New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity: From Enoch to Montréal and Back 9780567666178, 9780567666192, 9780567666185

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction
Keynote Paper
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha - Thirty Years Later
Part I: Early Jewish Texts and Traditions
1 Enoch 1: A Comparison of Two Translations
Iron Age Heroes and Enochic Giants
4QENc (4Q204) Column I: A New Reconstruction
Bulls, Cows, and the Tragic Fate of the Females at the Eschaton: A Gender Reading of the Animal Apocalypse in 1 Enoch 85-90
Confined By Mountains of Metal: The Translation Problem in 1 Enoch 67:4
Compositional Technique in the Temple Scroll: Creative Interpretation and Integrative Interpretation in the Passover Legislation
Hellish Rhetoric: The Pedagogical Function of the Underworld in 4Q184
The Transmission of Jubilees: Reevaluating the Textual Basis
Mending the Fractures of Genesis: Strategies of Harmonization in the Book of Jubilees
Ptolemaic Sovereignty and the Political Unconscious of 3 Maccabees: Philopator's Decree (2:28-30) in Light of Late Ptolemaic Asylia Inscriptions
Belial in the Dead Sea Scrolls: From Worthless to Stumbling Block to Archenemy
Flatterers, Whisperers, and Other Hypocrites: New Denominations for Sinners in the Writings of the Second Temple Period
Ezra's Continuity in 4 Ezra
Part II: The Reception of Early Jewish Texts and Traditions in Christianity and Judaism
Interpretations of Abraham's Circumcision in Early Christianity and Genesis Rabbah
Redemption from the Ashes: Repositioning Atonement and Sacrifice in Early Christian and Rabbinic Thought
Inside the Parables: Inside and Outside in the Apocryphon of James and in the First In-Parables Speech of Mark
The Evolution of the Figure of Nimrod Through the Lens of Rabbinic Literature
Jewish Apocalyptic and Mystical Background in the Gospel of Judas
Satan at the Sacrifices of Isaac and Jesus
What are Scholars Saying about Gnosticism?
Index of References
Index of Authors

Citation preview

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TEXTS IN CONTEXTS AND RELATED STUDIES

Executive Editor James H. Charlesworth

Editorial Board of Advisors Casey Elledge, Craig A. Evans, Loren Johns, Amy-Jill Levine, Lee McDonald, Lidija Novakovic, Gerbern S. Oegema, Henry Rietz, Brent Strawn, George T. Zervos

NEW VISTAS ON EARLY JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

From Enoch to Montréal and Back

Edited by Lorenzo DiTommaso and Gerbern S. Oegema

With the assistance of Stéphanie Machabée and Calogero A. Miceli

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2016 Paperback edition first published in 2018 © Lorenzo DiTommaso, Gerbern S. Oegema and Contributors, 2016 Lorenzo DiTommaso and Gerbern S. Oegema have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-0-56766-617-8 PB: 978-0-5676-8588-9 ePDF: 978-0-56766-618-5 A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Series: Jewish and Christian Texts, volume 540 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

&ඈඇඍൾඇඍඌ Preface Abbreviations Introduction

ix xiii xvii .ൾඒඇඈඍൾ3ൺඉൾඋ

7ඁൾ2਌਄7ਅਓਔਁ਍ਅ਎ਔ3ਓਅਕ਄ਅਐਉਇ਒ਁਐਈਁ±7ඁංඋඍඒVHHG¶+DPRQYLOOH @DQGHYHQ³WRÀDWWHU´>VHH7/*@  121௒ ,Q WKLV FRQWH[W D FRPSUHKHQVLYH DQG FRPSDUDWLYH VWXG\ RI 3V 6RO  DQG 12 with other Second-Temple texts that deal with hypocrites and hypocrisy would be useful (Ass. Mos. 7; CD I 18; 1QS IV 9–11; 1QHa XI–XII; 4Q169; and 4Q424).

3ඈඎർඁൾඅඅൾ)ODWWHUHUV:KLVSHUHUVDQG2WKHU+\SRFULWHV

249

Chantraine, Pierre. 1968. 'LFWLRQQDLUHpW\PRORJLTXHGHODODQJXHJUHFTXH+LVWRLUHGHV mots. Paris: Klincksieck. Di Giglio, Anna. 1999. “Eufemismi e metafore musicali.” Pages 85–98 in 6WXGL VXOO¶HXIHPLVPR. Le Rane 26. Edited by F. de Martino and A. H. Sommerstein. Bari: Levante. Dommershausen, Werner. 1980. “++% ‫ۊ‬OO I; +œ%; +'+– %; š Profane.” 7'27 4:409–16. Else, Gerald F. 1959. “ uÈÇÁÉÀÌŢË.” :LHQHU6WXGLHQ 72: 75–107. )HGULJRWWL /DQIUDQFR 0  ³7KH 0XOWL/D\HUHG 0HDQLQJ RI µ+\SRFULV\¶ LQ WKH Gospels.” 7KHRORJ\$QQXDO 25: 87–127. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 1997–98.7KH'HDG6HD6FUROOV 6WXG\(GLWLRQ. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill. Garland, David E. 1979. 7KH,QWHQWLRQRI0DWWKHZ. NovTSup 52. Leiden: Brill. Gebhardt, Oscar von. 1895. ¸ÂÄÇĖÇÂÇÄľÅÌÇË'LH3VDOPHQ6DORPR¶V]XPHUVWHQ0DOH PLW %HQXW]XQJ GHU$WKRVKDQGVFKULIWHQ XQG GHV &RGH[ &DVDQDWHQVLV. TUGAL 13. Leipzig: Hinrichs. *RWWHODQG 6RSKLH  ³/D VLUqQH HW O¶HQFKDQWHXU SRUWUDLWV FURLVpV G¶(VFKLQH HW GH Démosthène sur la tribune.” 5(*119: 588–608 Greenberg, Moshe. 1983. (]HNLHO±. AB 22A. New York: Doubleday. G¶+DPRQYLOOH'DYLG0DUF/HV3URYHUEHV/D%LEOHG¶$OH[DQGULH3DULV&HUI Hansen, Ove. 1986. “The Purported Letter of Darius to Gadates.” 5K03K 129: 95–96. Holm-Nielsen, Svend. 1977. “Die Psalmen Salomos.” Pages 49–112 in JSHRZ 4. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn. Hummel, Pascale. 1999. /¶pSLWKqWHSLQGDULTXHeWXGHKLVWRULTXHHWSKLORORJLTXH. Sapheneia 3. Bern: Lang. Jassen, Alex. 2011. “++% I ‫ۊ‬OO; +œ%; !Xš %– k.” ’ Pages 980–86 in vol. 1 of 7KHRORJLVFKHV :|UWHUEXFK]XGHQ4XPUDQWH[WHQ. Edited by H.-J. Fabry and U. Dahmen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Joüon, Paul. 1930. “   GDQVO¶pYDQJLOHHWO¶KpEUHX+DQpI´565 20: 312–16. Knierim, Rolf. 1997. “51%তQSWREHSHUYHUWHG´7/27 1:447–48. Kooij, Arie van der. 2007. “The Septuagint of Ezekiel and the Profane Leader.” Pages 43–55 in 7KH %RRN RI (]HNLHO DQG ,WV ,QÀXHQFH. Edited by H. J. de Jonge and J. Tromp. Aldershot: Ashgate. Kugler, Robert. 2011. “++% II‫ۊ‬ƗOƗO.” Pages 986–88 in vol. 1 of 7KHRORJLVFKHV:|UWHUEXFK zu den Qumrantexten. Edited by H.-J. Fabry and U. Dahmen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Lesky, Albin. 1956. “Hypokrites.” Pages 469–76 in 6WXGLLQRQRUHGL8JR(QULFR3DROL. Florence: F. Le Monnier. Ley, Graham K. H. 1983. “ĨÈÇÁÉţżʿ¸À in Homer and Herodotus, and the Function of the Athenian Actor.” 3KLORORJXV127: 13–29. Lossau, Manfred. 1971. “ÄÇÏ¿¾Éţ¸ÌľÅÈÇÂÀ̼ÀľÅ und ĨÈŦÁÉÀÊÀË.” 5K03K 114: 146–58. Lust, Johan. 2004. “Messianism and Septuagint.” Pages 174–91 in &RQJUHVV 9ROXPH 6DODPDQFD. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 36. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Repr. as pp. 9–26 in 0HVVLDQLVPV DQG WKH 6HSWXDJLQW. Edited by K. Hauspie. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Maas, Fritz. 1997. “++%তOOSLWRGHVHFUDWH´7/27 1:427–30. 0DFtDV2WHUR6DUD³(FKRHVRIWKH)RUPXODµ/HWWKH3URIDQH6KXWWKH'RRUV¶2)  in Two Passages by Euripides.” Pages 23–29 in 7UDFLQJ2USKHXV6WXGLHVRI2USKLF )UDJPHQWV. Edited by M. Herrero de Jáuregui et al. Berlin: de Gruyter. Maier, Gerhard. 19710HQVFKXQGIUHLHU:LOOH:8177XELQJHQ0RKU6LHEHFN Milgrom, Jacob. 1991. /HYLWLFXV±AB 3. New York: Doubleday.

250

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

Olley, John. W. 2009. (]HNLHO $ &RPPHQWDU\ %DVHG RQ ,H]HNLƝO LQ &RGH[ 9DWLFDQXV. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill. Perpillou, Jean-Louis. 1982. “Verbes de sonorité à vocalisme expressif en grec ancien.” 5(* 95:233–74. Rordorf, Willy, and André Tuilier. 1998. /D 'RFWULQH GHV GRX]H$S{WUHV 'LGDFKq . SC 248bis. 2nd ed. Paris: Cerf. Ryle, Herbert E., and Montague R. James. 1891. ¸ÂÄÇĖ ÇÂÇÄľÅÌÇË 3VDOPV RI WKH 3KDULVHHV&RPPRQO\&DOOHGWKH3VDOPVRI6RORPRQ. Cambridge: University Press. Schüppaus, Joachim. 1977. 'LH3VDOPHQ6DORPRV(LQ=HXJQLVMHUXVDOHPHU7KHRORJLHXQG )U|PPLJNHLWLQGHU0LWWHGHVYRUFKULVWOLFKHQ-DKUKXQGHUWV. ALGJ 7. Leiden: Brill. Seybold, Klaus. 1986. “5 —1%š ‫ۊ‬ƗQƝS֔; !aš ž1%;5 ” ˜1œ%; 5 —1%š dissemble.” 7'27 5:36–43. Soverini, Luca. 1994. “Ðţ¿ÍÉÇË: Hermes, Afrodite e il sussurro nella Grecia antica.” Pages 433–60 in dÊÌÇÉţ¾6WXGLRIIHUWLGDJOLDOOLHYLD*LXVHSSH1HQFLLQRFFDVLRQHGHOVXR VHWWDQWHVLPRFRPSOHDQQR. Edited by S. Alessandri. Lecce: Congedo. Spicq, Ceslas. 1994. “ĨÈÇÁÉţÅÇĸÀ, ÁÌÂ.” 7/17 406–13. Stoebe, Hans-Joachim. 1997. “01%তQQWREHJUDFLRXV´7/27 1:439–47. Trafton, Joseph L. 1985. 7KH 6\ULDF 9HUVLRQ RI WKH 3VDOPV RI 6RORPRQ $ &ULWLFDO Evaluation. SCS 11. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Wagner, Christian. 1999. 'LH6HSWXDJLQWD+DSD[OHJRPHQDLP%XFK-HVXV6LUDFK. BZAW 282. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wellhausen, Julius. 1874. 'LH 3KDULVlHU XQG GLH 6DGGXFlHU (LQH 8QWHUVXFKXQJ ]XU LQQHUHQMGLVFKHQ*HVFKLFKWH. Greifswald: Bamberg. Wilckens, Ulrich. 1969. “ĨÈÇÁÉţÅÇĸÀ, ÁÌÂ.” 7'17 8:559–71. Winninge, Mikael. 1995. 6LQQHUVDQGWKH5LJKWHRXV$&RPSDUDWLYH6WXG\RIWKH3VDOPVRI 6RORPRQDQG3DXO¶V/HWWHUV. ConBNT 26. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Wright, Robert B. 1985. “Psalms of Solomon.” 273 2:639–70. ———. 2007. 7KH3VDOPVRI6RORPRQ$&ULWLFDO(GLWLRQRIWKH*UHHN7H[W. JCTC 1. New York: T&T Clark International. Zucchelli, Bruno. 1963. uÈÇÁÉÀÌŢË 2ULJLQH H VWRULD GHO WHUPLQH. Genoa: Istituto di ¿ORORJLD&ODVVLFD

E ඓඋൺ ’ ඌ C ඈඇඍ ංඇඎංඍ ඒ

ංඇ

4 E ඓඋൺ

Jason Ford (Rice University) The subject of this essay is 4 Ezra, a Jewish apocalypse written in the late ¿UVWFHQWXU\&(,QSDUWLFXODUWKLVHVVD\LVDERXWWKHSURWDJRQLVW(]UD7KH text, written in response to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, ZUHVWOHV ZLWK LVVXHV UHODWHG WR *RG¶V IDLWKIXOQHVV *RG¶V SODQ IRU KLVWRU\ DQG KRZ WKDW SODQ DIIHFWV *RG¶V UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK ,VUDHO (]UD UHFHLYHV D series of three angelophonies (chs. 1–9) in which Ezra questions and argues with the angel Uriel, focusing primarily on the present state of Israel and *RG¶V UHODWLRQ WR KLV SHRSOH ,Q WKH ODWWHU KDOI RI WKH ERRN (]UD UHFHLYHV a series of visions (chs. 9–13) through which he learns the division of KLVWRULFDO SHULRGV WKH UROH RI *RG¶V 0HVVLDK DQG ZKDW ZLOO EHIDOO WKRVH WKDWRSSRVH*RG¶VSHRSOH$¿QDOSDUWRIWKHWH[WFK SUHVHQWV(]UDDV the prophet-like-Moses (Deut 18) who offers revelation to the community – both general revelation in the form of recopying the Torah and also special revelation in seventy secret books reserved for the wise. In his 1990 Hermeneia commentary on 4 Ezra, Michael E. Stone wrote about the structure of this text and offered an argument for literary continuity among the seven sections of 4 Ezra EDVHG RQ WKH DXWKRU¶V own theological trajectory.1 According to Stone, the author underwent a UDGLFDOVKLIWDFRQYHUVLRQIURPDQXQZLOOLQJDFFHSWDQFHRI*RG¶VMXVWLFH WR WKH PRXWKSLHFH IRU *RG¶V MXVWLFH WR WKH FRPPXQLW\ 7KLV K\SRWKHVLV primarily offers a resolution to the tension of genre in 4 Ezra, recognizing the shift between the dialogues of Ezra and Uriel on the one hand, and the revelatory visions Ezra receives in the latter portion of the book. Equally, it recognizes a different type of function for Ezra in the book: in the early episodes Ezra is a quarrelsome interlocutor, in the latter episodes a willing recipient of divine revelation and explanation. Since Stone, many others have turned their attention to 4 Ezra and related WKHLVVXHVRI(]UD¶VFKDUDFWHULQWKHWH[WZLWKWKHDXWKRU¶VRZQH[SHULHQFH A recent monograph by Karina Martin Hogan, 7KHRORJLHV LQ &RQÀLFW, 1௒ Stone 1990, 31–33.

252

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

explored this issue in detail and has since drawn a lot of attention.2 Hogan sets out to resolve the issues of the structure – how the dialogues, visions, DQGHSLORJXH¿WWRJHWKHU±DQGRIDXWKRULDOYLHZSRLQWWKURXJKDV\VWHPDWLF evaluation of the theological perspectives in the text. The solution offered in 7KHRORJLHVLQ&RQÀLFWis that the author wrote from an apocalyptic theology, represented by the visions in chs. 9–13. It was from this theological perspective that the author found comfort in the face of the theological crisis of the destroyed temple. The dialogues of Ezra and Uriel in the opening chapters of 4 Ezra ¿WLQWR+RJDQ¶VVFKHPHDVUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVRIFRYHQDQWDO wisdom and eschatological wisdom, respectively.3 Hogan argues that there was a dispute over how best to make sense of the fallen Temple, and that the author of 4 Ezra was arguing emphatically for an apocalyptic theology to provide the community with meaning. The importance of the narrative, WKHQLVWKHSURWDJRQLVW¶VFRQYHUVLRQDZD\IURPHLWKHUZLVGRPSHUVSHFWLYHV in the dialogues to the apocalyptic theology of the visions.4 The 2011 Enoch Seminar (Milan) was devoted to the books of 2 Baruch DQG(]UDKHUHVHYHUDOVFKRODUVGHDOWZLWKWKHLVVXHRI(]UD¶VFRPSRVLWLRQWKHQDWXUHRI+RJDQ¶VDUJXPHQWDQGWKHUROHRI(]UD¶VFRQYHUVLRQ LQWKHWH[W)RUH[DPSOH-RKQ&ROOLQVLQWHUDFWHGZLWK+RJDQ¶VDUJXPHQW in hopes of answering the question why, in an apocalyptic text like 4 Ezra, Ezra and not Enoch was selected as the pseudepigraphical author For Collins, the crux of the issue is the apocalyptic worldview that underlies 4 Ezra +H GRHV QRW DFFHSW +RJDQ¶V GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ 8ULHO DQG WKH ZRUOGYLHZ RI WKH YLVLRQV EXW KH LV WKRURXJKO\ FRQYLQFHG WKDW (]UD¶V FRQYHUVLRQLVFHQWUDOWRWKHWH[W¶VPHDQLQJ+HZULWHV³WKHUHLVQRGRXEW WKDWERWKSHUVSHFWLYHV>8ULHO¶VDQGRIWKHYLVLRQV@FRQWUDVWVKDUSO\ZLWKWKH HWKQRFHQWULFFRYHQDQWDOLVPWKDWSURYLGHV(]UD¶VVWDUWLQJSRLQW´5 In “Who LVWKHµ,¶RI(]UD"´6/RUHQ]R'L7RPPDVRHQJDJHVZLWK+RJDQ¶VWKHVLV PRUHGLUHFWO\'L7RPPDVRLVVSHFL¿FDOO\FRQFHUQHGZLWKWKHVKDUSGLVWLQFtions Hogan makes between different schools of thought represented by 2௒ Hogan 2008. 3௒+RJDQ¶VWKHVLVLVWLJKWO\DUJXHGDQGRIIHUVDZD\SDVWWKHLQLWLDOJHQUHDQGXQLW\ GLI¿FXOWLHVIRUDQ\VWXGHQWRI(]UD+RZHYHUWKHUHDUHDVVXPSWLRQVLQKHUDUJXPHQW that are not so convincing. Henze 2010, 66, alerts us to such assumptions: “For +RJDQ¶VDUJXPHQWWRZRUNQRWRQO\GRZHQHHGWRDVVXPHWKDWWKHUHZHUHFRPSHWLQJ VFKRROVRIWKRXJKWLQSRVW3DOHVWLQLDQ-XGDLVPEXWWKHVHGLVWLQFWµWKHRORJLHV¶DOVR need to be recognizable as such in 4 Ezra.” 4௒ Hogan 2008, 168–73, 228. 5௒ Collins 2013, 96. 6௒ 'L7RPPDVR  +LV DQVZHU LV WKDW ERWK 8ULHO DQG (]UD UHÀHFW WKH DXWKRU himself (pp. 130–31).

)ඈඋൽ(]UD¶V&RQWLQXLW\LQ(]UD

253

Ezra, Uriel, and the visions. For DiTommaso, the apocalyptic visions are PLVUHSUHVHQWHG+HDUJXHVVWURQJO\WKDW8ULHO¶VHPSKDVLVRQIUHHZLOOLVQRW DQWLWKHWLFDO WR WKH DSRFDO\SWLF ZRUOGYLHZ DQG ¿QGV FRQVLVWHQF\ EHWZHHQ 8ULHO¶VZLVGRPWKHRORJ\DQGWKHYLVLRQV¶DSRFDO\SWLFWKHRORJ\$FFRUGLQJ to DiTommaso, “The book resolves a tension between two worldviews, QRWWKUHH7KH¿UVWZRUOGYLHZWKH'HXWHURQRPLFLVZKDW(]UDHVSRXVHV in his interrogatory dialogue with Uriel… The second worldview, the DSRFDO\SWLFXQGHUZULWHV8ULHO¶VUHSOLHVWR(]UDDQGWKHUHYHODWLRQVRIWKH visions.”7 'L7RPPDVR¶V FRPSHOOLQJ DUJXPHQW IRU WKH FRPSDWLELOLW\ RI 8ULHO¶VWKHRORJ\DQGDSRFDO\SWLFWKHRORJ\DOVRHPSKDVL]HVWKHGLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ(]UD¶VLQLWLDOSRVLWLRQDQGWKHFRQFOXVLRQRIWKHQDUUDWLYH³(]UD documents a personal conversion, from the Deuteronomic worldview to the apocalyptic.”8 1. &RQWLQXLW\LQ&KDUDFWHU" Following the lead of Michael Stone, Karina Martin Hogan, Michael Knibb, and others, Loren Stuckenbruck discusses the literary quality of 4 Ezra LQKLVDUWLFOH³(]UD¶V9LVLRQRIWKH/DG\7KH)RUPDQG)XQFWLRQ of a Turning Point.”9 7KHVWUXFWXUHRI(]UD¶VQDUUDWLYHLVQRWVHDPOHVV in part because “[t]he problems within (]UDDUHUHÀHFWHGLQERWKIRUP and content.”10 6WXFNHQEUXFN VXJJHVWV WKDW GHVSLWH WKH LVVXHV RI (]UD¶V character, as raised by Stone and Collins, and genre differences between the former and latter portions of the book, as raised by Hogan, “it is possible to argue that the disjuncture between the beginning and the end in (]UDis only apparent.”11 If this is the case, then “(]UDmay invite UHDGHUVOHVVWRORRNIRUVSHFL¿FRUVLQJOHWKHRORJLFDOFRQYLFWLRQVWRODWFK onto and more to pay attention to developments narrated in the work as D SURFHVV ZKLFK LV H[HPSOL¿HG E\ WKH FKDQJHV WKDW WKH VHHU XQGHUJRHV in the text.”12 :KDW QHHGV WR EH QRWHG IURP 6WXFNHQEUXFN¶V FRPPHQW is the distinction between the search for theological conviction, and the narration of the character Ezra in the text. The theological conviction of the author and the actions and comments of the protagonist may in fact line up, but it is not a literary requirement that they be the same. Where I distance myself from Stuckenbruck is with the idea that Ezra undergoes 7௒ Ibid., 127–28. 8௒ Ibid., 130. 9௒ Stuckenbruck 2013. 10௒ Ibid., 137. 11௒ Ibid., 138. 12௒ Ibid., 139.

254

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

a change in disposition (“the changes the seer undergoes in the text”). As I argue in the analysis below, Ezra never wavers from his nationalistic concern; everything is always about Israel. Of course, to make his point about Israel he appeals to Babylon and other nations, even questioning the point of human life at all, but this is done in order to receive clarity RQ*RG¶VSODQIRU,VUDHO)DUIURPXQGHUJRLQJVRPHGUDPDWLFFKDQJHLQ perspective, Ezra is rewarded in chs. 9–14 for the steadfastness of his nationalistic devotion in seeking the ways of God. %HIRUH RQH FDQ KRSH WR LGHQWLW\ WKH DXWKRU¶V WKHRORJLFDO FRQYLFWLRQ ZH PXVW ¿UVW XQGHUVWDQG WKH XQIROGLQJ RI WKH QDUUDWLYH DQG WKH UROH RI the protagonist. Here my focus is primarily on Ezra, at the exclusion of Uriel. I do this for two reasons. First, Ezra is clearly the main character of the text. It is a story told from his perspective and concerns revelations WKDWRFFXUUHGWRKLP6HFRQGZKDWHYHU8ULHO¶VSXUSRVHLVLQWKHWH[WKLV FRPPHQWVIDLOWRHOXFLGDWH(]UD¶VSULPDU\TXHVWLRQDERXWWKHUROHRI,VUDHO LQ*RG¶VSODQIRUWKHZRUOG13 There is no doubt that 4 Ezra presents a grand apocalyptic vision in FKV ± SDUWLFXODUO\ LQ OLJKW RI LWV DOOXVLRQV DQG VSHFL¿F UHIHUHQFH (4 Ezra 12:11) to the book of Daniel. As Stone points out, “He sees himself as a part of a tradition of apocalyptic teaching, has contemplated and developed prior writing (Daniel), and views his own role as like that RI'DQLHOZKRPKHWHUPVµEURWKHU¶´14 The symbolic visions in the latter portion of the book are meant to impart a comforting message, one that was not entirely grasped in the dialogues. As DiTommaso remarked, “The ¿UVW IXQFWLRQ RI WKH ERRN LV WR LPSDUW WR LWV DXGLHQFH WKH DXWKRU¶V QHZ LQVLJKW DERXW *RG¶V VDYLQJ DFWLYLW\ LQ KLVWRU\´15 However, what constitutes the new insight is not entirely clear. One reading is that the insight RIWKHYLVLRQLVKRZLWLQYDOLGDWHVDQGRYHUULGHV(]UD¶VSHUVSHFWLYHLQWKH dialogues.16 There remains another possibility, though, namely that the YLVLRQVDUHUHZDUGLQJ(]UD¶VVWHDGIDVWDQGXQFHDVLQJDWWHPSWWRV\QWKHVL]H WKHZD\VRI*RGZKLFKKHGRHVQRWIXOO\JUDVSZLWK,VUDHO¶VVWDWXVLQWKH world. According to this view, then, the new insight is a fuller explanation RI *RG¶V SODQ IRU KLVWRU\ QRW D QHZ WKHRORJLFDO SHUVSHFWLYH RQ KLVWRU\ whether apocalyptic or otherwise. 13௒ +LV FRPPHQWV PD\ LQ IDFW UHÀHFW WKH VDPH PHVVDJH DV WKDW ZKLFK (]UD receives in the visions of chs. 9–13. See Collins 2013, 95–96; DiTommaso 2013, 127–29; Henze 2010, 66. 14௒ Stone 1990, 366. 15௒ DiTommaso 2013, 132. 16௒ See, e.g., Stone 1990, 31–33; DiTommaso 2013, 130; Collins 2013, 96; Hogan 2008, 228.

)ඈඋൽ(]UD¶V&RQWLQXLW\LQ(]UD

255

The story of Ezra as presented by 4 Ezra is about a man overwhelmed and inconsolable over the destruction of the temple and the oppression of KLVSHRSOHE\WKHIRUHLJQSRZHU,QFKV±(]UDFRQWHPSODWHVUHÀHFWV DQG VHDUFKHV LQ YDLQ IRU FODULW\ RQ WKH VXEMHFW RI *RG¶V ZD\V ,VUDHO UHFHLYHG *RG¶V ODZ   LW ZDV VLJQDOHG RXW E\ *RG DPRQJ DOO WKH nations (5:23–27), it was given all of creation (6:59), and yet what did it DOOOHDGWR"(YHU\WKLQJLQ(]UD LVDERXW(]UD¶VDWWHPSWWRUHFRQFLOH*RG¶V SODQIRU,VUDHOZLWK,VUDHO¶VSUHVHQWVXIIHULQJ'HVSLWHDOORIWKHLQIRUPDWLRQ Uriel did reveal to Ezra ± WKH HQG WLPHV ± ±  *RG¶V judgment (7:112–15), the few righteous (9:17–22) – Ezra still said, at the start of the fourth episode, “my heart was troubled again as it was before” (9:27).17 In the subsequent scenes Ezra receives the answer to his question DERXW *RG¶V ZD\V LQ WKH IRUP RI V\PEROLF YLVLRQV 2QFH LQWHUSUHWHG WKHVHYLVLRQVDOORZ(]UDWRDOOHYLDWHWKHWHQVLRQEHWZHHQ,VUDHO¶VSUHVHQW VXIIHULQJDQG*RG¶VSURPLVHVWR,VUDHO2QFHWKLVWHQVLRQLVDOOHYLDWHG(]UD embraces his special leadership as the prophet like Moses,18 distributing both admonishment (14:13) and the sacred books, those of the Law and those of the secret teachings (14:45).19 In this essay I would like to shift the focus away from the question of DXWKRUVKLSWKHRORJLFDOFRQYLFWLRQDQGZKLFKFKDUDFWHUEHVWUHÀHFWVWKH LQGLYLGXDO MRXUQH\ RI WKH DXWKRU 7KURXJKRXW WKH WH[W (]UD¶V EHKDYLRU KLV TXHVWLRQV DQG KLV UHVSRQVH WR WKH YLVLRQV DOO UHÀHFW DQ LQGLYLGXDO deeply focused on the nation of Israel and thoroughly committed to ,VUDHO¶V*RG)DUIURPXQGHUJRLQJDFRQYHUVLRQWKHFKDUDFWHURI(]UDLV rewarded for his consistency and ends up learning the plan of God for all RIKXPDQKLVWRU\%HFDXVH,DPDUJXLQJWKDW(]UD¶VFKDUDFWHULVFRQVLVWHQW WKURXJKRXWWKHQDUUDWLYHLWPD\EHKHOSIXOWRFRPPHQWRQ(]UD¶VDFWLRQV in each of the three sections of text: (1) Ezra in the dialogues; (2) Ezra LQWKHYLVLRQDU\HSLVRGHVDQG (]UDLQWKHFXOPLQDWLQJ¿QDOHSLVRGH 2. (]UDLQWKH%RRNRI(]UD 2.1. (]UDLQWKH'LDORJXHV 4 Ezra begins with Ezra distraught on his bed, upset over the destruction of Jerusalem (3:1). Desperate and overwhelmed, Ezra calls out in hopes RIXQGHUVWDQGLQJKRZ*RG¶V7RUDKLVPHDQWWRIXQFWLRQLQKXPDQOLYHV 5HFRXQWLQJ*RG¶VUHODWLRQVKLSZLWK,VUDHO(]UDH[FODLPV³$QGWK\JORU\ 17௒ All translations are from Stone and Henze 2013. 18௒ On the theme of the prophet like Moses, see Allison 1994. 19௒ On the nature of the secret teachings, see Box 1917, 113; cf. Stone 1990, 412, 441 n. 22.

256

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

SDVVHGWKURXJKRXWWKHIRXUJDWHVRI¿UHDQGHDUWKTXDNHDQGZLQGDQGLFH to give the Torah to the descendants of Jacob, and thy commandment to the posterity of Israel. Yet thou didst not take away from them their evil heart, so that thy Torah might bring forth fruit in them” (3:19–20). What SULYLOHJHLVLW(]UDDVNVLI,VUDHOZDVVHOHFWHGWRUHFHLYH*RG¶V7RUDKDQG \HWWKHLUSURSHQVLW\IRUZLFNHGQHVVUHPDLQV" $W WKLV SRLQW (]UD¶V KHDYHQO\ LQWHUORFXWRU DSSHDUV DQG DVNV (]UD D series of questions that are impossible to answer. Ezra is not concerned with questions of nature but rather with information necessary to lead his people: “For I did not wish to inquire about the ways above, but about those things that we daily experience” (4:23). In short, Ezra wants to NQRZ ³:KDW ZLOO KH >*RG@ GR IRU KLV QDPH E\ ZKLFK ZH DUH FDOOHG"´   (]UD¶V SHUVSHFWLYH DQG IRFXV UHPDLQV DFXWH +H UHIXVHV WR JHW FDXJKW XS LQ WKH DQJHO¶V DWWHPSW WR GLUHFW WKH FRQYHUVDWLRQ DZD\ IURP *RG¶V UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK *RG¶V SHRSOH Ezra began by seeking to know KRZLWZDVWKDWWKH%DE\ORQLDQVUHFHLYHGEOHVVLQJVZLWKRXWKDYLQJ*RG¶V law (3:29–33) ,I UHFHLYLQJ *RG¶V ODZ LV LQGHHG D SULYLOHJH DQG QRW D EXUGHQ WKHQ ZK\ DUH ,VUDHO¶V ZLFNHG GHHGV ZHLJKWHG VR PXFK KHDYLHU WKDQWKRVHRIWKHRWKHUQDWLRQV" Ezra receives hints from Uriel about the end time, information that DSSDUHQWO\ VKRXOG DOOHYLDWH (]UD¶V FRQFHUQ IRU WKH VWDWH RI ,VUDHO %XW WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ LV WRR YDJXH DQG (]UD UHTXLUHV FODUL¿FDWLRQ DQG IXUWKHU elaboration. For example, Ezra is told that when the treasuries of the dead souls in the underworld reach their preordained number, then God will act RQEHKDOIRIWKHULJKWHRXV± $WWKHHQGRIWKH¿UVWGLDORJXHWKH information that Uriel was “permitted to tell” Ezra (5:13) failed to reveal to Ezra how the ways of the Most High actually related to Israel: “Then I awoke, and my body shuddered violently, and my soul was so troubled that it fainted” (5:14). -XVWDV(]UD¶VTXHVWLRQVWR8ULHODQGWKH0RVW+LJKUHVXOWHGIURPKLV WURXEOHG VWDWH LQ WKH ¿UVW GLDORJXH VR WRR GRHV KLV GHSUHVVHG FRQGLWLRQ become the impetus for his second round of interaction with the angel. He UHPDLQVFRQFHUQHGZLWK,VUDHO¶VSUHVHQWVXIIHULQJZKHQFRPSDUHGWRWKH SUHVHQWFRQGLWLRQRIWKRVHWKDWQRWRQO\DUHQRWVHOHFWHGDV*RG¶VFKRVHQ as Israel is (5:23–27), but are “those who opposed thy Torah” and “have trodden down those who believed in thy covenant” (5:29). Uriel again WDNHVRIIHQVHWR(]UD¶VOLQHRITXHVWLRQDQGVDUFDVWLFDOO\VXJJHVWVWKDW(]UD ORYHV,VUDHOPRUHWKDQ*RGGRHV -XVWDVLQWKH¿UVWHSLVRGH(]UD emphasizes his distress over Israel and the tension he views in reconciling WKHSUHVHQWZLWK*RG¶VLQWHQWLRQV

)ඈඋൽ(]UD¶V&RQWLQXLW\LQ(]UD

257

With the third dialogue, Ezra attempts a different tack. Ezra draws on the seven days of creation as the source for his praise of God (6:38–54). %XWHYHQWKHUHFRJQLWLRQRI*RG¶VZRQGHUIXOFUHDWLRQOHDGV(]UDQRZKHUH else than to his question about Israel: All this I have spoken before thee, O Lord, because thou hast said that it was for us that thou didst create this world. But as for the other nations which have descended from Adam, thou hast said that they are nothing, and that they are like spittle, and thou hast compared their abundance to a drop from a bucket. And now, O Lord, behold, these nations, which are reputed as nothing, domineer over us and trample upon us. But we thy people, whom thou hast FDOOHGWK\¿UVWERUQRQO\EHJRWWHQNLQDQGGHDURQHKDYHEHHQJLYHQLQWRWKHLU hands. If the world has indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our ZRUOGDVDQLQKHULWDQFH"+RZORQJZLOOWKLVEHVR"±

This line of questioning by Ezra is not about the blessing of the Gentiles, and it is not a concern that is greater than nationalism, as it is sometimes taken. No matter how his question gets there, the end point is the same: ZKDWGRHVDOORIWKLV±WKHZRUOG*RG¶VSODQVXIIHULQJ±PHDQIRU,VUDHO" 7KLVWKLUGGLDORJXHLVRIWHQLGHQWL¿HGDVDSRUWLRQRIWH[WPRUHLQWHUHVWHG LQKXPDQLW\DVDZKROHRYHUDVSHFL¿FFRQFHUQIRU,VUDHO20 With this in mind, we will spend a little more time on this episode. The third dialogue LVDERXW(]UD¶VXQFHUWDLQW\DVWRZKRTXDOL¿HVDPRQJWKHIDLWKIXO௘±WKRVH that inherit the other world through obedience. Ezra laments over the GLI¿FXOW\RIDGKHULQJWRDOORI*RG¶VODZV³)RUDOOZKRKDYHEHHQERUQ are involved in iniquities, and are full of sins and burdened with transJUHVVLRQV´   +HUH LW LV QRW WKDW (]UD¶V IRFXV LV RQ DOO RI KXPDQLW\ LQVWHDGRI,VUDHOUDWKHU(]UD¶VIRFXVLV,VUDHOLQOLJKWRIDOOKXPDQLW\-XVW as everyone sins and commits transgressions, so too does Israel. It is only that Israel is punished more harshly because they are privileged among the RWKHUQDWLRQV(]UD¶VTXHVWLRQDERXWWKHVWDWHRIVRXOVEHIRUHWKHMXGJPHQW is about whether or not people have the opportunity to place themselves LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK*RG¶VZD\VDIWHUGHDWK7:75–80). Ezra is told not to worry about the judgment because he has “a treasure of works laid up ZLWKWKH0RVW+LJK´ (YHQ8ULHO¶VGHVFULSWLRQRIVRXOVDIWHUGHDWK which is ostensibly a discussion about humanity as a whole, is actually DERXWWKHZD\WKDWSHRSOHZLOOEHSXQLVKHGIRUQRWIROORZLQJ*RG¶VZD\V and, implicitly, the reassurance that those who are faithful, who like Ezra have a treasure of works laid up before the Most High, will not receive the

20௒ See Hogan 2008, 109; Collins 2013, 90.

258

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

same judgment (7:78–99).21 While the wicked will have seven torments and be “ever grieving and sad” (7:80), the faithful (i.e. those who “laboriously served the Most High, and withstood danger every hour, that they might keep the law of the Lawgiver perfectly” [7:89]) will be blessed in VHYHQZD\V± ,QUHVSRQVHWRWKLVGHVFULSWLRQRIMXGJPHQW(]UD¶V TXHVWLRQDSSHDUVXQLYHUVDO³,DQVZHUHGDQGVDLGµ,I,KDYHIRXQGIDYRULQ thy sight, show further to me, thy servant, whether on the day of judgment the righteous will be able to intercede for the ungodly or to entreat the Most High for them, fathers for sons or sons for fathers, brothers for brothers, relatives for their kinsmen, or friends for friends” (7:102–3, emphasis added). Despite the language of the “ungodly,” the question is UHDOO\DERXWRWKHU,VUDHOLWHVWKRVHZKRKDYHQRWIDVWLGLRXVO\NHSW*RG¶V laws, since this is what makes one godly or ungodly in 4 Ezra. In referencing Adam and the futility of human life, again, Ezra is not appealing to God about a universal concern. It is about him and his people! “[For what good is it to us] that the glory of the Most High will defend those who have led a pure life, but we have walked in the most wicked ways” HPSKDVLVDGGHG )RU(]UDWKHLVVXHKHUHLVZKHWKHU,VUDHO¶VVLQV and wanderings have prevented their access to the narrow path (7:8) RI*RG¶VPHUF\RUQRW$WWKHHQGRIWKHWKLUGGLDORJXHLWLVQRWIRUDOO humanity that Ezra is led to pray, but for Israel: “About all mankind thou knowest best; but [I will speak] about thy people, for whom I am grieved; and about thy inheritance, for whom I lament, and about Israel, for whom I am sad, and about the seed of Jacob, for whom I am troubled” (8:15–16). At the conclusion of the dialogue portion of the narrative (9:22), we KDYHVHHQWKHFKDUDFWHU(]UDUHSHDWHGO\DQGVROHO\FRQFHUQHGZLWK,VUDHO¶V FRQGLWLRQ DQG *RG¶V RYHUDOO SODQ IRU KLV SHRSOH (YHQ ZKHQ (]UD¶V OLQH of questioning deals with matters greater than Israel in particular, as evidenced in portions of the third dialogue, they do so from the place of nationalistic concern and are expressed in an attempt to clarify the effect RI*RG¶VSODQIRUKXPDQLW\RQ,VUDHO2XUIRFXVQRZPXVWEHRQZKHWKHU WKLVQDWLRQDOLVWLFFRQFHUQGLVDSSHDUVLQ(]UD¶VYLVLRQDU\HSLVRGHV 2.2. (]UDLQWKH9LVLRQDU\(SLVRGHV (]UD¶VYLVLRQDU\HSLVRGHVEHJLQZLWKKLVGZHOOLQJRQWKHJORU\RIWKHODZ (]UD± 7KH¿UVWYLVLRQLVWKHQGHVFULEHG³:KHQ,VDLGWKHVH things in my heart, I lifted up my eyes and saw a woman on my right” (9:38). For the rest of the narrative Ezra no longer makes arguments in 21௒(]UDVSHFL¿FDOO\OD\VRXWDPXOWLWXGHRIWRUPHQWV± IRUWKRVHWKDW “have not kept the ways of the Most High, and who have despised his law, and who have hated those who fear God” (7:79–80).

)ඈඋൽ(]UD¶V&RQWLQXLW\LQ(]UD

259

dialogue; instead, he only makes requests for clarity in understanding the visions. For this reason, the appearance of the woman in v. 38 has prompted many scholars to identify not only a shift in focus in 4 Ezra but some also identify a transformation in its protagonist. :KDWWKHQFDQEHVDLGRIWKLVVKLIW"$V6WXFNHQEUXFNKDVQRWHGZH can identify four markers of narrative transition: (1) Ezra twice declares KHLVVHWWLQJDVLGHWKHWKRXJKWVWKDWHQJDJHGKLP (]UDIRUWKH¿UVW WLPH DVNV VRPHRQH HOVH ZK\ VKH LV VXIIHULQJ   WKH ZRPDQ¶V WHOOLQJ RIKHUVWRU\DQG (]UD¶VFRQVRODWLRQRIWKHZRPDQ22 But do any of WKHVHIRXUQDUUDWLYHVKLIWVVXJJHVWDFKDQJHLQ(]UDKLPVHOI"7KUHHKDYH to do with the woman in his vision and will be taken up together. First, WKRXJKLVWKHLVVXHRI(]UD¶VKDYLQJVHWDVLGHKLVWKRXJKWV%RWKWLPHV he initiates the woman in conversation are prefaced by the setting aside of his thoughts (9.39; 10.5). Here we read a narrative device alerting the audience that Ezra is engaging another character and no longer UHÀHFWLQJRQKLVRZQWKRXJKWV,GRQRWVHHDQ\UHDVRQWRUHDGWKHVHWWLQJ DVLGHRI(]UD¶VWKRXJKWVLQDQGDVVLJQDOLQJDGUDPDWLFFKDQJH LQ(]UD¶VGLVSRVLWLRQ$WWKLVSRLQWLQWKHQDUUDWLYH(]UDGRHVQRWXQGHUstand the vision or who the woman is, or the meaning of his interaction with her.23 Another marker of transition is the presence of the woman and her own explanation of her situation to Ezra. Ezra repeatedly interacted with Uriel throughout the text and though the genre has changed here, from GLDORJXHWRYLVLRQZHGRQRWQHHGWRUHDGDFKDQJHLQ(]UD¶VGLVSRVLWLRQ 7KH UHPDLQLQJ WZR WUDQVLWLRQ SRLQWV (]UD¶V LQWHUHVW LQ VRPHRQH HOVH¶V suffering and his consolation of the woman, boil down to the same issue, QDPHO\ (]UD¶V VXSSRVHGO\ QHZIRXQG FRQFHUQ IRU RWKHUV %XW (]UD¶V FRQFHUQ KHUH LV VWLOO WKH VDPH WKH JUDYLW\ RI ,VUDHO¶V VXIIHULQJ PXVW EH recognized: “You most foolish of women, do you not see RXUPRXUQLQJ DQGZKDWKDVKDSSHQHGWRXV")RU=LRQWKHPRWKHURIXVDOOLVLQGHHS JULHIDQGJUHDWDIÀLFWLRQ´±HPSKDVLVDGGHG (]UDWHOOVWKHZRPDQ to shape up, to recognize and respect the greater suffering of the state of Israel (10:15–16, 24). Ezra attempts to convince the woman that her LQGLYLGXDO VXIIHULQJ SDOHV LQ FRPSDULVRQ WR ,VUDHO¶V WUDJLF ORVV  19–24). Ezra does not show the slightest interest in the loss of her son.24 +H ZDQWV KHU WR UHFRJQL]H WKH PDJQLWXGH RI ,VUDHO¶V VXIIHULQJ DQG UHDFW

22௒ Stuckenbruck 2013, 142–44. 23௒ On the ironic misinterpretation of the woman, see ibid., 145. 24௒ He inconsiderately and strangely suggests that her son will be returned in due time (10.16).

260

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

appropriately to that. This is the same line of reasoning Ezra uses in the GLDORJXHV (]UD FRQVWDQWO\ UHPLQGV WKH DQJHO RI ,VUDHO¶V ORVV   4:12, 25; 5:28–30, 34; 6:55). In the remaining visions, Ezra asks that the symbols be decoded, but nothing is suggested in terms of his different way of thinking or his acceptance of a new type of theology. It is unclear to me just what transformation supposedly takes place for Ezra. In the second half of the book, Ezra is repeatedly praised for his devotion to God, his appreciation of the /DZ DQG KLV DWWHPSW WR XQGHUVWDQG *RG¶V ZD\V WKHVH ZHUH WKH LVVXHV GULYLQJ DOO RI (]UD¶V GLDORJXHV ZLWK 8ULHO )DU IURP EHLQJ WUDQVIRUPHG IURP KLV ROG VHOI WR D QHZ PRUH GHYRWHG ¿JXUH DIWHU WKH YLVLRQ RI WKH woman, Ezra is in fact rewarded for the continuity of his character. It is KLV XQFHDVLQJ GHYRWLRQ WR *RG WKDW LV SUDLVHG 6LJQL¿FDQWO\ LQ HDFK RI the vision episodes, Ezra is told why God chose to reveal the heavenly mysteries to him: [Uriel] answered me and said, “Listen to me and I will inform you, and tell you about the things which you fear, for the Most High has revealed many secrets to you. )RUKHKDVVHHQ\RXUULJKWHRXVFRQGXFWWKDW\RXKDYHVRUURZHG JUHDWO\IRU\RXUSHRSOHDQGPRXUQHGRYHU=LRQ” (10:38–39, emphasis added). This is the dream that you saw, and this is its interpretation. And you alone were worthy to learn this secret of the Most High (12:35–36, emphasis added). This is the interpretation of the dream which you saw. And you alone have EHHQHQOLJKWHQHGDERXWWKLV, because you have forsaken your own ways and KDYHDSSOLHG\RXUVHOIWRPLQHDQGKDYHVHDUFKHGRXWP\ODZ; for you have devoted your life to wisdom, and called understanding your mother (13:53–54, emphasis added).25

Ezra is not praised for transitioning toward eschatological wisdom or WRZDUGDQDSRFDO\SWLFZRUOGYLHZ(]UD¶VDFWLRQVKLVV\PSDWK\IRU=LRQ and his nationalistic concern are highlighted and said to be the reason for his blessing and his ability to see the special visions. While there is no conversion for Ezra, something certainly takes place in the visions in terms of his understanding. His questions regarding the ways of God are now explained in symbolic, apocalyptic terms and this knowledge reassures Ezra. Ezra has not changed. He has not accepted 25௒ This idea that Ezra is worthy of special revelation is present throughout the text. In 8:62, speaking of how humans created their own trouble by ignoring God, Ezra is told: “I have not shown this to all men, but only to you and a few like you.” See also 6:32–33.

)ඈඋൽ(]UD¶V&RQWLQXLW\LQ(]UD

261

a new theological worldview. Rather, he simply has been told more H[SOLFLWO\KRZ*RG¶VFRQFHUQIRUKLVSHRSOH,VUDHOUHPDLQVDWWKHFHQWHU of his plan for history and the world. Following each of the apocalyptic visions of the eagle and the Son of Man, Ezra asks God to clarify their meaning (12.8; 13.15). This is the same line of questioning that Ezra made in the dialogues. Repeatedly after his conversations with Uriel Ezra was left confounded. In the earlier dialogues, Ezra asks questions to clarify how exactly the answer provided E\WKHDQJHOLOOXPLQDWHV,VUDHO¶VVLWXDWLRQ:HVHHVXFKTXHVWLRQLQJLQWKH VHFRQGHSLVRGH(]UDDQG8ULHODUJXHEDFNDQGIRUWKRYHU(]UD¶VFRQFHUQ IRU,VUDHOZKHWKHULWLVJUHDWHUWKDQ*RG¶V± DQGZKHWKHUWKHUHLV a point to life if Israel is made to suffer (5:35–37). The angel tells Ezra that he must perform a series of impossible tasks (gathering scattered rain, PDNLQJGHDGÀRZHUVEORRPHWF LQRUGHUIRUWKHDQJHOWR³H[SODLQWR\RX the travail you seek to understand” (5:37). Ezra proceeds to ask many TXHVWLRQVDERXWWKHIDWHRIHYHU\RQHSULRUWRDQGIROORZLQJ(]UD¶VJHQHUDWLRQ   WKH GHOD\ RI MXGJPHQW   WKH HDUWK¶V DELOLW\ WR KRXVH all the people God intends to create (5:45), the age of the earth (5:50), how God interacts with creation (5:56), and the dividing of times and the signs of the end (6:7, 11). Admittedly, if we isolate these questions, (]UD¶VFRQFHUQLVZLWKWKHZRUOGDQGFUHDWLRQDVDZKROHUDWKHUWKDQ,VUDHO ,QGHHGVXFKTXHVWLRQVOHG&ROOLQVWRUHPDUNWKDW³(]UD¶VFRQFHUQVDUHQRW exclusively for Israel. He is also concerned for humanity as a whole.”26 We must remember, though, that this whole line of dialogue stems from (]UD¶V LQDELOLW\ WR JUDVS ,VUDHO¶V VXIIHULQJ DQG WKH DSSDUHQW EOHVVLQJ RI other nations (5:23–30, especially 29–30). The issue led Ezra to exclaim: “[B]ecause of grief I have spoken; for every hour I suffer agonies of heart, while I strive to understand the way of the Most High and to search out SDUWRIKLVMXGJPHQW´ (TXDOO\LPSRUWDQWWR(]UD¶VOLVWRITXHVWLRQV is what he was told before he began his questioning. God said to him, “Just as you cannot do one of the things that were mentioned, so you cannot discover my judgment or the goal of the love that I have promised P\SHRSOH´ 7KLVVSDUNVDOORI(]UD¶VVXEVHTXHQWTXHVWLRQVDVKH DWWHPSWVWRXQHDUWKDQGXQGHUVWDQGPRUHRI*RG¶VSODQZKLFKKHGRHVQRW IHHOWKHDQJHOLVDVVLVWLQJ(DFKRI(]UD¶VTXHVWLRQVWKDWVHHPWRTXHVWLRQ WKHRGLF\RUMXGJPHQWRIKXPDQVLQJHQHUDODUHUHDOO\DERXWZKDW*RG¶V MXGJPHQW RU JRDO LV VSHFL¿FDOO\ IRU ,VUDHO   ,Q  (]UD as a whole, (]UD¶VTXHVWLRQVDUHDQDWWHPSWWRPDNHVHQVHRI,VUDHO¶VVLWXDWLRQ

26௒ Collins 2013, 89.

262

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

Only through the interpretation of the visions does Ezra see them as a direct response to his concern for Israel. For example, in the fourth episode, Ezra exclaims, “For I did as you directed, and, behold! I saw, and still see, what I am unable to explain” (10:32). What good is it for Ezra to see the amazing vision of the woman turning into the city (10:25–27) LILWLVXQLQWHOOLJLEOHWRKLP"7KLVW\SHRITXHVWLRQLQJLVIRXQGWKURXJKRXW the dialogues and, as mentioned in the above discussion of the second GLDORJXH LW LV (]UD¶V DWWHPSW IRU WKH DQJHO WR H[SODLQ WKH FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQZKDWLVUHYHDOHGDQG(]UD¶VGHVSDLURYHU,VUDHO Ezra is neither transformed nor converted to a symbolic, apocalyptic worldview. However, it is through these visions that Ezra comes to XQGHUVWDQG WKDW ,VUDHO¶V SUHVHQW VXIIHULQJ ZLOO QRW GH¿QH ,VUDHO¶V OHJDF\ ,VUDHO¶VVXIIHULQJLVMXVWRQHSDUWRIWKHSLFWXUHDFFRUGLQJWRWKHYLVLRQLQ WKH¿IWKHSLVRGH7KURXJKWKHYLVLRQV(]UDOHDUQVDERXWWKHHQGWLPHVWKH Messiah, and how the Son of Man will destroy those opposed to God and will defend the faithful of Israel that remain. It is this knowledge, along with the promise of more wondrous things (13:56), that allows Ezra to DFFHSW,VUDHO¶VSUHVHQWFRQGLWLRQUHWXUQWRKLVSHRSOHDQGLQVWUXFWWKHP before his departure. 2.3. (]UDLQWKH)LQDO(SLVRGH ,Q WKH ¿QDO HSLVRGH RI  (]UD Ezra takes his place as the new Moses, leader of the people and instructor in the ways of God.27 God speaks to Ezra himself in the concluding episode and makes explicit reference to when he called Moses (4 Ezra 14:3–6).28 (]UD¶V FRQFHUQ KHUH DJDLQ LVWKHDELOLW\RIKLVSHRSOHWR¿QGVDOYDWLRQLQ*RGHYHQDIWHU(]UDKDV departed: “If, then, I have found favor before thee, send the holy spirit into me, and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the beginning, the things which were written in thy law, that men may be able WR¿QGWKHSDWKDQGWKDWWKRVHZKRZLVKWROLYHLQWKHODVWGD\VPD\OLYH” (14:22, emphasis added).29 When Ezra summons the people he recalls for

27௒ Hindy Najman (2007, 2010a, 2010b) has written extensively about this issue. 6KHUHDGVWKHDUULYDOLQWKHQDUUDWLYHRIWKHSURSKHWOLNH0RVHVLQVLJQL¿FDQWO\GLIIHUHQW terms than I do. She writes: “there is a seemingly unsurpassable gulf between the (]UDRIWKH¿UVWWKUHHYLVLRQVDQGWKHODWHU(]UDZKRµLVWDNHQXSZLWKRQHVOLNHKLP¶௘´ 1DMPDQE ,WKLQN(]UD¶V0RVHVOLNHVWDWXVLVWKHFXOPLQDWLRQRIKLVUHZDUG for his devotion to Israel throughout the text. 28௒ On the call motif, see Stone 1990, 410; Knibb 1979, 273–74. 29௒ As Boccaccini 2013, 75, puts it, “In  (]UDWKHUH LV QRVROXWLRQ µDSDUWIURP WKH 7RUDK¶ RQ WKH FRQWUDU\ WKH /DZ LWVHOI LV µWKH DQVZHU¶´ It should be noted that

)ඈඋൽ(]UD¶V&RQWLQXLW\LQ(]UD

263

WKHP ,VUDHO¶V SDVW   WKHLU GLVREHGLHQFH WR *RG¶V ODZ ERWK LQ WKH IRUPHUDQGSUHVHQWJHQHUDWLRQV *RG¶VSURPLVHVWR,VUDHO  DQG ,VUDHO¶V WUDQVJUHVVLRQV   (]UD LQVWUXFWV WKHP WR EH ULJKWHRXV DQG REHGLHQW LQ RUGHU WR REWDLQ *RG¶V PHUF\ DIWHU WKH MXGJPHQW RI WKH unrighteous (14:34–35). (]UD¶VUROHDVOHDGHUDQGKLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJRI*RG¶VODZDUHH[SDQGHG DQG FODUL¿HG EDVHG RQ WKH YLVLRQV DQG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV KH UHFHLYHG ,Q light of the apocalyptic visions, Ezra is convinced that the Law contains enough material to prevent his community from giving themselves over to despair. If he had not felt this way, there would have been no need for Ezra (not God!) to request new access to the law for the people (14:21). Ezra, as WKHWUXHOHDGHURI,VUDHOGHPDQGHGWRXQGHUVWDQGLWVSODFHLQ*RG¶VSODQ +HUHFHLYHGYLVLRQVZKLFKH[SODLQHGWKHSODFHRI,VUDHOLQ*RG¶VFUHDWLYH workings, and provided access to esoteric and exoteric information about *RG¶V KLVWRULFDO DFWLYLW\ ±  7KDQNV WR (]UD¶V GHYRWLRQ WR *RG DQGKLVZLOOLQJQHVVWRSXUVXH*RG¶VZD\VXQWLOKHFRPSUHKHQGHGWKHP the wise among the people were given the texts about which God said, “in them are the springs of understanding, the fountains of wisdom, and the river of knowledge” (14:47). 3. Conclusion At the beginning of the narrative, Ezra is alone in his bed, despairing over the desolation of Zion and anxiously speaking to God (4 Ezra 3:1–3). By the end of 4 Ezra, Ezra is “caught up” (14:50) from the people and no longer around to instruct, reprove, and lead, but he was able to leave behind the teachings of Moses and the secret teachings (14:44–47), which DUHPRUHWKDQHQRXJKIRUWKRVHZKRZLVKWR¿QGWKHSDWKRI*RG  DIWHU (]UD¶V GHSDUWXUH +H JRHV IURP DORQH DQG WURXEOHG WR KHDYHQO\ DVFHQVLRQ DQG WKH KRQRUL¿F WLWOH ³6FULEH RI WKH NQRZOHGJH RI WKH 0RVW High” (14:50). In this essay I have argued that Ezra, the protagonist in  (]UD¶V QDUUDWLYH GLG QRW XQGHUJR D UDGLFDO SHUVRQDO WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ RU FRQYHUVLRQ,QVWHDGWKHWKHPHRI,VUDHO¶VEOHVVHGVWDWXVLQ*RG¶VSODQIRU history is the thread that ties this character together from beginning to end, and weaves together the narrative from beginning to end.

%RFFDFFLQL¶V LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI  (]UD is different from the analysis presented in the present study. Boccaccini suggests the possibility that 4 Ezra and the secret books were sympathetic to other competing forms of early Judaism.

264

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

Works Cited Allison, Dale. 1994. 7KH1HZ0RVHV$0DWWKHDQ7\SRORJ\Minneapolis: Fortress. Boccaccini, Gabriele. 2013. “The Evilness of Human Nature in  (QRFK -XELOHHV Paul, and  (]UD A Second Temple Jewish Debate.” Pages 63–79 in Henze and Boccaccini 2013. Box, G. H. 1917. 7KH $SRFDO\SVH RI (]UD 7UDQVODWHG IURP WKH 6\ULDF 7H[W ZLWK %ULHI $QQRWDWLRQVLondon: Pitman. Collins, John J. 2013. “Enoch and Ezra.” Pages 83–98 in Henze and Boccaccini 2013. 'L7RPPDVR /RUHQ]R  ³:KR LV WKH µ,¶ RI  (]UD"´ 3DJHV ± LQ +HQ]H DQG Boccaccini 2013. Henze, Matthias. 2010. Review of Karina M. Hogan, 7KHRORJLHV LQ &RQÀLFW LQ 4 Ezra :LVGRP'HEDWHDQG$SRFDO\SWLF6ROXWLRQ-RXUQDORI5HOLJLRQ90: 65–66. Henze, Matthias, and Gabriele Boccaccini, eds. 2013. )RXUWK(]UDDQG6HFRQG%DUXFK 5HFRQVWUXFWLRQ$IWHUWKH)DOOWith the collaboration of Jason M. Zurawski. JSJSup 164. Leiden: Brill. Hogan, Karina Martin. 2008. 7KHRORJLHV LQ &RQÀLFW LQ 4 Ezra :LVGRP 'HEDWH DQG $SRFDO\SWLF6ROXWLRQ. JSJSup 130. Leiden: Brill. Knibb, Michael. A. 1979. “2 Esdras.” In 7KH)LUVWDQG6HFRQG%RRNVRI(VGUDVEdited by R. J. Coggins and M. A. Knibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1DMPDQ +LQG\  ³+RZ 6KRXOG :H &RQWH[WXDOL]H 3VHXGHSLJUDSKD" ,PLWDWLRQ DQG Emulation in (]UD.” Pages 529–36 in )ORUHV )ORUHQWLQR'HDG 6HD 6FUROOV DQG 2WKHU (DUO\ -HZLVK 6WXGLHV LQ +RQRXU RI )ORUHQWLQR *DUFtD 0DUWtQH] Edited by A. Hilhorst et al. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2010a. 3DVW 5HQHZDOV ,QWHUSUHWDWLYH $XWKRULW\ 5HQHZHG 5HYHODWLRQ DQG WKH 4XHVWIRU3HUIHFWLRQLQ-HZLVK$QWLTXLW\. JSJSup 53. Leiden: Brill. ———. 2010b. “Between Heaven and Earth: Liminal Visions in (]UD.” Pages 151–67 in 2WKHU:RUOGVDQG7KHLU5HODWLRQWR7KLV:RUOG(DUO\-HZLVKDQG$QFLHQW&KULVWLDQ 7UDGLWLRQV Edited by T. Nicklas et al. Leiden: Brill. Stone, Michael E. 1990. )RXUWK (]UD $ &RPPHQWDU\ RQ WKH %RRN RI )RXUWK (]UD. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Stone, Michael E., and Matthias Henze. 2013.  (]UD DQG  %DUXFK 7UDQVODWLRQV Introductions, and Notes. Minneapolis: Fortress. 6WXFNHQEUXFN /RUHQ7  ³(]UD¶V9LVLRQ RI WKH /DG\7KH )RUP DQG )XQFWLRQ RI D Turning Point.” Pages 137–50 in Henze and Boccaccini 2013.

Part II T ඁ ൾ R ൾർൾඉඍංඈඇ ඈൿ E ൺ උ අඒ J ൾඐංඌඁ T ൾඑඍ ඌ ൺ ඇ ൽ T උൺ ൽංඍ ංඈඇඌ ංඇ C ඁ උ ං ඌ ඍ ං ൺ ඇ ං ඍ ඒ ൺඇൽ Jඎൽൺංඌආ

I ඇඍൾඋඉඋൾඍൺඍංඈඇඌ ඈൿ A ൻ උ ൺ ඁ ൺ ආ ’ ඌ C ං උർඎ ආർංඌ ංඈඇ  ංඇ E ൺ උ අඒ C ඁ උ ං ඌ ඍ ං ൺ ඇ ං ඍ ඒ ൺ ඇ ൽ G ൾඇൾඌංඌ R ൺ ൻ ൻ ൺ ඁ Malka Z. Simkovich (Brandeis University) ,Q WKH ¿UVW JHQHUDWLRQV IROORZLQJ WKH GHDWK RI -HVXV GXULQJ ZKLFK WLPH HDUO\&KULVWLDQVZHUHJUDSSOLQJZLWKKRZWRGH¿QHWKHPVHOYHVLQUHODWLRQ and out of relation to Jews, the subject of circumcision was at the fore of dialogue and debate. First- or second-century1 Christians who had come to terms with a full departure from the law – as opposed to Jewish-Christian communities such as those of the Ebionites and Nazarenes – were not QHFHVVDULO\FRPPLWWHGWRUHMHFWLQJWKH+HEUHZ%LEOHRU-HVXV¶SODFHLQD dynastic line of Jewish leaders stemming back to Abraham. Some early Christians, such as the early second-century CE apologist Justin Martyr, sought to depict the patriarchs from the book of Genesis as forefathers of the Christians whose religious identities were characterized, not by laying the foundation upon which the nascence of Judaism was built, but by their foreseeing and acknowledging the advent of Christ.2 Other early Christian thinkers, such as Tertullian, who lived at the turn of the third century, did not paint the patriarchs in Genesis as proto-Christians or proto-Jews, but as wise observers of a perfect and universal law.3 Both these early Christian thinkers were motivated by a desire to 1௒ ,Q WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ , PDNH UHIHUHQFH WR ³HDUO\ &KULVWLDQV´ ZKLOH DFNQRZOedging that the term is somewhat anachronistic; the Christian religion did not emerge as a separate entity from Judaism until the third or fourth century. See J. D. G. Dunn 1991, 238–39. 2௒ 6HH -XVWLQ 0DUW\U¶V 'LDORJXH ZLWK 7U\SKR 11, 23–24 in Roberts et al. 2007, ±6HHDOVR,UHQDHXV¶$JDLQVWWKH+HUHVLHVin Roberts et al. 2007, 466–67. This reading is based on John 8:56, which reads, “Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that KHZRXOGVHHP\GD\KHVDZLWDQGZDVJODG´1569 7KHWUDGLWLRQRIWKLVYHUVH¶V interpretation is not be explored in this study however, it is generally associated with Gen 15 rather than with circumcision. 3௒6HH7HUWXOOLDQ¶VAnswer to the Jews in Menzies 1994, 152–53.

268

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

preserve a familial and spiritual connection to the biblical patriarchs as pious forefathers of early Christians while still rejecting and separating themselves from what would later be known as Mosaic law. In attempting to do so, the problem arose that one patriarch in particular seemed to be inextricably wedded to the Law. That patriarch, of course, was Abraham, whose faith and devotion to God culminated in the act of self-circumcision and the circumcision of his son Ishmael in Gen 17. Beginning with 3DXOHDUO\&KULVWLDQZULWHUVHQGHDYRUHGWRSUHVHQWWKH¿JXUHRI$EUDKDP as a forefather of Christianity while rejecting the view that he circumcised in obedience and devotion to Mosaic law.4 In light of the push among early Christian theologians to depict Abraham as an exclusively Christian forefather during these early centuries, it is perhaps not surprising that midrash Genesis Rabbah, a compilation RI UDEELQLF DJJDGLF WH[WV HGLWHG DQG UHGDFWHG E\ WKH ¿IWK FHQWXU\ OLQNV $EUDKDP¶V FLUFXPFLVLRQ WR WKH KLVWRU\ RI WKH ,VUDHOLWH SHRSOH LQ VXFK D way that one cannot accept the typological importance of one without the other.5 These two positions place early Christian and Jewish theologians at opposite ends of the pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision dispute. The earliest extant sources, which differentiate between the symbolic VLJQL¿FDQFHRI$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQDQGWKHV\PEROLFVLJQL¿FDQFHRI ongoing Israelite circumcision, are found in the letters of Paul. Remarkably, the concept of such demarcation was adopted by almost every early Christian source engaging with the question of how to understand $EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQ8QOLNHWKHIDPRXVHDUO\VHFRQGFHQWXU\ELVKRS Marcion of Sinope, whose advocated separation from Jews required an unequivocal rejection of the Jewish Scriptures, many early Christians strove to preserve the status of Abraham as a Christian forefather. Yet these writers, like the Marcionites, aimed to enforce a tangible separation from the Jews that enabled them to forge an altogether different religious entity and at the same time present themselves as more forward-thinking than 4௒7KHUHZHUHRWKHUHDUO\&KULVWLDQZULWHUVDV/HYHQVRQSRLQWVRXWZKRGLGQRW expend energy reclaiming Abraham: “In much of the classical Christian tradition, Abraham and the Jews were only instrumental to the emergence of the gospel and its exportation to all the nations of the world” (Levenson 2012, 35). The sources in this the present study represent only the splice of Christian opinion that sought to reclaim WKH¿JXUHRI$EUDKDP 5௒ 6WHPEHUJHU DQG 6WUDFN   DFFHSW1HXVQHU¶V VXJJHVWLRQ WKDW WKH FRUH RIWKHPDWHULDOLQ*HQHVLV5DEEDKUHÀHFWVDIRXUWKFHQWXU\FRQWH[WGXULQJZKLFKWKH Christian Church turned into a political power. Although Neusner 1985a, xi, maintains that the core of Genesis Rabbah was in place by the year 400, he acknowledges that it is working with material that could have been written at least a century or two earlier.

6ංආ඄ඈඏංർඁ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQVRI$EUDKDP¶V&LUFXPFLVLRQ

269

their Jewish counterparts. Their challenge was to achieve this identity shift while incorporating the Jewish Scriptures into their Christian holy writ, rather than rejecting these books altogether. I will review these texts in their chronological compositional order starting with the letters of Paul, which are dated to the middle and late 50s and early 60s. Following Paul, there seem to be six threads of Christian LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI $EUDKDP¶V FLUFXPFLVLRQ DQG WKH FRQVHTXHQW ,VUDHOLWH circumcision. First, the early second-century Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Philip GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ $EUDKDP¶V FLUFXPFLVLRQ DQG Israelite circumcision by suggesting that Abraham circumcised himself as a joyful response to foreseeing the coming of Christ. The Gospel of Philip does not offer an explanation for the practice of Israelite circumcision, but the Epistle of Barnabas posits that the Israelites err in maintaining this SUDFWLFHDQGWKDWLWFRQWDLQVQRSDUWLFXODUVLJQL¿FDQFH7KHVHFRQGFHQWXU\ writers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian offer a different approach. :KLOH WKH\ DOVR GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ $EUDKDP¶V FLUFXPFLVLRQ DQG WKH Israelite practice of circumcision, they argue that the former highlights $EUDKDP¶VFRPSOHWHIDLWKLQ*RGZKHUHDV,VUDHOLWHFLUFXPFLVLRQIRUHFDVWV WKH -HZV¶ DFFXUVHG VWDWH DQG SHUPDQHQW H[LOH IURP ERWK WKH SUHVHQW Jerusalem and the kingdom of heaven. Third, the third-century theologian 2ULJHQ LQWHUSUHWV$EUDKDP¶V FLUFXPFLVLRQ DV D VLJQ RI KLV IDLWK LQ *RG and argues that, because circumcision should be understood allegorically, the Israelite practice of circumcision is an egregious misinterpretation. Fourth, John Chrysostom, writing in the fourth century, presents circumcision as a physical shackling of the Jews as means of reminding them to control their naturally lustful tendencies. Fifth, the Syriac fathers Aphrahat and Theodoret, living in the turn of the fourth century in Persia DQGHDUO\¿IWKFHQWXU\LQ&\UUKXVUHVSHFWLYHO\PDLQWDLQWKDWFLUFXPFLVLRQ was meant to ensure that Jews would not intermarry with pagans. Finally, the fourth-century Syrian writer Ephrem offers a unique interpretation of circumcision by attributing to it some positive value, but at the same time KHPDUJLQDOL]HVLWVWKHRORJLFDOVLJQL¿FDQFH Although Paul discusses the question of whether or not Gentile Christians should practice circumcision in his letters to the Romans, Corinthians, and *DODWLDQVKHRQO\FRQVLGHUV$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQDWOHQJWKLQ5RP6 6௒ 3DXO EHJLQV KLV GLVFXVVLRQ RI FLUFXPFLVLRQ LQ 5RP  EXW GRHV QRW GLVFXVV $EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQXQWLO5RP³Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncirFXPFLVLRQEHUHJDUGHGDVFLUFXPFLVLRQ"7KHQWKRVHZKRDUHSK\VLFDOO\XQFLUFXPFLVHG but keep the law will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but

270

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

+DUPRQL]LQJ WKH DUJXPHQWV VHW RXW LQ 3DXO¶V YDULRXV OHWWHUV VKRXOG EH avoided, since they were written at different times throughout his life and UHÀHFWYDU\LQJGHJUHHVRIHPEDWWOHPHQWIURP5RPDQVZKLFKLVSHUKDSV 3DXO¶VPRVWV\VWHPDWLFOHWWHUWR*DODWLDQVZKLFKLV3DXO¶VPRVWDJRQL]HG letter.7 These epistles, moreover, addressed diverse communities experiHQFLQJYDU\LQJFKDOOHQJHV5DWKHUWKDQGHWHUPLQLQJ3DXO¶VDWWLWXGHWRZDUGV circumcision by combining all of his statements on the subject, I use Rom DVDOHQVWKURXJKZKLFKWRUHDG3DXO¶VRWKHUHSLVWOHV,QLW3DXODLPVWR SUHVHUYHWKH¿JXUHRI$EUDKDPDVD&KULVWLDQIRUHIDWKHUZKRIRUHVDZWKH coming of Jesus and whose faith in God, and consequent divine reckoning to righteousness, occurred before his circumcision. For Paul, the notion that Abraham had faith in God prior to his circumcision highlights the fact that circumcision has no value on its own, but was simply a sign repreVHQWLQJ$EUDKDP¶VIDLWK3DXOZULWHV What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the ÀHVK")RULI$EUDKDPZDVMXVWL¿HGE\ZRUNVKHKDVVRPHWKLQJWRERDVWDERXW EXWQRWEHIRUH*RG)RUZKDWGRHVWKHVFULSWXUHVD\"³$EUDKDPEHOLHYHG*RG and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works WUXVWVKLPZKRMXVWL¿HVWKHXQJRGO\VXFKIDLWKLVUHFNRQHGDVULJKWHRXVQHVV« [9b] We say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.” How then ZDVLWUHFNRQHGWRKLP":DVLWEHIRUHRUDIWHUKHKDGEHHQFLUFXPFLVHG",WZDV not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Rom 4:1–5, 9b–13 NRSV)

In this passage, the physical sign of circumcision is subjugated to the VSLULWXDOVLJQL¿FDQFHRI$EUDKDP¶VIDLWK3DXO¶VFHQWUDODUJXPHQWLVWKDW *RG¶V UHFNRQLQJ$EUDKDP¶V IDLWK WR ULJKWHRXVQHVV RFFXUV LQ *HQ  break the law. For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God” (Rom 2:25–29 NRSV). According to Paul, physical circumcision simply does not matter—it is not representative, nor does LWWDNHWKHSODFHRIJRRGZRUNV7KLVDUJXPHQWOD\VWKHJURXQGZRUNIRU3DXO¶VSRLQW that Abraham is the father of all people, both circumcised and uncircumcised, and that salvation is achieved through faith in Christ. 7௒$VSRLQWHGRXWLQ6LNHU±

6ංආ඄ඈඏංർඁ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQVRI$EUDKDP¶V&LUFXPFLVLRQ

271

SULRU WR$EUDKDP¶V FLUFXPFLVLRQ LQ *HQ 7KH UHFNRQLQJ RI$EUDKDP to righteousness while he was still uncircumcised enables him to function as the legitimate forefather of both the circumcised and uncircumcised, that is, Jews and Gentiles. Thus, Paul is effective in arguing that Jews and *HQWLOHVDUHHTXDOEHIRUH*RG$VZHVHHEHORZ3DXO¶VHIIRUWVWRVHSDUDWH the circumcision of Abraham from consequent Israelite circumcision is a motif that is taken up by a number of Christian theologians throughout the fourth century. Paul also discusses circumcision in his more polemical letters, namely Galatians and 1 Corinthians. In these (1 Cor 7:18–19; Gal 2:12; 5:6), Paul exhorts the Gentile members of the new churches to ignore those JewishChristian apostles who are encouraging them to perform circumcision in order to enter into the covenantal community. On account of the polemical QDWXUHRIWKHVHHSLVWOHV3DXO¶VWRQHLVOHVVV\VWHPDWLFDQGPRUHGLVWUHVVHG He engages in what Jeffrey Siker has called “polemical overkill.”8 Paul GRHVQRWGLVFXVV$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQLQWKHVHZULWLQJVEXWKLVFODLP that Gentile circumcision will not bring one into a state of grace is an indication that Paul saw Israelite circumcision as an altogether different W\SRORJLFDOHQWLW\WKDQ$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQ The Epistle of Barnabas, which most scholars regard as having been FRPSRVHGLQ(J\SWWRZDUGVWKHHQGRIWKH¿UVWRUEHJLQQLQJRIWKHVHFRQG FHQWXU\ RIIHUV D QRYHO DSSURDFK WR $EUDKDP¶V FLUFXPFLVLRQ DQG WKH ongoing circumcision of his Israelite descendants. Like Paul, the author of the Epistle GLVWLQJXLVKHVEHWZHHQWKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRI$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPcision and that of Israelite circumcision. The author writes that Abraham foresaw the coming of Jesus, and, in order to acknowledge and celebrate his coming, Abraham circumcised himself and his 318 servants. The “proof” for this interpretation is that 300 is numerically equivalent to the tauZKLFKV\PEROL]HV-HVXV¶FURVVDQGLVQXPHULFDOO\HTXLYDOHQWWR the iota and etaWKH¿UVWWZROHWWHUVRI-HVXV¶QDPHLQkoiné Greek. The Epistle of Barnabas reads: Thus learn about the whole matter fully, children of love. For Abraham, the ¿UVWWRSHUIRUPFLUFXPFLVLRQZDVORRNLQJDKHDGLQWKH6SLULWWR-HVXVZKHQKH FLUFXPFLVHG)RUKHUHFHLYHGWKH¿UPWHDFKLQJVRIWKHWKUHHOHWWHUV)RULWVD\V “Abraham circumcised eighteen and three hundred men from his household.” :KDW NQRZOHGJH WKHQ ZDV JLYHQ WR KLP" 1RWLFH WKDW ¿UVW KH PHQWLRQV WKH eighteen and then, after a pause, the three hundred. The number eighteen [in Greek] consists of an Iota [J], 10, and an Eta [E], 8. There you have Jesus. And because the cross was about to have grace in the letter Tau [T], he next gives 8௒,ELG

272

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity WKHWKUHHKXQGUHG7DX$QGVRKHVKRZVWKHQDPH-HVXVE\WKH¿UVWWZROHWWHUV and the cross by the other. For the one who has placed the implanted gift of his covenant in us knew these things. No one has learned a more reliable lesson from me. But I know that you are worthy. (Ep. Barn. 9:7–9)9

7KH (SLVWOH RI %DUQDEDV VRPHZKDW GLVPLVVLYHO\ H[SODLQV WKH -HZV¶ insistence on the circumcision of their sons by positing that an “evil angel” taught the Jews a false divine precept in order to deceive them (9:4). The (SLVWOH¶VLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRI$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQHPSOR\VWKHH[HJHWLFDO method of JHPDWULD. This methodological strategy, which is commonly used in rabbinic exegesis of the Hebrew Scriptures, but appears in only a handful of early Christian Greek texts, has led some scholars to suggest that the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, who probably wrote his letter in Egypt, may have been a converted Rabbi.10 Placing the writing of the Epistle of Barnabas in Egypt has added VLJQL¿FDQFHZKHQFRQVLGHULQJWKHIDFWWKDWWKH Gospel of Philip, which is generally dated to the end of the second century and also attributed to a writer living in Egypt, advances a similar view regarding the association RI$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQZLWKWKHIRUHVHHLQJRI&KULVW11 According to WKLVWH[W$EUDKDPFLUFXPFLVHGXSRQUHFHLYLQJWKHYLVLRQRI-HVXV¶DGYHQW “When Abraham…that he was to see what he was to see, [he circumcised] WKHÀHVKRIWKHIRUHVNLQWHDFKLQJXVWKDWLWLVSURSHUWRGHVWUR\WKHÀHVK´ (Gos. Phil. 82).12,QWKH*RVSHORI3KLOLS$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQZDVD response to a vision about the coming of Jesus. The difference between the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Philip, on the one hand, and 3DXO¶VHSLVWOHVRQWKHRWKHULVWKDW3DXOGRHVQRWHTXDWH$EUDKDP¶VIDLWK ZLWKDIRUHVHHLQJRI-HVXV¶FRPLQJ Like the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, the second-century theologians Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr also adopt a typological DSSURDFK IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH VLJQL¿FDQFH RI$EUDKDP¶V FLUFXPFLVLRQ versus Israelite circumcision. According to Justin Martyr, Abraham circumcised himself as a sign of faith in Jesus. Justin writes in his 'LDORJXH ZLWK7U\SKR: 9௒(KUPDQ± 10௒%DUQDUG*''XQQ)RUPRUHRQWKH&KULVWLDQXVHRI JHPDWULD, see Varner 1997. 11௒7XUQHU±/XQGKDXJ7ZLJJ$QRWKHUSRVVLELOLW\ is that the Gospel of Philip was composed in Syria; see Segelburg 1966–67, 207. More recent scholarship, however, leans towards Egypt as a likely place of origin for this text. 12௒,VHQEHUJ

6ංආ඄ඈඏංർඁ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQVRI$EUDKDP¶V&LUFXPFLVLRQ

273

For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the obserYDQFH RI 6DEEDWKV RI IHDVWV DQG VDFUL¿FHV EHIRUH 0RVHV QR PRUH QHHG LV there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham. For when Abraham himself was in un-circumcision, he was MXVWL¿HGDQGEOHVVHGE\UHDVRQRIWKHIDLWKZKLFKKHUHSRVHGLQ*RGDVWKH Scripture tells. Moreover, the Scriptures and the facts themselves compel us to admit that He received circumcision for a sign, and not for righteousness. So that it was justly recorded concerning the people, that the soul which shall not be circumcised on the eighth day shall be cut off from his family. And, IXUWKHUPRUH WKH LQDELOLW\ RI WKH IHPDOH VH[ WR UHFHLYH ÀHVKO\FLUFXPFLVLRQ proves that this circumcision has been given for a sign, and not for a work of righteousness. ('LDO XXIII)13

-XVWLQ¶V DUJXPHQW UHJDUGLQJ WKH SXUSRVH RI $EUDKDP¶V FLUFXPFLVLRQ LV similar to the interpretations offered in both the Epistle of Barnabas and *RVSHORI3KLOLS,WSLFNVXSRQWKH3DXOLQHSHUVSHFWLYHWKDW$EUDKDP¶V circumcision was a sign of faith – although, as mentioned above, Paul GRHV QRW LQGLFDWH WKDW$EUDKDP KDG D YLVLRQ RI -HVXV¶ FRPLQJ -XVWLQ¶V understanding of the Israelite practice of circumcision is also different WKDQ ERWK 3DXO¶V OHWWHUV DQG WKH (SLVWOH RI %DUQDEDV LQ WKDW IRU -XVWLQ ,VUDHOLWH FLUFXPFLVLRQ LV D VLJQ RI *RG¶V FXUVH XSRQ WKH -HZV ZKR DUH UHVSRQVLEOHIRU&KULVW¶VGHDWK&LUFXPFLVLRQWKHUHIRUHGHVLJQDWHVWKRVH who are destined for punishment: )RU WKH FLUFXPFLVLRQ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH ÀHVK ZKLFK LV IURP $EUDKDP ZDV given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your ODQGPD\EHGHVRODWHDQG\RXUFLWLHVEXUQHGZLWK¿UHDQGWKDWVWUDQJHUVPD\ eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem. For you are not recognised among the rest of men by any other mark than \RXUÀHVKO\FLUFXPFLVLRQ'LDO XVI)14

Presumably, Justin is referring to both an ultimate eschatological punishment and events of recent history. Justin was likely born in the wake of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, and may have been witness to the catastrophic events following the rebellion of Simon bar Kosiba against the Romans in 132–135. Over the course of this rebellion, as many as a 100,000 Jews were killed, and thousands more exiled from

13௒5REHUWVHWDO 14௒,ELG

274

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

Jerusalem. Rather than being a mark of divine favor as the Jews had claimed, Justin turns circumcision on its head by portraying it as a mark of divine exclusion. The Carthaginian apologist Tertullian takes an almost identical view WR-XVWLQ¶V+HZULWHVWKDW$EUDKDPZDVQRWFRPPDQGHGWRKDYHKLVVRQV circumcised for all time, but only as a one-time sign of faith. God did command the Jews to circumcise their sons; but this was done as a designatory sign so that others would know whom to prohibit from entering Jerusalem at a later time. For Tertullian, the temporary and carnal circumcision of the Jews contrasts with the permanent and spiritual circumcision of the heart: But Abraham, (you say,) was circumcised. Yes, but he pleased God before his circumcision; nor yet did he observe the Sabbath. For he had “accepted” circumcision; but such as was to be for “a sign” of that time, not for a prerogative title to salvation. In fact, subsequent patriarchs were uncircumcised, like Melchizedek, who, uncircumcised, offered to Abraham himself, already circumcised, on his return from battle, bread and wine… For circumcision had to be given; but as “a sign,” whence Israel in the last time would have to be distinguished, when, in accordance with their deserts, they should be prohibited from entering the holy city. (Answer to the Jews 3)15

Like the Christian exegetes before him, Tertullian differentiates between $EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQDQG,VUDHOLWHFLUFXPFLVLRQE\DUJXLQJWKDW$EUD KDP¶V FLUFXPFLVLRQ IXQFWLRQHG DV D VLJQ RI KLV IDLWK ZKHUHDV ,VUDHOLWH circumcision functions as a sign of exclusion. ,UHQDHXVDOVRDGRSWVWKLVPHWKRGRIGLIIHUHQWLDWLQJEHWZHHQ$EUDKDP¶V circumcision as a sign of faith and Israelite circumcision as a sign of accursedness. In $JDLQVWWKH+HUHVLHV, Irenaeus writes that, We learn from the Scripture itself that God gave circumcision, not as the complete of righteousness, but as a sign, that the race of Abraham might FRQWLQXHUHFRJQL]DEOH«$QGWKDWPDQZDVQRWMXVWL¿HGE\WKHVHWKLQJVEXW that they were given as a sign to the people, this fact shows, – that Abraham himself, without circumcision and without observance of Sabbaths, “believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.” (+DHU IV.16.1–2)16

15௒0HQ]LHV 16௒5REHUWVHWDO

6ංආ඄ඈඏංർඁ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQVRI$EUDKDP¶V&LUFXPFLVLRQ

275

$SSDUHQWO\WKHSRVLWLRQWKDW,VUDHOLWHFLUFXPFLVLRQUHÀHFWHGDFFXUVHGQHVV DQGWKDW$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQVLJQL¿HGKLVIDLWKZDVSRSXODUO\FLUFXlating in the second half of the third century among western Church Fathers. But other interpretations were circulating during this time as well. For example, Origen of Alexandria expends a great deal of effort towards explaining the meaning of circumcision and, like those before KLPGLVWLQJXLVKHVEHWZHHQ$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQDQG,VUDHOLWHFLUFXPcision. According to Origen, Abraham circumcised as a sign of faith, but the Israelites erred in interpreting this commandment as an instruction to be taken literally for perpetuity. He writes, “Then at once [Abraham] both received the covenant of God and accepted circumcision as a sign of faith ZKLFK KH FRXOG QRW DFFHSW ZKLOH KH ZDV VWLOO LQ KLV IDWKHU¶V KRXVH DQG LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI ÀHVK DQG ZKLOH KH ZDV VWLOO FDOOHG$EUDP´ +RP *HQ 3:3).17 Origen notes that one of his objectives is to discourage the act of Christian circumcision, which was a widespread practice during his lifetime (+RP *HQ 3:5).18 Unlike some of his contemporaries, Origen does not incorporate Israelite accursedness into his interpretation. /LNHZLVH -RKQ &KU\VRVWRP VXJJHVWV WKDW ZKLOH $EUDKDP¶V FLUFXPcision was a sign of faith, Israelite circumcision does not act as a sign of exclusion. Rather, it acts as a means of controlling the natural carnal tendencies of the Jews. Chrysostom claims that: God gave them circumcision, curbing their unrestrained urges. He was aware of their lustful tendencies in not practicing restraint… He gave them a perpetual reminder with this sign of circumcision, as though fastening them with a chain. He set limits and rules to prevent them overstepping the mark…like shackles on their feet as a reminder that they have no further need of instruction from others… Our circumcision on the other hand, the grace of baptism, involves a SDLQOHVVPHGLFLQHDQGLVWKHPHDQVRIFRXQWOHVVJRRGWKLQJVIRUXV¿OOLQJXV with the grace of the spirit. (+RP*HQ 39:14; 40:16)19

&KU\VRVWRP¶VDUJXPHQWFODLPVWKDWFLUFXPFLVLRQUDWKHUWKDQV\PEROL]LQJ election, symbolizes shackles. This argument functions as both a return to the second-century CE position that circumcision represents accursHGQHVV DV IRXQG LQ -XVWLQ 0DUW\U¶V 'LDORJXH ZLWK 7U\SKR, and as the culmination of a series of ruminations by a string of Christian theologians working to depict circumcision as either a worthless misinterpretation or as a sign of divine rejection. 17௒+HLQH 18௒2ULJHQ¶VVWDWHPHQWLVIXUWKHUH[DPLQHGLQWKH¿QDOVHFWLRQRIWKLVSDSHU6HH Niehoff 2003, 108. 19௒+LOO

276

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

In contrast to those interpretations, Aphrahat and Theodoret, Syriac writers who were perhaps inheritors of a separate exegetical tradition, regard circumcision more positively. Each suggests that circumcision was a logical means to prevent the Israelites from interacting and integrating with other QDWLRQV DQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKDW PD\ UHÀHFW DQ DWWHPSW WR SUHVHUYH WKH SXUH Israelite lineage of Jesus. Like many of his predecessors, Aphrahat believed WKDW$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQZDVDWHPSRUDU\V\PERORUPDUNZKLFKUHSUHVHQWVERWKKLVFRYHQDQWZLWK*RGDQG*RG¶VSURPLVHWKDWKHZRXOGKDYHD son. Aphrahat makes a supreme effort when discussing circumcision. He HPSOR\V -XVWLQ¶V DUJXPHQW WKDW 0HOFKL]HGHN UHFHLYLQJ$EUDKDP¶V WLWKH LV proof that circumcision is inferior to uncircumcision. He also redeploys %DUQDEDV¶ DUJXPHQW ZKLFK FODLPV WKDW VLQFH RWKHU QDWLRQV VXFK DV WKH Egyptians, practice circumcision, it proves that circumcision has no value. )LQDOO\KHUHSHDWV7HUWXOOLDQ¶VFODLPWKDWGLYLQHFRYHQDQWVDUHWHPSRUDU\DQG can be terminated in order to suggest that the Mosaic covenant and all law associated with it is no longer in effect.20 For Aphrahat, circumcision stands at the core of Jewish identity and, therefore, uncircumcision must stand at WKHFRUHRI&KULVWLDQLGHQWLW\$SKUDKDWIROORZV3DXO¶VDUJXPHQWLQ5RP WKDW$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQZDVDPDUNWKDWUHÀHFWHG*RG¶VFRYHQDQWDQG promise that he would bear a child. God chose and found favor in Abraham when he was not in his state of circumcision in order to establish Abraham as the father of all of humankind. Yet Aphrahat departs from Paul, as well as from his predecessors Justin Martyr and Tertullian, when discussing the ongoing practice of Jewish circumcision. Instead of arguing that circumcision is a mark of rejection and exclusion, Aphrahat maintains that the purpose of Israelite circumcision is to distinguish the Israelites from other nations and to prevent the Israelites from incorporating pagan practices into WKHLURZQWUDGLWLRQ³>*RG@FRPPDQGHG>$EUDKDP@WRFLUFXPFLVHWKHÀHVK RIKLVIRUHVNLQDVDVLQDQGVLJQL¿FDWLRQRIWKHFRYHQDQWVRWKDWZKHQKLV seed would multiply, they might be distinguished from all the peoples among whom they would go, so that they might not be mingled with their [the SDJDQV¶@XQFOHDQGHHGV´$SKUDKDWDemonstration 11.3).21 6LPLODUO\ WKH HDUO\ ¿IWKFHQWXU\ $QWLRFKDQ H[HJHWH 7KHRGRUHW DOVR argues that Israelite circumcision is a means to prevent intermingling with other nations, but he does not expend as much exegetical energy on LQYDOLGDWLQJFLUFXPFLVLRQDV$SKUDKDW7KHRGRUHWDGRSWV3DXO¶VSRVLWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ$EUDKDP¶VRZQFLUFXPFLVLRQZKLFKKHSRVLWVZDVJLYHQDVD VLJQRI$EUDKDP¶VIDLWK$FFRUGLQJWR7KHRGRUHW

20௒$SKUDKDWDemonstration 11, in Neusner 1999, 19–30. 21௒1HXVQHU

6ංආ඄ඈඏංർඁ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQVRI$EUDKDP¶V&LUFXPFLVLRQ

277

When [God] foretold the exile, he devised a protection for their religion so that, when mingling with pagans, they would not contaminate their noble descent, but rather, looking to the sign, keep an undying memory of the one ZKR KDG FRQIHUUHG LW7KH DFFRXQW RI WKHLU ZDQGHULQJV FRQ¿UPV WKLV7KH\ spent forty years in the wilderness and thought circumcision pointless, since they were cut off from the nations and living a life apart. But when they later entered the promised land, the God of the universe ordered Joshua son of Nun to circumcise all the men before handing over ownership of the land. They were destined to come into close proximity with the gentiles and hence were in need of a seal that would distinguish them from peoples of foreign lineage. (Questions on the Octateuch 49.1–14)22

Theodoret provides a meaningful reason for Israelite circumcision, but KHDOVRFODUL¿HVWKDWFLUFXPFLVLRQLQDQGRILWVHOIKDVQRLQKHUHQWYDOXH Now, if Jews make so much of their circumcision, they should learn that it was not only the patriarch who was circumcised but also Ishmael, a half-slave, as well as the homeborn slaves, the purchased slaves, and the Idumeans, and the offspring of Keturah. Even the Egyptians learned circumcision from the Israelites. And circumcision did not have the effect of making them righteous, since holy Scripture condemns all these peoples as godless. Therefore, it was QRWFLUFXPFLVLRQWKDWMXVWL¿HG$EUDKDPIDLWKPDGHKLPULJKWHRXVDQGYLUWXH rendered him still more illustrious. Circumcision was given as a sign of faith. (Questions on the Octateuch 49.15–24)23

7KHVLPLODUSRVLWLRQVKHOGE\$SKUDKDWDQG7KHRGRUHWUHJDUGLQJ$EUDKDP¶V circumcision and the circumcision of the Israelites suggests that their interpretation may have been derived from a common tradition circulating in Syriac Christian communities. This tradition may have had deep roots JRLQJEDFNWRD¿UVWFHQWXU\&(3DOHVWLQLDQPLOLHXDQGLWLVQRWHZRUWK\ that Josephus also posits that circumcision is a means to prevent “mixing with others” ($QW 1.192).24 As opposed to Christians writing in the west, the Antiochan tradition was less typologically focused and more closely devoted to literal scriptural reading. As a result, they may have been more attracted to this interpretation than their western contemporaries.25

22௒+LOO 23௒,ELG 24௒1LHKRII 25௒0DWWKHZVDQG$PDU

278

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

Scholars have also shown that Christians writing in the east were more aware of rabbinic exegetical traditions.26 The writings of Ephrem the Syrian, for instance, indicate not only awareness of rabbinic traditions that are extant in midrash Genesis Rabbah, but also awareness of at least one Aramaic Targum, as well as a version of the Peshitta that was closer to WKH0DVRUHWLF7H[WWKDQWKH6HSWXDJLQW(SKUHP¶VKRPLOLHVFRQWDLQVRPH interpretations that are attested only in Jewish texts.27 Therefore, it is not surprising that Ephrem, like Aphrahat and Theodoret, does not adopt the attitude that circumcision functions to mark out the accursedness of the Jews. Instead, he accepts the Pauline view that the mark of circumcision KROGV QR VLJQL¿FDQFH LQ DQG RI LWVHOI DQG WKDW WUXH FLUFXPFLVLRQ LV WKH circumcision of the heart. Yet Ephrem goes even further by implying that circumcision must have served a spiritual purpose in ancient times because God became angry when Moses neglected to circumcise his son in Exod 4. Ephrem elaborates by noting that the Hebrews are both commendable and not condemnable, because they insisted on circumcising their sons in Egypt despite their persecution under the Egyptians:28 At the place where they were spending the night, the Lord came upon Moses, and wanted to kill him, because he had discontinued circumcision in Midian for one of his sons who had not been circumcised. [The angel] appeared to Moses in anger so that his departure [from Midian] would not be ridiculed because he had discontinued circumcision without necessity, while the Hebrew had not interrupted it in spite of the death of their children. (Ephrem, +RPLO\RQ*HQHVLV 4.4)29

$OWKRXJK(SKUHP¶VFRPPHQWDU\RQWKLVSDVVDJHLPSOLHVWKDWKHDFNQRZOedges the intrinsic positive value of the command to circumcise Israelite infant boys, Ephrem does not spend nearly the same amount of time delegitimizng the practice and practicers of circumcision as Aphrahat and Justin. 26௒6HH.LSHUZDVVHUDQG5X]HU±QZKRWUDFHWKHFRPPRQWKHPH of proselytism in Persian and Babylonian Talmud sources. They cite the most recent scholarship on this subject. 27௒0DWWKHZVDQG$PDU 28௒ )RU DQ H[FHOOHQW DQDO\VLV RI (SKUHP¶V FRPPHQWDU\ RQ WKLV SDVVDJH VHH Winslow 2009. 29௒0DWWKHZVDQG$PDU6HHDOVR(SKUHP¶VFRPPHQWRQ*HQ±³WKDW Abraham made [his servant] swear by the covenant of circumcision…[God] set the sign of the covenant on it so that that member which was the most despised of all the limbs would now be the most honored of all the limbs. The sign of the covenant that was set on it bestowed on it such great honor that those who take oaths now swear by it and all those who administer oaths make them swear by it” (+RPLO\RQ*HQHVLV 21, Matthews and Amar 1994).

6ංආ඄ඈඏංർඁ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQVRI$EUDKDP¶V&LUFXPFLVLRQ

279

In fact, circumcision is not a focal point for Ephrem. This may be due to his intention to minimize the exclusivity of the Abrahamic covenant and its promises.30 For this reason, Ephrem also does not discuss at length the story RI$EUDKDP¶VHOHFWLRQRUWKH$EUDKDPLFFRYHQDQWDQGLWVSURPLVHV We now turn to midrash Gen. Rab. 46, an extensive commentary on *HQ  WKDW IRFXVHV RQ WKH WKHRORJLFDO VLJQL¿FDQFH RI FLUFXPFLVLRQ &RPSLOHGDQGHGLWHGDVHDUO\DVWKH¿IWKFHQWXU\*HQHVLV5DEEDKVKRZV an awareness of some of the Christian arguments against circumcision that have been cited above.31 As is typical of rabbinic literature, the commentary does not directly engage in polemical arguments, but weaves WRJHWKHUWKHV\PEROLVPRI$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQZLWK,VUDHOLWHFLUFXPcision in order to make one inextricably joined to the other. The opening RI*HQ5DEFLWHV*HQZKLFKEHJLQVZLWKWKHVWRU\RI$EUDKDP¶V circumcision and then immediately cites Hos 9:10, which compares ,VUDHO¶V IDWKHUV ZLWK WKH ¿UVW IUXLWV RI D ¿J WUHH *HQHVLV 5DEEDK WKHQ records the following: 5([RGXVµ7KHFKLOGUHQRI,VUDHOZHUH IUXLWIXODQGLQFUHDVHGDEXQGDQWO\DQGPXOWLSOLHG¶@´*HQ5DE 32

7KLVVWDWHPHQWWLHV$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQWRWKRVHRIWKH,VUDHOLWHVDQG LPSOLHVWKDW$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQZDVQRWDVLJQRIKLVIDLWKDVHDUO\ Christians claimed, but a sign of election, as consequent Israelite circumcision was. Five lines later, the midrash anticipates possible arguments from its readers regarding the reason why Abraham did not circumcise himself earlier: :K\GLGKHQRWFLUFXPFLVHDW\HDUVZKHQKHUHFRJQL]HGKLVFUHDWRU"6R as not to close the door on proselytes. And if you should say that [Abraham] should have circumcised himself at the age of 85, at the hour that God spoke to him at the Covenant of the Pieces, it was [delayed] so that Isaac should be ERUQRIDKRO\VHHG>WKDWLVRIDFLUFXPFLVHGSHQLVLQFRQWUDVWWR,VKPD¶HO who was born between these two events]. (Gen. Rab. 46.1)33

30௒)ULVKPDQ 31௒1HXVQHUEVXJJHVWVWKDW*HQHVLV Rabbah should be read polemically. 32௒1HXVQHU 1985a, 157. 33௒,ELG

280

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

This passage comes full circle polemically because it presents Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, as one who is open to proselytes – proselytes who presumably circumcise, doing so as a sign of election and acceptance of Mosaic law, not as a sign of faith. This argument answers those Christian interlocutors who presented Judaism as a closed religion that was unwelcoming of Gentiles. In addition, the midrash responds directly to the Pauline argument that since Abraham was reckoned to righteousness based on faith in Gen 15 and only committed righteousness of works, that is, circumcision, in Gen 17, circumcision was only a one-time sign RI$EUDKDP¶VIDLWKZLWKRXWORQJWHUPZRUWK,QVWHDGWKHPLGUDVKRIIHUV an alternative explanation regarding why Abraham circumcised well after the story of Gen 15, which took place 51 years earlier. God did not want Ishmael to descend from an individual who was circumcised, but he did desire that for Isaac, which would provide Isaac with automatic entry LQWRWKHFRYHQDQWDOUHODWLRQVKLS7KHUHIRUHWKHPLGUDVKELQGV$EUDKDP¶V circumcision in Gen 17 with the covenantal election and the ongoing FLUFXPFLVLRQRI$EUDKDP¶VGHVFHQGDQWV $QRWKHU VLJQL¿FDQW PLGUDVKLF VWDWHPHQW DSSHDUV ODWHU LQ *HQHVLV Rabbah: “Then Abraham fell on his face”: R. Phineas [said] in the name of R. Levi: “Two times did Abraham fall on his face, on account of the merit of which circumcision was taken away from his sons twice, once in the wilderness and once in Egypt. In Egypt Moses came along and circumcised them, and in the wilderness, Joshua came along and circumcised them.” (Gen. Rab. 46:6)34

As with the earlier passage, this statement achieves more than one polemical objective. The fact that Abraham falls on his face twice is taken as a sign of unfaithfulness by Genesis Rabbah, and the two times in biblical history in which the Israelites were negligent in circumcision are taken as SXQLVKPHQW IRU$EUDKDP IDOOLQJ RQ KLV IDFH$EUDKDP¶V ODFN RI IDLWK LV DOVRKLJKOLJKWHGLQ*HQHVLV5DEEDK¶VLQWHUSUHWDWLRQRI*HQLQZKLFK $EUDKDPDVNV*RGIRUDVLJQWRSURYHWKDWKHZLOOIXO¿OOKLVSURPLVHVWR $EUDKDP*HQHVLV5DEEDK¶VHPSKDVLVRQ$EUDKDP¶VGRXEWFRQWUDVWVZLWK the pedestal that Abraham is placed upon in early Christian scriptural H[HJHVLV ,Q HDUO\ &KULVWLDQ WH[WV$EUDKDP¶V XQTXHVWLRQLQJ IDLWKIXOQHVV lies at the core of understanding what circumcision is and what it is not. By GLVFRXQWLQJ$EUDKDP¶VIDLWKWKHPLGUDVKLVGLVFRXQWLQJWKHHDUO\&KULVWLDQ interpretation that circumcision was a sign of that faith: how could that be, when Abraham did not have DQ\",QDGGLWLRQE\UHIHUULQJWRWKH,VUDHOLWHV¶ 34௒,ELG

6ංආ඄ඈඏංർඁ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQVRI$EUDKDP¶V&LUFXPFLVLRQ

281

stay in Egypt as a period of negligence regarding circumcision, the midrash implies that Israelite history began sometime before their enslavement in Egypt. Thus, the midrash pushes Jewish history all the way back to the patriarchal narratives and Abrahamic history becomes Israelite history. 2QFHDJDLQWKHPLGUDVKOLQNV$EUDKDP¶VEHKDYLRUZLWKWKHGHVWLQ\RIWKH Israelite people. $QRWKHU LPSRUWDQW SDVVDJH LV *HQHVLV 5DEEDK¶V FRPPHQWDU\ RQ *HQ 18:8. Here the midrash links Abraham with the circumcision of all Jews living throughout history. Abraham is depicted as sitting by the gates of hell and uncircumcising Jewish souls who have acted sinfully while in their bodies. The passage reads: Rabbi Levi said: In the days to come Abraham will sit by the opening of *HKHQRP, and he will not allow any circumcised member of Israel to descend into it. But those [among Israel] who have sinned too much, what does he do WRWKHP"+HSODFHVWKHIRUHVNLQVIURPWKHEDELHVZKRGLHGEHIRUHWKH\ZHUH circumcised and places [the foreskins] upon them and brings them down to *HKHQRP. (Gen. Rab. 48:8)35

This astonishing image, like the midrashic passages mentioned above, links Abraham with the circumcision of the entire Jewish people.36 The LQH[WULFDEOH DVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ $EUDKDP¶V FLUFXPFLVLRQ DQG -HZLVK circumcision culminates in the liturgical prayer recited at the circumcision ceremony: “Blessed are you, O Lord, our God, King of the universe, Who has made us holy us with His commandments, and has commanded us to bring him into the covenant of Abraham our forefather” (b. Šabb. 137b).37 2YHUDOOPDQ\HDUO\&KULVWLDQVWRRN3DXO¶VOHDGLQVHSDUDWLQJWKHHYHQW RI$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQIURPWKHRQJRLQJSUDFWLFHRI,VUDHOLWHFLUFXPcision in order to claim Abraham as a proto-Christian forefather and dismiss Israelite circumcision as either an unfortunate misunderstanding of Mosaic law or as an intentional divine ordinance intended to single out a people who were rejected by God. A few centuries after Christians began to write down these arguments, the editors of midrash Genesis Rabbah recorded a series of rabbinic arguments linking the typological 35௒,ELG 36௒7KHDVVRFLDWLRQEHWZHHQ$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQDQG,VUDHOLWHFLUFXPFLVLRQ is enforced in Genesis Rabbah, but not invented by it; see m. Ned. 3:11, which reads, ³5HEEHVD\Vµ+RZJUHDWLVFLUFXPFLVLRQWKDWDOOWKH>RWKHU@FRPPDQGPHQWVZKLFK Abraham our father did were not called perfect, until he circumcised, as it says, [Gen @µ:DONEHIRUH0HDQGEH3HUIHFW¶´P\WUDQVODWLRQ  37௒0\WUDQVODWLRQ

282

New Vistas on Early Judaism and Christianity

VLJQL¿FDQFHRI$EUDKDP¶VFLUFXPFLVLRQWR,VUDHOLWHFLUFXPFLVLRQ