Intertextual Explorations in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature [1 ed.] 3110415925, 9783110415926

Table of contents :
Contents
Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature
1. Looking to the Past
Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David
Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira
Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited: The Rereading and Reapplication of Isaiah 59 in Wisdom 5
The Prayer of Manasseh: A Pithy Penitential Text Recasting Scripture Through a Vast Intertextual Repertoire
The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna
2. Looking at the Present
Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony
Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading
Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra
3. Looking to the Future
The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10
The Medieval Hebrew (H5) of Tobit: Use of Scripture and Influence of Rabbinic and Medieval Jewish Traditions
Interpreting Tobit Two Ways: Inner-biblical Exegesis and Intertextuality
Conclusion
Methodological Reflections for Future Intertextual Studies
List of Contributors
Index of References
Index of Subjects
Index of Modern Authors

Citation preview

Intertextual Explorations in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

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

Volume 31

Intertextual Explorations in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Edited by Jeremy Corley and Geoffrey David Miller

ISBN 978-3-11-041592-6 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-041693-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-041695-4 ISSN 1865-1666 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2019932240 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Contents Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

1

1 Looking to the Past Jeremy Corley Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David Pancratius C. Beentjes Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira

33

57

Andrew T. Glicksman Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited: The Rereading and Reapplication of 79 Isaiah 59 in Wisdom 5 Michael D. Matlock The Prayer of Manasseh: A Pithy Penitential Text Recasting Scripture Through a Vast Intertextual Repertoire 99 Geoffrey David Miller The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and 127 Inanna

2 Looking at the Present Richard J. Bautch Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony 157 Michael W. Duggan Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading Karina Martin Hogan Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

175

203

VI

Contents

3 Looking to the Future Francis M. Macatangay The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10

227

Vincent Skemp The Medieval Hebrew (H5) of Tobit: Use of Scripture and Influence of Rabbinic and Medieval Jewish Traditions 247 Micah D. Kiel Interpreting Tobit Two Ways: Inner-biblical Exegesis and 293 Intertextuality

Conclusion Geoffrey David Miller Methodological Reflections for Future Intertextual Studies List of Contributors

345

Index of References

347

Index of Subjects

369

Index of Modern Authors

373

319

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Within the field of biblical studies, the last three decades have witnessed a surge of monographs and articles applying intertextual readings to diverse texts from the Old and New Testaments.¹ This volume investigates the less-studied phenomenon of intertextuality in the major deuterocanonical books, as well as in related texts such as Second Baruch, Fourth Ezra and the Prayer of Manasseh. The present introduction has several aims. First, it will propose a methodological distinction between author-oriented and reader-oriented intertextuality. Second, it will consider briefly some methodological criteria for author-oriented intertextuality, with discussion of levels of prominence and types of connection within such intertextual analysis. Third, it will summarize some recent intertextual scholarship on the deuterocanonical books. Finally, it will provide an overview of the essays in the present volume. This volume represents the culmination of work arising out of several meetings of the Deuterocanonical Books Continuing Seminar at the Annual Meeting of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. For a few years, more than a dozen scholars employed a variety of approaches to examine some intertextual links between these texts and other literature, both biblical and non-biblical. Many of the essays included here examine intertextuality in a diachronic manner, arguing that a later writing borrowed from one or more precursor texts to adapt traditional material for a new audience. A few other essays look at the reception of deuterocanonical and cognate texts in later contexts such as the New Testament or rabbinic Judaism. Still other essays study intertextuality irrespective of chronology by reading two or more texts in tandem, in order to explore a particular theme or understand the function of a certain genre. Intertextual study of the deuterocanonical books and related literature can be done in diverse ways yielding a variety of results. This diversity of approaches has led to a wealth of knowledge and insight into these texts, but it has done little to clarify the methodological vagueness in the field. Among scholars today, the word “intertextuality” has become a rather plastic term, signifying different things to different people. For some, it connotes the identification of sources that influenced a later text; for others it implies the study of two or more texts  For surveys see Tull, “Intertextuality”; Miller, “Intertextuality”; Emadi, “Intertextuality”; McKay, “Update”; Yoon, “Inception.” https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416930-001

2

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

simultaneously irrespective of chronology and authorial intent; and for still others the word is laden with strong semiotic overtones borrowed from post-modern literary theory, requiring a different type of reading than is normally practiced in biblical studies. The present volume attempts to address some of this ambiguity by classifying the essays according to chronological focus. The first section contains studies that read texts in conjunction with earlier ones, the second pertains to roughly contemporaneous texts, and the third looks forward to the reception of earlier texts by later ones. This tripartite division seeks to bring some clarity to the plurality of approaches to intertextual study. In addition to dealing with a topic of current scholarly interest, this volume also provides a somewhat comprehensive coverage. The six longest deuterocanonical books are all represented in this volume (though not the Additions to Daniel, Esther, or Jeremiah), while 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and the Prayer of Manasseh are also discussed. The volume also evinces a diversity of approaches, and concludes with a methodological discussion of recent intertextual studies along with recommendations for future research on the topic. Researchers interested in many of the ways that intertextuality has been investigated by biblical scholars will hopefully find this volume to be a useful resource.

One: Distinction between Author-Oriented and Reader-Oriented Intertextuality The term “intertextuality” is usually derived from the literary-critical work of Julia Kristeva, and has been developed by literary critics such as Harold Bloom, Roland Barthes, and Jonathan Culler.² Such literary critics have generally envisaged a reader-oriented approach in which the reader supplies a meaning that links perceived textual parallels. However, most biblical scholars have favored an author-oriented approach, in which the author has already inscribed meaning by reinterpreting or echoing an earlier text. To be sure, the study of intertextuality in the biblical corpus has been pursued in diverse ways and under different names, including inner-biblical allusion, inner-biblical exegesis, and mimesis.³

 Kristeva, “Word”; Bloom, Anxiety; Barthes, “Death”; Culler, “Presupposition.” Cf. Martínez Alfaro, “Intertextuality”; Clayton and Rothstein, “Figures.” For a recent introduction, see Estelle, Echoes, 327– 51.  Meek, “Intertextuality”; Beal, “Intertextuality”; Beal, “Ideology”; Gillmayr-Bucher, “Intertextuality”; Schmid, “Schriftauslegung”; Leonard, “Allusions.” Cf. essays in Evans and Talmon,

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

3

Here it is useful to consider the methodological distinction between authororiented and reader-oriented intertextuality.⁴ Some scholars argue that perceived connections between two or more texts are intentional and signal to readers that they should interpret one text in light of the other (author-oriented approach), while others claim that authorial intent is irrelevant, leaving readers free to identify any connections they wish and to construe this intertextual relationship as they deem fit (reader-oriented approach). The author-oriented approach is more widely represented in the biblical field than the reader-oriented approach. The two methodologies may be briefly contrasted. The reader-oriented approach is a synchronic form of study in which the reader supplies the meaning, whereas the author-oriented approach is a diachronic form of analysis in which the author has already provided the meaning, reinterpreting or alluding to an earlier text. The reader-oriented approach views all texts as interdependent (at least potentially), whereas the author-oriented approach usually focuses on a small number of texts regarded as being relevant because of their close relationship. While the reader-oriented approach considers a text’s meaning as inexhaustible, the author-oriented approach often seeks to define a fixed or limited meaning, excluding some other meanings as impossible or improbable. Many theorists of literature and culture, such as Kristeva, Bakhtin, Barthes, and Ben-Porat, have advocated the reader-oriented approach.⁵ By way of contrast, the majority of biblical scholars have hitherto followed the author-oriented approach to intertextuality, recognizing that later texts make use of earlier writings and seeking to define the intention behind this re-use of traditional material. For instance, Benjamin Sommer has suggested aspects of the exegetical significance of Second-Isaiah’s use of earlier Scripture.⁶ On the one hand, a reader-oriented approach accepts that a fruitful way to make sense of a text is through connections to other texts, even if such connections are unintended and even unknown to the original author. Such an approach has the effect of decentering another text, or sometimes even denying it; for instance, the sympathy for non-Jews evident in the Books of Jonah or

Quest. Already in 1922, T. S. Eliot listed some intertextual references for his poem “The Wasteland”; cf. Eliot, Wasteland, 21– 25.  Miller, “Intertextuality”; Weren, Studies, 96; Grohmann, “Psalm,” 122 – 23.  Kristeva, “Word”; Bakhtin, “Discourse”; Barthes, “Death”; Ben-Porat, “Poetics.” Cf. Yoon, “Inception,” 59 – 68.  Sommer, Prophet, 22– 31. As a shorthand here, we anachronistically refer to texts as scriptural or biblical, whereas they were actually in the process of gaining authority that would lead them to be viewed as canonical.

4

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

Ruth contradicts the hostility toward gentiles found in Ezra-Nehemiah.⁷ By examining thematic parallels between the Books of Jonah and Malachi, Catherine Muldoon has enunciated insights into divine sovereignty and justice, available by reading the Book of Jonah in light of the prophet Malachi.⁸ On the other hand, an author-oriented form of intertextuality implies a deliberate use of an earlier text for various purposes. For instance, the new composition can seek to explicate a prior text, as in Wis 11:6 – 16, which offers midrashic explanations of the first plague against Egypt (Exodus 7) and the gift of lifegiving water at Horeb (Exodus 17), as well as the plagues involving animals in relation to Egyptian animal worship (Exodus 7– 10). Such an author-oriented use of intertextuality can show that the later composition is influenced by the earlier text and promotes its theology, to keep alive the older text and make its ideology relevant in a new context. For instance, the author of Tobit reflects Deuteronomy’s continued influence with its theology of the fear and love of God, the importance of the centralized cult, and a religious understanding of remembering, as well as the idea that Israel’s secure dwelling in Palestine is contingent on fidelity to the Law of Moses.⁹ An author-oriented allusion may serve to bolster the new text’s claim through an appeal to an earlier authoritative writing, possibly to gain status, and even eventually to garner entry into the canon. For example, the character of Judith is patterned after heroic biblical figures (e. g., Deborah, Jael, David), partly in order to make her more ethically attractive as a heroine despite her potential for moral ambiguity. Of less authorial significance than an allusion is a casual echo, which can be viewed as a clever reference to an earlier text for the reader’s appreciation but without any deeper significance.¹⁰ For instance, the Hebrew form of the name “Judith” (Jdt 8:1) appears once in the Pentateuch as the name of Esau’s Hittite wife (Gen 26:34), but the Genesis echo plays no further part in the Judith narrative.¹¹ To be sure, an intertextual allusion can make revisions, as when Deuteronomy updates parts of Exodus, or the Chronicler revises the Deuteronomistic History. In a case of cultural accommodation, Wisdom chapter 10 reinterprets stories from Genesis and Exodus in light of Greek philosophical thought. An intertextual allusion can sometimes even reject an earlier text, as when a theology of individ-

 Collins, Introduction, 533, 536.  Muldoon, Defense, 64– 101.  Di Lella, “Background”; critiqued by Weeks, “Heritage”; Kiel, Truth, 66 – 67.  Sommer, Prophet, 30 – 31.  Gera, Judith, 255, who notes also that the name “Judith” serves as a female counterpart to Judas Maccabeus.

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

5

ual retribution in Ezekiel 18 rejects the view of intergenerational punishment in the Decalogue (Exod 20:5; Deut 5:9). Revision of the Pentateuchal ban on exogamy (Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3 – 4) is evident in Tobit’s narrower understanding of endogamy, stipulating marriage to a member of the same tribe (Tob 4:12). Indeed, though Tob 6:13 mentions the death penalty for not marrying daughter to a relative “according to the judgment of the Book of Moses,” the Pentateuch itself does not actually demand it.¹² We can illustrate the difference between the author-oriented and reader-oriented approaches by comparing the treatment of some intertextual parallels between Tobit and Ben Sira. For instance, a husband’s disquiet at having to rely on his wife as a breadwinner is expressed both in Tob 2:11– 14 and in Sir 25:22. An author-oriented approach might suggest that one text is potentially revising or rejecting the other. If we view Tobit as later than Sirach, it could perhaps show how a wife can be a successful wage earner and support her husband and family, rejecting Sirach’s more pejorative perspective that it is shameful for wives to be supporting their husbands. Alternatively, if we consider Sirach later than Tobit (which is more probable), it may indicate a hardening of gender roles within Jewish society of the time, though regional variations are indeed possible. A reader-oriented approach might examine the sociocultural context more widely, indicating that spousal support can only be understood in light of both texts among many others. In this perspective, a wife supporting her husband financially can produce not only shame and “harsh slavery” (Sirach), but also economic success, even if combined with marital discord and a patriarchal sense of dishonor (Tobit). To take another example, it would be possible to compare the advocacy of almsgiving found both in Tobit and in Sirach.¹³ According to Tobit, almsgiving is due toward kinsfolk (Tob 1:3, 16) and especially the poor (Tob 4:7– 8, 16), because it pleases God and delivers from death (Tob 4:10 – 11; 12:9; 14:10).¹⁴ Sirach’s view is that almsgiving results in forgiveness of sin (Sir 3:30; 17:29), delivers from evil (Sir 29:12; 40:24), and is linked with prayer, praise, and sacrifice (Sir 7:10; 35:2, 4). An author-oriented approach might suggest that one text is borrowing from the other or possibly from a common source, whereas a reader-oriented approach might propose that biblical almsgiving can only be understood in light of both texts among many others.¹⁵  Fitzmyer, Tobit, 213 – 14.  Gregory, Signet Ring, 196 – 200.  Almsgiving in Tobit is also a response to divine mercy received (Tob 3:2, 15; 6:18; 7:11; 8:4, 7; 13:5, 6, 8; 14:5). In Sirach almsgiving is a response to God’s generosity (Sir 35:12).  Anderson, Charity, 18 – 29.

6

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

As a much broader example of reader-oriented intertextuality, we could mention the idea of Karl Jaspers concerning an axial age of intellectual enlightenment in religion, incorporating not only Second-Isaiah (ca. 540 BCE) but also Confucius (ca. 551– 479 BCE), the Buddha (Gautama Siddhartha: possibly 573 – 483 BCE), and in the following century Plato (ca. 429 – 347 BCE).¹⁶ Since it is unlikely that any of these four religious thinkers had directly read each other’s work, modern readers make the intertextual connections in light of a broader knowledge of history.

Two: Methodological Criteria for Author-Oriented Intertextuality Whereas reader-oriented intertextuality operates freely without any need of criteria, methodological criteria are necessary for author-oriented intertextuality in order to avoid falling into the trap of parallelomania.¹⁷ In an insightful article, the literary scholar Ziva Ben-Porat identifies three major stages for author-oriented intertextual interpretation.¹⁸ The process begins with recognizing one or more intertextual “markers” in the alluding text. This recognition then leads to the identification of the text being evoked. Finally, the reader is able to interpret the alluding text in light of the evoked text. However, to ensure that proposed author-oriented parallels are not simply figments of the imagination of a particular reader, many scholars have suggested criteria for determining that the intertextual relationship is author-intended. In his monograph on scriptural echoes in the Pauline writings, Richard Hays has proposed seven criteria that suggest the presence of allusions or echoes: availability; volume; recurrence (i. e., author’s interest elsewhere in same text); thematic coherence; historical plausibility; history of interpretation; and satisfaction.¹⁹ Dennis MacDonald has also made helpful suggestions for assessing the likelihood of author-oriented intertextuality: the relative dating of texts and availability of precursor text to author of borrowing text (“accessibility”); the number of parallels (“density”); the sequence of parallels (structure); the uniqueness or rarity of parallels (“distinctive

   

Jaspers, Origin, 2. Loader, “Intertextuality”; Sandmel, “Parallelomania.” Ben-Porat, “Poetics.” Hays, Echoes, 26 – 27.

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

7

traits”); analogy (i. e., examples of other authors echoing the same text); and interpretability.²⁰ In various publications on gospel texts, Dale Allison has reflected on the significance of “author-oriented” intertextual references. Within his monograph examining Matthew’s possible allusions to the figure of Moses, he refers to six kinds of intertextual parallel: explicit statement; inexplicit citation or borrowing; similar circumstances; key words or phrases; similar narrative structure; and similar word order (or syllabic sequence or poetic resonance). He also suggests guidelines for identifying author-oriented allusions: chronological priority of the text being alluded to; significance for the alluding author of the text being alluded to; similarities of circumstance; prominence of the typology; widespread nature of the typology; and the use of unusual imagery or uncommon motifs.²¹ In his subsequent study of the use of Scripture in the synoptic sayings tradition of the gospels (Q), Allison recognizes that “there is no ‘scientific method of determining allusions,’” because “to allude is by definition to suggest, not to state plainly.”²² Going beyond explicit citations and undeniable borrowings, Allison proposes that “an allusion will not be credible unless text and intertext share some combination of the following: common vocabulary, common word order, common theme(s), similar imagery, similar structure, [and] similar circumstance(s)…. The greater the number of parallels, the more probable [is] the allusion.”²³ The following table broadly compares the criteria of Hays with those of MacDonald and of Allison’s two monographs.²⁴ We shall see that while there is a wide overlap, there are a few differences of emphasis. The poetry of Isaiah 40 – 66 could serve as an illustration of intertextual study. One of the most influential monographs has been Benjamin D. Sommer’s investigation of the technique of author-oriented allusion in Isaiah 40 – 66. He points out clusters of vocabulary where Deutero-Isaiah seems to have borrowed from earlier texts (such as those referring to the Davidic king), in order to reinterpret them for a new generation. While Isa 42:1– 8 echoes the prophecy concerning the Davidic line in Isa 11:1– 10, it shifts the predictions to the entire people, while the verbal echoes of Psalm 2 within Isa 44:24– 45:8 suggest that Cyrus has taken over the prerogatives of the Davidic king.²⁵ As a different intertextual

 MacDonald, Mimesis, 2– 3.  Allison, Moses, 19 – 20.  Allison, Intertextual, 13.  Ibid., 11.  Hays, Echoes, 29 – 32; MacDonald, Mimesis, 2– 3, Allison, Moses, 19 – 23; Allison, Intertextual, 10 – 13.  Sommer, Prophet, 84– 85, 115 – 16.

8

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

Table 1: Criteria for author-oriented allusions or echoes Hays, Echoes

MacDonald, Mimesis

Allison, Moses

Availability

Relative dating and accessibility

Chronological priority [Implied] of the text being alluded to

Volume

Density

Key words

Similar imagery

–

Distinctive traits

Use of unusual imagery or uncommon motifs

Unusual shared vocabulary

–

Order (sequence)

[Implied]

Unusual shared word order

–

Structure

Similar narrative structure

Similar structure

Recurrence

[Implied]

Widespread nature and prominence of the typology

Author’s interest elsewhere in same text

Thematic Coherence

[Implied]

Significance for the Unusual shared alluding author of the theme(s) text being alluded to

Historical Plausibility

[Implied]

Similarities of circum- Similar circumstances stance

History of Interpretation

Analogy (examples of Precedent usage by other authors)

History of Interpretation

Satisfaction

Interpretability

Congruence with alluding text’s arguments

[Implied]

Allison, Intertextual

parallel, we could consider the relation of Isa 45:1– 7 with the Cyrus Cylinder, since both texts describe the deity calling Cyrus by name. Whereas Isa 45:3 – 4 says: “It is I, the LORD God of Israel, who call you by your name…. I call you by your name; I surname you, though you do not know me,” the Cyrus Cylinder (ANET 315) declares that Marduk “pronounced the name of Cyrus, king of Anshan, declared him to become the ruler of all the world.”²⁶ For most scholars,

 North, Second Isaiah, 149; Pritchard, Texts, 315. Although the biblical (including deuteroca-

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

9

however, the parallels of subject matter and context do not suggest a direct literary connection between Second-Isaiah and the Cyrus Cylinder.²⁷ In fact, instances of author-oriented intertextuality may differ significantly in their level of prominence. The helpful listing of biblical allusions within Second Temple Jewish literature, edited by Armin Lange and Matthias Weigold, includes a methodological introduction that differentiates between sorts of quotation and allusion.²⁸ The volume’s introduction explains four kinds of reference that are included together in the listings. An explicit quotation has at least two shared words and a quotation marker, while an implicit quotation has four unaltered shared words. Similarly, an explicit allusion has some common element and a quotation marker, while an implicit allusion has three shared words. Along similar lines, we may here identify four main forms of connection within author-oriented intertextuality, depending on the level of prominence created by the alluding author. Whereas the two more prominent forms involve citations (whether marked or unmarked), the other two less prominent forms involve allusions (whether direct or indirect). We could also add a fifth category of a looser echo, which might consist simply of one key word shared with a precursor text. The first category is the explicit (or marked) citation, i. e., a quotation with clear reference to its source. For instance, when reporting Tobit’s offering of tithes for the benefit of orphans, widows, and resident aliens, Tob 1:8 mentions the “Law of Moses,” referring to the third year tithe stipulated in Deut 14:27– 29.²⁹ Tobit’s subsequent declaration: “Then I remembered the prophecy of Amos, how he said against Bethel: ‘Your festivals shall be turned into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation’” (Tob 2:6 Sinaiticus) is also an explicit citation, quoting a variant of Amos 8:10: “I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation.”³⁰ Moreover, when reporting a perfidious crime committed by Alcimus against the Hasideans, First Maccabees cites a variant form of Ps 79(78):2– 3: “He seized sixty of them and killed them in one day, in

nonical) quotations in this chapter are generally based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), sometimes they are adapted.  North, Second Isaiah, 148 – 49; Whybray, Isaiah 40 – 66, 105; Goldingay and Payne, Isaiah 40 – 55, vol. 2, 17– 18.  Lange and Weigold, Quotations, 19 – 39. For essays attempting to bring clarity to the term intertextuality, see Fox, Reverberations. See also Hepner, “Resonance”; Tanner, Book; Hibbard, Intertextuality; Stead, Intertextuality.  Littman, Tobit, 54; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 111.  Fitzmyer, Tobit, 135. Echoes of LXX Amos 8:10 also appear in 1 Macc 1:39 and 9:41, with some comparable wording.

10

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

accordance with the word that was written, ‘The flesh of your faithful ones and their blood they poured out all around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them’” (1 Macc 7:16 – 17). Nevertheless, few explicit quotations are present in deuterocanonical literature. The second category is the unmarked citation, i. e., a quotation without a clear reference to its source being supplied. For instance, Sir 1:14 echoes two statements in Proverbs (Prov 1:7; 9:10; cf. Ps 111:10): “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Later, when Ben Sira identifies wisdom with the Torah according to the Greek of Sir 24:23 (“the law that Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob”), the translator is quoting the exact LXX wording of Deut 33:4, but without any specific quotation formula (e. g., “as it is written”).³¹ The reference to Abraham in Mattathias’ farewell speech (“Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?”—1 Macc 2:52) consists of an unmarked composite quotation of Sir 44:20 followed by Gen 15:6. The third category is the direct allusion, which refers to a specific prior text but without making a word-for-word quotation of the earlier source. Many direct allusions are evident in the deuterocanonical books. Thus, Judith’s prayer begins with a reference to Simeon’s action, as reported in Genesis 34, but without an exact quotation: “O Lord God of my ancestor Simeon, to whom you gave a sword to take revenge on those strangers who had torn off a virgin’s clothing to defile her” (Jdt 9:2).³² In a comparable fashion, 1 Macc 4:51 ends a list of actions taken by Judas Maccabeus when rededicating the temple in these words: “They finished all the works that they had done” (ἐτέλεσαν πάντα τὰ ἔργα, ἃ ἐποίησαν). While the wording is not entirely identical, the parallels in both content and context suggest an allusion to Moses’ completion of the construction of the desert tabernacle in LXX Exod 40:33: “Moses finished up all the works” (συνετέλεσεν Μωυσῆς πάντα τὰ ἔργα). At the end of his poem on testing, Ben Sira declares: “Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, but not into the hands of human beings; for as is his greatness, so also is his mercy” (Sir 2:18). This declaration is a close (but not exact) allusion to David’s statement: “Let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but let me not fall into human hands” (2 Sam 24:14; cf. 1 Chr 21:13). In addition, Tobit’s farewell speech alludes

 Here it is possible that Ben Sira’s lost original text employed the Hebrew wording of Deut 33:4: “Moses charged us with the law, as a possession for the assembly of Jacob”; cf. Segal, Seper, 150; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 336.  On differences from the Genesis account see Newman, Praying, 124– 27. Note however that the subsequent statement: “for you said, ‘It shall not be done [thus]” (Jdt 9:2) is an exact unmarked quotation of LXX Gen 34:7.

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

11

to the destruction of Nineveh predicted by the prophet Nahum: “I believe the word of God that Nahum spoke about Nineveh, that all these things will take place and overtake Assyria and Nineveh” (Tob 14:4 Sinaiticus). Interestingly, Vaticanus ineptly changes the prophetic reference here from Nahum to Jonah: “I believe what the prophet Jonah said about Nineveh, that it will be overthrown,” but this allusion to Jonah 3:4 misses the point because Nineveh escaped being overthrown (Jonah 3:10).³³ The fourth category is the indirect (or implicit) allusion, which is a more general reference to earlier tradition. Scholars have detected many indirect allusions in the deuterocanonical books. Thus, Judith encourages her audience to accept God’s testing, by mentioning the courageous example given by the Genesis patriarchs: “Remember what he did with Abraham, and how he tested Isaac, and what happened to Jacob in Syrian Mesopotamia” (Jdt 8:26). In a comparable way, the author of First Maccabees reports the declaration of Judas Maccabeus: “It is not on the size of the army that victory in battle depends, but strength comes from heaven” (1 Macc 3:19). Here there is an implicit reference to the holy war ideology of Deuteronomy 20, which is also echoed in Jonathan’s speech in 1 Sam 14:6. Later in the same chapter, 1 Macc 3:56 reports the enacting of exemptions from war outlined in Deuteronomy 20, so the presence of an allusion becomes more probable.³⁴ A fifth category would be a looser casual echo, perhaps just one key word shared with an earlier text. An example would be the Septuagintal dis legomenon θύρσος (“ivy-entwined wand”), where the vocabulary of the Book of Judith parallels the word choice in Second Maccabees (Jdt 15:12; 2 Macc 10:7). A different kind of example would be a double use of a rare word within the same text. For example, Second Maccabees twice employs the Septuagintal dis legomenon αἰφνιδίως (“suddenly”—spelled ἐφνιδίως in Alexandrinus), first to report a sudden attack by Jason and a second time to refer to Judas’ fear of sudden treachery (2 Macc 5:5; 14:22).³⁵ A further case would be the fourfold use of the term ἀνδραγαθία (“manly action”) in 1 Maccabees (Alexandrinus), where the instances in 1 Macc 9:22 and 16:23 serve a structural purpose, whereas the occurrences in 8:2 and 10:15 have no discernible connection.³⁶ By means of a different form of analysis, it is also possible to classify authororiented intertextual parallels into three categories, based on the kind of connection, whether lexical, content-based, or structural. A lexical parallel is a direct    

Fitzmyer, Tobit, 325 – 26; Bredin, “Significance,” 43 – 58; Schöpflin, “Authority,” 87– 88. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees, 263. Domazakis, “Hapax legomena,” 17. Williams, Structure, 39 – 40. Sinaiticus also employs the Greek word in 1 Macc 5:56.

12

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

quotation or perhaps a borrowing of a significant phrase or even a distinctive word. Thus, Sir 11:10 states: “Someone hasty to gain increase will not go unpunished,” with an allusion to Prov 28:20: “Someone hasty to become rich will not go unpunished.” Similarly, Sir 5:8 warns: “Do not trust in deceitfully gained possessions, for they will not avail on a day of wrath,” with an allusion to Prov 11:4: “Wealth will not avail on a day of wrath.” Moreover, Ben Sira’s praise of Phinehas (Sir 45:23 – 24) alludes to Num 25:11– 13 because of a series of lexical parallels (“to show zeal”; “to make expiation for the Israelites”; “covenant of peace”; “priesthood forever”).³⁷ In addition, the reference to God thundering in answer to Samuel’s prayer (Sir 46:17) is a combined allusion to 1 Sam 7:10 and Ps 18:14.³⁸ A content-based parallel is based on similarities of ideas, themes, motifs, or plot—though here the sequence of parallels is not necessarily significant.³⁹ Frequently, lexical parallels supplement the content-based parallel. For example, neither Qoheleth nor the Book of Wisdom names Solomon, but the authors of both writings clearly adopt a Solomonic persona. Qoheleth’s author presents himself as “son of David, king in Jerusalem” (Qoh 1:1; cf. 1 Kgs 2:12) and a wealthy collector of silver and gold (Qoh 2:8; cf. 1 Kgs 10:25). In a comparable fashion, the author of the Book of Wisdom prays for the gift of wisdom (Wis 9:4; cf. 2 Chr 1:10) and speaks of receiving a command to build God a temple on the holy mountain (Wis 9:8; cf. 1 Kgs 5:19 [NRSV 5:5]). In another instance, the Book of Tobit borrows motifs of plot and character from the Genesis patriarchal narratives, especially the marriages of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 24) and Jacob and Rachel (Gen 29).⁴⁰ Furthermore, the Book of Judith borrows Exodus themes and plot elements: Israel is threatened by formidable enemy but saved on the fortieth night, with a song of victory after the end of war being sung to the accompaniment of a tambourine (Jdt 16:1; Exod 15:20). Moreover, the victory is narrated in similar terms (Lord crushes wars, enemy’s boast, trembling of the gentiles, the motif of a saving “hand”; cf. Exod 15:3 – 4, 9, 14; Jdt 16:2– 4, 10).⁴¹ A structural parallel is based on similarities of content or wording, where these are presented in the same sequence or pattern. Thus, Proverbs and Sirach both begin by asserting that the beginning of wisdom or knowledge is fear of the LORD, both contain many short proverbial sayings for the bulk of the book, and both end with praise of a female figure (the capable woman/ personified Wis-

 Beentjes, “Canon,” 179 – 80.  Demitrów, Oranti, 193 – 94.  Indeed, Ben Sira often changes the sequence of elements in an allusion; cf. Beentjes, “Quotations.”  Nowell, “Book,” 8 – 11; Wénin, “Le mariage,” 171– 81.  Rakel, Judit, 252– 55.

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

13

dom) in an alphabetical acrostic. Moreover, the sequence of characters celebrated in the Praise of the Ancestors reflects the sequence of the Hebrew canon from Genesis as far as the “Twelve Prophets” (Sir 49:10).⁴² In another structural parallel, Judith’s story ends with a comment about Israel being free from terror for a long time (Jdt 16:25), just like the conclusion of the stories of many judges (Judg 3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28).⁴³ On the level of the macrostructure, the story of Judith parallels LXX Esther. In both narratives, Jews are threatened by hostile gentile superpower; a beautiful heroine prays to the Lord about her people’s plight and need for deliverance, is pursued romantically by a gentile leader, accedes to his will until the appropriate time and then surprises him; the Jews are thereby saved by the heroine and rout their gentile enemies. To be sure, significant differences also exist; for instance, in Esther, the Jews do not take spoil (contrast Jdt 15:11); the romantic pursuit by a pagan leader is successful; the enemy is potentially less of a threat because they are always partying; and the setting is in the diaspora where gentiles have control, rather than the central portion of the Holy Land.

Three: Some Recent Intertextual Scholarship on the Deuterocanonical Books According to Steven Weitzman, “one of the few characteristics shared by virtually every composition within the Apocrypha [= deuterocanonical books] and Pseudepigrapha is a pronounced tendency to emulate, evoke, or echo classical biblical literature.”⁴⁴ In a classic article, Devorah Dimant analyzed the “Use and Interpretation of Mikra [= Scripture] in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” drawing an important distinction between the compositional and expositional uses of Scripture: “In compositional use biblical elements are interwoven into the work without external formal markers; in expositional use they are presented explicitly as such, with a clear external marker.”⁴⁵ She adds: “In the exposition the divine word is introduced in order to interpret it as such, while the composition is employed when the biblical element is subservient to the independent aim and structure of its new content.” Whereas the Qumran Pesharim are exam-

   

Leiman, Canonization, 150. Gera, Judith, 476; Schmitz and Engel, Judit, 414. Weitzman, “Allusion,” 49. Dimant, “Use,” 382 (this quotation and the next).

14

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

ples of expositional use, most of the deuterocanonical usage of Scripture is compositional, so that its use is sometimes less immediately obvious. A number of studies have included an examination of intertextual parallels to scriptural texts within particular deuterocanonical books.⁴⁶ For instance, an article by Sean Adams examines several supposed scriptural “citations” (or better, allusions) within the Book of Baruch, with helpful attention to methodological questions.⁴⁷ Such studies arise within a wider context of intertextual research in scriptural scholarship. Already four decades ago, Michael Fishbane began his pioneering work on the Hebrew Bible, and several other studies have subsequently investigated intertextuality in various parts of the OT.⁴⁸ Moreover, James Kugel has assembled a wonderful annotated collection of extracts from later texts alluding to the Pentateuch, matched to the passage being referred to.⁴⁹ Another valuable publication is A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze.⁵⁰ This work includes useful essays on the use of Scripture in Ben Sira and Wisdom, but almost entirely ignores Tobit, Judith, and the Books of Maccabees.⁵¹ Important recent volumes have also appeared considering the reception of Exodus and Isaianic traditions in deuterocanonical literature.⁵² Few other book-length publications, however, have been devoted specifically to intertextuality across multiple deuterocanonical books. While Dale Allison has applied intertextuality to the gospels, other edited volumes have examined intertextuality in the NT.⁵³ Indeed, New Testament scholars have long studied the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Steven Moyise and his associates have researched the use of specific OT books in the NT (e. g., Genesis or Psalms or Isaiah), while there is now a large one-volume Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. ⁵⁴ Generally, such

 E. g., Rakel, Judit, 8 – 30, 228 – 90; Nickelsburg, “Tobit”; Kiel, “Tobit”; Borchardt, “Concepts.”  Adams, “Reframing.”  Fishbane, Text; Fishbane, Interpretation; Sommer, Prophet; Bautch, “Intertextuality”; Estelle, Echoes.  Kugel, Traditions.  Henze, Companion.  Wright. “Interpretation”; Enns, “Pseudo-Solomon.”  Gärtner and Schmitz, Exodus; De Troyer and Schmitz, Reception; cf. Ederer and Schmitz, Exodus. Note that the deuterocanonical books are absent from the discussion of the exodus motif in Estelle, Echoes; Fox, Reverberations.  Allison, Moses; Allison, Intertextual; Oropeza and Moyise, Exploring (with extensive methodological discussion); Evans and Zacharias, Literature (2 vols.). For intertextuality in early Christian writings, see Bingham and Jefford, Intertextuality.  Moyise and Menken, Deuteronomy; Moyise and Menken, Genesis; Moyise and Menken, Psalms; Moyise and Menken, Isaiah; Beale and Carson, Commentary.

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

15

investigation has followed the method of author-oriented intertextuality, seeking to show how a later text has re-used an earlier sacred writing.⁵⁵ Similarly, Dale Allison’s monograph on “the new Moses” explores how biblical characters from Joshua and Gideon to Ezra and Baruch were often modeled on Moses. In this context, he analyzes how far Matthew’s Gospel models Jesus on the figure of Moses, concluding: “At every juncture the book [= Matthew’s Gospel] presupposes that the reader is bringing to its ubiquity of allusions an intimate knowledge of Judaica, knowledge without which one is reading commentary without text.”⁵⁶ This observation reminds today’s readers of the complexity of using author-oriented intertextuality when interpreting the deuterocanonical books. Although most commentaries and monographs on specific deuterocanonical books make frequent references to earlier biblical texts, not many include more than a passing discussion of the manner of allusion or the impact of such intertextual references. In its discussion of the six longest deuterocanonical books, as well as a few related compositions, the present volume seeks to reflect with greater methodological awareness on intertextuality, both author-oriented and reader-oriented. To be sure, a few earlier volumes have specifically gathered intertextual studies of some deuterocanonical books, but not always with methodological rigor. Thus, in a volume of essays on Tobit and Ben Sira, the fullest methodological reflection appears in the chapter by Skemp on “Avenues of Intertextuality.”⁵⁷ The essay by Pancratius Beentjes also addressed methodological concerns, and the same author has long regretted the lack of rigor in some scholars’ treatment of Ben Sira’s “quotations” from (or allusions to) earlier biblical writings.⁵⁸ However, since the beginning of the millennium a greater methodological consciousness has become more widespread. Some essays in a recent volume on scriptural authority discuss methodological questions surrounding the definition of allusions and the way they are used.⁵⁹ The use of Scripture within the deuterocanonical books is illustrative of its usage elsewhere within Second Temple Jewish writings.⁶⁰ In the postexilic era, the growing authoritative status of certain books that would become scriptural is evident from direct and indirect references to them. ⁶¹ For instance, Judith

 Hatina, “Intertextuality.”  Allison, Moses, 270.  Skemp, “Avenues,” 44– 47.  Beentjes, “Search,” 120 – 23; cf. Beentjes, “Canon.”  Adams, “Reframing,” 65 – 67, 78 – 80; Glicksman, “Traditions,” 173 – 75; Martos, “Authority,” 261– 64.  Weitzman, “Allusion,” 49.  Bautch, “Intertextuality.”

16

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

Newman has pointed to the scripturalization of prayer in Second Temple Judaism, illustrating this phenomenon with detailed analysis of the petitions found in Nehemiah 9, Judith 9, and Third Maccabees 2.⁶² The phenomenon of scripturalization also affected the sapiential books, since Ben Sira is the first Hebrew wisdom author to include an extensive review of biblical history, while the latter part of the Wisdom of Solomon reflects on the events of Genesis and Exodus without naming any biblical personages. Moreover, scripturalizing techniques are also evident in Second Temple Jewish novellas such as the Book of Tobit, where characters and episodes often recall earlier biblical models.⁶³ Among deuterocanonical literature, perhaps the Book of Judith makes the most sophisticated use of a wide range of intertextual references, and Jan Willem van Henten has remarked upon “the intricate palette of intertextual relations between Judith and biblical writings.”⁶⁴ A notable investigation into the Book of Judith is Claudia Rakel’s monograph, which begins with a useful discussion of types of intertextuality.⁶⁵ She reviews the theories of Mikhail Bakhtin (the dialogical word), Julia Kristeva (the multiple levels of a text), and Roland Barthes (the text as a web of citations). As a control on applying intertextuality to the Bible, she observes the need to take stock of intertextual signals and identify the surplus of meaning created. According to Rakel, the Book of Judith intentionally makes abundant use of literary traditions from Israel’s past to recreate national identity.⁶⁶ Motifs that set up intertextual links include victory songs, female killers, elements symbolizing echoes of earlier heroic figures from the Bible, the context of a threat to Jerusalem, and the female personification of a city or people. For instance, within the context of the whole Book of Judith, she views the final canticle in Judith 16 as having a narrative role comparable to the victory songs of Moses and Deborah.⁶⁷ Though OT women tend to be victims of military power more often than men are, Judith resembles female killers such as Jael and the unnamed woman of Thebez (Judg 5:28; 9:53).⁶⁸ Like older biblical writings, the Book of Judith has women both practicing and suffering military violence. As a practitioner of violence, Judith overcomes gender stereotypes by sharing many features with David and Judas Maccabeus. However, as a potential victim of violence, the widowed Judith

      

Newman, Scripturalization. Macatangay, Instructions, 29 – 34; Portier-Young, “Eyes,” 14– 27; Nowell, “Book,” 3 – 13. Henten, “Leader,” 224. See Gera, Judith, 45 – 56; Dubarle, Judith, 1.137– 64. Rakel, Judit, 8 – 31. Ibid., 229. Ibid., 244– 58. Ibid., 237– 43.

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

17

also symbolizes the city of Bethulia, echoing the widowed figure of Zion in distress (Lam 1:1).⁶⁹ To assist scholars interested in biblical intertextuality and the reception history of scriptural traditions, a useful research tool is the volume edited by Lange and Weigold.⁷⁰ If a researcher wishes to discover which Second Temple Jewish writings allude to the story of Adam being fashioned from the dust of the ground and receiving the breath of life (Gen 2:7), he or she will find fourteen references to the verse listed in that volume. These references derive from ten different compositions: Job and Sirach, the Qumran Hodayot and the Words of the Luminaries, Second and Fourth Maccabees, and four pseudepigraphic texts: Third Baruch, Joseph and Aseneth, the first Sibylline Oracle, and the Testament of Abraham. All the biblical quotations and allusions derive from the Hebrew Bible, while the quoting or alluding texts cover postexilic books of the Hebrew Bible, deuterocanonical and pseudepigraphic texts, and Qumran writings.⁷¹ Lange and Weigold’s research tool will make future research easier into author-oriented intertextuality.

Four: Introducing the Present Volume The present volume on intertextuality consists of three main sections. After this introductory essay, the first section (“Looking back”) contains studies of intertextual relationships between deuterocanonical literature and precursor texts. The second section (“Looking to the present”) employs a synchronic approach by studying texts that are either contemporaneous or else do not exhibit a clear direction of influence but nonetheless elucidate a theme when read together. The third section (“Looking forward”) considers the reception of the Book of Tobit in the New Testament, the medieval rabbinic tradition, and the modern world. A concluding essay on methodological questions in future research precedes the indexes.

 For a recent examination of the figure of Judith in relation to the people of Israel, see Wetter, Account, 146 – 251.  Lange and Weigold, Quotations.  Because of limitations of space, Lange and Weigold’s volume excludes quotations or allusions in the New Testament and the works of Philo and Josephus, as well as later pseudepigraphic texts (e. g., 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and 2 Enoch). In addition, the volume excludes cases of formulaic language, pesher-style commentary, translation activity, and allusions that lack any clear verbal connections.

18

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

In the opening essay of the first section (“Looking back”), Jeremy Corley considers author-oriented intertextual references to Abraham, Moses, and David within the seven main deuterocanonical books. While these three figures are sometimes named, skilled readers would detect allusions even without names being supplied, especially from verbal echoes. The two deuterocanonical sapiential books both include a lengthy review of history, but the emphasis differs. Whereas Ben Sira seeks to praise the faithful Israelites who kept God’s covenant, the Book of Wisdom celebrates God’s justice, power and wisdom operating to protect his chosen people. While Ben Sira’s praise of Moses emphasizes his role as lawgiver and downplays the exodus event (Sir 45:1– 5), the retelling of the exodus story in Wisdom 11– 19 focuses mostly on episodes around the exodus event, preceding the chosen people’s arrival at Sinai, with much less attention than expected being devoted to the giving of the Law. The occasional references to Abraham, Moses, and David in First and Second Maccabees frequently serve to provide legitimizing precedents for the actions of the Hasmonean leadership, as well as to assist in the process of characterization. The Book of Tobit sometimes mentions Abraham, Moses, and David, while the Book of Judith names only Abraham, but the influence of these three characters as intertextual models for personages and their actions is far-reaching within both novellas. Finally, the Book of Baruch mentions Abraham and Moses and includes many echoes of Deuteronomy. In another essay employing author-oriented intertextuality, Pancratius Beentjes reads several passages in Ben Sira to identify contextual clues linking each passage to precursor texts. In his diachronic reading, Beentjes frequently considers the “structural” use of earlier writings, such as the way Sir 1:1– 10 borrows from Proverbs 8 and Job 28. To be sure, the sequence is not always fixed, and the alluding text can rearrange some of the elements, especially for literary reasons. For instance, Sir 6:5 – 17 takes up elements from 1 Samuel 25 but puts some motifs out of their original order. Beentjes is aware of the need for criteria (such as a density of parallels) to indicate that the author likely intends an intertextual parallel. Among examples of inverted quotations or allusions in the Hymn of Praise to the Ancestors, Beentjes finds an allusion in Sir 46:19, which reverses the order of “bribe and hidden gift/sandals” in 1 Sam 12:3. A further indication is the presence of distinctive traits: the Hebrew phrase ‫חיים‬-‫“( צרור‬bundle of life”) occurs only twice, linking 1 Sam 25:29 and Sir 6:16, while the Septuagintal term θεοσεβία (“reverence for God”) is a rare word linking Job 28:28 and Sir 1:25. Andrew Glicksman’s essay focuses mainly on the intertextual use of Isaiah 59 in Wisdom 5. Reading diachronically and employing an author-oriented approach, he identifies linguistic, thematic, and occasionally structural parallels.

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

19

He also mentions “secondary biblical references,” which supplement the primary biblical allusion intended by the alluding text. By adding references to other parts of Scripture, the ancient author builds on the primary allusion and thereby produces a layered effect. The deuterocanonical author reinterprets texts from Isaiah 40 – 66 for his Hellenistic Jewish audience. Glicksman gives special attention to the afflicted righteous individual in Wisdom 2– 5 and the critique of idolatry in Wisdom 13 – 15. Of particular interest are the frequency and degree to which the author refers to Isaiah 40 – 66 throughout his work; the key Isaian motifs that he develops and those he omits; and the ways and potential reasons why he reapplies the older text to a new situation. Wisdom 5 draws on Isaiah 59 to show the vindication of pious Alexandrian Jews and the punishment of their wicked persecutors. In addition, even though Wisdom 5 essentially reads Isaiah 59 exegetically to communicate the same message to its audience, it also supplements and molds that original message. These supplements show that the righteous are not only in good standing with God but will rise from the dead. The secondary references to other Isaianic Servant Songs help depict the audience of Wisdom 5 as God’s children, and these supplements aggrandize the folly and fault of the wicked. Michael Matlock also adopts an author-oriented approach to intertextuality in his lexical and content-based study of the Prayer of Manasseh’s use of earlier biblical texts. This penitential prayer is part of an expanding treatment of divine punishment and forgiveness in the late Second Temple period. Matlock’s essay explores the intertextual associations—citations, allusions, echoes, and tropes —between the Prayer of Manasseh and other Septuagintal texts. Whereas 2 Chr 33:12 – 13 recounts the repentance of the wicked King Manasseh, without giving him his own wording, this prayer has the effect of improving the monarch’s image by granting him a text expressing his repentance. This prayer borrows most heavily from the Chronicler’s version of his life, which mentions his restoration, thereby suggesting that he was not such a wicked ruler as 2 Kings 21 makes him out to be. Occasionally Matlock acknowledges that the parallels he identifies could be coincidental or based on a common trope, but often he implies a deliberate use of earlier material by the prayer’s unknown author. These parallels are grouped into sections concerned with Davidic elements, traditions about Moses and the Genesis patriarchs, and echoes of prophets like Amos as well as Job. In particular, the expression of penitence uttered by Manasseh includes clear echoes of David’s psalm of repentance (LXX Psalm 50). Whereas the four previous essays followed an author-oriented approach to intertextuality, the contrasting essay by Geoffrey D. Miller combines an authororiented and a reader-oriented approach in its comparison of the deuterocanonical heroine Judith and the Mesopotamian goddess Inanna (also known as Ish-

20

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

tar). Within their culture, each could be considered an example of a femme fatale. Modern scholars have underappreciated the Book of Judith’s echoes of non-biblical sources, especially from Mesopotamia. A close reading of the deuterocanonical text reveals numerous parallels with the hymns and myths dedicated to the goddess Inanna. This essay argues that the author of Book of Judith drew on texts about the goddess in order to reject the image of the femme fatale that she conveys. Judith resembles Inanna in many ways but is more powerful and more virtuous, signaling to Jewish readers that, like the heroine of the story, their culture is vastly superior to that of the gentiles. Within the opening essay of the second section (“Looking to the present”), Richard Bautch reads three deuterocanonical texts (Tobit, Judith, and Second Maccabees) together as Jewish novellas that express a critique against empire. An intertextual reading enables readers to discern how the genre of Jewish novella employs common themes, plot elements, and comedy to critique power and show where true power resides. The three texts share a basic context, the hegemony of the Seleucid or Roman empires, and all manifest some degree of resistance to imperial power. Although Bautch does not presume that any of these three texts was known to the author of another of them, he still operates on the model of author-oriented intertextuality, since he considers that these authors were in some way subverting the traditional literary genres. A major similarity between Tobit and Judith is the demise of Assyria and Babylon (Holofernes/Nebuchadnezzar and Tobit’s prediction in 14:4), and the Book of Tobit also critiques the Assyrian ruler Sennacherib. While the Book of Tobit promotes kinship, it shows some ambivalence, since Tobit departs from his kinsfolk by worshipping in Jerusalem (not Dan) and keeping kosher (despite his kinsfolk eating the food of the gentiles). In addition, Tobit’s overemphasis on kinship and tribalism has comical aspects and thus partly subverts the kinship paradigm. A comparable subversion of kinship happens in Second Maccabees, where the narrator often employs the expression “Judas and his men” rather than “Judas and his brothers.” In fact, Second Maccabees subordinates the kinship structure by putting focus on God—the real reason they prevail in battle. Tobit likewise shows where true power resides—not so much in the family but in God, the true answer to the world’s evils. In Tobit, Judith, and Second Maccabees, the authors employ intertextual references, often rather subtle, to subvert the power structures of their age. The essay by Michael Duggan offers a synchronic intertextual comparison of the four descriptions of the origin of Hanukkah found within First and Second Maccabees. The two primary accounts (1 Macc 4:36 – 59 and 2 Macc 10:1– 8) are not exactly doublets but two versions of the same story, since they share content and themes, though with significant differences. Duggan then looks at the two

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

21

accounts of Hanukkah in the introductory letters of 2 Maccabees, again highlighting differences between them. While the first letter provides a relatively oblique reference to the purification of the Temple, the second recounts the background for the event within a tale of epic proportions (2 Macc 1:1– 9; 1:10 – 2:18). These accounts of the temple purification describe the origin of the festival of Hanukkah within Jewish tradition. In the historical narratives of both books, the reclamation of the temple represents an initial high point in the campaign of Judas Maccabeus against the Seleucid occupation of Israel (1 Macc 4:36 – 59; 2 Macc 10:1– 8; cf. 2:19). Duggan’s study also includes elements of an author-oriented approach to intertextuality when it compares the accounts of the temple cleansing in 1 Macc 4:36 – 59 and 2 Macc 10:1– 8, uncovering the texts in the Torah, the Deuteronomistic History and the Chronistic History (1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah and 1 Esdras) that influenced the writing of each author. Thus, Duggan’s essay casts light on the manner in which the Hasmonean author of First Maccabees and the epitomator of the five-volume work of Jason of Cyrene employed Scripture to reinforce their respective messages. In the final essay of the second section, Karina Martin Hogan studies the related themes of Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, while also drawing out the biblical allusions found in each. Reading synchronically, she employs a reader-oriented approach to see how these two apocalypses illuminate one another, although their reliance on biblical material adds a diachronic dimension to her study. While the biblical allusions sometimes consist of lexical parallels, many of the parallels are content-based, rather than structural. Most of her study focuses on 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, tying in the Book of Isaiah and a few other biblical texts while also briefly incorporating the Enochic Book of the Watchers and some Talmudic material. Several aspects of the Mother Zion figure within 4 Ezra come into sharper focus as a result of reading the vision of the mourning woman (9:26 – 10:59) through the lens of the opening nine chapters of 2 Baruch. The mourning woman’s story of barrenness followed by bereavement is based on the Mother Zion figure in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 49:21; 54:1). Moreover, although the woman’s transformation into an “established city” was a proleptic revelation to Ezra of the Zion that is to be revealed in the end times (4 Ezra 7:26; 13:36), the present location of the true Zion (symbolized by the woman) in the “city of the Most High” (4 Ezra 10:54) is the heavenly Zion. From reflection on what is said about the true Zion in 2 Baruch 1– 9, it becomes evident that the notion of the New Jerusalem as a heavenly city come down to earth in Revelation 21– 22 is similar to the message of the central episode of 4 Ezra. Furthermore, Mother Zion and Mother Earth are not in any kind of adversarial relationship to one another as rival mothers. Since the same Hebrew word can mean either “the earth” or “the land [of Israel],” the extension of the term “Zion” to the

22

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

land of Israel makes possible the metaphorical identification of both Zion and the earth as “our mother” in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. In this way, the key theological concepts of Mother Zion and Mother Earth are more fully understood when the two apocalypses are read together rather than in isolation. In the opening essay of the third section (“Looking forward”), Francis Macatangay proposes that a case of author-oriented intertextuality is present within the Cornelius episode in Acts 10, alluding to the Book of Tobit. Elements of similar content exist: the prayers of both Tobit and Cornelius are answered, both receive an angelophany, and there are shared themes of dietary observances, table fellowship, and the welcoming of a non-Israelite (Ahiqar/Cornelius) into the Israelite community. Lexical parallels also exist: both Cornelius and Tobit are “God-fearing” (φοβούμενος τὸν θεὸν), involved in “almsgiving” (ποιῶν ἐλεημοσύνας πολλάς), engaged in “prayer” (προσευχή), and their action serves as a “memorial” (μνημόσυνον) before God. The parallels are distinctive, since Tobit is a popular diaspora hero within the Greek Scriptures for both prayer and almsgiving. In each case the angelophany occurs in the context of prayer and almsgiving, both of which actions have ascended as a “memorial” (μνημόσυνον) before God. Both texts are about God’s involvement in human affairs, whereby the Deity directs events in the lives of righteous characters to accomplish his intention. But Acts 10 also “subverts” the earlier text (Tobit 12) by having the angelophany at the beginning rather than at the end, thus giving the human beings more freedom. Cornelius and others now know that God is involved in their lives and that Peter will also play a key role, and they can freely chose to cooperate with God’s design. While the Book of Tobit attests to dietary laws and table fellowship (e. g., Tobit’s Pentecost meal), Peter initially follows the same adherence to kosher rules but eventually comes to see the need to break down the barrier between Jew and gentile, having table fellowship with Cornelius and other gentiles. Regarding non-Jews becoming part of God’s people, Acts 10 does not revise or reject Tobit but imitates it. Within the Book of Tobit, the character of Ahiqar is borrowed from gentile literature and made a relative of Tobit. Here he is praised, not for his sagacity but his good deeds, showing that righteous acts are what make one acceptable to God. The situation is similar with Cornelius in Acts. The allusion to the Book of Tobit within Acts is a rhetorical device that aids in legitimating the growth and expansion of the Christian community, now comprising both Jews and gentiles. Vincent Skemp’s detailed essay on an interesting but little-known medieval Hebrew text of Tobit considers its sophisticated use of Scripture as well as the influence of various rabbinic traditions. This Hebrew form of the Book of Tobit (known as H5) appears in a thirteenth-century collection, dubbed the North French Miscellany. The narrative retelling draws on biblical texts, beyond what

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

23

is found in the other versions of the Tobit story. Although H5 is indebted to some Greek and Latin precursor forms of the Tobit narrative, its core procedure is to draw directly on the Hebrew Bible from texts that are suggested by the characters and plot of the Tobit story. The favorite precursor texts highlighted in this study are Job, Proverbs, Deuteronomy, Genesis, Psalms, Nehemiah, and Isaiah. The patriarchs of Genesis, Job’s righteous suffering, the parental wisdom instruction of Proverbs, and the preservation of piety in exile within Daniel are already among the varieties of intertexture in the earliest Greek form of Tobit, but H5 builds on these textual affinities to an even greater degree. The North French Miscellany manuscript (including H5 Tobit) dates to a time in which Latin translations of Jewish works were produced in a climate of censorship and burning. As the retelling of the Tobit narrative is a story of Jews who undergo tribulations while trying to be good Jews in a hostile diaspora setting, it is not surprising that H5 spoke to the interests of Jewish people in thirteenth-century France. Within this context, the clear allusions to scriptural passages are the way that H5 has “biblicized” the text of Tobit. In the final essay of the volume’s third section, Micah Kiel combines authororiented and reader-oriented intertextuality by studying the theme of meals in Tobit. The author of the Book of Tobit weaves together an impressive intertextual array of allusions to various parts of Israel’s Scriptures, as well as reflecting elements of the wider culture. The book’s first two chapters allude to Deuteronomy when describing Tobit’s paradigmatic righteousness and his Pentecost feast. Later in the narrative, the wedding feast of Tobiah and Sarah recalls comparable banquets in Genesis 29 and Judges 14. Finally, similarities with some apocalyptic texts exist in the motif of a “big fish” that attacks Tobiah before being captured and eaten. Interestingly, some of the results of author-oriented and reader-oriented intertextuality converge, showing connections between food, justice, and danger. As an instance of inner-biblical exegesis, the Pentecost meal in Tobit 2 draws implicitly on Deuteronomy and explicitly on Amos, showing the connection of food and justice, even though doing righteous deeds does not always bring rejoicing and blessing, despite the claims of Deuteronomy. Instead, Tobit’s good actions lead to hardship, as his effort to invite the poor to his Pentecost meal actually leads to his mourning and further exile. Moreover, from a reader-oriented approach to intertextuality, the fish attack in Tobit 6 can be read in conjunction with Chaoskampf texts about Leviathan and Behemoth in the OT, as well as noncanonical apocalyptic writings. In addition, the issue of food and justice also connects Tobit with Pope Francis’s teaching in his 2013 encyclical Evangelii Gaudium. Kiel’s exploration of these references to food gives insight into Tobit’s intertextuality, illustrating how the author has employed them toward specific theological aims. While utilizing antecedent traditions, Tobit also reinterprets

24

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

them in light of a new context. Kiel’s article suggests that author-oriented and reader-oriented approaches to intertextuality do not have to be exclusive but can work together in tandem. The volume concludes with an epilogue, in which Geoffrey D. Miller offers some methodological reflections for future intertextual research. Within biblical studies, most intertextual investigation can be classified as author-oriented, delineating intertextual links presumably intended by a later author to an earlier text. Less often, biblical scholars have adopted a reader-oriented approach, identifying any discernible links between texts regardless of authorial intent. Focusing on the author-oriented approach, Miller discusses the types of intertextual links between texts, guidelines for recognizing and interpreting such links, and examples culled from the deuterocanonical books. In so doing, he also classifies various types of intertextual connections identified in the essays in this volume. He proposes some guidelines for the future study of intertextuality, including attentiveness to intertextual links meant to be recognized by an audience of listeners as opposed to a group of readers of a written text. Like most texts of the Second Temple period, the deuterocanonical books borrow heavily from earlier works as they adapt traditional material for a new audience. They also influence later writings such as the New Testament and the Talmud, and the common themes that run throughout these texts make them fertile ground for understanding key theological emphases of Judaism (and early Christianity) within the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The final section offers some concluding suggestions for future research on intertextuality in biblical studies. In some ways, the present volume has only scratched the surface of possibilities for intertextual research into the deuterocanonical books. Nevertheless, it has shown that similar processes were going on in different ways within these treasured writings from Second Temple Judaism. Author-oriented intertextuality has indicated that within new contexts the authors of these texts constantly returned to the characters and events of the earlier biblical tradition, while readeroriented intertextuality has shown that today’s readers can find further parallels regardless of supposed authorial intention. Thus we can recognize ways in which deuterocanonical literature spoke to ancient readers and can still speak to readers today.⁷²

 Grateful thanks are due to the Maynooth Scholastic Trust for financial assistance, as well as to Nicole O’Riordan for proofreading each essay in the volume and compiling the indexes. Bibliographical abbreviations for journals and monograph series come from Collins, Handbook. This volume is dedicated to the memory of Alexander A. Di Lella OFM (1929 – 2019), who influenced many of the contributors by his teaching and writings.

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

25

Bibliography Adams, Sean A. “Reframing Scripture: A Fresh Look at Baruch’s So-Called Citations.” In Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, edited by Geza G. Xeravits, Tobias Nicklas, and Isaac Kalimi. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 63 – 83. Allison, Dale C. The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000. Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Anderson, Gary A. Charity: The Place of the Poor in the Biblical Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. “Discourse in the Novel.” In The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by M. Holquist. Translated by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. University of Texas Press Slavic Series 1. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981, 259 – 422. Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” In his Image, Music, Text, translated by S. Heath. New York: Hill & Wang, 1977, 142 – 48. Barton, John. “Déjà Lu: Intertextuality, Method or Theory?” In Reading Job Intertextually, edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes. LHBOTS 574. New York: T & T Clark, 2013, 1 – 16. Bautch, Richard J. “Intertextuality in the Persian Period.” In Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period, edited by Jon L. Berquist. SemeiaSt 50. Atlanta: SBL, 2007, 25 – 35. Beal, Timothy K. “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production,” in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, edited by Danna Nolan Fewell. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992, 27 – 39. Beal, Timothy K. “Intertextuality.” In Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation, edited by A. K. M. Adam. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2000, 128 – 30. Beale, G. K. and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach, Ecclesiasticus),” in: P. C. Beentjes, “Happy the One Who Meditates on Wisdom” (Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters, 2006, 169 – 86. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern,” Bib 63 (1982) 506 – 23. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “In Search of Parallels: Ben Sira and the Book of Kings.” 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. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 118 – 31. Ben-Porat, Ziva. “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105 – 28. Bingham, D. Jeffrey, and Clayton N. Jefford. Intertextuality in the Second Century. Bible in Ancient Christianity 11. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence. New York: Oxford University, 1973.

26

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

Borchardt, Francis. “Concepts of Scripture in 1 Maccabees.” In Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality, vol. 1: Thematic Studies, edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. LNTS 391. New York: T&T Clark, 2009, 24 – 41. Bredin, Mark R. J. “The Significance of Jonah in Vaticanus (B) Tobit 14.4 and 8.” In Studies in the Book of Tobit: A Multidisciplinary Approach, edited by Mark Bredin. LSTS 55. London: T & T Clark, 2006, 43 – 58. Clayton, Jay, and Eric Rothstein. “Figures in the Corpus: Theories of Influence and Intertextuality.” In Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History, edited by Jay Clayton and Eric Rothstein. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991, 3 – 36. Collins, Billie Jean, ed. The SBL Handbook of Style, 2nd ed. Atlanta: SBL, 2014, 171 – 260. Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Corley, Jeremy. “An Intertextual Study of Proverbs and Ben Sira.” 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. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 155 – 82. Corley, Jeremy, and Vincent Skemp, eds. Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit: Essays in Honor of Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005. Culler, Jonathan. “Presupposition and Intertextuality.” Modern Language Notes 91 (1976): 1380 – 96. Repr. in The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981, 100 – 18. Demitrów, Andrzej. Quattro Oranti nell’Elogio dei Padri (Sir 44 – 49): Studio dei Testi e delle Tradizioni. Opolska Biblioteka Teologiczna 124. Opole: Redakcja Wydawnictw Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 2011. De Troyer, Kristin, and Barbara Schmitz, eds. The Early Reception of the Book of Isaiah. DCLS 37. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3 – 11.” CBQ 41 (1979): 380 – 89. Dimant, Devorah. “Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” In Mikra; Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by M. J. Mulder. CRINT 2/1. Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988, 379 – 419. Domazakis, Nikolaos. “Septuagintal Hapax Legomena and Neologisms in 2 Maccabees 4 – 7.” M.A. thesis, Lund University, 2010. Dubarle, A. M. Judith: Formes et sens des diverses traditions. AnBib 24. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966. Ederer, Matthias, and Barbara Schmitz, eds. Exodus: Interpretation durch Rezeption. SBB 74. Stuttgart: KBW, 2017. Eliot, T. S. The Wasteland. New York: Horace Liveright, 1922. Emadi, Samuel. “Intertextuality in New Testament Scholarship: Significance, Criteria, and the Art of Intertextual Reading.” CurBR 14 (2015): 8 – 23. Enns, Peter. “Pseudo-Solomon and His Scripture: Biblical Interpretation in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012, 389 – 412. Estelle, Bryan D. Echoes of Exodus: Tracing a Biblical Motif. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2018.

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

27

Evans, Craig A., and Shemaryahu Talmon, eds. The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders. BibInt 28. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Evans, Craig A., and H. Daniel Zacharias, eds. Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality. 2 vols. LNTS 391/392. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Fewell, Danna Nolan, ed. Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Text and Texture. New York: Schocken, 1979. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Fox, R. Michael, ed., Reverberations of the Exodus in Scripture. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014. Gärtner, Judith, and Barbara Schmitz, eds. Exodus: Rezeptionen in Deuterokanonischer und Frühjüdischer Literatur. DCLS 32. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Gera, Deborah Levine. Judith. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Gillmayr-Bucher, Susanne. “Intertextuality: Between Literary Theory and Text Analysis.” In The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice, edited by Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006, 13 – 23. Glicksman, Andrew T. “‘Set Your Desire on My Words’: Authoritative Traditions in the Wisdom of Solomon.” In Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, edited by Geza G. Xeravits, Tobias Nicklas, and Isaac Kalimi. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 167 – 84. Goldingay, John, and David Payne, Isaiah 40 – 55: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, Vol. 2. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2014. Goldstein, Jonathan A. 1 Maccabees. AB 41. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Gregory, Bradley C. Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Grohmann, Marianne. “Psalm 113 and the Song of Hannah (1 Samuel 2:1 – 10): A Paradigm for Intertextual Reading?” In Reading the Bible Intertextually, edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy A. Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009, 119 – 38. Hatina, T. R. “Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is There a Relationship.” BibInt 7 (1999): 28 – 43. Hays, Richard. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Henten, Jan W. van. “Judith as Alternative Leader: A Rereading of Judith 7 – 13.” In Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna, edited by Athalya Brenner. FCB 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, 224 – 52. Hepner, Gershon. “Verbal Resonance in the Bible and Intertextuality,” JSOT 96 (2001) 3 – 27. Hibbard, J. Todd. Intertextuality in Isaiah 24 – 27: The Reuse and Evocation of Earlier Texts and Traditions. FAT 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Jaspers, Karl, Origin and Goal of History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. Kiel, Micah D. “Tobit and Moses Redux.” JSP 17 (2008): 83 – 98. Kiel, Micah D. The Whole Truth: Rethinking Retribution in the Book of Tobit. LSTS 82. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Kristeva, Julia. “Word, Dialogue, and Novel,” in Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, ed. Léon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University, 1980, 64 – 91. Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.

28

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

Lange, Armin, and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. JAJSup 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Leiman, Sid Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: the Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. Hamden, CT: Archon, 1976. Leonard, Jeffery M. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” JBL 127 (2008): 241 – 65. Littman, Robert J. Tobit: The Book of Tobit in Codex Sinaiticus. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Loader, James A. “Intertextuality in Multi-layered Texts of the Old Testament.” OTE 21 (2008): 391 – 403. Macatangay, Francis M. The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 12. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. MacDonald, Dennis R. Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001. Martínez Alfaro, María Jesús. “Intertextuality: Origins and Development of the Concept.” Atlantis 18 (1996) 268 – 85. Martos, Levente B. “Authority of a Forgiven King: David’s Psalms in the Letter to the Romans.” In Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, edited by Geza G. Xeravits, Tobias Nicklas, and Isaac Kalimi. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 261 – 78. McKay, Niall. “Status Update: The Many Faces of Intertextuality in New Testament Study,” R&T 20 (2013): 84 – 106. Meek, Russell L. “Intertextuality, Inner-biblical Exegesis, and Inner-biblical Allusion: The Ethics of a Methodology.” Bib 95 (2014): 280 – 91. Miller, Geoffrey D. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” CurBR 9 (2011): 283 – 309. Moyise, Steve, and Maarten J. J. Menken, eds. Deuteronomy in the New Testament. LNTS 358. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2007. Moyise, Steve, and Maarten J. J. Menken, eds. Genesis in the New Testament. LNTS 466. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012. Moyise, Steve, and Maarten J. J. Menken, eds. Isaiah in the New Testament. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Moyise, Steve, and Maarten J. J. Menken, eds. The Psalms in the New Testament. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Muldoon, Catherine L. In Defense of Divine Justice: An Intertextual Approach to the Book of Jonah. CBQMS 47. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2010. Newman, Judith. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. SBLEJL 14; Atlanta: Scholars, 1999. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Tobit, Genesis and the Odyssey: A Complex Web of Intertextuality.” In Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity, edited by Dennis R. MacDonald. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001, 41 – 55. North, C. R. The Second Isaiah. Introduction, Translation and Commentary to Chapters XL-LV. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964. Nowell, Irene. “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. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 3 – 13.

Encountering Intertextuality in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature

29

Oropeza, B. J., and Steve Moyise, Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts. Eugene, OR: Cascade/Wipf & Stock, 2016. Portier-Young, Anathea. “‘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. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 14 – 27. Pritchard, James B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Rakel, Claudia. Judit—über Schönheit, Macht und Widerstand im Krieg: Eine feministisch-intertextuelle Lektüre. BZAW 334. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” JBL 81 (1962): 1 – 13. Schmid, Konrad. “Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung. Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte.” In Schriftauslegung in der Schrift. Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, edited by Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid. BZAW 300. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000, 1 – 22. Schmitz, Barbara, and Helmut Engel, Judit. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2014. Schöpflin, Karin. “Scriptural Authority and the Ancestor as its Teacher and Example in the Book of Tobit.” In: Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, edited by Geza G. Xeravits, Tobias Nicklas, and Isaac Kalimi. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 85 – 107. Segal, Moshe Z. Sēper ben-Sîrā’ haššālēm. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1972. Skehan, Patrick W. “The Hand of Judith,” CBQ 25 (1963) 94 – 110. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skemp, Vincent, “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. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 43 – 70. Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40 – 66. Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Stead, Michael R., The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1 – 8. LHBOTS 506. New York: T & T Clark, 2009. Tanner, Beth LaNeel. The Book of Psalms Through the Lens of Intertextuality. New York: Lang, 2001. Tull, Patricia K. “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures.” CurBS 8 (2000): 59 – 90. Weeks, Stuart. “A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?” In Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila. BZAW 419. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011, 389 – 404. Weitzman, Steven. “Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit.” JBL 115 (1996): 49 – 61. Wénin, André. “Le mariage de Tobias et ceux d’Isaac et de Jacob en Genèse.” In: Révéler les œuvres de Dieu. Lecture narrative du livre de Tobie, edited by Elena Di Pede et al. Brussels: Lessius, 2014, 168 – 81. Weren, Wim J. C. Studies in Matthew’s Gospel: Literary Design, Intertextuality, and Social Setting. BibInt 130. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

30

Geoffrey David Miller and Jeremy Corley

Wetter, Anne-Mareike. ‘On Her Account’: Reconfiguring Israel in Ruth, Esther, and Judith. LHBOTS 623. New York: T&T Clark, 2015. Whybray, R. N. Isaiah 40 – 66. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. Williams, David S. The Structure of 1 Maccabees. CBQMS 31. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1999. Wright, Benjamin G. “Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Ben Sira,” in A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism, edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012, 363 – 88. Xeravits, Géza G., Tobias Nicklas, and Isaac Kalimi, eds. Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Yoon, David I. “The Ideological Inception of Intertextuality and its Dissonance in Current Biblical Studies.” CurBR 12 (2013): 58 – 76.

1 Looking to the Past

Jeremy Corley

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

Modern literary critics have often approached intertextuality with the claim that the author’s intention is irrelevant, so that readers are free to identify whatever connections they can see and to interpret such intertextual parallels as they wish (reader-oriented approach). Traditional biblical scholars, however, have generally argued that the ancient authors have intended many of the parallels, evident between two or more texts, thereby indicating that readers should interpret one text in light of the other (author-oriented approach).¹ This essay will consider the seven major apocryphal or deuterocanonical books from the standpoint of author-oriented intertextuality, on the assumption that the late Second Temple period authors of these seven books would have known most of what became the Jewish biblical canon. Such author-oriented intertextuality frequently serves to enhance characterization, as well as to provide plot structure. Most of the deuterocanonical writings share (in Steven Weitzman’s words) “a pronounced tendency to emulate, evoke, or echo classical biblical literature.”² Indeed, the major deuterocanonical books provide ample instances of authororiented intertextual references to earlier heroic figures from Israelite history. Clear intertextual allusions occur within the reviews of history found in several deuterocanonical books (Sir 44:1– 50:24; Wisdom 10 – 19; 1 Macc 2:52– 60; Jdt 5:5 – 21). Sometimes these figures are named, while elsewhere they are unnamed, yet in both cases, educated readers would detect many of these references, especially where there are verbal echoes. In addition, later characters can be depicted in ways that recall earlier heroic figures, while new events can be described in ways that recall previous incidents in biblical history. Perhaps the clearest intertextual references occur in the two sapiential texts: the Hebrew wisdom writing of Ben Sira and the Greek book of the Wisdom of Solomon. The Book of Ben Sira is a prime candidate for intertextual study, since, in a form of author-oriented intertextuality, the sage makes great use of earlier biblical material to celebrate praiseworthy ancestors.³ In a different

 On these two approaches see Miller, “Intertextuality,” 286.  Weitzman, “Allusion,” 49. In this essay, I use the term “history” to denote a narrative description of past events, without implying full historicity in a modern sense.  Although a lengthy list of biblical parallels to Ben Sira’s phraseology appears in Middendorp, Stellung, 35 – 91, not all are true author-oriented allusions. A useful tool for researching biblical https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416930-002

34

Jeremy Corley

way, the approach to biblical interpretation in the Book of Wisdom appeals to history to illustrate the workings of divine justice, while presenting scriptural characters anonymously as models of virtue.⁴ Whereas Ben Sira’s exemplary list names a series of characters extending from the Genesis patriarchs to Nehemiah and the recent high priest Simeon II (Sir 44:1– 50:24), the Hellenistic-Jewish Book of Wisdom offers a brief retelling of the major elements of Genesis followed by an extensive midrashic review of the exodus events, though without naming any Israelite characters (Wisdom 10 – 19).⁵ The originally Aramaic novella of Tobit and the Greek novella of Judith both include an author-oriented use of scripture, mostly relying on implicit echoes and rarely on explicit quotations.⁶ As Israel’s sacred books came to gain an authoritative status, the literary practice of imitation became common in Second Temple Jewish narrative, sometimes under the influence of the Hellenistic narrative device of mimesis. For instance, the character of Tobit is presented with several aspects of the Genesis patriarchs, suggesting God’s ongoing providence for the devout Israelites.⁷ With great subtlety, both the plot and the characterization within the Book of Judith are modeled on earlier biblical material, and the narrative portrays Judith herself with features that echo several scriptural heroines (e. g., Miriam, Jael, Deborah, Esther, Abigail, and Ruth).⁸ In certain ways, she also resembles various male heroes from biblical history (e. g., Abraham, Simeon son of Jacob, Moses, Ehud, Samson, and David).⁹ Elsewhere, in the Book of Judith, we find a summary account of events from Israelite history, given by the Ammonite leader Achior, although the passage does not name any Hebrew character (Jdt 5:5 – 21). Somewhat less obvious are some of the intertextual references found in two historical works outlining the story of the Maccabean revolt. While the First Book of Maccabees is often regarded as a translation from a presumed Hebrew original, the Greek-composed Second Book of Maccabees is an abridgment of a lost work by Jason of Cyrene, possibly composed in the Greek-speaking diaspora.

intertextuality is Lange and Weigold, Quotations. The biblical (including deuterocanonical) translations supplied here are my own, often based on the NRSV.  Enns, “Wisdom,” 216 – 18.  Gilbert, “Review,” 329.  On the original language of Tobit, see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 18 – 27. In this article, I use the term “echo” for an imprecise allusion. Thus, I differ here from the understanding of “echo” in Sommer, Prophet, 30 – 31.  Nowell, “Book,” 4– 6; Macatangay, Instructions, 29 – 31.  Otzen, Tobit, 74– 79; White, “Steps,” 5– 16; Corley, “Judith,” 77– 80; Rakel, Judit, 228 – 90.  Zenger, Buch, 440 – 46; Corley, “Judith,” 81– 84; van Henten, “Judith,” 232– 41.

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

35

Both texts recount the rise of the Maccabean dynasty with an occasional authororiented use of scripture, often relying on implicit references. For instance, the depiction of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 2 Maccabees 9 contains several allusions to LXX Isaiah 14, prophesying the fall of an unspecified king of Babylon.¹⁰ However, the farewell speech of Mattathias within First Maccabees names selected biblical characters from Abraham to Daniel (1 Macc 2:52– 60), while Second Maccabees refers to scriptural events such as Solomon’s consecration of the temple (2 Macc 2:8 – 12) and the destruction of Sennacherib’s army during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Macc 8:19; 15:22). Finally the prophetic Book of Baruch, sometimes called First Baruch (chapters 1– 5), is preserved in Greek, though it has often been viewed as a translation from a lost Hebrew original. Whereas this work frequently alludes to the prophecies of Jeremiah, Isaiah 40 – 66, and Daniel, it also includes a few references to the Pentateuch, especially Deuteronomy. At the outset, we recognize that the corpus of the seven major deuterocanonical texts comprises works of diverse literary genres, including wisdom texts, novellas, history-writing, and prophetic composition. Since the deuterocanonical compositions are also diverse in original language, date, and place of composition, the following table attempts to summarize my understanding of scholarly views on the origin of these seven books, though many uncertainties remain.¹¹ As a brief introductory overview of a vast topic, this essay will consider three foundational figures from Israelite history: Abraham, Moses, and David. Whereas Abraham was considered biological ancestor of the Jewish people, Moses can be regarded as founder of the nation, while David was reckoned originator of the dynasty that ruled Jerusalem for more than four centuries. Within later Jewish tradition all three of these figures in various ways were viewed as role models for their devoted obedience to God. To be sure, any reference to the chosen people could potentially be an allusion to Abraham, any mention of Israelite Law could perhaps allude to Moses, and any reference to Jerusalem’s kings could conceivably recall David. Hence, the best evidence of author-oriented intertextuality is when a contextual parallel is combined with some kind of verbal connection, though the probability is enhanced where there is distinctive vocabulary and a cluster of motifs from the same source.¹² Besides briefly surveying the portrayal

 Gregory, “Isaiah,” 87– 104.  See the relevant chapters in deSilva, Introducing. Because of limits of space, this essay will ignore the deuterocanonical additions to Daniel and Esther, as well as the Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6).  For further discussion, see Skemp, “Avenues,” 44– 47. Where possible, it is best to compare Hebrew texts with the Hebrew Bible and Greek compositions with the LXX, though uncertainties exist about the original language of some deuterocanonical works.

36

Jeremy Corley

Table 1: Origins of the seven major deuterocanonical books LXX Book

Probable DateRange for Origin

Likely Place of Origin

Earliest Surviving Manuscript

Original Language

Tobit

 –  BCE

[uncertain]

Aramaic Q (fragments of Tob Aramaic (or per:; :): ca.  BCE.—Also haps Hebrew) Hebrew Q (parts of Tob : – :): ca.  BCE

Ben Sira

 –  BCE

Jerusalem

Hebrew Masada MS Mas  h Hebrew (parts of Sir : – :): ca.  BCE

Second  –  Maccabees BCE

Alexandria Greek Codex Alexandrinus: (or possibly ca.  CE.—But Coptic (Sahidic) Jerusalem) Crosby-Schøyen MS  ( Macc : – :): ca.  CE

Greek

First Maccabees

 –  BCE

Land of Israel

Greek Codex Sinaiticus: ca.  CE

Preserved in Greek. Lost Hebrew often suggested

Judith

 –  BCE

Land of Israel

Greek Cairo Ostracon  = Rahlfs Preserved in Greek.  (parts of Jdt : – ): ca.  Lost Hebrew has CE been suggested

Baruch –

 –  BCE

[uncertain]

Greek Codex Vaticanus: ca.  CE

Alexandria

Greek Oxford Papyrus Antinoöpo- Greek lis LDAB  = Rahlfs  (parts of Wisdom : – ; : – ), ca.  CE

Wisdom of  BCE- Solomon CE

Preserved in Greek. Lost Hebrew often suggested

of these three figures where they are named, the essay will investigate unmarked allusions where contextual clues and verbal echoes suggest an intertextual reference. Here it will be possible only to sketch some of the main contours of the author-oriented intertextual allusions found in these seven deuterocanonical books, without mentioning all the many previous studies. I assume that the Torah and Neviim (as well as Chronicles) were substantially completed by the

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

37

time of Ben Sira, in a form seldom differing greatly from the Masoretic Text.¹³ I also assume that the Greek Pentateuch was translated before 200 BCE, and the Greek version of Joshua-Kings probably existed by 100 BCE.¹⁴ I further assume that these aforementioned biblical texts were available in either Hebrew or Greek to the authors of the seven major deuterocanonical books.¹⁵ At this stage, it is useful to list the explicit mentions of Abraham, Moses, and David in the Septuagintal forms of these seven books (see table overleaf).¹⁶ Whereas the Book of Tobit most often mentions Moses, out of these three major characters, Ben Sira and First Maccabees name David most frequently. At most, each of the deuterocanonical books names Abraham only twice. Chapters 10 – 19 of the Book of Wisdom do not name the characters in the review of pentateuchal history, though Jewish readers would doubtless recognize the episodes. Similarly, while the Book of Judith does not name Moses or David, events from their lives are sometimes echoed in the narrative. Other books name these major characters only once or twice, though the specific mentions are frequently only the tip of the iceberg of intertextual references.

Intertextual References to Abraham The figure of Abraham occurs relatively widely in the seven deuterocanonical books, both when explicitly mentioned and (more often) when implicitly alluded to. Ben Sira’s praise of Abraham celebrates him, not merely as Israel’s biological progenitor but as “ancestor of a multitude of nations” (Sir 44:19).¹⁷ Here the sage alludes to the Hebrew play on words in Gen 17:4– 5, whereby the patriarch’s name is changed from Abram (“exalted ancestor”) to Abraham (understood as

 To be sure, Qumran preserves different text forms of the Book of Samuel and of the Psalter; cf. VanderKam and Flint, Meaning, 115 – 16; 122 – 23. Moreover, LXX Jeremiah and LXX Job differ considerably from their Hebrew equivalents; cf. Dines, Septuagint, 20 – 23.  Dines, Septuagint, 41– 45. For a list of implicit citations of LXX Genesis and Exodus in Wisdom 10 see Glicksman, Wisdom 10, 152– 53.  In fact, Sir 44:17– 49:10 refers in the Hebrew canonical order to all five books of the Torah and eight books of the Former and Latter Prophets, ending with the “Twelve Prophets”; cf. Goshen-Gottstein, “Canonical,” 241. To be sure, to call these texts “biblical” in this era is an anachronism, but I will keep this anachronistic language for convenience.  Since the two main Greek forms of Tobit often diverge widely, the table indicates Sinaiticus or Vaticanus where there are significant differences. In addition to the tabulated references, the Hebrew litany following Sir 51:12 in Genizah MS B praises God as “the one causing a horn to sprout for the house of David” (cf. Ps 132:17), and as “the shield of Abraham” (cf. Gen 15:1).  Beentjes, “Ben Sira,” 215; cf. Mazzinghi, “Abramo.”

38

Jeremy Corley

Table 2: Verses naming Abraham, Moses, and David in major deuterocanonical books LXX Book

Abraham

Moses

David

Tobit

Tob : (Vaticanus); : (Sinaiticus)

Tob : (Sinaiticus); : (also Q .ii.); : (Sinaiticus); :; : (Sinaiticus)

Tob : (Sinaiticus)

Ben Sira

Sir :, 

Sir :; :, ; :, 

Sir :; :, , ; :, ; :

Second Maccabees

 Macc :

 Macc :; :, , , ; :, 

 Macc :

First Maccabees

 Macc :; :

–

 Macc :; :, ; :; :; :

Judith

Jdt :

–

–

Baruch  – 

Bar :

Bar :; :, 

–

Wisdom of Solomon

–

–

–

“ancestor of a multitude”). Ben Sira also refers to God’s oath to Abraham to bless nations through his offspring (Sir 44:21; cf. Gen 22:18). Surprisingly, 1 Macc 12:21 refers to a supposed letter from the Spartan king to the Jewish high priest, claiming that the Spartans are from Abraham’s race like the Jews, though the basis for this claim is unclear. In a general sense, the idea in 1 Macc 12:21 may reflect God’s promise to Abraham that he would become “ancestor of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17:5). Possibly there may be a specific reference to Dedan, Abraham’s grandson through Keturah (LXX Gen 25:3: Δαιδαν), whom the Maccabean author (or his source) may possibly have linked with the tribe of Danaoi (Δαναοί), the early occupants of Sparta.¹⁸ The sole mention of Abraham within Codex Vaticanus of Tobit serves to support Tobit’s admonition to his son to marry a fellow member of the chosen people: “As for Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our ancestors from of old—child, remember that they all took wives from among their kinsfolk. And they were blessed with their children, and their posterity will inherit the land” (Tob

 Goldstein, I Maccabees, 457– 59.

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

39

4:12).¹⁹ The promise of land made to Abraham (Gen 15:18 – 21) is also echoed in the mention of the “land of Abraham” in Tobit’s deathbed speech (Tob 14:7 Sinaiticus, but not Vaticanus), while Bar 2:34 also recalls the divine promise of territory made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Moreover, the concern for family shown by both Abraham and Tobit extends to burial, since both patriarchal figures wish to be buried in the same graves as their wives. Just as Abraham wishes to be laid to rest in the particular tomb where he buried Sarah (Gen 23:3 – 20; 25:8 – 10), so Tobit commands his son about burying his mother: “When she dies, bury her beside me in one tomb” (Tob 4:4).²⁰ Although the Tobit narrative does not further name Abraham, the episode of Tobiah’s meeting with his bride echoes Genesis 24.²¹ Just as Abraham sends his servant east toward Mesopotamia to find a wife for his son among his own kindred, so Tobit sends his son on a mission further east, during which he encounters his bride Sarah. To be sure, the ostensible purpose of Tobiah’s mission is to recover money entrusted to a relative (Tob 4:20), but the outcome is similar. Besides the structural parallels, there are verbal echoes. Abraham says to his servant (Gen 24:40 Alexandrinus): “The Lord God, before whom I have been wellpleasing, will himself send forth his angel with you, and he will prosper your way (εὐοδώσει τὴν ὁδόν σου).” Similarly, Tobit reassures his wife about their son’s safety on the journey (Tob 5:22 Sinaiticus): “A good angel will go with him, and his way will be prospered (εὐοδωθήσεται ἡ ὁδὸς αὐτοῦ).”²² Many traditions emphasize Abraham’s obedience to God. Abraham receives praise from Ben Sira because (unlike Solomon in 47:20) his glory was unblemished (44:19 Hebrew). Indeed, it was because of his obedience that he received a covenant, sealed in his flesh by circumcision (Sir 44:20; 2 Macc 1:2).²³ As in Gen 26:5, Abraham is here shown keeping the command of the Most High.²⁴ Abraham is also praised in the concise reference to him (unnamed) in Wis 10:5, where several echoes of Genesis occur: “She [= wisdom] also, when the nations, in wicked agreement, had been put to confusion [Gen 11:7– 9], found the

 Macatangay, Instructions, 84– 85.  Nowell, “Book,” 5; Moore, Tobit, 165; Schöpflin, “Authority,” 103; Macatangay, When, 66.  Deselaers, Tobit, 292– 303; Nowell, “Book,” 10 – 11.  Nowell, “Book,” 9; Rabenau, Studien, 104– 7. Among the differences of character and setting, the person sent is Abraham’s servant but Tobit’s son, and also Abraham’s servant travels from the land of Canaan to Aram-naharaim, whereas Tobiah journeys from Nineveh to Ecbatana.  Beentjes, “Ben Sira,” 218.  Kugel, Traditions, 706; Gregory, “Abraham,” 69 – 73. The Abraham narrative anticipates the Torah stipulations of tithing (Gen 14:20), offering sacrifices (Gen 15:9 – 10), circumcision (Gen 17:10), and redeeming a firstborn son with an animal sacrifice (Gen 22:13).

40

Jeremy Corley

righteous one [Gen 15:6] and kept him blameless toward God [Gen 17:1].”²⁵ While the statement about the nations being put to confusion employs the Septuagintal vocabulary from the Tower of Babel story (Gen 11:9), which precedes God’s initial call to Abraham (Gen 12:1– 3), there may also be a secondary allusion to Abraham’s victory over the alliance of pagan kings (Genesis 14), which precedes the dialogue where the patriarch is recognized as “righteous” (Gen 15:1– 6). The LXX Prayer of Manasseh (v. 8) also echoes Gen 15:6 in calling Abraham “righteous,” by contrast with the sinful King Manasseh. Finally, without naming Abraham, Achior’s speech in the Book of Judith alludes to his departure from Mesopotamia and journeying to the land of Canaan (Jdt 5:9; cf. Gen 11:31– 12:5), a journey undertaken in obedience to the divine call. The incident from Abraham’s life most frequently mentioned within the deuterocanonical books is the divine testing of him in the Akedah (Gen 22:1– 18).²⁶ Thus, recalling the example of Abraham (as well as Isaac and Jacob) in successfully enduring testing, Judith says: “In spite of everything let us give thanks to the Lord our God, who is testing (πείραζει) us as he did our ancestors. Remember what he did with Abraham, and how he tested (ἐπείρασεν) Isaac” (Jdt 8:25 – 26). In a statement linking Gen 22:1 with Neh 9:8, Ben Sira also celebrates Abraham’s faithfulness when under trial (Sir 44:20): “In testing (‫ = בניסוי‬ἐν πειρασμῷ) he was found faithful (‫ = נאמן‬πιστός).”²⁷ Similarly, Mattathias declares in his farewell speech: “Was not Abraham found faithful (πιστός) in testing (ἐν πειρασμῷ)?” (1 Macc 2:52). This motif also appears in the Book of Jubilees (mid-second century BCE), which depicts the figure of Mastema challenging God: “Behold, Abraham loves Isaac, his son. And he is more pleased with him than anything. Tell him to offer him as a burnt offering upon the altar…. And you will know whether he is faithful in everything in which you test him” (Jub. 17:16).²⁸ Although the Book of Tobit does not explicitly mention the Akedah, there is a comparable narrative pattern whereby a pious father, who is being tested by God, faces the potential loss of his son but eventually receives him back safe

 Glicksman, Wisdom, 115, 136. Cf. Enns, “Wisdom,” 216 – 17; Mazzinghi, La figura,” 352– 60. There may also be an allusion to Abraham in the statement of Wis 18:6 (cf. Gen 15:14): “That night was made known beforehand to our ancestors”; cf. Gilbert, “La nuit,” 303.  For multiple references to the Akedah in Second Temple texts, see Kugel, Traditions, 296 – 326.  Gregory, “Abraham,” 73. Scholars have identified an implied allusion to Abraham in Sir 2:1: “Child, if you draw near to be a slave to the Lord, prepare yourself for testing (πειρασμόν).” Cf. Calduch-Benages, Crisol, 91– 92; Sauer, Sirach, 55; Marböck, Sirach 1 – 23, 64.  Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 90; cf. Gregory, “Abraham,” 75.

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

41

and sound. Within Raphael’s farewell speech (Tob 12:14, Sinaiticus but not Vaticanus), the angel announces: “I was sent to you to test (πειράσαι) you”—just as God tested Abraham (Gen 22:1).²⁹ The mention of Tobiah and Azariah travelling together in Tob 6:6 (“the two of them went together”) recalls the journey of Abraham and Isaac to Mount Moriah (Gen 22:6).³⁰ Finally, the happy outcome of the episode includes the intervention of an angel, since Gen 22:15 – 18 reports the promise of divine blessing conveyed by “the angel of the Lord,” while Tobit’s family offered praise to God “for all those marvelous deeds of his when God’s angel appeared to them” (Tob 12:22 Sinaiticus). Within a Hellenistic context the Akedah scene was interpreted in terms of Abraham’s triumph over his feelings through the power of reason. The incident is briefly recalled in the Greek-composed Book of Wisdom, where divine wisdom gave the unnamed figure of Abraham great control over his fatherly feelings: “She preserved him strong against compassion for a child” (Wis 10:5).³¹ This aspect of control over one’s emotions is emphasized in 4 Macc 14:20, where the mother of the seven martyred sons is compared to Abraham: “Sympathy for her children did not move the young men’s mother, who was of the same soul as Abraham.”³² Just as Judith’s exhortation to the city elders mentions Abraham as someone who experienced divine testing (Jdt 8:26; Gen 22:1), she herself resembles the Genesis patriarch by being an exemplary God-fearing protagonist (Gen 22:12; Jdt 8:8, 31). Like Abraham, she perseveres faithfully at a time of national and personal testing. In particular, her bravery in rescuing her people from foreign attack resembles Abraham’s courage in Genesis 14.³³ In addition, the victory blessings of Judith spoken by the magistrate Uzziah and the high priest Joakim (Jdt 13:18; 15:8 – 10) echo the phraseology of Melchizedek’s blessing of Abraham after his successful battle (Gen 14:18 – 20). Finally, both books narrate how the victory over the enemy leadership happens at night-time (Gen 14:15; Jdt 13:1, 14), culminating in the triumphant pursuit of foes (Gen 14:15: Jdt 15:5).

    

Moore, Tobit, 271. Novick, “Narrative,” 757– 58. Glicksman, Wisdom, 116 – 17; Mazzinghi, “La figura,” 360 – 62. Winston, Wisdom, 214– 15. Zenger, Buch, 441; Gera, Judith, 49 – 50.

42

Jeremy Corley

Intertextual References to Moses Like Abraham, the character of Moses appears often in the deuterocanonical books, whether explicitly mentioned or implicitly alluded to, though interestingly he is unnamed in Judith and First Maccabees. Within Ben Sira’s celebration of Moses (Sir 45:1– 5), this great character receives less attention than the priestly figure of Aaron. While Aaron is praised in 32 bicola (Sir 45:6 – 22), Moses receives only one-fourth of that length (8 bicola), though Sir 45:15 acknowledges Moses as the one who ordained Aaron as priest. Moreover, whereas some other Second Temple Jewish references (e. g., Wis 10:15 – 21) focus on Moses as the liberator of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery, Ben Sira places more emphasis on his role as lawgiver and teacher.³⁴ In addition, an allusion to the Sinai theophany is made directly in Sir 45:5 (as in 2 Macc 2:8), and indirectly in Sir 17:13. Although the farewell speech of Mattathias encourages the audience to show zeal for the Law (1 Macc 2:50), it is surprising that it mentions Joseph, Phinehas, and Joshua (1 Macc 2:53 – 55), but not Moses. Again without naming Moses, the narrative of Judas Maccabeus destroying an enemy town blocking access to all Israel (1 Macc 5:45 – 51) exhibits parallels to similar accounts of obstructions faced by the Israelites on their journey through the wilderness (Num 20:14– 21; 21:21– 25).³⁵ A recent volume included eight essays on the reception of exodus themes in deuterocanonical literature, as well as discussion of other Second Temple period texts.³⁶ Whereas Ben Sira is virtually silent about the exodus event,³⁷ the Book of Wisdom concludes with a lengthy midrashic retelling of selected incidents from the exodus story (Wis 10:15 – 19:22), emphasizing divine justice and wisdom, as well as the folly of idolatry.³⁸ According to Wis 10:16, wisdom “entered into the soul of a servant of the Lord, and he opposed fearsome kings with portents and signs” (cf. Sir 45:3). After the crossing of the Red Sea, the righteous Israelites sang hymns (Wis 10:20 – 21; cf. Ps 106:12; 3 Macc 6:8), according to a brief retelling of the song of Moses and Miriam in Exodus 15.³⁹ Significantly, the author of Wisdom speaks of God’s “defending hand” (Wis 10:20), alluding to the victorious

 Reiterer, “Beobachtungen,” 200; Witte, “Mose,” 170; Calduch-Benages, “Traditions,” 121.  Elssner, “Auszug,” 151– 52.  Gärtner and Schmitz, Exodus. The deuterocanonical books are not discussed in Estelle, Echoes; Fox, Reverberations.  Calduch-Benages, “Traditions,” 117.  Larcher, Etudes, 139; Glicksman, Wisdom, 135 – 42. Cf. Gilbert, La critique; Cheon, Exodus; Enns, Exodus.  Schmitz, “Gotteshandeln,” 58; Enns, “Retelling,” 1– 14.

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

43

role of God’s “hand” in LXX Exod 15:6.⁴⁰ Whereas according to Vaticanus, Wis 16:6 speaks of the bronze serpent (Num 21:9) as a “symbol of deliverance” (σύμβολον σωτηρίας), Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus instead refer to Moses as “counselor of deliverance” (σύμβουλον σωτηρίας).⁴¹ In Wis 11:4– 14 and 16:1– 19:9 the author draws antithetical lessons from seven episodes: the miracle of water at Massah; the gift of quails; the bronze serpent; the giving of the manna; the guidance by the pillar of fire; the deliverance of the firstborn; and the crossing of the Red Sea.⁴² It is striking that while the Book of Exodus reaches its literary center in the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19 – 24), the seven antitheses refer mostly to events preceding the arrival of the Israelites at Sinai.⁴³ Indeed, the mention of the “divine law” in the context of Wis 18:9 probably refers to the Passover regulations (Exodus 12) rather than the whole Law of Moses given at Sinai.⁴⁴ Ben Sira makes several allusions to the commonplace theme of Moses as lawgiver (Sir 24:23; 45:3, 5; cf. 17:11). Besides mentioning the “Law of Moses” in Tob 1:8 in connection with tithes, the Book of Tobit also refers to it in Tob 6:13 and 7:11– 13 in relation to marriage, supplying a more restrictive interpretation of endogamy.⁴⁵ In addition, 2 Macc 7:30 alludes to the Pentateuchal dietary regulations given by Moses (Lev 11:7– 8; Deut 14:8). Although First Maccabees does not name Moses, the report of the rededication of the temple (1 Macc 4:41– 59) is full of allusions to ceremonial regulations from the Pentateuch.⁴⁶ Moreover, the mention of fire from heaven in 2 Macc 2:10 – 11 echoes the descent of fire on Aaron’s inaugural sacrifice (Lev 9:24), while 2 Macc 2:4 recalls Moses’ preview of the promised land from Mount Nebo (Deut 34:1– 4).⁴⁷ In its final form, the Book of Baruch (chapters 1– 5) describes a journey of transformation from distressed prayer by the exiled Jews to rejoicing at the na-

 Schmitz, “Gotteshandeln,” 58.  For symbol see Winston, Wisdom, 294– 95; for counselor see Leproux, “Moïse,” 161– 92.  Gilbert, “Wisdom,” 56 – 58; Zsengellér, “Taste,” 203; Mazzinghi, “Figure,” 183 – 206.  Zsengellér, “Taste,” 205. Admittedly, the episode of the bronze serpent (Num 21:4– 9; Wis 16:5 – 14) occurs after the Israelites had left Sinai, and the chosen people are described as those through whom the light of the Law would be given to the world (Wis 18:4); cf. Mazzinghi, Notte, 217– 24, 240 – 70.  Glicksman, “Traditions,” 170.  Miller, Marriage, 74– 77; Schöpflin, “Authority,” 90 – 94: Macatangay, Instructions, 267– 70.  See Exod 20:25; 25:30; 26:33; 29:38 – 42; 30:8; 40:4– 5. Cf. Lange and Weigold, Quotations, 240 – 41.  Elssner, “Auszug,” 155.

44

Jeremy Corley

tional regathering in Jerusalem.⁴⁸ This narrative movement includes some echoes of the concluding chapters of Deuteronomy, because the penitential prayer in Bar 1:15 – 3:8 contains several allusions to the curses for covenant-breaking in Deut 28:15 – 68. Interestingly, although Bar 1:15 – 3:8 has four instances of a citation formula attributing the following text to Moses (or to the prophets), Sean Adams has observed that none of these quotations (Bar 2:2, 20, 24, 28) agrees exactly with any passage in the source text.⁴⁹ Indeed, Baruch sometimes reinterprets a Deuteronomic text in light of Jeremiah, since the mention of the Mosaic curse of eating one’s own children (Bar 2:2– 3) recalls not only Deut 28:53 – 57 but also Jer 19:9.⁵⁰ In a wider sense, the Deuteronomic curses for disobedience in Bar 1:20 echo Deut 27:26 and 29:19[NRSV: 29:20], whereas the promise of divine mercy toward the people in Bar 4:5 – 5:9 (cf. Bar 2:27– 35) is reminiscent of Deut 30:1– 10.⁵¹ Furthermore, the identification of wisdom with “the book of God’s commands” (Bar 4:1) is a reference to the Mosaic Law, as is the reference to the “way of knowledge” (Bar 3:36).⁵² One of the poetic texts often alluded to in the deuterocanonical books is the Song of Moses after the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod 15:1– 18). The song chanted by the divinely rescued people is recalled in Wis 10:20 and 19:9.⁵³ As in Exod 15:2, the Genizah Hebrew text of Sir 51:1 praises “my father’s God” for salvation. Famously, Judith’s prayer and her final canticle (Jdt 9:7– 8; 16:2) both allude to the Greek form of Exod 15:3.⁵⁴ When Jdt 16:2 asserts: “The Lord is a God who crushes wars” (θεὸς συντρίβων πολέμους κύριος), there is an allusion to the Septuagintal form of Exod 15:3: “the Lord who crushes wars” (κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους), where the Hebrew text uses more bellicose language: “The LORD is a man of war.”⁵⁵ Elsewhere, Jeremiah’s visionary promise to Judas Maccabeus that he would shatter his enemies (2 Macc 15:16) seems to recall Exod 15:6,

 Corley, “Transformation,” 225 – 28. For arguments favoring the unity of Baruch 1– 5 see Steck, Baruchbuch, 253 – 65; Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, 369 – 97.  Adams, “Reframing,” 67– 78.  Feuerstein, “Vertrauen,” 278; Adams, “Reframing,” 68 – 70.  For a table comparing passages in LXX Deuteronomy and Baruch, see Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, 371– 72. See also Marttila, “Ideology.”  Gilbert, “La loi,” 105 – 6.  Enns, “Retelling,” 1– 14.  For other echoes of Exodus 15 in Judith 16, see Rakel, Judit, 249 – 60; Gera, Judith, 45 – 46; Newman, Praying, 146 – 47. Whereas God makes use of the hand of Moses as his instrument for the exodus, in the Book of Judith God uses the hand of a woman; so Skehan, “Hand,” 96.  Rakel, Judit, 106 – 10. The presence of Septuagintal allusions in the Book of Judith suggests that it was composed in Greek; cf. Engel, “Herr,” 157– 58; Corley, “Septuagintalisms,” 70 – 71; Joosten, “Language,” 165 – 67.

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

45

while the priestly prayer says to God: “Plant your people in your holy place, as Moses said” (2 Macc 1:29), referring to Exod 15:17, in combination with an echo of 2 Sam 7:10. Finally, the admonition of Judas Maccabeus to remember how the Israelites “were saved at the Red Sea when Pharaoh pursued them with an army” (1 Macc 4:9) evidently echoes the exodus story (Exod 14:28; 15:4). Another pentateuchal poetic composition frequently echoed in the deuterocanonical books (as in other Second Temple Jewish writings) is the farewell Song of Moses (Deut 32:1– 43). Thus, Bar 4:6 – 7 takes up the idea of apostasy provoking God, using language from Deut 32:16 – 17 and 32:30.⁵⁶ The song’s threat of divine vengeance in Deut 32:41 is variously echoed in Sir 12:6 and 35:22– 23, while the plea for divine mercy in 2 Macc 8:3 – 4 is reminiscent of Deut 32:43.⁵⁷ Moreover, Mattathias’ farewell speech inviting his sons to consider past generations (1 Macc 2:61) is reminiscent of Moses’ call in Deut 32:7, while 1 Macc 12:53 describes the threat of blotting out Israel with an echo of Deut 32:26. On the positive side, 2 Macc 7:6 echoes the notion of divine mercy found in Deut 32:36.⁵⁸ Furthermore, the prayer uttered by the army of Judas Maccabeus recalls the notion from Deut 32:9 that Israel is God’s portion (2 Macc 14:15), while Ben Sira’s belief in the divine election of Israel (Sir 17:17; 44:2) also recalls Deut 32:8 – 9.⁵⁹ In addition, the leaders of the Edomites and Moabites suggest to Holofernes that the Israelites will waste away in hunger and they will die in the street (Jdt 7:14), echoing Deut 32:24.⁶⁰ Finally, the declaration of Deut 32:39 about God’s incomparability and his power over life and death finds echoes in Wis 12:13 and 16:13.⁶¹ Scholars have observed that the Book of Tobit has a strong Deuteronomic background, especially in its echoes of the farewell Song of Moses.⁶² Tobit’s prayer affirms: “All your works (πάντα τὰ ἔργα σου) are righteous (δίκαια) and all your ways (πᾶσαι αἱ ὁδοί σου) are mercifulness and truth (ἀλήθεια); you judge

 Kabasele Mukenge, L’unité, 372; Steck, Baruchbuch, 208.  Goldstein, II Maccabees, 294, 325. In addition, the description of human pride in Greek Sir 10:12 echoes LXX Deut 32:15.  Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 22, 296, 299.  Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 477; Goering, Wisdom’s Root, 232– 33; Mermelstein, Creation, 25 – 26, 39 – 40.  Gera, Judith, 241. Whereas Deut 32:25 speaks of Israelites perishing by the sword in the street, Jdt 7:14 surpasses this threat by speaking of Israelites dying in the street even before a sword is raised against them.  The Book of Wisdom has further parallels, some closer than others (Deut 32:6//Wis 14:3; Deut 32:10//Wis 11:2; Deut 32:15//Wis 15:11; Deut 32:19//Wis 9:7; Deut 32:24//Wis 16:10; Deut 32:32//Wis 10:7).  Di Lella, “Background,” 380 – 89; Weitzman, “Allusion,” 56. However, scholars have overemphasized the Deuteronomic links according to Kiel, Truth, 66 – 67; Weeks, “Heritage,” 395.

46

Jeremy Corley

forever” (Tob 3:2 Sinaiticus), echoing the assertion of the Song of Moses: “As for God, his works (τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ) are true (ἀληθινά) and all his ways (πᾶσαι αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ) are judgments; a faithful God and there is no unrighteousness; the Lord is righteous (δίκαιος) and holy” (LXX Deut 32:4).⁶³ The first part of Tobit’s canticle (Tob 13:1– 7) is also reminiscent of the Song of Moses in its recognition of God as giver of life and death (v. 2; cf. Deut 32:39), the reference to God as Father (v. 4; cf. Deut 32:6), and the mention of God hiding his face (v. 6; cf. Deut 32:20).⁶⁴ The character of Tobit himself is partly depicted in terms recalling Moses.⁶⁵ The overall pattern of the Book of Tobit, whereby lament precedes divine deliverance, has a generic resemblance to the early chapters of Exodus.⁶⁶ The Book of Tobit begins: “The book of the words of Tobit” (Tob 1:1), loosely recalling the opening of Deuteronomy: “These are the words that Moses spoke” (Deut 1:1), while Tobit’s call to his son to remember God (Tob 4:4) echoes Moses’ insistence that the Israelites not forget God (Deut 8:11). As Francis Macatangay comments on Tob 4:3 – 19, “like Moses who delivers the instruction of God to the people of God as they prepare to enter the land, Tobit also engages in some elaboration of the Deuteronomic command as he looks forward to the restoration of Israel in the land.”⁶⁷ Another interesting detail is the affinity of the names of Tobit (‫—טובי‬4Q197 4.iii.6 = Tob 7:4) and his son Tobiah (‫—טוביה‬4Q 196 2.10 = Tob 2:1) to a midrashic name Tobiah (‫—טוביה‬b. Sotah 12a), given to Moses by the rabbis because his mother saw that he was “good” (‫—טוב‬Exod 2:2).⁶⁸ Although the Book of Judith does not name Moses, the characterization of Judith depends significantly on the portrait of Israel’s great liberator.⁶⁹ While Achior’s speech already alludes to the exodus story (Jdt 5:10 – 13), Judith resembles Moses as a leader liberating the Israelites from an oppressive foreign power, and her triumphal song echoes the victory hymn chanted at the Red Sea by Moses with Miriam (Exod 15:3 – 4; Jdt 9:7– 8; 16:2– 3).⁷⁰ It is no coincidence that she is descended from someone called Merari, named after a relation of Moses  Di Lella, “Prayers,” 103. Azariah’s canticle expresses similar thoughts (Dan 3:27 Theodotion).  Moore, Tobit, 284– 85; Weitzman, “Allusion,” 53.  Macatangay, Instructions, 157– 59; Kiel, Truth, 62– 66; Kiel, “Tobit,” 83 – 84; Evans, “Mediation,” 140 – 41.  Egger-Wenzel, “Individualisierung,” 132– 37; Macatangay, “Election,” 450 – 63.  Macatangay, “Discourse,” 105.  Egger-Wenzel, “Individualisierung,” 139 – 40.  Gera, Judit, 45; Rakel, Judit, 249 – 60; van Henten, “Judith,” 232– 41. The portrait of the female leader Judith in terms traditionally regarded as masculine may have been one factor in the book’s non-admission into the rabbinic canon; cf. Miller, “Canonicity,” 211– 14.  Lange, “Rezeption.”

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

47

(Jdt 8:1; Exod 6:16 – 20).⁷¹ Just as she calls herself a “daughter of the Hebrews,” the infant Moses is recognized as “one of the children of the Hebrews” (Jdt 10:12; Exod 2:6). In addition, Judith becomes an intercessor for her people after the model of Moses (Jdt 8:31; Exod 34:9; Num 21:7), and her piety includes the practice of fasting in imitation of devout characters such as Moses (Jdt 8:6; Exod 34:28). Like Moses (Exod 17:2; Num 20:4– 5), Judith also has to deal with the Israelites who are complaining of thirst (Jdt 8:31), and like the earlier patriarch, Judith reproves the thirsty people for putting God to the test instead of showing trust in him (Ps 95:8 – 9; Jdt 8:12– 13). Thus, many aspects of her leadership recall the story of Moses.

Intertextual References to David Like Abraham and Moses, the figure of David appears widely within the deuterocanonical books, both when explicitly mentioned and when implicitly alluded to, though he remains unnamed in the Book of Judith. Ben Sira’s praise of David (Sir 47:2 – 11) in sixteen bicola matches the length of the immediately-following praise of his son Solomon (Sir 47:12– 22). While the Praise of the Ancestors mentions David’s victory over Goliath, the celebration of this king notably includes his role as cult founder, drawn from Chronicles (Sir 47:8 – 10; cf. 1 Chr 16:4– 38; 25:1– 7).⁷² It is thus appropriate that the praise of David begins with a cultic metaphor (Sir 47:2 Hebrew), depicting him as being “like fat separated/lifted up from the holy [offering],” removed in order to be burned on the altar before God (Lev 3:3; 4:8).⁷³ The sage also envisages David praying for divine help before his contest with Goliath: “He called on the Lord, the Most High, and he gave strength to his right arm” (Sir 47:5). In this way, the king fits in to a pattern of heroic figures responding to a threatening situation through prayer, as in the cases of Joshua, Samuel, and Hezekiah (Sir 46:5, 16; 48:20).⁷⁴ Moreover, David’s provision of psalms for worship (Sir 47:9) may hint not only at his establishing of the temple’s choral guild (1 Chr 16:4– 7; 25:1– 7) but also at his own composition of psalms, especially since 2 Macc 2:13 refers to “the writings of David” and the

 See van Henten, “Judith,” 241– 42.  Beentjes, “Portrayals,” 167– 68; Gregory, “Warrior-Poet,” 90; Marböck, “Erbe,” 129 – 31. In addition, Sir 45:25 mentions God’s covenant with David from Ps 89:29; cf. Beentjes, “Portrayals,” 169 – 73.  Xeravits, “Figure,” 29.  Demitrów, Oranti; cf. Beentjes, “Portrayals,” 167– 68; Urbanz, Gebet, 62– 67; Calduch-Benages, Crisol, 137– 40.

48

Jeremy Corley

Qumran Cave 11 Psalms Scroll (11QPsa 27.4– 11) mentions his composing of 4050 songs. The First Book of Maccabees recounts the career of Mattathias with several reminiscences of the story of David. Thus, Mattathias’ fleeing to the mountains with a band of soldiers (1 Macc 2:27– 28, 42– 48) recalls David’s flight away from Saul into the mountains (1 Samuel 22– 23).⁷⁵ Moreover, the narration of the closing days of Mattathias’ life echoes the biblical description of David’s last days, since 1 Macc 2:49 introduces the farewell speech of Mattathias by saying: “The days drew near for Mattathias to die, and he said to his sons—,” just as LXX 1 Kgs 2:1 prefaces David’s farewell speech with the words: “The days drew near for David to die, and he commanded Solomon his son, saying—.” Both farewell speeches teach observance of the Law of Moses (1 Kgs 2:3; 1 Macc 2:50, 64), as well as authorizing vengeance on enemies (1 Kgs 2:5, 8; 1 Macc 2:67– 68). The poetic celebration of the warlike exploits of Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 3:3) also has echoes of the biblical depiction of David in his victory over Goliath.⁷⁶ Judas “clothed himself (ἐνεδύσατο) with a breastplate (θώρακα) like a warrior, and girded himself (συνεζώσατο) with the battle equipment” (1 Macc 3:3), just as prior to his combat with the Philistine giant, “Saul clothed (ἐνέδυσεν) [David] with his cloak … and girded (ἔζωσεν) David with a breastplate (θώρακαν)” (LXX 1 Sam 17:38 – 39 Alexandrinus). In addition, David’s defeat of Goliath is also recalled in Judas Maccabeus’ prayer (1 Macc 4:30), which praises God as Israel’s Savior for crushing the attack of the mighty warrior “through the hand of your servant David” (cf. 1 Sam 17:48). The beheading of Nicanor by the troops of Judas Maccabeus is reported in the statement: “they cut off Nicanor’s head” (τὴν κεφαλὴν Νικάνορος ἀφεῖλαν: 1 Macc 7:47 Alexandrinus), and here the narrator employs language recalling David’s decapitation of Goliath, since a comparable phrase appears in LXX 1 Sam 17:51: “he cut off his head” (ἀφεῖλεν τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ).⁷⁷ Moreover, although the Book of Judith does not name David, the heroine’s decapitation of Holofernes is reminiscent of David’s triumph over Goliath.⁷⁸ Indeed, her use of Holofernes’ weapon to behead him echoes David’s use of Goliath’s sword to cut off his head, and the same phrase describes Judith’s action (Jdt 13:8; cf. LXX 1 Sam 17:51), since she “cut off his head” (ἀφεῖλεν τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ).⁷⁹ Whereas Holofernes and Goliath both trust in their military equipment     

Goldstein, I Maccabees, 7. Ibid., 244. For other echoes of 1 Samuel 17, see Goldstein, I Maccabees, 242, 264, 421. Zenger, Buch, 440; Rakel, Judit, 260 – 65. Schmitz and Engel, Judit, 359.

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

49

(Jdt 9:7; 1 Sam 17:45), Judith imitates David by acknowledging that strength does not depend on the power of human fighters (Jdt 9:7– 11; 1 Sam 17:45 – 47). In both cases, the slaying is celebrated with a victory procession of singing and dancing women (1 Sam 18:6; Jdt 15:12– 14). Just as David has rescued the fearful Israelites from the Philistine foe by beheading their leading warrior, so Judith has delivered the timorous Jews from the Assyrian enemy by decapitating their military leader. At the end of his celebration of David, Ben Sira refers to God’s mercy towards David: “The Lord removed his sins” (Sir 47:11), evidently recalling his transgression with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:4). Indeed, when the prophet Nathan confronted David with his misconduct towards Bathsheba and Uriah, David immediately confessed, “I have sinned toward the Lord” (2 Sam 12:13). Possibly this episode may be faintly echoed in the opening lament within the Book of Baruch, even though it does not name David.⁸⁰ The text confesses an ongoing pattern of sin among the national leadership, including the kings. The text invites prayer because “we have sinned toward the Lord our God” (Bar 1:13), and the author goes on to acknowledge the national shame belonging to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and “to our kings” (Bar 1:16) because “we have sinned before the Lord” (Bar 1:17). The next chapter notes that God fulfilled the warning spoken “to our kings” (Bar 2:1) and to other national leaders, by bringing punishment, because “we sinned toward the Lord our God” (Bar 2:5). Such repeated references to royal sins, while undoubtedly referring mainly to recent transgressions, may also include the well-known sinfulness of the dynastic founder David. Furthermore, when Ben Sira says, “The LORD removed his transgression” (Sir 47:11 Hebrew), this statement may well refer not only to his transgression with Bathsheba, but also his sinful calling of a census, because David quickly confessed this fault: “I have sinned greatly in what I have done” (2 Sam 24:10).⁸¹ While Sir 47:11 speaks of David receiving a “statute of kingship” (Hebrew MS B) or a “covenant of kings” (Greek),⁸² the farewell speech of Mattathias reports that this dynastic founder received an everlasting kingdom: “David, because of his loyalty (ἐλέει), inherited the throne of an eternal kingdom” (1 Macc 2:57). Although the Greek noun ἔλεος normally denotes “mercy,” David was not famed for being merciful except for his twofold sparing of Saul (1 Sam 24:4– 6; 26:9 – 11), and indeed a Davidic psalm celebrates his pitiless pursuit of his ene Adams, Baruch, 55. Michael Matlock’s essay in the present volume observes echoes of David’s repentance within the LXX Prayer of Manasseh.  Despite Ben Sira’s glorification of David, his sinful calling of a census is not a problem for the author because of his subsequent repentance; cf. Gregory, “Warrior-Poet,” 80 – 81.  Wright, “Ben Sira,” 87.

50

Jeremy Corley

mies (Ps 18:37– 43; 2 Sam 22:37– 43). Hence, as elsewhere in the LXX (e. g., Gen 24:12; 2 Sam 7:15; 2 Chr 6:42; Sir 44:10; 47:22), ἔλεος can here represent the Hebrew term ‫ חסד‬in the sense of “loyalty” or “loving-kindness.”⁸³ While such language in earlier texts usually applies to God’s loving-kindness, later writings also use this terminology for human loyalty, as in the description of Joshua in Sir 46:7: “In the days of Moses he practiced loyalty (‫ = חסד‬ἔλεος)” (cf. 2 Chr 32:32). Though the Book of Wisdom does not name David, there is an allusion to him in Solomon’s prayer for wisdom, a divine gift which will have a good effect: “I shall judge (διακρινῶ) your people righteously, and I shall be worthy of the throne(s) of my father” (Wis 9:12). This statement echoes LXX 1 Kgs 2:24, where Solomon speaks of sitting “on the throne of David my father,” shortly before his petition for a heart able “to judge (διακρίνειν) your people in righteousness” (LXX 1 Kgs 3:9).⁸⁴ Moreover, the prayer’s reference to the task of humans to manage the world “in righteousness” (ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ) and judge “in uprightness (ἐν εὐθύτητι) of soul” (Wis 9:3) echoes the language of LXX 1 Kgs 3:6, where Solomon recalls that God gave his father David the ability to live “in righteousness (ἐν … δικαιοσύνῃ) and in uprightness (ἐν εὐθύτητι) of heart with you.”⁸⁵ Although Wisdom chapters 6 – 9 focus particularly on the figure of Solomon, his filial piety leads him readily to acknowledge his father David. Finally, several deuterocanonical texts also continue the association of David with Jerusalem. First Maccabees mentions the “city of David” four times (1 Macc 1:33; 2:31; 7:32; 14:36). Moreover, the Sinaiticus form of Tob 1:4 refers to all the tribe of Naphtali turning away from the “house of David” (cf. 1 Kgs 12:26) and from worshipping in the chosen city of Jerusalem—an allusion to the division of the kingdom after King Solomon’s death.⁸⁶

Conclusion The seven deuterocanonical books provide ample instances of author-oriented intertextual references to earlier heroic figures from Israelite history, especially Abraham, Moses, and David. While these seven books sometimes mention the three great characters by name, skilled readers would detect allusions from ver-

 Beentjes, “Portrayals,” 173 – 74; Neuhaus, Studien, 60; pace Joosten, “‫‘ חסד‬bienveillance,’” 25 – 27.  McGlynn, “Solomon,” 70 – 72; Gilbert, “La structure,” 194. On the idiomatic Greek plural “thrones” in Wis 9:12, see Gilbert, “La structure,” 173 n. 29.  Gilbert, “La structure,” 193.  Fitzmyer, Tobit, 104– 5.

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

51

bal echoes, even without names being supplied. Although the two deuterocanonical sapiential books both include a lengthy review of history, Ben Sira’s purpose is to praise the loyal Israelites who kept God’s covenant, whereas the Book of Wisdom celebrates God’s justice, power, and wisdom at work protecting his chosen people. Ben Sira devotes six bicola to Abraham, eight to Moses, and sixteen to David (Sir 44:19 – 21; 45:1– 5; 47:2– 11), whereas the Book of Wisdom allocates one verse to Abraham (Wis 10:5), more than nine chapters to Moses and the exodus (Wis 10:15 – 19:22), and no space specifically to David. While Ben Sira’s praise of Moses emphasizes his role as lawgiver and downplays the exodus event (Sir 45:1– 5), the retelling of the exodus story in Wisdom 11– 19 focuses mostly on episodes preceding the chosen people’s arrival at Sinai, with less attention than expected being devoted to the giving of the Law. The occasional references to Abraham, Moses, and David in First and Second Maccabees frequently serve to supply legitimizing precedents for the actions of the Hasmonean leadership, as well as to assist in the process of characterization. Although the Book of Tobit sometimes mentions Abraham, Moses, and David, while the Book of Judith names only Abraham, the influence of these three characters as intertextual models for personages and their actions is farreaching within both novellas. Finally, the Book of Baruch mentions Abraham and Moses and includes many echoes of Deuteronomy, though it is greatly influenced by the prophetic corpus, especially Isaiah 40—66, Jeremiah, and Daniel. Whereas earlier texts referred to Abraham as biological ancestor, Moses as founder of the nation, and David as originator of the preexilic royal dynasty, the major deuterocanonical books often present a new vision of these three figures as role models for Jewish identity and faith within the Greco-Roman world.⁸⁷

Bibliography Adams, Sean A. Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden; Brill, 2014. Adams, Sean A. “Reframing Scripture: A Fresh Look at Baruch’s So-Called ‘Citations.’” In Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, ed. Isaac Kalimi, Tobias Nicklas, and Géza G. Xeravits. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 63 – 83. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Ben Sira 44:19 – 23—The Patriarchs: Text, Tradition, Theology,” in: Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 127. Leiden: Brill, 2008, 209 – 28.

 For helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article, my thanks are due to Maurice Gilbert, Bradley C. Gregory, Geoffrey D. Miller, and Jessie Rogers.

52

Jeremy Corley

Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Portrayals of David in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature,” in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, ed. Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert. DCLY 2008. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009, 165 – 81. Calduch-Benages, Nuria. En el Crisol de la Prueba: Estudio Exegético de Sir 2,1 – 18. ABE 32. Estella, Navarra: Editorial Verbo Divino, 1997. Calduch-Benages, Nuria. “The Exodus Traditions in the Book of Ben Sira,” in: Exodus: Rezeptionen in Deuterokanonischer und Frühjüdischer Literatur, ed. Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016, 117 – 30. Cheon, Samuel. The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon: A Study in Biblical Interpretation. JSPSup 23. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Corley, Jeremy. “Emotional Transformation in the Book of Baruch,” in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. DCLY 2011. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 225 – 51. Corley, Jeremy. “Judith: An Unconventional Heroine,” ScrB 31/2 (2001) 70 – 85. Corley, Jeremy. “Septuagintalisms, Semitic Interference, and the Original Language of the Book of Judith,” in Studies in the Greek Bible, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 44. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008, 65 – 96. Demitrów, Andrzej. Quattro Oranti nell’Elogio dei Padri (Sir 44 – 49): Studio dei Testi e delle Tradizioni. Opolska Biblioteka Teologiczna 124. Opole: Redakcja Wydawnictw Wydziału Teologicznego Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, 2011. Deselaers, Paul. Das Buch Tobit: Studien zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie. OBO 43. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. deSilva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Deuteronomic Background of the Farewell Discourse in Tob 14:3 – 11,” CBQ 41 (1979): 380 – 89. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Two Major Prayers in the Book of Tobit,” in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. DCLY 2004. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004, 95 – 115. Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “Die Individualisierung des Exodusgeschehens im Buch Tobit,” in: Exodus: Rezeptionen in Deuterokanonischer und Frühjüdischer Literatur, ed. Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016, 131 – 44. Elssner, Thomas R. “Der Auszug aus Ägypten und die ersten beiden Makkabäerbücher oder vom Exodus eines Themas,” in: Exodus: Rezeptionen in Deuterokanonischer und Frühjüdischer Literatur, ed. Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016, 145 – 57. Engel, Helmut. “‘Der Herr ist ein Gott, der Kriege zerschlägt’: Zur Frage der griechischen Originalsprache und der Struktur des Buches Judit,” in Goldene Äpfel in silbernen Schalen, ed. K.-D. Schunck and M. Augustin. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 1992, 155 – 68. Enns, Peter. Exodus Retold: Ancient Exegesis of the Departure from Egypt in Wis 10:15 – 21 and 19:1 – 9. HSM 57. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Enns, Peter. “A Retelling of the Song at the Sea in Wis 10:20 – 21,” Bib 76 (1995) 1 – 24. Enns, Peter. “Wisdom of Solomon and Biblical Interpretation in the Second Temple Period,” in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, ed. J. I. Packer and S. K. Soderlund. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, 212 – 25.

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

53

Estelle, Bryan D. Echoes of Exodus: Tracing a Biblical Motif. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2018. Evans, Annette H. M. “Angelic Mediation in the Book of Tobit: A Shift in the Deuteronomic Paradigm?” In: Construction, Coherence and Connotations: Studies on the Septuagint, Apocryphal and Cognate Literature, edited by Pierre J. Jordaan and Nicholas P. L. Allen. DCLS 34. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016, 133 – 48. Feuerstein, Rüdiger. “‘Nicht im Vertrauen auf die Verdienste unserer Väter und Könige legen wir dir unsere Bitte um Erbarmen vor’ (Bar 2,19): Aspekte des Gebetes im Buch Baruch,” in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. DCLY 2004. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004, 255 – 91. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Fox, R. Michael, ed. Reverberations of the Exodus in Scripture. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014. Gärtner, Judith, and Barbara Schmitz, eds. Exodus: Rezeptionen in Deuterokanonischer und Frühjüdischer Literatur. DCLS 32. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Gera, Deborah Levine. Judith. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Gilbert, Maurice. La critique des dieux dans le Livre de la Sagesse (Sg 13 – 15). AnBib 53. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1973. Gilbert, Maurice. “La loi, chemin de sagesse,” in La loi dans l’un et l’autre testament. LD 168. Paris: Cerf, 1997, 93 – 109. Gilbert, Maurice. “La nuit pascale (Sg 18,6 – 9),” in La Sagesse de Salomon—The Wisdom of Solomon. Recueil d’études—Collected Essays. AnBib 189. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011, 301 – 8. Gilbert, Maurice. “La structure de la prière de Salomon (Sg 9),” in La Sagesse de Salomon— The Wisdom of Solomon. Recueil d’études—Collected Essays. AnBib 189. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011, 167 – 201. Gilbert, Maurice. “Wisdom of Solomon and Scripture,” in La Sagesse de Salomon—The Wisdom of Solomon. Recueil d’études—Collected Essays. AnBib 189. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011, 45 – 63. Gilbert, Maurice. “The Review of History in Ben Sira 44 – 50 and Wisdom 10 – 19,” in Ben Sira: Collected Essays. BETL 264. Leuven: Peeters, 2014, 331 – 45. Glicksman, Andrew T. Wisdom of Solomon 10: A Jewish Hellenistic Reinterpretation of Early Israelite History through Sapiential Lenses. DCLS 9. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Glicksman, Andrew T. “Set Your Desire on My Words: Authoritative Traditions in the Wisdom of Solomon.” In Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, ed. Isaac Kalimi, Tobias Nicklas, and Géza G. Xeravits. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 167 – 84. Goering, Greg Schmidt. Wisdom’s Root Revealed: Ben Sira and the Election of Israel. JSJSup 139. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees. AB 41. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Goldstein, Jonathan A. II Maccabees. AB 41 A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983. Goshen-Gottstein, Alon. “Ben Sira’s Praise of the Fathers: A Canon-Conscious Reading,” in: Ben Sira’s God: Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham—Ushaw College 2001, ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel. BZAW 321. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002, 235 – 67. Gregory, Bradley C. “Abraham as the Jewish Ideal: Exegetical Traditions in Sirach 44:19 – 21,” CBQ 70 (2008) 66 – 81. Gregory, Bradley C. “Isaiah 14 (LXX) as Narrative Template for Antiochus IV in 2 Maccabees 9,” Journal of Septuagint and Cognate Studies 48 (2015) 87 – 104.

54

Jeremy Corley

Gregory, Bradley C. “The Warrior-Poet of Israel: The Significance of David’s Battles in Chronicles and Ben Sira” in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira. Festschrift for Pancratius C. Beentjes, ed. Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011, 79 – 96. Henten, Jan Willem van. “Judith as Alternative Leader: A Rereading of Judith 7—13,” in A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna, ed. Athalya Brenner. FCB 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995, 224 – 52. Joosten, Jan. “‫‘ חסד‬bienveillance’, et ἔλεος, ‘pitié’: Réflexions sur une equivalence lexicale dans la Septante.” “Car c’est l’amour qui me plaît, non le sacrifice…”: Recherches sur Osée 6:6 et son interpretation juive et chrétienne, ed. Eberhard Bons. JSJSup 88. Leiden: Brill, 2004, 25 – 42. Joosten, Jan. “The Original Language and Historical Milieu of the Book of Judith,” Meghillot 5 – 6 (2017) 159 – 76. Kabasele Mukenge, André. L’unité littéraire du livre de Baruch. EBib 38. Paris: Gabalda, 1998. Kiel, Micah. D. The “Whole Truth”: Rethinking Retribution in the Book of Tobit. LSTS 82. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Kiel, Micah. D. “Tobit and Moses Redux,” JSP 17 (2008) 83 – 98. Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Larcher, Chrysostome. Etudes sur le Livre de la Sagesse. Paris: Gabalda, 1969. Lange, Armin, and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. JAJSup 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Lange, Lydia. “Die Rezeption des Exodusbuches in der LXX- und Vg-Fassung der Juditerzählung: Ein Vergleich,” in: Exodus: Rezeptionen in Deuterokanonischer und Frühjüdischer Literatur, ed. Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016, 159 – 86. Leproux, Alexis. “Moïse, ‘Conseiller de salut’ en Sg 16,6? Une question de critique textuelle,” RB 111 (2004) 161 – 92. Macatangay, Francis M. “Election by Allusion: Exodus Themes in the Book of Tobit,” CBQ 76 (2014) 450 – 63. Macatangay, Francis M. “The Wisdom Discourse of Tobit as Instruction in Torah,” BN 167 (2015) 99 – 111. Macatangay, Francis M. The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 12. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Macatangay, Francis M. When I Die, Bury Me Well: Death, Burial, Almsgiving, and Restoration in the Book of Tobit. Eugene, OR: Pickwick/Wipf & Stock, 2016. Marböck, Johannes. Jesus Sirach 1 – 23. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2010. Marböck, Johannes. “Davids Erbe in gewandelter Zeit (Sir 47,1 – 11),” in: J. Marböck, Gottes Weisheit unter uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach. HBS 6. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1995, 124 – 32. Marttila, Marko. “The Deuteronomistic Ideology and Phraseology in the Book of Baruch.” In Changes in Scripture. Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, ed. Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila. BZAW 419. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011, 321 – 46. Mazzinghi, Luca. “Abramo nella tradizione sapienziale biblica”, in RStB 26 (2014) 89 – 102.

Deuterocanonical References to Abraham, Moses, and David

55

Mazzinghi, Luca. “La figura di Abramo in Sap 10,5. Una rilettura delle Scritture tra giudaismo e ellenismo,” in Sophia—Paideia. Sapienza e educazione. FS M. Cimosa, ed. Gillian Bonney and Rafael Vicent. Rome: LAS, 2012, 351 – 64. Mazzinghi, Luca. “The Figure of Moses in the Book of Wisdom”, in Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals, ed. Géza G. Xeravits, József Zsengellér, and Xavér Szabó. DCLS 22. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014, 183 – 206. Mazzinghi, Luca. Notte di paura e di luce. AnBib 134. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995. McGlynn, Moyna. “Solomon, Wisdom and the Philosopher-Kings,” in Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 142. Leiden: Brill, 2010, 61 – 81. Mermelstein, Ari. Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period. JSJSup 168. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Middendorp, Theophil J. Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras Zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Miller, Geoffrey David. Marriage in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 10. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Miller, Geoffrey David. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,” CurBR 9:3 (2011): 283 – 309. Miller, Geoffrey David. “Canonicity and Gender Roles: Tobit and Judith as Test Cases,” Bib 97 (2016) 199 – 221. Moore, Carey A. Tobit. AB 40 A. New York: Doubleday, 1996. Neuhaus, Günter O. Studien zu den poetischen Stücken im 1. Makkabäerbuch. FzB 12. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1974. Newman, Judith. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. SBLEJL 14. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Novick, Tzvi. “Biblicized Narrative: On Tobit and Genesis 22,” JBL 126 (2007) 755 – 64. Nowell, Irene. “The Book of Tobit: An Ancestral Story,” in Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. FS Alexander A. Di Lella. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 3 – 13. Otzen, Benedikt, Tobit and Judith. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. London: Continuum, 2002. Rabenau, Merten. Studien zum Buch Tobit. BZAW 220. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Rakel, Claudia. Judit—über Schönheit, Macht und Widerstand im Krieg: Eine feministisch-intertextuelle Lektüre. BZAW 334. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Reiterer, Friedrich Vinzenz. “Beobachtungen zum äußeren und inneren Exodus im Buch der Weisheit: Eine Untersuchung von Weish 10,15 – 11,1,” in: Exodus: Rezeptionen in Deuterokanonischer und Frühjüdischer Literatur, ed. Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016, 187 – 207. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach/ Ben Sira. ATDA 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Schmitz, Barbara. Gedeutete Geschichte: Die Funktion der Reden und Gebete im Buch Judit. HBS 40. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2004. Schmitz, Barbara. “Gotteshandeln: Die Rettung am Schilfmeer als Paradigma göttlichen Handelns,” in: Exodus: Rezeptionen in Deuterokanonischer und Frühjüdischer Literatur, ed. Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016, 33 – 69. Schmitz, Barbara, and Helmut Engel, Judit. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2014. Schöpflin, Karin. “Scriptural Authority and the Ancestor as its Teacher and Example in the Book of Tobit,” in Scriptural Authority in Early Judaism and Ancient Christianity, ed.

56

Jeremy Corley

Isaac Kalimi, Tobias Nicklas, and Géza G. Xeravits. DCLS 16. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 85 – 107. Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Skehan, Patrick W. “The Hand of Judith,” CBQ 25 (1963) 94 – 110. Skemp, Vincent. “Avenues of Intertextuality Between Tobit and the New Testament,” in: Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. FS Alexander A. Di Lella. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 43 – 70. Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40 – 66. Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Steck, Odil Hannes. Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung. FRLANT 160. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Urbanz, Werner. Gebet im Sirachbuch. HBS 60. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2009. VanderKam, James, and Peter Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: HarperCollins, 2002. Weeks, Stuart. “A Deuteronomic Heritage in Tobit?” In Changes in Scripture. Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, ed. Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, and Marko Marttila. BZAW 419. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011, 389 – 404. Weitzman, Steven. “Allusion, Artifice, and Exile in the Hymn of Tobit.” JBL 115 (1996) 49 – 61. White [= Crawford], Sidnie A., “In the Steps of Jael and Deborah: Judith as Heroine,” in “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith, ed. James C. VanderKam. SBLEJL 2. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992, 5 – 16. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon. AB 43. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979. Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees.” Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1985, 35 – 142. Witte, Markus. “‘Mose, sein Andenken sei zum Segen’ (Sir 45,1)—Das Mosebild des Sirachbuches,” BN 107/108 (2001) 161 – 86. Wright, Benjamin G. “Ben Sira on Kings and Kingship.” In Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, ed. Tessa Rajak, James Aitken, Sarah Pearce and Jennifer Dines. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007, 76 – 91. Xeravits, Géza. “The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira,” Henoch 23 (2001) 27 – 38. Zenger, Erich. Das Buch Judit. JSHRZ 1/6; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981. Zsengellér, József. “The Taste of Paradise: Interpretation of Exodus and Manna in the Book of Wisdom.” In Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 142. Leiden: Brill, 2010, 197 – 216.

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira In his review of how scholars have understood and implemented the notion of intertextuality within Old Testament research over the past two decades, Geoffrey Miller has highlighted many aspects worthy of attention.¹ Because a text can only be understood by reading it in light of other texts, it is essential to establish valid criteria in an author-oriented search for intertextual parallels, since “an isolated verbal parallel does not demonstrate conscious literary mimesis.”² A good illustration of this aspect is evident from past research on the Book of Ben Sira. The rejoicing over the discovery of the Genizah Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira at the very end of the nineteenth century had a major side effect that was both unexpected and undesirable. Several scholars produced extensive lists in which nearly every Hebrew word, word pair or phrase from the Ben Sira manuscripts was traced back to the Hebrew Bible.³ Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that these lists differ significantly from each other, since the compilers of these lists did not give proper consideration to questions of methodology.⁴ The discovery of the Ben Sira Scroll at Masada and some fragments at Qumran, however, from the mid 1960’s onward caused a genuine revival in Ben Sira research, since it appeared that the medieval Hebrew Ben Sira manuscripts were to a large extent reliable. In light of this renewed attention to the Book of Ben Sira, credit is due to John Snaith for his perceptive methodological observation: The amount of Ben Sira’s conscious literary quotation from the Hebrew Bible has been overestimated through lack of detailed investigation into each alleged instance. Careful investigation into the contexts of both passages is necessary before conscious quotation can be acknowledged with any certainty…. What matters is what Ben Sira did with his quotations.⁵ [F]or it is not only through such study of contextual information in both occurrences that we can hope to discover what significances (if any) we may see in his quotations. Our aim is

 Miller, “Intertextuality.” My article builds on some of my earlier publications on various topics in Ben Sira, where structural use of Scripture played a minor role.  Skemp, “Avenues,” 45 n. 6.  See, e. g., Eberharter, Kanon, 6 – 54; Gasser, Bedeutung, 199 – 254; Schechter and Taylor, Wisdom, 13 – 25.  For an application to Sir 36:1– 17 [36:1– 22], see Beentjes, Tenach, 5 – 19.  Snaith, “Biblical Quotations,” 11. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416930-003

58

Pancratius C. Beentjes

to discover something of what Ben Sira meant by his quotations and references rather than to assess how many there are or to show how wide their range.⁶

Some years earlier, Samuel Sandmel in a broader context had emphasized that this kind of careful research would become the prevailing standard: “Detailed study is the criterion, and the detailed study ought to respect the context and not be limited to juxtaposing mere excerpts. Two passages may sound the same in splendid isolation, but when seen in context reflect difference rather than similarity.”⁷ Nowadays scholars realize that in all those cases where Ben Sira quotes from, alludes to or makes use of Scripture—or better: “Scripture-in-process-offormation”—, he not only adopted the biblical wording as such, but also added a contextual clue, or “marker,” to support his use of Scripture. This major methodological observation is important for people wishing to discuss intertextuality in Ben Sira’s book. If such an additional contextual clue is not fixed in advance, a very undesirable situation can arise, as happened in Ben Sira research at the beginning of the twentieth century. The present article will illustrate the presence of a particular contextual clue or marker, indicating the “structural use of Scripture.” Daniel Patte was the one who coined the notion of a “structural use of Scripture.”⁸ It is a phenomenon where a passage in a deuterocanonical or non-canonical Jewish writing is largely structured by elements from one or two prior biblical texts. As an illustration, Patte mentions Sibylline Oracles 3:8 – 45, where one can clearly recognize the pattern of Isa 40:18 – 28, while Sibylline Oracles 3:62– 91 should be read in light of Deuteronomy 13.⁹ Patte’s analysis also included 1 Enoch, as well as Qumran documents such as The Rule of the Community (1QS) and The Hodayot Scroll (1QH).¹⁰ It is worth noting that Patte discovered the application of “structural use of Scripture” precisely in Jewish writings that can be dated around the second century BCE—the same period in which Ben Sira composed his book. A methodical investigation into the structural use of Scripture within the Book of Ben Sira yields some surprising results. This will be demonstrated on the basis of the following seven Ben Sira passages: 1:1– 10; 6:5 – 17 (possibly); 16:26 – 17:4; 24:15; 45:6 – 22; 46:19; and 47:1– 11. References will be to the Hebrew text where it is preserved, and otherwise to the Greek  Ibid., 4.  Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” 2.  Patte, Hermeneutic, 171, 189.  Ibid., 186 – 89.  Ibid., 189 – 96; 266 – 77.

Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira

59

version. The article will also note a particular style of allusion that can be called an “inverted quotation” (e. g., Sir 24:15; 46:19).

Ben Sira 1:1 – 10—God and Wisdom The idea that the Lord created wisdom before all other things—as found in Sir 1:4 and 1:9—hardly ever appears in the Old Testament.¹¹ In fact, the only place where it is clearly asserted is in the famous and oft-discussed passage of Prov 8:22– 30.¹² The passage prior to Prov 8:22 is a “lengthy self-recommendation” of Lady Wisdom in the first person (Prov 8:4– 21), “in which she boasts of her power and authority and of the gifts which she is able to bestow. In other words, this is a speech by a supernatural being in praise of herself.”¹³ After this long speech, she continues: “The LORD created me the first of his works” (Prov 8:22a), a statement amply illustrated in the following lines. To emphasize that wisdom has preceded all other things, she lists the whole gamut of natural phenomena: “the earth, the abyss, springs, mountains, hills, the land, uninhabited places, the sky, winds, clouds, springs, foundations of the earth.”¹⁴ By way of contrast, whereas in Prov 8:4– 21 and 8:22– 30 it is Lady Wisdom who highlights herself,¹⁵ the focus of attention in Sir 1:1– 10—a text employing several identical concepts—undoubtedly is the Lord. ¹⁶ However, because the Hebrew text of Sir 1:1– 10 has not survived, we need to rely on the Greek version. Another substantial source underlying the opening passage of Ben Sira’s book occurs in Job 28, the magnificent—and at the same time puzzling—poem on the search for wisdom. No doubt, the opening lines of the Book of Ben Sira in particular have much in common with its third strophe (28:20 – 28).¹⁷ Sir 1:2– 3

Job 28:24– 26a

Sir 1:6

Job 28:20

 Beentjes, “Full Wisdom,” 147– 48.  Gilbert, “Discours”; Müller, Proverbien 1 – 9, 232– 50.  Whybray, Proverbs, 119.  This enumeration is adopted from Prov 8:22– 29 (LXX).  In the Greek text of Ben Sira, it is not till ch. 24 that Wisdom is personified. Both in Hebrew (MS A) and in Syriac, however, this is already the case in Sir 4:15 – 19.  This is especially demonstrated by Sir 1:8, which in my view is a major reason why σοφός can hardly be secondary. For the suggestion that the word was added later, because of its absence from the Syriac, see Smend, Weisheit, 8.  For an analysis of Job 28, see Van Wolde, Job 28; Van Oorschot, Hiob 28.

60

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Sir 1:8

Job 28:23

Sir 1:9

Job 28:27

Job 28 is dominated by a key question, which makes a large contribution to the poem’s structure by means of a refrain: – “But where can wisdom be found, and where is the source of understanding?” (28:12); – “Where, then, does wisdom come from? Where is the source of understanding?” (28:20).¹⁸ The first answer to this question is given in Job 28:14 by the personified “Deep” and “Sea”; it is followed in 28:23 by the reply of the personified “Destruction” and “Death”: “God understands (‫ )הבין‬the way to it, and he knows its place” (NRSV).¹⁹ In the subsequent lines (28:25 – 26), wisdom is on a par with natural phenomena (wind, water, and rain), just as in Sir 1:2– 3. The most striking parallel to Sir 1:1– 10, however, is undoubtedly found in Job 28:27: Τότε εἶδεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐξηγήσατο αὐτὴν, ἐτοιμάσας ἐξιχνίασεν “Then he saw her and led her forth, he prepared and fathomed (her).”

Ben Sira twice seems to allude to this particular statement: Sir 1:9: καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐξηρίθμησεν αὐτήν

“He saw her and took note of her.”²⁰

Sir 1:3: καὶ σοφίαν τίς ἐξιχνιάσει;

“Who can fathom wisdom?”

Wisdom cannot be found by human beings and is inaccessible to mortals, since only God knows the way to her. According to Job 28:28, human beings can only gain wisdom or have access to her in an indirect way, through “fear of the Lord” (‫ )יראת ייי‬or “honoring God” (θεοσέβεια).²¹ Whereas φόβος κυρίου is the prevalent

 Translation from the Hebrew according to the Revised English Bible (REB). In the Hebrew, verses 12b and 20b are completely identical, whereas in the Greek this applies to verses 12a and 20a.  In the Greek of Job 28:23 we find a slightly different presentation: ‘God has well made (συνέστησεν) her way, and He knows her place’.  This translation adapts Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 136.  See the stimulating essay on Job 28:28 by Clines, “Fear.”

Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira

61

collocation in the Greek version of Ben Sira’s book,²² it can scarcely be coincidental that the rare noun θεοσέβεια—as used in Job 28:28—occurs only once in the Book of Ben Sira, viz., in Sir 1:25 and—moreover—provides exactly the same context as does Job 28:28! Ἰδοὺ ἡ θεοσέβειά ἐστιν σοφία / τὸ δὲ ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ κακῶν ἐστιν ἐπιστήμη “Behold, fear of God is wisdom, and to abstain from evil is understanding” (Job 28:28).²³ Ἐν θησαυροῖς σοφίας παραβολὴ ἐπιστήμης / βδέλυγμα δὲ ἁμαρτωλῷ θεοσέβεια “Among wisdom’s treasures is the model for understanding, but to the sinner fear of God is an abomination” (Sir 1:25).

It is therefore beyond any doubt that Ben Sira in 1:1– 10 employed a pattern of reference, which can be characterized as “structural use of Scripture,” specifically adopted from Proverbs 8 and Job 28.²⁴ At the same time, however, it is evident that Ben Sira did not copy or adopt those biblical passages in a slavish way. Whereas both Proverbs 8 and Job 28 describe wisdom as originating from God at the end of their exposé, Ben Sira goes the other way round. Presenting his view on the origin and activity of wisdom, he begins with God. In my view, however, there is too little evidence, both in phrasing and in context, that Ben Sira’s presentation of God pouring out wisdom (1:9b) should be regarded as a deliberate allusion to Joel 3:1– 2.²⁵ In the first place, the image in Sir 1:9b relates to “all his works” and only then is God’s pouring out of wisdom linked to “all flesh,” which in its turn is followed by a qualification: “according to his bounty” (1:10a). In the second place, it has surely been the noun ὃρασις (“vision”) in the expanded Greek text (1:10d), which has effectuated (or strengthened) the idea that Joel 3:1– 2 comes into play here. Hence it was not Ben Sira himself, but a later scribe, who created (or developed) such an innerbiblical connection.²⁶

 In Gr-I φόβος κυρίου is found twenty times, in Gr-II another five times; the expression φοβεῖσθαι τὸν κύριον appears twenty eight times in Gr-I and three more times in Gr-II.  It is striking that both θεοσέβεια (Job 28:28) and θεοσεβής as a characteristic of Job (1:8; 2:3) are part of God’s speech. The only exception is in the narrator’s introduction (Job 1:1); cf. EggerWenzel, “Faith,” 217.  For quite another view of Sir 1:1– 10, see Corley, “Wisdom,” 269 – 85.  This suggestion was made by Marböck, Weisheit, 32.  For more details, see Gilbert, “Voir,” 250 – 51; Bussino, Additions, 40.

62

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Ben Sira 6:5 – 17: a possible case of “structural use of Scripture”? The Book of Ben Sira has seven passages relating to the topic of friendship (Sir 6:5 – 17; 9:10 – 16; 12:8 – 12; 19:13 – 17; 22:19 – 26; 27:16 – 21; 37:1– 6).²⁷ In fact, thirty percent of all occurrences about friendship in the LXX occur in this deuterocanonical book. Ben Sira 6:5 – 17 is probably the best-known passage of all these poetic lines on friendship. The phenomenon of structural use of Scripture seems to be evident in this pericope too, because there are some remarkable similarities between Sir 6:5 – 17 (Hebrew MS A) and 1 Samuel 25, the narrative about David, Nabal and his wife Abigail. Sir :b  Sam :b

‫ושפתי חן שואלו שלום‬ “and gracious lips … those who ask for peace” ‫“ ושאלתם־לו בשמי לשלום‬ask him in my name for peace”

Sir :b  Sam :

‫ואת ריב חרפתך יחשוף‬ ‫רב את־ריב חרפתי‬

“he will expose a dispute to your disgrace” “[who] has disputed the dispute of my disgrace”

Sir :a  Sam :

‫צרור חיים‬ ‫צרורה בצרור החיים‬

“[a faithful friend is] a bundle of life” “[the life of my lord] shall be bound in the bundle of life”

Sir :a  Sam :

‫וכשמו כן מעשיו‬ ‫כי כשמו כן־הוא‬

“and as his name is, so are his deeds” “for as his name is, so is he”

Since the vocabulary used here is rather rare, and has even a unique phrase (“the bundle of life”), such striking resemblances can scarcely be coincidental. I therefore am tempted to think that in Sir 6:5 – 17 we have another occurrence of structural use of Scripture in Ben Sira’s book.²⁸ However, it is rather difficult to find a contextual clue that binds both passages together. Does Ben Sira consider Abigail as an exemplar of friendliness?²⁹ It is not entirely clear. In view of the uncertainty, this paralleling of texts suggests that we should not immediately coin a later text as “structural use of Scripture” without having carefully examined both texts in question.

 Moreover, there are separate verses relating to the topic of friendship: Sir 7:12, 18; 13:21; 19:4; 20:23; 25:1; 33:6: 41:22– 42:1. See, e. g., Krinetzki, “Freundschaftsperikope”; Reiterer, Freundschaft; Corley, Teaching.  Beentjes, “Mensch,” 14– 15.  Corley, Teaching, 63.

Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira

63

Ben Sira 16:26 – 17:4—God and Creation Very few words of this passage have survived in Hebrew.³⁰ They constitute the opening of Sir 16:26 (MS A): ‫“—כברא אל מעשיו מראש‬When God created his works from the beginning.”³¹ Like the temporal phrase ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς—“from the beginning” (16:26a) in the Greek version, this colon evidently echoes the opening of Gen 1:1. In 16:27b, the Greek translator used the same noun again (τὰς ἀρχάς), albeit with a different meaning, “dominion,” which undeniably refers to the fourth day of creation: “God made two great lights, the greater for dominion (ἀρχάς) over the day and the lesser for dominion (ἀρχάς) over the night” (Gen 1:10).³² Additional evidence that the first chapter of Genesis is intended is found in the way that the Greek of 16:30a has been worded: ψυχῇ παντὸς ζῷου—“With the soul of every living thing.” No doubt this is a clear reference to various animals created on the fifth and the sixth day: πασὰν ψυχὴν ζῷων—“every soul of living things” (Gen 1:21), and ψυχὴν ζῶσαν—“a living soul” (Gen 1:24).³³ As soon as humanity appears (Sir 17:1), within a few lines there is a remarkable series of specific quotations and allusions: Sir 17:1a

Gen 2:7a

Sir 17:1b

Gen 3:19

Sir 17:3b

Gen 1:26a, 27a

Sir 17:4b

Gen 1:28.

These quotations from and allusions to Genesis 1– 3 belong to a fixed thread of texts that often appears elsewhere as a cluster.³⁴ Therefore the question arises about the way Ben Sira made use of this traditional pool of references. Did he

 For the context, see Beentjes, “Rereading,” 209 – 10. The present analysis of Sir 16:26 – 17:4 will take place on the basis of the Greek text, since there are few preserved Hebrew verses surviving between 16:26b and 25:8. For a fascinating study of Sir 16:24– 17:23, see Schwartz, Jews, 45 – 79.  Scholars disagree on the opening Greek words of Sir 16:26. Some scholars read ἐν κρίσει κυρίου (‘by the decision of the Lord’) as in all extant Greek manuscripts and Rahlfs’ text edition. However, others read ἐν κτίσει κυρίου (‘in the Lord’s creation’), following the emendation in Ziegler’s critical edition (cf. Smend, Weisheit, 153), which is accepted by most modern Bible translations, preferring the Hebrew text of MS A.  On this Greek noun in LXX Genesis 1, see Dines, “Creation,” 9 – 13.  Sheppard, Wisdom, 75.  See Levison, Portraits, 35 – 38; Alonso Schökel, “Vision.”

64

Pancratius C. Beentjes

adopt the passages from Genesis in a purely mechanical way, or can we instead detect a shift of emphasis (or even changes) in the manner he handled them? The reader immediately notices that Ben Sira has set the quotations from Genesis 1– 3 in a sequence different from the original text.³⁵ The sage apparently does this for his own purpose, as several elements from the creation narratives have been arranged in a different way from the traditional sequence. As a result, immediately the reader’s attention is drawn precisely to the creation of humanity (Sir 17:1). For, up to that point, the pattern of Genesis 1 has more or less been followed. Although the creation of the cosmic elements as well as the creation of the animals (16:26 – 30) follow the pattern of the first creation narrative, when it comes to the creation of human beings (17:1a) and their death (17:1b), the sage refers to the second creation story. Thereafter, Ben Sira returns to quotations from and allusions to the first creation narrative. It is worthwhile, therefore, to make a detailed inquiry into the text of Sir 17:1 (“The Lord created a human being out of earth”), as there is a good chance that this verse is a turning point that will supply the exegetical key as to why Ben Sira has reversed the order of references to Genesis. Although a Hebrew text of Sir 17:1 has not hitherto been recovered, Ben Sira’s original text probably contained a literal quotation from Gen 2:7. This strong likelihood is based on another Ben Sira passage that has nearly the same Greek wording as Sir 17:1a and, moreover, has a parent Hebrew text that parallels the vocabulary in the Hebrew of Gen 2:7. Sir 17:1a Κύριος ἔκτισεν ἐκ γῆς ἄνθρωπον (“The Lord created a human being out of earth”) Sir 33[36]:10b καὶ ἐκ γῆς ἐκτίσθη Αδαμ (“and out of earth Adam was created”) Sir 33[36]:10b

‫ומן עפר נוצר אדם‬

(“and from dust humankind was formed”).

The Greek translation of Sir 33[36]:10b renders the Hebrew text (MS E) fairly closely. Since this Greek rendering shows a striking resemblance with Sir 17:1a, it is doubtless the case that for this latter text the author had a direct quotation of Gen 2:7 in mind. If we compare Sir 17:1a and 33[36]:10b, we find a surprising result. In Sir 33[36]:10b, the Greek translator has rendered the Hebrew noun ‫“( אדם‬human being”) with a proper name (“Adam”), a phenomenon that also occurs elsewhere

 Similarly, we have already seen that the scriptural echoes in Sir 1:1– 10 and 6:5 – 17 change the sequence from the prior text being alluded to.

Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira

65

in this book (Sir 16:16; 40:1).³⁶ The observation that the Greek translator in 17:1a did not choose the proper name ‘Adam’, but the more general notion of “human being,” is a feature that can assist us in our analysis of the text. For the translator, the content of 17:1– 4 obviously has a more extensive reference than just one single person (Adam). The statement of Sir 17:1a therefore concerns every human being. However, we still do not have a clue why, when quoting from Genesis 1– 3, Ben Sira did not adopt the “canonical” sequence in 17:1– 4. In my view, the verb κτίζειν (“to found,” “to create”) will bring us closer to an answer, since it reminds us of the conjectured noun κτίσει in 16:26a.³⁷ Now this observation reveals the basic structure of this Ben Sira passage:³⁸ The creation of the works

(Sir 16:26 – 30)

The creation of humankind

(Sir 17:1– 4)

That it is the author’s intention to emphasize the polar contrast between these two ‘groups’ can be elucidated by looking at the function of Sir 17:1b within this structure: “He returned him into it again.”³⁹ By contrast with the cosmic works which have been arranged for ever (Sir 16:27), Ben Sira’s subsequent unequivocal reference to Gen 3:19 shows that created human beings are characterized as having a finite existence, which moreover is confirmed by the words of Sir 17:2a (“He gave them a fixed number of days”).⁴⁰ It is worth noting that, within the Ben Sira passage, this distinct reference to Gen 3:19 plays a completely different role from its function in the second creation narrative. Whereas in Gen 3:19 humanity’s return to the ground is meant as punishment for his rebellion against God, in Sir 17:1b it is a common fact for every

 Though Sir 16:16 is present in Hebrew MS A, it is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts. It is accepted as authentic by Haspecker, Gottesfurcht, 146 n. 49, but regarded as secondary by Prato, Il Problema, 227; Bussino, Additions, 182– 86.  With 23 occurrences, it is one of the grandson’s favorite verbs. In the Septuagint, the verb occurs about 40 times in total. For further details, see Reiterer, “Ebenen,” 92– 93.  The following paragraphs develop the thought presented by Alonso Schökel, “Vision,” 235 – 36; see also De Fraine, “Het loflied”; Duesberg, “La dignité.” On the structure of 16:26 – 17:4 see now Corley, “Creation.”  In the interpretation of De Fraine, “Het loflied,” 10 – 12, the verb in 17:1b is a so-called gnomic aorist: “no doubt, he leads him back to it.” In view of the structure of Sir 17:1– 4, this could only be possible if the other aorists were also to be considered as gnomic aorists—which, however, is not possible for all occurrences.  In Sir 37:25 similar phrasing is used to 17:2a. A reference to Gen 3:19 in Sir 17:1b is recognized by Sheppard, Wisdom, 76.

66

Pancratius C. Beentjes

human being. In precisely this way, we can explain why the author inserted the quotation from Gen 3:19 right at this particular point in the “hymn on human dignity.” Unlike its function in its original setting in Genesis 3, the Ben Sira verse scarcely serves as a negative statement. My impression is that Ben Sira placed these negative undertones elsewhere, to be more specific, in the depiction of the cosmic works as portrayed in Sir 16:27– 28. For it can hardly be coincidental that those cosmic works are described there as resembling some kind of ideal human beings! In so doing, they fill in the polar structure of the pericope, and, within this unit, Sir 16:29 – 30 has a special function too.⁴¹ Specifically, the final statement of Sir 16:30b prepares for the assertion about the mortality of human beings (Sir 17:1b). The naturalness of perishable life for the living creatures that creep upon the ground is almost automatically presupposed and transferred to humankind. Hence, John Collins declares: “Ben Sira, then, represents a line of interpretation of Genesis that took the story as paradigmatic of the human situation rather than as a narrative that explained its origin.”⁴² At the same time, however, with the help of at least two clear allusions to Genesis 1, the human being, in Sir 17:3b and 17:4b, is set apart from “all that is on earth.” Closely connected to the first of these two allusions (Sir 17:3b / Gen 1:26a, 28a), an intriguing matter emerges. The attentive reader of Sir 17:1– 4 will find that these verses reveal an interesting pattern of parallelisms. Sir 17:1b and 17:2a make a pair, as do Sir 17:4a and 17:4b. The verses in between give rise to discussion, so radical that—even without any textual evidence in the manuscripts—scholars changed the Greek text in order to fit the pattern. This relates to the opening words of Sir 17:3a, which in all Greek manuscripts are rendered καθ’ ἑαυτούς. A literal rendering of this bicolon then runs: “He clothed them in a strength like themselves,” which makes a perfect parallelism to 17:2b— “He gave them authority over the things upon it [the earth].”⁴³

 Note that Alonso Schökel, “Vision,” says nothing about these verses.  Collins, “Fall,” 300 – 301.  Although Swete (The Old Testament, vol. II, 676) prints the actual Greek reading, καθ’ ἑαυτούς, Hugo Grotius (Hugonis Grotii Annotationes) formed the hypothesis that one should read καθ’ ἑαυτόν, so as to refer to God: “He clothed them with strength like himself.” This emendation, accepted by Smend (Weisheit, 155), is incorporated in the main text of both Rahlfs’ and Ziegler’s editions. However, following this emendation for Sir 17:3a, the parallelism with 17:2b gets lost. Moreover, the position of 17:2b becomes problematic, since this verse line now lacks a second complementary statement, and, as a result it is isolated from the context. In my view, the hypothesis of Grotius, followed by so many text editions and commentators, should be rejected. The rendering “secundum se” (found in the Vetus Latina) is no strong additional

Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira

67

Furthermore, commentators have ignored one of the most important aspects concerning the appearance of the allusions to Genesis. Would it be too far-fetched to assume that precisely those two allusions (Gen 2:7a / Sir 17:1a; Gen 1:26a, 28a / Sir 17:3b) are cited to play a prominent role within the passage? It is remarkable that Sir 17:2a, which is crucial to my reasoning, has no explicit quotation from Genesis! As most of the verses have been arranged in parallel pairs (17:1b + 17:2a; 17:2b + 17:3a; 17:4a + 17:4b), two statements remain that, as a result of their “non-parallel layout,” receive extra emphasis: “The Lord created a human being out of earth” (17:1a), and “in his image he made them” (17:3b). It can be no coincidence, therefore, that precisely here we come across the two most marked aspects of humankind in its relation to God. Thus, we can understand why the Vetus Latina has moved forward the statement of Sir 17:3b, so as to connect it to Sir 17:1a. However, Sir 17:1b clearly shows that this change was unsuccessful, as this transposition disrupted the link both with Sir 17:1a and with Sir 16:30b. Thus, a close reading of Sir 16:26 – 17:4 indicates that, with the help of some references to the primeval narratives of Genesis, Ben Sira has created his own theological framework for the position of humankind within God’s creation. None of these references to Genesis 1– 3 was adopted in a slavish way. In fact, they provide an intriguing example of one kind of biblical intertextuality, viz., the structural use of Scripture.

Ben Sira 24:15: “structural use of Scripture” and “inverted quotation” Within Sir 24:15, we encounter not only the “structural use of Scripture,” but also an intriguing intertextual phenomenon, which had no fixed literary designation until recently, but which I have called an “inverted quotation” (or allusion).⁴⁴ After having discovered such a striking intertextual relationship when studying Sir 46:19, discussed later in this article, a closer examination of Ben Sira brought to light that indeed a number of such “reversed texts” can be established.⁴⁵ Because the Hebrew text of ch. 24 is not preserved, the present discussion relies on the Greek version.

argument in this debate either, because almost every bicolon of this ancient Latin translation has been given a place here that differs from its position in the Greek text.  Beentjes, “Quotations.”  See Beentjes, Tenach, 60 – 87; Beentjes, “View”; Hildesheim, Prophet, 87.

68

Pancratius C. Beentjes

A striking inverted quotation (or allusion) occurs within the description of spices in Sir 24:15ab. ὡς κιννάμωμον καὶ ἀσπάλαθος ἀρωμάτων καὶ ὡς σμύρνα ἐκλεκτὴ διέδωκα εὐωδίαν “Like cinnamon and camel’s thorn for spices, and like choice myrrh I gave forth a fragrance.”

This statement undoubtedly echoes the language of Exod 30:23 (LXX). Καὶ σὺ λαβὲ ἡδύσματα, τὸ ἄνθος σμύρνης ἐκλεκτῆς πεντακοσίους σίκλους καὶ κινναμώμου εὐώδους “And you, take spices, the flower of choice myrrh, five hundred shekels, and sweet smelling cinnamon.”

We can also point to an inverted quotation (or allusion) within the further description of aromatic substances in Sir 24:15cd. ὡς χαλβάνη καὶ ὄνυξ καὶ στακτὴ καὶ ὡς λιβάνου ἀτμὶς ἐν σκηνῇ “Like galbanum and onycha and stacte, and like the vapor of frankincense in the tent.”

These words echo Exod 30:34 (LXX). λαβὲ σεαυτῷ ἡδύσματα, στακτήν, ὄνυχα, χαλβάνην ἡδυσμοῦ καὶ λίβανον διαφανῆ “Take for yourself spices—stacte, onycha, galbanum that is sweet, and translucent frankincense.”

Sir 24:13 – 17 can be considered the “Praise of Lady Wisdom” proper.⁴⁶ Within the structure of these verses, Sir 24:15 attracts attention, not only because of its length, but also by its position: it forms the heart of the passage. Gerald Sheppard wonders why Ben Sira’s grandson—being the Greek translator—did not copy the sequence of the word order of Sir 24:15 from the Septuagint, but he does not answer this question.⁴⁷ The most obvious reason might be that already in his grandfather’s Hebrew text there was an inverted quotation from Exodus

 Marttila, Nations, 106.  Sheppard, Wisdom, 58 n. 94.

Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira

69

30, which was subsequently translated carefully by the grandson.⁴⁸ If this is the case, Ben Sira with the reversal of the word order from Exodus wanted to draw his reader’s attention to the point that in his own composition he was using the texts of Exodus on a different (i. e., allegorical) level. For in Sir 24:15 with the help of these Exodus verses he is not describing the cult, but the activities of Lady Wisdom.

Ben Sira 45:6 – 26—Aaron and Phinehas It is surely no coincidence that in one of the most crucial parts of his book, namely the extensive description of Aaron (Sir 45:6 – 22), as well as in the subsequent pericope dealing with Phinehas (Sir 45:23 – 25), Ben Sira utilized the structural use of Scripture, and did so in a rather creative way. Within the “Hymn in Praise of the Fathers,” Sir 45:6 – 26 (Hebrew MS B) is a key text, both for the structure and for the theology. By means of the section on Aaron and Phinehas, Ben Sira seeks to demonstrate that the succession of the Davidic dynasty has been transferred to the high-priestly dynasty of Aaron and his descendants. That is why Ben Sira not only pays so much attention to Aaron (Sir 45:6 – 22), but also to Simon (Sir 50:1– 24), the high priest of his own day.⁴⁹ The sage’s extensive description of Aaron is characterized by a twofold “structural use of Scripture.”⁵⁰ The first part (Sir 45:6 – 14) is structured by references to Exodus 28. This observation is reinforced by the fact that in Sir 45:6 – 14 there are no parallels whatsoever to the other two biblical narratives (Exodus 39; Leviticus 8) treating the same subject as Exodus 28. The following observations underline this specific interrelationship: – Only in Sir 45:10c and Exod 28:15, 29 – 30 do we find the rare word-combination ‫“( חשן משפט‬the breastpiece for decision”). – Although the ‘rustle of bells’ (Sir 45:8c-9) is found in Exod 28:34– 35, we should, however, note one remarkable change. Ben Sira has replaced the strange motivation for it given in Exod 28:35 (“and so he will not die”) by the reason given in Exod 28:12 (“as reminders for the sons of Israel”).

 In his doctoral thesis (Difference), Benjamin Wright unfortunately gives no attention to the phenomenon of the inverted quotation as a translation technique within the Greek text of Ben Sira’s book.  Both texts on these two high priests are expressly interrelated. More details are to be found in Beentjes, Tenach, 175 – 99; cf. Beentjes, “Canon,” 178 – 80.  This term is preferable to the notion “anthological style,” as the latter could suggest a certain degree of arbitrariness that is absolutely incorrect. See, e. g., Snaith, “Love,” 172– 73.

70

–

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Moreover, at the transition to the second part of the pericope, the combination of the verbs ‘to anoint’ and ‘to install’ (Sir 45:15) occurs in a reversed order as compared with Exod 28:41. It can scarcely be coincidental that such an “inverted quotation” (or allusion) is situated at a crucial point in the passage on Aaron, namely at the transition from one subject (“the Holy One”) to another (“Moses”), and precisely before a second structural use of Scripture (Numbers 16 – 18) shows up.

Marking the transition to the second part, the mention of Moses in Sir 45:15a plays an important role within the section of Sir 45:15 – 22. In the first place, from here on, the Ben Sira passage is in keeping with Exodus 28, where Moses is the agent all the time, whereas in Sir 45:6 – 14 it is at least suggested that “the Holy One” is the subject of investing Aaron. Second, Moses plays a crucial role relating to the legitimation of Aaron’s other duties. For it is Moses who in Sir 45:17 hands over to Aaron exactly the same tasks as God previously handed down to him in Sir 45:5. In this way, Ben Sira has firmly anchored the high priest’s legitimation: Aaron has received it directly from Moses (45:17), and the latter directly from God himself (45:5).⁵¹ Against this background, we can explain why Ben Sira in 45:18 – 22 reverts to Numbers 16, the “classic” narrative about Korah, son of Levi, who contested Aaron’s divine election, claiming those priestly functions for himself. The death of Korah and his supporters by fire makes it absolutely clear that the LORD destined the high priesthood for Aaron. The saving intercession by Aaron as reported in Num 17:6 – 15 (REB 16:41– 50) and the narrative of his budding rod (Num 17:16 – 26 [REB 17:1– 10]) have the same intention. Though Ben Sira does not explicitly mention these two stories, there is a consensus of opinion that he summarized them in the first half of 45:20 (‘he increased the glory of Aaron’).⁵² Ben Sira 45:20bc-21 is a very special interpretation of Num 18:8 – 19. Whereas in the Pentateuch this instruction on special offerings has no obvious relation with the narratives in Numbers 16 – 17, in Sir 45:20bc-21, by contrast, it is emphatically adduced as an extra argument in favor of Aaron’s special position. It therefore can be no accident that Ben Sira’s portrait of Aaron concludes in 45:22 with an extensive quotation from Num 18:20—the most extensive biblical parallel occurring in the entire Book of Ben Sira. Finally, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the passage on Phinehas (Sir 45:23 – 24) depends on Num 25:11– 13. This is self-evident, not only because of the

 This must also be the reason why Sir 45:4b and 45:16a bear such a striking resemblance.  Smend, Weisheit, 434; Peters, Buch, 390; Zapff, Sirach, 332.

Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira

71

literal parallel between Sir 45:23 f and Num 25:13b (“he made atonement for the Israelites”), but equally from the vocabulary in Sir 45:23 – 24 that has been adopted from Num 25:11– 13 (“to be zealous”; “covenant of peace”; “priesthood forever”).⁵³ Sir 45:23 – 24 unfolds in a rather remarkable pattern. Each of its five bicola alternately consists of half a verse with vocabulary adopted from Num 25:11– 13, followed by half a verse with Ben Sira’s own idiom, or the other way round. No doubt, here we encounter a very special kind of structural use of Scripture: a) b) c) d) e)

Sir Sir Sir Sir Sir Sir Sir Sir Sir Sir

45:23a 45:23b 45:23c 45:23d 45:23e 45:23 f 45:24a 45:24b 45:24c 45:24d

Num 25:11a —–-—–-—Num 25:13b —–-—–-——–-—–-—Num 25:13b —–-—–-—Num 25:12 —–-—–-—Num 25:13a

“Phinehas, son of Eleazar” “zealous for his God”

“he made atonement for the Israelites” “covenant of peace” “priesthood forever”

This table clarifies the important structural role played by scriptural allusions in Ben Sira’s construction of this passage.

Ben Sira 46:19: an “inverted quotation” My first encounter with the remarkable stylistic feature, which I named “inverted quotation,”⁵⁴ was caused by examining a small text in Ben Sira’s famous “Hymn in Praise of the Fathers” (Ben Sira 44– 50) relating to Samuel.⁵⁵ The portrayal of Samuel (Sir 46:13 – 20) is completely set in the third person singular. The only exception, however, is the third bicolon of verse 19 (Hebrew MS B), where suddenly the first person singular appears:⁵⁶

 This is increased in Sir 45:24d: “the high priesthood forever”!  See Beentjes, Tenach, 60 – 105; Beentjes, “Quotations.”  In recent years, several studies relating to the Samuel passage in the Book of Ben Sira have been published: Corley, “Portrait”; Marböck, “Samuel”; Petraglio, “Siracide.”  For Sir 46:19 – 20 (MS B), many Hebrew text editions of the Book of Ben Sira are rather inaccurate in their rendering of the exact position of the stichoi. Sir 46:19a-d which in MS B is one extremely lengthy verse is always divided by the editors into two lines, while Sir 46:20, which is extremely lengthy too, is generally printed on one single line! In fact, one should constantly consult Facsimiles of the Fragments or the online photographs of the Hebrew Ben Sira texts (www.bensira.org). See also Beentjes, Book, 83.

72

Pancratius C. Beentjes

‫“—כופר ונעלם ממ]י לקח[תי‬Bribe and sandals, from whom did I take [them]?”

Ben Sira here refers to Samuel’s farewell speech in 1 Sam 12:3, where the MT says: ‫“—ומיד מי לקחתי כפר ואעלים‬From whose hand did I take a bribe to turn a blind eye?”

However, the Septuagint term ὑπόδημα (‘sandal’) suggests that the final word in the Hebrew phrase was not originally a verb but rather the noun ‫‘( נעלים‬sandals’). At a closer look, it appears that Ben Sira did not merely copy these words from Samuel’s farewell speech, but introduced an interesting change in the sequence of the parts of the sentence. As a matter of fact, he takes them over in precisely the reversed sequence:⁵⁷ ‫( ומיד מי לקחתי כפר ונעלים‬1 Sam 12:3, with last word emended) From whose hand did I take a bribe and sandals?” ‫כופר ונעלים ממ]י לקח[תי‬

(Sir 46:19)

“Bribe and sandals, from whom did I take [them]?”

A term for this remarkable literary phenomenon did not previously exist before my 1982 article. In view of the most striking characteristic of this stylistic figure, the term inverted quotation seems the most suitable name for it.

Ben Sira 47:1 – 11—King David The pericope relating to David (Sir 47:1– 11, Hebrew MS B)⁵⁸ can also be characterized as applying the “structural use of Scripture,” since there is no doubt the passage refers back to 1 Samuel 17– 18, as can be demonstrated with the help of the following chart: Sir 47:3

1 Sam 17:34– 36

Sir 47:4a

1 Sam 17:32– 51

Sir 47:4b

1 Sam 17:26

 No single commentary on Ben Sira previously paid attention to this remarkable change.  For the full context, see Beentjes, “Portrayals.” See also Marböck, “Erbe”; Xeravits, “Figure”; Kleer, Sänger, 131– 77; Phua, Kings, 99 – 168; Marttila, “David.”

Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira

Sir 47:5

1 Sam 17:37, 45 – 47

Sir 47:5c

1 Sam 17:33

Sir 47:6

1 Sam 18:6– 8

73

Géza Xeravits in his essay only referred to 1 Samuel 17, without mentioning 1 Samuel 18, declaring that Ben Sira “follows his source (1 Sam 17) with chronological accuracy, and retells the story without really fresh colors.”⁵⁹ However, there can be no doubt that Sir 47:6 relates to 1 Sam 18:6 – 7. And it is especially with respect to Sir 47:6 that I disagree with him, when he states that Ben Sira “retells the story without really fresh colors.” The Hebrew text of Sir 47:6 as transmitted by MS B runs: – ‫על כן ענו לו בנות ויכנוהו ברבבה‬ “Therefore the daughters sang to him, and they gave him an honorary name: ‘with ten thousand.’”⁶⁰

Indeed, from the biblical passage he adopted both the verb ‫“( ענה‬to answer, praise, sing”) and the noun ‫“( רבבה‬ten thousand”).⁶¹ But at the same time, we may compare 1 Sam 18:7 in more detail: ‫ותענינה הנשים המשחקות ותאמרן הכה שאול באלפו ודוד ברבבתיו‬ “And the women making merry sang and said: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.’”

By way of comparison with the earlier text, Ben Sira in 47:6 has carried out at least two remarkable changes. First, whereas the biblical passage itself has ‫“( הנשׁים‬the women”), Ben Sira opted for the noun ‫“( בנות‬daughters”).⁶² Second, he introduces the piel verb ‫“( כנה‬to give a honorary name”), which he twice employed earlier in his book (36:17b; 44:23b). Moreover, it is not quite clear who, both in the first and in the second colon of Sir 47:6, is the antecedent of ‫לו‬

 Xeravits, “Figure,” 30.  Both the Greek and the Vetus Latina have only an unspecified subject (“they”).  DCH 4.434 (s.v. ‫ )כנה‬referring to Sir 47:6 erroneously offers the reading ‫‘( ברכה‬blessing’), which is definitely incorrect. A reference to ‘blessings’ is only to be found in the versions of Sir 47:6 represented by the Greek (ἐν εὐλογίαις κυρίου) and Vetus Latina (‘in benedictionibus Domini’).  According to Marttila (“David,” 39), “Fundamentally, this difference is not crucial,” but he adduces no argument for this view.

74

Pancratius C. Beentjes

(“to him”), since in both cases it could be either David or God.⁶³ It is indeed possible that Ben Sira did this intentionally.

Conclusion This article has drawn attention to two specific manifestations of author-oriented intertextuality that deserve more attention by scholars. The more prominent one —“structural use of Scripture,” or “structural style”—is a phenomenon in which a passage in a later Jewish writing is clearly structured by elements from one or two earlier biblical texts. Such an approach is particularly fruitful, as the reader is largely able to trace out what the author did with the source text(s) he incorporated into his own document. For the parallel to be meaningful, a contextual clue is always needed. The stylistic phenomenon called “inverted quotation” (or allusion) stays closer to its source text, as elements of the source text are carefully inverted. On the other hand, however, it is hard to avoid the impression that Ben Sira intentionally reworked the source text. In so doing, at least he gained a moment of extra attention from the readers, because they heard (or read) something other than the words they knew from tradition.

Bibliography Alonso Schökel, Luis. “The Vision of Man in Sirach 16:24 – 17:14,” in: Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, edited by John G. Gammie. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978, 235 – 45. Beentjes, Pancratius C., “A Rereading of the Primeval Narratives: Ben Sira 40:1 – 17 and 16:26 – 17:4,” in: Wisdom for Life. Essays Offered to Honor Prof. Maurice Gilbert, SJ on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages. BZAW 445. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014, 201 – 17. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Ben Sira’s View of Elijah (Sir 48:1 – 11),” in: Rewritten Biblical Figures, edited by Erkki Koskenniemi and Pekka Lindqvist. Studies in Rewritten Bible 3. Turku: Åbo Akademi University; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010, 47 – 56. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997; Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Canon and Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira (Jesus Sirach, Ecclesiasticus),” in: Pancratius C. Beentjes, “Happy the One who Meditates on Wisdom”

 See Kleer, Sänger, 154; Calduch-Benages, “Absence,” 305 – 6.

Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira

75

(Sir. 14,20): Collected Essays on the Book of Ben Sira. CBET 43. Leuven: Peeters, 2006, 169 – 86. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Full Wisdom is from the Lord: Sir 1:1 – 10 and its Place in Israel’s Wisdom Literature,” in: The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008, 139 – 54. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern,” Bib 63 (1982) 506 – 23. Beentjes, Pancratius C. Jesus Sirach en Tenach : Een onderzoek naar en een classificatie van parallellen, met bijzondere aandacht voor hun functie in Sirach 45:6 – 26. Nieuwegein: privately published, 1981. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Ein Mensch ohne Freund ist wie eine linke Hand ohne die Rechte,” in: Freundschaft bei Ben Sira: Beiträge des Symposions zu Ben Sira Salzburg 1995, edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer. BZAW 244. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996, 1 – 18. Box, George H., and William O.E. Oesterley. “The Book of Sirach,” in: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 1, edited by Robert H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913, 268 – 517. Bussino, Severino. The Greek Additions in the Book of Ben Sira. AnBib 203. Rome: Gregorian and Biblical Press, 2013. Calduch-Benages, Nuria. “The Absence of Named Women from Ben Sira’s Praise of the Ancestors,” in: Rewriting Biblical History, edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin: de Gruyter 2011, 301 – 17. Clines, David J. A. “The Fear of the Lord is Wisdom (Job 28:28): A Semantic and Contextual Study,” in: Job 28: Cognition in Context, edited by Ellen van Wolde. BibInt 64. Leiden: Brill, 2003, 57 – 92. Collins, John J. “Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve,” in: The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, edited by Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman. JSJSup 83. Leiden: Brill, 2004, 194 – 232. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Corley, Jeremy. “Wisdom versus Apocalyptic and Science in Sirach 1,1 – 10,” in: Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Tradition, edited by F. García Martínez. BETL 168. Leuven: Peeters, 2003, 269 – 85. Corley, Jeremy. Ben Sira’s Teaching on Friendship. BJS 316. Providence: Brown University, 2002. Corley, Jeremy. “The Portrait of Samuel in Hebrew Ben Sira 46:13 – 20,” in: Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, edited by Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert. DCLY 2008. Berlin: de Gruyter 2009, 31 – 56. Corley, Jeremy. “Tripartite Creation in Sirach 16:26 – 17:4,” Studia Biblica Slovaca 7 (2015) 155 – 84. De Fraine, Jan. “Het Loflied op de menselijke waardigheid in Eccli. 17,1 – 14,” Bijdr 11 (1950) 10 – 23. Dines, Jennifer M. “Creation under Control: Power Language in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3,” in Studies in the Greek Bible, ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 44. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008, 3 – 16. Duesberg, Hilaire. “La Dignité de l’homme: Siracide 16,24 – 17,14,” BVC 82 (1968) 15 – 21.

76

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Duesberg, Hilaire, and Irénée Fransen. Ecclesiastico. LSB 19. Turin: Marietti, 1966. Eberharter, Andreas. Der Kanon des Alten Testaments zur Zeit des Ben Sira. ATA 3/3. Münster: Aschendorff, 1911, 6 – 54. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “‘Faith in God’ Rather than ‘Fear of God’ in Ben Sira and Job: A Necessary Adjustment in Terminology and Understanding,” in: Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 211 – 26. Facsimiles of the Fragments Hitherto Recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew, Oxford/Cambridge: University Press, 1901. Gasser, Johann K. Die Bedeutung der Sprüche Jesu ben Sira für die Datierung des althebräischen Spruchbuches. BFCT, 8/2 – 3. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann 1904, 199 – 254. Gilbert, Maurice. “Voir ou Craindre le Seigneur? Sir 1,10d,” in: Biblia et Semitica: Studi in Memoria di Francesco Vattioni, edited by L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1999, 247 – 52. Gilbert, Maurice. “Ben Sira, Reader of Genesis 1 – 11,” in: Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 89 – 99. Gilbert, Maurice. “Le Discours de la Sagesse en Proverbes, 8,” in: La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament, edited by Maurice Gilbert. BETL 51. 2nd ed. Leuven: Peeters, 1990, 202 – 18. Grotius, Hugo. Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum, vol. 3, edited by G. J. L. Vogel. Halle: Curtius, 1776. Haspecker, Josef. Gottesfurcht bei Jesus Sirach: Ihre religiöse Struktur und ihre literarische und doktrinäre Bedeutung. AnBib 30. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967. Hildesheim, Ralph. Bis daß ein Prophet aufstand wie Feuer. Untersuchungen zum Prophetenverständnis des Ben Sira. TThSt 58. Trier: Paulinus, 1996. Kleer, Martin. Der Liebliche Sänger der Psalmen Israels: Untersuchungen zu David als Dichter und Beter der Psalmen. BBB 108. Bodenheim: Philo, 1996. Krinetzki, Günter. “Die Freundschaftsperikope Sir 6,5 – 17 in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht,” BZ 23 (1979), 212 – 33. Levison, John R. Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism from Sirach to 2 Baruch. JSPSup 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Marböck, Johannes. “Davids Erbe in gewandelter Zeit (Sir 47,1 – 11),” in Johannes Marböck, Gottes Weisheit Unter Uns, edited by Irmtraud Fischer. HBS 6. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1995, 124 – 32. Marböck, Johannes. “Samuel der Prophet: Sein Bild im Väterlob Sir 46,13 – 20,” in: Ein Herz so weit wie der Sand am Ufer des Meeres. Festschrift für Georg Hentschel, edited by S. Gillmayr-Bucher, A. Giercke and C. Niessen. ETS 90. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2006, 205 – 17. Marböck, Johannes. Weisheit im Wandel. BZAW 272. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Marttila, Marko. “David in the Wisdom of Ben Sira,” SJOT 25 (2011) 29 – 48. Marttila, Marko. Foreign Nations in the Wisdom of Ben Sira: A Jewish Sage between Opposition and Assimilation. DCLS 13. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Miller, Geoffrey. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,” CurBR 9 (2011), 283 – 309. Müller, Achim. Proverbien 1 – 9: Der Weisheit neue Kleider. BZAW 291. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000.

Structural Use of Scripture in the Book of Ben Sira

77

Oorschot, Jürgen van. “Hiob 28: Die verborgene Weisheit und die Furcht Gottes als Überwindung einer generalisierten ‫חכמה‬,” in: The Book of Job, edited by W.A.M. Beuken. BETL 114. Leuven: Peeters, 1994, 183 – 201. Patte, Daniel. Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine. SBLDS 22. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. Peters, Norbert. Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. EHAT 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1913. Petraglio, Renzo. “Le Siracide et l’Ancien Testament. Relectures et tendances,” Apocrypha 8 (1997) 287 – 302. Phua, Leong Cheng Michael. The Wise Kings of Judah According to Ben Sira: A Study in Second Temple Use of Biblical Traditions. Ph.D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 2008. Prato, Gian Luigi. Il Problema della teodicea in Ben Sira. AnBib 65. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975. Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes II. 8th ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1965. Reiterer, Friedrich V., ed. Freundschaft bei Ben Sira. Beiträge des Symposions zu Ben Sira Salzburg 1995. BZAW 244. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Die immateriellen Ebenen der Schöpfung bei Ben Sira,” in: Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom, edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen. BETL 143. Leuven: Peeters, 1999, 91 – 127. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962), 1 – 13. Sauer, Georg. Jesus Sirach. JSHRZ 3/5. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981. Schechter, Solomon and Charles Taylor. The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899. Schwartz, Seth. Were the Jews a Mediterranean Society? Reciprocity and Solidarity in Ancient Judaism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Sheppard, Gerald T. Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament. BZAW 151. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skemp, Vincent. “Avenues of Intertextuality between Tobit and the New Testament,” in: Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 43 – 70. Smend, Rudolf. Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1906. Snaith, John G. “Ben Sira’s Supposed Love of Liturgy,” VT 25 (1975), 167 – 74. Snaith, John G. “Biblical Quotations in the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus,” JTS 19 (1967), 1 – 12. Swete, Henry B. The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, Vol. II, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1930. Whybray, Roger N. Proverbs. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Wolde, Ellen van, ed. Job 28: Cognition in Context. BibInt 64. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Wright, Benjamin G. No Small Difference: Sirach’s Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text. SBLSCS 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Xeravits, Géza G. “The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira,” Henoch 23 (2001) 27 – 38. Zapff, Burkard M. Jesus Sirach 25 – 51. NEchtB 39. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2010.

78

Pancratius C. Beentjes

Ziegler, Joseph. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 12/2. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

Andrew T. Glicksman

Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited: The Rereading and Reapplication of Isaiah 59 in Wisdom 5 Most commentators on the Book of Wisdom acknowledge that Pseudo-Solomon, the book’s author, greatly depends on the Book of Isaiah, and especially, on Isaiah 40 – 66, which for the sake of simplicity, I will call Deutero-Isaiah.¹ While references to Deutero-Isaiah in the Wisdom of Solomon abound, Deutero-Isaian language and themes are concentrated in two main sections: first, in chapters 2– 5, which treat the righteous sufferer presented as God’s servant and son, and then, in chapters 13 – 15, which critique nature worship and idolatry. I will focus on the use of Deutero-Isaiah in the former and, in particular, on Wisdom 5 and its dependence on Isaiah 59. Few scholars have recognized how much Pseudo-Solomon depends on that Deutero-Isaian passage in shaping all of chapter 5.² Even fewer scholars have adequately considered the significance of this dependence in forming Pseudo-Solomon’s message and in illuminating the way that he rereads and reapplies Scripture. Despite scanty linguistic connections, Pseudo-Solomon borrows heavily from Isaiah 59 for much of Wisdom 5’s imagery. The major themes of Isaiah 59 provide fitting material for the author’s message in Wisdom 2– 5, and where Isaiah 59 does not entirely serve his purposes, Pseudo-Solomon makes modifications, supplementing with allu-

 My use of the term “Deutero-Isaiah” to refer to Isaiah 40 – 66 in this article is not meant to challenge the generally accepted claim that the Book of Isaiah is a tripartite composition, with Deutero-Isaiah in chapters 40 – 55 and Trito-Isaiah in chapters 56 – 66. The authorship and composition of this prophetic book is not at issue in the present study. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that Pseudo-Solomon would have made such a distinction among three, or even two, Isaiahs. Interestingly, however, he does gravitate towards themes in the latter chapters of Isaiah in composing the first part of the Book of Wisdom, which may hint at his awareness of, if not an authorial shift in composition, then at least a thematic or structural one.  Most commentators note the links between Wis 5:18 and Isa 59:16 – 17. See Skehan, “Isaias,” 294; Suggs, “Wisdom,” 29, 31; Larcher, Études, 91; Larcher, Livre, 2:385; Reider, Book, 96; Winston, Wisdom, 148 – 49; Gilbert, “Wisdom,” 608 – 9; Kolarcik, “Book,” 486; Engel, Buch, 108; Vílchez Lindez, Sabiduría, 219 – 20; Neufeld, Armour, 60. Some of these scholars (e. g., Skehan, Suggs, and Larcher) have conducted more extensive studies that note a few more links between Isaiah 59 and Wisdom 5, but none of them claim, as I do, that the Isaian passage is the primary textual influence for Pseudo-Solomon’s composition of chapter 5 as a whole. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416930-004

80

Andrew T. Glicksman

sions to other scriptural texts and further developing the Isaian themes of divine retribution and reward for his Jewish Alexandrian audience.

1 Preliminary Matters Before investigating the role of chapter 5 within Wisdom 2– 5 and the relationship of this chapter to Isaiah 59, I will briefly explain my methodology and terminology and then treat a few preliminary matters concerning the Wisdom of Solomon, especially the nature of its literary dependence in general.

1.1 Methodology and Terminology My approach to “intertextuality” (that is, investigating relationships between and among texts) is “author-oriented” or “diachronic” rather than “reader-oriented” or “synchronic” in nature.³ This primarily means that I think Pseudo-Solomon intended to convey a message to his audience, for which purpose he references other biblical texts, and through close investigation of his work it may be possible to determine what those biblical texts are and how he uses and, at times, supplements them to convey his message. Due to enduring confusion surrounding the term “intertextuality,” with its coinage and predominant usage in poststructuralist reader-oriented circles, I often use general terms such as “relationship,” “connection,” “parallel,” and “reference” and simply prefix “inner-biblical” when specifically discussing relationships between or among biblical texts.⁴ The challenge lies in finding clearer and consistent terminology when author-oriented intertextual study involves both biblical and extrabiblical texts and traditions. Canonical differences can also affect precision and consistency in terminology since many scholars may not consider intertextual study of the deuterocanonical (or apocryphal) books, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, to be “inner-biblical.” Another challenge is finding precise and consistent terminology for describing these relationships among texts, since, at present, scholars use various terms in a variety of ways. My own preferences are as follows: I use the term “quotation,” to refer to exact or near-exact reproduction of distinctive phraseology.  For a treatment of these terms, see Miller, “Intertextuality,” 287.  The terms “inner-biblical exegesis” (Fishbane, Interpretation) and “inner-biblical allusion” (Eslinger, “Exegesis”; Sommer, Prophet; Leonard, “Identifying”) may also be appropriate in certain cases.

Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited

81

Quotations are extensive (that is, usually involving more than two or three words) and are either explicit (with a citation formula and/or source clearly identified by the author) or implicit (with no citation formula and no source cited by name). I use the term “allusion” to refer to more implicit links in linguistic, structural, or thematic content intentionally evoked by the author in order to enrich the message of the alluding text. As Benjamin Sommer explains further, “[t]he meaning of an alluding text is affected by the content of the source text.”⁵ This is to be distinguished from “echo,” which evokes a previous text merely for the purpose of ornamentation, and also from “exegesis,” which references an earlier text with the purpose of trying to explain or clarify it.⁶ In my opinion, allusions can be made for exegetical (interpretive) purposes, though this is not always the case. Determining instances of allusion requires that there be a significant amount of thematic parallels within proximity, as Dennis MacDonald notes, a certain “density” of material.⁷ An example would be identifying similar imagery and elements of plot, preferably in the same order, as can be seen in the listing of unnamed heroic biblical figures in Wisdom 10. Although not absolutely necessary, similarities in content are strengthened by linguistic parallels, especially when a rare or distinctive word or phrase appears in both texts.⁸

1.2 Background to the Wisdom of Solomon The Book of Wisdom was most likely composed by a Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jew sometime between the late first century BCE and early to mid-first century CE. The book is primarily addressed to faithful Jews in the Alexandrian community who had been undergoing persecution at the hands of apostate Jews and members of the Greco-Roman ruling class. As a result of this persecution, these faithful Jews needed encouragement to persevere in their traditional beliefs and culture.⁹

 Sommer, Prophet, 30.  For explanations of echo, see Sommer, Prophet, 30 – 31; Tooman, Gog, 8 – 9. For an extensive discussion of allusion and the way it is distinct from exegesis, see Sommer, Prophet, 10 – 13, 17– 25, 29 – 30.  MacDonald, “Introduction,” 2.  On the importance of linguistic parallels for identifying allusion, see Leonard, “Identifying,” 246– 51; Miller, “Intertextuality,” 295.  For more on the historical context and Pseudo-Solomon’s purpose for composing the Wisdom of Solomon, see my summary in Glicksman, Wisdom, 14– 30.

82

Andrew T. Glicksman

Fortunately, certain difficult intertextual questions that plague the study of most biblical texts do not arise when reading the Wisdom of Solomon. Most notably, since Wisdom was the last book of the Old Testament to be written (according to the Catholic canon), the direction of dependence is never in doubt.¹⁰ While this eliminates some of the headache, other problems remain. For example, it is sometimes difficult to determine if and to what degree Pseudo-Solomon references a specific scriptural text. This is especially the case because the author of Wisdom never uses introductory citation formulas such as “as it is written” and very rarely uses the same wording as the evoked biblical text. There are no explicit quotations in the Wisdom of Solomon, and implicit quotations are few and far between. Most of its scriptural references are in the form of allusion, which is sometimes based on linguistic points of contact but most often based on content, namely, similarity in themes and distinctive descriptions of character and plot. Pseudo-Solomon also tends to layer his allusions to Scripture, supplementing a primary or foundational biblical text with references from other parts of Scripture. I call these references to other parts of Scripture “secondary biblical references.” For example, this layering of allusions with primary and secondary biblical texts is exhibited in Wis 10:10: “She [= Wisdom] led the righteous one (δίκαιον ὡδήγησεν), a fugitive from his brother’s wrath, on straight paths (ἐν τρίβοις εὐθείαις)” (my translation).¹¹ The primary text is Jacob’s flight from Esau in Gen 27:41– 45. However, the language used to describe the event does not derive from Genesis, but rather from a secondary text, namely, Ps 26[27]:11 in the Septuagint. In that text the psalmist appeals to God: “Lead me on a straight path (ὁδήγησόν με ἐν τρίβῳ εὐθείᾳ) because of my enemies” (my translation). It is often difficult to know whether these parallels, especially the secondary references, are intentional or not (that is, whether they are truly “allusions”). Perhaps they are simply part of Pseudo-Solomon’s cognitive milieu. He is so steeped in a culture that uses biblical language that he thinks in biblical terms and may not always have had a specific passage of Scripture in mind.¹²

 This issue concerning the direction of dependence in most inner-biblical textual study is noted by Sommer, Prophet, 9; Eslinger, “Exegesis,” 52.  Unless otherwise noted, English translations of the biblical text are from Pietersma and Wright, Translation (= NETS). The Greek text of the Wisdom of Solomon is from Ziegler, Sapientia.  See Miller, “Intertextuality,” 294; Floyd, “Deutero-Zechariah,” 226. While identifying instances of intentional parallels is difficult, in certain circumstances evidence exists to claim such intentionality—as I believe is the case with the high concentration (or “density”) of allusions from Deutero-Isaiah in Wisdom 2– 5, generally, and from Isaiah 59 in Wisdom 5, specifically.

Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited

83

Another occasional difficulty in intertextual study of the Book of Wisdom is determining which version of the biblical text Pseudo-Solomon used. As a Hellenistic Jew who wrote his work in Greek, Pseudo-Solomon most likely used the Septuagint as his main biblical text. Chrysostome Larcher, however, correctly cautions that the author could also have been familiar with other Greek translations and with the Hebrew text, which he then rendered into Greek.¹³ Though this is possible, Patrick Skehan has demonstrated that Pseudo-Solomon both knew of and primarily used the Septuagint version of Isaiah. He posits Wis 15:10 as a key example since, within a similar context of critiquing idolmakers, Pseudo-Solomon quotes nearly verbatim the Septuagint version of Isa 44:20: σποδὸς ἡ καρδία αὐτῶν, “their heart is ashes,” as opposed to the Hebrew version reflected in the Masoretic Text: ‫ר ֶֹעה ֵאֶפר ֵלב הוַּתל ִה ָּטהוּ‬, “He feeds on ashes; a deluded mind has led him astray” (NRSV).¹⁴ So, in the end, the Septuagint is most likely Pseudo-Solomon’s main biblical version, though others cannot be excluded entirely.

2 General Structure and Message of Wisdom 2 – 5 To understand the role of chapter 5 in Wisdom 2– 5, we should first grasp the overarching structure and message of this larger section in the Wisdom of Solomon. The structure, which I have provided in the chart below, is based on thematic content and significant verbal inclusions. Here, I borrow heavily from the structure provided by Michael Kolarcik, who builds on elements from Addison Wright.¹⁵ The concentric arrangement of chapters 2 to 5 reveals that chapters 2 and 5 (A and A′, respectively) frame a central section, chapters 3 to 4 (labeled B), which is comprised of four diptychs. Chapter 2 is a speech delivered by the

 Larcher, Études, 91. In nn. 2– 4 and n. 6, he briefly mentions, albeit without explicitly explaining the connections, several passages in Wisdom that reflect possible influence from a Hebrew version of Isaiah, especially from the Masoretic Text, rather than from the Septuagint: Wis 11:22 and Isa 40:12, 15; Wis 3:14 and Isa 56:2, 4– 5; Wis 4:17 and Isa 57:1; Wis 1:11c and Isa 55:11; Wis 3:3b and Isa 57:1– 2; Wis 1:3 and Isa 59:2. In addition, Engel (Buch, 108) suggests that the use of ζῆλον, “zeal,” in Wis 5:17 might be based on the occurrence of ‫ִק ְנָאה‬, “zeal,” in Isa 59:17 of the Masoretic Text rather than on the Septuagint, where the idea is not evoked in this context. Closer investigation into the biblical version(s) that Pseudo-Solomon used would be fruitful but is beyond the scope of the present study.  Skehan, “Isaias,” 291– 92.  Kolarcik, Ambiguity, 62, 69 – 107; Wright, “Structure,” 167– 72.

84

A

Andrew T. Glicksman

1:16–2:1a

Introduction

a

2:1b–5

Transience of human life

b

2:6–11

The wicked resolve to exploit life and persecute the weak

c

2:12–20

The wicked decide to oppress the righteous one (God’s servant / son)

2:21–24

Conclusion

(1) 3:1–12

The reward of the righteous versus the punishment of the wicked

(2) 3:13–19

The sterile woman and the eunuch contrasted with the generation of the wicked

(3) 4:1–6

The praise of virtue contrasted with the useless fruit of the wicked

(4) 4:7–20

The premature death of the righteous youth contrasted with the premature death of the wicked

B

c′ A′

5:1–3

Introduction

5:4–5

The wicked oppressors encounter the righteous one (a son of God)

b′ 5:6–8

Fruitlessness of lifestyle of the wicked

a′

5:9–13(14)

Transience of values of the wicked

5:(14)15–23

Scene of judgment

Servant Songs: especially Isa 42:1–4 [see Wis 2:13,18; 3:6–8] and Isa 52:13–53:12 [see Wis 3:2,6]

Isa 54:1: Zion as barren woman [see Wis 3:13] Isa 56:4–5: Blessed eunuch [see Wis 3:14]

Isa 57:1–2: Righteous dead are in peace [see Wis 4:7,10–11,14, 17]

Isa 59:1–23: Confession by the wicked and God in armor [see Wis 4:20–5:23]

Fig. 1: Concentric Structure of Wisdom 2 – 5 with Major References to Passages in Isaiah 40 – 66

wicked, in the first person plural, in which they bemoan the fleetingness of life and, as a result, resolve to exploit creation to the fullest extent and to violently persecute the weak righteous individual. This righteous figure claims to have a special relationship with God and is described in similar terms to the Servant fig-

Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited

85

ure of Deutero-Isaiah.¹⁶ The four diptychs refute the faulty thought and action of the wicked expressed in chapter 2 by providing examples of righteousness. The second and fourth of these diptychs draw significantly from texts in the last part of Isaiah, notably, the image of Zion as a barren woman in Isaiah 54, the eunuch in Isaiah 56 who is promised blessings, and the righteous individual in Isaiah 57 who, in death, is removed from the midst of wickedness and is at peace.¹⁷ The refutation of the wicked then reaches its climax in chapter 5 where, much to their surprise, the wicked behold the righteous one in the state of blessed immortality as a son of God. Then, the wicked deliver another speech, this time admitting the error of their ways and, in the end, encounter the wrath of the divine warrior who delivers justice using the very elements of creation they sought to exploit. The role of Wisdom 5 is to complete the story of the suffering righteous one introduced in chapter 2. Its purpose is to encourage the faithful Alexandrian Jews that, like the Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, even though they suffer hardship, they will be exalted. As servants of the Lord, they will be counted among the sons of God, like angelic beings in their immortality, and God will protect them from future persecution. Part of their exaltation and vindication is the self-condemnation of the wicked who will deservedly incur divine punishment in the future. Many of these themes in chapter 5 derive from Isaiah 59, which is the primary text that undergirds much of its structure and thought. The passages from Deutero-Isaiah that Pseudo-Solomon used to shape each section are predominantly in sequential order. Since our author carefully crafted the first part of his work into concentric sections, it is not surprising that he also ordered the same text according to the sequence of passages found in earlier Scripture. The frequency and proximity of these Deutero-Isaian allusions indicates that Pseudo-Solomon specifically had these passages in mind when he composed the first major part of his work. These are not simply minor allusions,

 Suggs (“Wisdom,” 29) claims that much of Wisdom 2– 5 is mainly based on the fourth (or “suffering”) Servant Song in Isa 52:13 – 53:12, with the exception of Wis 3:15 – 4:13 “in which direct dependence upon Isaiah is doubtful.” Concerning this exception, see the response by Beentjes, “Wisdom.” Though on pages 30 – 31 Suggs notes many interesting parallels, he readily admits that “verbal agreement seldom occurs” (29). I agree that the Servant figure of Deutero-Isaiah played a role in Pseudo-Solomon’s shaping of the righteous one in Wisdom 2– 5 and had the most profound influence in shaping Wis 2:12– 3:12. However, due to the lack of strong linguistic parallels and pervasive allusions to the fourth Servant Song in Wisdom 5, I do not think that it is the primary or foundational text in shaping chapter 5 but rather a secondary or supplementary one that helps bind the first half of the book together. Larcher (Études, 91– 92) also questions whether the Servant Songs played such a central role in shaping all of Wisdom 2– 5. See also Neufeld, Armour, 53.  See the analysis in Beentjes, “Wisdom,” 416 – 19.

86

Andrew T. Glicksman

but rather serve as major sources of inspiration for each section. In other words, these are primary or base texts that undergird the thought and vocabulary of each section, as opposed to the secondary or supplemental texts that Pseudo-Solomon occasionally uses to pepper his work with additional scriptural flavor and to enhance his rereading and reapplication of the biblical text. Shortly, we will discover that the multiple connections to Isaiah 59 in Wisdom 5 reveal that it is the primary text for Pseudo-Solomon’s composition of that chapter. At the same time, Pseudo-Solomon draws from secondary passages, especially from other texts in Deutero-Isaiah and wisdom literature, in order to elaborate on Isaiah 59, thereby further mining the depths of Scripture by making new interpretive links among biblical texts to draw out new layers of meaning for his audience in the midst of their difficult circumstances.¹⁸

3 The Use of Isaiah 59 in Wisdom 5 I will now consider the dependence of Wisdom 5 on Isaiah 59, entertain possible reasons why Pseudo-Solomon chose to allude to this Isaian text, and determine the ways that he modifies the themes and imagery of Isaiah 59 to enhance his message for his audience. To better facilitate this analysis, I have provided a translation of Wis 4:20 – 5:23 below and, in a parallel column, indicated linguistic and thematic links with Isaiah 59. Wisdom : – : (NETS)

Parallels in Isaiah  (LXX/NETS)

:. And they will come with dread at the reckoning of their sins (ἁμαρτημάτων), / and their lawless deeds (ἀνομήματα) will convict them to their face.

:. For our lawlessness was great before you / and our sins (ἁμαρτίαι) have risen up against us; / for our acts of lawlessness (ἀνομίαι) are in us, / and we realized our wrongs.

:. Then the righteous will stand with great confidence / in the presence of those who have afflicted them / and those who make light of their labors. :. When they see them, they will be troubled [Reminiscent of Isa :, especially through with terrible fear / And will be amazed (ἐκστή- the use of ἐκστήσονται]. σονται) at the unexpected salvation of the righteous.

 Pseudo-Solomon considered Scripture to be an integrated whole, and so he deemed as completely legitimate the use of language and themes from one part of Scripture to supplement and clarify another part. See similar comments in Glicksman, Wisdom, 154.

Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited

87

:. Repenting, they will say amongst them- :d. …like dying men they will groan (στεselves / and through distress of spirit will νάξουσιν). groan (στενοχωρίαν πνεύματος στενάξονται): :. “These are they whom we once held in derision / and as a byword of reproach—we fools (οἱ ἄφρονες)! / We thought (ἐλογισάμεθα) their life to be folly and their end to be without honor.

:. And their feet run to evil, / swift to shed blood, / and their reasonings are reasonings of fools (διαλογισμοὶ ἀφρόνων); / destruction and wretchedness are in their ways.

:. How have they been counted amongst divine sons, / and how is their lot amongst the holy ones? :. Surely we strayed from the way of truth (ἀπὸ ὁδοῦ ἀληθείας), / and the light of righteousness (τὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης φῶς) did not shine on us, / and the sun did not rise on us. :. We were entangled in the thorns of lawlessness (ἀνομίας) and destruction / and journeyed (διωδεύσαμεν) through trackless wastes, / but the way of the Lord (ὁδὸν κυρίου) we did not know.

:c. …for their works are works of lawlessness (ἀνομίας). :. And their feet run to evil, / swift to shed blood, / and their reasonings are reasonings of fools; / destruction and wretchedness are in their ways (ταῖς ὁδοῖς). :. And a way (ὁδόν) of peace they do not know, / and there is no judgment in their ways (ταῖς ὁδοῖς), / for their paths, through which they travel (διοδεύουσιν) are crooked, / and they do not know peace. :. Therefore their judgment has departed from them, / and righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) will not catch up with them; / having awaited light (φῶς), darkness came to them; / having waited for sunlight, they walked in midnight… :. For our lawlessness (ἡ ἀνομία) was great before you / and our sins have risen up against us; / for our acts of lawlessness (ἀνομίαι) are in us, / and we realized our wrongs. :. And we put away our judgment behind us, / and righteousness (ἡ δικαιοσύνη) withdrew far away, / because truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια) was consumed in their ways (ταῖς ὁδοῖς), / and they could not travel through a straight path. :ab. And truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια) was taken away, / and they removed their thought from understanding…

:. What has our arrogance profited us? / : – . (Similar theme concerning the worthAnd what good has our boasted wealth lessness of wicked deeds). brought us?

88

Andrew T. Glicksman

:. All those things have passed away like a :cd. …they trust in vanities, and they speak shadow / and like a rumor that runs by, empty words, / because they conceive trouble and give birth to lawlessness. :. like a ship that passes through the billo- :. They broke the eggs of asps / and weave wy water, / of which, when it has gone by, no the web of a spider, / and the one who intendtrace can be found, / no track of its keel in ed to eat their eggs, / upon breaking them found wind, and in it was a basilisk. the billows, :. or, as when a bird flies through the air, / :. Their web shall not become a garment, / no evidence of its passage is found, / but the nor shall they be clothed with their works, for light air, lashed by the beat of its pinions / their works are works of lawlessness. and pierced by its violent rush, / is traversed [Imagery in Wis : –  derives from Job : by the movement of its wings, / and afterwards and Prov :] no sign of its coming is found there, :. or as, when an arrow is shot at a target, / the air, thus cut through, immediately comes together / so that no one knows its pathway, :. so we, as soon as we were born, ceased to be, / and we had no sign of virtue to show / but were consumed in our wickedness.” :. Because the hope of the impious is as dust that is carried by the wind / and as light frost that is driven away by a hurricane, / and it is scattered like smoke by the wind / and passes like the remembrance of a guest who stays for only one day. :. But the righteous live forever, / and in the Lord is their reward, / and the care of them with the Most High. :. Therefore they will receive a glorious crown, / and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord, / because with his right hand he will protect them / and with his arm (τῷ βραχίονι) he will shield them. :. He will take his zeal as his whole armor / and make creation his weapons for vengeance on his enemies; :. he will put on righteousness as a breastplate (ἐνδύσεται θώρακα δικαιοσύνην) / and wear (περιθήσεται) impartial justice as a helmet; :. he will take holiness as an invincible shield :. and will sharpen stern anger (ἀπότομον ὀργήν) for a sword, / and creation will fight with him against those without sense.

[Crown imagery in Wis : derives from Isa :] :. And he saw, and there was no man, / and he took notice, and there was none who helped; / so he defended them with his own arm (τῷ βραχίονι αὐτοῦ), / and with his compassion he upheld them. :. And he put on righteousness like a breastplate (ἐνεδύσατο δικαιοσύνην ὡς θώρακα) / and placed (περιέθετο) a helmet of salvation on his head, / and he clothed himself with a garment of vengeance / and with his cloak, :. as one about to render retribution, / reproach to his adversaries.

Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited

:. Well-aimed shafts of lightning will fly out / and from the clouds, as from a well-drawn bow, will leap to the target, :. and hailstones full of wrath (θυμοῦ) will be hurled as from a catapult; / the water of the sea will rage (ἀγανακτήσει) against them, / and rivers (ποταμοί) will overwhelm them relentlessly (ἀποτόμως). :. A mighty wind will rise against them / and like a hurricane will winnow them away. / And lawlessness (ἀνομία) will make the whole earth a desert, / and evil-doing will overturn the thrones of rulers.

89

:. And those from the west shall fear the name of the Lord, / and those from the rising of the sun, his glorious name, / for anger (ἡ ὀργή) will come from the Lord like a rushing river (ποταμός)— / it will come with wrath (μετὰ θυμοῦ). :. And the one who delivers will come for Sion’s sake, / and he will turn impiety away from Iakob.

With reference to passages that I have provided above, I will start by establishing the strongest links, namely, those that involve both rare vocabulary and content, to show that Pseudo-Solomon consciously used Isaiah 59 as the foundational text for his composition of Wisdom 5. Then, I will point out the weaker links, namely, similarities in theme but with terms that are less rare. In light of the strong links, many of these weaker links are substantiated as influences on Pseudo-Solomon’s writing of Wisdom 5, again borrowing from MacDonald’s notion of “density”. Without doubt, the strongest connection is between Wis 5:15 – 23 and Isa 59:16 – 19. These passages share the imagery of God donning armor and rushing to defend the righteous by requiting his foes. The linguistic similarities between Wis 5:18 and Isa 59:17 are particularly strong, as recognized by nearly every commentator, and can be categorized as a near-verbatim implicit quotation.¹⁹ Both verses use the same words to talk about God putting on righteousness like a breastplate and then use the same verb, περιτίθημι, to express wearing the helmet. Other elements further strengthen the connection between these two texts; for example: God defends the righteous τῷ βραχίονι, “by his arm,” in v. 16 of both passages; the donning of armor is linked to punishing God’s adversaries in Wis 5:17 and Isa 59:18; and God’s wrath is associated with an overpowering river in Wis 5:22 and Isa 59:19.²⁰ Though there are many differences in the two descriptions of God’s armor, the striking linguistic similarities in the opening lines of the descriptions at least confirm that Pseudo-Solomon had Isaiah 59 in mind.

 See n. 2 above.  Larcher, Livre, 2:385, 388; Skehan, “Isaias,” 294.

90

Andrew T. Glicksman

The next strongest connection is in the similarities between Wis 5:6 – 7 and Isa 59:9 – 15.²¹ Both passages portray a first-person plural confession by unrighteous Jews. There are not many other instances of such an explicit communal admission of wrongdoing in the Old Testament, keeping in mind that the penitential Psalms are usually in the first-person singular. Furthermore, since PseudoSolomon very clearly borrows the divine military imagery from Isaiah 59 and such imagery in that chapter is preceded by a confession of guilt by a group of Jews, then a similar confession in Wisdom 5 likely derives from the same Isaian passage. Various verbal and thematic links confirm the dependence; the strongest include: righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) linked with light (φῶς) imagery in Wis 5:6 and Isa 59:9 and the wicked not knowing the proper way (ὁδός) in Wis 5:7 and Isa 59:8. References to ἀλήθεια, “truth” (Wis 5:6; Isa 59:14– 15) and ἀνομία, “lawlessness” (Wis 5:7; Isa 59:6,12) also reveal a connection. Although much of this language and imagery is not rare in the Old Testament, its use in two passages that share a similar context strengthens the link. Having established the strong ties between the two sections in Wis 5:6 – 23 and Isaiah 59, we can look for other elements in Isaiah 59 that may have influenced Pseudo-Solomon in composing Wisdom 5. Patrick Skehan is the only scholar who notes links between Wis 4:20 and Isa 59:12 and also Wis 5:4 and Isa 59:7.²² In the first case, the last verse of Wisdom 4 heralds Pseudo-Solomon’s use of themes from Isaiah 59 in chapter 5. The vocabulary in Wis 4:20 is not exactly the same as in Isa 59:12, but the content is very similar. The sins of the wicked are personified and play an active role in their condemnation and punishment. This image is in keeping with a major theme that especially influences the latter chapters of the book, namely, that “a person is punished by the very things by which the person sins” (Wis 11:16). Wisdom 5:4, where the wicked admit their foolish thinking: οἱ ἄφρονες…ἐλογισάμεθα, reflects the language of Isa 59:7, διαλογισμοὶ ἀφρόνων, two terms that are in proximity elsewhere only in Prov 17:12 and a few other passages in Wisdom (1:3; 3:2). In the previous verse (5:3), the close succession of the similar sounding words στενοχωρίαν and στενάξονται emphasizes the anguish of the wicked. The verb used here to introduce the wicked’s speech (στενάζώ “groan”) also occurs in Isa 59:10. After Wis 5:6 – 7, which I have already discussed in connection with Isa 59:6 – 15, the wicked recognize the utter worthlessness and futility of their  Kolarcik (Ambiguity, 103 n. 55) specifically notes the connection between Wis 5:6 and Isa 59:9 – 13. Cf. Kolarcik, “Book,” 485 – 86. See also Larcher (Livre, 2:366) and Vílchez Lindez (Sabiduría, 213), who include Isa 59:14.  Skehan, “Isaias,” 296 n. 9.

Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited

91

deeds in vv. 8 – 14. Even this long section between vv. 6 – 7 and vv. 15 – 23 has roots in Isaiah 59, which—as far as I am aware—is a connection that no other scholar has noted. Isaiah 59:4– 6 briefly addresses the worthlessness of wicked behavior. Foolish words and deeds do not amount to much. They are as nourishing as wind and poisonous reptiles and as useless for clothing as a spider’s web. The wicked acknowledge the worthlessness of their actions in Wis 5:8 and then recognize their ephemerality: the ship does not leave a lasting path in the sea, nor can the bird and arrow be tracked in the sky. The worthlessness of their deeds is further emphasized by the fact that they do not leave a lasting impact on the world; the wicked and their deeds will be forgotten. Here, Pseudo-Solomon takes the theme of worthless wickedness in Isaiah 59 and expounds upon it at length using imagery from wisdom literature, namely, Job 9:26 and Prov 30:19. Thus, he uses a secondary text to elaborate upon an idea from the primary text. The theme of impermanence harks back to the lament of the wicked in Wisdom 2 that life is ephemeral and also recalls the fruitlessness of their progeny in Wisdom 3 – 4.

4 The Significance of Wisdom 5’s Dependence on Isaiah 59 Having considered the major similarities that demonstrate Wisdom 5’s dependence on Isaiah 59, I turn now to the significance of that dependence. In other words, why does Pseudo-Solomon use Isaiah 59 to shape chapter 5? Perhaps the most obvious answer is that Isaiah 59 fits the logical sequence of DeuteroIsaian texts used in chapters 2– 5. However, there is more to Pseudo-Solomon’s use of Isaiah 59 than this superficial motivation. Another, more substantial, reason is that the major themes of Isaiah 59 assist in clarifying the exaltation of the suffering righteous one—an exaltation that is assured at the beginning and end of the fourth (or “suffering”) Servant Song in Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12. As I mentioned earlier, one of the roles of Wisdom 5 within chapters 2– 5 is to sum up the fate of both the suffering righteous individual, that is, the faithful Alexandrian Jew whom Pseudo-Solomon describes in terms of the Servant figure in Deutero-Isaiah, and his persecutors, namely, the Jewish apostates.²³ But, the faithful Alexandrian Jews would undoubtedly be

 The righteous are linked with the Servant figure of Deutero-Isaiah both through the theme of persecution and the use of the term παῖς, “servant,” “child,” in Wis 2:13, which corresponds to similar language about the Servant in Isaiah 42 and 52. See Suggs, “Wisdom,” 29. The identifi-

92

Andrew T. Glicksman

aware that the suffering Servant in Isaiah is afflicted and, in most readings of the text, dies (Isa 53:7– 9, 12) for the sins of his people, which results in the acquittal of even the wicked.²⁴ They might become discouraged by such a theme. After all, how is justice accomplished if the suffering and death of the righteous results in the acquittal of the Jewish apostates? Such an idea may even have persuaded some Alexandrian Jews to abandon their ancestral traditions, since according to Isaiah 52– 53 apostasy would not necessarily preclude them from being right with God in the end. Pseudo-Solomon perhaps anticipates this problem and, therefore, never mentions the theme of vicarious suffering in his depiction of the persecuted righteous individual.²⁵ Rather, the author presents the righteous individual’s suffering as the means to his own purification and reward. As Wis 3:5 – 6 states, “And having been disciplined a little, they will be greatly benefited, / because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; / as gold in the furnace, he tested them, / and as a sacrificial whole burnt offering, he accepted them.” Borrowing from Isaiah 59, Wisdom 5 shows that God will not acquit the wicked at the expense of the righteous and will indeed punish the apostate Jews, who by their own admission of guilt before the eschatological Judge, deserve that punishment. For Pseudo-Solomon, the punishment of the wicked is another dimension of the exaltation of the righteous. He expresses this same concept later in Wis 11:5: “For through the very things by which their enemies were punished, / they themselves were benefited in their need.” Lastly, Isaiah 59 provides Pseudo-Solomon with an eschatological context for discussing reward and punishment. The exaltation of the righteous promised in the fourth Servant Song will not occur in their own lifetime but at some unknown time in the future. This eschatological idea may already be hinted at in Isaiah 52 – 53, since the Servant seems to have died but somehow “shall see his offspring, / and shall prolong his days” (Isa 53:10c, NRSV). However, through the use of Isaiah 59, Pseudo-Solomon is able to further draw out and elaborate on the eschatological understanding of the Servant passage. This, in turn, would

cation of the wicked in Wisdom 2– 5 as apostate Jews is supported by Wis 2:12: “…he (i. e., the righteous one) opposes our actions / and reproaches us for sins against the law / and ascribes to us sins against our training.”  For the interpretation that the suffering Servant actually dies, see Westermann, Isaiah, 265 – 69; Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 416 – 20.  Suggs (“Wisdom,” 31) acknowledges the absence of vicarious suffering in Wisdom 5: “this aspect of the Fourth Servant Song having eluded him (i. e., Pseudo-Solomon) or been rejected by him.” However, he remains silent as to why Pseudo-Solomon might have rejected this central theme.

Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited

93

be encouraging to the persecuted Alexandrian Jews who could expect vindication for their present suffering at the time of final judgment in the afterlife.

5 Pseudo-Solomon’s Supplementation of Isaiah 59’s Message Despite Wisdom 5’s predominant dependence on Isaiah 59, there are aspects of chapter 59 that do not completely fulfill Pseudo-Solomon’s purposes. Here, I note a few salient differences between the two texts that reflect how Pseudo-Solomon supplements and molds the themes in Isaiah 59 to more fully communicate his own message. First, Isaiah 59 does not mention immortality for the righteous in the afterlife. In fact, the only benefit granted the righteous is earthly salvation and restoration (59:16, 20 – 21). Such salvation, which includes a covenantal relationship with God, is spoken about in eternal terms, but it is still communally and earthly-oriented, being maintained through subsequent generations (59:21). So, in Wis 5:15 – 16, Pseudo-Solomon supplements the eschatological vision expressed in Isaiah 59 by mentioning a reward that involves eternal life after death for righteous individuals who will receive a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord. This diadem image clearly derives from Isa 62:3 since these are the only two biblical passages that use this language.²⁶ Isaiah 62:3 reads: “And you shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord, / and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.” Pseudo-Solomon even takes up this Isaian verse, which originally refers to the restoration of Zion, thus having a communal sense, and reapplies it to the reward that awaits righteous individuals in the afterlife.²⁷ Through this supplementation derived from another Deutero-Isaian text, Pseudo-Solomon provides a fuller picture of the eternal reward awaiting the righteous.

 Larcher, Livre, 2:384– 85; Kolarcik, “Book,” 486.  Pseudo-Solomon speaks in terms of vindication, salvation, and reward for the righteous in the afterlife (Wis 2:22; 4:16; 5:1– 2, 15), but does not specifically evoke imagery of restoration, which is a theme in the Isaian texts, albeit solely earthly-oriented. In Wisdom, there is no clear restoration to life, and the author never uses resurrection imagery. See Collins, Wisdom, 185. As Wis 3:2 claims, the righteous only “seemed to have died.” Perhaps it is more accurate to talk about a transition from temporal, earthly life lived in righteousness and wisdom (Wis 8:13, 17) to eternal life with God (Wis 3:4b).

94

Andrew T. Glicksman

Second, there are more allusions in Wisdom 5 that derive from other passages in Deutero-Isaiah, especially from the Servant Songs.²⁸ The placement of the righteous individual among the “sons of God,” υἱοὶ θεοῦ, in Wis 5:5, which is lacking in Isaiah 59, harks back to his identity in chapters 2– 3 as God’s υἱός, “son,” and παῖς, “servant” or “child” (a polyvalent Greek term, by which I think Pseudo-Solomon intends to evoke both meanings), which ultimately recalls the Servant figure as the Lord’s παῖς in Isaiah 42 and 52.²⁹ Here, Pseudo-Solomon emphasizes that the relationship between God and the righteous figure is not merely one of master-servant but involves an even more intimate parentchild bond, which would have been encouraging for Pseudo-Solomon’s audience. Although this theme of sonship is not explicit in Isaiah 59, it is an addition most likely based in Pseudo-Solomon’s reading of the final chapters of Isaiah as an integrated whole, by which he incorporates his filial reading of παῖς in the Servant Songs, perhaps further supported by the divine paternal imagery that emerges later in Isa 63:16 and 64:7(8): “Lord, you are our Father.” Several other verses hint at the fourth Servant Song, specifically. In Wis 5:2, the wicked are amazed (ἐκστήσονται) at the unexpected salvation of the righteous, which is the same language found in Isa 52:14– 15; and in Wis 5:6, the wicked admit straying (ἐπλανήθημεν) from the way of truth, which is reminiscent of the straying (ἐπλανήθημεν and ἐπλανήθη) like sheep in Isa 53:6.³⁰ These few references to the suffering Servant are to be expected in chapter 5, since this passage is a refutation of chapter 2, which is heavily influenced by Deutero-Isaiah’s Servant passages. Third, in Isaiah 59, the wicked Jews who admit their wrongdoing purport to be seeking God and speak to him directly; while the wicked Jews in Wisdom 5 do not seek God at all. They have rejected him and admit their folly amongst themselves without ever addressing the Almighty. Thus, the admission of folly in Wisdom 5 is not an expression of true repentance or contrition, but with the exalted righteous ones standing before them, the wicked must concede that they were  Building upon the connections mentioned by Suggs (“Wisdom,” 30), Nickelsburg (Resurrection, 62) notes that the thematic structure of the fourth Servant Song is similar to the beginning of Wisdom 5: with thematic correspondences between Wis 5:1a and Isa 52:13; Wis 5:1bc and Isa 52:14; Wis 5:2 and Isa 52:15; and Wis 5:3 – 8 and Isa 53:1– 6. While it is possible that the structure of Isa 52:13 – 53:12 may have influenced Pseudo-Solomon’s composition of Wisdom 5:1– 8 to some degree, the pervasive thematic and, especially, linguistic links between Isaiah 59 and all of Wisdom 5 are much stronger and indicate that Isaiah 59 is the primary text and Isaiah 52– 53 is secondary, serving to bind Wisdom 5 to the Deutero-Isaian Servant theme which is most prominent a few chapters earlier (especially, in Wis 2:12– 3:12).  Suggs, “Wisdom,” 29; Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 59 n. 33; 62.  Suggs, “Wisdom,” 30; Kolarcik, “Book,” 486.

Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited

95

wrong all along and now justly deserve punishment for their error.³¹ They regret their former ways, not because they now seek a relationship with God, but because the unveiled truth is undeniable and they face grim consequences for their previous thoughts and actions. Such a hopeless and God-forsaken depiction of the apostate Jews is to be expected in a text that is trying to encourage the faithful to stay the course. Pseudo-Solomon stresses similar stark dichotomies between the righteous and unrighteous throughout the rest of his work, especially in the summary of Israelite history from Adam to Moses in chapter 10.³² Lastly, in making this stark distinction between the righteous and unrighteous, Pseudo-Solomon emphasizes the punishment of the wicked much more than in Isaiah 59. Again, he most likely does so in order to encourage his fellow Jews to remain faithful. That God seeks retribution against his adversaries is only mentioned once in Isa 59:18, whereas it is mentioned several times throughout Wis 5:18 – 23. In a similar vein, Isaiah 59 associates God’s helmet with the more joyous theme of “salvation” and does not mention any weaponry, while Wisdom 5 sees it as representing the more ominous theme of “impartial judgment” and speaks of creation serving as God’s armament. For Pseudo-Solomon, creation itself will assist God in punishing the wicked. In Isaiah 59, moreover, God’s wrath is only likened to a river, but in Wisdom 5, the river is the instrument of dispensing God’s wrath. Pseudo-Solomon most likely adds this detail because the wicked sought to exploit creation (so creation plays a role in their punishment, in keeping with the principle in Wis 11:16 mentioned above) and because the author is influenced by the wisdom tradition’s depiction of creation as the locus of discovering wisdom and righteousness, albeit here with a strong apocalyptic flavor (so the wicked must learn the hard way and a little too late).³³

 See a similar evaluation of the confession made by the wicked in Kolarcik, “Book,” 484– 85.  For more on Pseudo-Solomon’s tendency to absolutize figures as either wholly good or wholly bad for the purposes of instruction, see Glicksman, Wisdom, 155 – 56. Enns (“Wisdom,” 216 – 17; Enns, “Pseudo-Solomon,” 398 – 99) voices a similar observation, though with less emphasis on the wholly negative characters.  One could debate whether the understanding of the cosmos presented in Wisdom 5 is more apocalyptic than sapiential in nature. As Kolarcik (“Values,” 29) notes: “Where wisdom seeks knowledge in the everyday experience of human life and in the events of the cosmos which may include extraordinary divine interventions, apocalyptic seeks knowledge in the extraordinary medium of divine revelation. Where wisdom seeks to impart knowledge through a variety of didactic genres and stories, apocalyptic imparts knowledge through authoritative images of divine revelation and cosmic transformation.”

96

Andrew T. Glicksman

6 Conclusion In composing Wisdom 2– 5, Pseudo-Solomon draws from key passages in Deutero-Isaiah to shape the first part of his work. Based on the significant amount of chapter 5’s language, imagery, and structure that corresponds to elements in Isaiah 59, one can safely conclude that this Isaian passage is the primary biblical influence upon Wisdom 5. Though Pseudo-Solomon borrows significantly from Isaiah 59, he also supplements the message of this primary text with secondary passages from elsewhere in Deutero-Isaiah and wisdom literature. The result is an integrated reading of Scripture and especially of Deutero-Isaiah, with a notable interplay between Isaiah 59 and the Servant Songs of Isaiah 42– 53. While the eschatological themes of Isaiah 59 shed further light on the Servant Songs, which are more prominent back in Wisdom 2, the Servant Songs continue to illuminate aspects of Isaiah 59, the primary textual influence in Wisdom 5. The degree to which Pseudo-Solomon uses Isaiah 59 ranges from implicit quotation to allusion. His purpose for using such references appears to be exegetical, that is, he subtly reinterprets earlier biblical traditions in order to make them relevant for the persecuted, Hellenistic Alexandrian Jews of his day. Most notable is Pseudo-Solomon’s development of the traditional sapiential themes of reward for the righteous and punishment for the wicked. For the former, he now stresses individual immortality and a personal familial relationship with God and, for the latter, admission of incontrovertible guilt and deserved annihilation by means of creation on the day of God’s judgment. Like any successful biblical interpreter, ancient or modern, when re-viewing the traditions that he receives, Pseudo-Solomon re-presents them in new and refreshing ways that make them relevant for his audience.

Bibliography Baltzer, Klaus. Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40 – 55. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Wisdom of Solomon 3,1 – 4,19 and the Book of Isaiah.” In: Studies in the Book of Isaiah. Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken. Edited by Jacques van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne. BETL 132. Leuven: Peeters, 1997, 413 – 20. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Engel, Helmut. Das Buch der Weisheit. NSKAT 16. Stuttgart: KBW, 1998. Enns, Peter. “Wisdom of Solomon and Biblical Interpretation in the Second Temple Period.” In: The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke. Edited by James I. Packer and Sven Soderlund. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000, 212 – 25.

Divine Retribution and Reward Revisited

97

Enns, Peter. “Pseudo-Solomon and His Scripture: Biblical Interpretation in the Wisdom of Solomon.” In: A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012, 389 – 412. Eslinger, Lyle. “Inner-biblical Exegesis and Inner-biblical Allusion: The Question of Category.” VT 42 (1992), 47 – 58. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Floyd, Michael. “Deutero-Zechariah and Types of Intertextuality.” In: Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9 – 14. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. JSOTSup 370. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003, 225 – 44. Gilbert, Maurice. “Wisdom of Solomon and Scripture.” In: Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation 1/2. Edited by Magne Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000, 606 – 17. Glicksman, Andrew T. Wisdom of Solomon 10: A Jewish Hellenistic Reinterpretation of Early Israelite History through Sapiential Lenses. DCLS 9. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Kolarcik, Michael. The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1 – 6: A Study of Literary Structure and Interpretation. AnBib 127. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. Kolarcik, Michael. “The Book of Wisdom.” In: The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 5. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997, 435 – 600. Kolarcik, Michael. “Sapiential Values and Apocalyptic Imagery in the Book of Wisdom.” In: Studies in the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 142. Leiden: Brill, 2010, 23 – 36. Larcher, Chrysostome. Études sur le livre de la Sagesse. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1969. Larcher, Chrysostome. Le livre de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon. 3 vols. Paris: Gabalda, 1983 – 1985. Leonard, J. M. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case.” JBL 127 (2008), 241 – 65. MacDonald, Dennis R. “Introduction.” In: Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity. Edited by Dennis R. MacDonald. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001, 1 – 9. Miller, Geoffrey David. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” CurBR 9 (2011), 283 – 309. Neufeld, T. R. Y. Put on the Armour of God. JSNTSup 140. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. HTS 26. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Reider, Joseph. The Book of Wisdom. JAL. New York: Harper, 1957. Skehan, Patrick W. “Isaias and the Teaching of the Book of Wisdom.” CBQ 2 (1940), 289 – 99. Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40 – 66, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998. Suggs, M. Jack. “Wisdom of Solomon 2 10–5. A Homily Based on the Fourth Servant Song.” JBL 76 (1957), 26 – 33. Tooman, William A. Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezekiel 38 – 39. FAT 2/52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Vílchez Lindez, José. Sabiduría. Nueva Biblia Española, Sapienciales 5. Estella, Navarra: Verbo Divino, 1990.

98

Andrew T. Glicksman

Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40 – 66: A Commentary, trans. David M.G. Stalker. OTL. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977 (orig. 1946). Winston, David. Wisdom of Solomon. AB 43. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979. Wright, Addison G. “The Structure of the Book of Wisdom.” Bib 48 (1967), 165 – 84. Ziegler, Joseph. Sapientia Salomonis. Septuaginta 12/1. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980 (orig. 1962).

Michael D. Matlock

The Prayer of Manasseh: A Pithy Penitential Text Recasting Scripture Through a Vast Intertextual Repertoire Similar to Old Testament texts, Second Temple or early Jewish texts are often characterized by an anthological style of writing. As more books of the OT gained authoritative status for the people of God, this style resulted in anthological hypertexts to the canon as a whole. The importance of intertextual hermeneutics in biblical studies stems from the reality that all literature, including Scripture, builds upon prior and contemporaneous literature. Scriptural texts build upon other scriptural texts. As James Sanders candidly observes, “the Bible is full of itself,” and thus an interpreter of Scripture needs to know how Scripture (as well as other Second Temple literature) “handles” or “uses” Scripture.¹ The importance of intertextual hermeneutics also derives from the nature and reality of Scripture; although much of Scripture was originally oral, it gradually moved to a partial and then a fully written (‫כתוב‬/γέγραπται) textual format. The value of intertextual hermeneutics will also be recognized when quotations and allusions in Second Temple writings assist an interpreter in dating texts in individual books of the OT by way of relative chronology, sometimes preserving early variant readings in the OT as well as some of the earliest preserved interpretations of OT texts.² Moreover, when a NT text quotes or alludes to an OT passage—or employs typology, allegory, or some other type of intertextuality—interpreters benefit by examining how Second Temple writings utilize the same texts from the OT. In order to delimit this study, I will explore intertextuality from an authororiented perspective rather than a reader-oriented approach.³ I find greater worth in understanding how texts relate to each other in the author-oriented perspective because of my penchant for an Aristotelian philosophy of language, particularly regarding conventional and discrete meaning of words. Certainly, there is an appeal in the reader-oriented approach where the focus is primarily on the reader and the almost inexhaustible connections that the reader can draw be Sanders, Intercontextuality [video recording]. Within three Second Temple prayer texts (Nehemiah 9; Judith 9; Third Maccabees 2) we find examples of the “scripturalization” of prayer, according to Newman, Praying, 203 – 4.  Lange and Weigold, Quotations, 15.  See Miller, “Intertextuality,” for discussion of these divergent perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416930-005

100

Michael D. Matlock

tween two or more texts. The reader-oriented approach, however, deems it irrelevant whether these texts were intentionally alluded to by the original authors and editors, or even whether such texts were available to them.⁴ The primary illustrations of intertextuality in this chapter are citations, allusions and echoes which arise out of the Greek text of Prayer of Manasseh (Pr Man) through lexical and structural similarities between the texts. Although there are other types of diachronic, author-oriented intertextuality, we will limit our conversation to these major types because of limitations of space. This investigation will clarify and define more precisely how Old Testament texts and Second Temple writings illuminate the Prayer of Manasseh. Anna Passoni Dell’Acqua insightfully notes that Pr Man is a fine example of intertextuality and Rewritten Bible.⁵ Accordingly, this study will first consider how the prayer serves to rewrite the biblical portrait of Manasseh (developing the Chronicler’s account in 2 Chr 33:12– 13), and then examine other cases of intertextuality, particularly with the scriptural portrayals of David, Moses, and the Genesis patriarchs. Moreover, because Pr Man is part of a growing number of penitential prayers emerging out of the Second Temple period, we will draw attention to the common elements of penitential prayer from this era within the Prayer of Manasseh.

Preservation of the Greek Prayer of Manasseh Composed sometime between 200 BCE and 50 CE,⁶ Pr Man is a penitential prayer text attributed to King Manasseh.⁷ Although Pr Man is not a canonical or deuter-

 Kristeva, Σημειωτικη, 66. In her essay “Word, Dialogue and Novel” (reprinted in Moi, Reader, 35 – 59) she states that intertextuality is “a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another. The notion of intertextuality replaces that of intersubjectivity, and poetic language is read as at least double” (ibid., 37).  “La prière de Manassé est un excellent exemple d’intertextualité et de Rewritten Bible,” according to Passoni Dell’Acqua, “La prière,” 229.  According to Charlesworth, “Prayer,” 627, “it is safe to conclude that it was composed either in the second or first century BC, with the recognition that it also could have been composed during the early part of the first century AD.” The original language of Pr Man is disputed, but many scholars argue for Greek, particularly in light of how Pr Man reflects the language and style of the Septuagint. See Harrington, Invitation, 166 – 67; deSilva, Introducing, 325. Recently, Chazon (“Prayer,” 2143) continues this support of a Greek original by stating that Pr Man “was apparently composed by a Greek-speaking Jew who lived outside Palestine before 200 CE.”  For lengthy OT penitential prayers which the Prayer of Manasseh emulates, see 1 Kgs 8:22– 53; Ezra 9:5 – 15; Neh 1:4– 11; 9:4– 37; Dan 9:3 – 19; and Ps 50 [LXX]. Some of the quotations, allu-

The Prayer of Manasseh

101

ocanonical text for Roman Catholics or Protestants, nevertheless the prayer became an important deuterocanonical text within the Eastern Orthodox churches.⁸ This text was written or copied in Greek and has also been preserved in a third century Syriac translation and some fragments of a Latin translation. There is no evidence that Jewish communities maintained copies of this prayer. Only Christian tradition has preserved Pr Man and bequeathed the prayer in two types of literature: handbooks and collections of odes. In the first type, handbooks, the oldest copy of Pr Man was discovered in Didascalia Apostolorum (Teaching of the Apostles). ⁹ Another Christian handbook, the fourth-century Greek Apostolic Constitutions, also preserves a copy of Pr Man. Second, Pr Man was included in Odes, a collection of hymns and prayers that forms an appendix to the Book of Psalms in three Greek biblical MSS (with the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus being the oldest) and in some daughter translations. A few Syriac MSS append the prayer to 2 Chronicles.¹⁰

Introduction to the Prayer of Manasseh Written from the first person singular perspective (“I”), Pr Man is clearly a penitential type of prayer, as evidenced by the movement from ascription to confession to petition.¹¹ As a penitential prayer, the supplicant seeks to persuade the Lord to take some action in the future (here the immediate future), with a deliberative rhetoric. The Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), upon which the Chronicler is most dependent, emphasizes the principle that obedience to God’s instruction sions, or echoes of these longer prayers in the Pr Man are analyzed below. For examinations of numerous penitential prayers in the Second Temple period and the earlier traditions reused and reinterpreted in these prayers, consult Matlock, Discovering; Werline, Prayer, though Werline does not analyze Pr Man.  Pr Man appears in an appendix to the NT in the Vulgate Bible since Trent; in the original Vulgate, the text was placed after 2 Chronicles. The prayer also functions as a canticle for Morning Prayer in the Book of Common Prayer in the Anglican traditions of the Church. Luther and the translators of the King James Version of the Bible included this prayer in the section of other important books for understanding Scripture, known as the Apocrypha to Protestants.  For a helpful review of these two types of Christian preservation, see Horst and Newman, Prayers, 153 – 58.  For a useful comparison of the two major Syriac versions of the Prayer of Manasseh (the Peshitta/Didascalia and the Melkite Horologion), see Gutman and van Peursen, Versions.  Drawing upon Mowinckel’s (Psalms, 1:42– 80, 225 – 46) corporate identity/personality shift from the “I” in certain psalms, Newman (“Form,” 116 – 21) argues that the “I” in Pr Man symbolizes the corporate exile and return of God’s people. For a brief interpretive analysis of Pr Man, see Matlock, Discovering, 85 – 89, 138 – 40.

102

Michael D. Matlock

leads to material blessings, such as long life or having children, as well as spiritual blessings (e. g., Josh 1:7– 8; 1 Kgs 8:46 – 53), whereas disobedience to Torah leads to curse such as exile (e. g., 2 Kgs 17:7– 23; 24:3 – 4). However, one discovers a divergent view contained in the Pr Man, which is largely taken from the counter-claim of the account of Manasseh in Chronicles and other sources.¹² The discourse of Pr Man indicates that the sinner must initiate his or her personal repentance and be less dependent on the discourse in the Hebrew Scriptures that stresses confession regarding transgenerational punishment and guilt. Pr Man intends to supply the content of Manasseh’s prayer referenced in 2 Chr 33:12– 13, employing the following structure: A) Invocation and Ascription (vv. 1– 8); B) Confession of Sin (vv. 9 – 10); C) Petition for Forgiveness (vv. 11– 14); D) Doxology (v. 15).

Translation of the Greek Prayer of Manasseh 1 [A prayer of Manasseh] O Lord Almighty, God of our ancestors, of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and of their righteous offspring; 2 you who made heaven and earth with all their order; 3 who confined the sea by your word of command, who shut the deep and sealed it with your fearful and glorious name; 4 before whose powerful presence all things quiver and shake, 5 for the magnificence of your glory is unendurable, and the wrath of your threat to sinners is irresistible, 6 yet immeasurable and unfathomable is your promised mercy, 7a for you are the Lord Most High, tender-hearted, long-suffering, and abounding in mercy, and you repent over the evils of humankind. 7b¹³ O Lord, according to your great goodness you have promised repentance and forgiveness to those who have sinned against you, and in the multitude of your mercies you have appointed repentance for sinners, for salvation. 8 Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous, have not instituted repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and

 See Newman, “Form,” 114– 16, and Kelly, Retribution, 219 – 25, for possible rationale why the Chronicler extends a counter-discourse through the presentation of Manasseh. Commenting on 2 Chr 33:15 – 16, Kelly states: “The Chronicler teaches, therefore, through the example of Manasseh that God is disposed to hear his people and restore their lost blessings, if they will emulate his penitent response and make obedient use of the cult” (Retribution, 224).  Although 7b is not contained in the earlier Greek manuscripts, it does appear in the Syriac Didascalia which is a translation of the Greek Didascalia now lost in antiquity. The third-century Syriac version of Pr Man is the earliest extant version of the prayer.

The Prayer of Manasseh

103

Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you, but you have instituted repentance for me, who am a sinner. 9 For I have committed sins more numerous than the sand of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied! I am not worthy to gaze and see the height of heaven because of the multitude of my iniquities. 10 I am bent over with many an iron chain so that I am rejected because of my sins, and there is no remission for me, because I have provoked your wrath and have done evil in your presence, setting up abominations and multiplying idols. 11 And now I bend the knee of my heart, imploring you for your kindness. 12 I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge my transgressions. 13 I earnestly beg you, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me! Do not destroy me with my transgressions! Do not be angry (with me) forever nor store up evil for me; do not condemn me to the depths of the earth. For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent, 14 and through me you will manifest your goodness; for, although I am unworthy, you will save me according to your great mercy. 15 And I will praise you forever and for all the days of my life. For all the host of heaven sings praise to you, and yours is the glory forever. Amen.

Rewriting the Portrait of Manasseh First, we will examine the intertextuality in Pr Man by observing the citations and allusions in two of the most prominently related OT texts: the narratives of Manasseh’s reign in 2 Chronicles 33 and 2 Kings 21. Notwithstanding that King Manasseh enjoyed the longest reign in Judah (55 years) and that “length of days” (ἡ μακρότης τῶν ἡμερῶν/‫ )ארך ימים‬was deemed a divine physical blessing in the social mindscape for the community and author (cf. Deut 30:20), the Chronicler created an “exceptional sequence that as such cannot but draw attention to itself, to the figure of Manasseh as evoked by Chronicles, and to the messages that this figure/site of memory communicated to the remembering community.”¹⁴ The primary exceptional point of Manasseh’s account in Chronicles is that Manasseh demonstrates the rare exception of a “bad-turns-good” king and hence serves as a remarkable example of repentance.¹⁵ With an eye to the Books of Samuel and Kings, the Chronicler interprets Israel’s prior history differently because the people of his era face new challenges

 Ben Zvi, “Reading,” 126, emphasis original.  Ibid., 130 – 31.

104

Michael D. Matlock

to their life and faith. When there are long parallel accounts in Scripture, as in the case of the two great narratives of Israel’s history, there is scope for many quotations and allusions. Not surprisingly, in the versions of the reign of Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son and the seventeenth king of Judah (687– 642 BCE), the Chronicler reproduces the portrayal of 2 Kings 21 very closely in many biographical details. Both the DtrH and the Chronicler attribute to Manasseh a laundry list of heinous actions: rebuilding high places, erecting altars to Baal and making an Asherah pole(s), bowing down to the starry hosts and worshipping them, sacrificing his son in a fire, practicing divination, seeking omens, and consulting mediums and spiritists. Beyond these transgressions, many other points of comparison are evident in the two accounts. Thus, these profuse details of Manasseh’s dismal, destructive, immoral, and evil behavior provide the author of Pr Man multiple opportunities to create intertextual associations. But the Chronicler adds some surprising information about Manasseh. As William Schniedewind expresses it, “the Chronicler’s Manasseh is a paradigm of a contrite sinner, whereas according to the Deuteronomist, Manasseh was the archetypal sinner who was ultimately responsible for the Babylonian exile.”¹⁶ Whereas the historian in 2 Kgs 21:11– 18 (cf. Jer 15:4) conveys many more of Manasseh’s detestable actions and the Lord’s judgment, in 2 Chr 33:11– 20, we are told that Manasseh was captured by the king of Assyria and taken prisoner to Babylon, where something amazing happens. In this foreign prison, Manasseh prays a penitential prayer, and the Lord responds and brings Manasseh back to Judah (vv. 12– 13). Thereafter, Manasseh bolsters his newly found moral orientation by ushering in a much needed physical and spiritual restoration. In vv. 18 – 19, the author states that the events of Manasseh’s reign, particularly his penitential prayer, were written within the “annals of the kings of Israel” (‫ )דברי מלכי ישראל‬and the “accounts of the seers” (‫)דברי החזים‬. While vv. 18 – 19 are repetitive and possibly corrupt, these are significant details that several early Jewish interpreters will take up or modify in their writings.¹⁷ The Septuagintal version of 2 Chr 33:18 – 19 preserves the reference to the “accounts of the seers” but omits the reference to the “annals of the kings of Israel.” Thus, the LXX translator rewrites the source citation so that it seems to refer to an apocryphal Prayer of Manasseh text: “And the rest of the histories of Manasses and his prayer to God and the words of the seers when they spoke to him in the name of the Lord, God of Israel, behold, they are in the ac Schniedewind, “Citations,” 450. See also Knoppers, “Saint,” 211– 19.  According to Ben Zvi, “Reading,” 122, “Chronicles reminded the readers that Manasseh’s prayer was worth remembering for generations and, since the book does not provide the text of the prayer, it opened the prayer’s contents to the imagination of the readers.”

The Prayer of Manasseh

105

counts of his prayer (λόγων προσευχῆς αὐτοῦ), and how he listened to him, and all his sins and his acts of apostasy and the places on which he built the high places and set up there groves and carved items before he repented, behold, they are written in the accounts of the seers (τῶν λόγων τῶν ὁρώντων)” (2 Par 33:18 – 19 NETS). The translator’s change in source citation extends an opportunity for several other early Jewish writers to depict a penitent King Manasseh, including the so-called Greek Prayer of Manasseh that forms the subject of intertextual study for this paper. The Qumran manuscript 4Q381 evidences another opportunity for conveying the content of Manasseh’s prayer. 4Q381 contains approximately ten to twelve psalms, but only one of these psalms has a complete title preserved for the psalm. 4Q381 33:8 reads “Prayer of Manasseh, King of Judah, when the King of Assyria took him prisoner.” However, to the disappointment of many scholars, no compositional relationship exists between the Greek Pr Man and the Hebrew psalm of 4Q381 containing this superscription, even though general language similarities exist including a confession of excessive sin. Thus, this prayer attributed to Manasseh in 4Q381 is not the source of the Greek Prayer of Manasseh (nor a translation of it), but rather a completely different composition and evidence of another early Jewish tradition (one out of several) that Manasseh repented after his sin.¹⁸ Drawing from the Greek translation of 2 Chronicles 33, the implied author of Pr Man recontextualizes and recreates numerous allusions—a word, a brief phrase, or an image that constitutes an indirect reference but can be traced to a source.¹⁹ Some of the more notable allusions or echoes are as follows: – Pr Man 10: “I provoked your wrath” (παρώργισα [aor. act. ind.] τὸν θυμόν σου) alludes to 2 Chr 33:6: “[Manasseh did much evil before] the Lord to provoke him [= the Lord] to anger” (κυρίου τοῦ παροργίσαι [aor. act. inf.] αὐτόν). – Pr Man 10: “[I was] multiplying idols” (πληθύνας προσοχθίσματα) echoes his actions described in 2 Chr 33:7: “he set the graven image, the molten image, the idol which he made, in the house of God” (ἔθηκεν τὸ γλυπτὸν καὶ τὸ χωνευτόν, εἰκόνα ἣν ἐποίησεν, ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ).

 According to Pajunen, “Prayer,” 157, “the 4Q381 prayer is using Chronicles as a source.” For text and commentary on 4Q381, see Schuller, Psalms, 146 – 62. See also “4Q381 (Non-Canonical Psalms B)” in García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Edition, Vol. 2, 758 – 59; Schuller, “4Q380,” 94– 95; Schniedewind, “Fragment,” 105 – 7. Josephus (A.J. 10.3.2 §§ 40 – 46) also preserves a tradition that Manasseh repented; cf. Nodet, “Prières.”  We are proceeding in this research from the premise that the prayer’s original language was Greek, as numerous scholars assert: cf. Chazon, “Prayer,” 2143; Harrington, Invitation, 166 – 67; deSilva, Introducing, 325.

106

Michael D. Matlock

– Pr Man 10: “I am bent over with many an iron chain” (κατακαμπτόμενος πολλῷ δεσμῷ σιδήρου) alludes to 2 Chr 33:11: “[they took] Manasseh in bonds, and bound him in fetters, and brought him [to Babylon]” (τὸν Μανασση ἐν δεσμοῖς καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸν ἐν πέδαις καὶ ἤγαγον). – Pr Man 11: “I bend the knee of my heart, imploring you for your kindness” (κλίνω γόνυ καρδίας δεόμενος τῆς παρὰ σοῦ χρηστότητος) and Pr Man 1 “the God of our ancestors” (ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν) allude to 2 Chr 33:12: “he was greatly humbled before the face of the God of his fathers” (ἐταπεινώθη σφόδρα ἀπὸ προσώπου θεοῦ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ).

Going beyond the notion of indirect allusion or echo, the implied author recalls these phrases and images of Manasseh with their context, in order to dramatize further the situation for the reader who is familiar with Chronicles. It is in the context of 2 Chronicles 33 that Manasseh humbles himself, repents of his sins, and prays; as a result, the Lord returns Manasseh to the land. Because Pr Man is an explicit intertextual expansion (or example of Rewritten Bible) of 2 Chronicles 33, this prayer draws from four essential causal elements in the Chronicler’s account of King Manasseh’s life: the severity of Manasseh’s sinful actions including his creation of widespread idolatry; the profuse anger of the Lord; Manasseh’s grim Babylonian imprisonment; and Manasseh’s humility and repentance enacted toward the Lord. Working from the Chronicles text, the author of the Pr Man clearly is interested in explicating an earlier account to flesh out the portrait of a repentant, formerly odious, king.²⁰ A reader may also note the intertextual allusions to 2 Kings 21, albeit not as prominent as 2 Chronicles 33. All these intertextual allusions draw from Manasseh’s life before penitence because the DtrH does not include details of the king’s repentance in his account. One of the noteworthy examples is the summary statement in 2 Kgs 21:17, “the sin that he sinned,” which indicates the severity of Manasseh’s sin through using the main verb and cognate accusative. Pr Man 8 – 9a and 12a emphasize this idea in the way that Manasseh recognizes himself as a sinner because of his numerous offenses and in the repeating of the declaration: “I have sinned.” Another allusion is located in Pr Man 10 which describes Manasseh’s evil as done before the Lord, which is a phrase that is often repeated in the DtrH account (2 Kgs 21:2, 6, 9, 11, and 15), and vv. 2 and 11 add that Manasseh’s evil may be crystallized in the statement: “he committed abominations”  At a corporate level, various scholars argue that King Manasseh’s sin, punishment, repentance, and restoration foreshadow the Judeans’ Babylonian exile and restoration accomplished during the early Persian period; cf. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 389; Kelly, Retribution, 224– 25; Knoppers, “Saint,” 216. A different retributive system with a diminishing focus on restoration is present in Judg 2:10 – 3:11.

The Prayer of Manasseh

107

(ἐποίησεν … τὰ βδελύγματα). Thus, not surprisingly, those elements in the 2 Kings 21 account that are alluded to or echoed bring into focus Manasseh’s sin and punishment, rather than his repentance and restoration.

Davidic Elements The numerous citations, allusions and echoes from the recollected Davidic traditions in Scripture substantiate the author’s desire to connect in a concerted manner Pr Man with the thankful, sinful, and penitential David found in various portions of Scripture such as 2 Sam 7:18 – 29; 1 Chr 16:8 – 36; 17:16 – 27; 21:1– 17; and Psalm 50 LXX [Psalm 51 MT]. Following 2 Chronicles 33 and 2 Kings 21, Psalm 50 is the third most prominently associated OT text. The confession and petition sections of Pr Man contain much intertextuality with Psalm 50. Psalm 50 is arguably the quintessential prayer of a penitent sinner in all of Scripture. Like Pr Man, it is also written from the first person singular perspective. Within Pr Man there are seven quotations and allusions to significant ideas in Psalm 50. Indeed, the third element is an exact allusion to the Septuagintal Psalm, while the first item is almost identical. – God’s abundant mercy (κατὰ τὸ μέγα ἔλεός σου in Ps 50:3; πολυέλεος and κατὰ τὸ πολὺ ἔλεός σου in Pr Man 7a, 14). – Acknowledging the supplicant’s transgressions (τὴν ἀνομίαν μου ἐγὼ γινώσκω in Ps 50:5; ἐπλήθυναν αἱ ἀνομίαι μου, κύριέ ἐπλήθυναν in Pr Man 9). – Doing evil in the sight of God (καὶ τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου ἐποίησα both in Ps 50:6 and in Pr Man 10). – Justification in divine punishment (ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ νικήσῃς ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε in Ps 50:6; καὶ ἀνυπόστατος ἡ ὀργὴ τῆς ἐπὶ ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπειλῆς σου in Pr Man 5). – Petition for God not to remember sins (ἐξάλειψον τὸ ἀνόμημά μου, and ἀπόστρεψον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν μου καὶ πάσας τὰς ἀνομίας μου ἐξάλειψον in Ps 50:3,11; μηδὲ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηνίσας τηρήσῃς τὰ κακά μοι in Pr Man 13). – Request not to be banished or destroyed (μὴ ἀπορρίψῃς με ἀπὸ τοῦ προσώπου σου in Ps 50:13; μὴ συναπολέσῃς με ταῖς ἀνομίαις μου in Pr Man 13). – A promise to praise God because of deliverance (ὁ θεὸς τῆς σωτηρίας μου· ἀγαλλιάσεται ἡ γλῶσσά μου τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου … τὸ στόμα μου ἀναγγελεῖ τὴν αἴνεσίν σου in Ps 50:16 – 17; σώσεις με … καὶ αἰνέσω σε in Pr Man 14– 15). Thus, the repentant Manasseh is explicitly likened to the great king David in his penitence for the Bathsheba episode.

108

Michael D. Matlock

Another point of contact with the person of King David stems from the many parallelisms and the common motif between Pr Man and 1 Chronicles 21 in which David disobeys the Lord by taking a census of the people. David receives the Lord’s punishment along with his mercy. Manasseh’s repentance in 2 Chronicles 33 and David’s repentance in 1 Chronicles 21 are the two quintessential passages of repentance in the Books of Chronicles. A couple of lexical examples will suffice to demonstrate intertextual relationships. First, Manasseh’s having “done evil in your presence” (καὶ τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου ἐποίησα; Pr Man 10) alludes to 1 Chr 21:7, which characterizes David’s action of taking a census in the assessment: “it appeared wicked before God” (καὶ πονηρὸν ἐφάνη ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ). Second, Manasseh describes his sinful action by repeating the phrase, “I have sinned” (ἡμάρτηκα, κύριέ ἡμάρτηκα; Pr Man 12), which echoes the phrase, “I have sinned greatly” (ἡμάρτηκα σφόδρα; 1 Chr 21:8). As within the narrative of the Book of Chronicles itself, this intertextual allusion binds Manasseh to David in yet another way so that the two together become paragons of repentance. As one would anticipate, the ideal human king, David, is imagined as a great “penitent” as well. Ben Zvi argues that these two kings “represent two extremes of kingly behavior, the best and worst king—that is, a kind of polar construction.”²¹ Through allusion to this other main example of repentance from David’s life, the implied author of Pr Man instills more realism into his account of Manasseh’s prayer of repentance by merging characteristics of polar opposite types of kings. Thus, the repentant Manasseh is implicitly likened to the great king David in his sin of numbering Israel. There are several more echoes from Davidic traditions worth noting in the first and last verses of the Pr Man. The two vocatives utilized in Pr Man 1, “O Lord Almighty” (Κύριε παντοκράτωρ), echo two passages involving the recounting of David’s life: David’s prayer after being promised a perpetual dynasty in 2 Sam 7:25, 27 and 1 Chr 17:24.²² Besides the use of the phrase in both accounts of David’s prayer, he ends his petitions with the request that God’s name (i. e., fame or honor) be magnified forever. The greatness of God’s honor in the end is more important to David than the promise of a great honor for himself. Whereas in Pr

 Ben Zvi, “Reading,” 126.  In addition to these two Davidic traditions, only a few Septuagintal texts describing prayer or related divine-human communication contain Manasseh’s beginning vocative, “O Lord Almighty” (Κύριε παντοκράτωρ): Amos in his vision of the Lord above the altar (Amos 9:5 – 6); the angel in Zechariah’s first vision (Zech 1:12); Jeremiah (Jer 15:16); Baruch (Bar 3:1); Simon the high priest (3 Macc 2:2,8); and Eleazar the priest (3 Macc 6:2). Other sections of the paper below discuss the intertextual associations of five of these six passages.

The Prayer of Manasseh

109

Man the speaker is in no position to receive great honor for himself as was David, the words of Manasseh’s prayer express a similar contrite, deferential attitude towards the Lord Almighty. The echo is faint in terms of dependency, but a possible connection exists between how Manasseh is behaving or would like to behave and how David responded to God’s graciousness. Manasseh’s second vocative in Pr Man 1, “God of our ancestors, of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob” (ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, τοῦ Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ), echoes a trope (rarely used as a vocative in the OT), “LORD, the God of our ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Israel,” in one of David’s prayers of praise (1 Chr 29:18).²³ An insignificant switch occurs with the use of the synonym “Jacob” for “Israel” in Pr Man. Within the Chronicler’s text, David calls the Lord by this title, as he recognizes that priority of worship centers upon the disposition of the heart rather than the form of worship. True worship should focus on God himself and his kingdom, not on David or the temple. Thus, a faint echo exists in the correspondence between Manasseh’s disposition in worship with a proper focus upon the heart and the similar teaching from David’s prayer in 1 Chronicles 29. Finally, Pr Man 15 may be reverberating a Davidic tradition in LXX Ps 22:6, “and your mercy shall pursue me all the days of my life” (καὶ τὸ ἔλεός σου καταδιώξεταί με πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς μου). If the implied author is intent on making connections with the portrayals of David and his speech, this final echo in the prayer certainly ends on a stellar note. Like David, Manasseh’s praise will last “all the days of my life” (διὰ παντὸς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ζωῆς μου) and is preceded by abundant divine mercy (σώσεις με κατὰ τὸ πολὺ ἔλεός σου; Pr Man 14). This echo strengthens the duration of Manasseh’s praise and may anticipate a similar duration of divine mercy. Thus, through these echoes found in Pr Man 14– 15, the repentant Manasseh is implicitly likened to the great king David in terms of how to address the Lord, worship the Lord, and finally receive his mercy in a continual manner. In addition to the elements of the divine attribute formula found in LXX Pss 102:8 and 144:8 (mentioned under Mosaic traditions below), there are some other intertextual connections from LXX Psalm 144, attributed to David. In regard to Pr Man 5, the phrase “magnificence of your glory” (ἡ μεγαλοπρέπεια τῆς δόξης σου) only appears otherwise within the LXX in Ps 144:5, 12 with both the noun “glory” being in the genitive in v. 5 and “magnificence” being in the genitive in v. 12. This allusion to Ps 144:5, 12 draws one’s attention to two additional genitives for the

 See deSilva, Introducing, 326. We will further discuss this trope and its connection to an early Mosaic tradition (Exod 3:6, 15 – 16) in the next section.

110

Michael D. Matlock

phrase which particularize the Lord’s impressive stateliness (magnificence) and his weightiness (glory), namely holiness (ἁγιωσύνης) in v. 5 and kingdom (βασιλείας) in v. 12. What seems to be most apropos in this case of intertextuality is that Pr Man 5 denotes only the general nature of the Lord’s impressive stateliness and his weightiness, whereas the alluded-to verses in LXX Psalm 144 denote two glaringly diminished features (i. e., holiness and kingdom) from the reprehensible actions of King Manasseh. Here we may briefly mention a possible echo from LXX Psalm 96, which is attributed to David in the Greek Bible, though not in the Hebrew. Pr Man 7a seems to contain an echo from LXX Ps 96:9 with the use of the address to the divine, “for you are the Lord Most High” (ὅτι σὺ εἶ κύριος ὁ ὕψιστος). This psalm celebrates God’s coming as universal king but with the caveat that doom awaits any rebels. The Lord approaches as a conqueror. Whereas within the Psalm this divine title alludes to the lofty elevated status of the Lord in terms of righteous behavior (δίκαιος), whereby he shames idol worshipers, the author of the Pr Man makes use of the title to point out God’s lofty, astonishing compassion and mercy to those who do not deserve it. Again, LXX Ps 96:9 may be echoed in order to disrupt and modify the theology of this Psalm.

References to Traditions about Moses The writer of Pr Man also draws upon several Mosaic traditions in the OT. It seems probable that the second vocative in Pr Man 1 is deliberately echoing the classic OT deliverance text (Exod 3:15 – 16), which evokes covenantal relationship and promise between God and Israel.²⁴ God commands Moses to tell the Hebrew people that God is known as the “LORD, the God of our ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν, θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ). It is difficult to imagine anyone more in need of divine deliverance and transformation in the OT than King Manasseh, and by invoking and evoking Exod 3:15 – 16, the stage is set for a most unlikely divine deliverance just as it was for Israel and their emergence out of Egypt. Like Pr Man 7a, other penitential prayers in the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature contain the divine attribute formula, here quoted from the LXX— “The Lord God is compassionate and merciful, long-suffering, and abounding in mercy, and truthful, and preserving righteousness and doing mercy for thou-

 For a useful survey of the instances of the phrase within and outside of Scripture, see Rist, “God,” 289 – 303.

The Prayer of Manasseh

111

sands, taking away acts of lawlessness and of injustice and sins” (Κύριος ὁ θεὸς οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων, μακρόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος καὶ ἀληθινὸς καὶ δικαιοσύνην διατηρῶν καὶ ποιῶν ἔλεος εἰς χιλιάδας, ἀφαιρῶν ἀνομίας καὶ ἀδικίας καὶ ἁμαρτίας; Exod 34:6 – 7a).²⁵ Recalling and adapting this creedal formula, found in an earlier Mosaic tradition, the implied author of Pr Man creates one of the more remarkable allusions in his repertoire. In a comparable fashion, within another lengthy OT penitential prayer, the Levites (Neh 9:17) took this divine attribute formula and adapted it to the context of the disobedient actions of the Israelites in refusing to enter the Promised Land.²⁶ There are several psalms that contain a version of the divine attribute formula. For example, LXX Pss 102:8 and 144:8 have the same wording: “compassionate and merciful is the Lord, long-suffering, and abounding in mercy” (οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων ὁ κύριος, μακρόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος). In the first of these psalms, unwavering fatherly care and eternal sovereign rule are the distinctive stresses blended together in the text. In the second, an acrostic in the Hebrew text, there is clear emphasis upon the grace of God, which will create praise in every creature. The Pr Man contains these major elements found in LXX Psalms 102 and 144. However, in the Prayer of Manasseh, there are two noteworthy modifications to the formula. First, rather than employ the more common Greek word οἰκτίρμων (“merciful”) used to translate the Hebrew ‫רחום‬, the author of the Prayer of Manasseh employs an expressive Septuagintal hapax legomenon, εὔσπλαγχνος (“tender-hearted”).²⁷ The second change is more significant in that God is described as “one who repents over the evils of humankind” (μετανοῶν ἐπὶ κακίαις ἀνθρώπων) just as the same type of modification of attitude appears in Jonah 4:2 and Joel 2:13. This μετανοέω phrase is ambiguous as it may indicate two different meanings: either being sorrowful over the sins committed by people, or else relenting from divine punishment in the face of humanity’s suffering. Given the connections to the texts in Chronicles and more specifically the

 Fishbane (Interpretation, 335 – 50) rightly argues that the authoritative model of this divine attribute formula is Exod 34:6 – 7 because of its relative antiquity and completeness; he indicates references emphasizing either the merciful attributes or the retributive attributes of God.  Newman, Praying, 88 – 91. Another point of intertexture with the Levites’ prayer is in the description of God as the one who ‘made the heaven and the earth’ (cf. Pr Man 2; Neh 9:6). Whereas the Hebrew text implies that the Levites utter the prayer (Neh 9:5 – 6), the LXX inserts the phrase: “And Ezra said” (2 Esd 19:6).  There are eighty-one Septuagintal hapax legomena with the prefix εὐ- (Wagner, Hapaxlegomena, 375, 382), while this particular adjective occurs twice in the NT (Eph 4:32 and 1 Pet 3:8).

112

Michael D. Matlock

close correspondences with 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Chronicles 33, the second meaning of the phrase is more probable in Manasseh’s prayer.²⁸ In vv. 7b-8, the Prayer of Manasseh indicates that the Lord’s relenting (v. 7a) demands a similar relenting/repenting from humans in regards to their sinfulness. This “repentance” is provided and demanded by the Lord. In this way, the fractured divine-human covenant relationship may continue on common ground for both parties through God’s provision of repentance. Finally, Pr Man draws upon Mosaic tradition by echoing the section of Deuteronomy in which Moses warns Israel against idolatry (Deut 4:15 – 40). This portion of Deuteronomy contains an extended commentary on the commandment, “You shall not make for yourself an idol” (Deut 5:8) and shares four key motifs with Pr Man: 1) heightened concern for idolatry, 2) creation, 3) exile, and 4) the Lord’s compassion after exile. Because the later two motifs are more muted in terms of intertextual association and require more explanation, we will here examine only the first two motifs. In terms of creation language, we observe in Deut 4:39, that the Lord is God of heaven and earth, and in 4:36, that the Lord’s Torah was given to instruct and discipline (παιδεῦσαι). This divine voice came out of heaven down to earth and was given out of love for Israel’s ancestors (διὰ τὸ ἀγαπῆσαι αὐτὸν τοὺς πατέρας σου).²⁹ In Pr Man 2, we can also observe the allusions to other classic creation texts, especially Gen 2:1: “heaven and the earth … all their arrangement” (ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν). Nickelsburg reminds us that “God’s creative power is a traditional topic in Jewish prayers,” and so too Pr Man joins these prayerful texts.³⁰ The repentant Manasseh’s understanding of creation is implicitly likened to Moses’ teaching regarding creation in Deuteronomy 4. Creation is not only for aesthetic pleasure (Genesis 1– 2), but also to teach discipline and to inhibit idolatry as both Deut 4:36, 39 and Pr Man 4– 5 indicate. In addition, the concern about idolatry within Deut 4:25 is echoed by Pr Man 9 – 10 and 12 – 13. The Deuteronomist states that if the conditions of acting lawlessly, making an engraved likeness, and doing evil before the Lord are met (with heaven and earth as witnesses according to Deut 4:26), one should expect God to be provoked to anger. The three human conditions and the divine response are alluded to within various areas of Manasseh’s confession

 Cf. deSilva, Introducing, 327.  Deuteronomy 4:36 also relates that the divine voice comes in “great fire,” which may have given the medieval targumist of Chronicles the idea that Manasseh had to be trapped in a bronze container and set on fire by the Assyrians in order to pray, repent, and change his heinous ways. See Beattie and McIvor, Targum, 229 – 31.  Nickelsburg, “Prayer,” 771.

The Prayer of Manasseh

113

(vv. 9 – 10) and a portion of his petition (vv. 12– 13). As is often the case, the implied author of Pr Man is disrupting a prior biblical text. This time the author subverts the retribution theology of the Deuteronomist with Manasseh’s confession of sin, petition for forgiveness, and repentance.

References to the Genesis Patriarchs Precisely and specifically through Manasseh’s emphasis on the Genesis patriarchs in vv. 1 and 8, the author of the prayer creates an unusual picture of God not generally recognizable from the corporate penitential prayers in the OT. The patriarchs, “Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,” and their offspring are “righteous” (δίκαιος—echoing Gen 15:6), but Manasseh describes himself as the opposite, a “sinner” (ἁμαρτωλός) and not one of the righteous patriarchal offspring. ³¹ This concept is radical, but Manasseh makes an even more stunning remark: God instituted “repentance” (μετάνοια) for sinners like Manasseh, not for righteous people such as the patriarchs and their offspring. In vv. 7b-8, Manasseh indicates that along with repentance God also promises “forgiveness” (ἄφεσις) for sinners to ensure their salvation. This divine promise of forgiveness, not for the righteous but for the sinful, is the most explicit reference of its kind in all of the Second Temple Jewish literature.³² Although not as explicit, this same idea is also taken up in Baruch’s prayer, “For it is not because of any righteous deeds of our ancestors or our kings that we bring before you our prayer for mercy, O Lord our God” (ὅτι οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν βασιλέων ἡμῶν ἡμεῖς καταβάλλομεν τὸν ἔλεον ἡμῶν κατὰ πρόσωπόν σου, κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν; Bar 2:19) From an author-oriented intertextuality perspective, it is difficult to conclude if either text is alluding to the other text with intentionality.

 The rabbinic concept of ‫“( זכות אבות‬merit of the fathers/ancestors”) matches this line of thinking in Pr Man 1 (e. g., b. Soṭah 10b; b. Yoma 87a; b. Yebam. 64a). But, just as the author of Pr Man excludes Manasseh from the ancestral piety of his ancestors in v. 8, so too we see his exclusion in rabbinic literature (e. g., b. Sanh. 104a) as Manasseh is excluded from merit of his father Hezekiah and is one of few leaders in the Hebrew Scriptures who is excluded from the world to come.  Cf. 4 Ezra 8:33 echoes Pr Man 8 and 13 – 14 in its theological point: the righteous are rewarded in view of their actions, with the implication that sinners, not the righteous, need God’s mercy. In Lukan theology, Jesus’ words, “I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32), echo the sentiment in Pr Man 8.

114

Michael D. Matlock

Pr Man 9 echoes a classic Abrahamic covenant text, the promise to the patriarch in Gen 22:17. There are several lexical connections: “I will make numerously numerous” (πληθύνων πληθυνῶ), “heaven” (οὐρανοῦ), “sand” (ἄμμον), and “sea[shore]” (θαλάσσης). We may add to these lexemes one other phrase from Pr Man 1, “your offspring” (σπέρμα σου). By reverberating the Abrahamic covenant text, the implied author denotes the stark position of Manasseh because of his transgressions in contrast to Abraham’s position as recipient of divine favor.

Echoes of Amos and Other Minor Prophets The author of Pr Man seems to be echoing Amos 9, a chapter containing Amos’ vision of the Lord standing above the altar, followed by the divine judgment and salvation oracles. In Pr Man 1, the author echoes the title of God, “Lord God the Almighty,” employed in Amos 9:5. Within another text in the Minor Prophets that contains this same title of the Lord, Zech 1:12, an angel of the Lord questions the Lord in regard to the length of time that no mercy would be shown to Jerusalem and Judah during the exile. This association may connect to Pr Man in that Manasseh calls God “Almighty” and pleads for much mercy in his exiled state. Immediately following the echo of the divine title in Pr Man 1, Pr Man 2– 4 echoes Amos 9:5 – 6 as both texts couple God’s creative and adjudicative work. We observe lexical and thematic associations in terms of general creation language (οὐρανός, γῆ), control of the waters (θάλασσα), causing the earth to shake (different verbs occur) and divine judgment for the sinners (ἁμαρτωλός) of Israel. Moreover, there is a promise given in Amos 9:8, comparable to the description of God in Pr Man 5 – 6. From the larger Amos 9 context, this divine promise that the Lord will sift out the sinners from the righteous and provide a hope of return to the Lord may be the impetus for Pr Man 6 to consider this promise as an assurance of mercy for Manasseh. Appraising specifically the second clause in Pr Man 5, “and the wrath of your threat to sinners is irresistible” (καὶ ἀνυπόστατος ἡ ὀργὴ τῆς ἐπὶ ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπειλῆς σου), we observe possible echoes to Nah 1:6 and Jonah 3:9 (as well as 2 Macc 8:5). Both texts from the Minor Prophets share in common God’s expressed anger toward the Assyrians, but with the qualification that the Jonah text also mentions the divine attribute formula, and repentance is actualized just as in Pr Man. The text of Nah 1:6 affirms the second clause of Pr Man 5 without exception, whereas Jonah 3:9 opens the possibility that God’s full wrath may be averted just as the full text of Pr Man affirms. Although less certain, Pr Man 5 may also be connected with 2 Macc 8:5 in that, besides the shared concept of mercy (ἔλεον), two lexical connections are made: “irresistible” (ἀνυ-

The Prayer of Manasseh

115

πόστατος) and “wrath” (ὀργῆς). Judas Maccabee’s military might which functions to veil God’s power is described as irresistible, and God’s wrath towards his people turns into mercy through Judas’ victories against the Syrian general Nicanor. It might be argued that the author of Pr Man may be mitigating Judas’ role as irresistibly powerful if literary dependency could be established with more certainty.

Echoes of Job Pr Man 6 echoes a thrice-repeated statement in the Book of Job (5:9; 9:10; 34:24), speaking of God’s inscrutability. The Jobian texts (from three different speakers) contain almost the identical description of the Lord, here quoted in the LXX: “who does great and inscrutable/ unfathomable things, things both glorious and extraordinary, without number” (τὸν ποιοῦντα μεγάλα καὶ ἀνεξιχνίαστα, ἔνδοξά τε καὶ ἐξαίσια, ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀριθμός). These are the words of Eliphaz, Job, and Elihu respectively. The word “inscrutable/ unfathomable” only occurs in these three places in the OT. Pr Man 6 connects “inscrutable/ unfathomable” (ἀνεξιχνίαστα) to God’s mercy, and Eliphaz relates this concept to God’s elevating the lowly (ταπεινούς) and those in ruin (ἀπολωλότας). Job agrees with Eliphaz’s theological perspective, but supplies the caveat that he, Job, must not be one who is lowly and in ruin because God will not turn back his anger from him (9:13). What Elihu adds to this description of the Lord as it relates to human beings is that, while observing all people, the Lord hates lawless acts, destroys the wicked, is always righteous and provides no hiding place for those who do lawless deeds (34:17,22). Thus, the repentant Manasseh is implicitly in conversation with the wisdom theology of Job, which clearly demonstrates a diversity of views regarding what makes God unfathomable. Is it divine mercy as in Pr Man, or else the elevation of the lowly and/or the destruction of the wicked people as in Job? The tension within God’s inscrutable ways appears not only within these texts in Job, but also within Pr Man 5 – 6.

Pr Man in the Context of Jewish Penitential Prayers Pr Man exhibits some common patterns found within penitential prayers in Second Temple Jewish texts. Because there are significant intertextual similarities with other penitential prayer texts regarding content and structure, this section

116

Michael D. Matlock

examines several penitential prayers to discover noteworthy similarities and differences with the Prayer of Manasseh. First, we observe in Pr Man 1 a common petitionary address found in the prayer of the priests in 2 Macc 1:25 by calling the Lord “Almighty” (παντοκράτωρ) and by stressing the election of the ancestors. In Pr Man, the ancestors are righteous, whereas in the prayer of the priests, the Lord is denoted as righteous. As mentioned above, there are several other texts that have intertextual links to Pr Man via the description “Almighty.” Similarly, in Baruch 3 wherein the speaker calls the Lord “Almighty” twice (vv. 1, 4), the prayer draws attention to the wretched state of Baruch and the perpetual sin of the current Israelites. A slight turn of phrase in Pr Man 13, “do not store up evil for me” (μηδὲ … τηρήσῃς τὰ κακά μοι), as compared to “evil has clung to us” (ἐκολλήθη ἡμῖν τὰ κακά; Bar 3:4), denotes the dreadful extent of God’s response to the supplicant’s sin, with Pr Man 13 indicating more of an active divine role in the discipline. In Pr Man 11– 14, Manasseh’s petitions for forgiveness contain some of the most eloquent phrases of penitential prayers in all of Second Temple Jewish literature. First, Manasseh in v. 11 describes his penitential action metaphorically: “I am bending the knee of [my] heart” (κλίνω γόνυ καρδίας).³³ As previously mentioned, the Lord relents and demands a similar response from humans, and this is exactly the type of response in which Manasseh is engaging himself. His actions of idolatry and rebellion have been replaced by humility and contrition. Second, Manasseh’s confession in v. 12, “I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned” (ἡμάρτηκα, κύριέ ἡμάρτηκα), is beautifully balanced by his supplication in v. 13, “Forgive me, O Lord, forgive me” (ἄνες μοι, κύριέ ἄνες μοι). By the end of v. 13, Manasseh makes a remarkable counterpoint to his previous comment about the Deity as “God of the righteous” (ὁ θεὸς τῶν δικαίων) in v. 8. Manasseh now sees himself in God’s fold because the Deity is “the God of those who repent” (ὁ θεὸς τῶν μετανοούντων). Pr Man 11 begins with what appears to be two very routine words, “and now” (καὶ νῦν), a transition phrase often found in letters and speeches as well as prayers. However, the canonical and deuterocanonical books include a cluster of prayers (mostly penitential) that utilize these two routine words at the precise (or nearly precise) point of petition within the penitential prayer.³⁴ Because

 Cf. the phrase “lips of my heart” in Odes of Solomon 37:2.  This is the case for Ezra 9:12; Neh 9:32; Dan 9:15, 17; Jonah 4:3; Add Dan 3:33, 41; Add Esth 13:15; 14:6, 8; Tob 3:5, 12; 8:7; and Bar 2:11.

The Prayer of Manasseh

117

there are so many examples, Pr Man 11 may be using a standard trope common in prayers, particularly penitential prayers. Finally, Pr Man 6 parallels the high priest Simon’s prayer in 3 Maccabees 2. The adjective “immeasurable” (ἀμέτρητον), used in Pr Man 6 to describe God’s promised mercy, only occurs seven other times in the canonical and deuterocanonical books.³⁵ Simon’s prayer in 3 Maccabees contains two of these occurrences. The first occurrence describes the water used to destroy the antediluvian giants and the second qualifies the earth. Both echoes may be invitations to ponder the difference between immeasurable mercy, on the one hand, and immeasurable judgment or creation on the other hand.

Conclusion Manasseh’s prayer represents an opposing perspective over and against the dominant discourse of other interpreters of Israel’s history which prevailed in the postexilic period. This penitential prayer is part of a growing treatment of divine punishment and forgiveness in late Second Temple Judaism.³⁶ In addition, this prayer expresses a motivation for repentance and a renewed hope for a mended relationship with the Lord for even the worst of offenders. Adin Steinsaltz aptly summarizes the powerful nature of repentance: Repentance also comprises the notion that man has a measure of control over his existence in all dimensions, including time. Time flows in one direction; it is impossible to undo or even to alter an action after it has occurred and become an “event,” an objective fact. However, even though the past is “fixed,” repentance admits of an ascendancy over it, of the possibility of changing its significance in the context of the present and future. This is why repentance has been presented as something created before the world itself. In a world of the inexorable flow of time, in which all objects and events are interconnected in a relationship of cause and effect, repentance is the exception: it is the potential for something else.³⁷

 Isa 22:18; 3 Macc 2:4, 9; 4:17; Sir 16:17; 30:15; and Bar 3:25. There are 182 Septuagintal hapax legomena with the alpha privative prefix ἀ- (Wagner, Hapaxlegomena, 376, 383), including ἄστεκτος (“unendurable”) in Pr Man 5. The frequency of such grammatically negative words (e. g., ἄστεκτος, ἀνυπόστατος, ἀμέτρητος, ἀνεξιχνίαστος in vv. 5 – 6) might suggest that Pr Man is a Greek composition. Moreover, the prayer’s use of a relatively large number of rare words and hapax legomena also supports a Greek original. See Stone, “Notes,” 127– 28.  See also Philo, Praem. 163 – 64; L.A.B. 12, 15, 19, and 21; and T. Gad 5.  Steinsaltz, Rose, 93 – 94.

118

Michael D. Matlock

Pr Man is primarily a cataphatic text (rather than an apophatic text) and serves as a corrective admonition for those who would restrict the Lord’s forgiveness to a limited group of people.³⁸ God cannot be reduced to a measure of human control and forgiveness. Therefore the question must be raised: if King Manasseh can receive divine forgiveness and mercy through repentance, then who could not receive it?³⁹ In terms of author-oriented intertextuality, we have uncovered many significant texts with which Pr Man might be conversing. There is little doubt that Pr Man is a type of Rewritten Bible text for 2 Chronicles 33, and to a lesser extent, 2 Kings 21. From a content and structural perspective, Pr Man is greatly influenced by and promotes the theology of the great Davidic repentance prayer, Ps 50 [LXX]. Many other canonical, deuterocanonical, and non-canonical prayer texts (with a significant number of these being penitential as well) have provided a strong “support group” of allusions, echoes and penitential prayer patterns for our implied author. Moreover, Pr Man has alluded to “classical” texts dealing with creation, deliverance, the Abrahamic covenant, and a version of the divine attribute creedal formula, in order to display Manasseh’s alignment (or lack thereof) with these significant theological texts. Finally, the other canonical and deuterocanonical texts that are alluded to or echoed are far-reaching, providing this implied author a vast intertextual repertoire. Such echoes have served to promote the concept that King Manasseh has exhibited exemplary penitential behavior which results in God’s mercy and forgiveness, both central touchstones of his salvific plan.

Table of Intertextual Parallels Rewritten Portrait of Manasseh Prayer of Manasseh

Intertext



παρώργισα τὸν θυμόν σου καὶ τὸ  Chr : πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου ἐποίησα … πληθύνας προσοχθίσματα

ἐπλήθυνεν τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ πονηρὸν ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ παροργίσαι αὐτόν



πληθύνας προσοχθίσματα

ἔθηκεν τὸ γλυπτὸν καὶ τὸ χωνευτόν, εἰκόνα ἣν ἐποίησεν, ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ,

 Chr :

 See Anderson, “Near,” 16 – 19, arguing for an apophatic corrective (vs. cataphatic) in the interpretation of the Nadab and Abihu story in Leviticus 10.  St. Paul makes a similar point concerning himself in 1 Tim 1:13 – 16.

The Prayer of Manasseh

119



κατακαμπτόμενος πολλῷ δεσμῷ  Chr : τὸν Μανασση ἐν δεσμοῖς καὶ ἔδησιδήρου σαν αὐτὸν ἐν πέδαις καὶ ἤγαγον

,

 κλίνω γόνυ καρδίας δεόμενος  Chr : ἐταπεινώθη σφόδρα ἀπὸ προσώπου τῆς παρὰ σοῦ χρηστότητος θεοῦ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ  ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν

 – a, a

 – a ἁμαρτωλῷ, διότι ἥμαρτον a ἡμάρτηκα, κύριέ ἡμάρτηκα



καὶ τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου  Kgs :,  καὶ ἐποίησεν τὸ πονηρὸν ἐν ἐποίησα  ὀφθαλμοῖς κυρίου κατὰ τὰ βδελύγστήσας βδελύγματα ματα [Cf. vv. , , ]  ἐποίησεν Μανασσης ὁ βασιλεὺς Ιουδα τὰ βδελύγματα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἀπὸ πάντων

 Kgs : καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία αὐτοῦ, ἣν ἥμαρτεν

Davidic Elements (N.B.: LXX numbering used for Psalms) 

Κύριε παντοκράτωρ



ἡ μεγαλοπρέπεια τῆς δόξης σου Ps 



καὶ ἀνυπόστατος ἡ ὀργὴ τῆς ἐπὶ Ps : ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπειλῆς σου

ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου

a

ὅτι σὺ εἶ κύριος ὕψιστος

ὅτι σὺ εἶ κύριος ὁ ὕψιστος

a

κύριος … πολυέλεος

a

σὺ … πολυέλεος

Ps :

μέγα ἔλεός σου



αἱ ἀνομίαι μου

Ps :

τῆς ἀνομίας μου



καὶ ὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου Ps :;  Ps : καὶ τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν ἐποίησα Chr : σου ἐποίησα  Chr : πονηρὸν ἐφάνη ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ



ἡμάρτηκα, κύριέ ἡμάρτηκα, καὶ  Chr :;  Chr : ἡμάρτηκα σφόδρα τὰς ἀνομίας μου ἐγὼ γινώσκω Ps : Ps : τὴν ἀνομίαν μου ἐγὼ γινώσκώ καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία μου ἐνώπιόν μού ἐστιν διὰ παντός



μηδὲ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηνίσας

μακρόθυμος

 Sam :, Κύριε παντοκράτωρ ;  Chr : :,  τὴν μεγαλοπρέπειαν τῆς δόξης … σου  τὴν δόξαν τῆς μεγαλοπρεπείας

Ps :

καὶ Ps :; ὁ κύριος, : πολυέλεος

μακρόθυμος

καὶ

Ps :; Ps : οὐδὲ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα Jer : μηνιεῖ

120

Michael D. Matlock

Jer : καὶ οὐ μηνιῶ ὑμῖν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα [cf. Lev :; Sir :; :] 

με ἐν τοῖς κατωτάτοις τῆς γῆς Ps :

μου ἐν τοῖς κατωτάτοις τῆς γῆς



μηδὲ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηνίσας τηρή- Ps :, σῃς τὰ κακά μοι

 ἐξάλειψον τὸ ἀνόμημά μου;  ἀπόστρεψον τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν μου, καὶ πάσας τὰς ἀνομίας μου ἐξάλειψον



μηδὲ καταδικάσῃς με ἐν τοῖς Ps : κατωτάτοις τῆς γῆς

μὴ ἀπορρίψῃς με ἀπὸ τοῦ προσώπου σου

 –  σώσεις με κατὰ τὸ πολὺ ἔλεός Ps σου, καὶ αἰνέσω σε διὰ παντὸς : –  ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ζωῆς μου



ῥῦσαί με ἐξ αἱμάτων … ἀγαλλιάσεται ἡ γλῶσσά μου τὴν δικαιοσύνην σου. κύριέ τὰ χείλη μου ἀνοίξεις, καὶ τὸ στόμα μου ἀναγγελεῖ τὴν αἴνεσίν σου

παντὸς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς Ps :; πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς μου ζωῆς μου :; : (Ps : σου)

References to Traditions about Moses 

ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, Exod τοῦ Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ : –  Ιακωβ

ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν, θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ …  ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν ὦπταί μοι, θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ



τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν σὺν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ αὐτῶν

a

εὔσπλαγχνος, μακρόθυμος καὶ Jonah :; Jonah : ἐλεήμων καὶ οἰκτίρμων, πολυέλεος καὶ μετανοῶν ἐπὶ Joel :; μακρόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος καὶ κακίαις ἀνθρώπων Exod :, μετανοῶν ἐπὶ ταῖς κακίαις Joel : ἐλεήμων καὶ οἰκτίρμων ἐστίν, μακρόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος καὶ μετανοῶν ἐπὶ ταῖς κακίαις Exod : οἰκτίρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων, μακρόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος καὶ

Gen :; Gen : τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν :; Deut Gen : ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ :,  πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν Deut : οὗτος θεὸς ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κάτω Deut : ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀκουστὴ ἐγένετο ἡ φωνὴ αὐτοῦ παιδεῦσαί σέ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔδειξέν σοι τὸ πῦρ αὐτοῦ τὸ μέγα

The Prayer of Manasseh

121

ἀληθινὸς  … καὶ ποιῶν ἔλεος εἰς χιλιάδας, ἀφαιρῶν ἀνομίας καὶ ἀδικίας καὶ ἁμαρτίας 

διότι παρώργισα τὸν θυμόν σου, Deut : καὶ τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιόν σου ἐποίησα, στήσας βδελύγματα καὶ πληθύνας προσοχθίσματὰ

καὶ ἀνομήσητε καὶ ποιήσητε γλυπτὸν ὁμοίωμα παντὸς καὶ ποιήσητε τὰ πονηρὰ ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν παροργίσαι αὐτόν

References to the Genesis Patriarchs , 

 τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν Gen :  ὑπὲρ ἀριθμὸν ψάμμου θαλάσσης, ἐπλήθυναν αἱ ἀνομίαι μου, κύριέ ἐπλήθυναν

πληθύνων πληθυνῶ τὸ σπέρμα σου ὡς τοὺς ἀστέρας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ὡς τὴν ἄμμον τὴν παρὰ τὸ χεῖλος τῆς θαλάσσης



μὴ συναπολέσῃς ἀνομίαις μου

μὴ συναπόλῃ ταῖς ἀνομίαις

με

ταῖς Gen :

Echoes of Amos and Other Prophetic Traditions Zech :; Jer :; Amos : – 

Κύριε παντοκράτωρ Amos : κύριος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ Amos : κύριος [ὁ θεὸς] ὁ παντοκράτωρ



Κύριε παντοκράτωρ



ὁ πεδήσας τὴν θάλασσαν τῷ Amos : λόγῳ τοῦ προστάγματός σου,

ὁ προσκαλούμενος τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ ἐκχέων αὐτὸ ἐπὶ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς·



ὃν πάντα φρίττει καὶ τρέμει

ὁ ἐφαπτόμενος τῆς γῆς καὶ σαλεύων αὐτήν



καὶ ἀνυπόστατος ἡ ὀργὴ τῆς ἐπὶ  Macc : ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπειλῆς σου,

ἀνυπόστατος ἤδη τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἐγίνετο τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἔλεον τραπείσης

, 

 καὶ ἀνυπόστατος ἡ ὀργὴ τῆς ἐπὶ Nah : ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπειλῆς σου  διότι παρώργισα τὸν θυμόν σου

ἀπὸ προσώπου ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ τίς ὑποστήσεται; καὶ τίς ἀντιστήσεται ἐν ὀργῇ θυμοῦ αὐτοῦ; ὁ θυμὸς αὐτοῦ

, a

 καὶ ἀνυπόστατος ἡ ὀργὴ τῆς ἐπὶ Jonah : ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπειλῆς σου a καὶ μετανοῶν ἐπὶ κακίαις ἀνθρώπων

τίς οἶδεν εἰ μετανοήσει ὁ θεὸς καὶ ἀποστρέψει ἐξ ὀργῆς θυμοῦ αὐτοῦ

Amos :

122

Michael D. Matlock

a

κύριος … καὶ μετανοῶν ἐπὶ Amos :, Amos :,  μετανόησον, κύριε κακίαις ἀνθρώπων ; Jonah : καὶ μετενόησεν ὁ θεὸς Jonah : ἐπὶ τῇ κακίᾳ



ἡμάρτηκα, κύριέ ἡμάρτηκα, καὶ Isa : τὰς ἀνομίας μου ἐγὼ γινώσκω

ἀπήλειψα ὡς νεφέλην τὰς ἀνομίας σου καὶ ὡς γνόφον τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου



ἀνάξιον

ἀναξίου [cf. Add Esth : g; Sir :]



ὅτι σὲ ὑμνεῖ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις τῶν Isa : οὐρανῶν

Jer :

εὐφράνθητέ οὐρανοί, ὅτι ἠλέησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν Ισραηλ

Echoes of Job 

ἀμέτρητόν τε καὶ ἀνεξιχνίαστον Job τὸ ἔλεος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας σου :

:; τὸν ποιοῦντα μεγάλα καὶ ἀνεξιχνίαστα ὁ ποιῶν μεγάλα καὶ ἀνεξιχνίαστα [cf. Job :]

Pr Man in the Context of Jewish Penitential Prayers 

 Macc : Κύριε παντοκράτωρ, ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, … καὶ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῶν τοῦ δικαίου

ὁ μόνος χορηγός, ὁ μόνος δίκαιος καὶ παντοκράτωρ καὶ αἰώνιος, ὁ διασῴζων τὸν Ισραηλ ἐκ παντὸς κακοῦ, ὁ ποιήσας τοὺς πατέρας ἐκλεκτοὺς καὶ ἁγιάσας αὐτούς,



Κύριε παντοκράτωρ



ἀμέτρητόν τε καὶ ἀνεξιχνίαστον  Macc :, : … διέφθειρας ἐπαγαγὼν αὐτοῖς τὸ ἔλεος τῆς ἐπαγγελίας σου  ἀμέτρητον ὕδωρ… : σύ, βασιλεῦ, κτίσας τὴν ἀπέραντον καὶ ἀμέτρητον γῆν …

a

πολυέλεος

b-

ὅτι σύ, ὁ θεός, κατὰ τὴν χρη- Bar : στότητα τῆς ἀγαθωσύνης σου ἐπηγγείλω μετανοίας ἄφεσιν τοῖς ἡμαρτηκόσιν, καὶ τῷ πλήθει τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν σου ὥρισας μετάνοιαν ἁμαρτωλοῖς εἰς σωτηρίαν.  σὺ οὖν, κύριε ὁ θεὸς τῶν δικαίων, οὐκ ἔθου μετάνοιαν δικαίοις, τῷ Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ τοῖς

Bar :, ; Κύριε παντοκράτωρ  Macc :, ; :

 Macc :

πολυέλεε ὅτι οὐκ ἐπὶ τὰ δικαιώματα τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν βασιλέων ἡμῶν ἡμεῖς καταβάλλομεν τὸν ἔλεον ἡμῶν κατὰ πρόσωπόν σου, κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν,

The Prayer of Manasseh

123

οὐχ ἡμαρτηκόσιν σοι, ἀλλ᾿ ἔθου μετάνοιαν ἐμοὶ τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, 

καὶ νῦν

Ezra :; καὶ νῦν Neh : [cf. Add Esth :; :, ; Tob :, , ; :; Jonah :; Bar :; Dan :, ; Add Dan :, ]

, 

 σώσεις με κατὰ τὸ πολὺ ἔλεός  Macc σεσῳσμένοι μεγάλως σου :,   εἰς τὴν Περσίδα γενόμενος γὰρ  καὶ ἀνυπόστατος ἡ ὀργὴ τῆς ὁ ἡγεμὼν καὶ ἡ περὶ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπειλῆς σου ἀνυπόστατος δοκοῦσα εἶναι δύναμις



καὶ αἰνέσω σε διὰ παντὸς ἐν ταῖς Bar : –  ἡμέραις τῆς ζωῆς μου

καὶ αἰνέσομέν σέ κύριε.  … καὶ αἰνέσομέν σε ἐν τῇ ἀποικίᾳ ἡμῶν

Bibliography Anderson, Gary A. “‘Through Those Who Are Near to Me, I Will Show Myself Holy’: Nadab and Abihu and Apophatic Theology.” CBQ 77 (2015): 1 – 19. Beattie, Derek, and J. Stanley McIvor. The Targum of Ruth. The Targum of Chronicles: Translated, with Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. ArBib 19. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “Reading Chronicles and Reshaping the Memory of Manasseh.” In Chronicling the Chronicler : The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography, edited by Paul Evans and Tyler Williams. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013, 121 – 40. Charlesworth, James H. “Prayer of Manasseh.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Volume 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1985, 625 – 37. Chazon, Esther. “Prayer of Manasseh.” In Outside the Bible : Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, Volume 2, edited by Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2013, 2143 – 47. deSilva, David. Introducing the Apocrypha : Message, Context, and Significance. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. García Martínez, F., and E. J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Vol. 2: 4Q274–11Q31. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Gutman, Ariel, and Wido van Peursen. The Two Syriac Versions of the Prayer of Manasseh. Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 30. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011. Harrington, Daniel J. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Horst, Pieter Willem van der, and Judith H. Newman. Early Jewish Prayers in Greek. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008.

124

Michael D. Matlock

Kelly, Brian E. Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles. JSOTSup 211. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Knoppers, Gary. “Saint or Sinner? Manasseh in Chronicles.” In Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes, edited by Jeremy Corley and Harm van Grol. DCLS 7. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011, 211 – 29. Kristeva, Julia. Σημειωτικη: recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil, 1969. Kristeva, Julia. “Word, Dialogue and Novel.” In The Kristeva Reader, edited by Toril Moi. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986, 35 – 59. Lange, Armin, and Matthias Weigold. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. JAJSup 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Matlock, Michael D. Discovering the Traditions of Prose Prayers in Early Jewish Literature. LSTS 81. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Miller, Geoffrey D. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” CurBR 9 (2011): 283 – 309. Moi, Toril, ed. The Kristeva Reader. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Translated by D.R. Ap-Thomas. 2 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Newman, Judith. Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. SBLEJL 14. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Newman, Judith. “The Form and Settings of the Prayer of Manasseh.” In Seeking the Favor of God, Volume 2: The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, edited by Mark Boda, Daniel Falk, and Rodney Werline. SBLEJL 22. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007, 105 – 25. Nickelsburg, George. “Prayer of Manasseh.” In The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by John Barton and John Muddiman. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 770 – 73. Nodet, Etienne. “Prières de Manassé (2Ch 33,13*; TSK 1.144*; 4 Q 381),” RB 117 (2010) 345 – 60. Pajunen, Mika S. “The Prayer of Manasseh in 4Q381 and the Account of Manasseh in 2 Chronicles 33.” In The Scrolls and Biblical Traditions: Proceedings of the Seventh Meeting of the IOQS in Helsinki, edited by George Brooke, Daniel K. Falk, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Molly M. Zahn. STDJ 103. Leiden: Brill, 2012, 143 – 61. Passoni Dell’Acqua, Anna. “La prière de Manassé : Une fantaisie linguistique pour chanter la miséricorde de Dieu.” In L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité: Actes du colloque de Strasbourg 8 – 9 novembre 2002, edited by Jan Joosten and Philippe Le Moigne. LD 203. Paris: Cerf, 2005, 221 – 68. Rist, Martin. “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: A Liturgical and Magical Formula.” JBL 57 (1938): 289 – 303. Sanders, James. Biblical Intercontextuality: The Bible Is Full of Itself. DVD. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999. Schniedewind, William M. “A Qumran Fragment of the Ancient ‘Prayer of Manasseh’?” ZAW 108 (1996): 105 – 7. Schniedewind, William M. “The Source Citations of Manasseh: King Manasseh in History and Homily.” VT 41 (1991): 450 – 61. Schuller, Eileen M. “4Q380 and 4Q381: Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. STDJ 10. Leiden: Brill, 1992, 90 – 99.

The Prayer of Manasseh

125

Schuller, Eileen M. Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection. HSS 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Steinsaltz, Adin. The Thirteen Petalled Rose: A Discourse On The Essence Of Jewish Existence And Belief. Rev. ed. New York: Basic Books, 2006. Stone, Michael. “Apocryphal Notes and Readings.” IOS 1 (1971): 123 – 31. Wagner, Christian. Die Septuaginta-Hapaxlegomena im Buch Jesus Sirach : Untersuchungen zu Wortwahl und Wortbildung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des textkritischen und übersetzungstechnischen Aspekts. BZAW 282. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. Werline, Rodney. Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution. SBLEJL 13. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Williamson, H. G. M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Geoffrey David Miller

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna In a patriarchal culture, the femme fatale poses a serious threat to the social order. Deceptive, manipulative, and dangerously beautiful, she wields power beyond areas reserved for women, and she induces men to behave in ways they would otherwise avoid. Many cultures of the ancient Near East feared such a possibility, viewing women as inherently devious and seductive and therefore in need of male control. Male writers projected this negative image onto the heavenly realm, where goddesses will stop at nothing to supplant their male counterparts. In the ancient Near East, the seductress par excellence was Inanna (also known by her Babylonian name Ishtar), whose beauty and ambition threatened the stability of the Mesopotamian pantheon. Numerous texts depict her as “the manifestation of sex and eroticism,”¹ and she frequently uses her beauty and cunning to gain advantage over her fellow gods. The titular character of the Book of Judith behaves similarly among the men of her community and in the Assyrian camp. She chastises the male leaders of Bethulia for their impiety and ineffectual wartime strategy, and she convinces them to remain passive while she deals with the Assyrian threat on her own. Upon entering the enemy camp, her beautiful figure and clever tongue enable her to conquer the most powerful foe ever to threaten Israel’s sovereignty. She confidently intrudes into the male sphere and beats the men at their own game, achieving what her compatriots were incapable of doing by thwarting the male leaders of the invading Assyrians, who are too licentious and gullible to catch onto her ruse. Unlike Inanna, however, Judith does not transgress the boundaries of moral decency but remains an exemplary figure for Second Temple Jews. In this essay, I will identity the many similarities between Judith and Inanna, arguing that the author of Book of Judith drew on texts about the goddess in order to reject the image of the femme fatale that she conveys. Judith resembles Inanna in many ways but is more powerful and more virtuous, signaling to Jewish readers that, like the heroine of the story, their culture is vastly superior to that of the gentiles. Before comparing the two figures, however, it is important to look at the Book of Judith’s proclivity for borrowing from source material.

 Westenholz, “Inanna,” 341. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416930-006

128

Geoffrey David Miller

Judith’s Use of Non-biblical Sources As is true of many Second Temple texts, the Book of Judith borrows extensively from earlier works, especially the heroic tales of Israel’s past. Judith’s triumph over Holofernes has strong affinities with the stories of Deborah, Jael, David, and Esther,² yet the author of Judith does not limit his purview to Israelite literature.³ As many scholars have shown, the story of Judith culls from non-biblical sources as well, such as Herodotus’s account of the Persian wars against Greece (Histories, Books 7– 8). The demand for “earth and water” as a token of submission (Jdt 2:7) and the similarities between Bethulia and Thermopylae as narrow, vulnerable mountain passes (Jdt 4:7) are just a few of the elements common to both stories.⁴ Several scholars have proposed that the Book of Judith was patterned after the Hellenistic novel,⁵ where erotic overtones—such as Judith’s seduction of Holofernes—are regular features.⁶ Moreover, many recent researchers have surmised that Judith was originally written in Greek.⁷ A smaller number of scholars have looked to Ugaritic texts for influence on the writer of Judith. Coote notes that the name of the besieged city in the story is reminiscent of the goddess Anat, “whose epithet batūlatu, maiden, is the same as bethulia (= the biblical ‘maiden’).”⁸ Stronger parallels, however, exist between

 For a fuller list of parallels, see Dubarle, Judith, 137– 64; Zenger, Buch, 439 – 46; Gera, Judith, 45 – 56; Esler, “Hand,” 64– 101; White, “Steps,” 5 – 16; Corley, “Imitation,” 27– 34; Bellis, Helpmates, 198 – 200.  The author’s gender is difficult to determine. The book’s depiction of a strong, countercultural female protagonist—often at the expense of the other male characters—has led at least one scholar to infer that the story was composed by a woman. See Caponigro, “Judith,” 47– 59. On the other hand, a male author may have wanted to shame his male contemporaries by showing how weak and timid they are in the face of an enemy that even a woman could subdue. There is no scholarly consensus on this issue, and I am not advocating for one position over another. However, for the sake of simplicity and because most ancient authors were presumably male, I will use masculine pronouns when referring to the author of Judith.  Moore, Judith, 133; 154– 55.  Zenger, Buch, 437; Otzen, Tobit, 80; Brighton, “Comparison,” 163 – 71.  Otzen, Tobit, 80. Otzen acknowledges, however, that scholars have not come to an agreement on how best to classify the book of Judith. For more on the Greek influences on Judith, see Gera, Judith, 57– 78; Corley, “Imitation,” 34– 45; Caponigro, “Judith,” 47– 59.  Though earlier commentators assumed that the original language of the book was Hebrew or possibly Aramaic, an increasing number of scholars have argued that it was originally composed in Greek. For a summary of scholarship and the relevant issues, see Gera, Judith, 79 – 94; Corley, “Septuagintalisms,” 65 – 96.  Coote, “Comment,” 22. See also Efthimiadis-Keith, “Origin,” 309 – 10 for parallels between Judith and Anat/Astarte. The significance of the name of Bethulia is disputed. Most agree that the

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

129

Judith and Pugat, who appears in the final section of the Tale of Aqhat. ⁹ Grieved by the death of her brother, Pugat vows revenge against his killer. She bathes herself, puts on rouge, arms herself, clothes herself, and then departs from her home. Before leaving, she implores her father Danel for his blessing on her expedition, much as Judith beseeches the Lord’s favor in her undertaking (chap. 9). Moreover, Pugat makes this entreaty while her father offers incense to the gods, just as “Judith utters her prayer at the time the evening incense is offered” (Jdt 9:1).¹⁰ After setting out from her home, Pugat goes out into the fields and arrives at the tent of her enemy, Yatpan, whereupon word comes to him that a visitor has arrived. He allows her in, and alcohol is offered (though it is unclear who makes the initial offer), and she expresses her insincere wish that Yatpan destroy his enemies by the thousands. At this point, the text breaks off, leaving the final encounter between heroine and foe unresolved. The Tale of Aqhat may have influenced the writer of Judith in crafting his tale, but such an inference is tenuous without the key scene of the heroine slaying the villain.¹¹ More importantly, scholars have overlooked the numerous similarities between Judith and Inanna/Ishtar.¹² The Mesopotamian goddess has more in common with Judith than any other female character of ancient Near Eastern literature, as will be outlined below, yet it is first necessary to consider how plausible such a connection would be, and whether an intertextual study of these texts is warranted. The author of Judith clearly shows a penchant for borrowing from non-biblical texts, but scholars have been too myopic in this regard, focusing almost exclusively on Greek sources. By comparison, exegetes have discovered many secular folktales that shaped the Book of Tobit, a text roughly con-

name is fictitious, but some speculate that it is a version of the name Bethel (perhaps combined with Ai as a suffix) or represents a veiled reference to Jerusalem, which contained the “house of God.” Still others have put forth Shechem as a possibility, construing the name Bethulia as beth ‘aliyah, “house of ascent,” thus on the way up from Galilee to Jerusalem. See further Moore, Judith, 150 – 51; Otzen, Tobit, 89; Schmitz and Engel, Judit, 60 – 61.  Gera, Judith, 329. Her name is sometimes spelled Pughat or Paghit.  Parker, Tradition, 132.  Parker (Tradition, 132– 33) infers that Pugat does kill Yatpan, but he also acknowledges that Xella (“Rilettura,” 75) thinks that the two figures reconcile during their symposium. The fragmentary nature of the text allows for multiple possibilities.  Rare exceptions include Gera (Judith, 328 – 29), Winckler (“Judith,” 274), and Bentzen (“Der Hedammu-Mythus,” 1), though these scholars make only passing reference to the resemblance of the two figures, neglecting to trace out all their similarities and explain their significance.

130

Geoffrey David Miller

temporaneous with Judith,¹³ yet the list of extra-biblical influences in most Judith commentaries is lamentably short. A Mesopotamian analogue for Judith is likely, given the book’s eastern focus and its creative manipulation of historiography. Under the guise of a historical narrative, the Book of Judith presents “pseudo-history,”¹⁴ combining various figures and episodes from Israel’s past into a fictional story of national survival. Nebuchadnezzar, for example, is incorrectly identified as the “king of the Assyrians” (Jdt 1:7)—an anachronism too egregious to be unintentional. The author draws the reader’s attention to multiple villains, uniting “the most frightening features of… two kings, Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, and their peoples, the Assyrians and the Babylonians.”¹⁵ In so doing, the author creates a “supra-historical enemy of God”¹⁶ and shows how Israel can survive any foreign occupation, just as it has for the past seven centuries.¹⁷ Furthermore, this fictional archenemy quickly assumes control of all Mesopotamia, Media, and Persia (Jdt 1:13 – 16), encapsulating all eastern hegemony into a single figure. The author wants his audience to keep the cultures of the east in the forefront of their minds, and he directs their gaze eastward with the opening verse: “It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. At that time Arphaxad was ruling over the Medes in Ecbatana” (Jdt 1:1, italics added). He maintains the readers’ focus on Mesopotamia by including multiple references to the Assyrians (twenty-five times) and Nebuchadnezzar (twenty times) throughout the book, spread evenly with one or two occurrences in almost every chapter. The preponderance of references to Mesopotamian personages and cultures makes it likely that Judith alludes to the literature of these cultures as well, especially to engage those texts polemically. The story’s purpose is to show how Israel and Judaism can triumph over imperial occupation and stymie the systematic annihilation of their civilization, and in this combative spirit, the author denigrates the cultures of Israel’s enemies as inferior to his own. He accomplish-

 The Book of Tobit was composed around 200 BCE, and Judith around 100 BCE. For the date of Tobit, see Fitzmyer, Tobit, 51– 52; Toloni, L’Originale, 153– 57. Most scholars place Judith somewhere in the Maccabean period. For a summary of scholarship and the many difficulties in dating the Book of Judith, see Gera, Judith, 26 – 44; Otzen, Tobit, 132– 34. Among the various folktales that may have influenced the Book of Tobit are The Fable of the Grateful Dead, The Monster in the Bridal Chamber, and The Tale of Ahiqar. See Fitzmyer, Tobit, 37– 40.  Gera, Judith, 26.  Ibid., 27.  Otzen, Tobit, 91.  Ibid., 90 – 92; cf. Haag, Studien, 78; Zenger, Buch, 438.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

131

es this aim via the story’s heroine. As a humble widow who dares to oppose a formidable enemy, Judith personifies Israel’s struggle for survival against aggressive gentile machinations. She not only decapitates the leader of the Mesopotamian army but symbolically embodies the best attributes of their chief goddess while supplanting her at the same time. She subsumes the strongest, most potent qualities of Inanna yet transcends them, transforming the figure of the femme fatale from one of rapacity and selfishness to one of virtue and self-sacrificing love for her people.

Key Texts from the Inanna Tradition There is little doubt that the author of Judith, like any literate person living in the ancient Near East, knew of the goddess Inanna. The Sumerian deity and her Akkadian version Ishtar “were the most revered and popular goddesses of ancient Mesopotamia.”¹⁸ Renowned throughout many lands, Inanna/Ishtar was also venerated over many centuries, and she “is the one and only deity whose worship is known from the dawn of Babylonian civilization.”¹⁹ The material culture that survives from antiquity depicts Ishtar as “a warrior goddess, often winged and often naked. In this way she shows her combined functions of war and fertility.”²⁰ She entices men with her beauteous appearance, and she enables them to prosper in battle, frequently slaying their enemies for them. Through her great might, she serves as the primary “source of the king’s power” and unites herself to the monarch in a sexual alliance commonly referred to as the hieros gamos. ²¹ She accompanies the king into battle from time to time, but regardless of her direct military involvement, Ishtar is the one to “bestow sovereignty” upon him and “stabilize the king’s power.”²² Few can rival her in strength and influence, whether on earth or in heaven. Ishtar is shrewd and cunning and uses her beauty and deceitful tongue to conquer her opponents. Judith displays many of these same traits, albeit modified in order to enhance her power while preserving her virtue. To elucidate the many comparable aspects of their characters, I will summarize key texts from the Inanna/Ishtar tradition, highlighting the salient features and actions of the goddess that correspond to those of Judith. After surveying this literature, I will conclude with     

Westenholz, “Inanna,” 332. Ibid., 333. “Ishtar,” 165. Moon, “Inanna,” 74. Groneberg, “Role,” 322.

132

Geoffrey David Miller

some observations about the similarities between the two female characters and then expound on their exegetical significance.

The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi One of the most famous texts of the Inanna myth describes her amorous yet tragic relationship with her lover, Dumuzi, the shepherd and king of Uruk. Inanna is initially uninterested in Dumuzi, but this does not deter him from trying to woo her with great earnest. His overtures to her reveal his obsessive infatuation with her and the lust that consumes him, and he desperately seeks to consummate a relationship with her. She tantalizes him for several stanzas, playing hard to get, until she finally submits to his courting. Inanna readies herself at home in preparation for their tryst. She bathes herself, anoints herself with oil, dresses in her finest clothing, and bedecks herself with jewelry before allowing Dumuzi inside to see her. Her preening yields marvelous results, for she looks radiant, and Dumuzi beholds her beauty with great joy. As a token of hospitality, he offers her milk to drink, though it is unclear if she partakes of it. For the remainder of the poem, the two shower one another with flirtatious praise, extolling the greatness of one another, although their union does not lead to a blissful coexistence. Another text (Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld) reveals the ultimate outcome of their coupling: Inanna brings about the untimely death of her lover, who is seized from his luxurious palace and taken to the underworld.²³ Judith behaves similarly toward Holofernes. Before entering the Assyrian camp, she bathes herself, anoints herself with ointment, dresses in festive attire, and puts on various pieces of jewelry in order to entice him (Jdt 10:3 – 4).²⁴ When meeting Holofernes, she plays coy with him at first, displaying no romantic interest in him, yet he becomes enamored with her right away (12:16). The Assyrian general bides his time until he can satisfy his lustful desire, and he hosts her lavishly with food and beverage (12:1, 10 – 20). Judith lauds Holofernes with praise (11:5 – 8), which he reciprocates (11:23), and she leads him to believe that the two will consummate a relationship together. Unbeknownst to him, however, their encounter will result in his untimely end. She decapitates Holofernes in the mid-

 Unless otherwise noted, all Sumerian texts cited here are from the Electronic Texts Corpus of Sumerian Literature from the University of Oxford (ETCSL), available online: http://etcsl.orinst. ox.ac.uk.  Gera, Judith, 328 – 29.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

133

dle of the night, leaving him dead amid the extravagant appurtenances of his majestic domicile (13:8 – 10).

Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld In another famous text, Inanna descends to the netherworld to seize the powers contained therein. After obtaining numerous heavenly powers, Inanna seeks to aggrandize her might by taking those below, traveling to an unfamiliar and hostile place to do so. She first clothes herself in fine dress, puts on eye makeup and a wig, and adorns herself with many pieces of jewelry. Prior to her departure, Inanna concocts a plan to insure that she will not be trapped in the underworld but will be able to escape victorious. For the journey, she also brings along her servant Ninšubur, who plays a vital role in her ruse. When Inanna arrives at the gate of the netherworld, she requests admittance inside, giving half-truths to the guard to procure entrance. She claims she has come to visit her sister Ereshkigal (true) and to witness the funeral of her sister’s husband Guglanna (false). Her real objective is to get close to her sister, who rules the underworld, and fleece her of her powers. Inanna gains admittance through each level of the underworld but is forced to strip off items of clothing and jewelry each time, leaving her vulnerable. In her weakened state, Inanna is apprehended by her mistrusting sister and killed, but because of Inanna’s preconceived plan, the goddess is rescued from death. Her servant Ninšubur coaxes one of the gods, Enki, to send the gala-tura and the kur-ĝara—two creatures fashioned from the dirt under Enki’s fingernails—to come to Inanna’s aid. They appear before Ereshkigal and deceive her into thinking they will cure a malady she has suddenly become afflicted with, gaining permission to have Inanna’s body in return. The two do not heal Ereshkigal, however, but revivify Inanna’s corpse instead, enabling her to escape the netherworld miraculously and to take her sister’s powers back with her to heaven. The story of Judith follows a similar pattern. The heroine leaves the comfort of her home and embarks on a dangerous journey to an unfamiliar and hostile environment. She brings along her servant to assist her, who tacitly complies with Judith’s scheme. Before departing, Judith arms herself with nothing but a beautiful appearance, donning elaborate jewelry, dressing in cheerful apparel, and arranging her hair to make herself look attractive (Jdt 10:3 – 4). She also devises a plan to insure her own safety and guarantee that she will accomplish her objectives, though she does not reveal that plan to anyone. Judith then continues her descent downward to steal her enemy’s power. In chaps. 10 and 11, Judith “moves from the roof of her house down to the house

134

Geoffrey David Miller

itself…. Next she passes through the city gates, moves down from the mountain and over the plain into the enemy camp.”²⁵ Just as Inanna descended from the heights of heaven to the depths of the underworld, Judith goes down from the highest point in her home to the lowest elevation in the Bethulian plain. The author emphasizes these downward movements by thrice repeating the verb καταβαίνω (10:2, 10, 15) and by mentioning Judith’s presence in the “valley” (αὐλών) or “ravine” (φάραγξ) four times (10:10, 11; 11:17; 12:7; see also 14:2; 15:2). Moreover, “these movements are not merely physical, for she is crossing a series of conceptual boundaries as well as actual ones, when she leaves her protective roof, home and city and walks into the epicenter of danger, the enemy’s lair.”²⁶ Judith passes through various levels of descent, much as Inanna traversed multiple levels of the underworld. She reaches the Assyrian camp (10:11– 17), is ushered to the place just outside Holofernes’s tent (10:18), is led into the antechamber of the tent (10:20 – 23), then brought to the dining area (12:1), and then finally makes her way into the bedchamber (13:1– 9). Like Inanna, Judith requests to see the person in charge upon her arrival and is promised a safe audience with the leader before passing through the various levels (10:15 – 16). In the innermost sanctum of enemy territory, she confronts a powerful nemesis and finds herself hemmed in by enemy forces. All indications are that Judith is trapped, but she surprises everyone by tricking her opponent and rendering him powerless. Absconding with the general’s head—and thus stealing the Assyrians’ power—Judith ascends back up through the various levels until she arrives home (13:10 – 11). Deception and a clever tongue also enable Judith to succeed. She never explicitly consents to a sexual relationship with Holofernes, but their interactions are narrated with “intense undertones of eroticism.”²⁷ Chaste as she is, Judith wants the Assyrian men—and their commander in particular—to lust after her and to think they can enjoy her carnally, although she has other plans in mind. Judith even allows Holofernes to throw an elaborate banquet to woo her and leave himself exposed in his own bedchamber just so she can have him all to herself. She also uses half-truths to secure an audience with the general. Enraptured by her beauty, the Assyrian soldiers might easily seize her and rape her, finding little use for the Bethulian woman otherwise, yet Judith tricks them into thinking she can help them prevail against her people with little effort (10:12– 13). Furthermore, when she is escorted to Holofernes’s tent, she utters

 Ibid., 30.  Ibid.  Otzen, Tobit, 109.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

135

many half-truths to gain his favor. She assures him, “My lord will not fail to achieve his designs” (11:6), but she uses the word “lord” ambiguously. Holofernes assumes the honorific title refers to him, “while in point of fact, Judith really meant that, thanks to Holofernes, her God would accomplish a marvelous thing for her people.”²⁸ She employs the same double entendre in the previous verse when promising to “say nothing false to my lord this night” (11:5), convincing Holofernes of one thing when she really means another. Her words are so cleverly selected and so riddled with ambiguity that, “of the fifteen verses of her speech, only one of them contains unequivocal truth.”²⁹

Inanna and Enki Inanna deceives and overpowers another powerful deity in the story of Inanna and Enki. Whereas Enki comes to Inanna’s aid in the netherworld, he is normally her chief adversary. The poem begins with Inanna at home devising a ploy to pilfer the me—the cultural norms (or powers) of Sumerian civilization—from her rival Enki. An attractive appearance is part of her stratagem, for she puts on her crown and then spends several lines describing how beautiful and glorious she is. She resolves to travel to Enki’s quarters and “speak coaxingly” to him, and her reference to his sexual experiences indicates that her plan involves erotic enticement. When Inanna arrives at his abode, Enki instructs his servant Isimud to allow her in and to offer her butter-cake and refreshing water. Enki also commands that beer be brought out for the both of them, for he plans to hold a competition to see who can imbibe the most. Enki assumes he will be the victor, allowing him to have his way with the inebriated Inanna, but it is actually she who bests him. The text is fragmentary at this point, but it seems that Enki loses “control through drunken frivolity.”³⁰ Inanna then either tricks him into surrendering the me or swindles them while he is too drunk to stop her.³¹ Having acquired what she came for, Inanna departs with the norms and heads for the land of Uruk. Once Enki sobers up, he sends his servant Isimud after her to retrieve the me, although he fails to catch her (ETCSL 1.3.1). By the end of the tale, Inanna

 Moore, Judith, 209.  Ibid., 212. Italics are Moore’s. The only true statement occurs in v. 9, recounting Achior’s arrival in Bethulia.  Wolkstein, “Interpretations,” 148.  Samuel Noah Kramer, who discovered a key fragment of the text, prefers the former option (Mythology, 66).

136

Geoffrey David Miller

safely arrives at the city of Uruk, received with “jubilation and feasting on the part of its delighted inhabitants.”³² The parallels with the story of Judith are unmistakable. A beautiful woman prepares herself at home for an amorous encounter with a powerful adversary. Integral to the heroine’s success are her beauty, deceptive tongue, and furtive behavior. She travels to the dwelling of her opponent and is permitted entrance by his servant, feted with a sumptuous meal where alcohol flows freely. Ironically, the male opponent’s ploy backfires and enables the heroine to gain the upper hand. Intoxicated by his own libations, he is taken advantage of by the heroine, who snatches his powers and escapes undetected. The heist is eventually discovered, and an emissary is dispatched to nab the heroine and avenge the crime. She eludes his grasp, however, returning home where the exuberant citizens of Bethulia laud her with great ceremony.

Hymnody Inanna’s exploits gained her great renown in the Mesopotamian pantheon, and the Sumerian people lauded her with multiple songs of praise. The Iddin-Dagān Hymns represent some of the many encomiastic odes composed in her honor. The songs display a variety of themes, but all emphasize how “Inanna is in constant relationship with her people.”³³ As one of the chief deities of the Sumerians, she is also the patron of the city of Uruk, which erected a vast temple complex to worship her. The survival and wellbeing of the Sumerian people rests on her, and they offer her supplication so that she will continue to show them favor. Several of the hymns extol Inanna’s awesome power and her military prowess, whom “no one can withstand in battle” (ETCSL 4.07.05). She subdues all foreign nations and “brings about the destruction of the mountain lands from east to west” (ETCSL 4.07.03). In fact, mountains are mentioned in nearly every song, symbolizing her great majesty. The last of these hymns describes a sacred marriage ritual between Inanna and the king of Isin. The people beckon the goddess to participate because the union of goddess and monarch will result in great fertility for the land. The ritual begins at sunset, “climaxing in a dawn ceremony and concluding with a joyous morning celebration.”³⁴ Jubilant at the prospect of new life and plentiful crops,

 Kramer, Mythology, 68.  Wolkstein, “Interpretations,” 173.  Westenholz, “Inanna,” 341.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

137

the people assemble in a “carnival-like procession,” and they parade joyously together while “playing musical instruments.”³⁵ The Book of Judith also contains two hymns at the end of the story: a short song praising Judith for saving the Bethulians (Jdt 15:9 – 10) and a longer poem sung by the heroine praising both God and herself (16:1– 17). Each hymn stresses Judith’s glory and her connection to her people. She is “the great pride of Israel” and “the great boast of her nation” (15:9). The Assyrian enemy threatened “from the mountains of the north” (16:3),³⁶ but Judith vanquished them singlehandedly (16:6). By her valiant deed, her people were spared, and Judith stresses the Bethulians’ dependence on her and her pre-eminence among them by referring to them as “my youths,” “my infants,” “my children,” “my virgins” (16:4), “my lowly ones,” “my weak ones” (16:11), and “my people” (16:17). Normally a reclusive widow disinterested in the public sphere (8:4– 5; 16:21), Judith “looms larger than life”³⁷ when her people are threatened, proudly serving as the protector of her nation. In many ways, Judith functions as a patron of Bethulia, much as Inanna does for the city of Uruk. Gera goes so far to say that Judith “symbolizes her imperiled city and people. She is Bethulia—or even Israel—incarnate, so to speak.”³⁸ This repetition of my youths, infants, children, and so forth also hints at the symbolic fertility and maternal love of Judith, who cares for her people as the Mother of Israel.³⁹ Having born no children of her own (16:24), Judith shows her maternal, life-giving love by forestalling the Assyrian threat. She preserves the Bethulians from certain death and gives “spiritual and political life to her people” in the process.⁴⁰ The townswomen, grateful for her heroic deed, gather together and perform a dance in Judith’s honor (15:12). Judith has saved her people over the course of the night (13:1– 10) and brought them victory at daybreak (14:11– 15:7). In this morning celebration, Judith guides the dancing women into a procession (15:13), leading them in songs of thanksgiving and enjoining them to take up tambourines and cymbals in musical accompaniment (16:1).

 Ibid.  Mountains are repeated again later in the hymn (Jdt 16:15).  Moore, Judith, 78.  Gera, Judith, 99. See, however, Levine, “Sacrifice,” 18, who contends that Judith “can only incompletely represent Israel. The community is historically active; women per se are not. Judith is both part of and apart from her people.”  Harrington, Invitation, 41; Williams, Women, 78.  Moore, Judith, 80.

138

Geoffrey David Miller

Judith and Inanna Compared The parallels between these texts and the Book of Judith are manifold, and still other elements from the Inanna tradition found their way into Judith’s story. Before examining the significance of these parallels, it would be helpful to distill the overall image of the goddess that emerges from these myths and hymns, allowing for a more facile comparison of the two characters. Pulchritude and sexual allure are Inanna’s most fundamental attributes. The hymns frequently remark on her radiance, for she is “wrapped in beauty” and personified “as the hi-li (the embodiment of sex-appeal).”⁴¹ Dumuzi gushes with effusive praise for her lovely figure, and like most other male characters in the Inanna myths, he is spellbound by her and desperately wants to be with her. Judith has the same effect on men. The male characters, especially the Assyrians, frequently comment on Judith’s gorgeous appearance. Her beauty is one of the first qualities mentioned by the narrator (Jdt 8:7) and is repeated multiple times throughout the narrative (10:7, 14, 19, 23; 11:21, 23; 13:16). After bathing and dressing in her finest clothing and jewelry, she presents herself to the elders of Bethulia and then to the Assyrians, and the initial reaction of both groups is astonishment at her beauty (10:7, 14, 19, 23). No man can have these women, however, for both Inanna and Judith are fiercely independent and free of male control. Inanna weeps bitterly for the loss of her lover Dumuzi (Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld), just as Judith mourns the loss of her husband Manasseh, grieving for him for more than three years (Jdt 8:4– 6). But neither will wed again, even though each will receive many suitors (16:22). In a patriarchal society, women are expected to marry and find financial support and protection from men, but both characters eschew these constraints. Judith manages her estate without any male supervision (8:8) and rejects multiple opportunities to remarry. Her chastity is not only a sign of virtue but “of independence. She is without protector… [and] she does not need any.”⁴² Inanna tries to attract other loves after Dumuzi, but she does not seek a permanent relationship. She merely intends to use men for her own ends and often tries to filch their powers (e. g. Inanna and Enki). Any man who presumes to have authority over these mighty women or seeks to tame them quickly finds himself in the subordinate position. Enki expects to defeat Inanna in a drinking contest but underestimates the goddess’s tolerance of alcohol, waking from his drunken stupor to learn that she has robbed him of  Leick, Sex, 59, 101.  Lacocque, Unconventional, 39.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

139

the me. Judith, meanwhile, defers to no man, especially those who think they wield authority over her. The elders of Bethulia act as if they exercise control over the city and its inhabitants, but Judith orders them to appear before her and lectures them on their ill-advised war strategy and impious behavior (8:10 – 27). They remain behind in the besieged city, cowering in fear, while Judith liberates her people without any male assistance. She exerts control over men, not the other way around. The Assyrians’ haughtiness is even more egregious, supposing that all people should submit to them and regarding Judith as a mere object of their sexual pleasure, yet this lone woman proves too powerful for a vast empire to subdue. War is also the arena in which both women excel. Inanna is the goddess of fertility and warfare, and as noted above, she empowers kings by granting them victory in battle. The hymns describe the dread that consumes all inhabitants of heaven and earth and the ease with which she crushes her opponents (e. g. ETCSL 4.07.3). The Great Prayer to Ishtar likewise associates Inanna with war,⁴³ and the poem Nin-me-šar-ra warns how the goddess “leads away the troops into captivity, fills the rivers with blood,” and is “destructive of rebel lands and their people… and triumphant in war.”⁴⁴ The same is true of Judith, whose defining achievement is her surreptitious overthrow of the Assyrian army. Prior to the event, she enjoyed great esteem in the community, especially for her beauty, wisdom, and virtue. Yet she rarely acted in the public sphere, preferring instead to live a quiet, retiring life on her estate. The singular deed that all future generations will remember her for is her defeat of a seemingly invincible empire. Both she and her fellow citizens compose hymns commemorating the event, and her salvific actions give her widespread fame throughout the country (Jdt 16:21– 23). Whenever future generations hear the name Judith, they will remember her as a war hero. Beauty enables both women to succeed in their endeavors, but equally important is their shrewd intellect. Inanna is an exceptionally crafty deity who outwits her opponents on numerous occasions, vying with Enki as the greatest trickster of the Mesopotamian pantheon. She is “wise and sage” (ETCSL 4.07.2), and even her own sister cannot trust her, forcing her to strip off every layer of clothing before meeting her face to face. Judith is similarly lauded for her intellectual gifts, and the most powerful men of her generation marvel at her wisdom (Jdt 8:29; 11:20). Her speech to the elders of Bethulia shows her to be a gifted orator,

 Westenholz, “Inanna,” 344.  Quoted in Leick, Sex, 59.

140

Geoffrey David Miller

civic leader, “theologian, and hermeneut,”⁴⁵ and she has a keen insight into God’s will, correctly predicting that he will save the Israelites by Judith’s hand (8:33).⁴⁶ While among the Assyrians, she knows how to manipulate Holofernes, showering him and his king with flattery (11:6 – 8) and piquing his erotic desires so that he will leave himself vulnerable to attack. Furthermore, Judith is able to defeat the villain because of his intemperate consumption of alcohol. He offers her a drink and hopes to take advantage of her, although the opposite occurs. So too with Inanna, whom Enki thinks he can gain the upper hand over through a drinking competition, when in point of fact it is he who succumbs to alcohol and enables her to take advantage of him. In their devious interactions with men, both women show themselves untrustworthy and cagily secretive. Judith boldly asserts that she and her maid will cross over into enemy territory and secure Bethulia’s freedom within five days, and she tells the city elders, “You must not inquire into the affair, for I will not tell you what I am doing until it has been accomplished” (Jdt 8:34). During her five-day sojourn in the Assyrian camp, she feeds the soldiers misinformation at every turn, and her crowning achievement is accomplished under the cloak of darkness while all are asleep. Inanna likewise prefers to be clandestine about her objectives and to catch her opponents off guard. She conceals her true designs from her own sister and dupes Ereshkigal in the dark recesses of the netherworld, and she takes advantage of Enki while he is too weakened to defend himself. In a brief encounter with Gilgamesh, she pretends to woo the handsome hero, promising him power, riches, and fertile livestock if he will take her as his wife. Gilgamesh resists her charm and points out that she has had many paramours in the past, all of whom have suffered at her hands, and he refuses to be another victim. Her dejection and her determination to get revenge against Gilgamesh reveal her true, malicious intent.⁴⁷ Gilgamesh’s mistrust of the goddess is warranted, for she lies and deceives in virtually every story in which she appears. She is feared among gods and men not only for her skills in warfare but for her ability to outsmart them with great facility. Deception is more than just a clever tactic for Inanna; it is a compulsion. Judith, however, does not instill such fear in others at first, although she should. The lighthearted comment by the Assyrian sentinels that “it is not good to keep one of [the Israelites] alive, for if any were to be spared they could beguile the whole earth” (8:19) is ironically true; the beauty of Judith is just that potent,  Craven, “Tradition,” 55.  On the intellectual prowess of Judith, especially as perceived by the male characters in the story, see Egger-Wenzel, “Klugheit,” 65 – 94.  Epic of Gilgamesh VI ii – iii (Standard Babylonian Version) in Dalley, Myths, 78 – 79.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

141

as the Assyrians eventually discover. Moreover, Judith presents herself as a compulsive liar while in the midst of her enemy, lying excessively to Holofernes in their first encounter. Her attempt to curry favor with Holofernes by praising him lavishly is understandable, but there is less warrant for extolling Nebuchadnezzar, the Assyrian king who resides hundreds of miles away. Perhaps she is taking extra precaution here, but Judith’s beauty, her promise to betray her people, and her flattering of Holofernes are sufficient to beguile him; there is little need to glorify an absent potentate, and there is no need to devote fifty-three Greek words to do so (11:7). There is also no need to convince Holofernes that the Israelites have sinned, nor is there reason to go into such detail about their sinning (11:12– 14). She tells him about the consumption of unclean animals, the inappropriate use of tithes, the correspondence between the elders and the priests, and so on—all of which are untrue. Holofernes is unconcerned with the Bethulians’ religious beliefs and iniquities; he assumes they will fall to Assyria because they are severely outmatched. Judith also gives a false pretense for her nightly prayers, namely to learn from her God when Israel has committed its crimes. The implication is that the Bethulians would be left unprotected by their God and easily overcome, yet again, such matters are irrelevant to Holofernes. He has already declared that there is no god besides Nebuchadnezzar and that Yahweh will not be able to save the Israelites (6:2). In short, Judith comes across in this scene as a “bold-faced liar.”⁴⁸ One or two lies are adequate to achieve her goals, yet Judith cannot seem to help herself, prevaricating repeatedly just for the sport of it.⁴⁹ Deceptive, beautiful, and successful in war, Inanna and Judith are paradoxical figures. Both are thoroughly feminine, yet both succeed in traditionally male spheres of activity. Inanna is unstoppable on the battlefield, and men cringe before her. In the myths and hymns dedicated to her, Inanna is typically presented as a gorgeous woman, but in cult and worship, she is sometimes portrayed with masculine features. According to Westenholz, “she could be viewed as a beautiful goddess of love who rules the day and as a bearded god(dess) of war who rules the night.” In one of these hymns, Inanna exclaims, “When I sit in the alehouse, I am a woman, and I am an exuberant young man” (ETCSL 4.07.9). Astrological texts of the first and third millennia depict Inanna and Ishtar as having beards, and the androgyny of these deities was reflected in the “transgendered and transvestite cultic personnel” who served them.⁵⁰

 Moore, Judith, 61.  See also Day, “Faith,” 73.  Westenholz, “Inanna,” 333, 345.

142

Geoffrey David Miller

Judith is also an enigmatic figure, yet her androgyny is less overt. She is beautiful and deeply devoted to her husband but refuses to be domesticated or confined to traditionally feminine roles. She does as she pleases, entering and exiting the male sphere as she deems fit. When her people are afflicted with a crisis, she sets aside the garments of her widowhood for more alluring attire, playing on the lustful desires of any man she encounters and willing to seduce those she intends to manipulate. Deeply feminine in appearance, however, Judith’s behavior crosses gender boundaries. Times of war summon the men to the battlefield and force the women indoors, yet “rather than being passive in accordance with gender stereotypes, Judith is in fact the active warrior when the male leaders of the city are overcome with fear.”⁵¹ As noted above, Judith is the master rhetorician, civic leader, and theologian—roles typically reserved for men—and the male leaders defer to her judgment.⁵² Even her genealogy in 8:1 cuts against the grain of social convention, for “in the Hebrew Bible it is ordinarily the husband, rather than his wife, who boasts of a genealogical line.”⁵³ The narrator mentions Judith’s lineage but not her husband’s, and he subordinates Manasseh to his wife by “explicitly mention[ing] that Manasseh belonged to her tribe and her family.”⁵⁴ Over the course of the story, readers encounter “a series of Judiths and these different Judiths are not easily reconciled.”⁵⁵ Judith is no ordinary woman but “transcends the male/female dichotomy,”⁵⁶ and after displaying many masculine traits, Judith returns to a domesticated life removed from the public sphere. By thwarting the Assyrian threat, she has an opportunity to play an even greater role in the leadership of Bethulia, perhaps like Deborah once did (Judges 4– 5), but her foray into the masculine realm ends abruptly, and she returns home to a life of seclusion. Elusive and unpredictable, Judith refuses to situate herself in the categories of male or female but chooses instead to “go her ‘own’ way.” ⁵⁷ One final similarity between the two women is their association with mountains. Virtually all the hymns and most of the myths about Inanna include mountains. The goddess is “supreme over the mountains” (ETCSL 4.07.3) and “stride[s]

 Corley, “Judith,” 74.  As Levine (“Sacrifice,” 21) astutely observes, “Judith must correct [Uzziah’s] naïve theology,” and he quickly acknowledges, “All that you have said you have spoken truthfully, and no one can deny your words” (Jdt 8:28).  Moore, Judith, 180.  Di Lella, “Women,” 51. Italics are Di Lella’s.  Gera, Judith, 98.  Montley, “Judith,” 40.  Hellmann, Judit, 71.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

143

all the mountains” (ETCSL 4.07.4). She descends to the realm of the dead in Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld from a mountain in the west, and she “frequently travels to the kur, the mountain lands around the Mesopotamian plain” (e. g., in Inanna and Shukaletuda, ETCSL 1.3.3).⁵⁸ Inanna is linked to the mountain range on the northeastern border of Sumer, and in the fourth millennium, she is periodically referred to as Inanna-kur (“Inanna, the mountain”).⁵⁹ Judith is also a woman of the mountains, descending from the mountainous region of Bethulia to dispel an Assyrian attack and then returning to her lofty abode to spend the remainder of her days. The narrator highlights mountains frequently throughout the book, mentioning them nineteen times altogether.⁶⁰

Type and Strength of Intertextual Connections In many and various ways, the figure of Judith resembles the Mesopotamian goddess Inanna, but determining how to construe the similarities between them is no easy task. Intertextuality has become an increasingly popular object of study in the past half century, but that popularity has not led to a consensus on how to make sense of connections between and among texts. In biblical studies, a bifurcated approach has been employed: one more synchronic and readeroriented, and the other more diachronic and author-oriented.⁶¹ Those belonging to the first camp would likely acknowledge the parallels between Judith and Inanna outlined here but leave the explication of these parallels up to the interpreter. Scholars of the second camp would seek to prove that the author of Judith deliberately borrowed elements from the Inanna tradition in shaping his story and then try to elucidate the hermeneutical significance of that borrowing. The present essay adopts the latter approach, aiming to show that the author of Judith wanted readers to recognize the similarities between the two women and to interpret the heroine of his story in light of those similarities. In demonstrating the literary dependence of Judith on the Inanna tradition and its significance, I will draw on the informative work of Benjamin Sommer and Dennis MacDonald.

 Westenholz, “Inanna,” 335. See also A Maidenly Inanna (Jacobsen, “Inanna,” 67) where Inanna sings to her brother Utu and talks about joining him in the highlands.  Westenholz, “Inanna,” 335.  Jdt 1:15; 2:21; 4:5; 5:1; 6:4, 12 [bis], 13 [bis]; 7:4, 10 [bis], 12– 13; 10:10; 13:10; 14:11; 16:3, 15.  For a summary of the diverse ways in which biblical scholars have studied intertextuality, see Tull, “Intertextuality,” 59 – 90; Miller, “Intertextuality,” 283 – 309.

144

Geoffrey David Miller

The intertextual connections between Judith and Inanna are best classified under the category of implicit allusion, or as Sommer prefers, “implicit reference.”⁶² The book of Judith never explicitly cites a story or hymn from the Inanna tradition nor mentions the goddess by name, and it does not make any direct allusions to those texts either. Instead, the author connects the two figures more subtlely, embedding “markers”⁶³ throughout his tale by means of common plot elements and shared characteristics. Whereas explicit citation of an Inanna text would make the association more evident, implicit allusion is the most common form of intertextuality employed by Old Testament authors, drawing readers more intimately into the study of intertextuality and requiring them to probe the alluding text more deeply while appreciating the artistry involved. The implicit allusions between Judith and Inanna are primarily content-driven rather than lexical or structural. Lexical parallels would be difficult in this case since a Greek text (Judith) cannot easily borrow vocabulary or terminology from writings composed in Sumerian or Akkadian (Inanna). Structural parallels are also hard to prove here since the story of Judith does not closely adhere to the plot of a single Inanna myth but imitates several of them. Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld and Inanna and Enki come closest. In conjunction with the former tale, Judith 1) adorns herself, 2) descends from her residence and travels down a mountain, 3) traverses through multiple levels until she reaches the inner chamber of her enemy’s domain, 4) appears doomed but deftly tricks her nemesis, 5) absconds with the source of his power, and 6) returns home victorious. With respect to the second story, Judith 1) adorns herself at home, 2) arrives at the residence of her opponent, 3) is led in by her opponent’s servant and offered food and drink, 4) engages her opponent in conversation, who commands that alcohol be served, 5) gains the upper hand against her opponent after he has become intoxicated by his own drink, 6) steals the source of his power while he is asleep and escapes unnoticed, and 7) eludes the search party sent to capture her. The author of Judith may well have patterned the structure of his story after one or both of these texts, but more compelling than the sequence of parallels is the number of parallels, that is, the shared content between Judith and texts from the Inanna tradition. The author of Judith borrowed multiple elements from these myths and hymns, especially in terms of theme, plot, and characterization. His tale involves deception, lust, power, and the unexpected demise of a powerful adversary. Alcohol and mountains feature prominently in the story, and a strong feminist undercurrent runs throughout yet without supplanting mascu-

 Sommer, Prophet, 21.  The term was coined by Ben-Porat, “Poetics,” 108.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

145

linity but rather encompassing it. Patriarchy is greatly challenged in the book but never completely subverted,⁶⁴ and the heroine embraces masculine roles and traits without abandoning her femininity. Like Inanna, Judith entices men with her feminine charm and breathtaking beauty, amplified by cosmetic adornments and resplendent raiment, yet she is peculiarly androgynous, displaying masculine characteristics and succeeding in traditionally masculine endeavors. In an age when men are normally the protagonist and women relegated to secondary roles, the Book of Judith and the myths and hymns dedicated to Inanna reverse the trend, placing the men in a subordinate position to a lone female. She succeeds in war and politics, while males accede to her will. She is an indomitable woman who will stop at nothing to achieve her goals, nor could anyone stop her if they tried. In usurping the power of presumptuous males, the heroine orchestrates a surprising defeat not only against a formidable foe but against societal norms. She is linked with the sacred and holy yet deceives, seduces, and manipulates with impunity and apparently without compunction. She allows herself to be vulnerable before her adversaries but refuses to play the damsel in distress, finding her own way out of the dangerous predicaments she puts herself in. The heroine takes full advantage of the element of surprise, and disarms her opponents with great facility. Successful in roles both feminine and masculine, she is an unstoppable force, and the proper response to her grandeur is to laud her with praise and melodious hymns. Adducing numerous parallels between two or more texts is an essential component of intertextual study, though it is not the only one. Scholars employing the author-oriented approach seek to show that one text borrowed from another, and to do so convincingly, they must apply stringent criteria to the texts involved, proving that the parallels are not coincidental similarities but reflect genuine literary dependence. To this end, Dennis MacDonald has outlined six criteria for identifying intentional borrowing or “mimesis.”⁶⁵ I will apply four of those criteria here while adding one of my own. The first factor to be considered is the relative dating of texts. Pinpointing exactly when an ancient text was composed is often difficult—and sometimes purely speculative—but a diachronic approach to intertextuality requires that one text be demonstrably older than the alluding text. The book of Judith was likely written in the second century BCE, long after the myths and hymns to Inanna were produced in the fourth to early first millennia BCE.

 Some feminist scholars (e. g., Milne, “Judith,” 37– 58) allege that the Book of Judith merely reinforces patriarchy.  MacDonald, Mimesis, 2– 3.

146

Geoffrey David Miller

The second criterion focuses on the accessibility of the precursor text to the author of the alluding text. In other words, the distribution of the older text(s) was widespread enough to insure that the author of the later text had access to it. This distribution could be understood physically, meaning that hard copies of these written texts were in circulation in the time and geographical locale of the later author, but that same dissemination could happen via oral tradition as well. Even if the author of Judith had limited access to written texts, he was certainly aware of biblical and non-biblical sources that were widely known in his day. The immense popularity of the Inanna/Ishtar cult in Mesopotamia, described above, suggests he was likely familiar with stories about the goddess, as a large number of educated denizens of the ancient Near East would have been. The third criterion, density, “assesses the volume of parallels between two texts.”⁶⁶ A couple of similarities between two or more texts could be the result of conscious borrowing, but the likelihood increases substantially when there is a high number or density of parallels between them. As enumerated above, Judith and Inanna have more than a casual resemblance but share multiple things in common. The author of the former cannot assume his readership will catch the resemblance with one or two allusions and so weaves many into his story to make the connection more apparent. The fourth criterion, order, is synonymous with structure. When two texts share the same elements in the same order or sequence, the case for literary dependence strengthens significantly. As explained earlier, the author of Judith may have adopted the structure of one or two myths regarding Inanna, but his scope was not confined to these alone; rather, he was also interested in how the goddess was conceived in Mesopotamian culture generally. He wanted to make connections that readers of the book of Judith could readily grasp without having to know the minute details and vagaries of Sumerian and Babylonian literature. Hence, he devoted his attention to Inanna’s most salient characteristics and to chief plot elements from her stories. The fifth criterion focuses on distinctive traits. The parallels in question do not entail ordinary things but pertain to unique aspects of the texts. For example, the act of deceiving a more powerful opponent does not in itself suggest literary dependence since the trickster motif is well attested in the biblical corpus as well as in non-biblical texts.⁶⁷ To arrest readers’ attention, more prominent markers are necessary, and so the author incorporates conspicuous elements from earlier texts in his own—the more unusual, the better. That is not to say

 Ibid., 2.  See the seminal study by Niditch, Underdogs.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

147

that parallels about more typical matters have no place in an alluding text, but at least some of them must stand out to warrant notice. The book of Judith contains a few items of the former variety: a beautiful woman, lustful men, the immoderate consumption of alcohol, and the surprise upset of an enemy. Other similarities with the Inanna tradition, however, are more distinctive. Among all the women of the Bible, no one plays such a dominant role within a book as Judith does. Ruth and Esther are central characters in their stories but play more passive roles by comparison and are arguably secondary characters. Mordecai gives frequent instructions to his niece Esther so she can influence King Ahasuerus properly, and Ruth allows herself to be guided by her motherin-law Naomi and then, having mentioned to Boaz her need for a redeemer, recedes to the background while he arranges their marriage and handles the attendant legal matters. Judith, by contrast, “is exceptionally strong and self-reliant.”⁶⁸ She takes advice from no one but tells others what to do while she does as she pleases. With firm resolve, she rebukes her countrymen and tells them to stay put while she stifles the Assyrian threat. From ch. 8 onward, Judith makes herself the center of attention, summoning the elders to come to her home and listen to her counsel, praying to God for an entire chapter, beautifying herself to attract male attention, making herself the focal point of all the Assyrian soldiers, directing the Bethulians’ war strategy after decapitating their enemy’s commander, and leading the post-war celebration in her honor. With the fearsome Holofernes slain and the mighty army of Nebuchadnezzar vanquished, Judith triumphs as “the strongest Hebrew hero in all of biblical literature,”⁶⁹ standing head and shoulders above all her peers, much as Inanna is feared among the gods of the Mesopotamian pantheon (e. g. ETCSL 4.07.4; 4.07.6). Judith also mimics Inanna by the manner in which she dispatches her opponent. Her staged descent to the lowest stratum and innermost chamber of her enemy’s camp, her lies and half-truths to gain an audience with her opponent, her use of deceit at the critical moment to usurp her enemy’s power, her beautification and seductive entrapment of men, her shrewdness to resist inebriation while her opponent succumbs to a drunken stupor, her secret escape before her enemy’s underlings begin their pursuit of her, her ascent back up to her home in the mountains—all these imitate the methods used by Inanna. One or two of these actions might correspond to those of other biblical heroes (e. g., David’s surprise attack through the water shaft in 2 Sam 5:6 – 12), but not in aggregate. Only Inanna behaves in this way.

 Gera, Judith, 101.  Bellis, Helpmates, 198.

148

Geoffrey David Miller

No other biblical hero defies gender stereotypes to the extent that Judith does either. Deborah and Jael also experience success in war but do not instruct the men of their community to stay home while they handle military affairs singlehandedly, as if war were her proper domain alone. Other women who venture into traditionally male realms do so in one or two aspects (e. g., Deborah or Athaliah as political leaders or Tobit’s grandmother as an expert in the law) but never on the scale that Judith does. All other women remain unequivocally feminine in their “masculine” endeavors, but Judith and Inanna straddle the boundary between male and female as counter-cultural androgynes. They are exceedingly beautiful women who are more successful in “male” activities than men are. And after the death of their first lover, they see no need for men except to further their goals. No other woman enjoys such freedom from conventional institutions or from male control, no other woman utters so many lies, and, despite so much questionable behavior, no other woman is celebrated with such elaborate hymnody.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale Judith’s character closely imitates the goddess Inanna yet surpasses her at the same time, illustrating what Sommer calls the “polemical” function of intertextuality. Biblical authors create links to earlier texts for a variety of reasons, such as extracting additional meaning from an earlier work or offering “an innovative variation of the older text’s ideas,” ⁷⁰ but frequently authors try to undermine earlier texts they find objectionable and to replace them with one that promotes a sounder theology. Ironically, the later author still depends on the earlier text to accomplish this goal, but this need is only transitory. In juxtaposing the old with the new, the later author evokes the earlier text in the mind of the audience but also enables them to see the discord between the old and the new. Readers will thereby see the deficiencies of the old text and opt instead for the views endorsed by the alluding text.⁷¹ The author of Judith alludes to the Inanna tradition in order to disparage it and displace it.⁷² The greatest enemy confronting the audience of the book of Ju-

 Sommer, Prophet, 27.  Ibid., 28 – 29.  Judith is not the only biblical book to do so. The Book of Esther likewise maligns Inanna/ Ishtar through allusion and transformation of the figure. The name of the heroine recalls the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, just as the name of her uncle Mordecai recalls the Babylonian

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

149

dith is not another military invasion but a cultural conquest. Assimilation to gentile culture threatens the survival of Judaism both home and abroad, and many Jewish texts from this era try to prevent its dissolution. Sirach 44– 50, for example, upholds the noble figures from Israel’s past as paragons worthy of emulation, greater than any Greek statesmen or philosophers, and the Book of Judith pursues the same agenda by means of its heroine. In alluding to the greatest femme fatale of ancient Near Eastern lore, the author of Judith fashions a character who not only rivals Inanna but supersedes her in strength and virtue. She is beautiful and sexually alluring but also sexually chaste—unlike gentiles and their deities, who are a lascivious lot. They defile innocent virgins, as the Shechemites ravaged Dinah (Genesis 34, cited in Jdt 9:2– 4), and their goddess Inanna is sexually promiscuous and vulgar, copulating with any male she can and graphically describing her genitalia to entice them.⁷³ Judith, meanwhile, wants men to think she will have sexual intercourse with them, yet she never goes through with the act. Her interactions with Holofernes are laden with “a lot of sexual innuendo,”⁷⁴ but she never lies down with him, never removes a single garment in his presence, and never broaches the subject of sexuality explicitly. Judith’s behavior tests the limits of moral rectitude, but she is nonetheless depicted as virtuous and law-abiding. She lies and kills but only to protect her people during time of war, and she seduces and deceives but only because she has little other recourse given the circumstances. Admittedly, she tells more lies than are necessary, and her seduction of men borders on the excessive at times, but no character in the story objects to her actions, nor does the narrator seem to disapprove. To the contrary, Judith conducts herself with great piety and probity, making sure “to keep the Law of God down to the last particular.”⁷⁵ She observes the dietary laws fastidiously while in the Assyrian camp (12:1– 4, 15 – 19), she fasts in mourning for her husband but never on Sabbaths or feast days (8:6), and she displays great devotion to the Lord in her lengthy prayer in chap. 9. Judith is a saintly woman admired by all, not a lecherous enchantress feared by many. Like Inanna, Judith is a woman of immense power, but she wields that power properly. In fact, Judith is more powerful than Inanna. The goddess achieves her objectives with great ease in most texts but not all. In Inanna’s Descent

god Marduk. Both biblical characters save their people from genocide through virtuous and selfless means, in contrast to the ruthless, self-serving machinations of Mesopotamian deities.  Leick (Sex, 90 – 96) provides a surfeit of examples where Inanna speaks about her genitalia to potential suitors.  Milne, “Judith,” 41.  Otzen, Tobit, 104.

150

Geoffrey David Miller

to the Netherworld, for example, she relies on the aid of Enki to deliver her from death, and her solicitation of the god by means of her servant Ninšubur is integral to her escape. In another text (A Maidenly Inanna), the goddess implores assistance from her brother, the god Utu, to liberate her from her captivity in an alehouse.⁷⁶ Judith, on the other hand, brings her maid with her to the Assyrian camp, but she does not rely on her servant to extricate herself from her predicament, nor is the maid’s presence necessary for her success. She only helps prepare Judith’s meals and carry the severed head back to Bethulia. Moreover, when Judith exerts her power and influence, it is never to pursue selfish designs but only to promote the wellbeing of others. By risking her life among the Assyrians, Judith saves the Bethulians from annihilation and then cedes any power she has by the end of the story, returning home to an ordinary lifestyle. The true heroine does not covet power for its own sake but uses it for the good of others. Judith enjoys the accolade she receives for her heroic deed, but she deflects much of that praise, unlike the self-centered Inanna. The Mesopotamian goddess has numerous hymns composed in her honor, and she sings of her own greatness in many of them. In A Balbale to Inana (Inana F), she exclaims, “My father gave me the heavens and he gave me the earth. I am Inana! Which god compares with me?… The gods are small birds, but I am the falcon” (ETCSL 4.07.6). Judith likewise inserts a few lines into her hymn that redound to her glory (Jdt 16:6 – 11), but she also credits Yahweh as the true source of her victory, redirecting the people’s praise for her toward their God instead (15:9 – 10; 16:1– 2, 5, 12– 17). She has brought down the mighty Assyrian army but only as the Lord’s instrument, a point about which the author is “very emphatic… having Judith herself affirm it on three separate occasions (8:17; 9:9 – 10; 13:11– 15).”⁷⁷

Conclusion The author of Judith draws on multiple figures in shaping the heroine of his story, creating a pastiche of Israel’s former heroes while introducing a new dimension.⁷⁸ No hero from Israel’s past quite compares with Judith, for none would dare contravene societal norms to the extent she does, and none has singlehandedly opposed so powerful an enemy. For inspiration in creating the most incredible heroine possible, the author of Judith looked outside the biblical

 Jacobsen, “Inanna,” 67.  Moore, Judith, 63.  Bellis, Helpmates, 200.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

151

canon and borrowed from the literature of Israel’s neighbors. He wanted a devious seductress who could slay any foe, a woman who is both beautiful and lethal, a person who refuses to be bound by gender stereotypes but operates comfortably in both masculine and feminine spheres, and a hero who can descend to the depths—figuratively and literally—yet emerge victorious. He sought the ultimate femme fatale and found her in the same place he found the ultimate villain, Mesopotamia, yet he transformed the trope of the femme fatale in the process. Far from a vixen seeking power and pleasure for herself, this heroine loves her God and her people and honors both at the same time. Only wicked men need fear her, and only impious transgressors should be wary of her wiles. Greatly renowned throughout the ancient Near East, Inanna will have to surrender her throne to one more powerful and virtuous than she is. She is a goddess of war and master of seduction, yet Judith trumps her in both categories. Judith’s fame shall eclipse the goddess’s, extending throughout the land (16:21) as the most blessed of all women (13:18). Inanna will soon become an afterthought, unable to impress Second Temple Jews who hear of her grandeur, for they now have a heroine who commands their utmost respect and admiration. Rather than looking to the culture of the gentiles as superior, Jews should expect the converse, as the conversion of the gentile Achior symbolically conveys (14:6 – 10). They, along with their Jewish counterparts, should acknowledge the greatness of Israel’s heroes and show the proper reverence toward the God who enables his people to prosper.

Bibliography Bellis, Alice Ogden. Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Ben-Porat, Ziva. “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105 – 28. Bentzen, Aage. “Der Hedammu-Mythus, das Judithbuch, und Ähnliches.” Archív Orientální 18 (1950): 1 – 2. Brighton, Mark. “A Comparison of Literary Conventions in Judith with the Ancient Greek Novel.” In Hear the Word of Yahweh: Essays on Scripture and Archaeology in Honor of Horace D. Hummel, edited by Dean O. Wenthe, Paul L. Schrieber, and Lee A. Maxwell. St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2002, 163 – 71. Caponigro, Mark S. “Judith, Holding the Tale of Herodotus.” In “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith, edited by James C. VanderKam. SBLEJL 2. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992, 47 – 59. Coote, Mary. “Comment on ‘Narrative Structures in the Book of Judith.’” In Protocol of the 11th Colloquy. The Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture 11. Berkeley, CA: Graduate Theological Union and University of California, 1974, 21 – 26.

152

Geoffrey David Miller

Corley, Jeremy. “Imitation of Septuagintal Narrative and Greek Historiography in the Portrait of Holofernes.” In A Pious Seductress: Studies in the Book of Judith, edited by Géza G. Xeravits. DCLS 14. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 22 – 54. Corley, Jeremy. “Judith: An Unconventional Heroine.” ScrB 31 (2001): 70 – 85. Corley, Jeremy. “Septuagintalisms, Semitic Interference, and the Original Language of the Book of Judith.” In Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac, edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 44. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008, 65 – 96. Craven, Toni. “Tradition and Convention in the Book of Judith.” Semeia 28 (1983): 49 – 61. Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Day, Linda. “Faith, Character, and Perspective in Judith.” JSOT 95 (2001): 71 – 93. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Women in the Wisdom of Ben Sira and the Book of Judith: A Study in Contrasts and Reversals.” In Congress Volume: Paris, 1992, edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1995, 39 – 52. Dubarle, André-Marie. Judith: Formes et sens des diverses traditions, I: Etudes. AnBib 24 A. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966. Efthimiadis-Keith, Helen. The Enemy is Within: A Jungian Psychoanalytic Approach to the Book of Judith. BibInt 67. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Efthimiadis-Keith, Helen. “On the Egyptian Origin of Judith, or Judith as Anath-Yahu,” JSem 20/1 (2011) 300 – 22. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “Judits weise Klugheit zur Rettung Betulias.” In Weisheit als Lebensgrundlage: Festschrift für Friedrich V. Reiterer zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel, Karin Schöpflin, and Johannes F. Diehl. DCLS 15. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 65 – 94. Esler, Philip F. ‘“By the Hand of a Woman”: Culture, Story and Theology in the Book of Judith.’ In Social Scientific Models for Interpreting the Bible: Essays by the Context Group in Honor of Bruce J. Malina, edited by John J. Pilch. BibInt 53. Leiden: Brill, 2001, 64 – 101. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Gera, Deborah L. Judith. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Groneberg, Brigitte. “The Role and Function of Goddesses in Mesopotamia.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick. New York: Routledge, 2007, 319 – 31. Haag, Ernst. Studien zum Buche Judith: seine theologische Bedeutung und literarische Eigenart. TThSt 16. Trier: Paulinus, 1963. Harrington, Daniel. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Hellmann, Monika. Judit—eine Frau im Spannungsfeld von Autonomie und göttlicher Führung: Studie über eine Frauengestalt des Alten Testaments. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/444. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992. “Ishtar.” In Encyclopedia of Women in the Ancient World, edited by Joyce E. Salisbury and Mary R. Lefkowitz. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2001, 165 – 66. Jacobsen, Thorkild. “A Maidenly Inanna.” JANES 22 (1993): 63 – 68. Kramer, Samuel Noah. Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. Lacocque, André. The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel’s Tradition. OBT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1990.

The Ultimate Femme Fatale: An Intertextual Comparison of Judith and Inanna

153

Leick, Gwendolyn. Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature. London: Routledge, 1994. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Sacrifice and Salvation: Otherness and Domestication in the Book of Judith.” In “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith, edited by James C. VanderKam. SBLEJL 2. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992, 17 – 30. MacDonald, Dennis R. Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001. Miller, Geoffrey D. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” CurBR 9 (2011): 283 – 309. Milne, Pamela J. “What Shall We Do with Judith?: A Feminist Reassessment of a Biblical ‘Heroine.’” Semeia 62 (1993): 37 – 58. Montley, Patricia. “Judith in the Fine Arts: The Appeal of the Archetypal Androgyne.” Anima 4 (1978): 37 – 42. Moon, Beverly. “Inanna: The Star Who Became Queen.” In Goddesses Who Rule, edited by Elisabeth Benard and Beverly Moon. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, 69 – 81. Moore, Carey A. Judith. AB 40. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985. Niditch, Susan. Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore. New Voices in Biblical Studies. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1987. Otzen, Benedikt. Tobit and Judith. Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Parker, Simon B. The Pre-biblical Narrative Tradition: Essays on the Ugaritic Poems Keret and Aqhat. SBLSBS 24. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Schmitz, Barbara, and Helmut Engel. Judit. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2014. Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40 – 66. Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Toloni, Giancarlo. L’Originale del libro del Tobia: Studio filologico-linguistico. Madrid: Instituto de Filología, 2004. Tull, Patricia. “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures.” CurBS 8 (2000): 59 – 90. Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. “Inanna and Ishtar—the Dimorphic Venus Goddesses.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick. New York: Routledge, 2007, 332 – 47. White, Sidnie Ann. “In the Steps of Jael and Deborah: Judith as Heroine.” In “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith, edited by James C. VanderKam. SBLEJL 2. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992, 5 – 16. Williams, James G. Women Recounted: Narrative Thinking and the God of Israel. Sheffield: Almond, 1982. Winckler, Hugo. “Zum Buche Judith.” In Altorientalische Forschungen, 2.2. Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1899, 266 – 67, 272 – 75. Wolkstein, Diane. “Interpretations of Inanna’s Stories and Hymns.” In Diane Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer, Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth: Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer. New York: Harper & Row, 1983, 136 – 73. Xella, Paolo. “Una ‘Rilettura’ del poema di Aqhat.” In Problemi del mito nel Vicino Oriente antico. Annali del’ Istituto Orientale di Napoli Supp. 7. Naples: Istituto Orientale, 1976, 61 – 91. Zenger, Erich. Das Buch Judit. JSHRZ I/6. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981.

2 Looking at the Present

Richard J. Bautch

Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony 1 Methodology

This essay offers an intertextual reading of Judith, Tobit, and Second Maccabees as Jewish literary responses to foreign imperial power. Methodologically, this study employs intertextuality with special attention to literary form as well as postcolonial issues.¹ Author-oriented intertextuality is defined here as reading two or more texts together and in light of each other,² with an emphasis on the author as opposed to the reader. The author-centered approach allows for the decentering or even denying of one text by another,³ as in the case of the Jewish novellas and their counterparts in Greek literature. The point of contact between such texts is often a comedic twist. To appreciate the comedy, it requires reading intertextually for genre or form and understanding that a particular form has been reversed at critical points. Adducing formal differences and divergences in the alluding or referring text is a way of bringing forth new meaning from that particular narrative as one reads intertextually. The three Jewish works considered here invite an intertextual reading attuned to formal contrasts and as well to social context. In previous scholarship, a conjoined interest in literary form as it relates to social context or “setting in life” (Sitz im Leben) has been the hallmark of form criticism, which attempts to capture this social dimension as it has been experienced in a community.⁴ The three texts considered here share a basic socio-political context, the hegemony of the Seleucid or Roman Empires, and all manifest some degree of resistance to empire and hegemony. Empire serves as a backdrop for Judith and 2 Maccabees directly, since both works describe a campaign against foreign tyranny.

 On the importance of literary form, see Brooks, “Critics.” On postcolonial approaches to Israel under the Persians and Greeks, see Berquist, “Postcolonialism”; Berquist, “Constructions”; Portier-Young, Apocalypse, 63 – 77; Perdue and Carter, Israel, 107– 216.  Bautch, “Intertextuality,” 25; cf. Iser, “Process,” 50 – 69.  In his treatment of intertextual reading strategies that decenter the text, Geoffrey Miller points out that diachronic assumptions underlie this approach, even when it is said to be reader-oriented, and hence a decentered reading is methodologically consistent with the author-centered model. See Miller, “Intertextuality,” 300.  Knierim, “Form Criticism,” 42– 43. Cf. Gunkel, Einleitung. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416930-007

158

Richard J. Bautch

Second Maccabees narrates Jewish resistance to Hellenistic persecution, particularly under Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc 4:7– 10:9), while it has been suggested that the Book of Judith is a fictionalized account of Queen Salome Alexandra’s successful resistance to the invasion by the Armenian king Tigranes the Great around 69 BCE.⁵ Although Tobit does not narrate Jewish military action, it explores how to live a Jewish life in the context of empire, since the story opens by saying that Tobit was taken into captivity in Assyria (Tob 1:1– 2) and closes with Tobit’s rejoicing at hearing the news of Nineveh’s defeat by the Medians (Tob 14:15).⁶ One means of literary resistance to imperial power is for the new text to depart from a precursor text so as to subvert and consequently challenge the empire that has benefitted from the precursor text’s production. Late biblical texts such as Zechariah, for example, were already renegotiating the social power of precursor texts. ⁷ Together the texts — the precursor text and the alluding text — exemplify the phenomenon of intertextual negotiation. Those writers responsible for Zechariah and by extension the narratives at hand, Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees, are creative in their construal of society because they draw upon earlier texts but are not controlled by the texts’ authority or other discursive structures.⁸ The three Jewish narratives considered here defy the precursor texts’ authority through intertextuality that is keyed to postcolonial commitments. In sum, intertextuality paired with form criticism can serve as the staging grounds for some of the more trenchant analyses of empire and global power dynamics in ancient texts. Moreover, intertextuality can facilitate the raising of new social and political questions towards a postcolonial critique of interests associated with a precursor text.

2 Approaching Judith, Tobit, and Second Maccabees 2.1 Judith and Tobit as Jewish Novellas The Books of Judith and Tobit represent a distinct genre within ancient Jewish literature, the Jewish novella. Lawrence Wills has identified five Jewish texts

   

Doran, Propaganda, 52– 63; Boccaccini, “Tigranes,” 55 – 69. Macatangay, When, 8 – 20; Levine, “Diaspora.” Polaski, Authorizing, 12. Ibid., 24.

Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony

159

as proper novels: Tobit, Judith, Greek Esther, Greek Daniel, and Joseph and Aseneth.⁹ In addition, Third Maccabees (classified by Wills as a Jewish historical novel) includes comic elements such as the murderous king’s forgetfulness (3 Macc 5:11– 12, 15 – 17, 28 – 32) and hence may be associated with the genre of the Jewish novella.¹⁰ Other, less distinct expressions of the novelistic genre include the Book of Jonah, if read as an early Jewish mini-novel that includes various comic elements. The Jewish novella, in turn, forms part of a broader category of novelistic literature that is exemplified by the Greek and Roman novels of antiquity.¹¹ The novels are long fictional prose narratives that share a similar sentiment and plot structure.¹² Examples of this category or genre include Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe and Petronius’s Satyricon. With these non-Jewish works, Judith and Tobit share a number of quintessential features, such as: settings that are idealized and whimsically designed, lively plots punctuated with peril at most every turn, pleasing resolutions of plot, and women characters who exude virtues such as chastity and piety. In the story of Judith, a God-fearing widow sets aside the sackcloth and makes herself beautiful only so that she might destroy the enemies of Israel by beheading their leader Holofernes. In Tobit the righteous protagonist suffers indignation and penury but triumphs in the end when the angel Raphael assists Tobit’s son Tobiah in securing a fortune as well as a worthy bride and a cure for his father’s blindness. Both of these two novellas are highly entertaining, and the recent literature on Tobit and Judith often focuses on their comic qualities, with the catalyst an essay on Tobit published in 1995 by David McCracken.¹³ Although Robert Cousland is rather skeptical of this assessment, concluding: “If there is comedy to be found in Tobit, it is divine comedy,” Anathea Portier-Young sums up a widespread view of Tobit by saying that “while the book does not warrant classification within the precise literary genre of comedy, it nonetheless possesses many comedic qualities.”¹⁴ In a comparable fashion, Toni Craven observes that “in the Book of Judith humor is a potent tool used to describe unfolding dimensions of the relationship between Yahweh and the people of Israel.”¹⁵

 Wills, Anthology, 4.  Hacham, “3 Maccabees,” 176 – 79.  Reardon, Novels, 1– 16; cf. Wills, Novel, 16 – 28.  Stephens and Winkler, Novels, 3; cf. Goldhill, “Genre”; Zeitlin, “Religion.”  McCracken, “Narration,” 401– 18; cf. Craven, Artistry, 116 n. 7.  Cousland, “Tobit,” 553; Portier-Young, “Alleviation,” 52.  Craven, Artistry, 116.

160

Richard J. Bautch

The general trend of reading Judith and Tobit on the basis of their comic elements enables readers to compare them with other Jewish and non-Jewish novelistic works. That is to say, the comic dimension aligns Judith and Tobit formcritically with the Greek and Roman texts that typify the genre of the novel in this period. The alignment supports an intertextual reading of the Jewish tales as negotiating comic elements established in the novelistic precursor texts that would otherwise reinforce dichotomies such as the traditional and new, the authorized and the unauthorized, the male and the female, or the endogamous and exogamous, to name a few. These renegotiated elements of comedy serve as a key to understanding Judith and Tobit, because they subvert readerly expectations. The comic dimension of the text conflates these dualisms and as such is a window on politics and social issues. The comic elements expose bifurcations in the text to allow for fresh, postcolonial readings.

2.2 Second Maccabees as a Narrative of History with Novelistic Features There are a priori grounds for including 2 Maccabees alongside Judith and Tobit in this study, because of certain literary similarities. For example, in all three works the eighth chapter serves as a turning point where the problem begins to find its solution: Judith is introduced; Tobiah defeats the demon; Judas Maccabeus begins his revolt. Nevertheless, 2 Maccabees is not a novella per se but rather a narrative of history, written historiographically. Within the genre of historiography, 2 Maccabees is said to represent pathetic historiography because by design it plays on the sentiments and emotions of the reader.¹⁶ Pathetic historiography heightens select details to give the narrative more emotional impact, and gender studies has unmasked the patterned attempts of ancient writers to stereotype female characters through such writing, with 2 Maccabees being no exception.¹⁷ As pathetic historiography, 2 Maccabees exhibits novelistic features that coincide with elements in the classic Greek novels: idealized settings that are whimsically designed, lively plots full of danger at nearly every turn, pleasing resolutions of plot, and female characters who radiate virtues such as piety and chastity. Second Maccabees provides extreme situations of danger and rescue, such as the defense of the Jerusalem temple in chapter 3. The narrative here

 Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 18, 78 – 79, 400 – 1, 423, 490.  Conway, “2 Maccabees,” 445.

Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony

161

employs prayerful pleading and other lively language to depict an emotionally charged scene,¹⁸ and the presentation of suffering women in sackcloth and ashes makes the point with emphasis.¹⁹ The episode at the temple has a good outcome with Heliodorus thwarted in his attempt to plunder the temple; this agent of the Seleucid Empire in fact converts and honors the most high God (2 Macc 3:36)—a postcolonial twist of no small measure. Indeed, within this chapter the plot of 2 Maccabees has similarities with the plot of Judith, as both works feature the divine response to save the threatened, devout Jews in answer to their prayers. In a Greek intertextual parallel, the Lindos Chronicle (99 BCE), celebrating divine epiphanies defending the Island of Rhodes, finds some echoes with 2 Maccabees and Judith, especially the latter’s motif of five days of thirst until the divine deliverance (Jdt 7:30).²⁰ The actions of other characters in 2 Maccabees confirm the genre designation of pathetic historiography endowed with novelistic features. Chapter 6 describes the martyrdom of the elderly priest Eleazar with pathetic features (2 Macc 6:18 – 31). In chapter 7, the mother of seven martyred sons plays the heroic female, encouraging them to honor Jewish dietary laws even to the pain of death (2 Macc 7:20 – 29), and her own death by martyrdom concludes the episode (7:41). The figure of Razis (14:45), like the seven sons, endures a spectacular self-inflicted martyrdom, and the graphic depiction of his bloody end is eminently typical of pathetic historiography.²¹ In myriad other ways, 2 Maccabees reads like an ancient novel as a result of the author’s commitment to pathetic historiography, and at these points especially the hegemony of the Seleucid Empire is undermined.²² As a particular example, Daniel Schwartz singles out the military victory of Judas Maccabeus at Joppa and Jamnia (12:5 – 9), described as the Jewish forces utterly uprooting the opponent. The city of Jamnia is known to have ties to Herakles, a deity of the Hellenistic pantheon and a hero of sorts to the Seleucid emperors, and Schwartz identifies one of “the idols of Jamnia” (2 Macc 12:40) with Herakles, a deity also mentioned in 2 Macc 4:19 – 20.²³ Outlining the emperor’s ties to Greek gods of war, Anathea Portier-Young notes that Seleucid rulers as early as Seleucus I, the successor to Alexander, created “a royal ideology based upon militaristic imagery and a view of the king as a brave and mighty

     

Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 78 – 79. Ibid., 198. Doran, Propaganda, 49 – 50; Doran, 2 Maccabees, 90; Corley, “Imitation,” 38 – 39. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 490. Ibid., 423. Ibid., 440.

162

Richard J. Bautch

warrior.”²⁴ This ideology was expressed through imperial iconography such as coins with the motifs of gods like Zeus, Apollo and Herakles to whom the king would be likened. Thus, the military victory by Judas Maccabeus serves as a defeat of the power of Herakles, undermining the hegemony of the Seleucid Empire.

2.3 Intertextual Features of Judith, Tobit, and Second Maccabees Toni Craven has observed that stories like Judith and Tobit share common characteristics: “They all exhibit finely proportioned structures, they all have happy endings, and they all use comic touches to provoke profound theological realizations.”²⁵ In fact, Second Maccabees also shares these characteristics, with the result that structural parallels are evident between Judith, Tobit, and 2 Maccabees. In particular, the eighth chapter of all these three works serves as a turning point where the major problem begins to find its solution, leading to a happy ending. The first seven chapters of the Book of Judith outline the problems posed to the Jewish community by the hostile approach of an aggressive foreign force, but the solution is introduced with the first mention of the figure of Judith (Jdt 8:1). As Craven notes: “Her appearance cancels the tumult caused by Holofernes, the representative of Nebuchadnezzar.”²⁶ In a comparable way, the first seven chapters of the Book of Tobit describe the problems faced by Tobiah’s family as well as Sarah, whereas the eighth chapter narrates how Sarah and Tobiah defeat the demon through prayer, thereby beginning an upturn in the life of both families. Even though Tob 3:17 makes the proleptic announcement that “Raphael was sent to heal” both Tobit and Sarah, readers have to wait till chapter 8 for a turnaround in the situation of the two families. Finally, after introductory material in the first two chapters, chapters 3 – 7 of Second Maccabees report the problems faced by the Jerusalem temple at the hands of the Seleucid Empire, whereas the turning point comes with the new focus on Judas Maccabeus (2 Macc 8:1), who will restore the life of his people.²⁷ To be sure, the major role of Judas Maccabeus is already summarized in the introduction (2 Macc 2:19 – 22) and his escape to the wilderness has briefly been mentioned (2 Macc 5:27). However, it is at the opening of chapter 8 that he bursts onto the scene, rallying his people,    

Portier-Young, Apocalypse, 52. Craven, Artistry, 116. This section includes some suggestions made by Jeremy Corley. Ibid., 64. Doran, Propaganda, 55 – 59.

Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony

163

calling on the Lord to save the temple and the city of Jerusalem, and beginning his military attacks on the Seleucid forces (2 Macc 8:1– 7). We have already noted that scholars have detected comic touches in Judith and Tobit. Craven, for instance, remarks: “That a woman as punctiliously pious as Judith does some of the things that she does, surely pokes fun at stodgy notions of propriety and proper religious behavior. And is it not high comedy to make Nebuchadnezzar an Assyrian and put him into an already destroyed capital city where he tells in detail his ‘secret’ plan?”²⁸ Moreover, the way that Judith is able to trick Holofernes with her ironically ambiguous words has a comic element at the expense of the powerful imperial general.²⁹ Comic elements abound in Tobit, as Portier-Young recognizes: “We need only think of Tobit’s unexpected encounter with twin birds whose impeccable fecal marksmanship render him blind for four years; or of the savage fish that leaps out from the water at the unsuspecting Tobiah…. Raguel’s fly-by-night grave-digging operation likewise strikes a humorous chord (8:9 – 18).”³⁰ Although Second Maccabees is less obviously comic, readers might take gleeful comfort in the final sickness of Antiochus Epiphanes: “And so the ungodly man’s body swarmed with worms, and while he was still living in anguish and pain, his flesh rotted away, and because of the stench the whole army felt revulsion at his decay” (2 Macc 9:9). An interesting case of intertextuality is present here, since Judith declares that to punish Israel’s enemies God “will send fire and worms into their flesh” (Jdt 16:17).³¹ Moreover, the compiler’s light-hearted view of the horrific events described is evident in the preface: “We have aimed to please those who wish to read” (2 Macc 2:25). Similarly, the epilogue also strikes a cheerful note, at odds with many of the brutal events narrated: “Just as … wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one’s enjoyment, so also the style of the story delights the ears of those who read the work” (2 Macc 15:39). Another shared feature between Judith, Tobit, and 2 Maccabees is the important role of prayer in shaping the development of the plot. While Jdt 9:2– 14 reports Judith’s desperate petition, whose divine answer leads to the deliverance celebrated in her thanksgiving canticle (Jdt 16:1– 17), the simultaneous prayers of Tobit and Sarah (Tob 3:2– 6, 11– 15) both receive divine answers, leading to Tobit’s canticle of thanks (Tob 13:1– 17).³² Second Maccabees quotes several an    

Craven, Artistry, 115. Moore, Judith, 82– 83. Portier-Young, “Alleviation,” 53. Gera, Judith, 468 – 69; Rakel, Judit, 159 – 60. Beentjes, “Bethulia,” 240, 248; Di Lella, “Prayers,” 95.

164

Richard J. Bautch

swered prayers, such as Jonathan’s petition (2 Macc 1:24– 29), the priests’ prayer for the temple (14:35 – 36), and the supplication of Judas Maccabeus before the battle with Nicanor (15:22– 24). Moreover, some of the same titles for God occur in prayer or praise, such as “Master” (δεσπότης: Jdt 9:12; Tob 8:17; 2 Macc 15:22), “Creator” (κτίστης: Jdt 9:12; 2 Macc 1:24), and “Almighty” (παντοκράτωρ: Jdt 16:5, 17; 2 Macc 1:25).³³ While Judith prays for God to protect his sanctuary because he is “helper (βοηθός) of those in need” (Jdt 9:11), the narrator of 2 Macc 3:39 concludes the Heliodorus episode by speaking of God as “helper (βοηθός) of that place,” referring to the temple. A further shared feature between Judith, Tobit, and 2 Maccabees is the major role of a leading female character, around whom the plot of the three books pivots. This feature is clearest in the story of Judith, for she dominates the second half of the book bearing her name. As Craven recognizes, “Once Judith takes the stage in chapter 8, she shares it with others but surrenders it to no one.”³⁴ The turning point of the plot of the Book of Tobit occurs on the wedding night of Sarah and Tobiah, in fulfillment of the narrator’s statement in Tob 3:17 that “Raphael was sent to heal … Sarah, daughter of Raguel, by giving her in marriage to Tobiah son of Tobit, and by setting her free from the wicked demon Asmodeus.” Although much of Second Maccabees concerns military campaigns, the narrative turning point occurs after the courageous mother witnesses the martyrdom of her seven faithful sons at the hands of King Antiochus Epiphanes. An interesting case of intertextuality exists, whereby the mother’s loss of her seven sons at the hands of the Seleucid monarch parallels Sarah’s previous loss of her seven husbands killed by the demon Asmodeus (2 Macc 7:1; Tob 6:14). Another feature shared between Judith and Tobit is the long earthly life of heroic figures, considered a sign of divine blessing (Deut 30:19 – 20; Job 42:17), whereas 2 Maccabees contrastingly emphasizes eternal life. After her long widowhood Judith dies at the age of 105 years (Jdt 16:23), while after all his trials Tobit dies at the age of 112 years (Tob 14:1 Sinaiticus).³⁵ Because of a belief in the resurrection, the situation differs somewhat in 2 Maccabees, since the narrator recounts the martyrdoms of Eleazar and the mother with her seven sons (2 Macc 6:18 – 7:42), as well as the self-inflicted death of Razis (2 Macc 14:45). The mother’s second son shifts attention from earthly to heavenly life, boldly addressing King Antiochus Epiphanes: “You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlast-

 Enermalm-Ogawa, Langage, 63 – 64, 67– 68, 126 – 28.  Craven, Artistry, 62.  However, Tob 14:11 Vaticanus supplies Tobit’s final age as 158 years; cf. Fitzmyer, Tobit, 318.

Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony

165

ing renewal of life (ἀναβίωσιν), because we have died for his laws” (2 Macc 7:9). Similarly, the youngest son affirms: “Our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of ever-flowing life (ἀενάου ζωῆς), under God’s covenant; but you, by the judgement of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance” (2 Macc 7:36).³⁶ Nevertheless, the book narrates the horrible death of Antiochus (2 Macc 9:9) and concludes with the slaying of the great military enemy Nicanor (2 Macc 15:28 – 37), without continuing the story to narrate the subsequent death of Judas in battle against Bacchides (recounted in 1 Macc 9:11– 22). A final shared feature between Judith, Tobit, and 2 Maccabees is the overarching question for a vulnerable Jewish community of negotiating GrecoRoman empire. Tobit explores ways of living a Jewish life in the context of imperial rule, where burial of someone murdered by the regime could get a person arrested (Tob 1:18 – 19).³⁷ In a comparable fashion, both Judith and 2 Maccabees depict resistance to the tyranny of imperial rulers, whose actions are described within prayers as “arrogance” (ὑπερηφανία: Jdt 9:9; 2 Macc 1:28). Indeed, Judith serves a kind of female equivalent of Judas Maccabeus, whereas her enemy Holofernes resembles the Seleucid army commander Nicanor.³⁸ Just as the Seleucid general’s severed head was hung from the citadel by Judas Maccabeus: “He hung Nicanor’s head from the citadel” (2 Macc 15:35), so also Jdt 14:11 reports that the people of Bethulia “hung Holofernes’ head from the wall.”³⁹

3 The Application of Critical Theory Recent postcolonial studies credit eastern authors, such as those responsible for the Jewish novellas, with critiquing the dominant order and the power that resides at its center. In this critique, new ideas and collective thinking no longer travel from center to periphery exclusively and may advance from the periphery to the center.⁴⁰ When the colonized and the colonizers encounter one another at mutually shared boundaries, the labels affixed to these two no longer apply in the same way. How does comedy foster this postcolonial critique in, for example, Judith?

 Whereas the NRSV here accepts an emendation, “they have drunk” (πεπώκασιν), LXX reads “they have fallen” (πεπτώκασιν). Cf. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 317; Doran, 2 Maccabees, 148.  Macatangay, When, 59 – 60.  On Judith’s echoes of the portrait of Judas Maccabeus from First Maccabees, see Moore, Judith, 50 – 51; Gera, Judith, 39 – 40.  Moore, Judith, 234; Corley, “Imitation,” 43.  Berquist, “Postcolonialism,” 82– 87.

166

Richard J. Bautch

3.1 Judith A relatively new vein of scholarship construes Judith as forming a response to empire, specifically the empire that Hellenistic rulers brought to the East.⁴¹ The author of Judith responds to empire by including elements of comedy that subvert readerly expectations. When certain comic features in the story lead to a conscious reversal of generic literary conventions, or of social conventions inscribed into the novel, the reversal distorts proportions and, in the case of Judith, creates a scenario in which localized and limited details of history become associated with a larger sphere that is global and all-inclusive. A telling example of the effect just described is Nebuchadnezzar, who represents the hostile force that Judith overcomes. He is presumably the historical Nebuchadnezzar, who as Babylonian emperor from 605 to 562 BCE oversaw three sieges of Jerusalem. The Book of Judith, however, associates Nebuchadnezzar with Assyria, making him as well an eighth-century enemy of the Israelites. The trans-historical profile of Nebuchadnezzar recasts him as a composite enemy who reflects many (indeed all) empires, and whose true adversary, in turn, is God as well as God’s people. The insight of Ernst Haag, that Judith’s Nebuchadnezzar is tantamount to the “the eschatological enemy of God,” has influenced many scholars and informs, at least indirectly, certain postcolonial readings of the ancient Jewish novel.⁴² The beheading of Holofernes and the defeat of Nebuchadnezzar, in such readings, subverts hegemonic structures that have been encoded into the literary construction of the text. The characterization of Nebuchadnezzar exemplifies the relationship between the nationalistic prose fiction of eastern, colonized peoples and the literary ideal as found in Greek novels. This understanding of Nebuchadnezzar has been developed by Lawrence Wills, who writes, “Authors of both groups … reflect opposite poles of a colonizer/colonized interface. Just as the Greek novel expresses a desire to reimpose a distinction with the barbarian, the Jewish barbarian [sic] wants to reestablish the superior position of a God’s eye view of dignity and virtue.”⁴³ Wills adds the observation that “both are responding to Hellenization from opposite sides of the porous membrane we call colonial relations.”

 Wills, Novel, 239 – 40; Dube, “Jumping,” 60 – 76; Rakel, Judit, 41– 81.  Haag, Studien, 78.  Wills, “Novellas,” 162 (both quotations). For a postcolonial reading of Judith in relation to the Rahab story, see Dube, “Rahab.”

Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony

167

3.2 Tobit In the Book of Tobit, the main character Tobit announces the destruction of Assyria and Babylon because of the sinfulness of those nations (Tob 14:4). As a plot twist at the end of the book, the demise of the two nations is not unlike the beheading of Holofernes and the defeat of Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Judith. Hegemonic structures suffer an unexpected reversal, although in Tobit the destruction is announced, not actually carried out in anything like the graphic detail of Judith. The tension between imperial power and divine might is established earlier in Tobit, when twice (12:7, 11) the angel Raphael states: “A king’s secret it is prudent to keep, but the works of God are to be declared and made known.”⁴⁴ In this verse, the politics within the Book of Tobit converge with one of its primary motifs, that of light and darkness.⁴⁵ As in the course of the story the character Tobit goes from blindness back to vision, or darkness to light, so in the same story the honor of God supplants the politics of the realm. This opposition is hinted at already in the first chapter of the book, when Tobit critiques Sennacherib, and Sennacherib’s rule is made the cause of Tobit being separated from his small fortune (1:18). Tobit is one of those books that, in the words of Anathea Portier-Young, “shows serious ambivalence toward and critique of foreign monarchs,” despite what many have perceived as the book’s overwhelmingly positive Jewish judgments on the foreign state and its rulers.⁴⁶ To discern Tobit’s critique of empire, one must focus on chapters 1 and 13 – 14 and consider there not only the destruction of Assyria and Babylon and the vilification of Sennacherib, but as well the reversal of literary and social conventions. As was noted at the outset, the postcolonial critique is developed through just such reversals. In Tobit, the book’s framing chapters, 1 and 13 – 14, foreground postcolonial issues and develop them through reversals. These framing chapters differ from the core of Tobit (chapters 2– 12) in tone and in other respects.⁴⁷ Chapters 2– 12 remain relevant to this study, however, because the type of reversals found in chapter 1 actually recur in 2– 12, albeit in a

 See Jdt 2:2 for a comparable aphorism about a king’s word. Fitzmyer (Tobit, 291) notes that in Tobit the saying about concealing a king’s secret but proclaiming God’s acts is intended to dominate the rest of Raphael’s speech.  Portier-Young, “Eyes,” 17– 21.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse, 63, n. 71.  In Tobit 13 – 14, the action turns from the characters of the novella and focuses on the people of Israel in exile, and Deuteronomistic theology informs the commentary on exile. See Moore, Tobit, 20 – 21; Ego, Buch, 888; Collins, “Judaism,” 25.

168

Richard J. Bautch

different and decidedly more comical manner. Those comic reversals are treated below, after a discussion of Tobit 1 and 13 – 14, the framework of the book. While an imperial context for Tobit seems to be indicated, the exact provenance of Tobit is debated, and in this debate Judea during the first decades of the second century BCE has been given serious consideration.⁴⁸ In this scenario, those responsible for Tobit 1 and 13 – 14 were witnessing an empire encroach upon their community’s boundaries. Their response is to promote kinship, which is a leading motif in Tobit. But to what end? What is the relationship between Jewish kinship and the menace of empire in 2nd century Judea? Part of the answer is evident. Stronger kinship structures solidify the Jewish community and protect it.⁴⁹ However, another part of the answer lies in the curious fact that as the Book of Tobit promotes kinship, it also expresses ambivalence about it. In chapter 1 there are odd instances when Tobit himself contravenes the mores of kinship and fails to follow his kinship group’s practices. These instances are well worth examining. First, Tobit lives initially in the northern kingdom but makes the conscious choice to worship at the southern sanctuary. He chooses to worship in Jerusalem and not with his kinsfolk of the tribe of Naphtali at an established cult site in the north, as is their practice (1:6). In fact, the people of Naphtali have a reputation for their expert northern worship, but Tobit eschews this practice. Later, Tobit keeps kosher and refuses certain foods of the gentiles that his tribe regularly consumes (1:10). By departing from his familial practices of worship and diet, Tobit conforms to expectations expressed in the Priestly legislation (e. g., Lev 27:30 – 32; Num 18:21– 28). In these cases, the protagonist conforms his actions to Torah, but in doing so he undermines the conventions of his family unit. To be sure, this is a complicated case of competing value systems that have come into conflict in surprising ways.⁵⁰ Tobit’s disruption of two kinship practices in chapter 1 points to a conscious reversal of conventions, although the reversal is not especially comic. In chapters 2– 12, however, Tobit’s concept of kinship becomes the subject of satire and the vehicle for comedy. To be sure, there is a serious side to kinship in these chapters as well, since Tobit 6 – 7 characterizes endogamy as a prescription of the Mosaic Torah; it can thus be a stabilizing factor, a wedge against empire.⁵¹ However, only

 After reviewing the various positions, Fitzmyer (Tobit, 51, 54) places the composition of Tobit in Palestine somewhere between 225 and 175 BCE. Cf. Macatangay, When, 3.  Wills, Novel, 83.  Fitzmyer (Tobit, 109) suggests that the author of the Book of Tobit “is following the postexilic interpretation of pentateuchal texts.”  Miller, Marriage, 72– 80; Macatangay, When, 72– 74.

Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony

169

comedic satire explains the fact that Sarah’s previous marriages, all seven, ended with the groom dying on their wedding night because, technically, he did not have the preeminent right to this kinswoman’s hand in marriage. The line between scrupulosity and silliness is fine indeed. But Wills observes that the far-reaching network of family relations in Tobit 2– 12 is “obsessively described” as a kinship unit within the tribe of Naphtali: the unit “threatens to take over all of Assyria.”⁵² In the past two decades, there have come forth readings of Tobit as “comic tribalism” and of the character Tobit as fixated on family.⁵³ In these readings, the book’s hallmark emphasis on kinship relations is not taken wholly seriously, and comedy is seen to be in play. This manner of comedy succeeds if there are conventions that are being contravened, and expectations that are being reversed. In addition, the dialogue between Tobit and Raphael in chapter 5 provides further perspective on the expectations surrounding kinship in this text.⁵⁴ The angel’s mendacious statements about his ancestry serve a narrative purpose and advance the plot. Such is the comic exposition of kinship in the book of Tobit, chapters 2– 12. Thus, subverting the kinship paradigm is a common thread running through Tobit 1 and Tobit 2– 12. To an author in antiquity who created the work that we call Tobit, there was continuity between chapter 1 and the rather different chapters 2– 12, and that continuity included the oblique critique of kinship throughout.⁵⁵

3.3 Second Maccabees At this point, certain seminal questions emerge. How does subverting kinship structures, at times through comic excess, challenge imperialism and indicate a postcolonial stance on the part of Tobit’s author? How does Tobit’s dissent from customs associated with the tribe of Naphtali or exaggerations of this kinship unit in the setting of Assyria call into question hegemonic powers in second-century Judea? Why this subordination of kinship in a Jewish tale of faith and families? The inquiry leads back to 2 Maccabees, where there is also a form of kinship subordination.

 Wills, “Novellas,” 82, 78.  McCracken, “Narration,” 413.  Miller, “Raphael,” 503 – 4.  In a different way, the Book of Judith subverts the postexilic Jewish emphasis on kinship, because by remaining a widow Judith avoids remarrying (Jdt 16:22), thereby producing no descendants.

170

Richard J. Bautch

Like the protagonist’s family in Tobit, the family of the Maccabees has a proud place in history. The Maccabee family reclaims and rededicates the temple as the center of Jewish life. Judas Maccabeus plays a leading role in the action and scores incredible victories over Seleucid forces by defeating Nicanor (twice, 8:24, 15:27– 28), Timothy (8:32, 10:37), and Gorgias (12:36). Judas, however, has “a” (not “the”) leading role, and he shares the limelight with other valiant characters not of his clan, such as Eleazar, the widow and her seven sons, and Razis. Moreover, the Maccabee brothers and the broader family of Judas, so prominent in 1 Maccabees, are diminished in this account. The victors are routinely referred to “Judas and his men” (2 Macc 8:1; 10:1; 12:5), rather than “Judas and his brothers” as in 1 Maccabees (e. g., 1 Macc 4:36, 59; 5:63, 65). In 2 Maccabees, the legacy of the Maccabee family is subordinated to the reclamation of the temple and the victory over the Seleucids—a victory achieved by God. Indeed in 2 Maccabees, “God manifest” defeats Antiochus IV Epiphanes not once but twice (1:13 – 16, 9:5), and Judas Maccabeus is not involved either time. Second Maccabees subordinates kinship and turns the limelight from the first family to God, who is understood to be the one true answer to the evils of empire. A similar impulse exists in Tobit. Through its abiding emphasis on divine providence, the Book of Tobit limits kinship to amplify the sense of God as providential, ever in control, and indeed the final answer to the evils of the world.⁵⁶ Of itself, this theological argument is not a critique of empire, but it is evidence of reversing conventions to expose where power resides and where it does not.

4 Conclusion With a focus on early Jewish novellas, viewed in relation to ancient Greek novels, this study has engaged form criticism. Since the middle of the last century, there have been concerns that form criticism no longer appears capable of identifying a text’s genre, and it risks misreading literature that does not fit neatly into formcritical categories. Misguided as well, it is said, are form criticism’s attempts to connect text and world, in the hopes of identifying a setting in life for the literary form. It is little wonder that today few studies engage the form-critical method in a sustained and detailed manner. This review of three Jewish texts, however, shows that the demise of form-critical study is not yet at hand. The evidence is to the contrary.

 Schellenberg, “Suspense,” 324– 27; Portier-Young, “Eyes,” 14– 17; Macatangay, Instructions, 223 – 24.

Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony

171

A methodological key, this essay has shown, is to complement form criticism with intertextuality. Intertextual study shows that “pure” Gattungen rarely occur, and that the mixing of types or influence from different types was commonplace in antiquity. The prime example is 2 Maccabees, a work of pathetic historiography with numerous novelistic features. Moreover, postcolonial theory is breathing new life into form-critical reading strategies by heightening readers’ awareness of a text’s setting in life. The settings in question reflect the politics of imperial forces pursuing colonization, or more generally hegemonic structures that those responsible for the text would resist. As such, the setting reflects light back on the text in its formal design and illumines the text anew. In sum, the practice of identifying and analyzing the genres to which texts belong (i. e., form criticism) has become the first move in an intertextual process of study. That process revolves around the application of reading strategies in coordination with social concern and, in many cases, political critique. The results are evident in an intertextual comparison of Judith, Tobit and 2 Maccabees, three texts with shared features, as well as differences. From a narrative viewpoint, all three works are constructed similarly, with a decisive turning point occurring squarely around the middle, in the eighth chapter of each book. Other shared features include the use of comedy to subvert empire, extreme situations of danger and rescue, and exemplary female characters. Collectively, Judith, Tobit and 2 Maccabees manifest intertextuality and call forth a reading strategy keyed to form, intertexts, and the sociopolitical questions of the day.

Bibliography Bautch, Richard J. “Intertextuality in the Persian Period.” In Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period, edited by Jon L. Berquist. SemeiaSt 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007, 25 – 35. Beentjes, Pancratius C. “Bethulia Crying, Judith Praying: Context and Content of Prayers in the Book of Judith.” In Prayer from Tobit to Qumran, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. DCLY 2004. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004, 231 – 54. Berquist, Jon L. “Constructions of Identity in Postcolonial Yehud.” In Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006, 53 – 66. Berquist, Jon L. “Postcolonialism and Imperial Motives for Canonization.” In The Postcolonial Bible Reader, edited by R.S. Sugirtharajah. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006, 78 – 95. Boccaccini, Gabriele. “Tigranes the Great as Nebuchadnezzar in the Book of Judith.” In A Pious Seductress, edited by Géza Xeravits. DCLS 14. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 55 – 69. Brooks, Cleanth. “The Formalist Critics.” The Kenyon Review 13, no. 1 (1951): 72 – 81.

172

Richard J. Bautch

Collins, John J. “The Judaism in the Book of Tobit.” In The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition and Theology, edited by Géza Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSup 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005, 23 – 40. Conway, Colleen M. “2 Maccabees.” In Women’s Bible Commentary, 3rd ed., edited by Carol A. Newsom, Sharon H. Ringe, and Jacqueline E. Lapsley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012, 444 – 49. Corley, Jeremy. “Imitation of Septuagintal Narrative and Greek Historiography in the Portrait of Holofernes.” In A Pious Seductress, edited by Géza Xeravits. DCLS 14. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012, 22 – 54. Cousland, J. R. C. “Tobit: A Comedy in Error?” CBQ 65 (2003): 535 – 53. Craven, Toni. Artistry and Faith in the Book of Judith. SBLDS 70. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. Di Lella, Alexander A. “Two Major Prayers in the Book of Tobit.” In Prayer from Tobit to Qumran, edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. DCLY 2004. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004, 95 – 115. Doran, Robert. 2 Maccabees. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Doran, Robert. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees. CBQMS 12. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. Dube, Musa W. “Jumping the Fire with Judith: Postcolonial Feminist Hermeneutics of Liberation.” In Feminist Interpretation of the Bible and the Hermeneutics of Liberation, edited by Silvia Schroer and Sophia Bietenhard. New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003, 60 – 76. Dube, Musa W. “Rahab Says Hello to Judith: A Decolonizing Feminist Reading.” In The Postcolonial Bible Reader, edited by R.S. Sugirtharajah. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006, 142 – 58. Ego, Beate. Das Buch Tobit. JSHRZ 2/6. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1999. Enermalm-Ogawa, Agneta. Un langage de prière juif en grec. ConBNT 17. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Gera, Deborah Levine. Judith. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. Goldhill, Simon. “Genre.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel, edited by Tim Whitmarsh. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 184 – 200. Gunkel, Hermann. Einleitung in die Psalmen: Die Gattungen der religiösen Lyrik Israels. Edited by Joachim Begrich. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933. Haag, Ernst. Studien zum Buche Judith: Seine theologische Bedeutung und literarische Eigenart. TThSt 16. Trier: Paulinus, 1963. Hacham, Noah. “3 Maccabees: An Anti-Dionysian Polemic.” In Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative. Edited by Jo-Ann A. Brant, Charles W. Hedrick, and Chris Shea. SymS 32. Atlanta: SBL, 2005, 167 – 83. Iser, Wolfgang. “The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach.” In Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism, edited by Jane P. Tompkins. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980, 50 – 69. Knierim, Rolf. “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered.” In Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept and Theological Perspective, edited by Wonil Kim, et al. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000, 42 – 71. Levine, Amy-Jill. “Diaspora as Metaphor: Bodies and Boundaries in the Book of Tobit.” In Diaspora Jews and Judaism: Essays in Honor of, and in Dialogue with, A. Thomas

Reading Judith, Tobit and Second Maccabees as Responses to Hegemony

173

Kraabel. Edited by J. A. Overman and Robert S. MacLennan. SFSHJ 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992, 105 – 17. Macatangay, Francis M. When I Die, Bury Me Well: Death, Burial, Almsgiving, and Restoration in the Book of Tobit. Eugene, OR: Pickwick/Wipf & Stock, 2016. Macatangay, Francis M. The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 12. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. McCracken, David. “Narration and Comedy in the Book of Tobit.” JBL 114 (1995): 401 – 18. Miller, Geoffrey D. Marriage in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 10. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Miller, Geoffrey D. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” CurBR 9 (2011): 283 – 309. Miller, Geoffrey D. “Raphael the Liar: Angelic Deceit and Testing in the Book of Tobit.” CBQ 74 (2012): 492 – 508. Moore, Carey A. Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 40. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985. Moore, Carey A. Tobit: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 40 A. New York: Doubleday, 1996. Perdue, Leo G., and Warren Carter. Israel and Empire: A Postcolonial History of Israel and Early Judaism. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Polaski, Donald C. Authorizing an End: The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality. BibInt 50. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Portier-Young, Anathea E. Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Portier-Young, Anathea E. “Alleviation of Suffering in the Book of Tobit: Comedy, Community, and Happy Endings.” CBQ 63 (2001): 35 – 54. Portier-Young, Anathea E. “‘Eyes to the Blind’: A Dialogue Between Tobit and Job.” In Intertextual Studies in Ben Sira and Tobit, edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 38. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 14 – 27. Rakel, Claudia. Judit—über Schönheit, Macht und Widerstand im Krieg: Eine feministisch-intertextuelle Lektüre. BZAW 334. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Reardon, Bryan P., ed. Collected Ancient Greek Novels. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Schellenberg, Ryan S. “Suspense, Simultaneity and Divine Providence in the Book of Tobit.” JBL 130 (2011): 313 – 27. Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Stephens, Susan A., and John J. Winkler. Ancient Greek Novels and the Fragments: Introductions, Text, Translation and Commentary. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. Wills, Lawrence M. Ancient Jewish Novels: An Anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Wills, Lawrence M. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. Repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015. Wills, Lawrence M. “Jewish Novellas in a Greek and Roman Age: Fiction and Identity.” JSJ 43 (2011): 141–65. Zeitlin, Froma. “Religion.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel, edited by Tim Whitmarsh. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 91 – 108.

Michael W. Duggan

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

The four versions of the Hanukkah story in 1 and 2 Maccabees are ideal subject matter for an intertextual examination. The literary proximity of the accounts of the Temple cleansing in 1 Maccabees and the epitome of 2 Maccabees (1 Macc 4:36 – 59; 2 Macc 2:19 – 15:39) contrasts with the uniqueness of the material in the two letters, which introduce the epitome. While the first letter provides a relatively oblique reference to the purification of the Temple, the second recounts the background for the event in a tale of epic proportions (2 Macc 1:1– 9; 1:10 – 2:18). I examine each of these texts with a concern to disclose its author’s creativity in handling biblical sources, generating a worldview, and shaping community identity. In attempting to realize this objective, I highlight the unique features of each text by underlining its allusions to biblical focal points and its distinctive elements vis-à-vis the other accounts of Hanukkah. My analyses are synchronic insofar as I locate each version within the context of the complete narrative in 1 or 2 Maccabees and point out the thematic links among the three documents that make up 2 Maccabees. At the same time, I take a diachronic perspective when sequencing the biblical sources, noting the chronology of the three texts in 2 Maccabees and presenting 1 Maccabees as the last version of the Hanukkah story. These accounts of the Temple purification describe the origin of the festival of Hanukkah in Jewish tradition. In the historical narratives of both volumes, the reclamation of the Temple represents an initial high point in the campaign of Judas Maccabeus against the Seleucid occupation of Israel (1 Macc 4:36 – 59; 2 Macc 10:1– 8; cf. 2:19). Second Maccabees contributes additional interpretations of the event in the two letters (2 Macc 1:1– 9; 1:10 – 2:18) that preface the abridgment of the original five-volume work by Jason of Cyrene (2 Macc 2:19 – 15:39). Each of these two letters invites the Jewish community in Egypt to join the community in Jerusalem in celebrating Hanukkah. It is noteworthy that the first letter mentions an earlier piece of correspondence from Jerusalem to Egypt about the crisis Jason brought upon Jerusalem when he tried to regain the high priesthood. This crisis contributed to the provocation that led Judas Maccabeus to reclaim the Temple from Seleucid control (2 Macc 1:7– 8; cf. 5:5 – 10). In 2 Maccabees, the two prefatory letters serve to profile the purification of the sanctuary as the pivotal event in the abridger’s work that follows (1:9, 18; 2:16 – 18). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416930-008

176

Michael W. Duggan

In terms of chronological sequence, I view the abridgment of the five-volume work by Jason of Cyrene as the earliest text, which I date to the decade following the death of Judas Maccabeus (160 – 150 BCE; 2 Macc 2:19 – 15:39).¹ I date the second letter to a period between 135 and 124 BCE, prior to the first letter but during the regency of John Hyrcanus (135 – 104 BCE; 2 Macc 1:10 – 2:18). The letter indicates that Jerusalem has a sophisticated governmental system (including a senate or γερουσία) and a substantial library, neither of which could have developed in the interval after the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes late in 164 BCE and prior to the death of Judas in the spring of 160 BCE (1:10; 2:14– 15).² The first letter is a document that the Jewish community in Jerusalem and Judea sent to the Jews in Egypt in 124 BCE (1:1– 9). This date marks the completion of 2 Maccabees as a whole. The first letter mentions an earlier missive the Judeans had addressed to the community in Egypt in 143 BCE and thereby indicates on-going communications between these Jewish communities during the 40-year interval between the Temple cleansing and the final version of 2 Maccabees (1:7– 8). The latest account of the Temple dedication by Judas comes from the hand of the historian who composed 1 Maccabees (1 Macc 4:36 – 59). I date his work to the turn of the first century BCE, shortly after Alexander Janneus (103 – 76 BCE) took office as high priest in Judah.³ I disclose the network of relationships among the Hanukkah texts by first comparing the accounts of the Temple cleansing in 1 Maccabees and in the abridgement in 2 Maccabees (1 Macc 4:36 – 59; 2 Macc 10:1– 8 within 2:19 – 15:39). Then I examine the descriptions of the festival in the two letters that introduce the epitome in 2 Maccabees (1:1– 9; 1:10 – 2:18). In conclusion, I  The abridger introduces his work by describing his task of summarizing the compendium of Jason of Cyrene (2 Macc 2:19 – 23, 27b-28). Second Maccabees concludes with Judas’ victorious inauguration of the Day of Nicanor and does not refer to Judas’ death (15:35 – 36). Judas’ forces killed Nicanor in battle at Adasa in 160 BCE (1 Macc 7:43 – 49; 2 Macc 15:20 – 36). Judas died only months later in the defeat his troops suffered at the hands of the Seleucid army under Bacchides (1 Macc 9:18). On dating the abridgment in 2 Maccabees, see deSilva, Apocrypha, 293 – 94; and Schwartz, “Book,” 906 – 7; Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 11– 15.  See Doran, 2 Maccabees, 62– 63. Goldstein (II Maccabees, 163 – 64) proposes that a scribe, outside official circles, composed the second letter to support the Hasmoneans in 103 BCE, and Doran (2 Maccabees, 62– 64) also views it as inauthentic. In view of the names in the address, however, Fischer (“Books,” 444) supports the authenticity of the letter and dates it to a time before Judas’ death (2 Macc 1:10; 2:14). Aristobulus (mentioned in 2 Macc 1:10) was a Jewish priest and tutor of Ptolemy VI Philometor who ruled Egypt from 180 to 145 BCE (cf. 1 Macc 11:18).  The final lines of the book provide a retrospective summary of John Hyrcanus’ accomplishments as high priest in Jerusalem (1 Macc 15:23 – 24). This evidence indicates the author completed his work a few years after the death of John Hyrcanus in 104 BCE. See VanderKam, Judaism, 62; cf. Rappaport, “Book,” 904.

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

177

offer a summarizing intertextual perspective on these documents in view of the unique contribution each one makes to the profile of Hanukkah. Prior to examining each of the four descriptions of Hanukkah, I provide a summary of some scriptural resources that were vital to their composition. At a minimum, the four texts share concerns for these three elements: (a) the restoration of the sanctuary (1 Macc 4:36 – 38, 48; 2 Macc 1:8 – 9; 2:9 – 10; 10:3, 5); (b) the reconstruction of the altar (1 Macc 4:38, 44– 47; 2 Macc 1:18; 2:5; 10:3); and (c) protocols deriving from the Festival of Booths (1 Macc 4:56, 59; 2 Macc 1:9; 2:18; 10:6). The four descriptions of Hanukkah variously allude to a common scriptural repertoire for each element: (a) the dedication of the First and Second Temple (1 Kgs 8:1– 3, 65 – 66; 2 Chr 7:1, 8 – 10; Ezra 6:16 – 18); (b) the reconstruction of the altar for the Second Temple (Ezra 3:1– 6; Exod 20:25; Deut 27:6); and (c) the Festival of Booths (Neh 8:13 – 18; Lev 23:33 – 36, 39 – 43; Num 29:12– 38; Deut 16:13 – 17; 31:9 – 13).

1 The Biblical Sources 1.1 The Construction, Reconstruction and Dedication of the Temple The dedication of the Temple by Solomon took place during the Festival of Booths (or Tabernacles) according to both the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles.⁴ Both versions date the event to the seventh month (1 Kgs 8:2; 2 Chr 5:3). The Deuteronomistic historian ascribes a seven-day duration for the Temple dedication during the “festival” of the seventh month (1 Kgs 8:2; cf. 8:65).⁵ The historian therefore attributes to Solomon a strategy of scheduling the Temple dedication to coincide with the Festival of Booths since the seven-day duration of the festival corresponds with the Deuteronomic legislation on Booths (Deut 16:13 – 15). However, the Chronicler describes the ceremony as extending to 15 days: the altar dedication spans seven days and the Festival of Booths contin-

 The Deuteronomistic account utilizes the verb “to dedicate” for the rites that Solomon led at the Temple ( ‫ –חנך‬1 Kgs 8:63). The Chronicler employs both the verb (‫—חנך‬1 Chr 7:5) and the noun (‫—חנכה‬1 Chr 7:9).  The Hebrew text of 1 Kgs 8:65 includes a secondary addition of another seven days, making a sum of 14 days. A scribe inserted these numbers in order to separate the seven-day festival of the Temple dedication from the seven-day Festival of Booths. The Chronicler adopted this revision (2 Chr 7:8 – 9); cf. Duggan, Renewal, 135 n. 109.

178

Michael W. Duggan

ues for seven days with an additional day for a solemn assembly (2 Chr 7:8 – 9).⁶ The Chronicler, therefore, describes two separate celebrations: first, the dedication of the Temple and then the Festival of Booths.⁷ The additional day for the solemn assembly corresponds with the Priestly legislation for the Festival of Booths (Lev 23:36; Num 29:35; cf. Neh 8:18).⁸ The Chronicler makes another remarkable addition to the Deuteronomistic version of the Temple dedication by describing fire coming from heaven to consume the sacrificial offering in response to Solomon’s prayer (2 Chr 7:1– 3).⁹ The divine action corresponds with the fire YHWH sends from heaven to consume the sacrifice on the altar that David had constructed previously on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (1 Chr 21:26).¹⁰ Ezra 1– 6 relates the story of the first waves of exiles who return from Babylon to re-establish society in Judah. Under the direction first of Sheshbazzar and then of Jeshua, the priest and Zerubbabel, the grandson of Jehoiachin the last Davidic king, the community sets about reconstructing Jerusalem and the Temple (Ezra 1:5 – 6:15). The narrative culminates in the completion of the Temple, its dedicatory rites, and the consequent Passover celebration in the spring of 515 BCE (6:13 – 18, 19 – 22). The author employs the vocabulary of “dedication” (‫חנכה‬/‫ )חנך‬to describe the inauguration of the Second Temple just as the word had been applied to the First Temple (Ezra 6:16 – 17; cf. 1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5, 9).¹¹ The narrative emphasizes the element of “joy” in the celebrations of the

 The calculation of days may also be significant in the narrative of Hezekiah’s cleansing of the Temple in two sessions of eight days each (2 Chr 29:17).  At this point in Chronicles, the “altar” may be synonymous with the Temple (2 Chr 7:9; cf. “house of God” in 7:5). The account in 1 Kings makes no reference to the dedication of the altar (cf. 1 Kgs 8:65).  Japhet (I & II Chronicles, 613) perceives that the Chronicler specifies the dismissal of the people on the 23rd of the seventh month in order to confirm the temporal sequence: the dedication takes place from the 8th to the 14th, the Festival of Booths from the 15th to the 21st and the solemn assembly occurs on the 22nd (2 Chr 7:10).  As in the Deuteronomistic version of events, the Chronicler describes the “glory of YHWH” filling the Temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:10 – 11). However, this expression does not occur in the Temple dedication narratives in 1 and 2 Maccabees (but see 2 Macc 2:8).  The accounts of the fire from heaven may have imported into the Temple environment the tradition of the fire, which descends from heaven in response to Elijah’s appeal in his confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18:36 – 38). Thus, the Chronicler incorporates into the Temple dedication an element of a prophetic tradition in the Deuteronomistic History. In addition, the descent of fire recalls the inauguration of Aaron as priest (Lev 9:24; cf. 2 Macc 2:10), as well as Gideon’s offering (Judg 6:21).  The noun “dedication” (‫ )חנכה‬refers to the dedication of the altar by Solomon in the Chronicler’s version (2 Chr 7:9). The language of “dedication” describes the rites of Moses consecrating

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

179

Temple dedication and Passover (Ezra 6:16, 22). Whereas the altar was reconstructed at the Festival of Booths or Sukkot, the Temple was dedicated at Passover (Ezra 3:1– 6; cf. 6:19 – 22).¹²

1.2 The Reconstruction of the Altar According to the Book of Ezra, work on the Temple began over twenty years before its completion, when the first waves of returnees from Babylon undertook the project of reconstructing the altar of sacrifice upon the remnants of its pre-exilic foundations (Ezra 3:1– 6; cf. 1 Esd 5:47– 51). The Festival of Booths provided the occasion when the high priest Jeshua and his companions, along with Zerubbabel and his kinfolk, initiated the task with a determination that the structure correspond with the Mosaic prescriptions that the raw material be unhewn stones (Ezra 3:2; cf. Exod 20:25; Deut 27:6). They intended to rebuild the altar of sacrifice that Solomon had initially constructed in the Temple precinct (1 Kgs 9:25).¹³ Apparently, the project took 15 days from the 1st to 15th day of the seventh month (Ezra 3:1, 4). The altar was ready for the sacrifices, which the Priestly tradition prescribes for the Festival of Booths, from the 15th to the 21st of the month (Ezra 3:4; cf. Num 29:12– 34).¹⁴

1.3 The Festival of Booths In Ezra-Nehemiah, the Festival of Booths, which serves as the temporal context for the construction of the altar of sacrifice, is also the setting for Ezra’s teaching

the altar in the tabernacle according to the Priestly tradition (‫ חנכת המזבח‬Num 7:10 – 11; cf. Num 7:84, 88). In Ezra-Nehemiah, the noun also describes the inauguration of the city walls by Ezra and Nehemiah (‫ חנכת חומת ירושׁלם‬Neh 12:27). The cognate verb appears in the descriptions of Solomon and the people “dedicating” the Temple (‫ חנך‬1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5).  In Ezra-Nehemiah, the vocabulary of dedication (‫ )חנכה‬is employed for the inauguration of the Temple and the walls but not for the reconstruction of the altar (Ezra 6:16 – 17; Neh 12:27; cf. Ezra 3:1– 6).  The Deuteronomistic historian infers that Solomon’s altar was made of stone since the verb “to build” (‫ )בנה‬describes the construction of the stone altar in the Covenant Code and the Deuteronomic legislation (1 Kgs 9:25; cf. Exod 20:25; Deut 27:5 – 6). See Haak, “Altar,” 163 – 64; Galling, “Altar,” 97.  Compare this 15-day time period, from the beginning of the month until the first day of Booths, with the 16 days for the cleansing of the vestibule and sanctuary during Hezekiah’s reform (2 Chr 29:3, 17).

180

Michael W. Duggan

of the Torah in the covenant renewal ceremony (Neh 7:72b; 8:13 – 18; cf. Ezra 3:1– 6). This narrative alludes to the seven prescriptions governing the Festival of Booths in the Torah, which originate in a full range of sources: the traditions of the Yahwist (Exod 34:22b) and Priestly writer (Num 29:12– 38); and the legal compendiums of the Covenant Code (Exod 23:16b), the Holiness Code (Lev 23:33 – 36, 39 – 42) and the Deuteronomic Code (Deut 16:13 – 17; 31:9 – 13).¹⁵ The earliest text, which is in the Covenant Code, points to the origins of the festival as a celebration of the annual harvest of fruit trees (Exod 23:16b). The other texts envisage Booths as a pilgrimage festival that centers on the Jerusalem Temple, the place to which the community brings the harvest offerings. The Priestly norms and Holiness Code present the Festival of Booths as a communal recollection of the exodus accompanied by appropriate sacrificial offerings (Num 29:12– 38 [P]; Lev 23:33 – 38, 39 – 43 [H]). The narrative in Nehemiah embodies the Holiness prescriptions that the people live in booths as their ancestors had done in the wilderness (Neh 8:15 – 17; cf. Lev 23:39 – 43 [H]). This code mentions a construction made from four species of trees, including palms and willows, while the Book of Nehemiah expands the list to include olive and myrtle trees (Lev 23:40; Neh 8:15). The Priestly tradition stipulates sacrificial offerings for each day of the festival (Num 29:12– 28; cf. Lev 23:36 – 38). The Nehemiah narrative follows the Priestly and Holiness traditions by including an eighth day of “solemn assembly” to conclude the Festival of Booths (Neh 8:18; cf. Lev 23:36; Num 29:35 – 38). Furthermore, the Nehemiah account emphasizes the “joy” that characterizes the festival, thereby reflecting the disposition mandated in the Holiness and Deuteronomic codes (Neh 8:12, 17b; cf. Lev 23:40; Deut 16:14– 15). The centrality of Booths (Sukkot) in Ezra-Nehemiah may signal an enhanced profile for this festival vis-à-vis Passover (Pesach) and Weeks (Shavuot) in Second Temple Judaism (Ezra 3:1– 6; Neh 8:13 – 18).¹⁶ The primacy of Booths is particularly evident in the conclusion of Zechariah, which describes the survivors from the nations going up to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths at the end of the age. The author mentions the necessity for “the family of Egypt” in particular to make this aliyah (Zech 14:16 – 18).¹⁷

 Cf. Duggan, Renewal, 95 – 98. Rubenstein (Sukkot, 13 – 94) presents the biblical and related material regarding the Festival of Booths as it developed into the first century CE.  The Pentateuch identifies the three primary annual festivals as Passover/Unleavened Bread in springtime, Weeks in summer, and Booths in autumn (Exod 23:14– 17; 34:18 – 24; Lev 23:1– 44; Num 28:16 – 29:38; Deut 16:1– 13; cf. 2 Chr 8:13).  See Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9 – 14, 468 – 70.

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

181

2 The Festival of Hanukkah in 1 Maccabees and the Epitome of 2 Maccabees 2.1 The Context of the Hanukkah Narratives The episode of Judas Maccabeus reclaiming the Temple from Seleucid control and cleansing its precincts is crucial to the narratives of both 1 Maccabees and the epitome in 2 Maccabees (1 Macc 4:36 – 59; 2 Macc 10:1– 8). However, each account locates the Temple restoration in a distinctive context. Comprehending the overall design of each work is essential to appreciating the unique contribution the Temple episode makes to each one. First Maccabees is composed of two parts (1 Macc 1:1– 9:22; 9:23 – 16:24), each of which concludes with a summarizing eulogy to a Hasmonean leader, initially Judas and finally John Hyrcanus (9:22; 16:23 – 24).¹⁸ The heroes of the story are the founders of the Hasmonean dynasty: Mattathias and Judas in the first part, and Jonathan and Simon in the last part (2:1– 9:22; 9:23 – 16:24). In the first half of the book, the eulogy and splendid funeral rites of Judas provide an inclusion for his career insofar as they recall the poetic encomium that introduces him (9:19 – 21; cf. 3:3 – 9). Judas’ taking control of the Temple precincts represents a high point in the first half of the book since the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the central concern from the beginning of the narrative (4:36 – 59; cf. 1:21– 23, 37– 39, 45 – 46; 2:7, 12; 3:45; 4:38). In 2 Maccabees, the epitome begins and ends with the abridger expressing his desire to craft a text that inspires his audience (2 Macc 2:19 – 32; 15:38 – 39). He embeds three editorial comments on the fates of various Seleucid officials into the narrative as demarcations of its major sections (3:40; 10:9; 15:37). Consequently, the abridger subdivides history into three parts according to the succession of Seleucid regents: Seleucus IV Philopator (3:1– 40), Antiochus IV Epiphanes (4:1– 10:9), Antiochus V Eupator and Demetrius I Soter (10:10 – 15:36).¹⁹ However, the abridger is concerned less with providing a chronology of villains and heroes, and more with disclosing retributive justice as the principle that governs God’s relationship with the Jewish people. Theologically, the abridger partitions this history into two eras: the era of divine wrath, which extends from Heliodorus’ pillaging of the Temple treasury to the executions of the mother and her seven sons by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (3:1– 7:42), and the era of divine

 Cf. Williams, Structure, 128 – 37.  On the narrative structure, see Doran, Propaganda, 47– 76.

182

Michael W. Duggan

mercy which runs throughout the career of Judas Maccabeus (8:1– 15:37).²⁰ The renegade priests Jason and Menelaus, as well as the Jews who jeopardize the Temple and comply with the Hellenization of Jerusalem, provoke the Lord’s anger, whereas the martyrs’ allegiance to Torah compels the Lord to inaugurate the era of mercy (5:17 within 4:7– 5:26; cf. 6:12– 17; 7:32– 33, 37– 38). The Temple certifies God’s identification with the Jews. Therefore, the Temple and Jerusalem experience the consequences of the people’s infidelity in the first part and their fidelity to God in the second part (5:19 – 20). Reverence for the Temple, observance of Torah, and prayer are the defining marks of Jewish fidelity throughout both parts of the book (3:4b-21, 31– 34; cf. 14:34 – 36; and 3:1; 4:2; 6:28; and 7:2, 9, 11, 23, 30). The preeminent concern for the Temple is evident in the narrative architecture, as descriptions of Temple desecration open the book and recur in the middle of the first part, whereas the account of Temple cleansing occurs early in the second half and subsequently inspires Judas’ troops to fight their enemies (3:1– 8; 5:15 – 21; cf. 10:1– 8; 13:14; 15:17). In the second part of the book, Judas’ purification of the Temple and final victory over Nicanor share the common feature of being commemorated by additions to the annual festal calendar, the eight days beginning on the 25th of Chislev, and the 13th of Adar, respectively (2 Macc 10:5 – 8; 15:36; cf. 1 Macc 4:59; 7:48 – 49). The distinctive contexts, in which the account of Judas seizing the Temple from Seleucid control and cleansing its precincts occur, signal the unique perspectives on this episode in 1 and 2 Maccabees respectively. In 1 Maccabees, the securing of the Temple certifies the effectiveness of Judas’ initial battle victories against Seleucid forces in the perimeter of Jerusalem to the north (Bethhoron 3:13 – 24), west (Emmaus 3:38 – 4:25) and south (Beth-zur 4:26 – 35, 61). The cleansing and rededication of the Temple marks a foundational defeat for Antiochus IV Epiphanes since it erases the desecrations, which the Seleucid monarch had perpetrated from the beginning of the story (1:21– 23, 44– 50, 54, 59). At the same time, the restoration of the sanctuary realizes the hopes imbedded in the laments of observant Jews who had decried its desecration (1:36 – 39; 2:8 – 12; 3:45, 51). The Temple cleansing has interior effects insofar as it removes national shame and begins to restore honor to Jerusalem, Judah, and the Jewish populace (cf. 1:25 – 28, 40; 2:8; 3:51). By way of contrast, the restoration of the sanctuary has the opposite impact on Antiochus as it precipitates the depression that results in his death (6:5 – 16).

 Duggan, “Measure,” 284– 88. The epitomist offers this description of the turning point: “Once Maccabeus got organized he was unbeatable to the gentiles since the Lord’s wrath had turned to mercy” (8:5).

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

183

Between the account of the Temple rededication and the death of the Seleucid king, the historian inserted the accounts of Maccabean victories extending across the landscape, in Galilee to the north, Gilead and Ammon to the east, and Philistia and Idumea to the south (5:3 – 68). He thereby implies that once the Jewish people had taken possession of the Temple, the gentile stranglehold on the land was broken. The historian has King Antiochus articulate the abiding lesson that violating the Temple eventually results in the death of the perpetrator (6:12– 13). Second Maccabees establishes a more intimate connection between the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the cleansing of the Temple by Judas even as it recounts these episodes in reverse order vis-à-vis 1 Maccabees (2 Macc 9:1– 29; 10:1– 9; cf. 1 Macc 6:1– 17; 4:36 – 59). The epitomist’s account of the Temple restoration concludes with the summary comment, “Such then was the end of Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes” (2 Macc 10:9). This statement marks the termination of an expansive account of the king’s demise that includes graphic depictions of the monarch’s arrogance and physical ailments and a transcription of his final letter to the Jewish people (9:1– 29). His confession in the epitome is far more effusive than his brief statement of regret for pillaging the Temple, which he expresses in 1 Maccabees (1 Macc 6:12 – 13). The epitomist recounts Antiochus making a threefold commitment of certifying Jerusalem as a free city, granting civil rights to the Jews, and refurbishing and financing the Temple. He even professes he will convert to Judaism (2 Macc 9:13 – 17). The arrogant monarch recognizes that his suffering expresses God’s judgment, which the seven brothers had prophesied for him at their martyrdom (9:11– 12; cf. 7:14, 17, 19, 31, 34– 36). Following upon this portrayal of Antiochus’ death, Judas’ restoration and purification of the sanctuary validates the triumph of God over the human potentate who had played God (10:1– 8; cf. 9:12).²¹ The literary unit of Antiochus’ demise and the Temple cleansing constitutes a subsection at the beginning of the second half of the epitome, which unfolds the era of mercy that begins when Judas Maccabeus marshals his army (8:3, 5 within 8:1– 15:37). The epitomist is not interested in the details of the introductory battles since that narrative lacks the precision of times and places which 1 Maccabees provides for Judas’ initial engagements with the Seleucid forces (2 Macc 8:5 – 36; cf. 1 Macc 3:1– 4:35). The distinctive concentration on the Seleucid  Wheaton (“Festival,” 261) concludes, “In 2 Maccabees, the festival [of Hanukkah] is not simply about the recovery of the temple but about the wider national restoration first set in motion by the seven brothers and of which the judgment of Antiochus and recovery of the temple were but tokens.” (Italics in the original.)

184

Michael W. Duggan

commander Nicanor may provide an inclusion for the second half of the epitome insofar as this is the name of the adversary Judas vanquishes also at the end of the book (8:9 – 14, 23 – 36; cf. 15:25 – 37).²² In the final scene, Nicanor’s death recalls that of Antiochus as God’s retributive justice comes upon the gentile who had pretended to usurp God’s sovereignty and threatened to destroy the Temple (14:33; 15:5 – 6, 32). As for Antiochus so for Nicanor, the death of the gentile adversary is related to preserving the Temple (15:31; cf. 10:1– 8). In both cases, the Jews celebrate a festival that commemorates God’s deliverance (15:36; cf. 10:8). ²³

2.2 The Content of the Hanukkah Narratives The accounts of the Temple purification in 1 Macc 4:36 – 59 and 2 Macc 10:1– 8 exhibit sufficient common features to certify them as two versions of the same story, which constitutes the basis for an annual commemoration that begins on the 25th day of the month of Chislev (1 Macc 4:59; 2 Macc 10:8). In both narratives Judas’ victories over Seleucid forces are the subject matter of the introduction and the basis for undertaking the restoration of the sanctuary (1 Macc 4:36; cf. 2 Macc 10:1). Both versions offer a brief description of the desolate sanctuary, the need to deconstruct contaminated altars and the necessity of building a new altar of sacrifice (1 Macc 4:38, 45 – 47; 2 Macc 10:2– 3). Both narratives refer to lighting the lamps, making incense offerings, and arranging the bread of the Presence on the table (1 Macc 1:50 – 51, 53; 2 Macc 10:3; cf. Exod 27:20 – 21; Lev 24:2– 4 [lamps]; Exod 30:1, 7– 9 [incense offering]; Exod 25:23 – 30; Lev 24:5 – 9 [bread of the Presence]).²⁴ They also describe the animal sacrifices at the altar outside the Temple building (1 Macc 4:53; 2 Macc 10:3; cf. Exod 29:38 – 42; Num 28:3 – 6). Both stories describe the workers participating in penitential rites (1 Macc 4:39 – 40; 2 Macc 10:4). Both versions date the purification to the 25th of Chislev, which corresponds with the date the gentiles had profaned the

 There is debate over whether Nicanor in chapter 8 is the same person as Judas’ adversary in chapter 15. Doran, 2 Maccabees, 172– 73, regards them as separate individuals. See Rappaport, “Nicanor,” 1105.  In 2 Maccabees the promulgation of the Temple purification festival corresponds with the language in the decree for the festival celebrating the defeat of Nicanor (2 Macc 10:8; cf. 15:36).  First Maccabees depicts the temple work as a restoration of what Antiochus IV Epiphanes had destroyed during his first incursion into Jerusalem (1 Macc 4:48 – 51, 57; cf. 1:21– 23).

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

185

sanctuary, and describe a joyous celebration that lasts eight days (1 Macc 4:54– 56; 2 Macc 10:5 – 6).²⁵ The features unique to each narration stand out against the horizon of this common ground. Each version has a distinctive terminology for the event. First Maccabees speaks of the purification and dedication of the Temple (καθαρίζω and ἐγκαινίζω—1 Macc 4:36, 43, 54; 5:1), whereas 2 Maccabees only speaks of a purification of the sanctuary (καθαρίζω—2 Macc 10:3). First Maccabees summarizes the activities of Judas and his brothers as a cleansing and rededication of the Temple (καθαρίσαι τὰ ἅγια καὶ ἐγκαινίσαι—1 Macc 4:36). First Maccabees employs the language of dedication or rededication in reference to both the sanctuary and altar (ἐγκαινίζώ 4:43, 54; cf. 5:1). The narrative recounts first, the cleansing of the Temple (ἐκαθάρισαν τὰ ἅγια, 4:43) and subsequently speaks of its rededication (ἐγκαινίσθαι, 4:54; cf. 5:1). By employing the vocabulary of dedicating the Temple, the historian aligns the actions of Judas with the ceremonies inaugurating both the First and Second Temple (1 Macc 4:36, 43, 54; cf. 5:1). The verb “to dedicate” (ἐγκαινίζω) echoes Solomon’s dedicating the First Temple (1 Kgs 8:53; 2 Chr 7:5). The cognate noun (τὰ ἐγκαίνια) resonates with “the dedication” of the Second Temple and the city walls in Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 6:16 – 17 [1 Esd 7:7]; Neh 12:27). However, the epitomist makes no such connections by employing only the terminology of purification to describe the restoration of the Temple (2 Macc 10:3). Although 2 Maccabees narrates that Judas and his forces recapture Jerusalem as well as the Temple area, 1 Maccabees describes them gaining control only of Mount Zion. In 1 Maccabees, it is not actually Judas but his brothers and successors, Jonathan and Simon, who retake Jerusalem (1 Macc 10:10 – 11; 13:49 – 51). During the temple cleansing, Judas commissions a military cohort to prevent the gentile and non-observant Jewish inhabitants of the citadel from interfering with the work on the Temple (4:41). Simon’s latter-day seizure of the citadel represents the culmination of the Maccabean campaigns (13:49 – 53). This narrative recalls the capture and dedication of the Temple by Judas’ forces through these common features: (a) defeat of Gentile occupiers (13:49 – 50; cf. 4:34); (b) a “cleansing” process (13:50; cf. 4:36, 41); (c) precision in dating (13:51a; cf. 4:52– 54a); (d) songs and music, including harps and cymbals (13:51b; cf. 4:54); and (e) a celebration marked by joy (13:52a; cf. 4:56, 58).

 Second Maccabees mentions a two-year gap between the desecration of the sanctuary and its purification while the dates in 1 Maccabees indicate a three-year hiatus (2 Macc 10:3; cf. 1 Macc 1:54, 59; 4:52– 54 [167– 164 BCE]). Cf. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 372– 73; Doran, 2 Maccabees, 200.

186

Michael W. Duggan

Whereas 1 Maccabees tells of Judas and his forces gaining control only of Mount Zion, 2 Maccabees reports their retaking of Jerusalem as well as the Temple area. The abridger credits the Lord for Judas’ assuming authority over the city, while the historian who wrote 1 Maccabees has the people blessing Heaven for their success in purifying the Temple (1 Macc 4:36, 45; cf. 2 Macc 10:1). The epitomist depicts Judas as returning Jerusalem to the rule of Torah in his opening reference to Judas destroying the altars the Seleucids had erected in the city squares in conformity with the first stipulation of the Deuteronomic Code (2 Macc 10:2; cf. Deut 12:2– 4). ²⁶ First Maccabees, for its part, attends to the smaller confines it views as being under Judas’ influence, i. e., the Temple precincts with its profaned altar of sacrifice, burnt out gates, overgrown courtyards and dilapidated priestly apartments (1 Macc 4:38; cf. 2 Macc 10:2). The historian accentuates the role of observant priests in handling the desecrated altar stones, reconstructing the altar, providing new vessels, installing the lampstand and the table with the showbread, and hanging the curtains (1 Macc 4:42– 51). The refurbishing of the Temple represents the restoration of what Antiochus had violated (1:21– 23). The vestments were an element in the congregation’s prayer at Mizpah, prior to the initial battle at Emmaus (3:49 – 53). The penitential rites during the restoration of the Temple recall those at Mizpah (4:39 – 40; cf. 3:47). The abridger, on the other hand, ascribes all the restorative work on the Temple to Judas and his companions without mentioning any priests (2 Macc 10:1– 4). The absence of priests in the cleansing activities may reflect the abridger’s preoccupations with Jason, Menelaus and Alcimus, the treacherous figures who brought the priesthood into disgrace after the death of the exemplary high priest, Onias III (2 Macc 4:7– 22, 23 – 25; 14:3 – 14, 26; cf. 3:1– 12, 29 – 34; 4:30 – 34). First Maccabees attends in detail to the altar of sacrifice, while 2 Maccabees has a particular focus on the lighting of the sacrificial fire (1 Macc 4:42– 46; cf. 2 Macc 10:3). In 1 Maccabees, contact with the desolating sacrilege had rendered the altar stones unclean (1 Macc 4:43 – 46 cf. 1:54; Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). The historian distinguishes between two sets of stones: the ones that made up the desolating sacrilege (4:43) and those that composed the altar (4:44– 45).²⁷ The storage of the altar stones endows the narrative with an eschatological dimension  Prior to 2 Macc 10:2, the abridger does not mention the pagan altars that the Seleucids constructed in the city. However, earlier in 1 Maccabees, the historian mentions altars and shrines the Seleucids had set up under orders from Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:47, 55).  Goldstein (I Maccabees, 143 – 51, 224– 25) views the desolating sacrilege as a structure of three stones, which the Seleucids had erected upon the altar of sacrifice.

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

187

since only the prophet who is to come will decide what to do with them (1 Macc 4:46; cf. 14:41; Deut 18:15; Mal 4:5 [LXX]). The priests reconstruct the altar with new unhewn stones in keeping with the prescriptions of the Priestly tradition (Exod 20:24– 25; cf. 27:1– 8). The historian’s attentiveness to the priests, the altar, the burnt offerings and Torah prescriptions recalls the first event of reconstruction at the Temple site early in the post exilic era, which took place under the supervision of Jeshua and Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:1– 4). The historian employs the term “dedication” in reference to the altar as well as to the Temple (τὸν ἐγκαινισμὸν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, 1 Macc 4:56; αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ ἐγκαινισμοῦ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, 4:59; cf. 4:36; 5:1). In doing so, he suggests continuity with the rites at the inauguration of the First Temple according to the Chronicler’s version (2 Chr 7:5, 9). The combined references to the altar, burnt offerings and incense also resonate with the rites observed by Solomon at the original altar according to the Deuteronomistic historian (1 Macc 4:44, 50; cf. 1 Kgs 9:25). Second Maccabees, for its part, mentions the construction of the new altar without referring to the former one. The epitomist hastens to describe the lighting of the new fire for offering of sacrifices and incense, which is not noted in 1 Maccabees (2 Macc 10:3). A new beginning is implied in the point that the fires at the altar and in the lamps are ignited by flint and not imported from a flame that is already burning. The new fire may symbolically recall the fire from heaven in the Chronicler’s version of the First Temple dedication (2 Chr 7:1– 3; cf. 1 Chr 21:26). While both versions of the Temple purification describe an eight-day celebration beginning on the 25th of Chislev, only 2 Maccabees states that the Festival of Booths provides the prototype for the festivities (2 Macc 10:6; cf. 1 Macc 4:56). The actual date is December 14, 164 BCE. The celebration compensates for the impossibility of celebrating the Festival of Booths two months earlier, when Judas and his troops were carrying on guerrilla warfare against the Seleucid forces. The abridger’s description of a procession with the branches of palms and other trees may allude to the materials essential to the Festival of Booths (2 Macc 10:7; cf. Lev 23:40; Neh 8:15). First Maccabees avoids conflating the days of dedication with the Festival of Booths by not mentioning the latter celebration. At the same time, the narrative of dedication alludes to the Festival of Booths through these four narrative elements: (a) the language of “dedication,” which recalls Solomon’s rites at the First Temple during the Festival of Booths (1 Macc 4:36, 56, 59; cf. 1 Kgs 8:63; cf. 2 Chr 7:5); (b) the detailed account of reconstructing the altar and offering sacrifices on it, which echoes the activities of Jeshua and Zerubbabel on the Festival of Booths in the earliest days after the exile (1 Macc 4:42 – 47, 53; cf. Ezra 3:1– 6; 1

188

Michael W. Duggan

Esd 5:47– 52); (c) the eight-day duration of the event (1 Macc 4:56, 59; cf. Num 29:12– 38; Lev 23:36, 39; Neh 8:18); and (d) the emphasis on festival joy (1 Macc 4:56, 59; cf. Lev 23:40; Neh 8:17). In summary, Second Maccabees presents the annual observance of the Temple purification as explicitly related to the Festival of Booths, whereas 1 Maccabees only implies an intertextual association between these mutually distinct celebrations.²⁸

3 The Hanukkah Festival in the Introductory Letters of 2 Maccabees (2 Macc 1:1 – 2:18) In each of the two letters at the beginning of 2 Maccabees the community in Jerusalem invites the Jewish community in Egypt to celebrate “the days of booths” or “booths” in the month of Chislev (1:9; 1:18). This commemoration of the Temple cleansing is also called “the days” in the second letter (2:16). The dates and titles confirm that the letters encourage the Jews of Egypt to join their companions in Judah by observing the anniversary of the Temple purification by Judas in light of its presentation in the epitome (2 Macc 10:5 – 6, 8: cf. 1 Macc 4:52– 54). However, each letter ties the advocacy for the celebration to events that are not immediately related to the Temple cleansing in the epitome. The first letter, which dates to 124 BCE, directs attention to a letter, which the community in Jerusalem had sent to Egypt in 143 BCE, that recalled the treachery the ousted high priest Jason had perpetrated upon the Jewish populace prior to the Maccabean revolt (1:7– 8; cf. 5:5 – 10). The second letter, which may date to the decade between 135 and 124 BCE, connects the festival of the Temple purification, on the 25th of Chislev, with a festival of the fire Nehemiah restored to the Temple after the exile (1:18, 19 – 36; cf. 2:16). The letters are not in dialogue with each other. The second letter exhibits a Semitic texture whereas the first letter is thoroughly Hellenistic.²⁹ The first apparently served as a cover letter that the community in Jerusalem attached to the epitome, which it sent to Egypt in 124 BCE. We may presume that the second letter was included in that parcel while recognizing this is impossible to ascertain.

 The historian mentions the Festival of Booths only once, as the occasion of Jonathan’s investiture as high priest (1 Macc 10:21).  See Doran, Propaganda, 24– 46. Doran (ibid., 11– 12) and Collins (Athens, 69 – 73, 80 – 81) dismiss the view that the letters aim to persuade the Jews of Egypt to renounce allegiance to the Oniad temple in Leontopolis and demonstrate their loyalty to the Hasmonean priests and the Jerusalem Temple (cf. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 139, 142, 147, 161– 64).

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

189

The second letter, for its part, offers a complete self-contained story that formerly had circulated independently of the epitome. A close examination of each letter discloses a diversity of lessons the Jewish community in Egypt may have drawn from the epitome (2 Macc 2:19 – 15:39). As a preface to the epitome, each letter reinterprets the festival of the Temple purification. However, it is remarkable that neither letter explicitly echoes the epitomist’s description, which certifies Judas as the person who purified the Temple and thereby instituted the festival (2 Macc 10:1– 8).

3.1 The First Letter (2 Macc 1:1 – 9) The first letter identifies 124 BCE as the date when the final version of 2 Maccabees was completed (1:9). This letter consists of four parts: a greeting (1:1); a series of invocations (1:2– 6); a summary of a previous letter (1:7– 8); and an exhortation to observe “the days of booths,” i. e., Hanukkah (1:9). The letter refers to the anniversary of the Temple cleansing in the concluding admonition for the Jews of Alexandria to celebrate the days of booths during Chislev in the year 124 BCE (1:9). Mention of the sacrifices, lamps, and bread of the Presence confirms the focus on the commemoration of the Temple purification (1:8; cf. 10:3).³⁰ The expression “the days of booths” (αἱ ἡμέραι τῆς σκηνοπηγίας, 1:9) is consistent with epitomist’s reference to the decree that called for the observance of “these days” (τάσδε τὰς ἡμέρας, 10:8). While the moniker “the days of booths” implies a close association between the commemoration of the Temple purification and the Festival of Booths, it does not conflate the two celebrations (10:5 – 6). Although these celebrations share the term “booths,” the harvest event is designated as a “festival” (ἑορτή, 6:6, 7; 10:6) whereas the commemoration of the Temple purification consists of “days” (αἱ ἡμέραι, 1:9; 2:16; 10:6, 8; cf. 2:12).³¹  The only references to lamps and bread in 2 Maccabees are in 1:8 and 10:3. Of the six references to sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem, three pertain to offerings at the time of the Temple purification (10:3; cf. 9:16; 13:23), one to the activities of priests over three years later (14:31) and two to the intercessions of Onias III on behalf of Heliodorus (3:32, 35). The epitome does not mention grain offerings.  On the distinction between “festival” and “days,” I concur with Goldstein, II Maccabees, 153. First Maccabees speaks of “the days of the dedication of the altar” (αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ ἐγκαινισμοῦ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου—1 Macc 4:59) and the “day” for commemorating Judas’ victory over Nicanor (τὴν ἡμέραν—1 Macc 7:48 – 49). First Maccabees and the epitome of 2 Maccabees apparently follow the Torah convention of reserving the term “festival” for one of the long-established major celebrations in the liturgical calendar (ἑορτὴ—1 Macc 1:39, 45; 10:34; 12:11; 2 Macc 6:6, 7; 10:6; cf.

190

Michael W. Duggan

In 2 Maccabees, the “days of booths” may refer to an adaptation of the festival for the celebration in the month of Chislev (1:9, 18). During the festival of Sukkot, the booths commemorated the experience of Israel in the wilderness era (Lev 23:42– 43; Neh 8:15 – 17). However, during the commemoration of the Temple purification, mention of booths may have elicited the memory of Judas and his companions living in caves as they hid from the Seleucid forces (2 Macc 10:6; cf. 5:27; 6:6). Nevertheless, by recalling the previous letter sent from Jerusalem to Egypt in 143 BCE (during the reign of Demetrius II), the first letter deflects attention from the episode of Judas cleansing the Temple to the series of injustices Jason perpetrated against the Jews in Judah when he attempted to regain the high priesthood from his brother Menelaus (1:7– 8; cf. 5:5 – 10).³² By placing the précis of the earlier letter immediately before the call for the Jewish community in Egypt to observe the days of booths, the authorities in Jerusalem suggest the Temple purification celebrates the defeat of Jason, the traitorous high priest, as well as the eventual positive outcomes for the Jews in Jerusalem and Judah in subsequent years (1:7– 9). Thus, the précis points to the activities of Jason in the epitome (4:7– 26; 5:5 – 10). Jason deposed his brother Onias III from the office of high priest by gaining the favor of Antiochus IV Epiphanes when he became king of the Seleucid Empire (4:7– 10). Throughout his tenure as high priest from 175 to 172 BCE, Jason acted as Antiochus’ agent in overseeing the Hellenization of Jerusalem (4:7– 22).³³ His term came to an abrupt end when Antiochus replaced him with Menelaus, who was not from the Oniad line of priests (4:23 – 26). In each case, the epitomist underlines the corruption of the high priesthood by noting the sums that Jason and Menelaus in turn offered the king to obtain the office (4:7– 9, 24). Nevertheless, the précis does not refer to Jason’s tenure as high priest but rather to his later failed attempt to seize control of Jerusalem from Menelaus in 168 BCE, before the Roman army repelled the forces of Antiochus IV Epiphanes during his second incursion into Egypt (1:7; cf. 5:1, 5 – 10).³⁴ Jason’s killing of

Deut 16:1– 17). Both narratives mention the Festival of Booths while the epitome refers to the Festival of Weeks (1 Macc 10:21; 2 Macc 10:6; 12:31).  Demetrius II was the Seleucid monarch from 145 – 140 BCE. The first of Nisan (April 3) 311 BCE marks the beginning of the Seleucid era (Whitehorne, “Seleucus,” 1077). The 169th year, therefore, is 143 BCE and the 188th year is 124 BCE (2 Macc 1:7, 9).  On Jason’s career, see VanderKam, Joshua, 197– 203, 218 – 23.  In 1 Maccabees, the historian recounts that Antiochus first robbed the Jerusalem temple in 169 BCE following the success of his first campaign in Egypt (1 Macc 1:16 – 28; cf. Dan 11:28). He

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

191

his fellow Jews in Jerusalem is the only element in the letter that corresponds with the epitome (1:8; cf. 5:6). However, in the précis, the global reference to events in the “years after” Jason’s attack alludes to Antiochus’ plundering of the Temple and persecution of observant Jews in 167 BCE and also to the revolt by Judas Maccabeus which the king’s actions precipitated (2 Macc 1:7; cf. 5:11– 27). In summary, the letter connects the celebration of the days of booths in Chislev to Jason’s attack on the Jews rather than to Antiochus’ assaults on Jerusalem, the Temple and the Jewish people (5:5 – 10; cf. 5:15 – 26). By concentrating on the offenses of the Jewish high priest more explicitly than on the attacks by the foreign overlord, the letter changes the emphasis in the epitome. The real enemy of Jerusalem is Jason rather than Antiochus and his treason consists in murder of his fellow Jews rather than Hellenization of the city (1:7; cf. 4:7– 18; 5:6). The concentration on the negative profile of Jason serves to emphasize the theme of the invocations, namely, that the survival of the Temple in Jerusalem depends on the interior disposition of all Jews (1:2– 5).The authorities in Jerusalem place Torah observance at the center of their petitions for the Jews of Egypt to worship and do the will of God as they commit themselves to prayer and reconciliation. The entreaty that the Jews of Egypt would open their hearts to the law directs attention to the determinative role the Torah plays in shaping the destinies of priests and people in the epitome (1:4). Onias III exercises the office of high priest effectively because he adheres to the law (3:1; 4:2). In fact, Onias III is the lone observant high priest in the epitome. His profile as the protagonist in the first episode makes him the foil for the unrighteous high priests who follow, i. e., Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus. Onias’ exemplary devotion motivates the people’s Torah observance (3:1). While he is in office, priests and people together prostrate themselves to intercede against Heliodorus’ designs on the temple treasury (3:15, 20). Only during the tenure of Onias III does the citizenry align itself with the priesthood. When Menelaus sees to the assassination of Onias, the people turn against Menelaus, and take their protest to King Antiochus, who then mourns the death of Onias and executes justice upon his killer (4:35 – 42). In summary, the abridger describes Onias III as a faithful high priest, “a man of moderation and good conduct” and “the benefactor of the city, the protector of his compatriots and a zealot for the laws” (3:17– 18; 4:2, 37). By contrast with Onias, Jason and Menelaus fail as high priests because they betray the law

follows this episode with his narrative of Antiochus’ second incursion into Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:29 – 40; 2 Macc 5:1– 21; cf. Dan 11:29 – 30). However, 1 Maccabees does not mention Jason.

192

Michael W. Duggan

(4:11; 5:8, 15; 13:7). Antiochus IV Epiphanes attempts to eliminate Judaism by his prohibitions against observance of the laws, only to restore their practice in the end (6:1, 5; 11:31). The readers who heed the appeal to maintain the law in their hearts will follow the examples of the martyrs, Eleazar and the seven brothers, as well as Judas and his troops (6:23, 28; 7:9, 11, 23, 30, 37; 8:21; 10:36; 13:10, 14). Three more elements in the material on Jason merit attention: the identification of Judea as “the holy land,” the role of prayer, and the ascribing of Jason’s defeat to the Lord rather than to a human agent (1:7– 8).³⁵ The summary refers to Jason rebelling against both Israel and the Seleucid authorities, which are the entities implied in “the holy land and the kingdom” (1:7). The “kingdom” refers to the territory under Seleucid jurisdiction throughout 2 Maccabees (4:7; 9:25; 10:11; 11:23; 14:6, 26).³⁶ “The holy land” occurs nowhere else in 1 and 2 Maccabees.³⁷ Nevertheless, this expression refers to the territory associated with the “holy place” in the second letter (1:29; 2:18). In the epitome, “holy” variously qualifies the city of Jerusalem (3:1; 9:14, 16; 15:14), the Temple (13:10; 14:31; 15:32) and the Jewish inhabitants of the land (15:24). Hence, by employing the expression “holy land,” the authorities in Jerusalem endow the territory of Judea with an unprecedented sacred status that their Jewish counterparts in Egypt need to acknowledge. The letter emphasizes the efficacy of the people’s prayers for the restoration of sacrifices and material arrangements in the Temple (1:8). The Lord’s responsiveness to the communal prayers of Jews provides an essential link between the letter and the epitome. The letter resonates with the portrait of the whole people who pray for the preservation of the Temple, Torah observance, and the land (13:10 – 11). The prayer of faithful Jews guarantees success in Judas’ military campaigns (8:2– 4; 8:14– 15; 10:16; 12:28; 15:22– 24). When the Jewish forces proclaim divine praises, the momentum of the battle changes in their favor (12:36 – 37; 15:27). Songs of thanksgiving ensue after the Jewish forces are victorious (8:27; 10:38; 15:29).

 In 2 Maccabees, Judea refers to the territorial homeland of the Jews (2 Macc 1:1, 10; 5:11; 10:21; 11:5; 13:1, 13; 14:12, 14), whereas Israel is a designation of the Jewish populace (1:25, 26; 9:5; 10:38; 11:6; 15:14). The epitome designates the Jewish political entity as “the nation” (τὸ ἔθνος—2 Macc 5:19 – 20; 6:31; 7:37– 38; 10:8; 11:25, 27; cf. 14:8, 9)  The historian also employs the term “kingdom” primarily in reference to the Seleucid jurisdiction and never to Judea or Israel (1 Macc 1:6, 10, 16, 41, 51; 2:57; 3:14, 27; 6:14, 57; 7:4, 8; 10:33, 34, 37, 43, 52, 53, 55; 11:1, 9, 11, 52; 15:3, 4, 9, 28, 29).  In the LXX, “the holy land” (ἡ ἅγια γῆ—2 Macc 1:7) occurs elsewhere only in Zech 2:16 (ἡ γῆ ἡ ἅγια for ‫ )אדמת הקדשׁ‬and in Wis 12:3 (ἡ ἅγια σου γῆ).

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

193

The centrality of the prayer near the end of the letter relates to the series of invocations occurring at its beginning (1:2– 6). These petitions for God’s action on behalf of the Jews in Egypt link this letter to the oration of the priests in the second letter, as well as to the entreaty of Judas and his companions when they cleansed the Temple (2 Macc 1:24– 29; 10:4; cf. 1 Macc 4:39 – 40) Moreover, the authorities in Jerusalem attribute their survival to the Lord rather than to a human agent such as Judas Maccabeus (1:8). This discernment is consistent with the epitomist’s emphasis on the sovereignty of God who disciplines the Jews in the era of wrath and delivers them in the era of mercy (6:12– 17; 7:18 – 19, 32– 33, 37– 38; 8:5). Emblematic of the epitome are the graphic depictions of heavenly visitations (or epiphanies) that assure the Jews of vindication: a vision of horse, rider and disciplinarians overwhelms Heliodorus as he is about to plunder the Temple (3:25 – 28); a transcendent cavalry appears over Jerusalem for 40 days (5:1– 4); a subgroup of armed horsemen protect Judas in battle (10:29 – 30); a single horseman leads Judas’ troops to victory at Beth-zur (11:8); a manifestation of God overwhelms the enemy as Judas’ troops engage them at Carnaim (12:22); and appearing from beyond the grave, the holy priest Onias and the prophet Jeremiah provide Judas with the golden sword to defeat Nicanor (15:11– 16).³⁸ Summarily, the letter confirms what the epitome illustrates, namely that the survival of the Temple and the people is due to God’s intervention on their behalf (14:15).

3.2 The Second Letter (2 Macc 1:10 – 2:18) The second letter consists of four parts: the greeting (1:10); the account of Antiochus IV Epiphanes dying in Persia (1:11– 17); the narrative of Nehemiah originally supplying the Temple with the sacrificial fire from the First Temple (which Jeremiah had preserved) and subsequently establishing a library (1:18 – 2:15); and the invitation to celebrate the days of the Temple purification (2:16 – 18). The letter relates the days of purification not only to the Festival of Booths but also to the heroics of Nehemiah (1:18).³⁹

 Doran, Propaganda, 98 – 104.  Goldstein (II Maccabees, 154, 173) appeals to textual criticism in order to tighten the connections among the festivals by translating the senders’ invitation in 1:18 as a call to celebrate “the Purification of the Temple…as Days of Tabernacles and Days of Fire…” (Italics added.) However, Doran (2 Maccabees, 46) provides the preferable translation of 2 Macc 1:18, “About to celebrate on the twenty-fifth Kislev the purification of the temple, we thought it necessary, so that you

194

Michael W. Duggan

The stories of Antiochus, Nehemiah, and Jeremiah share common motifs pertaining to temples, secret places, and the disclosure of things hidden. The staging of Antiochus’ death in a pagan temple in Persia provides a dramatic contrast to the focus on the constructive work by Nehemiah, Jeremiah, and Solomon on behalf of the Temple in Jerusalem, which is God’s “holy place” (2 Macc 1:11– 17; cf. 1:29; 2:18). Moreover, secrecy and games of hide-and-seek are vital ingredients common to the stories of Antiochus, Nehemiah, and Jeremiah. The priests of Nanea remove a secret door (1:16, κρυπτὴν θύραν) hidden in the temple ceiling in order to surprise Antiochus and his companions with the fatal deluge of stones. Devout priests of the Temple in Jerusalem, on their way to exile, “secretly hid” (1:19, λαθαίρως κατακρύτειν) the remnants of fire from the altar of sacrifice. Jeremiah takes the furnishings of the First Temple and hides them in a cave, which he insists remain unknown (2:7– 8, ἄγνωστος ὁ τόπος ἔσται). In the stories of Nehemiah and Jeremiah, the place of hiding such elements is sealed and made sacred (1:34, περιφράσσω; 2:5, ἔμφρασσω). The Jewish priests follow Nehemiah’s directions in order to find the residue from the altar of sacrifice at the First Temple. By contrast, Jeremiah directs his associates to hide the ark, the tent and the altar of incense, which had been inside the First Temple, in such a manner that their discovery will mark the beginning of the age to come (2:7– 8). In fact, the letter provides an entirely different version of Antiochus’ death than does the epitome or 1 Maccabees (1:13 – 16; cf. 9:1– 12; 9:28; 10:9; 1 Macc 6:1– 17).⁴⁰ Nevertheless, the letter—like the epitome and in contrast to 1 Maccabees—maintains a direct association between the death of Antiochus and the festival of the Temple purification. All three versions locate the event in Persia and view it as the retribution God visits upon this enemy of the Jews (1:11– 12, 17; 9:13 – 14, 28; 1 Macc 6:12 – 13). Within the letter the king is assassinated, while in the epitome he dies of natural causes related to intestinal disease (9:5 – 6). The letter recounts the priests of the goddess Nanea shutting the Seleucid monarch within the temple sanctuary and stoning him to death (1:13 – 16). The note that Antiochus entered the temple under the pretence of marrying the goddess indirectly relates to the epitomist’s emphasis on the king’s hubris in presenting himself as God’s equal (1:14; cf. 9:8, 12). The letter also capitalizes on Antiochus’ reputation for raiding temple treasuries (1:14– 15; cf. 5:15 – 17; 1 Macc 1:20 – 23; 3:31). The disposal of Antiochus’s corpse in the letter resembles that

yourselves might celebrate, to make a clear statement to you about Sukkoth and the fire when Nehemiah offered sacrifices after building the temple and the altar.”  Doran, 2 Maccabees, 44– 45.

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

195

of Nicanor at the end of the epitome: the priests of Nanea decapitate and dismember the king and his comrades just as Judas decapitates and disposes of Nicanor’s tongue and arm in the presence of priests in Jerusalem (1:16; 15:31– 35). Both episodes end with an oration of praise to God (1:17; cf. 1:34). There is no evidence that either the epitomist or the historian who wrote 1 Maccabees was aware of the story of Antiochus’ death at the hands of foreigners. Even more original than this version of Antiochus’ assassination are the descriptions of Nehemiah as the builder of the Temple, the supplier of the sacrificial fire, and the founder of a library (1:18 – 36; 2:13 – 15). The story of Jeremiah intervenes in a manner that builds a thematic bridge between the account of Nehemiah’s provisions for the Temple and his creating a library (2:1– 12). The themes of the Temple and fire carry forward from the Nehemiah legend as the Jeremiah story opens with the prophet’s concern to preserve the fire and care for the Temple furnishings (the tent of meeting, the ark of the covenant and altar of incense) and concludes with Solomon calling down fire from heaven to consume the sacrifices at the inauguration of the First Temple (2:1– 8, 9 – 12). At the same time, the references to the archival document, which is the source of the Jeremiah material, links to the description of Nehemiah’s memoirs and the library he founded (2:1, 4; cf. 2:13). Indeed, the end of the narrative suggests that Nehemiah’s library contained the sources for both stories: the account of Nehemiah finding the naphtha for the sacrificial fire was in his “memoirs,” while the story of Jeremiah hiding the Temple furnishings was in “the books of the kings and prophets” (2:13; cf. 1:19 – 30; 2:1– 12). Moreover, invitations to celebrate the Temple purification frame the stories of Nehemiah, thereby confirming the coherence of this section of material (1:18; 2:16 – 18). The Nehemiah story concludes with the only reference to Judas after the introductory salutation (2:14; cf. 1:10). Here the letter suggests that when Judas devoted himself to collecting the written material, which had disappeared during the war, he was following the example of Nehemiah who had established the library (2:14; cf. 1 Macc 1:56 – 57). This portrayal of Judas as patron of literature points forward to the epitomist’s description of Judas’ veneration for “the law and prophets,” which provide the substance of his instructions to his troops (15:9; cf. 8:23).⁴¹ Just as the narrative of Antiochus’ death in the letter is distinctive in comparison to the accounts in the epitome and 1 Maccabees, so the stories of Nehemiah  Bergren (“Nehemiah,” 260 – 63) proposes that the letter presents Nehemiah as a prototype for Judas. Building upon this thesis, Doran (2 Maccabees, 63) suggests that the letter portrays Nehemiah, Judah’s governor in the Persian era, as the model for Judas, the exemplary state official in Judah three centuries later (1:10; cf. Neh 5:14, 18; 8:9; 10:2 [10:1 NRSV]; 12:26).

196

Michael W. Duggan

and Jeremiah are unparalleled in the accounts of their lives elsewhere in the MT or LXX (cf. 1:19 – 36; 2:1– 8). This is remarkable in view of the significant quantity of biographical material that the biblical tradition preserved in the Nehemiah Memoir (roughly Nehemiah 1– 7, 12– 13) and the Jeremiah prose narratives (in most of Jeremiah 1– 29, 32– 45). These heroes operate on either side of the exile as Nehemiah embodies the later period of restoration in Judah and Jerusalem whereas Jeremiah represents the earlier period of destruction. The fire, which Jeremiah had preserved and the residue of which Nehemiah recovered, constitutes the essential thread that certifies the rites of the Second Temple as continuing those of the First (2 Macc 2:1; cf. 1:19 – 23). The fact that the sun—and not a human agent—ignites the naphtha liquid (1:22) confirms the continuity of the Second Temple with the tradition that extends back through Solomon to Moses. The Lord sent the initial fire upon the sacrifices Moses offered at the tent of meeting in the vicinity of Mount Sinai (2 Macc 2:10; cf. Lev 9:23 – 24). Subsequently, in response to Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the First Temple, fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices (2 Macc 2:9 – 12; cf. 2 Chr 7:1; 1 Chr 21:26; 1 Kgs 18:38). Hence it is fitting that the celebration of the Temple purification mirrors the eight-day festival that Solomon observed when dedicating the First Temple (2 Macc 2:12; cf. 1:18). The graphic descriptions of fire coming upon the altar of sacrifice under Nehemiah’s supervision serve to qualify the newness of the fire that Judas and his companions strike from flint in the epitomist’s comparatively prosaic description of the fresh beginning of sacrifices at the purified Temple (1:20 – 23; cf. 10:3). Moreover, the eight references to fire, which comprise the chain connecting the stories of Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Solomon, and Moses in the letter, may function as a comprehensive aetiology for designating the altar and the fire as “holy” in the epitome (1:18, 19, 20 [2x], 33; 2:1, 10 [2x]; cf. 13:8). The letter portrays Jeremiah as a figure who both connects the Second Temple to the First Temple and also differentiates the Second Temple from the First Temple.⁴² His preserving of the fire ties the Second Temple to the First Temple, while his hiding the Temple furnishings sets the Second Temple apart from the First. By securing the fire that remained as residue in the naphtha, Jeremiah supplied the conditions for Nehemiah to ensure that the sacrificial fire at the Second Temple came from the fire ignited at Solomon’s dedication of the First Temple (2:1; cf. 1:20 – 23; 2:9 – 12). However, by determining that the location of the cave where he hid the tent of meeting, the ark of the covenant and the altar of incense would remain unknown, Jeremiah prevented these vital elements of

 Doran, 2 Maccabees, 63.

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

197

the First Temple from being in the Second Temple (2:5 – 8).⁴³ At the dedication of the First Temple, priests had set the tent and the ark within the holiest place (1 Kgs 8:4– 9; 2 Chr 5:5 – 10). In the absence of any record concerning the fate of these items when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple in 587 BCE, the letter describes Jeremiah transporting them to a cave at Mount Nebo where Moses died (2 Macc 2:4– 7; cf. Deut 34:1– 6). The location was most appropriate since the ark, which Moses had made, contained the tablets of the covenant and the tent was the place where Moses had conversed with YHWH (Deut 10:1– 5; Exod 33:7– 11). Jeremiah, the prophet like Moses, hid these elements, which bespoke the origins of the law and its centrality to the original Temple, at the place where Moses had made his final departure. Hence the ark, the tent, and the altar of incense are absent from the Second Temple in a manner that makes them symbols of the ultimate future when God will gather together the people whose defining characteristic is Torah observance (2 Macc 2:3, 8; cf. Deut 31:9 – 13, 14).⁴⁴ The letter provides intriguing revisions in the traditional profiles of both Jeremiah and Nehemiah. It presents Jeremiah, who was notorious for his verbal attacks on the priests and his declarations of doom for the Temple, as the person who preserves the Temple fire and its most sacred furnishings (2 Macc 2:1, 4– 8; cf. Jer 6:13 – 15; 7:1– 15; 26:1– 15). The letter depicts Nehemiah, who fortified the city of Jerusalem by repairing its walls, as the leader who rebuilds the Temple and the altar (2 Macc 1:18; cf. Neh 1:1– 4:17 [4:23 NRSV]; 6:15 – 7:4). Nevertheless, the portraits of each protagonist in the letter reflect other dimensions of their characterization in the tradition. Regarding Jeremiah, the letter draws upon the prophet’s allegiance to Moses and his innovative concern for the law written on the heart (2 Macc 2:3; cf. Jer 15:1; 31:31– 34). In the case of Nehemiah, the letter enlarges upon his activities related to the Temple during the two terms (445 – 432 BCE and after 432 BCE) when he served as governor of Judah, by appointment of the Persian king, Artaxerxes (Neh 1:1; 2:1; 13:6 – 7; cf. 2 Macc 1:20). After rebuilding the city walls, he participated in their “dedication” in a ritual that choreographed the city as the amplification of the Temple (Neh 12:27– 43; cf. 2 Macc 1:18).⁴⁵ Nehemiah’s presence at Ezra’s reading of the Torah associated him with the observance of the Festival of Booths, which the text specifies as running for eight days (Neh 8:9, 13 – 18; cf. 2 Macc 1:18; 2:12).  Ibid., 56 – 57.  The identification of Jeremiah as a “prophet like Moses” derives especially from the correspondences between his call and that of Moses (Deut 18:15, 18; cf. Jer 1:4– 10; Exod 3:1– 4:17). See Allison, Moses, 53 – 62; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 24, 29 – 30, 34– 36.  See Eskenazi, Age, 119 – 21, 188 – 89; cf. Duggan, Renewal, 56.

198

Michael W. Duggan

His reprimands of the priest, Eliashib, and oversight of the Levites at the Temple may have inspired the description—within the letter—of his directing the priests in matters pertaining to the sacrificial fire in the Second Temple (Neh 13:4– 14, 22, 28 – 29; cf. 2 Macc 1:20 – 23, 30 – 36). Specifically, the governor’s provision of the wood offering at the Temple may have contributed to his association with the sacrificial fire in the later story (Neh 13:31; cf. 10:35 [10:34 NRSV]). The second letter offers a comparatively positive view of gentiles that challenges the epitome’s general suspicion of gentiles as adversaries of the Jews. The opening address may indicate that the relationship between Aristobulus, the teacher with a priestly pedigree, and his student, Ptolemy VI Philometor, is presented as a model for Jews in the diaspora and in Judah (1:10). Ptolemy is the counterpoint to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the only other gentile mentioned by name in the remainder of the letter. At the same time, the anonymous gentiles in the stories are agents who promote the realization of God’s purposes for the Jews. All of them are Persians. The priests at the temple of Nanea execute God’s judgment when they strategically kill Antiochus and his companions (1:17). The Persian king authorizes Nehemiah to locate the remnants of the sacrificial fire, then protects the place where it is found and provides gifts to confirm his relationship with the Jews (1:20, 33 – 35). Such actions make him the antithesis of Antiochus who proscribes Judaism, desecrates the Temple, and oversees the execution of Jewish martyrs (5:15 – 26; 6:1– 17; 7:1– 41). The second letter introduces an eschatological thrust into 2 Maccabees by describing the eventual gathering of Jews from the diaspora to the Temple, Jerusalem and the land of Judea. This perspective is communicated in the voices of the priests and the community (1:27– 28), Jeremiah (2:7– 8) and the letter writers (2:17– 18). The community’s prayer reverberates with the language of the exodus and the return from exile and thus depicts the final homecoming as liberation from slavery and oppression (1:27; cf. Deut 30:1– 5). Echoing the ancient song of Moses and the Israelites, the metaphor of God “planting” the people, confirms that “the holy place,” refers to not only to the temple, but also to the land, which the first letter calls “holy” (1:29; cf. 1:7; Exod 15:17). Jeremiah associates the restoration of the Jewish diaspora to the land with the ultimate revelation of God in a manner that reflects the divine presence both in the tent of meeting at Mount Sinai and also in the dedication of the First Temple (2 Macc 2:7– 8; cf. Exod 40:34– 35; 1 Kgs 8:10 – 11). At the end of the epitome, Jeremiah embodies the eschatological future when he appears from beyond the grave to hand Judas the golden sword that will bring the final victory to Judas (2 Macc 15:13 – 16). The community in Judea concludes the letter by highlighting the purification of the Temple as a sign of God’s faithfulness to the promise of gathering the whole community to the land at the end of the age. Observing the days that cel-

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

199

ebrate the anniversary of the Temple cleansing is an expression of hope in the future that God is unfolding for all who live according to Torah (2:16 – 18).

4 An Intertextual Conversation on Hanukkah The commemoration of Judas’ restoration of the sanctuary marks the first time the Temple became the essential focus of a festival in the Jewish liturgical calendar.⁴⁶ The fact that this celebration highlights an institution, a city, and a territory sets it apart from the harvest festivals of Passover, Weeks and Booths, which are seasonal and agricultural. The four interpretations of Hanukkah testify to its power for establishing the national identity of Israel, revitalizing the self-understanding of Jews, and unifying the diaspora with the homeland. When viewed in light of the others, each document offers an invitation to celebrate the eight days beginning on the 25th of Chislev in a manner that invites the reader into a rich conversation. When describing the reconstruction, 1 Maccabees focuses on stone while 2 Maccabees is concerned with fire. The historian deliberates at length over the material composition of the altar of sacrifice, while the epitomist and the writers of the second letter fixate on the fire, which ignites upon the altar (1 Macc 4:44– 47; 2 Macc 1:19 – 22; 10:3). Whereas 1 Maccabees is preoccupied with physicality, the three documents of 2 Maccabees constantly move toward transcendence. The historian describes the step-by-step process of constructing the Temple spaces, crafting the vessels, and then positioning the furniture, while referring to the fabric of stone and curtains (1 Macc 4:39, 48 – 51). The epitomist, however, hurriedly passes over such issues so as to concentrate on the fire, the sacrifices, and the people’s repentance—all of which indicate his preoccupation with the purification of the sanctuary and the people rather than with the construction of a building (2 Macc 10:1– 4). Where the epitomist is concerned with guilt and repentance, the historian speaks of shame and honor (2 Macc 10:4; 7:32– 33; cf. 1 Macc 4:39; 1:39 – 40). However, the broader context suggests that the historian is a crafty pragmatist who presents the repairing of the Temple as the first step in building Israel into an independent Jewish state. Whereas the epitomist gives the impression that Judas controlled the city before occupying the sanctuary, the sober historian

 The dedication of the First Temple was associated with Booths and the dedication of the Second Temple with Passover (1 Kgs 8:2; Ezra 6:14– 22), but the Torah ascribes to Moses the origin of the festivals of Passover and Booths (Lev 23:4– 14, 33 – 44) long before the Temple was built.

200

Michael W. Duggan

emphasizes that Judas had not yet seized even the citadel (1 Macc 4:41; cf. 2 Macc 10:1). Nevertheless, for the historian the old stones of the Temple contain the secret that a prophet will disclose (1 Macc 4:46). That disclosure will take place at some future time following the reign of Simon, the Hasmonean high priest who definitively secures Israel for the Jewish people (14:41; cf. 14:25 – 40). While 2 Maccabees may not reflect the historian’s preoccupations with statecraft, it is nevertheless concerned with Jewish governance in the homeland and in the diaspora. The days of purification are inaugurated by a statutory edict and popular vote (2 Macc 10:8; cf. 15:36). The governmental stratification becomes even more refined in the three-part system of the people, the senate, and Judas that authorized the second letter (1:10). Whereas 1 Maccabees presents Hanukkah as a festival of Jewish nationalism, the letters in 2 Maccabees make it a celebration of international Judaism. While 1 Maccabees is preoccupied with the survival of Israel in this world, 2 Maccabees is concerned with the ultimate destiny of Jews in a cosmos that is porous to the intervention of heaven on behalf of Abraham’s children. Both of the introductory letters in 2 Maccabees invite the Jewish community in Egypt to orient their lives toward the Temple in Jerusalem. The second letter, in particular, describes the Temple and the land as the destiny of all Jews (2 Macc 1:27– 29; 2:7, 18). The community in Egypt could view their ultimate future as the final enactment of the exodus of the Israelites to the promised land under Moses’ leadership. Their journey homeward will be the culmination of the work accomplished on their behalf by Moses, Solomon, Jeremiah, and Nehemiah (1:19 – 2:11).

Bibliography Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Bergren, Theodore A. “Nehemiah in 2 Maccabees 1:10 – 2:18.” JSJ 28 (1997) 249 – 70. Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Rev. Ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. deSilva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018. Doran, Robert. 2 Maccabees. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Doran, Robert. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees. CBQMS 12. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981. Duggan, Michael W. The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah: An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study. SBLDS 164. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Duggan, Michael W. “The Family Measure in 2 Maccabees: A Mother and Her Seven Sons.” In Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, edited by Angelo Passaro. DCLY 2012/2013. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013, 283 – 99. Eskenazi, Tamara C. In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah. SBLMS 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Hanukkah in 1 and 2 Maccabees: An Intertextual Reading

201

Fischer, Thomas. “Maccabees, Books of: First and Second Maccabees,” trans. Frederick Cryer. In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4, edited by David Noel Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 439 – 50. Galling, Kurt. “Altar.” In The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by George A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962, 96 – 100. Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 41. New York: Doubleday, 1976. Goldstein, Jonathan A. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 41 A. New York: Doubleday, 1984. Haak, Robert D. “Altar.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1, edited by David Noel Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 162 – 67. Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1 – 25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Kosmin, Paul J., The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014. Meyers, Carol L., and Meyers, Eric M., Zechariah 9 – 14. AB 25C. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Rappaport, Uriel. “Maccabees, First Book of.” In: The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010, 903 – 5. Rappaport, Uriel. “Nicanor.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4, edited by David Noel Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 1105. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods. BJS 302. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Maccabees, Second Book of.” In The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010, 905 – 7. VanderKam, James C. An Introduction to Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. VanderKam, James C. From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile. Minneapolis: Fortress; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2004. Wheaton, Gerry. “The Festival of Hanukkah in 2 Maccabees: Its Meaning and Function.” CBQ 74 (2012) 247 – 62. Williams, David S. The Structure of 1 Maccabees. CBQMS 31. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1999. Whitehorne, John. “Seleucus.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5, edited by David Noel Freedman et al. New York: Doubleday, 1992, 1076 – 77.

Karina Martin Hogan

Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra This essay combines an interest I have had for a number of years, in maternal personification and maternal metaphors in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Judaism, with a relatively recent interest, in intertextuality as both a theory and a method (or methods).¹ Scholars have often recognized that the term “intertextuality” may refer to two fundamentally different approaches to reading texts.² Biblical scholars frequently employ the term to refer to a diachronic, author-oriented method of studying allusion and influence in biblical texts. This approach, focusing on the ways in which biblical authors appropriate and interpret other biblical texts, has also been called “inner-biblical exegesis” or “inner-biblical interpretation.”³ A leading exponent of this approach, Benjamin Sommer, explicitly disavows the term “intertextuality,” which he describes as “a synchronic, reader-oriented, semiotic method,” in contrast to his own “model of allusion and influence.”⁴ More recently, Stephen D. Moore and Yvonne Sherwood have criticized biblical scholars for adopting “intertextuality” as a methodological term without understanding the poststructuralist theory behind it.⁵ Indeed, John Barton has sharpened their critique: “Intertextuality as a theory, along with other products of postmodernist thought, is highly challenging to any idea of the fixity, canon-

 I am grateful to Jeremy Corley and Geoffrey Miller for inviting me to join their discussion of intertextuality in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Task Force at the 2014 annual meeting of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. At that meeting, I presented “Mother Zion in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 and 2 Baruch 1– 12” (see Hogan, “Zion”).  See Miller, “Intertextuality.” I follow him in designating the two approaches “author-oriented” and “reader-oriented.” Patricia Tull (“Intertextuality”) had earlier described the followers of the two approaches more polemically as “traditionalists” and “radical intertextualists.” Will Kynes (“Intertextuality”) prefers to call the two approaches “diachronic” and “synchronic.” John Barton (“Déjà Lu,” 6 – 7) thinks the two modes are better described as “temporal” and “spatial.” Interestingly, as Katharine Dell and Will Kynes, the editors of Reading Job Intertextually, point out in the introduction, many of the authors represented in that volume attempt to integrate the two approaches, so perhaps the divide between them is becoming less absolute.  Michael Fishbane (Interpretation) is generally credited with introducing this approach. He did not intend to propose a new methodology, however, so much as to draw attention to the fact that biblical texts not only allude to other biblical texts, they often interpret (or re-interpret) them.  Sommer, Prophet, 6 – 10.  Moore and Sherwood, Invention, 33 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416930-009

204

Karina Martin Hogan

icity and inspiration of the biblical text. In the biblical ‘guild’ we should face up to that, either accepting it or contesting it, rather than seeing it as one more handy tool to put in our exegetical kit.”⁶ On the other hand, the meaning of the term seems to have evolved over time, so that among literary critics today who identify their work as intertextual, “the drive to discuss quotations, allusions, and citations, even authors and intentions, and to say something concrete about what texts mean, is not as idiosyncratic as some might think.”⁷ Although my training is certainly that of a biblical scholar and I cannot fully satisfy the criticisms of Moore and Sherwood’s “manifesto,” my main purpose in this essay is to attempt a synchronic, reader-oriented intertextual reading of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. That is, I am interested here in how these two apocalypses illuminate one another with respect to the figures of Mother Zion and Mother Earth, not in the direction of dependence between the two texts (though I address that issue in passing within the next section). At the same time, I presuppose that these late Second Temple Jewish texts were written by authors who were very familiar with the Hebrew Bible, so I will be pointing out allusions to biblical texts. To that extent, my argument includes diachronic and author-oriented elements. At the same time, when I bring in later rabbinic texts, it is not in order to make an argument about allusion or influence, but simply to show that 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are part of a larger textual tradition within which the figures of Mother Zion and Mother Earth are key metaphorical concepts.

1 Second Baruch and Fourth Ezra as “Sister” Apocalypses Second Baruch and Fourth Ezra, two Jewish apocalypses written in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple, are good candidates for a synchronic, reader-oriented approach to intertextuality. While they share many themes and phrases in common, there is no scholarly consensus about which of the two is dependent on the other, or whether they are dependent on a common source (or sources).⁸ Ever since the rediscovery of 2 Baruch in the 1860s, scholars have debated the nature of its relationship to 4 Ezra, although in recent decades

 Barton, “Déjà Lu,” 16.  Kynes, “Intertextuality,” 205.  For a good recent discussion of this issue, see the introductions in Stone and Henze, 4 Ezra.

Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

205

scholars have become increasingly cautious in their claims.⁹ Matthias Henze has recently proposed a new compositional model for understanding the relationship between the two apocalypses: while both 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra are literary products of scribal circles, they emanate from a culture that was primarily oral. Henze believes that most of the parallels between them can be traced to the earliest (pre-redactional) phase of their composition, which included oral transmission of older traditions as well as oral performance of the developing texts. Even once they were written down, the two apocalypses could have continued to influence one another in their early transmission, through oral performance.¹⁰ This model presupposes that 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra originated in the same milieu around the same time (late first century Israel), lending historical support to a reader-oriented, synchronic intertextual reading. At the same time, the history of their transmission and reception is quite divergent. Second Baruch was preserved only by Syriac-speaking Christians and survived in a complete form within only one Syriac Bible manuscript, in the Ambrosian Library of Milan, where it was rediscovered in the 1860s. Readings from 2 Baruch are found in a number of Syriac lectionary manuscripts, however, confirming its scriptural status in at least some branches of Syriac Christianity.¹¹ Fourth Ezra was preserved both in the Western Church (the Latin version, with Christian additions at the beginning and end), and in a large number of Eastern churches (the Syriac, Ethiopic, Georgian, Armenian, Arabic and fragmentary Coptic versions, without the Christian additions). The Latin version of 4 Ezra enjoyed immense popularity in Europe after the advent of printing, since it was included in the Gutenberg Bible (1450s) and other early printed Bibles, and was often included in the Protestant Apocrypha. However, 4 Ezra was ruled “tritocanonical” at the Council of Trent (1546) and was relegated to an appendix in the Clementine Vulgate (1592).¹²

 According to Henze, scholars arguing for the priority of 4 Ezra include Joseph Langen, Rudolf Stähelin, Hermann Gunkel, Bruno Violet, Otto Eissfeldt, Bruce Metzger, John Collins, and George Nickelsburg. Those arguing for the priority of 2 Baruch include Carl Clemen, Julius Wellhausen, Victor Ryssel, and Pierre Bogaert. However, Robert H. Charles and Albertus Klijn think a common source(s) a more likely explanation, while Emil Schürer and Michael Stone are among those who reserve judgment. For citations, see Henze, Apocalypticism, 150 – 53.  Henze, Apocalypticism, 181– 86.  Lied, “Nachleben.”  On the surprising popularity and influence of 4 Ezra in the West after the advent of printing, see Hamilton, Apocalypse. See also Hogan, “Preservation.”

206

Karina Martin Hogan

Even though neither 4 Ezra nor 2 Baruch was ever included in the Septuagint, they are similar to the deuterocanonical books in that they were both regarded as scriptural, if not fully canonical, by some groups of Christians at certain times. To facilitate comparison, I will refer to the Syriac versions of both apocalypses in this essay. The Syriac version of 4 Ezra is closely related to the Latin version, deriving from the same lost Greek Vorlage, while the other Eastern versions derive from a different Greek translation from the Hebrew.¹³

2 Mother Zion in 2 Baruch Both 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra open with the protagonists lamenting the desolation of Zion, but 4 Ezra does not introduce the Mother Zion figure until the central episode of the book, which functions to move the seer from lamentation to consolation. In 2 Baruch, by contrast, the figure of Mother Zion is central to the narrative prologue (chapters 1– 9) and to Baruch’s lament in chapter 10. The figure of a “Mother Zion” bereaved of her children that the authors of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch inherited and developed has its roots in the prophetic literature of the exile (including Lamentations), where the city is often depicted as a “desolate” or “abandoned” female (not always a mother). The most important biblical background for the Mother Zion figure in these apocalypses, however, is the re-imagined Mother Zion of Isaiah 40 – 66, which adds hope for restoration to the prophetic motif of the “desolate” city by combining it with the narrative motif of the barren woman who is suddenly fertile.¹⁴ The scattered instances of the Mother Zion motif in Deutero-Isaiah are consolidated in the final poem of the deuterocanonical book of Baruch (4:5 – 5:9).¹⁵ “Zion” is a complex symbol in the Bible that stands for several things at once: the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the city of Jerusalem, or sometimes the whole land, or even the people, of Israel. Likewise, in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, the referent of the term “Zion” shifts depending on the context, and only in certain contexts is Zion personified as a mother.¹⁶ The seer’s first speech in 2 Baruch mentions his “mother” three times (3:1– 3):¹⁷

 Stone, Fourth Ezra, 2– 9.  On the shaping of the Mother Zion tradition by Deutero-/Trito-Isaiah, see Callaway, Sing, 59 – 72, 77– 83; and on its use in 4 Ezra, see ibid., 83 – 90. More recently, see Maier, Zion, 161– 88.  Calduch-Benages, “Jerusalem,” 156 – 59.  On the shifting meanings of “Zion” in 2 Baruch, see Lied, Lands, 35 – 41.  All quotations from 2 Baruch will follow Henze’s translation in Stone and Henze, 4 Ezra.

Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

207

1

Oh Lord, my Lord, have I come into the world for this, that I should see the evil of my mother ( )? No, my Lord. 2If I have found mercy in your eyes, take first my soul, so that I will go to my fathers and will not see the destruction of my mother. 3 Because two things greatly press on me: that to resist you I cannot; what is more, my soul cannot look at the evil of my mother.

The context makes apparent, however, that Baruch is referring not to his actual mother, but to a metaphorical mother, the city of Jerusalem, upon which God has just announced his intention to “bring evil” (1:4). He fears that the destruction of “[God’s] city” will mean the end not only of Israel (3:5 – 6) but of the entire creation: “Or should the world return to its [original] nature and the world [or: age] again go to [primeval] silence?” (3:7).¹⁸ The city remains nameless until Baruch’s next speech, when he first uses the term “Zion” (5:1). The intervening divine speech completely calls into question the referent of “Zion,” however (4:1– 6):¹⁹ 1

This city is delivered up for a time, and the people are chastised during a time, and the world [or: age] is not forgotten. 2Or do you perhaps think that this is the city about which I said, “On the palms of my hands I have inscribed you” ( )? 3This building that is now built in your midst is not the one revealed with me, the one already prepared here when I intended to make Paradise. And I showed it to Adam before he sinned, but when he transgressed the commandment, it was taken away from him, as was also Paradise. 4And after these [things], I showed it to my servant Abraham, by night, between the halves of the sacrifices. 5And furthermore, I also showed it to Moses on Mount Sinai when I showed him the likeness of the tabernacle and of all its implements. 6And now, see, it is preserved with me, as is also Paradise.

The clue that the subject of the whole passage is Zion is the quotation in verse 2, “On the palms of my hands I have inscribed you,” which is from Isa 49:16. That verse is part of a passage of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 49:14– 23) that begins, “Zion says, ‘The Lord has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me” (49:14).²⁰ The remainder of the passage is addressed to Zion, but the metaphors for Zion keep shifting. First, she is compared to a child (and God to her mother, 49:15); next in the second half of 49:16 (“your walls are ever before me”) she is a city or a building; and then 49:17 introduces the maternal metaphor (“Swiftly your children are coming”), which carries through to the end of the passage (cf. 49:20, 22, 23). At the same time, she is compared to a bride (God’s bride?) in 49:18  On the cosmic significance of Zion in 2 Baruch, see Lied, Lands, 47– 52, and Henze, Apocalypticism, 77– 78.  For similar traditions about the preexistent heavenly Temple, see Kugel, Traditions, 56 – 59.  Translations from the Hebrew Bible follow the New Jewish Publication Society (NJPS) translation unless otherwise noted.

208

Karina Martin Hogan

and remembers herself as “bereaved and barren” (49:21). It is not clear whether the quotation from Isa 49:16 in 2 Bar. 4:2 is meant to evoke any of the personifications of Zion mentioned in the surrounding verses in Isaiah. Baruch’s earlier threefold mention of “my mother” supports an intertextual reading with the whole passage from Isaiah, however, since “mother” is the dominant metaphor for Zion there. Reading the quotation of Isa 49:16 in 2 Bar. 4:2 as pointing to Isa 49:14– 23 as a whole clarifies the connection between Baruch’s lament about his “mother” in 3:1– 3 and the divine response about Zion in 4:1– 6. On the other hand, the 2 Baruch passage refers to Zion as “this city” (4:1) and “this building” (4:3), both of which are consistent with the second half of Isa 49:16. The ambiguity about the identity of Zion does not stop with the question of “city” vs. “building,” though, because the point of 2 Bar. 4:1– 6 is that neither the city nor the building that Baruch can now see is the real Zion. Its message— that the city of God’s promises, the true Zion, is in heaven with God and has been shown to an elect few—does not yet succeed in comforting Baruch for the loss of his “mother,” the earthly Zion (5:1). For a reader who has picked up on the allusion to Isa 49:16 (or Isa 49:14– 23), the divine message is also more challenging than comforting, because it undercuts the plain sense of the Isaiah passage, which is about the restoration of the earthly Zion. By thrice associating the “true” Zion with Paradise, 2 Bar. 4:1– 6 engages in an apocalyptic reinterpretation of the Isaiah passage, shifting the present location of Zion to heaven (“preserved with [God],” 4:6) and also hinting at an eschatological restoration of the earthly Zion (see below).

3 Mother Earth and Mother Zion in 2 Baruch The purpose of introducing the concept of the heavenly Zion is not to denigrate the earthly Jerusalem or to dismiss Baruch’s concern with it, however.²¹ Unlike some early Christian texts that set up an oppositional dualism between the “Jerusalem above” and the “present Jerusalem,” 2 Baruch affirms the importance of both.²² God reassures Baruch that “you will see with your eyes that the enemies

 Pace Nir, Destruction, 17– 41. For other Jewish traditions that the earthly sanctuary was copied from the heavenly temple, see Kugel, Traditions, 713 – 15.  See Bergren, “Jerusalem.” The earliest example, which associates the two Jerusalems with two different mothers, Sarah and Hagar, is Gal 4:21– 5:1. Bergren cites similar dualistic contrasts in 2 Clement 14 (and notes the interpretation of Isa 54:1 as applying to the Church in 2 Clem. 2:1– 3) and 5 Ezra 2:2– 6. Nir (Destruction, 30 – 31) gives two more examples of the “Christian ap-

Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

209

are not demolishing Zion and that they are not burning down Jerusalem, but that they are serving the Judge for a time” (5:2). The vision that follows in the narrative prologue serves to foreshadow the eschatological restoration of the earthly Zion and, at the same time, to forge a connection between Mother Zion and Mother Earth. Baruch sees four angels descend from heaven with torches in hand, but before they set fire to the city, one of them descends to the Holy of Holies and removes from it the most sacred objects of the Temple (6:7). The angel then cries out in a loud voice (6:8 – 10): 8

“Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of God, the Mighty One, and receive these which I commit to you ( ), and preserve them until the last times ( ), so that, when you are commanded, you will yield them ( ), so that strangers will not have power over them. 9Because the time has come that Jerusalem also will be handed over for a time, until it will be said that it will again change to be established forever ( ).” 10And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them.

The personification of the earth here is striking,²³ but it is not immediately obvious that it is a maternal personification. In the Hebrew Bible, when the earth opens its mouth, whoever gets swallowed goes straight to Sheol and is never heard from again (e. g., Exod 15:12; Num 16:31– 32; Isa 5:14). But by the late first century CE, belief in resurrection had changed the significance of being swallowed by the earth: the pathway to Sheol had potentially become a twoway street.²⁴ Bodies and souls were understood to be “received” and held in trust by the earth until the time of the resurrection and final judgment, when they would be “returned.”²⁵ This belief is expressed clearly later in 2 Baruch:

proach” of contrasting the heavenly and earthly Temples, to the detriment of the earthly one: Hebrews 8 – 10 and Acts 7:44– 50.  Despite the allusion to Jer 22:29, where ‫ ארץ‬clearly refers to the land of Judah, I follow Henze here in understanding the thrice-repeated in 6:8 as “earth” rather than “land,” because of the subsequent mention in 6:10 of the earth “opening its mouth” and “swallowing” the sacred vessels. In Gen 4:11 and Num 16:30, those actions are ascribed to “the ground” (‫)האדמה‬. Note that the Hebrew term ‫ארץ‬, cognate with , usually meaning “earth” or “land,” sometimes denotes the “underworld” (e. g., 1 Sam 28:13; Isa 26:19; Jonah 2:6[7]; Ps 71:20). Cf. note 33 below.  I am indeed aware that this is an oversimplification, because there is not one single view on Sheol in the Hebrew Bible and also because being swallowed by the earth is a rare, punitive kind of death, very different from being “gathered to one’s ancestors.” See Levenson, Resurrection, 35 – 81.  Bauckham, “Resurrection.” He includes the following instances of the motif from the first century CE: 1 Enoch 51:1; 4 Ezra 7:32 (and 4:40 – 42); Rev 20:13; 2 Bar. 21:23, 42:8 and 50:2;

210

Karina Martin Hogan

“For surely the earth will then return the dead, which it now receives to preserve them, while not changing anything in their form” (50:2; cf. 21:23, 42:8). The belief that the souls of the dead are stored in treasuries beneath the surface of the earth is attested as early as the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 22). Moreover, the Parables of Enoch clearly express the notion that the earth is holding the dead in trust: “In those days the earth will give back what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will give back what it has received, and Destruction will give back what it owes” (1 Enoch 51:1). We find a very similar formulation in 4 Ezra 7:32: “And the earth shall give back those who are asleep in it, and the dust those who rest in it; and the treasuries shall give up the souls which have been committed to them.” On a metaphorical level, what had been considered the final destination has become a temporary resting place, as is evident from Targum Neofiti’s rendering of Gen 3:19: “By the sweat of (before) your face you shall eat bread until you return to the earth, for out of it you were created. For you are dust and to dust you shall return, and from the dust you shall (return and) rise and give account and reckoning for all that you have done.”²⁶ So in having the earth swallow the sacred objects of the Temple, the author of 2 Baruch is blending together two originally independent motifs (while reinterpreting them): the biblical drama of being swallowed up by the earth/Sheol and the newer belief that bodies that are committed to the earth will be “given back” in the last days. To be sure, in this case what is being swallowed, or committed to the earth, is not human bodies but the most sacred objects of the Temple, including the Ark. Nevertheless, the pattern of “receive them…preserve them until the last times…when commanded, yield them” suggests an analogy with the resurrection. An intertextual reading with 4 Ezra adds another layer of significance to this passage. In 4 Ezra 4:40 – 42, the first of many maternal analogies for the earth in the book concerns the resurrection:²⁷ 40

[Uriel] answered [Ezra] and said: “Go and ask a woman who is with child if, when her nine months have been completed, her womb can keep the child within her any longer.” 41And I said, “No, lord, it cannot.” And he said to me, “The underworld and the treasuries of the souls are like the womb ( ). 42For just as a woman who is in travail makes haste to escape the pangs of birth, so also do these [places] hasten to give back ( ) those things that were committed to them from the beginning.”

LAB 3:10 and 33:3. Later instances cited by Bauckham include Apoc. Pet. 4:3 – 4, 10 – 12; Tertullian, Res. 32:1; Midr. Psalms 1:20; Song Rab. 2.1.2; Pirqe R. El. 34; Pesiq. Rab. 21:4; b. Sanh. 92a.  See Sysling, Tehiyyat, 68 – 70. The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is similar but adds at the end: “on the Day of the Great Judgment.”  All quotations from 4 Ezra will follow Stone’s translation in Stone and Henze, 4 Ezra.

Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

211

Here the motif of the earth “giving back” bodies and souls at the time of the resurrection is combined with a childbirth analogy, suggesting that the earth is metaphorically a mother and resurrection is a rebirth from the earth.²⁸ The analogy between the earth/Sheol and the womb is made even clearer in a passage preserved in the later Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanh. 92a; cf. b. Ber. 15b):²⁹ R. Tabi said in R. Josia’s name: What is meant by: [Three things are never satisfied…] Sheol and the barren womb [and the earth that is not filled by water] (Prov. 30:16)—what connection has Sheol with the womb? [The verse is meant] to teach you: just as the womb receives and brings forth, so Sheol too receives and brings forth (‫)מכניס ומוציא‬. Now, does this not furnish us with an argument a fortiori? If the womb, which receives in silence (‫)בחושׁאי‬, brings forth amid cries (‫)בקולות‬, then Sheol, which receives the dead amid cries, will much more so bring them forth amid great cries (‫)בקולי קולות‬. This refutes those who maintain that resurrection does not appear in the Torah (‫)אין תחית המיתים מן התורה‬.

Reading 2 Bar. 6:8 – 10 intertextually with the above passages from 4 Ezra and the Babylonian Talmud suggests that the personification of the earth in the 2 Baruch passage may be a maternal personification after all. The transfer of the sacred implements from inner sanctum of Zion to the interior of the earth suggests a connection between the two “mothers.” At the same time, it points to an eschatological restoration of the earthly Zion, since the earth is preserving the most sacred elements of the Temple-city until the “last times,” when God will command the earth to return them.³⁰ The time when Jerusalem “will again be established forever” (6:9; cf. 32:4) may in fact coincide with the general resurrection (“when the Mighty One will renew his creation,” 32:6; cf. 4 Ezra 7:75). There is a rabbinic tradition associating the general resurrection with Jerusalem, presumably the restored eschatological Jerusalem (b. Ket. 111b):³¹ Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said: ‘The righteous are destined to sprout and arise in Jerusalem, as it says, [Let abundant grain be in the land, to the tops of the mountains; let his crops thrive like the forest of Lebanon,] and let [people] sprout up from the city like the grass of the

 Hogan, “Earth,” 78 – 82.  Quoted and translated by Rosen-Zvi, Desires, 93.  The connection between the present earthly Zion and the eschatological Zion is reinforced later in 2 Baruch when the angel Remiel is listing for Baruch the things that were revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai (cf. 4:5). The list begins: “For he showed him many admonitions together with the rules of the laws and the consummation of time, as also to you, and also the likeness of Zion and its measurements that was to be made after the likeness of the present sanctuary” (59:4). Here, too, the designation “Temple-city” for Zion is appropriate because the “present sanctuary” seems to be the model for the eschatological Zion.  This passage is part of a series of teachings by the same Amora concerning the resurrection of the dead and the messianic age. My translation is informed by Schorr, Kesubos.

212

Karina Martin Hogan

earth (‫ויציצו מעיר כעשב הארץ‬, Ps 72:16). And “city” is none other than Jerusalem, as it says [in connection with Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem, 2 Kgs 19:34], “And I shall protect this city.”

What seems to have caught Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef’s attention is the unusual image in Ps 72:16 of people sprouting up from the city (like the grass of the earth), which resonates with both the Mother Earth and Mother Zion metaphors. The implied connection between Mother Zion, the original guardian to whom the sacred implements will be returned, and Mother Earth, their temporary protector, is strengthened by Baruch’s lament over Zion in chapter 10. This lament, spoken seven days after he witnesses the destruction of the city and temple by the Babylonians, emphasizes the motherhood of Zion by calling for an end to food production by the earth, as well as an end to human reproduction, in response to what has befallen Zion.³² He begins by proclaiming the unborn and the dead more blessed than those who are alive and “have seen the sorrows of Zion” (10:6 – 7), and then continues (10:9 – 16): 9

You, farmers, do not sow again. And you, earth, why do you give the fruits of your produce? Hold within you the sweetness of your nourishments. 10And you, vine, why do you continue to give your wine? An offering will no longer be made from it in Zion, nor will firstfruits again be offered. 11And you, heaven, hold your dew, and do not open the reservoirs of rain. 12And you, sun, hold the light of your rays. And you, moon, extinguish the abundance of your light, for why should light rise again where the light of Zion has been darkened? 13And you, bridegrooms, do not enter, and the virgins shall not adorn themselves with crowns. And you, women, do not pray that you shall give birth, 14for the barren will rejoice above all, and those who have no children will rejoice, while those who have children will be saddened. 15For why should they give birth in pain and bury with sighs? 16 Or why should humans again have children? Or the seed of their nature—why should it again be named where this mother is laid waste and her children led away captive?

The first half of the quoted passage appeals to Earth and other aspects of nature (heavens, sun, and moon) to bring an end to agricultural fertility, and the second half calls on human beings to refrain from marriage and procreation, all because of the desolation of Zion, referred to as “this mother” at the end of the passage. The connection between agricultural and human fertility subtly suggests the maternity of the earth, but an additional connection is being drawn between the fertility of the earth and the flourishing of Zion, personified as a mother. Hence, the narrative prologue (chs. 1– 9) and first lengthy lament (ch. 10) in 2 Baruch serve

 As Lied points out (Lands, 47– 49), this lament is consistent with Baruch’s assumptions about the cosmic significance of Zion in 3:7– 8.

Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

213

to establish a positive bond between Zion and the earth through the maternal personification of both.³³

4 Mother Earth in 4 Ezra The figure of Mother Zion does not appear in 4 Ezra until the central fourth episode, after the three dialogues between Ezra and Uriel. The figure of Mother Earth is prominent in those dialogues, however. An example from the first dialogue, 4:40 – 42, in which the earth is metaphorically the expectant mother of the dead awaiting resurrection, was quoted above. Another explicit instance of the Mother Earth figure occurs in the second dialogue. After Ezra asks Uriel why God could not have created all the generations of humanity at one time, in order to hasten the judgment (5:43 – 45), Uriel responds (5:46 – 49): 46

“Ask a woman’s womb, and say to it, ‘If you bear ten children, why one after another?’ Request it therefore to produce ten at one time.” 47I said, “Of course it cannot, but only each in its own time.” 48He said to me, “Even so have I made the earth a womb for those who from time to time come forth on it. 49For as an infant does not bring forth, and a woman who has become old does not bring forth any longer, so I have organized the world that I created.”

The terminological shift in Uriel’s explanation from “the earth” ( ) in 5:48 to “the world that I created” ( ) in 5:49 is noteworthy. Although there is no contradiction in the earth being compared to a womb and the created world to a mother, since the earth is part of the creation, it introduces an ambiguity as to the identity of “our mother” in the next exchange (5:50 – 55): 50

Then I asked him and said, “Since thou hast given me the way, let me speak before thee. Is our mother, of whom thou hast told me, still young? Or is she approaching old age?” 51He replied to me, “Ask a woman who bears children, and she will tell you. 52Say to her, ‘Why are those whom you have borne recently not like those whom you bore before, but are

 In Henze’s translation, there appears to be a sudden shift to negativity against the earth (in implied contrast to Zion) in 12:1, “But I am saying this as I think, and I will speak against you, O earth, who is prosperous.” This is a mistranslation, I believe, of , which can mean either “earth” or “land.” Although in 11:6 (as in 6:8; see note 23 above), the appropriate translation is “earth” (because of the parallel with “dust”), I understand the same word in 12:1 to mean “land” and to refer back to Babylon, the land whose prosperity is contrasted with Zion’s devastation in 11:1– 2. Baruch’s warning in 12:3, “Do not assume and hope that you will always be prosperous and happy, do not be very exalted and subject [others],” makes more sense addressed to the land of Babylon than to the earth.

214

Karina Martin Hogan

smaller in stature?’ 53And she herself will answer you, ‘Those born in the strength of youth are different from those born in the time of old age, when the womb is failing.’ 54Therefore you also should consider that you and your contemporaries are smaller in stature than those who were before you, 55and those who come after you will be smaller than you, as if born of a creation that already is aging and passing the strength of youth.”

Whereas in the previous analogy, Uriel instructed Ezra to “ask a woman’s womb” (5:46), in this one he says to “ask a woman who bears children” (5:51). This is not mere stylistic variation; Uriel has shifted the subject from the limitations of the earth (compared to a womb in 5:48) to the life cycle of “a creation that already is aging…” (5:55; cf. 5:49).³⁴ It is unclear whether Ezra is referring to the earth or the creation as a whole as “our mother” in 5:50, but it is a mark of the literary sophistication of 4 Ezra that in the dialogues, Ezra and Uriel often seem to be talking past one another, using words in different senses. In the remainder of the book, Ezra continues to personify the earth, not the whole creation, as a mother. In the third dialogue, Ezra more than once personifies the earth as the mother of humankind or Adam, as he has also done previously in a more subtle way within his opening speech (3:4– 5). In 7:62– 63, at the beginning of a lament about human beings’ consciousness of their mortality, he addresses the earth di) is made rectly: “O earth, what have you brought forth, if the mind (sensus; of dust like the other created things? For it would have been better if the dust itself had not been born, so that the mind might not have been made from it.”³⁵ Later in the third dialogue, he personifies the earth more fully: “This is my first and last word, that it would have been better if the earth had not produced Adam, or else, when it had produced him had taught him not to sin” (7:116). This is the only place in 4 Ezra that the maternal role of the earth extends beyond gestation and material sustenance to include, by implication, moral instruction. Michael Stone explains this anomaly as a euphemism of sorts: in finding fault with the “mother,” Ezra really wishes to criticize the father (God) for failing to teach his human children not to sin (cf. 3:8, 20 – 22).³⁶

 For the many interesting assumptions behind 4 Ezra 5:50 – 55, with analogies to Greek and Roman sources, see Hogan, “Earth,” 80 – 82.  Lying behind the concept of “mind” in these verses is probably the Hebrew term ‫לב‬, which is simultaneously a concrete part of the body, and therefore perishable (cf. 9:36), and also an abstract quality that sets human beings apart from animals (cf. 7:64– 69). See Stone, Fourth Ezra, 123, 232.  Stone, Fourth Ezra, 258. In support of this interpretation, see 8:9 – 12, where Ezra attributes physical sustenance of a child to the human mother, but moral sustenance and instruction to the divine father.

Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

215

Besides the explicit comparisons of the earth (or the world) to a mother in the first three episodes (the dialogues) of 4 Ezra, there are a number of agricultural metaphors and analogies in which people are compared to fertile ground (3:20 – 22; 4:30 – 32; 8:6; 9:31– 37) or to plants (4:28 – 29; 5:45 – 48; 8:41). I have argued elsewhere that the Mother Earth concept underlies these metaphors, or at least is extremely compatible with them.³⁷ Although those more subtle evocations of the figure of Mother Earth could be compared to 2 Baruch’s non-explicit use of that figure, an intertextual reading based entirely on what is implicit in the texts risks sounding like an argument from silence. Instead, I will now turn to the interaction of the Mother Zion and Mother Earth figures in the central (fourth) episode of 4 Ezra, which is more overtly comparable to the way in which those two figures interact in chapters 1– 10 of 2 Baruch.

5 Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 4 Ezra The figure of Mother Zion is the focus of the central episode of 4 Ezra (9:26 – 10:59). After Ezra’s opening monologue (9:26 – 37), which recapitulates one of the main themes of the dialogues with the angel Uriel, Ezra encounters a woman who is obviously in mourning. When Ezra questions her, she explains that she was married but barren for thirty years before God gave her a son. However, her treasured only son has just died upon entering his marriage chamber, and so she plans to mourn and fast until she dies (9:43 – 10:4). Her story, which combines barrenness with bereavement, evokes the Mother Zion figure of Deutero-Isaiah (cf. Isa 49:21, 54:1). Ezra, however, having no idea with whom he is speaking, responds rather unsympathetically (4 Ezra 10:6 – 15):³⁸ 6

“You most foolish of women, do you not see our mourning, and what has happened to us? For Zion, the mother of us all, is in deep grief and great affliction. 8It is most appropriate to mourn now, because we are all mourning, and to be sorrowful, because we are all sorrowing; you, however, are sorrowing for one son, [but we, the whole world, for our mother]. 9Now ask the earth, and she will tell you that it is she who ought to mourn over so many who have come into being upon her. 10And from the beginning all have been born of her, and others will come; and behold, [almost] all go to perdition, and a multitude of them are destined for destruction. 11Who then ought to mourn the more, she who lost so great a multitude, or you who are grieving for one? 12But if you say to me, ‘My lamentation is not like the earth’s sadness, for I have lost the fruit of my womb, which I brought forth in

7

 Hogan, “Earth,” 79 – 80, 87– 90.  Bracketed phrase in v. 8 is found only in the Syriac version; bracketed word in v. 10 is found only in the Latin version.

216

Karina Martin Hogan

pain and in sorrow; 13but it is with the earth according to the way of the earth—the multitude that is now in it goes as it came’; 14then I say to you, ‘As you brought forth in sorrow, so the earth also has from the beginning given her fruit, that is, humankind, to him who made her.’ 15Now, therefore, keep your sorrow to yourself, and bear bravely the troubles that have come upon you.

Ironically, given that the woman is later identified as Zion, Ezra begins by contrasting the woman’s mourning for one son with that of Zion, “the mother of us all” (9:7). In an apparent non sequitur that recalls some of Uriel’s analogies in the dialogues (4:40; 5:46, 51; 8:2), he then instructs her to “ask the earth, and she will tell you that it is she who ought to mourn” (9:9). The connection between Zion and the earth that prevents this transition from actually being a non sequitur is the ambiguous phrase “the mother of us all.” Ezra’s address to the woman effectively blends the metaphorical concept of Mother Earth that had been developed in the dialogues with another metaphorical mother figure that would presumably have been familiar to the author and audience of 4 Ezra, that of Mother Zion. The newness of the resulting blended figure, the “mourning Mother Earth,” is underscored through the rhetorical device of having Ezra refute an imagined objection to it by the mourning woman. The woman’s imaginary objection, far from undercutting the mourning Mother Earth figure, is itself full of biblical resonances that connect the mourning woman (Zion) with the earth/ground. She re) recalling the phrase “the fers to her child as “the fruit of my womb” ( fruit of your womb” (‫ )פרי־בטנך‬which occurs in the Hebrew Bible only in the covenant blessings and curses in Deuteronomy, in four out of five instances in parallel with “the fruit of your ground” (‫)פרי־אדמתך‬.³⁹ Moreover, the phrase “which I brought forth in pain and sorrow” (10:12) alludes to Gen 3:16 (“in pain shall you bear children”), while “the multitude that is now in [the earth] goes as it came” (10:13) more loosely recalls Gen 3:19 (“until you return to the ground, for from it you were taken”). Genesis 3 is an important biblical background for the Mother Earth concept, while Ben Sira re-applies the epithet for Eve in Gen 3:20 to the earth: “Hard work was created for everyone, and a heavy yoke is laid on the children of Adam, from the day they come forth from their mother’s womb until the day they return to the mother of all the living” (Sir 40:1 NRSV). Ezra’s refutation

 Blessings: Deut 7:13; 28:4, 11; curses: Deut 28:18, 53. The final instance lacks the parallel with “the fruit of your ground,” because it is part of the ultimate curse about eating one’s own children in desperation during a siege (28:53 – 57). This final curse may allude to the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem prior to the destruction of 587 BCE; cf. Jer 19:9; Lam 2:20, 4:10; Ezek 5:10.

Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

217

(10:14) echoes the woman’s words, “brought forth in sorrow” and “fruit of my womb,” and implies that they apply also to the earth. Just as Ezra’s words fail to console the woman, who repeats her determination to die (10:18), Ezra himself is not yet consoled, either for the fate of sinful humankind, which he claims the earth is also mourning, or for the loss of Zion, which he laments in greater detail in his next speech (10:21– 23): 21

For you see that our sanctuary has been laid waste, our altar thrown down, our temple destroyed; 22our harp has been laid low, our song has been silenced, and our rejoicing has ended; the light of our lampstand has been put out, the ark of our covenant has been plundered, our holy things have been polluted, and the name by which we are called has been profaned; our free men have suffered abuse, our priests have been burned to death, our Levites have gone into captivity; our virgins have been defiled, our wives have been ravished; our righteous men have been carried off, our little ones have been cast out, our young men have been enslaved, and our strong men made powerless. 23 And, what is more than all, the seal of Zion—for she has now lost the seal of her glory, and has been given over into the hands of those that hate us.

Interestingly, the loss of the Temple is a topic that is otherwise unmentioned in Ezra’s laments.⁴⁰ The lack of emphasis on the Temple is evident in the catalogue of Ezra’s complaints in the first episode: “For I did not wish to inquire about the ways above, but about those things that we daily experience: why Israel has been given over to the gentiles as a reproach; why the people whom you loved has been given over to godless tribes, and the Torah of our fathers has been made of no effect and the written covenants no longer exist; and why we pass from the world like locusts, and our life is a mist, and we are not worthy to obtain mercy” (4:23 – 24). By omitting to mention the loss of the Temple and instead imagining the destruction of the “Torah of our fathers” and “written covenants,” the author of 4 Ezra here anticipates the solution offered in the final episode, when Ezra restores the “Torah” by dictating ninety-four books, the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible plus seventy esoteric books (14:20 – 26, 37– 47). The pathos of Ezra’s lament for the loss of the sanctuary in 10:21– 23 invites an intertextual reading with Baruch’s lament over Zion in 2 Baruch 10. Although the two laments differ in form and details, they both focus on the loss of the

 See Najman, Losing. Despite her book title, Najman reads 4 Ezra as minimizing the loss of the Second Temple by imagining an alternative past in which it was never built (17). She argues that Ezra’s association with the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem in Ezra-Nehemiah is ignored in 4 Ezra, while his role as a scribe of the Torah is magnified. “Through the renewal of the figure of Ezra, the reader’s attention is deflected from the rebuilding of the Temple and redirected toward the renewal of scripture” (67).

218

Karina Martin Hogan

Temple. Baruch’s lament proclaims the futility of the earth’s (and humanity’s) fertility in light of the end of Temple worship, underscoring the connection between Zion and the earth that is hinted at in the opening narrative of 2 Baruch. Ezra, having already established the connection between Zion and the earth in his previous speech to the mourning woman, laments the loss of sacred objects (lampstand, ark and holy things) and Temple personnel (priests, Levites and possibly virgins). Baruch’s lament, by contrast, presumes the survival of both the sacred objects (which were swallowed by the earth) and Temple personnel (priests and virgins, 10:18 – 19).⁴¹ Both Ezra and Baruch remain resolutely focused on this world, mourning the loss of the earthly Zion—somewhat ironically, given that Baruch has already been told that the city that was destroyed is not the true Zion (2 Bar. 4:3) and Ezra is unaware that the woman he is addressing is the true Zion.⁴² While Ezra is still trying unsuccessfully to console the woman, she is suddenly transformed before his eyes into a great city (10:25 – 27): 25

And it came to pass, while I was talking to her, behold, her face suddenly shone exceedingly, and her countenance flashed like lightning, so that I was too frightened to approach her, and my heart was terrified. While I was wondering what this meant, 26behold, she suddenly uttered a loud and fearful cry, so that the earth shook at her voice. 27And I looked, and behold, the woman was no longer visible to me, but there was an established city, and a place of huge foundations showed itself.

Utterly bewildered, Ezra cries out in terror for the angel Uriel, who comes to interpret the vision for him (10:28 – 37). The key point of the interpretation is that the woman Ezra has been talking with and the city that he now beholds are one and the same: Zion (10:41– 44). Uriel’s interpretation is ambiguous about the identity of the woman’s son, however (10:45 – 48): 45

As for her telling you that she was barren for thirty years, [it is] because there were three thousand years in the world before any offering was offered in it. 46And after three thou-

 Baruch’s lament holds the priests at least partly responsible for the loss of the Temple, exhorting them to return the keys of the Temple to the Lord, saying, “Guard your house yourself, for we, see, we have been found false stewards” (10:18). As for the virgins, they are charged with burning up the textiles they are weaving for the Temple in order to return them to God (10:19), finishing the work that the four angels started (6:4, 7:1).  Najman (Losing, 147) points out that Ezra’s whole approach to consoling the woman, which is an attempted imitation of Uriel, shows that he has not yet internalized Uriel’s message that his focus should be not on this world, but on the world to come. Similarly, Baruch’s lament in 2 Baruch 10 shows that he has not yet assimilated God’s message about the eschatological restoration of the true Zion.

Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

219

sand years Solomon built the city, and offered offerings; then it was that the barren woman bore a son. 47And as for her telling you that she brought him up with much care, that was the [period of] residence in Jerusalem. 48And as for her saying to you, ‘When my son entered his wedding chamber he died,’ and that misfortune has overtaken her, that was the destruction which befell Jerusalem.⁴³

A number of scholars, based on this passage (and probably influenced by 2 Baruch 4), identify the woman as the heavenly Zion and her son as the earthly Zion/ Jerusalem.⁴⁴ Mary Callaway, and later Michael Stone in his commentary, have pointed out that this identification is inconsistent with the vision as a whole, however, and with the biblical background of the Mother Zion figure.⁴⁵ Nowhere in the Bible is Jerusalem personified as male—that would be inconsistent with the ancient convention that cities are metaphorically female.⁴⁶ Moreover, the barren and bereaved woman Ezra converses with could hardly be the heavenly Zion; in Isa 49:21 and 54:1, barrenness and bereavement symbolize the pre-restoration state of the earthly Jerusalem. The central episode of 4 Ezra, like Deutero-Isaiah, is drawing a contrast between the present desolation of Zion, represented by the mourning woman, and her future glory, represented by the “established city” into which she is transformed. Her son must represent the Temple or the sacrifices offered therein (cf. 10:45 – 46), despite the fact that Uriel links his death with “the destruction which befell Jerusalem” (10:48).⁴⁷ If so, then Ezra’s promise to the woman, “if you acknowledge the decree of God to be just, you will receive your son back in due time” (10:16) may refer to the renewal of Temple worship in the eschatological age. But the focus throughout the central episode remains on the mother, not the son, in keeping with the general lack of emphasis on the Temple in 4 Ezra.

 The imagery of 4 Ezra 10:48 has a curious intertextual parallel in the Book of Tobit, where Sarah loses seven husbands on their wedding night (Tob 3:8). By way of contrast, her successful union with Tobiah (Tob 8:4– 14) begins a positive chain of events that ends with Tobit’s prayer of thanksgiving (Tobit 13), in which he looks forward to the expected glorious building of the New Jerusalem (Tob 13:16 – 17).  Kabisch, Buch, 85 – 91; Box, Apocalypse, 232– 33; Thompson, Responsibility, 221.  Callaway, Sing, 85 – 89; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 335.  On the androcentric presumptions behind the feminization of cities, see Maier, Zion, 21– 29, 60 – 74, 211– 17.  Najman (Losing, 148) believes the son must represent the sacrificial worship, since Uriel explains the woman’s thirty years of barrenness as representing “three thousand years in the world before any offering was offered in it,” after which “Solomon built the city and offered offerings; then it was that the barren woman bore a son” (10:45 – 46).

220

Karina Martin Hogan

The “established city” that is revealed to Ezra is Zion in several senses at once. It is “the city of the Most High,” according to 10:54, which could mean the celestial realm—the dwelling-place of God—as Michael Stone argues in a recent article.⁴⁸ In that sense, it is the heavenly Zion, just as in 2 Bar. 4:6, the true Zion is said to be preserved with God, along with Paradise, to be revealed in the end times (cf. 6:9, 32:4). At the same time, it is the eschatological earthly Zion, just as in the Book of Revelation, the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” and is “the dwelling (lit., tabernacle) of God with human beings” on earth (Rev 21:2– 3).⁴⁹ In 4 Ezra 10, the eschatological Zion is revealed to the seer on earth, and moreover in a particular field outside the city, earlier called the field of Ardat (9:26; Arpad in Syriac). ⁵⁰ Uriel concludes his interpretation of the vision (10:51– 56): 51

Therefore I told you to remain in the field where no house had been built, 52for I knew that the Most High would reveal these things to you.53Therefore I told you to go into the place where there was no foundation of any building, 54for no work of man’s building could endure in a place where the city of the Most High was to be revealed. 55Therefore do not be afraid, and do not let your heart be terrified; but go in and see the splendor and vastness of the building, as far as it is possible for your eyes to see it, 56and afterward you will hear as much as your ears can hear.

The ending of the central episode of 4 Ezra is insistent that just as the mourning woman with whom Ezra spoke was real and not an apparition, the city into which she was transformed is a concrete, material reality on earth, which Ezra is invited to enter and explore. The author of 4 Ezra is strengthening the connection between Mother Zion and Mother Earth by having “the city of the Most High,” the eschatological Zion, appear in a particular location on earth. So too, the author of 2 Baruch draws a connection between Zion and the earth by having the sacred objects transferred from the Holy of Holies to the interior of the earth. In 4 Ezra, the association of Mother Zion with Mother Earth is made

 Stone, “City.”  I read Rev 21:2– 3, 10 as emphasizing both the heavenly origin (“descending out of heaven, from God”) and the earthly destination of the New Jerusalem (“Behold, the dwelling of God is with human beings. And he will dwell with them”). Rather than bringing the righteous up to heaven, God will dwell with them in the human realm—in a city established on earth, fulfilling (and surpassing) the promises of the prophets about the restoration of Zion (cf. Rev 21:22– 27).  The eschatological revelation of Zion is mentioned at two other points in 4 Ezra, in 7:26 (where it is referred to as a “bride” in the Latin and Syriac versions, perhaps under the influence of Rev 21:2) and in 13:36, where Zion is identified with the “mountain carved out without hands” in the vision of the Man (cf. 13:6 – 7). See Najman, Losing, 112.

Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

221

explicit in Ezra’s address to the mourning woman. However, the establishment of the heavenly Zion on earth points to a resolution to both of the tragic situations Ezra has been lamenting throughout the dialogues: the destruction of Jerusalem and the loss of the vast majority of Earth’s children to perdition. If there is to be an eschatological Zion, it will necessarily have inhabitants (cf. 13:48), so Ezra’s fear that no one can be saved is finally put to rest.

6 Conclusion: The Advantage of an Intertextual Reading of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra Although in earlier studies I have separately examined the Mother Earth figure in 4 Ezra and the Mother Zion figure in 2 Baruch,⁵¹ I made new discoveries about the extent to which those two metaphorical mothers interact when I undertook this intertextual reading of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. In particular, I had not previously recognized that the personification of the earth in the introductory narrative and first lament of 2 Baruch (chs. 1– 10) is maternal. The realization that the earth swallowing and holding in trust the sacred implements of the Temple is a Mother Earth metaphor emerged through a comparison with birth metaphors for resurrection in 4 Ezra and rabbinic texts. The significance of Baruch calling on the earth to withhold her fruits in response to the destruction of Zion (2 Bar. 10:9) became clearer when I read it alongside Ezra’s speech to the mourning woman, claiming that the earth should also be mourning the loss of her human “fruit” (4 Ezra 10:9 – 14). With respect to 4 Ezra, several aspects of the Mother Zion figure came into sharper focus for me as a result of reading the vision of the mourning woman through the lens of the opening chapters of 2 Baruch. I had not previously recognized the extent to which the mourning woman’s story of barrenness followed by bereavement is based on the Mother Zion figure in Deutero-Isaiah (esp. Isa 49:21; 54:1). Moreover, although I knew that the woman’s transformation into an “established city” was a proleptic revelation to Ezra of the Zion that is to be revealed in the end times (4 Ezra 7:26, 13:36), I had not given much thought to the present location of the true Zion that the woman symbolizes. It stands to reason that the “city of the Most High” (4 Ezra 10:54) is the heavenly Zion, but it was only through reflecting on what is said about the true Zion in 2 Baruch 1– 9 that I realized how similar the notion of the New Jerusalem as a heavenly city come down to earth in Revelation 21– 22 is to the message of the central episode  Hogan, “Earth”; Hogan, “Zion.”

222

Karina Martin Hogan

of 4 Ezra. In turn, I understood more fully why the central episode is the turning point of Ezra’s consolation: it is because the revelation of the eschatological Zion answers his two major concerns in the dialogues: whether anyone can be saved, given the existence of the “evil heart,” and whether God has abandoned his people Israel, in light of the destruction of “Zion” by “Babylon.” Another insight that came from an intertextual reading of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra is that Mother Zion and Mother Earth are not rival mothers or in any kind of adversarial relationship to one another. Previously I had seen their relationship in 4 Ezra as more oppositional because of the “contest” Ezra sets up between the mourning of the woman (Zion) and the mourning of the earth (10:8 – 14). On this reading, I noticed how much Ezra’s speech emphasizes the commonalities between Zion and the earth: they are both “the mother of us all” (10:7) and they are both mourning the loss of their offspring. Similarly, in 2 Baruch 10, Baruch calls on the earth to join in his mourning over Zion, and in 2 Baruch 6 the earth assists in the preservation of the sacred objects that will be needed when Zion “will again be established forever” (6:9; cf. 32:4). I now think my previous presumption that there must be some sort of tension between these two “mothers” was influenced by the modern opposition between a city, representing “civilization,” and the earth, representing “Nature.” Not only is such an opposition anachronistic, but Zion symbolizes more than just a city in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra (as in the Bible). It is also a mountain (2 Bar. 13:1, 40:1; 4 Ezra 13:45 – 46) and is closely identified with the land of Israel as a whole (called “the land of Zion” in 4 Ezra 14:31; cf. 2 Bar. 61:7), especially when it is contrasted with Babylon (2 Baruch 11– 12; 67; 4 Ezra 3:28 – 36). Likewise, the eschatological Zion sometimes seems synonymous with the Holy Land in both apocalypses (4 Ezra 7:26; 13:12– 13, 48 – 49; cf. 2 Bar. 71:1; 85:3 – 5). Since ‫ הארץ‬can mean either “the earth” or “the land [of Israel]” in Hebrew, the extension of the term “Zion” to the land of Israel makes possible the metaphorical identification of both Zion and the earth as “our mother” in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, and explains why there is no tension between the two mothers. Instead, they are bound together by their common maternal relation to Israel.

Mother Zion and Mother Earth in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra

223

Bibliography Barton, John. “Déjà Lu: Intertextuality, Method or Theory?” In Reading Job Intertextually, edited by Katharine Dell and Will Kynes. LHBOTS 574. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013, 1 – 16. Bergren, Theodore A. “Mother Jerusalem, Mother Church: Desolation and Restoration in Early Jewish and Christian Literature.” 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. JSJSup 89. Leiden: Brill, 2004, 243 – 59. Bauckham, Richard. “Resurrection as Giving Back the Dead.” In The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, edited by Richard Bauckham. NovTSup 93. Leiden: Brill, 1998, 269 – 89. Box, George Herbert. The Ezra-Apocalypse. London: Pitman, 1912. Calduch-Benages, Nuria. “Jerusalem as Widow (Baruch 4:5 – 5:9).” In Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, edited by Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert. DCLY 2008. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009, 147 – 64. Callaway, Mary. Sing, O Barren One: A Study in Comparative Midrash. SBLDS 91. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Dell, Katharine and Will Kynes, eds. Reading Job Intertextually. LHBOTS 574. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Hamilton, Alistair. The Apocryphal Apocalypse: The Reception of the Second Book of Esdras (4 Ezra) from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Oxford-Warburg Studies. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. Henze, Matthias. Jewish Apocalypticism in Late First Century Israel. TSAJ 142. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Hogan, Karina Martin. “Mother Earth as a Conceptual Metaphor in 4 Ezra.” CBQ 73 (2011): 72 – 91. Hogan, Karina Martin. “Mother Zion in Baruch 4:5 – 5:9 and 2 Baruch 1 – 12: A Study of Different Models of Intertextuality.” In Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy, edited by Joel Baden, Hindy Najman and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 2 vols. JSJSup 175. Leiden: Brill, 2016, 1.558 – 78. Hogan, Karina Martin. “The Preservation of 4 Ezra in the Vulgate: Thanks to Ambrose, not Jerome.” In Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall, edited by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini. JSJSup 164. Leiden: Brill, 2013, 381 – 402. Kabisch, Richard. Das vierte Buch Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1889. Kugel, James L. Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it Was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Kynes, Will. “Intertextuality: Method and Theory in Job and Psalm 119.” In Biblical Interpretation and Method: Essays in Honor of John Barton, edited by Katharine J. Dell and Paul M. Joyce. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, 201 – 13. Levenson, Jon D. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. Lied, Liv Ingeborg. “Nachleben and Textual Identity: Variants and Variance in the Reception History of 2 Baruch.” In Fourth Ezra and Second Baruch: Reconstruction after the Fall,

224

Karina Martin Hogan

edited by Matthias Henze and Gabriele Boccaccini. JSJSup 164. Leiden: Brill, 2013, 403 – 28. Lied, Liv Ingeborg. The Other Lands of Israel: Imaginations of the Land in 2 Baruch. JSJSup 129. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Maier, Christl. Daughter Zion, Mother Zion: Gender, Space and the Sacred in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. Miller, Geoffrey David. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” CurBR 9 (2011): 283 – 309. Moore, Stephen D. and Yvonne Sherwood. The Invention of the Biblical Scholar: A Critical Manifesto. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Najman, Hindy. Losing the Temple and Recovering the Future: An Analysis of 4 Ezra. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Nir, Rivka. The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch. SBLEJL 20. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. Demonic Desires: Yetzer Ha-Ra and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiquity. Divinations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Schorr, Isroel Simcha, ed., Kesubos [=Ketubbot], vol. 3. Schottenstein Edition of the Babylonian Talmud. Brooklyn: ArtScroll Mesorah Publications, 2000. Sommer, Benjamin. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40 – 66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Stone, Michael E. Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Stone, Michael E. “The City in 4 Ezra.” JBL 126 (2007): 402 – 7. Stone, Michael E., and Matthias Henze. 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch: Translations, Introductions and Notes. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Sysling, Harry. Tehiyyat Ha-Metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature. TSAJ 57. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Thompson, Alden L. Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra. SBLDS 29. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. Tull, Patricia. “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures.” CurBS 8 (2000): 59 – 90.

3 Looking to the Future

Francis M. Macatangay

The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10 1 Introduction It is a truth universally acknowledged that a long but often told story must be in want of a summary. The Acts of the Apostles recounts the story of the vision of a Roman centurion named Cornelius five times, first by the narrator (Acts 10:1– 6) and then in summarized form by Cornelius himself (10:8) and thrice by other characters in the story (10:22,30 – 32; 11:13 – 14). Later, Peter and James allude to the event in their speeches in Acts 15. The Cornelius episode is pivotal and programmatic in the narrative rhetoric of the Acts of the Apostles. That the vision is repeatedly told is a reason for its unusual length with sixty-six verses (Acts 10:1– 11:18) taking up a sizable amount of space. In his analysis of narrative codes, Roland Barthes argues that the repetition of summaries or resumes intended for multiple destinations points to the importance of communication, diffusion and transmission of messages.¹ As the Gospel spreads and as the Way draws more followers, the problem of the inclusion of gentiles along with its attendant issues of social relations and table fellowship between Jewish believers and gentiles comes to the fore. To help dramatically resolve the conflicts arising from the broadening of the apostolic message, the visionary experiences of Cornelius and Peter are told and retold. The transmission of their visions eases the way for the full acceptance of gentiles into the people of God and provides the warrant for full commensality between Jew and gentile in the one household of God.²

 Barthes, “Analysis,” 231– 45. Fitzmyer, Acts, 447, states that the story of Cornelius is a “crucial development in the Lucan story of the spread of the Word of God.” Cf. Witherup, “Cornelius,” 54– 57. Dibelius, “Conversion,” 140, claims that the story of Cornelius has “a special importance in the Book of Acts.” Conzelmann, Acts, 80, asserts that the function of this episode is to prepare for Acts 15.  Haenchen, Acts, 362, and Dibelius, “Conversion,” 146, have observed that the story prepares the way for the inclusion of gentiles into the Christian community as part and parcel of God’s intention. Jervell, Luke, 64– 65, however, claims that “the problem is not the gentiles sharing in salvation but in what way they should receive salvation. The Cornelius story seeks to clarify the question of the gentile Christians’ freedom from the law.” See also Cook, “Mission,” 102– 23. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416930-010

228

Francis M. Macatangay

Luke presents the story of Jesus and the consequent witness of the apostles “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the world” (Acts 1:8) as a continuation of biblical history. Luke’s insistence on narrating an orderly sequence of events (Luke 1:3) hints at the divine guidance of the course of history of God’s people. In short, the events in the narrative are all part of the divine plan.³ In order to convey these theological convictions, Luke refers to the Scriptures. Often, Luke explicitly quotes prophetic Scripture to legitimate the gentile mission (cf. Acts 8:26 – 40; 13:44– 47; 15:13 – 21; 28:23 – 28). But apart from a reference to the prophets bearing witness to Christ in Peter’s speech (Acts 10:43), the absence of prophetic Scripture is surprising in the story of Cornelius, which serves as the centerpiece of Luke’s efforts to justify the gentile mission.⁴ Since the nullification of dietary laws is a drastic change from pentateuchal legislation (Lev 11:2– 47; Deut 14:3 – 21), Luke had to rely on an authority higher than inherited Scripture—in this case a visionary revelation to Peter in combination with an angelic revelation to Cornelius. Yet is it really the case that Luke entirely omits references to Scripture at this crucial juncture in Acts 10 – 11? Since the issue at hand is gentile mission, the author did not reach back into the Torah and the Prophets as he does in other places in the narrative (cf. Luke 4:16 – 30; Acts 8:26 – 40; 15:15 – 18) but taps instead into a popular and likely authoritative text, the Book of Tobit, to legitimate this movement. This study contends that the NT author employs allusion to the Book of Tobit in telling the story of Cornelius.⁵ A particular episode in the Book of Tobit echoes in Acts, guiding the reader on how to interpret the significance of the Cornelius event. Allusion is here taken to mean the tacit evocation or the activation of a previous biblical text in the host text by employing lexical equivalencies, common themes, patterns, motifs and/or suggestive analogies such as situational

 Johnson, Acts, 12, notes that the use of “programmatic prophecies” and their fulfillment helps the reader perceive that God directs the events in the narrative.  Tyson, “Mission,” 619 – 31, remarks that Luke’s use of Scripture is “utilitarian,” while Fitzmyer, Acts, 90 – 93, notes that Luke’s use of the OT is primarily christological. McCracken, “Interpretation,” 198, observes that scriptural references in Acts have an apologetic function, which is to demonstrate to both insiders and outsiders that Jesus is “the culmination of a larger salvation-history.” Ringgren, “Use,” 227– 35, argues that the allusions to the OT in Acts occur mostly in the speeches, reflecting thus the practice of argumentation in the early church. Litwak, Echoes, 31– 34, 201– 5, proposes that the deployment of Scriptures in Luke-Acts has the ecclesiological function of showing the continuity between Luke’s narratives and the people and events in Israel’s Scriptures.  This corresponds to an “author-oriented” allusion, according to the classification of Miller, “Intertextuality,” 286 – 87.

The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10

229

similarities and structural correspondences, in order to connect an earlier text to a new text and thus create a fresh system of meaning.⁶

2 Methodology Scholars have suggested various criteria for establishing relationships between texts.⁷ In this study, I would like to explore an inner-biblical allusion in the Acts of the Apostles involving the Book of Tobit. Here I wish to follow Jeffery M. Leonard, who has proposed some standards to gauge the validity of authororiented textual connections based on shared language or lexical parallels as the most important factor in establishing a textual link. As textual criteria he provides the following six specifications: 1) shared language as more important than non-shared language; 2) the rarity or distinctiveness of the shared language; 3) the use of shared phrases; 4) the accumulation of shared language;⁸ 5) the similarity of contexts of the shared language; and 6) shared language need not be accompanied by shared ideology or form.⁹ Certainly, the more of these criteria that are met, the more the textual allusion can be confidently identified, evaluated and interpreted. In short, the cumulative weight produced from these six tests helps establish the possibility that an author intended to have a precursor text activated in a later writing. The exploration of the textual link between Tobit and Acts will keep these criteria for identifying inner-biblical allusion in mind.

 My definition of allusion here comes from Alter, Pleasures, 111– 40, which is heavily influenced by Ben-Porat, “Poetics,” 105 – 28, who defines literary allusion as a “device for the simultaneous activation of two texts” (107). Ben-Porat claims that there are at least three or four stages in recognizing an allusion: identifying the marker, determining the source text, interpreting the significance of the sign with the marker, and noting its strategic purpose. Hays, Echoes, 29, uses “echo” and “allusion” interchangeably. Still, he clarifies that allusion “depends both on the notion of authorial intention and on the assumption that the reader will share with the author the requisite ‘portable library’ to recognize the source of the allusion; the notion of echo, however, finesses such questions.” See also Sommer, Prophet, 6 – 31; Miller, “Intertextuality,” 283 – 309; Yoon, “Inception,” 58 – 76; Meek, “Intertextuality,” 280 – 91.  See the first chapter of the present volume for a discussion of methodological criteria for author-oriented intertextuality. My essay treats Tobit as a “biblical” text.  This criterion of Leonard corresponds to “volume” in Hays, Echoes, 29 – 33, who identifies seven rules of thumb in hearing the presence of an allusion marker and discerning the meaning of textual echoes: availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, and satisfaction.  Leonard, “Identifying,” 241– 65.

230

Francis M. Macatangay

Is it plausible that the author of Acts would allude to the Book of Tobit, a popular Septuagintal narrative in which events clearly unfolded for the righteous characters according to the divine plan? Phillip Muñoa claims that while many New Testament passages employ authoritative scriptural texts that would have been well known to first century CE Jews as interpretive guides, a book like Tobit was not obscure in late Second Temple Judaism or in Judea.¹⁰ Scholars agree that the pre-Christian Book of Tobit was written before Acts of the Apostles. With five Qumran fragments that attest to its use and popularity, the Book of Tobit seems to have been available enough to serve as a source text for the author of Luke-Acts.¹¹ The author’s familiarity with the story of Tobit seems clear—of all possible New Testament allusions or links to Tobit listed in the 28th edition of Nestle Aland, forty percent of them come from Luke-Acts (18 out of 45). In this regard, this essay intends to examine some shared lexical expressions, verbal resemblances as well as structural and narrative similarities that, taken cumulatively, suggest that the author of the story of Cornelius alludes to the tale of Tobit. Both stories, indeed, narrate how the divine design is enacted and the divine purposes achieved. Both stories of divine providence exude a universal thrust. Both stories represent an individual and his role vis-à-vis a particular community and yet, they differ in their claims with regard to the criteria that define belonging to a specific household. And so, in terms of exegetical significance, the allusion to Tobit strengthens the pivotal thesis in Acts that the incorporation of foreign households into the people of God is a consequence of divine providence and purpose. More importantly, the echo of Tobit in Acts allows for an interplay between the two texts, recasting and revising some of Tobit’s claims in order to legitimate the inclusion of righteous gentiles as they are.

3 The Characterization of Tobit and Cornelius Cornelius is a Roman centurion and is thus a gentile. Luke’s portrayal of him however is positive, introducing him as a devout man who fears God, εὐσεβὴς

 Muñoa, “Raphael,” 23. Establishing lexical equivalencies between Greek Tobit and Acts would not be as nearly impossible as establishing verbal correspondences between Tobit and other biblical texts in Hebrew. On this, see Macatangay, “Election,” 450 – 63.  On the likelihood of Tobit’s influence on Luke-Acts, see Simpson, “Tobit,” 174– 241; deSilva, Introducing, 79 – 81; Catchpole, Resurrection, 70 – 74 (noting that the Emmaus story in Luke 24 has echoes of Tobit 12); Skemp, “Avenues,” 56 – 58; Muñoa, “Raphael,” 34– 35; Docherty, “Reception,” 81– 94. Cf. also Perrin, “Almanac,” 107– 42, here 129.

The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10

231

καὶ φοβούμενος τὸν θεόν (Acts 10:2). He prays constantly and is engaged in almsgiving to the Jewish people. Such commendable behavior earns Cornelius the description of “righteous” and “God-fearing” later in the story, ἀνὴρ δίκαιος καὶ φοβούμενος τὸν θεόν (10:22). In other words, Cornelius is related to Judaism as a God-fearer, a term that Luke employs to denote a group of gentiles who were uncircumcised but followed the demands of the Jewish religion by participating in Jewish worship, observing Sabbath and dietary laws, and engaging in other elements of Jewish piety and ethics without becoming full converts.¹² For this reason, the entire Jewish nation finds Cornelius exceptional and speaks well of him (10:22). Certainly, God’s response to the prayer and good deeds of Cornelius shows that God is also pleased with him (10:4). The Book of Tobit describes the main character in comparable terms (Tob 1:1,12). In addition to the virtues of righteousness and charity that define the persona of Tobit, his remembrance of God in exile and his exhortation to remember God and to fear the Lord (4:21) portrays him as God-fearing. God also responds to Tobit’s prayer as a sign of divine pleasure (3:16). Clearly, the fear of God circumscribes the character of both Tobit and Cornelius (Tob 14:2; 4:21; Acts 10:2). Cornelius’s prayer and almsgiving are often explained as common Jewish practices.¹³ Indeed, prayer and almsgiving (Tob 12:8) are the traditional non-cultic responsibilities expected of a Jew at that time. Charity to the poor arises from the OT provision for the widow, the orphan and the stranger (cf. Deut 24:10 – 22; Isa 10:2; 58:6 – 7; Jer 7:6 – 7; Mal 3:5). The practice of charity was also essential for the early Christians. In the Didache, the apprentice about to enter the Christian community receives instructions on giving (Did 1:4; 4:5 – 8; 15:4).¹⁴ In his Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, Jesus exhorts his hearers to give to the one who begs (Matt 5:42) and to give alms without making a show of it (Matt 6:2– 4). Cornelius’s observance of the traditional practices of prayer and almsgiving shows his active devotion and displays “the Jewishness of this non-Jew.”¹⁵ Before

 Fitzmyer, Acts, 449 – 50. Cook, “Mission,” 120, claims that the motif of God-fearers is a literary device found in the middle of Acts (10:2, 22; 13:16, 26) that functions as “transitional fibers.” See also Jervell, “Church,” 11– 20.  Haenchen, Acts, 357– 58. On Jewish almsgiving in Ben Sira and Tobit, see Anderson, Charity, 41– 66, 69 – 110.  Milavec, Didache, 50 – 51.  Tannehill, Unity, 133, remarks that “the narrator is not presenting a character as distant as possible from the Jews in order to display the potential of the gospel to reach all.” See also Fitzmyer, Acts, 450. Dunn, Acts, 136, notes that the “roundedness of Cornelius’s piety commended him to God.”

232

Francis M. Macatangay

these practices of piety became definitive for later Judaism, however, the Book of Tobit already witnesses to the burgeoning importance of the Jewish practice of almsgiving. The two activities of piety ascribed to Cornelius are reminiscent of Tobit. There is indeed no greater popular diaspora tale hero in the Septuagintal narratives known to be an exemplar of prayer and almsgiving than Tobit. Moreover, Tobit’s acts of charity are aimed at his kinsfolk and his people, ἐλεημοσύνας πολλὰς ἐποίουν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου (Tob 1:16 GB; cf. his hospitable action in 2:2),¹⁶ just as Cornelius’s good deeds are directed to the people of Israel, ποιῶν ἐλεημοσύνας πολλὰς τῷ λαῷ (Acts 10:2). These textual instances exhibit shared language, although the narrator of Acts cannot say that the gentile Cornelius gives alms to his kinsfolk and his people in exactly the same way that Tobit does. Luke re-actualizes and applies to a gentile the phrase ἐλεημοσύνας πολλάς (“many acts of charity”) previously ascribed to a pious Israelite. In terms of shared contexts, the sketch of Cornelius’s righteousness and virtue that share such a verbal correspondence with Tobit’s occurs at the beginning of the story in Acts 10 as the main character is introduced, as it does in the Book of Tobit. Such characterizations intimate that the gentile Cornelius is as pious as the Israelite Tobit. In addition to shared language used in shared contexts, the statement that Cornelius prays constantly (Acts 10:2) parallels scenes that depict Tobit as praying (Tob 3:1– 6; 13:1– 18).¹⁷ After experiencing much anguish and grief, Tobit prays to God, pleading with the Lord to remember and to look favorably upon him; he ends his prayer with a request to take his spirit from him and to release him into his everlasting home (Tob 3:1– 6). The vision account in Acts does not leave room for the content of Cornelius’s prayer to be disclosed. One can only wonder what Cornelius is praying for.¹⁸ From Peter’s account of his encounter with the three men sent from Joppa, one can surmise that Cornelius might be asking the God of Israel for a message of salvation for him and his household (Acts 11:13 – 14). In any case, the prayers of both Tobit and Cornelius are answered; their piety comprising of prayer and almsgiving has merited a response from God.

 Compared to GB (= Vaticanus), GS (= Sinaiticus) is more specific: ἐλεημοσύνας πολλὰς ἐποίησα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ γένους μου. For the texts of the Book of Tobit, see Hanhart, Tobit; Wagner, Synopse; Weeks, Gathercole and Stuckenbruck, Tobit.  Haenchen, Acts, 346, declares that the expression is “hyperbolical—needless to say, Cornelius must see to his military duties too.”  Talbert, Reading, 108, claims that based on the Eighteen Benedictions, his petition may have possibly been focused “on Jesus as the one by whom forgiveness is gained.”

The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10

233

An angel appears to Cornelius in a vision at the ninth hour, that is, the traditional hour of prayer and evening oblation for devout Jews. Indeed, the revelations given to Cornelius and Peter take place while they are at prayer, which is a Lucan motif to show that “prayer is the means by which God makes the divine will known for new departures in the unfolding of his plan for history.”¹⁹ The angel informs the terrified Cornelius that “his prayers and his almsgiving have ascended as a memorial before God,” αἱ προσευχαί σου καὶ αἱ ἐλεημοσύναι σου ἀνέβησαν εἰς μνημόσυνον ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ (Acts 10:4). This recalls Raphael’s explanation of God’s response to Tobit’s prayer. Raphael informs Tobit that he brought the memorial of his prayer and his charitable deed of burying the dead before the glorious presence of God, ἐγὼ προσήγαγον τὸ μνημόσυνον τῆς προσευχῆς ὑμῶν ἐνώπιον τῆς δόξης κυρίου καὶ ὅτε ἔθαπτες τοὺς νεκρούς ὡσαύτως (Tob 12:12 GS). A faithful observer of cultic obligations, Tobit offers a “memorial portion” of prayer and the charitable work of burying the dead because his exilic situation does not allow him easy access to the Temple. On the other hand, Cornelius offers a “memorial portion” of prayer and almsgiving because he is a God-fearing gentile who is not allowed to participate in the sacrifices at the Temple. These lexical similarities specify the ritual term μνημόσυνον (“memorial”) as being associated with prayer and acts of generosity presented before God. Furthermore, the above instances of situational and verbal correspondences are markers of allusion that point to a “volume” or an accumulation of shared language indicating that multiple points of contact between the two texts are likely genuine. Is it likely that these two texts simply reflect a shared worldview and a common theological perspective? Are the angelic responses merely typical of a tradition? Perhaps. And yet, the shared language of “prayers” (προσευχαί), “many acts of charity” (ἐλεημοσύναι πολλαί), and μνημόσυνον (“memorial offering”) between the two texts is distinctive for their semantic association. Tobit is an exceptional Second Temple text that attests to a semantic expansion of a cultic term to include not only prayers and sacrifices but also acts of charity. The fact that Tobit contains additional language that is different or not shared with Acts (the reference to burial of the dead), “in no way undermines the possibility of a connection.”²⁰ Commentators often refer to Leviticus 2 to help explain the angel’s response to Cornelius. F. F. Bruce observes that the “angel’s language is full of sacrificial

 Talbert, Reading, 107.  Leonard, “Allusions,” 249.

234

Francis M. Macatangay

terminology such as we find in the prescriptions for the Levitical offerings.”²¹ There is indeed ritual language in the angel’s reply but the language has a different sense. In Leviticus, μνημόσυνον or “memorial portion” is related to a cultic act of burning and presenting part of the cereal offering to God. In Tobit and in Acts, the sacrificial term is not so much cultic as it is ethical, so that μνημόσυνον is linked to prayers and charitable deeds. Tobit’s reinterpretation of this cultic terminology—in terms of ethical behavior that is as acceptable and pleasing to God as a burnt cereal sacrifice—corresponds to Acts 10. Ernst Haenchen is likely closer to the mark in observing that the connection of the angel’s response to Leviticus 2 is “too remote.”²² To be sure, the Book of Tobit includes language from Israel’s cult but expands the semantic range of certain cultic concepts. In his wisdom lecture to his son Tobiah, Tobit ethicizes the cultic concept of δῶρον (found in Pentateuch texts like LXX Lev 1:2– 3; 3:6 – 8), by saying that almsgiving is a “good gift” (δῶρον ἀγαθόν), a worthy sacrificial offering before the Most High (Tob 4:11). The Book of Tobit also claims that almsgiving atones for sins and delivers one from death (Tob 4:10; 12:9), a claim that bestows upon works of charity a sacrificial element. Compared to other expressions of repentance, almsgiving is a superior means of cleansing sins (Tob 12:9). Other Second Temple texts express similar sentiments. In Dan 4:24, Daniel advises the king to atone for his sins by good deeds. Sirach 3:30 agrees with Tobit and Daniel, categorically stating that almsgiving propitiates sins, while 2 Clem 16:4, a later text, follows this teaching, asserting that almsgiving serves as atonement for offenses and lightens the burden of sins. The fact that almsgiving effects expiation of sins means that acts of charity have (in a sense) replaced the atoning rituals of the Temple. Moreover, Raphael also asserts that almsgiving will merit a reward of a full and satisfied life (Tob 12:9), and an associated claim made on behalf of almsgiving is the promise of a blessed earthly existence as part of the divine reward for deeds of righteousness. In contending that almsgiving allows a person to accumulate a goodly treasure that will come in handy on the day of necessity (Tob 4:9), Tobit implies that charitable works have some salvific efficacy and redemptive value. Sir 29:12 is of the same mind, urging the student to store up almsgiving in a hidden treasury, as

 Bruce, Book, 136, notes the deliberate use of scriptural language here (Lev 2:2, 9; 6:15). Esler, Community, 162, states too that the angel’s statement “is very unusual but has close parallels in the Septuagint, in connection with the fragrance of sacrifice rising before Yahweh,” referring to Leviticus and Sir 45:16.  Haenchen, Acts, 347 n. 2, without further explanation.

The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10

235

it will rescue him from every evil.²³ This idea seems to have been developed from Prov 19:17, which claims that acts of generosity to the needy are like a loan made to God. Since it is God who will pay back or recompense the giver of alms, a claim that Matt 6:2– 4 echoes, and since the divine returns are assured, almsgiving funds a celestial account as merits and credits are accrued. The almsgiver thus earns the greatest of dividends and stores up a heavenly deposit for the day of need. As Gary Anderson states, “it is as though the poor person was some sort of ancient automatic machine through which one could make a deposit directly to one’s heavenly account. Just as an altar was a direct conduit of sacrifices to the heavenly realm, so was the hand of the impoverished soul seeking charity.”²⁴ In this sense, almsgiving substitutes for sacrificial acts of piety as means of salvation and as key to one’s relationship with God. The ethical actions of each protagonist serve as a substitute for actual temple worship in both Tobit and Acts, since Tobit himself is in the distant diaspora while Cornelius is a gentile. In both cases, these good acts are presented before God by an angel in the heavenly temple (compare the view of Jesus’ self-sacrifice in Heb 9:11– 14).²⁵ The ethicization of ritual terms is clearly not unique to the Book of Tobit, but the close association of “memorial” (μνημόσυνον) with prayer and works of charity is. Tobit’s use of μνημόσυνον may well be that rare, even novel witness to a word widening its usual semantic associations. The Greek translation of Ben Sira, a text contemporaneous with Tobit, employs μνημόσυνον in a number of cases. In the relevant passages (cf. Sir 35:1– 2; 38:11; 45:16; 50:16), however, the sense of μνημόσυνον is tinged with cultic associations. In the Book of Tobit, the linking of μνημόσυνον to compassionate deeds even acquires a heavenly approval since it is the angel Raphael who declares it (Tob 12:12). Tobit’s memorial offerings or his remembrances of prayer and acts of kindness are like the Temple sacrifices that bear him into the presence of God. Perhaps the angelic speech that permits the cultic term μνημόσυνον to embrace the ethical is one reason why Tobit 12 is said to be “without parallel in the extant literature of Judaism.”²⁶ It is indeed in Tobit that acts of charity such as the burial of the dead are accounted for as μνημόσυνον. Texts that are roughly contemporary with Acts have an equally expansive sense of sacrifices that are pleasing to God. Like Tobit, these texts claim that

 Gregory, Signet Ring, 192.  Anderson, “Redeem,” 49.  Macatangay, “Acts,” 69 – 84.  This is the judgment of Simpson, “Tobit,” 197, regarding the book’s angelology. Cf. Fitzmyer, Tobit, 49.

236

Francis M. Macatangay

almsgiving and acts of kindness are a worthy offering to God.²⁷ In Heb 13:15 – 16, the doing of what is good and the sharing of what one has are said to be pleasing sacrifices to God (θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ θεός). In his letter to the Philippians, Paul describes the gifts he received from the community, presumably food and clothing, as a fragrant offering, a pleasing sacrifice to God, ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, θυσίαν δεκτήν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ (Phil 4:18). Clearly, Acts forsakes this readily available sacrificial language and instead employs Tobit’s μνημόσυνον. The ethical sense of sacrifice is certainly widespread. A visual or pictorial representation of this notion appears in 3 Baruch, a later apocalyptic text that imagines a heavenly temple where good works are offered upon the altar. In the fifth heaven, Michael, the commander of the angels, receives prayers and holds a great vessel upon which the other angels pour their baskets containing the merits of the righteous and their good works in order to escort them before God for their reward (3 Bar. 11– 16). Revelation 8:3 – 4 also envisions incense rising with the prayers of the saints from the hand of an angel before the throne of God. These texts, however, do not describe prayer and almsgiving in the language of μνημόσυνον or remembrances that memorialize the devout and righteous person before God as Tobit and Acts do. Luke could have used a variety of sacrificial language available to him. As is evident in these texts, Luke could have had the angel refer to the prayers and almsgiving of Cornelius as an acceptable sacrifice or a fragrant odor before God. Instead, he describes the prayer and almsgiving of Cornelius in terms of a μνημόσυνον that has ascended before God. With this formulation, Tobit 12 indeed “may have served as a direct source” for the angel’s reply in the Cornelius story.²⁸ Luke has in fact re-actualized Tobit’s μνημόσυνον by placing it in the context of an angelic response to a gentile in prayer. When Cornelius explains to Peter what has transpired while he was at prayer, he does not directly quote the angel. Instead, he paraphrases the angel’s response but still uses the verbal root of μνημόσυνον, saying, “Your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God” (εἰσηκούσθη σου ἡ προσευχὴ καὶ αἱ ἐλεημοσύναι σου ἐμνήσθησαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ—Acts 10:31). Taken cumulatively, the shared language and phrases illustrate that at a decisive turning point in the narrative, Luke wants to allude to Tobit 12 in composing the visionary experience of Cornelius.

 Gregory, Signet Ring, 248– 49.  Pervo, Acts, 268.

The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10

237

4 The Function and Significance of the Allusion The report of the visionary experience is proof that the conversion of Cornelius and his household is under God’s initiative and direction. One may then ask why Luke would allude to the Book of Tobit, especially to the episode in which Raphael reveals to Tobit and Tobiah the divine guidance behind the auspicious events that have occurred in their lives. Does Luke simply want to impress that the response of the angel to Cornelius is typical when angels appear to mortals to inform them that their prayers have been answered? One possible response is to say that the use of the vision in the story of Cornelius is an argument before the eyes, a more directive and vivid way to convince the reader that God’s providence is already at work. The vision, however, may sanction the impression that God’s purpose is a fait accompli. And so Luke may have also wanted to lead the reader into an encounter with a popular Septuagintal story. The verbal echo of Raphael’s disclosure in the angelic reply to Cornelius serves as a trigger that recalls the Book of Tobit. The allusion allows the Cornelius story in Acts to dialogue with a narrative about divine involvement in which God determines and directs the events in the lives of the righteous characters in order to accomplish his intention. Along with the speeches in the Cornelius episode, which by nature aim to persuade the audience to adopt a course of action, the allusion to the Book of Tobit in Cornelius’s angelic vision underlines the heavenly origin of the gentile mission. Moreover, it also highlights the role of human freedom, decision-making, and cooperation in accomplishing that divine goal as the human players navigate hitherto unexplored territories. The intertwining of allusion and vision is a rhetorical strategy that tries to balance the human and divine elements involved in such a process. The context and place of the allusion in Acts bears out this conviction. In short, the NT author alludes to Tobit as a scriptural precedent even as he subverts it. After all, it is not uncommon for the early Christians to use sacred Jewish texts as interpretive guides for comprehending God’s actions. Tobit and Acts both portray the tension that results from the gulf between divine intention and human understanding. And yet, the two narratives differ in the way they dramatize this tension. In the Book of Tobit, the disclosure of the heavenly event takes place early in the story (3:16 – 17), making the reader aware that God’s hand directs the events that will unfold in the course of the narrative. Tobit the character, however, is not privy to what has taken place in the glorious presence of God; it is hidden from his purview. And so, Tobit is completely unaware of the divine decision. It is only at the end of the story that Tobit realizes what has happened. In his final encounter with the angel, Raphael

238

Francis M. Macatangay

reveals to Tobit the “whole truth” (12:11 GS), informing him of “the ending” that has been previously disclosed to the reader.²⁹ In this regard, the angelic statement that Tobit’s memorial of prayer and almsgiving has merited a reward from God has a revelatory function; it is for the sake of Tobit and Tobiah. With this revelation, Tobit himself finally catches up with the reader’s knowledge. Tobit as a character has become enlightened, so to speak; his eyes are truly and completely opened to the heavenly decision that has determined his destiny.³⁰ Such narrative rhetoric appears to preserve Tobit’s freedom but the reader knows that Tobit’s fate has been set. Both Tobit and Acts display a similar structure or order of parallels. Both stories begin with a description of the protagonist’s virtue, followed by prayer and an angelophany. In the Acts of the Apostles, however, the angelophany to Cornelius takes place at the start of the story (10:3) and not at the end. Unlike Tobit, the journey in Acts 10 follows the angelophany rather than precedes it. The vision means that both Cornelius and the reader have at the very least an inkling that what is going on is under divine guidance right from the beginning of the story. The fact that God’s messenger has appeared to a gentile as an angel once did for a pious Israelite, with the assurances that his prayers and almsgiving have been remembered before the heavenly throne, implies that this development is God’s doing. Both reader and character know that God has a role, acting “to break the barriers between Jew and gentile by treating the prayers and alms of a gentile as equivalent to the sacrifices of a Jew.”³¹ In other words, the focus of the story is not to reveal what God has intended in order to enlighten the characters who have remained in the dark regarding God’s purpose and providence, as in the case of Tobit. Rather, it is to lead not just the reader but also especially the various key players with whom the encounter is retold and shared to fathom and cooperate with God’s design now that it has been disclosed from the start.³² The initiative to reach out to gentiles is certainly God’s—that much is clear. The question, however, of how this is to unfold has yet to be answered. How are the leading characters to discern, to interpret, and to respond to the divine indications and promptings so that they indeed become God’s witnesses to

 Nowell, “Work,” 227– 38, claims that the primary role of Raphael in the Book of Tobit is as a messenger, which allows the human characters to preserve their freedom.  Tobit 12 itself also contains an intertextual echo of the angelic appearance to Manoah’s wife in Judges 13; see Di Lella, “Book,” 197– 206.  Esler, Community, 162.  Tannehill, Unity, 130, remarks that the retelling of the events helps the characters clarify the divine message and allows them to discover the purpose of the vision.

The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10

239

all the ends of the earth? How are they to overcome traditional understandings of fidelity to realize the divine intention? Cornelius does not know what God has led him to seek, unaware of the purpose of the angelic command to send some men to Joppa to summon Peter. On the other hand, Peter’s vision left him puzzled and pondering. Starting, then, with Cornelius’s obedient execution of the command, the characters come to understand and begin to work out the divine project of including devout gentiles into God’s household.³³ Peter slowly discerns and discovers that it is God’s desire to bring a word of salvation to Cornelius and his household. In this regard, the notion of God’s direction is freed from a strong determinism that constrains and even obliterates human freedom as the Book of Tobit might imply. The allusion allows Luke to show that these characters are indeed witnesses, not puppets.³⁴ Luke subtly alludes even as he subverts the Book of Tobit in order to provide room for human understanding, discernment, and action. By placing the allusion in a vision at the start of the story, Luke provides the divine disclosure without the necessary determinism. The allusion to Tobit 12 creates further resonances between Acts 10 and the Book of Tobit.³⁵ A significant issue that needs to be addressed as the characters discern and work out God’s plan is dietary observance and table fellowship. This is as prominent a concern in Acts 10 as it is in the first chapter of the Book of Tobit. There, Tobit defines his religious piety and fidelity while in exile among the nations. Like the faithful and wise Daniel (cf. Dan 1:3 – 17), Tobit is a devotee of the Mosaic Law and a strict observer of dietary restrictions. Tobit explicitly states that he refrained from eating “the food of gentiles” even though his fellow Israelites did this when they were in captivity (Tob 1:10 – 11).³⁶ Tobit invites only exiled co-religionists who remember God with their whole heart to share a Pentecost meal with him (Tob 2:2). He separates himself thus from those who do not practice dietary laws. Along with his charitable practices, Tobit’s kosher diet shows that he is a loyal and observant Israelite in the diaspora. In short, Tobit  Johnson, Acts, 186 – 87. Tannehill, Unity, 128 – 36, insightfully shows how various rhetorical strategies help the characters discern the will of God. Pervo, Acts, 265, notes that one of the literary and theological pleasures of the story is finding out how God’s project is realized. The same observation can be said of the Book of Tobit.  In this case, the claim of Haenchen, Acts, 362, that this turns the divine guidance of his witnesses into the “twitching of human puppets” is misleading.  Brawley, Text, 5, states that “explicit allusions are often signals for readers to listen for more expansive voices … explicit allusions play against a broader backdrop.”  The Book of Tobit is certainly not the only text that prohibits eating the food of gentiles and sharing table fellowship with them. Other cases include Jdt 12:2; LXX Esth 14:17 [C28]; Let. Aris. 139; 182– 83; Jub. 22:16; Jos. Asen. 7.

240

Francis M. Macatangay

is a pious Jew who shows fidelity to God while living in a gentile community. In Acts 10, however, Cornelius is a pious gentile who shows fidelity to God and does so in the midst of Jewish converts. The allusion to the Book of Tobit in Acts calls Tobit’s fidelity to mind, allowing for a robust dialogue regarding certain practices that circumscribe Jewish identity and loyalty. Acts, in fact, revises and renegotiates, even subverts the understanding as espoused in Tobit of what it means to adhere to the commandments. In what he takes to be a vision about food, Peter’s initial negative response to the instruction to eat ritually unclean food implies that he is a faithful observer of the precepts of the Torah; he has never eaten any profane and unclean food (Acts 10:14). The angelic vision, in fact, counters the claims in the Book of Tobit, making Peter’s perplexity real. It also prepares Peter for his encounter with Cornelius. As he cogitates on the vision’s meaning, Peter is invited to broaden his traditionally conditioned and limited notions of identity and fidelity. The vision of the gentile Cornelius with an angelic speech that imitates Raphael’s reply to the Israelite Tobit functions as an authority that urges Peter to break down the social barrier between Jew and non-Jew.³⁷ Peter’s action amounts to a kind of conversion. Ronald Witherup argues that “if Cornelius is in need of conversion to the fullness of faith in Jesus Christ in a more literal sense, Peter is no less in need of conversion in a more metaphorical sense. Peter needs a conversion of heart that will widen his vision of just how broad God’s repentance and forgiveness and mercy apply.”³⁸ Though he is at first hesitant to accept the message of the vision, the Spirit prompts Peter to go with the men who were divinely sent to look for him. Peter’s offer of hospitality to the men considered unclean shows that he has begun to recognize the message of his vision. In fact, Peter acknowledges that the conventional distinctions of clean and unclean do not encompass God’s vision for creation and humanity (Acts 10:28 – 29). Peter’s expanded understanding contributes to the human decisions that will help fulfill the divine purpose. The outpouring of the Spirit upon Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:44) confirms that Peter’s growing insight is correct. Both Peter and Cornelius learn in stages that God has not only initiated the mission to the gentiles but has also approved the full table fellowship between Jew and non-Jew in the Christian community at Caesarea.³⁹ Indeed, Peter’s meal with gentiles as they received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (an incident that re Dunn, Acts, 139 – 40, claims that the “breakdown of the ethnic/religious boundary round Israel was indispensable and integral to the breakthrough of the gospel to the nations at large.”  Witherup, “Cornelius,” 49.  Esler, Community, 93 – 97.

The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10

241

calls the Pentecost event in Acts 2) reverses Tobit’s practice of sharing a meal only with co-religionists on a previous Pentecost day (Tob 2:1– 2). Peter would indeed get into trouble for visiting the uncircumcised and eating with them (Acts 11:3); Peter would have much explaining and convincing to do once he returned to Jerusalem. Finally, Acts 10 evokes the peculiar inclusion of a non-Israelite in Tobit’s family. To a large extent, both narratives are about households and how non-Israelites are surprisingly integrated as members. In the Book of Tobit, fidelity to the law is expressed not only in terms of Tobit’s piety and observance of the commandments but also in terms of acts of compassion. In his sapiential discourse to his son, Tobit specifies what it means to remember the Lord as the performance of good works and almsgiving (Tob 4:5 – 11).⁴⁰ His notion of righteousness embraces more than the pious observance of the law. It comes as no surprise then that the narrative grafts on to Tobit’s family tree a non-Israelite who performs righteous deeds. Almost every character in the Book of Tobit is related to one another, with the term “brother” or “sister” occurring with such high frequency in the story⁴¹ that the “network of relations among these characters creates an extended family that threatens to take over all of Assyria.”⁴² All the male members of Tobit’s household possess theophoric names except for one, namely Ahiqar, a non-Israelite figure renowned for his wise counsels. And yet, the narrative disregards Ahiqar’s wisdom, transforming him instead into a relative known for being the first to extend compassionate care for Tobit in time of dire need (Tob 1:22; 2:10). It may be said that both author and audience could have regarded Ahiqar simply as another Jew in exile. This possibility is least likely. The inclusion of a non-Israelite character whose name is associated with pagan wisdom in a narrative that is so ethnocentric is striking enough. That the story defines the trait of Ahiqar in a new key in terms of charity seems to make a point that would hardly have escaped its readers. Since the narrative sets Ahiqar up as a paragon of almsgiving (Tob 14:11), the story endorses the sense that Ahiqar’s charity matters more than his sagacity in his integration into an Israelite household. Consequently, as Michael Weigl has argued, the practice of almsgiving in the Book of Tobit opens up the communal structure and makes possible the incorporation  Macatangay, Instructions, 79 – 85.  The theme of kinship is a dominant concern in the story. See Skemp, “᾿AΔΕΛΦΟΣ,” 92– 103; Dimant, “Family,” 157– 62. Jervell, Luke, 50, observes the use of adelphos in Acts to mean Israelite (Acts 1:16; 3:12; 7:23,25; 13:26). In Tobit, its use is also confined to fellow Israelites.  Wills, Novel, 78.

242

Francis M. Macatangay

of all who will climb the mountain of the Lord in the eschatological age.⁴³ Tobit’s universalistic vision of the earth’s inhabitants ascending Jerusalem with gifts in their hands to worship the God of Israel (Tob 13:11) recalls the prophetic claims regarding the nations (Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1– 2; Zech 8:21– 22), and indeed in Acts, the gospel spreads from Jerusalem to the nations. The precedent of Ahiqar makes Peter’s claim that righteous acts make one acceptable to God hardly innovative. At first sight, it may appear to be too drastic a change of understanding. If viewed against the Book of Tobit, however, Peter’s statement is no quantum leap at all. Tobit’s expansive notion of fidelity to the law includes not only the observance of the law but also acts of charity. This gives Peter room to acknowledge that in the case of gentiles, they can be grafted onto the people of God, as they are, uncircumcised and free from the law as long as they are “righteous” (δίκαιος). Just as Ahiqar’s acts of charity make him a member of Tobit’s household, so too the righteous deeds of non-Jews make them acceptable to God and his people. And so, the evocation of Ahiqar by way of Tobit underscores the claim that the integration of gentiles into the one household of God is not a disruption but a continuation of God’s salvific acts for his people. For Luke, the description of Cornelius as a gentile close to Judaism serves as part of a sequential process of gentile inclusion that begins with the Samaritan Pentecost, the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, and finally the gentile Pentecost. The progressive order demonstrates a narrative strategy that attempts to blur the distinctive lines between Jews and non-Jews.⁴⁴

5 Concluding Remarks Previous commentators have expressed the view that establishing textual connections is more of an art than a science.⁴⁵ Certainly, principles and criteria that guide the process of evaluation can be carefully and skillfully applied. And yet, it must be borne in mind that there are limitations and these rules may not always hold true in each situation. Outside of a direct quote, there may not be any rock-solid evidence for textual or inner-biblical allusions. And so, what the principles offer is some certainty based on the cumulative weight of the evidence. Shared language remains perhaps the least subjective criterion

 Weigl, “Macht,” 212– 43; cf. Zappella, Tobit, 22– 24.  García-Serrano, “Origins,” 484– 86.  Sommer, Prophet, 35; Leonard, “Identifying,” 264.

The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10

243

for determining whether an author has consciously activated or evoked a precursor text in another text by allusion. In that perspective, the verbal and structural resemblances between Tobit and the story of Cornelius in Acts point to a stronger likelihood of intentional allusion. Specifically, the expression “memorial offering” (μνημόσυνον) in the story of the gentile Cornelius in Acts functions as a marker of allusion that establishes a nexus between the Book of Tobit and Acts. Another distinctive phrase is “many acts of charity” (ἐλεημοσύνας πολλάς), found in the Greek Bible only in Acts 10:2 and Tob 1:3,16 GBS. To be sure, it is possible that both Tobit and Acts may have been dipping into the same stream of tradition in Second Temple Judaism. Still, the way that Tobit employs the phrase indicates a rather special textual testimony to the acquisition and expansion of the semantic sense of a common cultic term to include acts of charity. The writer of the Cornelius story could have used other expressions or language of sacrifice available at that time as attested in contemporary texts. And yet, the author of Acts chose this particular phrase to convey the same meaning as it does in the Book of Tobit. In this way, the phrases “memorial offering” (μνημόσυνον) and “many acts of charity” (ἐλεημοσύνας πολλάς) are markers of allusion that are familiar and yet distinctive. The allusion to the Book of Tobit within the Cornelius story in the Acts of the Apostles serves a strategic end, which is to help correct the seeming determinism inherent in narratives that unfold the workings of divine providence and purposes such as the Book of Tobit and Acts. Additionally, the activation of the Book of Tobit in Acts is a rhetorical device that aids in legitimating the growth and expansion of the Christian community of Jews and gentiles.

Bibliography Alter, Robert. The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989. Anderson, Gary A. “Redeem Your Sins by the Giving of Alms: Sin, Debt and the ‘Treasury of Merit’ in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition.” Letter & Spirit 3 (2007): 37 – 67. Anderson, Gary A. Charity: The Place of the Poor in Biblical Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013. Barthes, Roland. “The Structural Analysis of Narratives. Apropos of Acts 10 – 11.” In The Semiotic Challenge, trans. Richard Howard. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988, 231 – 45. Ben-Porat, Ziva. “The Poetics of Literary Allusion.” Poetics and Theory of Literature: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1 (1976): 105 – 28.

244

Francis M. Macatangay

Brawley, Robert L. Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1995. Bruce, F.F. The Book of the Acts: Revised Edition. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Catchpole, David R. Resurrection People. Studies in the Resurrection Narratives of the Gospels. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Cook, Michael J. “The Mission to the Jews in Acts: Unraveling Luke’s ‘Myth of the Myriads’.” In Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives Edited by Joseph B. Tyson. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988, 102 – 23. deSilva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018. Dibelius, Martin. “The Conversion of Cornelius.” In The Book of Acts: Form, Style and Theology, trans. Mary Ling and Paul Schubert. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004, 140 – 50. Di Lella, Alexander A. “The Book of Tobit and the Book of Judges: An Intertextual Analysis.” Henoch 22 (2000): 197 – 206. Dimant, Devorah. “The Family of Tobit.” In Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and other Jewish Studies in Honor of Ida Fröhlich. Edited by Károly Dániel Dobos and Miklós Kőszeghy. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008, 157 – 62. Docherty, Susan. “The Reception of Tobit in the New Testament and Early Christian Literature, with Special Reference to Luke-Acts.” In The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Essays in Honor of Maarten J.J. Menken. Edited by Bart J. Koet, Steve Moyise and Joseph Verheyden. NovTSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2013, 81 – 94. Dunn, James D. G. The Acts of the Apostles. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996. Esler, Philip F. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts. The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. AB 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. García-Serrano, Andrés. “At the Origins of Christianity: From Division to Inclusion.” EstBib 70 (2012): 477 – 95. Gregory, Bradley C. Like an Everlasting Signet Ring: Generosity in the Book of Sirach. DCLS 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary, trans. Bernard Noble and Gerald Shinn. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. Hanhart, Robert. Tobit. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum 8/5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scriptures in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Jervell, Jacob. Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972. Jervell, Jacob. “The Church of Jews and Godfearers.” In Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives. Edited by Joseph B. Tyson. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988, 11 – 20. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostles. SP 5. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992.

The Book of Tobit in the Story of Cornelius in Acts 10

245

Leonard, Jeffery M. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case.” JBL 127 (2008): 241 – 65. Litwak, Kenneth D. Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually. JSNTSup 282. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Macatangay, Francis M. The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit. DCLS 12. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Macatangay, Francis M. “Acts of Charity as Acts of Remembrance in the Book of Tobit,” JSP 23 (2013): 69 – 84. Macatangay, Francis M. “Election by Allusion: Exodus Themes in the Book of Tobit,” CBQ 76 (2014): 450 – 63. McCracken, Victor. “The Interpretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts.” ResQ 41 (1999): 193 – 210. Meek, Russell L. “Intertextuality, Inner-Biblical Exegesis, and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Ethics of a Methodology.” Bib 95 (2014): 280 – 91. Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003. Miller, Geoffrey D. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” CurBR 9 (2011): 283 – 309. Muñoa, Phillip. “Raphael, Azariah and Jesus of Nazareth: Tobit’s Significance for Early Christology,” JSP 22 (2012): 3 – 39. Nowell, Irene. “The ‘Work’ of the Archangel Raphael.” In Angels: The Concept of Celestial Beings: Origins, Development and Reception. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Tobias Nicklas, and Karin Schöpflin. DCLY 2007. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007, 227 – 38. Nguyen, van Thanh. Peter and Cornelius: A Story of Conversion and Mission. ASM Monograph Series. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012. Perrin, Andrew B. “An Almanac of Tobit Studies: 2000 – 2014.” CurBR 13 (2014): 107 – 42. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Ringgren, Helmer. “Luke’s Use of the Old Testament.” HTR 79 (1986): 227 – 35. Skemp, Vincent. “᾿AΔΕΛΦΟΣ and the Theme of Kinship in Tobit.” ETL 75 (1999): 92 – 103. Skemp, Vincent. “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. CBQMS 38. Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2005, 43 – 70. Sommer, Benjamin. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40 – 66. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Talbert, Charles H. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. New York: Crossroad, 1997. Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Volume Two: The Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Tyson, Joseph B. “The Gentile Mission and the Authority of Scripture in Acts.” NTS 33 (1987): 619 – 31. Wagner, Christian J. Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse: Griechisch—Lateinisch—Syrisch—Hebräisch— Aramäisch. Mit einem Index zu den Tobit-Fragmenten vom Toten Meer. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Philologisch-Historische Klasse 258. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Weeks, Stuart, Simon Gathercole, and Loren Stuckenbruck. Tobit: Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions. With Synopsis, Concordances, and Annotated Texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Syriac. FoSub 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.

246

Francis M. Macatangay

Weigl, Michael. “Die rettende Macht der Barmherzigkeit: Achikar im Buch Tobit.” BZ 50 (2006): 212 – 43. Wills, Lawrence. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. Witherup, Ronald. “Cornelius Over and Over and Over Again: ‘Functional Redundancy’ in the Acts of the Apostles.” JSNT 49 (1993): 45 – 66. Yoon, David I. “The Ideological Inception of Intertextuality and its Dissonance in Current Biblical Studies.” CurBR 12 (2013): 58 – 76. Zappella, Marco. Tobit. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Nuova versione della bibbia dai testi antichi 30. Milan: San Paolo, 2010.

Vincent Skemp

The Medieval Hebrew (H5) of Tobit: Use of Scripture and Influence of Rabbinic and Medieval Jewish Traditions The North French Miscellany includes a medieval Hebrew version of Tobit, referred to as H5 in the synopsis by Weeks, Gathercole, and Stuckenbruck.¹ This version of Tobit appears in a collection of biblical and rabbinic texts with many color illuminations, known as Add. MS 11639 in the British Library, copied by a scribe named Benjamin in northern France around 1277– 1286. While the main body of the North French Miscellany has 55 texts, the margin has 29 compositions, of which Hebrew Tobit or H5 is the last one.² The analysis of H5 that follows reveals that it is sui generis as a form of the Tobit story. While H5 displays connections with the Greek and Latin versions of Tobit and very likely makes use of them ad hoc as inspiration for recasting the story in biblicizing Hebrew,³ it also is indebted to rabbinic traditions. Such traditions include the Halachot Gedolot in Tob 3:11, the Babylonian Talmud for the marriage blessing at 8:5 (b. Ketubbot 8a), a piyyut, the Amidah, and Mishnah Taanit in 8:6, and Midrash Lamentations Rabbati in 8:7. In addition, H5 embellishes Sarah’s prayer in 8:7 by drawing on the Avodah and Qedushta type of piyyutim related to the Yom Kippur liturgy, especially Saadiah Gaon’s piyyut, Gam Hayom Yada‛ti (“Also Today I Know”). The same verse has connections with medieval Jewish traditions: Sefer Gematriot, attributed to Judah ben Samuel (1140 – 1217 CE), and the Psalm commentary of Rabbi David Kimhi (1160 – 1235 CE). The resonances in Tob 8:6 – 7 are particularly complex due to the fact that piyyutim are rooted in

 Weeks, Gathercole, and Stuckenbruck, Book, 37– 39. In this article, I follow their abbreviations and nomenclature. This article uses vocalization to distinguish between the biblical Hebrew text (vocalized) and the medieval Hebrew Tobit text (unvocalized).  For details of these manuscripts, see Schonfield, Miscellany. Gaster’s original publication of the Hebrew text (Versions, i–xi), dates from 1897. Gaster had supplied an introduction with English translation in previous articles (“Versions”).  H5 agrees with the Vulgate (Vg) in narrating 1:1– 3:6 in the third person; cf. Cioată, “Tellings,” 361. However, H5 begins with a genealogy in 1:1 similar to the other versions but absent in the Vg. H5 also, as noted by Weeks, Gathercole, and Stuckenbruck (Book, 39), “avoids the confusion of names which bedevils the Vulgate account” by calling the father Tobi and the son Tobiah, as in the Qumran Hebrew MS (4Q200 4.6 – 7). In the absence of a critical edition of the Vetus Latina (VL), I will refer to the important MSS. All translations are mine unless otherwise noted. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110416930-011

248

Vincent Skemp

the scriptural texts of synagogue liturgy, which also contain rabbinic and medieval intertextures. H5 frequently borrows phrases directly from the Hebrew Bible as a way of filling out biblical allusions befitting the plot of the story. Such direct borrowing of biblical Hebrew phrases is so common in H5 that this study provides only selected examples. In addition to the biblicizing Hebrew as its modus operandi, it is not surprising that H5 was inspired by piyyutim related to Yom Kippur in 8:6 – 7, for the H5 text is located on the manuscript margins around commentaries on liturgical poems (piyyutim) for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Nor are the allusions to Mishnah Taanit 2 in 8:6 and Midrash Lamentations Rabbati in 8:7 a surprise as those rabbinic texts concerns the liturgy of the fast day. The allusions to well-known piyyutim and the Sefer Gematriot cohere well with the tendency of H5 to transpose words at times when drawing on biblical texts. H5’s use of multiple versions of the Tobit story, the biblicizing, and the allusions to rabbinic and medieval Jewish texts result in a unique and compelling form of the Tobit story that is worth careful study. This analysis employs a diachronic approach that analyzes examples in H5 of intertextual links—especially shared lexical features—to precursor texts in the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature.⁴ With regard to rabbinic literature, the intertextures for the acrostic poem and piyyutim in H5 Tob 8:6 – 7 are a matter of shared structure, literary form, and some lexical features with piyyutim related to Yom Kippur (Avodah and Qedushta), whereas in 3:11 H5 borrows the exact wording from Halachot Gedolot. ⁵ Since piyyutim are liturgical poems that draw on the Tanak and rabbinic prayers, this study will acknowledge the multiple aspects of the intertextures in 8:6 – 7 by beginning with the connections to earlier piyyutim as well as the embedded allusions to the Tanak, rabbinic prayers and blessings, and medieval sources. When H5 has connections to medieval sources within piyyutim, it is possible that these connections are the result of shared dependence on the same well-known piyyutim. Although some of the examples that follow are somewhat subtle allusions to biblical texts, the similar subject matter of the intertext and the tendency within H5 to evoke those subjects suggest that these biblical allusions be considered deliberate mimesis. I shall also provide several examples of the tendency in H5 to draw on biblical Hebrew and rabbinic texts in a much more obvious or less subtle fashion—explicit recitation—in which H5 borrows word for word but without directly acknowledging the intertext. This study is thus interested in the intentions of the redactor-author

 Miller, “Intertextuality,” 295.  Miller (ibid., 297) also examines the criterion of similarity in form or structure.

The Medieval Hebrew (H5) of Tobit

249

of this medieval text and in differentiating the subtle allusions from the wordfor-word borrowing. In both cases I attempt to elucidate the rationale for the intertextual borrowing.

Discussion of Intertextual Allusions in H5 Not Denying Assistance to the Needy: Allusions in H5 Tob 1:4 The first part of Tobit 1:4 parallels the Greek and Latin versions’ references to the tribe of Naphtali. The opening biblicizing Hebrew, ‫ויהי‬, “and it happened,” parallels G1 and G2 καὶ ὅτε, “and when.” But the second part of the verse differs. ‫ולא‬ ‫נתן כתף אחד במלאכה‬, “and he did not deny anyone in his work,” lit., “he did not give his shoulder,” i. e., he did not turn his shoulder = deny. The idiom occurs in Zech 7:11, ‫ויתנו כתף סררת‬, to refer to turning one’s back, i. e., ignoring, the widow, orphan, and poor (cf. Zech 7:10), which leads one to surmise that there is a subtle allusion here to Zech 7:10 – 11 that emphasizes that Tobi acted in accordance with the prophetic injunction. The idiom also occurs in Neh 9:29 in a context similar to Zech 7:11—that the people are not doing as the Law requires regarding their responsibilities to those who need their assistance. A difference is that Zech 7:11 and Neh 9:29 refer to stubbornness, ‫סררת‬, which indicates that the Nehemiah text doubtless has Zech 7:11 in mind, but H5 instead refers to Tobit’s work, ‫במלאכה‬. The motivation for the plus in H5 might at first seem unclear. However, Jerome’s Vulgate (Vg) contains the plus nihil tamen puerile gessit in opere, “yet he never conducted himself childishly in deed.” There is a striking correspondence with the Vg here: in opere // ‫במלאכה‬. Thus, H5 has recast this clause in its own way by borrowing the idiom in part from Zech 7:11 and Neh 9:29 in the light of Tobit’s conduct toward the poor, but was also inspired by the Vg’s phrase in opere. The biblical idiom from Zech 7:11 and Neh 9:29 is stated negatively, ‫ולא‬, through the influence of Vg nihil.

Fleeing Barefoot and Naked: Allusions in H5 Tob 1:20 In 4Q196 and the Greek forms of the Tobit narrative, Tob 1:21 recounts the fleeing of Sennacherib’s two sons after murdering him (cf. 2 Kgs 19:37; Isa 37:38). However, because of the Vg omission of material from the end of chapter 1, the motif of fleeing is transferred to Tobit and his family, and H5 follows the Vg on this point. H5 1:20 has a plus that refers to the family fleeing barefoot and naked, which evokes the language of exilic desolation in Isa 20:2– 4. It is not a direct

250

Vincent Skemp

quote, as the order in MT (and Tg. Ps.-J.) Isa 20:3,4 is naked and barefoot, whereas H5 has barefoot first, creating an inverted quotation.⁶ Yet the parallels of context and language make it a deliberate allusion. The text of H5 reads as follows: ‫וילכו יחפים וערומים בלי כסות בקרח ובלא מחיה ובכל אשׁר הלך מצא אוהבים רבים‬ “and they went barefoot and naked without clothing in the frost, and without sustenance. But wherever he went he found many friends.”

Moreover, the reference in H5 to being “without clothing in the frost,” ‫בלי כסות‬ ‫בקרח‬, seems a mixture of the vocabulary of Job 24:7 and 24:10, Job’s lament about what happens to the needy (Job 24:4– 10): Job 24:7 ‫“ ֵ֥אין ְ֜כּ֗סוּת ַבּ ָקּ ָֽרה‬there is no covering against the cold”; cf. Job 24:10 ‫[“—ָע ֣רוֹם ִ֭ה ְלּכוּ ְבּ ִ֣לי ְל֑בוּשׁ‬the destitute] walk about naked without clothes.” Being without clothing is a leitmotif in the Book of Job (cf. also Job 31:19), and Tobit’s travails have often recalled Job’s.⁷ Elsewhere there is a quote of Job 5:18 at the plus in H5 13:2, and the plusses in H5 at 2:8 and 2:10 explicitly refer to Job. But here in 1:20 it is an allusion to the Job text, not a direct quote. H5 uses language that recalls these texts, Isa 20:3 – 4 and Job 24:7,10, but without lifting the exact wording. In each case there is an exact word (‫כסות‬ H5 1:20 and Job 24:7; ‫ בלי‬in H5 Tob 1:20 and Job 24:10), and synonyms occur (‫“ קרח‬frost” instead of ‫“ קרה‬cold”;⁸ ‫ בלי‬instead of ‫)֥אין‬, or an inversion of syntax (“barefoot and naked” instead of “naked and barefoot”). The allusions, however, are unmistakable for the reader who knows the biblical text. Notably, the Vg plus here, Tobias vero cum filio suo et cum uxore fugiens nudus latuit quia multi diligebant eum, lacks the reference to being barefoot. If the Vg plus was an impetus for H5, the author recast it in his own way in order to allude to Isa 20:2– 4 and Job 24:7,10. It seems highly likely that the Vg was an influence on H5 here. The language of friendship in the last sentence of this plus in H5, ‫ובכל אשׁר הלך מצא אוהבים רבים‬, “and wherever he went he found many friends,” is derived from Vg’s multi diligebant eum. Hebrew ‫ אוהב‬is indeed connected to the verb ‫אהב‬, “to love,” and carries the sense of both “one who loves” and “friend.” H5 may have recast Vg diligebant in terms of friendship solely on the basis of the double meaning of ‫אוהב‬. In summary, this verse of H5 is a creative reworking of the Vg plus that is indebted to Isa 20:3,4 and Job 24:7,10.

 For other biblical examples of an inverted quotation, see Beentjes, “Quotations.”  Portier-Young, “Eyes.”  The two similar terms stand in poetic parallelism in Ps 147:17.

The Medieval Hebrew (H5) of Tobit

251

Festivals Turned to Mourning: Sui Generis Quotation of Amos 8:10 in H5 Tob 2:6 The reference to the MT of Amos 8:10 in Tob 2:6, found in H5, is almost identical in another medieval Hebrew version of Tobit (H3) and in an Aramaic version (A5).⁹ H5 reads: ‫ויזכר את הדבר אשׁר ביד עמוס הנביא והפכתי את חגיכם לאבל ושׁיריכם לקינה‬ “And he remembered the word that was through Amos the prophet: ‘And I will turn your festivals to mourning and your songs to a dirge.’”

The MT of Amos 8:10 reads: ‫ְוָהַפְכ ִתּי ַח ֵגּיֶכם ְלֵאֶבל ְוָכל־ ִשׁי ֵריֶכם ְלִקי ָנה‬ LXX: καὶ μεταστρέψω τὰς ἑορτὰς ὑμῶν εἰς πένθος καὶ πάσας τὰς ᾠδὰς ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνον

The Gk and Latin versions of Tob 2:6 are remarkably similar and read as follows: Tob S: καὶ ἐμνήσθην τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ προφήτου ὅσα ἐλάλησεν Αμως ἐπὶ Βαιθηλ λέγων, στραφήσονται ὑμῶν αἱ ἑορταὶ εἰς πένθος καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ᾠδαὶ [S: ὁδοὶ] ὑμῶν εἰς θρῆνος // 5 D 8 = G1 στραφήσονται // VL QXW and Vg convertentur // S1 6G)23,E

The quotation of Amos 8:10 in H5 differs from all the other versions, as it is in the first person, in conformity to the MT and LXX of Amos 8:10. The Gk, Latin, and Syriac witnesses have the verb in the third person plural passive, with “your feasts” as the subject (except that in VL W the subject is omnes viae vestrae).¹⁰ H5 agrees with the Gk witnesses and most VL MSS by including the second part of the Amos quote, ‫וכל־שׁיריכ֙ם לקינה‬, except it omits ‫“( כל‬all”)—an equivalent of which is present in G1, G2, VL QX, and S1. That the second half of Amos 8:10 is not quoted in its entirety is consistent with the tendency in H5 to go its own way. Even though H5 here has an extensive quotation of Amos 8:10, the quote is neither dependent on the other ancient witnesses nor does it conform entirely to MT or LXX of Amos 8:10.

 For these other Tobit texts, see the synopsis in Weeks, Gathercole, and Stuckenbruck. The medieval Aramaic text A5 quotes Amos here in Hebrew.  The term viae (ways) matches the reading of G2 here, ὁδοί, which is usually viewed as an error for ᾦδαι (songs); cf. Fitzmyer, Tobit, 135.

252

Vincent Skemp

Persisting in Integrity: Word-for-word Borrowing in the Plus at H5 Tob 2:8 Scholars have observed many ways that the story of Tobit, a righteous man who is tested by affliction but eventually restored, is reminiscent of the Book of Job.¹¹ H5 Tob 2:8 contains a rather lengthy plus that twice refers intertextually to the Book of Job. The first part of the verse, Tob 2:8a, resembles Greek Sinaiticus (G2): καὶ οἱ πλησίον μου κατεγέλων λέγοντες, οὐ φοβεῖται οὐκέτι ἤδη γὰρ ἐπεζητήθη τοῦ φονευθῆναι περὶ τοῦ πράγματος τούτου καὶ ἀπέδρα καὶ πάλιν ἰδοὺ θάπτει τοὺς νεκρούς, “and my neighbors were mocking saying, ‘He still has no fear, for he has already been hunted to be executed for this deed, and he ran away, but behold he buries the dead again.’” To aid in seeing the intertexts, the texts are placed here side-by-side: H : plus

Job : and :; Deut :; Vg

‫ויריבו אותו קרוביו לאמר הנה ידעת כי צוה חוק המלך‬ ‫להרגך על אשׁר קברת ותברח ותנצל נפשך ועודך‬ ‫מחזיק בתומתך ויאמר הנה הרבה יראתי את אדני‬ ‫האדנים מיראתי את המלך קרוץ מחומר כמוני׃ וטובי‬ ‫היה‬ ‫הולך ושׁוב אחרי ההרוגים ובסתר היה מביאם וקוברם‬ ‫בחצות הלילה‬

‫( עֹ ְדָ֖ך ַמֲִח ֣זיק ְבֻּת ָמּ ֶ ֑תָך‬Job :) “Do you still persist in your integrity?” ‫חֶמר קֹ ַרְצ ִתּי ַגם־ָא ִני‬ ֹ ‫( ֵהן־ֲא ִני ְכִפיָך ָלֵאל ֵמ‬Job :) “Behold, I am like you before God, I too was formed from clay”

And his neighbors rebuked him saying, Behold, you know that the king has given the order to kill you because you have buried, but you fled and saved yourself, and you are still persisting in your integrity. But he said, Behold, I fear the Lord of Lords much more than I fear the king (who was) formed from clay like me. And Tobi continued to go after the slain, and secretly he brought them and buried them in the middle of the night.

Cf. Neh : ‫אד‬ ֹ ‫ ָוִאי ָרא ַה ְר ֵבּה ְמ‬, “and I was very greatly afraid” (in the king’s presence) Deut :; Ps : ‫ֲאד ֹ ֵני ָהֲאד ֹ ִנים‬, “Lord of Lords” Vg: sed Thobias plus timens deum quam regem rapiebat corpora occisorum et occultabat in domum suam et mediis noctibus sepeliebat ea, “but Tobit, fearing God more than the king, used to take the bodies of the slain and hide them in his home and bury them in the middle of the night”

First, as the chart above indicates, H5 contains a precise quotation of Job 2:9 ‫עֹ ְדָ֖ך‬ ‫ַמֲח ִ֣זיק ְבֻּת ָמּ ֶ ֑תָך‬, “are you still persisting in your integrity?”¹² It is a plus found in no other version, although Tobit’s wife is often regarded as being modeled on Job’s

 Dimant, “Mikra,” 417– 19; Nowell, “Book,” 74– 75, 276 – 77; Portier-Young, “Eyes,” 15.  While it is unclear if H5 intends this as a statement or a question, the sense differs little.

The Medieval Hebrew (H5) of Tobit

253

wife.¹³ Second, ‫קרוץ מחומר כמוני‬, “formed from clay like me,” is a clear allusion to Job 33:6, ‫חֶמר קֹ ַ֥רְצ ִתּי ַגם־ ָֽא ִני‬ ֹ ֗ ‫ֵהן־ֲא ִ֣ני ְכ ִ֣פיָך ָל ֵ֑אל ֵ֜מ‬, “Look, I am like you before God, I too was pinched/formed from clay,” with no correspondence in the other versions. Third, the origin of the phrase ‫“ אדני האדנים‬Lord of lords” is obvious as it occurs only twice in the Tanak (Deut 10:17; Ps 136:3). H5 uses this divine title again in the plus at 8:6. Fourth, regarding ‫הרבה יראתי‬, there is similar language in Neh 2:2 ‫אד‬ ֹ ‫ ָוִאי ָרא ַה ְר ֵבּה ְמ‬, “and I was greatly afraid.”¹⁴ The echo of Neh 2:2 conceals a skillful contrast, since Nehemiah was afraid before the Persian king, but Tobi declares that he is more afraid of God than of an earthly king.¹⁵ H5 shares with the Vg key aspects of the last part of the verse: that Tobi fears God more than the king, and that he buried the slain in the middle of the night (mediis noctibus // ‫)בחצות הלילה‬. Vg uniquely states that Tobi “used to hide them in his home” (occultabat in domum suam), which H5 omits. Although corpse impurity was apparently not a concern for Jerome, the Jew who composed H5 may have found that textual plus an unnecessary complication.

The Divine Testing of Tobit: Biblical Quotations and Allusions in the Plus in H5 Tob 2:10 Within the plot of Tobit, this verse concerns Tobit in the courtyard when the bird droppings fall into his eyes, making him blind. To aid in understanding the intertexts, it will be useful to lay out the texts side-by-side, together with the unique Vg plus (absent from Gk and VL) that follows 2:10:

 Schüngel-Straumann, Tobit, 73 – 76; Fitzmyer, Tobit, 141.  Gaster (Versions, xiv) in his appendix on “Peculiar Forms and Constructions” observed this similarity as well, but he also pointed to Qoh 1:16 and Ezra 10:1. Those texts, however, share only the adv. ‫ַה ְר ֵבּה‬.  In the historical context of the North French Miscellany (13th century France), where some Jews faced hardships and even martyrdom, this statement may have had a contemporary resonance. See Schwartz, “Authority,” 93.

254

Vincent Skemp

H : Plus

Exod :;  Kgs :; Job :; :; :; Ps :; Tob : –  Vg

‫ולבעבור נסותו עשה לו האלהים כל זאת כאשׁר עשה‬ ‫ וטובי היה ירא את יהוה מנעוריו ובכל זאת‬. ‫לאיוב‬ ‫לא נתן טובי תפלה לאלהים וידבק באלהי ישׁראל‬ ‫ויבטח בחסדו׃ ויבאו לפניו ריעי איוב אליפז התימני‬ ‫ובלדד השׁוחי וצופר הנעמתי ויהיו כולם מלעיגים עליו‬ ‫ צדקתך אשׁר בטחת בה לאמר צדקתי ואקבר‬¹⁶‫לאמר‬ ‫את המתים ואגמול להם חסד׃ ויגער בהם טובי ויאמר‬ ‫אמנם זך וחף אנכי צדקתי תענה בי והנה גם הרע וגם‬ ‫הטוב נקבל מאהבה ובשמחת לָבב כי כל משפטי יהוה‬ ‫ישרים׃ כי כל אשׁר אמונתו שׁלימה לא ימיר ולא יחליף‬ ‫ונתן לו אלהים חיי העולם הבא‬

Exod : ‫“ ְל ַֽבֲעבוּ֙ר ַנ ֣סּוֹת ֶאְתֶ֔כם‬in order to test you” Job : ‫“ ְול ֹא־ ָנַ֥תן ִתְּפ ָ֖לה ֵלאל ֹ ִֽהים‬and he did not charge God with wrongdoing.”  Kgs : (of Hezekiah) ‫“ ַו ִיּ ְד ַבּק ַבּיה ָוה‬and he clung to the Lord” Cf. Deut : ‫וּבוֹ ִת ְד ָבּק‬ “and to him you must cling” Job : ‫“ ֥ ַזְך ֲא ִ֗ני ְֽבּ ִ֫לי ָ֥פ ַשׁע ַ֥חף ָאֹנ ִ֑כי‬I am clean, without transgression, I am innocent” Job : ‫ַגּם ֶאת־ַהּטוֹב ְנַק ֵבּל ֵמֵאת האלהים ְוֶאת־ָה ָרע‬ ‫“ ל ֹא ְנַק ֵבּל‬we accept the good from God, should we not accept the evil?” Ps : ‫יהוה ִּכי־ֶצ ֶדק ִמ ְשׁ ָפּשֶטיָך‬, “Lord, your judgments are righteous;” cf. Ps :; :; Neh :. Cf. Hab : ‫“ ַצ ִ֖דּיק ֶבֱּאמוּ ָנ֥תוֹ יְִח ֶֽיה‬the righteous person lives [will live] by his faithfulness”  hanc autem temptationem ideo permisit Dominus evenire illi ut posteris daretur exemplum patientiae eius sicut et sancti Iob  nam cum ab infantia sua semper Deum timuerit et mandata eius custodierit. non est contristatus contra Deum quod plaga caecitatis evenerit ei, sed inmobilis in Dei timore permansit agens gratias Deo omnibus diebus vitae suae nam sicut beato Iob insultabant reges ita isti parentes et cognati eius et inridebant vitam eius dicentes ubi est spes tua pro qua elemosynas et sepulturas faciebas.  Tobias vero increpabat eos dicens nolite ita loqui quoniam filii sanctorum sumus et vitam illam expectamus quam Deus daturus est his qui fidem suam numquam mutant ab eo.

And in order to test him, God did all this to him as he did to Job. And Tobi feared the Lord from his youth. And in all of this Tobi did not charge God with wrongdoing. And he clung to the God of Israel and he trusted in his mercy. And the friends of Job came before him—Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite— and they all mocked him, saying, ‘[Where is] your righteousness in which you trusted, saying ‘I am in the right; I will bury the dead and I will deal out mercy to them’? But Tobi rebuked them, saying ‘Truly I am clean and innocent and my righteousness will answer for me. And behold, both the evil and the good we should accept out of love and in gladness of heart. For all the judgments of the Lord are upright. For everyone whose faithfulness is complete will not alter and will not change and God will grant him the life of the world to come.’

The lengthy plus in H5 brings in allusions to Moses, Hezekiah, Job and Habakkuk, although only Job is explicitly referenced with ‫כאשר עשה לאיוב‬. First, the language used as an introduction to God’s testing of Tobit derives from Exod

 To assist in making sense of the text, Gaster (Versions, 17) supplies ‫איה‬, “where,” and Weeks, Gathercole, and Stuckenbruck, state (Book, 348) “it is likely that the scribe has omitted some such word.” It would thus read: “Where is your righteousness…?”

The Medieval Hebrew (H5) of Tobit

255

20:20 with a slight adjustment: instead of “in order to test you,”‫ְל ַֽבֲעבוּ֙ר ַנ ֣סּוֹת ֶאְתֶ֔כם‬ , H5 reads “in order to test him,” but the preposition + infinitive is distinctive of Exod 20:20.¹⁷ Moreover, in Exod 20:20 Moses tells the people that God has come “in order to test you” so that they fear God and do not sin. Thus it is not coincidental that H5 asserts that Tobi feared God from his youth, although the exact phrase differs from Exod 20:20: ‫וַּבֲע֗בוּר ִתְּה ֶ֧יה יִ ְרָא֛תוֹ‬, “so that fear of him may be [upon you].” This finds a parallel in the Vg plus (Vg v 13): ‫וטובי היה ירא‬ ‫ את יהוה מנעוריו‬// nam cum infantia sua deum timuerit, which echoes 1 Kgs 18:13 and Deut 5:29. Second, the statement that Tobi “clung to the God of Israel,” ‫וידבק באלהי‬ ‫ישׁראל‬, conforms to Deut 10:20 ‫( וּבוֹ ִת ְד ָבּק‬cf. plural verb in Deut 13:5); and 2 Kgs 18:6, ‫ ַו ִיּ ְד ַבּק ַבּיה ָוה‬, with the latter intertext implying that Tobi clung to God as had Hezekiah.¹⁸ The use of the preposition ‫ ב‬with the verb ‫ דבק‬in a theological sense is distinctively Deuteronomic (also Josh 23:8), which confirms the likelihood that the allusion was deliberate. Third, as in the echoes of Job 2:9 and 33:6 in the H5 plus at 2:8, here at 2:10 H5 has enhanced the parallel with Job in several ways, including the explicit mention of Job’s friends. In addition, the phrase ‫ לא נתן טובי תפלה לאלהים‬echoes Job 1:22 with only Tobi’s name inserted: ‫ ְול ֹא־ ָנַ֥תן ִתְּפ ָ֖לה ֵלאל ֹ ִֽהים‬, “and he did not charge God with wrong” (cf. Vg: non est contristatus contra Deum, “he was not rendered gloomy against God”). There is also a clear allusion to Job 33:9 ‫֥ ַזְך ֲא ִ֗ני‬ ‫“ ְֽבּ ִ֫לי ָ֥פ ַשׁע ַ֥חף ָאֹנִ֑כי‬I am clean, without transgression, I am innocent,” with the middle two words omitted. And “the evil and the good we should accept” clearly derives from Job 2:10. A final possible scriptural allusion exists. The reference to ‫אמונתו‬, his faithfulness, in connection to living recalls Hab 2:4 ‫ַצ ִ֖דּיק ֶבֱּאמוּ ָנ֥תוֹ יְִח ֶֽיה‬, “the righteous person lives/will live by his faithfulness.” H5, however, connects the idea to life everlasting through the Vg: quia filii sanctorum sumus et vitam illam expectamus quam deus daturus est his qui fidem suam numquam mutant ab eo, “for we are children of holy people, and we await that life which God will give to those whose faith never wavers from him.” It is noteworthy that H5 does not follow Vg reges “kings” (cf. LXX Job 2:11) in reference to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. In summary, H5’s creative recasting of this verse is to some extent indebted to the Vg plus that resonates with several of the same biblical texts (Deut 5:29; 1 Kgs 18:12) and Cyprian’s De mortalitate 10 (CCSL 3 A.21– 22).¹⁹ However, H5 has  The intertextual allusion here is distinctive insofar as ‫ ְלַבֲעבוּר‬+ infinitive occurs only two other times in the Hebrew Bible (2 Sam 14:20; 17:14). Cf. Miller, “Intertextuality,” 295.  Note that an echo of 2 Kgs 18:9 – 11 appears in Tob 1:2– 3; cf. Fitzmyer, Tobit, 96.  Auwers, “Tobie,” 82.

256

Vincent Skemp

substantially gone its own way in making more extensive biblical allusions to Exod 20:20; Job 1:22; 2:10; 33:9; and Ps 119:75. Nor did H5 follow Jerome’s addition of the lexeme exemplum (the “example” of patience) based on Vg Jas 5:10.²⁰

Sarah’s First Prayer in H5 Tob 3:11 – 16 Since H5 has a unique second prayer of Sarah at 8:7, an extensive plus, the one in 3:11– 16 is here referred to as her first prayer. Sarah’s first prayer diverges significantly from the other versions, including some independence from the Vg, and draws on a pastiche of biblical allusions unique to H5: Gen 35:3; Deut 7:9; 1 Sam 10:19; Neh 1:6; 9:22; Pss 7:11; 17:7; 123:1; Isa 43:11. The last three words of 3:11 are a direct quotation from Halachot Gedolot (88a), a rabbinic text that dates to the gaonic period (ca. 7th-11th centuries): ‫גומל לחייבים טובות‬, “bestowing benefits on the guilty.”²¹ This section of the Halachot Gedolot is a well-known Jewish prayer of thanks that is often referred to as Birkat haGomel. It is recited before going on a dangerous journey or after having survived a dangerous situation. That it came to the mind of the person composing H5 can be explained by the story’s journey motif, the dangers Tobi faces for burying the dead, but most importantly for Sarah’s prayer—her distress over being mocked because her husbands were murdered by the demon Asmodeus. The most likely initial impetus for inserting an allusion to Halachot Gedolot here was the Vg, which refers to both a time of tribulation and to God’s mercy even when the mercy is not deserved: cum iratus fueris misericordiam facies et in tempore tribulationis peccata demittis, “when you are angered you show mercy and in time of tribulation you forgive sins.” H5, however, has recast the Vg reference in the language of the Halachot Gedolot. Such recasting is part of the modus operandi of H5. A similar recasting of the Vg occurs at 8:9 where Vg reads circa pullorum cantu, “about when the cock crows,” which H5 recasts using the rabbinic technical term ‫( קריאת הגבר‬m. Yoma 1.8; b. Yoma 20b).²²

 For Jerome’s insertion of exempla into his translations and revisions of biblical books, see Skemp, “Learning.”  Or “bestowing kindnesses on the undeserving,” or “repaying good things to debtors.” Halachot Gedolot is based on the Bavli but also makes use of Yerushalmi. This text refers to b. Berakhot 54b in reference to a Gemara of Rav Yehudah. The text of b. Berakhot 54b is slightly different: ‫ברוך גומל חסדים טובים‬, “blessed is the one who repays good mercies.”  The opening phrase of H5 8:9, ‫ויהי בחצי הלילה‬, “and it came to pass at midnight,” is a plus borrowed from Exod 12:29. This insertion, independent of the other versions, including the Vg, causes problems because it does not mesh with the next clause (‫בקריאת הגבר‬, lit., “when the

The Medieval Hebrew (H5) of Tobit

257

Even though in relation to all the other ancient versions of Tobit the last sentence in H5 3:11 bears the most resemblance to the Vg, H5 has recast the sentence considerably by adding characteristics of God common to the Bible: ‫אתה העונה‬ ‫בעת צרה פודה ומציל ומושׁיע גומל לחייבים טובות‬, “You answer in the time of distress, ransom, and deliver, and save, bestowing benefits on the guilty.” The clause ‫אתה‬ ‫העונה בעת צרה‬, “you answer in the time of distress,” is likely a combined allusion to Jacob’s description of God as ‫אִת֙י ְבּ ֣יוֹם ָֽצ ָרִ֔תי‬ ֹ ‫ָהעֹ ֶ֤נה‬, “the one answering me on the day of my distress” in Gen 35:3, along with the use of the phrase ‫ בעת צרה‬from Isa 33:2 ‫ ְישׁוָּעֵתנוּ ְבֵּעת ָצ ָרה‬, “our salvation in the time of distress,” and Jer 14:8 ‫מוֹ ִשׁיעוֹ‬ ‫ ְבֵּעת ָצ ָרה‬, “its savior in the time of distress.” While other texts also refer to God answering when one is distressed (Ps 20:2; cf. Ps 86:7), the parallel qal participle in H5 establishes the Genesis text as a primary intertext along with ‫ בעת צרה‬from Isa 33:2 and Jer 14:8. In addition, a comparable qal participle ‫ פודה‬refers to God ransoming/ redeeming in Ps 34:23 (cf. Deut 7:8; 15:5; 24:18). Another comparable hiphil participle ‫ מציל‬refers to the Lord delivering/rescuing in Ps 35:10: ‫ְיה ָ֗וה ִ֥מי‬ ‫ ָ֫כ֥מוָֹך ַמ ִ֣צּיל ָ ֭ע ִני ֵמָח ָ֣זק‬, “O Lord, who is like you, who rescues the afflicted from the powerful?” And a further comparable hiphil participle ‫ מושׁיע‬refers to God saving in numerous texts (1 Sam 10:19; Pss 7:11; 17:7; Isa 43:11; 45:15; Zech 8:7). As Sarah’s prayer continues in 3:12 there are several unique additions to H5 drawn from Scripture. The clause, ‫אליך נשאתי את־עיני הישבי בשמים‬, “to you I lift up my eyes, the one who dwells in the heavens,” derives directly from Ps 123:1. Although the other versions also allude to the first clause in this Psalm, H5 is the only version to mention just the eyes, whereas the other versions refer to the face or to both face and eyes (G1 and Peshitta have the sequence: eyes, face; whereas 4QTob Aramaic, G2, VL, Vg, A5 have the same order: face, eyes). And H5 alone adds ‫ הישבי בשמים‬which continues the reference to Ps 123:1. Thus H5 both adheres more closely to the Psalm but also adds two words from the Psalm. Clearly these two words ‫הישבי בשמים‬, came to mind because preceding them is the phrase ‫נשאתי את־עיני‬. H5 also adds the plus, ‫כי ידעתי עפר אנכי ואל עפר אשוב‬, “for I know that I am dust, and to dust I will return,” which alludes to the punishment of death in Gen 3:19 (cf. Ps 103:14). As Sarah’s prayer continues in 3:13, H5 inserts a unique invocation that matches Neh 1:6: ‫ָאֹנִכ ֩י ִמְת ַפּ ֵ ֙לּל ְלָפ ֶ֤ניך‬, “I am praying before you” (cf. Solomon’s prayer 1 Kgs 8:28 // 2 Chr 6:19).

man calls,” i. e., “when the cock crows”) inspired by the Vg’s circa pullorum cantu, as “cock crow” and midnight are different times. It attests to H5’s insistence on including biblical phraseology.

258

Vincent Skemp

In 3:15 Sarah’s prayer alludes to the beatitude of Ps 1:1 ‫וְּבמוֹ ַ֥שׁב ֵ֜לִ֗צים ֣ל ֹא ָי ָֽשׁב‬, “(blessed is the man who)…in the seat/assembly of scorners does not sit.” H5: ‫במושׁב לצים לא ישׁבתי‬, “in the seat/assembly of scorners I have not sat.” This text is a favorite of H5; it is alluded to again at 4:11. The next clause in 3:15 alludes to Jer 15:17 ‫ ֽל ֹא־ ָי ַ֥שְׁב ִתּי ְבסוֹד־ְמ ַשֲׂח ִ֖קים‬, “I have not sat in the council of mockers.” The use of ‫ ישבתי‬in the previous clause—the verb is in both Ps 1:1 and Jer 15:17—occasioned the change of verb in this clause to ‫באתי‬. The next clause of 3:15 draws directly on Prov 1:27 ‫בּ֥בֹא ֲ ֜עֵליֶ֗כם ָצ ָ֥רה ְוצוּ ָֽקה‬, “And when distress and anguish come upon you.” The only change is the pronoun to the singular, ‫עליו‬ (“upon him”). At 3:15 Sarah’s statement, ‫ולא חפצתי אישׁ כי אם ביראתך‬, “I did not desire [to have] a husband except in fear of you,” finds a close parallel with Vg’s virum autem cum timore tuo non libidine mea consensi suspicere, “I consented to take a husband out of fear of you, not out of my lust.” H5, like the Vg, delays the blessing of the Lord’s name until the end of the verse, whereas in the other versions God’s name is at the beginning of the prayer. The language closely echoes Job 1:21‫ ְי ִ֛הי ֵ֥שׁם ְיה ָ֖וה ְמבֹ ָֽרך‬, “May the name of the Lord be blessed,” with a pual participle in both: ‫יהי שׁמך מבורך מעולם ועד עולם‬, “May your name be blessed forever and ever” (Vg: sit nomen tuum deus Israhel benedictum in saecula, “May your name, O God of Israel, be blessed forever”). Finally, at 3:16 the prayers of Tobi and Sarah conclude with a small plus that is a deliberate allusion to the cry of the Israelites in Exod 2:23 ‫ ַו ַ ֧תַּעל ַשׁ ְוָע ָ֛תם ֶאל־ָהֱאל ִֹ֖הים‬, “and their cry went up to God” // H5 ‫ותעל שׁוועתם לפני האלהים‬, “and their cry went up before God.” In summary, the version of Sarah’s prayer in H5 contains a pastiche of unique allusions to biblical texts that came to mind from the context or were loosely related to the Vg. The beginning of Sarah’s prayer in 3:11 draws to some extent on the Vg for inspiration in the choice of the Halachot Gedolot. This use of the Halachot Gedolot establishes firmly that H5 dates no earlier than the gaonic period (7th century) and thus any correspondences with the Vg must be the result of H5 making use of the Vg as one of the earlier texts that inspired it.²³

 Thus Gaster’s view (Versions, 8 – 9) that H5 may be related to the Aramaic text Jerome claims to have used in rendering Tobit into Latin cannot be substantiated.

The Medieval Hebrew (H5) of Tobit

259

Tobit’s Wisdom Admonition (Tob 4:3 – 19): Call to Help the Poor Tobit 4:7 can serve as an example of another instance of a pastiche of biblical allusions in H5, especially to Deuteronomy and Isaiah. The following chart may assist in seeing the intertextual connections: H :

Deut :; Isa :; Deut :

‫ופתוח תפתח לעני ידך וכי תראה ערום וכסיתו׃ הלא‬ ‫פרוש לרעב לחמך ועיניך אל תעלים מהם ויברכך‬ ‫האלהים בכל מעשה ידך‬

Deut : ‫ת֧ ַח ִתְּפ ַ ֛תּח ֶאת־ ָי ְדָ֖ך ֑לוֹ‬ ֹ ‫ ִ ֽכּי־ָפ‬, “you must indeed open your hand to him” Isa :b ‫ ִֽכּי־ִת ְר ֶ֤אה ָער ֹ֙ם ְוִכ ִסּי֔תוֹ‬, “when you see someone naked, cover him” Isa :a ‫ֲה֙לוֹא ָפ ֤ר ֹס ָֽל ָרֵע֙ב ַלְחֶ֔מָך‬, “Is it not sharing your bread with the hungry?” Deut : ‫ְל ַ ֤מַען ְיָב ֶרְכָ֙ך ְיה ָו֣ה ֱאל ֹ ֶ֔היָך ְבָּכל־ַמֲע ֵ֥שׂה‬ ‫ ָי ְדָ֖ך‬, “so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands”

You must open your hand to the needy; and when you see someone naked, cover him. Is it not sharing your bread with the hungry? Do not hide your eyes from them, so that God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

The admonition to assist the poor in Tob 4:7, loosely based on Deuteronomy 15 (cf. Isaiah 58), is here made to conform more closely to the biblical models. The phrase ‫ופתוח תפתח לעני ידך‬, “You must open your hand to the needy,” is a close allusion to Deut 15:8: ‫ ִֽכּי־ָפתֹ֧ ַח ִתְּפ ַ ֛תּח ֶאת־ ָי ְדָ֖ך ֑לוֹ‬. And ‫וכי תראה ערום וכסיתו‬, “When you see someone naked, cover him,” derives from Isa 58:7b: ‫ִֽכּי־ִת ְר ֶ֤אה‬ ‫ָער ֹ֙ם ְוִכ ִסּי֔תוֹ‬. And ‫הלא פרוש לרעב לחמך‬, “Is it not sharing your bread with the hungry?” derives from Isa 58:7a: ‫( ֲה֙לוֹא ָפ ֤ר ֹס ָֽל ָרֵע֙ב ַלְח ֶ֔מָך‬cf. Tob 1:17). The reversal in H5 of Isa 58:7a and 58:7b is another instance of an inverted quotation, as noted above at H5 Tob 1:20. Instead of an allusion to the evil eye as in G1 4:7 (καί μὴ φθονεσάτω σου ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς ἐν τῷ ποιεῖν σε ἐλεημοσύνην, “do not let your eye be envious when you give alms”),²⁴ H5 rephrases to ‫ועיניך אל תעלים מהם‬, “do not hide your eyes from them.” This is independent of Vg, which follows VL QMJRG in referring to the face: noli avertere faciem tuam ab ullo paupere, “do not avert your face from any poor person”; VL X nec avertas faciem tuam a paupere; VL W noli avertere faciem tuam ab omni paupere // S1 A1F> $+ -" (%H9 A20