depicts a few settings in which the act of worship takes place; namely, Jerusalem and the Temple, Bethulia, the valley of Bethulia and Judith’s house. Each of these places is briefly investigated to establish its significant contribution to worship.

Reading Judith as a Guide to Jewish Worship in Second Temple Judaism

199

Very central to the conflict in the Judith narrative is the sacred space, Jerusalem and the Temple (4:2). The conflict around Jerusalem and the Temple may be understood if one understands what value and meaning they carried to the hearts of God’s people. Cohen (1989, 126) states that in the post-exilic era Jerusalem became one of the most famous cities of the east and the Temple was the object of universal admiration. The text of Judith does not report any major activities taking place in Jerusalem (except 4:6 and 9:1) until the victory is gained in 16:18 – 20. Unless the reader chooses to ignore textual evidence, Jerusalem is portrayed as sacred space of worship dearly loved by the all Jews and every Israelite (Judith) is keen to defend its well-being against the looming destruction by the Assyrians. Branch (2011:5) indicates that Jerusalem is loved by the Israelites because of what it represents: the site of the Lord’s Temple (central sacred space for Jewish worship) and, at some future, unspecified time, the Throne of the Lord (Jer.3:17). In brief, according to 16:18, Jerusalem is revealed as a place of worship (προσεκύνησαν τῷ θεῷ – they worshipped God), purification (ἐκαθαρίσθη ὁ λαός – the people were cleansed), and offering (ἀνήνεγκαν τὰ ὁλοκαυτώματα αὐτῶν – they brought their burnt offerings), while in 16:20, it is portrayed as a place of Jewish festivals/feasting (καὶ ἦν ὁ λαὸς εὐφραινόμενος ἐν Ιερουσαλημ – and the people were celebrating in Jerusalem). It is this setting where the feast of celebrating and appreciating Judith’s victory continues for three months. After this celebration, everyone returns to their place of inheritance, including Judith. Therefore, the setting of Jerusalem is associated with God and His covenantal people. If the Assyrian army served/worshipped (λατρεύσωσι) Nebuchadnezzar, who resides in Nineveh, the Israelites trusted in God whose dwelling place is in Jerusalem in the Temple. In brief, Jerusalem is the heart of Jewish worship, and therefore inspires an ideology opposite to that of Assyria and Nineveh. However, the text also depicts worship as an act that can be conducted anywhere. Jewish religious worship in Judith is not only restricted to Jerusalem and the Temple. The narrative also reveals that worship could be conducted elsewhere other than the two sacred spaces mentioned above. First, Judith is able to connect with God and observes all the rituals (prayer and fasting) of Judaism in her house (8:4 and 9:1– 14). This space tells more about the figure of Judith and her pious lifestyle. It is not only the place where Judith exercises her rulership (she is a widow in charge of her own affairs) and keeps her wealth but it is also revealed as a space used for the exercise of her religious obligations (Hobyane, 2012, 62). In 8:5, the text mentions that Judith “ἐποίησεν ἑαυτῇ σκηνὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ δώματος τοῦ οἴκου αὐτῆς” (made for herself a tent upon the top of

200

Risimati S. Hobyane

her house). Efthimiadis-Keith (2004, 215) states that the roof of a Jewish house was frequently used for the purpose of worship (prayer). Secondly, another space associated with worship in the narrative is the valley of Bethulia. This valley is explicitly mentioned in 11:17 and 12:7, in which Judith tells Holofernes that she will habitually go to pray and wash herself in the evenings. Judith mentions in 12:17 that: ὅτι ἡ δούλη σου θεοσεβής ἐστιν καὶ θεραπεύουσα νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας τὸν θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ νῦν μενῶ παρὰ σοί, κύριέ μου, καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ἡ δούλη σου κατὰ νύκτα εἰς τὴν φάραγγα καὶ προσεύξομαι πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ ἐρεῖ μοι πότε ἐποίησαν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτῶν⁴

This text is the evidence of the value that this valley plays in connection to worship in Judith. The narrative represents the valley of Bethulia as a place where Judith re-connects with God. The valley of Bethulia has also become a place of prayer and cleansing (both bodily and ceremonial cleansing). The narrative seems to infer that, as for the Jews, worship is a way of life. A duty that every person adhering to Judaism had to observe wherever they are e. g. Daniel was a prayerful young man in Babylon, Dan. 9:1 ff.

5.4 How is Worship Conducted? Cohen (1999, 53) indicates that in general, in both the first and Second Temple, God was worshipped through sacrifices, that is, the slaughter, roasting, and eating of animals. The text of Judith is didactic in nature in this regard. Through characterisation, the author/redactor awards himself an opportunity to educate the reader on the basics of how Jewish worship should be conducted. The first overarching conduct is that of Jewish religious patriotism, that is, showing an unwavering commitment to defending the religion. The character Judith is the best example in the story, unlike the elders, who succumbed to the call by the people to surrender Jerusalem and the Temple. In this act of worship anything (seduction, deceit and killing–9:10 and 13) is permissible as long as it advances the religion and Jewish worship. Nickelsburg (2005, 99) states that Judith’s use of deceit and specifically of sexuality, will seem offensive to modern sensitivities. But for the author/editor it is the opposite. For the sake of preserv-

 Because your servant is religious and serves the God of heaven day and night, now, my lord, I will remain with you and your servant will go out at night into the valley and pray to God and He will tell me when they have committed their sins“

Reading Judith as a Guide to Jewish Worship in Second Temple Judaism

201

ing acceptable Jewish worship Judith wisely chooses the weapon in her arsenal that is appropriate to her enemy’s weakness. Nickelsburg (2005, 100) asserts that alongside its exposition of a view of God, Judith as a religious text evinces considerable interest in matters relating to divine law, the Torah. Numerous narrative details depict Judith and the people faithfully adhering to the commandments of God as, doubtless, they were construed according to the halakah that was accepted in the author’s community. The text further reveals that fasting and morning rituals, ablutions (16:18), burnt offerings (16:18) and free offering and gifts (16:18) and morning and evening prayer are important constituents in Judaism. Judith and the children of Israel fast and pray (8:6) and call upon the name of Lord. Sometimes these prayers are done in isolation from the whole community and in 16:1– 17, the text also give evidence of the whole community worshipping together in Jerusalem. Jewish worship in Judith also involves ceremonial cleansing/purification. Lastly, the text reveals that dietary laws (12:19), sexual purity (13:16) and circumcision (e. g. Achior) are key and acceptable practices within Jewish worship of the Second Temple period. Perhaps the most striking reference to a religious practice is the conversion of Achior in 14:10. Not only is this our earliest reference to a formal practice of accepting proselytes, but the convert belongs to one of the nations that the Torah forbade entrance into the people of Israel (Nickelsburg, 2005:100). The author’s theological views in the narrative, seem to place him in the Pharisaic party. Oesterley also suggests that the main purpose of the book is to indoctrinate and promote Pharisaic Judaism (in Moore 1985, 77).

5.5 When is the Appropriate Time for Worship? The discussion of the time aspect following the Greimassian approach of analysis is called temporalization. A detail discussion and application of this aspect in analysing narratives belongs to the Figurative analysis. However, this article observes that the use of time is an important element in a narrative and is unavoidable particularly in the worship debate. Martin and Ringham (2000, 132) state that, like spatialization and actorialization, temporalization is a necessary ingredient for a referential illusion or reality effect to work. Temporalization concerns itself with the editor’s/author’s choice of using specific times in the narrative. Insistence on specific times is as important as is the choice of locations and actors. Generally, specific indications to time have significance, because it turns a narrative arrangement into a story (Martin and Ringham, 2000, 132). The use of time in the story open and closes the scenes as the story unfolds; for example, if the

202

Risimati S. Hobyane

joyful return of Judith with the head of Holofernes was not preceded by the situation of distress and fear amongst the Jews, there would be no meaning to the story and no tale. Judith makes frequent references to the specific moments or time of action in the story, particularly those moments that involve the aspect of worship. For example, in 2:1, a time reference is made: “καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ δευτέρᾳ καὶ εἰκάδι τοῦ πρώτου μηνὸς ἐγένετο λόγος ἐν οἴκῳ (and in the eighteenth year, the two and twentieth day of the first month). This time reference in the second chapter of the narrative marks the beginning of worship conflict in the narrative. Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Assyria, is determined to have everybody serving or calling him as god. This determination by Nebuchadnezzar was not welcomed by the Israelites. Against this plan of Nebuchadnezzar, the text mentions that the children of Israel prepared themselves to defend their cities and the Temple (4:8). This preparation for war, aimed at preserving the acceptable worship amongst the children of Israel, is also introduced by a time reference in 4:6, namely: “ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις” (in those days). This time indication introduces the chief priest, Joachim and his responsibilities in Jerusalem. The story introduces Joachim as a vanguard of Jewish worship. It therefore, suffices to argue that Joachim’s aspiration regarding worship is totally different from that Nebuchadnezzar. This study further makes an observation of the time indication regarding worship in the life of Judith, the main character in the story. Judith is introduced in 8:8 as a God-fearing woman (ἐφοβεῖτο τὸν θεὸν σφόδρα – she feared God greatly) and in 11:17 it is mentioned that she serves the God of heaven night and day (καὶ θεραπεύουσα νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας τὸν θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ̶ and she serves the God of heaven day and night). Again through the character of Judith and the time indication, the author/editor reveals that Judaism is not limited to specific time of a specific day. Acceptable Jewish worship is something to be carried out day and night. It is a way of life that must be displayed, daily, by those who believe in God. While emphasising the aspect of action and conduct, Cohen (1989, 51) indicates that in the eyes of the ancients, the essence of religion was neither faith nor dogma, but action. Humanity was commanded by God (or gods) to perform certain acts and to refrain from certain acts and these commandments and prohibitions (especially the prohibitions) constitute the essence of religio. Gornish (1987) also suggests that fundamentally, religion, is concerned with ethical conduct, the recognition of ethical standards and the assumption that individuals have the ability to discover right from wrong. Religion prescribes a path through which human beings can truly help one another, both through their own efforts as well as through cre-

Reading Judith as a Guide to Jewish Worship in Second Temple Judaism

203

ating a harmonious relationship between humanity and the ultimate source of goodness, God. The Judith narrative is no exception to this claim. It is a story whose characters are expected to perform certain duties and maintain certain (un)ethical standards for their deities, e. g. Holofernes and the Assyrian army want to appease their god and master Nebuchadnezzar whereas Judith and rest of the children of Israel perform duties as a way of serving the God of Heaven. However, as for the God of Israel, the character of Judith reveals that these duties must be performed day and night as the text mentions in 11:17.

5.6 Why should there be Worship? One of the key aspects of axis of communication in the actantial model of the Greimassian approach is to reveal God’s position in relation to his people (those who believe in him). Following the actantial model (fig. 1) the God of Israel assumes the position of the addresser as far as Israel is concerned. Israel worships the God of heaven as their covenantal God as Achior mentions in 5:8. Israel is God’s inheritance (4:33). They are his own people, created to worship Him and Him alone. Allen (2016, 22) point out that Judith fulfils this role on behalf of all the Jewish people in the story, as she acts as His agent, embodying His moral purpose and further, represents His psyche as shekinah (here translated as “the dwelling”). Because of this covenantal obligation, the children of Israel cannot worship any other god, not even in the face of terror imposed by Nebuchadnezzar and his armies.

6 Conclusion Judith has been studied by various scholars from various angles of approaches. While so many insightful contributions have been made, worship aspect was still open for exploration. The goal of this article is to investigate the possible didactic purpose of Judith focusing on worship. The study applies the narrative analysis of the Greimassian semiotic approach to narratives, to holistically respond to questions pertaining acceptable worship during Second Temple Judaism. The actantial model, particularly the axis of communication, which emphasises the relation between the addresser (God of Israel) and the addressee (Israel-Judith) was applied. The study has proved to be helpful in responding to questions, like, who, where, how, when, and why worship.

204

Risimati S. Hobyane

In summary, firstly, in addressing the question regarding who must (must not) be worshipped, the text reveals that Israel and all those who adhere to the Law of Moses are to worship/serve (προσεκύνησαν) God alone, not Nebuchadnezzar. Israel will worship no other God but their God (5:8 – 9). Secondly, the article addresses the question regarding the preferred place of worship. The article contends that the text reveals the Temple as the central sacred space for worship and the dwelling place of the God of Israel. However worship could be conducted anywhere. Thirdly, the three questions pertaining to how, when and why: 1. How should worship be conducted?: According to the text, Jews of the Second Temple period are called to show Jewish religious patriotism in the face of persecution and observe all the Laws involved and this is a commitment both day and night (νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας); 2. When should worship be conducted?: Always, because Israel is God’s inheritance (4:33); and 3. Why should they worship God alone?: The Jews are His covenantal people, created to worship Him and Him alone.

Source List Allen, Nicholas Peter Legh. 2016. “Judith: Embodying Holiness in a G-dless Space”, in Biblische Notizen 168 Neue Folge, edited by Pierre J. Jordaan and Helen Efthimiadis-Keith, 17 – 44. Freiburg: Herder. Bal, Mieke. 2004. “Head Hunting: Judith on the Cutting Edge of Knowledge.” In A Feminist Companion to Ester, Judith and Susanna, edited by Athalya Brenner, 253 – 287. London: T. & T Clark International. Branch, Robin G. 2011. Bagoas, Jerusalem, Uzziah, and Joachim: an analysis of selected secondary characters in the book of Judith. (In Press). Brown, Raymond E., Fitzmyer, Joseph A. and Murphy, Roland E, eds. 1968. The Jerome Biblical Commentary (2 volumes). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Czamiauska-Joerges, Barbara and Gagliardi Pasquale. 2003. Narratives We Organize. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing House. Cohen, Shaye J.D. 1989. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Louisville: London: John Knox Press. Efthimiadis-Keith, Helen. 2004. The Enemy is Within: A Jungian Psychoanalytic Approach to the Book of Judith. In Biblical Interpretation 67. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers. Esler, Philip F. 2002. “Ludic History in the Book of Judith: The Reinvention of Israelite Identity?” Biblical Interpretation 10/2 (2002), 107 ̶ 143. Gornish, Harvey. 1987. Jewish Ethics: The Shema and Ethical Monotheism [online]. The Jewish Review. Available: http://www.thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=65 [29:10:2015]. Harrington, Daniel J.1999. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.

Reading Judith as a Guide to Jewish Worship in Second Temple Judaism

205

Harold, Neemann. 1999. Piercing Magic Veil: Toward a Theory of the Conte. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Hobyane, Risimati S. 2012. A Greimassian Semiotic Analysis of Judith. Unpublished D.Litt. Thesis, Potchesfstroom: Northwest University. Jordaan, Pierre Johan. 2009. “The pendulum is never static: Jesus Sira to Jesus Christ on women in the light of Judith, Susanna and LXX Esther.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 65(1) [Online]. Available: http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/view/167 (1st February 2016). Kaiser, Otto. 2004. The Old Testament Apocrypha. An Introduction. Peabody: Hendricksen. Kanonge, Dihck M. The Emergence of Women in the LXX Apocrypha. Unpublished D.Litt. Thesis, Potchesfstroom: Northwest University. Martin, Bronwen and Felizitas Ringham. 2000. Dictionary of Semiotics. London: Cassel. Moore, Carey A. 1985. Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Moore, Carey A. 1992. “Why Wasn’t the Book of Judith Included in the Hebrew Bible?” In No One Spoke Ill of Her, edited by James C. Vanderkam, 61 ̶ 71. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and its Literature 2. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press. Neemann, Harold. 1999. Piercing Magic Veil: Toward a Theory of the Conte. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 2005. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Raja, R.J. 1998. “Judith.” In The international Bible commentary: A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, edited by W.R. Farmer, 696 – 706. Colledgeville, PA: The Liturgical Press. Schmitz, Barbara. 2004. Gedeutete Geschichte Die Funktion der Rede und Gebete im Buch Judit. New York: Herder. Taylor, James M. and Van Every, Elizabeth J. 1999. The Emergent Organization: Communication as its site on Surface. London: Routledge. White, Sidnie A. 1992. “In the Steps of Jael and Deborah: Judith as Heroine.” In No One Spoke Ill of Her, edited by James C. Vanderkam, 5 – 16. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and its literature 2. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press.

Gerhardus J. Swart

A Study of Connection and Disjunction in the Book of Baruch Abstract: With regard to the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch, many scholars have demonstrated and discussed various connections to other literary works, occurring at the lexical, phraseological, and compositional level of the text. Conversely, the book has been criticised for its apparent lack of cohesion and literary unity. The present paper probes into the terms used to denote these features of Baruch and the specific meaning(s) that scholars assign to these terms and addresses the question whether and to what extent such a focus advances our understanding of the literary unity and character of this book. Keywords: Baruch, Connection, Disjunction.

1 Introduction The two focal terms chosen for the title of this study, “connection” and “disjunction”, reflect what could be described as two sides of the same coin. For any entity to be regarded as consisting of multiple parts, it must meet at least two criteria: The constituting parts need to be sufficiently distinguishable/separable from each other to warrant the idea of compositeness (a “unit” consisting of different “units”), while the parts at the same time need to be discernibly related (or “connected”) to each other (otherwise the totality cannot be conceived of as an entity). The Book of Baruch, as presented in recent scholarship, seems to be a case in point: Virtually every discussion of this book contains references to its nature as a composite literary product – a text consisting of diverse parts, somehow put together by some deliberate process of compilation or redaction, to produce the text that has been transmitted as part of the Septuagint. Some scholars see (or imagine) clear links between the different sections of Baruch, emphasising the conceptual unity of the book, while others deny (or fail to see) the presence of any connections, projecting to their readers images of a mosaic-like conglomeration of disjunctive sections of text.¹

 The obvious correlation between these opposing views and value judgements about the Book of Baruch – whether or not it is worth reading or studying – falls outside the scope of the present

208

Gerhardus J. Swart

A brief summary of the content of the Book of Baruch, with particular attention to the delimitation of structural components of the text, seems in place here. The book commences with a narrative introduction (Bar 1:1– 14), in which a fictitious exilic setting for its origin is presented. Baruch ben Neriah is said to be the author of the book, which is read to an assembly of the exiles in Babylon. Their response – besides weeping, fasting, and praying – is to send a monetary collection and some replacement sacrificial vessels to Jerusalem, together with the scroll, which is to be read in the “house of the Lord” on specific days. This introduction is followed by another prose section, consisting in its entirety of (a) penitential prayer(s) (Bar 1:15 – 3:8). The Babylonian exiles and those who have remained in Judah are portrayed in this section as jointly making a communal confession of disobedience to God, this disobedience being presented as the direct cause of their predicament. The culmination of the prayer(s) is a plea to God for forgiveness and restoration. It should be noted that scholars are not in agreement on the delimitation of this section. Some distinguish two prayers, others only one; and some do not regard 3:1– 8 as part of the prayer(s) but as a passage written specifically to connect the rest of the book to this section. (Compare, e. g., Gunneweg [1975, 167]; Harrington [1999, 95 – 96]; Venter [2005, 408 – 13]; Marttila [2011, 324].) The rest of the book consists of diverse poetic texts: A wisdom poem (Bar 3:9 – 4:4) is followed by two poems on Jerusalem (Bar 4:5 – 5:9) – two “basic prophetic psalms”, according to Géza Xeravits (2015, 1). In the first of these (Bar 4:5 – 29), Jerusalem – personified as the spiritual mother of the Jewish people – consoles and encourages her children; in the second (Bar 4:30 – 5:9) Jerusalem herself is consoled by promises of the return of her children (cf. Wojciechowski [s.d., 2]). The prominence that discussions of the book’s conceptual and literary unity – or lack thereof – enjoy in recent scholarship, has resulted in many terms related to “connection” and “disjunction” being used repeatedly in studies and commentaries on Baruch. What is more, in several cases the same terms are used with reference to both micro- and macro-structural aspects of the text, besides being used with reference to the way (or ways) Baruch relates to other (mostly biblical) texts. In an attempt to form a clearer picture of what scholars mean by these terms, as well as to which aspects of the Book of Baruch the terms refer, the following scheme will be followed in this paper: Firstly, terms articulating the concept of “connection” will be cited and briefly discussed. The author will attempt to illus-

study. Suffice it to say that the mere fact of the book’s inclusion in the textual tradition of the Septuagint warrants the scholarly attention it has been attracting.

A Study of Connection and Disjunction in the Book of Baruch

209

trate how the same terms are used with reference to either the macro- or the micro-structural level of the text. Secondly, instances will be shown where the same (or similar) terms are used with reference to inter-textual relations between Baruch and other literature. A third and final section will be devoted to the discussion of some terms by which scholars express the perceived lack of such connections. When Alison Salvesen (2001, 699), for example, describes the book of Baruch as a “compilation of three quite different compositions”, the terms “compilation” and “composition” clearly refer to different structural levels of the text – the former to the macro-structural level, the latter to the micro-structural (i. e., they denote the different processes by which, according to Salvesen’s view, smaller units were combined with one another [“compiled”] to constitute the book as a whole, after first having been produced [“composed”] independently of each other). Marko Marttila (2011, 321), however, uses the phrase “composition of the book” with reference to the macro-structural level – describing how “independent parts” are perceived by scholars to have been “later put together by an editor”. The first type of “connection”, then, is to be seen in the intra-textual relations holding between different parts (or sections) of the book of Baruch. These parts or sections may be words, phrases, sentences, or sections larger than individual sentences; thus, connections may be seen to occur between units at both the micro- and macro-structural level of the text:

2 “Connection” 2.1 “Connection” (Intra-Textual Level) While the terms used by scholars to express the concept of “connection” will be discussed basically in alphabetical order in this section, it would not seem out of place to commence with the generic term “connection” itself: “connection”In the most recent publication on the book of Baruch that has come to the attention of this author, Xeravits (2015)² has two brief sections discussing “connecting  Xeravits’ study is to be welcomed as restoring a certain balance in recent scholarly contributions on the Book of Baruch, by focusing on a largely neglected section of the book. As can be seen in the bibliography, studies on the penitential prayer section of the book abound, while there is a real scarcity of studies on the wisdom poem and the Jerusalem poems – cf. Tov

210

Gerhardus J. Swart

features in the text of [4:30 – 5:6]” (2015, 20 – 21) and “connecting features in the text of [4:5 – 29]” (2015, 49). Salvesen (2001, 702) sees “no obvious connection” between the wisdom poem (3:9 – 4:4) and the preceding section of the book. In reaction to her view, Marttila (2011, 331– 32) draws attention to the fact that 3:1– 8 reveals influence of chapters 4 and 30 of Deuteronomy – the same texts that feature strongly “in the background of Bar 3:9 – 14”. Thereby he confirms, albeit on different grounds, the opinion that Antonius Gunneweg has expressed almost forty years earlier about the structural function of Bar 3:1– 8, using the term “Verklammerung” (the German equivalent of “connection”): “3,1– 8 … ist … eine auf 1,15 – 2,35 und 3,9 – 4,4 hin komponierte Verklammerung dieser beiden Teile” (Gunneweg 1975, 168). “amalgam(ation)”In the opinion of David Burke, “the book gives every evidence of being an amalgam of originally independent works …” (Burke 1982, 6). One might ask: To what extent does this amalgamation suspend the initial independence implied in Burke’s description? The present author would further observe that “unrelated” – rather than “independent” – would seem to be a more apt term to signify the absence of literary links between the “works” that Burke envisaged as belonging to the earliest stages of the book’s development. “compilation”As mentioned above, Salvesen (2001, 699) applies the term “compilation” to the macro-structural level of the text; and so does Sean Adams (2013, 1 n.2) when he states: “We also do not know who wrote/compiled Baruch”. The tentativeness in Adams’s formulation “wrote/compiled” reflects the measure of uncertainty still prevailing, despite decades of research and academic debate, about the book’s unity or lack of unity. “composition”After noting the existence of “a number of compositional theories of Baruch”, Adams (2013) records his agreement with Odil Steck (1993), who, he claims, “has argued that the different parts of Baruch form an intentional unity” (2013, 1 n.2). The present author is of the opinion that Adams’s phrase “intention(); Werline (); Venter (); Asurmendi (); Boda et al. (), (), (); Floyd () on the one hand, with Burke (); Burkes (); Swart () on the other. Recent work toward the publication of full-scale commentaries on the book also contributes to redressing this imbalance – cf. Adams (); Wojciechowski (s.d., ).

A Study of Connection and Disjunction in the Book of Baruch

211

al unity” – possibly taken over from Marttila (2011, 322)? – does not quite accurately render Steck’s “eine literarische Einheit”, nor even his description of the book as “in seinen vier Teilen von vornherein als ein Ganzes konzipiert” (Steck 1993, 265). Adams does, however, discuss the question of intentionality with reference to Baruch’s citations and allusions (see below). Gunneweg (1975) seems to apply the term “composition” to the macro-structural level when he calls 3:1– 8 a “kompositorische Verklammerung” of the wisdom poem to the preceding prayers (1975, 170); but he does so after having used the same term with reference to the micro-structural level, describing the same passage as “eine auf 1,15 – 2,35 und 3,9 – 4,4 hin komponierte Verklammerung” (1975, 168). This is confirmed, it seems, by his reference to the author as “Redaktor …, der auch die … kompositorische Verklammerung verfasste” (1975, 170) – thus ascribing to the author/editor conscious involvement not only in the process of selecting larger pre-existing texts, but also in the process of writing at least one connecting (or bridging) passage to secure the textual and thematic unity of the end product. Gunneweg (1975) uses another term closely parallel to “composition” in its derivation and meaning, namely “Zusammensetzung”: “Bar[uch] als ganzes … [ist] aus verschiedenartigen Teilen zusammengesetzt” (1975, 168). He clearly uses this term with reference to the macro-structure of the text. “dependence”The characterisation of the Book of Baruch by Burke (1982, 6) as “[evidently] an amalgam of originally independent works” has been mentioned above. To be noted here is that Xeravits (2015) uses the term “dependence” with reference to the structure rather than the origin of the text: “[Bar 4:5 – 5:9 is] considerably independent from the preceding material” (2015, 5). “framing”Gunneweg (1975) evidently uses the term “framing” with reference to the structural (surface level) components of the text, when he describes Bar 4:5 – 5:9 as “ein Zyklus von Trostliedern, der die Klage Jerusalems über die Wegführung ihrer Kinder … einrahmt” (1975, 167). The same metaphor is applied to a totally different aspect of the book by Adams (2013), however, when he notes that “Baruch’s method of reframing the Mosaic tradition through Jeremiah is a recurring pattern” (2013, 9–see the discussion in section 2.2 below).

212

Gerhardus J. Swart

“unity”Without explicitly entering into the debate about the literary unity of the Book of Baruch, Daniel Harrington (1999) shows himself in support of the idea of the book’s conceptual unity. He briefly presents what he calls a “classic response” to the “enormous challenge” which the exile and ensuing destruction of the Jerusalem temple in the early sixth century b.c.e. posed to the faith of the people of Israel (1999, 92). This response, he argues, “involved the combination of four themes: sin, exile, repentance, and return” (cf. also the heading of chapter 7 of his book). He concludes his sketch of this response as follows: “This theological interpretation of the exile permeates and unifies [author’s emphasis] the different parts of the book of Baruch” (1999, 92). Steck (1993, 256) (incidentally, not referenced in Harrington) seems to have expressed this theological theme in very similar terms: Wegen der Schuld aus seiner gesamten Geschichte ist ganz Israel(!) von seinem Gott in Exil gestossen, kann da aber zu Gottes Gesetz umkehren und wird ins Verheissungsland zurückkehren, während das Gericht dann die Feindmacht treffen wird.

When Xeravits (2015) introduces his summary of the major textual components of the Book of Baruch by the brief statement that it “consists of different successive parts, the unity of which is disputed” (2015, 1), he evidently has the macrostructural level in mind – the fact that some scholars discern textual or thematic links between parts such as the penitential prayer(s) and the wisdom poem, or between the wisdom poem and the poems (or psalms) on Jerusalem, while others do not. Xeravits presumably does not mean exactly the same with “unity” as Gunneweg (1975) does when using the term “Zusammenhang” – the difference being one of synchronic versus diachronic perspective. While Xeravits refers to opposing scholarly views on the text as preserved in the Septuagint, Gunneweg’s formulation “ohne ursprünglichen inneren Zusammenhang” (1975, 168) implies a formative process by which the book developed over time, taking on a new character that encompasses more than the mere sum of the constitutive parts. If Gunneweg (1975) and Xeravits (2015) may be regarded as representatives of their respective eras of research on the Book of Baruch, it would seem that the generally accepted picture of a work composed of different independent pre-existing literary units, purposefully selected and combined through a process of editing, by a redactor (or redactors) who wrote and inserted sections binding the respective units together into a newly-constituted literary entity, has in the course of the last forty years increasingly become a subject of scholarly dispute.

A Study of Connection and Disjunction in the Book of Baruch

213

2.2 “Connection” (Inter-Textual Level) Another type of “connection” is to be seen in the existence of inter-textual relations between Baruch and other biblical books: In recent scholarship on the Book of Baruch, connections between this book and other texts that belong to the Scriptures of ancient Israel and early Judaism are commonly recognised but variously understood. What is meant by this is that scholars are unanimous about the existence and prevalence of such connections, to the extent that these are regularly discussed in almost every article or commentary on Baruch (cf., e. g., Gunneweg [1975, 167– 68]; Marttila [2011, 323 – 24, 342– 44]; Adams [2013]; Adams [2014]); but scholars differ in their interpretation of the nature and function – or purpose – of these connections. Scholarly conceptions of these relationships/connections are also expressed using various terms, which will be discussed here in roughly alphabetical order: “connection” (the generic term)Marttila (2011, 324) identifies Bar 1:19 as the “first connection” that can be found “between Baruch”s prayer and Deuteronomy”. Despite the obvious similarities between Bar 1:19 and Deut 9:7b, he refrains from calling the Baruchan text a “quotation”, but rather carefully claims that Baruch “leans on Deut 9:7b” (2011, 324) in this deviation from his “main source”, the confessional prayer of Daniel in Dan 9:4– 19. “adherence”The term “adherence” is repeatedly used by Marttila (2011) in the course of his discussion of inter-textual connections between Baruch and other biblical texts, as the following examples show: “Baruch is branded by its extensive adherence to earlier biblical books” (2011, 321–the opening statement of his introduction); “Baruch’s penitential prayer … firmly adheres to the vocabulary and structure of Daniel’s confession of sin in Dan 9:4– 19” (2011, 324); “Baruch’s adherence to Deuteronomy 30 …” (2011, 332). On the micro-structural level, this “adherence” manifests itself most noticably in what scholars call “quotations”, “citations”, “allusions”, and “parallels” – but without always clearly distinguishing between the various types of such inter-textual links. This scholarly “lack of terminological precision and nuance … when discussing the way Baruch uses scripture” (Adams 2013, 1) is claimed to have provided the impetus for Adams’s study.

214

Gerhardus J. Swart

“allusion”Marttila (2011) states the obvious when claiming: “Quotations from and allusions to the scriptures are plentiful” (2011, 321). Adams (2013) devotes a considerable part of his essay to attempts at more precisely defining the concepts “allusion” and “citation”. Ironically, he uses the formulation “Baruch’s so-called “citations”” in his title, but states in the introduction: “I will focus on the so-called “quotations” in Baruch’s penitential prayer section” (2013, 1) – all of this after deploring the lack of precision in the way other scholars use terminology, as noted above. As mentioned in the previous section (2.1), Adams (2013) discusses the issue of intentionality with regard to Baruch’s allusions to, and citations of, other biblical texts: Although identifying allusions and parallel texts is important, it is insufficient – especially for Baruch – to merely state them without extrapolating on their significance. Unfortunately, a number of Baruchan scholars conclude their discussion at this point. If these are intentional allusions, one must ask about the intentionality of such connections. This is particularly relevant for Baruch which … draws on a number of scriptural texts. (Adams 2013, 17)

When this quotation is read against the background of Adams’s introduction, where he refers to “Baruch’s use of Israel’s Scripture” and “the way Baruch uses scripture” (2013, 1), a certain bias toward interpreting whatever similarities are noticed between Baruch and other biblical texts, as intentional utilisation of these texts, seems evident. Marttila’s double focus – on phraseology and ideology – highlights a related issue: the question whether similarities between different literary works on the textual level are indicative of deliberate or intentional allusion on the conceptual/theological/“ideological” level. I will not attempt to provide a conclusive answer to this question; but the issues involved here, and the ways we, as scholars, speak about these issues, are perhaps best illustrated by the following quotation from Adams (2013): [T]he supposed “changes” or “mistakes” in Baruch’s citations need to be understood not solely in terms of carelessness or a free translation, but also as Baruch’s tailoring his source text to his current context. The combination of exposition and composition is what we see in these Baruch “quotations”. Here the author of Baruch composes a composite quotation from a number of biblical excerpta (cf. Luke 4:16 ̶ 19) in order to draw on a wide range of biblical texts and frame the deuteronomic promises through realized Jeremianic events. (Adams 2013, 19)

“borrowing”-

A Study of Connection and Disjunction in the Book of Baruch

215

Burke (1982) claims that Baruch “string[s] together passages borrowed or adapted from canonical sources” (1982, 21). Perhaps analogous to the concepts of borrowing and dependence are the expressions “draw on” (Adams 2013, 1) and “lean on” (Marttila 2011, 324–discussed above). “dependence”Gunneweg (1975) regards the Book of Baruch as dependent on canonical Scripture in its entirety: “Bar zeigt sich … durchweg von kanonischen Schriften … abhängig” (1975, 167). “echo”A term chosen to indicate sections of text discernably resembling other biblical texts, while the resemblance is not so exact as to warrant the section being labeled a “quotation”, is “echo”. Thus Marttila describes Bar 2:29 – 35 – a passage that “reflects Dtr terminology to a great extent” – as containing “distinguishable echoes” of Deuteronomy and related sources (2011, 330). Adams uses the same term with reference to Baruch as a whole, stating: “Echoes abound, but citations are in short supply” (2013, 4). “elaboration”It is probably due to the non-verbatim nature of most Baruchan allusions and implicit citations that Emanuel Tov (1976) is careful to note: “Bar[uch] … quotes or elaborates upon [author’s emphasis] many biblical phrases, sentences and sections” (1976, 125 – 26). While Tov evidently applies the term “elaborate” mainly to the micro-structural level of the text, Francis Watson (2004) has the macrostructural level in mind when characterising Baruch as an “elaboration of the deuteronomic schema” (2004, 455–noted also by Adams [2013, 16]). “framing”This term features most conspiciously in the essay by Adams (2013), who, after thoroughly analysing the citations of, and allusions to, biblical texts occurring in the penitential prayer section of the Book of Baruch, concludes that this book “displays an innovative and original reframing of Scripture” (2013, 22). How Adams understands Baruch’s “reframing” of Scripture is clearly stated in a summary leading up to this conclusion: This is not a re-written version of Scripture, as rewriting Scripture implies a closer relationship to a text than reframing. Rather, this is an example of “reframing” Scripture by resituating it within a new setting. By placing allusions and explicit references in a new or different context the author has the ability to subtly reshape the original material and

216

Gerhardus J. Swart

message. For Baruch, this is not a rejection of the original context, as often the author is drawing on the background context in his or her message. Rather, the reframing of Scripture allows the author to recast the original message in a new and empowering way, one that is relevant for his current readers. (Adams 2013, 19)

Somewhat harder to understand, though, is Adams’s formulation “Baruch makes use of Scripture to frame the exile from Jerusalem to the Diaspora” (2013, 22). “pastiche”Both Marttila (2011, 324) and Adams (2013, 1) use the term “pastiche” with regard to the literary nature of the Book of Baruch – a term seemingly first used in this connection by Burke (1982, 21), but having unwanted pejorative connotations in the mind of Adams (2013, 1). “quotation”The discussion of the terms “borrowing” and “echo” above suggests that Tov (1976) is perhaps not entirely accurate in claiming: “Bar[uch] … quotes … many biblical phrases, sentences and sections” (1976, 125 – 26). Similarly, Marttila (2011) – despite noting and discussing the numerous deviations from the biblical texts to which Baruchan passages allude – claims that “quotations from … the scriptures are plentiful” (2011, 321). “representation”With regard to Bar 3:1– 8, Marttila (2011) claims that the “whole prayer represents Deut 4:29 – 31 and Deut 30:1– 10 in a rewritten form” (2011, 331). Thus “representation” may be added to the list of terms used by scholars to illustrate or describe the “connectedness” of the Book of Baruch (or parts of it) to other biblical texts.

3 “Disjunction” While it has become clear from the preceding discussion that scholars use a plethora of terms to express the idea of “connection” with reference to micro-structural, macro-structural, and inter-textual aspects of the Book of Baruch, the opposite concept – what the present author would call “disjunction” – seems to be defined mainly in negative terms:

A Study of Connection and Disjunction in the Book of Baruch

217

“(no) connection”As has been noted above, Salvesen (2001, 702) claims that Baruch’s Praise of Wisdom commences “with no obvious connection to the preceding section” – leaving the question unanswered whether the wisdom poem could in fact be implicitly connected to the penitential prayer(s) by which it is preceded. An answer to this question, running contrary to Salvesen’s position, has been suggested by Gunneweg (1975) – discussed in section 2.1 above. Be it noted here, however, that Gunneweg’s formulation “ohne ursprünglichen inneren Zusammenhang” (1975, 168) is in fact another example of the tendency among Baruchan scholars to express the idea of “disjunction” in negative terms. “independence”When Burke (1982) describes the book as “an amalgam of originally independent works united by the (perhaps superimposed) overriding theme of the exilic dispersion of Israel” (1982, 6), the parenthetical phrase “(perhaps superimposed)” would suggest that Burke was not quite convinced of the validity of this very broad theme as a unifying element. Thus the original independence ascribed to the constituent parts of Baruch could be regarded as never fully being cancelled.

4 Conclusions The first obvious conclusion that can be drawn from the preceding discussion is that scholars use a variety of terms to illustrate or describe the single most debated aspect of the literary nature of the Book of Baruch, namely the “connectedness” of its constituent parts mutually, or of its parts or the whole to other biblical texts. These terms are used metaphorically; that is, they are taken over from various non-literary contexts and given new (or altered) meaning within the present debate. Another observation that can be made is that no new terms to define the precise nature of Baruch have been coined during the last decades, despite the remarkable amount of scholarly attention that the book has recently been attracting. It appears that the same terms are being used repeatedly and not always consistently – adding to possible confusion and misunderstanding. In view of this, it is not surprising to find a study such as that of Adams (2013) – essentially a plea for more precision and consistency in our use of terminology. Although not intended as such from the outset, the present contribution may be regarded as underscoring the concerns voiced by Adams.

218

Gerhardus J. Swart

Some questions that have emerged during the course of the discussion, without definite answers however being given, are the following: Firstly, the issue of a synchronic versus diachronic perspective: What do we have in mind when discussing Baruch? – the processes involved in the book’s origin and development, or the “final” product, the text as preserved in the Septuagint? Secondly, the issue of author’s intention versus the book’s impact as received in a particular community: Can intentionality be detected behind the inter-textual connections so conspiciously present in the Book of Baruch? It may well be that these questions could indicate avenues for further research, and, it is hoped, enhance scholarly understanding and appreciation of this book.

Source List Adams, Sean A. 2013. Reframing Scripture: A fresh look at Baruch’s so-called “citations”. Final draft of a paper posted on http://academia.edu. (Accessed 8 July 2015). Adams, Sean A. 2014. Baruch and The Epistle of Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Greek Texts of Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series, edited by S. E. Porter, R.S.H. Hess, and J. Jarick). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Asurmendi, J.M. 2006. “Baruch: Causes, Effects and Remedies for a Disaster.” In History and Identity: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook (DCLY) 2005, 187 – 200. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Boda, M.J., Falk, D.K., and Werline, R.A., eds. 2006. Seeking the Favor of God: Vol. 1, The Origins of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature). Atlanta. Boda, M.J., Falk, D.K., and Werline, R.A., eds. 2007. Seeking the Favor of God: Vol. 2, The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (EJL 22. Atlanta. Boda, M.J., Falk, D.K., and Werline, R.A., eds. 2008. Seeking the Favor of God: Vol. 3, The Impact of Penitential Prayer Beyond the Second Temple Judaism (EJL). Atlanta. Burke, David G. 1982. The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9 – 5:9 (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 10). Chico: Scholars Press. Burkes, S. 1999. “Wisdom and Law: Choosing Life in Ben Sira and Baruch.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 30(3), 253 – 276. Floyd, M.H. 2007. “Penitential Prayer in the Second Temple Period from the Perspective of Baruch.” In Seeking the Favor of God: Vol. 2, The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, edited by M.J. Boda, D.K. Falk, and R.A. Werline, 51 – 81. Gunneweg, Antonius H.J. 1975. “Das Buch Baruch.” In Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form, edited by Antonius Gunneweg, Enno Janssen, and Nikolaus Walter, 165 – 81. Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit (JSHRZ III/2). Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn. Harrington, Daniel J. 1999. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

A Study of Connection and Disjunction in the Book of Baruch

219

Marttila, Marko. 2011. “The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch.” In Changes in Scripture: Re-writing and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila (BZAW 419), 321 – 46. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Salvesen, Alison. 2001. “Baruch.” In The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by J. Barton and J. Muddiman, 699 – 703. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Steck, Odil H. 1993. Das Apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung (FRLANT 160). Göttingen. Swart, Gerhardus J. 2013. “Listen, learn, live: a text-linguistic analysis of Baruch 3:9 – 37.” In Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage. Festschrift für Friedrich V. Reiterer zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel, Karin Schöpflin, and Johannes F. Diehl. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies (DCLS 15), 345 – 357. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Tov, Emanuel. 1976. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of the LXX of Jeremiah 29 ̶ 52 and Baruch 1:1 ̶ 3:8 (Harvard Semitic Monographs 8). Missoula. Venter, Petrus M. 2005. “Penitential prayers in the books of Baruch and Daniel.” Old Testament Essays 18(2), 406 – 425. Watson, Francis. 2004. Paul and the hermeneutics of faith. London: T&T Clark. Werline, R.A. 1998. Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution (SBL Early Judaism and its Literature 13). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Wojciechowski, Michal. s.d. “Piety without the temple in the Book of Baruch.” In Aspects of Worship in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook (DCLY 2015) (forthcoming, 2016). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Xeravits, Géza G. 2015. “Take Courage, O Jerusalem …”: Studies in the Psalms of Baruch 4 – 5. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies (DCLS 25). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Joseph Jacobus de Bruyn

Susanna – Framing the Minds and Views of People in Daniel Abstract: This paper analyses the story of Susanna by combining features of editorial and narrative critique as well as new insights on body and space in the field of linguistics. Furthermore, it is postulated that the Susanna narrative must be read in a reciprocal relationship to the entire Greek Daniel. Accordingly, it is put forward that the narrative of Susanna is utilised as part of a larger narrative structure. With this larger Greek Daniel narrative, a new worldview is created that opposes the worldviews of the Ancient Near Eastern people. According to the new worldview the God of Israel is not bound to religious or cultural perceptions. Different bodily and spatial features are exploited to construct this new worldview. The story of Susanna is utilised as technique to influence the reader in rethinking their worldviews. Keywords: Susanna, Daniel, Cognitive Linguistics.

1 Introduction The story of Susanna ¹ is part of three additions to Daniel ² found, inter alia, in the Septuagint (LXX) where it constitutes chapter 13 of the so called Greek Daniel.

2 Problem Statement Regardless of the fact that Susanna is editorially part of Greek Daniel, past research tends to read the story as an independent insertion, irrelevant to the larger Daniel narrative (Gruen 1998, 168, 174). Thus, no commentary, as far as could be established, gives any attention to the editorial unity of Greek Daniel. The prospects of why the editor/author of Greek Daniel incorporated Susanna into his larger Daniel narrative is given scant, if any, attention. Commentaries also

 For a clearer distinction, in this article, Susanna in italics is used in reference to the story whereas Susanna in normal script is used to indicate the character.  To differentiate between the Old Testament Book and the character, Daniel in italics is used in reference to the book or narrative, while Daniel in normal script is used to indicate the character.

222

Joseph Jacobus de Bruyn

do not exploit Susanna’s function within the larger Greek Daniel to its full potential. Past research usually focused on origin and dating, language issues, and possible pedagogic meanings of Susanna. Likewise the different roles of Daniel, Susanna and even God, have been investigated (Gruen 1998, 170 – 176). Special attention is usually given to Susanna as a women within an oppressive patriarchal society (Jordaan 2009, 178 – 183). Regarding Susanna’s genre, scholars generally categorise the story as a midrash, folklore or even a wisdom tale. Most scholars agree that the narrative was written in the Hellenistic period and that it was incorporated into Greek Daniel somewhere between 100 B.C.E. (Collins 1993, 426 – 438) to 80 B.C.E. (Charles 2004, 638, 643 – 644) or even 70 B.C.E. (Steck, Kratz and Kottsieper 1998, 293). With the development of Cognitive Linguistics within the field of language studies, some scholars also ventured on the bodily and spatial aspects of the Susanna narrative (Nolte and Jordaan 2010, 527– 547). Harrington (1999, 109 – 116) comes close to an editorial theme for the Editions to Daniel by placing them under the single theme of “Who is the Living God?” In this regard, this paper elaborates on Harrington’s idea of a single theme, but it does so more broadly by investigating the editorial unity and reciprocal relationship of and between Greek Daniel’s fourteen chapters. Similar to Nolte and Jordaan (2010, 527– 547) different spatial and bodily elements are examined, but it is done within the reciprocal relationship Susanna has with the rest of Greek Daniel.

3 Methodology It is important to note that in my methodology I regard a narrative as a story built up by the calculated placing of body and space elements. Susanna is thus analysed on the basis that the editor/author exploits a variety of spatial and bodily features not only to create his narrative, but also to give it meaning. In this regard, it is important to understand that spaces are utilised as part of a narrative technique to influence the plot or to stimulate the agenda of a narrative (GärtnerBrereton 2008, 36 – 49). Consequently, an analysis of an author’s use of space and body must go beyond the mere identification of different locations or characters within a narrative. Of course the employment of body and space must be explored within the parameters of narrative critique, for how an author utilises these spatial and bodily elements influences the result of the narrative.

Susanna – Framing the Minds and Views of People in Daniel

223

In following this methodology, it is postulated that the editor/author utilised Susanna as part of a larger Daniel narrative to frame the God of Israel as a living deity. In short this means that I analyse bodily and spatial elements as markers and building blocks of different narratives and sub-narratives. I then examine these identified narratives to see how the editor or author utilised them to influence people and what possible new realities he creates with his narratives. To make things even more interesting I then analyse these narratives to see if and how well they fit into a larger Greek Daniel Narrative. Thus, as part of my methodology I believe that the story of Susanna was written to help people rethink their own worldviews. Greek Daniel was shaped against the background of Jewish persecution in the Diaspora, most possibly in Seleucid times. Against this background the editor/author utilised Susanna in such a way that he creates a new reality in which the God of Israel is framed as the all-powerful and omnipresent deity who acts on behalf of the oppressed and the righteous.³ With this new created reality, the editor/author challenged the popular worldviews of not only the gentile world, but also the mentality of those people who exercise power in corrupt ways. Thus, if the editor/author of Greek Daniel is indeed challenging the worldviews of the people of his time, it means that Susanna represents a power struggle. Naturally, because I believe that there is a reciprocal relationship between Greek Daniel’s 14 chapters, the power struggle in Susanna must be read in relation to the larger power struggle in Daniel. Foucault (1979, 113; 1980, 109 – 133; 1984a, 2002) describes this type of power struggle as a tussle between a dominant narrative and a challenging narrative. To emphasise this narrative or worldview of a power struggle, the editor/author sets Daniel within the genre of Apocalypticism (Clifford 2003, 3 – 29; Collins 2000, 157; Redditt 1999, 13). In Apocalypticism, aspects of wisdom, prophecy and mythology are combined to represent a unique worldview of which different traits are found in Daniel. As a wisdom tale or midrash, Susanna easily fits into this apocalyptic nature of Greek Daniel. In Susanna the cosmic or deity war between good and evil, which is common in apocalyptic literature, is localised within the space of Babylon. Within this city, which is the heart of the Babylonian gods’ power base (cf. Dan 1; De Bruyn 2014, 1– 6), wickedness has corrupted the minds and hearts of two Jewish elders. Instead of exercising their authority as elders and judges in accordance to

 The theory of Redaktionsgeschicte is the main reason why it is possible to examine Susanna in a reciprocal relation to the other  chapters of Greek Daniel.

224

Joseph Jacobus de Bruyn

the laws of God, they abuse their authority by trying to force the righteous Susanna to have sexual intercourse with them. However, rather than sinning against her God and her husband and thus becoming corrupt herself, Susanna refuses the two elders. The two elders retaliate wickedly by falsely framing Susanna as an adulterous. After being persecuted publicly, Susanna is condemned to death, but before she can be executed, the God of Israel, comes to her rescue by utilising Daniel to uncover the deceit and wickedness of the two elders. In the Susanna narrative the cosmic war between good and evil is thus set in the space of Babylon and around the bodies of characters of, inter alia, Susanna, Daniel and the elders.

3.1 Bodilly and Spatial Elements I will briefly examine certain bodily and spatial elements in the Susanna narrative. In doing so it is important to note that I use the so called Old Greek text. In narratives the body is usually represented in the form of characters (Foucault 1984b, 170 – 178; 1984c, 179 – 187). Characters may therefore also be described as embodied entities and are often utilised to represent concepts from the author’s own world experience (Kamionkowski 2010, 1– 10). For example, in Susanna, the elders might possibly represent corrupt and unjust Jewish leaders from the editor/author’s own world, while Susanna might even be representing virtuousness and faithfulness to the God of Israel. The concepts of good and evil, as experienced by the editor/author in his world, are thus embodied in the characters (e. g. Susanna and the elders). In this way the persecuted and virtuous Jewish reader may find him or herself connected to Susanna, in that their experiences of the world are similar to those described for Susanna. Thus, in a narrative, the body can also be a mechanism by which the author taps into the mind of the people he or she wants to influence. As a mechanism the body can thus be utilised not only to interact with the world around it or to conceptualise and frame worldviews, but can also function as a space or a vessel in itself where specific concepts or experiences may be embodied (Lakoff 2008, 27; Lakoff and Johnson 1999, 555 – 557). However, to construct his narrative the editor or author of Susanna combines these bodily elements with different spatial elements. Βαβυλών (Babylon) is indicated in the text as a space that embodies lawlessness and wickedness. As opposed to Babylon and in the absence of the Temple, the συναγωγή (synagogue; OG verse 28) functions as an extension of the God of Israel’s god-space while the παράδεισος (garden) signifies private space. By utilising these different spaces

Susanna – Framing the Minds and Views of People in Daniel

225

the editor/author creates an environment which persecuted Jews may not only relate to, but in which they also may find hope in the God of Israel.

4 Outline of the Susanna Narrative The opening verses bring the reader into a mental space of conflict (OG verses 1– 6) which also may be described as contested space. The story is set in Βαβυλών – a spatial environment that has the power to symbolise, inter alia, hardship, slavery and persecution in Jewish consciousness. To highlight the threat of the Babylonian setting and to heighten the tension in his narrative, the editor/author states that it was the wickedness of Babylon that had corrupted the minds of the two Jewish elders (OG verses 5 – 6). Tension rises when the wickedness of Babylon tries to penetrate even the private homes and lives of faithful Jews (OG verses 7– 9). It is possible to consider here, that the editor/author utilised a female protagonist (i. e. Susanna) in order to stress the vulnerability of the Jews in the dangerous environment of Babylon. Against the corruptness of the Jewish elders and, in a sense, against the wickedness of Babylon itself, Susanna is set up as a symbol of righteousness, and a faithful practitioner of the Law of Moses (OG verses 2– 4). The tension between good and evil rises further when the wickedness and corruption of Babylon almost overwhelms the local synagogue (OG verse 28).⁴ As a holy place for the Jews, the synagogue represents the god-space of the God of Israel. When the Jewish elders, judges and congregation wrongfully condemn Susanna (OG verses 41– 45), they trample on the Law of Moses. Instead of being an environment of justice and righteousness, the synagogue of the Jewish deity is defiled by the actions of the corrupt Jewish elders. Instead of being a space of safety where Susanna should have found justice, the synagogue becomes a space of conflict. In a dramatic twist, the God of Israel intervenes (OG verses 44– 45). Not only does the God of Israel defend his god-space, but he also defends those who are committed to him. Just as Susanna is being led away to be put to death, an angel of the Lord appears.⁵ The angel then bestowed a spirit of discernment upon the young man Daniel. Since Susanna found no justice from her unjust persecutors, the God of Israel himself will now be her judge. To defend Susanna and to give

 n the Theodotian text (Theo) the synagogue is not explicitly mentioned. It seems that according to the Theo the congregation of Jews gathered in the house of Joakim (Theo verses  – ).  Theo makes no mention of an angel.

226

Joseph Jacobus de Bruyn

her justice, the God of Israel utilises the young Daniel. Note that Daniel means “God is my Judge”. Similar to the stories of Daniel 1– 6 and Bel and the Dragon, Daniel is not only utilised as a defence mechanism, but also as a skilful investigator (Jordaan 2008, 45 – 53). However, in Susanna, Daniel also functions as a judge on behalf of the God of Israel.

4.1 Sub-Narratives I now wish to examine the different sub-narratives that may be found in Susanna and also analyse how they are constructed by spatial and bodily elements. These sub-narratives are indeed utilised to position Susanna into a larger apocalyptic Daniel narrative.

4.1.1 The Struggle Between Righteousness and Iniquity The first sub-narrative may be identified as a struggle between righteousness and iniquity. In short, this narrative describes how the God of Israel saves an innocent woman from lawlessness in a wicked city. Here, the dominant narrative signifies that lawlessness and wickedness have corrupted many of the exiled Jews; even some of the Jewish elders. However, the opposing narrative suggests that God will identify and protect the righteous; those who are ever faithful, upholding the Law of Moses. In addition, God will reveal and punish those who let themselves be corrupted by the evil of the world. The editor/author embodies the dominant narrative in the characters of the two Jewish elders. Rather than to represent the leadership and justice of the Jewish deity (cf. Exod 18: 13 – 26), these two elders allowed their minds to be corrupted by the wickedness of their Babylonian environment. As opposed to the two elders, Susanna embodies faithfulness and righteousness. In defence of the innocent, the God of Israel sets up his own embodiment of justice. Thus, the God of Israel himself becomes Susanna’s judge. Again, note the meaning of Daniel’s name: “God is my Judge”. At the end of the narrative, instead of Susanna, the two elders are now put to death. The God of Israel has indeed saved the innocent and faithful whilst the wicked are justly punished.

Susanna – Framing the Minds and Views of People in Daniel

227

4.1.2 The Struggle Between Truth and Deceit A second sub-narrative that may be identified is the struggle between truth and deceit. When the two elders decided to take revenge on Susanna for not wanting to have sex with them, they decided to manipulate the Jewish community into assuming her guilt. They do this by falsely portraying Susanna as an adulterous (OG verses 36 – 41). They tell a false tale concerning Susanna in which she is portrayed as being both unfaithful to her husband as well as the God of Israel. Armed with their false accusation, the two elders are successful in turning the Jewish community against Susanna. Persuaded by the two elders’ story, the congregation finds Susanna guilty of adultery. However, after the God of Israel intervenes by bestowing a spirit of judgment upon Daniel, the truth is revealed. Daniel does not profer an alternative story concerning Susanna, rather, he successfully uncovers the truth by exposing the Jewish elders for what they truly are: corrupt, wicked liars, full of deceit. As a skilful investigator, Daniel quickly reveals the flaws in the elders’ story by asking them under which tree did they saw Susanna having sex. With their variation in answers the two elders fall victim to their own lies and deceit. After the truth about the two elders and Susanna is revealed, Susanna is acquitted, whereas the two elders are put to death. Even in the dangerous evil space of Babylon, the truth could not be hidden from the God of Israel. Susanna’s trust in the God of Israel as all-knowing and all-seeing (OG verse 35), is demonstrated as true and right.

4.1.3 The Struggle Between Wickedness and Wisdom A third possible sub-narrative in Susanna may be one of old wickedness against young wisdom. This sub-narrative embodies itself in the clash between the wicked elders and the younger Daniel. As stated above, the elders were supposed to be extensions of the God of Israel’s wisdom and justice. Within an ancient patriarchal community, people respected them and followed their leadership on the basis that they were elders of the community. In contrast to young people who were regarded as not yet wise, the elders were acknowledged as the guardians of wisdom. However, in Susanna, this view is not only challenged, but portrayed as unwise in itself, for wisdom does not necessarily come with age. The Susanna narrative reveals to the reader how the Jewish deity denies his divine sanction of a once respected ancient tradition (due to its temporary corruption) whilst still successfully ensuring the fulfilment of divine justice through

228

Joseph Jacobus de Bruyn

the agency (body) of a young and righteous man – Daniel. As a mere youth, Daniel persuades the congregation of the wickedness of the two elders. According to Susanna, true wisdom does not come with age, but because of a correct relationship with the God of Israel. The Jewish deity is thus not bound to tradition and can act through whomever he warrants as worthy – even young people.

4.1.4 The Link Between Suzannah and the Struggle Between Deities The fourth possible sub-narrative links Susanna directly to the war between the deities found in the rest of Greek Daniel. The cosmic war between the God of Israel and the forces of evil, represents itself best in the opposing god-spaces of Babylon, the παράδεισος of Joakim and the local synagogue. In the clash between these two supernatural entities, the house of Joakim and more specifically his παράδεισος, presumably starts out to be under the authority of the Jewish deity. Yet, all is not well in the παράδεισος of Joakim. The allusion to the παράδεισος story of Gen 3 cannot be missed here. In Gen 3 the serpent had freedom of movement in the παράδεισος of God. Similarly the two Jewish elders have unrestricted access to the παράδεισος of Joakim. Another similarity between Gen 3 and Susanna is the role of a female character. Just as Eve has been tempted by the serpent; Susanna is confronted by the wickedness of the two elders. As part of their plot, the two elders asked Susanna to have sex with them (OG verses 14– 19). With this confrontation, the παράδεισος of Joakim now becomes contesting space. However, when confronted by evil, Susanna, unlike Eve, decided not to sin against her husband or her God. In contrast to the elders, Susanna remains faithful to the God of Israel and the Law of Moses. Thus, the παράδεισος of Joakim remains part of the Jewish deity’s godspace. Despite its failed attempt to corrupt the house and garden of Joakim, evil now tries to penetrate the synagogue of the Jewish deity. Plotting their revenge, the two Jewish elders hurried to the synagogue. Instead of worshipping the God of Israel, the two elders defile His sacred space by telling lies and corrupting the congregation (OG verses 28 – 41). With the actions of the Jewish elders and the congregation, the evil of Babylon seems to enter the Jewish deity’s holy space. With the defilement of his god-space, and the condemnation of Susanna, the God of Israel himself is now challenged. Swiftly the God of Israel reacts. With Daniel as a mechanism of defense, the Jewish deity starts his offence by reclaiming his god-space. At the end of the narrative the synagogue is not only a place of worship and justice; it also becomes a

Susanna – Framing the Minds and Views of People in Daniel

229

symbol of the Jewish deity’s triumph over evil. The synagogue is re-established as a place where the Jewish faithful can escape the evils of the world. With this narrative the editor/author creates a reality wherein the God of Israel is capable of not only defending his own god-spaces, but also of rescuing his faithful.

5 The Book of Susanna in Relation to Greek Daniel Throughout Greek Daniel, false assumptions and worldviews are overturned. This is especially true in the narratives of Daniel 1– 6 and 13 – 14. Enhanced by the spatial-pyramidal structure that the Grek Daniel has, all of these narratives are utilised to construct a new reality about the God of Israel.

Fig. 2 The Movement of Space in The Narratives of Daniel

To establish the pyramidal structure of Greek Daniel, the editor/author utilises the two spaces below (A) and above (B). Greek Daniel takes the reader on a journey from earth below (Dan 1– 6) to the heavens above (Dan 7– 12) and then back down to earth (Dan 13 – 14) again. With this arrangement of chapters emphasis is placed on the events in heaven (chapter 7– 12). The story of Susanna is similar to the stories about Daniel and his friends being persecuted. Yet, there are two distinct differences. Firstly, in Susanna the persecuted is a women, not a man. Secondly, the persecutors are not foreigners, but fellow Jews. In relation to Greek Daniel, Susanna demonstrates that the Jewish deity is not restricted to specific locations, He is, in His actions, also not restricted to a society’s gender spaces or age restrictions. Within the reality of Greek Daniel the Jewish deity is a God who cares for every righteous male and female, regardless of their age. In addition, the God of Israel does not only use elderly people as his instruments on earth, but he utilises whomever He likes, regardless of their age.

230

Joseph Jacobus de Bruyn

Finally, Susanna also demonstrates that the God of Israel even punishes his own people – not only foreigners. It is not one’s Jewishness that indemnifies a person from God’s punishment, or that insures God’s help; it is your commitment to God and His laws as well as your correct actions as a Jew. Therefore, within the view of Greek Daniel, Jews should remain faithful to their God and not let themselves be corrupted – for in the end, they could be punished alongside the foreign oppressors.

5.1 The Book of Susanna as a New World View How does this influence Greek Daniel’s first readers? Within the reality of Seleucid persecution and the Diaspora the editor/author of Greek Daniel creates an alternate worldview. Within this new worldview Susanna is utilised to create a reality where the holy places of the Jews are symbols of “us against the world”. However, the God of Israel only protects those who are willing to remain faithful, even in the face of oppression.

6 Conclusion When we consider how the editor/author exploits all this spatial and bodily features as well as sub-narratives, it becomes clearer that he/they not only wants to influence the people, but that the editor(s)/author(s) want(s) the readers to rethink their worldviews and the reality of the Seleucid persecution, corruption and the Diaspora.

Source List Becker, U. 2005. Exegese des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Mohr Siebeck. Charles, R.H. [1913] 2004. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Volume one: Apocrypha. Berkeley, CA: The Apocryphal Press. Clifford, S.J. 2003. “The Roots of Apocalypticism in Near Eastern Myth.” In Collins, J.J., B.J. McGinn and S.J. Stein. eds. The Continuum History of Apocalypticism. New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 3 – 29. Collins, J.J. 1993. Daniel. Hermeneia (Ed. F.M. Cross), Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Collins, J.J. 2000. “From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End.” In The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Volume 1. The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity. ed. by J.J. Collins. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 129 – 161.

Susanna – Framing the Minds and Views of People in Daniel

231

De Bruyn, J.J. 2014a. “A Clash of Gods – Conceptualising Space in Daniel 1.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70/3 (2014): 1 – 6. De Bruyn, J.J. 2014b. “Constructing a Deceitful Deity – The disempowerment of Bel – Bel and the Dragon, verses 1 – 22 (OG/Th).” Journal for Semitics 23/2i (2014), 382 – 403. De Bruyn, J.J. 2015. “Constructing a Living Deity – Framing the God of Israel in the stories of Bel and the Dragon.” Journal for Semitics 24/1 (2015), 65 – 92. deSilva, D.A. [2002] 2004. Introducing the Apocrypha: message, context, and significance. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. De Wet, C.L. 2009. “The Reception of the Susanna Narrative (Dan. XIII).” In Septuagint and Reception. ed. by J. Cook. Leiden: Brill, 229 – 244. Evans, V.C., and M. Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. London: LEA. Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Middlesex: Peregrine Books. Foucault, M. 1980. “Truth and Power.” In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings (Ed. Gordon, C.; trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham and K. Sope). Sussex: The Harvester Press, 109 – 133. Foucault, M. 1984a. The History of Sexuality. Great Britain: Peregrine Books. Foucault, M. 1984b. “The Body of the Condemned.” in The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought, with Major New Unpublished Material. ed. P. Rabinow (trans. Bouchard, D.F. and Simon, S.). Middlesex: Penguin Books, 170 – 178. Foucault, M. 1984c. “Docile Bodies.” In The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought, with Major New Unpublished Material (Ed. Rabinow, P.; trans. Bouchard, D.F. and Simon, S.). Middlesex: Penguin Books, 179 – 189. Gärtner-Brereton, L. 2008. The Ontology of Space in Biblical Hebrew Narrative.London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Gruen, E.S. 1998,Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press. Harrington, D.J. 1999. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. Haspelmath, M. 1997. From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbials in the World’s Languages. München: Lincom Europa. Jordaan, Pierre Johan. 2008. “Daniel as Weapon for Attack and Defence Through the Ages.” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 90/19, 45 – 53. Jordaan, Pierre Johan. 2009. “The Pendulum is Never Static: Jesus Sira to Jesus Christ on Women in the Light of Judith, Susanna and LXX Esther”, in HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, Vol. 65, No 1, Art. #167, 6 pages. Kamionkowski, S.T. 2010. “Introduction.” In Bodies, Embodiment, and Theology of the Hebrew Bible, edited by S. Tamar Kamionkowski and Wonil Kim, New York: T & T Clark. Lakhoff, G. 2008. The Political Mind. New York: Viking. Lakhoff, G. and Johnson M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books. Low, S.M. and D. Lawrence-Zúñiga. 2003. The Anthropology of Space and Place. Locating Culture. Malden, MA; Oxford; Carlton, Victoria: Blackwell Publishing. McLay, R.T. 2003. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans. Murphy, F.J. 2002. Early Judaism The Exile to the Time of Jesus. Massachusetts:Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

232

Joseph Jacobus de Bruyn

Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 2005. Jewish literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. A historical and literary introduction. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Nolte, S. Philip and Pierre Johan Jordaan. 2010. “Susanna: A Story of Dangerous Spaces.” In Journal for Semitics, Vol. 19, No. 2, 527 – 547. Oesterly, W.O.E. 1935. An Introduction the Bbooks of the Apocrypha, New York: Macmillan. Redditt, P.L. 1999. Daniël. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Shinan, A. and Y. Zakovithc. 2012. From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppresed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends (trans. Zakovitch, V.). Lincoln: University of Nabraska Press. Steck, O.H., R.G. Kratz and I. Kottsieper.1998. Das Buch Baruch; Der Brief des Jeremia; Zu Ester und Daniel. Apokryphen Band 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Walton, J.H. 2006.Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Ada, MI: Baker Academic. Zlatev, J. 2007. Spatial Semantics, in D. Geeraets and H. Cuyckens, The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 318 – 35.

Géza G. Xeravits

A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art Abstract: A number of stylised representations are found in ancient synagogues, which depict a male figure with outstretched arms in an orans position, flanked by lions. These images share formal similarities, so it is easy to consider them as representing one and the same figure. Scholars generally presume that chapter 6 of the Book of Daniel provided the source for this iconography. However, it would seem that this explanation is somewhat simplistic. In this context, I will briefly survey the Biblical versions of this story, and then propose a more comprehensive explanation apropos the source of these representations of Daniel. Keywords: ancient synagogue; ancient Jewish art; biblical interpretation; book of Daniel; Old Testament apocrypha

1 The Finds A number of representations are found in ancient synagogues, which depict a male figure with outstretched arms in an orans position, flanked by lions. These images share formal similarities, so it is easy to consider them as representing one and the same figure. Two of these images come from Palestine, viz.: Naʿaran, North of Jericho, and Susiya, South of Hebron. One can add to these a third, more debated find, from ʿEn Nashut, in the area of Qaṣrin; in the heart of the Golan. Another depiction was unearthed in the Diaspora, viz.: Sardis, situated in the Western part of present day Turkey, 80 kilometres from Ancient Smyrna.¹

The final version of this paper was prepared during my Humboldt Research Fellowship at the University of Halle. I thank Prof. Nicholas Allen for the revision of the English of the paper.  On Naʿaran, see Vincent, Le sanctuaire juif,  – ; his latest report is Vincent/Benoit, Un sanctuaire,  – ; and cf. the remarks in Sukenik, The Present State,  – . A most recent description is given by Avi-Yonah, Naʿaran, a-b Spigel, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities,  – ; and Werlin, Ancient Synagogues,  – . On Susiya, see Yeivin, The Synagogue, a-b; Werlin, Ancient Synagogues,  – . On ʿEn Nashut, see Maʿoz, The Art and Architecture,  – ; idem, ʿEn Nashuṭ, a–b; for its dating, see Ariel, Coins from the Synagogue,  – ; and cf. recently Spigel, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities,

234

Géza G. Xeravits

In Naʿaran, a Hebrew inscription at the right hand side of the figure’s head helps to identify him: dnyʾ[l] šlwm (“Danie[l], peace”), whereas at Susiya, an inscription preserved in fragmentary condition]ʾl might be interpreted similarly as denoting the name of Daniel. Because of the presence of lions, scholars generally interpret these images as depicting Daniel in the lions’ den.

Fig. 1 Detail of the Naʿaran mosaic (taken from Ancient Synagogues Revealed, 136)

These images might be dated more or less to the same period. The synagogue of Naʿaran was with all probability erected in the sixth century c.e., and had been in use up until the eighth century.² The mosaic floor of its nave has a composite nature, consisting of three consecutive panels. Closest to the entrance is a panel of the inhabited scroll type, which depicts images of fruits and crops as well as various animals in rhythmically arranged circles. This kind of pattern was familiar in Palestinian art – both Jewish and Christian – during the sixth century, which assigns an approximate date for the entire composition.³ The broadhouse building at Susiya served as a synagogue most probably during the fifth-eighth centuries.⁴ The floor of the synagogue was covered with

 – . On Sardis, see Seager, The Building History,  – ; Kraabel, The Diaspora Synagogue, esp.  – ; Magness, The Date of the Sardis Synagogue,  – ; and also Hachlili, Diaspora,  – . I studied these in detail in my The Figure of Daniel,  – .  See Avi-Yonah, Naʿaran, ; Werlin, Ancient Synagogues,  – .  Cf. Hachlili, Mosaic Pavements,  – .  Yeivin, The Synagogue,  – ; Werlin, Ancient Synagogues,  – .

A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art

235

an ornate mosaic carpet, which has been repaired at least five times during its existence. One can, with good reason, suspect that the fragmentary Daniel depiction belonged to an earlier stratum. In the first phase the prayer hall was paved with white tesserae. In the next phase the polychrome mosaic carpet was installed, which contained three panels with the zodiac in the middle position – with all probability the Daniel panel belonging to this stratum. Later still, the zodiac was replaced by a huge rosette, above which a partition wall was erected in the fourth phase. This wall might be dated to the sixth century or later: within its foundation a coin has been discovered from the time of the emperor Justinian (527– 565), a period which serves a terminus post quem for the partition wall.⁵ Thus, one can date the Daniel fragment of Susiya to around the turn of the fifth–sixth centuries. The third figural representation provides more problems. In the heart of the Golan, near Qaṣrin, ruins of an ancient synagogue have been discovered at ʿEn Nashut. The building was in use between the fifth to seventh centuries;⁶ its ornamentation comprised various reliefs carved on the capitals, stylobates, architraves and lintels. Some of these reliefs are ornamented geometrically, others represent animals or cultic objects (e. g. menorah).

Fig. 2 Detail of the Susiya mosaic (taken from Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues, 420)

After the synagogue ceased to be used, parts of its architectural elements were relocated. Scholars are of the opinion that a longer carved stone – probably

 Gutman/Yeivin/Netzer, Excavations, ; and cf. Magness, The Archaeology of the Early Islamic Settlement, : .  Maʿoz, ʿEn Nashuṭ, .

236

Géza G. Xeravits

an orthostat ⁷ – found approximately a kilometre away from the area, at ʿEn Shamsham, originally belonged to the synagogue at ʿEn Nashut. Besides the localisation, the iconography of this possible orthostat also presents difficulties. On the front side of the stone (cf. Fig. 3), may be observed, a symmetrically composed, somewhat naively designed carved relief set within a recessed frame. Its central axis is demarcated by a male figure depicted in an orans position. He is flanked by a lion on the left and a lioness on the right. The two animals and the central figure are in their turn flanked by two highly stylised soaring eagles with outstretched wings. One might note that these framing eagles are unfamiliar both for the Biblical archetype of the scene of Daniel in the lions’ den, and for its later iconographic Nachleben. Also, the lioness situated to the right of the human figure is depicted feeding her cub, which is also an unusual characteristic for this type of scene. Nevertheless, Thomas F. Matthews provides a parallel image, a fragmentary relief from the sixth century, wherein Daniel is also depicted between a lion and a lioness.⁸ This is a very remote parallel, however, because it originates from Thasos, and from a Christian milieu. These considerations neither automatically exclude the view that the ʿEn Nashut stone is a peculiar, idiosyncratic image of the Daniel in the lions’ den scene, nor do they strongly substantiate this interpretation.

Fig. 3 The ʿEn Nashut stone, frontal view (taken from Maʿoz, Ancient Synagogue, pl. 75)

Finally, the dating of the Sardis synagogue is debated among scholars: some date it to the 3rd century c.e., others hold to a considerably later development and date it to the sixth century.⁹ This fragmentary Daniel image originally belonged to one of the carved marble slabs that decorated the walls of the building – in this case, the wall of the forecourt. A special characteristic of this image is the presence of a scroll in the hand of the orans figure. Nevertheless, as Marcus  E.g. Maʿoz, ʿEn Nashuṭ, ; Hachlili, Ancient Synagogues, ; and Werlin, Eagle Imagery, , .  Matthews, The Clash of Gods, . The relief is at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum.  Seager, The Building History,  – ; Kraabel, The Diaspora Synagogue,  – ; Magness, The Date of the Sardis Synagogue,  – ; Hachlili, Diaspora,  – .

A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art

237

Rautman maintains, this is not unfamiliar either in Jewish or Christian imagery of Biblical figures originating from the sixth century.¹⁰

Fig. 4 The fragmentary Sardis slab (taken from Rautman, Daniel at Sardis, 50)

Scholars generally presume that chapter 6 of the Book of Daniel provided the source for this iconography. However, it would seem that this explanation is somewhat simplistic. In this context, I will briefly survey the Biblical versions of this story, and then propose a more comprehensive explanation apropos the source of these representations of Daniel.

 Rautman, Daniel at Sardis, .

238

Géza G. Xeravits

3 The Biblical Versions The genre of Daniel 6 has variously been described in research;, however, most scholars agree that it is a “court tale,” and represents one of its specific sub-genres, a “tale of court conflict.”¹¹ These stories were intended to demonstrate the superiority of one or more Jewish protagonists towards their pagan opponents in a Diaspora setting, usually in four successive steps. After an introduction that presents the actors and the reasons for the conflict, these stories elaborate on the conflict proper, wherein the Jewish protagonist is ultimately accused by one or more antagonists, and the king has make a severe judgement against him. These are followed by a fortunate solution, where the Jewish protagonist is saved by divine intervention, and the antagonist(s) suffer for his/their evil. Finally, a theological or moral cadence is proffered wherein the king tolerates or acknowledges the God of the Jewish protagonists. The major versions of Daniel 6 reveal a similar fabula when relating the fate of Daniel and his subsequent deliverance. Below, the Aramaic, Old Greek and Theodotion texts of Daniel 6:17– 23 are paralleled, wherein the protagonist is depicted in being isolated in the lions’ den.¹² TM  Then the king gave the command, and Daniel was brought and thrown into the den of lions. The king said to Daniel: “May your God, whom you faithfully serve, deliver you!”  A stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, so that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel.

OG  Now Darius the king cried out and said to Daniel: “Your God, whom you continually serve thrice a day, he will deliver you from the power of lions! Have courage until morning.”

TH  Then the king spoke, and they brought Daniel, and he was thrown into the lions’ pit. And the king said to Daniel: “Your God, whom you continually serve, he will deliver you!”

 Then Daniel was thrown into the lions’ pit, and a stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the pit, and the king sealed it with his signet and with the signets of his nobles so that Daniel might not be removed by them or the king pull him up from the pit.

 And they brought a stone and laid it on the mouth of the pit, and the king sealed it with his signet and with the signet of his nobles so that the matter might not be changed against Daniel.

 On the genre in general, see, among others, Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King; idem, The Jewish Novellas,  – ; Niditch/Doran, The Success Story,  – ; Collins, Daniel with an Introduction, ,  – ; idem, Daniel,  – ; Xeravits, Interreligiosity; on the specification of the sub-genres, see: Humphreys, A Life-Style for Diaspora,  – .  On the chapter, see recently, Helms, Konfliktfelder der Diaspora.

A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art

 Then the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; no food was brought to him, and sleep fled from him.

 Then, at break of day, the king got up and hurried to the den of lions.

 When he came near the den where Daniel was, he cried out anxiously to Daniel: “O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God whom you faithfully serve been able to deliver you from the lions?”  Daniel then said to the king: “O king, live forever!  My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths so that they would not hurt me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong.”

 Then the king returned to his palace and passed the night without eating and was grieving for Daniel. But the God of Daniel, having taken forethought for him, shut the mouths of the lions, and they did not bother Daniel.  And King Darius rose early in the morning and took the satraps with him. And he went and stood at the opening of the lions’ pit.  Then the king called Daniel in a loud voice with wailing, saying: “O Daniel, are you still alive, and has your God whom you continually serve saved you from the lions, and have they not injured you?”  Then Daniel heeded the loud voice and said:  “O king, I am still alive, and the Lord has saved me from the lions, because righteousness was found in me in his presence, and also in your presence, O king, neither ignorance nor sin was found in me. But you listened to people who deceive kings, and you cast me into the lions’ pit for destruction.”

239

 And the king went into his house and slept without supper, and they brought no delicacies to him, and sleep fled from him.

 Then the king rose in the morning with the daylight and went quickly to the lions’ pit.  And as he came near the pit, he cried out in a strong voice: “O Daniel, the slave of the living God, has your God whom you continually serve been able to deliver you from the mouth of the lions?”  And Daniel said to the king: “O king, live forever!  My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths, and they did not hurt me, because uprightness was found in me before him, and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong.”

It is striking that the protagonist of the chapter, Daniel, is inactive in most of the narrative portion. In verses 17– 21 he is merely a passive victim of the activities of others; he is thrown into the den which is eventually sealed, and he is the recipient of a speech by the king. In this context, the author focuses mainly on king Darius, and efficiently elaborates on the growing inner spiritual tensions experienced by the king. Indeed, Darius prays for and encourages Daniel, whilst fasting and grieving all night long in his house (OG: ηὐλίσθη νῆστις καὶ ἦν λυπούμενος περὶ τοῦ Δανιηλ), and, finally, at early morning rushes to the den (OG: ὤρθρισε πρωὶ… καὶ πορευθεὶς ἔστη ἐπὶ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ λάκκου τῶν λεόντων). At the same time, the reader does not obtain any information about what has happened to the protagonist or the miserable circumstances that have befallen

240

Géza G. Xeravits

to him. This is due, no doubt, to his uncompromising, steadfast Jewish piety. Only the Old Greek version contains a hint that the “God of Daniel, having taken forethought for him, shut the mouths of the lions, and they did not bother Daniel” (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Δανιηλ πρόνοιαν ποιούμενος αὐτοῦ ἀπέκλεισε τὰ στόματα τῶν λεόντων καὶ οὐ παρηνώχλησαν τῷ Δανιηλ, 6:19) without, however, further elaboration on the causes, motifs or details of the Divine intervention. Verses 22 – 23 relate a speech of Daniel to the king. Here the protagonist explains his deliverance in stating that it was done by Divine activity: in TM and TH the angel of God shut the lions’ mouth (ʾlhy šlḥ mlʾkh wsgr pm ʾrywtʾ, ὁ θεός μου ἀπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνέφραξεν τὰ στόματα τῶν λεόντων), whereas in Og it is God himself that saves the life of Daniel (καὶ σέσωκέ με ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τῶν λεόντων). The reason for the Divine intervention is substantiated by the fact that Daniel was found blameless/upright (zkw, εὐθύτης) before God and the king, and has done no trespass (ḥbwlh lʾ ʿbdt, παράπτωμα οὐκ ἐποίησα). The OG uses more technical language when referring to Daniel’s righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) and sinless behaviour (οὔτε ἄγνοια οὔτε ἁμαρτία εὑρέθη ἐν ἐμοί): these terms in the present context also stress his ethical qualities,¹³ especially in view of the beginning of the chapter where the antagonists found neither sin nor ignorance against Daniel (οὐδεμίαν ἁμαρτίαν οὐδὲ ἄγνοιαν ηὕρισκον κατὰ τοῦ Δανιηλ, 6:5). What is striking in these versions is that none of them presents Daniel as praying in the lions’ den. Of course, the central conflict of the chapter concerns the issues of worship and prayer. Daniel’s adversaries in the Persian court cannot find any other premise for conspiring against him than the customs of his piety. And indeed, Daniel ignores the interdict of Darius that everyone must pray for thirty days exclusively to the king (6:7), and, instead, he prays to God three times a day towards Jerusalem. The author even adds that this kind of prayer is the ordinary custom of Daniel (HB kl qbl dy hwʾ ʿbd mn qdmt dnh, OG καθὼς ἐποίει ἔμπροσθεν, TH καθὼς ἦν ποιῶν ἔμπροσθεν, 6:10). These antecedents notwithstanding, the versions are silent about Daniel’s presumable prayer in the den.

4 Ancient Interpretations The earliest ancient references to, or interpretations of, Daniel 6 generally agree with the Biblical versions above in passing over the aspect of prayer in the lions’

 Cf. TDNT, : – ;  – ; :  – .

A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art

241

den in silence; or, rather, that they are not interested in what might have actually occurred within the den during that night. Rather, these sources emphasise the ethical reasons for the deliverance of the protagonist, or, they simply recall Divine providence.¹⁴ At the end of the 2nd century b.c.e., 1 Maccabees 2 reports the last words or testimony of Mattathias, the priest from Modeʿin, who stirred up the revolt against the Hellenisers.¹⁵ Verses 51– 60 of this testimony consist of a list of honourable ancestors, beginning with Abraham and ending with Daniel. At 2:60 the author reports Daniel’s deliverance from the lions, but the only thing he states is that he was saved because of his innocence (ἐν τῇ ἁπλότητι αὐτοῦ). A century later, 3 Maccabees 6:7 relates a fictional story about Ptolemy IV Philopator, who, after his defeat at the battle of Raphia intended to exterminate the Jewish community of Alexandria. He shut the Jews into the hippodrome, and planned to crush them with his elephants. In this desperate situation an old priest, Eleazar gathers the elders together and utters a prayer (3 Macc 6:2– 15). During this prayer, Eleazar also recalls several great heroes of the past, among others Daniel, and mentions his deliverance from the lions (6:7), without, however, mentioning any reasons for the Divine intervention or the piety of Daniel. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in the last decade of the first century c.e. retells the stories of the Scriptures in the first part of his monumental work on Jewish history. He devotes a good deal of material to the figure of Daniel (A.J. X x–xi),¹⁶ and in course of this he elaborates the events of Daniel 6, without, however providing additional information about what might have occurred in the lions’ den. Josephus only remarks, that the antagonists would not acknowledge that Daniel was preserved by Divine intervention (διὰ μὲν τὸ θεῖον καὶ τὴν τούτου πρόνοιαν οὐκ ἠξίουν αὐτὸν σώζεσθαι, X xi 6), because of this fact the king subsequently executed them. At approximately the same time, around the turn of the first to second centuries c.e. the Epistle to the Hebrews enumerates great heroes of the Old Testament who achieved exceptional deeds. In 11:33 it is written that some of them “conquered kingdoms, administered justice (εἰργάσαντο δικαιοσύνην), obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions (ἔφραξαν στόματα λεόντων).” Two of the four successive clauses here are inspired by Daniel 6: according to the OG righteousness was found in Daniel (δικαιοσύνη ἐν ἐμοὶ εὑρέθη), and, as the TH states, the angel of God shut the mouth of lions (ἐνέφραξεν τὰ στόματα τῶν λεόντων).

 In general, see, Stemberger, Die jüdische Danielrezeption,  – .  See, e. g., Hieke, Role of Scripture.  Cf. Begg, Daniel and Josephus; Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation,  – .

242

Géza G. Xeravits

Here, too, the passage does not speak about prayer; rather, the introductory clause of the verse evokes the faith of the protagonist (διὰ πίστεως). Later interpretative traditions – both Jewish and Christian – share this understanding. In fact, there is just one ancient source that explicitly states that Daniel prayed in the lions’ den. The midrash that interprets Psalm 64 makes extensive use of Daniel 6. In the course of the commentary the text relates that when the king went to the den in the early morning, Daniel was reciting the Shemaʿ prayer. Then the king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the den of lions. And when he came near unto the den to Daniel, he cried with a pained voice: … O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?” And though Daniel heard, he did not answer because he was reading the Shema. “Then said Daniel unto the king: O king, live forever! My God hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths.¹⁷

Scholars generally date Midrash Tehillim as late as towards the end of the Geonic period.¹⁸ It is true, that the traditions contained in it might have originated in considerably earlier times as well. In the present case, however, the midrash quotes traditions from unnamed authorities, it is thus nearly impossible to determine even an approximate date for the emergence of the notion that Daniel actually prayed whilst secluded in the den. Simply speaking, one cannot consider this midrashic tradition as a source for the synagogue depictions, which – as it was seen above – all are dated with all probability to the sixth century.

5 Daniel 14 as a Possible Source for the Images I would like to return now to the Thasos relief mentioned above. At the upper left corner of the image two additional figures appear; a winged angel carries a bearded man by his hair. The man holds in his hands a dish with two pieces of bread. This specific iconography is reminiscent of a related version of the story of Daniel 6, which is preserved among the so-called Deuterocanonical Additions to Daniel: Bel and the Dragon (Dan 14, esp. verses 31– 42).¹⁹ In this story

 Cf. Ginzberg, The Legends, :  – ; the quotation is taken from Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, : .  See, e. g., Stemberger, Introduction,  – .  Various aspects of the story are treated in Koch, Deuterokanonische Zusätze, esp. :  – ; or Wysny, Die Erzählungen, esp.  – . The study of Bezzel, Habakkuk,  –  arrived too late to be incorporated into the present paper.

A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art

243

Daniel spends six days in the lions’ den. The story contains an interesting intermezzo concerning the prophet Habakkuk, who is preparing food for the reapers. On the sixth day of Daniel’s sojourn in the den, an angel takes the prophet Habakkuk from Judaea to Babylon in order to feed the protagonist. According to the OG version, the angel carries him by the hair of his head (καὶ ἐπιλαβόμενος αὐτοῦ ὁ ἄγγελος κυρίου τοῦ Αμβακουμ τῆς κόμης αὐτοῦ τῆς κεφαλῆς, 14:36). After receiving the food, Daniel gives thanks to God as follows: “You have remembered me, O God, and have not forsaken those who love you” (ἐμνήσθη γάρ μου κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ μὴ ἐγκαταλείπων τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας αὐτόν, Dan 14:38). In view of various parallels from the Book of Psalms, it is especially clear that the protagonist is presented here as praying in the lions’ den.

Fig. 5 The Thasos relief (taken from Matthews, The Clash of Gods, 78)

Similar impression emerges from a detail of the Sardis image. In all of the related depictions at our disposal Daniel is flanked by two lions. On the fragmentarily preserved Sardis carving the left side of the human figure is lost, but on his right four lions are seen. Given the fact that all known exemplars of this iconographic pattern – both Jewish and Christian – display a symmetrical arrangement, there is good reason to presume that the now lost left side of the image had once contained approximately the same number of lions as are preserved in the right side. As a consequence, it is possible to consider that originally the total number of lions was closer to eight. The various versions of Dan 6 fail to enumerate the lions in the den; however, Bel and the Dragon explicitly states that seven lions were there (ἦν δὲ λάκκος ἐν ᾧ ἐτρέφοντο λέοντες

244

Géza G. Xeravits

Fig. 6 Catacomb of SS. Marcellinus and Peter (taken from http://www.bible-archaeology.info)

ἑπτά, Dan 14:31 OG, similarly TH). This number is in accordance with the supposed original material of the Sardis image.

6 Remarks on the Origin of the Imagery Basically, the origins of the ancient synagogal imagery of Daniel in the lions’ den might seem to be deduced from three different directions. The first is to suppose that it is the result of a creative Jewish rewriting of Dan 6. It is true, that the material of the chapter in its entirety might naturally offer the possibility of a rewriting of the story that features Daniel praying in the lions’ den. Nevertheless, no written evidence exists, which suggests that Late Antique Judaism had elaborated such a version. The only evidence comes from a considerably later date. The second is to suppose that the source for the synagogal images is Dan 14. Unfortunately, however, there is no evidence that sixth century Judaism had used Dan 14, or that this text had influenced their thinking in any way. In fact, the only ancient Jewish reference to Bel and the Dragon comes very proba-

A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art

245

Fig. 7 The “Dogmatic Sarcophagus” (taken from www.christianiconography.info)

bly from the first century c.e., from chapter 12 of the Lives of the Prophets, where Habakkuk is reported as bringing food for Daniel.²⁰ Besides this allusion, however, Dan 14 did not influence Ancient Judaism. The third solution is the most plausible one. The above caveat notwithstanding, the origin of the imagery must be Dan 14, albeit indirectly. One cannot speak, however, about an inner Jewish development: rather, the safest way is to maintain that Judaism borrowed the figure of Daniel praying in the lions’ den from Christian iconography. There are a good number of Christian depictions that testify to the very same pattern, and most might be dated to a considerably earlier period than the Jewish figural representations.²¹ The first such images emerge in Roman catacombs at the end of the 3rd century, and appear also on sarcophagi, among others in high relief on the very artistically crafted, so-called “Dogmatic Sarcophagus,” produced in Rome around 340 c.e. The number of the preserved depictions suggests that Daniel in the lions’ den was a very popular motif in early Christian art. But how did it penetrate into the Jewish realm? Scholars admit the existence of artistic workshops in greater cultural centres of the Mediterranean – also in Palestine. These workshops were employed by very different kinds of procurers: they might work for  Schwemer, Studien, :  – ; Satran, Biblical Prophets,  – , latter dates the Daniel Vita to the fourth century c.e., and holds that it is a Christian composition.  The Christian Daniel iconography is studied in detail in Sörries, Daniel in der Löwengrube, who collects no less than  various images of Daniel in the lions’ den from Late Antiquity.

246

Géza G. Xeravits

Pagans, Christians and Jews alike. The pattern books they might use could be an obvious media for borrowing imagery from different religious groups.²² One can say: elements of Christian iconography could unconsciously penetrate ancient Jewish figurative art.

Source List Ariel, Donald T.1987. “Coins from the Synagogue at ʿEn Nashut.” IEJ 37 (1987) 147 – 157. Avi-Yonah, Michael. 1993. “Naʿaran.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society 1993), 3, 1075a–1076b. Braude, William G. 1959. The Midrash on Psalms – Yale Judaica Series 13, New Haven: Yale University Press. Begg, Christopher T. 1939. “Daniel and Josephus: Tracing Connections.” In The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, edited by A.S. van der Woude, 539 – 545. BETL 106, Leuven: Peeters). Bezzel, Hannes, 2015. “Habakkuk in the Lions’ Den: Dan 14:33 – 39 (Bel 33 – 39).” In Prophecy and Prophets in Stories: Papers Read at the Fifth Meeting of the Edinburgh Prophecy Network, edited by B. Becking and H.M. Barstad, 169 ̶ 182. OuTS 65. Leiden: Brill. Collins, John J. 1984. Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, FOTL 20. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Collins, John J. 1993. Daniel. Hermeneia, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Feldman, Louis H. 1998. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Hellenistic Culture and Society 27. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ginzberg, Louis H. 2003. The Legends of the Jews. 2nd ed., 2 vols., Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Gutman, Shmaryahu, Yeivin, Zeev and Netzer, Ehud. 1981.”Excavations in the Synagogue at Ḥorvat Susiya.” In Ancient Synagogues Revealed, edited by L.I. Levine, 123 – 128. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Hachlili, Rachel. 1998. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Diaspora (HdO 1.35), Leiden: Brill. Hachlili, Rachel. 2009. Ancient Mosaic Pavements. Themes, Issues, and Trends, Leiden: Brill. Hachlili, Rachel. 2013. Ancient Synagogues – Archaeology and Art: New Discoveries and Current Research, HdO 1.105, Leiden: Brill. Helms, Dominik. 2014. Konfliktfelder der Diaspora und die Löwengrube. Zur Eigenart der Erzählung von Daniel in der Löwengrube in der hebräischen Bibel und der Septuaginta, BZAW 446, Berlin: De Gruyter.

 On this, see, e. g., Hachlili, Ancient Mosaic Pavements,  – ; eadem, Ancient Synagogues,  – .

A Possible Greek Bible Source for Late Antique Synagogue Art

247

Hieke, Thomas. 2007. “The Role of ‘Scripture’ in the Last Words of Mattathias (1 Macc. 2.49 ̶ 70).” In The Books of Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology, edited by G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér, 61 ̶ 74. JSJSup. 118, Leiden: Brill. Humphreys, W. Lee. 1973. “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel.” JBL 92 (1973), 211 – 223. Koch, Klaus.1987. Deuterokanonische Zusätze zum Danielbuch: Entstehung und Textgeschichte, 2 vols. AOAT 38, Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. Kraabel, A. Thomas. 1998. “The Diaspora Synagogue: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik.” In Ancient Synagogues. Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, edited by D. Urman and P.W.M. Flesher, 95 – 126. SPB 47, Leiden: Brill. Maʿoz, Zvi U. 1981. “The Art and Architecture of the Synagogues of the Golan.” In Ancient Synagogues Revealed, edited by L.I. Levine, 99 – 115. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Maʿoz, Zvi U. 1993. “ʿEn Nashuṭ.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, 2, 412a–414b. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Maʿoz, Zvi U. 2003. Ancient Synagogue in the Golan (Qazrin: Golan Museum 1995). Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of the Early Islamic Settlement in Palestine Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Magness, Jodi. 2005. “The Date of the Sardis Synagogue in Light of the Numismatic Evidence.” AJA 109 (2005), 443 – 475. Matthews, Thomas F. 1993. The Clash of Gods. A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art, rev. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Niditch, Susan and Doran, Robert. 1977. “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach.” JBL 96 (1977), 179 – 193. Rautman, Marcus. 2010. “Daniel at Sardis.” BASOR 358 (2010) 47 – 60. Satran, David. 1995. Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets SVTP 11, Leiden: Brill. Schwemer, Anna Maria. 1995 – 1996. Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae Prophetarum (2 vols., TSAJ 49 – 50, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Seager, Andrew R. 1972. “The Building History of the Sardis Synagogue.” AJA 76 (1972) 425 – 435. Sörries, Reiner. 2005. Daniel in der Löwengrube: zur Gesetzmäßigkeit frühchristlicher Ikonographie Wiesbaden: Reichert. Spigel, Chad S. 2012. Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities. Methodology, Analysis and Limits TSAJ 149, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Stemberger, Günter. 1996. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Stemberger, Günter. 2010. “Die jüdische Danielrezeption seit der Zerstörung des zweiten Tempels am Beispiel der Endzeitberechnung.” In idem, Judaica Minora I. TSAJ 133, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck (2010), 203 – 220. Sukenik, Eleazar L. 1949. “The Present State of Ancient Synagogue Studies.” Rabinowitz Bulletin 1 (1949), 7 – 23. Vincent, Louis-H. 1919. “Le sanctuaire juif d’Aïn Douq.” RB 28 (1919), 532 – 563. Vincent, Louis-H. with Pierre Benoit. 1961. “Un sanctuaire dans la région de Jéricho: La synagogue de Na‘arah.” RB 68 (1961), 161 – 177.

248

Géza G. Xeravits

Werlin, Steven H. 2006. “Eagle Imagery in Jewish Relief Sculpture of Late Antique Palestine: Survey and Interpretation.” unpublished Magister Arytium Dissertation, UNC Chapel Hill. Werlin, Steven H. 2015. Ancient Synagogues of Southern Palestine, 300 ̶ 800 C.E.: Living on the Edge BRLJ 47, Leiden: Brill. Wills, Lawrence M. 1990. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King. HDR 26, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Wills, Lawrence M. 1994. “The Jewish Novellas.” In Greek Fiction. The Greek Novel in Context, edited by J.R. Morgan and R. Stoneman London: Routledge. Wysny, Andreas. 1996. Die Erzählungen von Bel und dem Drachen: Untersuchung zu Dan 14 SBB 33, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Yeivin, Zeev. 1993. “Susiya, Khirbet. The Synagogue.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern 4: 1417a–1421b. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Xeravits, Géza G. 2007. “Interreligiosity as a Literary Fiction in the ‘Court Tales’ of the Old Testament.” In Reflecting Diversity: Historical and Thematical Perspectives in the Jewish and Christian Tradition, edited by G.G. Xeravits and P. Losonczi, 1 – 11. Wien: LIT Verlag. Xeravits, Géza G. 2015. “The Figure of Daniel in Late Antique Synagogue Art.” In Propheten der Epochen / Prophets during the Epochs. Festschrift für István Karasszon zum 60. Geburtstag / Studies in Honour of István Karasszon for his 60th Birthday, edited by V. Kókai Nagy and L.S. Egeresi, 217 – 231. AOAT 426. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Eugene Coetzer

Coincidence or Coherence? Rhetorical Considerations for Unnatural Elements in 2 Maccabees 5:1 – 20 Abstract: In 2 Macc. 5:1– 20 a series of mysterious events are incorporated into the account of the Temple’s profanation. Scenes of divine apparition, rumours and coincidental death are all interwoven into the text. These events are usually viewed as independent. Alternatively, this article investigates the possibility of a unified purpose for these elements. Four scenes are identified which demonstrate the author’s proclivity towards a supernatural explanation of the circumstances described in this pericope. Accordingly, the Temple’s desecration can only be conseptualised by the reader as divinely driven. This, in turn, proves that the events are not merely coincidence, but engineered by God. The attack on the Temple can only be seen as punishment if God has caused it. Consequently, through a rhetorical analysis, the article provides a means to view the four scenes as a unified communicative strategy. Keywords: 2 Maccabees, Holy Temple, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Rhetoric.

1 Introduction Throughout the text of 2 Maccabees, the author has been raising the level of the anticipation of a disastrous event to follow. This has been done through a variety of warnings and estimations such as: – the summary of events to follow in the attached letters (1:1– 2:18) and the prologue (2:19 – 32), – the threat to the Temple in 3:1– 39, – the warning of the dangers of the Hellenistic reform under Jason (4:15 – 17) – and the death of Onias III (4:23 – 50) Now, finally, disaster strikes. Antiochus IV Epiphanes himself leads the massacre in Jerusalem and defiles the Temple by entering and plundering it with his polluted hands (5:16). By now, the reader has no doubt about the importance of the Temple’s status as well as the devastation should it be profaned. Jordaan (2015: 352) distinguishes three temple scenes in 2 Macc and demonstrates their significance for the relation between the Jews and their God. The reaction of the city to

250

Eugene Coetzer

the first threat to the Temple in 2 Macc. 3:1– 39 asserted that it is critical for the Temple to remain consecrate. Now, the defilement of the most holy Temple in this pericope leads to questions: Why does Antiochus IV succeed where others have failed? Why was the wickedness of the Seleucid king allowed, but not that of Heliodorus? To these questions, the author supplies a direct answer, one of which the essence becomes a theme throughout 2 Macc: God allows misfortune due to the sins of the city, until He is again reconciled with his people. The author states this explicitly, through the statement in 5:17– 20 that Antiochus IV is only a tool of God’s punishment. This explicit theological communication is part of a series of reflections (see also 4:16 – 17; 6:12– 17) by the author in an attempt to guide the reader’s understanding of events. Due to this direct form of communication and its content it is tempting to regard verses 17– 20 as the totality of the author’s plan with this pericope. Preceding these four verses is, however, an array of mysterious events. Premonitions, rumours and coincidental death are the elements that drive the text. Thus, certain questions arise regarding the relevancy of the rest of the pericope: – Why is the premonitory sign included? – Why is the premonitory sign not explained or referenced in the rest of the pericope? – Why is the attack of Jason as well as that of Antiochus IV caused by a rumour? – Why is the death of Jason included and elaborated? These questions lead to the potentiality of a unifying theme which may serve as a strategy applied by the author to move the reader to adopt his proposition. The pericope has been discussed by many scholars (Bickerman, 1979; Bénevot, 1931; Bartlett, 1973; Habicht, 1976; Goldstein, 1983; Dommerhausen, 1985; Schwartz, 2008; Doran, 2012) applying various approaches: – Bickerman aims his book, The God of the Maccabees (1979), as a preliminary study for a commentary on 1 and 2 Macc. His book developed out of a philological interpretation and has a “purely historical” aim in order to understand the sequence of events and make them comprehensible (1979: 1). Amongst his foci are the dating of the prefixed letters and the book, the differences of the various traditions, and the original aggressors of the persecutions. – Another leading scholar, Robert Doran, in his commentary on 2 Macc (2012), highlights the author’s love for metaphors and wordplay. He focuses on worldview and the confrontation between Judaism and Hellenism. His re-

Rhetorical Considerations for Unnatural Elements in 2 Maccabees 5:1 – 20

–

–

–

251

search shows interest in some rhetorical aspects of the text and accordingly investigates the goals of the text. Jonathan A. Goldstein’s commentary follows the work of his doktorvater, Bickerman, except in the dating of 2 Macc. He examines the critical issues raised by 2 Macc. He discusses its language and style, its Hellenistic and Jewish inclination, its comparison and relationship to I Maccabees, its use of sacred writings (Torah and Prophets), its historical context, and the role of the miraculous. Daniel R. Schwartz, in his work 2 Maccabees (2008), highlights 2 Macc as a second century B.C.E. Jewish writing. He accentuates 2 Macc as a narration and interpretation of the events that took place in Jerusalem prior to and during the Maccabean revolt (167– 160 B.C.E.). He provides an important solution to the intricate discussion on the linkage between the letters and the narrative in arguing that the authors of the first letter took notice of the book and that the second letter is closely linked to the narrative concerning the fire in the Temple (2008: 525 – 527). Jan Willem Van Henten, in his book The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (1997), discusses the religious, political as well as the philosophical aspects of noble death in 2 and 4 Macc. discussing the narrative, he distinguishes six elements which are a key facet in understanding the narrative pattern of 2 Macc (1997: 295). He argues that the theme of martyrdom is a very important part of the self-image of the Jews as presented by the authors of both works. Eleazar, the anonymous mother with her seven sons and Razis should, therefore, be considered heroes of the Jewish people.

None of these approaches, however, deal with the possibility of the four scenes in 5:1– 16 having a unified purpose in moving the reader to adopt a specific proposition. In an attempt to further the understanding of this text, this article therefore suggests that these elements are not to be conceptualised individually. Rather, they serve a combined purpose of supporting the author’s main proposition. Consequently, the following elements will guide the study: 1. Determining the author’s proposition and argumentation through a detailed analysis of each of the four scenes as well as of the author’s reflection in 5:17– 20, 2. investigating a possible unifying theme between the four identified scenes, 3. and demonstrating the relation between this theme and the author’s proposition in 2 Macc. 5:1– 20.

252

Eugene Coetzer

The article will thus conduct a rhetorical analysis. The text will be discussed syntactically, semantically and pragmatically.

2 Syntactical and Semantic Analysis 2.1 Scene 1: A premonitory Sign (2 Macc. 5:1 – 4) In terms of content, this pericope can be compared to texts such as 1 Macc., Josephus’ Jewish War 1.31– 35, Antiquities of the Jews 12.239 – 54, 4Q248 and Daniel 11:28 – 31a. When compared by authors such as Broshi and Eshel (1997, 120 – 29), Sievers (2001), Schwartz (2008, 533 – 36), Doran (2012, 139 – 142), it becomes evident that there are historical discrepancies between these texts which are hard to assimilate. These discrepancies have led scholars (who’s arguments Schwartz, 2008: 534– 536, discusses thoroughly) to try and bridge the gap between 2 Macc. 5:1 and 1 Macc. 1:20 – 23. The account in 1 Macc. mentions two invasions, while 2 Macc apparently mentions only one. In aiming to synchronise 1 and 2 Maccabees’ versions of the Temple plundering, there are two ways of dealing with the problem: either 2 Macc. 5:1 refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes’s second visit to Egypt, but in reality the first invasion; or 2 Macc. 5:1 refers to the second phase of the first invasion. These attempts are, however, only based on a loose interpretation of the term ἔφοδος (generally: “approach”). This term is employed in the phrase τὴν δευτέραν ἔφοδον (“in the second approach”). This general interpretation (“approach”), however, becomes unlikely when considering that the term ἔφοδος is employed six times in 2 Macc, all referring to the hostile sense of “inroad,” or “assault.” A second facet which supports the hostile interpretation of the term is the fact that the term ἀναζευγνύω (“I prepare to go away again”) is found in 5:11 (a term also paired with ἔφοδος in 13:26 – where the hostile sense is implied). It is thus clear from the context of 2 Macc. 5 that ἔφοδος is to be translated in a hostile sense and means “inroad” or “assault.” The question that remains is whether this refers to a first or second attack. This article will follow Doran (2012, 126) in reading into this ambiguity the real aim of the author, which is to provide a concise version and focus “on the emotional hardships of the Jews” and to stress “the horrible characters of Jason, Menelaus and Antiochus IV (Doran 2012, 126). After mentioning the second inroad of Antiochus IV into Egypt in verse 1, the author mentions the sighting of supernatural activity in the sky all around Jerusalem (5:2– 3). The sighting continues nearly forty days, a number which is wellknown from the Israelites’ forty year desert-wandering, Moses’ forty days on the

Rhetorical Considerations for Unnatural Elements in 2 Maccabees 5:1 – 20

253

mountain and Elijah’s forty day travel to the mountain. Here the forty days similarly causes anticipation of a significant event to follow. The gold wrought armaments (διαχρύσους στολάς) mentioned in 5:2 are a typical element in ancient historiographical reference to supernatural beings (Doran 2012, 126) and is paralleled in Polybius (30.25.13). Through this reference, the reader is led to recall the epiphany in the events regarding Heliodorus and the Temple in the first threat to the Temple. The phrases in 5:2– 3 are linked together by the particle “καί” (“and, also”) and forms one long sentence. In this sentence there is both paronomasia (βελῶν … βολάς) and parachesis (χρυσέων κόσμων). This premonitory sign, especially in the light of 5:4, is open to both a positive and negative interpretation. This is typical for ancient historiographical signs prior to battle and pagan oracles (Doran 2012, 126). This type of ambiguous premonitory sign, here in 2 Macc 5, may very well be an ironic reference to the neutral and current state of the Jewish religion. The fact that is clear, however, is that this is an excellent stylistic trait evident of the author’s Hellenistic inclination. In tandem with the element of suspense and relief throughout the text, this ensures the reader’s anticipation. Thus, this scene heightens the rhetorical value of the pericope through creating tension and anticipation. Furthermore, the author ensures through vivid imagery, and by means of the nature of the premonition, that the reader acknowledges the supernatural nature of this happening.

2.2 Scene 2: Jason is driven by a Rumour (2 Macc. 5:5 – 8a) The second scene regards Jason and his actions. An interesting aspect is that a rumour is employed to set in motion a series of disastrous events. Word is spread that Antiochus IV had died. This causes Jason, who was previously forced to flee to the region of Ammon (4:26), to return to Jerusalem and attack the city. This event, in turn, causes a second rumour that Jerusalem had disaffiliated, which drives Antiochus IV to attack Jerusalem and the Temple. Thus, one finds here in 5:5 – 7 the first of two rumours that drive the events in this pericope. In 5:6 the author uses three terms to highlight the fact that Jason slaughtered his own people (πολιτῶν-“”, συγγενεῖς-“”, ὁμοεθνῶν-“”). The last two of these terms, unlike πολιτῶν, refer to the group’s common descent. It is clear that these terms are strategically placed, as is the case with the correlating terms in 15:18, in order to heighten the emotional value. A fact that is vital in understanding the narrative is the pairing of this reference to Jason’s people and the vilification of Jason. In this manner, the author creates in the reader a sense

254

Eugene Coetzer

of brotherhood with the victim on the one hand, and an abhorrence of a common enemy to stand against. The two elements of patriotism and enmity work together in ensuring the reader’s loyalty to the correct party. The reader votes for the “good guy” and follows his actions and choices blindly. The description of events in 5:7 fails to provide clarity. The reader is uncertain of the identity of the party that drove Jason out of the city. Menelaus fled the scene and Antiochus IV had not yet arrived. Tcherikoverʼs (1982, 187– 188) solution is that there was, besides Jason’s followers and those of Menelaus, a third group of Jewish rebellions. Doran (2012, 128) does not agree with this view and suggests, following VanderKam (1981, 61 n. 29), that the author simply aims at linking Antiochus IVʼs attack with Jason’s retrieval. The interpretation of a third group, however, is preferred since there has already been made mention of such a group in 4:39 – 41. Secondly, the author expresses his sympathy towards those who were struck down by Jason (consequently, the group that drove Jason away). Subsequently, one finds here, rather than a logical flow of events, a rather illogical sequence. This first rumour is highlighted as the impetus for the tragedy which will soon befall the Jews.

2.3 Scene 3: The Coincidental Death of Jason (2 Macc. 5:8b– 10) The third scene in 5:8b–10 describes the seemingly coincidental death of Jason. These verses evidence the author’s need to present the details of these verses as a whole. Their unity lies in the fact that 5:8b–10 forms one long sentence that describes the downfall of Jason. This sentence consists of five participial phrases which are followed by four main clauses conjoined by the particle καί. Both Schwartz (2008, 255) and Doran (2012, 128) follow Habicht (225) and Nestle (1903, 22) in reading ἐγκληθείς (from ἐγκαλέω – “I accuse”) instead of ἐγκλεισθείς (from ἐγκλείω – “I confine, I imprison”). This reading is rightly so, since ἐγκλείω does not make sense together with the prepositional phrase πρὸς ᾿Aρέταν (translated together with ἐγκλείω as “imprisoned by Aretas”). Accordingly, the phrase should read “accused before Aretas.” In 5:10 mention is made of Jason’s kinship with the Spartans. The idea of Jewish kinship with the Spartans is also known from the letter from Jonathan in 1 Macc. 12:5 – 23. This theme is also evident through the work of Erich Gruen (1996), who wrote an article “The Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation”. In the reference to this relationship lies both irony and humour. Firstly, irony, since the one who recently had no regard for such bonds as he massacred his

Rhetorical Considerations for Unnatural Elements in 2 Maccabees 5:1 – 20

255

own race, now seeks refuge with a group that he has very little union with. Secondly, the reader may find humour in the fact that Jason was laid low while having the haughty hopes that the great Spartans might count him as one of their own. Through this scene, the author thus focusses on the ironic downfall of Jason. An element vital to this study is the appropriation of Jason’s death to his wrongdoings. This is explicitly pointed out in 5:9. Jason, who has estranged many from the fatherland, is himself estranged. Jason, who counted the lives of other Jews as nothing, was now counted as deprived of worth since he did not have a part in a grave in his fatherland. The author ensures that the circumstances of Jason’s death cannot be ascribed to coincidence. There is a greater force at work behind the death of this villainous betrayer.

2.4 Scene 4: Antiochus IV is Driven by a Rumour (2 Macc. 5:11 – 16) In the fourth scene, in 5:11 onwards, the second rumour is noted, which sparks a series of horrors. In effect, the whole incident of the Temple’s desecration is driven by this second rumour. From it, the evilness of Antiochus IV’s character unfolds. The author vilifies the enemy in order to gain the readerʼs sympathy and loyalty towards the victims in 2 Macc. Here, in 5:11– 16, the cruelty and mercilessness of Antiochus IV is emphasised (Doran 2012, 129). Not only does the author provide a detailed account of every heartless deed, but the number of victims is highly exaggerated. Both Bar-Kochva (1976, 112) and Nahman Avigad (1993, 2:720 – 21) has shown pre-Maccabean Jerusalem to have been more or less a tenth of the numbers provided here in 2 Macc 5:14. Exaggeration is, however, only one part of the strategy. The second part is to provide a manner in viewing the group of villains in 2 Macc as one unified opposition. This is done through specific language that links together Antiochus, Jason and Menelaus. Jason and Menelaus are linked through referring to both as betrayers or rebels of the laws and fatherland (5:8 – 9; 5:15). Jason and Antiochus are linked through their actions of mercilessly slaughtering (5:6; 5:12) and acting with a haughty spirit (5:6, 17). Both Menelaus and Antiochus IV are depicted as unable to rule over their emotions. Menelaus has the passions of an untamed beast (4:25) and Antiochus’ emotions guide him into making contradicting choices: first he has empathy with Onias’ death, but now is a victim of uncontrollable rage. This type of contradicting behaviour was not unattested by Antiochus’ Greek contemporaries. Tcherikover (1982, 176 – 177) shows how Greek sources depicted Antiochus IV Epiphanes as “irritable and nervous, full of profound

256

Eugene Coetzer

inner contradictions.” These Greek sources (Polybius Plb. 26.10; 31.3 – 4; Livy Liv. 41.19 – 20; Diodorus D.S. 29, 32; 31,16) depicted him as someone who is impulsive and easily guided by his emotions, so much so that some referred to him as Epimanes (“mad”) instead of Epiphanes (“the god manifest”). Here, in 2 Macc, the author is not quite as daring, but rather highlights the fact that Antiochus IV did not make his decisions based on sound reasoning. This concept enforces the idea of Antiochus IV being driven by an external force rather than acting out calculated intent.

2.5 The author’s own Reflection (2 Macc. 5:17 – 20) A clear theme in 2 Macc is that the God of the Jews rules over and governs history. The author makes sure the reader knows this through explicitly laying out the facts in 5:17– 20. For the author, there are two important facts that will guide the reader in conceptualising the events. Firstly, Antiochus is not in control of Jerusalem’s destiny. This is evident through the use of the verb μετεωρίζω (“I raise up”) in 5:17. It can also have the meaning of “to buoy with false hopes.” This is clearly the meaning implied by the author since the verb is accompanied by the adverbial participial phrase οὐ συνορῶν (“while he did not see”). Subsequently, the author is calling on the reader not to fall into the same trap, but to see the events in the right light and in terms of the greater picture. This leads to the second part which puts the events in the right light. The God of the Jews is in control of Jerusalem’s destiny. The term which refers to God in 5:17 is δεσπότης (“Master/Sovereign”). The notion of God’s sovereignty is highlighted both through the repetition of this term (5:20; 6:14; 9:13; 15:22) and through the carefully balanced phrasing of 5:20. These verses clearly warn the reader: God is in control, so be on his team.

2.6 Proposition and Argumentation In this text, it is tempting to simply take the author’s reflection in verses 17– 20, as the extent of the pericope’s purpose. This, however, would render the rest of the pericope useless. In a text such as 2 Macc, where the author has been shown to carefully plan each term, each phrase and each structural element, this is clearly not the case. Consequently, the various elements of this pericope should be accounted for when constructing such a proposition. Through the abovementioned investigation a number of themes have surfaced: piety versus lawlessness; the relation between the sins of the Jews and the protection of the Temple; divine

Rhetorical Considerations for Unnatural Elements in 2 Maccabees 5:1 – 20

257

apparition; the rebellion against the laws and the fatherland; divine/appropriate death. A theme that overarches all of the abovementioned facets is that God is in control of history. All the elements of 5:1– 20 point to his supernatural guidance. All is centered round what God decides. For example: The forces/individuals are not evaluated in terms of skill, but in terms of their relationship to God’s laws. It is not about the stronger or weaker party, but about the side that has God as their ally. The Temple’s protection is based on God’s choosing. God is the only one who can cause the death of a person to be appropriated to that person’s actions during his life. God’s decision, however, is based on the obedience of his people. The author presents a system of punishment and reward: punishment if the Jews are disobedient to the laws and reward if they are loyal to God’s commandments. The author’s proposition may be simplified as follows IF – there was a time when God protected the Temple, – that time was when the high priest and the people were obedient to the laws of God, – something changed so that, now, inconceivable misfortune befalls the Jews and the Temple is not protected, – these misfortunes are because of God’s wrath, – God is wrathful because His Temple and people were involved in many sins, – these bad things cannot happen without God’s consent. THEN – the bad things will stop if God decides, – God will decide when he is again reconciled with His people, – God will decide to be reconciled when the people and the Temple refrain from being involved in many sins. The causality of this proposition is evident. The theme is clear: God drives these events.

258

Eugene Coetzer

3 Pragmatic Analysis 3.1 Communicative Strategy As mentioned earlier, the proposition forms only a part of the purpose of the pericope. In order to move the reader to adopt these ideas, the author has to apply a communicative strategy. Three such strategies surfaced: – Firstly, the author conditions the reader by means of punishment and reward. The reader has seen two exact opposite scenarios regarding the Temple: One where the Temple and the people were protected and one where the Temple and the people were not protected. This leads the reader to ask what has changed and what needs to be done to return to the first peaceful scenario. – Secondly, the attention and anticipation of the reader is maintained through the pattern of suspense and relief: o SUSPENSE: The citizens of Jerusalem receive divine apparitions that could be interpreted as either good or bad (5:2 – 4) o Jason returns with a spree of violence (5:5 – 7). o RELIEF: Menelaus flees the scene (5:5). o SUSPENSE: Jason slaughters his own kinsfolk (5:6). o RELIEF: Jason flees and perishes on the way (5:7 – 9). o SUSPENSE: Antiochus IV attacks Jerusalem and the Temple (5:11 – 16). – This pattern is also continued further in 5:21 onward. – Thirdly, the author not only vilifies Antiochus IV, Jason and Menelaus, but unifies these villains, focusing the reader on one common enemy. These three strategies, however, do not provide answers to the questions regarding coherence. Is there a unifying factor for the array of mysterious events: premonitions, rumours and coincidental death? Through the investigation of the four scenes, such a unifying theme has become apparent. The scenes all convey and highlight the idea of an unnatural origin or cause. The divine apparition, the two rumours responsible for Jason and Antiochus’ actions, and the circumstances of Jason’s death all confirm that the Temple’s profanation could not have been blamed by random, natural events. The author thus supports his proposition through lining the pericope with events that speak of pattern and order which can eventually only be ascribed to a higher involvement. The proposition is dependent on the communicative strategy. The reader can only be warned if he is convinced that the events recounted in 2 Macc. 5 was engineered by a divine power. Thus, through these four scenes, the author proves exactly that. The cir-

Rhetorical Considerations for Unnatural Elements in 2 Maccabees 5:1 – 20

259

cumstances can be attributed, beyond a doubt, to the involved deity. The author promotes pattern, coherence, and the supernatural.

4 Conclusions Through a rhetorical analysis, the article provided a means to view the four scenes as a unified communicative strategy. It has become apparent that there is a unifying factor for the mysterious events incorporated into this account of the Temple’s profanation. The scenes of divine apparition, rumours and coincidental death all exhibit the nature of the author’s communicative strategy. Not only do the four scenes demonstrate a clear proposition from the author, but they also show how the author aims to move his readers to adopt this proposition. Whereas the proposition is that the God of the Jews punishes and rewards in accordance to the level of obedience of the Jews, the communicative strategy is to show that the events in this pericope can only be conceptualised in terms of a supernatural drive. This, in turn, proves that the events are not merely coincidence, but engineered by God. The attack on the Temple can only be seen as punishment if God has caused it. This drives the reader to the possible response of obedience to the laws of the God of the Jews. This pericope is one of open interpretations: – The apparition is open for interpretation to the Jerusalemites – Antiochus IV’s disposition towards Jason, – Jason’s attack on Antiochus, – Antiochus’ attack on the reader. For this, the author provides the key: Through these incorporated scenes, the reader is convinced of the nature of the events concerning the profanation. God has punished. God has engineered. There is no coincidence, only coherence.

Source List Avigad, N. 1993. “Jerusalem: The Second Temple Period,” in Ephraim Stern, ed. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4 vols.; Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society and Cara) 2, 217 – 25. Bar-Kochva, B. 1976. The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Bartlett, J.R. 1973. The First and Second Books of the Maccabees (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Bévenot, H. 1931. Die beiden Makkabäerbücher (HSAT IV/4; Bonn: Hanstein).

260

Eugene Coetzer

Bickerman, E.J. 1979. The God of the Maccabees: Studies in the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt. SJLA 32; Leiden: Brill. Broshi, M. & Eshel, E. 1997. “The Greek King is Antiochus IV (4QHistorical Text = 4Q248).” In JJS 48, 120 – 29. Dommerhausen, W. 1985. 1 Makkabäer. 2 Makkabäer (NEchtB 12; Würzburg: Echter Verlag). Doran, R. 2012. 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Goldstein, J. A. 1983. II Maccabees, (AncB 41 A). (Garden City, New York: Doubleday). Gruen, E.S. 1996. “The Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation.” In Transitions to Empire: Essays in Greco-Roman History, 360 – 146 B.C., in Honor of E. Badian, edited by Robert W. Wallace and Edward M. Harris, 254 – 269. Norman, OK: Univ. of Oklahoma. Habicht, C. 1976. 2. Makkabäerbuch. JSHRZ I, 3: (Gütersloh: Mohn). Jordaan, Pierre Johan. 2015. “The Temple in 2 Maccabees: Dynamics and Episodes.” JSem 24: 352 – 365. Nestle, E. 1903. “Einiges zum Text des zweiten Makkabäerbuchs.” In Septuagintastudien, IV (Stuttgart: Stuttgarter Vereins-Buchdruckerei), 19 – 22. Polybius, Histories. 30.25.13. Schwartz, D. R. 2008. 2 Maccabees. Berlin, New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter. Sievers, J. 2001. Synopsis of the Greek Sources for the Hasmonean Period: 1 – 2 Maccabees and Josephus, War 1 and Antiquities 12 – 14 (Subsidia Biblica 20; Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico). Tcherikover, V. 1982. Hellenistic Civilisation and the Jews. (New York: Atheneum). VanderKam, J. C. 1981. “2 Maccabees 6,7a and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem.” JSJ 12: 52 – 74. Van derKam, J. C. 2004. From Joshua to Caiaphas, High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, and Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum).

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

Josephus and the Pharisees Abstract: Leading Josephus scholar Steve Mason has emphasised the pointlessness of attempting to “recapture” historical truth by either positivism, or the perfected techniques of source criticism. With reference to Ahl’s (1989) framework for pinpointing multivalence in ancient sources, and by means of his compositional criticism methodology, Mason (1991) has determined that Josephus was most likely not a Pharisee and furthermore was extremely negative towards the entire Pharisaic movement. However, with reference to an interpretivist/constructivist approach, I will attempt to address what I consider to be weaknesses in Mason’s methodology, specifically within the context of attempting to recover Josephus’s most likely philosophical and religious affinities. Keywords: Titus Flavius Josephus, Pharisees, Steve Mason, Constructivist, Interpretivist, Compositional Criticism.

1 The Problem As is well known, in his Vit. 2/12¹ Josephus² informs his reader of the following: καὶ διατρίψας παρ᾽ αὐτῷ ἐνιαυτοὺς τρεῖς καὶ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τελειώσας εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὑπέστρεφον. ἐννεακαιδέκατον δ᾽ ἔτος ἔχων ἠρξάμην τε πολιτεύεσθαι τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατακολουθῶν, ἣ παραπλήσιός ἐστι τῇ παρ᾽ Ἕλλησιν Στωϊκῇ λεγομένῃ. So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics, as the Greeks call them. [My emphasis for clarity NPLA].³

 Greek text and English translation according to William Whiston, ed. The Works of Flavius Josephus (Auburn: John E. Beardsley, ) [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext% A.. %Awhiston+section%D. [ October ].  Titus Flavius Josephus (c.  –  C.E.)  It must be emphasised that Mason would not concur with this popular translation. From his perspective, he advocates that Vit. /b should rather read: “…began to engage in public affairs…” and accordingly Mason claims that Josephus was trying to indicate to his reader that confirming his adherence to the Pharisaic school was merely some mandatory prerequisite to entering public life. In short, Mason does not see this as an admission of conversion or even

262

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

Despite this seemingly, plainly stated confession of faith, the issue of Josephus’s religious leaning, philosophical predilections and general opinion concerning the Pharisees have all been hotly disputed in the past decades. Indeed, up until the early Twentieth century, Josephus was consistently portrayed as a Jewish traitor and a Pharisee. This view is now being modified and current thinking a la Mason (1991) is that he was anything but a member of this group. Mason (2009, 15 – 18) also goes so far as to emphasise the pointlessness of attempting to “recapture” historical truth by say positivism. Mason (2009, 107– 113) also disparages the perfected techniques of source criticism. However, if one takes an interpretivist/constructivist approach whilst reviewing the results of Mason’s excellent research (cf. 1989 and 1991) on Josephus’s references to the Pharisees, one finds discrepancies that it is hard to understand were seemingly overlooked before. It is important to note that this occurred despite the fact that Mason is perfectly aware of the problems of say, having a personal worldview. For example, within the context of attempting to establish the defining characteristics of the Pharisees, Mason (1991, 4– 5) correctly states: …scholars have come to study the Pharisees with different aims and interests. Now it would be naïve to disallow any motives other than the “purely historical” as reasons for studying the Pharisees; to indulge such personal interests, however, would be to deny the wissenschaftlich character of history. One must distinguish, then, between the private factors that motivate one to study Pharisees and the shared, professional goal of the enterprise.

It is my contention that the greatest stumbling block to contemporary scholars reaching consensus in LXX, apocryphal, pseudepigraphal and cognate studies is almost totally as a result of the dominant worldviews of the researchers involved. An interpretivist/constructivist approach, fully focussed on this issue of social constructs, will better assist in highlighting this problem and hopefully make it possible to establish a more plausible context and as far as is possible, shared worldview, within which rational deduction may take place.

religious association. Cf. Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study, vol. . Studia Post-Biblica (Leiden: E. J. Brill, ),  – .

Josephus and the Pharisees

263

2 Proposed Methodology 2.1 The Interpretivist/Constructivist Episteme According to Cohen and Manion (1994, 36), an interpretivist/constructivist approach to research has the intention of better understanding the world of human experience because it accepts that reality is as Mertens (2005, 12) confirms: “socially constructed”. Here, it is assumed that the constructed worldviews of all role-players will impact on the research findings. This approach also allows the researcher to make use of, where relevant and applicable, a wider range of methods which when triangulated may better assist in establishing greater validity of interpretation. Here, according to Mackenzie and Knipe (2006): The constructivist researcher is most likely to rely on qualitative data collection methods and analysis or a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods (mixed methods). Quantitative data may be utilised in a way, which supports or expands upon qualitative data and effectively deepens the description.

With reference to Creswell (2003, 8) if one takes an interpretivist/constructivist approach it becomes paramount to respect all role-players’ perspectives of a particular issue under investigation.

2.2 An Interpretivist/Constructivist Approach in Action Accordingly, and in some ways in opposition to Mason’s (1991, 13 f)⁴ forceful appeal for the formulation of an hypothesis which is then summarily proven or disproven, there is in fact no need to commence this research with a clearly formulated theory. Instead, and in total agreement with Creswell (2003, 9) a “pattern of meanings” will be inductively developed and amplified. Thus, as the research process unfolds, a constructivist methodology will typically yield, inter alia, inductive, interpretive and even historical outcomes that can all be triangulated. In this regard, I will attempt to evaluate Mason’s argument for presenting Josephus as consistently being anti-pharisaic, by critically reviewing his compositional criticism methodology in action. I will then look at other important issues

 On this issue, Steve Mason cites B.F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, ),  and A. Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ),  f.

264

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

that impact on any attempt to ratiocinate Josephus’s more probable agenda and most likely confession of faith and/or philosophy. Here, I will look at issues that may undermine the accuracy of Josephan text, such as possible later Christian redaction. I will also consider Josephus’s possible emulation of then fashionable Hellenistic rhetorical models in the light of his historical situation. In addition, his most likely levels of competence with the Greek language will also be discussed as well as a critical review of the most plausible context behind each of his many comments concerning either an individual (or individuals) who happened to be a Pharisee and/or member(s) of the Pharisaic movement in general. Lastly, I will make an attempt to unveil Josephus’s personal interpretation of Judaism in practice and ascertain its resemblance to the little that is known about the customs of his Jewish contemporaries. This will be undertaken in order to clarify whether there is any correspondence between what Josephus espoused and the basic precepts of, inter alia, the Pharisees. Armed with this range of evidence an attempt will then be made to more accurately place Josephus in a more plausible context – one where it will become self-evident where his loyalties lay – including his more likely attitude towards the Pharisees in general.

3 Mason’s Compositional Criticism Mason (2009, 136) quips that recovering historical truth by reading Josephus would require a skill beyond the means of science, namely “magic or alchemy”. As a consequence, Mason prefers what he terms “compositional criticism” to better understand Josephus’ employment of sometimes contradictory statements. Given these various interpretations, Mason in Sievers and Lembi, (2005, 78) correctly emphasises that in the case of the Josephan text, readers must constantly be aware of the pitfalls of assuming that they are simply analysing an individual’s attempt at giving an honest and straightforward account. As an example, Mason applies both Ahl’s 1984⁵ research on safe texts as well as Ahl’s 1989⁶ framework for pinpointing multivalence in ancient sources. In this latter regard, Ahl in Marcovich and Sansone (1989, 7) postulates that our models of Greek and Latin epic narrative are quite defective because they as Cf. Frederick M. Ahl, “The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome” AJP vol. , No.  ():  – .  Cf. Frederick M. Ahl, “Homer, Vergil, and Complex Narrative Structures in Latin Epic: An Essay.” In Silver and Late Latin Poetry, ed. Miroslav Marcovich, and David Sansone, ICS vol. XIV.  and  (New York: The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois, ):  – .

Josephus and the Pharisees

265

sume a clarity and directness of narrative and rationale that in no way reflects the manner in which ancient poets operated in actuality. In this regard, Ahl claims that the ancient author was quite aware of the wider fields of reference that specific terms might have and further exploited this fact in order to give their textual compositions more expressive weight. Ahl in Marcovich and Sansone (1989, 7) goes on to state that the ancient poet “ … had little use for the forthright expression we admire because they thought it less powerful in public speaking (Aristotle Rhet. 1 382b) and less effective even with friends (Plutarch Mor. 66E – 74E). Those ancients who do praise artless speech and criticize the techniques of “formidable speaking” – deinotes – are often themselves the most skilled practitioners of “formidable speaking”. In the same vein, Mason in Sievers and Lembi (2005, 71– 100) attempts to show that Josephus’s employment of say, flattery and criticism are not at all straightforward – rather they are carefully interrelated rhetorical devices. Mason puts forward brilliant arguments to show that Josephus may well have employed say obsequiousness towards Vespasian in an ironic way in order to expose (albeit “safely”) the foolishness of the Roman emperor. Specifically, Mason (2003, 87) explains that: In imperial Rome – and under tyrannical governments ever since – if writers wished to maintain their self-respect they had to resort to safe criticism, through coded or figured speech. If both the writer and the audience understood that the writer intended more than (or different from) what was actually said, such communication was called “ironic.” I am suggesting that much of Josephus’s War should be read in this light. We know that he had a taste for doubletalk because he credits both himself and his adversaries in Galilee with such deception, more or less constantly …⁷

All this may well be true – but it should also be noted, that Josephus is far more likely to have guaranteed his own safety rather than exposing himself to his many enemies, both Jewish and Roman. Why would he risk either losing the protection of the Vespasian house and/or certain death by setting down in ink, veiled rhetorical insults that ran the risk of being eventually discovered by Vespasian and/or a member of his extended family? As an aside, it is true that Josephus can on occasion be very critical of an individual but almost always that individual is either dead or not in a position to really harm him. Consider Schwartz’s (1982, 232) reference to Josephus taking great pride in the fact that, on occasion, he was prepared to state the truth even

 Mason backs up his argument with references to Vit. / – /, /, / – /, /  – /, /, / –  and / –  cf. Steve Mason, : .

266

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

if it raised the ire of a reigning Herodian (AJ, XVI, 7, 1/187). This “bravery” is made out to seem even more noble when one considers Schwartz’s claim that Josephus criticised Agrippa II whilst he was still alive (AJ, XX) yet praised him after he was dead (Vit. 65/359 – 367). Schwartz explains that this was partially due to Josephus employing an anti-Agrippan source (1982, 243).⁸ However, if one reads AJ, XX more circumspectly, it would seem that Josephus never really criticises Agrippa II. His statements always appear to be factual and at no time does he make a moral judgement about Agrippa II’s behaviour. Consequently, I would argue that Schwartz is mistaken and Josephus never censures or disparages Agrippa II. Furthermore (and well aware of Mason’s warning about the dangers of naively accepting Josephus’s flattery and criticism at face value), Agrippa II seems to earn Josephus’s respect for saving a number of Jews from certain death in AJ, XX, 6, 3/134– 136. In this latter example, it is difficult to see how Josephus could possibly be making a cryptic attack against Agrippa II. Indeed, the closest that Josephus comes to even hinting of his supposed dissatisfaction with Agrippa II may be found in AJ, XX, 1, 2/10 – 14 when he mentions that Agrippa (junior) was a good friend of the emperor Claudius (assuming that this somehow hinted at collusion between Rome and Agrippa II?). Again, in AJ, XX, 7, 3/145 – 147 Josephus records that Bernice was accused of having had an incestuous relationship with Agrippa II, however Josephus does not elaborate and his comments are solely directed against Bernice’s consistently questionable moral behaviour. Lastly, one might consider AJ, XX, 8, 8/179 – 181 when Josephus mentions that Agrippa II gave the high priesthood to Ismael son of Fabi. Again if there is any obscure invective here, it is certainly not aimed at Agrippa but towards the high priests and the leading men of Jerusalem who instigated civil disorder. Given these facts it is hard to see how Schwartz can even make his claim. Regardless, as has been seen, Mason maintains that little that Josephus says is innocent and substantiates his case by the employment of compositional criticism. Mason (1991:43) defines “compositional criticism” as an attempt to “… interpret an author’s writings in and of themselves, as self-contained compositions. The narrative is assumed to contain within itself the keys to its own meaning”. Within this context Mason (1991, 40 – 44) first analyses a Josephan text for any clues apropos the possible significance for his preferred words and/or phrases. Here, the entire text becomes the primary context for what is contained within it. Further, consistent meanings for terms then become the favoured arbitrator

 Cf. Daniel R. Schwartz, “Kata Toyton Ton Kaipon: Josephus’ Source on Agrippa II.” JQR, New Series, vol. , No.  (April ):  – .

Josephus and the Pharisees

267

for their usage elsewhere in the same text. As a consequence, in the specific example of Josephus’s references to the Pharisees, Mason believes that two tasks are fulfilled simultaneously: 1. Evidence is obtained, through rigorous exegesis, to better establish Josephus’s original motives; and 2. Clues are provided as regards how Josephus possibly expected his earliest audience to receive his text. Once this task has been achieved, Mason (1991, 372 f) then attempts to reconstruct a plausible history. As a consequence, Mason reaches the following conclusions: 1. All the Pharisee passages use typically Josephan vocabulary in characteristically Josephan ways; this means that Josephus did indeed compose all the Pharisee passages in his works. Mason sees this as evidence that Josephus did not robotically represent any of the information he drew from his historical sources. 2. In all his works, Josephus takes for granted Pharisaic dominance in pre–70 C.E. Jewish religious life in Judea and Galilee. Josephus also regularly refers to the Pharisees in an inimical manner. 3. Mason believes that Josephus (who was born into the priestly class) is mostly hostile towards the Pharisees because of the latter’s false claim to greater accuracy or exactness (ἀκρίβεια) and piety (εὐσέβεια).

3.1 Compositional Criticism in Action As previously explained, Mason’s methodology is to look carefully⁹ at a range of words that he finds employed throughout Josephus’s many texts written over the course of at least three decades. Once he has evaluated how Josephus employs a particular word in general he then employs that dominant interpretation or nuance and applies it to those passages that mention the Pharisees. As a conse-

 Mason describes his approach as a species of “redaction-critical” methodology – an attempt, inter alia, to identify both an author’s thought and literary tendencies. Here, Mason is clear that he will only deal with Josephus’s descriptions of the Pharisees “in the present tense” as though occurring in his own time but acknowledges that where Josephus refers to past events (via source material) the “exact shape” of his sources is irretrievable. He then emphasizes that to avoid any confusion he has chosen to call his methodology “compositional criticism”. Cf. Mason, Josephus on the Pharisees (),  – .

268

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

quence Mason (1991, 372 – 375) believes that Josephus has a consistently negative attitude towards the Pharisees. For example, Mason (1991, 84 f) points out that the term “σύνταγμα” is employed 16 times in Josephus’s collective works (12 times in the BJ alone). Mason says that it means “something drawn up in order” and is “certainly pejorative” in tone. In addition, Mason claims that this term is only ever employed when Josephus is referring to a gang of rebels or brigands. Therefore when he uses it to describe the Pharisees it somehow proves that Josephus disliked them as a group. Another term that Mason focuses on is “ἀκρίβεια”. To support his argument that Josephus disliked Pharisees, Mason (1991, 90 f) notes that the word “ἀκρίβεια” (including its cognate verb and adjective) occurs 134 times in Josephus’s works. Certainly, there can be no doubt that Josephus was highly concerned with the accuracy of his historical account, not only because he knew that this would be expected of his targeted Greek audience but more importantly because Josephus obviously prided himself on setting the record straight. We notice this concern highlighted in his prologue (cf. AJ, I, pr./1– 26 and BJ, I, pr./1– 12). However, Mason also uses the occurrences of this term to highlight what he claims to be Josephus’s pride in his priestly origins and then by extension he concludes that Josephus disliked it when the Pharisees claimed this ideal for themselves. In this way, by selecting key terms and identifying their usage throughout his many works, Mason builds up evidence that Josephus was consistently anti-Pharisaic in his intentions and further that he is hostile primarily because he could not accept the Pharisee’s claim to being the arbitrators of accuracy when he (as a member of the priestly elite) believed that that honour was reserved exclusively for priests. This latter conclusion does not make total sense, since Josephus more typically praises anyone who shows scrupulous adherence to the Jewish laws and indeed, on rare occasions even commends similar characteristics in individuals from totally different cultures. Thus we have examples of his high regard for such non-Jewish luminaries as Cyrus¹⁰ (AJ, XI, 1, 1/1– 3), Darius¹¹ (AJ, XI, 3, 6/55 – 3, 9/ 68), Julius Caesar¹² (C.Ap. II, 4/37), Ptolemy II (Philadelphus)¹³ (C.Ap. II, 4/45) and Plato¹⁴ (C.Ap. II, 37/256 – 257),     

Cyrus the Great (c.  or  –  B.C.E.). Darius the Great (c.  –  B.C.E.). Gaius Iulius Caesar ( –  B.C.E.). Πτολεμαῖος Φιλάδελφος ( –  B.C.E.). Πλάτων (/ or / – / B.C.E.).

Josephus and the Pharisees

269

Given the lengths that Mason has to go to before one can even begin to see how deleterious certain terms should be interpreted in the context of the Pharisees, why would Josephus be quite so subtle about his dislike of this movement generally? Surely, if he wanted his reader to be in no doubt about his opinion he would state it plainly as he does for all the other groups and individuals that he abhors. Otherwise we might want to believe that Josephus was deliberately leaving behind some enigmatic code that only modern language experts are able to reveal.

4 The Reliability of Josephan Text 4.1 Historical Reliability Before analysing what is claimed to be pure Josephan text, we also need to be mindful of the historical reliability of our chosen sources. In the case of research on the Pharisaic movement one is more likely to rely on say Josephus, Tannaitic (Rabbinical) texts and various books from the NT. However, each of these sources differ in their treatment of the Pharisees. Now, given the overt agenda of the NT and its employment of the Pharisees as the principle antagonists to Jesus of Nazareth’s message, can we as historians really place much faith in the NT as a reliable historical document? If particular researchers dogmatically adhere to a particular confession of the Christian faith then it stands to reason that they, due to their worldview, are more likely to give the NT priority over say Josephus. Again, if the researcher is say, a confirmed atheist he/she is not likely to read the NT text with the same levels of credulity as say a Christian believer. Mason (1991, 4– 5) and Neusner (1973, xix) both seem to agree on this point.

4.2 Christian Interpolation and Redaction Apart from the problem of limited sources each armed with its own agenda we also need to be mindful that texts – especially ancient ones – can be altered, either accidentally or deliberately. A scholar like Mason (cf. 1991, 372– 373) might well make the claim that based on the characteristics of the text alone it is possible to deduce when a passage contains its original ideas. The argument here is that, in the case of Josephus, if his text uses the original typically Josephan vocabulary in typically Josephan ways it stands to reason that Josephus himself must be the author.

270

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

This conclusion is problematic. If one turns to the three most suspected interpolations that reside in the extant manuscripts of the AJ (Ἰουδαϊκὴ ᾿Aρχαιολογία a.k.a. Antiquitates Judaicae), viz.: AJ, XVIII, 3, 3/63 (i. e. the so-called Testimonium Flavianum), AJ, XVIII, 5, 2/116 – 119 (i. e. the references to John the Baptist) and AJ, XX, 9, 1/200 – 203 (i. e. the reference to James the brother of Jesus), due predominantly to the naïve belief in the automatic veracity of establishing a majority consensus, certain scholars are quick to counter claims of either total or partial interpolation by referring to, inter alia, Josephus’s writing style, literary progression, the length of the suspected interpolations and its character when compared to non-Josephan texts that contain similar content. This approach is seriously flawed and based on the naïve assumption that even with extensive knowledge of his works, it is very difficult to forge Josephus. I recently completed a research project that looked critically at these three suspected interpolations and determined that they are in all likelihood complete forgeries (Allen: 2015). Of course, persons who adhere to a particular confession of faith as opposed to say a provisional state of understanding will immediately dismiss these findings, regardless of the evidence proffered, as they contradict aspects of their worldview. However the point here is that most scholars do at least accept partial interpolation. Thus most of us have to admit (shared world-view), that interpolation at some level, is a reality in Josephus’s Ἰουδαϊκὴ ᾿Aρχαιολογία. The only issue open to debate is the extent of that interpolation. Doherty makes the obvious point that if someone really wanted to make a passage appear Josephan they merely had to take note of certain phrases and terms employed by him elsewhere and apply them to the interpolation. Doherty (2009, 535) refers to these idiosyncratic literary aspects as “Josephan fingerprints”. Doherty (2009, 535) even goes so far as to claim that an individual intent on forging Josephus’s hand, and who had spent considerable time reading and digesting his works beforehand, would find this almost second nature. He also quotes Guignebert (1956, 17) (in Doherty 2009, 535): “It may be admitted that the style of Josephus has been cleverly imitated, a not very difficult matter…” Doherty is entirely correct. In point of fact, given the wealth of examples supplied by Josephus himself in his extensive writings (which is nearly eight times the volume of the NT)¹⁵, literally anyone can lift a ready formulated sen-

 On this issue, van der Horst has determined that the Loeb Classical Library Edition of Josephus’s oeuvre amounts to some  pages of Greek text made up as follows: BJ:  pages; AJ:  pages; C. Ap.:  pages; and Vit.:. pages. In Niese’s edition the Greek text amounts to some  pages made up as follows: BJ:  pages; AJ:  pages; C. Ap.:  pages; and Vit.:  pages. In stark contrast, most copies of the NT only contain  pages. Cf. Pieter W. van der Horst, “The Distinctive Vocabulary of Josephus’ Contra Apionem.” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem

Josephus and the Pharisees

271

tence and re-appropriate meaning as they see fit. Of course, this makes an obvious falsehood of puffed up claims by such scholars as Meier (1991, 63) who seemingly wants his reader to believe that to forge the writing style of Josephus is nothing short of impossible. In this regard, even Mason (2003, 232) ingenuously claims that “To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity.” Well, yes, it was audacious and it seems to have been achieved quite easily too! One could go even further and state categorically that an individual, intent on deceitful interpolation à la Josephus, would surely first ensure that they understood the layout and style of a particular work by Josephus intimately in order that they could establish the most convincing position in a passage to either a) make fraudulent alterations/removals and/or b) insert additional (fictional) text. Just to be clear, I for one do not believe that any of Josephus’s comments concerning the Pharisees has been majorly redacted. However, based on the wealth of evidence supplied by the three well-known suspected interpolations of Christian import, I am mindful (Allen 2015) of the very real possibility that a later Christian scribe had every opportunity to change but a single adjective in order to emphasise the “wicked” nature of Jesus of Nazareth’s oft-quoted antagonists and adversaries in the Gospel accounts. It should be noted here that both Elbogen (1904, 4) and Mason (1991, 51 f) have anticipated this possibility. In this respect, Mason confirms that it is highly unlikely that later Christian scribes tampered with texts that were concerned with, inter alia, the activities of the Hasmoneans or the Herodian dynasty. However, what is quite possible is that a later Christian apologist may have “coloured” other accounts concerning the Pharisees to ensure that Josephus’s accounts of the Pharisees better resembled the gospel accounts. Given that, at the very least, most scholars accept – at the very least – partial interpolation in Josephus’s AJ, it is not beyond the realms of possibility to consider other less obvious redactions. In short, when reading, inter alia, Josephus, one should not be too credulous. The possibility certainly exists that apart from well-known scribal errors¹⁶ certain turns of phrase have been elaborated in the light of the political agendas of later scribes. Indeed, the inclusion of but a single adjective can seriously mis-

Studies in its Character and Context With a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, eds L.H. Feldman and J.R. Levison (Leiden: E.J. Brill, ), .  I refer here to the well-known scribal errors – a famous example being where Josephus’ original Greek text is lost and the surviving Latin translation is clearly inaccurate, viz.: Vit. /  confirms that there were once  priestly families and not four as incorrectly recorded in C.Ap. II, / .

272

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

lead the reader as regards Josephus’s original thought. This possibility alone undermines Mason’s chosen methodology.

5 Josephus as a Hellenistic History Writer Furthermore, scholars like Burnstein (1997) and Mason (2003, 252– 273) have both emphasised the extreme importance of taking careful cognisance of the literary, religious and socio-political contexts that Hellenistic writers such as Josephus once operated within. Due no doubt to the important contributions made to the then more modern approach of recording historical events by such luminaries as Herodotus¹⁷ Thucydides¹⁸ and Polybius¹⁹ it is argued that classical historians like Josephus were fortunate beneficiaries of tried and proven literary models which they willingly tried to emulate and perfect. In addition to what was then considered to be an enlightened approach to history writing, was the fact that a more typical Hellenistic historical text (as opposed to say Hebrew Scripture), was identifiable by its extremely logical and formal structure. In many ways this approach was indebted to the established practices of the Greek playwright. Here, possibly the most important aspect of the text was the πρόλογος (prologue). In this context, Mason (2003, 253) states that “[t]his opening statement [πρόλογος] had to accomplish several things at once. It had to state clearly the aim, scope, and thesis of the work. Even more crucial to the writer’s success, it had to convince the reader that the subject was of the utmost significance, and that the writer was singularly qualified to deal with it. [My insertion for clarity NPLA]”. Typically, a πρόλογος included remarks on: 1. the subject and its importance; 2. the inadequacy of previous histories of this period; 3. the author’s circumstances and reasons for writing; 4. the author’s complete impartiality and concern for the truth; 5. the author’s strenuous research efforts and access to eyewitness testimony; 6. the author’s thesis, including a view of the causes of the events in question; and occasionally 7. a brief outline of the workʼs contents.

 Ἡρόδοτος (c.  –  B.C.E.).  Θουκυδίδης (c.  –  B.C.E.).  Πολύβιος (c.  –  B.C.E.).

Josephus and the Pharisees

273

In the context of late Hellenistic history writing Mason (2003, 254) explains that due to the fact “every author ended up making much the same kind of appeal, the trick for the successful historian was to use the conventions in an original way. The historian had to make a convincing case that his history really was superior to all of the others”. If one examines a specific Josephan πρόλογος (i. e. BJ, I, pr./1– 4²⁰ and 9 – 12)²¹ one finds the following, somewhat overconfident statements written by a then relatively young Josephus²² (c. 75 CE): Ἐπειδὴ τὸν Ἰουδαίων πρὸς Ῥωμαίους πόλεμον συστάντα μέγιστον οὐ μόνον τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ ὧν ἀκοῇ παρειλήφαμεν ἢ πόλεων πρὸς πόλεις ἢ ἐθνῶν ἔθνεσι συρραγέντων, οἱ μὲν οὐ παρατυχόντες τοῖς πράγμασιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκοῇ συλλέγοντες εἰκαῖα καὶ ἀσύμφωνα διηγήματα σοφιστικῶς ἀναγράφουσιν, οἱ παραγενόμενοι δὲ ἢ κολακείᾳ τῇ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους ἢ μίσει τῷ πρὸς Ἰουδαίους καταψεύδονται τῶν πραγμάτων, περιέχει δὲ αὐτοῖς ὅπου μὲν κατηγορίαν ὅπου δὲ ἐγκώμιον τὰ συγγράμματα, τὸ δ᾽ ἀκριβὲς τῆς ἱστορίας οὐδαμοῦ, προυθέμην ἐγὼ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίαν Ἑλλάδι γλώσσῃ μεταβαλὼν ἃ τοῖς ἄνω βαρβάροις τῇ πατρίῳ συντάξας ἀνέπεμψα πρότερον ἀφηγήσασθαι Ἰώσηπος Ματθίου παῖς ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἱερεύς, αὐτός τε Ῥωμαίους πολεμήσας τὰ πρῶτα καὶ τοῖς ὕστερον παρατυχὼν ἐξ ἀνάγκης Whereas the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations; while some men who were not concerned in the affairs themselves have gotten together vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical manner; and while those that were there present have given false accounts of things, and this either out of a humor of flattery to the Romans, or of hatred towards the Jews; and while their writings contain sometimes accusations, and sometimes encomiums, but nowhere the accurate truth of the facts; I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians; Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work]. [My emphases for clarity NPLA].

 Original Greek text and English Translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus% Atext% A.. [ October ].  Original Greek text and English Translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus% Atext% A.. [ October ].  In c.  C.E. Josephus would have been about  years of age.

274

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

Οὐ μὴν ἐγὼ τοῖς ἐπαίρουσι τὰ Ῥωμαίων ἀντιφιλονεικῶν αὔξειν τὰ τῶν ὁμοφύλων διέγνων, ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ἔργα μετ᾽ ἀκριβείας ἀμφοτέρων διέξειμι, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς πράγμασι λόγους ἀνατίθημι τῇ διαθέσει καὶ τοῖς ἐμαυτοῦ πάθεσι διδοὺς ἐπολοφύρεσθαι ταῖς τῆς πατρίδος συμφοραῖς. ὅτι γὰρ αὐτὴν στάσις οἰκεία καθεῖλεν, καὶ τὰς Ῥωμαίων χεῖρας ἀκούσας καὶ τὸ πῦρ ἐπὶ τὸν ναὸν εἵλκυσαν οἱ Ἰουδαίων τύραννοι, μάρτυς αὐτὸς ὁ πορθήσας Καῖσαρ Τίτος, ἐν παντὶ τῷ πολέμῳ τὸν μὲν δῆμον ἐλεήσας ὑπὸ τῶν στασιαστῶν φρουρούμενον, πολλάκις δὲ ἑκὼν τὴν ἅλωσιν τῆς πόλεως ὑπερτιθέμενος καὶ διδοὺς τῇ πολιορκίᾳ χρόνον εἰς μετάνοιαν τῶν αἰτίων. εἰ δή τις ὅσα πρὸς τοὺς τυράννους ἢ τὸ λῃστρικὸν αὐτῶν κατηγορικῶς λέγοιμεν ἢ τοῖς δυστυχήμασι τῆς πατρίδος ἐπιστένοντες συκοφαντοίη,, διδότω παρὰ τὸν τῆς ἱστορίας νόμον συγγνώμην τῷ πάθει: πόλιν μὲν γὰρ δὴ τῶν ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίοις πασῶν τὴν ἡμετέραν ἐπὶ πλεῖστόν τε εὐδαιμονίας συνέβη προελθεῖν καὶ πρὸς ἔσχατον συμφορῶν αὖθις καταπεσεῖν: τὰ γοῦν πάντων ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος ἀτυχήματα πρὸς τὰ Ἰουδαίων ἡττῆσθαι δοκῶ κατὰ σύγκρισιν: καὶ τούτων αἴτιος οὐδεὶς ἀλλόφυλος, ὥστε ἀμήχανον ἦν ὀδυρμῶν ἐπικρατεῖν. εἰ δέ τις οἴκτου σκληρότερος εἴη δικαστής, τὰ μὲν πράγματα τῇ ἱστορίᾳ προσκρινέτω, τὰς δ᾽ ὀλοφύρσεις τῷ γράφοντι. However, I will not go to the other extreme, out of opposition to those men who extol the Romans nor will I determine to raise the actions of my countrymen too high; but I will prosecute the actions of both parties with accuracy. Yet shall I suit my language to the passions I am under, as to the affairs I describe, and must be allowed to indulge some lamentations upon the miseries undergone by my own country. For that it was a seditious temper of our own that destroyed it, and that they were the tyrants among the Jews who brought the Roman power upon us, who unwillingly attacked us, and occasioned the burning of our holy Temple, Titus Caesar, who destroyed it, is himself a witness, who, daring the entire war, pitied the people who were kept under by the seditious, and did often voluntarily delay the taking of the city, and allowed time to the siege, in order to let the authors have opportunity for repentance. But if any one makes an unjust accusation against us, when we speak so passionately about the tyrants, or the robbers, or sorely bewail the misfortunes of our country, let him indulge my affections herein, though it be contrary to the rules for writing history; because it had so come to pass, that our city Jerusalem had arrived at a higher degree of felicity than any other city under the Roman government, and yet at last fell into the sorest of calamities again. Accordingly, it appears to me that the misfortunes of all men, from the beginning of the world, if they be compared to these of the Jews are not so considerable as they were; while the authors of them were not foreigners neither. This makes it impossible for me to contain my lamentations. But if anyone be inflexible in his censures of me, let him attribute the facts themselves to the historical part, and the lamentations to the writer himself only. [My emphases for clarity NPLA].

In addition one also needs to review Josephus’s later work (c. 97 CE) where with assuredly greater maturity²³ he produces the following πρόλογος to cover much the same topic (i. e. AJ, I, pr./1– 9)²⁴:

 Josephus would have been about  years of age at this time (c.  C.E.).

Josephus and the Pharisees

275

Τοῖς τὰς ἱστορίας συγγράφειν βουλομένοις οὐ μίαν οὐδὲ τὴν αὐτὴν ὁρῶ τῆς σπουδῆς γινομένην αἰτίαν, ἀλλὰ πολλὰς καὶ πλεῖστον ἀλλήλων διαφερούσας. τινὲς μὲν γὰρ ἐπιδεικνύμενοι λόγων δεινότητα καὶ τὴν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς θηρευόμενοι δόξαν ἐπὶ τοῦτο τῆς παιδείας τὸ μέρος ὁρμῶσιν, ἄλλοι δὲ χάριν ἐκείνοις φέροντες, περὶ ὧν τὴν ἀναγραφὴν εἶναι συμβέβηκε, τὸν εἰς αὐτὴν πόνον καὶ παρὰ δύναμιν ὑπέστησαν· εἰσὶ δ᾽ οἵτινες ἐβιάσθησαν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀνάγκης οἷς πραττομένοις παρέτυχον ταῦτα γραφῇ δηλούσῃ περιλαβεῖν· πολλοὺς δὲ χρησίμων μέγεθος πραγμάτων ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ κειμένων προύτρεψε τὴν περὶ αὐτῶν ἱστορίαν εἰς κοινὴν ὠφέλειαν ἐξενεγκεῖν. τούτων δὴ τῶν προειρημένων αἰτιῶν αἱ τελευταῖαι δύο κἀμοὶ συμβεβήκασι· τὸν μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τοὺς Ῥωμαίους πόλεμον ἡμῖν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις γενόμενον καὶ τὰς ἐν αὐτῷ πράξεις καὶ τὸ τέλος οἷον ἀπέβη πείρᾳ μαθὼν ἐβιάσθην ἐκδιηγήσασθαι διὰ τοὺς ἐν τῷ γράφειν λυμαινομένους τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ταύτην δὲ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἐγκεχείρισμαι πραγματείαν νομίζων ἅπασι φανεῖσθαι τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἀξίαν σπουδῆς· μέλλει γὰρ περιέξειν ἅπασαν τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀρχαιολογίαν καὶ διάταξιν τοῦ πολιτεύματος ἐκ τῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν μεθηρμηνευμένην γραμμάτων. ἤδη μὲν οὖν καὶ πρότερον διενοήθην, ὅτε τὸν πόλεμον συνέγραφον, δηλῶσαι τίνες ὄντες ἐξ ἀρχῆς Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ τίσι χρησάμενοι τύχαις ὑφ᾽ οἵῳ τε παιδευθέντες νομοθέτῃ τὰ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν καὶ τὴν ἄλλην ἄσκησιν ἀρετῆς πόσους τε πολέμους ἐν μακροῖς πολεμήσαντες χρόνοις εἰς τὸν τελευταῖον ἄκοντες πρὸς Ῥωμαίους κατέστησαν. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ μείζων ἦν ἡ τοῦδε τοῦ λόγου περιβολή, κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον χωρίσας ταῖς ἰδίαις ἀρχαῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ τέλει τὴν γραφὴν συνεμέτρησα· χρόνου δὲ προϊόντος, ὅπερ φιλεῖ τοῖς μεγάλων ἅπτεσθαι διανοουμένοις, ὄκνος μοι καὶ μέλλησις ἐγίνετο τηλικαύτην μετενεγκεῖν ὑπόθεσιν εἰς ἀλλοδαπὴν ἡμῖν καὶ ξένην διαλέκτου συνήθειαν. ἦσαν δέ τινες, οἳ πόθῳ τῆς ἱστορίας ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν με προύτρεπον, καὶ μάλιστα δὴ πάντων Ἐπαφρόδιτος ἀνὴρ ἅπασαν μὲν ἰδέαν παιδείας ἠγαπηκώς, διαφερόντως δὲ χαίρων ἐμπειρίαις πραγμάτων, ἅτε δὴ μεγάλοις μὲν αὐτὸς ὁμιλήσας πράγμασι καὶ τύχαις πολυτρόποις, ἐν ἅπασι δὲ θαυμαστὴν φύσεως ἐπιδειξάμενος ἰσχὺν καὶ προαίρεσιν ἀρετῆς ἀμετακίνητον. τούτῳ δὴ πειθόμενος ὡς αἰεὶ τοῖς χρήσιμον ἢ καλόν τι πράττειν δυναμένοις συμφιλοκαλοῦντι καὶ ἐμαυτὸν αἰσχυνόμενος, εἰ δόξαιμι ῥαθυμίᾳ πλέον ἢ τῷ περὶ τὰ κάλλιστα χαίρειν πόνῳ, προθυμότερον ἐπερρώσθην, ἔτι κἀκεῖνα πρὸς τοῖς εἰρημένοις λογισάμενος οὐ παρέργως, περί τε τῶν ἡμετέρων προγόνων εἰ μεταδιδόναι τῶν τοιούτων ἤθελον, καὶ περὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἴ τινες αὐτῶν γνῶναι τὰ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐσπούδασαν. Those who undertake to write histories, do not, I perceive, take that trouble on one and the same account, but for many reasons, and those such as are very different one from another. For some of them apply themselves to this part of learning to show their skill in composition, and that they may therein acquire a reputation for speaking finely: others of them there are, who write histories in order to gratify those that happen to be concerned in them, and on that account have spared no pains, but rather gone beyond their own abilities in the performance: but others there are, who, of necessity and by force, are driven to write history, because they are concerned in the facts, and so cannot excuse themselves from committing them to writing, for the advantage of posterity; nay, there are not a few who are induced to draw their historical facts out of darkness into light, and to produce them for the benefit of the public, on account of the great importance of the facts

 Original Greek text and English translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus: text:.. [ October ].

276

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

themselves with which they have been concerned. Now of these several reasons for writing history, I must profess the two last were my own reasons also; for since I was myself interested in that war which we Jews had with the Romans, and knew myself its particular actions, and what conclusion it had, I was forced to give the history of it, because I saw that others perverted the truth of those actions in their writings. Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures. And indeed I did formerly intend, when I wrote of the war, to explain who the Jews originally were, – what fortunes they had been subject to, – and by what legislature they had been instructed in piety, and the exercise of other virtues, – what wars also they had made in remote ages, till they were unwillingly engaged in this last with the Romans: but because this work would take up a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by itself, with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion; but in process of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language. However, some persons there were who desired to know our history, and so exhorted me to go on with it; and, above all the rest, Epaphroditus, a man who is a lover of all kind of learning, but is principally delighted with the knowledge of history, and this on account of his having been himself concerned in great affairs, and many turns of fortune, and having shown a wonderful rigor of an excellent nature, and an immovable virtuous resolution in them all. I yielded to this man’s persuasions, who always excites such as have abilities in what is useful and acceptable, to join their endeavours with his. I was also ashamed myself to permit any laziness of disposition to have a greater influence upon me, than the delight of taking pains in such studies as were very useful: I thereupon stirred up myself, and went on with my work more cheerfully. Besides the foregoing motives, I had others which I greatly reflected on; and these were, that our forefathers were willing to communicate such things to others; and that some of the Greeks took considerable pains to know the affairs of our nation. [My emphases for clarity and spelling correction underlined NPLA].

With reference to both Mason (2003) and Carrier’s (2000) learned insights, notice how Josephus employs his two similar πρόλογοι to make his reader aware of the following issues: 1. The topic is of extreme importance; 2. Previous authors had either given inaccurate accounts and/or did not apply the correct approach to the discipline of writing history and/or employed history writing as means of showing off their literary skills and/or had some personal and negative agenda that precluded them from telling the truth; 3. He, Josephus is the best qualified and experienced historian to undertake the task in hand due to his personal standing and intimate (eye-witness) knowledge of both the Jewish and the Roman perspectives; 4. He, Josephus felt compelled to set the record straight;

Josephus and the Pharisees

277

5.

He is writing (in the latter case) for the benefit of a patron called Ἐπαφρόδιτος²⁵; 6. Although obviously emotionally affected by what has happened he will still endeavour to conduct himself as an unbiased historian; 7. His underlying theory is that the anti-Roman, Jewish revolt was ultimately caused by a small group of power-hungry “tyrants” and “robbers” who did not act in accordance with accepted high Jewish morals and principles; 8. Normally Jews, who had a long and proud history, were a pious nation of the highest moral fibre; and 9. The Romans were unwittingly carrying out God’s divine plan. Moreover, it is common for commentators to make the inference that the BJ was most likely written for the benefit of Vespasian and in places overlaps the same time frame as the AJ, except that its focus is the Jewish homeland and with more emphasis on history for history’s sake. Most would also agree that it has a distinctly pro-Roman feel to it and certainly it is possible to consider that Josephus might have censored his text so as not to annoy his intended readership. However, if one examines say, the two Pilate narratives (cf. BJ, II, 9, 2/169 – 9, 4/177 and AJ, XVIII, 3, 1/55 – 3, 2/62 it is fair to state that neither the BJ nor the AJ version can claim to be any more or less violent than the other (cf. Allen 2015, 224– 227). In fact they are so similar in tone that it begs the question why so many scholars repeat this line of reasoning? By a more general comparison, the later AJ (apart from being, at the time, the most comprehensive work on Jewish culture and history in the Greek language), was primarily composed for the benefit of attentive non-Jews who, Josephus felt, needed to be educated and enlightened as regards the ancient and culturally rich heritage, institutions and laws of the Jewish people. Regardless, as has already been explained, it is inevitable that certain overlaps occur as regards replicated historical accounts, especially as this applies to Jewish history. Specifically, in the case of the BJ and the AJ, the duplication occurs from about the time of the Maccabees up until the time of Nero²⁶.

 This is a relatively common theophoric personal name derived from the goddess ᾿Aφροδίτη meaning, inter alia, “handsome”, “lovely” or “charming” [NPLA].  Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus ( –  C.E.).

278

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

6 Josephus’s Aptitude for the Greek Language However, Mason is strongly suggesting that Josephus is relying on a standard Hellenistic rhetorical technique to deliberately cast the Pharisees in an unfavourable light. The problem with analysing the veracity of this interpretation is that although, as has been shown already, Josephus certainly attempted to align himself with the established Hellenistic methodology for writing histories, at first (i. e. in c 70 C.E. when he wrote his earliest work [the BJ]), it is unlikely that he was quite as seasoned and skilled as his Greek and Roman counterparts. Mason (1991, 48) himself admits that Josephus, as a native Aramaic speaker most likely did not even begin to master Greek until after he had arrived in Rome (i. e. sometime after 69 C.E. when he was already 32 years old). As a consequence it seems somewhat surprising that the BJ is mostly well composed and may well confirm that its excellent Greek diction is due largely to the services of Josephus’s Greek-speaking assistants or slaves²⁷. As an aside, Mason (1991, 48 – 49) also reminds his reader that Thackeray (1929) attempted to demonstrate that significant sections of Josephus’s works were the result of sophisticated redaction by at least two of his assistants. Here it would seem that these kinds of findings were ultimately disproven by the subsequent work of Richards²⁸ and Shutt²⁹. Nevertheless, it has to be assumed that the original Greek translation of the BJ (c. 70 C.E.) was indeed achieved with at least some scribal assistance. Indeed, Josephus even acknowledges this fact in C.Ap. I, 9/50. It is suspected that the final result was a genuine attempt to capture the import of the original Aramaic version. In terms of an analysis of the novelistic elements, Moehring (1957, 145) confirms that “Josephus can justly be called the author, in the true sense of this term, of the works attributed to him: even when he borrows … he impresses his own personality upon his work”. Again, Mason (1991, 48) states that one “cannot deny that a few clear material inconsistencies remain in Josephus’s works, but these tensions cannot overturn the overwhelming evidence of Josephus’s control over his literary productions”.

 Cf. Henry St John Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press, ), .  Cf. G.C. Richards, “The Composition of Josephus’ Antiquities.” Classical Quarterly  (),  – .  Cf. R.J.H. Schutt, Studies in Josephus (London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, ),  – .

Josephus and the Pharisees

279

For example, any assistants employed by Josephus, would surely not have been given carte blanche permission to exercise their own rhetorical skills or subvert his stated intentions. In short, we can be fairly certain that Josephus’s own unique agenda was the primary focus of the BJ, and as has already been pointed out that would have to include, inter alia, the following key issues: 1. His underlying theory that the anti-Roman, Jewish revolt was ultimately caused by a small group of power-hungry “tyrants” and “robbers” who did not act in accord with accepted high Jewish morals and principles. 2. Normally Jews, who had a long and proud history, were a pious nation of the highest moral fibre. 3. The Romans were unwittingly carrying out God’s divine plan and the Jewish nation should accordingly submit to Roman domination and trust in God’s ultimate intention. Obviously he successfully composed this work in a way that would be most accessible to a Hellenistic readership. Thackeray (1929, 101 f) states that the BJ, is: “an excellent specimen of the Atticistic Greek of the first century”. Although here again, we must be mindful that Thackeray also believed that Josephus was not directly responsible for all of its contents. What needs to be at least considered here is that in 70 C.E. it is quite possible that even if Josephus had a natural propensity to assimilate new languages, surely, initially, he still lacked the range and subtlety of a more seasoned Hellenistic writer? In this respect, Rajak, (2003, 51) states: “Josephus’ report of his people’s attitude to foreign languages serves to explain why he had never studied how to speak or write Greek. What it suggests is that his Greek was such as had come to him naturally from his environment; it had never been treated as an achievement”. Although Mason seems to accept that initially Josephus was not as expert as he was to become in later years, he still maintains that Josephus should not to be seen as an authority in the sense of a trustworthy spokesperson for everything he recounts. Here Mason would still allow the reader to consider Josephus as a better choice given the alternatives but certainly not the final arbitrator of truth. Mason (2009, 58) believes that originally Josephus audience was small and parochial – limited to an elite inner circle of Roman readers. Mason (2009, 67) supports this interpretation by pointing to Josephus’s well known stated purpose for writing his texts, viz.: to write a Jewish apology for a distinctly Hellenistic readership. Is it not interesting that here Josephus’s own comments are useful in supporting one of Mason’s claims. Yet, when Josephus tells his reader that he is a Pharisee, Mason disputes it!

280

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

Mason (1991, 48) also confirms the possibility that initially, Josephus as a native Aramaic speaker most likely did not even begin to master Greek until after he had arrived in Rome (i. e. sometime after 69 C.E. when he was already 32 years old). Regardless, Mason also strongly suggests that Josephus relied on a standard Hellenistic rhetorical technique to deliberately cast the Pharisees in an unfavourable light. Surely, Josephus’s repeated statements in two of his works cannot be summarily ignored. Indeed, he pointedly tells his reader in both the BJ as well as his much later AJ: 1. He first composed his books (BJ) in his native tongue (BJ, 1, pr./3); 2. He is at a disadvantage when communicating in Greek (AJ, I, pr./7; XX, 12, 1/ 263 – 265.); 3. He did not concertedly learn Greek until after he arrived in Rome (C.Ap. I, 9/ 50); 4. He needed the assistance of individuals who may well have served as copyeditors (C.Ap. I, 9/50); 5. By the time of the writing of the AJ (c. 94 CE), after having gone to great lengths to “obtain the learning of the Greeks” he could claim to have understood “the elements of the Greek language (AJ, XX, 12, 1/263 – 265)³⁰; 6. He translated the Hebrew bible into the “Greek tongue” (C.Ap. 1/1); and 7. He tells his reader in C.Ap. I, 10/54b – 55 that: …τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀρχαιολογίαν, ὥσπερ ἔφην, ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων μεθερμήνευκα γεγονὼς ἱερεὺς ἐκ γένους καὶ μετεσχηκὼς τῆς φιλοσοφίᾳ τῆς ἐν ἐκείνοις τοῖς γράμμασι: τοῦ δὲ πολέμου τὴν ἱστορίαν ἔγραψα πολλῶν μὲν αὐτουργὸς πράξεων, πλείστων δ᾽ αὐτόπτης γενόμενος ὅλως δὲ τῶν λεχθέντων ἢ πραχθέντων οὐδοτιοῦν ἀγνοήσας … for, as I said, I have translated the Antiquities out of our sacred books; which I easily could do, since I was a priest by my birth, and have studied that philosophy which is contained in those writings: and for the History of the War, I wrote it as having been an actor myself in many of its transactions, an eye-witness in the greatest part of the rest, and was not unacquainted with any thing whatsoever that was either said or done in it [My emphasis for clarity NPLA].

 Chapman (in Sievers and Lembi, , ), points out that certain of the extant manuscripts that reproduce AJ, XX, , /  differ on certain points. For example, in MS A “καὶ ποιητικῶν μαθημὰτων πολλά” can be found placed between the words “γραμμάτων” and “ἐσπούδασα”. However MS E neglects to include “πολλά”, and, inter alia, MS M neglects the entire phrase.

Josephus and the Pharisees

281

The latter account seems to confirm that Josephus was not schooled in Greek but was raised in a strictly Jewish context. This all seems to be fairly honest for one very good reason: Josephus does the complete opposite of what some would normally expect him to do. If it is true that Josephus’s BJ (c. 70 CE) embodies all of the following qualities: 1. Hellenistic rhetorical manipulation (as supported by Mason and others); 2. a message directed almost exclusively at a Greek-speaking readership; and 3. dishonest and/or arrogant statements (including self-aggrandisement) etc. Why did Josephus (regardless of his actual prowess with the Greek tongue) not bother to emphasise how expert he was in Greek and in addition how he had been schooled by Greeks and was wholly familiar with the Greek classics etc. Instead he demonstrates (or at least claims) humility and even lack of skill. These are both very rare qualities for Josephus to admit to – especially as these “admissions” do not seem to assist his stated task. Therefore, in this case, surely we should be inclined to accept these declarations as being fairly accurate. Further, if these statements are not “coloured” by later redactors, it also demonstrates that Greek was possibly not quite as all-pervading in Judea and Galilee by the first century of the Common Era, as recently suggested by Redondo (2000) and Rajak (2003). In addition this stance can be backed up historically, where Josephus, as a proud Jew with both noble and priestly credentials is surely more likely to have been raised and immersed in Jewish religious studies through the medium of his native Aramaic and Hebrew. Otherwise one needs to try to find reasons which would demonstrate how falsely admitting to being modest and lacking the ability to communicate in Greek would in any way help Josephus in obtaining buy-in and confidence from his targeted Greek-speaking audience. Also, if by some slim chance this turns out to be a redaction by a later Christian apologist how would this disinformation be in any way useful to the Christian cause?

7 A Comparison of Josephus’s References to Pharisees Possible redaction aside, does a critical reading of Josephus really reveal a constant dislike for the Pharisees as Mason claims? These references need to be considered in the light of what is known about this period in order to determine whether Josephus’s treatment of events is coloured by some alternate agenda.

282

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

7.1 Queen Alexandra (Shlomzion) The first mention of Pharisees is in the BJ in specific relation to Queen Alexandra³¹ Silver (2010)³² informs her reader that Alexandra’s Hebrew name, Shlomzion, means “peace of Zion,” a term that was Hellenised to “Salome”. It is thanks solely to Josephus that she is more often referred to today as Alexandra. It is known that Alexander Yannai³³ was hostile towards the Pharisees, yet after his death, his wife, Alexandra immediately initiated unguarded negotiations with their leadership. These facts are known to us based primarily on a reading of Josephus³⁴ as well as selected rabbinical sources.³⁵ Certainly, it is fair to assume that Alexander had several run-ins with the Pharisees and further that his wife clandestinely supported them³⁶ before her husband’s death. Again, according solely to Josephus, we are informed in AJ, XIII, 14, 2/379 – 383 that 800 of Alexander’s Jewish enemies were crucified publicly. However, Josephus does not tell us whether any of these were Pharisees. That issue is only confirmed based on a reading of BJ, I, 5, 3/113 Certainly it is most likely that most if not all of these 800 were indeed Pharisees but the point is that Josephus does

 I.e. Salome Alexandra or Alexandra of Jerusalem ( –  B.C.E.). She ruled Judea (c.  –  B.C.E.).  Carly Silver, . “’The Peace of Zion’, Iron Ladies of the Ancient World,” Archaeological Institute of America. [Online]. Available: http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/iron_la dies/salome_alexandra.html [ October ].  I.e. Alexander Yannai or Jannaeus (c.  –  B.C.E.). He ruled Judea (c  to  B.C.E.) – the latter  years with the title of “king”.  I.e. AJ, XIII, ,/ – ,/.  E. g. b. Sanh. a. Where, Simeon ben Shetaḥ the brother of Alexandra, and the only Pharisee serving on the Sanhedrin forces Alexander to stand (and not sit) before the Sanhedrin on a charge of murder. Cf. Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhadrin [Online]. Available:http://www. come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_.html [ October ]. Again, in b. Sot. a, an account is given of how Alexander killed many Pharisees and by his actions forced, inter alia, the Pharisee, Simeon ben Shetaḥ to go into hiding: “…When King Jannaeus put the Rabbis to death, Simeon b. Shetaḥ was hid by his sister, whilst R. Joshua b. Perahiah fled to Alexandria in Egypt. When there was peace, Simeon b. Shetaḥ sent [this message to him]: ’From me, Jerusalem, the Holy city, to thee Alexandria in Egypt. O my sister, my husband dwelleth in thy midst and I abide desolate.’” In Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah [Online]. Available: http://www. come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_.html [ October ].  According to b. Sot. b: “King Jannai said to his wife, ‘Fear not the Pharisees and the nonPharisees but the hypocrites who ape the Pharisees; because their deeds are the deeds of Zimri, but they expect a reward like Phineas.’” In Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah [Online]. Available: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_.html [ February ].

Josephus and the Pharisees

283

not spell this out in his AJ. Only after reading the BJ and/or b.Sot. 47a could a reader infer a motive for revenge and retribution on the part of the Pharisees at the time (i. e. before 76 B.C.E.). Regardless, if we are to believe Josephus (AJ, XIII, 15, 5/400 – 404), on his death bed (76 B.C.E.), Alexander Yannai (despite his purportedly aggressive stance against the movement) advised his wife to yield a certain amount of power to the Pharisees, so that she could govern with fewer problems. This surely shows that irrespective of his history with the movement, he must have believed that the Pharisees were the most reliable advisors given the alternatives. This cannot be inferred as being totally negative. Indeed, Alexandra was assuredly in a difficult position when she became sovereign ruler of Judea as she had also simultaneously inherited her husband’s legacy of internal dissension. By taking the advice of the Pharisees, as respected mentors who best understood the psyche of the Jewish nation she managed to avert certain rebellion. It is also important to appreciate that her own son (Hyracanus II) was pro-Pharisee – a factor that would also have assisted the movement to assume greater political power, especially after he became High Priest. Here, of course is additional evidence that Josephus, must have appreciated that at the time, the Pharisees were popular with the general Jewish population. This factor seems to support the interpretation that Josephus was favourably disposed towards the actions of these particular Pharisees. Regardless of Josephus’s supposed hidden agendas and/or Mason’s claim that he is unreliable as a source, his accounts still ring true and do not contradict known historical fact. Whether or not it was Alexandra’s influence or not, the Pharisees did become more prominent after Alexander’s death. This is attested to in numerous sources. To ignore or marginalise this fact is counter-productive to any attempt at recovering history. If we review what Josephus has to say in his BJ, when according to Mason, he was supposedly more negative towards the Pharisees we find the following: BJ, I, 5, 1/110³⁷: Παραφύονται δὲ αὐτῆς εἰς τὴν ἐξουσίαν Φαρισαῖοι, σύνταγμά τι Ἰουδαίων δοκοῦν εὐσεβέστερον εἶναι τῶν ἄλλων καὶ τοὺς νόμους ἀκριβέστερον ἀφηγεῖσθαι.

 Greek according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext%A..%Abook% D%Awhiston+chapter%D [ October ].

284

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

From this we learn that the Pharisees assisted Alexandra in her governance, seemed more religious than the other Jewish sects and seemed to interpret the Law with more accuracy. BJ, I, 5, 1/111³⁸: τούτοις περισσὸν δή τι προσεῖχεν ἡ ᾿Aλεξάνδρα σεσοβημένη περὶ τὸ θεῖον. οἱ δὲ τὴν ἁπλότητα τῆς ἀνθρώπου κατὰ μικρὸν ὑπιόντες ἤδη καὶ διοικηταὶ τῶν ὅλων ἐγίνοντο διώκειν τε καὶ κατάγειν οὓς ἐθέλοιεν, λύειν τε καὶ δεσμεῖν. καθόλου δὲ αἱ μὲν ἀπολαύσεις τῶν βασιλείων ἐκείνων ἦσαν, τὰ δ᾽ ἀναλώματα καὶ αἱ δυσχέρειαι τῆς ᾿Aλεξάνδρας.

Here, this popular Whiston translation informs the reader that “these Pharisees” “artfully” insinuated themselves into Alexandra’s favour little by little. Also, they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and released [men] at their pleasure. In addition, they enjoyed [the privileges of] royal authority but allowed Alexandra to bear the brunt of the regal responsibility. Here the literal Greek text indicates that it was Alexandra who was possibly too “innocent” or even “simple”. Thus she was an easy victim for any form of domination. Whiston’s famous (albeit free) translation clearly lays the blame at the Pharisee’s feet. BJ, I, 5, 1/112b³⁹: ἐκράτει δὲ τῶν μὲν ἄλλων αὐτή, Φαρισαῖοι δ᾽ αὐτῆς. Alexandra governed other people, and the Pharisees governed her.

BJ, I, 5, 1/113⁴⁰: Διογένην γοῦν τινα τῶν ἐπισήμων φίλον ᾿Aλεξάνδρῳ γεγενημένον κτείνουσιν αὐτοὶ σύμβουλον ἐγκαλοῦντες γεγονέναι περὶ τῶν ἀνασταυρωθέντων ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως ὀκτακοσίων. ἐνῆγον δὲ τὴν ᾿Aλεξάνδραν εἰς τὸ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους διαχειρίσασθαι τῶν παροξυνάντων ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνους τὸν ᾿Aλέξανδρον: ἐνδιδούσης δ᾽ ὑπὸ δεισιδαιμονίας ἀνῄρουν οὓς ἐθέλοιεν αὐτοί.

 Greek according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext%A..%Abook% D%Awhiston+chapter%D [ October ].  Greek text and English translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext%  A.. %Abook%D %Awhiston+chapter%D [ October ].  Greek text and English translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext%  A.. %Abook%D %Awhiston+chapter%D [ October ].

Josephus and the Pharisees

285

The Pharisees (at this time) slew Diogenes, a person of figure, a friend to Alexander due to the fact that he may have assisted the late king in his decision to crucify 800 of his enemies. In addition, the Pharisees prevailed with Queen Alexandra to put to death the rest of those who had turned the late Alexander against them;

These are accounts of specific pharisees who lived several generations before Josephus’s time. According to Mason (1991, 116) Josephus’s narrative is also somewhat favourably disposed towards Herod the Great. Mason draws his reader’s attention to the fact that the scholar Hölscher (1916, 1947) claimed that this type of positive discourse in respect of a tyrant like Herod arose out of the possibility that Josephus employed Herod’s court historian (i. e. Nicolaus of Damascus) as a source for his BJ, I, 31– 2:116.⁴¹ Nevertheless, Josephus’s reader is informed that Herod the Great’s sister (Salome⁴²) who was also wife to Costobarus (BJ, I, 24/486 – 487) made it her personal business (cf. BJ, I, 29/569 – 571) to uncover anything that seemed seditious in royal court circles and always insured that her brother was aware of every detail. It should be noted that Josephus’s source(s) seem consistent here in that Salome is cast as Herod’s primary talebearer earlier in BJ, I, 27/534– 535. However, despite Hölscher and Mason’s (1991) opinions concerning Josephus’s supposed leniency when it came to describing Herod the Great, it must be recognised that he equally reports on Herod’s great cruelty. Thus the argument that he was reliant on say one major up-beat source cannot be contemplated. At least one of his sources must have reported quite negatively on Herod and Josephus chose not to interfere with the perceived accuracy of his source. This is important, because it points to Josephus placing what he believed to be truth over and above any personal agenda. Again, this falls in line with his stated objectives in his prologue. Regardless of source(s), it is obvious that the entire Herodian family was entangled in all kinds of intrigue and Salome and the “slave” wife of her brother (Pheroras⁴³) are clearly portrayed as being amongst the chief troublemakers. Within this context, (no doubt armed with information from Salome) an angry

 Mason supplies the following additional references, viz.: O. Michel and O. Bauernfeind, eds. De Bello Judaico: Der Jüdische Krieg. Griechisch und Deutsch, vol. , (Munich: Kösel,  – ) xxvf and S.J.D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: his Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden: E.J. Brill, ), . Cf. Mason, Josephus on the Pharisees (),  n..  Salome I, sister to Herod the Great (c.  B.C.E.– C.E.).  Pheroras, (c.  –  B.C.E.), Tetrarch of Perea (from c.  B.C.E.), son of Antipater II, brother to Herod “The Great”, Phasael I (King of Judea), Salome I of Judaea, and Josephus (brother of Herod the Great).

286

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

Herod accuses the wife of his half-brother Pheroras of rewarding the Pharisees with money for supplying Pheroras with love potions and encouraging his disloyalty. Notwithstanding, it is clearly the women of the court who are most responsible for fuelling the fires of domestic discord. Here Mason (1991, 116) remarks: “Herod’s home life develops along the lines of a tragedy, in which he is the largely innocent victim of plots and intrigues.” On the subject of the claimed payments made to the Pharisees by Pheroras’ wife, Josephus (BJ, I, 29/571b⁴⁴) writes the following: ὅτι τε Φαρισαίοις μὲν χορηγήσειεν μισθοὺς κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτῷ κατασκευάσειεν πολέμιον ἐνδησαμένη φαρμάκοις. [My emphasis for clarity NPLA].

Within this context, Mason (1991, 117) argues that the cognate of the verb χορηγέω may be translated as “to supply, furnish, procure, grant”. Further, he states that it is intended to have more impact than other terms such as δίδωμι. Mason also demonstrates clearly that χορηγέω and its various cognates are employed consistently (i. e. 64 times) throughout both the BJ and the AJ and more normally suggests “liberality or abundance”. The other important term from this pericope is the noun μισθός which Mason (1991, 117) translates as “payment, reward, money, compensation”. Again, Mason shows that this term is distributed frequently (i. e. 42 times) and equably throughout Josephus’s four extant works. What is problematic is not Mason’s excellent analysis of the employment of key terms in Josephus’s text but some of the conclusions that he draws. For example Mason (1991, 117) comments that it is not clear whether Pheroras’s wife initiated Pharisaic opposition to Herod or whether she was simply encouraging an existing opposition to Herod’s regime. In point of fact, nowhere in the text is such an interpretation possible. All we know for sure, based on what is written, is that Pheroras’s wife was accused of payment to the Pharisees. No evidence is proffered in support of this accusation. Whether or not she did in fact encourage the Pharisees to act disloyally or whether or not the Pharisees were already acting against Herod is never spelled out in Josephus’s text. Even if it transpires, as supported by other evidence external to Josephus works, that the Pharisees did oppose Herod, do we know for sure whether or not Josephus knew this? Indeed, even if he showed his knowledge of this possi-

 Greek according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext%A..%Abook% D%Awhiston+chapter%D [ October ].

Josephus and the Pharisees

287

bility in a later work it does not mean that he was aware of this issue at an earlier period of his life. In short, based solely on the text of the BJ we have no way of knowing if Josephus in c. 70 C.E. believed the Pharisees of a previous century were rewarded for their disloyalty to Herod. Secondly, why should the Pharisees’ possible disloyalty to a tyrant be viewed as negative? Surely it could also be argued that portraying the Pharisees as working in opposition to Herod’s atrocities against the Jewish nation as evidence for Pharisaic righteousness and strength of moral conviction. Mason (1991, 117– 118) also gives his attention to the issue of the Pharisees being cast in a negative light due to the accusation that they accepted financial reward for their disloyalty to Herod. Appropriately, Mason compares this accusation with the Josephan account in BJ, I, 5/111b⁴⁵ where we read: οἱ δὲ τὴν ἁπλότητα τῆς ἀνθρώπου κατὰ μικρὸν ὑπιόντες ἤδη καὶ διοικηταὶ τῶν ὅλων ἐγίνοντο διώκειν τε καὶ κατάγειν οὓς ἐθέλοιεν, λύειν τε καὶ δεσμεῖν. καθόλου δὲ αἱ μὲν ἀπολαύσεις τῶν βασιλείων ἐκείνων ἦσαν, τὰ δ᾽ ἀναλώματα καὶ αἱ δυσχέρειαι τῆς ᾿Aλεξάνδρας. [My emphasis for clarity NPLA].

Here Mason argues that the Pharisees are portrayed as enjoying the ἀπολαύσεις (benefits and prerogatives) of royal authority, whilst the ἀναλώματα (expenses) were left for Queen Alexandra’s own account.

7.2 Evidence of Josephus’s Balanced Approach Mason also looks at what are perceived to be Josephus’s negative comments concerning the Pharisees in his later works. Specifically, Mason (1991, 118) points to AJ, XVII, 2/42 f where the Pharisees are accused of making false prophecies for financial gain and in Vit. 39/195 f where a prominent Pharisee bribes the High Priest to make an unjust judgement. With reference to Karris (1973, 552) Mason confirms that it was a common practice in ancient times to defame one’s adversaries with a charge of avarice. However, especially in the latter example (Vit. 195 f) it could be equally claimed that Josephus was merely concentrating on the despicable actions of an individual who just happened to be a Pharisee. Had say, a prominent Essene bribed the High Priest, could that hypothetical in-

 Greek according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext%A..%Abook% D%Awhiston+chapter%D%Awhiston+section%D [ October ].

288

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

cident have been employed to claim Josephus’s dissatisfaction with the entire Essene community? I do not believe so. Like Schwartz, I believe that Mason is perhaps rather too hasty in his assessment of Josephus’s true feelings. Mason portrays Josephus as consistently aggressive towards the Pharisaic movement. In point of fact he is quite balanced in his comments. Indeed, the reader needs to consider BJ, II, 17, 3 / 411– 416 where Josephus tells his reader that the leaders of the Pharisees are revealed as the champions of the peace party albeit in association with certain aristocrats and the high priests. Schwartz declares: An acknowledgment of this passage might have modified Mason’s belief that Josephus was always hostile to the Pharisees. In fact, in War, Josephus is indifferent to them, considering them at most a respectable and legitimate group of Jews of rather little significance.

In sum, BJ, II, 8, 14/162 seemingly claims that the Pharisees were the leading school of thought among the Jews. BJ, II, 8.14/166 clearly intimates that the Pharisees promote peace and are concerned for the well-being of the public. Again, in BJ, IV, 7.3/411– 414⁴⁶, the reader is informed: Συνελθόντες γοῦν οἱ δυνατοὶ τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν εἰς ταὐτὸ καὶ τοῖς τῶν Φαρισαίων γνωρίμοις ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἀνηκέστοις ἤδη συμφοραῖς ἐβουλεύοντο περὶ τῶν ὅλων: καὶ δόξαν ἀποπειραθῆναι τῶν στασιαστῶν λόγοις πρὸ τῆς χαλκῆς πύλης ἀθροίζουσι τὸν δῆμον, ἥτις ἦν τοῦ ἔνδον ἱεροῦ τετραμμένη πρὸς ἀνατολὰς ἡλίου. καὶ πρῶτον αὐτῶν πολλὰ πρὸς τὴν τόλμαν τῆς ἀποστάσεως χαλεπήναντες καὶ τὸ τηλικοῦτον ἐπισείειν τῇ πατρίδι πόλεμον, ἔπειτα τὸ τῆς προφάσεως ἄλογον διήλεγχον, φάμενοι τοὺς μὲν προγόνους αὐτῶν κεκοσμηκέναι τὸν ναὸν ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων τὸ πλέον ἀεὶ προσδεχομένους τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν ἐθνῶν δωρεάς, καὶ οὐ μόνον οὐ διακεκωλυκέναι θυσίας τινῶν, τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ ἀσεβέστατον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ βλεπόμενα καὶ τὰ παραμένοντα τοσοῦτον χρόνον ἀναθήματα περὶ τῷ ἱερῷ καθιδρυκέναι. αὐτοὺς δὲ νῦν ἐρεθίζοντας τὰ Ῥωμαίων ὅπλα καὶ μνηστευομένους τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνων πόλεμον καινοτομεῖν θρησκείαν ξένην καὶ μετὰ τοῦ κινδύνου καταψηφίσασθαι τῆς πόλεως ἀσέβειαν, εἰ παρὰ μόνοις Ἰουδαίοις οὔτε θύσει τις ἀλλότριος οὔτε προσκυνήσει Hereupon the men of power got together, and conferred with the high priests, as did also the principal of the Pharisees; and thinking all was at stake, and that their calamities were becoming incurable, took counsel what was to be done. Accordingly, they determined to try what they could do with the seditious by words, and assembled the people before the brazen gate, which was that gate of the inner Temple [court of the priests] which looked toward the sun-rising. And, in the first place, they showed the great indignation they had at this attempt for a revolt, and for their bringing so great a war upon their country; after

 Greek text and English translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext% A..%Abook%D%Awhiston+chapter%D%Awhiston+section%D [ October ].

Josephus and the Pharisees

289

which they confuted their pretence as unjustifiable, and told them that their forefathers had adorned their Temple in great part with donations bestowed on them by foreigners, and had always received what had been presented to them from foreign nations; and that they had been so far from rejecting any person’s sacrifice (which would be the highest instance of impiety,) that they had themselves placed those donation about the Temple which were still visible, and had remained there so long a time; that they did now irritate the Romans to take arms against them, and invited them to make war upon them, and brought up novel rules of a strange Divine worship, and determined to run the hazard of having their city condemned for impiety, while they would not allow any foreigner, but Jews only, either to sacrifice or to worship therein. [My emphasis for clarity NPLA].

Here the Pharisees are portrayed positively as working together with the Jewish leadership in an attempt to curtail the threat of revolt and to maintain peace and security. What is often overlooked here, is that Josephus’s leit motif throughout the BJ is that he is reasonable, tries in vain to convince his fellow countrymen to take the path of least resistance and generally accept that the Jews cannot overthrow the might of Rome. In this sense, everything that is attributed to the Pharisees in BJ, IV, 7.3/411– 414 reflects his own philosophy exactly. Schwartz (1983, 158, 163) takes note that Josephus claims to be a Pharisee (cf. Vit. 2/12) and indeed, at times wrote totally optimistic narratives concerning the Pharisees. However, in other passages, Schwartz (1983, 162) tells us that Josephus “definitely express hostility toward the Pharisees [which] is always of the same nature: the Pharisees are seen as those who incite the masses against rulers”. However, Schwartz (1983, 158 – 162) goes on to argue a la Hölscher (1916) that these anti-Pharisaic passages are to be attributed to an outside source, viz.: Nicolaus of Damascus⁴⁷. According to this interpretation, Josephus simply allowed this material to stand as Nicolaus had written it, because at the time the AJ was being written the Jewish revolt was but a distant memory. Accordingly, Josephus let his guard down and portrayed the Pharisees in a more negative light. Saldarini (1988, 131) also holds that the Pharisees are treated in both a negative and a positive fashion in the AJ. He also regards Josephus’s treatment of the Pharisees as being consciously consistent. Saldarini (1988, 129) states: My position is that Josephus is not discernibly pro- or anti-Pharisaic in his overall attitude toward them, but that his evaluation of the Pharisees and all other groups is guided by larger political principles, especially the desire for orderly government and keeping the peace.

Thus the AJ contains both negative and positive material about the Pharisees because Josephus “approves of the Pharisees when they are a force for stability and

 Nicolaus of Damascus (b. c.  B.C.E.)

290

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

he disapproves of them when they challenge the dominant, traditional and stable government and way of life of Judaism.” In conclusion, Saldarini (1988, 129) states that “[Josephus’s] accounts of [the] Pharisees … form a coherent whole.”

8 Josephus’s Opinions Concerning the Divine Will, Reward and Punishment In his BJ, II, 8, 2/119⁴⁸ (c. 75 C.E.), Josephus states the following: Τρία γὰρ παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις εἴδη φιλοσοφεῖται, καὶ τοῦ μὲν αἱρετισταὶ Φαρισαῖοι, τοῦ δὲ Σαδδουκαῖοι, τρίτον δέ, ὃ δὴ καὶ δοκεῖ σεμνότητα ἀσκεῖν, Ἐσσηνοὶ καλοῦνται, Ἰουδαῖοι μὲν γένος ὄντες, φιλάλληλοι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πλέον. For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes.

And, some two decades later (c. 94– 99 C.E.) in his autobiographical Vit. I, 1, 2/ 10⁴⁹ Josephus again confirms this information: περὶ δὲ ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη γενόμενος ἐβουλήθην τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν αἱρέσεων ἐμπειρίαν λαβεῖν: τρεῖς δ’ εἰσὶν αὗται, Φαρισαίων μὲν ἡ πρώτη, καὶ Σαδδουκαίων ἡ δευτέρα, τρίτη δ’ Ἐσσηνῶν, καθὼς πολλάκις εἴπομεν: οὕτως γὰρ ᾤμην αἱρήσεσθαι τὴν ἀρίστην, εἰ πάσας καταμάθοιμι. When I was about sixteen years old, I chose to gain expertise in the philosophical schools among us. There are three of these: the first, Pharisees; the second, Sadducees; and the third, Essenes, as we have often said. In this way I intended to choose the best [school] – if I might examine them all. [My emphasis].

Josephus pointedly informs his reader that by c. 53 C.E. there were only three Jewish religious sects in existence, excluding a sect of “Jewish Philosophy” as initiated by one Judas the Galilean as mentioned in his AJ, XVIII, 1, 6/23 – 25. According to BJ, II, 8, 14/166 the Pharisees are friendly to each other, promote peace in society and ascribe all to fate/providence/God. Most would surely

 Greek text and English translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext% A..%Abook%D%Awhiston+chapter%D%Awhiston+section%D [ October ].  Ibid. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext%A. .%Awhiston+section%D. [ October ].

Josephus and the Pharisees

291

agree, that this is not likely to be interpreted as a negative attitude towards the Pharisees. Indeed, as supported by his comments in BJ, II, 17, 3/411-416 Josephus seems to be extolling the Pharisees for their constructive role in maintaining law, order and stability in the Jewish community. As opposed to his statements concerning the actions of the Pharisees in the time of Queen Alexandra (ut supra) here we have claimed eye-witness accounts and not references to some ancient source. According to Josephus the Pharisees that he must have known personally, must have maintained that all men have free will and may do as they please. The implication is that if their actions are correct, fate will co-operate. Here the understanding is clear that “fate” and “God’s will” are synonymous. Josephus seems to be describing a paradox wherein everything is pre-ordained by God but mankind (whilst acting in the moment and ignorant of God’s will) is still dependant on his own free will. When he decides correctly (here I assume a Jew who is righteous, studies the Torah and performs the mitzvot etc) then that individual clearly assists God in fulfilling His pre-ordained plan. When he does the wrong thing he at best temporally hinders what God has predestined. However, what God had originally intended will still ultimately occur. The text also claims that from a Pharisaic perspective, souls are immortal. However only the souls of good men (after death?) are translated into other (new?) bodies. This latter sentiment seems to reflect a possible belief in either physical resurrection or reincarnation. Certainly, the souls of bad men are punished for eternity. So in the case of the iniquitous it is safe to state that they experience neither a resurrection nor a reincarnation. This sentiment is backed up by Josephus’s statements in BJ, II, 8,11/157, where he intimates that the “hope” of some reward (in the afterlife?) encourages the righteous to maintain their stance: “For the good (αγαθούς) are made better in their lifetime by the hope of a reward (τιμῆς)”. Here, if taken in isolation, it is possible to interpret Josephus as implying that the notion of some reward in the next world is merely wishful thinking; the concept may well be bogus but is eminently useful for encouraging the faithful to remain righteous. However, based on his other comments elsewhere (ut supra) it should be interpreted that Josephus firmly trusted in the reality of such a heavenly reward as well as recognising that it also served as a useful inducement for righteous living. Josephus then tells his reader that the Sadducees exhibit wild and barbarous behaviour towards each other. They neither believe in fate nor do they think that God is any way concerned about mankind’s employment of free will. For them there is no afterlife, no reward and no punishment. Based on the text it is difficult to determine whether or not the Sadducees believed in an unfolding divine

292

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

plan per se. However, it is unlikely as mainstream Jews that they did not accord God with a divine plan and they must have placed faith in divine prophecy. AJ, XVIII, 1, 3/12 – 15⁵⁰: Οἵ τε γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι τὴν δίαιταν ἐξευτελίζουσιν οὐδὲν ἐς τὸ μαλακώτερον ἐνδιδόντες, ὧν τε ὁ λόγος κρίνας παρέδωκεν ἀγαθῶν ἕπονται τῇ ἡγεμονίᾳ περιμάχητον ἡγούμενοι τὴν φυλακὴν ὧν ὑπαγορεύειν ἠθέλησεν. τιμῆς γε τοῖς ἡλικίᾳ προήκουσιν παραχωροῦσιν οὐδ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀντιλέξει τῶν εἰσηγηθέντων ταῦτα οἱ θράσει ἐπαιρόμενοι. πράσσεσθαί τε εἱμαρμένῃ τὰ πάντα ἀξιοῦντες οὐδὲ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου τὸ βουλόμενον τῆς ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ὁρμῆς ἀφαιροῦνται δοκῆσαν τῷ θεῷ κρίσιν γενέσθαι καὶ τῷ ἐκείνης βουλευτηρίῳ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῷ ἐθελήσαντι προσχωρεῖν μετ᾽ ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας. ἀθάνατόν τε ἰσχὺν ταῖς ψυχαῖς πίστις αὐτοῖς εἶναι καὶ ὑπὸ χθονὸς δικαιώσεις τε καὶ τιμὰς οἷς ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας ἐπιτήδευσις ἐν τῷ βίῳ γέγονεν, καὶ ταῖς μὲν εἱργμὸν ἀίδιον προτίθεσθαι, ταῖς δὲ ῥᾳστώνην τοῦ ἀναβιοῦν. καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὰ τοῖς τε δήμοις πιθανώτατοι τυγχάνουσιν καὶ ὁπόσα θεῖα εὐχῶν τε ἔχεται καὶ ἱερῶν ποιήσεως ἐξηγήσει τῇ ἐκείνων τυγχάνουσιν πρασσόμενα. εἰς τοσόνδε ἀρετῆς αὐτοῖς αἱ πόλεις ἐμαρτύρησαν ἐπιτηδεύσει τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι κρείσσονος ἔν τε τῇ διαίτῃ τοῦ βίου καὶ λόγοις. Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced; and when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about Divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also. [My emphasis for clarity NPLA].

Many good examples may be cited that support the notion that Josephus believed in Divine intervention/justice – especially for wrong-doing. Certainly, Josephus seems to be constantly concened with the calamitous effects that wicked

 Greek text and English translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext% A..%Abook%D%Awhiston+chapter%D%Awhiston+section%D. [ October ].

Josephus and the Pharisees

293

men (especially when they are Jews) have on the well-being of the Jewish nation. Further, no-one escapes God’s divine anger and the longer the perpetrator gets away with their iniquity – the worse the punishment. Thus, we have Josephus’s account of the divine punishment meted out against Simon the son of Gioras in BJ, VII, 2, 2/32– 36⁵¹ Σίμωνα μὲν οὖν εἰς δίκην τῆς κατὰ τῶν πολιτῶν ὠμότητος, ὧν πικρῶς αὐτὸς ἐτυράννησεν, ὑπὸ τοῖς μάλιστα μισοῦσι πολεμίοις ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, οὐ βίᾳ γενόμενον αὐτοῖς ὑποχείριον, ἀλλ᾽ αὑτὸν ἑκουσίως εἰς τὴν τιμωρίαν παραβαλόντα, δι᾽ ὃ πολλοὺς αὐτὸς ὠμῶς ἀπέκτεινε ψευδεῖς αἰτίας ἐπιφέρων τῆς πρὸς Ῥωμαίους μεταβολῆς. οὐδὲ γὰρ διαφεύγει πονηρία θεοῦ χόλον, οὐδὲ ἀσθενὴς ἡ δίκη, χρόνῳ δὲ μέτεισι τοὺς εἰς αὐτὴν παρανομήσαντας καὶ χείρω τὴν τιμωρίαν ἐπιφέρει τοῖς πονηροῖς, ὅτι καὶ προσεδόκησαν αὐτῆς ἀπηλλάχθαι μὴ παραυτίκα κολασθέντες. ἔγνω τοῦτο καὶ Σίμων εἰς τὰς Ῥωμαίων ὀργὰς ἐμπεσών. ἡ δ᾽ ἐκείνου γῆθεν ἄνοδος πολὺ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων στασιαστῶν πλῆθος ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνας τὰς ἡμέρας ἐν τοῖς ὑπονόμοις φωραθῆναι παρεσκεύασε. Καίσαρι δὲ εἰς τὴν παράλιον ἐπανελθόντι Καισάρειαν Σίμων προσήχθη δεδεμένος: κἀκεῖνον μὲν εἰς ὃν ἐπιτελεῖν ἐν Ῥώμῃ παρεσκευάζετο θρίαμβον προσέταξε φυλάττειν. Thus did God bring this man [Simon, son of Gioras] to be punished for what bitter and savage tyranny he had exercised against his countrymen by those who were his worst enemies; and this while he was not subdued by violence, but voluntarily delivered himself up to them to be punished, and that on the very same account that he had laid false accusations against many Jews, as if they were falling away to the Romans, and had barbarously slain them for wicked actions do not escape the Divine anger, nor is justice too weak to punish offenders, but in time overtakes those that transgress its laws, and inflicts its punishments upon the wicked in a manner, so much more severe, as they expected to escape it on account of their not being punished immediately. [My insertion and emphasis for clarity NPLA].

Another good example concerns the divine punishment of a non-Jew-Catullus, the governor of the Libyan Pentapolis – for his wicked crimes against the Jews in BJ, VII, 11, 4/451b – 453⁵². Here, emphasis is placed not only on the punished individual experiencing physical torment but more importantly his mental anguish and cognitive acknowledgment of the fact that he is being punished by God for his crimes against each individual he previously harmed:

 Greek text and English translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext% A..%Abook%D%Awhiston%chapter%D%Awhiston%section%D. [ October].  Greek text and English translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext% A..%Abook%D%Awhiston%chapter%D%Awhiston%section% D. [ October ].

294

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

… οὐ τὸ σῶμα μόνον κολαζόμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῷ νόσος βαρυτέρα. δείμασι γὰρ ἐξεταράττετο καὶ συνεχῶς ἐβόα βλέπειν εἴδωλα τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πεφονευμένων ἐφεστηκότα: καὶ κατέχειν αὑτὸν οὐ δυνάμενος ἐξήλλετο τῆς εὐνῆς ὡς βασάνων αὐτῷ καὶ πυρὸς προσφερομένων. τοῦ δὲ κακοῦ πολλὴν ἀεὶ τὴν ἐπίδοσιν λαμβάνοντος καὶ τῶν ἐντέρων αὐτῷ κατὰ διάβρωσιν ἐκπεσόντων, οὕτως ἀπέθανεν, οὐδενὸς ἧττον ἑτέρου τῆς προνοίας τοῦ θεοῦ τεκμήριον γενόμενος, ὅτι τοῖς πονηροῖς δίκην ἐπιτίθησιν. He was not only afflicted in body, but the distemper in his mind was more heavy upon him than the other; for he was terribly disturbed, and continually cried out that he saw the ghosts of those whom he had slain standing before him. Whereupon he was not able to contain himself, but leaped out of his bed, as if both torments and fire were brought to him. This his distemper grew still a great deal worse and worse continually, and his very entrails were so corroded, that they fell out of his body, and in that condition he died. Thus he became as great an instance of Divine Providence as ever was, and demonstrated that God punishes wicked men. [My emphases for clarity NPLA].

These statements taken together with his accounts of divine intervention in the case of Philip son of Jacimus (Vit. 11/48) as well as God delivering Josephus from almost certain death at the hands of John of Gischala (Vit. 58/301) clearly indicate that Josephus believed that God can interfere in human activity – thus he is certainly not a Sadducee at heart.

9 Josephus’s Overt Agenda? Given that he has no trouble in disguising his earnest desire to save his own skin at the expense of others on numerous occasions⁵³ and despite his claims of divine protection and higher purpose which he alleges underscored his more questionable actions Josephus is outstandingly honest in recounting what would surely be embarrassing moments to a modern author. Nothing stopped him from lying or disguising his cowardice, yet, on occasion he seemingly, faithfully records what he experienced – albeit from his own perspective. That kind of information should give the reader a certain degree of confidence when reading what else he has to say about those accounts he claims to have witnessed at first hand.

 Cf. Vit. / – , / – , / – , / –  and Josephus’s sincere admission of his own fear of death in Vit. /.

Josephus and the Pharisees

295

Josephus was proud of his noble lineage and prided himself on his strict adherence to Mosaic Law⁵⁴. Yet he is also honest enough to tell his reader that even he slipped up on occasion. For example, Josephus makes an honest admission of guilt in Vit. 15/81, when he confesses to keeping spoils of the enemy. In addition, in Vit. 70/393, despite having repeatedly informed his reader of how he continually preaches tolerance towards one’s enemies and often gives accounts illustrating his magnanimity when dealing with even the bitterest of his adversaries he is still happy to candidly admit to almost killing Justus, the son of Pistus out of pure irritation. Lastly, he goes so far as to emasculate his claimed standing as a noble priest when he admits to accepting Vespasian’s gift (whilst he was still in bondage) of a captive virgin in Vit. 75/414. It should be understood that the taking of a captive woman as a wife by a Jewish priest was strictly forbidden by Mosaic Law. What is worse, is that Josephus also admits, that after having borne him three children, he ultimately divorces her – not because he wanted to restore his priestly status – but merely because she dissatisfied him⁵⁵. In Vit. 76/426⁵⁶ Josephus clearly states: καθ᾽ ὃν δὴ καιρὸν καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα μὴ ἀρεσκόμενος αὐτῆς τοῖς ἤθεσιν ἀπεπεμψάμην τριῶν παίδων γενομένην μητέρα, ὧν οἱ μὲν δύο ἐτελεύτησαν, εἷς δέ, ὃν Ὑρκανὸν προσηγόρευσα, περίεστιν. … about which time I divorced my wife also, as not pleased with her behavior, though not till she had been the mother of three children, two of whom are dead, and one whom I named Hyrcanus, is alive [My emphasis for clarity NPLA].

This should be viewed as a most candid confession. Indeed, Josephus clearly spells out a Jewish priest’s correct approach to marriage in AJ, III, 12, 2/276 – 277a⁵⁷:  Cf. references to keeping the Law of Moses. Josephus normally abides slavishly to the Torah. See, for example his stance on craven images (Vit. / ) and the holding of property that belongs to an enemy (Vit. / ).  Whiston incorrectly gives the view that Josephus eventually divorced the captive virgin primarily because he wanted to comply to Mosaic Law. He also seems to cite the Dutch orientalist Adriaan Reland ( – ) as supporting this view. Cf. William Whiston, ed. The Works of Flavius Josephus (Auburn: John E. Beardsley, ) [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus. tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext%A..%Awhiston+section%D [ October ].  Greek text and English translation according to Whiston ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext% A..%Awhiston+section%D. [ October ].  Greek text and English translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext%

296

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

Τῶν δ᾽ ἱερέων καὶ διπλασίονα τὴν ἁγνείαν ἐποίησε: τούτων τε γὰρ αὐτοὺς ὁμοίως τοῖς ἄλλοις εἴργει καὶ προσέτι γαμεῖν τὰς ἡταιρηκυίας ἐκώλυσε, μήτε δούλην μήτ᾽ αἰχμάλωτον γαμεῖν αὐτοὺς κεκώλυκε καὶ τὰς ἐκ καπηλείας καὶ τοῦ πανδοκεύειν πεπορισμένας τὸν βίον μηδὲ τὰς τῶν προτέρων ἀνδρῶν ἐφ᾽ αἱσδηποτοῦν αἰτίαις ἀπηλλαγμένας. τὸν ἀρχιερέα μέντοι οὐδὲ τεθνηκότος ἀνδρὸς ἠξίωσε γυναῖκα τοῦτο τοῖς ἄλλοις ἱερεῦσι συγχωρῶν, μόνην δ᾽ αὐτῷ δέδωκε γαμεῖν παρθένον καὶ ταύτην φυλάττειν: As for the priests, he [Moses] prescribed to them a double degree of purity for he restrained them in the instances above, and moreover forbade them to marry harlots. He also forbade them [the priests] to marry a slave, or a captive, and such as got their living by cheating trades, and by keeping inns; as also a woman parted from her husband, on any account whatsoever. Nay, he did not think it proper for the high priest to marry even the widow of one that was dead, though he allowed that to the priests; but he permitted him only to marry a virgin, and to retain her. [My insertions and emphasis for clarity NPLA].

Again, in C.Ap. 1.7/34– 35⁵⁸, Josephus confirms: καὶ τῶν ἐπάνω προγόνων καὶ τίνες οἱ μαρτυροῦντες. πόλεμος δ᾽ εἰ κατάσχοι, καθάπερ ἤδη γέγονεν πολλάκις ᾿Aντιόχου τε τοῦ Ἐπιφανοῦς εἰς τὴν χώραν ἐμβαλόντος καὶ Πομπηίου Μάγνου καὶ Κυντιλίου Οὐάρου μάλιστα δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς χρόνοις, οἱ περιλειπόμενοι τῶν ἱερέων καινὰ πάλιν ἐκ τῶν ἀρχαίων γραμμάτων συνίστανται καὶ δοκιμάζουσι τὰς ὑπολειφθείσας γυναῖκας. οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ τὰς αἰχμαλώτους γενομένας προσίενται πολλάκις γεγονυιῶν But if any war falls out, such as have fallen out a great many of them already, when Antiochus Epiphanes made an invasion upon our country, as also when Pompey the Great and Quintilius Varus did so also, and principally in the wars that have happened in our own times, those priests that survive them compose new tables of genealogy out of the old records, and examine the circumstances of the women that remain; for still they do not admit of those that have been captives, as suspecting that they had conversation with some foreigners [My emphasis for clarity NPLA].

Finally, when he did not have first-hand experience of a situation he relied on the voice of those that he trusted. Here I would tend to largely credit what he states in his prologue in the sense that although he may have distorted the truth as a direct result of his own personal experiences he never does so consciously. In short, it is fairly safe to assume that Josephus believed his own rhetoric, was often blind to his own hypocrisy but rarely tries to deliberately mislead his reader. Rather he wanted to make sure that his reader would understand his feelings. A..%Abook%D%Awhiston+chapter%D%Awhiston+section%D. [ October ].  Greek text and English translation according to Whiston, ed. . The Works of Flavius Josephus. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%Atext% A..%Abook%D%Awhiston+section%D. [ October ].

Josephus and the Pharisees

297

Josephus does have an agenda – but it is quite transparent and dominated by his naïve desire to be totally honest. Often he is blind to the hypocrisy of some of his statements and is even inconsistent but that does not necessarily mean that he has some secret agenda. For example, with reference to Mason (2003, 42– 44) when Josephus tackled the real challenge of having to exercise military control in Galilee, he faced considerable antagonism from various individuals and factions. Here, one should not be quite so naive as to think that a character like John of Gischala was really as wicked as portrayed by Josephus – rather we should read Josephus’s account of Gischala’s actions from his personal experiential perspective as an individual who on many occasions was being thwarted by the politics of the day to keep the peace. We should also not be blind to the possibility that in some ways Josephus was quite capable of acting like a tyrant when the situation allowed it. We should not forget that someone like Gischala was probably a respected leader in his own right and certainly had friends in high places (e. g. Simon, son of Gamaliel) – individuals who would have wanted to remove Josephus for reasons that were equally legitimate from their own perspectives. Mason (2003, 43) reminds his reader that Josephus also committed acts that we would find atrocious in our contemporary times. However, he did not try to disguise these actions – including cutting off the hands of his opponents (Vit. 34/169 – 173) and recruiting Galilean outlaws as a mercenaries in Vit. 14/77. Mason (2003, 43 – 44) sums up as follows: Although it may now be impossible to recover Josephus’s personal motives and mindset, or even the bare facts of his mission in Galilee, it is not necessarily the case that he has lied to cover up his past. First, when the war against Rome erupted, someone in his position might well have been faced with real ambivalence and difficult choices. We have only to consider the situation of Western-educated politicians in non-Western countries today to see similar kinds of tensions: loyalty to one’s own people alongside a unique awareness of the costs of conflict and the benefits of cooperation, combined sometimes with a certain local coercion to lead as one’s constituents desire. All of these tensions we can reasonably posit of the aristocrat Josephus, who was both scandalized by local Roman governance and keenly aware of the need to maintain peace.

This would seem to oppose Mason’s own view that Josephus is in many ways a dishonest spokesperson for his age – one who deliberately distorts history for the benefit of some personal agenda. The worst that could be said of him is that he has no means with which to assess the validity of the information he repeats but his choice of historical material is used to highlight what for him were current concerns. In this latter regard they still assist the historian in understanding the issues of his own time. Thus, he equally criticises historical figures when

298

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

their actions harm the Jewish nation and praises those who act in ways that either further the Jewish cause and/or are in accord with his own philosophical outlook. Another issue that seems to be overlooked is that if we assume that we can trust Josephus’s stated agenda in the opening of both the BJ, and the AJ, respectively. In both cases Josephus gives the distinct impression that he firmly believed himself to be recounting events as honestly as he could. He even admits to the matter of subjectivity head-on. It should be noted that none of the more “negative” accounts were actually witnessed first-hand by Josephus – indeed they occurred sometime between ±135 and 170 years before he wrote the BJ. Therefore he must have been reliant on other written sources for his information. Here, we should surely be mindful of the original itinerary of his chosen source material. Certainly, based on Josephus’s promise for objectivity in his prologue, one would expect him to being more concerned with recording the supplied information as faithfully as possible. Thus if he trusted a source enough to cite it he would hardly redact it – especially if the tenor of that information worked against his supposed hidden agendas. For example, if Smith (1956)⁵⁹ is correct and Josephus had secretly wanted to hold up the Pharisaic party in general as a suitable example of leadership which would benefit the Romans he must have seen the damage that he was creating when he speaks badly about a particular Pharisee or group of Pharisees from an earlier period in Jewish history? Therefore we only have two possibilities to consider: 1. Josephus faithfully recorded what he had researched as faithfully as possible; and/or 2. Josephus was on occasion negligent when it came to organising his ideas. As an aside, depending on the contents of his source material, Josephus can do one of three things: 1. Elect to select from his source(s) only those pieces of information that he agrees with; and/or 2. Embellish his source to make it accord with his own world view; and/or

 Smith goes further in his assumptions: Perhaps Josephus was a loyal Sadducee before the rebellion but then, after  C.E., he conferred his allegiance to the Pharisees either because they were now the de facto most popular leadership (Smith , ) and/or because he found himself thinking along similar lines and/or he had come to realise that they were the best party to take the Jewish nation forward given the new political realities. As a result, Smith (, ) suggests that sometime after he had written his BJ, Josephus may well have aligned his own position with that of the Pharisaic movement.

Josephus and the Pharisees

3.

299

Sacrifice his agenda when the source contradicts his agenda but still include the information because he wants to be honest.

10 Conclusions Methodologies like worldviews shape and dictate the outcomes of research. Josephus can neither be expected to serve as an unbiased observer nor should he be expected to apply the rigours of contemporary historical enquiry. He was a product of his own age and employed the techniques of his own time to the best of his ability. In this context his texts (albeit with interpolations and redactions neutralised) should be seen as a genuine product which contains the rhetorical devices appropriate to the spirit of the age in which he lived. He was a traditional, practicing Jew, living at the height of aggressive Hellenisation. When he criticises a fellow Jew we do not then ask whether he was antagonistic to all Jews. We do not assume that he is condemning Judaism. Yet when he condemns a Pharisee it is sometimes taken as a carte blanche reason to assume his hostility towards the entire movement. He was witnessing the rapid destruction of everything that he held dear. He was attempting to make sense of the devastation and see God’s purpose in a situation that countered every expectation. Despite his arrogance and delusions of self-importance, he genuinely wanted to see the survival of his religion and his nation. He also wanted the non-Jew to better understand his people’s plight and to acknowledge what he earnestly believed was God’s divine handiwork in important historical events. He also did not want the Jewish nation to lose heart and was intent on pointing out to all Jews the perils of behaving in certain ways. Thus his raison d’être for writing was multifaceted. He wanted to tell the truth as best he could but in addition he wanted to educate his reader, whether Jew or Gentile. If someone at some point in history did something that illustrated the consequences of incorrect behaviour (whether or not they were Sadducee, Roman or Pharisee) he capitalised upon it. Lastly, based on his own utterances and many cited examples which reflect a fairly consistent personal philosophy it is safe to assume that his worldview had more in common with the ideals of the Pharisaic movement than any of the other Jewish sects extant in his day.

300

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

Source List Ahl, Frederick M. 1984. “The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome.” American Journal of Philology. Vol. 105, No. 2 (Summer, 1984), 174 – 208. Allen, N.P.L. 2015. Clarifying the Scope of Christian Interpolation. Unpublished Philosophiae Doctor Thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom. Alon, G. 1977. Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud, trans. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes. Babylonian Talmud. 2015. [Online]. Available at: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ Talmud/talmudtoc.html Brock, S. P. 1994. “Greek and Syriac in Late Antique Syria.” In Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, edited by A. K. Bowman and G. Woolf, 149 – 160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, Louis and Lawrence Manion. 1994. Research Methods in Education. 4th ed. London: Routledge. Cohen, S.J.D. 1984. “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism.” HUCA 55 (1984), 39 – 40. Cornfield, G., B. Mazar and P.L. Maier, eds. 1982. Josephus: the Jewish War, Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Creswell, J.W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. De Lacey, D.R. 1992. “In Search of a Pharisee.” Tyndale Bulletin, 43.2, 353 – 372. Elbogen, Ismar. 1904. “Die Religionsanachauungen der Pharisäer: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Begriffe Gott und Mensch.” In Lehranstalt für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 22, Berlin: H. Itzkowski. Epstein, I. ed. 1963. Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Translated Into English, with Notes, Glossary and And Indices, London: Soncino Press. [Online] Available: http://www.comeand-hear.com/tcontents.html [1st February 2016]. Goodwin, William W. ed. 1878. Plutarch’s Morals. Five Volumes. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. Hölscher, G. 1916. Paulys Realencylopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 18, 1934 – 2000. Karris, R.J. 1973. “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92: 549 – 564. Kennedy, George Alexander. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kinneavy, James L. 1987. Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith: An Inquiry, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. 1996. Greek-English Lexicon: With a Revised Supplement, edited by Henry Stuart Jones and Robert McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mackenzie, Noella and Sally Knipe. 2006. “Research Dilemmas: Paradigms, Methods and Methodology.” Issues in Educational Research, Vol. 16 (2), 193 – 205. [Online]. Available: http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html (13 October 2015).

Josephus and the Pharisees

301

Marcovich, Miroslav and David Sansone, eds. 1989. Silver and Late Latin Poetry – Illinois Classical Studies, Vol. XIV. 1 and 2, New York: The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois. Mason, Steve. 1988. “Josephus on the Pharisees reconsidered: A Critique of Smith/Neusner.” In Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 17, 455 – 469. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Mason, Steve. 1991. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study – Studia Post-Biblica, Vol. 39. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Mason, Steve. 2003. Josephus and the New Testament. 2nd Ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Mason, Steve. 2009. Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson. Mason, Steve. 1990. “Pharisaic Dominance Before 70 C.E. and the Gospels’ Hypocrisy Charge (Matt 23:2 – 3).” Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 83, Issue 04 (October 1990), 363 – 381. Meier, John Paul. 1991. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1, The Roots of The Problem and the Person. City: AYB Reference Library. Mertens, Donna M. 2005. Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Meyer, B.F. 1979. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM Press. Moehring, Horst, Rudolph. 1957. Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus, Unpublished Doctor Philosophiae Dissertation, University of Chicago, Department of New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Momigliano, A. 1977. Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Neusner, Jacob. 1971. The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70, Vol. III. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Neusner, Jacob. 1972. Josephusʼ Pharisees. In Ex Orbe Religionum. Studia Geo Widengren, Ed. J. Bergman et al. Leiden: 1, 224 – 244. Neusner, Jacob. 1973. From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharasaic Judaism. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rajak, Tessa. 2003. Josephus: The Historian and His Society, London: Duckworth. Redondo, Jordi. 2000. “The Greek Literary Language of the Hebrew Historian Josephus.” In Hermes 128/4, 420 – 434. Richards, G.C. 1939. “The Composition of Josephus’ Antiquities.” Classical Quarterly 33, 36 – 40. Saldarini, A.J. 1988. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society, Wilmington: Michael Glazier. Schürer, E., Géza Vermes and F.G.B. Millar. 1973. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: 175 B.C. – A.D. 135, Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. Schutt, R.J.H. 1961. Studies in Josephus, London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. Schwartz, Daniel R. 1982. “Kata Toyton Ton Kaipon: Josephusʼ Source on Agrippa II.” Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 72, No. 4 (April), 241 – 268. Schwartz, Daniel R. 1983. “Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees.” Journal for the Study of Judaism, 14, 157 – 171. Silver, Carly. 2010. “’The Peace of Zion’, Iron Ladies of the Ancient World.” In the Archaeological Institute of America. [Online]. Available: http://archive.archaeology.org/on line/features/iron_ladies/salome_alexandra.html [13 October 2015].

302

Nicholas Peter Legh Allen

Smith, Morton. 1956. “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century”. In Israel: Its Role in Civilization, edited by M. Davis, 67 – 81. New York, NY: Jewish Theological Seminary. Telushkin, Joseph. 1991. Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People and Its History. New York: William Morrow and Co. Thackeray, Henry. St John. 1929. Josephus: the Man and the Historian. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press. Van Der Horst, Pieter W. 1996. The Distinctive Vocabulary of Josephus’ Contra Apionem in Josephus’ Contra Apionem Studies in its Character and Context With a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, edited by L.H. Feldman and J.R. Levison, 83 – 93. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Whiston, William tr. 1895. The Works of Flavius Josephus, Auburn and Buffalo: John E. Beardsley. In Perseus Digital Library. [Online]. Available: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ hopper/searchresults?q=josephus [13 October 2015]. Williams, David S. 1993. “Morton Smith on the Pharisees in Josephus.” Jewish Quarterly Review, LXXXIV, No. 1

Contributors Nicholas P.L. Allen was formerly the Dean of the Faculty of Art and Design, Port Elizabeth Technikon, South Africa and professor of Art History (ad hominem). He is currently the Director: International Liaison at the North-West University, South Africa. His research interests include Art History, Philosophy, Sindonology, Judaica and History of Religion specialising in, inter alia, the works of Flavius Josephus. Ibolya Balla is an associate professor at the Biblical Institute, Papa Reformed Theological Academy, Hungary. An internationally eminent scholar, her research fields include Biblical Studies (prophetic literature and wisdom literature) as well as Deuterocanonical Literature (wisdom literature). Eugene Coetzer is a post-doctoral fellow in the School of Ancient Languages and Text Studies, Faculty of Theology, North-West University, and Potchefstroom, South Africa. His research interests include Apocryphal Literature and the New Testament. Johann Cook was formerly associate professor in the Department of Ancient Studies, Stellenbosch University, South Africa. He is a distinguished international scholar in the fields of, inter alia, Hebrew language studies; a specialist in Septuagint – text and hermeneutics; Bible translation (Septuagint and Peshitta). He was the first president of the Association for the Study of the Septuagint in SA and holds the Chair for the South African Society for Near Eastern Studies and is involved with various projects of the IOSCS (International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies). Since 2013 he has been president of IOSOT (International Organisation for the Study of the Old Testament). Joseph Jacobus de Bruyn was previously a post-doctoral fellow in the School of Ancient Languages and Text Studies, Faculty of Theology, North-West University, and Potchefstroom, South Africa. He is presently the minister for the Dutch Reformed Church in Bergville, Natal, South Africa. His research areas include the Septuagint, New Testament and Apocryphal Literature specialising in Daniel. Annette Evans is a research fellow at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein South Africa. Her research interests include the Septuagint and Intertestamental Literature.

304

Contributors

Risimati S. Hobyane is a senior lecturer and extraordinary professor (New Testament) in the Faculty of Theology, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. His research fields include the Septuagint, Apocryphal Literature and New Testament Semiotic Analysis. Pierre J. Jordaan is professor of Greek in the School of Ancient Languages and Text Studies, Faculty of Theology North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. He is an eminent scholar in the fields of New Testament and Apocryphal Literature specialising in 2 Maccabees. He is also, inter alia, the translator of LXX–2 Maccabees into Afrikaans (2 Makkabeërs) as well as a Bible translator for the “Nuwe Afrikaanse Bybel”. Helen Efthimiadis-Keith is a senior lecturer in the School of Religion Philosophy and Classics, University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. She is a prominent scholar in the fields of Jungian psychological hermeneutics as well as feminist interpretations of the Hebrew Bible and Apocryphal Literature specialising in Judith and Tobit. Gideon R. Kotzé is a senior lecturer in the Department of Ancient Studies at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. He specialises in, inter alia, textual criticism; the Dead Sea Scrolls; ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible and early Jewish writings. Steven M. Modugno is a lecturer in the Department of Hebrew, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. His research specialisation includes the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, Translation Studies and Textual Criticism. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé is a senior professor and Head of the Department of Hebrew, Faculty of the Humanities, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. She is a distinguished scholar specialising in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation. Jacobus A. Naudé is a senior professor in the Department of Hebrew, Faculty of the Humanities, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. He is an eminent scholar in the fields of Translation Studies, Biblical Hebrew Linguistics and Bible Translation Friedrich V. Reiterer was formerly Professor of Old Testament at the Theological Faculty, University of Salzburg, Austria. He is internationally recognized as a leading educationalist in the fields of Hebrew and Syriac as well as fundamental

Contributors

305

exegesis. He is the founder of the International Society for the Study of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, was the first president of the Society, and is now honorary president of the Society. He is also an editor for numerous academic books and journals including the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies and Biblische Notizen. Gerhardus J. Swart is the associate professor of Greek Language and Literature in the Department of Ancient Languages and Cultures, University of Pretoria, South Africa. His research areas include Jewish-Hellenistic Literature. Géza G. Xeravits is professor of Old Testament at the Selye János University, Komarno (Slovakia). His research interest covers various aspects of the history and literature of Early Judaism, especially the Old Testament Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls. An eminent international scholar in his fields, he is also the editor of numerous monographs, and member of the International Advisory Panel of the International Society of Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature.

Index Old Testament Genesis 1:1 1:1–2:4a 2:2–3 3 14:19 & 22 24 31:29 35:11

13, 31 31 31 228 13 141 187 n.33 32 n.10

Exodus 3:7–14 18:13–26 20:3 24:10

197 226 197 139

Deuteronomy 4:29–31 9:7b 12:11–18 28:32 28:58–65 30:1–10

216 213 136 187 n.33 44 216

Joshua 10:24

183

Judges 3:10 f 11:6 11:11

44 183 183

2 Samuel 5:5 7:11

43 44

2 Kings 17:1–6 18:9–13 20:13

133 133 43

25

133 n.2

1 Chronicles 23:25

44

2 Chronicles 15:8–15

44

Ezra 1:26 10:1 Nehemiah 5:5 7:3 13:19

187 n.33 172 172

Psalms 2:8 72:8 72:8–10 72:17 78:2 f 132:5 132:8 132:8a 132:13

43 42 43 45, 45 n.24 45 44 46 44 43

Proverbs 3:27 8:22–26 8:22–31 15:25 25:15

187 n.33 45 45 78, 79, 81 183

Isaiah 1:10 1:21–31 3:6 3:7 20:2–4

139 139

184 n.26

308

22:3 40:22 58:6–7 58:7

Index

43 77 75, 76, 77

6:17–23 9:1 ff. 11:28–31a.

238 200 252

Hosea 2:19 f 2:5 4:1

44 186 173

Joel 2:11 3:4

180 n.22 180 n.22

Amos 2:14 2:16 3:1 4:1 4:4 5:1 7:16

180 n.22 186 173 173 180 n.22 173 173

Habakkuk 1:3 3:7

184 n.28 184 n.28

Jeremiah 1:15 2:33 3:4 3:5 3:17 6:16 17:19 17:21 17:27 22:19 31:21 46:11

172 180180 n.17 178 n.17 178 n.17 198 45 172 172 172 172 178 n.17 178 n.17

Lamentations 1:7 3:19 3:20 4:12

75, 76 75, 76 76 n.16 172

Ezekiel 2:10 10:4 10:18

171 n.9 145 n.40 145 n.40

Zechariah 7:12 8:9 10:2

173 173 184 n.28

Daniel 1 3:25

221 13 n.12

Malachi 3:23

180 n.22

131:8 131:8a 131:13 131:17

46 44 43 43

Proverbs 1:7 2

13 23

Septuagint and Apocrypha Nehemiah 3:23b

136

Esther 3:13[c]

38 n.16

Psalms 131:5

44

Index

8 8:22 9 9:1–18 9:7–12 9:10a 9:12 9:12a–c 9:12–18 9:13–18 13 19:24 28:4 31:10–31

23, 24 12, 13, 14 12, 15, 21 15 15, 16 20 19, 20 18 20 16, 17, 18 21 20 21 23

Daniel 1 1–6 3:25 7–12 9:4–19 13–14 13:1–6 13:2–4 13:5–6 13:7–9 13:14–19 13:25–30 13:28 13:28–41 13:35 13:36–41 13:41–45

223 226, 229 136 n.12 229 213 229 225, 226 225 225 225 228 225 n.4 224 228 225 227 225

Micah 1:5 1:6–7 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:10–15 1:10 1:11 1:12

1:14 1:15 1:16 2:1–4 2:1 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:5 2:7 2:8

2:9

169, 172, 174, 174 n.12, 175 n.13, 185, 185 n.30 172 169 n.5, 185 169, 169 n.5, 175, 175 n.13, 176 172, 185, 188 172 173 169 n.5, 175 n.13, 175 n.15 169 n.5, 169 n.6 169 n.5, 172, 184, 188

2:10 2:12 2:13 3:1 3:2 3:5 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:10 3:11 4:1 4:3 4:4 4:5 4:6 4:6–7 4:7 4:8 4:9

4:10 4:11 4:13 5:2

309

169 n.5 169 n.5 174 n.12 181, 184 172, 179, 180, 180 n.20, 180 n.21, 181, 182, 184, 186, 188 180 n.20, 180 n.21, 181, 188 172, 182, 184 169, 171, 175 n.13, 180 n.20, 180 n.21, 182, 188 171 175 n.13, 180 n.20, 184, 188 169 n.5, 169 n.6, 170, 175 n.15, 180 n.20, 180 n.21, 188 169, 169 n.5, 170, 171, 175 n.13, 180 n.20 180 n.20, 180 n.21, 188 169 n.5, 184 169, 169 n.5, 174, 174 n.12 175 n.13, 180 n.20, 183, 188 169 n.5 169 n.5, 180 n.20, 180 n.21, 182, 188 169 n.5, 174 n.12, 177 n.15 184 174 n.12, 180 n.20, 183, 188 175 n.13 174 n.12, 180 n.20, 180 n.21, 182, 188 175 n.13, 175 n.15 175, 175 n.13 169 n.5, 175 n.13 175 n.13 169, 169 n.5, 176–177, 188 176–177 175 n.13, 176–177 169, 171–172, 175 n.15, 180 n.20 169 n.5, 172, 175 n.13, 177– 178, 180 n.20, 180 n.21, 184, 188 169, 169 n.5, 170, 172, 175 n.13, 177 n.15, 179–180, 188 169, 177 n.15, 180 n.20 169, 178–179 175 n.13, 175 n.15

310

5:3 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:10 5:11 5:12 5:13 5:14 6:1 6:3 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:10 6:13 6:14 6:15 6:16 7:1 7:2–7:4 7:2 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:7 7:8 7:11 7:12 7:15 7:16 7:18 7:19 Ben Sira 0:3 1:14 1–23 1–41 1:1–10 1:1 1:1a 1:1b

Index

169 n.5, 175 n.13 177 n.15 175 n.13 169 n.5, 179 174 n.12 169, 174, 174 n.12 185 n.29 175 n.13 169 n.5 169, 169 n.5, 172–173 177 n.15 169 n.5 175 n.13 177 n.15, 180 n.20, 185 n.30 175 n.13 175 n.13, 177 n.15, 180 n.20, 187, 188 177 n.15, 187 n.34 169 n.5 177 n.15, 188 174 n.12 188 169 169 169 n.5, 169 169 n.5 180 n.20, 188 169 n.5, 173, 174 n.12, 175 175 n.13 177 n.15, 180 n.20 169 n.5, 177 n.15, 180 n.20 169 n.5, 175 n.13, 177 n.15 169 174 n.12 185 n.29 175 n.13, 185

28, 37 13, 14 27 27 n.3 27 n.2, 27–29, 31, 46, 48 n.26 29, 36, 40, 40 n.17, 47 30–31 30–31

1:10 1:10a 1:10b 1:10c 1:10d 1:2 1:2a 1:2b 1:3 1:3a 1:3b 1:4 1:4a 1:4b 1:5 1:6 1:6a 1:6b 1:7 1:8 1:8a 1:8b 1:9 1:9a 1:9b 1:9c 1:9–10 1:11 1:11–30 4:10 4:11–19 4:28 5:9 5:9–13 6:18–37 6:28 7:9 7:15 7:31 9:15 10:12, 13 11:3 11:19 12:2 12:6 14:20–15:10 15:11

30 31 30 n.9, 31 30 n.9 30 n.9 29–30, 40 40 40 29–30, 40 40 31 29 n.7, 29–30, 41, 45 31 31 30, 30 n.8 29–30, 45 31 31 30, 30 n.8 29–30, 45 30, 41 30–31, 42 20–30, 32, 40, 40 n.17, 41 31 31 31 29 29 40 n.17 32 n.11 27 n.2 32 n.12 15 19, 20 27 n.2 44 n.22 32, 32 n.11, 32 n.12 32 n.11 114 32 n.11 13 13 44 n.22 32 n.11 32 n.11 27 n.2 115

Index

15:14 17:26 f 18:16 19:17 20:21 22:13 23 23:4 23:16–27 23:18 23:23 23:27 23:27c 23:27d 24 24:1 24:1–2 24:1–22 24:1–33 24:2 24:2–3 24:3 24:3–6 24:3–11 24:3–12 24:3–17 24:4 24:4b 24:5 24:6 24:6b 24:7 24:8 24:8c 24:8d 24:9 24:10 24:10b 24:11 24:11a 24:11b 24:12 24:12b 24:13 24:14 24:14a–17b

115 32 n.11 44 n.22 32 n.11 44 n.22 44 n.22 31 32 n.12 32 32 n.11 32 n.11 32 31 31 12, 23, 24, 27 24, 32, 36 33 27 n. 2, 28–29, 31–33, 42, 46 23 32 32 n.11 32–33 33 48 n.26 33 33 32–33 42 32, 42 32 43 32–32, 44 n.22 33–34, 41, 43 34 34 14, 24, 33, 41, 45 33 43 33–34 44 43 33, 40, 40 n.17 34 33 33 34

24:15 33 24:16 33 24:17 33 24:19 33–34 24:20 33 24:21 33 24:22 33–34 24:22a 28 24:23 32, 32 n.11, 32 n.12 24:23–34 32 24:25 32 n.13 24–50 27 26:16 32 n.11 28:7 32 n.11 28:16 44 n.22 29:11 32 n.11 30:17 44 n.22 31:3 f 44 n.22 32(35),14–33(36)6 27 n.2 32 (35):1–21 75 n.13 32:4 74 n.9 32 (35):17–19 72, 73–75 32 (35):19 69, 71 n.4, 82 33:7–15 22 33:14 22 33:15 32 n.11 33:26 44 n.22 34:6 32 n.11 34:19 32 n.11 35:17 74 n.9 35:18 69, 71, 75, 81, 82 35:17–18 72, 77 35:5 32 n.11 35:9 32 n.11 35:18 32 n.11 36:1 32 n.12 36:4 32 n.12 36:17 32 n.12 36:24 44 n.22 37:15 32 n.11 37:19–26 18 37: 22–23 19 38:2 32 n.11 38:14 44 n.22 38:23 44 n.22 38:24–39:11 27 n. 2 39:1 32 n.11

311

312

39:5 40:5 f 41:4 41:8 41:20 42:2 42:18 43:2 43:9 43:12 44:20 45:1 46:5 47:5 47:8 47:13 47:18 48:5 49:4 50:7 50:14–16 50:17 50:19 50:21 50:22 51:1 51:1–12 51:13 51:13–20 51:13–22 51:13–30 51:13b 51:14 51:15 51:15a 51:15c 51:16 51:16a 51:17 51:17a 51:18 51:19 51:19a 51:19c 51:20 51:20a 51:20c

Index

32 n.11 44 n.22 32 n.11 32, 32 n.11, 32 n.12 32 n.12 32 n.11 32 n.11 32 n.11 32 n.11 32 n.11 32 n.11 32 n.12 32 n.11 32 n.11 32 n.11 32 n.12, 44 32 n.12 32 n.11 32 n.11 32 n.11 32 n.11 32, 32 n.12 32 n.11 32 n.11 32 n.12 32 n.12 34 35 28 34 27 n. 2, 27–29, 34, 46 36 35 35 36 36 34–36 36 35–36 36 34–35 35 36 36 35 36 36

51:21 51:21a 51:22 51:22a 51:23 51:23–24 51:24 51:24b 51:25 51:25a 51:25–26 51:26 51:26a 51:26b 51:27 51:27a 51:27b 51:27–28 51:28 51:28b 51:29 51:29a 51:29–30 51:30

35–36 36 35–36, 40, 40 n.17 36 35–36 34 35 36 35 36 34 34–36 36 36 35, 44 n.22 36 44 34 35–36 36 35 36 34 28, 35

Wisdom 8:7 9:4

38 n.16 42

1 Maccabees 1:11 1:20–23 12:5–23

39 252 252

2 Maccabees 1:1–2:18 2:19–32 3:1–39 4:15–17 4:16–17 4:23–50 4:25 4:26 4:37 4:39–41 5 5:1

247 247 247, 250 247 250 247 255 253 38 n.16 254 253, 258 252

Index

5:1–4 5:1–20 5:2 5:2–3 5:2–4 5:4 5:5–7 5:5–8a 5:6 5:7 5:7–9 5:8–9 5:8b–10 5:9 5:10 5:11 5:11–16 5:15 5:16 5:17 5:17–20 5:20 5:21 f. 6:12–17 6:14 9:13 13:26 15:18 15:22

252 247, 251, 257 253 252, 253 258 253 258 253 253, 255 253 258 255 253 255 253 252, 255 255, 258 255 247 255, 256 250, 251, 256 256 258 250 256 256 252 253 256

Tobit 1:1–2, 10 151 1:1–3:17 1:1a–1:20 1:1b–1:14 1:4 1:4–6 1:6–12 1:10 1:11–14 1:15 1:15, 18 1:17–18 1:19–20 2:1–4 2:8 2:10

152, 159 154 154 133, 156 156 156 157 156 n.18 155 133 157 157 157 153 154

2:11–14 2:16–17 3 3:1–6 3:5 3:16 4:1–2 4:1–21 4:20–5:3 5:1–6:1 5:4 5:4–17 5:10–14 5:13 5:22 6:2 6:2–7:9a 6:3 6:4–6 6:6–9 6:6b–10 6:11–13 6:16–17:1 6:16–18 7:1 7:4–9 7:9–11 7:9b–10:13 8:2–3 8:3 8:15–19 8:19–21 9:1–4 9:5 9:5–6 10:4–6 10:7–9 10:7–13 10:10 11:1–18 11:5–6 11:9–15 11:10–13 11:10–17 11:11–15 11:16–17 11:17

157 155 142 141, 156 136 137, 145 154, 155 152, 159 154, 155 152, 159 137 155 157 136 137 154, 155 152, 159 155 155, 156 155 155 155 156 155 155 156 156 152, 159 155 153 155 155 156 153 155 158 156 155 153 152, 160 152 155 155 158 158 158 155

313

314

Index

12:1 158 12:1–54:1 155 12:1–22 152, 160 12:5–22 156 12:6–3:18 158 12:9b 144 n.36 12:10 144 12:12–15 145 12:12 137, 139 12:14 137 12:15 137, 139 12:20 137 12:19, 20 143 13:1–8 141 13:13, 14 142 13:16, 17 138, 139 13:1–14:1a 152, 160 14:1b–15 152, 160 14:2 158 14:3–11134, 134 n.4, 140 14:5b 138 14:7b 141 14:8–9 158 Judith 1:1–4:3 1–16 2:1 2:5 2:13 3:7 3:8 4:2 4:33 4:6 4:8 5:8–9 6:2 6:4 16:18–20

197 193 202 40 40 194 40, 198 198 203, 204 198, 202 202 198, 204 198 40 198

8:1–14 8:4 8:5 8:6 8:8 9:1–14 9:1 9:10 9:12 9:13 9:14 10:5 11:17 12:7 12:17 12:19 13:16 13:17 14:10 15:13 15:6 16:1–17 6:17–23 6:17 16:18 16:18–20

197 198 198 201 202 198 198 200 198 198, 200 198 198 200, 202, 203 200 200 201 201 197 198, 201 194 197 197, 198, 201 238 238 201, 238 198

Baruch 1:1–14 1:15–3:8 1:15–2:35 1:19 3 3:1–8 3:9–14 3:9–4:4 4:5–5:9 4:5–29 4:30–5:6 4:30–5:9

208 208 210, 211 213 31 208, 210, 213 210 208, 210, 211 208, 211 208, 210 210 208

Index

LXX Versions King James Ben Sira 1:1 2:1, 7. 12, 15 2:12 4:1 5:1, (6) 6:2 6:35 7:31 9:13, 14, 15 10:1, 4 10:19, 29 15:2 15:11, 14 15:14 16:1 16:17 17:1 18:1 19:2 19:22 22:11 23:1 23:16 24:2 25:1 28:1 29:2 29:2, 4 29:22 32:13 33:24 36:1 39:1 39:12 41:1 43:1 43:1, 29 45:1, 6, 23 47:1, 2, 12, 23

Geneva

110 94 103 99 102 102 102 115, 116 101 114 100 112 116 109 n. 28, 116 109 n. 28 111 101 109 n. 28 111 112 94 107 101 113 95, 100, 112 101, 109 111 102 117 117 108 115 108 99 99, 101 n. 27 102, 108 95 100 114

Ben Sira 1:1 2:13 3:1 4:12 5:7 7:31 8:1 9:18 10:1 10:7 11:1 12:1 15:1 15:11 15:14 16:1 16:24 16:17 18:1 19:2 19:6 19:22 19:27 20:6 21:1 23:1 24:1 24:1, 6, 30 25:1 28:1 29:1 29:24 32:14 33:25 36:1 37:1 39:1 41:1 42:1 43:1 47:1

97, 110 96 98 95 94 115 98 98 113 98 96 97 94, 112 98, 109 n. 28 116 97, 109 n. 28 96 111 109 n. 28 111 99 112 96 97 97 107 113 106 94, 112 109 111 117 117 108 115 96 108 101 n. 27 106 106, 107 114

315

316

Index

Pseudepigrapha 4 Maccabees 1:3 1:6 1:18 1:30 f

38 38 38 38

n.16 n.16 n.16 n.16

1 Enoch 9:1–4 10:4–8 20:1–8

139 143 139

2 Esdras 13:23b

136

4Q248 4QIsad 4QLam 4QProvb

252 77 n.17 75 n.14 79

Revelation 8:3–4 21:10–21 21:18–21

140 139 138

b. Sot. 47 b. Sot. 47a

282 n.35 283

Qumran Literature 1QIsaa 1QIsab 4Q196–199 4Q 197 4Q 200

76 n.17 76 n.17 135 136 n12 135 n.9

New Testament Gospel of John 9:2 138

Babylonian Talmud b. Sanh. 19a 282 n.35 b. Sot. 22b 282 n.36

Jewish Authors Josephus BJ, I, pr./1–12 BJ, 1, pr./3

268 280

BJ, I, pr./1–4 273 BJ, I, pr./9–12 273 BJ I, 1, 1/31–1, 2/35 252

Index

BJ, I, 5, 2/110 283 BJ, I, 5, 2/111 284 BJ, I, 5/111b 287 BJ, I, 5, 2/112b 284 BJ, I, 5, 3/113 284 BJ, I, 5, 3/113 282 BJ, I, 24, 6/486–487 285 BJ, I, 27, 1/534–535. 285 BJ, I, 29, 1/569–2/571) 285 BJ, I, 29, 2/571b 286 BJ, I, 31, 1/601–II, 7, 4/116 285 BJ, II, 8, 2/119 290 BJ, II, 8, 11/157 291 BJ, II, 8, 14/162 288 BJ, II, 8, 14/166 288, 290 BJ, II, 9, 2/169–9, 4/177 277 BJ, IV, 7.3/411–414 288 BJ, II, 17, 3/411–416 288, 291 BJ, IV, 7, 3/411–414 289 BJ, VII, 2, 2/32–36 293 BJ, VII, 11, 4/451b–453 293 AJ, XII 5, 1/239–5, 4/254 252 AJ, I, pr./1–9) 274 AJ, I, pr./1–26 268 AJ, I, pr./7 280 AJ, III, 12, 2/276 – 277a 295 AJ, XI, 1, 1/1–3 268 AJ, XI, 3, 6/55–3, 9/68 268 AJ, XIII, 13, 5/372–14, 3/383 282 n.34 AJ, XIII, 14, 2/379–14, 3/383 282 AJ, XVI, 7, 1/187 266 AJ, XVII, 2, 4/42 f 287 AJ, XVIII, 1, 3/12–15. 291 AJ, XVIII, 1, 6/23–25. 290 AJ, XVIII, 3, 1/55–3, 2/62 277 AJ, XVIII, 3,3/63 270 AJ, XIII, 14, 2/372–383 282 AJ, XVIII, 5, 2/116–119 270 AJ, XIII, 15, 5/400–404 283 AJ, XX, 1, 2/10 ̶14 266 AJ, XX, 6, 3/134–136 266 AJ, XX, 7, 3/145–147 266 AJ, XX, 8, 8/179–181 266 AJ, XX, 9, 1/200–203 270

AJ, XX 12, 1/263 280 n.30 AJ, XX, 12, 1/263–265 280 C.Ap. I, 9/50. 278, 280 C.Ap. I, 10/54b–55 280 C.Ap. 1.7/34–35⁵⁸ 296 C.Ap. II, 4/37 268 C.Ap. II, 4/45) 268 C.Ap. II, 37/256–257 268 C.Ap. II, 8/108 271 n.16 Vit. I, 1, 2/10 290 Vit. 1,2 271 n.16 Vit.2/12 289, 261 Vit. 4/17–5/22, 265 n.7 Vit. 9/40, 265 n.7 Vit. 11/48) 294 Vit. 12/65 295 n.54 Vit. 14/77 297 Vit. 15/81, 294 Vit. 16/85–17/87, 265 n.7 Vit. 18/94–97, 294 n.53 Vit. 26/126–29/144, 265 n.7 Vit. 26/128 295 n.54 Vit. 28/136–140, 294 n.53 Vit. 29/141–144, 294 n.53 Vit. 32/163, 265 n.7 Vit. 34/169–173 297 Vit. 35/175–178, 265 n.7 Vit. 39/195 f 287 Vit. 41/204–207 294 n.53 Vit. 44/217–218 265 n.7 Vit. 45/231, 4 75 n.12 Vit. 55/286, 2 75 n.12 Vit. 58/301 294 Vit. 58/304 294 n.53 Vit. 65/359–367). 266 Vit. 68/384, 3 75 n.12 Vit. 70/393 295 Vit. 75/414. 295 Vit. 75/416, 5 75 n.12 Vit. 76/426 295 Philo Flacc. 138, 3

75 n.12

317

318

Index

Classical Authors Aristotle Rhet. 1 382b

265

Diodorus Siculus (Historicus) D.S. 29, 32; 31,16 256 Livy (History of Rome) Liv. 4: 19–20 256 Plato Pl. Symp 196 c.d 38 Pl. Symp 203e 38

Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl. Pl.

Symp 204a 38 Symp 204b 38 Sym 208b–209d 34 n.14 Symp 208d 38 Symp 208d–e 38 Symp 209a 38

Plutarch Mor. 66E–74E

265

Polybius (Historicus) Plb. 26.10; 31.3–4; 256

Egyptian Literature The Instructions of Amenemope VII, 12–15 80, 81 VIII, 6–8 81 VIII, 9 81 VIII, 15 81

VIII, 17–18 VIII, 19–IX, 8 XXVI, 9–10 XXVI, 13–14

81 81 80–81 81